Coosa River Project Wildlife Management Plan

ALABAMA POWER COMPANY
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
COOSA RELICENSING PROJECT
DRAFT1 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE
COOSA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
July 2005
Prepared By:
KLEINSCHMIDT ASSOCIATES
1
Note: Alabama Power Company, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and US Fish and
Wildlife are currently working out the final details of this Draft Wildlife Management Plan. The consensus-based
executed copy of the Final Plan will be filed with the FERC upon it's completion.
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
COOSA RELICENSING PROJECT
DRAFT1 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE
COOSA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
July 2005
Prepared By:
KLEINSCHMIDT ASSOCIATES
1
Note: Alabama Power Company, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and US Fish and
Wildlife are currently working out the final details of this Draft Wildlife Management Plan. The consensus-based
executed copy of the Final Plan will be filed with the FERC upon it's completion
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
COOSA RELICENSING PROJECT
DRAFT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE
COOSA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
2.0
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN..................................................................................................3
3.0
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES ....................................................................4
4.0
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT .........................................................................................5
4.1
Management Actions ...............................................................................................5
4.1.1 Shoreline Classification System ..................................................................5
4.1.2 Shoreline Buffers .........................................................................................6
4.1.3 Planting of Native Species ...........................................................................6
5.0
WEISS WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT AREA .............................................................8
5.1
Management Actions ...............................................................................................8
6.0
MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER MANAGEMENT
PLAN .................................................................................................................................11
6.1
Management Actions .............................................................................................11
6.1.1 Cavity Tree Cluster Buffer Zones..............................................................11
6.1.2 Management of Foraging Habitat ..............................................................12
6.1.3 Timber Management..................................................................................13
6.1.4 Prescribed Burning.....................................................................................14
6.1.5 Forest and Cavity Tree Inventory ..............................................................14
6.1.6 Monitoring and Reporting..........................................................................15
7.0
TIMBER MANAGEMENT...............................................................................................18
7.1
Management Actions .............................................................................................19
7.1.1 Coosa Wildlife Management Area.............................................................19
7.1.2 Remaining Project Lands...........................................................................21
8.0
BALD EAGLE MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT ................................................23
8.1
Management Actions .............................................................................................23
9.0
WILDLIFE OPENINGS....................................................................................................24
9.1
Management Actions .............................................................................................24
10.0
HANDICAPPED HUNTING AREAS ..............................................................................26
-i-
Table of Contents (continued)
10.1
Management Actions .............................................................................................26
11.0
WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT FUND .............................................................................28
12.0
LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................................29
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Coosa Project Location Map....................................................................................2
Proposed Weiss Waterfowl Management Area .....................................................10
Proposed Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Management Area........................17
Coosa Wildlife Management Area (Lake Mitchell) Cover Type Map ..................22
Proposed Jordan Development Handicap Deer Hunting Area ..............................27
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:
Wildlife Enhancement Fund – Summary Table.....................................................28
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: E13 - Wildlife Management Plan Issue Sheet
Appendix B: Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program
- ii -
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
COOSA RELICENSING PROJECT
DRAFT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE
COOSA RIVER, MITCHELL, AND JORDAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION
This Wildlife Management Plan was developed as part of Alabama Power Company
(APC)’s efforts to acquire new operating licenses from the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) for seven hydroelectric developments in the Coosa River Basin in Alabama
(Figure 1). These developments include the Weiss, Neely Henry, Logan Martin, Lay, and
Bouldin Developments, which currently are licensed collectively as the Coosa River Project; and
the Mitchell and Jordan Developments, which are licensed as the Mitchell and Jordan Projects,
respectively. Upon issuance of a new license from the FERC, these projects will be licensed
collectively as the Coosa Hydroelectric Project.
APC’s relicensing process in the Coosa Basin included a multi-year cooperative effort
between APC and interested stakeholders to address operational, recreational, and ecological
concerns associated with hydroelectric project operations. During the initial (scoping) phase of
the relicensing process, APC consulted a wide variety of stakeholders, including state and federal
resource agencies, non-governmental organizations, and concerned citizens, seeking their input
on important relicensing issues. Relicensing stakeholders identified several issues they believe
need to be addressed during this relicensing process, including management of the wildlife
resources within the project boundaries of the Coosa River hydroelectric developments.
-1-
Figure 1:
Coosa Project Location Map
-2-
2.0
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN
The overall purpose of this Wildlife Management Plan is to protect and enhance the
available wildlife habitat within the project boundaries of APC’s Coosa Basin hydroelectric
developments. The plan consolidates numerous wildlife management activities currently in
place in the basin into a single document and provides the additional technical information and
management guidelines requested by resource agencies and other stakeholders during
relicensing.
