Non-Collusion Affidavit with Original Signatures and Notary Seal

BIDDING INSTRUCTIONS FOR SEALED BIDS

Sealed bids will be accepted at the Grand River Dam Authority Administrative Headquarters located at 226 West Dwain Willis Avenue, Vinita, Oklahoma. Bids received after the bid opening time and date will not be opened or considered.

RFQ or RFP Number: 42563

Bid Opening Time & Date: 2/12/2019 at 10:00 AM CT

Description: Cultural Resources Study Pensacola Project Relicensing Process (P-1494)

Contracting & Acquisitions Agent: Shane Pickett

Bids must be enclosed in a sealed envelope or package and addressed as follows:

PURCHASING UNIT SEALED RFP # 42563 GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY 226 WEST DWAIN WILLIS AVE VINITA, OK 74301

Express Mail/Overnight packages must also be addressed as above.

Bids not addressed as instructed above negate the confidentiality of the sealed bid and, therefore, will be rejected and returned to the bidder without being considered.

All bids responses shall be typewritten or handwritten in ink, and any corrections to bids shall be initialed in ink. Bids and proposals submitted in pencil will not be accepted.

All bids and proposals shall include an original signature of the bidder and shall be accompanied by a properly executed non-collusion affidavit with original signatures and notary seal.

Bid responses are to include payment terms and delivery information. Bids and proposals shall be quoted FOB: Destination/Freight Allowed unless stated otherwise within the Request for Quote. All packaging, handling, shipping and delivery charges shall be included in the unit price quoted for each line item. No exceptions will be granted unless approved by the guidelines of the Chief Financial Officer or designee.

Fax or e-mail responses will not be accepted for this requirement.

Bidders opting to decline the bid offering are requested to submit a response with a brief explanation.

Grand River Dam Authority is an agency of the State of Oklahoma, fully supported by customer revenues instead of taxes. Administrative Headquarters • 226 West Dwain Willis Avenue • Vinita, Oklahoma 74301 • Phone: 918-256-5545 • Fax: 918-256-1051

GRDA Finance Form 005 (10-2006) Request for Proposal #42563

Cultural Resources Study for the Grand River Dam Authority associated with the Pensacola Project Relicensing Process (P-1494)

PROPOSALS TO BE SUBMITTED TO:

Grand River Dam Authority Central Purchasing Unit Attn: Shane Pickett Sealed Proposal #RFP 42561 226 West Dwain Willis Avenue Vinita, Oklahoma 74301 SEALED BIDS MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO: 10:00 A.M. CENTRAL STANDARD TIME FEBRUARY 12, 2019

Table of Contents

Page 1.0 Introduction to Request for Proposal (RFP) ...... 4-5

2.0 Scope of Work and Objectives ...... 5-6

3.0 Proposal Submission and Timeline ...... 6-10

4.0 Evaluation Criteria ...... 10-11

5.0 Award of Contract ...... 11

6.0 Terms and Conditions ...... 11

Attachment A - Pensacola Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 1494...... 12-101

Attachment B - Background and Experience ...... 102 Attachment C - Cost Proposal ...... 103 Attachment D - Minimum Insurance Requirements...... 104 Attachment E - Non-Collusion Affidavit...... 105 Attachment F - Minimum Safety Requirements...... 106 Attachment G - Subcontractors...... 107 Attachment H - GRDA Visa Payment (EPay Program)...... 108 GENERAL BIDDING INSTRUCTIONS FOR SEALED BIDS...... 109-112 1.0 Introduction to Request for Proposal (RFP)

1.1 Receipt and Opening of Proposals

The Grand River Dam Authority (herein called “GRDA”), invites sealed proposals from qualified suppliers to provide services for the Pensacola Relicensing as described herein.

Sealed Proposals for the RFP #42563 for Pensacola Project Relicensing will be opened at 10:00 AM Central Daylight Time, February 12, 2019. Proposals received more than forty-eight (48) hours excluding Saturday, Sunday and holidays before the time set for the opening of the proposals, or any proposal so received after the time set for opening of proposals, shall not be considered and shall be returned unopened.

Proposals shall be submitted in a sealed envelope and marked “Sealed Proposal – RFP #42563 – Cultural Resources Study for Pensacola Project Relicensing.” These proposals shall be submitted to the following address:

Shane Pickett Grand River Dam Authority Administration Headquarters 226 W Dwain Willis Ave PO Box 409 Vinita, OK 74301-0409

There will be no public opening for this RFP. After award of a final contract, all proposals will be available for public view in accordance with section 3.3.3.

GRDA may waive any informalities or reject any and all proposals. Proposals cannot be submitted by telephone or fax machine or electronic transfer. Any proposal may be withdrawn prior to the above scheduled time for the opening of proposals or authorized postponement thereof. No Offeror may withdraw a proposal within sixty (60) days after the actual date of the opening thereof.

1.2 Point of Contact

This RFP is issued by the Central Purchasing Unit of the GRDA. The GRDA Procurement Officer is the sole point of contact from the date of release of this RFP until the selection of successful Offeror. All contacts (except for the official response submission process described in section 3.3 et seq.) should be made by e-mail. See Section 3.2 for more information regarding submission of questions for this RFP. The e-mail address and other contact information for the Procurement Officer are as follows:

Shane Pickett Email: [email protected] 226 W Dwain Willis Ave PO Box 409 Vinita, OK 74301-0409

1.3 GRDA Background

The GRDA is a non-appropriated agency by the State of Oklahoma and governed by a seven member board of directors. GRDA headquarters are located in Vinita, Oklahoma. Electricity is generated by three hydro projects, two coal fired units and one natural gas plant. One of the coal fired units and the natural gas plant is jointly owned with other utilities.

GRDA is a member of the Southwest Power Pool. GRDA operates approximately 1,300 miles of transmission and distribution lines.

GRDA currently manages Grand Lake licensed as the Pensacola Project and is undergoing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Integrated Licensing Process (ILP).

More information about GRDA can be found at www.grda.com.

2.0 Scope of Work and Objectives

2.1 Scope of Work

The Grand River Dam Authority is requesting qualified Offerors to submit written proposals that clearly explain how their background, staffing, and operational capabilities will best satisfy the relicensing requirements and objectives as described in this RFP. The Cultural Resources Study plan is referenced in Attachment A. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Study Plan Determination is referenced in Attachment A as well and includes modifications to the Cultural Resources Study Plan that must be performed as part of the study. Pursuant to section 5.15(c)(1) of the Commission’s regulations, the initial study report for all studies in the approved study plan must be filed by November 8, 2019. As required by the Commission’s regulations, GRDA must hold an initial study report meeting within 15 days of the filing of their initial study report. Offeror will be required to attend the initial study report meeting and present the study’s findings.

3.0 Proposal Submission Process and Timeline

3.1 Proposal Process Timeline Event Responsible Due Date Party Deadline for receipt of written questions Offerors January 25, 2019 Electronic mail notification of responses to written GRDA February 1, 2019 questions and issuance of RFP Addenda if necessary

Deadline for submission of sealed proposals to GRDA. Offerors February 12, 2019 Sealed proposals shall be opened at 10:00 am CDT on this date. This will not be a public opening. No late, e-mailed or faxed proposals will be accepted

Proposal Evaluation. Negotiation and final offer period. GRDA February 22, 2019 Contract Awarded: GRDA may enter into negotiations GRDA March 13, 2019 with one or more vendors and time must be allowed for a final offer to be submitted. *GRDA reserves the right to revise the above schedule.

Finalist Offerors may be required to give an oral presentation to the GRDA staff to demonstrate how the proposal concepts address the issues highlighted in this RFP. The time and place will be determined by the GRDA. Final Offerors will be notified at least ten days in advance of the presentation. The session will not include negotiations. All costs associated with oral presentation and demonstration, including travel, will be borne by the Offerors and will not be reimbursed by the GRDA.

3.2 Offerors’ Questions

Offerors are invited to submit written questions by email, regarding the contents and requirements of this RFP to the GRDA Procurement Officer (see Section 1.2 Point of Contact).

Written responses to all questions will be sent by email to those potential Service Providers who received this RFP. Responses to questions which alter the content of this RFP document will be provided in writing as an addendum to the RFP. No questions relating to this RFP will be answered outside of this process.

The deadline for submission of all written questions is 10:00 AM Central Standard Time on January 25, 2019.

3.3 Submission Instructions

3.3.1 General Requirements:

• Proposals must be submitted with each section clearly marked. • Proposals must be submitted with an original and five copies. The content of all proposals remain confidential and will not be shared with competing offerors until a successful supplier has been selected and notified of the award. At such time, the contents of all proposals may be shared according to standard procedures and the Oklahoma Open Records Act.

Proposals will not become public records until the contract has been awarded.

3.3.2 Gratuities

The right of the successful supplier to perform under this contract may be terminated by written notice, if the GRDA determines that the successful Offeror, its agent or another representative offered or gave a gratuity (e.g., an entertainment or gift) to an officer, official or employee of GRDA.

3.3.3 Retention of RFP

All proposals submitted in response to this RFP become the property of the GRDA and will not be returned.

All proposals submitted and all information contained therein shall be subject to the Oklahoma Open Records Act, 51 O.S. § 24A.1 et seq.

3.3.4 Cost of Preparing Proposal and Providing Presentation/Demonstration (if requested or necessary)

All costs incurred by the Offerors for proposal preparation and participation in this competitive procurement will be the sole responsibility of the Offerors. The GRDA will not reimburse any offeror for any such costs. GRDA reserves the right to withdraw the RFP at any time during the procurement process. Issuance of this RFP in no way obligates the GRDA to award or issue a contract or to pay any costs incurred by any Offeror as a result of such a withdrawal.

3.4 Proposal Format Requirements

All proposals shall address each of the areas highlighted below in sufficient detail to provide the required information and to illustrate a thorough understanding of the requirements set forth.

The proposal should be organized with the sections clearly labeled by tabs. If information requested in one section is in another section, that information may be referenced rather than repeated. The GRDA will not be responsible for locating information not placed in the format prescribed.

Tabs must be organized as follows:

Tab 1. Cover Pages Tab 2. Background and Experience Tab 3. Technical Proposal Tab 4. Cost Proposal

3.4.1 Tab 1. Cover Pages. Cover pages must be submitted within this tab in the following order:

3.4.1.1 GRDA Solicitation Request

3.4.1.2 Proposal Cover Page. This page must include the name and address of the Offeror and must be signed by the official authorized to submit the offer and bind the Offeror to the provisions set forth. It also must provide the following information:

3.4.1.2.1 Name and position of the person responsible for preparing the proposal.

3.4.1.2.2 Primary contact person’s name, address, phone number, fax number, and e-mail address.

3.4.1.2.3 Addenda Acknowledgements. This acknowledgement will be needed if the GRDA releases any addenda to the original RFP.

3.4.1.2.4 Completed W-9 Form. This form is available at: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs- pdf/fw9.pdf

3.4.1.3 Proprietary Information Letter. Attach a letter identifying all (if any) proprietary information included in the proposal.

3.4.1.4 Insurance certificate. Offeror must provide a Certificate of Insurance meeting GRDA’s minimum insurance requirements.(See Attachment D, Page 79)

3.4.1.5 Non-Collusion Affidavit. This affidavit shall be completed by the offeror and include an Original signature in ink of an authorized company representative (preferably the proposer) with full knowledge and acceptance of the bid proposal.

The affidavit shall be notarized, with notary seal or stamp affixed. A facsimile or copy of an original signature or notary seal shall not be accepted. This affidavit is provided with the RFP. (See Attachment E, Page 80)

3.4.1.6 Minimum Safety Requirements (See Attachment F, Page 81)

3.4.1.7 GRDA Visa Payment (EPay Program) (See Attachment H, Page 83)

3.4.1.8 Supplier Registration Application. This application is available at: http:// www.grda.com/AboutGRDA/Purchase/ Ve ndor% 20Registration- Payee%20Form%20-% 20200 9-08- 05.doc

3.4.2 Tab 2. Background and Experience

The proposal shall include the following:

3.4.2.1 Company Narrative in which the offeror shall briefly state their history, organizational structure and shall provide a brief description of their background and experience in conducting aquatic species studies for submittal plus demonstrate knowledge of FERC’s Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) requirements.

3.4.2.1 List all examples of prior experience in providing services of similar scope within the last three (3) years. Please complete the table seen in Attachment B.

The GRDA reserves the right to solicit additional references from other entities.

3.4.2.2 Qualifications and experience of Offeror’s personnel that will be directly involved in this project for GRDA. Provide resumes for all key personnel.

3.4.3 Tab 3. Technical Proposal

3.4.3.1 Provide a narrative that details a plan for how your organization will conduct the aquatic species study and how your firm will best satisfy GRDA’s request.

3.4.4 Tab 4. Proposed schedule for commencing work

Provide the earliest date when your firm is available to start work on the project.

3.4.5 Tab 5. Cost Proposal (See Attachment C)

3.4.5.1 Furnish hourly rates for each staffing level for those who will be assigned to work on this project and an estimate of travel and incidentals that may be incurred for this project.

3.4.5.2 Offerors are requested to hold their prices firm for a minimum of 90 days so that an award can be made.

3.4.5.3 GRDA reserves the right to consider other optional cost proposals submitted that are deemed by GRDA to be in the best interests of the Authority.

4.0 Evaluation Criteria

Each Proposal will be considered as a whole solution, without limitation, qualifications of the Offeror, and cost.

The proposals will be reviewed and scored by a GRDA committee of evaluators based on best value criteria to include, but not limited to, the factors listed below (not necessarily in order of preference).

4.1. Projected Cost

4.2. Background and Experience

4.3. Abilities

4.4. Firm Start Date

5.0 Award of Contract

This RFP does not commit the GRDA to award a contract or to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of a proposal or presentation/demonstration. The GRDA reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result of this RFP. The GRDA will be the sole judge as to whether a proposal has satisfactorily met the requirements of the RFP.

The awarded supplier will be the sole entity with which the GRDA will enter into an agreement. The supplier shall be responsible for completely supervising and directing the work under this contract and all subcontractors, if used.

The awarded supplier will remain fully liable and responsible for the work to be completed by any subcontractors and must ensure compliance with all requirements of the contract. Subcontractors proposed by the supplier must be approved in advance by GRDA. (See Attachment G, Page 82)

6.0 Terms and Conditions

6.1 Final Contract

The resultant contract shall consist of this RFP, any addendums, the Offeror’s response, and a contract will be negotiated with the successful bidder. Offeror’s should comply with all of the GRDA terms and conditions.

6.2 Contract Term This contract is for a 5 year period commencing on March 13, 2019.

CANCELLATION CLAUSE

Termination. GRDA may terminate this Contract at any time and for any reason by providing notice in writing to Contractor.

Pensacola Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 1494

Revised Study Plan

Cultural Resources Study

Prepared for

Prepared by

September 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ...... 1

2.0 Study Plan Elements ...... 1 2.1. Study Goals and Objectives ...... 1 2.2. Agency and Native American Tribe Resource Management Goals ...... 3 2.3. Background and Existing Information ...... 5 2.4. Nexus between Project Operations and Effects on Resources ...... 6 2.5. Area of Potential Effects ...... 6 2.6. Methodology ...... 8 2.6.1. Area of Potential Effects ...... 8 2.6.2. Background Research and Archival Review ...... 8 2.6.3. Pre-fieldwork Report and Pre-fieldwork Meetings ...... 9 2.6.4. Cultural Resources Field Investigations ...... 10 2.6.5. Traditional Cultural Properties ...... 16 2.6.6. Programmatic Agreement ...... 17 2.6.7. Historic Properties Management Plan ...... 17 2.7. Use of Qualified Personnel ...... 19 2.8. Confidentiality ...... 19 2.9. Consultation and Coordination ...... 19 2.10. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice ...... 20 2.11. Schedule ...... 20 2.12. Level of Effort and Cost ...... 20

3.0 References ...... 21

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Oklahoma Archaeological Site Survey Form Appendix B. Isolated Find Form Appendix C. Historic Preservation Resource Identification Form

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.5-1. FERC-approved Boundary for the Pensacola Project...... 7

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACHP ...... Advisory Council on Historic Preservation APE ...... Area of Potential Effects ARPA ...... Archaeological Resources Protection Act BIA ...... Bureau of Indian Affairs C.F.R...... Code of Federal Regulations CRWG ...... Cultural Resources Working Group FERC ...... Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FLA ...... Final License Application F.R...... Federal Register GRDA ...... Grand River Dam Authority H&H Study ...... Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling Study HPMP ...... Historic Properties Management Plan ILP ...... Integrated Licensing Process ISR ...... Initial Study Report NAGPRA ...... Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NEPA ...... National Environmental Policy Act NHPA ...... National Historic Preservation Act NOI ...... Notice of Intent NRHP ...... National Register of Historic Places OAS ...... Oklahoma Archaeological Survey ODWC ...... Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation OLI ...... Oklahoma Landmarks Inventory PA ...... Programmatic Agreement PAD ...... Pre-Application Document P.L...... Public Law Project ...... Pensacola Hydroelectric Project PSP ...... Proposed Study Plan RSP ...... Revised Study Plan SD2 ...... Scoping Document 2 SHPO ...... State Historic Preservation Officer TCP ...... traditional cultural properties THPO ...... Tribal Historic Preservation Officer U.S.C...... U.S. Code USGS ...... U.S. Geological Survey USR ...... Updated Study Report WPA ...... Works Progress Administration

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA) filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD) with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on February 1, 2017, as part of the relicensing of the Pensacola Hydroelectric Project (Pensacola Project or Project; FERC No. 1494) (GRDA 2017). In Section 7 of the PAD, GRDA identified a Cultural Resources Study as a proposed study or information-gathering activity necessary to characterize archaeological and historic resources and historic properties of traditional religious and cultural importance within the Project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE). FERC’s April 27, 2018 Scoping Document 2 (SD2) identified the following environmental resource issues to be analyzed for the Project relicensing (FERC 2018):

 Effects of the Project operation and maintenance on historic and archeological resources within the APE that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP or National Register).  Effects of Project operation and maintenance on properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to Native American Tribes within the APE that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register.

In SD2, FERC indicated its intent to analyze the resource issues above for both cumulative and site-specific effects.

In their Proposed Study Plan (PSP) comments letters, FERC, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Oklahoma Archeological Survey (OAS), Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC), Cherokee Nation, Delaware Nation, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, Muscogee Nation, Osage Nation, Quapaw Tribe, Wyandotte Nation, and City of Miami, commented on the Cultural Resources Study Plan.1 Attachment B of the main body of the Revised Study Plan (RSP) details GRDA’s response to PSP comments.

2.0 STUDY PLAN ELEMENTS 2.1. Study Goals and Objectives The goals of the Cultural Resources Study are: (1) to identify historic properties2 within the Project’s APE that are being adversely affected by Project operations (if any), including properties of traditional religious and cultural importance; and (2) to develop a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) in consultation with the SHPO, OAS, and Native

1 During RSP development, in addition to the May 30-31, 2018 PSP meetings, GRDA conducted and participated in early additional consultation with a number of relicensing participants to discuss comments on the proposed Cultural Resources Study Plan. These included a May 31 Cultural Resources Working Group meeting, an August 21 FERC-held tribal consultation meeting, and an August 22 meeting with the SHPO and OAS. GRDA appreciated the engagement and cooperation of these relicensing participants. 2 For purposes of this Cultural Resources Study Plan, the term “historic properties” will have the same definition as the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 C.F.R. § 800.16(l)).

American Tribes3 that provides for the long-term management of historic properties within the APE over the term of the new license. The primary objectives for meeting these goals are:  Consult with Commission staff, the Oklahoma SHPO, OAS, Native American Tribes, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO)4, BIA, and other identified parties (collectively, the “Cultural Resources Working Group” or “CRWG”)5 to determine the Project’s APE. As described in Section 2.6 of this study plan, GRDA will consult with the CRWG regarding the results of Study Year One and the results of other studies conducted in support of Project relicensing (including the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling Study [H&H Study]) to identify areas outside the Project Boundary where Project operations or related activities (e.g., recreation) have the potential to effect historic properties, should any be present. Once the Cultural Resources Study commences, GRDA will hold a status meeting with the CRWG every 90 days in Tulsa in order to discuss ongoing work related to the study.  Conduct background research and an archival review, to include consultation and interviews with representatives designated by Native American Tribes.  Prepare a Pre-fieldwork Report based on the results of the background literature and archival review.  Consult with the CRWG to identify and target appropriate areas of the APE for field investigation during Project relicensing.  During Study Years One and Two, conduct field investigations to include a Phase I Reconnaissance Survey (Reconnaissance Survey) of targeted areas which would include a visual inspection and subsurface investigations (e.g., shovel tests). If sites are identified, delineate in the field.  Following Study Year One, prepare a Reconnaissance Survey Report as part of the Initial Study Report (ISR) that provides study results and recommendations for identified archaeological resources and/or additional investigations, as necessary. Following Study Year Two, prepare the same report as part of the Updated Study Report (USR) for

3 FERC has identified the following Native American Tribes as consulting parties for this undertaking: Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, Cherokee Nation, Delaware Nation, Delaware Tribe of Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Osage Nation, Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma, Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma, Seneca-Cayuga Nation, Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees, Wichita and Affiliated Tribes, Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma. Unless otherwise specified, the term “Native American Tribes” as used in this RSP refers collectively to the Tribes identified by FERC as consulting parties. 4 When a Native American Tribe has assumed the responsibilities of the SHPO for Section 106 on tribal lands under Section 101(d)(2) of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), GRDA will consult with the appropriate THPO in lieu of the Oklahoma SHPO. When a Native American Tribe has not assumed the responsibilities of the SHPO for Section 106 on tribal lands under Section 101(d)(2) of the NHPA, GRDA will consult with a representative designated by such tribe in addition to the Oklahoma SHPO. 5 GRDA recognizes that Native American Tribes have unique consultative roles in the Section 106 process as described at 36 C.F.R § 800.2(c). When referenced in this Cultural Resources Study Plan, “consultation with the CRWG” refers to consultation with all participants in the CRWG, including individual consultation with Native American Tribes as required pursuant to 36 C.F.R § 800.2(c).

the sites identified during the Study Year Two investigation. GRDA will provide a supplemental report on Reconnaissance Surveys conducted subsequent to the USR.  During Study Years One and Two, conduct site evaluations to include Phase II Intensive Surveys (Intensive Surveys) of select archaeological sites where: (1) the results of the Reconnaissance Surveys indicate the Project may be having an ongoing adverse effect on the integrity of the site; or (2) the results of the Reconnaissance Surveys indicate that a site is likely to be ineligible for the NRHP, but additional evaluation and assessment of the site is necessary to provide sufficient information for the relevant SHPO/THPO to concur with this recommendation.  Following Study Year One, prepare an Intensive Survey Report as part of ISR that provides the results of site evaluations and assessments and recommendations for NRHP eligibility, and/or additional investigations and mitigation, as necessary. Following Study Year Two, prepare the same report as part of the USR for the sites evaluated during the Study Year Two investigation. GRDA will provide a supplemental report on Intensive Surveys conducted subsequent to the USR.  Consult with Native American Tribes and THPOs to develop and conduct an inventory of properties of traditional religious and cultural importance (often referred to as “traditional cultural properties” [TCP]) within the APE.  Determine appropriate management measures for identified resources and the need for additional resource investigations in consultation with the CRWG.  Develop an HPMP in consultation with the CRWG to provide appropriate measures for the management of historic properties within the Project’s APE through the term of the new license. The HPMP would be prepared during the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) and filed with FERC as part of GRDA’s relicensing application. As appropriate, the HPMP may include provisions for additional studies to be conducted post-licensing, on a schedule determined in consultation with the CRWG.

