ENID LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 13703

FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION FOR INITIAL LICENSE - MAJOR MODIFIED PROJECT

VOLUME I OF IV

Free Flow Power Corporation 239 Causeway Street Boston, MA 02114

NOVEMBER 2013 ENID LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 13703

FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION CONTENT

Volume I: Final License Application Initial Statement Exhibit A – Project Description Exhibit B – Project Operations and Resource Utilization (including Appendix B-1 Technical Memorandum – Hydraulic Analysis – Enid Outlet Works) Exhibit C – Construction History and Proposed Construction Schedule Exhibit D – Statement of Costs and Financing Exhibit E – Environmental Exhibit Exhibit F – General Design Drawings (drawings in Volume III) Exhibit G – Project Maps

Volume II: Appendices Appendix A – Consultation Documentation Appendix B – Study Plans Appendix C – Study Reports Appendix D – Literature Cited Appendix E – Exhibit E Appendices (Exclusive)

Volume III: Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (Per regulations filed separately with FERC and dam owner only) Exhibit F – General Design Drawings and Preliminary Supporting Design Report

Volume IV: Cultural Resources Study Report and Consultation (Contains privileged information – Not for public release)

ENID LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 13703

FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION

VOLUME I OF IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ES-1

INITIAL STATEMENT ...... IS-1

EXHIBIT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... A-1 A.1 Physical Composition ...... A-1 A.1.1 Existing Non-Project Facilities ...... A-1 A.1.2 Proposed Project Facilities ...... A-2 A.1.2.1 Physical Composition ...... A-2 A.1.2.1.1 Existing Intake ...... A-4 A.1.2.1.2 Existing Outlet Conduit and Proposed Conduit Liner ...... A-4 A.1.2.1.3 Proposed Bifurcation Chamber ...... A-5 A.1.2.1.4 Proposed Discharge Gate ...... A-5 A.1.2.1.5 Proposed Hydro Intake Gate ...... A-5 A.1.2.1.6 Proposed Penstock ...... A-6 A.1.2.1.7 Proposed Forebay ...... A-6 A.1.2.1.8 Proposed Powerhouse ...... A-7 A.1.2.1.9 Proposed Tailrace ...... A-7 A.2 Impoundment Characteristics ...... A-7 A.3 Generating Equipment ...... A-7 A.4 Transmission Facilities ...... A-8 A.5 Appurtenant Equipment ...... A-10 A.6 Lands of the United States ...... A-10

EXHIBIT B PROJECT OPERATIONS AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION ...... B-1 B.1 Alternative Sites Considered...... B-1 B.2 Alternative Facility Designs, Processes and Operations Considered ...... B-1 B.3 Statement of Project Operations ...... B-3 B.3.1 Existing USACE Operation ...... B-3 B.3.2 Proposed Hydroelectric Project Operation ...... B-7 B.3.2.1 Mode of Operation (Manual or Automatic) ...... B-9 B.3.2.2 Annual Plant Factor...... B-10 B.3.2.3 Operation During Adverse, Mean and High Water Years ....B-10 B.4 Dependable Capacity and Average Annual Energy Production ...... B-12 B.4.1 Streamflow Records ...... B-13 B.4.1.1 Minimum, Mean, and Maximum Recorded Flows ...... B-13 B.4.1.2 Flow Duration Curves ...... B-13 B.4.1.3 Critical Streamflow for Dependable Capacity ...... B-21

TOC-1 ©FFP, 2013 Table of Contents

B.4.2 Area Capacity Curve and Rule Curve ...... B-21 B.4.3 Hydraulic Capacity ...... B-21 B.4.4 Tailwater Rating Curve ...... B-22 B.4.5 Powerplant Capability Versus Head ...... B-22 B.5 Statement of System and Regional Power Needs ...... B-22 B.6 Applicant's Plans for Future Development ...... B-25 APPENDIX TM-ENID TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS –ENID OUTLET WORKS ...... TM-1

EXHIBIT C CONSTRUCTION HISTORY ...... C-1 C.1 Construction History ...... C-1 C.2 Proposed Construction Schedule ...... C-1

EXHIBIT D STATEMENT OF COSTS AND FINANCING ...... D-1 D.1 Estimate of New Construction Costs ...... D-1 D.2 Approximate Original Cost ...... D-1 D.3 Takeover Cost ...... D-2 D.4 Estimate of Average Annual Costs ...... D-2 D.5 Estimate of Annual Value of Power ...... D-3 D.6 Energy Alternatives ...... D-3 D.7 Consequences of Application Denial ...... D-4 D.8 Source and Extent of Financing ...... D-5 D.9 Estimate of Cost to Develop License Application ...... D-5 D.10 Estimate of On-Peak and Off-Peak Values of Power ...... D-5

EXHIBIT E ENVIRONMENTAL EXHIBIT ...... E-1 E.1 Introduction ...... E-1 E.1.1 Overview of Proposed Project ...... E-1 E.1.2 General Description of the Locale ...... E-3 E.1.2.1 Yazoo River Basin – Yocona River Watershed ...... E-3 E.1.2.2 Yocona River Basin Physiography ...... E-5 E.1.2.3 Project Area Climate ...... E-8 E.1.2.4 Yocona River Tributaries ...... E-9 E.2 Report on Water Use and Quality ...... E-12 E.2.1 Water Use ...... E-12 E.2.1.1 Estimated Quantities of Water Discharged from the Proposed Project for Power Production ...... E-12 E.2.1.2 Other Existing and Proposed Water Uses ...... E-13 E.2.1.2.1 Water Withdrawals ...... E-13 E.2.1.2.2 Water Discharges ...... E-14 E.2.1.2.3 USACE Enid Lake Operations ...... E-14 E.2.1.3 Other Instream Flow Uses ...... E-14 E.2.2 Water Quantity ...... E-14 E.2.3 Water Quality ...... E-15 E.2.4 Existing Water Quality Information ...... E-15 E.2.4.1 Enid Reservoir Intake- Upstream Water Quality Data ...... E-19 E.2.4.2 Yocona River- Downstream Water Quality Data ...... E-21 E.2.4.3 Comparison between Intake and Downstream Data ...... E-23

TOC-2 ©FFP, 2013 Table of Contents

E.2.5 Impoundment Characteristics ...... E-24 E.2.6 Potential Project Effects on Water Use and Quality ...... E-25 E.2.6.1 Potential Temporary Construction Related Effects...... E-25 E.2.6.2 Potential Operational Effects ...... E-26 E.2.7 Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures Recommended by Resource Agencies ...... E-27 E.2.8 Applicant-Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ...... E-27 E.2.9 Groundwater Description ...... E-28 E.3 Report on Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources ...... E-29 E.3.1 Existing Fish Community ...... E-29 E.3.1.1 Fisheries Invasive Species ...... E-34 E.3.1.2 Threatened or Endangered Fish Species ...... E-35 E.3.2 Temporal and Spatial Distribution ...... E-35 E.3.3 Aquatic Habitat ...... E-41 E.3.3.1 Essential Fish Habitat ...... E-44 E.3.4 Fisheries Resource Management Plans ...... E-44 E.3.5 Freshwater Mussel and Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Species ...... E-45 E.3.5.1 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates ...... E-45 E.3.5.2 Freshwater Mollusks ...... E-46 E.3.5.3 Threatened or Endangered Species ...... E-49 E.3.5.4 Invasive Species ...... E-50 E.3.6 Potential Project Effects ...... E-50 E.3.6.1 Potential Operational Effects ...... E-50 E.3.6.1.1 Habitat Mapping and Assessment ...... E-51 E.3.6.1.2 Fish Impingement, Entrainment, and Survival ..... E-55 E.3.6.2 Potential Construction Related Effects ...... E-64 E.3.7 Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures Recommended by Resource Agencies ...... E-66 E.3.8 Applicant-Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ...... E-66 E.3.9 Wildlife and Botanical Resources ...... E-68 E.3.9.1 Ecoregions ...... E-68 E.3.9.2 Botanical Resources ...... E-70 E.3.9.3 Wildlife Resources ...... E-75 E.3.9.3.1 Mammals ...... E-76 E.3.9.3.2 Bird Species ...... E-79 E.3.9.3.3 Reptiles and Amphibians ...... E-82 E.3.9.3.4 Wetland and Riparian Wildlife ...... E-84 E.3.9.3.5 Invasive Species ...... E-84 E.3.9.3.6 Temporal or Spatial Distribution of Commercially, Recreationally, or Culturally Important Species .. E-87 E.3.9.4 Floodplains, Wetlands, Riparian, and Littoral Habitats ...... E-88 E.3.9.4.1 Wetlands ...... E-89 E.3.9.4.2 Floodplains ...... E-93 E.3.9.5 List of Animal and Plant Species Using Wetland Habitats... E-95 E.3.9.6 Use of Federal Lands for Proposed Project ...... E-95 E.3.9.7 Proposed Project Site Footprint ...... E-95 TOC-3 ©FFP, 2013 Table of Contents

E.3.10 Listed RTE Species in Mississippi ...... E-96 E.3.10.1 Potential RTE Species at the Project Site ...... E-98 E.3.10.2 Potential Effects on Wildlife and Botanical Resources ...... E-99 E.3.10.3 Potential Effects on Wetlands and Floodplains ...... E-100 E.3.10.4 Potential Effects on Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species ...... E-101 E.3.10.5 Potential Construction Related Effects ...... E-101 E.3.10.6 Potential Operational Effects ...... E-102 E.4 Report on Historic and Archaeological Resources ...... E-104 E.4.1 Area of Potential Effects ...... E-106 E.4.2 Identification of Historic and Archaeological Resources ...... E-107 E.4.2.1 Cultural Context ...... E-108 E.4.2.1.1 Precontact Period ...... E-108 E.4.2.1.2 Historic Period ...... E-116 E.4.2.2 Discovery Measures ...... E-119 E.4.2.2.1 Summary of Previous Studies ...... E-119 E.4.3 Potential Project Effects on Historic Properties ...... E-124 E.4.3.1 Potential Construction Related Effects ...... E-124 E.4.3.2 Potential Operational Effects ...... E-126 E.4.4 Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures Recommended by Consulting Parties ...... E-126 E.4.5 Applicant-Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ...... E-127 E.4.6 Schedule ...... E-128 E.4.7 Estimated Costs ...... E-129 E.5 Report on Socioeconomic Resources ...... E-130 E.5.1 Socioeconomic Potential Effects Area ...... E-130 E.5.2 Description of Employment, Population, and Personal Income Trends ...... E-130 E.5.3 Potential In-migration Effects ...... E-131 E.5.4 On-site Manpower Requirements and Payroll by Month ...... E-131 E.5.5 Proposed Construction Personnel ...... E-132 E.5.6 Potential Housing Requirements ...... E-132 E.5.7 Displace Businesses and Residents ...... E-132 E.5.8 Fiscal Effects Analysis ...... E-132 E.6 Report on Geological and Soil Resources ...... E-133 E.6.1 Geologic Features ...... E-135 E.6.1.1 Bedrock Geology ...... E-135 E.6.1.2 Quaternary Deposits ...... E-136 E.6.1.3 Structural Features ...... E-137 E.6.2 Mineral Resources ...... E-140 E.6.3 Soils...... E-142 E.6.4 Existing and Potential Geological and Soil Hazards ...... E-144 E.6.4.1 Seismicity ...... E-144 E.6.4.2 Erosion ...... E-147 E.6.5 Potential Project Effects on Geological and Soil Resources ...... E-148 E.6.5.1 Potential Construction Related Effects ...... E-148 E.6.5.2 Potential Operational Effects ...... E-150 TOC-4 ©FFP, 2013 Table of Contents

E.6.6 Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures Recommended by Resource Agencies ...... E-151 E.6.7 Applicant-Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ...... E-151 E.6.7.1 Temporary Spoil Areas and Permanent Spoil Disposal Sites ...... E-151 E.6.7.2 Construction Erosion and Sediment Control...... E-151 E.7 Report on Recreational Resources ...... E-153 E.7.1 National Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Trails System, and Wilderness Areas ...... E-153 E.7.2 Recreational Facilities ...... E-154 E.7.2.1 Fishing Access ...... E-156 E.7.2.2 Campgrounds ...... E-156 E.7.2.2.1 Class A Campgrounds ...... E-156 E.7.2.2.2 Class C and D Campgrounds ...... E-157 E.7.2.3 Hunting Lands ...... E-158 E.7.2.4 Boat Ramps ...... E-158 E.7.2.5 Hiking/Walking Trails ...... E-158 E.7.2.6 Picnic Areas ...... E-159 E.7.2.7 Swimming ...... E-160 E.7.2.8 Events ...... E-160 E.7.3 Recreation within the Vicinity of the Proposed Project Boundary ...... E-160 E.7.3.1 Persimmon Hill Campground ...... E-162 E.7.3.2 Riverview Day-Use Area ...... E-162 E.7.3.3 Outlet Channel Fishing Pier ...... E-162 E.7.3.4 Recreation Areas North of Enid Dam ...... E-162 E.7.4 Recreation within the Proposed Project Boundary ...... E-162 E.7.5 Shoreline Buffer Zone ...... E-163 E.7.6 Estimates of Existing and Future Recreational Use ...... E-163 E.7.7 Project Effects on Recreational Resources ...... E-164 E.7.7.1 Construction Related Effects ...... E-164 E.7.7.2 Changes to Recreational Resources ...... E-167 E.7.7.3 Operational Effects...... E-167 E.7.8 Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures Recommended by Resource Agencies ...... E-168 E.7.9 FFP’s Proposed Environmental Measures ...... E-168 E.7.10 Schedule and Estimated Costs ...... E-168 E.8 Report on Aesthetic Resources ...... E-169 E.8.1 Existing Environment – Aesthetics ...... E-169 E.8.2 Project Consistency with Surrounding Environment ...... E-170 E.8.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures ...... E-171 E.9 Report on Land Use ...... E-172 E.9.1 Existing Environment – Land Use ...... E-172 E.9.2 Enid Lake Area Land Use ...... E-172 E.9.3 Environmental Impacts to Current Land Use ...... E-174 E.9.4 Measures to Protect and Enhance Land Use in the Project Area ...... E-174 E.10 Alternative Locations, Designs, and Energy Sources ...... E-175 E.10.1 Alternate Locations and Designs ...... E-175 TOC-5 ©FFP, 2013 Table of Contents

E.10.2 Alternate Locations and Designs ...... E-175 E.10.3 Alternate Energy Sources ...... E-177 E.10.4 Consequences of Denial of License Application ...... E-178 E.11 Conformance with Comprehensive Plans Relevant to the Proposed Project ...... E-179 E.11.1 Qualifying Comprehensive Plans Deemed Applicable ...... E-179 E.11.2 Overview of Comprehensive Plans ...... E-179 E.11.2.1 State of Mississippi ...... E-180 E.12 Literature Cited ...... E-183

EXHIBIT F GENERAL DESIGN DRAWINGS ...... F-1 F.1 Critical Energy Infrastructure Information ...... F-1 F.2 Design Drawings ...... F-1 F.3 Supporting Design Report...... F-1

EXHIBIT G PROJECT MAPS ...... G-1 G.1 Project Maps ...... G-1

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE A.4-1 SINGLE-LINE DIAGRAM ...... A-9 FIGURE B.3.1-1 MEASURED STAGE-DISCHARGE DATA PLOTTED AGAINST THE USACE POOL STAGE GUIDE/RULE CURVE, YEARS 1989-2011 - ENID ...... B-4

FIGURE B.3.1-2 STAGE-DISCHARGE CURVES - ENID OUTLET WORKS ...... B-5

FIGURE B.3.1-3 ENID LAKE TAILWATER RATING CURVE ...... B-6 FIGURE B.3.2.3-1 EXISTING CONDITION AND PROPOSED CONDITION – ENID LAKE OUTLET WORKS ...... B-12 FIGURE B.4-1 ENID LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AVERAGE MONTHLY PRODUCTION ...... B-13

FIGURE B.4.1.2-1 ENID DAM ANNUAL FLOW DURATION CURVE ...... B-14

FIGURE B.4.1.2-2 ENID DAM JANUARY FLOW DURATION CURVE ...... B-15

FIGURE B.4.1.2-3 ENID DAM FEBRUARY FLOW DURATION CURVE ...... B-15

FIGURE B.4.1.2-4 ENID DAM MARCH FLOW DURATION CURVE ...... B-16

FIGURE B.4.1.2-5 ENID DAM APRIL FLOW DURATION CURVE ...... B-16

FIGURE B.4.1.2-6 ENID DAM MAY FLOW DURATION CURVE ...... B-17

FIGURE B.4.1.2-7 ENID DAM JUNE FLOW DURATION CURVE ...... B-17

TOC-6 ©FFP, 2013 Table of Contents

FIGURE B.4.1.2-8 ENID DAM JULY FLOW DURATION CURVE ...... B-18

FIGURE B.4.1.2-9 ENID DAM AUGUST FLOW DURATION CURVE ...... B-18

FIGURE B.4.1.2-10 ENID DAM SEPTEMBER FLOW DURATION CURVE ...... B-19

FIGURE B.4.1.2-11 ENID DAM OCTOBER FLOW DURATION CURVE ...... B-19

FIGURE B.4.1.2-12 ENID DAM NOVEMBER FLOW DURATION CURVE ...... B-20

FIGURE B.4.1.2-13 ENID DAM DECEMBER FLOW DURATION CURVE ...... B-20

FIGURE B.4.5-1 POWERPLANT CAPABILITY VS. HEAD ...... B-22

FIGURE B.5-1 ENID PROJECT ESTIMATED CAPACITY GAP (MW) ...... B-24

FIGURE B.5-2 ENID PROJECT ESTIMATED ENERGY GAP (GWH) ...... B-25 FIGURE D.6-1 TVA BREAKDOWN OF CAPACITY OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION ...... D-4

FIGURE E.1.1-1 PROPOSED PROJECT GENERAL LOCATION MAP ...... E-2 FIGURE E.1.2.1-1 MAP OF PROPOSED PROJECT GENERAL LOCATION AND YOCONA RIVER WATERSHED ...... E-4 FIGURE E.1.2.4-1 MAP OF YOCONA RIVER BASIN MAJOR NAMED STREAMS AND TRIBUTARIES...... E-11 FIGURE E.2.4-1 WATER QUALITY SAMPLE LOCATIONS IN ENID LAKE AND THE YOCONA RIVER ...... E-18 FIGURE E.2.4.1-1 ENID INTAKE CONTINUOUS WATER TEMPERATURE AND DO DATA SITE WP13– ENID LAKE ...... E-19 FIGURE 2.4.1-2 ENID DISCRETE WATER TEMPERATURE DATA – YOCONA RIVER...... E-20

FIGURE 2.4.1-3 ENID DISCRETE DO DATA – YOCONA RIVER ...... E-21 FIGURE E.2.4.2-1 ENID DOWNSTREAM CONTINUOUS WATER TEMPERATURE AND DO DATA SITE WP4– YOCONA RIVER ...... E-22 FIGURE E.2.4.3-1 ENID CONTINUOUS WATER TEMPERATURE AND DOXYGEN DATA COMPARISON BETWEEN INTAKE SITE (WP13) AND DOWNSTREAM SITE (WP4) ...... E-24 FIGURE E.3.6.1.1-1 ENID OUTLET CHANNEL SUBSTRATE AND MESOHABITAT MAP WITH PROPOSED PROJECT POWERHOUSE OVERLAY ...... E-53

FIGURE E.3.6.1.1-2 TRANSECT E1 (SHALLOW-FAST BEDROCK RUN) ...... E-54

FIGURE E.3.6.1.1-3 TRANSECT E2 (DEEP-SLOW BOULDER POOL) ...... E-54

TOC-7 ©FFP, 2013 Table of Contents

FIGURE E.3.6.1.1-4 TRANSECT E3 (DEEP-SLOW SAND/GRAVEL POOL) ...... E-55

FIGURE E.3.9.2-1 COVER TYPE MAP OF THE ENID PROJECT AREA ...... E-71 FIGURE E.3.9.4.2-1 FLOODPLAIN MAP FOR ENID LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SITE ...... E-94

FIGURE E.6.1.3-1 STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF MISSISSIPPI ...... E-139

FIGURE E.6.2-1 ECONOMIC MINERALS MAP OF MISSISSIPPI ...... E-141 FIGURE E.6.3-1 MAPPED SOILS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...... E-143

FIGURE E.6.4-1 MISSISSIPPI SEISMIC HAZARD MAP ...... E-146 FIGURE E.7.3-1 RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...... E-161

FIGURE E.7.7.2-1 POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON RECREATION RESOURCES ...... E-165

FIGURE E.9.2-1 PROPOSED PROJECT LAND USE MAP ...... E-173 FIGURE E.10.3-1 TVA BREAKDOWN OF CAPACITY OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION ...... E-177

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE A.1.2.1-1 CHARACTERISTICS OF FACILITY ...... A-2

TABLE B.3.1-1 ENID LAKE AREA-VOLUME DATA ...... B-7

TABLE B.4.1.3-1 ENID LAKE AVERAGE MONTHLY DISCHARGES ...... B-21

TABLE B.4.3-1 ENID PROJECT HYDRAULIC CAPACITIES ...... B-21

TABLE C.2-1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ...... C-2

TABLE D.1-1 PROPOSED NEW DEVELOPMENT COSTS ...... D-1

TABLE D.4-1 ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS ...... D-2 TABLE D.4-2 ESTIMATED COST OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES ...... D-3 TABLE E.1.2.3-1 TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION DATA, AT ENID, MISSISSIPPI, FROM 2008 TO MAY 2013 ...... E-9

TABLE E.2.1.1-1 ENID PROJECT HYDRAULIC CAPACITIES ...... E-12

TABLE E.2.1.1-2 ENID LAKE AVERAGE MONTHLY DISCHARGES ...... E-13

TOC-8 ©FFP, 2013 Table of Contents

TABLE E.2.2-1 MINIMUM, MEAN, AND MAXIMUM FLOW AT ENID DAM ...... E-15 TABLE E.2.3-1 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...... E-15 TABLE E.2.5-1 AVAILABLE IMPOUNDMENT CHARACTERISTICS FOR ENID LAKE ...... E-25

TABLE E.3.1-1 FISHES OF THE YAZOO RIVER BASIN ...... E-30

TABLE E.3.1.1-1 LIST OF INVASIVE FISH SPECIES IN MISSISSIPPI ...... E-34 TABLE E.3.1.2-1 NHP “SPECIAL CONCERN” FISH FOR YALOBUSHA COUNTY WITH RANKING STATUS AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS ..... E-35 TABLE E.3.2-1 HABITAT GUILDS FOR FISH SPECIES DOCUMENTED IN OUTLET CHANNEL TAILRACES (KILLGORE ET AL. 1990) OR IN NET COLLECTION AT ENID (RIECKE 1996) ...... E-37 TABLE E.3.2-2 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT-USE GUILDS AND SPECIES REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE OUTLET CHANNELS ...... E-38 TABLE E.3.2-3 SPAWNING AND EARLY LIFE STAGE PERIODICITIES FOR YOCONA TARGET FISH SPECIES ...... E-40 TABLE E.3.3-1 HABITAT COMPOSITION IN THE ENID DOWNSTREAM SURVEYED AREA ...... E-43 TABLE E.3.3-2 MEASURED AND ESTIMATED CHANNEL CHARACTERISTICS AT ENID ...... E-44 TABLE E.3.5.2-1 FRESHWATER MOLLUSKS OF LOWER SARDIS LAKE DOWNSTREAM OF SARDIS DAM BASED ON HAAG AND WARREN 2006 ...... E-47 TABLE E.3.5.2-2 FRESHWATER MOLLUSKS OF GRENADA LAKE AND YALOBUSHA RIVER BASED ON COOPER AND JOHNSON 1980...... E-48 TABLE E.3.5.3-1 NHP “SPECIAL CONCERN” MUSSELS FOR YALOBUSHA COUNTY WITH RANKING STATUS AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS ...... E-49 TABLE E.3.6.1.2-1 SEASONAL AND ANNUAL ENTRAINMENT ESTIMATES AT ENID BASED ON THE POR ...... E-57 TABLE E.3.6.1.2-2 SEASONAL AND ANNUAL ENTRAINMENT ESTIMATES AT ENID BASED ON A DRY WATER YEAR (2007) ...... E-58 TABLE E.3.6.1.2-3 SEASONAL AND ANNUAL ENTRAINMENT ESTIMATES AT ENID BASED ON A WET WATER YEAR (1991) ...... E-59

TOC-9 ©FFP, 2013 Table of Contents

TABLE E.3.6.2.1-4 SEASONAL AND ANNUAL TURBINE MORTALITY ESTIMATES AT ENID BASED ON THE POR (1989-2011) ...... E-61 TABLE E.3.6.2.1-5 SEASONAL AND ANNUAL TURBINE MORTALITY ESTIMATES AT ENID BASED ON A DRY WATER YEAR (2007) ...... E-62 TABLE E.3.6.2.1-6 SEASONAL AND ANNUAL TURBINE MORTALITY ESTIMATES AT ENID BASED ON A WET WATER YEAR (1991) ...... E-63 TABLE E.3.9.2-1 SUMMARY OF MAPPED COVER TYPES IN THE ENID STUDY AREA ...... E-72 TABLE E.3.9.3.1-1 LIST OF MAMMALS THAT MAY EXIST OR MAY UTILIZE HABITAT IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT ...... E-77 TABLE E.3.9.2.1-2 TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS OBSERVED WITHIN OR IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITES ...... E-79 TABLE E.3.9.3.2-1 BIRD SPECIES SIGHTED DURING 2013 FIELD SURVEYS AND ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION1 ...... E-80 TABLE E.3.9.3.3-1 NATIVE REPTILE AND AMPHIBIAN SPECIES THAT MAY FOUND IN THE PROJECT AREA ...... E-83 TABLE E.3.9.3.3-2 REPTILE AND AMPHIBIAN SPECIES OBSERVED WITHIN OR IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITES ...... E-84 TABLE E.3.9.3.5-1 INVASIVE/NOXIOUS WEED ACREAGE AND NUMBER OF MAPPED LOCATION SITES1 ...... E-85 TABLE E.3.9.4.1-1 NWI DEEPWATER (OPEN WATER) CLASSIFICATIONS OCCURRING IN THE PROJECT VICINITY ...... E-91

TABLE E.3.10-1 LIST OF RTE SPECIES OCCURRING IN MISSISSIPPI ...... E-96 TABLE E.4.2.2.2-1 RECOMMENDED NRHP ELIGIBILITY OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES WITHIN THE PROJECT’S APE ...... E-124 TABLE E.4.3.1-1 EFFECTS OF PROJECT CONSTRUCTION OF CHARACTER- DEFINING FEATURES ...... E-125 TABLE E.4.6-1 SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING CULTURAL RESOURCES TASKS ...... E-129 TABLE E.5.2-1 YALOBUSHA COUNTY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT INDUSTRIES ...... E-131

TABLE E.7.2-1 PUBLIC RECREATION AREAS AT ENID LAKE ...... E-155

TABLE E.7.2-2 ENID LAKE PICNIC SITES AND SHELTERS ...... E-159

TABLE E.7.6-1 CREEL SURVEY RESULTS FOR SPILLWAY (2010) ...... E-164

TOC-10 ©FFP, 2013 Table of Contents

LIST OF PHOTOS

PHOTO A.1.1-1 ENID DAM ...... A-1

PHOTO E.8.1-1 AERIAL PHOTO OF ENID DAM ...... E-169

PHOTO E.8.1-2 ENID OUTLET CHANNEL ...... E-170

TOC-11 ©FFP, 2013

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation APE area of potential effects ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 BMP Best Management Practices BP before present CAR Center for Archaeological Research CEII Critical Energy Infrastructure Information cfs cubic feet per second CMDR Central Mississippi Deformed Ridge CWA Clean Water Act CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy DA developed area DF deciduous forest DLA Draft License Application DO dissolved oxygen EFH Essential Fish Habitat EGCP East Gulf Coastal Plain ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FFP Free Flow Power Corporation FLA Final License Application FPA Federal Power Act G/F grass/forb GIS Geographic Information Systems GWh gigawatt hours HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan HPU Hydraulic Power Units HRID Historic Resources Inventory Database ILP Integrated Licensing Process IRP Integrated Resource Plan TOC-12 ©FFP, 2013 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

JAM joint agency meeting kW kilowatt LLC limited-liability company m meters MAP Mississippi Alluvial Plain MDAH Mississippi Department of Archives and History MDEQ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality MDWFP Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fish and Parks Mg/L milligrams per liter MMNS Mississippi Museum of Natural Science MSHPO Mississippi State Historic Preservation Officer MW megawatt MWh megawatt hours NAS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation NHP Natural Heritage Program NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS National Park Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetland Inventory PAD Pre-Application Document PM&E Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement POR period of record POWH Palustrine open-water wetland habitat Project Enid Lake Hydroelectric Project psi per square inch RM river miles RMP Recreation Management Plan

TOC-13 ©FFP, 2013 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ROW right-of-way RPSD Revised Planned Studies Document RTE Rare, Threatened and Endangered SAV submerged aquatic vegetation SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition SCORP State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan SERC Southeast Electric Reliability Corporation SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer TLP Traditional Licensing Process TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TVA Tennessee Valley Authority USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WCM Water Control Manual WQC Water Quality Certification

TOC-14 ©FFP, 2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Project Overview

Free Flow Power Corporation (FFP) is seeking to obtain a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to develop a hydroelectric project at the Enid Dam on the Yocona River in Yalobusha County, Mississippi. The Applicant for this project (Enid Lake Hydroelectric Project [Project]) is FFP Missouri 2, LLC, a domestic limited-liability company (LLC) for which Free Flow Power Corporation is authorized to act as an agent. FFP Missouri 2, LLC and Free Flow Power are collectively referenced in this Final License Application (FLA) as “FFP” or “Applicant.”

The Project will utilize the existing dam owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The Project will operate in a run-of-release mode and, as such, will not alter or adversely affect current or future USACE operations. However, by utilizing this structure, FFP will develop a new renewable energy resource for the region that will have minimal environmental effects.

FERC Licensing Process Overview

FFP was issued a three-year Preliminary Permit for this Project from the FERC on December 1, 2010, which expires on November 30, 2013. This Preliminary Permit does not authorize Project construction, but rather authorizes FFP to explore Project development options and undertake the pre-filing portion of the FERC licensing process, including consultation with state and federal resource agencies and interested parties (Stakeholders). A Preliminary Permit is effective for a three-year period in order to allow adequate time for the permit holders to complete the pre-filing portion of the FERC licensing process and it is FFP’s intent to file this Final License Application prior to the Preliminary Permit expiration date of November 30, 2013.

The FERC licensing process is officially initiated by the filing of the Pre-Application Document (PAD) and a Notice of Intent (NOI), which in this instance, seeks to obtain an initial 50-year FERC license for the development and operation of the proposed Project. The PAD for this Project was filed with the FERC on January 31, 2012. There are three licensing process options allowed by the FERC’s regulations. While the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) is the default process required of all applicants, the ILP requires a very rigid schedule for both applicants and

ES-1 ©FFP, 2013 Executive Summary

Stakeholders. This schedule can be difficult to maintain when evaluating development of a new project and can impose boundaries on the time allowed for consultation. Therefore, FFP requested (and has received) approval from FERC to use the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP), which in FFP’s experience TLP allows greater process flexibility for both applicants and Stakeholders, and enables FFP and Stakeholders to engage in a consultation process and schedule that meets the individual project’s needs. FFP’s request to use the TLP was submitted simultaneously with the PAD and NOI. By letter dated March 27, 2012, FERC approved the use of the TLP for this Project’s licensing.

Two public and joint agency meetings (JAM) were held on May 15, 2012, to discuss the PAD and resource studies that may need to be undertaken in order to assess resource effects. A Planned Studies Document (Appendix B-1) was developed and distributed for agency and Stakeholder review and comment on November 30, 2012. The Revised Planned Studies Document (RPSD) (Appendix B-2) was filed with FERC on April 5, 2013. The draft study reports and Draft License Application (DLA) were filed with FERC and distributed to stakeholders by letter dated June 24, 2013, with comments due 90 days following the date of that letter. FFP would note that the only comments received on the DLA were; (a) general comments received from the USACE via email dated September 13, 2013, and (b) comments received from the Commission via letter dated September 26, 2013 (these letters are contained in Volume II of this FLA). FFP has addressed these comments in the applicable sections of this FLA; including development of responses to each comment which are included in Volume II of this FLA.

The results of studies have been compiled in study reports which are being distributed with this FLA. The FERC will then review the application and undertake environmental review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to rendering a licensing decision.

Additional State and Federal Regulatory Processes

There are additional permits or licenses that FFP will be required to obtain prior to proceeding with the development of this Project:

 US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) o 404 Permit for work in navigable waters and wetlands (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act [CWA] [33 USC § 1344]).

ES-2 ©FFP, 2013 Executive Summary

o Section 408 approval to construct at a USACE facility (Section 14 of the River and Harbors Act (33 USC § 408)).

 State of Mississippi o Section 401 Water Quality Certification (Section 401 of the Clean Water Act). o Other state permits as required for construction in waterways and wetlands.

These additional regulatory processes will require FFP to address many of the same resource effects that must be addressed during the FERC licensing process. To the extent feasible, it is FFP’s goal that the resource effects that need to be considered in all of these regulatory processes are identified and addressed through the FERC licensing consultation process such that this FLA and subsequent applications for all other approvals are consistent and thoroughly addresses all resource effects.

It is assumed that the FERC and the USACE, under their existing Memorandum of Understanding, will work together in the Federal regulatory review and licensing/permitting of this project. It is also assumed that they will work in a cooperative manner to produce a NEPA document, the essence of which can be utilized by both agencies.

FFP understands that not all of these processes require the same type of information, and each may necessitate slightly different schedules than the FERC process. FFP will consult and work with regulatory agencies to establish a plan and schedule that appropriately coordinates all processes and meets both FFP’s and each regulatory agency’s needs.

Contents of the Application

This application is presented as an Application for an Initial License “Major Modified Project.” Accordingly, and under guidance received from FERC staff, this application has been prepared under applicability definitions at 18 CFR §4.30(b)(14) and §4.40, and application content requirements at 18 CFR §4.41. It should be noted that those portions of 18 CFR §4.41 which are noticeably intended to call for information on, and effects of construction of a new dam and impoundment are not germane in this instance since this Project is proposed to be constructed at an existing USACE dam and impoundment.

ES-3 ©FFP, 2013

INITIAL STATEMENT

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR AN INITIAL LICENSE MAJOR MODIFIED PROJECT

ENID LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 13703)

(1) The Applicant for this project is FFP Missouri 2, LLC, a domestic limited-liability company (LLC) for which Free Flow Power Corporation is authorized to act as an agent. FFP Missouri 2, LLC (“FFP” or “Applicant”) applies to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”) for an initial license for the Enid Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project), FERC No. 13703, as described in the attached Exhibits.

(2) The location of the Project is:

State: Mississippi County: Yalobusha Nearby town: Enid Stream or other body of water: Yocona River

(3) The exact name and address of the Applicant(s) are:

FFP Missouri 2, LLC 239 Causeway Street, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02114 Telephone: (978) 283-2822

The exact name and business address of each person authorized to act as agent for the Applicant in this application, are:

(1) Ms. Ramya Swaminathan (2) Mr. Daniel Lissner Chief Operating Officer General Counsel Free Flow Power Corporation Free Flow Power Corporation 239 Causeway Street, Suite 300 239 Causeway Street, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02114 Boston, MA 02114 Phone: 978-283-2822 Phone: 978-283-2822

(3) Mr. Thomas Feldman (4) Ms. Lea Tyhach Vice President of Project Development Director of Regulatory Affairs Free Flow Power Corporation Free Flow Power Corporation 239 Causeway Street, Suite 300 239 Causeway Street, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02114 Boston, MA 02114 Phone: 978-283-2822 Phone: 978-283-2822

IS-1 ©FFP, 2013 Initial Statement

(4) The Applicant is a domestic limited liability company and is not claiming preference under Section 7(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA).

(5)(i) The statutory or regulatory requirements of the State of Mississippi that affect the Project as proposed, 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 and transmitting power and in any other business necessary to accomplish the purpose of the license under the FPA are:

a. Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to ensure compliance with Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). b. Other state permits as required for construction in waterways and wetlands. c. 404 Permit for work in navigable waters and wetlands (Section 404 of the CWA [33 USC § 1344]). d. Section 408 approval to construct at a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) facility (Section 14 of the River and Harbors Act [33 USC § 408]) e. Miss. Code. Ann. §77-3-14. Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity. Authorization to conduct the business of generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity pursuant to the Mississippi Public Service Commission. f. Miss. Code Ann. §49-17-3. Pollution of Waters, Streams, and Air. A public policy of this state to conserve the air and waters of the state and to protect, maintain and improve the quality thereof for public use, for the propagation of wildlife, fish and aquatic life, and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational and other legitimate beneficial uses; to maintain such a reasonable degree of quality of the air resources of the state to protect the health, general welfare and physical property of the people, and to provide that no waste be discharged into any waters of the state without first receiving the necessary treatment or other corrective action to protect the legitimate beneficial uses of such waters; to provide for the prevention, abatement and control of new or existing air or water pollution; and to cooperate with other agencies of the state, agencies of other state, and the federal government in carrying out these objectives.

(ii) The steps that the Applicant has taken or plans to take, to comply with each of the laws cited above, are: a. FFP Missouri 2, LLC will apply to the Mississippi Department of Environmental

IS-2 ©FFP, 2013 Initial Statement

Quality (MDEQ) for a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate before, or within 60 days of, the date of FERC issuance of the notice of acceptance and ready for environmental analysis for the Project. b. FFP Missouri 2, LLC will apply to the USACE Vicksburg District for Approval under Section 408 of the River and Harbors Act and for a Section 404 Permit under the CWA. c. FFP Missouri 2, LLC will apply for all other necessary permits during the processing of the license application or when the license is granted. d. FFP Missouri 2, LLC will comply with the requirements of the laws of the State of Mississippi with respect to the right to engage in the business of developing and transmitting power. e. FFP Missouri 2, LLC will ensure that the Project will not result in pollution to water, streams, and air as defined in §49-17-3.

Additional Information Required by 18 CFR § 4.32(a)(2)

(1) Identify every person, citizen, association of citizens, domestic corporation, municipality, or state that has or intends to obtain and will maintain any proprietary right necessary to construct, operate, or maintain the project:

FFP intends to obtain, all proprietary rights necessary to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed Project.

(2) Identify (providing names and mailing addresses):

(i) Every county in which any part of the project, and any Federal facilities that would be used by the project would be located:

Yalobusha County County Clerk Blackmur Drive Water Valley, MS 38965

(ii) Every city, town, or similar local subdivision:

(A) In which any part of the project, and any Federal facilities that would be used by the project, would be located:

IS-3 ©FFP, 2013 Initial Statement

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Enid Lake Field Office 264 County Road 39 Enid, MS 38927 (B) That has a population of 5,000 or more people and is located within 15 miles of the project dam:

City of Batesville City Hall 103 College Street Batesville, MS 38606-2197

(iii) Every irrigation district, drainage district, or similar special purpose political subdivision:

(A) In which any part of the project, and any Federal facilities that would be used by the project, would be located:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Enid Lake Field Office 264 County Road 39 Enid, MS 38927

(B) That owns, operates, maintains, or uses any project facilities or any Federal facilities that would be used by the project:

There are no irrigation districts, drainage districts, or similar special purpose political subdivisions that will own, operate, maintain, or use any Project facilities.

(iv) Every other political subdivision in the general area of the project that there is reason to believe would likely be interested in, or affected by, the application:

There are no other political subdivisions in the general area of the Project that there is reason to believe would likely be interested in, or affected by, the application.

IS-4 ©FFP, 2013 Initial Statement

(v) All Indian tribes that may be affected by the project:

There are no Indian reservation lands within the Project Boundary or immediate Project vicinity.

FFP has solicited the participation of the following seven Indian tribes in the licensing process:

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma P.O. Box 1210 Durant, OK 74702

Jena Band of Choctaw Indians P.O. Box 14 Jena, LA 71342

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians P.O. Box 6010, Choctaw Branch Philadelphia, MS 39350

Chickasaw Nation P.O. Box 1548 Ada, OK 74821

Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana P.O. Box 1589 Marksville, LA 71351

Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma P.O. Box 765 Quapaw, OK 74363

Muscogee (Creek) Nation P.O. Box 580 Okmulgee, OK 74447

IS-5 ©FFP, 2013 Initial Statement

IS-6 ©FFP, 2013

EXHIBIT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A.1 Physical Composition

A.1.1 Existing Non-Project Facilities

The Enid Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project) is proposed to be located at the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Enid Lake Dam on the Yocona River in the Yazoo River Basin in Yalobusha County, Mississippi. The Project site is approximately 6.5 miles north of the town of Oakland, Mississippi and will involve the construction of a new 4.6 megawatt (MW) hydroelectric facility. The primary purpose of the existing USACE facility is for flood control and the facility also provides many recreational opportunities for the public. The existing facility is owned and operated by the USACE, Vicksburg District.

The Enid Lake Dam is located on the west end of the reservoir, pictured in Photo A.1.1-1. The existing facility is comprised of an earth fill embankment dam, the outlet works, a toe drain and a concrete-lined, uncontrolled spillway located toward the northwest end of the dam. The existing outlet works are located on the northern portion of the embankment and consist of an intake tower, two reinforced concrete conduits with a concrete dividing wall, regulating gates, and a concrete-lined stilling basin. The facility grounds have a parking area and public recreational access to the lake. Key existing facilities are further detailed in Table A.1.2.1-1 below.

PHOTO A.1.1-1 ENID DAM

(Source: USACE)

A-1 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit A Project Description

A.1.2 Proposed Project Facilities

A.1.2.1 Physical Composition

The proposed Project will utilize the existing USACE intake and outlet conduit, and consist of the addition of a new outlet conduit liner, bifurcation chamber, discharge gates, penstock, forebay, powerhouse, substation, and transmission line. The physical composition and dimensions of existing and proposed facilities are shown in Table A.1.2.1-1 below and described further in the sections which follow.