-3-
3.0
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
Specific wildlife management objectives for the lands surrounding the Coosa Project
were initially identified during the scoping phase of the relicensing process (E13 Issue Sheet Appendix A). These objectives were further refined through subsequent meetings with the
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and include:
1. Management of shoreline areas for native vegetative communities and enhanced
value as wildlife habitat;
2. Continued management and enhancement of red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW)
habitat on project lands;
3. Implementation of timber management methods that result in enhanced value of
project lands as wildlife habitat;
4. Protection and monitoring of bald eagle nesting areas;
5. Establishment of additional forest openings on project lands to provide foraging areas
for wildlife;
6. Establishment of additional public hunting areas for the physically disabled; and
7. Development of a waterfowl refuge and/or Waterfowl Management Area within the
project boundaries for consumptive and non-consumptive uses.
-4-
4.0
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
Protection and enhancement of available shoreline habitat for wildlife will be
accomplished through implementation of the proposed Shoreline Management Plan (SMP).
Pending approval from the FERC, the SMP will be implemented for the more than 1,600 miles
(mi) of shoreline within the FERC boundaries of the Coosa Basin developments. The exception
to the SMP is the Coosa Wildlife Management Area, located within the project boundary of the
Mitchell Development, which will be managed according to this Wildlife Management Plan.
4.1
Management Actions
4.1.1
Shoreline Classification System
As part of the proposed SMP, APC will implement a Geographic
Information System (GIS)-based shoreline classification system to guide future
management actions to protect natural resources, including wildlife habitat. This
system classifies reservoir shorelines into one of five land use categories
according to their current and future designated uses. While not solely designed
for protection of wildlife habitat, two of these categories, Sensitive Resource
Lands (Class 4) and Natural / Undeveloped Lands (Class 5), often include
valuable wildlife habitats and thus are described in greater detail below.
Sensitive Resource Lands are project lands (generally privately-owned
with APC maintaining a flood easement) that are managed for protection and
enhancement of sensitive resources. Sensitive resources include archaeological
sites; sites/structures listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places; wetlands; floodplains; Rare, Threatened and Endangered (RTE)
habitat protection areas; significant scenic areas; and other sensitive ecological
areas. Permitted activities, if applicable, in these areas will be highly restrictive to
avoid potential impacts to sensitive resources and will trigger an environmental
review by APC’s environmental department prior to issuance of a Shoreline Use
Permit.
-5-
Natural / Undeveloped Lands are project lands, typically owned in fee by
APC, that are to remain in an undeveloped state for specific project purposes
including: to protect environmentally sensitive areas; to maintain natural aesthetic
qualities; to serve as buffer zones around public recreation areas; and to provide a
means for preventing overcrowding of partially developed shoreline areas. This
classification allows for public hiking trails, nature studies, primitive camping,
wildlife management (excluding hunting), and normal forestry management
practices.
4.1.2
Shoreline Buffers
Upon acceptance from the FERC, the proposed SMP will provide for
preservation or establishment of a shoreline buffer zone of unmanaged vegetation
around the reservoirs. Establishment of a minimum 15-foot (ft)-wide vegetated
buffer, measured horizontally from the top of the normal full pool, will be
required on all project lands owned in fee by APC and will be recommended as a
Best Management Practice (BMP) on privately-owned project lands adjacent to
the reservoirs. Unmanaged vegetation associated with these buffers strips, and in
particular buffer strips in excess of the 15 ft minimum, would enhance available
food and cover for wildlife species, provide corridors that enhance linkages
between larger habitat patches, and protect nearshore environments. Nearshore
environments provide important breeding and nursery areas for numerous fish and
amphibian species and are utilized for feeding and cover by species such as river
otter, beaver, and various wading birds and waterfowl. At a microhabitat level,
accumulated leaf litter, pine needle duff, and course woody debris (Fallen logs,
etc.) in these vegetated buffers will provide much needed refugia for reptiles and
amphibians.
4.1.3
Planting of Native Species
The proposed SMP will also recommend, and in some instances require,
planting of native trees, shrubs, and plant species for landscaping and for purposes
of shoreline stabilization. Plants native to the soils and climate of a particular
-6-
area typically provide the best overall food sources for wildlife, while generally
requiring less fertilizer, less water, and less effort in controlling pests. Planting of
native species will be required on all Recreation Lands (Class 2) and
recommended as a BMP on all other project lands.
-7-
5.0
WEISS WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT AREA
APC, in cooperation with the ADCNR, will develop and operate a waterfowl
management area within the project boundary of the Weiss Development. By utilizing dikes to
seasonally flood cultivated fields within the Weiss Project Boundary, the proposed management
areas will provide enhanced foraging habitat and resting areas for resident and overwintering
waterfowl and wading birds, as well as additional breeding habitat for amphibians. Finally, the
proposed management areas will provide increased wetland acreage areas within the project
boundary.
5.1
Management Actions
1. Within one year following issuance of a license for the Coosa Project, a
shallow impoundment of approximately 10.6 acres (ac) will be constructed
within and on the east side of Weiss Reservoir at the location indicated in
Figure 2. The pond will be constructed by installation of two dikes which
have a combined length of approximately 260 ft. This impoundment will
serve as a resting area for waterfowl in the area and will be located adjacent to
approximately 16.5 ac of crop land currently owned by the licensee, which
lies to the northeast of the impoundment at the location shown in Figure 2. A
low dike, typically two ft in height or less and approximately 4,967 ft in
length will be constructed around the crop land and the crop land will be
flooded following harvest of the crop grown on the land. This crop land is
currently used to grow grain crops (e.g. corn and soybeans). The licensee will
ensure a percentage of the grain crop raised on this land is not harvested prior
to flooding.
