AUGUSTA CANAL AUTHORITY AUGUSTA, GEORGIA
KING MILL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 9988)
FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION EXHIBITS
MAY 2007
Prepared by:
Photo Credit: Library of Congress HAER GA, 123-Aug, 46029 KING MILL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 9988)
FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION
EXHIBITS – FINAL APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENSE FOR MAJOR WATER POWER PROJECT < 5 MW – EXISTING DAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Exhibit A: Project Description
Exhibit E: Environmental Report
Exhibit F: Boundary Map
Exhibit G: Drawings of King Mill Hydroelectric Project BEFORE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Augusta Canal Authority Project No. 9988
APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENSE FOR THE KING MILL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INITIAL STATEMENT
1. Augusta Canal Authority applies to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the "Commission") for a license for the King Mill Hydroelectric Project (the "Project"), as described in the attached exhibits. The project is currently licensed to the Augusta Canal Authority as Project Number 9988.
2. The location of the project is:
State or territory: Georgia Counties: Richmond Municipalities: City of Augusta Stream or other body of water: Augusta Canal
3. The exact name, business address and telephone number of the applicant are:
Augusta Canal Authority 1450 Greene Street, Suite 400 Augusta, GA 30901 Tel: (706) 823-0440 Ext. 1 Fax: (706) 823-1045
4. The exact name and business address of each person authorized to act as agent for the Applicant in this Application are:
Mr. Dayton Sherrouse, Executive Director Augusta Canal Authority 1450 Greene Street, Suite 400 Augusta, GA 30901 Tel: (706) 823-0440 Ext. 1 Fax: (706) 823-1045
With copies to:
Mr. Alan W. Stuart Kleinschmidt Associates 101 Trade Zone Drive 21-A West Columbia, South Carolina 29170 Tel: (803) 822-3177 5. Augusta Canal Authority is a public corporation organized under the laws ofthe State of Georgia. The Applicant is not claiming preference under Section 7(a) of the Federal Power Act 16 USCA § 796.
6. The statutory or regulatory requirements of the state in which the project is located that affect the project, with respect to bed and banks and to the appropriation, diversion, and use of water for power purposes, and with respect to the right to engage in the business of developing, transmitting and distributing power and in any other business necessary to accomplish the purposes of the license under the Federal Power Act, are:
There are no applicable statutory or regulatory requirements.
7. The King Mill Hydroelectric Project is a 2,250 KW project with an annual average generation of 13 million kWh. It is located on the Augusta Canal in Augusta, Georgia. The project occupies lands in Richmond County and is owned by the Augusta Canal Authority and operated by Standard Textile. The project is currently licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the present license is due to expire in 2009. The project consists of two hydroelectric generating units. There is no darn associated with the project. Instead, the project withdraws water from the Augusta Canal and discharges it directly into the Savannah River. The King Mill Hydroelectric Project utilizes flows up to approximately 890 cfs.
8. The following exhibits are made part of this Application:
Exhibit A: Proj ect Description Exhibit E: Environmental Resources Exhibit F: Project Works Drawings Exhibit G: Project Area Drawings
9. There are no lands of the United States affected by the project.
10. This is an existing project and no new construction is planned in association with this project. VERIFICATION
State of Georgia City of Augusta County of Richmond
Mr. Dayton Sherrouse, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is Executive Director of Augusta Canal Authority and that as such he has signed the Application for New License for the King Mill Hydroelectric Project: that he has caused the foregoing Application and all attachments and exhibits thereto to be prepared; and believes that the attachments and exhibits thereto are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
Mr~Dajton Sherrouse King Mill Hydroelectric Project
Subscribed and sworn before me
This~ day of Mo..l~ ,2007
-rY1~~ '1V1. '11iiMlh--
(My Commission Expires F4ruQ/L.j I~)J.OJO) / seaV
N~~p~~R~mood~~.G~~m My Commission Expires February 16, 2010 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
In accordance with Section 16.8 of the Commission's Regulations, I hereby certify that I have this day provided a copy of the referenced license application to each entity designated on the attached Distribution List.
Dated at West Columbia, South Carolina this ~y of ,2007.
Name: Mr. Alan Stuart
Address: Kleinschmidt Associates 101 Trade Zone Drive 21-A West Columbia, South Carolina 29170 Tel: (803) 822-3177
Mr. Alan W. Stuart Licensing Coordinator EXHIBIT A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FINAL APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENSE FOR MAJOR WATER POWER PROJECT < 5 MW – EXISTING DAM AUGUSTA CANAL AUTHORITY KING MILL PROJECT (FERC NO. 9988)
EXHIBIT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FINAL APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENSE FOR MAJOR WATER POWER PROJECT < 5 MW– EXISTING DAM
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The King Mill Project (FERC No. 9988) is an existing, licensed facility owned by the Augusta Canal Authority (Authority or Licensee) and operated by Standard Textile. The project is located wholly within Richmond County, Augusta Georgia.
The Project consists of two turbine/generator units. There is no dam associated with the Project. Instead, the Project withdraws water from the Augusta Canal and discharges it directly into the Savannah River. The King Mill Project Utilizes flows up to approximately 890 cfs.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
2.1 Generator
2.1.1 Number and Capacity
The facility consists of two hydroelectric generating units with a combined rated capacity of 2.25 MW and the description of each unit is as follows:
Generator 1 (Large Unit):
GE generator (1944), horizontally mounted 600 volts, 1500 KVA, 200 rpm, DC excitation with belt drive to manual rheostat
- A-1 - Generator 2 (Small Unit):
GE generator (1944), horizontally mounted 600 volts, 750 KVA, 200 rpm, DC excitation with belt drive to manual rheostat
2.1.2 Provisions for Future Units
The stator for Unit #2 has recently been reconfigured to bring it back to its nameplate capacity (750kW). Additionally the necessary improvements required by Georgia Power for connection to the grid are being completed. Anticipated completion date of these improvements is the summer of 2007.
2.2 Turbines
The Project powerhouse contains two turbines manufactured by S. M. Smith. The turbines operate with a 32 foot net head, drawing approximately 881 cfs of water from the Augusta Canal. Nameplate data for each unit is as follows:
Turbine 1 (Large Unit):
S.M. Smith horizontally mounted turbine, installed in 1922 43 inch type Q, double runner rated at 1,835 hp
Turbine 2 (Small Unit):
S.M. Smith horizontally mounted turbine, installed in 1922 43 inch type Q, single runner rated at 917 hp
- A-2 - 2.3 Project Operation
The Project withdraws water directly from the Augusta Canal, which is coordinated with the City of Augusta (FERC No. 11810), and discharges it directly into the Savannah River. The City controls the amount of flow into the Augusta Canal and therefore the amount of water delivered to the King Mill Project, however river flow on the Savannah River that is available for the canal is controlled by releases from three United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) projects located upstream of the Augusta Diversion Dam (ADD). Currently all of the power generated by the King Mill Project is used in manufacturing. This hydroelectric facility utilizes flows up to approximately 890 cfs from the Augusta Canal as its primary energy source. The project is presently in operation generating power for the manufacture of textiles Monday through Friday. The project is currently not in operation on weekends.
The current plan is to maximize the hydroelectric generation by operating the hydroelectric plant seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day and sell the excess generated power to the Georgia Power Company.
2.4 Average Annual Energy Production
The nameplate capacity of the King Mill Project is 2.25 MW. Maximum gross production is 19,710,000 kWh and net generating capacity is 19,170,000 kWh. The project produces between 13,000 megawatt hours (MWh) and 14,366 MWh annually.
2.5 Estimated Average Net Head
Water is withdrawn from the Augusta Canal and released to the Savannah River via the project tailrace. The normal net head is 32 feet at a design flow of 881 cfs.
- A-3 - 2.6 Impoundment Surface Area and Storage Capacity
The King Mill Project has no dam or impoundment or storage capacity. Water is withdrawn from the Augusta Canal.
2.7 Project Structures
2.7.1 Intake
The project works consist of a headgate and intake structure approximately 50 feet long and 15 feet high, located on the east bank of the City- owned Augusta Canal. Water from the Augusta Canal is conveyed to the project through an open headrace structure of approximately 250 feet in length. The water is returned to the Savannah River through an open tailrace.
2.7.2 Headrace
The project supports a concrete lined, masonry open flume headrace, approximately 200 feet long and 40 feet wide.
2.7.3 Powerhouse
The powerhouse is of brick and masonry construction containing the two generating units and a tailrace excavated in rock approximately 435 feet long and 30 feet wide.
2.7.4 Transmission Facilities
The Project transmission facilities include generator leads for each of the units. Georgia Power Company maintains a small substation on-site.
- A-4 - 2.7.5 Appurtenant Facilities
Appurtenant facilities at the King Mill Project are limited to that electrical equipment needed to safely operate the project.
2.8 Project Costs
The estimated original cost of the project is unknown. No changes to the existing project structures are proposed as part of relicensing.
- A-5 - EXHIBIT E
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
FINAL APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENSE FOR MAJOR WATER POWER PROJECT < 5 MW – EXISTING DAM AUGUSTA CANAL AUTHORITY KING MILL PROJECT (FERC NO. 9988)
EXHIBIT E ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
FINAL APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENSE FOR MAJOR WATER POWER PROJECT < 5 MW – EXISTING DAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS...... E-1
1.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALE ...... E-2
2.0 RECENT FERC RELICENSING ACTIVITY...... E-5
3.0 WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY ...... E-9 3.1 Water Quantity...... E-9 3.2 Water Quality...... E-12 3.3 401 Water Quality Certification...... E-14 3.4 Flow Regime...... E-14 3.5 Agency Requested Information ...... E-28
4.0 FISH, WILDLIFE, AND VEGETATIVE RESOURCES ...... E-30 4.1 Fish Resources ...... E-30 4.1.1 Fish Habitat...... E-30 4.1.2 Resident / Riverine Fish Resources ...... E-31 4.1.3 Anadromous and Catadromous Fish Species...... E-32 4.1.4 Entrainment...... E-32 4.1.5 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species...... E-37 4.1.6 Agency Requested Information ...... E-39 4.2 Wildlife Resources...... E-45 4.2.1 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species...... E-46 4.2.2 Agency Requested Information ...... E-46 4.3 Vegetative Resources...... E-48 4.3.1 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species...... E-48 4.3.2 Agency Requested Information ...... E-49
5.0 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL...... E-50 5.1 Historic Period Resources...... E-50 5.2 Historic Properties within the Area of Potential Effect ...... E-52 5.3 Agency Requested Information ...... E-53
6.0 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES...... E-54 6.1 Augusta Canal National Heritage Area...... E-54 6.2 Augusta Canal Towpath Trail...... E-55
- i - Table of Contents (Cont’d)
6.3 Savannah River ...... E-56 6.4 Other Opportunities ...... E-56 6.5 Recreation Management Plans...... E-57 6.5.1 Georgia Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan...... E-57 6.5.2 Augusta Canal Master Plan...... E-57 6.6 Agency Requested Information ...... E-59
7.0 AESTHETIC RESOURCES...... E-60 7.1 Agency Requested Information ...... E-60
8.0 LAND USE...... E-61 8.1 Augusta-Richmond County Zoning Regulations...... E-61 8.2 Agency Requested Information ...... E-63
9.0 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MEASURES PROPOSED BY THE LICENSEE...... E-64 9.1 Project Impacts...... E-64 9.2 Measures Proposed by the Licensee ...... E-66
10.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... E-68
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1-1: Monthly and Annual Flow in the Savannah River at the Augusta Diversion Dam...... 11 Table 3.1-2: Nonconsumptive Water Users on the Augusta Canal...... 11 Table 4.1-1: Common Fish Species Found in the Savannah River and the Augusta Canal...... 34 Table 4.2-1: Federally Listed Species and Species of Concern Documented as Occurring or Potentially Occurring in Richmond County, GA ...... 47
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.0-1: Project Map and Location...... 4 Figure 3.4-1: January Flow Duration Curve...... 15 Figure 3.4-2: February Flow Duration Curve...... 16 Figure 3.4-3: March Flow Duration Curve...... 17 Figure 3.4-4: April Flow Duration Curve...... 18 Figure 3.4-5: May Flow Duration Curve...... 19 Figure 3.4-6: June Flow Duration Curve...... 20 Figure 3.4-7: July Flow Duration Curve...... 21 Figure 3.4-8: August Flow Duration Curve...... 22 Figure 3.4-9: September Flow Duration Curve ...... 23 Figure 3.4-10: October Flow Duration Curve ...... 24 Figure 3.4-11: November Flow Duration Curve ...... 25 - ii - Table of Contents (Cont’d)
Figure 3.4-12: December Flow Duration Curve...... 26 Figure 3.4-13: Annual Flow Duration Curve...... 27 Figure 4.1-1: National Wetlands Inventory Map for King Mill and Environs...... 36
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Agency Correspondence Appendix B: Supporting Documents Appendix C: 401 Water Quality Certification Appendix D: Fish Entrainment and Mortality Report Appendix E: Rare, Threatened & Endangered Species Report
05/29/07 – CLB 1438001.00-92-02 Z:\SCO\1438-001\Final Draft 04-07\Exhibit E - Environmental Report.doc
- iii - AUGUSTA CANAL AUTHORITY KING MILL PROJECT (FERC NO. 9988)
EXHIBIT E ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
FINAL APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENSE FOR MAJOR WATER POWER PROJECT < 5 MW – EXISTING DAM
ACRONYMS
ACOE US Army Corps of Engineers FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission GADNR Georgia Department of Natural Resources ICD Initial Consultation Document JST J. Strom Thurmond NWI National Wetlands Inventory NOAA National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control SCDNR South Carolina Department of Natural Resources SCORP Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service USGS US Geological Survey
- E-1 - AUGUSTA CANAL AUTHORITY KING MILL PROJECT (FERC No. 9988)
EXHIBIT E ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
FINAL APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENSE FOR MAJOR WATER POWER PROJECT < 5 MW – EXISTING DAM
1.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALE
The King Mill Project is located in an urban environment, on the Augusta Canal and the Savannah River in the city of Augusta, Georgia and is surrounded by residential and industrial development (Figure 1.0-1). It is licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as Project No. 9988.
The Savannah River Basin is located in the southeastern United States and has a total area of 10,577 square miles, including 5,821 square miles in eastern Georgia. The River forms the border between South Carolina and Georgia and begins at the confluence of the Seneca and Tugaloo Rivers. It flows southeast approximately 300 miles to the Atlantic Ocean at Savannah, Georgia. The King Mill Project is located in the lower portion of the Savannah River Basin (FERC, 2005a).
The Savannah River is fed by many moderate-sized tributaries including the three major tributaries to the Savannah River in Georgia: the Broad and Little Rivers and Brier Creek. The major impoundments in the Savannah River Basin are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (ACOE) Hartwell Project (56,000 acres), Richard B. Russell Project (26,000 acres), and J. Strom Thurmond (JST) Project (70,000 acres).
A portion of the Savannah River is diverted at the Augusta Diversion Dam (FERC No. 11810) into the Augusta Canal. The Augusta Canal is approximately ten miles long, runs parallel to the Savannah River, and has three levels. The first level of the Canal, the only level still used for power generation, is approximately seven miles long and extends from the Canal Headgates to the Thirteenth Street Gatehouse, near downtown Augusta (FERC, 2005a). The second and third levels of the Canal comprise approximately three miles but are not navigable
- E-2 - (Augusta Canal, 2006). Water is returned to the Savannah River at various points along the length of the Canal, including the Augusta Raw Water Pumping Station, which has the single largest return; Long Gate Spillway and Tin House Gates via Rae’s Creek; and at the King, Sibley (FERC No. 5044), and Enterprise (FERC No. 2935) Mills (FERC, 2005a).
The climate in this region is characterized by long, hot summers and short, mild winters. The climate in the project area is mild and humid, strongly influenced by the warm Gulf of Mexico waters to the south. Average annual temperature at the Sibley Mill Project is approximately 61º F. Average annual precipitation in the Project region is approximately 46 – 50 inches per year. The lowest rainfall period in this area is generally during the fall months (October – November), with fairly even distribution of rainfall the remainder of the year. Sleet and snow events occur occasionally in the months of December through February, but are generally rare.
The Project is situated on the Fall Line, a physiographic feature that marks the transition from the Piedmont to the Coastal Plain province. The Piedmont is characterized by steep to moderate slopes and gently rolling hills with riverbanks that are generally steeply sloped. In contrast, the Coastal Plain is much flatter with riverbanks that are moderately to slightly sloped.
- E-3 - Figure 1.0-1: Project Map and Location
- E-4 - 2.0 RECENT FERC RELICENSING ACTIVITY
The Augusta Canal Project (Augusta Diversion Dam), Sibley Mill Project, and Enterprise Mill Project are all within a 7 mile radius of one another; Sibley Mill shares a property line with King Mill. A substantial amount of research has been completed at these projects in support of licensing and relicensing activity in recent years. Studies, environmental assessments, and FERC orders completed in support of those proceedings provide valuable information relevant to the King Mill Project relicensing and are summarized here to provide background on recent information and decisions germane to the King Mill Project relicensing.
In May of 2005, FERC issued a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) that addressed all three projects. The Augusta Canal, Sibley Mill and Enterprise Mill Projects filed license applications with FERC in January 2003, April 2001 and September 2001, respectively. No substantive comments were filed regarding the Sibley Mill and Enterprise Mill Projects, and licenses were subsequently issued for these projects in November of 2005 (FERC, 2005b and 2005c).
Sustentative comments were received for the Augusta Canal Project. FERC issued a Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) for that Project in September 2006. Settlement discussions with agencies are ongoing, and a draft settlement agreement is under consideration. (Supporting documents for this discussion are provided in Appendix B)
Given the close proximity of these projects to the King Mill Project, and the connectivity of all four projects, information provided in the DEA and FEA, decisions made by FERC relating to these projects, and the draft settlement agreement are informative and useful in understanding the resources affected by the King Mill Project and how they are and will be managed.
The Multi-Project DEA (FERC, 2005a) provides an informative discussion on water quantity and management in the Augusta Canal and the Savannah River downstream from the Augusta Diversion Dam, and on the status of fisheries, including species of special concern. FERC’s analysis resulted in the following conclusions and license requirements for the Sibley
- E-5 - Mill and Enterprise Mill Projects (FERC, 2005b and 2005c; FERC 2006b and 2006c), which are most similar in scope to the King Mill Project. License requirements for these two projects are essentially the same.
With respect to water rights, FERC recognized that flows in the Canal are typically adequate to meet existing needs, but that final action on the City’s pending license application for the Augusta Canal Project and the increases in water demand in the future may result in reduced Canal flows that may not meet demand. However, FERC noted that adjudication of the allocation of water rights is a state matter. Sibley and Enterprise only have rights to the flows to which they are permitted under state law or contract with the City. Under the new licenses, Avondale and Enterprise are not required to prepare a low flow management plan because FERC staff determined that neither Avondale nor Enterprise could implement such a plan. Water flows entering the Canal are controlled by the City, and the allocation of that water is a function of contractual agreements and state water rights that are within FERC’s authority to determine or enforce. Per license Article 402, Avondale and Enterprise are each required to prepare a project operation and monitoring plan that would enable FERC and agencies to verify how flows are used at the project. The monitoring plan must include a method of documenting flows and generation at the project; contingencies for emergencies and provisions for scheduled drawdowns; and reporting criteria. Fishway prescriptions were provided by NOAA Fisheries, on behalf of the US Department of Commerce, and the Interior and are a requirement of the license. Fishway prescriptions include fish screens/louvers at the intakes of Sibley and Enterprise, and a bypass sluiceway at the downstream end of the screen/louver arrays. Functional drawings are required no later than 6 months after the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries determine that sturgeon are present above the Augusta Diversion Dam. Downstream fishways must be fully operational within three years after USFWS and NOAA Fisheries determine that sturgeon is present above the Augusta Diversion Dam. FERC staff determined that relicensing the projects would not affect any threatened or endangered species. Two federal Species of Concern, the rocky
- E-6 - shoals spider lily and the robust redhorse, occur in the project area.
In September of 2006, FERC completed a Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) on the City of Augusta’s application for an original major license for the Augusta Canal Project. The FEA provides additional discussion on water management in the Augusta Canal and the Savannah River downstream from the Augusta Diversion Dam, and on the status of fisheries and species of special concern. The FEA also summarizes a draft settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of the Interior, which addresses the concerns of the GDNR and SCDNR, regarding project operations, flow and fish passage. The City is in the process of finalizing the draft settlement agreement. Measures included in the FERC staff recommended alternative that are of interest to the King Mill relicensing include:
With respect to aquatic flows, the proposed action would provide for aquatic base flows for the Shoals area of the Savannah River, and an operations plan stipulating the frequency and duration of aquatic base flows. Minimum flows would be provided via a temporary notch in the Diversion Dam until such time as fish passage facilities are constructed. Canal flows would be monitored and managed via provision of gauging to monitor flow in the Augusta Canal and development of a flow gauging plan for the Canal. If the Canal flow demand exceeds 4,600 cfs, the City would convene a technical committee, to include GDNR and SCDNR, to evaluate Canal flows and make recommendations to FERC on the need to increase Canal flows. In addition, FERC staff recommends that the City develops a plan between all canal users to curtail flows in the Canal when supply is inadequate to meet the water needs of both the Canal and the Shoals. The timing of the annual Canal drawdown would be changed from summer to winter to reduce impacts to fish. The City would notify GDNR prior to the drawdown, and would dewater the canal at a rate that allows fish to migrate out of the Canal as it empties. Upstream fish passage would be provided, per the draft settlement agreement. The section 18 fishway prescriptions are not currently consistent with the terms of the draft settlement agreement. NOAA Fisheries and USFWS acknowledge the need to modify section 18 prescriptions to be consistent with the settlement
- E-7 - agreement once it is finalized. FERC staff note their disagreement with installing upstream fish passage due to poor upstream water quality and habitat. Downstream fish passage would be provided at the new and existing Raw Water Pumping Station when sturgeon are documented to be present upstream of the Augusta Diversion Dam. (This proposal is consistent with the licensing requirements of Sibley and Enterprise Mills). With respect to threatened and endangered species and species of special concern, FERC staff determination that the project, with proposed fish passage, flows, and habitat enhancements, would not likely adversely affect shortnose sturgeon. The City would continue to monitor for presence of the Augusta shoals spider lily.
- E-8 - 3.0 WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY
3.1 Water Quantity
The Augusta Canal is a three-level canal, built in 1845, which diverts water from the Savannah River into downtown Augusta, Georgia. Water flow in the Augusta Canal is controlled by the Augusta Diversion Dam, which regulates flow from the Savannah River to the Augusta Canal. Flow on the Savannah River is, in turn, controlled by four projects upstream of the Diversion Dam, including three ACOE projects – JST, Hartwell, and Russell Projects – and SCE&G’s Stevens Creek Project (FERC No. 2535).
The ACOE projects were constructed to provide flood control, recreation and hydroelectric power. These projects are operated to hold high runoff in the springtime and release it more uniformly over the year, thereby significantly altering the natural seasonal flow of the Savannah River. As a result, flows on the River downstream of the projects are more uniform on a seasonal basis, but vary widely on an hourly and daily basis. Thurmond Dam is operated as a peaking facility, having highly variable flow releases on an hourly basis that can range from roughly 100 to 30,000 cfs. Flow releases are planned on a week to week basis, determined by reservoir levels, hydrologic forecast, power generation needs, sales agreements, and other factors. Typically, there are one to two generation periods per weekday.
SCE&G’s Stevens Creek Project is located approximately one mile upstream of the Augusta Diversion Dam. The Stevens Creek Project operates to minimize pool fluctuations in its reservoir, and to discharge a continuous flow in response to the weekly release projections of the JST Project.
The reach of the Savannah River that is bypassed by the Augusta Canal begins at the Augusta Diversion Dam and extends to the tailrace of the Enterprise Mill. The Shoals and the navigation pool of the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam are contained within this reach.
- E-9 - During peak usage, the Canal historically operated with a maximum flow of 6,000 cfs, serving 14 entities. Today, the Canal operates with a maximum summer flow of approximately 3,656 cfs (FERC, 2005a) and serves three hydropower projects (Table 3.1- 2) and the Augusta-Richmond County Water System. Water is returned to the Savannah River at various locations along the canal, including the Augusta Raw Water Pumping Station, Long Gate Spillway and Tin House Gates via Rae’s Creek, and at the Sibley, King and Enterprise Mills.
The raw water intakes for the Augusta-Richmond County Water System are located in the canal approximately 3.5 miles downstream of the Diversion Dam. During peak summer demand, up to 1,221 cfs are diverted to power hydromechanical turbine pumps, and then is returned to the Savannah River through the plant’s tailrace.1
Sibley Mill diverts 1,024 cfs from the First Level Canal and releases the flow into the Savannah River at RM 201.7. King Mill diverts 881 cfs form the First Level Canal and releases into the Savannah River at RM 201.5. Finally, Enterprise Mill diverts approximately 560 cfs from the First Level Canal and releases the flow into the Third Level Canal. The flow remaining in the Canal after the Enterprise Mill intakes passes through the Second Level Canal and into the Third Level Canal, and eventually returns through the Hawks Gully gates into the Savannah River at RM 201.1 (FERC, 2005a).
Monthly flow data for the Augusta Canal Project at the Diversion Dam is provided in Table 3.1-1.
1 The City of Augusta plans to upgrade its existing hydromechanical units, which would increase peak summer water intake from 1,221 cfs to 1,628 cfs in 2015 (FERC, 2005a).
- E-10 - Table 3.1-1: Monthly and Annual Flow in the Savannah River at the Augusta Diversion Dam
Reproduced from FERC (2005a, pg 36)
Table 3.1-2: Nonconsumptive Water Users on the Augusta Canal
WATER INSTALLED ANNUAL RETURN TURBINE OPERATING FACILITY CAPACITY PRODUCTION LOCATION FLOW TIME (%) (KW) (MW) (RM)
Sibley Mill 201.7 1,024 2,475 80 17,345 FERC #5044 King Mill 201.5 881 2,050 80 14,366 FERC #9988 201.0 Enterprise Mill (via Hawk’s 560 1,200 80 8,410 FERC #2935 Gully) Reproduced from FERC (2005a, page 37)
- E-11 - The City of Augusta, which owns and operates the Augusta Diversion Dam, is currently in the process of licensing the canal including the Diversion Dam. The current flow regime for the Dam and the Augusta Canal may be modified pending the outcome of that relicensing effort. The City of Augusta and resource agencies have reached a tentative settlement agreement that will specify minimum flow releases within the bypassed reach.
3.2 Water Quality
In Augusta, the Savannah River forms the border between South Carolina and Georgia. The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) classify the Savannah River as “freshwater”, which it defines as (SCDHEC, 1996):
“Suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, fishing and propagation of balanced biological community of flora and fauna, industrial agricultural uses and a source of potable water supply after conventional treatment.”
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) Environmental Protection Division classifies the Savannah River at Augusta as “drinking water supplies”, which it defines as (GADNR, 1998):
“Those waters approved as a source for public drinking water systems permitted or to be permitted by the Environmental Protection Division. Waters classified for drinking water supplies will also support the fishing use and any other use requiring water of a lower quality.”
SCDHEC’s 1996 305(b) report, submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicates that use standards for this portion of the river are generally maintained. The GADNR Environmental Protection Division’s 1998 305(b) report indicates that the Savannah River in Augusta partially supports designated uses, due to the low levels of
- E-12 - dissolved oxygen and the presence of fish consumption advisories. According to this report, the low DO levels are due primarily to the operation of the JST Project, and fish consumption advisories are due in part to natural occurrences of mercury.
The most recent water quality information available for the Savannah River and the Augusta Canal is summarized in the License Application for the Sibley Mill Project (Avondale, 2001, page E-6):
“Water quality in the Savannah River near the Sibley Mill Project is greatly affected by operation of the upstream ACOE’s J. Strom Thurmond Project (JST). Several studies have attributed seasonal low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the Savannah River to hypolimnetic (deep-water) releases from JST (SCE&G, 1991; FERC, 1996; GAEPD, 1998; GADNR, 1998b). During summer months, DO levels in waters discharged from JST into the Savannah River can be as low as < 0.5 mg/l. As the waters flow downstream, air is naturally entrained and DO levels rise, but DO levels are often below state standards during the summer months. The ACOE is investigating the potential to install and operate a DO injection system in the lower portion of JST Lake to increase the amount of available fisheries habitat in the lake (ACOE, 2000). The ACOE indicated that operation of the injection system would potentially increase DO levels in the Savannah River below JST by approximately 3 mg/l.
Water from the Savannah River is diverted by the ADD to the Augusta Canal. Water quality data for the Canal is available from previous fish composition and entrainment studies performed on the Canal (ECS 1984 and NAI 1992) and from a more recent 1996-1997 GADNR study (GADNR, 1998b). Data obtained from these sources indicates that DO levels in the Canal occasionally fall below the state standards of 4.0 mg/L (instantaneous) and 5.0 mg/L (daily average). As mentioned above, these seasonally low DO levels are attributed to releases from Thurmond Dam.”
- E-13 - 3.3 401 Water Quality Certification
The Licensee filed for 401 water quality certification with the Georgia Department of Environmental Protection for the King Mill Project (Appendix C) simultaneously with filing of this application to the FERC. Once a 401 Water Quality Certificate has been issued or a waiver has been granted, this information will be forwarded to the FERC.
3.4 Flow Regime
Monthly and annual flow duration curves of the Augusta Canal for the King Mill Project were generated using mean flow data for the project. Using US Geological Survey (USGS) Gage #02196500, monthly and annual flow duration curves were developed for the period 1931-1957 and 1989-1992. This gage is located approximately 2 miles upstream of the Project. Contributing drainage at the Project is approximately 7,150 square miles. Figures 3.4-1 through 3.4-13 illustrate the curves for each month. Based on the annual flow duration curve (Figure 3.4-1 through 3.4-13); 2,760 cfs is the median flow.
- E-14 - January Flow Duration Curve Augusta Canal at Augusta (Lower) (USGS Gage #02196500)
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500 s f c
n i 2,000 w o l F
1,500
1,000
500
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of Time Flow is Equalled or Exceeded NOTE: Period of Record is 1931-1957 & 1989-1992.
Figure 3.4-1: January Flow Duration Curve
- E-15 - February Flow Duration Curve Augusta Canal at Augusta (Lower) (USGS Gage #02196500)
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500 s f c
n i 2,000 w o l F
1,500
1,000
500
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of Time Flow is Equalled or Exceeded NOTE: Period of Record is 1931-1957 & 1989-1992.
Figure 3.4-2: February Flow Duration Curve
- E-16 - March Flow Duration Curve Augusta Canal at Augusta (Lower) (USGS Gage #02196500)
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500 s f c
n i
2,000 w o l F
1,500
1,000
500
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of Time Flow is Equalled or Exceeded NOTE: Period of Record is 1931-1957 & 1989-1992.
Figure 3.4-3: March Flow Duration Curve
- E-17 - April Flow Duration Curve Augusta Canal at Augusta (Lower) (USGS Gage #02196500)
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500 s f c
n i
2,000 w o l F
1,500
1,000
500
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of Time Flow is Equalled or Exceeded NOTE: Period of Record is 1931-1957 & 1989-1992.
Figure 3.4-4: April Flow Duration Curve
- E-18 - May Flow Duration Curve Augusta Canal at Augusta (Lower) (USGS Gage #02196500)
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500 s f c
n i
2,000 w o l F
1,500
1,000
500
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of Time Flow is Equalled or Exceeded NOTE: Period of Record is 1931-1957 & 1989-1992.
Figure 3.4-5: May Flow Duration Curve
- E-19 - June Flow Duration Curve Augusta Canal at Augusta (Lower) (USGS Gage #02196500)
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500 s f c
n i
2,000 w o l F
1,500
1,000
500
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of Time Flow is Equalled or Exceeded NOTE: Period of Record is 1931-1957 & 1989-1992.
Figure 3.4-6: June Flow Duration Curve
- E-20 - July Flow Duration Curve Augusta Canal at Augusta (Lower) (USGS Gage #02196500)
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500 s f c
n i
2,000 w o l F
1,500
1,000
500
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of Time Flow is Equalled or Exceeded NOTE: Period of Record is 1931-1957 & 1989-1992.
Figure 3.4-7: July Flow Duration Curve
- E-21 - August Flow Duration Curve Augusta Canal at Augusta (Lower) (USGS Gage #02196500)
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500 s f c
n i
2,000 w o l F
1,500
1,000
500
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of Time Flow is Equalled or Exceeded NOTE: Period of Record is 1931-1957 & 1989-1992.
Figure 3.4-8: August Flow Duration Curve
- E-22 - September Flow Duration Curve Augusta Canal at Augusta (Lower) (USGS Gage #02196500)
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500 s f c
n i
2,000 w o l F
1,500
1,000
500
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of Time Flow is Equalled or Exceeded NOTE: Period of Record is 1931-1957 & 1989-1992.
Figure 3.4-9: September Flow Duration Curve
- E-23 - October Flow Duration Curve Augusta Canal at Augusta (Lower) (USGS Gage #02196500)
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500 s f c
n i
2,000 w o l F
1,500
1,000
500
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of Time Flow is Equalled or Exceeded NOTE: Period of Record is 1931-1956 & 1988-1991.
Figure 3.4-10:October Flow Duration Curve
- E-24 - November Flow Duration Curve Augusta Canal at Augusta (Lower) (USGS Gage #02196500)
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500 s f c
n i
2,000 w o l F
1,500
1,000
500
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of Time Flow is Equalled or Exceeded NOTE: Period of Record is 1931-1956 & 1988-1991.
Figure 3.4-11:November Flow Duration Curve
- E-25 - December Flow Duration Curve Augusta Canal at Augusta (Lower) (USGS Gage #02196500)
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500 s f c
n i
2,000 w o l F
1,500
1,000
500
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of Time Flow is Equalled or Exceeded NOTE: Period of Record is 1931-1956 & 1988-1991.
Figure 3.4-12:December Flow Duration Curve
- E-26 - Annual Flow Duration Curve Augusta Canal at Augusta (Lower) (USGS Gage #02196500)
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500 s f c
n i
2,000 w o l F
1,500
1,000
500
0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of Time Flow is Equalled or Exceeded NOTE: Period of Record is 1931-1956 & 1989-1991.
