FERC/FEIS-0255F 

FINAL MULTI-PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSES 

Susquehanna River Hydroelectric Projects 

York Haven Project—FERC Project No. 1888-030–Pennsylvania 

Muddy Run Project—FERC Project No. 2355-018–Pennsylvania 

Conowingo Project—FERC Project No. 405-106–Maryland/Pennsylvania 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Office of Energy Projects 

Division of Hydropower Licensing

888 First Street, NE 

Washington, D.C. 20426 

Office of

Energy

Projects

March 2015
This page intentionally left blank.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS 

To the Agency or Individual Addressed:

Reference: Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Attached is the final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the York Haven, 

Muddy Run, and Conowingo Projects, collectively referred to as the Susquehanna River 

Projects (Nos. 1888-030, 2355-018, and 405-106), located on the Susquehanna River in 

York, Dauphin, and Lancaster Counties in Pennsylvania and Cecil and Harford Counties 

in Maryland. 

This final EIS documents the view of governmental agencies, non-governmental 

organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the license applicants, and Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) staff. It contains staff 

evaluations of the applicants’ proposals and the alternatives for relicensing each of the 

Susquehanna River Projects. 

Before the Commission makes a licensing decision, it will take into account all 

concerns relevant to the public interest. The final EIS will be part of the record from 

which the Commission will make its decision. The final EIS was sent to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency and made available to the public on or about March 

11, 2015. 

Copies of the final EIS are available for review in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. 

The final EIS also may be viewed on the Internet at www.ferc.gov/docsfiling/elibrary.asp. Please call (202) 502-8222 for assistance. 

Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Statement 
This page intentionally left blank.
iii

COVER SHEET 

a. Title: Relicensing the York Haven, Muddy Run, and Conowingo

Projects, FERC Project Nos. 1888-030, 2355-018, and 405-106

b. Subject: Final Environmental Impact Statement

c. Lead Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

d. Abstract: The existing projects are located on the Susquehanna River in York, 

Dauphin, and Lancaster Counties in Pennsylvania, and Cecil and 

Harford Counties in Maryland. Each project has one development,

and together they span about 55 river miles from the mouth of the 

Susquehanna River to upstream of the York Haven impoundment. 

The York Haven Power Company, LLC (York Haven Power), 

executed a Settlement Agreement pertaining to relicensing the York 

Haven Project among York Haven Power, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Fish 

and Boat Commission, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 

and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission. The Settlement 

Agreement resolved all outstanding issues pertaining to project 

relicensing. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC’s Muddy Run and Conowingo 

Projects are located on the Susquehanna River in Lancaster and 

York Counties, Pennsylvania, and Cecil and Harford Counties, 

Maryland. Conowingo Pond acts as the lower reservoir for the 

Muddy Run Project. 

The three projects do not occupy any federal lands. 

The staff’s recommendation is to relicense the three projects as

proposed, with certain modifications and additional measures 

recommended by the agencies and staff. 

e. Contact: Emily Carter

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission

Office of Energy Projects

888 First Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20426

(202) 502-6512
iv

f. Transmittal: This final environmental impact statement to relicense the York 

Haven, Muddy Run, and Conowingo hydroelectric projects is being 

made available to the public on or about March 11, 2015, as 

required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the 

Commission’s regulations implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (18 CFR, Part 380).1

 

1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, amended (Pub. L. 91-190. 42 

U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 

94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258, §4(b), September 13, 1982). 
v

FOREWORD 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), pursuant to the 

Federal Power Act (FPA)2

and the U.S. Department of Energy Organization Act3is 

authorized to issue licenses for up to 50 years for the construction and operation of nonfederal hydroelectric development subject to its jurisdiction, on the necessary conditions: 

That the project...shall be such as in the judgment of the Commission will be best 

adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or 

waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the 

improvement and utilization of water-power development, for the adequate 

protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related 

spawning grounds and habitat), and for other beneficial public uses, including 

irrigation, flood control, water supply, and recreational and other purposes referred 

to in section 4(e)...4

The Commission may require such other conditions not inconsistent with the FPA 

as may be found necessary to provide for the various public interests to be served by the 

project.5 Compliance with such conditions during the licensing period is required. The 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure allow any person objecting to a licensee’s 

compliance or noncompliance with such conditions to file a complaint noting the basis 

for such objection for the Commission’s consideration.6

 

2 16 U.S.C. §791(a)-825r, as amended by the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 

1986, Public Law 99-495 (1986), the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486 

(1992), and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58 (2005). 

3 Public Law 95-91, 91 Stat. 556 (1977). 

4 16 U.S.C. § 803(a). 

5 16 U.S.C. § 803(g). 

6 18 C.F.R. § 385.206 (2014). 
vi 

This page intentionally left blank.
vii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

COVER SHEET ................................................................................................................. iii

FOREWORD ....................................................................................................................... v

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ xi

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ xiii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................ xvii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. xix

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1

1.1 APPLICATION ............................................................................................. 1

1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER .................................. 3

1.2.1 Purpose of Action ............................................................................ 3

1.2.2 Need for Power ................................................................................ 3

1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ......................... 5

1.3.1 Federal Power Act ........................................................................... 8

1.3.1.1 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions ................................... 8

1.3.1.2 Section 10(j) Recommendations ..................................... 8

1.3.2 Clean Water Act .............................................................................. 9

1.3.3 Endangered Species Act ................................................................ 16

1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ..................................................... 18

1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act ................................................ 18

1.3.6 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act . 20

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT ....................................................... 20

1.4.1 Scoping .......................................................................................... 20

1.4.2 Interventions .................................................................................. 22

1.4.3 Comments on the Application ....................................................... 24

1.5 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ................................................................. 25

1.6 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS .......................................................... 26

2.0 PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES ................................................ 29

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE .................................................................. 29

2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities .............................................................. 29

2.1.1.1 York Haven Project ...................................................... 29

2.1.1.2 Muddy Run Project ....................................................... 33

2.1.1.3 Conowingo Project ....................................................... 36

2.1.2 Project Safety ................................................................................. 39

2.1.3 Existing Project Operation ............................................................ 39

2.1.3.1 York Haven Project ...................................................... 39
viii 

2.1.3.2 Muddy Run Project ....................................................... 40

2.1.3.3 Conowingo Project ....................................................... 41

2.1.4 Existing Environmental Measures ................................................. 42

2.1.4.1 York Haven Project ...................................................... 42

2.1.4.2 Muddy Run Project ....................................................... 43

2.1.4.3 Conowingo Project ....................................................... 44

2.2 APPLICANTS’ PROPOSALS .................................................................... 45

2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities ............................................................ 45

2.2.2 Proposed Project Operation ........................................................... 45

2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ............................................... 45

2.2.3.1 York Haven Project ...................................................... 45

2.2.3.2 Muddy Run Project ....................................................... 50

2.2.3.3 Conowingo Project ....................................................... 53

2.2.4 Modifications to the Applicants’ Proposals – Mandatory 

Conditions ...................................................................................... 58

2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................ 62

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM 

DETAILED ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 65

2.4.1 Issuing Non-Power Licenses ......................................................... 65

2.4.2 Federal Government Takeover of the Projects .............................. 66

2.4.3 Retiring the Projects ...................................................................... 66

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............................................................................ 67

3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN .............................. 67

3.2 CUMULATIVELY AFFECTED RESOURCES ........................................ 68

3.2.1 Geographic Scope .......................................................................... 69

3.2.2 Temporal Scope ............................................................................. 69

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ....................... 69

3.3.1 Geology and Soils.......................................................................... 70

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment................................................... 70

3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects .................................................. 73

3.3.1.3 Cumulative Effects ....................................................... 81

3.3.2 Water Resources ............................................................................ 81

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment................................................... 81

3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects ................................................ 130

3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects ..................................................... 210

3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources ................................................................... 211

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment................................................. 211

3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects ................................................ 238

3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................... 253

3.3.4.1 Affected Environment................................................. 253

3.3.4.2 Environment Effects ................................................... 258

3.3.5 Recreation and Land Use Resources ........................................... 263
ix

3.3.5.1 Affected Environment................................................. 263

3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects ................................................ 283

3.3.6 Cultural Resources ....................................................................... 302

3.3.6.1 Affected Environment................................................. 302

3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects ................................................ 316

3.3.7 Aesthetic Resources ..................................................................... 328

3.3.7.1 Affected Environment................................................. 328

3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects ................................................ 330

3.3.8 Socioeconomics ........................................................................... 336

3.3.8.1 Affected Environment................................................. 336

3.3.8.2 Environmental Effects ................................................ 340

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ................................................................ 342

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 343

4.1 POWER AND DEVELOPMENTAL BENEFITS OF THE PROJECTS. 343

4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES .................................................... 346

4.2.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................. 349

4.2.2 Applicants’ Proposals .................................................................. 349

4.2.3 Staff Alternative .......................................................................... 350

4.2.4 Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions (York Haven and 

Muddy Run only) ........................................................................ 350

4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES......................................... 352

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 389

5.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED 

ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................................... 389

5.1.1 York Haven Project ..................................................................... 390

5.1.1.1 Measures Proposed by York Haven Power ................ 390

5.1.1.2 Additional Measures Recommended by Staff for York 

Haven .......................................................................... 393

5.1.1.3 Measures Not Recommended ..................................... 400

5.1.2 Muddy Run Project...................................................................... 401

5.1.2.1 Measures Proposed by Exelon .................................... 401

5.1.2.2 Additional Measures Recommended by Staff for Muddy 

Run .............................................................................. 402

5.1.2.3 Measures Not Recommended ..................................... 408

5.1.3 Conowingo Project ...................................................................... 410

5.1.3.1 Measures Proposed by Exelon .................................... 410

5.1.3.2 Additional Measures Recommended by Staff for 

Conowingo .................................................................. 411

5.1.3.3 Measures Not Recommended ..................................... 429

5.2 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS ................................................. 430

5.3 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 431
x

5.4 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ............................ 441

6.0 LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................... 445

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................ 459

8.0 LIST OF RECIPIENTS ........................................................................................ 461

APPENDIX A – Draft License Articles – York Haven Hydroelectric Project 

APPENDIX B – Draft License Articles – Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project 

APPENDIX C – Draft License Articles – Conowingo Hydroelectric Project 

APPENDIX D – Preliminary Fishway Prescription – York Haven Hydroelectric Project 

APPENDIX E – Preliminary Fishway Prescription – Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project 

APPENDIX F – Water Quality Certification – York Haven Hydroelectric Project 

APPENDIX G – Water Quality Certification – Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project 

APPENDIX H – Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Susquehanna River Projects 
xi 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1-1. Susquehanna River Projects location ............................................................ 2

Figure 2-1. Location and project boundaries for lower Susquehanna River Projects ... 30

Figure 2-2. Project facilities for the York Haven Project .............................................. 31

Figure 2-3. Project facilities for the Muddy Run Project ............................................... 34

Figure 2-4. Project facilities for the Conowingo Project ............................................... 37

Figure 3-1. Changes in vertical cross-sectional area for selected years and remaining 

sediment-storage capacity in Conowingo Pond .......................................... 72

Figure 3-2. Stream gages in the Susquehanna River Projects area ................................ 84

Figure 3-3. Conowingo monthly pond elevations, January 2004 through December 

2010 ............................................................................................................. 89

Figure 3-4. Flow and stage variation at USGS gage no. 01578310 downstream of 

Conowingo dam .......................................................................................... 91

Figure 3-5. Typical impoundment and Conowingo tailrace flow fluctuations during 

a low-flow period ........................................................................................ 92

Figure 3-6. Peak annual flows at the Marietta and Conowingo USGS gages, 1968 to 

2012 ............................................................................................................. 93

Figure 3-7. Consumptive water use in the Susquehanna River Basin ........................... 94

Figure 3-8. Summary of Susquehanna River water temperature data at Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania, 2008 to 2013 ........................................................................ 99

Figure 3-9. Summary of Susquehanna River DO data at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 

2008 to 2013 .............................................................................................. 100

Figure 3-10. Summary of Susquehanna River pH data at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 

2008 to 2013 .............................................................................................. 101

Figure 3-11. DO profiles taken immediately upstream of Conowingo dam from July 

through September 2010 ........................................................................... 110

Figure 3-12. Mussel sampling sites located below the York Haven Power Plant, 

Susquehanna River .................................................................................... 123
xii 

Figure 3-13. Mussel sampling sites located below Conowingo dam, Susquehanna 

River (Source: ............................................................................................ 128

Figure 3-14. Proposed location of the York Haven nature-like fishway and associated 

construction sites ....................................................................................... 164

Figure 3-15. View of the east end of the Conowingo powerhouse showing the 

approximate locations of Interior’s alternative G entrance modifications 

to the east fish lift ...................................................................................... 172

Figure 3-16. Maryland DNR American shad population estimates for the Conowingo 

tailrace, 1986 to 2012 ................................................................................ 180

Figure 3-17. Graphical depiction of number of American shad spawners, from 

multiple sources, reaching upriver spawning habitat (primarily upstream 

of York Haven), 1980 to 2014 .................................................................. 184

Figure 3-18. York Haven Project recreation facilities ................................................... 266

Figure 3-19. Muddy Run Project recreation facilities .................................................... 268

Figure 3-20. Conowingo Project recreation facilities .................................................... 271

Figure 3-21. Aesthetic (audio and visual) assessment locations .................................... 332
xiii 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1-1. Major statutory and regulatory requirements for the Susquehanna River 

Projects. ......................................................................................................... 5

Table 3-1. Hydroelectric projects on the lower Susquehanna River ............................ 82

Table 3-2. Prorated flows (in cfs) at the York Haven Project based on monthly 

flow data from USGS gage no. 01576000 Susquehanna River at 

Marietta, Pennsylvania, for October 1, 1967, to September 30, 2009 ........ 83

Table 3-3. Muddy Run Project monthly average withdrawals and discharge for 

2006 to 2010 ................................................................................................ 86

Table 3-4. Summary of daily and hourly Muddy Run Project discharge and 

withdrawal characteristics for 30-day high- and low-flow periods for 

2008 to 2010 ................................................................................................ 87

Table 3-5. Minimum flows for the Conowingo Project agreed upon in 1989 

Settlement Agreement, with natural inflow ................................................ 90

Table 3-6. Monthly flow data (cfs) from USGS gage no. 01578310 Susquehanna 

River at Conowingo, Maryland, for October 1, 1967, to September 30, 

2009 ............................................................................................................. 90

Table 3-7. Consumptive use for power generation in the lower Susquehanna River .. 95

Table 3-8. Out-of-basin diversions in the lower Susquehanna River ........................... 96

Table 3-9. Summary of stream classifications and water quality criteria for the 

lower Susquehanna River ............................................................................ 97

Table 3-10. Summary of water quality data collected in or near the tailrace of the 

Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project, 2006 through 2011 ....................... 104

Table 3-11. Summary of water quality data collected in the Muddy Run Pumped 

Storage Project reservoir, 2010 and 2011 ................................................. 105

Table 3-12. Selected water quality parameters recorded by USGS at the Unit 8 

discharge from January 1978 to June 2000 ............................................... 108

Table 3-13. Summary of American shad passage on the Susquehanna River, 1997–

2014 ........................................................................................................... 115

Table 3-14. Summary of other anadromous fish (not including American shad) and 

gizzard shad passage on the Susquehanna River, 1997–2014 .................. 117
xiv 

Table 3-15. Mussel species collected in the Susquehanna River, York Haven 

Project, August 2010 (Source: York Haven Power, 2012a) .................... 124

Table 3-16. Live mussels collected using semi-quantitative methods in the 

Susquehanna River, York Haven Project, August 17 to 18, 2010 ............ 125

Table 3-17. Freshwater mussels collected in the Conowingo Project area .................. 129

Table 3-18. Proposed minimum flow schedule for York Haven Project ..................... 143

Table 3-19. Summary of Exelon and TNC flow recommendations ............................. 146

Table 3-20. Total number of dead fish and crabs observed during 12 stranding 

surveys (4 in each season) conducted within and just downstream of the 

spillway reach below Conowingo dam ..................................................... 151

Table 3-21. Summary of habitat persistence analysis, comparing the TNC flow 

regime to existing flow conditions, along with percent of MWUA for 

run-of-river operation ................................................................................ 154

Table 3-22. Summary of Exelon’s habitat persistence analysis by month, showing 

the range of flows (cfs) providing 70 percent of the MWUA for 

evaluation species and life stages likely to occur during each month,

compared to Exelon’s current operation and median unregulated flow ... 159

Table 3-23. Numbers of shad lifted at Holtwood and Safe Harbor dams, and the 

effectiveness of the Safe Harbor fish lift, reported as percent of the 

Holtwood passage ...................................................................................... 166

Table 3-24. American shad passage at lower Columbia River dams, and passage 

effectiveness between dams, 1984 to 2013 ............................................... 178

Table 3-25. Number of American shad spawners, from multiple sources reaching 

upriver spawning habitat (primarily upstream of York Haven), 1980 to 

2014 ........................................................................................................... 182

Table 3-26. Summary of alternative G and Pennsylvania FBC recommendations for 

upstream anadromous fish passage at Conowingo dam ............................ 186

Table 3-27. York Haven Project wetland types and acreages ...................................... 213

Table 3-28. Invasive plants with potential to occur in the vicinity of the 

Susquehanna River Projects ...................................................................... 216

Table 3-29. State protected plant species with potential to occur in the vicinity of the 

York Haven, Muddy Run, and/or Conowingo Projects ............................ 219
xv 

Table 3-30. State-protected wildlife species with potential to occur in the vicinity of 

the York Haven, Muddy Run, and/or Conowingo Projects ...................... 233

Table 3-31. Recreation sites at the York Haven Project ............................................... 267

Table 3-32. Recreation facilities in the Muddy Run Project area................................. 269

Table 3-33. Recreation facilities in the existing Conowingo Project boundary ........... 272

Table 3-34. Physical capacity utilization of York Haven Project recreation sites ....... 278

Table 3-35. Physical capacity utilization of Muddy Run Project recreation sites ........ 279

Table 3-36. Physical capacity utilization of Conowingo Project recreation sites ........ 280

Table 3-37. Recorded archaeological and historic sites identified within the 

Susquehanna River Projects APEs ............................................................ 307

Table 3-38. Historic structures identified within the Susquehanna River Projects 

APEs .......................................................................................................... 313

Table 3-39. Audio assessment results ........................................................................... 333

Table 3-40. Loudness comparison chart ....................................................................... 334

Table 3-41. Population in Cecil and Harford Counties, Maryland, and the state of 

Maryland ................................................................................................... 336

Table 3-42. Population in Dauphin, Lancaster, and York Counties, Pennsylvania, 

and the state of Pennsylvania .................................................................... 337

Table 3-43. Employment and unemployment percent numbers 2012 .......................... 338

Table 3-44. Per capita income for Pennsylvania and Maryland Counties in 2000 and 

2010, with percent change (inflation adjusted, 2010$) ............................. 339

Table 4-1. Parameters for economic analysis of the York Haven Project .................. 344

Table 4-2. Parameters for economic analysis of the Muddy Run Project .................. 345

Table 4-3. Parameters for economic analysis of the Conowingo Project ................... 346

Table 4-4. Summary of the annual cost of alternative power and annual project cost 

for four alternatives for the York Haven Project....................................... 347

Table 4-5. Summary of the annual cost of alternative power and annual project cost 

for four alternatives for the Muddy Run Project ....................................... 347
xvi 

Table 4-6. Summary of the annual cost of alternative power and annual project cost 

for three alternatives for the Conowingo Project ...................................... 348

Table 4-7. Cost of environmental mitigation and enhancement measures considered 

in assessing the environmental effects of continuing to operate the York 

Haven Project ............................................................................................ 353

Table 4-8. Cost of environmental mitigation and enhancement measures considered 

in assessing the environmental effects of continuing to operate the 

Muddy Run Project ................................................................................... 362

Table 4-9. Cost of environmental mitigation and enhancement measures considered 

in assessing the environmental effects of constructing and operating the 

Conowingo Project .................................................................................... 371

Table 5-1. Fish and wildlife agency recommendations for the Susquehanna River 

Projects ...................................................................................................... 432
xvii 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

Advisory Council Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

AOI areas of interest

APE area of potential effects 

ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

BMP best management practice 

CDP census-designated place 

certification water quality certification

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

Commission or FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Conowingo Project Conowingo Hydroelectric Project

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CPUE catch-per-unit-effort 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

dB decibels 

dbh diameter at breast height 

DO dissolved oxygen 

DPS distinct population segment 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

Exelon Exelon Generation Company, LLC 

oF degrees Fahrenheit 

FEMP Fish passage effectiveness monitoring plan

FPA Federal Power Act 

FPMP fish passage monitoring plan 

FPOP fish passage operating procedures 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan

Interior U.S. Department of the Interior

IVM Integrated Vegetation Management

kV kilovolt 

LSRWA Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment

Maryland DOE or MDE Maryland Department of the Environment 

Maryland DNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

mgd million gallons per day 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

Muddy Run Project Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project 

MW megawatt 

MWh megawatt-hour 
xviii 

MWUA maximum weighted usable area 

National Register National Register of Historic Places

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System 

NTU nephelometric turbidity unit 

PA Programmatic Agreement 

Park Service National Park Service

PBAPS Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 

Pennsylvania DEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

Pennsylvania FBC Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 

Pennsylvania DCNR Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources 

PPL BI PPL Brunner Island LLC 

ppt parts per thousand 

RM river mile 

RSP Revised Study Plan 

SAV submerged aquatic vegetation 

SD1 Scoping Document 1 

Settling Parties York Haven Power, FWS, Pennsylvania FBC, Maryland 

DNR, and SRBC

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SMP Shoreline Management Plan 

SOLS Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna 

SPM surplus production method 

SRAFRC Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration 

Cooperative 

SRBC Susquehanna River Basin Commission 

Susquehanna River Projects York Haven, Muddy Run, and Conowingo Projects 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WMA Wildlife Management Area 

York Haven Power York Haven Power Company, LLC 
xix 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) staff is 

reviewing applications to continue operating (relicense) three hydropower projects 

located on the lower Susquehanna River (the Susquehanna River Projects): the 

19.62-megawatt (MW) York Haven Hydroelectric Project (York Haven Project); the 

800.25-MW Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project (Muddy Run Project); and the 

574.54-MW Conowingo Hydroelectric Project (Conowingo Project).7

Proposed Actions

On August 30, 2012, York Haven Power Company, LLC (York Haven Power) 

filed an application for a new license to continue operating the existing York Haven

Project. On January 30, 2014, York Haven Power filed an Offer of Settlement. In the 

accompanying Explanatory Statement, York Haven Power states that the Settlement 

Agreement represents a complete resolution among the Settling Parties of all issues 

pending in the proceeding.8

 The York Haven Project is located on the Susquehanna 

River at river mile (RM) 55 in the borough of York, in York, Dauphin, and Lancaster 

Counties, Pennsylvania. The project does not occupy federal land. 

On August 29, 2012, and August 31, 2012, respectively, Exelon Generation 

Company, LLC (Exelon) filed applications for new licenses to continue operating the 

Muddy Run Project and the Conowingo Project. The Muddy Run and Conowingo 

Projects are located on the Susquehanna River at RM 22 and RM 10, respectively, in 

Lancaster and York Counties, Pennsylvania, and Cecil and Harford Counties, Maryland. 

Conowingo Pond, the reservoir for the Conowingo Project, acts as the lower reservoir for 

the Muddy Run Project. The Muddy Run Project also includes an upper reservoir for 

pumped storage operation. Neither project occupies federal land. 

Project Descriptions 

York Haven Project 

The York Haven Project principal structures consist of (from east to west) the east 

channel dam, a main dam, a headrace wall, a powerhouse, and a forebay bulkhead wall. 

The east channel dam extends 928 feet from the east shore of Three Mile Island to the 

 

7 The authorized capacity for the Muddy Run Project is taken from the original 

license issued September 21, 1964, and the authorized capacity for the Conowingo 

Project is taken from a Commission Order issued March 3, 2010. 

8 The Settling Parties are York Haven Power, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, the Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources, and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission. 
xx 

east bank of the river, and has an average height of 9 feet. The main dam extends 4,970 

feet from the west shore of Three Mile Island diagonally across the main channel of the 

river to the north end of the headrace wall. The main dam has a maximum height at its

crest of 18 feet and an average height of 10 feet. The headrace wall extends 3,000 feet 

from the south end of the main dam to the north end of the powerhouse. A stone 

masonry forebay bulkhead wall extends west from the south end of the powerhouse to a 

transformer building, perpendicular to the shoreline. From the transformer building, the 

forebay bulkhead wall extends north to the west bank of the river. A trash sluice gate and 

associated spillway are located adjacent to the southern end of the powerhouse at the 

eastern end of the forebay wall. 

York Haven’s impoundment, Lake Frederic, is 3.5 miles long with 29 miles of 

shoreline within the project boundary, including the shoreline of the islands in Lake 

Frederic. At the normal water surface elevation of 277.86 feet, Lake Frederic has a 

surface area of 2,218 acres and 9,600 acre-feet of gross storage capacity. The 

impoundment provides approximately 22.5 feet of net head for power 

generation purposes.9

The brick and stone masonry powerhouse is integral with the dam and includes 20 

turbine-generator units and appurtenant equipment. Water flowing through the turbines 

is discharged into the tailrace immediately downstream of the dam. 

There are no primary transmission lines included as part of the project because it

interconnects with the 115-kilovolt (kV) electric grid at a substation located immediately 

downstream of the project’s forebay wall. 

The project includes an east channel upstream fish passage facility located at the 

western end of east channel dam, which has been operational since April 2000. 

The project also includes 10 recreation facilities that York Haven Power owns and 

operates: the Historic Canal Lock, East Shore Boat Launch, Goosehorn Island Picnic 

Area, Shelley Island Recreation Area, Goodling Island Picnic Area, Beshore Island 

Recreation Area, Battery Island Recreation Area, Cly Shore recreational lot sites, York 

Haven Power Plant Recreation Area, and a Canoe Portage trail. 

The project is operated in a run-of-river mode and maintains a normal pool 

elevation of 277.86 feet under low to moderate inflow conditions, defined as less than 

17,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). Under low-flow conditions, York Haven Power has 

the ability to draw down the impoundment by up to 1.10 feet, which generally occurs for 

purposes of dam maintenance. During periods of moderate to high inflow conditions of 

greater than 17,000 cfs, the project turbines cannot control water levels and the 

impoundment elevation varies above its normal pool elevation depending on the 

 

9 Unless otherwise noted, all elevations are referenced to National Geodetic 

Vertical Datum of 1929. 
xxi 

magnitude of river flow. Under these conditions, water overtops the main dam, east 

channel dam, and headrace walls when their crest elevations are exceeded. 

Muddy Run Project 

The Muddy Run Project impoundment structures consist of four dams (main dam, 

intake channel dam, east dike, and the Recreation Lake dam) and two reservoirs (upper 

reservoir and the Recreation Lake). The 4,800-foot-long, 260-foot-high main dam is a 

zoned earth embankment with an impervious core. The 3,200-foot-long, 35-foot-high 

intake channel dam is an earthfill embankment with a concrete cap layer along the intake 

side of the embankment. The 800-foot-long and 12-foot-high east dike is a zoned earth 

and rock-fill embankment. The 750-foot-long and 90-foot-high Recreation Lake dam is a 

zoned earth and rock-fill embankment.

Total storage in the 900-acre Muddy Run reservoir (upper reservoir) is about

56,731 acre-feet, and the total usable storage is 33,894 acre-feet at the maximum pool 

elevation of 520 feet. The maximum pool elevation is about 411 feet above the normal 

elevation of Conowingo Pond (lower reservoir), which has a surface area of 8,500 acres 

and design storage of 310,000 acre-feet at the normal full pool elevation of 109.2 feet. 

The upper reservoir includes an emergency spillway that is a non-gated concrete ogeetype structure 200 feet long, 20 feet high, with a crest elevation of 521 feet. The spillway 

directs spill flows into a vegetated natural ravine, although the spillway has never been 

used since the project was constructed. 

A separate pool, designated as the Recreation Lake, is located adjacent to the 

upper reservoir. The pool is used for recreation purposes and is not used for water 

storage for power production purposes. The Recreation Lake includes a spillway 

consisting of a rock-cut channel approximately 140 feet wide with a crest elevation of 

520 feet. 

The power intake facilities at the west end of the upper reservoir consist of four 

cylinder gates with trashracks in a cylindrical tower, and each intake supplies two units. 

Each intake leads to a horizontal power tunnel, which divides into two sections. The 

power tunnel sections transition to penstocks that lead to the eight reversible pumpturbine units in the powerhouse. The powerhouse is located along the shore of the 

Susquehanna River. The powerhouse houses eight Francis turbines each equipped with a 

100-MW generator. The turbines have a total discharge capacity from the powerhouse of 

32,000 cfs. The total powerhouse pumping capability is 28,000 cfs. Water flowing 

through the turbines is discharged via draft tubes into the Susquehanna River adjacent to 

the powerhouse. The pump-turbine units are equipped with trashracks between the draft 

tube outlet and the river. Electricity generated at the project is transmitted by two 

individual 220-kV transmission lines extending from the project switching station 

approximately 4.25 miles to the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station North Substation 

located in York County.
xxii 

The project also includes three recreation areas: Muddy Run Park, owned by 

Exelon and operated by a vendor; Wissler’s Run Park, owned and operated by Exelon; 

and Muddy Run Wildlife Management Area, owned by Exelon and leased to and 

managed by the Pennsylvania Game Commission. 

The Muddy Run Project is a pumped storage hydroelectric facility. Water is 

pumped at night (typically) from the lower reservoir (Conowingo Pond) to the upper 

reservoir that has 33,894 acre-feet of active storage available for pumped storage 

operation. Water is then released from the upper reservoir through the powerhouse units 

to the Susquehanna River (Conowingo Pond). Typically, pumping occurs during lowload periods when energy costs are low (nights and weekends), while generation occurs 

during high-load periods. 

Conowingo Project

The Conowingo Project principal structures consist of a concrete gravity dam with 

a 1,190-foot-long non-overflow gravity section, a 2,385-foot-long ogee-shaped spillway 

section, a 1,105-foot-long intake-powerhouse section, and a 127-foot-long abutment 

section. The spillway consists of a 2,250-foot-long section with a crest elevation of 86.0 

feet, and a 135-foot-long section with a crest elevation of 99.2 feet. The spillway is fitted 

with 50 Stoney-type crest gates and two regulating gates. Each Stoney crest gate is 22.5 

feet high by 38 feet wide and has a discharge capacity of 16,000 cfs at a reservoir 

elevation of 109.2 feet. The two regulating gates are 10 feet high by 38 feet wide and 

have a discharge capacity of 4,000 cfs per gate at a reservoir elevation of 109.2 feet. The 

dam includes two fish lifts: a west fish lift and a newer east fish lift. 

Conowingo dam impounds the Conowingo reservoir (Conowingo Pond) which

extends 14 miles upstream from the dam. The total design storage capacity of the 8,500-

acre reservoir is approximately 310,000 acre-feet at the normal full pool elevation of 

109.2 feet. The normal tailwater elevation is approximately 20.5 feet. The impoundment 

provides approximately 89 feet of gross head for power generation purposes.

The powerhouse is integral with the dam and houses 13 turbine-generator units, 

associated draft tubes, and transformer bays. Water flowing through the turbines is 

discharged via the draft tubes into a tailrace immediately downstream of the dam. There

are no primary transmission lines associated with the project as power from the project is 

transmitted directly from the switchyard to the grid. 

The project includes 15 recreation facilities and public access areas owned by 

Exelon: Lock 13, Lock 15, Muddy Creek Boat Launch, Cold Cabin Boat Launch, Dorsey 

Park, Line Bridge, Broad Creek Public Landing, Glen Cove Marina, Conowingo 

Swimming Pool and Visitor’s Center, Peach Bottom Marina, Conowingo Creek Boat 

Launch, Funk’s Pond, Conowingo Dam Overlook, Fisherman’s Park/Shures Landing, 

and Octoraro Creek Access. Exelon operates seven of these facilities and leases the other 

eight to local and state entities or commercial operators. 
xxiii 

The Conowingo Project is a peaking facility that uses reservoir storage to generate 

during peak electricity demand periods. The current Conowingo Project license allows for 

Conowingo Pond to fluctuate up to 9 feet daily between elevation 101.2 and 110.2 feet. 

Proposed Facilities

York Haven Project

York Haven Power proposes to construct a new nature-like fishway10 at the project 

for upstream and downstream fish passage. The installation would require modifications 

to the north end of the dam. No other major modifications are proposed to project 

facilities. 

Muddy Run Project 

Exelon is not proposing any major modifications to the Muddy Run Project; 

however, it proposes minor improvements at the project’s recreation facilities. 

Conowingo Project

Exelon proposes to construct an eel trapping facility on the western shore of the 

Susquehanna River downstream of Conowingo dam and a similar facility on Octoraro 

Creek, which enters the Susquehanna River approximately 4,500 feet downstream of 

Conowingo dam on the eastern shore. No other major modifications to project facilities 

are proposed at the Conowingo Project; however, minor improvements are proposed for 

the project’s recreation facilities.

Proposed Environmental Measures 

York Haven Project

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and in addition to the fishway noted 

above, York Haven Power proposes the following environmental measures at the York 

Haven Project: 

 Develop an erosion and sediment control plan for construction of the 

nature-like fishway. 

 Continue to operate and maintain the existing east channel fishway as the 

primary means for upstream fish passage until the proposed nature-like 

fishway is completed. 

 Continue an existing downstream juvenile American shad passage protocol 

that calls for the operation of units 1-6 (Kaplan and propeller units) to be 

 

10 A nature-like fishway is a fishway that is designed to appear and operate similar 

to a natural riffle, with a gradually sloping channel interspersed with rock weirs and 

pools. These fishways are typically suitable for a wide range of species. 
xxiv 

first online and last offline during the juvenile shad downstream migration 

period (which typically is from October 1 through November 30), and 

opening the forebay sluice gate at specific times for downstream fish 

passage. If river flows exceed the capacity of units 1-6, unit 14 would be 

operated, and if flows exceed the capacities of units 1-6 and 14, units 7-13 

and 15-30 would be operated in ascending order. 

 Provide a year-round, continuous, minimum flow from the project of 

1,000 cfs and an average daily minimum flow of 2,500 cfs, or inflow, 

whichever is less, to protect and enhance aquatic resources downstream of 

the project. 

 Continue to operate the project in a run-of-river mode when inflow to the 

project is less than 3,000 cfs. 

 Pass about 370 cfs through the forebay sluice gate for 1 or 2 hours in the 

morning during weekdays if river flows exceed the sum of: (1) the turbine 

hydraulic capacity; (2) flows through the nature-like fishway, once 

constructed; (3) flows through the east channel; and (4) flows (if any) over 

the main dam from May 1 through June 30, to facilitate downstream 

passage of post-spawning adult American shad; and any day that river flow 

exceeds the combined hydraulic capacity during the fall American shad 

emigration period, to facilitate downstream passage of juvenile 

American shad. 

 Pass about 370 cfs through the forebay sluice gate between the hours of 

5 p.m. and 11 p.m. during the entire fall juvenile American shad passage 

period to facilitate the downstream passage of juvenile American shad. 

 Develop designs within 4 years of license issuance for: (1) removal of 

obstructions in or deepening of the downstream plunge pool for the forebay 

sluice gate, and (2) a chute structure to convey flows beyond the roadway 

on the downstream side of the stone masonry forebay bulkhead wall to 

protect outmigrating juvenile and adult American shad passing into the 

downstream plunge pool. 

 Cooperate with resource agencies and other interested parties to conduct a 

lower Susquehanna River downstream eel migration study that would 

include monitoring silver eels at the project and providing $25,000 to 

support the study. 

 Conduct a site-specific silver eel route of passage study and a survival 

study at the project, including the potential for providing $50,000 to 

resource agencies for collection and tagging of silver eels at 

upstream locations. 
xxv 

 Conduct a downstream eel passage improvement study if downstream eel 

passage goals are not achieved with provisions for subsequent monitoring 

and adjustments. 

 Prior to construction of the proposed nature-like fishway: 

- Provide a minimum flow of 2,000 cfs at the east channel dam and a 

spillage flow of 4,000 cfs at the main dam during the American shad 

upstream passage season when the east channel fishway is in operation. 

- After the American shad upstream passage season until the end of the 

resident fish passage season, maintain a minimum flow of 400 cfs in the 

east channel downstream from the east channel fishway during the 

period that the east channel fishway is operated to allow upstream 

passage of resident fish species, per a June 2010 Consent Order and 

Agreement between York Haven Power and the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection (Pennsylvania DEP). 

- Conduct vegetation surveys, wetlands delineations, invasive species 

surveys, rare species surveys, bog turtle habitat assessments, and bald 

eagle surveys in the area of the nature-like fishway.11 

 After construction of the nature-like fishway: 

- Conduct American shad upstream passage effectiveness studies using 

radio telemetry beginning the second year of the nature-like fishway 

operation. If the project area passage success criterion is not achieved, 

York Haven Power would implement corrective measures, followed by 

two additional years of radio telemetry studies to confirm achievement 

of the project area passage success criterion. 

- Conduct a juvenile American shad headrace turbine avoidance study. 

- If the juvenile American shad headrace turbine avoidance goals are not 

achieved, implement measures that would enhance the effectiveness of 

downstream passage and conduct a supplemental juvenile American 

shad headrace turbine avoidance study within 2 years of implementing 

the measures. 

- Provide an average daily minimum flow in the east channel below the 

east channel dam of 267 cfs year round to protect aquatic resources in 

 

11 These proposed measures, which are cited in the explanatory statement 

accompanying the Offer of Settlement, would be implemented prior to the construction of 

the nature-like fishway. 
xxvi 

the east channel and provide a minimum passage flow for fish ascending 

the east channel and using the east channel fishway.

- Provide a minimum of 5 percent of the river flow through the 

nature-like fishway during the American shad upstream passage season 

such that when inflows to the project are between 5,000 and 150,000 

cfs, total flow through the nature-like fishway ranges from about 1,000 

to 7,500 cfs, depending on inflow. 

- Outside of the American shad upstream passage season, provide a 

minimum flow of 200 cfs through the nature-like fishway when the river 

elevation is at the crest of the main dam. 

- When flows exceed the hydraulic capacity of all available generating 

units, and to the extent controllable by York Haven Power, manage 

flows to maximize flow over the main dam and the nature-like fishway 

to provide attraction flow to the vicinity of and from the nature-like 

fishway to maximize fishway effectiveness. 

 To prevent a buildup of debris that could affect project and fish passage 

operations, remove non-natural debris from the forebay and sluice 

remaining natural debris downstream, after notifying the downstream PPL 

Brunner Island Station. 

 Contribute $25,000 per year to the York County Conservation District or 

such other entity identified by the Pennsylvania DEP for the purposes of 

debris removal in the lower Susquehanna River watershed. 

In addition to the measures specified in the Settlement Agreement, York Haven 

Power also proposes the following: 

 Maintain existing project recreation facilities, and consult with the resource 

agencies on recreation resources and management strategies every 10 years 

after the effective date of any new license. 

 Continue the current permitting program for the approximately 300 

recreational lots located within the project boundary, but terminate permits 

and remove lots from the program if structures are abandoned by the lessee, 

or when existing structures become damaged and are not replaced by 

conforming structures. 

 Implement the Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) filed with the 

Commission on December 28, 2012, to manage project effects on 

properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places 

(National Register). 

Muddy Run Project 

Exelon proposes the following environmental measures at the Muddy Run Project:
xxvii 

 Develop a dissolved oxygen (DO) monitoring plan no earlier than 

November 1, 2027, with measures designed to ensure that the project does 

not violate DO standards. 

 Develop fish passage operating procedures (FPOP) for minimizing delay 

and potential fish entrainment during upstream and downstream 

fish passage past the project tailrace during generating and pumping cycles. 

 Develop a plan and schedule for a radio telemetry study or equivalent 

Tier II study of American shad passage and behavior within the Muddy 

Run Project boundary if resource agencies determine that operation of the 

Muddy Run Project is causing the Holtwood Project to fail to meet the Tier 

I upstream American shad target specified in the water quality certification 

for the Holtwood Project. 

 Develop a downstream eel passage plan to ensure the safe and timely 

passage of eels past the Muddy Run Project. 

 Implement the American Eel Passage Plan12 filed with the license 

application for an eel trap and truck program to trap, hold, and transport 

American eels from the Conowingo Project and Octoraro Creek to 

designated points in the Susquehanna River watershed until at least 2030, 

and then either continue the trap and truck program or construct a volitional 

eel passage facility at Conowingo dam.

13

 Implement the Bald Eagle Management Plan filed with the license 

application to minimize impacts on bald eagles and their habitat within the 

project boundary in accordance with recommendations from the National 

Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (FWS, 2007a) and state 

agency guidance. 

 Implement the Bog Turtle Management Plan filed with the license 

application to minimize impacts on bog turtles and that includes: 

(1) the restriction of mowing in the wetland documented to support bog 

 

12 Exelon filed an Eel Management Plan with its final license application. In the

water quality certification for the Muddy Run Project, the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection called this plan an American Eel Passage Plan, and we use this 

title throughout the EIS. 

13 Exelon proposes this as a measure for the Muddy Run Project; however, 

because the Conowingo Project currently blocks the upstream passage of American eel 

on the Susquehanna River, upstream passage measures would be provided at the 

Conowingo Project. 
xxviii 

turtles; (2) invasive plant and woody plant control, particularly for reed 

canary grass; and (3) limits on public access to the wetland without 

advertising the reason.

 Once every 10 years through the term of the license, evaluate all state and 

federal endangered and threatened species that may be present within the 

project boundary, and if the evaluation identifies the presence, critical 

habitat, or critical dependence of endangered species, propose and 

implement a protection plan for each species. 

 Provide annual grants of up to $450,000 total to be split between the 

Lancaster County and York County Conservation Districts through 2030 

for the implementation of agricultural pasture and barnyard best 

management practices (BMPs) to control sediment loading into the 

Susquehanna River. 

 Provide $50,000 annually through 2030 to the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 

Commission (Pennsylvania FBC) for habitat improvement projects, 

including removal of small dams. 

 Implement the Recreation Management Plan filed with the license 

application that includes the following improvements to project recreation 

facilities at the Muddy Run Park and Campgrounds: an improved 

launching ramp and barrier-free dock; shoreline erosion measures; an 

improved retaining wall; electric upgrades; expanded playground area near 

the Visitor’s Center; and construction of a 2,000-square-foot water spray 

park near the entrance to Muddy Run Park, along with paving resurfacing. 

 Implement the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) filed with the license 

application that includes measures and policies related to shoreline 

vegetation management and erosion control, woody debris management, 

game species management, sensitive natural resource protection, recreation 

use, and use of project lands and BMPs for controlling sediment 

introduction. 

 Implement the osprey management policy described in Exelon’s 

proposed SMP.

 Prepare a cultural resources management plan if cultural materials are 

identified during project-related ground-disturbing activities. 

