FERC/FEIS-0243F

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE

Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project—FERC Project No. 349-173

Alabama

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Office of Energy Projects

Division of Hydropower Licensing

888 First Street, NE

Washington, D.C. 20426

April 2015

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS

To the Agency or Individual Addressed:

Reference:Final Environmental Impact Statement

Attached is the final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the relicensing of 

the Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project (No. 349-173), located on the Tallapoosa River in 

Tallapoosa, Coosa, and Elmore Counties, Alabama.

This final EIS documents the views of governmental agencies, non-governmental 

organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the license applicant, and Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff. It contains staff evaluations of the 

applicant’s proposal and the alternatives for relicensing the Martin Dam Project.

Before the Commission makes a licensing decision, it will take into account all 

concerns relevant to the public interest. The final EIS will be part of the record from 

which the Commission will make its decision. The final EIS was sent to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency and made available to the public on or about April 2, 

2015.

Copies of the final EIS are available for review in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. 

The final EIS also may be viewed on the Internet at www.ferc.gov/docsfiling/elibrary.asp. Please call (202) 502-8222 for assistance.

Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Statement

COVER SHEET

a. Title: Relicensing the Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project 

No. 349-173.

b. Subject: Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

c. Lead Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

d. Abstract: On June 8, 2011, Alabama Power Company (Alabama Power) filed 

an application to relicense the existing Martin Dam Hydroelectric 

Project, located on the Tallapoosa River in Tallapoosa, Coosa, and 

Elmore Counties, Alabama. The project consists of Martin Dam,

which impounds about 31 miles of the Tallapoosa River, forming 

Lake Martin (or Martin reservoir), a 41,150-acre reservoir. The 

project has a current installed capacity of 182.5 megawatts and 

occupies 1.39 acres of federal lands. Currently, the project is 

operated as a multi-purpose facility for hydropower generation, 

limited flood control, municipal and industrial water supply, aquatic 

flow maintenance, and navigation flow support. 

Alabama Power proposes to relicense the project and continue to 

operate in a peaking mode, while implementing certain reservoir 

operational changes in the fall and winter and various protection, 

mitigation, and enhancement measures related to water quality, 

fisheries, wildlife, nuisance aquatic vegetation control, recreation, 

and cultural resources.

The staff’s recommendation is to relicense the project with all but 

one of the protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures 

proposed by Alabama Power, along with some modifications by 

staff.

e. Contact: Stephen Bowler

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission

Office of Energy Projects

888 First Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20426

(202) 502-6861
f. Transmittal: This final EIS to relicense the existing Martin Dam Hydroelectric 

Project is being made available to the public on or about April 2,

2015, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 

19691 and the Commission’s Regulations Implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act (18 C.F.R., Part 380).

 

1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (Pub. L. 91-190. 42 

United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, 

July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258, §4(b), September 13, 

1982).
FOREWORD

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC), pursuant to 

the Federal Power Act (FPA)2 and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Organization 

Act3 is authorized to issue licenses for up to 50 years for the construction and operation 

of non-federal hydroelectric developments subject to its jurisdiction, on the necessary 

conditions:

That the project adopted...shall be such as in the judgment of the Commission will 

be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or 

waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement 

and utilization of water power development, for the adequate protection, mitigation, and 

enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), and 

for other beneficial public uses, including irrigation, flood control, water supply, and 

recreational and other purposes referred to in Section 4(e)...4

The Commission may require such other conditions not inconsistent with the FPA 

as may be found necessary to provide for the various public interests to be served by the 

project.5

 Compliance with such conditions during the licensing period is required. The 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure allow any person objecting to a licensee’s 

compliance or noncompliance with such conditions to file a complaint noting the basis 

for such objection for the Commission’s consideration.6

 

2 16 U.S.C. §791(a)-825r, as amended by the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 

1986, Public Law 99-495 (1986), the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-486 (1992), 

and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58 (2005).

3 Pub. L. 95-91, 91 Stat. 556 (1977).

4 16 U.S.C. § 803(a).

5 16 U.S.C. § 803(g).

6 18 C.F.R. § 385.206 (2012).

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER SHEET ................................................................................................................xii

FOREWORD.................................................................................................................... xiv

LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................vii

LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................ix

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.........................................................................xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................... xv

1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1

1.1 APPLICATION............................................................................................. 1

1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER.................................. 1

1.2.1 Purpose of Action....................................................................... 1

1.2.2 Need for Power........................................................................... 3

1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ......................... 3

1.3.1 Federal Power Act...................................................................... 5

1.3.2 Clean Water Act ......................................................................... 5

1.3.3 Endangered Species Act............................................................. 6

1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act .................................................. 6

1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act............................................. 7

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT......................................................... 7

1.4.1 Scoping ....................................................................................... 7

1.4.2 Interventions............................................................................... 8

1.4.3 Comments on the Application.................................................... 9

1.4.4 Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ...... 10

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES................................................... 13

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE.................................................................. 13

2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities......................................................... 13

2.1.2 Project Safety............................................................................ 14

2.1.3 Existing Project Operation ....................................................... 14

2.1.4 Additional Operation Measures for the Martin Dam Project... 19

2.1.5 Existing Environmental Measures............................................ 20

2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL...................................................................... 21

2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities....................................................... 21

2.2.2 Proposed Project Operation...................................................... 21

2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures.......................................... 25

2.2.4 Modifications—Mandatory Conditions ................................... 27

2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................ 27
iv

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM 

DETAILED ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 28

2.4.1 Issuing a Non-Power License .................................................. 28

2.4.2 Federal Government Takeover of the Project.......................... 29

2.4.3 Retiring the Project................................................................... 29

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS......................................................................... 31

3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN .............................. 31

3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS ................................ 32

3.2.1 Geographic Scope .................................................................... 33

3.2.2 Temporal Scope........................................................................ 33

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ....................... 33

3.3.1 Geologic and Soil Resources.................................................... 34

3.3.2 Aquatic Resources.................................................................... 39

3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources................................................................ 91

3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species...................................... 102

3.3.5 Recreation Resources and Land Use...................................... 106

3.3.6 Cultural Resources.................................................................. 142

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE................................................................ 151

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 153

4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT ................ 153

4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES.................................................... 155

4.2.1 No-action Alternative ............................................................. 155

4.2.2 Alabama Power’s Proposal .................................................... 155

4.2.3 Staff Alternative ..................................................................... 156

4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES......................................... 156

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................... 165

5.1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES.................................................... 165

5.2 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED 

ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................................... 168

5.2.1 Measures Proposed by Alabama Power................................ 169

5.2.2 Measures Recommended by Staff......................................... 170

5.2.3 Measures Not Recommended by Staff.................................. 182

5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS................................................. 187

5.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 187

5.5 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS............................ 192

6.0 LITERATURE CITED......................................................................................... 195

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS........................................................................................ 205

8.0 LIST OF RECIPIENTS........................................................................................ 207
v

APPENDIX A—Draft License Conditions Recommended by Staff

APPENDIX B—401 Water Quality Certification Conditions

APPENDIX C—Analysis of Potential to Operate the Martin Dam Project for 

Downstream Flood Control

APPENDIX D—Staff’s Response to Comments on the Martin Dam Project Draft EIS
vi
vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Location of Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project (Source: Alabama 

Power, 2008, as modified by staff). .............................................................. 2

Figure 2-1. Existing guide curves for the Martin Dam Project (Source: Alabama 

Power, 2008). .............................................................................................. 16

Figure 2-2. Proposed guide curves for the Martin Dam Project (Source: Alabama 

Power, 2011a).............................................................................................. 22

Figure 3-1. An example of severe erosion from Alabama Power’s study (Source: 

Alabama Power, 2010h).............................................................................. 35

Figure 3-2. The locations of severe erosion sites observed by Alabama Power on 

Lake Martin (Source: Alabama Power, 2010h). ........................................ 36

Figure 3-3. Tallapoosa River and Coosa River schematic (Source: Corps, 1998, as 

modified by staff). ....................................................................................... 40

Figure 3-4. Low flow regime graphic for Tallapoosa River at the Horseshoe Bend 

and Wadley USGS gages, located upstream of Lake Martin (Source: 

USGS, 2012, as modified by staff). ............................................................ 44

Figure 3-5. Historical reservoir levels from Lake Martin reservoir for 1990 to 2011 

(Source: Alabama Power, 2011a, as modified by staff)............................. 45

Figure 3-6. Historical reservoir levels for Martin, Yates, and Thurlow, and releases 

from Lake Martin reservoir for 1990 to 2011 (Source: Alabama Power, 

2011b, as modified by staff)........................................................................ 47

Figure 3-7. Design flood profiles upstream of Martin dam to Harris dam at 

alternative winter pool elevations (Source: Alabama Power, 2010f). ....... 58

Figure 3-8. Computed increase in 100-year flood levels due to proposed change in 

flood control curve (3-foot increase in Lake Martin winter pool) 

(Source: Alabama Power, 2010f, as modified by staff)............................. 58

Figure 3-9. Lake Martin 100-year flood elevations under different winter pool 

elevations (Source: Alabama Power, 2010f, as modified by staff)............ 59

Figure 3-10. Flooding inundation map near RM 17 (Source: Alabama Power, 

2010f). ......................................................................................................... 62

Figure 3-11. Drought recurrence intervals for USGS gage no. 02412000 (Source: 

USGS, 2012, as modified by staff). ............................................................ 73
viii

Figure 3-12. Historical Lake Martin water levels (1990 to 2011) and the existing and 

proposed drought curves (Source: Alabama Power, 2011b, as modified by 

staff)...................................................................................74

Figure 3-13. Example hydrograph for March and April 2001, used in assessment of 

paddlefish spawning downstream of Thurlow dam (Source: USGS, 

2012)............................................................................................................ 84
ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1. Alabama Power hydropower developments on the Tallapoosa River 

(Source: Corps, 2008.................................................................................. 41

Table 3-2. USGS gages on the Tallapoosa River (Source: USGS, 2012; Alabama 

Power, 2011a).............................................................................................. 42

Table 3-3. Monthly flow data for USGS gage no. 02414715 Horseshoe Bend, 

characterizing flows immediately upstream of Lake Martin (Source: 

Alabama Power, 2011a). ............................................................................. 43

Table 3-4. Calculated flood frequency flows (in cfs) for Martin dam and historical 

flood flows (in cfs) at Martin dam and the Tallassee gage located 

12 miles downstream of Martin dam (Source: Alabama Power, 2010f; 

Alabama Power, 2011a; USGS, 2012)........................................................ 46

Table 3-5. Monthly flow statistics downstream of Thurlow dam at the Tallassee 

USGS gage no. 02418500, Tallapoosa River, below Tallassee, Alabama, 

1992 to 2011 (Source: USGS, 2012).......................................................... 48

Table 3-6. Approved water withdrawals from Lake Martin, Tallapoosa River 

(Source: Alabama Power, 2010c)............................................................... 49

Table 3-7. Water quality standards applicable to the Martin Dam Project (Source: 

Alabama Power, 2011a). ............................................................................. 50

Table 3-8. Summary of the Martin dam tailrace sampling data (Source: Alabama 

Power, 2011a).............................................................................................. 52

Table 3-9. Modeled downstream flood levels at USGS gage sites, as a result of the 

increase in the Lake Martin winter pool elevation (Source: Alabama 

Power, 2010f). ............................................................................................. 61

Table 3-10. Downstream acres of land potentially affected by flooding associated 

with alternative winter pool levels, at the 100-year flood level (Source: 

Alabama Power, 2010f)............................................................................... 63

Table 3-11. Number of downstream structures potentially affected by flooding 

associated with alternative winter pool levels, at the 100-year flood level 

(Source: Alabama Power, 2010f). .............................................................. 64

Table 3-12. Number of years criteria were met for the conditional fall extension 

(Source: Alabama Power, 2011b). ............................................................. 67
x

Table 3-13. Results of staff analysis of the number of stage increases providing for 

paddlefish spawning in the Tallapoosa River downstream of the Thurlow 

dam, March and April 2001 to 2011 (Source: USGS, 2012, as modified by 

staff)..................................................................................86

Table 3-14. Timber stand composition on Martin Dam Project lands (Source: 

Alabama Power, 2011a). ............................................................................. 91

Table 3-15. Area and percentages of wetland types in the project boundary (Source: 

Alabama Power, 2011a). ............................................................................. 93

Table 3-16. Wetland acreages, by wetland type inundated by the 3-foot and 5-foot 

increases in winter pool elevation (Source: Alabama Power, 2011a)........ 97

Table 3-17. Existing project recreation sites included in the current project license 

(Source: Alabama Power, 2011a, as modified by staff)........................... 109

Table 3-18. Estimated recreation use (in recreation user-days) at the Martin Dam 

Project from June 1, 2009, to June 13, 2010 (Source: Alabama Power, 

2010g, as modified by the staff)................................................................ 110

Table 3-19. Projected recreation use at the Martin Dam Project by activity type from 

2010-2050 (Source: Alabama Power, 2011d, final Recreation Plan, as 

modified by staff). ..................................................................................... 112

Table 3-20. Population and business data for Coosa, Elmore, and Tallapoosa 

Counties (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a, b, c, as modified by 

staff)........................................................................................................... 113

Table 3-21. Current land use classifications within the Martin Dam Project boundary 

(Source: Alabama Power, 2011a)............................................................. 115

Table 3-22. Classification of flows below Thurlow dam according to the Alabama 

whitewater paddling guide at six whitewater features on the Tallapoosa 

River (Source: Alabama Power, 2010f, as modified by staff). ................ 124

Table 3-23. Estimated number of days within specified flow ranges by water year 

type for the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow dam under 

baseline conditions (Source: Alabama Power, 2010f, as modified by 

staff)........................................................................................................... 125

Table 3-24. Estimated changes in the number of days within observed flow ranges 

downstream of Thurlow dam: Winter pool elevations (Source: 

Alabama Power, 2010f, as modified by staff)........................................... 126
xi

Table 3-25. Estimated changes in the number of days from existing conditions that 

specific flow ranges would be observed downstream of Thurlow dam 

(Source: Alabama Power, 2010f, as modified by staff)........................... 127

Table 3-26. Proposed project recreation sites and the minimum elevations that the 

boat ramps are useable (Source: Alabama Power, 2011b)....................... 130

Table 3-27. Previously recorded archaeological and historic resources within, or 

adjacent to, the project boundary APE (Source: University of Alabama, 

2006, as modified by staff; Alabama Historical Commission, 2013)....... 145

Table 4-1. Parameters for the economic analysis of the Martin Dam Project.........154

Table 4-2. Summary of annual costs and annual power benefits for the alternatives 

for the Martin Dam Project (Source: staff). ............................................. 155

Table 4-3. Cost of environmental mitigation and enhancement measures considered 

in assessing the environmental effects of continuing to operate the 

Martin Dam Project (Source: Alabama Power, 2011b, as modified by 

staff)........................................................................................................... 157

Table 5-1. Comparison of alternatives for the Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project 

(Source: staff).....................................................................165

Table 5-2. Fish and wildlife agency recommendations for the Martin Dam 

Hydroelectric Project (Source: staff)........................................................ 188
xii
xiii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACT Basin Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin

Alabama DCNR Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Alabama DEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management

ADROP Alabama Drought Response Operating Proposal 

Alabama Power Alabama Power Company

APE area of potential effects

BA biological assessment

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management

BMP best management practices

oC degrees Celsius

cfs cubic feet per second

Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CRWG Cultural Resources Work Group

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

dbh diameter at breast height

DO dissolved oxygen

EA environmental assessment

EIS environmental impact statement

ESA Endangered Species Act

oF degrees Fahrenheit

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FIMS Fishery Information Management Systems

FPA Federal Power Act

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Georgia EPD Georgia Environmental Protection Division

HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan

HSI habitat suitability index 

Interior U.S. Department of Interior

kW kilowatt

Lake Martin HOBO Lake Martin Home Owners & Boat Owners Association

Lake Martin RA Lake Martin Resource Association, Inc.

LIDAR light detection and ranging 

ug/L micrograms per liter

mg/L milligrams per liter

mgd million gallons per day

ml milliliters

msl mean sea level

MW megawatt

MWh megawatt-hour

National Register National Register of Historic Places
xiv

NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation

NTU nephelometric turbidity unit

NWS National Weather Service

O&M operation and maintenance

PA Programmatic Agreement

PMF probable maximum flood

RM river mile

SERC-SE southeast subregion of the Southeast Reliability Corporation region 

of the NERC 

SERFC Southeast River Forecast Center 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SMP Shoreline Management Plan

U.S.C. U.S. Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WMP Wildlife Management Program

WQC water quality certification
xv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Proposed Action

On June 8, 2011, Alabama Power Company (Alabama Power) filed an application 

for a new license to operate and maintain its 182.5-megawatt (MW) Martin Dam 

Hydroelectric Project, located at river mile 60.6 on the Tallapoosa River near the cities of 

Alexander City and Dadeville, Alabama, in Tallapoosa, Elmore, and Coosa Counties. 

The project occupies 1.39 acres of federal land administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management. Alabama Power proposes no new capacity and no new construction.

Project Description

The existing project consists of: (1) the Lake Martin reservoir, with a surface area 

of 40,000 acres at a normal full pool elevation of 491 feet mean sea level (msl); (2) a 

2,000-foot-long concrete gravity dam and earth dike section that includes a gated 

spillway section with twenty vertical lift spillway gates, non-overflow sections, and an

intake structure; (3) four steel penstocks and intake gates fitted with trashracks; (4) a 307-

foot-long, 58-foot-wide, and 99-foot-high brick and concrete, steel-frame powerhouse; 

(5) four vertical Francis turbines that power four generating units, with a total installed 

capacity of 182.5 MW; (6) two, 450-foot-long transmission lines leading from the 

powerhouse to the Martin switchyard; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The project 

generates about 375,614 megawatt-hours (MWh) per year.

The Martin Dam Project operates as a peaking project and typically operates to 

maintain elevations in Lake Martin between the bounds of a flood control curve and an 

operating curve. On a seasonal basis, water levels in Lake Martin can fluctuate by as 

much as 10 feet between elevations 481 and 491 feet msl. Project benefits include 

hydroelectric power; limited seasonal flood control during the winter when the reservoir 

is drawn down; recreation, municipal, and industrial water supply; aquatic flow 

maintenance; and navigation flow support.

Proposed Environmental Measures 

Alabama Power proposes to continue to operate the project in a peaking mode. 

The following modifications to project operation are proposed to ensure that Lake Martin 

reaches its summer pool level by the end of May each year, provide higher reservoir 

levels for recreation during the winter and fall, and facilitate seawall and boat dock 

maintenance: (1) raise the winter flood pool by 3 feet and the operating curve and 

drought curve proportionately during the same timeframe; (2) implement a conditional

fall extension of the flood control curve to elevation 491 feet from September 1 to 

October 15; and (3) lower the reservoir elevation during the winter months to 481 feet

every 6 years. In addition, Alabama Power proposes to implement the Tallapoosa portion 

of the Alabama Drought Response Operating Proposal, or ADROP, a regionally 

coordinated drought management plan that would guide operation of the project during 

low inflow or drought conditions. 
xvi

Alabama Power also proposes the following, non-operational environmental 

measures to protect or enhance aquatic, terrestrial, recreation, and cultural resources:

• implement the measures of the Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management’s (DEM) water quality certification, filed with the Commission on 

May 9, 2011, which requires maintaining the state standard for dissolved oxygen

(DO) when the project is generating, and monitoring water temperature and DO in 

the tailrace; 

• develop a reservoir water quality monitoring plan in consultation with the Alabama 

DEM prior to implementing the proposed 3-foot increase in the winter flood pool;

• finalize and implement a draft study of the distribution and abundance of American 

eels in the Tallapoosa River from the project tailrace to the mouth of the river;

• implement a new Wildlife Management Program (WMP) filed with the 

Commission on December 9, 2011;

• finalize a Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation and Vector Control Management Program

filed with the Commission on June 8, 2011, to include a plan to monitor potential 

increases in nuisance aquatic vegetation in Lake Martin resulting from the 

proposed 3-foot increase in the winter pool; 

• implement an updated Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) filed with the 

Commission on June 8, 2011;

• implement an updated Recreation Plan filed with the Commission on December 9, 

2011;

• modify the project boundary to: add 991.4 acres to include existing project 

recreation facilities, correct a mapping error, and include the Martin Small Game 

Hunting Area; and remove 499.2 acres of project land not needed for project 

purposes, resulting in a net increase of 492.2 acres of land within the project 

boundary;

7

• implement an updated Public Education and Outreach Plan, filed on December 9, 

2011, to inform shoreline landowners and the public about protecting the Lake 

Martin shoreline; and

• develop and implement a new Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as 

part of implementing a Programmatic Agreement (PA) executed on June 12, 2012.

• implement the Tallapoosa River portion of the Alabama Drought Response 

Operations Plan (ADROP) as filed with the Commission on August 13, 2013.

 

7 The area within the project boundary would be modified from 8,602 acres to 

9,094 acres.
xvii

Public Involvement

Before filing its license application, Alabama Power conducted pre-filing 

consultation under the Commission’s Integrated Licensing Process. The intent of the 

Commission’s pre-filing process is to initiate public involvement early in the project 

planning process and to encourage citizens, governmental entities, tribes, and other 

interested parties to identify and resolve issues prior to an application being formally 

filed with the Commission.

Before preparing this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), staff conducted 

scoping to determine what issues and alternatives should be addressed. On August 5, 

2008, staff distributed a scoping document to interested parties, soliciting comments, 

recommendations, and information on the project. Staff conducted an environmental site 

review on September 10, 2008 and held a scoping meeting on September 11, 2008. 

Based on discussions during the site visit, comments at the scoping meeting, and written 

comments filed with the Commission, staff issued a revised scoping document on 

November 14, 2008. On February 8, 2012, staff issued a notice that the application was 

ready for environmental analysis and requested conditions and recommendations. On 

June 6, 2013, the Commission staff issued a draft EIS, with comments on the draft EIS 

due August 13, 2013. On July 17, 2013, Commission staff held a public meeting in 

Alexander City, Alabama, which was attended by over 600 members of the public. The 

meeting was transcribed and is part of the public record. In addition, over 753 written 

comments were received from the public, as well as comments from Alabama Power and 

the resource agencies. All written comments filed on the draft EIS and made at the 

public meeting are addressed in the appropriate sections of this EIS, and are summarized 

in Appendix D. 

Alternatives Considered

This final environmental impact statement (EIS) considers the following 

alternatives: (1) Alabama Power’s proposal, as outlined above; (2) no action, meaning 

that Alabama Power would continue to operate the project with no changes; and (3) 

staff’s alternative. The staff alternative includes all but one of Alabama Power’s 

proposed measures with some modifications or additions as described below. Staff’s

recommended modifications and additional environmental measures include, or are based 

on, recommendations made by federal and state resource agencies that have an interest in 

resources that may be affected by operation of the proposed project.

The staff alternative includes the following modifications or additions: (1)

adjustments to Alabama Power’s proposed changes to flood control gate operations to 

ensure continuation of the current level of coordination with U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps) on flood management; (2) a review of the Corps’ regulation manuals, 

once finalized, for consistency with the Tallapoosa River portions of ADROP, and filing 

a report of the findings along with any recommendations for modifying the 

aforementioned portions of ADROP to be consistent with the finalized manuals; (3) 
xviii

revision of the proposed Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation and Vector Control Management 

Program to include specific protocols to conduct lake-wide surveys and to control 

nuisance aquatic vegetation; (4) revision of the Recreation Plan to require (a) a detailed 

description of the 19 project recreation sites and associated enhancements and (b) a

provision to file a Recreation Monitoring Report concurrent with the filing of the FERC 

Form 80 that discusses recreational use and demand, associated project-related resource 

effects, and any additional measures or modifications to the project recreation sites that 

may be needed and a schedule for implementing such changes; and (5) revision of the 

SMP to include; (a) a provision to limit construction of new seawalls to instances where 

riprap and vegetation are not sufficient to protect shoreline habitat from erosion, (b) a 

description of the existing Dredging Permit Program to ensure coordination with other 

nearshore and shoreline activities, (c) a Shoreline Permitting Program specific to the 

Martin Dam Project instead of one general to all of Alabama Power’s hydroelectric 

projects, (d) a provision to monitor project lands for unpermitted structures to protect 

project lands and waters, and (e) a provision to file Geographic Information System (GIS) 

maps of the project resources and land classifications to facilitate Commission oversight

of the license.

The staff alternative does not include implementing a study of the distribution and 

abundance of American eels in the Tallapoosa River from the project tailrace to the 

mouth of the Tallapoosa River because eels do not reach the Martin Project and the

proposed eel study would not inform passage requirements at the Martin Project. The 

staff alternative does not include the proposal to remove 373.1 acres of land from the 

project boundary because the lands that Alabama Power proposes to remove still serve 

project purposes for public access to project lands and water and protection of natural 

resources. 

Under the no-action alternative, the project would continue to operate under the 

terms and conditions of the existing license, and no new environmental protection, 

mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented.

Environmental Impacts and Measures of the Staff Alternative

The primary issues associated with relicensing the Martin Dam Project are 

regulation of the reservoir elevation, downstream flooding, drought releases, invasive 

species control, recreational opportunities, shoreline management, and protection of 

cultural resources. Below we summarize the environmental effects associated with 

staff’s alternative and the measures recommended to address those effects.

Geology and Soils

Natural factors (e.g., wind) and near-shore activities (e.g., adjacent landowner 

lawn maintenance) results in some ongoing erosion and sedimentation around the 

reservoir. Implementing the provisions of the proposed SMP would reduce and control 

erosion and sedimentation at Lake Martin by promoting the use of best management 

practices and protecting a 30-foot strip of vegetation around the reservoir.
xix

Aquatic Resources

Raising the winter pool elevation by three feet could cause a decline in reservoir 

water quality. Water quality monitoring in Lake Martin would monitor for any negative 

effects on water quality in the impoundment, and continued water quality monitoring in

the project tailrace would ensure that project releases continue to meet current state water 

quality standards.

Raising the winter pool elevation could improve habitat and growing conditions 

for nuisance aquatic vegetation. Implementing a Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation and 

Vector Management Program would provide a mechanism for determining if 

modifications to the reservoir pool elevation lead to increases in nuisance aquatic 

vegetation and, if so, developing strategies to control the nuisance vegetation

Drought conditions create competing demands on lake levels, stream flow 

requirements (including navigational releases), water supply, power generation, 

recreation, and other resources, at the project and in the Alabama, Coosa, and Tallapoosa 

River basin. Implementing the Tallapoosa portion of ADROP would provide a 

coordinated basin approach to system management to minimize the effects of drought on 

these resources. 

Terrestrial Resources

Alabama Power manages about 5,883 acres of longleaf habitat within the project 

boundary for wildlife and recreation. Implementing Alabama Power’s WMP would 

enhance habitat for longleaf pine-dependent species, develop opportunities for public 

hunting, and protect bald eagles. Revising the SMP to keep the project lands that have 

been proposed for removal from the project boundary would better ensure that those 

lands continue to protect water quality and provide wildlife habitat.

Threatened and Endangered Species

No federally listed threatened or endangered species are known to occur within the 

project affected area. However, habitat enhancement for longleaf pine-dependent species 

as part of the WMP could benefit red-cockaded woodpeckers by providing more suitable 

habitat in the project area. By letter filed with the Commission on July 25, 2013, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service concurred that relicensing the Martin Dam Project would not 

likely adversely affect any listed species.

Recreation Resources and Land Use

In some drought years it has been difficult to reach the full summer pool elevation 

of 490 feet msl. Also, lowering the pool in winter has limited winter recreational 

opportunities for lake users, including shoreline residents. Increasing the winter flood 

control curve and operating guideline by three feet would improve the probability of 

reaching full summer pool in dry years and allow greater reservoir access and 

navigability for recreation in winter.
xx

Implementing the increase in winter pool would reduce opportunities for sea wall 

and dock maintenance previously available during the lower water level conditions in the 

winter. Lowering the reservoir to an elevation at least as low as 481 feet msl in the 

winter once every six years would provide a predictable opportunity for repairs and 

maintenance of sea walls and docks.

Alabama Power begins lowering lake levels on September 1 to capture winter high 

flows. Lowering the lake level from 491 to 481 feet msl reduces recreation opportunities 

for residents and the public during the mild, fall weather by limiting dock access and 

exposing boating hazards. The conditional fall extension would maintain the summer 

lake level of 491 feet msl to as late as October 15, when there is adequate water available 

to avoid stress on other water users in the Tallapoosa River basin.

Alabama Power’s initial modeling of the effect of raising the winter pool on

downstream flooding indicated that flood elevations might increase sufficiently to affect 

structures and roads. Subsequent modeling indicates that the risk of any increased 

flooding is very small from raising the winter pool and even smaller from the conditional 

fall extension. 

Implementing Alabama Power’s Recreation Plan would continue to provide 

recreation at a total of 19 project recreation sites and enhance recreation by: (1) 

improving boat ramps; (2) adding two bank fishing sites; (3) improving parking areas; (4)

continuing to provide for trash removal from the project recreation sites; and (5) 

reserving one site, Ponder Camp (Stillwaters Area Boat Ramp), for future recreation 

development. Two of the project recreation sites, Madwind Creek Ramp and Smith 

Landing, would be brought into project boundary as proposed by Alabama Power, 

ensuring that these facilities and associated public access are operated and maintained by 

Alabama Power over the term of a new license. Revising the Recreation Plan would 

improve recreation opportunities at the project and facilitate Commission oversight of the 

project recreation.

Shoreline Management

Intense and diverse use of the shoreline from residential, commercial, recreational, 

and other activities has the potential to severely impact water quality in Lake Martin. 

Implementing a revised SMP would protect project lands and waters by guiding the type 

and extent of development that occurs along the shoreline. A Public Education and

Outreach Program would inform people of measures they can take to protect water 

quality in Lake Martin and inform them of requirements for shoreline management.

Cultural Resources

Potential project-related effects on cultural resources could occur under a new 

license. Developing an HPMP as part of implementing a PA would ensure protection of 

cultural resources.
xxi

Conclusions

Based on our analysis, we recommend relicensing the project with the 

environmental, recreation, and cultural resource measures proposed by Alabama Power 

with staff modifications and additional measures. 

In section 4.2 of the final EIS, staff estimated the likely cost of alternative power 

for each of the three alternatives identified above. Staff’s analysis shows that, under the 

no-action alternative, project power would cost about $45,109,387, or about $120.10 per 

MWh, less than the likely alternative cost of power. Under the proposed action 

alternative, project power would cost about $45,021,959, or about $119.45/MWh, less 

than the likely alternative cost of power. Under the staff alternative, project power would 

cost about $45,017,149, or about $119.44/MWh, less than the likely alternative cost of 

power. 

The staff alternative is the preferred alternative because: (1) the project would 

provide a dependable source of electrical energy for the region (376,903 MWh annually); 

(2) the 182.5 MW of electric capacity comes from a renewable resource that does not 

contribute to atmospheric pollution; and (3) the recommended environmental measures 

proposed by Alabama Power, as modified by staff, would adequately protect and enhance 

environmental resources affected by the project.

1

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Office of Energy Projects

Division of Hydropower Licensing

Washington, D.C.

Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project

FERC Project No. 349-173--Alabama

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 APPLICATION

On June 8, 2011, Alabama Power Company (Alabama Power) filed an application 

for new license for the existing Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC). The 182.5-megawatt (MW) 

project is located at river mile (RM) 60.6 on the Tallapoosa River near the cities of 

Alexander City and Dadeville, Alabama, in Tallapoosa, Elmore, and Coosa Counties 

(figure 1-1). The project occupies 1.39 acres of federal land administered by the U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and generates an average of about 375,614

megawatt-hours (MWh) of energy annually. Alabama Power proposes no new capacity 

and no new construction.

1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER

1.2.1 Purpose of Action

The purpose of the Martin Dam Project is to continue to provide a source of 

hydroelectric power. Therefore, under the provisions of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 

the Commission must decide whether to issue a license to Alabama Power for the Martin 

Dam Project and what conditions should be placed on any license issued. In deciding 

whether to issue a license for a hydroelectric project, the Commission must determine 

that the project will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing 

a waterway. In addition to the power and developmental purposes for which licenses are 

issued (such as flood control, irrigation, or water supply), the Commission must give 

equal consideration to the purposes of: (1) energy conservation; (2) the protection of, 

mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources; (3) the 

protection of recreational opportunities; and (4) the preservation of other aspects of 

environmental quality.
2

Figure 1-1. Location of Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project (Source: Alabama Power, 

2008, as modified by staff).
3

Issuing a new license for the Martin Dam Project would allow Alabama Power to 

generate electricity for the term of a new license, making electrical power from a 

renewable resource available to its customers.

This final environmental impact statement (EIS) assesses the effects associated 

with operation of the project and alternatives to the proposed project. It also includes 

recommendations to the Commission on whether to issue a new license, and if so, 

recommends terms and conditions to become a part of any license issued. 

In this final EIS we assess the environmental and economic effects of continuing 

to operate the project: (1) as proposed by the applicant, and (2) with our recommended 

measures. We also consider the effects of the no-action alternative. Important issues that 

are addressed include water quality, reservoir operations, downstream flow releases, fish 

passage, terrestrial resources, federally listed species, recreation resources, and cultural 

resources.

1.2.2 Need for Power

The Martin Dam Project provides hydroelectric generation to meet part of 

Alabama’s power requirements, resource diversity, and capacity needs. The project has

an installed capacity of 182.5 MW and generates about 375,614 MWh per year.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) annually forecasts 

electrical supply and demand nationally and regionally for a 10-year period. The Martin 

Dam Project is located in the Southeast Reliability Corporation (SERC) region of NERC, 

in the southeast sub-region (SERC-SE), which covers portions of Alabama, Georgia, 

Mississippi, and Florida. In the SERC region, the average annual growth rate for peak 

energy demand over the last 10-year period (2004-2013) has been 1.91 percent per year. 

The projected growth rate for peak energy demand for the next 10-year period (2014-

2023) is 1.33 percent per year. Over the next 10 years the demand for peak energy in the 

SERC region is projected to increase by 6,918 MW and SERC estimates that additional 

capacity will be needed to maintain reliability. 

We conclude that power from the Martin Dam Project would help meet a need for 

power in the SERC, both short and long term. The project provides low-cost power that 

displaces generation from non-renewable sources. Displacing the operation of nonrenewable facilities may avoid some power plant emissions, thus creating an 

environmental benefit.

1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

A license for the Martin Dam Project is subject to numerous requirements under 

the FPA and other applicable statutes. The major regulatory requirements are 

summarized in table 1-1 and described below. 
4

Table 1-1. Major statutory and regulatory requirements for the Martin Dam 

Hydroelectric Project (Source: staff).

Requirement Agency Status

Section 18 of the FPA 

(fishway prescriptions)

U.S. Department of the 

Interior (Interior)

By letter filed April 6, 2012, 

Interior reserved its 

authority to prescribe 

fishways during the term of 

any license issued for the 

project.

Section 10(j) of the FPA Interior Interior provided section 

10(j) recommendations on 

April 5, 2012.

Clean Water Act—water 

quality certification

Alabama Department of 

Environmental 

Management (Alabama 

DEM)

Alabama DEM issued water 

quality certification on 

May 9, 2011.

Endangered Species Act 

Consultation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

By letter dated July 19, 

2013, FWS concurred that 

relicensing of the project

would not likely adversely 

affect any listed species.

Coastal Zone 

Management Act 

Consistency

Alabama Coastal Area 

Management Program

By letter dated 

February 10, 2011, Alabama 

DEM concluded that the 

Martin Dam Project is 

outside of Alabama’s coastal 

zone and is therefore not 

subject to coastal zone 

review.

National Historic 

Preservation Act

Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation; 

Alabama State Historic 

Preservation Officer 

(Alabama SHPO)

A final Programmatic 

Agreement was executed by 

Commission staff and the 

Alabama SHPO on 

June 12, 2012. Alabama 

Power, the Poarch Band of 
5

Requirement Agency Status

Creek Indians, and the 

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of 

Texas concurred.

1.3.1 Federal Power Act

1.3.1.1 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions

Section 18 of the FPA states that the Commission is to require construction, 

operation, and maintenance by a licensee of such fishways as may be prescribed by the 

Secretaries of Commerce or Interior. Interior, by letter dated April 5, 2012, requests that 

a reservation of authority to prescribe fishways under section 18 be included in any 

license issued for the project. 

1.3.1.2 Section 10(j) Recommendations

Under section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the 

Commission must include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and 

state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, or enhancement of fish and 

wildlife resources affected by the project. The Commission is required to include these 

conditions unless it determines that they are inconsistent with the purposes and 

requirements of the FPA or other applicable law. Before rejecting or modifying an 

agency recommendation, the Commission is required to attempt to resolve any such 

inconsistency with the agency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and 

statutory responsibilities of such agency.

Interior timely filed, on April 6, 2012, recommendations under section 10(j), as 

summarized in table 5-2, in section 5.4, Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations. 

Interior’s comments on the draft EIS, filed on August 13, 2013, requested a modification

of one of its recommendations. In section 5.4, we also discuss how we address the 

agency recommendations and compliance with section 10(j). 

1.3.2 Clean Water Act

Under section 401 of the Clean Water Act, a license applicant must obtain 

certification from the appropriate state pollution control agency verifying compliance 

with the Clean Water Act. On May 10, 2010, Alabama Power applied to the Alabama 

Department of Environmental Management (DEM) for 401 water quality certification 

(WQC) for the Martin Dam Project. Alabama DEM received this request on May 11, 

2010. Alabama DEM timely issued the section 401 WQC on May 9, 2011 (letter from 

G.L. Dean, Chief, Water Division, Alabama DEM, Montgomery, Alabama, to M. 

Godfrey, Manager, Environmental Compliance, Alabama Power, Birmingham, Alabama, 
6

May 9, 2011). The conditions of the certification are described under section 2.2.4, 

Modifications to Applicant’s Proposal—Mandatory Conditions. 

1.3.3 Endangered Species Act

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to ensure 

that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or 

threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical 

habitat of such species. Four mussel species, two fish species, two plant species, and one

avian species are listed as threatened, endangered, or candidate species under the ESA 

could potentially occur within the project affected area. This includes the Alabama 

moccasinshell, ovate clubshell, finelined pocketbook, and southern clubshell; the Gulf 

sturgeon and the Alabama sturgeon; little amphianthus and Georgia Rockcress; and the 

red-cockaded woodpecker. No federally listed species or candidate species are known to 

occur within the project boundary of the Martin Dam Project (letter from J. Stanley,

Regional Environmental Protection Assistant, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Atlanta, Georgia, to Kimberly Bose, Secretary, FERC, Washington, D.C., 

April 6, 2012). Although no occupied habitat currently occurs within the project 

boundary, the applicant proposes to enhance existing habitat for the federally listed,

endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, which could benefit the species. Our analyses of 

project effects on threatened and endangered species are presented in section 3.3.4,

Threatened and Endangered Species. Our recommendations are presented in section 5.2, 

Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

We conclude that relicensing of the Martin Dam Project, as proposed with staffrecommended measures, would have no effect on the Alabama moccasinshell, the ovate 

clubshell, finelined pocketbook, southern clubshell, the Gulf sturgeon, and the Alabama 

sturgeon, little amphianthus, and Georgia Rockcress because these species are not known 

to be located in the area affected by project operation. We conclude that relicensing of 

the Martin Dam Project, as proposed with staff-recommended measures, is not likely to 

adversely affect the federally listed endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. 

By letter dated July 19, 2013, FWS indicated that it concurred with FERC’s 

determination that relicensing of the Martin Dam Project, as proposed with staffrecommended measures, would not likely adversely affect the Alabama moccasinshell, 

ovate clubshell, finelined pocketbook, southern clubshell, Gulf sturgeon, Alabama 

sturgeon, little amphianthus, Georgia rockcress, or the red-cockaded woodpecker.

1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act

Under section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 

U.S.C. § 1456(3)(A), the Commission cannot issue a license for a project within or 

affecting a state’s coastal zone unless the state CZMA agency concurs with the license 

applicant’s certification of consistency with the state’s CZMA program, or the agency’s 

concurrence is conclusively presumed by its failure to act within 180 days of its receipt of 

the applicant’s certification.
7

The project is not located within the state-designated Coastal Management Zone, 

which extends inland to the continuous 10-foot elevation contour in Baldwin and Mobile 

Counties. The project is located more than 160 miles inland from this zone, and it would 

not affect Alabama’s coastal resources. Therefore, the project is not subject to 

Alabama’s coastal zone program review, and no consistency certification is needed for 

the action. By letter dated February 10, 2011, Alabama DEM concurred with this 

determination.

1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that every federal 

agency “take into account” how each of its undertakings could affect historic properties. 

Historic properties are districts, sites, buildings, structures, traditional cultural properties, 

and objects significant in American history, architecture, engineering, and culture that are 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). 

To meet the requirements of section 106, we executed a Programmatic Agreement 

(PA) with the Alabama State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on June 12, 2012, and 

invited Alabama Power, the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of 

Texas, Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Kialegee Tribal Town of the Muscogee (Creek) 

Nation, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, and BLM to concur with the stipulations of the PA. 

Alabama Power, the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, and Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of 

Texas concurred. The terms of the PA ensure that Alabama Power addresses and treats 

all historic properties identified within the project’s area of potential effects (APE) 

through development and implementation of a Historic Properties Management Plan 

(HPMP). 

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

The Commission’s regulations (18 C.F.R., sections 5.1–5.16) require that 

applicants consult with appropriate resource agencies, tribes, and other entities before 

filing an application for a license. This consultation is the first step in complying with 

the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the ESA, the National Historic Preservation Act, 

and other federal statutes. Pre-filing consultation must be complete and documented 

according to the Commission’s regulations.

1.4.1 Scoping

Before preparing this EIS, we conducted scoping to determine what issues and 

alternatives should be addressed. A scoping document was distributed to interested 

agencies and others on August 5, 2008. It was noticed in the Federal Register on August 

11, 2008. Two scoping meetings, both advertised in the Montgomery Advertiser (August 

14, 2008), were held on September 11, 2008, in Alexander City, Alabama, to request oral 

comments on the project. A court reporter recorded all comments and statements made at 

the scoping meetings, and these are part of the Commission’s public record for the 
8

project. In addition to comments provided at the scoping meetings, the following entities 

provided written comments:

Commenting Entity Date Filed

American Rivers and Alabama Rivers 

Alliance

October 10, 2008

World Wildlife Fund, Inc. October 13, 2008

Lake Martin Home Owners & Boat 

Owners Association

October 13, 2008

Lake Martin Resource Association, Inc. October 13, 2008

James K. Lanier October 14, 2008

State of Georgia October 10, 2008

Alabama Department of Conservation 

and Natural Resources

October 10, 2008, and 

October 1, 2008

U.S. Department of the Interior October 2, 2008

Lake Wedowee Property Owners 

Association

October 10, 2008

A revised scoping document, addressing these comments, was issued on 

November 14, 2008.

1.4.2 Interventions

On February 8, 2012, the Commission issued a notice that Alabama Power had 

filed an application to relicense the Martin Dam Project. This notice set April 9, 2012, as 

the deadline for filing protests and motions to intervene. In response to the notice, the 

following entities filed motions to intervene:

Intervenor Date Filed

U.S. Department of the Interior March 15, 2012

Alabama Department of Conservation 

and Natural Resources 

April 6, 2012

Alabama Rivers Alliance April 6, 2012

American Riversa April 6, 2012
9

Intervenor Date Filed

Downstream Landowners8 April 6, 2012

Lake Martin Resource Association, Inc. April 6, 2012

World Wildlife Fund, Inc. April 6, 2012

Atlanta Regional Commissiona April 9, 2012

Georgia Environmental Protection 

Division

April 9, 2012

Lake Martin Home Owners & Boat 

Owners Association

April 9, 2012

a Intervention in opposition.

1.4.3 Comments on the Application

A notice requesting conditions and recommendations was issued on 

February 8, 2012. The following entities commented: 

Commenting Agency and Other Entity Date Filed

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas March 29, 2012

U.S. Department of the Interior March 30, 2012 and 

April 6, 2012

Alabama Rivers Alliance April 6, 2012

American Rivers April 6, 2012

Downstream Landowners April 6, 2012

World Wildlife Fund, Inc. April 6, 2012

Atlanta Regional Commission April 9, 2012

Georgia Environmental Protection Division April 9, 2012

Lake Martin Home Owners & Boat Owners April 9, 2012

 

8 The Downstream Landowners include the following 19 landowners, farmers, and 

businesses: Euel A. Screws, Jr.; W. Thomas Dozier III; W. T. Dozier Farm, Inc.; Parmer 

G. Jenkins; R. Shepherd Morris, Sr.; Morris & Morris Farms, Inc.; Daniel G. Taylor; 

Mark B. Taylor; Carl E. Taylor; Milstead Farm Group, Inc.; Dale M. Taylor; Jimmy M. 

Dozier; Judy P. Bryan; Auttossee Plantation; L. A. Wisener; Howard T. Weir, III; Anne 

Weir; Charles E. Herron, Jr.; and Rock Springs Land & Timber, Inc. 
10

Commenting Agency and Other Entity Date Filed

Association

Lake Martin Resource Association, Inc. April 9, 2012

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers April 9, 2012

Coosa River Paddling Club May 10, 2012

State of Alabama Office of Water Resources May 23, 2012

Lake Martin Resource Association, Inc. May 24, 2012

Alabama Rivers Alliance and American Rivers June 6, 2012

The applicant filed reply comments on May 23, 2012.

1.4.4 Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

On June 6, 2013, we issued a draft EIS for the relicensing of the Martin Dam 

Project. Comments on the draft EIS were due on August 13, 2013. On July 17, 2013, we

held a public meeting in Alexander City, Alabama, for the purpose of summarizing our

recommendations in the draft EIS and discussing and receiving comments on the draft 

EIS. Over 600 members of the public attended the meeting, of which 37 spoke on the 

public record. In addition, over 753 written comments were filed.

The following entities filed written comments: 

Commenting Entity Date Filed

Over 753 individuals with an interest in Lake 

Martin Recreation Resources

7/5/2013 – 8/13/2013

State of Georgia 8/13/2013

Atlanta Regional Commission 8/13/2013

Alabama Office of Water Resources 8/12/2013

Alabama Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources 

8/13/2013

Alabama Historical Commission 8/21/2013

Robert Bentley, Governor of the State of 

Alabama 

8/14/2013

Senator Richard Shelby C. Shelby 8/29/2013

Congressman Mike Rogers, 3rd District, 

Alabama 

8/12/2013

Euel Screws and Thomas Dozier 7/31/2013, 8/7/2013, 8/13/2013
11

Lake Martin HOBOS - Dave Heinzen 8/12/2013

Lake Martin HOBOS - Jesse Cunningham 8/13/2013

Lake Watch of Lake Martin - Kathryn Braund 8/14/2013

Lake Martin Resource Association - Steve 

Forehand 

8/13/2013 

Conservation Groups 8/13/2013

U.S. EPA, Region 4 8/20/2013

U.S. Department of Interior 8/13/2013

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 8/12/2013

Mark Stirling, Auburn, AL 8/5/2013

William K. Haynes, Dadeville, AL 8/5/2013
12
13

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The no-action alternative is the baseline from which to compare the proposed 

action and all action alternatives that are assessed in the environmental document. Under 

the no-action alternative, the project would continue to operate under the terms and 

conditions of the current license. Thus, the no-action alternative would include the 

existing facilities and current project operation.

2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities

Martin dam impounds about 31 miles of the Tallapoosa River, forming Lake 

Martin reservoir (Lake Martin), a 41,150-acre reservoir when at a normal full pool 

elevation of 491 feet mean sea level (msl)9 with: (1) 880 miles of shoreline; (2) a gross 

storage capacity of 1,622,000 acre-feet; and (3) active storage of 1,381,077 acre-feet at 

45.5 feet of drawdown. 

The existing project consists of: (1) Lake Martin reservoir; (2) an approximately

2,255-foot-long concrete gravity dam and earth dike section that includes (a) a 720-footlong gated spillway section with twenty, 30-foot-wide by 16-foot-high vertical lift 

spillway gates, (b) a 280-foot-long concrete gravity intake structure, (c) a 255-foot-long 

concrete gravity non-overflow section on the right abutment, and (d) an approximately

1,000-foot-long earth embankment on the left abutment; (3) headworks containing four

steel penstocks and twelve, 9-foot-wide by 24-foot-high intake gates fitted with 

trashracks; (4) a 307-foot-long, 58-foot-wide, and 99-foot-high brick and concrete, steelframe powerhouse; (5) four vertical Francis turbines that power four generating units, 

with installed capacities of 45.8 MW, 41.0 MW, 40.5 MW, and 55.2 MW, for a total 

installed capacity of 182.5 MW; (6) two, 450-foot-long transmission lines leading from 

the powerhouse to the Martin switchyard; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The project 

generates about 375,614 MWh per year.

The project boundary, which includes about 49,752 acres of land,10 generally 

follows the 491-foot msl elevation contour line around the reservoir. In addition to the 

reservoir, the project boundary encompasses the project dam, powerhouse, switchyard, 

transmission lines, and 12 existing project recreation sites (Anchor Bay Marina, Camp 

Alamisco, Camp ASCCA, DARE Boat Landing, DARE Power Park, Kamp Kiwanis, 

 

9 For consistency throughout this draft EIS, elevations are provided in msl. In 

some documents associated with the license application, however, elevations are given in 

Martin Datum, which is 1-foot lower than msl.

10 Out of 49,752 acres of land within the project boundary, 41,150 acres are 

inundated by the reservoir.
14

Maxwell Gunter AFB Recreation Area, Parker Creek Marina, Pleasure Point Park and 

Marina, Real Island Marina and Campground, Scenic Overlook, and Union Ramp). 

Alabama Power has flood easements for the entire length of the shoreline up to the 491-

foot contour, and on some lands above that elevation.

2.1.2 Project Safety

The project has been operating for more than 85 years under the existing and 

previous licenses. During this time, we have conducted operational inspections focusing 

on the continued safety of the structures, identification of unauthorized modifications, 

efficiency and safety of operations, compliance with the terms of the license, and proper 

maintenance. In addition, the project has been inspected and evaluated every 5 years by 

an independent consultant, and a consultant’s safety report has been submitted for 

Commission review. 

As part of the relicensing process, we would evaluate the continued adequacy of 

the proposed project facilities under a new license. Special articles addressing project 

safety would be included in any license issued, as appropriate. We would continue to 

inspect the project during the new license term to ensure continued adherence to 

Commission-approved plans and specifications, special license articles relating to 

construction (if any), operation and maintenance (O&M), and accepted engineering 

practices and procedures.

2.1.3 Existing Project Operation11

The Martin Dam Project operates as a peaking project using a multi-purpose 

storage reservoir (Lake Martin). On a seasonal basis, water levels in Lake Martin

fluctuate by as much as 10 feet between elevations 481 and 491 feet. Project benefits, as 

identified in the original project license include hydroelectric power; limited seasonal 

flood control when the reservoir is in drawdown condition; recreation, municipal and 

industrial water supply; and navigation flow support.

The project typically generates power Monday through Saturday to meet peak 

power demands. During generation, the four turbines release a flow of up to about

17,900 cubic feet per second (cfs). Hours of generation each day depend principally on

reservoir inflows that can vary substantially between wet and dry periods of the year. 

During the wetter periods (normally December through April), the project usually 

generates 8 to 12 hours daily on weekdays and 5 to 7 hours on Saturday. The project 

does not typically generate on Sunday. During the drier periods (normally May through 

 

11 This section identifies operation measures that are currently being implemented 

by Alabama Power and does not necessarily describe all measures required by the current 

license.
15

November), daily generation is typically reduced to 4 to 6 hours Monday through 

Saturday with little or no generation on Sundays.

Releases from the Martin Dam Project are made directly into the 2,000-acre 

reservoir of the Yates development.

12 The 45.5-MW Yates powerhouse has a hydraulic 

capacity of about 12,400 cfs. Releases from Yates pass directly into the 574-acre 

reservoir of the Thurlow development. The 85.0-MW Thurlow powerhouse has a 

hydraulic capacity of about 13,200 cfs. Thus, the entire river from the Martin Dam 

Project to Thurlow dam is impounded. Downstream of Thurlow dam, the Tallapoosa 

River flows 49.7 miles before reaching the confluence with the Coosa River to form the 

Alabama River. 

Alabama Power uses three guide curves to guide operations for the Martin Dam 

Project (figure 2-1): (1) a flood control curve, (2) an operating curve, and (3) a drought 

curve.13 Details of these curves are provided below.

Flood Control Gate Operation

The flood control curve (upper curve in figure 2-1) reflects the maximum 

elevation at which the lake is normally maintained in the interest of flood control. During 

the winter months, a 10-foot-drawdown (from 491 feet to 481 feet) provides storage 

capacity in the reservoir to be used to control floods. On January 1, the curve is at 

elevation 481 feet and remains at this elevation until February 17. On this date, the curve 

rises until it reaches elevation 491 feet on April 28. The curve remains at this elevation 

until September 1, and is gradually lowered 10 feet to elevation 481 feet by December 

31. It remains at that elevation until filling begins on February 17. 

Alabama Power generally has fee interests on lands up to elevation 491 feet; thus 

the project is operated to never exceed elevation 491 feet. At times when the reservoir is 

below elevation 491 feet, Alabama Power has the ability to store floodwater to help 

control high river flow events. In order to restore flood storage capacity, after flood 

flows recede, Alabama Power lowers the lake elevation to, or below, the flood control 

curve elevation for that time of year.

 

12 The Yates and Thurlow developments are licensed to Alabama Power as Project 

No. 2407. 66 FERC ¶ 62,068 (1994).

13 Both the flood control and operating curves are included in the current license 

for the project. The drought curve is not a license requirement, but has served as a guide 

to addressing recent drought concerns.
16

Figure 2-1. Existing guide curves for the Martin Dam Project (Source: Alabama 

Power, 2008).

The current license states that flood control operations are set forth in Alabama 

Power’s revised Exhibit H dated January 12, 1973, as amended November 16, 1978. As 

described in Exhibit H, when the inflow to the reservoir causes the Lake Martin elevation 

to exceed the flood curve, the plant is operated in the following manner: 

1. Between elevations 481 and 486 feet, the turbines at Martin dam are operated to 

provide a continuous outflow from Thurlow dam of a volume at least equal to the 

hydraulic capacity of the turbines at Yates dam. 

2. Between elevations 486 and 489 feet, the turbines at Martin dam are operated to 

provide continuous outflow from Thurlow dam of a volume at least equal to the 

plant hydraulic capacity at Thurlow dam. 

3. Above elevation 489 feet, the turbines at Martin dam are operated as in #2 above 

and further, if required to avoid the water level rising above elevation 491 feet, the 

turbines are operated to provide a volume of outflow from Martin dam at least 

equal to the discharge from all available turbine units operating at full gate 

(approximately 17,900 cfs). In addition, gates are raised so that the reservoir does 

not exceed elevation 491 feet, although the reservoir level may increase after all 

gates are raised if inflow exceeds the gate capacity. At elevation 491 feet, the 

spillway has a discharge capacity of approximately 133,000 cfs. 
17

Exhibit H further requires coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps). Exhibit H states, 

“During flood periods, communications will be maintained with the 

Weather Bureau’s River Forecast Center, Atlanta, Georgia, and the Corps 

of Engineers, and if greater flood control benefits can be attained through 

increased coordination of operations at Tallapoosa and Coosa River dams, 

and increased coordination with the Corps of Engineers’ downstream 

Alabama River dams than would be attained through use of the above flood 

control procedures, then these procedures will be modified as mutually 

agreed to verbally by the Corps of Engineers and Alabama Power 

Company.”

Normal Flow Operation

The middle curve shown in figure 2-1 is the operating curve.

14 The area between 

the flood curve and the operating curve represents the range in which Alabama Power 

operates the Martin Dam Project under normal flow conditions. Alabama Power tries to 

maintain water levels at or near the upper end of this operating range15 to optimize 

project benefits and to maintain a higher likelihood of being able to refill the lake to near 

full pool (i.e., 491 feet) each summer. 

Exhibit H requires Alabama Power to submit a report to the Commission and Lake 

Martin Resource Association, Inc. (Lake Martin RA) when the reservoir is at or below 

487 feet for 7 days, June 1 through Labor Day, and 2 feet below the operating curve for 7 

days, Labor Day through May 31. During such an event, discharges are restricted to 

those that are necessary to fulfill requirements that include critical electrical system 

 

14 The operating curve was developed in the 1970s through discussions with 

homeowner and boat owner groups who desired a higher pool elevation with less 

seasonal fluctuation than had been experienced historically. Under the original license 

issued in 1923, Alabama Power often operated the project in a manner that lowered the 

lake 20 or more feet below elevation 491 feet. During relicensing in the 1970s (the 

license was issued in 1975, with an amendment in 1978), Alabama Power and certain 

stakeholders agreed to change the operation of the project so that a higher pool elevation 

could be maintained during normal project operations.

15 During a recent court case before the Supreme Court of Alabama, brought by 

the Downstream Landowners (2009 WL 153932 [Ala.]), an Alabama Power 

representative testified that, beginning in 1989, Alabama Power has been maintaining 

Lake Martin at 0.5-foot below the full-pool level (490.5 feet) during the summer months, 

to provide 0.5-foot of storage for flood control and other purposes. This mode of 

operation, however, has been voluntary and is not a requirement of the current license. 
18

needs, downstream flow augmentation for navigation, water quality, fish and wildlife, 

and municipal/industrial water supply purposes.

Low Flow Operations

The lower curve on figure 2-1 is the drought curve, which provides an indication 

of impending hydrologic drought conditions. During the 1990s, Alabama Power 

developed drought curves for each of its hydroelectric projects, including the Martin Dam 

Project.16 The intent of the curves is to provide notification when the reservoirs are in 

drought conditions, rather than to dictate operations. The drought curve is used as one of 

several factors in evaluating drought reservoir operations. The curve was developed 

based on drought conditions that occurred in 1986 and in 1988. 

In the recent droughts of 2000 and 2007, reservoir operations (i.e., releases from 

the project) did not change immediately when Lake Martin fell below the drought curve, 

but the drought curve was one of several factors used in planning reservoir operations in 

coordination with Alabama Power’s other reservoirs in the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa 

River Basin (ACT Basin). In addition, Alabama Power has modified the flood curve and 

releases, after temporary amendments to its license, in response to drought conditions. 

Specifically, Alabama Power filed for, and was granted by the Commission, three 

temporary amendments to its flood curve to operate Lake Martin at a 3-foot-higher winter 

pool from November 20 to January 15, with refilling of the reservoir to begin on January 

15 instead of February 17, due to drought conditions.17 These variances occurred in the 

winter of 2007, 2009, and 2011. The temporary amendments also granted Alabama 

Power permission to reduce the minimum flow downstream of Thurlow dam, from 1,200 

cfs to as low as 350 cfs, depending on flows in the downstream Alabama River. 

 

16 The development of drought curves for Alabama Power’s projects was 

prompted by a comprehensive study of the ACT Basin, conducted by the states of 

Alabama, Georgia, and Florida as part of an ongoing water rights dispute among the three 

states. As part of the study, reservoir simulation models were developed for the Corps’

and Alabama Power’s projects in the ACT Basin. These simulation models needed 

criteria for decision logic on how and when releases would be made from reservoirs 

under drought conditions. Alabama Power prepared these drought curves for Alabama 

Power’s projects as part of this modeling effort. 

17 See Alabama Power Company, Order Granting Temporary Amendment to Rule 

Curve, 121 FERC ¶ 62,129, November 20, 2007; Order Granting Temporary Amendment 

to Rule Curve, 126 FERC ¶ 62,104, issued February 11, 2009; and Order Granting 

Temporary Amendment to Rule Curve, 134 FERC ¶ 62,067, January 24, 2011.
19

2.1.4 Additional Operation Measures for the Martin Dam Project

Minimum Flows

The current license for the Martin Dam Project has no minimum flow requirement. 

However, the project is operated in a manner to provide flows necessary to meet 

minimum flow requirements at the Thurlow development of Alabama Power’s 

downstream Yates and Thurlow Project No. 2407. Flows immediately downstream of the 

Martin Dam Project typically range from leakage18 to approximately 17,900 cfs. 

Alabama Power operates the Yates and Thurlow developments as run-of-river, with 

limited re-regulating capacity for the peaking releases from Martin dam,

19 thus flows 

downstream of Yates and Thurlow largely reflect the releases from Martin dam. Article 

401 of the 1994 license for the Yates and Thurlow Project, requires Alabama Power to 

provide a continuous 1,200-cfs minimum flow release from the Thurlow powerhouse, as 

measured immediately downstream of Thurlow dam. The minimum flow protects 

aquatic resources including water quality and aquatic habitat in the downstream riverine 

reach. Releases from Martin dam are necessary to meet the 1,200-cfs minimum flow 

requirement at the Thurlow development, except during periods of high local inflow. 

There are procedures in the Yates and Thurlow license that allow reduction of the 

minimum flow requirement at Thurlow dam whenever inflows to the Yates and Thurlow 

Project (i.e., releases from Martin dam) are abnormally low. Alabama Power has 

generally met the 1,200-cfs minimum flow requirement. However, during periods of 

extreme drought, such as in 2007, 2009, and 2011, the minimum flow was reduced to as 

little as 350 cfs for a portion of those years, after variances were approved by the 

Commission. 

Navigation Flows

Standard article 12 of the current license for the Martin Dam Project requires

Alabama Power to release water from the project reservoir as the Corps may prescribe in 

the interest of navigation. Alabama Power entered into an agreement with the Corps on 

April 18, 1972. The agreement specifies flows needed from both the Tallapoosa River 

and Coosa River to provide for navigation on the Alabama River. The navigation flow in 

the agreement is based on the estimated 7Q10 flow for the Alabama River in the 

Montgomery area. The navigation release is measured at the Montgomery flow gage and

provides a 9-foot navigation channel depth and an 8,500 cfs flow below the Claiborne 

 

18 The amount of leakage is difficult to estimate because the Yates impoundment is 

immediately downstream of Martin dam.

19 Impoundment fluctuations in the Yates and Thurlow impoundments are limited 

to 3.5 feet and 1-foot, respectively. Because the impoundments are small, such 

fluctuations provide limited storage capacity.
20

lock and dam on the Alabama River, about 240 miles downstream of the confluence of 

the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers. The 1972 agreement specifies a combined release from 

Bouldin/Jordan and Thurlow dams as follows:

20

• A continuous minimum 7-day average release of not less than 4,640 cfs, as 

measured at the USGS Montgomery flow gage on the Alabama River.21

• In January 1980, Alabama Power agreed to provide at least 2,667 cfs during any 

consecutive 3-day period. This would eliminate periods of little or no flow and 

more evenly distribute the required 7-day total flow.

Since 1972, there have been several occasions during droughts (1986, 1988, and 

2007) when the 4,640-cfs navigation flow has been reduced after agreement with the 

Corps. A July 2007 environmental assessment (EA) prepared by the Corps concluded 

that the 4,640 cfs navigation flow would be adequate to protect environmental resources 

(and navigation), and that under extreme drought conditions, a 20-percent reduction to 

3,712 cfs would result in no significant adverse environmental impact. Accordingly, a 

temporary reduction to 3,712 cfs was approved by the Corps and implemented by 

Alabama Power.

2.1.5 Existing Environmental Measures

Alabama Power maintains Lake Martin near full-pool levels during most of the 

summer recreation season (see figure 3.5). As stated previously, Alabama Power makes 

releases from Martin dam to meet a 1,200-cfs continuous minimum flow downstream of 

Thurlow dam, as required by the Yates and Thurlow Project No. 2407 license.

Other environmental measures provided by Alabama Power include:

• controlling noxious weeds and invasive plants as part of a Nuisance Aquatic 

Vegetation and Vector Control Management Program;

• operating and maintaining 12 existing project recreation sites, that provide boat 

ramps, bank fishing sites, campsites, parking areas, and picnic areas;

 

20 The 1972 agreement specifies a 7-day average release of 4,640 cfs from the 

combined Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers. The agreement does not specify releases for 

each individual basin; however, based on a ratio of drainage areas for each basin (10,059 

square miles for the Coosa River Basin and 4,680 square miles for the Tallapoosa River 

Basin), the Coosa River’s portion of the navigation requirement would be 3,166 cfs (68 

percent), and the Tallapoosa River’s portion would be 1,475 cfs (32 percent).

21 The Montgomery flow gage is about 10 miles downstream of the confluence of 

the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers. Because there is little intervening flow, this gage 

approximates the combined releases from both river basins.
21

• implementing a SMP to protect project lands and waters, including a Shoreline 

Permitting Program to guide development of non-project structures such as a 

boat dock, to protect the associated resources; and

• implementing a Public Education and Outreach Plan to inform shoreline 

landowners and the public about protecting the Lake Martin shoreline. 

2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL

2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities

Alabama Power is not proposing any changes to project structures or to the project 

generating capacity. However, Alabama Power proposes to add 991.4 acres to, and 

remove 499.2 acres from, the project boundary, resulting in an increase of 492.2 acres of 

project land. The project boundary, therefore, would be modified from 8,602 acres to 

9,094 acres. 

2.2.2 Proposed Project Operation

Alabama Power proposes to continue to operate the project in a peaking mode, but 

with modifications to other aspects of project operations as discussed below.

Modify Flood Curve and Operating Curve

Alabama Power proposes to modify the flood curve by implementing a 3-foot 

increase in the winter pool (to elevation 484 feet). Alabama Power also proposes to

change the operating curve and drought curve proportionately during the same timeframe 

(figure 2-2).

