FERC/DEIS-0243

DRAFT 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

June 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS

To the Agency or Individual Addressed:

Reference: Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Attached is the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on the proposed 

relicensing of the Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project (No. 349-173), located on the 

Tallapoosa River in Tallapoosa, Coosa, and Elmore Counties, Alabama.

This draft 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 draft EIS will be part of the record from 

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

Environmental Protection Agency and made available to the public on or about June 6, 

2013.

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

Any comments should be filed within 60 days from the date of this notice. 

Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 C.F.R. 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) 

and the instructions on the Commission’s website http://www.ferc.gov/docsfiling/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, 

without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docsfiling/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of 

your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. Although the 

Commission strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. 

To paper-file, mail an original and five copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. Please 

affix Project No.349-173 to all comments.

Attachment: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
This page intentionally left blank.
COVER SHEET

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

No. 349-173.

b. Subject: Draft 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 as it currently 

operates, with most of the protection, mitigation, and enhancement 

measures proposed by Alabama Power and certain modifications 

and additional measures recommended by the agencies and 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 draft EIS to relicense the existing Martin Dam Hydroelectric 

Project is being made available for public comment on or about 

June 6, 2013, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 19691and 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), pursuant to the 

Federal Power Act (FPA)2and 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).
This page intentionally left blank.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER SHEET ................................................................................................................. xi

FOREWORD....................................................................................................................xiii

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

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

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................... xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................xiii

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 .............................................................................. 6

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

1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ....................................................... 7

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

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

1.4.1 Scoping ............................................................................................ 8

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

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

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES................................................... 11

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE.................................................................. 11

2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities.............................................................. 11

2.1.2 Project Safety................................................................................. 12

2.1.3 Existing Project Operation ............................................................ 12

2.1.4 Additional Operation Measures for the Martin Dam Project........ 16

2.1.5 Existing Environmental Measures................................................. 18

2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL...................................................................... 19

2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities............................................................ 19

2.2.2 Proposed Project Operation........................................................... 19

2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures............................................... 23

2.2.4 Modifications to Applicant’s Proposal—Mandatory Conditions.. 24

2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................ 25
iv

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM 

DETAILED ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 26

2.4.1 Issuing a Non-Power License........................................................ 26

2.4.2 Federal Government Takeover of the Project ............................... 26

2.4.3 Retiring the Project........................................................................ 26

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS......................................................................... 29

3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN .............................. 29

3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS ................................ 30

3.2.1 Geographic Scope.......................................................................... 30

3.2.2 Temporal Scope............................................................................. 31

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ....................... 31

3.3.1 Geologic and Soil Resources......................................................... 31

3.3.2 Aquatic Resources......................................................................... 36

3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources..................................................................... 78

3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species............................................. 91

3.3.5 Recreation Resources and Land Use ............................................. 96

3.3.6 Cultural Resources....................................................................... 131

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE................................................................ 139

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 141

4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT ................ 141

4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES.................................................... 143

4.2.1 No-action Alternative .................................................................. 143

4.2.2 Alabama Power’s Proposal ......................................................... 144

4.2.3 Staff Alternative .......................................................................... 144

4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES......................................... 144

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................... 153

5.1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES.................................................... 153

5.2 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED 

ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................................... 155

5.2.1 Measures Proposed by Alabama Power ...................................... 156

5.2.2 Measures Recommended by Staff............................................... 157

5.2.3 Measures Not Recommended by Staff........................................ 167

5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS................................................. 174

5.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 175

5.5 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS............................ 178

6.0 LITERATURE CITED......................................................................................... 181

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................ 189

8.0 LIST OF RECIPIENTS........................................................................................ 191
v

APPENDIX A—Draft License Conditions Recommended by Staff.................................. 1

APPENDIX B—401 Water Quality Certification Conditions............................................ 1

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

Downstream Flood Control ................................................................................................. 1
vi

This page intentionally left blank.
vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Location of Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project ............................................ 2

Figure 2-1. Existing guide curves for the Martin Dam Project...................................... 13

Figure 2-2. Proposed guide curves for the Martin Dam Project .................................... 19

Figure 3-1. An example of severe erosion from Alabama Power’s study. .................... 33

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

Lake Martin. ................................................................................................ 33

Figure 3-3. Tallapoosa River and Coosa River schematic............................................. 37

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

and Wadley USGS gages, located upstream of Lake Martin...................... 40

Figure 3-5. Historical reservoir levels from Lake Martin reservoir for 1990 to 2011... 42

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

from Lake Martin reservoir for 1990 to 2011 ............................................. 43

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

alternative winter pool elevations. .............................................................. 54

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). ............. 54

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

elevations..................................................................................................... 55

Figure 3-10. Flooding inundation map near RM 17. ....................................................... 58

Figure 3-11. Drought recurrence intervals for USGS gage no. 02412000 ...................... 65

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

proposed drought curves. ............................................................................ 66

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

paddlefish spawning downstream of Thurlow dam. ................................... 75
viii

This page intentionally left blank.
ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1. Alabama Power hydropower developments on the Tallapoosa River ........ 38

Table 3-2. USGS gages on the Tallapoosa River ......................................................... 39

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

characterizing flows immediately upstream of Lake Martin ...................... 39

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

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

12 miles downstream of Martin dam........................................................... 42

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

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

1992 to 2011................................................................................................ 44

Table 3-6. Approved water withdrawals from Lake Martin, Tallapoosa River ........... 45

Table 3-7. Water quality standards applicable to the Martin Dam Project. ................. 46

Table 3-8. Summary of the Martin dam tailrace sampling data. .................................. 48

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

increase in the Lake Martin winter pool elevation...................................... 57

Table 3-10. Estimated downstream acres of land affected by flooding associated 

with alternative winter pool levels, at the 100-year flood level.................. 59

Table 3-11. Estimated downstream number of structures affected by flooding 

associated with alternative winter pool levels, at the 100-year flood level 60

Table 3-12. Number of years criteria were met for the conditional fall extension......... 62

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. ........................................... 76

Table 3-14. Timber stand composition on Martin Dam Project lands. .......................... 79

Table 3-15. Area and percentages of wetland types in the project boundary................. 80

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

increases in winter pool elevation. .............................................................. 85

Table 3-17. Existing project recreation sites included in the current project license..... 99
x

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

Project from June 1, 2009, to June 13, 2010. ............................................ 100

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

2010-2050.................................................................................................. 102

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

Counties..................................................................................................... 103

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

boundary.................................................................................................... 105

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

whitewater paddling guide at six whitewater features on the Tallapoosa 

River. ......................................................................................................... 113

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. ................................................................................... 114

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

downstream of Thurlow dam: Winter pool elevations............................. 115

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

specific flow ranges would be observed downstream of Thurlow dam.... 116

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

boat ramps are useable .............................................................................. 119

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

adjacent to the project boundary APE....................................................... 133

Table 4-1. Parameters for the economic analysis of the Martin Dam Project............ 142

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

for the Martin Dam Project ....................................................................... 143

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

in assessing the environmental effects of continuing to operate the 

Martin Dam Project. .................................................................................. 145

Table 5-1. Comparison of alternatives for the Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project.... 153

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

Hydroelectric Project................................................................................. 176
xi

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

Alabama DROP 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

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations

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
xii

National Register National Register of Historic Places

NERC North American Electric Reliability Council

NTU nephelometric turbidity unit

NWS National Weather Service

O&M operation and maintenance

PA Programmatic Agreement

RM river mile

SERC-SE southeastern subregion of the SERC 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
xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Proposed Action

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

for 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) a 720-footlong gated spillway section with twenty, 30-foot-long 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 12, 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, steel-frame 

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 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 fluctuate by as much as 

11 feet between elevations 480 and 491 feet msl. Project benefits include hydroelectric 

power; limited seasonal flood control during the winter when the reservoir is in 

drawdown condition; recreation, municipal, and industrial water supply; aquatic flow 

maintenance; and navigation flow support.

Proposed Facilities

Alabama Power does not propose any changes to project structures or to the 

project’s generating capacity. 

Proposed Environmental Measures 

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

however, the following modifications to project operation are proposed: (1) to help 

ensure that Lake Martin reaches its summer pool level by the end of May each year, raise 

the winter flood pool by 3 feet, and raise the operating curve and drought curve 
xiv

proportionately during the same timeframe; (2) to help minimize downstream flooding, 

revise operation for flood control by reducing outflow from Martin dam during certain 

conditions when the reservoir elevation is decreasing; (3) to provide higher reservoir 

levels for recreation during the fall, implement a conditional fall extension of the flood 

control curve to elevation 491 feet from September 1 to October 15; and (4) to facilitate 

seawall and boat dock maintenance, and/or construction, upon Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (Commission) approval of the proposed 3-foot increase of the winter pool 

elevation, lower the reservoir elevation during the winter months to 481 feet every 6 

years. In addition, Alabama Power proposes measures for operation during low flow or 

drought conditions. 

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 401 water quality certification, 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 Alabama 

Department of Environmental Management prior to implementing the proposed 3-

foot increase in the winter flood pool;

 finalize and implement a 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 Wildlife Management Program (WMP) for project lands;

 implement a 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 winter 

pool; 

 implement a proposed Shoreline Management Program (SMP);

 implement a proposed Recreation Plan;

 modify the project boundary to: add 991.4 acres that 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, resulting in an increase of 

492.2 acres of land;

7

 develop and implement a Public Education and Outreach Plan to inform shoreline 

landowners and the public about shoreline management and the requirements of 

the Shoreline Permitting Program; and

 

7

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

9,094 acres.
xv

 develop and implement a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) in 

accordance with a Programmatic Agreement (PA).

Alternatives Considered

This draft 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, which includes existing operations and most of Alabama Power’s 

proposed environmental measures with some staff modifications.

Under the staff alternative, the project would continue to operate as it does under 

the existing license. The staff alternative does not include Alabama Power’s proposed 3-

foot winter increase in the lake level, conditional fall extension of the flood curve,

lowering the lake level every 6 years for maintenance and/or construction of structures

(e.g., docks), and water quality monitoring in Lake Martin. These operation changes are 

not recommended because the higher winter pool levels would increase flooding on 

residential and commercial structures and roads. Because the higher winter pool levels 

are not recommended, lowering the lake levels every 6 years to maintain structures and 

water quality monitoring in Lake Martin would not be needed.

The staff alternative does include Alabama Power’s remaining proposed measures 

with some modifications 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: (1) developing a drought management plan to 

define drought response actions specific to the Martin Dam Project; (2) trapping eels in 

the Tallapoosa River immediately below Martin dam instead of sampling the eel 

distribution from the project tailrace to the mouth of the river to determine when eel 

passage may needed; (3) revising the proposed 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; 

(4) revising the Recreation Plan to require (a) a description of the 19 project recreation 

sites, (b) a map or maps that identify the project recreation sites located within the

modified project boundary, (c) the number and location of the proposed bank fishing 

areas, and (d) a periodic update of the plan; and (5) revising the SMP to reflect the project 

boundary modifications.

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.
xvi

Public Involvement and Areas of Concern

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 draft 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 a site visit on September 10, 2008. Based on discussions 

during the site visit 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.

The primary issues associated with relicensing the Martin Dam Project are 

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

paddlefish spawning, invasive species control, recreational opportunities, shoreline 

management, and protection of cultural resources. Below we summarize the 

environmental effects associated with staff’s alternative.

Staff Alternative

Geology and Soils

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 land management measures to protect the shoreline.

Aquatic Resources

The proposed water quality monitoring in the project tailrace would ensure that 

project releases continue to meet state water quality standards. Conducting staff’s regular

American eel trapping in the Tallapoosa River immediately downstream of Martin dam

would document the occurrence of the eel downstream of the project to indicate the need 

for any measures that would be required at the project for protection of the American eel. 

Terrestrial Resources

Implementing a proposed Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation and Vector Control 

Management Program would establish a monitoring effort for increases in nuisance 

aquatic vegetation and define specific protocols for controlling nuisance aquatic 

vegetation. Implementing the final WMP would enhance habitat for longleaf pine-
xvii

dependent species, develop opportunities for public hunting, protect bald eagles, and 

provide a buffer zone for water quality protection and wildlife habitat. 

Threatened and Endangered Species

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

project affected area. However, the applicant’s proposed 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.

Recreation Resources and Land Use

Implementing a revised Recreation Plan with the additional detail recommended 

by staff would enhance recreational opportunities at Lake Martin by improving amenities 

at 12 existing project recreation sites, and meeting a need for future recreational use by 

adding six recreation sites and reserving 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, 

should be made project facilities and brought into the project boundary. Revising the 

project boundary would ensure that these facilities and associated public access are

maintained by Alabama Power over the term of a new license.

Implementing a proposed SMP would protect project and non-project lands and

waters by guiding the type and extent of development that occurs along the shoreline. 

Further, unpermitted structures on project lands and waters would be addressed.

Cultural Resources

Implementing the provisions of the HPMP in accordance with the PA would 

ensure protection of cultural resources.

No-action Alternative

Under the no-action alternative, Alabama Power would continue to operate the 

project as it currently does. Environmental conditions would remain the same, and no 

enhancement of environmental resources would occur.

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, but without a 3-foot increase in the 

Lake Martin winter pool (from elevation 481 feet to elevation 484 feet) or the conditional 

fall extension (in which the flood control curve would be maintained at elevation 491 feet 

from September 1 through October 15).

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

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

no-action alternative, project power would cost about $45,056,220, or about $119.95 per 

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

alternative, project power would cost about $41,044,970, or about $108.83/MWh, less 

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

cost about $41,258,940, or about $109.84/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 (375,614 MWh annually); 

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

contribute to atmospheric pollution, including greenhouse gases; 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.
DRAFT 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 draft 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 draft EIS staff assesses 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 southeastern subregion of the SERC Reliability Corporation 

region of the NERC (SERC-SE). According to the NERC’s 2012 forecast, annual total 

demand for the SERC-SE subregion is projected to grow at an annual rate of 1.42 percent 

from 2013 through 2022 (NERC, 2012). NERC projects resource capacity margins 

(generating capacity in excess of demand) will remain above targets over the 10-year 

period 2013-2022. 

