Appendix E-10. Consultation Record. Cultural Resource Committee

Transcription

1 Appendix E-10 Consultation Record Cultural Resource Committee

2 Cultural Resources Resource Committee Meeting Summary Date: October 14, 2009 Location: Duke's Wenwood Operation Center, Greenville, SC Participants: Brett Garrison, Duke (RC Coordinator) Sean Taylor, SCDNR Chuck Cantley, SCDAH Irvin Pitts, SCPRT Jen Huff, Duke Time Meeting Began: 12:15 PM Time Meeting Ended: 12:50 PM Summary of Major Discussion Points: Participants introduced themselves and held a "meet and greet" during lunch. Garrison handed out a list "Keowee-Toxaway Library Citation*" and asked participants to contact him if they needed any of the documents. Garrison provided an overview of the previous cultural resources work in and around the project, mentioning the surveys completed for both Lakes Jocassee and Keowee. Garrison noted that Duke is proposing two relicensing studies. One study will assess both hydro structures to determine' if they are eligible for the National Register and, if so, what elements deem them eligible. The second study will be to create a Historic Properties Management Plan for the Project to protect and preserve sites identified during the surveys. Participants discussed the proposals briefly. Cantley requested that all work comply with the National Park Service's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. *These documents are posted on the KTREL Web site. Decisions: All work will comply with the National Park Service's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Action Items: None Next Meeting: Conference call on 11/18/2009. (9:00 am-12:00 pm)

3 DRAFT HYDRO STRUCTURES NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ELIGmlLITY ASSESSMENT STUDY PLAN KEOWEE TOXA WAY RELICENSING PROJECT HRC NO.1S03 DRAYI'DATE NOVEMBER 14,2009 Prepared by: Duke EnerlY Carolinas. LLC Charlotte. NC

4 1.0 INTRODUCTION [DO NOT MODIFY - TmS WILL BE BOILERPLATEJ 1.1 General Description of the Keowee-Toxaway Project Note: this general description section is consistent for all study plans Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke) is the Licensee of the Keowee-Toxaway Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2503). The Project consists of two developments - the Jocassee Development and the Keowee Development. The Project is located in the upstate area of South Carolina primarily in Oconee County and Pickens County with a small portion of Lake Jocassee extending into Transylvania County, North Carolina. The Jocassee Development is the most upstream development and includes Jocassee Pumped Storage Station, Jocassee Dam, and two saddle dikes. The full pond elevation is 1110 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). At full pond, the reservoir has 7,980 acres with 92.4 miles of shoreline. The drainage area is 147 square miles. Jocassee's installed generating capacity is MW. The Jocassee Development releases water directly into Lake Keowee. The Keowee Development includes Keowee Hydro, Lake Keowee, the Little River Dam, the Keowee Dam, and four saddle dikes. The full pond elevation is 800 feet AMSL. At full pond, the reservoir has 17,660 surface acres with 388 miles of shoreline. Keowee Hydro's installed generating capacity is MW. Water released from Keowee Hydro flows directly into Lake HartwelJ, a US Army Corps of Engineers reservoir. 1.2 Relicensing Process [DO NOT MODIFY - THIS WILL BE BOILERPLATE) The current Keowee-Toxaway license was issued in 1966 and will expire on August 31, Duke is using the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) as promulgated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulations issued July 23, 2003 (18 CFR Part. 5). Duke has elected to form a Stakeholder Team comprised of representatives of local, state, and federal agencies, Native American tribes, and non-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of the relicensing process. This Stakeholder Team is charged with supporting the implementation of the ILP, ensuring that information flows between Duke and organizations Hydro Structures NRHP Eligibility Assessment Study Plan

5 affected by continued operation of the Project, and developing a comprehensive relicensing agreement for inclusion with the Application for New License that Duke will submit by August, Two types of teams, separate from the Stakeholder Team, will be involved with the identification, development, and implementation of studies to support the relicensing effort. Resource Committees (RC) are charged with identifying studies within their resource areas, drafting the study plans, identifying participants for the Study Teams, and synthesizing the findings ofthe Study Teams for consideration ofthe Stakeholder Team. The RCs are: Aquatics, Cultural Resources, Recreation, Shoreline Management, Water Quality, Water Quantity, Wildlife & Botanical Resources. Study Teams are comprised oftechnical experts who actually conduct the various studies. Study Teams typically include representatives from resource agencies, Native American tribes, Duke, and consultants retained by Duke. The members of each Study Team are identified in the study plan. During the process, information needs will be identified as they relate to Project relicensing. In association with this interest, the following study plan has been prepared that addresses each of the required seven FERC study plan criteria provided in 18 CFR S.9(b). Any information or study request must address the following: (I) Describe the goals and objectives of each study and the information to be obtained ( 5.9(b)(1»: This section describes why the study is being requested and what the study is intended to accomplish, including the goals, objectives, and specific information to be obtained. The goals of the study should clearly relate to the need to evaluate the effects of the Project on a particular resource. The objectives are the specific information that needs to be gathered to allow achievement ofthe study goal. (2) If applicable, explain the relevant resource management goals of the agencies or Indian tribes withjurisdiclion over the resource to be studied ( 5.9(b)(2)): This section should 2 Hydro Structures NRHP Eligibility Assessment Study Plan