TABLE A.1.2.1-1 CHARACTERISTICS OF FACILITY GENERAL Project Location Yalobusha County, Mississippi Nearby Town Enid, Mississippi Water Bodies Yocona River Latitude/Longitude 34° 09’ 28.68” N, 89° 54’ 14.39 W Basin Drainage Area Yazoo River Basin, 8,547,200 acres Project Drainage Area 358,400 acres IMPOUNDMENT (Elevations, Surface Areas and Volumes are both Existing and Proposed) Elevation Surface Area Volume (acre-feet) (ft NGVD) (acres) Top of Dam 293.0 50,700 1,625,400 Surcharge Pool 284.0 41,300 1,224,200 Spillway Crest and Flood Control Pool 268.0 28,000 666,000 Conservation Pool 230.0 6,120 57,600 STRUCTURES EXISTING PROPOSED DAM Construction Rolled earth fill No changes Length 8,400 ft No changes Height 85 ft No changes Spillway Capacity 49,700 cfs No changes OUTLET WORKS Construction Reinforced concrete Addition of 0.75 inch-thick steel liner Intake Dimensions Concrete intake tower housing two No changes rectangular intake inlets transitioning to dual (two) outlet conduits Outlet Conduit Diameter 11 ft each 10.25 ft diameter, inclusive of 0.75 inch steel liner and grouting of annular space Outlet Conduit Length 370 ft 420 ft (approx.); includes 50 ft extension (approx.) into stilling basin to accommodate bifurcation and gate works Intake Gate Type Vertical lift gate No changes Number of Intake Gates 2 No changes Intake Gate Dimensions 8 ft wide x 16.0 ft tall No changes

A-2 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit A Project Description

Max Capacity 9,400 cfs No changes LINER Construction n/a Steel Length n/a 320 ft Diameter n/a 10.25 ft diameter, inclusive of 0.75 inch steel liner and grouting of annular space (note only one of the two existing outlet conduits will be lined) BIFURCATION Construction n/a Concrete with steel liner Width n/a (20 ft) Varies (flared to fit stilling basin and divider wall) Length n/a 50 ft (approx.) Height n/a 20 ft Discharge Gate n/a 11 x 11 ft Hydro Intake Gate n/a 10 x 10 ft PENSTOCK Construction n/a Steel Diameter n/a 10 ft Length n/a 240 ft (approx.) Expansion Chamber n/a Concrete-flared, varying width/depth/height FOREBAY Construction n/a Steel, reinforced concrete Height/Width/Depth n/a 94 x 55 x 50 ft Trashrack Height/Width n/a 63 x 55 ft Trashrack Spacing n/a 3” POWERHOUSE Construction n/a Reinforced concrete Length n/a 80 ft Width n/a 50 ft Height n/a 80 ft Machine Floor Elevation n/a 205 ft msl TAILRACE Length n/a 150 ft Width n/a 50 ft Depth n/a 24 ft Minimum Tailwater 180.40 ft msl 180.40 ft msl Maximum Tailwater (1,100 cfs) 192.27 ft msl 192.27 ft msl TURBINES Unit Type n/a Vertical Kaplan Number of Units n/a 2 Runner Diameter n/a 4.76 ft (1,450 mm) Rated Speed n/a 360 rpm Rated Head n/a 59.7 ft Rated Flow n/a 550 cfs each Rated kW or HP n/a 2,300 kW or 3,084 HP each Min. Hydraulic Capacity n/a 50 cfs each Max. Hydraulic Capacity n/a 550 cfs each Project Min. Hydraulic Cap. n/a 50 cfs Project Max. Hydraulic Cap. n/a 1,100 cfs

A-3 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit A Project Description

GENERATORS Number of Units n/a 2 Type n/a Vertical, direct coupled synchronous Phase n/a 3 Frequency n/a 60 hz Voltage n/a 4,160 VAC Nameplate Capacity n/a 2,300 kW each Total Installed Capacity n/a 4,600 kW Average Dependable Capacity n/a 1,593 kW Average Annual Generation n/a 17.7 GWh Monthly Average Generation n/a 1.46 GWh Annual Plant Factor n/a 0.54 Power Factor n/a 1.0 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES Medium Voltage Buried Cable n/a 165 ft long Substation Footprint n/a 35 ft x 40 ft Transformers n/a 8 MVA/4.16/12.5 kV Overhead Transmission Voltage n/a 12.5 kV Overhead Transmission Length n/a 2,036 ft Interconnection Point n/a Existing transmission line ACCESS ROADS Access Road Public access road off of 166 No changes

A.1.2.1.1 Existing Intake

The existing intake consists of an intake tower and two 8-foot-wide, 16 foot-tall rectangular intake openings with control gates. Each intake opening transitions from its rectangular shape at the inlet entrance, to an independent 11-foot-diameter conduit, and both independent circular conduits pass under the dam. There are no modifications proposed to this existing intake structure.

A.1.2.1.2 Existing Outlet Conduit and Proposed Conduit Liner

A 10.25 foot-diameter engineered steel liner will be installed within the right (looking downstream) 11-foot-diameter outlet conduit to enable pressurization of that one outlet conduit (the other conduit will remain as-is). The new right conduit liner will extend a length of approximately 320 feet beginning at the point where the rectangular intake opening fully transitions to its existing circular shape and ending at the point where the existing conduit meets the new bifurcation chamber (see below). The upstream end of the new liner (at the point where existing intake transitions to the circular shape) will be equipped with a transitional section to assure a hydraulically smooth shape transition. The new liner will result in the conduit having a

A-4 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit A Project Description

diameter of 10.25 feet when accounting for the 0.75-inch-thick steel liner as well as the necessary accommodation for, and grouting of the annular space between the liner and existing conduit.

A.1.2.1.3 Proposed Bifurcation Chamber

The two existing outlet conduits discharge into the existing stilling basin and an existing divider wall separates each conduits discharge as it passes through the stilling basin. A new steel-lined, reinforced concrete enclosed bifurcation chamber will be constructed within the right portion (looking downstream) of the stilling basin and at the end of the existing right conduit to divide USACE flows (in that conduit) between the stilling basin and the new hydroelectric plant. As described below, the bifurcation chamber will contain two gates; (a) an auxiliary discharge gate leading directly to the stilling basin and (b) a hydro intake gate to convey flows into the proposed powerhouse penstock and forebay.

A.1.2.1.4 Proposed Discharge Gate

The bifurcation chamber will contain a discharge gate which will be installed at the downstream end of the bifurcation chamber. Flows not intended to pass through the powerhouse will exit through the discharge gate directly into the stilling basin. The discharge gate is currently proposed to be a hydraulically-operated vertical slide gate which can operated both locally and remotely; valve options may be considered as the design process unfolds.

A.1.2.1.5 Proposed Hydro Intake Gate

The bifurcation chamber will also contain a dedicated hydro intake gate to control flow to the powerhouse penstock. The hydro intake gate is currently proposed to be a hydraulically- operated vertical slide gate which can operated both locally and remotely; valve options may be considered as the design process unfolds.

A-5 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit A Project Description

A.1.2.1.6 Proposed Penstock

A new 10-foot-diameter steel penstock will convey flows from the bifurcation chamber to the powerhouse. The penstock will be approximately 240 feet in length and will convey flows from the bifurcation to the forebay.

A.1.2.1.7 Proposed Forebay

The forebay will be a multi-function, composite steel and reinforced concrete, open-topped structure housing the powerhouse trashracks, containing downstream fish movement structures and serving a surge relief function. The forebay will be approximately 94-foot-long x 55-foot- deep x 50-foot-wide and the riverside wall will be equipped with a 5-foot-wide, 4-foot-deep surface release, stoplog/gated section adjacent to the trashracks intended to serve as a downstream fish bypass outlet and a means by which debris is passed downstream. Debris will be guided to this gated section during raking operations and discharge to an adjacent plunge pool. Additionally, the gated section will be developed in consultation with the USACE and resource agencies with respect to its fish bypass attributes with emphasis on confirmation of dimensions and downstream plunge pool. The forebay will also be equipped with a 2.5 x 2.5 low-level sluice gate to facilitate dewatering. The forebay will be integral with the powerhouse, and flow for generation will pass through turbine inlet passageways through the forebay and powerhouse common wall.

The forebay structure will have a free water surface (open to the atmosphere) whose elevation will be nearly identical to the lake elevation maintained by the USACE on the upstream side of the dam (head losses between the lake and forebay preclude an exact match). The difference in water surface elevations between the forebay and the tailrace will create the necessary gross head or pressure necessary to operate the project’s turbines, and the turbine selection process has taken into account both this head (pressure) and flow available to (and through) the forebay. Similarly, the invert, height and width of the forebay fish bypass gate indicated above are sized using accepted hydraulic design methodology and the head (pressure) necessary to operate the gates will be created by the elevation difference between the forebay water surface and the invert, or sill elevation of the gate. FFP is confident that there will be adequate head (pressure) to operate all aspects of the proposed project.

A-6 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit A Project Description

A.1.2.1.8 Proposed Powerhouse

A new concrete powerhouse will be built on the north bank, downstream of the existing stilling basin adjacent to the river channel and contain two identical turbine-generator units having a combined installed capacity of 4,600 kilowatts (kW). The powerhouse will be partially below grade and contain a large roll up door on the southern side for equipment access. The powerhouse will contain the new generating equipment, switchgear, and ancillary systems as well as a roof hatch to facilitate external crane access for equipment disassembly and service.

A.1.2.1.9 Proposed Tailrace

A new tailrace will convey flow from the powerhouse to the river channel. The north side of the tailrace will be bordered by a new concrete retaining wall where the tailrace is deepest and the floor of will be lined as appropriate to prevent erosion and scour. This tailrace will join the existing low-flow channel approximately 150 feet downstream of the powerhouse.

A.2 Impoundment Characteristics

The characteristics of the existing impoundment and the existing dam are tabulated in Table A.1.2.1-1 above. The Project proposes to use the water power potential of the existing dam and impoundment. No changes to the impoundment are proposed, and the impoundment is not proposed to be included within the FERC Project boundary.

A.3 Generating Equipment

Two new identical vertical Kaplan turbines will be installed in the powerhouse. The turbines will be set in steel spiral cases and will utilize cast elbow draft tubes. The turbines will be direct- connected to identical 3-phase, 60 cycle synchronous generators. The combined installed capacity of the generating equipment will be 4,600 kW and the number, type and ratings of the proposed generating equipment are tabulated in Table A.1.2.1-1 above.

A-7 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit A Project Description

A.4 Transmission Facilities

A new substation will be constructed approximately 550 feet, west northwest of the existing outlet works at the toe of the dam. Project output will be transmitted from the powerhouse to the new substation via a buried medium voltage cable. The substation will contain a transformer, low side disconnects, high side fusing, grounding grid and other protective equipment as dictated by the interconnected utility. A containment dike and a security fence will surround the substation. A new overhead transmission line will extend west from the substation to an interconnection point at the utility owned distribution line. The number, length, voltage and interconnections of transmission facilities to be included as part of the Project are tabulated in Table A.1.2.1-1 above, and a single line diagram for the Project is shown in Figure A.4-1 below.

A-8 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit A Project Description

FIGURE A.4-1 SINGLE-LINE DIAGRAM

A-9 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit A Project Description

A.5 Appurtenant Equipment

The powerhouse will contain all new appurtenant equipment and ancillary systems including medium-voltage switchgear, controls, excitation, governors, Hydraulic Power Units (HPUs) for gates and turbines, batteries, and station service electrical systems.

A.6 Lands of the United States

Drawings depicting the Project boundary are included in Exhibit G. The Project powerhouse, appurtenant facilities and applicable portions of the transmission line will occupy approximately 30 acres of lands of the United States (USACE) and will be included in the FERC Project boundary. FFP expects that such lands proposed to be within the FERC Project boundary will be leased by FFP from USACE. The right-of-way for the transmission line will also be included in the FERC Project boundary and as needed easements will be obtained for any portions not located on lands of the United States.

A-10 ©FFP, 2013

EXHIBIT B PROJECT OPERATIONS AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION

B.1 Alternative Sites Considered

The Applicant for this Project is FFP Missouri 2, LLC, a domestic limited-liability company for which Free Flow Power Corporation is authorized to act as an agent (collectively referenced as “FFP” or “Applicant”). FFP is a private renewable energy company focusing on developing clean, renewable, cost-effective and environmentally sound hydropower generation at existing non-powered dams.

For the past several years FFP has reviewed, evaluated and screened numerous potential hydroelectric development sites nationwide, regionally and within the state of Mississippi. For each site, FFP has taken into account site-specific physical characteristics, water availability, market conditions, constructability, economic and other attributes. Collectively, FFP’s feasibility and technical reviews performed during the term of the current preliminary permit presently indicate that moving forward with hydroelectric development at this selected site is economically viable. This is reflected in FFP’s decision to move forward with this License application and License issuance, construction and operation of this Project is consistent with FFP’s business objectives and will meet the needs and interests of the public through increased supply of clean, renewable energy.

From a regional perspective, this application is one of four individual FERC licenses for which FFP is applying at USACE flood control dams within the Yazoo River Basin region which collectively includes: Sardis Dam on the Little Tallahatchie River in Panola County, Mississippi; Enid Dam on the Yocona River in Yalobusha County, Mississippi; Grenada Dam on the Yalobusha River in Grenada County, Mississippi; and Arkabutla Dam on the Coldwater River in Tate and DeSoto Counties, Mississippi.

B.2 Alternative Facility Designs, Processes and Operations Considered

FFP has considered alternative facility designs, processes and operations. As part of feasibility review, several construction and engineering alternatives were evaluated before reaching the Project configuration, sizing, and layout proposed in this application. Alternatives were evaluated with respect to considerations such as cost, constructability, impacts to USACE

B-1 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

facilities, environmental impacts, cofferdams and dewatering, interconnect, and turbine selections. In general, the following goals and priorities guided FFP’s overall development of the Project:

 Minimize or eliminate alteration of, or impacts to USACE dam core or intake.  Utilization of any existing USACE structures with minimal modifications.  Assure that normal hydro operations maintain and minimize impact on the discharge capacity of the existing USACE outlet works and current USACE reservoir management and flow release operations.  Provide USACE with direct control of new outlet gates.  Ability to isolate hydro plant from USACE operations.  Minimize the environmental footprint of the Project.

Examples of key alternatives considered but ultimately deemed not feasible and excluded from the license application include:

 Surge tank located at conduit outlet – eliminated from further consideration and replaced with bifurcation chamber and forebay concept so as to eliminate potential impacts to USACE dam and to consolidate construction work area to reduce environmental impacts. In addition, the surge tank would have been detrimental to fish movement.  Trashracks at USACE inlet – trashracks proposed in forebay instead so as to eliminate direct impacts to USACE facilities and to allow for incorporation of downstream fish bypass/movement facility.  Waterbox at conduit outlet – eliminated from further consideration and replaced with extended conduit liner encased in concrete so as to eliminate impact to dam, as well as potential impact due to construction of waterbox.

Examples of key alternatives considered and optimized include:

 Unit selection and operations – optimized and modified to conform to, and be compatible with existing USACE reservoir management and flow release operations.  Conduit liner and bifurcation chamber – optimized to ensure that existing USACE operations are not adversely impacted.

B-2 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

B.3 Statement of Project Operations

B.3.1 Existing USACE Operation

The USACE’s operation of Enid Dam is part of, and integrated with its overall operation of the Yazoo Basin Lakes consisting of Grenada Dam on the Yalobusha River, Enid Dam on the Yocona River, Sardis Dam on the Little Tallahatchie River, and Arkabutla Dam on the Coldwater River. These coordinated and individual site operations are detailed in the USACE’s Master Water Control Manual, Yazoo Basin Lakes With Standing Instructions dated December 1989 and updated in 2000 (WCM).1 Accordingly, the following description of existing USACE operations is derived from this WCM as well as from USACE’s website.

According to USACE, the primary objective of the four Yazoo Basin Lakes is flood control and providing flood protection to some 1.5 million acres including many small urban communities, businesses, rural residences, farms, and major cities such as Greenwood, Belzoni and Yazoo City, Mississippi. Each lake’s operation for flood control is based on its guide curve, rainfall, hydrologic forecasts, downstream conditions and time of year.

The guide curves represent desired pool levels and the USACE’s actual levels can exceed these levels depending on exact conditions. In general, when pool levels exceed the curve, the USACE releases water at rates that downstream channel capacities and conditions allow (also taking into account crop seasons), and if guide curve levels cannot be achieved without exceeding downstream channel capacities, the USACE maintains discharges to evacuate as much flood control storage as practicable.

The USACE’s guide curve and operating band for Enid is shown in Figure B.3.1-1 below. Superimposed on this figure are USACE’s actual pool elevations for the period of 1989-2011 which depict USACE’s actual pool management relative to the guide curve and operating band. Similarly, the USACE’s outlet works and spillway discharge curves, theoretical tailwater curve

1 In the manual USACE notes that the December 1989 water control plan was not substantively changed as part of the 2000 update. USACE notes that the 2000 version is simply an update to reflect increased channel capacities as a result of USACE channel maintenance activities.

B-3 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

at the existing outlet, and area-volume data are shown in Figure B.3.1-2, Figure B.3.1-3, and Table B.3.1-1 respectively below.

FIGURE B.3.1-1 MEASURED STAGE-DISCHARGE DATA PLOTTED AGAINST THE USACE POOL STAGE GUIDE/RULE CURVE, YEARS 1989-2011 - ENID

B-4 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

FIGURE B.3.1-2 STAGE-DISCHARGE CURVES - ENID OUTLET WORKS

B-5 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

FIGURE B.3.1-3 ENID LAKE TAILWATER RATING CURVE

B-6 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

TABLE B.3.1-1 ENID LAKE AREA-VOLUME DATA Elevation-Area-Volume Data Elevation Surface Area Volume (ft NGVD) (acres) (acre-feet) Top of Dam 293.0 50,700 1,625,400 Surcharge Pool 284.0 41,300 1,224,200 Spillway Crest and Flood Control Pool 268.0 28,000 666,000 Conservation Pool 230.0 6,120 57,600

B.3.2 Proposed Hydroelectric Project Operation

The Project will be operated in a run-of-release mode with no storage of flows. Flows available for generation will consist of water released from the lake according to USACE’s existing lake level and discharge management practices. No changes to the current USACE lake level and discharge management practices are proposed or expected as part of normal hydro operations.

The reservoir level and daily discharge releases are actively managed by the USACE. The Project will not interfere with the management of the water resource nor will it limit the facility’s ability to fulfill its flow-release. Similarly, there are no storage and release activities or procedures proposed as part of the Project operation.

According to the USACE’s WCM; “there are no guaranteed minimum flow releases from the Yazoo Basin Lakes”, but the WCM states that the USACE does strive to maintain a minimum release target of 50 cubic feet per second (cfs) from Enid Lake. The WCM further states; “However, there may be times when the outflow may be zero. This may be due to rainfall, inspections, and emergency conditions such as drowning, etc.” Accordingly, and as described in Exhibit A, FFP has incorporated features and flexibility within the proposed Project works to facilitate the pass through of the USACE’s minimum release target (additionally only one of the two existing outlet conduits will be used for hydro purposes and the other will remain as-is and available for use).

These features consist of (a) the forebay fish bypass outlet (in conjunction with the forebay low- level outlet as needed to make-up discharge due to varying head conditions) and (b) the bifurcation chamber discharge gate. As directed by the USACE, FFP will pass through the

B-7 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

USACE’s minimum release target under all hydro operating conditions. FFP anticipates that under most circumstances, the USACE’s minimum release target would be passed via the forebay fish bypass outlet to facilitate downstream fish movement and allow for aeration by virtue of the gates’ free discharge into an adjacent plunge pool. However, if deemed appropriate by, and through consultation with the USACE, the flexibility will exist so that some (or all) of the USACE’s minimum release target can be passed through the bifurcation chamber discharge gate or through the other existing outlet conduit as well.

Releases made by the USACE will pass through the outlet conduit into the bifurcation chamber and distributed according to the following general framework:

(a) If the USACE release is less than the minimum turbine capacity, the turbines will be off- line and the release passed through the forebay fish bypass, or in combination with the bifurcation chamber discharge gate if deemed appropriate by, and through consultation with the USACE. However, as indicated above, FFP anticipates that the USACE’s minimum release target would be passed via the forebay fish bypass under most circumstances.

(b) If the USACE release is at or between minimum and maximum turbine capacity, the discharge gate will be closed and the hydro gate opened to divert the entire release to the forebay, with an amount equal to the USACE minimum release target passing through the fish bypass and the balance passing through the powerhouse.

(c) If the USACE release is greater than maximum turbine capacity, the hydro gate will be opened to divert an amount of water equal to the sum of maximum turbine discharge capacity plus the USACE minimum release target, and the discharge gate will be opened the appropriate amount to pass the excess or balance into the existing stilling basin.

(d) If the powerhouse is off-line, the USACE release will be passed through a combination of the forebay fish bypass and the bifurcation chamber discharge gate (if the penstock or forebay require dewatering, the hydro gate would be closed and the entire release passed via the bifurcation chamber discharge gate or through the other existing outlet conduit).

B-8 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

The plant operator will perform regular inspection and service on a daily basis. In addition to a thorough physical inspection of the structures and equipment, the operator will clean the trashracks and perform minor daily service as required to maintain the Project. The facility operation mode will be run-of-release, utilizing available flows within the operating ranges of the turbines. Continuous plant adjustment will be performed automatically, with the turbine unit selection and output adjustment following available flows in order to maintain the USACE discharge directives.

Ramping rates during start up, shut down, and flow regulation will be moderate. During load rejection events, the unit shut down will be immediate in order to restrict the duration of turbine over-speed and the associated increases in unit discharge.

Natural and organic debris that is collected at the trashrack will not be removed from the site, but instead will be discharged through the gated section located within the riverside wall of the forebay adjacent to the trashracks and into plunge pool draining to the river channel below. Trash or nonorganic debris will be collected and disposed of offsite at an appropriate waste facility

Through utilization of the hydro intake gates and draft tube stop logs, the Project will be able to be completely separated and isolated from USACE reservoir operations. This will allow hydro Project maintenance or repairs to be performed during all reservoir discharge circumstances.

B.3.2.1 Mode of Operation (Manual or Automatic)

The Project will be operated automatically. Operations will be monitored remotely by a local operator and project management by means of a SCADA system. The powerhouse will ordinarily be unmanned, except for brief daily periods of maintenance, inspection and cleaning performed by one primary operator plus additional part-time operators as necessary.

B-9 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

B.3.2.2 Annual Plant Factor

The proposed Project will have an installed capacity of 4.6 MW and average annual energy generation is expected to be 17,700 MWh. The annual plant factor can be expressed as the ratio or percentage of actual generation over theoretical generation, or:

17,700 MWh/yr = 0.44 4.6 MW x 8760 hr/yr

B.3.2.3 Operation During Adverse, Mean and High Water Years

Flows available for generation will consist of water released from the lake according to USACE’s existing lake level and discharge management practices. Accordingly, Project operation during adverse, mean and high water years will be in direct response to the USACE’s discharge management practices for each particular event or water year and are characterized below.

Adverse Years

During the lowest annual discharge releases there may be insufficient flow to allow generation. During these periods, the discharge will be sent directly to the downstream river channel through the discharge gate at the downstream end of the bifurcation (or through the other existing outlet conduit) and the turbine generators will be shut down until sufficient flows are available for generation.

Mean (Normal) Years

During mean or normal years, flows available for generation will be balanced over both the units. As flows increase from minimal discharge release and sufficient water becomes available for operating a turbine, the lead unit will start generating at its minimum rated capacity. As available flow increases to maximum single unit discharge, the second unit will be brought on line and flows balanced between the two units.

B-10 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

High Years (or Periods)

There will be a portion of time during the year that the discharge releases will exceed the total capacity of the Project. During these periods any excess water not used for generation will be sent directly to the stilling basin through the discharge gate at the bifurcation and the other existing outlet conduit employed as needed. It is proposed that USACE staff will perform the primary operation of the discharge gate.

As described in Exhibit A, a 10.25 foot-diameter steel liner will be installed within the existing right (looking downstream) 11-foot-diameter outlet conduit to enable pressurization of that outlet conduit. Under normal conditions, the existence of the liner will have no effect on the carrying capacity of the conduit. Based on hydraulic analyses performed to-date, FFP has identified that somewhat higher pool elevations (larger driving-force head) are needed to convey very large USACE releases that are well above turbine capacity and which are outside of normal USACE and hydro operations (the other existing outlet conduit is unaffected). However, at no point does the existence of the proposed Project, including the lining of the conduit, increase the upper bounds of the USACE’s lake level operation.

This phenomenon is depicted in Figure B.3.2.3-1 which indicates the discharge at which this begins to occur is approximately 1,491 cfs, and this USACE release level is exceeded only 26% of the time (maximum combined turbine discharge is 1,100 cfs). Superimposed on this figure are actual USACE tailwater readings at the existing outlet, most of which correspond to USACE releases below 2,400 cfs, which indicates the infrequent nature of this occurrence (2,400 cfs is the typical maximum release made by the USACE during “non-crop” season and 1,500 cfs is the typical maximum USACE release during “crop” season). The details of this modeling and a thorough discussion of the relationship to USACE operations are described in the Technical Memorandum contained in Appendix TM-Enid located at the end of this Exhibit B.

FFP has made the USACE aware of this phenomenon and FFP maintains on-going consultation with the USACE in this regard.

B-11 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

FIGURE B.3.2.3-1 EXISTING CONDITION AND PROPOSED CONDITION – ENID LAKE OUTLET WORKS

B.4 Dependable Capacity and Average Annual Energy Production

Dependable capacity can be expressed as the amount of power that can be reliably generated in a given period of time during high electrical demand and low inflow. Because releases from the Project will be determined by the USACE, the Project’s dependable capacity has been assumed to be the capacity the site could provide at the lowest monthly average flow during the period of 1962-2011, which in this instance equates to the average April flow of 611 cfs. At this flow rate, the Project can generate 1.59 MW which represents the dependable capacity of the station.

The Project will have an installed capacity of 4.6 MW, an average annual energy production of 17.7 gigawatt hours (GWh) and an average monthly energy production of 1.46 GWh.

The annual energy production will vary from year to year due to variations in rainfall and USACE releases. Figure B.4-1 shows average monthly production of the Project based on

B-12 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

analysis of USACE daily flow and stage characteristics for the period 1962-2011.

FIGURE B.4-1 ENID LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AVERAGE MONTHLY PRODUCTION Enid Dam, Yazoo Cluster Average Monthly Energy Generation, 1962-2011 2.50 2.16 2.16 1.95 2.00 1.75 1.56 1.50

1.50 1.37

h 1.28 1.27 - 1.15 1.13 1.07 GW 1.00

0.50

0.00

Month

B.4.1 Streamflow Records

B.4.1.1 Minimum, Mean, and Maximum Recorded Flows

Based on available USACE outflow data for the period of 1962 through 2011, the minimum, mean, and maximum flows released from the lake during this period are 0 cfs, 992 cfs and 5,200 cfs respectively.

B.4.1.2 Flow Duration Curves

Annual and monthly flow duration curves, developed from USACE outflow data for the period of 1962 through 2011, are shown in Figures B.4.1.2-1 through B.4.1.2-13 below.

B-13 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

FIGURE B.4.1.2-1 ENID DAM ANNUAL FLOW DURATION CURVE

Flow Duration Curve, Enid Dam, 1962 - 2011 5,000 File No. P-13703 4,500

4,000 ANNUAL 3,500

) 3,000 s f c ( w o l 2,500 F

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Probability of Exceedance

B-14 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

FIGURE B.4.1.2-2 ENID DAM JANUARY FLOW DURATION CURVE

FIGURE B.4.1.2-3 ENID DAM FEBRUARY FLOW DURATION CURVE

B-15 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

FIGURE B.4.1.2-4 ENID DAM MARCH FLOW DURATION CURVE

FIGURE B.4.1.2-5 ENID DAM APRIL FLOW DURATION CURVE

B-16 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

FIGURE B.4.1.2-6 ENID DAM MAY FLOW DURATION CURVE

FIGURE B.4.1.2-7 ENID DAM JUNE FLOW DURATION CURVE

B-17 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

FIGURE B.4.1.2-8 ENID DAM JULY FLOW DURATION CURVE

FIGURE B.4.1.2-9 ENID DAM AUGUST FLOW DURATION CURVE

B-18 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

FIGURE B.4.1.2-10 ENID DAM SEPTEMBER FLOW DURATION CURVE

FIGURE B.4.1.2-11 ENID DAM OCTOBER FLOW DURATION CURVE

B-19 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

FIGURE B.4.1.2-12 ENID DAM NOVEMBER FLOW DURATION CURVE

FIGURE B.4.1.2-13 ENID DAM DECEMBER FLOW DURATION CURVE

B-20 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

B.4.1.3 Critical Streamflow for Dependable Capacity

As indicated in Section B.4 above, the critical streamflow for dependable capacity is identified as the low flow month of April and all monthly averages are shown in Table B.4.1.3-1 below.

TABLE B.4.1.3-1 ENID LAKE AVERAGE MONTHLY DISCHARGES Monthly Average Lake Discharges (1962-2010) Month Average Flow (cfs) January 1,311 February 1,166 March 785 April 611 May 649 June 724 July 820 August 1,096 September 1,271 October 1,172 November 1,189 December 1,128

B.4.2 Area Capacity Curve and Rule Curve

The USACE guide curve and area-volume data are shown in the description of existing USACE operations in Section B.3.1 above.

B.4.3 Hydraulic Capacity

The pertinent hydraulic capacities and corresponding generator output at the rated head of the proposed equipment of the Project are shown in Table B.4.3-1 below.

TABLE B.4.3-1 ENID PROJECT HYDRAULIC CAPACITIES Turbine Wicket Gate Powerhouse Discharge Generator Output Setting (cfs) (kW) Minimum Wicket Gate 50 173 Best (Efficient) Wicket 935 3,999 Gate Maximum Wicket Gate 1,100 4,547

B-21 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

B.4.4 Tailwater Rating Curve

The USACE theoretical tailwater curve at the existing outlet is shown in in the description of existing USACE operations in Section B.3.1.

B.4.5 Powerplant Capability Versus Head

The expected plant capability at varying head conditions is shown in Figure B.4.5-1 below.

FIGURE B.4.5-1 POWERPLANT CAPABILITY VS. HEAD Powerplant Capability Vs Head 5000.0

4500.0

4000.0

Maximum Net Head 3500.0 Normal Net Head

Minimum Net Head Capacity (KW) Capacity 3000.0

2500.0

2000.0 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Net Head (Ft)

B.5 Statement of System and Regional Power Needs

Power generated by the Project will be available to meet demand of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) sub-region within the Southeast Electric Reliability Corporation (SERC), one

B-22 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

of the regional entities of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). The Project will be owned and operated by the Applicant and energy (and capacity as applicable) will be sold under a power purchase agreement to an entity such as TVA, utility company, aggregator, or other such wholesale purchaser of electric generation.

According to excerpts from Chapter 4 “Need for Power Analysis” of TVA’s March 2011 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) (TVA 2011);

TVA is gearing up to meet the increased energy demands of growing cities throughout the Southeast… The need for power analysis determines the ability of TVA’s existing energy resources to meet projected electricity demand. It defines the capacity gap which is the difference between supply and demand over the IRP study period. These needs will continue to vary from season to season, day to day and even minute to minute. For the purposes of this IRP, the need for power was analyzed through 2029.

Similarly, the additional graphical excerpts from this report shown in Figures B.5-1 and B.5-2 below depict the future capacity (MW) and energy (GWh) gaps that have been identified by TVA. From this, FFP is confident that the need for power exists and that licensing, construction and commercial operation of the Project will serve the public interest and play an important role in helping close the gap through the provision of clean, renewable energy.

B-23 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

FIGURE B.5-1 ENID PROJECT ESTIMATED CAPACITY GAP (MW)

B-24 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit B Project Operations and Resource Utilization

FIGURE B.5-2 ENID PROJECT ESTIMATED ENERGY GAP (GWH)

B.6 Applicant's Plans for Future Development

FFP has no future plans for development beyond those presented in this license application.

B-25 ©FFP, 2013

APPENDIX TM-ENID TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS – ENID OUTLET WORKS

Project Operations and Resource Utilization Exhibit B Technical Memorandum

TM-1 ©FFP, 2013 Project Operations and Resource Utilization Exhibit B Technical Memorandum

B-2 ©FFP, 2013 Project Operations and Resource Utilization Exhibit B Technical Memorandum

B-3 ©FFP, 2013 Project Operations and Resource Utilization Exhibit B Technical Memorandum

B-4 ©FFP, 2013 Project Operations and Resource Utilization Exhibit B Technical Memorandum

B-5 ©FFP, 2013 Project Operations and Resource Utilization Exhibit B Technical Memorandum

B-6 ©FFP, 2013 Project Operations and Resource Utilization Exhibit B Technical Memorandum

B-7 ©FFP, 2013 Project Operations and Resource Utilization Exhibit B Technical Memorandum

B-8 ©FFP, 2013 Project Operations and Resource Utilization Exhibit B Technical Memorandum

B-9 ©FFP, 2013 Project Operations and Resource Utilization Exhibit B Technical Memorandum

B-10 ©FFP, 2013 Project Operations and Resource Utilization Exhibit B Technical Memorandum

B-11 ©FFP, 2013 Project Operations and Resource Utilization Exhibit B Technical Memorandum

B-12 ©FFP, 2013 Project Operations and Resource Utilization Exhibit B Technical Memorandum

B-13 ©FFP, 2013 Project Operations and Resource Utilization Exhibit B Technical Memorandum

B-14 ©FFP, 2013 Project Operations and Resource Utilization Exhibit B Technical Memorandum

B-15 ©FFP, 2013 Project Operations and Resource Utilization Exhibit B Technical Memorandum

B-16 ©FFP, 2013 Project Operations and Resource Utilization Exhibit B Technical Memorandum

B-17 ©FFP, 2013 Project Operations and Resource Utilization Exhibit B Technical Memorandum

B-18 ©FFP, 2013

EXHIBIT C CONSTRUCTION HISTORY

C.1 Construction History

The Enid Lake Dam is an existing flood control dam owned by the United States of America which is operated and maintained by the Vicksburg District of the USACE. According to best available USACE information, construction of the dam was authorized under the Flood Control Acts of 1936 and 1938, and the President, Mississippi River Commission report of November 13, 1943 recommended construction of the dam. The dam began operation in August 1952, and was fully completed in 1955.

C.2 Proposed Construction Schedule

It is expected that construction of the new Project facilities proposed in this application will begin within two (2) years from the issuance date of the license and be complete within five (5) years from the issuance date of the license.

Since the license issuance date is not yet known, Table C.2-1 depicts the approximate start and end dates of primary schedule components in terms of months after license issuance. Once the license is issued, FFP will promptly prepare for the commencement of construction.

C-1 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit C Construction History

TABLE C.2-1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Start End Item or Milestone (months after (months after license issuance) license issuance) 1 Pre-Construction Planning, Engineering & Final Design 0 12 FERC License Compliance & Regulatory Filings 2 0 24 (those required before start of construction) Finalization of Commercial Attributes 3 0 18 (financing, PPA, interconnect agreement, access/other agreements) Pre-Construction Investigations 4 6 12 (geotechnical, site survey) 5 USACE 404/408 Permitting 6 22 Submittal of Final Plans & Specifications to FERC 6 22 22 (at least 60 days before start of construction) 7 Secure All Final FERC/USACE/Other Approvals 24 24 Major Equipment Procurement, Design, Manufacture & Delivery 8 12 48 (turbine/generator/electrical) 9 Construction Contract Bid/Award & Contractor Preparations 12 24 On-Site Construction 10 (cofferdam/excavation, conduit lining, water conveyance structures, 24 60 concrete structures, equipment installation, BOP, transmission/substation) 11 Start-up and Testing 58 60

12 Commercial Operation 60 60

C-2 ©FFP, 2013

EXHIBIT D STATEMENT OF COSTS AND FINANCING

D.1 Estimate of New Construction Costs

The Enid Lake Dam is an existing flood control dam owned by the United States of America and operated and maintained by the Vicksburg District of the USACE. As such, the new development costs shown below are only for those proposed Project features that are associated with hydroelectric development at this site and which do not currently exist.

The estimated cost for each major item, by major categories of the Uniform System of Accounts, is shown in Table D.1-1 below. These cost estimates are presented in 2013 dollars and are subject to refinement as the Project progresses through the final design and construction phases.

TABLE D.1-1 PROPOSED NEW DEVELOPMENT COSTS Account Title Cost 330 Land and Land Rights $ 286,000 331 Structures and Improvements $ 564,000 332 Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways $ 3,677,000 333 Turbines and Generators $ 4,708,000 334 Accessory Electrical Equipment $ 552,000 335 Miscellaneous Power Plant Equipment $ 126.000 350-359 Transmission and Substation Facilities $ 630.000 Subtotal (including indirect construction costs) $ 10,543,000

Contingency $ 1,417,000 Interest During Construction $ 890,000 Overhead, Administrative & General Expenses $ 1,031,000 Engineering $ 474,000

Total $ 14,355,000

D.2 Approximate Original Cost

The Enid Lake Dam is an existing flood control dam owned by the United States of America and operated and maintained by the Vicksburg District of the USACE. According to best available information, the facility was completed in 1955 at a cost of approximately $15,000,000. The proposed hydroelectric Project will not affect the federal government’s ownership of the dam or

D-1 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit D Statement of Costs and Financing

the USACE’s ongoing operational and maintenance responsibilities. Accordingly, detailed USACE costs associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of its existing dam and related facilities have not been included in this exhibit (nor is such information readily available).

D.3 Takeover Cost

The Applicant is applying for an initial license and is neither a licensee applying for a new license nor a municipality or state. Therefore an estimation of fair value, net investment, and severance charges related to Project takeover pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 807 is not applicable.

D.4 Estimate of Average Annual Costs

The estimated average annual costs of the Project, in 2013 dollars, are shown in Table D.4-1 below. TABLE D.4-1 ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS Item Annual Cost Cost of Capital 9% Local, State and Federal Taxes $ 14,901 Depreciation/Amortization $ 471,229 Operation and Maintenance Expenses $ 172,976 Insurance $ 18,448 FERC Annual Charges $ 3,807

Total $ 681,361

The estimated capital and average annual costs, in 2013 dollars, of environmental measures proposed to be incorporated within the Project are shown in Table D.4-2 below.

D-2 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit D Statement of Costs and Financing

TABLE D.4-2 ESTIMATED COST OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES Item Capital Cost Average Annual Cost Fish Protection & Passage Measures $20,000 $5,000 Recreational Facilities and Improvements $70,000 $10,000 Avian Protection Plan $5,000 $2,500 Transmission Line Corridor Management Plan $5,000 $10,000 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan $10,000 $10,000 Historic Properties Management Plan $10,000 $2,500 Post-Construction Water Quality Monitoring (1 Year) $25,000 n/a

Total 145,000 40,000

D.5 Estimate of Annual Value of Power

Power generated by the Project will be available to meet demand within the TVA sub-region within the Southeast Electric Reliability Council (SERC), one of the regional entities of the North American Reliability Council (NERC). Accordingly, publicly available information indicates that TVA’s Renewable Standard Offer which is expected to average $61.90/MWh over the 20 year period of 2013 – 2032 (ranging from $37.40 in 2013, to $94.60 in 2032). The Project is expected to generate 17,700 MWh of clean, renewable energy annually. Using the TVA average of $61.90/MWh, the current estimate of the average annual value of power is $1,095,630.

As indicated in Exhibits A and B, each forebay will be equipped with a stoplog/gated section intended to serve as a downstream fish bypass outlet and having an expected hydraulic capacity of approximately 100 cfs. This flow would not be available for generation and is not included in FFP’s energy generation figures noted above. This represents an annual lost opportunity of 1,226 MWh, which at the TVA average of $61.90/MWh equates to $75,889.

D.6 Energy Alternatives

Power generated by the Project will be available to meet demand of the TVA sub-region within the SERC, one of the regional entities of the NERC. According to excerpts from Chapter 4 “Need for Power Analysis” of TVA’s March 2011 IRP (TVA 2011), regional energy alternatives are described and shown in Figure D.6-1 below.

D-3 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit D Statement of Costs and Financing

FIGURE D.6-1 TVA BREAKDOWN OF CAPACITY OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION

The Project will serve as a clean, renewable energy resource that provides predictable, reliable power. As noted above, other electrical energy alternatives include nuclear, natural gas, coal and oil-fired generation whose fuel and other costs would be significantly higher than that of the proposed Project. The Project represents an environmentally preferable renewable energy alternative without the production of air pollution or carbon.

D.7 Consequences of Application Denial

The Applicant is applying for an original license to construct a hydroelectric project at an existing USACE flood control dam and reservoir. Accordingly, the denial of this application would not eliminate construction of a new dam and existing non-power attributes of the existing dam would remain. However, should this application be denied, the Applicant will be adversely affected as it has invested years of effort and over $1,075,000 in license development activities, including environmental and engineering studies. Additionally, denial of the application may not be in the public interest as the addition of incremental, clean, renewable energy would not occur.

D-4 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit D Statement of Costs and Financing

D.8 Source and Extent of Financing

The Applicant intends to fund the licensing and construction phases of the Project through a combination of equity and debt financing in conjunction with any applicable or available tax incentives. Project costs will be paid from revenue derived through Project energy and capacity sales, as well as any applicable or available tax incentives.

D.9 Estimate of Cost to Develop License Application

The estimated cost to develop the License Application is expected to total $1,075,000 in 2013 dollars at the time this Final License Application is filed.

D.10 Estimate of On-Peak and Off-Peak Values of Power

On-peak and off-peak values of power within the TVA sub-region are not readily available beyond those identified above. However, the Project will be operated in run-of-release (run-of- river) mode with no storage of flows, whereby outflow from the Project will equal inflow to the Project made available for generation via water released from the existing flood control reservoir according to USACE’s existing lake level and discharge management practices. Pursuant to 18 CFR § 4.41(e)(10), an estimate of the on-peak and off-peak values of power is not applicable for projects which are proposed to operate in a run-of-river mode.

D-5 ©FFP, 2013

EXHIBIT E ENVIRONMENTAL EXHIBIT

E.1 Introduction

E.1.1 Overview of Proposed Project

The proposed Project will include the construction of a new, 4.6 MW hydroelectric facility at the USACE’s existing Enid Dam on the Yocona River in Mississippi. The Yocona River is located within the larger Yazoo River Basin, a sub-basin to the Mississippi River Basin. The proposed Project site is located approximately 6 miles north of the Town of Oakland in Yalobusha County, Mississippi.

The existing dam is operated, maintained, and managed by the USACE, Vicksburg District. The dam is currently managed for flood control, public recreation, conservation of fish and wildlife, and stewardship of public lands.

The proposed Project will utilize the existing USACE intake and outlet conduit, and consist of the addition of a new outlet conduit liner, bifurcation chamber, discharge gates, penstock, forebay, powerhouse, substation and transmission line. The proposed Project will be operated in a run-of-release mode with no storage of flows for generation purposes. Flows available for generation will consist of water released from the lake according to USACE’s existing lake level and discharge management practices. No changes to the current USACE lake level and discharge management practices are proposed. The proposed Project will have an average annual generation of 17.7 GWh.

The proposed Project will deliver all electrical output to the substation via an underground transmission line. A single overhead transmission line will deliver electricity from the substation to the point of interconnection with the electrical grid. Determination of the exact interconnection point, transmission routing, and any utility line upgrade requirements will involve an analysis of utility circuit information and engineering feedback from the electric utility and USACE.

The following map (Figure E.1.1-1) shows the general area of the proposed Project.

E-1 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

FIGURE E.1.1-1 PROPOSED PROJECT GENERAL LOCATION MAP

E-2 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.1.2 General Description of the Locale

E.1.2.1 Yazoo River Basin – Yocona River Watershed

The Yazoo River Basin covers all or parts of 30 counties and is approximately 200 miles in length and up to 100 miles in width in its northern portion. Major streams include the Yazoo, Tallahatchie, Yalobusha, Coldwater, Bogue, Phalia, Yocona, and Sunflower rivers. The Yazoo River Basin spans two physiographic sections of the Coastal Plain physiographic province. The upper watershed is located within the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic section, a region characterized by forested rolling hills and low gradient streams. The lower Yazoo River Basin downstream from Enid Dam is located within the Mississippi Alluvial Plain (MAP) physiographic section of the Coastal Plain province. This region is characterized by generally flat topography and physical features created by the flow of larger rivers and streams including the Mississippi River.

The proposed Project is located along the Yocona River in Yalobusha County, Mississippi (Figure E.1.2.1-1). The Yocona River originates near the City of Pontotoc in Pontotoc County, Mississippi and flows approximately 64 RM in a southwesterly direction to Enid Dam. From Enid Dam, the Yocona River extends approximately 14.5 RM to its confluence with the Little Tallahatchie River near the intersection of Dummyline and Bailey roads in Enid, Mississippi.

The Yocona River Watershed is located largely within the counties of Pontotoc, Calhoun, Yalobusha, Lafayette, Panola, and Tallahatchie, in north-central Mississippi. In total, the Yocona River Watershed encompasses an area of approximately 476,037 acres. Approximately 25 percent (117,637 acres) of the watershed’s total drainage area is located downstream from Enid Dam. Drainage at the Enid Dam is approximately 358,400, acres, or 75 percent of the total Yocona River Watershed drainage. Upstream from Enid Lake, the Yocona River has been largely channelized to reduce flooding (USACE 2000).

E-3 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

FIGURE E.1.2.1-1 MAP OF PROPOSED PROJECT GENERAL LOCATION AND YOCONA RIVER WATERSHED

E-4 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.1.2.2 Yocona River Basin Physiography

The Yocona River is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic province, a subdivision of the Atlantic Plain (Fenneman 1917). The Coastal Plain province encompasses the Mississippi Embayment, a wedge-shaped synclinal structure that plunges to the south and has an axis that generally parallels the Mississippi River (Cushing et al. 1964; Yedlowski and Vento 1991). The result of subsidence within the Mississippi Embayment is a distinctly “belted” arrangement of sedimentary rocks that have filled the synclinal trough (Cushing et al. 1964; Yedlowski and Vento 1991). The differential erosion of these rocks has resulted in several physiographic and ecological divisions.

