HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT
--
..
Programmatic Agreement
Project No. 11810-004 - Georgia and SOll;th Carolina
FINAL PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT
AMONG
THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
. .. . . . ,
THE GEORGIA STATEHn;STORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE~
AND TIlE So.:tJTH CMO~fNA StAT:E: HISTORIC
PRESERVATION OFFICER.P(!)RMANAGING HISTORIC PROPERTIES
THAT MAY BE A'1FFECTE:h'BY A LICENSE ISSUING to
THE CITY OF AUGUSTA
FOR THE OPERA'FIIDN AND MAINTENANCE OF THE
'. AUGlT~'FACANAL ~ROJECT
IN RICHMOND AND c~!LlJM1JrA}}OUNnEs~ GEORGIA AND
. EDGEFIEL:Q:COUNTY, SOU'I'H CAROLINA
WHEREAS, the 'Federal Enetgy Regulatary Commission or its staff, (hereinafter,
"Commission"),proposestoissne an ori.ginal Iicenseto the city of At,l.gusta
(he:r:einafter,'''licensee"}toopemte ~d maintain the Augusta Canal Pr.oject,
Project No. 118J 0 (hereihlifter, "project"),l as authoriZed by Part I of the Federal
Power Act, 16 US.c. sections 791(a) through 825 (r), as amended; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that issuing such a license may affect
properties inclu.dedin orelfgible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places (hereinafter, IIhistoric propertiesfl); and
WHEREAS, App~ndix A of this Programmatic Agreement provides a description of the
project, histori9 properties identified as of the date of this Progra~atic
.Agreement, and anticipated effects as of the date of this Programmatic Agreement;
and
WHEREAS, the Commission has consulted-with the Georgia State Historic Preservation
Officer (hereinafter, "Georgia SHPOII) and the South Carolina Historic
Preservation Officer (hyr~ii1after, "8cmth Carolina 8HPO") pursuant to 36C.P.l,(.
Part'800.14(b) of the Adyisory Council on Historic Preservation's (hereinafter,
"Advisory Council") regUlations (36 C.F.R. Part 800) implementing section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470F;hereinafter, "section
106"); and
1 The project has no hydr()electric generating facilities and would produce no power.
." -~- "1.;:~,i ;:.. ',i~h,;.l,~ {},":"::'~1~Gt!,i':~~~~"~i~;&:-..;c";;~~'};~:j",;,1r~~'~$9.:~~~~~iL,.~....~~~i~.;. 'i,~:~..~:,~.i~~::'."" .~. ':{. :.';'(', .:. ~': '.. .."....;.. . .~.. ~~_.:~ . .'\,. .,; ;.'. '.:
.'~i. .'~''', ... ,.... '.'~.
~
3
Programmatic Agreement
Project No. 11810-004 - Georgia and South Carolina
4
WHEREAS, the licensee has participated in the consultation leading to the execution of
. thisPrograrnmatic Agreement and is invited to concur in it; and
WHEREAS, the Conunission will require the licensee to implement the provisions of
this Programmatic Agreement as a condition of issuing an original license for the
project; and.
NOW THEREFORE, the Commission, the Georgia SHPO, and.the South Carolina
SBPO agree that the project win beadniinistered in accordance with the following
stipulations in orde~tosatisfY the Conunission's section 106 responsibilities
during the t~ of the project's license. .
S t i p'lH .at ion s
The Canirrrission: will ensure: that, upon a license issuing for this project, the .
licensee implementS the fO,Hawing sttpu18tiOiis. Allstipulatioris that apply to the licensee
will similarl&apply to any'an(laILoftheliceris~ets successors. Compliance with any of
the followingstip~Ia~onsdoes.hot relieve..t1ie~cen.see of any other ~b1igations it has
under.the Federal Power Act; the Comniission's regUlations, or its license.
I. mSTORIC PROPERTI~SMANAGEMENT PLAN
A. In April 2004, the licenseeSl1bhutted the Draft Historic Properties
.ManagementPlanAl.{gusta Canal Hydropowe.r Projec.t.Richmond and._. ... __ .
Columbia Counties.. Georgia andEdgefield County. South Carolina
(hereinafter; "draft HPMP")for the project to the Georgia SHPO and the
South Carolina'SHPO. Within one year of a license issuing for this project,
the licensee will file for the Commission's approval a final HPMP
specifying how historic properties will be managed in the project's Area of
PotentialEffect (hereinafter., "APE"),2 as detinedin 36 CFR Part800.16( d),
during the term'ofthe license. During development of the final HPMP, the
2 The Augusta Canal.Project's APE is the Augusta Canal and Industrial District National
Historic LanQmark Districtboundaries:ex~}udii1g the city of Augusta's Raw Water
Pumping Station, associated facilities, and pipes, but including archeological sites
9RIl158 and 9RI1172~ This APE inchldes aU facilities necessary to operate the project,
. .
including the Augusta Diversion Dam, the Augusta Diversion Dam Impoundment, and
the first level of the Augusta Canal. . . .
,;~~~:~;.;.:~:~....;\;~;b'El ~,;"'~i~~J~;(~::':t.;~.}:i:~LJ(~~}.~\t_~.~~~;{~)U;;(i:;,!,~~.'::.:{~;;;;j:/.:,~:.;;:. "~' ;~...~~:;~t~'k:~Y:: .:" ~:1.}'. . : ~"~:.i~".; ~:;~~.~."".: ":i.~~.~,::":: .~J)~i .'"~.:. .~:i~i::..j;f;:~i:.~:.:" .,./Ii :~:..>.!~,t;;:."~b~.~-.>;..,;;;~,~~~::::~,,-..{.:-Af~~l;~:-~i~:.i2.~':~i..;:\.:"..: .;.
....
Programmatic Agreement
Project No. 11810-004 - Georgia and South Carolina
5
licensee will con~lt with the Georgia SHPO and the South Carolina SHPO,
as defined in 36 CPR Part 800.2(c); Also during the development of the
fmal HPMP, the licensee willtake into account any comments provided on
the draft'HPMP~On June 9t 2004, the Georgia SHPO concurred with the
draft HPMP's identi'fication &ndevaluation of effects to historic.properties,
as well as with their proposed management. On June 9, 2004, the South
Carolina SHPO stat~d thatthe draft HPMP outlines an acceptable process
of consultation to:addtess.anypotential adverse effects on the two historic
properties located in South'Carolina.
