Erie Canal Aquatic Invasive Deterrent Study Prepared for: BuroHappold and New York Power Authority Prepared by: 15250 NE 95th Street Redmond, WA 98052 CONFIDENTIAL October 2019 Erie Canal Aquatic Invasive Deterrent Study Prepared for: BuroHappold New York Power Authority Prepared by: R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. 15250 NE 95th Street Redmond, WA 98052 CONFIDENTIAL October 2019 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... VI STUDY SCOPE ............................................................................................................................ 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 1 2.1. STUDY AREA .......................................................................................................................... 4 EVALUATION OF SUITABLE DETERRENTS .................................................................................. 4 3.1. REVIEW AND SYNTHESIZE EXISTING INFORMATION ......................................................................... 4 Summary of NYS Priority AIS ................................................................................. 5 3.1.1.1. Fish Species ............................................................................................. 6 3.1.1.2. Invertebrate Species ................................................................................ 6 3.1.1.3. Plant Species ............................................................................................ 7 Summary of AIS Deterrent Technologies .............................................................. 7 3.2. BRAINSTORMING AND MATRIX DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 7 Select Components ................................................................................................ 8 Develop Criteria ..................................................................................................... 8 3.3. CONDUCT EVALUATION ............................................................................................................ 9 3.4. AGENCY/STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH .......................................................................................... 10 3.5. TECHNOLOGIES SUITABLE FOR CONSIDERATION IN NETWORKED ALTERNATIVES ................................. 13 Hydrologic Separation ......................................................................................... 13 Boat Lift and Wash ............................................................................................... 14 Bio-acoustic Fish Fence (BAFF) ............................................................................ 17 AIS Barrier Screen ................................................................................................ 19 3.6. TECHNOLOGIES NOT USED IN NETWORKED ALTERNATIVES ............................................................ 20 DEVELOPMENT OF INITIAL NETWORKED ALTERNATIVES ....................................................... 23 4.1. NETWORKED ALTERNATIVE 1: PROTECT THE HUDSON .................................................................. 23 Hydrologic Separation at Summit of Erie Canal .................................................. 23 4.1.1.1. Permanently Close Guard Gate G7 ....................................................... 25 4.1.1.2. Permanently Close Lock E21 ................................................................. 25 4.1.1.3. Entrain the Mohawk River..................................................................... 26 R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. Page | i 2242/Erie Canal Aquatic Invasive Deterrent Study October 2019 – CONFIDENTIAL 4.1.1.4. Permanently Drain the Erie Canal between E21 and G7 ...................... 26 4.2. NETWORKED ALTERNATIVE 2: WATERSHED DIVIDE ..................................................................... 26 Bio-Acoustic Fish Fence (BAFF) at Tonawanda .................................................... 28 Hydrologic Separation at Rochester Guard Gate ................................................ 29 Cease Lock Operations on Oswego Canal, Lock O7/O8 ....................................... 30 Hydrologic Separation at Summit of Erie Canal .................................................. 32 4.3. NETWORKED ALTERNATIVE 3: KEY WATERSHED PROTECTION ........................................................ 32 Bio-Acoustic Fish Fence (BAFF) at Tonawanda .................................................... 32 Cease Lock Operations at Macedon (Lock E30) and Install Fish Barrier Screen at Macedon Bypass Channel .................................................................... 32 4.3.2.1. Cease Lock Operations at E30 ............................................................... 34 4.3.2.2. Provide barrier screen on bypass channel ............................................ 34 Cease Lock Operations on Oswego Canal, Lock O7/O8 ....................................... 35 Hydrologic Separation at Summit of Erie Canal .................................................. 35 Cease Lock Operations on the Erie Canal at Baldwinsville and Brewerton, Locks E24/E23 ...................................................................................................... 35 4.3.5.1. Cease Lock Operations at Locks E24 and E23 ....................................... 36 Cease Lock Operations on the Erie Canal at Waterford, Lock E2 ........................ 37 4.3.6.1. Cease Lock Operations at E2 ................................................................. 37 EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF NETWORKED DETERRENT ALTERNATIVES .............................. 38 5.1. EFFECTIVENESS MODEL METHODS ........................................................................................... 39 5.2. MODEL RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 41 COST ESTIMATE EVALUATION ................................................................................................ 43 6.1. CAPITAL COST ...................................................................................................................... 43 6.2. GENERAL O&M COST ........................................................................................................... 44 6.3. POWER COSTS ...................................................................................................................... 44 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING EVALUATION ........................................................................ 45 7.1. PERMITTING SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 45 7.2. PERMITTING CHALLENGES ....................................................................................................... 46 Project Complexity ............................................................................................... 46 R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. Page | ii 2242/Erie Canal Aquatic Invasive Deterrent Study October 2019 – CONFIDENTIAL Stakeholder Outreach .......................................................................................... 46 Historical Significance .......................................................................................... 46 NETWORKED SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION .................... 48 8.1. RECOMMENDED NETWORKED DETERRENT ALTERNATIVE .............................................................. 48 8.2. EDUCATION, OUTREACH, AND MONITORING .............................................................................. 49 8.3. COMPATIBILITY AND INTEGRATION WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS ...................................................... 52 CITATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 56 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Summaries of Existing Information A1 Ecological Summaries of AIS Guilds A2 Deterrent Technology Summary Table Appendix B Deterrent Technology Evaluation Process B1 Criteria Document B2 Technology Summary Table B3 Results Appendix C. Effectiveness Analysis Appendix D. Preliminary Cost Estimation Appendix E. Permitting R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. Page | iii 2242/Erie Canal Aquatic Invasive Deterrent Study October 2019 – CONFIDENTIAL LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1. The New York State Canal System with infrastructure and flow direction. .......... 2 Figure 2-2. Watersheds intersected by the Erie Canal. ........................................................... 3 Figure 3-1. Normalized scores for deterrent technology concepts evaluated in the Pugh Matrix by the internal expert team. ........................................................... 10 Figure 3-2. Construction of the Bio-Acoustic Fish Fence at Barkley Dam, Kentucky. Waterproof power cables, sound transducers, and LED light bars are visible 18 Figure 3-3. Schematic of Bio-acoustic Fish Fence (BAFF) combining multiple stimuli to create a non-physical fish barrier/guidance structure (figure from Bowen et al. 2009). .......................................................................................................... 19 Figure 4-1. A schematic depicting deterrents and changing flow patterns associated with Alternative 1, Protect the Hudson. .............................................................. 24 Figure 4-2. Dry Canal reach between closure of Lock E21 and Guard Gate 7. .....................