Lockhart Power Company, Inc.; Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment
Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. |
Citation: "78 FR 76904"
Document Number: "Project No. 13590-001"
"Notices"
   In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the
   Staff prepared a draft environmental assessment (DEA), which analyzes the potential environmental effects of licensing the project, and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
   A copy of the DEA is available for review at the Commission in the
   You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
   Any comments should be filed within 45 days from the date of this notice.
   The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/dcos-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support.
   In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary,
   For further information, contact
   Dated:
Secretary.
Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES iii LIST OF TABLES iii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii 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 4 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 6 1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act 7 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND CONSULTATION 8 1.4.1 Scoping 8 1.4.2 Interventions 8 1.4.3 Comments on the License Application 9 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 10 2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 10 2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities 10 2.1.2 Project Safety 11 2.1.3 Existing Project Operation and Environmental Measures 11 2.2 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL 11 2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities 11 2.2.2 Proposed Project Operations 12 2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures 13 2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE 14 2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS 16 2.4.1 Issuing a Non-power License 16 2.4.2 Project Decommissioning 17 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 18 3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN 18 3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS 19 3.2.1 Geographic Scope 19 3.2.2 Temporal Scope 19 3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES 20 3.3.1 Geologic and Soil Resources 20 3.3.2 Aquatic Resources 29 3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources 67 3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 77 3.3.5 Recreation and Land Use 79 3.3.6 Cultural Resources 86 3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 88 4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS 89 4.1 POWER AND DEVELOPMENTAL BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT 89 4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 90 4.2.1 No-action Alternative 91 4.2.2Lockhart Power's Proposal 91 4.2.3 Staff Alternative 91 4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES 92 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 104 5.1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 104 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE 109 5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS 124 5.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS 124 5.5 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS 130 6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 132 7.0 LITERATURE CITED 133 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 142
List of Figures Figure 1. Location of the Riverdale Project 2 Figure 2. Percent of time during each month that inflows to the 51 Riverdale Project are greater than 170 cfs and less than or equal to 500 cfs (i.e. when peaking with drawdown operation can occur under Lockhart Power's proposed operations), less than or equal to 170 cfs (i.e. flow below turbine minimum turbine capacity plus 50 cfs minimum flow), and > 500 cfs (i.e. flows greater than maximum turbine capacity plus 50 cfs minimum flow) Figure 3. Illustration of the front of the 2.25-inch headrace 61 trashrack Figure 4. Illustration of the front of the 1-inch headrace 62 trash rack
List of Tables Table 1. Major statutory and regulatory requirements for the 4 Riverdale Project Table 2. Select characteristics of mapped soil units at the 21 Riverdale Project Table 3. Synthesized monthly flow data (cfs) for the Riverdale 30 Project from USGS gage No. 02160390 Enoree River at Woodruff, South Carolina Table 4. South Carolina water quality standards for 31 freshwaters Table 5. Fish species and number collected in the vicinity of 35 the Riverdale Project during baseline sampling on June 10-11 and July 6-7, 2010 Table 6. Spawning dates and habitat requirements for eight 39 Conservation Species observed in the Riverdale bypassed reach Table 7. Flows through the bypassed reach at FERC licensed 46 projects in the Broad River Basin, South Carolina Table 8. Minimum flow required for fish in streams identified 49 by Tennant (1976) Table 9. Calculation of intake cross-sectional area for the 63 2.25-inch and 1-inch trashracks Table 10. Burst swim speeds of four species found in the 64 Riverdale impoundment Table 11. Minimum fish total lengths susceptible to impingement 64 at 1-inch and 2.25-inch trashracks, based on trashrack bar spacing and fish width-at-length relationship (i.e. width = [alpha] x total length) alone and exclusive of burst swim speeds Table 12. Parameters for the economic analysis of the proposed 90 Riverdale Project Table 14. Summary of annual cost, power benefits, and annual 90 net benefits of the alternatives for the Riverdale Project Table 14. Cost of environmental mitigation and enhancement 93 measures considered in assessing the environmental effects of refurbishing, operating, and maintaining the Riverdale Project Table 15. Comparison of Alternatives for the Riverdale Project 104 Table 16. Fish and wildlife agency recommendations for the 125 Riverdale Project
Acronyms and Abbreviations
APE area of potential effects
applicant
BMPs Best Management Practices
[degrees] C degrees Celsius
certificate Water Quality Certificate
cfs cubic feet per second
Conservation Species South Carolina Priority Species
Council
CWA Clean Water Act
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DO dissolved oxygen
EA environmental assessment
[degrees] F degrees Fahrenheit
fps feet per second
FPA Federal Power Act
LIP low inflow protocol
MADF mean annual daily flow
MW megawatt
MWh megawatt-hour
mg/L milligrams per liter
msl mean sea level
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum
PM&E measure protection, mitigation, and enhancement measure
ROR run-of-river
ROW rights-of-way
SCORP Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Water Plan South Carolina Water Plan
Executive Summary
Proposed Action
   On
   FOOTNOTE 1 The project was originally licensed to
Project Description
   
   Since the project became in-operable 12 years ago, all flows have passed over the dam and into the 1,400-foot-long bypassed reach. The 2-foot-high flashboards were partially damaged during high flow events in 2012 and 2013.
Proposed Facilities
   Because
   
Proposed Environmental Measures
   
    * Implement a sediment management plan that consists of using the existing sand gates to draw down the impoundment below the normal operating range for periodic inspections and maintenance and, if possible, avoiding drawdowns from
    * Monitor water quality as may be required by
    * Maintain a minimum flow of 50 cfs in the bypassed reach and a total minimum continuous flow of 60 cfs, or inflow if less, in the
    * When average daily inflows are less than or equal to 80 cfs (+/-10 percent), release all inflow into the bypassed reach (i.e. low inflow protocol [LIP]) to protect aquatic resources downstream from Riverdale dam, including during the fish spawning season.
    * Implement best management practices (BMPs) to protect vegetation within the project boundary, such as limiting vegetation and ground-disturbing activities and maintaining a minimum 25-foot-wide forested riparian buffer on project shorelines, as long as this does not interfere with
    * Construct and maintain: (1) A canoe take-out located approximately 220 feet upstream of the dam; (2) a canoe put-in located approximately 1,075 feet downstream from the dam; (3) a 1,650-foot-long portage trail connecting the proposed canoe take-out and put-in; (4) a parking area located adjacent to the proposed portage trail; and (5) signage to improve public access at the project and to the
    * Provide informal public access for fishing at the project impoundment, tailrace, and bypassed reach.
Alternatives Considered
   This draft environmental assessment (draft EA) considers the following alternatives: (1)
   Under the staff alternative, the project would be operated and maintained as proposed by
   The staff alternative includes the following additional measures and modifications to
    * Develop and implement a site-specific soil erosion and sediment control plan, which includes the BMPs described in the South Carolina DHEC's Stormwater BMP Handbook, to minimize erosion and sedimentation during soil-disturbing activities associated with project construction and repairs.
    * Develop and implement a sediment management plan to (a) test impoundment sediments for heavy metals and other contaminants, prior to beginning in-water construction activities and initial operation to prevent the release of any toxic substances, and (b) annually monitor and manage sediment accumulation in the impoundment to prevent the potential release of large quantities of sediment during maintenance activities.
    * Develop and implement a shoreline stabilization plan to identify and stabilize eroding shorelines to minimize potential shoreline erosion from impoundment and flow fluctuations during peaking operation.
    * Develop and implement a water quality monitoring plan to monitor dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature, and turbidity and implement corrective actions, if necessary, to protect aquatic resources located downstream of the dam.
    * Release a continuous minimum flow of 75 cfs into the bypassed reach to protect aquatic habitat.
    * Develop and implement a plan to determine the feasibility of using the sand gates as a mechanism for providing minimum flows to the bypassed reach and to evaluate methods to distribute minimum flows into the bypassed reach to protect aquatic habitat.
    * Develop and implement a low inflow protocol/drought contingency plan to define periods of extended drought and low inflow protocols to minimize adverse effects on generation, and fish, wildlife, and water quality in the bypassed reach and downstream from the tailrace.
    * Develop and implement an operation compliance monitoring plan to document impoundment fluctuations and minimum flow releases.
    * Develop and implement an invasive vegetation monitoring and control plan to prevent the spread of alligatorweed and other invasive non-native plants during project refurbishment, operation, and maintenance activities.
    * Determine whether the existing project transmission line is consistent with Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) guidelines and identify measures to minimize potential electrocution hazards to birds, if needed.
    *
    * Stop work and notify the South Carolina SHPO and the Catawba Indian Nation if any unknown archaeological resources are discovered as a result of project construction, operation, or project-related activities to avoid, lessen, or mitigate potential adverse effects on historic resources.
   Under the no-action alternative, the project would continue to be inoperable and no new environmental protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented.
Public Involvement and Areas of Concern
   Before filing its license application,
   The primary issues associated with licensing the project include erosion and sediment control, sediment management, minimum flows to protect aquatic species and shoal habitat in the 1,400-foot-long bypassed reach, a low inflow protocol during extended droughts, invasive vegetation management, and recreation improvements.
Staff Alternative
Geology and Soils
   Refurbishing the hydropower facilities, dredging the tailrace, and constructing the recreation improvements would temporarily increase soil erosion. Implementing staff's recommended site-specific soil erosion and sediment control plan would minimize adverse effects on aquatic and terrestrial resources.
   Project repairs and the initial operation of the project would likely result in a discharge of a large amount of sediment downstream that could contain heavy metals and other contaminants. Staff's recommended testing of sediment for contaminants and developing a contingency plan, if needed, for removal and proper disposal of any contaminated sediment prior to beginning in-water construction activities and operation would prevent the unexpected release of any toxic substances and potential adverse effects on aquatic resources.
   Because the
   Because of areas of highly erodible soils along the project shoreline, peaking operation could cause bank sloughing and erosion. Developing and implementing a shoreline stabilization plan and maintaining a 25-foot forested buffer around the impoundment as recommended by staff would help prevent bank erosion and loss of riparian habitat.
Aquatic Resources
   In addition to the short-term increases in turbidity during project refurbishment, the diversion of flow for project operations would reduce flows in the bypassed reach, which could reduce DO levels and raise water temperatures in the bypassed reach. Monitoring water quality prior to the start of construction, during construction, and for 1 year after beginning operation as recommended by staff, would ensure that erosion control measures and minimum instream flows are adequately protecting water quality and allow for the timely identification of any needed corrective measures.
   
   FOOTNOTE 2 The Tennant method establishes streamflow requirements on the basis of a percentage of the mean annual flow, and associates aquatic-habitat conditions with different percentages of mean annual flow. END FOOTNOTE
   Using the sand gates to release the bypassed reach minimum flows as proposed by
   Developing a low inflow protocol/drought contingency plan, as recommended by staff, would allow
   Staff's recommended operation compliance monitoring plan would provide the Commission a mechanism to monitor compliance with
Terrestrial Resources
   Limiting disturbances to soil and vegetation and maintaining a minimum 25-foot-wide forested riparian buffer along project shorelines, as proposed by
Recreation and Land Use
   
Cultural Resources
   No historic properties were identified within the project's area of potential effects. The South Carolina SHPO concurred that the proposed project would have no adverse effect on historic properties. Stopping work and notifying the South Carolina SHPO and Catawba Indian Nation if any unknown archaeological resources are discovered during project construction, operation, or other project-related activities, would allow
Conclusions
   Based on our analysis, we recommend licensing the project as proposed by
   In section 4.2 of the EA, we compare the likely cost of alternative power for each of the three alternatives identified above. Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be rehabilitated as proposed; therefore, the project would not produce any electricity. Our analysis shows that during the first year of operating the project as proposed by the applicant, project power would cost
   We chose the staff alternative as the preferred alternative because: (1) The project would provide a dependable source of electrical energy for the region (4,370 MWh annually); (2) the 1.24 MW of electric energy capacity comes from a renewable resource that does not contribute to atmospheric pollution, including greenhouse gases; and (3) the recommended environmental measures proposed by
   We conclude that issuing a new license for the project with the staff-recommended measures would not be a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Environmental Assessment
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Application
   On
   FOOTNOTE 3 On
1.2 Purpose of Action and Need for Power
1.2.1 Purpose of Action
   The purpose of the
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
See Illustration in Original Document.
BILLING CODE 6717-01-C
   Issuing a license for the
   This environmental assessment (EA) assesses the effects associated with refurbishment, operation, and maintenance of the project and alternatives to the proposed project. It also includes recommendations to the Commission on whether to issue a license, and if so, includes the recommended terms and conditions to become a part of any license issued.
   In this EA, we assess the environmental and economic effects of refurbishing and operating the project: (1) As proposed by the applicant; and (2) as proposed with our recommended measures. We also consider the effects of the no-action alternative. Important issues that are addressed include erosion and sediment control, sediment management, minimum flows to protect aquatic species and shoals habitat in the 1,400-foot-long bypassed reach, a low inflow protocol during extended droughts, invasive vegetation management, and recreation improvements.
1.2.2 Need for Power
   
   
   FOOTNOTE 4 The VACAR sub-region includes the states of
   The power from the
1.3 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
   A license for the
Table 1--Major Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for theRiverdale Project Requirement Agency Status Section 18 of the U.S. Department of Interior and NMFS reserved FPA (fishway the Interior authority to prescribe fishways on prescriptions) (Interior), National September 10, and September 11, Marine Fisheries 2012, respectively. Service (NMFS) Section 10(j) of the Interior, NMFS, and Interior, South Carolina DNR, and FPA South Carolina NMFS provided section 10(j) Department of recommendations on September 10, National Resources September 10, and September 11, (South Carolina DNR) 2012, respectively. Clean Water South Carolina DNR Application for water quality Act--Water quality certification received on October certification 4, 2012; withdrawn and reapplied (certification) on September 20, 2013; due by September 20, 2014. Endangered Species Interior, U.S. Fish The project would not affect any Act (ESA) and Wildlife Service listed species because none are Consultation (FWS) known to occur in the project vicinity; therefore, further consultation under the ESA is not necessary. Coastal Zone South Carolina South Carolina DHEC indicated by Management Act Department of Health letter filed September 30, 2010, (CZMA) and Environmental that the project is not located Control (South within South Carolina's coastal Carolina DHEC) zone, that the proposed project poses no reasonably foreseeable effects on the coastal zone, and that no consistency certification is needed. National Historic South Carolina State By letter filed August 31, 2010, Preservation Act Historic the South Carolina SHPO concurred (NHPA) Preservation Office with Lockhart Power's (SHPO) determination that no historic properties would be affected by the project.
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 the
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, South Carolina DNR, and NMFS timely filed on
1.3.2 Clean Water Act
   Under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a license applicant must obtain certification from the appropriate state pollution control agency verifying compliance with the CWA. On
1.3.3 Endangered Species Act
   Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 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. There are no federally listed endangered or threatened species or critical habitat known to occur in the
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
   FOOTNOTE 5 See letter dated
1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act
   Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 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
   Pursuant to section 106, the applicant consulted with the South Carolina SHPO and affected Indian tribes to locate, determine
   FOOTNOTE 6 See letter dated
   FOOTNOTE 7 See FERC. 2012a. Telephone Meeting Summary with the
   As a result of the findings made by
1.4 Public Review and Consultation
   The Commission's regulations (18 CFR,
1.4.1 Scoping
   Before preparing this EA, we conducted scoping to determine what issues and alternatives should be addressed. A Scoping Document 1 was distributed to interested agencies and other stakeholders on
Commenting entities Date filedCaitlin Totherow , Catawba Indian NationJanuary 18, 2012 . Tribal Preservation Officer (THPO) South Carolina SHPOJanuary 20, 2012 .Woodruff-Roebuck Water District (WaterFebruary 9, 2012 . District)Greg Sveinsson ,Riverdale Development February 15, 2012 .Venture, LLC (Riverdale, LLC ) American RiversFebruary 16, 2012 South Carolina DNRFebruary 21, 2012 . FWSFebruary 21, 2012 . NMFSMarch 6, 2012 .
1.4.2 Interventions
   On
Intervenors Date filedWoodruff-Roebuck Water District June 12, 2012 . American RiversJune 19, 2012 . InteriorJune 25, 2012 . South Carolina DNRJune 29, 2012 . National Oceanic and AtmosphericJuly 5, 2012 . Administration (on behalf of NMFS)
1.4.3 Comments on the License Application
   The
Commenting agencies and other entities Date filed InteriorSeptember 10, 2012 . South Carolina DNRSeptember 10, 2012 . NMFSSeptember 11, 2012 . American RiversSeptember 12, 2012 .
   The applicant,
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives
2.1 No-Action Alternative
   We use existing conditions as the baseline environmental condition for comparison with other alternatives. Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be refurbished and operated, the dam and other facilities would remain in place, and all flows would remain in the
2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities
   