 Within 30 days after the Conowingo and Muddy Run water quality 

certifications and new FERC licenses become final, provide the version of 
xxix 

the Lower Susquehanna OASIS model to the Susquehanna River Basin 

Commission (SRBC) as per a letter agreement dated November 19, 2013.14

Conowingo Project

Exelon proposes to continue the following environmental measures:

 Operate the project with a normal daily range of operation of Conowingo 

Pond between elevations 101.2 and 110.2 feet, with a minimum elevation 

of 107.2 feet on weekends between Memorial Day and Labor Day, to meet 

recreational needs.

 Provide minimum downstream flow releases from the project as follows: 

- March 1 – March 31: 3,500 cfs or natural inflow,15 whichever is less; 

- April 1 – April 30: 10,000 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is less;

- May 1 – May 31: 7,500 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is less; 

- June 1 – September 14: 5,000 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is less; 

- September 15 – November 30: 3,500 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is 

less; and

- December 1 – February 28: 3,500 cfs intermittent (maximum six hours 

off followed by equal amount on). 

 Enhance DO at the project using the turbine venting systems on Units 1 

through 7 and the aerating runners on Units 2 and 5, and continuously 

monitor DO levels from May 1 through October 1 at the Station 643 

location about 0.6 mile downstream of Conowingo dam. 

 Operate the east fish lift to pass American shad, river herring, and other 

migratory fishes, and the west fish lift for American shad egg collection 

and other research purposes. 

 Manage debris to include clamming (with three gantry cranes with grapple 

attachments) to remove submerged debris from the area upstream of the 

powerhouse intakes and floating surficial debris in front of the powerhouse 

 

14 On November 19, 2013, Exelon sent a letter agreement to SRBC stating that it 

would provide SRBC with a version of the OASIS model as we describe. SRBC signed 

the letter agreement on November 21, 2013, and that agreement is appendix 2 in the 

water quality certification for the Muddy Run Project.

15 As measured at the upstream U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Marietta gage 

(No. 01576000).
xxx 

intakes, and sponsoring community-based clean-ups in the pond and 

downstream of the dam. 

 Maintain the project’s public recreation facilities. 

Exelon proposes the following new environmental measures: 

 Implement the Sediment Management Plan filed with the license 

application that identifies benchmarks and thresholds for actions to address 

sediment issues that may affect project operation. 

 Conduct a bathymetric survey of Conowingo Pond every 5 years to monitor 

sediment transport and depositional patterns. 

 Implement a preventive maintenance program for the east fish lift to extend 

the useful life of the facility over the next license term. 

 Use the project turbines as the route for downstream passage of American 

shad and river herring.

 Construct a permanent trap and transport facility for the upstream passage 

of American eel, consisting of an eel ramp and collection facility on the 

west bank of the Conowingo tailrace and a similar facility on the east side 

of the river on Octoraro Creek. 

 After 2030, construct volitional eel passage facilities on the west and east 

banks that consist of full eel ramps with resting pools. 

 Implement the Bald Eagle Management Plan filed with the license 

application to minimize impacts on bald eagles and their habitat within the 

project boundary in accordance with recommendations from the National 

Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (FWS, 2007a) and state 

agency guidance. 

 Implement the Recreation Management Plan filed with the application that 

provides for improvements to 13 project recreation facilities, including 

directional signage to facilities and canoe portages, expanded parking, 

barrier-free boat trailer parking spaces, fencing, shoreline stabilization, new 

or repaired boat ramps, picnic tables, portable restrooms, and 

other amenities. 

 Implement the SMP filed with the license application that includes 

measures and policies related to shoreline vegetation management and 

erosion control, woody debris management, game species management, 

sensitive natural resource protection, recreation use, BMPs for controlling 

sediment introduction from lands within the project boundary, and use of 

project lands. 
xxxi 

 Implement the osprey management policy described in Exelon’s 

proposed SMP. 

 Implement the HPMP filed with the license application for the management 

of archaeological and historic resources, including: (1) a schedule and 

methodology for completing any additional recommended studies and 

implementing monitoring measures; (2) management measures for 

identified historic properties including Conowingo dam and powerhouse; 

(3) protection of any historic properties threatened by project-related 

activities, including project operation, shoreline and aquatic recreation, 

shoreline development, routine project maintenance, and other project 

activities or operations; and (4) public outreach, education, and signage for 

the purpose of reducing looting and vandalism of sites.

Project Boundary Revisions

York Haven Project

York Haven Power proposes to add 1.9 acres to the total York Haven Project 

boundary acreage to encompass the project’s existing East Shore Boat Launch and Canal 

Lock recreation area. 

Conowingo Project

Exelon proposes to modify the Conowingo Project boundary by removing lands 

that are not necessary for operation and maintenance of the project or for public 

recreation or protection of environmental resources. These lands include: 0.06 acre of 

land not owned by Exelon in the upper reaches of Conowingo Pond; 34.4 acres along the 

Susquehanna River shoreline at the Muddy Run Project (to minimize the overlap of 

project lands between the two projects); lands from upper Broad Creek and from the 

Susquehanna River downstream of Rowland Island that were originally included for 

construction of the project, including 205.6 acres on upper Broad Creek, a tributary to 

Conowingo Pond; and 1,758.7 acres of the Susquehanna River and shoreline downstream 

of Conowingo dam. The Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway, Deer Creek Access, 

Lapidum Boat Launch, and McLhinney Park are non-project recreation sites located on a 

thin ribbon of land along the west bank of the Susquehanna River downstream of 

Conowingo dam. This area was included in past licenses so as to incorporate the railroad 

that was used to shuttle material to the dam during initial construction. The proposed 

project boundary contains 9,919 acres, including 8,850 acres of project waters and 1,069 

acres of land above the normal high water elevation in Lancaster and York Counties, 

Pennsylvania, and Harford and Cecil Counties, Maryland. Exelon would negotiate leases 

with existing recreation facility operators for the continued operation of those facilities 

located on lands owned by Exelon, but no longer within the project boundary. Exelon 

would also negotiate a new lease with Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

(Maryland DNR) for the continued protection and use of the co-located Lower 
xxxii 

Susquehanna Greenway Trail and Mason-Dixon Trail on Exelon-owned lands outside of 

the project boundary. The former lease expired in August 2014. 

Alternatives Considered

In addition to the applicants’ proposals, as outlined above, this final environmental 

impact statement considers the following alternatives: (1) the applicants’ proposals with 

staff-recommended modifications (staff alternative), (2) a staff alternative with 

mandatory conditions,16 and (3) a no-action alternative.

Staff Alternative 

Under the staff alternative, the projects would be operated as proposed by York 

Haven Power and Exelon with the modifications and additional staff-recommended 

measures described below for each project: 

York Haven Project 

 Develop a Recreation Management Plan that provides for York Haven’s 

proposed maintenance of its existing recreation facilities with additional 

provisions to update the plan every 12 years consistent with every other 

6-year Form 80 reporting period deadline, continuation of the licensing 

program for approximately 300 recreational lots within the project 

boundary, and implementation of revisions to the program to allow for the 

termination of permits and removal of lots from the program if structures 

are abandoned by the lessee, or when existing structures become damaged 

and are not replaced by conforming structures. 

 Develop an SMP that includes specific measures and policies related to 

shoreline management at the project and a provision to update the plan 

every 10 years. 

 Modify York Haven’s proposed HPMP with the following additional 

provisions: (a) request access to sites on private lands within the project 

boundary if project effects are identified during shoreline monitoring 

activities, assess these effects, and evaluate the affected sites for listing on 

the National Register of Historic Places (National Register); (b) develop a 

plan and schedule to survey and record archaeological sites on York Havenowned fee lands within the project boundary and evaluate them for their 

National Register eligibility to ensure that any effects on sites owned by 

York Haven Power are fully considered in accordance with section 106; 

 

16 This alternative only applies to the York Haven and Muddy Run projects, where 

mandatory conditions were filed. No mandatory conditions have been filed for the 

Conowingo Project.
xxxiii 

(c) include two additional sites (36YO300, 36YO334) in the monitoring 

schedule, or clarification regarding why they were excluded; and 

(d) include the National Park Service (Park Service) as a consulting party. 

Muddy Run Project 

 Visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) Chesapeake Bay Field 

Office and the Pennsylvania Field Office websites prior to any ground 

disturbance, and follow the bog turtle and bald eagle guidelines. 

 Modify the restrictions for mowing areas C, D, and F in Exelon’s proposed 

Bog Turtle Management Plan to state, “avoid mowing between April and 

October to avoid turtle’s active period.” 

 Modify Exelon’s proposed Recreation Management Plan to include 

recreation use monitoring and plan updates every 12 years in concert with

every other 6-year Form 80 reporting deadline. 

 Modify Exelon’s proposed SMP to include a provision to update the plan 

every 10 years. 

 Develop an HPMP that provides for the management of historic properties 

and unevaluated cultural resources within the project’s area of potential 

effects (APE) and includes: (a) a plan for further archaeological 

investigations of additional areas of interest (AOIs) and other potentially 

affected areas within the APE as recommended in the Phase IB report: (b) a 

detailed discussion of the three sites (36LA67, 36LA103, 36LA368) 

identified during Phase IA cultural resources surveys and two additional 

sites (36LA70, 36LA47) located outside of the project boundary that could 

be affected by the project; (c) requirements for National Register evaluation 

of affected sites in consultation with the Pennsylvania State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO); (d) requirements for formal National Register 

evaluation of the Muddy Run Project; (e) documentation of all consultation 

with the Delaware Nation and Onondaga Nation; and (f) designation of the 

Park Service as a consulting party. 

Although required by the water quality certification issued by Pennsylvania DEP 

for the Muddy Run Project, the staff alternative does not include Exelon’s proposals to 

implement provisions of the Muddy Run American Eel Passage Plan at the Conowingo 

Project, including an eel trap and truck program, and to provide annual grants of 

$450,000 to be split between the York County and Lancaster County conservation 

districts and $50,000 to Pennsylvania FBC to compensate for the entrainment of resident 

fish, and to improve fish habitat by removal of dams elsewhere in Pennsylvania. The 

Commission cannot require a condition in the Muddy Run license (eel passage) for 

actions to take place as part of another licensed project. However, we are recommending 

that the Conowingo Project license include essentially the same measures as those in the 
xxxiv 

Muddy Run American Eel Passage Plan at the Conowingo Project. For the annual grants, 

providing compensatory funds is inconsistent with the Commission’s guidelines on 

environmental measures.17

 The staff alternative also does not include the water quality 

certification requirement that Exelon provide a copy of the OASIS model to SRBC. We 

are not recommending this as a requirement of any license issued because it is not a 

specific measure for protection or enhancement of environmental resources, and instead 

appears to be a transfer of information to SRBC. Finally, the staff alternative does not 

recommend Exelon’s proposal to evaluate all state and federal endangered or threatened 

species that may be present within the project boundary once every 10 years through the 

term of the license. The Commission typically includes in its licenses a standard license 

article with a fish and wildlife reopener provision that could be used to require changes to 

project facilities upon Commission motion or as recommended by the appropriate federal 

and state fish and wildlife agencies after notice and opportunity for hearing. This 

standard reopener provision retains authority for the Commission to implement any 

measures that may be needed to protect threatened or endangered species or other fish 

and wildlife resources over the term of any license issued for the project.

Conowingo Project 

 Modify Exelon’s proposed Sediment Management Plan to include periodic 

dredging at the Conowingo Creek, Peters Creek (Peach Bottom Marina), 

and Broad Creek boat ramps, where sediments have been accumulating, to 

improve and maintain recreational boating access; include metrics 

(magnitude or frequency of sediment loading storm events) that would 

trigger action to protect boating access between the 5 year monitoring 

interval; and include with the results of each bathymetric survey an analysis 

of any change in sediment deposition or scour in the pond from the 

previous survey(s). 

 Modify Exelon’s proposed minimum flow regime to enhance minimum 

flows from December through February, by eliminating periods with no 

minimum flow, and by increasing the minimum flow during the first 2 

weeks of June, summarized as follows: 

 September 15 – March 31: 3,500 cfs or natural inflow (measured at the 

U.S. Geological Survey Marietta gage No. 0157600), whichever is less; 

 April 1 – April 30: 10,000 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is less; 

 May 1 – June 15: 7,500 cfs or natural flow, whichever is less; 

 June 16 – September 14: 5,000 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is less. 

 

17 See Policy Statement on Hydropower Licensing Settlements, issued 

September 21, 2006. 
xxxv 

 Implement measures designed to improve upstream fish passage through 

modification to the existing west and east fish lifts, including: (a) replacing 

the existing hopper at the west fish lift with a 1,500 gallon hopper; 

(b) improving the west fish lift sorting and loading process to facilitate trap 

and truck operations, and implementing a trap and truck program for 

American shad; (c) conducting a feasibility study for adding attraction flow 

at the west fish lift and if feasible and beneficial, installing additional flow 

capacity; (d) restoring the original design for the 900-cfs attraction flow in 

the east fish lift; (e) adding a second 3,300-gallon hopper to the east fish lift 

in the space provided for in the original design, and upgrading the electrical 

and mechanical equipment to allow for a 15-minute lift cycle; and (f) if 2 

years of effectiveness studies, after restoration of the 900-cfs attraction 

flow, show poor attraction at the east fish lift, conducting a feasibility study 

for modifying the locations of entrances A and B, and implementing the 

modifications, if feasible. 

 Modify Exelon’s proposed Bald Eagle Management Plan to include 

measures to minimize recreation-related disturbance in proximity to 

roosting or foraging eagles.

 Develop a northern map turtle protection plan to minimize project impacts 

on map turtles through monitoring, habitat management, and nest site 

protection. 

 Develop a waterfowl nesting protection plan to identify waterfowl nesting 

habitat that is routinely flooded by project peaking operations during the 

breeding season, and where feasible, establish mitigation measures to 

minimize impacts on waterfowl nests. 

 Develop a bog turtle management plan, in consultation with FWS and 

Maryland DNR, to minimize impacts on bog turtles and that includes: 

(1) the restriction of mowing in the wetland documented to support bog 

turtles; (2) invasive plant and woody plant control, particularly for reed 

canary grass; and (3) limits on public access to the wetland without 

advertising the reason.

 Modify Exelon’s proposed Recreation Management Plan to include 

recreation use monitoring and plan updates every 12 years in concert with 

every other 6-year Form 80 reporting deadline; inclusion of the Park 

Service as a consulting party; a provision to provide angler access to the 

catwalk on a limited basis and security measures in place that address the 

vulnerability of the facility and the safety of the users of the catwalk; a 

cross reference to the Sediment Management Plan to provide periodic 

dredging of tributary boat access areas; and development and 

implementation of a debris management program in consultation with 
xxxvi 

Pennsylvania FBC, Maryland DNR, and Susquehanna River Boaters 

Association that includes: (1) debris management goals, (2) BMPs for 

debris management on Exelon-owned lands to minimize additional inputs 

into the pond, (3) methods of debris management (e.g., clamming in front 

of dam and by skimmer boat), (4) timeframes for when debris would be 

collected and frequency of skimmer boat and clamming operations, (5) size 

criteria specification, (6) removal of stored debris procedures, (7) tracking 

procedures, and (8) a hotline for boaters to directly link with Exelon staff. 

 Modify Exelon’s proposed SMP with the addition of a provision to update 

the plan every 10 years.

 Modify Exelon’s proposed HPMP to include the following additional 

provisions: (a) a revised APE with the narrow strip of land in the current 

project boundary extending downstream from Spencer Island along the 

west side of the river to Havre de Grace, Maryland; (b) a discussion of all 

48 sites and 27 historic structures identified to date within the project APE 

or an explanation of why they are not considered; (c) correction to identify 

the Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal and Columbia & Port Deposit 

Railroad eligible for listing; (d) requirements to inventory any lands within 

the revised APE, evaluate identified cultural resources for eligibility, and 

address potential effects before sale or transfer of those lands; (e) a 

requirement to make good faith effort to obtain access to private property to 

conduct studies if project effects on cultural resources on private lands are 

identified; (f) a revised list of project activities involving the Conowingo 

Project that can be completed without Maryland SHPO review; (g) a 

process for assessing project-related ground-disturbing activities to 

determine whether or not archaeological sites would be affected, 

particularly in areas that have not had archaeological surveys; 

(h) requirements to ensure confidentiality of cultural resources location 

information during implementation of public outreach programs; (i) a 

description of project-related activities that would require consultation with 

the Delaware Nation and the Onondaga Nation in accordance with 

section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and documentation 

of all consultation with the Delaware Nation and Onondaga Nation; and 

(j) the inclusion of the Park Service as a consulting party. 

Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions (York Haven and Muddy Run 

Projects)

We recognize that the Commission is required to include valid water quality 

certification conditions and section 18 fishway prescriptions in any licenses issued for the 

projects. The staff alternative with mandatory conditions would include the respective 

staff-recommended measures along with the mandatory conditions that we did not 

include in the staff alternative. 
xxxvii 

For the York Haven Project, this alternative would include the staff alternative 

with one additional measure: contributing $25,000 per year to the York County 

Conservation District or such other entity identified by Pennsylvania DEP for the 

purposes of debris removal in the lower Susquehanna River watershed. The staff 

alternative does not include this measure, because providing compensatory funds is 

inconsistent with the Commission’s guidelines on environmental measures, and this 

measure may not have a direct nexus to the project in that debris removal may occur in 

areas not affected by project operations. 

For the Muddy Run Project, this alternative would include the staff alternative 

with four additional measures: (1) implement the Eel Management Plan filed with the 

license application for the eel trap and truck program to trap, hold, and transport 

American eels from the Conowingo Project to designated points in the Susquehanna 

River watershed until at least 2030, and then either continue the trap and truck program 

or construct a volitional eel passage facility at Conowingo dam; (2) provide the version of 

the Lower Susquehanna River OASIS Model to SRBC within 30 days after the 

Conowingo and Muddy Run water quality certifications and new FERC licenses become 

final, as provided in the Letter Agreement Addressing Exelon’s Provision of an OASIS 

Model to SRBC; (3) provide annual grants up to $450,000 total to be split between the 

Lancaster County and York County Conservation Districts through 2030, for the 

implementation of agricultural pasture and barnyard BMPs to control sediment loading to 

the Susquehanna River; and (4) provide $50,000 annually to Pennsylvania FBC to 

perform habitat improvement projects including the removal of small dams. 

Incorporation of these mandatory conditions into new licenses for the York Haven 

and Muddy Run Projects would not cause us to modify or eliminate any of the 

environmental measures that we include in the staff alternative. 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the no-action alternative, each project would continue to operate under the 

terms and conditions of the existing licenses, and no new environmental protection, 

mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. 

Public Involvement and Areas of Concern

Before filing the license applications for the Susquehanna River Projects, York 

Haven Power and Exelon conducted pre-filing consultation under the integrated licensing 

process. The intent of the Commission’s pre-filing process is to initiate public 

involvement early in the project planning process and to encourage citizens, government 

entities, Indian tribes, and other interested entities to identify and resolve issues prior to a 

license application being formally filed with the Commission. During pre-filing, 

Commission staff conducted scoping to determine what issues and alternatives should be 

addressed. Scoping documents (SD1s) were distributed to interested agencies and others 

on July 24, 2009, for the York Haven Project, and on May 11, 2009, for the Muddy Run 

and Conowingo Projects. In addition, scoping meetings were held on 
xxxviii 

August 26 and 27, 2009, for the York Haven Project; June 10, 2009, for the Muddy Run 

Project; and June 11 and 12, 2009, for the Conowingo Project to request comments on the 

projects. Revised scoping documents, addressing the comments received, were issued on 

November 13, 2009, for the York Haven Project, and on August 24, 2009, for the Muddy 

Run and Conowingo Projects. 

The primary issues associated with relicensing the projects are sedimentation 

effects on aquatic resources downstream of Conowingo dam, including the Chesapeake 

Bay; instream flows downstream of Conowingo dam; the effects of project operations on 

water quality; effective fish passage for American shad, American eel, and other 

diadromous species; protection of sensitive plant and wildlife species including the bald 

eagle, osprey, bog turtle, and northern map turtle; and enhancements to recreation

opportunities and facilities. 

Staff Alternative 

Geology and Soils – Continued run-of-river operation of the York Haven Project 

would have minimal effect on shoreline erosion in Lake Frederic. Development of the 

proposed erosion and sediment control plan prior to ground-disturbing activities 

associated with construction of the nature-like fishway would ensure BMPs are in place 

to minimize erosion and sedimentation. 

Shoreline erosion effects from the operation of the Muddy Run and Conowingo 

Projects are also considered minimal, and implementing erosion control measures 

proposed by Exelon in the SMPs would help minimize adverse effects on water quality in 

the respective reservoirs. 

Exelon’s proposed Conowingo Sediment Management Plan would identify action 

benchmarks and thresholds at the powerhouse intakes to address sedimentation-related 

issues as they might affect project operation. Exelon’s proposed bathymetric surveys in 

Conowingo Pond at 5-year intervals would allow for verification of predictions from the 

Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment (LSRWA) study (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers and Maryland Department of the Environment, 2014) and identify appropriate 

management actions. A final Sediment Management Plan that includes detailed 

benchmarks for dredging, a schedule, and commitment to dredging three boating access 

areas affected by sedimentation in Conowingo Pond as soon as the benchmark sediment 

depths are reached would maintain recreation access. 

Aquatic Resources – Continued operation of the York Haven, Muddy Run, and 

Conowingo Projects would have minimal effects on water quality in the lower 

Susquehanna River, and Exelon’s continued DO monitoring at the Muddy Run and 

Conowingo Projects would ensure that DO is maintained at levels that are consistent with 

current state standards. 

Establishing a modified minimum flow regime at Conowingo that would enhance 

Exelon’s minimum flows from December through February and in the first 2 weeks of 
xxxix 

June would allow continued operation of the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects while 

improving downstream aquatic habitat. 

Constructing and operating the nature-like fishway at York Haven, improving the 

fish lifts at the Conowingo Project, and implementing American eel passage measures at 

the three projects would enhance upstream fish migration and maintain required 

downstream survival of diadromous fish species in the lower Susquehanna River. 

Interior filed preliminary fishway prescriptions for the York Haven and Muddy 

Run Projects (see appendices D and E to this final EIS). At York Haven, the prescription 

is consistent with the Settlement Agreement, requiring the nature-like fishway and 

downstream passage measures. At Muddy Run, the prescription requires an FPOP for 

minimizing delay and potential fish entrainment, and an upstream eel passage program 

from the downstream Conowingo Project. At Conowingo, Interior reserves its authority 

to later prescribe fishways during the term of the license, although it describes an 

alternative (alternative G) that it may or may not adopt, that would require major 

renovations to the existing east and west fish lifts, and implementation of upstream eel 

passage at the project. The staff alternative includes measures consistent with Interior’s 

fishway prescriptions for York Haven and Muddy Run, with the exception of the Muddy 

Run requirements for eel passage, which cannot be included in another project’s license 

(Conowingo). In addition, while the final fishway prescriptions would become a 

requirement of any licenses issued, staff recommends an alternative at Conowingo that 

would provide substantial improvements to the fish passage facilities at the project and 

would involve renovations to the existing east and west fish lifts, but at a lower cost and 

more appropriate scale than alternative G, considering the current size of the American 

shad run. 

Terrestrial Resources – Raptors, including state sensitive species such as bald 

eagle and osprey, and waterfowl occur on the projects’ lands and waters, and these 

species could be affected by project operation, maintenance activities, and use of project 

recreation facilities. Implementing Exelon’s Bald Eagle Management Plan, as proposed 

for the Muddy Run Project, and with the staff modifications for the plan at the 

Conowingo Project to include measures to minimize recreation-related disturbance in 

proximity to roosting or foraging eagles, would ensure that bald eagle nesting, roosting, 

and foraging areas are protected within the Muddy Run and Conowingo 

project boundaries. 

Exelon’s proposed osprey management policies at the Muddy Run and Conowingo 

Projects would benefit ospreys by implementing BMPs and protection measures to 

minimize effects on osprey nesting within the project boundary. 

A waterfowl nesting protection plan at the Conowingo Project, as recommended 

by Interior would identify waterfowl nesting habitat that is routinely flooded by project 

peaking operations during the breeding season, and where feasible, establish mitigation 

measures to minimize impacts on waterfowl nests. 
xl 

A northern map turtle protection plan would minimize project impacts on map 

turtles, through monitoring, habitat management, and nest site protection, as described in 

Towson University’s 2014 final map turtle report. 

Threatened and Endangered Species – Six federally listed species are known to 

occur in the general vicinity of one or more of the projects: shortnose sturgeon 

(Acipenser brevirostrum), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), bog 

turtle (Glyptemys [Clemmys] muhlenbergii), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), Delmarva 

Peninsula fox squirrel (Sciurus niger cinereus), and swamp pink (Helonias bullata). In 

addition, the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is proposed for listing under 

the Endangered Species Act. 

The York Haven and Muddy Run Projects would have no effect on either

shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon because neither species has been collected or passed via 

the Conowingo fish lifts since they began operation in 1972. While there is suitable 

habitat downstream of Conowingo for both species, only occasional individual shortnose 

sturgeon have been reported from the river below the dam, and there is no recent 

evidence of the occurrence of Atlantic sturgeon in the lower Susquehanna River. 

Therefore, continued operation of the Conowingo Project would not likely adversely 

affect shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon. 

Bog turtles have been confirmed near the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects. 

Bog turtles are not known to occur at the York Haven Project. Implementing Exelon’s 

Bog Turtle Management Plan for the Muddy Run Project with FWS’ recommended 

modified mowing restrictions for mowing areas C, D, and F and implementing Interior’s 

recommended bog turtle management plan at the Conowingo Project, including habitat 

management at any confirmed breeding locations and other practices to protect the 

existing population and improve bog turtle habitat, would eliminate the likelihood of any 

adverse effects on bog turtles and their habitat due to project maintenance or recreation. 

Therefore, we conclude that relicensing the York Haven, Muddy Run, and Conowingo 

Projects would not be likely to adversely affect the bog turtle. 

Potential Indiana and northern long-eared bat habitat may exist within the three 

project areas, along the riparian forested edges of the river and reservoirs, and forested 

edges along transmission line rights-of-way and recreational areas. Neither York Haven 

Power nor Exelon propose any activities that would result in more than a minimal amount 

of tree clearing. At the Muddy Run Project, continued routine vegetation management 

practices, such as trimming and herbicide application, would be unlikely to affect trees 

large enough to provide roosting habitat. Therefore, the York Haven, Muddy Run, and 

Conowingo Projects would not be likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat and would not 

be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the northern long-eared bat. 

Swamp pink have been previously documented in Cecil and Harford Counties 

where the Conowingo Project is located but are not known to occur in those project areas 

according to FWS’ Information, Planning, and Conservation System website. Therefore, 

the York Haven and Muddy Run Projects would have no effect on the swamp pink. 
xli 

The three projects would have no effect on the Delmarva Peninsula fox squirrel. 

Although it was noted in SD1 as occurring in the vicinity of the Muddy Run and 

Conowingo Projects, it is not known to exist in the project area. 

Recreation and Land Use – Continued operation of the York Haven, Muddy Run, 

and Conowingo Projects would enhance the recreational facilities and benefit 

recreationists in the region. Implementing a Recreation Management Plan at the York 

Haven Project that includes a facility inventory with ownership and management 

responsibilities for each site, as well as measures to provide for periodic monitoring and 

consultation, would ensure that recreational opportunities are maintained and enhanced. 

Revising the York Haven Project boundary to include the entirety of the Lock 15 

recreation facility would bring a facility associated with the East Shore boat launch 

within the project boundary. 

Implementing the proposed Recreation Management Plans at the Muddy Run and 

Conowingo Projects that include measures for maintenance and capital improvement, 

with staff modifications that include providing angler access to the catwalk at Conowingo 

and including an expanded debris management program, would ensure that the visitation, 

facilities, and reservoir surface are monitored and maintained periodically to ensure that 

the project recreation facilities and reservoir surface continue to meet recreation use and 

demand at the projects. 

Revising the Conowingo project boundary to remove lands that were necessary 

during construction of the project but are no longer used for project purposes (such as 

project-related recreation or protection of environmental resources not related to the 

project) would be consistent with FERC policy that only lands and waters needed for 

project purposes should be included in the project boundary. 

Cultural Resources – Continued operation of the York Haven, Muddy Run, and 

Conowingo Projects could affect historic properties located within the projects’ 

boundaries. Implementing York Haven Power’s and Exelon’s HPMPs with the staffrecommended modifications to the plans for the York Haven and Conowingo Projects, 

and development of an HPMP for the Muddy Run Project would provide for the 

management and protection of cultural resources and any historic properties associated 

with the projects. 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the no-action alternative, the projects would continue to operate under the 

terms and conditions of the existing licenses, and no new environmental protection, 

mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. 
xlii 

Conclusions

Based on our analysis, we recommend licensing the projects as proposed by York 

Haven Power and Exelon with some staff modifications and additional measures. The 

staff alternative does not include certain mandatory conditions for the York Haven and 

Muddy Run Projects in a new license as discussed in section 5, Conclusions 

and Recommendations. 

In section 4.2, Comparison of Alternatives, we estimate the likely cost of 

alternative power for each of the alternatives identified above. For the York Haven 

Project, our analysis shows that, during the first year of operation under the proposed 

action, the project would produce power at a cost that is $336,690 or $2.56/megawatthour (MWh) more than the cost of alternative power. Under the staff alternative, the 

project would produce power at a cost that is $332,650 or $2.52/MWh more than the cost 

of alternative power. Under the staff alternative with mandatory conditions, the project 

would produce power at a cost that is $348,900 or $2.65/MWh more than the cost of 

alternative power. 

For the Muddy Run Project, our analysis shows that, during the first year of 

operation under the proposed action, the project would produce power at a cost that is 

$50,233,890 or $31.09/MWh less than the cost of alternative power. Under the staff 

alternative, the project would produce power at a cost that is $50,497,820 or 31.27/MWh 

less than the cost of alternative power. Under the staff alternative with mandatory 

conditions, the project would produce power at a cost that is $50,172,280 or 31.07/MWh 

less than the cost of alternative power. 

For the Conowingo Project, our analysis shows that, during the first year of 

operation under the proposed action, the project would produce power at a cost that is 

$32,473,180 or $17.81/MWh less than the cost of alternative power. Under the staff 

alternative, the project would produce power at a cost that is $31,228,810 or 

$17.15/MWh less than the cost of alternative power. No mandatory conditions have been 

filed to date for the Conowingo Project, so there is no staff alternative with mandatory 

conditions for the project.

We chose the staff alternatives as the preferred alternatives for the Susquehanna 

River Projects because: (1) the York Haven, Muddy Run, and Conowingo Projects 

would provide a dependable source of electrical energy and ancillary services for the 

region (131,771 MWh, 1,614,882 MWh, and 1,820,743 MWh annually, respectively); 

(2) the combined 594.16 MW of electric capacity for the York Haven and Conowingo 

Projects comes from a renewable resource that does not contribute to atmospheric 

pollution18; and (3) the recommended environmental measures proposed by York Haven 

 

18 The 800.25 MW of capacity from the Muddy Run Project cannot be considered 

renewable because power used for pumping may come from non-renewable sources. 
xliii 

Power and Exelon, as modified by staff, would adequately protect and enhance 

environmental resources affected by the projects. The overall benefits of the staff 

alternatives would be worth the cost of the proposed and recommended 

environmental measures. 
xliv 

This page intentionally left blank.
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 APPLICATION 

On August 30, 2012, York Haven Power Company, LLC (York Haven Power) 

filed an application for a new license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(Commission or FERC) to continue operating the existing York Haven Project (FERC 

Project No. 1888).19 The 19.62-megawatt (MW) project is on the Susquehanna River at 

river mile (RM)20 55 in the borough of York, in York, Dauphin, and Lancaster Counties, 

Pennsylvania (figure 1-1), and it generates an average of about 132,271 megawatt-hours 

(MWh) of energy annually. The project does not occupy any federal lands. York Haven 

Power proposes no new capacity and no new construction; however, it is proposing the 

construction of a new fishway as part of its proposed environmental measures. 

On August 29, 2012, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) filed 

applications for new licenses with the Commission to continue operating the existing 

Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project (Muddy Run Project) (FERC Project No. 2355)21

and the existing Conowingo Hydroelectric Project (Conowingo Project).22 The 

800.25-MW Muddy Run and the 574.54-MW Conowingo Projects are located on the 

Susquehanna River at RM 22 and 10, respectively, in Lancaster and York Counties, 

Pennsylvania, and Cecil and Harford Counties, Maryland (figure 1-1).23 Conowingo 

Pond acts as the lower reservoir for the Muddy Run Project. Neither project occupies any 

federal lands. The Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects generate an average of about 

 

19 The current license for the York Haven Project was issued on August 14, 1980, 

and expired on September 1, 2014. On September 10, 2014, the Commission issued a 

notice that York Haven Power is authorized to continue operation of the York Haven 

Project until such time as the Commission acts on its application for a new license.

20 The river mile is calculated from the mouth of the Susquehanna River at its 

confluence with the Chesapeake Bay. 

21 The current license for the Muddy Run Project was issued on September 21, 

1964, and expired on August 31, 2014. On September 10, 2014, the Commission issued 

a notice that Exelon is authorized to continue operation of the Muddy Run Project until 

such time as the Commission acts on its application for a new license. 

22 The current license for the Conowingo Project was issued on August 14, 1980, 

and expires on September 1, 2014. On September 10, 2014, the Commission issued a 

notice that Exelon is authorized to continue operation of the Conowingo Project until 

such time as the Commission acts on its application for a new license. 

23 The authorized capacity for Muddy Run is from the original license issued 

September 21, 1964, and the authorized capacity for Conowingo is from the Commission 

Order issued March 3, 2010.
2

Figure 1-1. Susquehanna River Projects location (Source: FERC, 2009, as modified by 

staff). 
3

1,615,813 MWh and 1,823,193 MWh of energy annually, respectively. Exelon proposes 

no new capacity and no new construction at either project. 

1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER 

1.2.1 Purpose of Action 

The purpose of the York Haven, Muddy Run, and Conowingo Projects 

(Susquehanna River Projects) is to continue to provide a source of hydroelectric power. 

Therefore, under the provisions of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission must 

decide whether to issue a license to York Haven Power for the York Haven Project and to 

Exelon for the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects and what conditions should be 

placed on any licenses issued. In deciding whether to issue a license for a hydroelectric

project, the Commission must determine that the projects will be best adapted to a 

comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway. In addition to the power 

and developmental purposes for which licenses are issued (such as flood control, 

irrigation, or water supply), the Commission must give equal consideration to the 

purposes of: (1) energy conservation; (2) the protection of, mitigation of damage to, and 

enhancement of fish and wildlife resources; (3) the protection of recreational 

opportunities; and (4) the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. 

Issuing new licenses for the Susquehanna River Projects would allow York Haven 

Power and Exelon to generate electricity at the projects for the term of each new license, 

making electric power from a renewable resource available to their customers. This 

multi-project final environmental impact statement (EIS) assesses the effects associated 

with operation of the projects, alternatives to the proposed projects, and makes 

recommendations to the Commission on whether to issue a new license, and if so, 

recommends terms and conditions to become a part of any licenses issued. 

In this final EIS, we assess the environmental and economic effects of continuing 

to operate the projects: (1) as proposed by York Haven Power and Exelon; and (2) with 

our recommended measures. We also consider the effects of the staff alternative with 

mandatory conditions and the no-action alternative. Important issues that are addressed 

include the effects of continued project operation on instream flows, shoreline erosion 

and sediment transport, water quality, fishery resources and fish passage, terrestrial 

resources, threatened and endangered species, recreation and land use, and 

cultural resources. 

1.2.2 Need for Power 

The Susquehanna River Projects provide hydroelectric generation to meet part of 

Maryland’s and Pennsylvania’s power requirements, resource diversity, and capacity 

needs. The existing York Haven Project has an installed capacity of 19.62 MW and 

generates approximately 132,271 MWh per year (average 2001-2011). The existing 

Muddy Run Project has an installed capacity of 800.25 MW and generates approximately 

1,615,813 MWh per year (average 1996-2010). The existing Conowingo Project has an 
4

installed capacity of 574.54 MW and generates approximately 1,823,193 MWh per year 

(1996-2010). 

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) annually forecasts 

electrical supply and demand nationally and regionally for a 10-year period. The projects 

are located in the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland region of NERC. According to 

NERC’s 2013 forecast, the summer and winter planning reserve margins (capacity 

resources in excess of demand) are expected to drop from 32.04 percent in 2014 to 19.73 

percent in 2023 and from 42.99 percent in 2014 to 32.87 percent in 2023, respectively 

(NERC, 2013). 

In addition to energy and capacity, the Conowingo and Muddy Run Projects 

provide ancillary services that benefit the electric grid. The Conowingo Project provides 

peaking generation, regulation control, and black start capabilities. The Muddy Run 

Project provides peaking generation, peak load following, spinning reserve, and black 

start capability, and also is able to use excess baseload energy during pumping operation.

Baseload facilities operate at maximum output. They shut down or reduce power 

only to perform maintenance or repairs. Baseload facilities typically include coal, fuel 

oil, nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass, and combined cycle natural 

gas facilities. 

Pumped storage facilities can be operated at a generating level that is much lower 

than baseload facilities and can therefore avoid the need to run a baseload unit at low 

efficiencies below the minimum load rating of the baseload unit. Pumped storage 

facilities can also use excess energy provided by baseload units that run continuously at 

night to pump water to the upper reservoir so that it can be used for generation during 

daily peak demand periods. 

Peaking facilities operate during times of peak electric demand. Conowingo and 

Muddy Run have the ability to meet peak energy demands by increasing generation 

needed when water is available. They have the ability to start within minutes, if not 

seconds, depending upon available water supply. Muddy Run is able to draw from 

storage in the Muddy Run Project reservoir (the upper reservoir) when needed to provide 

peak generation, while Conowingo relies on inflows and impoundment storage. 

Spinning reserve is the extra generating capacity that is available by increasing the 

power output of generators that are already connected to the power grid. Facilities like 

Muddy Run that provide spinning reserve can be on line, synchronized with the electric 

grid, and quickly add power to the system as needed. Muddy Run can also perform “load 

following,” whereby the output of the facilities is increased or decreased in response to 

variations in electric demand. 

Hydroelectric facilities can also provide frequency and/or voltage regulation 

benefits to the system. Operating in frequency control mode, they alter their output to 

keep the system frequency near the required value to avoid system imbalance. Similarly, 

they can also provide system voltage control. 
5

Black start is the procedure to recover from a total or partial shutdown of the 

transmission system, such as the blackout that occurred in August 2003, which was the 

largest ever blackout of the North American power grid. The outage affected an 

estimated 50 million people and more than 70,000 MW of electrical load in parts of Ohio, 

Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, 

and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Power was successfully restored to 

most customers within hours, while some areas in the United States did not have power 

for 2 days, and parts of Ontario experienced rotating blackouts for up to 2 weeks. 

Conowingo and Muddy Run were some of the first units used to bring the system back on 

line. These facilities were started individually and gradually brought on line to stabilize 

the system before the baseload units were brought back on line.

We conclude that power from the projects would help meet a need for power and 

ancillary services in the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland region in both the short- and 

long-term. The projects would provide low-cost power that displaces generation from 

non-renewable sources. Displacing the operation of non-renewable facilities may avoid 

some power plant emissions, thus creating environmental benefits. 

1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

Licenses for the Susquehanna River Projects are subject to numerous requirements 

under the FPA and other applicable statutes. We summarize the major regulatory 

requirements in table 1-1 and describe them below. 

Table 1-1. Major statutory and regulatory requirements for the Susquehanna River 

Projects. 

Requirement Agency Status

Section 18 of the FPA

(fishway prescriptions)

U.S. Department of the 

Interior (Interior); National 

Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)

Interior filed preliminary 

fishway prescriptions for the 

York Haven Project on 

January 30, 2014, and for the 

Muddy Run Project on 

January 31, 2014. Interior 

filed a reservation of 

authority for the Conowingo 

Project on January 31, 2014.

NMFS filed reservations of 

authority for the Muddy Run 

and Conowingo Projects on 

January 30, 2014.

Section 10(j) of the FPA Interior; Pennsylvania Fish 

and Boat Commission

(Pennsylvania FBC)

Interior filed 10(j) 

recommendations for the 

York Haven, Muddy Run,
6

Requirement Agency Status

and Conowingo Projects on 

January 30 and 31, 2014; 

Pennsylvania FBC filed 10(j) 

recommendations for the 

Conowingo Project on 

December 11, 2013.

Clean Water Act—water 

quality certification

Pennsylvania Department 

of Environmental 

Protection (Pennsylvania 

DEP); Maryland 

Department of the 

Environment (Maryland 

DOE)

York Haven Project –

Pennsylvania DEP received 

an application for water 

quality certification on 

August 29, 2013;

Pennsylvania DEP issued a 

certification for the York 

Haven Project on 

August 19, 2014.

Muddy Run Project – Exelon 

applied to Pennsylvania DEP 

for certification on 

August 28, 2013;

Pennsylvania DEP issued a 

certification for the Muddy 

Run Project on June 3, 2014, 

and filed a clarified version 

of the certification on 

December 10, 2014.

Conowingo Project –

Maryland DOE received an 

application for certification 

on January 31, 2014; Exelon 

withdrew its application on 

December 4, 2014, with 

plans to refile an application

for certification within 90 

days of that date. Maryland 

DOE will have one year to 

act on the application, 

although Exelon stated by 

letter filed 

December 22, 2014, that it 

will withdraw and refile the 
7

Requirement Agency Status

application on an annual 

basis until a sediment study 

to be conducted by Exelon 

and Maryland DOE is 

completed in 2016 or 2017.

Endangered Species Act 

Consultation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS); NMFS

In letters filed on January 7, 

2015, FWS concurred with

our not likely to adversely 

affect determinations for the 

Indiana bat and the bog turtle

for all three projects, with

some qualifications;

24

following staff letters issued

August 21 and September 3, 

2014, NMFS concurred with

our no effect determination 

for shortnose sturgeon and 

Atlantic sturgeon for the 

York Haven and Muddy Run 

Projects, by letter filed 

September 23, 2014; by 

letters issued August 21, 

September 3, and 

October 23, 2014, we sought 

concurrence from NMFS on 

our not likely to adversely 

affect determination for 

shortnose sturgeon and 

Atlantic sturgeon for the 

Conowingo Project.

Coastal Zone 

Management Act 

Consistency

Pennsylvania Coastal 

Resource Management 

Program (Pennsylvania 

CRM Program); Maryland 

DOE

Pennsylvania CRM Program 

determined both York Haven 

and Muddy Run are located 

outside the state’s coastal 

zone and would not affect 

coastal resources; Maryland 

 

24 See sections 1.3.3, Endangered Species Act, and 3.3.4, Threatened and 

Endangered Species, for a detailed discussion. 
8

Requirement Agency Status

DOE has until January 30, 

2015, to determine 

consistency.

National Historic 

Preservation Act

Pennsylvania State 

Historic Preservation 

Officer (Pennsylvania 

SHPO); Maryland SHPO

A Programmatic Agreement 

is to be executed between the 

Commission and the SHPOs.