6 clearly establish the connection between the study request and management goals or resource of interest. A statement by an agency connecting its study request to a legal, regulatory, or policy mandate needs to be included that thoroughly explains how the mandate relates to the study request, as well as the Project impacts. (3) If the requester is not a resource agency, explain any relevant public interest considerations in regard to the proposed study ( 5.9(b)(3)): This section is for nonagency or tribal stakeholders to establish the relationship between the study request and the relevant public interest considerations. (4) Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal, and the need for additional information ( 5.9(b)(4)): This section should discuss any gaps in existing data by reviewing the available information presented in the Pre-Application Document (PAD) or information relative to the Project that is known from other sources. This section should clearly explain why the existing information is inadequate and the need for additional information. (5) Explain any nexus between project operation and effects (direct, indirect, and/or cumulative) on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the development of license requirements ( 5.9(b)(5)): This section should clearly make the connection between project operations and Project effects on the applicable resource. Additionally, this section should explain how the study results would be used to develop protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures. The PM&E measures should include those related to any mandatory conditioning authority under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act or Sections 4(e) and 18 of the Federal Power Act. (6) Explain how any proposed study methodology is consistent with generally accepted practices in the scientific community or, as appropriate, considers relevant tribal values and knowledge. This includes any preferred data collection and analysis techniques, or objectively quantified information, and a schedule including appropriate field season(s) and the duration ( 5.9(b)(6)): This section should provide a detailed explanation of the 3 Hydro Structures NRHP Eligibility Assessment Study Plan

7 study methodology. The methodology may be described by outlining specific methods to be implemented or by referencing an approved and established study protocol and methodology. (7) Describe considerations of level of effort and cost, as applicable, and why any proposed alternative studies would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs ( 5.9(b)(7)): This section should describe the expected level of cost and effort to conduct the study. Additionally, if there are proposed alternative studies, this section should address why the alternatives would not meet the stated information needs. 2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Determine if the Project structures (i.e., powerhouses, dams, dikes, and other facilities) at the Keowee-Toxaway Project are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (Historic Properties). Specific issues to be addressed include: Assessment of Project structures to determine if they are Historic Properties; If the Project structures are determined to be eligible, identify the features that contribute to their eligibility. 3.0 STUDY AREA The Keowee-Toxaway Hydroelectric Project is comprised of two developments. The Jocassee Development was constructed from The Keowee Development was constructed from Hydro Structures NRHP Eligibility Assessment Study Plan

8 4.0 BACKGROUND AND EXISTING INFORMATION Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that federal agencies assess the effects of their undertakings on Historic Properties. Historic Properties are sites, structures, and buildings that meet or potentially meet at least one of the criterion for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The relicensing of the Project requires compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. Duke began implementing a Programmatic Agreement for cultural resources in 2007 in association with the implementation of a FERC-approved Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) for Lake Keowee. Activities implemented to date include: Development of a basinwide historic context for the Project area; Development of a GIS-based database containing all known archaeological and historical sites compiled from the NC and SC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) files; Modification of lake use permitting user agreements to address discovery of historic and archaeological resources; Survey of the shoreline of Lakes Keowee and Jocassee, the islands within the reservoirs, and Duke's public access areas at Lake Keowee. 4.1 Resource Discussion While an archaeological survey of the shoreline and islands of Lake Jocassee and Lake Keowee has been completed, the Project structures have not been evaluated to determine if they are Historic Properties. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office defers this study to the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office since these structures are not Native American in origin. Construction of the oldest facility, Keowee Hydro, was completed in 1971 and will not be 50 years old until Sites that are less than 50 years old can be Historic Properties under Criterion G if they possess exceptional significance. 5.0 PROJECT NEXUS 5 Hydro Structures NRHP Eligibility Assessment Study Plan Keowee-ToxClway Relicensing FERC No. 1503

9 Section 106 of the NHPA requires that federal agencies assess the effects of their undertakings on Historic Properties. Project facilities like dams and powerhouses that are Historic Properties may be affected by general maintenance and repair activities required to maintain operability of the structures. The purpose of this study is to determine if the Project structures are Historic Properties and, if so, what features contribute to their eligibility. 6.0 METHODOLOGY Duke will prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) and submit it to qualified historic structures consultants. The scope ofthe study will include the following: evaluation of both powerhouses, the dams, saddle dikes, spillways, and other Project structures; the development of site plans; the development of a historic context detailing the development of hydroelectric power in the Upper Savannah River Basin. This work should draw heavily upon other work that has been done on historic hydroelectric facilities in the region including the study conducted for Duke's Catawba-Wateree and Nantahala area relicensing efforts; and the identification of original equipment and features, modified components of facilities and any elements contributing to a facility's eligibility. All work will be consistent with the South Carolina Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations and Section 106 of the NHPA. The Study Team will be invited to provide comments on the RFP developed for this effort and any proposals Duke receives (without cost data) in response to the RFPs. Study Team members can recommend consultants to be considered for any work; however, Duke reserves the right to select which parties are invited to participate in the bidding process and, ultimately, which consultant is selected to conduct the assessment. Duke will provide the draft eligibility assessment to members of the Study Team for 30 days review and comment. 6 Hydro Structures NRHP Eligibility Assessment Study Plan Keowee-Toxnway Relicensing FERe No. 2503