Lower Reservoir for Maintenance and/or Construction of Structures

Alabama Power proposes, approximately every 6 years, to lower the reservoir 

elevation to at least 481 feet in the winter to facilitate non-project seawall and boat dock 

maintenance and/or construction and other non-project activities that could benefit from 

lower lake levels. This measure would only be necessary if the Commission adopts 

Alabama Power’s proposed 3-foot increase in the winter pool noted above.
22

Figure 2-2. Proposed guide curves for the Martin Dam Project (Source: Alabama 

Power, 2011a).

Proposed Flood Control Gate Operation

Alabama Power proposes to continue operations for flood control as described in 

section 2.1.3, Existing Project Operation, but with the following changes and additions to 

Exhibit H noted in bold below:

1) When the reservoir is above the flood control curve and between elevations 484

and 486 feet, turbines at Martin dam would be operated to provide for an outflow 

from Thurlow dam that is at least equal to the hydraulic capacity of the turbines at 

Yates dam (approximately 12,400 cfs).

2) When the reservoir is above the flood control curve and between elevations 486 

and 489 feet:

a. With increasing inflows, turbines at Martin dam would be operated to 

provide for an outflow from Thurlow dam of at least equivalent to the 

hydraulic capacity of the turbines at Thurlow dam (approximately 13,200 

cfs).
23

b. With decreasing inflows, turbines at Martin dam would be operated to 

provide for an outflow from Thurlow dam of at least equivalent to the 

hydraulic capacity of the turbines at Yates dam (approximately 12,400 

cfs). 

3) When the reservoir is above the flood control curve and above elevation 489 feet, 

the turbines at Martin dam would be operated as in (2) a above, and further if 

required to avoid rising above elevation 491 feet, turbines would be operated to 

provide an outflow from Lake Martin at least equivalent to all turbine units 

operating at full gate (17,900 cfs), and spillway gates would be raised. An 

exception to this would be that the reservoir may continue to rise after all gates are 

raised and inflow exceeds the gate capacity, which would be beyond the control 

of Alabama Power.22 At elevation 491 feet, the spillway would have an outflow 

capacity of approximately 133,000 cfs.

4) During periods when inflow exceeds the total hydraulic capacity of the 

turbines, the 3-hour average outflow rate from the reservoir would not exceed 

the concurrent 3-hour average inflow rate, except to evacuate accumulated 

surcharge storage subsequent to the predicted time of peak inflow. This 

would ensure that the outflow from the reservoir is lower than the inflow.

5) Alabama Power would continue its current practice to notify the National 

Weather Service (NWS) when spillway gate operation is used in flood control 

operations and would continue to share data with the NWS’ Southeast River 

Forecast Center (SERFC), and the Corps.

 

22 Provision 3 is an update to step 3 of Alabama Power’s request for revised 

exhibit H dated November 16, 1978.
24

Conditional Fall Extension

To enhance recreation uses at Lake Martin, Alabama Power proposes to modify

the flood control curve during the fall months by extending the curve to elevation 491 

feet from September 1 through October 15, provided that certain hydrologic and 

operational conditions are met. Extending the flood curve would provide an opportunity 

for higher reservoir elevations during this period, assuming adequate flows are available 

for the project’s other uses. Each September, Alabama Power would conduct daily 

evaluations to determine the feasibility of implementing higher pool levels, based on the 

following conditions:

1. Lake Martin is above its operating curve during September (487 to 488.5 feet);

2. the rolling 7-day average total basin inflow23 on the Tallapoosa River, calculated 

at Thurlow dam, is at or higher than the median flow;

24

3. the rolling 7-day average total basin inflow on the Coosa River, calculated at 

Jordan dam, is at or higher than the median flow; and

4. the elevations at the Weiss, H. Neely Henry, and Logan Martin developments on 

the Coosa River and the Harris Project on the Tallapoosa River must all be within 

1 foot of their respective operating curves.

If all these conditions are met, Alabama Power would operate the project by 

targeting an elevation above the flood curve, which drops from an elevation of 491 on 

September 1 to an elevation of about 488 on October 15, but no greater than elevation 

491 feet for a period not to exceed October 15 (i.e., the zone shaded in green on figure 2-

2), at which point drawdown would resume to meet the proposed winter pool elevation of 

484 feet. Once the conditional fall extension is initiated, Alabama Power would continue 

to monitor the Coosa and Tallapoosa river systems to determine if any change in 

conditions would affect continuation of the conditional fall extension. If reservoir and 

hydrological conditions changed after the fall extension has started, Alabama Power 

would suspend the fall extension. At the end of September, if all the above conditions 

were not met and the conditional fall extension was not implemented, Alabama Power 

would notify the Commission. Regardless of the outcome of the evaluation, Alabama 

Power would provide notice to Lake Martin RA and post up-to-date status notifications to 

the Alabama Power lakes and recreation website (https://lakes.alabamapower.com/).

 

23 The 7-day rolling average of total basin inflow is the average of the total daily 

basin inflow for the previous 7 days recalculated on a daily basis for a given period of 

time. 

24 The “median flow” in this instance is the median of the recorded daily flows 

over the period of record for the particular day of interest.
25

Alabama Power also proposes to abide by all downstream minimum flow and 

other operational requirements while implementing its proposed extension. 

Drought Operations/Low Flow Management

Recent responses to drought conditions have included temporary amendments to 

water level requirements at Lake Martin, such as maintaining Lake Martin at a 3-foothigher winter pool, and reductions in the minimum flow from Thurlow dam, as described 

in section 2.1.3, Project Operation, Low Flow Operations.

Alabama Power proposes to implement a drought response plan known as the 

Alabama Drought Response Operating Proposal (ADROP). ADROP is the basis of a 

plan to manage Alabama Power’s water resources within the Alabama portion of the 

ACT Basin during drought conditions. As described above, project releases provide 

support for the Thurlow Project minimum flows, as well as flows required to support 

navigation in the Alabama River. The ADROP uses specific drought indicators to 

describe the magnitude, duration, severity, and extent of the drought which may affect 

normal operating conditions and the Martin Dam Project’s ability to support the Thurlow 

minimum flow and/or Corps required navigation releases to the Alabama River. One of 

those indicators is the Lake Martin drought curve described above. When the indicators 

meet specified criteria, Alabama Power and the appropriate state and federal agencies 

would closely monitor the river system to determine when drought response measures 

should be triggered and how aggressive those measures should be. Each of the three 

levels of drought conditions identified in the ADROP is tied to a compounding trigger 

system. As more of the criteria are met, more intense drought response measures would 

be triggered. When criteria triggering a more intense level of drought response are met,

the hydropower project releases to support minimum instream flows and navigation flows 

in the Alabama River would be reduced. Reducing the volume of water released to the 

Alabama River would allow a decrease in flow from the Coosa or Tallapoosa River 

system, or both. How changes in releases would be allocated between river systems 

would be dependent on the conditions within each basin and the season. 

2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures

• Implement the measures of the 401 WQC, which requires maintaining the state 

standard for dissolved oxygen (DO) when the project is operating, and monitoring 

water temperature and DO in the tailrace; 

• develop a reservoir water quality monitoring plan in consultation with Alabama 

DEM prior to implementing the proposed 3-foot increase in the winter pool

elevation to detect substantial effects of the change on water quality;

• implement the Tallapoosa River portion of the ADROP, which uses specific 

drought indicators to determine when drought response measures should be 

triggered and how aggressive those measures should be;
26

• finalize and implement a study of American eels, in consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS), from the project tailrace to the mouth of the 

Tallapoosa River, and complete the study by 2016;

• implement a Wildlife Management Program (WMP) for project lands;

• implement the Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation and Vector Control Management 

Program, and prepare a plan to monitor potential increases in nuisance aquatic 

vegetation in Lake Martin resulting from the proposed 3-foot increase in the 

winter pool elevation; 

• implement a Shoreline Management Plan (SMP), filed June 8, 2011, which 

provides guidance for management actions within the project boundary; a 

redefined shoreline classification system; a Shoreline Permitting Program; and 

best management practices (BMPs) for controlling shoreline erosion and providing 

a 30-foot control strip;

• implement a Recreation Plan, filed December 9, 2011, which includes measures for 

a total of 19 developed and undeveloped recreation sites that provide boat ramps, 

docks, parking areas, bank fishing sites, campsites, and fishing piers; 

• as part of the Recreation Plan, evaluate the need for additional bank/pier fishing 

areas within the Martin Dam Project boundary and develop such a facility in 

consultation with Alabama DCNR;

• modify the project boundary to add 991.4 acres to, and remove 499.2 acres from, 

the project boundary, resulting in an increase of 492.2 acres of land; and reclassify 

land uses on 1,294.4 acres within the project boundary to be consistent with 

existing land use or other project purposes;

25

• implement a Public Education and Outreach Plan to inform shoreline landowners 

and the public about protecting the Lake Martin shoreline; and

• develop and implement a HPMP as part of a implementing a PA.

 

25 The project boundary would be modified from 8,602 acres to 9,094 acres.
27

2.2.4 Modifications to Applicant’s Proposal—Mandatory Conditions

The following mandatory conditions have been provided and are evaluated as part 

of the applicant’s proposal. 

Water Quality Certification Conditions

The conditions of the WQC are provided in appendix B and summarized below: 

• Within 18 months of the effective date of a new license, begin DO monitoring in 

the project tailrace for a three-year period, followed by a report assessing the 

adequacy of the project to meet the state standard. If monitoring results do not 

indicate compliance with the state standard, which is 4.0 mg/L in the tailrace when 

the project is generating, Alabama Power would be required to develop and 

implement measures, through structural or operational modifications, to meet the 

state standard.

• The monitoring location for determining compliance with the state standard would

be in an area immediately downstream of the Martin dam, at an existing 

monitoring station located at about latitude 32.679350N and longitude 

85.911648W. The monitor would record DO and water temperature at 30-minute 

intervals during periods of hydroelectric generation following one continuous hour 

of generation from June 1 through October 31. During flood events, the 

monitoring may be temporarily discontinued until tailrace elevations return to 

normal. The monitoring program would continue for a period of three years.

• The monitoring equipment would be appropriately operated, maintained, and 

calibrated.

• DO and temperature monitoring reports would be submitted annually to the 

Alabama DEM, within 90 days following the end of the monitoring period in 

electronic format compatible with Microsoft Excel and Word software. The 

monitoring reports would specify whether turbines were in operation at the time of 

the DO and temperature measurements and the discharge rate of water flow 

passing through each turbine.

2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE

The staff-alternative includes most of Alabama Power’s proposed operational and 

environmental measures as described in sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. The staff alternative 

also includes all the conditions of the WQC described in 2.2.4. 

In addition, this alternative would include the following measures: 

• revise operations for flood control as described by Alabama Power with minor 

modifications by staff;

• revise, in consultation with FWS and Alabama Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources (Alabama DCNR), the Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation and 
28

Vector Control Management Program, to include specific information on Alabama 

Power’s protocol for conducting lake-wide surveys, including: (1) methods (i.e.,

the frequency, timing, and locations of surveys) for identifying areas where 

nuisance aquatic vegetation could create a public health hazard, affect power 

generation facilities, restrict recreational use, or pose a threat to the ecological 

balance of the reservoir; (2) methods for monitoring increases in nuisance aquatic 

vegetation; (3) methods for controlling nuisance aquatic vegetation; and (4) 

schedules for implementation of control measures and monitoring;

• revise the Recreation Plan to include: (1) a detailed description of only the 19 

project recreation sites and proposed enhancements, and (2) a provision to file a 

Recreation Monitoring Report concurrent with the filing of the FERC Form 80 

that discusses recreational use and demand, associated project-related resource 

effects, and any additional measures or modifications to the project recreation sites 

that may be needed and a schedule for implementing such changes; and

• revise the SMP to include: (1) staff’s recommended project boundary 

modifications; (2) a provision to limit construction of a new seawall to instances 

where riprap and vegetation are not sufficient to protect land and property from 

erosion; (3) a description of the Dredging Permit Program; (4) a Shoreline 

Permitting Program specific to the Martin Dam Project; and (5) a provision to 

address unpermitted structures on project lands and waters.

The staff alternative does not include finalizing and implementing an eel study plan and 

does not recommend the removal of 373.1 acres from the project boundary.

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED 

ANALYSIS

We considered several alternatives to the applicant’s proposal, but eliminated 

them from further analysis because they are not reasonable in the circumstances of this 

project. They are: (1) issuing a non-power license; (2) federal government takeover of 

the project; and (3) retiring the project.

2.4.1 Issuing a Non-Power License

A non-power license is a temporary license that the Commission will terminate 

when it determines that another governmental agency will assume regulatory authority 

and supervision over the lands and facilities covered by the non-power license. At this 

point, no agency has suggested a willingness or ability to do so. No party has sought a 

non-power license, and we have no basis for concluding that the project should no longer 

be used to produce power. Thus, we do not consider issuing a non-power license a 

realistic alternative to relicensing in this circumstance.
29

2.4.2 Federal Government Takeover of the Project

We do not consider federal takeover to be a reasonable alternative. Federal 

takeover and operation of the project would require Congressional approval. While that 

fact alone would not preclude further consideration of this alternative, there is no 

evidence to indicate that federal takeover should be recommended to Congress. No party 

has suggested federal takeover would be appropriate, and no federal agency has 

expressed an interest in operating the project.

2.4.3 Retiring the Project

Project retirement could be accomplished with or without dam removal. Either 

alternative would involve denial of the relicense application and surrender or termination 

of the existing license with appropriate conditions. No participant has suggested that dam 

removal would be appropriate in this case, and we have no basis for recommending it. 

Dam removal is considered unreasonable because the reservoir serves other important 

purposes, including recreation, municipal water supply, and flood control, regardless of 

whether power is produced. Thus, dam removal is not a reasonable alternative to 

relicensing the project with appropriate protection, mitigation, and enhancement 

measures. 

The second project retirement alternative would involve retaining the dam and 

disabling or removing equipment used to generate power. Project works would remain in 

place and could be used for historic or other purposes. This would require us to identify 

another government agency with authority to assume regulatory control and supervision 

of the remaining facilities. No agency has stepped forward, and no participant has 

advocated this alternative. Nor have we any basis for recommending it. Because the 

power supplied by the project is needed, a source of replacement power would have to be 

identified. In these circumstances, we do not consider removal of the electric generating 

equipment to be a reasonable alternative.
30.
31

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

In this section, we present: (1) a general description of the project vicinity; (2) an 

explanation of the scope of our cumulative effects analysis; and (3) our analysis of the 

proposed action and other recommended environmental measures.26 Sections are 

organized by resource area (aquatic, recreation, etc.). Under each resource area, current 

conditions are described first. The existing condition is the baseline against which the 

environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives are compared, including an 

assessment of the effects of proposed mitigation, protection, and enhancement measures, 

and any potential cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives. Staff‘s 

conclusions and recommended measures are discussed in section 5.2, Comprehensive 

Development and Recommended Alternative, of the EIS.

3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN

The Tallapoosa River drains about 4,675 square miles of east central Alabama and 

a part of western Georgia and joins the Coosa River downstream of Jordan dam creating 

the Alabama River. The Alabama River then flows into Mobile Bay. The headwaters of 

the Tallapoosa and Little Tallapoosa Rivers begin in Paulding and Carroll Counties, 

Georgia, and enter Alabama in Randolph County southwest of Atlanta to form the main 

stem of the Tallapoosa River. From this point, the Tallapoosa meanders southwesterly 

through four Alabama Power hydroelectric developments (R.L. Harris, Martin, Yates, 

and Thurlow). The Tallapoosa River watershed includes the Little Tallapoosa River, 

which has a drainage area of 605 square miles in Georgia and Alabama. Other major 

tributaries include the Sougahatchee, Sandy, Uphapee, and Hillabee Creeks in Alabama. 

The Tallapoosa River Basin includes narrow valleys, rolling hills, flat plateaus, 

meandering flood plains, and gently rolling terrain. Almost 70 percent of the basin is 

covered by forests, and forestry-related activities account for part of the river basin’s 

economy. The primary land use is agriculture, including livestock rearing and production 

of other agricultural products.

The climate of the Tallapoosa River Basin is moist and temperate, characterized 

by long, warm, and humid summers with relatively short winters. Precipitation is highest 

in the spring, but otherwise is generally evenly distributed throughout the year with 

average annual precipitation ranges between about 46 and 64 inches. Natural river flow 

normally peaks during the winter and early spring with flood events recorded at different 

times throughout the year but most common in the winter and spring.

 

26 Unless noted otherwise, the sources of our information are the license 

application (Alabama Power, 2011a), and additional information filed by Alabama Power 

(2011b). 
32

Average monthly temperatures within the basin vary from 40 degrees Fahrenheit 

(oF) to 55oF in January and from 75o to 80oF in July. Winter temperatures occasionally 

fall below 32oF and summer temperatures often exceed 90oF with relatively high 

humidity.

3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS

According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for 

implementing National Environmental Policy Act (40 C.F.R. section 1508.7), cumulative 

effect is the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other 

actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively 

significant actions taking place over a period of time, including hydropower and other 

land and water development activities.

Based on our review of the license application and agency and public comments, 

we have identified aquatic and fishery resources as having the potential to be 

cumulatively affected by the proposed project in combination with other past, present, 

and future activities. Aquatic and fishery resources were selected because the operation 

of the Martin Dam Project, in association with other projects in the river basin, has 

affected and would continue to affect wastewater releases, consumptive water 

withdrawals, navigation, water quality, water quantity, fish habitat, fish movements, and 

fish production in the Tallapoosa and Alabama Rivers.

We also have identified water quantity as being cumulatively affected by changes 

in operations at Martin Dam. We selected water quantity because project operation

modifications in combination with changes in Corps and Alabama Power operations in

the Coosa River Basin, particularly the raising of the winter pool at Lake Neely Henry

could affect flood levels in the Alabama River. Similarly, proposals for changes to 

storage practices in the Coosa River Basin in combination with Martin Dam operations 

could affect low flows in the Alabama River. 

The effects of other actions occurring in the river basin relative to existing project 

resources can be derived from the following environmental documents prepared by the 

Commission staff or the Corps, which are incorporated by reference per 40 C.F.R., 

section 1508.28:

• Yates and Thurlow Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2407), final EA issued 

February 3, 1994; 

• Coosa River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2146), final EA issued 

December 31, 2009; and

• Final EIS for Updates to the Master Water Control Manual for the AlabamaCoosa-Tallapoosa River Basin, and draft Master Water Control Manual for the 
33

Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) River Basin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

October 31, 2014.

3.2.1 Geographic Scope

The geographic scope of analysis defines the physical limits or boundaries of the 

proposed action’s effects on the resources. Because the proposed action would affect the 

resources differently, the geographic scope for each resource may vary. 

The geographic scope for aquatic and fishery resources and water quantity is the 

entire Alabama River and the Tallapoosa River from its mouth upstream to and including 

the Martin Dam Project. We chose this geographic scope because the operation of the 

Martin Dam Project in combination with the other Alabama Power hydropower projects 

and the Corps impoundments could cumulatively affect the resources listed above. 

3.2.2 Temporal Scope

The temporal scope of analysis includes a discussion of the past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions and their effects on aquatic resources. Based on the 

term of the proposed license, we will look 30 to 50 years into the future, concentrating on 

the effects on the above resources from reasonably foreseeable future actions. The 

historical discussion is limited to the amount of available information. We identified the 

present resource conditions based on the license application, agency comments, and 

comprehensive plans.

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES

In this section, we discuss the effect of the project alternatives on environmental 

resources. For each resource, we first describe the affected environment, which is the 

existing condition and baseline against which we measure effects. We then discuss and 

analyze the specific cumulative and site-specific environmental issues.

Only the resources that would be affected, or about which comments have been 

received, are addressed in detail in this EIS. Based on this, we have determined that 

geology and soils, aquatic, terrestrial, threatened and endangered species, recreation, and 

cultural resources may be affected by the proposed action and action alternatives. There 

are some economic issues addressed as subcomponents of other topics analyzed in this 

EIS, but there are no substantive, stand-alone socio-economic issues associated with the 

proposed action. Therefore, we do not include a separate section on socioeconomics in 

this EIS. We have not identified any substantive issues related to aesthetic resources 

associated with the proposed action, and, therefore, aesthetic resources are not assessed in 

the EIS. Land use is addressed in the recreation resources section. We present our 

recommendations in section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended 

Alternative.
34

3.3.1 Geologic and Soil Resources

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment

Geography and Topography

The Tallapoosa River Basin lies within three physiographic provinces, the Valley 

and Ridge, Piedmont, and the Eastern Gulf Coastal Plain. Lake Martin occurs within the 

Piedmont Province, which is characterized by well-dissected uplands developed over 

metamorphic and igneous rocks. In the northern portion of the province, elevations 

generally range from 500 to 1,100 feet. Cheaha Mountain, the State of Alabama’s 

highest point at 2,407 feet, is on the northeastern end of a prominent northeast-trending 

ridge in this province, and is located about 50 miles north of Lake Martin. Shoreline 

steepness around Lake Martin varies from areas with less than 15 percent slope, to 

vertical drops associated with rocky outcrops. The project is underlain by igneous and 

metamorphosed rocks of late Proterozoic to Paleozoic in age (570 to 240 million years 

ago). Lake Martin and surrounding project lands are located within the Piedmont Upland

region. The dominant geographic features in the area are northeast-trending. The linear 

ridges to the northwest and northeast of the Martin 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.

This region is divided into the Northern, Inner, and Southern Piedmont Upland 

districts but there are no project lands within Southern Piedmont Upland district. 

Common rock types within the Northern Piedmont region, which includes most of the 

western shoreline of Lake Martin in Tallapoosa, Coosa, and Elmore Counties, include 

resistant quartzite and quartz-rich schists. The Inner Piedmont Upland district is 

developed on metamorphic rock (schist and gneiss). Topographic features within this 

area are not prominent, other than incision by tributaries. 

Soils 

Soils within the project area were generally derived from weathering of the 

metamorphic and igneous bedrock. Soil types range from fine (clay) to coarse (sand and 

gravel) with loamy sand being the most common soil type within the project boundary

(Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2007 and 2008; Soil Conservation Service, 

1955). In general, soil productivity has been reduced over much of the area because of

poor farming practices in the 1800s and early 1900s. Many areas of depleted soils have 

reverted to forest, but productivity is often low. The resulting loamy, depleted soils 

dominant within the project boundary have moderate to high potential for soil erosion.

Erosion within the Project Boundary 

Alabama Power identified, mapped, and photographed erosion hot spots on Lake 

Martin, and made an assessment of the source of the erosion at each site (see figures 3-1 

and 3-2) (Alabama Power, 2010h). The survey was conducted by boat using visual 

inspection. Alabama Power attributed the observed erosion to either wave action or land 
35

use (boating, shoreline clearing, home construction, etc.). In some instances, Alabama 

Power concluded that land use was the initiating factor of the erosion process with other 

factors accelerating the process. While Alabama Power observed mild to moderate 

erosion at many sites, the company reported that severe erosion was uncommon or 

“atypical” in relation to the total length of project shoreline. Using field observations and

Natural Resources Conservation Service soils maps (Alabama Power, 2010h), Alabama 

Power observed that the bedrock underlying the loams at each erosion site began at or 

near an elevation of 486 feet to 486.5 feet.

Figure 3-1. An example of severe erosion from Alabama Power’s study (Source: 

Alabama Power, 2010h).
36

Figure 3-2. The locations of severe erosion sites observed by Alabama Power on Lake 

Martin (Source: Alabama Power, 2010h). 

Erosion Downstream of the Project Boundary

Similar to the land on the shoreline above the dam, the land along the Tallapoosa 

River downstream of Thurlow dam is dominated by loamy soils with a moderate to high 

potential for soil erosion. Traveling by boat, Alabama Power visually inspected the 

shoreline from the base of Thurlow dam south to the Highway 229 Bridge, covering the 

first 10 miles of shoreline along the Tallapoosa River (Alabama Power, 2010h). 

Alabama Power inspected erosion and surveyed three sites twice annually during 2006 

and 2007 and once during 2009. An additional 14 sites were visually monitored at the 

same frequency. Alabama Power did not observe erosion at these sites during a period of 

minimum flow (1,200 cfs) up to full generation flows (17,900 cfs). Alabama Power did 

observe erosion at these sites in 2009 when a spill event had occurred. Alabama Power 

interpreted their observations to indicate that the channel is most affected by “spill 

events,” which occur when flows rise above 17,900 cfs.
37

Sedimentation within the Project Boundary

Alabama Power identified 19 sedimentation sites within the project boundary 

using light detection and ranging (LIDAR)27 and aerial photography, as well as visual 

inspection by boat (Alabama Power, 2010h). Based on the location of the sediment in 

deltas formed at the tributary creek mouths, Alabama Power’s interpretation was that lake 

sedimentation was caused predominantly by sediment entering the lake in tributary 

stream flow and settling in the relatively still waters of the reservoir.

3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects

Erosion within the Project Boundary

Alabama Power concludes that the effects of raising the winter flood pool on 

erosion within the project boundary would be negligible.28 Alabama Power predicts that 

wave action would likely increase if the number of recreation user-days increased and 

that increased wave action could result in a modest increase in erosion. Overall, 

however, Alabama Power comments that the changes in shoreline erosion directly 

associated with the proposed 3-foot increase in the winter pool would have a negligible 

effect on the 15 sites identified for erosion-monitoring on Lake Martin. However, 

sediment plumes and depositional patterns may not change.29 Alabama Power notes that 

bedrock was present at all of the 15 erosion hot spots, presumably providing a grade 

control to limit the amount of erosion that could occur. Therefore, none of the proposed 

elevation changes would have significant erosion effects within the project boundary.

30 

Based on the results of its study, Alabama Power does not propose any measures or 

further monitoring to address erosion within the project boundary.

 

27 LIDAR is an optical remote sensing technology that measures the distance to a 

feature or target, or other properties, by using light to illuminate a target.

28 Issues related to localized erosion and sedimentation associated with 

recreational use and shoreline management are addressed in section 3.3.5, Recreation 

Resources and Land Use.

29 Issues related to the potential establishment of nuisance aquatic vegetation are 

addressed in section 3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources.

30 Alabama Power did note that the erosion might be nominally higher at the 486-

foot contour associated with a 5-foot winter pool increase because of irregularities it 

observed in the topography at this elevation.
38

Our Analysis

Staff finds that an increase in the lake levels and associated effects on erosion 

would not be significant in proportion to the surface area and volume of the reservoir. 

Alabama Power’s observations of severe erosion are not widespread. Alabama Power’s

mapping indicates that the areas of severe erosion are almost exclusively located on 

northwest-facing shores with substantial open water (or fetch), which are the areas

subject to the greatest potential for wind and wave action. The presence of bedrock near 

the elevation of the potential erosion should limit the amount of erosion. Also, based on 

its make-up of loam and gravel and only a modest amount of clay, most of the eroded 

material should settle within Lake Martin rather than deposit downstream and potentially 

affect riverine habitat. Sedimentation from bank erosion was not identified as notable in 

the reservoir deposition study as was sediment deposition from tributary sources. If 

operations did not change, erosion patterns would continue as they do under existing 

conditions.

Erosion Downstream of the Project Boundary 

Stating that erosion downstream of Thurlow dam is partly an ongoing natural and 

historical process, Alabama Power discusses the potential effect of its proposal to raise 

winter lake levels on erosion and sedimentation in the Tallapoosa River downstream of 

Thurlow dam (Alabama Power, 2010a). The potential increase in the number of days 

with higher than historical spill (flows above 17,900 cfs) for the entire 67 years of record 

was modeled.31 Using its HydroBudget model and approximating the 100-year storm 

event, Alabama Power estimates that a 3-foot increase in winter pool would increase the 

number of days of spill by 23 days over 67 years of record (Alabama Power, 2010b). 

Because of the limited storage capacity of the Yates and Thurlow impoundments, the 

increase in the spill associated with a 3-foot increase in the winter pool would carry 

through the two impoundments and into the river below. Alabama Power concludes that 

it would expect to see increased erosion from the tailrace of Thurlow dam to the 

Montgomery Water Works. Alabama Power proposes no measures or monitoring to 

address any effect of this increase relative to background erosion rates.

World Wildlife Fund and Alabama Rivers commented on erosion occurring 

downstream of Thurlow dam. World Wildlife Fund notes that increasing the winter pool 

at Lake Martin could increase the frequency of spill events associated with erosion.

World Wildlife Fund stated that increased erosion and resulting increased sediment loads 

could have several negative effects including reducing water quality by making the water 

 

31 The hydraulic capacity of the turbines at Martin Dam is approximately 17,900 

cfs. Above 17,900 cfs, Martin dam will spill water. That spillage will convey through

the Yates and Thurlow developments to the reach of the Tallapoosa River below.
39

more turbid, increasing water treatment cost, and degrading spawning habitat for fish 

requiring clean gravel for spawning, such as paddlefish (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993).

Our Analysis 

Increasing the winter pool level could cause additional spill events. Increased spill 

could increase erosion and in turn turbidity and sedimentation downstream of Thurlow 

dam. However, the study indicated an increase in spill events of 23 days over the 67-year 

period for a 3-foot increase in winter levels, and 52 days over the 67-year period for a 5-

foot increase. Those changes would equal a 0.1 percent increase in days of spill for the 

3-foot increase and a 0.2 percent increase in days for the 5-foot increase. Under the 

existing condition spill occurs less than 1 percent of the time making an increase of 0.1 to 

0.2 percent potentially substantial. Given that Alabama Power associates downstream 

erosion with spill events and that an increase in winter pool elevation could increase the 

occurrence of spill events, the raising of the winter pool could increase downstream 

erosion. 

Additional spill could be induced by the conditional fall extension, but probably 

only to a very small degree. The conditional fall extension would occur every few years 

rather the every year, reducing the chances of increasing spill. Also, the fall is the time of 

year of the lowest natural flows,32 which also reduces the chances that conditional fall 

extension would lead to substantially more spill. Because the conditional fall extension

would have only a small effect on spill, it would have only a small effect on downstream 

erosion.

3.3.2 Aquatic Resources

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment

Water Quantity

Tallapoosa River

The Martin Dam Project uses the waters of the Tallapoosa River to generate power 

at the dam. The Tallapoosa River Basin drains parts of northern Georgia and east central 

Alabama. The total drainage area at the project dam is about 3,000 square miles. 

Alabama Power operates two other hydroelectric projects on the Tallapoosa River under 

licenses granted by the Commission: the Harris Project and the Yates and Thurlow 

Project33 (figure 3-3). Table 3-1 provides operation, drainage area, surface area, and 

storage volume data for all three Alabama Power Tallapoosa River hydroelectric projects.

 

32 See section 3.3.2.1, table 3-3 and table 3-4.

33 As its name implies, the Yates and Thurlow Project is one licensed project 

consisting of two developments: Yates and Thurlow.
40

Figure 3-3. Tallapoosa River and Coosa River schematic (Source: Corps, 1998, as 

modified by staff).
41

Table 3-1. Alabama Power hydropower developments on the Tallapoosa River

(Source: Corps, 2008.

Reservoir

FERC 

Project 

Number

Construction 

Date

River 

Mile

Drainage 

Area 

(square 

miles)

Surface 

Area 

(acres)

Total 

Storage 

(acrefeet) Operation

Harris P-2628 1982 139.1 1,453 10,600 425,700 Storage

Martin P-349 1926 60.6 3,000 44,000 1,622,000 Storage

Yates P-2407 1928 52.7 3,250 2,000 54,000 Run-ofriver

Thurlow P-2407 1930 49.7 3,300 574 18,250 Run-ofriver

Note: Data in table are as reported by Corps, 2008b, and may differ slightly from data 

reported elsewhere in this draft EIS.

Alabama Power operates the Harris Project, about 79 miles upstream of Martin 

dam, as a storage facility and for hydropower generation. The Tallapoosa River upstream 

of Lake Martin (RM 92 to 139) is an upper-basin-type stream with steep slopes and 

narrow floodplains that include rapids. It also contains two currently operating U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) gage sites: Wadley and Horseshoe Bend (table 3-2 and figure 

3-3). The Wadley gage has 86 years of daily flow and stage data, and Horseshoe Bend 

has 24 years of daily flow and stage data. The stream channel is characterized by rock 

outcrops and a few sand bars and is crossed by four highway bridges and two railroad 

bridges. The largest community along this reach of the river is the City of Wadley at RM 

125.3. Data from both of these USGS gages indicate that, during low flow periods, the 

effects of peaking releases from Harris dam govern the flow regime at the locations of the 

gages (figure 3-3). The Horseshoe Bend gage, which can be used to characterize flows 

immediately upstream of Lake Martin, recorded a peak instantaneous daily flow of 

132,000 cfs on May 9, 2003 (USGS, 2012). Table 3-3 shows monthly mean, maximum, 

and minimum flow statistics for this gage. 
42

Table 3-2. USGS gages on the Tallapoosa River (Source: USGS, 2012; Alabama 

Power, 2011a).

Gage Full Name

River 

Mile

River Mile 

Distance from 

Martin Dam

Helfin USGS gage no. 02412000 Tallapoosa

River near Heflin

186.8 126.2 (upstream)

Wadley USGS gage no. 02414500 Tallapoosa 

River at Wadley

125.3 64.7 (upstream)

Horseshoe 

Bend

USGS gage no. 02414715 Tallapoosa 

River near Horseshoe Bend 

95.5 34.9 (upstream)

Tallassee USGS gage no. 02418500 Tallapoosa 

River below Tallassee

47.98 12.62 (downstream)

Milstead USGS gage no. 02419500 Tallapoosa 

River at Milstead

39.8 20.8 (downstream)

Montgomery 

Water Works

USGS gage no. 02419890 Tallapoosa 

River near Montgomery Water Works

12.9 47.7 (downstream)

Montgomery USGS gage no. 02419988 Alabama 

River downstream of the confluence of 

Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers

70 (downstream)

Lake Martin

Lake Martin is located on the Tallapoosa River from about RM 60 to 92. 

Although the primary purpose of Martin dam is hydropower generation, it is also used for 

limited seasonal flood control; recreation, municipal and industrial water supply; aquatic 

flow maintenance; and navigation flow support. Lake Martin has a surface area of 

40,000 acres at a normal full pool elevation of 491 feet and a shoreline of about 880 

miles. It receives inflows from the Tallapoosa River, representing 2,131 square miles of 

drainage, and local inflows from an additional 853 square miles of tributaries that flow 

directly into the lake. The gross storage capacity of Lake Martin at maximum pool 

(elevation 491 feet) is 1.6 million acre-feet. Active storage in the available 45.5-foot 

drawdown is 1.2 million acre-feet (minimum elevation of 445.5 feet). According to 

Alabama Power, spill over the dam occurred less than 1 percent of the time during the 

period from 1940 to 2007. 
43

Alabama Power manages the water level of Lake Martin, with an operating curve 

at elevation 490 feet from May 1 to September 1, decreasing to a low at elevation 477 

feet on January 1 (see figure 2-1). Figure 3-5 shows historical reservoir levels for 1990 

to 2011, along with the existing guide curves for Lake Martin. This figure shows that 

lake levels have generally been between the operating curve and the flood curve, except 

in the late fall to early spring period when lake levels have often exceeded the flood curve 

in response to high inflows, but have not exceeded elevation 491 feet. The average 

elevation closely matches the flood curve from late fall to spring, but then closely 

matches the operating curve from spring into the fall. Lake levels were reported to be 

below the drought curve only during the latter half of 2007 and the early part of 2008. 

Outflows from Martin dam are discharged directly to the Yates reservoir. Figure 

3-6 shows historic reservoir levels at Martin, Yates, and Thurlow and discharges from 

Martin. Discharges from Martin dam are shown to generally remain between 100 cfs and 

10,000 cfs, although higher and lower flows are not uncommon. Lake Martin elevations 

(the top line on figure 3-6) vary more than those of the Yates and Thurlow reservoirs, 

reflecting the seasonal drawdown at Martin and run-of-river operations at Yates and 

Thurlow. 

Table 3-3. Monthly flow data for USGS gage no. 02414715 Horseshoe Bend, 

characterizing flows immediately upstream of Lake Martin (Source: 

Alabama Power, 2011a).

Month

Mean 

Discharge (cfs)

Maximum 

Discharge (cfs)

Minimum 

Discharge (cfs)

January 3,980 8,191 550

February 5,160 12,880 2,270

March 6,090 16,230 1,785

April 3,500 7,210 800

May 3,130 16,870 549

June 2,420 6,704 545

July 2,480 8,755 600

August 1,620 3,886 427

September 1,440 3,636 377

October 1,610 7,270 266

November 2,630 7,601 216

December 2,970 7,959 349

Note: The period of record is 1985 to 2009.
44

Figure 3-4. Low flow regime graphic for Tallapoosa River at the Horseshoe Bend and 

Wadley USGS gages, located upstream of Lake Martin (Source: USGS, 

2012, as modified by staff).

Flooding has occasionally occurred downstream of Martin dam, including in 1979, 

1990, 2003, 2009, and 2010. Based on data from Alabama Power, the maximum 1-day 

outflow from Martin dam was 105,884 cfs on March 17, 1990. Table 3-4 shows 

calculated flood frequency flows for unimpaired conditions at Martin dam,

34 and actual 

flood flow data at Martin dam and downstream at the Tallassee gage. This table shows 

that Martin dam has been operating in a manner that has decreased the flood flows to 

rates lower than the unimpaired conditions. The table also demonstrates that flood flows 

even a short distance downstream at the Tallassee USGS gage are influenced by tributary 

inflow. 

 

34 Unimpaired conditions means conditions without the dams in place, and no 

influence of storage and flow regulation.
45

Figure 3-5. Historical reservoir levels from Lake Martin reservoir for 1990 to 2011

(Source: Alabama Power, 2011a, as modified by staff).
46

Table 3-4. Calculated flood frequency flows (in cfs) for Martin dam and historical 

flood flows (in cfs) at Martin dam and the Tallassee gage located 12 miles 

downstream of Martin dam (Source: Alabama Power, 2010f; Alabama 

Power, 2011a; USGS, 2012).

Calculated Unimpaired Flows at Martin Dam

Avg. 

Flow 2-Year 5-Year

10-

Year 50-Year

100-

Year 500-year

April 

1979

March 

1990

1-day 48,000 72,000 87,000 118,000 130,000 156,000 114,551 125,019

3-days NA NA 66,400 91,400 102,000 125,000 92,446 103,610

5-days NA NA 51,800 71,700 80,100 99,600 68,262 78,483

Historical Recorded Flows from Martin Dam

Avg. 

Flow March 1990 May 2003

July 

2003

1-day 105,884 96,035 59,038

3-days 75,665 66,522 47,945

5-days 59,141 47,236 36,200

Historical Recorded Flows from the Tallassee Gage downstream of Martin Dam

Average 

Flow April 1979 March 1990 May 2003

July 

2003

1-day 110,000 125,000 94,000 68,900

3-days 76,433 85,667 62,967 51,133

5-days 59,240 66,940 45,800 39,580
47

Figure 3-6. Historical reservoir levels for Martin, Yates, and Thurlow, and releases 

from Lake Martin reservoir for 1990 to 2011 (Source: Alabama Power, 

2011b, as modified by staff).

Flows Downstream of Thurlow

The Martin Dam Project operates in a peaking mode as described in section 2.1.3, 

Existing Project Operation, but with the objective of maintaining a 1,200-cfs minimum 

flow from Thurlow dam. The normal operational flows below Thurlow dam range from 

about 1,200 to 17,900 cfs. River flows below Thurlow dam are measured at the Tallassee 

USGS gage no. 02418500 on the Tallapoosa River below Tallassee, located at RM 47.98 

about 2 miles downstream from Thurlow dam (table 3-5). These monthly flow data show 

flows lower than the 1,200-cfs minimum flow from Thurlow dam, because Alabama 

Power is allowed to reduce the minimum flow under drought conditions, as described in 

section 2.1.3.
48

Table 3-5. Monthly flow statistics downstream of Thurlow dam at the Tallassee USGS 

gage no. 02418500, Tallapoosa River, below Tallassee, Alabama, 1992 to 

2011 (Source: USGS, 2012).

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Mean 3,370 4,965 5,726 5,401 5,594 6,274 4,042 3,806 3,187 3,449 2,570 2,583

Median 2,380 4,055 4,935 4,430 4,085 4,165 2,560 2,240 2,115 1,995 1,980 2,055

Max. 36,200 23,400 19,000 18,300 25,600 40,800 51,200 94,000 26,100 68,900 11,400 18,300

Min. 80 356 368 365 387 390 241 281 810 536 175 448

10% 

Exceed.

5,762 10,610 11,910 10,910 12,100 13,910 8,691 6,974 6,501 6,613 5,180 4,265

90% 

Exceed.

1,300 1,310 1,370 1,320 833 703 653 1,270 1,270 1,270 879 1,190

Note: Data shown in this table are for 1992 to 2011. The drainage area at this gage is 

3,328 square miles.

Lower Tallapoosa River 

The reach of river below Thurlow dam (the lowermost dam on the lower 

Tallapoosa River) has widening floodplains and much flatter slopes as compared to the 

reach above Lake Martin. There are recent records for two USGS gage sites in this reach 

in addition to the Tallassee gage: 

• USGS gage no. 02419500 Tallapoosa River at Milstead at RM 39.8; and

• USGS gage no. 02419890 Tallapoosa River near the Montgomery Water Works at 

RM 12.9.

The Tallapoosa and Coosa Rivers merge near Montgomery to form the Alabama 

River. At this location, 68 percent (about 10,161 square miles) of the drainage area is 

from the Coosa River and the remainder, about 4,675 square miles, is from the 

Tallapoosa River. Flows from the Coosa River enter the Alabama River from Alabama 

Power’s Coosa River Project. Alabama Power supplies water for navigation on the 

Alabama River from the projects on both the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers. 

Downstream of the confluence of the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers on the 

Alabama River, the Corps operates the Robert F. Henry lock and dam, Millers Ferry lock 

and dam, and the Claiborne lock and dam. Two are operated for navigation purposes, 

hydropower, and recreation, and one is operated for navigation purposes and recreation 

(see figure 3-3). These three facilities have small day-to-day water level fluctuations 

along their long and narrow impoundments. The Robert F. Henry lock and dam, which 
49

has an 82-MW hydropower generation facility, is located about 77 river miles 

downstream of Jordan dam and normally controls the water level upstream to the 

tailwater area downstream of Jordan dam. Millers Ferry lock and dam, which has a 90-

MW hydropower generation facility, is located about 103 river miles downstream of the 

Robert F. Henry lock and dam. Claiborne lock and dam has no hydropower facility, is 

located about 60 miles downstream of Millers Ferry lock and dam, and about 118 miles 

upstream from Mobile Bay, which receives flow from the Alabama and Tombigbee 

Rivers. The Tombigbee River joins the Alabama River about 72 river miles downstream 

of Claiborne lock and dam.

Water Use

Under the current license, Alabama Power has given approval for reservoir 

withdrawals totaling about 36 million gallons per day (mgd) (Alabama Power, 2010c). 

On average about half of that, or 18 mgd, is withdrawn from Lake Martin (table 3-6).

Table 3-6. Approved water withdrawals from Lake Martin, Tallapoosa River (Source: 

Alabama Power, 2010c).

Owner Facility Name Source

Average Daily 

Withdrawal 

(mgd)

Alabama 

Power Permit 

(mgd)

Russell Lands, 

Inc. 

Willow Point Golf 

& Country Club 

Lake 

Martin

0.85 <1

City of 

Alexander City 

Adams Water 

Treatment Plant 

Lake 

Martin

10.6 24

Central Elmore 

Water and 

Sewer 

Authority 

Central Elmore 

Water and Sewer 

Authority Water 

Treatment Plant 

Lake 

Martin

6.7 10

Still Waters 

Resort 

Beaver Lake 

Replenishment 

Pump Station 

Lake 

Martin

<0.1 <1

Water Quality

Alabama DEM classified Lake Martin as either mesotrophic or oligotrophic, 

meaning that nutrient levels and primary productivity are relatively low, based on longterm monitoring of the lake. Alabama DEM also classified the entire extent of Lake 

Martin as supporting both the swimming, and fish and wildlife classifications. The upper 

section of Lake Martin (upstream of U.S. Highway 280) also is classified as public water 

supply. The tailrace also was classified as public water supply, swimming, and fish and 

wildlife. All areas in Lake Martin currently meet their use classifications (table 3-7), and 

Alabama DEM did not include Lake Martin or any of the waters of the sub-basin in its
50

2010 303(d) list as impaired (EPA, 2008). The Tallapoosa River between Yates dam and

Martin dam is listed under Category 2B, which indicates that although available data do 

not satisfy minimum data requirements, there is low potential for use impairment based 

on the limited data.

Table 3-7. Water quality standards applicable to the Martin Dam Project (Source: 

Alabama Power, 2011a).

Variable

Standard for Fish, 

Wildlife, and Swimming

Standard for Public 

Water Supply

pH Between 6.5 and 8.5 Between 6.0 and 8.5 

Dissolved oxygen (DO) Not less than 5.0 

milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

at a depth of 5 feet. Not 

less than 4.0 mg/L for 

hydroelectric turbine 

discharges. 

Not less than 5.0 mg/L at a 

depth of 5 feet. Not less 

than 4.0 mg/L for 

hydroelectric turbine 

discharges. 

Water temperature Not greater than 90oF 

(32.2 degrees Celsius [oC]) 

Not greater than 90oF 

Turbidity Not greater than 50 

nephelometric turbidity 

units (NTUs)

Not greater than 50 NTUs 

Bacteria Not more than 1,000 

colonies/100 milliliters 

(ml) (for fish & wildlife) 

or 200 colonies/100 ml 

(for swimming) 

Not more than 1,000 

colonies/100 ml 

Chlorophyll-a Not greater than 5 

micrograms per liter 

(ug/L) 

Not greater than 5 ug/L 

Lake Martin thermally stratifies in the spring, creating a surface layer of wellmixed, warm, higher DO water (the epilimnion) and a bottom layer of colder, denser, 

lower DO water (the hypolimnion). Separating the two layers is a zone called the 

metalimnion or thermocline, where water temperature decreases rapidly with depth. 

Lake Martin typically stratifies in April or May, and turns over (loses its stratification) in 

the fall, usually in late October or November.

Alabama Power’s existing water quality monitoring program has included 

chemical analyses of water samples (about 50 parameters) collected at the 5-foot depth at 
51

seven sites: in the Martin forebay and tailrace areas as well as at locations of 4, 12, 16, 

20, and 24 miles upstream of the dam. Key parameters monitored in this program from 

1993 until 2009 include DO, temperature, biochemical oxygen demand, pH, turbidity, 

nitrogen,

35 total phosphorus, orthophosphate, and various metals. In general, all 

parameters monitored were normally in compliance with the state of Alabama standards. 

In a data set from the Lake Martin forebay:

• temperatures ranged from 10.5°C to 31.6°C; and

• DO levels ranged between 3.836 and 10.7 mg/L with an average of 7.83 mg/L at all 

seven sites.

Alabama DEM and the Montgomery Water Works and Sanitary Board have also 

collected extensive water quality data throughout the Tallapoosa drainage basin including 

the project area. Both sets of data as summarized in the final license application 

indicated generally acceptable water quality in the project area. Data collected by 

Alabama DEM between 1994 and 2005 from Lake Martin, indicated maximum coliform 

levels of 33 colonies per 100 ml, substantially below the standards shown in table 3-7. 

Based on data collected by Alabama DEM in the same time period in Lake Martin, 

chlorophyll a averaged 8.52 ug/L, and had a maximum of 98.41 ug/L, both above the 

5.0 ug/L standard shown in table 3-7. 

Nutrient data for Lake Martin collected by the Lake Watch of Lake Martin 

indicated that nutrient levels in Lake Martin have been increasing over time. As part of 

the preparation of the license application, Alabama Power conducted a nutrient study 

during 2009 and 2010. As a part of this study, nutrient and basic water quality data were 

collected monthly at 16 sites from April to October 2009 and at 8 stations during the 

winter months from November 2009 to March 2010. During April to October, the 

average chlorophyll a value of the 16 sites was about 4.8 ug/L with a maximum of 31 

ug/L measured at the upper end of Lake Martin. 

As described earlier, the flow in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow 

dam fluctuates based on generation flows at the Martin Dam Project, with only a small 

effect caused by the limited storage capacity at the Yates and Thurlow developments. 

Alabama Power conducted extensive temperature and DO monitoring of the tailrace 

between June 1 and October 31 from 2002 through 2009. This monitoring included 

tailrace readings every 30 minutes in the 2002 to 2005 period and every hour in 2006 to 

2009. The DO and temperature data are summarized in table 3-8. The data show that the 

water quality of the discharge from Lake Martin generally met or exceeded the minimum 

state water quality standard for DO of 4.0 mg/L for hydropower discharges. 

 

35 Nitrogen ammonia, nitrogen nitrate, nitrogen nitrite, and nitrogen total kjeldahl.

36 The second lowest reading was 5.3 mg/L.
52

Table 3-8. Summary of the Martin dam tailrace sampling data (Source: Alabama 

Power, 2011a).

Temperature (°C) DO (mg/L)

2002-

2005 2006-2009 2002-2005 2006-2009

Minimum 12.06 12.7 3.46 4.17

Maximum 25.44 31.1 9.78 9.54

Average 19.11 18.05 5.91 5.72

Number of Measurements 7795 2529 7795 2529

Percent of Time > 4 mg/L - - 99.9 100

In the 2002 to 2005 time period, there were only two events recorded with DO 

below 4.0 mg/L and Alabama Power provided these explanations:

• on October 28, 2002, when Unit 4 experienced a scheduled outage to dry out the 

generator, resulting in a temporary shutdown of the turbine aeration system, the 

deviation from the state standard lasted 2.5 hours; and 

• on July 8, 2005, when the DO dropped below 4.0 mg/L during a flood event and 

the high water level in the tailrace resulted in the DO monitor measuring DO 

levels not representative of discharges from the powerhouse (manual DO readings 

downstream of the dam during the event verified that DO levels exceeded 4.0 

mg/L in project releases). 

Alabama Power continues to collect hourly DO and temperature values in the 

tailrace during generation from June 1 through October 31 of each year as part of its 

long-term monitoring program required by its existing FERC license.

Fishery Resources

Lake Martin has clear, low productivity waters with generally good water quality. 

Because of the depth (maximum depth of 155 feet) and relatively long water retention 

time of the reservoir,37 thermal and chemical stratification occur annually. The extensive 

shoreline littoral zone and multiple tributaries provide excellent habitat for warmwater 

centrarchid species (sunfish and basses). The deeper open water areas of the reservoir 

 

37 The retention time, or average amount of time for water that has flowed into the 

reservoir to flow out, estimated to be about 194 days (Alabama Power, 2011a).
53

also provide excellent habitat for open water (pelagic) species such as striped bass, and 

threadfin and gizzard shad.

Although Lake Martin has relatively low fertility (i.e., low levels of nutrients), the 

fishery resources are healthy and extremely popular with anglers. At least 75 species 

have been reported in the project vicinity (Alabama Power, 2011a). Predominant 

recreational fish species include spotted and largemouth bass, striped bass, white bass, 

black crappie, and bluegill. Although spotted bass exhibit good production and survival, 

they grow more slowly, because of the lower fertility of the lake. Populations of black 

crappie, bluegill, and white bass remain healthy. Gizzard and threadfin shad provide the 

forage base for the fishery. There are currently no fish consumption advisories for Lake 

Martin or the area immediately downstream of the dam (Yates reservoir). Thurlow 

reservoir has an advisory for largemouth bass for mercury, and the lower Tallapoosa has 

an advisory for spotted bass, also for mercury (ADPH, 2011).38

Lake Martin supports a striped bass population, which Alabama DCNR 

supplements by stocking. Stocking has occurred annually using Gulf-strain striped bass. 

Though the fishery is generally stable, the population is under some stress. High water 

temperatures and low DO during the summer months have been reported to result in 

periodic deaths of adult striped bass. Radiotelemetry studies have shown that striped bass 

move to different parts of the lake, likely trying to find water with suitable temperatures 

and DO levels. 

Studies have been conducted to determine the amount of total striped bass habitat 

(area where the water temperature is less than 25°C and the DO concentration is greater 

than 1.6 mg/L) and quality striped bass habitat (area the water temperature is less than 

21°C and the DO concentration is greater than 3.2 mg/L) (Sammons, 2011). In 2009 and 

2010, striped bass habitat generally decreased from spring into late-summer, and 

gradually increased in the fall as water temperatures cooled. 

Alabama Power conducted an entrainment study to estimate the numbers of fish 

that may be entrained and killed during passage through the Martin dam powerhouse, 

emphasizing effects on striped bass and largemouth bass. This study was a combination 

of a desktop assessment and field hydroacoustic data collections. The study produced the 

following key results:

• entrainment estimates range up to 6.5 million fish annually;

• most entrainment occurs during the winter months;

• clupeids (threadfin and gizzard shad) compose the majority of fish entrained; most 

fish entrained were less than 4 inches in length; and

 

38 The advisory recommends no consumption for women of child-bearing age and 

for small children, and no more than one meal per month for all others.
54

• the number of larger game species, such as striped bass and largemouth bass,

entrained is small.

Releases from the project are relatively cool (bottom or hypolimnetic discharge) 

and infertile. The discharge flows directly into the Yates development reservoir. The 

Thurlow development is immediately downstream of the Yates development. Alabama 

Power conducted periodic fisheries monitoring from 1993 to 2009 as part of the Yates 

and Thurlow license requirements. The species composition downstream of Thurlow 

dam is similar to Lake Martin and includes spotted and largemouth bass, striped bass, 

white bass, black crappie, bluegill, red-ear sunfish, channel catfish, and yellow perch. 

Surveys found a total of 66 species, indicating a diverse riverine fishery. Species of 

particular interest that were collected only downstream of Thurlow include the 

paddlefish, a species of concern for Alabama DCNR, and the American eel. 

Paddlefish spawn in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow dam during 

March and April. Upstream spawning movements are believed to be linked to an 

increase in water temperature. Spawning is likely triggered by higher flow events. 

Hubert et al. (1984) state that spawning occurs at water temperatures greater than 10°C 

(50°F) and that a rapid increase in river discharge, resulting in an increase in the river 

elevation by “several meters,” is the trigger for spawning. The habitat suitability index 

(HSI) curves presented by Hubert et al. (1984) assign a rise in river stage of 3 meters 

(about 9.8 feet) and higher, above the average mid-winter flow level, a suitability index 

of 1.0 (meaning the highest suitability). They assign a river stage increase of 1.5 meters 

(about 5 feet) a suitability index of 0.5 (meaning moderate suitability). The HSI curves 

also indicate that higher river stages need to exist for 10 days, to allow for successful egg 

incubation and hatching. Paddlefish eggs are adhesive to the river substrate and would be 

dewatered and killed if river flow decreased soon after spawning. Alabama Power 

(2011a) identifies that an increase in river flow to 6,000 cfs as a key factor in triggering 

paddlefish spawning events in the Tallapoosa River. A review of hydropower 

operational records found that outflows from Thurlow dam commonly meet this 6,000-

cfs threshold during the spring spawning period. Flows from Thurlow dam during 1992-

2007 (including drought years), reached or exceeded 6,000 cfs a total of 19 days during

the months of March and April. In addition, pulsing of flows, related to peaking 

operations, well above 6,000 cfs occurred on a regular basis during the same time period. 

While the paddlefish completes its lifecycle within the freshwater system,

catadromous species, like the American eel, live most of their lives in freshwater 

environments and, upon reaching sexual maturity, migrate to the ocean to spawn. The 

juvenile offspring migrate to the estuaries and mouths of rivers and move upstream to 

freshwater habitat to live until adulthood. American eels were collected downstream of 

Thurlow dam, but not immediately downstream of the project. It appears that their 

upstream migration is blocked by the downstream dams.

Anadromous species migrate from the ocean into freshwater habitat to spawn. 

Historically, there were several species that migrated from the Gulf of Mexico to inland 
55

Alabama rivers (including the Tallapoosa River) to spawn. Striped bass are anadromous 

by nature, but the striped bass above Thurlow are not able to move in and out of the 

ocean, because of the dams. No other anadromous species currently occur in the 

Tallapoosa River immediately downstream of the Martin Dam Project. Again, upstream 

passage on the Tallapoosa River is blocked by the downstream Yates and Thurlow dams, 

as well as the three Corps dams on the Alabama River. However, some upstream fish 

passage may occur at the Corps dams via the navigation locks. Two anadromous species, 

the Alabama shad and striped bass, are thought to occur downstream of Thurlow dam. 

The Alabama shad, however, was not found by Alabama Power during sampling 

conducted as part of the Thurlow license requirements. Striped bass have been collected 

downstream of Thurlow dam, but these fish could be fish that had dropped down from 

Lake Martin, and may not have been upstream migrants from the Gulf.

The lipstick darter was found in tributaries to Lake Martin, including Kowalgia, 

Timbergut, and Hillabee Creeks. Alabama Power also reports the lipstick darter as being 

observed in unspecified tributaries to the Tallapoosa River below Thurlow dam. The 

lipstick darter is an insectivorous riffle fish of small to moderate streams. It is endemic to 

the Tallapoosa River and listed as endangered by the State of Alabama. Alabama Power 

mollusk surveys from 2006 to 2010 found several species of the mostly commonly

occurring freshwater mussels and snails in Lake Martin, its tributaries, and downstream 

of Thurlow dam. Six native mussel species were collected in Lake Martin and its 

tributaries, including the: little spectaclecase, flat floater, giant floater, yellow sandshell, 

paper pondshell, and fragile paper shell. The non-native Asiatic clam was also 

commonly collected in Lake Martin. Diversity was somewhat greater downstream of 

Thurlow dam, with the collection of live, dead, or empty shells of nine unionid mussel 

species, including the: Alabama orb, southern pocketbook, Alabama heelsplitter, 

threehorn wartyback, bleufer, pistolgrip, yellow sandshell, fragile papershell, and giant 

floater. Five snail species were collected in Lake Martin or in the Martin dam tailrace

including the: yellow elimia, cylinder campeloma, marsh rams-horn, two-ridge ramshorn, and unidentified species of the genus Physella. Previous sampling downstream of 

Thurlow dam during minimum flow studies found the Tallapoosa pebblesnail about 

0.5 miles downstream of the dam. The Tallapoosa pebblesnail is a species of moderate 

conservation concern in Alabama, but it is not federally listed.

Aquatic Vegetation 

The following species are known to occur in the Tallapoosa basin and pose a 

concern for expansion into Lake Martin: hydrilla, Eurasian milfoil, milfoil, naiads, 

creeping water primrose, alligator weed, coontail, pondweeds, Canadian elodea, fanwort, 

and bladderwort. 

Alabama Power identified 20 sites, totaling 858 acres, where potential changes in 

operations could affect aquatic vegetation. Because these areas are generally shallower 

than 6 feet deep, they are completely dewatered and exposed during the current winter 

drawdown conditions. The current rule curve has annually exposed the shorelines to 
56

freezing temperatures as well as soil drying and compaction, which helped to minimize or 

eliminate aquatic vegetation growth along the exposed shorelines. The proposed higher 

water levels during the winter could increase the ability of shoreline vegetation to survive 

the winter months. In addition, the water table will remain higher reducing the total area 

of soils exposed to compaction and desiccation. 

3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects

Water Quantity

Effects of Increased Winter Pool Elevation on Upstream and Downstream 

Flooding

Water levels of Lake Martin affect a wide range of aquatic and recreational 

resources and have the ability to partially control high flow events on the Tallapoosa 

River. Flood storage within the reservoir, and adjusting project releases, prevents 

flooding around the reservoir and helps to limit the effects of flooding downstream of the 

dam along the Tallapoosa River. Alabama Power proposes to change the regulation of 

Lake Martin by raising the winter flood curve by 3 feet beginning in mid-November 

through mid-February, as described in greater detail in section 2.2.2, Proposed Project 

Operation, and as shown in figure 2-2. 

Lake Martin RA recommends a 4-foot increase in the winter lake level because of 

potential economic benefits associated with increased use of the lake for recreation 

during the winter. Lake Martin RA believes that there would not be a substantial increase 

in downstream flooding. Lake Martin Home Owners & Boat Owners Association (Lake 

Martin HOBO) recommended a 5-foot increase in the winter lake level.

The Downstream Landowners assert that Alabama Power studies have been 

inadequate in evaluating and addressing flood damage that may occur to downstream 

property, lands, farms, timber, historical Indian artifacts, and wildlife. Specifically, they 

express concern regarding flood damage to their lands near or adjacent to the Tallapoosa

River because of mismanagement of releases from the Martin dam. They mentioned two 

floods (both smaller than the 100-year flood) in 2003, which they claim caused about 

$2.1 million in damages to crops and production losses. The Downstream Landowners 

are concerned that a higher winter reservoir level would limit the seasonal flood control 

capacity of the Martin Dam Project and increase the flooding downstream along the 

Tallapoosa River.

The Atlanta Regional Commission expresses concern that the proposed flood

curve changes at Lake Martin would increase the reliance on Lake Altoona for flood 

control in the basin and therefore affect its water supply capability. They assert that the 

cumulative effects of the projects in the Alabama, Coosa, and Tallapoosa River Basins 

have not been adequately considered and that that the supply capability of Lake 

Allatoona may be adversely affected. Georgia Environmental Protection Division 
57

(Georgia EPD) raises similar concerns and makes several criticisms of Alabama Power’s 

modeling analyses. Georgia EPD states that there was a lack of computer modeling of:

• current operations to be used as the baseline for the analysis of proposed 

operations;

• proposed drought operations or changes to the flood control operations; and

• the combined effects of its operation on the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers. 

Our Analysis

As part of the license application development process, Alabama Power conducted 

modeling studies of the upstream river reaches, Lake Martin reservoir, and downstream 

river reaches and reservoirs to assess the short-term and long-term effects on potential 

flooding that would result from a range of proposed reservoir level alternatives. This 

modeling approach (discussed below) provided an initial assessment of potential effects

from raising the winter pool elevation. Based on potential flooding concerns we 

identified in the Draft EIS, Alabama Power conducted additional, more refined modeling 

analysis, which is discussed later.

Alabama Power’s general modeling approach was to use the Corps software

program HEC-RAS to evaluate river reaches, the Alabama Power Project Routing Model 

(described below) to evaluate the Lake Martin reservoir, and the HEC-ResSim model to 

analyze daily normal operations during non-flood conditions. Models were calibrated 

and verified using historical flow hydrograph and stage data, and flood effects were 

simulated using a 100-year design flood. The results of these pre-filing studies are 

discussed immediately below.

For the flood modeling related to areas upstream of the Martin Dam pool a HECRAS unsteady-state flow model was developed for the reach extending from the toe of 

Harris dam to the upstream face of Martin dam. The model was calibrated using a May 

2003 flood event and verified using a March 1990 flood that approximated a 100-year 

return event. Effects in Lake Martin that would result from the proposed higher winter 

pool were evaluated using a design flood and the Alabama Power Project Routing Model. 

These effects were then evaluated using the upstream HEC-RAS model. The results 

indicate that the increased water level in Lake Martin would result in an upstream effect 

that would decline from about a 0.5-foot increase in flood level immediately upstream of 

Lake Martin to less than a 0.3-foot increase about 30 miles upstream of Lake Martin, to a 

negligible increase at about 70 miles upstream of the lake near the tailwaters of Harris 

dam (see figures 3-7 and 3-8).
58

Figure 3-7. Design flood profiles upstream of Martin dam to Harris dam at alternative 

winter pool elevations (Source: Alabama Power, 2010f).

Figure 3-8. Computed increase in 100-year flood levels due to proposed change in 

flood control curve (3-foot increase in Lake Martin winter pool) (Source: 

Alabama Power, 2010f, as modified by staff). 
59

Figure 3-9. Lake Martin 100-year flood elevations under different winter pool 

elevations (Source: Alabama Power, 2010f, as modified by staff). 

Flood modeling within the Lake Martin pool was conducted by routing the 100-

year design flood using the Alabama Power Project Routing Model, a spreadsheet based 

model. This model was calibrated to the March 1990 flood event and then used to predict 

the reservoir flood levels that could occur as a result of the proposed flood control 

guideline. The flood elevations estimated for the impoundment influenced both the 

upstream and downstream flood models.

Lake Martin flood modeling results, shown in figure 3-9 for six different winter 

pool elevations, indicated that there would be about a 0.5-foot increase in the peak 100-

year flood elevations by increasing the winter pool from elevation 481 feet to elevation 

484 feet, but they would not rise above the 491-foot flood control curve. Similar results 

would occur with a winter pool elevation of 485 feet. The model also showed that the 

discharge hydrograph from Lake Martin would have an increased peak and greater 

volume of flow as a result of the proposed flood control curve, which we discuss below 

under the effects on downstream flooding.
60

From a location starting about 1.6 miles downstream of Thurlow dam,39 Alabama 

Power used a HEC-RAS model to simulate the downstream flood effects that would

result from the proposed higher flood curves,

40 under the conditions of the 100-year 

design flood. Downstream flood level increases were computed to be between 0.75 and 

2.3 feet resulting from a 3-foot increase in the winter pool, as measured at cross sections 

of the HEC-RAS model, with greater increases in the upper section of the river. Table 3-

9 shows the estimated changes in elevation at three downstream gages. The modelling 

estimate that the 3-foot-higher winter pool proposed by Alabama Power could result in 

flood levels slightly below the Southeast River Forecast Center’s (SERFC) moderate 

flood stage at the Milstead gage (199.6 feet vs. 200 feet). However, farther downstream 

at the Montgomery Water Works gage, the 3-foot higher winter pool elevation could 

result in a flood level that is 0.1-foot below the major flood stage. Under existing 

conditions, the 100-year flood was modeled to be well within the moderate flood stage at 

Montgomery Water Works. Table 3-9 also shows resulting flood levels modelled for a 5-

foot-higher Lake Martin winter pool, which could rise to 0.7 to 1.1 feet higher than levels 

associated with the 3-foot-higher winter pool, placing the flood into the major flood stage 

category at Montgomery Water Works. 

