Proposed Study Plan for Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project

A. Karen Hill, Esq. Telephone 202.347.7500 Vice President Fax 202.347.7501 Federal Regulatory Affairs www.exeloncorp.com

Exelon Corporation 101 Constitution Avenue, NW Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20001

Via Electronic Filing

August 24, 2009

Kimberly D. Bose Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20426

Re: Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project, FERC Project No. 2355; Filing of Proposed Study Plan

Dear Secretary Bose:

Pursuant to the regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC), 18 C.F.R. § 5.11, Exelon Corporation on behalf of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) encloses for filing the Proposed Study Plan (PSP) for the relicensing of the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project (Muddy Run Project), FERC Project No. 2355.

Exelon received study requests from six federal and state resource agencies and three non- governmental organizations. In addition, FERC staff issued study requests. Exelon also proposed studies in Section 5 of the Muddy Run Project Pre-Application Document (PAD). On June 10-12, 2009, several agencies and interested members of the public attended FERC's scoping meetings and provided oral comments and suggestions.

In addition to the study requests, the FERC, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) provided comments on the PAD and requested additional information. Exelon has addressed these additional information requests (AIRs) in Section 2.0 of the PSP and will also incorporate relevant information into their Preliminary Licensing Proposal and Final License Application.

As required under the Commission's regulations, 18 C.F.R. § 5.11(e), Exelon will hold initial consultation meetings to discuss the PSP on September 22nd, 2009 from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm and September 23rd, 2009 from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm. These meetings will be held at the Darlington Volunteer Fire Department, located at 2600 Castleton Road, Darlington, MD 21034. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the PSP with resource agencies and interested members of the public in order to formally resolve any outstanding issues and reach a consensus on studies to be included in Exelon's Revised Study Plan, which is scheduled to be filed on or before December 22, 2009.

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Exelon looks forward to continuing to work with interested stakeholders in finalizing the study plan for the relicensing of the Muddy Run Project. In furtherance of this effort, pursuant to Section 5.12 of the Commission's regulations (18 C.F.R. § 5.12), any comments from interested parties on the PSP must be filed with the Commission by November 22nd, 2009.

Exelon is filing the PSP with the Commission electronically. To access the PSP on the Commission's website (http://www.ferc.gov ), go to the “eLibrary” link, and enter the docket number, P- 2355, to access the document for the Muddy Run Project. Exelon is also making the PSP available for download at its corporate website. To access the PSP here, navigate to http://www.exeloncorp.com/muddyrun , on the navigation pane located on the left side of the page, click on “Muddy Run Relicensing Web Site”, then select the “Documents” link at the bottom of the page.

In addition to this electronic filing with the Commission, paper copies of the PSP are also available upon request to Ms. Colleen Hicks (610-765-6791). Finally, Exelon is making available to the public the PSP at the Visitor’s Center at Muddy Run Recreation Park in Holtwood, Pennsylvania, and the Darlington Public Library in Darlington, Maryland, during regular business hours.

If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact Colleen Hicks. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

Colleen E. Hicks Manager Regulatory and Licensing, Hydro Exelon Power 300 Exelon Way Kennett Square, PA 19348 Tel: (610) 765-6791 Email: [email protected]

A. Karen Hill Vice President Federal Regulatory Affairs Exelon Corporation 101 Constitution Ave. Suite 400E Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 347-8092 Email: [email protected]

FERC No. 2355 2 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

PSP Distribution List for FERC Project No. 2355

Kerry Anne Abrams John W. Balay City of Port Deposit Susquehanna River Basin Commission Mayor Water Resources Management, Hydrologist 64 South Main Street 1721 North Front Street Port Deposit, MD 21904 Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391 Alex Balboa Paula Ballaron 1996 Waverly Drive Susquehanna River Basin Commission Bel Air, MD 21015-1100 1721 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391 Thomas W. Beauduy Brent A. Bolea Susquehanna River Basin Commission Maryland Department of Natural Resources Deputy Director Assistant Attorney General 1721 N. Front Street c/o Maryland Energy Administration 1 Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391 623 Forest Drive, Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 Mark Bryer Lori Byrne The Nature Conservancy Maryland Department of Natural Resources Director, Chesapeake Bay Program Tawes State Office Building 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 100 580 Taylor Avenue Bethesda, MD 20814 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Richard A. Cairo Robert B. Campbell Susquehanna River Basin Commission Mason-Dixon Trail System General Counsel PA Director 1721 North Front Street 811 Marvell Drive Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391 York, PA 17402 Ben L. Cardin Michael Chezik United States Senate U.S. Department of the Interior - Office of the Secretary Senator Regional Environmental Officer 509 Hart Senate Office Bldg 200 Chestnut Street Washington, D.C. 20510 Custom House, Room 244 Philadelphia, PA 19106-2904 John M. Cincilla Kevin Colburn PPL Generation, LLC American Whitewater Manager National Stewardship Director 2 N 9th Street 1035 Van Buren Street Allentown, PA 18101-1139 Missoula, MT 59802 Mary Colligan Donna Costango National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast City of Havre de Grace Regional Office-DOC/NOAA 711 Pennington Ave Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Havre de Grace,, MD 21078 Resources 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930-2276

FERC No. 2355 3 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Julie Crocker Phil Cwiek National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District Regional Office-DOC/NOAA Attn: CENAB-OP-RMN Protected Resources Division NMFS/NERO P.O. Box 1715 55 Great Republic Drive Baltimore, MD 21203-1715 Gloucester, MA 01930 Bob Dach Joseph DaVia U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs Natural Resources U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydropower Program Director P.O. Box 1715 911 NE 11th Avenue Baltimore, MD 21203 Portland, OR 97232 Andrew Dehoff Thomas L. Denslinger Susquehanna River Basin Commission Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 1721 North Front Street P.O. Box 8555 Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391 Philadelphia, PA 17105-2029 David Densmore Michele M. DePhilip U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The Nature Conservancy In Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Field Office Director - Freshwater Conservation 315 S. Allen St. Suite 322 2101 N Front Street State College, PA 16801 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Peter Dunbar Julie Gantenbein Maryland Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Institute Tawes State Office Building 100 Pine St., Ste. 1550 580 Taylor Avenue San Francisco, CA 94111 Annapolis, MD 21401 Elder Ghigiarelli Ralph Goodno Maryland Department of Environment Lancaster County Conservancy Wetlands and Waterways Program, Deputy 117 South West End Avenue Administrator Lancaster, PA 17608 1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21230 Dennis T. Guise Dan Haas 2313 Forest Hills Drive U.S. Department of Interior Harrisburg, PA 17112-1068 Room 260, Custom House Second and Chestnut Streets Philadelphia, PA 19106-2904 Jeffrey Halka M. Brent Hare Maryland Geological Survey Maryland Department of Natural Resources Acting Director Assistant Attorney General 2300 Saint Paul Street c/o Maryland Energy Administration Baltimore, MD 21218-5210 1623 Forest Drive, Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 Michael R. Helfrich Michael Hendricks Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 324 W. Market Street 450 Robinson Lane York, PA 17401 Bellefonte, PA 16823

FERC No. 2355 4 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Alexander R. Hoar Jennifer Hoffman U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Susquehanna River Basin Commission 300 Westgate Center Drive 1721 North Front Street Hadley, MA 01035-9589 Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391 Bonita C. Hoke James Hooper Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs Mason-Dixon Trail System Director President, M-DTS 2426 North 2nd Street 309 Bank Hill Road Harrisburg, PA 17110-1104 Wrightsville, PA 17368 James Horton Tom Horton ConowingoLake.com Morning News & Baltimore Sun P.O. Box 407 Calver and Center Streets Whiteford, MD 21160 Baltimore, MD 21203 Donovan J. Houck Chris Iverson Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 1200 Nursery Road Protection Wrightsville, PA 17368 Environmental Planner Rachel Carson State Office Building 400 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Linda C. Janey Neal M. Janey Maryland Department of Planning Miles and Stockbridge Assistant Secretary for Clearinghouse and 10 Light Street Communication Baltimore, MD 21202-1435 301 West Preston Street Suite 1101 Baltimore, MD 21201-2305 James Kardatzke Anne Ketchum U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Affairs Resources 545 Mariott Drive, Suite 700 Executive Assistant Nashville, TN P.O. Box 8767 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8767 David S. Ladd Edward F. Lawson Susquehanna River Basin Commission Weston, Patrick, Willard & Redding 1721 North Front Street 84 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391 Boston, MA 02109-2202 James Leigey J. Rodney Little Pennsylvania Game Commission Maryland Historical Trust Bureau of Land Management Director and SHPO 2001 Elmerton Avenue 100 Community Place Harrisburg, PA 17106-9762 Crownsville, MD 21032 Jacqueline Ludwig Anthony McClune Harford County Harford County Department of Planning and Zoning Water & Sewer Engineering & Administration Director 212 South Bond Street, Second Floor County Office Building 220 South Main Street Bel Air, MD 21014 Bel Air, MD 21014

FERC No. 2355 5 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

John McGillen Douglas C. McLearen Maryland Department of Environment Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Bureau for Industrial Discharge Permits Division Historic Preservation 1800 Washington Boulevard Chief Division of Archaeology & Protection Baltimore, MD 21230 400 North Street Commonwealth Keystone Building, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120-0093 James J. McNulty Glenn R. Melroy Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Acting Secretary P.O. Box 2870 Commonwealth Keystone Building Portland, OR 97208 400 North Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120 Kevin Mendik Anita Miller National Park Service, Boston Support Office U.S. Department of Interior 15 State Street Room 206, Custom House Second and Chestnut Streets Boston, MA 02109 Philadelphia, PA 19106-2904 Jeremy Miller Larry Miller Pennsylvania Department of Environmental U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Protection Mid-Atlantic Fishery Resources Office, Project Leader 909 Elmerton Avenue P.O. Box 67000 Harrisburg, PA 17110 1601 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17110-7000 Jeral A. Milton Joane D. Mueller Legg Mason Tower Maryland Department of Environment 111 South Calvert Street, Ste 2700 MDE Clearinghouse Coordinator Baltimore, MD 21202-6143 1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21230 Tracey Librandi Mumma Janet Norman Pennsylvania Game Commission U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001 Elmerton Avenue Fish and Wildlife Biologist Harrisburg, PA 17110-9797 Chesapeake Bay Field Office 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Annapolis, MD 21401 John O'Shea Jason E. Oyler Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Commission Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 1444 Eye Street, NW 6th Floor Office of Chief Counsel Washington, D.C. 20005 P.O. Box 67000 Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000 M. Dukes Pepper Jr. Gary Petrewski P.E. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental PPL Generation, LLC Protection Two North Ninth Street (GENPL6) Office of Chief Counsel Assistant Counsel Allentown, PA 18101 909 Elmerton Ave. Harrisburg, PA 17110-8200

FERC No. 2355 6 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Joseph Pfaff George J. Philippou Harford County Parks & Recreation City of Baltimore, Maryland Department of Public Works, Director Suite 600 702 N. Tollgate Road Municipal Bldg, 200 N. Holiday Street Bel Air, MD 21014 Baltimore, MD 21202 Mark Platts Niles Primrose Lancaster York Heritage Region Maryland Department of Natural Resources 1706 Long Level Road Tawes State Office Building Wrightsville, PA 17368 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, MD 21401 Mary Ratnaswamy, PhD Michael Richardson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Maryland Department of Environment Program Supervisor, Threatened and Endangered 1800 Washington Boulevard Species Baltimore, MD 21230 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Chesapeake Bay Field Office Annapolis, MD 21401 Jim Richenderfer Bill Richkus Susquehanna River Basin Commission Versar, Inc. 1721 North Front Street 9200 Rumsey Road Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391 Columbia, MD 21045 Richard Roos-Collins David Rosenstein Natural Heritage Institute Connectiv 100 Pine St., Ste. 1550 500 North Wakefield Drive San Francisco, CA 94111 Newark, DE 19702 Herb Sachs Robert Sadzinski Maryland Department of Environment Maryland Department of Natural Resources 1800 Washington Blvd Suite 450 Natural Resources Biologist, Alosids Baltimore, MD 21224 301 Marine Academy Drive Stevensville, MD 21666 Steve Schreiner Shawn Seaman Versar Inc. Maryland Department of Natural Resources 9200 Rumsey Road Project Manager Columbia, MD 21045 Tawes State Office Building 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, MD 21401 John Seebach John Seitz American Rivers York County Planning Commission Director, Hydropower Reform Initiative Water Resources Coordinator 1101 14th St. NW, Suite 1400 28 East Market Street Washington, D.C. 20005 York, PA 17401 Mr. Eric S. Sennstrom Pam Shellenberger Cecil County York County Planning Commission Director of Planning & Zoning Chief, Long Range Planning 200 Chesapeake Blvd., 28 East Market Street Elkton, MD 21921 York, PA 17401-1580

FERC No. 2355 7 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Laurie E. Shepler Andrew L. Shiels Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Chief, Fish Production Services Office of Chief Counsel Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission P.O. Box 67000 Benner Spring Research Station Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000 1735 Shiloh Road State College PA 16801

Ellen Shultzabarger Julie Slacum Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Natural Resources (DCNR) Chesapeake Bay Field Office 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Environmental Review Specialist Annapolis, MD 21401 PO Box 8552 Hamburg, PA 17105 Ed Slicer Topher Smith Cecil County Board of Parks and Recreation American Whitewater Director 394 Butler Rd 17 Wilson Road Reisterstown, MD 21136 Rising Sun, MD 21911 Wayne Spilove James S. Spontak Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Commission South central Region Program Manager 300 North Street 909 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17120-0093 Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000 Patricia Stabler Scott W. Standish Chester Water Authority Lancaster County Planning Commission 100 Ashville Road Director Nottingham, PA 19362 150 N. Queen Street, Suite 320 Lancaster, PA 17603 Ronald Steelman Sara Strassman 3529 Green Spring Road American Rivers, River Restoration Program Havre de Grace, MD 21078 Associate Director 355 N. 21st Street, Suite 309 Camp Hill, PA 17011 David Sutherland E. James Tabor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish Passage Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Workgroup Zone Management Office Chair Chief 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive P.O. Box 8555 Annapolis, MD 21401 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555 Andrew Tittler Lawrence J. Toth U.S. Department of Interior Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Office of the Solicitor, Northeast Region - Environmental Planner - Coastal Resources Mgmt Program Attorney P.O. Box 2063 One Gateway Center, Suite 612 Rachel Carson State Office Bldg Newton, MA 02458-2802 Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063

FERC No. 2355 8 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Lisa H Tucker Alliance for Chesapeake Bay Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Preston Gates Ellis, LLP 660 York Road Suite 100 Partner Baltimore, MD 21212 1601 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20007 Chesapeake Bay Foundation Lancaster County Parks & Recreation 6 Herndon Avenue 1050 Rockford Road Annapolis, MD 21403 Lancaster, PA 17602 York County Parks & Recreation York County Planning Commission 400 Mundis Race Road 100 W. Market Street York, PA 17406 York, PA 17401 Lower Chanceford Township Peach Bottom Township 4120 Delta Road 545 Broad Street, Extended Airville, PA 17302 Delta, PA 17314 Martic Township Drumore Township 370 Steinman Farm Road PO Box 38 Pequea, PA 17565 Drumore, PA 17518 Borough of Millersville Delaware Nation 100 Municipal Drive PO Box 825 Millersville, PA 17551 Anadarko, OK 73005 Cecil County Parks & Recreation Cecil County 200 Chesapeake Blvd Suite 1200 200 Chesapeake Blvd., Suite 2300 Elkton, MD 21921 Elkton, MD 21921 Harford County Fulton Township 212 South Bond Street 777 Nottingham Road Bel Air, MD 21014 Peach Bottom, PA 17563 City of Havre de Grace Borough of Oxford 400 Pennington Avenue 401 Market Street Havre de Grace, MD 21078 Oxford, PA 19363 City of Aberdeen Town of Bel Air 60 North Parke Street 39 Hickory Avenue Aberdeen, MD 21001 Bel Air, MD 21014 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region County of Lancaster III P.O. Box 83480 Section Chief Lancaster, PA 17608-3480 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Pennsylvania Game Commission Natural Resources 2001 Elmerton Avenue P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17110-9762 Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063 Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General U.S. Coast Guard, MSO Philadelphia 16th Floor Strawberry Square 1 Washington Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17120 Philadelphia, PA 19147-4335

FERC No. 2355 9 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Upper Chesapeake Watershed Association County of York, York County Courthouse 138 W. Lanvale Street 28 East Market Street Baltimore, MD 21217-4120 York, PA 17401-1501 Bureau of Land Management Maryland Office of the Governor Eastern States Office Governor 7450 Boston Blvd State House Springfield, VA 22153 Annapolis, MD 21401 Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Maryland Public Service Commission Natural Resources 6 St. Paul Centre, 16th Floor 6 Saint Paul Street Director Baltimore, MD 21202-6806 P.O. Box 8551 Harrisburg, PA 17105 Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Pennsylvania Wildlife Federation, PA Federation of 2301 N. Cameron Street Sportsmen's Club, Inc. Harrisburg, PA 17110-9405 2426 North 2nd Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 U.S. Coast Guard, MSO Pittsburgh U.S. Coast Guard, MSO Baltimore 1150 Kossman Bldg., 100 Forbes Avenue 2401 Hawkins Point Road Bldg 70 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1371 Baltimore, MD 21226-1797 U.S. Bureau of Land Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Manager Director 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Ste 200 P.O. Box 67000 Milwaukee, WI 53202-4618 Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000 Pennsylvania Office of the Governor U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs Governor 1849 C Street, NW 225 Main Capitol Washington, D.C. 20420 Harrisburg, PA 17120 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Hadley 315 South Allen Street Ste 322 300 Westgate Center Drive State College, PA 16801-4851 Hadley, MA 01035-9587 University of Maryland Center for Environmental U.S. Army Corps of Engineers & Estuarine Studies 550 Main Street Director Cincinnati, OH 45202 Cambridge, MD 21613 West Virginia Dept. of Education & Arts Division U.S. Coast Guard, MSO Buffalo of Culture & History Commanding Officer Capitol Complex 1 Fuhrmann Blvd Charleston, WV 25305 Buffalo, NY 14203-3105 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Commander Wm. S. Moorhead Federal Bldg 1000 Liberty Avenue 26 Federal Plz # 2109 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4004 Brooklyn, NY 10278

FERC No. 2355 10 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Delaware River Basin Commission Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation Executive Director 1 Powerhouse Road P.O. Box 7360 Conestoga, PA 17516-9651 West Trenton, NJ 08628-2404 Christopher Urban Peter R. Valeri Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chief - Natural Diversity Section Regional Engineer 450 Robinson Lane 19 W 34th Street, Room 400 Bellefonte, PA 16823-9620 New York, NY 10001-3006 Liana Vitali Herbert H. Ward Chesapeake Research Consortium Upper Chesapeake Watershed Association 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109 138 West Lanvale Street Annapolis, MD 21240 Baltimore, MD 21217-4120 Douglas Weaver Dale Weinrich York Haven LLC Maryland Department of Natural Resources York Haven Hydro Station Matapeake Work Center P.O Box 67 301 Marine Academy Drive York Haven, PA 17370 Stevensville, MD 21666 R. Timothy Weston Cynthia Wilkerson Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Preston Gates Ellis, LLP National Park Service 17 North 2nd Street Floor 18 US Customs House Stewardship and Partnership Harrisburg, PA 17101-1638 200 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Larry Williamson William T. Wisniewski Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region III Natural Resources Deputy Regional Administrator PO Box 1554 1650 Arch Street Harrisburg, PA 17105-8767 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 David & Nancy Yohn Andrew C. Zemba Citizen/Landowner P.O. Box 2063 P.O. Box 658 Harrisburg, PA 14105-2301 Delta, PA 17314 Zhenxing (Jason) Zhang Ph.D. Susquehanna River Basin Commission Water Resources Management, Hydrologist 1721 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391 Jere Hess 2507 Shures Landing Road Darlington, MD 21034

FERC No. 2355 11 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR THE

MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

FERC PROJECT NUMBER 2355

EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC

August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES ...... iii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... v

1.0 Introduction ...... 1-1

2.0 Additional Information Requests ...... 2-1

2.1 Reservoir Shoreline ...... 2-1

2.2 Project Operation ...... 2-2

2.3 Water Resources ...... 2-2

2.4 Aquatic Resources ...... 2-4

2.5 Terrestrial Resources...... 2-6

2.6 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 2-6

2.7 Recreation and Land Use ...... 2-7

3.0 Proposed Studies ...... 3-1

3.1 Muddy Run Water Quality Study ...... 3-1

3.2 Hydrologic Study of Muddy Run Water Withdrawal and Return Characteristics ...... 3-6

3.3 Entrainment and Impingement at the Muddy Run Project ...... 3-12

3.4 Impacts of Muddy Run Project on Conowingo Pond Fishes ...... 3-23

3.5 Nearfield Effects of the Muddy Run Project on Migratory Fishes ...... 3-27

3.6 Muddy Run Project Effects on Migratory Fishes: Interactions with the PBAPS Thermal Plume 3-36

3.7 Transmission Line Avian Interaction Study ...... 3-43

3.8 Study to Identify Critical Habitat Use Areas for Bald Eagle ...... 3-48

3.9 Study to Identify Potential Habitat and Presence/Absence of Bog Turtle and Rough Green Snake 3-52

FERC No. 2355 i August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.10 Creel Survey of Muddy Run Recreation Lake ...... 3-57

3.11 Recreational Inventory and Needs Assessment ...... 3-60

3.12 Shoreline Management ...... 3-67

3.13 Visual and Noise Assessment of the Muddy Run Project ...... 3-71

3.14 Archaeological and Historic Cultural Resource Review and Assessment ...... 3-76

4.0 Studies Not Included In the PSP ...... 4-1

4.1 Model Flow in the Muddy Run Project Discharge Tailrace, and Susquehanna River Using Computational Fluid Dynamics Model Techniques ...... 4-1

4.2 Full Discharge Net Entrainment Field Study ...... 4-4

4.3 Study of Entrainment of Upstream Migrating American Eels ...... 4-8

4.4 Telemetry Study of Adult American Eel to Determine the Potential for Entrainment and Availability of a Safe Zone of Passage past the Project Area in the Susquehanna River...... 4-10

5.0 Appendix A – Study Request Letters ...... 5-1

6.0 Appendix B-Fisheries Surveys Used in the Development of the Muddy Run PAD ...... 6-1

FERC No. 2355 ii August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 ...... 1-3

Summary of Exelon’s Proposed Study Plan to Address Stakeholder Study Requests ...... 1-3

FERC No. 2355 iii August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 ...... 1-6

Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project Location Map ...... 1-6

Figure 2-1 ...... 2-8

Muddy Run Project Fishing Access Locations ...... 2-8

Figure 3.1-1 ...... 3-5

Proposed Sampling Locations for Muddy Run Water Quality Study ...... 3-5

Figure 3.5-1 ...... 3-35

Preliminary Survey Design for Transects with an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler for Collecting 3D Water Velocity Measurements within the Discharge and Intake Area of the Muddy Run Project ...... 3-35

Figure 3.6-1 ...... 3-42

Study Location Map ...... 3-42

Figure 3.13-1 ...... 3-75

Muddy Run Potential Key Viewpoints ...... 3-75

FERC No. 2355 iv August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler AIR Additional Information Request APE Area of Potential Effect APG Aberdeen Proving Ground APLIC Avian Powerline Interaction Committee BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BMP Best Management Practices CFD Computational Fluid Dynamic C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations cfs Cubic Feet per Second DGPS Differential Global Positioning System DO Dissolved Oxygen EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPRI Electric Power Research Institute Exelon Exelon Generation Company, LLC FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission GPS Global Positioning System HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan ILP Integrated Licensing Process KV Key Viewpoints kV Kilovolt kVA Kilovolt-Ampere MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MDNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources MGD Millions Gallons per Day mg/L Milligrams Per Liter MIHP Maryland Inventory of History Properties MW Megawatt MWH Megawatt-Hour NAI Natural Areas Inventory NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NERC North American Electric Reliability Council NGVD 1929 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NOI Notice of Intent NR National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetland Inventory PA Programmatic Agreement PAD Pre-Application Document PaDEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection PaDCNR Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources PBAPS Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station PECO PECO Energy Company PEPCo PECO Energy Power Company PFBC Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission PGC Pennsylvania Game Commission

FERC No. 2355 v August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

PGS Pennsylvania Geological Survey PHMC Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission PJM Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland Interconnection PME Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement PNHP Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program PSP Proposed Study Plan QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control RMC Radiation Management Corporation RTK Real-Time Kinematic SCORP State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan SD1 Scoping Document 1 SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SMP Shoreline Management Plan SRAFRC Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Committee SRBC Susquehanna River Basin Commission USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA United States Department of Agriculture USDOI United States Department of the Interior USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey

FERC No. 2355 vi August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

1.0 Introduction

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) has initiated with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the process of relicensing the 800-megawatt (MW) Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project (Muddy Run Project or Project) (Figure 1-1). Exelon is applying for license renewal using the FERC’s Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). The current license for the Muddy Run Project was issued on September 21, 1964 and expires on August 31, 2014.

As part of the ILP, Exelon and the FERC have conducted a public scoping process during which various resource issues have been identified. Exelon filed their Pre-Application Document (PAD) and Notice of Intent (NOI) with the FERC on March 12, 2009. The FERC subsequently issued Scoping Document 1 (SD1) on May 11, 2009. On June 10, 2009, a site visit and scoping meeting were held for the resource agencies and interested members of the public. Following these meetings, comments on the PAD and SD1, and formal study requests were filed with the FERC by the following stakeholders. The study request letters related to these stakeholder filings are included in Appendix A.

Commenter/Requestor Date American Rivers July 10, 2009 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission July 10, 2009 Lancaster County Planning Commission July 10, 2009 Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper July 10, 2009 Maryland Department of Natural Resources July 10, 2009 National Marine Fisheries Service July 10, 2009 Nature Conservancy July 10, 2009 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection July 10, 2009 Susquehanna River Basin Commission July 10, 2009 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service July 10, 2009 Within the PAD, Exelon proposed to conduct certain studies where Project operations may have an impact on various resources. The aforementioned stakeholders reviewed the proposed studies in the PAD and provided scoping details on these studies and identified additional study requests for inclusion in the Proposed Study Plan (PSP).

In response to feedback received from stakeholders during the scoping process, Exelon is proposing several studies and information gathering efforts for the Project. Table 1-1 provides a summary of the stakeholder study requests, as well as responses on how Exelon proposes to address each study request.

FERC No. 2355 1‐1 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

More detailed information on each proposed study is provided in Section 3 of this document. Each proposed study includes 1) a summary of the study request and issues identified, 2) a summary of existing information pertaining to the study, 3) a summary of resource management goals identified by resource agencies for each study, 4) the nexus between Project operations and effects on the resources to be studied, 5) the purpose of the study, 6) a description of the investigation area, 7) the proposed study methodology, and 8) schedules for study reporting and overall schedule for conducting the study.

Additionally, Section 4 of this document describes several study requests that Exelon is proposing not to conduct. Explanation is provided within Section 4 on the rationale used by Exelon to decide not to conduct a certain study. In many instances, less costly methodologies are available to gather necessary information, or the proposed study results would not inform development of Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement (PME) measures for the Project.

FERC No. 2355 1‐2 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF EXELON’S PROPOSED STUDY PLAN TO ADDRESS STAKEHOLDER STUDY REQUESTS Requested Study Study Requestor Exelon’s Proposed Study to Address Request Exelon’s Response Study Cost ($) Water Quality Study FERC-1 Muddy Run Water Quality Study This recommended study has been included in Exelon’s PSP and appears in 45,000-55,000 Section 3.1. Hydrologic Study of Muddy Run Water PaDEP-8; PFBC-1; Hydrologic Study of Muddy Run Water Withdrawal and Return This recommended study has been included in the Exelon’s PSP and appears in 150,000-170,000 Withdrawal and Return Characteristics. SRBC-1; USFWS-6 Characteristics Section 3.2. Model Flow of the Muddy Run Project USFWS-1 NA This recommended study has not been included in Exelon’s PSP. Exelon NA Discharge Tailrace and Susquehanna River believes the study request is not warranted, given that alternative methodologies Using Computational Fluid Dynamics Model can be used to adequately assess project impacts on aquatic resources. Techniques Specifically, Exelon is proposing to collect field data to characterize the flow and velocity patterns in the vicinity of the Muddy Project discharge tailrace using Acoustic Doppler Current Profile (ADCP) techniques (see Section 3.5). In addition, as part of the Holtwood Hydroelectric Project License Amendment proceeding , a CFD model was developed. The geographic area of the CFD model extended from the Holtwood Project tailrace downstream to a location approximately 1-mile downstream of the Muddy Project discharge tailrace, The combination of the ADCP data to be collected by Exelon and the existing CFD model will be adequate to assess project impacts related to flow hydraulics. See Section 4.1 for further details. Documenting Mortality of Anadromous and FERC-2; PaDEP-1; Entrainment and Impingement at the Muddy Run Project These recommended studies have been included in Exelon’s PSP and appear in 195,000-225,000 Resident Fish Species PFBC-7, 8; SRBC-8 Section 3.3. The velocity distribution portion of the entrainment and impingement study requested by FERC will be conducted and the results reported in the Study Report for Section 3.5, Nearfield Effects of Muddy Run Pump/turbine passage injury/survival study USFWS-3 on Migratory Fishes. for entrained fish using balloon tags Field study of juvenile shad entrainment will be conducted using data mining. With regard to the balloon tag study of anadromous and resident fish mortality during passage through Muddy Run pump turbines, Exelon is initially proposing a feasibility study to assess whether test fishes can be satisfactorily introduced into the intakes; if found feasible, a study will be conducted. Full Discharge Net Entrainment Field Study USFWS-2 NA This recommended study has not been included in Exelon’s PSP. Exelon NA believes the study request is impractical due to technical and logistical considerations of attaching, fishing and handling the size of net and support structure required to sample the full discharge or pump output of a reversible pump turbine. Exelon is proposing (see Section 3.3) to compile the large volume of available literature, much of it site-specific, to permit a description of potential entrainment risk to fishes, and estimate the potential mortality of the entrained fishes. See Section 4.2 for further details Characterize Scale and Scope of Impacts of PaDEP-10; PFBC-10; Impacts of Muddy Run Project on Conowingo Pond Fishes This recommended study has been included in Exelon’s PSP and appears in 25,000-30,000 Project Operation to Fish SRBC-10;USFWS-8 Section 3.4. However, resource agencies requested aquatic community data Populations in Conowingo Reservoir from a “riverine reference location”. Exelon does not plan to seek data from a riverine reference location for comparison to resident fish communities in Conowingo Pond as it will not help to develop PME measures. However, Exelon will describe the condition of existing resident fish communities as requested. In addition, Exelon is proposing to conduct a creel survey as part of the Conowingo Project PSP. The results of this creel survey can be used with other similar studies in the local area to make comparisons of the fishery community.

FERC No. 2355 1‐3 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Requested Study Study Requestor Exelon’s Proposed Study to Address Request Exelon’s Response Study Cost ($) Determine Impact of Muddy Run Operations PaDEP-3; PFBC-2; Nearfield Effects of the Muddy Run Project on Migratory Fishes These recommended studies have been included in Exelon’s PSP and appear in 60,000-75,000 on Upstream Migrating Adult American SRBC-3 Section 3.5. The requested studies of the impact of Muddy Run Project Shad. operations on migratory fishes, relative to velocity distributions are considered here, while impacts related to thermal anomalies of cycled water (from Peach Effects of Muddy Run Operations on PaDEP-4; PFBC-3; Bottom or from Muddy Run Reservoir) are addressed in the Section 3.6. Migratory Fish Passage (Flow Velocity) SRBC-4 The recommended study of adult American eel has not been included in Exelon's PSP. American eel abundance in Conowingo Pond or upstream areas Impingement/Entrainment of juvenile PaDEP-6; PFBC-5; now or in the near future is extremely low. The study goals can be realized with American shad passing downstream past the SRBC-6 a review of substantial eel behavior information from systems with extant Muddy Run project. population of eels large enough to mature into migratory adults. Exelon is proposing ( See Section 3.5) to compile available literature on adult eel migration behavior to permit a description of potential entrainment risk or migratory delay. Effects of Muddy Run Operations on PaDEP-4; PFBC-3; Muddy Run Project Effects on Migratory Fishes: Interactions This recommended study has been included in Exelon’s PSP and appears in 20,000-30,000 Migratory Fish Passage (Water Temperature) SRBC-4 with the PBAPS Thermal Plume Section 3.6.

Study of Entrainment of Upstream Migrating PaDEP-7; PFBC-6; NA This recommended study has not been included in Exelon’s PSP. Exelon NA American Eels. SRBC-7 believes the study request is impractical, either due to known juvenile eel behavior (eels lifted or transported to Conowingo Pond may not move soon or ever to the Muddy Run vicinity) and/or radio telemetry technical considerations (tag size vs eel size, for example). Further, American eel abundance in Conowingo Pond now and in the near future is low to the extent that hoop nets fished in the Muddy Run intake canal would not likely yield any information. See Section 4.3 for further details. Telemetry study of adult American eel to USFWS-5 NA This recommended study has not been included in Exelon’s PSP. NA determine the potential for entrainment and Exelon believes the question of adult American eel entrainment at Muddy Run availability of a safe zone of passage past the Project can be answered by available literature, and that a site-specific field project area in the Susquehanna River. study is not warranted given the amount of existing information on adult eel migration and behavior. Moreover, the lack of eels old enough or large enough to mature into migratory adults in Conowingo Pond or in upriver areas, and the impending hydraulic alterations likely to affect the river channel near Muddy Run as a result of Holtwood Project License Amendment proceeding make the timing of the study impractical. See Section 4.4 for further details. Opportunities for Enhancement of Migratory PaDEP-2; SRBC-2 NA This request is related to Exelon providing space and permitting the resource NA Fish Mitigation agencies to install a hatchery building on Exelon land. In addition, the resource agencies requested mitigation funds from Exelon to assist in construction of this hatchery. Exelon will consider this request as a potential PME measure to be negotiated as part of an overall settlement agreement for the Project. American Shad Population Assessment and PaDEP-5; PFBC-4; NA This recommended study has been included in Exelon’s PSP and appears as a NA Basin-Wide Fish Passage Monitoring SRBC-5; USFWS-7 component of the study described in Section 3.3. Transmission Line Avian Interaction Study FERC-3 Transmission Line Avian Interaction Study This recommended study has been included in Exelon’s PSP and appears in 20,000-30,000 Section 3.7. Bald Eagle Monitoring and USFWS-9 Study to Identify Critical Habitat Use Areas for Bald Eagle This recommended study has been included in Exelon’s PSP and appears in 60,000 Telemetry/Mortality Prevention Section 3.8. However, Exelon is proposing to use its own study methodology to identify bald eagle populations, movements, and habitat in the Muddy Run Project area. Determine the Presence or Absence of the PFBC-11 Study to Identify Potential Habitat and Presence/Absence of Bog This recommended study has been included in Exelon’s PSP and appears in 40,000-50,000 Bog Turtle and Rough Green Snake Turtle and Rough Green Snake Section 3.9.

FERC No. 2355 1‐4 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Requested Study Study Requestor Exelon’s Proposed Study to Address Request Exelon’s Response Study Cost ($) Recreational Use Survey PaDEP-9, PFBC-9; Creel Survey of Muddy Run Reservoir This recommended study has been included in Exelon’s PSP and appears in 40,000-45,000 SRBC-9 Sections 3.10 and 3.11. Recreational Inventory and Needs Assessment 20,000-25,000 Shoreline Management Plan Exelon Shoreline Management Plan This recommended study has been included in Exelon’s PSP and appears in 25,000-30,000 Section 3.12. Aesthetics Study FERC-4 Aesthetics Study This recommended study has been included in Exelon’s PSP and appears in 15,000-25,000 Section 3.13. Archeological and Historic Resource Survey FERC-5; Exelon Archaeological and Historic Cultural Resource Review and This recommended study has been included in Exelon’s PSP and appears in 25,000-35,000 Assessment Section 3.14. Total 740,000-885,000

FERC No. 2355 1‐5 August 24, 2009

BERKS DAUPHINLEBANON County County County

CUMBERLAND County LANCASTER County CHESTER County YORK ADAMS County County

CARROLL HARFORD CECIL County County County BALTIMORE Muddy Run Recreation Lake County

Index Map

Muddy Run Power Reservoir LANCASTER County Holtwood Dam

Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project

Muddy Run Project Powerhouse

Conowingo Pool

YORK County

Legend

Project Boundary State Boundary

County Boundary Aerial imagery provided by Microsoft Virtual Earth

EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC PROPOSED STUDY PLAN Figure 1-1: MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project PROJECT NO. 2355 1 inch = 1 miles Location Map. 0120.5 Miles Copyright © 2009 Exelon Generation Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

X:\GISMaps\project_maps\study_plan\muddy_run\figure_1_1_location_map.mxd 8/21/2009 9:35:20 AM PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

2.0 Additional Information Requests

In their study request letters, the FERC, PFBC, and SRBC provided comments on the PAD and submitted additional information requests (AIRs) to supplement the content of the PAD. These AIRs are addressed in the sections below.

2.1 Reservoir Shoreline

FERC AIR: Pages 4-6 through 4-8 of the Pre-Application Document (PAD) provide a shoreline erosion inventory map of the Muddy Run power (upper) reservoir but not the adjacent Muddy Run recreation lake. There is no discussion of how the Muddy Run recreation lake is operated and whether any erosion is occurring at the recreation lake. In order to determine if recreational activities and project operation and/or maintenance are affecting the shoreline of the recreation lake and the potential need for additional studies to address any issues associated with shoreline erosion, please describe how the recreation lake is operated, and describe the recreation lake shoreline, including steepness, composition and vegetative cover, and existing soil instability.

Exelon Response: The structural and operational characteristics of the Muddy Run Recreation Lake are described in Section 3.2 of the PAD. The 100-acre constant level recreation lake is formed by a zoned earth and rock fill dam. The dam is approximately 750 feet long, has a maximum height of about 90 feet and a crest width of 34 feet. The dam crest is at elevation 530 feet.

The dam spillway consists of a nearly level rock cut channel approximately 140 feet wide with an invert at elevation 520 feet (same as the typical high water elevation of the Muddy Run Power Reservoir). Other water conveyance structures at the dam include a four-foot-diameter concrete outlet pipe located in an excavated rock trench under the dam. The outlet is controlled from the upstream end by a flap gate. This gate is typically closed and rarely, if ever operated.

Due to the fixed spillway crest elevation of the dam, water levels at the recreation lake are kept essentially constant. Minor fluctuations due occur as a result of evaporation losses, groundwater recharge/discharge, and overland runoff.

Due to the lack of water level fluctuation at the Muddy Run Recreation Lake, Exelon did not include the Recreation Lake within the shoreline erosion inventory described in the PAD. However, the Recreation Lake substrate composition, topography, and shoreline characteristics are similar to those at the Muddy Run Power Reservoir. However, there are no known soil instability and/or erosion issues at the Recreation Lake, primarily due to the stable water level.

FERC No. 2355 2‐1 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

2.2 Project Operation

FERC AIR: Page 4-9 of the PAD, states that the project does not operate its pumps when the Conowingo reservoir level is below elevation 104.7 feet. However, the frequency that low levels in Conowingo reservoir have impacted the use of the project’s pumps has not been quantified. For the period of record, please provide a summary of the dates that low water levels in Conowingo reservoir have prevented pump operation.

Exelon Response: For the period January 1, 1996 to August 4, 2009, the Muddy Run Project experienced 28 days during the period of August through September 2002, where the Project was not operated due to low Conowingo Pond elevations. The exact dates in 2002 for which the Muddy Run Project did not operate in pump mode were August 17-18, August 24-25, August 29-31, September 1-4, and September 7-23. For those 28 days, the Muddy Run Project did not operate in pump mode due to the necessity to maintain adequate Conowingo Pond levels to comply with the minimum flow discharge at the Conowingo Project and to maintain water levels necessary for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPs) to have adequate cooling capacity (cooling problems at Conowingo Pond elevation 104.2 feet, NGVD 1929).

2.3 Water Resources

PFBC AIR: Temperature data provided in Tables 4.3.2.2.1 and 4.3.2.2.2 indicate that river inflow temperatures were not collected in a comparable manner to the Muddy Run discharge temperatures. For example, inflow water temperatures were supplied by Holtwood, PPL and Muddy Run discharge temperatures were collected at Muddy Run. In table 4.3.2.2.2 the footnote states "As measured at Holtwood Dam 14 days prior to each sampling event; data courtesy of PPL". These data were not collected in a temporally comparable manner and are not illustrative when attempting to compare the variance between river inflow and project discharge temperatures.

Exelon Response: Mean daily water temperature data for river inflow to upper Conowingo Pond shown in PAD Tables 4.3.2.2.1 and 4.3.2.2.2 was supplied by PPL Holtwood. Hourly data are not provided by PPL. Data were collected in 2006 and 2007 by a continuous monitor located in the station forebay. The Muddy Run project discharge water temperature data shown in Table 4.3.2.2.1 were also obtained by continuous monitor. A Hydrolab mini-sonde measured water temperature from a sample pumped from the river to the station tailrace deck. Table 4.3.2.2.1 compares the Muddy Run discharge data to the Conowingo Pond inflow data obtained by similar methods for the identical time frame.

FERC No. 2355 2‐2 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Table 4.3.2.2.2 utilized inflow water temperature data from PPL Holtwood to compare to spot measurements of Muddy Run discharge water temperature taken in summer 2007 by YSI 57 DO meter. In this instance, the minimum, mean, and maximum values shown for 27 July and 10 August represent data for the 8 discharge boils taken once at mid-day. These discharge data were compared to the minimum, mean and maximum for the daily average data supplied by PPL for the 14-day period prior to the sampled day. To clarify any confusion represented by the footnote, the mean of the water temperatures taken in the discharge boils is compared directly with the mean temperature data for inflow on that day (see below).

Date Mean Water Temperature (°F) Holtwood Inflow Data Muddy Run Discharge Data

27 July 2007 80.1 79.2

10 August 2007 85.6 83.9

SRBC AIR: There appear to be errors or inconsistencies in portions of the PAD for Muddy Run. For example, on page 3-7 of the PAD, a statement is made that “Exelon must install and maintain gages to track the flow of water and the amount held and withdrawn from storage at the Project.” At the end of that statement, Article 23 is given in parentheses. A description of Article 23 is provided in the Federal Power Commission document entitled “Susquehanna Power Company and Philadelphia Electric Power Company Project No. 405; Philadelphia Electric Company, Project No. 2355, Opinion No. 443,” dated September 21, 1964, and contained in Appendix 10 of the PAD. In essence, Article 23 describes the obligations imposed on the licensee by FERC for determining the stage and flow of the stream or streams from which water is diverted for the operation of the project works. In recent verbal communications and in direct contradiction to the PAD statement referenced above, Exelon maintains that no requirement to measure flow has ever been imposed by FERC. SRBC staff requests specific resolution of the contradiction; please clarify if FERC has or has not required flow measurement. If such a requirement was never imposed, please explain why it was deemed unnecessary, and address the contradictory inclusion of the requirement in the PAD by Exelon. However, if FERC did, in fact, make a request (as Article 23 requires) for Exelon to measure flows and the amount of water held and withdrawn from storage at Muddy Run, then the statement on page 3-8 of the PAD regarding full compliance by Exelon with FERC requirements is incorrect. SRBC and other resource agencies are concerned about this very

FERC No. 2355 2‐3 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT important discrepancy and question whether other equally important parts of the PAD may be either incorrect or misleading.

Exelon Response: Standard Article 23 requires a licensee to install and maintain gages to track the flow of water and the amount held and withdrawn from storage "as the Commission may deem necessary." The statement on page 3-7 of the PAD describing this requirement is a summary of the license Article; unfortunately, the summary fails to note that this requirement applies only as ordered by FERC. In preparing the PAD, Exelon did not mean to suggest that Muddy Run is subject to a requirement that does not in fact apply. FERC has never imposed any requirement to track flows in and out of the Muddy Run reservoir, and Exelon is not aware that FERC has ever considered imposing such a requirement.

2.4 Aquatic Resources

FERC AIR: Numerous fisheries surveys are cited in the PAD’s summary of the existing fisheries resources. These surveys have been conducted over the past 30 years, including several since 2000 and as recently as 2008. It is likely that adequate information is already available from these collective surveys to evaluate the health and trends of the fisheries resource in project waters. However, to confirm this, it is necessary that these reports be made available to FERC staff as well as other stakeholders. Therefore, please provide these reports in either hard copy or electronic format.

Exelon Response: To address this and similar AIRs, Exelon is currently compiling all reports used in the production of the Muddy Run and Conowingo PADs. These documents will be converted into electronic format and be made available to FERC and other interested participants. Also, Appendix B contains a list of fisheries surveys related to the Muddy Run Project that Exelon will make available to FERC and other stakeholder in electronic format on or before September 23, 2009. Due to the amount of literature used in the Muddy Run and Conowingo PADs, Exelon expects to distribute the remaining documents used in the development of the PADs before submittal of its Revised Study Plan on December 22, 2009.

PFBC AIR: It is unclear from the PAD where recreational angling is currently allowed. There are references to the Muddy Run Recreation Lake and references to the Muddy Run Reservoir. Creel surveys were apparently conducted in both impoundments during the 1980s. If fishing is not currently permitted in the Muddy Run reservoir, why not?

Exelon Response: Fishing access from either shoreline or on-water locations is currently not permitted on the Muddy Run Power Reservoir. On November 19, 2008, an area around the Muddy Run Power Reservoir where fishing was previously permitted was closed to the public due to safety concerns (see

FERC No. 2355 2‐4 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT red-hatched area in Figure 2-1). A letter was filed with FERC on August 18, 2008 detailing the closure due to public safety hazards. Prior to this closure, the area was open to fishing, and provided access along approximately ½ mile of shoreline, and also included approximately 20 acres of open water. The entire Muddy Run Power Reservoir is fenced, but there were unlocked gates near the far end of the Muddy Run Power Reservoir-the farthest point from the penstocks, near the Muddy Run Recreation Pond Dam in the Muddy Run Recreation Park, where the public previously accessed the shoreline.

Safety was the main reason for restricting access to this area. The area is steep and water level fluctuations, due to pump storage operations, resulted in gullies and other uneven terrain. These hazards pose a risk to public safety.

Fishing in the Muddy Run Power Reservoir does occur from the deck of the River Road Canal Bridge, which is owned by Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Exelon does not control access to the bridge.

Adjacent to the Muddy Run Power Reservoir is Muddy Run Recreation Lake, which provides 100 acres of open water fishing access. In addition, the water levels are maintained at a constant elevation for fishing and boating.

PFBC: The PAD references a radio telemetry study designed to assess the impacts of Muddy Run and Holtwood operations on American shad migrations. This study was conducted by Exelon in 2008. A copy of the report had been earlier provided to the PFBC for review (Normandeau, 2009). I am not aware whether this report has been filed with FERC but should be. The report includes some interesting information about movement of shad between their release point at Conowingo Dam's fishway exit and Holtwood's fishway with data recorded on movements near Muddy Run's intake. Most pertinent to Muddy Run is the fact that entrainment of adults occurred at Muddy Run at reported percentages of 3.6%. While the report is informative, additional insights can be gained through a careful review of the raw data obtained during the study. We request that FERC make the raw study data available to the resource agencies for their independent review. There is value to designing any future radio telemetry studies to be performed as part of the Conowingo relicensing so that portions of the Muddy Run study conducted in 2008 can be repeated or enhanced.

Exelon Response: After the Muddy Run PSP is filed with FERC on August 24, 2009, Exelon will meet with resource agencies to discuss any comments on the draft radiotelemetry report, and provide the raw data used in the development of the report. The report will be revised to address pertinent agency

FERC No. 2355 2‐5 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT comments and filed with FERC. Exelon anticipates that the final report will be filed with FERC before submittal of its Revised Study Plan on December 22, 2009.

2.5 Terrestrial Resources

FERC AIR: Section 4.6.3 of the PAD discusses riparian zones, but does not describe riparian zone habitat or vegetation at the project. Please provide a description of the riparian zone at the project.

Exelon Response: Field studies of the Muddy Run Reservoir were conducted during low drawdown levels. The Reservoir margins adjacent to the high water shoreline were not examined with respect to describing riparian habitat. Aerial photographs and field observations indicate the habitat surrounding the Muddy Run Reservoir at high water levels are dominantly forested or rock cliffs.

2.6 Threatened and Endangered Species

FERC AIR: Section 4.7, Critical Habitat and Threatened and Endangered Species, does not include the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). So staff can assess the need for species-specific habitat surveys, please evaluate the potential for Indiana bat to occur at the project.

Exelon Response: This Federally-listed species was not addressed in the PAD because the USFWS did not identify it an issue in initial consultation or during PAD evaluation/study requests. No hibernaculum/maternity colonies of Indiana bat occur within a 5-mile radius of the Project.

PFBC AIR: Two PA Endangered species, the bog turtle and rough green snake, have been identified by U.S. Fish and Wildlife and PFBC staff as being known to occur in the vicinity of the project. While the project is within the range of these species they may only be present if appropriate habitat is found on- site. There is no indication whether USFWS or PFBC-approved searches have been conducted to confirm presence or absence on project lands.

Exelon Response: While the PFBC indicated that potential bog turtle and rough green snake habitat may be located within the Muddy Run Project area (letter dated August 18, 2006 - SIR #23416), it stated if no construction was proposed within the project area, adverse impacts to these species were not anticipated. If any construction or earth moving activities are proposed for the site, then further consultation with PFBC would be necessary. In letters dated July 27, 2006 and August 22, 2006, the USFWS recommended identifying all wetlands within 300 feet of the proposed project area, and conducting a Phase I Habitat Survey for bog turtles pursuant to its published guidelines. Exelon is proposing to

FERC No. 2355 2‐6 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT conduct studies to identify potential habitat and presence/absence of the bog turtle and rough green snake as part of this PSP.

2.7 Recreation and Land Use

FERC AIR: In addition, in figure 4.8.3-1, “Sensitive Resources” are depicted on the map and legend. Please clarify what these resources are.

Exelon Response: "Sensitive resources" on the land use maps in the PAD (Figure 4.8.3-1) include such things as: designated natural and protected areas, areas with steep slopes, unique geologic formations, wetlands, species of concern core habitat, etc. Additional data on these important resources will be collected and refined in developing the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) for the Muddy Run Project.