10 6.1 Report Development A Draft and Final study will be prepared for this study and will include the following elements: a) Project Introduction and Background; b) Historical Context c) Study Methodology; d) Results (including discussions of Project effects and NRHP eligibility recommendations); e) Literature citations 7.0 SCHEDULE The preliminary schedule for the conduct ofthis Study is outlined below: 1. FERC issues the Study Plan Determination: January 24, RFP submitted to Potential Bidders: February 1,20]2 3. Field Data Collection Commences: April 1,20]2 4. File Progress Report with FERC: June 24, Draft Study Report Provided to Study Team: August 3, BUDGET This study would likely take one study season to complete. The estimated budget for the study is approximately $15, DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES The proposed methods for this study are consistent with professional practices. The overall approach is commonly used in relicensing proceedings, is consistent with generally accepted methods for assessment surveys, and follows the generally accepted development techniques used by federal and state agencies. In addition, the proposal methods for this study are consistent with FERC study requirements under the ILP. No alternative approaches to this study are necessary. 7 Hydro Structures NRHP Eligibility Assessment Study Plan Keowee-Toxaway ReJicensing FERC No. 2503

11 10.0 REFERENCES Adams, Natalie 2008 Archaeological Survey of Lake Keowee Shoreline, Recreation Areas, and Islands, Oconee and Pickens Counties, South Carolina, May Submitted to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, by New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia. Adams, Natalie 2008 Keowee-Toxaway Hydroelectric Project Historic Context FERC Project No. 2503,Oconee and Pickens Counties, South Carolina Transylvania County, North Carolina, May Submitted to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, by New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia. Grunden, Ramona 2007 Cultural Resources Survey of the Lake Jocassee Shoreline, Oconee and Pickens Counties, South Carolina, and Transylvania County, North Carolina, January Submitted to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, by TRC, Inc., Columbia, South Carolina STUDY TEAM MEMBERS 8 Hydro Structures NRHP Eligibility Assessment Study Plan

12 Name Oreanization Phone# Applicant Brett Garrison Duke Energy Brett.garrison com Agency Caroline Wilson SC Department Leads of Archjves & History Supporting TBD Consultant 9 Hydro Structures NRHP Eligibility Assessment Study Plan

13 Keowee-Toxaway Hydro Relicensing (FERC Project No 2503) CULTURAL RESOURCES RESOURCE COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, November 18, 2009 AGENDA Location: Conference Call or (Toll Free to Caller) Participant Code: :00 AM Introductions, Agenda Review, and Announcements Cultural Resources RC Roles, Membership, Outcomes and Schedule Study Plan Development Criteria and Template/Format Historic Properties Management Plan Study Hydro Structures Assessment Study Discussion 11:30 AM 12:00 PM Wrap-Up Technical Data Library Update Next Steps Adjourn

14 Cultural Resources Resource Committee Meeting Summary Date: November 18, 2009 Location: Conference call and Live Meeting Participants: Brett Garrison, Duke Energy Irvin Pitts, SCPRT Tyler Howe, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Dolores Hall, NC State Dept. of Archaeology Jen Huff, Duke Energy Time Meeting Began: 9:00 am Time Meeting Ended: 10:30 am Summary of Major Discussion Points: 1. Garrison went through introductions of those present and those on RC who were unable to participate. 2. Garrison gave a presentation that provided more details on the Cultural Resources RC Member Roles, confirmed RC Membership, and reviewed desired outcomes and schedules. (A copy of this presentation was posted on the website) 3. Huff provided a brief overview of the potential for a Relicensing Agreement. Howe asked if comments from the ESCI could be sent directly to FERC or if they needed to be sent to Duke. Huff explained that since we are early in the process and out in front of the FERC process that comments can still be sent directly to Duke. 4. Garrison reviewed 7 FERC study plan criteria. Huff mentioned that for agencies /tribes involved with Cultural Resources that the criteria for a study need to relate to whatever their particular resource agencies interests are. S. Garrison reviewed the first study plan, "Hydro Structures National Register of Historic Places Eligibility Assessment." 6. Hall and Howe stated that since both structures are located in South Carolina, they do not wish to review the documents. Pitts stated that he would like a copy of the documents but would not wish to review them. 7. Garrison reviewed the second study plan, "Historic Properties Management Plan Development Process."

15 8. Garrison asked all members of the Resource Committee to make comments on both studies by January 1, All comments will be made electronically on the documents through the KTREL website. 9. Garrison/Huff reviewed Technical Data Library changes and updates. 10. Pitts asked about the process for requesting additional studies. Garrison responded that all study requests need to follow 7 FERC Criteria and bring a draft of the study proposal to the next RC meeting in January. Huff also mentioned that the template can be found on the KTREL website. Next meeting: January 20, 2009: 9:00 am to 12:00 pm The meeting will again be a conference call and Live Meeting.