   FOOTNOTE 8 Three low level sand gates are located within three concrete-framed piers along the spillway dam. END FOOTNOTE
   FOOTNOTE 9 Staff used GIS software to estimate the length of the penstock. Current Exhibit F drawings only defined the below ground portion of the penstock as 110 feet long. END FOOTNOTE
   The project boundary includes about 25.9 acres. The project boundary encloses the project impoundment, the existing hydropower facilities, the bypassed reach (including the braided channels), tailrace, project access road, and the proposed canoe take-out, put-in, portage trail, and parking area.
2.1.2 Project Safety
   The project has been inoperable for more than 12 years under the existing license; nonetheless, during this time, Commission staff has conducted 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. As part of the licensing process, the Commission would evaluate the adequacy of the proposed project facilities. Special articles would be included in any license issued, as appropriate. Commission staff would continue to inspect the project both during and after construction to repair existing project facilities. Before the project is refurbished, engineers from the Commission's
2.1.3 Existing Project Operation and Environmental Measures
   Inman Mills ceased operating the project (under FERC No. 4362) in 2001, when the adjacent textile mill closed. The 2-foot-high flashboards washed out during storm events in 2012 and 2013 and there is currently no practical way to control flows from Riverdale dam. The current owner demolished the original concrete and brick powerhouse and replaced it with a wood frame building. All flows pass over the dam and into the 1,400-foot-long bypassed reach. No environmental measures are currently being implemented at the project.
2.2 Applicant's Proposal
2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities
   
   FOOTNOTE 10
2.2.2 Proposed Project Operations
   
   
2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures
   
    * Implement a sediment management plan that consists of using the sand gates to draw down the impoundment below the normal operating range for periodic inspections and maintenance and, if possible, avoid drawdowns from
    * Monitor water quality as may be required by the South Carolina DHEC.
    * Maintain a minimum flow of 50 cfs in the bypassed reach and a total minimum continuous flow of 60 cfs, or inflow if less, in the
    * When average daily inflows are less than or equal to 80 cfs (+/- 10 percent), release all inflow into the bypassed reach (i.e. low inflow protocol [LIP]) to protect aquatic resources downstream from Riverdale dam, including during the fish spawning season.
    * Implement best management practices (BMPs) to protect vegetation within the project boundary, such as limiting vegetation and ground-disturbing activities and maintaining a minimum 25-foot-wide forested riparian buffer on project shorelines, as long as this does not interfere with
    * Construct and maintain: (1) A canoe take-out located approximately 220 feet upstream of the dam; (2) a canoe put-in located approximately 1,075 feet downstream from the dam; (3) a 1,650-foot-long portage trail connecting the proposed canoe take-out and put-in; (4) a parking area located adjacent to the proposed portage trail; and (5) signage to improve public access at the project and to the
    * Provide informal public access for fishing at the project impoundment, tailrace, and bypassed reach.
    * Notify and consult with the South Carolina SHPO regarding any project-related construction or other ground-disturbing activities. /11/
   FOOTNOTE 11
2.3 Staff Alternative
   The staff alternative includes the following additional measures and modifications to
    * Develop and implement a site-specific soil erosion and sediment control plan, which includes the BMPs described in the South Carolina DHEC's Stormwater BMP Handbook, to minimize erosion and sedimentation during soil-disturbing activities associated with project construction and repairs.
    * Develop and implement a sediment management plan that includes provisions to: (a) Test impoundment sediments for heavy metals and other contaminants prior to beginning in-water construction activities and initial operation; (b) prepare a contingency plan for proper disposal of any contaminated sediments should they be found in the impoundment; (c) monitor sediment accumulation in the impoundment annually to facilitate planning of sediment management activities; (d) develop criteria that would trigger sediment removal from the impoundment (i.e. by opening the sand gates, if appropriate, during high flow events, or via mechanical methods); (e) conduct sediment management activities during the months of November through January except during high rain events (e.g., tropical storms or hurricanes); (f) avoid maintenance activities that would draw down the impoundment below normal operating levels and potentially pass sediment into the bypassed reach from
    * Develop and implement a shoreline stabilization plan that includes provisions to: (a) Identify eroding or potential project-induced erosion sites on the impoundment shorelines and streambanks downstream from the dam and powerhouse prior to beginning operation; (b) stabilize areas of shoreline erosion using native vegetation, bio-engineering, slope flattening, toe armoring with anchored logs, and/or riprap that incorporates native vegetation plantings; (c) monitor shorelines after resuming operation and implement stabilization measures if project-induced erosion occurs; (d) conduct shoreline stabilization activities from September through February to protect aquatic species and wildlife; and (e) file annual reports describing monitoring results and any implemented shoreline stabilization measures.
    * Develop and implement a water quality monitoring plan with provisions to: (a) Monitor dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature, and turbidity prior to the start of construction, during construction, and for 1 year after project operation begins to ensure the levels specified by the current state water quality standards are met and aquatic resources are protected; (b) define sampling methods, timing, and locations for monitoring these parameters in consultation with South Carolina DHEC, FWS, and NMFS; and (c) file a report that presents the monitoring data, describes any project-related effects and identifies corrective actions, if necessary.
    * Release a continuous minimum flow of 75 cfs into the bypassed reach to protect aquatic habitat.
    * Develop and implement a plan to release required minimum flows into the bypassed reach that includes: (a) A feasibility assessment for using the sand gates as a flow-release mechanism; (b) if found to be feasible, a flow study to determine how the sand gates would be used to distribute flow into the bypassed reach to protect aquatic habitat; (c) if the sand gates are not feasible, a description of how the minimum instream flows would be provided to the bypassed reach; (d) a report documenting the outcome of the feasibility assessment, flow study, and consultation with the agencies; and (e) an implementation schedule.
    * Develop and implement a low inflow protocol/drought contingency plan to define periods of extended drought and the low inflow protocols to minimize adverse effects on generation, and on fish, wildlife, and water quality in the bypassed reach and downstream from the tailrace.
    * Develop and implement an operation compliance monitoring plan that includes: (a) A rating curve to provide the seasonally defined flows; (b) protocols to monitor and document compliance with required flows; (c) protocols to monitor and document impoundment fluctuations; and (d) an implementation schedule.
    * Develop and implement an invasive /12/ vegetation monitoring and control plan that includes: (a) Survey methods to determine the extent of alligatorweed in the impoundment and riparian area prior to beginning refurbishment activities; (b) BMPs, as well as monitoring and control methods to prevent the spread of alligatorweed in the impoundment to areas downstream from the dam during project refurbishment; (c) monitoring protocols to detect the introduction or spread of other invasive plants within the project boundary during operation and maintenance; (d) criteria that would determine when control measures would be required; and (e) a schedule for filing monitoring reports and any recommended control measures with the Commission.
   FOOTNOTE 12 For the purposes of this document, an "invasive species" is defined, consistent with Executive Order 13112, as a species that is: (1) Non-native (or alien[/exotic]) to the ecosystem under consideration; and (2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (
    * Determine whether the existing project transmission line is consistent with Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) guidelines. Identify, in consultation with FWS, measures to minimize potential electrocution hazards to birds and file a report with the Commission describing the results of the evaluation and any measures recommended by FWS.
    * Modify the applicant's proposal for signage at recreation sites to include: (1) Identification of the canoe take-out and put in; (2) directions from the parking area to river access points; and (3) information regarding garbage disposal in order to improve public information available at the project and protect environmental resources.
    * Stop work and notify the South Carolina SHPO and the Catawba Indian Nation if any unknown archaeological resources are discovered as a result of project construction, operation, or project-related activities to avoid, lessen, or mitigate potential adverse effects on historic resources.
2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Further Analysis
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 Project Decommissioning
   Project decommissioning could be accomplished with or without dam removal. Both Interior and American Rivers recommended that the Commission analyze project decommissioning with dam removal as an alternative in this EA. Because
   Decommissioning with dam removal would remove the only barrier to fish movement in the
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. Sections are organized by resource area. Under each resource area, historic and current conditions are first described. 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. /13/ We present the estimated cost of the proposed and recommended measures in section 4.0, Developmental Analysis. Our conclusions and recommended measures are discussed in section 5.2,
   FOOTNOTE 13 Unless otherwise indicated, our information is taken from the license application for this project (
3.1 General Description of the
   Situated within the
   
   FOOTNOTE 14
   FOOTNOTE 15 There are no records of a hydroelectric license at the Pelham dam location (
   
   Climate in the
3.2 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis
   According to the
   Based on our review of the license application, agency and public comments from scoping, and other filings related to the project, we have identified fisheries as a resource that could be cumulatively affected by the proposed project in combination with other actions such as sand mining operations in the
3.2.1 Geographic Scope
   The geographic scope of the 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. For fisheries, we identified the geographic scope to extend from the remains of the Pelham dam downstream to the mouth of the
3.2.2 Temporal Scope
   The temporal scope of our cumulative effects analysis in the EA includes a discussion of past, present, and future actions and their effects on these resources. Based on the potential term of license, we will look 30 to 50 years into the future, concentrating on the effect on the resources from reasonably foreseeable future actions. The historical discussion is limited, by necessity, to the amount of available information. We identify 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 site-specific environmental issues.
   Only the resources that would be affected, or about which comments have been received, are addressed in detail in this EA. We have not identified any substantive issues related to aesthetic resources or socioeconomics associated with the proposed action, and, therefore, these issues are not assessed in this EA.
3.3.1 Geologic and Soil Resources
3.3.1.1 Affected Environment
   
   FOOTNOTE 16 Elevations in this document are based on the National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 (NGVD 29). END FOOTNOTE
   Dominant soils within the project area and general vicinity of the project include the following series: Cartecay, Congaree, and Enoree (entisols); /17/ and
   FOOTNOTE 17 Entisols are mineral soils that typically occur in areas where the rate of erosion or deposition of soil parent materials exceeds the rate of soil horizon development (NRCS, 2012). END FOOTNOTE
   FOOTNOTE 18 Ulitsols are highly weathered soils rich in clays and minerals commonly found in mesic forests in the
   FOOTNOTE 19 Alluvial land is an area such as a portion of a stream channel or floodplain where stream-born sediment has been deposited (Chernicoff and Ramesh, 1995). END FOOTNOTE
Table 2--Select Characteristics of Mapped Soil Units at the   The characteristics of dominant soil types along with active local mining operations likely contribute to the load of suspended solids in the
   During licensing studies conducted the summer of 2010, /20/
   FOOTNOTE 20 The survey report for Carolina heelsplitter, a freshwater mussel species, provided qualitative information on substrate content and compactness, sand and gravel bars, woody debris, beaver activity, bank stability, riparian buffer width and vegetation types, land use, turbidity, and water level. END FOOTNOTE
   FOOTNOTE 21 Survey locations included the impoundment and the
   Heavy metals and other contaminants from an industrial spill are known to occur in the
   FOOTNOTE 22 According to South Carolina DHEC, the levels of chemicals measured at the spill site do not pose a risk to people who may ingest or come in contact with water and sediment in the area; however, the threshold for adverse effects to aquatic organisms is much lower. END FOOTNOTE
   The Enoree watershed is transport limited, meaning that material, primarily eroding soils, collects at a faster rate than river flows can transport. In small impoundments such as the one at the project, sediments tend to collect seasonally or during low flow periods. This is exemplified by the large amount of fine sediments (e.g., sand, silt, and clay), tree trunks, branches, and other debris that have accumulated within the project impoundment, including in front of the intake structure and the dam spillway (FERC, 2012b; 2013). Some of the sediments and debris in these areas are covered by mats of alligatorweed and other vegetation (
3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects
Construction-Related Effects
   At this time,
   To address the issue of erosion and sedimentation at the project,
   FOOTNOTE 23
Our Analysis
   