FERC No. 2355 2‐7 August 24, 2009

Muddy Run Recreation Pond

Muddy Run Recreation Pond Dam

Muddy Run Power Reservoir

River Road Canal Bridge

Legend

Former Fishing Access Area Closed to the Public Due to Safety Concerns Muddy Run Project Boundary Aerial imagery provided by Microsoft Virtual Earth

EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC PROPOSED STUDY PLAN MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT Figure 2-1 PROJECT NO. 2355 Muddy Run Project Fishing Access Locations 1inch=0.6miles 01,500 3,000 6,000 Copyright © 2009 Feet Exelon Generation Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

X:\GISMaps\project_maps\muddy_run_project_fishing_access\muddy_run_project_fishing_access.mxd 8/21/2009 11:10:14 AM PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.0 Proposed Studies

3.1 Muddy Run Water Quality Study

3.1.1 Study Request

In the study request letter from the FERC, a water quality study within the Muddy Run Power Reservoir and downstream of the project discharge was requested. The study’s objective is to document water quality within the reservoir and within the project discharge under a variety of conditions including project generation flows, pumping operations, incoming river flows, and meteorological conditions and seasons. The FERC stated that one field season should be sufficient to perform the study provided that a variety of conditions are covered.

3.1.2 Existing Information (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(3))

Exelon summarized a recent water quality data collection effort from the Project discharge in Section 4.3 of the PAD. In addition, the historic ecological studies identified below provide information on the water quality associated with the Muddy Run Project.

Existing Information (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(3))

Exelon summarized a recent water quality data collection effort from the Project discharge in Section 4.3 of the PAD. In addition, the following historic ecological studies provide information on the water quality associated with the Muddy Run Project.

• Ichthyological Associates. 1970. Limnological data for Conowingo Reservoir, Muddy Run Pumped Storage Reservoir, and Muddy Run Recreation Lake, 1968 -1969; submitted to Philadelphia Electric Company. • Robbins,T.W., M.S. Topping, and E.C. Raney.1970. Studies of fishes in the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Reservoir and connecting waters. Prepared for submission to the Federal Power Commission for Philadelphia Electric Company, Philadelphia, PA.

FERC No. 2355 3‐1 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

• Robbins, T.W., and D.Mathur.1974. Limnological data report. Prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, Philadelphia, PA. • RMC Muddy Run Ecological Laboratory, January 1979. A Thirteen Year Ecological Study of the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Pond: 1966 -1978, prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company.

3.1.3 Resource Management Goals (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(2))

No resource management goals were identified by the FERC.

3.1.4 Purpose (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(1))

The goal of this study is to collect water quality data to characterize the current conditions associated with the Muddy Run Project and analyze the effects of project operations on water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity.

3.1.5 Project Nexus (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(4))

The Project operates as a pumped storage facility. Operation of the Project could create conditions within the Muddy Run Power Reservoir that could directly impact water quality in the power reservoir and in the project’s tailwater.

3.1.6 Investigation Area

The investigation area for this study will be limited to the Muddy Run Power Reservoir and the immediate project tailwater.

3.1.7 Methodology (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(1), (d)(5)-(6))

Task 1- Water Quality Monitoring in Muddy Run Power Reservoir

Exelon will install a continuous monitoring device (e.g. Hydrolab) near or adjacent to one of the Muddy Run Intake Towers to record dissolved oxygen (DO), water temperature, pH, and conductivity per 15- minute intervals from April through October, 2010. In addition, collection of DO and water temperature vertical profile data (surface to bottom @ 5 ft intervals) along a single transect that encompasses the greatest depth of the power reservoir will be completed biweekly from April through October, 2010 (Figure 3.1-1) . This monitoring requires special permission from Exelon safety specialists to gain access into the reservoir to locate, mount, and safely deploy the monitoring device. The current Exelon policy, due to safety concerns, does not allow access into the upper reservoir. Upon getting permission to work in the reservoir a site-specific safety and health procedure would be developed prior to any sampling for this or tasks described below. As the case for Task 1, this sampling would also require special

FERC No. 2355 3‐2 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT permission from safety specialists to gain access into the upper reservoir during generation or pumping operations.

In addition to DO and water temperature, Exelon will collect and record surface pH and conductivity values at each point on the selected transect. During each sampling event, record weather conditions, approximate wind speed, river flow, and Muddy Run generation status will be recorded. QA/QC measures will include regular calibration of the continuous monitor per manufacturer’s instructions.

The FERC requested water quality monitoring along several transects in Muddy Run Reservoir; we have proposed the sampling of only one transect to minimize work activities within the power reservoir due to Exelon safety concerns/restrictions and assure that the same sampling points can be visited regularly due to water level fluctuations in the power reservoir. Continuous monitoring devices need to be calibrated regularly; if the monitor cannot be mounted near or on a permanent structure, the boat crew(s) would be responsible for monitoring and calibration during the collection of vertical profile data.

Task 2- Water Quality Monitoring of Muddy Run Tailwater

Exelon will install a continuous monitoring device (e.g. Hydrolab) within or near the Muddy Run turbine discharge/tailwater area to record DO, water temperature, pH, and conductivity per 15-minute intervals from April through October, 2010 (Figure 3.1-1). QA/QC measures will include regular calibration of the continuous monitor per manufacturer’s instructions. Due to safety concerns, this task would also require special approval from Exelon safety specialists to locate, mount, and safely deploy the monitoring device.

Task 3 – Report

A report describing the study methodology and results will be developed. The report will include pertinent historical water quality information along with analysis of recently collected data to accurately describe water quality conditions within the Muddy Run Project.

3.1.8 Level of Effort and Cost (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(6))

Exelon believes that the proposed level of effort is adequate to accurately describe water quality conditions in the project area. The estimated cost for a one-year Muddy Run Water Quality Study is approximately $45,000 to $55,000.

3.1.9 Study Reporting

In accordance with 18 CFR § 5.15(b), a Study Progress Report will be prepared and provided to participants. The progress report will describe overall progress in completing the study activities, summarize preliminary findings as available, and explain any variance from the study plan and schedule.

FERC No. 2355 3‐3 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

In accordance with 18 CFR § 5.15(c)(1), a Study Report will be prepared and provided to the stakeholders electronically for review and comment at the conclusion of the first year of study prior to filing the report with the Initial Study Report. The study report will include the report described under Task 3 above.

3.1.10 Study Schedule (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(2) and (c))

In accordance with 18 CFR § 5.115(e), a Study Plan Meeting will be held on September 22-23, 2009. The purpose of the Study Plan Meeting will be to informally resolve any outstanding issues with respect to Exelon’s PSP and the study requests filed by stakeholders, and to clarify the PSP and any information gathering or study requests.

In accordance with Exelon’s Process Plan and Schedule (18 CFR § 5.6(d)(1)), as provided in the PAD (Appendix D), and the FERC’s SD1, the study will be completed according to the milestones below.

Activity Deadline Submittal of Proposed Study Plan August 24, 2009 Hold Study Plan Meeting September 22-23, 2009 File Comments on Proposed Study Plan with FERC November 22, 2009 File Revised Study Plan with FERC (if necessary) December 22, 2009 Stakeholders File Reply Comments on Revised Study Plans with FERC January 6, 2010 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter January 21, 2010 Formal Study Dispute Resolution Process with FERC (if necessary) February 10, 2010 Conduct Study Spring 2010 – Fall 2010 File Progress Report Fall 2010 File Initial Study Report with FERC January 21, 2011 Hold Initial Study Report Meeting February 5, 2011 File Initial Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2011 Stakeholders file Study Disagreement and Requests to Modify Study March 22, 2011 Plans Conduct Studies and Gather Information (Second Season, if necessary) Spring 2011 – Fall 2011 File Updated Study Report with FERC January 21, 2012 Hold Updated Study Report Meeting February 5, 2012 File Updated Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2012 Stakeholders File Study Disagreements and Request to Modify Study March 21, 2012 Plans Stakeholders File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 20, 2012 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 20, 2012

FERC No. 2355 3‐4 August 24, 2009

Recreation Lake

Spillway

Dam

Muddy Run Reservoir

Piney Island

"Rodney" Island

Norman Wood Bridge ute 372 Crow Island Deep Water Island

Peavine Island Upper Bear Island Turkey Island Muddy Run Station Peavine Island

Lower Bear Island

Little Chestnut Island Wolf Island Big Chestnut Island Sicily Island

Boat Launch Beach Island Hennery Island Legend Water Quality Transect Points

Continuous MonitoringFishing Locations Creek Project Boundary

EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC PROPOSED STUDY PLAN MUDDY RUN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Figure: 3.1-1 PROJECT NO. 2355 Proposed Sampling Locations for 1inch=0.6miles Muddy Run Water Quality Study 00.510.25 Miles Copyright © 2009 Exelon Generation Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

X:\GISMaps\SSherman\Conowingo_MuddyRun_Relicensing\Figure3.1-1_Muddy Run Reservoir.mxd 8/21/2009 11:29:07 AM PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.2 Hydrologic Study of Muddy Run Water Withdrawal and Return Characteristics

3.2.1 Study Request

In their study request letters, MDNR, PaDEP, PFBC, SRBC, and USFWS requested that Exelon conduct an analysis to determine the hydrologic changes to the lower Susquehanna River caused by the physical presence and operation of the Muddy Run Project.

These stakeholders requested that the analysis include: 1) full documentation of daily water withdrawal regime from Conowingo Pond; 2) detailed bathymetric study of the entire Muddy Run Upper Reservoir (including the Muddy Run Recreation Lake); and 3) a detailed operating schedule of the facility.

In addition, these stakeholders recommended that the study include an analysis of the hydrologic influences and interactions that exist between the surface water withdrawals from Conowingo Pond for the Muddy Run Project, City of Baltimore, Chester Water Authority, Peach Bottom, and Conectiv Delta; the discharges into Conowingo Pond from Holtwood Dam, Peach Bottom and Muddy Run; the operational influences at Conowingo Dam, operational influences at the Muddy Run Project, at Holtwood Dam, at Safe Harbor Dam, and at York Haven Dam.

3.2.2 Existing Information (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(3))

During the period 2002 – 2005, an operations model ("the SRBC model") was developed for the Susquehanna River Basin for the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) for use in its “Conowingo Pond Management Alternatives Analysis” project (SRBC 2006). This model included the various hydrologic inputs and water withdrawals and returns within the Susquehanna River Basin and operated on a daily time step.

The SRBC model utilized OASIS, which is a generalized program for modeling the operations of water resources systems. OASIS simulates the movement of water through a river system represented by nodes (any point of interest in the system is a node such as reservoirs or junctions) and arcs (any hydraulic connection between two nodes such as river reaches, pumps, and turbines).

While an OASIS model can model physical constraints on the system, its primary purpose is to simulate the operating policies that result in the human control of the system. For the most part, the operating policies and human control constitute a decision-making process about how much water to release or divert. In the context of the SRBC model, this means maintaining certain constraints placed on the model such as maintaining minimum required flows from the projects, and/or maintaining the reservoirs within prescribed minimum and maximum stages (elevations).

FERC No. 2355 3‐6 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

In 2007, Exelon began development of its own operations model for use in its upcoming FERC licensing proceeding. The Exelon model is based on the SRBC model; however, the Exelon model also includes the Lower Susquehanna River hydropower projects, namely Safe Harbor, Holtwood, Muddy Run and Conowingo, and operates on an hourly time step to better simulate hydropower generation.

The Exelon operations model enhances the previous SRBC model to add the capability to simulate the movement of water through the hydropower facilities. Basic inputs to the model included flow, engineering data, and operational constraints. Engineering data (such as reservoir elevation versus storage curves) were entered into the model for each hydropower facility and dam. In addition, constraints that may limit operational flexibility (such as minimum flow requirements or water level restrictions) for each project/dam were also entered into the model. Once the flow data, engineering data and constraints were entered into the model it was calibrated to observed streamflow and energy generation. Once successfully calibrated to existing conditions, the average annual generation estimated by the model is commonly characterized as “baseline conditions”—this is a term used by FERC to reflect status quo conditions.

The operations model can then be used to simulate the impacts of alternative flow management scenarios. The results from an alternative operating scenario can then be compared to the baseline condition to determine the relative impacts to reservoir water levels, streamflow, and energy generation.

Conowingo Pond is the largest reservoir on the Lower Susquehanna River and the Pond serves as a resource for multiple uses. The multiple-purpose Conowingo Pond storage serves the following needs: hydropower generation, recreation, water supply, Peach Bottom power plant cooling, and to maintain minimum flows below the Conowingo Dam.

The Conowingo Project is the only hydroelectric project on the lower Susquehanna River with an established minimum flow regime (FERC 1989). Maintaining the minimum flow release requirement is the most critical parameter in managing low flows and enabling the Conowingo Pond to remain viable during droughts. Exelon's ability to manage the minimum flow release would likely be greatly enhanced, if its flow management were coordinated with the Safe Harbor and Holtwood Projects.

3.2.3 Resource Management Goals (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(2))

The resource management goals identified are to optimize downstream hydrology and biotic habitat (MDNR, PaDEP, PFBC, SRBC, USFWS).

3.2.4 Purpose (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(1))

The study goal is to determine if project operations adversely impact river hydrology.

FERC No. 2355 3‐7 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.2.5 Project Nexus (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(4))

The Muddy Run Project is a pumped storage facility that uses Conowingo Pond as its lower reservoir. The pumping capacity of the Muddy Run Project is 28,000 cfs, while its generation capacity is 32,000 cfs. These withdrawal rates may affect biotic habitat and biota downstream of the project, as well as other uses of the water.

3.2.6 Investigation Area

The study area includes the lower Susquehanna River from Safe Harbor Dam to the Conowingo Dam tailrace.

3.2.7 Methodology (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(1), (d)(5)-(6))

Task 1: Timeline of Flow Management in the Lower Susquehanna River

Exelon will conduct a literature review with the intent of developing a timeline that describes the history of flow management practices in the lower Susquehanna River basin. This analysis will describe the flow and water withdrawals characteristics of each water user in the study area. In addition, the analysis will describe any changes in operating conditions that may have occurred at the power generation facilities, as a result of deregulation.

Task 2: Statistical Hydrology Analysis

Using recent project operations data, Exelon will complete an analysis to illustrate the water withdrawal and return characteristics of the Muddy Run Project. Several hydrologic statistics will be provided, including: 1) average daily withdrawal from Conowingo Pond; 2) maximum daily withdrawal from Conowingo Pond; 3) average daily discharge to Conowingo Pond; and 4) maximum daily discharge to Conowingo Pond. The analysis will also include a time-series of headwater elevations from the Muddy Run Reservoir and tailwater elevations taken from Conowingo Pond. Basic statistics will be computed from the time series data, and will include, but not be limited to maximum, minimum, average, and median values.

The historic project operations data set used in the analysis will be taken from a minimum of three 30-day low flow periods (between August and September) and three 30-day high flow periods(between March and April).

FERC No. 2355 3‐8 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Task 3: Bathymetric Map Development

Exelon will complete bathymetric mapping of the Muddy Run Reservoir (including the Recreation Lake) that will result in the generation of a map with 1-foot contour accuracy. The results of the mapping will be used to generate an updated stage versus storage for the Muddy Run Reservoir.

In addition, a bathymetric map of the Muddy Run tailrace (an area extending a approximately 1,000 feet up-river, 1,500 feet down-river, and 1,000 feet across river) will be developed.

Task 4: Describe Project Operations

Exelon will provide a summary of the typical operation procedures for the Muddy Run Project. This description will consist of the actual hours of pumping versus hours of generation with corresponding values of energy consumed and generated for each day within several pre-defined time periods, which will include: 1) a minimum of three 30-day periods during the peak migratory fish periods (between April and June); a minimum of three 30-day high temperature periods (between July and August); and a minimum of three 30-day low temperature periods (between January and February).

Task 5: Conduct Operations Modeling Production Runs

Exelon will conduct model production runs to evaluate various operating scenarios at the Muddy Project, as well as the other hydropower projects on the lower Susquehanna River (i.e., Safe Harbor, Holtwood, and Conowingo). These production run will be used to understand the interactions between the various water users in the study area, and determine the resulting impacts that changes in operation at the hydropower projects may have on other water uses.

Task 6: Develop Study Report

Study results will be summarized in a report that will include the study methodology, results, and conclusions. The report will be distributed to interested stakeholders for review and comment. Appropriate comments will be incorporated into the report and then submitted to the FERC as an Initial Study Report.

3.2.8 Level of Effort and Cost (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(6))

Exelon believes that the proposed level of effort is adequate to analyze this issue within the study area. The estimated cost for the study outlined in this plan is approximately $150,000-$170,000.

FERC No. 2355 3‐9 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.2.9 Study Reporting

In accordance with 18 CFR § 5.15(c)(1), a Study Report will be prepared and provided to participants for review and comment at the conclusion of the first year of study. The study report will include the report described under Task 6 above.

3.2.10 Study Schedule (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(2) and (c))

In accordance with 18 CFR § 5.11(e), a Study Plan Meeting will be held on September 22 and 23, 2009. The purposes of the Study Plan Meeting will be to informally resolve any outstanding issues with respect to Exelon’s PSP and the study requests filed by stakeholders, and to clarify the PSP and any information gathering or study requests.

In accordance with Exelon’s Process Plan and Schedule (18 CFR § 5.6(d)(1)), as provided in the PAD (Section 2.0), and the FERC’s SD1, this study will be completed according to the milestones below.

Activity Deadline Submittal of proposed study plan August 24, 2009 Hold Study Plan Meeting September 22 & 23, 2009 File Comments on Proposed Study Plan with FERC November 22, 2009 File Revised Study Plan with FERC (if necessary) December 22, 2009 Stakeholders File Reply Comments on Revised Study Plans with FERC January 6, 2010 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter January 21, 2010 Formal Study Dispute Resolution Process with FERC (if necessary) February 10, 2010 Conduct Study April-September 2010 File Progress Report Fall 2010 File Initial Study Report with FERC January 21, 2011 Hold Initial Study Report Meeting February 5, 2011 File Initial Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2011 Stakeholders file Study Disagreement and Requests to Modify Study Plans March 22, 2011 File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 21, 2011 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 21, 2011 Conduct Studies and Gather Information (Second Year, if necessary) April-September 2011 File Updated Study Report with FERC January 21, 2012 Hold Updated Study Report Meeting February 5, 2012 File Updated Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2012 Stakeholders File Study Disagreements and Request to Modify Study Plans March 21, 2012 Stakeholders File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 20, 2012 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 20, 2012

FERC No. 2355 3‐10 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.2.11 Literature Cited

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1989. Order Approving Settlement Agreement for the Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, Project No. 405-009. Docket No. EL80-38-000. January 24, 1989.

Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC). 2006. Conowingo Pond Management Plan, SRBC Pub No. 242.

FERC No. 2355 3‐11 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.3 Entrainment and Impingement at the Muddy Run Project

3.3.1 Study Request

In their study request letter, the FERC requested an entrainment and impingement study with two main objectives:

• Describe physical characteristics of the intake structures such as location, dimensions, trash rack configuration and clear spacing, and velocity distribution near the racks. The velocity distribution study will be conducted and the results reported in the Study Report for Section 3.5, Nearfield Effects of Muddy Run on Migratory Fishes. • Describe the likely effects of project-induced entrainment and impingement on fish resources using project characteristics and existing fishery information.

In their study request letters, the USFWS, PFBC, PaDEP, and SRBC requested entrainment, impingement, and mortality studies that examined resident and diadromous fishes as affected by Muddy Run operations. Specific study requests and their disposition include:

• Full-discharge netting of Muddy Run pumping and generating discharges for 12 months. Exelon does not plan to conduct this study. See Section 4.2. • Field study of juvenile shad entrainment using radiotelemetry or data mining techniques. This study will be conducted using data mining. • Field study of upstream migrating juvenile American eels using radiotelemetry or hoop nets. Exelon does not plan to conduct this study. See Section 4.3. • Balloon tag study of anadromous and resident fish mortality during passage through Muddy Run pump turbines. This will be preceded by a feasibility study to assess whether test fishes can be satisfactorily introduced into the intakes; if found feasible a study will be conducted (See Task 6 below). • Field study of outmigrating adult American eel during passage past the Muddy Run Project. Exelon does not plan to conduct this study. See Section 4.4.

3.3.2 Existing Information (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(3))

The substantial entrainment study database, including but not limited to available compilations by FERC (1995) and EPRI (1997), will be a primary resource for addressing potential entrainment at Muddy Run Station. These data will be augmented by site-specific data, including extensive population data for Muddy Run Reservoir and Conowingo Pond fishes. These historical collections will be used to provide species composition data.

FERC No. 2355 3‐12 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Estimation of site-specific multiple year entrainment and mortality of different life stages of resident fishes at the Muddy Run Project and the associated methodological problems were described in Robbins and Mathur (1976), Heisey and Mathur (1980), and Mathur and Heisey (1980). Larval fish entrainment during pumping and generation was addressed by Snyder (1975). Meter nets deployed in the Muddy Run discharge/intake canal provided data on larval fish entrainment during both pumping and generating operations. Survival of entrained larval fish was also assessed. The resulting estimates were not deemed precise, however, as was the case for other pumped storage facilities at that time.

Limited trammel net sets in the Muddy Run discharge/intake canal also provided some data on species composition of resident fish entrained during the initial years of Muddy Run operations. However, these data had limitations when assessing turbine passage induced mortality.

Two adult American shad radio telemetry studies (2001 and 2008) reviewed in the PAD provide site- specific data on the pumping entrainment rate of upstream migrant shad at the Muddy Run Project. One study in 1988 of outmigrant juvenile shad passing the Muddy Run Project during pumping was also reviewed in the PAD. However, the ultimate fate of fish entrained during pumping could not be determined. These three studies are the only site-specific data available for diadromous species. Each will be reviewed as part of this desktop study to assess entrainment of migratory fishes at the Muddy Run Project.

A vast amount of fish passage survival data, accrued mostly from conventional hydroelectric facilities, is available from the following sources: EPRI (1992, 1997; Franke et al. 1997; Normandeau Associates and Skalski 1999; Normandeau Associates et al. 2002; Skalski et al. 2002). Criteria for using literature– reported data sources for estimating fish survival have also been summarized in Franke et al. (1997). These literature sources will augment the site-specific data.

Considering some important site-specific characteristics of the Muddy Run Project, the probability of impingement of migratory American shad is nearly zero. The intakes are deep (80 ft depth) and protected by trash bar racks with wide clear spacing of 5.75 inches. The absence of impingement of adult American shad was corroborated by the 2001 and 2008 radio telemetry studies reviewed in the PAD. No evidence of stationary signals at the trash racks was found.

3.3.3 Resource Management Goals (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(2))

State and federal resource agencies have established anadromous fish restoration goals for the Susquehanna River: produce self-sustaining annual populations of 2 million American shad and 5 million river herring, reproducing in the free-flowing Susquehanna River above York Haven Dam and in suitable tributaries, and provide 500,000 angling days annually throughout the basin for these species. The 2002

FERC No. 2355 3‐13 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Alosid Management and Restoration Plan for the Susquehanna River Basin is under revision at this time and is expected to provide for restoration of American eels to their historical habitats above dams. State and federal agencies desire to provide for normal upstream and downstream movements of resident fish species.

3.3.4 Purpose (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(1))

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the entrainment and impingement potential for migratory and resident fishes at the Muddy Run Project

3.3.5 Project Nexus (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(4))

Migratory fishes on their seaward journey from upstream of the Muddy Run Project must pass by the pump/turbines in upper Conowingo Pond. Resident fishes in each reservoir are also vulnerable to turbine entrainment most of the year. The study will provide an idea on the magnitude of the issue.

3.3.6 Investigation Area

The Muddy Run Project is located at River Mile 22 in upper Conowingo Pond. Holtwood Dam is located two miles upstream at River Mile 24. The investigation area comprises Conowingo Pond, particularly the upper portion, and the Muddy Run Reservoir.

3.3.7 Methodology (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(1), (d)(5)-(6))

Task 1—Describe the physical area, fish communities affected, characteristics of target species that affect entrainment potential, and intake and turbine characteristics using existing information

Suggested migratory target species for the entrainment/impingement/mortality assessment include: American shad, American eel. Target resident fish species for the entrainment/impingement/mortality assessment include: smallmouth bass, walleye, channel catfish, white crappie, rock bass, bluegill. The life history characteristics of these species, using site specific information where available, that affect entrainment susceptibility will be reviewed.

The physical areas of each reservoir potentially affected by pumping and generating operations will be described. Similarly, the intake areas and facility features such as depth and dimensional data in upper Conowingo Pond and in the Muddy Run intake canal will be described with accompanying figures/drawings.

FERC No. 2355 3‐14 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

The Muddy Run Project has eight Francis-type reversible pump/turbines. Individual units are rated at 4,000 cfs during generation and 3,500 cfs during pumping. Turbine characteristics such as number of buckets, runner diameter, rotational speed (rpm), and operating head will be fully described.

Task 2—Review Existing Site-specific Entrainment Data

Entrainment estimates for American shad adults and juveniles migrating past the Muddy Run Project are available. Historical Muddy Run Project data on fishes from studies conducted in 1966 to 1980 are also available to obtain information on resident fish target species.

Task 3—Augment Site-specific data with available entrainment literature for target species

Compilation sources such as EPRI (1997) and FERC (1995), among other individual site studies, contain information on the likelihood of entrainment for numerous resident and migratory fishes, as well as seasonal aspects of their susceptibility at the Muddy Run Project.

Task 4—Estimate Turbine Mortality for Target species

For the target species, specific existing balloon tag data will be used where available. Published turbine mortality literature data will augment this analysis as needed.

Task 5—Blade Strike Model

The absence of reliable site-specific turbine passage survival data for fishes of various sizes may also necessitate use of a blade strike mathematical model (Franke et al. 1997). The model uses turbine characteristics such as the number of blades, runner diameter, runner speed, discharge, along with other variables such as fish size. Separate models are available for Kaplan and Francis type turbines (Franke et al. 1997). The Muddy Run Project has Francis type reversible turbines and the model for Francis turbines will be used for this assessment. The use of the model offers the following advantages: it may not be practical to obtain empirical estimates for several sizes classes of multiple species in one or two seasons, and the cost of obtaining site –specific estimates of multiple species and size classes could be astronomical at large facilities such as the Muddy Run Project.

Task 6—Conduct Field Validation-Type Mortality Study

This study, using the HI-Z balloon tag recapture technique (Heisey et al. 1992), will be designed with the goal of confirming survival estimate of entrained fish species/sizes at the Muddy Run Project pump/turbine units. The study will assess the condition of fish when they are pumped into the Muddy

FERC No. 2355 3‐15 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Run Reservoir from Conowingo Pond. The validation study would occur if the feasibility study suggests fish introduction to intakes and rapid fish recovery can be accomplished

The tag-recapture technique involves a release of balloon-tagged fish into a turbine with a concurrent release of similarly tagged fish into the turbine discharge as controls and their subsequent immediate recapture (generally within minutes). When two treatment groups of fish are released, they will be paired with a release of common controls. This scheme has proven useful in other passage survival investigations and uses less fish resources without affecting the final study outcome (Heisey et al. 2008 a, b).

Sample Size

The allocation of sample size (concurrent releases of treatment and controls) to be used in the proposed field-based turbine passage survival study at the Muddy Run Project is as follows:

Treatment Control

Juveniles1 100 50

Adults1 100 50

Adult 100 50 American Eel2

Juvenile American shad 100 50

Totals 400 200

1 Mixed species group for each size class. 2 If and when readily available.

The embedded flexibility of the HI-Z tag-recapture technique per unit adjustments of sample size as an investigation progresses because the test results become available at the end of each day (Normandeau Associates et al. 1996, 2001). Parties will be consulted prior to any changes in the release plan.

Source of Test Fish

The following sources will be utilized to obtain test specimens:

Conowingo West Fish Lift Hatcheries, particularly juvenile American shad

FERC No. 2355 3‐16 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Commercial sources Use of surrogate species, if needed Fishes will be held on site in separate (juveniles and adults) tanks for at least 24 h prior to tagging and release to acclimate to ambient river conditions. Holding tanks will be continuously supplied with river water. Individual treatment and control specimens will be randomly taken from the same group of fish to minimize size heterogeneity; fish showing erratic behavior or infected with disease or fungus will not be used.

Fish Tagging and Release

Fish tagging, release, and recapture techniques will be similar to those used in numerous other studies including Conowingo site (Heisey et al. 1992, 2008a; Normandeau Associates 1996). Each fish will be fitted with a neutrally buoyant miniature radio transmitter and a HI-Z Turb’N Tag. The tagged fish will be released by an induction system either into the turbine penstock (treatment) or turbine discharge (control). Just prior to release into the induction system, the tag will be activated by injecting 1-1.5 ml of catalyst. Details of the tag and release technique are given in Heisey et al. (1992).

Tag and release methods differ somewhat for juvenile and adult fish. Briefly, uninflated Turb’N Tags made of bright colored latex (38 mm, 1.5 in wide; and 13 mm, 0.5 in long) will be attached to juveniles by a single stainless steel pin through the dorsal musculature near the insertion of the dorsal fin. Each tag weighs about 1.5 g. Each radio tag will be approximately 10 x 31 mm, weight 1.7 g, and propagating radio signals through a 27 cm thin wire antenna. The pin will be inserted with a modified ear piecing gun and secured by a small plastic disc (Heisey 1992; RMC 1994).

Tagged fish will be introduced individually into the intake area behind the trash racks at the Muddy Run Project by an induction apparatus consisting of a small holding basin attached to a 4-inch (for juvenile fish) or an 8-inch diameter hose line supplied with river water to ensure that fish are transported quickly within a continuous flow of water. Control fish will be tagged and released individually through a similar induction apparatus in the discharge canal in the upper Muddy Run Reservoir.

Upon inflation shortly after release, usually within 5 minutes, the tagged fish is buoyed to the surface for retrieval. Fish are located by homing on radio signals and/or visuals spotting the inflated HI-Z Tag(s). Radio signals from tagged fish are received with a boat-mounted 5-element Yagi antenna coupled to a programmable scanning receiver. Fish which fail to surface are monitored via radio signals for at least 30 minutes.

Upon retrieval, each fish will be carefully examined for injury and tags removed by modified pliers (Heisey et al. 1992). Later, fish will be transferred to holding pools to assess the long-term (48 h) effects

FERC No. 2355 3‐17 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT of turbine passage. The treatment and control fish will be held in separate pools (containing approximately 5 ppt salt water for American shad). These holding pools will be continuously supplied with ambient river water and covered to prevent escapement and minimize external stressors. The addition of salt in the holding pools minimizes the potential adverse effects of handling and transfer as juvenile clupeids are known to be extremely sensitive to handling stress (Heisey et al. 1992; Ruggles 1993). To further minimize handling stress of juvenile American shad, fish will be measured at the end of the 48 h assessment period or at the time of mortality. Other fish will be measured at time of tagging. Mortalities will be examined at 24 and 48 h.

Adult fish typically receive more than two balloon tags to assure flotation for retrieval along with other adaptations for larger size. Adults may or may not be held for delayed assessment. If adults are released, the radio tag will not be removed and their status (alive/dead) will be ascertained by telemetric monitoring.

Classification of Recaptured Fish

As in numerous other investigations, recaptured fish will be classified as follows to estimate the short term (≤ 1 h) effects of passing through the turbine: (1) recapture alive denotes short-term (1 h) survival; (2) alive but not recovered, sighted swimming denotes live; (3) recaptured dead denotes immediate mortality; (4) tags only recaptured are classified as tag separation; (5) unrecovered fish with a transmitting radio tag is assigned a status based on movement pattern of the radio tag. Fish are assigned a status short-term mortality if the tag remains stationary, predation if movement patterns are typical of predator (i.e., rapid movements throughout tailrace, movement into areas of strong current, aerial signals from gulls); and (6) unknown – neither fish nor tag are recovered within 30 minutes after release and status can not be ascertained from the radio signal.

Data Analysis and Survival Estimation

Fish passage survival probabilities and associated standard errors for each experiment will be estimated using the likelihood models detailed in Mathur et al. (1996) and Normandeau Associates et al. (1996). Statistical outputs along with the disposition of individual fish will be provided in an appendix to the report.

Task 7-Assess Impingement Potential

Impingement potential will be addressed by examining the clear spacing of the bar racks, and comparing the clear spacing to target fish body widths. Relationships of proportional body width for a given fish

FERC No. 2355 3‐18 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT length are available in the published literature. Burst swim speeds of target fishes will also be described and compared to approach velocities in front of the racks where fish become vulnerable.

Task 8—Prepare Overall Entrainment/Impingement Assessment Report

The report will integrate all sources of information to estimate fish entrainment and impingement at the Muddy Run Project and associated levels of turbine mortality. The report will address the factors that influence susceptibility to and likelihood of entrainment for the target fishes by season, describe the literature-based estimates of entrainment survival for the target fishes, and present and discuss the results of the field-validation survival studies. Finally, the report will address any adverse impacts to target fish species as a result of entrainment and impingement.

3.3.8 Level of Effort and Cost (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(6))

Exelon believes that the proposed level of effort is adequate to accurately describe entrainment, impingement, and fish passage survival in the project area. The estimated cost for the desktop portion of the Muddy Run Entrainment/Impingement Study is approximately $20,000 to $25,000. The estimate for the field validation study using balloon tags is $175,000 to $200,000.

3.3.9 Study Reporting

In accordance with 18 CFR § 5.15(b), an Study Progress Report will be prepared and provided to participants. The progress report will describe overall progress in completing the study activities, summarize preliminary findings as available, and explain any variance from the study plan and schedule.

In accordance with 18 CFR § 5.15(c)(1), a Study Report will be prepared and provided to participants for review and comment at the conclusion of the first year of study prior to filing the report with the Initial Study Report.

3.3.10 Study Schedule (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(2) and (c))

In accordance with Exelon’s Process Plan and Schedule (18 CFR § 5.6(d)(1)), as provided in the PAD (Appendix D), and the FERC’s SD1, the Study will be completed according to the milestones below.

FERC No. 2355 3‐19 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Activity Deadline Submittal of Proposed Study Plan August 24, 2009 Hold Study Plan Meeting September 22-23, 2009 File Comments on Proposed Study Plan with FERC November 22, 2009 File Revised Study Plan with FERC (if necessary) December 22, 2009 Stakeholders File Reply Comments on Revised Study Plans with FERC January 6, 2010 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter January 21, 2010 Formal Study Dispute Resolution Process with FERC (if necessary) February 10, 2010 Conduct Study Spring 2010 – Fall 2010 File Progress Report Fall 2010 File Initial Study Report with FERC January 21, 2011 Hold Initial Study Report Meeting February 5, 2011 File Initial Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2011 Stakeholders file Study Disagreement and Requests to Modify Study Plans March 22, 2011 File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 21, 2011 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 21, 2011 Conduct Studies and Gather Information (Second Year, if necessary) Spring 2010 – Fall 2011 File Updated Study Report with FERC January 21, 2012 Hold Updated Study Report Meeting February 5, 2012 File Updated Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2012 Stakeholders File Study Disagreements and Request to Modify Study Plans March 21, 2012 Stakeholders File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 20, 2012 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 20, 2012

3.3.11 Literature Cited

EPRI. 1997. Turbine entrainment and survival database-field tests. Prepared by Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. EPRI Report No. TR-108630. 13 pp. (plus two 3.5” diskettes), Palo Alto, CA.

FERC. 1995. Preliminary assessment of fish entrainment at hydropower projects. Vol. 1, A report on studies and protective measures. Report prepared by Stone & Webster Environmental Technology and Services for Office of Hydropower Licensing. Paper No. DPR-10, Washington, DC.

Ferguson, J.W., G.R. Ploskey, K. Leonardsson, R.W. Zabel, and H. Lundqvist. 2008. Combining turbine blade-strike and life cycle models to assess mitigation strategies for fish passing dams. Can J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 65:1568-1585.

Franke, G. F., D. R. Webb, R. K. Fisher, Jr., D. Mathur, P. N. Hopping, P. A. March, M. R. Headrick, I. T. Laczo, Y. Ventikos, and F. Sotiropoulos. 1997. Development of environmentally advanced hydropower turbine system design concepts. Prepared for U.S. Dept. Energy, Idaho Operations Office Contract DE-AC07-94ID13223.

FERC No. 2355 3‐20 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Heisey, P. G., D. Mathur, and T. Rineer. 1992. A reliable tag-recapture technique for estimating turbine passage survival: application to young-of-the-year American shad (Alosa sapidissima). Can. Jour. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49:1826-1834.

Heisey, P.G., D. Mathur, J.L Fulmer, and E. Kotkas. 2008. Turbine passage survival of late-running adult American shad and its potential effect on population restoration. American Fisheries Society Symposium 61:141-152.

Heisey, P.G., Mathur, J.R. Skalski, R.D. McDonald, and G. Velazquez. 2008. Effects of spillway structural modifications on fish condition and survival. American Fisheries Society Symposium 61:141- 152.

Mathur, D., P. G. Heisey, and D. A. Robinson. 1994. Turbine-passage mortality of juvenile American shad in passage through a low-head hydroelectric dam. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 123: 108-111.

Mathur, D., P. G. Heisey, K. J. McGrath and T. R. Tatham. 1996. Survival of juvenile blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) via a turbine and spillway. Water. Res. Bull. 32: 155-161.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 1996. Estimation of survival and injuries of juvenile American shad in passage through a Francis turbine at the Vernon Hydroelectric Station, Connecticut River. Draft Report prepared for New England Power Co., Westborough, MA.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 1997. Passage survival and condition of juvenile American shad through the York Haven Hydroelectric Station, York Haven, PA. Prepared for GPU, Inc. York Haven, PA.

North/South Consultants, Inc. and Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2007. Survival and movement of fish experimentally passed through a re-runnered turbine at the Kelsey Generating Station, 2008. Report prepared for Manitoba Hydro, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

North/South Consultants, Inc. and Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2009. Fish movements and turbine passage at selected Manitoba hydro generating stations. 2005-2006 interim report prepared for Manitoba Hydro, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

RMC. 1994b. Turbine passage survival of juvenile American shad (Alosa sapidissima) at Conowingo Hydroelectric Station (FERC Project No. 405), Susquehanna River, Maryland. Report prepared for Susquehanna Electric Company, Darlington, MD.

Ruggles, C.P. 1993. Effect of stress on turbine fish passage mortality estimates. Pages 39-57 in V.P. Williams and 5 co-editors. Proc. Workshop on fish Passage at Hydroelectric Developments. St. Johns, Newfoundland, Canada.

FERC No. 2355 3‐21 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Skalski, J.R., D. Mathur, and P.G. Heisey. Effects of turbine operating efficiency in smolt passage survival. N. Am. Jour. Fish. Mgt. 22:1193-1200.

Von Raben, K. 1957. Regarding the problem of mutilations of fishes by hydraulic turbines. In German; English translation: Fish. Res. Bd. Can. Translation Series No. 448, 1964.

Winchell, F., S. Amaral, and D. Dixon. 2000. Hydroelectric turbines entrainment and survival database: an alternative to field studies. Hydro Vision Conference, Charlotte, NC.

FERC No. 2355 3‐22 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.4 Impacts of Muddy Run Project on Conowingo Pond Fishes

3.4.1 Study Request

In their study request letters PaDEP, PFBC, SRBC, and USFWS requested Exelon to characterize the scale and scope of impacts of the Muddy Run Project on fish populations in Conowingo Pond. Requested studies should include reproduction, age and growth, and condition of representative resident species, including channel catfish, walleye, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and white crappie.

The listed agencies also requested aquatic community data from a “riverine reference location (or locations)” to permit comparisons among respective reaches. Exelon does not plan to seek data from a riverine reference location for comparison to resident fish communities in Conowingo Pond, but will describe the condition of existing resident fish communities as requested.

3.4.2 Existing Information (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(3))

Abundant historical study results and reports are available to respond to this study request. Resident fishes in Conowingo Pond were the principal targets of pre-operational and post-operational investigations of the effects of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS) located at river mile (RM) 17. The studies for PBAPS examined most aspects of resident fish biology, including age and growth, condition, reproductive success, and food habits, as well as sport fishing yields. A series of 14 reports presents and discusses these data.

Sampling by many of the same gear types and at many of the same Conowingo Pond sampling stations was carried forward to inform Conowingo Dam relicensing studies during 1980-1986 after the technical specification requirements for biological sampling relative to PBAPS were satisfied. Additional sites near Muddy Run Project were sampled by electrofishing in 1986 during an investigation of the exotic blue tilapia throughout the lower 56 miles of the Susquehanna River. At a minimum, temporal and spatial relative abundance was determined by each of these investigations. Most of these data are available for this study in unpublished reports. The 1986 data for the tilapia study was submitted for agency review.

More recently, a 4-year study at many of the historical Conowingo Pond sampling stations was conducted relative to PBAPS during 1996-1999. Four gear types, including electrofishing, seine, trawl, and trap nets, sampled resident fishes during May-October. Temporal and spatial relative abundance and fish length data were obtained and summarized into four separate reports submitted for agency review.

Various other more specialized reports, such as an analysis for the PFBC of the recent white crappie population status in Conowingo Pond, passage at fishways at Conowingo and Holtwood, as well as several refereed publications, are also available as information sources.

FERC No. 2355 3‐23 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.4.3 Resource Management Goals (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(2))

The resource management goal identified is to restore and enhance resident fish communities within Conowingo Pond.

3.4.4 Purpose (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(1))

The goals and objectives of this study are to: 1) empirically determine if project operations at Muddy Run adversely impact resident fish reproduction, age and growth, and behavior in the Conowingo Pool, and, if so, 2) establish the magnitude of those impacts.

3.4.5 Project Nexus (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(4))

Muddy Run Project operations can create unnatural and variable flow conditions which may affect resident fish populations. Study results will indicate whether there are any adverse impacts to resident fish populations.

3.4.6 Investigation Area

The study area includes 14-mile long Conowingo Pond on the lower Susquehanna River.

3.4.7 Methodology (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(1), (d)(5)-(6))

Task 1-Literature Review and Data Compilation

Existing data in report format are substantial and would be used to examine resident fish abundance, and whether inter-annual trends in abundance suggest these species are impacted by Muddy Run or other factors. These reports and several refereed publications also contain accounts of resident fish biology, including fish condition, age and growth, fish size structure and reproductive success. These historical fisheries data collected in Conowingo Pond will be compiled, reviewed, and discussed. Resident fish catches will be compared across available years to examine trends in abundance and species composition. Biological data obtained during these studies will be used to describe fish length, weight, and age and size structure to examine fish condition and reproduction.

Task 2-Develop Study Report

FERC No. 2355 3‐24 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.4.8 Level of Effort and Cost (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(6))

Exelon believes the proposed level of effort that includes a review of existing unpublished data, published reports, and refereed publications that describe resident fishes and their biology in Conowingo Pond is adequate to describe the impacts of Muddy Run project operations on the resident fish community. The estimated cost for the Impacts of Project Operation to Resident Fish Populations in Conowingo Pond Study as outlined in this plan is approximately $25,000 to $30,000.

3.4.9 Study Reporting

3.4.10 Study Schedule (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(2) and (c))

Activity Deadline

FERC No. 2355 3‐25 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Activity Deadline

File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 21, 2011 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 21, 2011 Conduct Studies and Gather Information (Second Season, if necessary) Spring 2010 – Fall 2011 File Updated Study Report with FERC January 21, 2012 Hold Updated Study Report Meeting February 5, 2012 File Updated Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2012 Stakeholders File Study Disagreements and Request to Modify Study Plans March 21, 2012 Stakeholders File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 20, 2012 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 20, 2012

FERC No. 2355 3‐26 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.5 Nearfield Effects of the Muddy Run Project on Migratory Fishes

3.5.1 Study Request

In their study request letter, the FERC requested an entrainment and impingement study. One of the objectives included a study of the current velocity distribution near the racks. The velocity distribution study will be conducted as part of this study plan and the results reported in the Study Report.

In their study request letters, the USFWS, PFBC, PaDEP, and SRBC requested studies of the impact of Muddy Run operations on migratory fishes, particularly upstream migrating adult American shad. Specific study request items posed as questions include:

• Are velocities at and in proximity of the Muddy Run Project intake structure, when pumping, a barrier to movement? • Are velocities at and in proximity of the Muddy Run Project discharge structure, when generating, a barrier to movement? • Are there velocity barriers in the main river (downstream of outflow) resulting from generation flows from the Muddy Run Project alone or in combination with generation flows from Holtwood (existing and with new powerhouse)? • Do Muddy Run operations create undesirable attraction flows for migratory fish? • What is the potential and impact of unnatural eddies in mainstem associated with generation? • What are the structural details of the intake structure, and how do the structures affect fish behavior? This question is addressed by the study plan in Section 3.3, Entrainment and Impingement Study. • Mainstem in-stream local flow reversal associated with pumping operations and potential impacts on migrating fish (i.e., the river can flow upstream potentially confusing migratory fish keying in flow as a directional aid to upstream or downstream migration causing delay and additional “fish” energy expense). • What are the impacts of thermal anomalies of cycled water (from Peach Bottom or from Muddy Run Reservoir) on fish migration within Conowingo Pond? Aspects of fish migration relative to Peach Bottom are considered in a separate study plan (see Section 3.6). • What is the extent and impact of changes in turbidity and dissolved oxygen resulting from Muddy Run operations? Has there been any previous monitoring performed?

3.5.2 Existing Information (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(3))

FERC No. 2355 3‐27 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Lift at the next upstream dam was installed in 1997. Upstream migrating American shad upon exiting the Conowingo East Fish Lift encounter discharges of various power stations in Conowingo Pond. A primary concern has been the low number and proportion of American shad passing Holtwood to reach upstream spawning areas. Several radio telemetry studies were conducted on migrating shad in Conowingo Pond between 1987 and 2008 that can provide information on the potential effects of Muddy Run Project operations on migrating shad. Collectively, these reports provide the following metrics to be used to address the above listed issues:

• Proportion of radio tagged shad successfully moving to or past the Muddy Run Project from the release site; • Congregation and residency time near the Muddy Run Project; • Migration route; • Travel time from release site to past the Muddy Run Project; • Staging or potential spawning areas; and • Entrainment rate and times.

Although volitional passage of other migratory fishes such as river herring, hickory shad (rarely), striped bass, and American eel occurs, very few attain upper Conowingo Pond, as documented at the Holtwood Fish Lift and reported in the PAD. This study largely focuses on American shad that routinely attain areas near Holtwood and must pass the Muddy Run Project.

Some American shad migrating past the Muddy Run Project are at risk for entrainment into the upper Muddy Run Reservoir during pumping mode. Two site-specific radio telemetry studies were reviewed in the PAD that estimated the entrainment rate of adult American shad at the Muddy Run Project. In both studies, gastrically implanted radio-tagged shad were released at the Conowingo East Fish Lift to simulate the behavior of “naturally” migrating American shad.

Results from both studies were consistent. The entrainment rate in 2001 was estimated at 5.1% and in 2008 it was estimated at 3.6 %; most entrained fish were post-spawned. Entrainment occurred in June well after American shad had successfully passed upriver of the Muddy Run Project and at water temperatures beyond peak spawning temperature (> 68 F). The low entrainment rate, particularly of prespawned shad, was attributed to the deep intakes (approximately 65 ft depth) and the tendency of shad to travel in the upper water column; entrainment of the post-spawned shad may have been due to their weakened condition, perhaps increasing the vulnerability to entrainment.

Entrainment of juvenile shad into the Muddy Run Reservoir during fall outmigration was examined by a field study in 1988 and reported in the PAD. Fourteen juvenile shad were fitted with radio transmitters

FERC No. 2355 3‐28 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT and released near Deepwater Island above the Muddy Run Project. Tagged juveniles were released when the Muddy Run Project was pumping. Most juvenile shad passed the station without impedance. The study presumed (due to sudden signal loss) that two juvenile shad (14%) were entrained into Muddy Run Reservoir. The magnitude of entrainment of juvenile American shad is primarily dependent upon their emigration timing and abundance in October-November in the vicinity of the Muddy Run Project when it is in pumping mode.

American eel transport to upriver areas was initiated by USFWS in 2008. Eventually, outmigrating adults will pass downstream and encounter the Muddy Run Project. This study will also address the Muddy Run Project's potential effects on emigrating adults (silver eels).

3.5.3 Resource Management Goals (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(2))

The primary goal of the collective restoration effort is to establish, by 2025, a self-sustaining population of 2,000,000 American shad and 5,000,000 river herring upstream of York Haven, (the fourth dam), and provide 500,000 angling days annually throughout the basin for these species (Hendricks and St. Pierre 2002). Numerical goals for other species are not explicitly stated other than a general goal to protect, enhance, and restore other targeted species.

3.5.4 Purpose (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(1))

The specific objectives of the study for American shad and other migratory fishes are to utilize the existing information and new field data to:

• Delineate the effects of Muddy Run Project operations on upstream and downstream migration of migratory fishes, principally American shad, in Conowingo Pond, particularly in the vicinity of the Muddy Run Project and • Identify temporal and spatial availability of migration corridors (zones of passage).

3.5.5 Project Nexus (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(4))

Migrating American shad travel past the Muddy Run Project in its continued migration to reach upstream spawning areas. In the future, American eel may pass upstream or downstream past the Muddy Run Project to upriver rearing areas or spawning areas in the ocean, respectively.

3.5.6 Investigation Area

FERC No. 2355 3‐29 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT upstream at River Mile 24 (see Figure 3.6-1). Because of the proximity of various power plants in Conowingo Pond and usage of the impoundment by American shad and other fish species, the investigation area covers the entire 14 mile long impoundment but retains a primary focus on upper Conowingo Pond near the Muddy Run Project.

3.5.7 Methodology (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(1), (d)(5)-(6))

The primary approach to assess the effects of Muddy Run Project operations on migration of American shad and other diadromous fishes such as adult American eel in upper Conowingo Pond is to integrate existing information on the migration timing of adults and juveniles with (a) hydrological conditions; (b) Muddy Run Project operations; (c) hydraulic conditions as informed by field current velocity studies; and (d) available literature on migratory fish behavior. This approach would directly address above listed issues and determine the magnitude of these issues. As an example, adult American shad migrate through Conowingo Pond and pass the Muddy Run Project to reach upstream spawning areas in spring (primarily April and May) and use Conowingo Pond primarily as a transportation corridor. Likewise, juvenile American shad emigrate through Conowingo Pond to reach the ocean in the fall months (primarily October and November). Thus, the risk of exposure to Muddy Run Project operations would be expected at these times. Substantial information exists which will be used to assess the effects of Muddy Run Project operations on migratory behavior of American shad and other migratory fishes.