1.3.1 Federal Power Act

1.3.1.1 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions 

Section 18 of the FPA states that the Commission is to require construction, 

operation, and maintenance by a licensee of such fishways as may be prescribed by the 

Secretaries of Commerce and Interior. 

On January 30, 2014, the U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) timely filed a 

preliminary fishway prescription for the York Haven Project, including conditions 

consistent with a Settlement Agreement filed on January 30, 2014 (see section 1.5, 

Settlement Agreement). Interior filed a corrected version of the preliminary fishway 

prescription on February 7, 2014, requesting that it replace the original filing that 

contained inadvertent word processing artifacts. These conditions are described under 

section 2.2, Applicants’ Proposals, York Haven Project. 

On January 31, 2014, Interior timely filed a preliminary fishway prescription for 

the Muddy Run Project, which it modified by letter filed on February 28, 2014. These 

conditions are described under section 2.2.4, Modifications to the Applicants’ Proposals 

– Mandatory Conditions. 

On January 31, 2014, Interior requested that a reservation of authority to prescribe 

fishways under section 18 be included in any license issued for the Conowingo Project. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), by letter filed January 30, 2014, 

requested that a reservation of authority to prescribe fishways under section 18 be 

included in any license issued for the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects. 

1.3.1.2 Section 10(j) Recommendations 

Under section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the 

Commission must include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and 

state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, or enhancement of fish and 

wildlife resources affected by the project. The Commission is required to include these 

conditions unless it determines that they are inconsistent with the purposes and 

requirements of the FPA or other applicable law. Before rejecting or modifying an 
9

agency recommendation, the Commission is required to attempt to resolve any such 

inconsistency with the agency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and 

statutory responsibilities of such agency.

Interior timely filed 10(j) recommendations for the York Haven Project on January 

30, 2014, and for the Muddy Run Project on January 31, 2014, and the Pennsylvania Fish 

and Boat Commission (Pennsylvania FBC) and Interior timely filed, on December 11, 

2013, and January 31, 2014, respectively, recommendations under section 10(j) for the 

Conowingo Project. In comments on the draft EIS filed on September 29, 2014, Interior 

withdrew its 10(j) recommendation to install and operate fishways at the Conowingo 

Project as described in alternative G of its reservation of authority to prescribe fishways 

under section 18. These recommendations are summarized in table 5-1, in section 5.3, 

Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations. In section 5.3, we discuss how we address 

the agency recommendations and comply with section 10(j).

1.3.2 Clean Water Act

Under section 401 of the Clean Water Act, a license applicant must obtain either 

certification from the appropriate state water pollution control agency verifying 

compliance with the Clean Water Act or a waiver of certification by the appropriate 

agency. Here, the facilities of the York Haven and Muddy Run Projects are located in 

Pennsylvania and the discharges from these two projects are located in Pennsylvania. 

The Conowingo Project facilities are located in both Pennsylvania and Maryland, but the 

discharge occurs in Maryland. Therefore, the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (Pennsylvania DEP) is the appropriate state water pollution 

certifying agency to act on York Haven Power’s request for the York Haven Project and 

Exelon’s request for the Muddy Run Project. The Maryland Department of the 

Environment (Maryland DOE) is the appropriate agency to act on Exelon’s request for 

the Conowingo Project. 

York Haven Project

On August 29, 2013, York Haven Power applied to Pennsylvania DEP for 

401 water quality certification (certification) for the York Haven Project. Pennsylvania 

DEP received this request on August 29, 2013. Pennsylvania DEP issued certification on 

August 19, 2014. The conditions included in the water quality certification are consistent 

with the terms of the Settlement Agreement that is part of York Haven Power’s licensing 

proposal. The certification conditions are included here and further described in section

3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects: 

 Develop fish passage operating procedures (FPOP) for operation and 

maintenance of facilities used for passage of migratory and resident fish, 

with specific operational and maintenance procedures for each fishway at 

the York Haven Project, and file an annual operating report by 

December 31 of each year. 
10 

 Construct, operate, and maintain a nature-like fishway in the vicinity of the 

apex of the main dam and Three Mile Island in compliance with design 

criteria specified in appendices A and B of the water quality certification, 

with functional design drawings completed by March 31, 2015; section 

401, 404, and associated permit applications by July 15, 2015; completion 

of procurement and construction contracts within 150 days of receiving all 

governmental approvals; and completion of the fishway (operational) 

within 3 construction seasons after completion of procurement and 

construction contracts. 

 Operate the nature-like fishway in a “shake-down” mode during the first 

American shad upstream passage season, followed by 2 to 3 years of 

telemetry studies in successive years (with caveats) to monitor the 

effectiveness of the facility, with specific requirements for agency 

consultations in preparing the nature-like fishway monitoring plan. 

 The target upstream passage efficiency for American shad is 75 percent of 

the upstream-migrating shad passed at the Safe Harbor Project, with 

specific requirements to investigate why the target efficiency is not met; the 

target efficiency will be considered met and the telemetry studies may be 

terminated if the 75 percent efficiency is met for 2 consecutive years, or if 

85 percent of the shad that enter the project area pass the York Haven 

Project via a combination of the nature-like fishway and the east channel 

fishway; if the target efficiency is not met in two successive seasons, 

additional studies and corrective measures would be made, followed by an 

additional 2 years of telemetry studies; if target efficiencies are still not 

achieved, York Haven Power would propose a plan to mitigate for the 

low efficiency. 

 Downstream adult shad passage would be provided by operation of the 

nature-like fishway, with a project target survival rate of 80 percent; from 

May 1 to June 30, also provide spillage flow of 370 cfs over the forebay 

sluice gate for 1 to 2 hours on weekday mornings, if river flow exceeds the 

total hydraulic capacity of the project powerhouse, required flows through 

the nature-like fishway, required flows through the east channel, and 

required flows over the main dam (if any); if 80 percent survival is not 

achieved, York Haven Power would propose a plan to mitigate for the 

low survival. 

 Downstream juvenile American shad passage would be provided by an 

operational protocol that calls for the operation of units 1-6 (Kaplan and 

propeller units) to be first online and last offline during the juvenile shad 

downstream migration period (October 1 through November 30), and 

opening the forebay sluice gate at specific times for downstream fish 

passage. If river flows exceed the capacity of units 1-6, unit 14 would be 
11 

operated, and if flows exceed the capacities of units 1-6 and 14, units 7-13 

and 15-30 would be operated in ascending order. Provide about 200 cfs 

through the nature-like fishway and 370 cfs through the forebay sluice gate 

between the hours of 5 and 11 p.m. during the entire juvenile American 

shad passage period, and provide this flow through the forebay sluice gate 

for 1 to 2 hours on weekday mornings, if river flow exceeds the total 

hydraulic capacity of the project powerhouse, required flows through the 

nature-like fishway, required flows through the east channel, and required 

flows over the main dam (if any). 

 The target survival for downstream passage of juvenile shad is 95 percent, 

to be determined by a route of passage analysis and confirmation that the 

forebay sluice gate provides for safe passage. The 95 percent survival 

target would be assumed to be met if 60 percent of tagged juvenile shad 

released into the headrace exit via the forebay sluice gate during a headrace 

shad turbine avoidance study, using PIT tag monitoring. The project 

juvenile shad survival goal would be assumed to be met if the headrace 

shad turbine avoidance target is met, and York Haven Power makes 

additional improvements at the forebay sluice gate to ensure safe 

downstream passage as described below. 

 Develop designs within 4 years of license issuance for: (1) removal of 

obstructions in or deepening of the plunge pool below the forebay sluice 

gate (adequate depth would be 1 foot for every 4 feet of drop), and (2) a 

chute structure to convey flows beyond the roadway on the downstream 

side of the cable alley structure to protect outmigrating juvenile and adult 

American shad that pass into the downstream plunge pool. 

 If the headrace shad turbine avoidance target survival is not met, based on 

the effectiveness study results, York Haven Power would be required to 

implement additional measures to improve survival, including: (1) opening 

the 800-cfs nature-like fishway supplemental flow gate on the same 

schedule as the forebay sluice gate, (2) suspending the operation of certain 

Francis units from 5 to 11 p.m. when river flows are between 15,000 and 

22,000 cfs during the juvenile shad downstream passage season, up to a 

total generation loss of 1,000 MWh, and (3) other measures as agreed upon 

with FWS and Pennsylvania DEP. 

 Within 2 years of implementing the above additional measures, York 

Haven Power would conduct a follow-up headrace shad turbine avoidance 

study, and if the study shows that the headrace shad turbine avoidance 

target is met, the additional measures would be required for the duration of 

the license.

 If by January 1, 2028, the headrace shad turbine avoidance target is not 

met, and FWS makes a determination that York Haven Power has not met 
12 

the project downstream juvenile American shad passage goal, and that 

additional measures are reasonably required to meet that goal (the 

additional measures determination), York Haven Power, within 12 months 

of that determination, would prepare a design and schedule for 

implementing additional structural and operational measures that are 

reasonably anticipated to meet the downstream passage goals, which may 

include a fish guidance system or other appropriate technology. After 

receipt of all governmental approvals, York Haven Power would implement 

the approved measures by December 31, 2030. If York Haven Power fails 

to provide a design and schedule for implementing additional structural and 

operational measures, Pennsylvania DEP may prescribe such measures. 

Within 12 months after implementing the additional structural and 

operational measures, York Haven Power would conduct a follow-up 

headrace shad turbine avoidance study to determine the number of shad that 

safely exit the forebay. 

 Upstream eel passage would be provided by the proposed 

nature-like fishway. 

 The downstream eel passage survival goal for the project is 85 percent. 

York Haven Power would cooperate with resource agencies and other 

interested parties to conduct a lower Susquehanna River downstream eel 

migration study, to evaluate the active migration of silver eels from stocked 

tributaries, and would conduct a site-specific silver eel route of passage 

study at the York Haven Project as described in appendix G of the 

Settlement Agreement. 

 At least 12 months prior to the completion of the nature-like fishway, York 

Haven Power would prepare a plan and schedule for a site-specific 

downstream eel study, consisting of the route of passage study described 

above, and an eel survival study. The site-specific downstream eel study 

would be conducted after completion of the nature-like fishway. If the 

results of the study show that existing measures and protocols achieve the 

downstream eel passage goal, those measures and protocols 

would continue. 

 If the results of the study show that existing measures and protocols do not 

achieve the downstream eel passage goal, York Haven Power would 

conduct a downstream eel improvements study to evaluate the feasibility 

and costs of potential physical and operational modifications to facilitate 

downstream eel passage, including adjusting nature-like fishway 

operations, modifying juvenile shad passage facilities, installing a fish 

guidance system, or replacing turbine runners with more “fishfriendly” runners. 
13 

 If the downstream eel improvements study finds that additional measures 

are feasible and technically sound, York Haven Power would implement 

those measures, followed by an evaluation of those measures within 12 

months. If the downstream eel passage goals are not met, York Haven 

Power and the resources agencies would meet on an annual basis to 

determine alternative measures that could be implemented to meet the eel 

passage goals. 

 Resident fish passage would be provided by the continued operation of the 

east channel fishway and by the nature-like fishway when operational. The 

east channel fishway would be operational from April 1 to December 15, or 

until daily river water temperature at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

Harrisburg gage is equal to or less than 40 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) for 3 

consecutive days.

 Provide a year-round, continuous, minimum flow from the project of 1,000 

cfs and an average daily minimum flow of 2,500 cfs, or inflow, whichever 

is less, to protect and enhance aquatic resources downstream of the project. 

 Operate the project in a run-of-river mode when inflow to the project is less 

than 3,000 cfs, without deliberate impoundment drawdown or storage for 

purposes of generating electricity in particular time periods. 

 Continue to implement the existing debris management program to prevent 

a buildup of debris that could affect project and fish passage operations, 

remove non-natural debris from the forebay, and sluice remaining natural 

debris downstream after notifying the downstream PPL Brunner 

Island Station. 

 Contribute $25,000 per year to the York County Conservation District or 

such other entity identified by Pennsylvania DEP for the purposes of debris 

removal in the lower Susquehanna River watershed. 

Muddy Run Project 

On August 28, 2013, Exelon applied to Pennsylvania DEP for the Muddy Run 

Project. Pennsylvania DEP issued certification on June 3, 2014, and filed a clarified 

version of the certification on December 10, 2014. In its reply comments filed on March 

18, 2014, Exelon requested that the Commission incorporate the conditions of the draft 

certification into Exelon’s licensing proposal and reflect the conditions as Exelon’s 

preferred alternative in the EIS. By letter filed January 21, 2015, Exelon confirmed that 

the clarified water quality certification filed by Pennsylvania DEP on December 10, 

2014, continues to represent Exelon's licensing proposal for the Muddy Run Project. 

Therefore, this EIS treats the conditions in the certification as part of Exelon’s proposal. 

The certification conditions are summarized here and described in detail in sections 
14 

3.3.1.2, Geology and Soils, Environmental Effects, and 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, 

Environmental Effects: 

 Develop a dissolved oxygen (DO) monitoring plan no earlier than 

November 1, 2027, with measures designed to ensure that the project does 

not violate DO standards. 

 Develop FPOP for upstream and downstream fish passage, with specific 

targets for upstream and downstream passage at the Muddy Run Project, 

and corrective actions if targets are not met. 

 In 2018, develop a plan and schedule, as part of fish passage monitoring, 

for a radio telemetry study or equivalent Tier II study of American shad 

passage and behavior within the Muddy Run Project boundary, although no 

such plan would be required if available data indicate that 75 percent of the 

shad that pass the downstream Conowingo Project also pass through the 

Holtwood Project fish passage facilities (Tier I requirement), and that 50 

percent of the shad that pass the Conowingo Project pass the Holtwood 

Project within 5 days (Tier II requirement). The Tier II study, if required, 

would determine the percentage of shad that enter the Muddy Run Project 

area at the northern tip of Sicily Island and exit the Muddy Run Project area 

at the southern tip of Deepwater Island. The radio transmitters would be 

inserted into shad at the Conowingo Project or other locations approved by 

Pennsylvania DEP. At the end of the four-year study period, or such longer 

time as established by the Pennsylvania DEP, if the results indicate that, as 

a result of Muddy Run operations, less than 88 percent of the American 

shad that enter the Muddy Run Project area in turn exit the Muddy Run 

Project area, Exelon would propose a plan and schedule for operational 

modifications to the extent feasible, reasonable, and technically sound to 

enhance fish passage at the project.25

 By January 15, 2015, submit a plan and schedule to provide for 95 percent 

survival of juvenile American shad and 80 percent survival of adult 

American shad that pass downstream through the project area, with full 

implementation of the plan by 2015. By February 15, 2026, Exelon would 

conduct a “discrete passage study” to measure the downstream passage of 

shad past the project, with the target passage rates noted above. If the 

target passage rates are not met, Exelon would propose appropriate 

mitigative measures. 

 

25 This bullet describes the new language in the clarified certification, which 

modified the previous requirement for a Tier II radio telemetry study. 
15 

 Implement the American Eel Passage Plan for an eel trap and truck 

program to trap, hold, and transport American eels from the Conowingo 

Project and Octoraro Creek to designated points in the Susquehanna River 

watershed until at least 2030, and then either continue the trap and truck 

program or construct a volitional eel passage facility at Conowingo dam. 

 No earlier than October 1, 2016, and when Pennsylvania DEP determines 

that sufficient numbers of American eel are present upstream of the project 

to require downstream passage, conduct downstream eel passage studies to 

confirm at least 85 percent eel passage through the project area. If the 

target downstream passage rate is not met, Exelon would propose 

appropriate mitigative measures. 

 Once every 10 years through the term of the license, evaluate all state and 

federal endangered and threatened species that may be present within the 

project boundary, and if the evaluation identifies the presence, critical 

habitat, or critical dependence of endangered species, propose and 

implement a protection plan for each species. 

 Provide annual grants up to $450,000 total to be split between the Lancaster 

County and York County Conservation Districts (grants will expire in 

2030) for the implementation of agricultural pasture and barnyard best 

management practices (BMPs) to control sediment loading to the 

Susquehanna River. 

 Provide $50,000 annually to the Pennsylvania FBC to perform habitat 

improvement projects including removal of small dams. 

 Provide the version of the Lower Susquehanna River OASIS Model to the 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) within 30 days after the 

Conowingo and Muddy Run water quality certifications and new FERC 

licenses become ‘final’ (i.e., are no longer appealable or subject to ongoing 

litigation), as provided in the Letter Agreement Addressing Exelon’s 

Provision of an OASIS Model to SRBC dated November 19, 2013. 

Conowingo Project 

On January 30, 2014, Exelon applied to Maryland DOE for certification for the 

Conowingo Project. Maryland DOE received this request on January 30, 2014. On 

December 4, 2014, Exelon withdrew its application and plans to refile an application 

within 90 days of that date; Exelon will withdraw and refile its application on an annual 

basis until a sediment study to be conducted by Exelon and Maryland DOE, in 

coordination with other state and federal agencies, is completed in 2016 or 2017. 
16 

1.3.3 Endangered Species Act

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to ensure 

that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or 

threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical 

habitat of such species. Six federally listed species are known to occur in the general 

vicinity of one or more of the projects: shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), 

Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), bog turtle (Glyptemys [Clemmys] 

muhlenbergii), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), Delmarva Peninsula fox squirrel (Sciurus 

niger cinereus), and swamp pink (Helonias bullata) (letters from FWS, to K.D. Bose, 

Secretary, FERC, Washington, D.C., January 4, 2007, and privileged information filed by 

Exelon on October 14, 2014). Also, FWS proposed to create a species-specific rule for 

the northern long-eared bat under section 4(d) of the ESA if it deems listing as a 

threatened species is appropriate, and reopened the public comment period on its 

previous October 2, 2013, proposed rule to list the northern long-eared bat under the ESA 

as an endangered species.26

Our analysis of project impacts on threatened and endangered species is presented 

in section 3.3.4, Threatened and Endangered Species, and our recommendations in 

section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

We conclude that relicensing of the York Haven and Muddy Run Projects would 

have no effect on the shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon because neither species is known to 

have been collected or passed via the Conowingo fish lifts since they began operation in 

1972. While there is suitable habitat downstream of Conowingo for both species, only 

occasional individual shortnose sturgeon have been reported from the river below the 

dam, and there is no evidence of any recent occurrence of Atlantic sturgeon in the lower 

Susquehanna River. Therefore, continued operation of the Conowingo Project would not 

be likely to adversely affect the shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. NMFS concurred with 

our no effect determination for shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon for the York 

Haven and Muddy Run Projects, by letter filed September 23, 2014, but has not yet 

concurred with our determination for the Conowingo Project. 

Bog turtles have been confirmed near the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects. 

Bog turtles are not known to occur at the York Haven Project.27 Implementing Exelon’s 

Bog Turtle Management Plan for the Muddy Run Project with FWS’ recommended 

 

26 80 Federal Register 2371 (January 16, 2015). 

27 Under the terms of its January 30, 2014, Settlement Agreement, York Haven 

Power has agreed to conduct a bog turtle habitat assessment within potentially suitable 

habitat on Three Mile Island prior to construction of its proposed nature-like fishway. 
17 

modified mowing restrictions for mowing areas C, D, and F28 and implementing 

Interior’s recommended bog turtle management plan at the Conowingo Project, including 

habitat management at any confirmed breeding locations and other practices to protect 

the existing population and improve bog turtle habitat, would minimize effects on bog 

turtles and their habitat due to project maintenance or recreation. Therefore, we conclude 

that relicensing the York Haven, Muddy Run, and Conowingo Projects would not be 

likely to adversely affect the bog turtle. In letters filed on January 7, 2015, the FWS’ 

Pennsylvania Field Office and Chesapeake Bay Field Office concurred with 

our findings.29

Potential Indiana bat habitat may exist within the three project areas, along the 

riparian forested edges of the river and reservoirs, and forested edges along transmission 

line rights-of-way and recreational areas. Neither York Haven Power nor Exelon propose 

any activities that would result in more than a minimal amount of tree clearing. At the 

Muddy Run Project, continued routine vegetation management practices, such as 

trimming and herbicide application, would be unlikely to affect trees large enough to 

provide roosting habitat. Therefore, the York Haven, Muddy Run, and Conowingo 

Projects would not be likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat. In letters filed on 

January 7, 2015, the FWS’ Pennsylvania Field Office and Chesapeake Bay Field Office 

concurred with our findings. 

Because the swamp pink is not listed by the FWS as occurring in the counties 

occupied by York Haven or Muddy Run Projects, these projects would have no effect on 

the species and it is not analyzed further in this document. Although swamp pink has 

been previously documented in Cecil and Harford Counties where the Conowingo Project 

is located, we conclude the Conowingo Project would have no effect on the swamp pink 

because this species is not known to occur in those project areas according to FWS’ 

Information, Planning, and Conservation System website. 

The three projects would have no effect on the Delmarva Peninsula fox squirrel 

because it is not known to exist in the projects’ action areas. 

 

28 FWS’ Pennsylvania Field Office included the modified mowing restriction 

recommendation in its January 7, 2015, letter for the Muddy Run Project. 

29 In its letter dated January 7, 2015, FWS’ Pennsylvania Field Office agreed with 

our finding that project impacts in this area are not likely to adversely affect this species

within the majority of the project boundary, and that once it receives and reviews York 

Haven Power’s bog turtle habitat assessment for the proposed nature-like fishway, “...it 

will make an effects determination for this portion of the project.” 
18 

1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act

Under section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 

16 U.S.C. §1456(3)(A), the Commission cannot issue a license for a project within or 

affecting a state’s coastal zone unless the state CZMA agency concurs with the license 

applicant’s certification of consistency with the state’s CZMA program, or the agency’s 

concurrence is conclusively presumed by its failure to act within 180 days of its receipt of 

the applicant’s certification.

The York Haven and Muddy Run Projects are not located within the 

Pennsylvania-designated coastal management zone. The projects are located outside of 

Pennsylvania’s Lake Erie and Delaware Coastal Zones, and the projects would not affect 

Pennsylvania’s coastal resources. Therefore, the projects are not subject to Pennsylvania 

coastal zone program review, and no consistency certification is needed for the action. 

By emails dated June 24 and December 10, 2009, the Pennsylvania Coastal Resource 

Management Program concurred.

On September 4, 2012, Exelon filed a letter with the Maryland Consistency 

Coordinator of the Maryland DOE stating that the Conowingo Project complies with the 

enforceable polices of the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program and would be 

operated in a manner consistent with this program. On March 5, 2013, the Maryland 

Office of the Attorney General filed a letter with the Commission that included a written 

agreement between Maryland and Exelon to extend the coastal zone consistency review 

period to 1 year from when Exelon files its request for certification. Exelon filed its 

request for certification with Maryland DOE on January 30, 2014, and with the 

Commission on January 31, 2014. On December 4, 2014, Exelon withdrew its 

application for water quality certification and plans to refile an application with Maryland 

DOE within 90 days of that date. In that same letter, Exelon also agrees to extend the 

federal consistency 6-month time clock until one year after the date that Exelon refiles its 

application for certification. Exelon further agrees that, if the withdrawal and 

resubmission of the application for water quality certification continues to be necessary, 

the federal consistency time clock would continue to be automatically stayed until one 

year after the date that Exelon resubmits its application for certification with Maryland 

DOE. Consequently, a coastal zone management program consistency determination 

would not be due from Maryland until at least one year after Exelon refiles an application 

for water quality certification with Maryland DOE. 

1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that every 

federal agency “take into account” how each of its undertakings could affect historic 

properties. Historic properties are districts, sites, buildings, structures, traditional cultural 

properties, and objects significant in American history, architecture, engineering, and 

culture that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places 

(National Register). 
19 

In response to York Haven Power’s May 29, 2009, request, and Exelon’s 

March 12, 2009, request, the Commission designated York Haven Power and Exelon as

non-federal representatives for the purposes of conducting section 106 consultation under 

the NHPA on July 24, 2009, and May 11, 2009, respectively. Pursuant to section 106, 

and as the Commission’s designated non-federal representative, York Haven Power 

consulted with the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and affected 

Indian tribes, and Exelon consulted with the Pennsylvania and Maryland SHPOs to 

locate, determine National Register eligibility, and assess potential adverse effects on 

historic properties associated with the projects. 

In April 2012, York Haven Power prepared a draft Historic Properties 

Management Plan (HPMP) to address project-related effects on historic properties and 

unevaluated cultural resources. The Pennsylvania SHPO provided comments on the draft 

HPMP (letter from D.C. McClearen, Chief, Division of Archaeology and Protection, 

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Bureau for Historic Preservation, 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to D. Weaver, York Haven Power Company, York Haven, 

Pennsylvania, September 14, 2012), and York Haven Power addressed those comments 

in a revised HPMP filed with the Commission on December 28, 2012 (Stallings and 

Franz, 2012). 

In its application, Exelon stated that continued operation of the Muddy Run 

Project would not affect historic properties that are listed or eligible for listing on the 

National Register. For this reason, an HPMP for the Muddy Run Project was not 

developed. However, Exelon proposes a license article that would require section 106 

consultation prior to any project-related ground-disturbing activity, including recreational 

development, and a requirement to develop a cultural resources management plan should 

any previously unidentified cultural materials be discovered during project activities. 

In December 2012, Exelon prepared an HPMP to address project-related effects on 

historic properties and unevaluated cultural resources at the Conowingo Project (Sara et 

al., 2012). No comments on the HPMP received from the Pennsylvania SHPO or 

Maryland SHPO have been filed with the Commission. On October 17, 2014, the 

Onondaga Nation filed comments on the HPMP. 

To meet the requirements of section 106, the Commission intends to execute 

Programmatic Agreements (PAs) for the protection of historic properties from the effects 

of the operation of the York Haven Project, Muddy Run Project, and Conowingo Project. 

The terms of the PAs would ensure that York Haven Power and Exelon address and treat 

all historic properties identified within the projects’ areas of potential effects (APE) 

through the finalization of the existing draft HPMPs for the York Haven Project and the 

Conowingo Project and the development of an HPMP for the Muddy Run Project. Draft 

PAs were issued for each project on September 8, 2014. York Haven Power filed 

comments on the York Haven PA on October 9, 2014, and the Onondaga Nation filed 

comments on the draft PAs for the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects on 

October 17, 2014. 
20 

1.3.6 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires 

federal agencies to consult with NMFS on all actions that may adversely affect essential 

fish habitat. In correspondence during scoping, in response to the ready for 

environmental analysis notices, and in comments filed on the draft EIS, NMFS did not 

identify any essential fish habitat in segments of the Susquehanna River affected by the 

projects. Therefore, we conclude that the Susquehanna River Projects would have no 

effect on essential fish habitat. 

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT 

The Commission’s regulations (18 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 

§§5.1-5.16) require that applicants consult with appropriate resource agencies, tribes, and 

other entities before filing an application for a license. This consultation is the first step 

in complying with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, ESA, NHPA, and other 

federal statutes. Prefiling consultation must be complete and documented according to 

the Commission’s regulations 

1.4.1 Scoping 

Before preparing the draft EIS, we conducted scoping to determine what issues 

and alternatives should be addressed. Scoping documents (SD1s) were distributed to 

interested agencies and others for the York Haven Project on July 24, 2009, and for the 

Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects on May 11, 2009. A publicly noticed scoping 

meeting for the York Haven Project was held in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, during 

the evening of August 26, 2009, and a second daytime meeting was held in Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania, on August 27, 2009. A publicly noticed evening scoping meeting for the 

Muddy Run Project was held on June 10, 2009, in Holtwood, Pennsylvania, and for the 

Conowingo Project on June 11, 2009, in Darlington, Maryland. A joint daytime meeting 

to discuss both the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects was held on June 12, 2009, in 

Darlington, Maryland. A court reporter recorded all comments and statements made at 

the scoping meetings, and these are part of the Commission’s public record for the 

projects. In addition to comments provided at the scoping meetings, the following 

entities provided written comments. 

Commenting Entities Date Filed

York Haven Project

York Haven Planning Commission August 7, 2009

Honorable Todd Platts September 21, 2009 

Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources September 24, 2009 

York Haven Power Company, LLC September 28, 2009 

Borough of Goldsboro September 28, 2009 

The Nature Conservancy September 29, 2009 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service September 29, 2009 
21 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission September 29, 2009 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission September 29, 2009 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC September 29, 2009 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers September 29, 2009 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection September 29, 2009 

James Toothaker October 5, 2009

Cynthia Gross October 5, 2009

Muddy Run Project

Maryland Department of Natural Resources July 10, 2009 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission July 10, 2009 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service July 10, 2009 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission July 10, 2009 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection July 10, 2009 

Conowingo Project 

Town of Port Deposit June 16, 2009

Alex Balboa June 19, 2009

Ronald Steelman July 6, 2009 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission July 10, 2009 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources July 10, 2009 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission July 10, 2009 

Robert B. Campbell July 13, 2009 

Jere Hess July 13, 2009 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection July 13, 2009 

Lower Susquehanna River Keeper July 13, 2009 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service July 13, 2009 

Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin August 3, 2009

Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects

American Rivers July 10, 2009 

Exelon Corporation July 10, 2009 

Lancaster County Planning Commission July 10, 2009 

The Nature Conservancy July 10, 2009 

National Marine Fisheries Service July 10, 2009 

PPL Holtwood, LLC July 10, 2009 
22 

In addition to the commenting entities listed above for the York Haven Project, 

more than 1,400 individuals signed petitions that were filed between September 12 and 

October 5, 2009, opposed to the decommissioning of the York Haven Project.30

A revised scoping document addressing these comments was issued for the York 

Haven Project on November 13, 2009, and on August 24, 2009, for the Muddy Run and 

Conowingo Projects. 

1.4.2 Interventions

On April 29, 2013, the Commission issued notices accepting the York Haven 

Power and Exelon applications to relicense the York Haven, Muddy Run, and 

Conowingo Projects, and soliciting motions to intervene. These notices set 

September 30, 2013, as the deadline for filing protests and motions to intervene; 

however, by notices issued August 30, 2013, and December 13, 2013, the Commission 

granted extensions of time for stakeholders to file motions to intervene and protests until 

January 31, 2014. In response to the notices, the following entities filed motions 

to intervene:

Intervenors Date Filed

York Haven Project

PPL Brunner Island, LLC November 13, 2012

U.S. Department of the Interior May 31, 2013

Susquehanna River Basin Commission June 11, 2013

Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation June 17, 2013

PPL Holtwood, LLC June 20, 2013

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection June 21, 2013

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission June 21, 2013

New Energy Capital Partners, LLC31 October 21, 2013

Exelon Corporation December 5, 2013

The Nature Conservancy January 31, 2014

 

30 A number of federal and state resource agencies, SRBC, and The Nature 

Conservancy recommended that the Commission consider decommissioning as a 

reasonable alternative to relicensing. The Borough of Goldsboro, York Haven Power, 

and a petition signed by more than 1,400 individuals, requested that the Commission not 

consider project decommissioning as a reasonable alternative to relicensing. Those 

opposed to project decommissioning cite the potential loss of Lake Frederic, a significant 

economic and recreation resource in the area. 

31 On November 4, 2013, York Haven Power filed a motion in opposition to the 

intervention of New Energy Capital Partners, LLC. The Commission issued a notice 

granting intervention on June 12, 2014. 
23 

Intervenors Date Filed

American Rivers January 31, 2014

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland 

Department of the Environment January 31, 2014

Muddy Run Project

PPL Holtwood, LLC November 13, 2012

U.S. Department of the Interior May 31, 2013

Susquehanna River Basin Commission June 11, 2013

Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation June 17, 2013

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection June 21, 2013

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission June 21, 2013

New Energy Capital Partners, LLC September 27, 2013

Olympus Power Company, LLC December 6, 2013

National Marine Fisheries Service January 31, 2014

The Nature Conservancy January 31, 2014

American Rivers January 31, 2014

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland 

Department of the Environment January 31, 2014

Conowingo Project

Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc. September 7, 2012

PPL Holtwood, LLC November 13, 2012

U.S. Department of the Interior May 31, 2013

Susquehanna River Basin Commission June 11, 2013

Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation June 17, 2013

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection June 21, 2013

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission June 21, 2013

Clean Chesapeake Coalition June 25, 2013

Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc., Lower 

Susquehanna Riverkeeper, and Waterkeepers 

Chesapeake

July 17, 2013

Calpine Corporation July 24, 2013

Chesapeake Conservancy July 24, 2013

Chesapeake Bay Foundation August 20, 2013

Mason-Dixon Trail System, Inc. September 5, 2013

Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future September 25, 2013

New Energy Capital Partners, LLC September 27, 2013

Cecil Land Use Association October 30, 2013

Olympus Power Company, LLC December 6, 2013

Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy, Inc. December 11, 2013

Chester River Association and Sassafras River 

Association December 23, 2013

Onondaga Nation December 24, 2013

National Marine Fisheries Service January 30, 2014
24 

Intervenors Date Filed

The Nature Conservancy January 31, 2014

American Rivers January 31, 2014

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland 

Department of the Environment January 31, 2014

1.4.3 Comments on the Application 

On April 29, 2013, the Commission issued Ready for Environmental Analysis 

notices for the three projects and requested comments, recommendations, preliminary 

terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions. By notices issued 

August 30, 2013, and December 13, 2013, the Commission granted extensions of time for 

stakeholders to file comments, recommendations, and terms and conditions until 

January 31, 2014. The following entities filed comments, terms and conditions, 

recommendations, or prescriptions: 

Commenting Agencies and Other Entities Date Filed

York Haven Project

Lancaster County Conservancy January 17, 2014

U.S. Department of the Interior January 30, 2014

The Nature Conservancy et al. January 31, 2014

American Rivers et al. January 31, 2014

Muddy Run Project

New Energy Capital Partners

Lancaster County Conservancy

National Marine Fisheries Service

November 22, 2013

January 17, 2014

January 31, 2014

U.S. Department of the Interior January 31, 2014

American Rivers et al. January 31, 2014

The Nature Conservancy et al. January 31, 2014

Conowingo Project

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

New Energy Capital Partners

Henry Immanuel

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

Chesapeake Conservancy

Vicki Rinkerman

Lancaster County Conservancy

Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy

August 6, 2013

November 19, 2013

November 19, 2013

December 11, 2013

December 13, 2013

December 13, 2013

January 17, 2014

January 29, 2014

National Marine Fisheries Service January 30, 2014

Citizens For Pennsylvania’s Future January 31, 2014

Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources and 

Department of the Environment

January 31, 2014

Clean Chesapeake Coalition January 31, 2014

City of Havre de Grace January 31, 2014
25 

Commenting Agencies and Other Entities Date Filed

Town of Fort Deposit, Maryland January 31, 2014

Town of Perryville, Maryland January 31, 2014

Susquehanna River Basin Commission January 31, 2014

Harford County Government January 31, 2014

Cecil County Government January 31, 2014

Power Plant Research Program January 31, 2014

Chesapeake Bay Foundation January 31, 2014

Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway Inc. January 31, 2014

Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc. January 31, 2014

U.S. Department of the Interior January 31, 2014

American Rivers et al. January 31, 2014

The Nature Conservancy et al. January 31, 2014

1.5 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

On January 30, 2014, York Haven Power, FWS, Pennsylvania FBC, Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources (Maryland DNR), and SRBC32 (Settling Parties) filed a 

Settlement Agreement for the York Haven Project. 

The Settlement Agreement resolves among the Settling Parties all issues 

associated with issuance of a new license for the project regarding upstream passage of 

American shad and American eels, downstream passage of juvenile and post-spawning 

American shad, downstream passage of silver stage American eel, resident fish passage, 

flow management, water quality and debris management, and endangered species and 

species of special concern. We consider the Settlement Agreement to represent the 

Proposed Action regarding these issues for this project. 

 

32 SRBC was established by the Susquehanna River Basin Compact, a federal 

interstate agreement among New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the United States 

(Pub. L. No. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509 [1970]). Pursuant to the Compact, SRBC has specific 

duties that include developing and effectuating plans, policies, and projects relating to 

water resources; adopting, promoting, and coordinating policies and standards for water 

resources conservation, control, utilization, and management; and promoting and 

implementing the planning, development, and financing of water resource projects within 

the Susquehanna River Basin. 

In 1975, the Commission and SRBC entered into a Memorandum of 

Understanding. Under the November 5, 1975, Memorandum of Understanding, the 

Commission and SRBC committed to cooperate in the processing of license applications 

to the extent feasible, and the Commission agreed to give due regard to any SRBC 

recommendations. 
26 

On February 19, 2014, the Commission issued a Notice of Settlement Agreement. 

In response to that notice, PPL Brunner Island, LLC, filed a Protest and Comment in 

Opposition to the proposed Settlement Agreement. The basis for the opposition is that 

during low-flow periods, the measures specified in the Settlement Agreement could limit 

the amount of water available for withdrawal by the downstream Brunner Island Steam 

Electric Station which would restrict generation. York Haven Power filed a response to 

the opposition on March 4, 2014. On December 29, 2014, in its comments on the draft 

EIS, PPL Brunner Island, LLC withdrew its Protest and Comment in Opposition.33

1.6 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS

On July 30, 2014, Commission staff issued the draft EIS for the relicensing of the 

projects. Comments on the draft EIS were due by September 29, 2014. In addition, we 

conducted two public meetings on September 16, 2014, in Darlington, Maryland, and one 

public meeting on September 17, 2014, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to receive public 

comments on the draft EIS. In addition to comments received at the public meetings, 

written comments on the draft EIS were filed by the following entities:

Commenting Agencies and Other Entities Date Filed

York Haven Project

Pennsylvania Game Commission August 14, 2014

Hugh Rogers September 15, 2014

New Energy Capital Partners September 26, 2014

York Haven September 26, 2014

FWS/Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish 

Restoration Cooperative

September 29, 2014

Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Midshore 

Riverkeeper Conservancy

September 29, 2014

Onondaga Nation September 29, 2014

U.S. Department of the Interior34 September 29, 2014

Exelon September 29, 2014

State of Maryland35 September 29, 2014

Dr. Amy Roe September 29, 2014

 

33 We retain but modify our discussion of PPL Brunner Island, LLC’s concerns in 

sections 2 and 3, but removed the environmental measure that PPL Brunner Island, LLC 

had recommended from sections 4 and 5. 

34 Interior filed a comment letter for the Susquehanna River Projects that includes 

comments on behalf of the National Park Service and FWS. 

35 The State of Maryland filed comments on behalf of Maryland DNR and 

Maryland DOE. 
27 

Commenting Agencies and Other Entities Date Filed

National Marine Fisheries Service September 29, 2014

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency September 29, 2014

Susquehanna River Basin Commission September 29, 2014

The Nature Conservancy September 29, 2014

American Rivers September 29, 2014

Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Lower 

Susquehanna Riverkeeper, Waterkeepers Chesapeake

September 29, 2014

Clean Chesapeake Coalition September 29, 2014

Muddy Run Project

Pennsylvania Game Commission August 14, 2014

Hugh Rogers

Patrick Kelly

September 15, 2014

September 19, 2014

New Energy Capital Partners September 29, 2014

FWS/Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish 

Restoration Cooperative

Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Midshore 

Riverkeeper Conservancy

September 29, 2014

Onondaga Nation September 29, 2014

U.S. Department of the Interior September 29, 2014

National Marine Fisheries Service September 29, 2014

Exelon September 29, 2014

State of Maryland September 29, 2014

Dr. Amy Roe September 29, 2014

Susquehanna River Basin Commission September 29, 2014

The Nature Conservancy September 29, 2014

American Rivers September 29, 2014

Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Lower 

Susquehanna Riverkeeper, Waterkeepers Chesapeake

September 29, 2014

Clean Chesapeake Coalition September 29, 2014

Onondaga Nation October 17, 2014

Conowingo Project36

James Byrne August 8, 2014

Pennsylvania Game Commission August 14, 2014

Matt Teffeau August 21, 2014

Maryland Farm Bureau September 9, 2014

 

36 On January 9, 2015, an organization called “Support Conowingo Dam” filed a 

petition of support for the project that included 11,500 signatures. The organization, 

however, did not include any specific comments on the draft EIS. 
28 

Commenting Agencies and Other Entities Date Filed

Susquehanna River Boaters Association37 September 10, 2014

Hugh Rogers September 15, 2014

The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin September 19, 2014

Patrick Kelly September 19, 2014

Broad Creek Civic Association September 26, 2014

New Energy Capital Partners

Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission

September 26, 2014

Septembers 29, 2014

Susquehanna River Boaters Association38 September 29, 2014

FWS/Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish 

Restoration Cooperative

September 29, 2014

Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Midshore 

Riverkeeper Conservancy

September 29, 2014

Onondaga Nation September 29, 2014

U.S. Department of the Interior September 29, 2014

National Marine Fisheries Service September 29, 2014

Exelon Corporation September 29, 2014

State of Maryland September 29, 2014

Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future September 26, 2014

Dr. Amy Roe September 29, 2014 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency September 269 2014

Susquehanna River Basin Commission September 29, 2014

The Nature Conservancy September 29, 2014

American Rivers September 29, 2014

Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Lower 

Susquehanna Riverkeeper, Waterkeepers Chesapeake

September 29, 2014

Clean Chesapeake Coalition September 29, 2014

Onondaga Nation October 17, 2014

Appendix H summarizes all comments received, includes our responses to those 

comments, and indicates where we modified this final EIS. 

 

37 Motion to Intervene.

38 Susquehanna River Boaters Association filed a second Motion to Intervene on 

September 29, 2014. 
29 

2.0 PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the no-action alternative, the Susquehanna River Projects would continue to 

operate under the terms and conditions of the existing licenses, and no new 

environmental protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. 

We use this alternative to establish baseline environmental conditions for comparison 

with other alternatives and to judge the benefits and costs of any measures that might be 

required under a new license. 

2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities 

Figure 2-1 shows the location and project boundaries of the Susquehanna 

River Projects. 

2.1.1.1 York Haven Project

The project is located on the Susquehanna River in York, Dauphin, and 

Lancaster Counties in south central Pennsylvania (figure 2-2). The Susquehanna River 

Basin above York Haven dam has a drainage area of about 24,973 square miles. The 

project powerhouse is located at about RM 55, 17 miles downstream of the city 

of Harrisburg. 

The project is located upstream of the Muddy Run Project at about RM 22 and the 

Conowingo Project at about RM 10. The Three Mile Island nuclear station, also

owned by Exelon, is on Three Mile Island in Lake Frederic, the impoundment formed 

by York Haven dam. Pennsylvania Power and Light’s (PPL) Brunner Island Station, a 

coal-fired steam electric generating plant, is located about 1.5 miles downstream of 

the project.

The project includes an east channel dam, main dam, headrace wall, 

impoundment, powerhouse, substation, fish passage facilities, and recreation facilities. 