16 Cultural Resources Resource Committee Meeting November 18, 2009

17 Studies Provide FERC with information about possible Project effects under New License Are conducted by small teams of technical experts headed by Duke or Duke consultant Approved by FERC Will be proposed to FERC by Duke - Duke would like to reach consensus with stakeholders on proposed Study Plan

18 Studies (can't) Will be grouped into resource areas: - Aquatics - Cultural - Recreation - Shoreline Management Plan - Water Quality - Water Quantity & Operations - Wildlife & Botanical

19 Resource Committees Headed by Duke Coordinator (RCC) Responsible for initially scoping the studies (i.e., what studies?) - Will review and comment on Duke's proposed studies - Will review recommendations for additional studies - Will coordinate selection and conduct of studies within resource grouping

20 Resource Committees (can't) Will help indentify technical experts Will communicate aspects of resource information with the Stakeholder Team

21 Cultural Resources RC Members Brett Garrison (Duke, RCC) Sean Taylor (DNR) Irvin Pitts (SCPRT) Renee Gledhill-Earley (NC Dept. of Cultural Resources) Dolores Hall (NC Dept. of Cultural Resources) Bill Marshall (DNR) Caroline Wilson (SCDAH) Chuck Cantley (SCDAH) Richard Warner (USFWS) Tyler Howe (EBCI)

22 Keowee-Toxaway Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2503) Duke Energy Carolinas Integrated Licensing Process Schedule FERC notices NOUPAD & issues SD1 FERC issues Study Plan ruring Duke provides draft study plans ro Res Dukefiles NOIIPAD Study Plan Meetings J J Study Requests & Comments on PAD. S01 Comments on Proposed Study Plan Duke files Revised Study Plan for FERC 'NeAre Here Abbreviations AlP: Agreement in Principle EA: Environmental Assessment EIS: Environmental Impact Statement RA: Relicensing Agreement FERC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOI: Notice of Intent PAD: Pre-Application Document Initial Tribal Consultation meeting FERC Seoping MeetingslSite VIsits

23 DRAFT KT Relicensing Study Schedule 6 Task«~me Conduct Studies I±I BOT ANTICAL STUDY Sun 411/12 Mon I±I FISH COMMUNITY AND Tue Thu ASSESSMENT STUDY I±I WETLANDS STUDY Mon4l2l12 Thu I±I WILDLIFE STUDY Thu Fri I±I HISTORIC HYDRO ASSESSMENT Wed Fri I±I HPMP DEVELOPMENT Thu 311/12 Fri I±I DROUGHT RESPONSE PLAN Wed 211/12 Fri I±I OPERATIONS MODEL Mon Mon DEVELOPMENT I±I RESERVOIR LEVEL STUDY Thu 212/12 Mon I±I WATER SUPPLY STUDY Fri Wed , I±I RUN STUDY Mon Mon I±I RMP DEVELOPMENT Wed Tue 12131/13 I±I SMP MAPPING UPDATE Thu Fri 11/29/13 I±I WATER QUALITY STUDY Mon Mon 12/17112 _.. _ _.._._-----_._ ,,,,,,,,,, ",,,, 01,, I I,,,, Draft PAD Distributed PLP I QLA Que Draft date: 11/5/09

24 END

25 mstoric PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS KEOWEE TOXA WAY RELICENSING PROJECT FERC NO.150J DRAFTDATENOVEMBER1~2~ Prepared by: Duke Energy Carolinas, LL Charlotte, NC

26 DRAFT 1.0 INTRODUCTION [DO NOT MODIFY - TIllS WILL BE BOILERPLATE] 1.1 General Description of the Keowee-Toxaway Project Note: this general description section is consistent for all study plans Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke) is the Licensee of the Keowee-Toxaway Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2503). The Project consists of two developments - the Jocassee Development and the Keowee Development. The Project is located in the upstate area of South Carolin~ primarily in Oconee County and Pickens County with a small portion of Lake Jocassee extending into Transylvania County, North Carolina. The Jocassee Development is the most upstream development and includes Jocassee Pumped Storage Station, Jocassee Dam, and two saddle dikes. The full pond elevation is 1110 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). At full pond, the reservoir has 7,980 acres with 92.4 miles of shoreline. The drainage area is 147 square miles. Jocassee's installed generating capacity is MW. The Jocassee Development releases water directly into Lake Keowee. The Keowee Development includes Keowee Hydro, Lake Keowee, the Little River Dam, the Keowee Dam, and four saddle dikes. The full pond elevation is 800 feet AMSL. At full pond, the reservoir has 17,660 surface acres with 388 miles of shoreline. Keowee Hydro's installed generating capacity is MW. Water released from Keowee Hydro flows directly into Lake Hartwell, a US Army Corps of Engineers reservoir. 1.2 Relicensing Process [DO NOT MODIFY - THIS WILL BE BOILERPLATE] The current Keowee-Toxaway license was issued in 1966 and whl expire on August 31, Duke is using the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) as promulgated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulations issued July 23, 2003 (18 CFR Part. 5). Duke has elected to form a Stakeholder Team comprised of representatives of local, state, and federal agencies, Native American tribes, and non-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of the relicensing process. This Stakeholder Team is charged with supporting the implementation of the ILP, ensuring that information flows between Duke and organizations Historic Properties Management Plan Study Plan