Task 1 – Assemble and review of existing data, reports, publications

All available data, reports, and publications will be reviewed for appropriateness and for inclusion. Much of this information is readily available in SRAFC annual reports, various biological studies of Conowingo Pond and Muddy Run Reservoir, and several radio telemetry studies.

Currently, we have identified the following sources of existing information and expected contents:

• Historical daily river flows and water temperatures at Holtwood Dam (supplied by PPL); these data would bracket the hydrological conditions at which American shad migrate and allow for calculation of joint probabilities of occurrence and their overlap with shad presence in Conowingo Pond; • Reports on annual American shad passage counts at Conowingo and Holtwood Fish Lifts; these counts provide run timing, peak migration, and proportion passed at various hydrological conditions, including those hydrological conditions which may make these devices inoperable; • Migration studies of radio tagged American shad in 1989, 2001 and 2008 that were conducted in Conowingo Pond to specifically assess the effects of PBAPS and Muddy Run Project discharges These studies provided data on drop back, Conowingo Pond usage, congregation areas, potential for

FERC No. 2355 3‐30 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

impedance or barriers to upstream migration, reactions to natural river flows and discharges, travel time, proportional passage past the Muddy Run Project, and entrainment rate estimates (2001 and 2008); • Literature-reported American shad behavior near pumped storage stations • Sampling for juvenile American shad at fixed locations at various power stations (e.g., PBAPS intake screens, Holtwood forebay, Conowingo cooling water strainers for migration timing, distribution, and origin (hatchery or wild).

Task 2 – Summarize Existing Information For American shad

Since the historical restoration focus has been on American shad, the existing data to be used in this assessment will be summarized to (a) identify and describe shad passage timing and characteristics near the Muddy Run Project, (b) presence – absence of zones of passage during pumping and metrics used (e.g., proportion migrated upstream of the Muddy Run Project, travel time from release site, known post- tagging drop back, etc.) to assess the effects of the Muddy Run Project; and (d) confounding effects of natural hydrological events on behavior of radio-tagged American shad. This task will further refine information obtained from the 2001 and 2008 radiotelemetry studies to the extent possible.

Task 3—Address Potential Effects of Higher Holtwood Flows and Muddy Run Project operations

The potential effects of additional east side flows and higher water velocities will be examined. As part of the Holtwood Hydroelectric Project License Amendment Application process, a CFD model was developed. The geographic area of the CFD model extended from the Holtwood Project tailrace downstream to a location approximately 1-mile downstream of the Muddy Project discharge tailrace (Alden Research Laboratory 2006), These modeling results will also be reviewed to gain insights on velocity and flow patterns near the Muddy Run Project, that may result after the proposed Holtwood Project expansion.

Task 4—Field Study of Velocity Distributions

Three-dimensional water velocity profiles will be measured with a vessel-mounted, 1-MHz Sontek acoustic Doppler current meter (ADCP) along transects covering two areas associated with water discharge and intake during operation of the Muddy Run Project. A small (<8 m), twin engine vessel equipped with a Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) capable of horizontal positioning accuracy within a few meters and a downward-looking ADCP will acquire georeferenced water velocity (direction and speed) in three dimensions (east, north, up) at pre-defined depth layers (bins) using Sontek CurrentSurveyor software (v4.60, Sontek/YSI Incorporated, San Diego, CA). Prior to each survey, the

FERC No. 2355 3‐31 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT internal compass will be calibrated following manufacturer recommended protocols. The vessel will collect averaged geo-referenced water velocity data over a pre-defined averaging interval (e.g., 15 s) to smooth the effect of ambient noise and natural variability. The vessel will follow pre-defined transects that provide suitable coverage of the areas of interest and will survey at low speeds (<2 knots) to provide sufficient spatial resolution for mapping water velocity vectors. For example, at 1 m/s (~1.9 knots), 1-m depth layers and a 15-s averaging interval, water velocities averaged over all depth layers and for each 1- m depth layer will be georeferenced to the mid point of each 15 m segment along the transect. Slower speeds and shorter averaging intervals can achieve finer spatial resolution, but short averaging intervals would not be recommended under conditions with larger fluctuations.

The study area includes the discharge area of the Muddy Run Project which may vary greatly depending on water flow and surface conditions and the intake canal . The discharge area of the Muddy Run Project refers to the area from Deep Water Island to just south of Sicily Island and west to navigable waters bounded by the Upper and Lower Bear Island in the Susquehanna River. The intake canal is within the lower part of the Muddy Run Reservoir. For a survey design, a combination of regularly-spaced, parallel transects and zig-zag transects are suggested to provide suitable coverage of the two areas of interest (Figure 3.5-1). Transect spacing within the discharge area would approximately be 100 m providing approximately 30 transects averaging 200-250 m in length which would be navigated by the vessel. In the intake canal, more accurate measurement can be achieved by pulling a small craft with an ADCP and DGPS from a line across the ~100-m channel or from a mid-channel anchored vessel to each shore for 12- 15 transects. All transects will be navigated using Hydropro navigation software which plots the vessel track in real time relative to the pre-planned transects. To evaluate short-term temporal variability, bottom conditions, positioning error, and vessel speed error, stationary sampling is suggested at stations in front of the Muddy Run Project discharge, near Deep Water Island, near Sicily Island, near the intakes, and near the entrance of the intake canal for a duration of one hour at each site (Figure 3.5-1).

The water velocity measurements are derived from subtracting the vessel velocity from the measured velocities. The primary method for measuring vessel velocity will be from bottom tracking which at 1 MHz can be down to water depths of 25-40 m (82-131 ft). Vessel velocity can also be achieved by DGPS positioning, which is preferred when the river or lake bottom is fluidized and moving. For the 1-MHz ADCP, velocity measurement range = ±10 m/s, resolution=0.001 m/s, accuracy = ±0.005 m/s/ or ±1% of measured velocity.

Final work products would include depth-averaged water velocity vector maps, georeferenced data, 3-D plots, and descriptive statistics of the data. Data will be analyzed in Sontek software and exported into ascii files. Post-processed data will be analyzed and plotted using Matlab, ArcMap, and SAS software.

FERC No. 2355 3‐32 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Study conditions that may affect the proposed plan and prices are weak GPS signals, excessively high flows, excessive bubble propagation, shallow water not navigable by vessel, and desired coverage. Depending on satellite coverage and desired spatial resolution, to achieve sub-meter horizontal and vertical resolution, a local GPS beacon would need to be set up at a referenced georeferenced station to provide real-time kinematic (RTK) positioning, which would increase costs. The proposed plan includes GPS with WAAS differential correction assuming adequate satellite coverage and vertical resolution would be nearest 1-m referenced to a local elevation assuming a gauge record is maintained during all surveys and water levels are generally stable during the course of the surveys.

Task 5—Evaluate Feasibility of PIT tag readers at the Muddy Run Project

The technical feasibility of using PIT tag readers to monitor entrainment of diadromous fish from Conowingo Pond will be investigated.

Task 6—Develop Study Report

A report describing and integrating the results of the desktop evaluations of the Muddy Run Project effects on upstream and downstream migrating fishes and the two field programs outlined above will be prepared.

3.5.8 Level of Effort and Cost (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(6))

Sufficient historical data and other existing information exist to prepare a literature-based report on the effects of the Muddy Run Project operations on the migrations of migratory fishes with emphasis on American shad. Available information on the potential for “false” attraction, unnatural flow fields, and a velocity barrier will be supplemented by results of the field velocity distribution studies focused in the discharge area. The potential interaction of the Muddy Run Project operations on migrating adult American eel can be assessed using existing information. The estimated cost for the desktop portion of the study plan outlined is between $20,000 and $25,000. The estimated cost for the velocity surveys as described is $30,000 to $35,000. Including RTK positioning would add an additional $10,000 to $15,000 to the study cost.

3.5.9 Study Reporting

FERC No. 2355 3‐33 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.5.10 Study Schedule (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(2) and (c))

Activity Deadline

Submittal of Proposed Study Plan August 24, 2009 Hold Study Plan Meeting September 22-23, 2009 File Comments on Proposed Study Plan with FERC November 22, 2009 File Revised Study Plan with FERC (if necessary) December 22, 2009 Stakeholders File Reply Comments on Revised Study Plans with FERC January 6, 2010 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter January 21, 2010 Formal Study Dispute Resolution Process with FERC (if necessary) February 10, 2010 Conduct Study Spring 2010 – Fall 2010 File Progress Report Fall 2010 File Initial Study Report with FERC January 21, 2011 Hold Initial Study Report Meeting February 5, 2011 File Initial Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2011 Stakeholders file Study Disagreement and Requests to Modify Study Plans March 22, 2011 File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 21, 2011 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 21, 2011 Conduct Studies and Gather Information (Second Year, if necessary) Spring 2011 – Fall 2011 File Updated Study Report with FERC January 21, 2012 Hold Updated Study Report Meeting February 5, 2012 File Updated Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2012 Stakeholders File Study Disagreements and Request to Modify Study Plans March 21, 2012 Stakeholders File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 20, 2012 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 20, 2012

3.5.11 Literature Cited

Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. 2006. DRAFT. 2-D Numerical Modeling of Existing Flow Patterns and Velocities in the Susquehanna River Downstream of the PPL Holtwood Hydroelectric Project.

FERC No. 2355 3‐34 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

FIGURE 3.5-1 PRELIMINARY SURVEY DESIGN FOR TRANSECTS WITH AN ACOUSTIC DOPPLER CURRENT PROFILER FOR COLLECTING 3D WATER VELOCITY MEASUREMENTS WITHIN THE DISCHARGE AND INTAKE AREA OF THE MUDDY RUN PROJECT

Circles Represent Suggested Stations for Stationary Measurements by an Anchored Vessel

FERC No. 2355 3‐35 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.6 Muddy Run Project Effects on Migratory Fishes: Interactions with the PBAPS Thermal Plume

3.6.1 Study Request

• What are the impacts of thermal anomalies of cycled water (from Peach Bottom or from Muddy Run Reservoir) on fish migration within Conowingo Pond? Aspects of fish migration relative to nearfield Muddy Run discharges are considered in a separate study plan (see Section 3.5).

This study plan focuses on upstream and downstream movements of migratory fishes through Conowingo Pond and their potential interactions with the Peach Bottom thermal plume.

3.6.2 Existing Information (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(3))

Volitional upstream passage of American shad and other migratory fishes is provided by the East Fish Lift at Conowingo Dam. The East Fish Lift was built and began operation in 1991 and the Holtwood Fish Lift at the next upstream dam was installed in 1997. Upstream migrating American shad upon exiting the Conowingo East Fish Lift encounter discharges of various power stations in Conowingo Pond. Several radio telemetry studies conducted on migrating shad in Conowingo Pond between 1987 and 2008 provide information on the potential effects of Muddy Run Project operations on migrating shad passing PBAPS. These studies provide the following data to address the above listed issue:

• Proportion of radio tagged shad successfully moving to or past PBAPS from the release site; • Congregation and residency times near PBAPS; • Migration route past PBAPS; • Travel time from release site to PBAPS and upstream areas.

Although volitional passage of other migratory fishes such as river herring, hickory shad (rarely), striped bass, and American eel occurs, few reach upper Conowingo Pond or its tributaries, as documented at the Holtwood Fish Lift and reported in the PAD. This study largely focuses on American shad and other species that routinely must pass or interact with the PBAPS thermal plume.

American eel transport to upriver areas was initiated by USFWS in 2008. Eventually, outmigrating adults (silver eels) will pass downstream and may encounter the PBAPS thermal plume. This study will also

FERC No. 2355 3‐36 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT address potential effects of thermal plume dispersion on immigrating juvenile eels if and when direct passage to Conowingo Pond is provided.

Occurrence of catadromous American eel above Conowingo Dam was reviewed in the PAD. American eel was stocked above Conowingo Dam as late as 1983 (SRAFRC 1984). Since 1997, comparatively few eels have passed into Conowingo Pond via the East Fish Lift, however, eels were commonly captured at the West Fish Lift, particularly in the 1970’s. Eels were also captured during historical fishery studies in Conowingo Pond. However, no eels were captured in Conowingo Pond during more recent fisheries studies between 1996 and 1999. The American eel population is extremely low at present and little information on migrational characteristics in Conowingo Pond exists.

Physical-hydraulic temperature models of PBAPS plume characteristics are available (e.g., Elder et al. 1973; Hamrick and Mills 2000; Palhegyi 2001). The model by Elder et al. (1973) provides behavior (e.g., lateral, vertical, and longitudinal dispersion) of the PBAPS thermal plume at several hydrological conditions as a function of Muddy Run Project pumping and generation activities.

3.6.3 Resource Management Goals (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(2))

3.6.4 Purpose (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(1))

The specific objectives of the study for American shad and other migratory and resident fishes are to determine: 1) the spatial and temporal migratory fish presence in Conowingo Pond to the timing, duration, and probability of coincidence of shifts in characteristics of PBAPS thermal plume attributable to Muddy Project operations; and 2) identify the temporal availability of migration corridors (zones of passage) for migratory fishes.

3.6.5 Project Nexus (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(4))

Migrating American shad travel past PBAPS in its continued migration to reach upstream spawning areas. In the future, American eel may also pass upstream or downstream past PBAPS to upriver rearing areas or spawning areas in the ocean, respectively. This study will evaluate whether and to what extent Muddy

FERC No. 2355 3‐37 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Run Project operations impede or curtail these migrations. The study will also describe the magnitude of thermal plume dispersal due to Muddy Run Project operations.

3.6.6 Investigation Area

The Muddy Run Project pumps water from Conowingo Pond, a 14 mile long impoundment formed by Conowingo Dam at River Mile 10. PBAPS (River Mile 17) is located on west shore of Conowingo Pond with the Muddy Run Project (River Mile 22) on the east shore and Holtwood Hydroelectric Project upstream at River Mile 24 (Figure 3.6-1). Because of the proximity of various power plants in Conowingo Pond and usage of the impoundment by American shad and other fish species, the investigation area covers the entire 14 mile long impoundment.

Pumping occurs during non-peak power times and generation occurs during peak power demand times. Both pumping and generation activities can influence the flow patterns in Conowingo Pond; at low river flows a shift in the PBAPS thermal plume may occur (Moyer and Raney 1969; Elder et al. 1973) The portion of Conowingo Pond near PBAPS will be a particular focus of this study.

3.6.7 Methodology (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(1), (d)(5)-(6))

The primary approach to assess the effects of Muddy Run Project operations on migration of American shad and other diadromous fishes in Conowingo Pond is to integrate existing information on the migration timing and occurrence of adults and juveniles near PBAPS with (a) hydrological conditions; (b) Muddy Run Project operations; (c) model predicted effects of Muddy Run Project operations on PBAPS thermal plume dispersion; (d) thermal gradients on fish behavior; and (e) thermal tolerances. This approach would directly address above listed issues and determine the magnitude of these issues. As an example, adult American shad migrate through Conowingo Pond to reach upstream spawning areas in spring (primarily April and May) and use Conowingo Pond primarily as a transportation corridor. Likewise, juvenile American shad emigrate through Conowingo Pond to reach the ocean in the fall months (primarily October and November). Thus, the risk of exposure to Muddy Run Project operations would be expected at these times.

Task 1 – Assemble and review of existing data, reports, publications

Substantial information exists which will be used to assess the effects of Muddy Run Project pumping operations on migratory behavior of American shad, and other migratory fishes. All available data, reports, and publications will be reviewed for appropriateness and for inclusion. Much of this information is readily available in SRAFRC annual reports, and radio telemetry studies.

FERC No. 2355 3‐38 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Task 2—Describe PBAPS Thermal Plume Behavior Relative to Muddy Run Project operations

Using existing model outputs (Elder et. al. 1973), thermal plume behavior as affected by river hydrology, PBAPS operations, and Muddy Run Project pumpback activities will be assessed for timing and coincidence of fish migration.

Task 3 – Summarize Existing Information For American shad migrating through Conowingo Pond

Since the historical restoration focus has been on American shad, the existing data to be used in this assessment will be summarized to (a) identify and describe shad passage timing and characteristics near PBAPS, (b) identify co-occurrence of hydrological conditions (river flow and water temperature) at which the PBAPS thermal plume shifts and the migration timing of American shad (passage counts); (c) presence – absence of zones of passage during pumping and metrics used (e.g., proportion migrated upstream of PBAPS towards the Muddy Run Project, travel time from release site, known post-tagging drop back, etc.) to assess the effects of thermal plume dispersal; and (d) effects of natural hydrological events on behavior of radio-tagged American shad.

Task 4- Summarize Existing Information for Other Migratory Fishes

Migration timing and behavior for American eel and river herring will be based either on literature or site specific data, within the context of thermal considerations for these species.

Task 5-Prepare Report

Existing data sources will be used to address the potential of the Muddy Run Project to affect PBAPS thermal plume behavior during pumping and any associated adverse effect on migratory fishes.

3.6.8 Level of Effort and Cost (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(6))

Sufficient historical data and other existing information exist to prepare a desktop report on the effects of: the interaction of Muddy Run Project operations and the PBAPS thermal plume. No field studies are proposed. The estimated cost for the study plan outlined is between $ 20,000 and $30,000.

3.6.9 Study Reporting

FERC No. 2355 3‐39 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.6.10 Study Schedule (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(2) and (c))

Activity Deadline

Submittal of Proposed Study Plan August 24, 2009 Hold Study Plan Meeting September 22-23, 2009 File Comments on Proposed Study Plan with FERC November 22, 2009 File Revised Study Plan with FERC (if necessary) December 22, 2009 Stakeholders File Reply Comments on Revised Study Plans with FERC January 6, 2010 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter January 21, 2010 Formal Study Dispute Resolution Process with FERC (if necessary) February 10, 2010 Conduct Study Spring 2010 – Fall 2010 File Progress Report Fall 2010 File Initial Study Report with FERC January 21, 2011 Hold Initial Study Report Meeting February 5, 2011 File Initial Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2011 Stakeholders file Study Disagreement and Requests to Modify Study March 22, 2011 Plans File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 21, 2011 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 21, 2011 Conduct Studies and Gather Information (Second Year, if necessary) Spring 2010 – Fall 2011 File Updated Study Report with FERC January 21, 2012 Hold Updated Study Report Meeting February 5, 2012 File Updated Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2012 Stakeholders File Study Disagreements and Request to Modify Study March 21, 2012 Plans Stakeholders File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 20, 2012 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 20, 2012

FERC No. 2355 3‐40 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.6.11 Literature Cited

Elder, R.A., F.H. Bend, A.R. Bird, and M.F. Al-Kazily (Bechtel Corporation). 1973. Predicted prototype temperature distributions in Conowingo Pond. Summary Report. Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 model study. Prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, Philadelphia, PA.

Hamrick, J.M., and W.B. Mills. 2000. Analysis of water temperatures in Conowingo Pond as influenced by the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Plant thermal discharge. Env. Sci. Policy 3: 197-209.

Hendricks, M. L., and R. A. St. Pierre. 2002. Alosid management and restoration plan for the Susquehanna River Basin. Report prepared for Susquehanna River Anadromous Restoration Cooperative, Harrisburg, PA. In J.E. Cooper, R. T. Eades, R. J. Klauda, and J. G. Loesch (editors). Proc. Symp. 7th Ann. Meeting, Tidewater Chapter, Amer. Fish Soc., Bethesda, MD.

Moyer, S., and E.C. Raney. 1969. Thermal discharges from large nuclear plant. Jour. Sanitary Engg. 95: 1131-1163.

Palhegyi, G.E. 2001. A scaled hydraulic model of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station discharge. Jour. Amer. Water. Resour. Assoc. 37: 35-46.

SRAFRC. 1984. Restoration of American shad to the Susquehanna River. Annual Progress Report,

1983. Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Committee.

FERC No. 2355 3‐41 August 24, 2009

BERKS DAUPHINLEBANON County County County

CUMBERLAND County LANCASTER County CHESTER County YORK ADAMS County County

CARROLL HARFORD CECIL County County County BALTIMORE County

Index Map

Holtwood Dam LANCASTER County

Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project

Fishing Creek

Muddy Creek Conowingo Pool

Peters Creek YORK County

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station

Legend PENNSYLVANIA HARFORD CECIL Project Boundary County County MARYLAND State Boundary

County Boundary Aerial imagery provided by Microsoft Virtual Earth

EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC PROPOSED STUDY PLAN Figure 3.6-1 MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT Study Location Map FERC PROJECT NO. 2355 1 inch = 1.5 miles 01.530.75 Miles Copyright © 2009 Exelon Generation Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

X:\GISMaps\project_maps\study_plan\muddy_run\figure 3.6-1.mxd 8/21/2009 9:42:26 AM PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.7 Transmission Line Avian Interaction Study

3.7.1 Study Request

FERC has requested that Exelon conduct a study to determine if the project transmission lines (Lines 220- 06 and 220-07 from Muddy Run Powerhouse to PBAPS) pose a threat of electrocution and collision to large birds, such as raptors.

3.7.2 Existing Information (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(3))

Lands surrounding Muddy Run Reservoir and the Susquehanna River crossing of Project transmission lines support a diverse avian community comprised of species with a variety of habitat requirements (Cohen 2004). While comprehensive surveys have not been conducted for the Muddy Run Project, avian species using Project lands are expected to be similar to the species identified in surveys conducted in support of the Holtwood Hydroelectric Project License Amendment proceeding. Table 4.5.2-1 of the Muddy Run PAD identifies migratory and resident bird species potentially traversing Project lands. This list includes raptor, corvid and owl species, which are commonly known to have interactions with transmission lines, as well as other non-passerine and passerine species, particularly those with larger wing-spans, that may also be at risk for collision or electrocution.

Two 220 kV three-phase transmission lines with three-wire circuits begin at a 220-kV switching station located on the roof of the Muddy Run Powerhouse and run approximately 4.25 miles to the PBAPS North Substation located in York County. The lines, owned by Exelon, but leased to PECO Energy Company, an affiliate of Exelon, are identified as Line 220-06 and 220-07. Each line is a 230kV nominal phase-to- phase voltage and a normal and emergency rating of 598,000 kVA. Both lines exist in a common right- of-way of 300 feet, with some variations at the Susquehanna River crossing.

The Muddy Run Powerhouse is constructed at the base of the steep rocky shoreline of the Susquehanna River between the Norfolk Southern rail and the water’s edge. In the river, wires are attached to towers located on Turkey Island (1 tower), a small unnamed island immediately downstream (1 tower), and Lower Bear Island (6 towers). The Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) identified a Bald eagle nest on Lower Bear Island, two nests on Upper Bear Island, and several nests on or in the vicinity of Piney Island (letter dated June 5, 2008).

The literature indicates that potential impacts of transmission lines with birds is not limited to raptors, corvids and owls (APLIC 2006). Larger birds, such as eagles and crows, are more likely to collide or be electrocuted by transmission lines due to their size and longer wing spans. Smaller birds, species that live in forests, and species that perch or nest on the ground are less likely to be at risk from interactions with

FERC No. 2355 3‐43 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT transmission lines (Devine Tarbell and Associates 2008). Besides size of bird, there are a number of other factors that are important in assessing the potential for avian interaction with power lines. These factors include the physical features of wires and towers and their position in the landscape, as well as the characteristics of the avian community.

3.7.3 Resource Management Goals (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(2))

Protection of avian wildlife.

3.7.4 Purpose (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(1))

The purposes of this study are: 1) collect data that describe avian use of Project transmission lines and structures, and 2) determine if protection measures are needed to reduce electrocutions and collisions of large birds.

3.7.5 Project Nexus (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(4))

Project transmission lines and structures may be sites of collision and electrocution to birds.

3.7.6 Investigation Area

The study area consists of the transmission line corridor associated with Line 220-06 and 220-07.

3.7.7 Methodology (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(1), (d)(5)-(6))

The scope of this study will be limited to raptors, corvids, and owls. An evaluation should consider habitat, topography, avian nesting territories, avian use of towers/poles, tower/pole configuration, and avian electrocutions (APLIC 2006). These types of data will be used to determine if there are certain species at risk and to prioritize higher risk areas that may require protective measures to reduce collisions and/or electrocutions.

Task 1: Gather Avian Use Data

Detailed use data will be collected during surveys from pre-determined locations that will be established during a reconnaissance-level field effort prior to the start of the surveying activity. Surveys will be conducted on foot, or by boat if necessary, to view use associated with the lines crossing the Susquehanna River and running to PBAPS.

Data that will be collected includes, but is not limited to, bird species, breeding status if nest is present (nest building, incubation, fledging, etc.), location of nest (tower number and position on tower), bird activity (nesting, perching, foraging, etc. and position on tower), number of individuals, description of

FERC No. 2355 3‐44 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT habitat/topography and any other relevant information. To assess if electrocution or collision has occurred, the ground beneath towers and portions of the lines will be searched to look for carcasses. Information that will be collected include species, tower number or other location information, ankle band number and cause of death if apparent. A collector’s permit will be necessary if carcasses are to be salvaged. All use activity will be observed through binoculars and/or spotting scopes. Data will be documented on datasheets and nests will be marked on maps.

A reconnaissance-level survey will be conducted prior to leaf-out to identify survey locations. This survey will also be used to identify and map existing raptor nests on transmission line structures along the Project transmission line corridor. Use surveys will be conducted bi-monthly between April and September for a total of 12 surveys. This period of time overlaps with spring and fall migration of many bird species and captures the time when osprey are known to be in the Project area.

Task 2: Impact Assessment

Data will be reviewed to determine if there are areas of preferred use by birds. Areas of high use (nest is present, common resting area, etc.) will be identified and assessed for potentially adverse impacts with the transmission line. If available, data from the Muddy Run Project attributing power outages to avian interactions with lines will be obtained and reviewed. The impact assessment will evaluate if measures are necessary to address any identified adverse impacts to bird species of concern.

Task 3: Develop Study Report

3.7.8 Level of Effort and Cost (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(6))

Exelon believes that the proposed level of effort is adequate to analyze this issue within the study area. The estimated cost for the study outlined in this plan is approximately $20,000-$30,000.

3.7.9 Study Reporting

FERC No. 2355 3‐45 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.7.10 Study Schedule (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(2) and (c))

Activity Deadline Submittal of proposed study plan August 24, 2009 Hold Study Plan Meeting September 22 & 23, 2009 File Comments on Proposed Study Plan with FERC November 22, 2009 File Revised Study Plan with FERC (if necessary) December 22, 2009 Stakeholders File Reply Comments on Revised Study Plans with FERC January 6, 2010 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter January 21, 2010 Formal Study Dispute Resolution Process with FERC (if necessary) February 10, 2010 Conduct Study April-September 2010 File Progress Report Fall 2010 File Initial Study Report with FERC January 21, 2011 Hold Initial Study Report Meeting February 5, 2011 File Initial Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2011 Stakeholders file Study Disagreement and Requests to Modify Study Plans March 22, 2011 File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 21, 2011 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 21, 2011 Conduct Studies and Gather Information (Second Season, if necessary) April-September 2011 File Updated Study Report with FERC January 21, 2012 Hold Updated Study Report Meeting February 5, 2012 File Updated Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2012 Stakeholders File Study Disagreements and Request to Modify Study Plans March 21, 2012 Stakeholders File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 20, 2012 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 20, 2012

3.7.11 Literature Cited

Avian Powerline Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. Pier Final Project Report CEC-500-2006-002. 227 pp. Source: http://www.aplic.org/SuggestedPractices2006(LR-2watermark).pdf

FERC No. 2355 3‐46 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Cohen, M. 2004. Phase I Conservation Plan. Pennsylvania Important Bird Area #57 – Lower Susquehanna River Gorge. May 2004. 11p. URL: http://pa.audubon.org/IBA_Consplans/IBA57.pdf

Devine Tarbell and Associates. 2008. Avian Protection Plan for Energy Northwest’s Packwood Hydroelectric Project. FERC Project Number 2244. 15 pp.

FERC No. 2355 3‐47 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.8 Study to Identify Critical Habitat Use Areas for Bald Eagle

3.8.1 Study Request

In their study request letter, USFWS requested Exelon conduct a study to determine the level and pattern of use of foraging and roosting habitat by migrant and nesting eagles within the Project area. Key components would be to document nest occupancy, communal roosts, and potential high risk areas to minimize threats from operations or construction.

3.8.2 Existing Information (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(3))

The U.S. Army Garrison, Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) and its environmental contractor, the Center for Biological Diversity, College of William and Mary, has been monitoring eagle dispersal patterns at and from their facility using GPS satellite telemetry. The APG installation is located several miles downstream of the Conowingo Pool and Dam area. The study was initiated in late 2007- early 2008. In May 2009, final deployment of transmitters on nestlings was completed for a total of 64 GPS tracking units. Approximately 40 units were attached to migrants and 20 were attached to nestlings. The study has shown that nesting and migrant eagles travel between APG and the Conowingo Pond area on a regular basis.

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus - state threatened; federally protected) has been identified as present within the project area. According to Cohen (2004), the bald eagle uses the Muddy Run “lake” for feeding. The Muddy Run Powerhouse is constructed at the base of the steep rocky shoreline of the Susquehanna River between the Norfolk Southern rail and the water’s edge. In the river, wires are attached to towers located on Turkey Island (1 tower), a small unnamed island immediately downstream (1 tower), and Lower Bear Island (6 towers). The Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) identified a Bald eagle nest on Lower Bear Island, as well as additional nests in the vicinity (letter dated June 5, 2008).

Eagles from the APG study have also been documenting using the Muddy Run Reservoir area.

3.8.3 Resource Management Goals (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(2))

The area around the Muddy Run Project is a strategic area for sustaining three populations of eagles along the Atlantic Flyway. The bald eagle was recently removed from the Endangered Species Act in 2007; however the species continues to receive federal protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The study results will also assist Exelon with the development of a bald eagle management plan for its facilities.

FERC No. 2355 3‐48 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.8.4 Purpose (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(1))

The purpose of this study is to determine the abundance levels of bald eagles, specific locations of foraging, roosting, and nesting habitat, and daily/seasonal patterns of use by migrant and nesting bald eagles within the Muddy Run Project area. The data will be used to inform the ultimate FERC NEPA document as well as support development of Exelon’s bald eagle and shoreline management plans.

3.8.5 Project Nexus (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(4))

The bald eagle has been identified as present within the project area. .

Areas of the Muddy Run Project are used by bald eagles for communal foraging and roosting congregations. The Muddy Project provides bald eagles with ready access to a large, easily obtainable fishery resource for predation.

3.8.6 Investigation Area

The study area includes the 2,790 acres within the Project boundary associated with the Muddy Run Project, which includes two impoundments and associated wetlands and other terrestrial habitats.

3.8.7 Methodology (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(1), (d)(5)-(6))

Task 1- Literature/Existing Study Report Review

The initial task of the study would be to review and consolidate information regarding bald eagle use of the Project areas from existing studies. In particular, data from the APG telemetry study and any interim or final reports will be requested of the USFWS in order to evaluate and further refine the study focus and needs for Exelon. It is anticipated that the existing data will help serve to pinpoint the best locations for field surveys to be conducted, as well as provide useful information as to usage patterns in and of itself.

Task 2- Visual Field Surveys

Survey methods would include field reconnaissance on the ground and, where appropriate, via boat in order to identify several appropriate locations for conducting visual surveys. Field reconnaissance would commence in the winter (i.e. late January through early March) prior to leaf out in order to search for prior-year nests that may be visible and also watch for nest-building behavior by bald eagles. Surveys would include the use of spotting scopes and binoculars from established locations in order to search suitable habitats for eagles and make observations of eagle behaviors in identified feeding, roosting, and nesting areas.

FERC No. 2355 3‐49 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Surveys would be conducted 3 times per week, 3 weeks per month, for a period of 6 months (January through July), over the course of two field seasons. Surveys would be conducted early in the morning (just after dawn) and during dusk to observe eagles during their most active parts of the day. This period would encompass leaf-out time to look for nests, observations of nest-building behavior during late winter/early spring, through fledging of eaglets in the summer. GPS would be used to document the locations of any nests or significant roost locations.

Task 3- Survey Report

Task 3 would include preparation of an interim study report at the conclusion of the first field season, and a final study report at the completion of the second field season. The reports would include a discussion of survey methodology, habitat assessment and visual survey results, survey activity logs, charts of bald eagle daily and seasonal activity levels, maps depicting roost, nest, and feeding locations, and appropriate photographs. The final report will be distributed to interested stakeholders for review and comment. Appropriate comments will be incorporated into the report and then submitted to the FERC as an Initial Study Report.

3.8.8 Level of Effort and Cost (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(6))

Exelon believes that the proposed level of effort is adequate to analyze this issue within the study area. The estimated cost for the study outlined in this plan is approximately $60,000.

3.8.9 Study Reporting

3.8.10 Study Schedule (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(2) and (c))

FERC No. 2355 3‐50 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Activity Deadline

Submittal of Proposed Study Plan August 24, 2009 Hold Study Plan Meeting September 22-23, 2009 File Comments on Proposed Study Plan with FERC November 22, 2009 File Revised Study Plan with FERC (if necessary) December 22, 2009 Stakeholders File Reply Comments on Revised Study Plans with FERC January 6, 2010 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter January 21, 2010 Formal Study Dispute Resolution Process with FERC (if necessary) February 10, 2010 Conduct Study January-July 2010 File Progress Report Fall 2010 File Initial Study Report with FERC January 21, 2011 Hold Initial Study Report Meeting February 5, 2011 File Initial Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2011 Stakeholders file Study Disagreement and Requests to Modify Study Plans March 22, 2011 File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 21, 2011 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 21, 2011 Conduct Studies and Gather Information (Second Season) January-July 2011 File Updated Study Report with FERC January 21, 2012 Hold Updated Study Report Meeting February 5, 2012 File Updated Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2012 Stakeholders File Study Disagreements and Request to Modify Study Plans March 21, 2012 Stakeholders File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 20, 2012 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 20, 2012

3.8.11 Literature Cited

Cohen, M. 2004. Phase I Conservation Plan. Pennsylvania Important Bird Area #57 – Lower Susquehanna River Gorge. May 2004. 11p. URL: http://pa.audubon.org/IBA_Consplans/IBA57.pdf

FERC No. 2355 3‐51 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.9 Study to Identify Potential Habitat and Presence/Absence of Bog Turtle and Rough Green Snake

3.9.1 Study Request

In their study request letter, PFBC requested Exelon conduct a study to determine the presence or absence of the Pennsylvania Endangered and federally Threatened bog turtle and the Pennsylvania Endangered rough green snake. The study was to follow the accepted search protocols for these species as determined by the PFBC Natural Diversity Section and the USFWS Pennsylvania Ecological Services State College (PA) Field Office.

3.9.2 Existing Information (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(3))

Bog Turtle

The bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) is native to the eastern United States and ranges from Georgia to the lower New England states. This turtle species has a discontinuous distribution with a 250-mile separation between distinct northern and southern populations. The northern population extends from Maryland and Delaware, through Pennsylvania, up into New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. In Pennsylvania, extant populations of bog turtle are known from 13 counties (Adams, Berks, Bucks, Chester, Cumberland, Delaware, Lancaster, Lebanon, Lehigh, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, and York) located primarily in the southeastern quadrant of the Commonwealth (USFWS 2001). Bog turtle populations are also known to occur within 5 miles of the Conowingo Dam in adjoining Harford County, Maryland (Morrow et al, 2001). Bog turtles inhabit very distinct types of wetland habitats that include spring-fed hydrology and mucky soils.

Rough Green Snake

The rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus) is one of two green snakes found in Pennsylvania. Unlike the more widely-distributed smooth green snake (Liochlorphis vernalis), this species has keeled upper body scales and reaches a maximum size of almost 46 inches in length, as compared to 26 inches for the smooth green snake. The tail is long and tapered relative to the rest of the body.

These snakes prefer moist habitats such as wet meadows and the borders of lakes, marshes, and woodland streams. The rough green snake is an arboreal species and is frequently found in woody vegetation growing along or overhanging water. This species is recorded in Pennsylvania only from southern Chester County and Greene County (PNHP 2007).

FERC No. 2355 3‐52 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.9.3 Resource Management Goals (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(2))

The resource management goals are to identify and protect locations of endangered and threatened species to ensure compliance with state and federal laws and regulations. If species and habitat are present take steps to ensure conservation.

3.9.4 Purpose (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(1))

The purpose of this study is to search all potential habitats and determine if these species exist on project lands. The PAD stated that the PFBC and USFWS provided letters indicating that the project lands or nearby areas were within the range of these two rare species. Specifically, in a letter dated August 18, 2006 (SIR #23416), the PFBC indicated that potential bog turtle and rough green snake habitat may be located within the Muddy Run Project area, but that if no construction was proposed within the project area, adverse impacts to these species were not anticipated. If any construction or earth moving activities are proposed for the site, then further consultation with PFBC would be necessary. The request by the PFBC for this additional study effort is part of that further consultation. In letters dated July 27, 2006 and August 22, 2006, the USFWS recommended identifying all wetlands within 300’ of the proposed project area, and conducting a Phase I Habitat Survey for bog turtles pursuant to its published guidelines.

3.9.5 Project Nexus (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(4))

The bog turtle and rough green snake may be located on project lands.

3.9.6 Investigation Area

The Muddy Run Project lands include 2,790 land acres plus two impoundments and associated wetlands and other terrestrial habitats.

3.9.7 Methodology (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(1), (d)(5)-(6))

Bog Turtle

Task 1- Habitat Assessments

Surveys for bog turtle will follow the guidelines established by the USFWS in its “Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii)- Northern Population Recovery Plan” (USFWS 2001), which have been adopted by PFBC as its standard protocol. Specifically, a recognized, qualified bog turtle survey will conduct habitat assessments of all wetlands identified within the project area (and within 300 feet of project affected area) pursuant to protocol for “Phase I Bog Turtle Habitat Surveys”.

Task 2- Presence/Absence Surveys

FERC No. 2355 3‐53 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Any areas identified as potential bog turtle habitat as part of the Phase I survey will be subject to “Phase II Bog Turtle Presence/Absence Surveys”. Phase II presence/absence surveys can only be conducted between April 15 and June 15 of a given year. The possibility of Phase III (trapping) surveys being necessary also exists and is dependent upon quality and size of identified potential habitats. For any surveys that may require handling bog turtles (i.e. Phase II or Phase III), the bog turtle surveyor will obtain a Scientific Collection Permit and a Chapter 75.4 Special Permit for Collection of Threatened and Endangered Species handling permit from the PFBC prior to commencing field surveys.

Task 3- Survey Report

A report documenting the results of the Phase I and Phase II (as applicable) survey efforts for bog turtle will be prepared. The report will be distributed to interested stakeholders for review and comment. Appropriate comments will be incorporated into the report and then submitted to the FERC as an Initial Study Report.

Rough Green Snake

Task 1- Habitat Assessments

Surveys to identify potential rough green snake habitat will be conducted within the project area by a herpetologist with experience conducting surveys for snakes with assistance from wetland biologists who can help pinpoint the areas such as such as wet meadows and the borders of lakes, marshes, and woodland streams.

Task 2- Presence/Absence Surveys

Surveys to determine the presence/absence for rough green snake will be conducted by a herpetologist with experience conducting surveys for snakes. The PFBC Natural Diversity Section will be contacted for any species-specific survey guidance related to this species prior to commencing field surveys in order to refine the survey methodology. It is likely that trapping surveys (including such standard herpetological capture methods such as coverboards and drift fence/funnel trap arrays) will be necessary in identified potential habitats. The herpetologist will obtain a Scientific Collection Permit and a Chapter 75.4 Special Permit for Collection of Threatened and Endangered Species handling permit from the PFBC prior to commencing field surveys.

Task 3- Survey Report

Study results will be summarized in a report that will include the study methodology, results, and conclusions. The report will be distributed to interested stakeholders for review and comment.

FERC No. 2355 3‐54 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Appropriate comments will be incorporated into the report and then submitted to the FERC as an Initial Study Report.

3.9.8 Level of Effort and Cost (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(6))

Exelon believes that the proposed level of effort is adequate to analyze this issue within the study area. The estimated cost for the study outlined in this plan is approximately $40,000-$50,000.

3.9.9 Study Reporting

3.9.10 Study Schedule (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(2) and (c))

Specifically, with respect to field studies for these reptiles of concern, bog turtle surveys will be completed between April and June of a given field season, and green snake surveys will be completed between June and September of a given field season.

FERC No. 2355 3‐55 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Activity Deadline Hold Initial Study Report Meeting February 5, 2011 File Initial Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2011 Stakeholders file Study Disagreement and Requests to Modify Study Plans March 22, 2011 File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 21, 2011 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 21, 2011 Conduct Studies and Gather Information (Second Season, if necessary) April-September 2011 File Updated Study Report with FERC January 21, 2012 Hold Updated Study Report Meeting February 5, 2012 File Updated Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2012 Stakeholders File Study Disagreements and Request to Modify Study Plans March 21, 2012 Stakeholders File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 20, 2012 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 20, 2012

3.9.11 Literature Cited

Morrow, J.L., Howard, J.H., Smith, S.A., and Poppel, D.K. 2001. “Home Range and Movements of the Bog Turtle in Maryland.” Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 68-73.

Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program (PNHP), 2007. Fact Sheet- Rough Green Snake (Opheodrys aestivus). Adapted from: Felbaum, Mitchell, et al. Endangered and Threatened Species of Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA: Wild Resource Conservation Fund, 1995.

USFWS, 2001. Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), Northern Population, Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 103 pp.

FERC No. 2355 3‐56 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.10 Creel Survey of Muddy Run Recreation Lake

3.10.1 Study Request

In their study request letters, PaDEP, PFBC, and SRBC requested Exelon to study recreational opportunities at the Muddy Run Project, to include Muddy Run Park and Conowingo Pond. Methods requested included a creel survey. This study plan is specific to a creel survey of the Muddy Run Recreation Lake in the Park. A creel survey of Conowingo Pond is included in the PSP for the Conowingo Project.

3.10.2 Existing Information (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(3))

Recreational angling in the Muddy Run Recreation Lake was briefly described in the PAD. Initial catch surveys occurred shortly after impoundment, and documented the return to anglers of stocked trout and northern pike. More recently, creel surveys of the Muddy Run Recreation Lake fishery were conducted in April-October 1985 and June-October 1987. The survey data demonstrated the popularity and angler success attributable to the brook trout stocking program (1985) as well as the focus by numerous anglers on the largemouth bass and crappie populations (1985 and 1987).

Although brook trout are no longer stocked, catchable rainbow trout are now stocked by the PFBC twice per season, typically in February and October. Additional stocking of non-salmonids over the years included walleye and, most recently, channel catfish.

The reports from the surveys cited above will be reviewed to provide background on the historical sport fisheries in Muddy Run Recreation Lake. These surveys also used methods that remain appropriate to develop current sport fishing use and harvest estimates.

3.10.3 Resource Management Goals (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(2))

The resource management goal identified is to enhance recreational opportunities associated with the presence and operation of the Muddy Run Project.

3.10.4 Purpose (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(1))

The purposes of the sport fishing survey will be to describe angler activity and harvest relative to previous surveys, and to examine whether there are opportunities for improvement.

3.10.5 Project Nexus (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(4))

The Project created habitat for resident fish and opportunities for recreational fishing. Recreational access and opportunity may be gauged by examining fishing pressure and the yield to recreational anglers.

FERC No. 2355 3‐57 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.10.6 Investigation Area

The survey area will encompass the 100-acre Muddy Run Recreation Lake.

3.10.7 Methodology (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(1), (d)(5)-(6))

Task 1—Review historical survey reports and methods and develop the study design, schedule, and survey instruments

The survey will use roving count and interview methods consistent with previous surveys. Survey strata will include monthly or seasonal strata, weekend/weekday strata, and AM/PM strata. Weekdays associated with holiday weekends (e.g., Memorial Day, Labor Day) will be included with weekend strata. The survey time frame will extend from April through October.

Task 2—Conduct the field study

Muddy Run Recreation Lake recreational fishing will be surveyed by counting and interviewing anglers during roving boat surveys of the lake perimeter. Roving methods will acquire mostly incomplete trip data for boat and shore anglers. Angler catch and harvest, trip length, species preferences, and county of residence will be determined. Lengths of harvested fish will be obtained opportunistically and with angler permission.

Task 3—Prepare Study Report

The report will describe the survey design and the methods used for the survey. Data reported will include: Monthly/seasonal and total angler use, total angler catch and harvest and that for individual species, harvested fish lengths, angler characteristics such as residency, and target fish preferences. Catch and angler information will be compared to historical surveys.

3.10.8 Level of Effort and Cost (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(6))

The field survey will begin in April and extend through October. This level of effort will satisfactorily describe the Muddy Run Recreation Lake sport fishery. Exelon estimates the creel survey cost will be approximately $40,000 to $45,000.

3.10.9 Study Reporting

FERC No. 2355 3‐58 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.10.10 Study Schedule (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(2) and (c))

Activity Deadline

Submittal of Proposed Study Plan August 24, 2009 Hold Study Plan Meeting September 22-23, 2009 File Comments on Proposed Study Plan with FERC November 22, 2009 File Revised Study Plan with FERC (if necessary) December 22, 2009 Stakeholders File Reply Comments on Revised Study Plans with FERC January 6, 2010 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter January 21, 2010 Formal Study Dispute Resolution Process with FERC (if necessary) February 10, 2010 Conduct Study Spring 2010 – Fall 2010 File Progress Report Fall 2010 File Initial Study Report with FERC January 21, 2011 Hold Initial Study Report Meeting February 5, 2011 File Initial Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2011 Stakeholders file Study Disagreement and Requests to Modify Study Plans March 22, 2011 File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 21, 2011 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 21, 2011 Conduct Studies and Gather Information (Second Season, if necessary) Spring 2011 – Fall 2011 File Updated Study Report with FERC January 21, 2012 Hold Updated Study Report Meeting February 5, 2012 File Updated Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2012 Stakeholders File Study Disagreements and Request to Modify Study March 21, 2012 Plans Stakeholders File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 20, 2012 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 20, 2012

FERC No. 2355 3‐59 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.11 Recreational Inventory and Needs Assessment

3.11.1 Study Request

In their study request letters, PaDEP, PFBC, and SRBC requested Exelon conduct a study of recreational opportunities at the Muddy Run Project, and use the study results to determine if changes or improvements can be made to enhance recreational opportunities.

Exelon proposes to address the following study objectives related to recreational resources in this study plan for the Muddy Run Project.

• Describe existing recreation facilities associated with the project. • Discuss the availability and use of recreation facilities and how that has been affected by national security requirements. • Assess public safety and recreation with respect to blocked and impeded access and fluctuating water levels. • Estimate existing and potential recreational use of the projects area. • Determine the need for additional public recreational facilities. • Describe existing measures or facilities to be continued or maintained and the new measures or facilities proposed. • Determine the cost associated with rehabilitation and development of the evaluated facilities. • Identify entities responsible for implementing, constructing, operating, or maintaining any existing or proposed measures or facilities. • Determine how the project can be integrated with existing or proposed regional recreation plans.

3.11.2 Existing Information (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(3))

The Muddy Run Project is within a two-hour drive of the metropolitan areas of Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington D.C. and Newark, Delaware allowing for important close-by recreational opportunities for a significant population. There are several areas of protected and recreational open space, including state parks, wildlife management areas, and protected/conserved lands located within the Project vicinity (see Section 4.8 of the PAD). At many of these areas, visitors can enjoy camping, hiking, fishing, boating, hunting, picnicking, and bird watching. Areas of protected and recreational open space located closest to the Muddy Project include the following: 1) Susquehannock State Park; 2) Holtwood Environmental Preserve; 3) Muddy Run Wildlife Management Area; and 4) Kelly’s Run Pinnacle Trail.

The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PaDCNR) is responsible for developing a State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) every five (5) years. The SCORP

FERC No. 2355 3‐60 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT is a planning document that assesses both the demand for, and the supply of, outdoor recreational facilities on a statewide basis. The plan provides citizens, policymakers, and recreation professionals with a snapshot of current trends and issues in outdoor recreation, and also helps set the agenda for state recreation policy, planning, funding, and implementation for the next five years and beyond. Using the data and insights obtained through the preparation of the SCORP, both the state and its municipalities can more effectively provide and improve outdoor recreational opportunities for the state’s residents and visitors.

The majority of the public sites and recreation facilities providing access to project lands and waters are provided by Exelon; some in partnership with state agencies. Current recreational use of the Project lands and waters includes camping, fishing, boating, wildlife viewing, day use activities, hunting, and non- motorized trails in the Project vicinity. There is currently no shoreline management plan for the Muddy Run Project.

The following is a description of FERC Form 80 data collection methodology. A data collection protocol was developed and issued to field staff employed for the study at the beginning of the Form 80 data collection effort. The protocol described the purpose for the data collection and methods to be employed to collect the desired recreation use information. In addition, training sessions were conducted for the various methodologies and to answer questions from the field staff. Data collection was conducted as follows.

1. Muddy Run Park

Muddy Run Park is an Exelon-owned facility that is operated by a contractor. Park use data is collected by the contractor through the use of pressure traffic counters at the Park entrance (all users), campground registrations, and special use registrations and was utilized for the FERC Form 80 filing.

2. Spot Counts

Exelon preformed numerous spot counts at all formal recreation areas (excluding Muddy Run Park) within the Project. Data from these counts were documented on a survey form. In order to support statistical analysis, sampling dates were selected randomly. The sampling covered weekdays, weekends and holiday-weekend days. Sampling dates were randomly selected from the total number of weekdays, weekend days and holiday weekend days so each category of days was adequately sampled. Once the

FERC No. 2355 3‐61 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT days were selected, a site trip schedule was developed for each sampling day. Site visits were scheduled on a rotating basis and at different times during the day to account for time-of-day use patterns. The spot counts recorded number of vehicles parked at a facility. Exelon conducted spot counts four weekdays per month and two weekend days per month from May 2008 through February 2009.

3. Calibration Counts

Calibration counts were also conducted on each formal project recreation facility (excluding Muddy Run Park) and were documented on a survey form. Typically a calibration count lasted for two hours per site per calibration day. The calibration count dates were also selected randomly from the total number of weekdays, weekend days and holiday weekend days to be sure each category of days was adequately sampled. Once the days were selected, a site trip schedule was developed for each sampling day. Site visits were scheduled on a rotating basis and at different times during the day to account for time-of-day use patterns. In preparation for the sampling counts all parking facility capacities were previously documented during a recreation facilities inventory so that capacity rates could be calculated. When completing a calibration count, the individual performing the counts would record: 1) number of vehicles and trailers on site upon field staff arrival; 2) number of people on site upon field staff arrival; 3) observed recreation activities of people on site during the two hour calibration period; 4) time in/time out of vehicles arriving/leaving the site; and, 5) number of people in vehicles arriving/leaving the site during the two hour calibration period.