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

power in the SERC-SE subregion, both short and long term. The project provides lowcost power that displaces generation from non-renewable sources. Displacing the 

operation of non-renewable 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 April 5, 

2012, Interior stated that no 

federally listed species are 

known to occur within in the 

project affected area.

However, the applicant 

proposes to enhance habitat 

for longleaf pine-dependent 

species as part of the WMP, 

which could benefit the redcockaded woodpecker by 

providing more suitable 

habitat in the project area.

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 
5

Requirement Agency Status

review.

National Historic 

Preservation Act

Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation; 

Alabama State Historic 

Preservation Officer 

A final Programmatic 

Agreement was executed by 

Commission staff and the 

Alabama SHPO on 

June 12, 2012. Alabama 

Power, the Poarch Band of 

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. In 

section 5.4, we also discuss how we address the agency recommendations and 

compliance with section 10(j). 
6

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 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, 

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. In addition to the federally protected bald eagle, four mussel 

species, two fish species, two plant species, and one avian species 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 D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

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, and our analysis of project effects on the 

federally protected bald eagle are presented in section 3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources. 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. 
7

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.

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, the Commission staff 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 Code of Federal Regulations [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.
8

1.4.1 Scoping

Before preparing this draft EIS, staff 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 

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:
9

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

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

 

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

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 

Association

April 9, 2012

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.
11

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 40,000-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) a 2,000-foot-long

concrete gravity dam and earth dike section that includes (a) a 720-foot-long 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, steel-frame 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, 

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

 

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.
12

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. However, it does not own 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, Commission staff has 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, the Commission staff 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. 

Commission staff 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 11 feet between elevations 480 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, aquatic flow maintenance, 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 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 November), daily 

generation is typically reduced to 4 to 6 hours Monday through Saturday with little or no 

generation on Sundays.

 

11 This section identifies operation measures that are currently being implemented 

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

license.
13

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.

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

Power, 2008).

 

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 current license requirement, but has been 

voluntarily followed to address recent drought concerns.
14

Flood Control 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 August 30, 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 has easements on the reservoir 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. After flood flows recede, Alabama Power lowers the lake 

elevation to, or below, the flood curve elevation.

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 (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 133,000 cfs. 

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 
15

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 

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 

 

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. 
16

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. 

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 about 17,900 cfs. Alabama Power 

 

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.

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

immediately downstream of Martin dam.
17

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. In addition, article 44 of the current license for the Martin 

Dam Project required Alabama Power to enter into an agreement with the Corps to 

protect Federal navigational interests downstream of the Martin Dam Project. As a 

result, 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 lock and dam on the 

Alabama River, about 240 miles downstream of the confluence of the Coosa and 

Tallapoosa Rivers. Specifically, the 1972 agreement requires a combined release from 

Bouldin/Jordan and Thurlow dams as follows:

20

 

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 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).
18

 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. The navigation release, as it applies to the Coosa and Martin Dam 

Projects, has also been discussed in a final EA for the Coosa Project.22

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;

 implementing a Shoreline Permitting Program to guide development of the 

shoreline (i.e., construction of a boat dock) and protect the associated resources; 

and

 implementing a Public Education and Outreach Plan to inform shoreline 

landowners and the public about shoreline management and the requirements of 

the Shoreline Permitting Program. 

 

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.

22 See section 3.3.1.2 of the final EA for the Coosa River Hydroelectric Project 

No. 2146 issued December 31, 2009 (FERC and Corps, 2009).
19

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).

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

Power, 2011a).
20

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.

Proposed Operation for Seasonal Flood Control

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 (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 (13,200 cfs).

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 (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.23 At elevation 491 feet, the spillway would have an outflow 

capacity of approximately 133,000 cfs.

 

23 Provision 3 is an update to step 3 of Alabama Power’s request for revised 

exhibit H dated November 16, 1978.
21

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 prior 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.

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 inflow24 on the Tallapoosa River, calculated 

at Thurlow dam, is at or higher than the median flow25;

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, 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.

If all these conditions are met, Alabama Power would operate the project by 

targeting an elevation above the flood curve 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. 

 

24 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. 

25 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.
22

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 change 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 file results of the 

evaluation with 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/).

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

Alabama Power is developing its own drought response plan outside the licensing 

process known as the Alabama Drought Response Operating Proposal (Alabama DROP).

Alabama Power clearly states that Alabama DROP is not part of its current proposal for 

the Martin Dam Project. 

Alabama DROP 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 Alabama DROP 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 

Alabama DROP 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, a reduction in expected hydro project 

releases to support minimum instream flows and navigation flows in the Alabama River 

would occur. Reducing the expectation in 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. 

To date, Alabama Power has not identified or proposed specific operational 

responses to the different levels of drought identified in the Alabama DROP. Alabama 

Power states that they are continuing to work with various state and federal resource 

agencies to refine the Alabama DROP. 
23

Recent responses to drought conditions have included temporary amendments to 

water level requirements and flow release requirements at Lake Martin, such as

maintaining Lake Martin at a 3-foot-higher winter pool, and reductions in the minimum 

flow from Thurlow dam, as described in section 2.1.3, Project Operation, Low Flow 

Operations.

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;

 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, to be completed 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 the final Shoreline Management Plan (SMP), filed June 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 buffer zone;

 implement the final Recreation Plan, filed December 9, 2011, which includes 

measures for a total of 19 developed and undeveloped recreation sites that provide 

for boat ramps, docks, parking areas, bank fishing sites, campsites, and fishing 

piers; 

 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 purposes26;

 

26 The project boundary would be modified from 8,602 acres to 9,094 acres.
24

 develop and implement a Public Education and Outreach Plan to inform shoreline 

landowners and the public about shoreline management and the requirements of 

the Shoreline Permitting Program; and

 develop and implement a final HPMP in accordance with the PA.

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 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 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.
25

2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE

Under the staff alternative, the project would continue existing operations,27 but 

with the inclusion of most of Alabama Power’s proposed environmental measures as 

described in sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. The staff alternative also includes all the conditions 

of the WQC as they relate to maintaining a minimum DO concentration of 4.0 mg/L in 

the project tailrace while the project is generating and monitoring the project’s ability to 

do so. 

In addition, this alternative would include the following measures: 

 develop a drought management plan for the Martin Dam Project, to include a 

provision to review and revise the plan for consistency with the Alabama Drought 

Management Plan once that plan is finalized, and implement interim drought 

measures until a final drought management plan is approved by the Commission;

 revise, in consultation with FWS and Alabama Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources (DCNR), the Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation and 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 study of the American eel population and distribution in the Tallapoosa 

River from the project tailrace to the mouth of the river to a program to regularly 

trap American eels immediately below Martin dam to detect their arrival and 

indicate the need to consider passage;

 revise the Recreation Plan to include: (1) a description of the 19 project recreation 

sites, as identified in appendix D of Alabama Power’s final Recreation Plan, and a 

map or maps identifying the project recreation sites within the modified project 

boundary; (2) a discussion of the number and location of the proposed additional 

bank fishing areas; and (3) periodic updates to the revised Recreation Plan; and

 

27 Alabama Power proposes a modification to the existing operating plan to be 

implemented during floods, when the reservoir exceeds the flood curve. Alabama Power 

proposes that when the reservoir is between 486 feet and 489 feet and inflows are 

decreasing, the outflow from Thurlow dam be equivalent to the hydraulic capacity of the 

Yates development, and not the Thurlow development. Under these conditions, outflows 

from the Martin project would be reduced from about 13,200 cfs to12,400 cfs. For 

purpose of this EIS, staff considered this a minor modification of the existing operation.
26

 revise the SMP to include: (1) a discussion of the 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 

discussion of the Dredging Permit Program; (4) a discussion of the Shoreline 

Permitting Program specific to the Martin Dam Project; and (5) a provision to 

address unpermitted structures on project lands and waters. 

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.

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. 
27

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.
28

This page intentionally left blank.

.
29

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.28 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 

conclusions and recommended measures are discussed in section 5.2, Comprehensive 

Development and Recommended Alternative, of the draft 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.

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 

 

28 Unless noted otherwise, the sources of our information are the license 

application (Alabama Power, 2011a), and additional information filed by Alabama Power 

(2011b). 
30

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.

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 and are incorporated by reference per 40 C.F.R., section 1502.20:

 Yates and Thurlow Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2407), final EA issued 

February 3, 1994; and

 Coosa River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2146), final EA issued 

December 31, 2009.

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.

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 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 

of Engineers impoundments could cumulatively affect the aquatic and fisheries resources

listed above. 
31

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 aquatic 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 draft 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 

draft EIS, but there are no substantive, standalone issues associated with the proposed 

action. Therefore, socioeconomics are not assessed in this draft 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 draft EIS. 

Land use is addressed in the recreation section. We present our recommendations in 

section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

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
32

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

(Soil Conservation Service, 1999). In general, soil productivity has been greatly 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 

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.
33

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

Alabama Power, 2010h).

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

Martin (Source: Alabama Power, 2010h). 
34

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.

Sedimentation within the Project Boundary

Alabama Power identified 19 sedimentation sites within the project boundary 

using light detection and ranging (LIDAR)29 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 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.30 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.31 Alabama Power notes that 

 

29 LIDAR is an optical remote sensing technology that measures the distance to, or 

other properties, by using light to illuminate a target.

30 Issues related to localized erosion and sedimentation associated with 

recreational use and shoreline management are addressed in those sections.

31 Issues related to the potential establishment of nuisance aquatic vegetation are 

addressed in section 3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources.
35

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.32 

Based on the results of its study, Alabama Power does not propose any measures or 

further monitoring to address erosion within the project boundary.

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

greatest potential for wind and wave action. The presence of bedrock near the elevation 

of the potential erosion should limit the amount 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.33 Using its HydroBudget model, 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. 

 

32 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.

33 The hydraulic capacity of the turbines at Martin Dam is 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.
36

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 

more turbid, increasing water treatment cost, and degrading spawning habitat for fish 

requiring clean gravel, such as the paddlefish, which require clean gravel for spawning 

(Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993).

Our Analysis 

Increasing the winter pool level would 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. Under the staff alternative the spill frequency would 

be that of the existing condition. Therefore, under the staff alternative, there would not 

be any change in downstream erosion and sedimentation effects.

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 

Project34 (figure 3-3). Table 3-1 provides operation, drainage area, surface area, and 

storage volume data for all three Alabama Power hydroelectric projects on the Tallapoosa 

River. 

 

34 As its name implies, the Yates and Thurlow Project is one licensed project 

consisting of two developments: Yates and Thurlow.
37

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

modified by staff).
38

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. 
39

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 Waldey

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)

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
40

Month

Mean 

Discharge (cfs)

Maximum 

Discharge (cfs)

Minimum 

Discharge (cfs)

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.

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).

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. Alabama Power coordinates the 
41

operation of the Martin Dam Project with its other hydropower projects on the Tallapoosa 

River and the Coosa River to minimize flooding. 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. 

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 elevation 

(the top line on figure 3-6) vary more than those of the Yates and Thurlow reservoirs, 

reflecting the peaking operations at Martin and run-of-river operations at Yates and 

Thurlow. 

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,

35 and actual 

flood flow data at Martin dam and downstream at the Tallahassee 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 Tallahassee USGS gage are influenced by 

tributary inflow. 

 

35 Unimpaired conditions means conditions without the dams in place, and no 

influence of storage and flow regulation.
42

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

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

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

flood flows (in cfs) at Martin dam and the Tallahassee 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
43

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 Tallahassee 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

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).
44

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 

Tallahassee 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.

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

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 
45

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 

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
46

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

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 
47

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 

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,

36 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 3.837 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 in 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 

parameters 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 31ug/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 

 

36 Nitrogen ammonia, nitrogen nitrate, nitrogen nitrite, and nitrogen total kjeldahl.

37 The second lowest reading was 5.3 mg/L.
48

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 20 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. 

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 
49

time of the reservoir,38 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 

also provide excellent habitat for open water (pelagic) species such as striped bass, and 

threadfin and gizzard shad.

Although Lake Martin has 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).39

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 following 

summarizes the key results:

 

38 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).

39 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.
50

 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

 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, reader 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 on the Tallapoosa River as a 

key factor in triggering paddlefish spawning events in that system. 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 
51

juvenile offspring migrate to the 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 

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.

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 

rams-horn, and unidentified species of the genus Physella. Previous sampling 

downstream of Thurlow dam during minimum flow studies found the Tallapoosa 

pebblesnail about 0.5 mile downstream of the dam. The Tallapoosa pebblesnail is a 

species of moderate conservation concern in Alabama, but it is not federally listed.

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 
52

River. Flood storage within the reservoir prevents flooding in 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 due to mismanagement of releases from the Martin dam.

40

 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 

(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:

 

40 On February 25, 2005, Judith P. Bryan and 35 other parties (collectively known 

as “the farmers”) sued Alabama Power in the Elmore Circuit Court alleging that Alabama 

Power negligently operated Martin dam during the flood events in May and July 2003 

resulting in flood damage to their properties downstream of Martin dam along the 

Tallapoosa River. The Circuit Court issued a summary judgment in Alabama Power’s 

favor on January 19, 2007, based on evidence that Alabama Power complied with the 

existing requirements for operation during the May and July 2003 floods. In addition, the 

summary judgment stated that Alabama Power’s operations lessened the outflow from 

Martin dam so that the flooding was less than would have occurred without the dam. The 

farmers filed a timely appeal with the Supreme Court of Alabama, which on January 23, 

2009 affirmed the summary judgment of the Circuit Court.
53

 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 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 that would result 

from a range of proposed reservoir level alternatives. 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.41 The results are discussed below.