The ILP affords a limited, two-year window (Study Year One and Study Year Two) for conducting cultural resources studies during Project relicensing – particularly when considering the vast geographic area occupied by the Project and other areas that may be affected by Project operations.

Recognizing the constraints of the ILP in the context of the overall geographical scope of the anticipated APE for the Pensacola Project is important to developing study methods and schedules that can realistically achieve the goals of the study. For this reason, GRDA’s approach to the study will be to: (1) work with the CRWG to identify high-priority areas and sites within the APE for study during the two-year ILP process for purposes of informing FERC’s analyses under both Section 106 and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and (2) continue cultural resource investigations post-licensing (as necessary) over a longer period of time as part of the HPMP. This longer-term phased approach has been successfully implemented at other large FERC-licensed projects. 2.2. Agency and Native American Tribe Resource Management Goals In considering a new license for the Project, FERC is the lead agency for compliance with applicable federal laws, regulations, and policies pertaining to historic properties, including the

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA)6. Section 106 of the NHPA 7 (Section 106) directs federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment.

The regulations implementing Section 106 (36 Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.] Part 800) define “historic properties” as any pre-contact or historic period district, site, building, structure, or individual object included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within historic properties, as well as TCPs that meet the National Register Criteria.

The Secretary of the Interior has established the criteria for evaluating properties for inclusion in the NRHP (36 C.F.R. Part 60). In accordance with the criteria, properties are eligible if they are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. The quality of significance is present in historic properties that possess integrity8 of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association and meet one or more of the National Register Criteria:  Criterion A: Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or  Criterion B: Are associated with the lives of persons of significance in our past; or  Criterion C: That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components could lack individual distinction; or  Criterion D: That have yielded, or could be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Normally, NRHP eligibility requires a property to be at least 50 years of age. Resources less than 50 years of age that are highly significant and meet the “special criteria considerations” as outlined in the regulations (36 C.F.R. § 60.4) also may be eligible for the NRHP.

The implementing regulations of Section 106 are intended to accommodate historic preservation concerns with the needs of federal undertakings through a process of consultation among agency officials, federally recognized Native American Tribes, SHPOs, THPOs, and other parties, including the public, as appropriate.

Concurrent with the filing of the PAD and Notice of Intent (NOI), GRDA requested designation as the Commission’s non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to Section 106. The Commission granted GRDA’s request by notice dated January 12, 2018.

6 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq. 7 54 U.S.C. § 306108 8 Integrity is the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s pre-contact or historic period (National Park Service 1997). The integrity of archaeological resources is generally (although not exclusively) based on the degree to which remaining evidence can provide important information (National Register Criterion D). If the context and association of archaeological material found at a site are disturbed, the archaeological site may not possess integrity and would, therefore, be ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

While GRDA is authorized to consult in an informal capacity, the Commission remains legally responsible for all agency findings and determinations under Section 106. 2.3. Background and Existing Information Archaeological and historic resources within the Project’s vicinity have been inventoried by avocational archaeologists and historians and as a result of prior cultural resources studies conducted in the area. In preparing the PAD, GRDA conducted a search of publicly available literature, as well as records housed at the OAS to summarize the cultural context of the Project and to identify known archaeological and historic resources within a one-mile buffer zone of the Project, including those properties listed in or eligible for the NRHP. While the one-mile buffer is much larger than the expected APE for this undertaking, a review of previously reported archaeological and historic resources within a one-mile radius of the Project was conducted to characterize the types of historic properties that may occur within the APE.

Section 6.9 of the PAD summarizes the pre-contact and historic context for the Project and presents information on reported archaeological sites and historic resources (GRDA 2017). In total, 195 archaeological sites were identified within one mile of the Project. One of the archaeological sites within the search radius is considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. A total of 50 of the sites are considered not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, 125 have unknown NRHP eligibility statuses, and the remaining 19 sites have unassessed NRHP eligibility statuses. Sites within the current FERC-established Project Boundary are either considered not eligible for the NRHP or have not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility.

The Oklahoma SHPO’s website for the NRHP in Oklahoma was also consulted during development of the PAD to identify any NRHP-listed or eligible historic architectural properties or districts within one mile of the Project. A total of eight NRHP historic architectural properties/districts are located within one mile of the Project. One of the eight properties/districts (Pensacola Dam Historic District) is located within the current Project Boundary. The Pensacola Dam Historic District was listed on the NRHP in September 2003. The district includes three buildings – a substation, an observation building, and a powerhouse designed by noted Oklahoma architect John Duncan Forsyth. Four structures – the multi- arched dam, two spillways, and a pumping/intake structure – are also included in the historic district.

Additionally, the Oklahoma Landmarks Inventory (OLI) Database found 150 other historical sites within one mile of the Project.

As summarized above, the Project Boundary encompasses a historic district listed in the NRHP, as well as archaeological and historic resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP (but have not been evaluated). In addition, there may be unknown historic properties or archeological sites within the Project Boundary and other locations within the APE that may be outside the Project Boundary. This proposed Cultural Resources Study will identify historic and archaeological resources within the Project’s APE that may be affected by relicensing the Project.

2.4. Nexus between Project Operations and Effects on Resources The continued operation and maintenance of the Project may have the potential to directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affect historic properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP during the term of any new license issued by the Commission. Effects on cultural resources may potentially result from Project-related activities, such as reservoir level fluctuations attributable to hydropower operations, modifications to Project facilities, or other Project-related, ground-disturbing activities (e.g., new construction).

Effects on the integrity of cultural resources can come from a variety of sources, including the ongoing direct, indirect, or cumulative effects of shoreline fluctuations, recreation, public use, shoreline development, and routine maintenance activities. These potential activities are most likely to impact archaeological sites along the reservoir’s shoreline. 2.5. Area of Potential Effects

The study area for the Cultural Resources Study includes the APE. GRDA intends to define an APE in consultation with the CRWG as a component of the Cultural Resources Study. GRDA tentatively proposes the following APE:

The APE for this undertaking includes all lands within the FERC-approved Project Boundary. The APE also includes lands or properties outside the Project Boundary where Project operations or Project-related recreation activities or other enhancements may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist.

As described in Section 2.6 of this study plan, Year One fieldwork and study will concentrate on locations within the current FERC-approved Project Boundary (Figure 2.5-1). GRDA will consult with the CRWG regarding the results of Study Year One and the results of other studies conducted in support of Project relicensing (including hydraulic modeling studies) to identify areas outside the Project Boundary where Project operations or related activities (e.g., recreation) have the potential to effect historic properties, should any be present. This consultation will establish the locations for fieldwork and study during Study Year Two.

Figure 2.5-1. FERC-approved Boundary for the Pensacola Project.

2.6. Methodology 2.6.1. Area of Potential Effects GRDA has tentatively proposed an APE as presented in Section 2.5 of this study plan. Pursuant to the implementing regulations of Section 106 at 36 C.F.R. § 800.4(a), GRDA will consult with the CRWG to determine and document the APE for the Project as defined in 36 C.F.R. § 800.16(d).

As tentatively defined in Section 2.5, the APE includes lands outside the current Project Boundary where Project-related operations or activities may have a direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on historic properties.

GRDA recognizes that the APE is not intended to be static, but “should be adjusted as a federal agency further develops the details of the undertaking and learns more about potential historic properties and how they may be affected” (ACHP 2009). Accordingly, and consistent with the ACHP’s Section 106 Archaeology Guidance, the geographic extent of the APE may be refined in Study Year Two based on the results of hydraulic modeling and/or other studies and in consultation with the CRWG.

2.6.2. Background Research and Archival Review Prior to initiating Year One fieldwork and study, GRDA will conduct background research and an archival review to inform the specific research design and the historic and environmental contexts of the APE. The background research and archival review will be conducted by a qualified cultural resources professional9. GRDA will review relevant sources of information that may include (but are not necessarily limited to):

 Information on archaeological sites, historic architectural resources, and previous cultural resources studies on file with OAS, Oklahoma SHPO, and Native American Tribes;  Available nomination forms and other relevant information for properties listed on or nominated for the NRHP, Oklahoma State Register of Historic Properties, and any tribal Registers of Historic Places;10  Available reports on previous cultural resources studies conducted within the APE;11

9 The term “qualified cultural resources professional” is defined in Section 2.7 of this study plan. 10 GRDA provided summary data on the NRHP eligibility of previously recorded resources within the APE in the PAD (GRDA 2017). In general, this data was derived from site forms prepared by individuals or organizations that recorded the site. This summary information was not intended to be exhaustive, but was included in the PAD and PSP to provide a general characterization of the types of archaeological resources within the Project area and the relative status of those resources. Additional research regarding the NRHP eligibility of previously reported archaeological and historic resources will be conducted as a component of the background research and archival review. 11 As discussed in the PAD, archaeological surveys of the Project area were conducted between 1937 and 1940 by the Works Progress Administration (WPA), and additional survey work continued after the creation of Grand Lake. In developing the PAD, GRDA reviewed archival information and documents on file with OAS. The WPA reports were not readily available from OAS or in GRDA’s archives. As part of this background research and archival review task, GRDA will conduct an additional review of its

 A review of the OLI and Oklahoma’s NRHP listings;  Historic maps and aerial photographs of the APE, including relevant plat and Sanborn maps;  Aerial photographs of the APE, including historic, pre-Project aerial photographs (as available);  Relevant documents related to Project construction;  Relevant information available from local repositories;  Information on the current and historical environment, including mapped soils, bedrock geology, geomorphology, physiography, topography, and hydrology in the vicinity of the APE;  Relevant historical accounts of the Project area;  Relevant management plans for the Project;  Historic context statements for Management Region 3 available from the Oklahoma SHPO; and  Any additional relevant information made available by the CRWG or other relicensing participants.

As part of this background research and archival review, GRDA will coordinate with Native American Tribes to arrange meetings with THPOs and/or other representatives that may have information or files relevant to the location of archaeological and historic resources within the APE. If CRWG participants identify avocational archaeologists or other parties that may have relevant information pertaining to the location and nature of archaeological sites within the APE, GRDA will attempt to coordinate with identified individuals to collect such information.

GRDA will also undertake limited field observations as part of the background research and archival review to better characterize and document existing shoreline conditions at the reservoir and inform the Pre-fieldwork Report (see Section 2.6.3 of this study plan). These field observations will be conducted by an archaeologist and geoarchaeologist/geomorphologist to assist GRDA and the CRWG in identifying appropriate areas of the APE for study.

2.6.3. Pre-fieldwork Report and Pre-fieldwork Meetings

Pre-fieldwork Report GRDA will prepare a Pre-fieldwork Report based on the results of the background literature review that will identify and map (as available):  Previously reported archaeological sites and historic resources, relevant map- documented structures, the geographic extent of previous cultural resources surveys, locations of historic and/or archaeological significance identified in consultation with Native American Tribes, and properties listed on or nominated for the NRHP, Oklahoma State Register of Historic Properties, and any tribal Registers of Historic Places;

archives, consult with OAS, and review information on file with local, state, and federal repositories in an effort to obtain copies of the WPA reports.

 Areas with archaeological sensitivity, such as pre-Project terrace landforms, the outlets of tributary streams, and other landscape features; Pre-project trails and roads; and historic towns, villages, or other population centers;  Areas identified within the APE where erosion or other Project-related effects are occurring; and  Lands recommended for survey, including whether recommended survey areas are on lands owned by GRDA. As an appendix to the Pre-fieldwork Report, GRDA will provide the CRWG with copies of all previous study reports, background information, or other relevant records identified and reviewed during development of the report (see Section 2.8 of this study plan regarding data confidentiality).

Pre-fieldwork Meetings Based on the Pre-fieldwork Report, GRDA will consult with the CRWG to identify high-priority areas and sites within the APE for survey during Study Year One. GRDA anticipates that this consultation will include a Year One Pre-fieldwork Meeting with the CRWG in Tulsa, Oklahoma, to discuss the results and recommendations in the Pre-fieldwork Report and to finalize Reconnaissance Survey locations for Study Year One. Subsequent to the Year One Pre- fieldwork Meeting, GRDA will distribute a final map of identified survey areas for Study Year One to CRWG participants and file a copy of the map with the Commission.

GRDA will also invite the CRWG to participate in a Study Year Two Pre-fieldwork Meeting prior to the commencement of Study Year Two surveys. The purpose of the Study Year Two Pre- fieldwork Meeting will be to: (1) review the results of Study Year One surveys and evaluations; (2) review the results of other studies conducted in support of Project relicensing to refine the APE; and (3) identify Reconnaissance Survey locations for Study Year Two. Subsequent to the Year Two Pre-fieldwork Meeting, GRDA will file a final map of the revised APE and proposed survey areas for Study Year Two with the Commission and distribute the map to CRWG participants.

2.6.4. Cultural Resources Field Investigations GRDA is proposing to conduct Reconnaissance Surveys of the Project’s APE during Study Year One and Study Year Two. The Cultural Resources Study Plan also includes Intensive Surveys to evaluate and assess certain archaeological resources during the pre-application study period. Specifically, GRDA is proposing to conduct archaeological site evaluations during Study Years One and Two where: (1) the results of the Reconnaissance Surveys may indicate the Project could be having an ongoing adverse effect on the integrity of the site; or (2) the results of the Reconnaissance Surveys indicate that a site is likely to be ineligible for the NRHP, but additional evaluation and assessment of the site is necessary to provide sufficient information for the relevant SHPO/THPO to concur with this recommendation.

GRDA recognizes that Native American Tribes, THPOs, BIA, OAS, and Oklahoma SHPO have varying requirements/restrictions for the identification and evaluation of archaeological resources, the documentation and recordation of archaeological sites, and the curation of archaeological material. Further, GRDA recognizes that archaeological excavations on federal lands or the collection of cultural material from federal lands requires a permit issued by the

Pensacola Hydroelectric Project Grand River Dam Authority FERC No. 1494 10 September 2018 © Copyright 2018 Grand River Dam Authority Revised Study Plan Cultural Resources Study federal land manager pursuant to the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA)12. GRDA will apply to the BIA for a permit prior to conducting any archaeological excavations on tribal trust lands and will consult with affected Native American Tribes regarding ARPA permit requirements.

In consideration of these factors, GRDA will consult with the CRWG prior to the commencement of archaeological fieldwork, including individual Native American Tribes, THPOs, the BIA, OAS, and Oklahoma SHPO to finalize:  Reconnaissance Survey Methodology – In general, GRDA has proposed to conduct archaeological Reconnaissance Surveys consistent with the Osage Nation THPO’s Archaeological Block Survey Standards (Osage Historic Preservation Office 2016). Through the ARPA permit application process, GRDA will consult with individual THPOs, Native American Tribes, and the BIA to determine if the proposed methods are appropriate for each Tribe’s trust lands. Similarly, GRDA will consult with the Oklahoma SHPO and OAS to determine if the proposed methods are appropriate for non-federal lands within the APE.  The Documentation and Evaluation of Archaeological Sites and the Collection of Cultural Material – GRDA understands that some Native American Tribes permit only limited documentation of archaeological sites and/or do not permit the collection, photography, sketching, or videography of archaeological material. Accordingly, GRDA will consult with Native American Tribes, THPOs, and the BIA through the ARPA permit application process regarding the limitations on documentation and evaluation of archaeological sites and the collection of cultural material. If located on trust lands, artifacts will not be collected, videoed, photographed, or sketched without prior written consent of the BIA Archeologist and the relevant federal Native American Tribe for which the land is held in trust. Similarly, GRDA will consult with the Oklahoma SHPO and OAS to determine if the proposed methods are appropriate for non-federal lands within the APE.  Curation of Artifacts and Other Cultural Material – GRDA understands that it is desirable to identify appropriate repositories for the curation of artifacts and other cultural material prior to the commencement of fieldwork. Accordingly, GRDA will consult with Native American Tribes, THPOs, and the BIA through the ARPA permit application process regarding the appropriate location(s) to curate artifacts and cultural material recovered from each Native American Tribe’s trust lands. Similarly, GRDA will consult with the Oklahoma SHPO and OAS to determine the appropriate curation requirements for artifacts and cultural material recovered from non-federal lands within the APE.  Inadvertent Discoveries Plan – GRDA will develop a plan for Inadvertent Discoveries of archaeological material in consultation with the Native American Tribes, THPOs, BIA, OSA, and Oklahoma SHPO. The plan will provide procedures in the event that unanticipated archaeological material, including artifacts or features, are encountered during cultural resources studies. For example, if GRDA observed artifacts eroding from a shoreline area within the APE that was not scheduled for cultural resources investigations, the Inadvertent Discoveries Plan would describe how GRDA would address and study that location.

12 16 U.S.C. §§ 470aa et seq.

 Plan for the Discovery of Human Remains – GRDA will develop a Plan for the Discovery of Human Remains in consultation with the Native American Tribes, THPOs, BIA, OSA, and Oklahoma SHPO. The plan will provide procedures in the event of the unanticipated discovery of human remains, sacred objects, and items of cultural patrimony during the Cultural Resources Study. Treatment and disposition of any human remains that may be discovered will be managed in a manner consistent with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (Public Law [P.L.] 101-601; 25 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 3001 et seq.)13; the Council’s Policy Statement Regarding Treatment of Burial Sites, Human Remains, and Funerary Objects (ACHP 2007); and the Burial Desecration Law – Oklahoma Statute Chapter 47 (Section 1168.0 - 1168.6). Any human remains, burial sites, or funerary objects that are discovered will at all times be treated with dignity and respect.

GRDA will file documentation of consultation regarding Reconnaissance Survey methodology, the documentation and evaluation of archaeological sites, the collection of cultural material, and the curation of artifacts and other cultural material with the Commission prior to the commencement of cultural resources field investigations.

In addition to these above considerations, which are to be finalized in consultation with the CRWG, GRDA is also proposing to implement the following as components of the archaeological field investigations:

 Tribal Monitors – GRDA welcomes the participation of tribal monitors during the conduct of archaeological field investigations, including Reconnaissance and Intensive surveys. GRDA will compensate one tribal monitor per day for participation in the surveys, in accordance with terms to be agreed upon by between GRDA and Native American Tribes. Additional, uncompensated monitors are also welcome to participate in Reconnaissance Surveys and site evaluations.  Adjacent Lands and Lands Not Owned by GRDA – Lands within the Project Boundary include a combination of private lands, federal lands, and lands owned by GRDA. Accordingly, prior to the start of any archaeological field investigations, it may be necessary for GRDA to conduct land surveys at locations selected in consultation with the CRWG for archaeological investigations to determine the boundaries of land ownership. If lands within the APE selected for archaeological field investigations are not owned by GRDA, GRDA will make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain landowner permission to access those lands for purposes of completing the surveys. Similarly, if a portion of an archaeological site within the APE is: (1) located on lands that are not owned by GRDA; and (2) appears to extend onto adjacent lands that are not owned by GRDA, GRDA will make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain adjacent landowner permission to access and survey the site for purposes of completing the archaeological field investigations. Reasonable and good faith efforts to obtain

13 Pursuant to 43 C.F.R. Part 10, NAGPRA applies to human remains, sacred objects, and items of cultural patrimony (described as “cultural items” in the statute) located on federal or tribal lands or in the possession and control of federal agencies or certain museums. Regardless of where cultural items are discovered, the principles described in NAGPRA’s implementing regulations will serve as guidance for GRDA’s actions should the remains or associated artifacts be identified as Native American and to the extent such principles and procedures are consistent with any other applicable requirements.

landowner permission will be conducted in coordination and consultation with Native American Tribes.  Eligibility of Archaeological Sites – If any portion of an archaeological site is located within the APE, GRDA will treat and consider the site as eligible for the NRHP unless or until an evaluation and assessment of the site has been completed and the relevant THPO/SHPO and Commission (as lead federal agency) concur that the site is ineligible.  Archaeological Investigations Conducted at Normal Low Pond Elevations – During the pre-application study period, GRDA intends to conduct Reconnaissance and Intensive surveys between May and August of 2019 and 2020 in order to provide the results of these studies to the CRWG concurrent with the ISR and USR, respectively (see Section 2.11 of this study plan). GRDA believes that the timing of these studies will maximize the field effort that can be conducted during the pre-application study period, while avoiding inclement weather conditions that could delay field investigations (e.g., snow and ice during the winter months). However, per the Project’s rule curve, the elevation of Grand Lake will be above the normal low pond elevations from May 1 through October 1. Accordingly, GRDA proposes to extend the archaeological field investigations from October 1 until December 31, 2019 (as weather conditions allow), and to report on those investigations in the Study Year Two reports on Reconnaissance and Intensive surveys filed with the USR. Similarly, GRDA intends to extend Study Year Two archaeological field investigations beyond the filing of the USR until December 31, 2020 (as weather conditions allow), and will provide a supplemental report on archaeological investigations to the CRWG in Quarter 1 of 2021 following completion of the fieldwork.  Detailed Schedule for Archaeological Field Investigations – Section 2.11 of this study plan provides a general schedule for the conduct of the Cultural Resources Study. GRDA recognizes and expects that this schedule will be further refined in consultation with the CRWG prior to the commencement of field surveys. GRDA will provide more detailed survey schedules to the CRWG on a weekly basis during Study Years One and Two, including notice of the locations where archaeological fieldwork is scheduled to be conducted.

Reconnaissance Surveys GRDA will conduct Reconnaissance Surveys of the Project’s APE during Study Years One and Two. The proposed methods for the Reconnaissance Surveys are the same for both study years and take into account the nature and extent of potential effects on historic properties and the likely nature and location of historic properties within the APE (36 C.F.R. 800.4(b)(1)). The Reconnaissance Surveys will be directed by a qualified cultural resources professional retained by GRDA (see Section 2.7 of this study plan) and will be in accordance with guidance documents promulgated by the Oklahoma SHPO and others, including:  Guidelines for Developing Archaeological Survey Reports in Oklahoma and Report Components (Oklahoma SHPO 2013a);  Architectural/Historical Resources Survey Field Guide (Oklahoma SHPO 2013b); and  Osage Nation THPO’s Archaeological Block Survey Standards (Osage Historic Preservation Office 2016).

The Reconnaissance Surveys will include a visual reconnaissance and archaeological subsurface testing of the exposed portions of the reservoir shoreline areas within the APE at

Pensacola Hydroelectric Project Grand River Dam Authority FERC No. 1494 13 September 2018 © Copyright 2018 Grand River Dam Authority Revised Study Plan Cultural Resources Study locations identified in consultation with the CRWG based on the results of the Pre-fieldwork Report. The purpose of the Reconnaissance Survey is to identify and document any previously recorded or unrecorded archaeological and/or historic architectural resources.