27 DRAFT affected by continued operation of the Project, and developing a comprehensive relicensing agreement for inclusion with the Application for New License that Duke will submit by August, Two types of teams, separate from the Stakeholder Team, will be involved with the identification, development, and implementation of studies to support the relicensing effort. Resource Committees (RC) are charged with identifying studies within their resource areas, drafting the study plans, identifying participants for the Study Teams, and synthesizing the findings ofthe Study Teams for consideration ofthe Stakeholder Team. The RCs are: Aquatics, Cultural Resources, Recreation, Shoreline Management, Water Quality, Water Quantity, Wildlife & Botanical Resources. Study Teams are comprised oftechnical experts who actually conduct the various studies. Study Teams typically include representatives from resource agencies, Native American tribes, Duke, and consultants retained by Duke. The members of each Study Team are identified in the study plan. The results of the studies will be utilized by the FERC when evaluating the effect of continued operation of the Project for the term of the New License. Duke will also use the study findings to prepare resource plans that will be submitted to the FERC with the Application for New License. This document spells out the process that Duke and the RC will use for developing the Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP). Note: additional information to be provided as relicensing process develops. 2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Develop an HPMP that addresses the management of Historic Properties (HP) affected by the Keowee-Toxaway Project. The HPMP will be cooperatively developed with the SHPO, interested Indian tribes, and other stakeholders and will provide an agreement in satisfaction of the Commission's obligations pursuant to Section 106 and for the management of historic properties affected by project operations and activities during the new term of the license. This 2 Historic Properties Management Plan Study Plan Keowee-Toxaway RelicenJing FERC No. 2503

28 DRAFT proposed HPMP would be filed with the license application. Specific issues to be addressed include: Consideration ofhps in the lake use permitting process; Management ofhps within the Project Area of Potential Effect; and, Education of the public about HP management. 3.0 GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE The HPMP will address management of sites within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Project. The APE for the Project is those lands directly affected by Project operations including lands within the Project Boundary, Project access areas owned by Duke, and islands in the Project reservoirs. 3 Histori~ Properties Management Plan Study Plan

29 DRAFT -e ~.:J./ I Figure I. APE includes lands within the Project Boundary, Project access areas owned by Duke, and islands in the Project reservoirs. (Note: Placeholder image.) 4 Historic Properties Management Plan Study Plan Keowee-Toxawcry Relicensing FERC No. 2503

30 DRAFT 4.0 BACKGROUND AND EXISTING INFORMATION Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that federal agencies assess the effects of their undertakings on Historic Properties. Historic Properties are sites, structures, and buildings that meet or potentially meet at least one of the criterion for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The relicensing of the Project requires compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. Duke began implementing a Programmatic Agreement for cultural resources in 2007 in association with the implementation of a FERC-approved Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) for Lake Keowee. Activities implemented to date include: Development of a basin wide historic context for the project area; Development of a GIS-based database containing all known archaeological and historical sites compiled from the NC and SC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) files; Modification of lake use permitting user agreements to address discovery of historic and archaeological resources; Survey of the shoreline of Lakes Keowee and Jocassee, the islands within the reservoirs, and Duke's public access areas at Lake Keowee. In conjunction with the relicensing effort, Duke will evaluate the Project facilities (dams, powerhouses, and other Project works) to determine ifthey are Historic Properties. (See the "Hydro Structures National Register of Historic Places Eligibility Assessment Study Plan" for additional information.) 4.1 Resource Discussion An archaeological survey of the shoreline and islands of Lake Jocassee was completed and a report was submitted to Duke Energy in January, A total of 3 sites were identified, but none were found to be eligible or potentially eligible for the NRHP. A similar survey was conducted at Lake Keowee in May, A total of 48 archaeological sites were found and recorded during the survey. Of the 48 sites identified, three sites were recommended by the s Historic Properties Management Plan Study Plan

31 DRAFT consultant as potentially eligible for the NRHP. These sites will be treated as Historic Properties (HPs) and site treatment plans will be created. Ifthe hydro structure NRHP eligbility assessment demonstrates that Project structures are HPs, treatment plans will be developed for these sites as well. 5.0 PROJECT NEXUS HPs may be affected through the following: Lake use permitting of non-project uses; Erosion ofhps located on the shoreline of Project reservoirs; Recreational use of Project lands; and, Management of Project facilities like dams and powerhouses that are HPs. The purpose of HPMP is to address specific HPs and sites within the Project APE and manage the Project effects on each site appropriately. 6.0 MEmODOLOGY The methods for developing the HPMP are as follows. 6.1 Development of the HPMP Pursuant to 36 CFR Part (b), Duke anticipates that the Commission will enter into a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the SCSHPO for managing HPs that may be affected by Project operations through the new license term. Duke anticipates that the PA will: provide a cooperative mechanism for ensuring that HPs are managed in an appropriate manner throughout the term of the new license; be developed in consultation with the SCSHPO, federally recognized Indian tribes, and other stakeholders to specify the tasks that will be addressed in the HPMP; and, will implement a process and schedule for these parties to review and comment on the HPMP and a deadline for Duke to file an HPMP with the Commission. 6 Historic Properties Management Plan Study Plan