4. Traffic Counters

Pressure activated tube traffic counters are installed and in use at the Muddy Run Park. The traffic counters were used to obtain an estimate of the number of vehicles entering the park. The park counters were read and reset each day and “walk-ins” were also counted by gatehouse staff. Based on the experience of the park operator, a factor of 1.75 was applied to each vehicle entering the park to estimate number of visitors accessing the park by vehicle.

Results of the recreation study associated with the overall assessment as reported in the FERC Form 80 on March 31, 2009, estimated annual Project use to be 267,629 recreational users with a peak weekend average of 6,538 user days. Recreational use of the various FERC approved amenities at the project averaged between 40-50 percent of capacity utilization.

3.11.3 Resource Management Goals (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(2))

The resource management goals are to enhance of recreational opportunities associated with the presence and operation of the Muddy Run Project, including the dam, reservoir and tailwater areas.

FERC No. 2355 3‐62 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.11.4 Purpose (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(1))

The goals of this study are to characterize existing recreational uses at the Project, to evaluate the adequacy of the existing Project recreation facilities and to assess the need for providing additional recreational access at the Project. The objectives of this study are to: 1) conduct a recreation inventory in the vicinity of the Project to identify public access points within the Project boundary; 2) estimate the amount of recreational use occurring within the Project and 3) determine what, if any, enhanced and/or new recreation facilities are needed to support the recreational use of the Muddy Run Project.

3.11.5 Project Nexus (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(4))

The Muddy Project includes a recreation impoundment, generation impoundment, and tailwater area which are inherently attractive recreational features.

3.11.6 Investigation Area

The Muddy Project consists of a 900 acre upper (generation) reservoir, 100 acre recreation pond, 4,800 ft. long main dam, 800 ft. long dike, in-take structures, powerhouse, tailrace and transmission facilities to distribute the power to the electrical grid. The Conowingo Project impoundment acts as the lower reservoir and tailrace area for the Muddy Run Project. The investigation area for this assessment will include the Project area and immediate vicinity.

3.11.7 Methodology (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(1), (d)(5)-(6))

Exelon is proposing the following tasks to characterize existing recreational uses in the vicinity of the Project, to evaluate the adequacy of the existing recreation facilities and access, and to assess the feasibility of providing additional recreation access.

Task 1 – Literature Review and Outreach

Prior to conducting the recreation field inventory, Exelon will conduct an internet literature review and contact the known and readily identified recreational organizations to identify any commonly used formal and informal recreation access sites within the investigation area. If available, information on the facility use capacity, use data, and user survey results will be obtained from entities that currently provide recreational access to the study area.

Exelon will also phone survey these entities to identify known seasonal usage of the investigation area, to determine whether they feel existing recreational facilities and access to the Project area in the investigation area are meeting current user needs, and to determine what (if any) additional recreational improvements they feel are warranted for this area.

FERC No. 2355 3‐63 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Task 2 - FERC Form 80 Refined Data Analysis

During 2008/2009, Exelon collected recreational use data at formal Project recreational use sites/facilities for the FERC Form 80 Recreational Report for the Project. This information was reported to FERC as required on April 1, 2009. Using the Form 80 data, Exelon will refine recreational use and capacity estimates by specific individual Project site/facility in detail and include this information in the report identified under Task 3.

The recreational use data that was collected in 2008/2009 will be analyzed in order to determine specific use and capacity information for each of the project recreation facilities that was included in the study. The FERC Form 80 provides for only general recreation reporting requirements. The detailed analysis of the additional data collected during the 2008/2009 recreational season will provide a detailed look at the amount of use, type of use and overall capacity utilization at the FERC approved recreation facilities at the project. The results expected from the detailed statistical analysis will be: 1) estimated current usage of each surveyed recreation site; 2) estimated capacity utilization of each surveyed recreation site; 3) a discussion on percentage of seasonal use at the project; 4) a discussion of the types of recreational activities observed at the project; 5) a breakdown of numbers of participants in recreational activities; and, 6) an overall participation rate of each particular activity.

Task3 – Recreation Field Inventory of Access and Use

Exelon will consult with interested parties prior to developing the study report. Also, Exelon will update and revise its recreation field site/facility inventory to confirm access sites identified in Task 1 and to document any additional sites that may have been overlooked. Representatives of Exelon will visually survey the shoreline within the study area to document formal and informal access locations. The specific location of recreational access points will be georeferenced with a GPS. For each recreation access point, the following information will be recorded: 1) a physical description of the type of recreational feature; 2) the type of recreation provided (trail hiking, boating access, angler access, picnicking, etc.); 3) the type of (if any) vehicular access and parking; and 4) photographic documentation of the recreational feature.

Information from this investigation will be used to update the Project GIS map depicting all access points within the study area. In addition, during the conduct of this evaluation and other FERC mandated field studies associated with the Muddy Run Project relicensing, field staff will incidentally make note of any recreational activities (e.g., boating, fishing, birding, swimming, etc.) observed within the investigation area.

FERC No. 2355 3‐64 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Task 4 - Report

A report will be developed to summarize the methods and the results of the study. The report will include a summary of each access site including the items listed under Task 3. The report will describe the general recreational usage of the study area based upon the results of the survey, including known present and future needs as well as the adequacy of existing facilities. This report will inform Exelon's development of the Muddy Run Recreation Plan.

3.11.8 Level of Effort and Cost (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(6))

Exelon believes that the proposed level of effort is adequate to obtain baseline information on recreational usage within the Project area. The estimated cost for the recreation inventory and needs assessment outlined in this plan is approximately $20,000-$25,000.

3.11.9 Study Reporting

3.11.10 Study Schedule

FERC No. 2355 3‐65 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Activity Deadline Conduct Study (First Season) Spring 2010-Fall 2010 File Progress Report Fall 2010 File Initial Study Report with FERC January 21, 2011 Hold Initial Study Report Meeting February 5, 2011 File Initial Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2011 Stakeholders file Study Disagreement and Requests to Modify Study Plans March 22, 2011 File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 21, 2011 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 21, 2011 Conduct Study and Gather Information (Second Season, if necessary) Spring 2011-Fall 2011 File Updated Study Report with FERC January 21, 2012 Hold Updated Study Report Meeting February 5, 2012 File Updated Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2012 Stakeholders File Study Disagreements and Request to Modify Study Plans March 21, 2012 Stakeholders File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 20, 2012 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 20, 2012

FERC No. 2355 3‐66 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.12 Shoreline Management

3.12.1 Study Request

Exelon manages its Muddy Run Project shorelines and project lands to comply with its FERC license and to serve the greater public interest by providing recreational access, protecting wildlife habitat, producing low cost electricity, and preserving cultural as well as aesthetic resources. In an effort to guide existing and future management actions within the Project’s FERC boundary, a Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) will be developed for the Muddy Run Project to provide information to assist Exelon with the continuing shoreline and recreational management of the Muddy Run Project. This study will compile information necessary to develop a Exelon's SMP for the Muddy Run Project.

3.12.2 Existing Information (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(3))

The Muddy Run Project is located within the Lower Susquehanna subbasin on the main stem of the Susquehanna River. Overall land use in the subbasin includes agricultural, forest, and urban uses. Some of the most productive agricultural lands and largest population centers of the Susquehanna River Basin are located in the Lower Susquehanna subbasin as well. Major population centers include Harrisburg (47,196), Lancaster (54,672), and York (40,226), Pennsylvania (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). The fertile limestone soils in the area yield a high agricultural production and landscape consists of small farms. The Muddy Run Project is also within a two-hour drive of the metropolitan areas of Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington D.C. and Newark, Delaware.

Approximately 1,400 acres (68 percent of the lands within the Project boundary) are fully open for public use. These include public access lands (34 percent) and developed recreation lands (34 percent). Sensitive resource lands occupy approximately 7.5 acres of Project lands (0.4 percent). Lands classified as project operations occupy 511 acres or 25 percent of the total Project area. Industrial/commercial lands comprise the remainder (approximately six percent) of the Project lands.

3.12.3 Resource Management Goal (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(2))

Exelon manages forested lands within the Project boundary to enhance multiple uses. These uses include: timber products, wildlife habitat, recreation, watershed protection and aesthetics. Buffer zones are maintained around areas of special value or use, which includes waterways, roads, important wildlife areas, recreation areas, and other public use areas.

FERC No. 2355 3‐67 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.12.4 Purpose (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(1))

The objectives of this study are to: 1) conduct an inventory of Exelon real estate assets in the vicinity of the Project and identify and classify current uses; 2) identify issues and constraints that affect land management and land use; 3) review current corporate land use guidelines and policies; and 4) identify lands potentially needed (or not needed) for current and potential future project purposes.

3.12.5 Project Nexus (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(4))

The Muddy Run Project includes lands on the impoundments and along tailwater area, as well as adjacent lands outside the project boundary that may influence existing and future land uses.

3.12.6 Investigation Area

3.12.7 Methodology (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(1), (d)(5)-(6))

Exelon is proposing the following tasks in developing and Shoreline Management Plan for the Muddy Run Project.

Task 1 – Literature Review and Outreach

Exelon will conduct an internet literature review and contact readily known and identified organizations to identify available natural resource data, regional and local plans, ordinances, statutes, policies, and guidelines that may affect use and/or management of project lands.

Task 2 – Real Estate Asset Inventory and Land Use/Constraints

Exelon will consult with interested parties prior to developing the study report. Also, Exelon will update and revise its real estate records/maps to reflect existing land use/types and potential constraints to land use identified in Task 1. Representatives of Exelon may inspect some properties within the study area to verify these findings, and to assess lands suitable for future uses and/or protection. The specific locations of these lands will be georeferenced with a GPS. For each location inspected, the following information will be recorded: 1) a physical description of the property; 2) existing use(s) occurring and potential

FERC No. 2355 3‐68 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT future use(s) proposed; 3) special or unique features, including obvious constraints; 4) the type of (if any) vehicular access; and, 5) photographic documentation of the site.

Information from this investigation will be used to update the Project GIS map depicting land use, access points, special/unique features, and other real estate related data along the Susquehanna River within the study area.

Task 3 – Develop Study Report

A report will be developed to summarize the methods and the results of the study. The report will include a summary of project land uses, adjacent land uses, access routes, development/improvements, natural, unique, or special features, constraints, and possible future uses of project lands. Based on the data collected, Exelon will develop a SMP for the project to provide information to assist with the continuing shoreline management of the Muddy Run Project.

3.12.8 Level of Effort and Cost (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(6))

Exelon believes that the proposed level of effort is adequate to obtain baseline information on real estate assets and the management thereof within the Project area. The estimated cost for the SMP outlined in this plan is approximately $25,000-$30,000.

3.12.9 Study Reporting

3.12.10 Study Schedule

In accordance with 18 CFR § 5.115(e), a Study Plan Meeting will be held on September 22 and 23, 2009. The purpose of the Study Plan Meeting will be to informally resolve any outstanding issues with respect to Exelon’s PSP and the study requests filed by stakeholders, and to clarify the PSP and any information gathering or study requests.

In accordance with Exelon’s Process Plan and Schedule (18 CFR § 5.6(d)(1)), as provided in the PAD (Appendix D), and the FERC’s SD1, the SMP will be completed according to the milestones below.

FERC No. 2355 3‐69 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Activity Deadline Submittal of proposed study plan August 24, 2009 Hold Study Plan Meeting September 22 & 23, 2009 File Comments on Proposed Study Plan with FERC November 22, 2009 File Revised Study Plan with FERC (if necessary) December 22, 2009 Stakeholders File Reply Comments on Revised Study Plans with FERC January 6, 2010 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter January 21, 2010 Formal Study Dispute Resolution Process with FERC (if necessary) February 10, 2010 Conduct Study (First Season) Spring 2010-Fall 2010 File Progress Report Fall 2010 File Initial Study Report with FERC January 21, 2011 Hold Initial Study Report Meeting February 5, 2011 File Initial Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2011 Stakeholders file Study Disagreement and Requests to Modify Study Plans March 22, 2011 File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 21, 2011 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 21, 2011 Conduct Study and Gather Information (Second Season, if necessary) Spring 2011-Fall 2011 File Updated Study Report with FERC January 21, 2012 Hold Updated Study Report Meeting February 5, 2012 File Updated Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2012 Stakeholders File Study Disagreements and Request to Modify Study Plans March 21, 2012 Stakeholders File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 20, 2012 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 20, 2012

FERC No. 2355 3‐70 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.13 Visual and Noise Assessment of the Muddy Run Project

3.13.1 Study Request

In their study request letter, FERC requested Exelon conduct an analysis to determine the aesthetic effects of the operation of the Muddy Run Project. Specifically, FERC asked that the study assess the visual and audio impacts of daily project operation at nearby locations.

3.13.2 Existing Information (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(3))

The Muddy Run Project is located on the eastern shoreline of Conowingo Pond at River Mile (RM) 22. Typical operation of the Muddy Run Project consists of pumping water from Conowingo Pond to the Muddy Run Power Reservoir during low-load (typically nighttime) periods when energy costs are low, and generating (releasing water from the Muddy Run Power Reservoir back to Conowingo Pond) during high-load (typically daytime) periods.

Lands within the existing Project boundary comprise approximately 2,790 acres, and generally extend along the shoreline of Muddy Run Reservoir. The Muddy Run Project lands include many areas of high aesthetic value due to their topography, geology, and vegetation. In addition, there are several recreation facilities located within and in close proximity to the Muddy Run Project including: 1) the Lock 15 Interpretive Area; 2) the Muddy Creek Boat Launch; 3) the Cold Cabin Boat Launch; 4) the Susquehannock State Park; 5) Muddy Run Recreation Park; 6) Muddy Run Cooperative Wildlife Management Area; and 7) Wissler’s Run Park (see Figure 3.13-1). There also several islands located within the Susquehanna River near the Muddy Run Project. Currently, many of these islands contain lots that are leased by cottage owners. Also, there are no formal recreation facilities on these islands, but they provide opportunity for passive recreation.

3.13.3 Resource Management Goals (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(2))

Aesthetic effects as a result of continual project operation and lighting fixtures may affect public use and enjoyment of the landscape features of the surrounding area. Sections 4(e) and 10(a) of the Federal Power Act require that the Commission give equal consideration to all uses of the waterway on which a project is located. When reviewing a proposed action, the Commission must consider the environmental, recreational, fish and wildlife, and other non-developmental values of the project, as well as power and developmental values.

FERC No. 2355 3‐71 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.13.4 Purpose (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(1))

The goal of the study is to assess the aesthetic effects of Muddy Run Project operations. The study’s objectives are to (1) assess the visual aesthetic effects of the Muddy Run Project, specifically the effects of the angle and intensity of the lighting at night on the surrounding public and recreation areas, and (2) evaluate the impacts of noise generated from the facility on the surrounding public and recreation areas during both day and night operation. The assessment should also explore measures to screen or minimize any significant negative aesthetic effects.

3.13.5 Project Nexus (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(4))

Operation at the Muddy Run Project, which occurs throughout different periods of the day and night, may have adverse visual and aural impacts.

3.13.6 Investigation Area

The study area includes the Susquehanna River in the area of the Muddy Run Powerhouse, and the area surrounding the Muddy Run Power Reservoir.

3.13.7 Methodology (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(1), (d)(5)-(6))

Task 1: Visual Assessment of Project Facilities

The Muddy Run Project facilities will be evaluated by documenting the existing visual condition and visibility of Project facilities from Key Viewpoints (KVs). KVs are photograph sites that will be located in sensitive viewing locations (e.g., recreation facilities, Conowingo Pond islands) and represent the typical views experienced by visitors from these areas. Photographs from KVs will be used to evaluate the visual contrast that exists between Project facilities and the surrounding landscape. Photographs will be taken during the spring, summer, fall, and winter seasons. The degree of visual contrast with the surrounding characteristic landscape will determine the extent to which Project facilities are consistent with aesthetic quality.

Task 2: Visual Assessment of Project Operations

The visual assessment of Project operations will identify project facilities that are seen from sensitive viewing locations (KVs), as defined above. Representative views of each project facility will be selected from a KV from which photographs will be taken under spring, summer, fall, and winter conditions. In addition, views of pertinent facilities will be taken during both daylight and nighttime conditions, in order to assess aesthetic effects of lighting from the project facilities. For the Project reservoir, documentation will consist of a representative normal and low water surface elevation.

FERC No. 2355 3‐72 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Task 3: Noise Assessment of Project Facilities and Operations

Potential noise issues will be identified during field studies for the visual assessment of Project operations, which will be conducted during times of typical recreation use. During field visits, potential sources of noise associated with the Project (generation, pumping, and transmission) will be noted on field forms, including the source, location, duration and relative sound level.

Task 4: Develop Study Report

3.13.8 Level of Effort and Cost (18 CFR § 5.11(d)(6))

Exelon believes that the proposed level of effort is adequate to analyze this issue within the study area. The estimated cost for the study outlined in this plan is approximately $15,000-$25,000.

3.13.9 Study Reporting

3.13.10 Study Schedule (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(2) and (c))

FERC No. 2355 3‐73 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Activity Deadline Submittal of proposed study plan August 24, 2009 Hold Study Plan Meeting September 22 & 23, 2009 File Comments on Proposed Study Plan with FERC November 22, 2009 File Revised Study Plan with FERC (if necessary) December 22, 2009 Stakeholders File Reply Comments on Revised Study Plans with FERC January 6, 2010 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter January 21, 2010 Formal Study Dispute Resolution Process with FERC (if necessary) February 10, 2010 Conduct Study April-December 2010 File Progress Report Fall 2010 File Initial Study Report with FERC January 21, 2011 Hold Initial Study Report Meeting February 5, 2011 File Initial Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2011 Stakeholders file Study Disagreement and Requests to Modify Study Plans March 22, 2011 File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 21, 2011 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 21, 2011 Conduct Studies and Gather Information (Second Year, if necessary) January-September 2011 File Updated Study Report with FERC January 21, 2012 Hold Updated Study Report Meeting February 5, 2012 File Updated Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2012 Stakeholders File Study Disagreements and Request to Modify Study March 21, 2012 Plans Stakeholders File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 20, 2012 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 20, 2012

FERC No. 2355 3‐74 August 24, 2009

Muddy Run Recreation Park

Muddy Run Cooperative Wildlife Management Area

Wissler's Run Park Susquehannock State Park

Lock 15 Interpretive Area

Muddy Creek Boat Launch

Cold Cabin Boat Launch Legend

Potential Key Viewpoints Conowingo Project Boundary Muddy Run Project Boundary Aerial imagery provided by Microsoft Virtual Earth

EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC PROPOSED STUDY PLAN MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT Figure 3.13-1 PROJECT NO. 2355 Potential Key Viewpoints

X:\GISMaps\project_maps\muddy_run_study_maps\muddy_run_key_viewpoints.mxd 8/21/2009 9:06:33 AM PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.14 Archaeological and Historic Cultural Resource Review and Assessment

3.14.1 Study Request

FERC issued a letter to Exelon on July 10, 2009 requesting additional information and studies pertaining to archaeological and historic resource surveys of the Muddy Run Project.

3.14.2 Existing Information

Information contained in the PAD indicates that people have occupied the Susquehanna River Basin for almost 14,000 years. Europeans began using the basin in the 1720s and 1730s. These data indicate that the Project Area could contain archaeological and historical sites. There have been no comprehensive, professional cultural surveys of the Project Area. Exelon proposes conducting a Phase 1A archaeological survey and assessment of the Project Area, which is described in more detail below.

3.14.3 Purpose (18 CFR & 5.11(d)(1))

The purpose of the cultural resources studies is to identify National Register of Historic Places (NR) eligible properties in the Muddy Run Project Area and to identify and assess possible effects from Project operation and in areas where ground-disturbing enhancements may be proposed on NR properties. This will be accomplished with literature review and through field survey. The first step will be to conduct a Phase 1A survey that will gather existing information and collect new information. Existing information will be collected from records maintained at the Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission; other resource studies of the Project Area; and review of aerial photographs, topographic, geologic, soils, and historic maps. New information will be gathered through field survey as appropriate.

3.14.4 Resource Management Goals (18 CFR & 5.11(d)(2))

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (1966) requires that federal agencies, licensees, and those receiving federal assistance take into account the effect(s) of proposed undertakings on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is listed in the NR or is eligible for listing in the NR; and, finally, to prepare a Programmatic Agreement (PA) and draft historic properties management plan (HPMP) that identifies how project effects on NR eligible properties will be mitigated.

The Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) provides assistance with the identification of significant architectural and archaeological resources, and also provides advisory assistance to promote compatibility between new development and preservation of the state’s cultural heritage. The SHPO administers cultural resource management reviews under the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106), which involves providing technical guidance and professional advice on the potential impact of

FERC No. 2355 3‐76 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT licensed projects, such as the Muddy Run Project, on the state’s historic, architectural, and archaeological resources. Exelon proposes consulting closely with the Pennsylvania SHPO in the development of the Project’s Phase 1A methodology, identification of existing cultural resources, establishment of its area of potential effects (APE), and development of the Project’s PA and HPMP.

3.14.5 Project Nexus (18 CFR &5.11(d)(4))

The proposed survey will provide information on historic and archaeological sites located within the APE. The subsequent report will provide information on which sites are potentially eligible to the NR and any potential effects of the Project on these sites. The HPMP will discuss how to avoid potential effects or how they will be mitigated. The final HPMP will be filed with the license application.

3.14.6 Investigation Area

The Muddy Run Project’s investigation area will include the FERC defined Project boundaries as identified in the PAD and any construction, recreational, or known locations effected by project operation outside of the Project’s boundaries . The Project’s area of potential effects (APE) shall be as defined by FERC as: “the lands enclosed by the project’s boundary and lands or properties outside of the project’s boundaries where project construction and operation or project-related recreational development or other enhancements may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any historic properties exist". The Pennsylvania will be consulted for concurrence with these definitions.

3.14.7 Methodology (18 CFR & 5.11(b)(1), (d)(5)-(6))

The study methods to achieve the goals of this cultural resources identification and assessment will be consistent with standards of the archaeological and historic professional communities in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania SHPO will be consulted about the methods used to identify and to evaluate cultural resources as to their potential eligibility for listing in the NR.

Task 1 – Phase 1A Background and Reconnaissance Study

Exelon will employ a qualified archaeologist (as defined by the National Park Service) to conduct a Phase 1A archaeological study to identify known historic and prehistoric sites within the Muddy Run Project’s APE. Site files maintained by the Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission will be consulted to conduct this investigation. The Phase 1A study will also define areas of archaeological sensitivity where there exists the potential to uncover either historic or prehistoric cultural resources or both. Field survey will be conducted to verify the determination of sensitive areas and whether additional survey is required in them Cultural resource sensitivity shall be defined in consultation with the Pennsylvania SHPO.

FERC No. 2355 3‐77 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Areas of archaeological sensitivity will be assessed to determine potential Project effects with existing information and data now being collected as part of this proposed study plan (including operation, Project related activities, and enhancement) on these locations.

Exelon will employ a qualified (as defined by the National Park Service) architectural historian will undertake an assessment of all structures and facilities within the Project’s Investigation Area to evaluate whether any of them may be eligible for listing to the NR.

Task 2 – Phase 1B Subsurface Survey (if necessary)

Phase 1B and Phase II archaeological subsurface survey may be necessary if areas of archaeological sensitivity are defined within the Project’s APE and if those areas may have the potential to be disturbed by Project effects. If such areas are identified, then survey designs and methods will be developed in consultation with the SHPO. If archaeological sites are identified during the Phase IB study, then sufficient data will be collected (Phase II) to make an assessment as to whether any of them has potential for listing to the NR.

Task 3 – Draft/Final Report

In accordance with 18 CFR &5.15(c)(1), a final report on cultural resources (historic and prehistoric archaeological sites, historic and prehistoric archaeological sensitivity, and historic structures) located within the Project’s APE will be prepared in a report for review and comment by the appropriate parties. The report will be divided into sections on the Phase 1A study, the Phase 1B study, the Phase II study (if necessary), and the architectural study. All study methods and consultation with the Pennsylvania SHPO will be addressed in the report as well.

3.14.8 Level of Effort and Cost (18CFR & 5.11(d)(6))

The estimated cost for the Phase 1A cultural resources survey is $25,000-35,000. Exelon believes that the proposed level of effort is adequate to obtain initial information on architectural and historic and prehistoric cultural resources within the Project Investigation Area. The costs would increase in proportion to the amount of Phase 1B subsurface survey and Phase II site testing that might be necessary.

3.14.9 Study Reporting

FERC No. 2355 3‐78 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

3.14.10 Study Schedule (18 CFR § 5.11(b)(2) and (c))

Activity Deadline Submittal of proposed study plan August 24, 2009 Hold Study Plan Meeting September 22 & 23, 2009 File Comments on Proposed Study Plan with FERC November 22, 2009 File Revised Study Plan with FERC (if necessary) December 22, 2009 Stakeholders File Reply Comments on Revised Study Plans with FERC January 6, 2010 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter January 21, 2010 Formal Study Dispute Resolution Process with FERC (if necessary) February 10, 2010 Conduct Study June-October 2010 File Progress Report Fall 2010 File Initial Study Report with FERC January 21, 2011 Hold Initial Study Report Meeting February 5, 2011 File Initial Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2011 Stakeholders file Study Disagreement and Requests to Modify Study Plans March 22, 2011 File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 21, 2011 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 21, 2011 Conduct Studies and Gather Information (Second Year, if necessary) June-August 2011 File Updated Study Report with FERC January 21, 2012 Hold Updated Study Report Meeting February 5, 2012 File Updated Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC February 20, 2012 Stakeholders File Study Disagreements and Request to Modify Study Plans March 21, 2012 Stakeholders File Responses to Disagreement/Modified Study Requests April 20, 2012 FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter May 20, 2012

FERC No. 2355 3‐79 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

4.0 Studies Not Included In the PSP

4.1 Model Flow in the Muddy Run Project Discharge Tailrace, and Susquehanna River Using Computational Fluid Dynamics Model Techniques

The USFWS requested that Exelon conduct a hydraulic modeling study of the Muddy Run tailrace, and adjacent areas within the Susquehanna River. A specific request was made to utilize Computational Fluid Dynamic modeling (CFD) techniques in the study. CFD modeling typically allows modeling of water velocities in multi-dimensional flow paths. In addition, the proposed CFD model would be used to determine changes in water surface elevation as stream flow varied.

The USFWS stated that the hydraulic modeling results would be useful in investigating migratory zone of passage and entrainment issues at the Muddy Run Project.

4.1.1 Goals and Objectives (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(1))

The USFWS stated that their goals and objectives for the study were to determine the potential impacts of the Muddy Run Project operations on attraction flows to fishway entrances at Holtwood Dam, on migratory fish zone of passage near the Muddy Run turbine discharge/pump intake, on natural flow regimes in the area of the Susquehanna River immediately upstream and downstream of the project, on the potential for entrainment during pumping operations, and on the potential for creating flow reversals in Susquehanna River during pumping cycles that may confuse migratory fish attempting to pass the project.

4.1.2 Resource Management Goals (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(2))

The USFWS identified instream flow as an important riverine habitat characteristic that can have a great impact on aquatic habitat for fish, wildlife, and plants. Flow is an important directional guidance cue for instream navigation and attraction to fishway entrances for migratory fish.

4.1.3 Public Interest (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(3))

The USFWS is a federal natural resource agency.

4.1.4 Existing Information (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(4))

FERC No. 2355 4‐1 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

In addition, as part of the Holtwood Hydroelectric Project License Amendment proceeding, a CFD model was developed. The geographic area of the CFD model extended from the Holtwood Project tailrace downstream to a location approximately 1-mile downstream of the Muddy Project discharge tailrace (Alden Research Laboratory 2006),

4.1.5 Nexus to Project Operations and Effects (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(5))

Project operations have the potential to impact instream flow and aquatic habitat in the pump/discharge area of the Susquehanna River. Flows released from the project influence flow patterns and velocities in the Susquehanna River. Flows from the project may also influence the availability and extent of upstream and downstream migration zones, and attraction and navigation to and from fishways at the upstream Holtwood Dam.

4.1.6 Methodology Consistent with Accepted Practice (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(1))

Exelon is proposing (see Section 3.5) to collect field data to characterize the flow and velocity patterns in the vicinity of the Muddy Project discharge tailrace using Acoustic Doppler Current Profile (ADCP) techniques. The ADCP data collection will also allow for profiling of the stream bottom, which will be used to develop bathymetry mapping of the study area. The field data collection will be conducted under a variety of pumping and generating operation scenarios at the Muddy Run Project.

Exelon proposes to use the flow and velocity pattern data in conjunction with radiotelemetry data (see Section 3.5) and entrainment study results (see Section 3.4) to determine the availability and extent of upstream and downstream migration zones, and assess the potential for false attraction flows related to the Muddy Run Project.

In addition, the previous CFD modeling conducted by PPL during the Holtwood Hydroelectric Project License Amendment proceeding can be reviewed and provide insights on velocity and flow patterns near the Muddy Run Project.

Exelon is proposing to utilize these methodologies in lieu of the development of a CFD model.

4.1.7 Level of Effort, Cost, and Why Alternative Studies Will Not Suffice (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(1))

Exelon believes the USFWS study request for the development of a CFD hydraulic model for the Muddy Run tailrace and vicinity is not warranted, given that alternative methodologies can be used to adequately assess project impacts on aquatic resources. The cost of developing a CFD hydraulic model is estimated to be $175,000-$225,000.

FERC No. 2355 4‐2 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

The imposition of such costs on Exelon is unduly burdensome because the study results can be achieved through the alternative and less costly means described above.

4.1.8 Literature Cited

Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. 2006. DRAFT. 2-D Numerical Modeling of Existing Flow Patterns and Velocities in the Susquehanna River Downstream of the PPL Holtwood Hydroelectric Project.

FERC No. 2355 4‐3 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

4.2 Full Discharge Net Entrainment Field Study

In their study request letter, the USFWS requested a full net entrainment study of fish passing through the Muddy Run Station during pumping and generation. The request also asked for a determination of potential impacts of Muddy Run operations to entrain and injure or kill fish, and an assessment of survival and potential injury to entrained fish. Study results would inform potential mitigation measures to prevent entrainment or passage problems.

4.2.1 Goals and Objectives (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(1))

The USFWS stated that their goal for the study was to determine impacts resulting from pumping and generating operations due to potential entrainment, injury, and mortality of migratory or resident fish.

4.2.2 Resource Management Goals (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(2))

The resource management goals of the USFWS relative to this issue are to protect, restore, and enhance fish and wildlife, including trust resources, and their habitats in the Susquehanna River Basin.

4.2.3 Public Interest (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(3))

The USFWS is a federal natural resource agency.

4.2.4 Existing Information (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(4))

Two adult American shad radio telemetry studies (2001; 2008) reviewed in the PAD provide site-specific data on the pumping entrainment rate of upstream migrant shad at Muddy Run Station. One study in 1988 of outmigrant juvenile shad passing the Muddy Run Project during pumping was also reviewed in the PAD. These three studies are the only site-specific data available for anadromous fishes. Each will be reviewed as part of this desktop study to assess entrainment of migratory fishes at the Muddy Run Project.

Impacts of pumping and generating on American eel include potential mortality during turbine passage. Substantial eel mortality data for Francis units similar to the pump turbines at Muddy Run exists to address this aspect of the study request. Eel mortality will be addressed by the literature review proposed in Section 3.3 (E&I study).

FERC No. 2355 4‐4 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT during pumping and generation was addressed by Snyder (1975). The resulting estimates were not deemed precise, however, as was the case for other pumped storage facilities at that time.

A vast amount of fish entrainment and passage survival data, accrued mostly from conventional hydroelectric facilities, is available from the following sources, among many others: EPRI (1997; FERC 1995; Franke et al. 1997; Heisey et al. 1992; 2008; Mathur et al. 1994; RMC 1994; Winchell et al. 2000; Normandeau Associates et al. 2002; Skalski et al. 2002). Criteria for using literature–reported data sources for estimating fish survival have also been summarized in Franke et al. (1997). These literature sources will augment the site-specific data that are available to address stated goals for this issue.

4.2.5 Nexus to Project Operations and Effects (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(5))

Exelon does not believe that a full discharge net field entrainment study would inform the development of license requirements because it would be impractical to conduct. Sufficient data exist to inform this issue.

4.2.6 Methodology Consistent with Accepted Practice (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(1))

The requested field entrainment study is impractical due to technical and logistical considerations of attaching, fishing, and handling the size of net and support structure required to sample the full discharge or pump output of a reversible pump turbine. Discharge area hydraulics (Holtwood flows) also compounds these difficulties.

Exelon is proposing (see Section 3.3) to compile the large volume of available literature, much of it site- specific, to permit a description of potential entrainment risk to fishes, and estimate the potential mortality of the entrained fishes.

4.2.7 Level of Effort, Cost, and Why Alternative Studies Will Not Suffice (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(1))

Exelon believes the question of entrainment at Muddy Run Project can be answered by available literature, and that a site-specific full discharge net field study is not warranted given the amount of existing information on resident and migratory fishes in the area, and their behavior relative to power stations. The cost of a site specific field study to examine entrainment during pumping and generating phases for a full year is at least $350,000 to $450,000.

The imposition of such costs on Exelon is unduly burdensome given the amount of existing information available to address the potential impacts of entrainment and turbine passage mortality.

FERC No. 2355 4‐5 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

4.2.8 Literature Cited

EPRI. 1997. Turbine entrainment and survival database-field tests. Prepared by Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. EPRI Report No. TR-108630. 13 pp. (plus two 3.5” diskettes), Palo Alto, CA.

Heisey, P.G. and D. Mathur. 1980. Summary of ecological studies of fishes in Muddy Run Pumped Storage Pond, Pennsylvania. Pages 80-94 in Proceedings of the Clemson Workshop on Environmental Impacts of Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Operations. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program. FWS/OBS-80/28.

Mathur, D. and P.G. Heisey. 1980. Monitoring of fish in pumped-storage systems. pages 177-204 in C.H. Hocutt and J.R. Stauffer, Jr., eds. Biological Monitoring of Fish. Lexington Books. 414 pp.

Mathur, D., P. G. Heisey, and D. A. Robinson. 1994. Turbine-passage mortality of juvenile American shad in passage through a low-head hydroelectric dam. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 123: 108-111.

Robbins, T.W. and D. Mathur. 1976. The Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project: a Case History. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 105(1): 165-172.

FERC No. 2355 4‐6 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Skalski, J.R., D. Mathur, and P.G. Heisey. Effects of turbine operating efficiency in smolt passage survival. N. Am. Jour. Fish. Mgt. 22:1193-1200.

Snyder, D.E. 1975. Passage of fish eggs and young through a pumped storage generating station. Journ. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 32(8):1259-1266.

Winchell, F., S. Amaral, and D. Dixon. 2000. Hydroelectric turbines entrainment and survival database: an alternative to field studies. Hydro Vision Conference, Charlotte, NC.

FERC No. 2355 4‐7 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

4.3 Study of Entrainment of Upstream Migrating American Eels

In their study request letter, the PaDEP, PFBC and SRBC requested a three-year radio telemetry or hoop net study of upstream migrating juvenile American eel to determine the occurrence and extent of entrainment. These stakeholders stated that study results would inform potential mitigation measures to prevent entrainment.

4.3.1 Goals and Objectives (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(1))

The PaDEP, PFBC and SRBC stated that their goal for the study was to determine the occurrence and extent of entrainment of upstream-migrating American eels.

4.3.2 Resource Management Goals (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(2))

The resource management goals of the PaDEP, PFBC and SRBC relative to this issue are under revision, but in general the overall goal is to restore American eels to their historical habitats above dams.

4.3.3 Public Interest (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(3))

The USFWS is a federal natural resource agency.

4.3.4 Existing Information (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(4))

Substantial information on juvenile eel upstream migration and behavior exists. Recent studies on the St. Lawrence River (NY), Shenandoah River (WV/VA), and elsewhere will be used to frame the potential for entrainment of juvenile eels at the Muddy Run Station.

4.3.5 Nexus to Project Operations and Effects (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(5))

Exelon does not believe that a juvenile eel upstream migration field study would inform the development of license requirements. Sufficient data currently exist to inform this issue.

FERC No. 2355 4‐8 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

4.3.6 Methodology Consistent with Accepted Practice (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(1))

The requested field study is impractical, either due to known juvenile eel behavior (eels lifted or transported to Conowingo Pond may not move soon or ever to the Muddy Run vicinity) and/or radio telemetry technical considerations (tag size vs eel size, for example). Further, American eel abundance in Conowingo Pond now and in the near future is low to the extent that hoop nets fished in the Muddy Run intake canal would not likely yield any information.

Exelon is proposing (see Section 3.3) to compile available literature on juvenile eel upstream movements to permit a description of potential entrainment risk.

4.3.7 Level of Effort, Cost, and Why Alternative Studies Will Not Suffice (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(1))

Exelon believes the question of juvenile American eel entrainment at Muddy Run Project can be answered by available literature, and that a site-specific field study is not warranted given the amount of existing information on juvenile eel migration and behavior. The cost of a site specific field study to examine juvenile eel entrainment is: 1) by radiotelemetry over 3 years = $150,000 to $300,000; 2) by hoop nets during 3 years = $300,000 to $450,000.

The imposition of such costs on Exelon is unduly burdensome given the existing information available and the lack of juvenile eels In Conowingo Pond for such a study.

FERC No. 2355 4‐9 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

4.4 Telemetry Study of Adult American Eel to Determine the Potential for Entrainment and Availability of a Safe Zone of Passage past the Project Area in the Susquehanna River.

In their study request letter, the USFWS requested a radio telemetry study of downstream migrating adult American eel to determine their behavior passing the Muddy Run Project and the potential for entrainment or migration delay. The USFWS stated that study results would address observed negative impacts to adult American eel migration success and inform possible alternative operations.

4.4.1 Goals and Objectives (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(1))

The USFWS stated that their goal for the study was to determine the potential impacts to out-migrating adult American eel resulting from entrainment or migratory delay.

4.4.2 Resource Management Goals (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(2))

The resource management goals of the USFWS relative to this issue are to restore American eels to their historical basin habitats above the Muddy Run Project.

4.4.3 Public Interest (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(3))

The USFWS is a federal natural resource agency.

4.4.4 Existing Information (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(4))

The PAD identified that American eel occurred in the Muddy Run recreation lake during a 1985 study. Given the time frame relative to original impoundment in the 1960s, the PFBC stated that the eels were likely entrained as juveniles during pumping operations from Conowingo Pond. Eels above Conowingo Dam in the 1960s and 1970s were from elvers transported annually to upstream areas by the PFBC. There is no site-specific information relative to adult eel entrainment during fall outmigration. However, few, if any, juvenile eels of the size and age necessary to mature into silver eels and migrate downstream currently exist above Muddy Run Project. Transport of juvenile elver-stage eels to upriver areas was resumed in 2008 following a lapse of nearly three decades. Volitional passage of juvenile eels to Conowingo Pond via the East Fish Lift is minimal. The potential for adult eel entrainment at present cannot be estimated by means other than literature examination. Such an examination is proposed in Section 3.5.

Substantial information on adult eel downstream migration and behavior relative to hydroelectric stations exists. Recent and/or ongoing studies on the St. Lawrence River (NY), Shenandoah River (WV/VA), and

FERC No. 2355 4‐10 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT the Kennebec and Saco Rivers (ME) and elsewhere will be used to frame the potential for entrainment or migratory delay of adult eels at the Muddy Run Station.

4.4.5 Nexus to Project Operations and Effects (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(5))

Exelon does not believe that an adult eel downstream migration field study would inform the development of license requirements. Sufficient data exist to inform this issue.

4.4.6 Methodology Consistent with Accepted Practice (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(1))

The requested field study is unnecessary. American eel abundance in Conowingo Pond or in upriver areas now and in the near future is extremely low. Both study goals may be realized with a review of the substantial eel behavior information obtained from systems with extant populations of eels large enough to mature into migratory adults.

Exelon is proposing (see Section 3.5) to compile available literature on adult eel migratory behavior to permit a description of potential entrainment risk or migratory delay.

4.4.7 Level of Effort, Cost, and Why Alternative Studies Will Not Suffice (18 CFR § 5.9 (b)(1))

Exelon believes the question of adult American eel entrainment at Muddy Run Project can be answered by available literature, and that a site-specific field study is not warranted given the amount of existing information on adult eel migration and behavior. The cost of a site specific radiotelemetry field study to examine adult eel entrainment and migratory behavior passing Muddy Run is $140,000 to $160,000.

The imposition of such costs on Exelon is unduly burdensome given the existing information available, the lack of eels old enough or large enough to mature into migratory adults in Conowingo Pond or in upriver areas, and the impending hydraulic alterations likely to affect the river channel near the Muddy Run Project as a result of Holtwood Project License Amendment proceeding.

FERC No. 2355 4‐11 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

5.0 Appendix A – Study Request Letters

Commenter/Requestor Date

American Rivers July 10, 2009 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission July 10, 2009 Lancaster County Planning Commission July 10, 2009 Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper July 10, 2009 Maryland Department of Natural Resources July 10, 2009 National Marine Fisheries Service July 10, 2009 Nature Conservancy July 10, 2009 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection July 10, 2009 Susquehanna River Basin Commission July 10, 2009 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service July 10, 2009

FERC No. 2355 5‐1 August 24, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

) Exelon Generation Company, LLC ) Conowingo Hydroelectric Project ) P-405-087 Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project ) P-2355-011 )

COMMENTS ON PRELIMINARY APPLICATION DOCUMENT, STUDY REQUESTS, AND COMMENTS ON SCOPING DOCUMENT BY AMERICAN RIVERS

1 Introduction

On May 11, 2009, The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued a Scoping Document (SD1) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the relicensing of Exelon Generation Company, LLC’s (Exelon) Conowingo Hydroelectric and Muddy Run Pumped Storage projects. American Rivers respectfully submit these comments on FERC’s Scoping Document and Exelon’s Preliminary Application Documents (PADs) for these projects, which were filed with the Commission on in March of 2009.

American Rivers (AR) is a non-profit corporation whose headquarters are located at 1101 14th St. NW, Washington, DC 20005, and with an office located at 355 N. 21st Street, Suite 309, Camp Hill, PA 17011. AR is a national organization that stands up for healthy rivers so our communities can thrive. We believe that rivers are vital to our health, safety and quality of life. American Rivers mobilizes an extensive network of more than 65,000 members and activists located in every state across the county.

Throughout its watershed, the Susquehanna River provides communities with drinking water, nutrient and waste recycling, and industrial and agricultural water supply. In addition to these municipal services, the Susquehanna supports a first-class smallmouth bass fishery and is the lynchpin of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement’s diadromous fish restoration goals. The river also provides citizens in its watershed with an irreplacable water trail and greenway system as well as outstanding whitewater recreation. The health of the Susquehanna River is therefore of great importance to AR’s nearly 3,000 members and supporters in Pennsylvania, as well as our many members living along the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland and Virginia. 2 Comments on FERC’s SD1

While the lower Susquehanna River’s dams provide human communities with electric power, they do so at the expense of the river’s resident and migratory fish populations, water quality, nutrient delivery and processing, recreation, and public access. Given the size and scope of the FERC-licensed hydropower development on the Lower Susquehanna River we recommend that FERC prepare a Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that provides a comprehensive, basin-wide analysis of the cumulative impacts of these multiple projects.

If, however, the Commission deems that an EA is sufficient, we request that the Commission publish a draft EA and allow adequate time for public review and comment, consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(e). Opportunity for public comment on both the draft and final EA documents is consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations, which provide “public scrutiny [is] essential to implementing NEPA.” 40 C.F.R. 1500.1(b).

2.1 Section 3.1.2. Current Project Operation

FERC’s SD1 describes the Conowingo project as “a modified run-of-river facility,” noting that the reservoir has “limited storage capacity because of reservoir size and the small allowable variation in headwater level. As a result, the average daily flows through the Conowingo Project are largely controlled by the amount of water delivered from Safe Harbor dam, which is a peaking facility located 24 miles upstream.” SD1, pp. 11-12. While the variability of flows is indeed small when considered on the basis of average daily flows, the characterization of the project as “run-of-river” is highly misleading when considered from the context of instantaneous (i.e. sub-daily flows), which vary significantly and greatly impact river health. Flows below the Conowingo project can change dramatically over the course of an individual day, as the attached hydrograph clearly demonstrates.

2 The commission’s analysis should determine the extent to which Conowingo and Muddy Run’s operations are responsible for these sub-daily flow variations, as well as the effects that these flow fluctuations have on resources affected by the projects.

2.2 Section 3.3 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

The discussion of alternatives to the proposed action is the “heart” of the environmental document. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14; see also 42 U.S.C. § 4332(c)(iii). The environmental document should “present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker and the public.” Id. The Commission must “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated.” Id. It must also “[d]evote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.” Id. As lead agency under NEPA, the Commission must “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives…” and possible environmental measures before approving the license application.

3 Id. (emphasis added). We request that FERC analyze all reasonable alternatives, inclusing those outside the Commission’s jurisdiction. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a)-(c).

FERC’s Scoping Document does not yet identify any action alternatives to Exelon’s proposed action, but does indicate that the Commission “will consider and assess all alternative recommendations for operational or facility modifications, as well as PM&E measures identified by us, the agencies, Indian tribes, NGOs, and the public. and the no-action alternative.” SD1, p. 19. At this time, we propose that the Commissions NEPA document analyze two alternatives as complete, stand-alone alternatives to the proposed action.

American Rivers is not specifically advocating for the commission to adopt either of these alternatives at time; our final recommendations will be based on the results of the analysis performed during relicensing by FERC staff and others. However, each of these proposed alternatives represents a reasonable alternative and an action that is within the range of actions that the commission could take: while the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to balance resource needs by giving equal consideration to power and non-power benefits, it does not specifically dictate how much weight should be assigned to any one benefit or type of benefits. While our proposed alternatives therefore represent two complete action alternatives that the commission might reasonably take, we believe that they offer additional value to the commissions’ analysis by “bracketing” the range of reasonable alternatives. A complete analysis of each of these alternatives will help stakeholders to better understand how the commission assigns weight and value to each of the benefits among which it must balance, and will help stakeholders to better understand the tradeoffs implicit in the Commission’s balancing.

2.2.1 Alternative #1: Maximize Ecological Restoration.

This alternative should represent the maximum ecological benefit that could be achieved, regardless of cost or reduction in generation, by a series of operational changes to the hydropower projects on the lower Susquehanna River that are specifically intended to maximize non-power benefits. This alternative would allow the continued generation of hydroelectric power while, at a minimum, achieving the following ecological objectives: a) Instantaneous run- of-river operations that result in largely natural flow regimes in the affected river reaches, b) Effective passage (90% or greater of the population of each species) of all affected migratory and

4 resident species in the Lower Susquehanna River, and c) Sediment management that results in the recreation of natural habitat and substrates throughout the affected reaches and limits the threat of catastrophic sediment delivery.

2.2.2 Alternative #2: Maximize Hydroelectric Generation.

This alternative should represent the maximum power benefit that could be achieved, regardless of environmental impact, by a series of operational changes to the hydropower projects on the lower Susquehanna River that are specifically intended to maximize the value of hydroelectric generation. This alternative would enable the continued – and possibly increased – generation of hydroelectric power. Because of other regulatory requirements (e.g. compliance with the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other minimum environmental requirements), it would also provide a bare minimum of environmental protection.

Both of the above alternatives should quantify both the economic and non-economic benefits associated with ecosystem restoration or degradation, as well as the costs in terms of power generation. It should also analyze any potential changes in how the power generated from the project would be marketed and consumed (e.g. shifts from peaking power to baseload), and should analyze the environmental costs and benefits associated with any alternative / replacement sources of electric generation that would be “offset” by the project (e.g. natural gas for peaking, coal for baseload, other renewables, etc.).

2.3 Section 4.1.2 Geographic Scope

The relicensing of the Conowingo (P-405), Muddy Run (P-2355), and York Haven (P- 1888) projects, along with the pending license amendment application for the Holtwood project (P-1881), provides a once-in a lifetime opportunity to address the cumulative impacts of the extensive hydropower development in the Lower Susquehanna Basin. Such a comprehensive review is consistent with Commission practice, and the Commission has indicated that is intended to undertake such a comprehensive review during the relicensing of the Lower Susquehanna’s hydropower projects. See, for instance, the Commission’s 1980 license order for the Holtwood:

“In the interest of providing for concurrent relicensing of licensed projects on the Susquehanna River to the maximum extent possible, we have decided that the license

5 for the Holtwood Project should terminate September 1, 2004, approximately 34 years from the expiration date of the original license. The Holtwood Project license will expire concurrently with the Conowingo Project No. 405, York Haven Project No. 1888, and Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project No. 2301.”1

We recommend that the Commission prepare an EIS that considers the operation – and a full range of operational alternatives – of all of the FERC-licensed hydropower projects on the Lower Susquehanna, including Conowingo, Muddy Run, York Haven, Holtwood, and Safe Harbor (P-1025). While the license for the Safe Harbor project will not expire until 2030, it must receive a new license during the term of any new license that would be issued for the Conowingo, York Haven, or Muddy Run Projects. Given the high level of hydrologic interconnection between these projects, and the high likelihood that future operational changes at Safe Harbor will in turn affect the operation of the hydropower projects that are under consideration at this time, we recommend that the scope of FERC’s NEPA analsysis be expanded to consider in order to capture the full range of FERC-licensed hydropower operations in the Lower Susquehanna. We request that FERC Staff examine the current and potential operational coordination between these facilities and analyze alternative operational scenarios that may improve or enhance this coordination for the benefit of power and non-power resources in the basin.

Such a comprehensive, basin-wide examination at hydroelectric operations on the Susquehanna would be in the public interest and is consistent with the Commission’s mandate under § 10(a) of the Federal Power Act to ensure that the Conowingo and Muddy Run licenses is best adapted to a comprehensive plan for developing or improving the Susquehanna river.

We note that such a comprehensive analysis is required by NEPA. The fact that the licenses for Safe Harbor and Holtwood are not specifically up for consideration at this time must not prevent the Commission from considering reasonable alternatives to the operation of those projects and including them in the scope of their analysis. According to the “Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulation,” 46 Fed. Reg. 18,026, 18027 (Mar. 23, 1981) (emphasis added),

1 21 FERC ¶ 61,429, 1980

6 “2a. Q. If an EIS is prepared in connection with an application for a permit or other federal approval, must the EIS rigorously analyze and discuss alternatives that are outside the capability of the applicant or can it be limited to reasonable alternatives that can be carried out by the applicant

A. Section 1502.14 requires the EIS to examine all reasonable alternatives to the proposal. In determining the scope of alternatives to be considered, the emphasis is on what is "reasonable" rather than on whether the proponent or applicant likes or is itself capable of carrying out a particular alternative. Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant.