Operation and Maintenance-Related Effects
   Heavy sediment loads in the
   Resuming project operation and maintenance activities could affect several geomorphological processes and/or conditions such as stream bank and shoreline erosion, bed scour, and sediment accumulation within the impoundment, and sediment transport to downstream river reaches. Because of the heavy sediment loads and lower velocities in the impoundment, sediments would continue to accumulate in the impoundment during project operation. Periodic maintenance activities, such as inspections or repairs to the sand gates that would require lowering the project impoundment below the normal operating levels, could result in untimely flushing of sediments and the accidental releases of large quantities of sediment. During peaking operation, impoundment fluctuations of up to 4 feet could cause bank erosion and sedimentation in the impoundment.
   To prevent significant accumulation of sediments in the project impoundment and untimely releases of sediment downstream,
   South Carolina DNR recommends that
   Interior also recommends
   To protect project shorelines from water level fluctuations associated with peaking operation, Interior recommends
Our Analysis
Sediment Management
   Refurbishing the dam, sand gates, and intake structures, and beginning initial operation would likely result in the re-suspension and subsequent transport of a large quantity of sediments downstream from the project. High loads of suspended solids [sediment] increase turbidity in riverine habitats leading to reduced light penetration, decreased primary productivity, which then can lead to adverse effects to the rest of the food chain. Sedimentation can modify the substrate surfaces and morphology of a stream channel, reducing habitat availability and smothering and killing aquatic flora and fauna (Wood and
   Conducting an initial test for heavy metals and other contaminants in the impoundment sediments prior to beginning project operations, as recommended by Interior, would determine if such contaminants are in the project impoundment. The test results would also help
   Avoiding impoundment draw downs
   Regular management of impoundment sediment loads would help prevent sediment buildup and the accidental release of large quantities of sediment during scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities that could have adverse effects on downstream resources. Such an event occurred in October of 2011 at the
   FOOTNOTE 24 See letter from
   FOOTNOTE 25 See letter from
   FOOTNOTE 26 See letter from
   FOOTNOTE 27 See letter from
   Developing a sediment management plan would facilitate detection and timely management of sedimentation at the project, which would protect aquatic and riparian resources at and near the project. The plan would be most effective if it includes regular monitoring of sediment loads, defines criteria for when sediment loads are reaching levels requiring flushing or removal, and establishes a schedule for flushing sediments or mechanically removing the sediments during periods when such releases would be least harmful to aquatic resources. Annual sediment management reports, as recommended by South Carolina DNR, would ensure continued stakeholder involvement in sediment management activities at the project and that sedimentation is managed effectively from year to year. Such report(s) would be most informative if they include sediment monitoring results, sediment management activities that were undertaken, and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the sediment management plan in minimizing adverse effects on downstream resources.
Fluctuating Water Levels
   Resuming project operations, as
   FOOTNOTE 28 Staff used GIS software to estimate the length of the impoundment shoreline. The individual lengths of the northern and southern impoundment shorelines are 1,234 feet and 1,160 feet, respectively. END FOOTNOTE
3.3.2 Aquatic Resources
3.3.2.1 Affected Environment
Water Quantity
   The project impoundment has a surface area of 6.6 acres at the normal pool elevation of 512 feet above msl and a gross storage capacity of 22 acre-feet. The impoundment extends 0.25 mile upstream of the dam to a bedrock ledge about 225 feet downstream from the Highway 221 Bridge. The impoundment is about 250 to 300 feet wide, shallow, and includes mid-channel sandbars and large woody debris. All flows currently pass over the dam and flow into the project's 1,400-foot-long bypassed reach.
   The impoundment drainage area is 280.5 square miles. The estimated mean annual daily flow (MADF) at the project is 374 cfs. /29/ The maximum peak flow for the period of record was approximately 52,200 cfs on
   FOOTNOTE 29 This MADF is based on data collected during the following period of record:
Table 3--Synthesized Monthly Flow Data (CFS) for the Riverdale Project From USGS Gage No. 02160390Enoree River atWoodruff, South Carolina [Source:Lockhart Power , 2010a; USGS, 2013, as modified by staff] Month Minimum 90 Percent 75 Percent Mean Maximum 25 10 Percent exceedance exceedance Percent exceedance exceedanc e January 153 180 252 475 6938 492 828 February 156 193 267 503 5853 521 803 March 191 247 298 590 8204 586 895 April 164 218 258 442 4656 498 709 May 127 160 188 343 463 359 557 June 62 107 140 300 2915 341 544 July 53 92 122 269 6893 263 489 August 38 68 90 307 22600 283 467 September 44 71 98 271 7255 276 414 October 59 87 115 256 5311 272 406 November 73 98 131 296 4497 301 512 December 101 149 188 439 5198 475 748 Note: Period of Record isJanuary 1, 1994 throughDecember 31, 2012 . TheWoodruff gage is located about 6.7 miles upstream of the project and has a drainage area of about 249 square miles. Flows were pro-rated to the project using the formula 280.5/249.
Water Use
   Public water supply is the primary surface water use of the
   FOOTNOTE 30 See letter from Curtis M.
Water Quality
   South Carolina DHEC designated the
Table 4--South Carolina Water Quality Standards for Freshwaters [Source: South Carolina Regulation 61-68--Water classifications and standards] Quality standards for freshwaters Items Standards a. Garbage, cinders, ashes, oils, None allowed. sludge, or other refuse b. Dissolved oxygen Daily average not less than 5.0 mg/l with a low of 4.0 mg/1. c. E. coli Not to exceed a geometric mean of 126/100 ml based on at least four samples collected from a given sampling site over a 30 day period, nor shall a single sample maximum exceed 349/100 ml. d. Temperature Temperature of all freshwaters which are free flowing shall not be increased more than 5 [degrees] F (2.8 [degrees] C) above natural temperature conditions and shall not exceed a maximum of 90 [degrees] F (32.2 [degrees] C) as a result of the discharge of heated liquids unless a different site-specific temperature standard has been established, a mixing zone has been established, or a Section 316(a) determination under the Federal Clean Water Act has been completed. e. Turbidity (except for lakes) Not to exceed 50 NTUs provided existing uses are maintained.
   In general, water quality of the
   
   FOOTNOTE 31 The USGS Whitmire gage (USGS 02160700
Fishery Resources
   The 6.6-acre impoundment is mostly riverine in nature with substrates of silt, clay, sand, and/or detritus. Upstream of the dam, just below the HWY 221 Bridge, a small shelf composed of boulder and bedrock provides shoal habitat. Littoral habitat in the impoundment includes shallow banks composed of sand, mud and submerged aquatic vegetation. The riparian forest at the edge of the impoundment provides overhanging vegetation with occasional snags and roots.
   The tailrace is approximately 5 to 6 feet wide and 8 inches to 1 foot deep. The most prevalent substrate is sand, which covers bedrock, boulders and cobble. Root mats, aquatic vegetation, and a few logs are also present (Carnagey Biological Services, 2010).
   
   The natural ledge or fall stretches across the entire width of the river, approximately 15 to 20 feet below the dam. Downstream from the natural ledge, the main channel runs on the south side of the river, and flows over small and large boulders with aquatic vegetation dispersed throughout. The main channel provides a series of riffle, run and pool habitat types. The substrate in the main channel consists mostly of bedrock and sand, interspersed with some boulders, cobble and gravel. Logs, root mats, and aquatic vegetation are also present (Carnagey Biological Services, 2010).
   The north side of the bypassed reach is more complex and splits into three braided channels. The braided channels are approximately 6.5 to 19.5 feet wide and from 4 inches to greater than 2 feet deep, with a canopy cover of 45 percent. Substrate in this area is composed of boulders, cobble, gravel, sand, and some bedrock. Snags, root mats, leaf packs, and some aquatic vegetation provide other habitat (Carnagey Biological Services, 2010).
   To characterize the fish resources within the
See Illustration in Original Document.
See Illustration in Original Document.
Macroinvertebrates
   Carnagey Biological Services (2010) conducted benthic macroinvertebrate surveys in the
   Two indices were used to evaluate the quality of the environment for benthic macroinvertebrates. The
Freshwater Mussels
   Alderman Environmental Services conducted freshwater mussel and snail surveys
Special Status Aquatic Species
Fish
   None of the species identified during the survey are state or federally listed as threatened or endangered. However, eight fish species collected in the survey are listed as Conservation Species: redeye bass,
   Redeye bass is a Conservation Species of Highest Priority due to its restricted range, as well as competitive displacement and hybridization when found together with the introduced, non-native spotted bass (SCDNR, 2005). The species typically inhabits small to medium sized headwater streams within the Appalachian foothills of Gulf and Atlantic Slope drainages (
   The Santee chub is a Conservation Species of High Priority due to its limited distribution (South Carolina DNR, 2005). Within its distribution, the
   The piedmont darter is a Conservation Species of High Priority, largely because one-third of its global distribution is in
   The thicklip chub is a Conservation Species of Moderate Priority because it occurs only in the Carolinas and
Table 6--Spawning Dates andHabitat Requirements for Eight Conservation Species Observed in the Riverdale Bypassed Reach [South Carolina DNR, 2005] Common name Spawning dates Habitat Use Species Range Literature Range Literature Category source source Micropterus Redeye Bass April-June Mettee et fluvial *1 Freeman and coosae al. (1996) specialist Marcinek Wallus and (2006) Rohde Simon (2008) et al. (2009) Cyprinella Santee Chub information none fluvial Rohde et al. zanema not specialist (2009) available Cyprinella Thicklip possibly Jenkins and fluvial Freeman and labrosa Chub mid-May-- Burkhead specialist Marcinek late August (1993) (2006) Rohde et al. (2009) Cyprinella Greenfin information none fluvial Freeman and chloristia Shiner not specialist Marcinek available (2006) Rohde et al. (2009) Ameiurus Flat June-July Olmsted and generalist Rohde et al. platycepha- Bullhead (impoundment Cloutman *2 (2009) lus population) (1979) Ameriurus Snail May--early Jenkins and fluvial Freeman and brunneus Bullhead June Burkhead specialist Marcinek (1993) (2006) Rohde et al. (2009) Percina Piedmont mid- to Jenkins and fluvial Rohde et al. crassa Darter late-spring Burkhead specialist (2009) (1993) Moxostoma Notchlip March--early Jenkins and fluvial Freeman and collapsum Redhorse June Burkhead specialist Marcinek (1993) (2006) Rohde Grabowski et al. and Isely (2009) (2007) Coughlan et al. (2007) *1 Fluvial specialists are species that require flowing water for most or all of their life cycle (Galat et al., 2005). *2 Habitat generalists are species that are capable of successfully utilizing a variety of habitats to complete their life-cycle.
   The greenfin shiner is a Conservation Species of Moderate Priority because they only occur in the Carolinas and
   The notchlip redhorse is a Conservation Species of Moderate Priority due to habitat degradation such as deforestation and siltation (South Carolina DNR, 2005). The species occurs in large creeks to large rivers on the inner
   The flat bullhead is a Conservation Species of Moderate Priority due to sedimentation, hydrologic modification, impoundments, nonpoint source pollution, and development, as well as competition with and predation by non-native catfish species like the flathead and blue catfish (South Carolina DNR, 2005). The species occupies a variety of habitats, including impoundments (Olmstead and Cloutman, 1979). Spawning biology is not well understood in stream or riverine environments, though spawning in Lake
   The snail bullhead is a Conservation Species of Moderate Priority for the same reasons as flat bullhead. The species is frequently found in warm and medium-sized rivers, often in rocky runs and riffles, and appears to prefer shoals compared to pools (Kennon, 2007; Rohde et al., 2009). Little is known about snail bullhead biology, but it likely spawns from May to early June (table 6). The snail bullhead was found in the main channel and upstream of braided sections of the bypassed reach during 2010 fish surveys (table 5).
   All Conservation Priority Fish Species, with the possible exception of the flat bullhead, are fluvial specialists. /32/ In contrast, habitat generalists, /33/ such as flat bullhead, can be found in both lentic and lotic systems (Galat et al., 2005).
   FOOTNOTE 32 Fluvial specialists are species that require flowing water for most or all of their life cycle (Galat et al., 2005). END FOOTNOTE
   FOOTNOTE 33 Habitat generalists are species that are capable of successfully utilizing a variety of habitats to complete their life-cycle. END FOOTNOTE
Benthic macroinvertebrates
   The panhandle pebblesnail is a Conservation Species of Highest Priority. Siltation of streams and rivers from agricultural runoff and erosion of unstable stream banks are the main factors affecting the distribution of the species (South Carolina DNR, 2005). The species is generally found in rivers and streams throughout the
3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects
Effects of Project Refurbishment and Operation on Water Quality
   As discussed in section 3.3.1, Geologic and Soil Resources, if erosion control measures do not adequately mitigate soil erosion and sedimentation, there may be temporary increases in turbidity above the current state standard of 50 NTU in the
   
   Interior recommends that
Our Analysis
   Our understanding of water quality in the project vicinity under existing conditions is limited because it is based on three water quality samples collected by
   Because of the limited storage capacity of the project impoundment, ROR operation would likely predominate. Water quality conditions within the impoundment are not expected to differ greatly from existing conditions during ROR operation because all inflow would continually pass through the project as it currently does. However, during peaking operation, which would occur during lower flow periods, DO levels could decrease and water temperatures could increase as water retention times increase. The extent to which these water quality parameters would be affected is unknown, and would depend on inflow rates and ambient conditions.
   Because all flows currently spill over the dam into the bypassed reach, some degree of aeration occurs. Given the presence of several species of fish and macroinvertebrates, sufficient aeration is likely occurring. Once operation begins, flows in the bypassed reach would be limited to minimum flows provided through the low-level sand gates, except when inflow exceeds the project's hydraulic capacity. Although the flows would be less than that which occurs currently, flows would be constant and aeration over the shoals is likely to be sufficient to protect aquatic biota. Thermal stratification of the impoundment, which could affect DO levels in the bypassed minimum flow to the bypassed reach, is unlikely because of its shallow depth (Dodds et al., 2010).
   Turbidity monitoring prior to the start of construction as well as during project rehabilitation would ensure that the erosion control and sediment management plan is meeting its objectives and that discharges are consistent with the current state water quality standards (table 4) and other permitting requirements throughout the project rehabilitation phase.
   Monitoring water quality in the impoundment and in the bypassed reach prior to construction, during construction, and during the first year of project operation under the various operational levels, as recommended by Interior, would determine if operations are adversely affecting water quality parameters and if potential corrective actions are warranted. Depending on the results, monitoring may need to be extended beyond the first year.
Effects of Project Refurbishment and Operation on Fishery Resources
Instream Flow Releases
   The proposed
   
   South Carolina DNR recommends
   FOOTNOTE 34 See email correspondence dated
   Although NMFS supports South Carolina DNR's proposed minimum flows, it also recommends
Our Analysis
   The current licensee has not operated the project since 2001, and no river flow has been diverted for hydropower purposes since that time. Rather, all river flow has and continues to run over the dam/spillway and into the shoals of the 1,400-foot-long bypassed river channel. These conditions represent the no-action alternative.
   Piedmont streams like the
   Many fish species have evolved life history strategies in the context of natural flow regimes. Consequently, fishes are generally adapted to the monthly, seasonal, annual, and interannual variations in flow, and are capable of surviving flows from drought to flood conditions (
   A diversity of species currently exist in the bypassed reach, which is composed of complex shoals habitat. Shoals represent only 2 percent of all habitat in the
   The bypassed reach had the highest number of species collected, compared to all other habitats sampled during the 2010 fish surveys (table 5). A total of 21 species was observed in the bypassed reach, and seven of those species are listed by
   Redeye bass is one of the more unique species present in the bypassed reach, and is listed as Conservation Species of Highest Priority. This species is restricted to watersheds in northwest
   The panhandle pebblesnail is another unique and rare species present in the bypassed reach, and also is listed as a Conservation Species of Highest Priority. In 1994, this species was under candidate review for listing under the Endangered Species Act; however, it was determined that persuasive data on biological vulnerability and threat were not available to support listing at the time (DOI, 1994). This species is only documented at seven locations in
   Because
   FOOTNOTE 35 The 7Q10 is the lowest 7-day average flow that occurs (on average) once every 10 years. END FOOTNOTE
   FOOTNOTE 36 The 50-cfs minimum flow in the bypassed reach represents an increase from the 30-cfs minimum flow requirement of the existing license. END FOOTNOTE
   The proposed 50 cfs is 13 percent of the MADF, or 393 cfs.
Table 7--Flows Through the Bypassed Reach at FERC Licensed Projects in theBroad River Basin ,South Carolina [Source:Lockhart Power ] Project Name MADF Range of Percent range of MADF (cfs) flow through bypassed reach (cfs) Gaston Shoals 2,170 150-350 7 to 16. Lockhart 3,600 200-385 5 to 11. Catawba 4,878 550-950 11 to 19. Columbia 6,923 500-900 7 to 13. Pacolet 505 22-49 4 to 9. Riverdale Proposed 393 50 13.
   Without a site-specific flow study, desktop standard-setting methods, such as 7Q10, the Water Plan, and Tennant (1976) can be used to provide minimum flow recommendations.
   The 7Q10 flow is a hydrologically-based design flow that represents the lowest 7-day average flow that occurs, on average, once every 10 years. The 7Q10 flow does not necessarily take into account biological needs of aquatic resources. Nonetheless,
   Where site-specific flow studies are not available, South Carolina DNR uses the state Water Plan /37/ to recommend flows that will protect fishery resources in all waters of the state when natural streamflow regimes cannot be maintained. The Water Plan minimum flow requirements are based on instream flow studies conducted at six regulated reaches in the South Carolina Piedmont. These minimum flow requirements were designed to provide a useable width for migratory fish /38/ passing through shoals during high flows, provide "generally adequate" flows to protect fisheries during low flows, provide "adequate" flows during periods when flows are increasing or decreasing, and provide flows that conform to seasonal variation in flow. These objectives resulted in three distinct minimum flow periods that capture high (January-April; 40 percent of MADF), low (July-November; 20 percent of MADF), and increasing (December; 30 percent of MADF) or decreasing (May, June; 30 percent of MADF) flow periods (Bulak and Jobsis, 1989).
   FOOTNOTE 37 The Water Plan states that the current policy for determining instream flow requirements for fishery resources can be found in South Carolina Instream Flow Studies: A Status Report (Bulak and Jobsis, 1989). END FOOTNOTE
   FOOTNOTE 38 Striped bass were considered a migratory species of prime importance in the instream flow studies, and habitat suitability (i.e. stream width and depth requirements) was based on passage of this species. END FOOTNOTE
   Based on the stipulations of the Water Plan and the flow record at the time, which established a MADF of 393 cfs for the bypassed reach, South Carolina DNR, Interior, and NMFS concluded that the minimum flows should meet or exceed the following: 79 cfs from July-November (20 percent of MADF); 157 cfs from January-April (40 percent of MADF); and 118 cfs in May, June, and December (30 percent of MADF). Using the most current flow data available, staff calculated the MADF to be 374 cfs, which results in the following slightly lower flows: July-November, 75 cfs (20 percent of MADF); January-April, 150 cfs (40 percent of MADF); and May, June, and December, 112 cfs (30 percent of MADF). In contrast,
   One of the criteria used to establish minimum flow requirements of the Water Plan is to provide sufficient depth for passage of striped bass. Bulak and Jobsis (1989) concluded that in
   Striped bass are not present in the bypassed reach and a spawning migration does not occur up to the
   Based on the study conducted by Bulak and Jobsis (1989), flows ranging from 15 to 32 percent of MADF are acceptable from January to April if a channel 1.0-foot-deep by 10-feet-wide is adequate for the species present. Given the absence of striped bass and other anadromous species at the
   In addition to using the parameters of the Water Plan, we analyzed flows in the bypassed reach using the Tennant method. The Tennant method is based on the assumption that a proportion of MADF would maintain suitable depths and water velocities for fish. Although Tennant's method is derived from rivers in
   Table 8 shows the percentages of mean annual flows and corresponding narrative descriptions of the habitat created by these flows in the
Table 8--Minimum Flow Required for Fish in Streams Identified by Tennant [1976] % of MADF Description of flow Dry Wet season season Outstanding 40 60 Excellent 30 50 Good 20 40 Fair or degrading 10 30 Poor or minimum 10 10 Severe degradation 0-10 0-10
   NMFS recommended that an instream flow study be conducted after the license is issued, and when the sand gates have been renovated to allow management of flows into the bypassed reach. However, as discussed above, we already have sufficient information to evaluate bypassed reach minimum flow alternatives. For this reason, an instream flow study is not needed for this project.
Fluctuating Water Levels
   