B. Thelicensee will take iIito account ItArcheology and Historic
Preservation: Secretary onhe Interibr~s Standards and Guidelines" (Federal
Register,.september 29~ 1983,. yol. 48, No. 190, Part IV, pp. 44716-44740;
hereinafter, "SeCretary's Stat:idards")-and tbe "Gtiidelin,es for the
Development of Historic PTopertiesMatlagementPlans for FERC
Hydroelectric Projectsn3 while.developing.the fmal HPMP. The final
HPMPwill be developed by, or developed. under, the'direct supervision of a
person.or personswhqIIle~t"at'a' minimum. the professional qualifications .
standards fQI arehitectuni1hi'story and arCheology-in the Secretary's
Standards (48 FR4473-g;.39). To develop the.'final HPMP, the individual or
individuals need not possess:b-oth qualifications.
C. The final HPMP will, ata minimUin, include principles and procedures to
adcU:~~_s:th~.f9n9wi)lg:. "0.
1. completion;ifn~ess8ry, of identification ofhistoricpropertiest
within the project's APE;
2. continued use and maintenance of historic properties;
3 This document was issued jointly by the Commission and the Advisory Council on May
20,2002. Thf: document is available athttp://www.ferc;govJilldustries/hvdropOwer/gen-
infol gl1idelthesllrorrtp~tldf.
:; ..:..~};~.~~ /' :~.ill-~ Ci
~j.~t~~)~:~'::~i";:"'L:' .. ;;.,.~,i~:'!::..:~J.t-~~l~:~>k:i.~....j~~~ .:'/'~~:'J. '.'
Programmatic Agreement
Project No. 11810..004 - Georgia and ~outh Carolina
6
3~ treatment of historic properties threatened by project-induced
shoreline erosion,4 other project-related ground-disturbing activities,
and vandalism;
4. .;mitigation ofnnavoic4tble adverse effects on historic properties;
5. treatment and: disposition of any human remains that may be
discovered; taking into account any applicable state laws and the
Advisory Council's lIP<?lrcy Statement Regarding Treatment of
Human Remains and Grave Goods" (September 27,1988, Gallup,
NM);
6. discovery of previously unidentified properties during project
operations;
7. public interpretation of the historic and archaeological values of the
project;
8. list of activities not requiring 'consultation with the Georgia SHP~
and the South Catolina SHPO,as appropriate; these activities would
have little. or no potential to affect historic prop~rties; and
9. coordination with'the'Georgia SHPO and the South Carolina SHPO
~~g irnple111ep.tation of the HPMP.
II. HPMP REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION
.. .
. A. The licensee will submit 'the final HPMP, along with documentation of the
views of the Georgia SHPO and.the South Carolina SHPO to the
Commission for review an~:lapprova1.
B. If the Georgia SHPOan~the South Carolina SHPO concur with the final
HPMP ,and the Commission determines that the final HPMP is adequate,
the Commission will forward a copy of the final HPMP along with the
4 Project-induced shoreline erQsion does not include shoreline erosiQn attributable to
flood flows or phenomena, such as wind driven wave action, erodible soils, and loss of
vegetation due to natural causes.
. . .,...~j:.; .'.
.<". .,-.':.",;!,:, ,;',i.:.,;:: ;:.;:,;':.:,:'::~.L., :;,i'"i~';;:"
:"-:':'';'~''~;~~~-'''' ,.'- ::~.. ".;~ '.:~ :'
',.-..;,;,~" .",;1": ";.- '~A'';.'/;:'; .::;!i.;..,
:,.. .
..........,-.:.
: ....~~.!;~.:~:.~J.. ;~;~J).l.i~:;~~~ i: ,:.
,;:~;,'"l~~t'~;,. ....~,:~~~~ /...,',:f.: !~~Bi;~t;J'..:::.:~J: .:..:. :
.:.,-
7
Programmatic Agreement
Project No. 11810-004 - Georgia'and'south Carolina
views of the Georgia SHPO arid the South Carolina SHPa to the Advisory
Council for filing.
C. If the Georgia SHPO and/or the South Carolina SHPO have not concurred
with the final HPMP ,or. the Commission finds the final HPMP inadequate,
. the Commission will consult with the licensee, the Georgia SHPO, and the
South Carolina SHPOto seekagteementon the fmal HPMP. If
concurrence is not reached within 30 days, the Commission will request
that the.Advisory Council enter iIito consultation to seek agreement on the
fmal HPMP.
1. If agreement is reached on the final HPMP, the Conunission will
forward a copy of the revised final HPMP to th:e Advisory Council
, for filing. .
2. If agreement on the final HPMP cannot be reached among the
Commission, the Gei>tgia SHPO, and the South Carolina SHPO, the
licensee, andJhe AdvIsery. Council; the Commission, the Georgia
SHPO~ ortlie South. Catolina SapO .will request that the AdVisory
Council c01l1fl1l:eri.tputstiant to Stipulation IV.B; of this Programmatic
Agreement; or the Advisory Council may terminate consultation and
cornnien:t: on its own.
D. The licensee will file an annual report with the Georgia SHPO and the
South Carolina SHPOonactiVities conducted under the implemented
HPMP. The reportwi11. contain a. detailed summary of any cultural
resources work cO\1ducted during~the preceding year; if no work was .
completed, a letter from the licensee will be prepared to that effect, and will
satisfy the intent of this stipulation. .
ID. INTERIM TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES
A. Pending review and impl~m.entation'ofthe Inial HPMP pursuant to
Stipulatien II, the licensee will consult with the Georgia SHPO andlor the
South Carolina SHPO, as appropriate; regarding the impact of the
following: . .
1. all project-related:activities, including recreational developments,
that require ground-disturbance;
.; ,~,~~,..';',: '.;.l~:i...:: .~;\~~):~.-:/' .,~;.' .:, .r,
. '. ~':'~ '~{.;;,.;,:,;,.~~;~:\~a~t~.t.~.)(, ~~~i .:~/.:': ~ ~.:>- .,~ '.:, : "{;;~,~.' . .~1:~;1
Programmatic Agreement
Project No. 11810-004 - Oeorgia, and South Carolina
. I..