 

39 Alabama Power did not conduct flood modeling in the first 12 river miles 

downstream of Martin dam because this reach is impounded by the Yates and Thurlow 

developments and because the developments provide little attenuation of flood flows. 

40 Alabama Power calibrated and verified the model to the 2003 and 2009 flood 

events to observed stage values, but had difficulty in matching the corresponding gage 

flow values. Reportedly this was due to the dynamic effects computed by the unsteadystate flow HEC-RAS simulation, compared to the static relationship between stage and 

flow assumed by USGS at the gaging stations used for model calibration and verification. 

According to Alabama Power, USGS and Alabama Power agreed that the more important 

parameter for flood modeling was stage rather than flow. Subsequent analysis of 

downstream effects by Alabama Power focused on flood levels and not flows. We agree 

that calibrating to stage is more important than flow due to the effects on flood levels 

downstream of the project. However, the lack of calibration requires broad interpretation 

of the model results.
61

Table 3-9. Initial modeled downstream flood levels at USGS gage sites, as a result of the increase in the Lake Martin 

winter pool elevation (Source: Alabama Power, 2010f).

Computed 

Existing 100-

year Flood 

Elevation –

481 feet msl 

Winter Pool

Computed 

100-year 

Flood 

Elevation –

Proposed 484 

feet msl 

Winter Pool

Increase in 

Computed 

Flood Level 

for 3-foot 

increase in 

Winter Pool

(feet)

Increase in 

Computed 

Flood Level for 

5-foot increase 

in Winter Pool

(feet)

SERFC 

Low

Flood 

Stage 

(feet msl)

SERFC 

Moderate 

Flood Stage 

(feet msl)

SERFC 

Major Flood 

Stage (feet 

msl)

Tallassee Gage 

(12.6 miles 

downstream of 

Martin dam)

204.8 207.1 2.3 3.1

Milstead Gage 

(20.8 miles 

downstream)

198 199.6 1.6 2.3 194 200 207

Montgomery 

Water Works 

Gage (47.7 miles 

downstream) 

165.4 166.9 1.5 2.6 154 161 167

Note: SERFC - Southeast River Forecast Center
62

Using LIDAR and aerial photography, Alabama Power created topographical and 

land use maps of downstream areas that could be affected by flooding both in existing 

and proposed conditions based upon the initial HEC-RAS model predictions. These 

maps were used to identify land area and structures that are currently affected by flooding 

and could be affected by proposed higher winter lake levels. Figure 3-10 shows an 

example map for a location about 4 miles upstream from the Montgomery Water Works 

gage. The shading that makes up a small portion of the figure shows additional areas that 

could be affected by increased flooding. 

Figure 3-10. Flooding inundation map near RM 17 (Source: Alabama Power, 2010f). 
63

Table 3-10 shows estimates of the currently affected area and the area that could 

be affected by different initial modeling scenarios. The proposed winter pool elevation of 

484 feet could flood an additional 2,119 acres (3.31 square miles) of land, including: 

• 2,041 acres of agricultural land;

• 30 acres of industrial land;

• 23 acres of commercial land; and

• 23 acres of residential land. 

Table 3-10. Downstream acres of land potentially affected by flooding associated with 

alternative winter pool levels, at the 100-year flood level (Source: Alabama 

Power, 2010f).

Model 

Scenario 

(Winter Pool 

elev. feet msl)

Inundated 

Area (acres)

Inundated Area (acres) by Land Use Category

Agricultural Industrial Commercial Residential

481 (existing) 19,924 17,733 448 385 23

482 20,256 18,063 449 385 23

483 20,568 18,354 459 393 25

484 (Alabama 

Power) 22,043 19,774 478 408 46

485 (Lake 

Martin RA) 22,500 20,097 491 496 79

486 (Lake 

Martin HOBO) 23,277 20,752 581 513 94

489 24,353 21,499 607 560 1,230

Table 3-11 shows estimates of the currently affected structures and the number of 

additional structures that could be affected by different initial modeling scenarios. 

Additional flooding from the higher winter lake level proposed by Alabama Power could 

affect an additional 10 commercial structures and 13 residential structures. At winter 

lake levels recommended previously by Lake Martin HOBO, additional affected 

structures include one industrial structure, 13 commercial structures, and 19 residential 

structures as compared to existing conditions. 
64

Table 3-11. Number of downstream structures potentially affected by flooding 

associated with alternative winter pool levels, at the 100-year flood level

based on initial modeling (Source: Alabama Power, 2010f).

Inundated Structures by Land Use Category

Model Scenario (Winter 

Pool elev. feet msl)

Affected 

Structures Industrial Commercial Residential

481 (Existing) 18 3 11 4

482 18 3 11 4

483 27 3 20 4

484 (Alabama Power) 41 3 21 17

485 (Lake Martin RA) 47 4 22 21

486 (Lake Martin 

HOBO) 50 4 24 22

Our analyses, using the initial modeling files provided by Alabama Power in its 

application, indicated that increases in the downstream flood stages associated with 

changes in the winter pool elevations would be proportionately smaller with smaller flood 

events relative to the 100-year flood event. This is related to the greater influence of the 

Lake Martin storage capacity, even with higher winter water levels, and the greater effect 

of tributary inflow downstream of Martin dam. In flood events larger than the 100-year 

storm, storage effects associated with Lake Martin become less of a factor, and 

downstream flood levels are more similar to existing conditions. 

With the proposed higher Lake Martin winter elevation, in the winter months,

there would also be an increase in frequency of spillage at Martin dam (from one or more 

of the 20 spillway gates), because the project could not use its full storage volume to 

retain small magnitude flood events. Spillage of any volume, based on historical 

operations from 1940 to 2007, has occurred infrequently, about 0.85 percent of the time. 

Based on modeling conducted by Alabama Power, with a 5-foot increase in the winter 

pool, spillage would occur about 1 percent of the time. With a 3-foot increase in winter 

pool elevation, spillage would occur about 0.95 percent of the time. At higher volumes 

(above 20,000 cfs) the frequency of spillage would increase slightly from about 0.14 

percent to 0.15 percent of the time. 

In summary, these initial studies showed that an increase in the winter pool 

elevation would slightly increase spillage at Martin dam, and could increase water 

elevations at downstream locations during flood conditions. The proposed higher winter 

pool elevation would reduce the useable flood storage volume by about 94,000 acre-feet, 

or 47,500 cfs-days during the winter. Our preliminary analysis showed that, for minor 

flood events, less than the 100-year flood, the effects on downstream flooding would be 
65

small. However, flood levels during a 100-year flood event during the winter or early 

spring could be between 0.75 and about 2.3 feet higher in some downstream locations. 

Compared to existing conditions, such an increase in flood levels could affect an

additional 2,119 acres of land and 23 structures under the Alabama Power proposal, and 

an additional 4,429 acres and 32 structures under the Lake Martin HOBO

recommendation.

Alabama Power conducted additional modeling to further evaluate the potential 

downstream impacts of the proposed changes in the flood control guideline. For this

analysis, Alabama Power (1) assembled stream gage data from several historic high flow 

events, (2) simulated the routing of the water through the dam based on reservoir 

operation during the events, (3) simulated the flow releases downstream for events that 

showed possible differences in reservoir releases between reservoir elevation scenarios, 

and (4) performed a return frequency analysis using the results.41 The events analyzed 

were historical annual peak flow events, with extensive stream gage records, covering the 

period between mid-November and February. As with the initial modeling, Alabama 

Power used its reservoir simulation routing model to route the water through the dam. 

The reservoir routing was performed for the operational scenarios assuming that the 

winter pool was at elevation 481 feet (existing) and again assuming an elevation of 484 

feet (proposed). The results of the two simulations were compared. If the results of the 

routing model differed, a HEC-RAS simulation of the downstream flows and elevations 

was carried out for (1) historical releases, (2) releases based on a flat 481-foot msl pool,

and (3) releases based on a flat 484 feet msl pool. In this step, intervening flows were 

estimated from existing gage data. The results of the simulations were put into HEC-SSP 

to generate stage-frequency relationships at the Montgomery Water Works.

Of the ten events that met the minimum criteria for analysis, all but one had a 

return frequency between one and two years. The February 26, 1961 high flow event 

had a return frequency of 24.9 years. However, the reservoir inflow data needed for the 

routing model were not available for this event and therefore, the 1961 high flow event

was eliminated from the analysis.

Of the remaining nine events, two showed differences between the results of the 

routing model under the 481-foot msl and the 484-foot msl reservoir pool elevation 

scenarios. These were the high flow events of February 5, 1982 and November 27, 1992. 

For the remaining seven routed high flow events, the peak release from the dam did not 

change significantly between the two scenarios and/or the reservoir did not spill under 

either starting elevation scenario. Therefore, downstream flow simulations were

performed for the February 5, 1982 and November 27, 1992 high flow events. 

Downstream flow simulations were also performed on the February 18, 1992 high flow 

 

41 See Alabama Power’s Response to Schedule A of Additional Information 

Request for the Martin Dam Project (FERC No. 349-173), filed on July 14, 2014.
66

event because its peak flow was modest, and its duration resulted in a high, overall 

volume of water going through the system. Ultimately, the analysis considered flow 

events with a return frequency of one to two years, which were characteristics of flows in 

the area from mid-November through February, the period for which the proposed higher 

winter pool elevation would be in effect. 

The estimates of downstream flows resulting from the routing model were

combined with the intervening flows observed at existing stream flow gages on 

contributing rivers to simulate river stage downstream. The peak elevation estimate for 

the 484 feet msl scenario was 0.54 feet higher than the estimate for the 481 feet msl 

elevation scenario at the Montgomery Water Works gage. It was 5.44 feet higher at the 

Tallassee gage. However, Alabama Power observed that under all model scenarios, at 

both gages, the river water level remained within its banks. For the November 27, 1992 

event the maximum difference under the two scenarios was 0.07 feet. The February 18, 

1992 high flow event simulation indicated no increase in stage for the 484 feet msl 

scenario. Changes in the peak stage elevation at any given return frequency, when 

compared between the 481 feet msl and 484 feet msl starting elevation scenarios, were 

indistinguishable in magnitude from random error. 

The initial modeling of the change in winter pool level impacts did not consider 

the effects of the intervening downstream flows. The additional modeling was limited to 

flow events with a return frequency of one to two years, which is characteristic of flows 

in the area from mid-November through February, the period for which the proposed 

higher winter pool elevation would be in effect. 

Based on the above modeling results, Alabama Power concluded there would be 

little to no increase in peak water level elevations downstream of the project at the 

Montgomery Water Works Gage. Consequently, Alabama Power concluded that no 

additional structures or land would be affected. While Alabama Power’s initial, worstcase modeling suggested the possibility of increased flooding and potential damage to 

structures and roads, the company’s subsequent, more refined analysis indicated little 

potential for a 3-foot increase in the winter flood pool elevation to increase peak water 

elevations downstream. 

Conditional Fall Extension

During low water levels at Lake Martin, recreational activity could be affected 

adversely because of reduced access to boat ramps and greater exposure to submerged 

hazards such as rocks and tree stumps. Alabama Power proposes to evaluate the potential 

for higher lake levels from September 1 to October 15, primarily to benefit recreation and 

other uses of Lake Martin into the fall. Each September, Alabama Power would conduct 

an evaluation each day to determine the feasibility of keeping the flood curve at 491 feet 

for as long as an additional 1.5 months (September through mid-October), based on four 

hydrologic and project operational criteria as described in detail in section 2.2.2,

Proposed Project Operation.
67

Alabama Power proposes to notify Lake Martin RA and post up-to-date status 

notifications to its lakes and recreation website (https://lakes.alabamapower.com/), 

whether or not the conditional fall extension is being implemented. Alabama Power also 

proposes to abide by all downstream minimum flow commitments and other operational 

commitments. Thus, the measure is intended to be implemented only in years when there 

are adequate flows and reservoir elevations to meet such needs. 

Both Lake Martin RA and Lake Martin HOBO recommend the fall extension. 

Lake Martin RA, however, recommends that the fall extension be triggered if the Harris 

reservoir on the Tallapoosa River is within 2 feet of its rule curves, instead of 1 foot as 

proposed by Alabama Power. Lake Martin RA states that this would allow the measure 

to be implemented more frequently.

Our Analysis

Higher lake levels generally enhance recreational use and associated economic 

activity in the area. However, such levels also can decrease flood storage capacity and, 

during reservoir filling, affect the amount of flow available for downstream releases, 

including for minimum releases and power generation.

Alabama Power analyzed the ability to increase fall lake levels by reviewing

historical data on stream flows and lake levels from 1983 to 2010 (the 29 years since 

Harris dam began operating). Alabama Power then carried out HEC-ResSim modeling 

for 1940 to 2007, with the inclusion of its proposed winter lake elevation of 484 feet. 

Table 3-12 shows the percent of time that the four criteria would be met under different 

hydrologic and operational conditions. Harris reservoir stands out as a limiting factor.42 

Table 3-12. Number of years criteria were met for the conditional fall extension

(Source: Alabama Power, 2011b). 

Criteriaa

Number of years criteria met

Historical Data (1983-

2010)

Modeled Data (1940-

2007)

1 21 (72%) 59 (87%)

2 24 (83%) about 50 percent

3 25 (86%) about 50 percent

4 Harris (within 1 foot) 4 (14%) 22 (32%)

4 Weiss (within 1 foot) 21 (72%) 55 (81%)

 

42 This observation is true for both the 1-foot trigger proposed by Alabama Power 

and Lake Martin HOBO, and the 2-foot trigger proposed by Lake Martin RA.
68

Criteriaa

Number of years criteria met

Historical Data (1983-

2010)

Modeled Data (1940-

2007)

4 H. Neely Henry (within 1 

foot) 22 (76%) 65 (96%)

4 Logan Martin (within 1 foot) 21 (72%) 54 (79%)

4 Cumulatively (within 1 foot) Not Provided 22 (32%)

4 Harris (within 2 feet) 11 (38%) 58 (85%)

4 Weiss (within 2 feet) 27 (93%) 64 (94%)

4 H. Neely Henry (within 2 

feet) 27 (93%) 66 (97%)

4 Logan Martin (within 2 feet) 26 (90%) 65 (96%)

4 Cumulatively (within 2 feet) 22 (76%) 57 (84%)

1, 2, 3, and 4 (within 1 foot) 

cumulatively 4 (14%) 22 (32%)

1, 2, 3, and 4 (within 2 feet) 

cumulatively 11 (38%) 57 (84%)

a See section 2.2.2, Proposed Project Operation, for a description of the four criteria. 

While these data show that many of the reservoir level criteria may be met a 

relatively high percentage of the time, there may not always be enough inflow (criteria 2 

and 3) to ensure that the proposed fall extension can be implemented. The combined 

historical data for all criteria indicate that the fall extension could be implemented about 

14 percent of the years with the 1-foot rule curve criteria and about 38 percent of the 

years for the 2-foot rule curve requirement. Modeled data indicate the fall extension 

could occur more frequently, about 32 percent of the time for the 1-foot rule curve 

criteria, and about 84 percent of the time for the 2-foot criteria. The longer period of 

record for the modeled data that avoids over emphasis on the droughts in the late 1980s, 

2000, and 2007/2008, suggests that the modeled data percentages are more representative 

of future conditions than the observed data.

Alabama Power evaluated the effect of the conditional fall extension on 

downstream flooding based on a 100-year flood event. The probability of a 100-year 

flood event in September and October is less than 0.2 percent, thus Alabama Power 

concluded the effect on downstream flooding would be minimal. However, in the draft 

EIS we identified rapid increases in Lake Martin’s water level (a sudden 3.5-foot rise 
69

from 486 feet to 489.5 feet) in 2 years between 1990 and 2011 (see figure 3-5), which 

indicate the potential for increased downstream flooding under some conditions. 

These events occurred in October 1995 and September 2004. In its comments on 

the draft EIS, Alabama Power provided additional data to explain the rapid increases in 

Lake Martin’s water level that we identified. Alabama Power stated that (1) both events 

were the result of hurricanes; (2) the conditional fall extension would not have been in 

place for either event, because the conditions would not have been met prior to the date 

of the hurricane; (3) in the 1995 event, if the conditional fall extension had been in place,

the peak spillage would not have increased (though the period of spill would have been

extended one day); and (4) in the 2004 event, if the conditional fall extension had been in 

place, peak spillage would have increased by 3,000 cfs, a small volume of flow under 

hurricane conditions.43 Also, the late summer and early fall is the time of year of the 

lowest overall base flows. The likelihood of a significant increase in flooding caused by 

higher lake levels in the relatively low flow fall period is very small. Additional 

discussion of the potential effects of the conditional fall extension on recreation is

included in section 3.3.5, Recreation Resources and Land Use.

As noted above, applying Lake Martin RA’s proposed 2-foot criterion at Lake 

Harris would allow the fall extension to be invoked more frequently. However, it would 

also cause the extension to occur when water supply conditions in the system are likely to 

be more stressed and available flows are important for other purposes, including 

maintaining flows in the Tallapoosa River for environmental purposes and to support the 

Corps’ navigation facilities on the Alabama River. Such a decision could have a 

substantial effect on system storage and resilience to drought, negatively affect conditions 

in the Tallapoosa River and the Alabama River, and present challenges in implementing 

the ADROP.

Flood Control Gate Operations

To allow more efficient operation at the downstream Yates development of the 

Yates and Thurlow Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2407), Alabama Power proposes to 

make minor changes to flood control operations (letter from James F. Crew, Hydro 

Services Manager, Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, Alabama, to Kimberly Bose, 

Secretary, FERC, Washington, D.C., August 13, 2013). The company proposes to raise 

the minimum elevation at which they must meet or exceed the hydraulic capacity of the 

Yates development from 481 to 484 feet msl. They also propose to change the manner in 

which they operate when the reservoir elevation is above 489 feet msl. They would

continue to release water at a rate equal to or greater than the hydraulic capacity of the 

Thurlow development (13,200 cfs) during the rising limb of the stormflow curve. 

However, they propose to change the minimum release from Martin Dam during the 

 

43 See section 3.3.1.2, discussion of Erosion Downstream of the Project Boundary. 
70

falling limb of the stormflow curve from the hydraulic capacity of the Thurlow 

development (13,200 cfs) to the hydraulic capacity of the Yates development (12,400 

cfs). Alabama Power also proposes to match reservoir outflow to inflow under certain 

conditions when the hydraulic capacity of the Martin Dam turbines is exceeded. More 

detail is provided in section 2.2.2, Proposed Project Operation.

Alabama Power also proposes to add the phrase, “which would be beyond the 

control of Alabama Power,” to the condition under which gate capacity is exceeded and 

the spillway is in use. Finally, Alabama Power proposes to change the communication 

requirement from, “maintaining communications,” with the Corps during a flood to,

“sharing data.”

Our Analysis

The changes involve relatively small differences in a flood context, apply when 

the reservoir elevation is at least two feet below spillway capacity, and occur on the 

falling limb of the stormflow curve and therefore would not have any negative effect on 

flood management. 

Alabama Power provides no explanation for adding the phrase “beyond the control 

of Alabama Power” to the flood control operation description. The phrase does not 

recognize Alabama Power’s responsibilities for maintenance of the spillway. Therefore, 

there appears to be a slight loss of information and no benefit to the addition of the 

phrase.

Regarding, Alabama Power’s proposed consultation requirements with the Corps, 

“maintaining communications” includes “sharing data,” but implies the exchange of more 

nuanced information and professional judgment as well. Limiting interactions to 

“sharing data” could reduce the effectiveness real-time communication with the Corps

during flood events.

Lower Spring and Summer Lake Martin Elevations on Downstream Flooding

The Downstream Landowners requested that flood control be a higher priority at 

the Martin Dam Project. The Downstream Landowners assert that Alabama Power’s 

studies have been inadequate in evaluating and addressing downstream flooding, flood 

damage, and operation of the project for flood control. The Downstream Landowners 

identify two options which could provide flood control at Martin dam: (1) operate to preevacuate the pool when weather reports predict impending heavy rainfall events and (2) 

require flood control as a project purpose and operate with dedicated flood control 

storage on a year-round basis. 
71

Our Analysis

Alabama Power did not evaluate operating the project with dedicated storage on a 

year-round basis. Alabama Power’s studies focused only on the period in which changes 

in the flood curve were proposed (i.e., mid-November through mid-March). We 

conducted an independent analysis of the Downstream Landowners’ recommendations, 

which is presented in appendix C of this EIS. Our conclusions and recommendations on 

the Downstream Landowners’ proposals are discussed in section 5.0, Conclusions and 

Recommendations.

The Downstream Landowners recommended lower reservoir elevation for flood 

control could negatively affect operations during drought conditions because the lower 

reservoir levels would not allow Alabama Power to maintain water storage that could be 

used in a drought scenario. The Downstream Landowners’ request could trigger drought 

operations earlier and more often. As can be seen in figure 3-12, Lake Martin has 

normally reached and remained between elevations 490.0 and 491.0 feet between about 

May 1 and August 1 during most years for the 1990 to 2011 period. Lower water levels 

occurred in 2007 and to a much lesser extent during 1999 and 2000, all of which were 

periods that were defined as droughts of at least a 25-year recurrence interval. On May 1, 

2000, Lake Martin water elevations were at 490.41 feet. Had Lake Martin been 

maintained at a lower elevation of about 488.0 feet on May 1, 2000 (i.e., providing 3 feet 

of storage), with historical water releases, the reservoir would have dropped enough to 

trigger drought operations by July of that year. 

Doing so could impact Alabama Power’s ability to manage flows during droughts. 

Their key requests were for pre-evacuation (lowering the reservoir in advance of a 

forecasted storm to provide flow storage) or dedicated storage for flood control on a yearround basis. The Atlanta Regional Commission expressed concern regarding the effect 

that operational changes to Lake Martin reservoir could have on Lake Allatoona, 

specifically with respect to imposing additional burdens upon that lake as a result of a 

reduction in minimum releases from Lake Martin. The Atlanta Regional Commission 

suggested that drought operations had not been adequately considered for the CoosaTallapoosa system as a whole and this could adversely affect the primary water supply 

for more than 500,000 people who rely upon Lake Allatoona. Georgia EPD had similar 

comments, stating that it was concerned that Alabama Power’s proposed operations for 

its Martin Dam Project in combination with the Coosa River Project would require the 

Corps to release more water from the Allatoona and Carters reservoirs in the upper Coosa 

River Basin.

Lower reservoir elevations in the summer can also affect the ability of the project 

to support the minimum flow requirements at Thurlow. In Lake Martin, every foot of 

storage represents about 40,000 acre-feet or enough water to supply the Thurlow 

minimum flow of 1,200 cfs for about 17 days. Thus, a 3-foot drawdown would be 

equivalent to about 51 days of providing the 1,200 cfs minimum flow. 
72

Reservoir Levels under Drought Conditions

Alabama Power proposes raising the drought curve by 3 feet in January, February, 

and December and modifying the drought curve for the remainder of the year as shown in 

figure 2-2. Operations during drought conditions would also be affected by the proposed 

higher operating and flood curves (see figure 2-2). As discussed in section 2.1.3, 

Alabama Power applied for and was granted three temporary amendments (for 2007, 

2009, and 2011) to operate Lake Martin at a 3-foot-higher winter pool from November 20 

to January 15, with refilling of the reservoir to begin on January 15 instead of February 

17, due to drought conditions. The variances also included approval to reduce the 

minimum flow downstream of Thurlow dam to as low as 350 cfs, depending on flows in 

the downstream Alabama River. 

The Corps expressed concern regarding navigational releases for the Alabama 

River, especially during low flow and drought conditions. Interior recommended that the 

Tallapoosa River portion of the ADROP44 be used when assessing drought operations. 

Lake Martin HOBO recommends that the winter pool level should be raised by 5 

feet to elevation 486 feet to prevent the circumstances that occurred during the drought of 

2007 when the lake did not refill after the winter drawdown. Lake Martin HOBO stated 

that with a higher winter pool, it would require much less inflow to reach the normal 

summer pool elevation.

In comments on the draft EIS, Alabama Power proposes to implement the 

Tallapoosa River portion of the (ADROP). Alabama Power included, in Attachment B of 

its August 13, 2013 comment letter, a copy of ADROP, Version 3.3.3, dated July 12, 

2013. The FWS recommends implementing the Tallapoosa River portion of the ADROP. 

Our Analysis

To evaluate how project operations could be affected during droughts, we 

analyzed the drought recurrence intervals during the past 25 years in the Tallapoosa and 

Coosa river basins. We investigated the 61-year period of record for the USGS gage no. 

02412000 Tallapoosa River near Heflin, Alabama (1952 to 2012). This gage has one of 

 

44 The ADROP is Alabama Power’s draft plan to manage Alabama Power’s water 

resources within the Alabama River basin during drought conditions. The ADROP 

includes rain and stream flow indicators to determine drought conditions. When these 

indicators reach specified levels, drought response measures would be triggered resulting 

in reduced flow into the Alabama River based on drought intensity conditions within both 

the Tallapoosa and Coosa basins. When the basins are observed to be recovering from 

drought conditions, a consensus would be sought among Alabama Power and the federal 

and state agencies before a return to normal operations at Alabama Power’s projects 

located on the Tallapoosa and Coosa Rivers.
73

the largest unregulated watersheds in the Tallapoosa and Coosa river basins. We used 

Dflow3.1b,45 with data from USGS gage no. 02412000 (near Heflin, Alabama) upstream 

of both the Martin and Harris projects to produce figure 3-11. We conclude that droughts 

similar to years 1986, 1987, and 1988 would occur about once every 10 years; droughts 

similar to year 2000 would occur once every 25 to 50 years; and droughts similar to 2007 

would occur once about every 50 years or more.

Drought Recurrence Interval Calculations USGS gage no. 02412000 Tallapoosa River near Heflin, AL

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210

Flow Averaging Period (days)

Flow (cfs) .

5 Year 10 Year 25 Year 50 Year 1986 1987 1988 2000 2007

Figure 3-11. Drought recurrence intervals for USGS gage no. 02412000 (Source: 

USGS, 2012, as modified by staff). 

Alabama Power did not model drought conditions directly as part of its relicensing 

studies. Our analysis using historical reservoir levels and outflows and the HEC-ResSim 

model showed that under moderate and severe drought conditions, Lake Martin water 

levels could fall below the current and proposed drought curves. However, these 

conditions would occur less frequently than once in every 10 years. Meeting minimum 

flow requirements and navigational releases could be problematic during severe drought 

conditions, and would not be achieved under some drought conditions, either existing or 

proposed. The proposed higher winter reservoir levels could help limit the reservoir level 

reduction associated with droughts such as those with a recurrence interval of less than 10 

years and to a lesser extent during moderate or extreme droughts. For example as shown 

 

45 Dflow3.1b is a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recurrence interval 

estimation program for streamflow.
74

in figure 3-12, in 2007, the lake level in January and February was near elevation 481 feet 

(near the existing flood control curve) but because of very low inflows, the lake level still 

fell to about elevation 475.5 feet by November. In addition, the lake level was in the 

elevation 481-foot range (about 10 feet below normal) during most of the July through 

September period. A higher flood control curve, as proposed by Alabama Power, would 

result in about 94,000 acre-feet of extra storage or about 47,500 cfs-days. This amount of 

storage could supply an added outflow of about 500 cfs for 3 months. However, based on 

data from 2007 and using the same amount of historical outflow, water levels of Lake 

Martin would still fall to an elevation in the 483 to 484-foot range by the end of the 

summer even with proposed higher curves. 

 Figure 3-12. Historical Lake Martin water levels (1990 to 2011) and the existing and 

proposed drought curves (Source: Alabama Power, 2011b, as modified by 

staff).

During a severe drought such as occurred in 2007, the entire Tallapoosa and Coosa 

river basins were stressed, and reservoir levels and lake levels in many areas fell to 

historic lows. During that time Alabama Power, the Corps, and other agencies developed 

measures to minimize the effect of the drought on lake levels, stream flow requirements 

(including navigational releases), water supply, power generation, recreation and other 

resources. 

When reservoir levels reach the drought curve value, Alabama Power would 

consult with the Corps to determine the best possible measures to respond to the drought 

conditions to limit the effects of the drought on navigation. For example in July 2007 
75

during worsening drought conditions, the Corps prepared an EA (Corps, 2007) to 

evaluate how navigation could be affected by drought-induced flow reductions proposed 

by Alabama Power. The EA concluded with a Finding of No Significant Impact (Corps, 

2007). As described in the Corps’ EA, cutbacks of 10 percent initially, and possibly 

increasing up to 20 percent contingent upon worsening drought conditions, could be 

supported by its Finding of No Significant Impact. 

Alabama Power’s proposed drought curve identifies only that drought conditions 

exist but does not specify procedures for how project operations would be managed when 

a drought is evident. A more detailed operating protocol is necessary to identify how the 

project would be operated during droughts, such as that described in the draft ADROP 

filed by Alabama Power for informational purposes on February 4, 2009 ADROP does 

improve upon the current drought curves by specifying that additional indicators of 

drought conditions would be used in the final plan. For example, meteorological and 

hydrologic variables would be considered in addition to the drought curves. Some of the 

detailed operational responses in the final ADROP may also include measures similar to 

the decreased minimum flows and higher winter pool levels and an earlier start to 

refilling of the reservoir as occurred under the three recent temporary amendments to the 

operating curves received by Alabama Power in 2007, 2009, and 2012. 

ADROP includes provisions to manage all Alabama Power’s reservoirs within the 

Alabama, Coosa, and Tallapoosa River Basins during drought conditions. ADROP 

requires monitoring rainfall and stream flow within the ACT Basin. When drought 

indicators reach specified levels, operations responses are triggered, resulting in predetermined incremental reductions or increases in flow released from reservoirs in the 

Alabama, Coosa, and Tallapoosa River Basins. 

The license for the Coosa River Project No. 214646 requires Alabama Power to 

implement the Coosa River portion of ADROP. Thus implementing the Tallapoosa River 

portion of the plan would provide for coordinated implementation of ADROP and longterm benefits to water supply, fish and wildlife resources, and power generation during 

drought years.

The Corps is currently updating its reservoir regulation manuals to provide a 

comprehensive management plan for the Coosa, Tallapoosa, and Alabama River Basins 

that would include drought management. On October 31, 2014, the Corps issued the 

“Final Environmental Impact Statement for Updates to the Master Water Control Manual 

for the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin.” The Corps also issued a draft Master 

Water Control Manual for the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River basin (draft ACT Water 

Control Manual), which is scheduled for final approval in December 2014. The Corp’s 

final EIS and draft ACT Water Control Manual include implementing ADROP, which 

 

46 143 FERC ¶ 61,249 (2013).
76

has flow criteria and operational responses for the Alabama, Coosa, and Tallapoosa 

Rivers.

Proposed Periodic Drawdown 

Alabama Power proposes to lower the reservoir to at least 481 feet every 6 years 

in coordination with weather conditions to facilitate seawall and boat dock construction 

and maintenance and other activities benefiting from lower lake levels. 

Our Analysis

Under current conditions, the Lake Martin flood curve is at elevation 481 feet

during January and the first half of February and the operating curve is below elevation 

480 feet during the same time period (see figure 2-1). As shown in figure 3-12, over the 

last 20 years Lake Martin has been able to recover from 481 feet during the winter to its 

normal summer pool elevation of between 490 to 491 feet every year, other than during 

the severe drought of 2007. Our analysis, as discussed in Reservoir Levels in Drought 

Conditions, determined that the drought of 2007 would occur about once every 50 years 

or more. In addition, Lake Martin was able to recover to its normal summer pool in 2000 

during a drought that we calculated would normally occur once every 25 to 50 years.

If the proposed periodic drawdown is initiated when the basin is not in drought 

conditions and hydrological conditions of the basin are at least normal conditions and 

forecasts for the spring precipitation are for average or higher amounts, the reservoir 

should reach its normal summer pool elevations. Additional discussion on the recreation 

and land use effects of this proposed periodic drawdown is provided in section 3.3.5, 

Recreation Resources and Land Use.

Water Quality

Effects of Proposed Rule Curve Changes on Water Quality

Alabama Power proposes to increase the winter pool elevation by 3 feet, and 

implement a conditional fall extension of summer reservoir levels into early fall, if 

specific conditions are met. The increase in the winter pool elevation would be on an 

annual basis, while the conditional fall extension as proposed by Alabama Power would 

be infrequent and may occur from 14 to 32 percent of the years. Lake Martin RA 

recommends a 4-foot increase in the winter pool, and Lake Martin HOBO recommends a 

5-foot winter pool increase and a fall extension of the higher summer pool elevation to 

October 15, which may occur in 38 to 84 percent of years.

To address water quality issues at the Martin Dam Project, Alabama Power 

proposes to continue the water quality monitoring as required in the 401 WQC that was 

issued in May 2011 and to develop and implement structural or operational measures if 

the results do not indicate compliance. Alabama Power proposes to monitor water 

quality within the reservoir to detect effects of an increase in the winter pool elevation or 

of a conditional fall extension. Alabama Power also proposes measures to monitor water 

quality in the tailrace.
77

Alabama Power proposes to monitor aquatic vegetation, implement the Nuisance

Aquatic Vegetation and Vector Control Management Program, and implement water 

quality and erosion related BMPs with the SMP. These measures are discussed in other 

sections. 

Our Analysis

Both the higher winter pool levels and the fall extension could have some effects 

on water quality. The winter pool level increase would maintain higher water levels in 

late November through February. The fall extension would maintain higher reservoir 

levels in some years from September 1 through October 15, immediately following the 

peak summertime conditions of typically the lowest river flow, highest water 

temperature, and lowest DO levels.

Modeling conducted by Alabama Power indicated that for the 67 years modeled, 

there would be a higher number of days with spill events at Martin dam as a result of the 

higher winter pool levels and the conditional fall extension, as summarized below:

• winter pool increase: 3-foot increase - 23 additional spill days; and 5-foot increase 

- 52 additional spill days;

• fall extension: 3-foot increase - 29 additional spill days; and 5-foot increase - 58 

additional days; and

• if both measures implemented: 52 to 110 additional spill days over the 67 years 

modeled.

These increases in the number of spill days while very small (0.4 percent if both 

measures were implemented with a 5-foot increase), would result in higher spillage flows 

downstream on average for one to two days per year. Higher spillage could have 

beneficial effects on DO as a result of increased aeration, but could also increase 

downstream erosion and turbidity levels, particularly downstream of Thurlow dam. 

Thurlow dam has a lower hydraulic capacity than Martin dam, so increased flows from 

Martin dam would result in higher spillage at Thurlow, into a riverine reach that is not 

backwatered, unlike immediately below Martin dam where flows discharge into the Yates 

reservoir.

The increase in the winter pool elevation and the fall extension would result in a 

small increase in both the depth of the reservoir and the retention time. However, expert 

opinions gathered by Alabama Power (the Water Quality Expert Panel) suggested that

this change would have limited effects on DO levels or water temperatures in the 

discharge from the Martin Dam Project. This prediction is based upon the large size of 

the reservoir, the existing lake level fluctuation because of varying inflows, and the

existing DO and temperature conditions meeting state water quality standards. 

Alabama Power’s current proposal to maintain a 3-foot-higher winter pool from 

mid-November through January is similar to 2008 and 2009 operations, when Alabama 
78

Power was granted temporary amendments to its flood curve to operate Lake Martin at a 

3-foot-higher winter pool from November 20 to January 15, with refilling of the reservoir 

to begin on January 15 instead of February 17, because of drought conditions.47 In 2007, 

the Commission issued an EA on the proposed 2008 operations (FERC, 2007) and an 

order approving them.

48 The order required Alabama Power to monitor water quality 

during the period that Lake Martin would be maintained at a higher elevation. The 2007 

EA concluded that the higher lake levels would result in “no material adverse impacts to 

water quality in Lake Martin or the Tallapoosa River” (FERC, 2007, page 11). Similarly, 

the results of water quality monitoring from December 2007 through May 2008 indicated 

that there was no evidence that the operation of Lake Martin during the flood curve 

variance had any impact on water quality (temperature, DO, specific conductance, pH, 

chlorophyll-a, dissolved reactive phosphorus, and other water quality parameters). The 

monitoring results were submitted to FWS, Alabama DEM, and Alabama DCNR, and the 

agencies’ responses indicated that they had no concerns regarding effects on water 

quality because of the flood curve variance, which included a 3-foot-higher winter pool. 

This is further basis for concluding that the current proposal for a 3-foot-higher winter 

pool would have no measurable effect on water quality.

While direct effects on water quality would likely be minor, aquatic vegetation 

may become more established because of the higher winter pool (reduced desiccation of 

the littoral zone), longer retention time, increased photic (light penetrating zone of plant 

growth) and littoral zones, increased sedimentation in the shallow areas, and stabilization 

of the lake level. While these changes would have a beneficial effect on aquatic habitat 

in the littoral zone, they might also indirectly increase the nutrient concentrations in Lake 

Martin. Increased nutrients could result from additional plant growth that could affect the 

nutrient cycling in the lake by the release of phosphorous to the lake when the plants die 

in the fall and winter, although this effect likely would also be minor. Alabama Power’s 

proposal to monitor water quality in the reservoir would help address the remaining 

uncertainty about the effects of raising the winter pool and extending the summer pool on 

the growth of aquatic vegetation and nutrient cycling.

Alabama DEM issued the 401 WQC for the Martin Dam Project on May 9, 2011, 

with conditions based on proposed activities included in Alabama Power’s license 

application. WQC conditions are as follows: 

 

47 See Order Granting Temporary Amendment to Rule Curve, Alabama Power 

Company, 121 FERC ¶ 62,129 (2007), and Order Granting Temporary Amendment to 

Rule Curve, Alabama Power Company, 126 FERC ¶ 62,104 (2009).

48 See Order Granting Temporary Amendment to Rule Curve 121 FERC ¶ 62,129( 

2007).
79

• monitor the Martin dam tailrace for DO and temperature during generation at 30-

minute intervals from June 1 to October 31 for a period of 3 years;

• provide DO and temperature monitoring reports to Alabama DEM within 90 days 

of the end of the annual monitoring; and

• if monitoring does not show compliance with the 4.0 mg/L DO standards, Alabama 

Power would be required to implement measures to ensure compliance. 

Based on current and expected conditions in Lake Martin and in the tailrace, three

years of monitoring should be sufficient to determine if Alabama Power is successful in 

maintaining DO concentrations consistent with state standards downstream of Martin 

dam. Recent monitoring data have demonstrated that Martin dam releases have DO 

concentrations within the state standard nearly 100 percent of the time. Additional 

measures and monitoring past the initial three years may be needed if, based on the 

monitoring results, Alabama Power is required to implement additional measures to 

improve DO in the project tailwaters. Alabama Power’s proposed measures to monitor 

water quality in the reservoir, monitor and control aquatic vegetation, and implement 

water quality-related BMPs as discussed in section 3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources, and 

section 3.3.5, Recreation Resources and Land Use, would help to detect and limit any 

possible effects. 

Compliance with Alabama DEM’s 401 WQC requirements would provide 

adequate DO for downstream communities, particularly given that the Martin Dam 

Project flows into the Yates project, maintaining lentic (lake) habitat conditions

immediately downstream of the Martin dam. Such habitat is not conducive to use by the 

species of mussels and fish most sensitive to low DO.

Fishery Resources

Effects of the Proposed Rule Curve Changes on Striped Bass Thermal Refugia and 

Habitat

As previously described, striped bass habitat in Lake Martin is characterized by 

relatively rapid seasonal changes. Water with suitable temperature and DO becomes 

depleted in late summer and fall. Periodic summer deaths of adult striped bass have been 

reported in the past, a result of the depletion of suitable habitat. Alabama Power has not 

proposed any specific measures to address this issue, nor have the resource agencies or 

other stakeholders made any recommendations related to striped bass habitat in Lake 

Martin. The only reservoir operational changes proposed by Alabama Power are an 

increase in the winter pool elevation by 3 feet, and the conditional fall extension of 

summer reservoir levels into the fall, if specific conditions are met. Lake Martin RA 

recommends a 4-foot increase in the winter lake level, and Lake HOBO recommends a 5-

foot increase in the winter pool.
80

Our Analysis 

Radiotelemetry studies on Lake Martin have been used to investigate striped bass 

movements and track habitat use in the lake. During the summer months, most of the 

striped bass use the layer of cooler water during the daytime, while foraging near the 

boundary where the layer of warmer (less dense) water is separated from the layer of 

cooler (more dense) water beneath. During the late summer and fall period, striped bass 

display reduced movement rates, greater use of deeper water, and may use areas with 

higher water temperatures and lower DO levels (Sammons, 2011). The occasional 

summer mortalities have often been associated with heavy rains that have occurred 

following long periods of above average temperatures. 

Alabama Power’s proposed operational changes to the winter pool elevation 

would likely have little effect on reservoir water quality and in-turn little effect on striped 

bass. The increase in the winter pool would occur during a portion of the year when the 

reservoir is not stratified and is well mixed, with suitable temperatures and DO 

throughout the water column. Suitable striped bass habitat would be found throughout 

the lake, and increasing the lake level would result in a small increase in aquatic habitat. 

Raising the winter pool by 3 feet would increase the overall area of Lake Martin bottom 

habitat by about 413 acres, while a 5-foot increase would result in additional 631 acres of 

bottom habitat. 

The conditional fall extension, as pointed out by Alabama DCNR (letter from J. 

Chris Greene, Assistant Chief of Fisheries, Alabama DCNR, to Kimberly Bose,

Secretary, FERC, Washington, D.C., August 13, 2013), could have a beneficial effect on 

striped bass. If the conditional fall extension was adopted, lake levels would be 

maintained up to about 4 feet higher than current levels from September 1 to October 15. 

At this time of year striped bass depend upon habitat in colder, deeper water, which is at 

its smallest volume of the year. Because water is released from Lake Martin from the 

colder, deeper layer of water, such releases directly drain and further reduce the striped 

bass habitat. Holding back those releases to extend the higher reservoir elevation into the 

fall would preserve the better habitat for striped bass into the fall, improve conditions for 

striped bass, and reduce fish kills. 

Effects on Fish Passage

Historically, anadromous species (Alabama shad and striped bass) occurred in the 

Tallapoosa River. No anadromous species now occur immediately below the Martin 

Dam Project (Alabama Power, 2011c). Migration from the Gulf of Mexico is blocked by 

the Yates and Thurlow dams, and, at least partially, by three Corps’ lock and dams on the 

Alabama River. 
81

The catadromous American eel is native to the Tallapoosa River system and has 

been documented below Thurlow dam. Alabama Power proposes to implement a threephased American eel sampling study in the Tallapoosa River from the Project tailrace to 

RM 12.9 over a six year period in consultation with FWS.

49 The phases would include: 

(1) a reconnaissance period for developing sampling plans, methods, and refining

collection and tagging techniques; (2) sampling and tagging of eels in the Tallapoosa 

River; and (3) summarization of the results of the efforts. Alabama Power states that the 

American eel Study could benefit the catadromous American eel fishery by providing 

additional information on current populations and identifying potential restoration 

activities.

Our Analysis

In the draft EIS we proposed an alternative eel study focused on surveillance for 

the presence of eels at Martin Dam. Staff’s preliminary findings were based on the 

argument that such an effort would help to determine when eels were present at the 

Martin Dam and thus inform a decision as to whether passage was needed. Interior,

Alabama DCNR and Alabama Power all requested that staff reconsider and recommend 

the three-phase study originally proposed by Alabama Power. They argue that a holistic 

approach to studying the eels would be more effect and that a trapping effort at Martin 

dam would be costly and provide limited information about the potential to pass eels at 

Martin dam or approaching Martin dam. 

Alabama Power argues that the fact that eels are blocked by two dams below 

Martin dam (Yates and Thurlow dams) makes surveillance trapping at Martin inefficient. 

Alabama Power reports regular collection of American eels below Thurlow dam. 

However, there is no indication that American eels currently occupy the area between 

Martin and Thurlow dams or above Martin dam. Therefore they argue that “an eel trap 

with some degree of permanence” would not be justified given the current lack of eels at 

Martin Dam. Though our preliminary finding was based on the concept and cost of a 

very modest program of surveillance without the use of permanent traps, we agree that

few, if any, eels would be found through surveillance unless passage was provided at the 

downstream dams. 

Interior comments that, in order to provide upstream and downstream passage at 

Martin dam, the range of extent of eel distribution in the Tallapoosa River must be 

studied. Staff agrees that in order to pass eels at Martin Dam, issues related to passage at 

Yates and Thurlow dams must be understood as well. However, as proposed, the study 

would be limited to information on current population, which exists 11 miles and two

 

49 “Sampling American Eel in the Tallapoosa River Drainage,” Final Study Plan 

filed by James F. Crew, Manager Hydro Services, Alabama Power Company, February 

27, 2012.
82

dams downstream of the project. The study includes no information related directly to 

the Martin Project.

Interior comments that the timing and duration of flows released from Martin Dam 

are factors in the whether eels reach the Martin tailrace and justify the three-phase eel 

study. We agree that timing and volume of river flow are commonly factors in fish 

passage. However, in this case there is no indication that flow is a limiting factor in this 

system. The minimum release at Thurlow Dam of 1,200 cfs occurs about ten percent or 

more of the time. Alabama Power’s application contains existing data on the collection

of eels that reached Thurlow Dam and there is no information available indicating a flowrelated fish passage problem below Thurlow Dam. Further, the study methods described

by Alabama Power focus on locating eels and observing their movements below Thurlow 

dam with no indication that data are to be gathered on habitat or passage factors 

influenced by the operation of the Martin Dam Project (such as the flow, temperature, or

quality of water). We conclude that the record does not show that Alabama Power’s 

proposed, three-phase eel study relates to the operation of the Martin Dam Project, effects 

of the Martin Dam Project on fish passage below Thurlow Dam, or fish passage at Martin 

Dam.

Effects of Proposed Rule Curve Change on Downstream Fishery Resources, 

Including Paddlefish

The primary area of concern for aquatic resources downstream of Martin dam is 

the reach downstream of Thurlow, because it is riverine and contains the paddlefish. The 

paddlefish has been the focus of studies in the downstream reach, because it is a species 

of concern for Alabama DCNR, and has been an important sport and commercial species. 

Taking a broader view, monitoring studies have found a diverse fish community

downstream of Thurlow dam, with a total of 66 species collected.

Alabama Power conducted a desktop analysis of the effects of flow releases 

downstream of Martin dam (Alabama Power, 2010e), which included an evaluation of 

effects on paddlefish spawning downstream of Thurlow dam. In that analysis Alabama 

Power concluded that current project operations provide spawning opportunities for 

paddlefish, except in drought years, but that some changes in the rule curves for Lake 

Martin could result in increased spawning opportunities downstream of Thurlow dam. 

As previously discussed, Alabama Power is proposing to increase the winter pool 

elevation by 3 feet, and implement a conditional fall extension of summer reservoir levels 

into early fall, if specific conditions are met. The conditional fall extension would have 

no effect on spawning flows for paddlefish, because paddlefish spawn in the spring 

(March and April). Increasing the winter pool by 3 feet would affect downstream flow 

releases in the spring, resulting in increased discharges. Alabama Power (2010e) reports

that a flow of 6,000 cfs would trigger and support paddlefish spawning downstream of 

Thurlow dam, based on previous studies, but a major increase in river stage was also 

cited as an important factor in triggering spawning. Alabama Power (2010e) estimated 

that increasing the winter pool by 3 feet would increase the number of days (in March 
83

and April) that river flows exceed 6,000 cfs downstream of Thurlow dam by about 5 days

per year, suggesting that paddlefish spawning could be enhanced by this rule curve 

change.

None of the entities providing comments in response to the ready for 

environmental analysis notice made specific recommendations regarding downstream 

flow releases to protect or enhance paddlefish spawning. However, Alabama Rivers 

Alliance, American Rivers, and the World Wildlife Fund commented that the studies and 

information provided by Alabama Power in its final license application and in responses 

to our additional information requests were insufficient or inadequate and that additional 

information would be required for us to complete our analysis of this issue. Regarding 

paddlefish spawning, these stakeholders commented that, while Alabama Power did 

describe preferred habitat and conditions for paddlefish during each life stage, it failed to 

relate that information to proposed operational changes, or failed to recognize the 

importance of sequential high-flow days for successful paddlefish spawning. The World 

Wildlife Fund also stated that an 8- to 9-foot increase in river stage may be a more 

important trigger for upstream spawning migrations than a pulse flow on the order of 

6,000 cfs.

The Downstream Landowners requested flood protections from the Martin dam 

particularly in the spring and summer months. We evaluated a lower elevation of 2 to 3 

feet below the existing flood control curve in the spring and summer period to provide

flood storage.

Our Analysis

Previous studies cited by Alabama Power (2010e) have indicated that paddlefish 

appear to prefer spawning in the lower Tallapoosa River, compared to the lower Coosa 

River. Alabama DCNR staff has also indicated that Mobile River Basin paddlefish 

populations appear to be stable, especially downstream of Robert F. Henry lock and 

dam.50 Paddlefish populations in the area have increased since the implementation of 

the state-wide paddlefish harvest moratorium.51 As previously discussed, on average, 

flows from Thurlow dam reach or exceed 6,000 cfs on a total of 19 days annually during 

March and April (about 31 percent of the days in March and April), providing flow and 

stage levels that have been cited as a requirement for paddlefish spawning. At USGS 

gage no. 02418500, located on the Tallapoosa River below Tallassee, Alabama (located 

 

50 The Corps operates the Robert F. Henry lock and dam, which is located 

downstream of the confluence of the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers on the Alabama River. 

51 Email from N. Nichols, Assistant Chief of Fisheries, Alabama Division of 

Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, to A. Anderegg, Environmental Affairs, Alabama 

Power Company, November 29, 2010; included in Alabama Power (2010e).
84

about 2 miles below Thurlow dam), flows in excess of 6,000 cfs are common in March 

and April, with a mean flow of 6,274 cfs in March and 10 percent exceedance flows of 

13,910 and 8,691 cfs, in March and April, respectively (see table 3-5).

Because a major increase in river stage is a likely trigger for paddlefish spawning, 

we examined the flow record in March and April for USGS gage no. 02418500 for 2001 

through 2011 (figure 3-13). We identified all stage increases of at least 50 percent of the 

base flow just prior to the stage increase as, “major stage increases.” We then identified 

all major stage increases that resulted in flows equal to or greater than 6,000 cfs. Finally, 

we identified stage increases that were followed by periods of 10 days where flows were 

maintained at or above 6,000 cfs. According to Hubert et al. (1984), 10 days of sustained 

high stage are required for incubation of paddlefish eggs. 

Figure 3-13. Example hydrograph for March and April 2001, used in assessment of 

paddlefish spawning downstream of Thurlow dam (Source: USGS, 2012).
85

Major stage increases occurred in all years, including the drought year of 2007

(table 3-13). Flows resulting in major stage increases reached 6,000 cfs in seven of the 

11 years examined. Of the seven years that major stage increases reached 6,000 cfs or 

greater, 10-day periods with flows of at least 6,000 cfs following those stage increases 

occurred in five of those seven years. In addition, in the 11 years examined, there were 

multiple stage increases followed by at least 7 days of flows greater than 6,000 cfs, which 

would offer some protection for incubating eggs. Although it appears that optimum 

spawning conditions may not have occurred in every year, suitable spawning conditions 

occurred in most of the years examined. 

Some research has reported that female paddlefish spawn about every 3 years, 

while males may spawn every 2 years (Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 2012). However, much of this research was conducted in the 

Missouri and Mississippi River systems. In a study by Lein and DeVries (1998), some 

female paddlefish captured in the Alabama River system in consecutive years were found 

to be egg bearing and were observed on the spawning grounds under perceived good 

spawning conditions in consecutive years, suggesting the capability to spawn annually. 

Other studies have shown that male paddlefish can spawn every year (Lein and DeVries 

1998). Given that females produce many eggs, and that it appears some spawners of both 

sexes can be on the spawning grounds when conditions are appropriate, the frequency of 

occurrence of those conditions may be the primary variable in spawning success rather 

than the biological readiness to spawn.

52

In addition to stage and flow, temperature is a major spawning factor. Because the 

reservoir would be well mixed in the early spring, downstream temperature and DO 

should not be altered significantly by the higher lake levels. 

If lake levels were not raised in the winter, the paddlefish would not benefit from 

the spawning season flows and existing conditions would continue.

 

52 Lein and DeVries (1998) found the number of eggs per female to range from 

208,587 to 525,990.
86

Table 3-13. Results of staff analysis of the number of stage increases providing for 

paddlefish spawning in the Tallapoosa River downstream of the Thurlow dam, 

March and April 2001 to 2011 (Source: USGS, 2012, as modified by staff).

Year

Major 

stage 

increasesa

Major stage 

increases reaching 

6,000 cfs or greater

Major stage increases to 6,000 cfs 

followed by a flow of 6,000 cfs or 

greater for a minimum of 10 days

2001 6 6 3

2002 3 0 0

2003 9 6 0

2004 6 0 0

2005 7 5 2

2006 7 3 0

2007 2 0 0

2008 5 1 0

2009 7 7 1

2010 5 3 1

2011 7 2 1

a A major stage increase was defined as a river flow increase of at least 50 percent of 

the base flow occurring just prior to the stage increase.

Available information indicates that paddlefish populations are stable or are 

increasing in the Alabama River just downstream of Thurlow dam (email from Nick 

Nichols, Assistant Chief of Fisheries, Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater 

Fisheries, to Angela Anderegg, Environmental Affairs, Alabama Power Company, 

November 29, 2010; included in Alabama Power [2010e]). No entities have 

recommended any specific operational changes for paddlefish. Alabama Power’s 

proposal to increase the winter pool by 3 feet would, however, increase the number of 

days (in March and April) that river flows exceed 6,000 cfs downstream of Thurlow by 5 

days. The proposal would have a modest, positive effect on paddlefish spawning relative 

to existing operations. Raising the winter pool 4 or 5 feet would provide greater benefits 

for paddlefish spawning than the 3-foot proposal. Lowering the summer pool for flood 

storage would have little effect on the paddlefish. Overall, the proposed changes to the 
87

flood curve would have moderate effects, which, to the degree they existed, would be 

positive.

Lipstick Darter

In comments on the draft EIS, American Rivers and Alabama Rivers Alliance 

request additional discussion of the state endangered lipstick darter, which has been 

collected in three tributaries to Lake Martin and is reported to be in tributaries to the 

Tallapoosa River below Thurlow Dam.

Our Analysis

The primary threats identified for the lipstick darter are from new impoundments 

and deforestation upstream of riffle habitats (Freeman et al., 2009). The Martin Project is 

an existing impoundment and there is no project-related activity that we are aware of that 

would cause deforestation of the tributary watershed and affect riffle habitat. Though 

state-listed as endangered, the lipstick darter is not federally listed under the ESA. For 

these reasons, no further analysis of the lipstick darter is included in this final EIS.

Aquatic Vegetation

As discussed in section 3.3.1, Geologic and Soil Resources, the proposed 

modifications in operations could potentially cause additional erosion and sedimentation. 

Additional sedimentation in Lake Martin, combined with increased winter pool 

elevations could result in increases in submerged aquatic vegetation, including increased 

abundance of invasive species.

Alabama Power (2011a) identified 20 sites, totaling 858 acres, which have a high 

probability of establishing aquatic vegetation. Alabama Power did not measure the total 

possible increase in emergent vegetation around the entire shoreline perimeter of Lake 

Martin, only those areas that were most likely to have an increase or have been 

problematic in the past. There may still be other suitable areas that were not evaluated. 

In addition, the potential change in sedimentation areas with an increase in the winter 

pool is not quantified in this analysis. Finally, an increase in nutrient availability may 

lead to an increase in submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation, but this effect was not 

quantifiable. As such, Alabama Power’s analysis provides a very conservative estimate 

of the general risk for total increases in aquatic vegetation. The 3-foot or 5-foot winter 

pool increases could result in a new estimated acreage total of 1,271 and 1,489 acres, 

respectively, where establishing aquatic vegetation could be affected.

In addition to the effects of an increase in the winter pool elevation, implementing 

the conditional fall extension could increase the growing season for aquatic plants. 

Alabama Power estimates that the conditional fall extension could add an additional 45 

days in the growing season. 

Alabama Power proposes to continue to implement its current Nuisance Aquatic 

Vegetation and Vector Control Management Program. As part of this program, Alabama
88

Power performs lake-wide surveys to identify areas of aquatic plant infestation at a 

minimum of once per year. Throughout each year Alabama Power also reviews, on a

case-by-case basis, requests from the public, state and federal agencies, and Alabama 

Power employees to treat nuisance aquatic vegetation. Alabama Power identified criteria 

for determining when it treats nuisance aquatic vegetation that: 

• 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.

In the event that the Commission approves changes in the flood curve, Alabama 

Power proposes to develop and implement an additional component of its Nuisance 

Aquatic Vegetation and Vector Control Management Program. As a component of the 

program, Alabama Power proposes to develop and implement a plan to monitor aquatic 

vegetation to identify any increases in nuisance aquatic vegetation and the cause of 

increased vegetation. Alabama Power proposes to consult with pertinent resource and 

regulatory agencies to develop the plan, which would become a component of the current 

Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation and Vector Control Management Program, and to file the 

revised Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation and Vector Control Management Program within 6 

months of the issuance of the new license. 

Our Analysis

Changes in the flood curve, including an increase in the winter pool elevation and 

the conditional fall extension would increase suitable habitat for aquatic vegetation and 

aquatic invasive species. The conditional fall extension would extend the growing season 

for terrestrial invasive species occurring along the shoreline, as well as wildlife diversity 

and species richness, through habitat alteration and degradation Without control measures 

in place, increases in nuisance aquatic vegetation would be moderate. Such increases 

could adversely affect the composition and structure of habitat. Additionally, increases in 

nuisance aquatic vegetation could reduce recreational use of the reservoir, increase public 

health hazard through increased vectors, and affect water withdrawal structures. 

Neither Alabama Power’s current Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation and Vector 

Control Management Program, nor its proposal to revise the program to include a plan to 

monitor increases in nuisance aquatic vegetation, provide details about the methods for 

surveying and monitoring aquatic vegetation, such as the frequency, timing, and locations 

of surveys and monitoring events. Potential effects of increased nuisance aquatic 

vegetation would be minimized if Alabama Power revised the Nuisance Aquatic 

Vegetation and Vector Control Management Program to include a plan to monitor and 

treat increased nuisance aquatic vegetation. 
89

3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects

We identified aquatic and fishery resources as resources that could be 

cumulatively affected by the relicensing of the Martin Dam Project, in association with 

the operation of other projects in the Tallapoosa and Coosa river basins in both Georgia 

and Alabama. We also included both high and low flows. Cumulatively these 

impoundments affect flow regimes in the Tallapoosa, Coosa, and Alabama Rivers, 

including moderating flood peaks, which could influence aquatic and fishery habitats and 

use. 

Regarding high flows, increasing the winter pool elevation at both the Martin 

Project and the H. Neely Henry development on the Coosa River Hydroelectric Project 

No. 2146 (Coosa Project), as authorized in the new license for the Coosa Project (FERC, 

2013), would reduce winter flood storage; however, the combined minor changes are not 

expected to result in an increase in flooding in the Alabama River. As explained in the 

FERC (2001) environmental assessment, the Commission and the Corps staff found that 

the change in the rule curve at the H. Neely Henry development would not have affected 

the peak flood elevation in any of four historic floods analyzed, and there was no 

evidence of problems following 10 years of implementing the modified operations 

(starting in 2002) (letter from Stephen J. Roemhildt, Colonel and District Commander, 

Department of the Army, Mobile District, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama, to 

Kimberly Bose, Secretary, FERC, Washington, D.C., November 3, 2011). As described 

above in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, of this final EIS, the proposed operational 

changes for the Martin Project are not expected to result in additional flooding, and there 

have been no problems during three years of implementation (2007, 2009, and 2011). In 

addition, active weather and stream flow gaging and coordination with the Corps would 

continue to permit Alabama Power and the Corps to coordinate operations within the 

basin to prevent flooding. Finally, multiple factors serve to dampen the effects of any 

increase in flooding from reduced storage at H. Neely Henry and Martin Dams including: 

(1) the large basins of the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers (10,156 and 4,687 square miles 

respectively) relative to the basins of the Henry Neely and Martin impoundments (6,596 

and 2,984 square miles respectively); (2) the relatively long distances to the confluence of 

the Coosa and Tallapoosa River from Henry Neely and Martin Dams (about 150 and 70 

miles respectively), and (3) the temporary storage effects of multiple impoundments 

between each dam and the Alabama River. Given the minor effects of the changes in 

flood storage individually, opportunities for flood management actions to avoid 

cumulative flooding effects, and the dampening effects at the basin scale, there is little 

chance that the reduction in winter flood storage capacity at H. Neely Henry and Martin 

Dams would result in a noticeable cumulative effect.

There are no applications at this time to raise the winter pools of other projects in 

the basin. If such a proposal is considered in the future, it will receive thorough review, 

including NEPA analysis, from the Commission and the Corps.
90

Operations during drought conditions require the balancing of minimum flow 

requirements, including water for navigation on the Alabama River, hydropower 

generation, and maintenance of water supply. Neither raising the winter pool elevation 

nor continuing existing operations would adversely affect the ability to provide flow 

requirements during drought conditions. The implementation of the ADROP, developed 

using the Corps’, Alabama, Coosa, Tallapoosa, basin-wide hydrology model, will help to

manage cumulative effects on drought flows based on its drought stage indicators and 

drought planning protocols.

The presence of the Martin Dam Project and other projects on the Tallapoosa and 

Coosa River has created a series of slackwater impoundments over a large portion of both 

rivers. Because these reservoirs capture nutrients from upstream sources and because of 

the volume and depths of the reservoirs, DO stratification occurs in all of the reservoirs. 

Low DO levels develop at depth, resulting in the release of lower DO waters into the next 

downstream reservoir. With the lack of riverine reaches between the Martin Dam Project 

and Thurlow dam, there is little opportunity for natural reaeration of waters, as would 

occur through natural falls and riffles. However, DO and temperature standards are 

normally met at monitoring locations downstream of Martin dam. As part of the WQC, 

there would be continuation of water quality monitoring, and Alabama Power would 

develop a plan to increase DO levels if standards were not met under the new license 

conditions. As a result, there would be no change in or a slight improvement in DO 

levels in the Tallapoosa River. 

Fisheries could be cumulatively affected by the relicensing of the Martin Dam 

Project, in association with the operation of other projects in the Alabama River Basin. 

Both migratory and resident species would accrue modest benefits from Alabama 

Power’s proposals for habitat and water quality improvements and from the proposal for 

drought management. Paddlefish would benefit slightly from increased spawning season 

flows associated with Alabama Power’s proposal to raise the winter pool at Martin dam, 

but would not gain this benefit if the license does not include the winter pool elevation 

increase. Changes in reservoir regulation and potential fisheries enhancements would be 

unlikely to have any effect on other reservoirs or the remaining unimpounded reaches in 

the Tallapoosa and Alabama Rivers.
91

3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment

Vegetation

Natural vegetation for the project area is predominantly oak-hickory forests that 

dominate dry-mesic ridges and slopes. Mixed hardwood forests are present closer to the 

river. However, much of the natural vegetation in the area has been converted to 

agriculture (primarily forestry, cattle, and row crops), residential and commercial land 

use, resulting in a patchwork of mostly second growth forests, cleared land, and various 

stages of ecologic succession from primary to climax communities. Few old growth 

stages are present within the project area. Table 3-14 presents acreages of timber stands 

on project lands.

Table 3-14. Timber stand composition on Martin Dam Project lands (Source: Alabama 

Power, 2011a).

Stand Type Percent Cover Acreage

Mixed pine-hardwood 36 3,249

Natural longleaf pine 15 1,381

Natural pine 14 1,243

Upland hardwood 16 1443

Planted pines 8 741

Other 11 1,037

Total 100 9094

Upland oaks, hickories, and pines dominate the canopy in the older second-growth 

forests. Commonly abundant oaks include white, black, southern red, rock chestnut, post, 

scarlet, blackjack, and willow oaks. Hickories tend to be less important, although sand 

and mockernut hickories frequently occur. Loblolly, scrub, shortleaf, and longleaf pines 

are also common. Other locally important canopy and subcanopy species 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 fringetree. 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. Vines in these areas include poison ivy, 
92

catbrier, Virginia creeper, muscadine, fox grape, yellow jessamine, cross vine, and cowitch vine are common. Common herbs include bracken fern, Christmas fern, resurrection 

fern, needle grass, spike grass, fragrant goldenrod, goldenrod, sweet Betsy, and other 

aster species (Alabama Power, 2009a). Within hardwood forest communities most (57 

percent) of the substrate is composed of bare ground. Grasses account for 6 percent 

while forbs contribute another 4 percent cover. Legumes comprise less than 1 percent of 

the understory. Seedlings of canopy species contribute about 5 percent. Vines, in their 

creeping form, have about 28 percent cover. Within pine hardwood forests, the herb 

stratum is rather thin with about 71 percent being leaf litter and open ground devoid of 

vegetation. Vines form most of the vegetation cover (20 percent) with forbs contributing 

another 5 percent. Grasses are infrequent on the site (completely absent from the survey). 