Upstream flood modeling was conducted using HEC-RAS. An 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).

 

41 The 100-year design flood was synthetically constructed by applying seven 100-

year events. These scale factors were developed from a Log Pearson Type III 

distribution frequency analysis using data from the ACT and ACF (Alabama-CoosaTallapoosa and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint) Rivers.
54

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). 
55

Flood modeling within Lake Martin 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 would occur as a result of the proposed flood control guideline. As 

stated previously, these results were used as downstream conditions in the upstream 

HEC-RAS model discussed above.

Lake Martin flood modeling results, shown in figure 3-9 for six different winter 

pool elevations, indicate 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.

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

elevations (Source: Alabama Power, 2010f, as modified by staff). 
56

Beginning about 1.6 miles downstream of Thurlow dam,

42 Alabama Power used a 

HEC-RAS model to simulate the downstream flood effects that would result from the 

proposed higher flood curves.

43

 After calibration and verification, the 100-year design 

flood was applied to the model, and downstream flood level increases were computed to 

be between 0.75 and 3.0 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 changes in elevation at three downstream gages. 

The 3-foot-higher winter pool proposed by Alabama Power would result in flood levels 

slightly below the 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 would 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 from a 5-foot-higher Lake Martin winter pool, which would be 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. 

 

42 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. 

43 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.
57

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).

Computed 

Existing 100-

year Flood 

Elevation –

481 ft msl 

Winter Pool

Computed 

100-year 

Flood 

Elevation –

Proposed 484 

ft 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

(ft)

SERFC 

Low

Flood 

Stage

(ft msl)

SERFC 

Moderate 

Flood Stage 

(ft msl)

SERFC 

Major Flood 

Stage (ft msl)

Tallassee Gage 

(12.6 miles 

downstream of 

Martin dam)

204.8 207.1 2.3 3.1 a a a

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
58

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 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 only a small portion of the figure shows additional areas that 

would be affected by increased flooding. 

Figure 3-10. Flooding inundation map near RM 17 (Source: Alabama Power, 2010f). 

Table 3-10 shows estimates of the currently affected area and the area that would 

be affected by different modeled scenarios. The proposed winter pool elevation of 484 

feet ml would flood an additional 2,119 acres (3.31 square miles) of land, including: 
59

 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. 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 

(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 

structures that would be affected by different modeled 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 by Lake Martin HOBO, additional affected structures include one 

industrial structure, 13 commercial structures, and 19 residential structures as compared 

to existing conditions. 
60

Table 3-11. Estimated downstream number of structures affected by flooding associated 

with alternative winter pool levels, at the 100-year flood level (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 modeling files provided by Alabama Power, show that 

increases in the downstream flood stages associated with changes in the winter pool 

elevations would be proportionately smaller with smaller flood events than 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 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, an increase in the winter pool elevation would increase reservoir 

levels, flows at Martin dam, and 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 

analysis shows that, for minor flood events, less than the 100-year flood, the effects on 

downstream flooding would be small. However, flood levels during a 100-year flood 
61

event during the winter or early spring could be between 0.75 and about 3 feet higher in 

some downstream locations. Compared to existing conditions, the 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.

Effects of Lower Spring and Summer Lake Martin Elevations on Downstream 

Flooding

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 pre-evacuate 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 yearround basis. 

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.

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 Operations.

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 
62

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.44 

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%)

4 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 Neely Henry (within 2 feet) 27 (93%) 66 (97%)

4 Logan Martin (within 2 feet) 26 (90%) 65 (96%)

 

44 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.
63

Criteriaa

Number of years criteria met

Historical Data (1983-

2010)

Modeled Data (1940-

2007)

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 Action and Alternatives, 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 85 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. 

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.

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 
64

Tallapoosa River portion of the Alabama DROP45 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.

The Downstream Landowners requested that flood control be a higher priority at 

the Martin Dam Project. 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 year-round 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 Coosa-Tallapoosa 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.

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 

the largest unregulated watersheds in the Tallapoosa and Coosa river basins. We used 

 

45 The Alabama DROP is Alabama Power’s a draft plan to manage Alabama 

Power’s water resources within the Alabama River basin during drought conditions. The 

Alabama DROP 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.
65

Dflow3.1b,46 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 

in figure 3-12, in 2007, the lake level in January and February was near elevation 481 feet 

(near the existing flood control guide curve) but due to very low inflows, the lake level 

still fell to about elevation 475.5 feet by November. In addition, the lake level was in the 

 

46 Dflow3.1b is a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recurrence interval 

estimation program for streamflow.
66

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 

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, 
67

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. 

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. 

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. 

Alabama Power’s proposed drought curve identifies only that drought conditions 

exist and 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 

Alabama DROP filed by Alabama Power for informational purposes on February 4, 

2009. In addition, the effects of the Alabama DROP on downstream environmental and 

socioeconomic resources on the Alabama River or Mobile Bay have not been evaluated 

thoroughly. Alabama DROP 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 

Alabama DROP 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. 

When lake levels approach or are below Alabama Power’s proposed drought 

curve, it is likely that the basin is in or is approaching drought conditions. Therefore, the

proposed drought curve could be an effective trigger mechanism to initiate basin wide 

drought management. A basin-wide drought management plan would help address and 

balance declining lake levels and the need to supply downstream flows in the ACT Basin. 
68

In March 2013 the Corps issued a draft EIS to update its water control manual for 

the ACT Basin. That EIS included the Corps recommendation for a basin-wide drought 

management plan for projects on both the Coosa and Tallapoosa rivers. The Corps is 

concerned that any license requirements for the Martin Dam Project not conflict with any 

future basin-wide drought plan, and recommends that the Commission defer any action 

on a drought management plan until after the Corps completes the water control manual 

and drought plan for the ACT Basin. 

Proposed Periodic Drawdown 

In the event that an increase in the winter pool level is approved and implemented, 

Alabama Power proposes to lower the reservoir to at least 481 feet every 6 years in 

coordination with weather conditions to facilitate maintenance and/or construction 

activities, including repairs to private boat docks. 

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.
69

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 if those measures were adopted. 

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 
70

discharge from the Martin Dam Project. This prediction is based upon the large size of 

the reservoir, the existing lake level fluctuation due to varying inflows, and the existing 

DO and temperature conditions that meet state water quality standards. 

Alabama Power’s current proposal to maintain a 3-foot-higher winter pool from 

January 1 to February 15 is similar to 2008 and 2009 operations, when Alabama Power 

was granted temporary amendments to its flood curve to operate Lake Martin at a 3-foothigher 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 due to 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. While this change would have a beneficial effect on aquatic habitat in the 

littoral zone, this result might also indirectly increase the nutrient concentrations in Lake 

Martin. The 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 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).
71

 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, 3 

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 3 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. 

We expect any effects of Alabama Power’s proposal to raise the winter pool three 

feet to be very small given that project operations would not change substantially. Not

changing lake level operations would maintain existing water quality conditions. 

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 we previously described, striped bass habitat in Lake Martin is characterized 

by relatively rapid seasonal changes, as 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, as suitable habitat sometimes is depleted. 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 early-fall, if specific conditions are met. Lake Martin 
72

RA recommends a 4-foot increase in the winter lake level, and Lake HOBO recommends 

a 5-foot increase in the winter pool.

Our Analysis 

Radiotelemetry studies on Lake Martin have investigated striped bass movements, 

to determine habitat use in the lake. During the summer months, most of the striped bass 

use the hypolimnion during the daytime, while foraging near the thermocline at night. 

During the late summer and fall period, the 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 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 actually result in a small increase in aquatic habitat and potential striped bass 

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. 

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 habitat within the lake would be at its minimum level. However, given 

that the releases would be from the colder, deeper layer of water, the effect of a fall 

extension on the summer level would be to shift the elevation of the warm, upper layer of 

water rather than its depth. Overall habitat conditions would be largely the same without 

or without the extension. 

Effects on Fish Passage

Historically, anadromous species (Alabama shad and striped bass) occurred in the 

Tallapoosa River, but 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 by three Corps dams on the Alabama River. 

The catadromous American eel is native to the Tallapoosa River system and has 

been documented below Thurlow dam. Alabama Power proposes to implement a multifaceted American eel investigation, in consultation with FWS.

49

 The investigation would

 

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.
73

begin in 2013 and be completed by 2016. It would cover the Tallapoosa River from the 

project tailrace to the confluence with the Coosa River. 

Our Analysis

Upstream passage has occurred at other dams where dedicated eel passage 

facilities were not present, but rarely. Alabama Power’s proposed eel study would 

document the population and distribution of eels from Martin dam downstream through 

the unimpounded reach of the Tallapoosa River downstream of Thurlow dam. However, 

there is no indication that American eels occupy the area between Martin and Thurlow 

dams. A basic trapping effort at the Martin dam to see if eels are reaching the dam would 

provide efficient surveillance for eels. Such information would be valuable in 

considering strategies for upstream passage of eels if deemed necessary. 

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 

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 
74

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 Commission staff additional information requests were insufficient or inadequate and 

that additional information would be required for Commission staff to complete its 

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 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 

 

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).
75

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).

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. 
76

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.

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

 

52 Lein and DeVries (1998) found the number of eggs per female to range from 

208,587 to 525,990.
77

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

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 

flood curve would have moderate effects, which, to the degree they existed, would be 

positive. 

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. Cumulatively these impoundments have a major effect on flow regimes in 

the Tallapoosa, Coosa, and Alabama Rivers, including moderating flood peaks. If lake 

level operations at Martin dam do not change, issuing a license would have no direct 

effect on the flood elevation resulting from the project or the suite of projects. However,

Alabama Power’s proposal to raise the winter pool at Martin dam, would reduce flood 

storage and raise the 100-year flood levels on the lower Tallapoosa by between 0.75 and 

3.0 feet depending on location. One-hundred-year flood levels on the Alabama River 

under the same operational scenarios would increase by a much lower amount, because 

the Coosa River Basin has a drainage area of about two times as large as the Tallapoosa 
78

River and would continue to have a greater influence on flows on the Alabama River. 

However, in combination with Alabama’s proposal to raise the winter pools of three 

developments of the Coosa River Hydroelectric Project, there would be a cumulative 

effect on downstream flooding. Such an effect likely would be subject to comprehensive 

analysis by the Corps in developing its basin manuals.

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. Drought planning and indicator development

would help to manage cumulative effects on drought flows.

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 staff’s 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.

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 
79

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, 

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 
80

creeping form, have about 28 percent cover. Within pine hardwood forests, the herb 

stratum is rather depauperate 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.

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
81

Wetland Type Areaa(Acres) Percent of Total (%)

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.

Aquatic Vegetation and 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. Additionally, 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, alligatorweed, coontail, pondweeds, Canadian elodea, fanwort, and 

bladderwort. 

Alabama Power identified 20 sites where potential changes in operations are most 

likely to 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 

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. Currently about 858 acres of aquatic 

vegetation occur in these areas.

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 
82

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 

occurs 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.

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). 
83

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 

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 to be part of the Sensitive Resources Lands 

Classification, 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.
84

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 

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 
85

acreage of wetland vegetation, by wetland type, within the areas inundated by the 3-foot 

and 5-foot increases. 

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 
86

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 

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.

Aquatic Vegetation and Invasive Plants

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 that 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. Existing aquatic vegetation at 

these 20 sites was measured at 858 acres, and potential increases based on the 3-foot or 5-

foot winter pool increases would result in a new estimated acreage total of 1,271 and 

1,489 acres, respectively.

In addition to the effects of an increase in the winter pool elevation, implementing 

the early spring fill and the conditional fall extension could increase the growing season 

for aquatic plants. Alabama Power estimates the early spring fill would provide a 30-day 

increase in the growing season, while 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 

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 
87

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, an

early spring fill, and the conditional fall extension would increase suitable habitat for 

aquatic vegetation and aquatic invasive species. The early spring fill and conditional fall 

extension would extend the growing season for terrestrial invasive species occurring 

along the shoreline. Without control measures in place, increases in nuisance aquatic 

vegetation would be moderate. Such increases could adversely affect the composition 

and structure of habitat, as well as wildlife diversity and species richness, through habitat

alteration and degradation. 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. 
88

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). 

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 
89

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 buffer 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 strips 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:

 the enhancement of available habitat for longleaf pine-dependent species on 

project lands; 

 the management of project lands adjacent to the Irwin Shoals Area (Secondary 

Management Area) in the upper reaches of Lake Martin for maintenance of water 

quality buffers 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. 
90

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 ft2/ac) for pines > 60 years in age and > 35 

cm (14 in) diameter at breast height (dbh); 

 a basal area between 0 and 9.2 m2/ha (0 and 40 ft2/ac) for pines 25.4 – 35 cm (10 –

14 in) dbh;

 a basal area below 2.3 m2/ha (10 ft2/ac) for pines < 25.4 cm (< 10 in) dbh; and 

 a minimum basal area of 9.2 m2/ha (40 ft2/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.
91

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 water quality 

buffers and continuing to implement BMPs would benefit wildlife through improved 

water quality, providing habitat behind natural and undeveloped shoreline, 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 

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 protected species potentially 

occurring in the project affected area, which it later expanded to ten species (Alabama 

Power, 2012b). None of the nine federally protected 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 
92

the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, Atlanta, Georgia, to K.D. Bose, Secretary, 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 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 

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. One state listed species, the lipstick 

darter (Etheostoma chuckwachatte), was collected in two tributaries to Lake Martin. No 

 

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. 
93

further analysis of the lipstick darter is included in this section because it is not protected 

under the ESA.

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. 