. .
8
2. non-routine maintenance, new.construction, demolition, or
repabilitationof project-related structures that may be National
Register-eligible; .
3. project-induced shoreline erosion of archaeological sites not
. attributable to flood flows or phenomena, such as wind-driven wave
action, erodible soils, and loss of vegetation due to natural causes.
B. Consultation will beinuaccordance with 36 CFR Part 800.4 and 800.5, with
the licensee acting as the Agency'Official. lfthe licensee and the
appropriate SHPO agree that the activity will not adversely affect properties
that may be National Register.:.eligible, the licensee may proceed in
accordance with any agreed-upon treatment measures or conditions. .
C. Ifeither,the licensee or the appropriate'SHPO determines that the activity
will have an adverse: effect, allQ._theaffected.property is a Natiorial Historic
Landmark, the licensee will subrriit the matter to the Commission, which
will initiate the .proceSs set forth at 36 CFR Part 800.6. Otherwise, the
licenseeand'theappropriate SHPQwill consult to develop a strategy for
avoiding ormiti.gat1llg such adverse effects. If the licensee and the
appropriate SI::IPOcan reach agreement, the licensee will implement the
agreed-upon strategy. If theydisagr,ee~ the licensee will submit the matter
to the CommissiQD.,. whichWiU initiate the process set forth at 36 ~FR Part
800.6 and 800.7(a) through (c)(3).
IV. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
A. If at any.time du,ring:implementation of this Programmatic Agreement and
the resulting final HPMP, the'Georgia SHPO, the South Carolina SHPO,
the licensee, or the Advisory Council objects to any action or any failure to
act pursuant to thisProgramlIlatic Agreement or the [mal HPMP, they may
file written objections with the Cominission.
1. The Commission will consult with the objecting partY, and with
otherparrlesor consulting party, as appropriate, to resolve the
objection.
: .h.:~.~~.;.~I'i'~~~"~~~~1'i:. ':~'~!.~i~'; ~j~,"~~~:l~ :'.I,iiti: ~;i'l~'{'~~~~iil>;..t./:;;::.l~:','..: . ;,;..', :.
9
Programmatic Agreement
Project No. 11810-004 - Georgia and South Carolina
2. The Commission may initiate on its own such consultation to
remove any: of its objections.
B. If the Commission detemrines that the objection cannot be resolved, the
Commission will fotward all documentation relevant to the dispute t<;> the
Advisory Council and request that the Advisory Council comment. Within
30 days after receiving all p.ertinent documentation, the Advisory Council
will either: .
1. provide the Commission with recommendations, which the
Commission will take into account in reaching a final decision
regarding the dispute; or
2. notify the Commission that it will cOmment pursuant to 36 CFR Part
800.7(c)(1) tfuough:(3) and section 110(1) of the NationalHistoric
Preservation Act, andpro,ceed to comment.
c. The Commission will take into:account any Advisory Council comment,
provided m;response tel. sUch a request, with reference to the subject of the
dispute, and will issue a decisiOn on the,marter.The Commission's
responsibility .tocarry out all actions .under this Programmatic Agreement
that are not the subject of dispuie will remain unchanged.
v. AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION OF TillS PROGRAMMATIC
AGREEMENT
A. The commission, the GeorgiaSHPO, the South Carolina SHPO, or the
licensee, may request that this Programmatic Agreement be amended,
wbereupon these parties will Consult in accordance with 36 CFR Part
800. 14(b), to consider such amendment.
B. The Commissio:t1, the Georgja..SHPO, or the South Carolina SHPa may
terminate this Pro.gtanunatic Aigreement by providing 30 days written.
notice to the othei'p~es, prOvided~~t the Commission, the Georgia
SHPO, the SO\ltl'rb~1inB.SHPO, ~d.the'licensee consult d~ring the 30-
day noti~e period: in order to' seek agreement on amendments or other
actions thl.lt would avoid termination. In the event of termination, the
Cornmissionwill comply with 36 CFR Part 800.3 through 800.7(c)(3), with
regard to individual actions covered by this Programmatic Agreement.
~. ..A~;: ~.::.;'~~:-"lI~i;}~:;:i.Xj;:..:; .' .--:;: ; ~'_:;.:.J;j :'i~~:::':':'l~:_:':~ ?'/~~:;~; :i",{ ~~} !i;l~~': .~:. LJ~~id~:'~'.>":;'f.'.i:\~t:.j ;~i'"~::~~:\i.( :~~- lij\~::iif..' :~:,..- 'vi~i~~;L~~ ::'~~n';A1 ~ > "...-:.
10
Programmatic Agreement
Project No. 11810-004 - Georgia and South Carolina
Execution oftbis Programmatic Agreement and subsequent implementation is
evidence that the C0mUii~sion has satisfied its responsibilities pursuant to section 106 of
the National Historic~Preservation Act, as amended) for all individual actions carried out
. .
under the license. Provided" however) that. unless and until the Commission issues a
license for the project and this Programmatic Agreement is incorporated by reference'
therein, this Programmatic Agreementhas no independent legal effect for any specific
license applicant or project.
. ..
;' ,::,,:~' :' ~ : .~~ -.; > h; '.'.. ~:.l;:;..i;!:/..~':l'.
~.,' ,. - .
~'. ._i;.~~I"~".:".'ii:::":~ "::'.~ ...(. .: ;; ..!,:j.:;:;~.
Programmatic Agreement
Project No. 11810-004 - Georgia ,and South Carolina
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
By: rivm'J--M
Ann F. Miles, Director
Division of Hydropower Licensing
.."" "'c,:""':,.":;:"".' .,i"",Ii,,~.,,;,;';;';i,~;:~~;?,...,,;,~~~.,i~,,~.,;;':~.i'.ri;i,i:.. _;, :.;~.;i,.:_.. ...
...At:,",
. ..
.'." ",. .;.." .
11
Date: I). -{r-O~
. '" ". . ,!';:t;~{."~
:;.,,\ .: ''r'''..,,:;,:,,; .1 0' . ..