Seedlings of woody vegetation account for 4 percent of the ground cover.

Wetlands

According to the National Wetland Inventory maps, approximately 444 acres of 

wetlands occur within the project boundary, including palustrine, lacustrine, and riverine 

wetland types. 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, 27.3, and 10.3 percent, respectively, of the total wetland 

acreage. The remaining 75.9 acres are composed of a mix of various palustrine, 

lacustrine and riverine wetland types accounting for approximately 9.6, 7.1, and 0.4 

percent, respectively (table 3-15). Seasonal changes in lake elevation likely result in little 

variability in the quantity of wetlands surrounding the project due to the steeply banked 

nature of the reservoir shoreline.

Invasive Plants

In the final license application, Alabama Power identified eight species as being 

the primary invasive flora potentially occurring in the project area: brittle/spiny leaf 

naiad, 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 Lake Martin headwaters.

Wildlife

Lake Martin is within the Piedmont physiographic region of Alabama. The Martin 

impoundment and surrounding woodland, agricultural, and residential areas provide high 

quality habitat for a variety of upland and semi-aquatic 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. Birds typical of project uplands include 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 
93

occur in the Lake Martin area. 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 include least and short-tailed shrews, southern 

flying squirrel, eastern wood rat, and eastern red and big brown bats. Reptiles and 

amphibians include American and eastern spade foot toads; marbled and slimy 

salamanders; the green anole; the southern fence lizard; five-lined and broad-headed 

skinks; copperhead, black racer, and gray rat snakes; and eastern box turtle.

Table 3-15. Area and percentages of wetland types in the project boundary (Source: 

Alabama Power, 2011a).

Wetland Type Areaa (Acres) Percent of Total (%)

Lacustrine Littoral Rock Bottom 30.7 6.9

Lacustrine Littoral Rocky Shore 0.7 0.16

Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Shore 121.6 27.34

Palustrine Emergent 45.8 10.32

Palustrine Forest 201.4 45.28

Palustrine Scrub-Shrub 42.5 9.55

Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 0.2 0.04

Riverine Lower Perennial Rock Bottom 1.8 0.4

Total 444.7 100

Lacustrine 153.0 34.4

Palustrine 289.9 65.2

Riverine 1.8 0.4

Total 444.7 100

a 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.
94

Palustrine forested wetlands, which account for almost half of project wetlands, 

encompass what are commonly referred to as “hardwood bottomlands.” These 

bottomlands likely represent the most diverse and productive wildlife habitat in the 

project area, harboring a wide range of species including barred owl, red-shouldered 

hawk, white-tailed deer, fox squirrel, and red and gray fox. Bottomlands are of particular 

value as stopover habitat for warblers and other migrating songbirds and for cavity 

nesting species such as the prothonotary warbler, wood duck, and red-bellied 

woodpecker. The emergent and lacustrine littoral habitats provide important amphibian 

breeding areas; 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.

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 the mallard, gadwall, wood duck, hooded 

merganser, common loon, great blue heron, green heron, and great egret. Birds such as 

the 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. Reptile species typical of the littoral zone include 

eastern cottonmouth and red- and yellow-bellied water snakes, the snapping turtle, 

Alabama map turtle, river cooter, and red-eared pond slider.

Sensitive Wildlife and Sensitive Resources

During preparation of the license application, Alabama Power consulted with 

FWS and Alabama DCNR to identify species protected under state laws and federal laws 

other than the ESA. Two terrestrial species considered sensitive wildlife were identified: 

the alligator snapping turtle and the bald eagle (Alabama Power, 2011a). 

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was delisted under the ESA in 2007 

(FWS, 2012e), but it remains federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act. Bald eagles forage near large aquatic ecosystems such as lakes, 

reservoirs, or free flowing rivers. Nests are typically located in crowns of large trees, 

close to foraging areas (FWS, 2012f). Alabama DCNR has monitored bald eagle nests in 

the project area. The most recent data available was recorded in 2006, when three active 

bald eagle nests were documented along the shoreline of Lake Martin, and a fourth 

located on the Tallapoosa River about 5 miles downstream from Martin dam (Alabama 

Power, 2011b). 

The alligator snapping turtle (Macroclemys temminckii) is a state-listed species

(Mirachi et al., 2004) that is also under review for federal listing (FWS, 2012d). The 
95

alligator snapping turtle spends most of its time in water, generally only coming onto 

land for nesting. Preferred habitat consists of deep water of rivers, sloughs, oxbows, and 

canals or lakes associated with rivers. Usually it occurs in waters with a mud bottom and 

some aquatic vegetation, but it may use sand-bottomed creeks (NatureServe, 2012b). 

Populations have declined throughout its range due to exploitation, habitat loss from 

dredging, and pollution induced habitat degradation. The current population status in 

Alabama is unknown (Mirachi et al., 2004). 

As part of the SMP, Alabama Power proposes to develop a Sensitive Resources 

geographic information systems data layer which would include locations of rare, 

threatened, and endangered species, as well as sensitive habitats. Alabama Power 

proposes to provide the data regarding Sensitive Resources to Alabama DCNR, FWS, 

and the Commission. For further discussion, see section 3.3.5, Recreation Resources and 

Land Use. 

3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects

Vegetation

Proposed changes in the winter pool level and timing of fall operation would cause 

changes in the timing, duration, and depth of inundation around the lake perimeter, which 

in turn could affect the distribution and species composition of vegetation communities. 

Alabama Power proposes to increase the winter pool elevation by 3 feet and evaluate the 

potential for extending the summer full pool period to as late as October 15 on an annual 

basis. As discussed in section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, and section 3.3.5, Recreation 

Resources and Land Use, other stakeholders recommend a 4-foot or a 5-foot increase in 

winter lake level to provide the ability of Lake Martin to refill by the following. 

Implementation of the proposed SMP would guide vegetation management and 

development (such as a boat ramp) on project lands and waters, potentially affecting 

vegetation composition in these areas. Implementation of the WMP would include 

vegetation planting and forest management prescriptions that could influence forest 

composition and structure.

Our Analysis

Species composition of existing vegetation around the lake perimeter is largely a 

result of past operations that influence water availability and inundation frequency. 

These factors select for species that can live and reproduce under the site-specific 

conditions. Changing these conditions by increasing the winter pool and altering the 

timing of fall operations could favor species more adapted to wetter conditions. 

Modifying project operations that result in an increase in the winter pool elevation 

and the timing of spring and fall water level fluctuations would alter existing microhabitat conditions in areas below the 491-foot full pool elevation, and in higher elevation 

areas where reservoir levels are a dominant factor in vegetation root zone water

availability. In most instances these changes would affect wetland vegetation (discussed 
96

below). Proposed changes in operations would increase inundation periods in some 

areas, but would not flood new areas above the full pool elevation. Additionally, 

increases associated with the proposed conditional fall extension are only expected to 

occur once every 5 to 6 years and are not likely to have lasting effects. As such these 

changes would have little effect on upland vegetation.

Implementation of the proposed SMP would protect and enhance shoreline 

vegetation by encouraging vegetated buffers. Implementation of the WMP would

improve forest stand composition and structure on project lands through management 

prescriptions and planting.

Wetlands

As discussed above, proposed modifications to project operations could alter the 

timing, duration, and depth of inundation in wetland areas. These changes could 

influence vegetation species composition and wetland function. 

Our Analysis

Implementing an increase in winter pool elevation would affect wetlands around 

the perimeter of Lake Martin. These modifications to site hydrology would likely result 

in some changes in vegetation community composition in these areas. Although the 

water increases would occur in the winter, during the non-growing season, some areas 

that are currently dewatered during the winter drawdowns would be permanently 

inundated. This would create anoxic condition in the soils, altering soil chemistry and 

microbial communities. Wetland and aquatic plants suited to these conditions would 

persist, replacing species that cannot survive under these conditions. Over time wetland 

species composition would shift toward more hydrophilic (water-loving) species at lower 

elevations influenced by increases in the winter pool elevation. In some areas, emergent 

wetlands would likely be converted to submerged aquatic vegetation, with emergent 

wetland habitat types moving further upslope. These effects would occur over a greater 

area with the 5-foot increase as compared to the 3-foot increase. Table 3-16 identifies the 

acreage of wetland vegetation, by wetland type, within the areas inundated by the 3-foot 

and 5-foot increases. 
97

Table 3-16. Wetland acreages, by wetland type inundated by the 3-foot and 5-foot 

increases in winter pool elevation (Source: Alabama Power, 2011a).

Wetland Type

Total 

Acres in 

Project 

Boundary

Inundated 

with 3-

foot 

increase

Percent 

Total

Inundated 

with 5-

foot 

increase

Percent 

Total

Lacustrine Littoral Rock 

Bottom 30.7 5.6 18.3 15.4 50.2

Lacustrine Littoral Rocky 

Shore 0.7 0.6 81.8 0.7 100

Lacustrine Littoral 

Unconsolidated Shore 121.6 31.2 25.7 71.6 58.9

Palustrine Emergent 45.8 6.5 14.2 14.6 31.9

Palustrine Forest 201.4 2.5 1.2 8.2 4.1

Palustrine Scrub-Shrub 42.5 0.1 0.2 2.2 5.2

Palustrine Unconsolidated 

Bottom 0.2 0 0 0 0.0

Riverine Lower Perennial 

Rock Bottom 1.8 0.4 22.2 0.8 44.4

Total 444.7 46.9 10.5 113.6 25.5

Lacustrine 153 37.3 24.4 87.9 57.5

Palustrine 289.9 9.2 3.2 24.9 8.6

Riverine 1.8 0.4 22.2 0.8 44.4

Total 444.7 46.9 10.5 113.6 25.5

Similar changes in wetland community structure would occur in areas where early 

spring filling and/or delays in fall drawdowns alter local site hydrology. However, these 

effects would be of lower magnitude than the effects of raising the winter pool elevations 

because the timing of the spring and fall operations would vary from year to year. Most 

areas that would be affected by the early spring fill or fall extension would continue to 

see wetting and drying on an annual basis. Although additional water availability would 
98

likely favor hydrophilic species, there is minimal potential for conversion to submerged 

aquatic vegetation associated with modifications to the spring or fall operations. 

Implementation of the 3-foot increase in winter pool elevation would affect about 

10.5 percent of wetlands in the project area. Implementation of the 5-foot winter pool 

increase would affect about 25.5 percent of project wetlands. Because there would be no 

increase in summer full pool elevation, there would be no conversion of existing uplands 

to wetlands to offset these effects and potential for on-site mitigation is low. Fall pool 

extensions would only occur once every 5 to 6 years and are not likely to have a lasting 

effect on wetland vegetation. Therefore, effects on wetlands would be moderate.

Wildlife

Sensitive Wildlife and Sensitive Resources

No alligator snapping turtles were observed in the study of the influence of 

shoreline modification on aquatic and semi-aquatic species (Alabama Power, 2009b). 

Because the study focused broadly on aquatic and semi-aquatic species, and no project 

related study specifically focused on the alligator snapping turtle, there is not enough 

evidence to determine either the presence or the absence of the alligator snapping turtle

within the project affected area. However, based on the best available information, it 

seems likely that the alligator snapping turtle occurs within Lake Martin or its tributaries. 

Alabama Power (2009b) concluded that neither seawalls nor rip-rap offer suitable 

habitat that allow turtles to exit the water to access nesting habitat, and even some of the 

undeveloped shorelines along Lake Martin are undercut from erosion such that turtles 

could not exit the water. However, no agencies raised concerns about project-related 

effects on the alligator snapping turtle. 

Concerning wildlife other than turtles, Alabama Power (2009b) concluded that 

most wildlife species are not adapted to using the low quality habitat provided by 

reservoir shoreline and erosion control structures found along reservoir shorelines. 

Habitat beyond reservoir shorelines is often low quality due to the presence of lawns. 

The only high quality habitat found along the shoreline of Lake Martin occurs where 

unaltered shorelines exist in conjunction with natural forests. 

Interior recommends that no new seawalls be constructed unless absolutely 

necessary to protect land and property. Interior also recommends that Alabama Power 

encourage shoreline developments to maintain the 30-foot control strip within the project 

boundary and to increase the total buffer width to at least 100 feet. 

Fischer and Martin (1998) note that the operation of hydro projects can affect 

habitat and cause alteration to the riparian zone and that those effects can be detrimental 

in the absence of buffer strips. Buffer strips protect water quality by intercepting nonpoint source pollutants, and also provide numerous other benefits that improve water 

quality, such as erosion control and bank stabilization, the input of organic matter, and 

temperature control through shading (Fischer et al., 2000 and Wenger, 1999). 
99

Undoubtedly, such improvements to water quality positively affect aquatic and semiaquatic wildlife species using riparian habitat. All wildlife species, including those using 

upland habitats, also directly benefit from buffer strips, because buffer strips provide 

wildlife habitat, corridors for wildlife movement, and connectivity among isolated 

habitats (Fischer et al., 2000). Therefore, buffer strips provide habitat for a 

disproportionately high number of wildlife species despite the small proportion of the 

landscape, (Fischer and Martin, 1998) and thus are known as unique ecological features 

of the landscape they occupy (Fischer et al., 2000). Concerning dimensions of buffer 

strips, Fischer and Martin (1998) note that buffer strip width is often positively related to 

species richness and density. Fischer et al. (2000) discuss the placements and dimensions 

of buffer strips in more detail, and conclude that buffer strips over 15 m should be 

promoted for water quality benefits and buffer strips over 100 m should be promoted for 

benefits associated with wildlife and their habitats. 

Our Analysis

Limiting the construction of seawalls, rip-rap, and shoreline development would 

protect habitat for aquatic and semi-aquatic wildlife species. Maintaining a natural 

shoreline would benefit wildlife by maintaining existing habitat to which wildlife species 

are adapted. 

Maintaining the existing 30-foot control strip would benefit all wildlife species by 

providing habitat and corridors to facilitate movement of wildlife among isolated 

habitats. Increasing buffer widths to 100 feet, as recommended by Interior, could further

enhance wildlife species and their habitats by providing a greater amount of habitat and 

larger corridors. Because large buffer widths are often associated with increased species 

richness and density as discussed above, increased buffer widths around Lake Martin 

could benefit state and federally listed species. 

Concerning Alabama Power’s proposal to develop Sensitive Resources data and 

provide it to Alabama DCNR, FWS, and the Commission, developing a Sensitive 

Resources data base would help Alabama Power and the resource agencies consider the 

needs of sensitive resources in permitting development activities along the shoreline. 

The Sensitive Resources layer in conjunction with other project land use classifications as 

identified in the SMP is discussed in section 3.3.5, Recreation Resources and Land Use.

Wildlife Management Program

During preparation of the license application, Alabama Power consulted with 

FWS and Alabama DCNR to develop its proposed WMP. The WMP designates two 

management areas on project lands: a longleaf pine “Primary Management Area,” a 

3,166 acre tract along the eastern shore of Lake Martin, and a “Secondary Management 

Area,” a 2,717 acre tract near the Lake Martin headwaters. The specific wildlife 

management objectives goals of the WMP include:
100

• the enhancement of available habitat for longleaf pine-dependent species on project 

lands; 

• the management of project natural/undeveloped lands adjacent to the Irwin Shoals 

Area (Secondary Management Area) in the upper reaches of Lake Martin for 

maintenance of water quality and wildlife habitat; 

• the development of public hunting opportunities in or near the project boundary;

• the continuation of bald eagle monitoring and management on project lands; and

• the implementation of BMPs on project lands to protect water quality and wildlife 

habitat surrounding Lake Martin. 

Regarding the continued monitoring and management of bald eagles on project 

lands, Alabama Power proposes to continue conducting annual surveys for overwintering 

bald eagles. Alabama Power proposes to include the locations of bald eagle nests in a 

geographic information system data layer identified as Sensitive Resources in the SMP, 

and provide the nest locations including a Global Positioning System waypoint to 

Alabama DCNR, FWS, and the Commission (Alabama Power, 2011b). For further 

discussion, see section 3.3.5, Recreation Resources and Land Use. 

Alabama Power’s proposed wildlife management activities would occur primarily 

on the Primary Management Area, a 3,166-acre tract that contains the majority of 

longleaf pine stands existing on project lands. Under the WMP, Alabama Power would 

manage the Primary Management Area toward a desired forest condition consistent with 

good quality foraging habitat for the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, as 

defined in the recovery plan for this species (FWS, 2003a).

The Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan (FWS, 2003a) describes good 

quality foraging habitat as generally having large old pines, low densities of small and 

medium pines, sparse or no hardwood midstory, and groundcover consisting of 

bunchgrasses and forbs. Alabama Power estimates that approximately 325 acres of 

habitat within the Primary Management Area currently meets the definition of good 

quality foraging habitat. The proposed WMP includes a number of specific management 

strategies for longleaf pine stands on the Primary Management Area to enhance good 

quality foraging habitat. Management strategies included in the plan are described 

below. 

Timber management would consist of an uneven-aged management scheme with a 

cutting cycle of 25 years and an overall forest rotation of 80 years; a selective cutting to 

achieve a forest condition consistent with good quality foraging habitat; and a reasonable 

effort to leave a residual stand with the following characteristics: 

• a minimum basal area of 4.6 m2

/ha (20 feet2/ac) for pines > 60 years in age and > 

35 cm (14 in) diameter at breast height (dbh); 
101

• a basal area between 0 and 9.2 m2

/ha (0 and 40 feet2/ac) for pines 25.4 – 35 cm (10 

– 14 in) dbh;

• a basal area below 2.3 m2

/ha (10 feet2/ac) for pines < 25.4 cm (< 10 in) dbh; and 

• a minimum basal area of 9.2 m2

/ha (40 feet2/ac) for all pines > 25.4 cm (10 in).

Prescribed burns would be implemented on approximately 350 acres annually, 

such that one third of the Primary Management Area would be burned annually on a 3-

year burn rotation. To ensure management practices are having the desired effect on 

stand structure, Alabama Power proposes to conduct stand inventories on a minimum 6-

year interval. Following each inventory, Alabama Power would prepare a report that 

would be submitted to Alabama DCNR and FWS for review and filed with the 

Commission.

Alabama Power’s proposed WMP also includes planting of an approximately 98-

acre tract with containerized longleaf pine seedlings. This area is currently non-project 

land, but is included in the approximately 367.8 acres proposed for inclusion in the 

project boundary as part of the Martin Small Game Hunting Area, further discussed in 

section 3.3.5, Recreation Resources and Land Use. Once established, Alabama Power 

would manage longleaf pine stands on this site similarly to longleaf stands located on the 

Primary Management Area. Specifically, Alabama Power would use an uneven-aged 

management scheme with a cutting cycle of 25 years and an overall forest rotation of 80 

years. After the 98-acre longleaf stand reaches at least 3 years of age, Alabama Power 

would implement a burning program to maintain the stand. The entirety of the 98 acres 

would be burned a minimum of every 5 years.

Interior recommends that within the Core Management Area in the WMP, 

Alabama Power should manage towards a desired forest condition consistent with the 

good quality foraging habitat for the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, a 

species dependent on longleaf pine ecosystems.

Our Analysis

Implementing Alabama Power’s proposed WMP would consolidate wildlife 

management activities within specified management areas for which specific objectives 

are defined. Broadly speaking, implementing the objectives of the WMP on specified 

areas would enhance wildlife habitat for all species. The proposed prescribed burns, in 

conjunction with timber stand inventories and selective timber harvest, would support 

forest composition and structure indicative of healthy longleaf pine ecosystems and 

therefore enhance habitat for longleaf pine-dependent species. Maintaining existing 

natural/undeveloped lands and continuing to implement BMPs would benefit wildlife 

through improved water quality, providing shoreline habitat, and providing upland habitat 

and movement corridors among isolated habitats. 

Implementation of the proposed WMP would provide long-term benefits to 

terrestrial plant and wildlife communities within the project boundary and compliment 
102

the objectives contained in the SMP. Because one of the objectives of the WMP involves 

enhancement of habitat for longleaf pine-dependent species, such as the federally 

endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, Alabama Power’s proposed WMP addresses 

Interior’s recommendation.

3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

FWS initially provided a list of five federally listed species potentially occurring 

in the project affected area, which it later expanded to ten species (Alabama Power,

2012b). None of the federally listed species were documented during the surveys for 

rare, threatened, and endangered species. Interior, in response to the Commission’s 

notice requesting comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions,

stated that no federally listed species are known to occur within the project boundary 

(letter from J. Stanley, Regional Environmental Protection Assistant, Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, Atlanta, Georgia, to Kimberly Bose, 

Secretary, FERC, Washington, D.C., filed on April 6, 2012).

3.3.4.1 Affected Environment

Action Area

The action area, or project-affected area, for the aquatic rare, threatened, and 

endangered species includes the Lake Martin reservoir, tailrace, and the Tallapoosa River 

from Thurlow dam downstream to RM 12.9.53 The action area, or project affected area, 

for the terrestrial rare, threatened, and endangered species includes project lands 

encompassed by the project boundary.54 

Aquatic Threatened and Endangered Species

The FWS list of potentially occurring species provided to Alabama Power for its 

studies of rare, threatened, and endangered species included six aquatic species. The 

mussel species included the threatened Alabama moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus)

and the endangered ovate clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum), finelined pocketbook 

(Hamiota (=Lampsilis) altilis), and southern clubshell (Pleurobema decisum). The fish 

species included the threatened Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) and the 

endangered Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi).

The historic range of the four threatened and endangered mussel species included 

most rivers, and associated tributaries, of the Mobile River Basin (FWS, 2004). Extant 

 

53 See the Commission’s Clarification to Study Plan Determination, issued on 

May 1, 2009. 

54 See the Commission’s Study Plan Determination issued on April 17, 2009. 
103

populations are localized, and uncommon to rare, throughout the current ranges (Mirachi, 

2004). FWS (2000) published a recovery plan for a suite of aquatic species occurring in 

the Mobile River Basin. The recovery plan includes the Alabama moccasinshell, ovate 

clubshell, finelined pocketbook, and southern clubshell. FWS designated critical habitat 

for 11 mussels, including the aforementioned species, in the Mobile River Basin. 

Although the critical habitat designation does include portions of the Tallapoosa River

drainage, no critical habitat occurs within the project affected area (FWS, 2004). 

Alabama Power consulted with FWS and Alabama DCNR to determine 

appropriate sampling locations within the action area and methods for the mussel species 

surveyed. Alabama Power conducted surveys for mussels in the project affected area 

between May and November 2009, and May and June 2010. No federally listed mussels 

were found to occur in the project affected area. 

The federally listed threatened Gulf sturgeon historically occurred in most major 

rivers from the Mississippi River to the Suwannee River, and marine waters of the central 

and eastern Gulf of Mexico to Florida Bay. No information is available about population 

levels of the Gulf sturgeon in other rivers. Documentation of occurrences of the Gulf 

sturgeon in rivers of the Mobile Basin are rare and incidental (FWS and Gulf States 

Marine Fisheries Commission, 1995). FWS designated critical habitat for the Gulf 

sturgeon, but the Tallapoosa River is not included in the designation (FWS, 2003b). 

The federally listed endangered Alabama sturgeon historically occurred in the 

Mobile Basin. Records are extremely rare and indicate the species could be near 

extinction. FWS recently published a draft recovery plan for the species (FWS, 2012a). 

FWS designated critical habitat for the Alabama sturgeon, but the Tallapoosa River is not 

included in the designation (FWS, 2009). 

Alabama Power consulted with FWS and Alabama DCNR to determine 

appropriate sampling locations within the action area and methods for the fish species 

surveyed. Fish surveys were conducted between July 2009 and June 2010. No federally 

listed fish species were found in the project affected area. 

Terrestrial Threatened and Endangered Species

FWS’ list of potentially occurring species provided to Alabama Power for its 

studies of rare, threatened, and endangered species included three terrestrial species. The 

two plants included were the federally listed threatened little amphianthus (Amphianthus 

pusillus) and the candidate Georgia Rockcress (Arabis georgiana). The avian species 

included was the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis).

Little amphianthus, also called pool sprite, is a federally listed threatened species

that was probably historically rare due to its specialized habitat in temporary pools in 

depressions of granitic outcrops (FWS, 1993). Extant populations are known to occur in 

five Alabama counties including Tallapoosa County (FWS, 2008; FWS, 2012b). FWS 

published a recovery plan for three granite outcrop plants including little amphianthus

(FWS, 1993). No critical habitat has been designated for this species. 
104

Georgia Rockcress is a candidate species for federal listing under the ESA. 

Georgia rockcress occurs along eroding river banks and in dry conditions associated with 

rocky bluffs and outcrops (FWS, 2011) and slopes along water courses, including sandy 

loam along eroding riverbanks (NatureServe, 2012a). Currently, 16 populations are 

known to exist in Georgia and Alabama (FWS, 2011). In Alabama it is known to occur 

in Tallapoosa County (FWS, 2012c). No recovery plan has been published and no 

critical habitat has been designated for this candidate species. 

Alabama Power conducted surveys for little amphianthus and Georgia Rockcress 

during June and July, 2009. No suitable habitat for little amphianthus was observed 

within the project boundary during this study and no observations of suitable habitat were 

documented during previous visits to the project site. While suitable habitat was 

observed for Georgia rockcress, no individuals were documented during the surveys

(Alabama Power, 2009a). 

The federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker requires open, old growth 

pine forests and savannahs for nesting and roosting habitat. For foraging habitat, the redcockaded woodpecker requires pine forests with little to no hardwood or pine midstory, 

little or no hardwood overstory, and the presence of native bunchgrasses and forbs. 

Because of habitat loss, alteration, and degradation, it is estimated that red-cockaded 

woodpeckers currently occur at only 3 percent of the species’ historic abundance (FWS, 

2003a). FWS (2003a) published a recovery plan for the species, as well as a 5-year 

review (FWS, 2006). No critical habitat has been designated for this species. During 

2006, Alabama Power conducted extensive surveys in the longleaf pine forests within the 

project boundary. No active colonies of red-cockaded woodpeckers were documented

(Alabama Power, 2011g). 

3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects

Aquatic Threatened and Endangered Species

Alabama Power’s studies of aquatic rare, threatened, and endangered species 

showed that no federally listed mussels or fish occur within the project affected area. The 

results of Alabama Power’s studies are consistent with Interior’s statement, by letter filed 

April 6, 2012, that no federally listed species are currently known to occur within the 

Martin Dam Project boundary. In its biological assessment (BA) Alabama Power 

determined that its continued project operations would have no effect on federally listed 

aquatic species (Alabama Power, 2012b). Alabama Power also determined that no 

critical habitat for these federally listed aquatic species occurs in the area, and therefore,

the proposed project would have no effect on critical habitats for aquatic species. 

Alabama Power also concluded that formal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA 

would be unnecessary for aquatic species (Alabama Power, 2012b). 

On June 6, 2012, Alabama Rivers Alliance and American Rivers filed comments 

on Alabama Power’s BA. They state that surveys are inadequate and do not provide 

enough information to make a consultation determination, and that Alabama Power’s BA 
105

is deficient. Alabama Rivers Alliance and American Rivers further state that several 

aquatic species, including the finelined pocketbook, ovate clubshell, southern clubshell, 

and Alabama sturgeon have been known to occur in the lower Tallapoosa River and 

Alabama River. Alabama Rivers Alliance and American Rivers recommend that the BA 

include an assessment of effects on all listed species that may occur in the area, 

regardless of Alabama Power’s survey results.

Our Analysis and Finding

Alabama Power’s Study Plan 5 was developed in consultation with FWS and 

Alabama DCNR and was approved by the Commission in April 2009. None of the 

species on the species list provided by FWS for the rare, threatened, and endangered 

species study were collected. No agencies raised concerns about federally listed species 

or critical habitats occurring within the project affected areas, and no agencies raised 

concerns about the study results. 

Because no federally listed aquatic species and no designated critical habitats are 

known to occur within the project affected area, we find that continued operation of the 

Martin Dam Project would have no effect on the federally listed mussels including the 

Alabama moccasinshell, ovate clubshell, finelined pocketbook, and federally listed fish 

species including the Gulf sturgeon and Alabama sturgeon. Therefore, no further 

consultation is necessary for these species. 

Terrestrial Threatened and Endangered Species

Alabama Power concluded that no suitable habitat for little amphianthus occurs 

within the project boundary. Although suitable habitat for Georgia rockcress does occur 

within the project boundary, no individual plants were documented during the surveys 

(Alabama Power, 2009a). Interior’s letter, filed April 6, 2012, substantiates Alabama 

Power’s conclusion that no federally listed plant species are known to occur within the 

project boundary. In its BA, Alabama Power found that its continued project operations 

would have no effect on little amphianthus and Georgia Rockcress (Alabama Power, 

2012b). 

Our Analysis and Finding

Because neither little amphianthus nor its habitat occurs within the project 

boundary, and because Georgia Rockcress is not known to occur within the project 

boundary, we find that continued operation of the Martin Dam Project would have no 

effect on the federally listed little amphianthus and candidate Georgia Rockcress. 

Therefore, no further consultation is necessary for these species. 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker

The results of Alabama Power’s surveys of longleaf pine forests showed that no 

active colonies of red-cockaded woodpeckers occur within the project boundary. 

Alabama Power’s conclusion is consistent with Interior’s statement, by letter filed April 
106

6, 2012, that no federally listed species are currently known to occur within the Martin 

Dam Project boundary. However, longleaf pine forests do occur on project lands. As 

part of the WMP, Alabama Power proposes to manage the longleaf pine forests toward 

mature, open stands of longleaf pines that provide good quality foraging habitat suitable 

for red-cockaded woodpeckers. Interior, by letter filed April 6, 2012, recommends 

managing the Core Management Area of the WMP toward a desired forest condition 

consistent with the good quality foraging habitat indicative of healthy longleaf pine 

ecosystems. In its BA, Alabama Power concluded that the Martin Dam Project, including 

Alabama Power’s proposed 3-foot increase in the winter pool would likely affect, but not 

adversely affect, the red-cockaded woodpecker. 

Our Analysis and Finding

Although no red-cockaded woodpeckers are known to occur within the project 

boundary, longleaf pine forests do occur within the project boundary. As part of its 

WMP, Alabama Power proposes to manage longleaf pine forests toward good quality 

foraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers. Because, forest management for good

quality foraging habitat could ultimately lead to colonization by red-cockaded 

woodpeckers, issuing a new license for the Martin Dam Project could provide long-term

benefits for the red-cockaded woodpecker. Therefore, issuing a new license for the 

project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the red-cockaded woodpecker. 

3.3.5 Recreation Resources and Land Use 

3.3.5.1 Affected Environment

Regional Recreation Resources and Land Use

The Tallapoosa River and its tributaries offer a wide range of recreation 

opportunities. Regional recreation opportunities located within an approximately 50-mile 

radius of the Martin Dam Project include two state parks - Cheaha and Chewacla - which 

offer bank fishing, cabins, campsites, picnic areas, swimming areas, playgrounds, and 

hiking and biking trails. The approximately 11,000-acre Tuskegee National Forest, 

administered by the U.S. Forest Service, is located about 40 miles southeast of the 

project. The forest offers bank fishing, primitive campsites, approximately 29 miles of 

hiking and biking trails (including 8.5 miles of the Bartram National Recreation Trail),55

a horseback riding trail, and picnic areas.

 

55 The approximate 115-mile-long Bartram National Recreation Trail is named 

after the 18th Century botanist/artist William Bartram who traveled, between 1773 and 

1776, through eight states in the southeast region and documented plants. 
107

Other regional recreation resources include Lake Walter F. George, Lake Harding, 

Harris Reservoir (Lake Wedowee), Lake Jordan/Bouldin, Lay Lake, Mitchell Lake, H. 

Neely Henry Lake, Logan Martin Lake, and West Point Lake, which provide boat 

launches, marinas, restaurants, picnic areas, and campsites. 

The Horseshoe Bend National Military Park, administered by the National Park 

Service, is located about 10 miles upstream of the project and offers an overlook, a visitor 

center, and about 3 miles of hiking trails. The park preserves the site of the Battle of the 

Creek War (1813-1814), which was part of the War of 1812. 

The 1,445-acre Wind Creek State Park is located on the northeastern shore of Lake 

Martin, with land-based activities located outside of the project boundary. The park 

offers 626 campsites, cabins, restrooms, a marina, six boat launches, a fishing pier, a 

dock, hiking trails, two playgrounds, picnic areas, and trash receptacles. From May 1 

through September 3, 2007, Alabama Power (2008) estimated 100,311 recreation userdays56 at Wind Creek State Park. Ricks (2006) notes a significant amount of 

participation in black bass tournaments occurs at Wind Creek State Park. At least one 

black bass tournament occurs nearly every weekend from February through May, and 

from September through November. Ricks (2006) cites to other studies whereby 

researchers found the tournament attracts non-resident anglers and provides substantial 

economic benefit to local communities. 

Downstream of the Martin Dam Project on the Tallapoosa River, Alabama Power 

operates and maintains the existing Yates and Thurlow Project No. 2407. The Yates dam 

is located at RM 52.7, which is 7.9 miles downstream of Martin dam. Similarly, the 

Thurlow dam is located at RM 49.7, which is 3 miles downstream of Yates dam. The 

Yates and Thurlow developments provide access to the respective reservoirs, and to the 

river downstream of Thurlow dam. There are three access sites on Yates reservoir and 

one on Thurlow reservoir. 

Downstream of the dams, the river exhibits natural bedrock outcroppings 

between RM 49 and RM 47. Within this river segment, the river channel drops 9 feet in 

elevation (Alabama Power, 2011a) and provides whitewater boating opportunities, 

varying in whitewater class from Class II to Class IV on the International Scale of River 

Difficulty.57 The Thurlow dam put-in is located downstream of Thurlow dam on the 

Tallapoosa River at RM 49.5, and the Tallapoosa take out is located at RM 48.0. Flows 

 

56 A recreation user-day is a visit to an area for recreational purposes during any 

portion of a 24-hour period. 

57 The International Scale of River Difficulty defines six classes of whitewater: 

Class I-Easy; Class II-Novice; Class III-Intermediate; Class IV-Advanced; Class VExpert; and Class VI-Extreme. 
108

downstream of Thurlow dam typically range from 1,200 to 18,000 cfs. For further 

discussion on flows, see section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources. 

Recreation Sites

Recreation sites along the project shoreline offer day-use, campsites, fishing, 

picnic areas, swimming, and boat launches. There are 58 recreation sites providing 

access to project lands and waters that include 21 public sites, 14 commercial sites, six 

quasi-public sites, and 17 private sites. Of the 58 recreation sites, 26 recreation sites are 

located entirely, or partially, within the existing Martin Dam Project boundary. The 

remaining 32 recreation sites are located entirely outside of the project boundary. The 26 

recreation sites provide an estimated 195 picnic tables, six swimming areas, 19 hard 

surfaced boat launches with 24 lanes, two gravel or carry-in boat launches, 120 recreation 

vehicle sites, 40 cabin sites, 23 tent sites, and six primitive campsites. 

In accordance with the proposed final Recreation Plan for the Martin Dam Project, 

filed December 9, 2011, Alabama Power considers 19 of the 26 recreation sites as project 

recreation sites because Alabama Power owns, operates, and maintains the recreation 

sites, although it may delegate O&M of the site to another entity. Of these 19 recreation 

sites, table 3-17 only identifies 12 existing project recreation sites included in the current 

project license.

Recreation Use

Alabama Power (2008 and 2010g) conducted recreation studies to identify and 

characterize recreation use within, or adjacent to, the project boundary. Visitor use was 

estimated using visitor counts in conjunction with on-site interviews with visitors 

throughout the study area and mail-back questions. The 2008 study identified the study 

area as the major arms and tributaries of Lake Martin (e.g., Kowaliga arm, Blue Creek, 

Sandy Creek, and Manoy Creek) from Irwin Shoals to Martin dam, a distance of 

approximately 27 miles. Recreational use at the 57 public, commercial, and private sites 

identified in the study was estimated at 1,058,670 recreation days. The 2010 study 

identified the study area as: (1) the reservoir; (2) 11 public, commercial, and private 

recreation sites located at Lake Martin; and (3) the tailwater of Martin dam, as defined 

from Martin dam to 0.25 mile downstream of the dam. Recreational use for this study is 

discussed below.

Alabama Power (2010g) estimated 370,538 recreation user-days for the combined 

recreational use at Lake Martin and the tailwater area, with most recreational use 

attributed to visitors and seasonal landowners (263,060 recreation user-days), and the 

remainder attributed to permanent residents (105,114 recreation user-days). Most 

recreation occurs from April through August, with a noticeable increase in recreational 

use during July, and a considerable decrease in September and October (table 3-18). 

Of the total 370,538 recreation user-days, Alabama Power (2010g) estimates use 

of the project tailwater area at 2,365 recreation user-days annually, with recreational use
109

Table 3-17. Existing project recreation sites included in the current project license (Source: Alabama Power, 2011a, as 

modified by staff).

Site Name Type of Facility Acres

Minimum Elevation That Boat 

Ramp Is Useable (feet msl)

Anchor Bay Marina Commercial/Day Use 6.4 480*/484#

Camp Alamisco Quasi- public/Campground/campsites 51.5 486

Camp ASCCA (Dadeville 

Campus)

Quasi-public/Campground/campsites 22.8

483#

DARE Boat Landing Public/Day Use 2.5 482#

DARE Power Park Public/Day Use 218.2 N/A

Kamp Kiwanis Quasi-public/Campground/campsites 890.5 486

Maxwell Gunter AFB 

Recreation Area

Quasi-public/Campground/campsites 45.3

479*

Parker Creek Marina Commercial/Day Use 9.7 481*

Pleasure Point Park and Marina Commercial/ Campground/campsites 6.6 481*

Real Island Marina and 

Campground

Commercial/Day Use 9.6

482#

Scenic Overlook Public/Day Use 1.5 N/A

Union Ramp Public/Day Use 11.4 483#

Notes: * provides access during current winter operations to elevation 481 feet msl.

 # would provide access during proposed winter operations to elevation 484 feet msl.
110

Table 3-18. Estimated recreation use (in recreation user-days) at the Martin Dam 

Project from June 1, 2009, to June 13, 2010 (Source: Alabama Power, 

2010g, as modified by the staff).

Month

Average 

Weekday 

Use

Total 

Weekday 

Use

Average 

Weekend 

Use

Total 

Weekend 

Use

Average 

Holiday 

Use

Total 

Holiday 

Use Total

January 144 3,014 103 1,027 0 0 4,041

February 170 3,393 173 1,386 0 0 4,779

March 462 10,630 410 3,283 0 0 13,913

April 502 11,042 2,117 16,933 0 0 27,974

May 824 16,482 1,635 13,082 358 1,074a 30,638

June 1,230 27,052 3,502 28,014 0 0 55,065

July 3,206 70,537 11,269 67,616 3,468 10,405 148,558

August 811 17,031 2,307 23,069 0 0 40,099

September 435 9,145 1,592 9,552 1,641 4,922 23,619

October 256 5,625 378 3,400 0 0 9,025

November 179 3,757 453 4,076 0 0 7,833

December 71 1,632 125 996 0 0 2,628

Subtotal 695 179,339 1,760 172,433 1,822 16,401 368,173

Tailwaterb 6 1,516 8 812 4 37 2,365

Total 701 180,855 1,768 173,245 1,826 16,438 370,538

a Lake use on Memorial Day during the study year was adversely affected by inclement 

weather.

b Tailwater use is annual estimate only.

attributed to visitors and seasonal landowners (1,690 recreation user-days), and the 

remainder attributed to permanent residents (675 recreation user-days). 

Pleasure boating is the most popular activity at Lake Martin, accounting for more 

than one-half (52 percent) of all recreational activity. Recreational boating use indicates 

that boating is concentrated in the main portion of Lake Martin, as well as in the Blue 

Creek arm of the lake, which is most likely due to Wind Creek State Park and to the 
111

numerous public boat launches at the lake. The second most popular activity is spending 

time at the lake with “no primary activity” (9.6 percent) (Alabama Power, 2010g; 2008). 

Including water-skiing/tubing and fishing, three of the five primary recreation activities at 

the lake are related to boating. 

With regard to recreational use at the Martin Dam Project, Alabama Power filed, 

on April 1, 2009, the most recent Licensed Hydropower Development Recreation Report 

(Form 80)58 data for the project. These 2008 data indicate annual daytime visitation of 

2,955,600 and annual nighttime visitation of 620,700. The Form 80 data indicates the 

swimming area (69 percent occupancy), parks (designated areas which usually contain 

multiple facilities (e.g., picnic sites, boat ramps) (54 percent occupancy), and campsites 

(47 percent occupancy) are popular recreation sites. 

As discussed in section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, some of the predominant 

recreational fish species in Lake Martin include spotted and largemouth bass, black 

crappie, and bluegill. Striped bass are stocked by Alabama DCNR on an annual basis to 

provide an additional game fishery (Sammons, 2011; CH2MHill, 2005; Gulf States 

Marine Fisheries Commission, 2006). Greene et al. (2008) note that bass tournament 

data collected for the B.A.I.T. program indicate that Lake Martin ranked second out of 22 

reservoirs statewide in angler percent success, but twenty-first in average weight. Greene 

et al. (2008) find that the high angler success rate is primarily due to the abundance of 

small fish. 

As discussed in section 3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources, a variety of wetland types 

occur within the project boundary. Studies (Bergstrom, et al., 1996; Henderson, et al., 

2001) show that anglers generally prefer increased aquatic vegetation because it provides 

food and cover for fish and other species. In addition, the studies show that anglers’ 

visitation decreased as the amount of aquatic vegetation decreased. Non-anglers 

displayed a ‘mirror-image’ visitation trend of anglers. Visitation from non-anglers 

increased as aquatic vegetation decreased.

Future projections of recreation use at the project indicate an increase of 24 

percent over current recreation use by the year 2050 (table 3-19). Activities with the 

highest growth potential (in percent) by the year 2050 include wildlife observation (88 

percent), sightseeing (76 percent), and picnicking (64 percent). Activity growth with the 

highest potential increase in the total number of recreation user-days by the year 2050 at 

the project includes pleasure boating (30,618 more recreation user-days) and “no primary 

 

58 To evaluate recreation resources at the project, the Commission requires the 

licensee to prepare and submit a Form 80 every 6 years (see 18 C.F.R. section 8.11). 

Each Form 80 must identify the project’s recreation facilities and the level of public use 

of these facilities.
112

activity” (18,813 more recreation user-days). Hunting is projected to decrease by 19 

percent by the year 2050. 

Table 3-19. Projected recreation use at the Martin Dam Project by activity type from 

2010-2050 (Source: Alabama Power, 2011d, final Recreation Plan, as 

modified by staff).

Activity 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Projected 

Growth 

(%)

Pleasure Boating, 

Waterskiing, Jetskiing 243,840 248,717 256,032 268,223 282,854 16

No primary 

activity/Other activities 39,139 43,836 48,924 54,423 59,883 53

Fishing 35,722 38,579 41,080 42,153 42,153 18

Swimming/Beach 

use/Non-pool swim 29,574 31,348 33,419 36,080 39,333 33

Sailing 5,458 5,676 6,113 6,877 8,078 48

Sightseeing 2,884 3,374 3,893 4,470 5,076 76

Camping (Developed 

& Primitive) 5,014 5,841 6,744 7,671 8,649 72

Wildlife observation 429 545 656 746 807 88

Hunting 320 310 298 278 259 -19

Canoeing, Kayaking, 

Windsurfing 7,871 8,186 8,816 9,918 11,649 48

Picnicking 288 325 369 418 472 64

Total 370,539 386,737 406,344 431,257 459,213 24

Land Use 

Section 3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources, discusses the vegetative cover types and 

distributions that contribute to the land use. 

The Tallapoosa River Basin is rural with agriculture and forest products as the 

primary land uses. Agriculture includes livestock, corn, wheat, soybeans, grains, and 

hay. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2012) estimates 

the combined market value of agricultural products sold in Tallapoosa, Elmore, and 

Coosa Counties totaled $39 million. Other economic sectors include the automotive 
113

industry, manufacturing, retail trade, and public service (Alabama Development Office, 

2011). 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (2007; 2008) recognizes a recent 

trend in land use has been, in some areas, the loss of prime farmland to industrial and 

urban areas. By the year 2030, the land use pattern in the Tallapoosa River Basin is 

projected to change significantly. Agricultural land is projected to decline by 70 percent,

and undeveloped land is projected to decline by 50 percent. In general, land use is 

expected to change from open space and agriculture to residential. 

The project is located in east central Alabama near Alexander City, Dadeville, and 

Jacksons Gap in Coosa, Elmore, and Tallapoosa Counties, Alabama. Central Alabama 

Regional Planning and Development Commission (2007) notes Elmore County is ranked 

as the third highest growing county in Alabama. Table 3-20 shows population and 

business data for Coosa, Elmore, and Tallapoosa Counties. While Lake Martin provides 

numerous recreation opportunities and local businesses supply the demand for recreationrelated products associated with recreation at the lake (e.g., lodging, restaurants, sporting 

goods, marine sales) the three-county region provides for non-recreation businesses 

across a variety of industries. Alabama Power (2010g) estimated that recreationists spent 

$9.8 million on trip-related purchases associated with their visits to Lake Martin during 

the 12-month study period. Visitors and seasonal residents account for approximately 

two-thirds of trip-related spending.

Alexander City, Alabama, located on U.S. Highway 280 adjacent to the northwest 

part of Lake Martin, is the largest municipality with a population of 14,876. The percent 

decrease in population of Alexander City between 2010 and 2012 was 0.8 percent (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2010d). Similar data is unavailable for Dadeville and Jacksons Gap, 

Alabama. For Coosa, Elmore, and Tallapoosa Counties, the projections (from 2010 to 

2040) for the population 65 years and older predict percent increases of 64.3 percent, a 

163.9 percent, and a 50.9 percent change, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau and The 

University of Alabama, 2010). 

Currently, project lands encompass 8,602 acres, including 1.39 acres of federal 

lands administered by BLM. Alabama Power manages these lands and waters for the 

project facilities and issuances of permits and leases to other entities and individuals for 

non-project use and occupancy of project lands or waters consistent with project 

operation. 

There are 6,901 privately owned shoreline parcels adjacent to, or near, Lake 

Martin, which encompass the three affected counties. With regard to these parcels, 456 

parcels are located in Coosa County, 2,037 parcels are located in Elmore County, and 

4,408 parcels are located in Tallapoosa County (Alabama Power, 2010g). Over the next 

35 years, the City of Alexander City et al. (2009) project 6,211 housing units adjacent to, 

or near, Lake Martin. 
114

Table 3-20. Population and business data for Coosa, Elmore, and Tallapoosa Counties 

(Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a, b, c, as modified by staff). 

Coosa County Elmore County Tallapoosa County

Square miles 650.93 618.49 716.52

Population, 2013

estimate

10,898 80,902 41,203

Persons under 

18 years, 

percent, 2013

18.9 23.2 21.4

Population 

density

17.7 persons/sq. mile 128.2 persons/sq. 

mile

58.1 persons/sq. mile

Total non-farm 

establishments, 

2012

98 1,122 753

Primary 

industries

Agriculture, forestry, 

fishing, and hunting; 

construction; health 

care; retail trade 

Construction; health 

care; retail trade; 

accommodation and 

food services

Agriculture, forestry, 

fishing, and hunting; 

health care; retail 

trade; manufacturing

Total non-farm 

employment, 

2012

955 14,382 10,348

Non-farm 

employment, 

percent change, 

2011-2012

3.7 2.0 7.0

Alabama Power’s existing Comprehensive Recreation Plan, or Exhibit R of the 

current license, identifies land uses within the project boundary. Alabama Power owns

lands within the entire length of the shoreline to the 491-foot contour, and some lands 

above the 491-foot contour. The Comprehensive Recreation Plan characterizes existing 

project lands into eight classifications, including Unclassified Lands (see table 3-21): 

• Prohibited Access – consists of areas where visitors are not allowed in order to 

protect them from hazardous areas and prevent damage to operational 

facilities.

• General Public Use – is reserved for development of parks, boat ramps, 

concessionaires’ facilities, and other public recreation facilities.

• Natural/Undeveloped – remains undeveloped to serve as buffer zones around 

public recreational areas, to protect environmentally sensitive areas, to prevent 
115

overcrowding of partially developed shoreline areas, to maintain the natural 

aesthetic qualities of certain visible areas, for nature study, and for primitive 

camping. 

• Potential Residential – includes areas where lots for cottage construction can be 

developed by Alabama Power and made available to the public under 

restrictive lease provisions. 

• Quasi-public Recreation – 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. 

• Commercial Recreation – includes existing concessionaire-operated public 

marinas and recreational areas that provide a wide variety of recreational 

services to the public on a fee basis.

• 30-foot Buffer – Defines a strip of land along the shoreline in certain areas of 

the reservoir. This 30-foot buffer is located on land once owned by Alabama 

Power. When sold, Alabama Power retained a 30-foot strip to act as a buffer 

and prohibit certain activities (e.g., habitable structures). 

Table 3-21. Current land use classifications within the Martin Dam Project boundary 

(Source: Alabama Power, 2011a).

Classifications

Total Area 

(Acres)

Shoreline Length 

(Miles)

Prohibited Access 279.8 3.5

General Public Use 781.2 20

Natural/Undeveloped 6203.1 127.8

Potential Residential 329.6 16.1

Quasi-public Recreation 261.6 6.3

Commercial Recreation 62.9 3.9

30-Foot Buffer 683.8 193.3

Unclassified n/a 510.1

Total 8,602.0 879.5a

a 1.5 miles of shoreline classified as Prohibited Access occur in the Martin tailrace and

are not included in the amount of shoreline miles.
116

 Shoreline Permitting Program

As part of the current Shoreline Permitting Program, Alabama Power administers 

a program that addresses specific use and occupancy of the Lake Martin shoreline not 

tied to project purposes. The shoreline permitting program provides a process for a 

landowner or a commercial developer who proposes to construct or modify a pier, a boat 

dock, or shoreline stabilization materials, such as a seawall, on lands within the Martin 

Dam Project boundary. Alabama Power monitors activities along the shoreline to ensure 

that those activities are permitted and consistent with conditions as outlined in the permit.

The Corps has given Alabama Power the authority to manage certain permitting 

on the lake that ordinarily would be subject to Corps permitting. Thus, Alabama Power 

holds a Programmatic General Permit, issued by the Corps, that authorizes certain types 

of work, minor structures and activities in or affecting waters of the United States, 

including navigable waters of the United States. The permit allows Alabama Power to 

expedite authorization of work within the Martin Dam Project boundary and contains 

provisions to protect the environment.59

In a letter filed March 14, 2012, Alabama Power provided an updated summary of 

its progress for implementing its Shoreline Compliance Program at its eight hydroelectric 

projects, including the Martin Dam Project. The Shoreline Compliance Program 

establishes a framework primarily to address unpermitted structures (e.g., a satellite dish) 

on project lands and waters consistent with Alabama Power’s Shoreline Permitting 

Program and the Commission’s standard land use article. The Shoreline Compliance 

Program comprises six components including: (1) Shoreline Permitting Program; 

(2) Structure Identification, Assessment and Resolution; (3) Public Education and 

Communication; (4) Surveillance Program; (5) Shoreline Litigation; and (6) Shoreline 

Preservation Initiatives. 

By letter issued August 17, 2012, we acknowledged Alabama Power’s above letter 

regarding its progress implementing its Shoreline Compliance Program for its eight 

hydroelectric projects, including the Martin Dam Project. In our letter, we determined, 

among other items, that Alabama Power must monitor project property to ensure that no 

unauthorized uses and occupancies occur within the project boundary. Alabama Power is 

required to file annual status reports on activities under its Shoreline Compliance 

Program, including an overview of its progress in resolving the unpermitted structures. 

 

59 See Alabama Power’s Response to Additional Information Request No. 26, filed 

December 9, 2011.
117

3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects

Project Operations and Lake Management

Alabama Power currently operates the project according to three curves. See 

figure 2-1 and section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, for further discussion of project 

operations. To enhance recreation and other related environmental resources, Alabama 

Power proposes to increase the winter pool elevation by 3 feet to elevation 484 feet, and 

change the operating and drought curves. Alabama Power also proposes a conditional 

fall extension of the summer reservoir elevation. See section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, 

for discussion of these conditions. 

Should the 3-foot winter pool elevation be implemented, Alabama Power proposes 

to lower the reservoir elevation to 481 feet every 6 years, dependent on weather 

conditions, to facilitate maintenance and/or construction activities of shoreline properties, 

such as a boat dock. 

Lake Martin RA recommends a 4-foot increase in the winter pool elevation to 

485 feet, and a trigger for the fall extension when other reservoirs are within 2 feet of 

their operating curves instead of 1 foot as proposed by Alabama Power (one of the 

criteria for triggering the fall extension). With its recommended 4-foot increase, Lake 

Martin RA comments that the risk of downstream flooding is not substantially increased 

over the proposed 3-foot increase in the winter pool elevation to 484 feet. 

Lake Martin HOBO, in an effort to reduce the effects of any future region-wide 

drought on the ability of Lake Martin to refill by the following spring, recommends a 5-

foot increase in winter pool elevation to 486 feet. Lake Martin HOBO also recommends

extending the summer pool elevation (491 feet) from September 1 to October 15 to 

improve recreation opportunities at the lake, and that the Commission direct Alabama 

Power to treat Lake Martin HOBO, Russell Lands and/or Lake Martin RA equally in 

consultations related to lake operations.

The Downstream Landowners, concerned about damages to their property from 

flood events, comment that summer flooding events could be reduced if Alabama Power 

were to provide storage in Lake Martin for flood control.

In comments on the draft EIS, both the Lake Martin RA and Lake Martin HOBO 

support Alabama Power’s proposed 3-foot increase in the winter pool elevation and the

conditional fall extension. Both entities state that the proposed action will provide 

significant economic benefits, such as a projected $27 million increase in additional sales 

taxes in the three counties around Lake Martin. Numerous entities provide similar 

comments, both orally and in writing, supporting the proposed action based on associated 

economic benefits derived from recreational use at Lake Martin.
118

Our Analysis

Higher fall and winter lake levels could enhance recreation resources and 

associated economic activity in the project area by extending the season in which access 

for boats is available, while at the same time providing some assurance that the reservoir 

would refill the following spring. However, higher lake levels can decrease flood storage 

capacity and the amount of flow available for downstream releases, including power 

generation. Reduced flood storage capacity could have an effect on the frequency and 

magnitude of floods downstream, potentially affecting public access at Yates and 

Thurlow reservoirs and whitewater boating opportunities below Thurlow dam, although 

recreational use is usually limited during flood events. Lower summer lake levels could 

compromise lake based recreation resources, by restricting boat access and reducing 

navigability. For further discussion related to potential effects on flooding and 

downstream releases, see section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources. We discuss the effects of the 

potential reservoir changes on recreation 0below.

Higher Winter Lake Levels

Raising the winter pool elevation by 3 feet, to 484 feet (see figure 2-2), as 

proposed by Alabama Power, could have a direct effect on boating at the project. 

Currently, seven boat ramps within (see table 3-17) or proposed to be within (see table 3-

26) the project boundary provide access to the winter pool (useable boat ramp elevation 

of 481 feet or less).60 An increase in winter pool elevation of 3 feet to 484 feet as 

proposed by Alabama Power would allow an additional six boat ramps to be useable 

within the current project boundary. Bakers Bottom Landing is the only site proposed for 

inclusion in the project boundary that would not provide boater access at elevation 484 

feet. As such, non-resident visitors to the area would have access at winter lake levels via 

these public boat launches at both the existing and proposed 3-foot-higher winter pool. 

Approximately 28.6 percent of annual recreational use at Lake Martin is shoreline 

landowners. From June 1, 2009, through June 13, 2010, Alabama Power (2010g; 2011b) 

surveyed 688 shoreline landowners on Lake Martin and at shoreline recreation sites. 

Lake Martin is generally at elevation 487 feet by the end of September, and survey results 

indicated that 8 percent of respondents find it impractical to moor their boat at their dock 

at that elevation. Survey results also indicate the following. At elevation 481 feet, 92 

percent of survey respondents indicated it was impractical to moor their boat at their 

dock. At the proposed 3-foot higher winter pool elevation of 484 feet, 71 percent of 

 

60 Of the seven boat ramps, the boat ramps at Anchor Bay Marina, Maxwell 

Gunter AFB Recreation Area, Parker Creek Marina, Paces Point Ramp, and Pleasure 

Point Park and Marina are located within the project boundary. Alabama Power proposes 

to make the boat ramps at Madwind Creek Ramp and Smith Landing project facilities and 

bring them into the project boundary.
119

survey respondents indicated it was impractical to moor their boat at their dock. If Lake 

Martin was raised 4 feet in the winter to elevation 485 feet, as previously recommended 

by Lake Martin RA, 56 percent of survey respondents indicated it was impractical to 

moor their boat at their dock. If the lake was raised 5 feet higher in the winter to 

elevation 486 feet, as previously recommended by Lake Martin HOBO, 24 percent of 

survey respondents find it impractical to moor their boat at their dock. While lower lake 

levels may strand privately owned boat docks around Lake Martin, there are several boat 

ramps available to the public that provide access to the lake under the varied lake levels. 

Thus, raising the winter pool elevation, as previously recommended by the Lake Martin 

RA or Lake Martin HOBO, would primarily benefit shoreline landowners and their 

private docks. 

Approximately 71.4 percent of the annual recreational use at Lake Martin is 

visitors and seasonal landowners (Alabama Power, 2010g) and two-thirds of the total 

visitation occurs in June, July, and August. The local businesses supported by 

recreational spending experience highly seasonal patterns. Alabama Power (2010g) 

survey results indicate that people would use the lake more often if lake levels were 

higher; however, it is not clear whether a higher lake level would be for the public 

because access is not a limiting factor, with the public boat ramps providing access on the 

lake under current conditions (winter pool of elevation 481 feet). 

Any increase in recreation usage would likely be modest given the higher winter 

level would primarily benefit shoreline landowners during the off-season not typically 

associated with boating and water-based recreation activities. To those boaters that do 

use the reservoir during the winter, higher lake elevations may allow boaters to access 

certain areas of the reservoir for fishing or other recreation activities that may have been 

difficult to access, or inaccessible under existing conditions during this time of year. The 

higher reservoir elevation could improve navigation by creating safer boating conditions 

by decreasing the chance of collision with submerged objects that would be deeper under 

higher reservoir levels. 

The winter season is typically cold and uncomfortable to participate in boating.

Therefore, an increase in recreational use and associated expenditures would likely be 

modest. Given this is the coldest time of the year, improved access for shoreline 

residents would also likely only result in a modest increase in recreational boating during 

the winter.

Conditional Fall Extension

Alabama Power’s proposal to implement a conditional fall extension of the 

summer lake level could benefit recreation at the project by increasing recreation use 

during the fall, resulting in increased recreation-related spending. Figure 3-12 in section 

3.3.2, Aquatic Resources (historical and average lake elevations), shows that, on average, 

the reservoir elevation is about 488 feet on September 1, 486 feet by October 15, and 485 

feet on November 1. Given that the majority of public boat ramps are still useable at 
120

these elevations as discussed above, the public is provided access to Lake Martin until at 

least November 1 (or later) under current conditions. So, similar to the higher winter 

water levels, the greatest benefit would be to shoreline residents who access the lake via 

private docks that tend to be at higher elevations. 

Several studies have been conducted to evaluate the overall economic impact of 

lake tourism and recreation on their surrounding regions (Allen et al., 2010). Hatch and 

Hanson (2001) cite several studies whereby results indicate that maintaining higher water 

levels for longer periods during the summer and fall resulted in considerable gains in 

estimated recreational benefits. Other data find higher water levels added value to homes 

surrounding a lake and increased the recreational and aesthetic values of the residential 

lot. The authors note, however, their study did not include agriculture, municipalities, 

industry, and navigation uses of water. The authors also note that to determine the effect 

of a resource change on all of these potential users would be a large undertaking. 

Platt and Munger (1999) and Platt (2000) find the quality of the recreation 

experience influences the number of recreation trips taken, which can be affected by 

many factors including reservoir elevation. The authors note lake management practices 

influence housing prices, recreation, and aesthetic values. The authors find if other 

recreation sites occur nearby, which would be unaffected by a lake drawdown, it is likely 

recreationists would move to those recreation sites. If a lake drawdown occurs within a 

previous range, recreationists may have adapted to, and be willing to accept, a certain 

level of fluctuations in reservoir elevations. 

Sammons (2011) finds that because Lake Martin has a high degree of residential 

development along its shorelines, and water levels are kept at full pool throughout the 

summer, Alabama Power must generate large volumes of water through Martin dam 

during periods of high rainfall to reduce flooding effects. In the study, Sammons cites to 

another study whereby its authors find changes in water levels within Lake Martin have 

economic impacts on property owners that must be taken into account when trying to 

manage for striped bass habitat. 

Alabama Power (2010g) assessed the potential benefits of a conditional fall 

extension and concluded that this measure would offer a greater potential for increased 

recreational activity than the proposed winter pool increase. Water temperatures would 

still be warm enough for water sports in the fall, and an extended summer pool into the 

middle of October would improve the usability of the shorefront docks. Reservoir 

elevations can have a direct role in the amount of potential recreation available to 

shoreline landowners. As the reservoir level decreases, private docks and piers become 

unusable, as described above. Study results indicate that about 8 percent of property 

owners find it impractical to moor their boats at their dock by the end of September (at 

elevation 487 feet), and by the end of October (at elevation 485 feet), the number of 

property owners that find it impractical to moor their boats rises to more than one-half 

(56 percent). 
121

Overall, higher fall reservoir elevations could provide more opportunities to access 

Lake Martin in that public boat ramps and private docks would continue to be accessible; 

however, the amount of recreation that would be expected to occur during the conditional 

fall extension period is likely modest. Given that two-thirds of the visitation occurs in 

June, July, and August, and that 71.4 percent are visitors and seasonal landowners 

(Alabama Power, 2010g), the demand for recreation is likely to be lower after Labor Day 

weekend because people, generally speaking, would return to school and have limited 

vacation time once school begins. This demand would be further diminished because any 

fall extension would be conditional, based on hydrological and project operational 

criteria. Review of table 3-12 indicates the four criteria required to implement the fall 

extension would only be expected to be met 32 percent of the time under Alabama 

Power’s proposal. As such, it would be difficult for potential visitors interested in 

boating to make decisions ahead of time (e.g., lodging reservations) at Lake Martin due 

to the majority of years the conditional fall extension may not occur. 

Utilization of a 2-foot trigger (one of the criteria related to how close the 

Tallapoosa and Coosa River reservoirs are to their guide curves - Alabama Power is 

proposing a 1-foot trigger) as recommended by Lake Martin RA would increase the 

probability that a conditional fall extension would occur about 84 percent of the time, and 

would provide more certainty to visitors making decisions related to recreating at the lake 

(table 3-12). As proposed by Alabama Power, the conditional fall extension would only 

occur if all four criteria are met, which would be monitored by Alabama Power on a daily 

basis throughout September. Implementing the conditional fall extension with a 1-foot 

trigger could also include a provision for informing the public that there would be an 

effort to maintain higher lake levels into mid-October in most years, providing more 

certainty that boating opportunities could be available. The hydrologic implications of 

the 2-foot trigger are discussed in section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources.

Lower Summer Reservoir Elevations

While lower summer Lake Martin levels could offer some protection to 

downstream resources from flooding (discussed in section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources), lake 

based recreation resources could be adversely affected. Although all public boat ramps 

would continue to be accessible should the lake elevation be lowered by 2 to 3 feet 

(between elevations 488 and 486 feet), boaters could be exposed to risks from submerged 

hazards (e.g., rocks and tree stumps) in the backwater and shallower areas of the 

reservoir. This would pose the greatest risk to the boating type activities such as water 

skiing, which are common during the peak summer recreation season, and could reduce 

the area of the lake where such activities could safely occur. A lower summer lake level 

would also have an effect on accessibility to private docks that are not constructed at 

elevations as low as the public boat ramps. 

A 2 to 3-foot decrease in the summer pool could result in some changes in 

accessibility or the character of shoreline locations used by boaters, or for picnicking, 

swimming, and other shore/land based activities. In some locations, lower summer lake 
122

levels could affect the aesthetics of the area (a wider “bath-tub ring” of shoreline between 

the water and the tree/vegetation line would be visible). Although the overall effects on 

recreational use and economic activity associated with that use would be difficult to 

predict, these lower lake levels would occur during the peak recreation season, and may 

have the potential to have a noticeable effect on some activities (including potentially 

increased shoreline/beach based uses). Overall, lower lake levels may not significantly 

affect the overall use of the reservoir, as most of the major recreational facilities (such as 

a public boat ramp) would still be available and accessible.

Reservoir Drawdown to Elevation 481 feet

Alabama Power proposes to draw down the reservoir every 6 years to elevation 

481 feet, which would benefit shoreline landowners and commercial property owners by 

providing them the opportunity to perform maintenance and repairs to docks and 

shoreline structures. Notification of this drawdown to local residents, shoreline owners, 

and to the public in advance would minimize conflicts with recreational activities and 

visitor use. Having a regularly scheduled drawdown could allow landowners and 

commercial property owners to schedule any required repairs with contractors, and the 

recreating public could plan visits accordingly in order to avoid drawdown periods. 