Figure 3.4-13:Annual Flow Duration Curve
- E-27 - 3.5 Agency Requested Information
The GADNR Wildlife Resources Division and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) submitted comments letters referencing information and study requests related to water use at the King Mill Project. Agency correspondence is provided in Appendix A.
The GADNR Wildlife Resources Division identified corrections and requested clarifications to the text, which have been addressed in the descriptions provided in this Final License Application. The GADNR also indicated it will be preferable for King Mill to be able to monitor intake flow and adhere to the conditions of the forthcoming settlement agreement for the Augusta Diversion Dam Project.
The King Mill Project is typically operated at maximum hydraulic capacity, and has an automated system that monitors water flow through the mill as part of normal Project operation. Water withdrawals from the Canal are permitted under state law or contract agreement with the City of Augusta (FERC, 2005b, c). The Augusta Canal Authority understands that the forthcoming settlement agreement for the Augusta Diversion Dam Project may include agreements regarding water supply and distribution through the Canal and will utilize water withdrawals for which the Mill is authorized under contractual agreement with the City.
The USFWS requested the Licensee provide a Project Operations Report, detailing past and current Project operations pertaining to the timing and quantity of water withdrawals from the Augusta Canal, maintenance schedules, drought contingency plans and a description of any proposed future changes to project operations. USFWS states that the quantity of water withdrawn from the Canal directly affects aquatic communities within the shoals. Understanding past, present and future Project operations is an important input to decisions made for balancing resources associated with the Project.
- E-28 - The King Mill Project operates continuously operates 24 hours 7 days a week unless plant outages for maintenance or repairs exist. Basically, the plan is operated at maximum hydraulic capacity and resulting in the most efficient operating manner of the plant.
Current project operations are described in this license application and by FERC (2005) in the Multi-Project Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License prepared for the August Canal, Sibley Mill, and Enterprise Mill Projects. With respect to future operations, the Augusta Canal Authority anticipates the filing of a Project Operations Report as a post licensing compliance item required by the FERC. Similar to plans required for Sibley Mill and Enterprise Mill Projects (FERC 2005b and 2005c), the King Mill plan will include a method for measuring project generation, and inflows and outflows from the project; a frequency or schedule for monitoring generation and inflows; and contingencies for emergencies and provisions for scheduled maintenance drawdowns of the Canal. There are no proposed future changes to project operations.
- E-29 - 4.0 FISH, WILDLIFE, AND VEGETATIVE RESOURCES
4.1 Fish Resources
The fisheries resources of the Project vicinity consist of warm-water and diadromous species. The Augusta Canal, having a lacustrine or lake-like habitat, is home to warm-water, non-migrating species such as largemouth bass and sunfishes. The Savannah River, having a more riverine habitat, is home to several anadromous (salt water dwelling, fresh water spawning), and one catadromous (fresh water dwelling, salt water spawning) fish species. A complete listing of the fish species which occur in the Savannah River and Augusta Canal is provided in Table 4.1-1.
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps show no wetlands within or adjacent to the King Mill Project (Figure 4.1-1). Wetlands in the Project vicinity are predominantly emergent, shrub/scrub, and forested wetlands. Wetland areas are more numerous along the upper portion of the western side of the Canal, upstream of the Project, but are less common along other portions of the Canal, including adjacent to the Project and adjacent to the Savannah River Shoals, to which the Project discharges (FERC, 2005a). The riparian areas immediately adjacent to the Augusta Canal are typically forested downstream of the Augusta Raw Water Pumping Station but transition to maintained, grassy areas downstream of the Eve Street Bridge, which is located just upstream of the Project (FERC, 2005a).
4.1.1 Fish Habitat
The Augusta Canal has steep sloped banks with widths up to 150 feet, and water depths up to 11 feet (FERC, 2005a). The banks of the Canal are typically grassed over or support overhanging vegetation, benefiting aquatic species. The Canal itself functions much like a large pond with respect to fisheries. The Canal supports aquatic vegetation such as elodea, Eurasian milfoil and pondweed (Avondale, 2001). Streams that flow into the Canal provide localized areas of sediment flushing (e.g., Lake Olmstead) and shallow habitat.
- E-30 - The Savannah River provides a riverine environment for diadromous fish. The Savannah River in the Shoals area, upstream of the Project is the only remaining shoal habitat in the Savannah River with the remainder of the river either impounded or semi-impounded. This area is characterized by pools, runs, and rock outcroppings with a substrate of bedrock boulders and cobbles with some areas of gravels, sand and silt. The section of the Savannah River in the Project vicinity is generally wide, approximately 1,600 feet and shallow, with the Shoals area occupying about 4.5 miles of a nine mile segment between the Augusta Diversion Dam and the downstream New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam headpond (FERC, 2005a).
According to the USFWS, projects along the Augusta Canal are integrally linked and the cumulative withdrawal of water by these projects has effects on instream flows within the Canal and bypassed reaches of the Savannah River. Low flows can adversely affect the aquatic, riparian and floodplain resources of the Canal (USFWS, 2004a).
4.1.2 Resident / Riverine Fish Resources
The Savannah River supports at least 71 fish species representing 17 families including game fish, panfish, suckers, minnows, and catfish. The fishery of the Canal is somewhat less diverse than the Savannah River, supporting 51 species representing 13 families and exhibits trends similar to those found in the Savannah River (FERC, 2005a and Avondale, 2001). Common fish species found in the Project vicinity include bluegill, yellow perch, largemouth bass, redbreast sunfish, threadfin shad, golden shiner, longnose gar, striped bass, American eel, gizzard shad, chain pickerel, white bass, pickerel, northern hogsucker, brown bullhead, yellow bullhead, redeye bass, white crappie and black crappie.
- E-31 - 4.1.3 Anadromous and Catadromous Fish Species
Historically, diadromous fish species have inhabited the Savannah River (Avondale, 2001). The presence of dams on the Savannah River has limited migration of these species. Spawning populations of blueback herring have been reported in the Savannah River and Augusta Canal and of American shad in the Savannah River below the Augusta Diversion Dam (Environmental and Chemical Sciences, 1984). Small populations of striped bass were found in the Savannah River and a few individual striped bass were discovered in the Augusta Canal, believed to be the result of stocking efforts in upstream reservoirs. The American eel was the only catadromous species reported to be present in the Augusta Canal and the Savannah River (Avondale, 2001).
Upstream fish passage on the Savannah River to the Thurmond Dam is fully or partially blocked by Stevens Creek Dam, Augusta Diversion Dam, and the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam.Anadromous fish may pass the downstream through special flow releases from Thurmond dam and operational modifications at the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam (FERC, 2005a).
4.1.4 Entrainment
A fish entrainment study at the King Mill Project collected data for 36 days between March and November, 1991 (Normandeau, 1992). Approximately 1,500 fish were collected by entrainment nets, resulting in an estimated 12,606 fish being entrained during the study period (Normandeau, 1992). Daily estimates ranged from 186 to 615 fish and averaged approximately 350 fish per day, though no obvious trends were identified. Among the species entrained were American, gizzard and threadfin shad, of which the latter constituted the majority of the fish captured by entrainment nets (approximately 35 percent of the total). American shad collected during the month of August were not associated with turbine entrainment but were the result of incidental catch. Spottail shiner and other shiners comprised approximately 14 percent of the total. Blueback herring
- E-32 - and bluegill comprised approximately 9 percent each of the total catch. Other species collected included darters, bass, sunfish, pickerel, bullhead, and madtoms (Normandeau, 1992).
Because the King Mill operations vary from day to day, depending on gravity flow and water levels in the Augusta Canal and Savannah River, fish entrainment did not appear to be affected by variations in intake discharge. The size of the fish entrained shows that primarily juvenile fish are affected due to the existence of bar screens over the intake. Overall, fish entrainment appeared to primarily be a function of the temporal and spatial distribution of fish in the Augusta Canal rather than plant operations (Normandeau, 1992).
- E-33 - Table 4.1-1: Common Fish Species Found in the Savannah River and the Augusta Canal (Source: Environmental and Chemical Sciences, 1984, as modified by Kleinschmidt)
- E-34 - - E-35 - Figure 4.1-1: National Wetlands Inventory Map for King Mill and Environs (Source: USFWS, 2004b)
- E-36 - 4.1.5 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
The shortnose sturgeon is listed both at the state level and as a federally endangered species (SCDNR, 2006a). The robust redhorse carries no legal status in South Carolina, but is listed as endangered in Georgia and as a candidate species at the federal level (SCDNR, 2006b). The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) identified the shortnose sturgeon and the robust redhorse as occurring in the Savannah River.
During consultation for the adjacent Sibley Mill Project, the USFWS confirmed that shortnose sturgeon and robust redhorse in the vicinity of the Sibley Mill Project could potentially be affected by that project (Avondale, 2001). The shortnose sturgeon has not been recently collected upstream of New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, although this species does occur in the lower Savannah River. Shortnose sturgeons are in the lower Savannah River October through March and spawn mostly in the spring, preferring strong currents over hard substrates upstream of gravel or other riverbed structure. Angler reports submitted to the GADNR’s Wildlife Resources Division indicate that sturgeon may also inhabit the lower river during the summer months, although the reports are believed to reference Atlantic sturgeon, not shortnose sturgeon (GADNR Wildlife Resources Division, letter November 1, 2006, Appendix A).
Higher spring flows allow sturgeon access to suitable conditions in river bends and shoals. Sturgeon eggs are adhesive and attach best to gravel but also to other structure of the river bed. After hatching, larval sturgeon float downstream for a day or two before settling back to the bottom and occupying habitats with low flow velocities (FERC, 2005a).
A study conducted in support of licensing for the Sibley Mill Project, adjacent to the King Mill Project, determined that although habitat for shortnose sturgeon may be available in the Savannah River near the Project, occurrence in that area is not likely (Kleinschmidt, 2000). The New Savannah Bluff Lock and
- E-37 - Dam has generally impeded potential upstream spawning migration since its construction in 1937 (Avondale, 2001) except during flow conditions in excess of 16,000 cfs (Pers. Correspondence, Prescott Brownell, NOAA Fisheries, March 23, 2004). However, passage for all anadromous species is presently blocked by the Augusta Diversion Dam (Personal Correspondence, Prescott Brownell, NOAA Fisheries, March 23, 2004). As a result, the potential for shortnose sturgeon adults, young of year and/or larvae to enter the canal (where they could potentially be impacted by the project through entrainment or impingement) is considered to be unlikely at this time.
The robust redhorse was rediscovered in the Savannah River in 1997, and individuals have been periodically collected in the Shoals area of the Savannah River and in the lower Savannah River, downstream of the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam. Robust redhorse spawn over medium-coarse gravel bed sediments from April through June. Persistent low-velocity habitats are essential to enhance survival of early life history stages of robust redhorse, especially during May and June (FERC, 2005a).
Habitat for the robust redhorse is available in the Savannah River and Augusta Canal (Kleinschmidt, 2000). The GADNR Wildlife Resources Division reports that early life stages of robust redhorse require similar flow velocities as spawning fish (GADNR Wildlife Resources Division, letter November 1, 2006, Appendix A), and further notes that spawning flows of 2,200 cfs to 5,600 cfs were found by a 2002 instream flow study of the Savannah River are best. The presence of this species has been documented in the Savannah River between the Augusta Diversion Dam and the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam (Avondale, 2001). An on-site reconnaissance survey of the Augusta Canal was conducted in 2000 (Avondale, 2001). No robust redhorse were discovered and it was determined that the likelihood of the robust redhorse passing from the Savannah River through the Canal levee floodgates was small.
- E-38 - 4.1.6 Agency Requested Information
Agency correspondence is provided in Appendix A. Letters were received from the GADNR Wildlife Resources Division, the USFWS, and the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League and American Rivers (the latter two organizations are collectively referred to as the Conservation Groups). Informational requests and corrections identified by commenting agencies have been addressed in the appropriate locations of this License Application. Agency and Nongovernmental Agency study requests are addressed below.
The GADNR Wildlife Resources Division identified corrections and clarifications to the text, which have been addressed in the descriptions provided in this Final License Application. In addition, the GADNR Wildlife Resources Division requested the Licensee to conduct a desktop entrainment and mortality study. This study was requested as a follow-up to the 1992 study completed at King Mill as part of the previous License Application. The GADNR Wildlife Resources Division stated they would be agreeable to a paper study, similar to what was completed for other mills on the Canal.
The Augusta Canal Authority developed the requested desktop entrainment/mortality study in accordance with the criteria defined in the GADNR’s request. Specifically, the study quantified turbine mortality due to entrainment at King Mill. Additionally, the study addresses the criteria included in similar entrainment/mortality study requests submitted by USFWS, The Coastal Conservation League, and American Rivers (see below).
The USFWS summarized its management goals for the middle Savannah River, in the vicinity of the King Mill Project and requested the Licensee to conduct three studies related to fisheries: A desktop entrainment and mortality study, a diadromous fish downstream passage evaluation, and a threatened and endangered species study.
- E-39 - Similar to the GADNR request, the USFWS requested a follow-up study to the 1991 King Mill Fish Entrainment Study in order fully quantify impacts of project operations on resident and anadromous fishes. In addition to quantifying fish losses due to turbine mortality, the agency asserts that the study is necessary to determine the type and extent of mitigation needed.
On March 15, 2007, the Licensee distributed copies of a draft report entitled “King Mill Fish Entrainment and Mortality Analysis”. An overview of the results of this study appears below.
The entrainment estimate was based on a field study conducted at the project and turbine mortality estimates for target species were developed using data from mortality studies performed at hydroelectric projects with characteristics similar to those at the King Mill Project. Based on the results of contained in report, the estimated number of fish potentially annually killed by turbine operation at the Project is approximately 20,895.
The USFWS and NOAA found the report generally acceptable as written (Letters dated April 16, 2007 and April 19, 2007 Appendix A). Both agencies requested additional mortality information for species which were not present in the field study (American Eel) or are currently found above the ADD (sturgeon sp.). The Licensee accommodated the request from both agencies, developed the necessary information, revised the report and issued a final copy, which appears in Appendix D.
According to the USFWS, the intent of the requested diadromous fish downstream passage evaluation is to “…evaluate potential alternatives to provide safe, timely, and effective downstream passage at the Project for diadromous fish from the Augusta Canal to the Savannah River with particular attention to the shortnose sturgeon. The study should include a complete engineering review of the Project’s internal structures with possible alternatives for installation of a downstream bypass passage mechanism.” Upstream fish passage has been
- E-40 - prescribed for the Augusta Diversion Dam as a condition of that Project’s new license. Once in place, there will be potential for out-migrants to enter the Augusta Canal. The USFWS states that safe, timely and effective passage of any out-migrating species will need safe, timely, and effective passage at King Mill (and others).
The Augusta Canal Authority believes that an evaluation of downstream fish passage for diadromous would be premature at this time, as currently there is no effective fish passage, and thus no diadromous fish, above the Augusta Diversion Dam. This is consistent with draft settlement agreement between the USFWS, NOAA Fisheries as described in a letter of intent,2 which states that the City will install downstream fish passage at such time as sturgeon are documented to be present upstream of the Augusta Diversion Dam. As an alternative, the Augusta Canal Authority proposes to perform the requested engineering review as part of post-filing compliance, once fish passage has been installed at the Augusta Diversion Dam and shortnose sturgeon have been documented above the Augusta Diversion Dam. This review will include an evaluation of the best available technologies for ensure safe, effective and timely downstream passage of diadromous species, as well as drawings and project details that may be used in determining potential passage means should they become necessary. Consultation with appropriate state and federal resource agencies will be initiated at the time shortnose sturgeon are confirmed above the Augusta Diversion Dam and will continue through completion of the assessment.
According to the USFWS, the intent of the threatened and endangered species study is to evaluate the “…potential existence and affects of project operations on any federally listed threatened or endangered species.” The USFWS identified the bald eagle (threatened), red-cockaded woodpecker (endangered), wood stork (endangered), and the shortnose sturgeon (endangered). The USFWS recommended surveys comparing habitat requirements for these
2 Letter from Timothy Hall, Field Supervisor, USFWS to Clifford A. Goins, City of Augusta dated January 31, 2006 and filed with FERC February 7, 2006.
- E-41 - species with available habitat within the action area of the Project.3 If habitat requirements overlap, field surveys for the species should be conducted at the project site. USFWS offers assistance with study design, sampling, methodology, geographic scope and analysis of the effects of the action, and recommended contacting SCDNR and NOAA for additional information regarding known populations of federal or state endangered, threatened or sensitive species in the project area.
The Conservation Groups submitted comments on the Initial Consultation Document (ICD) to FERC on October 3, 2006. An amended letter, also dated October 3, 2006, was filed with FERC on October 10, 2006. The Conservation Groups requested the Licensee conduct four studies: a low inflow protocol study; a diadromous and migratory fish study; a desktop entrainment mortality study; and a fish passage study.
According to the Conservation Groups, the intent of the low inflow protocol study is “…to determine how to balance water availability, canal water levels and downstream flow requirements for all uses during low flow. Specific areas to be assessed include operational changes in times of low inflow to properly distribute the effects of low inflow among project operations, downstream aquatic needs and other canal uses.”
Water flow in the Augusta canal is controlled by the City of Augusta, at the Augusta Diversion Dam. Water withdrawals are permitted under state law or contract agreement with the city (FERC, 2005b and 2005c). The Augusta Canal Authority cannot determine water flow or usage within the canal, and would be unable to implement a low flow management plan for the Canal. Under the terms of the City of Augusta’s draft settlement agreement for the Augusta Diversion Dam licensing, the City will coordinate development of a plan between all Canal water uses, to curtail flows in the Canal when inadequate water is available to
3 According to USFWS, “action area” is defined by 50 CFR § 402.02 as “…all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely in the immediate area involved in the action.”
- E-42 - meet both Canal and Shoal needs (FERC, 2006). It is to intention of the Augusta Canal Authority to work closely with the City of Augusta in developing an operating plan for the canal. For these reasons, the Licensee declines to conduct this requested study. The Licensee will complete a post licensing compliance report on Project Operations in response to a USFWS request, which will include a method for measuring project generation, and inflows and outflows from the project; a frequency or schedule for monitoring generation and inflows; and contingencies for emergencies and provisions for scheduled maintenance drawdowns of the Canal.
According to the Conservation Groups, the intent of the diadromous and migratory fish study is “…to determine the presence and abundance of diadromous and migratory riverine fish (i.e. robust redhorse) in the Project tailrace. Releases from the Project may attract fish into the tailrace and away from future upstream fish passage facilities. This information is also needed to assess fish passage alternatives for the Project.”
Currently there is no access to the immediate tailrace above the levee gates. The tailrace is characterized by sheer banks and deep fast flow water. Therefore, sampling would provide no useable results. Further, it has been documented by the SCDNR, GADNR and during the entrainment study that young of year American shad occasionally utilize the tailrace.
The Augusta Canal Authority believes this study is not needed, as existing studies have already documented the presence of diadromous/migratory species in the Augusta Shoals area. Populations of blueback herring, American shad, robust redhorse, and American eel have been documented from areas downstream of the Augusta Diversion Dam (Environmental and Chemical Sciences, 1984; Avondale, 2001), and it is assumed that these species may frequent the tailrace areas of the mills along the canal.
- E-43 - According to the Conservation Groups, the intent of the desktop entrainment mortality study is “…to fully document project impacts to diadromous and resident fishes…It should produce estimates of mortality and injury based on size and species of entrained fish. Estimates should be expressed as percentages of fish entrained and total number of fish killed or injured.”
According to the Conservation Groups, the intent of the fish passage study is to examine “…upstream and downstream passage of diadromous and riverine fish species at the Project…” with “cumulative impacts analysis of the King Mill Project on the diadromous fish stocks of the Savannah River.” In addition to the study request, the Conservation Groups request the Licensee to develop means to enhance diadromous fish populations by establishing access to historic spawning grounds, safe upstream and downstream passage, and providing attraction flows, and to evaluate mitigation opportunities for ongoing impacts to diadromous and migratory riverine fish. Further, the Conservation Groups stated that alternatives should be developed to enhance diadromous fish populations by establishing access to historic spawning grounds, safe upstream and downstream passage, and providing attraction flows.
With respect to the issue of upstream passage, the Augusta Canal Authority believes this aspect of the above-referenced study is unwarranted, as providing upstream passage at King Mill would pass fish into the Augusta Canal, a man-made structure, and not into their historic spawning grounds. The Augusta Diversion Dam itself is the only feasible location for establishing upstream fish passage to areas above the Augusta Canal.
The Augusta Canal Authority believes that an evaluation of downstream fish passage for diadromous would be premature at this time, as currently there is no effective fish passage, and thus no diadromous fish, above the Augusta Diversion Dam. Instead, the Augusta Canal Authority proposes to perform the requested engineering review as part of post-filing compliance, once fish passage has been installed at the Augusta Diversion Dam and shortnose sturgeon have
- E-44 - been documented above the Augusta Diversion Dam. This review will include an evaluation of the best available technologies for ensure safe, effective and timely downstream passage of diadromous species. Consultation with appropriate state and federal resource agencies will be initiated at the time shortnose sturgeon are confirmed above the Augusta Diversion Dam and will continue through completion of the assessment.
4.2 Wildlife Resources
Wildlife habitat on project lands is limited by both area and type. The Project occupies less than one acre of land, most of which is covered by mill structures. The small area of lawn and a few ornamental trees on the property constitute the only available habitat at the Project.
The Project lies within the heavily populated Augusta metropolitan area, and wildlife habitats are very limited, primarily industrial, commercial, and residential areas at and adjacent to the Project (FERC, 2005a). Limited pine and hardwood forest stands, open fields, dense undergrowth, and wetlands, are located on undeveloped areas along the Augusta Canal and Savannah River upstream of King Mill (FERC, 2005a).
Wildlife species in the project area are typical of those that are suited to or are able to adapt to the influence of man upon the environment. Mammals found near the Augusta Canal include white-tailed deer, raccoon, opossum, gray squirrel, cottontail rabbit, and various species of small rodents and bats (Avondale, 2001). Muskrats, otters, and the occasional bobcat and alligator have been known to call the Augusta Canal home (Uhles, 2002). Many species of amphibians and reptiles including green tree frogs, bullfrogs, yellow-bellied turtles, musk turtles, pond sliders, fence lizards, green anoles and a variety of snakes, including venomous cottonmouths, can be found near the Canal and the Savannah River (Uhles, 2002; FERC, 2005a; Avondale, 2001). Waterfowl and wading birds in the Project vicinity include mallards, wood ducks, widgeons, ring-necked ducks, great blue herons, and egrets (Avondale, 2001). Other bird species found in the Project area include cormorants, field sparrows, chimney swifts, blue jays, mourning
- E-45 - doves, purple martins, mockingbirds, kingfishers, woodpeckers, and crows (Avondale, 2001).
Game species, such as white-tailed deer and wild turkey, occur within the Project vicinity. City and County ordinances prohibit hunting near populated areas, including at the project, where public access is prohibited. There are no specific state wildlife management plans or activities (excluding protected species) affecting the lands within the Project vicinity (FERC, 2005a).
4.2.1 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
The GADNR and SCDNR list a total of 23 species of rare, threatened, or endangered wildlife and species of concern as potentially occurring in counties surrounding the project, Richmond and Aiken, including the federally listed bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, and wood stork. Because of the lack of habitat and amount of development present within and adjacent to the project, Avondale (2001) concluded that none of the species identified as rare, threatened or endangered, or are species of special concern, are thought to occupy project lands. During the relicensing of the adjacent Sibley Mill Project, no species were listed by the USFWS or GADNR as potentially or likely impacted by operation of the Project. As such, it is assumed that no rare, threatened, or endangered wildlife or species of concern inhabit the King Mill Project area.
4.2.2 Agency Requested Information
By letter dated April 16, 2007, the USFWS cited four federally listed species (wood stork, shortnose sturgeon, red-cockaded woodpecker and bald eagle; Table 4.2-1) as occurring in Richmond County and recommended preparation of a literature-based assessment of potential occurrence of habitat for these species within the Project area. In addition, previous consultation with USFWS conducted as part of relicensing of the adjacent Sibley Mill (FERC No. 5044) and Enterprise Mill projects (FERC No. 2935 ) indicated presence of one
- E-46 - additional federally listed species (relict trillium), as well as two Species of Federal Concern (robust redhorse and rocky shoals spider lily) in the Project vicinity (Table 4.2-1).
Table 4.2-1: Federally Listed Species and Species of Concern Documented as Occurring or Potentially Occurring in Richmond County, GA
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Federally listed Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Federally listed Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Federally listed Wood Stork Mycteria americana Federally listed rocky shoals spider lily Hymenocallis coronaria State listed, of Federal concern robust redhorse Moxostoma robustum State listed, of Federal concern relict trillium Trillium reliquum Federally listed
The requested literature-based assessment was submitted to agencies for review via e-mail on May 21, 2007. The draft assessment concluded that, due to the limited acreage of the King Mill Project and the limited availability of suitable habitat, the probability of occurrence wood storks, red-cockaded woodpeckers, relict trillium, and rocky shoals spider lily was low. However, suitable habitat in the Augusta Canal, Project tailrace, and Savannah River may potentially be used by bald eagle, shortnose sturgeon and robust redhorse. The assessment determined that these species were unlikely to be affected by continued Project operations. A copy of the preliminary assessment is presented in Appendix E.
A final version of the assessment will be filed with the Commission upon completion of the agency review and consultation process.
- E-47 - 4.3 Vegetative Resources
The Augusta, Georgia metropolitan area is the dominant influence upon land use and habitat availability in the Project area (FERC, 2005a). Urbanized development occurs within the immediate vicinity of the Project, including residences, industries, municipal facilities, and commercial properties (FERC, 2005a). This development limits the diversity and prevalence of botanical resources at the Project to disturbed areas containing various grasses, shrubs, vines and other herbaceous species (Avondale, 2001).
Some shoreline areas along the Augusta Canal and the Savannah River upstream of King Mill, supports a variety of vegetative types, and terrestrial habitats, including hardwood forests, pine stands, pasture/maintained areas, and wetlands. In general, a forested area to the northeast, bordering the Savannah River, consists of bottomland and riparian species such as river birch, water oak, sycamore, and red maple, with several isolated areas of bald cypress. Also present in the area is a mixed hardwood forest considered within the bluff community type, including red mulberry, sweetgum, yellow poplar, various oaks and hickories, American holly, hophornbeam, ironwood, sugarberry, and swamp chestnut oak (FERC, 2005a).
Within the vicinity of the Project, the Canal levee bordering the Savannah River supports mixed bottomland hardwoods of cottonwood, sycamore, willow, river birch, American elm, white oak and water oak. Common sub-canopy species include yellow Jessamine, dogwood and cane (Avondale, 2001).
Aquatic plant species occurring in the Augusta Canal include elodea, Eurasian milfoil and pondweed (Avondale, 2001).
4.3.1 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
The GADNR and RCUSFWS listed approximately 11 rare, threatened, or endangered plant species in Richmond County, including two federally listed species, the Georgia aster and the sandhill milkvetch (RCUSFWS, 2004 and
- E-48 - GADNR, 2004). There are over 50 rare, threatened, or endangered plant species identified as being present in Aiken County, SC. Among these are the federally listed smooth coneflower and relict trillium and the rocky shoals spider lily, which is a candidate species for federal listing (SCDNR, 2006a).
During relicensing efforts for the Sibley Mill Project, the GADNR and the USFWS identified two listed plant species as having the potential to occur in the vicinity of the Project: the relict trillium and rocky shoals spider lily (Avondale, 2001). The relict trillium is a perennially herb that is typically found in mature, undisturbed hardwood forests with moist soils. The rocky shoals spider lily, also known as the Cahaba lily, is found in large stream and rivers along rocky shoals and bedrock outcroppings which provide anchor points for the plant. It grows best in constantly flowing, clear, shallow waters (Avondale, 2001).
A study of the habitat availability for these species in the Sibley Mill Project area was conducted in 2000 (Kleinschmidt, 2000). It was determined that the limited lands at the Sibley Mill Project and the degree of development within and adjacent to the Sibley Mill Project significantly impedes the ability of vegetative species to successfully colonize. Because of the similarities between the Sibley Mill and King Mill Projects and their close proximity, it is expected that the habitat suitability for these species at the King Mill Project is similarly not favorable. Furthermore, the depth and velocities of the Sibley Mill Project tailrace are not likely suitable habitat for the rocky shoals spider lily (Avondale, 2001), as would be expected of the King Mill Project. It was concluded that because specific habitat requirements are not present at the Sibley Mill Project, these species are not likely to inhabit Project lands (FERC, 2005a). The same is assumed for the King Mill Project.
4.3.2 Agency Requested Information
No information requests were received.
- E-49 - 5.0 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL
5.1 Historic Period Resources
The upper Savannah River was historically the site of a flourishing Native American culture for many centuries prior to the arrival of the Europeans in the early eighteenth century, including the Creek, Chickasaw, and Cherokee tribes (FERC, 2005a). Augusta is located at the head of navigation for the Savannah River, and by the mid- eighteenth century it served as the point just below the fall line where land traffic could access the river for clear shipping down to Savannah. In the early nineteenth century, as the cultivation of cotton spread throughout the piedmont area of the South, Augusta was an important commercial center for the regional cotton trade. By the 1840s, however, the city was seeing signs of relative decay as a national depression and the western migration of citizens took a toll. With word of the industrial developments that were taking place as a result of the canals in Lowell, Massachusetts, the City of Augusta accepted the ideas of Henry Cumming to develop a seven-mile canal that would draw water from the Savannah River into the heart of the city to provide water power (New Georgia Encyclopedia, 2006).
The King Mill Project, constructed between 1882 and 1884, is intimately connected to and dependent upon this canal. The Augusta Canal, which is parallel and adjacent to the Savannah River, was one of the few successful industrial canals in the South. Conceived in the early 1840s, the Canal was completed on three levels through the city in 1845. The purpose of the Canal was to provide water power that was suitable for the creation of a mill complex that would, in turn, make Augusta into “the Lowell of the South.” The first factories to be located along the Canal, and which drew its water for power from the Canal, included the Augusta Factory (a massive textile mill) and saw and grist mills completed in 1847. Because of its reputation as one of the South’s few manufacturing centers before the Civil War, the Confederate States of America selected the Augusta Canal as the site for its Powder Works. The Confederate Powder Works provided ammunition and materiel for the Confederacy throughout the Civil War.
- E-50 - After the War, during the early years of Reconstruction, the City of Augusta authorized a project to improve the Canal by making it both wider (from 40 to 150 feet) and deeper (from 5 to 11 feet). Engineers who had been associated with the improvements to the Erie Canal in New York State were hired to complete the improvements to the Augusta Canal. These improvements, which were completed in the mid 1870s, along with favorable tax incentives, opened the way for the construction of three new mills: Enterprise Mill (1877), Sibley Mill (1880), and John P. King Mill (1884) (New Georgia Encyclopedia, 2006).
Each of these factories was developed independently, and the John P. King Mill continues to operate independently. The King Mill had its origins in a group of Augusta- based investors, including a New York-based mayor of the city, who created a company and sold one million dollars in stock subscriptions to create the mill. The new mill was located on the first level of the canal adjacent to the Sibley Mill; construction began in 1882, and was completed in 1884, although production of cotton thread was begun in 1883, before the mill was completed. The original product line included unfinished white goods, sheetings, shirtings, and drills (Steiner 1977:2-3).
The mill was constructed with hydromechanical power, using only water from the Augusta Canal. The plant was constructed with headgates that allowed water through flume, using a 32-foot drop to power three vertical Geyelin-type turbines. These turbines powered a single main drive which transmitted power throughout the mill by way of pulleys, belts, shafts, and bevel gears. The plant initially drew 1,046 horsepower from the canal (Steiner 1977:10-11). With such an abundance of inexpensive water power, the King Mill had little incentive to make improvements to its power source, choosing instead to invest in improvements to its manufacturing equipment. Incentive to improve the power supply came not from cost, but first from the need to power an increased number of machines and second from the need to overcome the frequently inconsistent supply of power.
- E-51 - In 1896 the mill improved its efficiency by installing three McCormick-type vertical hydromechanical turbines in order to expand its production to a fourth building. In 1913, however, the mill’s owners tried to overcome the frequent work stoppages due to low water by adding an auxiliary steam power plant. Rather than a steam powered electric generator, however, the steam boilers applied the power directly to the jack shaft (Steiner 1977:12).
The mill’s owners only slowly electrified the plant, though they did so at first by using power which they purchased from the Augusta and Aiken Railway Company in 1925 (Steiner 1977:12). It was not until the 1940s that the mill’s directors opted to produce their own electricity. The mill’s hydroelectric equipment was installed in 1945, including a 1300-kVa Canadian General Electric generator (which it acquired used) and a 750-kVa General Electric generator, powered by three horizontal turbines. Two of the turbines, like the hydromechanical wheels which they replaced, were housed in a single casing, while a third was installed separately.
5.2 Historic Properties within the Area of Potential Effect
The John P. King Mill, which contains the integrated textile manufacturing plant and the hydroelectric plant, contributes to two distinct yet overlapping historic districts. In 1971, the Augusta Canal Industrial District, located along the west bank to the Savannah River from the Richmond-Columbia county line to 10th and Fenwick Streets in Augusta, was listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This historic district encompasses 2,250 acres with 15 contributing buildings and two contributing structures. It has multiple periods of significance, including 1825-1849, 1850-1874, 1875-1899, 1900-1924.
- E-52 - In 1977, the National Park Service identified the Historic Augusta Canal and Industrial District as a National Historic Landmark (NHL). National Historic Landmark designation is reserved for those buildings, structures, and districts that are nationally significant in American history and culture. The NHL Statement of Significance describes the district’s importance as (National Park Service, 1977):
“Intact canal system and mills constructed from the 1840s to the 1880s representative of industrial aspects of the New South. The best surviving example of an engineering system singularly important to the southeastern United States.”
The John P. King Mill contributes to the significance of the Historic Augusta Canal and Industrial District.
5.3 Agency Requested Information
No information requests were received. By letter dated August 16, 2006, the GADNR Historic Preservation Division (GADNRHPD) stated its finding that no historic properties or archeological resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by relicensing of the King Mill Project, as proposed. The Licensee is not proposing any modifications to the project at this time. However, the Licensee may potentially have to install a downstream fishway at some time in the future. Should the Licensee be required to install such a structure they will consult with the GADNRHPD in during the conceptual design and any subsequent implementation prior to construction of such a facility as would be required by Section 106 requirements.
