# Lockhart Power Company, Inc.; Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2013-30183 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Notice - **Published:** December 19, 2013 - **Citation:** 78 FR 76904 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13590-001] Lockhart Power Company, Inc.; Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed Lockhart Power Company, Inc.'s application for license for the Riverdale Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 13590-001), located on the Enoree River, near the town of Enoree, in Spartanburg and Laurens Counties, South Carolina. The project does not occupy federal lands. 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 Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov , at (866)208-3676 (toll free), or, 202-502-8659 (TTY). 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, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-13590-001. For further information, contact Sarah Salazar by phone at 202-502-6863, or by email at sarah.salazar@ferc.gov. Dated: December 12, 2013. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License Riverdale Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 13590-001, South Carolina Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Division of Hydropower Licensing, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 December 2013 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 4.2.2 Lockhart 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 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) 51 Figure 3. Illustration of the front of the 2.25-inch headrace trashrack 61 Figure 4. Illustration of the front of the 1-inch headrace trash rack 62 List of Tables Table 1. Major statutory and regulatory requirements for the Riverdale Project 4 Table 2. Select characteristics of mapped soil units at the Riverdale Project 21 Table 3. Synthesized monthly flow data (cfs) for the Riverdale Project from USGS gage No. 02160390 Enoree River at Woodruff, South Carolina 30 Table 4. South Carolina water quality standards for freshwaters 31 Table 5. Fish species and number collected in the vicinity of the Riverdale Project during baseline sampling on June 10-11 and July 6-7, 2010 35 Table 6. Spawning dates and habitat requirements for eight Conservation Species observed in the Riverdale bypassed reach 39 Table 7. Flows through the bypassed reach at FERC licensed projects in the Broad River Basin, South Carolina 46 Table 8. Minimum flow required for fish in streams identified by Tennant (1976) 49 Table 9. Calculation of intake cross-sectional area for the 2.25-inch and 1-inch trashracks 63 Table 10. Burst swim speeds of four species found in the Riverdale impoundment 64 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-length relationship (i.e. width = α × total length β ) alone and exclusive of burst swim speeds 64 Table 12. Parameters for the economic analysis of the proposed Riverdale Project 90 Table 14. Summary of annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits of the alternatives for the Riverdale Project 90 Table 14. Cost of environmental mitigation and enhancement measures considered in assessing the environmental effects of refurbishing, operating, and maintaining the Riverdale Project 93 Table 15. Comparison of Alternatives for the Riverdale Project 104 Table 16. Fish and wildlife agency recommendations for the Riverdale Project 125 Acronyms and Abbreviations APE area of potential effects applicant Lockhart Power Company, Inc. BMPs Best Management Practices °C degrees Celsius certificate Water Quality Certificate cfs cubic feet per second Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Conservation Species South Carolina Priority Species Council Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CWA Clean Water Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act DO dissolved oxygen DOI U.S. Department of the Interior EA environmental assessment EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency °F degrees Fahrenheit fps feet per second FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FPA Federal Power Act FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service LIP low inflow protocol Lockhart Power Lockhart Power Company, Inc. MADF mean annual daily flow MW megawatt MWh megawatt-hour mg/L milligrams per liter msl mean sea level National Register National Register of Historic Places NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NERC North American Electric Reliability Council NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum PM&E measure protection, mitigation, and enhancement measure Riverdale LLC Riverdale Development Venture, LLC ROR run-of-river ROW rights-of-way SERC Southeastern Electric Reliability Council SCORP Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer South Carolina DHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control South Carolina DNR South Carolina Department of Natural Resources South Carolina DPRT South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism South Carolina EPPC South Carolina Exotic Pest Plant Council South Carolina WRC South Carolina Water Resources Commission THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer USGS U.S. Geological Survey Water District Woodruff-Roebuck Water District Water Plan South Carolina Water Plan Executive Summary Proposed Action On August 31, 2010, Lockhart Power Company, Inc. (Lockhart Power or applicant), filed a license application for the Riverdale Hydroelectric Project (Riverdale Project or project) with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC). Lockhart Power proposes to repair existing facilities and return the project, 1 which has been inoperable since 2001, to operation. The proposed 1.24-megawatt (MW) project is located on the Enoree River near the city of Enoree, in Spartanburg and Laurens Counties, South Carolina. The project does not occupy any federal lands. 1 The project was originally licensed to Inman Mills as FERC No. 4362 on September 29, 1982. Inman Mills, 20 FERC ¶ 62,586 (1982). Project Description The Riverdale Project is located at river mile 52 of the 110-mile-long Enoree River in northwestern South Carolina. The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) An existing 425-foot-long, 12-foot-high concrete gravity dam with three evenly spaced, integral sand gates, and 2-foot-high flashboards; (2) an existing 6.6-acre impoundment with a gross storage of 22.0 acre-feet; (3) an existing 85-foot-long, 50-foot-wide concrete headrace canal with an intake structure equipped with trash racks with 2.25-inch bar spacing; (4) an existing 9-foot-diameter, 340-foot-long steel penstock equipped with a second set of trash racks with bar spacing of about 10 inches; (5) an existing wood frame powerhouse containing one 1.24-MW capacity generating unit; (6) an existing 510-foot-long tailrace; (7) an existing 700-foot-long transmission line from the powerhouse to an existing Duke Energy distribution line; (8) an existing approximately 1,376-foot-long, 20-foot-wide paved access road; and (9) appurtenant facilities. Flow diverted to the powerhouse creates a 1,400-foot-long bypassed reach downstream from the dam. 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 Lockhart Power is not the current licensee or current owner of the project and has not had full access to the project, it plans to spend the first year following license issuance assessing the condition of project facilities and finalizing any engineering design needed to refurbish the project. To make the project operational, Lockhart Power expects it would, at a minimum need to: (1) Repair or replace the sand gates and gate operators; (2) repair or replace the 2-foot flashboards on the dam; (3) replace a 193-foot-long above ground section of the penstock; (4) modify the bar spacing on the penstock trashrack from 10 to 5 inches; (5) refurbish the turbine generator; (6) repair the plant controls and governor; (7) repair the powerhouse roof; and (8) dredge sediment and debris from the tailrace. Lockhart Power would operate the project using a combination of run-of-river (ROR) and peaking modes. Lockhart Power would typically operate the project in a ROR mode, with project outflow approximately equaling project inflow, such that the impoundment surface elevation stays within 1 foot (+/−10 percent) of the top of the flashboards. When inflows are insufficient to operate the turbine at its maximum hydraulic capacity i.e. of 450 cubic feet per second (cfs) and provide a continuous minimum flow of 50 cfs to the bypassed reach (i.e. when inflow is less than 500 cfs), Lockhart Power would operate the project in a “peaking” mode. Peaking events would occur no more than once daily, until either the daily period of increased need for power ends or until the impoundment surface elevation is drawn down a maximum of 4 feet (+/−10 percent) below the top of the flashboards. Following each peaking event, Lockhart Power would suspend operation and store inflow, minus the minimum flow to the bypassed reach, to refill the impoundment (likely overnight) to its normal elevation of within 1 foot (+/−10 percent) of the top of the flashboards, allowing it to return to ROR mode until the next peaking event. Lockhart Power expects that peaking operation would occur less than half of the days in any given year. Proposed Environmental Measures Lockhart Power proposes, once the project is operational, the following measures to protect or enhance environmental resources at the project: • 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 March 15 through June 1 to prevent significant accumulation of sediments in the project impoundment and untimely releases of sediment downstream. • Monitor water quality as may be required by South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Council (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 Enoree River downstream from the confluence of the tailrace and the bypassed reach to protect aquatic habitat. The minimum flow in the bypassed reach would be provided through one or more of the three sand gates selected in consultation with South Carolina DNR, Interior, and NMFS, after repairs. Lockhart Power would develop a rating curve for the sand gates and verify it once every 6 years to ensure defined minimum flows are being provided. The remaining 10 cfs would be provided via leakage through the turbine. • 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 Lockhart Power's ability to perform project-related activities. • 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 Enoree River. • 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) Lockhart Power's proposal; (2) Lockhart Power's proposal with staff modifications (staff alternative); and (3) the no-action alternative, meaning that Lockhart Power would not refurbish the hydroelectric facilities and resume project operations. Under the staff alternative, the project would be operated and maintained as proposed by Lockhart Power with the modifications and additional measures described below. Our recommended modifications and additional environmental measures include, or are based on, recommendations made by federal and state resource agencies that have an interest in resources that may be affected by operation of the proposed project, as well as those identified by staff. The staff alternative includes the following additional measures and modifications to Lockhart Power's proposal: • 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. • Modify Lockhart Power's proposed signage measures 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. 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, Lockhart Power conducted a pre-filing consultation process under the traditional licensing process. The intent of the Commission's prefiling process is to initiate public involvement early in the project planning process and to encourage citizens, governmental entities, tribes, and other interested parties to identify and resolve issues prior to an application being formally filed with the Commission. After the application was filed, we conducted scoping to determine what issues and alternatives should be addressed. A scoping document was distributed to interested parties on May 15, 2012. On July 13, 2012, we issued the Ready for Environmental analysis notice, requesting comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions. 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 Enoree River is heavily sediment laden, regular management of sediment bed-load from the impoundment may be needed to maintain project operation. Developing and implementing staff's recommended sediment management plan, which would include Lockhart Power's proposal to avoid drawing down the impoundment below the normal operating range for periodic inspections and maintenance from March 15 through June 1, would minimize adverse effects of sediment releases and lower impoundment levels on fish spawning in and downstream from the impoundment. The plan would also ensure that sediment in the impoundment is regularly monitored and managed, preventing excessive sediment accumulation and ensuring that sediment management activities occur when they are least likely to cause adverse effects on downstream resources. 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. Lockhart Power's proposed minimum continuous flow of 60 cfs (16 percent of mean annual daily flow [MADF]) downstream from the tailrace and 50 cfs (13 percent of MADF) in the bypassed reach would not maintain aquatic resources in the bypassed reach. As defined by Tennant (1976), 2 such flows provide “fair or degrading” conditions, and close to “poor or minimum” conditions during the dry and wet seasons, respectively. Compared to Lockhart's proposed flow, staff's recommended year-round minimum flow of 75 cfs (20 percent of MADF) would better protect aquatic resources because this flow represents “good” conditions and close to “fair or degrading” conditions, as defined by Tennant (1996), during the dry and wet seasons, respectively. 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. Using the sand gates to release the bypassed reach minimum flows as proposed by Lockhart Power may not be feasible because the sand gates are currently inoperable. Also, sand gates are generally not designed for such activities and may become blocked with debris, preventing the release of specified flows. Developing and implementing staff's recommended minimum instream flow release plan would assess the feasibility of using the sand gates to release the minimum flows, identify which gate(s) best distribute flows across the bypassed reach, and identify alternative means to release minimum flows should using the gates prove impracticable. Developing a low inflow protocol/drought contingency plan, as recommended by staff, would allow Lockhart Power and the resource agencies to adjust operation and minimum instream flow requirements as specified by the plan during periods of extended drought that minimize adverse effects on generation, and on fish, wildlife, and water quality in the bypassed reach and downstream from the tailrace. Staff's recommended operation compliance monitoring plan would provide the Commission a mechanism to monitor compliance with Lockhart Power's proposed limits on impoundment fluctuations, minimum instream flow releases, and low inflow operation protocols. Terrestrial Resources Limiting disturbances to soil and vegetation and maintaining a minimum 25-foot-wide forested riparian buffer along project shorelines, as proposed by Lockhart Power, would preserve existing vegetation and habitat for wildlife. Staff's recommended invasive plant management plan, would minimize the introduction or spread of non-native invasive vegetation within the project boundary, and would protect native plant communities and the fish and wildlife that depend on them. Implementing staff's recommended avian protection plan would facilitate a determination on whether the project transmission lines pose a risk of avian injury or mortality due to electrocution and identify mitigation measures, if needed. Recreation and Land Use Lockhart Power's proposed canoe portage trail, put-in and take-out, parking, and directional signage at the project would enhance recreation amenities on a reach of the Enoree River designated for recreation use and future water trail development. Staff's recommended signage requesting that visitors pack out their garbage would reduce the likelihood that recreation use at the project would negatively affect the surrounding environment. Continued project operation would not affect 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 Lockhart Power to define the appropriate treatments necessary to avoid, lessen, or mitigate for potential adverse effects from the inadvertent discovery. Conclusions Based on our analysis, we recommend licensing the project as proposed by Lockhart Power, with some staff modifications and additional measures. 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 $265,378, or $54.21/MWh more than the likely alternative cost of power. Under the staff alternative, project power would cost $297,487, or $68.07/MWh more than the likely alternative cost of power. 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 Lockhart Power, as modified by staff, would protect and enhance environmental resources affected by the project. The overall benefits of the staff alternative would be worth the cost of the proposed and recommended environmental measures. 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 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Division of Hydropower Licensing, Washington, DC Riverdale Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 13590-001—South Carolina 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Application On August 31, 2010, Lockhart Power Company, Inc. (Lockhart Power or applicant), filed a license application for the Riverdale Hydroelectric Project (Riverdale Project or project) with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC). 3 The 1.24-megawatt (MW) project is located on the Enoree River near Enoree, in Spartanburg and Laurens Counties, South Carolina (figure 1). The project does not occupy any federal lands. The project is currently inoperable, but as proposed by Lockhart Power, it would generate an average of about 4,895 megawatt-hours (MWh) of energy annually. 3 On September 29, 1982, the Riverdale Project was licensed to Inman Mills under FERC Project No. 4362. The project has not operated since January of 2001. Inman Mills' license expired on August 31, 2012, and was subsequently issued an authorization for continued project operation until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project. Inman Mills did not file a notice of intent to relicense the project. On November 29, 2007, the Commission issued a notice soliciting applications for subsequent license by August 31, 2010. Lockhart Power filed the only timely license application and is therefore the only license applicant for the Riverdale Project. 