Downstream Flows

Changes in project operation and reservoir elevations discussed above could affect 

recreation opportunities and lands downstream of Martin dam. Alabama Power proposes 

to operate the Martin Dam Project in accordance with a new flood curve, including an 

increase in the winter pool level and a conditional fall extension. For further discussion, 

see section 2.2, Proposed Project Operation. Alabama Power would also operate the 

project so that the downstream Thurlow dam continues to meet its minimum flow 

requirement of 1,200 cfs. Any changes in reservoir operations could affect downstream 

flows, due to seasonal changes in reservoir storage or modifications in the timing of 

releases from the project. 

Alabama Rivers Alliance and American Rivers state that Alabama Power’s final 

license application and supplemental filing in response to the Commission’s additional 

information request do not provide the necessary information for us to adequately assess 

Alabama Power’s proposals. 

As discussed above in section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, and appendix C, the 

Downstream Landowners recommend the project should be operated with a greater 

emphasis on flood control. 

Our Analysis

Alabama Power’s proposed operational changes designed to benefit recreation on 

the reservoir could alter the frequency and magnitude of floods downstream. Alabama 

Power (2010f) used a number of data sources including LIDAR and hydrological 

modeling results to examine flood frequency and magnitudes in relation to five recreation 
123

access points downstream of Martin dam to RM 12.9 on the Tallapoosa River. As 

described in section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, 100-year flood events during September 

and October, when the conditional fall extension would be implemented, are predicted to 

occur less than 0.2 percent of the time. Furthermore, any changes in flood characteristics 

as a result of the conditional fall extension would be infrequent because all four 

hydrologic and operational criteria would have to be met to initiate the conditional fall 

extension. As described above, the four criteria would only be met about 32 percent of 

the time under Alabama Power’s proposal but 84 percent of the time under Lake Martin 

RA’s recommendation.

Should the conditional fall extension and/or the higher winter reservoir pool 

conditions be implemented as described under Alabama Power’s proposal, flood 

modeling results indicate that there would be no change to access at the downstream 

Yates Dam Boat Ramp, Tallassee Park, and the Tallapoosa Take Out. The remaining 

three downstream sites, Gold Mine Road, Coon Creek Ramp, and Thurlow Dam Put-in, 

would experience some changes in access over the baseline; however, under all modeling 

scenarios, the maximum number of days these three sites would be inaccessible would be 

an additional 3 days over the entire 67-year period of record used in the analysis. 

In addition to examining access to the above sites, the effects of the various flood 

curve alternatives, on flows in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow dam, were 

compared to flow descriptions for the quality of whitewater boating, published by the 

Alabama Whitewater Paddling Guide. Table 3-22 summarizes the paddling guide’s 

classification of the flows at the six whitewater features on the Tallapoosa River. 

According to the paddling guide, the classification of the flows at these six features is 

rated as follows: minimum = 1,200 cfs, low = 5,000 cfs, good = 10,500 cfs, and great = 

11,500 - 13,000 cfs. The paddling guide also indicates that if the Thurlow Project 

releases flows (e.g. 1,277 cfs) over the continuous minimum flow (1,200 cfs) boaters are 

able to make the run; however, it is a “scrape with almost no play.” 
124

Table 3-22. Classification of flows below Thurlow dam according to the Alabama 

whitewater paddling guide at six whitewater features on the Tallapoosa 

River (Source: Alabama Power, 2010f, as modified by staff).

Cfs

Two Class I 

Shoals

Sticky 

Hole

Breaking 

Wave 

Holes Big O The Falls

Bionic 

Wave

1,200 Scrape -

a - - Fun -

5,000 Good - - - Extra 

caution

-

10,500 Good Great - - Awesome -

11,500-

13,000

Great Great Great - Awesome -

18,000 Washed out Good - - Washed out -

50,000 Washed out Good Washed 

out

Washed 

out

Washed out Washed 

out

a

Not all features evaluated at all flow levels.

Generally, as flows increase, hydraulics at different features change so some spots 

become better destinations for wave features or safe passage while others wash out 

(whitewater features no longer exist). For example, at 18,000 cfs, a feature known as 

Sticky Hole may be rated good, while another feature, Two Class I Shoals, may be 

washed out. At 50,000 cfs Sticky Hole is the only feature rated good, while the rest of 

the river is washed out. Table 3-23 summarizes the estimated number of days within 

specified flow ranges in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow dam for a dry, 

normal, and wet year.
125

Table 3-23. Estimated number of days within specified flow ranges by water year type 

for the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow dam under baseline 

conditions (Source: Alabama Power, 2010f, as modified by staff).

Flow Range (cfs) Dry Normal Wet

1,200 152 8 0

1,201-5,000 206 237 172

5,001-10,000 8 92 123

10,001 – 13,000 0 22 29

13,001-18,000 0 6 20

>18,000 0 3 16

Alabama Power modeled changes in flows for the Tallapoosa River downstream 

of Thurlow dam under various operational scenarios for dry, normal and wet conditions 

to better understand potential effects downstream. The change in available storage within 

the reservoir would require changes in the releases out of Martin dam to maintain the 

proposed higher winter pool elevations and the conditional fall extension, if 

implemented. Flow frequencies would be altered, but the extent of the flow changes, 

considering overall precipitation throughout the basin, would likely be small compared to 

the baseline condition. 

According to the model results, the various winter pool alternatives would result in 

a reduction in the total number of days within preferred flows for whitewater boating

(flows in the 10,000 to 13,000 cfs range). Tables 3-24 and 3-25 summarize the results. 

Modeling results show that in a normal year, flows in the range of 5,001 to 10,000 cfs 

were reduced, while flows in the range of 1,201 to 5,000 cfs were increased (result of 

passing smaller flows more frequently to accommodate a lower storage capacity). For 

each winter pool alternative, there was an increase in the number of days the flow would 

average 13,001 to 18,000 cfs. 
126

Table 3-24. Estimated changes in the number of days within observed flow ranges downstream of Thurlow dam: Winter 

pool elevations (Source: Alabama Power, 2010f, as modified by staff).

484 foot winter pool 485 foot winter pool 486 foot winter pool

Flow Range (cfs) Dry Normal Wet Dry Normal Wet Dry Normal Wet

1,200 -7 -9

1,201 - 5,000 10 13 10 11 19 13

5,001 - 10,000 -5 8 13 -4 -11 -10 -4 -18 -13

10,001 – 13,000 -3 -12 -15 1 -7 -2 1 -6 -3

13,001-18,000 4 2 5 2 1 5 1

>18,000 1 2
127

Table 3-25. Estimated changes in the number of days from existing conditions that specific flow ranges would be 

observed downstream of Thurlow dam (Source: Alabama Power, 2010f, as modified by staff).

Fall Extension 484 and Fall Extension 485 and Fall Extension 486 and Fall Extension

Flow Range 

(cfs)

Dry Normal Wet Dry Normal Wet Dry Normal Wet Dry Normal Wet

1,200 -1 3 2 -6 3 2 -8 3 2 -10 3 2

1,201-5,000 1 -4 -8 8 4 5 11 9 2 12 13 5

5,001-10,000 -1 6 -3 -5 -9 -4 -11 -4 -4 -16 -8

10,001 – 13,000 2 1 -6 1 1 -6 -2 1 -5 -2

13,001-18,000 4 1 5 2 1 5 1

>18,000 1 2
128

In a wet year, winter pool levels of 484 feet or higher would increase the number 

of days flows would average in the 10,000 to 13,000 cfs range. Lake Martin RA’s and 

Lake Martin HOBO’s recommendations would result in more days in the 10,000- to 

13,000-cfs range than Alabama Power’s proposed winter pool elevation. However, all 

proposals would reduce the number of days from current conditions in this particular 

range. Incorporating the conditional fall extension would decrease the number of days 

in this range for Alabama Power, Lake Martin RA, and Lake Martin HOBO winter pool 

scenarios with Alabama Power’s proposal resulting in a reduction of days of flows in 

the 10,000 to 13,000 cfs range. The conditional fall extension would be implemented 

much more often under Lake Martin RA’s recommended 2-foot trigger as described 

above, and not every flow is optimal for every whitewater boating feature although 

opportunities would be available at every flow.

Finally, modeling results suggested that most of the flow changes described 

above occur during the period of November through March. Alabama Power (2010d) 

states there were no differences between the baseline number of flow days for flows in 

the broad preferred range for whitewater boating (5,000 to 17,999 cfs) and any of the 

winter pool alternatives during the months of April through October. Model results 

further estimated one additional day within this range when the conditional fall 

extension was included. Even though Alabama Power states there is no change in the 

number of days over the broad range of whitewater boating flows, there would likely be

changes within the narrower ranges similar to those summarized in tables 3-24 and 3-

25, and within the more typical flows (at the lower end between 1,200 and 5,000 cfs).

The conditional fall extension would mainly affect flows below 10,000 cfs 

according to model results. Flow changes in dry years were minimal. In a normal flow 

year, most of the effects would be an increase in the average number of days at the 

minimum flow, with some increase in flows in the boater-preferred range of 10,001 to 

13,000 cfs. Wet years would experience a reduction in flows in the less preferred range 

of 1,201 to 5,000 cfs, with most of this flow getting shifted to a flow range of 5,001 to 

10,000 cfs. Again, the frequency of these changes altogether would depend on the four 

criteria laid out for implementation of the conditional fall extension (as described in 

section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources).

Alabama Power (2010d) finds that other recreation activities below Thurlow dam

may benefit from the potential flow changes. Fishing is the most common use 

occurring in the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow dam, with most of the 

anglers fishing from the riverbank. Alabama Power (2010d), citing FIMS (1989),

indicated that 49 percent of anglers interviewed in the section of the Tallapoosa River 

below Thurlow dam preferred “high water,” 44 percent preferred “low water.” 

However, 7 percent had no preference for water levels. These qualitative descriptors 

were not defined in the Alabama Power report (2010d). Other activities, such as 

swimming, could benefit from lower flows downstream for safety and accessibility of 

the rocks. However, because these proposals are targeted for the fall and winter months 
129

when water temperatures are cooler, the number of swimmers potentially affected 

would be expected to be low.

Maintaining a lower reservoir elevation in the summer, as we analyzed to address 

the concerns of the Downstream Landowners could have an effect on the whitewater 

boating opportunities downstream. According to the Alabama Whitewater Paddling

Guide, as flows increase, some whitewater features become better destinations for 

boaters. This suggests that boaters rely on operational releases or rain events, 

conditions that result in flows above the minimum releases from Thurlow. Table 3-23 

indicates that boaters are more likely to experience flows in the 1,200 to 5,000 cfs range 

than any other range, as flows in this range occur about 65 percent of the time (during a 

normal year). Very few days each year have flows greater than 10,000 cfs (less than 10 

percent of the time during a normal year). The hydrological records from a USGS gage 

located a short distance below Thurlow dam (USGS gage no. 02418500, Tallapoosa 

River, below Tallassee, Alabama) show the majority of these events occur during the 

late winter/early spring (table 3-5). 

As described in section 3.3.2 Aquatic Resources, lower summer reservoir 

elevations would reduce the potential for summer rainfall events to result in higher 

flows downstream (by design), reducing the opportunities within this season for boating 

flows above the minimum Thurlow releases of 1,200 cfs. To achieve lower reservoir 

elevations in the summer, Alabama Power would have to release more water throughout 

the spring period, thereby contributing to the number of potential boating days 

downstream during this season. Daily operational interests should dictate the timing of 

the releases to provide greatest benefit to boaters, because releases from the Martin Dam 

Project (and subsequently Yates and Thurlow Project) made after sunset would diminish 

any potential benefit to boaters looking to take advantage of releases.

To address the potential flood risk to downstream property owners, Alabama 

Power examined a range of potential reservoir elevations using analytical tools such as 

the HEC-RAS model. The results of our analysis of the downstream flooding issue are 

found in section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources. 

Recreation Plan 

Alabama Power proposes to implement its Recreation Plan (filed on December 9,

2011) for the Martin Dam Project. The plan was developed in consultation with 

interested entities during the relicensing process and includes: (1) a general description 

of recreation sites that are owned and operated by either Alabama Power or another 

entity; (2) a discussion of methodology used in the development of the plan; (3) 

proposed recreational enhancements and associated implementation schedules; (4) a 

discussion of other specific recreation-related issues or potential improvements; and (5) 

proposed measures for annual consultation and addendum/update to the plan. 

In addition to including the 12 existing project recreation sites under the current 

license, as previously discussed, Alabama Power proposes to add six recreation sites 
130

and reserve one site, Ponder Camp (Stillwaters Area Boat Ramp), for future recreation 

development. Of the six recreation sites, Madwind Creek Ramp and Smith Landing are 

not located within the project boundary, and therefore, would be made project facilities 

and brought into the project boundary (see table 3-26). In total, there would be 19 

project recreation sites, which the final Recreation Plan identifies.

Table 3-26. Proposed project recreation sites and the minimum elevations that the boat 

ramps are useable (Source: Alabama Power, 2011b).

Proposed Project 

Recreation Sites Type of facility Acres

Minimum Elevation 

That Boat Ramp Is 

Usable (feet msl)

Bakers Bottom Landing Public/Day Use 1.9 485

Jaybird Landing Public/Day Use 19.9 484

Madwind Creek Ramp Public/Day Use 5.8 480

Paces Point Ramp Public/Day Use 8.7 480

Paces Trail Public/Campground/

Campsites and Day Use

24.1 N/A

Smith Landing Public/Day Use 4.2 480

Ponder Camp (Stillwaters 

Area Boat Ramp)

Public/Day Use 36.4 N/A

As part of the Recreation Plan, Alabama Power proposes the following measures 

at three project recreation sites:

Jaybird Landing

• Replace the existing boat ramp, construct two bank fishing sites on the 

south side of the Tallapoosa River, and construct a gravel parking area 

within 1 year of license issuance. 

Ponder Camp

• Retain 36.4 acres for future recreation. When usage demonstrates a need,

and in cooperation with Tallapoosa County, Alabama Power proposes to 

construct a 300-foot-long paved access road, single-lane boat ramp, 

parking area for 46 vehicles with trailers, and courtesy pier. 

Smith Landing and Madwind Creek Ramp

• Expand the parking area, as needed and in consultation with Alabama 

DCNR. 
131

Alabama Power proposes annual O&M at DARE Boat Landing, DARE Power 

Park, Scenic Overlook, Union Ramp, Bakers Bottom Landing, Pace Point Ramp, Pace 

Trail, Jaybird Landing, Madwind Creek Ramp, Ponder Camp, and Smith Landing. 

Alabama Power proposes to meet annually with Alabama DCNR to assess 

progress of the Recreation Plan and public access at the project. As part of this 

consultation, Alabama Power proposes to file a yearly addendum with the Commission 

as a separate document to include meeting minutes, scheduling changes, photographs, 

as-built drawings of recreation facility components, and a description of any changes 

that occurred in the preceding year, and reasons for the change. Specifically within the 

first year after license issuance, Alabama Power proposes to meet with Alabama DCNR 

to consult about the need for additional bank/pier fishing opportunities at the project.

In comments on the draft EIS, Alabama DCNR recommends that Alabama 

Power upgrade the existing Kowaliga (Highway 63) Launch site or develop an 

alternative site to improve public access at the lower section of Lake Martin. The 

approximate 2-acre Kowaliga (Highway 63) Launch site, located outside of the project 

boundary, is owned, operated, and maintained by the Alabama DCNR and includes a 

parking area and boat ramp. 

Our Analysis

The Recreation Plan would continue to guide current and future management of 

project recreation resources and provide a framework for Alabama Power’s 

implementation of the site improvements and coordination with associated measures, 

such as improvements to boat ramps and construction of bank fishing facilities. The 

proposed facility improvements would ensure that public access and recreation needs 

are met, enhance the physical condition of project-related recreation facilities, and 

reduce recreation-related adverse effects on environmental resources. Boating is the 

most popular recreational activity at Lake Martin; therefore, improving the recreation 

sites that provide boat launches and public access to Lake Martin (i.e., Jaybird Landing) 

would be beneficial. Alabama Power’s proposal to reserve land at Ponder Camp for 

future recreation development would accommodate a projected increase in recreational 

use at the project.

The proposed annual O&M by Alabama Power would ensure each project 

recreation site would be operated and maintained for the public. Consequently, the 

measures would benefit the local economy by providing recreational opportunities that 

would not otherwise be available nearby. The additional spending associated with 

implementing the recreation measures would provide some additional employment 

during the construction and monitoring. 

The proposed annual meeting between Alabama Power and Alabama DCNR 

would establish a schedule and procedure for evaluating recreation trends and updating 

the Recreation Plan as necessary. The annual addendum to the Recreation Plan would 

summarize progress made in the preceding year, and could possibly include 
132

recommendations for future improvements, after consultation with interested entities. 

Periodically consolidating these changes in an updated Recreation Report would better 

facilitate Commission oversight of the license requirements. Coordinating the reporting 

with the Commission’s Form 80 would improve efficiency and the accuracy of the 

reporting requirements.

However, Alabama Power’s Recreation Plan, as proposed, does not include 

specific details for project recreation measures that Alabama Power would be 

responsible for at the Martin Dam Project. In particular, section 3.1, Site Descriptions, 

does not reflect the updated information included in appendix D of the plan, entitled 

“As-Built/Concept Design Drawings/Maps of Project Recreation Sites.” We note that 

Appendix D contains drawings labeled Sheet D-1 through Sheet D-19 that clearly show 

the type of recreation facility, its location in relation to the project boundary, and the 

amenities, such as the number of parking spaces. 

During the relicensing process, Alabama Power and the stakeholders discussed 

the possibility of improving public access at the lower section of Lake Martin. One of 

the recreation sites considered included Alabama DCNR’s existing Kowaliga (Highway 

63) Launch site. However, no one recommended improving the site in the application 

or in response to our ready for environmental analysis. In comments on the draft EIS, 

Alabama DCNR recommends that Alabama Power upgrade the existing Kowaliga 

(Highway 63) Launch site or develop an alternative site. However, the agency does not 

provide any details about what these upgrade would include or explain why such 

upgrades are needed, including current or projected recreational use. Further, the 

Kowaliga (Highway 63) Launch site is state-owned, which we assume the state will 

continue to own, operate, and maintain throughout a new license term. Therefore, 

access will continue to be provided in the lower portion of the lake. 

Shoreline Management Plan

Alabama Power (2011e) proposes to implement its final SMP for the Martin 

Dam Project that includes: (1) long-term shoreline management goals to provide 

guidance for existing and future management actions within the project boundary; (2) a 

redefined shoreline classification system; (3) updated shoreline permitting program; (4) 

other policies related to activities that may affect the shoreline (e.g., dredging, bank 

stabilization, channelization); (5) BMPs; and (6) an implementation plan and review 

process for the SMP. 

The general goals of the SMP are to provide for reasonable public access, protect 

fish and wildlife habitat, protect cultural resources, protect operational needs, facilitate 

compliance with license articles, minimize adverse effects on water quality and 

aesthetic resources, minimize erosion, and guide shoreline development. Specific 

components of Alabama Power’s proposed SMP are described below.
133

Shoreline Land Use Classifications

Alabama Power proposes to implement a land use classification system to guide 

current and future shoreline management and permitting activities within the Martin 

Dam Project boundary. Further, Alabama Power proposes to develop a Sensitive 

Resources layer in conjunction with other project land use classifications, such as 

Natural/Undeveloped. In comments on the draft EIS, Alabama Power clarified and 

revised its land use classifications that now include:

Project Operations – Lands would be reserved for current and potential future 

operational activities. This includes project lands used for hydroelectric generation, 

switchyards, transmission facilities, right-of-way areas, security lands, and other 

operational uses. There would be 279.8 acres of land under this classification.

Recreation – Lands owned by Alabama Power for existing and/or future 

recreational use. This includes land developed for recreation with provisions for public 

access, recreation, open space, and future recreation development. There would be 334 

acres of land under this classification.

Quasi-public – Lands would be reserved to provide a natural, outdoor, 

recreational setting for the enjoyment of non-profit groups. Organizations interested in 

the use of these lands would be required to submit detailed plans to Alabama Power for 

facilities they propose to construct and lease, along with details of how the proposed 

facilities would be maintained by that organization on a long-term basis. There would 

be 237.2 acres of lands within this classification.

Commercial Recreation – Lands would contain existing concessionaire-operated 

public marinas and recreational areas that provide a wide variety of recreational services 

to the public on a fee basis. There would a total of 32.3 acres of lands within this 

classification.

Natural/Undeveloped – Lands would remain undeveloped for specific project 

purposes including to: protect environmentally sensitive areas; maintain aesthetic 

qualities; serve as buffer zones around public recreational areas; and prevent 

overcrowding of partially developed shoreline areas. This classification would allow 

for public hiking trails, nature studies, primitive camping, wildlife management 

(excluding hunting), and forestry management practices. This classification would total 

6,992.4 acres.

Martin Small Game Hunting Area – This area is a sub-classification under the 

Natural/Undeveloped Lands Classification. This 528.2-acre area would be managed 

according to the Martin Dam Project WMP.

30-foot Control Strip – This classification addresses project lands held within an 

easement retained by Alabama Power on properties where adjacent lands were 

previously owned by the company but have been removed from the project. Alabama 

Power prohibits certain activities (e.g., habitable structures) within this classification. 

There would be 690.2 acres of land within this classification.
134

Alabama Power also proposes to reclassify the shoreline at the following 

recreation sites (currently classified as General Public Use) to the Recreation 

classification: DARE Boat Landing, DARE Power Park, Scenic Overlook, and Union 

Ramp. Alabama Power also proposes to reclassify the shoreline at General Public Use 

Site #2 from General Public Use to Natural/Undeveloped classification. 

Shoreline Permitting Program

The proposed SMP contains a Shoreline Permitting Program. This program 

describes the following: (1) levels of permitting and reviewing entities; (2) permit 

process; (3) guidelines; (4) supporting documentation; (5) permit enforcement; (6) 

permit transferability; (7) permit revocation; and (8) substandard and non-conforming 

structures. 

The Shoreline Permitting Program allows Alabama Power to respond to 

shoreline landowners’ permitting needs. 

Private shoreline property is subject to permitting by Alabama Power. The 

Shoreline Permitting Program provides an ongoing plan for shoreline development by 

private landowners, commercial developers, and other entities who may request 

Alabama Power’s approval for constructing piers, boat launches, seawalls, or other 

structures on Alabama Power-owned lands within the Martin Dam Project boundary. 

Private and commercial owners are provided a copy of Alabama Power’s guidelines for 

recreational development and a copy of Alabama Power’s permitting program and 

permit application. Alabama Power schedules on-site meetings with the entity to 

review the placement of structures and specific issues that must be addressed prior to 

Alabama Power’s approval. 

Alabama Power proposes to continue to implement its Shoreline Permitting 

Program to manage development of non-project use of project lands, and thereby 

protect the scenic, recreational, and environmental resources at the project. Alabama 

Power proposes to implement riprap guidelines and specifications for seawalls through 

the permitting program. Further, Alabama Power would encourage landowners to 

establish or maintain a 15-foot naturally vegetated buffer on privately owned shoreline 

lands located outside of the project boundary. Similarly, Alabama Power proposes to 

continue to retain a 30-foot Control Strip on any project lands removed from the project 

boundary. Alabama Power would encourage the use of BMPs by landowners through a 

combination of permits and its public education and outreach efforts, as discussed under 

Public Education and Outreach Plan. 

Shoreline Management Policies

Alabama Power developed policies for five shoreline management permit 

requests. The five shoreline management policies include:

Bank Stabilization – Alabama Power encourages the use of alternative bank 

stabilization techniques other than seawalls, including riprap, bioengineering 
135

techniques, vegetation with riprap, and gabions. Alabama Power proposes to require, as 

a condition of a permit, that any future seawall proposals include the placement of 

riprap for fish habitat and increased stability in front of the seawall. If Alabama Power 

found riprap would not be an effective measure for bank stabilization, or it would be not 

economically feasible, then Alabama Power would permit a seawall without riprap.

Dredging – Alabama Power would allow dredging, consistent with the Corps’ 

Programmatic General Permits, except that dredging would be restricted in and around 

the shoreline designated as Sensitive Resource. Alabama Power (2011b) proposes to 

manage individual applications for dredging activities in accordance with its Dredge 

Permit Program approved by the Commission on July 6, 2011.61 The program 

establishes the process and procedures for permittees seeking to obtain direct 

authorization from Alabama Power for dredging activities (below the full pool 

elevation) at the project, and would ensure that such activities would not interfere with 

project operations, and are consistent with the scenic, recreational, and other values of 

the project.

Channelization – Alabama Power would prohibit channelization on Lake Martin, 

including channelization proposals by both private and commercial interests.

Water Withdrawals – Alabama Power would evaluate each application for 

permission to withdraw water from its project reservoir, and seek Commission 

authorization. In accordance with the provisions of its license, Alabama Power would 

charge reasonable compensation for water withdrawals based on the replacement cost of 

energy lost as a result of the withdrawal, and the replacement cost of the storage in the 

reservoir allocated to the withdrawer. Adjacent single-family home uses, such as 

lawn/garden watering or other similar non-commercial uses would be excluded from 

this policy.

Causeways – Alabama Power would prohibit the creation of causeways on Lake 

Martin to connect islands to the mainland or to other islands, to protect the integrity of 

the existing project features and shoreline, as well as fish habitat, navigation, and 

project operations. 

SMP Review and Update

Alabama Power proposes to conduct a review of the SMP every 6 years, with 

input from interested entities. Alabama Power states that the review process would 

provide the means for the permitting program to change, if necessary, or for additional 

BMPs to be adopted or replaced as their effectiveness is tested. Alabama Power also 

states that any information related to Sensitive Resources designation (e.g., rare, 

 

61 136 FERC ¶ 62,012 (2011).
136

threatened, and endangered species locations and habitats) would be updated as new 

information arises. Alabama Power proposes to advertise the review process in various 

media formats (e.g., the SMP website, the Shorelines newsletter, and contact with 

homeowner associations) one month before the review process begins. In addition, 

Alabama Power proposes to issue a report, every 6 years, through various outlets (e.g., 

the SMP website, the Shorelines newsletter) with the number of permits it has processed 

within each shoreline land use classification at Lake Martin.

Alabama Power also proposes to host public workshops to address SMP 

questions, especially with regard to permitting, during the six-year review process. By 

December 31 of the fifth year of the 6-year cycle, Alabama Power proposes to meet 

with interested entities to determine the progress of implementing the SMP and any 

suggested modifications to the SMP.

Interior recommends that no new seawalls be constructed unless absolutely 

necessary to protect land and property. Alabama Power states in response that 

prohibiting seawalls entirely would be impractical, but confirms their awareness that 

riprap provides a better alternative for fish densities. Alabama Power states that use of 

the proposed permitting program, including BMPs and riprap guidelines, would 

improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Interior also recommends that Alabama 

Power encourage shoreline developments to maintain the 30-foot-wide Control Strip

within the project boundary, and increase the total buffer width to at least 100 feet. 

In response to Interior, Alabama Power stated that it could not increase the 

control strip to at least 100 feet, as recommended by Interior, because it did not have 

control of privately owned land located outside of the project boundary. By letter filed 

August 31, 2013, Interior modified the recommendation for Alabama Power to work 

with Alabama DCNR and develop a restoration plan for habitat and species. Interior 

states that a restoration plan would minimize habitat fragmentation by restoring habitat 

and species within the project area.

Our Analysis

Implementation of Alabama Power’s proposed SMP would provide shoreline 

management guidelines, clarify and revise shoreline land use classifications, and 

establish an overall framework for managing project lands at the Martin Dam Project. 

The shoreline land use classifications would provide a framework for specific shoreline 

management activities and measures within designated areas. Rare, threatened, and 

endangered species, as discussed in section 3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources, and 3.3.4, 

Threatened and Endangered Species, would be protected by the permitting activity for 

lands under the Natural/Undeveloped Lands classification. Cultural resources, as 

discussed in section 3.3.6, Cultural Resources, would also be protected under this 

classification. The classification of Natural/Undeveloped Lands would protect 

undeveloped areas while allowing for public hiking trails, nature study, primitive 

camping, and wildlife and forestry management activities. 
137

Alabama Power’s proposal to reclassify 91 acres of project lands from the 

Natural/Undeveloped classification to the Recreation classification would be consistent 

with existing uses as the acreage comprises eight recreation sites62 that are currently 

used for recreation. Alabama Power also proposes to reclassify any recreation sites 

under the General Public Use classification to the Recreation classification. Similar to 

the Natural/Undeveloped classified sites, all of these General Public Use sites to be 

reclassified as Recreation are currently being used for recreation. Alabama Power 

proposes to reclassify General Public Use Area #2, which is an informal recreation area 

located within the project boundary, and other areas currently classified under Potential 

Residential to the Natural/Undeveloped classification because these areas are 

undeveloped or receive minimal recreation use. The reclassifications would result in an 

increase in lands classified as Natural/Undeveloped, compared to current classifications. 

Reclassification of the project lands to more accurately describe their use is appropriate 

for management practices. 

Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping technology is much improved 

over traditional mapping uses. Incorporating GIS data regarding the Lake Martin area 

along with the shoreline management classifications would permit the Commission to 

track shoreline resources and uses, and facilitate future reviews of the SMP. We, 

therefore, included this provision in draft Article 413, which contains the details and 

filing specifications for the GIS data.

Alabama Power’s Shoreline Permitting Program would protect the Lake Martin 

shoreline during construction, operation, and maintenance of non-project structures, 

such as docks. It is the intent of the Shoreline Permitting Program to continue to ensure 

consistency of non-project use of project lands and waters with other project purposes. 

Alabama Power is responsible for ensuring project lands are protected and 

maintained for their designated project purposes, such as O&M, flowage, recreation, 

public access, protection of environmental resources, and shoreline control. Alabama 

Power proposes to address unpermitted structures at each of its project reservoirs, 

including the Martin Dam Project.63 As Alabama Power modifies the project boundary, 

there may be unpermitted structures on lands brought into the boundary. Identifying 

existing encroachments and resolving the encroachments would protect the project’s 

 

62 The eight recreation sites are: (1) Madwind Creek Ramp (5.8 acres); (2) Smith 

Landing (4.2 acres); (3) Union Ramp (7.0 acres); (4) Bakers Bottom Landing (1.9 

acres); (5) Jaybird Landing (19.9 acres); (6) Paces Point Ramp (8.7 acres); (7) Paces 

Trail (24.1 acres); and (8) Ponder Camp (36.4 acres). 

63 See Alabama Power’s filing of March 14, 2012. This document was filed to 

update the Commission on Alabama Power’s progress in implementing its Shoreline 

Compliance Program at its eight projects, including the Martin Dam Project.
138

scenic, recreational, and environmental values, as well as ensure adherence to SMP 

policies.

Adherence to the SMP policies would protect the project shoreline and 

associated recreational, scenic, and environmental resources by restricting dredging 

within Sensitive Resources areas and prohibiting channelization and causeways on 

project waters. Alabama Power’s policy to encourage the use of alternative bank 

stabilization techniques, such as riprap, bioengineering techniques, vegetation with 

riprap, and use of gabions, would promote the use of shoreline structures that by design 

provide greater benefits to aquatic resources than the use of seawalls. 

In a study, Purcell et al. (2011) find shoreline development type did affect the 

abundance and community composition of juvenile and adult fishes. The authors find

fish abundances were highest at sites containing riprap while both species richness and 

species diversity tended to be highest at undeveloped sites versus any of the developed 

sites. The authors find fish abundance can be enhanced by providing some degree of 

structure with interstitial spaces, such as riprap. 

Interior’s recommendation to prohibit the construction of any new seawalls 

unless necessary would be consistent with Alabama Power’s proposal to encourage the 

use of alternative bank stabilization techniques, BMPs, and permitting guidelines before 

the construction of seawalls. However, Alabama Power does not describe under what 

circumstances a seawall without riprap would be permitted. Additionally, a seawall 

without riprap may exacerbate the rate of shoreline erosion and is effective if 

maintained. Defining such circumstances would ensure shoreline erosion is controlled 

while providing benefits to aquatic resources. 

Alabama Power’s proposed SMP review and update would provide a forum to 

consult with interested parties on shoreline development, effectiveness of permit 

programs, and any need for changes to shoreline management policies and 

implementation strategies. Alabama Power could present updated information about the 

number of new seawalls constructed to Interior and other consulted agencies, thus 

providing agencies the chance to provide comments and recommendations on the 

adequacy of the bank stabilization policy included in any final SMP. 

Consultation during this update and review process would ensure a coordinated 

effort among Alabama Power and the interested parties with respect to other projectrelated plans to protect and enhance the environmental resources. Provision of a SMP 

update, filed with the Commission every 6 years, would ensure implementation of 

shoreline management guidelines, policies, and an overall framework for management 

of project lands. 

The establishment of vegetated buffers around the reservoir would maintain or 

improve water quality by trapping and removing various non-point source pollutants. 

Interior’s recommendation for a 30-foot-wide Control Strip within the project boundary, 

and previous recommendation for increasing the total buffer width to 100 feet likely 
139

would be more effective at improving water quality and provide more wildlife habitat

(Fischer et al., 2000). 

Through its proposed Public Education and Outreach Program Plan, Alabama 

Power (2011b) proposes to: (1) develop a brochure, and publish in its Shorelines

newsletter and/or Lake Magazine, that would contain information to assist shoreline 

landowners on how to protect and enhance the Lake Martin shoreline; (2) consult with 

the appropriate agencies to develop techniques for informing and educating boaters and 

shoreline landowners on methods to prevent or minimize shoreline erosion and 

sedimentation; and (3) publish periodic articles in its Shorelines newsletter and/or Lake 

Magazine regarding invasive aquatic vegetation. With these proposed measures, a 

public awareness could be realized for protecting the Lake Martin shoreline, within, and 

adjacent to, the project boundary. 

Project Boundary Modifications

The existing project boundary for the Martin Dam Project encompasses 8,602 

acres. These lands are used by Alabama Power primarily for the O&M of the Martin 

Dam Project under the terms of its current license. 

Alabama Power proposes to add 991.4 acres to, and remove 499.2 acres from, 

the project boundary, resulting in an increase of 492.2 acres of land within the Martin 

Dam Project boundary. Alabama Power proposes to reclassify land use on 1,294.4 

acres within the project boundary. The project boundary, therefore, would be modified 

from 8,602 acres to 9,094 acres (Alabama Power, 2011a). The 1.39 acres of federal 

lands would remain within the project boundary. 

With regard to the total 991.4 acres to be added, Alabama Power proposes to add 

17 acres of non-project lands that include: 5.8 acres for the existing boat launch, 

courtesy dock, and parking area at Madwind Creek Ramp; 4.2 acres for the existing boat 

launch, courtesy dock, and parking area at Smith Landing; and 7 acres to correct a 

mapping error at Union Ramp. Alabama Power proposes to add 606.7 acres that it 

owns in fee and 367.8 acres to be designated as the Martin Small Game Hunting Area. 

For further discussion, see section 3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources. 

With regard to the total 499.2 acres to be removed, Alabama Power proposes to 

remove 25.8 acres of project land at Pleasure Point Park and Marina, but retain 6.6 acres 

of land within the project boundary. These 6.6 acres of land have rental cabins, a 

marina, and a boat ramp that provide public access to Lake Martin. Alabama Power 

proposes to remove 24.2 acres of Lake View Park, classified as Quasi-public from the 

project boundary, because the site is not needed for project purposes, is under a lease 

agreement with Lake View Park, and therefore, managed accordingly. Alabama Power 

proposes to remove 373.1 acres designated as Natural/Undeveloped and 75.9 acres 

proposed for private development (designated as Potential Residential) from the project 

boundary. Alabama Power (2011b) finds the lands are not necessary for project 

purposes or is inconsistent with Commission policy of public use of project lands. 
140

Alabama Power, however, would retain a 30-foot Control Strip in front of all lands 

proposed for removal. 

Alabama Power proposes to reclassify 1,294.4 acres either as 

Natural/Undeveloped or as Recreation, which would be consistent with the use 

occurring at those sites. Alabama Power proposes to reclassify certain lands as 

Recreation that include: 1.9 acres for the boat launch and parking area at Bakers 

Bottom Landing; 19.9 acres for the boat launch and proposed improvements that 

include two bank fishing sites and a gravel parking area at Jaybird Landing; 8.7 acres 

for the boat launch, courtesy pier, and parking area at Pace Point Ramp; and 36.4 acres 

at Ponder Camp (Stillwater Area Boat Ramp) for future recreation development. 

Alabama Power (2011b) proposes to maintain 32.3 acres as Commercial 

Recreation, which is consistent with the use occurring at the sites. These lands include: 

Anchor Bay Marina (6.4 acres), Parker Creek Marina (9.7 acres), Pleasure Point Park 

and Marina (6.6 acres) and Real Island Marina and Campground (9.6 acres). 

Our Analysis

According to the Commission’s regulations at 18 C.F.R. section 4.51(h), in part, 

a project boundary must enclose only those lands necessary for operation and 

maintenance of the project and for other project purposes, such as recreation, shoreline 

control, or protection of environmental resources. 

Parcels to be brought into the project boundary are currently being used by 

Alabama Power, and would continue to be used, for project purposes, including three 

recreation sites at Smith Landing, Madwind Creek Ramp, and Union Ramp. 

Additionally, certain recreation facilities at four recreation sites – Bakers Bottom 

Landing, Jaybird Landing, Pace Point Ramp, and Paces Trail – would be included 

within the project boundary. Because the above-described parcels are currently, and 

would continue, serving project purposes (recreation), it would be appropriate for these 

parcels to be brought into the project boundary. Furthermore, a previous mapping error 

in acreage at Union Ramp would be resolved.

There would be no adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed 

project boundary modifications. Alabama Power’s (2011b) proposal to remove acreage 

from the project boundary includes an area within Pleasure Point Park and Marina 

currently being used for seasonal cabins. Consistent with Commission policy, the 

cabins are neither necessary for operation of the project nor serve a project purpose. At 

the site, 6.6 acres include a the marina, boat ramp, and rental cabins, which currently 

meet the Commission requirement to provide public access to Lake Martin, and would 

be included in the project boundary. Alabama Power also proposes to remove the Lake 

View Park from the current project boundary and retain a 30-foot Control Strip (buffer) 

to protect the shoreline. This park is managed by a private entity and part of a 

residential community via a lease agreement. The lands at Pleasure Point Park and 

Marina and Lake View Park are not needed for project purposes, and removal of the 
141

acreage would be appropriate. Reservation of the 30-foot Control Strip would ensure 

management decisions are consistent with Alabama Power’s SMP policies.

Alabama Power proposes to remove 373.1 acres (about 12 separate parcels) 

designated as Natural/Undeveloped from the project boundary to better distribute and 

maintain the Natural/Undeveloped lands more evenly at the project. For further 

discussion, see section 5.0, Conclusions and Recommendations.

Public Education and Outreach Program Plan

As part of the Public Education and Outreach Program Plan, Alabama Power 

(2011f) proposes to enhance its existing website to include specific information on 

shoreline management and the proposed Shoreline Permitting Program. The website 

enhancements would include, at a minimum, permit guidelines for shoreline 

landowners; BMPs; alternative and example designs (particularly for bank 

stabilization); useful links and other related information; sample permit applications; 

contact information; and information on the Longleaf Pine Legacy Program. Alabama 

Power also proposes to incorporate information on its “carry in, carry out” policy in 

their brochures and on the updated Alabama Power website.

Instead of signage, Alabama Power proposes to prepare an article for the 

Shorelines newsletter on a tri-annual basis to inform shoreline landowners and the 

public about the effects of domestic livestock on terrestrial resources, particularly on the 

islands in Lake Martin. Alabama Power also proposes to develop a brochure about the 

Longleaf Pine Legacy Program. 

Our Analysis

An objective in the Tallapoosa River Basin Management Plan is to educate the 

public on shoreline protection (CH2MHill, 2005). The Alabama Statewide 

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (Alabama Department of Economic and 

Community Affairs, 2012) focuses on public education and outreach and uses multiple 

methods to present public information on water supply and watershed management. We 

find Alabama Power’s proposed measures in its draft Public Education and Outreach 

Program Plan, and discussed below, would complement the goals and objectives for 

public education and outreach. 

Improving the website and including articles in the Shorelines newsletter, as 

proposed, would be an effective means of communicating information. Information 

about the permitting guidelines, BMPs, alternative and example designs for bank 

stabilization, sample permit applications, and information about the Longleaf Pine 

Legacy Program would continue to foster an awareness of the public and shoreline 

landowners on these initiatives. 

Although Alabama Power included in its Public Education and Outreach 

Program Plan a provision for a “carry-in, carry-out” policy for the public, we find the 

policy would be more appropriate as part of the revised Recreation Plan because 
142

Alabama Power proposes to identify and remove certain existing trash receptacles and 

install containers with appropriately-sized bags at identified project recreations sites.

Alabama Power’s proposal to provide information about the effects of domestic 

livestock on terrestrial resources could inform the public about this issue and as a result, 

minimize adverse effects on terrestrial resources. Alabama Power’s proposal to provide 

brochures and information online and in hard copy would make the information 

available to the public and shoreline landowners. 

3.3.5.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Construction of, and improvements to, project recreation facilities would cause 

temporary, minor disturbance in local areas. Implementation of soil erosion control 

measures and revegetation of disturbed areas, where appropriate, would minimize soil 

erosion and associated effects on aquatic and terrestrial resources.

3.3.6 Cultural Resources

3.3.6.1 Affected Environment

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

requires the Commission to evaluate potential effects on properties listed or eligible for 

listing in the National Register prior to an undertaking. An undertaking means a 

project, activity, or program funded in whole, or in part, under the direct or indirect 

jurisdiction of a federal agency, including, among other things, processes requiring a 

federal permit, license, or approval. In this case, the undertaking is the proposed 

issuance of a new license for the project. Potential effects associated with this 

undertaking include project-related effects associated with day-to-day O&M of the 

project after issuance of a new license.

Historic properties are defined as any district, site, building, structure, or object 

that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Traditional cultural 

properties are a type of historic property eligible for the National Register because of 

their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that: (1) are 

rooted in that community’s history; or (2) are important in maintaining the continuing 

cultural identity of the community. In this final EIS we also use the term “cultural 

resources” to include properties that have not been evaluated for eligibility for listing in 

the National Register. In most cases, cultural resources less than 50 years old are not 

considered eligible for the National Register.

Section 106 also requires that the Commission seek concurrence with the 

Alabama SHPO on any finding involving effects or no effects on historic properties, and 

allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on any 

finding of effects on historic properties. If Native American properties have been 

identified, section 106 also requires that the Commission consult with interested Native 

American tribes that might attach religious or cultural significance to such properties. 
143

Area of Potential Effects 

Pursuant to section 106, the Commission must take into account whether any 

historic property could be affected by issuance of a new license within a project’s APE. 

The APE is defined as the geographic area or areas which an undertaking may directly 

or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such 

properties exist. In this case, the Cultural Resources Work Group (CRWG), including 

the Commission staff, defined the APE for the project as lands above 491 feet enclosed 

by the project boundary which encompass a 41,150-acre reservoir (Lake Martin), a dam, 

a spillway, a powerhouse, a tailrace, two 450-foot-long transmission lines, project 

recreation sites, and appurtenant facilities (Alabama Power, 2012a). In its 

December 9, 2011, response to the Commission’s Additional Information Request, 

Alabama Power stated that the Alabama SHPO concurred with the project’s APE.

Prehistoric and Historic Background

Climatic changes occurring around 8,000 BC resulted in changes in human 

subsistence strategies. The Archaic (8,000-1,200 BC) was marked by a decrease in the 

abundance of large game associated with the Pleistocene. Hunter-gatherers diversified, 

and began to focus on regional and seasonal food sources. During the early Archaic, 

projectile points became smaller and other tools such as knives, adzes, and end scrapers 

became common. The use of the atlatl was a major technological milestone that 

allowed spears to be thrown greater distances and with greater speed and accuracy. 

Fibers were also woven to create baskets and nets. By the middle Archaic, regional 

variation increased, and there is evidence of greater sedentism and reliance on river 

resources. Typical Archaic sites are small camp sites, but larger sites containing 

midden development, hearth features, and storage pits are also found. Middle Archaic 

toolkits included smaller specialized implements such as awls, needles, atlatl hooks, and 

ornamental items including beads and gorgets. During the late Archaic, seasonal 

weather patterns stabilized, and riverine sites expanded. Trade networks for raw 

materials and goods were established, and burial mounds suggest a social hierarchy. 

Late Archaic sites may contain a greater number of house floors, hearths, and other 

features. Soapstone bowls and other storage containers also indicate a greater reliance 

on horticulture and plant domestication. Many Archaic sites have been recorded in the 

Tallapoosa River Basin.

During the Gulf Formational stage (1,200-300 BC), pottery made with clay 

tempered with fibers, grit, sand, and crushed shell became prevalent. There are many 

sites in the Tallapoosa Basin that are represented by such plain ceramics. However, 

ceramics became more stylized during the later Woodland stage (300 BC-AD 1000) and 

reflected regional decorative patterns and techniques. The introduction of the bow and 

arrow during this time resulted in smaller projectile points being used as time markers 

for identifying Woodland archaeological sites. However, temporally diagnostic 

ceramics became more important in analyzing site chronology. During this time, 
144

populations increased their reliance on agriculture, with corn and squash as prime food 

crops. Many Woodland sites have been recorded in the Tallapoosa River Basin.

Mississippian populations (AD 1000-1500) lived in large village sites with an 

agrarian economy. Villages were marked by increased social hierarchy under a ruling 

class. Specialized workers created goods for an expanding trade network. 

Mississippian archaeological sites often contain large earth mounds that were central to 

society. Such sites are not typical for the Tallapoosa River Basin, although several sites 

have been documented.

Spanish explorers, including Hernando de Soto, were the first Europeans to 

arrive in southeastern Alabama, but the French were the first to establish long-term 

contact with indigenous populations. Fort Toulose was established in 1717 at the 

confluence of the Tallapoosa and Coosa Rivers. By the beginning of the 18th century, 

British traders arrived.

Following the creation of a Federal Road from Washington D.C. to New Orleans, 

the area, now known as the Mississippi Territory, became unstable resulting in an 1813-

1814 war between Native Americans and the United States government. Battles took 

place throughout the territory including what was later to become the Lake Martin area. 

Following the relocation of the Native Americans to Oklahoma on the Trail of Tears, 

American settlers occupied the area and developed a number of mills on rivers and 

streams. This development continued until the Civil War in 1861, when activity slowed 

until 1885. After the war, agriculture and industries flourished.

Construction of Martin dam, first known as Cherokee Bluffs Dam, began in July 

1923 and was completed in December 1926. It was the first of four dams built on the 

Tallapoosa River. The dam originally had three generating units, but a fourth was 

installed in 1952. The three original generators were upgraded between 2001 and 2004 

to increase generating capacity. The fourth generator has not been ungraded since its 

installation.

Archaeological and Historic-era Properties

According to a record search conducted by Alabama Power, 15 cultural resources 

studies have been undertaken in the vicinity of the project APE (Alabama Power, 

2012a). These efforts include Phase I and Phase II archaeological studies of eight 

locations proposed for recreational improvements. Additionally, the University of 

Alabama, Office of Archaeological Research (University of Alabama) conducted 

surveys in 1995 and 1996. 

These studies resulted in the identification of 22 cultural resource sites (Alabama 

Power, 2012a; University of Alabama, 2006). Eleven of these sites were recorded 

during the University of Alabama studies. Table 3-27 provides a summary of all 

prehistoric and historic resources identified to date within, or adjacent to, the project 

boundary APE.
145

Table 3-27. Previously recorded archaeological and historic resources within, or 

adjacent to, the project boundary APE (Source: University of Alabama, 

2006, as modified by staff; Alabama Historical Commission, 2013).

Resource 

Number Description Impacts/Recommendations

1Cs93 Prehistoric “creek” site with 

pits, hearths, ceramics

Inundated by Lake Martin. Potentially 

eligible for the National Register due to 

features present during winter draw down

1Cs151 Multicomponent site; 

Prehistoric lithic and tool 

scatter and historic stone 

chimney and artifact scatter

Not eligible for the National Register due 

to high disturbance at the site

1Cs152 Ceramic and sparse lithic 

scatter

Undetermined eligibility for the National 

Register due to lack of information

1Cs153 Lithic scatter Undetermined eligibility for the National 

Register

1Cs154 Lithic and ceramic scatter Not eligible for the National Register due 

to high disturbance at the site

1Cs155 Multicomponent site; 

Prehistoric lithic and ceramic 

scatter, historic “Creek” site

Inundated most of the year but exposed 

during the winter. “Near 100 percent 

eroded.” Not eligible for the National 

Register due to high disturbance at the 

site

1Ee33 “Creek” site Inundated most of the year. 

Undetermined eligibility for the National 

Register due to lack of information

1Ee433 Small lithic scatter (all artifacts 

reported collected)

Not eligible for the National Register due 

to high disturbance at the site, but Boy 

Scout Camp Talisi is nearby.

1Tp3 Small lithic and tool scatter Intact. Potentially eligible for the 

National Register due to intact subsurface 

deposits.

1Tp4 Small lithic scatter Not eligible for the National Register due 

to high disturbance at the site.

1Tp31 Historic artifact scatter Not eligible for the National Register due 

to high disturbance at the site.

1Tp32 Multi-component; historic 

chimney and artifact scatter; 

prehistoric lithic scatter 

Not eligible for the National Register due 

to high disturbance at the site

1Tp33 Historic artifact scatter Not eligible for the National Register due 

to high disturbance at the site

1Tp34 Multi-component; historic Erosion. Not eligible for the National 
146

Resource 

Number Description Impacts/Recommendations

chimney feature and artifact 

scatter, prehistoric artifacts

Register due to high disturbance at the 

site

1Tp35 Burned out house and storage 

shed complex

Unknown impacts; further research 

recommended

1Tp38 Lithic scatter Normally inundated. Not eligible for the 

National Register due to high disturbance 

at the site

1Tp86 Lithic scatter Logging. Not eligible for the National 

Register due to high disturbance at the 

site and no indication of undisturbed subsurface soils 

1Tp125 Multi-component; historic 

Umphrees Family Cemetery 

and lithic scatter

Surface lithic materials collected. Not 

eligible for the National Register due to 

high disturbance for the Native American 

portion of the site and the re-location of 

the Umphrees Cemetery.

1Tp130 Possible historic house and 

artifact scatter

Erosion

1Tp131 Multicomponent; Historic 

artifact scatter, prehistoric 

projectile point fragment

Not eligible for the National Register due 

to only surface finds

1Tp133 Lithic scatter Not eligible for the National Register due 

to high disturbance at the site and no 

subsurface finds

1Tp134 Portion of historic Savannah 

and Memphis Railroad

Undetermined eligibility due to lack of 

information

Alabama Power has not completed the surveys within the project’s APE and 

acknowledges that other cultural resource sites may be present. The Alabama SHPO

reviewed the 22 previously recorded identified sites in the project’s APE and provided 

the status of the sites (letter from Greg Rhinehart, Alabama Historical Commission, 

Montgomery, Alabama to William Gardner, Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, 

Alabama, filed August 21, 2013). See table 3-27. In its application, Alabama Power 

states that the project facilities, including the powerhouse, dam, and associated features 

represent an important engineering development in the State of Alabama. However, 

Alabama Power identified only the Martin powerhouse as eligible for listing on the 

National Register (Alabama Power, 2012a). The Martin Construction Camp/Project 

Village was also identified as potentially eligible for its contribution to the eligibility of 

the powerhouse.
147

In comments on the draft EIS, the Alabama SHPO states that the Martin 

Construction Camp/Project Village site could yield valuable information about the 

people living there, the hierarchy of those living there, and their lifestyle. The site could

also yield information on the interaction and relationship with the workers and the 

construction of the Martin dam and powerhouse.

Traditional Cultural Properties

Alabama Power identified 14 federally recognized tribes with traditional ties to 

lands within the project APE. The Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, the Thlopthlocco 

Tribal Town, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, the 

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma, the 

Kialegee Tribal Town of the Muscogee Creek, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the 

Chickasaw Nation, the Coushatta Indian Tribe, and the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe did not 

report any potential traditional cultural properties within the project APE. Three 

additional tribes chose not to participate in relicensing consultation: the Mississippi 

Band of Choctaw Indians, the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, and the Seminole Nation 

of Oklahoma.

3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects

Effects on historic properties within the APE can result from project-related 

activities, such as reservoir operations, project-related ground disturbance, and 

recreational activities. Effects can also result from wind and soil erosion, vandalism, 

and private and commercial development. However, the final license application 

focuses primarily on the potential effects of changing reservoir levels on shoreline 

resources. 

For cultural resources within the project boundary, Alabama Power states that 

reservoir inundation provides an overall positive effect on cultural resources (Alabama 

Power, 2011a). In its response to the Commission’s August 11, 2011, Additional 

Information Request regarding further analysis and support of this conclusion, Alabama 

Power cites a study undertaken in 1981 that stated under sufficient depth of water, 

cultural resources are protected from erosion, deposition, decomposition, human 

impacts, and floral and faunal impacts (Alabama Power, 2012a). Alabama Power also 

states that, while exposure to high flow events could have an adverse effect on 

archaeological resources on the Tallapoosa River downstream from Martin dam, these 

impacts would be located outside of the APE for cultural resources (Alabama Power, 

2011a; 2012a). For those reasons, Alabama Power states that no further analysis of 

cultural resources affected by high flow events is required.

In comments on the draft EIS, the Alabama SHPO determined that the Martin 

powerhouse, Martin dam, and the stilling basin are eligible for listing in the National 

Register under Criteria A and Criteria C (letter from Elizabeth Ann Brown, Deputy 

State Historic Preservation Officer, Alabama Historical Commission, Montgomery, 

Alabama, to William Gardner, Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, Alabama, filed 
148

August 21, 2013). The Alabama SHPO also determined that the fourth generating unit 

is not eligible for listing in the National Register and falls under the list of activities 

exempt from section 106 reviews (letter from Amanda McBride, Alabama Historical 

Commission, Montgomery, Alabama, to Kimberly Bose, Secretary, FERC, Washington, 

D.C., August 21, 2013).64 The Alabama SHPO finds that, at the time of its 

impoundment, Lake Martin was the largest man-made lake in the world. 

Archaeological sites of significance or potential significance within the project 

boundary (if determined so) would be eligible for listing in the National Register under 

Criteria D (letter from Elizabeth Ann Brown, Deputy State Historic Preservation 

Officer, Alabama Historical Commission, Montgomery, Alabama, to William Gardner, 

Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, Alabama, filed, August 21, 2013).

Historic Properties Management Plan 

Alabama Power filed, and initially proposed to implement, a February 2012 draft 

HPMP to manage cultural resources within the project APE. The draft HPMP describes 

standards to be applied during project activities that have the potential to affect historic 

properties. Therefore, to discuss the provisions of the draft HPMP and cultural 

resources at the project, we established a CRWG consisting of Alabama Power, 

Alabama SHPO, the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, 

the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, the Alabama Coushatta Tribe of Texas, the 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma, the Kialegee Tribal Town of the Muscogee 

(Creek) Nation, BLM, and Commission staff. 

Alabama Power’s proposal changed on June 12, 2012, when Alabama Power 

signed the final PA as a concurring party, thereby agreeing to develop and implement a 

final HPMP within one year of license issuance. In comments on the draft EIS, 

Alabama Power clarified that it intends to determine if the structures at the Martin 

Construction Camp/Project Village are a contributing element with respect to the Martin 

Dam complex. The executed PA requires Alabama Power to document the Martin 

Construction Camp/Project Village (148 acres) and determine whether it is eligible for 

listing in the National Register, as part of the final HPMP.

Our Analysis

Alabama Power defined the project APE in consultation with the CRWG. A 

provision of a final HPMP would require Alabama Power to include a map or maps that 

depict the boundary of the APE in relation to the project boundary. Any project-related, 

ground-disturbing activities that might be necessary within the APE as defined would be 

subject to the requirements of section 106.

 

64 The final HPMP must contain these two letters of documentation of 

consultation with the Alabama SHPO.
149

Alabama Power’s February 2012 draft HPMP provides for Alabama Power to

complete the cultural resources survey of selected sites (807 acres) in a segmented

manner by the 20th year of the new license. Dependent upon the length of a new license 

term, the proposed timeframe to complete these surveys would mean that cultural 

resources sites within the APE may remain unprotected from potential project effects

for a substantial period of time. 

Following discussions with the CRWG, Alabama Power and the CRWG agreed 

that the additional surveys could be completed after license issuance as provision of a

final HPMP. Implementing the survey would provide the necessary cultural resources 

inventory data. In the draft EIS, we recommended completing these surveys within 5

years of the issuance date of the license to ensure that all resources are identified, and 

that appropriate protection and mitigation measures for unavoidable adverse effects on 

historic properties are determined and implemented in a timely manner (i.e., 

stabilization, data recovery). In comments on the draft EIS, the Alabama SHPO 

concurred with the reduced survey time. In comments on the draft EIS, Alabama Power 

agreed to this schedule and proposes to survey on average 161 acres per year.

Effects on cultural resources within the APE can include, but are not limited to, 

inundation of areas due to project operation, recreational use of Lake Martin and 

associated project lands, project-induced shoreline erosion, and modifications or repairs 

to project facilities. The type and level of effects on cultural resources can vary, 

depending upon site location and setting, features and attributes, visibility of the 

resource, and public knowledge and access to a resource. 

Alabama Power’s February 2012 draft HPMP provides a process for evaluating 

and assessing the effects of future project-related actions on cultural resources and 

historic properties. This plan requires consultation with the Alabama SHPO and 

interested tribes if impacts to cultural resources as a result of project activity are 

unavoidable. We note, however, that BLM should be included in the consultation. 

However, for current potential impacts, Alabama Power’s application and HPMP 

primarily focus on impacts associated with reservoir operation. While a single report 

cited by Alabama Power implies that inundation of cultural sites under hydroelectric 

reservoirs is beneficial overall (Alabama Power, 2012a), this report is greater than 30 

years old and more recent studies indicate that this conclusion may not be warranted in 

all cases. 

Alabama Power is correct that inundation can protect cultural sites from 

vandalism and recreational use. However, in 1975, four federal agencies, including the 

National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Corps, and Soil Conservation Service, 

completed an intensive 5-year study of the effects of freshwater reservoir inundation on 

cultural resources. The resulting two-volume National Reservoir Inundation Study was 

summarized in a 1989 Corps report (Ware, 1989). The National Reservoir Inundation 

Study found that archaeological sites can be adversely affected by inundation, 

particularly those that are located in shoreline fluctuation zones. The summary report 
150

states that while some researchers claim that inundation is an effective option to 

preserve archaeological data, “the long-term mechanical and biochemical effects of 

deep water burial are poorly understood” and suggested that this idea is “untenable 

unless one can demonstrate the feasibility and practicality of future data withdrawals” 

(Ware, 1989:31). Additionally, our own independent review of hydroelectric project 

license applications has allowed us to examine numerous examples of the effects of 

reservoir operation and inundation on submerged archaeological sites, and we have 

found that inundation can result in a high degree of sorting, redistribution, and erosion 

of cultural materials. These disturbances can be adverse because they can affect the 

integrity of sites that may otherwise meet the criteria for inclusion in the National 

Register. 

Each individual site within a project’s APE should be examined, evaluated for 

listing on the National Register, and evaluated for potential project effects in the 

particular context in which it is located; some sites may see little disturbance while 

others may be impacted. The HPMP would include a provision that requires Alabama 

Power to: (1) evaluate currently inundated sites within the APE for listing on the 

National Register if and when they become exposed, and any sites that may be inundated 

in the future; (2) assess the effects of inundation on all eligible resources in accordance 

with 36 C.F.R. section 800.5; and (3) implement appropriate treatment measures. These 

actions would ensure that cultural resources would be addressed in accordance with 

section 106. 

Other potential project effects on cultural resources could occur from recreational 

use. The Martin Dam Project is a popular destination for shoreline landowners who 

reside adjacent to, or near, the project and for the public. As discussed in section 3.3.5, 

Recreation Resources and Land Use, Alabama Power (2010g) estimates 370,538 

recreation user-days for the combined recreational use at Lake Martin and the tailwater 

area (from Martin dam to 0.25 mile downstream). We find that the potential effects of 

recreational use could be taken into account through a provision in a final HPMP, which 

would require Alabama Power to provide public interpretation of the historic and 

archeological properties at the project. However, any additional mitigation measures 

for unavoidable project-related recreational impacts would be developed in consultation 

with the Alabama SHPO, interested tribes, and BLM in accordance with a provision in a 

final HPMP. 

The February 2012 draft HPMP states that the project powerhouse has been 

recommended as eligible for listing in the National Register. While the February 2012 

draft HPMP addresses potential changes, repairs, and modifications to the exterior of 

the structure, three of the four generators date to the late 1920s and one generator dates 

to the early 1950s. The original three generators were upgraded between 2001 and 

2004. Since this equipment no longer retains its original integrity, it does not contribute 

to the eligibility of the powerhouse. However, the fourth generator is more than 50 

years old and may contribute to the eligibility of the powerhouse. The February 2012 

draft HPMP also does not address the potential historic nature of the dam itself. The 
151

project was constructed in 1926, and Martin dam was the first of four dams constructed 

on the Tallapoosa River. The final HPMP, however, would provide for identification 

and evaluation of historic properties, as well as determination of effects and 

identification of ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects. This provision 

would also entail implementation of appropriate treatment that would minimize or 

mitigate unavoidable adverse effects on historic properties. 

Alabama Power has not identified proposals for major changes, repairs, or 

modifications to potentially historic project structures, and appendix B of the February 

2012 draft HPMP provides a list of activities that Alabama Power believes should be 

exempt from section 106 review because these activities would have little or no 

potential effect on historic properties. Among general maintenance activities to the 

hydroelectric structures, these include changes, repair, or replacement of the four 

powerhouse generators. Should future changes to any project structures be proposed, 

including changes to any associated equipment that may contribute to a structure’s 

National Register eligibility, Alabama Power would need to prepare a treatment plan for 

Commission and Alabama SHPO review prior to receiving approval for actions that 

may have adverse effects on National Register-eligible properties. Any major repairs or 

modification to National Register-eligible historic project structures conducted during 

the new license would be performed after consultation with the Alabama SHPO, and in 

accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties. 

To meet the requirements of section 106, we issued a draft PA on 

February 29, 2012. The Alabama SHPO, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, and the 

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas commented on the draft PA, and their comments 

were addressed in the final PA issued for signature on June 4, 2012. The Commission 

and the Alabama SHPO executed the final PA on June 12, 2012. Alabama Power, the 

Poarch Band of Creek Indians, and the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas concurred. 

Implementation of the PA would ensure that Alabama Power addresses all historic 

properties identified within the project’s APE through the finalization of the draft 

HPMP after consultation with the Alabama SHPO, the interested tribes, and BLM.

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the no-action alternative the project would continue to operate as it has in 

the past. None of Alabama Power’s proposed measures or the resource agencies’ 

recommendations and mandatory conditions would be required. Lake Martin would 

continue to support extensive recreational usage and an important lake fishery. The 

proposed changes to the reservoir rule curve, however, would not occur, and winter 

reservoir levels would continue at about a 10-foot drawdown from full pool. The 

shoreline littoral zone would continue to be dewatered during the winter months and 

aquatic habitat within the drawdown zone would not be protected. Enhancement of 

recreational use would not occur during the winter months, nor during the early fall as a 
152

result of the conditional fall extension of summer reservoir levels to October 15, which 

would occur under the proposed action.
153

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS

In this section, we look at the Martin Dam Project’s use of the Tallapoosa River 

for hydropower purposes to see what effect various environmental measures would have 

on the project’s costs and power generation. Under the Commission’s approach to 

evaluating the economics of hydropower projects, as articulated in Mead Corp.,65 the 

Commission compares the current project cost to an estimate of the cost of obtaining the 

same amount of energy and capacity using a likely alternative source of power for the 

region (cost of alternative power) without consideration of future escalation of fuel 

prices in valuing the hydropower project’s power benefits.

For each of our licensing alternatives, our analysis includes: (1) an estimate of 

the cost of individual measures considered for the protection, mitigation, and 

enhancement of environmental resources affected by the project; and (2) an estimate of 

the project power benefits for each of the licensing alternatives. To determine the net 

annual power benefit for each of the licensing alternatives, we compare project costs to 

the value of the power output as represented by the cost of a likely alternative source of 

power in the region. For any alternative, a positive net annual power benefit indicates 

that the project power costs less than the current cost of alternative generation resources 

and a negative net annual power benefit indicates that project power costs more than the 

current cost of alternative generation resources. This estimate helps to support an 

informed decision concerning what is in the public interest with respect to a proposed 

license. However, project economics is only one of many public interest factors the 

Commission considers in determining whether, and under what conditions, to issue a 

license.

4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT

Table 4-1 summarizes the economic assumptions and economic information we 

use in our analysis. Most of the information was provided by Alabama Power in its 

license application. We find that the values provided by Alabama Power are reasonable 

for the purposes of our analysis. Cost items common to all alternatives include taxes 

and insurance costs; net investment (the total investment in power plant facilities 

remaining to be depreciated); estimated future capital investment required to maintain 

 

65 See Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division, 72 FERC ¶ 61,027 (July 

13, 1995). In most cases, electricity from hydropower would displace some form of 

fossil-fueled generation, in which fuel cost is the largest component of the cost of 

electricity production.
154

and extend the life of plant equipment and facilities; relicensing costs; normal O&M

cost; and Commission fees.