- E-53 - 6.0 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
There are no recreation facilities on Project lands. As a result, there is no recreational use occurring at the Project. In 1990, FERC recognized that there is no potential for recreational use at the Project and determined that the Project is exempt from FERC Form 80 filings4 (FERC, 1990). Outside the Project boundary, many opportunities for outdoor recreation exist.
6.1 Augusta Canal National Heritage Area
The Augusta Canal itself was designated as a National Heritage Area by the US Congress 1996 (Augusta Canal Authority, 2006). Recreation activities that are popular on and along the Augusta Canal are fishing, wildlife watching, canoeing and kayaking, walking and jogging, historic guided tours aboard the replica Petersburg Boats and bicycling (Augusta Canal Authority, 2006). Popular activities on and along the Savannah River include boating, angling, sightseeing and picnicking (FERC, 2005a).
Non-motorized boating and boats with electric motors are permitted on the Augusta Canal. Carry-in boating access is provided at Savannah Rapids Park, Riverwatch Parkway Bridge, and at the Augusta Canal Interpretive Center (Augusta Canal Authority, 2006 and FERC, 2005a). Approximately one mile upstream of the Project is Lake Olmstead which provides opportunities for boating (motorized and non- motorized), angling, picnicking, and sightseeing (Augusta Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2006). Boating access to the Canal is also provided via Lake Olmstead boat ramp which connects to the Canal (FERC, 2005a). Swimming is prohibited in the Canal (Uhles, 2002).
4 The Licensed Hydropower Development Recreation Report, or FERC Form 80, is schedule describing the public use and access of recreation facilities at a hydroelectric project. Licensees must complete and file with FERC according to a schedule established by FERC, generally every 6 years. In a letter dated March 30, 1990, the FERC concluded that the John P. King Mill Project was exempt from further Form 80 filing as there are no recreational facilities provided at the Project and no potential for recreational use.
- E-54 - Angling activities on the Augusta Canal occur primarily from shore (FERC, 2001). The GADNR Wildlife Resources Division has conducted extensive electrofishing data on the Augusta Canal since the late 1990’s (GADNR Wildlife Resources Division, letter November 1, 2006, Appendix A). Based on these data, the Georgia DNR reports that bluegill, redearsunfish, warmouth, chain pickerel, and largemouth bass are the primary species in the Canal.
6.2 Augusta Canal Towpath Trail
The Augusta Canal Towpath Trail covers approximately 8.5 miles adjacent to the Augusta Canal and also provides access to the Savannah River near the canal headgates (Augusta Canal Authority, 2006). Non-motorized uses such as hiking, walking, jogging and biking are allowed on the trail, though horseback riding is not allowed. The trail also provides sightseeing opportunities and bank access along the Canal and to areas of the Savannah River. The Augusta Canal Mountain Bike Trail spurs off of the Augusta Canal Towpath Trail in the vicinity of Lake Olmstead and provides eight miles of looped, single track, dirt mountain biking trails (Mountain Bike Review, 2006). Camping is allowed along the Augusta Canal with permission from the Augusta Canal Authority (Uhles, 2002).
The Augusta Canal Authority has recently received a transportation enhancement grant from the Georgia Department of Transportation in the amount of $825,000 that will allow the extension of the multiuse trail (New Bartram Trail) along the Savannah River from the entrance to Waters Edge Drive at 15th Street and connecting back to Lake Olmstead. This trail will cross the tailraces of both the King and Sibley Mill projects with new bridges. Engineering design of this project is nearing completion and should be under construction by mid 2007.
- E-55 - 6.3 Savannah River
Boating in the shoals area of the Savannah River is primarily restricted to non- motorized canoeing and kayaking, primarily due to the depth of the River in this area. Access for canoes and kayaks to the Savannah River is provided from the Augusta Canal towpath near the Savannah River Pavilion. Motorized boating is available in the river below the shoals and access is provided at the North Augusta boat ramp at Riverview Park. Some Class II-III whitewater boating opportunities are available on the River between Steven’s Creek Dam (access at the Pavilion) and the North Augusta boat ramp at higher water levels, generally between 8,000 and 15,000 cfs (American Whitewater, 2006).
Angling opportunities are also provided by the Savannah River, primarily occurring from shore, and include such species as perch, bass, shad, bullhead and crappie (FERC, 2005a).
6.4 Other Opportunities
There are a multitude of opportunities within the Project vicinity for hiking, picnicking, sightseeing, biking, and other activities that are provided at several state, county and municipal parks, historic sites, and trails. Savannah Rapids Park and Pavilion Area, which provides boating and angling access to the headgates of the Canal and the Savannah River, also has picnic tables, a playground, an outdoor pavilion, and is home to the historic canal headgates buildings (Columbia County, 2006). Eisenhower Park, also upstream of the Project approximately 2.5 miles, features playgrounds, sports fields, restrooms, and walking trails (City of Augusta, Georgia, 2006). Lake Olmstead Park, also known as Julian Smith Park and located on the southern shore of Lake Olmstead, provides athletic fields, trails, picnic facilities, playgrounds and a boat ramp on 113 acres. Chaffee Park, located near the King Mill Project, covers nine acres and is currently an open space area primarily used for passive recreation use. An older existing gymnasium that is in a poor state of repair is no longer used by for indoor activities by the Recreation Department (FERC, 2005a). Riverview Park is located on the Savannah River in South
- E-56 - Carolina and provides bicycling trails, a disc golf course, baseball/softball fields, soccer fields, tennis courts, a gymnasium, and a boat ramp (Trail-O-Dex, 2006).
6.5 Recreation Management Plans
Management plans that cover recreation resources within the Project vicinity include the 2003-2007 Georgia Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) and the Augusta Canal Master Plan. The following summarizes the recreation needs identified in the plans applicable to the Project vicinity.
6.5.1 Georgia Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
The 2003-2007 Statewide SCORP provides an evaluation of existing outdoor recreation opportunities, identifies the outdoor recreation and conservation issues facing the state, and provides state and local government, outdoor recreation providers and the general public guidance with respect to the actions necessary to address these issues (GADNR, 2003). The SCORP does not identify any recreation planning issues or related recommendations that would impact project lands, however, the SCORP has identified greenspace and linkages between greenspace and historic sites as a top priority, which could include the Augusta Canal National Heritage Area.
6.5.2 Augusta Canal Master Plan
In 1993, the Augusta Canal Authority published the Augusta Canal Master Plan for use as a guide for long-term preservation and development of the Canal. The Plan identifies historic preservation, recreation, natural resource conservation, education, and development goals for the Savannah River Impoundment, lands adjacent to the Canal (including Lake Warren and Lake Olmstead) and between the Canal and Savannah River (except in downtown Augusta), and the islands in the Savannah River from Stevens Creek Dam to downtown Augusta. One goal of the Plan is to preserve the island area between
- E-57 - the Canal and the Savannah River in a natural state, prohibit motorized access, and allow only low-impact trails, walkways, observation areas, and related support facilities and services (FERC, 2005a).
Among the objectives set forth in the Plan are preserving natural settings and habitats such as through “greenway” designations, projects to renovate many of the historic structures associated within the Canal, improve and expand the Canal towpath, improve access to the Canal, and make the Canal a tourist destination. In addition, Plan identifies recreational measures such as carry-in boat launching facilities on the Canal accessible from the Savannah Rapids Pavilion parking lot and in the area of the Raw Water Pumping Station and a carry-over portage from the Canal to a river launch area for access to the Shoals area of the Savannah River.
Recommended projects from the Master Plan that have been completed by the Augusta Canal Authority include:
Renovation of the 1875 gatehouse and locks; Stabilization of the 1845 lock and related structures; Renovation of the four historic buildings (lock keepers cottage, dance pavilion, barbeque pit and dining shed) at the headgates; Construction of two replicas of the original Petersburg Boats that are used for historic guided tour; Construction of two boat docks for the Petersburg Boats; Improvements to the canal towpath trail, including extension to connect to the Savannah River at Riverwalk; Construction of an Interpretive Center in Enterprise Mill; Canoe and kayak dock launch in the canal at the headgates; and Staircase from the canal towpath for canoe and kayak access to the river at the canal headgates.
- E-58 - Additional planned enhancements include (FERC, 2005a):
a pedestrian/bike bridge over the Canal (currently under construction); a boat rental/storage facility, additional parking, walking trails, picnic shelters, public rest rooms, bike storage, a concession building, and information kiosk at the canal headgates; extension of the Towpath Trail along the 3rd level of the canal; and Construction of the New Bartram Trail along the Savannah River behind Sibley and King Mill.
While not directly related to nor impacting recreation use at the Project, improvements spear-headed by the Augusta Canal Authority could increase use of the area, thereby, potentially increasing recreational use of the Canal and trails in the vicinity of the Project.
6.6 Agency Requested Information
No additional information was requested during consultation efforts.
- E-59 - 7.0 AESTHETIC RESOURCES
The King Mill Project is located within the City of Augusta, Georgia and is surrounded by a mixture of industrial, commercial, and residential development. Residential areas, small businesses and light industry are among the primary land uses in the project vicinity (Avondale, 2001).
As discussed in Section 5.1, Historic Period Resources, the Project is located within two overlapping historic districts, the Augusta Canal Industrial District, which is listed on the NRHP, and the Historic Augusta Canal and Industrial District, which is a National Historic Landmark.
Public roadways provide access to the Project. Goodrich Street runs between the Project and the August Canal and extends over the intake channel. Georgia Highway 104, also known as the Riverwatch Parkway, runs between the Project and the Savannah River and over the Project tailrace. Access to the Project Area across the Savannah River is provided by the 13th Street Bridge, connecting North Augusta, South Carolina with Augusta, Georgia. Additional river crossings are provided by Interstate 20, upstream of the Project, and US Route 278 (Gordon Highway), downstream of the Project. Visibility of the Project from public travel ways, particularly Goodrich Street and Riverwatch Parkway, is very good. Likewise, the Project is visible from several vistas and vantage points along the Augusta Canal and Savannah River.
7.1 Agency Requested Information
No information requests were received.
- E-60 - 8.0 LAND USE
The Project encompasses less than one acre of land, most of which is developed with project-related structures supporting mill and hydropower operations. Project operations and maintenance are the primary activities that occur on Project land.
The peninsula between the Augusta Canal and Savannah River, on which the Project is located, is largely forested upstream of the Project to the Augusta Raw Water Pumping Station. This area is bisected by the Riverwatch Parkway transportation corridor. Downstream from the Project to the 13th Street Headgates, land use along the Canal changes to urban land consisting of industrial and commercial developments and residential areas (FERC, 2005a).
Land use along the western side of the Canal, across from the Project, is primarily urban, transitioning from primarily residential areas near the Augusta Raw Water Pumping Station to a mix of commercial, industrial, and residential areas at the 13th Street Headgates (FERC, 2005a).
8.1 Augusta-Richmond County Zoning Regulations
Richmond County established zoning regulations to “provide for the preparation and amendment of overall plans for the orderly growth and development of municipalities and counties; provide for the regulation of structures on mapped streets, public building sites, and public open spaces; repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes” (City of Augusta, 2004). To this end, the County has designated the following zoning districts or zones:
Agricultural Districts, allowing single family residential buildings and structures, lands and associated buildings for agriculture, dairying and ranching, and non-commercial boating facilities. Residential Districts for single family, mobile-home, and multi-family zoning provide for private dwellings and limited commercial development such as day care centers, nursing homes, and bed and breakfasts. Professional Districts provide for professional service buildings such as
- E-61 - doctor’s offices, banks, and schools but not associated with retail trade. Business Districts provide for a range of business uses such as small, community retail operations such as gas stations and grocery stores, larger retail trade operations and services. Industrial Districts provides for industrial operations ranging from light industry such as wholesale, storage and warehouse facilities, light manufacturing and auto repair to heavy commercial uses such as manufacturing, chemical plants, petroleum refineries and storage, and tanneries.
The zoning ordinance also identifies as special district classification for the Savannah riverfront, called the Planned Development Riverfront Zone. The intent of this zone is to “recognizing the value of the Savannah Riverfront as an economic, historic, recreational, and visual resource of tremendous value to the citizens of Augusta and surrounding area and further recognizing it as an area of critical and sensitive environmental concern” (City of Augusta, 2004). As such, this designation dictates criteria guiding the development or redevelopment of the lands adjoining the Savannah River by (City of Augusta, 2004, pg. 25-A-1):
Creating a special Riverfront Development Review Board comprised of persons with an interest or expertise in the orderly development of this resource. Limiting land uses to those which will provide the best utilization of the benefits afforded by a riverfront location. Insuring that the regulations applicable to the riverfront will be responsive to the dictates of the development economy at a given time. Setting forth sufficient design and development standards and criteria to provide for maximum public benefit from the further development of the riverfront area through a mixture of land uses, the provision and maintenance of public access, elimination or mitigation of negative environmental impact from development, aesthetic controls, and the beneficial coordination of residential, recreational, and commercial utilization of the riverfront lands.
- E-62 - Criteria for development within this district include specific setback requirements, provisions for public access, and building design and site planning standards. This district generally encompasses lands of the first level of the Augusta Canal, upstream of the Project.
The Augusta Canal is also designated (1996) as Regionally Important Resource by the Georgia Department of Community Affairs. This designation provides for a review and comment by the Augusta Canal Authority on any government action for property abutting the Augusta Canal. An example of the actions that would trigger the review would include: zoning changes, building permits, demolition permits, applications for land disturbing activities and approval of site plans.
8.2 Agency Requested Information
No information requests were received.
- E-63 - 9.0 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MEASURES PROPOSED BY THE LICENSEE
9.1 Project Impacts
The King Mill Project has a very limited ability to influence the surrounding environment and natural resources. However, resource agencies have suggested that the cumulative effects of all the projects located on the Augusta Canal should be assessed. In May 2005, FERC issued a comprehensive multi-project EA for the entire Augusta Canal and supporting projects (including the King Mill Project).
Information collected during the relicensing process and analyses suggest that water quality, recreation, cultural, wildlife and botanical resources are not affected by the operation of the King Mill Project. This information has also indicated that potential project impacts would be limited to two potential areas: fish entrainment and possibly in- stream flow reductions to the Savannah River bypass reach (potential in-stream flow reductions would not be controlled by the Licensee).
Fish Entrainment
The turbine entrainment/mortality estimates developed for the King Mill Project have been accepted by resource agencies as a reliable indicator for determining potential impacts as they relate to fish entrainment and associated turbine mortality. These estimates were developed using data from mortality studies that were performed at hydroelectric projects with characteristics of greatest similarity to the King Mill Project. Based on the results of the assessment, the number of fish potentially lost due to turbine mortality at the Project is estimated to be 20,895 annually.
The King Mill project bar rack spacing on the intake structure at King Mill is 1- inch clear which physically excludes most adult species. However, many non-game species such as minnows and threadfin shad may be susceptible to entrainment. Of the 20,895 fish estimated to be lost annually, approximately 76 % are comprised of non - game species. Of this percentage, Clupeids (shad and herring) represent 43.5 % and
- E-64 - Cyprinids (shiners and minnows) represent 32.4 %. The predominant game fish species potentially impacted by turbine operation are Centrarchids (sunfish and bass species) and comprise only 13.2 % of the entrainment composition.
All fishery information collected to date suggests that the Augusta Canal contains a healthy and diverse fish community structure with a good representation of all age classes, good growth rates and species diversity. Furthermore, the GADNR has historically indicated that fish resource management goals are being attained in the Augusta Canal. Therefore, it does not appear that fish entrainment and associated mortality due to the operation of the King Mill Project has a significant or adverse impact on fish resources in the Augusta Canal.
Flow Reductions in the Savannah River Outside the Project Boundary
Resource agencies have suggested that the King Mill Project may contribute to potential aquatic resource impacts to the Augusta Shoals portion of the Savannah River due to in-stream flow diversions. As demonstrated, the King Mill Project only uses those flows which are provided to the Project via Augusta-Richmond County’s ADD, located approximately 5 ½ miles upstream of the Project.
A three tiered flow regime has been proposed as part of the City of Augusta’s Settlement Agreement (Agreement) for the relicensing of the Augusta Canal Project (Appendix B). The flows to the bypassed reach effectively balance the water distribution to the bypass in order to mitigate potential impacts, while also providing water for King Mill Project generation during the majority of the year. The Licensee does not control flow releases to the Savannah River in the Augusta Shoals area. Therefore, the King Mill Project has virtually no direct control on impacts to in-stream fish habitat outside the project boundary. Collectively considering all other users on the Canal, the Project may contribute to a reduction in water availability to the shoals areas. However, any impacts should be mitigated through the three-tiered flow regime proposed in the Agreement
- E-65 - 9.2 Measures Proposed by the Licensee
The King Mill Project has minimal impact on environmental resources in the Project area, thus the ability to provide mitigation is constrained. However, the Augusta Canal Authority, understands the resource agencies’ concerns regarding limiting environmental impacts, to the extent possible, as they relate to project operation.
Downstream Fish Passage
Currently, diadromous fish do not have the ability to pass above the ADD. The USFWS and NOAA have developed a fishway prescription for the Augusta Canal Project (including all licensed facilities on the Canal).Contained in the Agreement are provisions and a schedule to install upstream fish passage at the ADD. Also contained as part of the Agreement is wording that defers downstream fishways at the Canal intakes (including all hydroelectric projects located on the Canal) until sturgeon have been detected above the ADD. Licensees for both the Sibley Mill Project and Enterprise Mill Project have consulted with NOAA and USFWS, subsequently requesting language in Article 401 of those licenses be revised to be consistent with the Agreement and implementation plan. By FERC Orders dated June 6, 2006 (Appendix E), FERC modified license Article 401 of Enterprise Mill and King Mill to reflect the newly modified implementation schedule for downstream fishways per the Agreement. Therefore, the Licensee is proposing that any License Article addressing fish passage implementation at King Mill be consistent with the June 6, 2006 FERC orders modifying Article 401 in the Sibley Mill and King Mill Licenses.
Bypass Flows and Low Flow Plan to the Savannah River
As noted, a flow regime has been proposed in the Agreement prepared for the Augusta Canal relicensing effort , which will likely reduce flows available for generation at the King Mill Project by 20 % (FERC, 2005). The Licensee is proposing to work with the City of Augusta, and other users on the canal, to develop a low flow operational plan for the Augusta Canal Project. The Licensee anticipates this low flow plan will be
- E-66 - developed to balance water/power generation needs among all of the water users on the Augusta Canal.
New License Term
As discussed above, there is the possibility in the future that the Augusta Canal Authority will be required to install downstream fish passage at the Project. Since any fish passage installation required at the King Mill Project would likely result in major capital expenditures, the Licensee is requesting a 50 year license for the King Mill Project. The issuance of a 50-year License for King Mill would be consistent with the license terms of both Sibley Mill and Enterprise Mills, and potentially the Augusta Canal Project.
- E-67 - 10.0 LITERATURE CITED
American Whitewater. 2006. Stevens Creek Dam to North Augusta Boat Ramp. [Online] URL: http://www.americanwhitewater.org/rivers/id/4087. Accessed May 10, 2006. Augusta Canal Authority. 2006. Augusta Canal National Heritage Area. Augusta, GA. [Online] URL: http://www.augustacanal.com. Accessed May 10, 2006. Augusta Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2006. Lake Olmstead/Julian Smith Park. Augusta, GA. [Online] URL: http://www.augustaga.org/listings/index.cfm?action=displayListing& listingID=135&catID=12&startrange=All&endrange=All&substart=M&subend=S&hit=1 Accessed May 10, 2006. Avondale Mills, Inc. 2001. Final Application for New License, Sibley Mill Project (FERC No. 5044). Augusta, Georgia. Prepared by Kleinschmidt Associates, Columbia, SC. City of Augusta. 2004. Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of Augusta-Richmond County. Augusta-Richmond County Planning Office. Augusta, GA. [Online] URL: http://www.augustaga.gov/departments /planning_zoning/docs/pdf/dev/zoning%20Ordinance.updatesept.04.pdf. October 2004. Accessed May 10, 2006. City of Augusta. 2006. Eisenhower Park. Augusta, GA. [Online] URL: http://www.augustaga.gov/maps/parks_detail.asp?partID=17. Accessed May 10, 2006. Columbia County. 2006. Savannah Rapids Park. [Online] URL: http://www.columbiacountyga .gov/home/index.asp?page=2951. Accessed May 10, 2006. Duncan, William W. and Edwin M. EuDaly. 2003. Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report on Savannah River Basin Comprehensive Study. Prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. October, 2003. Environmental & Chemical Sciences, Inc. 1984. A survey of adult fish and ichthyoplankton of the Savannah River and Augusta Canal in the vicinity of a proposed hydroelectric plant. Prepared for the City of Augusta, Georgia. ECS, Aiken, SC. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1990. FERC Form 80- Exemption Letter for the John P. King Mill Project (FERC No. 9988). Accession No. 19900416-0145. March 30, 1990. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2001. Environmental Inspection Report for the John P. King Mill Project (FERC No. 9988). Accession No: 20010627-9020. June 27, 2001.
- E-68 - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2005a. Multi-Project Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License. Augusta Canal Project, P-11810-004. Sibley Mill Project, P- 5044-008, Enterprise Mill Project, P-2935-015. Georgia, South Carolina. Office of Energy Projects, Division of Hydropower Licensing. Washington, DC. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2005b. Enterprise Mill, LLC, Project No. 2935-015. Order Issuing New License, Minor Project. 113 FERC ¶ 62,131. November 17, 2005. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2005c. Avondale Mills, Inc., Project No. 5044-008. Order Issuing New License, Major Project. 113 FERC ¶ 62,133. November 17, 2005. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2006. Final Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License. Augusta Canal Project, P-11810-004. Georgia, South Carolina. Office of Energy Projects, Division of Hydropower Licensing. Washington, DC. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2006b. Enterprise Mill, LLC, Project No. 2935-015. Order Granting Extension of Time and Revising Schedule Under Articles 202, 203, and 401. June 6, 2006. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2006c. Avondale Mills, Inc., Project No. 5044-008. Order Granting Extension of Time and Revising Schedule Under Articles 202, 203, and 401. June 6, 2006. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. (2004). Wildlife Resources Division. Locations of Special Concern Animals, Plants and Natural Communities in Richmond County, Georgia. [Online] URL: http://georgiawildlife.dnr. state.ga.us/content/specieslocationbycounty.asp?lstCounty=Richmond. October 22, 2004. Accessed May 11, 2006. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 1998. Water Quality in Georgia 1996-1997. Environmental Protection Division. Atlanta, GA. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2003. 2003-2007 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Parks, Recreation and Historic Sites Division. Atlanta, GA. Kleinschmidt Associates. 2000. Habitat Availability for Threatened and Endangered Species. Prepared for Avondale Mills, Inc., Project No. 5044. Mountain Bike Review. 2006. Augusta Canal Trail. [Online] URL: http://trails.mtbr.com/cat/united-states-trails-georgia/trail/PRD_l67557_4541crx.aspx. Accessed May 10, 2006. National Parks Service. 1977. Historic Augusta Canal and Industrial District – Statement of
- E-69 - Significance. National Historic Landmark Information System - http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1087&ResourceType=District, viewed May 17, 2006. New Georgia Encyclopedia. 2006. Augusta Canal. http://www.georgiaencyclopedia .org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-3039, accessed May 17, 2006. Normandeau Associates. 1992. Final Study Results and Recommendations, Fish Entrainment Study for the John P. King Mill Project (FERC No. 9988). August, 1992. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 1996. The State of South Carolina Water Quality Assessment Pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act. Bureau of Water Pollution Control, SCDHEC, Columbia, South Carolina. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2006a. South Carolina Rare, Threatened, & Endangered Species Inventory - Species Found In Aiken County. [Online] URL: http://www.dnr.sc.gov/pls/heritage/county_species.list?pcounty=aiken. January 17, 2006. Accessed May 11, 2006. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2006b. South Carolina Highest Conservation Priority – Big River Species. [Online] URL: http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wcp/pdfhigh/BigRiverSpecies.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2006. Steiner, Alan J. 1977. John P. King Manufacturing Company. HAER GA-15. 23pps. Historic American Engineering Record, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20243. Available at the Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=hhdatapage &fileName=ga/ga0200/ga0212/data/hhdatapage.db&recNum=0&itemLink=D?hh:11:./te mp/~ammem_l0iF:: Accessed May 12, 2006. Trail-O-Dex. 2006. North Augusta Greenway and Riverview Park. [Online] URL: http://sciway3.net/outdoors/park-riverview.html. Accessed May 10, 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004a. Letter from Edwin M. EuDaly, Acting Field Supervisor to Mr. Shane Boring, Kleinschmidt Associates on April 14, 2004. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004b. Listed Species in Richmond County [Online] URL: http://www.fws.gov/athens/endangered/counties/richmond_county.html. May, 2004. Richmond County Ecological Services Office. Accessed May 11, 2006. Uhles, Steven. 2002. Exploring Augusta Canal. The Augusta Chronicle. [Online] URL: http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/080902/app_canal.shtml. Accessed May 10, 2006.
- E-70 - APPENDIX A
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE From: Shane Boring Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 9:51 AM To: Amanda Hill ([email protected]); Prescott Brownell ([email protected]); '[email protected]' Cc: Alan Stuart; Cheryl Balitz Subject: King Mill Draft Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species Report
Amanda/Prescott/Ed:
Attached for your review is the draft R,T&E report for King Mill. As recommended by USFWS, the report discusses habitat requirements of the listed species potentially occurring in the project vicinity. Please provide comments on the report by Monday, June 4.
Thanks and please don't hesitate to call if you have questions.
Shane Boring
Environmental Scientist Kleinschmidt Associates 101 Trade Zone Dr., Suite-21A West Columbia, SC 29170 Phone: (803)822-3177 Fax: (803)822-3183
King Mill T&E species_.doc (83...
1 SEE APPENDIX E
OF
EXHIBIT E
FOR A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT Page 1 of 1
From: Alan Stuart Sent: Tue 5/15/2007 9:23 AM To: Alan Stuart; [email protected]; Ed Bettross; Patrick Moore; Prescott Brownell; Gerrit Jobsis Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: King Mill Entrainment Report
Dear King Mill Relicensing Participants,
Attached is the Final Report on Fish Entrainment and Mortality for the King Mill Project. We have incorporated survival information on shortnose sturgeon and American eel should those species ever become entrained though the units as requested by USFWS and NOAA Fisheries. We hope you find this information valuable to your agencies and organizations.
Should you have questions on any aspect of the report, please call or email us and we'll do our best to assist you.
We appreciate your efforts in the King Mill relicensing and look forward to working with you in the future. regards, Alan
5/24/2007 SEE APPENDIX D
OF
EXHIBIT E
FOR A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT King Mill Entrainment Mortality Draft Report, Comments Page 1 of 1
From: Prescott Brownell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Fri 4/20/2007 9:19 AM To: Alan Stuart; Ben Rizzo Cc: FWS Amanda Hill; GADNR Ed Bettross; SCDNR Chris Thomason; SCDNR Richard Christie; Alice Lawrence; Al Blott Subject: King Mill Entrainment Mortality Draft Report, Comments
Attached is a copy of our comment memo on the Draft Report. best regards P. Brownell, NMFS
5/24/2007 National Marine Fisheries Service South Atlantic Branch, Habitat Conservation Division 219 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, SC 29412
Memo Date: April 19, 2007
To: Alan Stuart, Kleinschmidt Associates
From: Prescott Brownell, Fishery Biologist, National Marine Fisheries Service
Subject: Turbine Entrainment Study Report, King Mill Project (FERC No. 9988), Comments
1. The draft report is based on survival studies conducted at other similar projects with small Francis turbines, yielding projected mortality in the 16-23 % range for resident species and lower rates for ictalurids. For juvenile shad projections, the mortality rate is projected at 12% based on balloon tag studies at the Columbia Hydro Project on the Broad River, SC.
2. Based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS engineering advice (per Ben Rizzo and Al Blott, personal communication) we expect the juvenile shad mortality may be higher than the report’s projected 12 % due to smaller size units and turbine runners at King Mill (43”) versus Columbia (64”).
3. We recommend the report include mortality projections for other Savannah River diadromous fish target species including blueback herring, adult American eels, Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, to make the report more complete. Those species are included as target species in resource agency restoration plans for the Savannah River.
4. For future consideration, the downstream passage facility prescribed and FERC approved for the Columbia Project powerhouse are in a similar canal setting (and target species), and would be appropriate for the King Mill Project.
5. If you have questions or would like to discuss our comments please call at your convenience.
Page 1 of 1
From: Alan Stuart Sent: Thu 3/15/2007 3:16 PM To: [email protected]; Ed Bettross; Patrick Moore; Prescott Brownell; Gerrit Jobsis Cc: [email protected] Subject: King Mill Entrainment Report
Dear King Mill relicensing Participants,
Attached for review and comment is the King Mill Entrainment and Mortality report for the Project. Please review the attached report and provide us any comments you may have by April 18, 2007. Should you have questions on any aspect of the report, please call or email us and we'll do our best to assist you.
We appreciate your efforts in the King Mill relicensing and look forward to working with you in the future. regards, Alan
5/15/2007
AUGUSTA CANAL AUTHORITY AUGUSTA, GEORGIA
KING MILL PROJECT FERC NO. 9988
FISH ENTRAINMENT AND TURBINE MORALITY ANALYSIS
DRAFT REPORT
MARCH 2007
Prepared by:
AUGUSTA CANAL AUTHORITY AUGUSTA, GEORGIA
KING MILL PROJECT FERC NO. 9988
FISH ENTRAINMENT AND TURBINE MORALITY ANALYSIS
DRAFT REPORT
MARCH 2007
Prepared by:
AUGUSTA CANAL AUTHORITY AUGUSTA, GEORGIA
KING MILL PROJECT FERC NO. 9988
FISH ENTRAINMENT AND TURBINE MORALITY ANALYSIS
DRAFT REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... 1
3.0 SUMMARY OF KING MILL’S 1992 FISH ENTRAINMENT STUDY...... 5 3.1 Turbine Mortality Estimates ...... 10 3.2 Methods for Estimating Turbine Mortality...... 11 3.2.1 Application of Mortality Rates to Entrainment Estimates...... 12 3.3 Turbine Mortality Results...... 12
4.0 DISCUSSION...... 15
5.0 LITERATURE CITED...... 16
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: King Mill Project Location ...... 2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Eight Months of Fish Entrainment Data Collected from March through November 1991 at King Mill ...... 7 Table 2: The Mean Number of Fish Entrained Per Day and Per Month at the King Mill Project ...... 8 Table 3: The Percent of Fish Entrained at the King Mill Project, by Family/Genus Group...... 9 Table 4: Summary of Information from Turbine Mortality Studies at Projects with Francis-Type Turbines...... 13 Table 5: Mortality Rate Data from the 5-Study Database...... 14 Table 6: Total Estimated Number of Fish Lost Due to Turbine Mortality for Each Family/Genus Group at the King Mill Project...... 14
02/27/07 – CLB 1438001.00-90-03 Z:\SCO\1438-001\King Mill Fish Entrainment and Mortality Report JMS-HGM edits 2007-02-27 CLB.doc
- i -
AUGUSTA CANAL AUTHORITY AUGUSTA, GEORGIA
KING MILL PROJECT FERC NO. 9988
FISH ENTRAINMENT AND TURBINE MORALITY ANALYSIS
DRAFT REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The King Mill project (FERC project No. 9988) is an existing licensed hydroelectric facility with a rated capacity of 2.25 MW, owned by the Augusta Canal Authority (Authority) and operated by Standard Textile Augusta under an Operations Agreement with the Authority dated May 30, 2001. The project is located wholly within Richmond County, Augusta, Georgia.
The Project is currently licensed by the FERC as Project No. 9988 and the present license is due to expire May 31, 2009. The Licensee prepared and issued the Initial Consultation Document (ICD) on July 10, 2006, in order to initiate the relicensing process for the Project. The Licensee submitted the document to a number of state and federal resource agencies for their review and comment. A summary of the fish entrainment study conducted in 1992 for the King Mill Project was included in the ICD (Normandeau, 1992). The Authority believes that for the most part the results of this fish entrainment study comprehensively address the impacts of continued project operation on fishery resources.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The King Mill Project is a run of river facility utilizing approximately 881 cfs of water from the adjacent Augusta Canal. The facility consists of two hydroelectric generating units with a combined rated capacity of 2,250 KW and an annual average generation of 13 million kWh. The reinforced concrete powerhouse contains two Morgan Smith units, installed in 1922. The total head for the units is 32 feet. No dam, dike or reservoir exists at this project. The dam on the Savannah River and the Augusta Canal are owned, operated and maintained by the City of Augusta and are not covered by this project (Figure 1).
- 1 -
Figure 1: King Mill Project Location
- 2 -
The Savannah River Basin is located in the southeastern United States and has a total area of 10,577 square miles, including 5,821 square miles in eastern Georgia. The River forms the border between South Carolina and Georgia and begins at the confluence of the Seneca and Tugaloo Rivers. It flows southeast approximately 300 miles to the Atlantic Ocean at Savannah, Georgia. The King Mill Project is located in the lower portion of the Savannah River Basin (FERC, 2005).
The fisheries resources of the Project Vicinity consist of warm-water and diadromous species. The Augusta Canal, having a more lacustrine or lake-like habitat is home to warm- water, non-migrating species such as largemouth bass and sunfishes. The Savannah River, having a more riverine habitat, is home to several anadromous (salt water dwelling, fresh water spawning), and one catadromous (fresh water dwelling, salt water spawning) fish species (Kleinschmidt, 2006).
The Augusta Canal offers a unique aquatic lacustrine-like habitat for warmwater species. The Canal has steep sloped banks with widths up to 150 feet, and water depths up to 11 feet (FERC, 2005). Between 2,400 cfs and 3,500 cfs is diverted from the Savannah River into the Augusta Canal by the Augusta Diversion Dam (Duncan and Eudaly, 2003). The maximum summer flow of the Augusta Diversion Dam is 3,656 cfs (FERC, 2005). Multiple projects further divert water from the Augusta Canal back to the Savannah River. The King Mill Project uses 881 cfs for hydroelectric power generation, from the first level of the Augusta Canal, and releases back into the Savannah River at RM 201.5 (FERC, 2005).