In general, GRDA is proposing to use the Osage Nation THPO’s Archaeological Block Survey Standards (Osage Historic Preservation Office 2016) for conducting shovel test excavations to identify and delineate archaeological sites. However, as noted in Section 2.6.4 of this study plan, GRDA will consult with Native American Tribes, THPOs, the BIA, the OAS, and Oklahoma SHPO to confirm the appropriate survey methods. Accordingly, the methods may be adapted from the Osage Nation THPO’s Archaeological Block Survey Standards as necessary, based on land ownership and the required survey methods of the specific landowner.

Pursuant to the Osage Nation THPO’s Archaeological Block Survey Standards, shovel tests measuring 30 centimeters in diameter will be excavated to the bottom of Holocene deposits, if possible. Each shovel test will be excavated in 10 centimeter levels, with sediments screened through ¼-inch mesh unless high clay or water content requires that they be troweled through. Generally, GRDA anticipates that subsurface testing will be conducted regardless of land use and visibility; if subsurface testing is not conducted, GRDA will document specific reasons (e.g., standing water, slopes exceeding 20 percent, clear evidence of significant and deep subsurface disturbance).

If archaeological material is observed during the Reconnaissance Surveys, GRDA will delineate site boundaries. A minimum of nine (9) shovel tests will be excavated in a cruciform pattern that is perpendicular extending from the center of the artifact discovery location. A shovel test will be placed every five (5) meters until two (2) negative shovel tests are sequentially excavated. The maximum length and width of each site will be measured and recorded and the site’s location geo-located. Site dimensions and elevations will be recorded on standardized field forms along with a description of the site settings and notations regarding landform, site aspect, temporal affiliations (if possible) and density of observed materials, site condition, any evidence of Project-related effects, and the nature of site deposits. Site boundaries will be located on Project maps and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps.

Generally, GRDA is proposing to geo-locate, record, sketch, and collect observed artifacts, features, or other pre-contact or historic period cultural material (as appropriate), and any new archaeological sites discovered will be documented on Oklahoma Archaeological Site Survey Form (Appendix A) or Isolated Find Form (Appendix B). However, as described above, GRDA will consult with Native American Tribes, THPOs, and the BIA through the ARPA permit application process regarding the limitations on documentation of archaeological sites and the collection of cultural material. If located on trust lands, artifacts will not be collected, videoed, photographed, or sketched without prior written consent of the BIA Archeologist and the relevant federal Native American Tribe for which the land is held in trust. As described above, GRDA will identify appropriate repositories for curation prior to the commencement of field investigations.

The Reconnaissance Surveys will also document historic architectural resources within the Project’s APE. Architectural investigations will be conducted by a qualified Architectural Historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. If individual historic architectural resources or districts that potentially meet the NRHP criteria are observed, GRDA will geo-locate the resource and delineate the boundary. Relevant dimensions will be estimated and recorded, and the location will be documented on Project maps and USGS topographic maps. GRDA will take a minimum of two representative photos of the architectural resources, and GRDA will record land use patterns, the general age of the area,

Pensacola Hydroelectric Project Grand River Dam Authority FERC No. 1494 14 September 2018 © Copyright 2018 Grand River Dam Authority Revised Study Plan Cultural Resources Study the character of the building stock (such as type, style, building material, integrity, and condition), the landscaping, and particularly notable and representative features. GRDA will complete a Historic Preservation Resource Identification Form for each resource (Appendix C).

Information on cultural resources from this Reconnaissance Survey will be used to determine the potential for adverse effects on identified archaeological and historic resources created by the continued operation of the Project and to support development of the HPMP. Where the potential for adverse effects from continued operation of the Project is determined, the HPMP will describe appropriate management or treatment measures that may include formal site evaluations to determine the NRHP-eligibility of a site or specific mitigation and treatment measures.

Following Study Year One, GRDA will prepare a Reconnaissance Survey Report as part of the ISR that provides study results and recommendations for identified archaeological and historic resources, including any recommendations for additional cultural resources investigations, as appropriate. GRDA will consult with the CRWG regarding the Study Year One Reconnaissance Survey Report.

During Study Year Two, GRDA will conduct a second Reconnaissance Survey of the APE. The locations of the Study Year Two survey will be determined in consultation with the CRWG. GRDA expects that the results of the hydraulic modeling study and other studies conducted in support of Project relicensing will assist GRDA and the CRWG in refining the appropriate areas for study during Study Year Two, if needed. Following Study Year Two, GRDA will prepare a Reconnaissance Survey Report as part of the USR that provides study results and recommendations for identified archaeological and historic resources, including any recommendations for additional cultural resources investigations, as appropriate. GRDA will consult with the CRWG regarding the Study Year Two Reconnaissance Survey Report.

Intensive Surveys GRDA will conduct limited evaluations and assessments of certain archaeological resources during Study Years One and Two. GRDA will consult with the CRWG if evidence and observations during the Reconnaissance Surveys indicates that: (1) the Project may be having an ongoing adverse effect on the integrity of a site; or (2) the results of the Reconnaissance Surveys indicate that a site is likely to be ineligible for the NRHP, but additional evaluation and assessment of the site is necessary to provide sufficient information for the relevant SHPO/THPO to concur with this recommendation.

If conditions are encountered that indicate evaluation of a site is warranted during Study Years One or Two as described in the preceding paragraph, GRDA will present the information to the CRWG during quarterly meetings, including a plan for evaluation and the recommendations of tribal monitors (see Section 2.9 of this study plan). If the site is located on non-federal lands, and the Oklahoma SHPO and OAS concur that site evaluation is appropriate, GRDA will complete the site evaluation pursuant to the approved plan. If the site is located on tribal trust lands and the relevant Native American Tribe, THPO, and BIA concur that site evaluation is warranted, GRDA will complete the site evaluation pursuant to the plan as approved by the relevant Native American Tribe, THPO, and BIA.

Following Study Year One, GRDA will prepare an Intensive Survey Report as part of the ISR that provides the results of site evaluations and assessments and recommendations for NRHP eligibility, and/or additional investigations and mitigation, as necessary. Following Study Year

Two, GRDA will prepare the same report as part of the USR for the sites evaluated during the Study Year Two investigation.

2.6.5. Traditional Cultural Properties TCPs are properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to a Native American Tribe that meet the National Register criteria (36 C.F.R. § 800.16(l)(1)). TCPs may be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are: (1) rooted in that community’s history; and (2) important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community.

GRDA proposes to conduct a TCP Inventory of TCPs located within the Project’s APE that are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. GRDA recognizes the special expertise that the Native American Tribes have in identifying properties that have traditional and religious importance to their communities. As such, GRDA will consult with Native American Tribes to develop specific methods and approaches to conducting a TCP inventory for lands within the APE, taking into account the guidance provided in National Register Bulletin No. 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Parker and King 1990). Recognizing that specific methods of the TCP Inventory may differ between Tribes, GRDA proposes the following general approach to the TCP Inventory14:

 GRDA will identify qualified ethnographers to assist in the development of the TCP Inventory and solicit resumes for qualified individuals to share with interested Native American Tribes. At a minimum, a qualified individual will have a post-graduate degree and supervised training in ethnographic research and prior experience respectfully conducting TCP Inventories and consulting with Native American Tribes. Resumes will include reference information for Native American Tribes that the ethnographer has previously consulted with in conducting TCP studies.  GRDA will initiate the TCP Inventory by meeting individually with each interested Native American Tribe at a location of the tribe’s choosing in Quarter 1 of 2019. The purpose of this meeting will be to describe the goals of the TCP Inventory, summarize the guidance provided in National Register Bulletin No. 38, and consult with each tribe to select an appropriate ethnographer to support the inventory. To the extent possible, GRDA anticipates selecting one ethnographer to lead the TCP Inventory.  The ethnographer will meet with each of the Tribes at a location of the tribe’s choosing to develop a scope for the TCP Inventory in Quarter 2 and Quarter 3 of 2019. At a minimum, GRDA anticipates that the scope will specify: o The tribe’s confidentiality requirements regarding the nature, location, and documentation of TCPs;

14 GRDA recognizes that TCPs may be identified that are within the APE but are not located on lands owned by GRDA. In such instances, GRDA will make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain landowner permission to access those lands for purposes of completing the TCP Inventory. Reasonable and good faith efforts to obtain landowner permission will be conducted in coordination and consultation with Native American Tribes, and may include in-person requests, written correspondence, and phone calls.

o A process for conducting interviews with representatives identified by the tribe, including the identification of specific questions, topics, or themes to avoid or focus on during interviews; o A process for identifying and reviewing any relevant documents, records, or other information provided by the tribe; o A process and requirements for conducting site visits and documenting TCPs; o A process for reviewing documented archaeological and historic properties within the Project’s APE with the tribe to identify correlations between TCPs and archaeological or historic resources; o A process for conducting an evaluation of TCPs to determine their eligibility for the NRHP; and o A process for developing and reviewing a TCP Inventory Report in consultation and coordination with the tribe.  GRDA will finalize a written scope for the TCP Inventory and provide to each Native American Tribe for review and comment in Quarter 4 of 2019.  GRDA will conduct the TCP Inventory as described in the scope in 2020. GRDA anticipates that interviews with tribal representatives and a review of information provided by Tribes will be conducted in Quarter 1 and Quarter 2 of 2020. Site visits and a review of archaeological study reports will be conducted in Quarter 3 of 2020, following completion of Year Two Studies and the filing of the USR in November 2020. Evaluation of TCPs and development of a TCP Inventory Report are expected to occur in Quarter 4 of 2020 and Quarter 1 of 2021.

2.6.6. Programmatic Agreement Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Part 800.14(b), GRDA anticipates that FERC will enter into a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with appropriate parties for managing historic properties that may be affected by Project operations or activities during the term of the new license. The PA will formally meet the Commission’s obligations under NHPA Section 106 for the relicensing of the Project, and is likely to provide for GRDA to implement an HPMP for the long-term management of historic properties during the new license term.

2.6.7. Historic Properties Management Plan In anticipation of a PA, GRDA will prepare an HPMP providing measures that will direct GRDA’s management of historic properties within the Project’s APE throughout the term of the new license. The HPMP is not intended to be a static document, but will include measures for additional consultation and processes for additional identification and treatment of historic properties. GRDA will develop the HPMP in consultation with the CRWG; through this consultation, GRDA and the CRWG will develop specific management measures to be incorporated into the HPMP. GRDA anticipates that the CRWG will have an ongoing role in the HPMP implementation. GRDA expects to file the HPMP with FERC as part of its relicensing application, such that it may be approved and implemented immediately upon the effective date of the new license issued by FERC.

GRDA has outlined the following three goals for managing historic resources under the HPMP:

 Continue ongoing operations of the Project while maintaining and preserving the integrity of historic properties within the Project Boundary, in consultation with the CRWG;  To the extent possible, avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on historic properties that would be affected by the continued operation of the Project under the new license, in consultation with the CRWG; and  Ensure historic properties are managed in an efficient and cost-effective manner that does not impede GRDA’s ability to comply with the terms of its operating license and other applicable federal, state, and local statutes.

To address these goals, GRDA will develop an HPMP in consultation with the CRWG and in accordance with the Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects, promulgated by the FERC and the ACHP on May 20, 2002. At a minimum, GRDA anticipates that the HPMP will address the following items (ACHP and FERC 2002):  Any additional studies necessary to assist in the identification or management of historic properties within the APE, including a schedule for completing such studies;  A plan and schedule for completing Reconnaissance Surveys of areas within the APE identified in consultation with the CRWG, including areas where Reconnaissance Surveys could not be completed during the ILP;  A plan and schedule for completing Intensive Surveys for sites identified within the APE in consultation with the CRWG;  A plan and schedule for completing any additional work necessary to finalize the TCP Inventory in consultation with the appropriate Native American Tribes and THPOs;  Measures for conducting additional surveys and evaluation of submerged areas when and if lake levels allow (e.g., during maintenance drawdowns of the reservoir).  Potential effects on historic properties resulting from the continued operation and maintenance of the Project, including potential effects on the NRHP-listed Pensacola Dam Historic District;  Management and treatment measures for historic properties (including any identified TCPs);  Protection of historic properties threatened by potential ground-disturbing or land- clearing activities during the term of the new license;  Protection of historic properties threatened by other direct or indirect Project-related activities, including routine Project maintenance;  The resolution of unavoidable adverse effects on historic properties;  Treatment and disposition of any human remains that are discovered;  Provisions for unanticipated discoveries of previously unidentified cultural resources within the APE;  A dispute resolution process;  Categorical exclusions from further review of effects;  Public interpretation of the historic and archaeological values of the Projects, if any;

 Specific measures and a schedule for implementing the HPMP;  Roles and responsibilities of GRDA, the Oklahoma SHPO, OAS, Native American Tribes, and other individuals and organizations in regards to implementation of the HPMP; and  Coordination with the CRWG during implementation of the HPMP. 2.7. Use of Qualified Personnel For purposes of this study plan, a “qualified cultural resources professional” is defined as an individual with (1) experience conducting cultural resources studies in Eastern Oklahoma, (2) experience with tribal entities in the area, and (3) who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (48 Federal Register [F.R.] 44738-44739, Sept. 1983), the standards established by the Oklahoma SHPO, and the qualification requirements for issuance of a permit under ARPA as described at 43 C.F.R. § 7.8(a). The Project team will include: (1) a Principal Investigator that qualifies as a specialist in both Pre-contact Archaeology and Historic Archaeology; or (2) one Principal Investigator on the Project team who specializes in Pre- contact Archaeology and another who specializes in Historic Archaeology. The Project Team will also include an Architectural Historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. Cultural resources studies will be supervised by Principal Investigator’s that meet these qualifications, and crew chiefs/field directors will also meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. Cultural resources studies will be supervised by Principal Investigators who are qualified cultural resources professionals, and crew chiefs/field directors will, at a minimum, meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. GRDA will provide the CRWG with the opportunity to review resumes of Principal Investigators and crew chiefs/field directors prior to the start of cultural resources investigations. 2.8. Confidentiality GRDA is committed to distributing information to the CRWG so that participants can make meaningful and informed decisions and recommendations. However, GRDA understands that there may be information identified or provided by Native American Tribes as confidential or protected under Executive Order 13007. If any Native American Tribe identifies such information in writing, GRDA will only share that information with other parties pursuant to applicable laws and written approval from the Native American Tribe.

GRDA will not share information regarding the location and nature of archaeological resources with the public, and will request that any such information filed with the Commission be afforded privileged status (not for public disclosure). GRDA will coordinate with the BIA to maintain confidentiality regarding locations of archaeological resources on tribal trust lands pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 296.18. 2.9. Consultation and Coordination GRDA will meet regularly with the CRWG to discuss study implementation and progress, identify and resolve issues, and consult regarding study results and HPMP development. Once the Cultural Resources Study commences, GRDA will meet with the CRWG approximately every 90 days (i.e., quarterly) in Tulsa, Oklahoma, until the Final License Application is filed. In addition to the quarterly CRWG meetings, GRDA or CRWG participants may propose additional consultation meetings as appropriate.

2.10. Consistency with Generally Accepted Scientific Practice The proposed methods for this study are consistent with accepted scientific practices. The overall approach complies with the ACHP’s Section 106 Archaeology Guidance (ACHP 2009)15 and is consistent with cultural resources studies conducted in support of other relicensing proceedings in Oklahoma. The Cultural Resources Study will allow GRDA to identify archaeological resources that are potentially affected (directly or indirectly) by the Project and to develop appropriate management measures for those resources. In addition, the proposed methods for this study are consistent with FERC study requirements under the ILP. No alternative approaches to this study are necessary. 2.11. Schedule GRDA initiated consultation with the CRWG to seek concurrence regarding the Project’s APE in May 2018, as part of the planned PSP and CRWG meetings. Background research and archival reviews will be conducted from November 2018 – April 2019. GRDA anticipates the Pre-fieldwork Study Report will be completed in April 2019, and that GRDA will hold the Study Year One Pre-Fieldwork Meeting in May 2019. Study Year One Reconnaissance and Intensive surveys will be completed between May and August 2019. The Study Year One Reconnaissance Survey Report and Intensive Survey Report will be prepared as part of the ISR which will be filed in November 2019. GRDA proposes to extend the archaeological field investigations from October 1 until December 31, 2019 (as weather conditions allow), and to report on those investigations in the Study Year Two reports on Reconnaissance and Intensive surveys filed with the USR. GRDA expects that the Study Year Two Pre-Fieldwork Meeting will be held in May 2020, and Study Year Two Reconnaissance and Intensive surveys will be conducted between May and August 2020. The Study Year Two Reconnaissance Survey Report and Intensive Survey Report will be prepared as part of the USR which will be filed in November 2020. GRDA intends to extend Study Year Two archaeological field investigations beyond the filing of the USR until December 31, 2020 (as weather conditions allow), and will provide a supplemental report on archaeological investigations to the CRWG in Quarter 1 of 2021, following completion of the fieldwork. GRDA anticipates that the TCP inventory will be conducted pursuant to the schedule outlined in Section 2.6.5 of this study plan. GRDA will continue to meet regularly with the CRWG as described in Section 2.9 of this study plan. GRDA will consult with the CRWG in the development of a draft HPMP and expects to file the HPMP with the Commission concurrent with the filing of the Final License Application (FLA). 2.12. Level of Effort and Cost The estimated level of effort for this study is approximately 6,500 hours. The estimated cost of this proposed study is $800,000.

15 The ACHP’s guidance states that “[A] federal agency is not expected to conduct a 100 percent survey of the area of potential effects. Rather, the identification effort should be conditioned by where effects are likely to occur and the likely impact of these effects on listed or eligible archaeological sites. For example, archaeological identification efforts for a license renewal from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission likely would not involve the entire area of potential effects (APE). Rather it would be directed to those locations within the APE that are experiencing project related effects associated with operation, usually along the shoreline.”

3.0 REFERENCES

ACHP (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation). 2007. Policy Statement Regarding Treatment of Burial Sites, Human Remains and Funerary Objects. [Online] URL: http://www.achp.gov/docs/hrpolicy0207.pdf. Accessed January 2018.

ACHP. 2009. Section 106 Archaeology Guidance. [Online] URL: http://www.achp.gov/archguide/. Accessed January 2018.

ACHP and FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2002. Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects. [Online] URL: http://www.achp.gov/ferc-hpmp.pdf. Accessed January 2018.

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2018. Scoping Document 2 for the Pensacola Hydroelectric Project, P-1494. April 27, 2018.

GRDA (Grand River Dam Authority). 2017. Pensacola Hydroelectric Project, P-1494, Pre- Application Document. February 2017.

National Park Service. 1997. National Register Bulletin No. 16: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places, Washington, D.C.

Oklahoma SHPO (Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office). 2013a. Fact Sheet #16: Guidelines for Developing Archaeological Survey Reports in Oklahoma and Report Components. [Online] URL: http://www.okhistory.org/shpo/factsheets/fs16archreports.pdf. Accessed January 2018.

Oklahoma SHPO. 2013b. Architectural/Historic Resources Survey: A Field Guide. [Online] URL: http://www.okhistory.org/shpo/ architsurveys/ fieldguide.pdf. Accessed January 2018. Osage Nation Historic Preservation Office. 2016. Archaeological Block Survey Standards. Osage Nation Historic Preservation Office, Pawhuska, Oklahoma. August 2016.

Parker, Patricia L. and Thomas F. King. 1990. National Register Bulletin No. 38: Guidelines for evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places, Washington, D.C.

[This page intentionally left blank.]

APPENDIX A. OKLAHOMA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE SURVEY FORM

[This page intentionally left blank.]

Pensacola Hydroelectric Project Grand River Dam Authority FERC No. 1494 September 2018 © Copyright 2018 Grand River Dam Authority OKLAHOMA ARCHAEOLOGICAL Site#: SITE SURVEY FORM County: COMPLETE ALL SECTIONS ______1.SITE NUMBER AND NAME: Site Name: Project No.: (derived from owner's (Temporary number or name assigned name, etc.) during project.) ______2.LOCATIONAL INFORMATION: U.T.M. Reference Zone: 14 Northing: Easting: Legal Description ____1/4 of ____ 1/4 of ___1/4 of Section ___ Township ____ Range ____ U.S.G.S. Quad Name: Quad Date (revised): ______Other Locational References (i.e., benchmarks, road intersections, bridges, etc., please give distance and bearing to site):

______3.OWNER(S) OF PROPERTY: Name: Street and Number: City/Town, State: Zip: ______4.SITE SURVEYED BY: Reported by (if different): Name: Name: Date Recorded: Date Reported: Time spent at site and time of day:

1 5.CULTURAL AFFILIATION - Cultural Periods (underline one): Unassigned prehistoric Woodland: Paleoindian: Eastern – may be eastern? Early Plains Middle Late Village Farming/Mississippi Archaic: Plains Village Early Protohistoric/Historic Ind. Middle Historic non-Indian Late ______Archaeological Cultures, Phases, etc. represented: How was cultural affiliation determined (diagnostic artifacts, radiocarbon dates, etc.):

______6.HISTORIC PHASE IDENTIFICATION (ETHNIC): Underline appropriate group. 1. Choctaw 16. Osage 2. Cherokee 17. Cheyenne 3. Saux-Fox 18. Caddo 4. Pottawatomie 19. Shawnee 5. Seminole 20. Delaware 6. Comanche 21. Creek 7. Apache 22. Dakotas 8. Kiowa 23. Chickasaw 9. Kiowa-Apache 24. 12 & 17 10. Kickapoo 25. Missouri-Otos 11. Pawnee 26. Iowa 12. Arapaho 27. Anglo-American 13. Ottawas 28. French 14. Wichita 29. Spanish 15. Quapaw 20. Other: How was historic identification determined?: ______7.HISTORIC SITE RANGE (underline one): 0. Missing data; unknown 5. 1890-1929 1. pre-1800 6. 1930-1950 2. 1800-1830 7. 1800-1900 3. 1830-1859 8. 1800-present 4. 1860-1889 9. 1900-present

2 8.INFERRED SITE TYPE Please underline those that apply (can be more than one category) Open habitation w/o mounds Petroglyph/pictograph Open habitation with mounds Isolated burials (<2) Earth mound (not midden mound) Cemetery (>2) Mound complex Specialized activity sites Stone mounds/rock piles Rock alignments (tepee rings, etc.) Burned rock concentrations Historic farmstead Non-mound earthworks Historic mill/industrial Rock shelter Historic fort Cave Dugout Quarry/workshop Historic trash dump ______9.MIDDEN AT SITE (underline): Don't know Present, earth Absent Present, shell Present, rock ______10.MATERIALS COLLECTED: Type Number Ceramics Projectile points/base frags. Hafted scrapers Drills Bifaces/biface fragments Unifaces Perforators/gravers Spokeshaves Scrapers (unhafted) Debitage (flakes, cores, chunks) Ground/pecked/battered stone Worked bone/shell Human bone Faunal remains Floral remains Other prehistoric Historic (describe) Total Items: Briefly describe diagnostic artifacts including type names. Attach outline drawings:

Materials observed but not collected:

3 Name and address of owner of other collections from site:

______11.ARTIFACT REPOSITORY Name of institution where artifacts are to be stored:

Photos: Number of black and white photos: Number of color photos: Name and address of institution where photos are filed:

______12.EVIDENCE OF RECENT VANDALISM OBSERVED? (Yes or No): ______13.SITE CONDITION (underline one): 1. apparently undisturbed 5. 76-99% disturbed 2. <25% disturbed 6. totally destroyed 3. 26-50% disturbed 7. disturbed, % unknown 4. 51-75% disturbed ______14.MAJOR LAND USE (underline those that apply): Cultivated field Industrial Pasture Residential Woods, forest Recreation Road/trail Commercial Ditch/dike/borrow pit Military Landfill Logging/fire break Modern cemetery Scrub/secondary growth/oil field Mining Modern dump Inundated Other:

4 15.AMOUNT OF GROUND SURFACE VISIBLE (underline one): 1. <10% 4. 51-75% 2. 11-25% 5. 76-90% 3. 26-50% 6. 91-100% Survey Conditions (wet, dry, sunny, ground coverage, etc.):

______16.PHYSIOGRAPHIC DIVISION (underline one): 1. High Plains 6. Sandstone Hills 2. Gypsum Hills 7. Prairie Plains 3. Wichita Mountains 8. Ozark Plateau 4. Red Bed Plains 9. Ouachita Mountains 5. Arbuckle Mountains 10. Red River Plains ______17.LANDFORM TYPE (underline one): 1. Floodplain 4. Dissected Uplands 2. Terrace 5. Undissected Uplands 3. Hillside - Valley wall ______18.LOCALITY TYPE - SPECIFIC SITE SETTING (underline one): 1. Level 5. Mesa 2. Knoll - low land 6. Slope 3. Blowout 7. Bluff crest 4. Ridge – upland 8. Bluff base ______19.SOILS (if known): Association: Series: Type: ______20.ELEVATION/SLOPE: Elevation amsl: Slope (degrees): Slope facing direction: ______21.NATURAL VEGETATION (underline one): 1. Short grasses 6. Mesquite 2. Mixed grasses 7. Juniper-pinon 3. Tall grasses 8. Oak-hickory forest 4. Cross Timber 9. Oak-pine 5. Shin-oak 10. Loblolly pine forest ______22.SITE AREA (Square Meters): Basis for area estimate (underline one): 1. Taped 2. Paced 3. Guessed 4. Range-finder 5. Alidade/transit

5 Confident of site boundaries? (Yes or No): ______23.DESCRIPTION OF SITE: Give physical description of site and its setting, including dimensions, features, nature of materials and artifact concentrations. Include copy of U.S.G.S. topographic map with site location and boundaries marked (and sketch map if appropriate).