Table 4-1. Parameters for the economic analysis of the Martin Dam Project

Assumption Value Source

Period of economic analysis 

(years)

30 Staff

Current net investment 

(2015 dollars)a

$15,345,734 Alabama Power

Current annual costs 

including O&M, and FERC 

fees (2015 dollars)b

$3,085,000 Alabama Power

Relicense application costs

(2015 dollars)c

$9,407,016 Alabama Power

Term of financing (years) 20 Staff

Cost of capital (percent)d 12.72 Alabama Power

Discount rate (percent)e 8 Staff

Energy rate ($/MWh)f 72.5 Alabama Power

Capacity rate($/kilowattyear)f145.5 Alabama Power

a The net investment value of the project as of December 31, 2010 ($19,182,170), was 

provided by Alabama Power in its December 9, 2011, Additional Information 

Request response, Revised Exhibit D, section 2.2. This value has been adjusted by 

staff to 2015 dollars. b Annual costs ($2,850,030) were derived from Alabama Power’s Additional 

Information Request response dated December 9, 2011, Question 2c. This value has 

been adjusted to 2015 dollars by staff. c The cost to develop the license application ($8,400,000) was provided by Alabama 

Power in its December 9, 2011, response to a Commission Additional Information 

Request response (revised Exhibit D, section 5). This cost has been adjusted to 2015

dollars by staff.

d The cost of capital was in Alabama Power’s Additional Information Request 

response dated December 9, 2011, Question 2a. e The discount rate was not provided in the license application, and was therefore 

approximated by staff.

f The energy rate and capacity rate were provided in Alabama Power’s Additional 

Information Request response dated December 9, 2011, Question 3. 
155

4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 4-2 compares the annual costs and annual power benefits for the three 

alternatives considered in this final EIS: no action, Alabama Power’s proposal, and the 

staff alternative.

4.2.1 No-action Alternative

Under the no-action alternative, the project would continue to operate as it does 

now. The project would have an installed capacity of 182,456 kilowatt (kW), and 

generate an average of 375,614 MWh of electricity annually valued at $53,277,090, or 

about $141.84/MWh. The average annual project cost would be $8,167,703, or about 

$21.74/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at a cost that is $45,109,387, 

or about $120.10/MWh less than the cost of alternative power.

Table 4-2. Summary of annual costs and annual power benefits for the alternatives 

for the Martin Dam Project (Source: staff).

No Action

Alabama Power’s

Proposal Staff Alternativeb

Authorized installed 

capacity (kW)

182,456 182,456 182,456

Dependable capacity 

(kW)

179,000 179,000 179,000

Annual generation 

(MWh)

375,614 376,903 376,903

Annual power valuea

($/MWh)

$53,277,090

141.84

$53,459,922

141.84

$53,459,922

141.84

Annual costs in 2015 

dollars($/MWh)

$8,167,703

21.74

$8,437,963

22.39

$8,442,773

22.40

Power benefit (i.e., power 

value minus costs)

($/MWh)

$45,109,387

120.10

$45,021,959

119.45

$45,017,149

119.44

a The power value includes the energy rate of $72.50/MWh and the dependable 

capacity rate of $145.50/kilowatt-year. 

b The Staff Alternative includes operating the project as proposed by Alabama Power

and some additional staff measures which have minor costs.

4.2.2 Alabama Power’s Proposal

Under Alabama Power’s proposal, the project would have total installed capacity 

of 182,456 kW, a dependable capacity of 179,000 kW, and an average annual 

generation of 376,903 valued at $53,277,090, or about $141.84/MWh. The average 
156

annual project cost would be $8,437,963, or about $22.39/MWh. Overall, the project 

would produce power at a cost which is $45,021,959, or about $119.45/MWh, less than 

the cost of alternative power. 

4.2.3 Staff Alternative

The staff alternative has the same capacity and energy attributes as Alabama 

Power’s proposal. Table 4-3 shows the staff-recommended additions, deletions, and 

modifications to Alabama Power’s proposed environmental protection and enhancement 

measures and the estimated cost of each. Based on a total installed capacity of 182,456 

kW, a dependable capacity of 179,000 kW, and an average annual generation of 

377,161 MWh valued at $53,459,922, or about $141.84/MWh. The average annual 

project cost would be $8,442,773 or about $22.40/MWh. Overall, the project would 

produce power at a cost which is $45,017,149, or about $119.44/MWh, less than the 

cost of alternative power. 

4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES

Table 4-3 shows the costs for each of the environmental mitigation and 

enhancement measures considered in the analysis. We convert all costs to equal annual 

(levelized) values over a 30-year period of analysis to give a uniform basis for 

comparing the benefits of a measure to its cost.
157

Table 4-3. Cost of environmental mitigation and enhancement measures considered in assessing the environmental 

effects of continuing to operate the Martin Dam Project (Source: Alabama Power, 2011b, as modified by 

staff).

Enhancement/Mitigation Measures Entities

Capital Cost 

(2015$)a,c

Annual Cost

(2015$)a,c

Levelized

Annual Cost 

(2015$)b,c

Aquatic Resource Measures

1. Implement the proposed 3-foot 

increase in winter pool elevation.

Alabama Power, 

Staff

$0 - (1,547 MWh gained 

generation)

2. Implement the proposed 

conditional fall extension.

Alabama Power,

Staff

$0 $11,200 (243 MWh of 

generation gained each year 

the fall pool level is 

extended))

$11,200

3. Implement drawdowns to 

elevation 481 feet msl every 6 years.

Alabama Power,

Staff

$0 $2,240 $2,240

4. Implement a 4-foot increase in 

winter pool elevation.

Lake Martin RA $0 (2,116 MWh gained 

generation)

-$153,410d

5. Implement a 5-foot increase in 

winter pool elevation.

Lake Martin 

HOBO

$0 - (2,684 MWh gained 

generation)

-$194,590

6. Implement alternative operation of 

Lake Martin for downstream flood 

control. Summer lake level at 488 

feet msl.

Downstream 

Landowners

$0 (8,800 MWh lost generation), 

plus loss in dependable 

capacity

$630,000
158

Enhancement/Mitigation Measures Entities

Capital Cost 

(2015$)a,c

Annual Cost

(2015$)a,c

Levelized

Annual Cost 

(2015$)b,c

7. Implement alternative operation of 

Lake Martin for downstream flood 

control. Summer lake level 486 feet 

msl.

Downstream 

Landowners

$0 (8,100 MWh lost generation), 

plus loss in dependable 

capacity

$587,000

8. To manage project operations 

during drought, implement the 

Tallapoosa River portion of the 

ADROP

Alabama Power, 

Staff

$0 $0 $0e

9. Monitor water quality in the 

tailrace as per the conditions of the 

401 WQC

Alabama Power, 

Staff

$0 $11,200 $11,200f

10. Develop plan and monitor water 

quality in Lake Martin as a result of 

3-foot winter pool increase

Alabama Power, 

Staff

$0 $26,090 $26,090

11. Implement a study to estimate 

the population and distribution of 

eels from Martin dam through the

unimpounded reach of the Tallapoosa 

River downstream of Thurlow dam.

Alabama Power $7,840 $7,840 c
159

Enhancement/Mitigation Measures Entities

Capital Cost 

(2015$)a,c

Annual Cost

(2015$)a,c

Levelized

Annual Cost 

(2015$)b,c

12. Implement the Nuisance Aquatic 

Vegetation and Vector Control 

Management Program and prepare a 

plan to monitor increases in aquatic 

vegetation resulting from the 

proposed 3-foot increase in the 

winter pool elevation.

Alabama Power, 

Staff

$0 $11,570 $11,570

13. Staff recommendation for eel 

study (no study recommended)

Staff $0 $0 $0

14. Revise and implement the 

Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation and 

Vector Control Management 

Program, in consultation with FWS 

and Alabama DCNR, to include 

information on Alabama Power’s 

protocol for conducting lake-wide 

surveys and monitoring nuisance 

aquatic vegetation, such as the such 

as the frequency, timing, and 

locations of surveys and monitoring 

events and the implementation 

schedules. 

Staff $5,600 $0 $784
160

Terrestrial Resource Measures

15. Implement the Wildlife 

Management Program (WMP)

Alabama Power, 

Staff

$50,390 $23,070 $30,118

16. Within the Core Management 

Area of the WMP, manage toward a 

desired forest condition consistent 

with the good quality foraging habitat 

for the federally listed endangered 

red-cockaded woodpecker.

Interior, Staff $0 $0 $0h

17. Continue Alabama Power’s 

support of aquatic restoration within 

the Mobile Basin and work with 

Interior and Alabama DCNR to 

identify suitable habitats (primarily 

tributaries) for species reintroduction 

within the project boundaries.

Interior $0 $0 $0h

Recreation Resource Measures

18. Implement the Recreation Plan. Alabama Power, 

Staff

$879,110 $2,830 $125,799
161

19. Develop and implement a 

revised Recreation Plan to (a) 

describe the amenities at the 19 

project recreation sites, including a 

map or maps of the project recreation 

sites in relation to the project 

boundary, (b) include an 

implementation schedule, and (c) 

include a provision for periodic 

updates of the plan.

Staff $16,800 $8,960 $11,300i

Land Use Measures

20. Implement the SMP. Alabama Power, 

Staff

$83,990 $5,530 $17,278

21. Develop and implement a 

revised SMP to include (a) a 

discussion of the project boundary 

modifications; (b) a discussion of 

the Dredging Permit Program; (c) a 

discussion of the Shoreline 

Permitting Program; (d) a provision 

to limit construction of new 

seawalls; (e) a provision to address 

unpermitted structures at the project; 

and (f) Geographic Information 

System (GIS) data regarding the 

Lake Martin area.

Staff $28,000 $0 $3,917j
162

22. Educate local landowners on the 

value of natural shorelines; prohibit 

construction of a new seawall unless 

it is absolutely necessary to protect 

land and property.

Interior, Staff $0 $0 $0h

23. Encourage shoreline 

developments to maintain 30-foot 

wide control strip within the project 

boundary and also increase the total 

buffer width to at least 100 feet.

Interior $0 $0 0h

24. Develop and implement a final 

Public Education and Outreach Plan.

Alabama Power, 

Staff

$0 $1,900 $1,900

Cultural Resource Measures

25. Develop and implement a final 

HPMP to include the requirements 

specified in the PA executed on 

June 12, 2012.

Alabama Power, 

Staff

$61,590 k $13,050 $21,665

Fisheries

26. Funding for fisheries 

enhancements

Alabama Power $0 $3,360 $3,360

a Annual costs typically include operational and maintenance costs and any other costs which occur on a yearly basis.

b All capital and annual costs are converted to equal annual costs over a 30-year period to give a uniform basis for 

comparing costs.

c Original 2010 costs provided by Alabama Power in its December 2011 Additional Information Request response 

(revised exhibit D) have been adjusted to 2015 dollars.
163

d We interpolated the cost based on the cost of the 3-foot pool increase and the 5-foot increase.

e We have not estimated a cost to implement this plan, because it would involve an unknown number of future meetings 

and consultations among Alabama Power, the Corps, and other state and federal agencies.

f Alabama Power estimated the cost of monitoring water quality in Lake Martin at $23,300/year and the project tailrace at 

$10,000/year for a combined cost of $33,300/year. Staff adjusted these costs to 2015 dollars.

g Cost estimated by staff.

h We anticipate that no additional cost would be incurred to implement the measure.

i We added $16,800 to the proposed capital cost to finalize the plan and $60,000 per year in years 8, 14, 20, and 26 

($8,960 annual equivalent) for recreation monitoring.

j We added $28,000 to the proposed capital cost to finalize the SMP and consult with agencies.

k We added $5,000 cost to finalize the plan and $50,000 cost to implement the measures recommended by staff, which

combined adds $61,590 (2015) capital costs to Alabama Power’s proposed measure. 
164
165

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

In this section we compare the development and non-developmental effects of 

Alabama Power’s proposal, Alabama Power’s proposal as modified by staff, and the noaction alternative.

We estimate the annual generation of the project under the three alternatives 

identified above. Our analysis shows that the annual generation would be 375,614 

MWh for the no-action alternative and 376,903 MWh66 for the staff alternative.

We summarize the environmental effects of the different alternatives in table 5-1. 

Table 5-1. Comparison of alternatives for the Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project

(Source: staff).

Resource No-action Alternative Proposed Action Staff–Recommended 

Alternative

Generation 375,614 MWh 376,903 MWh 376,903 MWh

Water 

Resources

No measures required 

for drought 

management

Drought management 

regionally 

coordinated through 

implementing

Tallapoosa River 

portion of ADROP

Same as 

Proposed Action

Aquatic 

Resources

Maintain existing 

release of low DO 

water to tailrace during 

some periods of 

generation

DO improvement in 

tailrace during 

generation

Some improvement 

in conditions for

paddlefish spawning 

from more flow in

Same as proposed 

action except no eel data 

from below Thurlow 

Dam.

 

66 This generation estimate is based on an annual 1,547 MWh gain in generation 

by implementing the three-foot increase in the winter pool, a 1,547 MWh loss in 

generation every 6th year when the winter drawdown is to 481 feet, and a negligible 

increase due to the conditional fall extension.
166

Resource No-action Alternative Proposed Action Staff–Recommended 

Alternative

spawning season

Information collected 

on eel occurrence and 

abundance in 

Tallapoosa River 

below Thurlow Dam 

Terrestrial 

Resources

No changes to 

shoreline vegetation or 

wetlands

Protection of water 

quality and wildlife 

habitat through 

maintenance of a 

control strip around 

the reservoir

Habitat enhancement 

for longleaf pinedependent species, 

including the 

endangered redcockaded 

woodpecker

Same as proposed 

action 

Recreation 

Resources

Operate and maintain 

12 existing project 

recreation sites

Continue to operate 

and maintain 12 

existing project 

recreation sites. Six 

additional sites are 

made project 

recreation sites and 

one site is reserved 

for future recreation

Higher winter pool 

level and conditional 

fall extension could 

increase recreational

opportunities at Lake 

Martin

Expansion of the 

parking areas at 

Same as proposed 

action with details on 

nature and schedule of 

improvements provided 

in revised Recreation 

Plan
167

Resource No-action Alternative Proposed Action Staff–Recommended 

Alternative

Smith Landing and 

Madwind Creek 

Ramp, as needed,

would cause shortterm increases in soil 

erosion

Construction of two 

bank fishing sites and 

a gravel parking area 

at Jaybird Landing 

would improve 

access but cause 

short-term increases 

in soil erosion

Evaluation of 

additional bank/pier 

fishing opportunities

within the Martin 

Dam Project 

boundary

Shoreline 

Management 

Existing shoreline 

permitting program, 

including public access 

and protection of 

environmental and 

cultural resources 

would continue

Same as No-Action 

Alternative except

that the existing 

project boundary 

modified to 

encompass project 

recreation sites, add 

991.4 acres, and 

reclassify land use on 

1,294.4 acres to be 

consistent with 

existing land use or 

other project 

purposes

Removal of 373.1

acres of land from the 

project boundary that 

are classified 

Natural/Undeveloped

Same as proposed 

action except that 373.1

acres of land classified 

Natural/Undeveloped 

would remain within the 

project boundary and 

continue to be used for 

project purposes.

Include Geographic 

Information System 

(GIS) data regarding the 

Lake Martin area that 

would facilitate 

Commission 

administration of license
168

Resource No-action Alternative Proposed Action Staff–Recommended 

Alternative

Cultural 

Resources

Eligible sites protected 

under the current 

license

Development of a 

HPMP in accordance 

with the PA would 

avoid, minimize, and 

mitigate adverse 

effects on historic 

properties

Same as proposed 

action 

5.2 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED 

ALTERNATIVE

Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA require the Commission to give equal 

consideration to the power development purposes and to the purposes of energy 

conservation; the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and 

wildlife; the protection of recreational opportunities; and the preservation of other 

aspects of environmental quality. Any license issued shall be such as in the 

Commission’s judgment will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or 

developing a waterway or waterways for all our recommendations for relicensing the 

Martin Dam Project. We weigh the costs and benefits of our recommended alternative 

against other proposed measures.

Based on our independent review of agency and public comments filed on this 

project and our review of the environmental and economic effects of the proposed 

project and its alternatives, we select all of Alabama Power’s proposed operation and 

environmental measures but one, with some staff-recommended modifications, as the 

preferred alternative. We recommend this alternative because: (1) issuing a new 

license for the project would allow Alabama Power to continue to operate its project and 

provide a beneficial and dependable source of electrical energy; (2) the 182.5 MW of 

electric capacity comes from a renewable resource that does not contribute to 

atmospheric pollution; (3) the staff alternative would not likely increase flooding on 

residential and commercial structures and public roads downstream of Martin dam; (4) 

the staff alternative includes defined measures that can be predicted to provide benefits;

and (5) the recommended measures would protect fish and wildlife resources, improve 

recreational opportunities, and protect cultural resources at the project. 

In the following section, we make recommendations as to which environmental 

measures proposed by Alabama Power or recommended by agencies or other entities 

should be included in any license issued for the project. In addition to Alabama 

Power’s proposed environmental measures, we recommend additional staffrecommended environmental measures to be included in any license issued for the 

project, and we describe these requirements in the draft license articles in appendix A.
169

5.2.1 Measures Proposed by Alabama Power 

Based on our environmental analysis of Alabama Power’s proposal in section 3, 

and the costs presented in section 4, we conclude that the following environmental 

measures proposed by Alabama Power would protect and enhance environmental 

resources and would be worth the cost. Therefore, we recommend including these 

measures in any license issued for the project.

Aquatic Resources

• Implement the requirements of the 401 WQC, which requires maintaining DO

concentrations consistent with the state standard when the project is generating, 

and monitoring water temperature and DO in the tailrace. 

• Develop a plan to monitor water quality in Lake Martin.

• Modify the flood curve by implementing a 3-foot increase in the winter pool (to 

elevation 484 feet), and change the operating curve and drought curve 

proportionally during the same time frame.

• Modify the flood control curve during the fall months by extending the curve to 

elevation 491 feet from September 1 through October 15, provided that certain 

hydrological and operational conditions are met.

• Lower the reservoir elevation to at least 481 feet every 6 years to facilitate seawall 

and boat dock construction, and maintenance and other activities benefiting from 

lower lake levels.

• Implement the Tallapoosa River portion of ADROP for managing project 

operations during drought. 

Terrestrial Resources

• Implement a WMP for project lands.

• Implement the Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation and Vector Control Management 

Program.

Recreation Resources

• Develop and implement a Public Education and Outreach Plan.

Land Use

• Modify the project boundary to add 991.4 acres to, and remove 499.2 acres from, 

the project boundary, resulting in an increase of 492.2 acres of land; reclassify 
170

land use on 1,294.4 acres within the project boundary to be consistent with 

existing land use or other project purposes.

Cultural Resources

• Develop and implement a HPMP as part of implementing a PA, executed on 

June 12, 2012.

5.2.2 Measures Recommended by Staff

We recommend the measures described above, with the following additional 

staff measures or modifications: (1) revise the Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation and Vector 

Control Management Program to include more specific information on Alabama 

Power’s protocol for conducting lake-wide surveys and controlling nuisance aquatic 

vegetation; (2) revise the Recreation Plan to require (a) a description of only the 19 

project recreation sites, including a map or maps that identify the project recreation sites 

located within the modified project boundary, and (b) a provision to file a Recreation 

Monitoring Report concurrent with the filing of the FERC Form 80 that discusses 

recreational use and demand, associated project-related resource effects, and any 

additional measures or modifications to the project recreation sites that may be needed 

and a schedule for implementing such changes; and (3) revise the SMP to reflect the 

project boundary modifications. Below, we discuss our recommended measures for 

project operation, and our additional staff-recommended measures. We do not 

recommend Alabama Power’s proposed implementation of an eel study in collaboration 

with FWS or the removal of 373.1 acres from the project boundary.

Increase in Lake Martin Winter Pool

To enhance recreation, Alabama Power proposes to modify the flood curve by 

implementing a 3-foot increase in the winter pool (from elevation 481 feet to elevation 

484 feet). Lake Martin RA recommends a 4-foot increase in the winter lake level. Lake 

Martin HOBO recommends a 5-foot increase in the winter lake level. 

Higher winter lake levels could enhance recreation resources and associated 

economic activity in the project area by extending the season in which access for boats 

is available. These conditions could also provide some assurance that the reservoir 

would refill the following spring. Higher winter lake levels could also result in a 

modest improvement to spring spawning conditions for paddlefish in the Tallapoosa

River below Thurlow Dam because the higher volume water stored through the winter 

would not have to be captured during the spring. Thus, more water would flow 

downstream and be available for spring paddlefish spawning.

While an increase in winter lake level may enhance reservoir recreation and 

paddlefish spawning conditions and reduce vulnerability to summer drought, it also 

would reduce flood storage within the reservoir and could potentially cause an increase 

in flood levels downstream of the project and, to a lesser degree, upstream of the 
171

project. As described in section 3.3.2.2, Effects of Increased Winter Pool Elevation on 

Upstream and Downstream Flooding, Alabama Power’s initial studies filed with the 

license application concluded that an increase in flooding would be modest, but could 

affect an additional 13 residential structures, 10 commercial structures, and public 

roads.67 Alabama Power’s initial studies examined potential effects on the 100-year 

flood event without consideration of intervening downstream flows. These studies 

suggested that a 3-foot increase in the winter pool level could increase the 100-year 

flood elevation in the Tallapoosa River below Martin dam from 0.75 to 2.3 feet, with 

the greater increases in the upper section of the river. This increase in the 100-year 

flood level68 could increase the flood area by about 10 percent under the Alabama 

Power proposal, by about 12 percent under the Lake Martin RA-proposed 4-foot 

increase in the winter pool, and by about 16 percent under the Lake Martin HOBOproposed 5-foot increase. 

Based on these considerations, we concluded in the draft EIS that the benefits of 

increasing the winter pool elevation by 3, 4, or 5 feet did not justify the potential 

increase in risk of flooding to residential and commercial structures as well as public 

roads downstream. Therefore, the staff alternative in the draft EIS did not include the 

recommendations from Alabama Power, Lake Martin RA, or Lake Martin HOBO for 

increased winter pool elevations. 

Subsequently, Alabama Power conducted additional modelling to refine the

assessment of downstream effects of the proposed 3-foot increase in the winter pool, 

and to evaluate whether the proposed changes could affect dam safety up to the 

probable maximum flood (PMF). Alabama Power’s additional modeling evaluated the 

effect of operations on peak flood stages at the Montgomery Water Works Gage 

(located about 70 miles downstream of Martin Dam) for nine historical, high flow 

events. The modeling showed that only two of the nine events would have resulted in 

higher peak releases from the dam with a winter pool at 484 feet msl and both of those 

increases were contained in the river channel banks. Alabama Power’s additional 

analysis also showed no effects on the safety of Martin dam for floods up to the PMF. 

A higher winter pool level would improve boating access on Lake Martin during 

the winter months, help ensure that full pool is reached by May each year, and provide 

 

67 The flood model was validated to flood stage, but not flood volume. While 

stage is the more important variable, the uncertainty in the modeling requires us to 

assume that if there was error in the estimation, the actual effects would have been more 

severe.

68 These increases are based on a 100-year storm event occurring during a period 

when the reservoir would be at the proposed or recommended higher winter pool 

elevation as compared to the existing winter pool level of elevation 481 feet. 
172

some additional economic benefit to the area from a longer recreation season. 

Currently, seven project boat ramps are usable at a winter pool elevation of 481 feet. 

An increase in winter pool elevation by 3 feet, as proposed by Alabama Power, would 

make an additional six boat ramps usable during the winter. 

Higher lake levels also would improve shoreline landowner’s access to their 

private boat docks. Survey results (Alabama Power, 2010g; 2011b) indicate that at an

elevation of 481 feet, 92 percent of survey respondents found it impractical to moor 

their boat at their dock. At the proposed 3-foot higher winter pool elevation of 484 feet, 

the percentage of survey respondents unable to moor their boats would drop to 71 

percent. If Lake Martin was raised 4 feet in the winter to elevation 485 feet, as

previously recommended by Lake Martin RA, the percentage of survey respondents 

would drop to 56 percent. If the lake was raised 5 feet higher in the winter to elevation 

486 feet, as previously recommended by Lake Martin HOBO, only 24 percent of survey 

respondents would find it impractical to moor their boat at their dock. While lower lake 

levels may strand privately owned boat docks around Lake Martin, there are several 

boat ramps available to the public that provide access to the lake under current 

conditions. 

Staff also finds that a higher winter pool level would likely increase spring spill 

events at Martin dam and downstream water levels below Thurlow dam, which would 

enhance spawning conditions for paddlefish. At the winter lake level of 481 feet, there 

was an average of 19 days of the March and April spawning season per year above 

6,000 cfs, the flow that provides the necessary depth for paddlefish spawning, from 

2002 through 2007. The number of days above 6,000 cfs during those months would 

increase during the spawning season by about five days (from 19 to 24) at a winter lake 

level of 484. At the level of 485 feet proposed previously by Lake Martin RA, the 

number of days above 6,000 cfs would double (from 19 to 38). At the level of 486 feet 

proposed previously by Lake Martin HOBO, the number of days above 6,000 cfs would 

increase by 53 (from 19 to 72). With an increasing number of days, the possibility of 10 

consecutive days of sustained flow over 6,000 cfs, considered good for paddlefish 

spawning, would increase. Indications are that paddlefish spawning is occurring under 

existing conditions. 

Alabama Power’s proposed 3-foot increase in the winter pool would result in an 

annual 1,547 MWh net gain in energy generation valued at $219,426. Slightly higher 

energy gains would occur with Lake Martin RA’s previously recommended 4-foot 

increase (2,116 MWh) and Lake Martin HOBO’s previously recommended 5-foot 

increase (2,684 MWh). Because holding the winter pool 3 feet higher is not likely to 

increase flooding, may improve paddlefish spawning conditions, and could enhance 

recreation use, we recommend that the winter flood pool level be increased to 484 feet. 

We do not recommend holding the winter pool any higher because of additional 

associated flood risk indicated in Alabama Power’s initial flood analysis and mostly 

incremental improvement in the benefits associated with the 5-foot option versus the 3-

foot option.
173

Conditional Fall Extension

Alabama Power typically holds the reservoir within about 0.5 feet of full pool 

(i.e., 490.5 feet) during the summer for recreation and flood control purposes. To 

further enhance recreation, Alabama Power proposes to extend the period that the flood 

rule curve (i.e.., full pool) would be maintained at elevation 491 feet for an additional 

1.5 months (September 1 through October 15), but only in the years that each of the 

following four operational conditions are met: 

1. Lake Martin is above its operating curve during September (487 to 488.5 feet);

2. the rolling 7-day average total basin inflow69 on the Tallapoosa River, calculated 

at Thurlow dam, is at or higher than the median flow;70

3. the rolling 7-day average total basin inflow on the Coosa River, calculated at 

Jordan dam, is at or higher than the median flow; and

4. the elevations at the Weiss, H. Neely Henry, and Logan Martin developments on 

the Coosa River and the Harris Project on the Tallapoosa River must all be 

within 1 foot of their respective operating guide curves.

Alabama Power would determine if the four operational conditions are being met 

by examining hydraulic and operational conditions daily during the month of 

September. Alabama Power would abide by all downstream minimum flow and other 

operational commitments. Thus the measure would be implemented only in years when 

there are adequate flows and reservoir elevations to meet such needs. Normal fall 

drawdown would occur at any time that the operating conditions are not being met.

Based on historic hydrologic and operating conditions, the fall extension would 

occur infrequently, likely less than 1 in 3 years. Further, recreation use decreases 

significantly after Labor Day. Given that the public boat ramps are still useable until at 

least November 1 under current operations, the public will continue to have access to 

Lake Martin to until at least November. Consequently, there would be a small public

recreational benefit from implementing the fall extension.

Comments on the draft EIS make it clear that the public recognize that all of the 

conditions are likely to align infrequently, but that they support the fall extension

anyway because of the benefits higher lake levels may at least occasionally provide.

 

69 The 7-day rolling average of total basin inflow is the average of the total daily 

basin inflow for the previous 7 days recalculated on a daily basis for a given period of 

time. 

70 The “median flow” in this instance is the median of the recorded daily flows 

over the period of record for the particular day of interest.
174

These benefits include a potentially longer recreation season with higher lake levels and 

longer periods for shoreline owners having full access to their docks. 

The fall extension is not likely to have significant impacts on downstream flow 

needs because the measure only would be implemented during above average flow 

years when adequate flows are available throughout the Tallapoosa and Coosa River 

Basins. The measure would slightly increase project generation by 243 MWh each year 

the extension is actually implemented. Over a 30-year period, staff concludes the gain 

in generation would be negligible. The cost for determining whether to initiate the fall 

extension each year of the conditional fall extension would be about $11,200 per year. 

Even though the recreating public could not rely on the higher lake levels every year, 

the minor recreational benefit and absence of any adverse effect on aquatic resources 

justifies implementing the measure. 

Lake Martin RA recommends that the Lake Harris criterion be modified to be 

within 2 feet of its guide curve rather than one foot as proposed by Alabama Power. 

The 2-foot criterion at Lake Harris, however, could trigger the conditional fall extension

in times of drought stress, which could exacerbate environmental stressors, complicate

the management of flows for navigation and other purposes in the Alabama River basin 

during low flow conditions, and potentially conflict with the implementation of the 

ADROP. Therefore we recommend that the conditional fall extension be established 

using the 1-foot criterion at Lake Harris.

Operation for Flood Control

Alabama Power proposes to continue operating for flood control as described in 

section 2.1.3, Existing Project Operation, with the changes noted in bold below:

1) When the reservoir is above the flood curve and between elevations 484 and 486 

feet, turbines at Martin dam would be operated to provide for an outflow from 

Thurlow dam that is at least the hydraulic capacity of the turbines at Yates dam 

(about 12,400 cfs).

2) When the reservoir is above the flood curve and between elevations 486 and 489 

feet:

a. With increasing inflows, turbines at Martin dam would be operated to 

provide for an outflow from Thurlow dam that is at least the hydraulic 

capacity of the turbines at Thurlow dam (about 13,200 cfs).

b. With decreasing inflows, turbines at Martin dam would be operated to 

provide for an outflow from Thurlow dam that is at least the hydraulic 

capacity of the turbines at Yates dam (about 12,400 cfs). 

3) When the reservoir is above the flood curve and above elevation 489 feet msl, the 

turbines at Martin dam would be operated as in (2) a above, and further if 

required to avoid rising above elevation 491 feet, turbines would be operated to 

provide an outflow from Lake Martin at least equivalent to all turbine units 
175

operating at full gate (17,900 cfs), and spillway gates would be raised. An 

exception to this would be that the reservoir may continue to rise after all gates 

are raised and inflow exceeds the gate capacity, which would be beyond the 

control of Alabama Power. At elevation 491 feet, the spillway would have an 

outflow capacity of approximately 133,000 cfs.

4) During periods when inflow exceeds the total capacity of the hydraulic 

turbines, the 3-hour average outflow rate from the reservoir would not 

exceed the concurrent 3-hour average inflow rate except to evacuate 

accumulated surcharge storage subsequent to the predicted time of peak 

inflow. This would ensure that the outflow from the reservoir is lower than 

the inflow.

5) Alabama Power would continue its current practice to notify the National 

Weather Service (NWS) when spillway gate operation is used in flood 

control operations and would continue to share data with the NWS’ 

Southeast River Forecast Center (SERFC) and the Corps.

Appendix A, article 404, identifies the staff-recommended license article for 

flood control operations. We recommend that any license issued for the Martin Dam 

Project include an article for flood control consistent with Alabama Power’s proposed 

four changes listed above, with the two following exceptions proposed for the reasons 

discussed below: 

1) Item No. 3 adds the text, “which would be beyond the control of Alabama 

Power.” This proposed change does not define an operational measure to be 

implemented for flood control and thus it is not necessary. Therefore, to 

maintain clarity, we are not recommending this change. 

2) Item No. 5 reduces coordination with the Corps when compared to the current 

Exhibit H conditions. Specifically, the current Exhibit H states, 

“During flood periods, communications will be maintained with the 

Weather Bureau’s River Forecast Center, Atlanta, Georgia, and the Corps 

of Engineers, and if greater flood control benefits can be attained through 

increased coordination of operations at the Tallapoosa and Coosa river 

dams, and increased coordination with the Corps of Engineers’ 

downstream Alabama River dams than would be attained through use of 

the above flood control procedures, then these procedures will be 

modified as mutually agreed to verbally by the Corps of Engineers and 

Alabama Power Company.” 

Alabama Power provides no justification for the modification of the Exhibit H

language, which could effectively reduce the level of coordination with the Corps. 

Therefore, to maintain the current level of coordination, we are not recommending this 

change.
176

Drought Management Plan Review

As discussed in section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, in wet and normal years,

inflows to the project generally are adequate to maintain normal reservoir levels and 

meet existing downstream flow needs, including maintaining downstream water quality, 

aquatic habitat, water supply, power generation, navigation, and recreation. However, 

during extreme drought years, as experienced in 2007 and to a lesser extent in other 

recent years, inflows to the project have been inadequate to maintain downstream flow 

needs, and at times, normal reservoir levels. 

In comments on the draft EIS Alabama Power proposes to implement the 

Tallapoosa River portion of the Alabama-ACT Drought Operations Proposal (ADROP). 

Alabama Power included, in Attachment B of its August 13, 2013 comment letter, a 

copy of ADROP, Version 3.3.3, dated July 12, 2013. The FWS recommends 

implementing the Tallapoosa River portion of ADROP. 

ADROP includes provisions to manage all Alabama Power’s reservoirs within 

the Alabama, Coosa, and Tallapoosa River Basins during drought conditions. ADROP 

requires monitoring rainfall and stream flow within the ACT River Basin. When 

drought indicators reach specified levels, operations responses are triggered, resulting in 

pre-determined incremental reductions or increases in flow released from reservoirs in 

the Coosa, Tallapoosa, and Alabama River basins

The Corps is currently updating its reservoir regulation manuals to provide a 

comprehensive management plan for the Coosa, Tallapoosa, and Alabama River basins 

that would include drought management. On October 31, 2014, the Corps issued the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement for Updates to the Master Water Control Manual 

for the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin. The Corps also issued a draft Master 

Water Control Manual for the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River basin (draft ACT 

Water Control Manual). The Corp’s final EIS and draft ACT Water Control Manual 

include implementing ADROP, which has flow criteria and operational responses for 

the Coosa, Tallapoosa, and Alabama Rivers.

The license for the Coosa Project requires Alabama Power implement the Coosa 

River portion of ADROP. ADROP covers three river basins. Implementing the 

Tallapoosa portion of ADROP would provide long-term benefits to water supply, fish

and wildlife resources, and power generation by coordinating management of flows in 

the Coosa and Tallapoosa Basins during drought years. Since the Corps final ACT 

Water Control Manual has not yet been issued we recommend a provision requiring 

Alabama Power to review the Corps’ regulation manuals, once finalized, for 

consistency with the Tallapoosa River portions of ADROP, and file a report of its 

findings along with any recommendations for modifications to the aforementioned 

portions of ADROP to be consistent with the finalized manuals.
177

Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation and Vector Control Management Program

As part of its current Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation and Vector Control 

Management Program, Alabama Power performs lake-wide surveys to identify areas of 

aquatic plant infestation at least once per year. Throughout the year Alabama Power 

also reviews, on a case-by-case basis, requests to treat nuisance aquatic vegetation made 

by the public, state and federal agencies, and Alabama Power employees. Alabama 

Power treats nuisance aquatic vegetation that: (1) may provide mosquito breeding 

habitat; (2) could pose a threat to power generation facilities or water withdrawal 

structures; and (3) could restrict recreational use of the reservoir, and/or (4) pose a 

threat to the ecological balance of the reservoir.

Alabama Power proposes to continue implementing its Nuisance Aquatic 

Vegetation and Vector Control Management Program, which includes a plan to monitor 

aquatic vegetation for the purpose of reducing potential effects of increased nuisance 

aquatic vegetation on the ecological balance of the reservoir. The annual cost for 

implementing this plan is $11,570. As discussed in section 3.3.3, Terrestrial 

Resources, neither the current Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation and Vector Control 

Management Program, nor Alabama Power’s proposed revision, describe the survey and 

monitoring methods. These details should be developed and filed for Commission 

approval to ensure its effective implementation and the Commission’s administration of 

any such license requirement. We estimate the additional cost of preparing the survey 

plan would be $5,600, or about $783/year. We find that the benefits of this measure 

would justify this cost and recommend the development of the enhanced program.

Recreation Plan

Alabama Power proposes to implement its Recreation Plan filed on 

December 9, 2011. The plan includes the following: (1) a description of the recreation 

sites owned and operated by Alabama Power and other entities at the project; 

(2) continued O&M of 18 existing recreation sites, 12 of which are currently recognized 

project facilities and six that would become project facilities under the new license; 

(3) improvements to the existing boat ramp and construction of two bank fishing sites 

and a parking area at the Jaybird Landing; (4) expansion of the parking areas, as needed, 

at Smith Landing and Madwind Creek Ramp; (5) an evaluation for developing bank/pier 

fishing areas within the Martin Dam Project boundary; (6) a provision to update project 

recreation signage as specified in section 8.2 of the Commission’s regulations; and 

(7) reservation of one site, the 36.4-acre Ponder Camp (Stillwaters Area Boat Ramp),

for future recreation development as demand increases (for a total of 19 recreation 

sites). The plan also includes a provision for an annual meeting with Alabama DCNR 

and filing an annual addendum to the Recreation Plan to provide the means to inform 

stakeholders and the Commission about the schedule for implementing the Recreation 

Plan. 
178

However, Alabama Power’s proposed Recreation Plan describes non-project 

facilities (i.e., facilities that it would not operate and maintain), does not reflect all 

amenities at the existing project facilities, and includes extraneous material (e.g., 

prefiling study plans). Accordingly, we recommend that a revised Recreation Plan be 

developed that includes Alabama Power’s proposed measures and the following 

additional components: (1) a description of the amenities at only the project recreation 

sites, including a map or maps of the project recreation sites in relation to the project 

boundary; a provision to file a Recreation Monitoring Report concurrent with the filing 

of the FERC Form 80 that discusses recreational use and demand, associated projectrelated resource effects, and any additional measures or modifications to the project 

recreation sites that may be needed and a schedule for implementing such changes. 

These modifications would improve Commission oversight of the license requirements 

and ensure that future recreation needs are met at the project. 

In section 4, Developmental Analysis, we estimate that the levelized annual cost

for implementing Alabama Power’s proposed recreation plan would be $125,799. 

Revising the plan as described above would increase the annual cost by $11,310. We 

find the benefits of this measure would justify the cost and therefore, would be in the 

public interest. 

Public Education and Outreach Plan

Alabama Power proposes to develop and implement a Public Education and 

Outreach Plan that provides: (1) a description of current public education efforts, such 

as, the Shorelines newsletter, and an updated website; (2) a brochure about BMPs that 

would be published in the Shorelines newsletter and submitted for publication in Lake 

Magazine; (3) the results of a striped bass hooking mortality study that would be 

published in the Shorelines newsletter and submitted for publication in Lake Magazine; 

(4) periodic articles about nuisance aquatic vegetation in the Shorelines newsletter 

and/or Lake Magazine; (5) an “Adopt an Island” program on project lands to address 

litter and the effects of domestic livestock on native terrestrial resources; (6) a brochure 

about the Longleaf Pine Legacy Program; and (7) periodic updates to the plan. 

Development and implementation of a Public Education and Outreach Plan 

would document the means by which shoreline landowners and the public will be 

informed of Alabama Power’s various initiatives, as identified above. Therefore, we 

recommend that Alabama Power develop and implement a Public Education and 

Outreach Plan, which we estimate would have a levelized annual cost of $1,900. We 

find the benefits of this measure would justify the cost and therefore, would be in the 

public interest.

Shoreline Management Plan

Alabama Power proposes to implement its final SMP to protect environmental 

resources along the project shoreline, and enhance public access to the project’s lands

and waters. As part of the SMP, the Shoreline Permitting Program addresses specific 
179

uses and occupancy of the Lake Martin shoreline not tied to project purposes. This

program takes into account the ability of Alabama Power to grant permission, without 

prior Commission approval, for the use and occupancy of project lands for such minor 

activities as landscape plantings. 

Under the SMP, Alabama Power would encourage shoreline landowners to use 

native vegetation and bioengineering techniques and, where those techniques are not 

practical, riprap and gabions for shoreline stabilization along the Lake Martin shoreline, 

which would control or minimize soil erosion and protect aquatic and wildlife habitat. 

Interior recommends that Alabama Power implement a final SMP with a 

provision to limit construction of seawalls to only instances where necessary to protect 

land and property. Interior also recommends that Alabama Power encourage shoreline 

developments to maintain the 30-foot-wide Control Strip within the project boundary. 

We recommend that the SMP contain a provision to limit construction of new seawalls

because the use of alternative bank stabilization techniques would provide greater 

benefits to aquatic resources than the use of a seawall. As discussed in section 3.3.5, 

Recreation Resources and Land Use, Alabama Power’s revised land use classification 

includes a provision for a 30-foot Control Strip that prohibits certain activities (e.g., 

habitable structures) to protect the environmental resources. We find that this 

classification comports with Interior’s recommendation. 

However, the existing Shoreline Classification maps do not take into account 

certain project boundary modifications proposed by Alabama Power, including changes 

to the land use classification system. Therefore, we recommend that the SMP be 

revised to include updated Shoreline Classification maps. Also, the SMP should include 

Geographic Information System (GIS) data regarding the Lake Martin area to allow the 

Commission to track shoreline resources and uses, and facilitate future reviews of the 

SMP.

In its filing of March 14, 2012, and as discussed in section 3.3.5, Recreation and 

Land Use, Alabama Power found several unpermitted structures (e.g., a recreational 

vehicle) on all of its project’s lands, including the Martin Dam Project lands. In a letter 

dated August 17, 2012, the Commission required Alabama Power to address the 

unpermitted structures and file annual status reports on activities under its Shoreline 

Compliance Program for each of its project reservoirs, including the Martin Dam 

Project. Thus, to protect project lands and waters the revised SMP should identify any 

unpermitted structures at the project and how Alabama Power intends to resolve any 

such structures. 

In section 4, Developmental Analysis, we estimate that the levelized annual cost 

for implementing Alabama Power’s proposed SMP would be $17,278. Revising the 

plan as described above would increase the annual cost by $3,917. We find the benefits 

of this measure would justify the cost and therefore, would be in the public interest. 
180

In comments on the draft EIS, Interior recommends that Alabama Power develop 

a restoration plan as part of the SMP to minimize habitat fragmentation and restore 

habitat and species (particularly aquatic species). We discuss Interior’s 

recommendation in section 5.4, Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations. 

Project Boundary Modifications

Alabama Power proposes to remove 499.2 acres from the project boundary that

consist of Lake View Park (classified Quasi-public), Pleasure Point Park and Marina 

(classified Commercial), and land classified as Natural/Undeveloped or Potential 

Residential. As previously discussed in section 3.3.5, Recreation Resources and Land 

Use, the affected acreage associated with Lake View Park and Pleasure Point Park are

not needed for project purposes and could be removed from the project boundary.

However, 373.1 acres of the 499.2 acres of land to be removed are designated as 

Natural/Undeveloped. According to Alabama Power’s Shoreline Management Plan, 

lands classified as Natural/Undeveloped are intended to buffer public recreation areas, 

prevent overcrowding of partially developed shoreline areas, protect environmentally 

sensitive areas, and maintain aesthetic qualities. The 373.1 acres are dispersed around 

Lake Martin such that they continue to provide these benefits. Because Alabama Power 

has not demonstrated why these lands are not necessary for these project purposes, we 

recommend that these lands remain within the project boundary.

Alabama Power proposes to re-classify 1,294.4 acres within the project boundary 

either as Natural/Undeveloped or as Recreation, which would be consistent with the use 

occurring at those sites. Lands that Alabama Power proposes to classify under the 

Recreation Land classification include: 1.9 acres for the boat launch and parking area at 

Bakers Bottom Landing; 19.9 acres for the boat launch and proposed improvements that 

include two bank fishing sites and a gravel parking area at Jaybird Landing; 8.7 acres 

for the boat launch, courtesy pier, and parking area at Pace Point Ramp; and 36.4 acres 

at Ponder Camp (Stillwater Area Boat Ramp) for future recreation development. 

Alabama Power proposes to maintain 32.3 acres as Commercial Recreation, 

which is consistent with the use occurring at the sites. These lands include: Anchor 

Bay Marina (6.4 acres), Parker Creek Marina (9.7 acres), Pleasure Point Park and 

Marina (6.6 acres) and Real Island Marina and Campground (9.6 acres). 

Alabama Power’s proposal to modify the project boundary would more clearly 

delineate lands necessary for the O&M of the project and for other project purposes, 

such as recreation, shoreline control, or protection of environmental resources. Also, 

Alabama Power’s proposal to classify certain lands would make those lands consistent 

with the use occurring at those sites. The current Exhibit G drawings do not reflect the 

changes to the project boundary. We recommend that Alabama Power file revised 

Exhibit G drawings to reflect the project boundary modifications.
181

Historic Properties Management Plan

Alabama Power filed, and initially proposed to implement, a February 2012 draft 

HPMP to protect cultural resources within the project’s APE.71 The draft HPMP was 

developed after consultation with the CRWG, consisting of Alabama Power, Alabama 

SHPO, BLM, the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Kialegee Tribal Town of the 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Muscogee (Creek) Nation of 

Oklahoma, Poarch Band of Creek Indians, the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, and 

Commission staff. The draft HPMP describes standards to be applied during project 

activities that have the potential to affect historic properties. 

Alabama Power defined the project APE in consultation with the CRWG. The 

APE for the project is defined as lands above 491 feet enclosed by the project boundary 

which encompasses a 41,150-acre reservoir (Lake Martin), a dam, a spillway, a 

powerhouse, a tailrace, two 450-foot-long transmission lines, project recreation sites, 

and appurtenant facilities. Because Alabama Power proposes to modify the current 

project boundary, the APE may need to be revised to reflect the project boundary

change and potential project-related effects on cultural resources. The CRWG and we 

recommended including a provision in the HPMP to revise the APE to include these 

areas.

Alabama Power has not completed cultural resource surveys of selected sites

within the project’s APE. The CRWG recommended that the surveys be completed 

within five years of license issuance. Alabama Power agreed to complete the surveys 

within the shortened timeframe, instead of its proposal by the 20th year of the new 

license. Completion of these surveys would ensure that all cultural resources are 

identified and appropriate measures for unavoidable adverse effects on historic 

properties are determined and implemented (e.g., stabilization, data recovery).

In its draft HPMP Alabama Power proposes to complete the identification of 

historic properties within the project’s APE. This measure would address the National 

Register status of the dam, and any other project features and equipment older than 50 

years, including the fourth generating unit. Since the time the draft HPMP was 

developed, the Alabama SHPO determined that the Martin powerhouse, Martin dam, 

and the stilling basin are eligible for the National Register under Criteria A and Criteria 

C (letter from Elizabeth Ann Brown, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, 

Alabama Historical Commission, Montgomery, Alabama, to William Gardner, Alabama 

Power Company, Birmingham, Alabama, filed August 21, 2013). The Alabama SHPO 

also determined that the fourth generating unit is not eligible for listing in the National 

 

71 Alabama Power’s proposal changed on June 12, 2012, when Alabama Power 

signed the final PA as a concurring party, thereby agreeing to develop and implement a 

final HPMP within one year of license issuance. 
182

Register and falls under the list of activities exempt from section 106 reviews (letter 

from Amanda McBride, Alabama Historical Commission, Montgomery, Alabama, to 

Kimberly Bose, Secretary, FERC, Washington, D.C., August 21, 2013). The final 

HPMP should reflect these findings and include these two letters of documentation of 

consultation with the Alabama SHPO.

The final HPMP would define a process for evaluating and assessing the effects 

of future project-related actions on cultural resources and historic properties. The 

HPMP would provide for consultation with the Alabama SHPO, interested tribes, and 

BLM, if impacts on cultural resources as a result of project activity are unavoidable. 

While Alabama Power comments that inundation can protect cultural sites from 

vandalism and recreational use, we find that project operations could result in impacts 

on cultural materials. These disturbances can be adverse because they can affect the 

integrity of sites that may otherwise meet the criteria for inclusion on the National 

Register. Therefore, the HPMP requires Alabama Power to identify and evaluate 

historic properties, as well as determine effects and identify ways to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate adverse effects and implement appropriate treatment. This measure would 

ensure that historic properties are addressed in accordance with section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act.

Other provisions required in an HPMP include documentation of the Martin 

Construction Camp/Project Village (148 acres), the continued use and maintenance of 

historic properties, public interpretation of historic and archeological properties at the 

project, and a review of the final HPMP during the term of the license. Overall, these 

measures would continue to protect historic properties and inform the public about 

cultural resources.

To meet the requirements of section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act, the Commission executed a PA with the Alabama SHPO on June 12, 2012. 

Alabama Power, the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, and the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe 

of Texas concurred. The PA requires Alabama Power to develop and implement a 

HPMP within one year of license issuance. We estimate that the levelized annual cost 

for a HPMP would be $21,665. We find the benefits of this measure would justify the 

cost and therefore, would be in the public interest.

5.2.3 Measures Not Recommended by Staff

We find that some of the recommended measures would not contribute to the 

best comprehensive use of the Tallapoosa River, do not exhibit sufficient nexus to 

project environmental effects, or would not result in benefits to non-power resources 

that would be worth their cost. The following discussion explains why we did not

recommend such measures.
183

American Eel Study

The catadromous American eel is native to the Tallapoosa River system and has 

been documented downstream of Thurlow dam. Alabama Power proposes to implement 

an American eel investigation from the project tailrace to the mouth of the Tallapoosa 

River in consultation with FWS. Alabama Power’s proposed eel study would provide 

information on current populations and identify potential restoration activities. We 

estimate that the levelized annual cost for this eel study would be $7,840. 

In the draft EIS, we proposed an alternative eel study focused on surveillance for 

the presence of eels at Martin Dam to help inform when passage might be needed at the 

dam. We estimated the levelized annual cost for this eel surveillance would be $4,660.

In its comments on the draft EIS, Alabama Power estimated the levelized annual 

cost for our eel study to be $180,000 and argued that it would produce little information 

of value because eels are blocked by two dams below Martin Dam and there is currently 

no proposal to pass eels upstream of these dams. Though we estimate the cost of 

surveillance trapping for eels as far less that the cost estimated by Alabama Power 

(partly because Alabama Power bases its estimate on a permanent structure and we do 

not) we agree that there is little value in monitoring for eels at this time. Further, FWS 

reserved its authority to prescribe eel passage, which would allow the Commission to 

address eel passage when the time is ripe. 

In response to the draft EIS, Interior, Alabama DCNR, and Alabama Power 

continue to support the study of eel distribution in the Tallapoosa River below Thurlow 

Dam. They argue that this approach is holistic, will generate opportunities for 

restoration, and relates to Martin Dam through its flow releases. However, a general 

survey of eel distribution in the Tallapoosa River would not provide data that would 

support analysis of eel passage at Martin Dam or the effect of the operation of Martin 

Dam on fish passage in the Tallapoosa. Absent such a nexus, we do not recommend 

Alabama Power’s proposed study as a requirement of a new license for Martin Dam. 

We also no longer recommend the surveillance trapping for eels at Martin Dam. Of 

course, Alabama Power is free to continue such efforts as an off-license measure.

Striped Bass Protection Measures

In comments on the draft EIS Alabama DCNR requests Alabama Power 

implement measures to protect the striped bass fishery. Alabama DCNR mentions that 

measures such as reservoir aeration and adjusting intake levels have been successful in 

protecting striped bass in reservoirs operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority. 

While there are indications of stress on striped bass at times, the population 

appears to be stable and the Lake Martin fishery is good. Alabama DCNR provides no

recommendations specific to Lake Martin and does not explain how the specific 

circumstances of other lakes in the southeast that have aeration relate to the specific 

circumstances in Lake Martin. Alabama DCNR provides no cost estimates for such 
184

measures and we cannot estimate the cost with the information provided. Therefore, we 

have no basis for recommending this measure. 

Downstream Landowners’ Recommendation for Flood Control 

The Downstream Landowners express concern regarding flood damage to their

lands located downstream of the Martin Dam Project.72 The Downstream Landowners 

request that Martin dam be operated with the unequivocal duty for downstream flood 

control to reduce flooding of their land. The Downstream Landowners identify two 

options that could provide flood control at Martin dam: (1) operate to pre-evacuate the 

pool using weather reports of impending heavy rainfall events; and (2) require flood 

control as a project purpose and operate with dedicated flood control storage on a yearround basis. 

The Downstream Landowners assert that Alabama Power’s studies have been 

inadequate in evaluating and addressing flood damage that may occur to downstream 

property. In order to address these concerns, we conducted an independent analysis and 

modeling to evaluate the Downstream Landowners’ recommended operation measures. 

Staff’s detailed analysis and modeling results are included in appendix C, Analysis of 

Potential to Operate the Martin Dam Project for Downstream Flood Control.

We do not consider pre-evacuation a viable procedure for flood control at this 

project. Weather reports are not precise enough in predicting either the location or 

amount of precipitation events, thus pre-evacuation could exacerbate downstream 

flooding. 

Staff’s modeling study shows that moderate floods could be minimally reduced, 

but not avoided. We evaluated the March 2003 flood and concluded it had a recurrence 

interval of between 10 and 25 years. In this case, providing either 3 or 5 feet of 

dedicated flood storage in Lake Martin resulted in minor reductions of peak outflow 

from Lake Martin. With no summer storage, the peak outflow would have been 

124,000 cfs. With 3 and 5 feet of summer storage, the peak outflow decreased to 

111,000 cfs and 94,000 cfs, respectively. For the March 2003 flood, a starting reservoir 

elevation of 482 feet, or about 9 feet of storage, would have been required to reduce 

peak outflow from Martin dam to 60,000 cfs, which is the flow Downstream 

Landowners state would avoid most downstream flooding. In this case, a summer 

 

72 The Downstream Landowners’ March 9, 2011, filing identifies their primary 

concerns, and analyses to support their recommendations. The March 9, 2010, filing 

states that it represents about three dozen landowners and farmers that utilize the lower 

Tallapoosa delta for agricultural activities. About 19 landowners participated in the 

relicensing process and filed multiple comments. Estimates of damages resulting from 

flooding were provided by 11 landowners.
185

drawdown of 9 feet would cause the surface elevation to fall below the drought curve

and place the reservoir in a drought status. 

Most damages associated with the March 2003 flood would not have been 

avoided with dedicated flood storage in Lake Martin. We estimate that with 3 and 5 

feet of storage, the acres flooded in March 2003 would have been reduced from 19,500 

acres, to 18,800 and 17,700 acres, respectively. With only a 10-percent reduction in 

flooded acres, most of the $2.1 million in damages claimed by Downstream 

Landowners would have still occurred.

We evaluated the effect of dedicated flood storage on a less severe flood event, 

in this case a flood with a 5-year recurrence interval. Our analysis showed that, 

assuming no tributary inflow downstream of Martin dam, a 3-foot drawdown would 

have been adequate to avoid the 5-year flood. The potential effect of tributary inflow is 

important to our analysis because past floods have shown that, in cases of substantial 

rainfall occurring downstream of Martin dam, no changes in operation of Martin dam 

could be implemented to avoid downstream flooding. 

No cost data were available to quantify the downstream damages associated with 

a 5-year flood event; however, it is reasonable to assume that damages would be far less 

than the $2.1 million dollars reported by the Downstream Landowners for the May and 

July 2003 floods (two separate events). Staff’s best estimate is to extrapolate from the 

$2.1 million losses in 2003. The 5-year flood would inundate about 50 percent less 

acreage than the May 2003 flood, and thus cause half the damage, about $1.1 million. 

Assuming such flood losses occur every 5 years, we estimated this is equivalent to a 

loss of $210,000 per year. Absent actual loss data, this provides our best estimate for 

comparison purposes.

In determining whether to adopt a flood control measure as part of the staff 

alternative, we consider the potential effects of dedicated flood storage on all resources, 

which include generation, dependable capacity, lake-based recreation, the ability to 

maintain minimum flows and navigation flows, and the ability of Lake Martin to 

provide drought relief to the river basin. Staff’s analysis shows that 3 feet of summer 

storage for flood control would reduce project generation by 10,192 MWh valued at 

approximately $738,920 per year. In addition, there would be a reduction in dependable 

capacity. 

With regard to effects on non-developmental resources, 3 feet of summer storage 

for flood control could adversely affect public, private, and commercial uses at Lake 

Martin. Alabama Power estimates 370,538 recreation user-days for the combined 

recreational use at Lake Martin and the tailwater area (as defined from Martin dam to 

0.25 mile downstream of the dam) could be reduced by the lower summer lake levels. 

Alabama Power identified 6,901 privately owned parcels of property adjacent to, or 

near, Lake Martin, some of which have private boat docks, which could be affected by 

lower summer elevations. However, public recreation sites would have usable boat 

docks with up to a 5-foot drawdown, thus the effect on public access would be minimal. 
186

With a 5-foot drawdown in the summer, we estimate the area of Lake Martin for boating 

would be reduced from 40,000 acres to 36,000 acres, which would expose 4,000 acres 

of shoreline. With a 3-foot drawdown in the summer, we estimate an additional 3,000 

acres of shoreline would be exposed. Further, lower summer lake levels would likely 

affect aquatic vegetation and the associated wildlife.

Providing 3 feet of summer storage for flood control would reduce Alabama 

Power’s ability to use Lake Martin to assist in meeting minimum flow requirements 

downstream of Thurlow dam. A 3-foot drawdown would be equivalent to providing 

1,200 cfs of minimum flow releases, as measured downstream of Thurlow dam, for 

about 50 days. A 5-foot drawdown would be equivalent to providing a 1,200 cfs 

minimum flow for about 85 days. 

Lower summer lake elevations would increase the likelihood of triggering 

drought operations. Modified operations in response to drought have occurred 

infrequently on Lake Martin. However, had Lake Martin been maintained at elevation 

488.0 feet in Year 2000 (providing 3 feet of storage), with historical releases the 

reservoir would have dropped below the drought curve by July of that year, and would 

have triggered drought operations.

In summary, we do not find that pre-evacuation is viable. We also do not 

recommend operating the Martin Dam Project with dedicated flood storage. Although

technically feasible, our modeling shows that such a measure would have little effect on 

larger, less frequent flood events, thus could not completely eliminate flooding along 

the Tallapoosa River. While providing dedicated storage for flood control could be 

implemented to avoid smaller, more frequent flood events, the cost of implementing the 

measure for small events, and the effects on other resources, would far exceed estimated 

flood damages to the Downstream Landowners’ properties. Therefore, we conclude

that the benefits of providing dedicated storage for flood control would not justify the 

costs to developmental and non-developmental resources.

 Kowaliga (Highway 63) Launch Site

In comments on the draft EIS, Alabama DCNR recommends Alabama Power 

upgrade the existing Kowaliga (Highway 63) Launch site or an alternative site at the 

lower section of Lake Martin. As discussed in section 3.3.5, Recreation Resources and 

Land Use, Alabama DCNR provides no basis, including current or projected 

recreational use, to support a need for any such improvements. The studies conducted 

during relicensing do not support the need for any upgrades beyond those proposed by 

Alabama Power. Further, the Kowaliga (Highway 63) Launch site is state-owned, 

which we assume the state will continue to own, operate, and maintain throughout a 

new license term. We, therefore, do not recommend that Alabama Power upgrade the 

Kowaliga (Highway 63) Launch, or an alternative site at the lower section of Lake 

Martin. 
187

5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

Continued operation of the Martin Dam Project would result in continued 

peaking operations and fluctuations in flow releases downstream of Martin dam. Fish 

entrainment and some mortality would continue at Martin dam, but the overall effects 

would continue to be minor based on the fisheries upstream and downstream of the 

dam. 

Even if the 3-foot increase in the winter pool is implemented, regulation of the

Martin Dam Project’s reservoir levels would continue, resulting in seasonal drawdown 

affecting the shoreline landowners’ ability to access their private boat docks at certain 

times of the year. Construction of, and improvements to, project recreation facilities 

would cause temporary, minor disturbance to geologic and soil resources. 

Implementing soil erosion control measures and revegetating disturbed areas, where 

appropriate, would minimize soil erosion and associated effects on aquatic and 

terrestrial resources.

Project operations would continue to affect some cultural resources sites, but 

Alabama Power’s proposal to implement an HPMP, along with other staffrecommended measures, would protect cultural resources. In the event that a projectrelated activity could not be modified to avoid an adverse effect on a historic property 

within the project’s APE, Alabama Power would consult with the Alabama SHPO, 

interested tribes, and BLM in order to develop mitigation measures.

5.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS

Under the provisions of section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license 

issued by the Commission shall include conditions based on recommendations provided 

by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, and 

enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. 

Section 10(j) of the FPA states that whenever the Commission believes that any 

fish and wildlife agency recommendation is inconsistent with the purposes and the 

requirements of the FPA or other applicable law, the Commission and the agency will 

attempt to resolve any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations, 

expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency. In response to our ready for 

environmental analysis notice, Interior submitted recommendations for the project in a 

letter filed April 6, 2012 (letter from J. Stanley, Regional Environmental Protection 

Assistant, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, Atlanta, Georgia, to 

Kimberly Bose, Secretary, FERC, Washington, D.C., April 6, 2012). Interior’s letter 

commenting on the draft EIS, filed on August 13, 2013, included a request to modify 

one of its recommendations (letter from Joyce Stanley, Regional Environmental 

Protection Specialist, The Department of the Interior, Atlanta, GA, to Kimberly Bose, 

Secretary, FERC, Washington, D.C., August 13, 2013).

Table 5-2 lists Interior’s recommendations filed subject to section 10(j), and 

whether the recommendations are adopted under the staff alternative. Environmental 
188

recommendations that we consider outside the scope of section 10(j) have been 

considered under section 10(a) of the FPA and are addressed in the specific resource 

sections of this document and the previous section. No section 10(j) recommendations 

were filed by state agencies.

Of the three recommendations from Interior that we consider to be within the 

scope of section 10(j), we include two and we do not include one. We discuss the 

reasons for not including those recommendations in section 5.2, Comprehensive 

Development and Recommended Alternative. Table 5-4 indicates the basis for our 

preliminary determinations concerning measures that we consider inconsistent with 

section 10(j).

Table 5-2. Fish and wildlife agency recommendations for the Martin Dam 

Hydroelectric Project (Source: staff).

Recommendation Agency

Within the 

scope of 

section 10(j)

Annualized 

cost Adopted?

1. SMP: In order 

to protect fish

spawning and 

rearing habitat, and 

maintain wildlife 

habitat diversity, no 

new seawalls 

should be 

constructed unless 

necessary to protect 

land and property.

Interior Yes $0 Adopted
189

Recommendation Agency

Within the 

scope of 

section 10(j)

Annualized 

cost Adopted?

2. SMP: In order 

to protect the 

shoreline from 

erosion and protect 

sensitive resources, 

encourage shoreline 

developments to 

maintain a 30-footwide control strip 

within project 

boundary, and 

increase the buffer 

width to at least 100 

feet.

Interior Yes $0 Adopted in 

part (see 

section 5.2.2). 

30-foot-wide 

control strip 

recommended; 

increasing the 

buffer width to 

at least 100 

feet would 

require 

acquisition of 

private 

property

without 

specified 

benefit, not 

recommended 

3. Modify the

Shoreline 

Management Plan 

to encourage 

Alabama Power to 

work with Interior 

and Alabama 

DCNR to develop a

restoration plan that 

would identify 

opportunities to 

restore shoreline 

habitats and 

species.

Interiorb No. Not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect, 

mitigate, or 

enhance fish 

and wildlife 

resources

$0 Not adopted. 

Proposal too 

vague to 

evaluate. 

Sufficient 

protection 

provided 

through SMP. 
190

Recommendation Agency

Within the 

scope of 

section 10(j)

Annualized 

cost Adopted?

4. Continue 

Alabama Power’s 

support of aquatic 

restoration within 

the Mobile Basin 

and work with 

Interior and 

Alabama DCNR to 

identify suitable 

habitats (primarily 

tributaries) for 

species 

reintroductions 

within the Martin 

Dam Project 

boundary.

Interior No. Funding 

is not a 

specific

measure to 

protect, 

mitigate, or 

enhance fish 

and wildlife 

resources

$0 Not adopted. 

5. Consider 

utilizing the 

Tallapoosa River 

portion of the 

ADROP when 

assessing drought 

operations.

Interior No. Not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect, 

mitigate, or 

enhance fish 

and wildlife 

resources

$0 Adopted
191

Recommendation Agency

Within the 

scope of 

section 10(j)

Annualized 

cost Adopted?

6. Within the Core 

Management Area 

in the WMP, 

Alabama Power 

should manage 

towards a desired 

forest condition 

consistent with the 

“good quality 

foraging habitat” 

for the federally 

listed endangered 

red-cockaded 

woodpecker, a 

longleaf pine 

ecosystem.

Interior Yes $0 Adopted

a See letter from Joyce Stanley, Regional Environmental Protection Specialist, The 

Department of the Interior, Atlanta, GA, to Kimberly Bose, Secretary, FERC, 

Washington, D.C., August 13, 2013.

On June 18, 2013, Commission staff offered to hold a 10(j) meeting to resolve 

the inconsistencies between the Interior’s recommendations and purposes and 

requirements of the FPA or other applicable laws. Staff made a preliminary finding that 

that providing a 100-foot buffer was inconsistent with sections 10(a) and 4(e) of the 

FPA because the cost of acquiring the necessary rights to protect such a large amount of 

land outweighed the benefits to fish and wildlife resources. In a telephone conversation 

on July 31, 2013, we asked Interior wished to meet on the matter (memo from Stephen 

Bowler, Environmental Biologist, to public files, FERC, Washington, D.C., August 7, 

2013). Interior did not request a meeting.