2. Within two years following issuance of a license for the Coosa Project, the
licensee will construct a low dike, typically two ft in height or less, around
four additional parcels of crop land that total approximately 42.9 ac. These
parcels are located on the west side of the Weiss Reservoir directly across the
main river channel from the location referenced in item 1 (Figure 2). This
crop land, which is located as shown in Figure 2, will also be flooded
-8-
following harvest of the crop grown on the land. This crop land is currently
used to grow grain crops (e.g. corn and soybeans). The licensee will ensure a
percentage of the grain crop raised on this land is not harvested prior to
flooding.
3. If deemed necessary in consultation with the ADCNR, the licensee will work
cooperatively with the agency to construct, within five years following
issuance of a license for the Coosa Project, an additional shallow
impoundment of approximately 72.6 ac within and on the west side of the
Weiss Reservoir at the location indicated in Figure 2. The pond will be
constructed by installation of two dikes which have a combined length of
approximately 1,140 ft. This impoundment will serve as an additional resting
area for waterfowl in the area and will be located adjacent to approximately
42.9 ac of crop land, currently owned by APC, which lies to the northeast of
the impoundment at the location shown in Figure 2.
4. If deemed feasible or desirable, the ADCNR shall manage the Weiss
Waterfowl Management Area previously described for public hunting.
Construction and operation of the Weiss Waterfowl Management Area will be
funded as described in the Wildlife Enhancement Fund Summary Table
(Table 1).
-9-
Figure 2:
Proposed Weiss Waterfowl Management Area
- 10 -
6.0
MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER MANAGEMENT
PLAN
The federally endangered Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides borealis)
presently inhabits certain portions of Alabama Power Company’s (APC) Lake Mitchell Project
Lands in Coosa and Chilton Counties in the Coosa River Basin. As part of relicensing of the
Mitchell Project during the 1980’s, FERC approved a Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Management Plan in 1987, the substance of which was developed based on an RCW study
conducted on the Mitchell Project Lands in 1985 (Holliman 1985a). This plan was
implemented for approximately 1087 ac of the 3000 ac of project lands within the Coosa
Wildlife Management Area. The 1987 RCW Management Plan included monitoring of RCW
populations on a five year basis. The most recent survey (Bailey 2004), conducted in 2003 2004, found nine active RCW clusters on Mitchell Project Lands.
The RCW Management Plan described herein updates and replaces the plan approved
by FERC in 1987. This new RCW Management Plan was developed in close consultation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS has determined that
implementation of this RCW Management Plan will protect and enhance the present
population of RCWs inhabiting the Mitchell Project Lands.
6.1
Management Actions
All lands within the Mitchell Project identified in Figure 3 as within the RCW
Management Area will be managed for RCWs as described below. These lands in
aggregate comprise a total of approximately 1057 ac.
6.1.1
Cavity Tree Cluster Buffer Zones
A 200 ft-wide buffer zone will be maintained around all cavity trees and
cavity start trees within each active RCW cluster. Within the 200 ft buffer,
midstory will be controlled by physical cutting and pruning, chemical injecting,
and/or basal spraying as needed. Within this buffer zone every effort will be
made to protect potential cavity trees while maintaining 20 – 25 ft spacing
- 11 -
between these trees. Selected snags will be left within the buffer to provide
cavity trees for other cavity nesters, thus reducing demand on RCW cavities.
Finally, timbering or management activities, such as pruning or injecting to
control the midstory, will not be practiced in the buffer zone during the nesting
season (April – June).
6.1.2
Management of Foraging Habitat
Upland pine and mixed pine/hardwood stands within the area identified on
Figure 3 as the RCW Management Area will be managed towards providing each
active cluster with a minimum of 75 ac of suitable foraging habitat. For purposes
of this goal, foraging habitat is defined as follows:
1.
Provide each group of RCWs a minimum 3000 square feet (ft2) of
pine basal area, including only pines with diameter at breast height
(DBH) > 10 inches (in).
2.
Provide the above pine basal area on a minimum of 75 ac.
3.
Count only those pine stands that potentially are suitable habitat
and that have each of the following characteristics:
a.
Stands that are at least 30 years old and older.
b.
An average pine basal area of pines > 10 in between 40 and
70 square feet per acre (ft2/ac).
c.
An average pine basal area of pines < 10 in less than 20
ft2/ac.
d.
No hardwood midstory or if a hardwood midstory is
present, it is sparse and less than 7 ft in height.
e.
Total stand basal area, including overstory hardwoods, less
than 80 ft2/ac.
- 12 -
f.