The USACE’s Enid Dam is located near the point of division between two physiographic sections of the Coastal Plain province. The Yocona River Watershed upstream from Enid Lake is situated in the uplands of the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic section. The East Gulf Coastal Plain has been further subdivided into 9 physiographic districts that comprise the eastern Mississippi Embayment and generally correspond to sedimentary rock “belts.” These districts include the Fall Line Hills, Black Belt, Pontotoc Ridge and Ripley Cuesta, Flatwoods, North Central Plateau, Buhrstone Cuesta, Jackson Prairie, Southern Pine Hills, and Loess Hills physiographic districts (Cushing et al. 1964). Within these broad physiographic districts of the eastern Mississippi Embayment, the USEPA has defined distinct ecoregions that share similarities in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources (Chapman et al. 2004). The physiographic districts generally correspond to the Level IV ecoregions defined by Chapman et al. 2004.

The headwaters of the Yocona River and the river’s upper watershed are located in the in the Northern Hilly Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion. The Northern Hilly Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion is located within North Central Plateau physiographic district. The regional topography is dominated by dissected, rounded hills with gently-to-strongly sloping sideslopes and dissected irregular plains (Chapman et al. 2004). The hydrography is characterized by low to moderate gradient streams with sandy substrates (Chapman et al. 2004). The dominant bedrock lithology along the Yocona River Basin within Northern Hilly Gulf Coastal Plain is the Paleocene Naheola

E-5 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Formation, comprised primarily of thinly laminated fine sands and silty clay or mud (Cushing et al. 1964).

Enid Dam is located at RM 14.5 of the Yocona River. Prior to the great flood of 1927, several uncoordinated attempts were made to protect the Yazoo River Basin communities from flooding. Subsequent studies determined that the delta area of the Yazoo Basin was subject to headwater flooding from basin streams such as the Yocona River. With the authorization of the Flood Control Act in 1936, a plan of improvement to control headwater flooding in the Yazoo River Basin was developed (USACE 2000). This plan would eventually result in the construction of four flood control reservoirs, as well as necessary levees, drainage, and channel improvement works as part of the Yazoo Basin Headwater Project. Enid Lake was one of the four reservoirs constructed as a component of this Yazoo Basin Headwater Project. The reservoir began normal operations in 1952, and construction activities were completed in 1955 (USACE 2000).

Enid Lake drains an area of approximately 358,400 acres as measured at the dam (USACE 2000). The lake has a conservation pool of 230.0 feet NGVD and a flood control pool of 268.0 feet NGVD. At conservation pool elevation, the lake has a volume of 57,600 acre-feet and encompasses an area of approximately 6,100 acres. At flood pool, Enid Lake has a volume of 602,400 acre-feet and encompasses an area of approximately 28,000 acres (USACE 2000). The lake offers many recreational opportunities and facilities, including picnic shelters, campgrounds, lands for hunting and general day-use, boat ramps, fishing platforms and access, beaches, swimming areas, restroom and shower facilities, scenic overlooks, trails, and amphitheaters. Commercial lessees adjacent to the lake also provide additional facilitates and services. Leases to the MDWFP and the Boy Scouts of America provide areas for other types of recreation opportunities. Facilities at the Yocona Ridge State Park, operated by the MDWFP, consist of campgrounds, boat-launching ramps, picnic areas, restrooms, a snack bar, drinking water, and camping pads with electrical hookups (USACE 2000).

Portions of Enid Lake extend into Lafayette, Yalobusha, and Panola counties, and the lake spans 3 ecoregions. The eastern portion of the lake is located within the Northern Hilly Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion, described above. Near Lake Front Road in Yalobusha County, the lake enters

E-6 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

the Loess Hills physiographic district and the Loess Plains ecoregion (Chapman et al. 2004). This region forms the western border of the uplands of the East Gulf Coastal Plain and is characterized by thick mantle of loess. The dissected, irregular Loess Plains have a level to gently rolling topography. Floodplains within the Loess Plains ecoregion are generally wide and flat. Rivers have a low gradient and are characterized by silt and sand substrates. The region was once a highly productive agricultural area, although many areas are now pine plantations or mixed forests. Elevations within the region range from 70-630 feet, and local relief is between 50-200 feet (Chapman et al. 2004).

The southeastern portion of Enid Lake is located within the Bluff Hills ecoregion, also part of the Loess Hills physiographic district. The Bluff Hills represent the western margin of the Loess Plains that has been eroded by the Mississippi River. The resulting scarp is one of the most notable physiographic features of the Coastal Plain (Cushing et al. 2004; Rodbell undated). The Bluff Hills are mantled in a thick layer of loess that can be more than 50 feet thick. This deeply dissected region features a mosaic of microenvironments, including dry slopes and ridges, moist slopes, ravines, bottomland areas, and small cypress swamps (Chapman et al. 2004). Forest and cropland dominate the steep hillsides and narrow valleys of the Bluff Hills. Streams in this ecoregion have a moderate to low gradient and are characterized by silt, sand, and gravel substrates. Elevations within the Bluff Hills range from 100-250 feet (Chapman et al. 2004).

Downstream from Enid Dam, the Yocona River flows through the Bluff Hills and Loess Plains for approximately 10 miles before transitioning from the East Gulf Coastal Plain to the MAP physiographic section near the intersection of Crowder Pope Road and Mississippi State Highway 35 in Panola County. The MAP is a broad physiographic region that extends from southern Illinois at the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers south to the Gulf of Mexico (Chapman et al. 2004). This region is characterized by a generally flat topography and physical features created by the flow of large rivers and streams, including the Yazoo River (Chapman et al. 2004).

The broad flat region of the MAP between the Yazoo River on the east and the Mississippi River on the west is defined as the Yazoo Basin physiographic district. The Yazoo Basin is known

E-7 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

colloquially as the “Delta” and encompasses several ecoregions that reflect differing depositional environments and characteristics (Chapman et al. 2004). At the eastern margin of the Yazoo Basin, the Yocona River flows through the Northern Pleistocene Valley Trains ecoregion. This region is comprised primarily of glacial outwash deposits from the Mississippi River, with surface features that reflect braided-stream glacial regimes (Chapman et al. 2004). Although these deposits were largely buried under Holocene alluvial deposits or eroded by lateral channel migration, the glacial outwash deposits are still exposed along the lower Yocona River. These remnant valley trains date to approximately 10,000-20,000 years before present, and are slightly above the surrounding Holocene floodplains (Chapman et al. 2004). The Northern Pleistocene Valley Trains ecoregion is characterized by flat plains with relict patterns of branching channels, irregular braid bars, and interfluvial areas. Streams in this region are typically low gradient waterbodies with silty substrates. Elevations generally range from 30-214 feet, with local relief between 30-214 feet (Chapman et al. 2004).

The channelized Yocona River flows south thorough the Northern Pleistocene Valley Trains ecoregion for approximately 3 RM before reaching its confluence with the Little Tallahatchie River in Enid.

E.1.2.3 Project Area Climate

The proposed Project is located in a humid subtropical climate region that is characterized by temperate winters and long, hot summers. The Yocona Watershed receives significantly less rain than the nearby Yalobusha or the Little Tallahatchie watersheds. The average annual temperature at Enid, Mississippi for the period of record from January 2008 to May 2013 was 61.7°F (Table E.1.2.3-1). July air temperatures at Enid for the 2008-2013 period of record ranged from an average high of 91.7°F to an average low of 70.6°F. The average high temperature for January was 50.8°F, while the average low temperature was 29.8°F. Annual mean total rainfall at Enid for the period of record was 47.5 inches, with the highest levels of precipitation occurring in October and December, and between March through May, annually.

E-8 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.1.2.3-1 TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION DATA, AT ENID, MISSISSIPPI, FROM 2008 TO MAY 2013 Average High Average Low Mean Mean Period Temperature Temperature Temperature Precipitation (degrees F) (degrees F) (degrees F) (inches) January 50.8 29.8 40.3 3.7 February 55.7 33.2 44.5 2.7 March 65.2 41.5 53.4 4.6 April 75.4 49.5 62.4 5.0 May 81.7 57.9 68.9 5.9 June 90.9 68.6 79.7 3.4 July 91.7 70.6 81.1 3.4 August 91.2 69.3 80.2 2.1 September 86.2 61.8 74.0 3.3 October 73.9 47.4 60.6 4.8 November 64.9 39.2 52.1 3.6 December 53.2 32.5 42.9 5.0 Annual 73.4 50.1 61.7 4.0

The Yocona Basin is frequently subjected to periods of drought and flooding with an average rainfall of approximately 47.5 inches per year. The watershed receives approximately 215 days of sunshine per year.

E.1.2.4 Yocona River Tributaries

The Yocona River is joined by over 2,080 named tributaries and many more unnamed streams as it flows from its origin in Pontotoc County, Mississippi to its confluence with the Tallahatchie River. In the upper portion of the watershed (upstream of Enid Lake) these tributaries are characterized as a network of channelized ditches and stream segments. Major tributaries of the upper watershed include but are not limited to Davis Creek, Splinter Creek, Jones Creek, Taylor Creek, Morris Creek, Burney Branch, Yellow Leaf Creek, Ox Branch, Pumpkin Creek, Lizard Creek, Cat Hair Creek, Kettle Creek, Wolf Creek, Slick Creek, Little Creek, Potluckney Creek, Muckaloon Creek, McCaine Creek, Sarter Creek, Tidwell Creek, Sand Creek, Greasy Creek and Goodwin Creek (Figure E.1-3).

E-9 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Tributaries that flow directly into Enid Lake include the Yocona River, Bynum Creek, Mooney Creek, Billys Creek, Long Branch, Erost Creek, Dew Creek, Bean Creek, Flowers Creek, Hubbard Creek and several smaller named and unnamed tributaries.

Tributaries to the Yocona River in the lower portion of the watershed (between the dam and the confluence with the Little Tallahatchie River) include Caney Creek, Long Creek, Johnson Creek, Hurt Creek, Peter Creek, Bobo Bayou and many other smaller named and unnamed tributaries (Figure E.1.2.4-1).

E-10 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

FIGURE E.1.2.4-1 MAP OF YOCONA RIVER BASIN MAJOR NAMED STREAMS AND TRIBUTARIES

E-11 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.2 Report on Water Use and Quality

E.2.1 Water Use

In 1927, disastrous flooding led to plans for the construction of four flood control dams in the Yazoo River Basin in northern Mississippi. The Enid Lake, Sardis Lake, Arkabutla Lake, and Grenada Lake flood control reservoirs were constructed to provide comprehensive high flow management for the Yazoo River Basin.

The proposed Project will utilize the existing USACE intake and outlet conduit, and consist of the addition of a new outlet conduit liner, bifurcation chamber, discharge and diversion gates, penstock, forebay, powerhouse, tailrace, substation, and transmission line. The proposed Project will be operated in a run-of-release mode with no storage of flows for generation purposes. Flows available for generation will consist of water released from the lake according to USACE’s existing lake level and discharge management practices. No changes to the current USACE lake level and discharge management practices are proposed.

E.2.1.1 Estimated Quantities of Water Discharged from the Proposed Project for Power Production

As described in Exhibit B of this license application, Table E.2.1.1-1 provides the estimated quantities of water that will be discharged from the proposed Project for power production and includes the minimum, efficient, and maximum discharges of the proposed turbine units.

TABLE E.2.1.1-1 ENID PROJECT HYDRAULIC CAPACITIES Turbine Wicket Gate Powerhouse Discharge Setting (cfs) Minimum Wicket Gate 100 Best (Efficient) Wicket 935 Gate Maximum Wicket Gate 1,100

Average monthly discharge from Enid Lake is presented in Table E.2.1.1-2.

E-12 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.2.1.1-2 ENID LAKE AVERAGE MONTHLY DISCHARGES Monthly Average Lake Discharges (1962-2011) Month Average Flow (cfs) January 1,311 February 1,166 March 785 April 611 May 649 June 724 July 820 August 1,096 September 1,271 October 1,172 November 1,189 December 1,128

E.2.1.2 Other Existing and Proposed Water Uses

This section describes existing water uses including water withdrawals and water discharges. As described above, the Applicant proposes to utilize Project waters for power productions; there are no other known uses proposed for Project waters.

E.2.1.2.1 Water Withdrawals

According to the USACE WCM, Enid Lake is the only Yazoo Basin Lake that has a water supply storage agreement. This June 8, 1998 agreement is between the United States of America and LSP Energy Limited Partnership (LSP) and gives LSP rights to 4,500 acre-feet of storage (10.9 mgd) within Enid Lake for municipal and industrial water supply. Additionally, residential, commercial, and industrial water users are also supplied by groundwater in the Bluff Hills portion of the Yazoo River Basin.

Additional instream flow uses are generally for recreational activities including fishing, boating, and swimming.

E-13 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.2.1.2.2 Water Discharges

Mapping of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) shows that the Yocona River is utilized and permitted for wastewater receiving (National Atlas 2012). However, no surface water discharge points were found in the direct vicinity (i.e. one mile radius) of the proposed Project.

E.2.1.2.3 USACE Enid Lake Operations

The USACE’s operation of the lake is defined in its 1989 Master Water Control Manual, Yazoo Basin Lakes with Standing Instructions (and updated in 2000) which contains reservoir elevation guide curves designed to provide storage during the winter and spring in an effort to prevent or minimize downstream flooding and high water impacts. The existing dam is operated, maintained, and managed by the USACE, Vicksburg District.

E.2.1.3 Other Instream Flow Uses

In addition to flood control operations, the USACE currently manages Enid Lake for public recreation, conservation of fish and wildlife, and stewardship of public lands. Instream flow uses include recreational activities such as boating, swimming, fishing, and waterfowl hunting.

E.2.2 Water Quantity

The proposed Project will be operated in a run of release mode with no storage of flows. Flows available for generation will consist of water released from Enid Lake according to USACE’s existing lake level and discharge management practices. Monthly and annual flow duration curves were developed using USACE flow data at the existing Enid Dam and are presented in Exhibit B. The calculated minimum, mean, and maximum-recorded stream flow for the Enid Project for the period of record (1961 to 2011) is presented in Table E.2.2-1.

E-14 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.2.2-1 MINIMUM, MEAN, AND MAXIMUM FLOW AT ENID DAM Minimum Mean Period of Maximum Flow Flow Flow Record

0 cfs 992 5,200 1962 – 2011

E.2.3 Water Quality

The State of Mississippi Water Quality Standards are described in the document State of Mississippi Water Quality Criteria for Intrastate, Interstate, and Coastal Waters, which was prepared by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality and adopted by the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality in 2007 (MDEQ 2007). The State of Mississippi classifies its water bodies based on designated uses of public water supply, shellfish harvest, fish and wildlife, recreation, and ephemeral streams (MDEQ 2012). The Designated Use Classification for Enid Lake is “Recreation,” and the Yocona River downstream reach classification is “Fish and Wildlife.” Each of these use classifications have various water quality criteria or standards that apply to those water body uses. Applicable water quality criteria are presented in Table E.2.3-1. The proposed Project is not anticipated to discharge or otherwise effect toxic chemical levels, therefore water quality criteria for parameters such as metals and pesticides are not presented.

TABLE E.2.3-1 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Parameter Water Quality Standard Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Daily average greater than 5.0 mg/L, instantaneous minimum greater than 4.0 mg/L. Temperature Maximum temperature shall not exceed 90°F (32°C) in streams, lakes, and reservoirs. Discharge of heated waters shall not exceed 5°F (2.78°C).. pH The normal pH of the waters shall be 6.0 to 9.0 and shall not be caused to vary more than 1.0 unit within this range. Specific Conductance There shall be no substances added to increase the conductivity above 1000 micromhos/cm for freshwater streams. (Source: MDEQ 2007)

E.2.4 Existing Water Quality Information

Certain portions of the water bodies of the Yazoo River Basin, including Enid Lake and the Yocona River reach immediately downstream of Enid Lake are listed as impaired for mercury

E-15 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

(Table E.2.4-1). The Yocono River from the Enid spillway downstream to the Panola Quitman Floodway has a TMDL to address high levels of nutrients and organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen (DO) (MDEQ 2008). This same reach is also listed as impaired due to elevated levels of sediment/siltation resulting from land use runoff and in-channel processes such as agriculture, construction, urban areas, mass wasting areas, and channel alterations (MDEQ 2008). Fish consumption advisories have been in effect for Enid Lake since 1995 and the Yocona River since 1996, due to mercury levels in fish tissues (MDEQ 2002). The advisory recommends limiting consumption of largemouth bass and large catfish (>27 inches) to no more than one meal every two weeks (adults), or no more than one meal every two months (children under seven and women of child-bearing age) (MDEQ 2012).

In support of this license application, and consistent with the April 3, 2013 RPSD, the Applicant initiated water quality study activities on April 16, 2013 to; (a) collect baseline DO and temperature water quality data, (b) evaluate potential differences in water quality between Enid Lake near the intake and downstream of the proposed Project in the Yocona River, and (c) compare collected data to state standards as an initial means of assessing potential Project effects on water quality.

An interim report was submitted in Appendix C-1 of Volume II of the Draft License Application and presented the water quality data that could be safely collected from April 16, 2013 through May 20, 2013. Water quality data collection continued through October 7, 2013 and are included in the Water Quality Report located in Appendix C-1 of Volume II of this FLA.

The water quality study included deployment of two Hobo® U26 DO/Temperature Loggers (logger); one was deployed from shore near the USACE intake structure in Enid Lake (Site: WP13 in Figure E.2.4-1) and one was deployed downstream of the proposed Project within the Yocona River on April 17, 2012 (Site: WP4 in Figure E.2.4-1). The loggers recorded DO and water temperature data at 15-minute intervals and were placed at locations expected to be least likely subjected to tampering by the large number of recreational users and anglers who use the area while still being representative of intake and downstream river channel conditions.

E-16 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

To prevent bio fouling, an antifouling guard was used on each instrument. Sites were visited routinely throughout the monitoring period. During each field visit, data were downloaded, a calibration check was conducted, and loggers were cleaned when the instruments were accessible from shore. Often substantial bio fouling of the logger housing occurred, which was much less prevalent on the instrument probe, but may have affected data nonetheless. Additionally, the logger sensor caps were replaced in July immediately after learning of a manufacturing defect. According to the manufacturer, the defect prevented instruments from collecting data at higher temperatures and DO concentrations, which also may have affected data.

In addition, discrete water quality sampling locations were established to collect instantaneous water quality data during each site visit and to collect supplemental spatial data including additional parameters. Water quality parameters collected during each discrete sampling event included DO, specific conductance, pH, and temperature. Discrete water quality data were collected to represent near shore/near surface waters as well as at other sites throughout the Project area. It is important to note, that discrete data were collected as close as possible to the continuous logger deployment locations in order to field check logger data. However, it was not possible to collect discrete data at the exact site locations or depths of the continuous loggers.

Water quality data, which could be safely collected between April 16, 2013 and October 7, 2013, is summarized below; with detailed graphics and discussion of the continuous data contained in the Water Quality Study Report in Appendix C-1, Volume II of this FLA. In light of the bio fouling and manufacturer defect discovered, the continuous data may not be fully representative of actual conditions (DO in particular) when considering that state standards were met at the time of each discrete reading. Data collected with respect to loggers identified in Figure E.2.4-1 are presented below.

E-17 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

FIGURE E.2.4-1 WATER QUALITY SAMPLE LOCATIONS IN ENID LAKE AND THE YOCONA RIVER

E-18 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.2.4.1 Enid Reservoir Intake- Upstream Water Quality Data

Continuous Water Quality Data Site WP13 represented the upstream water quality and was located near the buoy line, northeast of the intake structure (Figure 2.4-1). The site was dominated by riprap and the site was relatively turbulent depending on releases. Water temperatures displayed a typical seasonal trend, which ranged from 17 to 32°C and were below the maximum state criteria (Figure E.2.4.1-1). No data were available for Enid from the mid-July to late-August due to a logger malfunction during redeployment. Dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged up to 11.1 mg/L and periodically were below the minimum instantaneous criteria, especially from late-May through mid-July and coincided with rising temperatures.

FIGURE E.2.4.1-1 ENID INTAKE CONTINUOUS WATER TEMPERATURE AND DO DATA SITE WP13– ENID LAKE Temp (Deg C) DO (mg/L) Minimum Instantaneous DO Criteria Logger retrieval Maximum Temp Criteria Discharge (cfs) 35 2500

30 2000

25

1500 20

DO (mg/L) DO 15 Temp (Deg C) (Deg Temp

1000 (cfs) Discharge

10

500 5

0 0

Date

E-19 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Discrete Water Quality Data As opposed to the continuous data loggers, discrete water quality data were collected closer to the water surface. Water temperatures ranged from 18.7 to 31.2°C (Figure 2.4.1-2), DO ranged from 6.2 to 9.4 mg/L (Figure 2.4.1-3), percent saturation for DO ranged from 73.7 to 128.5, pH data ranged from 6.9 to 8.6 units and specific conductance ranged from 32.4 to 60.9 µS/cm. Water temperatures were below the maximum state criteria and DO concentrations were above the minimum instantaneous state criteria. The pH was within the allowable state standards range of 6.0 to 9.0 units. As expected, water temperatures appeared to be warmer in July and August, which often coincided with slightly lower DO concentrations during these months (Figures 2.4.1-2 & 2.4.1-3). Water temperatures and DO concentrations at the intake often differed slightly from those at sites located downstream of Enid Lake, but there was no obvious trend and differences were variable.

FIGURE 2.4.1-2 ENID DISCRETE WATER TEMPERATURE DATA – YOCONA RIVER

4/16/2013 4/17/2013 4/24/2013 4/25/2013 5/20/2013 7/9/2013 7/12/2013 7/13/2013 8/26/2013 8/27/2013 10/7/2013 35 Maximum Temperature Criteria

30

25

20

15

Water Temperature (Deg C) Temperature Water 10

5 WP5 WP4 WP6 WP13 WP3 WP2 WP1 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Distance from Intake (ft)

E-20 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

FIGURE 2.4.1-3 ENID DISCRETE DO DATA – YOCONA RIVER 4/16/2013 4/17/2013 4/24/2013 4/25/2013 5/20/2013 7/9/2013 7/12/2013 7/13/2013 8/26/2013 8/27/2013 10/7/2013 12

10

8

6

Minimum Instantaneous DO Criteria Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Oxygen Dissolved 4

2 WP13 WP5 WP4 WP6 WP3 WP2 WP1 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Distance from Intake (ft)

E.2.4.2 Yocona River- Downstream Water Quality Data

Continuous Water Quality Data Site WP4 represented the downstream water quality sampling location and was located approximately 1,475 feet downstream from the intake of Enid Lake (Figure 2.4-1). This site was underneath a fishing peer with substrate dominated by riprap and fine sediment. Typically, water temperatures were seasonal and ranged from 15 to 30°C, which were below the maximum state standard except in early-August where erratic readings occurred. Water temperatures were substantially higher and more erratic during this period and the logger may have been periodically exposed during very low releases from Enid Reservoir. DO concentrations ranged

E-21 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

up to 10.3 mg/L and were generally above the minimum instantaneous criteria except during the mid-summer low flow periods.

FIGURE E.2.4.2-1 ENID DOWNSTREAM CONTINUOUS WATER TEMPERATURE AND DO DATA SITE WP4– YOCONA RIVER Temp (Deg C) DO (mg/L) Minimum Instantaneous DO Criteria Logger retrieval Maximum Temp Criteria Discharge (cfs) 35 2500

30 2000

25

1500 20

DO (mg/L) DO 15 Temp (Deg C) C) (Deg Temp

1000 (cfs) Discharge

10

500 5

0 0

Date

Discrete Water Quality Data As opposed to the continuous data loggers, discrete water quality data were collected closer to the water surface. Discrete water quality data were collected at six sites downstream from the Enid Reservoir Intake (Figure 2.4-1). All sites were located in a channelized portion of the Yocona River, which were dominated by riprap. Water temperatures ranged from 16.4 to 29.3°C (Figure 2.4.1-1), DO ranged from 5.4 to 9.6 mg/L (Figure 2.4.1-2), percent saturation for DO ranged from 68.8 to 128.8, pH data ranged from 6.1 to 7.6 units and specific conductance ranged from 32.2 to 82.6 µS/cm. Water temperatures were below the maximum state criteria and DO

E-22 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

concentrations were above the minimum instantaneous state criteria. The pH was within the state standards allowable range of 6.0 to 9.0 units. Water temperatures appeared to be warmer in July and August, which often coincided with slightly lower DO concentrations during these months. Water temperatures and DO concentrations were relatively consistent throughout the sample reach, except on April 16 when the DO concentrations were substantially lower at sites WP1, WP2, and WP3 (Figures 2.4.1-1 & 2.4.1-2). Periods of low discharge may have effected DO concentrations.

E.2.4.3 Comparison between Intake and Downstream Data

Based on the continuous data, water temperatures generally appeared to be higher near the intake than in the Yocona River downstream of the outlet. Due to the erratic fluctuations in DO concentrations as measured by the continuous loggers it is difficult to discern any potential differences in DO concentrations near the intake structure, but DO concentration appeared to be higher at downstream locations (Figure E.2.4.3-1). Discrete data also suggest water temperatures can be slightly warmer at the intake than at downstream location. Generally, DO concentrations were often higher in the Yocona River than near the intake and exceeded the minimum state instantaneous criteria. The pH appeared to be higher in Enid Reservoir than in the Yocona River.

E-23 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

FIGURE E.2.4.3-1 ENID CONTINUOUS WATER TEMPERATURE AND DOXYGEN DATA COMPARISON BETWEEN INTAKE SITE (WP13) AND DOWNSTREAM SITE (WP4) Temp (Deg C) - Downstream (WP4) DO (mg/L) - Downstream (WP4) Minimum Instantaneous DO Criteria Temp (Deg C) - Intake (WP13) DO (mg/L) - Intake (WP13) Maximum Temp Criteria Discharge (cfs) 35 2500

30 2000

25

1500 20

DO (mg/L) DO 15 Temp (Deg C) (Deg Temp

1000 (cfs) Discharge

10

500 5

0 0

Date

E.2.5 Impoundment Characteristics

The relevant characteristics of the existing impoundment are tabulated in Table E.2.5-1. The Project proposes to use the water power potential of the existing dam and impoundment. No changes to the impoundment are proposed, and the impoundment is not proposed to be included within the FERC Project boundary.

E-24 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.2.5-1 AVAILABLE IMPOUNDMENT CHARACTERISTICS FOR ENID LAKE Value at Value at Characteristic Conservation Flood Control Pool Elevation Pool Elevation Surface Elev. 230.0 ft. NGVD 268.0 ft. NGVD Surface Area 6,100 ac. 28,000 ac Shoreline Length 65 miles 220 miles Estimated Maximum Depth 20 feet 58 feet Volume 57,600 ac-ft. 602,400 ac-ft. Flushing Rate1 29.0 days 303.7 days Substrate Classification Silt, mud, sand and hardpan clay2 Downstream Gradient Approximately 1.2%3 1 Flushing rate is reservoir volume divided by mean flow. (Source: USACE 2012e) 2 Cooper and Johnson (1980) 3 Based on field observations

E.2.6 Potential Project Effects on Water Use and Quality

The proposed Project will be operated in a run-of-release mode with no storage of flows for generation purposes. Flows available for generation will consist of water released from the lake according to USACE’s existing lake level and discharge management practices. No changes to the current USACE lake level and discharge management practices are proposed. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to change the existing water uses in the Yazoo River Basin.

The State of Mississippi utilizes a regulated riparian regime for water allocation. It involves comprehensive statutory water withdrawal and water management permitting and planning programs (Mulvaney and Park 2010). However, the proposed Project would utilize only flows released under the direction of the USACE based on flood control and conservation flow practices. Therefore, the proposed Project is not anticipated to have an effect on water rights or water allocation.

E.2.6.1 Potential Temporary Construction Related Effects

Project construction will involve powerhouse excavation, structure placement, and ground clearing that may have the potential to cause minor and temporary effects.

E-25 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Short-term sediment mobilization could occur during the placement of the cofferdam and subsequent dewatering; however, Best Management Practices (BMP) will be implemented to minimize the potential for this affect. Once in place, sediment mobilization would be minimal due to the separation of construction activities from the Yocona River. Upon the removal of the cofferdam, short term sediment mobilization may potentially occur until it becomes stabilized during operations. Construction activities taking place on land may have the potential to mobilize soil.

Prior to commencing construction activities, the Applicant proposes to develop and finalize an erosion and sediment control plan in consultation with the USACE, MDWFP, and MDEQ to include appropriate BMP and to properly manage sediment and erosion during construction and final stabilization. Actions covered by the plan would include, but not be limited to, placement of siltation fencing, protection of temporarily disturbed ground, final stabilization, and adequate storage of potential pollutants on the construction site (i.e., gasoline, oil etc.).

E.2.6.2 Potential Operational Effects

The proposed Project will not significantly change existing reservoir storage or downstream flow regime. The proposed Project will utilize the existing intake and outlet conduit, and consist of the addition of a new outlet conduit liner, bifurcation chamber and associated gates, penstock, forebay, powerhouse, substation and transmission line. Currently, all water released by the USACE passes through the outlet conduit and into the stilling basin over a series of energy dissipation blocks which provides aeration benefits. USACE (2000) states these releases average 90 percent DO saturation. According to the USACE, the USACE’s typical minimum release target of 50 cfs provides beneficial flows downstream that are higher than natural conditions and for pollution abatement (USACE 2000). As described in Exhibit B, the proposed Project has included measures and flexibility to pass through the USACE minimum release target. The proposed Project is not anticipated to change the existing water uses in the Yazoo River Basin.

Since the proposed bifurcation chamber will divert flows to the powerhouse (flows up to powerhouse discharge capacity), there may be a potential effect on the amount of aeration that presently occurs within the stilling basin when USACE releases are at, or below turbine capacity.

E-26 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

However, since only one of the two outlet conduits will be used by the Project, the opportunity remains for the USACE to make nominal releases through the conduit not used by the Project.

Additionally and as described in Exhibit B, the proposed Project has included measures and flexibility to pass through the USACE minimum release target via the forebay fish bypass outlet to facilitate downstream fish movement and allow for aeration by virtue of the gates’ free discharge into an adjacent plunge pool. The proposed Project is not anticipated to change the existing water uses or quality in the Yazoo River Basin.

E.2.7 Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures Recommended by Resource Agencies

FFP is continuing to consult with the appropriate resource agencies regarding appropriate PM&E measure for the water use and quality. No specific PM&E measures have been recommended at this time regarding water use and quality.

E.2.8 Applicant-Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures

As described in Exhibits A and B, FFP has incorporated features and flexibility within the proposed Project works to facilitate the pass through of the USACE’s minimum release target (100 cfs) to allow aeration benefits to continue. These features consist of; (a) the forebay fish bypass surface outlet, and (b) the bifurcation chamber discharge gate. FFP will pass through the USACE’s minimum release target under all hydro operating conditions. FFP anticipates that under most circumstances, the USACE’s minimum release target would be passed via the forebay fish bypass outlet to facilitate downstream fish movement and allow for aeration by virtue of the gates’ free discharge into an adjacent plunge pool. However, if deemed appropriate, the flexibility will exist that some (or all) of the USACE’s minimum release target can be passed through the bifurcation chamber discharge gate providing aeration benefits as well (or through the other outlet conduit not used by the Project). Similarly, the balance of USACE releases that exceed turbine discharge capacity will either be released through the outlet conduit not used by the Project, or through the bifurcation chamber discharge gate and into the existing stilling basis (and over the energy dissipation blocks), and as such, would continue to provide the aeration benefits.

E-27 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

FFP proposes to perform one year of post-construction water quality monitoring to assure that the project is functioning as intended and applicable provisions of the 401 Water Quality Certificate are met. FFP expects this monitoring program will be developed in consultation with the MDWFP, the MDEQ, and the USACE.

Prior to construction, detailed erosion and sediment control plans will be developed and finalized in consultation with the USACE, MDWFP, and MDEQ. FFP will employ BMP to address sediment and erosion control during construction and final stabilization. Actions covered by the plan will include, but are not be limited to, placement of siltation fencing, protection of temporarily disturbed ground, final stabilization, and adequate storage of potential pollutants on the construction site (i.e., gasoline, oil etc.).

E.2.9 Groundwater Description

FFP proposes to use the water power potential of the existing dam and impoundment for operation of the proposed Project. No changes to the impoundment are proposed, and the impoundment is not proposed to be included within the FERC Project boundary. Because this section pertains to the construction of a new dam or impoundment (and none are proposed), no material effects on groundwater are expected.

E-28 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.3 Report on Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources

E.3.1 Existing Fish Community

Fish species known to occur in the upper Yazoo River and Yocona River Basin, including Enid Lake are listed in Table E.3.1-1. The Yazoo River Basin and its tributaries provide habitat for a variety of resident fish. Over 100 species are known to occur in the Yazoo River Basin (Killgore et al. 1990). Several comprehensive fisheries studies have been performed in the Yazoo River Basin. Riecke (1996) studied crappie and other fish species composition and abundance that passed through the nearby Enid Dam. The MDWFP has indicated that similar results can be expected at the Enid Dam and that the 1996 data is expected to represent current trends. The MDWFP has conducted fall electrofishing surveys in Sardis Lake intermittently from 1949 to present. Data obtained from these surveys included raw collection data of targeted game (crappie, black and temperate bass, sunfish, and catfish) and non-game forage/rough fish (shad, carp, bowfin, and gar). Gizzard shad and bluegill represented the majority of the electrofishing collections in all years and reservoirs. These data are provided in Appendix E-1a through E-1d of Volume II of this FLA.2 Readily available information on fish species specific to Enid Lake and the Yocona River in the vicinity of the outlet channel is summarized below.

In 1989, Killgore et al. (1990) sampled multiple outlet channels in the upper Yazoo River drainage, but did not separate out data by sample location. The study found seventy species of fish numerically dominated by minnows (18 species), sunfish (14 species), suckers (7 species), and darters (6 species). The numerically dominant fish species collected by hoop nets were longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus), smallmouth buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus), blue sucker (Cycleptus elongates), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens). The numerically dominant fish species collected by electrofishing were blacktail shiner (Cyprinella venusta), bullhead minnow (Pimephales vigilax), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), orangespotted sunfish (L. humilis), warmouth (L. gulosus), and white

2 Fisheries data obtained from MDWFP at the time of DLA filing (and noted in the DLA) has been incorporated within the applicable sections of this FLA and associated study reports.

E-29 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

crappie. Most species were found 10 to 25 feet from the shoreline, in water depths ranging from 6 to 15 feet and in water velocities from 0.9 to 1.6 ft/sec (Killgore et al. 1990).

More recent data specific to the nearby Yalobusha River, another upper Yazoo tributary, was collected by Knight et al. (2001). Results are expected to be representative of potential fish species presence in the Yocona River downstream of Enid Lake. The channelized reach of the Yocona River was characterized with low velocities (0.23 to 0.69 ft/s) and a mean depth of 5.6 feet, and dominated by sand with pockets of silt and mud substrates and woody debris (Knight et al. 2001). Electrofishing and hoop net sampling in this habitat resulted in the collection of 18 species (Table E.3.1-1), dominated by smallmouth buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus) at 80 percent of the catch (Knight et al. 2001).

TABLE E.3.1-1 FISHES OF THE YAZOO RIVER BASIN Previously Documented MDWFP Yazoo in Outlet Upper Enid Lake Scientific Name Common Name River Channel or Yalobusha1 Sampling Basin2 Net 1993-20124 Collections at Enid3 Amiidae Amia calva Bowfin X Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel X Aphredoderidae Aphredoderus sayanus Pirate perch X Atherinidae Labidesthes sicculus Brook silverside X X Menidia beryllina Inland silverside X Catostomidae Carpiodes carpio River carpsucker X X Cycleptus elongates Blue sucker X X Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth buffalo X X X Ictiobus cyprinellus Bigmouth buffalo X X X Ictiobus niger Black buffalo X X Minytrema melanops Spotted sucker X

E-30 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Previously Documented MDWFP Yazoo in Outlet Upper Enid Lake Scientific Name Common Name River Channel or Yalobusha1 Sampling Basin2 Net 1993-20124 Collections at Enid3 Moxostoma poesilurum Blacktail redhorse X X Centrarchidae Elassoma zonatum Banded pygmy X X sunfish Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish X X Lepomis gulosus Warmouth X X X Lepomis humilis Orangespotted X X sunfish Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill X X Lepomis marginatus Dollar sunfish X Lepomis megalotis Longear sunfish X X Lepomis microlophus Redear sunfish X X X Lepomis punctatus Spotted sunfish X X X Lepomis symmetricus Bantam sunfish X Micropterus punctulatus Spotted bass X X X Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass X X X Pomoxis annularis White crappie X X X X Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie X X X X Clupeidae Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad X X X X Dorosoma petenense Threadfin shad X X Cyprinidae Cyprinella camura Bluntface shiner X X Cyprinella lutrensis Red shiner X X Cyprinella venusta Blacktail shiner X X Cyprinella venusta Eastern blacktail X cercostigma shiner Cyprinus carpio Common carp X X X X Hybognathus nuchalis Silvery minnow X Hybopsis aestivalis Speckled chub X Hybopsis storeriana Silver chub X

E-31 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Previously Documented MDWFP Yazoo in Outlet Upper Enid Lake Scientific Name Common Name River Channel or Yalobusha1 Sampling Basin2 Net 1993-20124 Collections at Enid3 Luxilus chrysocephalus Striped shiner X X Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner X X Notropis atherinoides Emerald shiner X X X Notropis buchanani Ghost shiner X Notropis rafinesquei Yazoo shiner X Notropis shumardi Silverband shiner X Notropis texanus Weed shiner X Notropis umbratilis Redfin shiner X Notropis volucellus Mimic shiner X X Opsopoedus emiliae Pugnose minnow X X Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow X Pimephales vigilax Bullhead minnow X X Cyprinodontidae Fundulus chrysotus Golden topminnow X Fundulus notatus Blackstripe X topminnow Fundulus olivaceus Blackspotted minnow X X X Hiodontidae Hiodon alosoides Goldeye X Hiodon tergisus Mooneye X Ictaluridae Ameiurus melas Black bullhead X Ameiurus natalis Yellow bullhead X X Ictalurus furcatus Blue catfish X Ictalurus punctatus Channel catfish X X X X Noturus gyrinus Tadpole madtom X Noturus noturnus Freckled madtom X Pylodictis olivaris Flathead catfish X X X X Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted gar X X X Lepisosteus osseus Longnose gar X X X

E-32 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Previously Documented MDWFP Yazoo in Outlet Upper Enid Lake Scientific Name Common Name River Channel or Yalobusha1 Sampling Basin2 Net 1993-20124 Collections at Enid3 Lepisosteus platostomus Shortnose gar X X X Percidae Etheostoma asprigene Mud darter X Etheostoma caeruleum Rainbow darter X Etheostoma Bluntnose darter X chlorosomum Etheostoma whipplei Redfin darter X Percina sciera Dusky darter X Stizostedion canadense Sauger X Percichthyidae Morone chrysops White bass X X X X Morone saxatilis Striped bass X Poeciliidae Gambusia affinis Mosquitofish X Polyodontidae Polyodon spathula Paddlefish X X Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater drum X X X Note: 1 Knight et al. 2001; 2 Killgore et al 1990; 3 Riecke 1996; 4 These data are targeted to game and management species and does not include any minnow of forage species. Data was collected annually from 1993-2003 and biannually from 2004-2012.

Recreational fishing is a popular activity at the dam. Enid Lake is identified as being number twenty on the list of best crappie lakes in the world by Fishound® Fishing Reports. The state record for white crappie occurred on Enid Lake in 1957 (MDWFP 2013a). Both shore fishing and boat fishing are prominent activities encouraged by the USACE and MDWFP in the lake and also in the downstream outlet channels. The state record for shortnose and spotted gar are listed at the Enid Dam spillway in 1999 and 2012, respectively. Creel surveys were routinely conducted at the proposed Project site in the 1960s and 1970s, with additional surveys conducted from 1992 to 1994 (Riecke 1996). Black and white crappies were the primary species targeted and harvested by anglers, with catfish, white bass and sunfish also being important recreational

E-33 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

species. Angling effort averaged 7.0 hours/acre at Enid Reservoir based on years of data collected from 1957 to 1986 (Riecke 1996). All of the upper Yazoo reservoirs are considered to be trophy crappie fisheries (MDWFP 2011). Other popular game fish include largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), catfish (Ictalurus sp.), and various sunfish (Lepomis sp.) species. Forage fish include various minnow (Pimephales sp.) and shiner (Notropis sp.) species, sunfish, and gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum).

The MDWFP provided significant fisheries data for Enid Lake covering the years 1996-2003, 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2012, as well as the 2008, 20010, 2011, and 2012 Statewide Fisheries Management Reports.

E.3.1.1 Fisheries Invasive Species

Invasive species are considered to be one of the major threats to the integrity of native aquatic ecosystems, Table E.3.1.1-1 lists fish considered as invasive species of priority concern within the State of Mississippi (USGS 2004). The common carp is widespread throughout the United States, including Enid Lake and the Yazoo River drainage. The USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database (NAS) identified the bighead carp as documented in the upper Yazoo River at Greenwood, and the grass carp and goldfish in the Yazoo River drainage (USGS 2004). The USGS (2004) also noted the red-bellied pacu was released as aquarium fish into Enid and Enid Lakes in 2003 but the populations failed to establish. None of the other invasive species listed in Table E.3.1.1-1 were reported to occur in the Project area (USGS 2004).

TABLE E.3.1.1-1 LIST OF INVASIVE FISH SPECIES IN MISSISSIPPI Family Scientific Name Common Name Characidae Piaractus brachypomus Pirapatinga, red-bellied pacu Cichlidae Astronotus ocellatus Oscar Cichlidae Oreochromis niloticus Nile tilapia Cichlidae Oreochromis, Sarotherodon, Tilapia Tilapia sp. Cyprinidae Carassius auratus Goldfish Cyprinidae Ctenopharyngodon idella Grass carp Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio Common carp

E-34 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Family Scientific Name Common Name Cyprinidae Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Silver carp Cyprinidae Hypophthalmichthys nobilis Bighead carp Cyprinidae Tinca tinca Tench Loricariidae Pterygoplichthys disjunctivus Vermiculated sailfin catfish Source: USGS 2004

E.3.1.2 Threatened or Endangered Fish Species

None of the fish species collected in the proposed Project area are Mississippi State or federally listed as endangered or threatened. A search of the Mississippi Natural Heritage Program database resulted in two fish species of “special concern” in Yalobusha County. These species include the Steelcolor shiner (Cyprinella whipplei) and the Yazoo darter (Etheostoma raneyi) (Table E.3.1.2-1). Based on available information, the Steelcolor shiner and the Yazoo darter may occur in the proposed Project area (Table E.3.1.2-1).

TABLE E.3.1.2-1 NHP “SPECIAL CONCERN” FISH FOR YALOBUSHA COUNTY WITH RANKING STATUS AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS Global State Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Requirements3 Ranking1 Ranking2 Inhabits impoundments and Cyprinella whipplei Steelcolor Shiner G5 S2 lakes, and pools and backwaters of small to large rivers. Sand and gravel runs, sandy and Etheostoma raneyi Yazoo Darter G2 S2 muddy pools and backwaters, of small to large rivers; less often in lakes and impoundments. 1 G5 – Secure; G2 Imperiled Globally 2 S2 – Imperiled within Mississippi 3 NatureServe 2012.

E.3.2 Temporal and Spatial Distribution

In support of the licensing for this proposed Project, FFP conducted an Aquatic Habitat Assessment Study (Appendix C-2) to characterize existing aquatic habitat and evaluate the effect of future Project operations on water depths, velocities, and flow patterns and the potential effect to resident fish using these habitats through the use of habitat–use guilds. Habitat-use guilds are useful in summarizing affinities by groups of species to similar habitat variables (depth, velocity,

E-35 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

and substrate) during particular life stages. Table E.3.2-1 provides a list of fish species documented in the Yocona outlet channel by Kilgore et al. (1990) and in net collections at Enid Lake (Riecke 1996). Table E.3.2-2 also provides general habitat use information (based on depth and velocity) by lifestage for each species that has been documented in the outlet channel tailwaters. The types selected typically utilize the habitats found in the proposed Project area, specifically the immediate outlet channel. Although a small portion of the guild species selected may not occur in the proposed Project waters, their habitat preferences mimic those (guild approach) of certain target species/life stages that do occur in these locations, and their habitat suitability criteria have typically been transferable across the southeast. A description of each guild type is provided in Table E.3.2-2. Spawning and early life stage periodicities for target species are provided in Table E.3.2-3. These “target species” represent species in the outlet channel that are locally abundant and/or important from a management, ecological, or conservational perspective. All are considered resident species of the river system downstream of the lake, occurring or potentially occurring in the outlet channel year round.