The Savannah River provides a riverine environment for diadromous fish. The Savannah River in the Shoals area, upstream of the Project is the only remaining shoal habitat in the Savannah River with the remainder of the river either impounded or semi-impounded. This area is characterized by pools, runs, and rock outcroppings with a substrate of bedrock boulders and cobbles with some areas of gravels, sand and silt. The section of the Savannah River in the Project vicinity is generally wide, approximately 1,600 feet and shallow, with the Shoals area occupying about 4.5 miles of a nine mile segment between the Augusta Diversion Dam and the downstream New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam headpond (FERC, 2005).
- 3 -
Flows in the Savannah River in the Project vicinity, including the Shoals area, is largely controlled by flow releases from the USACE’s J. Strom Thurmond and Stevens Creek Dams and the diversion of water into the Augusta canal by the Augusta Diversion Dam. Thurmond Dam is operated as a peaking facility having highly variable flow releases on an hourly basis that can range from less than 100 cfs to just over 30,000 cfs. There are typically one or two periods of generation per day on weekdays. Flow releases from the Thurmond Dam are re-regulated in part by the SCE&G Stevens Creek Project, located approximately one mile upstream of the Augusta Diversion Dam (FERC, 2005). Flows ranging from an estimated 2,000 cfs in September and October to 3,500 cfs in March, on average, are released into the Savannah River at the Augusta Diversion Dam (Duncan and Eudaly, 2003). Flows in the Augusta Canal are further diverted back into the Savannah River through various projects along the canal, including the King Mill Project (FERC, 2005).
The Savannah River supports at least 71 fish species representing 17 families including gamefish, panfish, suckers, minnows, and catfish. The fishery of the Canal is somewhat less diverse than the Savannah River, supporting 51 species representing 13 families and exhibits trends similar to those found in the Savannah River (FERC, 2005 and Avondale, 2001). Common fish species found in the Project vicinity include bluegill, yellow perch, largemouth bass, redbreast sunfish, threadfin shad, golden shiner, longnose gar, striped bass, American eel, gizzard shad, chain pickerel, white bass, pickerel, northern hogsucker, brown bullhead, yellow bullhead, redeye bass, white crappie and black crappie.
Historically, diadromous fish species have inhabited the Savannah River (Avondale, 2001). The presence of dams on the Savannah River has limited migration of these species. With respect to anadromous species, a study conducted in 1984 reported the presence of a spawning population of blueback herring in the Savannah River and Augusta Canal. Spawning populations of American shad were also reported in the Savannah River upstream to the Augusta Diversion Dam. Small populations of striped bass were found in the Savannah River and a few individual striped bass were discovered in the Augusta Canal, believed to be the result of stocking efforts in upstream reservoirs. The American eel was the only catadromous species reported to be present in the Augusta Canal and the Savannah River (Avondale, 2001).
- 4 -
3.0 SUMMARY OF KING MILL’S 1992 FISH ENTRAINMENT STUDY
Fish entrainment is the passage of fish through the trash rack, penstock, and turbines into the tailrace of a hydropower development. Fish entrainment at the King Mill Project was assessed through a field study during 1991, which utilized a downstream recovery net(s) and provided an order-of-magnitude estimate of fish entrainment (Normandeau 1992).
Data was collected at the Project for 36 days between March and November, 1991. Approximately 1,500 fish were collected by recovery entrainment nets during the study period. The design of the recovery entrainment net consisted of two 40 ft wings that were attached to a 5 ft by 10 ft frame fitted with a removable live box. Due to site specific problems encountered during the March sample period, modified recovery entrainment nets were placed at the turbine outfall and were used for the remainder of the study. To expand the actual counts of the fish to the number of fish entrained, two net efficiency methods were developed after the March sample period. The first method consisted of measuring the flow at the mouth of each net and measuring the amount of net submerged in the water. The volume of water sampled through the nets was compared to the known intake discharge of King Mill to estimate the percentage volume of water that was sampled. The second net efficiency method consisted of releasing a set number of marked fish into the tailrace below the turbine outfall. The fish that were recaptured by the net provided an estimate of the capture efficiency for the entrainment net. These two capture efficiencies were applied to the actual number of fish collected to estimate the number of fish entrained each month. Based on this, it was estimated that 12,606 fish were collected during the entrainment study (Table 1). Daily entrainment estimates ranged from a low of 186 fish to a high of 615 fish and averaged approximately 357 fish per day, though no obvious trends were noted (Normandeau, 1992).
Entrainment rates from the King Mill field study were converted from fish entrained per day to fish entrained per month. To accomplish this, daily/monthly entrainment rates were multiplied by the number of days in each month. However, entrainment data was not available for the months of September, December, January and February. To compensate for the lack of data, adjacent months were averaged together (August + October for September; November + March for December, January, and February) to produce an average entrainment estimate for
- 5 -
each of these months. The number of fish entrained per month is presented in Table 2. Among the species entrained were American shad, gizzard shad, and threadfin shad, of which the latter constituted the majority of the fish captured by entrainment nets (approximately 45 percent of the total). American shad collected during August, 1991 were not associated with turbine entrainment but were the result of tailrace net intrusion. Spottail shiner and other shiners comprised approximately 14 percent of the total. Blueback herring comprised approximately 8 percent of the total catch. Other species collected included darters, bass, sunfish, pickerel, bullhead, and madtoms (Normandeau, 1992). Table 3 describes the estimated percent of fish entrained at the King Mill Project, by family/genus group. As with the estimated entrainment rates, species occurrence for January, February, September, and December were estimated based on the average of the adjacent monthly data
Although the King Mill operations vary from day to day, depending on gravity flow and water levels in the Augusta Canal and Savannah River, fish entrainment did not appear to be affected by variations in intake discharge. The size of the fish entrained shows that primarily juvenile fish are affected due to the existence of bar screens over the intake. Overall, fish entrainment appeared to primarily be a function of the temporal and spatial distribution of fish in the Augusta Canal rather than plant operations (Normandeau, 1992).
- 6 -
Table 1: Summary of Eight Months of Fish Entrainment Data Collected from March through November 1991 at King Mill
ITEM MAR a APR MAY JUN JUL AUG OCT NOV TOTAL DESCRIPTION 1) Number of days sampled 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 36
2) Actual number of fish collected by 437 141 165 127 155 82 344 115 1566 net(s)
3) Estimated number entrained based on 1525 1785 1875 1134 1449 1952 3373 1045 14138 percent recapture (28) (7.9) (8.8) (11.2) (10.7) (4.2) (10.2) (11.0) (11.5b) (recapture percent)
4) Estimated number entrained based on 1525c 1275 1920 730 1175 659 2784 1003 11,071 volume sampled
5) Mean number of fish entrained 1/2 1525c 1530 1898 932 1312 1306 3079 1024 12,606 (3+4)
6) Mean number of fish entrained per 508 306 380 186 262 261 615 341 357b day (5/1)
a Volume sampled was not determined in March. One large entrainment net was used during this month. b Mean value. c 1525 value used for the March estimate.
- 7 -
Table 2: The Mean Number of Fish Entrained Per Day and Per Month at the King Mill Project
FISH/DAY FISH/MONTH January1 425 13,175 February1 425 11,900 March 508 15,748 April 306 9,180 May 380 11,780 June 186 5,580 July 262 8,122 August 261 8,091 September2 438 13,140 October 615 19,065 November 341 10,230 December1 425 13,175 Total 139,186 1 based on average of March and November data 2 based on average of August and October data
- 8 -
Table 3: The Percent of Fish Entrained at the King Mill Project, by Family/Genus Group
MONTH LEPOMID MICROPTERAN CYPRINID SHAD HERRING ICTALURID MORONE PERCID OTHER TOTAL 1 January 10.31 0.00 16.89 52.21 7.75 3.02 0.00 4.08 5.76 100 1 February 10.31 0.00 16.89 52.21 7.75 3.02 0.00 4.08 5.76 100 March 5.95 0.00 31.19 39.76 11.19 0.00 0.00 6.43 5.48 100 April 22.58 0.81 33.87 25.81 0.81 4.84 0.00 5.65 5.65 100.02 May 27.53 3.93 15.73 37.64 0.00 5.62 0.00 4.49 5.06 100 June 18.55 13.71 16.13 30.65 0.00 4.84 0.00 2.42 13.71 100.01 July 8.84 0.68 8.84 19.05 41.50 6.12 2.04 4.76 8.16 99.99 August 7.50 12.50 5.00 43.75 1.25 17.50 2.50 0.00 10.00 100 2 September 8.45 6.25 2.78 55.99 2.28 9.17 1.39 0.14 13.57 100 October 9.39 0.00 0.55 68.23 3.31 0.83 0.28 0.28 17.13 100 November 14.66 0.00 2.59 64.66 4.31 6.03 0.00 1.72 6.03 100 1 December 10.31 0.00 16.89 52.21 7.75 3.02 0.00 4.08 5.76 100 Annual Average 12.86 3.16 13.95 45.18 7.33 5.33 0.52 3.18 8.50 100.002
1 based on average of March and November data 2 based on average of August and October data
- 9 -
3.1 Turbine Mortality Estimates
The project facility consists of two hydroelectric generating units with a combined rated capacity of 2.25 MW and the description of each unit is as follows:
Generator 1 (Large Unit):
• GE generator (1944), horizontally mounted • 600 volts, 1500 KVA, 200 rpm, DC excitation with belt drive to manual rheostat
Generator 2 (Small Unit):
• GE generator (1944), horizontally mounted • 600 volts, 750 KVA, 200 rpm, DC excitation with belt drive to manual rheostat
The Project powerhouse contains two turbines manufactured by S. M. Smith. The turbines operate with a 32 foot net head, drawing approximately 881 cfs of water from the Augusta Canal. Nameplate data for each unit is as follows:
Turbine 1 (Large Unit):
• S.M. Smith horizontally mounted turbine, installed in 1922 • 43 inch type Q, double runner rated at 1,835 hp
Turbine 2 (Small Unit):
• S.M. Smith horizontally mounted turbine, installed in 1922 • 43 inch type Q, single runner rated at 917 hp
- 10 -
3.2 Methods for Estimating Turbine Mortality
Turbine passage survival studies have been performed at numerous hydroelectric projects throughout the country. Turbine passage survival data was compiled and evaluated for similarities to the units at the Project. The following turbine characteristics of the King Mill Project were used as a benchmark for screening turbine mortality studies for transfer suitability:
• Design type (propeller/Kaplan or Francis); • Operating head; • Runner speed; • Diameter and peripheral runner velocity; and • Bucket or blade number.
These characteristics are commonly cited as factors important when studying turbine mortality of fish susceptible to entrainment (Eicher 1987; EPRI 1992).
Survival data obtained from the candidate studies were further scrutinized based on study methods and/or types. Only latent (i.e. a minimum of 48 hours) survival data reported from studies that included control groups was considered. Since the fish entrainment field study demonstrates that Clupeids (shad and herring) and Lepomids (sunfish) are the dominate groups entrained at the King Mill project, special attention was given to turbine mortality studies which utilized these family groups in their tests.
After screening, mortality rates from the acceptable studies were organized by family/genus group. Mortality rates were then averaged to produce composite mortality rates for each family/genus group for the King Mill Project.
- 11 -
3.2.1 Application of Mortality Rates to Entrainment Estimates
Once turbine mortality rates were developed from the study database, the rates were applied to the entrainment estimates for King Mill. This was accomplished by multiplying fish entrainment estimates by the composite mortality rates for each family/genus group.
3.3 Turbine Mortality Results
Initially, all turbine mortality studies were reviewed to determine which study sites were most physically similar to the King Mill Project. These studies were evaluated to determine if the desired fish species were tested. Table 4 summarizes site specific characteristics from turbine mortality studies at projects with Francis type turbines.
The studies selected for developing turbine mortality estimates for the King Mill Project include Columbia Hydro, Five Channels, Rogers, Hollidays Bridge, and 99 Islands. Each of these studies assessed 48 hour latent (delayed) mortality, utilized species that are comparable to those found at King Mill, fell within acceptable range of project and turbine characteristics (speed, size, type, head, etc.).
Table 5 presents the results of the mortality studies conducted at these 5 sites. Mortality rates from these studies were organized by species tested, and averaged. Since transferable mortality data for the Percid and Morone family/genus groups was not available, the mortality rate used for the Micropterans was also used for those groups. Shad and Herring entrainment percent composition were combined for the Clupeid family/genus group estimate. “Other” species entrainment percent composition, which included darters, pickerel, bullhead, and madtoms, were combined with the Cyprinids family/group estimate. After applying the mortality rates to the entrainment estimates, it is estimated that approximately 20,895 fish are annually lost due to turbine mortality at the King Mill Project (Table 6).
- 12 -
Table 4: Summary of Information from Turbine Mortality Studies at Projects with Francis-Type Turbines
RUNNER TURBINE HEAD # OF SPEED PRV SPECIES SITE STATE DIAMETER TYPE (FT) BUCKETS (RPM) (FPS) TESTED (IN) King Mill Francis Unit 1 & GA 32 13 43 200 37.5 (horiz) 2 Stevens Francis SC 20 14 135 75 44 blueback herring Creek (vert) Neal SC ng 24 ng 139 ng ng bluegill, catfish Shoals Francis bluegill, catfish, Columbia SC 28 14 64 164 46 (horiz) blueback herring Francis bluegill, golden Five MI (horiz 36 16 55 150 36 shiner, white Channels quad) sucker bluegill, Francis largemouth bass, Rogers MI 39 15 60 150 39 (vert) golden shiner spottail shiner Francis Hollidays (horiz SC 42 ng 200 bluegill, catfish Bridge triple runner) bluegill, golden Francis Alcona MI 43 16 100 90 39 shiner, white (vert) sucker Francis Finch NY (horiz 48 ng 41 225 40 smallmouth bass Pryun double) bluegill, golden Francis Prickett MI 54 ng 53 257 59 shiner, white (vert) sucker Francis (vert, Holtwood PA 62 17 112 103 50 American shad double- runner) Francis (horiz, 99 Islands SC 72 ng ng 225 ng bluegill, catfish twin- runner) bluegill, golden Francis Hardy MI 100 16 84 164 60 shiner, white (vert) sucker Shading indicates sites/studies eliminated from consideration. *PRV = peripheral runner velocity. ng = not given.
- 13 -
Table 5: Mortality Rate Data from the 5-Study Database
SITE LEPOMID ICTALURID CYPRINID CLUPEID MICROPTERAN MORONE PERCID Columbia 4.1 7.5 _ 11.9 _ _ _ Hollidays Bridge 35.0 2.8 _ _ _ _ _ 99 Islands 30.8 5.8 _ _ _ _ _ Five Channels 8.5 _ 16.5 _ _ _ _ Rogers 4.0 _ 27.0 _ 23.0 _ _ Average 16.5 5.3 21.8 11.9 23.0 23.01 23.01 1 The Micropteran mortality rate was used as a mortality rate for this family/group. Table 6: Total Estimated Number of Fish Lost Due to Turbine Mortality for Each Family/Genus Group at the King Mill Project (Entrainment Rate * Family/Group % Composition * Family Group Mortality Rate)
FAMILY/GENUS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL GROUP Lepomid 224 202 154 341 534 170 118 100 183 295 247 224 2,792 Ictalurid 21 19 0 24 35 14 27 76 64 8 33 21 343 Cyprinid 649 586 1,256 789 533 362 300 264 467 733 192 649 6,780 Clupeid 940 849 955 291 528 204 585 433 911 1,623 840 940 9,098 Micropteran 0 0 0 17 106 176 13 233 189 0 0 0 734 Morone 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 47 42 12 0 0 139 Percid 123 112 233 119 122 31 89 0 4 12 40 123 1,009 Total 1,957 1,768 2,598 1,581 1,858 958 1,170 1,152 1,860 2,684 1,352 1,957 20,895
- 14 -
4.0 DISCUSSION
The mortality rates obtained from the five studies utilized to develop mortality estimates for the King Mill Project appear to be sound. All five sites had characteristics similar to King Mill, with three located very close in geographic proximately. Due to the lack of additional studies of Clupeid mortality, data from only one site (Columbia Hydro) was used to develop mortality estimates for shad/herring at King Mill. However, due to geographic proximity, study quality, and closely matched site characteristics, the data transfer should be very reliable for developing mortality estimates for Clupeids at King Mill. The results contained in this report should be adequate for assessing the impacts of turbine mortality on fish entrained through the turbines at the King Mill Project.
- 15 -
5.0 LITERATURE CITED
Avondale Mills. 2001. Final Application for New License, Sibley Mill Project (FERC No. 5044). Accession No: 20010405-0412. April 2, 2001.
Duncan, William W. and Edwin M. EuDaly. 2003. Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report on Savannah River Basin Comprehensive Study. Prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. October, 2003.
Eicher Associates, Inc. 1987. Turbine-related fish mortality: review and evaluation of studies. Research Project 2697-7. Prepared for electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
EPRI (electric Power Research Institute). September 1992. Fish entrainment and Turbine Mortality Review Guidelines. TR-101231 Research Project 2694-01. Prepared by Stone and Webster Environmental Services.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2005. Multi-Project Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License. Augusta Canal Project, P-11810-004. Sibley Mill Project, P-5044-008, Enterprise Mill Project, P-2935-015. Georgia, South Carolina. Office of Energy Projects, Division of Hydropower Licensing. Washington, DC.
Kleinschmidt Associates. 2006. King Mill Hydroelectric Project Initial Consultation Document. Augusta Canal Authority, Augusta, Georgia.
Normandeau Associates. 1992. Final Study Results and Recommendations, Fish Entrainment Study for the John P. King Mill Project (FERC No. 9988). August, 1992.
- 16 - APPENDIX A
MODEL RESULTS FOR THE NUMEROUS ITERATIONS FOR THE TARGET SPECIES BASED ON 1-INCH SIZE INCREMENTS APPENDIX A
MODEL RESULTS FOR THE NUMEROUS ITERATIONS FOR THE TARGET SPECIES BASED ON 1-INCH SIZE INCREMENTS
Unit 1 Unit 2 Inputs Inputs g 32.2 Acceleration of gravity ft/s^2 g 32.2 Acceleration of gravity ft/s^2 H 32 Total head in ft. H 32 Total head in ft. 200 Rotational speed in RPM 200 Rotational speed in RPM D 5.125 Runner diameter in ft. D 5.125 Runner diameter in ft. Q 296.5 Turbine discharge ft^3/s Q 296 Turbine discharge ft^3/s Q% 0.96 Percent discharge for Q% 0.96 Percent discharge for for maximum efficiency for maximum efficiency 0.86 Runner efficiency 0.86 Runner efficiency N 16 Number of blades N 16 Number of blades 1.1 Ratio between Q with no exit 1.1 Ratio between Q with no exit exit swirl and Q opt exit swirl and Q opt D1 3.583 Diameter of runner at inlet D1 3.583 Diameter of runner at inlet D2 5.125 Diameter of runner at discharge D2 5.125 Diameter of runner at discharge B 67 Runner height at inlet (in) B 67 Runner height at inlet (in)
Calculations Calculations Energy coefficient Energy coefficient
Ewd 0.089434 Ewd 0.089434 Discharge coefficient Discharge coefficient
Qwd 0.105168 Qwd 0.104991 Tangent of Beta Tangent of Beta tan 7.315973 tan 7.328331 Angle of absolute flow to the axis Angle of absolute flow to the axis
a 6.770847 a 6.759535
Probability of strike Probability of strike P 0.309476 times L (the length of fish) P 0.309483 times L (the length of fish)
Correlation Factor Correlation Factor 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.10 0.15 0.20 L (in) P (%) P (%) P (%) L (in) P (%) P (%) P (%) 2 6.2% 9.3% 12.4% 2 6.2% 9.3% 12.4% 3 9.3% 13.9% 18.6% 3 9.3% 13.9% 18.6% 4 12.4% 18.6% 24.8% 4 12.4% 18.6% 24.8% 5 15.5% 23.2% 30.9% 5 15.5% 23.2% 30.9% 6 18.6% 27.9% 37.1% 6 18.6% 27.9% 37.1% 7 21.7% 32.5% 43.3% 7 21.7% 32.5% 43.3% 8 24.8% 37.1% 49.5% 8 24.8% 37.1% 49.5% 9 27.9% 41.8% 55.7% 9 27.9% 41.8% 55.7% 10 30.9% 46.4% 61.9% 10 30.9% 46.4% 61.9% Average 18.6% 27.9% 37.1% Average 18.6% 27.9% 37.1%
- A-1 -
January 10, 2007 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
Mr. Walter Spiegel Standard Textile Company, Inc. PO Box 371805 Cincinnati, OR 45222
Draft License Application Augusta Canal Authority - King Mill Project (FERC No. 9988)
Dear Mr. Spiegel:
Per request by Dayton Sherrouse, Executive Director of the Augusta Canal Authority, we are forwarding this enclosed Draft License Application for the King Mill Project (FERC No. 9988). If you have any questions regarding the enclosed Draft License Application, please contact Alan Stuart at (803) 288-3177, or by email atAlan.Stuart((v.KleinschmidtUSA.com.
Sincerely,
KLEINSCHMIDT ASSOCIATES (!k~~j,~ Marty L. Phillips Senior Resource Economist MLP:clb
Enclosures cc: Dayton Sherrouse - Augusta Canal Authority (letter only) Alan W. Stuart - Kleinschmidt (letter only)
01/1 0/07 - CLB 1438001.00-90-00 J: \I 438\00 1\Docs\License ApplicationlAgency Review Draft 0 1-07\King Mill Distribution Letterb.doc
101 Trade Zone Drive, Suite 21A. West Columbia, SC 29170. Phone: 803-822-3177. Fax: 803-822-3183 www.KleinschmidtUSA.com - Offices Nationwide - January 10,2007 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
Mr. Jorge Jimenez ZEL Engineers 435 Telfair Street Augusta, GA 30901
Draft License Application Augusta Canal Authority- King Mill Project (FERC No. 9988)
Dear Mr. Jimenez:
Per request by Dayton Sherrouse, Executive Director of the Augusta Canal Authority, we are forwarding this enclosed Draft License Application for the King Mill Project (FERC No. 9988). If you have any questions regarding the enclosed Draft License Application, please contact Alan Stuart at (803) 288-3177, or by email [email protected].
Sincerely,
KLEINSCHMIDT ASSOCIATES ~tr~J,+- Marty L. Phillips Senior Resource Economist MLP:clb
Enclosures cc: Dayton Sherrouse - Augusta Canal Authority (letter only) Alan W. Stuart - Kleinschmidt (letter only)
OllIO/O? - CLB 143800100-90-00 J:\1438\001\Docs\License ApplicationlAgency Review Draft OI-O?\King Mill Distribution Letterb.doc
101 Trade Zone Drive, Suite 21A. West Columbia, SC 29170. Phone: 803-822-3177. Fax: 803-822-3183 www.KleinschmidtUSA.com - Offices Nationwide - January 3, 2007 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
To: Attached Mailing List
Draft License Application Augusta Canal Authority – King Mill Project (FERC No. 9988)
To the Party Addressed:
Enclosed for your review is a copy of the Draft License Application for the King Mill Project (FERC No. 9988). Please review this Draft License Application and provide comments by April 4, 2007. If we do not receive your comments by that date, we will assume the Application is satisfactory.
The Project is an existing hydroelectric project located on the Augusta Canal in the City of Augusta, Georgia. The Project’s current license is held by the Augusta Canal Authority. The current license expires on May 31, 2009. The Augusta Canal Authority is proceeding with the process needed to apply for a new license from the FERC to allow continued operation of the project. Several agencies and non-governmental organizations provided review comments on the Initial Consultation Document (ICD) issued in July of 2006. Those comments are addressed in this Draft License Application.
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed Draft License Application for the King Mill Project relicensing effort, please contact me at (803) 288-3177, or by email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
KLEINSCHMIDT ASSOCIATES
Alan W. Stuart Project Manager AWS:clb
Enclosures cc: Distribution List Marty L. Phillips – Kleinschmidt 01/03/07 – CLB J:\1438\001\Docs\License Application\Agency Review Draft 01-07\King Mill Distribution Letter.doc
101 Trade Zone Drive, Suite 21A West Columbia, SC 29170 Phone: 803-822-3177 Fax: 803-822-3183 www.KleinschmidtUSA.com - Offices Nationwide - KING MILL PROJECT (FERC No. 9988) JANUARY 2007
Mr. Gerrit Jobsis Mr. Jerry Gotzmer Environmental Coordinator Regional Engineer American Rivers Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 2231 Devine Street Suite 100 3125 Presential Parkway Columbia, SC 29205 Suite 300 Parkridge 85, North Building Mr. Dayton Sherrouse Atlanta, GA 30340 Executive Director Augusta Canal Authority Mr. Tommy Irvin 1450 Greene Street Suite 400 Commissioner Augusta, GA 30901 Georgia Department of Agriculture Office of the Commissioner Mr. Max Hicks 19 Martin Luther King Jr Drive SW Director Atlanta, GA 30334 Augusta Utilities Department 360 Bay Street Suite 180 Mr. Alan W. Hallum Augusta, GA 30901 Chief Georgia Department of Natural Resources Mr. Charles R. Oliver 205 Butler Street SE Administrator Suite 1058 East Augusta-Richmond County Commission Environmental Protection Division 530 Greene Street Water Protection Branch Municipal Building Atlanta, GA 30334 Augusta, GA 30901 Mr. Ed Bettross Mr. Stephen Felker Jr. Georgia Department of Natural Resources Avondale Mills, Inc. 142 Bob Kirk Road 509 South Broad Street Wildlife Resources Division Monroe, GA 30655 Fisheries Management Section Thomson, GA 30824 Honorable Deke Copenhaver Mayor Mr. Richard Cloues City of Augusta Unit Manager and Deputy State Historic 803 Municipal Building Preservation Officer Office of the Mayor Historic Preservation Division 530 Greene Street Georgia Department of Natural Resources Augusta, GA 30911 34 Peachtree Street Suite 1600 Ms. Magalie Roman Salas Atlanta, GA 30303 Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Director - State Parks & Historic Sites Mail Code DLC, HL-11.2 Georgia Department of Natural Resources 888 1st Street NE Room 1A 205 Butler Street SE Washington, DC 20426 Atlanta, GA 30334 KING MILL PROJECT (FERC No. 9988) JANUARY 2007 Mr. Russ England Mr. Roy E. Crabtree Assistant Chief of Fisheries National Oceanic & Atmospheric Georgia Department of Natural Resources Administration 2070 U.S. Highway 278 SE 9721 Executive Center Drive North DNR - Fisheries Management Section NOAA Fisheries Southeast Region Social Circle, GA 30279 St. Petersburg, FL 33702
Mr. Sam Booher Mr. Jerry Belson Chairman Regional Director Georgia Sierra Club National Park Service 4387 Roswell Drive 100 Alabama Street Augusta, GA 30907 1924 Building, Southeast Regional Office Atlanta, GA 30303 Mr. F. Graham Liles Executive Director Mr. Richard Roos-Collins Georgia State Soil & Water Conservation Director, Legal Services Commission Natural Heritage Institute 4310 Lexington Road 100 Pine Street Athens State Office Suite 1550 Athens, GA 30603 San Francisco, CA 94111
Mr. Alan W. Stuart Ms. Gina Kirkland Kleinschmidt Associates Program Manager 101 Trade Zone Drive South Carolina Department of Health & Suite 21A Environmental Control West Columbia, SC 29170 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 Mr. David H. Rackley Fisheries Biologist Mr. Ed Duncan National Marine Fisheries Service South Carolina Department of Natural 219 Fort Johnson Road Resources Habitat Conservation Division 1000 Assembly Street Charleston, SC 29412 PO Box 167 Columbia, SC 29202 Mr. Andreas Mager Jr. Assistant Director Mr. Randy Miller National Marine Fisheries Service Branch Chief - EN-Hydrology 9721 Executive Center Drive North United States Army Corps of Engineers Southeast Regional Office 100 West Oglethorpe Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33702 Savannah District Engineering Division Savannah, GA 31402 Mr. Prescott Brownell National Marine Fisheries Service Ms. Elizabeth Estill 219 Fort Johnson Road Regional Forester Southeast Region United States Department of Agriculture Charleston, SC 29412 1720 Peachtree Road NW Atlanta, GA 30309 KING MILL PROJECT (FERC No. 9988) JANUARY 2007 Mr. James H. Lee Regional Environmental Officer United States Department of the Interior Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance Richard B. Russell Federal Building Room 1144 75 Spring Street SW Atlanta, GA 30303
Mr. John Hankinson Jr. United States Environmental Protection Agency Region IV Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303
Ms. Amanda Hill United States Fish and Wildlife Service 176 Croghan Spur Road Suite 200 Charleston SC 29407
District Chief United States Geological Survey 3039 Amwiler Road Suite 130 Georgia District Office Atlanta, GA 30360
J:\1438\001\Docs\License Application\King Mill Distribution List.doc
200610105008 Received FERC OSEC 10/10/2006 10:03:00 AM Docket# P-9988-000
COASTAL CONSERVATION LEAGUE AND AMERICAN RIVERS
October 3, 2006
Mr. Dayton L. Sherrouse, AICP Executive Director Augusta Canal National Heritage Area P. O. Box 2367 Augusta, GA 30903
Subject: Comments on Initial Consultation Document for King Mill Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 9988
Dear Mr. Sherrouse:
The Coastal Conservation League and American Rivers (the Conservation Groups) have reviewed the Initial Consultation Document (ICD) as prepared by the Augusta Canal Authority for the relicensing of the King Mill Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 9988. We offer the following comments and recommendations.
The Conservation Groups have entered a cooperative agreement to participate in hydroelectric and river conservation activities affecting South Carolina waters. These efforts stem from the recognition that hydropower operations have a significant impact on riverine ecosystems. Responsible operation of these facilities can greatly enhance water quality while increasing wildlife abundance and enhancing recreational opportunities. The Conservation Groups have taken an active role in all recent relicensings associated with the Augusta Canal.
The Conservation League is a non-profit conservation organization with offices in Charleston, Georgetown, Beaufort and Columbia. Our mission is to protect South Carolina’s threatened resources - its natural landscapes, abundant wildlife, clean water, and traditional communities. We have approximately 5,000 members, many of whom live in the affected project area.
American Rivers is a non-profit conservation organization with offices in Washington, D.C., Columbia, South Carolina and throughout the nation. We are dedicated to the protection and restoration of the nation’s streams. With over 75,000 members across the country including those that live in the project vicinity, American Rivers is one of the nation’s leading river conservation groups. The Conservation Groups would like to take this opportunity to clearly communicate what we hope to achieve in this relicensing proceeding. Our resource objectives will guide our participation in this proceeding. The resource objectives of primary concern include:
1 200610105008 Received FERC OSEC 10/10/2006 10:03:00 AM Docket# P-9988-000
• Protection and restoration of fish and wildlife habitat and mitigation for project-related habitat losses. • Analysis of diadromous fish existing and potential populations in the project area. • Protection and enhancement of rare, threatened and endangered plant and animal species.
It is with a view toward these objectives that we offer comments on the ICD.
I. The Legal and Regulatory Context
Under the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) may issue a new license for an existing hydroelectric project only if to do so would be in the public interest. 16 U.S.C. § 803(a). In making its public interest inquiry, FERC is required to provide “equal consideration” to a range of public purposes, including the protection of fish, wildlife, recreation, and environmental quality. The FPA makes clear that relicensing is not a continuation of the status quo, but a reconsideration of the past commitment of the river resource based on present day values and “then existing laws and regulations.” 16 U.S.C. § 808(a).
The Federal Power Act further requires that any new license contain conditions that adequately and equitably protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife resources. 16 U.S.C. § 803(j). Thus, FERC is required to assure that during any new license term fish and wildlife and their habitats are protected and restored, and that unavoidable, ongoing project impacts are mitigated.
Independent of the FPA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., requires that FERC assess the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the hydroelectric project licensing and evaluate alternatives that would avoid these impacts. This requirement applies to applications for new licenses for existing projects because relicensing constitutes a new, irreversible, and irretrievable commitment of a public resource.
On August 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a decision in City of Tacoma, Washington v. FERC No. 05-1054. The first applicable portion of this opinion addresses the situation when a relicensing timeline does not coincide with the timeline of jurisdictional bodies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The court stated that while FERC decides whether or not to issue a license, FERC shares its authority to condition a license with other jurisdictional bodies. Thus, the Departments of Interior and Commerce can take time to conduct studies and gather the information needed from the applicant to comply with their statutory obligations, in this case that time was two years. While the Departments should coordinate as closely as possible with FERC staff, FERC has no authority to unilaterally impose a time limitation that would effectively strip the Departments of their statutorily delegated authority. The proposed timeline for the King Mill relicensing may need to be re-evaluated in light of the City of Tacoma decision and outstanding information needs at the project.
2 200610105008 Received FERC OSEC 10/10/2006 10:03:00 AM Docket# P-9988-000
The other applicable portion of this decision addressed “de facto decommissioning”; when implementing the conditions of the license would make the project unprofitable and thus force closure of the project. The court clearly states that relicensing, and the implementation of laws passed since the last license was issued, represent changing national priorities and circumstances that may result in a license that is not profitable from the licensee’s perspective. The Federal Power Act requirement of “reasonable license terms” (16 U.S.C.§ 808(a)(1)) does not require FERC to issue an economic license. The court further points out the importance of a licensee having “recouped its initial investment plus a significant annual return on that investment.” Interpreting the Federal Power Act requirement of “equal consideration” to wildlife protection and the environment, § 797(e), the court finds that in some cases, environmental concerns will have primacy over other interests.
Today, the protection and restoration of the ecosystem integrity of our rivers is widely recognized as one of the highest public priorities. Accordingly, substantial emphasis should be placed on opportunities to further these priorities during the relicensing process. While we understand the Augusta Canal Authority’s interest in maintaining the King Mill as a power producing operation, it is critical that the Authority develop a complete factual record on which the Commission can give equal consideration to power and non-power values, including restoration and enhancement of the Savannah River ecosystem. Also, there must be biologically and scientifically sound information upon which agencies can base their terms, conditions, and recommendations. This requires that Augusta Canal Authority evaluate a range of protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures and possible alternatives to current operations. Much of the necessary information has already been gathered. However, certain information specific to King Mill does not appear to be in that record. We offer the following comments and recommendations.
Recommended Studies to Address Information Needs
1) LOW INFLOW PROTOCOL STUDY
STUDY REQUEST: A study is needed to determine how to balance water availability, canal water levels and downstream flow requirements for all uses during periods of low flow. Specific areas to be assessed include operational changes in times of low inflow to properly distribute the effects of low inflow among project operations, downstream aquatic needs and other canal uses
PUBLIC INTEREST: The public has a direct interest in various water uses including uses for recreation, and fish and wildlife habitat. The balanced use of water resources during low flow periods is clearly in the public interest.