1.2 Purpose of Action and Need for Power 1.2.1 Purpose of Action The purpose of the Riverdale Project is to provide a source of hydroelectric power. Therefore, under the provisions of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission must decide whether to issue a license to Lockhart Power for the Riverdale Project and what conditions should be placed on any license issued. In deciding whether to issue a license for a hydroelectric project, the Commission must determine that the project will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway. In addition to the power and developmental purposes for which licenses are issued (such as flood control, irrigation, or water supply), the Commission must give equal consideration to the purposes of: (1) Energy conservation; (2) the protection of, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources; (3) the protection of recreational opportunities; and (4) the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. BILLING CODE 6717-01-P EN19DE13.003 BILLING CODE 6717-01-C Issuing a license for the Riverdale Project would allow Lockhart Power to generate electricity for the term of a license, making electrical power from a renewable resource available to the local utility Duke Energy, which would use it to serve its customers' needs. 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 The Riverdale Project would provide hydroelectric generation to meet part of South Carolina's power requirements, resource diversity, and capacity needs. With staff's recommended measures, the project would have an installed capacity of 1.24 MW and would generate approximately 4,370 MWh per year. The North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) annually forecasts electrical supply and demand nationally and regionally for a 10-year period. The Riverdale Project is located in the VACAR sub-region 4 of the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council (SERC), which is one of eight regional reliability councils of NERC. According to NERC's 2012 forecast, annual energy requirement for the VACAR sub-region is projected to grow at a compound annual rate of 1.11 percent, from 2012 through 2022 (NERC, 2012). 4 The VACAR sub-region includes the states of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The power from the Riverdale Project would help meet a need for power in the VACAR sub-region of the SERC in both the short- and long-term. The project provides low-cost power that may displace non-renewable, fossil-fired generation and contributes to a diversified generation mix. Displacing the operation of fossil-fueled facilities may avoid some power plant emissions and create an environmental benefit. 1.3 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements A license for the Riverdale Project is subject to numerous requirements under the Federal Power Act (FPA) and other applicable statutes. We summarize the major regulatory requirements in table 1 and describe them below. Table 1—Major Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for the Riverdale Project Requirement Agency Status Section 18 of the FPA (fishway prescriptions) U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Interior and NMFS reserved authority to prescribe fishways on September 10, and September 11, 2012, respectively. Section 10(j) of the FPA Interior, NMFS, and South Carolina Department of National Resources (South Carolina DNR) Interior, South Carolina DNR, and NMFS provided section 10(j) recommendations on September 10, September 10, and September 11, 2012, respectively. Clean Water Act—Water quality certification (certification) South Carolina DNR Application for water quality certification received on October 4, 2012; withdrawn and reapplied on September 20, 2013; due by September 20, 2014. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Consultation Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) The project would not affect any listed species because none are known to occur in the project vicinity; therefore, further consultation under the ESA is not necessary. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (South Carolina DHEC) South Carolina DHEC indicated by letter filed September 30, 2010, that the project is not located within South Carolina's coastal zone, that the proposed project poses no reasonably foreseeable effects on the coastal zone, and that no consistency certification is needed. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) By letter filed August 31, 2010, the South Carolina SHPO concurred with Lockhart Power's 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 U.S. Department of the Interior. Interior and Commerce through NMFS, by letters filed on September 10 and 11, 2012, respectively, request that a reservation of authority to prescribe fishways under section 18 of the FPA be included in any license issued for the project. 1.3.1.2 Section 10(j) Recommendations Under section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the Commission must include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, or enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. The Commission is required to include these conditions unless it determines that they are inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of the FPA or other applicable law. Before rejecting or modifying an agency recommendation, the Commission is required to attempt to resolve any such inconsistency with the agency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency. Interior, South Carolina DNR, and NMFS timely filed on September 10, September 10, and September 11, 2012, respectively, recommendations under 10(j), as summarized in table 18 in section 5.4.1, Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. In section 5.4, we also discuss how we address the agency recommendations and comply with section 10(j). 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 October 3, 2012, Lockhart Power applied to the South Carolina DHEC for certification of the Riverdale Project. South Carolina DHEC received this request on October 4, 2012. On September 20, 2013, Lockhart Power withdrew and re-filed for certification, and on the same day South Carolina DHEC received this request. South Carolina DHEC has not yet acted on the request. The certification is due by September 20, 2014. 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 Riverdale Project vicinity. Therefore, licensing the project would not affect listed species and no further consultation under section 7 is needed. 1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act Under section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1456(3)(A), the Commission cannot issue a license for a project within or affecting a state's coastal zone unless the state CZMA agency concurs with the license applicant's certification of consistency with the state's CZMA program, or the agency's concurrence is conclusively presumed by its failure to act within 180 days of its receipt of the applicant's certification. The project is not located within the state-designated Coastal Management Zone, which extends to South Carolina's eight coastal counties (Jasper, Beaufort, Colleton, Berkeley, Dorchester, Charleston, Georgetown, and Horry), and the project would not affect South Carolina's coastal resources. Therefore, the project is not subject to South Carolina coastal zone program review and no consistency certification is needed for the action. By letter filed September 30, 2010, 5 the South Carolina DHEC concurred. 5 See letter dated September 13, 2010 from W. McGoldrick, Stormwater Permit Coordinator, South Carolina DHEC, Charleston, South Carolina, to S. Boring, Kleinschmidt Associates, Lexington, South Carolina. 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 National Register of Historic Places (National Register). Pursuant to section 106, the applicant consulted with the South Carolina SHPO and affected Indian tribes to locate, determine National Register eligibility, and assess potential adverse effects to historic properties associated with the project. By letter filed August 31, 2010, 6 the South Carolina SHPO stated that it concurred with the applicant's assessment that no properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register would be affected by the by the federal licensing action. Staff reaffirmed the South Carolina SHPO's concurrence via teleconference on May 23, 2012. 7 6 See letter dated December 7, 2009 from C. Wilson, Review and Compliance Coordinator, South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Columbia, South Carolina to J. Seay, Jr., Lockhart Power Company, Lockhart, South Carolina. 7 See FERC. 2012a. Telephone Meeting Summary with the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office for the Riverdale Hydroelectric Project No. 13590-001. Filed on May 24, 2012. As a result of the findings made by Lockhart Power and the SHPO's concurrence that no historic properties would be affected by the project, the drafting of a programmatic agreement to resolve adverse effects on historic properties will not be necessary. 1.4 Public Review and Consultation The Commission's regulations (18 CFR, § 4.38) require that applicants consult with appropriate resource agencies, tribes, and other entities before filing an application for a license. This consultation is the first step in complying with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the ESA, the NHPA, and other federal statutes. Pre-filing consultation must be complete and documented according to the Commission's regulations. 1.4.1 Scoping Before preparing this 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 December 22, 2011. It was noticed in the Federal Register on December 22, 2011. A Scoping Document 2 was issued on May 15, 2012. The following entities provided written comments on Scoping Document 1: Commenting entities Date filed Caitlin Totherow, Catawba Indian Nation Tribal Preservation Officer (THPO) January 18, 2012. South Carolina SHPO January 20, 2012. Woodruff-Roebuck Water District (Water District) February 9, 2012. Greg Sveinsson, Riverdale Development Venture, LLC (Riverdale, LLC) February 15, 2012. American Rivers February 16, 2012 South Carolina DNR February 21, 2012. FWS February 21, 2012. NMFS March 6, 2012. 