Additional information on seasonal occurrence of fish species is summarized based on tailrace conduit sampling conducted at the Enid Dam by Riecke (1996). Results are expected to be similar at Arkabutla. Samples were collected in the Enid Dam conduits between Enid Reservoir and the outlet channel from February 1993 to April 1994. Crappies (black and white), freshwater drum, gizzard shad, channel catfish bluegill and white bass were collected in most months in variable numbers. The white crappie was most abundant in late winter (February, March) and fall (September, October, and November) while the black crappie was most abundant in June and August. The freshwater drum was most abundant in April and May and the gizzard shad was most abundant in winter. Bluegill dominated the catch in July.

E-36 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.3.2-1 HABITAT GUILDS FOR FISH SPECIES DOCUMENTED IN OUTLET CHANNEL TAILRACES (KILLGORE ET AL. 1990) OR IN NET COLLECTION AT ENID (RIECKE 1996) Habitat Guild and Life Stage1,2 Scientific Name Common Name Shallow Shallow Deep Deep Slow Fast Slow Fast Catostomidae Suckers Carpiodes carpio River carpsucker S A Cycleptus elongatus Blue sucker S A,J,S Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth buffalo J A A, S A Ictiobus cyprinellus Bigmouth buffalo A Ictiobus niger Black buffalo A A, S Minytrema melanops Spotted Sucker J S A Moxostoma poecilurum Blacktail redhorse S A,J Centrarchidae Sunfishes Elassoma zonatum Banded pygmy sunfish A,J,S A,J,S Lepomis humilis Orangespotted sunfish A,J,S A,J,S Lepomis punctatus Spotted sunfish A,J,S A,J,S L. cyanellus Green Sunfish A,J,S L. gulosus Warmouth A,J,S L. macrochirus Bluegill J,S A,J,S Lepomis megalotis Longear sunfish J,S A,J,S L. microlophus Redear Sunfish A,J,S Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass J,S A,J,S M. punctulatus Spotted Bass A,J,S Pomoxis annularis White Crappie A,J,S A,J P. nigromaculatus Black Crappie A,J,S Clupeidae Herrings Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad A,J A,J,S D. petenense Threadfin Shad A,J A,J,S Cyprinidae Carps and Minnows Cyprinella camura Bluntface shiner J A Cyprinus carpio Common Carp J,S A,J,S Cyprinella lutrensis Red shiner A,J S A,J Cyprinella venusta Eastern blacktail shiner A,J A A cercostigma Blackspotted Fundulus olivaceus A,J A,J topminnow Luxilus chrysocephalus Striped shiner A S A Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner A,J,S A,J,S Notropis atherinoides Emerald shiner A,J,S A,J,S Notropis volucellus Mimic shiner A S A Opsopoeodus emiliae Pugnose minnow A,J,S A,J,S Pimephales vigilax Bullhead minnow A,J,S A,J,S

E-37 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Habitat Guild and Life Stage1,2 Scientific Name Common Name Shallow Shallow Deep Deep Slow Fast Slow Fast Ictaluridae Catfishes Ictalurus furcatus Blue catfish A,J,S Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish A,J,S J A. natalis Yellow Bullhead A Pylodictis olivaris Flathead Catfish J A,J,S Lepisosteidae Gars Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar A,J A,J Lepisosteus platostomus Shortnose gar A,J,S A,J Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted gar A,J,S A,J Moronidae Temperate basses Morone. chrysops White Bass A,S Atherinidae Silversides Labidesthes sicculus Brook silverside A Polyodontidae Paddlefishes Polyodon spathula Paddlefish S S Sciaenidae Drums Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater drum A A,S Note: 1 Life stages: A = adult; J = juvenile, including young-of-year; S = spawning 2 Classification of species and life stages into habitat types based on Ross et al. (2001), Becker (1983), Hamilton and Nelson (1984), Aadland (1993), Jenkins and Burkhead (1993), Rhode et al. (1994), Leonard and Dilts (2003), and Progress Energy (2006).

TABLE E.3.2-2 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT-USE GUILDS AND SPECIES REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE OUTLET CHANNELS Guild Representative Substrate/Cover Type Yazoo Representative Species/Lifestage Species/Lifestage SHALLOW-SLOW GUILD (Depth < 2 ft, Velocity < 1 ft/s) Fine substrate without Redbreast sunfish spawning Representative of centrarchid (bluegill and cover crappie) spawning requirements

Coarse substrate Generic shallow-slow guild Representative of the habitat requirements of adult cyprinids (bullhead minnow) and the YOY of species (flathead catfish) that may use the predominant substrate type found in the outlet channel None Generic shallow-slow guild; Representative of the habitat requirements of bluehead chub fry many adult cyprinids (emerald shiner) and the YOY of many species (largemouth bass) since there are no substrate or cover requirements

E-38 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Guild Representative Substrate/Cover Type Yazoo Representative Species/Lifestage Species/Lifestage SHALLOW-FAST GUILD (Depth < 2 ft, Velocity > 1 ft/s) Lower velocity with Margined madtom adult Representative of many spawning cyprinids coarse substrate and no (red shiner) cover Moderate velocity with Generic shallow-fast guild Representative of all species inhabiting coarse substrate and no shallow-fast habitats since there is no cover substrate and cover requirements High velocity with coarse Fantail darter adult Representative of species inhabiting shallow- substrate and cover fast habitats with coarse substrate and cover requirements (blackspotted topminnow adult and juvenile) DEEP-SLOW GUILD (Depth > 2 ft, Velocity < 1 ft/s) Cover Redbreast sunfish adult Representative of many adult centrarchids (orangespotted sunfish, bluegill, crappie, and largemouth bass) and other cover dependent species (brook silverside) reliant on boulder cover types which are predominant in the outlet channel No cover Generic deep-slow guild Representative of many species (gizzard shad, channel catfish, freshwater drum adults, and spotted gar adults and juveniles) inhabiting deep, slow habitats since there are no substrate or cover criteria Cover Generic deep-slow guild Representative of many species inhabiting deep, slow habitats that are cover dependent (channel catfish spawning) DEEP-FAST GUILD (Depth > 2 ft, Velocity > 1 ft/s) Fine substrate Silver redhorse adult Representative of many adult catostomids (smallmouth buffalo) and cyprinids (blacktail shiner) Gravel/small cobble White bass spawning Representative of those species requiring substrate deep-fast habitats for spawning on coarse substrate (white bass and paddlefish spawning) Coarse-mixed susbtrate Shorthead rehorse adult Representative of those species requiring deep-fast habitats for foraging on coarse- mixed substrate (blue sucker adults and juveniles) Source: Aadland 1991; Entrix 2002 and 2003; and Progress Energy 2006

E-39 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.3.2-3 SPAWNING AND EARLY LIFE STAGE PERIODICITIES FOR YOCONA TARGET FISH SPECIES Water Species Temp Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ( C )* Black Crappie 20.0

Blackspotted Unknown Topminnow Bluegill 26.5

Brook Silverside 20.0

Blue Sucker Unknown

Bullhead Minnow Unknown

Channel Catfish 20.0

Eas tern Blacktail Unknown Shiner Emerald Shiner 21.5

Freshwater Drum 22.0

Gizzard Sh ad 15.5

Largemouth Bas s 18.5

Orangespotted Sunfish 20.0

Paddlefish 12.0

Red Shiner Unknown

Smallmouth Buffalo 17.0

Spotted Gar 23.5

White Bass 16.0

White Crappie 21.5

Spawning Period Eggs and Larvae (estimated to begin two-thirds of the way through the spawning period and lasting 60 days post spawn) * Average temperature recorded for initiation of spawning Sources: Ross et al. 2001; ODNR 2012; Jenkins and Burkhead (1993); Pflieger (1997); Stauffer et al. (1995); Smith (1985)

E-40 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.3.3 Aquatic Habitat

The proposed Project area consists of two distinct aquatic habitats, a lacustrine habitat contained upstream within the lake (reservoir) created by the dam, and riverine habitat downstream from the dam’s outlet. The lacustrine habitat created by the lake’s depth profile conforms to the original topography of the valley and floodplain. The lake’s substrates consist of muddy silt and clay sediments.

Water is stored in the lake in the winter and spring to regulate downstream flows for flood control. The prime flood control season extends from mid-winter through late spring. The highest lake elevations generally occur in late spring to early summer depending on the annual water supply. The lake typically reaches its lowest elevation in early to late fall when the USACE draws down the lake to provide more storage capacity. Water is released in the winter months to meet downstream demands and to maintain flood control. River flow downstream of the proposed Project is unimpeded to its confluence with the Yalobusha River. The Yalobusha River then joins with the Tallahatchie River to form the Yazoo River. The Yazoo River continues unimpeded to the Mississippi River. As result, fish movement is unimpeded from the Mississippi River to the outlet of the dam.

The riverine habitat immediately downstream of the proposed Project area consists mainly of a man-made riprap river channel along the sides and bottom. Streams throughout Mississippi have been subjected to a wide array of alterations in the past, especially east of the MAP. Stream channels have been widened, deepened, de-snagged and straightened through channelization projects for flood control. This has resulted in shortening of streams, increases in stream gradient and loss of habitat for animals both in and near the streams (Mississippi Museum of Natural Science [MMNS] 2005).

Mesohabitat and Substrate/Cover Type Mapping

The Enid outlet channel has varied mesohabitat, depth, substrate, gradient, and flow dynamic characteristics (see Figure E.3.6.1.1-1). Immediately downstream from the boulder-dominated stilling basin pool (7 to 8 feet deep), the channel transitions into a shallow-fast run-type habitat

E-41 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

(0.5 to 1 foot deep) dominated by bedrock substrate. The bedrock run extends a few hundred feet downstream and cascades into a plunge-pool (7 to 13 feet deep) dominated by boulder substrate. Boulder-dominated pool habitat extends downstream to an area of aggradation (sand/gravel) or shallow-pool habitat (3 to 5 feet deep) that continues beyond the lower portion of the Enid outlet channel. According to Kilgore et al. (1990), erosion and sedimentation have caused certain reaches of the outlet channels to aggrade over the last 40 years, resulting in their inability to carry the original designed volume of water. Riecke (1996) described their inability to navigate upstream in a boat to the Enid outlet channel tailwaters due to such aggradation.

The length and area of the downstream Enid outlet channel assessed for aquatic habitat at Enid were approximately 1,150 feet and 2.65 acres, respectively (Table E.3.3-1). Deep-slow pool habitats with coarse substrate account for approximately 59 percent of the downstream surveyed area. Similar to the other sites, boulder substrates offer some instream cover. The one deep- slow pool with fine substrate (19 percent of the downstream surveyed area) occurs downstream from the bedrock run that produces a noticeable drop in elevation. A large section of this transect was noticeably filled in with sand. Riecke (1996) suggested that access to the immediate tailwaters via boat was extremely limited at low release periods due to an exposed pipeline and various sandy shoals. One shallow-fast run with bedrock substrate comprised about 22 percent of the downstream surveyed area. A vertical drop of approximately 3.3 feet over 260 feet of linear distance (1.2 percent average slope) was measured, creating a cascading/plunge effect at the downstream extent. The proposed powerhouse will discharge directly into the deep-fast habitat unit within the stilling basin.

E-42 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.3.3-1 HABITAT COMPOSITION IN THE ENID DOWNSTREAM SURVEYED AREA Guild Habitat Approximate Approximate Type Surveyed Percent of Area (ac) Surveyed Area Habitat Upstream of Proposed Project Discharge Deep-Slow Coarse Substrate 0.64 24% Subtotal 0.64 24% Habitat Downstream of Proposed Project Discharge Shallow-Fast Coarse Substrate 0.57 22% Deep-Slow Coarse Substrate 0.94 35% Deep-Slow Fine Substrate 0.50 19% Subtotal 2.01 76% Total 2.65 100%

Cross-Sectional Profile and Measurements

Channel characteristics were measured at three cross-sectional transects (E1, E2, and E3) representing three habitat types at Enid. Table E.3.3-2 provides a summary of channel characteristics used in the habitat evaluation. The habitat evaluation for a higher flow rate was only conducted for Transect E1 the susceptibility of stage changes there, downstream proximity to the tailwater, and level of accuracy for predicting depths/mean channel velocities. Maximum point velocities taken near the thalweg of the channel at Transect E1 were approximately 3 ft/sec during the observed minimum flow release of 50 cfs.

E-43 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.3.3-2 MEASURED AND ESTIMATED CHANNEL CHARACTERISTICS AT ENID Calculated Avg. Wetted Depth (ft) Transect Discharge (cfs) Transect Velocity Width (ft) Min Max (ft/sec) 50 801 0.31 1.21 0.92 E1 1,100 1022 1.22 3.22 4.32 E2 50 901 1.31 13.21 0.12 E3 50 1181 1.51 10.11 0.12 1 Values represent field measurements taken at 100 cfs; 2 Values represent calculations based on the Enid tailwater curve (USACE 2000-2011 tailwater data as provided in the Hydraulics Study Report located in Exhibit B of this FLA) and field measurements taken at 100 cfs.

E.3.3.1 Essential Fish Habitat

The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act authorized the National Marine Fisheries Service, in coordination with regional fisheries management councils, to delineate Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for the protection of habitat of marine, estuarine, and anadromous finfish, mollusks, and crustaceans. EFH includes "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." The Yocona River Basin is not located within designated EFH for any species.

E.3.4 Fisheries Resource Management Plans

State fisheries management plans are administered by MDWFP through the Mississippi Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). The MDWFP is responsible for managing sport fish populations in public waters throughout the state. To meet stocking needs MDWFP owns and operates three fish hatcheries including the Turcotte Hatchery in Canton, Meridian Hatchery in Meridian, and the new North Mississippi Hatchery in Enid. Fish are stocked to establish sport fish populations in new or renovated systems, restore sport fish populations following natural or man-induced fish kills, and introduce new species to enhance or establish a new fishery. Up to 15 species are normally reared for the stocking programs including largemouth bass, crappie (black and white sp.), channel catfish, bluegill and redear sunfish, and Gulf of Mexico strain of striped bass and hybrid striped bass. Other fish produced are the southern walleye, blue and flathead catfish and paddlefish (MDWFP 2012).

E-44 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

The North Mississippi Fish Hatchery and Visitor Education Center (Center) is located on 58 acres within a short distance of the USACE’s Enid Lake Dam. The facility is operated by MDWFP and features a native habitat area, 10,000 gallon aquarium, interactive exhibits, displays, artifacts, fishing rodeo pond, and an art gallery. The Center promotes the sport of freshwater fishing in Mississippi, and encourages the conservation and stewardship of aquatic resources (MDWFP, 2012).

E.3.5 Freshwater Mussel and Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Species

Aquatic macroinvertebrates are often used to evaluate water quality and aquatic life conditions within streams and rivers, and are often incorporated into federal and state water quality assessment efforts (Barbour et al. 1999; USGS 2009; Tetra Tech, Inc. 2003). Readily available information on the composition of aquatic macroinvertebrate communities of the Yocona River is summarized below.

Further discussion is broken down into two major groups, aquatic macroinvertebrates and freshwater mussels.

E.3.5.1 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

Killgore et al. (1990) conducted a baseline survey of the aquatic macroinvertebrate communities immediately downstream in the outlet channels of the four flood control reservoirs in the Upper Yazoo river drainage, Grenada Dam, Arkabutla Dam, Sardis Dam, and Enid dams to evaluate potential impacts of channelization. Lotic-erosional (unstable sand or scoured clay and debris), lotic-depositional (soft mud and silt associated with negligible water current velocity) sediment, and rock surfaces from revetted banks of the immediate outlet channel communities of aquatic macroinvertebrates were sampled. For all survey areas combined, the density of aquatic macroinvertebrates was lowest in the lotic-erosional sediments (2,632 individuals/sq m), moderately high in depositional sediments (8,638 individuals/sq. mi.), and highest on rock riprap just downstream of the dams (11,003 individuals/sq m). Erosional and depositional habitats (fine substrates) were dominated by chironomids (midges) and oligochaetes (segmented worms) comprising 76% and 92% of the community, respectively. The rock revetment substrates were

E-45 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

numerically dominated by Hydra (freshwater hydrozoan) comprising 45% of the samples, followed by chironomids (26%), oligochaetes (16.18%) and trichoptera (caddisflies) (10.95%). Although Hydra was numerically dominant on lotic-rocks, oligochaetes, chironomids, and trichopterans accounted for most of the aquatic macroinvertebrate biomass.

E.3.5.2 Freshwater Mollusks

Freshwater mussels are one of the most diverse groups of aquatic organisms and nearly 300 species have been reported in North America (Williams et al. 1993; Turgeon et al. 1998). However, mussels have declined over the past century or more. Declines have been attributed to many factors, but primarily related to habitat degradation resulting from land use practices (deforestation, farming, livestock, construction), stream channelization, dredging, pollution, invasive species, commercial harvesting, loss of host fish, and construction of impoundments (Bogan 1993; Watters 2000; Jones et al. 2005). Freshwater mussels are particularly sensitive to physical and chemical habitat alterations, which can result from impoundment dredging and channelization (Williams et al. 1993). Readily available information on freshwater mussels and other mollusk species within the proposed Project area is summarized below.

Jones et al. (2005) presented an overview of the unionid fauna of Mississippi, listing 85 species. The greatest number of taxa are found in the Tombigbee River drainage (52), followed by the Yazoo River drainage (46), and the Pearl River and the Big Black River drainages (39). Within the Yazoo River drainage, the most diverse fauna occurs in the Big Sunflower River. Jones et al. (2005) considered nearly half of the freshwater mussel taxa in Mississippi as imperiled and 10 species were considered to be extirpated from the state. The review and summary table of mussel species did not separate out tributary data such as for the Yocona River.

Haag and Warren (2006) surveyed Lower Sardis Lake, a short reach of old river channel on the Little Tallahatchie River immediately downstream of Sardis Dam spillway. A total of 20 native mussel species were found in varied habitat in the Lower Sardis Lake (Table E.3.5.2-2). Species diversity and density increased with increasing current velocity and substrate size. Evidence of recent recruitment was found for most mussel species. The invasive Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) was also found throughout the Lower Sardis Lake habitats.

E-46 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.3.5.2-1 FRESHWATER MOLLUSKS OF LOWER SARDIS LAKE DOWNSTREAM OF SARDIS DAM BASED ON HAAG AND WARREN 2006 Riverine or Open Backwaters or Open Species1 Common Name Lake with Lake without current current Arcidens confragosus Rock pocketbook X Amblema plicata Threeridge X X Anodonta suborbiculata Flat floater X Fusconaia ebena Ebonyshell X Lampsilis cardium Plain pocketbook X Lampsilis teres Yellow sandshell X X Leptodea fragilis Fragile papershell X X Megalonaias nervosa Washboard X Obliquaria reflexa Threehorn wartyback X X Plectomerus dombeyanus Bankclimber X Potamilus ohiensis Pink papershell X Potamilus purpuratus Bleufer X X Pyganodon grandis Giant floater X X Quadrula pustulosa Pimpleback X X Quadrula quadrula Mapleleaf X X Toxolasma parvus Lilliput X Toxolasma texasensis Texas lilliput X X Tritogonia verrucosa Pistolgrip X Truncilla donaciformis Fawnsfoot X Utterbackia imbecillis Paper pondshell X X

One additional source of information on freshwater mollusks was found for other upper Yazoo River tributaries and associated reservoirs; Cooper and Johnson (1980). The mollusk species described in this source can be expected to be similar to those within the proposed Project area.

Cooper and Johnson (1980) reviewed existing information on mollusks of the northwest Mississippi area and found that data was limited to a single survey by Hinkley (1906, as cited in Cooper and Johnson 1980) prior to their investigation. Grenada Lake and the Yalobusha River downstream of Grenada Dam were surveyed for bivalve mollusk from 1973-1976 by Cooper and Johnson (1980). Survey data were characterized by four habitat types, river bottom, reservoir littoral, reservoir profundal, and tailwaters. The tailwaters area was characterized as artificial

E-47 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

habitat of swift and turbulent waters with rock boulders on the channel sides and sand-gravel or mud-muck substrate mid-channel. Grenada Lake substrates varied from sand to hardpan clay affected by water level fluctuations and wave action to mud substrates in deeper profundal waters. Four species of mussels were found in the upper portion of the river with its sandy substrate and sluggish low flow (Table E.3.5.2-1). A small number of fingernail clams (Sphaerium rhomboideum) and the invasive Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) were found in the lake habitats. Toxolasma parvus was the main inhabitant of Yalobusha River upstream of the reservoir. The peaclam was the dominant mollusk within the reservoir samples. Q. pustulosa, P. purpurata and L. anodontoides composed the majority of the bivalves in the swift waters downstream of the reservoir spillway.

TABLE E.3.5.2-2 FRESHWATER MOLLUSKS OF GRENADA LAKE AND YALOBUSHA RIVER BASED ON COOPER AND JOHNSON 1980 Presence in Species1 Common Name Yalobusha River2 Corbicula fluminea Asiatic clam C Sphaerium rhomboideum Rhomboid fingernailclam C Eupera cubensis Mottled fingernailclam C Lampsilis fasiola Wavyrayed lampmussel D Lamsilis straminea claibornensis (Lampsilis Southern fatmucket A claibornensis) Leptodea fragilis Fragile papershell D Obliquaria reflexa Threehorn wartyback D Plectomerus dombeyanus Bankclimber D Potamilus purpuratus (Proptera purpurata) Bleufer B, D Pyganodon grandis (Anodonta corpulenta) Giant floater D Quadrula pustulosa pustulosa Pimpleback D Toxolasma parvus (Carunculina parva) Lilliput A Uniomerus tetralasmus Pondhorn A Utterbackia imbecillis (Anodonta imbecillis) Paper pondshell C Villosa lienosa Little spectaclecase A 1 Names following Turgeon et al. 1998 and Graf and Cummings 2013 with original reference name in parentheses. Current name for mussel identified by Cooper and Johnson as Lampsilis anodontoidea fallaciosa is uncertain. 2 A = Yocona River above Grenada Reservoir; B = Grenada Reservoir littoral; C = Grenada Reservoir – profundal; D = Yocona River tailwaters downstream of the Grenada Dam

E-48 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.3.5.3 Threatened or Endangered Species

There are no known occurrences of mussels or aquatic invertebrate species listed as endangered or threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the proposed Project area.

A search of the Mississippi Natural Heritage Program database for Yalobusha County resulted in seven aquatic invertebrate species listed as species of special concern (Table E.3.5.3-1; MDWFP 2013). MDWFP has indicated that the “special concern” designation is not an official designation for management of the species, but merely a designation for Mississippi State tracking purposes. The Shutispear crayfish (Procambarus lylei) is a headwater stream species and thus unlikely to occur in the proposed Project area. Information specific to the proposed Project area was not identified however based on information regarding mussel species in nearby upper Yazoo drainages, these mussel species may occur in the proposed Project area.

TABLE E.3.5.3-1 NHP “SPECIAL CONCERN” MUSSELS FOR YALOBUSHA COUNTY WITH RANKING STATUS AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS Global State Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Requirements3 Ranking1 Ranking2 Tolerant of a wide variety of aquatic habitats, small streams in strong or slow current, with Leptodea fragilis Fragile papershell G5 S5 coarse gravel and sand or sand and mud substrates, up to 15 or 20 feet depths Mud or gravel in quiet or slow- Potamilus purpuratus Bleufer G5 S5 moving waters in rivers of all sizes and large lakes Headwaters streams with cool, firm sand bottoms, moderate to Procambarus lylei Shutispear Crayfish G2 S2 swift flow, and with trapped leaf litter Mud and mixed substrates in Pyganodon grandis Giant floater G5 S5 ponds, lakes, and rivers of various sizes Generalized habitat preferences of shallow to deep sections of large reservoirs and small to Quadrula pustulosa Pimpleback G5 S5 medium-sized free-flowing rivers; coarse gravel, sand, and silt substrates Mud and sand under slow-flow Toxolasma texasiensis Texas lilliput G4 S4 or still waters often from feeder creeks, protected or ponded

E-49 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Global State Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Requirements3 Ranking1 Ranking2 waters or from small to medium streams Quiet or slow-moving, shallow waters; tolerant of poor water Uniomerus tetralasmus Pondhorn G5 S5 conditions and can be found well buried in a substrate of fine silt and/or mud 1 G5 – Secure; G4 – Apparently Secure; G3 – Vulnerable; G2 – Imperiled 2 S5 – Secure; S4 – Apparently Secure; S3 – Vulnerable; S2 – Imperiled; S1 — Critically imperiled 3 NatureServe 2012.

E.3.5.4 Invasive Species

The Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) is an invasive species with a wide distribution throughout Mississippi and the United States. It was first collected in the United States along the banks of the Columbia River, Washington in 1938 (Counts 1986 as cited in Foster et al. 2013). In Mississippi, it was first documented in 1963 (Hubricht 1963 as cited in Jones et al. 2005), including Grenada Lake (Cooper and Johnson 1980), and likely occurs in Enid Lake. The Asiatic clam is a small light-colored bivalve with distinctive concentric ridges on the shell. This species has caused substantial problems with biofouling of water intake structures. It is thought to be spread accidentally through use of bait buckets, boat transfers, and through introductions associated with imported aquaculture species. It can become very abundant to the point of altering substrate characteristics. The extent to which the Asiatic clam competes with native species for limited resources is not well understood.

A search of the USGS NAS for other aquatic invertebrates did not result in other invertebrate species documented in the upper Yazoo River drainage basin (USGS 2004).

E.3.6 Potential Project Effects

E.3.6.1 Potential Operational Effects

Project operations activities with the potential to affect aquatic species may include:

 Habitat changes resulting from changes to hydraulic conditions  Turbine impingement, entrainment and survival

E-50 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

FFP has conducted the Habitat Mapping and Assessment study and the Fish Impingement, Entrainment and Survival study described below to assess potential Project operations effects on aquatic species.

E.3.6.1.1 Habitat Mapping and Assessment

A Habitat Mapping and Assessment Study was undertaken in April, 2013 at the proposed Project. This survey was conducted to identify existing habitat types and general hydraulic conditions and to examine potential changes which could occur as a result of the proposed Project.

Habitats assessed during the field reconnaissance included the shallow-fast bedrock run with coarse substrate (Transect E1), deep-slow pool with coarse substrate (Transect E2), and deep- slow pool with fine substrate (Figure E.3.6.1.1-1). Average channel velocity at Transect E1 under a low flow (50 cfs) was calculated at 0.87 ft/sec, with a depth range of 0.3 to 1.2 feet. Although shallow-slow guild species favor these velocities and depths, the bedrock substrate provides no cover, and very few species in the outlet channels would select this habitat type (Ross et al. 2001). At the maximum flow of 1,100 cfs, which is the proposed Project’s hydraulic operating capacity, average channel velocity increases to 4.28 ft/sec, and the depth range increases to 1.2-3.2 feet. Under this higher flow regime, suitability theoretically increases for those species represented in both the shallow-fast and deep-fast guilds. However, the bedrock substrate would detract most species from selecting this habitat. Although flow effects on the pool habitats were not assessed, the data collected at the observed flow of 50 cfs (average channel velocity of 0.1 ft/sec for each habitat type and depth range from 1.3 to 13.2 feet) support suitability requirements for deep-slow guild species/lifestages preferring coarse and fine substrates (e.g., adult brook silverside and crappie).

The proposed location of the powerhouse discharge has the potential to enhance fish habitat within the Enid downstream surveyed area. Since a portion of the discharge will empty into the stilling basin, it is expected that there should be no isolation of habitats upstream from the powerhouse discharge. Instead, a backwater eddy has the likely potential to form upstream to the outlet structure, creating a variety of slackwater and flowing habitats. This condition would

E-51 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

only occur until the hydraulic capacity (1,100 cfs) of the proposed Project is met, after which additional discharge would pass through the existing stilling basin and provide additional flowing habitats. Based on the annual flow duration curve (1984-2011) for Enid, flows released into the tailrace are less than 1,100 cfs approximately 55% of the time (FFP 2012). During these periods, habitats upstream of the powerhouse discharge may experience a backwater effect from generation. Based on historic operations, this would most likely occur during the months of March through June. The potentially affected area (upstream from the powerhouse discharge) represents approximately 24% of the downstream surveyed area (or 0.64 acres).

E-52 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

FIGURE E.3.6.1.1-1 ENID OUTLET CHANNEL SUBSTRATE AND MESOHABITAT MAP WITH PROPOSED PROJECT POWERHOUSE OVERLAY

E-53 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

FIGURE E.3.6.1.1-2 TRANSECT E1 (SHALLOW-FAST BEDROCK RUN) 107 7 Boulder 106 Bedrock Cobble Gravel 105 Sand 6 Silt/Organic 104 Water Surface

103 5

102

101 4

100 relative to water surface) water to relative

- 99 3 Velocity (ft/sec) Velocity

98

97 2 Elevation (ft Elevation

96

95 1

94

93 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Distance (ft)

Water Surface Elevation (50 cfs) Estimated High Water Elevation Measured Point Velocity

FIGURE E.3.6.1.1-3 TRANSECT E2 (DEEP-SLOW BOULDER POOL) 112 Boulder Bedrock 110 Cobble Gravel 108 Sand Silt/Organic Water Surface 106

104

102

100

98 relative to water surface) water to relative - 96

94 Elevation (ft Elevation 92

90

88

86 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Distance (ft)

Water Surface Elevation (50 cfs) Estimated High Water Elevation

E-54 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

FIGURE E.3.6.1.1-4 TRANSECT E3 (DEEP-SLOW SAND/GRAVEL POOL) 109 Boulder Bedrock 107 Cobble Gravel Sand 105 Silt/Organic Water Surface

103

101

99 relative to water surface) water to relative - 97

95 Elevation (ft Elevation

93

91

89 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Distance (ft)

Water Surface Elevation (50 cfs) Estimated High Water Elevation

E.3.6.1.2 Fish Impingement, Entrainment, and Survival

Operation of hydroelectric projects can result in the sporadic impingement and entrainment of fish. Impingement refers to the potential for fish to become trapped against the intake trashracks due to velocity conditions at the intake. The size of trashrack bar spacing is often a concern when designing intake structures for operating efficiency and successful exclusion of woody debris and other objects that could damage turbines. The existing dam intake is not equipped with trashracks, and any fish which pass through the existing outlet works are subject to potentially mortality as a result of passing through the outlet conduit and cascading over the energy dissipation blocks in the stilling basin. Similarly, any concerns with respect to fish retention (the notion of retaining fish within the reservoir) exist today; however, fish retention is not an issue caused or introduced by the proposed project and a factor in which the proposed project would likely not affect since the proposed project will utilize water delivered by the USACE’s existing intakes in the same timing and quantity that would otherwise be released by the USACE. Assessing fish impingement involves comparing available target fish swim speeds

E-55 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

with calculated intake velocities, as well as estimating minimum fish lengths for the target fish species that would be excluded or impinged by specific trashrack spacing.

Entrainment at hydroelectric projects refers to the passage of fish into the powerhouse intakes and through the turbine units. Fish passing through the turbines can be subject to the risk of injury or mortality.

The number of fish impinged or entrained at a project is related to a variety of physical factors associated with the dam and powerhouse, such as flow rate, intake depth, intake approach velocities, trashrack spacing, and proximity to fish habitat. Biotic factors also affect entrainment, including diurnal and/or seasonal patterns of fish migration and dispersal, fish size and swimming capabilities, life history requirements, and density-dependent influences (e.g., resource availability) on fish populations in upstream habitats.

In addition, survival of turbine-entrained fish depends on the physical characteristics of the turbine system, such as hydraulic head, turbine size and design, runner speed, wicket gate openings, number/type of runner blades, runner blade angle, gap size, and water flow through the turbine. Many of these factors can be causes of mechanical injury. Therefore, it has been generally accepted that survival depends on size, physiology, and behavior of entrained fish, as it relates to the sources of potential mechanical injury described above.

As described in the RPSD, a Fish Impingement, Entrainment, and Survival Study was performed by examining historical USACE release data (1989-2011) in relation to the proposed generating equipment of the Project. This period of record (POR) was used to calculate median monthly total flow amounts (1,000 cfs-hours) that would have passed through the proposed Project’s turbines for an average (POR), dry (2007), and wet (1991) water year. The tables below are excerpted from the Fish Impingement, Entrainment and Survival Study Report (Appendix C-3). Tables E.3.6.1.2-1 through E.3.6.1.2-3 provide seasonal and annual estimates of fish entrainment rates for the proposed Project for an average, dry and wet year, the report provides a detailed description of the approach and methodologies employed.

E-56 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.3.6.1.2-1 SEASONAL AND ANNUAL ENTRAINMENT ESTIMATES AT ENID BASED ON THE POR

Combined Seasonal and Annual Entrainment Estimates at Enid (Number of Target Species Fish) Based on the Period of Record (1989-2011)

Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Black Crappie1 74 34 204 214 526 Bluegill 61 484 581 1,443 2,569 Bluntnose Minnow2 0 0 0 0 0 Brook Silverside 5 3 6 7 20 Brown Bullhead 0 0 0 0 0 Bullhead Minnow2 2 1 0 0 3 Channel Catfish3 66 11 426 66 568 Eastern Blacktail Shiner4 0 5 5 22 32 Emerald Shiner 5 11 16 35 67 Freshwater Drum 0 0 2 10 12 Gizzard Shad 248,421 254 28,322 266,436 543,434 Johnny Darter5 0 0 0 0 0 Largemouth Bass6 7 3 43 25 78 Mississippi Silvery Minnow7 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Hog Sucker 0 0 0 0 0 Orangespotted Sunfish8 0 1 2 4 7 Sauger9 0 0 0 0 0 Spotted Gar10 2 0 0 0 2 Warmouth8 0 1 1 4 6 White Crappie1 556 255 1,526 1,599 3,935 Total 249,198 1,062 31,134 269,865 551,259

1 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of white and black crappie to represent both crappie species 2 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of Pimephales species to represent bluntnose and bullhead minnow 3 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of channel and flathead catfish to represent channel catfish 4 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several Cyprinella species to represent blacktail shiner 5 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several darter species (excluding logperch) to represent johnny darter 6 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of spotted and largemouth bass to represent largemouth bass 7 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several shiner and minnow species to represent Mississippi silvery minnow 8 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several sunfish species (excluding bluegill) to represent orangespotted sunfish and warmouth 9 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of walleye and sauger to represent sauger 10 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of Lepisosteidae to represent spotted gar

E-57 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.3.6.1.2-2 SEASONAL AND ANNUAL ENTRAINMENT ESTIMATES AT ENID BASED ON A DRY WATER YEAR (2007)

Combined Seasonal and Annual Entrainment Estimates at Enid (Number of Target Species Fish) Based on a Dry Water Year (2007)

Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Black Crappie1 52 2 1 150 205 Bluegill 42 28 2 1,015 1,087 Bluntnose Minnow2 0 0 0 0 0 Brook Silverside 3 0 0 5 8 Brown Bullhead 0 0 0 0 0 Bullhead Minnow2 1 0 0 0 1 Channel Catfish3 46 1 1 47 94 Eastern Blacktail Shiner4 0 0 0 16 16 Emerald Shiner 3 1 0 24 28 Freshwater Drum 0 0 0 7 7 Gizzard Shad 172,745 15 94 187,385 360,239 Johnny Darter5 0 0 0 0 0 Largemouth Bass6 5 0 0 18 23 Mississippi Silvery Minnow7 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Hog Sucker 0 0 0 0 0 Orangespotted Sunfish8 0 0 0 2 3 Sauger9 0 0 0 0 0 Spotted Gar10 1 0 0 0 1 Warmouth8 0 0 0 2 3 White Crappie1 387 15 5 1,124 1,531 Total 173,285 61 104 189,796 363,247

1 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of white and black crappie to represent both crappie species 2 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of Pimephales species to represent bluntnose and bullhead minnow 3 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of channel and flathead catfish to represent channel catfish 4 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several Cyprinella species to represent blacktail shiner 5 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several darter species (excluding logperch) to represent johnny darter 6 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of spotted and largemouth bass to represent largemouth bass 7 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several shiner and minnow species to represent Mississippi silvery minnow 8 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several sunfish species (excluding bluegill) to represent orangespotted sunfish and warmouth 9 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of walleye and sauger to represent sauger 10 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of Lepisosteidae to represent spotted gar

E-58 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.3.6.1.2-3 SEASONAL AND ANNUAL ENTRAINMENT ESTIMATES AT ENID BASED ON A WET WATER YEAR (1991)

Combined Seasonal and Annual Entrainment Estimates at Enid (Number of Target Species Fish) Based on a Wet Water Year (1991)

Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Black Crappie1 80 55 359 234 727 Bluegill 66 775 1,022 1,576 3,439 Bluntnose Minnow2 0 0 0 0 0 Brook Silverside 5 4 10 7 27 Brown Bullhead 0 0 0 0 0 Bullhead Minnow2 2 1 1 0 4 Channel Catfish3 71 17 749 72 909 Eastern Blacktail Shiner4 0 8 9 24 41 Emerald Shiner 5 18 28 38 89 Freshwater Drum 0 0 4 11 15 Gizzard Shad 266,857 407 49,836 290,969 608,068 Johnny Darter5 0 0 0 0 0 Largemouth Bass6 7 5 76 28 116 Mississippi Silvery Minnow7 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Hog Sucker 0 0 0 0 0 Orangespotted Sunfish8 0 2 3 4 9 Sauger9 0 0 0 0 0 Spotted Gar10 2 0 0 0 2 Warmouth8 0 2 3 4 9 White Crappie1 597 408 2,363 1,746 5,114 Total 267,692 1,702 54,462 294,713 618,569 1 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of white and black crappie to represent both crappie species 2 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of Pimephales species to represent bluntnose and bullhead minnow 3 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of channel and flathead catfish to represent channel catfish 4 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several Cyprinella species to represent blacktail shiner 5 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several darter species (excluding logperch) to represent johnny darter 6 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of spotted and largemouth bass to represent largemouth bass 7 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several shiner and minnow species to represent Mississippi silvery minnow 8 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several sunfish species (excluding bluegill) to represent orangespotted sunfish and warmouth 9 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of walleye and sauger to represent sauger 10 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of Lepisosteidae to represent spotted gar

E-59 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

The proposed clear trashrack spacing of 3 inches may allow most sizes of the target species to physically pass through the racks, although some larger juvenile and adult fish will likely avoid and escape intake velocities, while others may volitionally follow the attractant flow through the turbines. Given the total number of fish that are estimated to be potentially entrained through the proposed Project during a given year, fish survival rates through Kaplan turbine units are relatively high, particularly for small fish that make up the majority of entrained fish.

According to this assessment, the number of target species expected to be entrained at the proposed Project that suffer turbine-related mortality during a normal water year at the proposed Project is approximately 20,155 fish (Tables E.3.6.1.2-4). Based on the seasonal entrainment rates shown above, it is probable that turbine-related mortality would likely be the highest in the winter and fall months. Gizzard shad constitute the highest percentage (98%) of mortalities during all seasons due to their high densities and susceptibility to cold stress/lethargy, which is not associated with mortality from blade strike.

E-60 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.3.6.2.1-4 SEASONAL AND ANNUAL TURBINE MORTALITY ESTIMATES AT ENID BASED ON THE POR (1989-2011)

Combined Seasonal and Annual Entrainment Mortality Estimates at Enid Target Species (Number of Fish) Based on the Period of Record (1989-2011)

Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Black Crappie1 3 3 6 8 20 Bluegill 3 24 28 87 142 Bluntnose Minnow2 0 0 0 0 0 Brook Silverside 0 0 0 0 1 Brown Bullhead 0 0 0 0 0 Bullhead Minnow2 0 0 0 0 0 Channel Catfish3 6 1 8 3 17 Eastern Blacktail Shiner4 0 0 0 1 1 Emerald Shiner 0 0 1 1 2 Freshwater Drum 0 0 0 0 1 Gizzard Shad 6,914 10 1,932 10,964 19,820 Johnny Darter5 0 0 0 0 0 Largemouth Bass6 0 0 1 2 3 Mississippi Silvery Minnow7 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Hog Sucker 0 0 0 0 0 Orangespotted Sunfish8 0 0 0 0 0 Sauger9 0 0 0 0 0 Spotted Gar10 0 0 0 0 1 Warmouth8 0 0 0 0 0 White Crappie1 22 19 42 63 146 Total 6,949 58 2,018 11,130 20,155

1 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of white and black crappie to represent both crappie species 2 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of Pimephales species to represent bluntnose and bullhead minnow 3 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of channel and flathead catfish to represent channel catfish 4 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several Cyprinella species to represent blacktail shiner 5 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several darter species (excluding logperch) to represent johnny darter 6 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of spotted and largemouth bass to represent largemouth bass 7 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several shiner and minnow species to represent Mississippi silvery minnow 8 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several sunfish species (excluding bluegill) to represent orangespotted sunfish and warmouth 9 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of walleye and sauger to represent sauger 10 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of Lepisosteidae to represent spotted gar

E-61 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.3.6.2.1-5 SEASONAL AND ANNUAL TURBINE MORTALITY ESTIMATES AT ENID BASED ON A DRY WATER YEAR (2007)

Combined Seasonal and Annual Entrainment Mortality Estimates at Enid Target Species (Number of Fish) Based on a Dry Water Year (2007)

Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Black Crappie1 2 0 0 6 8 Bluegill 2 1 0 61 65 Bluntnose Minnow2 0 0 0 0 0 Brook Silverside 0 0 0 0 0 Brown Bullhead 0 0 0 0 0 Bullhead Minnow2 0 0 0 0 0 Channel Catfish3 4 0 0 2 6 Eastern Blacktail Shiner4 0 0 0 1 1 Emerald Shiner 0 0 0 1 1 Freshwater Drum 0 0 0 0 0 Gizzard Shad 4,808 1 6 7,711 12,526 Johnny Darter5 0 0 0 0 0 Largemouth Bass6 0 0 0 1 1 Mississippi Silvery Minnow7 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Hog Sucker 0 0 0 0 0 Orangespotted Sunfish8 0 0 0 0 0 Sauger9 0 0 0 0 0 Spotted Gar10 0 0 0 0 0 Warmouth8 0 0 0 0 0 White Crappie1 15 1 0 45 61 Total 4,832 3 7 7,828 12,670

1 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of white and black crappie to represent both crappie species 2 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of Pimephales species to represent bluntnose and bullhead minnow 3 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of channel and flathead catfish to represent channel catfish 4 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several Cyprinella species to represent blacktail shiner 5 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several darter species (excluding logperch) to represent johnny darter 6 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of spotted and largemouth bass to represent largemouth bass 7 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several shiner and minnow species to represent Mississippi silvery minnow 8 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several sunfish species (excluding bluegill) to represent orangespotted sunfish and warmouth 9 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of walleye and sauger to represent sauger 10 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of Lepisosteidae to represent spotted gar

E-62 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.3.6.2.1-6 SEASONAL AND ANNUAL TURBINE MORTALITY ESTIMATES AT ENID BASED ON A WET WATER YEAR (1991)

Combined Seasonal and Annual Entrainment Mortality Estimates at Enid Target Species (Number of Fish) Based on a Wet Water Year (1991)

Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Black Crappie1 3 4 10 9 26 Bluegill 4 38 50 95 187 Bluntnose Minnow2 0 0 0 0 0 Brook Silverside 0 0 0 0 1 Brown Bullhead 0 0 0 0 0 Bullhead Minnow2 0 0 0 0 0 Channel Catfish3 6 1 14 3 24 Eastern Blacktail Shiner4 0 0 0 1 1 Emerald Shiner 0 1 1 1 3 Freshwater Drum 0 0 1 0 1 Gizzard Shad 7,427 17 3,400 11,973 22,817 Johnny Darter5 0 0 0 0 0 Largemouth Bass6 0 0 2 2 4 Mississippi Silvery Minnow7 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Hog Sucker 0 0 0 0 0 Orangespotted Sunfish8 0 0 0 0 0 Sauger9 0 0 0 0 0 Spotted Gar10 0 0 0 0 1 Warmouth8 0 0 0 0 0 White Crappie1 24 30 60 69 183 Total 7,465 92 3,538 12,155 23,250

1 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of white and black crappie to represent both crappie species 2 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of Pimephales species to represent bluntnose and bullhead minnow 3 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of channel and flathead catfish to represent channel catfish 4 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several Cyprinella species to represent blacktail shiner 5 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several darter species (excluding logperch) to represent johnny darter 6 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of spotted and largemouth bass to represent largemouth bass 7 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several shiner and minnow species to represent Mississippi silvery minnow 8 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of several sunfish species (excluding bluegill) to represent orangespotted sunfish and warmouth 9 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of walleye and sauger to represent sauger 10 Used combined EPRI entrainment rates of Lepisosteidae to represent spotted gar

E-63 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

As noted in the entrainment report, one potential source of fish mortality during passage through hydroelectric turbines is from rapid and extreme pressure changes (water pressures within the turbine may increase to several times atmospheric pressure, then drop to sub-atmospheric pressure, all in a matter of seconds). Cada (1990, 2001) suggested that the actual pressures experienced by a turbine-passed fish depend on the turbine design and flow rate and on the location of the fish in the water column when it is entrained in the intake flow. Eicher et al. (1987) suggest that quantifying pressure related mortality can be difficult, if not impossible. At low head dams (<100 ft) such as the proposed Yazoo Projects, scientific literature suggests that the majority of turbine related mortality is expected to be from blade strike.