   Beyond the minimum flow alternatives described above, no one recommended changing proposed project operations.
Our Analysis
   
   Downstream from the tailrace, the highest fluctuations would occur from December through June, when monthly mean flows range from 300-590 cfs (see table 3). During this period, daily flows downstream from the tailrace could range from 60 cfs when the project is not operating and the pond is refilling, to pulses of 500 cfs during operation.
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
See Illustration in Original Document.
BILLING CODE 6717-01-C
Downstream Effects
   Flow fluctuations associated with peaking may have negative consequences for fish occurring downstream from the tailrace. When flows are high, large areas of habitat can be used by fish for foraging, cover, or reproduction. However, when water levels recede, the connection between side channels and the main channel can be lost (Bradford, 1997). As a result, fish stranding can occur on gravel bars, back channels, or pot-holes that become isolated from the main flow (
   Alterations in discharge during the spawning season can particularly affect reproduction of species with short spawning seasons (Craven et al., 2010). Freeman et al. (2001) demonstrated that fish assemblages below projects with peaking operations in
   As discussed above, under
Impoundment Effects
   Fluctuating water levels may produce unfavorable spawning conditions and recruitment for resident fish species that occupy the Riverdale impoundment. Effects may be particularly pronounced for centrarchids, which build nests and spawn at shallow depths in the littoral zone during spring and summer. When water levels decrease during drawdowns, nests become exposed and egg desiccation can occur (Maraldo and MacCrimmon, 1981). Lower water levels can also result in reduced shoreline cover and increased predation on juvenile fish (Willis, 1986).
   Inflows are greater than 170 cfs and less than 500 cfs, between 50.6 and 75.2 percent of the time during April through June, when most centrarchids build nests and spawn (figure 2). Thus, peaking operation, with up to a 4-foot drawdown, could occur daily about 50 to 75 percent of the time during April through June when centrarchids are building nests and spawning (figure 2).
   Proposed peaking operation, with up to a 4-foot drawdown, would change the littoral zone fish habitat in the project impoundment, compared to the natural flow conditions that have been present at the project for the last 12 years. Frequent drawdowns from April through June have the potential to dewater fish nests, disturb spawning, and reduce reproductive success of the four centrarchid species occupying the impoundment (see table 5). Peaking operation at the project could affect each of these species. However, three centrarchids are multiple spawners (e.g., bluegill, red breast sunfish, and redear sunfish) and could spawn again if project operation disrupts initial spawning activities.
   With regard to redeye bass, the impoundment likely does not possess significant amounts of spawning or juvenile habitat. The impoundment's littoral zone includes shallow banks composed of sand, mud, and submerged aquatic vegetation (Carnegey Biological Services, 2010). Redeye bass, however, spawn in gravel nests built in eddy waters at the heads of pools (Wallus and Simon, 2008) and juveniles appear to prefer areas close to shorelines with heavy canopy cover (Knight, 2011). These types of habitats are not present in the project impoundment, but are present in the bypassed reach, where
Low Inflow/Drought Conditions
   The project is located in the Southeast U.S., which is susceptible to severe drought events that can reduce water supplies for several years at a time. Recently, severe droughts occurred from 1998-2002, 2005-2007, and 2012. During these events, incoming flow can fall below minimum continuous flows, stressing aquatic resources and creating conflicts among competing uses, including generation, water supply, and recreation.
   To address drought conditions,
   FOOTNOTE 39 Based on pro-rated inflow data from the USGS gage near
   FOOTNOTE 40 The Water Plan does not prescribe specific flows, recommends that a Water-shortage Contingency Plan (i.e., drought contingency plan) be developed and coordinated with appropriate federal and state agencies, local governments, and other stakeholders. The Water Plan also recommends that the Water-shortage Contingency Plan include water-shortage severity levels and water releases associated with each severity level. END FOOTNOTE
Our Analysis
   The overall objective of a LIP is to provide sufficient instream flows to protect fish, wildlife and other water uses in the project vicinity during droughts.
   Severe drought events can affect fishes in a number of ways. Low streamflows during a drought reduce stream width and depth, limiting habitat availability and the ability of fish to move freely among habitats (Lohr and Fausch, 1997). Droughts also affect water temperature and DO concentrations, which can negatively affect reproduction and juvenile recruitment (Schlosser et al., 2001). This can reduce stream fish populations and change fish assemblage structure by favoring hypoxia-tolerant species and reducing intolerant species (Smale and Rabeni, 1995). Moreover, drought can simply kill fish directly (Lohr and Fausch, 1997).
   Ideally, a LIP would be designed to provide flexibility to adjust minimum flows during drought periods so that the effects of low flows are balanced among competing uses, while still protecting fish and wildlife. As written,
   Eighty cfs represents 20 to 21 percent of MADF, depending on whether the flow record includes 1994-2009 (MADF = 393 cfs) or the most complete record from 1994-2012 (MADF = 374 cfs), respectively. Bulak and Jobsis (1989) determined that during the low flow period (July-November) in South Carolina Piedmont streams, 20 percent of MADF was "generally adequate" for aquatic resources. If drought conditions were to extend into the high flow period (January-April), 20 percent of MADF was within the range (15-32 percent of MADF) of flow that provides a 1-foot-deep by 10-feet-wide stream of water. Thus, 80 cfs would provide good habitat in the bypassed reach and downstream from the tailrace. Any inflows that are lower would represent natural flow conditions that
   
   The LIPs recommended by South Carolina DNR inherently allow flows to drop below the minimum flow releases determined to be suitable for fish and benthic invertebrates in the bypassed reach. Although further reductions of minimum flow requirements are likely to have additional effects on aquatic habitat and fish populations, fishes have developed physiological and behavioral adaptations for coping with drought conditions. For example, some fishes move to pools that contain water (Gelwick, 1990) or larger downstream reaches (Magoulick and Kobza, 2003), and darters may survive in the hyporheic zone /41/ (Tramer, 1977). Also, fishes tend to move back into an affected area as soon as a drought disturbance has subsided (Larimore et al., 1959;
   FOOTNOTE 41 The hyporheic zone is a portion of the groundwater interface in streams where a mixture of surface water and groundwater can be found. Hyporheic zone waters can be found both beneath the active channel and within the riparian zone of most streams and rivers. END FOOTNOTE
Releasing and Distributing Minimum Instream Flows Across the Bypassed Channel
   As discussed above,
   FOOTNOTE 42 The sand gate on the right side does not have any gate mechanism installed, and is permanently sealed. The operating mechanism for the middle sand gate is tilted relative to its foundation and appears to be damaged (FERC, 2013). END FOOTNOTE
   South Carolina DNR and Interior recommend
Our Analysis
   Under existing conditions, flows in the
   The distinct physical features between the north and south side of the bypassed reach enables a unique assemblage of fish to occupy each habitat.
   Because
   Assuming that the bypassed flows can be provided through the sand gates, distributing the flows across the shoals to optimize benthic invertebrate and fish habitat may require delivering flows from one or more sand gates. While fully wetting the shoals would likely provide benthic invertebrate and fish habitat, it may not provide the best habitat for targeted channels supporting rare species. To determine which combination of gates to use would require a post-licensing flow study as recommended by NMFS and American Rivers that examines depth, velocity, and wetted width across the shoals using various combinations of the sand gates to deliver the required flows. Targeted species and habitat conditions would need to be selected in consultation with the South Carolina DNR, FWS, NMFS, and American Rivers to define habitat suitability criteria.
Benthic Invertebrate and Fish Surveys
   The shoals within the bypassed reach represents a unique habitat that is relatively rare and currently supports seven fish species and a snail (panhandle pebblesnail) recognized in the South Carolina Wildlife Action Plan as in need of conservation because of their restricted ranges and specialized habitat needs (table 5). Sediment discharges and minimum instream flows could lead to physical, chemical, and biological changes in the bypassed reach affecting the distribution and occurrence of these species in the bypassed reach.
   Interior recommends that
Our Analysis
   Interior does not explain why surveys for the conservation species are needed before and after construction and again one year later, or the level of effort it anticipates would be required for such surveys.
   Pre- and post-construction surveys of fish and benthic invertebrates in the bypassed reach would identify current locations of these species in the bypassed reach and their locations following initial operations. However, sufficient information already exists to document their occurrence in the bypassed reach and to evaluate how best to distribute flows to optimize aquatic habitat. Therefore, there is no need for this information.
Monitoring Compliance With Impoundment Levels and Minimum Flows
   
   No agency recommended measures to monitor compliance with these operations.
Our Analysis
   Developing and implementing an operation compliance monitoring plan would provide additional detail about project operations. Such a plan would provide the Commission a means to monitor compliance with the minimum flow releases and the limits on impoundment fluctuations. To be effective, the plan would need to: (1) Define the criteria by which compliance with impoundment fluctuations and minimum flows would be measured; (2) specify the type and location of all equipment used to monitor impoundment levels and minimum flows; and (3) identify the data collection intervals and reporting procedures.
Fish Impingement and Entrainment
   Water intake structures at hydropower projects can injure or kill fish that are either impinged on intake screens/trash racks, or entrained through turbines. Larger aquatic organisms (typically fish and larger invertebrates) can be trapped against the intake screens or trash racks by the water flowing into a penstock. This process is known as impingement, and can cause physical stresses and/or suffocation that lead to death of some organisms (EPRI, 2003).
   If fish are able to pass through screens or trash racks (i.e. entrained), fish injury or mortality can result from collisions with turbine blades, or exposure to pressure changes, sheer forces in turbulent flows, and water velocity accelerations created by turbines (Knapp et al., 1982). The number of fish entrained and at risk of turbine mortality at a hydroelectric project is dependent upon site-specific factors, including physical characteristics of the project, as well as the size, age, and seasonal movement patterns of fish present within the impoundment (EPRI, 1992). Fish that are entrained and killed are removed from the river population and no longer available for recruitment to the fishery.
   The project includes two sets of trash racks: One with 2.25-inch bar rack spacing that is located at the intake to the project headrace and a second located at the downstream end of the headrace (at the entrance to the turbine penstock) that has bar rack spacing of approximately 10 inches.
   FOOTNOTE 43 This trash rack is isolated from the project impoundment and, thus, its modification would result in little to no effect on aquatic fauna. END FOOTNOTE
   Interior is concerned with the existing 2.25-inch bar rack spacing on the headrace trashracks, and with approach velocities during proposed project operation, especially during peaking when the head pond is lowered by 4 feet. Interior requests that a 1-inch bar rack spacing be installed at the headrace trashrack to minimize fish entrainment and mortality at the project.
Our Analysis
   Fisheries surveys conducted by
Fish Impingement
   Fish can become impinged on the bars of a trash rack if they are unable to overcome the approach velocity /44/ and are unable to pass between the trashrack bars due to their larger body size. Fish that are wider than the trashrack bar spacing and have burst swim speeds /45/ lower than approach velocities would be susceptible to impingement. Thus, determining the risk of impingement for fish in the project impoundment requires an understanding of approach velocities at the headrace trashracks, as well as the widths and burst swim speeds of fish in the impoundment.
   FOOTNOTE 44 Approach velocity is the calculated water flow velocity component perpendicular to the trashrack face. END FOOTNOTE
   FOOTNOTE 45 Burst swimming speed is the maximum swimming speed that can only be sustained for a few seconds. It is usually used to escape danger (Murray, 1974). END FOOTNOTE
   