Foraging habitat will be located to the extent feasible
within 0.25 mi of the cluster, and to the extent feasible any
stand counted as foraging habitat will be within 200 ft of
another foraging stand or the cluster itself.
g.
Prescribed burning of foraging habitat shall occur a
minimum of once every 5 years.
Reasonable progress toward meeting the goal of 75 ac of foraging habitat
for each active cluster will be demonstrated by maintenance or increases in the
area of foraging habitat that meets all of the characteristics of foraging habitat set
forth above (items a - g). Reasonable progress can also be demonstrated by
maintaining or increasing habitat area that meets all elements but one, with no
corresponding decrease in the habitat area meeting all elements. Finally,
reasonable progress can also be demonstrated if one or more of the individual
components are being moved toward the desired condition. Any of these
improvements in foraging habitat have to be current (within the past 5 years) to be
considered reasonable progress.
Typical management practices to be utilized to increase the quality and
quantity of foraging habitat are described herein and include prescribed burning,
selective herbicide application, and timber stand improvement through timber
harvest, increased rotation lengths, and pre-commercial thinning. Given the
inherent variation of on-the-ground conditions at the Mitchell Project Lands, the
mix of management practices used to achieve the goals for RCW foraging habitat
will likely vary from site to site and over time.
6.1.3
Timber Management
All longleaf pine stands managed for RCWs shall be managed on a
rotation interval of not less than 100 years and an 80 year rotation for other pine
species crop trees. An exception to this management rotation interval will be
- 13 -
made based for stands under high risk of mortality due to insects, disease, or other
site-related problems after consultation with the USFWS.
Prior to initiation of timbering or other development activities on lands
covered by this RCW Management Plan, a survey will be made to determine the
presence of additional active RCW colonies. If additional colonies are found,
they will be managed as described in this plan. In the event of a natural disaster
such as fire, tornado, ice storm or southern pine beetle damage, timber salvage
operations will be conducted to remove affected trees.
6.1.4
Prescribed Burning
Prescribed burns will be conducted within the RCW Management Area on
a minimum 5-year return interval. Prescribed burns will normally be conducted
during the growing season (March-September). Initial fuel reduction burns may
be conducted during the non-growing season (November-February) to reduce the
risk of catastrophic damage to nesting and foraging resources. The goal of
prescribed burns will be reduction of non-herbaceous (woody) vegetation in the
understory, and control of hardwood trees/shrubs that have entered the midstory.
All known RCW cavity trees will be protected from accidental ignition during
prescribed firing operations by removing fuels at the base of cavity trees.
Protecting human health and safety will take priority over meeting the prescribed
burning schedules in this plan.
6.1.5
Forest and Cavity Tree Inventory
A complete forest and RCW cavity tree inventory of the RCW
Management Area will be completed on a minimum 10 year interval. The forest
inventory data will be used to develop timber management prescriptions for the
lands being managed for RCWs. Pine size, age, and density will be determined
using standard forestry techniques. For example, the age of pine trees can be
determined by coring a sample and determining the relationship between age and
size. During the forest inventory, all RCW cavity trees identified will be mapped
- 14 -
using a Global Positioning System (GPS), imported into a Geographic
Information System (GIS), and locations made available to the USFWS and the
ADCNR.
The forest inventory data will be utilized to monitor the quality and
quantity of foraging habitat for each active group or cluster, based on the
following criteria:
1. the number of ac of foraging habitat that meets all elements of
foraging habitat listed in section 6.1.2.
2. the number of ac of foraging habitat that meets all elements listed in
section 6.1.3 but one, and for each forest stand, identify the missing
element.
3. the number of ac of foraging habitat that meets all elements listed in
section 6.1.3 but two, and for each forest stand, identify the missing
elements.
6.1.6
Monitoring and Reporting
Known RCW clusters will be evaluated annually for the first 10 years
following issuance of the license for the Coosa Project and once every 5 years
thereafter to determine if they are active. Generally, this will involve observing
each cluster in the morning and/or evening to determine if one or more RCWs are
using each of the cavity trees. A cavity tree may also be deemed active if it
exhibits fresh resin as a result of RCW activity. The USFWS and ADCNR will
be invited for a site visit annually during the monitoring of cavity activity to
inspect the RCW clusters.
A report will be submitted to the USFWS by January 31 each year that
monitoring occurs following issuance of the license for the Coosa River Project.
USFWS shall grant a reasonable extension for the filing of the report if APC
demonstrates that conditions beyond its control (for example, weather or other
natural conditions) have delayed monitoring or management activities. The report
- 15 -
shall include summary of all habitat management actions undertaken since the last
monitoring report and include a summary of the activity status of each cluster.
The monitoring report format shall consist of all applicable sections contained the
USFWS Regional Annual RCW Property Data Report.