With respect to location of fish in the water column when entrained as noted by Cada (1990, 2001) above, FFP has estimated the hydraulic pressure associated with the design head of the turbines to represent this factor. Accordingly, the design head pressure (when converted to pounds-per-square inch [psi]) for the proposed Enid Project is 25.9 psi for a turbine designed head of 59.7 feet.

As noted by Eicher et al. (1987) above, the quantification of pressure related mortality is difficult if not impossible and that any turbine related mortality at dams (nominal heads) less than 100 feet is expected to be from blade strike. Accordingly, this FLA and associated entrainment report focus on, and estimate blade strike probability and potential associated mortality. The USACE’s existing outlet conduits can (and do) operate under full, pressurized conditions today depending on actual lake levels maintained by the USACE. As such, the existence of the hydroelectric projects does not create a new potential hydraulic pressure that is substantively different than that which fish can currently be exposed to.

E.3.6.2 Potential Construction Related Effects

Project construction will involve limited excavation, structure placement, and ground clearing activities. The proposed Project design plans utilize the existing intake structure; therefore coffer damming will most likely be utilized to construct a new tailrace structure on the downstream side of the dam only. The construction of the powerhouse, tailrace, transmission lines, and appurtenant facilities will involve ground excavation, minimal to moderate soil movement, and

E-64 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

use of heavy construction equipment. Project construction activities that may affect fish and aquatic resources potentially include:

 Temporary changes to hydraulic conditions to facilitate certain stages of construction.  Construction-related erosion and sedimentation  Short term changes in water depths, and flow velocities and direction, in the area immediately downstream of the dam around the location of the new powerhouse and tailrace.

Temporary changes to upstream and downstream hydraulic conditions may be necessary to facilitate certain stages of the construction, particularly during the proposed lining of the existing conduit. Aquatic habitat may be affected by short term changes in water depths, and flow velocities and vectors, in the area immediately downstream of the dam around the location of the new powerhouse and tailrace. Since the proposed Project designs will utilize the existing intake and conduit structures, no aquatic habitat potential effects are anticipated upstream of the dam and within Enid Lake.

In addition, FFP will seek to sequence construction activities in a manner that minimizes effects during times of year when spawning may occur, if spawning habitats are identified in the area to be affected by construction.

Potential sediment and erosion effects during construction are described in Section E.2.6.2.

Construction of the proposed Project may also cause a temporary, localized displacement on existing fish and benthic communities, particularly those that are within the footprint of the Project area. The existing fish community may experience a short-term temporary loss of available food sources. However, fish species are highly mobile and will seek adjacent, unaffected areas for food. Benthic species that occur within the disturbance area may be exposed or buried. Effects to benthic communities associated with Project construction are also expected to be minor and temporary.

E-65 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

This highly altered habitat is not suitable for most freshwater mussel species and this was supported by the low abundance and diversity found during the mussel survey conducted in this channel by Cooper and Johnson (1980). Benthic macroinvertebrates are known to recover relatively quickly following disturbance, especially when source populations are nearby as is the case in this location (Wallace 1990). BMP will be utilized to minimize effects to in-water habitat. As described above, the Applicant plans to develop appropriate erosion and sediment control plans in consultation with appropriate resource agencies prior to construction that will include cofferdam placement and dewatering procedures, placement of siltation curtains, booms and fencing, protection of temporarily disturbed ground, final stabilization, and adequate storage of potential pollutants on the construction site (e.g. gasoline).

E.3.7 Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures Recommended by Resource Agencies

FFP is continuing to consult with the appropriate resource agencies regarding appropriate PM&E measures for the fish and aquatic resources. No specific PM&E measures have been recommended at this time regarding fish and aquatic resources.

E.3.8 Applicant-Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures

Potential fish protection measures for the proposed Project will be further addressed in the final design as detailed engineering is undertaken, but at a minimum would include the installation of 3-inch clear-spaced trashracks upstream of the powerhouse to thwart the entrainment of larger fish species. Although FFP does not anticipate a potential effect to the aquatic macroinvertebrate or the mussel resources at the proposed Project, FFP will continue to implement BMP during Project construction and operations as further detailed below.

Prior to construction, detailed erosion and sediment control plans will be developed and finalized in consultation with the USACE and applicable resource agencies. FFP will employ BMP to address sediment and erosion control during construction and final stabilization. Actions covered by the plan would include, but not be limited to, placement of siltation fencing,

E-66 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

protection of temporarily disturbed ground, final stabilization, and adequate storage of potential pollutants on the construction site (i.e., gasoline, oil etc.).

With respect to entrainment and fish passage, FFP proposes to equip the river-side wall of the powerhouse forebay with a fish bypass outlet. This fish bypass will be located adjacent to the trashracks and will be capable of passing the USACE’s minimum release target of 50 cfs and will afford an alternate route of downstream movement for fish.

The USACE’s minimum release target flow through existing outlet conduit will be temporarily bypassed through a pumping system during construction activity at the outlet of the existing conduit. A flow in the amount of 100 cfs has been considered for the bypass system. The bypass system will include submersible pumps and PVC pipes capable of siphoning more than 100 cfs of flow from upstream reservoir over the dam spillway embankment into the existing downstream channel pool. The location of pumps and routing of discharge pipes and overall minimum flow bypass design will be discussed and reviewed with USACE. The Applicant acknowledges that the USACE’s acceptance of this plan must be obtained before on-site construction commences. It is anticipated that this pumping activity will be continued for two and a half months. This bypass will serve to maintain aquatic habitat for fish and aquatic resources in the downstream areas of the proposed Project.

FFP expects that these pumps would need to be placed on the upstream side of the dam to pump water up and over the dam (in-lieu of vacuum pumps on the dam crest to establish siphon flow). FFP recognizes that any fish that may move through the system during construction may be precluded from doing so under this arrangement. However, the species assemblage within the lake does not include species which rely on downstream movement (seasonal or otherwise) as a critical component of their life-cycle. Additionally, and as part of developing the flow duration curves in Exhibit B, FFP notes that the USACE’s historic discharge has been 0 cfs (or other low flows well below the USACE’s target minimum flow) for several days, weeks, or close to a month. As such, any effects to fish that are unable to move during provision of FFP’s construction diversion flow are expected to be temporal and minor in nature (as has seemingly been the case when the USACE has historically ceased discharge from the lake). Once this

E-67 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

construction element is complete, downstream movement would again be afforded via the bifurcation chamber discharge gate.

E.3.9 Wildlife and Botanical Resources

E.3.9.1 Ecoregions

The State of Mississippi is divided into four USEPA Level III ecoregions that include the Southeastern Plains, MAP, the Mississippi Valley Loess Plains, and the Southern Coastal Plain (Omernik et al. 2012). Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. They are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. The Enid Project is located in the USEPA Level III Mississippi Valley Loess Plains ecoregion. The USEPA defines the Mississippi Valley Loess Plains ecoregion as (Omernik et al. 2012):

This ecoregion stretches from near the Ohio River in western Kentucky to Louisiana. It consists primarily of irregular plains, some gently rolling hills, and near the Mississippi River, bluffs. Thick loess is one of the distinguishing characteristics. The bluff hills in the western portion contain soils that are very deep, steep, silty, and erosive. Flatter topography is found to the east, and streams tend to have less gradient and more silty substrates than in the Southeastern Plains ecoregion. Oak-hickory, oak-hickory-pine, and some mixed mesophytic forests were the dominant natural vegetation. Agriculture is now the typical land cover in the Kentucky and Tennessee portion of the region, while in Mississippi there is a mosaic of forest and cropland.

Within the broader Level III ecoregions that comprise Mississippi, the USEPA has defined 21 Level IV ecoregions that reflect the regional ecological diversity and character. The Project is located within the Level IV Loess Plains ecoregion (Omernik et al. 2012). According to Omernik et al. (2012), the Loess Plains ecoregion was once a highly productive agricultural area in Mississippi, although many areas are now in pine plantations or have reverted to a mixed

E-68 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

forest landscape. The gently rolling to irregular plains are a contrast to the more dissected bluffs of the Bluff Hills ecoregion which borders the Loess Plains ecoregion to the south and west. The loess layer tends to be thinner than the neighboring Bluff Hills ecoregion, and thins more to the east in the broad transition to the Southeastern Plains ecoregion. Streams and rivers tend to be low gradient and murky with silty and sandy substrates; many have been channelized. Severe erosion in earlier years contributed heavy sediment loads to downstream reaches.

According to Omernik et al. (2012), potential natural vegetation in the Loess Plains ecoregion consists of oak-hickory and oak-hickory-pine forests (mostly white oak [Quercus alba], post oak [Q. stellata], southern red oak [Q. falcata], blackjack oak [Q. marilandica], mockernut hickory [Carya tomentosa], pignut hickory [C. glabra], shortleaf pine [Pinus echinata], some loblolly pine [P. taeda], American beech [Fagus grandifolia], and blackgum [Nyssa sylvatica]); some southern floodplain forests with cypress-gum swamp (bald cypress [Taxodium distichum], water tupelo [N. aquatica]) and bottomland hardwoods (overcup oak [Q. lyrata], swamp chestnut oak [Q. michauxii], water oak [Q. nigra], water hickory [C. aquatica], red maple [Acer rubrum], and green ash [Fraxinus americana]).

According to Lowe (1921), the Project lies along the eastern boundary of the Loess or Bluff topographic and floristic region of Mississippi, which directly borders the North Central Plateau region to the west. A description of the North Central Plateau region is presented in Section E.3.9.4.

According to Lowe (1921), the Loess or Bluff topographic and floristic region of Mississippi embraces a narrow strip from 15-to-20 miles wide bordering the eastern edge of the Yazoo Delta lowlands from the northern boundaries of the state to and beyond the line of Louisiana on the south. From Vicksburg, Mississippi south the bluffs lie close in towards the Mississippi River, and are rather more pronounced than farther north. The bluff hills lie on or somewhat below the general level of the central plateau, which it borders on the west, the characteristic precipitous hills of this region being remnants of the ragged edge of the interior plateau produced by the deep cutting of streams in passing from the plateau level to that of the Yazoo Delta lowlands.

E-69 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

The tree growth of the Loess or Bluff region is almost entirely of hardwoods. Pines are not at all a common feature, except as second growth in old fields or other openings. Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) is not uncommon on the slopes, but was probably not a part of the original flora. Magnolia species (Magnolia spp.) of several kinds are common and characteristic of the Loess or Bluff region (Lowe 1921).

E.3.9.2 Botanical Resources

As mentioned above, the Project lies in the Loess or Bluff region of Mississippi (Lowe 1921). Areas immediately adjacent to the Project are primarily maintained facilities associated with Enid Dam, large areas of mowed lawn, various roads, recreation areas, and limited scattered trees and shrubs. The majority of the proposed transmission line for the Project follows along existing roads (i.e., CR-188 and CR-36) and some limited deciduous forested habitat is located adjacent to the proposed transmission line corridor. In general, limited forested vegetative cover is present in the proposed Project boundary.

This section defines vegetation cover types within the proposed Project boundary, and describes their distribution and relative abundance, based on a map prepared from aerial photos and site visits to the Project area.3 The general vegetation/land cover types are depicted in Figure E.3.9.2-1.

Vegetation cover types addressed in this section describe and are defined by the dominant vegetation and land use in a given area. Those presented here are distinct from botanical typing systems such as the National Vegetation Classification System (Grossman et al. 1998) and the USGS Land Use and Land Cover Classification System (Anderson et al. 1976). As a result, each cover type potentially supports a number of different plant associations or habitat types, though in practice relatively few are represented. Wetlands and wetland habitat types are described in detail in Section E.3.9.4.

3 Since filing of the DLA (and as noted in the DLA), FFP conducted field surveys of terrestrial, RTE and invasive species as well as wetland surveys. The findings of this work are incorporated in applicable sections of this FLA, and the associated reports are located in Volume II of this FLA.

E-70 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

FIGURE E.3.9.2-1 COVER TYPE MAP OF THE ENID PROJECT AREA

E-71 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.3.9.2-1 SUMMARY OF MAPPED COVER TYPES IN THE ENID STUDY AREA Cover Type Total Area1 Description Uplands Deciduous Forest (DF) 1.3 Forest with greater then 60% cover of deciduous trees. Deciduous forest land includes all forested areas having a predominance of trees that lose their leaves at the end of the frost-free season or at the beginning of a dry season (Anderson et al. 1976). Typical species of this habitat unit may include black oak (Quercus velutina), white oak (Q. alba), northern red oak (Q. rubra), white ash (Fraxinus americana), and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). Mixed Forest (MF) 0.7 Forest with greater than 60% cover of a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees. This cover type consists of forested areas dominated by neither hardwoods nor pines. Typical species of this habitat unit include red maple (Acer rubrum), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), northern red oak, white ash, and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Terrestrial Cultural Maintained Lawn with Trees 1.3 Residential, recreational, or commercial land in which the (MLT) groundcover is dominated by clipped grasses and forbs, and it is shaded by at least 30% cover of trees. Ornamental and/or native trees and shrubs may be present, usually with less than 50% cover. The groundcover is maintained by mowing. Characteristic trees and shrubs include sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), willow oak (Quercus phellos), occasional bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), and crapemyrtle (Lagerstroemia indica). Maintained Lawn (ML) 11.9 Residential, recreational, or commercial land in which the groundcover is dominated by clipped grasses and there is less than 30% cover of trees or shrubs. Ornamental and/or native trees and shrubs may be present, usually with less than 50% cover. The groundcover is maintained by mowing. This cover type can include man-made drainage features (e.g., ditches, culverts, etc.) Riprap/Erosion Control 3.9 A sparsely vegetated slope along a dam embankment, Embankment (RECE) outlet works channel, along a roadway, or other area that is covered by riprap or coarse cobbles placed for erosion control and bank stability. Developed or Non-vegetated Structures/Facilities (SF) 0.2 Intake structures, powerhouses, buildings, pavilions, rest rooms, etc. This cover type consists of areas covered by structures usually bordered by grasses or other herbaceous species with some trees or shrubs. Many of these areas and their margins are actively maintained in an herbaceous state by human activities. Typical species of this habitat unit include sycamore, willow oak, and numerous other herbaceous species. Paved Area/Path (PAP) 3.4 A road, parking lot, boat ramp, pathway (e.g., sidewalk) or other covered surface that is paved with asphalt, concrete, brick, stone, etc. There may be sparse vegetation rooted in cracks in the paved surface.

E-72 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Cover Type Total Area1 Description Wetland Palustrine Emergent Wetland 0.04 Non-tidal wetland characterized by erect, rooted (PEM) herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and lichens (Cowardin et al. 1979). Open Water Open Water (OW)2 7.3 Aquatic area of open water, generally a large lake, reservoir, pond, or section of riverine habitat. This cover type may or may not include limited amounts of submerged and/or emergent vegetation. Total 30.0 1 Acres. 2 For additional discussion associated with riverine and aquatic habitat in the study area, refer to the Aquatic Habitat Study Report (HDR 2013).

A total of nearly 30 acres were mapped in the Enid Project, including 7.3 acres of open water associated with the Enid Reservoir and the Yocona River located below the Enid dam. The majority of the study area consists of upland and terrestrial cultural cover types at 19.3 acres (approximately 64%). Areas of open water comprised about 7.3 acres (approximately 24%) (Table 3.5.2.1-1). The remaining 3.4 acres (approximately 12%) represents structures/facilities, emergent wetland, paved areas/paths, non-vegetated or sparsely vegetated cover types, and areas identified containing invasive species. Major cover types observed in the study area are discussed in this section.

Deciduous Forest

Approximately 1.3 acres (4.3 %) supports vegetation within the deciduous forest mapped type (E.3.9.2-1). These stands are dominated by mature oak trees and have relatively sparse shrub and forb layers. Dominant tree species found within the deciduous forest mapped areas included white oak (Quercus alba), red oak, black oak, and southern sugar maple (Acer barbatum). Common shrubs included eastern hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), redbud, and occasional eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). Shrub coverage at sampling points ranged from 26- 50%. Tree canopy cover ranged from approximately 51-75%. Large woody debris was scattered within this cover type, mostly comprised of smaller logs (5 to 20 inches in diameter) representing all decomposition classes. Snags were generally absent throughout this cover type. Some common forbs in this cover type included poison ivy, Virginia creeper, and switchcane (Arundinaria gigantea). The southern edge of the largest tract of mapped deciduous forest had

E-73 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

areas containing several invasive species consisting of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and a small area of Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense) (see Section 4 and Appendix A for additional information).

Mixed Forest

Approximately 0.7 acres (2%) supports vegetation within the mixed forest mapped type (Table E.3.9.2-1). Stands of mixed forest were botanically more diverse than deciduous stands. This may be due to the presence of canopy gaps, which appeared to be more prevalent in mixed stands. Mixed forest stands were dominated by white oak, eastern hophornbeam, eastern red cedar, and loblolly pine. Tree canopy cover ranged from approximately 26-50%. Large woody debris was observed scattered in these mapped cover types. Some understory vegetation included various ticktrefoil species (Desmodium spp.), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrosticoides), poison ivy, Virginia creeper, and northern dewberry (Rubus flagellaris).

Maintained Lawn with Trees

Approximately 1.3 acres (4.4%) supports vegetation within the maintained lawn with trees cover type (E.3.9.2-1). This cover type is common in the study area and dominant trees associated with this cover type include southern sugar maple, willow oak (Quercus phellos), and loblolly pine. This cover type does not contain many shrub species and minimal herbaceous vegetation exists because these areas are routinely mowed and maintained by the USACE as part of their recreation areas associated with the operation of Enid Reservoir. The majority of the herbaceous layer consists of mowed/maintained lawn with occasional other herbaceous vegetation consisting of false dandelion, dandelion, and various violet species mostly located immediately adjacent to large trees. Picnic tables, restroom facilities, large paved parking areas, informational signs, and other recreational features are scattered within and are located adjacent to this cover type.

Maintained Lawn, Riprap Erosion Control Embankment, Structures/Facilities, Paved Area/Path

Approximately 19.4 acres (66%) is composed of the maintained lawn, riprap erosion control embankment, structures/facilities, and paved area/path cover types. The maintained lawn cover

E-74 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

type includes large areas of mowed/maintained lawn associated with the USACE Enid Reservoir flood control project. This cover type includes recreation areas, dam embankments, edges of roads, etc. These areas are routinely mowed/maintained and the groundcover is dominated by clipped grasses. The riprap erosion control embankment cover type includes large areas of riprap located adjacent to the Enid Reservoir shoreline and along the Yocona River below the Enid Reservoir outlet tunnel. Very little to no vegetation exists in these areas. The slopes within this cover type are fairly steep and range from 6-35%. The structures/facilities cover type includes areas such as buildings, recreation area pavilions, restrooms, fishing areas, etc. All of these areas are maintained as part of the USACE Enid Reservoir flood control project. The paved area/path cover type includes paved roads, large paved parking areas, sidewalks, and other surfaces that are covered with asphalt, concrete, etc. Large areas within the study area are either paved roads or parking areas associated with the USACE Enid Reservoir flood control project.

Open Water

Approximately 7.3 acres (24%) is composed of open water mapped areas (E.3.9.2-1). As previously mentioned, the open water cover type includes areas of open water, generally including lakes, reservoirs, ponds, or sections of riverine habitat. The open water cover type within the study area is restricted to the Enid Reservoir and the section of the Yocona River located below the Enid dam within the outlet channel. No wetlands or riparian habitat were observed within the study area bordering the open water mapped areas. Virtually no vegetation exists along the boundaries of the open water mapped areas likely due to fluctuating water levels associated with the flood control project and the large areas of densely packed riprap bordering the open water mapped areas.

For additional cover type and wetland information, refer to Volume II, Appendix C-4 and C-5 of this FLA (Terrestrial Resources Survey Report and Wetland Study Report, respectively).

E.3.9.3 Wildlife Resources

A variety of wildlife species occur in the habitats surrounding the Project, however the proposed Project site supports few terrestrial mammal species. The Project area is located within the Mississippi Valley Loess Plains ecoregion (Omernik et al. 2012), resulting in a diverse mix of

E-75 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

flora and fauna. This ecoregion is described in Section E.3.9.4. Wildlife resources in the proposed Project vicinity were documented through review of existing literature, databases and data provided through agency consultation. In addition, physical surveys were conducted from July 9-13, 2013 and incidental observations were conducted on April 17 and 26, May 21, August 27, and October 8, 2013. The results of these observations are provided in the Terrestrial Resources Survey Report located in Appendix C-4 of Volume II of this FLA. For purposes of describing the existing condition of these resources, this discussion has been divided into the following categories: (1) mammals; (2) bird species; (3) reptiles and amphibians; and (4) wetland and riparian wildlife.

E.3.9.3.1 Mammals

Over 50 species of mammals, 45 species of reptiles and amphibians, and approximately 60 percent of all bird species in the contiguous United States currently utilize the Mississippi River and its tributaries and/or their associated floodplains (MMNS 2005 as cited in FFP 2012). White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) is the most common big game species in the Project vicinity, occurring in a wide variety of habitats ranging from forests to agricultural land. The areas that provide the most suitable environment include a mixture of hardwoods, croplands, brushlands and pasturelands. White-tailed deer prefer an interspersed habitat including meadows, forested woodlots, brushy areas and croplands (Mississippi State University 2011). Raccoon (Procyon lotor) are also common, especially along the riparian corridor associated with the Yocona River within the Project vicinity. Other mammals common to the Project vicinity include furbearers, small game species, rodents, and bats. These wildlife species reside in many different habitat types such as woodland, scrub-shrub or early successional areas, and grassland areas; use of these areas may shift during different life stages and/or times of the year (NatureServe Explorer 2012).

No federal or state listed endangered or threatened mammal species are known to be found at or within vicinity of the Project (FFP 2012). While old-growth bottomland hardwood forests are known as critical habitat for 11 of 18 bat species found in southeastern U.S., no critical habitat is identified at or within vicinity of the proposed Project (FFP 2012). Additional information regarding threatened or endangered species is presented in Section E.3.10.

E-76 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Table E.3.9.3.1-1 lists those mammalian species that may exist or may utilize habitat in the vicinity of the Project. Mammals that likely inhabit the forest and shrub communities in the vicinity of the Project include white-tailed deer, eastern coyote (Canis latrans), beaver (Castor canadensis), mink (Mustela vison), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), raccoon, Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and gray fox (Urcyon cinereoargenteus) (MMNS undated).

TABLE E.3.9.3.1-1 LIST OF MAMMALS THAT MAY EXIST OR MAY UTILIZE HABITAT IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT Common Name Scientific Name* Distribution in Mississippi Family Didelphidae (opossums) Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana Occurs throughout Mississippi Family Soricidae (shrews) Southeastern shrew Sorex longirostris Ranges throughout state Southern short-tailed shrew Blarina carolinensis Known from across Mississippi Least shrew Cryptotis parva Recorded from throughout state Family Talpidae (moles) Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus Statewide Family Vespertilionidae (Vespertilionid bats) Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius Probably ranges throughout state Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus Occurs in eastern and northern parts of state Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Although known only from a single specimen (Carter et al. 1987), probably ranges throughout northern two-thirds of state as a migrant Eastern pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus Statewide Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus Statewide Eastern red bat Lasiurus borealis Statewide Hoary bat Lasiurns cinereus Probably occurs throughout state as a migrant Seminole bat Lasiurus seminolus Statewide Evening bat Nycticeius humeralis Statewide Rafinesque's big-eared bat Plecotus rafinesquii Statewide Brazilian free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis Known from colonies scattered throughout state Family Dasypodidae (armadillos) Nine-banded armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus Reported from everywhere except extreme northeastern corner of state Family Leporidae (hares and rabbits) Swamp rabbit Sylvilagus aquaticus Statewide Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Statewide Family Sciuridae (squirrels and allies) Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus Recorded from most of state except southeastern portion Woodchuck Marmota monax Occurs at scattered localities in northern one- half of state Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Statewide Fox squirrel Sciurus niger Statewide Eastern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans Statewide

E-77 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Common Name Scientific Name* Distribution in Mississippi Family Castoridae (beavers) Beaver Castor canadensis Found over most of state where suitable aquatic habitat prevails Family Cricetidae (native mice and rats) Marsh rice rat Oryzomys palustris Statewide Eastern harvest mouse Reithrodontomys humulis Statewide Cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus Statewide White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus Ranges throughout state except for extreme southeastern part Golden mouse Ochrotomys nuttalli Statewide Hispid cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus Statewide Eastern woodrat Neotoma floridana Statewide Woodland vole Microtus pinetorum Ranges throughout state except in extreme southeastern part Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Occurs in suitable aquatic habitats in most of state, including Horn Island Family Muridae (Old World rats and mice) Norway rat *Rattus norvegicus Common in and near human habitations in state and on Horn Island Roof rat *Rattus rattus Statewide House mouse *Mus musculus Statewide Family Myocastoridae (myocastorids) Nutria *Myocastor coypus Found in aquatic habitats throughout state Family Canidae (canids) Domestic dog *Canis familiaris Feral animals occur in many parts of state Coyote Canis latrans Statewide Red fox Vulpes vulpes Statewide Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus Statewide Family Procyonidae (procyonids) Raccoon Procyon lotor Statewide Family Mustelidae (mustelids) Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata Statewide Mink Mustela vision Statewide Eastern spotted skunk Spilogale putorius Occurs in southern and eastern parts of state; absent from northwest part adjacent to Arkansas Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis Statewide River otter Lutra canadensis Reported from suitable aquatic habitats in most of state Family Felidae (cats) Domestic cat Felis catus Feral animals occur in various places in state Bobcat Felis rufus Statewide Family Suidae (pigs) Wild pig *Sus scrofa Populations of pigs, derived from domestic animals that became feral and from animals introduced for hunting, occur in various places in state Family Cervidae (cervids) White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus Statewide Source: MMNS undated Notes: * Taxa marked with an asterisk have been introduced from outside North America.

E-78 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Survey Results

A total of 10 mammal species were observed during field surveys4. The most common mammals encountered during the survey period included eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Eastern chipmunks and gray squirrels were observed mostly in the maintained lawn with trees cover type and within deciduous and mixed forested mapped areas within all of the surveyed areas. Eastern cottontails were seen along road edges in the vicinity of the Project Sites and only one eastern cottontail was observed within the Grenada Project survey area. White-tailed deer were mostly observed in the vicinity of the proposed Project Sites as the biologists were commuting to other survey areas along the edges of deciduous forest, mixed forest, and along fields. Table E.3.9.3.1-2 list all the terrestrial mammal species observed within or in the immediate vicinity of the Project Sites.

TABLE E.3.9.2.1-2 TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS OBSERVED WITHIN OR IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITES Common Name Scientific Name Mammals Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana Nine-banded armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus Woodchuck Marmota monax Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Raccoon Procyon lotor White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus Red fox Vulpes vulpes Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis E.3.9.3.2 Bird Species

The various habitat areas associated with the Project area provide breeding, migratory stopover, and wintering habitat for a high diversity of bird species including neotropical songbirds, resident species, waterbirds, and waterfowl (refer to Appendix E-2). Species such as the Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), Carolina wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), and downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) occur along the wooded shorelines of the Project vicinity. Birds that inhabit non-

4 Observations of wildlife resources include all four projects (Sardis, Grenada, Enid, and Arkabutla).

E-79 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

forested areas within the Project vicinity include American robin (Turdus migratorius), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and rock dove (Columba livia) (Davis undated). Bald eagles are known to occur in the vicinity of the Project area (FFP 2012). The bald eagle is no longer listed under the ESA as of August 8, 2007, but the species remains protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended. In Mississippi, the bald eagle is listed as an endangered species. Other than bald eagles, no other federal or state listed endangered or threatened bird species are known to occur at or within vicinity of the Project (FFP 2012). The bird species listed in Appendix E-2 generally represents those bird species occurring or that have the potential to occur in the northern 1/3 of Mississippi (i.e., U.S. Highway 82 approximates the southern limit). The list includes 276 species that are permanent residents, or occur yearly, or have occurred numerous times though not annually (Davis undated). Birds' names in Appendix E-2 follow the biological sequence of the 6th Edition of the American Ornithologists Union Checklist, 1983, and its supplements. Letter codes after a species' name describes the species' status in the area based on the available information to December 1993 (Davis undated).

Survey Results

A total of 32 bird species were observed within the surveyed areas. Table E.3.9.3.2-1 provides a list of those bird species observed, along with their abundance and distribution for northern Mississippi.5

TABLE E.3.9.3.2-1 BIRD SPECIES SIGHTED DURING 2013 FIELD SURVEYS AND ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION1 Abundance and Distribution Common Name Scientific Name Sp S F W Blue jay N Cyanocitta cristata c c a a Red-headed woodpecker N Melanerpes erythrocephala f f f f Red-bellied woodpecker N Melanerpes carolinus f f f f American robin N Turdus migratorius c c c a Eastern bluebird N Sialia sialis f f c c Mourning dove N Zenaida macroura c c a a Rock dove N Columba livia c c c c

5 Observations of avian resources include all four projects (Sardis, Grenada, Enid, and Arkabutla).

E-80 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Abundance and Distribution Common Name Scientific Name Sp S F W Canada goose NL Branta canadensis u u c c Great blue heron N Ardea herodias u u c a Killdeer Charadrius vociferus f f a c Northern mockingbird N Mimus polyglottos c c c c Turkey vulture N Cathartes aura f f c c Bald eagle NL Haliaeetus leucocephalus r i u c American crow N Corvus brachyrhynchos c c c a Common grackle N Quiscalus quiscula c c a a Barn swallow3N Hirundo rustica c c c -- Osprey N Pandion haliaetus u i F x Great egret N Ardea alba r u c i Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis u u f c Belted kingfisher LN Ceryle alcyon f f f f Eastern kingbird3N Tyrannus tyrannus c c u -- American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos r -- c r Red-winged blackbird N Agelaius phoeniceus c c a a Wood thrush2N Hylocichla mustelina f f u -- Northern cardinal N Cardinalis cardinalis c c c c Eastern meadowlark N Sturnella magna c c c a Green heron N Butorides virescens f c r i Tufted titmouse N Baeolophus bicolor c c c c Pine warbler N Dendroica pinus c c c c Rufous-sided towhee N Pipilo erythrophthamus c c c c House sparrow N Passer domesticus c c c c Carolina chickadee N Parus carolinensis c c c c Source: Davis undated. Notes: 1 Seasonal Occurrence and Abundance. Seasons: Sp = spring migration (early March to 1st week of June). S = Summer resident (late May to mid-August). F = Fall migration (mid-July to late November). W = Winter resident (November to early March). Abundance Codes (assume proper habitat~ noting contrasts, e.g., Delta vs. Hills): a = abundant-usual in large numbers. c = common-usual in moderate numbers. f = fairly common-usual in small numbers. u = uncommon-low numbers, often missed. r = rare-very unlikely to be seen. i = irregular-not found each year, numbers may be either low or high. x = exceptional seasonal occurrence. Breeding Status and Residency: N = Nesting in some part of the area. L = Local-limited occurrence over area~. V = Vagrant-out of species’ range, but may be found again in any year. C = Casual-found very irregularly (3 or less times out of 10 years). Partners in Flight Status: estimates for 1993 on species of concern in the Eastern Gulf Coastal Plain Region, mainly neotropical migrants: 1Severely at risk. 2Moderately at risk. 3Slightly at risk.

E-81 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

No raptor sightings were recorded during field surveys at the proposed Enid Project.

E.3.9.3.3 Reptiles and Amphibians

Reptiles and amphibians are common and well represented in the Project vicinity (Table E.3.9.3.3-1). These reptile and amphibian species inhabit many different habitat types such as woodland, scrub-shrub or early successional areas, and grassland; use of these areas may shift during different life stages and/or times of year. No federal or state listed endangered and threatened reptile or amphibian species are known to occur at or within vicinity of the Project (FFP 2012).

Species typically found in wetland and open water areas include green frog (Rana clamitans), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala), common slider (Trachemys scripta), and the northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon) (MDWFP and MMNS 2012 as cited in FFP 2012; Johnson 2000). These amphibians and reptiles are normally found in wetland and open water areas due to food and reproductive requirements.

Species typically found in woodland areas include American toad (Anaxyrus americanus), gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis), and northern scarlet snake (Cemophora coccinea) (MDWFP and MMNS 2012 as cited in FFP 2012; Johnson 2000). These amphibians and reptiles are normally found in woodland areas due to food and reproductive requirements.

These referenced species are not intended to be a comprehensive list of the amphibian and reptile species found in the Project area, but rather a representation of the species that may be found in the Project vicinity.

E-82 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.3.9.3.3-1 NATIVE REPTILE AND AMPHIBIAN SPECIES THAT MAY FOUND IN THE PROJECT AREA Scientific Name Common Name Acris gryllus Southern cricket frog Agkistrodon contortrix Southern copperhead Agkistrodon piscivorus Cottonmouth Ambystoma opacum Marbled salamander Ambystoma talpoideum Mole salamander Anolis carolinensis Green anole Bufo americanus American toad Bufo fowleri Fowler's toad Cemophora coccinea Northern scarlet snake Chrysemys dorsalis Southern painted turtle Desmognathus conanti Spotted dusky salamander Diadophis punctatus Ring-neck snake Elaphe obsoleta Rat snake Eumeces fasciatus Five-lined skink Eurycea guttolineata Three-lined salamander Gastrophryne carolinensis Eastern narrow-mouth toad Graptemys pseudogeographica False map turtle Hyla chrysoscelis Gray tree frog Hyla cinerea Green tree frog Nerodia erythrogaster Plainbelly water snake Nerodia rhombifer Diamondback water snake Nerodia sipedon Northern water snake Notophthalmus viridescens Eastern newt Plethodon mississippi Mississippi salamander Pseudotriton ruber Red salamander Rana catesbeiana Bullfrog Rana clamitans Green frog Rana palustris Pickerel frog Rana sphenocephala Southern leopard frog Sceloporus undulatus Fence lizard Scincella lateralis Little brown skink Siren intermedia Lesser siren Terrapene carolina Common box turtle Trachemys scripta Common slider Source: MDWFP and MMNS 2012 as cited in FFP 2012

Survey Results

A total of six reptile and amphibian species were observed during field surveys at the Project Sites. Table E.3.9.3.3-2 list all the reptile and amphibian species observed within or in the immediate vicinity of the Project Sites.6

6 Observations of reptilian and amphibian resources include all four projects (Sardis, Grenada, Enid, and Arkabutla).

E-83 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.3.9.3.3-2 REPTILE AND AMPHIBIAN SPECIES OBSERVED WITHIN OR IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITES Common Name Scientific Name Cottonmouth Agkistrodon piscivorus American toad Bufo americanus Five-lined skink Eumeces fasciatus Little brown skink Scincella lateralis Gray tree frog Hyla chrysoscelis Green frog Rana clamitans

E.3.9.3.4 Wetland and Riparian Wildlife

Wildlife species typically found in aquatic habitats such as Enid Lake, tributaries, and the Yocona River include, green frog, pickerel frog, common slider, and bull frog (Rana catesbeiana). These species use aquatic habitats for foraging, loafing (i.e., resting), protection, reproduction, and hibernation (MDWFP and MMNS 2012 as cited in FFP 2012; Johnson 2000).

Species typically found in riparian habitats include raccoon, white-tailed deer, northern water snake, cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), gray fox, red fox, coyote, and Virginia opossum. Many species utilize riparian zones for shelter, venturing into more aquatic and/or terrestrial habitats to forage and reproduce (MDWFP and MMNS 2012 as cited in FFP 2012; Johnson 2000).

The Yocona River and associated water resources and bottomland areas in the Project vicinity are used by migratory waterfowl and neotropical passerines. Some avian species typically found in wetland habitats and along the shoreline of Enid Lake include least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), great egret (Casmerodius albus), and blue-winged teal (Anas discors) (Davis undated). Species such as ducks may nest within vegetated shallows and bottomlands and forage in open water.

E.3.9.3.5 Invasive Species

Non-native invasive species and noxious weeds are typically prolific pioneering species that have the ability to quickly outcompete native vegetation. They grow rapidly, mature early and effectively spread seeds that can survive for significant periods in the soil until site conditions are favorable for growth. Invasive plants often form vast single-species communities that are

E-84 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

less suitable to birds and wildlife than native communities and can compromise native ecosystems by altering soil and water resources on a site. The introduction of non-indigenous invasive aquatic plant species to the United States has been escalating with widespread destructive consequences.

The number of vascular plant species found in Mississippi is greater than found in most other states in the United States. The total flora of Mississippi is thought to be around 2,950 species (MMNS 2007 as cited in FFP 2012). The list of introduced and invasive plant species documented to occur in Mississippi is extensive and presented in Appendix E-3.

There were 8 locations mapped in the survey areas of the proposed Enid Project resulting from field surveys. A total of three invasive/noxious weed species and 8 mapped locations covered approximately 0.1 acres in the total surveyed area for the proposed Enid Project (Table E.3.9.3.5- 1). Figure E.3.9.2-1 above provides a map of the location and extent of these invasive/noxious weed species.

TABLE E.3.9.3.5-1 INVASIVE/NOXIOUS WEED ACREAGE AND NUMBER OF MAPPED LOCATION SITES1 Chinese Japanese Chinese Johnson Species Kudzu Tallow Total Honeysuckle Privet grass Tree Number of 3 3 0 0 2 8 Infestations2 Acres 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.007 0.407 1 When invasive species were co-located within a survey area and defined within a single polygon, it was assumed for acreage calculations that each species represented 50% of the cover within the polygon. 2 The number of mapped locations is the total number of locations shown on the Cover Type and Invasive Species Maps. This number may not match the datasheets (Appendix D) because many species were recorded on the datasheets that are located outside of the survey area which are not shown on the Cover Type and Invasive Species Maps.

The following subsections provide information on each invasive/noxious weed species observed within the survey areas. A brief description of the ecology of each species is presented along with a brief description of its distribution in the Project Sites.

E-85 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.3.9.3.5.1 Japanese Honeysuckle

According to Winters et al. (2003), Japanese honeysuckle is native to Japan. The species was first introduced to Long Island, New York, in 1862. Japanese honeysuckle is a familiar plant in the southern landscape where it provides year-round forage for deer and other wildlife. It is common along fence rows, forest openings, and disturbed areas. However, this plant’s dense growth tends to crowd out native vegetation, reduce the variety of native plants available to wildlife, and can stunt or kill growing trees. Most leaves are simple, oval, and opposite, 1.5 to 3.5 inches long. Some lowermost leaves are lobed like oak leaves. It spreads by seeds, underground rhizomes, and aboveground runners. It has black fruits that mature in the fall (S.R. Kaufman and W. Kaufman 2007).

Japanese honeysuckle was observed in virtually all mapped habitat types. The frequency of this invasive/noxious species was highest along forest boundaries and was also observed in deciduous and mixed forest stands in canopy openings within these habitat types. It also seems to prefer ditches and similar drainage features because it was observed to be more dominant and prolific in these areas. Japanese honeysuckle was also scattered along the proposed transmission line route associated with the Enid Project (Figure E.3.9.2-1). Its occurrence in this area was primarily limited to the edges of forested areas and within and along drainage features.

E.3.9.3.5.2 Chinese Privet

According to Winters et al. (2003), Chinese privet is native to China and was introduced in the United States as an ornamental shrub in 1852. It is found throughout the South and forms dense thickets along roadsides, fence rows, fields, rights-of-way, and in forested creek bottoms. Chinese privet shrubs typically reach 10 to 20 feet in height with numerous branches. It is a member of the olive family, produces abundant seeds, and regenerates by root sprouts quickly forming dense stands. Because of dense stand production, privet crowds out native plants and trees, especially hardwoods. Chinese privet typically produces small white flowers in early summer and terminal clusters of seeds in the fall. Seeds are consumed primarily by birds and disseminated.

E-86 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Chinese privet was observed in a wide variety of habitats including deciduous forest, mixed forest, maintained lawn with trees, successional hardwoods, as well as scattered along mowed roadsides. The frequency of this invasive/noxious species was highest along the edges of forested habitats. Its frequency of occurrence was the highest of all the invasive/noxious species observed within the Project Sites (Table E.3.9.3.5-1).

E.3.9.3.5.3 Johnson grass

According to Winters et al. (2003), Johnson grass is native to the Mediterranean region and came to the United States as a forage plant in early 1800’s. Johnson grass has spread throughout most of the temperate area of the world. It can grow to eight feet tall and forms almost pure stands and is a serious weed of row crops, pastures, and roadside rights-of-way throughout Mississippi. Spreading by prolific seed production or fleshy, underground rhizomes, Johnson grass stands along highway rights-of-way can provide hiding sites for wildlife or limit visibility of passing motorists. Rank growth or growth that occurs under poor environmental conditions can cause cyanide poisoning in animals, and can be especially dangerous to ruminants. Leaf blades are flat with a white rib, up to two feet long and one inch wide with rough but not toothed margins, bright green, sometimes with purple spots. The seed heads or panicles are purplish and hairy, and can be two feet long.

Johnson grass was only observed in small clumps growing adjacent to a deciduous forest mapped area within the Enid Project and also within a maintained lawn mapped area within the Sardis Project (Appendix A). The frequency of this invasive/noxious species was the lowest of all the invasive/noxious species observed within the Project Sites (Table E.3.9.3.5-1).

E.3.9.3.6 Temporal or Spatial Distribution of Commercially, Recreationally, or Culturally Important Species

Previous Subsections E.3.9.1 through E.3.9.3.4 lists the plant and animal species that may be found or have been observed at or within vicinity of the Project site. These sections provide the temporal and spatial distribution of those species found at or within vicinity of the Project.

E-87 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.3.9.4 Floodplains, Wetlands, Riparian, and Littoral Habitats

The Yocona River is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic province, a subdivision of the Atlantic Plain (Fenneman 1917). The Coastal Plain province encompasses the Mississippi Embayment, a wedge-shaped synclinal structure that plunges to the south and has an axis that generally parallels the Mississippi River (Cushing et al. 1964; Yedlowski and Vento 1991). The result of subsidence within the Mississippi Embayment is a distinctly “belted” arrangement of sedimentary rocks that have filled the synclinal trough (Cushing et al. 1964; Yedlowski and Vento 1991). The differential erosion of these rocks has resulted in several physiographic and ecological divisions.

The USACE’s Enid Dam is located near the point of division between two physiographic sections of the Coastal Plain province. The Yocona River Watershed upstream from Enid Lake is situated in the uplands of the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic section. The East Gulf Coastal Plain has been further subdivided into 9 physiographic districts that comprise the eastern Mississippi Embayment and generally correspond to sedimentary rock “belts.” These districts include the Fall Line Hills, Black Belt, Pontotoc Ridge and Ripley Cuesta, Flatwoods, North Central Plateau, Buhrstone Cuesta, Jackson Prairie, Southern Pine Hills, and Loess Hills physiographic districts (Cushing et al. 1964). Within these broad physiographic districts of the eastern Mississippi Embayment, the USEPA has defined distinct ecoregions that share similarities in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources (Chapman et al. 2004). The physiographic districts generally correspond to the Level IV ecoregions defined by Chapman et al. 2004.