3 200610105008 Received FERC OSEC 10/10/2006 10:03:00 AM Docket# P-9988-000
NEXUS TO PROJECT: The Project receives the benefit of approximately 900 cfs from the Augusta Canal. During periods of low flow, this is a substantial portion of the total amount of water available for all uses. Ways in which operational changes can reduce the negative impacts of naturally low flow are clearly related to the project.
AVAILABLE INFORMATION: A multi-project Environmental Assessment was issued on May 20, 2005 for Sibley Mill (P-5044), Enterprise Mill (P-2935), and the Augusta Diversion Dam (P-11810). That EA recommended that canal water users coordinate with the City of Augusta, operator of the Augusta Diversion Dam to distribute impacts of low flow among all water users. The EA and the full administrative record of these proceedings are public information and could also be of use.
BASIC METHODOLOGY: Study the impact of Project operations during low flow periods on other water uses under existing and future scenarios. This study and coordination with the City of Augusta would contribute to the comprehensive protocol being developed for all canal water users. The study should determine how to provide information on low flow conditions that can be used to trigger conservation measures and what flows are needed to protect water quality, aquatic habitat and water supply uses. The study should outline what specific actions the applicant can take during periods of low flow.
ESTIMATED COST Costs for this study are not expected to exceed $100,000 and could be substantially less.
2) DIADROMOUS AND MIGRATORY FISH STUDY
STUDY REQUEST: We recommend a study to determine the presence and abundance of diadromous and migratory riverine fish (i.e. robust redhorse) in the Project tailrace. Discharges from the Project may attract fish into the tailrace and away from future upstream fish passage facilities. This information is also needed to assess fish passage alternatives for the Project.
PUBLIC INTEREST: Enhancement of diadromous and migratory riverine fish populations is clearly in the public interest and is reflected in state and federal laws, as well as the policies and guidance of state and federal agencies charged with protecting these resources for the public good.
NEXUS TO PROJECT: Project’s operations directly affect habitat quality for diadromous and riverine fish by utilizing water diverted from the Savannah River into the Augusta Canal by the Augusta
4 200610105008 Received FERC OSEC 10/10/2006 10:03:00 AM Docket# P-9988-000
Canal Authority’s Augusta Diversion Dam, interfering with migrations and altering instream flows. Sampling by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources in 1996, 1997, and 1998 all found American shad and blueback herring in the King Mill tailrace.
AVAILABLE INFORMATION: Numerous scientific publications exist regarding the study of diadromous fish populations. The relicensing of other FERC projects on the Augusta Canal has provided much information about conditions in the Canal and in the Savannah River. The administrative records for Sibley Mill (P-5044), Enterprise Mill (P-2935), and the Augusta Diversion Dam (P-11810) are matters of public record. The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources conducted sampling of the Savannah River including the King Mill tailrace in 1996, 1997, and 1998. The Savannah Basin Anadromous Fish Restoration Compact was cooperatively developed with agency and stakeholder involvement. We know of no information that specifically addresses Project effects on diadromous species in the project tailwater.
BASIC METHODOLOGY: The study should include sampling in the project tailrace to the confluence with the Savannah River. Standard sampling techniques such as electrofishing and netting should be used to determine presence and abundance of diadromous species in the tailrace. The sampling should occur over two years during the March, April and May. Sampling should occur on a weekly basis while water is being discharged from King Mill.
ESTIMATED COST Costs for this study are not expected to exceed $100,000.
3) DESKTOP ENTRAINMENT MORTALITY STUDY
STUDY REQUEST: We recommend a desktop entrainment mortality study to fully document project impacts to diadromous and resident fishes. While an entrainment study has been conducted at the project, we know of no existing mortality data. The mortality study should incorporate information from the entrainment study. It should produce estimates of mortality and injury based on size and species of entrained fish. Estimates should be expressed as percentages of fish entrained and total number of fish killed or injured. The study should be in compliance with the FERC guidance entitled “Review and evaluation of Consumers Energy Company’s Desktop Evaluation of Entrainment at 10 Hydroelectric Projects on the AuSable, Manistee, and Muskegon Rivers” prepared by T.J. Lavullo and issued February 20, 2003.
PUBLIC INTEREST: The importance of healthy and self-sustaining fisheries is well documented and has been regularly affirmed through legislation and regulations. Understanding King Mill’s impacts to the Savannah River fishery is key to an effective restoration plan, and a protection, mitigation and enhancement agreement.
5 200610105008 Received FERC OSEC 10/10/2006 10:03:00 AM Docket# P-9988-000
NEXUS TO PROJECT: The number of fish lost to turbine mortality is directly connected to Project operations in that the impact occurs within the turbine itself within the project boundary. The loss of these fish would not occur but for the operation of the King Mill.
AVAILABLE INFORMATION: An entrainment study has been conducted at King Mill and will be a key component of the desktop study. FERC has offered guidance for this type of study in “Review and evaluation of Consumers Energy Company’s Desktop Evaluation of Entrainment at 10 Hydroelectric Projects on the Au Sable, Manistee, and Muskegon Rivers” prepared by T.J. Lavullo and issued February 20, 2003. The administrative records for Sibley Mill (P-5044), Enterprise Mill (P-2935), and the Augusta Diversion Dam (P-11810) are matters of public record and could be useful in the study.
BASIC METHODOLOGY: The study should document 1) number/sizes of entrained fish 2) species composition of entrained fish 3) turbine passage mortality and be otherwise in compliance with the FERC guidance entitled “Review and evaluation of Consumers Energy Company’s Desktop Evaluation of Entrainment at 10 Hydroelectric Projects on the Au Sable, Manistee, and Muskegon Rivers” prepared by T.J. Lavullo and issued February 20, 2003.
ESTIMATED COST: Costs for this study are not expected to exceed $100,000.
4) FISH PASSAGE STUDY
STUDY REQUEST: We recommend a study of upstream and downstream passage of diadromous and riverine fish species at the Project. Alternatives should be developed to enhance diadromous fish populations by establishing access to historic spawning grounds, safe upstream and downstream passage, and providing attraction flows. Part of this study should include cumulative impacts analysis of the King Mill Project on the diadromous fish stocks of the Savannah River. The study should include an evaluation of mitigation opportunities for ongoing impacts to diadromous and migratory riverine fish.
The existence of a multi-project environmental assessment evaluating the impacts of Sibley Mill (P-5044), Enterprise Mill (P-2935), and the Augusta Diversion Dam (P- 11810) demonstrates that the impact of the hydropower projects on the Augusta Canal on the Savannah River are cumulative. Despite this recognition, licenses have been issued to the Sibley and Enterprise Mills while fish passage negotiations are not final between state and federal resource agencies and the City of Augusta. Fish passage measures at Sibley and Enterprise are linked to progress in the Augusta Diversion Dam proceeding, which creates uncertainty as described below.
6 200610105008 Received FERC OSEC 10/10/2006 10:03:00 AM Docket# P-9988-000
The City of Augusta has made the legal assertion that no FERC license is required to operate the dam and canal headgates now operated as FERC Project No. 11810. On several occasions, the City has threatened to back out of fish passage negotiations and present this assertion to FERC for full decision. The City’s actual intentions regarding fish passage are unknown and the assertion that no license is needed creates the distinct possibility that passage will not be achieved at the diversion dam. The decision to issue licenses to Enterprise and Sibley Mills while critical fish passage and flow issues are outstanding, means that the King Mill proceeding stands to be the last meaningful opportunity to pass fish beyond the Augusta Canal and into their historic spawning grounds.
Because fish passage at the Augusta Diversion Dam is unresolved, King Mill must be considered as an alternative to meet at least part of the restoration goals. For the aforementioned reasons, we recommend the fish passage study described below.
PUBLIC INTEREST: Enhancement of diadromous fish populations is clearly in the public interest and is reflected in state and federal laws, as well as the policies and guidance of state and federal agencies charged with protecting these resources for the public good.
NEXUS TO PROJECT: Project’s operations directly affect upstream and downstream migration of and habitat quality for diadromous fish by blocking migrations and altering instream flows.
AVAILABLE INFORMATION: Numerous scientific publications exist regarding the study of diadromous fish populations and fish passage. Relicensings of other FERC projects on the Augusta Canal have produced much information about conditions in the Canal and in the Savannah River. The administrative records for Sibley Mill (P-5044), Enterprise Mill (P-2935), and the Augusta Diversion Dam (P-11810) are matters of public record. The Savannah Basin Anadromous Fish Restoration Compact was cooperatively developed with agency and stakeholder involvement. The City of Augusta will be good resource regarding the need for and possible design of fishways for the Augusta Canal.
BASIC METHODOLOGY: Studies conducted should, at a minimum, include:
A. An evaluation of the feasibility and cost of the most promising fish passage technologies for upstream and downstream migration at the Project. Provide conceptual design drawings, including hydraulic information, an estimate of construction, operation and maintenance costs for those designs and measures at the projects. Specific options that should be studied, including a cost analysis for each alternative, include:
- Upstream passage options to be evaluated should, at a minimum, include: Fishways- including ways to insure safe passage through the Project Trap and haul facilities
7 200610105008 Received FERC OSEC 10/10/2006 10:03:00 AM Docket# P-9988-000
- Downstream passage options to be evaluated should, at a minimum, include: Collection and bypass facilities Turbine intake screens
B. Incorporation of information on habitat conditions and availability in the Augusta Canal and Savannah River. This information is available from relicensing studies conducted at and Section 18 prescriptions issued for the Augusta Canal (FERC No. 11810). Passage estimates at New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam should be included.
In light of the aforementioned uncertainty regarding fish passage at the Augusta Canal, all of this information is critical to determine the feasibility of reintroducing diadromous fish above the Project and to improve connectivity of resident fish populations in the Project area. Additional information and a complete study plan should be developed with state and federal agencies and the Conservation Groups.
ESTIMATED COST: Costs for this study are not expected to exceed $150,000
Conclusion
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Initial Consultation Document and deem the above study requests necessary in order to effectively balance the power and non-power developmental values of the project. We look forward to working closely with the agencies and the applicant to find solutions that work for everyone.
Sincerely,
Gerrit Jöbsis Patrick Moore American Rivers Coastal Conservation League Director of Southeast Conservation Water Quality Associate 2231 Devine St. Suite 100 2231 Devine St. Suite 100 Columbia, SC 29205 Columbia, SC 29205 803-771-7114 803-771-7750 [email protected] [email protected]
8 200610105008 Received FERC OSEC 10/10/2006 10:03:00 AM Docket# P-9988-000
Submission Contents American Rivers and Coastal Conservation League file ammended comments on King Mill ICD. KingMillICDcommentsfinal.pdf·········································· 1-8 200610035009 Received FERC OSEC 10/03/2006 10:58:00 AM Docket# P-9988-000
COASTAL CONSERVATION LEAGUE AND AMERICAN RIVERS
October 3 , 2006
Mr. Dayton L. Sherrouse, AICP Executive Director August a Canal National Heritage Area P. O. Box 2367 Augusta, GA 30903
Subject: Comments on Initial Consultation Document for King Mill Hydroe lectr ic Project, FERC Project No. 9988
Dear Mr. Sherrouse :
The Coastal Conservation League and American Rivers (the Conservation Groups) have reviewed the Initial Consultation Document (ICD) as prepared by the Augusta Canal Authority for the relicens ing of the King Mill Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 9988 . We offer the following comments and recommendations.
The Conservation Groups have entered a cooperative agreement to participate in hydroelectric and river conservation activities affecting South Carolina waters . These efforts stem from the recognition that hydropower operations have a significant impact on riverine ecosystems . R esponsible operation of these facilities can greatly enhance water quality while increasing wildlife abundance a nd enhancing recreational opportunities. The Co nservation Groups have taken an active role in all recent relicensings associated with the Augusta Canal.
The Conservation League is a non -profit conservation organization with offices in Charleston, Georget own, Beaufort and Columbia. Our mission is to protect South Carolina ’s threatened resources - its natural landscapes, abundant wildlife, clean water, and traditional communitie s. We have approximately 5 ,000 members, many of whom live in the affected projec t area .
American Rivers is a non -profit conservation organization with offices in Washington, D.C., Columbia , South Carolina and throughout the nation. We are dedicated to the protection and restoration of the nation ’s streams. With over 75 ,000 member s across the country including those that live in the project vicinity, American Rivers is one of the nation ’s leading river conservation groups. The Conservation Groups would like to take this opportunity to clearly communicate what we hope to achieve in this relicensing proceeding. Our resource objectives will guide our participation in this proceeding . The resource objectives of primary concern include:
1 200610035009 Received FERC OSEC 10/03/2006 10:58:00 AM Docket# P-9988-000
• Protection and restoration of fish and wildlife habitat and mitigation for project -related habitat losses . • Analysis of di adromous fish existing and potential populations in the project area . • Protection and enhancement of rare, threatened and enda ngered plant and animal species.
It is with a view toward these objectives that we offer comments on the I CD.
I. The Legal and Regulatory Context
Under the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) may issue a new license for an existing hydroelectric project only if to do so would be in the public interest. 16 U.S.C. § 803(a ). In making its public interest inquiry, FERC is required to provide “equal consideration” to a range of public purposes, including the protection of fish, wildlife, recreation, and environmental quality. The FPA makes clear that relicensing is not a co ntinuation of the status quo, but a reconsideration of the past commitment of the river resource based on present day values and “then existing laws and regulations.” 16 U.S.C. § 808(a).
The Federal Power Act further requires that any new license contain conditions that adequately and equitably protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife resources. 16 U.S.C. § 803(j). Thus, FERC is required to assure that during any new license term fish and wildlife and their habitats are protected and restored, a nd that unavoidable, ongoing project impacts are mitigated.
Independent of the FPA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. , requires that FERC assess the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the hydroelectric project licensing and evaluate alternatives that would avoid these impacts. This requirement applies to applications for new licenses for existing projects because relicensing constitutes a new, irreversible, and irretrievable commitment of a public resource.
On August 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a decision in City of Tacoma, Washington v. FERC No. 05 -1054 . The applicable portion of this decision addressed “de facto decommissioning”; when impl ementing the conditions of the license would make the project unprofitable and thus force closure and decommissioning of the project. The court cl early states that relicensing, and the implementation of laws passed since the last license was issued, repre sent changing national priorities and circumstances that may result in a license that is not profitable from the licensee’s perspective. The Federal Power Act requirement of “reasonable license terms” ( 16 U.S.C.§ 808(a)(1) ) does not require FERC to issue an economic license. The court further points out the importance of a licensee having “recouped its initial investment plus a significant annual return on that investment. ” Interpreting the Federal Power Act requirement of “equal consideration” to wildlif e protection and the
2 200610035009 Received FERC OSEC 10/03/2006 10:58:00 AM Docket# P-9988-000
environment, § 797(e), the court finds that, in some cases, environmental concerns will have primacy over other interests .
Today, the protection and restoration of the ecosystem integrity of our rivers is widely recognized as one o f the highest public priorities. Accordingly, substantial emphasis should be placed on opportunities to further these priorities during the relicensing pro cess. While we understand the Augusta Canal Authority ’s interest in maintaining the King Mill as a power producing operation, it is critical that the Authority develop a complete factual record on which the Commission can give equal consideration to power and non -power values, including restoration and enhancement of the Savannah River ecosystem. Also, there must be biologically and scientifically sound information upon which agencies can base their terms, conditions, and recom mendations. This requires that Augusta Canal Authority evaluate a range of protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measu res and possible alternatives to current operations . Much of the necessary information has already been gathered . However , certain information specific to King Mill does not appear to be in that record . W e offer the following comments and recommendation s.
Recommend ed Studies to Address Information Needs
1) LOW INFLOW PROTOCOL STUDY
STUDY REQUEST: A study is needed to determine how to balance water availability, canal water levels and downstream flow requirements for all uses during periods of lo w flow. Specific areas to be assessed include operational changes in times of low inflow to properly distribute the effects of low inflow among project operations, downstream aquatic needs and other canal uses
PUBLIC INTEREST: The public has a direct in terest in various water uses including uses for recreation , and fish and wildlife habitat. The balanced use of water resources during low flow periods is clearly in the public interest.
NEXUS TO PROJECT: The Project receives the benefit of approximately 900 cfs from the Augusta Canal. During periods of low flow, this is a substantial portion of the total amount of water available for all uses . W ays in which operational changes can reduce the negative impacts of naturally low flow are clearly related to the project.
AVAILABLE INFORMATION: A multi -project Environmental Assessment was issued on May 20, 2005 for Sibley Mill (P -5044), Enterprise Mill (P -2935), and the Augusta Diversion Dam (P -11810). That EA recommended that canal water users coordinate with the City of Augusta, operator of the
3 200610035009 Received FERC OSEC 10/03/2006 10:58:00 AM Docket# P-9988-000
Augusta Diversion Dam to distribute impacts of low flow among all water users. The EA and the full administrative record of these proceedings are public information and could also be of use.
BASIC METHODOLOGY: Study the impact of Project operations during low flow periods on other water uses under existing and future scenarios. This study and coordination with the City of Augusta would contribute to the comprehensive protocol being developed for all canal water users. The study should determine how to provide information on low flow conditions that can be used to trigger conservation measures and what flows are needed to protect water quality, aquatic habitat and water supply uses. The study should outline what specific actions the applicant can take during periods of low flow.
ESTIMATED COST Costs for this study are not expected to exceed $100,000 and could be substantially less.
2) DIADROMOUS AND MIGRATORY FISH STUDY
STUDY REQUEST : We recommend a study to determine the presence and abundance of diadromo us and migratory river ine fish (i.e. robust redhorse) in the Project tailrace. Discharges from the Project may attract fish into the tailrace and away from future upstream fish passage facilities. This information is also needed to assess fish passage alternatives for the Project.
PUBLIC INTEREST : Enhancement of diadromous and migratory riverine fish populations is clearly in the public interest and is reflected in state and federal laws, as well as the policies and guidance of state and federal agencies charged with protecting these resources for the public good.
NEXUS TO PROJECT : Project’s operations directly affect habitat quality for diadrom ous and riverine fish by utilizing water diverted fro m the Savannah River into the Augusta Canal by the Augusta Canal Authority’s Augusta Diversion Dam, interfering with migrations and altering instream flows . Sampling by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources in 1996, 1997, and 1998 all found A merican shad and blueback herring in the King Mill tailrace .
AVAILABLE INFORMATION : Numerous scientific publications exist regarding the study of diadromous fish populations . The relicensing of other FERC projects on the Augusta Canal has provided much information about conditions in the Canal and in the Savannah River. The administrative records for Sibley Mill (P -5044), Enterprise Mill (P -2935), and the Augusta Diversion Dam (P -11810) are matters of public record. The South Carolina
4 200610035009 Received FERC OSEC 10/03/2006 10:58:00 AM Docket# P-9988-000
Department of Na tural Resources conducted sampling of the Savannah River including the King Mill tailrace in 1996, 1997, and 1998 . The Savannah Basin Anadromous Fish Restoration Compact was cooperatively developed with agency and stakeholder involvement. We know of no i nformation that specifically addresses Project effects on diadromous species in the project tailwater.
BASIC METHODOLOGY : The study should include sampling in the project tailrace to the confluence with the Savannah River. Standard sampling techniques s uch as electrofishing and netting should be used to determine presence and abundance of diadromous species in the tailrace. T he sampling should occur over t wo years during the March , April and May. Sampling should occur on a weekly basis while water is b eing discharged from King Mill.
ESTIMATED COST Costs for this study are not expected to exceed $100,000.
3) DESKTOP ENTRAINMENT MORTALITY STUDY
STUDY REQUEST : We recommend a desktop entrainment mortality study to fully document project impacts to dia dromous and resident fishes. While an entrainment study has been conducted at the project, we know of no existing mortality data. The mortality study should incorporate information from the entrainment study. It should produce estimates of mortality and injury based on size and species of entrained fish. Estimates should be expressed as percentages of fish entrained and total number of fish killed or injured. The study should be in compliance with the FERC guidance entitled “Review and evaluation of Con sumers Energy Company’s Desktop Evaluation of Entrainment at 10 Hydroelectric Projects on the AuSable, Manistee, and Muskegon Rivers” prepared by T.J. Lavullo and issued February 20, 2003.
PUBLIC INTEREST : The importance of h ealthy and self -sustaining fi sheries is well documented and has been regularly affirmed through legislation and regulations. Understanding King Mill’s impacts to the Savannah River fishery is key to an effective restoration plan , and a protection, mitigation and enhancement agreement .
NEXUS TO PROJECT : The number of fish lost to turbine mortality is directly connected to Project operations in that the impact occurs within the turbine itself within the project boundary. The loss of these fish would not occur but for the operation of the King Mill.
AVAILABLE INFORMATION : An en trainment study has been conducted at King Mill and will be a key component of the desktop study. FERC has offered guidance for this type of study in “Review and evaluation of Consumers Energy Company’s Deskt op Evaluation of Entrainment at 10 Hydroelectric Projects on the Au Sable, Manistee, and Muskegon Rivers” prepared by
5 200610035009 Received FERC OSEC 10/03/2006 10:58:00 AM Docket# P-9988-000
T.J. Lavullo and issued February 20, 2003. The administrative records for Sibley Mill (P -5044), Enterprise Mill (P -2935), and the Augusta Diversion Dam (P -11810) are matters of public record and could be useful in the study.
BASIC METHODOLOGY : The study should document 1) number/sizes of entrained fish 2) species composition of entrained fish 3) turbine passage mortality and be otherwise in compliance with the FERC guidance entitled “Review and evaluation of Consumers Energy Company’s Desktop Evaluation of Entrainment at 10 Hydroelectric Projects on the Au Sable, Manistee, and Muskegon Rivers” prepared by T.J. Lavullo and issued February 20, 2003.
ESTIMATED COST : Costs for this study are not expected to exceed $ 10 0,000.
4) FISH PASSAGE STUDY
STUDY REQUEST : We recommend a study of upstream and downstream passage of diadromous and riverine fish species at the Project . Alternatives shoul d be developed to enhance diadromous fish populations by establishing access to historic spawning grounds, safe upstream and downstream passage, and providing attraction flow s. Part of this study should include cumulative impacts analysis of the King Mill Project on the diadromous fish stocks of the Savannah River. The study should include an evaluation of mitigation opportunities for ongoing impacts to diadromous and migratory riverine fish.
The existence of a multi -project environmental assessment eval uating the impacts of Sibley Mill (P -5044), Enterprise Mill (P -2935), and the Augusta Diversion Dam (P - 11810) demonstrates that the impact of the hydropower projects on the Augusta Canal on the Savannah River are cumulative. Despite this recognition, lice nses have been issued to the Sibley and Enterprise Mills while fish passage negotiations are not final between state and federal resource agencies and the City of Augusta. Fish passage measures at Sibley and Enterprise are linked to progress in the August a Diversion Dam proceeding, which creates uncertainty as described below.
The City of Augusta has made the legal assertion that no FERC license is required to operate the dam and canal headgates now operated as FERC Project No. 11810. On several occasi ons, the City has threatened to back out of fish passage negotiations and present this assertion to FERC for full decision. The City’s actual intentions regarding fish passage are unknown and the assertion that no license is needed creates the distinct po ssibility that passage will not be achieved at the diversion dam. The decision to issue licenses to Enterprise and Sibley Mills while critical fish passage and flow issues are outstanding , means that the King Mill proceeding stands to be the last meaningf ul opportunity to pass fish beyond the Augusta Canal and into their historic spawning grounds.
6 200610035009 Received FERC OSEC 10/03/2006 10:58:00 AM Docket# P-9988-000
Because fish passage at the Augusta Diversion Dam is unresolved , King Mill must be considered as an alternative to meet at least part of the restoration goals . For the aforementioned reasons, we recommend the fish passage study described below.
PUBLIC INTEREST : Enhancement of diadromous fish populations is clearly in the public interest and is reflected in state and federal laws, as well as the policies and guidance of state and federal agencies charged with protecting these resources for the public good.
NEXUS TO PROJECT : Project’s operations directly affect upstream and downstream migration of and habitat quality for diadromous fish by blocking migration s and altering instream flows.
AVAILABLE INFORMATION : Numerous scientific publications exist regarding the study of diadromous fish populations and fish passage. Relicensing s of other FERC projects on the Augusta Canal have pro duced much information a bout conditions in the Canal and in the Savannah River. The administrative records for Sibley Mill ( P-5044), Enterprise Mill ( P-2935), and the Augusta Diversion Dam ( P-11810) are matters of public record. The Savannah Basin Anadromous Fish Restoration C ompact was cooperatively developed with agency and stakeholder involvement. The City of Augusta will be good res ou rce regarding the need for and possible design of fishways for the Augusta Canal.
BASIC METHODOLOGY : Studies conducted should, at a minimu m, include:
A. An evaluation of the feasibility and cost of the most promising fish passage technologies for upstream and downstream migration at the Project. Provide conceptual design drawings, including hydraulic information, an estimate of construct ion, operation and maintenance costs for those designs and measures at the projects. Specific options that should be studied, including a cost analysis for each alternative, include:
- Upstream passage options to be evaluated should, at a minimum, inc lude: Fishways - including ways to insure safe passage through the Project Trap and haul facilities
- Downstream passage options to be evaluated should, at a minimum, include: Collection and bypass facilities Turbine intake screens
B. Incorpor at ion of information on habitat conditions and availability in the Augusta Canal and Savannah River . Th is information is available from relicensing studies conducted at and Section 18 prescriptions issued for the Augusta Canal (FERC No. 11810) . Passage e stimates at New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam should be included.
7 200610035009 Received FERC OSEC 10/03/2006 10:58:00 AM Docket# P-9988-000
In light of the aforementioned uncertainty regarding fish passage at the Augusta Canal, all of this information is critical to determine the feasibility of reintroducing diadro mous fish above the Project and to improve connectivity of resident fish populations in the Project area. Additional information and a complete study plan should be developed with state and federal agencies and the Conservation Groups .
ESTIMATED COST : Costs for this st udy are not expected to exceed $ 15 0,000
Conclusion
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Initial Consultation Document and deem the above study requests necessary in order to effectively balance the power and non -power developmental values of the project. We look forward to working closely with the agencies and the applicant to find solutions that work for everyone.
Sincerely,
Gerrit Jöbsis Patrick Moore American Rivers Coastal Conservation League Director of Southeast Conservation Water Quality Associate 2231 Devine St. Suite 100 2231 Devine St. Suite 100 Columbia, SC 29205 Columbia, SC 29205 803 -771 -7114 803 -771 -7750 [email protected] [email protected]
8 200610035009 Received FERC OSEC 10/03/2006 10:58:00 AM Docket# P-9988-000
Submission Contents American Rivers and Coastal Conservation League Comment on the ICD for King Mill P-9988 KingMillICDcommentsfinal.doc·········································· 1-8 Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20060823-0192 Received by FERC OSEC 08/22/2006 in Docket#: P-9988-000 ORIGINAL Georgia Department of Natural Resources
No~ I-~comb. ~saionef Historic Preservation Division W. Ray Luce, Division Director and Deputy State HistorY: Presenratio~Officer 34 Peachtree Street, Suite 1600, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303 Telephone (404) 656-2840 Fax (404) 657-1040 http'J/www.gashpo.org
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ala. Stuart Kleinschmidt 10l Trade Zone Drive. Suite 21A West Columbia, Sooth Carolina 29170 / ~, ~ c'3 C3 FROM: Elizabeth Shirk • Environmental Review Coordinator ,.el-- t~ Historic Preservation Division c'~ ¢~, 70 ...4 RE: Finding of "No Historic Properties Affected"
PROJECT: Hydro Reilcensing, King Mill Project # 9988, Augusta Canal Federal Agency: FERC liP O6O7O7-OO3
COUNTY: Rlclmnond County, Georgia
DATE: August 16, 2006
The Historic Preservation Division has reviewed the information received concerning the above- mentioned projecL Our comments are offered to assist federal agencies and project applicants in complying with the provisions of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Based on the information submitted. HPD believes that no historic properties or archaeological resources that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by this undertaking. Please note that historic and/or archaeological resources may be located within the project's area of potential effect (APE), however, at this time it has been determined that they will not be impacted by the above-referenced project. Furthermore. any changes to this project as proposed will require further review by our office for compliance the Section 106 process.
For future reference plem¢ note eurreut address ~ above. We cannot be held responsible for misdirected or late mail deliveries.
If we may be of furtber assistance contact n'~ at (404) 651-6624 or Michelle Volkema. Environmental Review Specialist at (404) 651-6546. Please refer to the project number assigned above in any future correspondence regarding this project.
ES:mcv
CC: Anne Floyd. Central Savannah River Area RDC Margalie Sa.las, FERC Dayton Shermuse, Augusta Canal Authority MINUTES JOINT AGENCY/PUBLIC MEETING King Mill Project, FERC No. 9988 August 14, 2006
Attendees: Name Agency email Dayton Sherrouse Augusta Canal Authority [email protected] Amanda Hill US Fish & Wildlife [email protected] Service Ed Bettross GA DNR-Fisheries [email protected] Patrick Moore Coastal Conservation [email protected] League/American Rivers Gerrit Jobsis American Rivers [email protected] Don Phillips Standard Textile Augusta [email protected] Jorge Jimenez ZEL Engineers/City of [email protected] Augusta Stan Simpson US Army Corps of [email protected] Engineers Walter Spiegel Standard Textile [email protected] Alan Stuart Kleinschmidt [email protected]
Following a site tour of the project and powerhouse, Dayton Sherrouse called the meeting to order and thanked everyone for attending. Each participant then introduced themselves and the agency they represented and the meeting was turned over to Alan Stuart with Kleinschmidt for a presentation on the Initial Consultation Document (ICD).
Mr. Stuart reported that Kleinschmidt had been employed by the Canal Authority to prepare the license application package for the new FERC license for the King Mill Project (No. 9988). The current license expires on May 31. 2009 so we have a short time period and schedule to prepare the necessary documents. The ICD was issued on July 10, 2006 and the purpose of today’s meeting is to discuss the ICD and the relicensing process for the King Mill Project. He then used a PowerPoint presentation to discuss the following items.
1. Introduction of Project Team. The project team will consist of the following: Licensee-Dayton L. Sherrouse Standard Textile Local-Don Phillips/Tony Durham Standard Textile Corporate-Walter Spiegel Relicensing Consultant (Kleinschmidt)-Alan Stuart, Marty Phillips, Alison Guth, Shane Boring.
2. King Mill Project Summary. The property and hydro project is owned by the Augusta Canal Authority and leased to Standard Textile for operations. Standard operates the hydroelectric plant and uses the power internally for electrify the textile operations with King Mill. The project currently provides
1 approximately 45% of the power needs at King Mill. Standard currently operates Monday- Friday and the generating station is shut off on Saturday through Sunday. Standard is currently upgrading the generating station and installing the necessary improvements to sell any excess power (primarily on Saturday and Sunday) to Georgia Power. Once these improvements are completed, the generating station would operate seven days a week. It is anticipated that this will be accomplished with the next 3-4 months. Standard Textile produces blankets for the medical industry.
3. King Mill Hydroelectric Project. The project is located on the Augusta Canal, downstream of the Avondale Mill (Sibley) Project and upstream of the Enterprise Mill Project. The project consists of an intake structure on the canal, an open tailrace leading to the powerhouse and an open tailrace returning the water to the Savannah River. There are two turbine/generators located in the powerhouse producing 2.25 MW at 0.8-power factor. The project boundary consists of less than one acre and contains the intake structure, tailraces and powerhouse.
4. How Hydro Works. A generic drawing was displayed illustrating how a hydroelectric plant operates. It takes water from a dam (canal) at higher elevation, passes it through a turbine and discharges it a lower elevation into a river or other body of water.
5. Relicensing Process. The current license expires on May 31, 2009. Therefore the final application for a new license must be filed by May 31, 2007. We will be using the traditional licensing process (TLP) for the new license. Amanda Hill asked if the reason the TLP was being used was due to the fact that the notice of intent (NOI) for the relicense was filed prior to effective date of the new license procedure. Alan responded that was the case. Dayton also noted that the notice of intent was filed on April 30, 2004. Alan stated that the NOI fell within the required time limit of five to five and one half years prior to the expiration of the current license.
Alan stated that the new FERC licenses for the Enterprise and Sibley Projects had been recently been issued. Also, the City of Augusta is still in the process of obtaining a new license for the Augusta Canal. Therefore, there is a wealth of studies and information already available and current that will be used for the relicensing process for King Mill Project. We do not propose nor anticipate having to perform any additional studies to obtain data for this project. We will be asking for a new license for the King Mill Project on the same terms as the recently issued licenses for Sibley and Enterprise Mill Projects.
Gerrit asked what was the final agreement relative to fish passage in those licenses. Amanda responded that the licenses required both projects to install fish screens/louvers in the canal and a bypass sluiceway around the turbines. However it was never the intent of the federal resource agencies for this requirement to be placed on Sibley and Enterprise Projects independent of the issuance of the City License. Furthermore, functional design plans were to be submitted within six months of approval of the licenses. Therefore, the resource agencies had amended this requirement to make it effective six months after the presence of sturgeon
2 above the Augusta Diversion Dam. Ed Bettross added that all this is tied to the pending agreement between the City of Augusta and the resource agencies on the new license for the Augusta Canal.
6. Relicensing Timeline. The IDC was released on July 10, 2006. The Joint Agency Meeting and Public Meeting is held on August 14, 2006. Comments on the ICD are due by October 23, 2006. The draft license application will be completed by December 2006. The public comment period on the draft application will expire 90 days after the release of the application. The final application will be filed in May 2007
Alan reiterated the tight time line on this project but suggested that it since we were repeating a process just completed for the Sibley and Enterprise Projects he thought it was obtainable.
7. Comments on ICD and Project Issues. Alan asked if there were any questions on the ICD or any issues that anyone wanted to bring up. Gerrit stated that he did not think he received a copy of the ICD. Alan stated that it was either a hard copy or a CD. Also, it was and is available on the Canal Authority’s website at www.agustacanal.com. Patrick Moore checked his file and confirmed that they had a copy of the CD.