The project operates in a modified run-of-river mode, in that there is limited storage in 

the reservoir (about one hour worth of storage). During periods of moderate to high 

runoff in the Susquehanna River that exceed the station’s maximum hydraulic capacity 

(about 17,000 cubic feet per second [cfs] under optimal head conditions), the project 

cannot control water levels and spills water. Spills can occur at the main dam, headrace 

wall, and east channel structures.
30 

Figure 2-1. Location and project boundaries for lower Susquehanna River Projects 

(Source: staff).
31 

Figure 2-2. Project facilities for the York Haven Project (Source: staff).
32 

East channel dam is a concrete gravity overflow dam, which extends about 

928 feet in an easterly direction from the east shore of Three Mile Island to the east bank 

of the river. It has an average height of 9 feet. The crest of east channel dam is at 

elevation 278.95 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929,

39 and it incorporates a 

vertical slot fishway. 

The main dam extends diagonally downstream approximately 4,970 feet from the

west shore of Three Mile Island to the upstream (north) end of the headrace wall. The

main dam is constructed of concrete-covered rock fill and rock fill/timber crib sections 

with a maximum height at the crest of 18 feet and an average height of 10 feet. The crest 

elevation of the majority of the main dam crest ranges from 277.86 feet40 to 278.78 feet. 

Two short sections of the dam crest are at about elevation 280.00 to 280.20 feet. 

The stone masonry headrace wall extends 3,000 feet downstream from the

south end of the main dam to the powerhouse. The headrace wall serves to direct water 

to the powerhouse. The elevation of the crest of the headrace wall includes sections at 

elevations 280.00 and 282.45 feet. 

The project impoundment, Lake Frederic, is about 3.5 miles long with about

29 miles of shoreline within the project boundary, including the shoreline of the 

islands in Lake Frederic. The maximum depth of Lake Frederic is about 18 feet with a 

mean depth of about 6 feet. At the normal water surface elevation of 277.86 feet, 

Lake Frederic has a surface area of 2,218 acres and about 9,600 acre-feet of gross 

storage capacity. Usable storage capacity is limited to the allowable 1.1-foot fluctuation

providing about 1,700 acre-feet of storage, or about 1 hour of storage at the plant’s 

maximum hydraulic capacity. 

The brick and stone masonry powerhouse is about 472 feet long and 48 feet 

wide and is located parallel to the west bank of the Susquehanna River. This structure 

contains the turbines, generators, and appurtenant power generating equipment. Steel 

trashracks with 4-inch clear spacing are installed at the intakes at each of the

20 turbine-generator units. The forebay includes a trash sluice gate at its downstream 

end that is 14 feet wide and 10.5 feet high. The sluice gate is capable of releasing about 

600 cfs.

The powerhouse contains 20 turbine units with an installed capacity of 19.62 MW. 

Six are vertical shaft propeller turbines, and 14 are horizontal Francis turbines. 

 

39 Unless otherwise noted, all elevation data in this EIS are given in National 

Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929.

40 The value of 277.86 feet represents the low point of the main dam, which under 

current operations is considered to be the normal elevation when river flows are less than 

the maximum turbine capacity of about 17,000 cfs. 
33 

Each of the turbines has a fixed gate and, therefore, no adjustments can be made to 

discharge less than the maximum turbine discharge other than reducing the water level in 

Lake Frederic. The minimum discharge from the powerhouse is about 700 cfs and occurs 

when only Unit 14 is operating. The project does not include a traditional tailrace, and 

each of the units discharges directly into the Susquehanna River. 

The project includes an outdoor substation that contains the station’s generator 

step-up transformers, station service transformers, and manual switching structures. 

There are no primary transmission lines included as part of the project because it 

interconnects with the 115-kilovolt (kV) electric grid at a substation immediately 

downstream of the project’s downstream forebay wall. A secondary service feed comes 

into the project substation via Line No. 722 at 13.2 kV. 

The project includes an east channel upstream fish passage facility located at the 

western end of east channel dam, which has been operational since April 2000, includes 

two sections: a weir cut and a vertical-slot fish ladder. The weir cut section provides 

supplemental attraction flows to the fishway, and the upper portion of the weir cut 

includes three, 25-foot-diameter cofferdam cells between which two 20-foot-wide fixedwheel gates are installed, with each gate having a 1,000-cfs discharge capacity. The 

lower section of the weir cut includes a 67-foot-wide adjustable weir and a stop gate. 

The 250-foot-long fish ladder has an entrance diffuser, serpentine baffles that form eight 

pools, and an exit flume. A counting station is located in the exit channel just upstream 

of the last fish ladder pool. 

York Haven Project recreation facilities include: the Historic Canal Lock, East 

Shore Boat Launch, Goosehorn Island Picnic Area, Shelley Island Recreation Area, 

Goodling Island Picnic Area, Beshore Island Recreation Area, Battery Island Recreation 

Area, Cly Shore recreational lot sites, York Haven Power Plant Recreation Area, and a 

Canoe Portage trail. These facilities are owned and operated by York Haven Power. 

2.1.1.2 Muddy Run Project 

The Muddy Run Project (figure 2-3) is a pumped storage hydroelectric generating 

facility 22 miles upstream of the Chesapeake Bay on the eastern shoreline of the 

Susquehanna River, within Drumore and Martic Townships, Lancaster County, 

Pennsylvania. The project includes a Recreation Lake dam and spillway, main dam 

embankment, the east dike, upper reservoir spillway, canal dam embankment, upper 

reservoir (Muddy Run reservoir), intake structure, powerhouse, lower reservoir, a 

primary transmission line, and recreation facilities. 
34 

Figure 2-3. Project facilities for the Muddy Run Project (Source: staff).
35 

The Recreation Lake dam, located in the drainage for the upper reservoir about 2 

miles upstream of the main dam, is a zoned earth and rockfill embankment. The dam is 

approximately 750 feet long, and it has a maximum height of about 90 feet and a crest 

width of 34 feet. The crest of the non-overflow section of the Recreation Lake dam is at 

elevation 530.00 feet. The Recreation Lake dam includes a 4-foot-diameter concrete 

outlet pipe controlled from the upstream end by a flap gate. The Recreation Lake

spillway consists of a nearly level rock cut channel approximately 140 feet wide with a 

concrete weir at crest elevation 520.00 feet. The spillway is traversed by a steel and 

concrete bridge that is used by pedestrian traffic and recreation area maintenance 

vehicles. The Recreation Lake has a total storage capacity of 709 acre-feet and is 

maintained at a constant elevation of 520 feet for recreational purposes. The surface area 

is approximately 100 acres at that elevation.

The main embankment dam is constructed as a zoned embankment with an 

impervious core. The dam is 4,800 feet long and has a maximum height of 260 feet. The 

crest of the dam is at elevation 533.00 feet, and it is 34 feet wide and traversed by a 

20-foot-wide, two-lane roadway (River Road). The east dike is also a zoned earth and 

rock-fill embankment with an impervious core. The dike is approximately 800 feet long, 

has a crest width of 20 feet, and a maximum height of about 12 feet. The crest of the east 

dike is at elevation 530.80 feet. 

The upper reservoir 200-foot-long ogee spillway is located on the west side of the 

intake canal. The spillway is 20 feet high, has a crest elevation of 521 feet, and 

discharges into a vegetated natural ravine that joins Muddy Run Creek just above its 

confluence with the Susquehanna River. The spillway is constructed within the canal 

dike and is flanked by concrete retaining walls. Since initial filling of the upper reservoir 

in 1967, the spillway has never been required to pass discharges from either natural 

inflows or over-pumping. 

The canal embankment (also referred to as the intake channel dam), forms the 

upper part of the intake channel, which leads from the upper reservoir to the powerhouse 

intake structure. The lower part of the channel is excavated in rock. The embankment 

has a maximum height of about 35 feet and a minimum crest width of 25 feet. The 

upstream face of the embankment and the rock cut channel are lined with a 9-inch-thick 

reinforced concrete slab extending about 1,000 feet upstream on both sides of the canal 

from the powerhouse intake structure. The upstream portion of the canal is an unlined 

soil and rock cut. A bridge for River Road crosses this section of the canal.

The normal operating elevation of the upper reservoir ranges from 470 to 520 feet. 

At elevation 520 feet, the upper reservoir has a total storage capacity of 56,731 acre-feet 

with a usable capacity of 33,894 acre-feet, and a surface area of 892 acres. At the 

maximum drawdown elevation (470 feet), the upper reservoir has a surface area of 

471 acres.

The intake structure consists of four cylinder gates with trashracks having clear 

spacing of 5.37 inches. Each intake supplies two units and includes a cylindrical tower 
36 

that leads to a 430-foot-deep vertical shaft. The vertical shaft and horizontal power 

tunnels are concrete lined with a diameter of 24.50 feet. The concrete-lined power 

tunnels bifurcate approximately 500 feet upstream of the powerhouse, transitioning to 

14-foot-diameter steel penstocks that connect to one of eight pump turbine units in the 

powerhouse. There are no inlet valves at the downstream end of the penstocks. 

The Muddy Run powerhouse is approximately 600 feet long by 133 feet wide, and 

is constructed entirely of concrete. The powerhouse is a semi-outdoor structure located 

on the east bank of the Susquehanna River and contains eight vertical-shaft, reversible 

pump-generating units that each have a rated capacity of 100 MW and a hydraulic 

capacity of 4,000 cfs, for a total discharge capacity of 32,000 cfs. The pumping capacity 

of the pump turbines is 3,500 cfs each, for a total powerhouse pumping capability of 

28,000 cfs. The units are equipped with trashracks, also with clear spacing of 5.75 

inches, between the draft tube outlet and the river. 

The lower reservoir for the Muddy Run Project is Conowingo Pond, which is a 

portion of the Susquehanna River impounded by Conowingo dam. The lower reservoir 

has a total surface area of approximately 8,500 acres and approximately 310,000 acre-feet 

of gross storage at the maximum normal level of 109.2 feet. 

The primary transmission line consists of two 230-kV three-phase, three-wire 

circuits. The lines, owned by Exelon, but leased to the PECO Energy Company, an 

affiliate of Exelon, are identified as lines 220-06 and 220-07. Both lines begin at a 220-

kV switching station on the roof of the powerhouse and run about 4.25 miles to the Peach 

Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS) North Substation located in York County. 

Muddy Run Project recreation facilities include: (1) Muddy Run Park (owned by 

Exelon, operated by a vendor); (2) Wissler’s Run Park (owned and operated by Exelon); 

and (3) Muddy Run Wildlife Management Area (WMA) (owned by Exelon and leased 

and managed by Pennsylvania Game Commission). 

Exelon holds title or rights to all project lands within the project boundary. The 

project boundary encompasses all of the project facilities and lands required for project 

operation and maintenance. However, only a portion of the 800-acre Muddy Run WMA 

is within the existing project boundary.

2.1.1.3 Conowingo Project 

The Conowingo Project (figure 2-4) consists of a main dam, spillway, reservoir 

(Conowingo Pond), intake structure, powerhouse, two fish lifts, and recreation facilities. 

The dam is a concrete gravity dam with a maximum height of 94 feet and a total length of 

4,648 feet. The dam has four distinct sections from east to west: a 1,190-foot-long,

non-overflow gravity section with a crest elevation of 115.70 feet; an ogee-shaped 

spillway, the major portion of which is 2,250 feet long with a crest elevation of 86.70 

feet, and the minor portion of which is 135 feet long with a crest elevation of 99.2 feet; an 

intake-powerhouse section which is 946 feet long; and a 127-foot-long abutment section. 
37 

Figure 2-4. Project facilities for the Conowingo Project (Source: staff).
38 

The tailrace and spillway sections of the dam are separated by a dividing wall 

extending 300 feet downstream of the powerhouse. The dam and powerhouse also 

support U.S. Route No. 1 which passes over the top of Conowingo dam.

Flow over the ogee spillway sections is controlled by 50 stony-type crest gates 

with crest elevations of 86.70 feet and two regulating gates with crest elevations of 

99.2 feet. Each crest gate is 22.50 feet high by 38 feet wide, and the gates have a 

collective discharge capacity of about 16,000 cfs at a reservoir elevation of 109.2 feet.

The two regulating gates are 10 feet high by 38 feet wide and have a discharge 

capacity of about 4,000 cfs per gate at a reservoir elevation of 109.2 feet. The effective 

usable storage between the licensed minimum and maximum pond elevations of 

101.2 feet and 110.2 feet is 75,287 acre-feet. 

Conowingo Pond extends 14 miles upstream from Conowingo dam to the lower 

end of the Holtwood Project (FERC Project No. 1881) tailrace. Conowingo Pond is 

generally maintained at an elevation of 109.2 feet, with a surface area of about 

8,500 acres and a total design capacity of 310,000 acre-feet at that elevation. The pond 

serves as the lower reservoir for the Muddy Run Project, located 12 miles upstream of 

Conowingo dam.

The intakes for each turbine are individually protected by seven trashracks; the 

five lower racks are entirely steel with a clear spacing of 5.37 inches, and top two are 

steel-framed with wood racks with a clear spacing of 4.75 inches. 

The 13 project generating units have a total installed capacity of 574.54 MW. The 

estimated total maximum hydraulic capacity of the project is about 86,000 cfs under 

optimum head conditions. Units 1 through 7 and the two house (station service) units are 

completely enclosed within the powerhouse, while Units 8 through 11 are of outdoor type 

construction, without superstructure.

The powerhouse enclosing Units 1 through 7 includes a generator room and an 

electrical bay. The electrical bay is located between the generator room and the 

powerhouse intakes and consists of the 13.8-kV bus and switching equipment. 

The tailrace is approximately 2,800 feet long, extending from the powerhouse to 

the downstream end of Rowland Island. The tailrace width ranges from about 900 feet 

near the powerhouse to 1,500 feet near Rowland Island. The tailwater elevation 

downstream of the dam, which varies with discharge, is at an approximate elevation of 

20.5 feet with all units operating with no spillway discharge. 

The project currently operates two fish lifts: the west fish lift and the newer east 

fish lift. There are no primary transmission lines associated with the project. Electricity 

generated at the project is transmitted by two 220-kV generator leads extending from the 

project substation to the East Nottingham substation. 

The Conowingo Project recreation facilities include: Lock 13, Lock 15, Muddy 

Creek Boat Launch, Cold Cabin Boat Launch, Dorsey Park, Line Bridge, Broad Creek 
39 

Public Landing, Glen Cove Marina, Conowingo Swimming Pool and Visitor’s Center, 

Peach Bottom Marina, Conowingo Creek Boat Launch, Funk’s Pond, Fisherman’s 

Park/Shures Landing, Conowingo Dam Overlook, and the Octoraro Creek Access area. 

Exelon operates seven of these facilities and leases the other eight to local and state 

entities or commercial operators. 

Exelon holds title or rights to all of the lands within the project boundary. The 

project boundary encompasses all of the project facilities and lands required for project 

operation and maintenance. 

2.1.2 Project Safety 

The York Haven Project has been operating for almost 110 years under past and 

current licenses (current license issued in 1980). The Muddy Run Project has been 

operating for almost 47 years under the existing license issued in 1964, and the 

Conowingo Project has been operating for almost 86 years under previous and the current

licenses (current license issued in 1980). During this time, Commission staff has 

conducted operational inspections focusing on the continued safety of the structures, 

identification of unauthorized modifications, efficiency and safety of operations, 

compliance with the terms of the licenses, and proper maintenance. The York Haven 

Project was exempted from the requirement to file Part 12 independent consultant safety 

inspection reports every 5 years. The Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects have been 

inspected and evaluated every 5 years by an independent consultant, and a consultant’s 

safety report has been submitted for Commission review. As part of the relicensing 

process, the Commission staff would evaluate the continued adequacy of the proposed 

project facilities under new licenses. Special articles would be included in any license 

issued, as appropriate. Commission staff would continue to inspect the projects during 

the new license terms to assure continued adherence to Commission-approved plans and 

specifications, special license articles relating to construction (if any), operation and 

maintenance, and accepted engineering practices and procedures. 

2.1.3 Existing Project Operation 

2.1.3.1 York Haven Project

The York Haven Project is operated in a run-of-river mode and maintains a normal 

pool elevation of 277.86 feet under low to moderate flow conditions (<17,000 cfs). 

Under low-flow conditions, York Haven Power has the ability to draw down the 

impoundment by up to 1.10 feet, generally for purposes of dam maintenance. During 

periods of moderate to high flow conditions (>17,000 cfs), the project turbines cannot 

control water levels and the impoundment elevation varies above normal pool elevation 

depending upon river flow. Under these conditions, water overtops the main dam, east 

channel dam, and headrace walls when their crest elevations are exceeded. 

Flows required by the current license are discussed in section 2.1.4.1, Existing 

Environmental Measures, York Haven Project. A license requirement to maintain 
40 

continuous flow is accomplished by maintaining at least two of the York Haven turbines 

operating at full gate providing approximately 1,000 to 1,500 cfs downstream and 

supplementing the turbine discharge with spill over the main dam spillway. 

The York Haven powerhouse is manually operated at all times with two operators 

on duty during the day and one operator on duty at night. During normal operation, units 

are brought on-line based on anticipated flow rates given that the only available method 

of flow control at the project is through on/off operation of each of the 20 generating 

turbines. Project outflow adjustments typically occur in 700- to 1,100-cfs increments, up 

to the station hydraulic capacity. Historically, adjustments are made during the day-shift 

or at a shift change. Project operators ensure run-of-river operation through a series of 

checks and balances, monitoring operation and streamflow gage data, observing 

impoundment elevations, and applying project operational experience. 

2.1.3.2 Muddy Run Project

The Muddy Run Project is a pumped storage hydroelectric facility. Water is 

pumped from the lower reservoir (Conowingo Pond) to the upper reservoir which has 

33,894 acre-feet of active storage available for pumped storage operation. Typically, 

pumping occurs during low-load periods when energy costs are low, while generation 

occurs during high-load periods. 

The Muddy Run Project is typically operated from control panels at the Muddy 

Run powerhouse. The project, however, has automatic generation control equipment 

capable of starting, running, and stopping the units. This equipment permits remote 

operation of the plant in generation mode from the corporate office in Kennett Square,

Pennsylvania.

Operation of the Muddy Run Project is generally not affected by changes in 

hydrologic conditions when compared to conventional hydroelectric projects. Pumped 

storage projects are typically considered to be closed systems, in that they maintain a 

usable volume of water that is cycled between the upper and lower reservoirs without the 

need to store or use water flowing through the project from the upper reaches of the 

drainage basin. Given this, the operation of the Muddy Run Project depends upon 

maintaining a specific total usable volume of water between the Muddy Run upper 

reservoir and Conowingo Pond, to limit effects on power production.

During mean flow years, flow issues do not typically arise at the project, as there 

are sufficient flows to maintain the total usable volume of water for project operation and 

to provide flows downstream of Conowingo dam. During a high-flow year, the project 

also has sufficient water available to maintain the total usable volume in the system, 

while also passing higher levels of flow downstream. 

However, during extreme high-flow events, project operation could be affected by 

having excess water in the system. Exelon typically adjusts Muddy Run operation to 

reduce the levels in the upper reservoir prior to high Susquehanna River flow conditions. 

This allows the upper reservoir to be re-filled during high-flow periods and possibly 
41 

reduce spill conditions at Conowingo dam. Extended periods of high-flow conditions 

(potential spill situation at Conowingo dam) could reduce the generation at the Muddy

Run Project when Conowingo Pond is at or near full pond conditions, in order to reduce 

spill over Conowingo dam. 

During adverse water years, with limited inflow, the water management for the 

project requires adjustments in the generation cycle. The most typical occurrence is a 

reduction in the total usable volume of water available for project operation. The extent 

of the adjustments in flow and the volume of water retained in the Muddy Run upper 

reservoir and Conowingo Pond depends upon the level of low flow experienced, as well 

as the length of time of the adverse low-flow conditions. Maintaining the licensed 

Conowingo Pond levels and minimum flow requirements below Conowingo dam are the 

primary factors affecting the total usable volume of water. 

2.1.3.3 Conowingo Project

The Conowingo Project is a peaking hydroelectric facility that uses a limited active 

storage reservoir to generate during peak electricity demand periods. The project is typically 

operated semi-automatically as the generation setting (in MW) is programmed into the 

control system; however, turbines are brought on- line manually by an operator to ensure an 

efficient start-up until the generation setting is reached. At times, the project is also operated 

in either full manual or automatic mode, and this type of operation is typically dictated by the 

prevailing river flow and system load conditions. The current Conowingo Project license 

allows for the Conowingo Pond to fluctuate between elevation 101.2 feet and 110.2 feet. 

There are critical water levels associated with water withdrawals that influence reservoir 

levels in Conowingo Pond (see section 3.3.2, Water Resources, for details). 

The current flow regime downstream of Conowingo dam is as follows:

Date Minimum Flow

March 1 - March 31 3,500 cfs or natural inflow (as measured at the 

USGS Marietta gage), whichever is less;

April 1 - April 30 10,000 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is less;

May 1 - May 31 7,500 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is less;

June 1 - September 14 5,000 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is less;

September 15 - November 30 3,500 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is less; and

December 1 - February 28 3,500 cfs intermittent (maximum 6 hours off 

followed by equal amount on).

The downstream discharge must equal these values or the discharge measured at 

the Susquehanna River at the USGS Marietta gage (No. 01576000), whichever is less. 

The Marietta gage is located about 35 miles upstream of Conowingo dam above Safe 

Harbor dam. The gage is generally considered reflective of the lower Susquehanna 
42 

River’s natural flow regime. During high electrical demand periods with low inflow 

Exelon uses water from the available Conowingo Pond storage (within its license 

constraints) to meet this demand. During non-peak periods of electrical demand, some 

combination of turbine units is used to provide the minimum flow requirements at the 

project. When inflows are below the minimum turbine capacity, any additional water 

needed to meet minimum flow requirements would be taken from storage. 

During periods of regional drought and low river flow, Exelon has on six

occasions over the period 1998 to 2014 (1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2005, and 2007) 

requested and received Commission approval for a temporary variance in the required 

minimum flow release from the Conowingo Project. When requested, Exelon seeks to 

have the leakage from the Conowingo Project (approximately 800 cfs) count towards its 

minimum flow requirement at that project. This temporary variance is typically approved 

by the Commission following receipt of comments from consulted resource agencies (i.e., 

SRBC, Maryland DNR, Pennsylvania FBC, and FWS). When implemented, the 

temporary variance allows Exelon to maintain an adequate pond level elevation and 

storage capacity throughout a low-flow period, not only for electric generating capacity, 

but also to ensure an adequate water supply is available for recreational interests and 

consumptive water usage on Conowingo Pond.

41

During high-flow events, typically all units are operated at maximum wicket gate 

opening and crest gate operation is used to pass the remainder of the streamflow. Under 

such conditions, Conowingo Pond is usually kept near elevation 109.2 feet to prevent 

splashing of water onto the U.S. Route 1 roadway and debris from "floating over" the 

closed crest gates. There is a skimmer beam, bottom elevation 109.2 feet, that provides 

protection to motorists and prevents floating debris from going over the closed crest 

gates, whose top elevation is 110.2 feet. 

2.1.4 Existing Environmental Measures 

2.1.4.1 York Haven Project

Article 30 of the current FERC license requires York Haven Power to discharge a 

continuous minimum flow of 1,000 cfs from the powerhouse and an average daily flow 

of not less than 2,500 cfs, unless the inflow to the impoundment is less than these 

amounts, in which case the discharge from the project shall not be less than the inflow. 

 

41 This leakage credit, however, may also be adjusted in consideration of the 

operation of PBAPS. Per the Consumptive Use Mitigation Plan for PBAPS, approved by 

SRBC on August 3, 2012, mitigation releases are accounted for by the Conowingo 

Project via leakage through the non-operating turbines. The Plan calls for a reduction in 

the leakage credit waiver request amount during August, September, and October by 220 

cfs during low-flow conditions to provide for PBAPS mitigation. 
43 

These flows may be temporarily modified if required due to operating emergencies 

beyond the control of York Haven Power. 

The project includes a weir cut and vertical-slot fish ladder at the east channel 

dam, which became operational in 2000. When the east channel fish ladder is operated 

for the upstream migration of adult American shad (typically mid-April to mid-June), 

York Haven Power is required to spill 4,000 cfs at the main dam and to release 2,000 cfs 

at the east channel dam, which includes 67 cfs provided directly through the fish ladder. 

After the American shad upstream passage season and during the resident fish passage 

period, the project maintains a minimum flow of 400 cfs in the east channel until the 

seasonal closure of the fish ladder. Fish ladder closure occurs the earlier of December 15 

or when average daily river water temperature is equal to or less than 40°F for 

3 consecutive days.

Downstream passage for adult and juvenile American shad is provided at the 

powerhouse by an operating protocol that includes: (1) when river flow is less than the 

project hydraulic capacity, prioritization of powerhouse generation through units 1 

through 6 (propeller units) on a first-on/last-off basis, followed by units 7 through 20 

(Francis units); (2) opening the forebay sluice gate located in the lower forebay corner 

adjacent to unit 1 for downstream fish passage; and (3) using temporary lighting above 

the forebay sluice gate to aid in attracting alosine species to the sluice gate exit.42 At 

river flow greater than project hydraulic capacity, which occurs about 60 percent of the 

time, downstream fish passage occurs via spillage over the dam.

York Haven Power owns and operates the following project recreation facilities: 

the Historic Canal Lock, East Shore Boat Launch, Goosehorn Island Picnic Area, Shelley 

Island Recreation Area, Goodling Island Picnic Area, Beshore Island Recreation Area, 

Battery Island Recreation Area, Cly Shore recreational lot sites, York Haven Power Plant 

Recreation Area, and Canoe Portage trail. In addition, York Haven Power implements a 

recreational lot permitting program to accommodate boating, fishing, and other 

day-use activities.

2.1.4.2 Muddy Run Project 

Prior to predicted high Susquehanna River flow events, Exelon typically 

voluntarily adjusts Muddy Run operation to reduce the levels in the upper reservoir. 

This allows the upper reservoir to be re-filled during high-flow periods and possibly 

reduce spill conditions at Conowingo dam. 

 

42 This downstream passage protocol was reported to the Commission by filing of 

a “Downstream Passage Report” on March 19, 2002. That report was required by 

Ordering Paragraph (C) of the Commission’s June 30, 1994, Order Approving Fish 

Passage Settlement Agreement, which was the agreement that led to the eventual 

construction of the east channel fish ladder. 
44 

Exelon maintains three recreation areas at the project. The primary project 

recreation site is Muddy Run Park, a 700-acre park that includes day-use areas, a 189-site 

campground, the 100-acre Recreation Lake that abuts the upper reservoir, and a visitor 

information center. Immediately downstream of the powerhouse is Wissler’s Run Park, a 

day-use area with parking for 130 vehicles. In addition, the project includes the 800-acre 

Muddy Run WMA, located on project and non-project land. Roads and trails within this 

area provide access for hunters, hikers, birders, and equestrians.

2.1.4.3 Conowingo Project 

The current license allows Conowingo Pond to fluctuate between elevation 101.2 

and 110.2 feet, except on weekends between Memorial Day and Labor Day, when the 

elevation must be at or above 107.2 feet to meet recreational needs. However, other 

operating constraints (see section 3.3.2, Water Resources, for details) result in 

Conowingo Pond typically being maintained at or above elevation 109.2 feet. Pursuant 

to a Settlement Agreement approved by the Commission on January 24, 1989, Exelon 

operates the east and west fish lifts at Conowingo dam, and maintains seasonal minimum 

flows downstream of the dam ranging from 3,500 to 10,000 cfs, and described in more 

detail in section 2.1.3.3, Existing Project Operation, Conowingo Project. Article 37 of 

the current license includes provisions to protect cultural resources. 

Exelon currently enhances DO by a turbine venting system at units 1-7 and 

aerating runners at units 2 and 5. Downstream DO is continuously monitored by Exelon 

from May 1 through October 1. Exelon also removes floating and submerged debris 

from in front of the powerhouse intakes and sponsors community-based clean-ups at 

Conowingo Pond and downstream of Conowingo dam.

Exelon provides 16 project-related recreation facilities that include parks, day-use 

areas, marinas, boat launches, and a visitor center: (1) Lock 13; (2) Lock 15; (3) Muddy 

Creek Boat Launch; (4) Cold Cabin Boat Launch; (5) Dorsey Park; (6) Line Bridge; 

(7) Broad Creek Public Landing; (8) Glen Cove Marina; (9) Conowingo Swimming Pool 

and Visitor’s Center; (10) Peach Bottom Marina; (11) Conowingo Creek Boat Launch; 

(12) Funk’s Pond; (13) Fisherman’s Park/Shures Landing; (14) Octoraro Creek Access; 

(15) 3.5 miles of the Mason-Dixon Trail; (16) and the Susquehanna State Park. 
45 

2.2 APPLICANTS’ PROPOSALS 

2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities

York Haven Power proposes to construct a nature-like fishway43 at the north end 

of the York Haven Project main dam where it abuts Three Mile Island. Construction 

would require modifications to the north end of the dam. No other modifications are 

proposed to project facilities. 

No modifications are proposed to project facilities at the Muddy Run Project. 

Exelon proposes to construct an eel trap and transport facility on the west side of 

the Conowingo Project tailrace, and to construct a similar facility on the east side of the 

river on Octoraro Creek. No other modifications to project facilities are proposed at the 

Conowingo Project. 

2.2.2 Proposed Project Operation

In conjunction with the construction of the nature-like fishway, York Haven 

Power proposes to modify project flow releases to provide fish passage attraction flows 

to the nature-like fishway and to establish the nature-like fishway as the primary fish 

passage facility and the existing east channel fishway as the secondary passage facility. 

The proposed flow release changes would redistribute minimum flow releases among the 

various project flow release structures (east channel spillway, east channel fishway, 

nature-like fishway, main dam, and powerhouse). The overall project minimum flow 

requirements downstream of the project would not change. The flow release changes are 

also discussed in section 2.2.3.1, Proposed Environmental Measures, York 

Haven Project. 

No modifications to Muddy Run or Conowingo project operation are proposed. 

2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures

2.2.3.1 York Haven Project

The Settlement Agreement resolves among the Settling Parties all issues

associated with issuance of a new license for the project regarding upstream passage of 

American shad and American eels, downstream passage of juvenile and post-spawning 

American shad, downstream passage of silver stage American eel, resident fish passage, 

flow management, water quality and debris management, and endangered species and 

species of special concern. We consider the Settlement Agreement to represent the 

 

43 A nature-like fishway is a fishway that is designed to appear and operate similar 

to a natural riffle, with a gradually sloping channel interspersed with rock weirs and 

pools. These fishways are typically suitable for a wide range of species. 
46 

proposed action regarding these issues for this project.44 For measures related to other 

environmental issues (i.e., recreation, land use, and cultural resources) we assume the 

proposed measures presented in the final license application continue to be proposed. 

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, York Haven Power would continue 

the following existing environmental measures at the project (we indicate the designation 

of the measure in the Settlement Agreement in parenthesis): 

 Provide a year-round, continuous, minimum flow from the project of 

1,000 cfs and an average daily minimum flow of 2,500 cfs, or inflow, 

whichever is less, to protect and enhance aquatic resources downstream of 

the project (measures 3.2.1[c][i], 3.2.1[c][ii],3.2.2[c][i], and 3.2.2[c][ii]). 

 Operate the project in a run-of-river mode when inflow to the project is less 

than 3,000 cfs, without deliberate impoundment drawdown or storage for 

purposes of generating electricity in particular time periods (measures 

3.2.1[c][iii] and 3.2.2[c][iii]). 

 Operate and maintain the existing east channel fishway as the primary 

means for upstream fish passage until the proposed nature-like fishway is 

completed (measure 3.1.8[a]).

 Provide a minimum flow of 2,000 cfs at the east channel dam and a spillage 

flow of 4,000 cfs at the main dam during the American shad upstream 

passage season when the east channel fishway is in operation, until the 

proposed nature-like fishway is completed. The upstream passage season is 

determined by the Fish Passage Technical Advisory Committee but 

generally extends from mid-April through mid-June (measures 3.2.1[a][i] 

and 3.2.1[a][ii]).

 After the American shad upstream passage season until the end of the 

resident fish passage season (the earlier of December 15 or until the 

average daily river temperature is < 40oF, maintain a minimum flow of 400 

cfs in the east channel downstream from the east channel fishway during 

the period that the east channel fishway is operated to allow upstream 

 

44 Our summary of the measures in the Settlement Agreement may differ from the 

specific language of the Settlement Agreement. Details of individual components of the 

measures listed in section 3.0 of the Settlement Agreement (measures that the parties 

agree should be incorporated in the terms of the license), including programmatic 

elements such as schedules for developing plans and details of monitoring, evaluation, 

and reporting, are not listed. Characterization of these measures is our attempt to provide 

a concise summary of the measures for this final EIS and is not intended to modify any of 

the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 
47 

passage of resident fish species, until the proposed nature-like fishway is 

completed, per a June 2010 Consent Order and Agreement between York 

Haven Power and Pennsylvania DEP (measures 3.2.1[b][i] and 

3.2.1[b][ii][1]). 

 Continue an existing downstream juvenile American shad passage protocol, 

which calls for the operation of units 1-6 (Kaplan and propeller units) to be 

first online and last offline during the juvenile shad downstream migration 

period (which typically is from October 1 through November 30), and 

opening the forebay sluice gate at specific times for downstream fish 

passage. If river flows exceed the capacity of units 1-6, unit 14 would be 

operated, and if flows exceed the capacities of units 1-6 and 14, units 7-13 

and 15-30 would be operated in ascending order (measures 3.1.6[a][i], 

3.1.6[b][i], and 3.2.1[b][ii][2]). 

 To prevent a buildup of debris that could affect project and fish passage 

operations, remove non-natural debris from the forebay and sluice 

remaining natural debris downstream after notifying the downstream PPL 

Brunner Island Station (measure 3.3 [b]). 

 Contribute $25,000 per year to the York County Conservation District or 

such other entity identified by Pennsylvania DEP for the purposes of debris 

removal in the lower Susquehanna River watershed (measure 3.3[a]). 

The Settlement Agreement includes provisions for York Haven Power to 

implement the following suite of measures designed to improve upstream and 

downstream fish passage and reallocate the existing minimum flows (upon completion of 

the nature-like fishway) to facilitate migration of American shad and American eel: 

 Construct, operate, and maintain a nature-like fishway in the vicinity of the 

apex of the main dam and Three Mile Island, in compliance with design 

criteria specified in appendix A of the Settlement Agreement, which would 

become the primary means of upstream fish passage at the project.

 Pass about 370 cfs through the forebay sluice gate for 1 or 2 hours in the 

morning during weekdays if river flows exceed the sum of: (1) the turbine 

hydraulic capacity; (2) flows through the nature-like fishway, once 

constructed; (3) flows through the east channel; and (4) flows (if any) over 

the main dam from May 1 through June 30, to facilitate downstream 

passage of post-spawning adult American shad; and any day that river flow 

exceeds the combined hydraulic capacity during the juvenile American 

shad downstream passage period, to facilitate downstream passage of 

juvenile American shad. 

 Pass about 370 cfs through the forebay sluice gate between the hours of 5 

and 11 p.m. during the entire juvenile American shad passage period to 
48 

facilitate the downstream passage of juvenile American shad (measures 

3.1.6[a][ii] and 3.1.6[b][ii]).

 Develop designs within 4 years of license issuance for: (1) removal of 

obstructions in or deepening of the plunge pool below the forebay sluice 

gate, and (2) a chute structure to convey flows beyond the roadway on the 

downstream side of the stone masonry forebay bulkhead wall to protect 

outmigrating juvenile and adult American shad that pass into the 

downstream plunge pool. 

 Cooperate with resource agencies and other interested parties to conduct a 

lower Susquehanna River downstream eel migration study that would 

include monitoring silver eels at the project and providing $25,000 to 

support the study (measures 3.1.7[b], 4.1.1[a], and 4.1.2[a]). 

 Conduct a site-specific silver eel route of passage study at the project 

including the potential for providing $50,000 to resource agencies for 

collection and tagging of silver eels at upstream locations (measures 

3.1.7[c] and 4.1.1[b]). 

 Conduct a site-specific silver eel survival study as described in appendix H 

of the Settlement Agreement (measure 3.1.7[c]). 

 Conduct a downstream eel passage improvement study if downstream eel 

passage goals are not achieved with provisions for subsequent monitoring 

and adjustments (measures 3.1.7[e], 3.1.7[f], 3.1.7[g], and 3.1.7[h]). 

York Haven Power proposes to construct, operate, and maintain a nature-like 

fishway in the vicinity of the apex of the main dam and Three Mile Island in compliance 

with design criteria specified in appendix A of the Settlement Agreement (measures 3.1.1 

and 3.1.2). Prior to and upon completion of the nature-like fishway, York Haven Power 

proposes to implement the following measures: 

 Develop an erosion and sediment control plan for construction of the 

nature-like fishway. 

 Prior to construction of the nature-like fishway, conduct vegetation surveys, 

wetlands delineations, invasive species surveys, rare species surveys, bog 

turtle habitat assessments, and bald eagle surveys in the area of the naturelike fishway. 

 Conduct American shad upstream passage effectiveness studies using radio 

telemetry beginning during the second year of nature-like fishway 

operation. If the project area passage success criterion is not achieved, 

York Haven Power would implement corrective measures, followed by two 

additional years of radio telemetry studies to confirm achievement of the 

project area passage success criterion (measure 3.1.3). 
49 

 Conduct a juvenile American shad headrace turbine avoidance study 

consistent with design criteria included in appendix D of the Settlement 

Agreement (measure 3.1.6[d]). 

 If the juvenile American shad headrace turbine avoidance goals are not 

achieved, implement measures that would enhance the effectiveness of 

downstream juvenile shad passage and conduct a supplemental juvenile 

American shad headrace turbine avoidance study within 2 years of 

implementing the measures. Provisions are made for subsequent measures 

and evaluations (measures 3.1.6[f], 3.1.6[g], and 3.1.6[h], and 3.1.6[i]).

 Provide an average daily minimum flow in the east channel below the east 

channel dam of 267 cfs year round to protect aquatic resources in the east 

channel and provide a minimum passage flow for fish ascending the east 

channel and using the east channel fishway (measures 3.2.2[a][i] and 

3.2.2[b][b][i]).

 Provide at least 5 percent of river flow through the nature-like fishway and 

supplemental attraction flow channels when flows entering the project 

during the American shad upstream passage season are between 5,000 and 

150,000 cfs. This would equate to a minimum flow through the nature-like 

fishway of between 1,000 and 7,500 cfs depending on inflow (measure 

3.2.2[a][ii]). 

 Outside of the American shad upstream passage season, provide a 

minimum flow of 200 cfs through the nature-like fishway when the river 

elevation is at the crest of the main dam (measures 3.1.6[b][iii] and

3.2.2[b][ii]). 

 To the extent controllable by York Haven Power, when flows exceed the 

hydraulic capacity of all available generating units, manage flows to 

maximize flow over the main dam and the nature-like fishway to provide 

attraction flow to the vicinity of and from the nature-like fishway to 

maximize fishway effectiveness (measure 3.2.2[b][iii]). 

York Haven Power also proposes to implement the following additional 

environmental measures included in the final license application but not included in the 

Settlement Agreement: 

 Maintain existing project recreation facilities, and consult with the resource 

agencies on recreation resources and management strategies every 10 years 

after the effective date of any new license. 

 Continue the current permitting program for the approximately 300 

recreational lots located within the project boundary, but terminate permits 

and remove from the licensing program existing recreational lots upon 

abandonment by the lessee, or when existing structures become damaged 
50 

and are not replaced by structures conforming to all applicable federal, 

state, and local regulations. 

 Implement the HPMP filed with the Commission on December 28, 2012, to 

manage project effects on historic properties eligible for listing on the 

National Register. 

2.2.3.2 Muddy Run Project 

Exelon proposes the following environmental measures at the project: 

 Develop a DO monitoring plan no earlier than November 1, 2027, with 

measures designed to ensure that the project does not violate DO standards. 

 Develop FPOP for minimizing delay and potential fish entrainment during 

upstream and downstream fish passage past the project tailrace during 

generating and pumping cycles, with specific targets for upstream and 

downstream passage at the Muddy Run Project, and corrective actions if 

targets are not met.

 In 2018, develop a plan and schedule, as part of fish passage monitoring, 

for a radio telemetry study or equivalent Tier II study of American shad 

passage and behavior within the Muddy Run Project boundary, although no 

such plan would be required if available data indicate that 75 percent of the 

shad that pass the downstream Conowingo Project also pass through the 

Holtwood Project fish passage facilities (Tier I requirement), and that 50 

percent of the shad that pass the Conowingo Project pass the Holtwood 

Project within 5 days (Tier II requirement). The Tier II study, if required, 

would determine the percentage of shad that enter the Muddy Run Project 

area at the northern tip of Sicily Island and exit the Muddy Run Project area 

at the southern tip of Deepwater Island. The radio transmitters would be 

inserted into shad at the Conowingo Project or other locations approved by 

Pennsylvania DEP. At the end of the 4-year study period, or such longer 

time as established by Pennsylvania DEP, if the results indicate that, as a 

result of Muddy Run operations, less than 88 percent of the American shad 

that enter the Muddy Run Project area in turn exit the Muddy Run Project 

area, Exelon would propose a plan and schedule for operational 

modifications to the extent feasible, reasonable, and technically sound to 

enhance fish passage at the project. 

 By January 15, 2015, submit a plan and schedule to provide for 95 percent 

survival of juvenile American shad and 80 percent survival of adult 

American shad that pass downstream through the project area, with full 

implementation of the plan by 2015. By February 15, 2026, Exelon would 

conduct a “discrete passage study” to measure the downstream passage of 

shad past the project, with the target passage rates noted above. If the 
51 

target passage rates are not met, Exelon would propose appropriate 

mitigative measures. 

 Implement the American Eel Passage Plan45 filed with the license 

application for an eel trap and truck program to trap, hold, and transport 

American eels from the Conowingo Project and Octoraro Creek to 

designated points in the Susquehanna River watershed until at least 2030, 

and then either continue the trap and truck program or construct a volitional 

eel passage facility at Conowingo dam.46

 No earlier than October 1, 2016, and when Pennsylvania DEP determines 

that sufficient numbers of American eel are present upstream of the project 

to require downstream passage, conduct downstream eel passage studies to 

confirm at least 85 percent eel passage through the project area. If the 

target downstream passage rate is not met, Exelon would propose 

appropriate mitigative measures. 

 Implement the Bald Eagle Management Plan filed with the license 

application providing for the management of bald eagle habitat on Exelon 

lands in accordance with recommendations from the National Bald Eagle 

Management Guidelines (FWS, 2007a) and state agency guidance. Bald 

eagle habitat, including nest sites, forage sites, and communal roost sites,

on Exelon lands would be managed through a range of measures that would 

be tailored to the types of activities with potential to affect eagles. These 

measures would include, but not be limited to, seasonal restrictions on 

maintenance activities such as herbicide applications during the breeding 

season, distance buffers, and landscape buffers. 

 Implement the Bog Turtle Management Plan filed with the license 

application to minimize impacts on bog turtles and that includes: 

(1) restricting mowing in the wetland documented to support bog turtles; 

(2) controlling invasive and woody plants, particularly reed canary grass; 

and (3) limiting public access to the wetland without advertising the reason. 