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 
94

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 

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.
95

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 

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 
96

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.

Other regional recreation resources include Lake Walter F. George, Lake Harding, 

Harris Reservoir (Lake Wedowee), Lake Jordan/Bouldin, Lay Lake, Mitchell Lake, 

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. 

 

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. 
97

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 

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 

 

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. 
98

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 

attributed to visitors and seasonal landowners (1,690 recreation user-days), and the 

remainder attributed to permanent residents (675 recreation user-days). 
99

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 90.5 486

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.
100

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 1,074a30,638

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

Tailwaterb6 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.

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 

numerous public boat launches at the lake. The second most popular activity is spending 
101

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. This 2008 data indicates 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). Greene et al. 

(2008) notes 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 

activity” (18,813 more recreation user-days). Hunting is projected to decrease by 19 

percent by the year 2050. 

 

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.
102

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, cotton, and 

hay. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2007) estimates 

the combined market value of agricultural products sold in Tallapoosa, Elmore, and 

Coosa Counties totaled $35 million. Other economic sectors include the automotive 

industry, manufacturing, retail trade, and public service (Alabama Development Office, 

2011). 
103

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.

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

(Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a, b, c; Alabama Power, 2010g, as 

modified by staff). 

Coosa County Elmore County Tallapoosa County

Square miles 650.93 618.49 716.52

Population, 2010 

estimate

11,539 79,303 41,616

Population 

density

17.7 persons/sq. mile 128.2 persons/sq. 

mile

58.1 persons/sq. mile

Total 

establishments

94 1,111 760

Primary 

industries

Agriculture, forestry, 

fishing, and hunting; 

construction; public 

service; retail trade 

Construction; health 

care; public service; 

retail trade

Agriculture, forestry, 

fishing, and hunting; 

construction; health 

care; retail trade

Total employees 

reported March 

2010 

1,009 13,768 10,674

Total industry 

sales (millions)

$364.9 $3,975.6 $2,498.8
104

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 14,875. The 

population of Alexander City decreased between 2000 and 2010 by 0.9 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 2005 to 

2035) for the population 65 years and older indicate a 97.6 percent, a 176.6 percent, and a 

60.0 percent increase, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau and The University of Alabama, 

2009). 

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. 

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; however, Alabama 

Power does not own 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 

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. 
105

 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 control 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.

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 
106

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, such as the Tallapoosa River. 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. 

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. 

 

59 See Alabama Power’s Response to Additional Information Request No. 26, filed 

December 9, 2011.
107

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.

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 3.3.2.2, Aquatic Resources. We discuss the effects of 

the potential reservoir changes on recreation below.

Higher Winter Lake Levels

Raising the winter pool elevation by 3 feet, to 484 feet, from the end of November 

through February 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 
108

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 

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 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 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 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 

 

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.
109

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 

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) 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. 
110

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 his 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). 

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 to 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 
111

effort to maintain higher lake levels into mid-October in most years, providing more 

certainty that boating opportunities could be available. 

Lower Summer Reservoir Elevations

While lower summer Lake Martin levels could offer some protection to 

downstream resources from flooding (discussed in section 3.3.2.2, 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 

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

Should the 3-foot winter increase of Lake Martin be implemented, 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, 
112

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.

Lake Martin RA recommends a 4-foot increase in the winter pool elevation to 

485 feet, and triggers for the conditional fall extension when other reservoirs are within 2 

feet of their rule curve instead of 1 foot as proposed by Alabama Power (one of the 

criteria for triggering the fall extension). Lake Martin HOBO recommends that the 

winter pool elevation be raised by 5 feet to elevation 486 feet, and supports extension of 

the summer pool elevation 491 feet from September 1 through October 15. 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 comment 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 Commission 

staff to adequately assess Alabama Power’s proposals. 

As discussed above in section 3.3.2.2, 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 

access points downstream of Martin dam to RM 12.9 on the Tallapoosa River. As 

described in section 3.3.2.2, 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. 
113

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.” 

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.
114

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. 
115

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
116

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
117

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 when water temperatures are 

cooler, the number of swimmers potentially affected would be expected to be low.
118

Maintaining a lower reservoir elevation in the summer, as analyzed by staff 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 3.3.2.2, Aquatic Resources. 

Recreation Plan 

Alabama Power proposes to implement its final 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 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 
119

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 need demands and in 

consultation with Alabama DCNR, Alabama Power proposes to construct a 

paved access road, single-lane boat ramp, parking lot, and courtesy pier. 

Smith Landing

 Expand the parking area at Smith Landing, as needed and in consultation 

with Alabama DCNR. 

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. 
120

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, asbuilt 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.

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 

recommendations for future improvements, after consultation with interested entities.

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 “AsBuilt/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. 
121

Alabama Power’s proposed annual meeting with Alabama DCNR and the annual 

addendum to the Recreation Plan could provide the means to inform stakeholders and the 

Commission about the status of the implementation of the Recreation Plan. However, it 

is not clear whether Alabama Power would continue to provide the annual addendum 

after it completes the proposed facility upgrades. In addition, Alabama Power does not 

provide specific provisions in the Recreation Plan beyond the Form 80 filings for longterm monitoring of recreation facilities at the project, or specific methods for 

modifications or update to the Recreation Plan.

A revised Recreation Plan, therefore, should identify and discuss each project 

recreation site, including its existing and proposed facilities, identify an implementation 

schedule, provide for future monitoring of recreation facilities at the project, and include 

a provision to review, update, or modify the Recreation Plan.

Because of the potential for increased recreation demand at the project and the

project’s proximity to nearby communities, the revised Recreation Plan should include a 

report to the Commission every 6 years, concurrent with the Form 80 filing, which

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.

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.

Shoreline Land Use Classifications

As part of its final SMP and its proposal to modify the project boundary, as 

discussed herein, Alabama Power proposes to revise the shoreline 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. The proposed shoreline land use classifications include:
122

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 would be managed by Alabama Power for existing and/or 

future recreational use. This includes land developed for commercial 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 provide a means for 

preventing 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 once owned by the company. 

Alabama Power prohibits certain activities (e.g., habitable structures) within this 

classification. There would be 690.2 acres of land within this classification.

Unclassified – This classification represents the shoreline miles where Alabama 

Power has no project lands above the 491-foot contour. There would be 507.6 miles of 

shoreline within this classification. 

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 
123

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 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.
124

Dredging – Alabama Power would allow dredging, consistent with the Corps’ 

Programmatic General Permits, except that dredging would be restricted in and around 

the shoreline classified as Sensitive Resource Lands. 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 Lands Classification (e.g., rare, 

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.

 

61 136 FERC ¶ 62,012 (2011).
125

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 sea walls 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 buffer 

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. 

Our Analysis

Implementation of Alabama Power’s proposed SMP would provide shoreline 

management guidelines, update shoreline land use classifications and policies, and 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. Approximately 507.6 acres of lands would be designated 

Unclassified. It is not clear from this lack of classification if these lands are developed 

with private facilities (e.g., docks or piers) or if applications for such facilities would be 

allowed throughout these areas. 

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 

 

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). 
126

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. 

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. 

However, 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 The proposed Shoreline Permitting Program should 

provide a general overview of Alabama Power’s progress in resolving the unpermitted 

structures. We make this finding because Alabama Power proposes to modify the current 

project boundary and those lands may have an unpermitted structure (e.g., a recreational 

vehicle). 

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 

 

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.
127

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 an increase in the total buffer width to 100 feet likely 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. 
128

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. Alabama Power proposes to maintain a 30-foot control strip 

(or vegetated buffer) around the reservoir; therefore, the buffer strip would not be 

affected by the project boundary modifications. 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 991.5 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. Alabama Power, 

however, would retain a 30-foot control strip (buffer) 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. 
129

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 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. However, it is not 

clear as to why these lands are not necessary for project purposes. For further discussion, 

see section 5.0, Conclusions and Recommendations.
130

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 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. 
131

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 projectrelated 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 draft 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. 

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, including the 

Commission staff, defined the APE for the project as lands above 491 feet enclosed by 
132

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

The following text summarizes the cultural overview provided by Alabama 

Power (2012a). 

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, 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 
133

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 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.

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).

Resource 

Number Description Impacts/Recommendationsa

1Cs93 Prehistoric “creek” site with 

pits, hearths, ceramics

Inundated by Lake Martin
134

Resource 

Number Description Impacts/Recommendationsa

1Cs151 Multicomponent site; 

Prehistoric lithic and tool 

scatter and historic stone 

chimney and artifact scatter

Recommended no integrity due to 

logging activity

1Cs152 Ceramic and sparse lithic 

scatter

Minimal disturbance

1Cs153 Lithic scatter Logging activity, but minimal 

disturbance

1Cs154 Lithic and ceramic scatter Recommended as very disturbed

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.”

1Ee33 “Creek” site Inundated most of the year 

1Ee433 Small lithic scatter (all artifacts 

reported collected)

Reported heavily impacted by 

construction and logging; erosion

1Tp3 Small lithic and tool scatter Intact

1Tp4 Small lithic scatter Unknown

1Tp31 Historic artifact scatter Heavily eroded and disturbed

1Tp32 Multi-component; historic 

chimney and artifact scatter; 

prehistoric lithic scatter 

Heavily eroded and disturbed

1Tp33 Historic artifact scatter Heavily eroded and disturbed

1Tp34 Multi-component; historic 

chimney feature and artifact 

scatter, prehistoric artifacts

Erosion

1Tp35 Burned out house and storage 

shed complex

Unknown impacts; further research 

recommended

1Tp38 Lithic scatter Normally inundated; “scoured to subsoil”

1Tp86 Lithic scatter Logging

1Tp125 Multi-component; historic 

Umphress Family Cemetery 

and lithic scatter

Surface lithic materials collected; 

cemetery abandoned and being relocated.

1Tp130 Possible historic house and 

artifact scatter

Erosion

1Tp131 Multicomponent; Historic 

artifact scatter, prehistoric 

projectile point fragment

Unknown

1Tp133 Lithic scatter Unknown

1Tp134 Portion of historic Savannah 

and Memphis Railroad

Unknown
135

a

Impacts/recommendations provided by University of Alabama (2006) and 

summarized by staff.

Alabama Power has not conducted additional cultural resources surveys within the 

project APE and acknowledges that other cultural resource sites may be present. It has 

also not undertaken National Register evaluations of any of the 22 previously identified 

sites, but in its application, it recommends that eight are potentially eligible for listing on 

the National Register (Alabama Power, 2011a). In its application, Alabama Power also 

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 and Project 

Village was also identified as potentially eligible for its contribution to the eligibility of 

the 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 
136

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.

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 Cultural Resources Work Group (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. 

Our Analysis

Alabama Power defined the project APE in consultation with the CRWG, 

including BLM and the Commission staff. 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 outside of the APE as defined would be subject to the requirements of section 

106.

Alabama Power’s February 2012 draft HPMP requires completion of all surveys 

in a segmented fashion by the 20th year of the new license. Dependent upon the length of 

a new license term, taking as much as 20 years to complete these surveys would mean 

that cultural resources sites within the APE may remain unprotected from potential 

project effects. 

To determine project-related effects on historic properties within the APE, 

Alabama Power proposes to complete the cultural resources survey of selected survey 

sites (807 acres), pursuant to a provision of a final HPMP. The CRWG agreed with this 

approach. Therefore, in accordance with this provision, the final HPMP would include a 

schedule to complete the survey. Implementation of this schedule would provide the 

necessary cultural resources inventory data. We find that completing these surveys 

within 5 years of the issuance date of the license would 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). 
137

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 

states that while some researchers claim that inundation is an effective option to preserve 

archaeological data, “the long-term mechanical and biochemical effects of deepwater 

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 on 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. 
138

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 3.3.5.1, 

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, Indian 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 on the National Register. We have not received a 

copy of the evaluation report or documentation that the Alabama SHPO has concurred 

with this recommendation. 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 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. Therefore, clarification in a final HPMP of the National Register status of the 

Martin dam, and any other project features and equipment more than 50 years old, 

including the fourth generating unit, would ensure that all potentially historic features are 

addressed. 

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 
139

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 period 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 participating 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 

result of the conditional fall extension of summer reservoir levels to October 15, which 

would occur under the proposed action.
140

This page intentionally left blank.
141

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.,

64 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 

and extend the life of plant equipment and facilities; relicensing costs; normal O&M

cost; and Commission fees.

 

64 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.
142

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 

(2013 dollars)a

$16,304,840 Alabama Power

Current annual costs 

including O&M, and FERC 

fees (2013 dollars)b

$3,004,950 Alabama Power

Relicense application costs

(2013 dollars)c

$9,136,840 Alabama Power

Term of financing (years) 20 Staff

Cost of capital (percent)d12.72 Alabama Power

Discount rate (percent)e8 Staff

Energy rate ($/MWh)f72.5 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 depreciated 

by staff to 2013 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 escalated to 2013 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 escalated to 

2013 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. 
143

4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 4-2 compares the annual costs and annual power benefits for the three 

alternatives considered in this draft 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. The average annual cost 

of alternative power value would be $53,277,090, or about $141.84/MWh. The average 

annual project cost would be $8,220,870, or about $21.89/MWh. Overall, the project 

would produce power at a cost that is $45,056,220, or about $119.95/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)

375,614 377,161 375,614b

Annual power valuea

($/MWh)

$53,277,090

141.84

$53,387,140

141.55

$53,277,090

141.84

Annual costs

($/MWh)

$8,220,870

21.89

$12,342,170

32.72

$12,018,150

32.00

Power benefit (i.e., power 

value minus costs)

($/MWh)

$45,056,220

119.95

$41,044,970

108.83

$41,258,940

109.84

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 under existing operations with 

environmental measures proposed by Alabama Power and staff. Operation of the 

project and generation would be similar to existing conditions.
144

4.2.2 Alabama Power’s Proposal

Under Alabama Power’s proposal, the project would generate an average of 

377,161 MWh of electricity annually. 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, the cost of alternative power would be $53,387,140, or about 

$141.55/MWh. The average annual project cost would be $12,342,180, or about 

$32.72/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at a cost which is 

$41,044,970, or about $108.83/MWh, less than the cost of alternative power.