32 DRAFT Duke will utilize a qualified cultural resources consultant to develop the HPMP. Duke will prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) and submit it to qualified consultants. The measures provided in the HPMP will direct Duke's management of HPs within the Project's APE throughout the term of the New License. The Authorities will develop an HPMP in consultation with the SHPO, federally recognized Indian tribes, and other stakeholders. Through this consultation, Duke will develop a methodology and schedule for continuing cultural resources investigations and developing PM&E measures, such as routine site monitoring. The HPMP will be prepared in accordance with the Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects, promulgated by the Commission and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) on May 20, Specific items to be addressed in the HPMP will include: Identification of the APE, A schedule and methodology for completing any additional recommended studies and implementing monitoring measures for locations within the APE; Additional management measures for identified HPs within the Project's APE; Continued use and maintenance ofhps; Protection of HPs threatened by Project-related activities, including Project operations, shoreline and aquatic recreation, routine Project maintenance, extended drawdowns, and other Project activities or operations; Protection ofhps threatened by non-project uses of Project resources; Measures for reducing looting and vandalism of sites, including additional monitoring, public outreach, education, and signage; Resolution of unavoidable adverse effects on historic properties; Treatment and disposition of any human remains that may be discovered, taking into account any applicable state laws and the Council's "Policy Statement Regarding Treatment of Burial Sites, Human Remains and Funerary Objects" (February 23, 2007 Washington, D.C.); Provisions for unanticipated discoveries and of previously unidentified cultural resources within the APE; The curation of artifacts and cultural material, taking into account taking into account state and federal requirements; 7 Historic Properties Management Plan Study Plan

33 DRAFT Categorical exclusions from further review of effects; and, Public awareness and interpretation of the historic and archaeological values of the Project. A Draft and Final HPMP will be prepared and will include the following elements: a) Project Introduction and Background; b) Project-Related Effects c) Historic Property Management Measures d) Role, Responsibilities and Reporting Requirements e) Procedures for Review and Update f) Locations of Historic Properties; g) Site-Specific Treatment Plans; h) Literature citations The final proposed HPMP will be filed with the Application for New License that will be submitted to the FERC by August Consultation Process CR RC members will be invited to provide comments on RFPs developed for this effort and any proposals Duke receives (without cost data) in response to the RFPs. Members of the RC can recommend consultants to be considered for any work; however, Duke reserves the right to select which parties are invited to participate in the bidding process and, ultimately, which consultant is selected to develop the HPMP. Duke will consult with the Cultural Resources(CR) RC during development ofthe HPMP. Duke will provide the draft HPMP to CR RC members for 30 days review and comment. Duke will not provide archaeological site data to individuals who are not affiliated with the SHPO or a Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) without the concurrence of the SHPOs and THPOs. In addition to the CR RC members, Duke will also consult with three federally recognized Native American tribes that may have an interest in the Project in accordance with the NHPA: 8 Hisloric Properties Managemenl Plan Study Plan

34 Original version HISTORIC PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS KEOWEE-TOXAWAY RELICENSING PROJECT FERC NO DRAFT DATE NOVEMBER 18, 2009 Prepared by: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Charlotte, NC

35 Original version DRAFT 1.0 INTRODUCTION [DO NOT MODIFY THIS WILL BE BOILERPLATE] 1.1 General Description of the Keowee-Toxaway Project Note: this general description section is consistent for all study plans Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke) is the Licensee of the Keowee-Toxaway Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2503). The Project consists of two developments the Jocassee Development and the Keowee Development. The Project is located in the upstate area of South Carolina primarily in Oconee County and Pickens County with a small portion of Lake Jocassee extending into Transylvania County, North Carolina. The Jocassee Development is the most upstream development and includes Jocassee Pumped Storage Station, Jocassee Dam, and two saddle dikes. The full pond elevation is 1110 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). At full pond, the reservoir has 7,980 acres with 92.4 miles of shoreline. The drainage area is 147 square miles. Jocassee s installed generating capacity is MW. The Jocassee Development releases water directly into Lake Keowee. The Keowee Development includes Keowee Hydro, Lake Keowee, the Little River Dam, the Keowee Dam, and four saddle dikes. The full pond elevation is 800 feet AMSL. At full pond, the reservoir has 17,660 surface acres with 388 miles of shoreline. Keowee Hydro s installed generating capacity is MW. Water released from Keowee Hydro flows directly into Lake Hartwell, a US Army Corps of Engineers reservoir. 1.2 Relicensing Process [DO NOT MODIFY THIS WILL BE BOILERPLATE] The current Keowee-Toxaway license was issued in 1966 and will expire on August 31, Duke is using the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) as promulgated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulations issued July 23, 2003 (18 CFR Part. 5). Duke has elected to form a Stakeholder Team comprised of representatives of local, state, and federal agencies, Native American tribes, and non-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of the relicensing process. This Stakeholder Team is charged with supporting the implementation of the ILP, ensuring that information flows between Duke and organizations 1 Historic Properties Management Plan Study Plan