   To estimate approach velocities at the project we used existing information on the dimensions of the headrace trashracks, /46/ as well as certain assumptions regarding the composition of the trashracks. /47/ Each unit with the 2.25-inch bar spacing was 67.75 inches (or 5.65 feet) wide (i.e. two 31.875-inch panels, /48/ plus one 4-inch timber in between). Each unit with 1-inch bar spacing was 68 inches (or about 5.67 feet) wide (i.e. two 32 inch panels, /49/ plus one 4 inch timber in between. The larger panel width for the trashracks with 1-inch bar spacing was necessary to accommodate 1-inch bar spacing and still maintain similar sized units. All trashrack units were 13.4 feet high. With all five units combined, the total number of open spaces between bars in the 2.25-inch and 1-inch trashracks is 120 and 230, respectively (figures 3 and 4).
   FOOTNOTE 46 Drawings in Exhibit F of the license application show that the headrace trashracks are composed of five steel units, with 4-inch timbers in the middle of each unit and 3/8-inch vertical bars (figures 3 and 4). The total width of each unit was estimated to be about 5.5 feet wide and 13.4 feet high. END FOOTNOTE
   FOOTNOTE 47 We assumed the 4-inch timbers represented closed space in each unit, and that each unit was composed of two panels. We also assumed each bar was 3/8-inch wide. END FOOTNOTE
   FOOTNOTE 48 The 31.875-inch-wide panels are composed of 13 vertical bars totaling 4.875 inches (3/8-inch bar width x 13 = 4.875), and 12 open spaces (2.25 inches each) totaling 27 inches (figure 3). END FOOTNOTE
   FOOTNOTE 49 The 32-inch-wide panels are composed of 24 vertical bars totaling 9 inches (3/8 inch bar width x 24 = 9), and 23 open spaces (1 inch each) totaling 23 inches (figure 4). END FOOTNOTE
See Illustration in Original Document.
See Illustration in Original Document.
BILLING CODE 6717-01-C
   To estimate approach velocity (V 0, feet per second [fps]), we used the following equation (EPRI, 2000):
See Illustration in Original Document.
where intake flow is in cfs and cross-sectional area is in square-feet. We used intake flows of 120 cfs and 450 cfs, which represent the minimum and maximum turbine hydraulic capacities, respectively. Total intake cross-sectional area is shown in table 9, and was estimated using the information shown in figures 3 and 4.
Table 9--Calculation of Intake Cross-Sectional Area for the 2.25-Inch and 1-Inch Trashracks [Source: Staff] Spacing Spacing Height of Open area Number of Total intake between bars between space between two open cross-sectional (inches) bars between bars spaces area (W; feet) bars (a; feet(2M)) between (A; feet(2M)) (H; feet) bars (n) 2.25 0.1875 13.4 W x H = 2.51 120 a x n = 301.2 1 0.08333333 13.4 W x H = 1.12 230 a x n = 257.6
   Approach velocities did not differ substantially between the 2.25-inch and 1-inch trashracks, though they are slightly lower with the 2.25-inch trashrack. At the minimum hydraulic capacity, estimated approach velocities are 0.40 and 0.47 fps with 2.25-inch and 1-inch trashracks, respectively. At the maximum hydraulic capacity, estimated approach velocities are 1.49 and 1.75 fps with the 2.25-inch and 1-inch trashracks, respectively.
   To evaluate the potential for impingement at the existing trashrack with 2.25-inch and with 1-inch bar spacings, we focused our analysis on redeye bass, flat bullhead, redbreast sunfish and highback chub--which represented a combination of both Conservation Species and the most common species occurring in the impoundment. The burst swimming speeds of these species and the minimum total lengths that are susceptible to impingement (based on estimated fish width alone and exclusive of burst swim speeds) are shown in tables 10 and 11, respectively.
See Illustration in Original Document.
Table 11--Minimum Fish Total Lengths Susceptible to Impingement at 1-Inch and 2.25-Inch Trashracks, Based on Trashrack Bar Spacing and Fish Width-At-Ength Relationship (i.e. Width = alpha x Total Length p beta) Alone and Exclusive of Burst Swim Speeds Minimum fish total length (inches) susceptible to impingement: Species Surrogate Alpha Beta Maximum 1-inch 2.25-inch species (alpha) (beta) *3 total trash rack trash rack used in *2 length spacing spacing calculation (inches) *1 Redeye Smallmouth 0.10095 1.0394 17 9.1 none. *4 bass bass Flat Brown 0.19905 0.9919 11 5.1 none. *4 bullhead bullhead Redbreast Bluegill 0.1317 0.997 9 7.6 none. *4 sunfish Highback Fathead 0.00077 2.1795 3 *4 none none. *4 chub minnow *1 Length-width equations were not available for species included in our analysis. Surrogate species were fish in the same family and with similar body morphometry to the species included in our analysis. <2 3> The alpha and beta parameters for equations are from Lawler, Matucky, and Skelly Engineers (1991). *4 The calculated minimum total length susceptible to impingement is greater than the maximum total length of the species; therefore, no length of this species is susceptible to impingement at this trackrack spacing.
   Fish are at risk of impingement if their burst swim speed (see table 9) is less than the approach velocity at the trashrack, and if their size prevents them from passing through the bar spacing on the trashrack (see table 10). The results of our analysis show that none of the species analyzed would be susceptible to impingement with a trashrack having 2.25-inch bar spacing (see figures in appendix A), because of their swimming abilities. However, larger flat bullhead (i.e. greater than 5.1 inches) would be susceptible to impingement with a trashrack having 1-inch bar spacing when intake flows approach the maximum turbine capacity of 450 cfs.
   The risk of impingement would be greater for adult flat bullhead if
Fish Entrainment and Turbine Mortality
   Entrainment can occur if fish can pass between trashrack bars, and do not behaviorally avoid entrainment. Consequently, smaller (i.e. fish smaller than those susceptible to impingement [table 10]) redeye bass, flat bullhead, redbreast sunfish, and highback chub could each be entrained through both trashrack designs. Larger and older fish of each species would be protected by both trashrack designs; but, the 1-inch bar spacing would be more protective than the 2.25-inch bar spacing.
   Even if fish are small enough to fit through trashrack bar spacing, generally they will behaviorally avoid entrainment if their burst swim speeds exceed approach velocities at trashracks. Based on our analysis, only highback chub and flat bullhead lack the burst swim speeds needed to overcome approach velocities and avoid entrainment through trashrack designs that have 1-inch and 2.25-inch bar spacing, respectively (see figures in appendix A). Small (i.e. 2-inch) highback chub are susceptible to entrainment with a trashrack that has 1-inch bar spacing when intake flows approach the maximum turbine capacity of 450 cfs. However, all sizes of flat bullhead are susceptible to entrainment with the existing trashrack that has 2.25-inch bar spacing when intake flows approach the maximum turbine capacity. As these results indicate, and as other studies have shown, the majority of fish entrained consists of small fish (EPRI, 1997). The survival of smaller individuals of both species is likely to be relatively high because they are less prone to mechanical injury from turbine passage than larger fish. Smaller fish are also less prone to injury resulting from shear stresses and rapid pressure changes associated with turbine passage. Combined, these results indicate that each trashrack design has the potential to entrain one species; however, turbine mortality is expected to be similarly low for both designs.
   
   FOOTNOTE 50 The database is based on specific entrainment studies conducted at FERC licensed projects that are similar to the
   
   Although
3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources
3.3.3.1 Affected Environment Vegetation
   
   The project area and immediate project vicinity include a mix of managed areas and natural communities. The rural community of Enoree surrounds the project, with its lawns, hedgerows and limited commercial development representing the primary managed areas. Extensive agricultural lands, including managed hay fields, pastures, row croplands and pine plantations, occur in the uplands surrounding the community of Enoree and the project. The majority of farmland in the
   Forested uplands in the project vicinity are characterized primarily by managed pine plantation and mixed hardwood-pine stands. Mature stands tend to consist of a diverse assemblage of hardwoods, primarily oaks and hickories, as co-dominants in combination with pines. Common pine species of the piedmont include shortleaf and loblolly, with the former better adapted to dry, fine textured upland soils and loblolly achieving maximum growth on deep soils with good moisture and drainage. The understory in pure pine stands is often open, but in mixed or older stands, it is dominated by the hardwoods characteristic of the site.
   The areas immediately adjacent to the project impoundment and along the
Wetlands
   Wetlands are common in the
   National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data for the project area indicate a lack of wetlands in the area immediately surrounding the impoundment and adjacent to the
   Riparian areas surrounding the project impoundment and the river downstream from the dam are relatively narrow due to the moderately sloped banks. The well vegetated banks are characterized by abundant willows and alders in areas directly abutting and overhanging the water, with upslope areas containing a mix of bottomland and mesophytic trees typical of the
Non-Native Invasive Vegetation
   In the
   As noted above, tree-of-heaven is among the species that are likely common in the riparian area in the vicinity of the project. Tree-of-heaven is a non-native invasive deciduous tree native to central
   FOOTNOTE 51 While only the female trees produce seeds, a single tree can produce 325,000 seeds annually. END FOOTNOTE
   Kudzu is a terrestrial non-native invasive species known to occur within
   Aquatic non-native plant species also occur throughout
   The extensive beds of aquatic vegetation observed in the project impoundment are a mixture of a native smartweed species and alligatorweed, an invasive non-native species. Alligatorweed, an emergent perennial plant, is native to
Wildlife
   Wildlife habitats within the
   The aquatic and semi-aquatic habitats of the 6.6-acre project headpond and upstream and downstream river reaches also provide wildlife habitat in the project area. Wildlife species that potentially use open water and semi-aquatic areas of the impoundments and the lower tailrace and bypassed reach include beaver, muskrat, otter, mink, belted kingfisher, wood duck, great blue heron, green heron, great egret, redbellied water snake, bullfrog, leopard frog, yellowbelly slider turtle, and common snapping turtle. Species typical of river margins include raccoon, woodcock, red-winged blackbird, various thrushes, green treefrog and American toad.
Special Status Terrestrial Species
   There is one terrestrial species documented as occurring in
   FOOTNOTE 52 77 FR 69,994, 70,047 (
3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects
   Currently the project is inoperable and all available flows pass through the impoundment, over the Riverdale dam, and into the shoals and braided channels within the bypassed reach. The plants and wildlife in the riparian corridor along the impoundment and downstream from the dam have adapted to the natural variation in stream flows.
Effects of Project Refurbishment and Vegetation Maintenance
   Refurbishing the project facilities, developing the canoe portage facilities, and maintaining these areas would require clearing or trimming of some vegetation. Heavy equipment and activities associated with the replacement of the 193-foot-long above ground section of the penstock and repairs to the powerhouse, dam, and other project facilities would disturb wildlife near the construction areas. Disturbance to plants and wildlife would also occur during periodic vegetation maintenance, including mowing and/or trimming, around the perimeter of the existing powerhouse and along the transmission line ROW which follows the access road, as well as the area within the proposed portage trail, canoe take-out and put-in, and parking area for recreation.
   In order to preserve the vegetative communities within the project boundary,
   South Carolina DNR supports the applicant's proposal to consult with state and federal agencies on the implementation of BMPs during all construction and maintenance activities to preserve the vegetative communities within the project boundary. FWS recommends that the applicant avoid and minimize any adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, shoreline vegetation, and other natural resources while conducting construction and maintenance activities.
Our Analysis
   The majority of disturbances to vegetation and wildlife related to
   Periodic mowing along the existing paved access road and trimming of tree limbs and underbrush along the proposed canoe portage trail are necessary to maintain access to the proposed project facilities. Given that the existing project transmission line is adjacent to the access road, periodic mowing would be limited and would not affect any unique terrestrial habitat or change the character of the vegetation within the ROW corridor. The proposed canoe portage is within an existing (non-project) transmission line ROW. Consequently, trimming trees and underbrush to maintain recreation access would cause little incremental disturbance to plants or wildlife.
   Implementing BMPs during project refurbishment, recreation area installation, and periodic vegetation maintenance activities would minimize potential disturbances to vegetation and wildlife. BMPs to preserve terrestrial habitats could include, but not be limited to, minimizing disturbances to existing vegetation, maintaining a riparian buffer on project shorelines, and cleaning construction and maintenance equipment before and after use to prevent the transport of seeds and fragments of invasive non-native vegetation to new (uninfested) areas.
Effects of Invasive Non-Native Plants
   Alligatorweed is a prolific non-native plant and a
   
   
   No one recommended measures to control alligatorweed.
Our Analysis
   Extensive mats of alligatorweed have become established in the project impoundment. Although alligatorweed was not present in areas that would be disturbed during project refurbishment or at the canoe put-in and take-outs in 2010 when
   Once operational, flow fluctuations from peaking operations may help control the spread of alligatorweed as
   To be effective, the monitoring program should define the monitoring schedule, include a means to document changes in invasive species composition and distribution between monitoring events, and include criteria that would determine when corrective actions may be required.
Avian Electrocution Hazards
   Birds in the project area may have become accustomed to using the transmission lines and poles for perching or nesting. Transmission lines can represent an electrocution hazard to roosting and perching birds if the spacing between the conductors and ground wires is narrower than the bird's wingspan, or when they use poles for nesting.
   
   
Our Analysis
   APLIC, a consortium of utilities, and FWS developed guidelines for design of electrical lines to minimize potential for electrocutions (APLIC, 2006). The APLIC guidelines define applicable separation distances for energized conductors and groundwires. The guidelines also describe measures to deter perching and/or nesting depending on transmission line pole designs.
   As part of project refurbishment,
Effects of Flow Fluctuations on Plants and Wildlife
   
   To address the potential effects of project operation and maintenance on terrestrial resources,
   South Carolina DNR and Interior support
Our Analysis
   
   
Effects of Project Repairs, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance on Special Status Terrestrial Species
   Georgia aster is not known to occur within the project boundary and there is limited potential habitat for this species in the project area. No measures were proposed or recommended to protect this species.
Our Analysis
   Because the majority of the project area is dominated by mature riparian hardwood forest and
3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species
3.3.4.1 Affected Environment
   Three federally listed terrestrial species and one aquatic species are known to or potentially occur in
Aquatic Species
   FWS lists the federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter mussel (Lasmigona decorate) as potentially occurring in
   South Carolina DNR spatial distribution data for threatened and endangered species indicate no known occurrences of Carolina heelsplitter in
Terrestrial Species
   One federally listed plant species, the dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora), is known to occur in
   The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) is listed as endangered at both the state and federal level and is known to occur in
   The expansive old-growth pine forests required by this species do not occur in the areas surrounding the project. Further, South Carolina DNR spatial distribution data indicate no documented occurrences of red-cockaded woodpecker in
3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects
Our Analysis
   No federally listed species are known to occur within the project area. Suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker does not occur in the area. Therefore, refurbishment, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project would have no effect on the endangered Carolina heelsplitter mussel, the threatened dwarf-flowered heartleaf, or the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker.
3.3.5 Recreation and Land Use
3.3.5.1 Affected Environment
Recreation
Statewide Recreation Plan
   The 2008 South Carolina State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) guides recreation planning and development in the state. The plan has no specific recommendations for the project area; however, it does identify major goals for recreation within the state. These goals include: Providing a balanced and comprehensive system of public and private recreation opportunities; conserving and interpreting significant historic, cultural, and natural areas; and encouraging cooperation between various agencies, levels of government, private enterprise, and volunteers to meet the state's recreation needs. The SCORP also identifies issues associated with recreation supply and demand in the state. The plan indicates there is a demand for additional trail development for walking, boating, and equestrian use; additional education and outreach relating to outdoor recreation opportunities; and development of, or improvements to, recreation access for various user groups including the elderly and disabled (South Carolina DPRT, 2008).
Regional Recreation Resources
   Spartanburg and
   The South Carolina Rivers Assessment (1988) identifies several high-value recreation areas on the
   Formal recreational boating opportunities are provided on the
Recreation in the Project Vicinity
   In the vicinity of the project, boating on the
   Angling activities near the proposed project occur primarily from shore and are concentrated in tributaries and below the Pelham and Riverdale dams. Largemouth bass, crappie, channel catfish, yellow perch, bluegill, gizzard shad, redear sunfish, and redbreast sunfish are the primary game fish expected in the
Recreation at the
   There are no formal recreation facilities located at the project. Under Inman Mill's license, the project was exempt from filing the Licensed Hydropower Development Recreation Report (FERC Form 80) because of the lack of recreation facilities and potential for recreation use. /53/ However, members of the public periodically use the impoundment for fishing, as evidenced by the presence of discarded bait containers, fishing line, and other debris.
   FOOTNOTE 53 See FERC issuance of
Land Use
   The project is located on the
   The most intensive land uses in the project vicinity occur in the town of Enoree, located north of the project in
   The project boundary encloses approximately 25.9 acres, of which 11.3 acres are land. The remainder is occupied by the waters of the impoundment, bypassed reach, and tailrace. Aerial photos indicate that within the project boundary, the predominant land cover is forest. The bypassed reach of the
   There are no lands in the immediate vicinity of the project that are included in the national trails system or designated as wilderness lands. No portion of the
3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects
Recreation Enhancements and Public Access
   