,I
Programmatic Agreement .
Project No. 11810-0.04 - qeorgia and ~outhCarolina
GEORGIA HISTORIC PRESERV AfJ'ION DMSION
By: Dare:
W. Ray Luce,
Division Director an~ Deputy State Histonc Preservation Officer
12
:~":;:':..1'::~'~,, f.:i>i-l~:f~~{ ,~:~~~j:..;'.,i".'-i: ~j:;'~';.k~ ~:~, .~::~>. :':':;:'~~~'~. . '.' ".~'
,'.
ProgTammatic Agreement
Project No. 11810-004 - Georgia and South Carolina
13
SOUTH CAROLINA STATE mSTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
By: Date:
Mary W. Edmonds,
Deputy State Historiq Preservation Officer
: .',<.l:'l:! .;.';.;,:. '-: ,r,"!i~"
~:. ,
, . : .. ':;;"1;;". '. ~" , '.;'. ,. . . '.'
'~,:'" , :'_~~':' .:i. ,. '::,,_~;".tl..:i,.": .~ .,.:~: ;;...;-"
>s,'i-::.:': "".\"
I
i
I
I
i
r
I
!
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
!
i-
j
I
..:. "J~. 1'1,
Programmatic Agreement
Project No. 11810.904- Georgia and ~outh Carolina
CONCUR: CITY OF AUGUSTA
By:
J~'r
. ..
":,.:,;,:i'i;;'i,,i:;(,,;'i",;;'i},.",';i:;;:t.ki~;:;j,,':;;~i:,:;;'b:.;:;:t;~ ;':>:::. ".', L . ....: ;.;./;-":<,;."j,,,;.:". .:.:: ~..
",", '.'"
..:-....-r~')-~.,.'. "._.....~:.,..~:.
Date:
.', :. ~'..; ':::.:
14
z.llt 107
; , , "~'r.-;..;,';.' ''f-~\.~''.' ,.1...1..-:I,!.....;i~(.': -..'... ". .
....-----
Programmatic Agreement
Project No. 11810-;004 - Georg~a and South Carolina
l
15
Appendix A to:
PROG~TIC AG~:EMENTAM0NG T.mt FEDERAL ENERGY
REGULATORY :CO::!\1LM.iISSION ANn T:aE NORTH CAROLINA STATE
mSTOR;rC P.RffifsERV ATION OIFFICER~ FOR MANAGLi'iG HISTORIC'
PROPE:R:F1:ES~TJlI4T'MAY B.)j;AFJ;1':ECTEDBY A LICENSE ISSWNG TO THE
CITY OF AUGt1Sl'kli~OR J;~ @;,e$.M~t~l'{ AND M~tlVNANCE OF THE
AUGU.s;TA eANAbPR@:JiIDCrIN'~c~OND AND COLUMBIA COUNTIES,
GEORGIA AND EDGEFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
PROJECF, mSTORmC PROPERTIES, AND ANTICIP ATEDEFFECTS
The.p~Qse ofthis:fiPpendix is tospec~fy the factual basis of the Programmatic
Agreemep.~; Hete;l:r.eteveJ:1tfac~:p()l1cefI1i~g.1he'proJect.andm0dif:ications to the project
prO:posed:bythe liceUs€e underili:~:Corinrii~sioE.'s lie;ensirig };1foce.dm:esare reviewed;
histodcp:I:CilpemeS'S:tlD}eot'to the ';P~ogr~~t.ic' Aceenumt'sstbpulations are, in part,
i dentified,;-and'.the anti cipateGl.eiffeots . ot ,ilie.'1ie-ease issuing are d.isolGsed,
On'January 30~ i@03, the1!ioenstiefiil~,~'~pplica:tion with the Cmnmissicll for an
original Iieense.'t0 opgr~tean(fm'aiiit~in'. the existmg Augusta Canal Proj ect, FERC No.
11810, located ~dja.c~ntto;.tb.~$aVarm<3!laRiver, RichmondCotlIlty, Augusta, GA. The
liGens.ee dO:es norpr..o:pose to CGiF1st;fuct:hydtQJ.eMctf.ic.gelileFati(jtl.Ja:G~ldti'es .and 'the .proj ect
would pr.ocli:1ce nO power. Thi:Jf-6ela'See pr-0poses to lioehse the'J3aTtsof.~e Augusta Canal
system whithpass fLews fot u.~e' by tbIrtleexistiiilig hydI6eIec&ic projects located in the
August~Cana1. Theseh.ydro~i:eoitie pr'9je~:a:Iie the 1.2-megawatt (MW) Enterprise Mill
Projeot(ProJect No. 2.93'5), the 2:41S-MW Sib:l:eyMiIl Project (Project No. 5044), and the
2.05-MW King Mill Project (Pr~:ect No_ 9~88). On June 20,2003, the licensee filed an
amendment to its applicat~9n fQrU.~eilse. The amendment included a propGsal for
providii1l:g;flciws inthe:.bypass.~dte~chC)ftl4~ Sa'va.nnah River, and arevised operations
and monitoring pHm. '.
InApril 2004,the.licepsee submitt~~..the Draft HistoticProperties Management
Plan AUgU'8ta Can'al Hydropower Project J:jchmond and Colul!1bia Ceunties, Georgia
andEcfg:F/ft:eid C07!rz.ty, S01lth Caro~ina..f0i.~e projeqt to tliLe Geo.r.gia SHPO and.the South
Caro}i.rra:;$f.t.PO. <Dn~~1Ne 9, 2tJ04:,1h:e GeQ~gta;'SHFO con~un.ed with the draftHPMP's
identific~ti:on and eva}:i.1au9n.of effects to-Mstonc properties asweH as with their
propos.etjffitan:agement. Also Qn J~e 9,2094, the South Cq.toltti-a SHPO stat<ed that the
draft HPMP outlines an accept~bj:e :rmJeess of conscltati:on tG address any potential
adverse effects on the two.hist0ne properties located in South Carolina.
. .. .......,;::.:;:...,.."