 

45 Exelon filed an Eel Management Plan with its final license application. In the 

water quality certification for the Muddy Run Project, the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection called this plan an American Eel Passage Plan, and we use this 

title throughout the EIS. 

46 Exelon is proposing that a Muddy Run Project measure be implemented at the 

Conowingo Project, which is not under the same license. It is Commission policy that a 

condition for one license cannot be required and implemented through the license of 

another project. 
52 

 Once every 10 years through the term of the license, evaluate all state and 

federal endangered and threatened species that may be present within the 

project boundary, and if the evaluation identified the presence, critical 

habitat, or critical dependence of endangered species, propose and 

implement a protection plan for each species. 

 Provide annual grants up to $450,000 total to be split between the Lancaster 

County and York County Conservation Districts through 2030 for the 

implementation of agricultural pasture and barnyard BMPs to control 

sediment loading to the Susquehanna River. 

 Provide $50,000 annually through 2030 to the Pennsylvania FBC to 

perform habitat improvement projects including removal of small dams. 

 Implement the Recreation Management Plan filed with the license 

application that includes measures for maintenance and capital 

improvements and contains specific enhancements at project 

recreation facilities. 

- At Muddy Run Park and Campgrounds: (1) replace the Recreation 

Lake boat launching facility and boat dock with an improved 

launching ramp and barrier-free dock; (2) implement shoreline 

erosion measures to improve runoff and stability in the vicinity of an 

ADA-compliant picnic area and boat rental dock; (3) replace an 

existing wood retaining wall with a sheet pile retaining wall to 

reduce shoreline erosion near the boat dock area; (4) upgrade the 

electric service to 50 campsites in the park, and monitor future need 

and upgrade additional sites when the demand occurs; (5) expand an 

existing playground area near the Visitor’s Center with safety swings 

and three modular play structures suitable for younger children (tot 

lots); and (6) install a mulch safety surface, and construct a 2,000-

square-foot water spray park near the entrance to Muddy Run Park, 

along with paving resurfacing. 

- At Wissler’s Run Park: (1) complete the replacement of the picnic 

pavilion;47 (2) designate and sign two additional barrier-free parking 

spaces near the picnic pavilion for compliance with standards set by 

ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities; and 

(3) remove the existing non-functioning fish cleaning station. 

- At Muddy Run WMA: (1) continue to lease the Muddy Run WMA 

to the Pennsylvania Game Commission for the management of the 

 

47 The walkway from the parking area to the picnic area and the parking lot were 

both repaved in 2011. 
53 

Muddy Run WMA to provide hunting opportunities in the area; and 

(2) erect and maintain FERC Part 8 signs at the River Road and 

Furniss Road WMA parking areas to identify the conditions of 

access to the site.

 Implement the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) filed with the license 

application and consistent with Guidance for Shoreline Management 

Planning at Hydropower Projects (FERC, 2001). The SMP includes 

specific measures and policies related to shoreline vegetation management 

and erosion control, woody debris management, game species management, 

sensitive natural resource protection, recreation use, and use of project 

lands and BMPs for controlling sediment introduction from lands within the 

project boundary. 

 Implement the osprey management policy described in Exelon’s proposed 

SMP. 

 Implement a cultural resources management plan if cultural materials are 

identified during project-related ground-disturbing activities. 

 Within 30 days after the Conowingo and Muddy Run water quality 

certifications and new FERC licenses become final, provide the version of 

the Lower Susquehanna OASIS model to SRBC as per a letter agreement 

dated November 19, 2013.48 

2.2.3.3 Conowingo Project 

Exelon proposes to continue the following environmental measures at the project: 

 Operate the project with a normal range of operation of Conowingo Pond 

between elevations 101.2 and 110.2 feet, with a minimum elevation of 

107.2 feet on weekends between Memorial Day and Labor Day, to meet 

recreational needs.

 Provide minimum flow releases from the project, as described below, or a 

minimum flow equal to the discharge (natural inflow) measured at the 

Marietta USGS gage (No. 01576000), whichever is less: 

- March 1 – March 31: 3,500 cfs or natural inflow; 

- April 1 – April 30: 10,000 cfs or natural inflow; 

 

48 On November 19, 2013, Exelon sent a letter agreement to SRBC stating that it 

would provide SRBC with a version of the OASIS model as we describe. SRBC signed 

the letter agreement on November 21, 2013, and that agreement is appendix 2 in the 

water quality certification for the Muddy Run Project.
54 

- May 1 – May 31: 7,500 cfs or natural inflow; 

- June 1 – September 14: 5,000 cfs or natural inflow; 

- September 15 – November 30: 3,500 cfs or natural inflow; and

- December 1 – February 28: 3,500 cfs intermittent (maximum 6 hours 

off followed by equal amount on). 

 Enhance DO at the project using the turbine venting systems on Units 1 

through 7 and the aerating runners on Units 2 and 5, and continuously 

monitor DO levels from May 1 through October 1 at the Station 643 

location about 0.6 mile downstream of Conowingo dam.

 Operate the east fish lift for upstream passage of American shad, river 

herring, and other migratory fishes, and the west fish lift for American shad 

egg collections and other research purposes. 

 Manage debris to include clamming (with three gantry cranes with grapple 

attachments) to remove submerged debris from the area upstream of the 

powerhouse intakes and floating surficial debris in front of the powerhouse 

intakes, and the sponsorship of community-based clean-ups in the pond and 

downstream of the dam. 

 Maintain the project’s public recreation facilities. 

Exelon proposes the following new environmental measures at the project: 

 Implement the Sediment Management Plan filed with the license 

application that identifies benchmarks and thresholds for action to address 

sediment issues that may affect project operation. 

 Conduct a bathymetric survey of Conowingo Pond every 5 years to monitor 

sediment transport and depositional patterns. 

 Implement a preventive maintenance program for the east fish lift that 

would extend the useful life of the facility over the next license term. 

 Use the project turbines as the route for downstream passage of American 

shad and river herring, based on studies that show high survival for fish 

passing through the turbines. 

 Construct a permanent trap and transport facility for upstream passage of 

American eel, consisting of an eel ramp and collection facility on the west 

bank of the Conowingo tailrace and a similar facility on the east side of the 

river on Octoraro Creek. 

 After 2030, construct volitional eel passage facilities on the west and east 

banks that consist of full eel ramps with resting pools. 
55 

 Implement the final Bald Eagle Management Plan filed with the license 

application providing for the management of bald eagle habitat on Exelon 

lands in accordance with recommendations from the National Bald Eagle 

Management Guidelines (FWS, 2007a) and state agency guidance. Bald 

eagle habitat, including nest sites, forage sites, and communal roost sites,

on Exelon lands would be managed through a range of measures that would 

be tailored to the types of activities with potential to affect eagles. These 

measures would include, but not be limited to, seasonal restrictions on

maintenance activities such as herbicide applications during breeding 

season, distance buffers, and landscape buffers. 

 Implement the Recreation Management Plan filed with license application 

to guide the operation and maintenance of Exelon’s recreation facilities and 

the implementation of recreation facility enhancements as outlined above. 

 Implement improvements to project recreation facilities as follows: 

Recreational Facility Summary of Capital Improvements

Lock 13 Install a trailhead directional sign at the Lock 12 

parking area (access to Lock 13 is from Lock 12, a 

facility owned by Holtwood-PPL), and clear 

vegetation from within the lock to provide an 

unobstructed view of the structure; construct light 

fencing on each side of the lock structure to protect 

visitors

Lock 15 Designate two barrier-free parking spaces in the 

existing parking area and install a dock on the 

shoreline near the picnic area to allow boaters to 

access the site; construct a concrete pad for portable 

restroom placement; stabilize the open shoreline area

near the parking area to prevent erosion

Muddy Creek boat 

launch

Designate two boat trailer spaces and one vehicle 

space for barrier-free parking in the existing parking 

lot; stabilize areas adjacent to the southwest corner 

and southerly side of the parking area to improve 

drainage and redirect flow away from the parking area 

and the river; install a sign providing information on 

the Conowingo dam canoe portage and the location of 

the portage take-out 

Cold Cabin boat 

launch

Improve access by designating a one-way directional 

traffic pattern through the site and constructing 

parking for 11 vehicles (five boat trailer and six 
56 

Recreational Facility Summary of Capital Improvements

vehicle spaces), including two barrier-free spaces; 

reinforce existing boat ramp to prevent undermining 

of the ramp and install a boat dock; install a sign 

providing information on the Conowingo dam canoe 

portage and the location of the portage take-out; 

provide two ADA-compliant picnic tables; install a 

concrete pad for the placement of two portable 

restrooms (one ADA-compliant, one standard)

Dorsey Park Rebuild both boat ramps at Dorsey Park; designate 

one barrier-free boat trailer space and one barrier-free

vehicle space in the existing lot; install a concrete pad 

for three portable restrooms (one barrier-free, two

standard); install a sign providing information on the 

Conowingo dam canoe portage and the location of the 

portage take-out

Conowingo Creek 

boat launch

Designate one barrier-free parking space in the 

existing parking area; stabilize a roadside ditch along 

Mt. Zoar Road and construct a stone-lined drainage 

ditch along the south side of the parking lot to redirect 

runoff from the parking lot and boat ramp; install a 

sign providing information on the Conowingo dam 

canoe portage and the location of the portage take-out

Glen Cove Marina Expand parking at the marina by adding seven 

additional boat trailer spaces (one barrier-free) and 11 

vehicle (two barrier-free) spaces; repair the marina’s 

bulkhead wall

Funk’s Pond Designate one barrier-free parking space in the 

existing parking area

Line Bridge Perform shoreline erosion control and stabilization 

work at this unimproved carry-in boat access area

Conowingo swimming 

pool

Install an barrier-free access facility at the swimming 

pool and an barrier-free access ramp at the wading 

pool

Conowingo dam 

overlook

Reopen the facility and designate three barrier-free

vehicle spaces in the existing parking lot; demolish the 

existing pavilion and replace it with a new 24-foot by 

24-foot wooden pavilion; remove pavement from the 

easterly corner of the existing paved parking area, 
57 

Recreational Facility Summary of Capital Improvements

loam and seed, and install three barrier-free pathways 

and picnic tables; install security fencing around the 

site to restrict access to Conowingo dam, while 

allowing unobstructed views from the pavilion and 

picnic area

Fisherman’s Park and 

Shures Landing

Widen the access road to the facility by 3 to 5 feet to 

allow construction of 12-foot wide lanes; construct a 

retaining wall along the easterly 250 feet of the 

existing parking area along the access road; designate 

five additional barrier-free parking spaces in the 

existing parking lot; widen the access road leading to 

Shures Landing by 4 feet along the eastbound lane for 

320 feet, and widen the access road from the trailhead 

parking northerly to the retaining wall by 2 feet; 

construct an additional 13-space parking area near the 

Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway trailhead at 

the southerly end of Fisherman’s Park; demolish the 

existing hard surface boat launch and asphalt access at

Shures Landing and place stone fill next to the 

existing wall down to existing grade along the 

Susquehanna River shoreline; construct a new 20-foot 

wide hard surface carry-in boat launch with a floating 

dock and breakwater at Shures Landing, to replace the 

existing launch area

Peach Bottom access Construct a small (approximately four vehicle) roadside parking area near the existing informal boat 

launch area south of Peters Creek; install a sign 

providing information on Conowingo dam canoe 

portage and the location of the portage take-out

 Implement the SMP filed with the license application that includes specific 

measures and policies related to shoreline vegetation management and 

erosion control, woody debris management, game species management, 

sensitive natural resource protection, recreation use, BMPs for controlling 

sediment introduction from lands within the project boundary, and use of 

project lands. 

 Implement the osprey management policy described in Exelon’s 

proposed SMP.

 Implement the HPMP filed with the license application for the management 

of archaeological and historic resources throughout the term of any new 
58 

license, including: (1) a schedule and methodology for completing any 

additional recommended studies and implementing monitoring measures; 

(2) management measures for identified historic properties including 

Conowingo dam and powerhouse; (3) protection of any historic properties 

threatened by project-related activities, including project operation, 

shoreline and aquatic recreation, shoreline development, routine project 

maintenance, and other project activities or operations; and (4) public 

outreach, education, and signage for the purpose of reducing looting and 

vandalism of sites. 

Project Boundary Revisions

York Haven Power proposes to add 1.9 acres to the total York Haven Project

boundary acreage to encompass the project’s East Shore Boat Launch and Canal Lock 

recreation area. 

Exelon proposes to modify the Conowingo Project boundary by removing lands 

that are not necessary for operation and maintenance of the Conowingo Project or for 

other specified project purposes, such as public recreation or protection of environmental 

resources. These lands include: 0.06 acre of land not owned by Exelon in the upper 

reaches of Conowingo Pond; 34.4 acres along the Susquehanna River shoreline at the 

Muddy Run Project (to minimize the overlap of project lands between the two projects); 

205.6 acres on upper Broad Creek, a tributary to Conowingo Pond; and 1,758.7 acres of 

the Susquehanna River and shoreline downstream of Conowingo dam. The Lower 

Susquehanna Heritage Greenway, Deer Creek Access, Lapidum Boat Launch, and 

McLhinney Park are non-project recreation sites located on a thin ribbon of land along 

the west bank of the Susquehanna River, downstream of Conowingo dam. This area was 

included in past licenses so as to incorporate the railroad that was used to shuttle material 

to the dam during initial construction. The proposed project boundary for the Conowingo 

Project contains 9,919 acres, including 8,850 acres of project waters and 1,069 acres of 

land above the normal high water elevation in Lancaster and York Counties, 

Pennsylvania, and Harford and Cecil Counties, Maryland. Exelon would negotiate leases 

with existing recreation facility operators for the continued operation of those facilities 

located on lands owned by Exelon, but no longer within the project boundary. Exelon 

would also negotiate a new lease with Maryland DNR for the continued protection and 

use of the collocated Lower Susquehanna Greenway Trail and Mason-Dixon Trail on 

Exelon-owned lands outside of the project boundary. The existing lease expires in 

August 2014.

2.2.4 Modifications to the Applicants’ Proposals – Mandatory Conditions 

We recognize that the Commission is required to include valid water quality 

certification conditions and section 18 fishway prescriptions in any licenses issued for the 

projects. The staff alternative with mandatory conditions would include the respective 

staff-recommended measures along with the mandatory conditions that we did not 
59 

include in the staff alternative. Mandatory conditions were filed for the York Haven and 

Muddy Run Projects (both water quality certification conditions and preliminary fishway 

prescriptions), but no mandatory conditions were filed for the Conowingo Project. Both 

Interior and NMFS, however, specified a reservation of authority under section 18 to 

prescribe fishways during the term of the license for the Conowingo Project. 

Water Quality Certification Conditions

Pennsylvania DEP issued a final water quality certification for the York Haven 

Project on August 19, 2014 (see appendix D). In its comments on the draft EIS, York 

Haven Power indicated that the water quality certification substantially reflects relevant 

elements of the Settlement Agreement. While York Haven Power has not indicated the 

final certification represents its proposal, our review of the final certification found that it 

is nearly identical to the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, we include these measures in 

the list of York Haven’s proposed measures in section 2.2.3.1, Proposed Environmental 

Measures, York Haven Project, and identify them in the discussions in section 3.3.2.2, 

Water Resources. However, we are not recommending in the staff alternative one 

measure included in the certification: to contribute $25,000 per year to the York County 

Conservation District or such other entity identified by Pennsylvania DEP for the 

purposes of debris removal in the lower Susquehanna River watershed. 

On December 21, 2013, Pennsylvania DEP issued a draft certification for public 

comment for the Muddy Run Project. In its reply comments filed on March 18, 2014, 

Exelon requested the Commission incorporate the conditions in the draft certification in 

its licensing proposal. Pennsylvania DEP issued final certification on June 3, 2014, and 

filed the final certification with the Commission on June 9, 2014. Pennsylvania DEP also 

filed a clarified version of the certification on December 10, 2014. By letter filed January 

21, 2015, Exelon confirmed that the clarified water quality certification filed by 

Pennsylvania DEP on December 10, 2014, continues to represent Exelon's licensing 

proposal for the Muddy Run Project. Therefore, we include these measures in the list of 

Exelon’s proposed measures in section 2.2.3.2, Proposed Environmental Measures, 

Muddy Run Project, and identify them in the discussions in the resource sections to 

which they apply. However, we are not recommending in the staff alternative four 

measures included in the Muddy Run certification: (1) implement the Eel Management 

Plan filed with the license application for the eel trap and truck program to trap, hold, and 

transport American eels from the Conowingo Project to designated points in the 

Susquehanna River watershed until at least 2030, and then either continue the trap and 

truck program or construct a volitional eel passage facility at Conowingo dam;

49

 

49 However, we are recommending the upstream American eel passage measures 

proposed by Exelon for the Conowingo Project, which includes essentially the same 

measures as those in the Muddy Run American Eel Passage Plan. 
60 

(2) provide the version of the Lower Susquehanna River OASIS Model to the 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission within 30 days after the Conowingo and Muddy 

Run water quality certifications and new FERC licenses become ‘final’ (i.e., are no 

longer appealable or subject to ongoing litigation) as provided in the “Letter Agreement 

Addressing Exelon’s Provision of an OASIS Model to SRBC”; (3) provide annual grants 

up to $450,000 total to be split between the Lancaster County and York County 

conservation districts through 2030, for the implementation of agricultural pasture and 

barnyard BMPs to control sediment loading to the Susquehanna River; and (4) provide 

$50,000 annually to Pennsylvania FBC to perform habitat improvement projects 

including the removal of small dams. 

Incorporation of these mandatory conditions into new licenses for the York Haven 

and Muddy Run Projects, however, would not cause us to modify or eliminate any of the 

environmental measures that we include in the staff alternative.

Section 18 Prescriptions 

York Haven Project 

Interior’s section 18 preliminary prescription specifies:

 A reservation of authority to prescribe fishways during the term of the

license. 

 Design populations for American shad, river herring, and American eel.

 Operational flows at the project that are the same as provided in the 

Settlement Agreement as described above. 

 An operational schedule for upstream and downstream fish passage 

facilities. 

 Fishway operating procedures for each fishway. 

 Construction of a nature-like fishway at the apex of the main dam by 

November 30, 2021. 

 Required monitoring and effectiveness studies for the nature-like fishway, 

to ensure that at least 75 percent of the shad passed at the downstream Safe 

Harbor Project be passed at the York Haven Project, or that at least 85 

percent of the shad that arrive in the York Haven Project area be passed 

above the York Haven Project. 

 Criteria for determining if required effectiveness is met, and measures to be 

implemented if effectiveness is not met. 

 That the upstream end of the nature-like fishway be designed to 

accommodate installation of Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tag 

monitoring devices at such time that PIT tag monitoring devices become 
61 

available and feasible for reliably monitoring American shad exiting the 

nature-like fishway. 

Muddy Run Project 

Interior’s section 18 preliminary prescription specifies: 

 A reservation of authority to prescribe fishways during the term of the

license.

50

 FPOP to describe Muddy Run Project operation during the fish passage 

season, including regular maintenance activities and emergency procedures 

to allow safe, timely, and effective fish passage past the Muddy Run 

Project. 

 A fish passage monitoring plan (FPMP), including an American shad 

passage monitoring plan, for post-FPOP implementation monitoring, and 

the criteria for success consistent with the goals and objectives set forth in 

the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan. 

 An eel passage program with other licensees on the river, so that Muddy 

Run operation does not interfere with passage objectives at the upstream 

Holtwood Project. 

 An American Eel Passage Plan at the project, including an eel trap and 

transport program from the downstream Conowingo Project to upstream 

locations, with design plans due to FERC within 1 year of license issuance.

 Financial support to FWS of $20,000/year for its eel trapping facility at 

Conowingo dam until the Muddy Run facility is completed. 

 Field testing to determine the best locations for eel traps for upstream 

passage of elvers, prior to construction of permanent traps that would 

consist of two ramp-style traps with the capacity to capture 50,000 eels/day, 

along with facilities for holding and transport, and a quality 

assurance/quality control program to ensure target survival of 95 percent.

 Instream evaluation of the presence of eels in the river and tributaries every 

3 years, and a 2-year downstream passage study of silver eels within 3 

years of license issuance. 

 

50 NMFS also specifies a Reservation of Authority to later prescribe fishways at 

the Muddy Run Project.
62 

2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE 

York Haven Project

Under the staff alternative, the project would include most of York Haven Power’s 

proposed measures as outlined in section 2.2.3.1, Proposed Environmental Measures, 

York Haven Project, above, with the following additions and modifications: 

 Develop a recreation management plan that provides for York Haven’s 

proposed maintenance of its existing recreation facilities with additional 

provisions to update the plan every 12 years consistent with every other 

Form 80 reporting period deadline, include safety measures during 

construction of the nature-like fishway, continue the licensing program for 

approximately 300 recreational lots within the project boundary, and 

implement revisions to the program to allow for the termination of permits 

and removal of lots from the program if structures are abandoned by the 

lessee, or when existing structures become damaged and are not replaced 

by conforming structures. 

 Develop an SMP that includes specific measures and policies related to 

shoreline management at the project and include a provision to update the 

plan every 10 years. 

 Modify the proposed HPMP to add: (a) a requirement to request access to 

sites on private lands within the project boundary if project impacts are 

identified during monitoring activities, assess these effects, and evaluate the 

affected sites for listing on the National Register; (b) a plan and schedule to 

evaluate archaeological sites on York Haven fee lands within the project 

boundary for their National Register eligibility to ensure that any effects on 

sites owned by York Haven Power are fully considered in accordance with 

section 106; (c) inclusion of two additional sites (36YO300, 36YO334) in 

the monitoring schedule, or clarification regarding why they were excluded; 

and (d) the National Park Service (Park Service) as a consulting party.

Muddy Run Project 

Under the staff alternative, the project would include most of Exelon’s proposed 

measures as outlined above with the following additions and modifications: 

 Visit FWS’ Chesapeake Bay Field Office and the Pennsylvania Field Office 

websites prior to any ground disturbance and follow the bog turtle and bald 

eagle guidelines. 

 Modify Exelon’s proposed Recreation Management Plan to include 

recreation use monitoring and plan updates every 12 years in concert with 

every other Form 80 reporting deadline. 
63 

 Modify Exelon’s proposed SMP to include a provision to update the plan 

every 10 years. 

 Develop an HPMP that provides for the management of historic properties 

and unevaluated cultural resources within the project APE and includes: 

(a) a plan for further archaeological investigations of additional areas of 

interest (AOIs) and other potentially affected areas as recommended in the 

Phase IB report; (b) a detailed discussion of the three sites (36LA67, 

36LA103, 36LA368) identified during the Phase IA cultural resources 

survey and two additional sites (36LA70, 36LA47) located outside of the 

project boundary that could be affected by the project; (c) requirements for 

National Register evaluation of affected sites in consultation with the 

Pennsylvania SHPO; (d) requirements for formal National Register 

evaluation of the Muddy Run Project; (e) documentation of all consultation 

with the Delaware Nation and Onondaga Nation; and (f) addition of the 

Park Service as a consulting party. 

Conowingo Project 

Under the staff alternative, the project would include most of Exelon’s proposed 

measures as outlined above, with the following additional modifications and measures: 

 Modify Exelon’s proposed Sediment Management Plan to include periodic 

dredging at the Conowingo Creek, Peters Creek (Peach Bottom Marina), 

and Broad Creek boat ramps, where sediments have been accumulating, to 

improve and maintain recreational boating access; and include with the 

results of each bathymetric survey an analysis of any change in sediment 

deposition or scour in the pond from the previous survey(s). 

 Modify Exelon’s proposed minimum flow regime to enhance minimum 

flows from December through February, by eliminating periods with no 

minimum flow, and by increasing the minimum flow during the first 2 

weeks of June, summarized as follows: 

 September 15 – March 31: 3,500 cfs or natural inflow (as measured at 

the USGS Marietta gage No. 0157600), whichever is less; 

 April 1 – April 30: 10,000 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is less;

 May 1 – June 15: 7,500 cfs or natural flow, whichever is less; and 

 June 16 – September 14: 5,000 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is less. 

 Implement measures designed to improve upstream fish passage through 

modification to the existing west and east fish lifts that would include: 

(a) replacing the existing hopper at the west fish lift with a 1,500 gallon 

hopper; (b) improving the west fish lift sorting and loading process to 

facilitate trap and truck operations and implementing a trap and truck 
64 

program for American shad; (c) conducting a feasibility study to determine 

engineering feasibility, potential fish passage benefits, and costs for 

additional attraction flow at the west fish lift and if determined feasible and 

beneficial, install additional flow capacity; (d) restoring the attraction flow 

in the east fish lift to its original design capacity of 900 cfs; (e) adding a 

second 3,300-gallon hopper to the east fish lift in the space provided for in 

the original design, and upgrading the electrical and mechanical equipment 

to allow for a 15-minute lift cycle; and (f) conducting a feasibility study for 

modifying the locations of entrances A and B if 2 years of effectiveness 

studies, after restoration of the 900-cfs attraction flow, show poor attraction 

at the east fish lift, and make the necessary modifications if feasible. 

 Modify Exelon’s proposed Bald Eagle Management Plan to include 

measures to minimize recreation-related disturbance in proximity to 

roosting or foraging eagles.

 Develop a northern map turtle protection plan to minimize project impacts 

on map turtles through monitoring, habitat management, and nest 

site protection. 

 Develop a waterfowl nesting protection plan to identify waterfowl nesting 

habitat that is routinely flooded by project peaking operations during the 

breeding season, and where feasible, establish mitigation measures to 

minimize impacts on waterfowl nests. 

 Develop a bog turtle management plan, in consultation with FWS and 

Maryland DNR, to minimize impacts on bog turtles, that includes: 

(1) the restriction of mowing in the wetland documented to support bog 

turtles; (2) invasive plant and woody plant control, particularly for reed 

canary grass; and (3) limits on public access to the wetland without 

advertising the reason.

 Modify Exelon’s proposed Recreation Management Plan to include 

recreation use monitoring and plan updates every 12 years in concert with 

every other the Form 80 reporting deadline, a plan to provide angler access 

to the catwalk on a limited basis with security measures in place that 

address the vulnerability of the facility and the safety of the users of 

the catwalk, and a plan to manage floating debris on the surface of 

Conowingo Pond to improve boater safety. 

 Modify Exelon’s proposed SMP with the addition of a provision to update 

the plan every 10 years. 

 Modify Exelon’s proposed HPMP to include the following additional 

provisions: (a) a revised APE with the narrow strip of land in the current 

project boundary extending downstream from Spencer Island along the 

west side of the river to Havre de Grace, Maryland; (b) a discussion of all 
65 

48 sites and 27 historic structures identified to date within the project APE 

or an explanation of why they are not considered; (c) correction to identify 

the Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal and Columbia & Port Deposit 

Railroad eligible for listing; (d) requirements to inventory any lands within 

the revised APE, evaluate identified cultural resources for eligibility, and 

address potential effects before sale or transfer of those lands; (e) a 

requirement to make good faith effort to obtain access to private property to 

conduct studies if project effects on cultural resources on private lands are 

identified; (f) a revised list of project activities involving the Conowingo 

Project that can be completed without Maryland SHPO review; (g) a 

process for assessing project-related ground-disturbing activities to 

determine whether or not archaeological sites would be affected, 

particularly in areas that have not had archaeological surveys; 

(h) requirements to ensure confidentiality of cultural resources location 

information during implementation of public outreach programs; (i) a 

description of project-related activities that would require consultation with 

the Delaware Nation and the Onondaga Nation in accordance with 

section 106 of the NHPA and documentation of all consultation with the 

Delaware Nation and Onondaga Nation; and (j) inclusion of the Park 

Service as a consulting party. 

Under the no-action alternative, each project would continue to operate under the 

terms and conditions of the existing licenses, and no new environmental protection, 

mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. 

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED 

ANALYSIS 

We considered several alternatives to the applicants’ proposals, but eliminated 

them from further analysis because they are not reasonable in the circumstances of this 

case. They are: (1) issuing non-power licenses, (2) federal takeover, and (3) retiring one 

or more of the projects. 

2.4.1 Issuing Non-Power Licenses 

A non-power license is a temporary license that the Commission will terminate 

when it determines that another governmental agency will assume regulatory authority 

and supervision over the lands and facilities covered by the non-power license. At this 

point, no agency has suggested a willingness or ability to takeover any of the three 

projects. No party has sought a non-power license and we have no basis for concluding 

that any of the Susquehanna River Projects should no longer be used to produce power. 

Thus, we do not consider issuing a non-power license a realistic alternative to relicensing 

in this circumstance.
66 

2.4.2 Federal Government Takeover of the Projects

We do not consider federal takeover to be a reasonable alternative. Federal 

takeover and operation of any of the projects would require Congressional approval. 

Although that fact alone would not preclude further consideration of this alternative, 

there is no evidence to indicate that federal takeover should be recommended to 

Congress. No party has suggested federal takeover would be appropriate, and no federal 

agency has expressed an interest in operating any of the three projects. 

2.4.3 Retiring the Projects 

Project retirement could be accomplished with or without dam removal. Either 

alterative would involve denial of the relicense applications and surrender or termination 

of the existing licenses with appropriate conditions. One commentor suggested that the 

four dams on the lower Susquehanna River should be removed to allow a free-flowing 

river, but provided no supporting analysis. No resource agency has suggested that dam 

removal at any of the projects would be appropriate in this case, and we have no basis for 

recommending it. Energy currently generated at the projects by a renewable resource 

would be lost. In addition, the project reservoirs are a major source of water supply for 

the region and support significant recreational activities, regardless of whether power is 

produced. Thus, dam removal is not a reasonable alternative to relicensing the projects 

with appropriate protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures. 

The second project retirement alternative would involve retaining the dams and 

disabling or removing equipment used to generate power. Project works would remain in 

place and could be used for historic or other purposes. This would require us to identify 

another government agency with authority to assume regulatory control and supervision 

of the remaining facilities. No agency has stepped forward, and no participant has 

advocated this alternative. Nor have we any basis for recommending it. Furthermore, 

because the power supplied by the projects is needed, a source of replacement power 

would have to be identified. In these circumstances, we do not consider removal of the 

electric generating equipment at any of the projects to be a reasonable alternative.
67 

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

In this section, we first describe the general environmental setting in the project 

vicinity and any environmental resources that could be cumulatively affected by 

relicensing the Susquehanna River Projects. Then, we address each affected 

environmental resource. For each resource, we first describe the affected environment—

the existing condition and the baseline against which to measure the effects of the 

proposed project and any alternative actions—and then the environmental effects of the 

proposed projects, including the proposed measures discussed in section 2.2.3, Proposed 

Environmental Measures. Unless otherwise identified, the sources of our information are 

the license applications for the projects (York Haven Power, 2012a; Exelon, 2012a and 

2012b) and the Settlement Agreement (January 30, 2014). We provide citations for 

information obtained from other sources. Staff conclusions and recommended measures 

are discussed in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. 

3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN 

The Susquehanna River originates near Cooperstown, New York, at Otsego Lake, 

and flows for about 444 miles to the Chesapeake Bay at Havre de Grace, Maryland 

(SRBC, 2008a). The drainage area of the Susquehanna River encompasses portions of 

New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland and 27,510 square miles. The Susquehanna 

River Basin has six major subbasins: the Upper Susquehanna, Chemung, West Branch 

Susquehanna, Middle Susquehanna, Juniata, and Lower Susquehanna (see figure 1-1). 

The Susquehanna River Projects are located in the Lower Susquehanna River 

subbasin. The lower Susquehanna River subbasin contains ridges spanning southwest to 

northeast and valleys of moderate width. The river cuts through these ridges in a 

perpendicular direction and widens as it flows south to southeast through hills and 

valleys. The southern portion of the Lower Susquehanna River subbasin consists of 

carved deep gorges in the narrowing river valley, and it is the most developed and suited 

for hydropower development because of the steep river slope. 

The York Haven Project is located at RM 55 on the mainstem of the Susquehanna 

River, about 17 miles downstream from the city of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The upper 

reservoir of the Muddy Run Project is located on Muddy Run, a tributary (at RM 22) of 

the Susquehanna River, and the drainage area above the Muddy Run dam is 

9.2 square miles. The Muddy Run Project uses Conowingo Pond as its lower reservoir. 

The Conowingo Project is at RM 10 of the Susquehanna River, in Maryland.51

 

51 The Safe Harbor (FERC No. 1025) and the Holtwood (FERC No. 1881) 

Projects are located downstream of the York Haven Project at RMs 32.2 and 24.6, 

respectively. The licenses for these projects expire on April 22, 2030 (Safe Harbor), and 

August 31, 2030 (Holtwood). Table 3-1 contains further information. 
68 

The major tributaries to the Lower Susquehanna River subbasin are the Conestoga 

River and Conodoguinet, Swatara, Conewago, and Penn’s Creeks (see figures 2-1, 2-2, 

and 2-3). Muddy Creek is a major tributary to Conowingo Pond. Smaller named 

tributaries to Conowingo Pond include Conowingo Creek, Broad Creek, Hanes Branch, 

Michaels Run, Peters Creek, Barnes Run, Fishing Creek, Wissler’s Run, and Muddy Run. 

Numerous unnamed tributaries also discharge to Conowingo Pond. The major tributaries 

of the Conowingo Project below Conowingo dam are Octoraro Creek and Deer Creek. 

Climatic conditions vary within the Lower Susquehanna River subbasin. The 

Ridge and Valley physiographic province in the northwest part of the subbasin 

experiences a humid continental climate with large seasonal temperature variations. This 

contrasts to the more coastal-type climate experienced in the Piedmont physiographic 

province in the southeastern part of the subbasin where temperatures are more moderate 

and precipitation is slightly greater. The average annual precipitation in the Susquehanna 

River Basin is 39.15 inches per year and is distributed fairly evenly throughout the year; 

however, long-term records indicate wet and dry periods, and droughts have been fairly 

common, at times threatening groundwater supplies. During the 1990s through the mid2000s, droughts have occurred in 8 of 16 years (SRBC, 2013). The annual average 

temperature ranges from 53°F at the Maryland-Pennsylvania border to 45°F in the upper 

Susquehanna River Basin. 

3.2 CUMULATIVELY AFFECTED RESOURCES 

According to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for 

implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (50 CFR §1508.7), an action may 

cause cumulative impacts on the environment if its impacts overlap in space or time with 

the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of 

what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from 

individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time, 

including hydropower and other land and water development activities.

Based on information in the license applications, agency comments, other filings 

related to the projects, and preliminary staff analysis, we identified the following 

resources that have the potential, in combination with other activities, to be cumulatively 

affected by the continued operation of the Susquehanna River Projects: water quantity, 

water quality, migratory fisheries, and Chesapeake Bay habitat. We chose these 

resources because operation of the York Haven, Muddy Run, and Conowingo Projects, in 

combination with other hydroelectric projects on the river, regulates river flows and in 

turn may affect water quality. In addition, along with the other hydroelectric projects on 

the river, all three projects affect migratory fish migration throughout the lower 

Susquehanna River. All four mainstem dams (York Haven, Safe Harbor, Holtwood, and 

Conowingo) have fish passage facilities, but each one provides a different level of 

effectiveness. Finally, flow regulation from Conowingo and the other hydroelectric 

projects affects aquatic habitat downstream to the upper Chesapeake Bay. 
69 

3.2.1 Geographic Scope

The geographic scope of the analysis defines the physical limits or boundaries of 

the proposed action’s effects on the resources. Because the proposed action would affect 

resources differently, the geographic scope for each resource may vary. For the four 

identified resources, we identified the geographic scope as extending from Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania, located upstream of the York Haven Project, downstream to the mouth of 

the Susquehanna River at the Chesapeake Bay. We chose the above geographic bounds 

because the effects of proposed project operation and potential environmental measures 

on the identified resources, in combination with other activities in the basin, are limited to 

these areas. Flows and water quality are not affected by the York Haven Project, in 

concert with other water uses, once upstream of the influence of the York Haven 

reservoir. Migratory fishes are affected by the five lower river hydroelectric projects 

(including Muddy Run Project), but once migratory fishes reach upstream of the 

influence of the York Haven reservoir, any effects experienced from other dams on the 

river (low head, non-hydroelectric dams are located at Harrisburg and farther upstream in 

Sunbury, Pennsylvania) are unrelated to lower river hydroelectric operation. Aquatic 

habitat in the 60 miles of the lower Susquehanna River may be affected by operation of 

the lower river projects, but those effects generally do not extend downstream of the 

mouth of the river. The river becomes tidal about 5 miles downstream of Conowingo 

dam, and an additional 5 miles of tidal river from this point to the mouth of the river 

tends to dampen any effects of the projects. However, recent data from the Lower 

Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment (LSRWA) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

[Corps] and Maryland Department of the Environment [MDE], 2014) indicate that 

nutrients stored in Conowingo and other lower river reservoirs may affect water quality 

in upper Chesapeake Bay, and we include discussion of those effects in section 3.3.2.2 of 

this final EIS. 

3.2.2 Temporal Scope 

The temporal scope of our cumulative analysis in the EIS will include a discussion 

of past, present, and future actions and their effects on each resource that could be 

cumulatively affected. Based on the terms of the new licenses, the temporal scope will 

look 30 to 50 years into the future, concentrating on the effects on the resources from 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. The historical discussion will, by necessity, be 

limited by the amount of available information for each resource.

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

This section outlines the proposed action and the action alternatives with regard to: 

(1) geology and soils, (2) water resources, (3) terrestrial resources, (4) threatened and 

endangered species, (5) recreation and land use, (6) cultural resources, (7) aesthetics, and 

(8) socioeconomics. 
70 

3.3.1 Geology and Soils 

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment

Geology

The Susquehanna River Basin is located within the Appalachian Highlands 

physiographic region, and the Susquehanna River Projects are located within the 

Piedmont Province of this region, which is dominated by rolling lowlands, broad 

highlands, and ridges. Rock types consist predominantly of red shale, siltstone, 

sandstone, and some conglomerate that formed in the Jurassic and Triassic periods. 

Upland terraces of river-transported material occur at various elevations above the 

present river channel. 

The York Haven Project is located within the Gettysburg-Newark Lowland 

Section within the Piedmont Province. The project’s main dam is bounded by diabase, a 

hard igneous rock. The geology of the remaining project area consists mostly of shale. 

Both the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects are within the Piedmont Upland 

Section of the Piedmont Province and are underlain by igneous and metamorphic rocks. 

The bedrock islands along the Susquehanna River below Holtwood dam (known as the 

Holtwood Gorge) are recognized as an outstanding geologic feature of Pennsylvania. 

Specifically, the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

(Pennsylvania DCNR) considers the potholes and cliffs along the gorge as heritage 

geology sites called erosional remnants. 

Prior to construction of Conowingo dam, the river in the current impoundment 

reach and below the dam was a bedrock channel that was difficult-to-navigate for boats. 

Preconstruction maps show two sets of falls upstream of the current Conowingo dam 

(Hector’s Falls and Amos’s Falls), although they were essentially a series of rapids where 

the river profile was steeper than in nearby reaches. 

Soils

Surficial geologic sediments form a mantle of predominantly unconsolidated 

weathered bedrock, river-transported sediment (alluvium), and gravity-transported 

material (colluvium). Soils are predominantly non-hydric. Some hydric soils exist 

mainly along tributaries. 

Shoreline Erosion 

Shoreline erosion as a result of fluctuations in the impoundment elevation is 

relatively minor at the York Haven Project because it is operated as a run-of-river

facility. Erosion occurs from natural causes (flood flows, storm waves, runoff, 

freeze/thaw action, ice scour) and from recreational usage (boat wakes, foot traffic along

the shore). Erosion rates are not available but are expected to be small and typical for a 

river in this type of setting, with large floods being the primary erosion driver. 
71 

The Muddy Run Project upper reservoir shoreline consists largely of a wide and 

gently sloping non-vegetated zone that is alternately exposed and inundated. The zone 

contains unweathered bedrock covered with fragmented weathered bedrock, colluvium, 

and alluvium. It is crossed by gullies, rills, and sheet flow features formed by runoff 

from the surrounding riparian areas or by groundwater seeps. Parts of the excavated

intake canal consist of near-vertical walls of exposed bedrock. 

There are three locations with high and moderate erosion along the upper reservoir 

shoreline: weathered bedrock is eroded along the intake canal embankment near the east 

side of the River Road crossing; gully erosion has created deep crevasses in a steep 

channel downstream of the Recreation Lake spillway; and, on the northside of the fingershaped cove to the south of the recreation dam, a top-of-bank erosion scarp face in soils 

developed from the underlying bedrock. Exelon is monitoring erosion at these locations 

regularly and is prepared to mitigate adverse effects as needed. There is minimal to no 

erosion along the remainder of the shoreline with the exception of a 300-foot-long 

location with moderate erosion (i.e., signs of slumping without adverse effects on 

resources) in the northeastern corner of the upper reservoir. 

The shorelines around Conowingo Pond and below Conowingo dam consist 

largely of bedrock, unconsolidated natural materials (alluvium, colluvium), and 

disturbed/artificial materials (e.g., walls, fill, rail embankment, and canal tow path berm). 

Low to moderate erosion has been observed along unconsolidated shorelines. Instances 

of high erosion rates have not been observed to encroach on infrastructure. Shoreline 

erosion along tributaries is also considered low to moderate. Shoreline accretion occurs 

at the downstream ends of existing islands in the Conowingo Pond and at or near 

tributary mouths. Deposits are eventually stabilized by natural vegetation growth. 

Sediment Transport 

The Susquehanna River is the largest tributary to the Chesapeake Bay and 

consequently contributes the largest sediment load (i.e., 25 percent of the load from nontidal sources; Langland, 2009). The sediment loading is largely a function of flow, but is 

affected by the trapping ability of the lower Susquehanna River reservoirs. 

As a result of the run-of-river operation and small reservoir (Lake Frederic), the 

York Haven Project has little control over sediment accumulation in the impoundment. 

However, given its shallow depth of less than 18 feet (with a mean depth of 6 feet), 

sediment that may accumulate in the impoundment during low-flow periods is likely 

flushed out to a large extent during high-flow events. 

The Muddy Run Project in essence does not contribute to sediment loading in the 

Susquehanna River because it is an off-stream reservoir. Instead, a fraction of the 

suspended sediment contained in the Susquehanna River water that is regularly pumped 

into the Muddy Run reservoir is expected to settle out of the water column; however, net 

sediment deposition rates in the reservoir are not available. 
72 

In 2009, USGS assessed the potential sediment trapping capacity of the lower 

Susquehanna River reservoirs and potential effects on the Chesapeake Bay (Langland, 

2009). Of the three lower river reservoirs—Lake Clarke (Safe Harbor Project), Lake 

Aldred (Holtwood Project), and Conowingo Pond (Conowingo Project)—USGS 

estimated that only Conowingo Pond had any sediment trapping capacity remaining 

(figure 3-1). Both Lake Clarke and Lake Aldred have been in long-term equilibrium for 

50 years or more, with the amount of sediment exiting the reservoirs equal to the amount 

of sediment entering the reservoirs. USGS estimated that the sediment trapping capacity 

of the upper and middle parts of Conowingo Pond was minimal and that the only 

remaining capacity was in the lower part of the reservoir. In 2008, an estimated 174 

million tons of sediment were stored in the reservoir; the reservoir’s remaining storage 

capacity was about 30 million tons. 