- 16 -
Figure 3:
Proposed Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Management Area
- 17 -
7.0
TIMBER MANAGEMENT
APC’s Corporate Real Estate Department has had an active forest management program
since World War II. Currently, the number of ac under forest management on the Coosa River
Hydro Projects is approximately 12,700 ac. Shortly after WW II, Company timber stands on
these projects were inventoried and long range timber management plans were developed. These
plans directed an all-aged, sustained-yield management scheme with the forest rotation age of 60
years. Under this management strategy, trees would be grown to an average age of 60 years and
would produce forest products on a continuous basis. Sawtimber would be harvested on 16 year
cutting cycles and pulpwood would be thinned as a secondary product at interim periods of 10
years.
In the early 1970's, the cutting cycle for sawtimber was lengthened to 20 years because
power skidders were then being used. As a result, more volume was being cut per acre and more
reseeding was occurring (from the additional exposure of mineral soil caused by the skidders).
The extended cutting cycle allowed for per acre volumes to recover and the young seedlings to
put on additional volume. This all or uneven-aged management scheme has produced a notably
diverse forest both in terms of species composition and in forest products. The result is not only
the production of valuable high-quality products but the production of diverse quality habitat for
both game and non-game wildlife species. These planned and controlled forest management
practices have, over the years, aided in the protection of the watersheds of the associated
reservoirs which indirectly have enhanced the fisheries habitat of these lakes, rivers, and streams.
These practices have also produced habitats that have, over the years, promoted and sustained
several rare and endangered species of plants and animals.
Forest lands located within the project boundaries of APC’s Coosa basin developments
will be managed according to the action described below. The exception to this will be the
Mitchell Project Lands designated in Figure 3, which will be managed for enhancement and
protection of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker as described in Section 6.0 of this plan.
- 18 -
7.1
Management Actions
7.1.1
Coosa Wildlife Management Area
Forest resources on the Coosa Wildlife Management Area, located on the
Mitchell Project Lands, will be managed as follows:
1. The pure hardwood stands on better sites as indicated on Licensee
cover-type map (Figure 4) would be left in the present type with
selective cutting on a 20 - 30 year cycle. Target DBH for trees to be
harvested would be 22 -26 in. These sites are scattered in pockets and
hollows throughout the area with more extensive stands in the eastern
half of Section 26, Township 22N, Range 16E (adjacent to the Coosa’s
mainstem just upstream of the mouth of Hatchet Creek). Some 400 +
ac fall into this category. Hardwood cutting would be done to favor
various oaks (Quercus spp.), hickories (Carya spp.), and selected den
trees.
2. The pine-hardwood type would be managed using single-tree selection
harvest and all-aged management. Stands will be marked for
improvement cuts simultaneous with harvest cuts. Target DBH for
trees to be harvested would be 16 -20 in for pine and 20 - 22 in for
hardwoods. Hardwood cutting would be done to favor various oaks
and selected hickories. Fire is not recommended in any hardwood
stand.
All-age management with moderate basal area (50 - 60 ft2) will
maximize vertical stratification thereby increasing niche availability
and "edge effect". This system will allow sunlight penetration that
stimulates understory food and cover production by herbs, shrubs, and
soft mast producers including dogwoods (Cornus spp.), blueberries
(Vaccinium spp.). Smilax spp., etc. and possibly wild native legumes.
3. The longleaf pine stands will be managed similarly to those occupied
by RCWs; i.e., single-tree selection with crop trees at least 100 years
- 19 -
old at harvest. These stands should be open (30 - 80 ft2 basal area)
with 30 - 50 ft2 in sawtimber. Target DBH for trees to be harvested
will have to be adjusted according to site index and the desired age of
removal. The hardwood component in areas under the pine habitat
category will be managed for the production of quality hardwood
sawtimber. Prescribed burns will be conducted on longleaf pine stands
where feasible, on a minimum 5-year return interval.
4. The uneven-aged pine stands of loblolly and slash or mixtures thereof
will be managed for sawtimber and poles. The stands will carry 50 - 90
ft2 of basal area of which 30 - 40 should be in pole or sawtimber size
trees. Target DBH for trees to be selectively removed should be 14 18 in. Fire will be used in these stands where feasible to enhance
understory food production and timber stand improvement. Unevenaged management does not lend itself to generalized prescribed fire or
specific burning cycles. The hardwood components in areas under the
pine habitat category will be managed for the production of quality
hardwood sawtimber.
5. The 75 - 100 ± ac of pine regeneration (plantations) will be managed
on a sawtimber rotation (not less than 60 years) and thinned to 300 ±
trees/acre at the first thinning (15-20 years). These stands will be
thinned again at 35 ± years to carry 50 - 70 ft2 of basal area to the end
of the cycle. The size and location of these plantations are already
compatible with recommended wildlife management and enhancement
procedures. Fire will be used where feasible in these stands every 3-5
years following the first commercial thinning.
6. On the 1057 ac of the Mitchell project land utilized by the endangered
red-cockaded woodpecker. The licensee will manage the land in
accordance with the management plan contained in Section 6.0.