   All proposed recreation facilities would be located within the project boundary. The proposed portage trail and parking area would be located entirely on lands owned by the
Our Analysis
   
   Increased recreation use induced by the proposed recreation features may negatively affect wildlife and aquatic habitat at the project. However, by formalizing recreation access,
   
Effects of Project Operation and Flows on Recreation
   Project operation has the potential to affect recreational boating at the project.
Our Analysis
   The proposed canoe put-in, which would be located downstream from the dam on the shore of the bypassed reach, may be unusable under low-flow conditions. In situations where the canoe launch is unusable, boaters would be required to portage to an area farther downstream past the confluence of the
   Higher minimum flows in the bypassed reach, as recommended by Interior, South Carolina DNR, and American Rivers would provide greater latitude for boat launching in the bypassed reach. However, the effect of diverting flows from the bypassed reach is unlikely to be significant because during summer months or in drought conditions, much of the
   Flow fluctuations associated with peaking also have the potential to affect recreational flows downstream from the project in the
   Drawdowns of the project impoundment associated with peaking operations, may also affect use and maintenance of the proposed canoe take-out and recreational boating upstream of the dam. However, standard canoe launch designs can accommodate a wide range of river levels, with proper siting and maintenance.
Land Use
   
Our Analysis
   Refurbishing, operating, and maintaining the proposed project would have no effect on land use within the project boundary. The addition of a portage trail would add additional recreation lands to the project boundary; however, that use would be consistent with existing land use. Additionally, the portage trail would follow two existing transmission line ROW, limiting ground disturbance and reducing the potential for effects on terrestrial habitat within the project boundary.
   The applicant's proposal to maintain a 25-foot forested buffer along project shorelines would be consistent with the recommendations by FWS and South Carolina DNR to protect shoreline and riparian habitats. Additional analysis of measures to reduce erosion, prevent runoff, and protect wildlife habitat are discussed in sections 3.3.1., Geologic and Soil Resources, and 3.3.3., Terrestrial Resources.
   
3.3.6 Cultural Resources
3.3.6.1 Affected Environment
Area of Potential Effects
   Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended, requires that the Commission evaluate the potential effects of continued operation of the project on properties listed or eligible for listing on the
Cultural History Overview
   The archaeological record dates Native American presence in central
   Permanent European settlement in
   In 1888, a group of
   There are no known archeological sites or historic properties that would be affected by the proposed
3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects
   On
   By letter filed
Our Analysis
   Based on the assessment of the South Carolina SHPO and the information in the record for this proceeding, operation of the proposed project would not alter the historic character of existing structures. In addition, there would be no historic properties affected by the construction and operation of the proposed project.
   At this time, there is also no evidence indicating the presence of archeological properties within the project's APE that would warrant a cultural resource survey and shovel testing as recommended by the Catawba Indian Nation. However, it is possible that unknown archaeological or historic resources may be discovered in the future as a result of project construction, operation, or other project related activities. If such resources are discovered, immediately stopping work and consulting with the Commission, the South Carolina SHPO and the Catawba Indian Nation to define appropriate treatment would prevent any further harm to previously unidentified archaeological or cultural artifacts.
3.4 No-Action Alternative
   Under the no-action alternative, the
4.0 Developmental Analysis
   In this section, we look at the
   FOOTNOTE 54
   For each of the licensing alternatives, our analysis includes an estimate of: (1) The cost of individual measures considered in the EA for the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of environmental resources affected by the project; (2) the cost of alternative power; (3) the total project cost (i.e. for construction, operation, maintenance, and environmental measures); and (4) the difference between the cost of alternative power and the total project cost. If the difference between the cost of alternative power and the total project cost is positive, the project would produce power for less than the cost of alternative power. If the difference between the cost of alternative power and the total project cost is negative, the project would produce power for more than the cost of alternative power. 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 Developmental Benefits of the Project
   Table 12 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use in our analysis. This information was provided by
Table 12--Parameters for the Economic Analysis of theProposed Riverdale Project [Source:Staff andLockhart Power ] Economic parameter Value Average annual generation 4,895. *a (MWh) Composite power value$72.31 /MWh. *b Period of analysis 30 years. Term of financing 20 years. Capital investment$5,225,000 . *c License application cost$200,000 . *a Interest/discount rate 7.0 percent. *d Federal tax rate 34 percent. *d State tax 3.0 percent. *d Insurance (percent) 0.25. Annual Operation and$81,000 . *d Maintenance *a Value from license application datedAugust 31, 2010 , as clarified inLockhart Power's responses to staff's additional information request, filed onAugust 5, 2011 . *b The composite power value was provided byLockhart Power and incorporates peak and off-peak energy and capacity rates and a value for Renewable Energy Credits offered byNorth Carolina . The basis of these values is a power purchase contract currently offered byDuke Energy Carolinas, LLC . *c This value includes staff's estimate of cost to purchase the project site andLockhart Power's estimate to rehabilitate the project features. *d Assumed by staff.
4.2 Comparison of Alternatives
   Table 13 summarizes the installed capacity, annual generation, cost of alternative power, estimated total project cost, and the difference between the cost of alternative power and total project cost for the three alternatives considered in this EA: No-action,
Table 13--Summary of Annual Cost, Power Benefits, and Annual Net Benefits of the Alternatives for theRiverdale Project [Source: Staff] Parameter No-action Lockhart Power's Staff alternative proposal Annual generation 0.0 4,895 4,370 (MWh) Annual cost of$0 $353,957 $315,995 alternative power ( $/MWh) 0.00 72.31 72.31 Annual project$0.00 $619,336 $613,481 cost ( $/MWh) 0.00 126.52 140.38 Difference between$0.0 ($265,378 ) ($297,487 ) the cost of alternative power and project cost ( $/MWh) 0.00 (54.21) (68.07) Note: A number in parentheses denotes that the difference between the cost of alternative power and project cost is negative, thus the total project cost is greater than the cost of alternative power.
4.2.1 No-Action Alternative
   Under the no-action alternative,
4.2.2
   