1.4.2 Interventions On May 7, 2012, the Commission issued a notice that Lockhart Power's application to license the Riverdale Project had been accepted for filing. This notice set July 6, 2012, as the deadline for filing protests and motions to intervene. In response to the notice, the following entities filed notices of intervention or motions to intervene (none opposed issuance of a license): Intervenors Date filed Woodruff-Roebuck Water District June 12, 2012. American Rivers June 19, 2012. Interior June 25, 2012. South Carolina DNR June 29, 2012. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (on behalf of NMFS) July 5, 2012. 1.4.3 Comments on the License Application The July 13, 2012 notice also stated that the application was ready for environmental analysis, and requested that comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions be filed. The following entities commented: Commenting agencies and other entities Date filed Interior September 10, 2012. South Carolina DNR September 10, 2012. NMFS September 11, 2012. American Rivers September 12, 2012. The applicant, Lockhart Power, filed reply comments on October 24, 2012. 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 Enoree River by passing over the spillway or through leaks in the sand gates. 2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities The Riverdale Project would consist of an existing 425-foot-long, 12-foot-high concrete gravity dam with three evenly spaced, integral sand gates, 8 and 2-foot-high flashboards that form a 6.6-acre impoundment with a gross storage of 22.0 acre-feet. On the north end of the dam is an existing 85-foot-long, 50-foot-wide concrete headrace canal with an intake structure equipped with trash racks with 2.25-inch bar spacing. The canal feeds an existing 9-foot-diameter, 340-foot-long steel penstock, 9 which is equipped with trash racks having bar spacing of about 10 inches. The penstock connects to an existing wood frame powerhouse building containing one 1.24-MW capacity generating unit. An existing 510-foot-long tailrace extends from the powerhouse to the Enoree River, and an existing 700-foot-long transmission line extends from the powerhouse to an existing Duke Energy distribution line. An existing paved access road, approximately 1,376 feet long and 20 feet wide extends from Highway 221 to the project powerhouse. 8 Three low level sand gates are located within three concrete-framed piers along the spillway dam. 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. 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. Riverdale, LLC currently owns approximately 2.5 acres of land within Lockhart Power's proposed project boundary which encompasses the project powerhouse, intake structure, penstock, and tailrace. The Water District owns the majority of the remaining lands within the project boundary and retains an option to acquire the dam. Two other private individuals own the remaining parcels which are located on the south side of the impoundment. 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 Atlanta Regional Office would review the designs, plans and specifications of the proposed repairs to equipment and structures. Inspections during project refurbishment would concentrate on adherence to Commission-approved plans and specifications, special license articles relating to construction, and accepted engineering practices and procedures. Operational inspections would focus 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. 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 Lockhart Power proposes to use the existing hydropower facilities described above, and rehabilitate all equipment rendering the project inoperable. Because Lockhart Power is not the current licensee or current owner of the project and has not had full access to the project, it plans to spend the first year following license issuance assessing the condition of project facilities and finalizing any engineering design needed to refurbish the project. To make the project operational, Lockhart Power expects it would, at a minimum: (1) Repair or replace the sand gates and gate operators; (2) repair or replace the 2-foot flashboards on the dam; (3) replace a 193-foot above ground section of the penstock; (4) modify the bar spacing on the penstock trashrack from 10 to 5 inches; (5) refurbish the turbine generator; 10 (6) repair plant controls and governor; (7) repair the powerhouse roof; and (8) dredge the sediment and debris in the tailrace. There would be a total of 25.9 acres within the proposed project boundary, of which 11.3 acres are land and the remainder is occupied by waters of the impoundment, bypassed reach, and tailrace. 10 Lockhart Power anticipates that significant electrical, mechanical, and hydraulic system improvements and refurbishments will be necessary to restore the project to reliable long term operating condition. Certain improvements, such as turbine refurbishment, may improve the design efficiency of and thereby increase the rated capacity of the turbine-generator to a range of 1.2-1.45 MW. 2.2.2 Proposed Project Operations Lockhart Power would operate the project using a combination of run-of-river (ROR) and peaking modes. The project would operate semi-automatically with an operator on standby. Lockhart Power would remotely monitor impoundment levels and control the water flow through the project's turbine to maintain impoundment levels. The Riverdale impoundment would fluctuate between 1 and 4 feet of the top of the flashboards. Lockhart Power would typically operate the project in a ROR mode, with project outflow approximately equaling inflow, such that the impoundment surface elevation stays within 1 foot (+/−10 percent) of the top of the flashboards. When inflows are insufficient to operate the turbine at its maximum hydraulic capacity of 450 cubic feet per second (cfs) and provide a continuous minimum flow of 50 cfs to the bypassed reach (i.e. when inflow is less than 500 cfs), Lockhart Power would operate the project in a “peaking” mode. Peaking events would occur no more than once daily, until either the daily period of increased need for power ends or until the impoundment surface elevation is drawn down a maximum of 4 feet (+/− 10 percent) below the top of the flashboards. Following each peaking event, Lockhart Power would suspend operation and store inflow, minus the minimum flow to the bypassed reach, to refill the impoundment (likely overnight) to its normal elevation of within 1 foot (+/− 10 percent) of the top of the flashboards, allowing it to return to ROR mode until the next peaking event. Lockhart Power expects that peaking operation would occur less than half of the days in any given year (Lockhart Power, 2011a). 2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures Lockhart Power proposes to construct and operate the project with the following environmental protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) 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 March 15 through June 1 to prevent significant accumulation of sediments in the project impoundment and untimely releases of sediment downstream. • 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 Enoree River downstream from the confluence of the tailrace and the bypassed reach to protect aquatic habitat. The minimum flow in the bypassed reach would be provided through one or more of the three sand gates selected in consultation with South Carolina DNR, Interior, and NMFS, after repairs. Lockhart Power would develop a rating curve for the sand gates and verify it once every 6 years to ensure defined minimum flows are being provided. • 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 Lockhart Power's ability to perform project-related activities. • 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 Enoree River. • 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 11 Although Lockhart Power proposes this measure in its license application, we consider Lockhart Power's consultation requirements under section 106 of the NHPA to be complete because of the SHPO's finding that no properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register would be affected by the project (letter from C. Wilson, Review and Compliance Coordinator, South Carolina SHPO, Columbia, South Carolina to J. Seay, Jr., Lockhart Power, Lockhart, South Carolina, December 7 2009). Therefore no further analysis of this measure is necessary. 2.3 Staff Alternative The staff alternative includes the following additional measures and modifications to Lockhart Power's proposal: • 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 March 15 through June 1, if possible, to minimize adverse impacts to spawning fish; and (g) file annual reports with sediment monitoring results, sediment management activities, and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the plan in minimizing sediment accumulation in the impoundment. • 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. 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 (USDA, 2012). • 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 Lockhart Power neither owns nor operates the project under the existing license, the Commission cannot require Lockhart Power to remove the dam. Decommissioning the project would involve denial of Lockhart Power's license application and then the surrender or termination of Inman Mills' existing license with appropriate conditions under separate action by the Commission. Decommissioning with dam removal would remove the only barrier to fish movement in the Enoree River from its confluence with the Broad River to its headwaters, allow for natural sediment movement through the project area, eliminate the need to portage canoes around the project, remove lake recreation, and eliminate a potential source of renewable energy. However, as we explain herein, the project's power would serve to meet regional energy needs. Further, a license can be conditioned to address adverse environmental effects of project operation such that project benefits can be retained with minimal effects on the environment. Considering there is a willing developer of the project, we see no reason not to develop the project power. Therefore, we do not consider project decommissioning with or without dam removal as a reasonable alternative to Lockhart Power's proposal. 