7. Licensee will limit timber harvesting to 240 ac contiguous tracts.
- 20 -
7.1.2
Remaining Project Lands
APC will continue to manage project forest lands according to the existing all or
uneven-aged management schemes, with a sawtimber cycle of 20 years and an overall
forest rotation of 60 years (see above description). Prescribed burning and/or use of
herbicides will be considered on stands within the project forest lands, and such use
will be based on conditions and characteristics of the individual stands.
APC will continue to utilize selective cutting as the primary means of timber
harvest on project lands, with those trees that are mature or of poor quality being
removed. Natural regeneration will continue to be the primary means by which
harvested forests are replaced. However, if a particular timber stand cannot be
regenerated naturally, or if a stand is destroyed by some catastrophic event, any residual
trees will be harvested, the site prepared, and the stand planted with genetically
improved seedling stock.
- 21 -
Figure 4:
Coosa Wildlife Management Area (Lake Mitchell) Cover Type Map
- 22 -
8.0
BALD EAGLE MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT
The bald eagle is federally listed as a threatened species. Bald eagles may be found
throughout North America, typically around water where they feed primarily on fish and
scavenge carrion. The species thrives around bodies of water where adequate food exists and
human disturbance is limited. Eagles nest in large trees near water and typically use the same
nest for several years, making repairs to it annually (Degraaf and Rudis 1986).
APC has periodically assisted the ADCNR with monitoring of bald eagle populations
in the vicinity of its Coosa Basin developments since the early 1980’s. When surveys were
initiated in 1983, only one unsuccessful nesting attempt had been documented within the basin
in recent history (Holliman 1986b, Mount 1984). Currently, there are three known active
eagle nests in the vicinity of APC’s Coosa Basin developments: one each within the Project
Boundaries of the Jordan and Mitchell Developments and one on private land approximately
one half mi from the Mitchell Project Boundary (J. Lochamy, APC, Personal Communication).
8.1
Management Actions
APC will continue to participate in the ADCNR's efforts to monitor nesting bald
eagles in the Coosa Basin. In addition, APC will also continue the current practice of
restricting all disruptive activities (including timbering, construction, road building, etc.)
within 1500 ft of any known nest during the nesting season. At other times of the year,
low disturbance activities may occur as close as 750 ft.
- 23 -
9.0
WILDLIFE OPENINGS
At the local level, forest openings, and in particular those maintained in an herbaceous
state, provide forage and cover for game species such as white-tailed deer, wild turkey, and
cottontail rabbits. In addition, the grasses and forbs in herbaceous opening harbor a variety of
insects that are an important source of protein for bobwhite quail, kestrels, sparrows, and many
other resident and migratory bird species. The herbaceous layer often supports an abundance of
small rodents and other mammals that are prey for raptors, such as red-tailed and broad-winged
hawks.
Creation of multiple openings in continuous forest blocks results in increased botanical
diversity on the forested landscape. The resulting mosaic of vegetative communities is in turn
not only able to support a greater variety of wildlife species, but also results in an increase in
“edge” habitat, where different plant communities come together. By placing food and cover
closer to one another, incresed edge habitat can reduce the space requirements of individuals,
thereby allowing a forest to support greater numbers of a given species.
9.1
Management Actions
Over the next 10 years, 100 ac of permanent openings will be created on the
Coosa Wildlife Management Area, located on the Mitchell Project Area. These
openings will be no larger than 5 nor smaller than 2 ac in size. These openings must be
located where severe slopes can be avoided. Existing power rights-of-way could be
used to great advantage for these openings. As these openings are established they will
be limed and fertilized according to Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station
guidelines and maintained year-round in native grasses and other herbaceous cover.
Annual planting of some wildlife-friendly species, such as chufa and clover, may be
undertaken in some years.
Licensee shall place gates across access roads which are constructed during
development of the permanent openings to restrict public vehicle access to these
wildlife openings. It will be the responsibility of the ADCNR to maintain the gates.
- 24 -
Since accessibility is severely limited and erosion is a likely hazard on many
project lands, these sites must be developed over time and often in conjunction with
timber harvest. There are currently no existing access roads to some of the better suited
sites.
Licensee will provide to the ADCNR upon annual written request an annual
contractors report summarizing the acreages of permanent openings established, the dates
established, and application rates of fertilizer, seed and lime on all established wildlife
openings and the dates and types of maintenance performed on the permanent openings.
- 25 -
10.0
HANDICAPPED HUNTING AREAS
APC will assist the ADCNR with development of additional handicapped-accessible deer
hunting areas on the Jordan Project Area, as described below.
10.1
Management Actions
1. Within one year of the issuance of a license for the Coosa Project, APC will
construct two shooting houses, specifically designed to accommodate disabled
hunters, at the locations depicted on Figure 5. Additional shooting houses will
be constructed as demand and land allow based on consultation with the
ADCNR. APC will plant and maintain greenfields and/or other wildlife
openings in the vicinity of these shooting houses. If needed, APC will also
build and maintain road access to the shooting houses.