36 Original version DRAFT affected by continued operation of the Project, and developing a comprehensive relicensing agreement for inclusion with the Application for New License that Duke will submit by August, Two types of teams, separate from the Stakeholder Team, will be involved with the identification, development, and implementation of studies to support the relicensing effort. Resource Committees (RC) are charged with identifying studies within their resource areas, drafting the study plans, identifying participants for the Study Teams, and synthesizing the findings of the Study Teams for consideration of the Stakeholder Team. The RCs are: Aquatics, Cultural Resources, Recreation, Shoreline Management, Water Quality, Water Quantity, Wildlife & Botanical Resources. Study Teams are comprised of technical experts who actually conduct the various studies. Study Teams typically include representatives from resource agencies, Native American tribes, Duke, and consultants retained by Duke. The members of each Study Team are identified in the study plan. The results of the studies will be utilized by the FERC when evaluating the effect of continued operation of the Project for the term of the New License. Duke will also use the study findings to prepare resource plans that will be submitted to the FERC with the Application for New License. This document spells out the process that Duke and the RC will use for developing the Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP). Note: additional information to be provided as relicensing process develops. 2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Develop an HPMP that addresses the management of Historic Properties (HP) affected by the Keowee-Toxaway Project. The HPMP will be cooperatively developed with the SHPO, interested Indian tribes, and other stakeholders and will provide an agreement in satisfaction of the Commission s obligations pursuant to Section 106 and for the management of historic properties affected by project operations and activities during the new term of the license. This 2 Historic Properties Management Plan Study Plan

37 Original version DRAFT proposed HPMP would be filed with the license application. Specific issues to be addressed include: Consideration of HPs in the lake use permitting process; Management of HPs within the Project Area of Potential Effect; and, Education of the public about HP management. 3.0 GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE The HPMP will address management of sites within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Project. The APE for the Project is those lands directly affected by Project operations including lands within the Project Boundary, Project access areas owned by Duke, and islands in the Project reservoirs. 3 Historic Properties Management Plan Study Plan

38 Original version DRAFT '. I ndn~ JI-~.-----:--:::=_-;: I<u:.;"I'.-~ ~ """,,"-..., """'-:--.., - -~. - - I i Figure 1. APE includes lands within the Project Boundary, Project access areas owned by Duke, and islands in the Project reservoirs. (Note: Placeholder image.) 4 Historic Properties Management Plan Study Plan

39 Original version DRAFT 4.0 BACKGROUND AND EXISTING INFORMATION Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that federal agencies assess the effects of their undertakings on Historic Properties. Historic Properties are sites, structures, and buildings that meet or potentially meet at least one of the criterion for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The relicensing of the Project requires compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. Duke began implementing a Programmatic Agreement for cultural resources in 2007 in association with the implementation of a FERC-approved Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) for Lake Keowee. Activities implemented to date include: Development of a basin wide historic context for the project area; Development of a GIS-based database containing all known archaeological and historical sites compiled from the NC and SC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) files; Modification of lake use permitting user agreements to address discovery of historic and archaeological resources; Survey of the shoreline of Lakes Keowee and Jocassee, the islands within the reservoirs, and Duke s public access areas at Lake Keowee. In conjunction with the relicensing effort, Duke will evaluate the Project facilities (dams, powerhouses, and other Project works) to determine if they are Historic Properties. (See the Hydro Structures National Register of Historic Places Eligibility Assessment Study Plan for additional information.) 4.1 Resource Discussion An archaeological survey of the shoreline and islands of Lake Jocassee was completed and a report was submitted to Duke Energy in January, A total of 3 sites were identified, but none were found to be eligible or potentially eligible for the NRHP. A similar survey was conducted at Lake Keowee in May, A total of 48 archaeological sites were found and recorded during the survey. Of the 48 sites identified, three sites were recommended by the 5 Historic Properties Management Plan Study Plan

40 Original version DRAFT consultant as potentially eligible for the NRHP. These sites will be treated as Historic Properties (HPs) and site treatment plans will be created. If the hydro structure NRHP eligbility assessment demonstrates that Project structures are HPs, treatment plans will be developed for these sites as well. 5.0 PROJECT NEXUS HPs may be affected through the following: Lake use permitting of non-project uses; Erosion of HPs located on the shoreline of Project reservoirs; Recreational use of Project lands; and, Management of Project facilities like dams and powerhouses that are HPs. The purpose of HPMP is to address specific HPs and sites within the Project APE and manage the Project effects on each site appropriately. 6.0 METHODOLOGY The methods for developing the HPMP are as follows. 6.1 Development of the HPMP Pursuant to 36 CFR Part (b), Duke anticipates that the Commission will enter into a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the SCSHPO for managing HPs that may be affected by Project operations through the new license term. Duke anticipates that the PA will: provide a cooperative mechanism for ensuring that HPs are managed in an appropriate manner throughout the term of the new license; be developed in consultation with the SCSHPO, federally recognized Indian tribes, and other stakeholders to specify the tasks that will be addressed in the HPMP; and, will implement a process and schedule for these parties to review and comment on the HPMP and a deadline for Duke to file an HPMP with the Commission. 6 Historic Properties Management Plan Study Plan