6 24.DRAINAGE (underline one): 1. Arkansas 10. Muddy Boggy 2. Beaver - N. Canadian 11. Neosho 3. Canadian 12. North Fork Red 4. Caney 13. Poteau 5. Cimarron 14. Red 6. Deep Fork 15. Salt Fork Arkansas 7. Illinois 16. Salt Fork Red 8. Kiamichi 17. Verdigris 9. Little R. (McCurtain County) 18. Washita ______25.NEAREST NATURAL SOURCE OF WATER (underline one): 1. Permanent stream/creek 6. River 2. Intermittent stream 7. Slough or oxbow lake 3. Permanent stream 8. Relic stream channel 4. Intermittent spring/seep/bog 9. Also consider wells if site 5. Natural lake is historic ______26.DISTANCE TO WATER (in 10's of meters): ______27.INVESTIGATION TYPE (underline one): 1. Reconnaissance (survey) 3. Excavated 2. Intensive (survey & testing) 4. Volunteered report ______28.SIGNIFICANCE STATUS (underline one): National Register Property Eligible for National Register Nominated to National Register by S.H.P.O. Considered eligible but not nominated by S.H.P.O. Inventory site National Register status not assessed ______29.DISCUSS THE POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SITE:

______30.PUBLISHED OR FORTHCOMING REPORTS ON THE SITE:

Revised Study Plan Cultural Resources Study

APPENDIX B. ISOLATED FIND FORM

[This page intentionally left blank.]

County: Temp. No.: Find No.: U.S.G.S. Topo(Date) Cultural Affiliation:

Project: Location:

U.T.M.: Zone: Northing: Easting: __1/4_of__1/4 of__ 1/4 of __ 1/4 of Section ___ Township ___ Range ___

Present Owner: Address:

Description of Find Locale:

Topographic Setting: State of Preservation: Cultivation: Erosion: Vegetation: Soil: Elevation: Slope: Location of Water Supply:

Landmarks to Aid in Relocating Locale:

Published Reports on Finds:

Artifacts Collected:

Artifacts or Features Observed at Find Locale:

Data From Test Pits or Other Explorations:

Materials Reported from Area:

Remarks (Why Find Locale and Not Site):

Recorded by: Date: Photos:

Revised Study Plan Cultural Resources Study

APPENDIX C. HISTORIC PRESERVATION RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION FORM

[This page intentionally left blank.]

Pensacola Hydroelectric Project Grand River Dam Authority FERC No. 1494 September 2018 © Copyright 2018 Grand River Dam Authority HISTORIC PRESERVATION RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION FORM PLEASE TYPE ALL DATA IN UPPERCASE - FIELDS IN RED ARE REQUIRED

1. PROPERTY NAME:

2. RESOURCE NAME:

3. ADDRESS:

4. CITY: 5. VICINITY:

6. COUNTY NAME:

7. LOT: 8. BLOCK: 9. PLAT NAME:

10. SECTION: 11. TOWNSHIP: 12. RANGE:

13. LATITUDE (NORTH): (ENTER AS: "dd.ddddd")

14. LONGITUDE (WEST): (ENTER AS: "-dd.ddddd")

15. UTM ZONE: 16. NORTHINGS: 17. EASTINGS:

18. RESOURCE TYPE:

19. HISTORIC FUNCTION:

20. CURRENT FUNCTION:

21. AREA OF SIGNIFICANCE, PRIMARY:

22. AREA OF SIGNIFICANCE, SECONDARY:

23. DESCRIPTION OF SIGNIFICANCE:

24. DOCUMENTATION RESOURCE:

25. NAME OF PREPARER:

59. SURVEY PROJECT 26. PROJECT NAME:

27. DATE OF PREPARATION: 28. PHOTOGRAPHS

29. YEAR: 30. ARCHITECT/BUILDER:

31. YEAR BUILT:

32. ORIGINAL SITE: 33. DATE MOVED:

34. FROM WHERE: 35. ACCESSIBLE:

36. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE:

37. OTHER ARCHITECTURAL STYLE:

38. FOUNDATION MATERIAL:

39. ROOF TYPE: 40. ROOF MATERIAL:

41. WALL MATERIAL, PRIMARY:

42. WALL MATERIAL, SECONDARY:

43. WINDOW TYPE: 44. WINDOW MATERIAL:

45. DOOR TYPE: 46. DOOR MATERIAL:

47. EXTERIOR FEATURES:

48. INTERIOR FEATURES:

49. DECORATIVE DETAILS:

50. CONDITION OF RESOURCE:

51. DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE:

52. COMMENTS:

53. ATTACH LOCATION MAP

54. LISTED ON NATIONAL REGISTER:

55. NATIONAL REGISTER ENTRY:

56. CONTINUATION 20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20426 November 8, 2018

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS

Project No. 1494-438 – Oklahoma Pensacola Hydroelectric Project Grand River Dam Authority

Darrell Townsend, Vice President Ecosystems and Watershed Management Grand River Dam Authority P.O. Box 70 Langley, OK 74350-0070

Reference: Study Plan Determination for the Pensacola Hydroelectric Project

Dear Dr. Townsend:

Pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 5.13(c) of the Commission’s regulations, this letter contains the study plan determination for the Pensacola Hydroelectric Project (Pensacola Project) located on the Grand (Neosho) River in Craig, Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa Counties, Oklahoma. The determination is based on the study criteria set forth in section 5.9(b) of the Commission’s regulations, applicable law, Commission policy and practice, and the record of information.

Background

On April 27, 2018, the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA) filed its proposed plan for five studies addressing hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, sedimentation, recreation facilities and use, cultural resources, and socioeconomics in support of its intent to relicense the project.

GRDA held meetings to discuss its Proposed Study Plan (PSP) on May 30 and 31, 2018. Comments on the PSP were filed by Commission staff; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps); Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (Oklahoma DWC); Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office (Oklahoma SHPO); Oklahoma Archeological Survey (OAS); Cherokee Nation; Delaware Nation; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Osage Nation; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe; Quapaw Nation; Wyandotte Nation; City of Miami, Oklahoma (City of Miami);

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-438 2

State Representative Ben Loring; and N. Larry Bork representing the plaintiffs in City of Miami, et al. v. Grand River Dam Authority (Plaintiffs).

On August 21, 2018, the Commission hosted a Tribal Consultation meeting at the request of the Osage Nation to discuss the proposed cultural resources study plan. Representatives of the Cherokee Nation, Delaware Nation, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Osage Nation, Peoria Nation, Quapaw Nation, Wyandotte Nation, BIA, and Department of the Interior (Interior) Solicitor’s Office participated in the meeting.

On September 27, 2018, GRDA filed a Revised Study Plan (RSP) that includes significant revisions to the PSP, including three new studies addressing aquatic species, terrestrial species, and wetlands and riparian habitat. Comments on the RSP were filed by BIA, Corps, FWS, Oklahoma DWC, Cherokee Nation, Miami Nation of Oklahoma, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Osage Nation, Quapaw Nation, City of Miami, Local Environmental Action Demanded Agency represented by Grand Riverkeeper and Tar Creekkeeper, and Plaintiffs.

On November 1, 2018, GRDA filed an answer to comments on the Revised Study Plan. In a letter filed November 5, 2018, the City of Miami opposed GRDA’s filing of an answer, or, in the alternative, requested leave to file an answer to GRDA’s answer. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma joined the City of Miami in opposition by letter filed November 6, 2018. The Commission’s regulations governing the development of study plans specify schedules and deadlines designed, in part, to increase efficiency in the licensing process.1 In order to issue a Study Plan Determination in a timely fashion, the Commission’s regulations do not provide for answers to comments or answers to answers and are discouraged. Here, GRDA’s answer did not assist Commission staff in its decision making process and it was not considered.

General Comments

A number of the comments received do not directly address study plan issues. For example, many comments, including those by the Corps, Miami Nation of Oklahoma, and City of Miami, discuss legal issues relating to flood control authorization, assessment of damages, and property interests. GRDA’s RSP also contains a significant discussion of the same issues. This determination does not address these comments, but rather addresses comments specific to the merits of the proposed studies submitted pursuant to section 5.13 of the Commission’s regulations and comments received thereon.

1 See 18 C.F.R. §§ 5.9 – 5.14 (2018); see also Hydroelectric Licensing under the Federal Power Act, Order No. 2002, 104 FERC ¶ 61,109 (2003) (final rule revising hydroelectric licensing regulations to develop a more efficient and timely licensing process).

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-438 3

The bases for staff’s recommendations in the determination is the study criteria identified in section 5.9(b) of the Commission’s regulations and the technical merits of the studies. The studies that are required herein are those that will address identified data needs and reasonably inform staff’s analysis of the environmental effects of continued project operation under a new license.

Study Plan Determination

GRDA’s RSP is approved, with the staff-recommended modifications and an additional study on infrastructure as discussed in Appendix B. As indicated in Appendix A, two of the eight studies proposed by GRDA are approved as filed by GRDA and six are approved with staff-recommended modifications. This determination also addresses two additional studies requested by stakeholders, but not required by this determination (see Appendix A).

In Appendix B, we explain the specific modifications to the study plan and the bases for modifying, adopting, or not adopting requested studies. Although Commission staff considered all study plan criteria in section 5.9 of the Commission’s regulations, we only reference the specific study criteria that are particularly relevant to the determination. Studies for which no issues were raised in comments on the RSP are not discussed in this determination. Unless otherwise indicated, all components of the approved studies not modified in this determination must be completed as described in GRDA’s RSP.

Pursuant to section 5.15(c)(1) of the Commission’s regulations, the initial study report for all studies in the approved study plan must be filed by November 8, 2019. As required by the Commission’s regulations, GRDA must hold an initial study report meeting within 15 days of the filing of their initial study report. Commission staff will evaluate the need for holding additional Tribal Consultation meetings in conjunction with the initial study report meeting after the first year of studies is underway.

Nothing in this study plan determination is intended, in any way, to limit any agency’s proper exercise of its independent statutory authority to require additional studies. In addition, GRDA may choose to conduct any study not specifically required herein that it feels would add pertinent information to the record.

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-438 4

If you have any questions, please contact Rachel McNamara at [email protected] or (202) 502-8340.

Sincerely,

for Terry L. Turpin Director Office of Energy Projects

Enclosures: Appendix A – Summary of studies subject to this determination Appendix B – Staff’s recommendations on proposed and requested studies

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ON PROPOSED AND REQUESTED STUDIES

Approved Recommending Not Study Approved with Entity Required Modifications GRDA, FERC, FWS, Oklahoma DWC, Cherokee Nation Eastern Shawnee Hydrologic and Hydraulic Tribe, Miami Tribe, Modeling (i.e., Flooding X Ottawa Tribe, Peoria and Inundation Studies) Tribe, Seneca-Cayuga Nation, Wyandotte Nation, City of Miami, Plaintiffs GRDA, FERC, Miami Tribe, Ottawa Tribe, Sedimentation X Peoria Tribe, City of Miami, Plaintiffs Aquatic Species of Concern (i.e., Paddlefish GRDA, FWS, X and Rare Aquatic Species Oklahoma DWC studies) Terrestrial Species of GRDA X Concern2 Wetlands and Riparian GRDA, FWS, X Habitat Oklahoma DWC Recreation Facilities GRDA X Inventory and Use

2 BIA, Eastern Shawnee Tribe, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, Ottawa Tribe, Peoria Tribe, Seneca-Cayuga Nation, Wyandotte Nation, City of Miami, and Plaintiffs proposed and supported a study entitled Flora and Fauna Study, components of which are included in GRDA’s terrestrial species of concern study. Staff discusses other components of the proposed flora and fauna study with its recommendations for the contaminated sediment transport study. A-1

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

Approved Recommending Not Study Approved with Entity Required Modifications GRDA, Cherokee Nation Eastern Shawnee Tribe, Miami Tribe, Ottawa Cultural Resources Tribe, Peoria Tribe, X Seneca-Cayuga Nation, Wyandotte Nation, City of Miami, Plaintiffs GRDA, Eastern Shawnee Tribe, Miami Tribe, Ottawa Tribe, Peoria Tribe, Socioeconomics X Seneca-Cayuga Nation, Wyandotte Nation, City of Miami, Plaintiffs Federal Lands and Project BIA, Miami Tribe, Boundary/ Flooding Ottawa Tribe, Peoria X Inundation of Tribal Tribe, City of Miami, Lands Plaintiffs BIA, FWS, Oklahoma DWC, Eastern Shawnee Tribe, Miami Tribe, Ottawa Contaminated Sediment Tribe, Peoria Tribe, X Transport Seneca-Cayuga Nation, Wyandotte Nation, City of Miami, Plaintiffs FERC, Eastern Shawnee Tribe, Miami Tribe, Ottawa Tribe, Peoria Tribe, Infrastructure Study X Seneca-Cayuga Nation, Wyandotte Nation, City of Miami, Plaintiffs

A-2

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

APPENDIX B

STAFF’S RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROPOSED AND REQUESTED STUDIES

The following discusses staff’s recommendations on studies proposed by GRDA, requests for study modifications, and requests for additional studies. We base our recommendations on the study criteria outlined in the Commission’s regulations [18 C.F.R. section 5.9(b)(1)-(7)]. Except as explained below, the Revised Study Plan (RSP), filed on September 24, 2018, adequately addresses all study needs at this time.

I. Required Studies

Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling Study

Applicant’s Proposed Study GRDA proposes a hydrologic and hydraulic modeling study (H&H study) to determine the duration and extent of inundation under the project’s current operation and alternative operating scenarios over a range of inflow events. The study would use modeling and mapping to support analyses in several resource areas including aquatic, terrestrial, recreation, and cultural resources. The study’s scope would include the Neosho, Spring, and Elk Rivers; Tar Creek; and downstream areas through Lake Hudson to just upstream of Kerr Dam. The study would use existing upstream terrain data from historical topographic and bathymetric surveys.

The proposed H&H study is composed of two parts: (1) an operations model, and (2) a comprehensive hydraulic model (CHM), which would calculate inundation and flood routing specifics, such as frequency, timing, amplitude and duration, during inflow events for which hydrographs exist based on parameters established in the operations model.

As products of the H&H study, GRDA proposes a flood frequency analysis of the peak inflows observed at the Pensacola Dam during the flood events used in the model runs. GRDA would also determine, at a minimum, the 5-, 10-, and 15-year return period peak inflows. GRDA’s proposed study would evaluate scenarios starting at reservoir elevations from 740 feet Pensacola Datum1 (PD) to 745 feet PD. A minimum of six historical inflow hydrographs would be modeled at these elevations.

1 Pensacola Datum is 1.07 feet higher than National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) and 1.4 feet higher than North American Vertical Datum (NAVD). B-1

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

Comments on the Study

Several study requests and comments were received regarding the potential effects of project operation on upstream flooding. Commission staff, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Oklahoma Department of Wildlife and Conservation (Oklahoma DWC), Cherokee Nation, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, Peoria Tribe, Seneca-Cayuga Nation, Wyandotte Nation, City of Miami, Oklahoma (City of Miami), State Representative Ben Loring, and N. Larry Bork representing the plaintiffs in City of Miami, et al. v. Grand River Dam Authority (Plaintiffs) have requested, or supported, a comprehensive H&H study and provided comments on both GRDA’s proposed and revised H&H study.

Oklahoma DWC comments that the study’s focus on individual flood events would not be useful in evaluating impacts of day-to-day water management. Oklahoma DWC would like the study to include maps and models that delineate the expected lentic (i.e. lake or non-flowing) boundary during normal operational levels, and/or quantify the duration of inundation if the annual operating regime includes varying lake levels. Further, Oklahoma DWC expresses concern over the lack of criteria provided to support the “professional judgement” that will be used to determine a “material difference” in water surface elevations. Oklahoma DWC recommends that GRDA consult an independent natural resource professional in evaluating and determining a “material difference” in water surface elevation.

The City of Miami recommends accepting GRDA’s H&H study with modifications. The City requests that GRDA conduct a new bathymetric survey of Grand Lake, incorporate the Corps’ RiverWare model for the Arkansas Basin River System in its analysis of high-flow events, extend the study area upstream from the proposed model limit on the Spring River to the Kansas border, and run the H&H model over a greater range of flood magnitudes up to the 100-year flood event.

Discussion and Staff Recommendation

Range of Model Runs: Flows

A comprehensive H&H study would determine the extent of flooding that is attributable to project operation and support an analysis of project-related flooding.2

2 The Corps has jurisdiction to direct operation of the project for flood control purposes when elevation of the reservoir reaches 745 feet PD (33 CFR section 208.25 (2018)). However, the federal license issued by the Commission controls use of the project’s facilities (i.e., the dam, reservoir, powerhouse, and spillways) for all statutory

B-2

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

However, the RSP does not adequately clarify the full range of inflow events that would be evaluated in the proposed study. GRDA states that the 5-, 10-, and 15-year return period peak flows would be studied “at a minimum,” along with a “minimum” of six historical inflow events, including the June 2007 flood, which had the highest recorded flow on the Neosho River at the Commerce U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gage. The return period of historical inflow events would not be known until the flood frequency analysis is performed. In order to fully satisfy the study objectives (section 5.9(b)(1)) and provide the information required for staff’s analysis and the development of license requirements (section 5.9(b)(5)), we recommend an iterative approach to establish a range of low and high frequency flood events. If the flood frequency analysis shows that the selected historical inflow events do not exceed a 100-year recurrence interval, inflow events up to and including the 100-year recurrence interval would be evaluated in the CHM. We recommend that GRDA include in the 6-month Model Input Status Report its proposal for the flood flows to be analyzed in the H&H study based on the flood frequency analysis. The proposal then would be discussed during the Conference Call on Model Inputs and Calibration. Adding these items to the report and call that are already planned would add only minimal cost (section 5.9(b)(7)).

Range of Model Runs: Starting Elevations

GRDA states that only reservoir starting elevations between 740 and 745 feet PD would be evaluated. However, the model would be most informative if the runs included the range: (1) observed over the licensed history of the project; (2) at which power has, is, or could potentially be generated; or (3) that could reasonably be considered as an operational level under any license issued (section 5.9(b)(5)). To cover the maximum range, address project effects, and allow full consideration of potential protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures (PM&Es), we recommend that GRDA’s model accommodate a preliminary minimum starting elevation of 734 feet PD, and a preliminary maximum starting elevation of 760 feet PD. Elevation 734 feet PD represents the lowest summer elevation implemented by GRDA prior to 1982.3 Elevation 760 feet PD represents the maximum elevation of the Corps’ existing flowage easements.4 The need for additional model runs at lower or higher starting reservoir

purposes, including flood control (16 USC section 803(a)(1) (2012)). Therefore, regardless of the regulatory bases for the Corps’ jurisdiction to direct operation under certain conditions, Commission staff must analyze the full range of potential reservoir operating scenarios to assess project effects and need for protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures. 3 See Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License, Pensacola Hydroelectric Project No. 1494-002, issued November 19, 1991, at page 9, paragraph 2. 4 Pub. L No. 712, 60 Stat. 974 (Aug. 9, 1946). B-3

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

elevations than we recommend could be evaluated based on the initial results of the study and discussed at the Initial Study Results (ISR) meeting.

Products of the Model

The purposes of the model are to assess the effects of current project operation in the power pool, as well as any operational changes that may be proposed as part of the relicensing process, on flooding and to calculate inundation areas and depths. However, GRDA’s proposed model would also accommodate evaluation of the effects of changes in project operation under non-flood conditions. We recommend that GRDA provide maps that clearly depict the boundary between lotic5 and lentic conditions under any proposed operating scenario with the results of the H&H study (section 5.9(b)(4)).

Topographic and Bathymetric Data

GRDA does not propose to collect additional topographic and bathymetric data as part of the proposed study. GRDA proposes to use the 2009 Oklahoma Water Resource Board (Oklahoma WRB) bathymetric survey of Grand Lake. Oklahoma WRB recommended another survey be conducted within 10-15 years of the 2009 study to determine an accurate sedimentation rate at Grand Lake. Mapping change in bathymetry is central to the H&H and sedimentation studies (section 5.9(b)(5)). Past mapping has revealed significant changes in bathymetry over an approximately 10-year period (OWRB, 2009).6 We recommend performing a new bathymetric survey of Grand Lake as part of the sedimentation study, per the Oklahoma WRB recommendation, to accurately reflect the existing distribution and volume of sediment in the reservoir and update stage-storage volume curves for the H&H model (section 5.9(b)(4)). If the H&H model shows that flooding extends beyond the limit of available data, we recommend that GRDA perform additional high-resolution surveys to ensure full, high-resolution data for all areas with the potential for flood conveyance. We estimate that the cost for the additional bathymetry survey of Grand Lake is approximately $45,000. This information is necessary to accurately characterize the channel bed and floodplain elevations of the upstream tributaries (section 5.9(b)(4)) for use in the H&H and sedimentation studies.