: .~:,"~"t'::l~.....L;d.,i.' ..!;.'....:i.~.,~. ~
Programmatic Agreement
Project No. 11810-004 - Georgia and ~outh Carolina
16
We, the parties to the Programmatic Agreement, anticipate that issuing the
licensee a new licenseto continue operating and maintaining the existing project may
pose adverse effects to.historic properties. VIe anticipate that any adverse effects can be
initigatedby. e~ec~~ll Progta1Iri11atic Agreement requiring the licensee to develop and
implement a fiIUil' IW:MP,and:'incor.porating:the executed Programmatic Agreement into
any original1lceriSc.fualthe Commission issues.
I. THE PROJECT
A. Existing Project Facilities
The project consists of the following: (1) the l,666-foot-long, and 11.5-foot-high
stone..ni.asonryAugusta Diversion Dam; (2) the 2,250-foot-long, 190-acre at normal
water surface elevation: of. 160 m.s.l., Savannah River Impoundment located between
Stevens Creek Dam and the AugUsta Diversion Dam; and (3) the first level of the Canal,
which extends about seVen miles between the Augusta Diversion Dam and the Thirteenth
Street gat~s.. .Strnctu~sincluded,in .the firstlevel of the Canal " include; (1) the canal head
gates _consisting of four steel and nine woo<:ien; motoroperated gates for admitting flow
to the Canal; (2) a one.hundred..foot~longand 1S:,foot-wide navigation lock; (3) the Reed
Creek waste gate; (4) the RockCteek waste.gate; (5) the Long Gate Spillway and
pedestrian bridge; (6) .tl1e Tin Hou~se; gates; (7) the Bulkhead gates consisting of eight gate
bays. one navigation bay,and'a 196~foot..l01.1g pedestrian bridge spanning the Canal; (8)
WeiglesGate which consists ofa single steel gate which discharges to Hawk's Gully; and
(9) the Thirteenth Street Het\dgates collsistlng of five steel gates.
B. Proposed Project Operations
Currently there are no operation'ill requirements or minimum flows required for the
AugUsta Diversion Da:in. ThepI:ojectha:s nO storage capacity and operates run-of-river.
The headgates at the entrance of the Augusta Canal are manually set to provide a uniform
flow in the Augusta Canal adequate to meet Augusta Canal user needs. Changes in
Augusta Canal gate configuratiop are infrequent. Water.needs include flows for the
licensee's municipal water supply,:theSibley, King,: and En,terprise Mill ,hydropower
projec~, and.fo!; aes~cs: and.rem:eatibn. . Excess flews.are typically passed over the
AugustaPiversjon Pant. but'thcre:havebeen occasions in the past when all the water in
the Augusta eanaI was uot uti)izecl'~dflQws passed out the Thirteenth Street gates
locatedat:endoft.he Augu,sta Canal,as weU as the Long Gate Spillway, and Tip. House
. . .
'Gates locatedaleng the Augusta Canal.
~~",,~~;.:!.\ti.::;'::;,m;;~" ~~~":_;;:;;'~~~~.T;;;~.j;,~~~~:-:";.~'~~'~;~f~\~"~~J~:~;.j~:il ~ ;..~". ~.;: / .~.;.: . :\;>...:.:.:~~1~~t '.",
';,~\ '-L~~~:~~~t~~~ ~i:;.;:~. .;~:_' ~~:tI}:;iU{:{~~;;I~l)f~iit\"_iL~i~i~~:':", .
17
p.rogrammatic Agreement
Proj ect No. 11810..004 - Georgia and South Carolina
Since the 1870's the licensee has had agreements with. the three mills on the
Augusta Canal to provide water'for operation of their hydropewer units. In return, the
three mills provide revenue to the Augusta Canal Authority which is used to support
cultural, historic~and recreational needs on the Augusta Canal.
The theoretical maximum flow capacity of the Augusta Canal is approximately
. . .' ., . ' . .
6,900 efs. However, due to extensive depo.sition of sediments arid aquatic plants, the
actualc8.p~ityiS tnuch1es.s. The'av~rage.f1:owin the Canal over the last twenty years has
been about2~500.;.2,7()O.cfs,hQwev,erthe'de:r.nand for, water is seasonal and not all
~ydropower projeCts:w~ .inriperatlon dUtfug all years. The licensee projected the
seasonal Augusta.Qma1 waterlieeds:through Year 2035. Maximum Canal needs range
from 3,656 cfs:iIlYear.2060{baSedon~thCdicensee's raw water pumping station needs of
1,041 cfs,l,~24 'cfsfbr~ibley Min. 881 cis for king Mill, 560 cfs for Enterprise Mill,
10(} cfsf61!:'a.~yakGo1itSe,and"~SO cfS.~~thetic fl9w) to 4,353 cfs in year 2035 (based
, on the licetl~ee'Srawwater pu,ii:lpings~o~needs of 1,738 cfs, 1,024 cfs for Sibley Mill~
881 cfs for Km:g Mill, S'60cfs' forEnt~~se Mill, 100 cfs for a kayak course, and a 50
cfsaestheticflow). .
. On January 13, 2006, the li~ensee ;provided the National Marine Fisheries. Service
(NOAA Fisheries) and the Umtoo'StatesFish and Wildlife Service (FWS) with a Letter
oflntent 'of Settlement (c1:nrft'Sett:leriitmt) which outlines a proposal for project operation,
flows,:ai1dfu;hways, for the project. Qn February 3, 2006, and February 7, 2006, NOAA
Fisheries,at)dthe.FWS:, TeSpectivelY, filed signed copies of the draft Settlement. The
Jicensee is :c~ep.t1y in:the'proce$s of finalizing the Settlement. The draft Settlement
proposes the following measures for project operations:
a. Aquatic Base Flows
Aquatic base flows would be p1"ov:ided in the Augusta Shoals as listed inTable 1.
The licensee would make one flowsettingJor the Augusta Canal head gates on a daily
basis, based on the daily Augusta declanltion. There would be no adjustments to the flow
setting during a 24 hO}lr,periQd, except,to D;leet flow-requirements or during emergencies.
. l"~";l
Programmatic Agreement
Project No. 11810-004 - Georgia arid South Carolina
. ,
18
Table 1. Summary of the draft Settlement aquatic base flow regime for the Augusta
Shoals (average d~ly flow in cfs). .