2b. Q. Must the EIS analyze alternatives outside the jurisdiction or capability of the agency or beyond what Congress has authorized

A. An alternative that is outside the legal jurisdiction of the lead agency must still be analyzed in the EIS if it is reasonable. A potential conflict with local or federal law does not necessarily render an alternative unreasonable, although such conflicts must be considered. Section 1506.2(d). Alternatives that are outside the scope of what Congress has approved or funded must still be evaluated in the EIS if they are reasonable, because the EIS may serve as the basis for modifying the Congressional approval or funding in light of NEPA's goals and policies.

We also note that the Susquehanna is the most significant freshwater tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. As such, it is likely that effects from coordinated flow releases from upstream dams impact the Bay much further downstream than the Staff-identified downstream limit for analysis of Havre de Grace, MD proposed in SD1. We request that FERC Staff extend the downstream limit of analysis to include the upper Chesapeake Bay, terminating at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.

2.4 Section 4.1.3 Temporal Scope

Continued project operation and maintenance (O&M) for the Conowingo and Muddy Run projects will affect resources in the Lower Susquehanna River, including instream flow, water temperature, river biota, recreation and other resources. These project effects on beneficial uses are in large part determined by the local patterns of precipitation, runoff, evapotranspiration and related forces. These forces are significantly affected by broad regional and global climate patterns, including ocean surface temperatures, average temperatures of the earth’s surface, and other factors. These regional and global climate drivers have changed over the past century and are expected to continue to change in predictable directions and magnitudes over coming

7 decades. Changes in the global and regional climate will continue to change the local patterns of precipitation, runoff, evapotranspiration and other related forces. These changes will result in changes to the projects’ effects on the Susquehanna river and its watershed resources. They will also result in changes to hydrology in the basin that have the potential to affect the availability of water (both in terms of quantity and timing) for hydroelectric generation.

Climate change is a scientific reality. The average surface temperature of the Earth has increased by around 0.6 degrees Celsius over the past century (NRC 2000). The fifteen warmest years this century have all occurred since 1980, and the 1990s were the warmest decade of the entire millennium (Mann and Bradley 1999). The broad consensus of the scientific community is that greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere and that these gases will cause a wide range of changes in climate dynamics (Kiparsky and Gleick, 2005), especially the accumulation of terrestrial radiation (IPCC 2001).

In view of the magnitude and ubiquity of the hydrological climatic change apparently now under way and predicted to continue, using the historical record as the central, default assumption in water resource planning, including hydropower relicensing, is no longer reasonable (Milly et. al., 2008). Managing water resources to address climate change impacts will likely prove different than managing for historical climate variability because: (1) climate changes could produce hydrologic conditions and extremes of a different nature than current systems were designed to manage; (2) they may produce similar kinds of variability but outside of the range for which current infrastructure was designed; (3) traditional water resource management assumes that sufficient time and information will be available before the onset of large or irreversible climate impacts to permit managers to respond appropriately; (4) traditional management assumes that no special efforts or plans are required to protect against surprises or uncertainties (Kiparsky and Gleick, 2005).

The Commission must therefore assess the potential impacts of climate change in any consideration of future license conditions, including: a) potential changes in precipitation patterns and the resulting effects on the hydrology of the Lower Susquehanna river, and b) potential changes in water temperature and the resulting impacts on aquatic resources throughout the geographic scope of analysis. We recommend that the Commission use existing models and

8 data that predict a range of potential future scenarios involving water temperature, precipitation, and flows. This information should be integrated into all relevant studies, complementing any analysis of past temperature and hydrologic data with alternative scenarios that can help the commission to develop licenses for these projects that are better prepared to adapt to a changing climate. While we recognize that there is no guarantee that any given model will be able to accurately predict the future, it is also increasingly clear that past hydrologic and temperature data cannot be relied upon to provide an accurate picture of future conditions. We request, therefore, that FERC staff look at the outputs from climate models along with past hydrologic data to develop a flexible license with a range of “if…then” conditions that will allow it to better withstand to a wide range of climatic possibilities without being reopened.

The Susquehanna basin has already been the subject of extensive modeling and research to assess the potential effects of climate change. The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR, http://www.gisclimatechange.org/) can provide downscaled data related to air temperature and precipitation projections for, at a minimum, three emissions scenarios as defined by the IPCC’s Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (20C3M, SRESA2, and SRESB1). The input data can be used in the Chesapeake Bay Phase 5 Watershed model (http://www.chesapeakebay.net/model_phase5.aspx?menuitem=26169) to evaluate the effects of each scenario on hydrology and water temperature in the Lower Susquehanna. These data and models are accepted as the best available.

2.5 Section 8.0 Proposed EA Outline

Section 5.0 of the Proposed EA Outline will include FERC Staff’s Conclusions and Recommendations for new license. We request that FERC Staff make specific findings of fact as the basis for each such recommended condition. The Draft EA should identify the evidence on which it relies for a given finding, explain why that evidence is probative, and also explain why FERC Staff reject competing evidence on the same issue. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 556, 557, 706(2); Fed. Rules Evid. 702; and 40 CFR § 1502.14(a). See also Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993); Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Insurance, 463 U.S. 29 (1983); Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (1962); Farmers Union Central Exchange v. FERC, 734 F.2d 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, 354 F.2d 608, 620-1 (2nd Cir. 1965).

9 Subsection 5.5. of the Proposed EA Outline will include FERC Staff’s determination of the proposed action’s consistency with Comprehensive Plans. The Draft EA should analyze and display the consistency of each action alternative with the specific management objectives or requirements in each of the 40 comprehensive plans listed in SD1. We respectfully disagree with the Commission’s standard practice of summarily concluding, in a single sentence of a NEPA document, that a preferred alternative is inconsistent with such management objectives or requirements.

We request that FERC Staff consider the following, additional comprehensive plans:

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. State Water Plan. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. December, 2008.

Susquehanna River Basin Commission. 2008. Comprehensive Plan for the Water Resources of the Susquehanna River Basin. Harrisburg, PA, December 2008.

3 Study requests and Comments on Proposed Studies

At this time, American Rivers does not make any specific study requests, although we plan to comment extensively on Exelon’s proposed study plan. We strongly support the studies requested by the Nature Conservancy in its July 10, 2009 filing to the Commission. We are also supportive of the studies requested by The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and other Federal and State resource management agencies in Pennsylvania and Maryland.

4 References Cited

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. The Scientific Basis: IPCC Third Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Kiparsky, M., P.H. Gleick, 2005. Climate Change and California Water Resources: A Survey and Summary of the Literature. California Energy Commission. CEC-500-2004-073- ED2.

Mann, M. E., R. S. Bradley, and M. K. Hughes. 1999. “Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations.” Geophysical Research Letters 26(6): 759–762.

Milly, P. C.D, J. Betancourt, M. Falkenmark, R. M. Hirsch, Z. W. Kundzewicz, D. P. Lettenmaier, R. J. Stouffer, 2008. Stationarity Is Dead: Whither Water Management? Science, Vol. 319, 1 February, 2008.

10 National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.

5 Conclusion

We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments, and look forward to working collaboratively with FERC staff, Exelon, and other stakeholders during the relicensing of this project.

Dated: July 10, 2009

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ John Seebach

John Seebach Director, Hydropower Reform Initiative American Rivers 1101 14th St. NW, Suite 1400 Washington, DC 20005 202-347-7550 ext. 3055 [email protected]

/s/ Sara Strassman

Sara Strassman Associate Director, River Restoration Program American Rivers 355 N. 21st Street, Suite 309 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: 717-763-0741 [email protected]

11 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20426 July 10, 2009

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS

Project No. 2355-011-Pennsylvania Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project Exelon Generation Company, LLC

Ms. Colleen Hicks Exelon Power 300 Exelon Way Kennett Square, PA 19348

Reference: Request for Additional Information and Studies

Dear Ms. Hicks:

After reviewing the Pre-Application Document (PAD) for the proposed relicensing of the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project, staff have determined that additional information on shoreline erosion, project operation, terrestrial resources, and endangered species is needed. Staff have also determined that studies on water quality, fish entrainment, transmission line and avian interaction, aesthetics, and cultural resources are needed. The additional information and study requests are discussed in the enclosed Schedule A and should be addressed in your study plan proposal, to be filed on or before August 24, 2009.

If you have any questions, please contact John Smith at (202) 502-8972, or via e- mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Ann F. Miles, Director Division of Hydropower Licensing

Enclosure: Schedule A

cc:

Ms. A. Karen Hill Exelon Corporation 101 Constitution Avenue, Suite 400E Washington, DC 20001

Mailing List, Public Files

Schedule A 1 Project No. 2355-011 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Reservoir Shoreline

1. Pages 4-6 through 4-8 of the Pre-Application Document (PAD) provide a shoreline erosion inventory map of the Muddy Run power (upper) reservoir but not the adjacent Muddy Run recreation lake. There is no discussion of how the Muddy Run recreation lake is operated and whether any erosion is occurring at the recreation lake. In order to determine if recreational activities and project operation and/or maintenance are affecting the shoreline of the recreation lake and the potential need for additional studies to address any issues associated with shoreline erosion, please describe how the recreation lake is operated, and describe the recreation lake shoreline, including steepness, composition and vegetative cover, and existing soil instability.

Project Operation

2. Page 4-9 of the PAD, states that the project does not operate its pumps when the Conowingo reservoir level is below elevation 104.7 feet. However, the frequency that low levels in Conowingo reservoir have impacted the use of the project’s pumps has not been quantified. For the period of record, please provide a summary of the dates that low water levels in Conowingo reservoir have prevented pump operation.

Aquatic Resources

3. Numerous fisheries surveys are cited in the PAD’s summary of the existing fisheries resources. These surveys have been conducted over the past 30 years, including several since 2000 and as recently as 2008. It is likely that adequate information is already available from these collective surveys to evaluate the health and trends of the fisheries resource in project waters. However, to confirm this, it is necessary that these reports be made available to FERC staff as well as other stakeholders. Therefore, please provide these reports in either hard copy or electronic format.

Terrestrial Resources

4. Section 4.6.3 of the PAD discusses riparian zones, but does not describe riparian zone habitat or vegetation at the project. Please provide a description of the riparian zone at the project. In addition, in figure 4.8.3-1, “Sensitive Resources” are depicted on the map and legend. Please clarify what these resources are.

Threatened and Endangered Species

5. Section 4.7, Critical Habitat and Threatened and Endangered Species, does not include the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). So staff can assess the

Schedule A 2 Project No. 2355-011 need for species-specific habitat surveys, please evaluate the potential for Indiana bat to occur at the project.

STUDY REQUESTS

After reviewing the PAD, we have identified a gap between the information in the PAD and the information needed to assess project effects. As required in section 5.9 of the Commission’s regulations we have addressed the seven study request criteria for each of the study requests that follow.

Water Quality Study

Criterion (1) – Describe the goals and objectives of each study proposal and the information to be obtained.

Operation of the project may affect habitat for aquatic resources residing in the 900-acre Muddy Run power reservoir and downstream of the project discharge. The goal of this study is to characterize water quality within the power reservoir under a variety of conditions such as during project generation, and under a variety of meteorological conditions and seasons. The study plan should be developed in consultation with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (Maryland DNR).

Criterion (2) – If applicable, explain the relevant resource management goals of the agencies or Indian tribes with jurisdiction over the resources to be studied.

Not applicable.

Criterion (3) – If the requester is not a resource agency, explain any relevant public interest considerations in regard to the proposed study.

Sections 4(e) and 10(a) of the Federal Power Act require that the Commission give equal consideration to all uses of the waterway on which a project is located. When reviewing a proposed action, the Commission must consider the environmental, recreational, fish and wildlife, and other non-developmental values of the project, as well as power and developmental values.

Criterion (4) – Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal and the need for additional information.

In the PAD, the Power reservoir is described as a 900-acre body of water impounding 60,000 acre-feet of water with an average depth of 60 feet. Muddy Run reservoir serves as the storage reservoir for power generation during times of peak

Schedule A 3 Project No. 2355-011 demand. The project also includes a recreation lake to provide recreation opportunities since the power reservoir is restricted from public access. The PAD describes results of water quality studies performed on the recreation lake and project tailrace but does not include any existing water chemistry data for the power reservoir. Water quality data is needed to characterize the current existing conditions within the power reservoir and to analyze the effects of project operations on temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO) and other water quality parameters.

Criterion (5) – Explain any nexus between project operations 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.

The project operates as a pumped storage facility. Operation of the project could create conditions within the power reservoir that could directly impact water quality in the power reservoir and in the project’s tailwater. Impacts of operating the project in this manner could include increases in turbidity and nutrients from erosion. The effects of project operations on water quality could subsequently impact resident fish populations and essential reservoir benthic habitat in the power reservoir and the Susquehanna River downstream of the project discharge. A water quality study would provide information on the relationship between project operation and water quality to inform a decision on any needed measures.

Criterion (6) – Explain how any proposed study methodology (including any preferred data collection and analysis techniques, or objectively quantified information, and a schedule including appropriate field season(s) and the duration) is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community or, as appropriate, considers relevant tribal values and knowledge.

The most common method for obtaining water quality data is a field study to collect water quality profiles along transects of the power reservoir. This involves collection of water quality parameters (DO, temperature, pH and conductivity) at equally spaced intervals in both horizontal (upstream to downstream) and vertical (water column) profiles. Incoming river flow and discharge flow and meteorological conditions should be documented during the course of the study to determine the effects of incoming river flow, discharge flow, and meteorological conditions on water quality. Data from the study can be used to describe variation of water quality on a temporal and spatial basis. One field season should be sufficient to perform the study provided there is a variety of conditions with a month or two of data analysis and report writing.

Criterion (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.

Schedule A 4 Project No. 2355-011 One field season should be sufficient to perform the study with a month or two of data analysis and report writing. It is expected that several data transects across the reservoir would be necessary to fully characterize the Muddy Run power reservoir water quality. Total study cost would depend on the number of transects and frequency of monitoring. The estimated cost to perform the water quality study would be $50,000.

Entrainment and Impingement Study

Criterion (1) – Describe the goals and objectives of each study proposal and the information to be obtained.

The goal of the study is to evaluate the potential for fish entrainment and impingement at the Muddy Run project’s intakes and the effects on the quality of the Conowingo reservoir fishery resources as well as on migratory fish which pass through the reservoir seasonally. The objectives of this study, at a minimum, are to describe: (1) the physical characteristics of the intake structures including their locations and dimensions, the velocity distribution in front of the intake structures, the presence of any trashracks or screens, and if present, the size of the clear spacing between bars; and (2) the likely effects of project-induced entrainment or impingement on fish resources based on the physical characteristics of the project and the results of existing fish survey data. The study plan should be developed in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Maryland DNR, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission.

Criterion (2) – If applicable, explain the relevant resource management goals of the agencies or Indian tribes with jurisdiction over the resources to be studied.

Not applicable.

Criterion (3) – If the requester is not a resource agency, explain any relevant public interest considerations in regard to the proposed study.

Criterion (4) – Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal and the need for additional information.

Radio-telemetry studies of American shad indicate that they are at risk for entrainment into the Muddy Run intakes. Additionally, comments made during the site

Schedule A 5 Project No. 2355-011 visit and scoping meetings suggest that some level of entrainment mortality occurs at the Muddy Run Project. The clear spacing on the intakes of the project is 5.75 inches. However, information in the PAD was not sufficient for staff to evaluate the potential for project-induced entrainment or impingement of fish at the project’s intakes and any associated effects on the quality of the fishery resources. The results of this study along with the fish survey data requested above would provide insight into whether entrainment or impingement at the project intakes is likely affecting the Conowingo fishery resources and whether additional fish protection measures are needed.

Fish that reside in or migrate through Conowingo reservoir could be susceptible to impingement on project trashracks or entrainment through the project’s turbines when the project is operating. Evaluation of the physical characteristics of the project’s intake structures and location, turbine types, operation mode, along with the results from existing fish surveys would help inform a decision on the need for additional fish protection measures in any license issued.

A number of different methodologies could be used to collect the water velocity profiles such as acoustic Doppler technology. The remainder of the study would involve a desktop analysis evaluating the likelihood of entrainment and impingement based on the physical characteristics of the project and the results of the fish surveys. Sufficient literature should be available to describe life history characteristics, swimming speeds, and avoidance behaviors of the dominant fish species identified during the fish surveys. The fish survey results would also help describe the quality of the existing fishery and whether it might be affected by entrainment or impingement. An evaluation of the relationship between the quality of the fishery and the likelihood of entrainment and impingement effects has been used recently for a number of hydro-relicensing cases to determine whether additional fish protection measures are needed.

Criterion (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.

Schedule A 6 Project No. 2355-011 Some field work would be required to obtain the water velocity data; otherwise, the study would involve desktop review of the literature on entrainment and impingement at hydroelectric sites and the results of the fish surveys. The velocity data should be collected, at a minimum, at the maximum hydraulic capacity of the project to obtain a worst case scenario. We expect that two field days would be sufficient to obtain the velocity data with a month or two of literature review, analysis, and report writing. The estimated cost of conducting this study would be $20,000 to $50,000.

Transmission Line Avian Interaction Study

Criterion (1) – Describe the goals and objectives of each study proposal and the information to be obtained.

The project transmission lines pose a threat of electrocution and collision to large birds, such as raptors. The goal of this study is to determine the use of the project transmission line and structures by raptors and to determine if structure alterations, such as bird diverters or nesting platforms, are necessary to prevent electrocutions and collisions. The objectives of this field study, at a minimum, would be to quantitatively and qualitatively describe the use of the transmission lines and structures by avian species and document existing nests on a map. The study plan should be developed in consultation with the FWS, Maryland DNR, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (Pennsylvania DCNR), and Pennsylvania Game Commission.

Criterion (2) – If applicable, explain the relevant resource management goals of the agencies or Indian tribes with jurisdiction over the resources to be studied.

Not applicable.

Criterion (3) – If the requester is not a resource agency, explain any relevant public interest considerations in regard to the proposed study.

Criterion (4) – Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal and the need for additional information.

In the PAD you state that raptors, such as bald eagles and ospreys, are common nesters in the area. These species perch on transmission lines and may use transmission

Schedule A 7 Project No. 2355-011 line structures for nesting. However, no information regarding avian interaction with transmission lines or structures is presented in the PAD.

The project area is a popular area for raptors and other birds. Transmission lines and structures pose a threat of collision and electrocution to these birds. A study to determine the use of the project transmission lines (two 4.25-mile-long lines) and structures by these birds would provide information to determine if protection measures are necessary.

This study should identify existing nests in the project area on transmission line structures and identify use of transmission lines and structures for perching by raptors and other large avian species.

Criterion (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.

One field season should be sufficient to perform the study with a month or two of data analysis and report writing. The study should include a nest survey, avian count, and document any evidence of collisions along the transmission corridor. Costs would depend on the number of surveyors utilized in the field to identify avian use of the transmission lines and structures as well as existing nests, but would approximately be between $10,000 and $20,000.

Aesthetics Study

Criterion (1)—Describe the goals and objectives of each study proposal and the information to be obtained.

The goal of the study is to assess the aesthetic effects of the operation of the pumped storage facility. The study’s objectives are to (1) assess the visual aesthetic effects of the pumped storage facility, specifically the effects of the angle and intensity of the lighting at night on the surrounding public and recreation areas, and (2) evaluate the

Schedule A 8 Project No. 2355-011 impacts of noise generated from the facility on the surrounding public and recreation areas during both day and night operation. The assessment should also explore measures to screen or minimize any significant aesthetic effects.

Criterion (2)—If applicable, explain the relevant resource management goals of the agencies or Indian tribes with jurisdiction over the resources to be studied.

Not applicable.

Criterion (3)—If the requester is not a resource agency, explain any relevant public interest considerations in regard to the proposed study.

Criterion (4)—Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal and the need for additional information.

The PAD cites in section 4.9 that Muddy Run Project lands include many areas of high aesthetic value due to their topography, geology, vegetation, and reflection of the historically agriculturally-driven economy of the area. In addition, it states the presence of several scenic byways, viewscapes, and islands on the Susquehanna River viewable from project lands. The PAD, however, does not indicate any consideration of the potential aesthetic impacts nor propose any measures to limit visual and/or noise-related impacts. Therefore, staff need sufficient information in order to evaluate the pumped storage facility’s visual and audio impacts on aesthetic resources at and around the project.

Criterion (5)—Explain any nexus between project operations 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.

Project operation at the Muddy Run pumped storage facility occurs throughout different periods of the day and night. Noise is generated during both times, as well as bright light emitted from the facility at night, which could affect the aesthetics of the surrounding natural and recreational areas. An aesthetic impact study would provide necessary information to assess the effects on aesthetic resources.

Schedule A 9 Project No. 2355-011 Criterion (6)—Explain how any proposed study methodology (including any preferred data collection and analysis techniques, or objectively quantified information, and a schedule including appropriate field season(s) and the duration) is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community or, as appropriate, considers relevant tribal values and knowledge.

Several types or combinations of methodologies are possible in addressing the aspects involved in assessing the visual and audio impacts of daily project operation. Some methods could include literature review, field reconnaissance to determine existing and predicted levels via modeling, field surveys to compare existing versus proposed decibel levels at several key observation points along the shoreline and islands within the area, or some combination of these approaches, each of which have been used successfully in hydroelectric project licensing cases. Detailed explanation of the criteria to be used to judge both visual and noise-related impact from project operation must be clearly outlined. Specific methodologies and scope can be refined during a study plan meeting(s).

Criterion (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.

The study is estimated to take between two and three months to complete, and the cost is estimated to be between $10,000 and $20,000. As stated above, total costs and efforts would depend on the specific methodology chosen.

Archeological and Historic Resource Survey

Criterion (1) Describe the goals and objectives of each study proposal and the information to be obtained.

The goal of the study is to determine the effects of project operation and any potential enhancement measures on archeological and historic resources. The study should be developed in consultation with the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and other interested parties.

The survey and subsequent report should satisfy these specific study objectives: • recommend an appropriate area of potential effects (APE);1

1 A project's area of potential effects (APE) is tentatively defined as the lands enclosed by the project's boundary as delineated in the PAD for the project, and lands or properties outside the project's boundaries where project operation or project-related

Schedule A 10 Project No. 2355-011 • identify known resources through the available literature; • identify locations that have the potential to contain archaeological resources; • locate any archeological sites that may exist in areas exhibiting effects from project operation and in areas where ground-disturbing enhancements are proposed; • assess the National Register of Historic Places eligibility of project facilities and other historic resources within the APE, including considering whether they may contribute to a larger district; • evaluate the potential for effects on historic and archaeological resources from operation of the project or from project-related enhancements; and • prepare a draft historic properties management plan (HPMP) to be filed with the initial study report.

Criterion (2) If applicable, explain the relevant resource management goals of the agencies or Indian tribes with jurisdiction over the resources to be studied.

Not applicable.

Criterion (3) If the requester is not a resource agency, explain any relevant public interest considerations in regard to the proposed study.

The continued operation of the project, with any proposed changes or enhancements, may affect the value and integrity of cultural resources in the vicinity of the project.

Criterion (4) Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal and the need for additional information.

recreational development or other enhancements may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any historic properties exist.

Schedule A 11 Project No. 2355-011 Information from the PAD indicates humans have occupied the Susquehanna River Basin for about 14,000 years. The first permanent European settlements occurred in the 1720s and 1730s. Thus, the area could contain archaeological and historic sites.

No comprehensive, professional cultural resources survey has been conducted of the project’s area. Exelon proposes to conduct a Phase 1A assessment of the areas within the project lands that have a high potential to contain historic properties and conduct a National Register Eligibility Assessment of potential historic properties associated with the project. Exelon also proposes to prepare an HPMP for the project.

There may be unknown historic properties or archeological sites surrounding the reservoir or downstream of the project that may be affected by project operation. Due to the possibility of additional historic properties or archeological sites, a survey of the project’s area of potential effect (APE) is needed. Once known sites in the APE have been documented, potentially eligible historic properties, and any project effects upon them, should be identified.

Criterion (5) Explain any nexus between project operations and effects (direct, indirect, and/or cumulative) on the resource to be studied, and how the study would inform the development of license requirements.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of the NHPA (section 106) requires that federal agencies, licensees, and those receiving federal assistance take into account the effect of proposed undertakings on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (Historic Properties). Operating and maintaining the project (such as reservoir fluctuations) could affect known or unknown Historic Properties.

The survey would provide information on historic and archeological sites located within the APE. The subsequent report would provide information on which sites are potentially eligible for the National Register and any potential effects of the project on these sites. If there would be an adverse effect on Historic Properties, an applicant- prepared HPMP, developed in consultation with the Commission, the SHPO, and other interested parties, would likely be necessary to avoid or mitigate effects. Exelon should file the final HPMP with the license application. The implementation of the HPMP could then be required in any new license.

Criterion (6) Explain how any proposed study methodology (including any preferred data collection and analysis techniques, or objectively quantified information, and a schedule including appropriate field seasons(s) and the duration) is consistent with generally accepted practice in the professional design community or, as appropriate, considers any known tribal values or knowledge.

Schedule A 12 Project No. 2355-011 The generally accepted practice is to conduct a literature review and field reconnaissance; depending on the results, a more intensive field survey may be necessary. Prior to conducting the survey and report, Exelon should consult with the SHPO on: (a) the delineation of the APE; (b) methods on how the survey should be conducted; (c) anticipated effects on cultural resources; and (d) what properties are and are not considered eligible for the National Register.

The Cultural Resources Report should include all the information necessary to satisfy the objectives listed under Criterion (1). The evaluation of project effects on cultural resources should include both site-specific effects (i.e., project operation and maintenance, erosion, vehicular traffic, etc.) and all potential future effects (i.e., new recreational facilities, etc.).

Criterion (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.

The study would likely take one study season to complete. The cost is estimated to be between $8,000 and $25,000 per project, depending on the intensity of the surveys.

Planning Commission 150 North Queen Street Suite #320 July 10,2009 Lancaster, PA 17603 Phone: 717-299-8333 County Commissioners Fax: 717-295-3659 Dennis P. Stuckey, Chairman www.co.lancaster.pa.us/planning Scott Martin, Vice-Chairman Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Craig Lehman Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Executive Director 888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A James R. Cowhey, AICP Washington, DC 20426

Re: Scoping Document for Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, P-405 and Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project, P-2355

Dear. Ms. Bose:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject Scoping Document. We find the content of the scoping document to be acceptable and have no recommendations or suggestions for additional studies.

In response to your request for information that will assist you in conducting an accurate and thorough analysis of the project-specific and cumulative effects associated with relicensing the Conowingo and Muddy Run projects, we offer the Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan which can be found on our website at \VWW.co.lancaster.pa.us/planning. Relevant elements include the following: • ReVisions Policy Element • Balance Growth Management Element • Functional Elements o Heritage (cultural heritage element) o Greenscapes (green infrastructure element) o Connections (transportation element) o 1996 Water Resources Plan (water resources element)

In addition, we recommend that you consult the Lancaster-York Heritage Region Management Action Plan, which is available from the Susquehanna Heritage Gateway Area (\VWW.lyhr.org).

Should you have any questions about these documents or need assistance with accessing the documents, please contact our Senior Environmental Planner, Mary Gattis-Schell for assistance.

Sincerely,

Scott W. Standish, Director Long Range & Heritage Planning

Copy: File Susquehanna Gateway Heritage Area RIVERKEEPER® Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc. July 10, 2009

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First St., NE Washington, DC 20246

RE: Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 405-087 Comments to PAD, Study Requests Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper/Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc.

Dear Secretary Bose,

Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc. (SOLS) and its members are grateful for the opportunity to comment on the relicensing PAD for the Conowingo Dam, FERC Project number 405-087. Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc, is a non-profit IRS 501(c)(3) membership organization dedicated to improving the ecological health of the Lower Susquehanna River Watershed and the Chesapeake Bay. Current and future citizens of the Lower Susquehanna River Watershed deserve high water quality, wise and sustainable use of all aquatic resources, and preservation of aesthetic value of our waterways. SOLS has members in Cecil and Harford Counties, MD and Lancaster and York Counties, PA.

The Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper® is a full-time advocate employed by SOLS to promote the ecological and economic health of the lower Susquehanna River watershed from Sunbury, PA to Havre de Grace, MD. The Conowingo Project lies within the area of concern for the Lower Susque- hanna Riverkeeper.

PAD Comments:

Extensive comments were made by the Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper at both scoping meetings held for the Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 405-087. Many of our concerns have been addressed in the PA Fish and Boat Commission comments, and we fully support the comments and study requests submitted by PFBC. We would also like to declare our support for comments and study requests submitted by the Mason-Dixon Trail Association regarding parking for recreational users of Muddy Creek below Rt 74.

SOLS will limit our written comments to our two biggest concerns, American eel and sediment buildup in the Conowingo Pool.

Office & Reading Room 324 West Market Street, Lower Level York PA 17401 [email protected] 717 779.7915 www.LowerSusquehannaRiverkeeper.org 2

Over the past few years, more research has been done to determine the relationship between the American Eel and its environment. This research has revealed clues to the complex interaction between eels and mussels, eels and nutrient removal from the Susquehanna and Chesapeake Watersheds, and eels and the Atlantic Fisherires.

The American Eel inhabits fresh and salt waters and has a catadromous breeding cycle, meaning they live mostly in fresh water, they go to salt water to breed and die, then the young return to fresh water. This is opposite of species like salmon and shad. In autumn the glass eels migrate into estuaries along the Atlantic coast, including Chesapeake Bay. These eels are known as elvers. Some elvers remain in the estuaries, but others migrate upstream, sometimes for several hundred miles, overcoming substantial obstacles such as spillways, dams, falls and rapids. The eels will remain in the brackish and fresh waters of these rivers for the majority of their lives, for at least five and as many as twenty years. The eels live in fresh water, and the Susquehanna is believed to be the largest historical habitat in U.S. waters, once hosting millions, possibly hundreds of millions of eels. The migration pattern was halted by the building of four hydroelectric dams on the Lower Susquehanna, starting in 1904. These dams were too great an obstacle for the elvers, and the dams have effectively blocked 99% of the Susquehanna Watershed from the return of young eels, for over one hundred years.

The importance of this is being researched by William Lellis of USGS’ Northern Appalachian Research Laboratory in Northern Pennsylvania. In brief, Bill has discovered a symbiotic relationship between the eels and the Elliptio Complanata “mussel” (not a true mussel). According to the research, the American Eel is the best, and nearly only host for the young, or glochidia, of this “mussel” in the Susquehanna (contrary to data used in Holtwood Mussel Habitat Study, Table 4, which was taken from Ohio Basin Survey). And in return for being the breeding host, the mussel is consumed as one of the favorite foods of the American Eel.

Elliptio Complanata, or Eastern Elliptio is a native species that makes up over 98% of mussel populations in the adjacent Delaware watershed, a river that has no major dams blocking eel migration. In the Delaware the Elliptio population is over 2 million mussels per mile of river. Each mussel filters .5-1.25 gallons of water per day. This means that the Delaware River is filtered six times per day, removing nutrients and sediments.

Without the eels as a host for the young Elliptios, the Susquehanna River may be losing (have lost) its natural filtration system, potentially increasing the stress of nutrients and sediments on the Chesapeake Bay. You may note in PPL’s Mussel Habitat Study that all the Elliptios found were of larger, older varieties, supporting the idea that little breeding is going on with the Elliptios.

If we were to have populations similar to the Delaware in just the main tributaries of the Susquehanna, we could see a reduction in sediment and nutrients of 300,000 tons per year (365 days x 1000 miles x 1696 lbs/mile/day in the Delaware). This is a very conservative estimate, as there are tens of thousands of miles of waterways in the Susquehanna watershed, and Elliptios and eels have been known to inhabit small tributaries (as small as 5 feet wide). Taking this into account, the Elliptios could filter as much as 3 million tons of sediments and nutrients per year.

Of course the mussels don’t absorb and consume all of this material, some is sent back into the environment as feces and pseudofeces. But in this form the material is attractive as a food source for other benthic macro-invertebrates and fish, so much of it stays in the food cycle.

But many of the nutrients are removed by the eels themselves. When eels enter the Chesapeake they are only inches long and a few ounces. At this point they become a food source for many bay fish. As they enter fresh water they are food for other species. But those that survive grow from inches and ounces to two to five feet and three to four pounds before heading back out to salt water. Multiply that biomass times the millions of eels that once migrated here, and you have a substantial removal of nutrients, transported directly out to the Atlantic Ocean. No actual figures are available for the amount of nutrients transported, but some scientists agree that the eel’s life cycle creates a net loss of nutrients to the fresh water system, which is a good thing for the Susquehanna and Chesapeake Bay.

Finally, the American Eels, as well as the migratory herring species, are food sources for the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries. Declining eel populations in the Chesapeake and Atlantic, as well as declining populations of herring and shad, may play a role in the decline of the Atlantic Fisheries.

In summation of this topic, there are relatively inexpensive technologies available to supply American eels with migration routes around the hydrodams. For the elvers migrating upstream, this could consist of a washboard-style ramp with artificial turf on it and a small amount of trickling water. For downstream migration of adults, we would have to drive the eels from the turbine intakes. This could be done with bright lights on the skimmer walls, as eels prefer to travel in the dark. These technologies would cost a fraction of the fish ladders provided for shad and herring. We also believe that this is a much greater ecological concern and value to the Susquehanna and Chesapeake watersheds.

SOLS comments regarding sediment buildup in the Conowingo Pool are enumerated within our first study request, Economic/Environmental Costs Analysis of “No Action” Option for Addressing Sediment Build-Up in the Conowingo Pool.

Study Requests:

1) Economic/Environmental Costs Analysis of “No Action” Option for Addressing Sediment Build-Up in the Conowingo Pool

2) American Eel: Population, Size, Migration Pattern Analysis

1) Economic/Environmental Costs Analysis of “No Action” Option for Addressing Sediment Build-Up in the Conowingo Pool

Conowingo Pool has a capacity to retain approximately 250 million tons of sediment. Recent estimates suggest that 30 million tons of capacity remain and full capacity will be reached within the next licensing period, possibly within 10 to 20 years. This is the greatest amount of sediment retained in the Conowingo Pool since the building of the Conowingo Dam. Damages incurred by the Chesapeake Bay during the 1972 Tropical Storm Agnes event make it imperative for us to understand the costs associated with taking “no action” to address this issue.

During 4 days in 1972, the flood waters of Tropical Storm Agnes transported 4 years worth of sediment and pollutants down the Susquehanna River from New York and Pennsylvania. When the flood waters reached the lower Susquehanna River dams, the waters scoured another 8 years of pollutant- bearing sediment that had been trapped in the reservoirs behind the dams (most from Conowingo). This 4

“catastrophic pulse” of 12 years worth, or 30 million tons, of sediments combined with the surge of freshwater to inflict the biggest single damaging event ever recorded in the Chesapeake Bay.

Over the past 37 years this sediment has accumulated behind the dam to a level far exceeding 1972 levels, creating a threat of damages even greater than those experienced in 1972. Scientists agree that the question is not if this will occur again, but only a matter of when the storm will come. With this type of warning from the scientific community, it is appropriate to evaluate the potential economic and environmental losses associated with a reoccurrence of the “catastrophic pulse” scenario.

1. Study goals and objectives.

The goal of the study is to determine the potential economic and environmental losses to the Chesapeake Bay watershed related to a reoccurrence of the “catastrophic pulse” scenario, a rapid scouring and dumping of tens of millions of tons of pollutant-laden sediment into the lower Susquehanna and Chesapeake Bay.

The objective is to analyze and quantify the economic/environmental impacts of the “no action” response to the buildup of sediment behind the lower Susquehanna River dams. This would include, but not be limited to: losses of habitat and recruitment of crabs, oysters, finfish, macroinvertebrates, and vegetation; loss of environmental services from ecosystem destruction; loss of income to Chesapeake Bay commercial and recreational industries; loss to property values; and increased costs of dredging. Environmental losses will then be converted into approximate economic losses to the Chesapeake Bay communities.

This study is key to any further evaluation of the costs of potential mitigation techniques such as stabilization or removal of sediments. If we do not know the cost of doing nothing, we cannot properly evaluate the costs of doing anything.

2. Resource management goals.

Almost a decade old, the Chesapeake 2000 agreement was signed by the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. All parties agreed to address the sediment retention capabilities of the lower Susquehanna River dams: “Water Quality Protection and Restoration: Nutrients and Sediments, Goal 5. By 2003, work with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and others to adopt and begin implementing strategies that prevent the loss of the sediment retention capabilities of the lower Susquehanna River dams.” As we near the 2010 deadline of the Agreement, sufficient action has not been taken to address the sediment capacity of these dams. In fact, another 12 million tons has been trapped in the last 12 years. Though the comments written into the agreement may be interpreted to be addressing the gradual loss of total retention capacity, the more severe issue associated with the growing sediment storage is the “catastrophic pulse” as described in Section 1. The goal of addressing the “catastrophic pulse” scenario has certainly been verbalized by staff from SRBC and the Chesapeake Bay Program office, if not specifically addressed in the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. Increasing amounts of sediment behind Conowingo Dam represent imminent and substantial threats to the lower Susque- hanna River and Chesapeake Bay.

3. Public interest.

Indeed it is the mission of Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc: “Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc, is dedicated to improving the ecological health of the Lower Susquehanna River Watershed and the Chesapeake Bay. Current and future citizens of the Lower Susquehanna River Watershed deserve high water quality, wise and sustainable use of all aquatic resources, and preservation of aesthetic value of our waterways. Improvement will come about through education, research, advocacy, and insistence upon compliance with the law.”

Additionally, members of SOLS utilize the areas below Conowingo Dam for economic income, recreation, and public education. Impacts to the lower Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay directly effect the economic stability and quality of life of our members.

Michael Helfrich, Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper utilizes the areas above and below the Conowingo Dam for recreational fishing and boating, as well as for public education.

4. Existing information.

Some research has been conducted to determine the general effects of the relatively moderate increases in sediment and phosphorus loading to the Chesapeake Bay as pertains to the loss of sediment and pollutant capture by the lower Susquehanna River dams. This was summarized in the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Science and Technology Advisory Committee (STAC) report entitled “The Impact of Susquehanna Sediments on the Chesapeake Bay”, http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/ Sediment_Report.pdf (excerpts below) . However that is where the research stopped in 2000. No additional work has been done to quantify the ecological and economic losses associated with the reoccurrence of the “catastrophic pulse” as occurred in 1972.

Excerpts of the CBP STAC Report on Susquehanna Sediments

The Objective of the Workshop was to survey the possible consequences of the increased delivery of sediments from the Susquehanna River to the Chesapeake Bay as a result of the loss of retention of sediment storage in the reservoirs behind the existing dams on the river.

The material presented emphasized the complexity of the possible effects of increases in sediment discharge to the Bay and of the increase in severity of scouring events. This is compounded by our inability to forecast the timing or intensity of these scouring events in the river and reservoirs. Detailed predictions are therefore not possible but the consequences that can be predicted with most confidence are:

1) Increased loading of phosphorus in the Middle Bay below the Estuarine Turbidity Maximum zone (the ETM) from sediments that move beyond this zone during large-flow scouring events.

2) Increased needs for dredging the navigation channels in the Upper Bay as the overall load of sediment deposition in the Upper Bay increases. Past information shows that almost all of 6 the sediment delivered by the Susquehanna River is deposited north of the Baltimore area. There is a tendency for high rates of accumulation of finer materials in the deeper channels. These areas are those where the greatest impacts from increased sediment delivery can be expected. If channel dredging continues it will have to be more frequent, and with increased costs.

3) Higher turbidity and faster sedimentation everywhere, but especially in the navigation channels. The range of flow dynamics will be increased, especially during storms. Without channel dredging there will be rapid channel filling, downstream displacement of the salt front, and possible major changes in circulation and sedimentation patterns.

4) Adverse effects on the recovery of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) due to decreased light penetration. Most SAV species in the bay have high light requirements. Sediment solids are always a major factor and any increase in the amount present will be a serious hindrance to the recovery and re-establishment of the SAV population and the habitat which this provides for many of the Bay biota.

5) Benthic organisms will be adversely affected by increased sediment loads that increase the energetic costs from burial. Episodic deposition also rapidly increases mortality and recruitment. Young oysters are sensitive to increased sediment deposition and long-term community structures will be changed by the impoverishment of the macrofauna.

6) Potential effects of increased sediment loading on fish populations in the Upper Bay and the ETM include:

1) direct effects of feeding, clogged gill tissues and smothering of eggs;

2) indirect effects on the abundance of planktonic prey of larval and juvenile fish, and

3) habitat alterations through increased silting and sedimentation with changes in the location and mode of operation of the ETM.

To the extent that increased sediment loading in the Upper Chesapeake Bay will require more dredging and associated activities to maintain channels there may be an increased threat to spawning and nursery habitats for anadromous fishes: this may become an issue in the future.

5. Project nexus.

Though it has been claimed by the Licensee that the sediment and other products stored behind the dam are not the “property” or “concern” of the Licensee, Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc. could not disagree more about responsibility for the “catastrophic pulse”. It is true that the operation of the dam did not create the sediment and pollutants. HOWEVER, if the dam did not exist, there would be no storage of sediment, and more importantly NO potential for the severe “catastrophic pulse” scenario as described under Section 1 above. Without the existence of the Conowingo Dam, the sediment would have entered the Chesapeake Bay at approximately 3.1 million tons per year. This may have caused problems on its own, we will never know, but what we are sure of is that there would not have been such a huge and unnatural load of sediment driven into the bay during one event of scouring. It is the indirect, and cumulative storage of these materials that causes the inevitable effects, and the nexus is the act of storage of materials, whether intended or not. 7

6. Study methodology.

This study has been discussed with University of Maryland’s economist Dr. Dennis King and Virgina Tech’s economist Kurt Stephenson in regard to proper methodology and finding the appropriate economist(s) to conduct this study. We would ask FERC staff to consult with these economists experienced in accepted methods for such an evaluation.

7. Fiscal justification. 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.

Discussions with Dr. Dennis King, economist that has conducted similar studies, the effort would require multiple grad students plus a professional economist to oversee the project and reporting. The cost will be approximately $80,000 to $100,000 for a reasonable evaluation that includes such varying disci- plines as biology, sediment management, commercial fishing economics, and recreation economics.

No study plan has been proposed by the Licensee.

2) American Eel: Population, Size, Migration Pattern Analysis

American eel is a rapidly declining species, especially in this part of their range. The number of eels utilizing the fish lifts at Conowingo Dam has declined from over 91,000 in 1974 to a few dozen per year in recent years.

American eel surveys are necessary to understand the movement of existing migrating eels, as well as eels which will be migrating out within approximately 7 to 10 years (Conestoga River stocking 2008). The studies must include population, size, and movement by American eel above and below the Conow- ingo Dam. The study should determine when eels are moving through the Project area, both upstream and downstream, and what size eels are moving in each direction. The eels migrating upriver can proba- bly be captured as part of general fisheries surveys or current USFWS studies, but special emphasis should be placed on finding eel in the summer and fall during outward migration. This may require additional types of sampling gear or additional time in the field.

1. Goals and Objectives

The goals and objectives of this study are to provide information on the existing use of the Susquehanna River by American eels to aid in the design of fish passage facilities. The information to be obtained should include both the temporal and spatial aspects of American eel distribution, size, and fish movement patterns. Information gained from this study will facilitate the design and operation of American eel protection and passage facilities.

2. Resource Management Goals

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), USGS, USFWS, MD DNR, and PA Fish and Boat Commission have all made American Eel passage a priority. 8

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) News- letter March 1999, Volume 6, Number 1 states:

"The most dramatic example of the decline of American eel abundance is dam construction on the Susquehanna River. (continued under Section 5. Nexus)

"The magnitude of this loss is corroborated by the decline in the eel weir fishery in the Pennsylvania portion of the Susquehanna River. Before the mainstem dams were constructed, the annual harvest of eels in the river was nearly 1 million pounds. Since then, the annual harvest has been zero. Given the longevity of eels in streams (up to 20 years or more) and their large size, the loss of this species from streams above Conowingo Dam represents a significant ecosystem-level impact. Because adult eels migrate to the Sargasso Sea to spawn and die -- transporting their accumulated biomass and nutrient load out of Chesapeake Bay -- the loss of eels has increased nutrient loads in the basin and reduced them in the open ocean where they are more appreciated."

“Although the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries support a large portion of the coastal eel population, eels have been essentially extirpated from the largest Chesapeake tributary, the Susquehanna River. The Susquehanna River basin comprises 43% of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Construction of Conow- ingo Dam in 1928 effectively closed the river to upstream migration of elvers at river mile 10. Before mainstem dams were constructed, the annual harvest of silver eels in the Susquehanna River was nearly one million pounds. There is currently no commercial harvest (closed fishery in Pennsylvania) and very few fish (resulting from Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission stockings in the early 1980s) are taken by anglers above the dam. The Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) collects data in freshwater drainages of Maryland. Eel captures in this survey were collected for the Susquehanna River and tributaries in the vicinity of Conowingo Dam (Figure 1). This data reflects the fact that the dam blocks the upstream migration of eels. By extrapolating densities of eels captured in Maryland the MBSS survey estimated that there would be over 11 million eels in the Susquehanna watershed if their migration was not blocked by dams.”

“Mainstem Susquehanna fish passage facilities (lifts and ladder) were designed and sized to pass adult shad and herring and are not effective (due to attraction flow velocities and operating schedules) in passing juvenile eels (elvers) upriver. Specialized passages designed to accommodate eels are needed to allow them access to the watershed above dams.”

3. Public Interest

Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc (SOLS), the organization’s membership (including residents of Cecil and Harford Counties, MD and Lancaster and York Counties, PA), and Michael Helfrich, the Lower Susquehanna RIVERKEEPER®, all have interests in the ecological and economic health of the lower Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay. Indeed it is the mission of Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc: “Stewards of the Lower Susque- hanna, Inc, is dedicated to improving the ecological health of the Lower Susquehanna River Watershed and the Chesapeake Bay. Current and future citizens of the Lower Susquehanna River Watershed deserve high water quality, wise and sustainable use of all aquatic resources, and preservation of aesthetic value of our waterways. Improvement will come about through education, research, advocacy, and insistence upon compliance with the law.”

Michael Helfrich, Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper, utilizes the areas above and below the Conow- ingo Dam for recreational fishing and boating, as well as for public education. 9

4. Existing Information

USFWS is currently conducting studies of upriver migration and passage techniques at the Conowingo Dam. A project conducted by Steve Minkkinen of USFWS provided small prototype eel ladders and traps on the western shore of the Susquehanna below the Conowingo Dam. One conveyance was a 2– foot diameter plastic corrugated pipe, the other was a 1-foot wide fabric ramp, both set up with geo fabric and a flow of water to attract the elvers (3 to 6-inch young eels). In 2007 nearly 4000 elvers climbed these ladders and were collected by the agency, proving that the dam is an impediment to the eels reaching their habitat. In 2008 the numbers reached nearly 50,000. Reports published by Steve Minkkinen find tens of thousands of eels are approaching Conowingo Dam and utilizing alternative ramps. Exelon documentation shows only a couple dozen utilizing existing fish passages.

Additional research into the important value of mussel glochidia hosting is related below in excerpts from USFWS’ Steve Minkkinen’s report.

“Research conducted by the USGS, Northern Appalachian Research Laboratory indicates that Ameri- can eel may be the primary fish host for the freshwater mussel, eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata) (Lellis et al. 2001). The larval stage (glochidia) of freshwater mussels must parasitize a host fish to complete metamorphosis to the juvenile life stage. Some mussel species are generalists and can use multiple fish species as hosts while others are specialists that rely heavily on one or two host fish species to complete this life stage. Glochidia collected from eastern elliptio in Pine Creek (a tributary to the Susquehanna River) appear to have much higher metamorphosis success rates on American eels than on other fish species found in the river (Lellis et al. 2001). Eastern elliptio is abundant throughout most of its range which spans the entire east coast. However, in comparison with other rivers such as the Delaware River where the eastern elliptio population is estimated to be in the millions (Lellis 2001), biologists have noticed a distinct absence of eastern elliptio abundance and recent recruitment to the Susquehanna River (personal communication, William Lellis, USGS, Wellsboro, PA). Low recruitment of eastern elliptio could be linked to the lack of eel passage over 4 dams in the Susquehanna River.”

“If eels are essential to the reproduction of eastern elliptio or other freshwater mussel species, the implications of providing eel passage to freshwater mussel populations and in turn, ecosystem function could be significant. Similar to oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, freshwater mussels provide the service of natural filtration to the rivers and streams where they live. A healthy reproducing population of eastern elliptio could remove algae, sediment, and micronutrients from billions of gallons of Susquehanna River water each day. Restoring the upstream distribution of American eels and eastern elliptio could potentially improve water quality of not only the Susquehanna River but also the Chesapeake Bay. A research project to further evaluate the relationship between eastern elliptio and American eel has been funded under the USFWS, Region 5, Science Support Program during 2008.”

5. Nexus to Project Operations and Effects

The nexus of the project is the Conowingo Dam’s direct blockage of migrating young eels from over 98%, 27,000 square miles, or tens of thousands of river and stream miles of their native Susquehanna River habitat. Additionally, the Conowingo Dam and Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project may have substantial impacts to mortality rates of out-migrating adult American eels, so migratory paths must be determined to better understand the impacts of both projects of the Licensee.

"The most dramatic example of the decline of American eel abundance is dam construction on the Susquehanna River. Prior to the completion of Conowingo and three other mainstem dams in the 10

1920's, eels were common throughout the Susquehanna basin and were popular with anglers. To estimate the number of eels lost as a result of construction of Conowingo Dam, we used MBSS data on American eels from the Lower Susquehanna basin and extrapolated it to the rest of the basin above the dam. Our best conservative guess is that there are on the order of 11 million fewer eels in the Susque- hanna basin today than in the 1920s.” MBSS Newsletter March 1999, Volume 6, Number 1.

6. Methodology Consistent with Accepted Practice

The recommended study uses standard scientific collecting techniques used in most hydro licensing activities.

7. Level of Effort, Cost, and Why Alternative Studies Will Not Suffice

The level of effort would be minimal since this is essentially an extension of general fisheries surveys already being undertaken. This study may require additional equipment or more frequent sampling. The study would likely last for 7 to 10 years, to account for the maturation of recently transported young eels into the Conestoga River. The existing literature, and the Licensee’s proposal to review existing literature is inadequate to address Project impacts, and there are no alternatives to collecting American eel- specific information

Thank you for reviewing these comments to the Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 405-087 PAD, and Study Requests. Please feel free to contact us with any further questions or comments. Thank you.