Definition of “Material Difference”

GRDA proposes a study area that encompasses the channel and overbank areas that experience a “material difference” in water surface elevations due to changes in project operation. Oklahoma DWC and the City of Miami express concern over the lack

5 Lotic refers to moving water, or riverine-like habitat. 6 OWRB (Oklahoma Water Resources Board). 2009. Hydrographic Survey of Grand Lake. August 26, 2009. Available Online: https://www.owrb.ok.gov/studies/ reports/reports_pdf/GrandLake--hydrographicsurvey.pdf Accessed October 2018. B-4

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

of criteria provided to define a “material difference” in water surface elevations. Proper definition of a “material difference” in water surface elevation is critical to choosing the area of effect for analyzing operational effects from flooding on environmental resources and for directing more in-depth analysis (section 5.9(b)(5)).

GRDA proposes to distribute a 6-Month Model Input Status Report in April 2019. We recommend that GRDA include in this report its proposed definition of a “material difference” in flood elevation based upon the results of the modeling conducted to that point. At the time the 6-Month Model Input Status Report is distributed, we recommend that GRDA solicit stakeholder comments on the definition of “material difference.” Further, we recommend that GRDA discuss the definition of “material difference” during GRDA’s proposed “Conference Call on Model Inputs and Calibration,” scheduled for May 2019. GRDA should define “material difference” in the ISR. The ISR should also document comments GRDA receives about the definition and how GRDA responded to them. Adding this topic to the report, call, and ISR would add only minimal effort (section 5.9(b)(7)).

Corps’ RiverWare Model

The Corps’ RiverWare model simulates flows through the Arkansas Basin River System based on a 77-year period of record. GRDA plans to use the RiverWare model primarily as a source of data. The City of Miami asks that GRDA incorporate the RiverWare model into its H&H study, particularly to help model high flow events. The RiverWare model calculates results for each day (or on a daily time-step), while GRDA’s H&H model would calculate results for each hour.

GRDA states that it is not worth the effort to update RiverWare to an hourly time- step to match the output of the H&H study. While converting RiverWare to an hourly time-step may be intensive, converting GRDA’s hourly model output to a daily time-step would not be overly difficult. Comparison of the RiverWare output with GRDA’s H&H model output would help to confirm the results of GRDA’s proposed modeling (5.9(b)(6)). We recommend that GRDA demonstrate in the ISR that it has validated its model results against the RiverWare output.

Extension of Model for Spring River

GRDA proposes an initial study area that would extend upstream from Pensacola Dam along the Grand/Neosho River to within approximately 3 miles of the Oklahoma/ Kansas border, upstream along the Spring River to within 6.5 miles of the Oklahoma/ Kansas border, and upstream along the Elk River beyond the Oklahoma state line into Missouri, and along Tar Creek just upstream of the USGS gage at the 22nd Avenue Bridge. The Quapaw Nation requests that the proposed model limit on the Spring River be extended further north to the Oklahoma/Kansas border. The Quapaw Nation states B-5

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

that the study area proposed by GRDA is based on outdated congressional maps which exclude tribal lands and cultural properties located along the Spring River that are affected by upstream flooding. The City of Miami supports the Quapaw Nation’s request and recommends a revised study area to encompass the upstream extent of the Spring River to the Oklahoma/Kansas border.

GRDA states that the proposed modeling limits on the tributaries to Grand Lake reflect an initial study area. The area of effect in its entirety is not currently known, and may increase or decrease as the extent of inundation due to project operations becomes evident through the modeling exercise. As stated above, we recommend extending the range of preliminary model runs to reflect a preliminary minimum and maximum starting elevation of 735 feet and 760 feet PD, respectively, to cover the maximum range of potential project effects. Based on the results of the first year of study, the need for additional model runs at higher or lower starting elevations will be specified, and as a result, an appropriate study area will be identified. Therefore, we do not recommend that GRDA prematurely define the modeling limits of the study to an arbitrary point, such as the Oklahoma/Kansas border.

Vertical Datum

GRDA proposes to reference National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 1929) as a common datum. For consistent reporting across studies and comparison to the existing license’s rule curve elevations, we recommend that all final output and reports be presented in PD because stakeholders are familiar with this system.

Model Validation and Information Sharing

GRDA proposes to provide copies of the CHM, CHM calibration, and CHM outputs to relicensing participants within 10 days of a formal request by email or in writing. To support our request that Commission staff and other stakeholders may review and evaluate the model results, we recommend that GRDA make the model, inputs, and outputs available to download on a protected cloud-based server and provide access to relicensing participants upon request (section 5.9(b)(6)).

Sedimentation Study

Applicant’s Proposed Study

GRDA proposes a sedimentation study to assess the effects of current project operation between reservoir elevations 740 feet and 745 feet PD, and any potential changes to project operation, on sediment erosion, transport, and deposition in the lower reaches of the tributaries to Grand Lake (i.e., on the Neosho, Spring, and Elk Rivers, and Tar Creek), and to characterize the impact that sedimentation has on flooding upstream of B-6

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

Pensacola Dam. GRDA proposes to use existing sediment data, new sediment data it would collect, modeled flows derived from its H&H model, and standard sediment transport formulas to calculate sediment transport. GRDA does not propose to collect additional topographic or bathymetric data. GRDA’s study would look specifically at “smaller flood events,” which, GRDA argues, cumulatively carry more sediment than higher-flow flooding events.

Rather than using a separate sediment transport modeling system, GRDA would use standard sediment transport equations and collected data to calculate sediment transport rates. Those sediment transport rates would be used to modify the GRDA’s CHM channel geometry in the H&H model to estimate future channel bed changes, and determine flood extents and depth.

Comments on the Study

The City of Miami agrees with the goals and objectives of GRDA’s proposed study, but does not agree that the proposed methodology will comprehensively address GRDA’s goals and objectives. Specifically, the City objects to the lack of a sediment transport modeling system within GRDA’s sedimentation study. The City recommends using an existing, peer-reviewed sediment transport modeling system (HEC-RAS7) to conduct the same analysis. The City believes that using HEC-RAS would provide a more clear and standardized approach to analyzing sediment transport in Grand Lake and its tributaries, greater ability to predict future sedimentation trends, and a more effective comparison of alternatives.

The City’s proposal would require collecting new data to populate the model, including suspended sediment concentrations and sediment grab samples. The City’s model would also require a new bathymetric survey of Grand Lake.

The City’s model would use GRDA’s CHM as the hydraulic model to inform its sediment transport modeling. However, unlike GRDA’s proposal, the City’s proposed model would evaluate a broader range of flood hydrographs, up to the 100-year flood event, which would provide an understanding of sediment transport in both channel and overbank areas.

In addition to the comments received from the City of Miami, the BIA requests that the sedimentation study evaluate how sedimentation in Grand Lake affects the power pool and whether sedimentation reduces the capacity for power generation.

7 HEC-RAS (Hydrologic Engineering Center - River Analysis System) is a hydraulic modeling software package written and supported by the Corps. It allows users to model flow, flood elevations, sediment transport, and water temperature and quality. B-7

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

Discussion and Staff Recommendation

Technical Approach to Sedimentation Study

The fundamental differences between GRDA’s and the City of Miami’s proposals are the proposed methods for determining sediment transport rates within Grand Lake and the lower portions of its tributaries: the Neosho, Spring, and Elk Rivers, and Tar Creek. The differences in methodologies fall roughly into two categories: (1) data collection and (2) model scope.

As noted above, GRDA’s proposal would require the collection of new data including: suspended sediment concentrations, sediment grab samples and core samples, and water velocity profiles made with an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP). It is not clear from GRDA’s proposal what information would be available or collected on sediment accumulation in channels, overbank areas, and at constrictions within Grand Lake’s upper tributaries to inform estimates of future channel bed changes (section 5.9(b)(4)). The City of Miami’s proposal contains provisions to collect this data through a new bathymetric survey and measures of bed-material gradation. This data is necessary to evaluate the transport and deposition of sediment by large inflow events, which would spill over the existing channel, into overbank areas. Additionally, this information would be essential to determining the need for a contaminated sediment study, analyzing project effects on environmental and cultural resources, and informing potential operational changes or the need for PM&Es (section 5.9(b)(5)). Further, as noted in our discussion of the H&H study, past mapping has revealed significant changes in bathymetry over an approximately 10-year period (OWRB, 2009). Collecting new bathymetry data would allow the model to more accurately reflect existing conditions (section 5.9(b)(4)).

GRDA proposes to focus its study on small flood events, which transport the majority of sediment. While smaller, more frequent storm events may be responsible for transporting the greatest percentage of total sediment load,8 these events are generally contained in the channel. In contrast, larger flows, which occur less often, tend to spread the flow overbank such that sediment can be deposited in the floodplain.9 The City’s proposed model would evaluate a broader range of flood hydrographs, up to the 100-year flood event, which would provide an understanding of sediment transport in both channel and overbank areas.

8 Leopold, L., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller. 1992. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. Dover Publications, New York, NY. p. 71. 9 Dunne, T. and L.B. Leopold. 1998. Water in Environmental Planning, W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, CA. p. 620. B-8

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

Both methodologies are technically-feasible approaches to studying sediment transport processes within Grand Lake and its tributaries. The cost estimates for the two studies are comparable, with GRDA’s cost estimate being slightly higher ($400,000 for GRDA’s study versus $385,000 for the City of Miami’s study). However, the City of Miami’s proposal provides a more clear, comprehensive, and standardized approach to collecting and analyzing the data necessary to adequately understand the potential effects of the project on sediment transport processes upstream. As proposed, the City’s study also addresses the concerns we have identified with GRDA’s proposed methodology (section 5.9(b)(6)). Therefore, we recommend that GRDA adopt the City of Miami’s proposed methodology for conducting its sedimentation study, specifically the use of HEC-RAS for the sediment transport model.

Sedimentation Effect on the Power Pool

BIA’s request for analysis of the effect of sedimentation on the power pool is relevant to the project’s generation potential. The sediment transport model would address how operations affect sedimentation rates, including sedimentation of the power pool. Using the model output, GRDA could compare stage-storage curves under different sedimentation conditions and estimate effects on generation (section 5.9(b)(4)). Because GRDA would be modeling changes in bathymetry as part of the sedimentation study, the additional cost of reporting on sedimentation effects on the power pool would be minimal. We recommend that GRDA describe any observed or predicted effects of project operation on sedimentation of the power pool in the sedimentation study report.

Model Validation and Information Sharing

To support our request that Commission staff and other stakeholders may review and evaluate results of the sedimentation study, we recommend that GRDA make the sedimentation model inputs and outputs available to download on a protected cloud- based server and provide access to relicensing participants upon request (section 5.9(b)(6)).

Aquatic Species of Concern Study

Increases in reservoir water levels associated with potential modifications of project operation under a new license,10 and fluctuating reservoir water levels associated with existing project operation11 could affect aquatic species by altering habitat. GRDA

10 GRDA is exploring potential modifications in operations that could increase the reservoir elevation compared to existing targeted pool elevations. 11 Existing targeted pool elevations range between 741 and 744 feet PD depending on the time of year.

B-9

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

proposes to gather the information needed to identify the potential effects of project-caused water level increases and reservoir elevation fluctuations on paddlefish and three rare aquatic species (i.e., two federally listed aquatic species [Neosho madtom (fish) and Neosho mucket (mussel)], and an endemic12 subspecies of smallmouth bass [Neosho smallmouth bass]). GRDA will identify potential effects on these species in the same area as proposed in GRDA’s H&H modeling study, which includes the Neosho, Spring, and Elk Rivers.

PADDLEFISH SUB-STUDY13

Applicant’s Proposed Study

GRDA proposes to model project effects using: (1) existing paddlefish habitat information in the Neosho and Spring Rivers (i.e., Schooley and O’Donnell, 2016);14 (2) recent bathymetric data (i.e., USGS, 2017);15 and (3) the models developed for the H&H modeling study. GRDA would: (1) create maps delineating the riverine reaches that would be converted to lentic habitat during the paddlefish spawning season (March- April), as a result of increases in reservoir water levels associated with potential modifications of project operation under a new license; (2) quantify and map the amount of paddlefish spawning substrate that occurs in lotic habitat under existing conditions, but that would be converted to lentic habitat if reservoir water levels were increased; and (3) assess potential impacts of project operation on paddlefish recruitment based on the area of lost spawning substrate during the paddlefish spawning period, while accounting for the effects of hydrologic variability.

Comments on the Study

FWS requests that GRDA conduct a study16 to determine the effects of raising the reservoir elevation on paddlefish.

12 A species that is endemic is unique to a specific geographic location. 13 Staff refer to the aquatic species of concern study objectives related to paddlefish as the paddlefish sub-study. 14 Schooley, J.D. and S. O’Donnell. 2016. Benthic Habitat Mapping of Grand Lake Tributaries as it Relates to Paddlefish Recruitment. Grant Report. Project Number: F15AF00540. 15 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2017. Bathymetric Surveys of the Neosho River, Spring River, and Elk River, Northeastern Oklahoma and Southwestern Missouri, 2016-17. Scientific Investigations Report 2017-5101. Version 1.1, October. U.S. Department of Interior. 16 FWS, in its letter filed on March 13, 2018, titled this study, Inundation Study.

B-10

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

Oklahoma DWC requests that GRDA determine the impacts of increasing Grand Lake reservoir water level on hydrology and paddlefish habitat availability of the Neosho, Spring, and Elk Rivers.17 As part of the study, Oklahoma DWC requests that GRDA use sonar and/or GIS to develop bathymetric baseline maps of headwaters and habitats to model changes in inundation of gravel shoals and off-channel habitats. Oklahoma DWC requests that GRDA include the Elk River in the study methodology, because the Elk River may have recruitment value for paddlefish. Oklahoma DWC also requests that GRDA quantify the amount (stream length and area) of lotic habitat that will transition to lentic habitat if the year-round operating pool is increased.18

Discussion and Staff Recommendation

Potential Paddlefish Habitat Loss

Grand Lake is a prominent paddlefish fishery, consistently attracting snag19 anglers from the entire continental U.S. (Jager and Schooley 2016).20 The fishery is maintained through natural reproduction that occurs during the spring when paddlefish migrate upstream into Grand Lake tributaries. During spawning, paddlefish deposit adhesive eggs over washed gravel, cobble, and bedrock substrates located in lotic habitat (O’Keefe et al., 2007;21 Hoxmeier and DeVries, 1997).22 The presence of hard substrates is important, because eggs may not adhere to soft substrates (O’Keefe et al., 2007), and eggs deposited in sand or silt may experience reduced survival caused by smothering and suffocation (Castro and Reckendorf, 1995).23

17 Oklahoma DWC in its letter filed on March 13, 2018, titled this study, Impacts of Grand Lake Elevation Manipulation on Headwater River Hydrology and Paddlefish Spawning/Recruitment. 18 Oklahoma DWC in its letter filed on March 13, 2018, titled this study, Quantifying the Effects of Increased Water Level within the Grand Lake Watershed. 19 Snag angling is a method of fishing that involves catching a fish on body parts using hooks and without the fish actively taking the hook with its mouth. 20 Jager, C. A., and J. D. Schooley. 2016. 2015 Post-season survey of paddlefish permit holders. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City. 21 O’Keefe, D., J. O’Keefe, and D. Jackson. 2007. Factors influencing paddlefish spawning in the Tombigbee Watershed. Southeastern Naturalist, 6:321-332. 22 Hoxmeier, R. J., and D. R. DeVries. 1997. Habitat use, diet, and population structure of adult and juvenile paddlefish in the lower Alabama River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 126:288-301. 23 Castro, J., and F. Reckendorf. 1995. Effects of Sediment on the Aquatic Environment: Potential NRCS Actions to Improve Aquatic Habitat - Working Paper No.

B-11

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

In the Neosho and Spring Rivers, coarse/hard substrates (e.g., gravel, cobble, and bedrock) increase, and fine/soft substrates (e.g., silt and mud) decrease moving upstream from more lentic to more lotic conditions (Schooley and O’Donnell, 2016). GRDA is exploring potential modifications in operations that would increase the reservoir elevation at certain times of year. Increasing the reservoir elevation would broaden and deepen the Grand Lake tributaries, slow water velocities, and cause deposition of soft, fine substrates to occur further upstream than currently occurs. These changes could lead to a decrease in coarse/hard substrates in the Grand Lake system. Loss of coarse/hard substrates could lead to a loss of paddlefish spawning habitat and reduced reproduction.

GRDA’s proposed paddlefish sub-study would provide the information needed to determine how a potential increase in reservoir elevation could reduce the amount of spawning substrate and affect paddlefish spawning and recruitment (section 5.9(b)(5)). However, GRDA does not propose a strategy to assess the relative impact of different operational conditions. Estimating the proportion of spawning habitat affected by project operation would provide a measure of project effects relative to other available habitat in the project vicinity, which could inform the need for protective measures (section 5.9(b)(4); section 5.9(b)(5)). Therefore, we recommend that GRDA conduct the proposed paddlefish sub-study, with the modification that it include estimating the proportion of paddlefish spawning habitat affected by increasing the reservoir elevation, relative to available spawning habitat in the project vicinity. Estimating the proportion of spawning habitat affected by increasing the reservoir elevation could be accomplished using GRDA’s proposed data gathering methodology, and therefore would have no additional cost.

Extending Paddlefish Sub-Study to Elk River

Regarding Oklahoma DWC’s request for GRDA to include the Elk River, adding the Elk River to the study methodology is unnecessary, because the information gained from GRDA’s proposal to study the Neosho and Spring Rivers would adequately inform the need for protective measures in similar areas (section 5.9(b)(5)). The Neosho and Spring Rivers are known to provide important spawning habitat for paddlefish in Grand Lake (Schooley and O’Donnell, 2016; Schooley and Neeley, 2018),24 and are the two

6. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Oregon State University, Department of Geosciences. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/ ?cid=nrcs143_014201 Accessed October 2018. 24 Schooley, J. D., and B. C. Neely. 2018. Estimation of paddlefish (Polyodon spatula Walbaum, 1792) spawning habitat availability with consumer-grade sonar. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 34(2):364-372.25 The Neosho, Spring, and Elk Rivers have drainage basins of 17,423 kilometer2 [km2], 6,708 km2, and 2,657 km2.

B-12

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

largest Grand Lake tributaries.25 Thus, data collected from the Neosho and Spring Rivers would provide information that is representative of paddlefish spawning habitat in the project vicinity, and would be adequate for identifying project effects and informing the need for license requirements (section 5.9(b)(5)). Therefore, we do not recommend including the Elk River in the paddlefish sub-study methodology.

RARE AQUATIC SPECIES SUB-STUDY26

Applicant’s Proposed Study

To evaluate project effects on the Neosho mucket, Neosho madtom, and Neosho smallmouth bass, GRDA proposes to implement a phased information gathering and impact assessment that would include: (1) a review of existing information on each species to characterize the physical habitat preferences and spatial and temporal patterns of species occurring in the project vicinity; (2) conducting targeted field surveys to develop estimates of the distribution of each species in relevant reaches to the extent that existing information is inadequate to carry out this characterization; and (3) conducting an assessment of potential effects of project operation, if any, on those species that may have sensitive life-stage(s) present in the project vicinity. GRDA proposes to complete item 1 in 2019 and items 2 and 3 in 2020.

Comments on the Study

FWS requests that GRDA conduct a study27 to determine the potential effects of alternative project operation scenarios on the Neosho madtom, Neosho smallmouth bass, and federally-listed mussel habitat to identify the need for mitigation and to provide information for Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation for federally-listed species.

Oklahoma DWC also requests that GRDA conduct a study28 to provide information regarding habitat in the fluctuation zone of the reservoir to determine potential impacts of fluctuations on species that may use littoral zone habitat, and the need for mitigation or operational changes. Oklahoma DWC states that the study should consist of mapping the habitat in the fluctuation zone at full pool and at the lowest

25 The Neosho, Spring, and Elk Rivers have drainage basins of 17,423 kilometer2 [km2], 6,708 km2, and 2,657 km2. 26 Staff refer to the aquatic species of concern study objectives related to the Neosho mucket, Neosho madtom, and Neosho smallmouth bass as the rare aquatic species sub-study. 27 FWS, in its letter filed on March 13, 2018, titled this study, Inundation Study. 28 Oklahoma DWC in its letter filed on March 13, 2018, titled this study, Impoundment Fluctuation Studies.

B-13

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

expected operational level. Oklahoma DWC requests that the maps identify the substrate and type of habitat, the width of the drawdown zone, the depth at various pool levels, and any important habitat types that may be present.

Discussion and Staff Recommendation

Neosho Mucket and Neosho Madtom The Neosho mucket is a federally endangered species, meaning it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.29 The Neosho madtom is a federally threatened species, meaning it is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.30 Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies (e.g., the Commission) to consult with the Services (FWS and/or National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]) to ensure that their actions (e.g., relicensing) are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed threatened and endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.31

The FWS’s official species list for the Pensacola Project, filed on January 11, 2018, indicates that the Neosho madtom and Neosho mucket may occur at the project. However, the presence, density,32 and distribution of each species at the project is unknown. GRDA’s proposed rare aquatic species sub-study would help provide most of this information, with the exception of each species’ density. Information on density is needed to estimate the proportion of both the Neosho madtom and Neosho mucket populations in the project vicinity that could be affected by reservoir fluctuations or increased reservoir elevation.33 This information could inform the need for protective measures (section 5.9(b)(5)).

29 Section 3(6) of the Endangered Species Act. 30 Section 3(20) of the ESA. 31 Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA 32 Density represents the total number of individuals of a species sampled per unit of area sampled. 33 If density estimates for each species are not already available, they could be obtained from representative areas (i.e., a sub-sample of the areas in the project vicinity) that have the potential to be affected by project operation, as well as in representative areas that would not be affected by project operation. The density estimates would be used to estimate the abundance of each species in habitats affected by project operation and in habitats in the project vicinity that would be unaffected by project operation. The proportion of each species’ population affected by project operation would be the

B-14

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

To address the need for species density information, we recommend that GRDA modify item 1 of the rare aquatic species sub-study to include a review of existing density estimates in the project vicinity for each species, and item 2 to include surveys designed to estimate each species’ density. With these modifications, the rare aquatic species sub- study would provide the information needed to determine the potential effects of reservoir fluctuations or increased reservoir elevation on Neosho mucket and Neosho madtom (section 5.9(b)(5)). Results from the study would also provide the information needed to prepare a biological assessment, which is necessary for determining whether any listed species are likely to be adversely affected, and whether formal consultation34 is needed.35 GRDA is already proposing to review existing information on these species and to conduct surveys, as needed; therefore, we anticipate no additional cost associated with our recommendation (section 5.9(b)(7)).