4.2.3 Staff Alternative

The staff alternative has the same capacity and energy attributes as existing 

operation (i.e., the No Action alternative). 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 375,614 MWh, the cost of alternative power would be 

$53,277,090, or about $141.84/MWh. The average annual project cost would be 

$12,018,150, or about $32.00/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at a cost 

which is $41,258,940, or about $109.84/MWh, less than the cost of alternative power. 

This alternative would cost $211,880 less than the project proposed by Alabama 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.
145

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 

(2012$)a

Annual Cost

(2012$)a

Levelized

Annual Cost 

(2012$)b

Aquatic Resource Measures

1. Implement the proposed 3-foot 

increase in winter pool elevation.

Alabama Power $0 -$112,160 (1,547 MWh

gained generation)

$112,160c

2. Implement the proposed 

conditional fall extension.

Alabama Power $0 $6,730 ($11,150 in O&M

costs offset by $4,420 in 

gained generation (61 MWh))

$6,730c

3. Implement periodic drawdowns to 

elevation 481 feet msl.

Alabama Power $0 $67,440 $67,440c

4. Implement a 4-foot increase in 

winter pool elevation.

Lake Martin RA $0 -$153,410 (2,116 MWh

gained generation)

-$153,410d

5. Implement a 5-foot increase in 

winter pool elevation.

Lake Martin 

HOBO

$0 -$194,590 (2,684 MWh

gained generation)

-$194,590c

6. Implement alternative operation of 

Lake Martin for downstream flood

control. Summer lake level at 488 

feet msl.

Downstream 

Landowners

$630,000 (8,800 MWh lost

generation), plus loss in 

dependable capacity
146

Enhancement/Mitigation Measures Entities

Capital Cost 

(2012$)a

Annual Cost

(2012$)a

Levelized

Annual Cost 

(2012$)b

7. Implement alternative operation of 

Lake Martin for downstream flood 

control. Summer lake level 486 feet 

msl.

Downstream 

Landowners

$587,000 (8,100 MWh lost

generation), plus loss in 

dependable capacity

8. Develop a drought management 

plan for the Tallapoosa River.

Staff $0 $0 $0e

9. Monitor water quality in Lake 

Martin and in the tailrace as per the 

conditions of the 401 WQC.

Alabama Power, 

staff

$0 $1,123,960 $1,123,960f

10. Document the occurrence and 

abundance of eels from Martin dam 

to the Alabama River.

Alabama Power $0 $269,750 $269,750c

11. Implement annual American eel 

surveys downstream of the dam.

Staff $0 $4,660 $4,660g

Terrestrial Resource Measures

1. 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 $0 $348,430 $348,430c
147

Enhancement/Mitigation Measures Entities

Capital Cost 

(2012$)a

Annual Cost

(2012$)a

Levelized

Annual Cost 

(2012$)b

2. 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 $5,000 $348,430 $349,390c

3. Implement the WMP. Alabama Power, 

staff

$48,950 $696,680 $706,110c

4. 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
148

Enhancement/Mitigation Measures Entities

Capital Cost 

(2012$)a

Annual Cost

(2012$)a

Levelized

Annual Cost 

(2012$)b

5. 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

1. Implement the final Recreation 

Plan.

Alabama Power $853,860 $747,260 $911,820c

2. 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) describe the 

number and location of the bank 

fishing areas, and (c) include a 

provision for periodic updates of the 

plan.

Staff $868,860 $753,820 $921,270i
149

Enhancement/Mitigation Measures Entities

Capital Cost 

(2012$)a

Annual Cost

(2012$)a

Levelized

Annual Cost 

(2012$)b

Land Use Measures

1. Implement the final SMP. Alabama Power $81,550 $169,140 $184,860c

2. 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; and (e) a provision 

to address unpermitted structures at 

the project.

Staff $106,580 $169,140 $189,680j

3. 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

4. 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 0

h
150

Enhancement/Mitigation Measures Entities

Capital Cost 

(2012$)a

Annual Cost

(2012$)a

Levelized

Annual Cost 

(2012$)b

5. Develop and implement a final 

Public Education and Outreach Plan.

Alabama Power, 

staff

$0 $57,870 $57,870c

Cultural Resource Measures

1. Develop and implement a final

HPMP to include the requirements 

specified in the PA executed on June 

12, 2012.

Alabama Power, 

staff

$5,000 $443,370 $444,330k

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 escalated to 2013 dollars.

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 develop 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 combined cost of monitoring water quality in Lake Martin and the project tailrace at 

$1,096,770/year. We only recommend monitoring water quality in the project tailrace, which would cost substantially 

less. However, since Alabama Power did not provide separate costs for monitoring water quality in Lake Martin vs. the 

project tailrace, we used the $1,096,770 combined cost estimate by Alabama Power.

g Cost estimated by staff.

h We anticipate that no additional cost would be incurred to implement the measure.
151

i We added $15,000 to the proposed capital cost to finalize the plan and $60,000 per year in years 8, 14, 20, and 26 

($6,560 annual equivalent) for recreation monitoring.

j We added $25,000 to the proposed capital cost to finalize the SMP and consult with agencies.

k We added $5,000 to the proposed capital cost and $50,000 to the proposed annual cost to finalize the HPMP and 

implement additional staff components to the plan. 
152

This page intentionally left blank.
153

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 377,161 

MWh for the proposed action; 375,614 MWh for the staff alternative; and 375,614 

MWh for the no-action 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 377,161 MWh 375,614 MWh

Water 

Resources

No measures required 

for drought 

management

No specific measures 

proposed for drought 

management

Increase in winter 

pool level may 

increase downstream 

flooding 

Drought management 

plan with interim 

measures 

Winter pool level 

unchanged, thus no 

effect on downstream 

flooding

Aquatic 

Resources

Current release of low 

DO water to tailrace 

during some periods of 

generation

Fish entrainment and 

mortality would 

continue

DO improvement in 

tailrace during 

generation

Eel occurrence and 

abundance in 

Tallapoosa River 

documented and 

passage considered

Fish entrainment and 

mortality would 

continue 

Some improvement 

in paddlefish 

spawning conditions

DO improvement in 

tailrace during 

generation

Eel presence at Martin 

dam assessed and 

passage considered 

Fish entrainment and 

mortality would 

continue
154

Resource No-action Alternative Proposed Action Staff–Recommended 

Alternative

Terrestrial 

Resources

No changes to 

shoreline vegetation or 

wetlands; no protection 

of water quality and 

wildlife habitat through 

maintenance of buffer 

strips; no habitat 

enhancement for 

longleaf pinedependent species

Potential effects on 

46.9 acres of 

wetlands due to 3-

foot winter pool 

increase; potential 

gain of 413 acres of 

aquatic vegetation 

due to winter pool 

increase; protection 

of water quality and 

wildlife habitat 

through maintenance 

of buffer strips; 

habitat enhancement 

for longleaf pinedependent species

No-action alternative 

with protection of water 

quality and wildlife 

habitat through 

maintenance of buffer 

strips; habitat 

enhancement for 

longleaf pine-dependent 

species

Threatened 

and 

Endangered 

Species

No effect on federally 

listed species 

May affect, but not

likely to adversely 

affect the redcockaded 

woodpecker; no 

effect on other 

federally listed 

species

May affect, but not 

likely to adversely 

affect the red-cockaded 

woodpecker; no effect 

on other federally listed 

species

Recreation 

Resources

No change in project 

operation

Maintain 12 existing 

project recreation sites

Conditional fall 

extension and/or

higher winter pool 

level could increase 

recreational

opportunities at Lake 

Martin. Very minor 

changes at 

downstream boat 

ramps.

Improvements to 12 

existing project 

recreation sites would 

cause short-term 

increases in soil 

No-action alternative, 

thus no significant 

changes to public 

recreational 

opportunities

Beneficial effects on 

recreation resources

would occur due to an 

increase in the number 
155

Resource No-action Alternative Proposed Action Staff–Recommended 

Alternative

erosion; six project 

recreation sites and 

one site reserved for 

future recreation

development within 

the project boundary 

would increase 

recreational 

opportunities

of project recreation 

sites

Shoreline 

Management 

Program

Continue existing 

shoreline permitting 

program

The current project

boundary would not be 

modified

Public access and 

protection of 

environmental and 

cultural resources 

would continue

Project boundary

modification would 

increase the number 

of project recreation 

sites and protect the 

shoreline 

Same as proposed 

action

Same as proposed 

action

Cultural 

Resources

Eligible sites protected 

under the current 

license

Develop and 

implement final 

HPMP in accordance 

with the PA

Same as proposed 

action to avoid, 

minimize, and mitigate 

adverse effects on 

historic properties

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 beneficial public uses. This section 

contains the basis for, and a summary of, our recommendations for relicensing the 

Martin Dam Project. We weigh the costs and benefits of our recommended alternative 

against other proposed measures.
156

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 the no-action alternative with most of Alabama 

Power’s proposed environmental measures and 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 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.

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. 

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.
157

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 

land uses on 1,295 acres within the project boundary to be consistent with 

existing land use or other project purposes.

Cultural Resources

 Develop and implement an HPMP in accordance with the PA, executed on 

June 12, 2012.

5.2.2 Measures Recommended by Staff

We recommend the measures described above, and the following additional staff 

measures: (1) regulate the Martin Lake level according to the existing guide curves 

(flood control curve, operating curve, and drought curve); (2) develop a drought 

management plan for the project which includes provisions for minimum flows and 

downstream navigation; (3) implement measures for flood control operation based on

Alabama Power’s Exhibit H, with staff modifications; (4) revise the Nuisance Aquatic 

Vegetation and Vector Control Management Program; (5) require regular trapping for 

eels immediately below Martin dam; (6) revise the Recreation Plan; and (7) revise the

SMP. Below, we discuss our additional staff-recommended measures.

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 

(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 (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 (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 
158

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 prior 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 403, identifies staff’s 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 four following exceptions: 

1) Item No. 1 increases the flood curve elevation from 481 feet to 484 feet. We 

are not recommending a 3-foot change in the winter pool elevation, thus this 

change is not recommended.

2) Item No. 2 reduces the releases from Martin dam from 13,200 cfs to 12,400 

cfs when inflows to Lake Martin are decreasing. This minor reduction in 

releases from Martin dam has the potential to increasing flooding in Lake 

Martin, thus we recommend that Alabama Power consult with the 

Commission’s Atlanta Regional Office and provide a report which analyzes 

the potential effect on local flooding and the adequacy of the spillway to 

provide such flows. Appendix A, Article 301 further describes this 

recommendation.

3) 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. Therefore, we are not recommending this 

change. 

4) 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 
159

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 this modification of Exhibit H, 

which effectively reduces the level of coordination with the Corps; therefore, we are not 

recommending this change.

Drought Management Plan

As discussed in section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, in wet and normal water 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. Alabama Power proposes no specific 

measures for operations during droughts, other than revising the drought curve as 

described in section 2.2.2, Proposed Operations. The drought curve only identifies that 

drought conditions exist and does not specify procedures for how project operations 

should be managed in a drought. The draft Alabama DROP, which is still in the 

development stage, does not contain detailed operational measures. The Alabama 

DROP does specify additional indicators of drought conditions that would be used in 

the final plan; for example, meteorological and hydrologic variables would be 

considered in addition to the drought curves. 

In order to provide indicators and response measures specific to the Martin Dam 

Project we recommend that Alabama Power develop, in consultation with the Corps and 

other state and federal agencies, a drought management plan for the Tallapoosa River 

that would balance competing water resource needs in the basin, including for the 

Martin Dam Project reservoir. The drought management plan should: (1) assist in 

operating the project during low inflows and/or drought conditions; (2) provide a means 

to prioritize water needs such that Alabama Power and the agencies can cooperatively 

determine whether flow obligations can be temporarily reduced or suspended, or the 

reservoir operations modified to allow drawdowns to meet flow needs; (3) serve to limit 

adverse effects on resources from the fluctuating lake level, low lake levels, or reduced 

downstream flows; and (4) ensure that appropriate consideration is given to generation 

needs, navigation, the protection of aquatic resources, sensitive species, water supply, 

water quality, agriculture, and recreational opportunities.

For the Martin Dam Project, the Commission’s Standard Article 12 gives the 

Commission ample authority to ensure that downstream navigation will be protected. 

The Corps is currently updating its reservoir regulation manuals to provide a 
160

management plan for the Coosa and Tallapoosa river basins that would include drought 

management.65 Therefore, the drought management plan for the Martin Dam Project 

should include a provision for updating the plan once the Corps’ updated ACT Manual 

is finalized.

As an interim measure, until the final drought management plan is approved by 

the Commission, during drought conditions, for each specific case in which flow 

releases from the Martin Dam Project are inadequate to meet the current navigation 

flow requirement, Alabama Power should consult with the Corps and file a request for 

Commission approval for any changes which may be needed to maintain navigation 

downstream of the project. 

While important, navigation is just one project purpose that needs to be 

considered in a drought management plan. The plan should also address water supply, 

fish and wildlife resources, and power generation. Implementation of a drought 

management plan would provide long-term benefits to these resources by coordinating 

management of flows during drought years. We estimate the cost of developing and 

finalizing the drought management plan would be relatively minor as the basis for a 

plan has already been developed by Alabama Power’s DROP. Additional costs would 

be included in current administrative costs. The long- term benefits would justify the 

low cost for developing the plan; therefore, we recommend this measure. 