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, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. 13 Unless otherwise indicated, our information is taken from the license application for this project (Lockhart Power, 2010a) and Lockhart Power's responses to the Commission staff's additional information requests (Lockhart Power, 2011a; 2011b; 2012). 3.1 General Description of the River Basin Situated within the Piedmont Physiographic Region and encompassing approximately 731 square miles within the lower portion of the Broad River Basin, the Enoree River Basin spans portions of Greenville, Spartanburg, Union, and Newberry Counties in northwestern South Carolina. The Enoree River originates near the city of Travelers Rest and then flows 110 miles to its confluence with the Broad River. The Broad River flows into the Congaree, which merges with the Wateree to form the Santee River. The Santee River flows into the Atlantic Ocean. The Enoree River is the primary source of water for the project. Tributaries to the Enoree River include Beaverdam Creek 14 as well as Warrior and Duncan creeks. Approximately 29 miles upstream of the project, are the remains of the Pelham dam 15 and Pelham Mills, closed in the 1930's. There are no other dams on the Enoree River upstream of, or downstream from, the Riverdale dam. The nearest dam is Parr Shoals dam (FERC Project No. 1984), located on the Broad River 65 miles downstream from the confluence of the Enoree and Broad rivers. 14 Beaverdam Creek enters the Enoree River approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the project. 15 There are no records of a hydroelectric license at the Pelham dam location (Federal Power Commission, 1970). The Enoree River has a variety of aquatic habitats, including seven shoal reaches and frequent long stretches of riffles and runs separated with short sections of glides and pools. The topography of the basin is generally moderate, varying from steep to rolling hills. Land uses in the basin and surrounding the Riverdale Project are primarily forest or agriculture with small developed areas near the headwaters of the Enoree River and along main roads in the project area. Climate in the Enoree River Basin is subtropical, marked by high summer humidity and moderate winters that rarely drop below freezing. The average annual temperature is 60 °F to 70 °F. Rainfall is high year-round, with an annual average of 40 to 60 inches, typically greatest during the summer. 3.2 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis According to the Council on Environmental Quality, a cumulative effect under NEPA is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions 40 CFR 1508.7 (2013). Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time, including hydropower and other land and water development activities. Based on our review of the license application, 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 Enoree River Basin. 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 Broad River. 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 The Enoree River is located within the greater Broad River Drainage Basin and flows through the geologic region known as the Piedmont. The Piedmont geologic region extends from the Blue Ridge region to the fall line, at Columbia, South Carolina, and consists of stream and river valleys and rolling hills with elevations ranging from 375 to over 1,000 feet mean sea level (msl). 16 Bedrock in this region is dominated by granite which is found mostly below the surface, except at shoals within streams. The Enoree River passes through various geologic formations including the Six Mile Thrust Sheet, the Laurens Thrust Stack, and the Charlotte Terrane before entering the Broad River, approximately 52 miles downstream from the project. Surficial geological material within the project area and within the vicinity of the project consists of fluvial deposited sediments, as well as weathered felsic igneous and metamorphic rocks of the Piedmont uplands. 16 Elevations in this document are based on the National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 (NGVD 29). Dominant soils within the project area and general vicinity of the project include the following series: Cartecay, Congaree, and Enoree (entisols); 17 and Cecil, Madison, and Pacolet (ultisols) 18 (NRCS, 2013a). In particular, the northern shoreline of the Riverdale impoundment is composed of Cartecay-Toccoa complex, Pacolet sandy clay loam with 10 to 15 percent slopes, and Pacolet sandy loam with 25 to 40 percent slopes. The southern shoreline of the impoundment consists largely of Enoree soils. Downstream from the dam, bordering the bypassed reach, tailrace, and Enoree River are Madison & Pacolet soils with 15 to 40 percent slopes and wet, mixed alluvial land. 19 Table 2 describes key features of these soils. 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). 18 Ulitsols are highly weathered soils rich in clays and minerals commonly found in mesic forests in the Lower Broad River Basin (Andersen et al., 2001). 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). Table 2—Select Characteristics of Mapped Soil Units at the Riverdale Project [Source: Lockhart Power, 2010A] Soil type Slope Landform Drainage class Flooding Capacity to transmit water 1 Erodibility 2 Northern Shoreline Cartecay-Toccoa complex 0-2 Floodplain Somewhat poorly drained Occasional High 0.24 Pacolet sandy clay loam 15-25 Interfluves 3 Well drained None Mod. high to high 0.20 Pacolet sandy loam 25-40 Interfluves 3 Well drained None Mod. high to high 0.20 Southern Shoreline Enoree 0-2 Depressions/floodplain Poorly drained Frequent Mod. high to high 0.32 Downstream from Riverdale Dam Madison & Pacolet 0-2 Floodplain Moderately well drained Frequent High 0.32 mixed alluvial land 15-40 Interfluves 3 Well drained None Mod. high to high 0.20 1 Measured as Ksat, or saturated hydraulic capacity, as an indicator of seepage potential in the upper 60 inches. 2 Measured as the K factor, or the erodibility of soil and other surface substrates, taking into account soil texture, content (e.g., clay, silt, organic matter, minerals, rocks), and structure (NRCS, 2013b). Values range from 0.02 to 0.69. The higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. Moderate range is about 0.20-0.40. 3 Upland landform located between two adjacent valleys containing streams. The characteristics of dominant soil types along with active local mining operations likely contribute to the load of suspended solids in the Enoree River. According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), the majority of lands in the Enoree watershed, including those of the project, represent a resource concern due to erosion and are classified as `highly erodible lands.' As shown in table 2, the soils bordering the project impoundment have a K factor that indicates moderate erodibility. In addition, there are several mine sites upstream of the Riverdale Project, including granite, vermiculite, and sand mines (South Carolina DHEC, 2013a; 2013b). During licensing studies conducted the summer of 2010, 20 Lockhart Power collected qualitative data on substrate content and bank stability at the Riverdale Project. 21 The substrates were dominated by silt and sand in the impoundment and at the confluence of the Enoree River and Two-Mile Creek. Boulders and bedrock occur immediately downstream from the dam. Clay, gravel, pebble, cobble, detritus, and mud were also found in the substrates within the project boundary. The study results indicated areas of stable shorelines and some areas with evidence of erosion and undercutting. The current extent of erosion is not known at this time, but the majority of the project shoreline is forested with portions armored by bedrock. 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. 21 Survey locations included the impoundment and the Enoree River in the riffle habitat immediately upstream of the impoundment, Two-Mile Creek, the tailrace, the bypassed reach, and the Enoree River downstream from the project near a road (i.e. SC 49) crossing. Heavy metals and other contaminants from an industrial spill are known to occur in the Upper Enoree River watershed. In 1985, a galvanizing facility spilled 75,700 liters of hydrochloric acid, zinc, lead, barium, chromium, and other contaminants from a ruptured waste containment pond. The contaminants infiltrated the soil and seeped into the groundwater at the headwaters of the Enoree River near Travelers Rest, South Carolina. Also in 1985, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) removed contaminated materials from the waste containment ponds, from soil around the facility, as well as drums and other containers of stored hazardous materials, some of which appeared to have leaked (South Carolina DHEC, 2005). Studies conducted in 1999 and 2000 documented the residual adverse effects of these contaminants on salamanders, fish, dragonfly and damselfly larvae, and other aquatic species in the Enoree River (Worthen, et al., 2001; Worthen, 2002). While South Carolina DHEC determined that the surface water, sediment, soils, and groundwater adjacent to the facility pose no public health hazard, 22 a South Carolina DHEC's survey in October 2004 indicated that zinc concentrations in surface water and sediments were above ambient conditions and could negatively impact aquatic species at the headwaters of the Enoree River (South Carolina DHEC, 2005). The type and quantity of contaminants that may have been transported in the Enoree River and deposited within the sediments of the project impoundment since the 1985 industrial spill is unknown at this time. 