Figure 3-1. Changes in vertical cross-sectional area for selected years and remaining 

sediment-storage capacity in Conowingo Pond (Source: Langland, 2009). 

Detailed sediment transport investigations during the more recent LSRWA study 

(Corps and MDE, 2014) revealed that Conowingo Pond is now in a state of dynamic 

equilibrium. A state of dynamic equilibrium implies that sediment will continue to 

accumulate in Conowingo Pond until a large high-flow event occurs, which will scour 

sediment already deposited. Scoured sediments are then transported over the dam and 

flow into the Chesapeake Bay. High-flow events temporarily increase the trapping 

capacity in the reservoir, and thereby reduce the sediment load entering the Bay, until the 

DISTANCE UPSTREAM FROM DAM, IN FEET X 1,000

VERTICAL CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA, IN SQUARE FEET X1,000
73 

next episodic high-flow event will again scour sediment from the pond. Thus, in a state 

of dynamic equilibrium there is no absolute capacity or point at which the pond is “full” 

and will no longer trap any sediment. Applying a long-term average, sediment loads 

delivered to the Chesapeake Bay via the Susquehanna River equal the load delivered into 

the three lower Susquehanna River reservoirs.

For the last 20 years (1993-2012), USGS estimated the amount of sediment 

entering Conowingo Pond at 3.8 million tons/year, of which about 2 million tons/year 

was being trapped by the reservoir (Corps and MDE, 2014). The remaining average 

sediment load of 1.8 million tons/year was carried past Conowingo dam into the 

Chesapeake Bay. This sediment load in the lower Susquehanna River varies widely, 

however, because sediment transport processes are strongly affected by discharge rates. 

The river carries the highest sediment loads from its watershed during peak flow events. 

In addition, sediment is mobilized through scour in the three lower Susquehanna River 

reservoirs. The threshold for scour in Conowingo Pond occurs at approximately 400,000 

cfs, which is considered a 4- to 5-year return flow event (Corps and MDE, 2014).52

 

Langland and Koerkle (2014) suggested that tropical storm Agnes, in 1972, with a peak 

discharge rate of approximately 1.1 million cfs, resulted in scour of 13.5 million tons of 

sediment from Conowingo Pond. 

Downstream of Conowingo dam, the streambed consists of a discontinuous 

surface of exposed bedrock or bedrock with a much thinner alluvial cover than in 

Conowingo Pond. The streambed is likely in similar condition to the bed prior to dam 

construction because the flow in the rapids was strong enough to inhibit 

sediment deposition. 

3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects 

Shoreline Erosion 

Minor shoreline erosion effects at the York Haven Project would continue to occur 

as a result of natural forces similar to current conditions, considering that project 

operation would remain unchanged. York Haven Power does not propose any shoreline 

erosion control measures. 

In preparation for the construction of the nature-like fishway, York Haven Power 

proposes to develop an erosion and sediment control plan and apply to Pennsylvania DEP 

for a National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permit for 

 

52 The LSRWA study (Corps and MDE, 2014) found that the scour threshold (the 

average flow when scouring begins transporting sediment out of the reservoirs to the 

Chesapeake Bay) for the current reservoir conditions ranges from about 300,000 cfs to 

400,000 cfs, with the threshold for mass scouring occurring at about 400,000 cfs. Trace 

erosion occurs at even lower flows (150,000 to 300,000 cfs).
74 

stormwater discharge associated with construction activities, as specified in the 

explanatory statement filed with the Settlement Agreement. York Haven Power would

also map usable rocks and boulders downstream of the dam to be used for the 

construction of the fishway. Construction would occur during three low-flow seasons. 

Rocks and boulders retrieved from the river would be stored in designated staging areas 

until fishway construction begins. 

Shoreline erosion due to upper reservoir level fluctuations at the Muddy Run 

Project, combined with occasional natural overflows over the Recreation Lake spillway 

after rain events, surface runoff, mass-wasting, and wind induced waves, is considered 

minimal with the exception of three locations. Specifically, as described above, 

weathered bedrock is eroded along the intake canal embankment, gully erosion has 

created crevasses downstream of the Recreation Lake spillway, and a top-of-bank scarp 

face formed along the shoreline of the finger-shaped cove to the south of the recreation 

dam. Aside from regular monitoring for erosion at these locations, Exelon plans to 

implement an SMP that would allow modifications to shoreline vegetation to construct 

erosion control measures, provided the modifications do not impair the overall function 

of the vegetated buffer. Trees and shrubs on steep slopes will be maintained 

whenever possible. 

Shoreline erosion within Conowingo Pond and downstream of the Conowingo 

Project dam is minor and largely caused by natural processes. Project-induced erosion 

effects are not discernible from natural effects. As part of its SMP measures, Exelon 

proposes to adopt BMPs for controlling sediment introduction from lands within the 

project boundary (see further discussion in section 3.3.5, Recreation and Land Use 

Resources). Proposed erosion control measures include monitoring and remediation of 

identified and characterized erosion-prone areas.

Our Analysis 

Shoreline erosion from the continued operation of the York Haven Project would 

be minor. For construction of the nature-like fishway, any effects would be minimal with 

the proper implementation of York Haven’s proposed erosion and sediment control plan. 

In addition, the number of rocks and boulders required for the construction of the fishway 

would be small relative to the size of the river and the area where the rocks and boulders 

would be harvested; furthermore, these rocks and boulders would essentially remain part 

of the riverbed, although placed in a different location (i.e., within the course of the 

nature-like fishway). 

Overall, shoreline erosion effects from the operation of the Muddy Run Project 

would also be minor. We find that regular monitoring and mitigation (if needed) of the 

active erosion locations along with the implementation of the SMP would provide 

adequate measures to control erosion at the upper reservoir. 

Shoreline erosion effects in the Conowingo Project area are largely a function of 

natural high-flow events, wave scour, and mass-wasting processes. Minor shoreline 
75 

erosion, and deposition of eroded shoreline sediment in the reservoir, is expected to 

continue at similar rates as at present, considering that there are no significant changes to 

project operation. We find that the SMP includes adequate measures to address erosion 

control issues in the reservoir.

Sediment Transport 

York Haven Project Area

The small size and shallow depth of the project reservoir, along with the project’s 

run-of-river operation, minimally affects sediment transport in the river. Sediment that 

settles in the reservoir during low-flow periods would be remobilized during high-flow 

events and transported downstream of the dam. York Haven Power is not proposing any 

measures related to sediment transport. The proposed flow redistribution across the dam 

after the proposed new fish passage facility is in place would not affect overall sediment 

transport through the project area. 

Muddy Run Project Area 

As a pumped storage facility, Muddy Run Project operation would not affect 

sediment loading and transport processes in the Susquehanna River. Sediment suspended 

in the water that is pumped into the upper reservoir would largely remain in suspension 

and be returned to the river during power generation. A small fraction of the suspended 

sediment would settle in the reservoir. The amount of sediment eroded from the upper 

reservoir shoreline and added to the water column would be minimal. 

The certification for the Muddy Run Project requires Exelon to pay a total of 

$500,000 per year of “compensatory mitigation” from 2014 to 2030, to the Lancaster 

County Conservation District, the York County Conservation District, and the 

Pennsylvania FBC, or to such other conservation district, resource agency, or 501(c)(3) 

organization as directed by Pennsylvania DEP, for the implementation of agricultural 

pasture and barnyard BMPs to address sediment loading to the Susquehanna River and 

other habitat improvement projects including small dam removals. 

Conowingo Project Area 

As stated above, sediment trapping in Conowingo Pond has reached a state of 

dynamic equilibrium, where, on balance, the full sediment load (and the associated 

nutrient load) is carried by the river through the reservoir to the Chesapeake Bay (Corps 

and MDE, 2014; Hirsch, 2012). The LSRWA study (Corps and MDE, 2014) has also 

been assessing the lower Susquehanna River watershed to identify strategies for reducing

sediment and nutrient loading and habitat restoration in the river and in the Chesapeake 

Bay. The study included a review of existing data and watershed-level modeling to 

characterize the complex relationship among river flow, sediment loading, and ecological 

resources. Project partners include the Corps, Maryland DOE, Maryland DNR, SRBC, 

USGS, Chesapeake Bay Program, and The Nature Conservancy. The draft final report 

for this study, published in November 2014, includes an assessment of the role of scour 
76 

in the reservoirs and evaluates appropriate sediment management strategies to address the 

effects of future scour events. Management options considered by the study include 

dredging, modifying dam operation, and sediment bypass strategies. Exelon attended 

LSRWA meetings and provided feedback and information throughout the LSRWA study. 

Several agencies and organizations commented in response to the Ready for 

Environmental Analysis notice that the findings of the LSRWA study should be available 

before the Commission completes its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

analysis for project relicensing. These entities include the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA); Maryland DNR; SRBC; NMFS; Chesapeake Bay Foundation; Stewards 

of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc.; Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy, Inc.; and Clean 

Chesapeake Coalition. The commenters stated that Exelon’s proposed management plans 

are not ready for analysis without an understanding of the sediment-related effects of 

scour in Conowingo Pond during peak flow events on the water quality and living 

resources in the Chesapeake Bay. The Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc. also 

recommended that Exelon remove at least 4 million tons of sediment annually from the 

reservoir to eventually remove all sediment subject to scouring. The Clean Chesapeake 

Coalition requested that Exelon be required to dredge Conowingo Pond, and restore 

oyster beds north of the Bay Bridge and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in the 

upper Bay and its tributaries that were buried by sediment scoured from Conowingo 

Pond. The Town of Port Deposit, American Rivers, and Henry Immanuel also 

recommended that Exelon prevent and mitigate for the downstream effects of scoured

sediments. Maryland DNR noted, however, that it is premature to conclude that the 

LSRWA study will be adequate to appropriately identify and evaluate sediment and 

nutrient effects on the Bay’s resources related to the Conowingo Project. Similar 

comments were received from multiple entities after the draft EIS was published. 

The Nature Conservancy commented that the elimination of coarse-grained 

sediments (sand, gravel, and cobble) via storage in Conowingo Pond, and turbulence and 

high velocities resulting from hydropower operation at the Conowingo Project, adversely 

affect the amount of lower river habitat available to fish species, such as American shad, 

river herring, shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon, map turtle, and freshwater mussels, as well 

as SAV. The Nature Conservancy and American Rivers recommended developing 

alternatives to mitigate the effects of continued operation on living resources. 

Exelon responded that its operation does not increase the amount of sediment 

discharged into the Chesapeake Bay and that sediment and nutrients are almost entirely 

introduced to the river during runoff from the watershed, which is outside of Exelon’s 

control. Therefore, Exelon stated that it should not be required to mitigate any potentially 

resulting effects and, in fact, Conowingo Pond has been functioning as a BMP preventing 

sediment and nutrients from being transported to the Chesapeake Bay. 

Exelon proposes to conduct a bathymetric survey every 5 years to monitor 

sediment transport and deposition patterns in Conowingo Pond. In addition, as part of its 

Sediment Management Plan, Exelon would control sediment runoff from project lands 
77 

and identify action benchmarks and thresholds at the powerhouse intakes to address 

sedimentation-related issues that might affect project operation. Exelon states that 

sediment going through the turbine typically does not damage the runner, although it 

might cause slight wear of the shaft packing and wicket gate end bushings. The turbines 

would be inspected regularly for signs of abrasion, which would be a benchmark for 

considering sediment removal.

Exelon is further evaluating potential management actions (e.g., hydraulic or 

mechanical dredging) to improve recreational boat access to three recreation areas where 

sediment has been accumulating around the boat launches (Conowingo Creek, Peach 

Bottom Marina, and Broad Creek; see further discussion in section 3.3.5, Recreation and 

Land Use Resources).

On December 4, 2014, Exelon withdrew its application for water quality 

certification with Maryland DOE and plans to refile an application within 90 days of that 

date. Exelon also proposes to conduct a sediment study with Maryland DOE and other 

state and federal agencies, and to contribute $3.5 million for the study, which is to be 

completed in 2016 or 2017. Exelon will withdraw and refile its application on an annual 

basis with Maryland DOE until the sediment study is completed. 

Our Analysis

The York Haven Project minimally affects sediment loading. Sediment 

accumulated in the reservoir during low-flow periods is remobilized during high-flow 

events, slightly increasing the suspended sediment concentration and the bedload carried 

by the river at those times. The increase is relatively small due to the shallow depth and 

limited storage capacity of the reservoir and we would not expect the continued run-ofriver operation with the 1.1-foot fluctuation to change the existing minimal contribution 

to sediment loading in the river. 

The Muddy Run Project has a negligible effect on sediment transport processes in 

the Susquehanna River and sediment loading to the Chesapeake Bay. The 

“compensatory mitigation” requirement of the water quality certification generally states 

that mitigation is compensating for resident fish entrainment. Funds, though, would be 

used for BMPs to reduce sediment loading to the river and for habitat improvement, 

including dam removal. This requirement, while appearing to be related to a project 

effect, would not necessarily be implemented in the project area. The specific projects 

that would be funded are not identified, and we have no basis for evaluating the benefits 

of any such measures and if they are related in any way to the Muddy Run Project. 

Sediment transport issues for the Conowingo Project are more complex. Findings 

of the draft LSRWA study report (Corps and MDE, 2014), made available to the public 

and the Commission staff on November 13, 2014, are now considered in our analysis in

this final EIS.

Nearly all sediment entering Conowingo Pond is contributed by the river’s 

upstream watershed; contributions from project lands are minimal. The draft LSRWA 
78 

study report (Corps and MDE, 2014) concludes that all three lower Susquehanna River 

reservoirs (Lake Clarke, Lake Aldred, and Conowingo Pond) are no longer trapping 

sediment over the long-term. The reservoirs have reached a state of dynamic equilibrium 

in which the net change in sedimentation (i.e., deposition during low-flow periods and 

scour during floods) remains relatively constant. On a long-term basis, the full sediment 

load carried by the river is transported into the Chesapeake Bay, as would have occurred 

prior to construction of the lower Susquehanna River reservoirs. 

High-flow events carry suspended sediment from the river’s watershed, as well as 

sediment scoured from the three lower river reservoirs. The relative contribution of 

scoured sediment within the total amount of sediment passing the dam varies

substantially, as it is a function of factors such as peak flow discharge, duration of the 

high-flow event, and length of time between high flow events when sediment could 

accumulate in the reservoirs. USGS estimated that the scoured sediment load within the 

total river sediment load below Conowingo dam during a10-year recurrence flow event 

would be 22 to 40 percent; this event would have a streamflow rate of 600,000 cfs 

(Langland and Koerkle, 2014). Similarly, the scoured sediment contribution during a 25-

year recurrence flow event (at 800,000 cfs) would be 26 to 37 percent; and the 

contribution during a 60-year recurrence flow event (at 1,000,000 cfs) would be 39 to 

50 percent. The added storage capacity in the three reservoirs created by high-flow 

events greater than 400,000 cfs (which is considered the threshold for scour) reduces the 

sediment load to the Chesapeake Bay during smaller flow events (less than 400,000 cfs), 

and thus aids the health of the Bay, until the next high-flow event occurs (Corps and 

MDE, 2014). 

At steady state, areas immediately upstream of the dam would remain turbulent 

with high velocities and inhibit sediment deposition near the powerhouse intakes. 

However, over time, this zone of turbulence near the dam could narrow, and there is 

potential for sediment accumulation near the intakes that could affect hydropower 

operation. As sediment builds up near the intakes, sediment-laden water could damage 

turbines and other hydropower components due to increased abrasion (Neopane et al., 

2011). Benchmarks established under Exelon’s Sediment Management Plan should help 

identify appropriate actions to allow for continued operation of the project. 

Sand and gravel would continue to be trapped by the three lower Susquehanna 

River reservoirs. However, grain size data show that, as the storage capacity has 

decreased, the grain size of the bottom sediments in Conowingo Pond has become 

increasingly sandy (Langland, 2013). Because Conowingo Pond has now reached its 

storage capacity, more sand is expected to eventually reach the Susquehanna River below 

the dam, as mobilized from the pond during high-flow events. The substrate below 

Conowingo dam consists mainly of bedrock, with some boulders, cobbles, and areas of 

finer sediments. Flow conditions in the river are naturally turbulent with high velocities, 

inhibiting deposition until the change in gradient near the mouth of Deer Creek, about 4 

miles downstream from the dam. The river substrate in this reach was likely similar to 

today’s conditions prior to the construction of Conowingo dam, with areas of localized 
79 

sediment inflows from tributaries. Therefore, high-velocity turbulent flow conditions in 

the river below the dam would eventually transport the sand and gravel that bypass the 

Conowingo dam toward the Chesapeake Bay. 

The Nature Conservancy expressed concern about the effect on downstream 

habitat of interception of coarser grained sediment (sand, gravel, and cobble) by 

Conowingo Pond. We find that placement of coarser grained sediments downstream of 

the dam, if attempted as a mitigative measure, would likely have limited success because 

of high velocities and turbulence that would transport those materials farther downstream 

and away from areas where habitat enhancement was targeted. 

Once the river enters the Chesapeake Bay, and flow velocities and thus the 

sediment carrying capacity of the water decreases, the coarser grained scoured sediments 

settle out of the water column first in the northern part of the Bay. Finer grained particles 

remain suspended in the water column longer and are transported further to the south in 

the Bay. This was observed after Hurricane Lee when sands were deposited on the 

Susquehanna Flats, and finer grained sediments were distributed more widely in the Bay 

(Cheng et al., 2013). 

The lower Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay are affected by sediment 

transport (including sediment scoured from Conowingo Pond). The draft LSRWA study 

report (Corps and MDE, 2014) finds that the nutrients associated with scoured sediment 

are more harmful to the Bay’s aquatic life than the sediment itself. Particle-bound 

nutrients settle to the bottom of the Bay and, under certain conditions, can recycle back 

into the water column in dissolved form where they contribute to algae growth. 

Excessive algae growth in turn may result in DO depletion (see additional discussion in 

section 3.3.2, Water Resources).

On December 29, 2010, EPA established the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum 

Daily Load (TMDL) for sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus, with rigorous accountability 

measures to restore water quality in the Bay (EPA, 2013). This TMDL considered 

current loading of the Bay as well as loading after the storage capacity in the lower 

Susquehanna River reservoirs has been reached. The current TMDL incorporated an 

estimated current trapping efficiency of Conowingo Pond of 55 percent for sediment, 2 

percent for nitrogen, and 40 percent for phosphorus (see additional discussion in section 

3.3.2, Water Resources). The TMDL will be implemented in phases with an interim 

target allocation of 60 percent total load reductions by 2017, and 100 percent by 2025. 

EPA will assess a state’s progress toward meeting TMDL goals every 2 years. EPA 

assumes that the trapping of sediment would continue through the TMDL planning 

horizon of year 2025 (EPA, 2010). If future monitoring showed a reduction in trapping 

capacity, EPA plans to adjust the milestone loads for upland jurisdictions. These 

jurisdictions might need to increase their sediment-reduction efforts to accommodate the 

loss of trapping capacity in Conowingo Pond and the other lower river reservoirs. 

The LSRWA study (Corps and MDE, 2014) evaluated a number of sediment 

management alternatives to reduce the amount of sediment (and associated nutrients) 
80 

scoured from the three lower Susquehanna River reservoirs during peak flows. These 

sediment management alternatives included reduction of sediment yield from the 

Susquehanna River watershed, minimizing sediment deposition within the reservoirs, and 

increasing storage volume in the reservoirs. 

Alternatives for minimizing sediment deposition in the three reservoirs include 

sluicing (removal of water and sediment through outlets located in the lower level of the 

dam), density current venting (gravity flow of turbid water under water of different 

density), flushing (remobilizing sediment through natural flows by drawing down the 

reservoirs), and agitation dredging (using equipment to resuspend deposited sediment). 

The LSRWA study (Corps and MDE, 2014) found that these management options would 

have only limited potential benefits to sediment management. At the same time, these 

options would have adverse cumulative effects on competing water uses, operational 

limitations, structural constraints, and health and safety considerations. As a result, 

Corps and MDE (2014) decided to drop these alternatives from further consideration. 

Alternatives for increasing storage volume included dredging of the reservoirs and 

a sediment bypass (via a tunnel, or submerged or floating pipeline). Corps and MDE 

(2014) found that increasing the storage volume is possible, but the Chesapeake Bay 

ecosystem benefits are minimal and short-lived. Benefits would depend on factors such 

as the timing (i.e., season) of sediment removal and quantity of sediment removed. In 

addition, dredging the sediment load entering the reservoirs annually would be 

complicated by the effects on other resources in the reservoirs (water quality, fisheries, 

and recreational use) and the need for suitable locations for placing/disposing large 

quantities of sediment, year after year. Costs would be very high. Corps and MDE

(2014) estimated dredging costs of $48 to $267 million annually just to keep up with the 

annual sediment load of about 3 million tons entering Conowingo Pond. The final 

dredging costs would depend significantly on a wide range of factors including dredging 

approach, dewatering of dredged sediments, placement locations, and constraints due to 

contaminants in the sediment. Over time, costs would increase as lower cost disposal 

locations would be filled up with sediment and no longer be available. 

Increasing storage volume through a sediment bypass would also have high costs 

($15 to $48 million annually), although not as high as dredging. Under this alternative, 

the total annual sediment load (and associated nutrient load) would continue to enter the 

Chesapeake Bay on average, although the added amount of scoured sediment in the total 

transported sediment load during high-flow events would be reduced. Instead, sediment 

loading would be spread out more evenly throughout the year. Nevertheless, Corps and 

MDE (2014) estimates that the environmental costs of bypassing sediment (i.e., 

diminished DO and increased chlorophyll) are roughly 10 times greater than the benefits 

gained from reducing sediment scour in Conowingo Pond. 

Based on the findings of the draft LSRWA study report (Corps and MDE, 2014), 

we find that changes in Conowingo Project structures and operation are not viable 

solutions to the sediment transport issue at this time. We consider it premature to 
81 

conclude that dredging of Conowingo Pond would be an environmentally acceptable 

solution. Exelon’s proposal and other entities’ recommendations to use the LSRWA 

study as a basis for additional analysis of this issue are reasonable. The LSRWA study 

provides a better understanding of sediment deposition and transport processes in 

Conowingo Pond, and helps to establish necessary benchmarks for potential actions (e.g., 

prediction of sediment deposition near the intakes that could impede project operation). 

Exelon’s proposed bathymetric surveys in Conowingo Pond at 5-year intervals would 

allow for verification of model predictions, a better understanding of the sediment 

transport processes in the pond at its current state of dynamic equilibrium, and the 

identification of appropriate management actions. 

The draft LSRWA study report (Corps and MDE, 2014) concludes that the 

primary effect to living resources in the Chesapeake Bay is from nutrients and not 

sediment. Management opportunities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to reduce

nutrient delivery to the Bay are considered to be likely more effective than sediment load 

removal methods, for reducing effects on the Bay’s water quality and aquatic ecosystem 

from scour events. Corps and MDE (2014) recommended further study on nutrient 

reduction. The ultimate resolution of the issue of environmental health of the Bay would 

require more than singular actions at the Conowingo Project, and instead would require a 

basin-wide approach involving many governmental jurisdictions and other entities. 

3.3.1.3 Cumulative Effects 

For the York Haven and Muddy Run Projects, shoreline erosion in the reservoirs is 

minimal and the amount of sediment added to the Susquehanna River system would not 

contribute to cumulative effects in the river.

Conowingo Pond would continue to trap coarser grained sediment during periods 

of flows below the scour threshold (about 400,000 cfs). During high-flow events (greater 

than about 400,000 cfs), sediment would be scoured from the pond and transported along 

with the suspended sediment from the river’s watershed into the Chesapeake Bay. The 

Chesapeake Bay TMDL is designed to mitigate the effects from this increased sediment 

loading to the Bay by requiring specific load reductions from the seven jurisdictions 

within the Bay’s 64,000-square-mile watershed. Regular dredging of Conowingo Pond 

and placement of the dredged material offsite, if deemed feasible, might reduce these 

load reduction requirements for jurisdictions to some extent. However, as recognized by 

the TMDL and the LSRWA study (Corps and MDE, 2014), the long-term solution would 

require a basin-wide approach of primarily nutrient load reductions. 

3.3.2 Water Resources 

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment

The Susquehanna River Projects affect water resources within the lower 60 miles 

of the mainstem of the Susquehanna River. 
82 

Water Quantity 

The Susquehanna River drains portions of western and central New York State, a 

large portion of Pennsylvania, and a small part of Maryland. Five hydroelectric projects 

on the lower Susquehanna River use flow from the river and its tributaries to generate 

electricity (table 3-1). No large mainstem reservoirs or hydropower projects are located 

on the Susquehanna River upstream of the York Haven Project, although there are Corps’ 

flood control projects on several tributaries (see figure 1-1). 

Table 3-1. Hydroelectric projects on the lower Susquehanna River (Source: York 

Haven Power, 2012a; Exelon, 2012a, 2012b; FERC, 2008). 

Project

River 

Mile

Generating 

Capacity 

(MW)

Maximum 

Plant 

Discharge 

(cfs)

Drainage 

Area 

(sqm)

Reservoir 

Surface 

Area 

(acres)

Usable 

Storage 

(acre-feet)

York Haven 55 19.62 17,000 24,973 2,218 1,700

Safe Harbor 32.2 417 113,000 26,117 7,360 68,870a

Holtwood 24.6 195.5 62,100 26,794 2,400 15,224b

Muddy Run 22 800.25 32,000 9.2 892 33,894

Conowingo 10 574.54 86,000 27,100 9,000 71,000

a

 Storage volume is based on the upper 17 feet, although actual drawdowns are much 

less.

b

 Between elevation 163.5 feet and the top of the flashboards/rubber dam at elevation 

169.75 feet. 

York Haven Project

Table 3-2 shows monthly flow statistics for the Susquehanna River at York Haven 

Project, based on flows at the Marietta USGS gage, about 10 miles downstream from the 

York Haven Project (figure 3-2). Monthly flows are generally highest in March and 

April and lowest in July, August, and September. The range of monthly flows observed 

at the Marietta gage is substantial, from a low of 2,066 cfs to a high of nearly 1 million 

cfs (Hurricane Agnes). 
83 

Table 3-2. Prorated flows (in cfs) at the York Haven Project based on monthly flow 

data from USGS gage no. 01576000 Susquehanna River at Marietta, 

Pennsylvania, for October 1, 1967, to September 30, 2009 (Source: USGS, 

2013, as modified by staff). 

Month Mean Median Maximum Minimum

10% 

Exceedance

90% 

Exceedance

Jan 41,560 25,943 534,243 4,036 90,312 11,636

Feb 47,042 30,940 428,548 6,342 98,970 14,413

Mar 70,392 54,001 426,626 8,648 134,522 23,263

Apr 73,049 58,325 414,135 16,815 140,383 27,260

May 44,318 35,552 214,274 11,050 77,811 17,872

Jun 32,006 21,572 999,304 4,641 52,954 10,570

Jul 18,278 13,356 214,274 3,565 33,707 6,458

Aug 13,467 9,196 191,213 2,527 24,983 4,892

Sep 16,977 8,316 523,674 2,066 30,757 4,256

Oct 21,599 10,762 236,374 3,430 49,446 5,150

Nov 33,162 25,223 254,630 4,314 65,772 7,625

Dec 46,623 35,552 334,383 4,910 92,243 15,480

Annual 38,133 24,694 999,304 2,066 83,115 6,774

Note: Data from USGS gage no. 01576000 about 10 miles downstream from the 

York Haven Project were prorated by 24,973/25,990 to account for the 

difference in the drainage area between the gage and York Haven dam.

Safe Harbor Project 

Water discharged from York Haven dam flows downstream through about 

13 miles of riverine habitat to the beginning of the 10-mile-long Lake Clarke, the 

impoundment of the Safe Harbor Project. The Safe Harbor Project does not have a 

minimum flow requirement in its license (which expires in 2030), and normal maximum 

impoundment elevation ranges between 227.2 feet in summer to 228.0 feet in winter. 

The project is operated to support peak electricity demands and, since 1997, a fish lift has 

operated at this facility to pass resident and migratory fish upstream during the spring. 
84 

Figure 3-2. Stream gages in the Susquehanna River Projects area (Source: staff).
85 

Holtwood Project

Water discharged from Safe Harbor dam flows immediately into Lake Aldred, the 

Holtwood Project impoundment. Holtwood dam is located about 8 river miles 

downstream of Safe Harbor dam, and full generation from the Safe Harbor Project 

substantially exceeds the hydraulic capacity of the Holtwood Project, which results in 

spillage at Holtwood dam and a water surface gradient within Lake Aldred; at lower 

releases from Safe Harbor the water surface gradient within Lake Aldred is generally flat. 

The generation capacity of the Holtwood Project was recently upgraded to 195.5 MW 

with a daily minimum flow of 800 cfs, or inflow if less, and a maximum hydraulic 

capacity of about 62,100 cfs. Even with the Holtwood expansion, the Safe Harbor 

maximum discharge still exceeds the Holtwood capacity by about 40,000 cfs. Lake 

Aldred is managed to maintain a minimum operating level of elevation 167.5 feet from 

May 15 through September 15 to support reservoir recreational uses and access. The top 

of the flashboards at the dam are at elevation 169.75 feet, and the minimum operating 

level during the balance of the year is elevation 163.5 feet. Leakage through the dam and 

flow from a 10-inch-diameter pipe through the dam maintain a small, continuous flow in 

the bypassed reach. The flow rate through the pipe depends on the water surface 

elevation of Lake Aldred, but PPL estimated it at 11 cfs at maximum normal water 

elevations. Leakage through the flashboards, which varies based on reservoir elevation 

and the adequacy of seals between flashboards, ranges between 4 and 40 cfs. When 

generating units are not operating, leakage through the units maintains about 210 cfs 

continuous flow in the tailrace (FERC, 2008).

When the Holtwood Project is not generating, the water level in Conowingo Pond, 

created by Conowingo dam 14.6 miles downstream, normally controls the tailwater 

elevation below the Holtwood powerhouse. The bypassed reach on the western side of 

the river is primarily rock ledge interspersed with shallow, interconnected pools with 

some vegetation and receives flow only during spillage over the dam. 

Muddy Run Project 

The Muddy Run Project, which is on the east side of the Susquehanna River, uses 

Conowingo Pond as its lower reservoir. Although there are no USGS gaging stations on 

Muddy Run, according to Exelon, the average annual flow from Muddy Run to the 

Muddy Run reservoir is about 7 cfs. 

Muddy Run’s upper reservoir has a usable storage of 33,894 acre-feet between 

elevations 470 and 520 feet. Conowingo Pond has an effective storage of about 

34,050 acre-feet between elevation 105.2 feet and 109.2 feet, the typical fluctuation 

range. The Conowingo Project’s existing license conditions allow fluctuations between 

101.2 and 110.2 feet. The Muddy Run powerhouse turbines have a maximum generating 

discharge capacity of 32,000 cfs and a maximum pumping capability of 28,000 cfs. 
86 

The Recreation Lake, which was created by impounding an arm of the Muddy Run 

reservoir, is maintained at a constant elevation of 520 feet with a surface area of about 

100 acres. 

Table 3-3 provides the average monthly withdrawal and discharge for 2006 

through 2010 and shows that the average daily withdrawals and discharges range from 

about 11,750 to about 15,100 acre-feet. The monthly numbers in this table indicate that 

the annual discharge is about 35 acre-feet higher than the withdrawal from Conowingo 

Pond. Table 3-4 provides the water withdrawal and return characteristics for three 30-

day high-flow periods (between March and April) and three 30-day low-flow periods 

(between August and September). These data show that Muddy Run operation does not 

substantially vary between low-flow and high-flow periods. 

Table 3-3. Muddy Run Project monthly average withdrawals and discharge for 2006 to 

2010 (Source: Gomez and Sullivan and Normandeau, 2012b). 

Month

Average Daily Withdrawal (acrefeet)Average Daily Discharge 

(acre-feet)

January 13,899 14,074

February 13,825 13,828

March 11,757 11,840

April 11,938 11,754

May 14,381 14,675

June 14,915 15,102

July 14,568 14,206

August 13,571 13,844

September 14,448 14,289

October 14,522 14,451

November 13,227 13,350

December 13,924 13,979
87 

Table 3-4. Summary of daily and hourly Muddy Run Project discharge and withdrawal characteristics for 30-day highand low-flow periods for 2008 to 2010 (Source: Exelon, 2012a, as modified by staff). 

Flow Period

Average 

Flow at the 

Marietta 

USGS gage 

(cfs)

Average 

Daily 

Withdrawal 

from 

Conowingo 

Pond (acrefeet per day)

Average 

Daily 

Discharge to 

Conowingo 

Pond (acrefeet per day)

Maximum 

Daily 

Withdrawal 

from 

Conowingo 

Pond (acrefeet per day)

Maximum 

Daily 

Discharge to 

Conowingo 

Pond (acrefeet per day)

Maximum 

Hourly 

Withdrawal 

from 

Conowingo 

Pond (cfs)

Maximum 

Hourly 

Discharge to 

Conowingo 

Pond (cfs)

Water Withdrawal and Returns Statistics for 30-Day High-Flow Periods

Mar 5 - Apr 3, 

2008 132,645 28,537 29,028 43,345 46,163 34,274 36,539

Mar 11 - Apr 9, 

2009 54,194 17,597 18,378 35,793 39,409 29,410 32,120

Mar 13 - Apr 

11, 2010 96,459 19,074 18,801 34,932 36,535 29,484 32,158

Water Withdrawal and Returns Statistics for 30-Day Low-Flow Periods

Aug 28 - Sep 

26, 2008 6,523 28,823 28,087 40,299 41,891 29,187 37,616

Sep 1 - Sep 30, 

2009 13,722 25,697 26,381 33,186 47,640 29,187 34,460

Sep 1 - Sep 30, 

2010 5,691 26,678 27,060 37,732 49,785 27776 37,022
88 

Conowingo Project

The Conowingo Project is the farthest downstream dam on the Susquehanna 

River. It is located 10 miles upstream from the Chesapeake Bay and impounds the river 

about 14 miles upstream to the Holtwood Project, creating a 9,000-acre reservoir that 

contains 310,000 acre-feet of design storage capacity and 71,000 acre-feet of usable 

storage. On a daily basis, the Conowingo Project operates in a peaking mode and 

generates 574.54 MW at full generating capacity. Conowingo dam uses a limited active 

storage in combination with the operation of the Muddy Run Project to meet peak 

electrical demand. Two fish lifts at this facility (east and west) seasonally pass resident 

and migratory fish upstream. 

Conowingo Pond serves as the source of cooling water for the 2,186-MW PBAPS, 

about 7 miles upstream of Conowingo dam, which has a maximum withdrawal capacity 

of 3,450 cfs. The York Energy Center is permitted to withdraw up to 20 cfs for cooling 

water. The pond is also a public water supply source for the city of Baltimore, Harford 

County (Maryland), and the Chester (Pennsylvania) Water Authority. The permitted 

range of water level fluctuation in the impoundment is 9 feet, from elevation 101.2 to 

110.2 feet (figure 3-3). Exelon states that, although 9 feet of fluctuation is permitted, the 

current operating regime typically restricts fluctuations to about 4.5 feet (between 

elevation 104.7 to 110.2 feet) to minimize the potential for intake difficulties at PBAPS 

and cavitation within the Muddy Run turbines. During summer weekends, the 

impoundment water level is maintained at elevation 107.2 feet to provide a water level 

suitable for summertime recreational use. Critical water level elevations for Conowingo 

Pond include the following: 

 107.2 feet: The pond must be maintained at this elevation on weekends 

between Memorial Day and Labor Day to meet recreational needs; 

 104.7 feet: Below this level, Muddy Run cannot operate its pumps due to 

cavitation;

 104.2 feet: PBAPS begins experiencing cooling water problems when the 

elevation of the pool drops to this level;

 100.5 feet: Below this elevation, the Chester Water Authority is unable to 

withdraw water from the pond; 

 99.2 feet: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission license for PBAPS 

requires the plant to shut down completely at this water level; 

 98.0 feet: The York Energy Center cannot withdraw water below this 

elevation; and 

 91.5 feet: The city of Baltimore cannot withdraw water from the pond 

below this water elevation.
89 

Figure 3-3. Conowingo monthly pond elevations, January 2004 through December 

2010 (Source: URS and Gomez and Sullivan, 2012a). 

A minimum flow regime was established in a Settlement Agreement in 1989 

between Exelon and several federal and state resource agencies. The Settlement 

Agreement specifies that the flows represent turbine releases and exclude gate leakage. 

Table 3-5 shows the 1989 negotiated minimum flow schedule agreed to by all parties. 

The Commission granted temporary flow variances to Exelon on six occasions 

over the period 1998 to 2011(1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2005, and 2007) during summer 

drought periods, permitting leakage to be counted toward the minimum flow requirement. 

Flows released from Conowingo dam are measured by USGS gage no. 01578310 

immediately downstream of the dam (table 3-6). Flows are generally highest in March 

and April and lowest in July, August, and September. The peaking operation of the 

Conowingo Project during low-flow periods often results in substantial changes in the 

flow and stage (figure 3-4) in the river below Conowingo dam. Muddy Run Project 

operation also affects the water level of Conowingo Pond as figure 3-5 shows. 
90 

Table 3-5. Minimum flows for the Conowingo Project agreed upon in 1989 Settlement 

Agreement, with natural inflow measured at the upstream USGS Marietta 

gage (Source: Exelon, 2012b). 

Date Minimum Flow

March 1 - March 31 3,500 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is less;

April 1 - April 30 10,000 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is less;

May 1 - May 31 7,500 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is less;

June 1 - September 14 5,000 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is less;

September 15 - November 30 3,500 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is less; and

December 1 - February 28 3,500 cfs intermittent (maximum 6 hours off 

followed by equal amount on).

Table 3-6. Monthly flow data (cfs) from USGS gage no. 01578310 Susquehanna River 

at Conowingo, Maryland, for October 1, 1967, to September 30, 2009

(Source: Exelon, 2012b). 

Month Mean Median Maximum Minimum

10% 

Exceedance

90% 

Exceedance

Oct 23,755 13,800 245,000 295 57,170 3,750

Nov 36,037 28,700 272,000 303 70,410 5,807

Dec 50,533 40,300 357,000 777 98,350 13,610

Jan 45,340 30,250 622,000 511 93,980 10,210

Feb 50,783 36,800 470,000 758 98,500 15,500

Mar 73,846 58,900 462,000 287 139,000 24,410

Apr 76,957 61,800 467,000 6,090 144,000 29,690

May 47,092 39,400 235,000 5,220 81,100 18,100

Jun 34,894 24,500 1,120,000 622 59,000 8,658

Jul 20,001 15,700 213,000 269 37,500 5,421

Aug 14,917 10,650 202,000 367 28,280 4,490

Sep 19,109 10,400 662,000 363 35,240 3,037

Annual 41,026 27,800 1,120,000 269 85,400 5,840
91 

Figure 3-4. Flow and stage variation at USGS gage no. 01578310 downstream of 

Conowingo dam (Source: USGS, 2013, as modified by staff).
92 

Figure 3-5. Typical impoundment and Conowingo tailrace flow fluctuations during a 

low-flow period in 2008 (Source: USGS, 2013; Gomez and Sullivan and 

Normandeau, 2012b, as modified by staff). 
93 

Peak Flows

Normal annual high flows (figure 3-6) in the lower Susquehanna River occur in 

the late winter and spring. Extreme flood events such as those in late June 1972, and 

September of 1975, 2004, and 2011 were the result of rainfall from tropical systems 

Agnes, Eloise, Ivan, and Lee, respectively. The other noticeable high-flow event 

(January 1996) was the result of heavy rain, snowmelt, and ice jams. 

Note: Data for the Marietta gage are not prorated. 

Figure 3-6. Peak annual flows at the Marietta and Conowingo USGS gages, 1968 to 

2012 (Source: USGS, 2013, as modified by staff). 

Water Use 

Water in the Susquehanna River Basin is used for hydropower production and 

cooling for fossil and nuclear power plants, as well as for municipal and private water 

supply, agricultural production, and recreation. Consumptive water use in the basin is 

largely for public water supply diversion and utility power generation, with smaller uses 

for recreation, manufacturing, mining, and educational facilities (figure 3-7). The 

maximum approved daily consumptive water use in the Susquehanna River Basin is 

563.1 million gallons per day (mgd), and the majority of the use occurs in the lower 

basin. About half of the water used each year occurs during low-flow periods (i.e., July 

through November), with peak use in July.
94 

Figure 3-7. Consumptive water use in the Susquehanna River Basin (Source: SRBC, 

2013). 
95 

Water use for utility power generation in the lower Susquehanna River includes 

five hydroelectric projects (York Haven, Safe Harbor, Holtwood, Muddy Run, and 

Conowingo) and two nuclear power plants (Three Mile Island and PBAPS).53

 PBAPS 

requires about 2,230 mgd (3,450 cfs) at full power operation, and the majority of the 

water is returned to Conowingo Pond. The York Energy Center, a natural gas electric 

generation facility, withdraws cooling water about 8 miles upstream of Conowingo dam, 

at RM 18. Table 3-7 summarizes the consumptive water use for these electric 

generation projects. 

Table 3-7. Consumptive use for power generation in the lower Susquehanna River 

(Source: York Haven Power, 2012; Exelon, 2012b).

Facility

Daily Consumptive Water Use 

(mgd) (cfs)

Three Mile Island 21.0 32.5

York Energy Center 12.62 19.5

PBAPS 28.0 43.3

Note: The 30-day average consumptive use at Three Mile Island is 18.0 mgd. 

Water transported from the Susquehanna River Basin for use outside the basin is 

considered an out-of-basin diversion. Table 3-8 provides the existing out-of-basin 

diversion locations and their authorized diversion volumes as approved by SRBC. 

 

53 In addition, on June 30, 2014, Exelon filed an application for Non-Project Use 

of Conowingo Lands and Reservoir with the Commission. The application requests the 

approval of an agreement to allow Old Dominion Electric Cooperative to use project 

lands and waters for the withdrawal of 8.7 mgd of water from Conowingo Pond and 

discharge of about 0.8 mgd back into Conowingo Pond (net consumption of 7.9 mgd or 

12.2 cfs), necessary to support a 1,000-MW combined-cycle electric power generating 

plant that Old Dominion Electric Cooperative proposes to build and operate in Cecil 

County, Maryland (Wildcat Point Project). Construction of the Wildcat Point Project was 

scheduled to commence in January 2015, but the Commission has not yet approved the 

application for non-project use of project lands and waters. The Commission issued an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) for the application on December 29, 2014, and the EA 

concluded that the proposed action would not result in significant long-term 

environmental effects or significant cumulative effects on water resources. The EA 

stated the amount of water withdrawn under the proposed action would be minor when 

compared to the total volume of water available and Susquehanna River flow through 

Conowingo Pond (FERC, 2014).
96 

Table 3-8. Out-of-basin diversions in the lower Susquehanna River (Source: York 

Haven Power, 2012; Exelon, 2012b).