Water Quality Monitoring

Recent monitoring data have demonstrated that Martin dam releases meet state 

standards for DO nearly 100 percent of the time. Alabama Power proposes to monitor 

DO in the tailrace during generation for 3 years after license issuance. Additional 

monitoring beyond the initial 3 years, however, may be required if monitoring results 

indicate that additional measures may be necessary to meet the state DO standards. 

Alabama Power’s proposed measures to monitor water quality in the tailrace (Condition 

No. 3 of WQC), monitor and control aquatic vegetation and implement water quality 

related BMPs as discussed in sections 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, 3.3.3, Terrestrial 

Resources, and 3.3.5, Recreation Resources and Land Use, would detect and limit any 

possible project effects on water quality, even though we expect any effects to be small 

given that project operations would not change substantially. Based on costs provided 

by Alabama Power, we estimate that the levelized annual cost for the water quality 

monitoring programs would be $1,123,960. Tailrace monitoring is a mandatory

measure of the WQC, and the additional monitoring proposed by Alabama Power. 

 

65 On March 1, 2013, the Corps issued a draft EIS for an update of the water 

control manual for the ACT Basin in Georgia and Alabama. This draft EIS describes 

the Corps’ proposal for a basin-wide drought management plan, which would include 

the Martin Dam Project, and provisions for ensuring adequate flows for navigation in 

the Alabama River.
161

would ensure that water quality is protected in Lake Martin and in the Tallapoosa River 

downstream of Martin dam, both of which support important aquatic resources and 

provide recreational opportunities. We conclude that the cost is worth the benefits.

American Eel Trapping Plan

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, in consultation with FWS and Alabama DCNR, from the 

project tailrace to the mouth of the Tallapoosa River. Alabama Power’s proposed eel 

study would estimate the population and distribution of eels from Martin dam

downstream through the unimpounded reach of the Tallapoosa River downstream of 

Thurlow dam. Data gathered from this study would determine any potential need for 

additional measures to protect or enhance American eel at the project. We estimate that 

the levelized annual cost for this eel study would be $269,750. 

Because eel passage may be blocked below Thurlow dam, the nexus between eel 

studies below Thurlow dam and Martin dam is tenuous. A general survey of eel 

distribution in the Tallapoosa River, as proposed by Alabama Power, is not necessary to 

identify a need for eel passage at Martin dam or to develop specific measures to do so. . 

However, an annual eel trapping effort immediately below Martin dam would be more 

informative and relevant to the decision of whether passage is needed at Martin dam 

because such an effort would determine when eels are present at Martin dam. We 

estimate that sampling for eel annually over the 30-year period for which we conduct 

our economic analysis, would have a capital cost of $180,000, or a levelized annual cost 

of $4,660. Regular sampling for eel would provide the basis for possible actions the 

Commission could require at future dates related to eel passage. We find that the 

benefits of this approach would justify this cost and recommend the Alabama Power

develop a plan to trap eels at Martin dam annually to identify any need for development 

of an upstream eel passage. The trapping plan would include, but not be limited to, the 

following provisions: (1) an eel trapping design for the waters immediately below 

Martin dam including a method for determining the appropriate trapping period for 

detecting upstream migrants; (2) a schedule for implementing the annual eel trapping 

program at Martin dam within a year of plan approval by the Commission; and (3) 

preparation of an annual report to be filed with the Commission following each year of 

trapping. The report should contain any recommendation for continuing or modifying 

the sampling program.

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 a minimum of 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 
162

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 

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 with a plan to monitor increases 

in aquatic vegetation for the purpose of reducing potential effects of increased nuisance 

aquatic vegetation on the ecological balance of the reservoir. 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 cost of 

preparing the survey plan to be $5,000 per 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 final Recreation Plan (filed on 

December 9, 2011). The plan: (1) describes recreation sites owned and operated by 

Alabama Power and other entities at the project; (2) provides for the continued O&M of 

18 existing recreation sites, 12 of which are currently recognized project facilities and 6 

that would become project facilities under the new license; (3) provides for the 

improvements to the amenities at these facilities, including improvements to boat ramps 

and parking areas, new bank fishing sites, and trash removal; and (4) reserving one 

additional site, the 36.4-acre Ponder Camp (Stillwaters Area Boat Ramp), for future 

recreation development as demand increases. 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. 

However, Alabama Power’s proposed Recreation Plan includes non-project 

facilities (i.e., facilities that it would not operate and maintain), does not reflect all 

existing project facilities, does not describe how Alabama Power would monitor 

recreational use and demand, and does not provide certain details (e.g., number of 

parking spaces). Accordingly, we recommend that the revised Recreation Plan include, 

at a minimum, the following components: (1) a description of the amenities at the 19 

project recreation sites; (2) a map or maps showing the location of the 19 project 

recreation sites in relation to the project boundary; (3) an implementation schedule for 

the proposed enhancement; (4) a provision to review or update the plan every 6 years, 

including monitoring protocols; and (5) a provision to file a Recreation Monitoring 

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

effects, and any additional measures or modifications to the project recreation sites that 
163

may be needed and a schedule for implementing such changes. These modifications 

would improve Commission oversight of the license requirements and ensure future 

recreation needs are met at the project. 

In section 4, Developmental Analysis, we estimate that the levelized annual cost 

for a revised Recreation Plan that includes the additional provisions described above 

would be $921,270. We find the benefits of this measure would justify the cost and 

therefore, would be in the public interest. 

Public Education and Outreach Plan

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 $57,870. 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 

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 

riprap, gabions, bioengineering techniques (willow and wetland plantings along Lake 

Martin shoreline), and native vegetation for shoreline stabilization, which would control 

or minimize soil erosion and improve aquatic and wildlife habitat. 

Interior recommends that Alabama Power implement its final SMP with a 

provision to limit construction of seawalls to only instances where necessary to protect 
164

land and property. 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. 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. With regard to Interior’s recommendation to increase the total 

buffer width to 100 feet, Alabama Power does not own the land beyond elevation 491 

feet and would need to acquire rights to those lands. While some environmental 

benefits could accrue from an increased buffer, there is nothing in the record to indicate 

that an increased buffer is necessary. The existing 30-foot buffer is adequate and we do 

not recommend expanding the project boundary in order to increase the buffer zone.

Additionally, 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. 

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 lands and waters, 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 at each of its project reservoirs, including the Martin Dam Project. 

Thus, to protect project lands and waters the revised SMP should address an 

unpermitted structure at the project. 

Therefore, we recommend that Alabama Power file a revised SMP that includes 

among other items: (1) a provision for BMPs to protect environmental resources and 

control soil erosion and sedimentation; (2) a description of the Shoreline Compliance 

Program specific to the Martin Dam Project; (3) a provision to limit construction of a 

new seawall; and (4) a provision to address unpermitted structures on its project lands 

and waters, including a schedule for resolution. We estimate that the levelized annual 

cost for our recommended revised SMP would increase the cost from $184,860 to 

$189,680. We find the benefits of this measure would justify the cost and, therefore, 

would be in the public interest. 

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 project 

under the terms of its current license. There are 1.39 acres of federal lands administered 

by BLM within the project boundary.

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 project 

boundary. Alabama Power proposes to reclassify land use on 1,295 acres within the 
165

project boundary. A 30-foot control strip (or vegetated buffer) would be maintained on 

the project lands withdrawn from the project boundary. The project boundary, 

therefore, would be modified from 8,602 acres to 9,094 acres. As previously discussed 

in section 3.3.5, Recreation Resources and Land Use, the affected acreage primarily 

encompasses Alabama Power-owned land for project recreation, and should be brought 

into the project boundary. 

The estimated 499.2 acres proposed to be removed from the project boundary 

would 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 is not needed for project purposes because the land 

is either in commercial use or proposed for potential residential use and should be 

removed from the project boundary.

Of the 499.2 acres Alabama Power proposes to remove from the project 

boundary, 373.1 acres are designated as Natural/undeveloped. Because it is not clear 

why these lands are not necessary to project purposes we recommend a revised SMP 

include a provision for Alabama Power to: (1) explain why the 373.1 acres are no 

longer needed for project purposes and (2) identify this acreage on a map or maps in 

relation to the project boundary.

Alabama Power proposes to classify 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 classify lands under the Recreation Land classification 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 also 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.
166

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.66 The draft HPMP was 

developed after consultation with the CRWG, consisting of Alabama Power, Alabama 

SHPO, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, and the Alabama Coushatta Tribe of Texas. 

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, 

including BLM and the Commission staff. The APE for the project is 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 of Alabama Power’s 

proposal to modify the current project boundary, the APE may need to be revised to 

reflect the change and potential project-related effects on cultural resources. The 

CRWG, therefore, included a provision of an HPMP for Alabama Power to identify the 

APE for the project and include a map or maps that clearly show the APE in relation to 

the project boundary. 

Alabama Power has not completed cultural resources surveys of the project APE. 

Therefore, the HPMP requires Alabama Power to conduct a cultural resources survey 

prior to any project-related ground disturbing construction activities within the project’s 

APE which have not been subject to an archaeological survey, including, but not limited 

to, recreation developments and project-related protection, mitigation, and enhancement 

measures. Further, the HPMP requires Alabama Power to complete cultural resource 

surveys of selected sites (807 acres). 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).

The project powerhouse has been recommended as eligible for listing on the 

National Register. The original three generators constructed in the late 1920s 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 now greater than 50 years old and may contribute to the eligibility of 

the powerhouse. In addition, the dam was constructed in 1926. Therefore, the HPMP 

requires Alabama Power to complete the identification of historic properties within the 

project’s APE. This measure would address the National Register status of the dam, 

 

66 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. 
167

and any other project features and equipment older than 50 years, including the fourth 

generating unit. 

The HPMP defines a process for evaluating and assessing the effects of future 

project-related actions on cultural resources and historic properties. The HPMP 

provides 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 sediments and 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/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 an

HPMP within one year of license issuance. We estimate that the levelized annual cost 

for an HPMP would be $444,330. 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 proposed or 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 nonpower resources that would be worth their cost. The following discussion explains why 

we did not recommend such measures.

Increase in Lake Martin Winter Pool

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. While an increase in winter lake 
168

level may have benefits to aquatic resources and recreation use at the reservoir, it would 

reduce flood storage within the reservoir and result in an increase in flood levels 

downstream of the project and lesser effects upstream of the project. As described in 

section 3.3.2.2, Effects of Increased Winter Pool Elevation on Upstream and 

Downstream Flooding, Alabama Power’s studies conclude that the potential increase in 

flooding would be modest, but could affect an additional 13 residential structures, 10 

commercial structures, and public roads.67

Alabama Power’s studies conclude that the increase in 100-year flood elevation 

in the Tallapoosa River below Martin dam, associated with Alabama Power’s proposed 

3-foot winter pool increase, is estimated to vary between 0.75 and 3 feet, with the 

greater increases in the upper section of the river. This increase in the 100-year flood 

level68 would increase the flood area by about 10 percent under the Alabama Power 

proposal, by about 12 percent under the Lake Martin RA recommendation, and by about 

16 percent under the Lake Martin HOBO recommendation. There could be modest 

cumulative effects in the Alabama River in combination with proposals by Alabama 

Power to reduce winter flood storage on the Coosa River as well. 

Spring spawning flows for paddlefish downstream of Thurlow dam would be 

enhanced by an increase in the winter pool because the amount of spill would be greater 

and the downstream water levels would be higher. At the lake level of 484 feet 

proposed by Alabama Power, days per year above 6,000 cfs, the flow that provides the 

necessary depth for spawning, would increase during the spawning season by 5 (from 

19 to 24). At the level of 485 feet proposed by Martin RA, the number of days above 

6,000 cfs would double (from 19 to 38). At the level of 486 feet proposed by 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.

The proposed increase in the winter pool elevation would likely result in a 

beneficial effect by providing additional recreation access to Lake Martin. Currently, 

seven project boat ramps within, or proposed to be within, the project boundary provide 

public access to the winter pool (usable boat ramp elevation of 481 feet or less). An 

increase in winter pool elevation of 3 feet to 484 feet, as proposed by Alabama Power, 

 

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 is error in the estimation, the actual effects would be more severe.

68 These increases are based on a 100-year storm event occurring during a period 

when the reservoir is at the proposed or recommended higher winter pool elevation as 

compared to the existing winter pool level of elevation 481 feet. 
169

would allow an additional six boat ramps within the project boundary to be usable 

during the winter.

With regard to shoreline landowners and access to their private boat docks, 

survey results (Alabama Power, 2010g; 2011b) 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 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 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 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 current conditions. 

Stakeholders have identified the importance of achieving a full lake level in the 

spring/summer season, and its importance to Lake Martin recreation. A higher winter 

pool elevation increases the potential for Lake Martin to reach full lake level 

(approximately 490 feet) by May of each year, particularly during drought years. 

Staff’s recommendation not to adopt Alabama Power’s proposal to raise the 

winter pool elevation would not necessarily affect Alabama Power’s efforts to fill Lake 

Martin in early spring. Alabama Power has effectively reduced potential impacts by 

requesting variances to maintain higher lake levels through the winter or begin raising 

lake levels earlier in the year in periods of forecasted drought conditions. Alabama 

Power also has been granted variances by the Corps lowering the required combined 

release requirement for the Tallapoosa and Coosa Rivers. In cases of forecasted drought 

conditions, Alabama Power may continue to request variances in project operation. 

With the combination of reductions in releases from the project, as well as a 

maintaining higher winter pool elevation or early initiation of raising the pool, when 

justified by drought conditions, Alabama Power should be able to fill Lake Martin as 

effectively as it would by maintaining a higher winter pool elevation each year.