The headwaters of the Yocona River and the river’s upper watershed are located in the in the Northern Hilly Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion. The Northern Hilly Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion is located within North Central Plateau physiographic district. The regional topography is dominated by dissected, rounded hills with gently-to-strongly sloping sideslopes and dissected irregular plains (Chapman et al. 2004). The hydrography is characterized by low to moderate gradient streams with sandy substrates (Chapman et al. 2004). The dominant bedrock lithology along the Yocona River Basin within Northern Hilly Gulf Coastal Plain is the Paleocene Naheola

E-88 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Formation, comprised primarily of thinly laminated fine sands and silty clay or mud (Cushing et al. 1964).

Enid Dam is located at RM 14.5 of the Yocona River. Prior to the great flood of 1927, several uncoordinated attempts were made to protect the Yazoo River Basin communities from flooding. Subsequent studies determined that the delta area of the Yazoo Basin was subject to headwater flooding from basin streams such as the Yocona River. With the authorization of the Flood Control Act in 1936, a plan of improvement to control headwater flooding in the Yazoo River Basin was developed (USACE 2000). This plan would eventually result in the construction of four flood control reservoirs, as well as necessary levees, drainage, and channel improvement works as part of the Yazoo Basin Headwater Project. Enid Lake was one of the four reservoirs constructed as a component of the Yazoo Basin Headwater Project. The reservoir began normal operations in 1952, and construction activities at Sardis Lake were completed in 1955 (USACE 2000).

E.3.9.4.1 Wetlands

Wetlands are generally defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Most formal wetland definitions emphasize three primary components that define wetlands: the presence of water, unique soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Cowardin et al. 1979) defines wetlands as follows:

Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. Wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year.

E-89 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

According to Lowe (1921), some trees occurring in wetland habitats in the Project vicinity may include white oak, swamp chestnut oak, southern magnolia, sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), water elm (Planera aquatica) and water hickory (Carya aquatica). Some common shrub and herbaceous species may include blackgum, water elm, water tupelo (N. aquatica), false daisy (Eclipta prostrata), threepetal bedstraw (Galium trifidum), seedbox (Ludwigia alternifolia), and cardinalflower (Lobelia cardinalis) (Lowe 1921).

Riparian habitats are areas that support vegetation found along waterways such as lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and streams. The boundary of the riparian area and the adjoining uplands is gradual and not always well defined. However, riparian areas differ from the uplands because of their high levels of soil moisture, frequency of flooding, and unique assemblage of plant and animal communities (Virginia State University 2000). These habitats can range from mature forests to areas covered by emergent vegetation and shrubs. Riparian habitats are unique because of their linear form and because they process large fluxes of energy and materials from upstream systems (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Riparian areas and the associated vegetation provide important habitat for wildlife and often contain a higher number of species, both plant and animal, than surrounding upland areas due to the proximity to water. These areas are also important avian habitats for resident and migratory birds. Riparian habitats typically function as travel corridors for migratory wildlife species.

Due to the large areas of armored shoreline (i.e., riprap) located below Enid Dam, riparian habitat in the proposed Project boundary is extremely limited. According to Lowe (1921), some botanical species occurring in riparian habitats in the Project vicinity may include red maple, eastern redbud, sycamore, common buttonbush, possumhaw, royal fern, and cinnamon fern.

FFP conducted a wetland delineation study independent of the Terrestrial Resources Survey on June 28, 2013, since certain species of interest and other aspects related to the study are better performed in seasons occurring concurrent with, or after issuance of the DLA. Components of this study relating to wetland and riparian habitats include:

E-90 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

(1) Identifying, using USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and aerial photography as a reference, the wetland areas within the Project area (USFWS 2013b); (2) Delineation and initial assessment of potentially jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the U.S. (3) Creating a GIS wetland map of the Project site showing the locations of any discovered wetlands and waters of the United States and total extent (acreage);

No potential wetlands were identified within the proposed 30.0 acre project area. Approximately 7.4 acres of deep water/open water habitats (Enid Lake and outlet channel/Yocona River) were identified based on USFWS NWI digital mapping (USFWS 2013b) within the proposed project area (See Table 3.9.4.1-1 below). Since the proposed project will operate in a run-of-release mode, a permanent change in timing and quantity of water flow through the conduit will not result from proposed construction activities and utilization of the hydroelectric facility. Additional details regarding the determination of no potential wetlands, as well as soils and project boundary maps and NWI maps of the proposed Enid Project can be found in Volume II, Appendix C-4 of this FLA.

TABLE E.3.9.4.1-1 NWI DEEPWATER (OPEN WATER) CLASSIFICATIONS OCCURRING IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Water Classification System Subsystem Class Subclass Regime/Chemistry/ Code Special Modifiers R2UBHx Riverine Lower Unconsolidated N/A Permanently Perennial Bottom Flooded/Excavated L1UBHh Lacustrine Limnetic Unconsolidated N/A Permanently Flooded Bottom Diked/impounded

L2USAh Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated N/A Temporarily Flooded/ Shore Diked/impounded

Source: USFWS 2013b

E-91 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Lacustrine Unconsolidated Bottom (Open Water)

Open-water areas are well represented in and adjacent to the proposed Project boundary. Enid Lake is an example of this open water wetland habitat. According to Cowardin et al. (1979), Enid Lake adjacent to the proposed Project area is classified as L1UBHh (lacustrine, limnetic, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded/diked/impounded).

Lacustrine Unconsolidated Shore

Lacustrine unconsolidated shore temporarily flooded wetland habitat (L2USAh) includes wetlands and deepwater habitats with all of the following characteristics: 1) situated in a topographic depression or a dammed river channel; 2) lacking trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens with greater than 30% areal coverage; 3) total area exceeds 8 hectares (20 acres). The littoral subsystem includes all wetland habitats in the Lacustrine System. It extends from the shoreward boundary to 2 meters (6.6 feet) below annual low water or to the maximum extent of nonpersistent emergents, if these grow at depths greater than 2 meters (6.6 feet). The class unconsolidated shore includes all wetland habitats having two characteristics: 1) unconsolidated substrates with less than 75 percent areal cover of stones, boulders or bedrock, and (2) less than 30 percent areal cover of vegetation. Landforms such as beaches, bars, and flats are included in the Unconsolidated Shore class. The temporarily flooded water regime indicates surface water is present for brief periods during the growing season, but the water table usually lies well below the soil surface for most of the growing season. Plants that grow both in uplands and wetlands may be characteristic of this water regime.

Riverine Unconsolidated Bottom

R2UBHx wetlands consist of permanent water usually flowing over a bottom of silt, sand, clay, or fine gravel, and a well developed floodplain. Wetland vegetation usually consists mostly of rooted emergents, with floating leaved or submerged vascular plants and algae occurring rarely. However, at Enid, due to the continuous flow releases from the outlet conduit, little to no emergent vegetation has established itself except for a few small pockets behind velocity protections.

E-92 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.3.9.4.2 Floodplains

A floodplain is defined as the area around a stream or river that frequently floods during heavy rain. Figure E.3.9.4.2-1 for Enid Lake, presents data from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and includes the 100-year and 500-year floodplain zone within the vicinity of the Project. This is the area around the reservoirs and rivers that will be under water whenever the 100-year and 500-year storm occurs respectively. Floodplains are composed of two general areas. The first area is the floodway, which are the channel of a river or stream and those portions of the floodplain adjoining the channel which are reasonably required to efficiently carry and discharge the peak flow of the regulatory flood (100-year flood) of any river or stream. The second area is the remaining area of the floodplain, which is often referred to as “backwater.” This “backwater” area is essentially a holding area providing storage of floodwater (FFP 2012).

E-93 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

FIGURE E.3.9.4.2-1 FLOODPLAIN MAP FOR ENID LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SITE

E-94 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.3.9.5 List of Animal and Plant Species Using Wetland Habitats

Many types of wildlife including invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals utilize wetlands as essential habitats for feeding, nesting, cover or breeding. The list of animal and plant species that may be found at or within vicinity of the Project site was presented earlier in Section E.3 – Fish, Wildlife and Botanical Resources.

The majority of the shoreline around the lake at the Project site is unsuitable for riparian or wetland communities due to fluctuating water levels from dam operations. The lake primarily consists of an unvegetated shoreline of varying width due to fluctuating water levels. These areas may be exposed for up to 6 months during the lowest lake levels. As result, riparian and wetland vegetation around the lake is primarily limited to a few locations near its source where low gradient topography occurs adjacent to the lake and along the tributary streams that flow into the lake. In addition, the shoreline along the river downstream of the dam possesses few riparian and wetland habitats because river flows are regulated by the dam operations to prevent flooding.

E.3.9.6 Use of Federal Lands for Proposed Project

The Project will use an existing USACE dam structure. The owner of the dam is the United States of America and the proposed Project will be located on lands owned by the United States, under the jurisdiction of the USACE, Vicksburg District (USACE 2006). The proposed Project will operate in a run of release mode, in coordination and accordance with the USACE District’s operational and management guidelines for lake level and discharge for flood control purposes.

E.3.9.7 Proposed Project Site Footprint

The proposed Project will utilize the existing intake and outlet conduit, and consist of the addition of a new outlet conduit liner, bifurcation chamber and associated gates, penstock, forebay, powerhouse, substation and transmission line. The proposed Project will largely be located on the north bank immediately downstream of the dam’s outlet. The proposed transmission line will be buried approximately 135 feet in length to a substation and then overhead for approximately 2,036 feet in length extending south to the nearest utility interconnection point. No new access roads are proposed for this Project. Approximately 3.0 acres of land will be needed for the powerhouse and appurtenant facilities. E-95 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.3.10 Listed RTE Species in Mississippi

RTE animal and plant species that are listed under the Federal ESA and under Mississippi State Law, the Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1974, are presented in Table E.3.10-1. No listed species in Table E.3.10-1, with the exception of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), are known to occur at or within vicinity of the proposed Project site. Bald eagles are now delisted under ESA, but nesting bald eagles and their nest trees are protected by law under the Bald and Golden Protection Eagle Act. Bald eagles remain listed as endangered in the State of Mississippi.

TABLE E.3.10-1 LIST OF RTE SPECIES OCCURRING IN MISSISSIPPI Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status Fishes

Sturgeon, Gulf Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi T E Darter, crystal Crystallaria asprella E

Darter, greenside Etheostoma blenniodes E

Darter, bayou Etheostoma rubrum T E Shiner, bigeye Notropis boops E Shiner, ironcolor Notropis chalybaeus E Madtom, slender Noturus exilis E Madtom, piebald Noturus gladiator E Madtom, frecklebelly Noturus munitus E Darter, pearl Percina aurora C E Darter, slenderhead Percina phoxocephala E Minnow, suckermouth Phenacobius mirabilis E Dace, southern redbelly Phoxinus erythrogaster E

Sturgeon, pallid Scaphirhynchus albus E

Sturgeon, shovelnose Scaphirhynchus platorynchus T

Sturgeon, Alabama Scaphirhynchus suttkusi E Freshwater Mussels and Invertebrates Mucket Actinonaias ligamentia E Wartyback, purple Cyclonaias tuberculata E Spike, delicate Elliptio arctata E Spike Elliptio dilatata E Combshell, Cumberlandian Epioblasma brevidens E E

Combshell, southern Epioblasma penita E E Snuffbox Epioblasma triquetra E Crayfish,Camp Shelby Burrowing Fallicambarus gordoni E

Mucket, orangenacre Lampsilis perovalis T E Pearlymussel, slabside Lexingtonia dolabelliodes C E

Moccasinshell, Alabama Medionidus acutissimus T E Sheepnose Plethobasus cyphus E E

Clubshell, black Pleurobema curtum E E

Clubshell, southern Pleurobema decisum E E

Pigtoe, flat Pleurobema marshalli E E E-96 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status

Clubshell, ovate Pleurobema perovatum E E

Pigtoe, pyramid Pleurobema rubrum E

Pigtoe, heavy Pleurobema taitianum E E

Pocketbook, fat Potamilus capax E E

Heelsplitter, inflated Potamilus inflatus T E Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus fasciolaris E Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica cylindrical E Monkeyface Quadrula metanevra E

Stirrupshell Quadrula stapes E E Mammals

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis E E Bat, Myois gray Mytotis grisescens E Panther, Florida Puma concolor coryi E

Manatee, West Indian Trichechus manatus E E

Bear, American black Ursus americanus T E

Bear, Louisiana black Ursus americanus luteolus T E Birds Woodpecker, ivory-billed Campephilus principalis E E

Plover, southeastern snowy Charadrius alexandrinus tennirostris E

Plover, piping Charadrius melodus T E Falcon, peregrine Falco peregrinus E

Crane, Mississippi sandhill Grus canadensis pulla E E

Eagle, bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus E Stork, wood Mycteria americana E

Pelican, brown Pelecanus occidentalis E

Woodpecker, red-cockaded Picoides borealis E E

Tern, least interior Sterna antillarum E E Wren, Bewick's Thryomanes bewicki E Warbler, Bachman's Vermivora bachmanii E Reptile and Amphibian Amphiuma, one-toed Amphiuma pholeter E Salamander, green Aneides aeneus E

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta T E

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas T E

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea E E

Snake, eastern indigo Drymarchon corais couperi T E

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata E E Salamander, cave Eurycea lucifuga E Snake, rainbow Farancia erytrogramma E

Tortoise, gopher Gopherus polyphemus T E

Turtle, yellow-blotched map Graptemys flavimaculata T E

Turtle, black-knobbed map Graptemys nigrinoda E

Turtle, ringed map Graptemys oculifera T E Salamander, spring Gryinophilus porphyriticus E Snake, southern hognose Heterodon simus E

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii E E Snake, black pine Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi C E Turtle, Alabama redbelly Pseudemys alabamensis E E Frog, dusky gopher Rana sevosa E E Plants1

Potato-bean, Price's Apios priceana T

Quillwort, Louisiana Isoetes louisianensis E E-97 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status

Pondberry Lindera melissifolia E

Chaffseed, American Schwalbea americana E 1 Mississippi has no status concerning endangered plants Source: FFP 2012

E.3.10.1 Potential RTE Species at the Project Site

Mississippi's Natural Heritage Program (NHP) is maintained by the MMNS under direction of the MDWFP. The NHP maintains a database of approximately 1,500 species of animals and house a significant amount of long-term data on many tracked species. The NHP database indicated that 49 animal species were rare, threatened, endangered, or species of “special concern” in Mississippi. The list of 49 animal species was cross-referenced with the 2011 Yalobusha County list, which indicated that no species that may occur in the proposed Project vicinity are listed as endangered in Yalobusha County, Mississippi.

FFP consulted with the NHP, MDWFP, and the USFWS to identify rare, threatened, or endangered wildlife that may occur within the Project area. Based on this consultation the NHP, MDWFP, and the USFWS did not identify any federal or state-listed rare, threatened, or endangered species of mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians or any wildlife species of special concern within the Project area. A record of this consultation is presented in Appendix E-4 to this FLA.

As part of the Terrestrial Resources Survey, field surveys for bald eagles were conducted by individuals with experience conducting wildlife field surveys, knowledge of species ecology, familiarity with appropriate state and federal statutes related to wildlife, and experience with analyzing impacts to wildlife species and their habitats.

The use of the survey areas by bald eagles was documented by the use of ground surveys (Cooperrider et al. 1986); visual encounters surveys (VES), and incidental observations. The habitat requirements of the potentially occurring bald eagles were used to tailor the survey efforts. Habitats with a high probability of containing bald eagles were searched more thoroughly than those with a low probability of containing bald eagles. The surveys included all areas potentially affected by construction of the Projects including proposed transmission line

E-98 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

corridors. Ground surveys for bald eagles included searches by foot and by vehicle. The ground search consisted of canvassing wooded areas within the Project Sites to look for the stick nest of bald eagles (Cooperrider et al. 1986). Vehicle surveys consisted of slowly driving the roads and parking areas within or adjacent to the proposed project boundaries.

No bald eagles were observed within or adjacent to the survey areas during field studies. No bald eagle nests were observed within or adjacent to any of the survey areas, including along the proposed transmission line routes associated with the proposed Projects.

E.3.10.2 Potential Effects on Wildlife and Botanical Resources

Components of the proposed Project that may have the potential to affect terrestrial and wetland communities and associated species include penstock, powerhouse, substation, and the transmission line and associated utility poles. However, potential Project effects on the botanical and wildlife resources occurring in the proposed Project area are expected to be insignificant as the Project penstock, powerhouse and tailrace structures, are contained within a small footprint on previously disturbed and routinely maintained land. In addition, potential Project effects on wildlife species are also expected to be minor due to the high degree of mobility of the wildlife species found to occur in the Project area coupled with the current operation and maintenance of the existing USACE Sardis Dam Project.

State and federal natural resource agencies including, the USFWS, MDWFP, and MDEQ were contacted in January, 2012 to request information regarding the presence of federal and state- listed species as well as species and habitats of special concern in the Project area. Documentation of the consultation process and copies of correspondence received from USFWS, MDWFP, and MDEQ are provided in Appendix E-4. Of the state and federal species, habitats, and communities identified above as potentially occurring in the Project area, with the exception of bald eagles, no species were specifically identified by state or federal natural resource agencies as likely to occur within the Project area or likely to be impacted by the proposed Project (see consultation record in Appendix E-4).

E-99 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Based on responses received from various agency staff, and background data collection, the potential environmental effects to terrestrial, botanical, and wildlife resources associated with the Project components include primarily:

■ Effects on wetland species located in and adjacent to USACE jurisdictional waterways due to the potential for erosion and sedimentation during construction; ■ Effects on terrestrial botanical communities and associated wildlife species that are located along the proposed transmission line corridor; ■ Inadvertent introduction or spread of invasive and noxious plant species; and ■ Potential discharges during construction activities.

Project effects on wildlife and botanical resources may include: (a) construction related effects; and (b) operational effects. Project effects on the botanical resources are expected to be minor because the Project penstock, powerhouse and tailrace structures, are contained within a small footprint on previously disturbed and routinely maintained land. Project effects on the wildlife are also expected to be minor due the high degree of mobility of the wildlife species found to occur in the area.

E.3.10.3 Potential Effects on Wetlands and Floodplains

Construction of the proposed Project is not expected to affect wetlands because no wetlands were found to exist on the proposed Project site, as well as, the powerhouse is being built adjacent to and within a armored (i.e., riprap) bank section located downstream of the Enid Dam and within an area that is currently maintained lawn. Construction of the substation will also have no effect on wetlands because the proposed substation is located in upland forested habitat. No wetland resources are located in these areas based on review of USFWS NWI data (USFWS 2013b), and the results of the Wetland Delineation Report for Enid Lake Hydroelectric Project conducted in the summer 2013. Equipment access near the river during construction of the powerhouse could result in soil erosion and sedimentation during construction. Such effects will be temporary and can be minimized by implementing required state and federal BMP for erosion and sedimentation control, including shoreline stabilization measures, during and after construction. E-100 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Construction of the new transmission line will not affect wetlands as the transmission line corridor was found to contain no wetlands. As currently proposed this line is approximately 2,624 feet long, extending northwest from the Project substation along an existing road (i.e., CR- 36) to an interconnection point at a utility owned distribution line. This line is also not expected to traverse any wetlands based upon review of USFWS NWI data (USFWS 2013b), and the Wetland Delineation Report for Enid Lake Hydroelectric Project conducted in summer 2013.

Equipment access near the river, establishment of temporary equipment and materials storage areas, and the creation of temporary access areas could result in soil erosion and sedimentation during construction. As mentioned above, such effects will be temporary and can be eliminated or minimized by implementing BMP for erosion and sedimentation control, including shoreline stabilization measures, during and after construction. Project effects on floodplains may include: (a) construction related effects; and (b) operational effects. However these effects are expected to be minimal since no definable wetlands were found in proximity to the proposed Project construction areas.

E.3.10.4 Potential Effects on Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species

FFP recognizes that Project effects on RTE species need to be considered under regulation of the ESA, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as well as under various State management plans.

Potential effects on wildlife, terrestrial and botanical resources may be analyzed based on two categories, (a) construction related effects and (b) operational effects.

E.3.10.5 Potential Construction Related Effects

Project construction activities that could affect wildlife, terrestrial and botanical resources could include:

 Clearing along new transmission lines;  Excavation for the powerhouse and substation;

E-101 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

 Establishment of temporary equipment and materials storage areas; and  Temporary changes to hydraulic conditions to facilitate certain stages of construction.

FFP has conducted a Terrestrial Resources Survey including an invasive species survey and a terrestrial RTE species survey, and an independent wetland delineation study at the proposed Project which has been used to assess potential affects. These surveys included terrestrial areas that have the potential to be affected by construction of the proposed Project. The Terrestrial Resources Survey determined the extent of terrestrial habitat effects, and potential transmission line effects on birds and other wildlife species, the RTE species survey determined whether target species habitat, or the species itself (i.e. bald eagles), exist in the proposed Project area, and the invasive species survey documented the presence of targeted invasive species for construction management to minimize or avoid the spread of such species. No RTE species or habitats and no wetlands were observed within or adjacent to the proposed project boundary that would be potentially affected by the proposed Project construction activities.

Invasive species have been identified and documented to occur in the Project area. However, the invasive/noxious weeds observed in the Project Sites are expected to have little potential to be affected directly by construction, operation, and maintenance activities associated with development of the Projects.

E.3.10.6 Potential Operational Effects

Project operations activities that could affect wildlife, terrestrial and botanical resources (including wetlands) could include:

 The presence of, and maintenance activities along, new transmission lines; and  Changes to hydraulic conditions  Routine maintenance of grounds or mowing

FFP has conducted a Terrestrial Resources Survey including, an invasive species survey and a terrestrial RTE species survey as well as an independent wetland delineation study at the proposed Project which has been used to assess potential affects. These surveys included

E-102 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

terrestrial areas that have the potential to be affected by construction of the proposed Project. The Terrestrial Resources Survey determined the extent of terrestrial habitat effects, and potential transmission line effects on birds and wildlife species. The RTE species survey determined whether target species habitat, or the species itself (i.e. bald eagles), exist in the proposed Project area, and the invasive species survey documented the presence of targeted invasive species for construction management to minimize or avoid the spread of such species. No RTE species or habitats and no wetlands were observed within or adjacent to the proposed project boundary that would be potentially affected by the proposed Project construction activities. Invasive species have been identified and documented to occur in the Project area. However, the invasive/noxious weeds observed in the Project Sites are expected to have little potential to be affected directly by construction, operation, and maintenance activities associated with development of the Projects.

With respect to Sections E.3.10.2 through E.3.10.6, and as noted in Exhibit D, FFP proposes to, and has included allowances for development of an Avian Protection Plan and Transmission Line Corridor Management Plan. FFP recognizes the need for, and has made the commitment to develop these plans in consultation with the USACE and appropriate resource agencies. As identified above, FFP would expect these plans to consider aspects such as timing of construction, construction means and methods, any reasonable and appropriate protection measures that may apply during construction or post-construction. However, given the unconstructed nature of these projects and that detailed design will occur once licenses are received, FFP believes that in this instance it is more appropriate to develop these plans after the licenses are issued and the detailed design process is underway.

E-103 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.4 Report on Historic and Archaeological Resources

In considering an initial license for the proposed Project, the Commission has the lead responsibility for compliance with applicable federal laws, regulations, and policies pertaining to historic properties, including the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA).7 Section 106 of the NHPA (Section 106) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment. The regulations implementing Section 106 (36 CFR Part 800) define the process for identifying historic properties, assessing effects, and seeking ways to resolve adverse effects on historic properties in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), federally recognized Indian tribes, the public, and other appropriate parties.

“Historic properties” are defined in 36 CFR § 800.16(l) as any prehistoric or historic period district, site, building, structure, or individual object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within historic properties, as well as properties of traditional religious and cultural importance that meet the NRHP criteria.

The Secretary of the Interior has established the criteria for evaluating properties for inclusion in the National Register (36 CFR Part 60). In accordance with the criteria, properties are eligible if they are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. The quality of significance is present in historic properties that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association and:

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that

7 16 USC 470 et seq. E-104 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

represent a significant or distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.

By notice dated March 29, 2012, the Commission initiated informal consultation with the Mississippi Department of Archives and History (“MDAH” or “Mississippi SHPO”) pursuant to Section 106 and 36 CFR § 800.2 (FERC 2012). The Commission’s March 29, 2012 notice also designated FFP as the Commission’s non-federal representative for purposes of carrying out informal consultation under Section 106.

In accordance with the Section 106 process, FFP has been in ongoing consultation with the Cultural Resources Working Group (CRWG) for the Project, to identify historic properties that may be affected by the Commission’s issuance of an original license for the Project. The CRWG includes the following parties:

 FFP  FERC  MDAH  USACE;  ACHP;  Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma;  Jena Band of Choctaw Indians;  Chickasaw Nation;  Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians;  Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana;  Muscogee (Creek) Nation; and  Quapaw Nation of Oklahoma.

This section of Exhibit E discusses the historical and archaeological resources in the vicinity of the proposed Project and the potential impact of the proposed Project on those resources. This section begins with a discussion of the proposed Project’s area of potential effects (APE).

E-105 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.4.1 Area of Potential Effects

The regulations implementing Section 106 at 36 CFR § 800.16(d) define the APE as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist.

As discussed in Section E.6 of this application, erosion has been documented along the shoreline of Enid Lake. The indirect or direct effects of shoreline erosion on historic properties may include ground disturbance, physical destruction or damage to intact archaeological deposits (e.g., loss of integrity), looting, or vandalism. Shoreline erosion may alter characteristics of archaeological or historic resources listed in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and could result in adverse effects on historic properties.

The Project proposes to use the water power potential of the existing dam and Enid Lake. No changes to Enid Lake are proposed, and the impoundment is not proposed to be included within the FERC Project boundary. Lake level and daily discharge releases at Enid Dam are actively managed by the USACE. The Project will be operated in a run-of-release mode with no storage of flows. Flows available for generation will consist of water released from the lake according to USACE’s existing lake level and discharge management practices. The Project will not interfere with the USACE’s management of the water resource and will use existing flows dispatched by the USACE.

Shoreline erosion at Enid Lake is likely a result of several contributing factors, including natural soil conditions, lake levels and daily discharge releases managed by the USACE, recreational activities, and seasonal meteorological conditions. Proposed operation of the Project is not expected to have any direct or indirect effect on these factors influencing shoreline erosion. FFP will not control impoundment fluctuations or daily discharges by the USACE. The USACE will continue to maintain Enid Lake according to existing lake level management practices. Therefore, the operation of the proposed Project is not expected to have any potential effect on historic or archaeological resources at Enid Lake listed in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

E-106 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

The proposed Project will utilize the existing USACE intake and outlet conduit, and consist of the addition of a new outlet conduit liner, bifurcation chamber, discharge gates, penstock, forebay, powerhouse, substation and transmission line. Construction of the Project will result in temporary ground disturbance within the proposed Project boundary as defined in Exhibit G of this license application. Ground disturbing activities have the potential to alter the character and use of historic properties within the proposed Project boundary, should any such properties be present.

By letter dated June 20, 2013, FFP initiated consultation with the CRWG regarding the APE for the Project. The CRWG developed an APE for this undertaking based on the geographic scope of potential direct and indirect Project effects. In a September 13, 2013 memorandum, the Commission defined the APE for the Enid Project as:

The APE for the Enid Project is defined as: (1) the lands enclosed by the project boundary, which will include: a 35-foot-long, 20-foot-wide steel-lined concrete bifurcation; a 370-foot-long penstock; a surge tank; an 80-foot-long, 50-foot-wide powerhouse; a 150-foot-long, 50-foot-wide tailrace; a 2,370-foot-long transmission line; a substation; and appurtenant facilities; and (2) the lands outside the project boundary, where project-related effects may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, traditional cultural properties, and sacred sites, if any such properties exist.

In total, the APE for the Enid Project includes approximately 30 acres. This APE is consistent with the scope of the proposed Project and the manner in which the Commission has defined the APE for similar hydroelectric licensing proceedings at USACE facilities.

E.4.2 Identification of Historic and Archaeological Resources

This section begins with a brief overview of the cultural setting of the Project area intended to provide contextual information regarding the nature and character of cultural resources within the proposed Project’s vicinity.

E-107 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.4.2.1 Cultural Context

The cultural chronology for Mississippi in general and the Yazoo River Basin, specifically, can be broadly divided into the Paleoindian, Archaic, Gulf Formational, Woodland, Mississippi, Protohistoric, and Historic periods. Considering its central location between the uplands and the broad alluvial plains of the Delta, the archaeology and prehistory of the Project area reflects broad trends from both the regions. These trends become generally more intertwined throughout the precontact and historic periods.

E.4.2.1.1 Precontact Period

Paleoindian Period and Early Archaic Periods

Native Americans occupied present-day Mississippi for thousands of years prior to the arrival of Europeans. McGahey (1996a) has divided the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods in Mississippi into five periods based on the morphological and typological characteristics of projectile point/knife (PP/K) styles representative of both major periods. Period one (12,000- 11,000 years before present [BP]) consists of fluted points including the Clovis, Cumberland, and Redstone types. Period two (11,000 to 10,500 BP) points, although unfluted, are pre-Dalton types and include the Quad, Beaver Lake, Coldwater, Hinds, and Arkabutla types. Period three (10,500 to 10,000 BP) points include Dalton and Dalton-like forms such as Hardaway and San Patrice. Period four (10,000 to 9,500/9,000 BP) consists of side notched PP/K forms that often exhibit basal grinding. Points fitting this description include such types as Cache River, Greenbriar, and Big Sandy I. Finally, period five points (9,500 to 9,000 BP) consist primarily of corner notched points that also tend to have basally ground surfaces. Examples of period five PP/Ks include types such Pine Tree, Lost Lake, Decatur, Jude, Plevna, Stilwell and other forms sharing a similar morphology (McGahey 1996a; HDR Environmental, Operations, and Construction [HDR EOC] 2013).

To date, no Paleoindian/Early Archaic sites have been systematically excavated in North-Central Mississippi, an area that McGahey (1996a) defines to include the North Central Plateau and the northern part of the Loess Hills physiographic districts (McGahey 1996a). However, the entire range of early diagnostic lithics is well represented in private collections obtained from the flood E-108 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

control pools of Arkabutla, Sardis, Enid, and Grenada lakes in North-Central Mississippi (McGahey 1996a). The presence of Paleoindian and Early Archaic diagnostic artifacts along major tributaries to the Yazoo River is consistent with current understandings of early settlement and subsistence patterns. Seasonal changes in resource availability meant that Paleoindian and Early Archaic groups developed resource procurement strategies that required seasonal migration. It is likely that Paleoindian and Early Archaic populations traveled along major streams and exploited the resources available along these corridors. This trend is also reflected in the distribution of Paleoindian and Early Archaic diagnostic tools in the Delta region. Paleoindian and Early Archaic PP/Ks have been found on the remnant Pleistocene outwash surfaces in the Delta that reflect braided-stream glacial regimes of the late-glacial Mississippi River (Chapman et al. 2004; McGahey 1996a). The location of these diagnostics suggests that Paleoindian and Early Archaic groups may have occupied the margins of these braided channels at the end of the Pleistocene (McGahey 1996a).

Middle Archaic Period

The Middle Archaic period is not well understood in North-Central Mississippi. McGahey (1996b) defines a chronological sequence for the Middle Archaic based on PP/K typologies that shows the emergence of larger forms such as Cypress Creek, Eva, Benton, and O’Possum Bayou occurring early in the Middle Archaic. As with other regional contexts in Mississippi, the Middle Archaic in North-Central Mississippi appears to have ended around 7,000 BP with the advent of narrow stemmed projectile point forms (McGahey 1996b).

The preference for utilization of major stream channels seen in the Paleoindian and Early Archaic appears to have continued into the Middle Archaic period, with over 80 percent of reported archaeological deposits found in the floodplain or on terraces of major tributaries to the Yazoo River (McGahey 1996b). The Middle Archaic saw the emergence of ground stone tools in North-Central Mississippi, including grooved stone axes and bannerstones. These tools suggest changes in subsistence strategies that focus on exploiting a larger variety of available resources. Such trends are also reflected in the presence of midden mounds along streams and rivers during the Middle Archaic that typically consist of accumulated debris of human

E-109 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

occupation, including mussel shells. This evidence indicates a subsistence strategy consistent with the warming climatic conditions and the emergence of essentially modern faunal assemblages during the Archaic Period (McGahey 1996b).

Evidence of regional exchange systems is also present in some archaeological assemblages from the Middle Archaic period in North-Central Mississippi. Such evidence is recognized primarily by the discovery of exotic lithic materials at archaeological sites in the region. The primary sources of raw material imported into the area are Tuscaloosa gravel chert and Fort Payne Chert from the east and north of North-Central Mississippi. Large caches of PP/K blanks, Benton, and turkey-tail points made from these exotic lithic raw materials have been found in the region, suggesting the emergence or expansion of regional trade networks (McGahey 1996b). Caches of blades are often interpreted as evidence of ceremonial exchange systems intended to maintain vital trade networks between communities (McGahey 1996b).

Late Archaic Period

The Late Archaic Period (5,000-3,000 BP) in the North Central Plateau is differentiated from the Middle Archaic primarily by the emergence or narrow-stemmed forms such as Little Bear Creek, Flint Creek, and Kent. In many ways, the Late Archaic Period saw a continuation of the regional trends that emerged during the Middle Archaic. Archaeological evidence of increasingly large middens and possible mound sites has been recorded in the region, suggesting that populations were developing more sedentary settlement patterns (Giliberti 1996).

Gulf Formational Stage

Walthall and Jenkins (1976) created the Gulf Formational Stage to describe the transition from the Late Archaic period to the Woodland period in the Gulf Coastal Plain. Mississippi is part of the western section of the Gulf Coastal Plain, as divided by Walthall and Jenkins. The earliest components regarded as Gulf Formational lie to the east of Mississippi (Smith et al. 2010).

E-110 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

No Early Gulf Formational period components have been identified in the state. The Middle Gulf Formational is characterized by the introduction of pottery into the Late Archaic artifact assemblage. In Mississippi, five ceramic series are associated with the Middle Gulf Formational Stage. The fiber-tempered Wheeler series and the so-called “temperless” St. Johns series date to the earlier part Middle Gulf Formational period (3,200-2,100 BP). Both appear to have originated in the southern Atlantic region and the eastern part of the Gulf Coastal Plain during the Early Gulf Formational period (ca. 4,500 to 3,500 BP) and subsequently spread westward toward the Mississippi River. Evidence of the Middle Gulf Formational stage in the North Central Plateau is minimal and represented by fiber-tempered ceramic sherds. In general, Middle Gulf Formational components are lacking in the Loess Hills (Morgan 1996).

The major regional trend associated with the Middle Gulf Formational stage in Mississippi is the emergence of the Poverty Point culture. The name Poverty Point is derived from the type-site, an area of massive earthwork construction in northeast Louisiana. Poverty Point (16WC5) is believed to have been a cultural center with trade networks and influence extending throughout the Lower Mississippi Valley. While Poverty Point had regional influence, it is expressed in the Yazoo River Basin almost exclusively at Jaketown phase sites within the MAP. Only two sites containing possible Poverty Point components have been reported in the Loess Hills (Morgan 1996).

The Late Gulf Formational period in the North Central Plateau is characterized by a shift from fiber-tempered to sand-tempered ceramics typified by the Alexander series. Few details regarding the Late Gulf Formational occupation of the region are known, but previous excavations of North Central Plateau burial mounds suggest that construction of these mounds may have been completed during the Late Gulf Formational, thus predating the Middle Woodland ceremonialism associations with the Hopewell Interaction Sphere (Morgan 1996).

Middle Woodland Period

The Middle Woodland period (2,100 BP-1,500 BP) is contemporaneous with the southeastern Hopewell culture (Brown 2004). Diffusion of aspects of the culture may have resulted from the

E-111 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

activity of traders who established a wide-ranging exchange network, sometimes termed the “Hopewell Interaction Sphere” (Caldwell 1964). Middle Woodland period occupations in the Lower Mississippi Valley are equated with the Marksville culture. In addition to diagnostic pottery types of the Marksville period, conical burial mounds, long distance trade of exotic items such–as copper artifacts and marine shells–and increasing social complexity, were characteristic of the culture (Smith et al. 2010). Interments are generally associated with grave goods, some of which were manufactured from exotic raw materials (Neuman 1984; Toth 1974, 1988). Toth (1974) contends Marksville peoples lived in villages organized at a tribal level.

Late Woodland Period

In the southern portion of the Lower Mississippi Valley, the Late Woodland is divided into the Troyville (1,500–1,300 BP) and the Coles Creek (1,300–1000 BP) periods. Throughout North America, the Late Woodland period is generally associated with population decrease, a decline in artifact quality, a decrease in trade activity, and a reduction of burial ceremonialism. The bow and arrow is a significant technological advance that occurs during this period. Two new point types are associated with the introduction of the bow and arrow, the triangular-shaped Madison and the corner-notched Collins arrow points (McGahey 2004). Also, the platform mound appears as another addition to the Late Woodland cultural assemblage. Platform mounds served as substructures for religious and/or civic buildings rather than as burial mounds (Neuman and Hawkins 1993). In addition, platform mounds are often arranged around open plazas where ceremonial activities occurred. Finally, village areas are often located away from these ceremonial centers. Several researchers, including Gibson (1978) and Neuman (1984) believe that this change in settlement pattern indicates a move to a more centralized political organization–although what led to this new political consolidation is a subject of much debate (HDR EOC 2013).

Although the Late Woodland is poorly understood within the North Central Plateau and Loess Hills, the artifact assemblage from the region suggests a high density of Late Woodland period sites. Baytown period sites are well represented by Baytown Plain and Mulberry Creek Cordmarked ceramics, but the later Coles Creek component is generally absent. A number of

E-112 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

projectile points recovered from the USACE’s flood control reservoirs in the Loess Hills and North Central Plateau (primarily Sardis Lake) reflect Late Woodland morphologies that indicate the intensity of Late Woodland aboriginal occupation in North--Central Mississippi.

Mississippian Period

The beginning of the Mississippian period (800-450 BP) is marked by the appearance of emergent Mississippian culture in the northern part of the Lower Mississippi Valley and throughout much of the interior Southeast. Political consolidation and the emergence of religious elites also contributed to Mississippian influences. Mound sites became less scattered but larger, whereas non-mound sites were smaller but more numerous. Mississippian culture characteristics include shell tempering and maize agriculture. The consensus view of Mississippian societies is one of chiefdoms supported by floodplain maize agriculture (HDR EOC 2013).

The Mississippian period is poorly understood and appears poorly represented in the northwestern portion of the North Central Plateau. Regionally, the Mississippian is identified by a transition to shell-tempered pottery and a proliferation of smaller projectile point forms. The Hurricane Landing Mound in Sardis Lake represents one of the only Mississippian sites identified in the northwestern North Central Plateau (Morgan 1996). This truncated pyramidal mound is characteristic of Mississippian construction. Few other Mississippian sites have been identified in the region, although the number and density of sites dating to this period appear to increase in drainage basins to the south of the North Central Plateau.

Although Mississippian period is well represented in the Loess Hills, research on Mississippian sites in the physiographic district has primarily been focused on the Vicksburg area. Mississippian sites in the northern Loess Hills are typically associated with the transition from the late precontact to the early Protohistoric period (Morgan 1996).

The dearth of Mississippian period sites in the upper reaches of the Yazoo River Basin may be the result of extensive Mississippian agricultural practices which restricted settlement and

E-113 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

agricultural fields to arable sandy soils and near permanent streams (Lauro 2002). Such practices led to population concentrations in the Delta and along the Tombigbee River drainage, with smaller occupations along the floodplains of the Yalobusha, Tallahatchie, Yocona, and Skuna rivers. While the uplands were undoubtedly used for seasonal and large-scale hunting expeditions, these regions probably remained relatively unsettled during the Mississippian period (Lauro 2002).

Protohistoric Period

The Protohistoric period approximates the time span from initial European contact to first European colonization. Throughout the Southeast, the Protohistoric period (1500–1700 AD) was a time of cultural change as native populations responded to European contact, most notably the impact of Old World diseases. Although the effects of contact were not uniform, population decline, relocation, social reorganization, and the fragmentation of the powerful Mississippian chiefdoms were widespread (HDR EOC 2013).

Beginning in the early 1500s, Spanish explorers began to make contact with Native American populations in the Southeast. In 1537, Hernando De Soto was named governor of Cuba by the Spanish government and given permission to conquer present-day Florida (Yedlowski 1991). The De Soto Entrada sailed from Spain in 1538 and made landfall near Tampa Bay on May 30, 1539. From there, De Soto marched inland and reached the “River Chicaça” (the Tombigbee River) on December 15, 1540, and the entrada crossed the Tombigbee River two days later. De Soto’s movements between the Tombigbee and Mississippi rivers are not well understood, and there is currently no direct archaeological evidence of encampments reported in the historical literature (Yedlowski 1991; Childs and McNutt 2009). It appears that De Soto and his men spent the winter of 1540-1541 in the Chicaça province at a location near present-day West Point or Mayhew Mississippi. By all accounts, the winter was fraught with “intrigue and minor violence” on the part of the native population and the Spanish (Yedlowski 1991). This general disquietude culminated in a devastating Indian attack on the morning of March 4, 1541 that left more than a dozen Spanish soldiers, 57 horses, and 300 hogs dead (Childs and McNutt 2009). A

E-114 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

repeated attack was repelled by the Spanish on March 15, 1541 but forced De Soto to abandon his camp and move to a new site at Chicacilla (Yedlowski 1991; Childs and McNutt 2009).

After departing Chicacilla on April 25, 1541, the entrada encountered a strongly manned barricade at Alibamu (or Alibamo), believed to be located near present-day Houston, Mississippi, at the headwaters of the Yalobusha River (Childs and McNutt 2009). The Spanish fought through the barricade, but De Soto’s route from Alibamu to the entrada’s final campsite east of the Mississippi in the Quizquiz (or Quizqui) province remains the subject of debate and much speculation. It is possible that De Soto and his men followed the Skuna and Yalobusha rivers from the uplands, through Grenada, and into the Delta (Childs and McNutt 2009). This hypothesis would place De Soto’s crossing of the Mississippi River at a point near Sunflower Landing or Friar’s Point, Mississippi. Several other alternative have been proposed, including a northern route that would have placed the entrada’s crossing near Memphis, Tennessee.

Regardless of the location of the crossing, after the departure of De Soto it would be another 132 years before Native American populations in the Middle South had direct contact with Europeans (Yedlowski 1991). However, Yedlowski (1991) notes that De Soto’s departure left an indelible mark on the region:

In his wake, [De] Soto left diseases against which the Indians had no immunity. These epidemics, rumors of Spanish conquest, and accounts of [De] Soto’s cruelty eventually spread throughout the Middle South (i.e., Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee) causing widespread fear and tension among the native populations.

The epidemic diseases and turmoil wrought by European contact was a factor in the collapse of Mississippian chiefdoms. The resulting social disruption caused population movements, shifts in subsistence and settlement patterns, and a realignment of social structures (Lauro 2002; Galloway 1996). Many of the primary areas of Mississippian occupation were abandoned in favor of settlements in the uplands and headwaters, and the surviving populations began to coalesce into the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes of the historic period (Lauro 2002).

E-115 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

In 1673, Frenchman Louis Joliet led an expedition down the Mississippi River from Canada and came as far south as Bolivar County, Mississippi. Other European explorers followed in relatively rapid succession, with a second French expedition led by Chevalier Rene Robert, Sieur de la Salle reaching the mouth of the Mississippi River in 1682 (Yedlowski 1991). While the French cultivated an alliance with Chickasaw and Choctaw tribes, incursion by English explorers and traders in 1698 threatened this relationship. In response, France established the first permanent colony in Mississippi at Iberville (present-day Biloxi) in 1699.

E.4.2.1.2 Historic Period

European settlement in the Middle South during the early 1700s was primarily focused on gaining control of trade and access to trade goods. Despite the early successes of the French, the English soon won the allegiance of the Chickasaw by providing better quality trade goods in greater quantities (Yedlowski 1991). The French, recognizing that their relationship with the powerful Chickasaw Nation was under strain, began to ally themselves with the Choctaw Nation. By 1720, the simmering conflict between the French and the Chickasaw erupted into the first Chickasaw-French War (Yedlowski 1991). Chickasaw raiding parties swept through the Mississippi Delta to the mouth of the Yazoo River taking French captives, burning farms, and running off livestock (Yedlowski 1991). The French contested these raids with the assistance of Choctaw mercenaries. By 1725, hostilities had largely ended, but a second Chickasaw-French War would again erupt 1731. Despite amassing an overwhelming force of French regulars and mercenaries along the Tombigbee River, the French were unable to defeat the Chickasaw in this second conflict. Intermittent hostilities would continue between the French, Chickasaw, and Choctaw through the beginning of the 1750s (Yedlowski 1991).