In its August 13, 2013 letter, Interior modified its recommendation for a 100-foot 

buffer to request that as part of the Shoreline Management Plan Alabama Power work 

with Alabama DCNR to develop a restoration plan to restore habitat and species in the 

project boundary. Interior states that the development of the plan would be an ongoing 

process that would begin immediately after license issuance and continue through the 

term of the license. In support of the measure, Interior suggests that the restoration plan 

would minimize habitat fragmentation and species isolation caused by the creation of 
192

the reservoir and conversion of shoreline habitats from their natural state to human 

influenced, residential states. Interior argues that habitat fragmentation and species 

isolation continue to be one of the biggest challenges to recovering imperiled species 

(particularly aquatic species) and this measure may preclude future listings.

Interior’s modified recommendation is too vague to determine what measures 

might be implemented. Without this information we cannot determine what benefits 

would accrue from the measure or estimate its costs. Consequently, Interior’s modified 

recommendation still does not resolve inconsistencies with section 4(e) and 10(a) of the 

Federal Power Act. 

Further, we are recommending measures that would be sufficient to ensure the 

protection of fish and wildlife habitats. This includes reclassifying 1,294.4 acres within 

the project boundary as Natural/Undeveloped Lands and continuing to protect 373.1 

acres of lands designated as Natural/Undeveloped by retaining these lands within the 

project boundary. Lands under this classification remain undeveloped for specific 

project purposes, while allowing public recreational use, such as hiking and wildlife 

observation. Finally, maintaining a 30-foot Control Strip around Lake Martin would 

help protect the lake by filtering runoff, stabilizing soil, and providing habitat for 

aquatic and terrestrial species.

5.5 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. §803(a)(2)(A), requires the Commission 

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. We reviewed 11 comprehensive plans that are 

applicable to the Martin Dam Project, located in Alabama (table 5-3). No 

inconsistencies were found.
193

Table 5-3. Comprehensive plans considered for the Martin Dam Project (Source: 

staff).

Comprehensive Plan Agency

Wildlife lands needed for Alabama, October 

1990.

Alabama Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, Montgomery, Alabama

Alabama’s comprehensive wildlife 

conservation strategy. Undated.

Alabama Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources. Montgomery, Alabama

Alabama Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor 

Recreation Plan (SCORP): 2008-2012.

Alabama Department of Economic and 

Community Affairs. Montgomery, Alabama

The striped bass fishery of the Gulf of 

Mexico, United States: A regional 

management plan. March 2006.

Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 

Ocean Springs, Mississippi 

Recovery plan for the Mobile River Basin 

aquatic ecosystem. November 17, 2000.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Aquatic resource management plan for the 

Alabama River Basin. May 17, 2006.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Daphne, 

Alabama.

Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus 

desotoi) recovery/management plan. 

September 15, 1995.

National Marine Fisheries Service. Gulf 

Sturgeon Recovery/Management Task Team. 

Atlanta, Georgia

The Nationwide Rivers Inventory. 1993. National Park Service. Department of the 

Interior, Washington, D.C.

North American waterfowl management plan. 

May 1986.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Canadian 

Wildlife Service. 

Gulf Coast joint venture plan: A component 

of the North American waterfowl 

management plan. June 1990.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Fisheries USA: the recreational fisheries 

policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Undated.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, 

D.C.
194
195

6.0 LITERATURE CITED

Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs. 2012. Alabama Statewide 

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP): 2008-2012. Montgomery, 

Alabama.

ADPH (Alabama Department of Public Health). 2011. News release: Alabama 

Department of Public Health issues 2011 Fish Consumption Advisories. 

http://www.adph.org/tox/assets/FishAdvNR2011.pdf. Accessed July 2, 2012.

Alabama Development Office. 2011. Alabama Economic Development Guide: A 

Comprehensive Resource for Site Selection. Montgomery, Alabama. 

Alabama Power (Alabama Power Company). 2012a. Draft historic properties 

management plan, Martin Dam Project (FERC No. 349-173). Birmingham, 

Alabama. February 1, 2012.

_______. 2012b. Biological Assessment of the Martin Dam Project (FERC No. 349-

173).

_______. 2011a. Application for new license, major project – existing dam. Martin 

Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 349-173. Birmingham, Alabama. 

_______. 2011b. Response to additional information request. Martin Dam 

Hydroelectric Project No. 349-173. Birmingham, Alabama. December 9, 2011. 

_______. 2011c. Tallapoosa River fish passage information document: Martin 

relicensing project (FERC No. 364). Prepared by Kleinschmidt for Alabama 

Power. January 2011.

_______. 2011d. Final recreation plan: Martin Dam Project No. 349. Birmingham, 

Alabama. December 2011.

_______. 2011e. Final shoreline management program: Martin Dam Project No. 349. 

Birmingham, Alabama. June 2011.

_______. 2011f. Draft public education and outreach program plan: Martin Dam 

Project No. 349. Birmingham, Alabama. December 2011.

_______. 2011g. Final Wildlife Management Program: Martin Dam Project No. 349. 

Birmingham, Alabama. December 2011.

_______. 2010a. Study Report 10 - Erosion and sediment report. Prepared by 

Environmental Compliance for Alabama Power. October 2010. 
196

_______. 2010b. Study Report 12(b)– Effects of a rule curve change on sedimentation 

and nuisance aquatic vegetation. Birmingham, Alabama. October 2010.

_______. 2010c. Study Report 12(d) – Effects of a rule curve change on lake and 

downstream erosion. Prepared by Environmental Compliance for Alabama 

Power. October 2010.

_______. 2010d. Final Study Report 12(f) – Effects of a rule curve change on 

downstream recreation. Prepared by Kleinschmidt for Alabama Power. 

September 2010. 

_______. 2010e. Evaluation of minimum flows downstream of Martin Dam report. 

Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 349. Prepared by Kleinschmidt

for Alabama Power. December 2010.

_______. 2010f. Final Study Report 12(a) – Flood control guideline change modeling 

analysis. Birmingham, Alabama. May 2010.

_______. 2010g. Effects of increasing duration of summer pool and level of winter 

pool on recreation use and selected economic indicators at Lake Martin, Alabama 

(Study Report 12g). Fernandina Beach, Florida. Prepared by Southwick 

Associates, Inc., for Alabama Power. December 15, 2010.

_______. 2010h. Final Study Report 11– Water quantity, water use, and water 

withdrawals. Birmingham, Alabama. July 2010.

_______. 2009a. Lake Martin Vegetation Report: Martin Relicensing Project (FERC 

No. 364). Prepared by Whetstone Consulting for Alabama Power. September 

2009.

_______. 2009b. Martin Hydroelectric Project: Assessment of the influence of 

shoreline modifications on aquatic and semi-aquatic species’ use of modified 

areas. Prepared by Conservation Southeast, Inc. for Alabama Power. September 

2009.

_______. 2008. Recreation Use Report: Martin Dam Project No. 349. Prepared by 

Kleinschmidt for Alabama Power. May 2008.

Allen, J.S., R.T. Carey, L.A. Dickes, E.W. Saltzman, and C.N. Allen. 2010. An 

economic analysis of low water levels in Hartwell Lake: A final report. Strom 

Thurmond Institute of Government and Public Affairs, Clemson University. 
197

Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District. 

November 8, 2010.

Bergstrom, John C., R. Jeff Teasley, H. Ken Cordell, Ray Souter, and Donald B.K. 

English. 1996. Effects of reservoir aquatic plant management on recreational 

expenditures and regional economic activity. Journal of Agricultural and 

Applied Economics, 28, 2 (December 1996): 409-422.

Central Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission. 2007. Draft 

Elmore County comprehensive plan: Bridging our future. Montgomery, 

Alabama.

CH2MHill. 2005. Tallapoosa River Basin Management Plan. Prepared for The 

Alabama Clean Water Partnership. Montgomery, Alabama. March 2005.

City of Alexander City, Elmore County Commission, Lake Martin Area Economic 

Development Alliance, Lake Martin Resource Association, Middle Tallapoosa 

River Basin Clean Water Partnership, Russell Lands, Inc., and Tallapoosa 

County. 2009. Economic impact analysis of Lake Martin. May 1, 2009. 

Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2014. Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for Updates to the master Water Control Manual for the Alabama-CoosaTallapoosa River Basin, and draft Master Water Control Manual for the 

Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) River Basin. Prepared by Mobile District, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama. October 31, 2014.

Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2007. Environmental assessment and finding 

of no significant impact for Alabama Power Company proposal for a temporary 

modified minimum flow agreement in the Alabama River for drought water 

management operation in the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin. Prepared 

by Mobile District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama. July 2007.

Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1988. Water allocation for the AlabamaCoosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) River basin, Alabama and Georgia. Prepared by 

Mobile District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama, September 

1998.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Currently designated 

nonattainment areas for all criteria pollutants web page. Available at

www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ancl3.html. Accessed June 12, 2008. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
198

FERC and Corps (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers). 2001. Final Environmental Assessment for proposed rule curve 

change, Coosa River Hydroelectric Project No. 2146. Washington, 

D.C. February 2001.

FERC and Corps (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers). 2009. Final Environmental Assessment for the Coosa River 

Hydroelectric Project No. 2146. Washington, D.C. December 2009.

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 1994. Order issuing new license: 

Yates and Thurlow Hydroelectric Project No. 2407, final EA issued February 3, 

1994.

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2007. Environmental assessment for 

a temporary variance to the Martin Project rule curve and minimum flow releases 

at the Yates and Thurlow Project. Martin Dam Project No. 349-134 and the 

Yates and Thurlow Project No. 2407-121. November 19, 2007.

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2013. Order issuing new license: 

Coosa River Hydroelectric Project No. P-2146. June 20, 2013.

Fischer, R.A., C.O. Martin, and J.C. Fischenich. 2000. Improving riparian buffer strips 

and corridors for water quality and wildlife. International Conference on 

Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi-land Use Watersheds. American 

Water Resources Association. August, 2000. 

Fischer, R.A., and C.O. Martin. 1998. Corridors and vegetated buffer zones—

guidelines for Corps of Engineers projects. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways 

Experiment Station. In: Ecosystems Management and Restoration—Technology 

News from the Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program. 

FIMS (Fishery Information Management Systems). 1989. Recreational use and sport 

fishing survey: Yates and Thurlow Reservoirs and the Thurlow Tailwater on the 

Tallapoosa River. Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Freeman, 

B.H., K. Owers, G. Dinkins, and B Albanese. 2009. Lipstick Darter (Georgia 

Fish Profiles). Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources 

Division, Social Circle, Georgia. Available at 

http://www.georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/uploads/wildlife/nongame/pdf

/accounts/fishes/etheostoma_chuckwachatte.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2014.

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012a. Technical/Agency Draft Recovery Plan 

for the Alabama Sturgeon, Scaphirynchus suttkusi. 54 pp. Available at

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/FINAL%20DRAFT%20T-
199

A%20Draft%20AL%20Sturgeon%20Recovery%20Plan%20042012jeffP.pdf. 

Accessed October 26, 2012. 

_______. 2012b. Species Profile for Little Amphianthus. Available at 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q1ST b.

Accessed October 31, 2012. 

_______. 2012c. Species Profile for Georgia rockcress. Available at 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q02R. 

Accessed October 31, 2012. 

_______. 2012d. Species Profile for the Alligator Snapping Turtle. Available at 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q02R. 

Accessed November 21, 2012. 

_______. 2012e. Species profile for the Bald Eagle. Available at

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B008. 

Accessed November 21, 2012. 

_______. 2012f. Migratory Bird Program: Bald Eagle. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/BaldEagle.htm. Accessed November 21, 

2012. 

_______. 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native 

Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual 

Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on 

Listing. 76 FR 66370 66439. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2011-10-26/pdf/2011-27122.pdf. Accessed October 26, 2011. 

_______. 2009. Designation of Critical Habitat for Alabama Sturgeon. 

74 FR 26488 26510. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-06-

02/pdf/E9-12517.pdf#page=1. Accessed October 26, 2012. 

_______. 2008. Three Granite Outcrop Plants Five Year Review. Available at

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1987.pdf. Accessed 

August 13, 2012.

_______. 2006. Red-cockaded woodpecker 5-Year Review. Available at 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc787.pdf. Accessed 

August 13, 2012.

_______. 2004. Designation of Critical Habitat for Three Threatened Mussels and 

Eight Endangered Mussels in the Mobile River Basin. Available at 
200

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2004-07-01/pdf/04-14279.pdf#page=1. 

Accessed October 26, 2012. 

_______. 2003a. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis): 

second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 296 pp. 

Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/030320_2.pdf. Accessed 

June 7, 2012.

_______. 2003b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Gulf Sturgeon. Available at 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-03-19/pdf/03-5208.pdf#page=1. 

Accessed October 26, 2012. 

_______. 2000. Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan.

Atlanta, GA. 128 pp. Available at 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/001117.pdf. Accessed October 26, 2012. 

_______. 1993. Recovery Plan: Three Granite Outcrop Plants. Available at

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/930707.pdf. Accessed August 13, 2012.

FWS and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1995. Gulf sturgeon Recovery 

Plan. Atlanta, GA. 170 pp. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/recovery_plan/950922.pdf. Accessed 

October 26, 2012. 

Greene, J.C., R.G. Lovell, and R.A. McVay. 2008. Martin Reservoir management 

report: 2008. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 

September 1, 2008.

Hatch, L.U. and T.R. Hanson. 2001. Change and conflict in land and water use: 

resource valuation in conflict resolution among competing users. Journal of 

Agricultural and Applied Economics 33: 297-306. 

Henderson, J.E., J.P. Kirk, S.D. Lamprecht, and W.E. Hayes. 2003. Economic impacts 

of aquatic vegetation to angling in two South Carolina reservoirs. J. Aquatic 

Plant Management, 41: 2003.

Hubert, W.A., S.H. Anderson, P.D. Southall, and J.H. Crance. 1984. Habitat suitability 

index models and instream flow suitability curves: Paddlefish. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.80.

Jenkins R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American 

Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
201

Lein, G.M. and D.R. DeVries. 1998. Paddlefish in the Alabama River drainage: 

population characteristics and the adult spawning migration. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 127:441-454.

Mirachi, R.E. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume 1. A Checklist of Vertebrates and 

Selected Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, 

and Mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp. 

Mirachi, R.E., M.A. Bailey, T.M. Haggerty, and T.L. Best. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. 

Volume 3. Imperiled Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. The 

University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 

Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2012. 

Montana Field Guide: Paddlefish. Available at

http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_AFCAB01010.aspxMontana Field Guides.

Accessed June 30, 2012. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. Soil Survey of Tallapoosa County, 

Alabama. In cooperation with Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station and 

Alabama Soil and Water Conservation Committee. 

_______. 2008. Soil Survey of Coosa County, Alabama. In cooperation with Alabama 

Agricultural Experiment Station and Alabama Soil and Water Conservation 

Committee. 333 pp.

NatureServe. 2012a. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web 

application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed June 7, 2012.

_______. 2012b. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web 

application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?sourceTemplate=tabula

r_report.wmt&loadTemplate=species_RptComprehensive.wmt&selectedReport=

RptComprehensive.wmt&summaryView=tabular_report.wmt&elKey=102590&

paging=home&save=true&startIndex=1&nextStartIndex=1&reset=false&offPag

eSelectedElKey=102590&offPageSelectedElType=species&offPageYesNo=true

&post_processes=&radiobutton=radiobutton&selectedIndexes=102590. 

Accessed May 31, 2012.

NERC (North American Electricity Reliability Corporation). 2011. 2011 Long-term 

Reliability Assessment. Princeton, New Jersey. November 2011.
202

Platt, Jonathan. 2000. Impact of Fluctuating Reservoir elevation on recreation use and 

value. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Denver, Colorado. February 2000.

Platt, J. and D. Munger. 1999. Impact of fluctuating reservoir elevation on recreation 

use and value. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. December 1999.

Purcell, T.R., D.R. DeVries, and R.A. Wright. 2011. The relationship between 

shoreline development and resident fish communities in Lake Martin, Alabama. 

Final Report submitted to Alabama Power Company. Department of Fisheries 

and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. 

February 2, 2011. 

Ricks, B.R., Jr. 2006. The effects of tournament fishing on dispersal, population 

characteristics, and mortality of black bass in Lake Martin, Alabama. A Thesis 

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in Partial Fulfillment of 

the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science. Auburn University, 

Alabama. May 11, 2006.

Sammons, S.M. 2011. Summer behavior and habitat use, habitat availability, and catch 

and release angling mortality of adult striped bass in Lake Martin, Alabama. 

Final Report submitted to Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fish. 

Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University, Alabama. 

November 15, 2011.

Soil Conservation Service. 1955. Soil Survey: Elmore County, Alabama. Series 1939, 

No. 26. September 1955.

University of Alabama. 2006. Alabama Power Company Martin Dam Project 

Recorded Sites (Alabama State Site File). The University of Alabama, Office of 

Archaeological Research, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013a. Coosa County QuickFacts from the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Available at http://quickfacts.cenus.gov. Accessed August 11, 2014.

_______. 2013b. Elmore County QuickFacts from the U.S. Census Bureau. Available 

at http://quickfacts.census.gov. Accessed August 11, 2014.

_______. 2013c. Tallapoosa County QuickFacts from the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Available at http://quickfacts.census.gov. Accessed August 11, 2014.

_______. 2013d. Alexander City QuickFacts from the U.S. Census Bureau. Available 

at http://quickfacts.census.gov. Accessed August 11, 2014.
203

U.S. Census Bureau and The University of Alabama. 2010. Alabama County 

Population 65 and Over 2000-2010 and Projections 2015-2040. Available at

http://cber.cba.ua.edu. Accessed August 11, 2014.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2012. Census of Agriculture. County 

Profiles for Tallapoosa, Coosa, and Elmore, Alabama. Available at 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php. Accessed August 11, 2014. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2012. National Water Information System: Web 

Interface. USGS Surface-Water Daily Data for Alabama. Available at 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/al/nwis/dv/?referred_module=sw. Accessed 

June 18, 2012.

Ware, J.A. 1989. Archeological inundation studies: manual for reservoir managers. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DACW 39-87-P-1062. Museum of New Mexico, 

Santa Fe. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways 

Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

Wenger, S. 1999. A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width, extent, 

and vegetation. Office of Public Service and Outreach, Institute of Ecology, 

University of Georgia. Available at 

http://www.rivercenter.uga.edu/service/tools/buffers/buffer_lit_review.pdf. 

Accessed August 14, 2012.
204
205

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Jennifer Adams— Terrestrial Resources, and Threatened and Endangered Species 

(Wildlife Biologist; M.S., Biological Sciences; B.S., Agriculture/Natural 

Resources Conservation and Management)

Stephen Bowler—Project Coordination (Corresponding Coordinator); Water Quantity 

and Quality and Aquatic Resources (M.S., Aquatic Ecology)

Patti Leppert—Recreation and Land Use and Cultural Resources (Environmental 

Protection Specialist; M.A. Recreation and Parks/Biology; B.S. Recreation and 

Parks/Biology)

Monte TerHaar—Engineering Resources, Water Resources, Water Quality (M.S., 

Environmental Engineering; M.S., Aquatic/Fisheries Biology)

Louis Berger Group

Peter Foote—Task Management, Water Quality and Fisheries Resources (Senior 

Fisheries Biologist; M.S., Fisheries Biology; B.S., Wildlife Biology)

John Hart—Water Resources (Hydrologist; B.A., Physics)

Kenneth Hodge—Need for Power, Developmental Analysis, Geology and Soils (Senior 

Engineer; B.S., Civil Engineering)

Alison Macdougall—Cultural Resources (Senior Environmental Manager; B.A., 

Anthropology)

Tyler Rychener—Terrestrial Resources, Threatened and Endangered Species 

(Environmental Scientist/GIS; M.S., Plant Biology; B.S., Biology)

Denise Short—Editorial Review (Technical Editor; M.S., Agriculture, Food, and the 

Environment; B.A., English)

Jot Splenda—Recreation and Land Use/Aesthetics (Environmental Planner; M.E.S.M, 

Water Resource Management; B.S., Ecology and Evolution)
206
207

8.0 LIST OF RECIPIENTS

Governor of Alabama

RE: FERC Projects

Alabama Office of the Governor 

State Capitol

600 Dexter Avenue

Montgomery, AL 36130-3024

Robert W. Grant, Jr.

Recreation Programs Manager

Alabama Department of Economic and 

Community Affairs

401 Adams Avenue

Montgomery, AL 36103

David Bernhart

Assistant Regional Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Southeast Regional Office

263 13th Avenue South

St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5505

Bruce Dawson

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

Southeastern States Field Office 

411 Briarwood Drive, Suite 404

Jackson, MS 39206

Central Elmore Water Authority

J. Theodore Jackson

Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett

P.O. Box 270

Montgomery, AL 36101-0270

Atlanta Regional Commission

John L. Fortuna

King & Spalding LLP

1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Atlanta, GA 30309-3521

Atlanta Regional Commission

Lewis Jones

King & Spalding LLP

1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Atlanta, GA 30309-3521

William S. Cox, III

Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC

The Clark Building

400 20th Street North

Birmingham, AL 35203

Prescott H Brownell, Sr.

Southeast Region FERC Coordinator

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

219 Fort Johnson Road

Charleston, SC 29412

John T. Eddins

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

401 F Street, N.W., Suite 308

Washington, DC 20001-2637

Alabama Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources

Director, Division of Public Lands

64 North Union Street

Montgomery, AL 36130-0001

William A. Gunter

Alabama Department of Conservation & 

Natural Resources

64 North Union Street, Suite 474

Montgomery, AL 36130

James Greene

Alabama Dept Conservation & Natural 

Resources

64 North Union Street, Suite 658

Montgomery, AL 36093

Office of Water Resources Division, Director

Alabama Department of Economic and 

Community Affairs

401 Adams Avenue, Suite 580

Montgomery, AL 36104

Lance R. LeFleur, Director

Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management

P.O. Box 301463

Montgomery, AL 36130-1463

James F. Crew, Manager - Hydro Services

Alabama Power Company

600 North 18th Street

P.O. Box 2641

Birmingham, AL 35203-2206

Mitchell L. Reid, Program Director

Alabama Rivers Alliance

2014 6th Ave. N.

Birmingham, AL 35203

U.S. Department of Interior

Office of the Solicitor

Knoxville Field Office

710 Locust Street

Knoxville, TN 37902

Susan T. Cielinski

Regional Hydropower Coordinator

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

1875 Century Blvd., Suite 200

Atlanta, GA 30345

U.S. Department of Interior

William Pearson, Field Supervisor

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

1208 Main Street

Daphne, AL 36526

Judson H. Turner, Director

Georgia Environmental Protection Division

2 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, Suite 1152 

East Tower

Atlanta, GA 30334

Jesse Cunningham

Lake Martin Home Owners and Boat Owners 

Association, Inc.

782 Ridge Road

Dadeville, AL 36853

Herbie N. Johnson

Alabama Power Company

600 North 18th Street

P.O. Box 2641

Birmingham, AL 35203-2206

Charles Yanny

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 2288

Mobile, AL 36628-0001

ATTN: EN-HW
208

Gary Cockrell

Lake Wedowee Property Owners’ 

Association

P.O. Box 55

Wedowee, AL 36278

N. Gunter Guy, Jr., Commissioner

Alabama Department of Conservation & 

Natural Resources

64 North Union Street, Suite 468 

Montgomery, AL 36130

Jonathan A. Ashley

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 2288

Mobile, AL 36628-0001

ATTN: EN-HW

Mekko Tiger Hobia

Kialegee Tribal Town of the Muscogee 

(Creek) Nation

P.O. Box 332

Wetumpka, OK 74883

Jeff Powell

U.S. Department of Interior

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

1208 Main Street

Daphne, AL 36526

Regional Engineer

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Atlanta Regional Office

3700 Crestwood Pkwy N.W., Suite 950

Duluth, GA 30096-7155

Director, Ecological Services

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

1875 Century Blvd., N.E., Suite 200

Atlanta, GA 30345-3319

U.S. National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

100 Alabama Street S.W.

Atlanta, GA 30303-8701

R. Todd Silliman

McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP

303 Peachtree Street, Suite 5300

Atlanta, GA 30308

Pat Stevens

Atlanta Regional Commission

40 Courtland St. N.E.

Atlanta, GA 30303

Matthew H. Lembke

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

1819 Fifth Avenue North

Birmingham, AL 35203-2104

Sam Olens

Attorney General for the State of Georgia

40 Capitol Square, S.W.

Atlanta, GA 30334

Elizabeth Ann Brown, Deputy SHPO

Alabama Historical Commission

468 South Perry Street

Montgomery, AL 36130-0900

Alabama Public Service Commission

Secretary

P.O. Box 304260

Montgomery, AL 36130-4260

Alabama Office of Attorney General

State House

11 South Union Street

Montgomery, AL 36130-2103

Alabama Soil & Water Conservation 

Commission

P.O. Box 304800

Montgomery, AL 36130-4800

Bryant J. Celestine, THPO

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas

571 State Park Road 56

Livingston, TX 77351

Chief Tarpie Yargee

Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town

101 E. Broadway

Wetumka, OK 74883-0187

Rebecca Haynes

American Rivers, Inc. 

1001 Washington Street, Suite 301

Columbia, SC 29201

Thomas Hollis, Vice President

Anchor Bay Marina, Inc.

2001 Castaway Island Road

Eclectic, AL 36024-4007

Donald F Seibert, President

Anchor Bay Marina, Inc.

2001 Castaway Island Road

Eclectic, AL 36024-4007

Kevin Sickey, Chairman

Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana

1940 C.C. Bel Road

Elton, LA 70532

Honorable Jeff Sessions

U.S. Senate

335 Russell Senate Office Bldg.

Washington, DC 20510

Judy Takats, Senior Program Officer

World Wildlife Fund

2021 21st Ave S., Suite 200

Nashville, TN 37212

Steve Forehand

Lake Martin Resource Association

2544 Willow Point Road

Alexander City, AL 35010

Bobby Payne

City of Tallassee

3 Freeman Avenue

Tallassee, AL 36078-2035

J. Charles Borden, President

Lake Martin Resource Association

2544 Willow Point Road

Alexander City, AL 35010
209

Keith Blue Cloud

Bureau of Indian Affairs

545 Marriott Drive, Suite 700

Nashville, TN 37214

Greg Rhinehart

Alabama Historical Commission

468 South Perry Street

Montgomery, AL 36130-0900

Barry Lovett

Project Engineer

Alabama Power Company

600 N. 18th St.

Birmingham, AL 35291

Richard M. Bronson

Lake Watch of Lake Martin Inc.

P.O. Box 72

Alexander City, AL 35011-0072

Tribal Chair Stephanie Bryan

Poarch Band of Creek Indians

5811 Jack Springs Road

Atmore, AL 36502

Chairman Nelson Scott Harjo

Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 580

Okmulgee, OK 74447-0580

Governor Bill Anoatubby 

Chickasaw Nation

P.O. Box 1548

Ada, OK 74821

Steve R. Forehand

Russell Lands, Inc.

2544 Willow Point Road

Alexander City, AL 35010

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

1849 C Street, N.W., MS 6557

Washington, DC 20240

Commanding Officer

U.S. Coast Guard

1500 S Broad Street #102

Mobile, AL 36605-1804

U.S. Department of Interior

Office of the Solicitor

75 Spring Street S.W., Suite 1328

Atlanta, GA 30303-3309

Honorable Richard Shelby

U.S. Senate

110 Hart Senate Office Bldg.

Washington, DC 20510

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region IV

61 Forsyth Street S.W.

Atlanta, GA 30303-8931

Diana M. Woods

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

61 Forsyth Street, Floor 13

Atlanta, GA 30303-8931

Charles Coleman

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town

P.O. Box 188

Okemah, OK 74859

Charles F. White

5029 Greystone Way

Birmingham, AL 35242-6428

Alabama Forestry Commission

513 Madison Avenue

Montgomery, AL 36130-0001

G. L. Finlay

104 Wind Terrace

Alexander City, AL 35010-8772

Robert J. Morris, Attorney at Law

10365 Holtville Road

Deatsville, AL 36022

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Mobile District

PO Box 2288

Mobile, AL 36628

Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management

Water Quality Branch

PO Box 301463 

Montgomery, AL 36130

Honorable Mike Rogers

U.S. House of Representatives

324 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

A-1

APPENDIX A—Draft License Conditions Recommended by Staff

I. MANDATORY CONDITIONS 

On May 9, 2011, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management issued 

a water quality certification. 

II. ADDITIONAL LICENSE ARTICLES RECOMMENDED BY 

COMMISSION STAFF

We recommend including the following license articles in any license issued for 

the project in addition to the mandatory conditions.

Draft Article 401. Commission Approval and Reporting.

(a) Requirement to File Reports. 

The licensee must file with the Commission the following reports or notifications 

as required by the Alabama Department of Environment Management’s (Alabama DEM) 

water quality certification. 

Alabama DEM Condition 

Number

Report Name Commission Due Date

5 Dissolved oxygen and water 

temperature monitoring 

report

Within 90 days following 

the end of the annual 

monitoring period 

(b) Filing of Amendment Applications. 

Alabama DEM’s Condition 6 of the water quality certification attached to this 

order contemplates unspecified long-term structural and/or operational changes for the 

purpose of ensuring compliance with state water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen. 

These changes must not be implemented without prior Commission authorization granted

after the filing of an application to amend the license. 

Draft Article 402. Lake Martin Water Level Management. The licensee must

operate the Martin Dam Project in accordance with the guide curves and elevations 

shown in the figure below and described herein to protect the ecological and recreational 

values of Lake Martin and provide for flood control and downstream navigation: 
A-2

Flood Control Curve. The flood control curve reflects the maximum elevation at 

which the lake may be maintained before implementing the flood control 

provisions in Article 404. On January 1 the curve is at elevation 484 feet mean 

sea level (msl) and remains at this elevation until February 28, when filling 

begins. The curve gradually rises until it reaches elevation 491 feet on April 

28. The curve remains at 491 feet until September 2, then is gradually lowered to 

484 feet by the third week in November, and remains at 484 feet until December 

31, except when the conditional fall extension is implemented.

Conditional Fall Extension. If the conditions specified in Article 403 are met, the 

flood control curve remains at 491 feet through October 15; thereafter the flood 

control curve gradually declines until it reaches elevation 484 feet msl by the third 

week in November, and remains at 484 feet until December 31.
A-3

Operating Curve. The area between the flood control curve and operating curve 

represents the range in which the lake must be maintained under normal flow 

conditions. On January 1 the curve is at elevation 480 feet and gradually rises to 

elevation 483 feet by the middle of March. The curve then gradually rises to 

elevation 487 feet msl by April 3, 490 feet by May 1, and remains at 490 feet until 

July 7. On July 7 the curve begins declining to 489.7 feet by August 1, 486.9 feet 

by October 1, 486 feet by November 1, 483 feet by November 20, and 480 feet by 

December 31.

Drought Curve. Reservoir elevations below the drought curve indicate that Lake 

Martin is in drought condition and the drought management provisions of Article 

405 must be implemented. On January 1, the curve is at elevation 480 feet and 

remains at this elevation until March 1. On this date the curve gradually rises to 

elevation 487 feet by May 1, then gradually lowers to elevation 480 feet by 

October 1. The curve remains at elevation 480 feet October 1 through December 

31.

The licensee must notify the Commission when Lake Martin is at or below 488 

feet for a 7-day period between June 1 and Labor Day, or 2 feet below the operating 

curve for a 7-day period between Labor Day and May 31.

To the extent possible the licensee must, maintain the lake level between the flood 

control and operating curves, and, between May 1 and August 31, no less than 0.5 foot 

below the flood control curve (i.e., 490.5 feet msl), except as provided in Articles 404 for 

flood control and 405 for drought management.. 

The lake level requirements may be temporarily modified if required by operating 

emergencies beyond the control of the licensee, and for short periods upon mutual 

agreement among the licensee, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alabama Department 

of Environmental Management, and Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources. If the lake level is so modified, the licensee must notify the Commission as 

soon as possible, but not later than 10 days after each such incident, and must provide the 

reason for the change in lake levels. 

Draft Article 403. Conditional Fall Extension. Upon issuance of the license, the 

licensee must implement the Conditional Fall Extension to enhance recreational use at 

Lake Martin. The flood control curve, identified in Article 402, must remain at elevation 

491 feet mean sea level (msl) from September 1 through October 15 (i.e., the shaded zone 

in in Figure 1, Article 402), provided that the following hydrologic and operational 

conditions are met:

1. Lake Martin is above its operating curve during September (487 to 488.5 feet

msl);
A-4

2. the rolling 7-day average total basin inflow (i.e. the average of the total daily basin 

inflow for the previous 7 days recalculated on a daily basis for a given period of 

time) on the Tallapoosa River, calculated at Thurlow dam, is at or higher than the 

median flow (i.e. the median of the recorded daily flows over the period of record 

for the particular day of interest);

3. the rolling 7-day average total basin inflow on the Coosa River, calculated at 

Jordan dam, is at or higher than the median flow; and

4. the elevations at the Weiss, H. Neely Henry, and Logan Martin developments on 

the Coosa River and the Harris Project on the Tallapoosa River must all be within 

1 foot of their respective rule curves.

Normal reservoir drawdown to the winter pool shall begin October 15 or as soon 

as the above conditions are no longer met, whichever occurs first.

The licensee must report to the Commission by December 15 of each year that the 

above conditions were not met. The report must include a description of the daily 

hydraulic and operation conditions that prevented implementing the fall extension. In 

addition, regardless of the outcome of the evaluation, the licensee must provide notice to 

Lake Martin Resource Association, Inc. and post, from July 15 through October 15,

weekly reports on its website providing (1) the posting date; (2) the lake level on the 

posting date; and (3) from (a) July 15 through August 31, an estimate of the likelihood 

that the Conditional Fall Extension will be implemented that fall, (b) September 1 

through October 15, a statement of whether or not the Conditional Fall Extension is being

implemented, and (c) September 1 through September 30, an estimate of the likelihood 

that the Conditional Fall Extension will be implemented or will continue to be 

implemented through October 15.

Draft Article 404. Flood Control Operations. The licensee must operate the 

project such that Lake Martin does not exceed elevation 491 feet msl to assist in flood 

control. Flood control operation must be guided by the following:

(1) When Lake Martin is above the flood control curve and between elevations 

484 and 486 feet msl, the turbines at Martin dam must be operated to provide an outflow 

from Thurlow dam of at least the equivalent of the hydraulic capacity of the turbines at 

Yates dam (about 12,400 cubic feet per second (cfs)).

(2) When Lake Martin is above the flood control curve and between elevations 

486 and 489 feet msl:

a) With increasing inflows, the turbines at Martin dam must be operated to 

provide an outflow from Thurlow dam of at least the equivalent of the 

hydraulic capacity of the turbines at Thurlow dam (about 13,200 cfs).

b) With decreasing inflows, the turbines at Martin dam must be operated to 

provide for an outflow from Thurlow dam of at least the equivalent of the 

hydraulic capacity of the turbines at Yates dam (about 12,400 cfs). 
A-5

(3) When Lake Martin is above the flood control curve and above elevation 489 

feet msl, the turbines at Martin dam must be operated as it would in the increasing inflow 

scenario described in No. 2(a). In addition, if required to avoid rising above elevation 

491 feet msl, the turbines must be operated to provide an outflow from Lake Martin at 

least equivalent to all turbine units operating at full gate (17,900 cfs), and spillway gates 

raised. An exception to this requirement would occur if the reservoir continues to rise 

after all gates are raised and inflow exceeds the gate capacity. Under these conditions, 

the licensee must operate the project to return Lake Martin to elevation 491 feet msl as 

soon as practicable. 

(4) During periods when inflow exceeds the total hydraulic capacity of the 

turbines, the 3-hour average outflow rate from Lake Martin must not exceed the 

concurrent 3-hour average inflow rate, except to evacuate accumulated surcharge storage 

subsequent to the predicted time of peak inflow. This measure should ensure that the 

outflow from Lake Martin is lower than the inflow.

(5) The licensee must continue its current practice of notifying the National 

Weather Service (NWS) when spillway gate operation is used in flood control operations 

and must continue to share data with the NWS' Southeast River Forecast Center 

(SERFC), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). In addition, the licensee must

coordinate its planned operation of its spillway gates with the SERFC and the Corps to 

limit the effects of discharge from the Martin Dam Project to the extent practicable. If 

greater flood control benefits can be attained through increased coordination of 

operations at the Tallapoosa and Coosa River dams, and increased coordination with the 

Corps' downstream Alabama River dams than would be attained through use of the above 

flood control procedures, then these procedures may be modified as mutually agreed to 

verbally by the Corps and the licensee. The licensee must notify the Commission as soon 

as possible, but no later than 10 days after each temporary change to flood control 

measures which may arise as part of a verbal agreement between the licensee and Corps.

Article 405. Drought Management Plan. The licensee must implement the 

Tallapoosa River portion of Alabama Drought Response Operating Proposal (ADROP), 

Version 3.3.3, dated July 12, 2013, as on August 13, 2013. The licensee must notify the 

Commission as soon as possible, but no later than 10 days after modifying operations in 

response to drought conditions.

The licensee must review the Corps’ regulation manuals, once finalized, for 

consistency with the Tallapoosa River portions of ADROP, and file a report of its 

findings along with any recommendations for modifications to the aforementioned 

portions of ADROP to be consistent with the finalized manuals.

Any future changes to the Drought Management Plan must be developed after 

consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Alabama Office of Water Resources, Alabama 

Department of Environmental Management, Alabama Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection 
A-6

Division, and Atlanta Regional Commission. The licensee must include with the plan 

documentation of consultation, copies of recommendations on the completed plans after 

both have been prepared and provided to the entities above, and specific descriptions of 

how the entities’ comments are accommodated by the plans. The licensee must allow a 

minimum of 30 days for the entities to comment and to make recommendations before 

filing the plans with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, 

the filing must include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific reasons.

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the Drought Management 

plan. Upon Commission approval the licensee shall implement the drought Management 

Plan, including any changes required by the Commission.

Draft Article 406. Water Quality Monitoring Plan. Within 90 days of license 

issuance, the licensee must file for Commission approval a plan to monitor water quality 

in Lake Martin upstream of the dam and in the dam tail race. The tailrace monitoring 

requirements must be consistent with conditions two through six of the 401 water quality 

certification (Appendix B of this license). The plan must define the water quality 

parameters to be monitored, monitoring methods, and the schedules for data collection 

and reporting. 

The plan must be developed after consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Alabama Department of Environmental Management, and Alabama Department 

of Conservation and Natural Resources. The licensee must include with the plan 

documentation of consultation, copies of recommendations on the completed plans after

both have been prepared and provided to the entities above, and specific descriptions of 

how the entities’ comments are accommodated by the plans. The licensee must allow a 

minimum of 30 days for the entities to comment and to make recommendations before 

filing the plans with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, 

the filing must include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific reasons.

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plans. Upon 

Commission approval the licensee shall implement the plans, including any changes 

required by the Commission.

Draft Article 407. Project Operation and Flow Monitoring Plan. Within 120 

days from the date of license issuance, the licensee must file with the Commission for 

approval, a plan to monitor compliance with: (1) Lake Martin water levels required in 

Article 402; (2) the Conditional Fall Extension required by Article 403; (3) operations for 

flood control required by Article 404; and (4) the Drought Management Plan required by

Article 405.

The Project Operation and Flow Monitoring Plan must be developed after 

consultation with the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The licensee must include with the plan an 

implementation schedule, documentation of consultation, copies of recommendations on 
A-7

the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the entities above, and 

specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments are accommodated by the plan. The 

licensee must allow a minimum of 30 days for the entities to comment and to make 

recommendations before filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not 

adopt a recommendation, the filing must include licensee’s project-specific reasons.

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. Upon 

Commission approval the licensee must implement the plan, including any changes 

required by the Commission.

Draft Article 408. Reservation of Authority to Prescribe Fishways. Authority is 

reserved to the Commission to require the licensee to construct, operate, and maintain, or 

to provide for the construction, operation, and maintenance of such fishways as may be 

prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Power 

Act.

Draft Article 409. Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation and Vector Control Program. 

Within six months of license issuance, the licensee must file for Commission approval, a 

revised Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation and Vector Control Program. The revised program 

must specifically address project operating conditions required by this license and 

include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) methods, including the frequency, 

timing, and locations, of surveys to identify areas where nuisance aquatic vegetation 

could create a public health hazard, affect power generation facilities, restrict recreational 

use, or pose a threat to the ecological balance of the reservoir; (2) methods for monitoring 

increases in nuisance aquatic vegetation; (3) methods for controlling nuisance aquatic 

vegetation; and (4) a schedule for implementation of control measures and monitoring. 

The revised Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation and Vector Control Program must be 

developed after consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and the U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management. The licensee must include with the plan documentation of consultation, 

copies of recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided 

to the entities above, and specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments are 

accommodated by the plan. The licensee must allow a minimum of 30 days for the 

entities to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan with the 

Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing must include 

the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific reasons.

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. Upon 

Commission approval the licensee must implement the plan, including any changes 

required by the Commission.

Draft Article 410. Wildlife Management Program. The licensee’s final Wildlife 

Management Program, filed on December 9, 2011, consisting of pages 1 through 23, is 

approved and must be implemented. The program must be implemented according to 

section 6.0, Implementation Timeline, of the Wildlife Management Program. Reporting 
A-8

must be completed according to section 7.0, Consultation and Reporting, of the Wildlife 

Management Program. 

Any revisions to the program must be developed after consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The licensee must include with the program 

documentation of consultation, copies of recommendations on the completed plan after it 

has been prepared and provided to the entities above, and specific descriptions of how the 

entities’ comments are accommodated by the program. The licensee must allow a 

minimum of 30 days for the entities to comment and to make recommendations before 

filing the program with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a 

recommendation, the filing must include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific 

reasons.

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the program. Upon 

Commission approval the licensee must implement the program, including any changes 

required by the Commission.

Draft Article 411. Recreation Plan. Within one year of license issuance, the 

licensee must file with the Commission for approval, a Revised Recreation Plan for the 

Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project. The conceptual and as-built drawings of the 19 

project recreation sites contained in Appendix D, sheet D-1 through D19, of the 

Recreation Plan filed on December 9, 2011 are approved and must be included in the 

revised plan.

In addition, the Recreation Plan must include, at a minimum, the following:

(1) Provisions for the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the following 19

project recreation sites, described in the Recreation Plan filed on December 9, 2011: 

Anchor Bay Marina; Camp Alamisco; Camp ASCCA (Dadeville Campus); DARE Boat 

Landing; DARE Power Park; Kamp Kiwanis; Maxwell Gunter AFB Recreation Area; 

Parker Creek Marina; Pleasure Point Park and Marina; Real Island Marina and 

Campground; Scenic Overlook; Union Ramp; Bakers Bottom Landing; Jaybird Landing; 

Madwind Creek Ramp; Paces Point Ramp; Paces Trail; Smith Landing; and Ponder 

Camp (Stillwaters Area Boat Ramp). The O&M provisions must include, at a minimum: 

(a) signage at each project recreation site as specified in section 8.2 of the Commission’s 

regulations, and updated for accuracy as needed; (b) “carry-in/carry-out” signage to 

inform the public to carry out their trash from the project recreation sites, and the 

identification and removal of existing trash receptacles and replacement of containers 

with appropriately-sized trash bags at the identified project recreation sites for use by the 

public to remove trash; and (c) a description of soil erosion and sediment control 

measures to be used where ground-disturbing activities are proposed. 
A-9

(2) A description of the project recreation sites, the amenities at each site, and 

how the needs of the disabled were considered in the planning and design of the 

recreation facilities.

(3) A map or maps identifying the 19 project recreation sites from item No. 

(1) above in relation to the project boundary as licensed herein.

(4) Provisions for (a) improving the boat ramp, constructing two bank fishing 

sites, and constructing a gravel parking area at the Jaybird Landing; (b) expanding the 

parking areas, if needed, at Smith Landing and Madwind Creek Ramp; and (c) assessing 

the need for developing bank/pier fishing areas within the Martin Dam Project boundary. 

(5) Concurrent with the periodic filing of the Licensed Hydropower Development 

Recreation Report (Form 80) with the Commission, the licensee must file a report that 

discusses: (a) the adequacy of the Recreation Plan to meet its stated goals and the need 

for any modification to the plan; and (b) any proposed measures or modifications to 

project recreation sites and a schedule for implementing such changes. 

The revised Recreation Plan must be developed after consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and Tallapoosa County, Alabama. The licensee 

must include with the plan an implementation schedule, documentation of consultation, 

copies of recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided 

to the entities above, and specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments are 

accommodated by the plan. The licensee must allow a minimum of 30 days for the 

entities to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan with the 

Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include 

the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific reasons.

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. Upon 

Commission approval the licensee must implement the plan, including any changes 

required by the Commission.

Draft Article 412. Public Education and Outreach Plan. Within one year of 

license issuance, the licensee must file with the Commission for approval, a Public 

Education and Outreach Plan to enhance the public experience at the Martin Dam Project. 

The plan must include, at a minimum: (1) a detailed description of the Public Education 

and Outreach Program; (2) a provision to develop a brochure about the longleaf pine 

forest and the licensee’s efforts in the Longleaf Pine Legacy Program; (3) a description of 

the licensee’s procedures for issuance of a permit and/or lease to occupy project lands 

and waters, including the application process as specified in Article 413; and (4) a 

provision to review and update of the plan every 6 years.

The Public Education and Outreach Plan must be developed after consultation 

with the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and 
A-10

Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The licensee must include 

with the plan an implementation schedule, documentation of consultation, copies of 

recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the 

entities above, and specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments are 

accommodated by the plan. The licensee must allow a minimum of 30 days for the 

entities to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan with the 

Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing must include 

the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific reasons.

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. Upon 

Commission approval the licensee must implement the plan, including any changes 

required by the Commission.

Draft Article 413. Shoreline Management Plan. Within 1 year of license 

issuance, the licensee must file with the Commission for approval, a revised Shoreline 

Management Plan to protect the scenic quality of, and environmental resources at, the 

Martin Dam Project. The plan must include, at a minimum: (1) a description, including 

acreage and a map or maps of the following seven land use classifications: (i) Project 

Operations; (ii) Recreation; (iii) Quasi-public; (iv) Commercial Recreation; 

(v) Natural/Undeveloped; (vi) Martin Small Game Hunting Area; and (vii) 30-Foot 

Control Strip; (2) a provision for using a geographic information system to record areas 

designated as Sensitive Resources; (3) a description of allowable and prohibited uses for 

each of the above land use classification; (4) a description of best management practices, 

including bio-engineering techniques such as willow and wetland plantings to control 

erosion; (5) a description of the Dredging Permit Program; (6) a description of the 

Shoreline Compliance Program specific to the Martin Dam Project; (7) a provision to 

limit construction of new seawalls and criteria that must be applied in approving the 

installation of any new seawall; (8) a description of the encroachments at the Martin Dam 

Project, including the number of encroachments that have been addressed, the method of 

resolution, and the number and location of encroachments that remain unresolved; and 

(9) a provision to review and update the Shoreline Management Plan. 

The revised Shoreline Management Plan must reflect the project boundary 

modifications and the reclassification of project lands from the Natural/Undeveloped 

Classification to the Recreation Classification for the following recreation sites as 

described in Section 4.1.1 of the licensee’s Recreation Plan filed December 9, 2011: 

(1) Madwind Creek Ramp (5.8 acres); (2) Smith Landing (4.2 acres); (3) Union Ramp 

(7.0 acres); (4) Bakers Bottom Landing (1.9 acres); (5) Jaybird Landing (19.9 acres); (6) 

Paces Point Ramp (8.7 acres); (7) Paces Trail (24.1 acres); Pleasure Point Park and 

Marina (6.6 acres); and (8) Ponder Camp (Stillwaters Area Boat Ramp) (36.4 acres). 

The filing must include two separate sets of Geographic Information System (GIS)

data in a georeferenced electronic file format (such as ArcView shape files, GeoMedia 

files, MapInfo files, or a similar GIS format) with the Secretary of the Commission, 

ATTN: OEP/DHAC. The data must include (a) polygon files of the project reservoir 
A-11

surface area including a separate polygon for the tailrace area, and (b) polyline file of the 

shoreline management classifications. The filing must be in CD or diskette format and 

must include polygon data that represents the surface area of the reservoir/tailrace, as 

shown on the project boundary exhibits, and polyline data that represents the linear extent 

of each shoreline classification segment as shown on maps in the shoreline management 

plan. A polygon GIS data file is required for the reservoir/ tailrace. The attribute table 

for the reservoir/ tailrace must include at least the reservoir name, water elevation, and 

elevation reference datum. A polyline GIS data file is required for the shoreline 

classifications associated with the reservoir. The attribute table for the reservoir must 

include at least the reservoir name and management classification description for each 

polyline, consistent with the shoreline management plan.

All GIS data must be positionally accurate to ±40 feet in order to comply with 

National Map Accuracy Standards for maps at a 1:24,000 scale. The file name(s) must

include: FERC Project Number, data description, date of this order, and file extension in 

the following format (P-xxxx, reservoir name polygon/or reservoir name shoreline 

polyline data, MM-DD-YYYY.SHP). The filing must be accompanied by a separate text 

file describing the spatial reference for the georeferenced data: map projection used (i.e., 

UTM, State Plane, Decimal Degrees, etc.), the map datum (i.e., North American 27, 

North American 83, etc.), and the units of measurement (i.e., feet, meters, miles, etc.).

The text file name must include: FERC Project Number, data description, date of this 

order, and file extension in the following format (P-xxxx, project reservoir/or shoreline 

classification metadata, MM-DD-YYYY.TXT).

The Shoreline Management Plan must be developed after consultation with the 

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The licensee must include with the 

plan an implementation schedule, documentation of consultation, copies of 

recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the 

entities above, and specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments are 

accommodated by the plan. The licensee must allow a minimum of 30 days for the 

entities to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan with the 

Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing must include 

the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific reasons.

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. Upon 

Commission approval the licensee shall implement the plan, including any changes 

required by the Commission. 

Draft Article 414. Programmatic Agreement. The licensee must implement the 

“Programmatic Agreement Between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the 

Alabama State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that May 

be Affected by Issuing a New License to Alabama Power Company for the Continued 

Operation of the Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project in Coosa, Elmore, and Tallapoosa 

Counties, Alabama (FERC No. 349-173),” executed on June 12, 2012, and including, but 
A-12

not limited to, the Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project. 

Pursuant to the requirements of this Programmatic Agreement, the licensee must file, for

Commission approval, a HPMP within one year of issuance of this order. The 

Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any time during the 

term of the license. If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated prior to Commission 

approval of the HPMP, the licensee must obtain approval from the Commission and the 

Alabama State Historic Preservation Officer, before engaging in any ground-disturbing 

activities or taking any other action that may affect any historic properties within the 

project’s area of potential effects. 

Article 415. Use and Occupancy. (a) In accordance with the provisions of this 

article, the licensee shall have the authority to grant permission for certain types of use 

and occupancy of project lands and waters and to convey certain interests in project lands 

and waters for certain types of use and occupancy, without prior Commission approval. 

The licensee may exercise the authority only if the proposed use and occupancy is 

consistent with the purposes of protecting and enhancing the scenic, recreational, and 

other environmental values of the project. For those purposes, the licensee shall also 

have continuing responsibility to supervise and control the use and occupancies, for 

which it grants permission, and to monitor the use of, and ensure compliance with the 

covenants of the instrument of conveyance for, any interests that it has conveyed, under 

this article. If a permitted use and occupancy violates any condition of this article or any 

other condition imposed by the licensee for protection and enhancement of the project's 

scenic, recreational, or other environmental values, or if a covenant of a conveyance 

made under the authority of this article is violated, the licensee must take any lawful 

action necessary to correct the violation. For a permitted use or occupancy, that action 

includes, if necessary, canceling the permission to use and occupy the project lands and 

waters and requiring the removal of any non-complying structures and facilities.

(b) The type of use and occupancy of project lands and waters for which the 

licensee may grant permission without prior Commission approval are: (1) landscape 

plantings; (2) non-commercial piers, landings, boat docks, or similar structures and 

facilities that can accommodate no more than 10 water craft at a time and where said 

facility is intended to serve single-family type dwellings; (3) embankments, bulkheads, 

retaining walls, or similar structures for erosion control to protect the existing shoreline; 

and (4) food plots and other wildlife enhancement. To the extent feasible and desirable to 

protect and enhance the project's scenic, recreational, and other environmental values, the 

licensee must require multiple use and occupancy of facilities for access to project lands 

or waters. The licensee must also ensure, to the satisfaction of the Commission's 

authorized representative, that the use and occupancies for which it grants permission are 

maintained in good repair and comply with applicable state and local health and safety 

requirements. Before granting permission for construction of bulkheads or retaining 

walls, the licensee must: (1) inspect the site of the proposed construction, (2) consider 

whether the planting of vegetation or the use of riprap would be adequate to control 
A-13

erosion at the site, and (3) determine that the proposed construction is needed and would 

not change the basic contour of the impoundment shoreline. To implement this 

paragraph (b), the licensee may, among other things, establish a program for issuing 

permits for the specified types of use and occupancy of project lands and waters, which 

may be subject to the payment of a reasonable fee to cover the licensee's costs of 

administering the permit program. The Commission reserves the right to require the 

licensee to file a description of its standards, guidelines, and procedures for implementing 

this paragraph (b) and to require modification of those standards, guidelines, or 

procedures.

(c) The licensee may convey easements or rights-of-way across, or leases of 

project lands for: (1) replacement, expansion, realignment, or maintenance of bridges or 

roads where all necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) storm 

drains and water mains; (3) sewers that do not discharge into project waters; (4) minor 

access roads; (5) telephone, gas, and electric utility distribution lines; (6) non-project 

overhead electric transmission lines that do not require erection of support structures 

within the project boundary; (7) submarine, overhead, or underground major telephone 

distribution cables or major electric distribution lines (69-kV or less); and (8) water 

intake or pumping facilities that do not extract more than one million gallons per day 

from a project impoundment. No later than January 31 of each year, the licensee must

file three copies of a report briefly describing for each conveyance made under this 

paragraph (c) during the prior calendar year, the type of interest conveyed, the location of 

the lands subject to the conveyance, and the nature of the use for which the interest was 

conveyed. 

(d) The licensee may convey fee title to, easements or rights-of-way across, or 

leases of project lands for: (1) construction of new bridges or roads for which all 

necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) sewer or effluent lines that 

discharge into project waters, for which all necessary federal and state water quality 

certification or permits have been obtained; (3) other pipelines that cross project lands or 

waters but do not discharge into project waters; (4) non-project overhead electric 

transmission lines that require erection of support structures within the project boundary, 

for which all necessary federal and state approvals have been obtained; (5) private or 

public marinas that can accommodate no more than 10 water craft at a time and are 

located at least one-half mile (measured over project waters) from any other private or 

public marina; (6) recreational development consistent with an approved report on

recreational resources of an Exhibit E; and (7) other uses, if: (i) the amount of land 

conveyed for a particular use is five acres or less; (ii) all of the land conveyed is located 

at least 75 feet, measured horizontally, from project waters at normal surface elevation; 

and (iii) no more than 50 total acres of project lands for each project development are 

conveyed under this clause (d)(7) in any calendar year. At least 60 days before 

conveying any interest in project lands under this paragraph (d), the licensee must file a 

letter with the Commission, stating its intent to convey the interest and briefly describing 

the type of interest and location of the lands to be conveyed (a marked Exhibit G map 
A-14

may be used), the nature of the proposed use, the identity of any federal or state agency 

official consulted, and any federal or state approvals required for the proposed use. 

Unless the Commission’s authorized representative, within 45 days from the filing date, 

requires the licensee to file an application for prior approval, the licensee may convey the 

intended interest at the end of that period.

(e) The following additional conditions apply to any intended conveyance under 

paragraph (c) or (d) of this article:

(1) Before conveying the interest, the licensee must consult with federal and state 

fish and wildlife or recreation agencies, as appropriate, and the State Historic 

Preservation Officer.

(2) Before conveying the interest, the licensee must determine that the proposed 

use of the lands to be conveyed is not inconsistent with any approved report on 

recreational resources of an Exhibit E; or, if the project does not have an approved report 

on recreational resources, that the lands to be conveyed do not have recreational value.

(3) The instrument of conveyance must include the following covenants running 

with the land: (i) the use of the lands conveyed must not endanger health, create a 

nuisance, or otherwise be incompatible with overall project recreational use; (ii) the 

grantee must take all reasonable precautions to ensure that the construction, operation, 

and maintenance of structures or facilities on the conveyed lands will occur in a manner 

that will protect the scenic, recreational, and environmental values of the project; and 

(iii) the grantee must not unduly restrict public access to project waters.

(4) The Commission reserves the right to require the licensee to take reasonable 

remedial action to correct any violation of the terms and conditions of this article, for the 

protection and enhancement of the project's scenic, recreational, and other environmental 

values.

(f) The conveyance of an interest in project lands under this article does not in 

itself change the project boundaries. The project boundaries may be changed to exclude 

land conveyed under this article only upon approval of revised Exhibit G drawings 

(project boundary maps) reflecting exclusion of that land. Lands conveyed under this 

article will be excluded from the project only upon a determination that the lands are not 

necessary for project purposes, such as operation and maintenance, flowage, recreation, 

public access, protection of environmental resources, and shoreline control, including 

shoreline aesthetic values. Absent extraordinary circumstances, proposals to exclude 

lands conveyed under this article from the project must be consolidated for consideration 

when revised Exhibit G drawings would be filed for approval for other purposes.

(g) The authority granted to the licensee under this article must not apply to any 

part of the public lands and reservations of the United States included within the project 

boundary.
B-1

APPENDIX B—401 Water Quality Certification Conditions

Water Quality Certificate Conditions for the Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 

349 Issued By the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 

May, 9, 2011.

Conditions of Certification:

LIMITATIONS

1. The operation of this project, including the operation of the turbines and existing 

turbine aeration systems, shall be managed such that dissolved oxygen (D.O.) 

criteria specified at ADEM Administrative Code Reg. 335-6-1 0-.09(2)4., 335-6-1 

0-.09(3)4., and 335-6-10-.09(5)4, shall be maintained at all times at the monitoring 

point prescribed herein downstream of the project. Management steps required to

maintain the D.O. concentration shall be implemented to assure that the 4.0 mg/1 

minimum D.O. criterion is maintained.

MONITORING AND REPORTING

2. The monitoring point for determining compliance with paragraph 1 above shall be

located in an area immediately downstream of Martin Dam at the existing 

monitoring location indicated in Figure 1. The location is at approximately 

latitude 32.679350 N and longitude 85.911648 W.

3. The monitor in the Martin Dam tailrace will record D.O. concentrations and water

temperature at 30-minute intervals during periods of hydroelectric generation 

following one continuous hour of generation beginning June 1 and extending 

through October 31. During flood events, the monitoring may be temporarily 

discontinued until tailrace elevations return to normal. The monitoring program 

will begin within 18 months of the effective date of a new license issued by the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Martin Project if the 

effective date is within the prescribed monitoring period. If the effective date of 

the license is not within the prescribed monitoring period, monitoring shall begin 

the following June 1. The monitoring program shall continue for a period of three 

years.

4. Alabama Power Company will provide adequate and frequent maintenance and

calibration of the D.O. and temperature monitoring equipment to assure its proper

operation. The D.O. monitoring equipment will be calibrated at an acceptable 

frequency using the manufacturer's recommendations, the modified Winkler 

Method, Method 360.2 of the Environmental Protection Agency's Method for 
B-2

Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, latest edition, or other equivalent 

methods.

5. Dissolved oxygen and temperature monitoring reports shall be submitted with 

appropriate certifications to the ADEM within 90 days following the end of the 

annual monitoring period. Following the final year of monitoring, the complete set 

of data shall be submitted to ADEM for review and comment prior to submittal to 

the FERC. In addition to dissolved oxygen and temperature data, the monitoring 

reports shall specify whether turbines were in operation at the time of the dissolved 

oxygen and temperature measurements and the discharge rate of water flow 

passing through each turbine at the time of the measurements. Monitoring reports 

shall be submitted in an electronic form compatible with the MicrosoftTM Excel

and Word software.

6. An assessment of the effects of the operation of the Martin Project on the State of

Alabama's water quality standards shall be conducted using the results of the 

monitoring as described in the previous paragraphs. If the monitoring results do 

not indicate compliance with the State of Alabama water quality standards 

(maintenance of a D.O. concentration of 4.0 mg/1 or greater), Alabama Power 

Company shall develop and implement measures to ensure compliance with the 

4.0 mg/1 D.O. criterion through structural and/or operational modifications at the 

project as prescribed in paragraph I. The assessment shall be filed with ADEM 

within 6 months following the end of the three year monitoring period. As a part 

of the assessment Alabama Power Company shall furnish, at the Department's 

request, other data and information that may be available but not expressly 

required in this monitoring plan.

7. The Department also certifies that there are no applicable effluent limitations nor 

other limitations imposed under Sections 30 I (b) or 302 or other standards 

imposed under Sections 306 or 307 of the Clean Water Act. This certification does 

not, however, exempt Alabama Power Company from requirements imposed under 

the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System for other discharges at these 

facilities regulated by the Department.
C-1

APPENDIX C—Analysis of Potential to Operate the Martin Dam Project for 

Downstream Flood Control

Introduction

The Downstream Landowners 73 assert that Alabama Power’s studies have been 

inadequate in evaluating and addressing flood damage that may occur to downstream 

property, lands, farms, timber, historical Indian artifacts, and wildlife. Specifically, they 

express concern regarding flood damage to their lands near or adjacent to the 

Tallapoosa River due to alleged mismanagement of releases from the Martin dam.

The Downstream Landowners request that Martin dam be operated with the 

unequivocal duty for downstream flood control, which would benefit downstream 

owners and farmers. Their comments in the public record focus on two floods in 2003

(both smaller than the 100-year flood). The Downstream Landowners claim that the 

2003 floods (one from May 7-11, and the other from July 1-3) were allegedly the direct 

result of preventable flood events that were caused by Alabama Power’s “negligence” in 

operating Martin dam, and that the May 2003 and July 2003 flood events were common 

4-year and 2-year flood events, respectively. The Downstream Landowners claim that a 

3-day pre-evacuation plan could have eliminated the flooding downstream of Martin, 

Yates, and Thurlow dams in these events. In testimony made during the Judith P. Bryan 

et al. v. Alabama Power Company lawsuit hearing (2009 WL 153932 [Ala.]) (Court 

Case), the expert for the Downstream Landowners declined to state what lake level 

Alabama Power should have maintained at Lake Martin to prevent the flood; however, 

the expert opined that Alabama Power should have reserved between 2 and 3 feet of 

storage space during the summer months for flood control. Finally, the Downstream 

Landowners claim that the 2003 floods caused about $2.1 million in damage. 

The Downstream Landowners also mentioned other smaller floods in 2009 and 

2010. A flood in late-March 2009 caused some damage, but farmers were able to replant because it was early in the season, while a flood in November/December 2009 

flooded several hundred acres of mature cotton, causing a 50 to 60-percent loss for 

some farmers. A minor flood in late-March 2010 caused one farmer to replant about 

 

73 Includes the following 19 landowners, farmers, and businesses: Euel A. 

Screws, Jr.; W. Thomas Dozier III; W. T. Dozier Farm, Inc.; Parmer G. Jenkins; R. 

Shepherd Morris, Sr.; Morris & Morris Farms, Inc.; Daniel G. Taylor; Mark B. Taylor; 

Carl E. Taylor; Milstead Farm Group, Inc.; Dale M. Taylor; Jimmy M. Dozier; Judy P. 

Bryan; Auttossee Plantation; L. A. Wisener; Howard T. Weir, III; Anne Weir; Charles 

E. Herron, Jr.; and Rock Springs Land & Timber, Inc. 
C-2

100 acres of cotton. The Downstream Landowners provided no further detail on these 

2009 and 2010 floods.

The Downstream Landowners identify two options which could provide flood 

control at Martin dam: (1) operate to pre-evacuate the pool in the face of weather 

reports of impending heavy rainfall events; and (2) require flood control as a project 

purpose and operate with dedicated flood control storage on a year-round basis. Staff 

conducted its own independent analysis to evaluate these two operation measures.

Recurrence Interval of the May 2003 Food Event

The Downstream Landowners have characterized the May 2003 flood event as a 

“common” occurrence with a 4-year return interval. We reviewed the data provided by 

the Downstream Landowners for the May 2003 flood, and determined that the 4-year 

return interval flood flow calculated by the Downstream Landowners is based on the 

average rainfall occurring at 13 locations in the Tallapoosa basin during the period April 

23 through May 31, 2003 rather than actual flow data over the same period. The 

frequency interval of rainfall events for each location varied widely, ranging from less 

than 1 year to as high as 20 years, and averaging 4 years. An average “4-year rainfall 

event” is not the same as a “4-year flood event.” However, the landowners appear to 

use these terms interchangeably. When we analyzed the May 2003 data, we calculated 

that the May 2003 flood had a longer return interval of 10-25 years.74 In other words, 

the May 2003 flood event is a much less common event than alleged by the 

Downstream Landowners. From these calculations, we conclude that rainfall in the 

basin is not the most appropriate measure to use in characterizing flooding, because 

rainfall does not necessarily have a high degree of correlation with flows in the 

receiving river. This is particularly true in this case where the Harris reservoir regulates 

flows in the basin.