From the Mighty Susquehanna, Michael R. Helfrich Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper ® 20090710-5128 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 3:24:29 PM

July 10, 2009

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First St., N.E., Room 1A Washington, DC 20426

RE: Muddy Run Pumped Storage Facility Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Number 2355 Comments on the Pre-Application Document (PAD), Scoping Document 1 (SD1) and Study Requests

Dear Secretary Bose:

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Power Plant Research Program (MDNR/PPRP), supports the comments of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) submitted to your agency in a letter dated July 10, 2009, particularly with respect to the cumulative impact analysis and the requested studies.

PPRP agrees that a true cumulative hydrologic impact analysis of the lower Susquehanna River should include the five hydroelectric, two nuclear, one-coal-fired, and numerous public water supply intakes as a single interconnected system which have impacts on one another, on aquatic resources, on public water supplies, and on inflow to the Chesapeake Bay. As stated by the SRBC, we reiterate the importance of a cumulative analysis being performed in a holistic manner to better identify and evaluate the total impacts and to balance competing flow needs of aquatic resources, power production, public water supplies, protection of downstream users, and inflow to the Chesapeake Bay. We also concur with SRBC and other resource agencies that the collective impacts on the resources of the river justifies an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as opposed to an Environmental Assessment (EA). Therefore, we strongly support a single EIS for all of the Susquehanna hydroelectric facilities and an evaluation of their cumulative impacts, including facilities not going through relicensing at this time.

PPRP also supports the study requests issued by SRBC, which include: 1) Hydrologic Study of Muddy Run Water Withdrawal and Return Characteristics; 2) Opportunities for Enhancement of Migratory Fish Mitigation; 3) Determine Impact of Muddy Run Operations on Upstream Migrating Adult American Shad; 4) Effects of Muddy Run Operations on Migratory Fish Passage; 5) American Shad Population Assessment and Basin-Wide Fish Passage Monitoring; 6) Impingement/Entrainment of Juvenile American Shad Passing Muddy Run in Downstream Out-Migration; 7) Study of Entrainment of Upstream Migrating American Eels; 8) Documenting Mortality of Migratory and Resident Fish Species; 9) Recreational Use Survey; 10)

20090710-5128 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 3:24:29 PM

Characterize Scale and Scope of Impacts of Project Operation to Fish Populations in Conowingo Pond.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Shawn A. Seaman Maryland Department of Natural Resources Power Plant Research Program

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE NORTHEAST REGION 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930-2276

JUL 10 2009

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.B. Washington, D.C. 20426

Re: Comments on Scoping Document for Muddy Run Pumped Storage Facility FERC Docket No. P-2355 and Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, P-405

Dear Ms. Bose,

This is in response to the Scoping Document prepared for the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project and the Conowingo Hydroelectric Project. Exelon Generating Company has submitted Preliminary Application Documents (PAD) to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in support of the renewal of their existing operating licenses for these two projects. The Muddy Run project is located on the Susquehanna River in Lancaster and York Counties, Pennsylvania. Conowingo Dam is located in Maryland connecting Cecil and Harford counties, as is the lowermost six miles of the Project reservoir, Conowingo Pond. The reservoir of the Conowingo Project serves as the lower reservoir for the Muddy Run Project. The following comments are offered by the Protected Resources Division of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Northeast Regional Office.

NMFS Listed Species in the Project Area As noted in both the Scoping Document and the PAD, both the federally endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and the candidate species Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) have been documented below the Conowingo Dam. In addition to observations of shortnose sturgeon incidentally caught by recreational fishermen fishing at the base of the Dam, the incidental capture of several shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon have been reported from the Susquehanna River via the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Atlantic sturgeon reward program. There have been no studies undertaken to document the likely number of either sturgeon species that is present below the dam or whether spawning of either species occurs within the river. As fish passage adequate for sturgeon does not exist at the Conowingo Dam and neither sturgeon species has been documented to use the existing fish lifts at Conowingo, it is extremely unlikely that either shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon occur upstream of the Conowingo Dam. As such, neither sturgeon species is expected to be present in the Conowingo reservoir which serves as the lower reservoir for the Muddy Run Project.

Comments Related to the Scoping Document Section 4.2.4 of the scoping document indicates that the Environmental Assessment (EA) to be prepared in support of the relicensing will consider effects of project operations on shortnose sturgeon. As noted above, Atlantic sturgeon are considered a candidate species for listing under the ESA. As the listing status of this species may change during the relicensing period, NMFS recommends that FERC obtain updated status information for this species prior to the completion of the draft EA. NMFS also recommends that the EA include Atlantic sturgeon in the list of species for which an analysis of effects will be included in the EA. In considering effects of project operations on shortnose sturgeon, the EA should include information and analysis of at least the following: (l) effects of project operation on downstream flow regime and effects of flow changes associated with project operation on potential spawning habitat, access by adults to that habitat, potential to cause delays to spawning, wash out or scouring of eggs or larvae and alternatively, drying out due to dewatering; (2) creation of temporary pools below the dam in which sturgeon can become stranded and information on the persistence of these pools as well as the adequacy of existing minimum flow requirements to prevent stranding; (3) effect of the Dam on distribution of shortnose sturgeon in the Susquehanna River and limiting access to upstream habitat and resources; and (4) effects of release of water through flood control gates on adult or early life stages of shortnose sturgeon.

Comments Related to the Conowingo Pre-Application Document NMFS has reviewed the PAD prepared by Exelon in support of the relicensing of the Conowingo project. The information presented on shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon in section 4.7.2.3 is accurate and reflects the best available information on the presence of these species in the Susquehanna River. The PAD contains no analysis of effects of existing project operations on these species or the effects of continuing operations and maintenance that would result from the proposed relicensing. As noted in the comments provided on the scoping document above, as these species are known to occur below the project and may be affected by project operations, a complete analysis of effects is appropriate.

Study Requests NMFS believes that much of the information related to effects of project operations on shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon may already exist and may be accessible by the applicant. This information includes historic flow during the spring when spawning adults and early life stages may be present as well as information on generating unit prioritization. Additionally, information may exist on the types of habitat present in the project tailrace and in the spillway as well as further below the project that could be used to determine the availability of habitat consistent with preferred sturgeon spawning habitat. However, to the extent that this information is not available and because this information would be informative for the analysis of effects of project operations on shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon, NMFS believes that FERC should require the applicant to obtain this information. Additionally, information on the life history and population dynamics of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon in the Susquehanna River does not exist and will be critical to determining effects of project operations on these species. Further, to the extent that information on stranding of fish below the dam is not available, it should be supplemented, with a specific goal of obtaining information on the stranding and/or drying out of adult and early life stages of sturgeon. As such, NMFS is requesting three studies, as detailed below. Because of the cost and complexity of the studies, and the need to develop more detailed

2 information concerning goals and sampling procedures, additional coordination will be needed. To facilitate these efforts and to ensure timely action, NMFS will provide further assistance and to work with FERC and the applicant in determining how to proceed in a manner that is both productive and efficient. Further, these studies, as they are designed to target listed species, will require coordination with NMFS Headquarters Office of Protected Resources as all scientific research targeting listed species requires a permit issued pursuant to Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act.

1. Life history studies of sturgeon populations affected by the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects Information Need/Study Description and Suggested Methodology: Life history information is needed for shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon populations affected by operation of the Muddy Run and Conowingo projects. Study areas include the Susquehanna River below the Conowingo Dam, including the tailrace and spillway, as well as the upper Chesapeake Bay near Susquehanna Flats. Spawning related studies should include documenting spawning occurring in the study area, locating spawning and nursery habitats, and determining the effects of flow in the study area on spawning and rearing success. Studies should also include locating juvenile and adult habitats, determining population numbers and factors affecting recruitment. Sampling methods should include gill nets, egg nets, and radio telemetry. Detailed study plans will be needed for each component of the life history studies and should be developed in conjunction with NMFS Protected Resources Division and the Office of Protected Resources, Permits Division.

Justification: The shortnose sturgeon is a federally listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. I536(a)(2» states, in part, that each federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary [of Commerce and/or Interior], insure that any action it authorizes is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. The project has blocked and fragmented historical migration patterns for all diadromous species including shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. Information on Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon populations in the Susquehanna River and in the Chesapeake Bay system as a whole is lacking. Site-specific life history studies are needed for an accurate analysis of the effects of the project and its operation on these populations to insure the action to be authorized meets the standards set out in Section 7(a)(2). Further, there are no other systems where these species have access to such a limited portion of a river system from which comparisons could be made. Multiple years of data collection are needed due to the inter-annual variability of environmental factors that can affect spawning, recruitment, and the ability to successfully conduct necessary sampling. Sampling methods proposed are appropriate and frequently used for such studies.

2. Analysis of habitat types present below the dam Information Need/Study Description and Suggested Methodology: Information is needed on the availability of habitat below the dam that is consistent with preferred shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon spawning habitat. Surveys to document substrate type, depth and water velocity are needed. This study should also document how project operations affect the suitability of this habitat. If existing information on downstream habitats are available, this should be used and

3 supplemented as needed. Detailed study plans will be needed and would be based on the level of information already available. Study plans should be closely coordinated with NMFS Protected Resources Division and the Office of Protected Resources, Permits Division.

Justification: The shortnose sturgeon is a federally listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) states, in part, that each federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary [of Commerce and/or Interior], insure that any action it authorizes is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. The project has blocked and fragmented historical migration patterns for all diadromous species including shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. The project blocks all access to historic spawning grounds likely located far upstream of the Conowingo Dam. Shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon have access to only 10 miles of riverine habitat before reaching the dam. It is currently unknown as to whether suitable spawning habitat exists below the dam and whether the amount of available habitat is sufficient to support the spawning and nursery needs of these species. Site-specific studies are needed for an accurate analysis of the effects of the project and its operation on spawning habitat to insure the action to be authorized meets the standards set out in Section 7(a)(2). Further, there are no other systems where these species have access to such a limited portion of a river system from which comparisons could be made. Multiple years of data collection are needed due to the inter annual variability of environmental factors that can affect spawning, recruitment, and the ability to successfully conduct necessary sampling.

3. Documentation of fish stranding below the dam Information Need/Study Description and Suggested Methodology: Water levels below the dam fluctuate substantially and rapidly. When water levels are high, water may be deep enough across the dam face to allow sturgeon to travel up to the dam. However, when water levels drop, fish may become stranded in isolated pools. If fish remain in these pools they can die as water temperatures increase and dissolved oxygen levels decrease. If sufficient infonnation does not exist on the extent of this occurring below the Conowingo Dam, a study should be designed to collect this information. Data to be collected would include: flows at which pools are present below the dam, connectivity between the pools, depth and other water quality parameters for these pools, persistence of these pools over time, and the presence of fish, including documentation to species and life stage, in these pools. This information should then be used to conduct a study to determine adequate minimum flows at which stranding can be prevented.

4 may be experienced by the candidate species Atlantic sturgeon. An investigation into this problem is necessary to determine the full range of effects of the proposed relicensing as well as to develop potential mitigation measures, including potential modifications to minimum now requirements, to insure the action to be authorized meets the standards set out in Section 7(a)(2).

Endangered Species Act comments As noted above, and as stated at the Scoping Meeting held on June 10,2009, endangered shortnose sturgeon have been documented downstream of the project as well as at the base of the Conowingo dam. It is our understanding that, pursuant to ESA Section 7, FERC will request consultation with NMFS on the effects of the Conowingo Project and its operation to be authorized through the proposed relicensing process. While shortnose sturgeon are not known to occur in the lower reservoir of the Muddy Run project, and therefore, would not be vulnerable to impingement or entrainment at the project's intakes, to the extent that the operation and maintenance of the Muddy Run project affects conditions below the Conowingo Dam that may effect NMFS listed species, consultation on the effects of the Muddy Run facility and its operation to be authorized through the proposed relicensing process is appropriate. Based on an initial review of the PAD, it appears that the Conowingo project also may affect shortnose sturgeon. As such, section 7 consultation on the effects of the relicensing of this project is also necessary.

As effects to shortnose sturgeon are likely to result from the proposed action, NMFS recommends that FERC initiate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. FERC should submit a determination of effects along with justification for the determination and a request for concurrence to NMFS. Initial review of the proposed action suggests that adverse effects (i.e., effects that are not discountable, insignificant or completely beneficial) to shortnose sturgeon are likely, and that the proposed action has the potential to result in the take (defined by the ESA as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct") of shortnose sturgeon. As such, formal Section 7 consultation, resulting in the issuance of a Biological Opinion with an appropriate Incidental Take Statement, would be necessary. Please note that if a formal section 7 consultation is necessary, NMFS has 135 days from the date of initiation of consultation (i.e., the date that NMFS has all information necessary to conduct consultation) to deliver a Biological Opinion to FERC. Any take of a listed species that occurs without special exemption (e.g., an Incidental Take Statement) is illegal pursuant to the prohibitions on take contained in Section 9 of the ESA.

NMFS expects that FERC will prepare a Biological Assessment or equivalent document which will provide sufficient information on the effects of the proposed action to initiate consultation. At this time, NMFS believes that the following information is necessary for inclusion in the initiation package: 1. A complete assessment of the habitat in the areas affected by project operations, including substrate type, depth and water velocity. 2. A thorough assessment of the effects of project operation on shortnose sturgeon. This assessment should include an analysis on the effects on now and velocity that may

5 affect spawning and rearing success, including the potential for washout or scouring of early life stages. 3. Information on the potential for shortnose sturgeon, including eggs and larvae, to become "stranded" in pools downstream of the dam that result from changes in operational flow. NMFS expects that this information would include a description of any isolated pools that are present in low flow conditions, how long these pools persist, any escape routes from these pools, and results from surveys of these pools as to the type and numbers of fish that are caught in these pools. Additionally, information should be provided on the frequency at which these pools are present below the dam. 4. Any available information on the use of the existing fishways by sturgeon. Based on the information presented in the PAD it is NMFS understanding that no shortnose sturgeon have been documented in the fishway. The document prepared by FERC should include any relevant information related to this topic.

In addition, please note that if FERC requires any studies that may affect listed species (e.g., a fish sampling study that may result in the incidental capture of shortnose sturgeon), FERC's action would trigger Section 7 consultation. NMFS requests that FERC discuss any proposed studies with NMFS so that our agency may review the studies and work with FERC to determine whether the studies may affect listed species. My staff looks forward to working cooperatively with FERC on the effects of these projects on listed species. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Julie Crocker of my staff at (978)282-8480 or by e mail at Julie.Crocker((Unoaa.gov.

Sincerely, /\~ Oo-LQ~' \ ~ 7'.... Mary A~olligah-J Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources

Cc: FINER3 - Damon-Randall FINER4 - McDermott GCNE - Williams, Lynch FWS - Miller

File Code: Sec 7 FERC Conowingo Dam Relicensing PCTS T/NER/20091

July 10, 2009

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Room 1A Washington, DC 20426

RE: COMMENTS - Conowingo Hydroelectric Project (No. 405-087) and Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project (No. 2355-011)

Dear Secretary Bose,

The Nature Conservancy is providing this letter in response to the request for information, comments, and study requests included in “SCOPING DOCUMENT, CONOWINGO HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, MARYLAND/PENNSYLVANIA, PROJECT NO. 405-087 AND MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT, PENNSYLVANIA, PROJECT NO. 2355-011” dated May 11, 2009 regarding the application for new licenses at these facilities.

The Nature Conservancy appreciates the opportunity to provide input on these projects. We have organized our comments into three sections: Section I provides general background about The Nature Conservancy and the specific interface between the re-licensing effort and our conservation mission; Section II provides comments on the scoping document; and Section III requests specific studies.

I. GENERAL BACKGROUND ON THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

The Nature Conservancy (the Conservancy) is a private, non-profit 501(c)3 organization with membership and operations throughout the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay watersheds, and around the globe. Our mission is to protect the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. We are a science-based organization that works with partners to identify and implement solutions to complex conservation problems. We have over one million members world-wide. Since our inception in 1951, we have protected more than 120 million acres of land, 5,000 miles of streams, and have 150 active marine conservation projects.

After nearly 50 years of conservation in the Mid-Atlantic region, the Conservancy launched a multi-state Chesapeake Bay Program in 2004 to join with other public and private agencies and

1 organizations to protect and restore the Bay’s diversity of life. As the United States’ largest estuary, the Bay is an iconic feature that provides important ecological services along with food and recreation for millions of people. It also serves as a home for more than 3,600 species, and is a crucial nursery for many fish and birds that migrate up and down the Atlantic coast and beyond.

Building on the protection of nearly 200,000 acres in the Bay watershed, Conservancy staff is working today to protect and restore ecologically important lands, ensure sustainable freshwater management across the watershed, improve habitat conditions for riverine and estuarine fishes, abate nutrient and sediment pollution, and adapt critical habitats to climate change.

Efforts to protect and restore flows and fish passage in the Susquehanna River are a key component of our conservation work. Modifications to the infrastructure and operation of the hydropower facilities on the Lower Susquehanna – including improvements to fish passage and modifying releases to restore critical flows – have potential to benefit priority species and habitats.

The Conservancy, primarily through its Pennsylvania and Maryland Chapters and Chesapeake Bay Program, has interests that will be directly affected by the outcome of the re-licensing of these projects. These interests include protecting and enhancing the ecosystem processes that support freshwater and estuarine species and habitats of the Susquehanna River and the upper Chesapeake Bay.

II. COMMENTS ON THE SCOPING DOCUMENT

We comment on the issues and alternatives described in the Scoping Document 1 (SD1). Our comments track the title and outline number in SD1 for each section where we have comments.

Section 1. INTRODUCTION

SD1 states FERC Staff’s intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) at this time, but that there is a possibility that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required. See SD1, p. 3. We understand that under the Council for Environmental Quality’s regulations, see 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4, an action agency may prepare an EA in order to determine whether an EIS is required. However, based on our review of the Pre-Application Documents (PADs), we believe the proposed action potentially will have several significant impacts on the environment that will not be mitigated by the license applicant’s current proposal. Thus we believe FERC Staff should proceed directly to prepare an EIS. At a minimum we request that FERC Staff publish a draft EA for public review and comment.

2 Section 2.0 SCOPING

SD1 states that FERC Staff will issue a revised Scoping Document addressing any substantive comments received. SD2 should describe responsibilities for preparation of the environmental document as between the Commission and any cooperating agencies. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7(a)(4)

Section 3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

The discussion of alternatives is the “heart” of the environmental document. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. The draft environmental document should include and analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to Exelon’s proposals, including those submitted by The Nature Conservancy and other parties. These action alternatives should be displayed as discrete action alternatives, not just as accepted (or rejected) elements of whatever Staff's ultimate preference may be. This approach permits systematic comparison of the costs, benefits, and other impacts of all reasonable action alternatives. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a) - (b). This approach is necessary to compare alternative minimum flow schedules and other elements of regulation of baseline power operations.

Section 3.1.2. Current Project Operation

The SD1 states that “Conowingo is operated as a modified run-of-river facility…has a limited storage capacity…average daily flows through the Conowingo Project are largely controlled by the amount of water delivered from Safe Harbor dam….” SD1, p. 11. This description does not adequately address the effects of project operations on the flow regime of the Susquehanna River. In particular, during low flow months (e.g., July through October), daily and subdaily (i.e., instantaneous) flows are significantly modified as a result of operations. A definition of “modified run-of-river” should be provided generally describing how subdaily (i.e., instantaneous) flows are significantly altered as a result of operations.

Section 3.2.2. Proposed Environmental Measures

The SD1 indicates that Existing Measures at the Conowingo Project include “operation of east and west fish lifts for migratory fishes.” It should be noted that these measures are not targeted to all migratory fishes (e.g., American eel), but specifically toward certain fishes (e.g., American shad). It should also be noted that the west lift is not currently used for fish passage; rather it is used to capture shad for hatchery production. Additionally, it should be noted that there is an eel ladder used for experimental studies at the west lift.

Section 3.3. Alternatives to the Proposed Action

We request that FERC Staff analyze all reasonable alternatives, including those outside the Commission’s jurisdiction. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a)-(c).

More specifically, we request the Commission include in its consideration an alternative designed to maximize ecological restoration benefits of the current project, as considered within

3 the Lower Susquehanna River system. Such an alternative would, at a minimum, achieve the following:

• “True” (i.e., instantaneous) run-of-river operations that result in largely natural flow regimes downstream of the projects. • Efficient passage (e.g., >90% of the population of each species attempting to pass the dam) of migratory and resident fish both upstream and downstream of the projects. • Sustainable sediment management that results in the re-creation of natural habitat and substrates in the system and limits the threat of catastrophic sediment delivery.

Such an assessment provides important information for considering environmental restoration opportunities with those of hydropower generation.

Section 4.1.1. Resources That Could be Cumulatively Affected

We request that resident fish in the Lower Susquehanna River system, as well as Chesapeake Bay habitats (e.g., submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation) and diadromous species (e.g., American shad, striped bass), be included in an assessment of resources that could be cumulatively affected by the projects. As the Susquehanna River is the largest single source of freshwater to the Chesapeake Bay, it is likely that resources in the upper Bay are affected by project operations.

Section 4.1.2. Geographic Scope

The SD1 indicates that the downstream limit for analysis is Havre de Grace, Maryland for water quantity and quality issues. As the Susquehanna River is the largest single source of freshwater to the Chesapeake Bay, it is likely that effects from coordinated flow releases from upstream dams are felt farther downstream. In Section III, infra, we propose studies to investigate the geographic extent and intensity of these effects, and request that the FERC Staff extend its geographic downstream limits to include the upper Chesapeake Bay (to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge). We also request that FERC Staff analyze whether Exelon coordinates operations of Conowingo and Muddy Run with the upstream licensees – PPL Corporation, Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation, and York Haven Power Company, LLC – under written agreements or standard practices; what the operating agreements require; and how the new licenses may enhance such coordination for the benefit of developmental and non-developmental uses.

The SD1 also indicates that the downstream limit for analysis is Conowingo Dam for migratory fishes. Similarly, the potential effects of coordinated flow releases on migratory fish behavior and habitat are subjects of proposed study in this letter, and we request the Commission extend its geographic downstream limits to include the upper Chesapeake Bay (to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge).

4 Section 4.1.3. Temporal Scope

We request that in its consideration of future actions, FERC Staff assess the potential impacts of climate change, including: 1) potential changes to precipitation patterns on inflows to and outflows from the project, and 2) potential changes in water temperature on the aquatic resources upstream and downstream of the project (including upper Chesapeake Bay). Existing models and data are available to make 50-year projections to quantify predicted stream flow and water temperature changes in the region. These findings can be integrated into proposed studies as applicable, and used to frame potential scenarios within which future project operations will need to function. Specifically, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR, http://www.gisclimatechange.org/) can provide downscaled data related to air temperature and precipitation projections for, at a minimum, three emissions scenarios as defined by the IPCC’s Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (20C3M, SRESA2, and SRESB1). Consequently, these input data can be used in the Chesapeake Bay Phase 5 Watershed model (http://www.chesapeakebay.net/model_phase5.aspx?menuitem=26169) to study the different scenarios. These data and models are accepted as the best available.

Section 4.2.2. Aquatic Resources

FERC Staff proposes to analyze the effects of project operations, including reservoir fluctuations and minimum flow releases, on aquatic resources. See SD1, pp. 22-24. We request that the analysis use metrics (such as population trends, or habitat conditions) that are measurable as testable hypotheses over the terms of the new licenses. We also request that the analysis use metrics that permit comparison of the condition of the resource under the full range of discharge.

We request that FERC Staff analyze the following, additional aquatic resource issues for both cumulative and site-specific effects:

• Effects of continued project operation on the recruitment, population dynamics, and habitat needs of resident and migratory fishes. • Effects of continued project operation on the persistence of aquatic habitats upstream and downstream of the project. • Effects of continued project operation on the effectiveness of upstream and downstream passage of migratory fishes.

The need for including these additional issues is provided in Section III, infra.

The fourth bullet in this subsection proposes to analyze project impacts on water quality standards. FERC Staff should analyze each action alternative’s compliance with each of Pennsylvania’s water quality standards, including beneficial uses, narrative and numeric objectives and anti-degradation policy applicable to the affected reaches.

5 Section 6.0. Request for Information and Studies

The Nature Conservancy has developed global expertise in environmental flow science and management, including creating tools and techniques to assess human influence on water flow and associated ecosystem impacts. These assessments can, in turn, provide important information to develop collaborative solutions that resolve potential incompatibilities between human and ecosystem needs, as well as design and implement an adaptive management plan to improve water management.

As a result of our expertise in environmental flows and our interest in the health of the Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay, we have developed an assessment of flow alterations in the lower Susquehanna River, and potential implications in the upper Chesapeake Bay. We include this assessment, “Flow alterations in the lower Susquehanna River and upper Chesapeake Bay,” as Exhibit 1 attached to this document and ask the Commission to include it in the public record.

Section 7.0 EA PREPARATION SCHEDULE

SD1 shows the license applications being filed in 2012. SD1, p. 31. This is consistent with the Process Plan and Schedule proposed by Exelon in Section 2.0 of the PADs for Muddy Run and Conowingo. Exelon’s Proposed Process Plan and Schedule leading up to final license application tracks the requirements of 18 C.F.R. Part 5, however it does not build in time for collaboration on studies or negotiations. We encourage Exelon to permit time for collaboration on studies and negotiations, consistent with the Commission’s Policy Statement on Hydropower Licensing Settlements (2006).

Section 8.0 PROPOSED EA OUTLINE

Section 5.0 of the Proposed EA Outline will include FERC Staff’s Conclusions and Recommendations for new license. We request that FERC Staff make specific findings of fact as the basis for each such recommended condition. The Draft EA should identify the evidence on which it relies for a given finding, explain why that evidence is probative, and also explain why FERC Staff rejects competing evidence on the same issue. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 556, 557, 706(2); Fed. Rules Evid. 702; and 40 CFR § 1502.14(a). See also Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993); Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Insurance, 463 U.S. 29 (1983); Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (1962); Farmers Union Central Exchange v. FERC, 734 F.2d 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, 354 F.2d 608, 620-1 (2nd Cir. 1965).

Subsection 5.5. of the Proposed EA Outline will include FERC Staff’s determination of the proposed action’s consistency with Comprehensive Plans. The Draft EA should analyze and display the consistency of each action alternative with the specific management objectives or requirements in each of the 40 comprehensive plans listed in SD1. We respectfully disagree with the Commission’s standard practice of summarily concluding, in a single sentence of a NEPA

6 document, that a preferred alternative is inconsistent with such management objectives or requirements.

We request that FERC Staff consider the following, additional comprehensive plans:

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. State Water Plan. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. December 2008.

Susquehanna River Basin Commission. 2008. Comprehensive Plan for the Water Resources of the Susquehanna River Basin. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. December, 2008.

7 III. SPECIFIC STUDY REQUESTS

In response to the request for additional information and studies, The Nature Conservancy requests that Exelon be required to include the following studies in its study plan(s).

1. Creation of a lower Susquehanna River hydrologic model that can generate river flows at all projects and surface water withdrawals in the lower river, including Conowingo Dam, Muddy Run, City of Baltimore withdrawal, Chester Water Authority withdrawal, Peach Bottom power facility, Holtwood Dam, Safe Harbor Dam, and York Haven Dam. This model should be used to examine the relative impacts of each project and the cumulative impacts of all projects on Susquehanna River flows under current, historical, and future (incorporating climate change) hydrologic conditions.

2. Water quality modeling in the upper Chesapeake Bay and links to the Chesapeake Bay Program’s water quality standards (set to protect living resources, including fish, crabs, oysters, and underwater bay grasses) and water quality needs of other individual species and aquatic communities for which data are available, including striped bass and shortnose sturgeon.

3. Assessment of habitat availability and persistence (at a subdaily time step) in the zone affected by subdaily flow fluctuations downstream of Conowingo Dam.

4. Influence of subdaily flow fluctuations on (a) diadromous fish movement; (b) larval fish survival and growth; (c) abundance and composition of macroinvertebrates downstream of the dam, including mussels and aquatic insects; (d) resident fish community composition, including abundance of host fish for mussels.

5. Assessment of the passage efficiency of fish ladders at Conowingo Dam for diadromous fish species, including American shad, river herring, and eel, for both upstream and downstream movement. This study should also include assessment of survival and condition of fish passing over the dam in both upstream and downstream directions.

6. Physical and biological effects of alterations in sediment dynamics in the reservoir and downstream, including (a) sediment deposition in Conowingo pool and effects on habitat of resident and migratory fish; (b) sediment starvation and armoring downstream of the dam and effects of scouring flows; (c) characteristics of flow events (i.e., magnitude, frequency, duration) capable of scouring the Conowingo pool and releasing pulses of stored sediment downstream; (d) the biological impacts in the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay of sediment release from Conowingo pool.

8 1. Creation of a lower Susquehanna River hydrologic model that can generate river flows at all projects and surface water withdrawals in the lower river, including Conowingo Dam, Muddy Run, City of Baltimore withdrawal, Chester Water Authority withdrawal, Peach Bottom power facility, Holtwood Dam, Safe Harbor Dam, and York Haven Dam. This model should be used to examine the relative impacts of each project and the cumulative impacts of all projects on Susquehanna River flows under current, historical, and future (incorporating climate change) hydrologic conditions.

A hydrologic model of the lower Susquehanna River should be created that incorporates water withdrawals and project operations for all facilities and withdrawal points, including Conowingo Dam, Muddy Run, City of Baltimore withdrawal, Chester Water Authority withdrawal, Peach Bottom power facility, Holtwood Dam, Safe Harbor Dam, and York Haven Dam. This model should be able to calculate river flows at each project under current, historical, and future hydrologic conditions. Future hydrologic conditions should incorporate projected changes in precipitation due to climate change, using the climate model described in our comments on the scoping document (see Section II, supra). The hydrologic model should be used to examine scenarios of water withdrawals, project operations, and precipitation that examine: (1) the individual and cumulative effects of all withdrawals and facilities in the lower Susquehanna River (downstream of Marietta) on river flows at the daily and subdaily time step, (2) the hydrologic influence of Conowingo Dam (at a daily and subdaily time step) relative to other projects in the lower river, including other hydroelectric dams, (3) any changes in the hydrologic impacts of the lower Susquehanna projects under projected climate change scenarios, (4) scenarios that minimize the hydrologic and ecological effects of project facilities (i.e., operations that mimic instantaneous unregulated river flows). Information from these scenarios should be used to develop management strategies to minimize identified environmental and hydrologic impacts.

The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) currently has an OASIS model that calculates river flows at Conowingo, incorporating all upstream dam operations and water withdrawals. This model can be used to separate the effects of dam operations from those of water withdrawals on river flow. However, the model is not able to examine the influence of each project separately to assess relative impacts, nor does the model currently incorporate climate change scenarios. This version of the OASIS model could be modified to include operational information specific to each individual project, output flow data at each project location, and incorporate climate change.

Goals and objectives

The goals and objectives of this study are to (1) determine the individual and cumulative effects of all lower Susquehanna River projects on river flows, (2) determine the extent of alteration of river hydrology caused by operation of Conowingo Dam relative to other projects in the lower Susquehanna River, (3) examine changes in individual and cumulative effects of projects under climate change scenarios, (4) develop management strategies that minimize identified environmental and hydrologic impacts.

9 Resource management goals

The requestor is not a public agency. However, we believe the information gathered as a result of this study would further regional resource management goals, and more specifically the water quality, ecosystem, and Chesapeake Bay goals stated in the Susquehanna River Basin Commission’s Comprehensive Plan for the Water Resources of the Susquehanna River Basin (2008), including:

“Monitor and assess the biological, chemical, and physical quality of the basin’s waters to support restoration and protection efforts.” Comprehensive Plan for the Water Resources of the Susquehanna River Basin, p. 51.

“Develop, support, and implement plans and projects to remediate and enhance the basin’s water quality.” Id., p. 52.

“Protect the quality of the basin’s biological resources and sources of public drinking water supply.” Id., p. 53.

“Organize, maintain, and distribute water quality data to facilitate basinwide water quality improvement and protection activities.” Id.

“Perform ecosystem monitoring and assessment to provide data needed for effective watershed management.” Id., p. 59.

“Protect and restore biological resources throughout the basin and in each of the major subbasins.” Id., p. 60.

“Restore populations of migratory fish throughout the Susquehanna River system.” Id.

“Identify the minimum freshwater inflows needed from the Susquehanna River to assist in restoring and maintaining the ecological health of the Chesapeake Bay, while also identifying opportunities for enhancement.” Id., p. 64.

“Support the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort, including sediment and nutrient reduction strategies developed by each of the Commission’s member states.” Id.

Public interest considerations

Conowingo Dam and other projects in the lower Susquehanna River alter freshwater flows, impacting aquatic species and communities. Flow alterations caused by the cumulative effects of all projects in the lower Susquehanna are outlined in The Nature Conservancy’s white paper “Flow alterations in the lower Susquehanna River and upper Chesapeake Bay” (Exhibit 1).

10 Existing information and the need for additional information

Available information in the PAD does not indicate how project operations have altered downstream hydrology, which affects resident and migratory fish, macroinvertebrates, aquatic plants and other biota, and natural processes in the upper Chesapeake Bay. Although analyses performed by The Nature Conservancy have documented cumulative effects of all projects (dam operations and surface water withdrawals) in the lower river on hydrology, limitations with current data do not allow for an examination of the relative effects of any one project (e.g., Conowingo), or for comparisons of scenarios that may inform alternative operations at one or more project(s) to mediate the effects of hydrologic and ecological alteration. These modeling studies will inform FERC Staff’s analysis aquatic resource issues in the environmental document as described in subsection 4.2.2 of the SD1.

Nexus between project operations and effects on the resource

Conowingo Dam is currently operated with a seasonally-varying minimum flow, often with large, rapid, subdaily flow fluctuations between the seasonal minimum and project capacity. These changes affect biotic habitat and biota downstream of the project. Results of the study will be used to develop flow-related license requirements and/or other mitigation measures.

Methodology consistent with accepted practice

Creation of hydrologic models is the accepted practice for examining the relative impacts of projects on river flows where gages are not available to provide flow data. Hydrologic models are also the accepted method for examining alternative management scenarios under current, historical, and projected future hydrologic conditions.

Level of effort, cost and why alternative studies would not suffice

Level of effort and cost should be moderate because this is a desktop analysis and an existing hydrologic model can be modified to examine the requested scenarios. No other studies would be able to fully assess the relative impacts of all projects in the lower Susquehanna River of river flows, examine impacts of climate change, and inform alternative management strategies. Exelon did not propose any alternative studies specifically addressing this issue.

The Nature Conservancy has completed analyses to assess flow alterations in the lower Susquehanna River downstream of Conowingo Dam using river flow data at the USGS Conowingo gage and modeled flow data obtained from the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (derived from SRBC’s OASIS model). These analyses indicate that river flows

11 entering Chesapeake Bay are substantially different in terms of magnitude, frequency, duration, and rate of change compared with unregulated conditions (see The Nature Conservancy’s white paper “Flow alterations in the lower Susquehanna River and upper Chesapeake Bay”, Exhibit 1). Flow alterations are attributable to both dam operations and consumptive use; however, dam operations cause the greatest alterations in the flow regime, resulting in decreased magnitude and increased frequency of low flows and changes in the shape of the natural hydrograph to create flow patterns that are flashier, have different shapes, and periodically lower flows than would occur under unregulated conditions. In addition, hydropower dams are causing extreme fluctuations in flow volume, variability, and rate of change compared with unregulated conditions on a subdaily time step. Consumptive use also decreases the magnitude and increases the frequency of low flows (i.e., low flows are lower and occur more often), but tends to result in a hydrograph that more closely mimics the shape of the natural hydrograph.

Flow alterations have the potential to impact water quality and habitat availability in the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay, as well as life history strategies, survival, and population dynamics of aquatic species. These changes may ultimately affect species abundance and community composition. Studies are needed that establish what linkages there are between flow alteration at daily and subdaily time steps and specific ecological responses of species and communities found in the Susquehanna River and upper Chesapeake Bay.

Water quality modeling can be used to examine different scenarios of dam operations and consumptive use in the lower Susquehanna River and effects on Chesapeake Bay water quality, which can ultimately be linked to the Chesapeake Bay water quality standards (set to protect living resources, including fish, crabs, oysters, and underwater bay grasses) and water quality needs of other individual species and aquatic communities for which data are available, including larval, juvenile, and adult striped bass and shortnose sturgeon. A watershed sub-model (for example, HSPF, the Chesapeake Bay Program’s watershed submodel) can model (1) baseline (no dams or consumptive use), (2) current, and (3) alternative future scenarios of flows and nutrient loadings in the Susquehanna River based on drafted scenarios of alternative dam operations and consumptive use. The watershed sub-model can be linked with a sediment model to produce sediment loadings to the upper Chesapeake Bay, and with hydrodynamic and eutrophication models to examine bay water quality and salinity under these alternative scenarios. All models would need to operate on a subdaily time step (hourly or finer) to examine the effects of subdaily flow fluctuations and potential interactions between subdaily flow fluctuations and tidal action on Chesapeake Bay water quality.

Scenarios to consider with the water quality model:

• Baseline conditions (no dams, no consumptive use) • Current conditions (current dam operations, current consumptive use) • Dam operations only (current conditions) • Consumptive use only (current conditions) • Alternative scenario 1: adjust dam operations to ameliorate decreased magnitude and frequency of low flows • Alternative scenario 2: adjust dam operations to ameliorate flashiness (shape of hydrograph should closely resemble baseline, both at daily and subdaily time step)

12 • Alternative scenario 3: adjust consumptive use to ameliorate decreased magnitude and frequency of low flows • Alternative scenario 4: combination of the above scenarios (1-3) • Alternative scenario 5: incorporate climate change scenarios into the above scenarios of dam operations and consumptive use.

Goals and objectives

The goals and objectives of this study are to determine the effects of flow alterations in the lower Susquehanna River (downstream of Conowingo dam) on water quality (including salinity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and temperature) in the Chesapeake Bay, and how these water quality changes may affect the Chesapeake Bay Program’s water quality standards and the survival, abundance, distribution, movement, and population dynamics of bay species. This study must consider more than just alterations in minimum flows; the entire range of the flow regime (magnitude, frequency, duration, timing, and rate of change of both low and high flows) should be considered at a daily and subdaily time step to reflect the potential impacts of subdaily flow fluctuations caused by hydropower peaking. Climate change scenarios and effects on river flows, particularly changes that are projected to occur during the duration of the next license for the projects, should also be considered. The geographic extent of any potential effects should also be investigated under different flow conditions.

Resource management goals

“Develop, support, and implement plans and projects to remediate and enhance the basin’s water quality.” Id., p. 52.

“Protect the quality of the basin’s biological resources and sources of public drinking water supply.” Id., p. 53.

“Organize, maintain, and distribute water quality data to facilitate basinwide water quality improvement and protection activities.” Id.

“Perform ecosystem monitoring and assessment to provide data needed for effective watershed management.” Id., p. 59.

13 “Protect and restore biological resources throughout the basin and in each of the major subbasins.” Id., p. 60.

“Restore populations of migratory fish throughout the Susquehanna River system.” Id.

“Support the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort, including sediment and nutrient reduction strategies developed by each of the Commission’s member states.” Id., p. 65.

Public interest considerations

Conowingo Dam alters freshwater flows in the lower Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay, potentially impacting bay water quality and living resources. These alterations are summarized above and outlined in greater detail in The Nature Conservancy’s white paper “Flow alterations in the lower Susquehanna River and upper Chesapeake Bay” (Exhibit 1).

Existing information and the need for additional information

We are not aware of any existing information that examines the relationship between flow alteration in the Susquehanna River and water quality in the upper Chesapeake Bay, particularly with respect to alterations in river flows caused by Conowingo Dam (compared with an unregulated condition, on a daily and subdaily time step).

These modeling studies will inform FERC Staff’s analysis aquatic resource issues in the environmental document as described in subsection 4.2.2 of the SD1. Output from the water quality model will include water quality estimates (dissolved oxygen, salinity, temperature, and water clarity) for each of the scenarios outlined above. The output will allow for comparisons between water quality under baseline conditions (no dams or consumptive use), current conditions (with current dam operations and consumptive use), and alternative scenarios of dam operations and/or consumptive use (e.g., changes in minimum flow standards, introduction of ramping rates, restrictions on peaking operations during time periods with critical life history stages for migratory fish). The Chesapeake Bay Program has outlined water quality criteria for indicator species in the upper bay (e.g., crabs, oysters, SAV, diadromous fish). Water quality values for alternative scenarios can be compared with current conditions to determine alternative scenarios of dam management that would result in more protective water quality conditions (i.e., closer to meeting the Bay Program’s criteria for indicator species), thus increasing bay health. Water quality conditions under baseline scenarios can provide a “control,” i.e., conditions that may be expected if dams and consumptive use were absent.

Nexus between project operations and effects on the resource

According to the PADs, project operations may contribute to impacts on water quality (e.g., erosion and sedimentation) and aquatic resources (e.g., barrier to fish passage). Water quality

14 modeling will allow FERC Staff, Exelon, and other stakeholders to determine how and to what extent current dam operations impact water quality and living resources in the upper Chesapeake Bay, and provide suggestions for alternative scenarios of dam operations that would be expected to improve water quality conditions for key indicator species. Water quality modeling will help answer many questions of how current flow alterations are impacting bay water quality.

Methodology consistent with accepted practice

The recommended study uses standard modeling techniques used by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program to examine how changes in hydrology impact water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and resulting effects on established water quality standards.

Level of effort, cost and why alternative studies would not suffice

This study does not require any field work, and the modeling can likely be completed within one to two years. More than one model is available that can meet the goals and objectives of this study, but the most widely used model is the Chesapeake Bay Program’s model, comprising watershed and estuary sub-models. The total cost is currently unknown, but the estimated range (based on conversations with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and researchers at the University of Maryland) is $100,000 - $500,000.

No other studies would be able to provide information on how subdaily and daily flow fluctuations downstream of Conowingo dam influence water quality and living resources in Chesapeake Bay.

3. Assessment of habitat availability and persistence (at a subdaily time step) in the zone affected by subdaily flow fluctuations downstream of Conowingo Dam

An unsteady flow model (with the capability of modeling instantaneous flows) should be used to assess habitat availability and persistence downstream of Conowingo Dam for resident and diadromous fishes and aquatic macroinvertebrates (including mussels). Commonly used methods of relating instream flow to habitat availability for aquatic species and communities (such as models used within the IFIM process) do not analyze habitat persistence at a subdaily time step, which is a crucial factor influencing species distributions downstream of dams with high subdaily flow fluctuations, like those observed downstream of Conowingo Dam. Species that are commonly found along stream margins and in shallow water habitats, including many resident fish, larval and juvenile fish, and mussels, depend on stable habitat patches that are often unavailable in river reaches dominated by high subdaily flow fluctuations. Rapid changes in depth and water velocity, hydraulic forces, and substrate composition may all result in lack of suitable habitat for aquatic species. These parameters can only be fully investigated through analysis of instantaneous flows using an unsteady flow model.

Goals and objectives

The goals and objectives of this study are to analyze suitable, persistent habitat for aquatic species and communities, particularly those found in shallow water habitats and along stream

15 margins, downstream of Conowingo Dam. The study should examine effects of instantaneous flow releases from the dam on changes in depth, water velocity, hydraulic forces, and substrate composition, and ultimately assess habitat available under current dam operations relative to alternative dam operations.

Resource management goals

The requestor is not a public agency. However, we believe the information gathered as a result of this study would further regional resource management goals, and more specifically the ecosystem and Chesapeake Bay goals stated in the Susquehanna River Basin Commission’s Comprehensive Plan for the Water Resources of the Susquehanna River Basin (2008), including:

“Perform ecosystem monitoring and assessment to provide data needed for effective watershed management.” Id., p. 59.

“Protect and restore biological resources throughout the basin and in each of the major subbasins.” Id., p. 60.

“Restore populations of migratory fish throughout the Susquehanna River system.” Id.

“Support the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort, including sediment and nutrient reduction strategies developed by each of the Commission’s member states.” Id., p. 65.

Public interest considerations

Conowingo Dam alters freshwater flows on a subdaily time step, potentially reducing or eliminating stable, persistent habitat needed by larval or juvenile fish, mussels, and other riverine species and communities.

Existing information and the need for additional information

There is no existing information on the effects of alteration of instantaneous flows from Conowingo dam on downstream habitat availability and habitat persistence. This information is needed to fully assess how peaking operations at Conowingo impact riverine species and communities. The study results will inform FERC staff’s analysis of project impacts on aquatic resources, including its evaluation of the “[a]dequacy of existing minimum flows for protecting aquatic habitat downstream of Conowingo dam.” SD1, p. 23.

Nexus between project operations and effects on the resource

Conowingo Dam operates as a peaking hydropower facility, causing large, rapid fluctuations in river flow over short time steps. The Nature Conservancy’s analyses of subdaily flow

16 fluctuations have shown that the flow fluctuations downstream of Conowingo Dam are much greater and more frequent than fluctuations observed at the Marietta stream gage, upriver from the dam. Based on scientific literature, physical responses to such subdaily flow variation include loss of stable aquatic and riparian habitat, changes in sediment dynamics, water temperature, and flow velocity, and reductions in wetted area and aquatic habitat diversity (Cushman 1985, Blinn et al. 1995, Freeman et al. 2001, Grand et al. 2006, van Looy et al. 2007, Fette et al. 2007).

Methodology consistent with accepted practice

Unsteady flow models are the standard scientific practice for evaluation of instantaneous flows. Some commonly used habitat models do not take instantaneous flows into account and do not examine habitat stability or persistence at a subdaily time step. However, these features are needed to fully assess the effects of hydropower peaking on downstream riverine communities, and new developments in flow and habitat models have made this type of analysis possible.

Level of effort, cost and why alternative studies would not suffice

The level of effort and cost for this study is not currently known. Alternative studies would not be sufficient in analyzing the effects of instantaneous flow releases on stability and persistence of suitable habitat for riverine species and communities.

4. Influence of subdaily flow fluctuations on (a) diadromous fish movement; (b) larval fish survival and growth; (c) abundance and composition of macroinvertebrates downstream of the dam, including mussels and aquatic insects; (d) fish community composition, including abundance of host fish for mussels

In addition to the water quality modeling described above, field studies are needed to examine the impacts of altered flow and water quality on life history strategies, population dynamics, and community composition of species and communities in the Susquehanna River downstream of the dams. In particular, field studies are needed to investigate the effects of extreme flow fluctuations on a subdaily time step caused by hydropower generation.

Field studies should be conducted to examine the effects of hydrologic alteration resulting from dam operations on community composition and population dynamics of migratory and resident fishes and macroinvertebrates. Specific studies should investigate:

• Influence of subdaily flow fluctuations on (a) diadromous fish movement (i.e., do flow fluctuations influence the number of fish that try to pass over the dam, or the number that try to spawn below the dam in the zone influenced by peaking?); (b) larval fish growth and survival; (c) abundance and composition of macroinvertebrates downstream of the dam (mussels, aquatic insects); (d) fish community composition, including abundance of host fish for mussels.

• Influence of increased frequency and decreased magnitude of low flows (i.e., low flows that are lower and more frequent than would be expected for unregulated conditions) on

17 (a) diadromous fish movement and reproduction, (b) larval fish growth and survival, (c) abundance and composition of macroinvertebrates, and (d) fish community composition.

The field studies listed above should take the form of (1) experimental flow releases that mimic a more natural hydrograph at the subdaily and daily time step and (2) comparisons between reference stream reaches that are not impacted by subdaily flow fluctuations (such areas include the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the Marietta stream gage, reaches with similar ecological features on the lower Potomac and lower Delaware rivers) and the Susquehanna River downstream of Conowingo Dam. This study should take at least two field seasons.

Field season 1: follow current operations for Conowingo Dam and measure the following at all study reaches:

• Diadromous fish movements • Diadromous fish spawning downstream of the dam • Larval fish growth and survival • Abundance and composition of freshwater mussels • Abundance and composition of aquatic insects • Resident fish community composition, with particular attention paid to host species for freshwater mussels

Field season 2: Implement ramping rates and minimums for instantaneous flows at Conowingo Dam to examine potential environmental benefits of alternative dam operations that maximize environmental benefits by minimizing instantaneous flow alteration; for example, experimental dam operations might include ramping rates no more than 1000 cfs per hour and minimum flows no less than 75% of flow at the Marietta stream gage. Measure the following at all study reaches:

Goals and objectives

The goals and objectives for this study are to determine how documented flow alterations downstream of Conowingo Dam (including subdaily flow fluctuations and increased frequency and decreased magnitude of low flows) impact aquatic species and communities, and investigate how changes in ramping rates and minimum flow releases may improve ecological conditions downstream of the dam.

18 Resource management goals

The requestor is not a public agency. However, we believe the information gathered as a result of this study would further the ecosystem goal of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission’s Comprehensive Plan for the Water Resources of the Susquehanna River Basin (2008) to “Restore populations of migratory fish throughout the Susquehanna River system.” Id. p. 60..

It will contribute the goal stated in the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for shad and river herring. (Report No. 35) (1999) to “Protect, enhance, and restore east coast migratory spawning stocks of American shad, hickory shad, and river herrings in order to achieve stock restoration and maintain sustainable levels of spawning stock biomass.” Id., p. 31.

It will contribute to the recovery goals for shortnose sturgeon: “Insure that fish passage devices on all proposed and re-licensed structures allow adequate passage of shortnose sturgeon and do not alter migration or spawning behavior.” National Marine Fisheries Service, Final Recovery Plan for the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), p. 76 (1998), available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/.

Public interest considerations

Conowingo Dam alters freshwater flows at a subdaily time step, potentially altering the movement, abundance, population dynamics, and/or community composition of diadromous and resident species in the Susquehanna River.

Existing information and the need for additional information

Recent analyses have shown that Conowingo Dam greatly increases subdaily flow fluctuations, decreases the magnitude of minimum flows, and increases the frequency of minimum flows relative to unregulated conditions. However, there is no existing information that can be used to determine the effects of these subdaily flow fluctuations and changes to minimum flows on aquatic species and communities downstream of Conowingo Dam. These studies are needed to determine the effects of the dam on downstream aquatic species and communities, and to investigate how changes in operations (including introduction of ramping rates, changes in minimum flows) may ameliorate these effects.