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. 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 (Lockhart Power, 2012). Turbidity and thick vegetation growing along the canal between the intake structure and the penstock limited visual inspection during recent project inspections (FERC, 2012b; 2013). The precise volume of sediment deposits in the impoundment and the canal are unknown at this time. 3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects Construction-Related Effects At this time, Lockhart Power cannot define exactly what will be required to make the project operable. However, anticipated activities associated with replacing the approximately 193-foot-long section of the penstock, dredging the tailrace, repairing the powerhouse, and constructing the canoe put-in, take-out, portage trail, and parking area would result in soil-disturbing activities that could cause erosion and sedimentation in the impoundment and Enoree River. Soil erosion and subsequent sedimentation of aquatic habitats can adversely affect fish and wildlife habitat and degrade water quality. To address the issue of erosion and sedimentation at the project, Lockhart Power would limit ground-disturbing activities whenever possible on lands acquired for project purposes. South Carolina DNR recommends Lockhart Power consult with state and federal agencies to implement construction and maintenance 23 BMPs described in the South Carolina DHEC's Stormwater BMP Handbook (South Carolina DHEC, 2005). 23 Both Lockhart Power's proposal and South Carolina DHEC's recommendation appear to apply to all future ground-disturbing maintenance activities. While we are not opposed to such protective measures, we cannot analyze the effects of undefined, broad measures. Therefore, this EA only considers the effects of refurbishing the project and general operation and maintenance of the project. Any future modifications that result in ground-disturbing activities may require prior Commission approval. Our Analysis Lockhart Power anticipates that construction and repairs of the hydroelectric facilities and installation of the proposed recreation facilities would be confined to about 2 acres. Ground-disturbing activities would occur predominantly within the footprint of the former textile mill, parking lots, and roadways, minimizing effects to undisturbed areas. Implementing standard industry BMPs for controlling erosion would ensure adverse effects are minor and temporary. Such BMPs could include the use of silt fences, sediment traps, stabilized construction entrances, and alternative techniques that may be approved after consultation with the South Carolina DHEC (South Carolina DHEC, 2013a; 2013b; 2005). Operation and Maintenance-Related Effects Heavy sediment loads in the Enoree River and years of in-operation have resulted in significant sediment deposits and the establishment of vegetation in the project impoundment. The exact amount of sediment deposit is unknown. Repairs to the sand gates prior to project operation would likely require lowering the impoundment which could release large quantities of sediments downstream. Any heavy metals and other contaminants that may have been deposited and covered by the sediment over the years could be suspended and released downstream. 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, Lockhart Power proposes to implement a sediment management plan, which consists of the following: Lockhart Power would use the sand gates to draw down the impoundment below the normal operating range (i.e. for periodic inspections and maintenance purposes) and avoid drawdowns from March 15 through June 1. These measures are intended to minimize sediment releases that could affect fish spawning in the project impoundment and downstream areas. South Carolina DNR recommends that Lockhart Power develop and implement a sediment management plan with provisions to: (a) Monitor stream-borne sediment accumulations in the impoundment; (b) regularly flush sediments downstream or remove them from the impoundment; (c) prepare annual reports describing monitoring and management activities and evaluating the overall effectiveness of the plan; (d) conduct sediment management activities from November through January, if possible; and (e) consult with the South Carolina DHEC to address the potential presence of contaminated sediments in the impoundment. Interior also recommends Lockhart Power develop and implement its sediment management plan with guidelines for periodic inspections and maintenance drawdowns, as well as the following additional provisions: (a) Test impoundment sediment for heavy metals and other contaminants; (b) develop a schedule and criteria that would trigger sediment removal from the impoundment, by opening the sand gates, if appropriate, during high flow events, or via mechanical methods; (c) develop a method to monitor future sediment accumulation in the impoundment; and (d) conduct maintenance drawdowns in late fall and winter to avoid impacts to spawning fish upstream and downstream of the dam. To protect project shorelines from water level fluctuations associated with peaking operation, Interior recommends Lockhart Power develop and implement a shoreline stabilization plan. As part of the plan, Lockhart Power would be required to identify and address any existing areas of active erosion along the impoundment, as well as areas downstream from the dam with the potential for erosion due to project operation. Interior recommends that Lockhart Power use native vegetation and techniques such as bio-engineering, slope flattening, toe armoring with anchored logs, and/or riprap that incorporates native vegetation plantings to stabilize shorelines subject to potential erosion. 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 Armitage, 1997). If heavy metals and other contaminants are present in the impoundment, they could also be suspended and transported in the water column, harming fish and wildlife. 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 Lockhart Power, the resource agencies, South Carolina DHEC, and the Commission to identify suitable methods for removing and disposing of any contaminated sediments, preventing the inadvertent re-suspension and release of contaminants. The information would also help to design appropriate methods for short- and long-term sediment management at the project. Avoiding impoundment draw downs between March 15 and June 1 to initially repair the sand gates and to conduct any maintenance once it is operational, would avoid adverse effects on spawning fish and reproductive success. Limiting any such maintenance actions to the late fall and winter, as recommended by Interior, would also protect a broad range of aquatic species, which undergo less critical life-cycle events during this time of year and are often dormant or less active. In addition, during the fall and winter there would likely be sufficient flows to keep any suspended sediment moving downstream instead of settling in the shoal habitat of the bypassed reach. 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 Neal Shoals Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2315) which is located on the Broad River about 16 miles upstream from the confluence with the Enoree River. About 112,841 cubic yards of sediment was released 24 during a reservoir drawdown associated with the replacement of four sand gates, installation of new trash racks on the sand gates, temporary installation and removal of a bulkhead in the sand gate opening, and the replacement of the controls for the sand gates and trash racks. 25 The Commission was informed that the sediment release resulted in a fish kill and affected water quality in the Broad River. 26 Analysis of the effects the sediment release on aquatic resources downstream from the Neal Shoals Project is ongoing. 27 24 See letter from Michael C. Summer, General Manager, Fossil/Hydo Technical Services, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (SCE&G), Cayce, South Carolina, filed on January 25, 2012. 25 See letter from Michael C. Summer, General Manager, Fossil/Hydo Technical Services, SCE&G, Cayce, South Carolina, to Charles D. Wagner, Regional Engineer, FERC, Atlanta Regional Office, Duluth, Georgia, filed on March 7, 2011. 26 See letter from Thomas J. LoVullo, Chief, Aquatic Resources Branch, FERC, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance to Michael C. Summer, General Manager, Fossil/Hydo Technical Services, SCE&G, Cayce, South Carolina, issued on November 14, 2011. 27 See letter from Michael C. Summer, General Manager, Fossil/Hydo Technical Services, SCE&G, Cayce, South Carolina, filed on August 8, 2013. 