Rabbitsfoot Mussel

The FWS’s official species list for the project indicates that the rabbitsfoot mussel (federally threatened) also may occur within the project boundary. The rabbitsfoot mussel historically occurred in the Neosho and Spring Rivers,36 but is currently thought to be extirpated37 from the Oklahoma portion of the Neosho River.38 It is unknown39 whether or not the rabbitsfoot mussel still occurs in the Oklahoma portion of the Spring River. In the RSP, GRDA did not propose to include the rabbitsfoot mussel in the rare aquatic species sub-study, because critical habitat is upstream of the area affected by project operation. FWS’s official species list supports GRDA’s conclusion that the

abundance of each species in habitats affected by project operation relative to the total abundance of each species in habitats in the project vicinity. 34 A process between the Services and a federal agency or applicant that determines whether a proposed Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat (50 CFR, section 402.14). 35 50 CFR, section 402.12 (a). 36 Butler, R. S. 2005. Status assessment report for the rabbitsfoot, Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica, a freshwater mussel occurring in the Mississppi River and Great Lakes Basins. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. July 2005. 37 An organism that is extirpated is locally extinct from a geographic location where it historically occurred. 38 77 Fed. Reg. 63453 (October 16, 2012). 39 The Proposed Rule for listing the rabbitsfoot mussel (77 Fed. Reg. 63454 [October 16, 2012]) indicates that the rabbitsfoot mussel is extant and declining in the Kansas and Missouri portions of the Spring River, but there is no indication of its occurrence in the Oklahoma portion of the Spring River.

B-15

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

project occurs outside of critical habitat for the rabbitsfoot mussel. Nevertheless, the absence of critical habitat does not eliminate the potential for the rabbitsfoot mussel to occur within the project boundary. Further, the most recent information regarding the presence of the rabbitsfoot mussel in the Oklahoma portions of Neosho and Spring Rivers is over 6 years old.40 The rabbitsfoot mussel also has the potential to be affected by changes in habitat associated with reservoir fluctuations or increased reservoir elevations.

As with the Neosho mucket and Neosho madtom, up-to-date information on the rabbitsfoot mussel presence, density, and distribution in the project vicinity is needed to estimate the proportion of the population that could be affected by reservoir fluctuations or increased reservoir elevations. The rare aquatic species sub-study, with modifications discussed above in the Neosho Mucket and Neosho Madtom subsection, and the addition of rabbitsfoot mussel, would provide the information needed to determine the potential effects of project operation on the rabbitsfoot mussel (section 5.9(b)(5)), and whether formal consultation is needed. Thus, we recommend including the rabbitsfoot mussel in the rare aquatic species sub-study. We anticipate that conducting a review of existing information on the rabbitsfoot mussel would increase the cost of the study by $3,000, and including rabbitsfoot mussel in any survey methodology, would add no additional cost, because GRDA is already proposing to conduct mussel surveys, as needed.

Winged Mapleleaf Mussel

The FWS’s official species list for the project indicates that the winged mapleleaf mussel (federally endangered) also may occur within the project boundary. The winged mapleleaf mussel historically occurred in the Kansas portion of the Neosho and Spring Rivers, but these populations are now considered extirpated.41 There is no documentation of winged mapleleaf occurrence, historically or at present, in the Oklahoma portion of the Neosho and Spring Rivers. Nevertheless, the winged mapleleaf mussel is on the FWS’s official species list, and including it in the rare aquatic species sub-study is necessary for the same reasons discussed for the Neosho mucket, Neosho madtom, and rabbitsfoot mussel. Thus, we recommend including the winged mapleleaf mussel in the rare aquatic species sub-study. For the same reasons discussed above for rabbitsfoot mussel, we anticipate that adding the winged mapleleaf mussel to the study would increase the cost of the study by $3,000.

40 The most recent information is in Proposed Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 63439-63536 (October 16, 2012). 41 FWS. 2015. Winged Mapleleaf (Quadrula fragusa), 5-year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities Field Office, Bloomington, Minnesota. May 2015.

B-16

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

Neosho Smallmouth Bass

The Neosho smallmouth bass is a subspecies42 that is endemic to some tributaries of the Arkansas River, including tributaries that flow into Grand Lake, such as the Elk River (Taylor et al., 2016).43 The Neosho smallmouth bass is not a federally or state- listed species, but there is conservation interest in the species because of its limited distribution and vulnerability to genetic hybridization with non-native, northern smallmouth bass strains (Taylor et al., 2018).44 Further, there is some interest in stocking Grand Lake and its tributaries with Neosho smallmouth bass to create a higher density angling opportunity (Tayler et al., 2016; Taylor et al., 2018).

Maintaining the Neosho smallmouth bass population in Grand Lake and its tributaries depends on successful reproduction. Smallmouth bass reproduction requires that females release eggs into a nest on the river-bottom. Males build the nest in areas with gravel or larger substrate and minimal fine sediment, but not in areas with thick layers of silt and clay (Dauwalter and Fisher, 2007).45 As discussed above for the paddlefish sub-study, increasing the reservoir elevation could lead to a reduction of coarse/hard substrates in Grand Lake tributaries. Loss of coarse/hard substrates could further lead to a loss of smallmouth bass spawning habitat and reduced reproductive potential. Loss of this habitat could negatively affect the ability of Neosho smallmouth bass to maintain their populations, and reduce the potential for creating a high-density smallmouth bass fishery in Grand Lake.

As part of item 1 of the rare aquatic species sub-study, GRDA would review existing information on Neosho smallmouth bass habitat preferences. However, GRDA’s

42 Neosho smallmouth bass are genetically and morphologically divergent from other smallmouth bass strains. 43 Taylor, A. T., J. M. Long, M. R. Schwemm, M. D. Tringali, and S. K. Brewer. 2016. Identification of Neosho smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu velox) stocks for possible introduction into Grand Lake, Oklahoma. Final report to the Environmental Department of the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma. 44 Northern smallmouth bass are not stocked into Grand Lake, but anglers have reported the presence of non-native Tennessee lake-strain smallmouth bass in Grand Lake (Taylor et al., 2018). Taylor, A. T., J. M. Long, M. R. Schwemm, and S. K. Brewer. 2018. Hybridization and genetic structure of Neosho smallmouth bass in the Ozark Highlands. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. [Online only] https://doi.org/10:1002/nafm.10225 Accessed October 2018. 45 Dauwalter, D. C., and W. L. Fisher. 2007. Spawning chronology, nest site selection and nest success of smallmouth bass during benign streamflow conditions. American Midland Naturalist, 158:60-78. B-17

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

proposal does not include a review of available spawning habitat. Because of the importance of spawning habitat to maintenance of the population and the potential for spawning habitat to be affected by raising the reservoir elevation, we recommend that item 1 of the sub-study include a review of existing information on Neosho smallmouth bass spawning habitat availability in the project vicinity.

As part of item 2 of the rare aquatic species sub-study, GRDA would conduct targeted field surveys needed to understand each species’ distribution. We recommend that any surveys conducted as part of item 2 of the rare aquatic species sub-study also include surveys to assess the availability of spawning habitat during the spawning season under existing conditions. Including the above recommendations in study items 1 and 2 of the rare aquatic species sub-study would help identify where Neosho smallmouth bass spawning habitat exists. GRDA could use that information to determine whether those locations occur in areas that could be negatively affected by raising the reservoir elevation under item 3 of the rare aquatic species sub-study (section 5.9(b)(5)).

We specifically recommend that GRDA modify item 3 of the rare aquatic species sub-study methodology to include comparison of the information collected in items 1 and 2 with the maps of the lentic and lotic boundary produced as part of the paddlefish sub- study to identify the proportion of Neosho smallmouth bass spawning habitat affected by raising the reservoir elevation, relative to all Neosho smallmouth bass spawning habitat in the project vicinity. Estimating the proportion of spawning habitat affected by project operation would provide the context for identifying potential impacts to the Neosho smallmouth bass population and the need for protective measures, and therefore would be a necessary addition to the study proposal (section 5.9(b)(4); section 5.9(b)(5)).

Mapping Habitat in the Fluctuation Zone Oklahoma DWC requests that GRDA conduct a study consisting of mapping habitat in the reservoir fluctuation zone. Oklahoma DWC indicates that the study would help determine potential impacts of reservoir fluctuations on species that may use littoral zone46 habitat and the need for mitigation or operational changes. As discussed above, existing information on habitat already exists for paddlefish, and we are recommending that GRDA collect spawning habitat information for Neosho smallmouth bass. With these exceptions, we are unable to identify the need for habitat data. For the federally listed species identified above, there would be no benefit to collecting additional habitat data, given that we are recommending that GRDA conduct surveys as part of the rare aquatic species sub-study to identify the occurrence, density, and distribution of those species, which would be adequate for identifying project effects (section 5.9(b)(4)). Further, results from the H&H modeling study discussed above, would be adequate for identifying whether reservoir fluctuations could affect other common species that use the

46 The littoral zone is the shallow, near-shore region of the reservoir. B-18

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

littoral zone habitat in Grand Lake (e.g., largemouth bass, white bass, and crappie). Thus, with the exception of gathering information on spawning habitat for smallmouth bass, we do not recommend conducting any additional habitat surveys or mapping in the reservoir as part of the rare aquatic species sub-study.

Recreation Facilities Inventory and Use Survey

Applicant’s Proposed Study

Operation of the Pensacola Project has the potential to affect public access and recreation. Lake level fluctuation associated with different operating regimes may affect the usability of boat launches and other recreation amenities. Overcrowding of public recreation facilities may affect visitor experiences at the project. Further, recreation use of the project has the potential to negatively affect environmental and cultural resources. GRDA proposes to conduct a recreation facilities inventory and use survey to gather information regarding current recreation use at the project, and to identify recreation resources and public access areas within the project boundary that may be affected by project operations. GRDA would then characterize the existing recreation use, and estimate future demand to determine the need for recreation improvements at the project over the term of a new license.

To achieve the goals of the study, GRDA proposes to conduct facility condition assessments at each of its five Commission-approved project recreation facilities. GRDA also proposes to assemble historical visitor use data, conduct field reconnaissance and in-person visitor use interviews, and collect boat launch elevation data for a total of 13 recreation sites including five Commission-approved public access areas, six state parks, and two non-project public access sites along the reservoir. GRDA would also make periodic observations of informal recreation access points downstream from the project to assess recreational use of the project’s spillway channels.

Comments on the Study

Oklahoma DWC recommends that GRDA survey additional locations in the mid- and upper-lake areas. The City of Miami recommends that the study encompass the full geographic range of recreational opportunities that could be affected by the project. Specifically, the City recommends that the study include an assessment of the project’s effects on access to and use of Riverview Park, Rotary Park, the Boys and Girls Club, the local fairgrounds, and the public pool.

Oklahoma DWC recommends that GRDA conduct visitor use surveys on days and at times when user groups other than anglers and recreational boaters, such as hunters or wildlife viewers, are likely to be present. Oklahoma DWC recommends that surveys of

B-19

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

visitor use extend to the period from October through January to capture waterfowl and deer seasons, and peak migratory bird concentrations.

Discussion and Staff Recommendation

Survey Locations

As GRDA noted in its pre-application document (PAD), filed February 1, 2017, Grand Lake is the premier recreation destination in northeastern Oklahoma. Based on an assessment of recreation facilities conducted to support GRDA’s Licensed Hydropower Development Recreation Report (FERC Form 80) in 2015, Grand Lake supported 90 boat launch areas, 58 marinas, 15 swim areas, 27 campgrounds with over 2,000 camp and cottage sites, 47 active recreation areas (e.g., playgrounds, golf courses), 32 picnic areas, 7 overlooks, and 6 visitor centers. The five FERC-licensed project recreation facilities at Duck Creek, Seaplane Base, Monkey Island, Big Hollow, and Wolf Creek represent only a fraction of the public recreation areas at Grand Lake. With the exception of Wolf Creek Public Access (which has amenities for picnicking), the five FERC-licensed facilities provide only parking and boat launches and offer little diversity of experience for visitors.

In the RSP, GRDA expanded its study to include surveys of the six state parks on the lake (Twin Bridges [Upper and Lower], Bernice, Honey Creek, Disney/Little Blue, Cherokee [Main and Lakeside], and Cherokee [Riverside] State Parks); two non-project sites providing recreation access to the project (Connors Bridge and Riverview Park); and informal recreation access points downstream of the project dam. The expansion of the study to include these access areas would improve the range of visitor types and recreation uses surveyed at Grand Lake. However, even with those additions, no study data would be collected from large geographic areas around the project. Geographic coverage is needed to collect information from people approaching the project from different neighborhoods, towns, and access routes, and using different parts of the impoundment. We recommend modifying the recreation facilities inventory and use survey to include three additional study sites to increase the geographic coverage of the survey: the Spring River and Council Cove access areas in the lake’s upper section, and Willow Park, in Ketchum, which is located in a geographically isolated area of Grand Lake’s lower end. These three sites are easily accessible, and including them in the recreation study would produce a more complete study of recreation use at Grand Lake (section 5.9(b)(6)).

Regarding the City of Miami’s comment that GRDA expand the study to assess the effects of project operation on recreation access at Riverview Park, Rotary Park, the Boys and Girls’ Club, the local fairgrounds, and the public pool, GRDA has expanded the recreation facilities inventory and use study to include Riverview Park. Of the recreation

B-20

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

sites listed in the City of Miami’s comment, Riverview Park is the most appropriate site to survey visitor use, because it provides direct access to the project’s reservoir and supports recreation use that is consistent with project purposes including boating, fishing, and picnicking.47 Requiring additional surveys of recreation use at Rotary Park, the Boys and Girls’ Club, the fairgrounds, and the public pool would be unlikely to inform the development of license criteria related to the provision of adequate public access for recreation at the project, or the effects of recreation at the project on environmental or cultural resources (section 5.9(b)(5)) because these facilities have little nexus to project- related recreation, outside of their potential to be affected by flooding in upper Grand Lake or its tributaries. Therefore, we do not recommend modifying the study plan to include recreation use surveys at these sites.48

Study Season and Survey Questionnaire

Oklahoma DWC recommends that the survey season be expanded into the fall and early winter, and that the visitor interview questionnaire be modified to accommodate different types of recreation use at the project, particularly recreation that occurs outside of the primary recreation season of May through September (Memorial Day to Labor Day). Extending the survey season through January to gather information on hunting and wildlife viewing would not be cost-effective because of the relatively low use and dispersed nature of recreation activity in the fall and early winter compared to the summer season. We recommend that GRDA focus its survey effort on the times during which the majority of recreation use occurs at Grand Lake, which is the summer (section 5.9(b)(7)). Though participation in water-based activities dominates recreational pursuits, useful data on off-season participation in land-based activities, including hunting and wildlife viewing, could be collected efficiently through the through the proposed peak-season recreation use survey. It is likely that some summer survey respondents participate in hunting and wildlife viewing in the fall and early-winter seasons, thus, the survey could collect data on previous hunting and wildlife viewing participation.

In order to collect the fall and early-winter information, we recommend the following modifications to the summer survey questionnaires for both GRDA and non-

47 City of Miami, Oklahoma. “George Francis Riverview Park.” https://www.miamiokla.net/Facilities/Facility/Details/George-Francis-Riverview-Park- 24. [Online Only.] Accessed October 25, 2018. 48 Staff’s recommendations related to studying the extent to which project operations affects flooding of public infrastructure, including recreation sites within the City of Miami, is discussed in greater detail in the discussion of the infrastructure improvement study.

B-21

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

GRDA recreation sites: (1) add wildlife viewing as an option in Question 10 of both surveys; (2) include a new question requesting that visitors identify any recreation activities, including hunting and wildlife viewing, which they have participated in on any trip to the Grand Lake area within the past year;49 and (3) add clarifying information defining the rating scale to be used in Question 13 in both surveys (revise to allow for respondents to rate the variables for each specific recreation activity). With these modifications to the summer survey, we do not recommend modifying the study plan to extend the survey season.

Cultural Resources Study

GRDA proposes to conduct a cultural resources study to evaluate project-related effects on cultural resources and meet the requirements of section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). This study would determine the extent to which the project may affect historic properties within the project’s area of potential effects (APE) and identify appropriate management measures for cultural resources in consultation with a Cultural Resources Working Group (CRWG).

Tribal Consultation

Applicant’s Proposed Study

As part of the cultural resources study, GRDA would: (1) hold quarterly meetings with the CRWG, of which the consulting tribes are members and (2) schedule individual meetings with tribes to discuss the traditional cultural properties component of the cultural resources study at times and locations of each tribe’s choosing.

Comments on the Study

Comments regarding tribal consultation received from the BIA, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, and Osage Nation emphasize the need for the Commission to conduct government-to-government consultation with Native American tribes. Commenters emphasize the importance of early and frequent consultation with all tribes that have interests in the project area and the need to consult with tribes prior to conducting any field surveys. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, supported by the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, requests that Commission staff and GRDA consult in person with the CRWG no later than 60 days after the issuance of the study plan determination and every quarter thereafter. BIA requests that Commission staff attend all quarterly CRWG meetings.

49 Activity options would be identical to those listed for Question 10. B-22

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

Discussion and Staff Recommendation

To date, Commission staff met with tribes, in-person, to discuss the Pensacola Project relicensing on four occasions (December 13 and 14, 2017, May 31, 2018, and August 21, 2018). Staff will further evaluate the need for holding additional Tribal Consultation meetings in conjunction with the ISR meeting after the first year of studies is completed, in accordance with the Commission’s Policy Statement on Consultation with Indian Tribes in Commission Proceedings (18 CFR 2.1(c)). We recommend that, to the extent possible and appropriate, tribes work directly with GRDA through the CRWG to address issues of concern, as included in the cultural resource study methodology [section 5.9(b)(6)]. We also recommend that GRDA modify the schedule for the cultural resource study to hold a CRWG meeting within 60 days of the issuance of this study plan determination, as requested by the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma. Commission staff’s attendance at the quarterly CRWG meetings will likely be limited to participation via teleconferencing.

Area of Potential Effects

Applicant’s Proposed Study

In section 2.5 of the RSP, under cultural resources, GRDA tentatively defines the project’s APE as follows:

All lands within the FERC-approved project boundary. The APE also includes lands or properties outside the project boundary where project operations or project-related recreation activities or other enhancements may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist.

GRDA proposes to refine the APE in consultation with the CRWG, as necessary, based on the results of the H&H study, other relicensing studies, and information gathered during the first year of the cultural resources study.

Comments on the Study

The Cherokee Nation, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Osage Nation, and Quapaw Nation filed comments on the APE. The comments indicate that the tribes do not oppose GRDA’s phased approach to defining the project’s APE; the depiction of the APE on a map that specifies all affected lands and areas that would be subject to relicensing reconnaissance surveys appears to be the issue in question. The Cherokee Nation states that the phased approach to defining the APE is problematic because it limits the tribe’s ability to engage effectively in government-to-government consultation. The Quapaw

B-23

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

Nation specifically recommends the extension of the APE to include Tar Creek and the Spring River as far as the Oklahoma/Kansas border.

Discussion and Staff Recommendation

GRDA’s definition of the Pensacola Project’s APE is consistent with the requirements of section 106 and the definition of a project’s APE provided at 36 CFR 800.16(d), which would encompass project-related effects both within and outside the project boundary. Using the existing project boundary as a baseline for the first year of fieldwork is appropriate. Following completion of study year one, GRDA should consult with the CRWG to refine the APE, if necessary.

We recommend approving GRDA’s definition of the APE and the process to map and refine it as described in the RSP. However, in accordance with section 106 (36 CFR 800.4[a]), as the Commission’s designated non-federal representative for the purposes of section 106, GRDA must also consult with and request concurrence from the Oklahoma SHPO and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) for tribes with lands within the project boundary on the final APE. All correspondence with the Oklahoma SHPO and THPOs should be filed with the Commission. The final APE should clearly identify: (1) the project boundary; (2) lands outside the project boundary that are included in the final APE, and (3) the specific locations of any tribal trust lands that GRDA and BIA determine are within the project boundary. The maps will serve as the basis for the subsequent Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) proposed by GRDA and the Commission’s environmental analysis of the project’s effects on cultural resources.

Schedule and Timing

Applicant’s Proposed Study

GRDA proposes a two-year period to conduct background research and archeological fieldwork. The first study year would include developing a pre-fieldwork study report, followed by reconnaissance and surveys between May 2019 and December 31, 2019. GRDA expects to conduct a second field season from May through December 31, 2020. GRDA would file survey reports along with ISR, in November 2019, an Updated Study Report (USR), in November 2020, and provide a supplemental study report on work conducted in the fall and winter of 2020, in Quarter 1 of 2021. As part of its archaeological investigations, GRDA would formally evaluate sites for listing in the National Register, in consultation with the CRWG, during study year one and study year two if: (a) the project may be having on ongoing adverse effect on the integrity of the sites, or (b) the results of the reconnaissance surveys indicate that a site is not likely to be eligible for listing. The results of these National Register evaluations would be presented in GRDA’s ISR and USR prior to preparation of the license application. Any unevaluated sites would be assumed eligible for listing in the National Register for the B-24

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

purposes of developing the HPMP. GRDA would use the same two-year timeframe to conduct its proposed TCP inventory and develop an HPMP, which it would file with its final license application.

Comments on the Study

In its comments on the RSP, the Osage Nation requests that the two-year study period be expanded so that all necessary cultural resource investigations can be completed prior to the issuance of a new license. The Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and Osage Nation also request that National Register evaluations and assessments of effects for all identified resources be conducted during the two-year pre-application study period and prior to any license renewal.

Discussion and Staff Recommendation

The Commission’s ILP anticipates the potential need for two years of study to gather data. This schedule is set by federal regulation (18 CFR section 5.15). Data collected are included in a license application and assist Commission staff in its analysis of project-related effects on environmental resources. GRDA has developed its cultural resource study in accordance with the timeline established by the Commission’s regulations.

The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma notes that 36 CFR 800.1(c) of the implementing regulations of section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, states that the section 106 process must be completed prior to the issuance of any new license. However, as specified in 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2) of the implementing regulations for section 106, for large undertakings, an agency “may also approve a phased identification and evaluation process and defer final identification and evaluation of historic properties if it is specifically provided for in a memorandum of agreement executed pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6.” While the Commission encourages licensees and applicants to identify and evaluate all historic properties within a project’s APE prior to the submittal of a final license application, it is not always possible to do so. In such situations, an executed Programmatic Agreement (PA) would call for the implementation of a management plan that clearly specifies all outstanding activities, including any additional identification and evaluation efforts, and a process and schedule to complete them. This alternative to the standard section 106 process is also consistent with the guidance provided in the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) and Commission’s joint document Guidelines for the

B-25

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Project (2002).50

With specific regard to the TCP inventory, based on GRDA’s proposed schedule, Commission staff would not have an opportunity to review or comment on the results of the study until the final license application is filed. We recommend that GRDA, to the best of its ability, (a) prepare a summary of study results to date to be filed with the USR, (b) file individual TCP reports for each tribe upon their completion because some studies may take longer than others, and (c) file a final comprehensive TCP report that contains the TCP results for all tribes with the final license application.

Archaeological Survey Methods

Applicant’s Proposed Study

GRDA proposes to conduct archeological surveys in accordance with standards set forth by the Oklahoma SHPO and Osage Nation.51 GRDA would use the Osage Nation’s Archaeological Block Survey Standards for conducting shovel test excavations to identify and delineate the boundaries and depth of identified archaeological resources. If fieldwork determines that some sites are bisected by the boundary of the APE, the entire site would be considered to be within the project APE. GRDA notes in the study plan that the methods may be adapted from the Osage Nation THPO’s Archaeological Block Survey Standards as necessary, based on land ownership and the required survey methods of the specific landowner. If no testing is conducted, GRDA would document the reasons for not doing so.

Comments on the Study

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation and Osage Nation filed comments of support for GRDA’s proposal to use the Osage Nation’s Archaeological Block Survey Standards for conducting shovel test excavations to identify and delineate archaeological sites within the project’s APE.