Name Location/Description

Million Gallons Per 

Day (mgd) cfs

City of Aberdeen, 

Maryland

Deer Creek to the 

Chesapeake Bay

3.0 mgd, but limited to 

1.8 mgd as of 2008

4.6 and 2.8

Baltimore, 

Maryland

Susquehanna River to 

the Chesapeake Bay

250 mgd, but limited by 

pumping capacity to 

137 mgd; limited to 64 

mgd during low flowsa

387, 212,

99,

respectivelya

Chester, 

Pennsylvania 

Water Authority

Susquehanna River to 

Delaware River Basin

30 46

Chester, 

Pennsylvania 

Water Authority

Octoraro Creek to 

Delaware River Basin

30 46

Coatesville, 

Pennsylvania,

Municipal Water 

Authority

West Branch Octoraro 

Creek to Delaware 

River Basin

2.0 3.1

Morgantown 

Properties, L.P., 

New Morgan 

Borough, 

Pennsylvania

Conestoga River to 

Delaware River Basin

0.004 0.006

Perryville, 

Maryland

Susquehanna River to 

the Chesapeake Bay

1.0 1.5

a These values are from the Conowingo final license application; the remaining values 

are from the York Haven final license application.

Water Quality 

Because the Susquehanna River Projects may affect water quality within the lower 

60 miles of the mainstem Susquehanna River, we discuss the overall water quality within 

this reach of the lower river, as well as water quality conditions at each project. 

The mainstem of the Susquehanna River in York, Lancaster, and Dauphin 

Counties, Pennsylvania (the reach from York Haven downstream to Conowingo Pond), is 

classified as a warmwater fishery and migratory fishery (25 Pa. Code §93.9o) and is 
97 

subject to specific water quality criteria that are applicable statewide for warmwater 

fishery and migratory fishery streams. The Pennsylvania-Maryland border bisects 

Conowingo Pond about 5.7 miles upstream of Conowingo dam, so the lower 15.7 miles 

of the Susquehanna River are within the state of Maryland, which has its own stream 

classification system and water quality criteria. Under the Maryland classification system 

(Code of Maryland Regulations Title 26, Subtitle 08, Chapter 2), Conowingo Pond is 

classified as Use I-P (Water Contact Recreation, Protection of Aquatic Life and Public 

Water Supply). The Susquehanna River from Conowingo dam downstream to the 

confluence with the Chesapeake Bay is classified as Use II (Support of Estuarine and 

Marine Aquatic Life and Shellfish Harvesting – includes applicable Use I-P categories). 

Chesapeake Bay tidal tributaries, including the Susquehanna River (which is tidal in the 

lower 5 miles of the reach below Conowingo dam), have sub-category designations of 

“Migratory Spawning and Nursery Use” and “Open Water Fish and Shellfish Use” on a 

Bay Segment scale during specified periods of the year. Table 3-9 summarizes the 

stream classifications and associated water quality criteria for the lower 

Susquehanna River. 

Table 3-9. Summary of stream classifications and water quality criteria for the lower 

Susquehanna River (Source: 25 Pa. Code §93.7; Code of Maryland 

Regulations Title 26, Subtitle 08, Chapter 2).

Stream Classification Parameter Criteria

Pennsylvania

Warmwater fishery and 

migratory fishery

Water 

temperature

Maximum allowable temperature varies 

by month, ranging from 40°F (4.4°C) in 

the over-winter period to 87°F (30.6°C) 

in the mid-summer

DO Minimum daily average of 5.0 

milligrams per liter (mg/L); minimum 

instantaneous of 4.0 mg/L

pH Between 6.0 and 9.0 units

Maryland

Use I-P Water 

temperature

The maximum temperature outside of a 

mixing zone (i.e., an area where an 

effluent mixes with surface waters) may 

not exceed 90°F (32°C) or the ambient 

temperature of the surface water,

whichever is greater; a thermal barrier 

that adversely affects aquatic life may 

not be established

DO Minimum instantaneous of 5.0 mg/L
98 

Stream Classification Parameter Criteria

Use II (downstream of 

Conowingo Dam)

Water 

temperature

Same as above for Use I-P

DO 2/1 through 5/31: ≥ 6.0 mg/L for 7-day 

average; 5.0 mg/L as instantaneous 

minimum

6/1 through 1/31: ≥ 5.5 mg/L for 30-day 

average; 4.0 mg/L for 7-day average; 

3.2 mg/L as instantaneous minimum 

(year-round); Shortnose sturgeon 

criteria: 4.3 mg/L as instantaneous 

minimum at water temperature greater 

than 77°F (29°C)

An excellent source of long-term data for water quality in the lower Susquehanna 

River (although with some data gaps) is from the USGS Harrisburg gage No. 01570500, 

located 13 miles upstream of the York Haven Project. Figures 3-8 through 3-10 provide 

a summary of water temperature, DO, and pH data available from the Harrisburg gage for 

the period November 2008 to November 2013 (the past 5 years). These data indicate that 

Susquehanna River water quality entering the York Haven Project area generally meets 

Pennsylvania water quality standards for these parameters during most of the past 5 

years. For water temperature, in 3 of the past 5 years (2010, 2011, and 2012) water 

temperatures did exceed the maximum state standard during parts of the summer period, 

but this did not occur in 2009 and 2013 (figure 3-8). For DO levels, there was only one 

event in the past 5 years when DO failed to meet the minimum instantaneous criteria of 

4.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L), and that minimum DO levels generally exceeded 5 mg/L 

except in the summer of 2010 (figure 3-9). Generally, pH levels remained within the 

criteria range, except for short periods in 2009, 2010, and 2012 when the maximum level 

of 9.0 was exceeded (figure 3-10). 
99 

Figure 3-8. Summary of Susquehanna River water temperature data at Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania, 2008 to 2013 (Source: 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/pa/nwis/uv?site_no=01570500).
100 

Figure 3-9. Summary of Susquehanna River DO data at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 

2008 to 2013 (Source: 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/pa/nwis/uv?site_no=01570500).
101 

Figure 3-10. Summary of Susquehanna River pH data at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 

2008 to 2013 (Source: 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/pa/nwis/uv?site_no=01570500).

Other water quality data are available for the lower Susquehanna River from 

several other sources, including monitoring studies conducted by government agencies 

and other studies conducted by utilities associated with the operation of hydroelectric, 

nuclear, and fossil-fuel generating stations. SRBC monitors water quality throughout the 

Susquehanna River Basin and periodically publishes reports on the results of its 

monitoring. Its large river assessment project has monitored water quality and biological 

(macroinvertebrates) parameters throughout the basin since 2007, and released its most 

recent report on that program in September 2011 (Shenk, 2011). Shenk (2011) concluded 

that overall water quality in the Susquehanna River is fairly good. For the monitoring 

station closest to the lower Susquehanna River, located at the mouth of the tributary 

Juniata River upstream of Harrisburg, monitoring at that station indicated slightly 

impaired conditions (Shenk, 2011). Because many of the other monitoring studies have 

been related to the operation or licensing of energy facilities in the lower river, those 

study results will be discussed for each project discussed in this draft EIS. 
102 

York Haven Project

York Haven Power conducted continuous water quality monitoring from May 

through October 2010, to support relicensing. Parameters sampled at seven sites within 

the project area included water temperature, DO, and pH. 

Water temperatures ranged from 52°F to 93°F and closely mimicked ambient air 

temperatures. Water temperatures occasionally exceeded the maximum state criteria 

(87°F) at sample sites, although those exceedances occurred most often at the shallow 

shoreline sample site on Shelley Island and at the most upstream sample site at the head 

of the project impoundment. In contrast, the powerhouse tailrace sample site had 

generally cooler water temperatures with fewer exceedances of state water temperature 

criteria.

DO levels generally met or exceeded state standards, except at a shoreline sample 

site on Hill Island in Lake Frederic and at the east channel site upstream of the dam. 

However, the Hill Island site failed to meet average daily minimum DO levels on only 4 

percent of the sample days, and failed to meet instantaneous minimums in only 2.7 

percent of the data. The east channel site only failed to meet minimum DO standards 0.9 

percent of the time. Diurnal DO patterns were observed in all locations, as influenced by 

photosynthesis and respiration, and fluctuations in DO levels were greatest in the warmer 

summer months and in areas of Lake Frederic with denser growth of SAV.

Generally, pH levels remained within state standards, but did show diurnal 

variation, probably due to fluctuations in carbon dioxide levels associated with 

photosynthetic activity. Inflowing waters to the project had fewer exceedances of state 

standards than waters being discharged from the project, but project outflows exceeded 

state criteria (higher than a pH of 9.0) only 2.9 percent of the time. Most of those 

exceedances ranged from 9.1 to 9.3 units. Minimum pH levels seldom dropped below 

neutral (pH = 7.0), with the lowest value of 6.3 observed at the shoreline sample site on 

Shelley Island. 

Muddy Run Project 

Exelon conducted water quality studies in multiple years prior to filing the final 

license application: 2006, 2007, 2010, and 2011. The surveys are summarized as 

follows: 

 In 2006, Exelon continuously monitored water temperature, DO, and pH in 

the project discharge for 1 month from August 8 to September 3. 

 The 2007 surveys involved spot measurements of water temperature and 

DO in the project discharge during low-flow and high-temperature periods 

in July and August. 

 In 2010, Exelon monitored water temperature, DO, pH, specific 

conductivity, turbidity, and chlorophyll a via biweekly depth profile 

sampling from April through October along a single transect (three stations) 
103 

in the upper reservoir, and continuously monitored water temperature, DO, 

pH, and specific conductivity at the cylinder gate intake for Unit 1 and Unit 

2 in the upper reservoir power canal, and in the tailrace where Units 3 and 4 

discharge into Conowingo Pond. 

 In 2011, Exelon continued water quality monitoring in July and August in 

both the reservoir and the tailrace by weekly sampling of water quality 

depth profile data (water temperature, DO, pH, specific conductivity, and 

turbidity) at two locations in the project’s upper reservoir, and three 

locations in Conowingo Pond both upriver and downriver of the tailrace. 

Exelon also conducted continuous monitoring of water quality parameters 

(water temperature, DO, pH, and specific conductivity) at the cylinder gate 

intake for Unit 1 and 2 in the upper reservoir power canal, from the tailrace 

at the Unit 1 and 2 discharge into Conowingo Pond, and in Conowingo 

Pond 0.25 mile upriver of the project tailrace.

Tables 3-10 and 3-11 summarize the water quality data collected by Exelon over 

the 4 years of monitoring in the tailrace and the upper reservoir. These data indicate that 

waters discharged from the project generally met state standards (table 3-10), although 

DO levels occasionally dropped below state standards during the warmer summer 

months. The Muddy Run reservoir does not thermally stratify, but does exhibit DO 

stratification in the main body of the reservoir in some locations, with DO levels as low 

as 2.4 mg/L at depth (table 3-11). The monitoring also found that there is substantial 

mixing occurring in the reservoir near the head of the intake canal during project 

operation, particularly during pumping operation when Susquehanna River (Conowingo 

Pond) waters, which are typically well-oxygenated, are entering the reservoir. In 2011, 

monitoring at times showed a weak inverse DO stratification (higher DO in deeper water 

and lower DO in surface water) as Susquehanna River waters entered the reservoir at 

depth, under the Muddy Run reservoir surface waters that were lower in DO. All other 

measured parameters met state standards. 
104 

Table 3-10. Summary of water quality data collected in or near the tailrace of the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project, 

2006 through 2011 (Source: Exelon, 2012a; Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan, 2012p).

Parameter 2006 2007 2010 2011

Water 

temperature

Met state water quality 

criteria; max

recorded=86.7°F 

Met state water quality 

criteria; temperatures in 

July about 4°F cooler than 

in August

Met state water quality 

criteria; temperatures 

ranged from 57.6 to 

86.0°F; temperatures were 

higher than the long-term 

53-year average (up to 

10°F in some months) in 

April through September 

and lower in October

Generally met state water 

quality criteria; minimum 

and maximum recorded 

temperatures ranged from 

72.1 to 87.3°F with cooler 

temperatures in August; no 

temperature stratification 

was observed at any of the 

tailrace monitoring 

locations, but diurnal 

cycles were observed, 

particularly in Muddy Run 

reservoir waters 

DO Met state water quality 

criteria; min recorded=5.2 

mg/L. DO levels in the 

tailrace typically decreased 

by 1 to 1.5 mg/L during 

generation and increased 

when generation stopped 

or the number of 

generating units was 

reduced 

Met state water quality 

criteria; average DO was 

6.6 mg/L in July and 6.1 

mg/L in August

Some violations of state 

water quality criteria; 

seasonal decrease in DO 

levels from high in April to 

lows in August; average 

daily DO value < 5.0 mg/L 

on 3 days in July and 1 day 

in August; instantaneous 

DO values were less than 

4.0 mg/L on 12 days in 

July and 2 days in August

Mostly met state water 

quality criteria; average 

daily DO values were 

above 5.0 mg/L at all 

stations and dates, but 

continuous DO readings 

decreased from early July 

highs of 8.2 mg/L to early 

August lows of 3.5 mg/L, 

with increases in mid to

late August; only one 

hourly reading less than 

4.0 mg/L in July in the 

tailrace monitor, and other 
105 

Parameter 2006 2007 2010 2011

nearby river monitors were 

generally 1 to 2 mg/L 

higher

pH Met state water quality 

criteria; within pH range of 

7.4 to 8.0

NA Generally met state water 

quality criteria; fluctuated 

between 7.0 and 8.0, with 

the lowest pH of 6.7 and 

highest of 9.1

Met state water quality 

criteria; pH range of 7.5 to 

8.5

Turbidity NA NA NA Met state water quality 

criteria; observed range of 

3.3 to 26.1 nephelometric 

turbidity units (NTUs)

(state standard ≤40 NTU)

Table 3-11. Summary of water quality data collected in the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project reservoir, 2010 and 

2011 (Source: Exelon, 2012a; Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan, 2012p).

Parameter 2010 2011

Water 

temperature

Met state water quality criteria; thermal stratification did 

not occur in the reservoir; surface water temperatures

ranged from 52.2 °F on April 5 to 84.6 °F on July 26; 

98.4-foot-deep water temperatures ranged from 48.2°F 

on April 5 to 84.2°F on July 26

Met state water quality criteria; thermal stratification did 

not occur in the reservoir; surface water temperatures

ranged from 75.2 to 85.5 °F with cooler temperatures in 

August; temperatures at depth ranged from 75.2 to 

85.3°F 

DO Some violations of state water quality criteria; seasonal 

decrease in DO levels from high in April to lows in 

August; strong DO vertical stratification in main 

Some violations of state water quality criteria; DO 

vertical stratification in main reservoir in some locations, 

with DO levels as low as 2.4 mg/L at depth; a weak 
106 

Parameter 2010 2011

reservoir with DO less than 5.0 mg/L at depths deeper 

than 25 feet in July and throughout the water column in 

August; no stratification at head of intake canal because 

of mixing of flows at that location; continuous 

monitoring found 70 instantaneous hourly DO values 

less than 4.0 mg/L with most (42 or 60 percent) recorded 

at the cylinder gate (intake) monitor in August when the 

project was in an idle mode; average daily DO value was 

also less than the state standard of 5.0 mg/L on 7 days in 

August and 1 day in September at the cylinder gate 

monitor

inverse DO stratification (higher DO in deeper water and 

lower DO in surface water) observed at head of intake 

canal, likely due to higher oxygenated Conowingo Pond 

water being pumped into the Muddy Run reservoir; 

continuous monitoring found instantaneous hourly DO 

values less than 4.0 mg/L 15 percent of the time between 

July 16 and August 7, with a higher occurrence of lower 

DO levels during the idle mode compared to pumping or 

generating; consistent increase in DO in the intake canal 

during the pumping mode as a result of the introduction

of higher oxygenated river (Conowingo Pond) water 

pH Met state water quality criteria; pH range of 7.0 to 8.6 Met state water quality criteria; pH range of 7.2 to 8.4

Conductivity NA Conductivity ranged from about 250 to 370 μS/cm in 

July and 220 to 400 μS/cm in August, with a decrease in 

conductivity with the onset of high flows in late-August 

Turbidity NA Met state water quality criteria; observed range of 3.1 to 

26.0 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) (state 

standard ≤40 NTU)

Chlorophyll 

a

Values ranged from 0.401 to 20.9 (milligrams per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) during the 15 bi-weekly sampling events

NA
107 

Conowingo Project 

The Conowingo Project area has an extensive, long-term history of water quality 

sampling associated with the operational monitoring for PBAPS, and operational 

monitoring and prior relicensing studies for the Conowingo Project. These data extend 

back to the 1950s, and parameters of primary concern are water temperature and DO. 

Conowingo Pond is a large temperate reservoir that follows a typical seasonal 

pattern of warming and cooling, with minimum temperatures of 32°F in 

January/February,54 warming during the period of March through July, reaching a 

maximum average high temperature of about 81°F in July/August, and then cooling from 

August through December. Thermal stratification does not occur in Conowingo Pond, 

although during the warmest summer months, bottom temperatures may be a few degrees 

cooler than the surface temperatures in the deeper parts of the reservoir, especially on 

sunny, calm days.

Average surface DO levels show an opposite trend to water temperatures, with 

highest DO levels of nearly 14 mg/L occurring in January/February, and lowest DO 

levels in July/August/September, with the lowest average level of 7 mg/L in August. DO 

levels remain well mixed throughout the water column during much of the year, but DO 

stratification occurs in the deeper parts of the reservoir closer to Conowingo dam during 

the warmer, low-flow summer months. Stratification generally occurs when river flows 

are less than 20,000 cfs and water temperatures are greater than 70°F. The stratification 

usually begins in late June or early July, with low DO levels (<5 mg/L) occurring by mid 

to late July, and most common at depths greater than 30 feet. The deepest portions of the 

pond may approach or become hypoxic (DO <2 mg/L) and even anoxic under certain 

conditions. This DO stratification can persist for up to 60 days depending on river flows 

and other weather conditions, with an increase in river flows and the onset of strong 

winds mixing the pond and eliminating stratification. Diurnal variation in DO levels 

occurs in surface waters in Conowingo Pond at depths less than 20 feet, with this 

variation sometimes as great as 5 mg/L. Peak DO levels normally occur in the mid to late 

afternoon as a result of photosynthesis, and reach their low point at dawn as a result of 

plant respiration overnight.

Conowingo Pond water quality directly affects water quality in the tailrace and 

lower Susquehanna River. Exelon’s Station 643, located along the Susquehanna River 

west shore 0.6 mile downstream of the dam and a long-term monitoring station for water 

temperature and DO, is designated as the primary Maryland State standard compliance 

 

54 Conowingo Pond may freeze over in colder winters, but not in all winters, as 

strong northwest winds may act to break up any ice cover that forms. Conowingo Pond 

also receives the heated discharge from PBAPS, which may act to maintain open water 

along the west shore of the reservoir downstream of PBAPS.
108 

monitoring location. Water temperature in the tailrace closely reflects the temperatures 

in the pond, with similar seasonal trends and minimum and maximum levels. Because 

the Conowingo generating units withdraw water from the bottom of the reservoir, DO 

levels in the project discharge have been similar to levels at depth (40 to 70-foot depths) 

in the pond. During low-flow, high-temperature periods in the summer, when reservoir 

bottom DO levels approached anoxic conditions, DO levels in the tailrace were 

historically as low as 2 mg/L. However, from 1989 to 1991, Exelon installed aeration 

(turbine venting) on all the Francis units (Units 1 through 7). Prior to installation of 

aeration, in some years, hourly DO levels were less than 5 mg/L up to 40 percent of the 

time. Following installation of aeration, hourly DO readings were less than 5 mg/L only 

0.03 percent of the time (from 1989 to 2007), and no readings were less than 4.3 mg/L. 

Exelon also installed aerating turbine runners in two Francis units in 2005 and 2008, 

further enhancing its ability to provide additional aeration in the tailrace.

Other water quality data were collected by USGS in the discharge from Unit 8 

from 1978 to 2000, and a subset of those data are summarized in table 3-12. 

Table 3-12. Selected water quality parameters recorded by USGS at the Unit 8 

discharge from January 1978 to June 2000 (Source: Exelon, 2012b).

Parameter Minimum Mean Maximum

Water temperature (°F) 32.0 56.2 87.8

Turbidity (nephelometric 

turbidity units)

0 13 410

Conductivity (μS/cm) 110 218 420

DO (mg/L) 1.4 10.4 17.8

pH 6.0 7.5 8.8

Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3) 8 40 82

Total dissolved solids 

(TDS)(mg/L)

53 120 246

TDS loading (tons/day) 490 29,332 99,500

Total suspended solids 

(mg/L)

1 45 1200

Total suspended solids

loading (tons/day)

12 32,230 2,020,000

Dissolved nitrogen 

(mg/L N)

0.4 1.8 6.6

Total phosphorus (mg/L P) 0.010 0.072 1.500
109 

Recent Water Quality Studies

Exelon conducted additional studies in 2010 to better understand water 

temperature, DO, and other water quality parameters upstream and downstream of the 

project, and to provide information for project relicensing. Sampling occurred in both 

Conowingo Pond and the tailrace from April through October, and focused on water 

temperature, DO, pH, turbidity, and fecal coliform bacteria. Conowingo Pond sampling 

confirmed historical observations of the absence of thermal stratification in the pond, 

although small differences in temperature (less than 4°F) were observed between the 

surface and bottom in some locations. 

The 2010 sampling also showed that, similar to historical data, DO stratification 

occurs in Conowingo Pond during July and August, with DO levels less than 2 mg/L in 

deeper pond locations. Figure 3-11 shows DO profiles taken immediately upstream of 

Conowingo dam from July through September. These profiles show the summertime 

stratification but also show that DO levels were below 4 and 5 mg/L (the state standards) 

from surface to bottom during many sampling weeks. Exelon also reported that, during 

those weeks, sampling stations upriver in Conowingo Pond showed stratification, but this 

stratification broke down in the lower pond just upstream of the dam. The water column 

was mixing in the lower pond, and the mixing of the lower DO and higher DO waters 

resulted in an overall lower DO profile from top to bottom. Stratification begins to break 

down in the pond in September; by early October, stratification has disappeared and DO 

levels are above 8 to 9 mg/L throughout the water column.

Turbidity and pH data in 2010 (collected at midpoint stations in Conowingo Pond) 

remained within the ranges observed in long-term sampling at Conowingo dam (see 

table 3-12). Turbidity ranged from 1.2 to 146.5 NTUs, and pH ranged from 7.0 to 8.9. 

Fecal coliform sampling in Conowingo Pond found generally low levels during 

the April through October sampling period. The Pennsylvania state standard for 

swimming (full body contact) is no greater than 200 colonies/100 milliliters,55 and only 

five samples out of a total of 28 samples collected in the Pennsylvania part of Conowingo 

Pond in 2010 had fecal coliform levels greater than the state standard, one in the 

swimming season (May through September) and the remainder in October. Similarly, in 

the Maryland portion of Conowingo Pond, only three of 28 samples had fecal coliform 

levels greater than 200 colonies/100 milliliters, all in October.

 

55 The standard is based on a statistically sufficient number of samples (generally 

not less than five samples equally spaced over a 30-day period), and the geometric mean 

of the indicated bacterial densities of fecal coliform should not exceed 200 

colonies/100 milliliters during the swimming season (May 1 through September 30) and 

should not exceed 2,000 colonies/100 milliliters for the remainder of the year. This is 

consistent with EPA criteria.
110 

Figure 3-11. DO profiles taken immediately upstream of Conowingo dam from July 

through September 2010 (Source: Exelon, 2012b).

Conowingo tailrace sampling in April through October 2010 involved monitoring 

water temperature and DO using three methodologies: sampling at specific stations in 

the tailrace, continuous monitoring at the long-term station 643 located 0.6 mile 

downstream of the dam, and discharge boil sampling on 20 dates in July and August. 

Water temperatures were similar to long-term data described above, with peak 

temperatures recorded in late-July and early-August, and then decreasing into October. 

Water temperatures measured at station 643 were representative of those measured 

elsewhere in the tailrace. Maximum water temperatures observed in the discharge boils 

generally ranged from 84 to 86°F in July, but reached as high as 90°F. Only small 
111 

differences in temperature were observed among the discharge boils, indicating relatively 

homogeneous temperatures in the overall discharge from the dam.

Tailrace DO levels remained relatively high (met state standards) throughout the 

2010 sampling, likely reflecting the effects of the aeration systems in place on the seven 

Francis generating units. Minimum DO levels exceeded the state standard of 5 mg/L in 

the discharge boils 97.8 percent of the time, with minimum recorded levels of 4.4 to 4.9 

mg/L. At station 643, no DO levels less than 5 mg/L were recorded, and minimum levels 

were generally above 6 mg/L. DO levels at station 643 were usually slightly higher than 

measured at the dam, but the difference was small (less than 1 mg/L) and sampling 

indicated that station 643 monitoring results were representative of conditions in the 

tailrace. Variability in DO levels was observed among the discharge boils across the 

powerhouse, especially between the Francis units that have aeration systems and the 

Kaplan units (8 through 11) that do not have aeration. Differences were also observed 

among the Francis units, sometimes as high as almost 3 mg/L. 

Salinity Encroachment on the Lower Susquehanna River 

Exelon investigated the extent of salinity encroachment in the lower Susquehanna 

River (Gomez and Sullivan, 2012b). The Susquehanna River is tidally influenced up to 

about 5 river miles downstream of Conowingo dam (at RM 10). Both Maryland DNR 

and the City of Havre de Grace, Maryland, maintain salinity monitors near the mouth of 

the Susquehanna River and have salinity data available since 1997. The City of Havre de 

Grace monitors salinity at its water supply intake to ensure that salinity levels do not 

exceed federal requirements for drinking water (less than 0.25 parts per thousand [ppt]). 

The Maryland DNR station is closer to the Chesapeake Bay (it is about 0.5 mile 

downstream of the City of Havre de Grace’s station). Salinity levels at both stations are 

relatively low, with median daily salinity levels between 0.005 and 0.02 ppt, although 

occasionally (less than 0.1 percent of the time) they exceed the federal criteria of 

0.25 ppt. Observed salinities ranged from 0.01 to 0.26 ppt at the City monitoring station, 

and from 0.08 to 0.46 ppt at the Maryland DNR monitoring station. Levels varied 

seasonally with salinity generally highest in the fall and late-winter and lowest during 

spring and summer, coinciding with or immediately after the period of highest 

Susquehanna River flows. 

Gomez and Sullivan (2012b) analyzed the relationship of salinity to river flows, 

including short-term project operational changes, as well as the influence of tidal 

fluctuations on salinity. This analysis found that salinity appears to be primarily affected 

by longer term flows (30-, 45-, and 60-day moving average), with short-term flow 

variations having little effect. The highest salinities were observed after extended lowflow periods. Tidal fluctuations also had more of an effect on salinity during higher 

salinity, low-flow periods because saltwater is pushed upstream and downstream in the 

river as the tide rises and falls.
112 

Sediment Loading 

The LSRWA study (Corps and MDE, 2014) investigated the sediment trapping 

capacity of the lower Susquehanna River reservoirs, including Conowingo Pond, and the 

potential effects on the Chesapeake Bay; details of the LSRWA study are described in 

section 3.3.1.2, Geology and Soils, Environmental Effects. Essentially, that study 

concludes that Conowingo Pond has reached its sediment capacity and is now in a state 

of dynamic equilibrium where high-flow events scour sediment (and associated nutrients) 

from the reservoirs, followed by periods with lower flows when sediment accumulates 

within the storage space created by the high-flow events. On average, sediment and 

nutrient loads delivered to the Chesapeake Bay via the Susquehanna River equal the load 

delivered into the three lower river reservoirs. 

Aquatic Biota

Fishery resources in the lower Susquehanna River are substantial with both an 

important resident warmwater fishery and anadromous and catadromous species that are 

passed upstream and downstream over the mainstem hydroelectric dams. Primary 

warmwater game species in the river include smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, walleye, 

channel catfish, flathead catfish (a recent introduction), and panfish species such as 

redbreast sunfish, bluegill, black and white crappie, and pumpkinseed. Other common 

species include gizzard shad, quillback, spotfin shiner, other shiners, and common carp. 

Juvenile gizzard shad and the shiners serve as forage species for game species. 

Each project reservoir has substantially different characteristics and aquatic 

habitat. Lake Frederic is about 3.5 miles long with about 29 miles of total shoreline 

within the York Haven project boundary, including the shoreline of the islands in Lake 

Frederic. The maximum depth of Lake Frederic is about 18 feet and the mean depth is

about 6 feet. At the normal water surface elevation of 277.86 feet, Lake Frederic has 

a surface area of 2,218 acres. The normal drawdown is about 1.1 feet. Lake Frederic has 

a substrate of primarily bedrock, boulder, cobble, and gravel with limited areas of finer 

substrates (sand, silt, clay). One such area is located in the east channel immediately 

upstream of east channel dam, and has one of the few dense stands of SAV in the 

reservoir. Two other areas of SAV are located along the shorelines of Hill and 

Shelley Islands. 

Muddy Run reservoir has a maximum depth of about 100 feet, a surface area of 

892 acres at elevation 520 feet, and 471 acres at the maximum drawdown elevation 

(470 feet). The arm of the reservoir that is the Recreation Lake has a total area of about 

100 acres and is maintained at a constant elevation of 520 feet for recreational purposes. 

Aquatic habitat in the power reservoir consists of a wide and gently sloping nonvegetated shoreline that is subject to large daily and weekly water level fluctuations (up 

to 50 feet on a weekly basis). Substrates are primarily unweathered bedrock covered in 

places with fragmented weathered bedrock, colluvium, and alluvium. Bedrock 
113 

outcroppings and overhangs also occur along the shoreline littoral areas. Little SAV 

occurs within Muddy Run reservoir because of the constantly fluctuating water levels. 

Conowingo Pond extends 14 miles upstream from Conowingo dam to the lower 

end of the Holtwood Project tailrace. The Conowingo Pond normal maximum elevation 

is 109.2 feet, resulting in a surface area of about 8,500 acres and a maximum depth of 

about 100 feet. Normal drawdown is about 2 feet, although it may reach 3 feet and 

greater during brief periods, but generally not during the summer recreation season. The 

Conowingo Pond shoreline is relatively steep, but through the years the pond has 

substantially filled in with sediment (except in the more upstream riverine, bedrock 

dominated reach), so the substrate in a large part of the pond is now primarily sand, silt, 

and gravel with several areas of dense SAV along the shoreline. An estimated 312 acres 

of SAV occurs within Conowingo Pond at full reservoir elevation, and that acreage 

substantially declines at elevations lower than 106 feet. The largest areas of SAV occur 

along the east shoreline of Conowingo Pond across from the PBAPS, in shallow areas 

that have filled over the years. Five SAV species were identified as dominant within 

Conowingo Pond: Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), hydrilla (Hydrilla 

verticillata), water stargrass (Heteranthera dubia), Canadian waterweed (Elodea 

canadensis), and coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum). Hydrilla, an invasive species, 

however, dominates SAV beds within the pond. Exelon also investigated SAV 

downstream of Conowingo dam in 2010 (URS and Gomez and Sullivan, 2012b). That 

study found that SAV communities were primarily located in the lower portion of the 

reach below Conowingo dam in areas with fine-grained substrates and lower velocities. 

The upper portion closer to the dam with its higher water velocities and primarily 

bedrock/boulder substrate contains little or no SAV growth. Four SAV species were 

identified downstream of Conowingo: Eurasian watermilfoil, hydrilla, water stargrass, 

and wild celery (Vallisneria americana); Eurasian watermilfoil dominates SAV beds, 

covering more than 95 percent of the area occupied by SAV beds. 

The Conowingo Pond and the Muddy Run Recreation Lake support an active boat 

and shoreline sport fishery for resident species, and fishing also occurs in both project 

tailwaters, from the shoreline and by boat. The tailrace fishery downstream of 

Conowingo, however, is more intense than in the Muddy Run tailrace. Muddy Run 

reservoir contains essentially the same species composition as Conowingo Pond, via the 

pumping of eggs, larvae, and other life stages from Conowingo Pond. Exelon reports that 

the fish standing crop is higher than many conventional reservoirs, but carp dominated 

the overall standing crop estimate (69 percent), with walleye, smallmouth bass, white 

crappie and channel catfish comprising 12.8 percent of the mean standing crop. Muddy 

Run reservoir is closed to fishing. However, the Recreation Lake is open to boat and 

shoreline fishing and is stocked annually with rainbow trout. Other species (walleye, 

tiger muskellunge, and channel catfish) have been stocked over the years.

There has been an active program for restoring anadromous fish populations to the 

Susquehanna River for the past 35 years or more. Historically, the river supported large 

runs of American shad, river herring (blueback herring and alewife), hickory shad, as 
114 

well as the catadromous American eel. These populations declined in the late 1800s and 

early 1900s because of the construction of canal feeder dams, overfishing, water 

pollution, and eventually the construction of the hydroelectric dams between 1904 and 

1928. The York Haven Project at RM 55 was the first hydroelectric dam on the river, 

having been constructed in 1904. The dam, however, is a low-head structure from 6 to 

22 feet high, and may have been partially passable by shad during higher flow periods. 

Holtwood dam was constructed in 1910 at RM 25, and at 55 feet high, totally blocked 

upstream fish migration. Two fishways were constructed at Holtwood at the time of its 

initial construction—a rock ramp type fishway on the west shore of the bypassed reach, 

and a pool-and-weir type fishway on the east shore of the tailrace. Neither fishway 

reportedly ever passed shad successfully, but the rock ramp fishway did pass some 

American eel, although the numbers are not known. In 1928, the 95-foot-high 

Conowingo dam was constructed at RM 10 without fish passage and became the 

downstream-most obstruction to upstream fish migration on the river. 

Modern anadromous fish restoration efforts on the Susquehanna River began in 

the 1950s and 1960s with a number of feasibility studies, followed by the construction of 

a trap and truck facility (the west fish lift) at Conowingo dam in 1972, the initiation of 

fertilized shad egg stocking in the basin, the construction of a shad hatchery by 

Pennsylvania FBC in the mid-1970s, and the total closure of the shad fishery in the 

Susquehanna River and the upper Chesapeake Bay by the state of Maryland in 1980. The 

number of shad returning to the river increased through the years, and by 1991 a new fish 

lift (east fish lift) was constructed at the Conowingo Project, followed by new fish lifts at 

the Holtwood and Safe Harbor Projects in 1997. The York Haven Project east channel 

vertical slot fishway became operational in 2000. 

The Holtwood Project fish lifts (tailrace and spillway) were renovated as part of 

the recent expansion of the Holtwood Project, which includes the addition of a new 

powerhouse and 88.3 MW of generating capacity. To improve migratory fish passage at 

the project, PPL: (1) modified the existing spillway fish lift, (2) rerouted the discharge of 

Unit 1 in the existing powerhouse to improve attraction to the spillway fish lift, and 

(3) excavated in the project tailrace and Piney Island Channel to improve fish access to 

the fish lifts. These improvements were completed in 2013, and the improved fish 

passage facilities were operational for the first time in 2014. 

Table 3-13 summarizes the passage of American shad at the four lower river 

hydroelectric projects since 1997. Table 3-13 shows that passage success at Holtwood 

has generally been poor, as a percentage of Conowingo shad passage. Generally, higher 

success rates have occurred during years with lower river flows, while lower success 

rates have occurred in years with higher flows. The recent fish passage improvements at 

Holtwood should increase the efficiency of the Holtwood fish lifts. Operation in 2014 

showed a small increase in the percentage of shad lifted at Holtwood, but not a 

substantial improvement in total numbers passed because the overall number of shad in 

the Susquehanna River was the lowest since volitional passage was established in 1997. 

Safe Harbor Project passage has generally been excellent, with a relatively high 
115 

percentage of the fish passed at Holtwood also passed at Safe Harbor. Lake Aldred, 

which backwaters into the Safe Harbor tailrace is only about 7 miles long, and the design 

of the Safe Harbor fish lift, along with the usual lack of spillage during the fish migration 

season, allows migrating fish to more easily locate the entrances to the Safe Harbor fish 

lift. Only low numbers of shad typically are counted at the York Haven east channel

fishway (table 3-13). However, the river reach from Safe Harbor to York Haven is about 

22 miles, including about 10 miles of Lake Clarke and 12 miles of free-flowing river that 

includes habitat suitable for shad spawning. Not all shad passing Safe Harbor would 

need to pass York Haven if they spawn downstream of York Haven, and, as a result, fish 

counts at the east channel fishway compared with Safe Harbor counts, do not indicate the 

actual efficiency of the fishway. 

Table 3-13. Summary of American shad passage on the Susquehanna River, 1997–2014 

(Source: Pennsylvania FBC, 2014).

Year Conowingoa Holtwood Safe Harbor York Haven

1997 90,971 28,063 20,828 --

1998 39,904 8,235 6,054 --

1999 69,712 34,702 34,150 --

2000 153,546 29,421 21,079 4,675

2001 193,574 109,976 89,816 16,200

2002 108,001 17,522 11,705 1,555

2003 125,135 25,254 16,646 2,536

2004 109,360 3,428 2,109 219

2005 68,926 34,156 25,425 1,772

2006 56,899 35,968 24,929 1,913

2007 25,464 10,338 7,215 192

2008 19,914 2,795 1,252 21

2009 29,272 10,896 7,994 402

2010 37,757 16,472 12,706 907

2011 20,571b 21 8 0

2012 22,143 4,238 3,089 224

2013 12,733 2,503 1,927 202

2014 10,425 2,528 1,336 8
116 

a Passage numbers are for the east fish lift, which releases fish into Conowingo Pond. 

The west fish lift is operated to collect shad for hatchery egg supply, and for other 

experimental purposes. 

b In 2011, Conowingo fish passage operations were terminated earlier than normal 

because the resource agencies requested termination of fish passage at Conowingo 

dam as a result of high river flows in the spring of 2011 that greatly impeded shad 

passage at facilities upstream of Conowingo dam. Therefore, all upstream fish lifts 

were also shut down after only brief operation.

Few other anadromous species currently pass upstream through the lower 

Susquehanna Projects. Table 3-14 provides passage data for the other anadromous 

species and the gizzard shad, which is a non-anadromous migratory species that moves 

upstream from the Chesapeake Bay to spawn in the spring. All the lower Susquehanna 

River reservoirs also contain landlocked gizzard shad populations, so fish passage counts 

at Holtwood, Safe Harbor, and York Haven may also reflect individuals from those 

populations. The peak passage of river herring occurred at Conowingo in 1997 and 2001, 

when about 243,000 herring passed in 1997 and 285,000 herring passed in 2001. During 

those same years, only about 1,000 to 1,300 herring passed the Holtwood Project, less 

than 1 percent of the number passed at Conowingo, with less than 1,000 herring reaching 

Safe Harbor in both years. The highest alewife passage (7,458) occurred in 2001. Since 

2003, the number of blueback herring and alewife passed at Conowingo has been less 

than 1,000 fish, with few or no herring and alewife recorded in some years. Since 2003, 

only sporadic herring and alewife passage has occurred at upriver dams with no herring 

or alewife passage recorded at York Haven since 2002. Only occasional hickory shad 

have been passed at Conowingo since 1997, with essentially none appearing at upriver 

dams. Small numbers of striped bass have been lifted at Conowingo dam (typically in the 

hundreds of fish per year), and a few of those have been passed at upriver dams, with a 

few striped bass consistently recorded at York Haven dam. 

Catadromous American eel elvers56 occur at the base of Conowingo dam, and a 

few may be passed upstream at Conowingo through the fish lift, although fish lifts are 

generally not effective in passing elvers, which are also difficult to quantify because they 

are small enough to pass through crowding devices and screens. Some of the eels that 

manage to pass Conowingo may appear at Holtwood and the upstream dams. Both FWS 

and Exelon have been collecting eels downstream of Conowingo dam since 2005, to 

assess the spatial distribution and size characteristics of American eels in the Conowingo 

tailrace, to assist in determining the feasibility and potential locations for upstream eel 

 

56 Elvers are juvenile American eel that ascend the river during the spring and 

summer months. 
117 

passage facilities. These studies used both experimental eel ramps and eel pots on the 

west shoreline of the tailrace near the west fish lift, as well as in locations near the east 

fish lift and in the spillway. Catches have been variable, ranging from total annual 

catches typically in the hundreds up to a maximum of 85,000 eels in eel ramps near the 

west fish lift in 2011. FWS collected more than 400,000 eels in 2013.57

 Eels collected 

by the ramps have ranged in length from 76 to 225 millimeters (about 3 to 9 inches) and 

are likely primarily elvers, while eels collected in the eel pots are generally larger, up to 

770 millimeters (30 inches) in length, indicating the presence of older age classes that are 

residents to the lower river downstream of Conowingo dam. 

Table 3-14. Summary of other anadromous fish (not including American shad) and 

gizzard shad passage on the Susquehanna River, 1997–2014 (Source: 

Pennsylvania FBC, 2014; SRAFRC annual reports). 