Staff Analysis, Pre-evacuate Lake Martin

The Downstream Landowners recommend that the Martin Dam Project operate 

to pre-evacuate Lake Martin in the face of weather reports of impending heavy rainfall 

events. The Farmers state a 3-day pre-evacuation would have eliminated the flooding 

along the lower Tallapoosa River during the May and July 2003 floods. 

In general, pre-evacuation procedures require an accurate prediction of the 

amount and distribution of rainfall, in combination with monitoring and analysis of the 

 

74 Our estimate of flood frequency is based on the occurrence of flows measured 

upstream of the Martin Dam Project at the Horseshoe Bend flow gage.
C-3

flows in the project’s water basin, to guide when a reservoir level should be lowered. 

Pre-evacuation measures are sometimes implemented in areas where inflows are highly 

predictable. Predictable inflows often occur in cases of snowmelt related floods in the 

spring, or when the project is located immediately downstream of another flood control 

reservoir. Pre-evacuation may also be used in cases where evacuated flows are unlikely 

to coincide with other flows in the project area. With inaccurate predictions of rainfall 

amount and distribution, and intervening tributary flows, pre-evacuation could actually 

exacerbate downstream flooding. This is the case for a project configuration such as the 

Martin Dam Project, in which downstream flooding is the result of releases from Martin 

dam in combination with inflows from tributaries along the Tallapoosa River 

downstream of Martin dam. Alabama Power has identified cases in which tributary 

inflow increased peak flows downstream of Martin dam by as much as 20 percent.

The downstream landowners provided an example of how pre-evacuation could 

be implemented to reduce downstream flooding. The example states, “And at any time

their models indicate they will be spilling within the next 72 hours and there is excess 

channel capacity downstream of the project, they should commence that spill 

immediately......” This example demonstrates that excess channel capacity 

downstream of the project is a critical element of the pre-evacuation procedure. 

The ability to quantify excess channel capacity is only as reliable as rainfall predictions 

and flow assessments in the region. Rainfall predictions in the vicinity of the Martin 

Dam Project have not been accurate. The March 9, 2011 filing by the Downstream 

Landowners included the March 2009 Alabama Supreme Court case, which stated, “The 

record shows that meteorologists had made errors in predicting the path of the storm 

such that heavy rains were not predicted for the Tallapoosa River Basin until June 30, 

2003, the day before the heaviest rainfall of the storm on the morning of July 1, 2003.” 

In this case pre-evacuation could have not been implemented without introducing the 

risk of larger floods.

In conclusion, we find that the reliability of forecasts of weather and rainfall in 

the Tallapoosa River watershed are inadequate to implement pre-evacuation on a 

regular basis.

Staff Analysis, Dedicated Flood Control Storage at Lake Martin

As part of the license application process, Alabama Power focused their 

modeling studies to assess the short-term and long-term effects that would result from a 

range of proposed reservoir level alternatives. Alabama Power’s modeling focused on 

the winter time period, since that was the period they proposed changes to the flood 

guide curve. Alabama Power’s general modeling method was to use the Alabama 

Power Project Routing Model (described below) to evaluate the reservoir levels and 
C-4

outflows from Lake Martin, and the Corps software program HEC-RAS to evaluate 

effects (water levels and inundation) on downstream river reaches. Models were 

calibrated and, where necessary, verified using historical flow hydrograph and stage 

data, and flood effects were simulated using a 100-year design flood. 

The Downstream Landowners requested that the Martin Dam Project operate 

with dedicated flood storage, but did not identify any specific level of storage for 

analysis. Staff conducted reservoir and riverine modeling to address the concerns of the 

Downstream Landowners. Our analysis focused on more frequently occurring flood 

events, and the spring/summer period, which is the period the farmers are most affected 

by flooding. 

Modeling Parameters

We focused our modeling on the May 2003 flood because it was a key recent 

flood discussed by the Downstream Landowners, and the focus of the Alabama 

Supreme Court Case. With the May 2003 flood, the majority of the heavy rainfall was 

located mostly upstream of Martin dam. Therefore, the operation of the Martin Dam 

Project could have an effect on downstream flooding along the lower Tallapoosa River 

and would demonstrate the maximum potential effect that Martin dam could have on 

downstream flooding, if it was to be used for flood control during the summer months. 

The July 2003 flood 75 by comparison, was the result of heavy rainfall both 

upstream and downstream of Martin dam. During the July 2003 flood, there was a 

greater influence from tributary inflows downstream of Martin dam, compared to the 

May 2003 flood. Figure C-1, provides an example of the differences between the May 

and July 2003 stream flows on a tributary downstream of Martin dam, as recorded by 

USGS gage no. 02419000 Uphapee Creek near Tuskegee, Alabama.

76 This creek enters 

the Tallapoosa River a short distance downstream of Thurlow dam. The Uphapee Creek 

at this location has a drainage area of 333 square miles, and while stream flows recorded 

by this gage remained below 500 cfs during the May 2003 flood, it had a peak 

instantaneous value of 7,460 cfs on July 2, 2003 (USGS, 2012a). In comparison, the 

100-year flood modeled by Alabama Power occurred in March of 1990, with a peak 

instantaneous value of 28,400 cfs on March 17, 1990.

 

75 We estimate that the July 2003 flood had a recurrence interval of about 5 

years, while the Downstream Landowners stated that it was a 2-year flood. 

76 Figure C-1 also demonstrates the significance of tributary inflows to the 

Tallapoosa River downstream of Martin dam. 
C-5

Figure C-1. Daily mean flows for Uphapee Creek, located downstream of Martin dam,

for May 1, 2003 to August 1, 2003 (Source: USGS, 2012a). Uphapee 

Creek is representative of tributary inflows to the Tallapoosa River 

downstream of Martin dam.

Our modeling assessed the outflow from Lake Martin for the May 2003 flood 

while maintaining lower summer reservoir elevations of 488 and 486 feet msl (3 and 5 

feet below the existing flood control guideline elevation 491 feet msl). We also 

estimated the reservoir elevation which would have been necessary to prevent the May 

2003 flood. To asses a more frequently occurring flood event, we modeled an estimated 
C-6

5-year flood event 77 with an initial reservoir level of 3 feet (elevation 488 feet msl) 

below the flood control guide. 

As part of our modeling, we slightly adjusted the measured inflow to Lake 

Martin as measured immediately upstream of the reservoir at USGS Gage No. 

02414715 Tallapoosa River at Horseshoe Bend, to provide a reasonable fit to the 

historic reservoir outflows and elevations for the May 2003 flood. At the start of the 

May 2003 flood, on May 7, Lake Martin had a reservoir elevation of 490.24. The peak 

outflow for the May 2003 flood was about 119,000 cfs. This hydrograph was then 

routed through Lake Martin using Alabama Power’s spreadsheet reservoir model to 

obtain a discharge hydrograph with the starting lake levels at elevations 488 and 486 

feet msl. The reservoir model followed current operational procedures of Alabama 

Power during flood conditions. 

Peak Flows

Table C-1 and figures C-2 and C-3 show the results of our modeling. In the May 

2003 flood the initial reservoir elevation of Lake Martin was 490.24 feet, resulting in an 

outflow from Martin dam which peaked at 119,000 cfs. The operation of Lake Martin, 

and reservoir storage created prior to the flood, reduced the peak outflow from 124,000 

cfs to 119,000 cfs, a reduction of 5,000 cfs. With Lake Martin starting elevations of 488

and 486 feet, the peak outflow from Lake Martin would have been decreased to about 

111,000 cfs and 94,000 cfs, respectively, compared to the actual outflow of 119,000 cfs. 

A starting elevation of 482 feet would have been required to reduce the peak outflow 

from Martin dam to 60,000 cfs, which is the flow Downstream Landowners states 

would avoid most downstream flooding.

 

77 We estimate that the May 2003 flood had a recurrence interval of between 10 

and 25 years, contrary to the Downstream Landowners’ assertion that it was a 4-year 

flood. Thus, to evaluate the more frequent flood events, we developed an inflow dataset

representative of a 5-year flood.
C-7

Table C-1. Comparison of peak flows which would have occurred in May 2003 by 

implementing annual summer/fall drawdowns at Lake Martin.

Lake 

Martin 

Elevation

(ft. msl)

Approximate 

drawdown 

May through 

October (ft.)

Peak flow 

from Martin 

dam

(cfs)

491 0 124,000*

490.24 0.7 119,000

488 3 111,000

486 5 94,000

482 9 60,000

* Staff recognizes that the modeled peak flow of 124,000 cfs is slightly less than the 

128,000 cfs peak flow reported in Court Case. However we deem this an acceptable 

fit for modeled versus actual flow data.

Figure C-2. May 2003 discharge from Martin dam with a reservoir elevation of 488 

feet msl, with historical flow and reservoir level data (Source: staff).
C-8

Figure C-3. May 2003 discharge from Martin dam with a reservoir elevation of 486 

feet msl, with historical flow and reservoir level data (Source: staff).

5-Year Flood Event

Downstream Landowners presented the May 2003 flood as an example of a 

frequently occurring flood (i.e., a 4-year flood event) which could have been 

significantly reduced or avoided had adequate storage been provided in Lake Martin. 

We estimated that the May 2003 flood had a recurrence interval of between 10 and 25 

years. To evaluate more frequent flood events we estimated that the 5-year flood event 

would be about 67 percent of the observed May 2003 peak inflow at the Horseshoe 

Bend gage located above Lake Martin, on the basis of the computed 1-day average flow 

using data as shown in table C-2. This estimated 5-year inflow flood hydrograph was 

routed through Lake Martin using the Alabama Power spreadsheet reservoir model. 

The results for a 5-year inflow flood are displayed in table C-3 and figure C-4. 

Our analysis shows that a peak inflow rate of 82,000 cfs would be decreased to an 

outflow of about 78,000 cfs at an initial reservoir elevation of 490.24 feet msl, but 

would be decreased to an outflow of about 43,000 cfs with an initial reservoir elevation 

of 488 feet msl. Thus, in this case, assuming no tributary inflows downstream of Martin 

dam, a 3-foot drawdown would have been adequate to avoid the 5-year flood event.
C-9

Table C-2. Calculated flood frequency flows (in cfs) for Martin dam and historical 

flood flows (in cfs) at Martin dam and the Tallassee gage (Source: 

Alabama Power, 2010f; Alabama Power, 2011a; USGS, 2012).

Calculated Unimpaired Flows at Martin Dam

Average 

Flow 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 50-Year 100-Year 500-year April 1979

March 

1990

1-day 48,000 72,000 87,000 118,000 130,000 156,000 114,551 125,019

3-days NA NA 66,400 91,400 102,000 125,000 92,446 103,610

5-days NA NA 51,800 71,700 80,100 99,600 68,262 78,483

Historical Recorded Flows from Martin Dam

Average 

Flow

March 

1990 May 2003 July 2003

1-day 105,884 96,035 59,038

3-days 75,665 66,522 47,945

5-days 59,141 47,236 36,200

Historical Recorded Flows from the Tallassee Gage

Average 

Flow

April 

1979

March 

1990 May 2003 July 2003

1-day 110,000 125,000 94,000 68,900

3-days 76,433 85,667 62,967 51,133

5-days 59,240 66,940 45,800 39,580

Table C-3. Comparison of peak flows which would have occurred for a 5-year flood 

by implementing annual summer/fall drawdowns at Lake Martin.

Lake Martin 

Elevation 

(feet msl)

Approximate 

drawdown 

May through 

October 

(feet)

Peak flow from 

Martin dam

(cfs)

491 0 82,000

490.24 0.7 78,000

488 3 43,000
C-10

Figure C-4. Modeled 5-year flood discharge from Martin dam (Source: staff).

The discharge hydrographs from our modeled May 2003 flood and 5-year flood 

described above were then used as input to the upstream boundary of the Lower 

Tallapoosa HEC-RAS model developed by Alabama Power. The lateral hydrographs 

representing inflow from tributaries downstream of Lake Martin remained unchanged 

for our HEC-RAS modeling as compared to Alabama Power’s calibration run for the 

May 2003 storm. The resulting HEC-RAS profiles for the two modeled scenarios, 

compared to historic conditions are shown in figures C-5 and C-6. These figures show 

that peak flood levels along the lower Tallapoosa River would have been about 0.7 to 

1.2 feet lower with an initial reservoir elevation of 488 feet msl at the beginning of the 

May 2003 flood. Similarly, flood levels along the lower Tallapoosa River would have 

averaged about 2 feet lower with an initial reservoir level of 486 feet msl. HEC-RAS 

modeling associated with the smaller 5-year flood event with starting reservoir elevation 

of 488 feet msl indicated that peak water levels in the lower Tallapoosa River would be 

2 to 8 feet lower than what would occur with an initial reservoir elevation of 490.24 feet 

msl (figure C-7). 
C-11

Figure C-5. May 2003 flood profile for the lower Tallapoosa River with a reservoir 

elevation of 488 feet msl, and difference from historical conditions 

(starting pool of 490.24 feet msl) (Source: staff).

Figure C-6. May 2003 flood profile for the lower Tallapoosa River with a reservoir 

elevation of 486 feet msl, and difference from historical conditions 

(starting pool of 490.24 feet msl) (Source: staff).
C-12

Figure C-7. Five-year flood profile for the lower Tallapoosa River with a reservoir 

elevation of 488 feet msl, and difference from historical conditions 

(starting pool of 490.24 feet msl) (Source: staff).

Acres Flooded

We also analyzed the amount of land along the lower Tallapoosa River that 

would have been flooded in the May 2003 flood under the modeled lower reservoir 

levels. We used data from Alabama Power’s mapping as presented in Study Plan 12(a) 

Appendix D: Inundation Mapping & Assessment, which we summarize in table C-4. 
C-13

Table C-4. Estimated downstream acres of land affected by flooding associated with 

alternative winter pool levels, at the 100-year flood level (Source: 

Alabama Power, 2010f).

Model 

Scenario (elev. 

feet msl)

Inundated 

Area (acres)

Inundated Area (acres) by Land Use Category

Agricultural Industrial Commercial Residential

481 (existing) 19,924 17,733 448 385 23

482 20,256 18,063 449 385 23

483 20,568 18,354 459 393 25

484 (Alabama 

Power) 22,043 19,774 478 408 46

485 (Lake 

Martin RA) 22,500 20,097 491 496 79

486 (Lake 

Martin HOBO) 23,277 20,752 581 513 94

489 24,353 21,499 607 560 1,230

Table C-5. Comparison of downstream inundation which would have occurred in 

May, 2003 by implementing annual summer/fall drawdowns at Lake 

Martin.

Lake 

Martin 

Elevation 

(ft. msl)

Approximate 

drawdown 

May through 

October (ft.)

No. acres 

inundated by 

flood

(acres)

491 0 NA

490.24 0.7 19,500

488 3 18,880

486 5 17,770

482 9 NA

We calculated (Table C-5) that about 19,500 acres of mostly agricultural land 

were inundated during the May 2003 flood event. Under lower Lake Martin elevations 

of 488 and 486 feet msl, we estimate that the extent of inundated area in our modeled 

2003 flood event would drop to 18,880 and 17,700 acres, respectively. Our modeled 

water levels for the May 2003 flood, with the three different initial Lake Martin water 

levels remained below the 100-year flood modeled by Alabama Power, which had an 

initial Lake Martin elevation of 481 feet msl, and was estimated to affect 18 structures 

(see table 3-10 in this draft EIS). Because our modeled May 2003 floods were lower 

than the modeled 100-year flood, fewer structures than 18 would be affected. We were 
C-14

unable, however, to estimate the precise number of structures that could be affected by 

the smaller floods, with available information. 

Generation

We also analyzed the effects of lower Lake Martin water levels of 488 and 486 

feet msl, from May 1 until September 1, on generation at the Martin Dam Project by 

analyzing four representative water years, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 as summarized 

below in table C-6. As expected, generation was generally reduced due to the lower 

head. However, in some years (2003 in particular) a lower reservoir level would allow 

higher river flows to be retained in Lake Martin and then used later (for generation) as 

the reservoir level was drawn down to return to the modeled elevations of 488 or 486 

feet msl. This compares to the current operations where the reservoir level is kept near 

elevation 490.5 feet msl, with limited ability to retain high-flow events. The ability to 

capture high-flow events would be more apparent at elevation 486 feet msl than at 

elevation 488 feet msl. 

Our calculations showed that at a summer lake level of 488 feet msl, annual 

generation at the Martin Dam Project would decrease by an average of 8,800 MWh at a 

cost of $630,000, for the four years modeled.78 At a lower summer reservoir elevation 

of 486 feet msl, annual generation at the project would decrease an average of 8,100 

MWh at a cost of about $587,000, for the four years modeled. 

The four years modeled include a range of low-to-high water years, thus the 

average for these years should be characteristic of the level of generation losses which 

could be expected if annual drawdowns were implemented. However, for the four years 

analyzed we note a wide range of generation losses, from $150,000 in Water Year 2006 

to $1,421,363 for Water Year 2005. Generation losses could be further refined if a 

longer period of record were analyzed.

 

78 The value of power was calculated using the same assumptions identified in 

section 4.0, Developmental Analysis, of the draft EIS. The power value includes the 

energy rate of $72.50/MWh and the dependable capacity rate of $145.50/kilowatt-year.
C-15

Table C-6. Estimates for generation changes under lower spring and summer Lake 

Martin water levels (Source: staff).

Water Year & 

Period Modeled

Historical 

(MWh)

Modeled 3 

ft. Lower 

Pool 

(MWh) Difference

Modeled 5 

ft. Lower 

Pool 

(MWh) Difference

Water Year 

2003

10/1/02 –

11/15/02

45,935 42,146 3,789 (loss) 44,396 1,539 (loss)

3/10/03-9/30/03 334,353 325,594 8,759 (loss) 332,071 2,282 (loss)

Net Total 12,548 (loss) 3,821 (loss)

Value $909,730

(loss)

$277,020

(loss)

Water Year 

2004

3/10/04-9/30/04 107,451 106,559 892 (loss) 110,826 3,375 (gain)

Net Total 2,325 (loss) 3,652 (loss)

10/1/03 –

11/15/03

33,800 32,367 1,433 (loss) 26,773 7,027 (loss)

Value $168,562 

(loss)

$264,770 

(loss)

Water Year 

2005

10/1/04 –

11/15/04

48,439 43,701 4,738 (loss) 38,459 9,980 (loss)

3/10/05-9/30/05 289,975 275,108 14,867 

(loss)

277,096 12,879 

(loss)

Net Total 19,605 

(loss)

22,859 

(loss)

Value $1,421,363 

(loss)

$1,657,280 

(loss)

Water Year 

2006

10/1/05 –

11/15/05

27,197 30,368 3,171 (gain) 24,776 2,421 (loss)

3/10/06-9/30/06 102,485 98,592 3,893 (loss) 102,831 346 (gain)

Net Total 722 (loss) 2,075 (loss)

Value $52,345 

(loss)

$150,440 

(loss)

Average for 
C-16

Water Year & 

Period Modeled

Historical 

(MWh)

Modeled 3 

ft. Lower 

Pool 

(MWh) Difference

Modeled 5 

ft. Lower 

Pool 

(MWh) Difference

Water Years 

2003-2006

Average 

generation loss 

(MWh/year)

8,800 8,100

Value of energy 

($/year) 

638,000 587,250

Notes: Water Year 2003 was a generally wet year, Water Year 2004 was a 

slightly dry year, Water Year 2005 was a slightly wet year, and Water 

Year 2006 was a near average year.

Dependable Capacity

Summer drawdowns could greatly reduce dependable capacity at the Martin Dam 

Project. Staff did not conduct a detailed analysis of dependable capacity losses because 

such an analysis would require information for a long-term period of record, which is 

not readily available. Alabama Power estimates the present dependable capacity for the 

project is 179,000 kW valued at $26,044,500/year. In the staff analysis, annual 

generation from the project was estimated to be about 377,161 MWh valued at 

$27,344,170; thus, dependable capacity provided about half the power benefit of 

$53,388,670 for the project. As a rough estimate, average annual generation for the four 

years analyzed would be reduced by about 2.3 percent for a 3-foot drawdown. A 

similar reduction in dependable capacity would be about 4,176 kW valued at 

$607,675/year. Annual losses in generation and dependable capacity would total 

$1,245,675 for a 3-foot drawdown.

Damages to Downstream Landowners

Staff has no information on the damages associated with a 5-year flood event; 

however, it can be assumed to be far less than the number reported by the Downstream 

Landowners for 2003, which we estimated more likely represents the 10-25 year storm 

event. The Downstream Landowners stated the losses due to flooding in 2003 were 

about 2.1 million dollars. The Downstream Landowners estimate is based on a survey 

of landowners in which 11 landowners responded (table C-7). 
C-17

It is important to note that the stated losses were for both the May and July 2003 

floods; thus it is not possible to distinguish the percentage of losses attributed to the 

May 2003 flood which was analyzed by staff. In addition, the losses were a 

combination of crop losses (estimated at $1,569,428) and other losses (river bank 

repairs estimated at $545,091). Assuming a flood such as the one in May 2003 occurs 

about every 10 years, the $2.1-million loss reported by the Downstream Landowners 

would be equivalent to a loss of about $210,000 per year. 

Table C-7. Downstream Landowner Losses in 2003, May and July Floods.

Crop Losses

Additional 

Production

Other (River 

Bank 

Repairs) Total

92338 0 362600 454938

37439 10768 0 48207

336046 0 50500 386546

50700 10400 30000 91100

172482 2880 0 175362

85020 0 0 85020

362160 15793 79941 457894

37076 3539 1350 41965

17964 6728 20700 45392

270457 0 0 270457

107746 0 0 107746

Total $1,569,428.00 $50,108.00 $545,091.00 $2,164,627.00

Downstream Minimum Flows, Drought Operations

Lower reservoir elevations in the summer can affect the ability of the project to 

provide minimum flows, especially during drought years. Currently, the Martin Dam 

Project operates to maintain a 1,200-cfs minimum flow as measured below Thurlow 

dam. In Lake Martin, every foot of storage represents about 40,000 acre-feet, or enough 

water to supply 1,200 cfs for about 17 days. Thus, a 3-foot drawdown would be 

equivalent to about 51 days of providing a 1,200-cfs minimum flow. A 5-foot 

drawdown would be equivalent to about 85 days of providing a 1,200-cfs minimum 

flow. 

Lower reservoir elevations in the summer increase the likelihood of triggering 

drought operations. Staff notes that drought operations have occurred infrequently on 

Lake Martin; however, had the lake been maintained at elevation 488.0 feet in 2000 

(i.e., providing 3 feet of storage), with historical releases the reservoir would have 

dropped enough to trigger drought operations by July of that year.

D-1

APPENDIX D—Staff’s Response to Comments on the Martin Dam Project Draft 

EIS

The Commission staff issued its draft environmental impact statement (draft EIS) 

for the proposed relicensing of the Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project on June 6, 2013. 

Staff requested comments on the draft EIS be filed by August 13, 2013. The following 

entities and individuals filed comments on the draft EIS.79

Commenting Entity Date Filed

Over 753 individuals with an interest in Lake 

Martin lake levels

7/5/2013 – 8/31/201380

State of Georgia, Georgia Department of Natural

Resources Environmental Protection Division

8/13/2013

Atlanta Regional Commission 8/13/2013

Alabama Office of Water Resources 8/12/2013

Alabama Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources 

8/13/2013

Alabama Historical Commission 8/21/2013

Robert Bentley, Governor of the State of 

Alabama 

8/14/2013

Senator Richard C. Shelby 8/29/2013

Congressman Mike Rogers, 3rd District, 

Alabama 

8/12/2013

Euel Screws and Thomas Dozier 7/31/2013, 8/7/2013, 8/13/2013

Lake Martin HOBOS - Dave Heinzen 8/12/2013

Lake Martin HOBOS - Jesse Cunningham 8/13/2013

 

79 Comments also were made at the public meeting on the draft EIS on July 17, 

2013. Those comments can be viewed in the transcript of the meeting (see Transcript of 

the 7/17/13 Public Meeting held in Alexander City, Alabama re the Martin Dam 

Hydroelectric Project under P-349, filed on July 17, 2013). All themes raised in the 

meeting are addressed in response to the written questions, many of which update or 

expand upon thoughts shared at the meeting.

80 This count includes comments that were filed after the August 13, 2013 

deadline (through the entire month August, 2013) in order to be as inclusive as possible. 

While about 36 comment filings were made after the deadline, the themes addressed 

below were all raised in the record prior to the deadline. Finally, we have responded to 

one additional comment that was filed on March 5, 2015. That comment (Comment 46 

below) related to an Additional information Request we made on August 11, 2011 

related to the Pleasure Point Park.
D-2

Lake Watch of Lake Martin - Kathryn Braund 8/14/2013

Lake Martin Resource Association - Steve 

Forehand 

8/13/2013 

Conservation Groups 8/13/2013

U.S. EPA, Region 4 8/20/2013

U.S. Department of Interior, Atlanta 8/13/2013

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 8/12/2013

Mark Stirling, Auburn, AL 8/5/2013

William K. Haynes, Dadeville, AL 8/5/2013

Patrick R. England 3/6/2015

In this Appendix we summarize the substance of the comments received, provide 

responses to those comments, and explain how the text of the draft EIS was modified, as 

appropriate, to address the comments. Unless otherwise noted, changes addressing 

editorial comments or corrections were made to the final EIS, but are not described 

below. Comments are divided by resource areas.

DISSOLVED OXYGEN (DO) AND WATER QUALITY

1. Comment: EPA Region 4 comments that DO monitoring should occur when 

generating and not generating and the results compared. EPA Region 4 comments 

that when not generating, the DO criterion is 5 mg/l. EPA Region 4 asks how far 

downstream the 4 mg/l standard applies below a hydropower facility before the 

ambient criterion of 5 mg/l becomes the threshold.

Response: Because both the Yates and Thurlow developments operate mainly as 

run-of-river developments and rely on the Martin Project’s storage to meet the 

minimum flow requirement for the Thurlow Project, Alabama Power must release 

water continually from Martin Dam, usually by generating. Therefore, there is little

non-generation time to monitor or to which to apply a non-generation DO criterion. 

The 401 Water Quality Certificate requires monitoring compliance with the state 

water quality criteria “...immediately downstream of Martin dam at the existing 

monitoring station...”

2. Comment: Alabama Power comments that the $1,123,960 per year cost for 

monitoring water quality in the tailrace and Lake Martin is incorrect. Alabama 

Power states the correct cost should be $70,000 per year.

Response: On February 12, 2015 Alabama Power clarified the cost information it 

filed on December 9, 2011. All costs in the final EIS, including costs for monitoring 

water quality, have been revised and adjusted to 2015 dollars.
D-3

3. Comment: EPA Region 4 comments that three years of monitoring early in the 

license term is good, but monitoring is needed later in the license term, particularly 

in times of drought.

Response: This EIS discusses Alabama Power’s tailrace temperature and DO data 

from 2002 through 2009. That water quality record includes a severe drought year,

with an estimated average return frequency of greater than 50 years, in 2007. It also 

includes only two incidents of tailrace DO conditions falling below 4 mg/L while 

generating. Since 2009, Alabama Power has continued to monitor DO in the 

summer during generation as a requirement of the existing license. Combined with 

this existing data, o three more years of post-license monitoring, the data record 

should be adequate to evaluate the effectiveness of Alabama Powers’ DO measures.

INCREASE IN WINTER POOL ELEVATION

4. Comment: Over 736 individuals, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, 

Congressman Mike Rogers (3rd District, Alabama), the Lake Martin HOBO, 

LakeWatch of Lake Martin, and Lake Martin RA provided comments supporting

Alabama Power’s proposed 3-foot increase in the winter pool elevation because they 

see the flooding risks as small and the recreational and economic benefit to be large. 

Alabama Power requests that we reconsider the 3-foot winter pool increase.

Response: In the draft EIS we did not recommend the winter pool increase because 

initial studies indicated some potential for downstream flooding. As discussed in 

section 5.2.2 Measures Recommended by Staff, Alabama Power conducted 

additional modelling to refine the initial analysis and further evaluate the potential 

for downstream flooding and the safety of the dam. Alabama Power’s modeling 

results show that a 3-foot increase in the winter pool is unlikely to result in increased 

flood effects. In light of these results and the benefits to recreation and drought 

management, as well as minor benefits to paddlefish spawning, we now recommend

the 3-foot increase in winter pool elevation.

5. Comment: The State of Georgia and Atlanta Regional Commission comment that 

the Commission should not allow a 22.2% reduction in winter flood storage without 

adequate analysis. The Corps requests additional modeling of effects of raising the 

winter pool elevation on flows downstream of Montgomery, AL.

Response: Between November 8, 2013 and June 19, 2014, Alabama Power 

performed additional, refined analysis to evaluate the effect of the proposed change 

in operation on potential flooding. On July 14, 2014 Alabama Power filed the 
D-4

resulting study report, and the supporting modeling documentation, with the 

Commission. Alabama Power’s modeling results indicate that under this alternative 

additional flooding would be unlikely to occur.

6. Comment: Frances Clement interprets the Alabama Supreme Court Case, Bryan v. 

Alabama Power Company as finding that Alabama Power does not “have a 

heightened duty of flood control,” but only a responsibility to, “exercise reasonable 

care in operating or maintaining the dam.” She also observes that the changes in the 

conditional fall extension and the increased winter pool elevation proposed by 

Alabama Power would occur during the lower flow period of the year with smaller 

probabilities of large floods. Given these arguments, she argues that there is no 

reason that flood risk should prevent the implementation of Alabama Power’s 

proposal. 

Response: While it is not our role to interpret the rulings of the state courts, we do 

review the technical information available from Bryan v. Alabama Power Company 

in this EIS (see section 3.3.2.2, Water Quantity and Appendix C). We have also 

reviewed additional modeling carried out by Alabama Power, which reflects the 

lower risk of large storms and flooding during the period of the year in which the 

conditional fall extension and the increased winter pool elevation are proposed by

Alabama Power. Alabama Power’s modeling results indicate that under this 

alternative additional flooding would be unlikely to occur. Thus we now 

recommend Alabama Power’s proposal.

7. Comment: Recognizing that we concluded in the draft EIS that we could not 

recommend the higher winter pool elevation and conditional fall extension 

because of potential downstream flooding effects described in the initial flood 

analysis, Richard Marks outlines a compromise operational regime including: 

(1) a delayed drawdown to 10/15 using proposed criteria with the 2-foot option 

for lake Harris as a criterion for the conditional fall extension; (2) maintaining at 

winter pool at a 10-foot drawdown only for 1 month (January); and (3) filling the 

reservoir from Feb 1 through April 15. 

Response: As discussed above, based on the additional flooding analysis, we

now recommend Alabama Power’s proposal. Thus, we do not need to analyze the

compromise alternative developed with the goal of partially implementing 

Alabama Power’s proposal. 
D-5

8. Comment: LakeWatch of Lake Martin comments that an increase winter pool 

elevation would help with ensuring proper summer pool elevation. Will Legg

comments that a higher winter pool elevation reduces the risk from drought which

could affect people’s employment. Jim Bain comments that both raising the winter 

pool and extending the summer pool to October 15 would protect drinking water 

intakes.

Response: The EIS weighs these and other benefits against the risk of flooding. 

Based on the additional flooding analysis, we now recommend both the increase in 

winter pool elevation and the conditional fall extension of the summer pool. Staff 

also recommends implementing the Tallapoosa River Portion of ADROP, which 

takes into account protection of water intake elevations and summer pool elevations. 

CONDITIONAL FALL EXTENSION

9. Comment: Over 736 individuals, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, 

Congressman Mike Rogers (3rd District, Alabama), the Lake Martin HOBO, 

LakeWatch of Lake Martin, and LMRA provided comments supporting the

conditional fall extension of the summer pool. They see the flooding risks as small 

and the recreational and economic benefit to be large. Several citizens commented 

that although the conditional fall extension would occur only in one in three years or 

less often, they were satisfied with the possibility of having the potential for a longer 

recreation season. Alabama Power requested that we reconsider the conditional fall 

extension.

Response: As discussed in section 5.2.2 Measures Recommended by Staff, we

conclude that the benefits to recreation from the conditional fall extension will be 

experienced at least occasionally. Alabama Power proposes the measure and 

stakeholders support it. Adverse effects on aquatic resources, flooding, and public 

safety are unlikely. Given the benefits and the small risk of adverse impacts, we

now recommend implementing this measure.

10. Comment: The Lake Martin RA comments that changing the Lake Harris 

elevation criterion 4 from within 1 foot of full pool to within 2 feet of full pool

would increase the occurrence of the conditional fall extension. 

Response: We discuss this proposal in the final EIS. We do not recommend this 

criterion be adopted because it is counter to ensuring that the conditional fall 

extension is implemented only in years of adequate flow to avoid exacerbating 

drought stress on the system.
D-6

DOWNSTREAM CROP FLOODING

11. Comment: Euel Screws and Thomas Dozier raise the concern that the role of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is underrepresented in the draft EIS. They also point 

out that the draft EIS discusses managing flood events through mutual, verbal 

agreement with the Corps and question what happens if agreement is not reached. 

They also comment that Alabama Power is given discretion in managing floods. 

Finally, they comment that in the environmental analysis (pp 29-139) erosion was 

discussed, but not flood prevention.

Response: On October 31, 2014, the Corps’ issued its Final EIS for Updates to the 

Master Water Control Manual for the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin, and 

draft Master Water Control Manual for the ACT basin. We have reviewed these 

documents and made several adjustments in this final EIS to ensure that the 

documents are consistent and compatible. The Corps’ final EIS and Master Water 

Control Manual describe the roles of the Corps and Alabama Power in managing 

floods under the Master Water Control Manual adopted for the basin. The 

discussion includes mechanisms for seeking deviations from the requirements of the 

Master Water Control Manual, measures for back-up communications, and 

instructions on how to proceed if communications are lost because of disaster 

conditions. The details can be found in the Corps’ FEIS and draft manual. Finally, 

the discretion in managing operations by Alabama Power that the commenters refer 

to, such a previous amendments to water level and release requirements and flow 

releases at Lake Martin, have been authorized by the Commission and the Corps 

after review by both agencies.

12. Comment: Euel Screws and Thomas Dozier comment that in the environmental 

analysis erosion was discussed, but not flood prevention.

Response: Flood prevention is not discussed in the same section as erosion, but is 

discussed in section 3.3.2.2, Water Quantity, and is the primary subject of Appendix 

C.

13. Comment: Euel Screws and Thomas Dozier describe the costs of flooding on the 

downstream farmers.

Response: The cost of flooding on downstream farmers is discussed in Appendix C 

and Section 5 of the final EIS.
D-7

14. Comment: Jesse Cunningham comments that Federal Crop Insurance is available 

to farmers below Martin Dam. He adds he thinks a low risk of additional flooding 

associated with the Alabama Power proposal makes it unlikely such insurance would 

be needed as a result of the proposal. He contrasts this information with his 

observation that the comment record shows that many people have an interest in 

seeing the conditional fall extension and the increase in the winter pool elevation 

adopted and takes the opinion that the proposal is in the overall community interests. 

Response: As discussed above, Alabama Power’s modeling results indicate that 

under this alternative additional downstream flooding would be unlikely to occur. 

Thus we now recommend Alabama Power’s proposal. An analysis of the Crop 

Insurance Program is unnecessary, given this recommendation, and is beyond the

scope of this final EIS.

DROUGHT

15. Comment: In the draft EIS we recommended that Alabama Power develop a 

drought management plan, and provide a combined flow of 4,640 cfs from the 

Coosa and Tallapoosa projects until such plan is developed and approved by the 

Commission. In comments on the draft EIS, Alabama Power disputes the basis for 

requiring the 4,650 cfs interim flow. In addition, for drought management, Alabama 

Power now proposes to implement the Tallapoosa River portion of ADROP. A copy 

of ADROP was provided as Attachment B of the company’s, August 13, 2013, 

filing. Alabama Power also states that the Corps draft EIS for the update of the ACT 

Water Control Manuals, issued March 2013, incorporated ADROP in its Drought 

Contingency Plan, and the Commission adopted a similar requirement in the new 

license issued for the Coosa Project, Project No. 2146, issued on June 20, 2013.

Response: Staff now recommends implementing the Tallapoosa River portion of 

the ADROP. Since ADROP can be implemented upon issuance of the license, an 

interim 4,650 cfs flow is no longer needed. We note that the Corp’s Control 

Manuals have not been finalized (Corps, 2014). Therefore, we recommend a 

provision requiring Alabama Power to review the Corps’ regulation manuals, once 

finalized, for consistency with the Tallapoosa River portions of ADROP, and file a 

report of its findings along with any recommendations for modifications to the 

aforementioned portions of ADROP to be consistent with the finalized manuals.
D-8

16. Comment: In comments on the draft EIS, Interior requests adopting ADROP as a 

drought management plan for the project. The State of Georgia comments that 

Alabama Power stated that the ADROP was not its proposed drought plan and that 

there appeared to be inconsistencies between drought measures proposed by 

Alabama Power and ADROP. The State of Alabama Office of Water Resources 

and Department of Conservation and Natural Resources recommend the use of 

ADROP as the drought plan. The Alabama agencies describe ADROP as integral to 

Alabama’s drought planning.

Response: We recommend implementation of the Tallapoosa River portion of 

ADROP. (Please see our response to Alabama Power immediately above.) 

17. Comment: The State of Georgia and Atlanta Regional Commission comment 

that, in order to comply with NEPA, a drought plan must be described and analyzed 

before licensing rather than after. Also, the low flow analysis in the draft EIS is 

deficient because of a lack of modeling and a lack of description of our

methodology. The Conservation Groups also state that drought analysis in the 

draft EIS is inadequate.

Response: This final EIS builds on drought analysis in the draft EIS in section

3.3.3.2. Aquatic Resources. It also incorporates information from the Corps’ final 

EIS, issued on October 14, 2013. As discussed above, we now recommend the 

implementation of the Tallapoosa River portion of ADROP, as proposed by 

Alabama Power. The ADROP was developed with the involvement of Alabama 

Power, the Corps, and the State of Alabama using the Corps’ HEC-Res Sim water 

quantity model covering the entire ACT Basin. The ADROP provides a mechanism 

for basin-wide cooperation to manage hydropower, water supply, environmental, 

navigation, and other drought-related issues. 

18. Comment: The State of Georgia comments that the “no action” alternative in the 

draft EIS, which is supposed to describe the existing operation of the project, is 

inaccurate because Alabama Power did not provide an accurate description/analysis 

of its current operations. Georgia states that the Commission should require that 

Alabama Power provide models and operational descriptions that depict how 

Alabama Power actually operates the Martin Project, particularly under low flow 

conditions.

Response: A model that describes day to day operations is not necessary to define 

the baseline condition because daily records of flows and generation are more 
D-9

accurate in describing how the project has operated in the past. Alabama Power 

summarized the existing flows and operation data in its application. Models are 

used to evaluate a range of alternatives, compared to a baseline condition. In this 

case Alabama Power generated a baseline condition that, while representative of 

current operations overall and adequate to support our analysis, is not expected to 

exactly match how the project is operated in any specific year.

19. Comment: The State of Georgia and Atlanta Regional Commission comment 

that the draft EIS confirms their concern that Alabama Power puts disproportionate 

pressure on the Coosa River over the Tallapoosa River to supply low flows to the 

Alabama River. Georgia suggests that the balance should be proportionate to 

watershed size. In contrast, Will Legg comments that the Tallapoosa is being used 

to supply a disproportionate amount of flow for its basin size and that the problem is 

compounded by Atlanta’s withdrawals from the Coosa River system.

Response: As discussed above, Alabama Power now proposes, and we now 

recommend, implementing ADROP. The ADROP includes flow targets specific to 

the Tallapoosa River for each drought stage in the context of the rest of the 

Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa basin.

20. Comment: The Corps suggests that the final EIS and the license recognize that 

Lake Martin can be drawn down more than 11 feet. In contrast, the Lake Martin 

HOBO want the license to set a realistic limit to draw downs.

Response: Draft Article 402 defines the operational guide curves and associated 

conditions that we recommend. The basis for these curves and conditions is 

explained in the final EIS. 

INSTREAM FLOWS

21. Comment: U.S. EPA Region 4 comments that the Martin dam relicensing 

provides an opportunity to incorporate state-of-the-art instream flow analysis to 

restore ecological conditions under which organisms have evolved and such an 

analysis should be carried out. The Conservation Groups request a standard 

instream flow study that compares the effects of releasing 1,200 cfs with other flows

in meeting the needs of aquatic resources.

Response: The Martin Project is operated to meet the instream flow requirements 

established for the Thurlow Dam Project (FERC, 1994). Modification of the license 
D-10

for the Thurlow Dam is not part of this license action; consequently, an instream 

flow analysis below Thurlow Dam does not need to be considered here. 

22. Comment: The Conservation Groups comment that the final EIS should 

“consider alternatives, which specify a certain number of recreational releases across 

the spectrum of preferred flows to enhance boating opportunities and provide a more 

predictable schedule than afforded by current operations”

Response: In Section 3.3.5, Recreation Resources and Land Use, we presented and 

considered Alabama Power’s proposed operational changes in flows and public 

access to the Tallapoosa River downstream of Martin Dam, including the potential 

to alter the frequency and magnitude of floods downstream of the dam. The 

Conservation Groups did not provide any specific recreational flow releases, or a

schedule for flow releases to consider in the EIS. No change to the text is required.

NAVIGATION FLOWS

23. Comment: Alabama Power states that the draft EIS incorrectly states that the 

1972 Letter Agreement between the Corps and Alabama Power (Agreement) as 

“requiring” Alabama Power to meet a 4,640 cfs navigation flow with combined 

releases from the Coosa and Tallapoosa projects. Alabama Power considers the 

flow to be a “gentleman’s agreement” to be provided when the upstream storage 

dams are above the minimum rule curve elevations. 

Response: An EIS is not intended to determine matters of law or contract. We have 

removed the term “requires” and replaced it with the term “specifies” to characterize 

the terms of the agreement as stated in the agreement. We now recommend 

adoption of the Tallapoosa portion of the ADROP. The ADROP addresses 

navigation flows directly and has been developed by Alabama Power and the Corps 

among others.

24. Comment: The Lake Martin HOBO comment that there is no commercial barge 

traffic on the Alabama River and that the Commission should look into whether flow 

releases for navigation are needed. 

Response: Standard Article 12 will be included in any license issued for the Martin 

Project to preserve the Corps authority to determine flows needed for navigation. 

Regardless, the record indicates that navigation needs are still relevant in the basin. 

The tonnage of commodities shipped on the Alabama River varied greatly between 
D-11

2002 and 2012 from a high of almost 142,000 tons in 2005 to low of 22 tons in 

2011. The number of lockages and vessel passages, including recreational vessels, 

was steadier ranging from a high of 595 lockages involving 786 vessels in 2012 to a 

low of 155 lockages involving 199 vessels in 2010.81 

STRIPED BASS

25. Comment: Alabama DCNR disagrees with the interpretation that the conditional 

fall extension would have little effect on striped bass kills. Alabama DCNR points 

out that reducing the withdrawal of water from the upper hypolimnion to keep the 

lake level up for the conditional fall extension in wet years would increase striped 

bass habitat. 

Response: We agree with Alabama DCNR and have modified our discussion to 

reflect this logic.

26. Comment: Alabama DCNR requests that Alabama Power implement active 

measures to improve DO concentrations in Lake Martin to protect and enhance a 

valuable striped bass fishery. Measures like forebay aeration have been used 

successfully by Tennessee Valley Authority and others.

Response: Alabama DCNR does not specifically describe what measures it 

recommends be deployed or why such measures are needed. Although there have 

been fish kills of striped bass in Lake Martin, the fishery appears to be reasonably 

healthy. Without clear definition of a problem in Lake Martin and the measures to 

be implemented, we have no basis on which to evaluate this proposal. We do not 

recommend detailed consideration of active measures to enhance striped bass habitat 

at this time. 

EELS

27. Comment: Interior, Atlanta, and Alabama DCNR ask that the Commission 

restore the eel passage study plan proposed by Alabama Power and agreed to by 

Interior and Alabama DCNR. They argue that the proposed passage study is more 

holistic and less costly that the eel surveillance program we proposed in the draft 

EIS. Further FWS, Alabama DCNR, and Alabama Power point out that the eel 

 

81 Update of the Water Control Manual for the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River 

Basin in Georgia and Alabama.
D-12

trapping surveillance effort we proposed would be inefficient given that eels are not 

at Martin Dam today, there are two dams blocking eels from reaching Martin Dam, 

and there is no current proposal to provide eel passage at these dams. 

Response: Because eel passage at Martin Dam is not likely in the foreseeable

future, we no longer recommend any eel passage studies. Of course, Alabama 

Power would be free to participate in eel distribution surveys as an off-license 

requirement. 

28. Comment: Alabama Power comments that staff’s estimate of the cost in the draft 

EIS of the company’s proposed eel study, at an annualized cost of $269,750, was too 

high. 

Response: On February 12, 2015 Alabama Power clarified cost information filed 

on December 9, 2011. All costs in the final EIS, including costs for the eel study, 

have been revised and adjusted to 2015 dollars.

LIPSTICK DARTER

29. Comment: Alabama DCNR and the Conservation Groups comment that that 

lipstick darter should be discussed in the final EIS.

Response: We have added information on the lipstick darter in the final EIS. 

RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

30. Comment: The Conservation Groups comment that the draft EIS did not address 

endangered Alabama sturgeon or endangered gulf sturgeon which may occur in the 

project area. The Conservation Groups comment not enough time was spent 

searching for protected species, particularly sturgeon, to do a legitimate assessment.

Response: In the draft EIS, we found that continued operation of the Martin Dam 

Project would have no effect on these federally listed, aquatic species because the 

species and their designated critical habitats are not known to occur within the 

project area. Since we issued the draft EIS, FWS filed (on July 25, 2013) a letter 

concurring with this conclusion. 

31. Comment: The Conservation Groups comment that the draft EIS does not 

address designated critical habitat for the threatened fine-line pocketbook.
D-13

Response: The two reaches mentioned as critical habitat, one on the Tallapoosa 

River above U.S. Highway 431 and one on Cane Creek, are located upstream of the 

R.L. Harris reservoir, which is 79 miles above the Martin project. The proposed 

action will have no effect on these locations.

SHORELINE MANAGEMENT

32. Comment: Alabama DCNR comments that bank stabilization with seawalls 

degrades shoreline habitat and should not be permitted except under extreme 

circumstances. Alabama DCNR concurs with us that specific criteria should be met 

before a new seawall is permitted. 

Alabama Power comments that its existing practices under the Standard Land Use 

Article and the Programmatic General Permit from the Corps provide sufficient 

limitations on the construction of new seawalls. Therefore, a staff-recommended 

measure to limit construction of a new seawall and apply criterion in approving the 

installation of any new seawall is not necessary. 

Response: As we discuss in section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and 

Recommended Alternative, we recommend that the Shoreline Management Plan 

include a provision to limit construction of new seawalls because using alternative 

bank stabilization techniques would provide greater benefits to aquatic resources.

Including such a stipulation in the Shoreline Management Plan would ensure that 

landowners are aware of these practices. No change to the text is required. 

33. Comment: Alabama Power comments, as it did in its response to our Additional 

Information Request No. 22 filed December 9, 2011, that 373.1 acres classified as 

Natural/Undeveloped are no longer necessary for project purposes, and should be 

removed from the project boundary. Alabama Power states that removing the lands 

would “effectively distribute Natural/Undeveloped lands around Lake Martin so that 

there would not be too large a percentage of project Natural/Undeveloped lands 

concentrated in any particular area.” 

Response: As we discuss in section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and 

Recommended Alternative, Alabama Power has not provided a compelling reason as 

to why the lands, composed of an estimated 12 separate parcels around Lake Martin,

are no longer necessary for project purposes. As Alabama Power’s Shoreline 

Management Plan, dated June 2011, states in Section 4.3.3, “Private residential 

property occupies a considerable amount of shoreline, and residential activities have 
D-14

a significant effect on the shoreline and as well as the reservoir itself.” 

Natural/Undeveloped lands are intended to buffer public recreation areas, prevent 

overcrowding of partially developed shoreline areas, protect environmentally 

sensitive areas, and maintain aesthetic qualities. The 373.1 acres proposed for 

removal would continue to provide these benefits and thus serve project purposes. 

Therefore, we recommend that the 373.1 acres remain within the project boundary. 

34. Comment: Alabama Power comments that the draft EIS incorrectly states that 

“the existing Shoreline Land Use Classification maps do not take into account 

certain project boundary modifications proposed by Alabama Power, including 

changes to the land use classification system.” The maps are correct and the final

EIS should be corrected. Further, Alabama Power requests deletion of 

“Unclassified” as a Shoreline Land Use Classification.

Response: Our analysis was based on Alabama Power’s current Shoreline Land 

Use Classifications, which included “Unclassified” as a classification, but was not 

identified on Alabama Power’s Shoreline Land Use Classification maps. . 

Therefore, the current maps do not reflect the revised land use classifications. We 

revised section 3.3.5.2, Environmental Effects, Shoreline Management Plan, and 

draft Article 413 to incorporate this new information. 

35. Comment: The Alabama SHPO requests to be removed as a consulting agency 

on the Shoreline Management Plan (draft Article 413).

Response: We removed the Alabama SHPO from the list of consulting agencies for 

the Shoreline Management Plan (draft Article 413).
D-15

RECREATION

36. Comment: Alabama Power comments that the conclusions in the draft EIS “seem 

to discount, without explanation, and mischaracterize the results of two specific 

studies that demonstrate the recreational and economic benefits associated with the 

winter pool increase.” Alabama Power comments that the draft EIS should 

characterize “shoreline landowners” as both permanent residents and seasonal 

residents. In doing so, “shoreline landowners” compose more annual recreational 

use (62.7 percent) at Lake Martin than the 28.6 percent we analyzed in the draft EIS. 

Alabama Power states that a higher winter lake level will result in a 6 percent 

increase in recreational use from permanent residents, an 8 percent increase from 

seasonal residents, and a 6 percent increase from visitors, and therefore questions

our conclusion that the expected increase in recreational use will be modest. 

Response: In Section 3.3.5, Recreation Resources and Land Use, we present and 

consider the results of Alabama Power’s various studies and stakeholders’ 

comments. Particularly, Alabama Power’s study (Study Report 12g) did not 

characterize “shoreline landowners” as both permanent residents and seasonal 

residents. Rather, the study characterized total recreational use at Lake Martin for

two separate and distinct recreational users groups: (1) visitors and seasonal 

landowners (71.4 percent); and (2) permanent residents (28.6 percent). We, 

therefore, incorporated the study data correctly into our analysis and still concluded 

the expected increase in recreational use and economic benefits as modest.

Alabama Power’s comments that a higher winter lake level would result in a 6 

percent increase in recreational use from permanent residents refers to Table 17 of 

Study Report 12g, to Winter Pool Alternatives 1 or 2 (unclear to which alternative 

Alabama Power refers because 6 percent of permanent residents is representative for 

both alternatives); an 8 percent increase from seasonal residents refers to the Spring 

Shoulder Alternative B; and none of the alternatives identify a 6 percent increase in

visitors. While no substantial changes to the text are required, we made minor 

changes to the text in order to reflect the change in recommendations made by Lake 

Martin RA and Lake Martin HOBO.

37. Comment: Alabama Power comments that the draft EIS mischaracterizes the 

increase in access to private boat docks and identifies Table 11 of Alabama Power’s 

Study Report 12g that, under current project operations, 76 percent of private docks 

are usable (able to moor a boat) at the end of October, which corresponds to a water 

level of 485 feet mean sea level. Alabama Power asserts that under the conditional 

fall extension up to 100 percent of private docks would be usable, which accounts 
D-16

for up to 960 boat docks, a significant increase. Also, Alabama Power comments 

that the draft EIS mischaracterizes the expected increase in recreational use and 

associated economic effects resulting from the proposed conditional fall extension. 

Response: In section 3.3.5, Recreation Resources and Land Use, we presented and 

considered the results of Alabama Power’s Study Report 12g and stakeholders’ 

comments. We considered and addressed the overall economic effects of the 

conditional fall extension on environmental resources, recreational use, and 

additional values to shoreline property. We recommend implementation of Alabama 

Power’s proposed conditional fall extension. 

38. Comment: Mark Stirling comments that as the lake goes down, hazards pop up. 

The lake is safer to navigate at higher pool elevations. Jim Bain comments that the 

higher winter pool would make more boat ramps accessible and boating safer. 

Dorothy Harper comments that higher pool levels would allow her to keep her boat 

in the water and avoid a storage fee every year.

Response: Section 3.3.5, Recreation Resources and Land Use, assesses the effects 

of the proposed action and action alternatives on boat ramps and boating at the 

project. Our analysis acknowledges the benefits of a higher reservoir level by 

improving navigation as a result of decreasing the chance of collision with 

submerged objects (e.g., rocks and tree stumps). 

39. Comment: Wheeler Smith comments that higher winter pool may not bring many 

more people. Usage is light after Labor Day, though the lake level is still up.

Response: Section 3.3.5, Recreation Resources and Land Use, recognizes a 

decrease in recreational use at Lake Martin after Labor Day. 

40. Comment: Alabama DCNR, recommends an upgrade of the Kowaliga (Highway 

63) Launch or an alternative site at the lower section of Lake Martin.

Response: As we explain in section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and 

Recommended Alternatives, Alabama DCNR provides no basis for their 

recommendation, including current or projected recreational use, to support such a 

need. The studies conducted during relicensing do not support the need for any site 

access improvements beyond that proposed by Alabama Power. Further, the 

Kowaliga (Highway 63) Launch site is state-owned, which we assume the state will 

continue to own, operate, and maintain throughout a new license term. We, 
D-17

therefore, do not recommend that Alabama Power be required to upgrade the 

Kowaliga (Highway 63) Launch or an alternative site at the lower section of Lake 

Martin. 

41. Comment: Alabama Power states that there are 14 existing recreation sites, not 

12 existing project recreation sites as identified in the draft EIS. Alabama Power 

states that it proposes to maintain 12 of the 14 existing sites, of which General 

Public Use Area #2 would be reclassified to Natural/Undeveloped and Lake View 

Park would be removed from the project boundary. 

Response: While General Public Use Area #2 and Lake View Park are located 

within the Martin Dam Project boundary, neither recreation site is a project

(emphasis added) recreation site under the current license. In response to our

Additional Information Request No. 28, filed on December 9, 2011, Alabama Power 

states that it proposes to continue to own, operate, and maintain 12 existing project 

recreation sites. No change to the text is required.

42. Comment: Alabama Power comments that the draft EIS incorrectly states that 

the Recreation Plan does not contain enough details and the final EIS should provide

an accurate summary of the Recreation Plan.

Response: As we explain in section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and 

Recommended Alternative, Alabama Power’s Recreation Plan includes, among other 

items: non-project recreation facilities, such as Emerald Shores Homeowner’s 

Association’s Boat Ramp; site descriptions in section 3.1 that do not reflect the 

updated maps in Appendix D as Sheets D-1 through D-19; and consultation only 

with Alabama DCNR. No change to the text is required.

43. Comment: Patrick R. England asks about the status of Alabama Power’s 

response to our, April 11, 2011, additional information request regarding the purpose 

of removing 25.8 acres of land associated with Pleasure Point Park and Marina from 

the Martin Dam Project boundary. Mr. England states that he and other residents 

(leaseholders) at Pleasure Point Park and Marina have been asked by Alabama 

Power to vacate and remove their private facilities from the area due to septic 

violations and the cost to remediate. Mr. England requests the Commission’s 

assistance in this matter.

Response: Alabama Power responded to our additional information request on 

December 9, 2011. Alabama Power explained that it proposed to remove 25.8 acres 

of project land associated with Pleasure Point Park and Marina from the project 

boundary because the land serves no project purpose, and proposes to retain the 

remaining 6.6 acres for public recreation. The 25.8 acres are leased for private 

residences, while the remaining 6.6 acres offer an existing marina, parking, six 
D-18

cabins, docks, and a boat ramp, and would be classified as Commercial Recreation, 

under Alabama Power’s Shoreline Management Plan. As explained in this EIS, the 

Commission only includes within the project boundary those lands necessary for 

project purposes, such as operation and maintenance, flowage, recreation, public 

access, protection of environmental resources, and shoreline control (including 

protection of shoreline aesthetic values). As the Commission has explained, 

residential, commercial, and other structures should be included within the project 

boundary only to the extent that underlying lands are needed for project purposes. 

In this instance, the 25.8 acres of land recommended for removal from the project 

boundary are not needed for any of the project purposes described above. Finally, 

the Commission has no control over the terms of Alabama Power’s lease of nonproject lands and is unable to assist leaseholders on the matter of Alabama Power’s 

request that they vacate and remove their facilities. 

CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES

44. Comment: In response to our request for clarification on the National Register of 

Historic Places (National Register) evaluation of 22 previously identified sites and 

Martin Dam, the Alabama SHPO explains that it has provided that information to 

Alabama Power and includes this information in its comments. 

Response: We revised section 3.3.6, Cultural Resources, to incorporate the new 

information.

45. Comment: In response to our request concerning the National Register-eligibility 

of the Martin Dam and any other project feature more than 50 years old, including 

the fourth generating unit, the Alabama SHPO determined that the Martin Dam 

powerhouse, dam, and stilling basin are eligible for listing on the National Register. 

The fourth generating unit is not eligible for listing and should be included under 

activities exempt from section 106 review.

Response: We revised section 3.3.6, Cultural Resources, to incorporate the 

Alabama SHPO’s determinations regarding the project features.

46. Comment: The Alabama SHPO concurs with staff-recommended measures for 

Alabama Power to (1) complete cultural resources surveys within 5 years of issuance 

date of the license and (2) evaluate currently inundated sites within the project’s area 

of potential effects for listing in the National Register if and when the site or sites 

become exposed, assess the effects of inundation on all eligible sites, and implement 

appropriate treatment measures.
D-19

Response: Stipulation I.C. of the executed Programmatic Agreement requires the 

measures. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

47. Comment: Regarding geographic scope for cumulative effects, the Conservation 

Groups comment that: (1) cumulative effects beyond the action area, called for in 

our description of the scope, are absent from analysis in the draft EIS and need to be 

added in the final EIS and (2) that we should broaden the scope of our cumulative 

effects analysis to include Mobile Bay and the Alabama, Coosa, and Tallapoosa 

Rivers and riparian lands. EPA Region 4 comments that we should use a basin 

approach.

Response: Regarding high flows, the EIS considers the cumulative effects of 

project operations on high and low flows, floodplain areas, DO, and paddlefish 

down to the Alabama River. Regarding low flows, we are recommending the 

adoption of the Tallapoosa portion of the ADROP, which relies on the Corps’ ACTBasin-wide water balance model. It provides a cooperative, interagency approach to 

address multiple resource issues, including hydropower, water supply, 

environmental, and navigation concerns in a cumulative context. We did not 

identify reasonably foreseeable activities that would cumulatively affect Mobile Bay 

in new ways. We are not aware of reasonably foreseeable effects of future activities 

in the uplands of the basins that would require analysis.

48. Comment: The Conservation Groups comment that (1) we should broaden the 

scope of the cumulative effects analysis to include other actions including the Corps 

proposed basin plan and ADROP and that (2) cumulative effects analysis needs to be 

woven throughout the document and cover a wider range of topics, including 

protected species. The State of Georgia and the Atlanta Regional Commission

comment that the cumulative effect of the overall operation by Alabama Power of 

the Tallapoosa and Coosa systems is not captured in the draft EIS and should include 

Georgia's request for water from the Corp's Allatoona Reservoir and ADROP. 

Response: We considered those resources that are potentially affected through the 

influence of project operations on flow habitat, particularly the spawning conditions 

for paddlefish. NEPA guidance directs us to focus on cumulative effects in distinct, 

cumulative effects sections. We have done so in regard to flood conditions in the 

Alabama River. As discussed above, we are now recommending the ADROP which 

takes an ACT-Basin-wide, comprehensive approach to low flow issues, and which 

incorporates Georgia’s water supply needs.
D-20

PROCESS

49. Comment: The State of Georgia states the Re-licensing Application for the 

Martin Project should be coordinated with the Corps’ development of Water Control 

Manuals for the ACT River Basin and should be dependent upon those manuals. 

The State of Georgia comments that the Commission should allow the Corps to 

finish its final EIS for the basin before finishing the Martin final EIS to avoid 

inconsistencies, particularly regarding the drought plans and the modeling. The 

Atlanta Regional Commission comments that the Commission should defer to the 

Corps rule curves. Euel Screws and Thomas Dozier comment that flood control 

authority should be granted to the Corps. The Lake Martin HOBO comment that 

the Commission should get more involved in the Corps basin plan process in order 

to keep water in Alabama. EPA Region 4 comments that we should collaborate 

more closely with the Corps.

Response: The Corps has finalized its EIS for its Water Control Manuals. Staff has 

reviewed the Corps’ final EIS and its draft manuals and incorporate several elements 

of the Corps’ planning document to coordinate our efforts. As discussed above, we 

recommend a provision requiring Alabama Power to review the Corps’ regulation 

manuals, once finalized, for consistency with the Tallapoosa River portions of 

ADROP, and file a report of its findings along with any recommendations for 

modifications to the aforementioned portions of ADROP to be consistent with the 

finalized manuals. 

50. Comment: The Corps requests the opportunity to review the flood analysis for the 

new operating scenario. 

Response: Our information requests to Alabama Power regarding flood modeling 

methods, results, and analysis and the company’s responses have been posted in the 

Commission’s public record and are available for the Corps’ review. 

51. Comment: Requesting consideration under section 10(j) of the Federal Power Act, 

Interior asks that we modify draft article 414 to include a provision that would 

encourage Alabama Power to work with the Alabama DCNR and Interior to develop 

a restoration plan to identify opportunities for habitat and species restoration.

Response: Interior’s modified recommendation lacks specificity to evaluate the 

measure and determine benefits and cost of implementing the measure. The 

protection of land under the Natural/Undeveloped Land Classification and the 30-

foot Control Strip Land Classification around Lake Martin would protect habitat and 

species under any new license.

52. Comment: Richard Meinert requests a structural inspection of Martin dam.
D-21

Response: Dam safety is a priority of the Commission's hydropower program. 

Commission staff engineers complete a dam safety and operations inspection 

annually for Martin Dam. Martin Dam was last inspected by Commission staff on 

December 16, 2014. In addition, Martin Dam is subject to Part 12, Subpart D of the 

Commission’s Regulations, which requires a detailed project inspection and 

preparation of a report by an independent, experienced engineering consultant once 

every five years. The latest Part 12 inspection was completed on December 16, 

2014. Commission staff engineers work with Alabama Power staff continually to 

review maintenance work and improvement actions at the project facilities, and 

ensure that license requirements are met.

53. Comment: The EPA Region 4 requests that the Commission require Alabama 

Power to coordinate with EPA in the development of a drought plan.

Response: We are no longer recommending that Alabama Power develop an

independent drought management plan. We now recommend implementing the 

ADROP which has been developed collaboratively by Alabama Power, the Corps, 

and the Alabama Office of Water. The ADROP has been subject to NEPA review in 

the Corps’ process. We have recommended adding EPA to the consultation list for 

changes to the ADROP.

The ADROP agencies attempted to take into account the needs of the State of 

Georgia. The use of the Tallapoosa portion of the ADROP was recommended by 

Interior. According to Alabama Power ADROP changes to the ADROP will involve 

consultation with “relevant” federal agencies. 

54. Comment: EPA Region 4 suggests that the Commission include sections on 

environmental justice as described in Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice. 

Response: The Scoping Document issued on August 5, 2008, requested information 

on socioeconomic issues, fishing, recreation, and land use. We received input on all 

of these topics and included those analyses in the appropriate places in the EIS. We 

analyzed issues related to potentially competing interests and we discussed fish 

consumption advisories which can affect those who participate in subsistence 

fishing. We did not, however, receive any comment or make any observation

indicating an issue of environmental justice. Therefore, we did not include distinct 

environmental justice sections in this EIS. No change to the text is required.
D-22

55. Comment: EPA states that the final EIS should identify the local demographics of 

children under the age of 18, including children that may use or be affected by the 

resource as described in Executive Order No. 13045 on Children’s Health and 

Safety.

Response: We revised section 3.3.5, Recreation Resources and Land Use, to 

incorporate the local demographics of children under the age of 18. As we discuss 

in section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, there are currently no fish consumption 

advisories for Lake Martin or the area immediately downstream of the dam (Yates 

reservoir). The draft and final EIS recognize Thurlow reservoir and the lower 

Tallapoosa River that have fish consumption advisories for women of child-bearing 

age and for small children. No change to the text is required.

56. Comment: The EPA, American Rivers Alliance, and American Rivers contend 

that the cumulative impacts analysis was inadequate in light of the Resources and 

Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunity and Revived Economics of the Gulf 

States Act (RESTORE Act).

Response: The RESTORE Act established a Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund, 

outlined trust fund allocation provisions, and established a Gulf Coast Ecosystem 

Restoration Council.82 In our analysis, we found not proposed changes that would 

have a significant impact on the Gulf of Mexico. We analyzed water quantity and 

specific biological and recreation issues to the confluence of the Tallapoosa and 

Coosa Rivers and we analyzed water quality to the Martin Dam tailrace. Section 3.2 

of the final EIS addresses cumulative impacts of the project and section 5.5 considers 

the project’s conformity with 12 different comprehensive plans. In our analysis, we 

found no proposal related to relicensing that would have a significant impact on the 

Gulf of Mexico or the Gulf Coast.

 

82 Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived 

Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-141, §1601, 126 Stat 

405, 588 (2012).