41 Original version DRAFT Duke will utilize a qualified cultural resources consultant to develop the HPMP. Duke will prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) and submit it to qualified consultants. The measures provided in the HPMP will direct Duke s management of HPs within the Project s APE throughout the term of the New License. The Authorities will develop an HPMP in consultation with the SHPO, federally recognized Indian tribes, and other stakeholders. Through this consultation, Duke will develop a methodology and schedule for continuing cultural resources investigations and developing PM&E measures, such as routine site monitoring. The HPMP will be prepared in accordance with the Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects, promulgated by the Commission and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) on May 20, Specific items to be addressed in the HPMP will include: Identification of the APE, A schedule and methodology for completing any additional recommended studies and implementing monitoring measures for locations within the APE; Additional management measures for identified HPs within the Project s APE; Continued use and maintenance of HPs; Protection of HPs threatened by Project-related activities, including Project operations, shoreline and aquatic recreation, routine Project maintenance, extended drawdowns, and other Project activities or operations; Protection of HPs threatened by non-project uses of Project resources; Measures for reducing looting and vandalism of sites, including additional monitoring, public outreach, education, and signage; Resolution of unavoidable adverse effects on historic properties; Treatment and disposition of any human remains that may be discovered, taking into account any applicable state laws and the Council s Policy Statement Regarding Treatment of Burial Sites, Human Remains and Funerary Objects (February 23, 2007 Washington, D.C.); Provisions for unanticipated discoveries and of previously unidentified cultural resources within the APE; The curation of artifacts and cultural material, taking into account state and federal requirements taking into account state and federal requirements; 7 Historic Properties Management Plan Study Plan

42 Original version DRAFT Categorical exclusions from further review of effects; and, Public awareness and interpretation of the historic and archaeological values of the Project. A Draft and Final HPMP will be prepared and will include the following elements: a) Project Introduction and Background; b) Project-Related Effects c) Historic Property Management Measures d) Role, Responsibilities and Reporting Requirements e) Procedures for Review and Update f) Locations of Historic Properties; g) Site-Specific Treatment Plans; h) Literature citations The final proposed HPMP will be filed with the Application for New License that will be submitted to the FERC by August Consultation Process CR RC members will be invited to provide comments on RFPs developed for this effort and any proposals Duke receives (without cost data) in response to the RFPs. Members of the RC can recommend consultants to be considered for any work; however, Duke reserves the right to select which parties are invited to participate in the bidding process and, ultimately, which consultant is selected to develop the HPMP. Duke will consult with the Cultural Resources(CR) RC during development of the HPMP. Duke will provide the draft HPMP to CR RC members for 30 days review and comment. Duke will not provide archaeological site data to individuals who are not affiliated with the SHPO or a Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) without the concurrence of the SHPOs and THPOs. In addition to the CR RC members, Duke will also consult with three federally recognized Native American tribes that may have an interest in the Project in accordance with the NHPA: 8 Historic Properties Management Plan Study Plan

43 Original version DRAFT the Catawba Indian Nation, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahomah. 7.0 SCHEDULE The preliminary schedule for the development of the HPMP is outlined below: 1. RFP submitted to Potential Bidders: March 1, Development of HPMP Begins: June 4, Draft HPMP Submitted to RC: October 8, BUDGET The estimated budget for the study is approximately $30, REFERENCES Adams, Natalie Archaeological Survey of Lake Keowee Shoreline, Recreation Atreas, and Islands, Oconee and Pickens Counties, South Carolina, May Submitted to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, by New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia. Grunden, Ramona Cultural Resources Survey of the Lake Jocassee Shoreline, Oconee and Pickens Counties, South Carolina, and Transvylvania County, North Carolina, January Submitted to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, by TRC, Inc., Columbia, South Carolina. 9 Historic Properties Management Plan Study Plan

44 DRAFT the Catawba Indian Nation, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. 7.0 SCHEDULE The preliminary schedule for the development of the HPMP is outlined below: 1. RFP submitted to Potential Bidders: March 1, Development ofhpmp Begins: June 4, Draft HPMP Submitted to RC: October 8, BUDGET The estimated budget for the study is approximately $30, REFERENCES Adams, Natalie Archaeological Survey of Lake Keowee Shoreline, Recreation Atreas, and Islands, Oconee and Pickens Counties, South Carolina, May Submitted to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, by New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia. Grunden, Ramona Cultural Resources Survey of the Lake Jocassee Shoreline, Oconee and Pickens Counties, South Carolina, and Transvylvania County, North Carolina, January Submitted to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, by TRC, Inc., Columbia, South Carolina. 9 Historic Properties Management Plan Study Plan