Aquatic Base Flows
Augllsta Daily Jln. Feb. Mar. Apr. May JUDe JulY AlIg. scpo Oct. Nov. Oee.
Ded.ratloll
. Flow
,(InftOWI lUbe .
DlvenJoD Dam
IlIdi)
Tier 1 1,900 3;300 3..300 3,300 2;:100- 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900
;;:5,400 1,900 .
Tier 2 1,500 2;200 1,800 1;800 1,800 ., 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 . 1,soo 1,soo 1,500
4,500 10 5,399
Tier 3 1,500 .. 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,500 1,500 1,soo 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
3,600 10 4,499,
Tier 4 1 ,500 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,s00 1.soo 1,500 1,500 1,s00 1,500 1,soo 1,soo
<3,600
b. Monitorinll and Compliance
. The draft Settlementdescribes an Operations Plan which requires the lice:nsee to,
provide the aquatic.base t1ows90%.(May16.,throughJanuary 31) to 95% (February 1
throughM~y. 15) of the time"duringany :60:-day rolling period. During the balance of
each consecutive 60.,.day period,'theilicensee would set a daily average flow no less
than 500.cfs below the Aqu{tti~ B.ase Flow. In addition, the quantity of water in the
Augusta Canal would not exceed 1 05%bf the daily diversion flow rate for the
Augusta Canal.
c: Minimum flows at the Augusta. Diversion Dam
. Until such time that fish passage facilities are constructed at project, the licensee
proposes a temporary notch in the AugUsta Diversion Dam sized to provide a 1,000
efs minimum flow below the dam ( through a combination ofleak.age and flow
through the notch). Whenfish;passagefacilities are constructed at the dam, the
licensee will provide a pei1tlanent notch in the dam to release similar flows.
d. Gauging Equipment .
. The licensee proposes to work with the Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) to provide
gauging equipment in the Canal adequate to monitor Canal flows. The FWS
", :.!.\ ",;:~;,~,,; ,'!h:~...." " ':';:::'~":;"!~ ;..,,;.~~~iY :,,":,.;' .:> ."~'ft,.,; -:i,':i:~~.." ~:_{>"" ,,\" '""..:'-<
,:.... ","."'"' .
C., '."".,;,:i.."
>~._/<:~'.~.:-d-Y~.;.:;;,>. ~ ~: '.i:::.. '::'~/~(~:i~"..,
. .,
.. :.~\J ;'\'. ,! .}.,:~f.; ~~:..i:',~. ~.L~iJ~~~.j'.f :".i 1" ~. ';;..:.;. .~,: .. L2:.....:. :::., .::..: .
, . ~. . ..' ..... ~: ... :.":"..
Programmatic Agreement
Project No. 11810-004 - Georgia and South Carolina
19
requested that the Georgia I?epartmentofNatura.1 Resources (Georgia DNR), South
Carolina Department of Natural Resources (South Carolina DNR), NOAA Fisheries,
and the FWS also be consulted in developing a flo~ gauging plan for the Augusta
Canal.
e.Provision for future increases in Canal flow demands
. Should the Canal flow demand exceed 4.600 cfs, the licensee proposes to convene a
. technical committee composed of the Georgia DNR, South Carolina DNR, and
license~ to evaluate Augusta Canal flo\ys and make a recommendation to FERC on
the need to increase Augusti; Canal flows.
c. Licensee's Proposed Environmental Measures
F or cultural resources; the licensee proposes to comply with the Georgia SHPO
and South Carolina'SHPO's recommendations on the Historic Properties Management
5 .
Plan. _.
D. Additional Measures Recomniended by Commission Staff
Commission staff recommends that the Georgia SHPO also be included as a
committee member to evaluate.the Augusta Canal flows and make a recommendation to
the Commission on the need toittcrease the Augusta Canal flows should the Augusta
Canal flow demand exceed 4,600 cfs.
. .
II. IDSTORIC PROP~RTIESIDENTIFIED
A. Area of Potential Effects
The Augusta Canal Project's APE is the Augusta Canal and Industrial District
National HistQric Landmark District boundariesexdudingthe city of Augusta's Raw
Water Pumping Station, associated,facilities, and pipes, butinCluding archeological sites
9RIl158 (the Pig Pen site) and 9Rll172. This APE includes all facilities necessary to
operate the project~ including the Augusta Diversion Dam, the Augusta Diversion Dam
Impoundment, and the first level of the Augusta Canal.
5 The licensee has also proposed various environmental measures for other environmental
resources.
';:.i.:.'.'., ,.,.~;;:" :" .,.:,. j !,.v~i;:::~t,:;".,,;,,;;~};';;;~;;;L:t:'.t;:tijt~~t:~;.;L '.,.,,;:,:. );.,.. ..
'~;:J"'/~\:~:: ,: ~
. . ..l..
".' .,,"'. ,,-;...
.;~". ..; >":;;';:}"\',..;.);;~~:~.~;i)j~..;,~iJ.f>'A~;.;. :".'::;)~1~~:"i";;:;ji;;i:J,jii.;;~;"iilJ<t"H/Jh:~ .ii
.;....:~~_..
Programmatic. Agreement
Project No. 11810-004 - Georgia and ~outh Carolina
B. The Project nsa HistoricPro'perty
20
Begi~ng in tb~Jat~ 1-8 century, the city of Augusta became the central cotton
market for upper South Carolina and Piedmont Georgia. However, by the middle 19th
century the volume Qf cotton trade had dwindled. To recapture the market on cotton the
city of Augusta began construction on the Augusta Canal in 1845 and by 1846 the canal
was opened. The Augusta Canal, only.seven miles long, was also used to provide limited
power to the textile and other mills situated'along it.
Bety,reen 1874 and 1877"the Augusta Canal was deepened and widened, and the
second andthird levels were constructed, resulting in anine-mile-Iong Augusta Canal
which provided a waterpower capacity of 14,000 horsepower, nearly 23 times the power
prod!lc~.d compared' to the original AUg1Jsta Canal. After the Augusta Canal was
expanded, Enterprise, Sibley, and'King Mil.lsbegan textile production and by 1900, the
city of AUgUsta was the leading textilel:mmufactliring city in the South. In addition, in
1885 a raw water pumping station was constructed along the Augusta Canal and served
as the oneofthelicerisee's main water supplies. '
In 1977, the National Park Service tecognizedthe historic, industrial, and
engineering significance of the Augusta Canal and its associated features, and designated
the area as ,the Augusta'Cailala)1dlndu.strial District'National Historic .Landmark.