Alabama Power’s proposed 3-foot increase in the winter pool would have a 

levelized annual benefit of $112,160, because there would be a net gain in energy 

generation of 1,547 MWh. Slightly higher energy gains would occur with Lake Martin 

RA’s recommended 4-foot increase (2,116 MWh) and Lake Martin HOBO’s 

recommended 5-foot increase (2,684 MWh). If the winter pool elevation were not 

increased, the need for water quality monitoring in the pool would be eliminated, 

removing a portion cost of $1,096,770/year estimated for both reservoir and tailrace 

monitoring.

The benefits associated with the varied proposals and recommendations to 

increase lake levels must be considered against the flood effects to downstream 

landowners. The benefits of increasing the winter pool elevation by 3, 4, or 5 feet, 
170

including increased electricity generation and increased access to private boat docks 

during the winter where there are useable public boat ramps, are difficult to justify 

considering the additional risk of flooding at least 23 residential and commercial 

structures, and public roads downstream of Martin dam. Therefore, the staff alternative 

does not include the recommendations from Alabama Power, Lake Martin RA, or Lake 

Martin HOBO for increased winter pool elevations.

6-Year Drawdown of Lake Martin to Elevation 481 feet 

If the Commission were to approve Alabama Power’s proposal to implement a 

3-foot increase in the winter pool to 484 feet, Alabama Power proposes to 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. 

Should the measure be implemented it would allow shoreline landowners and 

commercial landowners to make repairs to non-project features, such as a boat dock and 

a seawall. This would be a reasonable operational measure that would allow shoreline 

landowners and commercial landowners to schedule required repairs with contractors. 

The measure would not be implemented in drought periods, so there would be no effect 

on the ability of Lake Martin to refill by the beginning of the spring recreation season. 

The measure may facilitate scouring of sediment from depositional areas at the creek 

mouths. Overall, the measure should not have substantial effects on public recreational

use because the drawdown would occur during the winter when recreational use is low. 

Current project operation provides winter pool levels at 481 feet. This measure 

is only necessary if the 3-foot increase in the winter pool is implemented, raising the 

winter pool level to 484 feet. However, as discussed above, we do not recommend the 

3-foot, 4-foot, or 5-foot increase in the winter pool level. 

Downstream Landowners’ Recommendation for Flood Control 

The Downstream Landowners express concern regarding flood damage to their

lands located downstream of the Martin Dam Project.69 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 

 

69 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.
171

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.

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 

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 staff’s 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, staff estimated this is equivalent to a 
172

loss of $210,000 per year. Absent actual loss data, this provides staff’s 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. 

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 due to drought have occurred infrequently on 

Lake Martin. However, had Lake Martin been maintained at elevation 488.0 feet in 

Year 2000 (i.e., to provide 3 feet of storage), with historical releases the reservoir would 

have dropped below the drought curve by July of that year, thus triggering drought 

operations.

In summary, 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. We also do not recommend operating the Martin Dam Project 

with dedicated flood storage. Although technically feasible, staff’s modeling shows that 
173

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.

Conditional Fall Extension

Alabama Power proposes to implement a conditional fall extension, in which the 

flood curve would be maintained at elevation 491 feet for an additional 1.5 months 

(September 1 through October 15), in years that each of four operational conditions are

met. The four operational conditions would be calculated daily during the month of 

September. As proposed, the measure could be terminated at any time it was 

demonstrated that the four conditions were not being met. Under Alabama Power’s 

proposal, the company also could terminate the extension at its discretion. Alabama 

Power 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. Lake 

Martin HOBO and Lake Martin RA recommend the conditional fall extension with 

Lake Martin RA recommending a modification of the criterion that Lake Harris, 

upstream on the Tallapoosa River be within 2 feet of its guide curve rather than 1 foot

as proposed by Alabama Power.

Staff’s best estimate is that the flood curve would be extended infrequently, 

likely less than 1 in 3 years under Alabama Power’s proposal. Staff’s analysis shows 

that there would be minimal public benefit from a conditional fall extension in years 

that it would be implemented, because recreational use decreases significantly after 

Labor Day. As discussed in section 5.2.2, Additional Measures Recommended by Staff, 

shoreline landowners who access Lake Martin from their private docks would benefit 

from higher lake levels. 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. 

While the Lake Martin RA modification to Alabama Power’s proposal would 

increase the frequency of criteria for the conditional fall extension being met, it would 

require lowering the threshold for the lake level at Lake Harris to 2 feet below the guide 

curve. However, a lake level 2 feet below the guide curve at Lake Harris indicates 

reduced water availability in the Tallapoosa River system. Staff does not recommend 

changing that criterion.

The conditional fall extension is not likely to have significant impacts on 

downstream flow needs because the measure would be implemented during above 
174

average flow years when adequate flows are available throughout the Tallapoosa and 

Coosa River Basins. The measure would slightly increase project generation. 

Generation at the Martin Dam Project would increase from 377,162 MWh/year to 

377,352 MWh/year, an increase of 191 MWh/year valued at $22,000/year. The cost for 

determining whether to initiate the fall extension each year of the conditional fall 

extension would be about $10,000 per year. 

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. The conditional fall 

extension would be implemented outside the timeframe that flooding is most likely to 

occur in the region. However, staff identified rapid increases in Lake Martin’s water 

level (a sudden 3.5-foot rise from 486 feet to 489.5 feet) in 2 years between 1990 and 

2011 (see figure 3-5), which indicate potential for increased downstream flooding under 

some conditions. 

The potential benefits associated with the conditional fall extension must be 

considered against the flood effects to downstream landowners, the likelihood of 

implementation. The conditional fall extension would not be an operational measure 

that recreational users could rely on consistently. It would not be implemented every 

year and more likely would occur once every 3 years, or less. It would require 

analyzing detailed criteria at least annually to determine that it could be implemented, 

but it could be decided against or suspended at Alabama Power’s discretion. Its benefits 

are limited. The benefits would be primarily limited to shoreline property owners. 

Finally, because of existing flexibility in Alabama Power’s current operation, at least 

some of the benefit intended by the proposal for the conditional fall extension could be 

provided without Alabama Power’s proposed changes in operating requirements. 

Therefore, the staff-recommended alternative does not include the proposal for the 

conditional fall extension.

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. 

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 in local areas. 

Implementing soil erosion control measures and revegetating disturbed areas, where 
175

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. 

Table 5-2 lists Interior’s recommendations filed subject to section 10(j), and 

whether the recommendations are adopted under the staff alternative. Environmental 

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.
176

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 sea walls 

should be 

constructed unless 

necessary to protect 

land and property.

Interior Yes $0 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 with to 

at least 100 

feet would 

require 

acquisition of 

private 

property

without 

specified 

benefit, not 

recommended 
177

Recommendation Agency

Within the 

scope of 

section 10(j)

Annualized 

cost Adopted?

3. 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. 

4. Consider 

utilizing the 

Tallapoosa River 

portion of the 

Alabama DROP 

when assessing 

drought operations.

Interior No. Not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect, 

mitigate, or 

enhance fish 

and wildlife 

resources

$0 Adopted
178

Recommendation Agency

Within the 

scope of 

section 10(j)

Annualized 

cost Adopted?

5. 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

In its draft biological assessment Alabama Power describes its support of aquatic 

restoration within the Mobile Basin as an off-license measure (Alabama Power, 

2012b).

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.
179

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.
180

This page intentionally left blank.
181

6.0 LITERATURE CITED

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.

Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs. 2012. Alabama Statewide 

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP): 2008-2012. Montgomery, 

Alabama.

_______. 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.
182

_______. 2010a. Study Report 10 - Erosion and sediment report. Prepared by 

Environmental Compliance for Alabama Power. October 2010. 

_______. 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 
183

Thurmond Institute of Government and Public Affairs, Clemson University. 

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). 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). 19988. 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.

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). 2007. Environmental assessment for 

a temporary variance to the Martin Project rule curve and minimum flow releases 
184

at the Yates and Thurlow Project. Martin Dam Project No. 349-134 and the 

Yates and Thurlow Project No. 2407-121. November 19, 2007.

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. 

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%20TA%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. 
185

_______. 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 

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 
186

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.

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. 225 pp. 

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. 
187

_______. 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.

Platt, J. and D. Munger. 1999. Impact of fluctuation 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.
188

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. 2010a. Coosa County QuickFacts from the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Available at http://quickfacts.cenus.gov. Accessed April 11, 2012.

_______. 2010b. Elmore County QuickFacts from the U.S. Census Bureau. Available 

at http://quickfacts.census.gov. Accessed April 11, 2012.

_______. 2010c. Tallapoosa County QuickFacts from the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Available at http://quickfacts.census.gov. Accessed April 11, 2012.

_______. 2010d. Alexander City QuickFacts from the U.S. Census Bureau. Available 

at http://quickfacts.census.gov. Accessed April 11, 2012.

U.S. Census Bureau and The University of Alabama. 2009. Alabama County 

Population 65 and Over 2000-2005 and Projections 2010-2035. August 2009. 

Available at http://cber.cba.ua.edu. Accessed April 11, 2012.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2007. Census of Agriculture. County 

Profiles for Tallapoosa, Coosa, and Elmore, Alabama. Available at 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php. Accessed April 11, 2012. 

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.
189

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Jennifer Adams—Project Coordination, 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)
190

This page intentionally left blank.
191

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

John M. Sullivan, RPA

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

Eastern States Office 

411 Briarwood Drive, Suite 404

Jackson, MS 39206-3058

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

The Old Post Office Building, Suite 803

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20004

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 434

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

Alabama Rivers Alliance

Mitchell L. Reid, Program Director

Alabama Rivers Alliance

2027 (A), 2nd Ave. N.

Birmingham, AL 35203

U.S. Department of Interior

Patricia Woods

Office of the Field Solicitor

800 S. Gay Street, Suite 800

Knoxville, TN 37929

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
192

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 70532-0818

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
193

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

Chief Gregory E. Pyle

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

3010 Enterprise Blvd.

Durant, OK 74701

Richard M. Bronson

Lake Watch of Lake Martin Inc

P.O. Box 72

Alexander City, AL 35011-0072

Tribal Chairman Buford Rolin 

Poarch Band of Creek Indians

5811 Jack Springs Road

Atmore, AL 36502

Principal Chief A.D. Ellis

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
This page intentionally left blank.
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 301. Reservoir Operation Report.

Within 60 days of the date of this license, the licensee shall submit one copy to the 

Division of Dam Safety and Inspections (D2SI)–Atlanta Regional Engineer and two 

copies to the Commission (one of these shall be a courtesy copy to the Director, D2SI), of 

a report describing the effects of modifying flood control operations on local flooding 

and spillway adequacy of the project dam.

The report should include a flood routing study that evaluates the ability of the 

project to safely pass flows up to the Inflow Design Flood. The frequency that the nonoverflow structures would be overtopped under the historical and limited drawdowns 

should be compared. The report should discuss if there would be an increased likelihood 

of low-lying structures located upstream and downstream of the reservoir being flooded 

under the new operating scenario. If necessary, the report should include a plan and 

schedule for performing any remedial measures necessary to ensure the continued safe 

operation of the project during high flows.

The licensee shall not implement the revised reservoir operation plan for the 

project until the D2SI-Atlanta Regional Engineer determines that these altered project 

operations have no adverse impact of project safety, and issues a letter indicating such.

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
A-2

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 may 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. Upon approval of the 

Reservoir Operations Report required in Article 301 of this license, the licensee shall

implement the lake level management provisions of this article. To protect the ecological 

and recreational values of Lake Martin and continue to provide for flood control and 

downstream navigation, the licensee shall operate the Martin Dam Project in accordance 

with the guide curves and elevations as shown in the figure below and described herein: 
A-3

Flood Control Curve. The flood control curve reflects the maximum elevation at 

which the lake may be maintained before implementing the flood control provisions as 

identified in Article 403. On January 1, the curve is at elevation 481 feet mean sea level

(msl) and remains at this elevation until February 17, when filling begins. On this date 

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

this elevation until August 30, and is gradually lowered 10 feet to elevation 481 feet msl 

by December 31. 

Operating Curve. The area between the flood control curve and operating curve 

represents the range in which the lake should be maintained under normal conditions. On 

January 1, the curve is at elevation 477 feet msl and gradually rises to elevation 480 feet 

msl on February 28. On this date the curve gradually rises to elevation 490 feet msl by 

April 28, and remains at elevation 490 feet msl until July 5. The curve gradually lowers 

to elevation 486 feet msl by October 31, and continues to lower to elevation 477 feet msl 

by December 31. The licensee shall notify the Commission when Lake Martin is at or 

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

for 7 days Labor Day through May 31.

 

Drought Curve. Reservoir elevations below the drought curve indicate that Lake 

Martin is in drought condition. On January 1, the curve is at elevation 477 feet msl and 

remains at this elevation until February 28. On this date the curve rises to elevation 487 

feet msl by May 31, then gradually lowers to elevation 477 feet msl by November 31. 

The curve remains at elevation 477 feet msl December 1 through December 31. The 

drought curve shall be included in the drought management plan required in Article 404.

The licensee shall, to the extent possible, maintain the lake level between the flood 

control and operating curves, except as provided in Articles 403 for flood control and 404 

for drought management. In addition, between May 1 and August 31, the licensee shall 

manage the lake level to be no less than 0.5 foot below the flood control curve (i.e., 490.5 

feet msl). The licensee shall continually review hydrologic conditions and adhere to the 

requirements of Article 403 during flooding conditions, and Article 404 during drought 

conditions. 

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 shall notify the Commission as 

soon as possible, but not later than 10 days after each such incident, and shall provide the 

reason for the change in lake levels. For variances for any reason other than those listed 

in this paragraph, the licensee shall notify the Commission as soon as possible, but no 

longer than three business days after the incident.
A-4

Draft Article 403. Flood Control Operations. Upon approval of the Reservoir 

Operations Report required in Article 301 of this license, the license shall operate the 

Martin Dam Project for flood control as provided for in this article.