Nexus between project operations and effects on the resource

Current peaking operations at Conowingo cause subdaily flow fluctuations in the river that have unknown effects on aquatic species and communities. Most work to date has focused on daily mean flow values, but instantaneous flows and rate of change in flow values are known to affect downstream resources. Changes in the frequency, magnitude, and predictability of subdaily flow fluctuations downstream of dams have been shown to reduce abundance, diversity, reproductive success, and survival of aquatic and riparian species (Cushman 1985, Blinn et al. 1995, van Looy et al. 2007). At the extreme, rapid fluctuations in water depth may cause stranding and mortality of fish and other aquatic organisms and lead to accelerated rates of bank collapse. Studies are

19 needed to determine the magnitude and nature of these effects and potential changes in dam operations to mitigate detrimental ecological impacts.

Methodology consistent with accepted practice

All field sampling should be conducted according to accepted scientific practice. The experimental design (i.e., three reference reaches, one upstream and two in neighboring large rivers without large hydropower dams that increase subdaily flow fluctuations and alter magnitude and frequency of minimum flows) is necessary to separate impacts of Conowingo Dam from effects of other confounding factors.

Level of effort, cost and why alternative studies would not suffice

These studies would require field work during two field seasons at four study sites. In addition, changes in dam management to replicate experimental flow releases during year 2 of the study may result in lost power revenue. Total cost of the studies is unknown. There are no other methods that can evaluate the effects of subdaily flow fluctuations downstream of Conowingo on aquatic species and communities, or potential ecological benefits of changes in dam operations.

5. Assessment of the passage efficiency of fish ladders at Conowingo Dam for diadromous fish species, including American shad and eel, and resident fish species for both upstream and downstream movement. This study should also include assessment of survival and condition of fish passing over the dam in both upstream and downstream directions.

Upstream and downstream fish passage efficiency should be evaluated for Conowingo Dam to determine how well Conowingo is contributing to fish passage goals set by the Chesapeake Bay Program and resource agencies and to evaluate alternatives to increase fish passage efficiency. Fish surveys and sampling should be implemented to determine the species and abundance of diadromous fish upstream and downstream of the dam. Radio telemetry should be used to track how many fish of each species attempt to pass over the dam in both directions (including both individuals that attempt passage in close proximity to the dam structure and individuals that may be deterred from approaching the dam by suboptimal conditions, including flow, velocity, hydraulics, temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, or substrate), and the proportion of individuals that are successful. Tracking via radio telemetry and fish sampling should be continued after passage attempts to determine the condition and survival rates of individuals that (a) attempt to pass and fail, and (b) are successful.

Goals and objectives

The goals and objectives of this study are to evaluate current upstream and downstream fish passage efficiency for Conowingo Dam, with particular focus on American shad and eel, and examine alternatives to increase fish passage efficiency to meet goals set by the Chesapeake Bay Program and state and federal resource agencies. In addition to fish passage efficiency, the study should also evaluate survival and condition of all fish passing over the dam in an upstream or downstream direction.

20 Resource management goals

It will contribute to the recovery goals for shortnose sturgeon, including: “Insure that fish passage devices on all proposed and re-licensed structures allow adequate passage of shortnose sturgeon and do not alter migration or spawning behavior.” National Marine Fisheries Service, Final Recovery Plan for the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), p. 76 (1998), available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/.

Public interest considerations

Conowingo Dam acts as a barrier for fish movements, potentially limiting the movement of these migratory species in upstream and downstream directions, as well as condition and survival of individuals. Barriers to diadromous fish movement may limit access to critical habitat for important life stages, fragment populations, and delay or decrease spawning, ultimately influencing population dynamics, species abundance and community composition.

Existing information and the need for additional information

Information is available on the species and number of fish that pass upstream over the dam using the Conowingo fish lift. However, no data are available to assess (a) the number and species of fish upstream and downstream that are deterred from approaching the dam due to conditions imposed by the dam (including suboptimal flow, velocity, depth, hydraulics, temperature, substrate, water quality, etc.); (b) the number and species of fish that approach the dam but do not pass successfully; (c) the condition and survival of individuals that do not successfully pass over the dam (in both directions); (d) the condition and survival of individuals that do successfully pass over the dam (in both directions).

Nexus between project operations and effects on the resource

The presence of Conowingo Dam blocks fish movement both upstream and downstream. Conowingo is the first barrier to upstream fish movement on the Susquehanna River; thus, fish passage efficiency and the condition of passing fish at the dam establishes the potential for diadromous fish abundance, community composition, and population dynamics throughout the Susquehanna River watershed.

21 Methodology consistent with accepted practice

The methodology we propose is consistent with accepted scientific practice for tracking fish movements. Specific methodology for tracking fish movements at Conowingo should follow study designs proposed by the federal and state natural resource agencies.

Level of effort, cost and why alternative studies would not suffice

The level of effort would include site-specific data collection to examine fish passage efficiency and condition and survival of fish, and research to determine alternatives for increasing fish passage efficiency. Fish sampling and tracking of fish movements should occur during upstream and downstream migrations of all diadromous species during all life stages. The actual cost is unknown.

A sediment transport model should be developed that examines how Conowingo Dam and pool influence sediment dynamics in the Susquehanna River and upper Chesapeake Bay. This model should examine deposition of sediment in Conowingo pool, releases of sediment (quantity and type of sediment released, such as fines or coarse grain) at different flow releases, and potential sediment scour, armoring, and lack of sediment for habitat formation downstream of the dam in the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay. This model should compare scenarios of (a) natural sediment dynamics; (b) sediment dynamics with the Conowingo Dam present, current dam operations, and observed river flows; (c) sediment dynamics with the Conowingo Dam present, current operations, and extreme river flows that may be capable of scouring sediment out of Conowingo pool and sending a pulse of stored sediment downstream; (d) sediment dynamics with the Conowingo Dam present, alternative dam operations, and observed river flows, with the intent of exploring alternative dam operations that may mitigate the biological effects of altered sediment dynamics in the river and bay; (e) sediment dynamics with the Conowingo Dam present, alternative project operations, and extreme river flows that are capable of scouring sediment out of Conowingo pool and sending a pulse of stored sediment downstream, with the intent of exploring alternative project operations that mitigate the biological impacts of sediment releases in the event of scouring flows.

In addition to the sediment transport model, field studies should be performed that compare substrate composition and habitat complexity (a) downstream of Conowingo Dam and (b) in Conowingo pool with substrate in comparable reference reaches of the Susquehanna River and/or unregulated reaches in neighboring rivers. The goal is to determine impacts of the dam on substrate composition and habitat necessary for biological habitat and completion of life

22 stages for aquatic species (e.g., substrate needed for mussels, spawning and rearing for resident and migratory fish).

Goals and objectives

The goals and objectives of this study are to determine (1) how Conowingo Dam and the pool influence sediment dynamics in the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay; (2) alternative dam management operations that mitigate potential biological effects of altered sediment dynamics; (3) the potential release of sediment pulses from Conowingo pool during extreme high flow events, potential biological effects, and need for mitigation; (4) effects of altered sediment dynamics on substrate composition and habitat complexity in Conowingo pool and downstream of Conowingo Dam on living resources, particularly substrate and habitat needs for critical life stages.

Resource management goals

The requestor is not a public agency. However, we believe the information gathered as a result of this study would further the Chesapeake Bay goal stated in the Susquehanna River Basin Commission’s Comprehensive Plan for the Water Resources of the Susquehanna River Basin (2008) to “Support the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort, including sediment and nutrient reduction strategies developed by each of the Commission’s member states.” (Id., p. 65).

It will contribute to the goals of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resource’s State Water Plan to “[p]rotect ‘at-risk’ water resources and reduce or prevent point and nonpoint source pollution with a focus on impaired streams.” State Water Plan, p. 13.

Public interest considerations

Conowingo Dam acts as a barrier to movement of coarse grain sediment in the Susquehanna River, causing sediment buildup in the pool and withholding sediment from downstream reaches of the river and the Chesapeake Bay. These changes in sediment dynamics alter substrate composition of the river and eliminate habitat-forming sediments, potentially decreasing aquatic habitat diversity downstream of the dam and in the bay.

Existing information and the need for additional information

There are a variety of sediment monitoring and modeling efforts underway by the U.S. Geologic Survey, U.S Army Corps of Engineers, University of Maryland, and Virginia Institute of Marine Science. For example, a recent study by the U.S. Geologic Survey (Langland 2009, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5110/) indicates that the storage capacity of Conowingo Pool may be reached in 15 to 20 years, with consequent sediment and phosphorus loads potentially increasing and impairing downstream uses. However, none of these efforts is known to integrate sediment dynamics resulting from Conowingo Dam and its operations, and such a model is necessary to determine how the dam and pool have influenced sediment dynamics in the river and upper Chesapeake Bay, the potential biological impacts of these changes in sediment dynamics, and alternative scenarios of dam operations that may mitigate biological impacts to

23 changes in sediment dynamics and possible sediment pulses from the pool under extreme high flow events. In addition, there are no existing studies that have examined the effects of the dam on river substrate and habitat formation, which are important factors to support aquatic communities and life stages.

Nexus between project operations and effects on the resource

Conowingo dam acts as a barrier to sediment movement in the Susquehanna River, causing coarse-grain sediment to accumulate in Conowingo pool and withholding sediment from river reaches downstream of the dam. These changes in sediment dynamics alter habitat for living resources in the river upstream and downstream of the dam, and habitat alteration likely extends into the Chesapeake Bay. Such habitat alteration may negatively impact species abundance and community composition, by limiting available spawning and rearing habitat for fishes, limiting suitable habitat for mussels and other invertebrates, and decreasing diversity of riverine and estuarine habitat types.

Methodology consistent with accepted practice

Development of a sediment transport model is accepted methodology for determining the effects of a barrier (such as Conowingo Dam) on sediment dynamics, and exploration of alternative scenarios of river flows and dam operations. The field portion of the study (comparing substrate composition and habitat complexity downstream of Conowingo to reference reaches upstream of the dam and/or in neighboring rivers) should be completed according to standard techniques, such as those outlined in Murphy and Willis (1996).

Level of effort, cost and why alternative studies would not suffice

This study would involve integrating the effects of Conowingo Dam and operations into a sediment dynamics model for the Susquehanna River and upper Chesapeake Bay, and comparing alternative scenarios of river flows and dam operations. In addition, field work is needed to assess the effects of Conowingo Dam on substrate composition and habitat complexity downstream of the dam. The total cost of the study is currently unknown.

24 Literature Cited

Blinn, W., J. P. Shannon, L. E. Stevens, and J. P. Carder. 1995. Consequences of fluctuating discharge for lotic communities. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 14:233-248.

Bluedorn, D. C. et al. Pennsylvania State Water Plan. State Water Resources Committee, Department of Environmental Protection.

Cushman, R. M. 1985. Review of ecological effects of rapidly varying flows downstream from hydroelectric facilities. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5:330-339.

Fette, M., C. Weber, A. Peter, and B. Wehrli. 2007. Hydropower production and river rehabilitation: A case study on an alpine river. Environmental Modeling & Assessment 12:257-267.

Freeman, M. C., Z. H. Bowen, K. D. Bovee, and E. R. Irwin. 2001. Flow and habitat effects on juvenile fish abundance in natural and altered flow regimes. Ecological Applications 11:179-190.

Grand, T. C., S. F. Railsback, J. W. Hayse, and K. E. Lagory. 2006. A physical habitat model for predicting the effects of flow fluctuations in nursery habitats of the endangered Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius). River Research and Applications 22:1125-1142.

Markham, C., et al. 1999. Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Shad & River Herring. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Murphy, B. R., and D. W. Willis. 1996. Fisheries techniques, second edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team. 1998. Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Summers, R. M., T. T. Semonite, K. P. Lynch, C. C. Myers, P. O. Swartz. 2008. Comprehensive Plan for the Water Resources of the Susquehanna River Basin. Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Harrisburg, PA. van Looy, K., H. Jochems, S. Vanacker, and E. Lommelen. 2007. Hydropeaking impact on a riparian ground beetle community. River Research and Applications 23:223-233.

25 CONCLUSION

The Nature Conservancy respectfully requests the Commission consider these scoping comments and proposed study requests. We also request that the Commission add the following representatives to the official service list for this project:

Mark Bryer Director, Chesapeake Bay Program The Nature Conservancy 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 100 Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 897-8570 [email protected]

Michele DePhilip Director, Freshwater Conservation The Nature Conservancy, Pennsylvania Chapter 2101 N. Front Street Building #1, Suite 200 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-6001 [email protected]

Richard Roos-Collins Julie Gantenbein NATURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTE 100 Pine St., Ste. 1550 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 693-3000 (866) 779-4316 (efax) [email protected] [email protected]

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Commission’s notice for the application for new licenses at the Conowingo Hydroelectric Project and Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project.

Respectfully submitted,

______Mark Bryer Director, Chesapeake Bay Program The Nature Conservancy

26 DECLARATION OF SERVICE

Conowingo Hydroelectric Project (No. 405-087) Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project (No. 2355-011)

I hereby declare that today I served the attached comments by The Nature Conservancy by electronic service, or, if an email address was not provided, by first-class mail, to each person on the official service lists compiled by the Secretary, in response to the Commission’s request for information, comments, and study requests included in “SCOPING DOCUMENT, CONOWINGO HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, MARYLAND/PENNSYLVANIA, PROJECT NO. 405-087 AND MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT, PENNSYLVANIA, PROJECT NO. 2355-011” dated May 11, 2009 regarding the application for new licenses at these facilities.

Dated: July 10, 2009

______Alison M. Koppe NATURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTE 100 Pine Street, Suite 1550 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 693-3000 ext. 110 [email protected]

27 Exhibit 1 - Flow alterations in the lower Susquehanna River and upper Chesapeake Bay

Julie Zimmerman, PhD The Nature Conservancy (301)897-8570 [email protected]

Statement of purpose

Assess the impacts of altering natural flow regimes to the Chesapeake Bay as a result of consumptive use and cyclic fluctuations due to hydropower operations. Determine what changes to the timing, frequency, duration and magnitude of flows from the River are most likely to adversely impact habitat and natural processes in the upper Bay.

Importance of the natural flow regime

A river’s flow regime is considered a “master variable” structuring physical and biotic components of aquatic ecosystems (Power et al. 1995b, Poff et al. 1997). Patterns of river flow determine physical habitat in rivers and on floodplains and influence organic matter and nutrient availability, water temperature, and water quality (Stanford et al. 1996, Bunn & Arthington 2002, Whiting 2002). Five critical components of a natural flow regime, including magnitude of discharge, frequency of occurrence, duration, timing, and rate of change of flows, maintain aquatic biodiversity and ecosystem processes (Poff et al. 1997, Arthington et al. 2006). Life history strategies of aquatic and riparian species have evolved in response to natural flow regimes in the species’ native rivers and streams (Poff et al. 1997, Bunn & Arthington 2002). Changes in components of the natural flow regime, including both low and high flows, may result in loss of aquatic biodiversity, changes in aquatic food webs, and reductions in fish species and abundance (Power et al. 1995a, Power et al. 1995b, Wootton et al. 1996).

Alterations to flows entering Chesapeake Bay

Our objectives were to (1) examine hydrologic alteration to flows from the Susquehanna River to the Chesapeake Bay by comparing baseline (unregulated) and regulated flows at the Conowingo stream gage; (2) determine relative effects of consumptive loss and reservoir operations on hydrologic alteration, for current consumptive use and dam operations as well as dam operations prior to institution of a minimum flow requirement at Conowingo (phased in during the period 1988-1990); (3) analyze the relative effects of current consumptive loss and reservoir operations on monthly low flows; and (4) examine effects of hydropower dams (combined effects of Safe Harbor, Holtwood, and Conowingo) on subdaily (hourly) flow fluctuations by comparing subdaily flows at Conowingo with those at the Marietta stream gage.

Effects of dam operations and consumptive use on annual flow metrics

28 We completed our first two objectives using The Nature Conservancy’s Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) software to calculate metrics of hydrologic alteration downstream of Conowingo dam based on daily estimates of baseline and regulated flows from 1930 to 2002. All flows were generated using SRBC’s OASIS model. Baseline flows accounted for historical hydrologic conditions (precipitation patterns) without considering any consumptive water use or reservoir operations. We compared baseline flows to five datasets of regulated flows: 1) historical hydrologic conditions adjusted for consumptive water use and reservoir operations at 2002 levels; 2) historical hydrological conditions adjusted for 2002 dam operations only; 3) historical hydrological conditions adjusted for 2002 consumptive use only; 4) historical hydrological conditions adjusted for dam operations prior to minimum flow rules at Conowingo (characterizing the period 1969-1987); and 5) historical hydrological conditions adjusted for consumptive use prior to minimum flow rules at Conowingo (characterizing the period 1969- 1987). Rather than examining alteration for all 67 flow statistics calculated by IHA, we focused on a subset of 10 flow statistics that represented ecologically important aspects of the flow regime (Table 1).

The largest hydrologic alterations include decreased magnitude, increased frequency, and decreased duration of low flow events (i.e., low flow events are lower and more frequent, but do not last as long; Table 1). In addition, high flows (median to 2-year recurrence interval, not including overbank flows) are more frequent and of shorter duration. The increase in reversals indicate an increase in flashiness or variability of flows, but flashiness can be examined more directly through a subdaily flow fluctuation analysis (see Table 4, below). Table 1 also indicates that hydrologic alterations are largely due to dam operations, rather than consumptive use. Consumptive use does affect low flow magnitude (16% decrease in the 1-day minimum flow) and frequency (50% increase in extreme low flow frequency), but has relatively minor impact on other aspects of the flow regime.

The relative effects of hydrologic alteration and consumptive use are also illustrated by the hydrographs in Appendix A. We created hydrographs of daily mean flows for unregulated, current dam operations, and current consumptive use scenarios for seasons and years representative of dry, average, and wet conditions. As the hydrographs illustrate, consumptive use tends to decrease river flows primarily during low flow conditions; however, the shape of the hydrographs closely resemble the unregulated scenarios. In contrast, dam operations create much flashier hydrographs that have different shapes and periodically lower flows than the unregulated scenarios. Dam operations hydrographs only resemble the shape of unregulated hydrographs during high flow conditions (wet seasons during wet years). One important data limitation to note is that the hydrographs in Appendix A were created using mean daily data. Currently, only mean daily flow estimates are available as output from the OASIS model used to compare unregulated, dam operations only, and consumptive use only scenarios at the Conowingo stream gage. Mean daily flow estimates often mask subdaily flow fluctuations that are occurring as a result of dam operations. Thus, if subdaily (i.e., instantaneous, 15-minute or hourly) flow data were available from the OASIS model, the comparative hydrographs presented in Appendix A would likely should even greater flashiness and flow variability as a result of dam operations compared with unregulated and consumptive use only scenarios.

29 Prior to the minimum flow requirement that was instituted at Conowingo in 1990, low flow magnitude was lower (80% decrease in the magnitude of the 1-day minimum over unregulated conditions, compared with a 35% decrease under dam current operations) and the frequency of extreme low flows was higher (800% increase in frequency of Q90 flows over unregulated conditions, compared with a 650% increase under current dam operations) than observed under current dam operations (Table 1). The degree of alteration to all other flow metrics was essentially unchanged by the 1990 minimum flow rule.

30 Table 1. Ecologically important aspects of the hydrologic regime (flow components) and flow metrics with greatest hydrologic alteration downstream of Conowingo dam for current consumptive use (2002), current dam operations (2002), and dam operations for the period just prior to institution of a minimum flow rule at Conowingo (1969-1987). All three scenarios (current consumptive use, current dam operations, and pre-minimum flow rule dam operations) were applied to historical hydrology (1930-2002). Deviation represents the proportion and direction of the change between baseline and regulated flows for each metric (e.g., the frequency of extreme low flows has a deviation of 6.50, indicating a 650% increase under current regulated conditions). “Dam operations only” compares baseline flows with flows that do not account for consumptive use; “consumptive use only” compares baseline flows with flows that do not account for dam operations. All metrics were calculated using daily mean flows and do not consider alterations from dam operations that occur on a subdaily time step.

Flow IHA statistic Deviation from unregulated conditions component Dam operations and Consumptive use Dam operations Dam operations consumptive use only (2002) only (2002) only (1987) Average Mean annual flow -0.01 -0.02 0.00 0.00 magnitude High 3-day maximum -0.02 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 magnitude Low 1-day minimum -0.37 -0.16 -0.35 -0.80 magnitude High duration High pulse duration -0.27 0.09 -0.36 -0.36 Low duration Low pulse duration -0.73 0.07 -0.73 -0.73 High High pulse count 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.33 frequency Low frequency Extreme low 6.50 0.50 6.50 8.00 frequency (Q90) High timing Date maximum 0.09 0.01 0.06 0.06 Low timing Date minimum -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.02 Rate of change Number of reversals 0.88 0.00 0.90 0.97

31 Effects of dam operations and consumptive use on monthly low flows (Q75 and Q90)

Our third objective was to analyze the relative effects of dam operations and consumptive use on monthly low flow statistics. We calculated the 25th percentile (Q75, or the flow that is exceeded 75% of days) and 10th percentile (Q90, or the flow that is exceeded 90% of days) of unregulated flows on a monthly basis over the period 1930-2002, and examined the degree of alteration attributable to dam operations and consumptive use for all flows below each of those thresholds. For example, the January Q90 is the flow exceeded 90% of the time during all days in January during the period from 1930 to 2002; thus, we calculated a different Q25 and Q90 value for each month of the year and focused our analysis on days with flow values at or below those thresholds. We calculated the mean number of days per month that flows were at or below the Q75 (Table 2) and Q90 (Table 3) under unregulated, dam operations only, or consumptive use only scenarios.

Our analysis of alterations to flows less than or equal to the Q75 indicated that both dam operations and consumptive use had the greatest effect on low flows during the summer and early fall (July through October), which is not surprising given that these months tend to have the lowest river flows. Dam operations had a greater effect on low flows than consumptive use, with dam operations causing anywhere from a 42% to 94% increase in the mean number of low flow days per month during this time period, compared with a 13% to 27% increase in the mean number of low flow days per month resulting from consumptive use.

Analyses of alterations to extreme low flows, less than or equal to the Q90, showed some different patterns, and provided additional information. Alteration from dam operations was spread over a greater part of the year, with the greatest alterations seen in early summer (June and July, accentuated by a 215% increase in days at or below the Q90 flow in July) and winter (November through February). The traditional low flow months in the summer and early fall (August through September) actually have a decrease in the number of extreme low flow days compared with unregulated conditions, presumably due to minimum flow requirements at Conowingo. Increases in the number of days at or below the Q90 that are attributable to consumptive use show similar patterns to the analysis of Q75 flows, although the effects are spread over a greater part of the year, with the largest increases in days with extreme low flows seen from June through November.

32 Table 2. The mean number of days per month (averaged across all years, 1930-2002) that flow at the Conowingo stream gage fell below the 25th percentile (Q75) of unregulated flows for that month (using current dam operations and consumptive use). The Q75 was calculated separately for each month; thus, low flow months had lower values for Q75 than high flow months. Deviations were calculated using the equation ((observed-expected)/expected) and are expressed as proportions; therefore, a deviation of 0.94 is equal to a 94% increase. Metrics were calculated using daily mean flows and do not consider alterations from dam operations that occur on a subdaily time step.

Month Mean number of days/month below Q75 Deviation from unregulated Unregulated Regulated (all Dams Consumptive use Regulated (all Dams Consumptive use sources) only only sources) only only January 10.5 10.4 10.0 10.9 -0.01 -0.04 0.04 February 9.4 8.9 8.6 9.9 -0.04 -0.08 0.06 March 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.4 -0.00 -0.01 0.01 April 8.4 8.5 8.5 8.5 0.03 0.01 0.01 May 9.3 9.7 9.6 9.6 0.04 0.03 0.04 June 9.3 10.9 10.0 10.0 0.18 0.08 0.08 July 8.6 13.8 13.0 10.4 0.66 0.52 0.21 August 7.8 16.6 15.3 9.9 1.12 0.94 0.27 September 8.4 13.4 12.0 10.5 0.62 0.42 0.25 October 8.6 15.7 14.8 9.7 0.83 0.72 0.13 November 10.2 11.6 11.2 10.4 0.14 0.10 0.02 December 10.3 10.4 10.1 10.7 0.01 -0.02 0.04

33 Table 3. The mean number of days per month (averaged across all years, 1930-2002) that flow at the Conowingo stream gage fell below the 10th percentile (Q90) of unregulated flows for that month (using current dam operations and consumptive use). The Q90 was calculated separately for each month; thus, low flow months had lower values for Q90 than high flow months. Deviations were calculated using the equation ((observed-expected)/expected) and are expressed as proportions; therefore, a deviation of 2.15 is equal to a 215% increase. Metrics were calculated using daily mean flows and do not consider alterations from dam operations that occur on a subdaily time step.

Month Mean number of days/month below Q90 Deviation from unregulated Unregulated Regulated (all Dams Consumptive use Regulated (all Dams Consumptive use sources) only only sources) only only January 5.1 7.2 6.8 5.7 0.41 0.32 0.11 February 5.0 6.3 6.0 5.4 0.25 0.19 0.08 March 5.7 5.9 5.7 5.8 0.04 0.01 0.02 April 5.2 6.3 6.1 5.5 0.21 0.18 0.05 May 5.1 6.6 6.2 5.5 0.28 0.21 0.08 June 4.1 8.1 7.3 5.1 1.01 0.79 0.25 July 3.5 12.3 10.9 5.2 2.54 2.15 0.49 August 6.8 9.5 5.3 12.0 0.38 -0.22 0.75 September 8.4 12.8 6.9 13.0 0.52 -0.18 0.54 October 10.6 10.4 6.9 13.9 -0.02 -0.35 0.31 November 4.9 10.0 9.7 5.9 1.05 0.97 0.21 December 4.8 6.3 6.0 5.2 0.31 0.25 0.07

34 Subdaily flow variation attributable to dam operations downstream of Marietta

We completed our fourth objective, examining subdaily flow fluctuations due to hydropower dams in the lower river, by calculating metrics of hourly flow fluctuations at Conowingo (downstream of 3 large hydropower dams) and Marietta (considered the baseline condition) stream gages. Hourly flow data for each gage was obtained from USGS and used to calculate six metrics of subdaily flow fluctuations for each 24-hour period (midnight to midnight), resulting in a data set of daily values for each metric at each stream gage over the past 10 years (for water years 1998 to 2007). Three of the metrics, the Richards-Baker flashiness index, ratio of the range of the diurnal cycle to total daily discharge, and coefficient of diel variation, quantify various properties of the volume of water that was added or removed over a 24-hour period relative to the mean daily flow or total daily discharge. These metrics are useful for determining fluctuations in flow volume at a site. A fourth metric, number of reversals, estimates overall flow variability at a site but does not provide information about the volume of water added or removed with each reversal. The fifth and sixth metrics, maximum hourly rise rate and maximum hourly fall rate, calculate the rate of flow fluctuations.

Frequency histograms of each metric (illustrating the distribution of all daily calculations over the study period) were used to determine thresholds of subdaily flow fluctuations, above which subdaily flows were considered “flashy” (Table 4). We used these thresholds to distinguish “flashy” from “non-flashy” flows to calculate the number of days per year that were considered to have high subdaily flow fluctuations at each stream gage, and compare between the two gages.

The mean number of days per year with flashy flows was at least an order of magnitude greater at the Conowingo stream gage compared with the Marietta stream gage for all flashiness metrics (Table 4). This suggests that one or more of the three peaking hydropower dams between the two stream gages is causing extreme fluctuations in flow volume, variability, and rate of change compared with unregulated locations (also see Figures 1 and 2). The Marietta gage does record some days with flashy flows, indicating that the potential for high subdaily flow variability is similar at both sites, but occurs much more frequently at Conowingo. This is similar to results seen in a more extensive analysis of subdaily flow variability for multiple sites throughout the Connecticut River watershed (Zimmerman et al. 2008).

35 Table 4. Thresholds for six metrics of flow variability, above which flows may be considered flashy (“flashiness thresholds”), and the mean number of days per year that these flashiness thresholds were exceeded at the Marietta and Conowingo stream gages (for water years 1998- 2007). Flashiness thresholds are in parentheses after each metric.

Site Mean number of days per year above flashiness threshold Richards- Ratio of flow Coefficient Number Max Max Baker fluctuations to of diel of hourly hourly fall flashiness total daily variation reversals rise rate rate index discharge (0.08) (5/day) (1000cfs) (1000cfs) (0.06) (0.005) Marietta 0 39.8 36.6 42.0 19.3 9.5 Conowingo 202.9 255.9 294.6 185.4 251.2 251.5

Oct. 19, 1998 (dry fall) Conowingo Marietta 60000

50000

40000

30000 Flow (cfs) 20000

10000

0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 Hour

Figure 1. An example hydrograph of hourly flows recorded at the Marietta and Conowingo stream gages on October 19, 1998. The fall of 1998 was considered dry, with lower than average river flows (appendix A illustrates a hydrograph of mean daily flows at Conowingo for the fall of 1998, but does not show the additional alteration caused by subdaily flow fluctuations).

Week of March 26, 2009 Marietta Conowingo 90000 80000

70000

60000

50000

40000 Flow (cfs) 30000

20000

10000

:00 0 /09 0:00 /09 0:00 /09 0:00 6 8 9 4/1/09 3/2 /26/09 12:003/27/09 0:00/27/09 12:003/2 3/2 3/30/09 0:00/30/09 12:003/31/09 0:00 4/1/09 12:00 3 3 3/28/09 12:00 3/29/09 12:00 3 3/31/09 12:00

Figure 2. An additional example hydrograph of hourly flows recorded at the Marietta and Conowingo stream gages for the week of March 26, 2009.

Conclusions

River flows in the lower Susquehanna are substantially different in terms of magnitude, frequency, duration, and rate of change compared with unregulated conditions. Flow alterations are attributable to both dam operations and consumptive use; however, dam operations cause the greatest alterations in the flow regime, resulting in decreased magnitude and increased frequency of low flows and changes in the shape of the natural hydrograph to create flow patterns that are flashier, have different shapes, and periodically lower flows than would occur under unregulated conditions. In addition, hydropower dams are causing extreme fluctuations in flow volume, variability, and rate of change compared with unregulated conditions on a subdaily time step. Consumptive use also decreases the magnitude and increases the frequency of low flows (i.e., low flows are lower and occur more often), but tends to result in a hydrograph that more closely mimics the shape of the natural hydrograph.

The Susquehanna River provides about 50 percent of the freshwater inflow to Chesapeake Bay. Thus, it can be assumed that alterations to the natural flow regime in the lower Susquehanna River would impact the ecology of the Bay, directly through changes in flow patterns and indirectly through changes in salinity, temperature, nutrient loading, turbidity, and estuarine geomorphology. These changes may ultimately affect species abundance, survival, life history strategies, population dynamics, and community composition. Studies are needed that establish clear linkages between observed flow alteration at daily and subdaily time steps and specific ecological responses of species and communities found in the Susquehanna River and upper Chesapeake Bay.

37 Literature Cited

Arthington, A. H., S. E. Bunn, N. L. Poff, and R. J. Naiman. 2006. The challenge of providing environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems. Ecological Applications 16:1311- 1318.

Bunn, S. E., and A. H. Arthington. 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management 30:492-507.

Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks, and J. C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime. Bioscience 47:769-784.

Power, M. E., M. S. Parker, and J. T. Wootton. 1995a. Disturbance and food chain length in rivers. Pages 286-297 in G. A. Polis, and K. O. Winemiller editors. Food webs: Integration of patterns and dynamics. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY.

Power, M. E., A. Sun, G. Parker, W. E. Dietrich, and J. T. Wootton. 1995b. Hydraulic food- chain models. Bioscience 456:159-167.

Stanford, J. A., J. V. Ward, W. J. Liss, C. A. Frissell, R. N. Williams, J. A. Lichatowich, and C. C. Coutant. 1996. A general protocol for restoration of regulated rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 12:391-413.

Whiting, P. J. 2002. Streamflow necessary for environmental maintenance. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 30:181-206.

Wootton, J. T., M. S. Parker, and M. E. Power. 1996. Effects of disturbance on river food webs. Science 273:1558-1561.

Zimmerman, J. K. H., B. H. Letcher, K. H. Nislow, K. Lutz, and F. J. Magilligan. 2008. Determining the effects of dams on subdaily variation in river flows at a whole-basin scale. River Research and Applications.

38 Appendix A: Representative hydrographs of daily mean flows comparing unregulated, dam only, and consumptive use only for dry, average, and wet seasons. Hydrographs represent current (2002) consumptive use and dam operations coupled with historical hydrology. Subdaily fluctuations are not shown, which would result in proportionately more variation attributable to dam operations.

120000 120000 Dry winter (1969) Dry spring (1991) Unregulated Consumptive use only Dam operations only 100000 100000

80000 80000

60000 60000 Flow (cfs) Flow (cfs) Flow

40000 40000

20000 20000

0 0

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 69 9 9 9 9 9 9 99 9 9 991 9 969 9 96 9 9 969 9 9 1 1 1 /1 /19 /1 /1 /1 1 /19 /1 /1 /19 / / 1 /1991 /19 /19 / /1 /8 5 /5 2 9/1 /5/ 2 9 /1 /8 5 2 /6/ 0 7 /3 0 1 1 /1 2 /1 1 3 /1 /1 4 4 1 2 5 /2 /2 6 1 1 1/22/1969 1/29/1969 2 2/ 2/26/1969 3 3 3/26/1 4/ 4/ 4/29/1991 5/13/1991 5 5 6/ 6/17/1991 6/24/1991 15000 30000 Dry summer (1965) Dry fall (1998)

25000

10000 20000

15000 Flow (cfs) Flow (cfs) Flow

5000 10000

5000

0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 965 965 9 9 965 9 9 96 9 9 9 9 9 998 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1965 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 5 2 2 /9 0 /1/1 /5 2 9 6 1 7/1/ 7/8/19 /1 /2 8/5/19 /1 /19/1 9/2/19 9 /16/1 3 0 1 /1 /1 /2 3 7 7 7/29/1 8 8 8/26/1 9 9/23/1 9/ 1 10/8/1 1 1 1 1 12/3/1 10/15/1998 10/22/1998 10/29/1 1 1 1 12/10/1998 12/17/1998 12/24/1 12/ Scoping Comments by The Nature Conservancy - Project Nos. 405-087 and No. 2355-011 39

225000 125000 Average winter (1999) Average spring (1979) Unregulated Consumptive use only 200000 Dam operations only

100000 175000

150000 75000 125000

Flow (cfs) Flow 100000 (cfs) Flow 50000 75000

50000 25000

25000

0 0 9 9 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 19 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 /1979 1/ 8/ 5/ 9/ 1/ 2/ 6/ 3/ 1/ 1/ 22/ 2/5/ 3/5/1999 4/ 4/8/1979 29/ 5/ 27/ 6/ 10/1979 1/1 1/ 1/2 2/12/1999 2/19/1999 2/26/1999 3/12/1999 3/19/1999 3/26/1999 4/15/1979 4/2 4/ 5/13/1979 5/20/1979 5/ 6/ 6/17/1979 6/24

40000 125000 Average summer (1981) Average fall (1987)

100000

30000

75000

20000 Flow (cfs) Flow (cfs) Flow

50000

10000 25000

0 0 7 81 81 87 981 987 1981 19 19 /1981 /1981 1981 /1981 1981 1 1987 19 1987 1987 198 /1987 8/ 2 9/ 8/1987 9/ /3/1987 0/ 7/1/1981 7/ /22/1981 29/ 8/5/1 12/1981 19/ 9/ 9/ 23/1981 30/ /15/1987 1 26/1987 1 17/1987 31 7/15/1981 7 7/ 8/ 8/ 8/26 9/16 9/ 9/ 10/1/1987 10/ 11/5/1987 12 10 10/22/ 10/29/ 11/12/ 11/ 11/ 12/ 12/ 12/24/ 12/ Scoping Comments by The Nature Conservancy - Project Nos. 405-087 and No. 2355-011 40

400000 400000 Unregulated Wet winter (1998) Wet spring (1984) Consumptive use only Dam operations only

300000 300000

200000 200000 Flow (cfs) Flow (cfs) Flow

100000 100000

0 0 8 8 84 84 84 84 998 998 998 9 9 9 9 1 199 /1 199 /1998 1 1 1984 /1 1984 /8/ 5 1/ 3 4/ 1/1/1998 1 15/1998 29/ 2/ 19/ 26/1998 3/5/1 19/1998 /26/1998 4/ 4/8/1 5/6/ 13/ 20/1984 /27/1984 6/ 1/ 1/22/1998 1/ 2/12/1998 2/ 2/ 3/12 3/ 3 4/15/1984 4/22/1984 4/29/1984 5/ 5/ 5 6/10/1984 6/17/1984 6/2

100000 300000 Wet summer (1996) Wet fall (1996)

250000

75000 200000

50000 150000 Flow (cfs) Flow (cfs) Flow

100000

25000 50000

0 0

6 6 6 96 1996 199 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 /1996 1996 199 199 1996 19 /1996 /1996 8/ 2/ 5/ 2/ 2/ 1 8/ /3/ 7/1/1996 7/ 15/ 29/1996 8/ 26/1996 9/ 9/9/1996 /16/1996 23/1996 30/ 0/ 15/1996 22/ 29/ 19/1996 26/1996 10/ 7/ 7/2 7/ 8/1 8/19/1996 8/ 9 9/ 9/ 10/ 1 11/5/1996 12 /31/1996 10/ 10/ 10/ 11/12/1996 11/ 11/ 12/ 12/17 12/24 12

Scoping Comments by The Nature Conservancy - Project Nos. 405-087 and No. 2355-011 41

?0090714-0038 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/13/2009

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 'q[~'lJ~ ~' 909 EImerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17110-8200 July 10, 2009 Southeentral Regional Office :~ 717-705-4707 ~:- ~7-705-~60 I"" Fo ~Trl CERTIFIED MAIL 7005 3110 0000 0792 4324 r-- -:'--,l'rl --

Re: Request for Studies Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project FERC Project Number 2355 --'O I {

Dear Secretary Bose:

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) appreciates the opportunity to request studies for the Muddy Run Project. PADEP staffhas been involved with coordination and information exchange meetings with Exelon and the appropriate resource agencies since the PAD was received by our office on March 19, 2009. Even before this we engaged the same agencies in discussions of requirements for the 401 Water Quality Certification for the Holtwood Hydropower Expansion ProjecL We support the study requests offered by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, the PA Fish and Boat Commission, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

PADEP views the Susquehanna River as a river system and all aspects of that system are tied together. The Muddy Run Pumped Storage project is one impoundment in a series of five impoundments along the river, each with its own license, operating conditions, and expiration date. Muddy Run is on concurrent license schedules with two other hydroelectric projects (Conowingo, and York Haven), all of which ate located within a 46-mile reach of the lower Susquehanna River. The Holtwoed expansion, if approved, and Safe Harbor will have licenses that expire in 2030.

The current license for Muddy Run expires in 2014. Now for the first time since construction on the dam was completed in 1968, FERC and the resource agencies (stakeholders) have a significant opportunity to evaluate and document the impacts that the 40+-year old facility has had on the Susquehanna River, resident aquatic species, and migratory fish species. It is hoped that the results of the requested studies will determine the impacts the facility is having on the resources and enable Exelon to manage the facility in a manner that lessens future impacts or to provide for appropriate mitigation. PADEP is also responsible for issuing the 401 Water Quality Certification for the relicensing of this project and apecifically reserves the right to request studies and other information as part of the 410 Water Quality Certification review. The specific studies (and their attendant details) requested by PADEP are listed below:

tqu~l (~)nuntly Fmploye~ ~N~l~f~lN.de~.S~h~.pt~lL~S Pronl,edOn Re~ It~ Pa~r~ 0090714-0038 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/13/2009

-2- July 1O, 2009

Requested Study 1. Documenting Mortality of Anadromous and Resident Fish Species

Document the mortality of anadremous and resident fish species (including adult and juvenile American shad, river herring, American eel (elvers, yellow eels and silver eels), walleye, smallmouth bass, and channel catfish) as a result of enm~nent and/or downstream passage through the project turbines.

Goals and Objectives: The goals and objectives of the requested study include: 1) quantify mortality rates of the target life stages and species as a result of passage through the turbines at Muddy Run, and 2) mitigate for losses or use the turbine mortality data to establish the dam operational regimes that would minimize total mortality ofdo~ migrating fish.

Resource Management Goals: State and federal resource agencies have established anadromous fish restoration goals for the Susquehanna River: produce self-sustaining annual populations of 2 million American shad and 5 million river herring, reproducing in the flee-flowing Susquehanna River above York Haven Dam and in suitable tributaries, and provide 500,000 angling days annually throughout the basin for these species. The 2002 Susquehanna River Migratory Fish Restoration Plan is under revision at this time and is expected to provide for restoration of American eels to their historical habitats above dams. State and federal agencies desire to provide for normal upstream and downsueam movements of resident fish species.

Need: While literature data is available on turbine passage mortality rates of some of the target species at turbines of the type present at Muddy Run, no on-site mortality studies of all of the target species and life stages have been done.

The nexus between project operations and effects on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the development of license requirements: Enhancement of populations of anadromous, catadromous and resident fish species that may be entrained or passed downstream requires that the life stages of these species that move downstream have a high survival rate. American shad normally spawn multiple times as adults, but high mortality of post-spawn adults as a result of turbine mortality as they migrate downstream to their ocean habitat can constrain future population growth. Similarly, eels that grow to sexual maturity in the Susquehanna River watershed must be able to reach their Sargasso Sea spawning grounds in order to contribute to the total fecundity of the panmictic stock. Resident fish are also subject to entrainment and/or turbine passage. In all cases, it is important to know the mortality rates caused by entrahlment/passage so that the plant operational regime that results in highest survival rates can be identified and implemented or so that sound and/or light barrier construction and structural changes could be evaluated.

How the proposed study methodology is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community: Balloon tag studies have been done at numerous hydroelectric projects and they are a reliable way of estimating turbine mortality rates to many different species and sizes offish. ~0090714-0038 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/13/2009

- 3 - July 10, 2009

Considerations of level of effort and cost involved in the proposed study, and explain why any alternative studies proposed by Exelon would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs: Exelon does not propose any studies to meet this need. While the request here is for studies of multiple species, the agencies believe that useful information can be obtained by including multiple species in one or more comprehensive studies. Conducted in this manner, the number of specific study days required can be limited. Costs for studies of this nature are likely to be in the moderate to high range.

Requested Study 2. Opportunities for Enhancement of Migrntury Fish Mitigation.

The specific tasks associated with the study of migration enhancement opportunities include the following:

. The licensee should investigate the feasibility of installing P.I.T tag readers at the entrance of the Muddy Run intake or some other suitable location to monitor entrainment on an annual basis. The licensee should also assist with annual purchase of P.I.T. tags to monitor migratory fish passage.

. The licensee should provide space and permit the resource agencies to install a hatchery building to conduct closed-system tank spawning of American shad and other migratory fish. Availability of eggs for restoration activities has declined over the years. Rivers that once provided eggs for the Susquehanna River restoration are now closed to fishing (James, Hudson), restricted to within-basin stocking (Delaware), or are in areas where disease issues prevent egg collection (Columbia). The resource agencies now recognize that eggs for hatchery production must come from the Susquehanna River. Cunently, there exist two tank-spawn tanks at Conowingo. Since agencies have no control of temperature, they must use hormone injections to induce egg maturation and spawning. This process produces quantities of eggs, but viability is very low (~20 percent). A hatchery building with a closed system, a heat source, and additional tanks is the only practical solution to increasing hatchery production. Because American shad arc so fragile and subject to handling and trucking stress, this new hatchery must be close to Conowingo to reduce travel time and stress. There are two sites within project lands that would accommodate our needs: on the west side of the river just downstream from Shures Landing, and on the east side of the river at the site of the new recreational area along Octoraro Creek.

3. The licensee should provide mitigation funds to assist in consm~tion of this hatchery.

Requested Study 3. Determine Impact of Muddy Run Operations on Upstream Migrating Adult American Shad.

Resource agencies intend to ask FERC to require specific, quantifiable performance measures for all Susquehanna fishways. Fishways should pass 75 percent of the shad passed at the next downstream project, or 85 percent of the shad that approach the project in question. At least 50 percent of the shad passed should pass within four days of approaching the projecL 20090714-0038 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/13/2009

- 4 - July l O, 2009

Goals and Objectives: 1. To determine what percent of the American shad that approach Muddy Run are impinged or entrained by the project. 2. To determine the extent to which American shad are delayed in passing the project. 3. To gather site-specific information to determine what operational or structural modifications or mitigation measures ere necessary to limit impingemem/entrainment and reduce delays.

Resource Management Goals: "By 2025, produce self-sustaining annual populations of 2 million American shad and 5 million river herring, reproducing in the free-flowing Susquehanna River above York Haven Dam and in suitable tributaries, and provide 500,000 angling days annually throughout the basin for these species" (Hendricks and St. Pierre 2002).

Need: Radio telemetry studies have indicated that the Muddy Run pumped storage project does entrain adult American shad. Delay is also a concern because Susquehanna River American shad must pass five dams to access the historically important spawning grounds in the North Branch above Sunbury. These issues have been studied, however, information about pumping schedules has not been reported in the results and a period of more than one calendar year is required to adequately study a range of environmental and river conditions.

The nexus between project operations and effects on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the development of lieense requirements: Radio telemetry studies have indicated the Muddy Run pumped storage project does entrain adult American shad.

How the proposed study methodology is ¢onsbtent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community: The proposed study should be conducted using radio telemetry. Radio telemetry is a scientifically accepted method and has been used to study shad behavior at other locations such as Hultwood (Normandeau 2001) and York Haven Dams 0Cdeinschmidt Associates unpublished).

Considerations of level of effort and cost involved in the proposed study, and explain why any alternative studies proposed by Exelon would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs: Studies have already been done, but pumping schedules have not been provided, nor has any mitigation been suggested. More than one year of data is required to assess impacts under varying climatic factors. Cost: moderate to high.

Requested Study, 4. Effects of Muddy Run Operations on Migratory Fish Passage.

Goah and Objectives: To determine the impact of Muddy Run project operations on migratory fish passage; to include the following issues and questions:

1. Are velocities at and in proximity of the Muddy nm intake structure, when pumping, a barrier to movement?

2. Are velocities at and in proximity of the Muddy Run intake structure, when generating, a barrier to movement? ~0090714-0038 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/13/2009

- 5 - July lO, 2009

. Are there velocity barriers in the main river (downstream of outflow) resulting from generation flows from MRPS alone or in combination with generation flows from Holtwood (existing and with new power house)?

4. De Muddy Run operations create undesirable attraction flows for migratory fish?

5. What is the potential for and impact of unnatural eddies in the main-stem associated with generation?

6. What are the structural details of the intake s~cture, and how do the structures affect fish behavior?

. Main-stem in-stream local flow reversal associated with pumping operations and potential impacts on migrating fish (i.e., the river can flow upstream potentially confusing migratory fish keying in flow as a directional aid to upstream or do~ migration causing delay and additional "fish" energy expense).

8. What are the impacts of thermal anomalies of cycled water (from Peach Bottom or from Muddy Run Pumped Storage Reservoir) on fish migration within Conowingo Pond?

9. What is the extent and impact of changes in turbidity and dissolved oxygen resulting from Muddy Run operations? Has there been any previous monitoring performed on these issues?

Resource Management Goals: "By 2025, produce seif-sus~ning annual populations of 2 million American shad and 5 million river herring, reproducing in the freo-fiowing Susquehanna River above York Haven Dam and in suitable tributaries, and provide 500,000 angling days annually throughout the basin for these species" (Hendricks and St. Pierre 2002). In addition, the study will gather sito-specific information to determine what operational or stn~tural modifications may be necessary to improve passage efficiency and timeliness.

Need: Progress toward achieving the restoration goal requires that all American shad and river herring that approach the Muddy Run Project move upstream past the project as quickly and efficiently as possible, so they can be passed at Holtwood Dam. Delay is a significant concern because Susquehanna River American shad must pass 5 dams to access the historically important spawning grounds in the North Branch above Sunbury. Information on the behavioral response to migratory fish to Muddy Run operations is necessary in order to identify operational or structural changes needed to achieve adequate upstream passage.

The nexus between project operations and effects on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the development of license requirements: The study would provide data that can be used to establish project operation or structural modifications that may be needed to maximize upstream passage and minimize delay. 20090714-0038 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/13/2009

- 6 - July 10, 2009

How the proposed study methodology is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community: Flow modeling is a scientifically accepted method.

Considerations of level of effort and cost involved in the proposed study, and explain why any alternative studies proposed by Exelon would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs: Extensive flow modeling has already been done by PPL Corporation in conjunction with the Holtwood Project re-development. Updating of that model would be inexpensive. Two radio telemetry studies have also been done: 2001 and 2008. Data from those studies could be analyzed with flow model and project generation data at minimal cost. Additional fold data may be required to provide sufficient sample size to analyze the various combinations of river flow, Muddy Run generation scenarios, Holtwood operational scenarios, or other pertinent variables. This would add considerably to the cost.

Requested Study 5. American Shad Population Assessment and Basin-Wide Fish Passage Monitoring.

Goals and objectives: To monitor American shad and other entrainment at Muddy Run and basin-wide.

Resource Management Goals: "By 2025, produce self-sustaining annual populations of 2 million American shad and 5 million river herring, reproducing in the free-flowing Susquehanna River above York Haven Dam and in suitable tributaries, end provide 500,000 angling days annually throughout the basin for these species" (Hendricks and St. Pierre 2002).

Need: Monitoring of fish passage at Conowingo Dam is required vmder the current license. Monitoring offish passage is an essential component of mansglng the American shad restoration program and is required by ASMFC (ASMFC 1999).

The nexus between project operations and effects on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the development of I/tense requirements: The East Fish Lift is operated, and fish passage monitored, as part of the Conowingo project license requirements. Maryland DNR conducts an annual mark-recapture study in the Conowingo tailrace. Adult shad are captured by standardized angling and tagged with floy tags. Recaptures are documented by observers as part of the counting of all fish passing the East Fish Lift. Both angling CPUE and population indices genc~ted by recaptures are used to tntck relative abundance of shad. Floy tags can go undetected by observers and therefore impact the accuracy oftha relative abundance estimates. We propose to substitute P.I.T. (Passive integrated transponder, sometimes called EZ pass for fish)) tags for the floy tags. This will provide greater accm'acy in the abundance estimates and permit tracking of individual fish passage success and travel times as they move upstream past all four hydro projects or are entrained in the Muddy Run project. P.I.T. tag readers will be installed at the entrance and exit of each fi.~hway to determine 1ravel time within the fishway and help eliminate delays. We propose that the licensee be required to investigate the technological feasibility of installing P.I.T tag readers to monitor entrainment in Muddy Run on a continuous basis. ~0090714-0038 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/13/2009

- 7 - July 10, 2009

How the proposed study methodology is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community: P.I.T. tags ate relatively new and state-of-the-art tagging systems that provide additional information over traditional tags.