Jorge Jimenez asked if the Georgia Department of Natural Resources had been notified of the meeting. Alan responded that Ed Bettross was in attendance and others within the GA DNR had been notified. Ed stated that he was representing the Fisheries Division of the GA DNR and Mr. John Biagi should also be notified. Alan stated that Dick Christie with the SC Department of Natural Resources told him they would not participate since the project was all in GA.
Gerrit asked if we knew how many and what kind of fish there is in the tailrace and if not do we anticipate any additional studies to address that issue. Alan responded that none were planned at this time but there may be some information on that issue on the entrainment study that they previously performed for the King Mill Project. Amanda asked what year that study was completed and if she could get a copy of it. Alan said it was 1989 or 1990 and he would send her a copy. Alan asked Ed if the GA DNR had done any fish sampling in the tailrace. Ed responded that they had done limited sampling late in the year but didn’t find what they were looking for.
Ed asked if there was data on the amount of water used by the King Mill project. Alan responded that the project draws about 900 cfs of water. Don said that when they run they usually are running at 100% twenty-four hours a day so that number would be accurate except for the weekends when they shut down.
Jorge asked if they water quality certification had been requested yet. Alan replied that it had not but that would be done within the next several months.
3
July 6, 2006 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Attached Distribution List Initial Consultation Document Augusta Canal Authority – King Mill Project (FERC No. 9988)
To the Parties Addressed:
Kleinschmidt Associates is enclosing for your records a copy of the Initial Consultation Document (ICD) for the King Mill Project (FERC No. 9988). The Project is an existing hydroelectric project located on the Augusta Canal in the City of Augusta, Georgia. The Project’s current license is held by the Augusta Canal Authority. Volume I of the ICD is a public document. Volume II contains Critical Energy Infrastructure Information, which should not be distributed to others.
The current license expires on May 31, 2009. The Augusta Canal Authority is proceeding with the process needed to apply for a new license from the FERC to allow continued operation of the project. The enclosed ICD details project features and operations, and existing environmental resources.
The issuance of the ICD begins the official consultation for the King Mill relicensing process. The Augusta Canal Authority will conduct a Joint Agency and Public Meeting (JAM) and site visit of the project site tentatively scheduled for August 14, 2006. The site visit will be held at the project site, followed by the Agency meeting. An evening session will be used to solicit comments from members of the public. We are presently planning for the JAM and will notify you as soon as we can of the meeting location, time, and driving directions. The meeting will include a presentation of the information provided in the ICD (note: identical day and evening sessions will be held). Your comments on the ICD, and studies that are needed to address specific Project related issues, must be submitted in writing within 60 days of the JAM.
Augusta Canal Authority is looking forward to working with you on this relicensing. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed ICD or the King Mill Project relicensing effort, please contact me at (803) 822-3177, or by email at [email protected].
Sincerely, KLEINSCHMIDT ASSOCIATES
Alan Stuart AWS:fhw Project Manager Encl. cc: Distribution List Dayton Sherrouse – Augusta Canal Authority Marty Phillips – Kleinschmidt Associates 07/05/06 – FHW/1438-001-99-00/Z:\SCO\1438-001\Agency Letter for ICD.doc 101 Trade Zone Drive, Suite 21A • West Columbia, SC 29170 • Phone: 803-822-3177 • Fax: 803-822-3183 • www.KleinschmidtUSA.com - Offices Nationwide - KING MILL PROJECT (FERC No. 9988) JULY 2006
Mr. Gerrit Jobsis Mr. Jerry Gotzmer Environmental Coordinator Regional Engineer American Rivers Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 2231 Devine Street Suite 100 3125 Presential Parkway Columbia, SC 29205 Suite 300 Parkridge 85, North Building Mr. Dayton Sherrouse Atlanta, GA 30340 Executive Director Augusta Canal Authority Mr. Tommy Irvin PO Box 2367 Commissioner Augusta, GA 30903-2367 Georgia Department of Agriculture Office of the Commissioner Mr. Max Hicks 19 Martin Luther King Jr Drive SW Director Atlanta, GA 30334 Augusta Utilities Department 360 Bay Street Suite 180 Mr. Alan W. Hallum Augusta, GA 30901 Chief Georgia Department of Natural Resources Mr. Charles R. Oliver 205 Butler Street SE Administrator Suite 1058 East Augusta-Richmond County Commission Environmental Protection Division 530 Greene Street Water Protection Branch Municipal Building Atlanta, GA 30334 Augusta, GA 30901 Mr. Ed Bettross Mr. Stephen Felker Jr. Georgia Department of Natural Resources Avondale Mills, Inc. 142 Bob Kirk Road 509 South Broad Street Wildlife Resources Division Monroe, GA 30655 Fisheries Management Section Thomson, GA 30824 Honorable Deke Copenhaver Mayor Mr. Richard Cloues City of Augusta Deputy Director and State Historic 803 Municipal Building Preservation Officer Office of the Mayor Georgia Department of Natural Resources 530 Greene Street 500 The Healey Building Augusta, GA 30911 57 Forsyth Street NW Historic Preservation Division Ms. Magalie Roman Salas Atlanta, GA 30303 Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Director - State Parks & Historic Sites Mail Code DLC, HL-11.2 Georgia Department of Natural Resources 888 1st Street NE Room 1A 205 Butler Street SE Washington, DC 20426 Atlanta, GA 30334
KING MILL PROJECT (FERC No. 9988) JULY 2006 Mr. Russ England Mr. Roy E. Crabtree Assistant Chief of Fisheries National Oceanic & Atmospheric Georgia Department of Natural Resources Administration 2070 U.S. Highway 278 SE 9721 Executive Center Drive North DNR - Fisheries Management Section NOAA Fisheries Southeast Region Social Circle, GA 30279 St. Petersburg, FL 33702
Mr. Sam Booher Mr. Jerry Belson Chairman Regional Director Georgia Sierra Club National Park Service 4387 Roswell Drive 100 Alabama Street Augusta, GA 30907 1924 Building, Southeast Regional Office Atlanta, GA 30303 Mr. F. Graham Liles Executive Director Mr. Richard Roos-Collins Georgia State Soil & Water Conservation Director, Legal Services Commission Natural Heritage Institute 4310 Lexington Road 100 Pine Street PO Box 8024 Suite 1550 Athens State Office San Francisco, CA 94111 Athens, GA 30603 Ms. Gina Kirkland Mr. Alan W. Stuart Program Manager Kleinschmidt Associates South Carolina Department of Health & 101 Trade Zone Drive Environmental Control Suite 21A 2600 Bull Street West Columbia, SC 29170 Columbia, SC 29201
Mr. David H. Rackley Mr. Ed Duncan Fisheries Biologist South Carolina Department of Natural National Marine Fisheries Service Resources 219 Fort Johnson Road 1000 Assembly Street Habitat Conservation Division PO Box 167 Charleston, SC 29412 Columbia, SC 29202
Mr. Andreas Mager Jr. Mr. Randy Miller Assistant Director Branch Chief - EN-Hydrology National Marine Fisheries Service United States Army Corps of Engineers 9721 Executive Center Drive North PO Box 889 Southeast Regional Office Savannah District St. Petersburg, FL 33702 Savannah, GA 31402-0889
Mr. Prescott Brownell Ms. Elizabeth Estill National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Forester 219 Fort Johnson Road United States Department of Agriculture Southeast Region 1720 Peachtree Road NW Charleston, SC 29412 Atlanta, GA 30309
KING MILL PROJECT (FERC No. 9988) JULY 2006 Mr. James H. Lee Regional Environmental Officer United States Department of the Interior Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance Richard B. Russell Federal Building Room 1144 75 Spring Street SW Atlanta, GA 30303
Mr. John Hankinson Jr. United States Environmental Protection Agency Region IV Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303
Ms. Amanda Hill United States Fish and Wildlife Service 176 Croghan Spur Road Suite 200 Charleston SC 29407
District Chief United States Geological Survey 3039 Amwiler Road Suite 130 Georgia District Office Atlanta, GA 30360
07/05/06 – CLB 1438-001-99-00 Z:\SCO\1438-001\King Mill Distribution List.doc
July 6, 2006 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr. Monte Terharr Federal Energy Regulatory Commission PJ-11.6 Room 61-17 888 1st Street NE Washington, DC 20426
Initial Consultation Document Augusta Canal Authority – King Mill Project (FERC No. 9988)
Dear Mr. Terharr:
Kleinschmidt Associates is enclosing for your records a copy of the Initial Consultation Document (ICD) for the King Mill Project (FERC No. 9988). Also enclosed is the list of agencies and interested parties that the document was distributed to on June 5, 2006. If you need additional copies of the document, please let me know. The Project is an existing hydroelectric project located on the Augusta Canal in the City of Augusta, Georgia. The Project’s current license is held by the Augusta Canal Authority.
The current license expires on May 31, 2009. The Augusta Canal Authority is proceeding with the process needed to apply for a new license from the FERC to allow continued operation of the project. The enclosed ICD details project features and operations, and existing environmental resources.
The issuance of the ICD begins the official consultation for the King Mill relicensing process. The Augusta Canal Authority will conduct a Joint Agency and Public Meeting (JAM) and site visit of the project site tentatively scheduled for August 14, 2006. The site visit will be held at the project site, followed by the Agency meeting. An evening session will be used to solicit comments from members of the public. We are presently planning for the JAM and will notify you as soon as we can of the meeting location, time, and driving directions. The meeting will include a presentation of the information provided in the ICD (note: identical day and evening sessions will be held). Your comments on the ICD, and studies that are needed to address specific Project related issues, must be submitted in writing within 60 days of the JAM.
101 Trade Zone Drive, Suite 21A West Columbia, SC 29170 Phone: 803-822-3177 Fax: 803-822-3183 www.KleinschmidtUSA.com - Offices Nationwide - Mr. Monte Terharr May 29, 2007 2.
Augusta Canal Authority is looking forward to working with you on this relicensing. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed ICD or the King Mill Project relicensing effort, please contact me at (803) 822-3177, or by email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
KLEINSCHMIDT ASSOCIATES
Alan Stuart Project Manager AWS:fhw
Encl. cc: Distribution List Dayton Sherrouse, Augusta Canal Authority Marty Phillips – Kleinschmidt Associates
07/05/06 – FHW 1438-001-99-00 Z:\SCO\1438-001\FERC Letter for ICD.doc APPENDIX B
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 20060606-3016 Issued by FERC OSEC 06/06/2006 in Docket#: P-5044-012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Avondale Mills, Inc. Project No. 5044 -012
ORDER GR ANTING EXTENSION OF TIME AND REVISING SCHEDULE UNDER ARTICLES 202, 203 AND 401
(Issued June 06 , 200 6)
On May 2, 2006, Avondale Mills, Inc. (licensee ) filed a request fo r an extension of time to file exhibit drawings pursuant to articles 202 and 203 of the project license for the Sibley Mill Project No. 5044 . 1 The licensee also requested the schedule set forth in article 401 and appendices (A) and (B) of the license be revised. The project is located on the Augusta Canal approximately 5 miles downstream of the Augusta Diversion Dam in Richmond County, Georgia, which diverts water into the canal from the Savannah River.
Artic le 202 requires the licensee file within 180 days of license issuance , exhibit G drawings for Commission approval. The drawings must enclose within the project boundary all principal project works necessary for operation and maintenance of the project inc luding the intake canal, intake gates located on the Augusta Canal, powerhouse, tailrace , and any land containing project facilities.
Article 203 requires the licensee to file within 45 days of license issuance, the exhibit A and F drawings approved by ordering paragraph (C) of the November 17, 2005 Order Issuing New License ,2 in electronic and aperture card formats.
Appendices (A) and (B) of the license set the fishway prescriptions determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Nati onal Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS ), respectively, under section 18 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) . Paragraph (4) of the appendices requires the licensee to develop fully operational fishways within t hree years of license issuance. Paragraph (8) of the appendices requires the licensee to develop in consultation with , and submit for approval by the FWS and NMFS (the agencies) functional design drawings, final design plans and construction schedules for the fishways required in the appendices wi thin six m onths of license issuance.
1 See 113FERC¶62, 132, issued November 17, 200 5. 2 The approved exhibit drawings were filed on April 2, 2001, in the licensee’s application for a new license. 20060606-3016 Issued by FERC OSEC 06/06/2006 in Docket#: P-5044-012
Project No. 5044 -012 2 Article 401 requires the licensee to submit for Commission approval the functional design drawings developed pursuant to appendices (A) and (B) within 6 months of license issuance . Article 401 requires the licensee to wait for Commission approval before implementing the design s.
LICENSEE’S REQUEST
In its filing the licensee requests the deadline to file exhibit G drawings for approval under article 202 be extended until June 30, 2006, and the deadline to file the approve d exhibit A and F drawings under article 203 be extended to July 30, 2006. The licensee states that circumstances related to its request for rehearing and subsequent discussions regarding fishway prescriptions caused the requirement deadlines to be overlo oked .3
The licensee requests article 401 and appendices (A) and (B) be revised to reflect the changes made in clarification letters from the agencies .4 The licensee states that the letters require the functional design drawings be filed six months aft er the agencies determine that sturgeon are present above the Augusta Diversion Dam , and fish passage facilities to be fully operational within three years after sturgeon are determined to be present above the dam.
DISCUSSION
The Commission is re quired by law to require fishways prescribed by the FWS and NMFS .5 Article 403 reserves the Commission’s authority to require any prescriptions that are submitted after the license becomes final.
The letters filed on March 17 and March 28, 2006, by NMF S and FWS, respectively, indicate that the agencies have committed to amend their schedules for requiring downstream fish passage along the Augusta Canal, including the Augusta Canal Project, Enterprise Mill Project, and Sibley Mill Project. The agencies state that in order to be consistent with downstream fish passage at the Augusta Diversion Dam, fishway prescriptions at the Sibley Mill Project should not be required until the agencies
3 On December 16, 2005, the licensee filed a request for reheari ng of the Order Issuing New License on the premise that the fishway prescription was prohibitively expensive and unnecessary. On January 19, 2006, the Commission denied the licensee’s request. 4 Letter from NMFS filed March 17, 2006. Letter from FWS fil ed March 28, 2006. 5 See, e.g., Wisconsin Power & Light Company v. FERC, 363 F.3d 453,460 (D.C. Cir. 2004). 20060606-3016 Issued by FERC OSEC 06/06/2006 in Docket#: P-5044-012
Project No. 5044 -012 3 determine that sturgeon are present above the Augusta Diversion Dam a nd notify the licensee of their determination.
In their letters the agencies approve extending the deadline s to submit the functional design drawings and co nstruct fully operational downstream fishways required by appendices (A) and (B ) and article 401 of the license to no later than six months and three years, respectively, after the agencies determine that sturgeon are present above the dam. The agencies letters request that the Commission enforce article 401 and appendices (A) and (B) of the license co nsistent with the clarifications in their letters.
The reasons advanced by the licensee in support of revising the schedules under article 401 and appendices (A) and (B) of the license are reasonable and justify the revisions. The reasons advanced by the licensee in support of the extension of time to file the exhibit drawings under articles 202 and 203 are reasonable and justify the extension.
The Director orders :
(A) The deadline for filing exhibit G drawings under article 202 of the license for the Sibley Mill Project is extended to Ju ne 30, 2006.
(B) The deadline for filing the approved exhibit drawings under article 203 of the license for the Sibley Mill Project in electronic and aperture card formats is extended to July 30, 2006.
(C) The fishway prescriptions from the FWS and N MFS for downstream fish passage at the Sibley Mill Project , incorporated as appendices A and B of the license are revised as follows:
Paragraph 4 Downstream fishways at the Enterprise Mill Project and Sibley Mill P roject must be fully operational within three years after NMFS and FWS determine that sturgeon are present and give written notice to the licensee that sturgeon are present above the Augusta Diversion Dam.
Paragraph 8 The licensee must submit funct ional d esign drawings to FWS and NMFS for approval no later than 6 months after the FWS and NMFS determine that sturgeon are present above the Augusta Diversion Dam.
The licensee may propose a fishway design based on the conditions and the technologies available when sturgeon are present above the Augusta 20060606-3016 Issued by FERC OSEC 06/06/2006 in Docket#: P-5044-012
Project No. 5044 -012 4 Diversion Dam. Any design must mee t the goals, objectives, and other requirements for downstream fishways, as set forth in appendices (A) and (B) of the project license, must be at least as protective as the lo uver -screen - bypass system initially prescribed, and must be approved by the FWS and NMFS.
(D ) Article 401, paragraph 1, of the license for the Sibley Mill Project is revised to read as follows:
The section 18 prescriptions attached as appendices (A) and (B) require the licensee to develop functional design drawings for fish screens/louvers and a bypass sluiceway at the project intake within six months after the FWS and NMFS determine that sturgeon are present above the Augusta Diversion Dam. The drawing s shall be developed in consultation with the FWS and NMFS and shall also be submitted to the Commission for approval and must be approved by the Commission before being implemented by the licensee.
(E ) This order constitutes final agency action. Req uests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.713.
William Guey -Lee Chief, Engineering and Jurisdiction Branch Division of Hydropower Admini stration and Compliance 20060606-3015 Issued by FERC OSEC 06/06/2006 in Docket#: P-2935-020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Enterprise Mill, LCC Project No. 2935 -020
ORDER GR ANTING EXTENSION OF TIME AND REVISING SCHEDULE UNDER ARTICLES 202, 203 AND 401
(Issued June 06 , 200 6)
On May 2, 2006, Enterpris e Mill, LCC (licensee ) filed a request fo r an extension of time to file exhibit drawings pursuant to articles 202 and 203 of the project license for the Enterprise Mill Project No. 2935 . 1 The licensee also requested the schedule set forth in article 401 and appendices (A) and (B) of the license be revised. The project is located on the Augusta Canal approximately 6 miles downstream of the Augusta Diversion Dam in Richmond County, Georgia, which diverts water into the canal from the Savannah River.
Ar ticle 202 requires the licensee file within 180 days of license issuance , exhibit G drawings for Commission approval. The drawings must enclose within the project boundary all principal project works necessary for operation and maintenance of the project including the intake canal, intake gates located on the Augusta Canal, powerhouse, tailrace , and any land containing project facilities.
Article 203 requires the licensee to file within 45 days of license issuance, the exhibit A and F drawings approved by ordering paragraph (C) of the November 17, 2005 Order Issuing Subsequent License 2 in electronic and aperture card formats.
Appendices (A) and (B) of the license set the fishway prescriptions determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS ), respectively, under section 18 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) . Paragraph (4) of the appendices requires the licensee to develop fully operational fishways within t hr ee years of license issuance. Paragraph (8 ) of the appendices requires the licensee to develop in consultation with , and submit for approval by the FWS and NMFS (the agencies) functional design drawings, final design plans and construction schedules for the fishways required in the appendices wi thin six months of license issuance.
1 See 113FERC¶62, 13 1, issued November 17, 200 5. 2 The approved exhibit drawings were filed on September 24 , 2001, in the licensee’s application for a new license. 20060606-3015 Issued by FERC OSEC 06/06/2006 in Docket#: P-2935-020
Project No. 2935 -020 2 Article 401 requires the licensee to submit for Commission approval the functional design drawings developed pursuant to appendices (A) and (B) within 6 months of license issuance . Article 401 requires the license e shall wait for Commission approval before implementing the design s.
LICENSEE’S REQUEST
In its filing the licensee requests the deadline to file exhibit G drawings for approval under article 202 be extended until June 30, 2006, and the deadline to file the approved exhibit A and F drawings under article 203 be extended to July 30, 2006. The licensee states that circumstances related to its request for rehearing and subsequent discussions regarding fishway prescriptions caused the requirement deadlines to be overlooked .3
The licensee requests article 401 and appendices (A) and (B) be revised to reflect the changes made in clarification letters from the agencies .4 The licensee states that the letters require the functional design drawings be filed si x months after the agencies determine that sturgeon are present above the Augusta Diversion Dam , and fish passage facilities to be fully operational within three years after sturgeon are determined to be present above the dam.
DISCUSSION
The Comm ission is required by law to require fishways prescribed by the FWS and NMFS .5 Article 403 reserves the Commission’s authority to require any prescriptions that are submitted after the license becomes final.
The letters filed on March 17 and March 28, 2006, by NMFS and FWS, respectively, indicate that the agencies have committed to amend their schedules for requiring downstream fish passage along the Augusta Canal, including the Augusta Canal Project, Enterprise Mill Project, and Sibley Mill Project. T he agencies state that in order to be consistent with downstream fish passage at the Augusta Diversion Dam, fishway prescriptions at the Sibley Mill Project should not be required until the agencies
3 On December 16, 2005, the licen see filed a request for rehearing of the Order Issuing New License on the premise that the fishway prescription was prohibitively expensive and unnecessary. On January 19, 2006, the Commission denied the licensee’s request. 4 Letter from NMFS filed March 17, 2006. Letter from FWS filed March 28, 2006. 5 See, e.g., Wisconsin Power & Light Company v. FERC, 363 F.3d 453,460 (D.C. Cir. 2004). 20060606-3015 Issued by FERC OSEC 06/06/2006 in Docket#: P-2935-020
Project No. 2935 -020 3 determine that sturgeon are present above the Augusta Div ersion Dam and notify the licensee of their determination.
In their letters the agencies approve extending the deadline s to submit the functional design drawings and co nstruct fully operational downstream fishways required by appendices (A) and (B ) and ar ticle 401 of the license to no later than six months and three years, respectively, after the agencies determine that sturgeon are present above the dam. The agencies letters request that the Commission enforce article 401 and appendices (A) and (B) of th e license consistent with the clarifications in their letters.
The reasons advanced by the licensee in support of revising the schedules under article 401 and appendices (A) and (B) of the license are reasonable and justify the revisions. The reasons adv anced by the licensee in support of the extension of time to file the exhibit drawings under articles 202 and 203 are reasonable and justify the extension.
The Director orders :
(A) The deadline for filing exhibit G drawings under article 202 of the lic ense for the Enterprise Mill Project is extended to Ju ne 30, 2006.
(B) The deadline for filing the approved exhibit drawings under article 203 of the license for the Enterprise Mill Project in electronic and aperture card formats is extended to July 30, 2006.
(C) The fishway prescriptions from the FWS and N MFS for downstream fish passage at the Enterprise Mill Project , incorporated as appendices A and B of the license are revised as follows:
Paragraph 4 Downstream fishways at the Enterprise Mill P roject and Sibley Mill Project must be fully operational within three years after NMFS and FWS determine that sturgeon are present and give written notice to the licensee that sturgeon are present above the Augusta Diversion Dam.
Paragraph 8 The licensee must submit funct ional design drawings to FWS and NMFS for approval no later than 6 months after the FWS and NMFS determine that sturgeon are present above the Augusta Diversion Dam.
The licensee may propose a fishway design based on the conditions and th e technologies available when sturgeon are present above the Augusta 20060606-3015 Issued by FERC OSEC 06/06/2006 in Docket#: P-2935-020
Project No. 2935 -020 4 Diversion Dam. Any design must mee t the goals, objectives, and other requirements for downstream fishways, as set forth in appendices (A) and (B) of the project license, must be at least as protective as the louver -screen - bypass system initially prescribed, and must be approved by the FWS and NMFS.
(D ) Article 401, paragraph 1, of the license for the Enterprise Mill Project is revised to read as follows:
The section 18 prescriptions at tached as appendices (A) and (B) require the licensee to develop functional design drawings for fish screens/louvers and a bypass sluiceway at the project intake within six months after the FWS and NMFS determine that sturgeon are present above the Augusta Diversion Dam. The drawings shall be developed in consultation with the FWS and NMFS and shall also be submitted to the Commission for approval and must be approved by the Commission before being implemented by the licensee.
(E ) This order constitut es final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.713.
William Guey -Lee Chief, Engineering and Jurisdiction Branch Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20060210-0017 Received by FERC OSEC 02/07/2006 in Docket#: P-II810-000
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 176 Cxoghan Spur Road. Suite 200 Chatl~:~'l, So.lh Carolina 29407 ORIGINAL
January 31, 2006
t.~..-,r I
:a; .~ -~,~ i.~_~ Mr. Clifford Goins "-¢-~t--" II 1131 [" A C;r-i t--4 r-~fT] Assistant Director, Water Production :.,:.c~:: --~"nt:3 Augusta Utilities Department 360 Bay Street, Suite 180 c~- t,aJ t'~ ; CD Augusta, Georgia 30901
Re: RevcisedLetter of Intent
Dcar Mr. Goins:
I have reviewed the Revised Lettcr of Intent, dated January 13, 2006, and had a telephone discussion with Mr. Jim Wall, which took place on January 25, 2006, where we discussed issues surrounding paragraphs 6, 8, 14, 15, and 17 of the Revised Letter of Intent. I have also consulted with my staffand agency counsel, Mr. Kevin Tanaka, Office of the Solicitor, regarding the Revised Letter of Intent and the January 25, 2006, call. In my opinion, that call was productive in clarifying certain items contained in the Revised Lctter of Intent.
On behalf of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sea'vicc(FWS), I concur in the terms of the Revised Letter of Intent, attached, subject to the following clarificationsto be included and addressed in the comprehensive settlement agreement as discussed with Mr. Wall:
• With regard to paragraph 14 of the Revised Letter of Intent, the FWS and NMFS will be consulted, along with GDNR and SCDNR, about appropriate ganging.