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 Lockhart Power proposes, would result in impoundment fluctuations of up to 4 feet that could compromise the stability of soils along the project shorelines. The total length of the impoundment shoreline is about 2,394 feet. 28 Since the shoreline contains areas of highly erodible soils, such fluctuations could cause physical weathering through saturation, subsequent drying, exposure to rainfall, runoff, and freeze/thaw conditions. These mechanisms can cause slumping of soils and fracturing of rocks on the shorelines. Bank slumping and erosion is likely to be greatest during the initial years of operation. Identifying and stabilizing areas of active erosion, as well as areas that exhibit the potential for erosion prior to commencing project operation would prevent and/or minimize potential shoreline erosion problems. Annually monitoring the banks for erosion and implementing corrective measures as needed would minimize future adverse effects of bank erosion on fish and wildlife habitat. Using native vegetation and techniques such as bio-engineering, slope flattening, toe armoring with anchored logs, and/or riprap that incorporates native vegetation plantings would effectively stabilize eroding shorelines and provide habitat for wildlife and aquatic species that use the riparian zone, littoral zone of the impoundment, and bank areas of stream reaches in the project area. Monitoring banks and shorelines after Lockhart Power resumes project operation as well as implementing stabilization techniques if erosion is observed, would address any areas of future shoreline erosion. Installing shoreline or bank stabilizers during the fall and winter (i.e. September through February), except under emergency situations, would help minimize potential disturbances to aquatic species and wildlife. As with the sediment management plan discussed above, annual reports documenting the results of monitoring and any shoreline stabilization activities would ensure continued stakeholder involvement in activities to minimize erosion and protect littoral, bank, and riparian areas within the project area over the term of any license issued for the project. 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. 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 August 27, 1995, as a result of Tropical Storm Jerry (table 3). As expected, the lowest flow periods occur during the summer and early fall (June-November). 29 This MADF is based on data collected during the following period of record: January 1, 1994 through December 31, 2012, as pro-rated from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gage No. 02160390, located on the Enoree River near Woodruff, SC. Table 3—Synthesized Monthly Flow Data (CFS) for the Riverdale Project From USGS Gage No. 02160390 Enoree River at Woodruff, South Carolina [Source: Lockhart Power, 2010 a ; USGS, 2013, as modified by staff] Month Minimum 90 Percent exceedance 75 Percent exceedance Mean Maximum 25 Percent exceedance 10 Percent exceedance 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 is January 1, 1994 through December 31, 2012. The Woodruff 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 Enoree River. The Enoree River serves as the water supply for Lauren and Spartanburg counties. The town of Whitmire and city of Clinton withdraw water from the Enoree River downstream from the project. There are no current water withdrawals occurring at the project. However, the Woodruff-Roebuck Water District, South Carolina anticipates future withdrawals of 5 million gallons per day or 7.74 cfs from the Riverdale impoundment to support probable increases in area water demands. 30 30 See letter from Curtis M. Dillard, PE, General Manager, Woodruff-Roebuck Water District, Woodruff, South Carolina, filed on February 9, 2012. Water Quality South Carolina DHEC designated the Enoree River waters at the project as freshwater, suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, and as a source for drinking water supply after conventional treatment in accordance with the requirements of the South Carolina DHEC. State water quality standards that would be applicable for project discharge are described in table 4. 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, sludge, or other refuse None allowed. 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°F (2.8°C) above natural temperature conditions and shall not exceed a maximum of 90°F (32.2°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 Enoree River upstream of, and downstream from, the project fully supports aquatic life, but recreational uses are only partially supported because of high fecal coliform levels (South Carolina DHEC, 2007). South Carolina DHEC's 2007 Water Quality Assessment identified 23 locations that are impaired in the Enoree River for fecal coliform bacteria. Sources of these water quality impairments include pastureland, cropland, and active point sources discharging fecal coliform bacteria (2007). South Carolina DHEC (2007, 2012) notes that aquatic life uses in Beaverdam Creek, a tributary immediately upstream of the Riverdale Project, are not supported based on macroinvertebrate community data due to excess copper. However, South Carolina DHEC (2007) documents some stream reaches in the Enoree River watershed with significant decreasing trends in turbidity, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, five-day biological oxygen demand, and fecal coliform, as well as increasing trends in DO concentrations which suggest that the water quality conditions are improving in portions of the Enoree River. Lockhart Power intended to collect temperature, DO, pH, conductivity, and turbidity data throughout the 2010 and 2011 sampling season. However, limited access to the project area permitted Lockhart Power to collect water quality data in the morning and evening of June 18 and 30, and August 2, 2010 in the following areas: One location upstream of the impoundment, two locations within the impoundment at a depth of 1.5- and 3-feet, one location each in the bypass reach, tailrace, and at the confluence of the Broad and Enoree Rivers. Lockhart Power also used USGS data collected at the Whitmire gage. 31 Impoundment samples taken during the evening on June 18, 2010, at both depths, fell below the minimum instantaneous standard for DO (4.0 mg/L). All other samples collected by Lockhart Power met South Carolina's state standards for DO, temperature, conductivity, and pH. 31 The USGS Whitmire gage (USGS 02160700 Enoree River at Whitmire, SC) collects water quality parameters and was sampled as a point of reference. 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 Enoree River bypassed reach extends for approximately 1,400 feet downstream from the toe of the dam to the confluence with the project's powerhouse tailrace. The bypassed reach is largely composed of habitat consistent with shoals in Piedmont streams of the Southeastern U.S. (Mulholland and Lenat, 1992). Shoals only comprise 2 percent of all habitats in the Enoree River (Lockhart Power, 2011b). The project bypassed reach, which contains 10 percent of the available shoals habitat in the Enoree River, includes a natural ledge, a braided portion, and a main channel. 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 Riverdale Project area, Lockhart Power conducted a baseline fisheries survey on June 10-11 and July 6-7, 2010 (Lockhart Power, 2010a). Sampling was conducted at six stations: One station was in the impoundment, three stations were in the bypassed reach, and one station each was in the tailrace and the confluence of the tailrace with the Enoree River. During the baseline fisheries survey, 29 freshwater fish species were collected in the vicinity of the Riverdale Project (table 5). The highest number of species (20) occurred in the bypassed reach upstream of the braiding. Fewer species were collected in the main channel along the southern shoreline of the bypassed reach (13), the braided reach along the northern shoreline (11), and the Riverdale impoundment (12). The lowest number of species (6) was collected at the confluence of the Enoree River and the powerhouse tailrace, which is a relatively homogenous habitat composed mostly of woody debris and undercut banks. EN19DE13.004 EN19DE13.005 Macroinvertebrates Carnagey Biological Services (2010) conducted benthic macroinvertebrate surveys in the Riverdale Project vicinity on June 30, 2010. Collections of aquatic macroinvertebrates were made at six sampling stations. Stations were located above the Riverdale Project impoundment (i.e. reference location, station 1), in the tailrace (station 2), upstream of the braided area in the bypassed reach (station 3), in the main channel of the bypassed reach (station 4), in the braided flow channel of the bypassed reach (station 5), and at the confluence of the tailrace and the Enoree River (station 6). A total of 1,807 organisms, comprising 81 distinct taxa, were collected. Station 4 had the most taxa and specimens collected, while station 6 had the fewest taxa and station 3 had the fewest specimens collected. The number of EPT taxa (i.e. insect orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera) was highest (17 taxa) at the reference station, lowest at stations 3 (11 taxa) and 6 (12 taxa), while stations 2, 4, and 5 had 15 to 16 EPT taxa. Two indices were used to evaluate the quality of the environment for benthic macroinvertebrates. The North Carolina biotic index (NCBI) utilizes a pollution tolerance value developed over a wide range of conditions and pollution types to assess the amount of impact. The South Carolina DHEC bioclassification is determined by averaging scores for the NCBI and EPT index at each station. Based on NCBI, the environment at station 2 was “excellent” and all other stations were “good.” Based on the South Carolina DHEC bioclassification, the environment at station 2 was “good” and all others stations were “good-fair.” Freshwater Mussels Alderman Environmental Services conducted freshwater mussel and snail surveys July 6-8, 2010 (Lockhart Power, 2010a). Visual and tactile sampling occurred in five reaches. Reach 1 was upriver of the dam, reach 2 was in the tailrace, reach 3 was at the confluence of the tailrace and the Enoree River, reach 4 was in the vicinity of SC 49 crossing (~ 4.75 miles downstream from project), and reach 5 was in the bypassed reach. Although there was no evidence of any mussels, six snail species were observed, including the panhandle pebblesnail, which was found in reaches 4 and 5. 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, Santee chub, thicklip chub, greenfin shiner, flat bullhead, snail bullhead, Piedmont darter, and notchlip redhorse (table 5). 