According to the NationalRegistetnomination.form, the All:gustaCanal is significant
because it exhibits Postbellum period Southern industrialization, Southern Canal
engineering, and:.the.distinctive architectural styles exhibited by the associated textile
mills. In 1996, .the Augusta Canalwas.also designated as a National Heritage Area by
Congress. Today, the Augusta Canal continues to operate, furnishing water to the city of .
Augusta and hydroelectric power to Enterprise, Sibley, and King Mills.
C. fiistoric Properties Located within the APE and Their Eligibility for Inclusion
in the; Natj.onalRegister
Table 2lists the National Register eligible cultural resources that are located
within the Augusta Canal Project APE.
... ,;;..~~~. '.:..... b:~..~: ~~~~..f.~~ji~'k~~;i'i:"'~~~1.:~f !i~~~~:~i~f~~ 4~~~~;;;;i~,;;..~.~:;~ ~"l.l:..h..l{~. .:):: :}.:"j':~~;;': \::\~.~/.." :':1
. .... .. ':, '.,~(. ;:......,:;.::" :i~~" ~.:,;'. .~~,/: :~.:/:'l: .!~..t<:~:~.y.:i.,:~!,~lltri.;~~.t2i~r.b~i~~i~l~~;~h}\.;~?-:;~;./." ," . -'. .1
I
I
\
\
\
I
\
,
\
I
\
\
\
I
I
ProgrammaticAgreement 21
Project No. 11810.;004- Georgia and South Carolina
Table 2.Culti1r.a1 Resources in AUgUsta Canal Project's APE (Source: R.S.
Webb. 20041" mpdifi~d-b . s
Resource Name Res.ource T e
Site 9CB1~Stallings Island ArchaeQlogical Site
Site 9RI158-Pi . Pen
Site 9lU172
Site 9RI589
The Augusta Canal and
Industria1,DisU;ict
NatiotialHistoric
Landmark
Charleston & Western
Caroliria, Railroad
Brid e
Ha,rrisbtti ~WestEnd
Ste:wens Creek
H droeleCtricPro'ect '
Site 3'8E])5
Archaeolo ',ca1 Si~e
A:t:chileci'lo 1:eal Site
Historic Structures Associated
With, Aqgusta ACP and Industrial
Dis.,nctNHL
Various Historic Structural and
Engineering
Resources:
a, First and Second .levels of the
Canal-fromStevens Creek Dam
to 12th
Street gates;
b. 1845-47 C~lHeadgate;
c. 1874-77 CanAl Headgate,
dam and' Canal lock'
. ... ..' ~.' .'. .'
d.184S-1846Canaldam;
e. 1855 co~cretdishladtler;
f. 18808 Impouildmentarea;
g.-Canal gates at the Columbia-
Richmond County line;
b;. Ganal;LoclcK.e~pers House;
i.Granite Stone~;
j; ~nterprise Mill ~mplex
(ipcl)Jdes 1848 grist:mil1);
k. B1ancheMillcomplex;
1. Sibley Mill complex; and
m. John ,P. Kin Mill com . lex
Railroad'Bridge
. Histori~ District
DaIIl, Powerhouse, and
Associated.Stnictures
Aicha~lo 'ca1.Site
National Historic
LandIDark
National Register Eligible
Li$ted on the Nat Re 'ster
NatiorialRegi.ster Eligible
Programmatic Agreement
Project No. 11810-004 - Georgia and South Carolina
. .
22
Site geB 1 (Stallings Island), which contains stratified remains from the
preceramic,Late Archaic, the Late Archaic Transitional ceramic phase, and more recent
transient occupations, wasdesign~teda'National Historic Landmark in 1961 for its
contribution to the study of the Archaic Period in the SoutheaSt. Since 1997, the site has
been owned.and prot~cted by the Archaeological Conservancy. Site 9RI158 (Pig Pen
Site) is: a large prehistoric lithic and ceramic scatter and historic period refuse scatter,
while Site 9Rl158 contains a high density of cultural features andintact artifact deposits
and evidence of occupation from the Paleo-Indian Period through the late 20th century.'
Site 9RIt n is a disturbed site with prehistoric lithic and cerainic scatter. The primary
components of 9RI589. are the.strUcfuralelem.ents of the historic Augusta Canal lock, .
headgate; the Augusta Canal itself,associat~ buildings, and historic landscape elements,
all of which are within the Augusta Canal and Industrial. District National Historic
-Landmark. The site also has surface scatter of historic period architectural and domestic
refuse.
The'Charleston a.ndWesttttn.:Caroliria (C&W.C)Railroad Bridge is a steel tmss
bridge, 60 feet lqng-andapproximately 15 feet wide, whicb was built in 1927 for the
C& we ~ailroad by the Virginia Bridge & Iron Company (Roanoke, Virginia). The
C& we Railroad' Bridge, which' Was deterntinedeligible for the National Register under
Criterion C (Engineering-Railroad Bridges), .is a good example of an early 20th century
steel truss railroad bridge. The aarrisburg- West End Historic District was listed on the
NationalR~gisterin 1991,.andpontains Ii. va;riety of residential, commercial, and
institutional building types and isrecogn~d as significant in the areas of architecture,
community planning and development, and, industry/social history. The district also
contains th~ remains of the 18th century village of Harrisburg and late 19th century
housing built for the workers in the nearby textile mills.
In 1991, the dani, powerhouse, lock, and related equipment of the Stevens Creek
Hydroelectric Project, 10catedl;1pstream o~~e Diversion Dam; were determined eligible
for the National Register. Site 9CB!, which provides evidence of Late Archaic period
habitation,.is alsp located upstream of the Diversion Dam. Both potentially eligible' sites
are located within the APE forthe-StevensCreekProject. The licensee for the Steven
Creek Prject, SCE&G, has developed a Historic Properties Management Plan to manage
the Stevens Creek Project and the archeological site.