2. The ADCNR shall be responsible for supervising hunting activities at the
Jordan sites in accordance with the rules and regulations appropriate for
Physically Disabled Hunting Areas. This is to include issuance and
enforcement of permits granting hunters access to the Jordan site,
establishment of a calendar for hunting on the site, and resolution of disputes
regarding the use or scheduling of the Jordan handicapped hunting sites.
- 26 -
Figure 5:
Proposed Jordan Development Handicap Deer Hunting Area
- 27 -
11.0
WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT FUND
As part of the Wildlife Management Plan, APC proposes to establish a Wildlife Habitat
Enhancement and Restoration Program in cooperation with the Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources. The purpose of the Program is to establish a framework
for working together, in a mutually beneficial manner, to develop and execute projects to
enhance and restore wildlife and their habitats over the life of the new licenses issued to APC for
the Coosa and Warrior River Projects. APC will establish a Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and
Restoration Fund (Fund) for the support of various wildlife management projects developed over
the life of the license on project lands. Typical projects may be development and management of
a waterfowl area on Weiss Reservoir, wildlife enhancement on the Mitchell Development in the
Coosa Wildlife Management Area, and providing funding for matching grants for projects
designed for wildlife restoration and enhancement on project lands. A summary table of this
funding is provided below, and a copy of the Wildlife Enhancement and Restoration Program,
which provides the annual funding schedule, is contained in Appendix B.
Table 1:
Wildlife Enhancement Fund – Summary Table
50-Year Total in 2004
Dollars
Proposed Wildlife Enhancement Measure
Creation of waterfowl area
Managing waterfowl area
$650,000
$1,200,000
General Wildlife Management Projects
$700,000
Wildlife Habitat Enhancement on Coosa Wildlife Management Area
Permanent Openings (100 acres).
Annual Maintenance of permanent openings – food plots.
Road Construction and maintenance – 25 miles of road.
GRAND TOTAL
$50,000
$500,000
$50,000
$3,150,000
- 28 -
12.0
LITERATURE CITED
Bailey, M.A. 2004. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Status and Recommendations: Mitchell Lake
Project Lands, Coosa and Chilton Counties, Alabama. Prepared for Alabama Power
Company, Birmingham, Alabama.
DeGraff, R.M., and D.D. Rudis. 1986. New England Wildlife: habitat, natural history, and
distribution. Gen. Tech. Report NE-108. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Broomall, Pennsylvania.
Holliman, D.C. 1985a. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Study on Mitchell Project Lands. Appendix
2 in Wildlife Management Plan for Mitchell Project, FERC Project No. 82. Prepared for
Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, Alabama.
Holliman, D.C. 1985b. Bald Eagle Survey on Mitchell Project Lands. Appendix 3 in Wildlife
Management Plan for Mitchell Project, FERC Project No. 82. Alabama Power Company,
Birmingham, Alabama.
Mount, R.H., ed. 1984. Vertebrate Wildlife of Alabama. Alabama Agricultural Experiment
Station, Auburn University, Alabama. 44 pp.
\\wren\sc_job\535-004 Alabama Power Coosa-Warrior\Ecological Issues\E-13 Wildlife Management Plan\Final Coosa Widlife Managment Plan
(07-25-05).doc
- 29 -
APPENDIX A
E13 - WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN ISSUE SHEET
E13
Wildlife Management Plan – Management of the aquatic and terrestrial resources
within the project study area.
Description of the Issue:
Stakeholders have requested that APC prepare a Wildlife Management Plan that
addresses both aquatic and terrestrial resources within the project study area. The purpose of this
plan would be to make sure that resource agency management goals are incorporated with
project operations and APC development plans for the project study area. The plan should also
consider non-consumptive uses, handicapped access, bank access and viewing/education of
unique habitats and resources on project lands and waters. Stakeholders also want to include in
the management plan, any protection, enhancement, or mitigation measure that might be
included as part of the relicensing process. The goal is to identify APC and resource agency
management plans that exist or need to be developed to provide adequate management of the
aquatic and terrestrial resources within the project study area and consolidate these plans into a
comprehensive “Wildlife Management Plan” that provides protection, enhancement, mitigative
measures, and future management plans for the resources of the project study area.
Specific issues or requests identified include:
-
Develop a Habitat Conservation Plan to identify and protect aquatic species;
-
Reduce the effect of erosion and siltation on fish habitat;
-
Develop a Wildlife Conservation Plan to identify and protect wildlife habitats;
-
Provide additional nesting structures;
-
Maintain flexibility in management of project lands to optimize value of recreation,
fish and wildlife resource, timber production and development.
Specific questions and suggestions identified include:
-
All APC owned islands should be maintained for wildlife habitat (Birds, mammals,
etc.) – develop wildlife management plan for islands;
-
APC needs to permanently protect project lands and establish conservation easements
in sensitive habitat areas (e.g., Hatchet Creek);
-
Is APC still encouraging partnerships on habitat enhancement?
-
What is the impact to project revenue of APC contributing money to Alabama Fish &
Wildlife to enhance fisheries;
-
Provide additional fish habitat and fish stocking.