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 (Boschung and Mayden, 1999). It spawns in the spring (April-June; table 6) in headwater streams in gravel nests built in eddy waters at the heads of pools (Wallus and Simon, 2008). Outside of the spawning season, adult and juvenile redeye bass appear to prefer areas close to shorelines with heavy canopy cover (Knight, 2011). Redeye bass were observed in the impoundment, bypassed reach, and at the confluence of the tailrace and the Enoree River (table 5). The Santee chub is a Conservation Species of High Priority due to its limited distribution (South Carolina DNR, 2005). Within its distribution, the Santee chub is found in small- to medium-sized streams over gravel, sand, and rubble; however, it is most abundant in sand-bottomed runs of larger streams. The life-history of the Santee chub is not well understood (including spawning season), but is probably similar to the thicklip chub (table 6; Rohde et al., 2009). Santee chub were found in the bypassed reach, tailrace, and confluence during 2010 fish surveys (table 5). The piedmont darter is a Conservation Species of High Priority, largely because one-third of its global distribution is in South Carolina and many of its preferred habitats are at risk (South Carolina DNR, 2005). Piedmont darter occupy cool to warm moderate-sized streams and rivers, but are usually found in riffles with gravel and rock substrate (Rohde et al., 2009). Little else is known about the life-history of this species, but it likely spawns in mid- to late-spring (table 6; Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993). Piedmont darter was found in all sections of the bypassed reach during 2010 fish surveys (table 5). The thicklip chub is a Conservation Species of Moderate Priority because it occurs only in the Carolinas and Georgia and only within a few drainages. About one-half of the global distribution of the species is in South Carolina (South Carolina DNR, 2005). It is primarily found in warmer, clear to turbid streams and rivers of the Piedmont. Adults occupy runs and riffles over sand and gravel, as well as sites characterized by rubble, boulder and bedrock (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993). Thicklip chub spawning biology is not well understood, but likely occurs from mid-May to late August (table 6; Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993). Thicklip chub was found in the bypassed reach, upstream of channel braiding during 2010 fish surveys (table 5). Table 6—Spawning Dates and Habitat Requirements for Eight Conservation Species Observed in the Riverdale Bypassed Reach [South Carolina DNR, 2005] Species Common name Range Literature source Spawning dates Range Literature source Habitat Use Category Literature source Micropterus coosae Redeye Bass April-June Mettee et al. (1996) Wallus and Simon (2008) fluvial 1 specialist Freeman and Marcinek (2006) Rohde et al. (2009) Cyprinella zanema Santee Chub information not available none fluvial specialist Rohde et al. (2009) Cyprinella labrosa Thicklip Chub possibly mid-May—late August Jenkins and Burkhead (1993) fluvial specialist Freeman and Marcinek (2006) Rohde et al. (2009) Cyprinella chloristia Greenfin Shiner information not available none fluvial specialist Freeman and Marcinek (2006) Rohde et al. (2009) Ameiurus platycephalus Flat Bullhead June-July (impoundment population) Olmsted and Cloutman (1979) generalist 2 Rohde et al. (2009) Ameriurus brunneus Snail Bullhead May—early June Jenkins and Burkhead (1993) fluvial specialist Freeman and Marcinek (2006) Rohde et al. (2009) Percina crassa Piedmont Darter mid- to late-spring Jenkins and Burkhead (1993) fluvial specialist Rohde et al. (2009) Moxostoma collapsum Notchlip Redhorse March—early June Jenkins and Burkhead (1993) Grabowski and Isely (2007) Coughlan et al. (2007) fluvial specialist Freeman and Marcinek (2006) Rohde et al. (2009) 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 Georgia, and only within a few drainages. About two-thirds of the global distribution is in South Carolina (South Carolina DNR, 2005). The species is found over sandy and rocky pools and in the runs of larger creeks and small to medium-sized rivers (Rohde et al., 2009). The spawning biology of greenfin shiner is not well understood; however, it likely exhibits behavior similar to other species in its genera, which deposit eggs in crevices of submerged logs and rocks (Rohde et al., 2009). The greenfin shiner was found in the impoundment and bypassed reach during 2010 fish surveys (table 5). 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 Coastal Plain and Piedmont of South Carolina (Rohde et al., 2009). Its temporal spawning range may occur from March to early June (table 6), and it is thought to gather near shoals and flats to spawn over coarse gravel (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993; Jennings et al., 1996). The notchlip redhorse was found in the braided and main channel of the bypassed reach during 2010 fish surveys (table 5). 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 Norman, North Carolina occurs during June and July (table 6; Olmstead and Cloutman, 1979). The flat bullhead was found in the impoundment during 2010 fish surveys (table 5). 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). 32 Fluvial specialists are species that require flowing water for most or all of their life cycle (Galat et al., 2005). 33 Habitat generalists are species that are capable of successfully utilizing a variety of habitats to complete their life-cycle. 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 Piedmont—typically in rocky riffles with good flow and often with the hornleaf riverweed. Solid substrate seems to be a key habitat requirement. Its biology is not well understood; however, like all snails in the mud snail family it likely requires solid substrate to attach eggs (Dillon et al., 2006). The panhandle pebblesnail was found in the bypassed reach and about 4.75 miles downstream from the project during freshwater mussel and snail surveys (Lockhart Power, 2010a). 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 Enoree River. Similarly, drawing down the impoundment to repair the sand gates and initial operations may result in the discharge of a large amount of sediment from the project impoundment. Peaking operation may also affect DO and temperature within the impoundment, particularly during low flows. Releasing poorly oxygenated, warm water from the impoundment could affect fish, mussels, and other aquatic species in the bypassed reach. Lockhart Power is willing to monitor water quality in the project vicinity, as required by South Carolina DHEC, but did not specifically propose any water quality monitoring. Interior recommends that Lockhart Power: (1) Conduct water quality monitoring in the impoundment at all proposed operational drawdowns for a minimum of 1 year; and (2) submit water quality monitoring results to South Carolina DHEC, South Carolina DNR, NMFS, Interior, and the Commission. 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 Lockhart Power, as described above. Low DO concentrations for the June 18, 2010 sample may have been due to high levels of decomposed organic matter in the impoundment, water temperature, or water quality of the impoundment's inflows. 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 Riverdale Project would divert existing river flows away from the bypassed reach and toward the turbines for hydropower generation. Flow diversions would ultimately reduce the volume of flow in the bypassed reach, resulting in dewatering of habitat and modifying aquatic habitat parameters in the 1,400 feet of complex shoals habitat in the bypassed reach. Peaking operations would result in flow fluctuations within the impoundment, and in the Enoree River below the tailrace confluence. Such fluctuations could strand and isolate fish in back channels and on gravel bars, causing increased risk of predation and natural mortality, or dewater fish nests in the impoundment and downstream from the tailrace, leaving eggs vulnerable to predation and desiccation. Lockhart Power proposes to provide a continuous minimum flow of 50 cfs through the bypassed reach and a downstream continuous minimum flow of 60 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less. Lockhart Power plans to release at least 10 cfs into the tailrace when the project is not generating via leakage, or through gate operations if necessary. In the event of a plant outage, Lockhart Power would release flows into the bypassed reach via the dam's sand gates or over the spillway. South Carolina DNR recommends Lockhart Power release flows in the bypassed reach that are consistent with the Water Plan. Based on an estimated MADF of 393 cfs for a period of record from 1994-2009, the minimum flows should meet or exceed the following: July-November, 20 percent of MADF (79 cfs); January-April, 40 percent of MADF (157 cfs); and May, June, and December, 30 percent of MADF (118 cfs). Interior, 34 NMFS, and American Rivers support the recommendations provided by South Carolina DNR. 34 See email correspondence dated May 31, 2013 from Thomas McCoy, Deputy Field Supervisor, FWS, Charleston, South Carolina, to Sarah Salazar, FERC, Washington, DC, filed on June 6, 2013. Although NMFS supports South Carolina DNR's proposed minimum flows, it also recommends Lockhart Power conduct an instream flow study after a license is issued, and when the project's sand gates are operational. NMFS states that this is because Lockhart Power could not provide an instream flow study to support flows needed to protect aquatic resources in the bypassed reach. NMFS recom [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2013-30183. Public record. Not legal advice.