4.2.3 Staff Alternative
   The staff alternative includes most of the measures proposed by
   Under the staff alternative, the project would generate an average of 4,370 MWh of electricity annually. The average annual cost of alternative power under the staff alternative would be about
4.3 Cost of Environmental Measures
   Table 14 gives the cost of each of the environmental enhancement measures considered in our analysis. /55/ 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.
   FOOTNOTE 55
Table 14--Cost of Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Measures Considered in Assessing the Environmental Effects of Refurbishing, Operating, and Maintaining theRiverdale Project [Source:Staff andLockhart Power ] Enhancement/mitigation measure Entities Capital Annual Levelized cost cost cost (2013 ] (2013 ] (2013 ] Geology and Soils Resources 1. Develop and implement a soil South Carolina 5,000 0 390 erosion and sediment control DNR, Staff plan, which includes the BMPs described in theSouth Carolina DHEC's Stormwater BMP Handbook 2. Implement a sediment Lockhart Power 0 *a 0 0 management plan that consists of using the sand gates for periodic inspections and maintenance drawdowns and, if possible, avoiding drawdowns fromMarch 15 through June 1 3. Develop and implement a Interior, South *c *d 1,000 1,597 sediment management plan that Carolina DNR, 12,000 includes provisions to: (a) Staff Test impoundment sediments for heavy metals and other contaminants prior to beginning in-water construction activities; (b) prepare a contingency plan for proper disposal *b of any contaminated sediments found in the impoundment; (c) monitor sediment accumulation in the impoundment annually; (d) develop criteria that would trigger, sediment removal and proper disposal, if necessary; (e) conduct maintenance drawdowns in late fall and winter (November through January); (f) avoid drawdowns fromMarch 15 through June 1 , if possible; and (g) file an annual report 4. Develop and implement a Interior, Staff 5,000 1,000 1,050 shoreline stabilization plan with provisions to: (a) Identify eroding or potential project-induced erosion sites on project shorelines prior to operation; (b) stabilize areas of shoreline erosion; (c) monitor shorelines after resuming operation and implement stabilization techniques as necessary; (d) conduct shoreline stabilization activities from September through February if possible; and (e) file an annual report 5. Develop and implement a Interior, NMFS, 20,000 0 1,561 water quality monitoring plan Staff with provisions to: (a) Monitor DO, temperature, and turbidity prior to the start of construction, during construction, and for 1 year after project operation begins; (b) define sampling methods, timing, and locations for monitoring these parameters in consultation with South Carolina DHEC, FWS, and NMFS; and (c) file a report that presents the monitoring data, describes any project-related effects and identifies corrective actions if necessary 6. Maintain a minimum flow of Lockhart Power 0 30,567 *e 50 cfs in the bypassed reach 20,174 and a total minimum continuous flow of 60 cfs downstream from the project 7. Provide the following Interior, *f 0 122,501 *e seasonal minimum instream flows South Carolina 80,851 into the bypassed reach (based DNR, NMFS, on the South Carolina Water American Rivers Plan and a MADF of 393 cfs): 79 cfs (July-November), 118 cfs (May, June, and December), and 157 cfs (January-April) 8. Provide a continuous minimum Staff 0 69,000 *e instream flow of 75 cfs into 45,540 the bypassed reach 9. Develop and implement a plan Interior, South 7,000 0 546 to release required minimum Carolina DNR, flows into the bypassed reach NMFS, Staff that includes: (a) A feasibility assessment for using the sand gates as a flow- release mechanism; (b) if found to be feasible, a study to determine how the sand gates would be used to distribute flow into the bypassed reach; (c) if the sand gates are not feasible, a description of how the minimum instream flows would be provided to the bypassed reach; (d) a report documenting the outcome of the feasibility assessment, flow study, and consultation with the agencies; and (e) an implementation schedule 10. Develop and implement a low South Carolina 5,000 0 390 inflow protocol/drought DNR, Interior, contingency plan staff 11. Develop and implement an Lockhart Power, 15,000 1,500 2,161 operation compliance monitoring Staff plan that includes: (a) A rating curve to provide the seasonally defined flows; (b) protocols to monitor and document compliance with required flows; (c) protocols to monitor and document impoundment fluctuations; and (d) an implementation schedule 12. Modify trash rack bar Interior 15,000 0 1,171 spacing at the headrace intake by decreasing the spacing from 2.25 inches to 1 inch 13. Conduct fish surveys before Interior 30,000 0 2,341 and after construction, and 1 year after construction is complete 14. Conduct comprehensive Interior 9,000 0 702 invertebrate surveys before and after construction, and 1 year after construction is complete Terrestrial Resources 15. Implement BMPs to protect Lockhart Power, *g 0 *g 0 0 vegetation within the project Interior, South boundary, such as limiting Carolina DNR, vegetation and ground- and Staff disturbing activities and maintaining a minimum 25-foot- wide forested riparian buffer on project shorelines, as long as this does not interfere withLockhart Power's ability to perform project-related activities 16. Develop and implement an Staff *h 6,000 *h 1,000 1,128 invasive vegetation monitoring and control plan that includes: (a) Survey methods to determine the extent of alligatorweed in the impoundment and riparian area prior to beginning refurbishment activities; (b) BMPs, as well as monitoring and control methods to prevent the spread of alligatorweed in the impoundment to areas downstream from the dam during project refurbishment; (c) monitoring protocols to detect the introduction or spread of other invasive plants within the project boundary during operation and maintenance; (d) criteria that would determine when corrective actions would be required; and (e) a schedule for filing monitoring reports and any recommended control measures 17. Determine if the project Staff *h 5,000 0 390 transmission line is consistent with APLIC guidelines, consult with FWS, and file a report with the Commission describing the results of the evaluation and any measures recommended by FWS Recreational and Land Use 18. Construct and maintain a Lockhart Power, 15,000 4,000 *e 3,811 canoe take-out located Interior, South approximately 220 feet upstream Carolina DNR, of the dam; a canoe put-in and Staff located approximately 1,075 feet downstream from the dam; a 1,650-foot-long portage trail connecting the proposed canoe take-out and put-in; and a parking area located adjacent to the proposed portage trail 19. Provide informal public Lockhart Power, 0 0 0 access for fishing at the Interior, South project impoundment, tailrace, Carolina DNR, and bypassed reach and Staff 20. Install informational Lockhart Power, *i 0 1,000 *e 660 signage that includes: (1) Staff Identification of the canoe take-out and put in; (2) directions from the parking area to river access points; and (3) information regarding garbage disposal 21. Stop work and notify the Staff 0 0 0 South Carolina SHPO and the Catawba Indian Nation, and follow theSouth Carolina SHPO's guidance if any unknown archaeological resources are discovered as a result of project construction, operation, or project-related activities 22. Consult with the Catawba Catawba Indian *h 0 780 Indian Nation prior to any Nation 10,000 ground disturbing activities, and conduct a cultural resource survey involving shovel tests, if necessary *a Sediment management would occur in conjunction with periodic inspections and maintenance activities. There are no additional costs associated with this measure. *b We assume that the cost of initial sediment disposal, if necessary, is included inLockhart Power's estimates for project refurbishment. *c This cost includes the initial/capital cost of monitoring sediment accumulation in the impoundment. *d The precise frequency of monitoring sediment accumulation would likely be determined after consultation with the South Carolina DHEC, the Corps, South Carolina DNR, and Interior. *e In many cases in this table, the 30-year levelized cost is lower than the annual cost (i.e. operation and maintenance cost). The reason for this is the levelized cost includes an estimate of tax savings that the applicant would realize due to the combined high capital (including interest and depreciation) and operation and maintenance costs of the measure. *f Interior's recommendation actually called for a seasonal flow of 80 cfs from July through November instead of 79 cfs. *g We estimate that the implementation of the measure would not result in any appreciable additional cost. *h Cost estimated by staff. *i This cost is included in the$15K for constructing and maintaining the portage trail. The additional staff measures are not expected to increase the overall cost.
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Comparison of Alternatives
   In this section we compare the development and non-developmental effects of
Table 15--Comparison of Alternatives for theRiverdale Project [Source: staff] Resource No action Proposed action Staff recommended alternative alternative Generation 0 MWh 4,895 MWh 4,370 MWh. Geology and Impoundment Project refurbishment Same as proposed Soils sediments would would disturb about 2 action, but continue to acres of vegetation. implementing a site- accumulate and Implementing BMPs specific soil erosion be flushed would minimize soil and sediment control downstream from disturbance and plan and a more the dam during erosion. Avoiding clearly defined high flows drawing down the sediment management impoundment between plan would more March 15 and June 1 effectively minimize would prevent the erosion and release of large impoundment sediment quantities of loads, helping to sediment into the prevent an accidental bypassed reach in the release of large Enoree River during quantities of fish spawning season sediment downstream. Implementing a shoreline stabilization plan would further reduce potential erosion and sedimentation during operations and also benefit fish and wildlife in the riparian and littoral areas of the project. Water Quality No change in Short-term increases Same proposed action, (during existing water in turbidity and but implementing a construction) quality sedimentation during water quality conditions rehabilitation; BMPs monitoring plan would minimize during pre- and post- erosion and construction sedimentation activities would provide a mechanism to identify and address water quality effects. Water Quality No change in Project flow Same as proposed (post- existing water diversions could action, except higher construction) quality reduce DO levels and minimum flows would conditions raise water reduce the potential temperatures in for elevated bypassed reach temperatures and low DO levels. Implementing a water quality monitoring plan would detect any effects to water quality caused by project operations and maintenance. Fishery No change to the Short-term increases Same as proposed Resources fishery in turbidity and action, except that (during resources sedimentation during implementation of a construction) construction could water quality adversely affect fish monitoring plan and a habitat in the Enoree soil erosion and River downstream from sediment control plan the dam during construction activities may minimize adverse effects of turbidity and sedimentation on fish habitat downstream from the dam. Fishery No change to the Reduction of flow to Same as the proposed Resources (post- fishery 50 cfs in the action except that construction) resources bypassed reach and 60 minimum flows in the cfs downstream from bypassed reach would the project would be reduced to 75 cfs likely result in poor year-round. Minimum to low quality flows would maintain fishery and benthic adequate conditions habitat conditions in for fish and benthic the bypassed reach; macroinvertebrates. Impoundment surface elevation fluctuations of up to 4 feet below full pool with associated adverse effects on impoundment fish habitats; Entrainment of fish through the development's 2.25- inch trashrack Terrestrial No change in Project Same as proposed Resources existing refurbishment, action, except conditions operation, and developing and maintenance would implementing an result in minor, invasive vegetation temporary monitoring and disturbances to control plan, would upland vegetation and minimize spread and wildlife. However, introductions of non- in-water repair work, native invasive peaking operation, plants and benefit and sediment native plant management activities communities and the could fragment and fish and wildlife in spread alligatorweed the project area. In from the impoundment addition, evaluating to areas downstream the transmission line or facilitate for consistency with introduction of other APLIC guidelines and invasive plants. In consulting with FWS addition, project to identify transmission lines mitigative measures, may represent an if needed, would electrocution hazard minimize the risk of to birds avian electrocution. Wetlands No effect No effect No effect. Threatened and No effect No effect No effect. Endangered Species Recreational No effect The addition of a Same as the proposed Access portage trail, action. Additional parking, and signage requesting directional signage visitors to pack out would improve canoe their garbage would portaging around the reduce the likelihood project that any increase in recreation use at the project would negatively affect the surrounding environment. Land Use No effect Slight increase in Same as proposed recreation land use action. within the project boundary. This use would be consistent with existing land uses, and, therefore, would have no adverse effect Cultural No effect No effect No effect. However, Resources if any unknown archaeological resources were found, Lockhart Power would stop work and notify the South Carolina SHPO and the Catawba Indian Nation.
5.2
   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 licensing the
   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 selected the staff alternative, as the preferred option. We recommend this option because: (1) Issuance of a hydropower license for the project would allow
   In the following section, we make recommendations as to which environmental measures proposed by
Measures Proposed by
   Based on our environmental analysis of
    * Implement BMPs to protect vegetation within the project boundary, such as limiting vegetation and ground-disturbing activities and maintaining a minimum 25-foot-wide forested riparian buffer on project shorelines, as long as this does not interfere with
    * Construct and maintain: (1) A canoe take-out located approximately 220 feet upstream of the dam; (2) a canoe put-in located approximately 1,075 feet downstream from the dam; (3) a 1,650-foot-long portage trail connecting the proposed canoe take-out and put-in; (4) a parking area located adjacent to the proposed portage trail; and (5) signage to improve public access at the project and to the
    * Provide informal public access for fishing at the project impoundment, tailrace, and bypassed reach.</p>
Additional Measures Recommended by Staff
   We recommend the measures described above, as well as 12 additional staff-recommended measures and modifications to
    * Develop and implement a site-specific soil erosion and sediment control plan, which includes the BMPs described in the South Carolina DHEC's Stormwater BMP Handbook, to minimize erosion and sedimentation during soil-disturbing activities associated with project construction and repairs.
    * Develop and implement a sediment management plan that includes provisions to: (a) Test impoundment sediments for heavy metals and other contaminants prior to beginning in-water project construction activities and initial operation; (b) prepare a contingency plan for proper disposal of any contaminated sediments that may be found in the impoundment; (c) monitor sediment accumulation in the impoundment annually to facilitate planning of sediment management activities; (d) develop criteria that would trigger sediment removal from the impoundment (i.e. by opening the sand gates, if appropriate, during high flow events, or via mechanical methods); (e) conduct sediment management activities during the months of November through January except during high rain events (e.g. tropical storms or hurricanes); (f) avoid maintenance activities that would draw down the impoundment below normal operating levels and potentially pass sediment into the bypassed reach from
    * Develop and implement a shoreline stabilization plan that includes provisions to: (a) Identify eroding or potential project-induced erosion sites on the project shorelines prior to beginning operation; (b) stabilize areas of shoreline erosion using native vegetation, bio-engineering, slope flattening, toe armoring with anchored logs, and/or riprap that incorporates native vegetation plantings; (c) monitor shorelines after resuming operation, and implement stabilization measures if project-induced erosion is identified; (d) conduct shoreline stabilization activities from September through February to protect aquatic species and wildlife; and (e) file annual reports describing monitoring results and any implemented shoreline stabilization measures.
    * Develop and implement a water quality monitoring plan that includes provisions to: (a) Monitor DO, temperature, and turbidity prior to the start of project construction, during construction, and for 1 year after project operation begins to ensure the levels specified by the current state water quality standards are met and aquatic resources are protected; (b) define sampling methods, timing, and locations for these parameters in consultation with South Carolina DHEC, FWS, and NMFS; and (c) file a report that presents the monitoring data, describes any project-related effects and identifies corrective actions if necessary.
    * Release a continuous minimum flow of 75 cfs in the bypassed reach to protect aquatic habitat.
    * Develop and implement a plan to release required minimum flows into the bypassed reach that includes: (a) A feasibility assessment for using the sand gates as a flow-release mechanism; (b) if found to be feasible, a flow study to determine how the sand gates would be used to distribute flow into the bypassed reach to protect aquatic habitats; (c) if the sand gates are not feasible, a description of how the minimum instream flows would be provided to the bypassed reach; (d) a report documenting the outcome of the feasibility assessment, flow study, and consultation with the agencies; and (e) an implementation schedule.
    * Develop and implement a low inflow protocol/drought contingency plan to define periods of extended drought and the low inflow protocols to minimize adverse effects on generation, and on fish and wildlife, water quality, water supply, and generation.
    * Develop and implement an operation compliance monitoring plan that includes: (a) A rating curve to provide the seasonally defined flows; (b) protocols to monitor and document compliance with required flows; (c) protocols to monitor and document impoundment fluctuations; and (d) an implementation schedule.
    * Develop and implement an invasive vegetation monitoring and control plan that includes: (a) Survey methods to determine the extent of alligatorweed in the impoundment and riparian area prior to beginning refurbishment activities; (b) BMPs, as well as monitoring and control methods to prevent the spread of alligatorweed in the impoundment to areas downstream from the dam during project refurbishment; (c) monitoring protocols to detect the introduction or spread of other invasive plants within the project boundary during project operation and maintenance; (d) criteria that would determine when control measures would be required; and (e) a schedule for filing monitoring reports and any recommended control measures with the Commission.
    * Determine whether the existing project transmission line is consistent with APLIC guidelines. Identify, in consultation with FWS, measures to minimize potential electrocution hazards to birds and file a report with the Commission describing the results of the evaluation and any measures recommended by FWS.
    * Install informational signage that includes: (a) Identification of the canoe take-out and put in; (b) directions from the parking area to river access points; and (c) information regarding garbage disposal in order to improve public information available at the project and protect environmental resources.
    * Stop work and notify the South Carolina SHPO and the Catawba Indian Nation if any unknown archaeological resources are discovered as a result of project construction, operation, or project-related activities to avoid, lessen, or mitigate potential adverse effects.
   We discuss the basis for our recommended measures below.
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
   Project refurbishment, tailrace dredging, and construction of the proposed canoe take-out, put-in, and portage trail would result in soil-disturbing activities that could increase turbidity and sedimentation in the
Initial Testing of Impoundment Sediments
   There currently is no information on the volume of sediment deposits and potentially embedded contaminants in the Riverdale impoundment. However, the
   Testing for heavy metals and other contaminants in the sediment in the impoundment prior to beginning operation, as recommended by Interior, would prevent the accidental release of any toxic substances and allow for their proper disposal. The test results would help
Sediment Management Plan
   Project rehabilitation and periodic dam maintenance (e.g., repair the sand gates) would likely require drawing down the impoundment below the normal operating levels of four feet, resulting in the re-suspension and discharge of sediment from the impoundment. Heavy sediment loads can adversely affect fish and wildlife, recreation opportunities, and other stream uses.
   
   To be effective, sediment management would need to include provisions to: (a) Test impoundment sediments for heavy metals and other contaminants prior to beginning project repairs; (b) prepare a contingency plan for proper disposal of any contaminated sediments that may be found; (c) monitor sediment accumulation in the impoundment annually; (d) develop criteria triggering sediment removal from the impoundment (i.e. by opening the sand gates, if appropriate, during high flow events, or via mechanical methods); (e) conduct sediment management activities from November through January except during high rain events (e.g., tropical storms or hurricanes); and (f) avoid maintenance activities that would draw down the impoundment below normal operating levels and potentially pass sediment into the bypassed reach from
   Based on our review and analysis contained in section 3.3.1, Geologic and Soil Resources, we find that the benefits of implementing a sediment management plan with the measures outlined above are worth the estimated annual levelized cost of
Shoreline Stabilization Plan
   Resuming project operation as
Water Quality Monitoring Plan
   Refurbishing and operating the project could increase turbidity levels, raise water temperatures, and lower DO levels in the impoundment and bypassed reach.
   Interior recommends that
   Our understanding of water quality in the project vicinity under existing conditions is limited. Monitoring turbidity, DO, and temperature in the impoundment and bypassed reach prior to the start of construction, during construction, and for 1 year after project operation begins would provide a means to ensure that the current state water quality standards (table 4) are met and that erosion control measures and minimum flows are adequately protecting aquatic resources. Therefore, we recommend that
Minimum Instream Flows
   Since 2001, flows at the project have passed over the dam rather than the through the powerhouse to generate electricity. These flows provide habitat conditions in the bypassed reach that support a diversity of fish and invertebrate species in the complex shoals habitat, including eight species identified by the
   
   The Water Plan's minimum flow regime is based on flow studies conducted at six regulated reaches in the South Carolina Piedmont, and three distinct periods that capture high (January-April), low (July-November), and increasing (December) or decreasing (May, June) flow periods (Bulak and Jobsis, 1989). The Water Plan states that seasonal variation in flow is important because fish have evolved to spawn in synchrony with the hydrologic cycle. While beneficial to a certain extent, there is currently no evidence that the fishes or invertebrates in the bypassed reach, or downstream from the tailrace require such annual variation in the flow regime to complete their life-cycle.
   The state's Water Plan concludes that the 20 and 30 percent flows represent "generally adequate" and "adequate" flows, respectively, to protect aquatic habitat and fish during low flow periods, while 40 percent flows would protect fishery resources during high flow periods. As discussed in section 3.3.2.2, Environmental Effects, a flow of 60 cfs (16 percent of MADF) downstream of the tailrace and 50 cfs (13 percent of MADF) into the bypassed reach falls considerably short of the Water Plan's recommended flows in most months, thus would not likely maintain adequate aquatic habitat conditions. However, the Water Plan recommended flows for January through April (150 cfs, 40 percent MADF) were based on flows needed to provide a 1.5-foot-deep by 10-foot-wide passage route at shoals for striped bass. There are no striped bass, or other anadromous species present at the project. /56/ In contrast, a flow of 75 cfs (20 percent MADF /57/) from January to April is expected to provide a channel 1.0-foot-deep by 10-foot-wide, which would be sufficient to maintain habitat and passage requirements for fish currently inhabiting the bypassed reach. A flow of 75 cfs also provides generally adequate flows during low flow periods based the study conducted by Bulak and Jobsis (1989).
   FOOTNOTE 56 Anadromous fish are also unable to pass upstream of Parr dam, which is located 65 miles downstream on the
   FOOTNOTE 57 The study (i.e. Bulak and Jobsis, 1989) used to identify Water Plan minimum flows indicated that if a 1.0-foot-deep by 10-foot-wide was acceptable, required flows in shoals habitat ranged from 15 to 32 percent of MADF (mean = 24 percent of MADF). END FOOTNOTE
   Based on the Tennant (1976) method, a flow of 60 cfs (16 percent of MADF) downstream of the tailrace and of 50 cfs (13 percent of MADF) into the bypassed reach would represent fair or degrading conditions during the dry season, and close to poor or minimum conditions during the wet season. South Carolina DNR's variable flows based on the state Water Plan would result in good conditions year-round. However, a continuous minimum flow of 75 cfs (20 percent of MADF) year round would represent good conditions during the dry season and close to fair or degrading conditions during the wet season.
   The annual levelized cost of
   In consideration of the benefits and costs of the proposed and recommended minimum flows as well as the relative uniqueness of the bypassed reach fishery within the state of
Flow Release Plan for Minimum Flows Into the Bypassed Reach
   
   The shoals below the dam are complex and its distinct physical features create different habitats on the north and south side of the bypassed reach that support different fish and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages, including some rare species. Because the lack of access prevented
   Assuming that the bypassed flows can be provided through the sand gates, distributing the flows across the shoals to optimize benthic invertebrate and fish habitat may require delivering flows from one or more sand gates. While fully wetting the shoals as recommended by American Rivers would likely provide some benthic invertebrate and fish habitat, it may not provide the best habitat for targeted channels supporting rare species. To determine which combination of gates to use would require a post-licensing flow study as recommended by NMFS. Such a study would not be used to establish required minimum flows because the minimum flow requirements have been determined as described above. Rather, it would be used to determine how to distribute the required flows to optimize habitat. The study would need to examine depth, velocity, and wetted width across the shoals using various combinations of the sand gates. We recommend
Low Inflow Protocol/Drought Management Plan
   As discussed above, the staff recommended minimum flow releases would adequately maintain aquatic habitat in the bypassed reach during most years. However, during moderate and extreme drought years, such as those experienced in the Southeast U.S. from 1998-2002, 2005-2007, and 2012, inflows to the project may be insufficient to continually release the required flow.
   During such low inflow periods,
   The South Carolina DNR and Interior recommend that
   Ideally, a low inflow protocol would provide some flexibility to adjust minimum flows during drought periods so that the effects of low inflows are balanced among competing uses. We recommend
   Developing the low inflow protocol would have an annual levelized cost of
Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan
   