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation requests that the cultural resources study include evaluation of the 125 archaeological sites with unknown National Register eligibility

50 Available Online: https://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen- info/guidelines/hpmp.pdf. 51 Oklahoma SHPO. 2013. Fact Sheet #16: Guidelines for Developing Archaeological Survey Reports in Oklahoma and Report Components. Available Online: www.okhistory.org/shpo/factsheets/fs16archreports.pdf Osage Nation Historic Preservation Office. 2016. Archaeological Block Survey Standards. Osage Nation Historic Preservation Office, Pawhuska, OK. B-26

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

statuses and the 19 sites that have unassessed eligibility statuses listed in section 6.9 of the PAD.

Discussion and Staff Recommendation

As noted in Section 2.6.4 of the RSP and in GRDA’s response to comments, GRDA states that it will consult with the Oklahoma SHPO, OAS, tribes, THPOs, and BIA to “confirm the appropriate survey methods” and to “determine if the proposed methods are appropriate for non-federal lands within the APE.” This statement indicates that there is some level of uncertainty as to which methodology will be used.

Therefore, we recommend approving the plan for reconnaissance survey and archaeological testing as filed in the RSP, with a modification requiring concurrence on survey methods by the Oklahoma SHPO prior to conducting any fieldwork on non- federal lands used (section 5.9(b)(6)). If the Oklahoma SHPO declines concurrence with use of the Osage Nation’s Archaeological Block Survey Standards, GRDA should consult with the SHPO to determine other appropriate methods that meet the Secretary of the Interior’s standards. In that situation, the Osage Nation THPO’s Archaeological Block Survey Standards would only apply to lands within the APE held in trust by the BIA, with concurrence from the relevant THPO for which the Osage Nation’s methodology is appropriate.

Regarding the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s request for evaluation of the known archeological sites listed in section 6.9 of GRDA’s PAD, we recommend that GRDA modify their pre-fieldwork report to include plans to evaluate these sites in consultation with the CRWG.

Identification of Inundated Resources

Applicant’s Proposed Study

GRDA’s cultural resources study plan does not include procedures to survey areas permanently inundated by Grand Lake. The plan includes provisions for visual reconnaissance and subsurface archaeological testing of exposed shoreline areas during the archaeological study season from October 1 until December 31, 2019. GRDA also intends to develop an HPMP that would “describe management measures for permanently inundated sites, as well as measures for conducting additional surveys and evaluating submerged archaeological sites when and if lake levels allow (e.g., during maintenance drawdowns of the reservoir).”

B-27

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

Comments on the Study

In its comments on the RSP, the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma reiterate previous comments that inundated sites cannot be presumed to be ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and the Osage Nation states that the project HPMP must include a plan for these resources.

Discussion and Staff Recommendation

Reservoir inundation could affect submerged cultural resources and inundated sites cannot be presumed to be ineligible for listing in the National Register. However, options for surveying inundated resources are limited and lowering Grand Lake for the purpose of documenting and assessing such resources would result in environmental and socioeconomic effects and would not generally be regarded as accepted practice in the scientific community (section 5.9(b)(6)). Therefore, GRDA’s proposal to include in an HPMP the requirement to survey areas that may be exposed over any new license term is a reasonable approach to addressing inundated resources.

Traditional Cultural Properties

Applicant’s Proposed Study

GRDA proposes to inventory TCPs at the project through consultation with tribes. GRDA’s TCP inventory would be conducted in accordance with guidance provided in National Register Bulletin No. 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties.52 GRDA would select an ethnographer, in consultation with tribes, to determine appropriate methods for collecting information regarding TCPs. GRDA would conduct the TCP inventory in accordance with the scope developed by each participating tribe.

Comments on the Study

In general, the tribes support GRDA’s proposal for developing tribe-specific approaches to TCP research. In response to GRDA’s recreation facilities inventory and use study, BIA recommends that areas of cultural or religious importance to tribes and areas subject to treaty rights be considered during GRDA’s analysis of recreational use at the project.

52 Parker, P.L. and T.F. King. 1990. National Register Bulletin No. 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places, Washington, D.C. B-28

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

Discussion and Staff Recommendation

We recommend that GRDA include a discussion of any project-related effects to identified TCPs, including but not limited to effects associated with recreational use (section 5.9(b)(4)), in its cultural resources study report. This information should be collected as GRDA conducts its TCP inventory as proposed in the RSP.

Historic Properties Management Plan

Applicant’s Proposed Study

In its RSP, GRDA proposes to develop an HPMP for the project, in consultation with the CRWG and in accordance with the Advisory Council and Commission’s guidelines. The HPMP would direct GRDA’s management of historic properties within the project’s APE throughout the term of a new license.

Comments on the Study

The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, supported by the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, comments that an HPMP is only one of several kinds of mitigation measures and recommended that other measures, such as license conditions, be considered.

Discussion and Staff Recommendation

In general, mitigation measures for adversely affected resources are either identified in the HPMP, or the HPMP would call for these measures to be developed in consultation with the Oklahoma SHPO, OAS, and tribes after license issuance. GRDA’s proposed development of a HPMP, in consultation with the CRWG, would be an appropriate means of addressing project-related effects on cultural resources.

Information Sharing and Confidentiality

Applicant’s Proposed Study

GRDA states that it would distribute relevant cultural resource information to the CRWG so that participants can make meaningful and informed decisions and recommendations. GRDA also states that it will honor any tribe’s written request for confidentiality and would only share sensitive information with other parties pursuant to applicable laws and written approval from a tribe. Additionally, GRDA would coordinate with BIA to maintain the confidentiality of resources identified on tribal trust lands.

B-29

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

Comments on the Study

The Oklahoma SHPO, BIA, Cherokee Nation, Delaware Nation, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and Osage Nation provided PSP comments on previously recorded sites located within the project boundary, particularly sites that may have been inundated following dam construction. BIA and commenting tribes requested that any available information about previous surveys and these sites be distributed to the tribes. This request is reiterated by the Osage Nation in its comments on the RSP. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma recommends that the study plan include the development of a historic properties electronic reading room to house all information regarding cultural resources investigations at the project that would be accessible to consulting tribes as the cultural resources study is implemented.

BIA emphasized the need for confidentiality of TCP information in its comments on the RSP. In particular, BIA recommended that to the extent that tribes have requested documentation on all known sites of cultural properties, that documentation should not be shared with all tribes if the cultural property is traceable to a particular tribe or tribes.

Discussion and Staff Recommendation

In the cultural resources study plan, GRDA proposes to develop a pre-fieldwork report that will include an appendix containing copies of all available previous study reports. GRDA will provide this report and appendix to the CRWG. Because GRDA has already agreed to provide the CRWG with copies of all available information, we do not recommend modifying the study plan to include the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma’s proposed electronic reading room (section 5.9(b)(4)). The request for an electronic reading room may be proposed as a mitigation measure during the development of an HPMP for the project, but we do not recommend modifying the cultural resources study plan to include such a measure.

Sensitive cultural resources information must be carefully protected. While the Commission must view data obtained during the studies to analyze project-related effects in its environmental document, section 304 of the NHPA, as amended, and its implementing regulations found at 36 CFR 800.11(c) allow the Commission to withhold any information about the location, character, or ownership of a historic property from public disclosure when disclosure may cause a significant invasion of privacy, risk harm to the historic property, or impede the use of a traditional religious site by practitioners. For this reason, staff urges GRDA and the CRWG to file any such information as “privileged” so that it would not be accessible to those without a “need to know.” We recommend that GRDA modify the cultural resources study plan to adopt BIA’s recommendations regarding confidentiality (section 5.9(b)(6)).

B-30

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

Socioeconomics Study

Applicant’s Proposed Study

GRDA proposes to use existing information necessary to conduct a qualitative analysis of the socioeconomic effects of the Pensacola Project in the four-county project area (i.e., Craig, Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa Counties, Oklahoma). The purposes of the study are to describe baseline economic conditions, broadly assess the cumulative socioeconomic impacts of the project, and identify the socioeconomic contribution of the project within the project area.

To accomplish the goals of the study, GRDA proposes to gather and analyze baseline demographic and economic data for the four-county project from existing sources including the U.S. Census Bureau and Oklahoma Department of Commerce. GRDA would also query relicensing stakeholders to provide additional existing economic data relating to State and regional industry trends, local tribal and regional trends in land and resource values, and other information that could be potentially relevant to the study. GRDA would use the data collected to produce a qualitative assessment identifying the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable cumulative socioeconomic impacts of the project.

Comments on the Study

The City of Miami recommends that the study fully assess both the direct economic costs of potential project effects (including flooding) on infrastructure as well as the social and societal benefits and costs of operating the project. The City of Miami cites topics including population and demographics, regional employment and income, revenues and expenditures, government finances, public services, and social conditions as components GRDA should address in the socioeconomics study. Further, the City of Miami recommends that the analysis address the project’s potential to cause disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations, including Indian tribes.

BIA recommends that the socioeconomics study analyze the discrete socioeconomic benefits and costs to tribes of continued operation of the project.

Discussion and Staff Recommendation

Data Collection and Distribution

As both GRDA and the City of Miami note, quantitatively determining the socioeconomic costs and benefits of a hydropower development is challenging. The range of economic and social indicators that could be influenced by the project’s B-31

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

presence and continued operation is too diverse to be reliably captured in a quantitative model.53 Additionally, collecting new data to study these factors in a meaningful way would not be cost-effective when existing descriptive data for many indicators exists. Therefore, GRDA’s proposal to use existing information to conduct a broad, qualitative assessment of socioeconomic resources affected by the project is appropriate (section 5.9(b)(6)).

The City of Miami asserts that, in the RSP, GRDA fails to account for social and societal costs and benefits of the project. The City of Miami states that GRDA rejected requests to collect information on population and demographics, regional employment and income, revenues and expenditures, government finances, public services, and social conditions. In the RSP, however, GRDA’s socioeconomic study plan specifically includes a proposal for collecting information on population trends, economic activity and the labor force, age distribution, median household and per capita income, and poverty levels. GRDA also proposes outreach to collect additional information relating to state and regional industry trends; local, tribal, and regional trends in land and resource values; as well as other information that may be potentially relevant to the study from relicensing participants. To make the best use of GRDA’s socioeconomic data information request, we recommend that GRDA modify task 4, Prepare Socioeconomic Study Report, to include an appendix containing electronic copies of documents submitted by stakeholders and links to publically accessible web sites containing such documents. Providing access to all sources available to GRDA for its analysis will aid the analysis of socioeconomic resources.

Environmental Justice

BIA and the City of Miami request that GRDA provide information regarding effects of the project on the socioeconomic condition of specific communities, including tribes. Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” 54 provides that “each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” For the purposes of environmental justice analysis under the

53 We discuss requests to study the direct effects of project operation on infrastructure and capital costs associated with infrastructure improvements in our discussion of the stakeholder-requested infrastructure improvement study. 54 59 Fed. Reg. 7628 (February 16, 1994).

B-32

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

National Environmental Policy Act, the Council on Environmental Quality includes in its definition of minority populations members of American Indian tribes.55

In Scoping Document 2,56 we stated our intent to analyze environmental justice as part of the environmental review of the project. Such an analysis would address the concerns raised by BIA and the City of Miami regarding the effects of relicensing the project on low-income communities and tribes. To provide the level of detail needed for the environmental justice analysis, we recommend that GRDA modify the socioeconomic study plan to include in task 4, Prepare Socioeconomics Study Report, not only a summary of the socioeconomic conditions in the four-county study area, but also tabular data on these conditions reported at the county and census tract level, where such data exist. Because county and regional socioeconomic indicators may be updated more frequently than census tract data, GRDA should clearly state in the study report which data source was used for each level of aggregation (section 5.9(b)(6)).

Infrastructure Study

Study Request

The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma requests that GRDA conduct an infrastructure impacts study. The study would include an analysis of the impact that project operations has on inundation of critical infrastructure such as bridges, roads, water systems, electric transmission, and information and communication technology.

The City of Miami filed a separate study request to address socioeconomic and infrastructure effects of project operations, including flooding.57 The specific infrastructure impacts the City of Miami recommends analyzing include reduced access to emergency services, schools, workplaces, and recreation facilities caused by flooding. In comments on the RSP, the City of Miami also requests that GRDA study the direct effects of flooding on public recreation facilities including Riverview Park, Rotary Park, the Boys and Girls Club, the local fairgrounds, and the public pool.

Commission staff requested similar information about the potential for the project to affect infrastructure in the hydrologic and hydraulic model study request, issued

55 CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, D.C. December 10, 1997. 56 Issued April 27, 2018. 57 We discuss the socioeconomic components of the City of Miami’s study request as part of our recommendations for GRDA’s socioeconomics study. B-33

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

March 13, 2018, which recommended that GRDA’s study provide information on the frequency and depth of flooding of structures, roads, and bridges within the study area.

Discussion and Staff Recommendation

Flooding of critical infrastructure can degrade the structural integrity of public facilities and render them temporarily unusable while causing social and economic disruption on those dependent on the infrastructure. GRDA provided no information on flood infrastructure in its PAD. Rather, GRDA states that infrastructure issues identified by the City of Miami and Miami Tribe of Oklahoma are absent during normal project operations, when the reservoir elevation of Grand Lake is within the conservation pool (i.e., below elevation 745 PD). GRDA states that the Corps has exclusive jurisdiction over Grand Lake when flooding of infrastructure is likely to occur.

Although the Corps has jurisdiction to direct how the project operates under flood conditions, as a general matter, the Commission through a license, authorizes operation of the licensed facilities for all project purposes (including flood control). Further, operation of the project below 745 feet PD could affect the timing and elevation of flooding. For example, there is a large amount of storage potential below 745 feet that could be used to reduce flood elevations under some circumstances (section 5.9(b)(5)). Thus, there is a connection between both project operation directed by the license and project operations directed by the Corps, and the potential combined effects on structures. We expect that the H&H modeling study would refine understanding of this nexus.

Characterizing existing infrastructure that could be affected under flood conditions would help staff analyze the broad effect of project operation (including operation during flood conditions) on land uses, including uses related to infrastructure or municipal recreation areas. Though the Commission does not have the authority to adjudicate claims for, or to require, payment of damages for project-induced adverse effects to private property,58 the results of this analysis could be used to evaluate potential

58 Section 10(c) of the FPA makes clear that a licensee of a hydropower project “shall be liable for all damages occasioned to the property of others by the construction, maintenance, or operation of the project works…” We would not require GRDA to conduct case-specific studies of project effects on non-project structures or study the associated cost of addressing any such effects or potential case-specific mitigation (including specific infrastructure improvements) for such effects, all of which would potentially constitute the payment of damages for such effects. Further, measures that addressed damages, such as paying for or making repairs to non-project structures and infrastructure damaged by project operations, would not be able to be included in a license.

B-34

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

mitigation measures, including changes to project operations or construction and maintenance of physical structures, such as retaining walls, designed to broadly mitigate flooding effects.

We recommend that GRDA adopt the following strategy for assessing infrastructure impacts:

(1) In consultation with stakeholders, determine a list of infrastructure types to be included in the recommended infrastructure study. At a minimum, the list should include bridges, roads, structures, and other public amenities (e.g., recreation facilities) that have the potential to be flooded under all operating scenarios (e.g., by both the Corps-directed flood control operations and GRDA’s project operations).

(2) Using output from the H&H modeling study, determine the range of inflow conditions for which model results show that project operations for hydropower and other purposes under the Federal Power Act in combination with Corps’ directed flood control operations are likely to have an effect on the frequency or depth of flooding. Based on the infrastructure identified in step 1, provide maps and tables identifying the frequency and depth of flooding for each item of infrastructure under existing operations, as defined above, and for the range of inflow conditions where such operations may have an effect on flooding. This information would be included in the ISR, in November 2019.

(3) Provide additional maps and tabular information based on any alterative operating scenarios proposed or developed through consultation, as required in the H&H study.

We anticipate that the cost of an inventory of potentially affected and affected infrastructure would be $50,000.

II. Studies Requested but not Adopted

Federal Lands and Project Boundary/ Flooding Inundation of Tribal Lands Study

Study Request

Miami Tribe, supported by Ottawa Tribe, Peoria Tribe, City of Miami, and Plaintiffs, requests a study to further delineate the project boundary along Grand Lake and its upstream tributaries. The purposes of this study are to: (1) identify a project boundary that fully encloses the project, including areas needed for protection,

B-35

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

mitigation, and enhancement measures (PM&Es); and (2) establish what, if any, federal lands occur within that boundary.

Similarly, BIA requests that GRDA conduct a study to determine if operation of the Pensacola Project affects flooding of lands held in trust by the United States for Indian tribes or allotments held in trust for individual Indians (tribal lands). The purpose of this study is to determine if flooding of the Neosho River, Spring River, and shoreline areas of Oklahoma upstream from Pensacola Dam causes inundation of tribal lands and, if so, to determine the extent of flooding that occurs under different operating scenarios.

Discussion and Staff Recommendation

The requests of both Miami Tribe and BIA relate to the assertion of many stakeholders (i.e., Miami Tribe, Eastern Shawnee Tribe, Ottawa Tribe, Seneca-Cayuga Tribe, Wyandotte Nation, City of Miami, and Plaintiffs) that the Pensacola Project contributes to flooding of areas upstream from Pensacola Dam and that the project boundary should be modified to enclose both the existing flood control pool and other areas that may be subject to frequent inundation. As discussed previously, the results of the recommended H&H model study should establish the extent of project-related flooding around Grand Lake and its upstream tributaries. This information is important to understanding the extent to which the project affects federal lands, the need for potential PM&Es to address effects on environmental or cultural resources, and the adequacy of the proposed project boundary.

As the Commission’s regulations require, in its final license application, GRDA must provide exhibit G maps that show a project boundary enclosing all project works and lands necessary for operation and maintenance of the project and other project purposes including recreation, shoreline control, and protection of environmental resources (see 18 C.F.R section 4.41(h)(2)). Further, the Commission’s regulations require that GRDA provide an exhibit A that describes all lands of the United States that are enclosed within the project boundary, identified and tabulated by legal subdivisions of a public land survey of the affected area or, in the absence of a public land survey, by the best available legal description (see 18 C.F.R. section 4.51(b)(6)).

As identified in Scoping Document 2,59 in a filing of April 11, 2017, BIA provided documentation that lands held in trust by the BIA, for the benefit of one or more federally recognized Indian tribes, occur within the existing Pensacola Project boundary. The results of the studies conducted during relicensing, stakeholder recommendations for PM&Es, and Commission staff’s analysis of the effects of the project on environmental

59 Issued April 27, 2018. B-36

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

and cultural resources will inform the need to make modifications to the project boundary, including enclosing additional federal lands, if needed.

Using this information, the Commission staff will determine the adequacy of GRDA’s proposed project boundary upon review of the draft license application and again after a final application is filed for the project. Further, should the Commission require modifications to GRDA’s proposed project boundary as a license condition, GRDA would be required to file revised maps after a license is issued for the project. Because these requirements exist as part of the licensing process and the studies approved in this determination will provide the necessary information for our reviews, we do not recommend that GRDA conduct a separate study of the need to modify the project boundary or to document the presence of federal lands (section 5.9(b)(4)).

Contaminated Sediment Transport Study

Study Request

The City of Miami requests a contaminated sediment transport study to assess the potential effects of project-induced flooding on the deposition of contaminated sediments, particularly heavy metals that originate from the Tar Creek Superfund Site, in and around Grand Lake. The City of Miami is concerned that GRDA’s proposed sedimentation study would not be sufficient to evaluate contaminated sediment transport, and that a separate study would be needed to specifically assess the potential impact of project-induced flooding on the deposition of contaminated sediments. The contaminated sediment transport study would focus on fine-grained sediment that carries contaminants, while the sedimentation study would focus on larger particle sizes.

The City of Miami's requested study methodology involves: (1) developing a comprehensive model to establish a baseline for toxic sediment transport and estimating the change resulting from proposed project operating scenarios; (2) collecting grab samples of sediment for toxicity testing in the vicinity of Tar Creek, Neosho River, and Miami; and (3) measuring channel geometry and local conditions in at least eight locations to analyze total suspended solids or suspended sediment concentrations. The model also would forecast future impacts over the duration of the license.

In a separate study request,60 the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma requests that GRDA evaluate effects of sediment contamination caused by flooding on plant and wildlife species. The tribe cites several studies showing evidence that local plants and wildlife

60 The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma’s study request is entitled Flora and Fauna Study, and was filed March 13, 2018. Components of the flora and fauna study were incorporated by GRDA into the terrestrial species of concern study. Other aspects of the study, relating to contamination, are discussed here. B-37

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

within the Grand Lake watershed show signs of elevated levels of lead, cadmium, and zinc. The cited studies indicate that plants and wildlife harvested as part of tribal members’ traditional diets exceed recommended consumption levels for these heavy metals. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma states that the additional study is needed to identify the geographic scope of these effects.

The FWS, BIA, Oklahoma DWC, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, Peoria Tribe, Seneca-Cayuga Nation, Wyandotte Nation, and Local Environmental Action Demanded Agency (LEAD Agency) support the need for a contaminated sediment study. LEAD Agency also recommend core sampling and extending the toxicity study to the entire Grand Lake.

GRDA states that it is not responsible for the heavy metals present in Tar Creek, and that its proposed sedimentation study is sufficient to characterize sediment and sediment transport within Grand Lake and its tributaries. GRDA explains that existing contaminated sediment studies, including those by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have documented that the metals present in, and upstream of, Grand Lake are a result of contamination from the Tar Creek Superfund Site. GRDA states that heavy metal contamination of sediment in Grand Lake is a cumulative effect of seasonal flooding upstream, and is not directly related to project operations.

Discussion and Staff Recommendation

Based on existing information, the degree to which the operation of the project affects contaminated sediment deposition is unclear. Above, we recommend H&H and sedimentation studies to evaluate the potential for project operation to affect flooding, peak flows, and sediment transport in the project headwaters. A finding from these modeling studies showing that flooding, influenced by project operation, contributes to sediment deposition in the overbank areas of the Grand Lake tributaries would demonstrate a possible nexus between project operation and effects of contaminated sediment transport (section 5.9(b)(5)). Such a finding could also indicate the possibility that a contaminated sediment transport study could inform a license requirement (section 5.9(b)(5)). However, until that connection is made, it is premature to require such a study.

We recognize the concern of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and its supporters and their interest in obtaining further information about the extent that project operations may contribute to the toxicity of plants and wildlife of significance to tribes. If, based on the results of the H&H modeling and sedimentation studies, it becomes evident that overbank flooding is influenced by project operation, additional information may be required to describe the effect of such flooding on soil chemistry and potential effects on plants and wildlife.

B-38

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018

P-1494-483

Although we do not a recommend a contaminated sediment transport study at this time, we do recommend that the report for the sedimentation study include an evaluation of the study results from both the H&H modeling and sedimentation studies to determine if project operation affects transport of potentially-contaminated sediment. If this nexus to project operations is established, it would be appropriate to reevaluate the need for a contaminated sediment study during review of the ISR.