The licensee has easements up to elevation 491 feet mean sea level (msl), thus the 

licensee shall operate the project such that Lake Martin does not exceed elevation 491 

feet msl. Flood control operation shall be guided by the following:

(1) When Lake Martin is above the flood control curve and between elevations 

481 and 486 feet msl, the turbines at Martin dam shall be operated to provide an outflow 

from Thurlow dam of at least the equivalent of the hydraulic capacity of the turbines at 

Yates dam (12,400 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 shall be operated to 

provide an outflow from Thurlow dam of at least the equivalent of the 

hydraulic capacity of the turbines at Thurlow dam (13,200 cfs).

b) With decreasing inflows, the turbines at Martin dam shall 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 (12,400 cfs). 

(3) When Lake Martin is above the flood control curve and above elevation 489 

feet msl, the turbines at Martin dam shall 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 shall 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, the licensee shall operate 

the project to return the lake to elevation 491 feet msl as soon as practicable. At 

elevation 491 feet msl 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 Lake Martin shall not exceed the 

concurrent 3-hour average inflow rate, except to evacuate accumulated surcharge storage 

prior 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 shall continue its current practice of notifying the National 

Weather Service (NWS) when spillway gate operation is used in flood control operations 

and shall continue to share data with the NWS' Southeast River Forecast Center 
A-5

(SERFC), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). In addition, the licensee shall 

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 shall 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.

Draft Article 404. Drought Management Plan. Within 180 days from the date of 

license issuance, the licensee shall file with the Commission for approval, a drought 

management plan that incorporates the drought curve, as described in Article 402. The 

plan shall include a provision to review and revise the plan for consistency with the 

licensee’s Alabama Drought Response Operating Proposal, and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers’ Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa Reservoir Regulation Manual within 90 days of 

those plans being finalized.

The drought management plan shall: (1) provide a means to prioritize water needs 

such that the licensee and the agencies can cooperatively determine whether flow 

obligations can be temporarily reduced or suspended, or the reservoir operations modified 

to allow drawdowns to meet flow needs; (2) serve to limit adverse effects on resources 

from the fluctuating lake level, low lake levels, or reduced downstream flows; and (3) 

ensure that appropriate consideration is given to generation needs, navigation, the 

protection of aquatic resources, sensitive species, water supply, water quality, agriculture, 

and public recreation.

As an interim measure, until a final drought management plan is approved by the 

Commission, when the licensee cannot maintain releases from the Thurlow project of 

1,200 cubic feet per second (cfs) or when the licensee cannot maintain flows necessary 

for navigation in the Alabama River (i.e., the 7-day-average of 4,640 cfs, as reported at 

Montgomery, Alabama), the licensee shall inform the Commission within 15 days and 

file for Commission approval operating measures to maintain adequate minimum flows at 

Thurlow and navigation flows in the Alabama River. For the navigation flows, the 

revised operating measures shall be developed in consultation with the Corps. 

The drought management plan shall be developed after consultation with the 

Corps, U.S. Geological Survey, 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 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 
A-6

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 405. Tailrace Water Quality Monitoring Plan. Within one year of 

license issuance the licensee shall file with the Commission for approval, a tailrace water 

quality monitoring plan 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 that will be monitored, monitoring methods for data collection, and 

proposed 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall implement the plan, including any changes 

required by the Commission.

Draft Article 406. Project Operation and Flow Monitoring Plan. Within 120 

days from the date of license issuance, the licensee shall file with the Commission for 

approval, a plan to monitor compliance with: (1) Lake Martin water levels required in 

Article 402; (2) operations for flood control required in Article 403; and (3) the drought 

management plan required in Article 404.

The Project Operation and Flow Monitoring Plan shall 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 shall 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 shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the entities to comment and to make 
A-7

recommendations before filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not 

adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include licensee’s reasons, based on projectspecific 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 407. 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 408. Regular American Eel Trapping Plan at Martin Dam. Within 

180 days of license issuance, the licensee shall file for Commission approval a plan to 

trap eels at Martin dam annually to identify any need for development of an upstream eel 

passage. The trapping plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following provisions: 

(1) an eel trapping design for the waters immediately below Martin dam including a 

method for determining the appropriate trapping period for detecting upstream migrants; 

(2) a schedule for implementing the annual eel trapping program at Martin dam within a 

year of plan approval by the Commission and every year following through the term of 

the license; and (3) preparation of an annual report to the Commission following each 

year of trapping. The annual report shall include any recommendations to modify the 

sampling program.

The licensee shall provide the annual report to FWS and Alabama DCNR prior to 

filing it with the Commission. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the 

entities to comment on the report and to make recommendations before filing the report 

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 plan shall be developed after consultation with FWS and Alabama DCNR. 

The licensee shall 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 shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the 

entities to comment on the plan 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.
A-8

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 409. Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation and Vector Control Program. 

Within six months of license issuance, the licensee shall file for Commission approval, a 

revised Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation and Vector Control Program. The revised program 

shall specifically address operating conditions associated with 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 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 shall be implemented. The program shall be implemented according to 

section 6.0, Implementation Timeline, of the Wildlife Management Program. Reporting 

must be completed according to section 7.0, Consultation and Reporting, of the Wildlife 

Management Program. The plan shall be coordinated with the Shoreline Management

Plan required under Article 413. 

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 
A-9

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. The Appendix D, consisting of Sheet D-1 through 

D-19, of the licensee’s final Recreation Plan, filed on December 9, 2011, is approved and shall be 

implemented upon Commission approval of the Recreation Plan.

Within 1 year of license issuance, the licensee shall file with the Commission for 

approval, a revised Recreation Plan for the Martin Dam Project to reflect the revised 

project boundary at the project. The plan shall include, at a minimum provisions for: 

(1) describing the 19 project recreation sites: 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);

(2) identifying the 19 project recreation sites on a map or maps that clearly defines

the project boundary as licensed herein;

(3) at Bakers Bottom Landing, including the existing boat ramp and parking area 

within the project boundary;

(4) at Jaybird Landing: (a) including the existing boat ramp within the project 

boundary; (b) improve the boat ramp; (c) construct two bank fishing sites; and (d) 

construct a gravel parking area;

(5) at Madwind Creek Ramp: (a) including 5.8 acres at Madwind Creek Ramp 

within the project boundary that consists of an existing boat ramp, a courtesy dock, and 

parking area; and (b) expand the parking area, if necessary;

(6) at Paces Point Ramp, including an existing boat ramp, a courtesy dock, and 

parking area within the project boundary;
A-10

(7) at Paces Trail, including the existing fishing pier within the project boundary;

(8) at Pleasure Point Park and Marina: (a) removing 25.8 acres of project land 

from the site; (b) retaining 6.6 acres of the site to include the existing marina, associated 

amenities, and boat ramp; and (c) describing the marina and associated amenities;

(9) at Ponder Camp (Stillwaters Area Boat Ramp), reserving 36.4 acres of project 

land for future recreation development;

(10) at Smith Landing: (a) including 4.2 acres at Smith Landing within the project 

boundary that consists of an existing boat ramp, a courtesy dock, and parking area; and 

(b) expanding the parking area, if necessary; and

(11) at Union Ramp, including 7 acres at Union Ramp within the project boundary 

that consists of an existing boat ramp, a courtesy pier, and parking area. 

The revised Recreation Plan shall also include: (1) identification of the number 

and location of the additional bank fishing areas to be developed; (2) provisions for a 

“carry-in/carry-out” informational sign for the public to carry out their trash from the 

project recreation sites, identification and removal of identified existing trash receptacles, 

and installation of containers with appropriately-sized bags at identified project recreation 

sites; (3) a description of soil erosion and sediment control measures to be used where 

ground-disturbing activities are proposed; and (4) a discussion of how the needs of the 

disabled were considered in the planning and design of the recreation facilities; and (5) a 

provision to review and update, every 6 years, the Recreation Plan. The licensee shall

operate and maintain, or arrange for the operation and maintenance of, the project 

recreation sites. 

The revised Recreation Plan shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 projectspecific reasons.

Concurrent with the filing of the Licensed Hydropower Development Recreation 

Report (Form 80) with the Commission, the licensee shall file a Recreation Monitoring 

Report that shall include, but not be limited to: (1) a summary of any meeting with the 

entities above that discusses recreational use and demand, associated project-related
A-11

resource effects; and (2) any additional measures or modifications to the project 

recreation sites that may be needed and a schedule for implementing such changes.

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 412. Public Education and Outreach Plan. Within 1 year of license 

issuance, the licensee shall file with the Commission for approval, a final Public

Education and Outreach Plan to enhance the public experience at the Martin Dam Project. 

The plan shall include, at a minimum: (1) a detailed description of public education and 

outreach activities at the project, including the effects of domestic livestock on terrestrial 

resources and the effects of nuisance aquatic vegetation; (2) a description of the brochure 

about the longleaf pine forest and the licensee’s efforts in the Longleaf Pine Legacy 

Program; (3) the results of a striped bass hooking mortality study for public 

dissemination; (4) a provision for informing the public of the licensee’s procedures for 

issuance of a permit and/or lease to occupy project lands and waters, including the 

application process; and (5) a provision for review and update of the plan every 6 years.

The Public Education and Outreach Plan shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall implement the plan, including any changes 

required by the Commission.

Draft Article 413. Shoreline Management Plan. Within 1 year of license 

issuance, the licensee shall 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 shall include, at a minimum: (1) a description of the land 

use classification system that includes: (a) a map or maps of the following eight land use 

classifications: (i) Project Operations; (ii) Recreation; (iii) Quasi-public; 

(iv) Commercial Recreation; (v) Natural/Undeveloped; (vi) Martin Small Game Hunting 

Area; (vii) 30-Foot Control Strip; and (viii) Unclassified; (b) a table that identifies the 

acres associated with each of the above land use classifications; (c) a provision for using 

a geographic information system to record sensitive species found in areas classified as 
A-12

Sensitive Resources; and (d) a description of allowable and prohibited uses for each of 

the above land use classification; (2) a description of best management practices, 

including bio-engineering techniques such as willow and wetland plantings to control 

erosion; (3) a description of the Dredging Permit Program; (4) a description of the 

Shoreline Compliance Program specific to the Martin Dam Project; (5) a provision to 

limit construction of new seawalls and criteria that must be applied in approving the 

installation of any new seawall; (6) a description of existing unpermitted structures at the 

Martin Dam Project, including a schedule for resolution; and (7) a provision for review 

and update, if necessary, of the Shoreline Management Plan. 

The revised Shoreline Management Plan shall also include a provision to classify

project lands from the Natural/Undeveloped Classification to the Recreation 

Classification that comprises eight project recreation sites: (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 (Stillwaters Area Boat Ramp) 

(36.4 acres). 

The licensee shall explain why the 373.1 acres designated as Natural/Undeveloped 

are no longer needed for project purposes and identify the acreage on a map or maps in 

relation to the project boundary.

The Shoreline Management Plan shall be developed after consultation with the 

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the Alabama State Historic Preservation Office, and the U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management. The licensee shall 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 shall 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 shall implement the plan, including any changes 

required by the Commission. 

Draft Article 414. Programmatic Agreement. The licensee shall 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-13

not limited to, the development and implementation of an Historic Properties 

Management Plan (HPMP) for the project. Pursuant to the requirements of this 

Programmatic Agreement, the licensee shall file for Commission approval, an HPMP 

within one year of the issuance date of the license. The Commission reserves the right 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. 

Pursuant to the Programmatic Agreement, the licensee shall complete a cultural 

resources survey of selected survey sites (807 acres). This survey must be undertaken 

within 5 years of the issuance date of the license. Pursuant to Programmatic Agreement, 

the licensee shall identify and evaluate historic properties, which would include 

inundated sites if and when the site or sites become exposed during the term of a license, 

and mitigate adverse effects. 

Article 415. Use and Occupancy. (a) In accordance with the provisions of this 

article, the licensee must 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 must 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 
A-14

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 

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 
A-15

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 

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 
A-16

(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 I 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 I. The monitoring program shall continue for a period of three 

years.

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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 70 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 

 

70 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.71 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 

flows in the project’s water basin, to guide when a reservoir level should be lowered. 

 

71 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

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 

outflows from Lake Martin, and the Corps software program HEC-RAS to evaluate 

effects (water levels and inundation) on downstream river reaches. Models were 
C-4

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 72 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.

73

 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.

 

72 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. 

73 Figure C-1 also demonstrates the significance of tributary inflows to the 

Tallapoosa River downstream of Martin dam. 
C-5

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 

5-year flood event 74 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 

 

74 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, staff developed an inflow 

dataset representative of a 5-year flood.
C-6

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. 

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.

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
C-7

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.

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 staff deems this an 

acceptable fit for modeled versus actual flow data.
C-8

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).

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).
C-9

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.

Table C-2. Calculated flood frequency flows (in cfs) for Martin dam and historical 

flood flows (in cfs) at Martin dam and the Tallahassee 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 Tallahassee 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
C-10

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

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 
C-11

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). 

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).
C-12

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).

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).
C-13

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. 

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
C-14

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 

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.75 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 

 

75 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

to $1,421,363 for Water Year 2005. Generation losses could be further refined if a 

longer period of record were analyzed.

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

10/1/03 –

11/15/03

33,800 32,367 1,433 (loss) 26,773 7,027 (loss)

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)

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)
C-16

Water Year & 

Period Modeled

Historical 

(MWh)

Modeled 3 

ft. Lower 

Pool 

(MWh) Difference

Modeled 5 

ft. Lower 

Pool 

(MWh) Difference

Average for 

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. Annual generation from the project 

is estimated to be 377,161 MWh valued at $27,344,170; thus, dependable capacity 

provides 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 staff 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 
C-18

(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.