The latter half of the 18th century proved a time of increasing turmoil for Chickasaw and Choctaw communities in the region (Yedlowski 1991). The chaotic state of Indian nations in the Mississippi River Valley was further exacerbated by the renewed presence of the Spanish in Louisiana territory following French cessation of the territory at the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1763. The transfer of the eastern Mississippi Valley to the English further limited tribal control. By the outset of the American Revolution in 1776, Indian tribes in the Mississippi River Valley found themselves hemmed in by three increasingly powerful nations (Yedlowski 1991).

E-116 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

The Chickasaw and Choctaw also faced unique internal strife at the close of the 18th century. As more European settlers moved into their traditional homelands, Chickasaw and Choctaw populations began to intermarry with foreigners, resulting in rapid socioeconomic and political changes. By 1800, many of the traditional tribal relationships and power structures had been undercut (Yedlowski 1991). As Lauro (2002) notes, this lack of internal unity:

…left the individual members of tribes subject to increasing encroachment by Old World settlers, and limited the bargaining power of the remaining traditional political elite in the face of organized demands brought by the new economic and political powers of the Gulf and Atlantic coastal regions.

The 1786 Hopewell Treaty marked the beginning of official relations between the United States, the Choctaw, and the Chickasaw (Yedlowski 1991). An increasing desire for control over the arable land in the Mississippi Valley to feed growing industrial demand for cotton led the United States government to systematically dispossess the Choctaws and Chickasaws of their land (Lauro 2002). The 1837 Treaty of Doaksville laid the foundation for the massive emigration of Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Choctaw populations that became known as the “Trail of Tears” (Yedlowski 1991). By 1850, these tribes had been largely deported from their homelands to the Oklahoma Territory west of the Mississippi River (Lauro 2002; Yedlowski 1991).

Settlement of Central Mississippi by Euro-Americans began in earnest following the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek in 1833 (Lauro 2002). During the antebellum period, the region was characterized primarily by small but prosperous plantation communities with scattered manufacturing centers (Lauro 2002). The outset of the American Civil War brought changes to the entire South, including Mississippi. By the end of the 19th century, the prosperous planation economy had been destroyed and replaced with poor upland hill farms (Lauro 2002).

In 1927, the Great Mississippi Flood caused extensive damage and loss of life in the Mississippi River Valley. In response, the U.S. Congress passed the 1928 Flood Control Act and later the 1936 Flood Control Act. These two Acts became the cornerstone of a large undertaking to control the Mississippi River and its tributaries. A major goal of the Acts prescribed protection E-117 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

of the rich delta farmlands of West Mississippi by controlling the waters of the Yazoo River. The USACE created a plan to construct four strategically placed dams to control the drainage from the Northern hill country. The plan included four lakes in North Mississippi constructed as part of a Comprehensive Flood Control Plan designed to protect the Mississippi Delta from flooding. In 1936, the Yazoo Headwater Project resulted in the construction of four dams at that formed Grenada, Enid, Sardis and Arkabutla lakes (FFP 2012).

Construction of Enid Dam began February 1, 1947. The Project employed many workers from a post-war labor force that was large and plentiful. The abundance of workers resulted in rapid construction, and Enid Dam was placed into operation in December 1952. Construction of Enid Dam was performed under two major contracts. The first contract involved construction on the embankment and spillway (USACE undated[d]). Since the Yocona River ran through the dam site, earthwork on the dam required that the river be diverted and temporarily re-routed. After completion of this part of the dam, riprap was placed on the upstream side to prevent damage from wave action. The emergency spillway was constructed at the north end of the dam. Completion of the emergency spillway ended the first contract in November 1950. The second contract provided for the construction of the outlet works and embankment closure. The outlet works included the approach channel, intake and transition, conduits, stilling basin, and control tower or gatehouse (USACE undated[d]). During the second contract, workers excavated the outlet channel to connect the outlet structure with the existing river. At the same time, an approach channel was excavated upstream for the outlet structure connecting the intake of the structure with the existing river channel above the dam. These channels allowed the river flow to be diverted through the outlet channel structure so that the final closure could be completed. After completing the relocation of roads and bridges, the second contract ended and the Project was placed into operation in December 1952. The earthen-filled dam is approximately 8,400 feet long (USACE undated[d]).

E-118 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.4.2.2 Discovery Measures

E.4.2.2.1 Summary of Previous Studies

With one exception, no formal cultural resources studies or surveys were conducted prior to the inundation of Grenada, Enid, Sardis, or Arkabutla reservoirs (Broyles et al. 1982). In 1952, William Haag of the University of Mississippi conducted an archaeological survey and limited excavations within the proposed take area for Grenada Lake and recorded over 50 precontact period archaeological sites (Haag 1952). No formal cultural resources studies or surveys were conducted prior to the construction of Enid Dam and the creation of Enid Lake (Broyles et al. 1982).

Broyles et al. (1982) report that only a single cultural resources survey was conducted at Enid Lake in the three decades following construction. In 1982, the Center for Archaeological Research (CAR) at the University of Mississippi reported on archaeological reconnaissance studies conducted at all four USACE reservoirs, including Enid Lake (Broyles et al. 1982). CAR reviewed archaeological site files, conducted interviews with local informants, and field-verified a sample of reported archaeological sites at each reservoir through site visits and limited surface collections (Broyles et al. 1982). The CAR study identified a total of 124 reported archaeological sites at Enid Lake, although only a small sample of sites were verified in the field.

More recently, studies have included site surveys, inventories, and site evaluations along the shorelines of the Enid Lake and at other locations on the USACE’s property (MDAH 2013). These studies have been undertaken to assess the effects of new recreation facilities, land transfers, timber sales, and other infrastructure improvements.

E.4.2.2.2 FFP Cultural Resources Study

To identify historic properties within the APE that may be affected the Project; FFP developed a Cultural Resources Study in consultation with the CRWG. Based on discussions with the CRWG, the Cultural Resources Study was defined to include a Phase I cultural resources survey of the Project’s APE, including (1) a review of archaeological and historical records pertaining to E-119 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

the general Project area; (2) a complete field inspection (including subsurface testing, as applicable) to determine the presence, nature, and degree of integrity, if possible, of any archaeological remains within the Project’s APE; and (3) an evaluation of the potential impact(s) of the Project on the identified archaeological resources. In addition to Phase I cultural resources survey, the Enid Dam and existing USACE facilities within the APE were also surveyed by an architectural historian to evaluate their eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP.

FFP retained HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) to conduct the Cultural Resources Study, including the Phase I cultural resources surveys and the architectural survey of existing facilities within the APE. A field survey of the APE and an evaluation of existing facilities at Enid Dam were conducted in September 2013. The Cultural Resources Study was conducted in accordance with the MDAH’s Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations and Reports in Mississippi (MDAH Guidelines) (Sims 2001) and permit DACW38-4-13-124 issued to HDR by the USACE pursuant to the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA).8

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey

HDR’s review of archaeological records pertaining to the Enid Project’s APE indicated that a total of 9 cultural resources investigations have been conducted within approximately one mile of the Project’s APE. No cultural resources studies were previously conducted within the proposed Project’s APE. One cultural resources study was previously conducted adjacent to the Project’s APE to assess the potential effects of a proposed fish hatchery on historic properties (Johnson 2002). Johnson (2002) reported that nearly all of the survey area (including portions adjacent to the proposed Project’s APE) was used as a borrow area during construction of Enid Dam. The survey area was significantly disturbed by previous construction activities. No archaeological or historic resources were identified during the cultural resources survey of the proposed fish hatchery.

8 16 USC 470aa-mm. E-120 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

In September 2013, HDR archaeologists conducted a field survey of the Project’s APE pursuant to the MDAH Guidelines. The survey included a systematic pedestrian surface examination of all exposed ground surfaces within the APE. As a component of the survey, HDR also conducted subsurface testing within the Project’s APE. In accordance with the MDAH Guidelines, shovel test pits (STP) were excavated at 30-meter intervals within the APE, and excavated soils were hand-screened through 0.25-inch hardware cloth. Shovel testing was not performed in areas of standing water, on slopes steeper than 30 degrees, manmade levees, areas of extensive and deep ground disturbance, or in the vicinity of buried utility lines and copper cables. HDR recorded data for each STP, including provenience information, GPS coordinates, stratigraphic data (e.g., depth, texture, and color), and the presence or absence of cultural material in each stratum. In total, 32 STPs were excavated within the Project’s APE. No cultural material was encountered in the excavated STPs, and HDR did not identify any precontact or historic period archaeological sites within the Project’s APE. HDR identified significant prior ground disturbance within the APE that is likely the result of a previous construction and land use/management activities, including construction and maintenance of the Enid Dam and associated USACE facilities, timber harvesting, and recreational development.

As a result of the Phase I cultural resources survey, HDR did not recommend any additional archaeological investigations of the Project’s APE.

Architectural Survey

The architectural survey conducted for the Cultural Resources Study included background archival research, visual inspection, and documentation of the exterior of built resources within the Project’s APE. Fieldwork was conducted by HDR pursuant to the standards established by MDAH and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 Federal Register 44716, Sept. 1983), as amended and revised. For this survey, HDR described the general architectural attributes and materials, overall footprint, building plan, character-defining features, additions and other modifications, and general condition of each building or structure within the APE. HDR also captured digital photographs

E-121 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

of buildings and structures within the APE and the surrounding environment to understand the relationship of built resources to other facilities and features.

Enid Dam is one of four flood control dams constructed as part of the USACE’s Yazoo Headwater Project in northern Mississippi. Enid Dam and the USACE’s other flood control dams constructed as part of the Yazoo Headwater Project–Grenada, Arkabutla, and Sardis–are similar in form, style, and orientation. Each flood control project includes a dam with stilling basin and outlet channel, an intake tower, and a gaging station that all date between 1936 and 1954. As recreational uses at the reservoirs gained in popularity in the 1970s and 1980s, additional facilities were constructed, including picnic pavilions, restroom facilities, playgrounds, beaches, docks, marinas, camp grounds, fish cleaning stations, informational kiosks, etc.

The Yazoo Headwater Project was the first comprehensive flood control project in the Yazoo River Basin and was an enormous undertaking in regards to engineering, design, labor, and funding. Upon completion, the project protected over 1.2 million acres of land against flooding. The flood control efforts and increased security from flooding allowed for increases in cultivated land and agricultural products, which in turn stimulated the region’s economy.

Based on the results of the architectural survey, HDR recommended the Sardis, Grenada, Enid, and Arkabutla dams, reservoirs, and certain appurtenant facilities as eligible for listing in the NRHP as a discontiguous historic district under National Register Criteria A and C with a period of significance from 1936-1954. This period is marked by the authorization of a flood control plan for the Yazoo River Basin in 1936 and the subsequent construction of the Yazoo Headwater Project flood control dams. Under Criterion A, the dams are significant for their association with the Yazoo Headwater Project, the first comprehensive flood control project in the Yazoo River Basin and the expanded authority of the USACE resulting from the Flood Control Act of 1936 which granted the USACE considerable leeway in the design and selection of flood control efforts. In addition, the existing dams and reservoirs are also eligible under Criterion C as examples of comprehensive flood control projects and hydraulic-fill dam technology. The

E-122 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

contributing resources to the historic district were also recommended as individually eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criteria A and C.

Although each of the four Yazoo Headwater Projects is significant in its own right, they meet the definition of a historic district. Despite spanning over 100 miles, the four Yazoo Headwater Projects (Sardis, Arkabutla, Enid, and Grenada) possess a significant linkage, have continuity in the design and construction of buildings and structures, and are united historically and aesthetically.

Many of the components of the Yazoo Headwater Project have retained a high level of integrity of location, design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association. Character-defining features of these buildings and structures include the spatial relationships between the dams, intake towers, stilling basins, and outlet channels; the use of reinforced concrete and interpretations of the Classical Revival style for the intake towers; the simple span deck bridges connecting the intake towers to the tops of the dams; the Y or flared V-shape of the spillway basin; and the use of riprap on the embankment of the dam and along the banks of the outlet channels. In addition, the open vistas created by the clearing of land and construction of the dams, the sheer size and length of the dams, and the horizontal nature of the dams and outlet channels are all character-defining features of the Yazoo Headwater Project.

HDR recommended four buildings or structures within the Project’s APE as individually eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and as contributing resources to a NRHP-eligible Yazoo Headwater Project Historic District. Table E.4.2.2.2-1 summarizes the results and recommendations of the architectural survey with regards to buildings and structures within the Project’s APE.

E-123 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.4.2.2.2-1 RECOMMENDED NRHP ELIGIBILITY OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES WITHIN THE PROJECT’S APE Resource Name Date of Construction NRHP Recommendation Dam 1947-1952 Eligible/contributing Reservoir 1947-1952 Eligible/contributing Gaging station 1951 Eligible/contributing Intake tower 1951 Eligible/contributing

E.4.3 Potential Project Effects on Historic Properties

E.4.3.1 Potential Construction Related Effects

The proposed Project’s APE includes the FERC Project boundary as defined in Exhibit G of this license application. Project construction will involve powerhouse excavation, structure placement, and ground clearing that will cause ground disturbance. The APE includes and is adjacent to existing USACE facilities, including the Enid Dam, outlet works, and armored discharge channel. Construction of the dam was completed in 1955 and involved construction of a massive earthen fill embankment, outlet works, toe drain, a 200-foot-wide concrete-lined uncontrolled spillway located north of the dam, access roads, administration buildings, and appurtenant facilities.

At present, APE is characterized by the concrete structures that comprise the outlet works, armored shorelines, the excavated outlet channel, paved parking areas, roadways, areas of mowed lawn, an adjacent fish hatchery constructed in the last decade, and limited scattered trees and underbrush. The transmission line for the proposed Project follows an existing ROW along Yalobusha County Route 88.

The APE’s proximity to existing infrastructure indicates that this area was entirely disturbed by construction of the Enid Dam and associated facilities. The results of the Phase I cultural resources survey determined that there are no precontact or historic period archaeological resources within the Project’s APE. Further, the study confirmed the widespread previous ground disturbance within the APE related to original construction of the Enid Dam. Based on E-124 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

these factors, FFP does not expect that ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction will have any effect on archaeological resources listed in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

Construction of the Project does have the potential to affect historic buildings and structures recommended as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Project construction has the potential to alter, directly or indirectly, the character-defining features of Enid Dam, Enid Lake, gaging station, and intake tower. Construction of the Project could also potentially impact the character- defining features of the Yazoo Headwater Project Historic District which has also been recommended as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

While construction of the Project has the potential to affect historic properties, FFP believes that these effects will be temporary or limited. The table below summarizes the character-defining features of the Enid Dam and the Yazoo Headwater Project Historic District and potential construction-related effects on these features.

TABLE E.4.3.1-1 EFFECTS OF PROJECT CONSTRUCTION OF CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES Character-defining Features Project-related Effects Spatial relationships between The Project will utilize the existing dam, intake tower, and outlet channel. the dams, intake towers, Therefore, construction of the Project is not expected to adversely affect the spatial stilling basins, and outlet relationships between these features. channels The Project will utilize the existing intake structure. The style and design of the tower will not be impacted by Project-related construction. FFP proposes to use Use of reinforced concrete and reinforced concrete in the construction of the powerhouse and other principal interpretations of the Classical facilities. The exterior design and appearance of the powerhouse and other Project Revival style for the intake facilities will be consistent with the reinforced concrete construction of existing towers USACE facilities at the Project. Therefore, the Project is not expected to adversely affect these character-defining features. Simple span deck bridges connecting the intake towers to The Project will have no effect on the deck bridges. the tops of the dams Y or flared V-shape of the Construction of the Project will have no effect on the Y or flared V-shape of the spillway basin spillway basin. Use of riprap on the FFP proposes to armor the Project’s tailrace with riprap and to replace any riprap embankment of the dam and along the existing outlet channel that may be temporarily removed to facilitate along the banks of the outlet construction. Therefore, construction of the Project is not expected to adversely channels affect this character-defining feature.

E-125 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Character-defining Features Project-related Effects Project construction activities will alter the unobstructed vistas at the Enid Dam. Such impacts may be related to the operation of heavy machinery or other equipment, and are expected to be temporary in nature. Construction of the Unobstructed open vistas Project’s powerhouse and transmission line may have limited effects on the created by the clearing of land unobstructed vistas at Enid Dam. The powerhouse will be located along the outlet and construction of the dams channel, where current views are limited due to elevation and the surrounding infrastructure. The construction of a limited transmission line is not expected to significantly alter the viewshed at the existing dam. Sheer size and length of the The Project will have no effect on the sheer size and length of the Enid Dam. dams The horizontal nature of the The Project will have no effect on the horizontal nature of the Enid Dam or the dams and outlet channels outlet works.

E.4.3.2 Potential Operational Effects

Proposed Project operations are not expected to adversely affect historic properties within the Project’s APE. The powerhouse will discharge flows directly into the existing excavated outlet channel, the shorelines of which are armored with riprap. The riprap prevents erosion of the shoreline that could potentially impact archaeological resources. No other potential operational effects have been identified. Therefore, FFP does not anticipate that operation of the Project will have any effect on archaeological resources archaeological or historic resources within the Project’s APE.

E.4.4 Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures Recommended by Consulting Parties

FFP is continuing consultation with the CRWG for the purposes identifying historic properties that may be affected (directly and/or indirectly) by the Project; assessing the effects of the Project on identified historic properties; and seeking ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties within the Project’s APE. The Cultural Resources Study Report was distributed to the CRWG in November 2013. FFP is continuing to consult with the CRWG to identify specific PM&E measures for historic properties and to seek concurrence from the CRWG regarding the results and recommendations presented in the Cultural Resources Study Report.

E-126 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.4.5 Applicant-Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures

As discussed above, FFP is continuing consultation with the CRWG for the purposes identifying historic properties that may be affected (directly and/or indirectly) by the Project; assessing the effects of the proposed Project on identified historic properties; and seeking ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties within the proposed Project’s APE.

By notice dated June 26, 2013, the Commission indicated its intent to to prepare a Programmatic Agreement for managing properties included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP that could be affected by issuance of a license for the proposed Enid Project. The Programmatic Agreement, when executed by the Commission and the Mississippi SHPO, would satisfy the Commission’s Section 106 responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried out in accordance with the license until the license expires or is terminated (36 CFR section 800.13[e]). The Commission’s responsibilities pursuant to Section 106 for the project would be fulfilled through the Programmatic Agreement, which the Commission staff proposes to draft in consultation with the CRWG. The executed Programmatic Agreement would be incorporated into any Order issuing a license.

FFP anticipates that the Programmatic Agreement will provide for FFP to develop and implement an approved Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) as a condition of the new license. Subsequent to the filing of this FLA, FFP proposes to develop an HPMP for the Project in consultation with the CRWG that will assist the licensee in managing any historic properties that may be affected by the proposed construction or operation of the Project.

The HPMP will describe how FFP will consider and manage any historic properties within the Project’s APE throughout the term of the license (including Project construction). The HPMP will be developed in accordance with the Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects, jointly issued by Commission and the ACHP in May 2002. As appropriate, the protocols and management measures described in the HPMP will:

E-127 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

 Establish protocols and consultation measures for inadvertent archaeological discoveries and the unanticipated discovery of human remains during Project construction;  Provide a process for determining measures needed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse Project effects on historic properties, including construction-related effects;  Establish a decision-making process for considering potential effects on historic properties resulting from future activities associated with implementing the Project’s license;  Define goals for the appropriate protection, preservation, and public education of historic properties;  Establish guidelines for routine maintenance and operation activities as they relate to historic properties; and  Establish procedures for consulting with the MSHPO, USACE, Indian tribes, and the interested public concerning effects of the Project on historic properties.

The HPMP will be developed in consultation with the CRWG and submitted to the Commission for approval prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing construction activities at the Project. FFP believes that this schedule is appropriate to ensure that the HPMP takes into account the final design process and proposed construction measures associated with the proposed Project.

E.4.6 Schedule

Table E.4.6-1 provides a schedule for developing an HPMP, showing the intervals following the issuance of the license when such activities would be commenced and completed, if necessary.

E-128 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.4.6-1 SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING CULTURAL RESOURCES TASKS Start End Item or Milestone (months after (months after license license issuance) issuance) 1 Pre-Construction Planning, Engineering & Final Design 0 12 FERC License Compliance & Regulatory Filings 2 0 24 (those required before start of construction) 3 Develop HPMP in Consultation with CRWG 16 20

4 Submit HPMP to FERC for Approval 20 24 Ongoing for the 5 Implement HPMP 24 duration of the license On-Site Construction (cofferdam/excavation, conduit lining, water conveyance 6 24 60 structures, concrete structures, equipment installation, BOP, transmission/substation) 7 Start-up and Testing 58 60

8 Commercial Operation 60 60

E.4.7 Estimated Costs

Costs for completing any necessary cultural resources studies and developing an HPMP for the proposed Project (as necessary) are dependent on the scope of activities developed in consultation with the CRWG.

E-129 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.5 Report on Socioeconomic Resources

This application was developed under the content requirements at 18 CFR §4.41 as discussed in the Executive Summary. As such, those portions of 18 CFR §4.41 which are noticeably intended to call for information on, and effects of construction of a new dam and impoundment are not germane in this instance since this Project is proposed to be constructed at an existing USACE dam and impoundment.

Socioeconomic and demographic information for Yalobusha County was compiled from multiple sources (U.S. Census Bureau 2010; City Data 2011) to provide a summary of socioeconomic resources of the Project area.

E.5.1 Socioeconomic Potential Effects Area

The proposed Project will be located at the Enid Lake Dam in Yalobusha County, Mississippi. Socioeconomic effects are viewed as extremely limited as the proposed Project impact area for construction will occur on a relatively small footprint (approximately 3.0 acres of land and approximately 2505 feet of linear corridor for the associated transmission line [of which 135 feet will be underground]) and a relatively short construction schedule (approximately 36 months or less). No residential property exists in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project and it is expected that Yalobusha County would supply the majority of the local work force potentially necessary for the construction of this Project.

Yalobusha County, Mississippi was organized in 1833. Its county seat is Water Valley and Coffeeville, Mississippi. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010), Yalobusha County covers an area of 467.13 square miles, averaging 27.1 persons per square mile.

E.5.2 Description of Employment, Population, and Personal Income Trends

Yalobusha County’s estimated 2010 population was 12,678, down -2.9% from an estimated 2000 population of 13,046. The median household income was $31,485 in 2007 and a personal income per capita of $17,640 in 2011.

E-130 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

The median resident age was 37.7 years, which is above the state average of 33.8 years. The average household size was 2.5 persons with 4,155 households existing in the county. Homeowners were 72.2 percent of the population with 72.2 percent of the population over 25 years of age having earned a high school diploma and 12.0 percent having earned a Bachelor’s degree.

Employment within Yalobusha County consists largely of Health Care, Education, manufacturing, construction, and ancillary employment related to the agriculture sector. In Yalobusha County 77 percent of the work force is a private wage or salary earner, 16 percent are employed by the government, and 6 percent are self-employed. Table E.5.2-1 provides a breakdown of the leading employment sectors in Yalobusha County.

TABLE E.5.2-1 YALOBUSHA COUNTY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT INDUSTRIES Sector Men Women Total Manufacturing 11% 17% 28% Construction 16% NA 16% Retail NA 9% 9% Health Care & 4% 26% 30% Education

E.5.3 Potential In-migration Effects

FFP does not anticipate any substantive in-migration effects to the Enid area due to the relatively small size of the proposed work force required for the development of the proposed Project. Therefore, no area governmental facilities and services, such as police, fire, health or educational facilities should experience an effect from the proposed Project.

E.5.4 On-site Manpower Requirements and Payroll by Month

The proposed Project will be located at an existing USACE dam and is expected to have limited effects on the socioeconomic resources of Yalobusha County. Construction will occur in areas that were previously disturbed during the construction of the dam. During the construction phase of the proposed Project, FFP estimates that at its peak, approximately 50-80 construction personnel will be utilized for the Project with a majority of the general work likely drawn from

E-131 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

local resources. Construction personnel in the vicinity of the Project will be contracted to perform the work and would commute to and from the Project site daily, therefore no temporary means of housing will be necessary. FFP estimates that the monthly payroll for construction personnel will vary during different phases of construction and could potentially range from approximately $100,000 to $175,000 per month. This estimate is based on the number of personnel utilized and the average salary for a construction worker in Yalobusha County.

E.5.5 Proposed Construction Personnel

FFP anticipates that the majority of the construction work force utilized for this proposed Project would reside locally and would commute to the proposed Project site daily largely from within Yalobusha County or adjacent counties. The distance traveled by each would vary but is expected to range from 5-30 minutes. Specialty contractors may be used from nearby Batesville with travel time approximately 30-45 minutes. FFP does not anticipate the necessity for any of the proposed workforce to relocate either permanently or temporarily.

E.5.6 Potential Housing Requirements

As the anticipated workforce will be local, no housing requirements are necessary.

E.5.7 Displace Businesses and Residents

No businesses or residents will be displaced as part of the construction of the proposed Project.

E.5.8 Fiscal Effects Analysis

The proposed Project would generate clean, renewable, reliable, and cost-competitive electrical energy for the region’s electrical grid. In addition, the Project will require substantial capital investment by FFP. These factors could result in positive economic benefits for the region. To the extent practicable, FFP will seek to utilize local contractors and workforce which can be expected to have a temporary positive benefit.

E-132 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.6 Report on Geological and Soil Resources

The proposed Project will be located along the Yocona River at the USACE’s Enid Dam in Yalobusha County, Mississippi. The Yocona River rises in Pontotoc County, Mississippi, and flows approximately 78 RM in a southwesterly direction to its confluence with the Little Tallahatchie River near the intersection of Dummyline and Bailey roads in Enid, Mississippi.

The Yocona River Basin is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic province, a subdivision of the Atlantic Plain (Fenneman 1917). The Coastal Plain province encompasses the Mississippi Embayment, a wedge-shaped synclinal structure that plunges to the south and whose axis generally follows the present course of the Mississippi River (Cushing et al. 1964; Yedlowski and Vento 1991). The bedrock of the Mississippi Embayment overlies Proterozoic granitic basement rocks and cratonic Paleozoic shelf facies (Cox and Van Arsdale 2002). At the southern extent of the embayment, up to 1.2 miles of sedimentary bedrock overlies Paleozoic Ouachita orogen rocks thrust over shelf facies and erosionally truncated structures in pre-Late Cretaceous Mesozoic sediments. The cratonic Paleozoic sections and underlying Proterozoic basement rocks are cut by northeast-striking faults that comprise the Mississippi Valley Graben System. This fault system defines the extent of the Mississippi Embayment (Cox and Van Arsdale 2002).

Initial tectonic movements associated with the formation of the syncline probably began at the end of the Paleozoic Era in conjunction with the Alleghenian Orogeny (Cushing et al. 1964; Yedlowski and Vento 1991). This uplift was accompanied by other subcrustal movements and the incipient subsidence of the Mississippi Embayment. Structural highs such as the Appalachian and Ouachita ranges provided a source for clastic sediments that were deposited in the subsiding embayment. Rivers and streams draining these topographic highs deposited a thick wedge of silt, sand, and gravel east and south of the fall line as deltaic deposits in the Atlantic Ocean (USDA 2013). This influx of detrital sediments occurred concurrently with major eustatic sea level changes and sequences of progradation and marine transgression (Cushing et al. 1964; Yedlowski and Vento 1991).

E-133 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

The Jurassic and Cretaceous river sediments were eventually exposed as the Coastal Plain uplifted and sea levels changed. When the sea level rose again, the Coastal Plain was submerged and covered by a thin layer of Cretaceous sands in the eastern half of the area. As the Coastal Plain continued to uplift and the sea level dropped again, Quaternary material consisting of unconsolidated clay, silt, sand, and gravel was deposited over the Tertiary sand and carbonates. Subsequent changes in the sea level created terraces in these younger deposits along many of the streams and rivers draining the area (USDA 2013).

The result of subsidence within the Mississippi Embayment is a distinctly “belted” arrangement of sedimentary rocks that have filled the synclinal trough (Cushing et al. 1964; Yedlowski and Vento 1991). The regional physiography of the province is generally characterized by parallel escarpments (cuestas) and accompanying valleys that are formed by alternating strata of relatively soft and resistant rocks (Fisher 1965). The differential erosion of these rocks has resulted in several physiographic and ecological divisions.

The USACE’s Enid Dam is located near the point of division between two physiographic sections of the Coastal Plain province. The upper Yocona River Watershed, Enid Lake, and Enid Dam are situated in the uplands of the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic section. The East Gulf Coastal Plain has been further subdivided into 9 physiographic districts that comprise the eastern Mississippi Embayment and generally correspond to sedimentary rock “belts.” These districts include the Fall Line Hills, Black Belt, Pontotoc Ridge and Ripley Cuesta, Flatwoods, North Central Plateau, Buhrstone Cuesta, Jackson Prairie, Southern Pine Hills, and Loess Hills physiographic districts (Cushing et al. 1964). Within these broad physiographic districts of the eastern Mississippi Embayment, the USEPA has defined distinct ecoregions that share similarities in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources (Chapman et al. 2004). The physiographic districts of the eastern Mississippi Embayment generally correspond to the Level IV ecoregions defined by Chapman et al. 2004.

Downstream from Enid Dam, the Yocona River transitions from the East Gulf Coastal Plain to the MAP physiographic section. This broad physiographic region extends from southern Illinois at the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers south to the Gulf of Mexico (Chapman et al. E-134 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

2004). The MAP is characterized by a generally flat topography and physical features created by the flow of large rivers and streams (Chapman et al. 2004).

The broad flat region of the MAP between the Yazoo River on the east and the Mississippi River on the west is defined as the Yazoo Basin physiographic district. The Yazoo Basin is known colloquially as the “Delta” and encompasses several ecoregions that reflect differing depositional environments and characteristics (Chapman et al. 2004).

E.6.1 Geologic Features

E.6.1.1 Bedrock Geology

The Mississippi Embayment is underlain by eroded igneous and metamorphic bedrock. Cretaceous deposits rest unconformably on Paleozoic rocks throughout the embayment, except along its extreme southern margin. These Cretaceous deposits are mostly of marine origin and are largely calcareous, ranging from sands to clays, chalks, and marls. The dip of Cretaceous strata is generally towards the axis of the embayment (Cushing et al. 1964).

The Tertiary series in the Mississippi Embayment overlies the Cretaceous deposits with marked unconformity and is comprised of deposits of Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene age. Tertiary sediments are mostly unconsolidated and consist mainly of sand, clay, and shale. The Tertiary System is overlain in most places within the embayment by Quaternary alluvial deposits, terrace deposits, or loess (Cushing et al. 1964).

Bedrock underlying Enid Dam and the majority of Enid Lake is mapped as the Neshoba Sand Member of the Tallahatta Formation. The Neshoba Sand Member represents a coarsening upward sequence of sediments produced as the sea regressed in deltaic and strandplain environment (USGS Undated[a]; Merrill et al. 1985). This Eocene stratigraphic unit is predominantly sand, locally glauconitic, containing claystone and clay lenses and abundant clay stringers (USGS Undated[a]; Merrill et al. 1985). The Neshoba Sand is an aquifer in some areas of Mississippi (Cushing et al. 1968).

E-135 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Bedrock underlying the northern and southern extents of Enid Lake is mapped as the Zilpha Formation and Winona Formation of the Eocene Claiborne Group. The Zilpha formation is comprised of dark gray, carbonaceous clay that is characterized as generally glauconitic, sparingly fossiliferous (Cushing et al. 1968). This formation was deposited in a marine shelf or prodelata environment (USGS Undated[b]). The Zilpha formation conformably overlies the Winona Formation.

In typical outcrops the Winona Formation appears as a highly glauconitic, fossiliferous, sand (Cushing et al. 1968). This unit contains abundant molds and casts of gastropods and represents a destructional shelf facies deposited during marine transgression (USGS Undated[b]). In the subsurface, the Winona Formation consists of fine-to-very coarse grained cemented sand interbedded and interlaminated with non-cemented layers (USGS Undated[b]).

E.6.1.2 Quaternary Deposits

Upland Quaternary deposits in the proposed Project area generally consist of Pleistocene terrace deposits overlying the Tertiary sands. These terrace deposits are characterized as graveliferous sands that range from poorly sorted and massive, to well-sorted and cross-bedded. Concentrations of chert and quartz pebbles are frequently found at the base of these deposits Thompson and Davis 2003).

Pleistocene terrace deposits in the vicinity of Enid Lake are typically mantled in up to 50 feet of loess deposited at the end of the Pleistocene (for this reason, the terrace deposits are sometimes referred to as Pre-Loess Terraces). The surficial geology in the Project’s vicinity has been significantly influenced by aeolian transport of loess as a result of Pleistocene glaciation. During glaciation, the Laurentide Ice Sheet that covered most of eastern North America advanced and retreated along the Mississippi River Basin. At intervals when the ice sheet extended into the river basin, the Mississippi River formed the primary meltwater channel for much of the southern margin of the ice sheet. During these intervals, the Mississippi River was a massive braided river channel that carried silts and fine sand produced by glacial abrasion towards the Gulf of Mexico (Rodbell undated). Sands and silts deposited along the braided channels of the

E-136 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Pleistocene Mississippi River were subsequently entrained during periods of reduced meltwater flow. These entrained sediments were transported by prevailing southeasterly winds and deposited as loess along uplands east of the Mississippi River (Rodbell undated). The loess deposition ceased at intervals when the Laurentide Ice Sheet retreated further up the river valley and the Mississippi returned to a meandering channel pattern.

Alluvial deposits are found within the flood basins and channels of the Yocona River and its tributaries. The alluvium typically consists of Holocene deposits of fine sands, silts, and clays that rest on loess deposits or Eocene bedrock. The texture and composition of the alluvium varies in response to the stream regimen, competence, drainage characteristics, parent materials, topography, and time. The major components of alluvium are deposited during overbank flooding episodes or by tributary streams that debouch their sediment load onto the floodplain (Yedlowski and Vento 1991).

Loess deposited during Pleistocene glaciation has subsequently been entrained and transported by rivers and streams in the Loess Hills. As a result, alluvial deposits along floodplains in the Project area typically consist of fine loess sediments that have been redeposited during overbank flooding.

Quaternary colluvial deposits are found along valley slopes and occasionally interfinger with alluvial terrace and overbank deposits. The colluvium typically consists of loamy fluvial or marine sediments deposited during the late Cretaceous to early Quaternary periods that have moved downslope via mass-wasting (e.g., sheetwash, slopewash, or rillwash) (Yedlowski and Vento 1991).

E.6.1.3 Structural Features

The Mississippi Embayment has a long and complex tectonic history that has resulted in a number of structural features across the region. This tectonic history is poorly understood, in part because of the age of the embayment and the amount of subsequent deposition that has occurred in the region.

E-137 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Several structural features are mapped in the vicinity of the proposed Project. The Central Mississippi Deformed Ridge (CMDR) forms the perimeter of the greater Paleozoic geosyncline and extends along a northwest-to-southeast alignment across Central Mississippi. The CMDR is part of the larger Ouachita System which extends in an arch from its junction with the Appalachian Tectonic Belt through Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas and into northern Mexico. Portions of the Ouachita and Appalachian ranges were buried by later Paleozoic and Mesozoic sediments and are not exposed in Mississippi. The Black Warrior Basin, located north of these buried mountain ranges, is a foreland basin containing Paleozoic sedimentary rocks in the major structural re-entrant between the Appalachian and Ouachita tectonic belts. The southern limit of the combined Ouachita and Appalachian tectonic belts is marked by the Central Mississippi Ridge (Dockery and Lightsey 1997; Ryder 1979). Prominent structural features within the State of Mississippi are shown in Figure E.6.1.3-1 (Thompson 2009a).

E-138 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

FIGURE E.6.1.3-1 STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF MISSISSIPPI

E-139 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.6.2 Mineral Resources

Sand and clay, glauconite-bearing strata, and gravel-bearing strata have been mapped in the vicinity of the proposed Project (Thompson 2009b). Economic minerals mapped in the State of Mississippi are presented in Figure E.6.2-1 of this application.

E-140 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

FIGURE E.6.2-1 ECONOMIC MINERALS MAP OF MISSISSIPPI

E-141 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.6.3 Soils

Soil types in the vicinity of Enid Lake and the proposed Project are variable and reflect the diversity of parent materials, the geographic extent of the reservoir, the local topography, and the physiographic position of landforms. The Project vicinity is composed of soil series derived primarily from Tertiary and Quaternary parent materials, including weathered sands and shales of the Claiborne group and unconsolidated Pleistocene age loess, and stream deposits.

Mapped soils in the vicinity of the proposed Project are presented in Figure E.6.3-1. Map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area that is dominated by one or more major kinds of soil, or miscellaneous area. Each map unit is identified and names are in accordance with the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. The USDA’s Official Soil Series Descriptions for mapped soil series in Figure E.6.3-1 are presented in Appendix E-6 of this application (USDA undated).

E-142 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

FIGURE E.6.3-1 MAPPED SOILS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

E-143 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.6.4 Existing and Potential Geological and Soil Hazards

This section discusses existing and potential geological and soil hazards in the vicinity of the proposed Project, including potential seismic activity and erosion. No other geologic hazards of significance, such as the potential for major landslides or land movements, have been identified.

E.6.4.1 Seismicity

Although the number of earthquakes known to have occurred within Mississippi's boundaries is relatively small, it is expected that earthquakes of low magnitude will continue to occur throughout the state. The greatest earthquake risk is from a strong earthquake in the New Madrid Seismic Zone, the southern end of which is approximately 40 miles from the northwest corner of Mississippi (Bogard 2012). The great New Madrid earthquake series of 1811-1812 included at least four shocks strong enough to shake northern Mississippi at damaging intensities and be felt throughout the state. This series of earthquakes also caused the banks of the Mississippi River to cave in as far as Vicksburg, more than 300 miles from the epicentral region. The 1843 earthquake at the southern end of the New Madrid Seismic Zone shook the northern third of Mississippi strongly enough to cause damage (Bogard 2012). Closer to the Project, an earthquake with an epicenter in northeastern Tallahatchie County with a Modified Mercalli Intensity of VI-VII and a magnitude of 4.7 on the Richter scale occurred December 1931. This earthquake was felt across a region measuring more than 65,000 square miles and caused damage across northern Mississippi (Bogard 2012). An earthquake with an epicenter in northwestern Yalobusha County and a magnitude of 2.5 on the Richter scale occurred in Septmeber 1984. A smaller earthquake with a magnitude of 1.7 occurred in southwestern Yalobusha in Janaury 2008 (Bogard 2012). The causes of these earthquakes are unclear, but they are consistent with the low-magnitude earthquakes that occur within the state. FFP will ensure that the Project is designed and constructed in consideration of, and consistent with, applicable seismic and other design criteria as required by FERC and the USACE.

A number of basement faults exist in Mississippi as a result of continental rifting that occurred during the Triassic Period. One such fault is the Phillips Fault, a prominent north-south trending

E-144 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

normal fault system located to the south of the proposed Project. Like most basement faults, the Phillips Fault is believed to have ceased movement prior to the end of the Jurassic (USDOE 1984). Several basement faults are also located in the eastern part of the Black Warrior Basin located in Mississippi. These are characterized as normal faults that generally strike northwest (Hatch and Pawlewicz 2007).

The Pickens-Gilbertown Fault System in the southern portion of Mississippi is part of a regional Gulfward concave system of faulting. Movement along these faults was apparently continuous through the Mesozoic and at least through the late Tertiary. In western and central Mississippi, these faults are mostly subsurface, but they are recognized at the surface in eastern Mississippi and western Alabama (USDOE 1984).

South of the proposed Project, a belt of seaward-facing normal Quaternary faults borders the Gulf of Mexico and extends through Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. The origin of this faulting is not clear, but may have been the result of sediment accumulation on the Gulf Geosyncline. The tremendous weight of the sediment deposits likely caused a rapid sinking of the sea floor along the continental margin and created a series of parallel faults (Wheeler 1998). Movement along these faults is generally considered to be the result of long-term creep rather than sudden movements. The belt of gulf-margin normal faults from Florida through Texas has strikingly low historical seismicity; the stress field and seismogenic potential of the underlying crust are unknown; and, therefore, the ability of the fault belt to generate significant seismic ruptures that could cause damaging ground motion is unclear (Wheeler 1998).

Prominent faults in Mississippi are shown in Figure E.6.1.3-1, above. A seismic hazard map of Mississippi is presented as Figure E.6.4-1 of this application.

E-145 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

FIGURE E.6.4-1 MISSISSIPPI SEISMIC HAZARD MAP

E-146 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.6.4.2 Erosion

Enid Dam is located in the uplands of the East Gulf Coastal Plain. Soils of the uplands are composed chiefly of clays and loams and are moderately productive but subject to severe erosion. Natural soil conditions, agricultural land development, channel adjustments, and processes related to channelization have created severe erosion and subsequent downstream sedimentation in the Yocona River Basin. Rapid agricultural development in the mid-1800s resulted in severe sheet and gully erosion of uplands that choked stream channels with sediment and resulted in prolonged flooding events. This erosion was so severe that it frequently flooded and buried cropland in valley bottoms with sand and debris (Simon 2008).

Soils formed in loess deposits, including soil series that are found along the shorelines of Enid Lake, are susceptible to erosion. Erosion has been documented along the shoreline of Enid Lake (Broyles et al. 1982). Erosion is an ongoing and natural process that occurs when water moves along a shoreline. Several factors influence shoreline erosion, including the USACE’s operation of the lake as defined in its Water Control Manual (USACE 2000). The Water Control Manual contains reservoir elevation guide curves designed to provide storage during the winter and spring in an effort to prevent or minimize downstream flooding and high water impacts. The lake level and daily discharge releases at Enid Dam are managed by the USACE in accordance with the Water Control Manual.

Other factors contribute to shoreline erosion at Enid Lake, including wave action. Winds with the greatest velocities typically occur during the late winter and early spring when lake levels are highest. Heavy winds and rains during the spring season can increase wave action along the shoreline that can undercut exposed banks or deflate shoreline soils (Taylor 1998). Studies at similar reservoirs in the region have demonstrated that areas along the shoreline adjacent to relict river channels are generally the most susceptible to erosion (Taylor 1998). Prevailing winds and fetch length can also influence shoreline erosion.

Contributing factors to shoreline erosion may also include recreational use. Recreational boating is a popular activity at Enid Lake, and public access to the lake is available at several boat

E-147 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

launches on the reservoir. Power boats creating large wakes can influence erosion along the shoreline.

The USACE’s flood control regulation guidelines presented in the Water Control Manual also includes provisions for downstream erosion control. The sensitivity of erosion and bank caving problems on the Yazoo River and its tributaries is such that careful regulation of the outflows from the lake is necessary during periods of falling stages on the downstream channels. While the regulation of the Enid Lake is not the cause of downstream erosion and bank caving, proper regulation can often minimize these problems (USACE 2000).

The regulation of Enid Lake is particularly sensitive during periods of low rainfall in the basin and during periods when the guide curves of the lake could normally require major changes in lake releases. The USACE’s Water Control Manual recognizes the sensitivity of bank erosion and caving problems which, through careful regulation of the lake, can be minimized without adversely impacting the purposes of the lake (USACE 2000).

In order to define the latitude in regulations for minimizing the downstream erosion problems, the USACE gradually reduces release rates when within 2-feet of the rule curve (either above or below the curve) (USACE 2000).

E.6.5 Potential Project Effects on Geological and Soil Resources

E.6.5.1 Potential Construction Related Effects

Project construction will involve powerhouse excavation, structure placement, and ground clearing that may have the potential to cause minor and temporary effects.

Temporary Spoil Areas and Permanent Spoil Disposal Sites

FFP intends to minimize alterations or impacts to existing USACE facilities. Excavation will be conducted downstream of the existing dam and is expected to be conducted behind a temporary cofferdam, on the river side. The non-river sides of the excavation are anticipated to be sloped excavations that would be filled back in at the end of the project.