Considerations of level of effort and cost Involved In the proposed study, ud explain why any alternative studies proposed by Exelon would not be sufficient to meet the stated Information needs: Maryland DNR will capture the fish in the tailrace and implant the tags. Each licensee will install the readers and share the annual cost of purehasing the tags. Cost: Moderate for initial installation and calibration of P.I.T. tag readers, minimal for annual monitoring.

Requested Study 6. Impingement/Entrainment of Juvenile American Shad PassIng Muddy Run in Downstream Out-Migratlon.

Goals and Objectives: The primary goals and objectives of the requested study are to: 1) determine if juvenile American shad are impinged or entrained while passing Muddy Run in their downstream migration, and 2) determine how to mitigate for this loss or modify project operations to limit impingement/entrainment

Need: Juvenile shad must pass the project to gain access to the ocean.

The nexus between project operations and effects on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would Inform the development of license requirement: Juvenile American shad undergo a mass out-migration during October or November. Out-migration generally occurs at n/ght when Muddy Run is pumping, thus enU'ainment is very probable. Operational changes during out-migration could reduce entrainment and improve the survival of out-migrating shad.

How the proposed study methodology is consistent with generally accepted practice In the scientific community: It is suggested that this issue be studied by site-specific radio-telemeuy studies and/or data mining or literature review, if site-specific studies are available. This is the accepted methodology for such studies.

Considerations of level of effort and cost Involved In the proposed study, and explain why any alternative studies proposed by Exelon would not be sufficient to meet the stated Information needs: Exelon does not propose any studies to meet this need. Estimated cost for the study is moderate to expensive. ~0090714-0038 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/13/2009

- 8 - July 10, 2009

Requested Study 7. Study of Entrainment of Upstream Migrating American Eels.

Goals and objectives: The primary goals and objectives of the requested study are to determine the occurrence and extent of entrainment of upstream-migrating American eels.

Resource Management Goals: The 2002 Susquehanna River Migratory Fish Restoration Plan is under revision at this tune and is expected to provide for restoration of American eels to their historical habitats above dams.

Need: Entrainment of upstream migrating eels would likely result in mortality.

The nexus between project operations and effect) on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the development of license requirement): Project operational modifications, construction of light and/or sound barriers, or structural changes may be requited to prevent entrainment

How the proposed study methodology is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community: The proposed study would be conducted by radio telemetry or hoop-netting. This is an accepted methodology for this type of study.

Considerations of level of effort and cost involved in the proposed study, mad explain why any alternative studies proposed by Exelon would not be suffielent to meet the stated information needs: The study should be done in each of three years to cover a wide range of environmental conditions that might be encountered. Cost: moderate. Exelon proposes no studies to address this issue. Site-specific studies will be required.

RC~luested Study 8. Hydrologic Study of Muddy Run Water Withdrawal and Return Charaeteristies.

As previously noted above, four other hydroelectric facilities are located in relatively close proximity to Muddy Run: York Haven (upper-most), Safe Harbor, Holtwood, and Conowingo Dam (lower-most). The common thread between these facilities is the flow of river water between them. The upper-most facility (York Haven) exerts hydrologic influences on the other four down-river facilities; while each successive down-river facility influences its down-river neighbors. There also exist four surface water withdrawals from the Conowingo Pond: City of Baltimore, Chester Water Authority, Peach Bottom nuclear power plant, and Muddy Run. These surface water withdrawals and the operation of the other hydroelectric facilities exert profound influences on the river water levels and flows within Conowingo Pond. For these reasons, the Conowingo Pond from which Muddy Run withdraws its water and into which it discharges water, must be a primary focus of the Muddy Run hydrologic study requested herein.

The specific issues to be addressed in the hydrologic study of the Muddy Run facility should include the following: ~0090714-0038 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/13/2009

- 9 - July 10, 2009

. Full documentation of daily water withdrawal regime from Conowingo Pond, to include the following:

eL Average daily withdrawBl from Conowingo Pond, b. Maximum daily withdrawal from Conowingo Pond, c. Average daily discharge to Conowingo Pond, d. Maximum daily discharge to Conowingo Pond, e. Concurrent head measurements taken in Muddy Run (upper reservoir) and in Conowingo Pond (lower reservoir) at a frequency of one reading every 15 minutes for specified periods oftime, f. The specific periods of time shall include a minimum of three 30-day low-flow periods (between August and September) and three 30May high flow periods (between March and April).

. Detailed bathymeta'ic study of Muddy Run Upper Reservoir, to include:

a. Bathymetric map of entire upper reservoir, including the recreational lake, b. Development of head versus water volume curve for upper reservoir for entire range of head within the upper reservoir, c. Detailed bathymetric study of Muddy Run discharge (outfall) area within Conowingo Pond, including an area extending a minimum of 1,000 feet up-river,a minimum of 1,500 feet down-river, and a minimum of 1,000 feet across fiver from the outfall location.

. Detailed operating schedule (periodicity characteristics) of the facility, to include the following:

a. Actual hours of pumping versus hours of generation for each day within a defined study periods of time, b. Study periods of time to include: i. a minimum of three 30-day periods during the peak migratory fish periods (between April and June) ii. a minimum of three 3G-day high temperature periods (between July and August) iii. a minimum of three 30-day low temperature periods (between January and February).

. Quantitative study of the hydrologic influences and interactions that exist or may e~dst between the surface water withdrawals f~)m Conowingo Pond for Baltimore, Chester Water Authority, Peach Bottom, and Muddy Run; the discharges into Conowingo Pond from Peach Bottom and Muddy Run; the operations at Conowingo Dam, the operations at Muddy Run, the operations at Holtwood Dam, the operations at Safe Harbor Dam, and the operations at York Haven Dam; to include the following: 20090714-0038 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/13/2009

- 10 - July 10, 2009

& Permitted withdrawals for the City of Baltimore, Chester Water Authority, and Peach Bottom power facility, b. Withdrawals from the Pond for Muddy Run facility, c. Discharges into Conowingo Pond from Peach Bottom facility, d. Discharges into Conowingo Pond from Muddy Run facility, e. Minimum allowable flows at each of the five hydroelectric facilities, and the ann~ (seasonal) variations in these minimum flows, f. Hydraulic continuity of river flows between the three surface water withdrawals end five hydroelectric facilities under low flow conditions and during peak power demand (July- October), and during fish migration (April-June), g. Magnitude of bydraulic impact or influence between the seven facilities (including Baltimore, CWA, and Peach Bottom).

Goals and Objectives: Determine the extent of alteration of river hydrology caused by operation of the project.

Resource Management Goals: Optimize do~ hydrology and biotic habitat as affected by project operations.

Need for additional information: The Muddy Run project is a hydroelectric facility; yet the PAD is completely devoid of any water withdrawal or discharge information; nor does the PAD indicate how project opemtiom have altered downstream hydrology, which may affect resident and migratory fish, macroinvertebretes, aquatic plants end other biota, other intakes, end recreation.

The nexus between project operations and effects on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the development of Heense requirements: Project is currently operated with extreme fluctuations in both daily withdrawal rates and daily discharge rates. These rates can range from 0 to 32,000 cubic feet per second, and can affect biotic habitat and biota downstream of the project as well as other uses of the water. The results of the study will be used to develop flow-related license requirements and/or other mitigation measures.

How the proposed study methodology is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community: River hydrology statistics and hydrologic assessments are commonly employed at hydroelectric projects.

Considerations of level of effort OX)E) and cost involved in the proposed study, ud explain why any alternative studies proposed by Exelon would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs: LOE and cost will depend on the availability of existing data, but should be relatively low since this is a de~&top analysis. Exelon did not propose any alternative studies specifically addressing this issue. ~0090714-0038 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/13/2009

- 11 - July 10,2009

Requested Study 9. Recreational Use Survey.

Perform a study of the recreational fishing, boating, birding, and other recreational opportunities at the Muddy Run project, to include Muddy Run Park and Conowingo Pond. Use the study results to determine if changes or improvements can be made to enhance recreational opportunities. Method should include a creel survey.

Goals and Obiectives: To determine if there are operational, structural or other modifications to the project which could improve fishing, boating, and other recreational opportunities.

Resource Management Goals: Enhancement of recreational opportunities associated with the presence and operation of the project, including the dam, reservoir and tailwater areas.

Need: Project operations have an impact on hydraulic conditions and on Conowingo pool reservoir levels. These can impact recreational use of these areas. Posting of project lands may limit recreational opportunities.

The nexus between project operations and effects on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the development of lieemue requirements: Boaters, anglers, and other recreational users must adjust to changing hydraulic conditions in the Conowingo Pool, impacting their ability to use the resources, affecting catch rates for fish, use of other recreational facilities, and creating safety concerns. Currently posted project lands might be made available for public use at little cost.

How the proposed study methodology is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community: The proposed study would be conducted by interviewing anglers, boaters, and birders and meeting with user groups to determine ifaccommodations can be made. This is an accepted methodology for this type of stody.

Considerations of level of effort and cost involved in the proposed study, and explain why any alternative studies proposed by Excion would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs: Cost for this study is estimated to be moderate. Exelon proposes in the PAD to complete a recreation and shoreline management plan but does not provide details on what would be included in these plans.

Reauested Study IQ. Characterize Soak and S¢op¢ of Impacts of Project Operation to Fish Populations in Conowingo Reservoir.

Characterize the scale and scope of impacts of the Muddy Run project operation on fish populations in Conowingo Reservoir. The study should include reproduction, age and growth, and condition of representative resident fish species (e.g., channel catfish, yellow perch, walleye, largemouth bass, smaiimouth bass, white crappie). A comparison should be made of those characteristics to those of the same species and communities in a river reference location (or locations) unaffected by a dam or hydroelectric project operations. Appropriate reference data may be available from studies offish and ~0090714-0038 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/13/2009

- 12 - July 10, 2009

benthos in other waters within the watershed. If such reference data were not available, one or more reference sites would be identified that shared most of the habitat characteristics of the Conowingo Pond and similar data collections would be made at the reference site(s). Standard water quality data (e.g., water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, etc.) should be collected in conjunction with these surveys.

Goals and objectives: The goals and objectives of the requested study include: 1) empirically determine if project operations at Muddy Run affect resident fish reproduction, age and growth, or behavior in the Conowingo Pond, 2) establish the magnitude of those impacts, and 3) identify potentially appropriate mitigndon measures.

Resource Management Goals: The management goal specific to this study is to restore and enhance resident fish communities within Conowingo Pond.

Need: Resident fish species are an important component of the sport fishery in Conowingo Pond and also important members oftbe Susquehanna River and upper Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The impacts of project operations on resident fish reproduction and growth have not been rigorously studied. There is a need for basic characterization of the biological status offish communities present relative to their status in waters not affected by a dam or hydroelectric project operations in order to assess whether impacts are occurring, and, if impacts are identified, the magnitude of those impacts.

The nexus between project operations and effects on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the development of license requirements: Project operations create unnatural and variable conditions of fiow which may affect resident fish populations. Once the type and extent of impacts can be identified, measures that may be appropriate to minimize those impacts (e.g., reducing peak flows or the frequency ofpceking) can be identified.

How the proposed study methodology is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community: Documentation of the characteristics of biological communities in affected and reference locations is a standard approach to impact assessment. Methods for documenting fish abundance, age class distributions, observations of nesting behavior (for nest-builders such as centrachids), measurements of age, growth and condition offish are all standard fisheries assessment methods. Data mining from historical studies could reduce the amount of field data collection that may be necessary.

Considerations of level of effort and cost involved in the proposed study, and explain why any alternative studies proposed by Exelon would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs: Exelon did not propose any studies to meet this need in the PAD. The estimated cost for the study of this nature would be moderate to high, since seasonal data collection would be necessary, and appropriate reference sampling locations may be geographic~ly distant from Conowingo Dam. The cost of the study would be reduced if appropriate reference data were found to be available from prior studies. ~0090714-0038 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/13/2009

- 13 = July 10, 2009

If you have any questions regarding the contents of this request for additional studies letter, please feel free to contact me at (717) 705-4799 or via e-mail at [email protected]

Sincerely,

~~ag~ena~t ~rrogram DEP Southcenlral Region

JSS/dsb 20090710-5123 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 3:49:30 PM

Susquehanna River Basin Commission

a water management agency serving the Susquehanna River Watershed

July 10, 2009

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE, Room 1A Washington, DC 20426

Re: Review Comments for March 12, 2009 Pre-Application Document Review Comments for May 11, 2009 Scoping Document Request for Additional Studies Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project – FERC Project No. 2355

Dear Secretary Bose:

The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Pre-Application Document (PAD) and Scoping Document submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) by Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) for the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2355). SRBC staff has been involved with informational and coordination meetings with Exelon and other resource agencies since the PAD was received by our office on March 19, 2009.

SRBC staff is also reviewing the project with the intent of presenting a proposed docket to our Commissioners for action at a future meeting of the SRBC. SRBC has concurrent jurisdiction with FERC and regulates hydroelectric projects pursuant to Article 3, Section 3.10, and Article 10, Section 10.1, of the Susquehanna River Basin Compact (Compact), P.L. 91-575, and SRBC Regulations 18 CFR Parts 801, 806, 807, and 808. SRBC authorizes hydroelectric projects in accordance with its Comprehensive Plan for the Water Resources of the Susquehanna River Basin (SRBC Comprehensive Plan), adopted on December 4, 2008, as mandated by Article 14 of the Compact.

The Muddy Run hydroelectric project is one in a series of five hydroelectric facilities, each with its own license, operating conditions, and expiration date. Muddy Run is on concurrent license schedules with three other hydroelectric projects (Holtwood, Conowingo, and York Haven), all of which are located within a 55-mile reach of the lower Susquehanna River above its mouth at Havre de Grace, Maryland. A fifth project, Safe Harbor, has been granted an extension to the year 2030.

Within the 55-mile reach, there exist the five hydroelectric facilities mentioned above, plus two nuclear power plants (Exelon’s Three Mile Island [TMI] and Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station [Peach Bottom]), one coal-fired facility (PPL Brunner Island), and one combined cycle gas-fired facility (Conectiv Mid Merit, LLC – Delta Power Plant). SRBC staff is concerned about the regulatory discontinuity that will be created by any project extension. It is

1721 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391 • Phone: (717) 238-0423 • Fax: (717) 238-2436 website: http://www.srbc.net e-mail: [email protected] 20090710-5123 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 3:49:30 PM

Kimberly D. Bose - 2 - July 10, 2009

SRBC’s position that a true cumulative impact analysis requires the treatment of the five hydroelectric, two nuclear, one coal-fired facility, one gas-fired facility, and numerous public water supply intakes on the lower Susquehanna as a single hydrologically interconnected system with impacts on one another, on aquatic resources, on public water supplies, and on inflow to the Chesapeake Bay. For this reason, it is imperative that analyses of the cumulative impacts of the 55-mile river reach in which these facilities are located be performed in a holistic manner to better understand the total impacts and to balance competing flow needs related to aquatic resources, power production, public water supplies, protection of downstream users, and inflow to the Chesapeake Bay.

Although SRBC’s recent approval of the proposal by PPL to modify and expand the Holtwood facility included a provision to extend the license period to a date inconsistent with the licenses at Conowingo and Muddy Run (but consistent with the anticipated FERC action), SRBC remains committed to achieving concurrent review of the lower Susquehanna facilities. SRBC determined the benefits offered by the proposed Holtwood project justified support for the extended license, despite the challenge presented by a change in the expiration date. In its project approval, SRBC mitigated the discrepancy by imposing adaptive management schemes on the operations at Holtwood and by linking specific operating conditions to future conditions that will be considered for inclusion at the first opportunity to review the license governing Safe Harbor operations. Absent concurrent licensing periods, SRBC will likely seek similar adaptive management requirements for all of the lower Susquehanna facilities, including Conowingo Dam and Muddy Run.

SCOPING DOCUMENT AND PUBLIC MEETING

While attending the FERC scoping meeting for Conowingo Dam and Muddy Run held on June 12, 2009, the SRBC was very pleased and encouraged to hear FERC representatives state that it is FERC’s desire to collectively review and consider the re-licensing of Conowingo Hydroelectric Dam, Muddy Run Pumped Storage Facility, York Haven Hydroelectric Dam, and the FERC license amendment for the Holtwood Hydroelectric Dam in a system-wide sense. As stated above, SRBC wholeheartedly agrees with this approach and would add that the other water users, including public water supplies and other power generation facilities, should also be considered in this system-wide analysis.

At the public meeting, FERC staff suggested that an Environmental Assessment (EA) would be the vehicle by which FERC will evaluate the Conowingo and Muddy Run projects. SRBC strongly believes that the five hydroelectric facilities located within a 55-mile reach of the lower Susquehanna River and their collective impacts on river resources justify an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as opposed to an EA. An EIS can provide a more comprehensive review of the varied environmental impacts, potential alternatives, and recognizes the enormity of the impacts these projects have had and will continue to have on the lower Susquehanna River. For these reasons, SRBC strongly recommends that FERC consider a single EIS for all of the Susquehanna hydroelectric facilities to evaluate their cumulative impacts and direct all the aforementioned facilities to participate. 20090710-5123 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 3:49:30 PM

Kimberly D. Bose - 3 - July 10, 2009

Individual facilities can be addressed as a part of the whole within the same study. While Holtwood’s license is proposed for an extension to 2030, it is likely that Conowingo, Muddy Run, and York Haven licenses will be reissued for another 30 years to 2044. SRBC and other resource agencies believe that now is the best time to look at all of these facilities holistically and develop plans that will positively impact the river and its resources for present and future generations.

The following sections of this letter include general comments regarding the Muddy Run PAD, followed by specific and detailed requests for studies. The requests for studies are presented in the FERC-required format applicable to all stakeholders.

GENERAL COMMENTS REGARDING PAD

It does not appear that the PAD for the Muddy Run facility referenced the correct and most current SRBC Comprehensive Plan. It is critically important that Exelon adequately address the contents of the December 2008 Comprehensive Plan. While the SRBC Comprehensive Plan is applicable to the entire river basin, some of the sections most applicable to the Muddy Run facility are emphasized below:

A. Part III, Section B, Project Guidance (page 38), portions of which include the following:

i. Provisions should be made for a minimum streamflow for normal stream maintenance, protection of the natural biological community of the stream, and other purposes. Minimum release conditions should be based on determination and evaluation of instream use impacts resulting from the withdrawal. ii. As part of re-licensing with FERC, hydroelectric facilities should be required to enhance recreation, including boating opportunities, fish passage, fishery access and portage provisions, and other navigational concerns. iii. Thermoelectric facilities should be required to evaluate the costs, benefits, tradeoffs and drawbacks of various cooling and water conservation techniques, and fully evaluate options for providing effective consumptive use mitigation.

B. Part IV, Section D, Ecosystems (page 62), portions of which include the following:

i. Work with Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative (SRAFRC), sportsmen groups, conservation organizations, and others to produce by 2025, self-sustaining annual populations of 2 million American shad and 5 million river herring, reproducing in the free-flowing Susquehanna River above York Haven Dam and in suitable tributaries, provide 500,000 angler days annually throughout the basin for these species, and provide effective upstream and downstream passage for American eels arriving at dams in the basin.

63776.1 20090710-5123 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 3:49:30 PM

Kimberly D. Bose - 4 - July 10, 2009

ii. With assistance of SRAFRC and others, support studies of eel migration and implement restoration plans to reestablish a fishable population of American eel in the Susquehanna River system and restore adult recruitment from the river to help rebuild spawning stocks for the east coast eel fishery. iii. Require viable upstream and downstream migratory fish passage as part of re-licensing activities for power dams on the lower Susquehanna River.

C. Part IV, Section E, Chesapeake Bay (page 64), portions of which include the following:

i. The role of climate change in aggravating the impact of project operations on the ecology of the Susquehanna River system, which will have downstream effects on the Chesapeake Bay, should be addressed. ii. Note: An adaptive management plan should be developed by Exelon that adequately addresses changes in withdrawals at Muddy Run to accommodate anticipated changes in climatic conditions. iii. Note: Since the SRBC Comprehensive Plan addresses the need to provide habitat for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds found in the Chesapeake Bay, Exelon should address the potential impact caused by fluctuations in pool water levels on migratory waterfowl and shorebirds.

D. Part V, Section E, Economic Development, Recreation and Other Public Values (page 81), portions of which include the following:

i. Since the late 1970s and early 1980s, SRBC has advocated several re-licensing planks that would enhance the use and enjoyment of the impounded and upstream reaches of the Susquehanna River, including:

1. The installation of fish passage facilities to accommodate restored runs of migratory fish; 2. The installation of a broader range of recreational facilities for swimming, fishing, and boating; and 3. The establishment of debris removal programs.

ii. Note: SRBC will be pursuing the same planks during the current re-licensing of Muddy Run. iii. Note: While no water is consumed by the facility, it is not without impacts to water resources, particularly ecological effects and issues related to the manipulation and modification to natural flow regimes.

There appear to be errors or inconsistencies in portions of the PAD for Muddy Run. For example, on page 3-7 of the PAD, a statement is made that “Exelon must install and maintain gages to track the flow of water and the amount held and withdrawn from storage at the Project.” At the end of that statement, Article 23 is given in parentheses. A description of Article 23 is

63776.1 20090710-5123 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 3:49:30 PM

Kimberly D. Bose - 5 - July 10, 2009

provided in the Federal Power Commission document entitled “Susquehanna Power Company and Philadelphia Electric Power Company Project No. 405; Philadelphia Electric Company, Project No. 2355, Opinion No. 443,” dated September 21, 1964, and contained in Appendix 10 of the PAD. In essence, Article 23 describes the obligations imposed on the licensee by FERC for determining the stage and flow of the stream or streams from which water is diverted for the operation of the project works.

In recent verbal communications and in direct contradiction to the PAD statement referenced above, Exelon maintains that no requirement to measure flow has ever been imposed by FERC. SRBC staff requests specific resolution of the contradiction; please clarify if FERC has or has not required flow measurement. If such a requirement was never imposed, please explain why it was deemed unnecessary, and address the contradictory inclusion of the requirement in the PAD by Exelon. However, if FERC did, in fact, make a request (as Article 23 requires) for Exelon to measure flows and the amount of water held and withdrawn from storage at Muddy Run, then the statement on page 3-8 of the PAD regarding full compliance by Exelon with FERC requirements is incorrect. SRBC and other resource agencies are concerned about this very important discrepancy and question whether other equally important parts of the PAD may be either incorrect or misleading.

Notwithstanding the errors or inconsistencies, the PAD was helpful in identifying current data deficiencies that SRBC and the other resource agencies expect will be adequately addressed in future studies to be completed by Exelon. To that end, a group of representatives from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the SRBC have been working cooperatively with Exelon and their consultants to identify significant data gaps in the PAD that need to be addressed by Exelon in future studies. The studies that are expected by the resource agencies to be completed before re-licensing decisions can be made by FERC are included herein.

REQUESTS FOR STUDIES

The current license for Muddy Run expires in 2014. Since construction on the dam was completed in 1968, FERC and the resource agencies (stakeholders) have a significant opportunity to evaluate and document the impacts that over 40 years of facility operation have had on the Susquehanna River and its migratory fish species. SRBC is supportive of the study requests filed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. It is expected that the results of the studies requested herein will enable Exelon, working cooperatively with resource agencies, to manage the facility in a manner that lessens future impacts and better balances the competing flow needs related to aquatic resources (including migratory fish), power production, public water supplies, protection of downstream users, and inflow to the Chesapeake Bay.

The specific studies (and their attendant details) requested by SRBC are listed below, and summarized as follows:

63776.1 20090710-5123 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 3:49:30 PM

Kimberly D. Bose - 6 - July 10, 2009

1. Hydrologic Study of Muddy Run Water Withdrawal and Return Characteristics 2. Opportunities for Enhancement of Migratory Fish Mitigation 3. Determine Impact of Muddy Run Operations on Upstream Migrating Adult American Shad 4. Effects of Muddy Run Operations on Migratory Fish Passage 5. American Shad Population Assessment and Basin-Wide Fish Passage Monitoring 6. Impingement/Entrainment of Juvenile American Shad Passing Muddy Run in Downstream Out-Migration 7. Study of Entrainment of Upstream Migrating American Eels 8. Documenting Mortality of Migratory and Resident Fish Species 9. Recreational Use Survey 10. Characterize Scale and Scope of Impacts of Project Operation to Fish Populations in Conowingo Pond

Requested Study 1. Hydrologic Study of Muddy Run Water Withdrawal and Return Characteristics

As previously noted above, four other hydroelectric facilities are located in relatively close proximity to Muddy Run: York Haven (uppermost), Safe Harbor, Holtwood, and Conowingo Dam (lowermost). The common thread between these facilities is the flow of river water between them. The uppermost facility (York Haven) exerts hydrologic influences on the other four down-river facilities; while each successive down-river facility influences its down- river neighbors. There also exist five surface water withdrawals from the Conowingo Pond: City of Baltimore, Chester Water Authority, Peach Bottom nuclear power plant, Conectiv Delta, and Muddy Run. These surface water withdrawals and the operation of the other hydroelectric facilities exert profound influences on the river water levels and flows within Conowingo Pond. For these reasons, the Conowingo Pond from which Muddy Run withdraws its water and into which it discharges water, must be a primary focus of the Muddy Run hydrologic study requested herein.

The specific issues to be addressed in the hydrologic study of the Muddy Run facility should include the following:

1. Full documentation of daily water withdrawal regime from Conowingo Pond, to include the following:

a. Average daily withdrawal from Conowingo Pond; b. Maximum daily withdrawal from Conowingo Pond; c. Average daily discharge to Conowingo Pond; d. Maximum daily discharge to Conowingo Pond; e. Concurrent head measurements taken in Muddy Run (upper reservoir) and in Conowingo Pond (lower reservoir) at a frequency of one reading every 15 minutes for specified periods of time; and

63776.1 20090710-5123 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 3:49:30 PM

Kimberly D. Bose - 7 - July 10, 2009

f. The specific periods of time shall include a minimum of three 30-day low flow periods (between August and September) and three 30-day high flow periods (between March and April).

2. Detailed bathymetric study of Muddy Run Upper Reservoir, to include:

a. Bathymetric map of entire upper reservoir, including the recreational lake; b. Development of head versus water volume curve for upper reservoir for entire range of head within the upper reservoir; and c. Detailed bathymetric study of Muddy Run discharge (outfall) area within Conowingo Pond, including an area extending a minimum of 1,000 feet up-river, a minimum of 1,500 feet down-river, and a minimum of 1,000 feet across river from the outfall location.

3. Detailed operating schedule (periodicity characteristics) of the facility, to include the following:

a. Actual hours of pumping versus hours of generation for each day within a defined study periods of time. b. Study periods of time to include:

i. A minimum of three 30-day periods during the peak migratory fish periods (between April and June); ii. A minimum of three 30-day high temperature periods (between July and August); and iii. A minimum of three 30-day low temperature periods (between January and February).

4. Quantitative study of the hydrologic influences and interactions that exist or may exist between the surface water withdrawals from Conowingo Pond for Baltimore, Chester Water Authority, Peach Bottom, Conectiv Delta power facility, and Muddy Run; the discharges into Conowingo Pond from Peach Bottom and Muddy Run; the operations at Conowingo Dam, the operations at Muddy Run, the operations at Holtwood Dam, the operations at Safe Harbor Dam, and the operations at York Haven Dam; to include the following:

a. Permitted withdrawals for the City of Baltimore, Chester Water Authority, Peach Bottom power facility, and Conectiv Delta power facility; b. Withdrawals from Conowingo Pond for Muddy Run facility; c. Discharges into Conowingo Pond from Peach Bottom facility; d. Discharges into Conowingo Pond from Muddy Run facility; e. Minimum allowable flows at each of the five hydroelectric facilities, and the annual (seasonal) variations in these minimum flows;

63776.1 20090710-5123 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 3:49:30 PM

Kimberly D. Bose - 8 - July 10, 2009

f. Hydraulic continuity of river flows between the four surface water withdrawals and five hydroelectric facilities under low flow conditions and during peak power demand (July to October), and during fish migration (April to June); and g. Magnitude of hydraulic impact or influence between the eight facilities (including Baltimore, Chester Water Authority, Peach Bottom, and Conectiv Delta).

Goals and Objectives: Determine the extent of alteration of river hydrology caused by operation of the project.

Resource Management Goals: Optimize downstream hydrology and biotic habitat as affected by project operations.

Need for Additional Information: The Muddy Run project is a hydroelectric facility, yet the PAD is completely devoid of any water withdrawal or discharge information, nor does the PAD indicate how project operations have altered downstream hydrology, which may affect resident and migratory fish, macroinvertebrates, aquatic plants and other biota, other intakes, and recreation.

The nexus between project operations and effects on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the development of license requirements: Project is currently operated with extreme fluctuations in both daily withdrawal rates and daily discharge rates. These rates can range from 0 to 32,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), and can affect biotic habitat and biota downstream of the project, as well as other uses of the water. The results of the study will be used to develop flow-related license requirements and/or other mitigation measures.

Considerations of level of effort and cost involved in the proposed study, and explain why any alternative studies proposed by Exelon would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs: Level of effort and cost will depend on the availability of existing data, but should be relatively low since this is a desktop analysis. Exelon did not propose any alternative studies specifically addressing this issue.

Requested Study 2. Opportunities for Enhancement of Migratory Fish Mitigation

The specific tasks associated with the study of migration enhancement opportunities include the following:

1. The licensee should investigate the feasibility of installing passive integrated transponder (P.I.T.) (sometimes called EZ pass for fish) tag readers at the entrance of the Muddy Run intake or some other suitable location to monitor entrainment on an

63776.1 20090710-5123 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 3:49:30 PM

Kimberly D. Bose - 9 - July 10, 2009

annual basis. The licensee should also assist with annual purchase of P.I.T. tags to monitor migratory fish passage. 2. The licensee should provide space and permit the resource agencies to install a hatchery building to conduct closed-system tank spawning of American shad and other migratory fish. Availability of eggs for restoration activities has declined over the years. Rivers that once provided eggs for the Susquehanna River restoration are now closed to fishing (James, Hudson), restricted to within-basin stocking (Delaware), or are in areas where disease issues prevent egg collection (Columbia). The resource agencies now recognize that eggs for hatchery production must come from the Susquehanna River. Currently, there exist two tank-spawn tanks at Conowingo. Since agencies have no control of temperature, they must use hormone injections to induce egg maturation and spawning. This process produces quantities of eggs, but viability is very low (approximately 20 percent). A hatchery building with a closed system, a heat source, and additional tanks is the only practical solution to increasing hatchery production. Because American shad are so fragile and subject to handling and trucking stress, this new hatchery must be close to Conowingo to reduce travel time and stress. There are two sites within project lands that would accommodate the study needs: on the west side of the river just downstream from Shures Landing, and on the east side of the river at the site of the new recreational area along Octoraro Creek. 3. The licensee should provide mitigation funds to assist in construction of this hatchery.

Requested Study 3. Determine Impact of Muddy Run Operations on Upstream Migrating Adult American Shad

Goals and Objectives: (1) To determine what percent of the American shad that approach Muddy Run are impinged or entrained by the project; (2) to determine the extent to which American shad are delayed in passing the project; (3) to gather site-specific information to determine what operational or structural modifications or mitigation measures are necessary to limit impingement/entrainment and reduce delays.

Need for Additional Information: Radio telemetry studies have indicated that the Muddy Run pumped storage project does entrain adult American shad. Delay is also a concern

63776.1 20090710-5123 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 3:49:30 PM

Kimberly D. Bose - 10 - July 10, 2009

because Susquehanna River American shad must pass five dams to access the historically important spawning grounds in the North Branch above Sunbury. These issues have been studied; however, information about pumping schedules has not been reported in the results and a period of more than one calendar year is required to adequately study a range of environmental and river conditions.

The nexus between project operations and effects on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the development of license requirements: Radio telemetry studies have indicated the Muddy Run pumped storage project does entrain adult American shad.

How the proposed study methodology is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community: The proposed study should be conducted using radio telemetry. Radio telemetry is a scientifically accepted method and has been used to study shad behavior at other locations such as Holtwood (Normandeau, 2001) and York Haven Dam (Kleinschmidt Associates, unpublished).

Considerations of level of effort and cost involved in the proposed study, and explain why any alternative studies proposed by Exelon would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs: Studies have already been done, but pumping schedules have not been provided, nor has any mitigation been suggested. More than one year of data is required to assess impacts under varying climatic factors. Cost: moderate to high.

Requested Study 4. Effects of Muddy Run Operations on Migratory Fish Passage

Goals and Objectives: To determine the impact of Muddy Run project operations on migratory fish passage; to include the following issues and questions:

1. Are velocities at and in proximity of the Muddy Run intake structure, when pumping, a barrier to movement? 2. Are velocities at and in proximity of the Muddy Run intake structure, when generating, a barrier to movement? 3. Are there velocity barriers in the main river (downstream of outflow) resulting from generation flows from Muddy Run pumped storage alone or in combination with generation flows from Holtwood (existing and with new power house)? 4. Do Muddy Run operations create undesirable attraction flows for migratory fish? 5. What is the potential for and impact of unnatural eddies in the main stem associated with generation? 6. What are the structural details of the intake structure, and how do the structures affect fish behavior? 7. Main stem instream local flow reversal associated with pumping operations and potential impacts on migrating fish (i.e., the river can flow upstream potentially confusing migratory fish keying in flow as a directional aid to upstream or downstream migration causing delay and additional “fish” energy expense). 20090710-5123 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 3:49:30 PM

Kimberly D. Bose - 11 - July 10, 2009

8. What are the impacts of thermal anomalies of cycled water (from Peach Bottom or from Muddy Run Pumped Storage Reservoir) on fish migration within Conowingo Pond? 9. What is the extent and impact of changes in turbidity and dissolved oxygen resulting from Muddy Run operations? Has there been any previous monitoring performed on these issues?

Resource Management Goals: “By 2025, produce self-sustaining annual populations of 2 million American shad and 5 million river herring, reproducing in the free-flowing Susquehanna River above York Haven Dam and in suitable tributaries, and provide 500,000 angling days annually throughout the basin for these species” (Hendricks and St. Pierre, 2002). In addition, the study will gather site-specific information to determine what operational or structural modifications may be necessary to improve passage efficiency and timeliness.

Need for Additional Information: Progress toward achieving the restoration goal requires that all American shad and river herring that approach the Muddy Run project move upstream past the project as quickly and efficiently as possible, so they can be passed at Holtwood Dam. Delay is a significant concern because Susquehanna River American shad must pass five dams to access the historically important spawning grounds in the North Branch above Sunbury. Information on the behavioral response to migratory fish to Muddy Run operations is necessary in order to identify operational or structural changes needed to achieve adequate upstream passage.

How the proposed study methodology is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community: Flow modeling is a scientifically accepted method.

Considerations of level of effort and cost involved in the proposed study, and explain why any alternative studies proposed by Exelon would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs: Extensive flow modeling has already been done by PPL Corporation in conjunction with the Holtwood project redevelopment. Updating of that model would be inexpensive. Two radio telemetry studies have also been done: 2001 and 2008. Data from those studies could be analyzed with flow model and project generation data at minimal cost. Additional field data may be required to provide sufficient sample size to analyze the various combinations of river flow, Muddy Run generation scenarios, Holtwood operational scenarios, or other pertinent variables. This would add considerably to the cost.

63776.1 20090710-5123 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 3:49:30 PM

Kimberly D. Bose - 12 - July 10, 2009

Requested Study 5. American Shad Population Assessment and Basin-Wide Fish Passage Monitoring

Goals and Objectives: To monitor American shad and other entrainment at Muddy Run and basin-wide.

Need for Additional Information: Monitoring of fish passage at Conowingo Dam is required under the current license. Monitoring of fish passage is an essential component of managing the American shad restoration program and is required by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC, 1999).

The nexus between project operations and effects on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the development of license requirements: The East Fish Lift is operated and fish passage monitored as part of the Conowingo project license requirements. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources conducts an annual mark- recapture study in the Conowingo tailrace. Adult shad are captured by standardized angling and tagged with floy tags. Recaptures are documented by observers as part of the counting of all fish passing the East Fish Lift. Both angling catch per unit effort and population indices generated by recaptures are used to track relative abundance of shad. Floy tags can go undetected by observers and therefore impact the accuracy of the relative abundance estimates. The licensee should be required to substitute P.I.T. tags for the floy tags. This will provide greater accuracy in the abundance estimates and permit tracking of individual fish passage success and travel times as they move upstream past all four hydro projects or are entrained in the Muddy Run project. P.I.T. tag readers will be installed at the entrance and exit of each fishway to determine travel time within the fishway and help eliminate delays. We propose that the licensee be required to investigate the technological feasibility of installing P.I.T. tag readers to monitor entrainment in Muddy Run on a continuous basis.

How the proposed study methodology is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community: P.I.T. tags are relatively new and state-of-the-art tagging systems that provide additional information over traditional tags.

Considerations of level of effort and cost involved in the proposed study, and explain why any alternative studies proposed by Exelon would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs: The Maryland Department of Natural Resources will capture the fish in the tailrace and implant the tags. Each licensee will install the readers and share the annual cost of purchasing the tags. Cost: Moderate for initial installation and calibration of P.I.T. tag readers, minimal for annual monitoring.

63776.1 20090710-5123 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 3:49:30 PM

Kimberly D. Bose - 13 - July 10, 2009

Requested Study 6. Impingement/Entrainment of Juvenile American Shad Passing Muddy Run in Downstream Out-Migration

Goals and Objectives: The primary goals and objectives of the requested study are to: (1) determine if juvenile American shad are impinged or entrained while passing Muddy Run in their downstream migration; and (2) determine how to mitigate for this loss or modify project operations to limit impingement/entrainment.

Need for Additional Information: Juvenile shad must pass the project to gain access to the ocean.

The nexus between project operations and effects on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the development of license requirements: Juvenile American shad undergo a mass out-migration during October or November. Out-migration generally occurs at night when Muddy Run is pumping, thus entrainment is very probable. Operational changes during out-migration could reduce entrainment and improve the survival of out-migrating shad.

How the proposed study methodology is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community: It is suggested that this issue be studied by site-specific radio telemetry studies and/or data mining or literature review, if site-specific studies are available. This is the accepted methodology for such studies.

Requested Study 7. Study of Entrainment of Upstream Migrating American Eels

Goals and Objectives: The primary goals and objectives of the requested study are to determine the occurrence and extent of entrainment of upstream migrating American eels.

Resource Management Goals: The 2002 Susquehanna River Migratory Fish Restoration Plan is under revision at this time and is expected to provide for restoration of American eels to their historical habitats above dams.

63776.1 20090710-5123 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 3:49:30 PM

Kimberly D. Bose - 14 - July 10, 2009

Need for Additional Information: Entrainment of upstream migrating eels would likely result in mortality.

Considerations of level of effort and cost involved in the proposed study, and explain why any alternative studies proposed by Exelon would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs: The study should be done in each of 3 years to cover a wide range of environmental conditions that might be encountered. Cost: moderate. Exelon proposes no studies to address this issue. Site-specific studies will be required.

Requested Study 8. Documenting Mortality of Migratory and Resident Fish Species

Document the mortality of migratory and resident fish species (including adult and juvenile American shad, river herring, American eel [elvers, yellow eels, and silver eels], walleye, smallmouth bass, and channel catfish) as a result of entrainment and/or downstream passage through the project turbines.

Goals and Objectives: The goals and objectives of the requested study include: (1) quantify mortality rates of the target life stages and species as a result of passage through the turbines at Muddy Run; and (2) mitigate for losses or use the turbine mortality data to establish the dam operational regimes that would minimize total mortality of downstream migrating fish.

Resource Management Goals: State and federal resource agencies have established anadromous fish restoration goals for the Susquehanna River: produce self-sustaining annual populations of 2 million American shad and 5 million river herring, reproducing in the free- flowing Susquehanna River above York Haven Dam and in suitable tributaries, and provide 500,000 angling days annually throughout the basin for these species. The 2002 Susquehanna River Migratory Fish Restoration Plan is under revision at this time and is expected to provide for restoration of American eels to their historical habitats above dams. State and federal agencies desire to provide for normal upstream and downstream movements of resident fish species.

Need for Additional Information: While literature data are available on turbine passage mortality rates of some of the target species at turbines of the type present at Muddy Run, no on-site mortality studies of all of the target species and life stages have been done.

63776.1 20090710-5123 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 3:49:30 PM

Kimberly D. Bose - 15 - July 10, 2009

The nexus between project operations and effects on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the development of license requirements: Enhancement of populations of anadromous, catadromous, and resident fish species that may be entrained or passed downstream requires that the life stages of these species that move downstream have a high survival rate. American shad normally spawn multiple times as adults, but high mortality of post-spawn adults as a result of turbine mortality as they migrate downstream to their ocean habitat can constrain future population growth. Similarly, eels that grow to sexual maturity in the Susquehanna River watershed must be able to reach their Sargasso Sea spawning grounds in order to contribute to the total fecundity of the panmictic stock. Resident fish are also subject to entrainment and/or turbine passage. In all cases, it is important to know the mortality rates caused by entrainment/passage so that the plant operational regime that results in highest survival rates can be identified and implemented.

Requested Study 9. Recreational Use Survey

Goals and Objectives: To determine if there are operational, structural, or other modifications to the project which could improve fishing, boating, and other recreational opportunities.

Resource Management Goals: Enhancement of recreational opportunities associated with the presence and operation of the project, including the dam, reservoir, and tailwater areas.

Need for Additional Information: Project operations have an impact on hydraulic conditions and on Conowingo pool reservoir levels. These can impact recreational use of these areas. Posting of project lands may limit recreational opportunities.

63776.1 20090710-5123 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 3:49:30 PM

Kimberly D. Bose - 16 - July 10, 2009

The nexus between project operations and effects on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the development of license requirements: Boaters, anglers, and other recreational users must adjust to changing hydraulic conditions in the Conowingo Pool, impacting their ability to use the resources, affecting catch rates for fish, use of other recreational facilities, and creating safety concerns. Currently, posted project lands might be made available for public use at little cost.

How the proposed study methodology is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community: The proposed study would be conducted by interviewing anglers, boaters, and birders and meeting with user groups to determine if accommodations can be made. This is an accepted methodology for this type of study.

Considerations of level of effort and cost involved in the proposed study, and explain why any alternative studies proposed by Exelon would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs: Cost for this study is estimated to be moderate. Exelon proposes in the PAD to complete a recreation and shoreline management plan but does not provide details on what would be included in these plans.

Requested Study 10. Characterize Scale and Scope of Impacts of Project Operation to Fish Populations in Conowingo Pond

Characterize the scale and scope of impacts of the Muddy Run project operation on fish populations in Conowingo Pond. The study should include reproduction, age and growth, and condition of representative resident fish species (e.g., channel catfish, yellow perch, walleye, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, white crappie). A comparison should be made of those characteristics to those of the same species and communities in a river reference location (or locations) unaffected by a dam or hydroelectric project operations. Appropriate reference data may be available from studies of fish and benthos in other waters within the watershed. If such reference data were not available, one or more reference sites would be identified that shared most of the habitat characteristics of the Conowingo Pond and similar data collections would be made at the reference site(s). Standard water quality data (e.g., water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, etc.) should be collected in conjunction with these surveys.

Goals and Objectives: The goals and objectives of the requested study include: (1) empirically determine if project operations at Muddy Run affect resident fish reproduction, age and growth, or behavior in the Conowingo Pond; (2) establish the magnitude of those impacts; and (3) identify potentially appropriate mitigation measures.

Resource Management Goals: The management goal specific to this study is to restore and enhance resident fish communities within Conowingo Pond.

Need for Additional Information: Resident fish species are an important component of the sport fishery in Conowingo Pond and also important members of the Susquehanna River and upper Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The impacts of project operations on resident fish

63776.1 20090710-5123 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 3:49:30 PM

Kimberly D. Bose - 17 - July 10, 2009

reproduction and growth have not been rigorously studied. There is a need for basic characterization of the biological status of fish communities present relative to their status in waters not affected by a dam or hydroelectric project operations in order to assess whether impacts are occurring and, if impacts are identified, the magnitude of those impacts.

The nexus between project operations and effects on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the development of license requirements: Project operations create unnatural and variable conditions of flow which may affect resident fish populations. Once the type and extent of impacts can be identified, measures that may be appropriate to minimize those impacts (e.g., reducing peak flows or the frequency of peaking) can be identified.

How the proposed study methodology is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community: Documentation of the characteristics of biological communities in affected and reference locations is a standard approach to impact assessment. Methods for documenting fish abundance, age class distributions, observations of nesting behavior (for nest builders such as centrachids), measurements of age, and growth and condition of fish are all standard fisheries assessment methods. Data mining from historical studies could reduce the amount of field data collection that may be necessary.

Considerations of level of effort and cost involved in the proposed study, and explain why any alternative studies proposed by Exelon would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs: Exelon did not propose any studies to meet this need in the PAD. The estimated cost for the study of this nature would be moderate to high, since seasonal data collection would be necessary, and appropriate reference sampling locations may be geographically distant from Conowingo Dam. The cost of the study would be reduced if appropriate reference data were found to be available from prior studies.

CLOSING REMARKS

In closing, the SRBC strongly encourages FERC to require that Exelon complete the essential studies outlined herein as part of the licensing process. Once issued, the FERC license will remain in effect for a period of 30 to 50 years. Therefore, decisions regarding the licensing must be based upon an objective science-based evaluation of past impacts created by the Muddy Run facility and upon a thorough discussion of impacts expected to occur long into the future. Without these analyses, neither Exelon nor the various resource agencies can develop or implement sound water planning and management strategies for Muddy Run and the lower Susquehanna River.

63776.1 20090710-5123 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 3:49:30 PM

Kimberly D. Bose - 18 - July 10, 2009

If you have any questions regarding the contents of this review and study request letter, please feel free to contact me at (717) 238-0423, extension 200, or via e-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Michael G. Brownell, Chief Water Resources Management Division

63776.1 20090710-5119 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 4:57:31 PM 20090710-5119 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 4:57:31 PM 20090710-5119 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 4:57:31 PM 20090710-5119 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 4:57:31 PM 20090710-5119 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 4:57:31 PM 20090710-5119 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 4:57:31 PM 20090710-5119 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 4:57:31 PM 20090710-5119 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 4:57:31 PM 20090710-5119 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 4:57:31 PM 20090710-5119 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 4:57:31 PM 20090710-5119 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 4:57:31 PM 20090710-5119 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 4:57:31 PM 20090710-5119 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 4:57:31 PM 20090710-5119 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 4:57:31 PM 20090710-5119 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 4:57:31 PM 20090710-5119 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 4:57:31 PM 20090710-5119 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 4:57:31 PM 20090710-5119 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 7/10/2009 4:57:31 PM PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

6.0 Appendix B-Fisheries Surveys Used in the Development of the Muddy Run PAD

FERC No. 2355 6‐1 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Heisey, P.G. and D. Mathur.1979. Summary of ecological studies of fishes in Muddy Run Pumped Storage Pond, Pennsylvania. Pages 80-94 in Proceedings of the Clemson Workshop on Environmental Impacts of Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Operations. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program. FWS/OBS-80/28.

Heisey, P.G. and D. Mathur, and N.C. Magnusson. 1980. Accelerated growth of smallmouth bass in a pumped storage system. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 109:371-377.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2000. A Reports on the Thermal Conditions and Fish Populations in Conowingo Pond Relative to Zero Cooling Tower Operation at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (June-October 1999) Prepared fro PECO Energy Company. February.

Normandeau. 2001. Cooling Water Intake Structure Assessment for the Delta Power Plant Project. Report prepared for Conectiv Mid-Merit, Inc. April.

Normandeau. 2003. Description of Ecological Studies Conducted on the Lower Susquehanna River. Prepared for Susquehanna Electric Company and Exelon Energy Corporation.

Normandeau. 2006a. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Survey in the Vicinity of the Holtwood Hydroelectric Project. Report Prepared for Kleinschmidt Associates. January.

Normandeau. 2006b. Characterization of Mussel Habitat Utilization in the Vicinity of the Holtwood Hydroelectric Project. Report Prepared for Kleinschmidt Associates. March.

Normandeau. 2009. DRAFT. Upstream migration of adult American shad in Conowingo Pond relative to Muddy Run Pumped Storage Station and Holtwood Hydroelectric Station, Susquehanna River, spring 2008. Prepared for Exelon.

Radiation Management Corporation (RMC). 1979. Ecological Studies of the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project: 1966-1978. Prepared by RMC Ecological Division for Philadelphia Electric Company. May.

RMC. 1986. Fish population assessment and creel survey of the Muddy Run Recreation Lake, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, Muddy Run Recreation Park, Holtwood, PA.

RMC. 1987. A creel survey of sport fishing at Muddy Run Pumped Storage Pond, Spring 1987. Prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, Muddy Run Recreation Park, Holtwood, PA.

RMC. 1988. A creel survey and stock assessment of the largemouth bass fishery in the Muddy Run Recreation Lake, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, Muddy Run Recreation Park, Holtwood, PA.

RMC. 1990. Migration of radio tagged adult American shad through Conowingo Pond to the Holtwood Hydroelectric Station.

RMC. 1992. Report on the distribution of telemetered shad in the tailwaters and spillage areas of the Holtwood, Safe Harbor, and York Haven Hydroelectric Projects, Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania.

FERC No. 2355 6‐2 August 24, 2009

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

RMC. 1994c. Report on the distribution of telemetered shad in the tailwaters and spillage areas of the Holtwood, Safe Harbor, and York Haven Hydroelectric Projects, Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania

RMC. 1995. Report on the distribution of telemetered shad in the tailwaters and spillage areas of the Holtwood, Safe Harbor, and York Haven Hydroelectric Projects, Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania.

Robbins, T.W. and D. Mathur. 1976. The Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project: a Case History. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 105(1): 165-172.

Robbins, T.W.., M.S. Topping, and E.C. Raney. 1970. Studies in the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Reservoir and Connecting Waters: A Summary. Ichthyological Associates, Miscellaneous Report No. 4. May.

FERC No. 2355 6‐3 August 24, 2009