With regard to paragraph 15 of the Revised Letter of I~ten4 the technical committee, consisting of the Augusta Utilities Department, GDNR, and SCDNR, will notify the FWS and NMFS regarding proposed future increases in Canal Flows, and keep FWS and NMFS advised ofdisenssions regarding same. The technical committee will provide the FWS and NMFS with a copy ofany proposed increase in Canal flows, and allow the FWS and NMFS to review and provide written comments. A/ty comments by FWS and NMFS will be forwarded to FERC by the technical committee as a part of any report from the committee. Jnofficial FERC-Generated PDF of 20060210-0017 Received by FERC OSEC 02/0712006 in Docket#: P-l1810-000~
Wilh ic.,.4cii(l tt~ t'~u {lgl~il'~h I 7 (H+thc Rc\'isc(t l citer of +llltcni, it nolch ~ill h<: i)t:lcctl i1~ lhc (]~lil] ai.laccnl k) Ihc" I]sl'l la(t(Icr a:i([ mc()rl'loralc.d ink) lhc latlclci tlc~,i<.tll I~1 provl(Ic itlc ~ll)pr(ll)rl~ilc tiIlr;iclail[ (low. as described in t)ala}!riil~h I J el'Ibm }4c~ iscd [.clicr of In{tilt. iii licit o( Iho ()~.':m~eycr l)'pc inllai~iblc crest ~..lk'S
It iS imporiaril ikai everyone, lllcludint; FEIt(L tinderstand tha this is the firs! sic t) in negotiating a ccmll~rchcnsivc sctllcmcnt, ii~cluding proposed license articles. I:Dllowin!~ selllcnleni> the FWS will ~lls(i nccd to inodil), its Section 18 Fishway Prescripiion consistent wilh s01tleillent /ks rcqLiestod I)y Atigtlsta, we are noli~,mg I,1~14C Of'(.)tlr agrocnlellt with lho a[lachcd I~.evi.~cd [,cllcr of IillCill. ~,Vo tindersIaild [hat i\,li'vllvg is ais, o in a,greonloill with ihc ali~lchcd Revised I.etlcr o(" Intent, and thercl'ore wc ~lnticil)aC ilc{;otialln.l~ ;i Coini)rchclisl~ c ,k:lllcnicll[ ill the conlillg illOlllhs. \t,'(.. un(lcrslalld lh:il upon I~olh FWS :.illd k,K~il.'S tilllcl}' ilolilyin.,.~ FtiR(" of their agrcciu¢ilt Io {he I{c~ iscd [.c'{iL'l Id" Iillcnt. Aii~tisl,t's "Joticc o1( "(inth[ioil~ll \Vithctrawal will becolllC nlt)('~l :\tl~iisIa ]iLLS ~l~,,roc~.t to Iile ~iny I'urlllc~ l~lccidln.L, iicccssilly [~; dOCUlllCilt [hat Ihc Notice ol('(~lthllon,l'. \ViIMrtt~ al hcis hccoill¢ illt)t)l iintl is ~ ilhdra,.v~l
\Vc arc i)]c~lscd Ihc l:\VS miJ Ihc Sincerely, -/4- .44+;; 1 iinotky N. Hall I,'icld Supervisor Attachment: Re',.tsc,,t I,ettcr o!'Itltcr.t CC: Mr. James B. Wall, Bumskie Wall LI.P Mr..Iorgc 1{ Jmlc}ncz Ms. Magahc galas, FI';RC Secretary Monte Tcrl laar, FH>,( TM Staff FERC Service List, FERC No. 11810-004 Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20060210-0017 Received by FERC OSEC 02/07/2006 in Docket#: P-II810-000 'RECEIVED JAN ? 20116 • ,~ . • Augusta Canal Hydropower Project- FERC 1 1810 January 13, 2006 Mr. Tim Hall Ecologist Services U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services 176 Crogitan Spur Rd., Suite 200 Charleston, SC 29407 Via Fax 843-727-4218 and Regular Mail Re: Augusta Canal Hydropower Project Revised Letter of Intent Dear Tim: Pursuant to our meeting yesterday I have added paragraph 18 with the understanding that this Letter of Intent will be agreed to and executed by both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, sometimes known as NOAA Fisheries). I also understand that you will discuss our meeting with NMFS and that you expect the terms hereof will be acceptable to NMFS. Therefore, I am pleased to submit the following letter describing our mutual desire to enter into a settlement agreement addressing certain matters in controversy among Augusta, the Georgia Departmem of Nattral Resources(GDNR), the Sou~ CarolinaDepartment of Natural Resources (SCDNR), FWS, and NMFS, collectively referred to herein as the "parties," with regard to Augusta's application for a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license for the Augusta Canal Hydropower Project (the Project). This letter represents the culmination ofextensive negotiations and a series of mutual compromises among Augusta, GDNR and SCDNR, and we are submittingsame requesting that FWS and NMFS agree to the terms hereof as a settlement ofthe Section 18 Preseripfiom. By submittin8 this letter of intern, the parties are committing themselves, assuming FWS and NMFS accept the terms hereof, (1) to negotiate, in good faith to resolve the remaining issues between Augusta and the parties, (2) to advocate the acceptance ofthe negotiated terms and conditions by FERC and the incorporation of such terms and conditions into a FERC license for Please reply to: AUGUSTACANAL. HYDROPOWER PROJECT- 435 TELFAIRSTREET, AUGUSTA, GA. 30901 Jnofficial FERC-Generated PDF of 20060210-0017 Received by FERC OSEC 02/07/2006 in Docket#: P-l1810-000 ~ F Augusta Canal ltydropower ProJect Letter of Intent January 13. 2006 Page 2 the Project. and (3) to continue their negotiations for the purpose of embodying these agreements and commitments in a comprehensive settlement agreement The terms and conChttons to which I refer are as follows: 1 The parties recognize the importance of continuing to mamtmn strong communication protocols at~er the FFRC license is issued and agree that such communications ought to include all critical stakeholders who have an interest in the efficient operation of the Augusta Canal This list may include but not be hmited to Augusta; the FWS; the NMFS; the GI)NR; the SCDNR, and any other paflies as needed 2 The parties also agree and ur, derstand that with the Issuance ofa FERC license, Augusta will be ,n an overall better position to implement manageme,~t principles -- re. to receive funding Io improve the overall operation of the Car|at 3e The pames agree that aquatRc base flow allocations for the August~t Shoals will be asstated m paragraph 5 All mmthcrs are m cubic feet per second (c(~) l'hc first column ~dentflies the levels oftn[lDws to the Augusta l)iverslon l)am (ADD), which arc sometimes de~.crthcd as '"l'ler 1" (ADD Inflows greater than 5.400 cfs). "Tier 2" (ADD milords between 4,50(I and 5.399 cfs), '"l'Ler 3" (AI)D tallows between 3,600 and 4,49~ ct~). and "Tier 4" (ADD inflows less than 3.(~00 el;) 4 lntlows to the ADD are dcscrabed as the "Augusta Declaration " The Augusta Declaiatton will be calculated as follows: (1) Acquire daily S EPA Declaration for the Thurmond l)am (2) Determine additional inflow between the Thurrnond Dam and the Augusta Diversion Dam tbr same date as SEPA Declaration The agreed method of calculating additional inflow is described in Attachment 1 The parties will agree to standardize the time of'day to read the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Modoe gauge (as described m Attachment 1) for the purpose of calculating intlows (3) The sum of the daily SEPA Declaration and additional inflow from Step (2) equals the daaly Augusta Declaration. Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20060210-0017 Received by FERC OSEC 02/07/2006 in Docket#: P-II810-000 • Augusta Canal Hydropower Project Letter of Intent January 13, 2006 Page 3 5. AGREED AQUATIC BASE FLOWS: FEB/MAR APR MAY 1-15 Marl6-31 .I],rNE-JAN Tier 1 >5400 3300 3300 2500 1900 1900 Tier2 4500-5399 2300 2200 1800 1800 1500 Tier 3 3600-4499 2000 2000 1500 1500 1500 Tier4 <3600 1800 1800 1500 1500 1500 6. The difference between the Augusta Declaration and the agreed Aqumic Base Flow for each day will be the amount that may be diverted to the Augusta Canal, as needed, sometimes referred to as the daily allowable diversion flow rate. For purposes of determining compliance, the quantity of water that will flow in the Canal shall not exceed 105% of the daily allowable diversion flow rate. 77. The City will make one flow setting for the Canal headgates on a daily basis, bas~l upon the daily Augusta Declaration. There will be no adjustments to the canal flow setting during such 24 hourperiod, except for compliance purposes or an emergency. 8. The flows stated in paragraph 5 are not minimum flows but base flows. This means that based on a 40 year historical average and as projected over the expected FERC license term, the flows will be greater than stated, especially at the Tier 1 Level, a majority of the time. This is because total flow in the Savannah River will often exceed the sum of the allocations for the Canal and Shoals, and any surplus water will flow into the Shoals. 9. Between May 16 and the following January 31 ofe.ach year, the specified Aquatic Base Flows will be reserved at least 90% of the time under Tier 1 (>_ 5400 cfs) flow conditions, based on a 60-day rolling period. Stated otherwise, the Aquatic Base Flow reservation will be satisfied at least 54 days of any consooufive 60-day period (subject to the 5% "margin of error" condition set out in paragraph 6, which states that for purposes of determining compliance the quantity of water that will flow in the Canal shall not exceed 105% of the daily allowable diversion flow rate). During the balance (no more than 10% or 6 days) of each conseoutive 60-day period, Augusta will reserve a daily average flow at not more than 500 ¢fs below the Aquatic Base Flow level. 10. Between February 1 and May 15 of eae,h year, the apeoified Aquatic Base Flows will be ~ at teas195% of the time under Tier 1 (>_ 5400 ors) flow conditions, based on a 60-day roiling period. Stated otherwise, the Aquatic Base Flow reservation will be satisfied at least 57 days of any consec~w 60-day period 3 Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20060210-0017 Received by FERC OSEC 02/07/2006 in Docket#: P-II810-000 ~ Augusta Canal } tydropower Project Letter of Intent January 13, 2006 Page 4 (subject to the 5% "margm ofenDr" condition set out in paragraph 6, which states that tbr purposes of determining compliance the quantity of water that will flow m the Canal shall not exceed 105% of the daily allowable diversion flow rate) During the balance (no more than 5% or 3 days) of each consecutive 60-day period, Augusta will reserve a daily average flow at not more than 500 cfs below the Aquatic Base Flow level. 11 The Aquatic Base Flow will be met 90% of the time in a running count of any 60-day period year-round In addition, the Aquatic Base Flow will be met 95% of the time in a running extant for any 60-day period that begins on or after February 1 or ends on or before May 15 In other words, the specified Aquatic Base Flows will bc reserved at least 90% of the time under Tier I (> 5400 cfs) flow conditions for the full 60-day rolling period year-round The deviation will be not more than 6 days during any 60-day period year-round, and in addition, will be not more than 3 days during any 60 day period between February 1 and May 15. lP_ For purposes ofdetermmmg comphance with either the 90%/60-day rule or the 95%s/60-day ru!e, clrcumsumccs beyond the control of Augusta shall not be counted as a violation ,,[ AtJgusla's license, including but not limited to the following downstream users' violating antmq3ated allocations, downstream users' ,,~olal~ons of their license condmons, catastroptuc failure of the gates or canal banks, or ope~atmnal emergencies Further, periods of canal re-watering would not be counted m the allowed percentage dewatmns It is the intent of the parties that the 5%/10% deviation allowed, as provided herein, is to give Augusta operational tlextbihty, at its discretion, to meet the needs of the canal users The 90%/60-day rule and the 95%/60- day rule shall apply only to Tier 1 flow conditions. 13. Until such time as fish passage facilities are constructed at the Augusta Diversion Dam, Augusta will provide a temporary notch (within one year of the issuance ofa FERC license) using existing facilities (e.g., stoplogs). The temporary notch will be sized to provide a minimum flow of approximately 1,000 cfs over or through the Dam at all times, including leakage and flows through the existing fish ladder. When fish passage facilities are constructed at the Dam, Augusta will install a permanent notch in the Dam which likewise wdl be sized to provide a minimum flow of approximately 1,000 cfs over or through the Dam at all times, including leakage 14. The parties recognize the need for appropriate gauging equipment in the Canal and are prepared to work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and/or the USGS to provide the same. This will be primarily Augusta's responsibility, but the GDNR and the SCDNR will be given every oppottumty for consultation on this matter. Augusta will not monitor the flow in the Shoals, nor will there be any instantaneous, or continuous, minimum flow condition for the Shoals. 4 Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20060210-0017 Received by FERC OSEC 02/07/2006 in Docket#: P-II810-000 Augusta Canal Hydropower Project Letter of Intent January 13, 2006 Page 5 15. Should Augusta's water Canal demands exceed 4,600 cfs during the term of the expected FERC license, Augusta agrees to submit any proposed future increase in Canal flows and any impacts such flows would have on the Shoals to a technical committee composed of repres~tatives of GDNR, SCDNR, and the Augusta Utilities Department, which committee shall make a recommendation to FERC regarding any such proposed increase in Canal flows, with the right of any party to comment separately regarding such increase. FERC shall make the final decision regarding such increases in Canal flows and any impacts those flows would have on the Shoals, but it is the intent of the parties not to reopen the FERC license. 16. This Letter of Intent, any agreements or commitments incorporated herein, or in any settlement agreement resulting from same, shall be null and void in the event the Section 18 Prescriptions, which currently propose a 2000 cfs instantaneous flow requirement (August 4 Prescription) or a 2700 cfs continuous flow requirement (August 30 Prescription), are not modified to either eliminate the flows or to correspond with the flows set forth herein; or in the event that a final Section 401 Water Quality Certification is issued by either Georgia or South Carolina, and ~s not reversad or revised on appeal, which incorporates flow conditions that are more stringent in any given month or other period than those set forth herein. 17. Augusta will put in the upstream fish passage structure described by FWS and NMFS in the Section 18 prescriptions, with the attraction flow supplied by the notch provided for in this Letter of Intent as opposed to the Obermeyer type inflatable crest gates, waiving the conditions Augusta had expressed in the license application. Augusta will also agree to put in the downstream fish passage described in the application for license at such time as sturgeon are documented to be present upstream ofthe ADD. 18. Augusta will, at its option, either: B. Within 90 days following the execution of a comprehensive settlement agreement, submit the procedure for determining the "Augusta Declaration", described in paragraph 4 and Attachment I hereof, to an independent third party agreeable to all parties to verify that the procedure is a reasonable method to determine how much water would be available to meet the needs of the Augusta Canal alter first reserving the Aquatic Base Flows (averages over a twenty-four hour period) indicated in Paragraph 5. The independent third party will be a qualified hydmlngist. The hydrologist will be asked to render an opinion, based on the historic record, on the likelihood th~ the ABF or iarser quantity of wster will reach the Shoals on a daily average basis. In the event such verification can not be provided for any reason, Augusta agrees to implement option (b) below; or Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20060210-0017 Received by FERC OSEC 02/07/2006 in Docket#: P-l1810-000 ~ f Augusta Canal I lydropower Project l,etter of Intent January 13, 2006 Page 6 b l..Ipon acceptance ofa FI-RC hcense, place at Its expense into the pool above the ADD, a device for monitoring the pool dady average stage m that section of the river. Please indicate your agreement to the above terms (including Attachment 1, which is incorporated by reference), and have NMFS do likewise, by countersigning this letter in the spaces indicated below and returning a copy ofttus letter to me. This letter of intent may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which taken together wll[ constitute one letter of intent 4' / / ,// / J! ,./ . oins Asststant Dtrector, Water Production Cc Ikfi Prescott Brownell - Via Fax (843-762-8700) and Regular Mail Mr James B Wall, Esq Mr George A Somerville, l-sq Mr Jorge E. Jimenez Agreed FOR: US Fish and Wddlife Service FOR: National Marine Fisheries Service 6 Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20060210-0017 Received by FERC OSEC 02/07/2006 in Docket#: P-II810-000 Attachment 1 Background The Canal Operating Plan relies on the Augusta Declaration Flow, which is the sum of the daily SEPA declaration for Thurmond Dam and the daily tributary inflow, to allocate flows for the Augusta Canal and the Augusta Shoals. A method to estimate tributary inflow between Thunnond Dam and the ADD as part of the Canal Operating Plan (COP) is described below. The drainage area between Thurmond Dam and the ADD is 1,006 square miles. Much of this intervening drainage area is represented by Stevens Creek, and the gauge for Stevens Creek at Modoc (t2SGS No. 02196000) accounts for approximately 545 square miles, or 54 percent of the total drainage area between the two dams. The streams in the Stevens Creek drainage area appear to be mostly unregulated and the watershed lies substantially in the Surnter National Forest. The Stevens Creek gauge at Modoc is located within the watershed of interest, represen.ts over one-half of total drainage area between Thurmond Dam and the ADD, *s represen}ative, and has an extended period of flow records (period 1941 through 1977 and 1984 through 2000, a record of 54 years). The Stevens Creek at Modoc flow data represent the best available information regarding historic tributary inflow in that area. Most importantly, daily flow data is avmlable online and is updated each day Method to Estimate Tributary Inflow Using Stevens Creek at Modoc Data The following steps would provide daily estimates of daily tributary inflow for the intervening drainage area between Thurmond Dam and Augusta Diversion Dam to be used in the calculation of the Augusta Declaration Flow. I. Obtain the most recent daily Stevens Creek at Modoc (USGS No. 02196000) flow estimate once each morning from the USGS website at: httv://waterdata.usRs.2ov/sc/nwis/dv/?site no=02196000&PARAmeter cd=00060.00065 . Multiply the daily Stevens Creek flow by 1.85 (ratio of the drainage areas: 1,006/545 = 1.85) to acuoont for the entire drainage area between Thurmond Dam and the ADD, resulting in "total estimated tributary inflow." 3. Ira daily flow for that day is not available fi~m the USGS website for the morning in question, then the most recent flow estimate from the previous day will be obtained and usedas a substitute. If no data is available from the day in question or the previous day or if the website is temporarily unavailable, the daily total estimated tributary inflow would be determined by using the calculated flow Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20060210-0017 Received by FERC OSEC 02/07/2006 in Docket#: P-l1810-000 ~ duration table for the area between Thurmond I)arn and the AI')I) ('Fable 1) depending on the month as follows • If the USACE is not in a declared drought or if the USACE is in declared drought level 1, then the 50 percentile flow from Table I will be used • If the USACE is in declared drought level 2, then the 75 percentile flow fi'om Table 1 will be used • If the USACE is in declared drought level 3, then the 90 percentile flow from Table I will be used 4 Add the total estimated tributary inflow to the S[?,PA declaration on a daily basns to compute the Augusta Declaration Flow I ~0 I Table l. Estimated flow duration statisticsfor the drainage area between Thurmond Dam and the ADD U Percent Stream Flow 0 of time exceeded Annual Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May i Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0% 48,470 35,890 29,600 35,890 39,035 24,975!26,270 9,639 48,47012,599 40,330 291785 36,630 5% 3,053 6,050 6,618 8,479 4,072 1,667 1,212 1)419 878 511 951 1,445 2,757 10% 11478 3,016 3T978 4,138 2,074 912 526 650 453 285 365 509 1,279 L) ~d ~3 15% 962 1,925 2,553 2,629 1,385 601 354 416 316 198 215 313 827 0 20% 703 11376 1,833 1,998 1,058 461 ;276 289 229 148 148 241 614 L) ~d 25% 544 1,104 1,471 1,526 864 ! 384 i 217 224 179 120 113 196 481 30% 427 921 1,216 1,264 715 329 185 185 141 104 93 163 398 D 35% 348 779 1 )036 11079 627 286 161 148 118 69 80 135 335 0 40% 265675673936542251141125100 ~ 65~35619109289 45% 229 592 765 825 483 224 130 105 85 242 0 U 0 50% 189 ~'522 679 734 428 204 115 93 72 .~56 ~'~ ~.~.F~ ~;, !.~. 55% 154 447 586 657 385 187 102 78 61 ~ 41 636 157 ,-4 60% 126 390 516 568 353 168 93 67 54 37 • 130 I 65% 102 336 448 539 318 150 83 59 46 37 32 50 109 ,-4 70% 81 279 392 483 287 133 74 52 39 30 28 44 69 75% 63 233 350 426 261 117 65 44 33 26 '; " =' 80% 50 192 292 381 233 102 56 37 26 20 20 33 61 85% 39 152 244 333 205 83 44 30 20 16 16 28 52 0 90% 26 123 211 265 172 68 35 24 16 11 10 ,~: Y~IB,~aJl~'43 95% 16 90 163 214 139 52 26 18 11 7 6 10~ 31 100% 0 20 50 87 ; 70 ' 12 ' 7 i 2 2 I 0 0 0 9 0 Notes: : = ' ' 0 Based on flow data for Stevens Creek at Modoc, SC (USGS No. 02196000) for 1941 to 1977 and 1984 to 2000. $ a Median flow, flow equaled or exceeded 50=/0 of the time on an annual or monthly basis. I b 75 percentile flow, flow equaled or exceeded 75% of the time on an annual or monthly basis. M ~u c 90 percentile flow, flow equaled or exceeded 90=/0 of the time on an annual or monthly basis. -t APPENDIX C 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION May 29, 2007 Mr. Larry Hedges Program Manager Georgia Department of Natural Resources Watershed Protection Branch Environmental Protection Division 4220 International Parkway Atlanta, GA 30354 401 Water Quality Certification King Mill Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 9988 Dear Mr. Hedges: On behalf of the Augusta Canal Authority, a 401 Water Quality Certificate is hereby requested for the King Mill Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 9988 located on the Augusta Canal in Augusta, Georgia. This certificate (or letter requesting certification) must accompany the Application for New License (attached) required by the Federal Power Act and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Electrical power produced at the King Mill Project is primarily utilized for the manufacturing of textiles at King Mill. The Project withdraws water directly from the Augusta Canal, which is coordinated with the City of Augusta (FERC No. 11810), and releases it directly into the Savannah River. The Project powerhouse contains two turbines manufactured by S. M. Smith. The turbines operate with a 32 foot net head, drawing approximately 881 cfs of water from the Augusta Canal. There are no wastewater discharges into the Project headrace, or as part of the operation of the King Mill Hydroelectric Project. Please consider this our formal request to receive 401 Water Quality Certification from your department for the continued operation of the King Mill Hydroelectric Project. Should you need any additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, KLEINSCHMIDT ASSOCIATES Alan W. Stuart Project Manager AWS:clb cc: Mr. Dayton Sherrouse, Augusta Canal Authority Project File 05/24/07 – CLB 1438001.00-92-02 Z:\SCO\1438-001\Final License Application\401 Water Quality Cert. Request Letter.doc 101 Trade Zone Drive, Suite 21A West Columbia, SC 29170 Phone: 803-822-3177 Fax: 803-822-3183 www.KleinschmidtUSA.com - Offices Nationwide -\ APPENDIX D FISH ENTRAINMENT AND MORTALITY REPORT AUGUSTA CANAL AUTHORITY AUGUSTA, GEORGIA KING MILL PROJECT FERC NO. 9988 FISH ENTRAINMENT AND TURBINE MORALITY ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT MAY 2007 Prepared by: AUGUSTA CANAL AUTHORITY AUGUSTA, GEORGIA KING MILL PROJECT FERC NO. 9988 FISH ENTRAINMENT AND TURBINE MORALITY ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT MAY 2007 Prepared by: AUGUSTA CANAL AUTHORITY AUGUSTA, GEORGIA KING MILL PROJECT FERC NO. 9988 FISH ENTRAINMENT AND TURBINE MORALITY ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... 1 3.0 SUMMARY OF KING MILL’S 1992 FISH ENTRAINMENT STUDY ...... 5 3.1 Turbine Mortality Estimates ...... 10 3.2 Methods for Estimating Turbine Mortality...... 11 3.2.1 Application of Mortality Rates to Entrainment Estimates...... 12 3.3 Turbine Mortality Results...... 12 4.0 DISCUSSION...... 15 5.0 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL MORTALITY ESTIMATES FOR OTHER SAVANNAH RIVER DIADROMOUS FISH TARGET SPECIES ...... 15 5.1 Survival Estimates for Adult American Eel...... 15 5.2 Survival Estimate for Shortnose Sturgeon Using a Predictive Model...... 16 5.3 Model Predictions of Strike ...... 18 5.4 Turbine Passage Survival...... 19 6.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... 21 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: King Mill Project Location ...... 2 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of Eight Months of Fish Entrainment Data Collected from March through November 1991 at King Mill...... 7 Table 2: The Mean Number of Fish Entrained Per Day and Per Month at the King Mill Project ...... 8 Table 3: The Percent of Fish Entrained at the King Mill Project, by Family/Genus Group ...... 9 Table 4: Summary of Information from Turbine Mortality Studies at Projects with Francis-Type Turbines ...... 13 - i - Table of Contents (Cont’d) Table 5: Mortality Rate Data from the 5-Study Database...... 14 Table 6: Total Estimated Number of Fish Lost Due to Turbine Mortality for Each Family/Genus Group at the King Mill Project (Entrainment Rate * Family/Group % Composition * Family Group Mortality Rate)...... 14 Table 7: Summary of Information from Turbine Mortality Studies at Projects with Francis-Type Turbines for American Eel ...... 20 Table 8: Predicted Survival Values Derived from the Advanced Hydro Turbine Model (Frank et. al. 1997) for Juvenile Shortnose Sturgeon Passing through Francis Units at the King Mill Project...... 21 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Model Results for the Numerous Iterations for the Target Species Based on 1-Inch Size Increments 05/11/07 – CLB 1438001.00-90-03 Z:\SCO\1438-001\King Mill Fish Entrainment and Mortality Report Final Draft 2007-05-14.doc - ii - AUGUSTA CANAL AUTHORITY AUGUSTA, GEORGIA KING MILL PROJECT FERC NO. 9988 FISH ENTRAINMENT AND TURBINE MORALITY ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT 1.0 INTRODUCTION The King Mill project (FERC project No. 9988) is an existing licensed hydroelectric facility with a rated capacity of 2.25 MW, owned by the Augusta Canal Authority (Authority) and operated by Standard Textile Augusta under an Operations Agreement with the Authority dated May 30, 2001. The project is located wholly within Richmond County, Augusta, Georgia. The Project is currently licensed by the FERC as Project No. 9988 and the present license is due to expire May 31, 2009. The Licensee prepared and issued the Initial Consultation Document (ICD) on July 10, 2006, in order to initiate the relicensing process for the Project. The Licensee submitted the document to a number of state and federal resource agencies for their review and comment. A summary of the fish entrainment study conducted in 1992 for the King Mill Project was included in the ICD (Normandeau, 1992). The Authority believes that for the most part the results of this fish entrainment study comprehensively address the impacts of continued project operation on fishery resources. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The King Mill Project is a run of river facility utilizing approximately 881 cfs of water from the adjacent Augusta Canal. The facility consists of two hydroelectric generating units with a combined rated capacity of 2,250 KW and an annual average generation of 13 million kWh. The reinforced concrete powerhouse contains two Morgan Smith units, installed in 1922. The total head for the units is 32 feet. No dam, dike or reservoir exists at this project. The dam on the Savannah River and the Augusta Canal are owned, operated and maintained by the City of Augusta and are not covered by this project (Figure 1). - 1 - Figure 1: King Mill Project Location - 2 - The Savannah River Basin is located in the southeastern United States and has a total area of 10,577 square miles, including 5,821 square miles in eastern Georgia. The River forms the border between South Carolina and Georgia and begins at the confluence of the Seneca and Tugaloo Rivers. It flows southeast approximately 300 miles to the Atlantic Ocean at Savannah, Georgia. The King Mill Project is located in the lower portion of the Savannah River Basin (FERC, 2005). The fisheries resources of the Project Vicinity consist of warm-water and diadromous species. The Augusta Canal, having a more lacustrine or lake-like habitat is home to warm- water, non-migrating species such as largemouth bass and sunfishes. The Savannah River, having a more riverine habitat, is home to several anadromous (salt water dwelling, fresh water spawning), and one catadromous (fresh water dwelling, salt water spawning) fish species (Kleinschmidt, 2006). The Augusta Canal offers a unique aquatic lacustrine-like habitat for warmwater species. The Canal has steep sloped banks with widths up to 150 feet, and water depths up to 11 feet (FERC, 2005). Between 2,400 cfs and 3,500 cfs is diverted from the Savannah River into the Augusta Canal by the Augusta Diversion Dam (Duncan and Eudaly, 2003). The maximum summer flow of the Augusta Diversion Dam is 3,656 cfs (FERC, 2005). Multiple projects further divert water from the Augusta Canal back to the Savannah River. The King Mill Project uses 881 cfs for hydroelectric power generation, from the first level of the Augusta Canal, and releases back into the Savannah River at RM 201.5 (FERC, 2005). The Savannah River provides a riverine environment for diadromous fish. The Savannah River in the Shoals area, upstream of the Project is the only remaining shoal habitat in the Savannah River with the remainder of the river either impounded or semi-impounded. This area is characterized by pools, runs, and rock outcroppings with a substrate of bedrock boulders and cobbles with some areas of gravels, sand and silt. The section of the Savannah River in the Project vicinity is generally wide, approximately 1,600 feet and shallow, with the Shoals area occupying about 4.5 miles of a nine mile segment between the Augusta Diversion Dam and the downstream New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam headpond (FERC, 2005). - 3 - Flows in the Savannah River in the Project vicinity, including the Shoals area, is largely controlled by flow releases from the USACE’s J. Strom Thurmond and Stevens Creek Dams and the diversion of water into the Augusta canal by the Augusta Diversion Dam. Thurmond Dam is operated as a peaking facility having highly variable flow releases on an hourly basis that can range from less than 100 cfs to just over 30,000 cfs. There are typically one or two periods of generation per day on weekdays. Flow releases from the Thurmond Dam are re-regulated in part by the SCE&G Stevens Creek Project, located approximately one mile upstream of the Augusta Diversion Dam (FERC, 2005). Flows ranging from an estimated 2,000 cfs in September and October to 3,500 cfs in March, on average, are released into the Savannah River at the Augusta Diversion Dam (Duncan and Eudaly, 2003). Flows in the Augusta Canal are further diverted back into the Savannah River through various projects along the canal, including the King Mill Project (FERC, 2005). The Savannah River supports at least 71 fish species representing 17 families including gamefish, panfish, suckers, minnows, and catfish. The fishery of the Canal is somewhat less diverse than the Savannah River, supporting 51 species representing 13 families and exhibits trends similar to those found in the Savannah River (FERC, 2005 and Avondale, 2001). Common fish species found in the Project vicinity include bluegill, yellow perch, largemouth bass, redbreast sunfish, threadfin shad, golden shiner, longnose gar, striped bass, American eel, gizzard shad, chain pickerel, white bass, pickerel, northern hogsucker, brown bullhead, yellow bullhead, redeye bass, white crappie and black crappie. Historically, diadromous fish species have inhabited the Savannah River (Avondale, 2001). The presence of dams on the Savannah River has limited migration of these species. With respect to anadromous species, a study conducted in 1984 reported the presence of a spawning population of blueback herring in the Savannah River and Augusta Canal. Spawning populations of American shad were also reported in the Savannah River upstream to the Augusta Diversion Dam. Small populations of striped bass were found in the Savannah River and a few individual striped bass were discovered in the Augusta Canal, believed to be the result of stocking efforts in upstream reservoirs. The American eel was the only catadromous species reported to be present in the Augusta Canal and the Savannah River (Avondale, 2001). - 4 - 3.0 SUMMARY OF KING MILL’S 1992 FISH ENTRAINMENT STUDY Fish entrainment is the passage of fish through the trash rack, penstock, and turbines into the tailrace of a hydropower development. Fish entrainment at the King Mill Project was assessed through a field study during 1991, which utilized a downstream recovery net(s) and provided an order-of-magnitude estimate of fish entrainment (Normandeau 1992). Data was collected at the Project for 36 days between March and November, 1991. Approximately 1,500 fish were collected by recovery entrainment nets during the study period. The design of the recovery entrainment net consisted of two 40 ft wings that were attached to a 5 ft by 10 ft frame fitted with a removable live box. Due to site specific problems encountered during the March sample period, modified recovery entrainment nets were placed at the turbine outfall and were used for the remainder of the study. To expand the actual counts of the fish to the number of fish entrained, two net efficiency methods were developed after the March sample period. The first method consisted of measuring the flow at the mouth of each net and measuring the amount of net submerged in the water. The volume of water sampled through the nets was compared to the known intake discharge of King Mill to estimate the percentage volume of water that was sampled. The second net efficiency method consisted of releasing a set number of marked fish into the tailrace below the turbine outfall. The fish that were recaptured by the net provided an estimate of the capture efficiency for the entrainment net. These two capture efficiencies were applied to the actual number of fish collected to estimate the number of fish entrained each month. Based on this, it was estimated that 12,606 fish were collected during the entrainment study (Table 1). Daily entrainment estimates ranged from a low of 186 fish to a high of 615 fish and averaged approximately 357 fish per day, though no obvious trends were noted (Normandeau, 1992). Entrainment rates from the King Mill field study were converted from fish entrained per day to fish entrained per month. To accomplish this, daily/monthly entrainment rates were multiplied by the number of days in each month. However, entrainment data was not available for the months of September, December, January and February. To compensate for the lack of data, adjacent months were averaged together (August + October for September; November + March for December, January, and February) to produce an average entrainment estimate for - 5 - each of these months. The number of fish entrained per month is presented in Table 2. Among the species entrained were American shad, gizzard shad, and threadfin shad, of which the latter constituted the majority of the fish captured by entrainment nets (approximately 45 percent of the total). American shad collected during August, 1991 were not associated with turbine entrainment but were the result of tailrace net intrusion. Spottail shiner and other shiners comprised approximately 14 percent of the total. Blueback herring comprised approximately 8 percent of the total catch. Other species collected included darters, bass, sunfish, pickerel, bullhead, and madtoms (Normandeau, 1992). Table 3 describes the estimated percent of fish entrained at the King Mill Project, by family/genus group. As with the estimated entrainment rates, species occurrence for January, February, September, and December were estimated based on the average of the adjacent monthly data. Although the King Mill operations vary from day to day, depending on gravity flow and water levels in the Augusta Canal and Savannah River, fish entrainment did not appear to be affected by variations in intake discharge. The size of the fish entrained shows that primarily juvenile fish are affected due to the existence of bar screens over the intake. Overall, fish entrainment appeared to primarily be a function of the temporal and spatial distribution of fish in the Augusta Canal rather than plant operations (Normandeau, 1992). - 6 - Table 1: Summary of Eight Months of Fish Entrainment Data Collected from March through November 1991 at King Mill ITEM MAR a APR MAY JUN JUL AUG OCT NOV TOTAL DESCRIPTION 1) Number of days sampled 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 36 2) Actual number of fish collected by 437 141 165 127 155 82 344 115 1566 net(s) 3) Estimated number entrained based on 1525 1785 1875 1134 1449 1952 3373 1045 14138 percent recapture (28) (7.9) (8.8) (11.2) (10.7) (4.2) (10.2) (11.0) (11.5b) (recapture percent) 4) Estimated number entrained based on 1525c 1275 1920 730 1175 659 2784 1003 11,071 volume sampled 5) Mean number of fish entrained 1/2 1525c 1530 1898 932 1312 1306 3079 1024 12,606 (3+4) 6) Mean number of fish entrained per 508 306 380 186 262 261 615 341 357b day (5/1) aVolume sampled was not determined in March. One large entrainment net was used during this month. b Mean value. c1525 value used for the March estimate. - 7 - Table 2: The Mean Number of Fish Entrained Per Day and Per Month at the King Mill Project FISH/DAY FISH/MONTH January1 425 13,175 February1 425 11,900 March 508 15,748 April 306 9,180 May 380 11,780 June 186 5,580 July 262 8,122 August 261 8,091 September2 438 13,140 October 615 19,065 November 341 10,230 December1 425 13,175 Total 139,186 1 based on average of March and November data. 2 based on average of August and October data. - 8 - Table 3: The Percent of Fish Entrained at the King Mill Project, by Family/Genus Group MONTH LEPOMID MICROPTERAN CYPRINID SHAD HERRING ICTALURID MORONE PERCID OTHER TOTAL January1 10.31 0.00 16.89 52.21 7.75 3.02 0.00 4.08 5.76 100 1 February 10.31 0.00 16.89 52.21 7.75 3.02 0.00 4.08 5.76 100 March 5.95 0.00 31.19 39.76 11.19 0.00 0.00 6.43 5.48 100 April 22.58 0.81 33.87 25.81 0.81 4.84 0.00 5.65 5.65 100.02 May 27.53 3.93 15.73 37.64 0.00 5.62 0.00 4.49 5.06 100 June 18.55 13.71 16.13 30.65 0.00 4.84 0.00 2.42 13.71 100.01 July 8.84 0.68 8.84 19.05 41.50 6.12 2.04 4.76 8.16 99.99 August 7.50 12.50 5.00 43.75 1.25 17.50 2.50 0.00 10.00 100 2 September 8.45 6.25 2.78 55.99 2.28 9.17 1.39 0.14 13.57 100 October 9.39 0.00 0.55 68.23 3.31 0.83 0.28 0.28 17.13 100 November 14.66 0.00 2.59 64.66 4.31 6.03 0.00 1.72 6.03 100 1 December 10.31 0.00 16.89 52.21 7.75 3.02 0.00 4.08 5.76 100 Annual Average 12.86 3.16 13.95 45.18 7.33 5.33 0.52 3.18 8.50 100.002 1 based on average of March and November data. 2 based on average of August and October data. - 9 - 3.1 Turbine Mortality Estimates The project facility consists of two hydroelectric generating units with a combined rated capacity of 2.25 MW and the description of each unit is as follows: Generator 1 (Large Unit): GE generator (1944), horizontally mounted 600 volts, 1500 KVA, 200 rpm, DC excitation with belt drive to manual rheostat Generator 2 (Small Unit): GE generator (1944), horizontally mounted 600 volts, 750 KVA, 200 rpm, DC excitation with belt drive to manual rheostat The Project powerhouse contains two turbines manufactured by S. M. Smith. The turbines operate with a 32 foot net head, drawing approximately 881 cfs of water from the Augusta Canal. Nameplate data for each unit is as follows: Turbine 1 (Large Unit): S.M. Smith horizontally mounted turbine, installed in 1922 43 inch type Q, double runner rated at 1,835 hp Turbine 2 (Small Unit): S.M. Smith horizontally mounted turbine, installed in 1922 43 inch type Q, single runner rated at 917 hp - 10 - 3.2 Methods for Estimating Turbine Mortality Turbine passage survival studies have been performed at numerous hydroelectric projects throughout the country. Turbine passage survival data was compiled and evaluated for similarities to the units at the Project. The following turbine characteristics of the King Mill Project were used as a benchmark for screening turbine mortality studies for transfer suitability: Design type (propeller/Kaplan or Francis); Operating head; Runner speed; Diameter and peripheral runner velocity; and Bucket or blade number. These characteristics are commonly cited as factors important when studying turbine mortality of fish susceptible to entrainment (Eicher 1987; EPRI 1992). Survival data obtained from the candidate studies were further scrutinized based on study methods and/or types. Only latent (i.e. a minimum of 48 hours) survival data reported from studies that included control groups was considered. Since the fish entrainment field study demonstrates that Clupeids (shad and herring) and Lepomids (sunfish) are the dominate groups entrained at the King Mill project, special attention was given to turbine mortality studies which utilized these family groups in their tests. After screening, mortality rates from the acceptable studies were organized by family/genus group. Mortality rates were then averaged to produce composite mortality rates for each family/genus group for the King Mill Project. - 11 - 3.2.1 Application of Mortality Rates to Entrainment Estimates Once turbine mortality rates were developed from the study database, the rates were applied to the entrainment estimates for King Mill. This was accomplished by multiplying fish entrainment estimates by the composite mortality rates for each family/genus group. 