B-39

20181108-3052 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/08/2018 Document Content(s) P-1494-438.PDF...... 1-45 Attachment B: Background and Experience Project ID Location Description Size Initiation Completion Surface Contact Name, Address, Date Date Area and Phone Attachment C Cost Proposal

This Cost Proposal must be completed by all offerors and be submitted with their Bid Proposal prior to the bid opening date.

Tasks Identified in Section 2.1 Estimated Hourly Total Hours Rate 1. Cultural Resources Study $ $

Estimated travel and incidental costs1 $ 1 Travel costs should comply with the Oklahoma State Travel Reimbursement Act

Total Costs $

Bidder: ______

By: ______Date: ______( Signature)

Title: ______INSURANCE REQUIREMENT “B”

GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY

MINIMUM INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY

Bodily Injury $500,000.00 per person $1,000,000.00 per occurrence

Property Damage $1,000,000.00 per occurrence

COMPREHENSIVE AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY

Should include owned, non-owned and hired autos

Same limits as General Liability

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

As required by the laws of the State of Oklahoma and Employers’ Liability limit of $100,000.00

These limits could be satisfied by either primary coverage or a combination of primary and umbrella coverage.

A Certificate of Insurance must accompany bids on any work to be performed for GRDA.

The Certificate of Insurance must show the name and address of the insured, the GRDA Purchase Order number and/or description of the job to be performed for GRDA, limits of coverage, policy number, effective and expiration dates, etc. The cancellation clause must provide that the Authority is to receive ten (10) days written notice prior to cancellation or to the making of any material change. The successful bidder must inform the insurance agent to submit a revised Certificate of Insurance at renewal of the coverage if the GRDA work will extend until that time.

GRDA Finance Form 006B (12-2006)

NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT RFQ / RFP # GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY A Non-Collusion Affidavit shall be included with any competitive bid or contract submitted for goods or services exceeding $5,000.00 for this Request for Proposal.

A. For purposes of competitive bid or contract, being of lawful age and first duly sworn on oath, I certify:

1. I am the duly authorized agent of , (Company Name) the bidder submitting the competitive bid which is attached to this statement, for the purpose of certifying the facts pertaining to the existence of collusion among bidders and between bidders and state officials or employees, as well as facts pertaining to the giving or offering of things of value to government personnel in return for special consideration in the letting of any contract pursuant to said bid;

2. I am fully aware of the facts and circumstances surrounding the making of the bid to which this statement is attached and have been personally and directly involved in the proceedings leading to the submission of such bid; and

3. Neither the bidder, nor contractor, nor anyone subject to the bidder’s or contractor’s direction or control, has been a party:

a. to any collusion among bidders in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid at a fixed price or to refrain from bidding, b. to any collusion with any state official or employee as to quantity, quality or price in the prospective contract, or as to any other terms of such prospective contract, nor c. in any discussions between bidders and any state official concerning exchange of money or other thing of value for special consideration in the letting of a contract, nor, whether competitively bid or not, has paid, given or donated or agreed to pay, give or donate to any officer or employee of the State of Oklahoma any money or other thing of value, either directly or indirectly, in procuring this contract herein.

B. The contractor further certifies that no person who has been involved in any manner in the development of said contract while employed by the State of Oklahoma shall be employed to fulfill any of the services provided for under said contract.

C. If any contract pursuant to this bid is for professional services as defined in 74 O.S. § 85.2.25, and if the final product is a written proposal, report or study, the contractor further certifies that (s)he has not previously provided the state agency or any other state agency with a final product that is a substantial duplication of the final product of the proposed contract.

Authorized Signature Certified this Date

Printed Name Title

State of County of

Subscribed and sworn to me this day of , 20

Notary Seal: Notary Public Signature

My commission expires:

My commission number:

Grand River Dam Authority is an agency of the State of Oklahoma. Administrative Headquarters • 226 West Dwain Willis Avenue • Vinita, Oklahoma 74301 • 918-256-5545

GRDA Finance Form 002A (Revised 07-08-2010) MINIMUM SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

The Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA) will consider the safety records of potential contractors prior to awarding bids on contracts. Any bid submitted must include the following documents:

The Bidder shall include the past five (5) years’ Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 300 and OSHA 300A logs

The Bidder shall include the past five (5) years’ National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) worker’s compensation experience rating sheets

GRDA requires that Bidders answer the following questions and submit supporting documentation upon request:

1. Does the Bidder have a written safety program?  Yes  No

2. Does the Bidder conduct regular site safety inspections?  Yes  No

3. Does the Bidder have an active safety training program?  Yes  No

If any subcontractors are used, Contractor must obtain advanced GRDA approval in writing. Prior to such approval, all subcontractors may be required to submit the documents defined in the Minimum Safety Requirements section of this document.

SUBCONTRACTORS

In case this proposal is accepted by GRDA, the following subcontractors will be used (if no work will be subcontracted, state “NONE”):

Subcontractor identification is for information only and award of Contract does not constitute approval of identified subcontractors nor relieve the Bidder of the responsibility for providing qualified subcontractors. If any other subcontractors are used, Contractor must obtain GRDA advanced approval in writing.

Work Subcontracted Firm Name and Address ______

EXCEPTION STATEMENT

This part of the proposal must be completed even if no exceptions are stated.

EXCEPTIONS (Attach additional pages if required. If no exceptions, state “NONE”.)

BIDS CONTAINING EXCEPTIONS TO THE CONTRACT AND/OR SPECIFICATIONS MAY BE REJECTED AS NON-RESPONSIVE. ______

GRDA Visa Payment (EPay Program)

NOTE: This is not a credit card payment at time of sale (POS transaction). It is an electronic VISA payment after an invoice has been submitted and processed for payment. Payment terms on VISA payments are in accordance with those agreed upon on the solicitation and the resulting PO/Contract. When a vendor elects to accept payment by EPay, the vendor will be assigned a 16-digit ghost account number (no physical plastic) which remains at a zero credit limit until an invoice is received from the vendor and processed by GRDA Accounts Payable. Once an invoice from a vendor has been processed for payment the vendor will receive a secure remittance advice via email providing the invoice information and full card account information authorizing the vendor to run the card and post the transaction at which time the account credit limit will return to zero until the next payment. To learn more about the benefits of the Visa payment program, and to obtain answers to FAQ, click or copy and paste the following URL into your browser: www.bankofamerica.com/epayablesvendors. Will accept payment by Visa: Yes ____ No ____ (check one)

Visa acceptance signature: ______Designated Accounts Receivable Contact for Visa remittance advices:

Name: ______Phone: ______Email: ______

If a vendor elects to not accept EPay as the payment method, additional terms which provide discounts for earlier payment may be evaluated when making an award. Any such additional terms shall be for discounts for payment to be made no less than ten (10) days and may increase in five (5) day increments up to thirty (30) days. Discounts offered must be in half or whole percent increments. The date from which the discount time is calculated shall be the date of a valid invoice. An invoice is considered valid if it is sent to the proper recipient, the invoiced goods or services have been received, and the invoice includes sufficient detail as identified in the solicitation.

GENERAL BIDDING INSTRUCTIONS FOR SEALED BIDS GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY

1. Bids shall be opened by the Purchasing Unit at the Grand River Dam Authority (hereinafter referred to as “GRDA” or “the Authority”) Administrative Headquarters, 226 West Dwain Willis Avenue, Vinita, Oklahoma 74301 on the date (and time, if applicable) shown on the attached RFQ or RFP form. Bids shall be in conformity with these and any additional instructions to bidders and shall be submitted on GRDA’s form. The RFQ (Request for Quote) or RFP (Request for Proposal) form must be completed in full and signed by the bidder. If your bid response necessitates additional space, you may attach additional pages; however, the RFQ or RFP form shall be completed, signed and reference the additional pages. All bid responses shall be typewritten or handwritten in ink, and any corrections to bids shall be initialed in ink. Quotations or proposals submitted in pencil shall not be accepted.

2. Sealed bids shall be submitted to the GRDA Purchasing Unit in a properly marked envelope or package, and shall be sealed. The name and address of the bidder shall be printed on the exterior of the envelope or package. The RFQ or RFP number and bid opening date shall be referenced on the face of the sealed envelope or package. Unmarked bids shall be rejected and returned to the bidder. Neither fax nor e-mail submissions shall be accepted for sealed bid requirements, as they negate the confidentiality of the bid. Any bid received via fax or e-mail for a sealed bid requirement shall be rejected and returned to the bidder. Bid opening time extensions shall not be granted. Bids received after the opening time and date shall not be considered. This is a formal bidding procedure with all bid packets recorded upon receipt and held unopened under lock until the bid opening at the time, date and location listed on the RFQ or RFP. At public bid openings, a short description of the item and the bid price will be read. The information shall be recorded on a bid tabulation to be used during the subsequent bid evaluation. Interested bidders may make an appointment to review quotations after an evaluation, recommendation and bid award has been made.

3. Non-Collusion Certificate: RFQs or RFPs anticipated to exceed a total amount of $5,000 shall be accompanied by a Non-Collusion Certificate. This certificate shall be completed by the bidder and include an original signature in ink of an authorized company representative (preferably the bidder) with full knowledge and acceptance of the bid proposal. The Non-Collusion Certificate with original signature shall be mailed with the bid response to the attention of the Contracting & Acquisitions Agent listed on the RFQ or RFP. Purchase orders in excess of $5,000 will not be released to the successful bidder without receipt of a properly signed certificate for the bid.

4. In the event the unit price and line total extension do not agree, the unit price shall be considered the quoted price accepted for evaluation.

5. Freight Terms: All prices shall be quoted FOB: Destination/Freight Allowed. All packaging, handling, shipping and delivery charges shall be included in the unit price quoted for each line item. No exceptions shall be granted unless approved by the guidelines of the GRDA Chief Financial Officer or designee.

6. Other Surcharges: Any additional surcharges (such as HazMat charges, fuel surcharges, set-up fees, etc.) shall be included in the unit price quoted for each line item. All additional charges are considered a part of the cost of the goods, and bids shall be evaluated to include these additional charges.

7. Tax-Exempt Status: GRDA is an agency of the state of Oklahoma and is specifically exempt from the payment of sales tax by Oklahoma state statute, Title 68 O.S.A. § 1356 (10). An excerpt from the statute shall be furnished upon request.

8. Questions arising during the bidding process should be submitted in writing to the Contracting & Acquisitions Agent named on the RFQ or RFP. The GRDA Contracting & Acquisitions Agent shall coordinate a reply from the end user to ensure that all potential bidders are provided the same information. Under no circumstances shall a bidder discuss pricing with any GRDA employee prior to the bid opening.

9. All bids submitted shall be subject to GRDA’s Purchasing Policy and Procedures, General Terms and Conditions, the bidding instructions and specifications, the Oklahoma Open Records Act, other statutory regulations as applicable, and any other terms and conditions listed or attached herein – all of which are made part of this Request for Quote or Request for Proposal.

10. GRDA reserves the right to reject any and all bids, and to contract as the best interests of the Authority may require. GRDA reserves the right to reject any bids that do not comply with the requirements and specifications of the Request for Quote or Request for Proposal. All bid responses become the property of GRDA and are subject to the Oklahoma Open Records Act. GRDA shall endeavor to protect technical information designated by the bidder as proprietary information; however, only technical information (i.e., “trade secrets”) may be considered proprietary – pricing and other non-technical aspects of the quote shall be considered non-proprietary.

11. “Sole Brand” or “No Sub” Items: Items with a “Sole Brand” or “No Sub” designation in the description shall be furnished as the specified manufacturer and model/part number. No exception may be taken to the specification, and no alternate shall be accepted. In those cases where a manufacturer has discontinued the specified model/part number, the bidder shall indicate so on the RFQ. If a replacement item is available, the new model/part number shall be indicated on the RFQ form and the price quoted. It shall also be noted whether the replacement item is a direct replacement for the obsolete part number originally requested. If not, or if the specifications differ in any way, the bidder shall explain in detail, and corresponding drawings or descriptive literature shall be included with the quote. Page 1 of 2 GRDA Finance Form 004 (Rev 07-08-2010) GENERAL BIDDING INSTRUCTIONS FOR SEALED BIDS GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY

12. Approved Equivalents: Unless an item is designated as a “Sole Brand” or “No Sub” item, any manufacturer’s name, brand name, information and/or catalog number listed in a specification is for informational or cross-reference purposes and is not intended to limit competition. Bidders may offer any brand/manufacturer for which they are an authorized representative, provided it meets or exceeds the specification of the listed item. However, if quoting an equivalent product, bidders shall indicate on the RFQ form the manufacturer’s name and part number. Bidder shall also submit any drawings, descriptive literature and specifications for evaluation purposes. Reference to literature submitted with a previous bid shall not satisfy this provision. The bidder shall also provide written confirmation that the proposed equivalent will meet the requested specifications and is not considered an exception. Bids which do not comply with these requirements may be rejected. GRDA warehouses are not permitted to accept any item with a part number differing from that quoted by the bidder. Bids lacking any written indication of intent to furnish an alternate brand, model or part number shall be considered to be in complete compliance with the specifications as listed on the RFQ.

13. Insurance Certificates: Any service to be performed that requires the vendor’s employee, vehicle or equipment to be on any GRDA property must be covered by minimum insurance requirements. The workscope to be performed for the Authority shall be evaluated and the minimum insurance requirements shall be provided to prospective bidders with the RFQ or RFP. Evidence of insurance coverage shall be furnished in the form of a Certificate of Insurance, and shall be submitted with the bid response. Bidders shall disclose any subcontractors to be used, and the Authority shall consider the supplier as the single point of contact. The supplier shall assume responsibility for the performance of the subcontractor. Policies shall remain current for the duration of the requested service period, and GRDA shall be notified of any cancellation or revision to policies. Purchase Orders shall not be released to the successful bidder without a current Certificate of Insurance naming GRDA as certificate holder on file. A Memorandum of Insurance shall not be acceptable for this requirement.

14. MSDS: Material Safety Data Sheets shall be furnished to GRDA’s Safety Department at the address noted on the PO prior to delivery of items.

15. Purchase Orders shall be awarded to the “lowest and best” or “best value” bidder. Line items may be split into multiple orders, taking low items from each respective bidder, or orders may be awarded on an “all or none” basis, whichever is in the best interests of the Authority. Award decisions are further subject to consideration of any additional terms and conditions contained in the bid proposal. Vendor protests must be submitted in writing to the Central Purchasing Unit of GRDA within thirty-six (36) hours of award of Contract or Purchase Order.

16. Successful vendor shall deliver the merchandise or perform the service as quoted. Substitutions or changes without prior approval of the GRDA Contracting & Acquisitions Agent shall be rejected and returned at the vendor’s expense.

17. Bidder Responsibilities: Bidders are to transact all phases of the purchasing function directly with the GRDA Contracting & Acquisitions Agent. Bidders are to conduct all written and verbal communication with the Authority through the GRDA Contracting & Acquisitions Agent. Bidders are to conduct negotiations ethically, without attempts to influence through offers of valuable personal gifts or entertainment. Bidders are to make available as requested any technical information which might be of benefit in the bid evaluation.

18. Supplier List: The Finance Department maintains a current listing of suppliers with a cross-reference as to products and services offered. Suppliers may have their names added to the list by submitting a completed Vendor Registration/Payee Application, and shall notify the Authority of any update information. If a supplier fails to respond to bid requests after four appropriate solicitations, that supplier may be removed from the active list. Suppliers who do not meet quoted shipping dates or lead times, supply products or services of poor quality, substitute items of unequal quality, continually over-ship or under-ship items, or do not invoice properly may be placed under suspension or disqualified from the active supplier list. Suppliers may voluntarily request to be removed from the supplier database.

19. Service Contracts: By submitting a bid for services, the bidder certifies that they, and any proposed subcontractors, are in compliance with 25 O.S. §1313 and participate in the Status Verification System. The Status Verification System is defined in 25 O.S. §1312 and includes, but is not limited to, the free Employment Verification Program (E-Verify) available at www.dhs.gov/E-Verify. This shall remain in effect through the entire term, including all renewal periods, of the contract. The State may request verification of compliance for any contractor or subcontractor. Should the State suspect or find the contractor or any of its subcontractors are not in compliance, the State may pursue any and all remedies allowed by law, including, but not limited to: suspension of work, termination of the contract for default, and suspension or debarment of the contractor. All costs necessary to verify compliance are the responsibility of the contractor.

Page 2 of 2 GRDA Finance Form 004 (Rev 07-08-2010) GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Any contract or purchase order (PO) issued by the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA) is expressly conditioned upon Seller’s assent to these terms and conditions. Any order issued or filled by Seller shall be deemed to constitute Seller’s assent to these terms and conditions. GRDA must give its express written consent to all additional terms submitted by Seller and all modified terms proposed by Seller. 1. Email, mail, or deliver all invoices or correspondence pertaining to the payment of this PO/Contract to: Accounts Payable Department at [email protected] or Grand River Dam Authority, P.O. Box 409, 226 West Dwain Willis Avenue, Vinita, Oklahoma 74301. Seller shall provide an invoice which is in accordance with the terms of the appropriate PO/Contract and applicable state or federal statutes, including but not limited to such documentation as may be required to demonstrate that the task has been achieved. Seller shall submit invoices accompanied by complete supporting documentation for shipping costs. If shipment is not made by routing instructions as specified on the face of this PO/Contract, GRDA has the right to deduct any excess transportation charges resulting therefrom. Copy of original freight bill must be supplied for payment if freight charge is in excess of $100.00. Time, in connection with any discount offered, will be computed from date of delivery of items or services, or from date the correct invoice is received at GRDA Headquarters in Vinita, Oklahoma, whichever period of time is the later date. No Oklahoma State Sales or Use Tax shall be paid by GRDA. 2. GRDA has the right to inspect articles, materials, and supplies before and during manufacture and upon arrival at destination and to return for full credit and/or refund, at Seller’s sole risk and expense, including all transportation and storage charges, all items found defective or furnished contrary to instructions and/or specifications contained herein. 3. In case of default by Seller, GRDA may procure the items or services from other sources. Seller agrees to be responsible for any excess cost occasioned thereby; provided, that if necessity requires the use of items not conforming to specifications, they may be accepted, and payment made at a proper reduction in price. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, GRDA reserves the right to terminate this PO/Contract for its convenience. In the event of such termination, GRDA shall pay and Seller shall accept the reasonable value of all work performed and items delivered by Seller up through the effective date of such termination. 4. Seller represents and warrants that all items and/or services furnished under this PO/Contract will (a) conform to the specifications, drawings, samples or other description furnished by GRDA, or any revisions thereof;(b) be merchantable of good material and free from defect in workmanship, material, and design; (c) be fit and sufficient for the purpose intended; (d) satisfy any performance guarantee requirements as specified herein by GRDA; (e) be free and clear of all liens, security interests or other encumbrances; (f) not infringe or misappropriate any third party’s patent, copyright, trademark, or intellectual property rights.; (g) Seller shall implement all necessary physical and cybersecurity measures to fully insure that GRDA’s data is only accessible by Seller’s authorized personnel, and that only Seller’s authorized personnel may send invoices and seek payment from GRDA for this purchase; and (h) all invoices arising from or related to this purchase that are sent from Seller’s domain have been authorized by Seller. In the event the items and/or services purchased hereunder do not meet the warranty specified hereinabove, Seller shall promptly repair or replace any defective item at its expense, or re-perform any necessary services, and shall hold GRDA harmless from all costs and expenses incurred due to said defective item or performance of services, including the cost for removing any part or product to be repaired or replaced, as well as transportation and installation charges in connection with the repair, replacement or servicing of any parts or equipment. Seller further represents and warrants that the manufacturer’s warranty and guarantee of the items purchased hereunder extended to Seller shall extend to GRDA. These warranties are cumulative and in addition to all other warranties provided by law.

5. Seller shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless GRDA and its officers, directors, employees, and agents, from and against all liabilities, judgments, damages, claims, suits, injuries, losses, and expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting in any way from: (a) any act or omission of Seller or Seller’s officers, directors, employees, subcontractors, and agents; (b) all liens or claims in any way related to the items or services furnished by Seller; (c) all patent, trademark or copyright infringement or alleged infringement, except where strict compliance with the specifications prescribed by GRDA is the sole basis of the infringement or alleged infringement; (d) defects in the items or services furnished by Seller; (e) any unauthorized access to Seller’s electronic system(s) by either third parties or unauthorized Seller personnel; or (f) Seller’s failure to comply with any of these General Terms and Conditions. This indemnity obligation shall be in addition to the warranty obligations of Seller 6. When doing work or providing services on GRDA property seller shall, before any items are shipped and/or any services are commenced, provide GRDA with certificates evidencing that the following minimum insurance will remain in force until Seller’s obligations are completed: (a) Workers’ Compensation Insurance, including Employer’s Liability Insurance, in accordance with the laws of the state in which Seller may be required to pay compensation; (b) Commercial General Liability Insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate, unless otherwise specified within the solicitation documents; and (c) if Seller will use or provide for the use of motor vehicles in furnishing items and/or services under this PO/Contract, automobile insurance covering all liabilities for personal injury and property damage arising from the use of such vehicles, with a limit of no less than $1,000,000. 7. Seller shall not assign or subcontract any of its rights or obligations under this PO/Contract without GRDA’s prior written consent. No assignment shall relieve Seller of its obligations hereunder. 8. Service Contracts: By submitting a bid for services, the Bidder certifies that it, and any proposed Subcontractors, are in compliance with 25 O.S. § 1313 and participate in the Status Verification System. The Supplier/Contractor/Consultant/Construction Manager/etc. certifies that it and all proposed Subcontractors, whether known or unknown at the time a contract is executed or awarded, are in compliance with 25 O.S. § 1313 and participate in the Status Verification System. The Status Verification System is defined in 25 O.S. § 1312 and includes, but is not limited to, the free Employment Verification Program (E-Verify) available at www.dhs.gov/E-Verify. This shall remain in effect through the entire term, including all renewal periods, of the Contract. The State may request verification of compliance for any Seller or Subcontractor. Should the State suspect or find the Seller or any of its Subcontractors are not in compliance, the State may pursue any and all remedies allowed by law, including, but not limited to: suspension of work, termination of the Contract for default, and suspension or debarment of the Seller. All costs necessary to verify compliance are the responsibility of the Seller.

9. All Items shipped pursuant to this PO/Contract will conform to all municipal, state and federal laws, ordinances and regulations, and Seller will defend and save harmless GRDA from loss, costs or damage by reason of any actual or alleged violation thereof. 10. GRDA hereby notifies Seller that Seller must comply, and by acceptance of this PO/Contract, Seller represents that it has complied with, and will continue to comply with, all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations or orders. 11. This PO/Contract shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oklahoma. 12. AUDIT RIGHTS. Seller/Contractor will, at all times during the term of this PO/Contract and for a period of five (5) years after the completion of this PO/Contract, maintain and make available for inspection and audit by GRDA and/or the Oklahoma State Auditor, all books, supporting documents, accounting procedures, practices, and all other items relevant to the PO/Contract.

Grand River Dam Authority is an agency of the State of Oklahoma. Administrative Headquarters • 226 West Dwain Willis Avenue • Vinita, Oklahoma 74301 • Phone: 918-256-5545 • Fax: 918-256-1051

GRDA Finance Form 001 (Revised 10-24-18)