E-148 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Soils from excavated areas would be temporarily stockpiled in spoil areas. Material will be removed using a crane, backhoe, suction dredge, or other land-excavating equipment. It is estimated that a total of 31,500 cubic yards of material would be excavated for the construction of the powerhouse, penstock, and tailrace. Approximately 18,250 cubic yards of excavated material would be stored on site in a Project laydown area and reused after construction of the powerhouse. An additional approximately 13,250 cubic yards of excavated material would be disposed of off-site or sold for reuse elsewhere. The general contractor will be responsible for off-site disposal of unused spoils. All permanent disposal sites will be approved by USACE as well as all other pertinent local, state, and federal agencies.

The exact details with respect to the location and acreage of temporary spoil areas and permanent disposal sites will be defined as the design process progresses. FFP will coordinate and develop such details in consultation with the USACE through the Section 404 and Section 408 permitting processes, which will specify that storage and disposal will occur in an environmentally responsible manner and in conformance with applicable BMP to be developed in consultation with the USACE, MDWFP, and MDEQ. FFP anticipates that these BMP may include, but would not necessarily be limited to, measures to:

 Separate topsoil from subsoil layers and clearly identify spoil piles;  Isolate topsoil stockpiles from water courses by at least 20.0 feet;  Isolate stockpiles of excess spoil material by a low berm;  Surround stockpiles with silt fences or straw bale barriers on the down-gradient side of the berm;  Divert runoff from adjacent up-gradient areas by a low berm;  Ensure that slopes of spoil deposits are not steeper than 3 H:1 V; and  Seed and stabilize permanent disposal areas (as applicable).

Construction Erosion and Sediment Control

Short-term sediment mobilization could occur during the placement of the cofferdam and subsequent dewatering; however BMP will be implemented to minimize the potential for this

E-149 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

affect. Once in place, sediment mobilization would be minimal due to the separation of construction activities from the Yocona River. Upon the removal of the cofferdam, short term sediment mobilization may potentially occur until it becomes stabilized during operations. Construction activities taking place on land may have the potential to mobilize soil. However, these activities will generally take place in areas that are currently maintained as mowed lawns or that are currently protected by riprap (i.e., the shoreline of the existing outlet channel), and any soil mobilization is expected to be limited and temporary in duration. Following license issuance and prior to construction, FFP will prepare an erosion and sediment control plan in consultation with the USACE, MDWFP, and MDEQ to include appropriate BMP and to properly manage sediment and erosion control during construction and final stabilization. These measures may include, but would not necessarily be limited to, placement of siltation fencing and/or straw bales and runoff/collection treatment during construction.

The erosion and sediment control plan will also include appropriate BMP for site restoration and stabilization. These measures may include, but would not necessarily be limited to, grading and reseeding of mowed lawns and replacement of riprap along the shoreline of the existing outlet channel.

FFP will continue to consult with the USACE, MDWFP, and MDEQ during the design process and through the USACE’s Section 404 and Section 408 permitting processes to define specific BMP that are appropriate for site-specific construction equipment and techniques.

E.6.5.2 Potential Operational Effects

Project operations are not expected to have any adverse effects on geology or soils. As discussed above, shoreline erosion at Enid Lake is a result of several contributing factors, including natural soil conditions, lake levels and daily discharge releases managed by the USACE, recreational activities, and seasonal meteorological conditions. The regulation of the Enid Lake is not the cause of downstream erosion and bank caving, but the USACE’s regulation control procedures can often minimize these problems (USACE 2000).

E-150 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Lake level and daily discharge releases at Enid Dam are actively managed by the USACE. The Project will be operated in a run-of-release mode with no storage of flows. Flows available for generation will consist of water released from the lake according to USACE’s existing lake level and discharge management practices. The Project will not interfere with the USACE’s management of the water resource and will use existing flows dispatched by the USACE. Thus, the proposed operation of the Project is not expected to influence shoreline erosion at Enid Lake, the Yocona River, or its tributaries. The powerhouse will discharge flows directly into the existing outlet channel, the shorelines of which are currently armored with riprap to prevent erosion. Therefore, proposed Project operations are not expected to adversely affect geological or soil resources downstream from Enid Dam.

E.6.6 Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures Recommended by Resource Agencies

FFP is continuing to consult with the appropriate resource agencies regarding appropriate PM&E measures relating to geology and soils. No specific PM&E measures for geology and soils have been recommended at this time.

E.6.7 Applicant-Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures

E.6.7.1 Temporary Spoil Areas and Permanent Spoil Disposal Sites

Prior to construction, specific spoil stockpile areas and disposal sites will be developed in consultation with the USACE and appropriate resource agencies through the Section 404 and Section 408 processes. These locations will be identified through the final design phase of the Project, and specific BMP for managing soils deposited in the stockpile and disposal areas will be developed through the Section 404 and Section 408 processes. FFP will implement appropriate BMP for the soil stockpile and disposal areas as required by the USACE and FERC.

E.6.7.2 Construction Erosion and Sediment Control

Following license issuance and prior to the start of Project construction, erosion and sediment control plans will be developed and finalized in consultation with the USACE and applicable resource agencies. FFP will employ sediment and erosion control during construction and final

E-151 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

stabilization. These measures may include, but would not necessarily be limited to, placement of siltation fencing and/or straw bales and runoff/collection treatment during construction.

The erosion and sediment control plan will also include appropriate BMP for site restoration and stabilization. These measures may include, but would not necessarily be limited to, grading and reseeding of mowed lawns and replacement of riprap along the shoreline of the existing outlet channel.

E-152 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.7 Report on Recreational Resources

This section presents available information regarding recreational facilities and activities in the vicinity of Enid Lake as well as within and adjacent to the proposed Project. The proposed Project will be located at Enid Lake, a reservoir managed by the USACE for flood control, public recreation, conservation of fish and wildlife, and the proper stewardship of public forests. Enid Lake offers a variety of opportunities for year-round recreational activities, including boating, fishing, wildlife viewing, hunting, camping, hiking, and swimming. Water-oriented activities such as boating, swimming, and fishing constitute the highest recreation demands at the lake.

As described in the USACE’s Water Control Manual, one of the USACE’s objectives for operation of Enid Lake is to maintain lake elevations suitable for picnicking, camping, access to boat ramps, and water contact sports. The Water Control Manual identifies the major need for wildlife-oriented recreation as improved access to available recreation areas (USACE 2000).

The recreational lake level is typically reached during the summer months (USACE 2006). The USACE’s basic regulation procedure for recreation is to maintain lake levels, especially during spring filling, in accordance with the guide curve. From time to time, the USACE schedules releases to enhance recreation activities downstream from the dam. These releases are typically scheduled for holidays during the recreation season (USACE 2000), and details beyond this are not available at this time. However, since FFP’s proposed project will utilize water delivered by the USACE’s existing intake and in the same timing and quantity that would otherwise be released by the USACE, the proposed project would not impact the provision of any scheduled releases to enhance recreation which would still occur pursuant to the USACE’s direction and daily water dispatch.

E.7.1 National Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Trails System, and Wilderness Areas

There are no lands or waters within the vicinity of the proposed Project boundary included in or designated for study for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System or as wilderness areas under the Wilderness Act.

E-153 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

The National Trails System Act of 1968 authorized creation of a national trail system comprised of National Recreation Trails, National Scenic Trails, and National Historic Trails. While National Scenic Trails and National Historic Trails may only be designated by an act of Congress, National Recreation Trails may be designated by the Secretary of Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to recognize exemplary trails of local and regional significance in response to an application from a trails’ managing agency or organization. Through designation, these trails are recognized as part of America’s National Trail System. Designated National Recreation Trails located in the vicinity of Enid Lake include the 8-mile Rocky Ridge Horse Trail located near Plum Point Recreation Area as well as the 17-mile Spyglass Hill Trail located at the Ford’s Well Recreation Area on State Route 32, 6 miles east of Interstate 55 (National Recreation Trail USA undated).

E.7.2 Recreational Facilities

As noted above, Enid Lake offers a variety of recreational amenities. Recreation areas at Enid Lake contain access and interior roads, parking areas, camping facilities, picnic shelters, boat- launching ramps, drinking water, rest rooms, showers and amphitheaters. Commercial lessees adjacent to Enid Lake provide additional facilities and services. Operated by MDWFP, George P. Cossar State Park is located at Enid Lake. George P. Cossar State Park provides excellent hunting and fishing opportunities as well as lodging, camping, picnicking, boat launch ramps, and playgrounds (USACE 2000).

Existing public recreational facilities at Enid Lake are summarized in Table E.7.2-1 and in the following sections.

E-154 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.7.2-1 PUBLIC RECREATION AREAS AT ENID LAKE

ups -

Public Recreation

Areas

(Fee)

se Trail se Trail User Fee Camping Camping (Primitive) Grills Picnic Tables, Picnic Shelter* Restrooms Hook W/ Electric Showers Drinking Water Sanitary Dump Station Beach Swimming Launching Ramps Fish Cleaning Station Playground Equipment Amphitheater Hiking Trail Cycle Trail Hor Lodging Restaurant Pool Swimming Public Telephones Camping can be Reserved

McCurdy Point ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Hickory Ridge ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Wallace Creek ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Outlet Channel ● ● ● ● ● ● Persimmon Hill ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Plum Point ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Chickasaw Hill ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Bynum Creek ● ● ● ● ● Prophet Bridge ● Water Valley Landing ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Point Pleasant ● ● ● ● ● Long Branch ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● George Payne Cossar ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● State Park

E-155 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.7.2.1 Fishing Access

Fishing is one of the most popular recreational activities at Enid Lake, which is recognized as one of the nation’s premier fishing lakes for bass, bream, crappie, and catfish. Access to fishing areas at Enid Lake is provided by a number of boat launch ramps as well as shoreline access for bank fishing and a fishing pier downstream of the dam. The lake hosts a number fishing tournaments each year including a Youth Fishing Rodeo held in conjunction with Hunting and Fishing Day and Physically Challenged Fishing Day (USACE 2012b).

E.7.2.2 Campgrounds

The USACE maintains and operates 5 Class A campgrounds (Wallace Creek, Persimmon Hill, Chickasaw Hill, Ford’s Well and Water Valley Landing), two Class C campgrounds (Long Branch and Plum Point), and three Class D campgrounds with a total of 304 campsites (USACE undated[d]).

E.7.2.2.1 Class A Campgrounds

The Class A campgrounds at Enid Lake offer lake-view sites, 50-amp electrical service, water hook-ups, grills, fire rings, service tables, picnic tables, comfort stations, shower houses, and sewage disposal stations. Other amenities include boat ramps, multi-purpose trails, beaches, and playgrounds (USACE Undated[d]).

Located north of the Enid Dam area, the Wallace Creek Campground has 101 campsites available for reservation for a fee of $16-18 per night from March 1 through October 31 and $10-12 per night from November 1 through February 28. Amenities offered at Wallace Creek Campground include a boat launch, playgrounds, showers, and restrooms (USACE Undated[d]).

Located south of the Enid Dam area, the Persimmon Hill Campground has 72 campsites available for reservation for a fee of $16-18 per night from March 1 through October 31 and $10-12 per night November 1 through February 28. In 2007, the Persimmon Hill Campground was selected as one of America’s Top 100 Campgrounds. Amenities offered at Persimmon Hill Campground include two boat launches, a swimming beach, playgrounds, picnic shelters and sites, restrooms, showers, and a sanitary dump station (USACE Undated[d]).

E-156 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Located on the north shore of Enid Lake, Chickasaw Hill Campground has 53 campsites available for reservation for a fee of $14 per night from March 1 through October 31 and $10 per night from November 1 through February 28. Amenities provided at Chickasaw Hill Campground include a boat launch, swimming beach, amphitheater, hiking trails, playground, picnic shelters and sites, restrooms, showers, and sanitary dump station (USACE Undated[d]).

Located on the south shore of Enid Lake, Water Valley Landing Campground has 26 campsites available for reservation for a fee of $14 per night from March 1 through October 31. The campground is closed from November 1 through February 28. Amenities at Water Valley Campground include a boat launch, picnic shelters and sites, hiking trails, restrooms, showers, and sanitary dump station (USACE Undated[d]).

Located along the Spyglass Hill Equestrian Trail, Ford’s Well Campground has 18 campsites available for a fee of $14 per night year-round. Amenities include water, electricity, picnic tables, fire rings, grills, and a parking pad at each site. The area also provides a picnic shelter, a gazebo over Ford’s Well, a comfort station, a sanitary dump station, and a wash rack and hitching rails for horses (USACE Undated[d]).

E.7.2.2.2 Class C and D Campgrounds

The Class C and D campgrounds at Enid Lake are primitive, but provide lake view sites, restrooms, and potable water as well as boat ramps, playgrounds, and beaches (USACE undated). Two Class C campgrounds (Long Branch and Plum Point) and three Class D campgrounds (Point Pleasant, Bynum Creek, and Prophet Bridge) are located at Enid Lake (USACE Undated[d]).

Located on the south shore of Enid Lake, the Long Branch Campground has 14 campsites available for $6 per night. Located on the north shore of Enid Lake, the Plum Point Campground has 10 campsites available for $6 per night. Amenities provided at Long Branch and Plum Point Campgrounds include picnic areas, restrooms, drinking water, swimming beaches, boat launches, and playgrounds (USACE undated[d]).

E-157 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Class D camping areas are located at Point Pleasant (3 campsites), Bynum Creek (5 campsites), and Prophet Bridge (2 campsites) for no fee (USACE Undated[d]).

E.7.2.3 Hunting Lands

There are more than 17,000 acres of managed forest lands surrounding Enid Lake providing hunting opportunities for deer, squirrel, rabbit, turkey, and duck. The two premier wildlife management areas in the area are Springdale Wildlife Management Area (deer hunting only) and Dean Will Wildlife Management Area at “Wildcat Brake.” These areas encompass more than 3,700 acres of unique habitat and prime hunting opportunities including old river runs, sloughs, open bottom lands, wetland grasses, and a mixture of hardwood and pine stands (USACE undated[d]).

E.7.2.4 Boat Ramps

Enid Lake offers over 21,000 acres of surface water making boating a top recreational activity. There are a number of boat launches available along the shoreline on USACE managed land. These boat launches are located at McCurdy Point, Water Valley Landing, Long Branch, Wallace Creek, Point Pleasant, Chickasaw Hill, Plum Point, Bynum, Persimmon Hill, and Prophet Bridge. Use of the boat launches is $3.00 per day, with the exception of Bynum Creek, Point Pleasant, and Prophet Bridge, which are free (USACE undated[d]).

E.7.2.5 Hiking/Walking Trails

There are five major trails available to the public located on USACE managed lands surrounding Enid Lake, which include the following:

1. Beech Hollow Nature Trail – Located at the entrance to Wallace Creek Campground, this is a self-guided trail approximately ½ mile in length with amenities including sitting benches, interpretive stops, and picnic tables (USACE Undated[d]). 2. Persimmon Hill Nature Trail – Located between Persimmon Hill Campground and Persimmon Hill Boat Ramp, this is a multi-use trail approximately ½ mile in length mainly used for hiking, bicycling riding, jogging, and nature viewing (USACE Undated[d]).

E-158 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

3. Water Valley Landing Trail – Located adjacent to the Water Valley Landing Campground, this hiking trail is approximately ½ mile in length and is used for nature viewing (USACE Undated[d]). 4. Plum Point Trial – Located adjacent to the Plum Point Campground, this 9-mile long hiking and equestrian trail offers scenic views of Enid Lake (USACE Undated[d]). 5. Spyglass Hill Trail – Located along the south side of Enid Lake between Point Pleasant Recreation Area and Spyglass Hill, this 20-mile multi-use trail offers visitors opportunities to ride horses, walk, hike, and jog. Amenities include trail parking areas, a picnic shelter, gazebo, hitching rails, picnic tables, rest stops, and a shower house. Spyglass Hill Trail is part of the National Recreational Trail System (USACE Undated[d]).

E.7.2.6 Picnic Areas

Over 160 picnic sites and 15 picnic shelters are available in 15 different areas on USACE- managed land surrounding Enid Lake, as shown in Table E.7.2-2 (USACE undated). Picnic shelters can be reserved for use at a fee of $50 per day (USACE Undated[d]).

TABLE E.7.2-2 ENID LAKE PICNIC SITES AND SHELTERS Number of Picnic Day Use Area Number of Picnic Sites Shelters North Abutment 4 0 McCurdy Point 6 1 Hickory Ridge 38 2 Wallace Creek 1 1 Outlet Channel 27 3 Riverview 15 1 Persimmon Hill 31 4 Plum Point 6 0 Chicksaw Hill 8 1 Bynum Creek 5 0 Prophet Bridge 5 0 Water Valley Landing 3 1 Point Pleasant 2 0 Long Branch 6 0 Ford’s Well 6 1

E-159 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.7.2.7 Swimming

Swimming is a popular recreational activity at Enid Lake. Designated swimming beaches provide visitors a safe and enjoyable environment for swimming and other water sports. There are five beaches open to the public surrounding Enid Lake on USACE managed land. These beaches are located at Hickory Ridge, Persimmon Hill, Plum Point, Chickasaw Hill, and Long Branch. A $1 fee is charges for entry to these designated swimming beaches (USACE undated[d]).

E.7.2.8 Events

Numerous events are held at Enid Lake throughout the year such as the Annual Eagle Survey, Annual Clean-Up Day, National Youth Bow Fishing Championship, Charity Archery Shoot, and Watermelon Carnival among many others (MDWFP undated).

E.7.3 Recreation within the Vicinity of the Proposed Project Boundary

Several recreation areas are located in the vicinity of the proposed Project boundary near Enid Dam including Persimmon Hill Campground, Riverview Day-Use Area, Outlet Channel Fishing Pier, McCurdy Point, Piney Woods, Lipes Bluff, Woodpile, and Wallace Creek Campground. The location of these facilities relative to the proposed Project is presented in Figure E.7.3-1, below.

E-160 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

FIGURE E.7.3-1 RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

E-161 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.7.3.1 Persimmon Hill Campground

As described above, Persimmon Hill Campground is located south of the Enid Dam, approximately 1.7 miles from the existing outlet structure and proposed Project.

E.7.3.2 Riverview Day-Use Area

The Riverview Day-Use Area is located at Enid Dam, approximately 0.7 miles from the existing intake structure and proposed Project. Recreational facilities provided at the Riverview Day-Use Area include a tennis court, baseball field, restrooms, shoreline fishing areas along the outlet channel, and picnic areas.

E.7.3.3 Outlet Channel Fishing Pier

Access roads, parking areas, and picnic areas are located adjacent to the outlet channel downstream of the outlet structure and proposed Project. Additionally, a handicap accessible fishing pier is located on the outlet channel downstream of the dam, approximately 900 feet from the outlet structure and proposed Project.

E.7.3.4 Recreation Areas North of Enid Dam

Numerous recreation areas are located north of Enid Dam including McCurdy Point, Hickory Ridge, Piney Woods, Lipes Bluff, Woodpile, and Wallace Creek Campground. These recreation areas are located approximately 0.5 miles to 1.5 miles north of the existing outlet structure and proposed Project.

E.7.4 Recreation within the Proposed Project Boundary

The proposed Project will be located along the north shoreline of the outlet channel. The proposed Project boundary consists of a small rectangular area encompassing the existing intake structure and outlet structure/channel and immediate surrounding area. A portion of the outlet channel, located within the proposed Project boundary, is currently a USACE-designated restricted area and access for fishing or water recreation is not permitted.

E-162 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Existing recreational facilities within the proposed Project boundary include a limited number of parking areas and picnic areas located immediately adjacent to the outlet channel adjacent to Enid Dam.

E.7.5 Shoreline Buffer Zone

The Project proposes to use the water power potential of the existing dam and impoundment. No changes to the impoundment are proposed, and the impoundment is not proposed to be included within the FERC Project boundary. Therefore, provisions for a shoreline buffers zone within the Project boundary above the normal maximum surface elevation of the reservoir are not applicable.

E.7.6 Estimates of Existing and Future Recreational Use

Enid Lake covers approximately 44,000 acres and is visited by more than 1.7 million people each year (USACE undated). The proposed Project is unconstructed; therefore there are no existing recreational facilities associated with the Project. Existing recreational facilities within the proposed Project boundary include a limited number of parking areas and picnic areas located immediately adjacent to the outlet channel.

The aforementioned areas located within the proposed Project boundary are day-use facilities. The USACE collects data on use of these facilities, and FFP is consulting with the USACE to identify current use. In general, FFP anticipates that use of the areas within the proposed Project boundary to continue along current use trends.

In the 2010 Statewide Fisheries Management Final Program Report (Appendix E-1f of Volume II of this FLA), Mississippi Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks estimated that the out of pocket cost of an average fishing trip to Mississippi of 4.5 hours generated $3,000,000 in direct spending. This report also notes that spending per angler raised $3.06 from 2006 to 2010. (MWFP 2010) Table E.7.6-1 presents the roving shoreline creel survey data from 2010.

E-163 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

TABLE E.7.6-1 CREEL SURVEY RESULTS FOR SPILLWAY (2010) Number Percent of total Catch per Harvested per Mean weight Target of anglers (%) hour hour (lb) Crappie 561 57.3 1.98 0.74 1.17

Bass 274 28.0 1.23 0.29 1.74

Bream 11 1.1 2.20 1.44 0.44

Catfish 44 4.5 1.81 1.27 1.01

White bass 2 0.2 13.2 0.80 1.00

Anything 87 8.9 1.17 0.73 0.71

(MWFP 2011)

With a wide variety of recreation opportunities available throughout the entire year, the USACE estimates that annual visitation to the general vicinity (inclusive of Enid Lake) exceeds 528,000 people (USACE undated[b]). Future use of the recreation facilities is expected to be consistent with current use estimates as the proposed Project will not affect the access or use of the existing facilities.

E.7.7 Project Effects on Recreational Resources

E.7.7.1 Construction Related Effects

In general, Project construction-related effects on recreational resources are expected to limited and temporary. Figure E.7.7.2-1 shows the extent of construction-related impacts associated with the proposed Project. Construction activities such as the use of heavy equipment could cause a temporary, localized disruption of recreational activities parking and picnic areas adjacent to the outlet channel. The presence of heavy machinery, materials, and land modifications could potentially limit parking areas adjacent to the outlet structure during construction. Construction-related activities may also result in increased noise and/or vibration levels from the use of heavy equipment, and would temporarily disrupt the viewshed adjacent to the outlet channel.

E-164 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

FIGURE E.7.7.2-1 POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON RECREATION RESOURCES

E-165 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

Disruptions to recreation in the immediate vicinity of the existing outlet works are anticipated to be unavoidable but temporary, due to construction safety and access requirements. However, FFP will consider reasonable means of minimizing these disruptions when developing its construction plans and approaches. There will be no effect on the recreational opportunities in areas that are not in the immediate vicinity of the Project; as a result, the significant land-based recreation opportunities in the area will remain functional throughout Project construction.

FFP recognizes that construction of the proposed hydroelectric facility may potentially impact certain portions of existing recreational facilities. Accordingly, FFP recognizes the need to; (a) develop a planning and consultation mechanism whereby impacts during or after construction are fully understood as the design process unfolds, (b) reinstate or restore facilities which may be impacted during construction, (c) coordinate with the USACE and other stakeholders with respect to replacement of portions of facilities which may be permanently affected by construction, and (d) FFP will consult with the USACE, MDWFP and other stakeholders the to determine if additional temporary or permanent public recreational facilities will be necessary based on the construction or operations at the proposed Project.

FFP is continuing to consult with the USACE and the MDWFP regarding potential construction- related impacts on recreational resources. Based on this consultation, FFP will ultimately develop a final Recreation Management Plan (RMP) (initial RMP in Appendix C-6) to address any Project-related effects on recreational resources that may occur as a result of construction activities. The RMP will be developed in consultation with the USACE and MDWFP and will include measures for avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating impacts of Project-related construction on recreational resources.

FFP is continuing to consult with the USACE and MDWFP regarding appropriate management measures to be included in the RMP. FFP included a draft RMP within the DLA issued in June 2013, and with the exception of the Commission, no comments were received on that draft RMP. In light of this, and recognizing that FFP is still awaiting responses to certain parties relative to recreational information, The RMP included in the DLA is included with this FLA and accordingly is submitted to consulted parties. The RMP also includes provisions for

E-166 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

implementing BMP during Project construction activities, including BMP to address sediment and erosion control during construction and final stabilization. Such measures would include, but not be limited to, placement of siltation fencing, protection of temporarily disturbed ground, final stabilization, and adequate storage of potential pollutants on the construction site (i.e., gasoline, oil etc.).

E.7.7.2 Changes to Recreational Resources

The outlet channel is currently a restricted area. FFP anticipates that this area will continue to be restricted during Project construction and operations. Use of the access roads, parking areas, and picnic sites located adjacent to the outlet structure within the proposed Project boundary will be temporarily affected during construction. Subsequent to the completion of construction of the proposed Project, it is likely that a small number of parking spaces currently located adjacent to the outlet channel will be eliminated due to the location of the new powerhouse and associated appurtenances. However, the aforementioned changes would be limited to a very small area with other access roads, parking areas, and picnic areas remaining available during and post construction.

E.7.7.3 Operational Effects

Operational effects of the Project on recreational resources are expected to be minimal. FFP will consult with the USACE to establish an appropriate restricted area around the powerhouse, tailrace, and other Project faculties to ensure the safety of the public. The restricted area may result in the elimination of a small number of parking spaces adjacent to the outlet channel. FFP will consult with the USACE to determine the feasibility of or need to relocate these parking spaces based on the final Project designs.

The Project will be operated in a run-of-release mode with no storage of flows. Flows available for generation will consist of water released from the lake according to USACE’s existing lake level and discharge management practices. The Project will not interfere with the USACE’s management of the water resource and will use existing flows dispatched by the USACE. Thus, the proposed operation of the Project is not expected to have a material impact on downstream recreational fishing.

E-167 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

FFP is continuing to consult with the USACE and MDWFP regarding appropriate management measures to be included in the RMP. The RMP will include specific measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate potential adverse effects of Project operations on recreational resources. As noted above, FFP has developed a RMP that is submitted with this FLA.

E.7.8 Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures Recommended by Resource Agencies

FFP is continuing to consult with the appropriate resource agencies regarding appropriate PM&E measures recreational resources. No specific PM&E measures for recreational resources have been recommended at this time. Following license issuance and prior to start of construction, FFP proposes to finalize consultation with consulted parties and file the RMP with the Commission.

E.7.9 FFP’s Proposed Environmental Measures

FFP is continuing to consult with the USACE and MDWFP regarding appropriate management measures to be included in the RMP. FFP has developed a RMP that is submitted with the FLA. As consultation continues, the RMP will also include provisions for implementing BMP during Project construction activities, including BMP to address sediment and erosion control during construction and final stabilization. Such measures would include, but not be limited to, placement of siltation fencing, protection of temporarily disturbed ground, final stabilization, and adequate storage of potential pollutants on the construction site (i.e., gasoline, oil etc.).

E.7.10 Schedule and Estimated Costs

The schedule and estimated costs for developing and implementing the RMP will be dependent on a number of factors, including the extent of recreational enhancement, avoidance, or mitigation measures. FFP has developed a schedule and estimated cost, which are included in the RMP based on consultation with the USACE and MDFWP

As necessary, the Applicant intends to fund the RMP through a combination of its own funds, equity and debt financing.

E-168 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.8 Report on Aesthetic Resources

E.8.1 Existing Environment – Aesthetics

The proposed Project is located in the gently rolling hills of pine and hardwood forests at the entrance to the Mississippi Delta. The proposed Project will be located at the Enid Dam, a 44,000 USACE facility with aesthetic and recreational resources for everyone including hiking, boating, fishing, hunting, waterskiing, bird watching, camping, picnicking, golfing, swimming, and much more (USACE 2012b).

Access to the aesthetic resources of the proposed Project area are gained by traveling along Enid Dam Road which takes visitors from Interstate 55 at Exit 233 at the north end of the dam to the Project and along the top of the Enid Dam to the South. Enid Dam Road continues to the north, and turns westerly before connecting to Chapel Hill Road.

Photo E.8.1-1 shows an aerial view of the Enid Dam spillway and a portion of the north end of the lake. The proposed Project is located approximately 1 mile from Enid off U.S. Interstate-55 in Yalobusha County. The existing dam is 8,400 in length and rises to an elevation of 293.0 ft. NGVD offering substantial views from atop of a landscape with an otherwise low relief. Photo E.8.1-2 provides a view of the outlet channel area.

PHOTO E.8.1-1 AERIAL PHOTO OF ENID DAM

(Source: USACE)

E-169 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

PHOTO E.8.1-2 ENID OUTLET CHANNEL

(Source: HDR)

E.8.2 Project Consistency with Surrounding Environment

The proposed Project facilities are not expected to have a significant visual effect on the properties of the existing Enid Lake Dam or to the surrounding vicinity. The location of the existing dam will remain unchanged and proposed facilities will be visually integrated into the dam configuration. The river elevation and shoreline conditions associated with the operation of the Project will not be altered significantly from current conditions and the project is not expected to have an adverse impact on the waterfront views in the area.

The proposed Project includes the construction of a powerhouse and short transmission line. The proposed Project has been designed to blend with the existing aesthetic character of the area. The Project is not expected to have an adverse effect on aesthetic resources.

The proposed Project is contained within lands managed and maintained by USACE. The proposed Project site is currently maintained as a park-like setting for public use and is anticipated to remain consistent with this setting after completion of construction.

E-170 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.8.3 Proposed Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures

FFP is not proposing any specific measures to enhance the existing aesthetic resources associated with the Project area. However, post-construction site restoration is proposed after Project construction is completed so as to preserve the current aesthetics at those areas temporarily affected by construction activities. In addition, the proposed Project is not expected to have an adverse effect on existing land uses at the site or on adjacent areas on either side of the Yocona River. The new facilities associated with the Project will be integrated into the existing Enid Dam and there will be no significant changes to the upstream and downstream shoreline conditions that would alter current aesthetic resources.

E-171 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.9 Report on Land Use

E.9.1 Existing Environment – Land Use

The Yazoo River Basin covers 30% of the State of Mississippi’s land area and is the largest basin contained in the state. Basin-wide land use is predominantly agricultural (60%). The proposed Project lies in the Bluff Hills region of the Yazoo River Basin. The Bluff Hills region land area is less dominated by agriculture than the lands downstream of the flood control dams and supports a variety of land uses with smaller areas of cultivation. Pine and oak/hickory forests, pastures, small farms, and limited residential, commercial, and industrial development create a complex mosaic of land uses (USDA 2008). Information for the following Land Use maps was obtained from USGS land use and land cover data sources.

E.9.2 Enid Lake Area Land Use

Within a one-mile radius of the proposed Project, land use is predominantly water reservoir to the east, built up land to the south (dam), and mixed forest land to the north. To the west, the MDWFP leases 58 acres from the USACE for their North Mississippi Fish Hatchery and Visitors Center. Along the 2,036-foot-long overhead transmission line route land use is predominantly existing ROW and mixed forest land (Figure E.9.2-1).

E-172 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

FIGURE E.9.2-1 PROPOSED PROJECT LAND USE MAP

E-173 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.9.3 Environmental Impacts to Current Land Use

The Project boundary for the proposed Project is contained within lands managed and maintained by USACE. The proposed Project site is maintained as a park-like setting for public use. The proposed Project may cause minor land disturbance during construction of the Project works described in Exhibit A.

E.9.4 Measures to Protect and Enhance Land Use in the Project Area

Construction activity could cause a temporary, localized disruption of recreational activity, a major land use in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project. The presence of heavy machinery, materials, and land modifications could potentially block access to recreational resources in the immediate area of the dam. Access to trails and shoreline fishing locations downstream of the dam may require temporary closure or restriction during specific phases of Project construction. Recreational features such as nature observation and fishing from shore may be disrupted during Project construction and are anticipated to be unavoidable but temporary, due to construction safety and access requirements.

Following license issuance and prior to start of construction, FFP plans to develop specific measures to minimize these disruptions during the development of its final construction plans. FFP does not anticipate effects on the recreational opportunities in areas that are not in the immediate vicinity of the Project; as a result, the significant land-based recreation opportunities afforded in, and by the area will remain functional throughout Project construction and operation.

E-174 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.10 Alternative Locations, Designs, and Energy Sources

E.10.1 Alternate Locations and Designs

The Applicant for this Project is FFP Missouri 2, LLC, a domestic limited-liability company for which Free Flow Power Corporation is authorized to act as an agent (collectively referenced as “FFP” or “Applicant”). FFP is a private renewable energy company focusing on developing clean, renewable, cost-effective, and environmentally sound hydropower generation at existing non-powered dams.

For the past several years FFP has reviewed, evaluated, and screened numerous potential hydroelectric development sites nationwide, regionally, and within the state of Mississippi. For each site, FFP has taken into account site-specific physical characteristics, water availability, market conditions, constructability, economic, and other attributes. Collectively, FFP’s feasibility and technical reviews performed during the term of the current preliminary permit presently indicate that moving forward with hydroelectric development at this selected site is economically viable. This is reflected in FFP’s decision to move forward with this License application and License issuance, construction and operation of this Project is consistent with FFP’s business objectives and will meet the needs and interests of the public through increased supply of clean, renewable energy.

From regional perspective, this application is one of four individual FERC licenses for which FFP is applying at USACE flood control dams within the Yazoo River Basin region, which collectively includes: Sardis Dam on the Little Tallahatchie River in Panola County, Mississippi; Enid Dam on the Yocona River in Yalobusha County, Mississippi; Grenada Dam on the Yalobusha River in Grenada County, Mississippi; and Arkabutla Dam on the Coldwater River in Tate and DeSoto Counties, Mississippi.

E.10.2 Alternate Locations and Designs

FFP has considered alternative facility designs, processes and operations. As part of feasibility review, several construction and engineering alternatives were evaluated before reaching the Project configuration, sizing, and layout proposed in this application. Alternatives were

E-175 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

evaluated with respect to considerations such as cost, constructability, impacts to USACE facilities, environmental impacts, cofferdams and dewatering, interconnect, and turbine selections. In general, the following goals and priorities guided FFP’s overall development of the Project:

 Minimize or eliminate alteration of, or impacts to USACE dam core or intake.  Utilization of any existing USACE structures with minimal modifications.  Assure that normal hydro operations maintain and minimize impact on the discharge capacity of the existing USACE outlet works and current USACE reservoir management and flow release operations.  Provide USACE with direct control of new outlet gates.  Ability to isolate hydro plant from USACE operations.  Minimize the environmental footprint of the Project.

Examples of key alternatives considered but ultimately deemed not feasible and excluded from the license application include:

 Surge tank located at conduit outlet – eliminated from further consideration and replaced with bifurcation chamber and forebay concept so as to eliminate potential impacts to USACE dam and to consolidate construction work area to reduce environmental impacts. In addition, the surge tank would have been detrimental to fish movement.  Trashracks at USACE inlet – trashracks proposed in forebay instead so as to eliminate direct impacts to USACE facilities and to allow for incorporation of downstream fish bypass/movement facility.  Waterbox at conduit outlet – eliminated from further consideration and replaced with extended conduit liner encased in concrete so as to eliminate impact to dam, as well as potential impact due to construction of waterbox.

Examples of key alternatives considered and optimized include:

 Unit selection and operations – optimized and modified to conform to, and be

E-176 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

compatible with existing USACE reservoir management and flow release operations.  Conduit liner and bifurcation chamber – optimized to ensure that existing USACE operations are not adversely impacted.

E.10.3 Alternate Energy Sources

Power generated by the Project will be available to meet demand of the TVA sub-region within the SERC, one of the regional entities of the NERC. According to excerpts from Chapter 4 “Need for Power Analysis” of TVA’s March 2011 Integrated Resource Plan (TVA March 2011), regional energy alternatives are shown in Figure E.10.3-1 below.

FIGURE E.10.3-1 TVA BREAKDOWN OF CAPACITY OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION

The Project will serve as a clean, renewable energy resource that provides predictable, reliable power. As noted above, other electrical energy alternatives include nuclear, natural gas, coal, and oil-fired generation whose fuel and other costs would be significantly higher than that of the

E-177 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

proposed Project. The Project represents an environmentally preferable renewable energy alternative without the production of air pollution or carbon emissions.

E.10.4 Consequences of Denial of License Application

The Applicant is applying for an original license to construct a hydroelectric project at an existing USACE flood control dam and reservoir. Accordingly, the denial of this application would not eliminate construction of a new dam and existing non-power attributes of the existing dam would remain. However, should this application be denied, the Applicant will be adversely affected as it has invested years of effort and over $1,075,000 in license development activities, including environmental and engineering studies. Additionally, denial of the application may not be in the public interest as the addition of incremental, clean, renewable energy would not occur.

E-178 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.11 Conformance with Comprehensive Plans Relevant to the Proposed Project

E.11.1 Qualifying Comprehensive Plans Deemed Applicable

Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 803(a)(2)(A), requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the project. On April 27, 1988, the Commission issued Order No. 481-A, revising Order No. 481, issued October 26, 1987, establishing that the Commission will accord FPA § 10(a)(2)(A) Comprehensive Plan (Plan) status to any federal or state plan that:

Is a comprehensive study of one or more of the beneficial uses of a waterway or waterways; specifies the standards, the data, and the methodology used; and is filed with the Secretary of the Commission.

Under 18 CFR § 4.38, each license applicant must identify relevant Plans and explain how and why a proposed project would or would not comply with such Plans. As discussed below, FFP has reviewed the relevant Plans and has determined that FFP’s Project is, or can be expected to be consistent with these Plans.

E.11.2 Overview of Comprehensive Plans

FFP has reviewed the Plans maintained by the Commission, in accordance with Order No. 481- A, as set forth in the Commission’s June 2013 List of Comprehensive Plans. FFP utilized the Commission’s newly digitized online compendium of Comprehensive Plans and reviewed the Plans on file with the Commission for Mississippi, as well as the regional or national Plans deemed applicable to Mississippi by the Commission’s List of Comprehensive Plans.

In some cases, FFP has identified additional plans or updated versions of the Comprehensive Plans that have been filed with the Secretary of the Commission, which FFP has indicated below. Such additional plans or updated versions may be relevant as Resource Plans, though they are not deemed to be Comprehensive Plans until such time that they are approved by the Secretary of the Commission.

E-179 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.11.2.1 State of Mississippi

The FERC Library of Comprehensive Plans contains 5 Plans for Mississippi which may be relevant to this FFP Project in Mississippi.

1. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. Vicksburg District. Upper Yazoo Basin Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Study. Vicksburg, Mississippi. August 1988.

 The Upper Yazoo Basin Fish and Wildlife Migration Study is a Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the resources of the Upper Yazoo River Basin. This comprehensive plan was filed with the FERC in 2009 and is based on a 1988 update to the original 1979 published document.  FFP’s Projects are not expected to conflict with the findings and goals of the Upper Yazoo Basin Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Study. FFP is committed to working in cooperation with the USACE, Vicksburg District to evaluate and mitigate potential effects of FFP’s Projects may have on fish and wildlife resources and their habitat.  As a result, FFP’s Projects will be developed in a manner consistent with this plan and will not interfere with the priority of conservation and mitigation of fish and wildlife or their habitat as outlined in the Plan.

2. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. Mississippi State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). Jackson, Mississippi. November 2, 1990.

 The objective of the Mississippi SCORP is to document the state’s outdoor recreation resources, determine the demand for facilities and recreation programs, examine outdoor recreation needs, and recommend a course of action for at least the next five years.  The statewide issues identified in the SCORP include recreation planning, citizen participation, preservation of natural resources, and maintenance and improvement of existing facilities. FFP’s Projects will be consistent with these goals, and will promote the additional goal in improved state planning and coordination.  FFP has determined that this Plan is not the most current version of the Mississippi SCORP, which was replaced by the 2003 SCORP. FFP has consulted the 2003 SCORP as a Resource Plan which is applicable to FFP’s Projects, but which has not been filed as a Comprehensive Plan with the FERC.

E-180 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Canadian Wildlife Service. North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Department of the Interior. Environment Canada. May 1986.

 The North American Waterfowl Management Plan establishes goals and strategic initiatives for management of waterfowl in North America and was a joint venture between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The Plan discusses 29 species of ducks, 18 subspecies of geese, and four species of swans.  The Plan sets the following management goals: sustain waterfowl population levels to provide ecological and socioeconomic benefits; long-term protection, restoration, and management of waterfowl habitats; manage waterfowl harvests as a renewable resource; and continually improve biological foundations of waterfowl conservation.  FFP’s Projects are not found within the plan’s priority habitat range. As result, FFP’s Projects will not interfere with the priority of conservation of waterfowl habitat or with the goals of protecting populations of migratory waterfowl.

4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Gulf Coast joint venture plan: A Component of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. June 1990.

 The purpose of the Gulf Coast Joint Venture Plan is to provide an overview of how the goals and objectives of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan will be implemented within the six Initiative Areas that are included within the joint venture.  Collectively, the objective of the Joint Venture is to provide habitat and management adequate for winter populations of 13 million ducks and 1.1 million geese. The Mississippi River Coast Wetlands Initiative consists of a key component of acquisition of 100,000 acres of waterfowl habitat, and a private lands restoration program.  FFP’s Projects are not found within the plan’s priority habitat range. However, should the plan’s priority habitat ranges eventually expand to include FFP’s Project Sites, the Projects will be consistent with the objectives of the Gulf Coast Joint Venture Plan, and the Projects will not alter wetlands or any other migratory waterfowl habitats.

E-181 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fisheries USA: the Recreational Fisheries Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Undated

 Fisheries USA is the recreational fisheries policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The policy is committed to the objectives of usability, sustainability, and action and 933 Federal and State or Tribal Comprehensive Plans Relevant to the FFP Project – Section 7 defines the Service’s stewardship role in management of the nation’s recreational fishery resources.  The Service’s goals include the following: ensure and enhance the quality, quantity, and diversity of recreational fishing opportunities; develop and enhance partnerships between governments and the private sector for conserving and managing recreational fisheries; cooperate to maintain a healthy recreational fisheries industry.

FFP’s Projects will not conflict with the Fisheries USA policy and the goals of the Service with respect to recreational fishing opportunities. FFP is committed to working in cooperation with the Service to evaluate and mitigate significant effects of FFP’s Projects on recreational fishing opportunities.

E-182 ©FFP, 2013

Exhibit E Environmental Exhibit

E.12 Literature Cited

A compendium of literature cited is located in Appendix D, Volume II of this application.

E-183 ©FFP, 2013

EXHIBIT F GENERAL DESIGN DRAWINGS

F.1 Critical Energy Infrastructure Information

In accordance with 18 CFR Part 388, FFP is requesting that the General Design Drawings for the Enid Lake Hydroelectric Project be treated as Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) because they contain specific design information about proposed critical infrastructure as defined in 18 CFR § 388.113. This request for treatment as CEII is being made to the Commission in accordance with the Final Rule (Order No. 630-A) issued by the Commission on July 23, 2003 (revised August 8, 2003). Therefore, in conjunction with filing this Final License Application, Exhibit F General Design Drawings listed below are filed as preliminary with the Commission in Volume III of the application under separate cover in accordance with Order 630-A.

F.2 Design Drawings

The initial, preliminary General Design Drawings tabulated below depict overall plan views, elevation, and sections of the principal Project works. Drawing Number Title Exhibit F-1 Site Plan Exhibit F-2 Plan & Elevation Section Exhibit F-3 Powerhouse Plan Section & Elevation

F.3 Supporting Design Report

Pursuant to 18 C.F.R. §4.41(g)(3) and (4), a Preliminary Supporting Design Report has been prepared. For the reasons associated with the General Design Drawings identified in Section F.1, FFP requests that the Preliminary Supporting Design Report also be treated as CEII. Therefore, in conjunction with filing this Final License Application, the Preliminary Supporting Design Report is filed with the Commission in Volume III of the application under separate cover with the General Design Drawings.

F-1 ©FFP, 2013

EXHIBIT G PROJECT MAPS

G.1 Project Maps

The Exhibit G Project Boundary Maps depicting the Project vicinity, location, and boundary are tabulated below and included within this Volume I.

Drawing Number Title

Exhibit G-1 – Sheet No. 1 of 3 Key Plan

Exhibit G-2 – Sheet No. 2 of 3 Exhibit G Map

Exhibit G-3 – Sheet No. 3 of 3 Exhibit G Map

G-1 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit G Project Maps

G-2 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit G Project Maps

G-3 ©FFP, 2013 Exhibit G Project Maps

G-4 ©FFP, 2013