APPENDIX B
WILDLIFE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT AND RESTORATION PROGRAM
Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Restoration
Program
Introduction
As part of the Wildlife Management Plan(s) for the Coosa River Project and the Warrior
River Project, Alabama Power Company (APC) proposes to establish a Wildlife Habitat
Enhancement and Restoration Program (WHERP) in cooperation with the Alabama
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR). The purpose of this
WHERP is to develop a framework for working together in a mutually beneficial manner
to enhance and restore wildlife and their habitats over the life of the new licenses issued
to APC for the Warrior River Project and the Coosa River Projects.
Organizational Structure
A WHERP Committee will be formed by one representative each from APC and
ADCNR. The WHERP Committee will meet at a minimum annually to develop mutually
agreeable projects on which to work during the coming year. These projects shall be
designed to enhance and/or restore wildlife and their habitats on lands within the Warrior
River Project and/or the Coosa River Project.
Funding
APC will establish a Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Fund (Fund), the
purpose of which is to provide a source of financial support for the conduct of the
projects selected by the WHERP Committee. The Fund shall be maintained by APC and
money will accrue annually into the Fund in accordance with the FINANCIAL
SUPPORT SCHEDULE contained herein. APC and ADCNR will be able to draw on
this Fund for reimbursement of material, labor, equipment, office supplies, matching
funds for grants, and subcontract services required to plan, construct, manage and
maintain all WHERP projects as administered by the WHERP Committee.
FINANCIAL SUPPORT SCHEDULE:
a. Upon execution hereof, APC agrees to establish a Fund. APC agrees to make
payments into the Fund in accordance with the Base Amount funding schedule in
Table 1 (but subject to adjustments in accordance with sub paragraph b of this
Section) for the use of APC and ADCNR in enhancing and restoring wildlife over the
life the Coosa and Warrior River Project Licenses on the Project(s) lands. Actual
payment of such contributions shall be on the following schedule.
Annually in arrears, each payment being the annualized amount as
adjusted in accordance with sub paragraph b. The first payment shall be due
on the last day of February, in the year following issuance of the new licenses
for the Coosa and Warrior Projects by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) and acceptance of the licenses by APC, which is
expected to occur in 2007. The first payment shall be for the full Base
Amount of the first funding year. All subsequent payments will be made on
the last day of the month February.
b. The annualized contributions outlined above in sub paragraph a. shall be adjusted
as follows:
The calendar year 2004 shall be deemed the Base Year as used in this
provision. It is the intent of this agreement that APC shall make an annual payment
into the Fund each year after the licenses for the Coosa and Warrior Projects are
issued by FERC and approved by APC, as scheduled in sub paragraph a. The annual
payment shall be for an adjusted annual amount which reflects any change in the
average annual Consumer Price Index series defined as follows:
Title: Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers (Current Series), U.S. City
Average, All Items
Series ID: CUUR0000SA0, CUUS0000SA0
Seasonal Adjustment: Not Seasonally Adjusted
Index Base Period: 1982-84 = 100
Frequency: Monthly
Source:Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U. S. Department of Labor (herein the
“Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers (Current Series), Not Seasonally
Adjusted or “CPI”).
Therefore, beginning with the first year and each year thereafter, APC and ADCNR
agree that the Base Amounts outlined in paragraph a. shall be adjusted on the last day
of February, or as soon as possible after the CPI for all months of the preceding
calendar year have been published, of each year during the remainder of the term of
this agreement and any extensions thereof as follows:
The Base Amounts shall be adjusted on the last day of February , or as soon as
possible after the CPI for all months of the preceding calendar year have been
published, of each year to reflect any change in the CPI between the Base Year
(hereinafter referred to as BCPI) and the average annual Consumer Price Index for
the calendar year just completed (hereinafter referred to as ECPI).
The change will be computed as follows:
[(ECPI – BCPI) + 1.00] x (Base Amount) = New Adjusted Annual Amount for
BCPI
forthcoming year
If the said CPI published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U. S.
Department of Labor, as the same is now computed and published, should be
discontinued, or enlarged upon, or changed, upward or downward, the payment
adjustments will be calculated on the equivalent of the CPI, and for the purpose of
determining and calculating the equivalent of the present Consumer Price Index, use
shall be made of the successor index or indexes and the formulae announced or
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor,
and its successors, as being proper for conversion of any such successor index to the
equivalent of the present Consumer Price Index.
Initial Projects
The following projects, among others, will be considered by the WHERP Committee
following issuance of new 50 year license for the Warrior River Project and Coosa River
Project
1. Development and management of a waterfowl area on the Weiss Development.
2. Wildlife Habitat Enhancement on Coosa Wildlife Management Area lands
contained within the Mitchell Project boundary.
3. Applications for matching grants for wildlife restoration and enhancement
projects to be conducted on Warrior River and/or Coosa River Project lands.
Funding Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Base Amount Funds (2004 Dollars) Provided
$718,000
$159,000
$247,000
$43,000
$43,000
$348,000
$43,000
$43,000
$43,000
$43,000
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
$35,500
Total Base Funding
$3,150,000