3.3 Turbine Mortality Results Initially, all turbine mortality studies were reviewed to determine which study sites were most physically similar to the King Mill Project. These studies were evaluated to determine if the desired fish species were tested. Table 4 summarizes site specific characteristics from turbine mortality studies at projects with Francis type turbines. The studies selected for developing turbine mortality estimates for the King Mill Project include Columbia Hydro, Five Channels, Rogers, Hollidays Bridge, and 99 Islands. Each of these studies assessed 48 hour latent (delayed) mortality, utilized species that are comparable to those found at King Mill, fell within acceptable range of project and turbine characteristics (speed, size, type, head, etc.). Table 5 presents the results of the mortality studies conducted at these 5 sites. Mortality rates from these studies were organized by species tested, and averaged. Since transferable mortality data for the Percid and Morone family/genus groups was not available, the mortality rate used for the Micropterans was also used for those groups. Shad and Herring entrainment percent composition were combined for the Clupeid family/genus group estimate. “Other” species entrainment percent composition, which included darters, pickerel, bullhead, and madtoms, were combined with the Cyprinids family/group estimate. After applying the mortality rates to the entrainment estimates, it is estimated that approximately 20,895 fish are annually lost due to turbine mortality at the King Mill Project (Table 6). - 12 - Table 4: Summary of Information from Turbine Mortality Studies at Projects with Francis-Type Turbines RUNNER TURBINE HEAD #OF SPEED PRV SPECIES SITE STATE DIAMETER TYPE (FT) BUCKETS (RPM) (FPS) TESTED (IN) King Mill Francis Unit 1 & GA 32 13 43 200 37.5 (horiz) 2 Stevens Francis SC 20 14 135 75 44 blueback herring Creek (vert) Neal SC ng 24 ng 139 ng ng bluegill, catfish Shoals Francis bluegill, catfish, Columbia SC 28 14 64 164 46 (horiz) blueback herring Francis bluegill, golden Five MI (horiz 36 16 55 150 36 shiner, white Channels quad) sucker bluegill, Francis largemouth bass, Rogers MI 39 15 60 150 39 (vert) golden shiner spottail shiner Francis Hollidays (horiz SC 42 ng 200 bluegill, catfish Bridge triple runner) bluegill, golden Francis Alcona MI 43 16 100 90 39 shiner, white (vert) sucker Francis Finch NY (horiz 48 ng 41 225 40 smallmouth bass Pryun double) bluegill, golden Francis Prickett MI 54 ng 53 257 59 shiner, white (vert) sucker Francis (vert, Holtwood PA 62 17 112 103 50 American shad double- runner) Francis (horiz, 99 Islands SC 72 ng ng 225 ng bluegill, catfish twin- runner) bluegill, golden Francis Hardy MI 100 16 84 164 60 shiner, white (vert) sucker Shading indicates sites/studies eliminated from consideration. *PRV = peripheral runner velocity. ng = not given. - 13 - Table 5: Mortality Rate Data from the 5-Study Database SITE LEPOMID ICTALURID CYPRINID CLUPEID MICROPTERAN MORONE PERCID Columbia 4.1 7.5 _ 11.9 _ _ _ Hollidays Bridge 35.0 2.8 _ _ _ _ _ 99 Islands 30.8 5.8 _ _ _ _ _ Five Channels 8.5 _ 16.5 _ _ _ _ Rogers 4.0 _ 27.0 _ 23.0 _ _ Average 16.5 5.3 21.8 11.9 23.0 23.01 23.01 1 The Micropteran mortality rate was used as a mortality rate for this family/group. Table 6: Total Estimated Number of Fish Lost Due to Turbine Mortality for Each Family/Genus Group at the King Mill Project (Entrainment Rate * Family/Group % Composition * Family Group Mortality Rate) FAMILY/GENUS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL GROUP Lepomid 224 202 154 341 534 170 118 100 183 295 247 224 2,792 Ictalurid 21 19 0 24 35 14 27 76 64 8 33 21 343 Cyprinid 649 586 1,256 789 533 362 300 264 467 733 192 649 6,780 Clupeid 940 849 955 291 528 204 585 433 911 1,623 840 940 9,098 Micropteran 0 0 0 17 106 176 13 233 189 0 0 0 734 Morone 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 47 42 12 0 0 139 Percid 123 112 233 119 122 31 89 0 4 12 40 123 1,009 Total 1,957 1,768 2,598 1,581 1,858 958 1,170 1,152 1,860 2,684 1,352 1,957 20,895 - 14 - 4.0 DISCUSSION The mortality rates obtained from the five studies utilized to develop mortality estimates for the King Mill Project appear to be sound. All five sites had characteristics similar to King Mill, with three located very close in geographic proximately. Due to the lack of additional studies of Clupeid mortality, data from only one site (Columbia Hydro) was used to develop mortality estimates for shad/herring at King Mill. However, due to geographic proximity, study quality, and closely matched site characteristics, the data transfer should be very reliable for developing mortality estimates for Clupeids at King Mill. The results contained in this report should be adequate for assessing the impacts of turbine mortality on fish entrained through the turbines at the King Mill Project. 5.0 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL MORTALITY ESTIMATES FOR OTHER SAVANNAH RIVER DIADROMOUS FISH TARGET SPECIES The National Marine Fisheries Service requested additional mortality projections for other Savannah River diadromous fish target species, which include: adult American eel and Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon. As mentioned above, diadromous fish species have historically inhabited the Savannah River (Avondale, 2001). The American eel was the only catadromous species reported to be present in the Augusta Canal and the Savannah River. Occurrence of shortnose sturgeon in the Augusta Canal and the Savannah River near the King Mill Project is not likely. The New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, an Army Corps of Engineers project, has impeded potential upstream spawning migration of several anadromous fish species, including shortnose sturgeon, since it’s construction in 1937 (Avondale, 2001) . To estimate turbine passage survival for adult American eel at the King Mill Project, a series of turbine mortality studies were evaluated for this species. Since there are no known turbine mortality studies that exist for sturgeon, a model was used to estimate survival estimates for shortnose sturgeon. 5.1 Survival Estimates for Adult American Eel Initially, turbine mortality studies that included American eel were reviewed to determine which study sites were most physically similar to the King Mill Project. - 15 - Studies in the turbine mortality database were divided based on whether they were performed at sites with propeller or francis-type turbines. These three studies were then sorted based on several characteristics including station head, runner diameter, runner speed and peripheral runner velocity. Three mortality studies for francis-type turbines existed in the database for American eel (Table 7). After review, it was determined that data from two of the three studies, Luray/Newport Hydro Project and Oswego River Project (FERC No. 2474), were accepted for use in the survival estimate for adult American eel. The study performed at La Centrale Beaurharnois, QE was eliminated from consideration because its operating head and runner diameter were much higher than that of King Mill. The percent survival from the selected studies were averaged to produce a 96.5 percent survival rate for adult American eel at the King Mill Project. 5.2 Survival Estimate for Shortnose Sturgeon Using a Predictive Model Several models have been developed to predict the survival rate of fish passing through hydroelectric turbines. These models consider fish size, turbine specifications, and station hydraulics to estimate the theoretical blade strike and survival of specific sized fish for a particular turbine configuration. Direct effects of turbine passage can be predicted as a probability because the variables (such as turbine diameter, number of blades, etc.) and value ranges for those variables can be precisely defined. These models allow the user to manipulate parameters such as fish size or turbine characteristics to determine the relative effect on turbine passage survival. Blade strike probability and turbine passage survival at the Holtwood Project was estimated for the target species using the Advanced Hydro Turbine model developed by Franke et al. (1997). This predictive algorithm is based on the work of Von Raben (Bell 1981). Franke et al. (1997) refined the Von Raben model to consider the effect of tangential projection of the fish length on blade strike probability because most turbine passage mortality at low head dams (<100 ft) is caused by fish striking a turbine blade or some other turbine structure. - 16 - For the Francis turbines at the King Mill project, the probability of blade strike was calculated by the following formula: B sin t N L D cos t P 1 D 2Q d Where: P = Predicted mortality N = Number of turbine blades L = Length of fish B = Runner height at inlet D = Diameter of runner D1 = Diameter of runner at inlet D2 = Diameter of runner at discharge λ = strike mortality correlation factor (lambda) η = Turbine efficiency g = Acceleration of gravity H = Turbine net head RPM = Revolutions per minute Q = Turbine flow rate β = Relative flow angle at turbine discharge ξ = Ratio between Q with no exit swirl and Q opt Q opt = Turbine flow rate at best efficiency αt = Angle to Tangential of absolute flow upstream of runner 2 2 2E wd B 0.707 B D 2 B D1 αt tan90 t 40.707 tan Q D 2Q D D D D wd 1 d 1 1 1 2 0.707 tan β = 8 3 D 1 Qwd opt D 2 ω = Rotational speed 2 = RPM 60 Qωd = Discharge Coefficient Q = D3 Eωd = Energy Coefficient gH = (D) 2 - 17 - Survival was calculated by subtracting the predicted strike estimate from 100. Model predictions were made for juvenile shortnose sturgeon based on the size ranges determined to be capable of passing through a 1 in. trash rack based on morphometric characteristics. It is important to note that the predictive equations do not differentiate between species but only consider fish size. Turbine survival has been shown to be influenced more by fish size than species (Franke et al. 1997). A correlation factor (λ) is utilized in the Advanced Hydro Turbine model to adjust the predictive model results to correspond with documented empirical results. This correlation factor was originally introduced by Von Raben (cited by Bell 1981) because the contact of a fish with a turbine component does not always result in injury or mortality (Bell 1981; Cada 1998). Therefore Von Raben introduced the correlation factor to adjust the predicted turbine strike results to more closely match empirical results. This factor also extends the applicability of these predictive equations to all injury mechanisms related to the variable N L / D (see above for definition of parameters). As stated in Franke et al. (1997) "such mechanisms could include mechanical mechanisms leading edge strike and gap grinding as well as fluid induced mechanisms related to flow through gaps or other flow phenomena associated with blades". Based on a substantial number of recent test results obtained from studies conducted with salmonids on the west coast Franke et al. (1997) recommended that the correlation factor be set between 0.1 to 0.2. In this study, correlation factors of 0.10, 0.15, and 0.20 were used. 5.3 Model Predictions of Strike There are a number of dynamic parameters that affect turbine survival estimates. These include turbine discharge (i.e. gate setting), turbine specifications (i.e., # of blades, RPM, etc.), operating head, the value of the correlation factor and fish size. As such, there are many potential iterations of turbine survival estimates. The model results for the numerous iterations for the target species based on 1-inch size increments are provided in Appendix A. The survival estimates provided in this section represent unweighted average values for the size groups representing the target species. Although - 18 - the model output is not species specific, data are presented by length ranges representative of the target species. 5.4 Turbine Passage Survival Turbine passage survival for the existing Francis units was based on strike estimates modeled using the parameters of both units. A summary of results for an assumed operating head of 32 ft is provided in Table 8. At an operating head of 32 ft, average estimated survival for juvenile shortnose sturgeon was approximately 72% for the double and single runner units, respectively. However, due to physical structures (i.e. trashracks) at the King Mill Project, shortnose sturgeon greater than 254mm (1 inch) would be excluded from entrainment at a 1-inch spaced trash rack based on its morphometric characteristics (Smith and Lavett 1985). Shortnose sturgeon below 254 mm are either larvae, young-of-the-year (YOY) or sub yearlings. Sub yearling shortnose sturgeon range from 200 to 300 mm FL (NMFS 2000). Accounts describing the early life history of the shortnose sturgeon indicate that sub yearling shortnose sturgeon do not migrate downstream and most likely would not encounter the intake area. Sturgeon eggs are demersal and adhesive. After fertilization, eggs will settle and take 8-12 days to hatch (Meehan 1910 in Crance 1986). Shortnose sturgeon hatch at between 7-11mm (Buckley and Kynard 1981) and are photonegative and seek cover under detritus at hatching (Kynard 1996). Larvae begin a short (2 day) downstream migration at approximately 20 mm total length (Kynard 1996). Studies suggest that young sturgeon move downstream in a two step migration: a 2 day migration by larvae followed by a residency period of sub yearlings, then a continuation of migration by yearlings (greater than 300 mm) in their second summer of life (NMFS 1998; Kynard 1996). Unlikely as it may be should YOY 254 mm or less be entrained at the King Mill Project, model predictions suggest that survival for this species would be 90 % or greater. - 19 - Table 7: Summary of Information from Turbine Mortality Studies at Projects with Francis-Type Turbines for American Eel NUMBER RUNNER RUNNER ESTIMATED SAMPLING SPECIES TURBINE HEAD PRV LOCATION OF SPEED DIAMETER PERCENT SOURCE METHOD TESTED TYPE (FT) (FT/SEC) BUCKETS (RPM) (IN) SURVIVAL King Mill, GA - - Francis 13 200 32 43 37.5 - La Centrale American Desrochers Float Tag Francis 13 75 79 212.04 69.4 84.2 Beaurharnois, QE eel (1995) Full discharge American Luray, VA Francis 12 164 16 62.04 44.4 99 RMC (1995) netting eel Full discharge American Minetto, NY Francis 16 72 17 138.96 43.6 94 KA (1995) netting eel La centrale de American Desrochers Beauharnois, Float Tag Kaplan - 94.7 79 249 102.8 76.1 eel (1995) Quebec, Canada Full discharge Raymondville, NY Eel Kaplan - 120 21 131 68.6 63 KA (1996) netting St. Lawrence-FDR HI-Z Turb'N American Normandeau Kaplan - 94.7 81 240 99.1 73.5 (Unit 28) Tag eel (1997) - 20 - Table 8: Predicted Survival Values Derived from the Advanced Hydro Turbine Model (Frank et. al. 1997) for Juvenile Shortnose Sturgeon Passing through Francis Units at the King Mill Project PREDICTED SURVIVAL (%) CORRELATION JUVENILE SHORTNOSE UNIT NO. FACTOR STURGEON (2-10 inches) 0.10 81.4% Unit # 1 0.15 72.1% Double Runner 0.20 62.9% 0.10 81.4% Unit # 2 0.15 72.1% Single Runner 0.20 62.9% 6.0 LITERATURE CITED Avondale Mills. 2001. Final Application for New License, Sibley Mill Project (FERC No. 5044). Accession No: 20010405-0412. April 2, 2001. Bell, M. C. 1981. Updated compendium on the success of passage of small fish through turbines. Prepared for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division, Portland, OR. Buckley, J and B. Kynard 1981 Spawning and rearing of shortnose sturgeon from the Connecticut River. Progressive Fish Culturist. 43:74-76. Cada, G.F. 1998. Better science supports fish-friendly turbine designs. Hydro Review 17(6):52-61. Crance, J.H. 1986. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow suitability curves: shortnose sturgeon. USFWS Biol. Report 82(10.129) 31 p. Duncan, William W. and Edwin M. EuDaly. 2003. Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report on Savannah River Basin Comprehensive Study. Prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. October, 2003. Eicher Associates, Inc. 1987. Turbine-related fish mortality: review and evaluation of studies. Research Project 2697-7. Prepared for electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. - 21 - EPRI (electric Power Research Institute). September 1992. Fish entrainment and Turbine Mortality Review Guidelines. TR-101231 Research Project 2694-01. Prepared by Stone and Webster Environmental Services. EPRI. 1997. Turbine Entrainment and survival database – Field Tests. Prepared by Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. EPRI Report No. TR-108630. 13 pp. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2005. Multi-Project Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License. Augusta Canal Project, P-11810-004. Sibley Mill Project, P-5044-008, Enterprise Mill Project, P-2935-015. Georgia, South Carolina. Office of Energy Projects, Division of Hydropower Licensing. Washington, DC. Franke, G. F., D. R. Webb, R. K. Fisher, Jr., D. Mathur, P. N. Hopping, P. A. March, M. R. Headrick, I. T. Laczo, Y. Ventikos, and F. Sotiropoulos. 1997. Development of environmentally advanced hydropower turbine system design concepts. Prepared for U.S. Dept. Energy, Idaho Operations Office Contract DE-AC07-94ID13223. Kleinschmidt Associates. 2006. King Mill Hydroelectric Project Initial Consultation Document. Augusta Canal Authority, Augusta, Georgia. Kynard, B. 1996 Life History latitudinal patters, and status of shortnose sturgeon. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:319-334. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 1998, Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000. A Protocol For Use of Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeons. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-18. 18 pages. Normandeau Associates. 1992. Final Study Results and Recommendations, Fish Entrainment Study for the John P. King Mill Project (FERC No. 9988). August, 1992. Smith, C. Lavett. 1985. The Inland Fishes of New York State. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Biological Survey Unit, Room 522, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233. 522p. - 22 - APPENDIX A MODEL RESULTS FOR THE NUMEROUS ITERATIONS FOR THE TARGET SPECIES BASED ON 1-INCH SIZE INCREMENTS APPENDIX A MODEL RESULTS FOR THE NUMEROUS ITERATIONS FOR THE TARGET SPECIES BASED ON 1-INCH SIZE INCREMENTS Unit 1 Unit 2 Inputs Inputs g 32.2 Acceleration of gravity ft/s^2 g 32.2 Acceleration of gravity ft/s^2 H 32 Total head in ft. H 32 Total head in ft. 200 Rotational speed in RPM 200 Rotational speed in RPM D 5.125 Runner diameter in ft. D 5.125 Runner diameter in ft. Q 296.5 Turbine discharge ft^3/s Q 296 Turbine discharge ft^3/s Q% 0.96 Percent discharge for Q% 0.96 Percent discharge for for maximum efficiency for maximum efficiency 0.86 Runner efficiency 0.86 Runner efficiency N 16 Number of blades N 16 Number of blades 1.1 Ratio between Q with no exit 1.1 Ratio between Q with no exit exit swirl and Q opt exit swirl and Q opt D1 3.583 Diameter of runner at inlet D1 3.583 Diameter of runner at inlet D2 5.125 Diameter of runner at discharge D2 5.125 Diameter of runner at discharge B 67 Runner height at inlet (in) B 67 Runner height at inlet (in) Calculations Calculations Energy coefficient Energy coefficient Ewd 0.089434 Ewd 0.089434 Discharge coefficient Discharge coefficient Qwd 0.105168 Qwd 0.104991 Tangent of Beta Tangent of Beta tan 7.315973 tan 7.328331 Angle of absolute flow to the axis Angle of absolute flow to the axis a 6.770847 a 6.759535 Probability of strike Probability of strike P 0.309476 times L (the length of fish) P 0.309483 times L (the length of fish) Correlation Factor Correlation Factor 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.10 0.15 0.20 L (in) P (%) P (%) P (%) L (in) P (%) P (%) P (%) 2 6.2% 9.3% 12.4% 2 6.2% 9.3% 12.4% 3 9.3% 13.9% 18.6% 3 9.3% 13.9% 18.6% 4 12.4% 18.6% 24.8% 4 12.4% 18.6% 24.8% 5 15.5% 23.2% 30.9% 5 15.5% 23.2% 30.9% 6 18.6% 27.9% 37.1% 6 18.6% 27.9% 37.1% 7 21.7% 32.5% 43.3% 7 21.7% 32.5% 43.3% 8 24.8% 37.1% 49.5% 8 24.8% 37.1% 49.5% 9 27.9% 41.8% 55.7% 9 27.9% 41.8% 55.7% 10 30.9% 46.4% 61.9% 10 30.9% 46.4% 61.9% Average 18.6% 27.9% 37.1% Average 18.6% 27.9% 37.1% - A-1 - APPENDIX E RARE, THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES REPORT KING MILL PROJECT FERC NO. 9988 DRAFT REPORT MAY 2007 HABITAT AVAILABILITY FOR THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 1.0 INTRODUCTION The King Mill Project (Project) (FERC No. 9988) is a 2.25 MW licensed hydroelectric facility located on the Augusta in Augusta, Georgia. The Project is owned by the Augusta Authority (Authority or Licensee) and operated by Standard Textile. The project is located wholly within Richmond County, Augusta Georgia. There is no dam associated with the King Mill Project. Instead, the Project withdraws water from the Augusta and discharges it directly into the Savannah River. The King Mill Project operates in a run-of-river mode and utilizes flows up to approximately 890 cfs. Water withdrawn by the Project is discharged to the Savannah River via an approximately 30 x 435 foot long tailrace. To initiate the relicensing process, the Licensee prepared and issued the Initial Consultation Document (ICD) on July 6, 2006. The Licensee submitted the ICD to a number of state and federal resource agencies for their review and comment. In comments issued in response to the ICD, the USFWS identified five federally listed species and two federal Species of Concern as occurring or potentially occurring in the King Mill Project vicinity (Table 1). The USFWS suggested that the Licensee conduct a literature-based review to determine habitat requirements for these species and compare these requirements with available habitat types in the project area (letter, January 11, 2007). The USFWS indicated that field surveys for these species should be performed if suitable habitat is found to exist in the project area. Table 1. Federally Listed Species and Species of Concern Documented as Occurring or Potentially Occurring in Richmond County, GA (Source: USFWS Letter Dated October 25, 2006). - 1 - COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Federally listed Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Federally listed Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Federally listed Wood Stork Mycteria americana Federally listed rocky shoals spider lily Hymenocallis coronaria State listed, of Federal concern robust redhorse Moxostoma robustum State listed, of Federal concern relict trillium Trillium reliquum Federally listed - 2 - 2.0 SPECIES HABITAT PREFERENCES Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) In the Savannah River, the shortnose sturgeon (Photo 1) is believed to be estuarine anadromous, migrating to inland rivers on annual spawning runs (National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 1998). Migratory spawning runs of this species usually occur in early February to mid-March in the Savannah River when water temperatures approach 9 – 14° C. Shortnose sturgeon spawning habitat in the Savannah River occurs in channels characterized by “curves with gravel/sand/log substrate” (Hall et al. 1991; Smith et al., 1993). Shortly after spawning, shortnose sturgeon leave spawning grounds and migrate downstream, with most leaving freshwater by May (Hall et al., 1991). After hatching, shortnose sturgeon larvae seek refuge under available cover for approximately eight days. After this period, the larvae exhibit normal swimming ability and begin to move downstream into the deeper portions of the river over silt substrate. Experiments have shown that the larvae migrate downstream for a 2-day period, then cease migration and remain in freshwater as young-of-year (YOY) for a year. The following summer, yearlings migrate downstream to the fresh/saltwater interface (NMFS, 1998). Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Bald eagles may be found throughout North America, typically around water where they feed primarily on fish and scavenge carrion. The species thrives around bodies of water where adequate food exists and human disturbance is limited. Eagles nest in large trees near water and typically use the same nest for several years, making repairs to it annually (Degraaf and Rudis 1986). Wood Stork (Mycteria Americana) Wood storks are colonial waterbirds that typically nest in large rookeries and feed in flocks (USFWS 1997). Typical foraging habitats include narrow tidal creeks, flooded tidal - 3 - pools, and freshwater marshes and wetlands. Like most other wading birds, storks feed primarily on small fish. However, because wood storks feed by tactilocation, depressions where fish become concentrated during periods of falling water levels are particularly attractive sites (USFWS 1997). Storks typically use tall cypresses or other trees near water for colonial nest sites. Nests are usually located in the upper branches of large trees and several nests are typically located in each tree. Trees utilized for nesting and roosting typically provide easy access from the air and an abundance of lateral limbs (USFWS 1997). Currently, nesting of the species in the U.S. is thought to be limited to the coastal plain of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida (USFWS 1997). Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) is endemic to open, mature, and old growth pine ecosystems in the southeastern United States (USFWS 2003). Over 97% of the pre-colonial era RCW population has been eradicated, leaving only 14,000 RCWs living in 5,600 colonies scattered across eleven states, including Alabama. RCW decline is generally attributed to a loss of suitable nesting and foraging habitats, including longleaf pine systems, due to logging, agriculture, fire suppression, and other factors (USFWS 2003). Suitable nesting habitat generally consists of open pine forests and savannahs with large, older pines and minimal hardwood midstory or overstory. Living trees, especially older trees that are susceptible to red- heart disease making them more easily excavated, provide the RCWs preferred nesting cavities. Suitable foraging habitat consists of open-canopy mature pine forests with low densities of small pines, little midstory vegetation, limited hardwood overstory, and abundant bunchgrass and forb groundcover (USFWS 2003). Robust redhorse (Moxostoma robustum) When robust redhorse was “rediscovered” during the initial stages of relicensing at Georgia Power’s Sinclair Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 1951), fisheries scientists knew little about its life history and habitat requirements. As a result, Georgia Power Company, along with state and federal resource agencies, other hydropower interests and the Georgia Wildlife Federation, formed the Robust Redhorse Conservation Committee (RRCC) in 1995 to guide - 4 - recovery efforts for the species in lieu of listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Subsequent research has produced valuable information about robust redhorse and its habitat requirements. However, much research is still needed as little is known about the habitat preferences of juvenile robust redhorse. Based on recent studies, it appears that adult robust redhorse typically inhabit areas of the river where the current is moderately swift. Preferred habitat is riffle areas or in/near outside bends where depths are greater and accumulations of logs and other woody debris are present (Evans, 1997). Spawning typically occurs at water temperatures from 18 – 24° C, usually over gravel substrate in deep and shallow water (Hendricks, 1998). Rocky shoals spider lily (Hymenocallis coronaria) Rocky shoals spider lily (RSSL), also referred to as Cahaba lily, is a perennial that typically inhabits large streams and rivers at or above the fall line. These areas usually consist of rocky shoals and bedrock outcrops, substrates which provide anchor points for the RSSL’s roots and bulbs (Patrick et al., 1995). RSSL grows best in constantly flowing water with relatively low sediment loads and water depths (to bulb) of 4 – 12 inches (Aulbach-Smith, 1998). Relict trillium (Trillium reliquum) Relict trillium is a perennial herb typically found in mature, moist, undisturbed hardwood forests. In the Coastal Plain, it inhabits areas with boulders or ledges with soft limestone. In the Piedmont, it inhabits areas with deep loamy soils in ravines or alluvial terraces (Patrick et al., 1995). - 5 - 3.0 HABITAT AVAILABILITY IN THE PROJECT 3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Habitats Terrestrial habitats on Project lands are extremely limited in both area and type. The Project occupies less than one acre of land, most of which is covered by mill structures. The small area of lawn and a few ornamental trees on the property constitute the only available terrestrial habitat at the Project. Urbanized development occurs within the immediate vicinity of the Project, including residences, industries, municipal facilities, and commercial properties (FERC, 2005a). This development limits the diversity and prevalence of botanical resources at the Project to disturbed areas containing various grasses, shrubs, vines and other herbaceous species (Avondale, 2001). Some shoreline areas along the Augusta and the Savannah River upstream of King Mill, supports a variety of vegetative types, and terrestrial habitats, including hardwood forests, pine stands, pasture/maintained areas, and wetlands. In general, a forested area to the northeast, bordering the Savannah River, consists of bottomland and riparian species such as river birch, water oak, sycamore, and red maple, with several isolated areas of bald cypress. Also present in the area is a mixed hardwood forest considered within the bluff community type, including red mulberry, sweetgum, yellow poplar, various oaks and hickories, American holly, hophornbeam, ironwood, sugarberry, and swamp chestnut oak (FERC, 2005a). Within the vicinity of the Project, the levee bordering the Savannah River supports mixed bottomland hardwoods of cottonwood, sycamore, willow, river birch, American elm, white oak and water oak. Common sub-canopy species include yellow Jessamine, dogwood and cane (Avondale, 2001). - 6 - National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps show no wetlands within or adjacent to the King Mill Project (Figure 3.1-1). Wetlands in the Project vicinity are predominantly emergent, shrub/scrub, and forested wetlands. Wetland areas are more numerous along the upper portion of the western side of the , upstream of the Project, but are less common along other portions of the , including adjacent to the Project and adjacent to the Savannah River Shoals, to which the Project discharges (FERC, 2005a). The riparian areas immediately adjacent to the Augusta are typically forested downstream of the Augusta Raw Water Pumping Station but transition to maintained, grassy areas downstream of the Eve Street Bridge, which is located just upstream of the Project (FERC, 2005a). 3.2 Aquatic Habitats Augusta The Augusta Diversion Dam (ADD) and are owned and operated by the City of Augusta. The ADD diverts water from the Savannah River into the . The upper portion of the near the headgates is characterized by higher velocities and substrates that vary from gravel to silt and sand, interspersed with accumulations of woody debris near the banks. Below this area, the is more lacustrine. Depths in the range from 10 to 15 feet. The east bank of the is generally more developed and provides little natural habitat. The west bank is more naturally vegetated and provides numerous snags and overhanging vegetation. The lower portion of the near the intake for Sibley Mill generally consists of silt substrate. Dense stands of Elodea sp. are present throughout the canal. Other aquatic species of vegetation found throughout the include spatterdock, parrot’s feather, arrowhead, and smartweed. - 7 - Tailrace The project tailrace is an excavated channel approximately 435 feet long and 30 feet wide with an estimated depth of approximately 15 feet at the powerhouse. The tailrace is bound by steeply sloped, vegetated banks that are reinforced at the waterline by concrete retaining walls. Discharge from the powerhouse returns to the Savannah River via the tailrace and through the levee floodgates (Figure 1; Photo 9). The tailrace substrate is composed of bedrock covered by boulders, cobble, gravel, and sand. Savannah River Due to impoundment of the Savannah River by the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam (NBSLD), a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) facility located approximately 15 miles downstream, the Savannah River in the vicinity of the levee floodgates is relatively lacustrine in nature. Flows in the Savannah River in the project vicinity are regulated by J. Strom Thurmond Dam, another USACE facility, located approximately 18 miles upstream. Substrates in this portion of the river consist of bedrock covered by boulders, cobble, gravel, and sand. Accumulations of woody debris and various overhanging streambank and instream aquatic vegetation are common in this area of the Savannah River. Depths in this area range from approximately 5 to 20 feet. - 8 - 4.0 POSSIBLE OCCURRENCE OF THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IN THE PROJECT AREA Shortnose sturgeon Spawning habitat for shortnose sturgeon may be available in the Savannah River. However, occurrence of shortnose sturgeon in the project vicinity is unlikely. The NSBLD has severely impeded potential upstream spawning migrations of several anadromous fish species, including shortnose sturgeon, since its construction in 1937. Based on USFWS recommendations each year, the lock at NSBLD is periodically operated to pass American shad upstream, usually from late March to early June. Potentially, shortnose sturgeon may also be passed upstream during these “locking cycles.” However, this procedure is likely of little benefit to shortnose sturgeon as most spawn earlier in the spring (February) (Smith et al., 1993). Five years of telemetry studies may indicate that the current upstream limit of shortnose sturgeon spawning in the Savannah River is approximately 15 miles downstream of the NSBLD (Hall et al., 1991; Smith et all, 1993). Red-cockaded woodpecker As previously noted, the King Mill Project Area is limited to approximately one acre, which is dominated my mill structures, manicured lawns and parking areas and thus lacks habitat of sufficient area or type to support red-cockaded woodpeckers. Further, forested areas adjacent and upstream of the Project along the levee and riverbank lack the extensive, old-growth pine stands needed to sustain this species. Based on these factors, it is extremely unlikely that this species occurs in the Project vicinity. Wood Stork Wood storks are Coastal Plain wetland nesters, and thus would not be expected to utilize wetland areas in the Augusta vicinity for nesting. There is some potential for the floodplain wetlands along the upper portion of the (See Section 3.1), as well as shallow areas along the margins, to sporadically provide foraging habitat for wood storks under appropriate hydrologic - 9 - conditions (i.e. pools formed during periods of falling water, typically with trapped fish). Wood storks are unlikely to occur in the immediate Project vicinity, however, as no wetlands are located within the limited Project Area or in adjacent areas. Bald Eagle Forested areas along the Savannah River and levee have some potential to provide nesting areas for bald eagles due to presence of large trees. Further, both the Savannah River and Augusta provide potential foraging habitat for eagle inhabiting or migrating through the vicinity. Potential for eagle to utilize the Project tailrace for foraging is likely extremely limited due to the narrow nature of the waterbody (30 ft). Likewise, the lack of trees within the Project Boundary and adjacent areas unsuitable for eagle nesting. Robust redhorse Habitat for robust redhorse is available in the Savannah River, Augusta Canal, and Project tailrace. Electrofishing conducted in June 1998 and in 1999 documented the presence of robust redhorse in the Savannah River between the ADD and NSBLD and downstream of the NBSLD. On March 29, 2000, personnel from Kleinschmidt Associates (KA), GADNR, and the head of the RRCC (Scott Hendricks of Georgia Power Company) performed an electrofishing reconnaissance survey of the Augusta Canal to determine if robust redhorse was present (photos 14 – 16). The group expended over three hours of combined electrofishing effort. The collectors netted several large redhorse species during the survey, however none were robust redhorse (photos 17 and 18). On June 6, 2000, personnel from the GADNR some members of the RRCC (including Scott Hendricks) performed electrofishing surveys for robust redhorse in the Savannah River. These electrofishing surveys documented the presence of robust redhorse in the shoals below I- 20 and downstream of the NBSLD. Based on the recapture of tagged fish, Jim Evans of the - 10 - GADNR estimated a population of 45 adult robust redhorse inhabiting the shoals and up to 200 below NBSLD (Pavey, 2000). Rocky shoals spider lily Habitat for rocky shoals spider lily (RSSL) is available in the Savannah River and potentially the project tailrace. Relatively dense stands of RSSL are present in the shoals reach of the Savannah River approximately two miles upstream of Sibley. However, the greater depths and lack of suitable substrate in the Savannah River in the project vicinity make this area unsuitable. Currently, there are no RSSL in the tailrace and there is no historical record of its occurrence in this location or other portions of the Project. It is likely that the moderate depth and relatively constant high velocities found in the tailrace preclude colonization by RSSL. Relict trillium Populations of relict trillium are known to occur along the banks (alluvial terrace) of the Savannah River upstream (approx. 2 mi.) of the Project. Those areas are characterized by mature to old-growth hardwood forest with a relatively open understory and deep, rich soils. However, similar habitat does not appear to be available within the project boundary or near vicinity. There is no current or historical record of relict trillium occurrence in or near the Project. - 11 - 5.0 POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS Due to the limited acreage of the King Mill Project and the limited availability of suitable habitat, the probability of occurrence wood storks, red-cockaded woodpeckers, relict trillium, and rocky shoals spider lily is low. However, suitable habitat in the Augusta Canal, Project tailrace, and Savannah River may potentially be used by bald eagle, shortnose sturgeon and robust redhorse. Potential impacts to shortnose sturgeon are extremely limited at this time. As discussed earlier, the currently indicated upstream limit of shortnose sturgeon migration and spawning in the Savannah River is well downstream of the Project. This may be due to the inability of shortnose sturgeon to migrate upstream through the NBSLD. Should shortnose sturgeon be successfully passed upstream of the NBSLD, passage would again be blocked by the ADD approximately 20 miles upstream. If shortnose sturgeon were passed into this 20 mile portion of the Savannah River, project impacts would remain limited since the Project discharge is near constant and does not adversely affect water quality. If shortnose sturgeon were passed upstream of NBSLD and ADD, then it would be possible for shortnose sturgeon to enter the Augusta and potential entrainment would become an issue. Potential impacts to bald eagles also appear be extremely limited. As previously noted, eagles are unlikely to utilize the Project Area for nesting or foraging due lack of suitable trees and the narrow nature of the tailrace, respectively. Further, continued operation of the Project is not expected to result in significant impacts to fisheries resources from the current baseline, and thus should not have an effect on bald eagle utilizing the Savannah River and Augusta in Project vicinity for foraging. Potential impacts to robust redhorse are also very limited at this time. As discussed earlier, robust redhorse currently inhabit the shoals in the Savannah River just below I-20 and downstream of NBSLD. No robust redhorse were found in the Augusta Canal in the March 2000 electrofishing survey. As such, direct impacts to robust redhorse such as entrainment are not an issue. Project impacts on robust redhorse inhabiting the Savannah River and potentially the project tailrace are also limited. Given the abundance of available habitat and forage in the - 12 - Savannah River, the likelihood of robust redhorse passing from the Savannah River through the canal levee floodgates and into the project tailrace is small. Since the Project discharge is near constant and does not adversely affect water quality, project operation should not adversely affect robust redhorse currently inhabiting the Savannah River. - 13 - 6.0 LITERATURE CITED Aulbach-Smith, Cynthia. 1998. Hymenocallis coronaria, The rocky shoals spider lily Broad River at Lockhart, SC. Botanical Services of South Carolina, Lexington, South Carolina. 99 pp. Evans, J.W. 1997. Developing stakeholder partnerships for the management of imperiled species: a case study. Waterpower '97, Proceeding of the International Conference on Hydropower. pp. 490-499. Georgia Power Company. 1998. The conservation and restoration of the robust redhorse (Moxostoma robustum) Volume 1. Prepared by A. S. Hendricks, Georgia Power Company, Environmental Laboratory, Smyrna, Georgia. 44 pp. Hall, J. Wayne, T. I. J. Smith, and S. D. Lamprecht. 1991. Movements and habitats of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) in the Savannah River. Copeia 1991(3): 695 – 702. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Recovery plan for the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevisrostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the NMFS, Silver Spring, Maryland. 104 pp. Patrick, Thomas S., J. R. Allison, and G. A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Social Circle, GA. 246 pp. Pavey, Robert. 2000. “Naturalists track rare fish.” Augusta Chronicle 11 Jun. 2000. Smith, Theodore I. J., M. R. Collins, and E. Kennedy. 1993. Identification of critical habitat requirements of shortnose sturgeon in South Carolina. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Charleston, South Carolina. 102 pp. - 14 - EXHIBIT F BOUNDARY MAP FINAL APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENSE FOR MAJOR WATER POWER PROJECT < 5 MW – EXISTING DAM CEII – CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION ENCLOSED SEPARATELY EXHIBIT G DRAWING KING MILL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FINAL APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENSE FOR MAJOR WATER POWER PROJECT < 5 MW – EXISTING DAM NIP – NON-INTERNET PUBLIC ENCLOSED SEPARATELY