   To assist the Commission in monitoring compliance with operation limitations, we recommend
Invasive Vegetation Monitoring and Control Plan
   Alligatorweed is a prolific state noxious weed and that has become established in the project impoundment. Alligatorweed competes with native aquatic species, reducing the quality of fish and wildlife habitat where it becomes established. In mats covering extensive areas, it can impede boating and access to the shore.
   Existing mats of alligatorweed can become fragmented and spread during in-water construction activities, such as during the installation of the canoe portage facilities and repairs to the sand gates, as well as during sediment management activities. Fluctuations in the impoundment levels may also create conditions facilitating its spread.
   Developing and implementing an invasive vegetation monitoring and control plan would minimize the potential spread and adverse effects of alligatorweed during project refurbishment, and project-related recreation activities as well as other invasive plants that may be detected during project operation and maintenance. We recommend that
   To be effective, the monitoring program should define the monitoring schedule, document changes in invasive species composition and distribution between monitoring events, and include criteria that would determine when corrective actions may be required. Based on our review and analysis contained in section 3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources, we find that the benefits of implementing an invasive vegetation management plan with the measures outlined above are worth the estimated levelized annual cost of
Avian Protection
   
   Evaluating the consistency of the transmission line with APLIC guidelines would allow
Recreation Signage
   
   Because
Cultural Resources
   There are no known archeological sites or historic properties within the proposed project's APE; however, there is a possibility that unknown archaeological resources may be discovered due to project construction, operation, or other project-related activities. To ensure proper treatment of any unknown archaeological resources that may be discovered at the project, we recommend in the case of any such discovery that
Measures Not Recommended by Staff
Fish Impingement and Entrainment
   Water intake structures at hydropower projects can injure or kill fish through impingement at intake screens/trash-racks, or entrainment through intakes and into turbines.
   Our analysis in section 3.3.2.2, Environmental Effects, indicates that entrainment and turbine mortality impacts of a trash-rack design with 1-inch bar spacing are potentially greater than the impacts of a design with the existing 2.25-inch bar spacing. Further, based on the intake velocities and the size of the bar spacing, most fish residing in the impoundment would be able to avoid impingement on the trashrack, but could be susceptible to entrainment through the turbines if they fail to use behavioral avoidance (i.e. burst swimming). The fish involved would likely consist of younger and smaller fish, which generally have high rates of mortality, even in the absence of hydropower operations. Fish populations have generally evolved to withstand losses of these smaller and younger individuals with little or no impact to long-term population sustainability. Consequently, replacing the existing trash-rack with a design having 1-inch bar spacing would not likely provide any benefits to fishery resources at the
Fish and Macroinvertebrate Surveys
   The bypassed reach supports seven species of fish and one macroinvertebrate that are considered of conservation concern by the state. Interior recommends that
   As explained in section 3.3.2.2, Environmental Effects, sufficient information already exists to document their occurrence in the bypassed reach and to evaluate how best to distribute flows to optimize aquatic habitat to support these species. Therefore, there is no need for this information. Consequently, we conclude that the information obtained from such surveys is not worth the estimated levelized annual costs of
   The Catawba Indian Nation recommends that
5.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects
   Project refurbishment and the addition of canoe portage facilities would result in some land-disturbing activities that would affect approximately 2 acres of land. Implementing the erosion and sediment control plan would minimize these effects. Repairs to the sand gates on the Riverdale dam spillway would cause minor amounts of sediment to enter the
   Project operation would reduce flows to the bypassed reach and may release water that has a lower DO concentration than existing flows. Recommended minimum flows would be adequate to protect existing aquatic resources. Water quality monitoring would allow identification of any needed measures to maintain state water quality standards. Project operation would result in some fish impingement and entrainment mortality of resident fish in the
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 REA notice, the following fish and wildlife agencies submitted recommendations for the project: Interior (letter filed
   Of the 9 recommendations that we consider to be within the scope of section 10(j), we include 7, and do not include 2 in the staff alternative. We discuss the reasons for not including those recommendations in section 5.2,
Table 16--Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations for theRiverdale Project [Source: staff] Recommendation Agency Within Annualize Adopted? the scope d cost of ( ] section 10(j) Erosion and Sediment Control Implement South Carolina DHEC's South Carolina Yes 390 Yes. *a stormwater BMP's during DNR construction and maintenance activities to prevent or minimize erosion and sedimentation Sediment Management Plan Develop and implement a South Carolina Yes 1,597 Yes. sediment management plan with DNR, Interior provisions to: (a) Consult with South Carolina DHEC to address the potential presence of contaminated sediments in the impoundment and additional monitoring and sediment management needs; (b) test impoundment sediment for heavy metals and other contaminants; (c) monitor sediment accumulation in the impoundment annually; (d) develop criteria that would trigger sediment removal from the impoundment, by opening sand gates, if appropriate, during high flow events, or mechanical methods; (e) conduct sediment management activities from November- January; and (f) file an annual report describing sediment monitoring and management activities, and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the plan Management of Shoreline Erosion Implement the following Interior Yes, 1,050 Yes. *d measures to minimize the because effects of project operations it could and associated shoreline not be erosion: (a) Identify eroding done or potential project-induced prior to erosion sites on project licensing shorelines prior to beginning operation; (b) stabilize areas of shoreline erosion with native plants, bioengineering, slope flattening, toe armoring, and/or rip-rap which incorporates native vegetation plantings; (c) monitor shorelines after operation and implement stabilization techniques as necessary; and (d) conduct shoreline stabilization activities September-February to protect aquatic species and wildlife Water Quality Monitoring Conduct Water quality Interior No *e 1,561 Yes. monitoring for 1-year at the impoundment during all proposed project operational drawdowns Provide minimum seasonal Interior, South Yes 80,851 Not instream flows into the Carolina DNR, Adopted bypassed reach based on a MADF NMFS *f (see of 393 cfs. Seasonal flows to section include: 5.2). . 79 cfs--July-November . 118 cfs--May, June, and December . 157 cfs--January-April Develop an instream flow study NMFS Yes 6,244 Yes. *g plan within 6-months of license issuance and implement the plan after spillway gate renovations are complete, in consultation with NMFS, Interior, South Carolina DNR Develop and implement a low South Carolina Yes 390 Yes. inflow protocol/drought DNR, Interior contingency plan, consistent with the South Carolina Water Plan including provisions for minimum flow requirements during drought periods Evaluate the feasibility and Interior, South Yes 546 Yes. *h effectiveness of using sand Carolina DNR gates to provide minimum flows into the bypassed reach. Evaluation should include optimizing downstream habitat Aquatic Species Measures Modify trash rack bar spacing Interior Yes 1,171 Not at headrace intake from 2.25 Adopted inches to 1 inch to avoid and *f (see minimize fish entrainment and section mortality 5.2). South Carolina Conservation Interior No *e 2,341 No. *i Species study: Conduct comprehensive fish surveys of redeye bass, santee chub, piedmont darter, thicklip chub, greenfin shiner, notchlip redhorse, flat bullhead, snail bullhead. Conduct surveys before and after construction activities as well as 1 year after construction is complete to provide status of above mentioned priority species. Survey areas are to include multiple habitats within bypassed reach Enhance and protect the Interior No *e *j 0 No panhandle pebblesnail to (staff- include provisions of recommend appropriate minimum flows in ed bypassed reach minimum flows would maintain habitat). Conduct comprehensive Interior No *e 702 No. *i invertebrate surveys within the bypassed reach before and after construction, and one year after construction is complete. Surveys should be designed in consultation with South Carolina DNR, NMFS, South Carolina DHEC, and InteriorRiparian Buffer Zone Implement BMPs to protect South Carolina Yes 0 Yes. vegetation within the project DNR, Interior boundary, such as limiting vegetation and ground- disturbing activities and maintaining a minimum of 25- foot-wide vegetated buffer zone on all shorelines within the project boundary *a The measure was adopted under the staff-recommended soil erosion control plan. *b The measures were adopted under the staff-recommended sediment management plan. *c The measures were adopted under the staff-recommended measure to conduct testing for contaminants in the impoundment sediments prior to beginning project refurbishment activities. *d The measures were adopted under the staff-recommended shoreline stabilization plan. *e Not specific measures to protect, mitigate, or enhance fish and wildlife resources. *f Preliminary findings that recommendations found to be within the scope of section 10(j) are inconsistent with the comprehensive planning standard of section 10(a) of the FPA, including the equal consideration provision of section 4(e) of the FPA, are based on staff's determination that the cost of the measures outweigh the expected benefits. *g This measure is accommodated as part of the flow distribution study to determine how best to distribute flows in the bypassed reach to protect aquatic resources, but not to determine appropriate flows. *h This measure was adopted under the staff-recommendation flow release plan. *i Preliminary findings that recommendations found to be within the scope of section 10(j) are inconsistent with the substantial evidence standards of section 313(b) of the FPA based on a lack of evidence to support the reasonableness of the recommendation or a lack of justification for the measure. *j The measure is too vaguely defined to assign a cost and instream flow costs are included in the minimum instream flow recommendations.
5.5 Consistency With Comprehensive Plans
   Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the FPA, /58/ requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with the federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the project. We reviewed 22 state and federal comprehensive plans that are applicable to the
   FOOTNOTE 58 16 U.S.C.
   Based on the Tennant (1976) method,
   In section 5.2 of this EA, we find that our recommended continuous minimum flow of 75 cfs provides the best balance between providing flows for generation and providing flows for aquatic resource protection.
6.0 Finding of No Significant Impact
   Licensing the
   On the basis of our independent analysis, we find that issuance of a license for the
7.0 Literature Cited
American Whitewater. 2009. Whitewater Rivers in
Andersen, C.B.,
Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested practices for avian protection on power lines: The state of the art in 2006. Avian Power Line Interaction Committee,
Bayley, P.B., and
Bergmann, C., and
Bradford, M. J. 1997. An experimental study of stranding of juvenile salmonids on gravel bars and inside channels during flow decreases. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 13:395-401.
Bulak, J.S., and
Chernicoff, S., and
Craven, SW., J T.
Dabrowski, K.R.,
Dodds, W., and
Dillon, R.T., Jr.,
___. 1997. Turbine entrainment and survival database--field tests. Prepared by
___. 2000. Technical evaluation of the utility of intake approach velocity as an indicator of potential adverse environmental impact under Clean Water Act Section 316(b).
___. 2003. Evaluating the effects of power plant operations on aquatic communities: Summary of impingement survival studies.
___. 2012a. Telephone Meeting Summary with the
___. 2012b. Special Dam Safety Inspection Report, FERC Project No. 4362,
___. 2013. Special Dam Safety Inspection Report, FERC Project No. 4362,
Freeman, M.C.,
Galat, D.L.,
Gelwick, F.P. 1990. Longitudinal and temporal comparisons of riffle and pool fish assemblages in a northeastern Oklahoma Ozark stream. Copeia (4): 1072-1082.
Gislason, J.C. 1985. Aquatic insect abundance in a regulated stream under fluctuating and stable diel flow patterns.
Grabowski, T.B., and
Kennon, R.A. 2007. Effects of spatial and temporal variability of shoal habitat on stream fish assemblages in
Knapp, W.E.,
Knight, J.R. 2011. Age, growth, home range, movement, and habitat selection of redeye bass (Micropterus coosae) from the middle
Lawler, Matucky, and Skelly Engineers. 1991. Length/width size estimation. In Fish entrainment monitoring program at the
___. 2010a. Application for license for the
___. 2010b. Letters regarding P-13590. Letter from the
___. 2010c. Riverdale fish entrainment and turbine mortality analysis. Prepared by
___. 2011a. Partial Response to
___. 2011b. Partial Response to
___. 2012. Response to
Madsen, J.D. Alligatorweed [Alternanthera philoxeriodes (Mart.) Griseb.].
Magoulick, D.D., and
Maraldo, DC, and
Meffe, G.K. and
Mettee, M.F.,
Murray, D.E. 1974. A review of literature dealing with the swimming speeds of fishes of the
Nagrodski, A.,
NatureServe. 2013a.
Nilsson, C., and
___. 2013. Soil Series Classification Database. http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/scfile/index.html. Accessed
Rohde, F.C.,
___. 2005b. Health Consultation: South Atlantic Galvanizing (a/k/a National Galvanizing) Soil, Surface Water, and Sediment Sampling Data;
___. 2007. Watershed Water Quality Assessment,
___. 2013a.
___. 2013b.
___. 2008. DNR biologists continue to study redeye bass.
___. 2010. Aquatic Nuisance Species Program, Illegal Aquatic Plants. Available http://www.dnr.sc.gov/water/envaff/aquatic/illegal1.html Accessed
___. 2012. South Carolina Aquatic Plant Management Plan.
___. 2008. South Carolina State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP).
Stanford, J.A.,
Swearingen, J.M. and
Tennant, D.L. 1976. Instream flow regimens for flush, wildlife, recreation and related environmental resources. Fisheries 1(4):6-10.
Tramer, E.J. 1977. Catastrophic mortality of stream fishes trapped in shrinking pools. American Midland Naturalist 97(2): 469-478.
Travnichek, V.H., and
Travnichek, V.H., M.B. Bain, and M.J. Maceina. 1995. Recovery of a warmwater fish assemblage after the initiation of a minimum-flow release downstream from a hydroelectric dam. Transactions of the
Tyus, H.M., C.W.
___. 2012. What is an invasive species? Available http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/whatis.shtml Accessed
Venn Beecham, R., C.D. Minchew, and G.R. Parsons. 2007. Comparative swimming performance of juvenile pond-cultured and wild-caught channel catfish.
Wallus R., and T.P. Simon. 2008. Reproductive Biology and Early Life History of Fishes in the Ohio River Drainage. Volume 6: Elassomatidae and Centrarchidae.
Willis, D.W. 1986. Review of water level management of
Wood, P.J., and P.D. Armitage. 1997. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. Environmental Management 21(2):203-217.
Wood, R. K. and D. E. Whelan. 1962. Low-flow regulation as a means of improving stream fishing. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the
Worthen, W.B. 2002. The Structure of Larval Odonate Assemblages in the
Worthen, W.B., DC Haney, C.C. Cuddy, V.L. Turgeon, and C.B. Andersen. 2001. The Effect of an Industrial Spill on the Macrofauna of a South Carolina Stream: Physiological to Community-Level Responses.
8.0 List of Preparers
Sarah Salazar--Project Coordinator, Geology and Soils, Terrestrial Resources, Threatened and Endangered Species (Environmental Biologist; B.A., Environmental Studies; M.S., Applied Ecology)
Allan Creamer--Water and Fisheries Resources (Fisheries Biologist; B.S. and M.S., Fisheries Science)
Jeanne Edwards--Water Resources (Environmental Biologist; B.S., Biology/Biochemistry; MM,
Rachel McNamara--Recreation and Land Use, Cultural Resources (Outdoor Recreation Planner; B.A., Public Policy/Environmental Studies; M.C.P., Land Use and Environmental Planning)
Adam Peer--Fisheries Resources (Fish Biologist; B.S. Biology; M.S., Fisheries Science; Ph.D., Marine, Estuarine and Environmental Sciences)
Michael Spencer--Need for Power, Engineering and Developmental Analysis (Civil Engineer; B.S., Civil Engineering)
Appendix A
   Fish lengths susceptible to impingement (shaded gray) and entrainment (shaded blue) as a function of burst swim speed. Horizontal dashed line is approach velocity and solid vertical line is minimum fish length susceptible to impingement. (Source: Staff).
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
See Illustration in Original Document.
See Illustration in Original Document.
See Illustration in Original Document.
See Illustration in Original Document.
See Illustration in Original Document.
See Illustration in Original Document.
See Illustration in Original Document.
See Illustration in Original Document.
[FR Doc. 2013-30183 Filed 12-18-13;
BILLING CODE 6717-01-C
Copyright: | (c) 2013 Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. |
Wordcount: | 48568 |
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News