D. Cultural Resources InYeStigations
As part of the lioensee's licensing ,efforts; the following cultural resources surveys
and studies have been conducted,within and adjacent to the APE:
, .
Programmatic Agreement
Project No. 11810-004 - Georgia and South Carolina
23
Jordan; William R. 2002: Cultural Resources survey of the Augusta Canal
Hydropower Project (FERC No.lIB1 0-000) Richmond and Columbia Counties,
Georgia. Prepared byR.S. Webb & Associates for Augusta, Georgia, ZEL Engineers,
and ENTRIX, Inc. September 20, 200~. .
R.S. Webb & A$sociates aIidENTRIX. 2004a. Draft Historic Properties
Management Plan Augusta Canal Hydropower Project Richmond and Columbia
Counties, GeorgiaandEdgefield County, South Carolina (Ferc No. 11810-004).
Prepared byR.8. Webb & Asso.ciates and ENTRIX, Inc. for Augusta, Georgia and ZEL
Engineers. April 2004.
R.S. Webb & Associat~s and ENTRIX, Inc. 2004b. Assessment 'Of effects Augusta
Canal Hydroelectric Project.1Ucnmond and Columbia Counties, Georgia and Edgefteld
County, South Carolina (FERCNo.11BJO.,004). Prepared by R.S. Webb & Associates
and ENTRrx, Inc. for Augusta, Georgta. May 2004.
m. ANTICIPATED EFFECTS AND'MITIGATIVE NEEDS
Theproposed.issu~ce ofa'new liceilSeto the licensee f{)T the project could have
effects both beneficial and adverse on historic properties in the project's APE.
A. Historic Structures
Inasmuch as the project constirotes part of a National Historic Landmark, issuing
. the licensee an original1iceilsetocorttinue operating the project under the protection
afforded by section 106, is generally to be considered a.beneficial effect. In itself,
however, operating the project under the protections afforded by section 106 does not
ensure.tharrio adverse effects would ensue.
. Moreover, in the'absence'ofanoperation 8ndmaintenance plan designed to hold
intact the historic integrity ,of the project, unanticipated adverse effects could occur in the
furore. Adverse effects could occur to licensed historic project features due to repairs and
modifications that :may be necessary during the course of project operation. Adverse
effects cOllld also inadvertently occur during routine daily activities of the project
facilities.
Although the undertaking may adversely affect the historic property, we anticipate
that adverse effects can betak~J,1 into aecount by executing a Programmatic Agreement
requiring the licensee to develop and implement a final HPMP, and incorporating the
~{~: i::~.i~:\'......li~f.:l.i.;i ".;':;<.:l~.;..,'~".!.:,.';;.~...'.\.._:'..:.".~'.":'''',::.:.t;:,:f.'~.'.,";;,.~).':i.'.'~~:-S-?::,.:~,'.~'.-";_'~":'"~~ ...'.',~..\.~i~.'..t:....,~~..",:..2:.:..'.'.... .. ,..... ...>.,...,:...' ....i... ,....... .......,:.::........'.,.'~.~. .."'. ...,'.:.;:............... ....:..:..~... :.,. .' ~ .. ,. .....1 1 '.,. .' '':..... . r\'" .' ._.t~ " . .
~ ' ,~ .\.1... ' Y'~ "'<_ ~il ." 'r_ % ~ ,,.... ... "''''''''', .... ...: -;.~_~~~,;.~;~":...:r.~~~~:;;l,_~~:....t.:.:.~~:;~::i;d:~7rj:~~J:i "'fi";::''- '~"!>;> ii,;:"" i,:.~~ '...*:.~~...~j;i.1!t:;,~.~(~.;;~..~~:..~ ~L.:
;;
I
I
\
I
I
, J
Programmatic A~ement .
. Project No. 11810~Q04 - Georgia and ~outh Carolina
24
executed PtograniIna:tic:Agre~m,etitjri.t6 any new license that the Commission issues~
The final HPMP\yQuld.include gtfiqelines for Qperating and maintaining the project that
would not diminish its NatiqnalRegister eljgibility.
B. Previously Undiscovered Historic' Properties
Since the,:.projecthasnotcbeen C<;>n1pletely evaluated for its archaeological
potential, ther~js a, possipilitythat1inm,scoyered properties could be adversely affected
by futllre changes. i.Ii :pr9jeot. oper,atip:o.. . A~"pariof the HPMP ~ the licensee would consult
with the Georgia SHBOiip.dothe.$outb Carolina SHPO,.as appropriate, prior to any land-
cleariIig or.]groUnd~StuT:blng acti:vitiesto avoid any adverse effects to unknown
archaeological sites or historic sites.
"
,. :;!.t "_,e.,l,..' . i~~ :;:~,,,~;~~:tJ'i,:,~~':~~f.'~i',/ ~~~,~ '~-/f~l;M~~;';"1!.ol;;'<~.~~",~~~:"
'''I..~1~:';::r,:(~?~~.;~~~~~,,':::", .~~.~~~<\. ~~~1.;'f...c};t~+;;~~;-\::.Sih~~;\.;. ~~:~.~..~;; ..:,:~-~.;;;: .;,,~:.:::; rkJ!> .~.i.~!~. :. .;. .,f;~.
Yvonne Gentry
DBE Coordinator
i
\
I
i
I
i
I
I
\
. ./ ".'
-~
G -'\>E~~.,.'::__,.'
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
TO: Max Hicks
Director, Utilities Department
Geri Sams
Director, Procurement Department
FROM: Yvonne Gentry, Coordinator
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Department
SUBJECT: DBE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDED DBE GOAL
Augusta Canal FERC Licensing Agreement
DATE: January 18, 2007
This memo is to validate the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise department was not
involved with the Procurement process of this project. Therefore, the department can
not verify the goal-setting methodology or the good faith efforts of the contractor. If you
have any questions, please contact me at (706) 821-2406.
YG:glw
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Department
501 Greene Street- Suite 304 - Augusta, GA 30901
(706) 821-2406 - Fax (706) 821-4228
WWW.AUGUSTAGA.GOV
--