Year Conowingoa Holtwood Safe Harbor York Haven

1997

Blueback herring 242,815 1,042 534 -

Alewife 63 0 1 -

Gizzard shad 344,332 167,916 116,158 -

Hickory shad 0 1 0 -

Striped bass 1,015 4 0 -

1998

Blueback herring 700 62 16 -

Alewife 6 0 4 -

Gizzard shad 654,575 138,713 102,702 -

Hickory shad 0 0 0 -

Striped bass 1,467 116 12 -

1999b NA NA NA NA

2000

Blueback herring 14,963 27 159 0

Alewife 2 0 657 2

Gizzard shad 317,753 141,176 120,696 72,972

Hickory shad 0 0 0 0

 

57 Email from S. Minkkinen, FWS, Annapolis, MD, to S. Johnson, Earthjustice, 

Washington, D.C., December 11, 2013. 
118 

Year Conowingoa Holtwood Safe Harbor York Haven

Striped bass 802 4 3 12

2001

Blueback herring 284,921 1,300 710 4

Alewife 7,458 1 13 0

Gizzard shad 429,461 188,098 151,873 89,272

Hickory shad 0 0 0 0

Striped bass 543 4 5 8

2002

Blueback herring 2,037 13 0 0

Alewife 74 0 1 1

Gizzard shad 513,794 107,600 98,137 60,247

Hickory shad 6 0 0 0

Striped bass 913 7 1 10

2003

Blueback herring 530 3 0 0

Alewife 21 2 0 0

Gizzard shad 459,634 145,732 110,652 112,000

Hickory shad 0 0 0 0

Striped bass 267 2 1 26

2004

Blueback herring 101 0 0 0

Alewife 89 2 1 0

Gizzard shad 602,677 170,411 127,628 84,234

Hickory shad 0 0 0 0

Striped bass 391 3 0 2

2005

Blueback herring 4 0 0 0

Alewife 0 0 0 0

Gizzard shad 305,100 52,708 44,331 11,969

Hickory shad 0 0 0 0

Striped bass 49 0 11 6
119 

Year Conowingoa Holtwood Safe Harbor York Haven

2006

Blueback herring 0 0 0 0

Alewife 0 0 0 0

Gizzard shad 655,990 227,443 179,150 164,869

Hickory shad 4 0 0 0

Striped bass 75 0 8 5

2007

Blueback herring 460 0 0 0

Alewife 429 0 0 0

Gizzard shad 508,627 121,927 84,466 21,843

Hickory shad 0 0 0 0

Striped bass 127 3 2 0

2008

Blueback herring 1 0 0 0

Alewife 4 0 0 0

Gizzard shad 919,975 234,967 163,354 15,930

Hickory shad 0 0 0 0

Striped bass 20 0 3 5

2009

Blueback herring 71 0 0 0

Alewife 160 0 0 0

Gizzard shad 876,412 228,370 170,686 76,995

Hickory shad 0 0 0 0

Striped bass 66 0 0 7

2010

Blueback herring 4 0 0 0

Alewife 1 0 0 0

Gizzard shad 813,429 182,929 130,482 48,152

Hickory shad 0 0 0 0

Striped bass 34 2 5 6
120 

Year Conowingoa Holtwood Safe Harbor York Haven

2011 c

Blueback herring 17 - - -

Alewife 2 - - -

Gizzard shad 257,522 - - -

Hickory shad 20 - - -

Striped bass 21 - - -

2012

Blueback herring 24 0 0 0

Alewife 27 0 0 0

Gizzard shad 1,064,708 211,478 136,369 86,515

Hickory shad 0 0 0 0

Striped bass 122 2 1 5

2013

Blueback herring 7 0 0 0

Alewife 0 8 0 0

Gizzard shad 1,076,048 418,310 348,753 106,395

Hickory shad 1 0 0 0

Striped bass 200 3 3 7

2014

Blueback herring 6 0 0 NAb

Alewife 130 2 0 NA

Gizzard shad 1,170,200 297,522 216,826 NA

Hickory shad 2 0 0 NA

Striped bass 110 1 6 NA

a Numbers are for the east fish lift, which releases fish into Conowingo Pond. The west 

fish lift collects shad for hatchery egg supply and other experimental purposes. 

b Data were not available from the Pennsylvania FBC website.

c In 2011, Conowingo fish passage operations were terminated earlier than normal 

because the resource agencies requested termination of fish passage at Conowingo 

dam as a result of high river flows in the spring of 2011 that greatly impeded shad 

passage at facilities upstream of Conowingo dam. Therefore, all upstream fish lifts 

were also shut down after only brief operation. 
121 

Several other species have successfully used the fish lifts in the lower 

Susquehanna River, including substantial numbers of game species such as walleye and 

smallmouth bass. In a review of resident fish passage from 1997 to 2007, 49 fish species 

were recorded in the fish passage facilities of the lower Susquehanna River 

(Shiels, 2007). The species that dominates fish passage through the lower river dams is 

the gizzard shad. The gizzard shad, however, is not considered a game or sport species, 

does not support a directed fishery, and is considered by many to be useful only as a 

forage species for other fish during its juvenile life stage, because of its large adult size. 

The number of gizzard shad annually passing the lower river dams typically numbers in 

the hundreds of thousands, reaching over a million fish at Conowingo in 2012 and 2013 

(see table 3-14). Shiels (2007) reported that gizzard shad comprised about 75 percent of 

all fish passed over the lower river dams from 1997 to 2007. While the number of 

gizzard shad passed at each upstream dam decreases substantially between dams, large 

numbers of gizzard shad are passed annually at York Haven, often exceeding 100,000 

fish, as in 2003, 2006, and 2013. 

Engineered downstream fish passage facilities have generally not been provided at 

any of the lower Susquehanna River projects. Studies have been conducted at all of the 

projects to assess downstream passage of anadromous clupeids and the American eel. In 

addition, behavioral devices (lights and sound) were tested with shad at the York Haven 

Project, both as a deterrent to prevent turbine passage and as a guidance mechanism to 

move fish toward the forebay sluice gate for safe passage. Downstream passage at York 

Haven occurs via natural spillage over the dam or via the forebay sluice gate in 

combination with lights and sequencing of unit operations. Downstream passage at the 

other projects has generally been via the turbines, where passage survival has been found 

to be relatively high for juvenile anadromous clupeids (particularly at Safe Harbor and 

Conowingo). For example, at Safe Harbor dam, downstream passage survival was 

estimated at 97 percent for juvenile shad and 88 percent for adult shad (RMC

Environmental, 1991; Normandeau, 1998), and at Conowingo dam at 90 to 95 percent for 

juvenile shad and about 90 percent for adult shad (Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan, 

2012f; 2012i). Some fish may also pass downstream over the project spillways if a highflow event and spillage coincides with the outmigration period. 

Freshwater Mussels

York Haven Project

Strayer and Fetterman (1999) list 14 mussel species from the Susquehanna River 

system. Spoo (2008) reported 13 species from the Susquehanna River system, and the 

Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program reported seven mussel species from Lancaster 

County in the vicinity of Brunner (Lows) Island and Conewago Creek. Meyer (2010) 

reported an apparent decline in populations of the eastern elliptio in Pennsylvania, 

although it is considered stable throughout most of its north Atlantic slope distribution 

(NatureServe, 2010).
122 

A mussel reconnaissance survey was conducted in July 2010 during low-flow 

conditions (6,000 cfs at USGS 01570500 gage at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) at the York 

Haven Project. Based on substrate conditions, water depth, and velocity, representative 

aquatic habitat types within the project area were searched for live mussels and shells. 

Shoreline and exposed bars were checked for shell material and middens.58 Using results 

from the reconnaissance survey, seven sites were chosen for detailed analysis in four 

areas: main channel 1 (spillway reach), main channel 2 (middle section), main channel 3 

(lower section including the powerhouse area) and the east channel of the river 

(figure 3-12). 

A detailed survey was conducted in August 2010 when discharge was 6,000 to 

7,000 cfs at USGS 01570500 gage at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Five species and 56 live 

mussels were collected during 23.4 hours of searching (tables 3-15 and 3-16). An 

additional four species were found only as dead shells. Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) 

ranged from 2.7 to 9.3 at three locations, and with an average value of 2.6 for all sites 

combined. The mussel assemblage was dominated by eastern floater which comprised 

58.9 percent of the fauna and was approximately three times more abundant than the 

second most common species, yellow lampmussel. Several small eastern floaters and a 

single juvenile yellow lampshell were collected, which indicates that these species are 

likely recruiting in the area.

Aquatic habitat in the project area consisted mainly of bedrock and boulders, 

which is not particularly suitable for freshwater mussels. No live mussels were found at 

sites 1-3 in the main channel. Virtually all of Site 1 was unsuitable, and the 

unconsolidated substrate between boulders and bedrock outcrops at Sites 2a, 2b, and 3 

was only marginally suitable for mussels. Fourteen mussels representing three species 

were found at Site 4, in the upper reach of the main channel in the project area, which 

consisted mainly of bedrock with only small amounts of gravel. 

No live mussels were found at Site 5 in the lower east channel, which was 

characterized by high velocity water, bedrock, boulders, and only small areas of cobble 

and gravel overlain by sand. Live mussels were collected at Sites 6 and 7, in the mid and 

upper east channel, respectively. Seven live mussels (eastern floater and yellow 

lampmussel) were collected during 2.08 hours of searching at Site 6. Habitat at this 

location was more suitable for mussels than at Site 5, and was a shallow pool/slow run 

with a mixture of cobble, gravel, and sand with some bedrock and boulders. Site 7 in the 

upper east channel supported the most abundant assemblage in the project area; 5 species 

and 35 individuals were collected and overall CPUE equaled 9.3. Substrate was a 

mixture of gravel, cobble, and sand with some areas of silt. 

 

58 Middens are small collections or piles of mussel shell material, often 

accumulating as a result of river flow patterns. 
123 

Figure 3-12. Mussel sampling sites located below the York Haven Power Plant, 

Susquehanna River (Source: York Haven Power, 2012a). 
124 

Table 3-15. Mussel species collected in the Susquehanna River, York Haven Project, 

August 2010 (Source: York Haven Power, 2012a). 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Live Mussels

Shell 

Material Status Number a

% 

Abundance

Eastern floater Pyganodon 

cataracta

33 58.9 X Not listed

Yellow 

lampmussel 

Lampsilis cariosa 10 17.9 X S3, S4

Eastern elliptio Elliptio complanata 7 12.5 X Not listed

Alewife floater Anodonta implicata 4 7.1 X S3, S4

Creeper Strophitus 

undulatus 

2 3.6 X Not listed

Rainbow mussel Villosa iris X S1

Green floater Lasmigona 

subviridus 

X S2

Susquehanna 

elktoe 

Alasmidonta 

marginata 

X S4

Triangle floater Alasmidonta 

undulata 

X S3, S4

Total live mussels 56

a Status designations are based on Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program (PNHP, 

2011a) and PNHP (2011b): S1-Criticially imperiled; S2-Imperiled; S3S4-

Vulnerable/apparently secure; and S4-Apparently secure. 
125 

Table 3-16. Live mussels collected using semi-quantitative methods in the Susquehanna 

River, York Haven Project, August 17 to 18, 2010 (Source: York Haven 

Power, 2012a). 

Location

Total 

Search

Time, hours

CPU, 

#/hour Species Number

1-Main Channel tailrace 3.65 0.0 None

2a-Main Channel, LDB 2.00 0.0 None

2b-Main Channel, RDB 0.35 0.0 None

3-Main Channel 1.52 0.0 None

4-Spillway Con 5.25 2.7 Eastern floater 8

Alewife floater 3

Yellow lampmussel 3

5-East Channel DS Bridge 3.20 0.0 None

6-East Channel, US Bridge 2.08 3.4 Eastern floater 5

Yellow lampmussel 2

7-Upper East Channel 3.75 9.3 Eastern floater 20

Eastern elliptio 7

Yellow lampmussel 5

Creeper 2

Alewife floater 1

For the project Area 21.80 2.6 56

Because comparatively small numbers of live native mussels were taken in this 

semi-qualitative survey, it is not possible to provide a thorough analysis of population 

demography or recent recruitment in the York Haven Project area. Based on survey 

results, total shell length for eastern floater ranged from 40-110 millimeters, and for 

yellow lampmussel from 43-98 millimeters. Intermediate-sized organisms of both 

species were collected, and presence of comparatively small-sized individuals indicates 

that at least these two species had recruitment in or immediately outside the project area 

within the last several years. No federally listed threatened or endangered mussel species 

were found during this survey. 
126 

Muddy Run Project 

Native freshwater mussels were not collected in Muddy Run reservoir or in the 

Susquehanna River below the dam. No federally listed threatened or endangered mussel 

species have been reported within the project boundary. 

Conowingo Project

Marshall (1930) surveyed for mussels in September 1929, approximately 1 year 

after Conowingo dam was constructed. He reported two live eastern elliptio, as well as 

yellow lampmussel (one shell) and eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata) (four shells). 

Ashton (2009) described results from three surveys conducted during 2008 and 2009. 

Methods included benthic trawling and SCUBA diving by personnel from Marshall 

University, West Virginia, and collections by personnel from Maryland DNR’s 

Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division. Live individuals and dead shells of six 

species were found in 2008 and 2009, including eastern elliptio, alewife floater, eastern 

floater, tidewater mucket, northern lance (Elliptio fisheriana), and creeper. Ashton 

(2009) also reported that eastern lampmussel was collected in 1990 and 1998 by 

personnel of Maryland DNR’s Natural Heritage Program. In 2010, Ashton conducted 

mainly timed-snorkel searches in suitable mussel habitat downstream of Conowingo dam 

(Ashton, 2011). He collected dead shells of northern lance (Elliptio fisheriana), not taken 

in his previous two surveys, and was the first to report the presence of the invasive zebra 

mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in the project area. 

Contact with nine museums yielded few historical records for mussels in the 

project area. Three records from the National Museum of Natural History in 

Washington, D.C., were from upper Chesapeake Bay approximately 8 to 10 miles 

downstream of the study reach; one was for tidewater mucket and two were for eastern 

lampmussel. The Canadian Museum of Nature had two records from the Susquehanna 

River near the mouth of Deer Creek. One is for eastern elliptio and the other is for 

Anodonta fluviatilis, a taxon that is no longer recognized. It is likely this was the eastern 

floater (Pyganodon cataracta) based on synonymies in Strayer and Jirka (1997). Two 

additional records at the Canadian Museum of Nature were for eastern elliptio and the 

eastern lampmussel. The exact location of these records was not clear, although they 

were likely from downriver of the project area. 

In 2010 and 2012, semi-quantitative (timed searches) mussel surveys were 

conducted in the Susquehanna River below Conowingo dam (figure 3-13). The 2010 

studies were conducted by Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan (2012e), and the 2012 

studies were conducted by Biodrawversity and Gomez and Sullivan (2012). A total of 

128 sites were sampled using semi-quantitative methods during the 2 years. In 2010, 

locations likely to support live mussels were sampled; the 2012 study was designed to 

include areas not covered during the first survey. Semi-quantitative collections were 

obtained by wading, snorkeling, or SCUBA diving. During the 2012 survey, notes were 

made on water depth, substrate type, and flow conditions. 
127 

Five species and 6,301 native mussels were collected in 2010 and 2012 using 

semi-quantitative methods (table 3-17). For all species and sites combined, CPUE ranged 

from 0 to 612 (mean = 64.1, standard deviation = 94.5). Most sites with the greatest 

number of mussels were within or near tidal areas at the downstream end of the study 

reach. CPUE values of less than 5.0 were recorded at 21.1 percent of sites. Although 

sites with comparatively few mussels were found throughout, most were near the mouth 

of Octoraro Creek, near Bird Island, Rowland Island, or in the back channel of Mud 

Island at the upstream end of the study reach. Overall, eastern elliptio strongly 

dominated comprising 96.3 percent of the assemblage and found at 93.7 percent of sites. 

Average CPUE for this species was 61.7 (standard deviation = 91.8). Eastern elliptio was 

particularly abundant in the downstream project area, mainly in tidal areas. Remaining 

four species together comprised less than 4 percent of the fauna; average CPUE for each 

ranged from 1.55 (standard deviation = 2.99) to 0.10 (standard deviation = 0.48). A 

single shell of the creeper was found in the project area by Maryland DNR in 2010. 

No federally listed threatened or endangered mussel species were found during 

this survey. In the state of Maryland, alewife floater was listed as S3, eastern lampmussel 

was listed at S1 and S2, and tidewater mucket was listed as SU (table 3-17). 

A total of 117 live mussels were collected in the 66 quadrat samples collected 

during both study years. The fauna was dominated by eastern elliptio (95.7 percent), and 

equal numbers of alewife floater and eastern floater (both 3.1 percent). Mean total 

density ranged from a low of 0.11 (99 percent confidence interval: -0.07 to 0.29) to a 

high of 4.26 (99 percent confidence interval: 1.39 to 7.15). The highest densities were 

obtained at two locations in the secondary channel of McGibney Island. Mussels were 

more likely to be found in quadrats where silt, sand, and gravel comprised 30 to 80 

percent of total substrate. Population estimates for all species combined for the 450 m2 

plots ranged from 50 mussels (90 percent confidence interval = -32 to 132 mussels) to 

1,920 mussels (90 percent confidence interval = 623 to 3,217 mussels). 

The mussel fauna in the project area was characterized by dominance of a single 

species (eastern elliptio), and fewer numbers of five other species. This species was 

much more abundant at this location (96.3 percent), compared to the reach downstream 

of the York Haven Project (compare tables 3-15 and 3-17). Comparatively high numbers 

of eastern elliptio downstream of the Conowingo Project are likely due to greater 

availability of American eel downstream of Conowingo dam; the American eel is the 

most important host species for eastern elliptio (Lellis et al., 2013). Physical conditions 

of substrate and water velocity were patchy in the project area, which likely caused high 

variability in overall CPUE (ranging from at or near 0 to more than 600). Although it can 

be difficult to assess recent recruitment of these long-lived organisms over a short 

sampling, few small individuals of any species were taken in either type of sampling. 

Based on quantitative sampling, 95 percent of eastern elliptio measured 60 to 130 mm, 

and only two were less than 40 mm total shell length. Only a single (0.01 percent of the 

total collection) juvenile-sized (32.0 mm) eastern floater was collected using semiquantitative methods. 
128 

Figure 3-13. Mussel sampling sites located below Conowingo dam, Susquehanna 

River (Source: Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan, 2012e). 
129 

Table 3-17. Freshwater mussels collected in the Conowingo Project area (Source: 

Biodrawversity Inc. and Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, 2012). 

Common 

Name Species

Percent 

Abundance

Frequency of

Occurrence

CPUE

Mean SD Statusa

Eastern Elliptio Elliptio 

complanata

96.3 93.8 61.70 91.8

Alewife Floater Anodonta 

implicata

2.1 35.9 1.55 2.99 S3

Eastern Floater Pyganodon 

cataracta

1.1 22.7 0.47 1.11

Tidewater 

Mucket 

Leptodea 

ochracea

0.4 17.2 0.25 0.69 SU

Eastern 

Lampmussel 

Lampsilis 

radiata

0.1 5.5 0.10 0.48 S1, S2

Notes: Results of two similarly conducted surveys were combined: Normandeau 

Associates (August 9– September 3, 2010), and Biodrawversity (July 16-19, 

2012). A total of 6,301 live mussels were collected using semi-quantitative 

methods at 128 sites.

a

 Status from the Maryland Natural Heritage Program (2010): S1-Criticially imperiled; 

S2-Imperiled; S3-Vulnerable; and SU - Possibly rare in Maryland, but of uncertain 

status. 

The distribution of freshwater mussels varies with distance from Conowingo dam, 

proximity to tidal influence, substrate conditions, and hydraulic conditions. Results 

indicate that water velocity, shear stress, and substrate type affect mussel distribution. In 

the project area, mussel species were either very uncommon or not collected in habitats 

prone to frequent dewatering, areas with poor substrate, or areas subjected to high shear 

stress. Mussels were more prevalent where modeled shear stress was relatively low. 

Areas of highest CPUE observed in this study were typically along the east side of the 

river in the downstream half of the project area, where flow is considerably less than near 

the dam in the upstream half of the project area. In addition to this overall trend, the 

several sites with highest CPUE values in the project area also occurred in zones of local 

flow refugia, where stream flow models showed shear stress to be lower than in 

immediate surrounding areas. These results are similar to findings from other mussel 

studies from other parts of the country (Layzer and Madison, 1995; Strayer, 1999; 

Morales et al., 2006; Allen and Vaughn, 2010). 
130 

Invasive Species

York Haven Project

Asian clams (Corbicula sp.) were collected downriver of the York Haven Project 

as part of macroinvertebrate studies. Although zebra mussels have been found in the 

upper Susquehanna River drainage (Kazyak et al., 2005), none were found in Lake 

Frederic or downriver of the project area. 

Muddy Run Project

Dead zebra mussel shells were observed along the shore of Muddy Run reservoir 

in November 2008, approximately 1 month after they were discovered in 

Conowingo Pond. 

Conowingo Project

Zebra mussel veligers were found in 2009 and 2010 in the intake canal at PBAPS 

on the west bank of Conowingo Pond in Delta, Pennsylvania, during Exelon’s ongoing 

zebra mussel monitoring program at PBAPS. Zebra mussels were found at eight sites

downstream of Conowingo dam; three were close to the dam, and the remainder were

collected either at the mid- or extreme-lower portion of the project area. Asian clams 

were observed at nearly every site in the project area (Ashton, 2009).

3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects 

Brunner Island Station Cooling Water 

The Brunner Island Station, owned by PPL Brunner Island LLC (PPL BI), is 

located 1.5 miles downstream of the York Haven powerhouse on the west side of the 

Susquehanna River. The station is a coal-fired generating station that uses up to 

1,200 cfs of water from the river for cooling when operating at full capacity. Stations 

such as this typically run at a set output, preferably peak or full capacity, to provide 

baseload electricity to the power grid. They are typically operated at that level for a set 

period of time, or run continuously, as needed. On August 6, 2012, PPL BI filed 

comments pertaining to the York Haven Project draft license application with the 

Commission expressing its concerns that, under low-flow conditions, new minimum flow 

requirements could allow the river flow in the vicinity of the Brunner Island Station water 

intake to fall below 1,200 cfs (PPL BI, 2012). PPL BI’s concern is that, during low-flow 

conditions when flows fall to or below 1,200 cfs, large areas of exposed rock can cause 

debris to affect water flow patterns in the natural channel upstream of, and in the vicinity 

of, the Brunner Island Station water intake. 

In the final license application, York Haven Power stated that it did not anticipate 

changing its flow releases, and that it would consult with PPL BI if that changed. York 

Haven Power also stated in exhibit B of the license application that it voluntarily releases 

1,000 cfs on the west side of the river for the benefit of the Brunner Island cooling water 

intake. Although the Settlement Agreement would change where flows are released from 
131 

York Haven dam and generally reduces the magnitude of the releases at those locations, 

the minimum flows at the project would remain as a continuous minimum flow of 1,000 

cfs and a 2,500 cfs average daily minimum flow (or inflow, if less) downstream of the 

project as currently licensed. Inflow is based on river flows as recorded at the USGS 

gaging station at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 

On February 19, 2014, PPL BI filed a Protest and Comments on the Settlement 

Agreement (PPL BI, 2014). PPL BI stated that York Haven Power had not consulted 

with it during the settlement process and reiterated its concerns that the proposed 

minimum flow releases would result in periods of time when river flows downstream of 

the York Haven Project in the vicinity of the Brunner Island Station water intake would 

fall below 1,200 cfs, requiring PPL BI to reduce output at Brunner Island Station 

accordingly. PPL BI also stated that this has happened in the past, resulting in a station 

shutdown, further resulting in fish kills due to thermal changes in the Brunner Island 

Station discharge channel. PPL BI requested that a new license for the project include a 

requirement to release a continuous minimum flow of 1,500 cfs to ensure that Brunner 

Island Station operation is not affected. 

On March 4, 2014, York Haven Power filed additional information with the 

Commission to support its proposal and contend that PPL BI’s concerns about the 

proposed operation of the York Haven Project are unfounded. It provided the additional 

information to demonstrate that York Haven Power is not responsible for any detrimental 

effects on Brunner Island Station due to instream flows (York Haven Power, 2014b). 

York Haven cited historical flow data provided in the license application that show 

extreme low flows in the range of 2,000 cfs.59 York Haven Power notes that sections 

3.2.1(cc) and 3.2.2 of the Offer of Settlement state that, when inflows are less than 

3,000 cfs, the project (York Haven) would be operated on a run-of-river basis, adding or 

suspending operations at turbines to reflect, to the extent practicable, inflow from 

upstream and without adding or suspending turbine operations to deliberately draw down 

or store water for purposes of generating electricity during particular time periods. As 

such, York Haven Power would have no ability to provide additional flows to ensure that 

Brunner Island had sufficient flows to operate at full capacity. 

York Haven Power suggests that PPL BI did not understand York Haven Power’s 

proposed minimum flow releases related to the proposed nature-like fishway and the 

reduced flows for the east channel fishway. A flow of 200 cfs would be diverted from 

the east channel fishway and passed through the nature-like fishway. Because the naturelike fishway is farther downstream of the east channel on the west shore of the bypassed 

reach, the flows passing downstream of the project would be distributed in a similar 

pattern to existing releases. York Haven Power expects that the result would be at least 

 

59 The actual minimum value from the record was 2,066 cfs. 
132 

as favorable, if not more favorable flow conditions for operation of the Brunner Island 

station, than what is currently occurring. 

In response to PPL BI’s concern that the distribution of flows in the vicinity of the 

Brunner Island cooling water intake may affect its ability to receive adequate flows at 

Brunner Island, York Haven Power notes that once the flows pass downstream of the 

York Haven Project, the project has no control over the distribution of flows in the 

natural channel. 

With regard to debris in the channel that could hinder flows reaching the Brunner 

Island intake, York Haven Power points to its debris management program, which entails 

the passing of natural debris that accumulates in the forebay following notification to 

PPL BI that debris would be released. Any other debris passes over the east channel and 

main dams without being handled by York Haven Power. York Haven Power states that 

it has no control over the debris or where it may accumulate downstream of the project. 

In a filing dated October 15, 2014, PPL BI withdrew its Protest and Comment on 

the Settlement Agreement, citing subsequent conversations with York Haven Power that 

have resulted in an improved understanding of the Settlement Agreement’s implications 

for downstream flows, and an agreement with York Haven Power regarding notification 

of potential flow disruptions that could adversely affect the operation at Brunner Island. 

Our Analysis

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the York Haven Project would

operate under run-of-river operation during extreme low-flow periods, and would 

therefore have no ability or responsibility to provide supplemental flows to enable the 

Brunner Island station to operate at full capacity under such flow conditions. The 

Settlement Agreement would change where flows are released from York Haven dam and 

generally reduces the magnitude of the releases at those locations, but the minimum flows 

at the project would remain as a continuous minimum flow of 1,000 cfs and a 2,500 cfs 

average daily minimum flow (or inflow, if less) downstream of the project as currently 

licensed. Thus, these changes would not be noticed at Brunner Island. Further, York 

Haven Power would provide PPL BI with advanced notice when debris is going to be 

manually passed downstream, and York Haven Power has no control over the debris once 

it passes downstream. 

Competing Water Withdrawals within Conowingo Pond 

There are several entities that draw water from the Conowingo Pond as discussed 

in section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment, some of which are 

consumptive uses; others return water to Conowingo Pond. Although the current license 

allows Exelon to operate Conowingo Pond between elevation 101.2 feet and 110.2 feet, 

the pond is typically not drawn below elevation 105.2 feet to ensure adequate volume to 

meet the water withdrawals from Muddy Run and PBAPS. The other water withdrawals 

are very small in comparison to the withdrawals from Muddy Run and PBAPS. The 
133 

pond is typically maintained at about elevation 109.2 feet. Exelon proposes to continue 

the current water level management in Conowingo Pond.

Although competing water withdrawals was included as a scoping issue, no 

specific stakeholder concerns were raised in regard to competing withdrawals in response 

to the license application for the Conowingo Project and the proposed project operation.

Our Analysis

The current water level management has provided adequate water supply for the 

existing water withdrawals, and the proposed continuation of this management should 

continue to be adequate to support future water withdrawals, such as the proposed 

Wildcat Point Project. 

Downstream Flooding at the Conowingo Project 

Flooding downstream of Conowingo dam in the town of Port Deposit, Maryland, 

was raised as an issue during scoping by the mayor of the town. The mayor indicated 

that flooding occurs frequently and that it should be adequately evaluated during scoping 

studies. The mayor also indicated that the relationship between dam releases, 

coordination of those releases with the upriver dams, and flooding should be examined 

and the full range of solutions explored. The mayor also suggested that solutions could 

include better flow anticipation, management, and coordination of releases and 

physical/structural actions to prevent flooding (i.e., flood control doors on the 

underpasses in town and storm drain check valves devices). 

Exelon does not propose any project operational changes in regard to downstream 

flooding, and none of the stakeholders recommended changes in the agency terms and 

conditions or public comments filed with the Commission following the filing of the final 

license application.

Our Analysis

Exelon conducted a study in 2011 (Gomez and Sullivan, 2012a) using a HECRAS model to evaluate the Conowingo Project’s actual and potential influence on 

downstream flooding at Port Deposit during several flood events (10-, 50-, 100-, and 

500-year floods). Three alternative operating scenarios were investigated for their 

potential to reduce downstream flooding. The first alternative simulated drawing down 

Conowingo Pond prior to arrival of high-flow events. The second alternative simulated 

the effect of targeting lower pond levels during the storm. The third alternative simulated 

using the reservoir storage during the storm peak to reduce downstream flows. 

Additionally, a no-dam scenario was included, which simulated Port Deposit stage time 

series to estimate what conditions would be like if Conowingo dam did not exist.

The study results indicated that none of the alternative operating scenarios 

evaluated would substantially reduce downstream flooding. The first alternative was 

found to have no effect on downstream flooding magnitude and only a slight reduction in 

flooding duration. The second alternative had no considerable effect on flooding 
134 

magnitude or duration (less than 15 minutes). The third alternative negligibly reduced 

flooding magnitudes (less than 0.02 foot) and duration (less than 15 minutes). The nodam scenario had slightly increased (0.00 to 0.08 foot) flooding magnitudes and slightly 

decreased flooding durations, relative to existing conditions. 

Based on the study results, Conowingo Project operation has little effect on 

downstream flooding. The three alternatives investigated that were considered to be the 

best possible mitigation alternatives showed negligible or no improvement over existing 

conditions. The storage available in Conowingo Pond is not enough to mitigate even 

relatively small events such as the 10-year flood. The no-dam scenario showed the 

current flooding durations would only be slightly different than if the dam did not exist. 

The study concluded that substantially higher storage capacity would be required in 

Conowingo Pond in order for the project to be a viable flood control mechanism. There 

do not appear to be any operational changes that could be made that would reduce Port 

Deposit flooding for the 10-, 50-, 100-, or 500-year storm events. 

Water Quality Effects 

York Haven Project

As described in section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment, water 

quality in the York Haven Project area generally meets state water quality standards, and 

there have been no specific recommendations made by commenting entities regarding 

measures required to protect or enhance water quality. The Settlement Agreement also 

did not include any specific measures to address water quality. 

Our Analysis

Water temperatures exceeded the maximum state standard of 87°F (temperatures 

as high as 93°F were recorded) up to about 19 percent of the time in sampling locations at

the head of the project impoundment and at the upstream tip of Shelley Island. This 

indicates that inflows to the project reservoir already exceeded state standards due to 

normal summer warming. Water temperatures recorded in the project tailrace exceeded 

the state standard only about 12 percent of the time. While small localized deviations 

from water quality standards (water temperature and DO) have been reported in parts of 

the reservoir, those deviations are not a result of project operation. The operation of the 

Three Mile Island nuclear station does not appear to have any effect on water 

temperatures or thermal stratification at the project. The station has a closed-loop cooling 

system and does not discharge heated waters to the project reservoir. 

DO levels were below state standards for 4 percent and about 1 percent of the 

sampling observations at only two of the sampling sites--the shoreline of Hill Island and a 

location in the east channel upstream of the dam--respectively. Diurnal fluctuations in 

DO were also observed in the reservoir as a result of the natural 

photosynthesis/respiration cycle, particularly in areas with substantial SAV beds. 

Fluctuations in pH levels in the reservoir also appeared to reflect natural variations. 
135 

Muddy Run Project 

As described in section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment, waters 

discharged from the project generally meet state standards, although DO levels 

occasionally drop below state standards during the warmer summer months. The Muddy 

Run reservoir does not thermally stratify, but does exhibit DO stratification in the main 

reservoir in some locations, with DO levels as low as 2.4 mg/L at depth. Substantial 

mixing occurs in the reservoir near the head of the intake canal during project operation, 

particularly during pumping operation when Susquehanna River (Conowingo Pond) 

waters are entering the reservoir. In 2011, monitoring at times showed a weak inverse 

DO stratification (higher DO in deeper water and lower DO in surface water) as 

Susquehanna River waters entered the reservoir at depth, under the Muddy Run reservoir 

surface waters that were lower in DO. All other measured parameters met 

state standards. 

Exelon proposes to implement the conditions in the draft certification, which states 

that it must maintain state water standards at the project, and requires that it submit a DO 

monitoring plan to Pennsylvania DEP no earlier than November 1, 2027; implement the 

plan; and if violations in state standards occur (fail to meet criteria less than 99 percent of 

the time), submit a plan to Pennsylvania DEP to resolve any DO violations. 

Pennsylvania DEP issued a final certification on June 3, 2014, and filed a clarified 

certification on December 10, 2014. By letter filed January 21, 2015, Exelon confirmed 

that the clarified water quality certification continues to represent Exelon's licensing 

proposal for the Muddy Run Project. Therefore, Exelon’s proposal has not changed. 

There were no other specific recommendations from stakeholders or agencies 

regarding water quality measures in response to the final license application. However, 

during scoping, questions were raised by FWS about the potential effects of flow 

reversals60 in Conowingo Pond associated with Muddy Run pumping operation during 

low-flow conditions, and the possible re-distribution of heated discharges from PBAPS. 

Our Analysis

Exelon recorded some instances when DO levels within the Muddy Run reservoir 

and in discharges from the project did not meet state standards (see tables 3-10 and 3-11). 

In general, project releases had fewer instances where DO did not meet the state standard 

than did the reservoir. The Muddy Run Project discharges into the upper, more riverine 

reach of Conowingo Pond where river velocities are typically strong as a result of 

discharges from the upstream Holtwood Project. This results in immediate mixing of 

 

60 Flow reversals mean that flow patterns in Conowingo Pond may be affected by 

Muddy Run Project pumping such that currents would move upstream toward the project, 

potentially pulling the heated PBAPS discharge upstream or causing a wider distribution 

of heated waters in the pond. 
136 

Muddy Run discharges with the Susquehanna River flow and would act to quickly raise 

DO levels to above state standards. Based on Exelon’s monitoring studies, and the 

location of the project at the upstream reach of Conowingo Pond, there appears to be no 

need to require measures to further protect or enhance water quality. Nevertheless, the

certification conditions when implemented would ensure that state DO standards 

are maintained. 

Regarding the potential for Muddy Run pumping operation to result in flow 

reversals that would draw heated water from the downstream PBAPS in an upstream 

direction toward the Muddy Run Project, Exelon’s studies did not find any instances of 

the PBAPS’ heated discharge reaching as far upstream as the Muddy Run tailrace. 

Conowingo Project

In section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment, we describe existing 

water quality conditions in both Conowingo Pond and in the river downstream of 

Conowingo dam. Based on many years of monitoring in Conowingo Pond, the pond 

exhibits DO stratification (higher DO levels in near-surface waters and low DO levels at 

depth) resulting in the potential for entrainment of lower DO waters through the lowlevel intakes. This occurred over a period of years until Exelon installed turbine venting 

in Units 1 through 7 between 1989 and 1991, and aerating turbine runners in two of the 

seven Francis units (Units 2 and 5) in 2005 and 2008. As a result of these modifications, 

releases from Conowingo dam now meet state standards nearly 100 percent of the time. 

Water temperature has not been an issue at Conowingo, and normally meets state 

standards, even with the presence of the heated discharge from PBAPS into 

Conowingo Pond. 

Commenting entities did not recommend additional water quality enhancement 

measures at Conowingo, although The Nature Conservancy recommends that project 

operation not result in violation of water quality standards or non-attainment of water 

quality criteria established for the river and the Chesapeake Bay, including the 

Chesapeake Bay TMDL. Maryland DOE, in its comments in response to the REA notice, 

states that it is premature to make conclusions as to the effect of the project on water 

quality, because it would fully assess project effects during its review of the 

certification application.

Our Analysis

For the two water quality parameters that may be typically affected by 

hydroelectric project operation, water temperature and DO, existing project operation 

generally does not exceed state standards. Past violations of state DO standards have 

been eliminated by the addition of turbine venting to seven Francis units and aeration to 

two of the seven Francis units. While comments were filed regarding the effects of the 

project on nutrients and sediment loading (discussed in the following section), there 

appears to be no need for further measures to protect or enhance water temperature and 

DO at the project. 
137 

Sediment and Nutrient Loading 

Sediment transport in the Susquehanna River and the effects of the presence of the 

lower river hydropower reservoirs on that transport are of concern to many stakeholders. 

This is primarily an issue for the Conowingo Project, because it has the largest and 

deepest reservoir on the lower river, and the greatest capacity for sediment storage. The 

York Haven Project reservoir has minimal storage capacity, because of its small size and 

shallow depth. The Muddy Run Project, because it is an off-stream pumped storage 

reservoir, also has minimal effect on sediment transport or storage in the river. Sediment 

transport is discussed in detail in section 3.3.1, Geology and Soils. 

Sediment transported by the river is also rich in nutrients (nitrogen and 

phosphorus). With the Susquehanna River being the largest source of freshwater to the 

Chesapeake Bay, it is also the largest source of nutrients, contributing about 70 percent of 

the total nitrogen and 55 percent of the total phosphorus (Smullen et al., 1982, as cited by 

Cheng et al., 2013). These nutrients and organic matter in the sediment support the 

growth of phytoplankton, algae, and aquatic plants, but if high nutrient loading occurs, 

this may enhance eutrophication and result in hypoxia (the depletion of DO in the water 

column). High turbidity levels associated with high sediment loads may also block 

sunlight in the water column, adversely affecting plant photosynthesis and the production 

of DO. As we previously described, EPA has set a TMDL for the Chesapeake Bay with 

total watershed limits on the contribution of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment to the 

Bay. The TMDL calls for a reduction in that loading from current levels. 

Exelon proposes a Sediment Management Plan to control sediment from project 

lands, to identify benchmarks for actions needed to address sediment issues that would 

affect project operation, and it would conduct a bathymetric survey every 5 years to track 

depositional patterns in the pond. EPA, Maryland DNR, SRBC, NMFS, Chesapeake Bay 

Foundation, Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc., Midshore Riverkeeper 

Conservancy, Inc., and Clean Chesapeake Coalition state that Exelon’s proposed 

management plans are not ready for analysis without an understanding of the sedimentrelated effects of scour in Conowingo Pond during peak flow events on the water quality 

and living resources in the Chesapeake Bay. The Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, 

Inc., also recommend that Exelon remove at least 4 million tons of sediment annually 

from the reservoir to eventually remove all sediment subject to scouring. The Clean 

Chesapeake Coalition requests that Exelon be required to dredge Conowingo Pond and 

restore oyster beds north of the Bay Bridge and SAV in the upper Bay and its tributaries 

that were buried by sediment scoured from Conowingo Pond. The Town of Port Deposit, 

American Rivers, and Henry Immanuel also recommend that Exelon prevent and mitigate 

for the downstream effects of scoured sediments. Maryland DNR notes, however, that it 

is premature to conclude that the draft LSRWA study report (Corps and MDE, 2014; 

described above in Geology and Soils) will be adequate to appropriately identify and 

evaluate sediment and nutrient effects on the Bay’s resources related to the 

Conowingo Project. 
138 

Our Analysis 

As we describe in Geology and Soils, sediment and nutrient loading from the 

Susquehanna River Basin is a long-term natural process that has been interrupted by the 

construction of the lower river hydropower reservoirs. Beginning in 1910, with the

construction of Holtwood dam, followed by the construction of Conowingo and Safe 

Harbor dams in 1928 and 1930, a portion of the Susquehanna River sediment and nutrient 

load has been stored in these reservoirs, and has not reached the Chesapeake Bay. So, 

during parts of the past 100 or so years, nutrient loading in the Bay has been lower than it 

would have been without the lower river reservoirs. Some of this sediment and nutrient 

load, however, has been and continues to be re-suspended and scoured from the 

reservoirs during flood events, and deposited in the Bay. The Bay TMDL does recognize 

that this is a watershed-wide issue. 

Some commenters have suggested dredging Conowingo Pond, to allow for 

continued storage of sediment and nutrients, and to avoid the large spikes in loading that 

may occur during scouring flood events. The TMDL recognizes the existing storage 

capacity of the three lower river reservoirs, and that storage capacity may be reduced 

over time as the reservoirs fill in. If that occurs, the TMDL requires that governmental 

jurisdictions in the watershed might need to increase their sediment and nutrientreduction efforts to meet the allocations they have been assigned in the Bay TMDL. A 

primary focus of the TMDL is the preparation of watershed implementation plans that

detail how and when the six Chesapeake Bay states and the District of Columbia will 

meet their pollution allocations in the TMDL. It is reasonable that Exelon and the other 

project owners on the lower river are not considered the primary source of sediment and 

nutrient loading to the Bay, and that the TMDL recognizes that it is a watershed issue. 

The recent LSRWA study (Corps and MDE, 2014) finds that nutrients associated 

with scoured sediment are more harmful to the Bay’s aquatic life than the sediment itself. 

The LSRWA study evaluated potential water quality effects on the upper Chesapeake 

Bay of a scouring event in January 1996 (river flow reached a daily high flow of 622,000 

cfs at the Conowingo USGS gage, and remained above 400,000 cfs for 3 days), by 

modeling the effects of nutrient scour from Conowingo Pond on light attenuation in the 

water column, chlorophyll increases, and bottom DO under the TMDL condition. This 

modeling found that the effects on these water quality parameters would be small: an 

increase in light attenuation of 0.01/m61; chlorophyll increase of from 0.1 to 0.3 mg/m3

; 

and a decrease in bottom DO of 0.1 to 0.2 mg/l. The LSRWA study found, however, that 

these effects were evident in the Chesapeake Bay as far south as the Potomac River, and 

that effects vary seasonally, with a late-spring storm having a greater effect than a fall 

storm. The LSRWA study also modeled the effect of dredging 3 million to 28 million 

 

61 Light attenuation is reported as the coefficient of diffuse light attenuation and 

has units of inverse depth (value per meter – 0.01/m). 
139 

cubic yards of sediment from Conowingo Pond. Results indicate minor improvements in 

these water quality parameters with dredging, although the highest dredging amount had 

slightly better improvements. 

The LSRWA study (Corps and MDE, 2014) indicates that operational changes at 

Conowingo would not address the sediment transport issue, and that dredging of 

Conowingo Pond would be cost prohibitive and ineffective. The study concludes that 

management opportunities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to reduce nutrient delivery 

are likely to be more effective than sediment load removal methods. Because it is a 

watershed-wide issue, we find no justification at this time for requiring Exelon to 

implement measures such as dredging to help control sediment and nutrient loading in the 

Bay, which would occur in the long term whether or not Conowingo dam was in place. 

Reservoir Fluctuations 

York Haven Project

Reservoir fluctuations have the potential to dewater shoreline habitat, which could 

strand nearshore biota such as young fish, especially if drawdowns occur during the 

spawning and rearing season for shoreline spawning nestbuilders such as smallmouth 

bass, largemouth bass, and sunfish. Fluctuations can also limit the development of SAV 

and emergent vegetation. Nearshore aquatic vegetation is often an important habitat 

element for benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. 

York Haven Power proposes to continue to operate the York Haven Project as it 

has in the past, in a run-of-river mode with a maximum drawdown of 1.1 feet for 

purposes of dam maintenance. No specific recommendations pertaining to reservoir 

fluctuations have been made by any commenting entities, and the Settlement Agreement 

does not include any measures that pertain to reservoir fluctuations. 

Our Analysis 

Proposed continued operation of the project in a run-of-river mode would result in 

nearly constant reservoir water surface elevations, when the project has sufficient control 

over river flows. Flow and reservoir level fluctuations would continue to occur during 

high flows, or changing natural inflows, but this would be beyond the control of the 

project. Drawdowns of up to 1.1 feet are reserved for specific project maintenance 

activities and generally scheduled for late summer through fall. This timing avoids the 

spring to mid-summer spawning period of nearly all resident fish, and the young of 

shoreline nest building species would have reached the juvenile life stage and be mobile 

enough to leave shallow shoreline habitat prior to any maintenance drawdown. There has 

been no evidence of fish stranding or any negative effect on nearshore spawning habitat 

attributed to the current drawdown regime.

Muddy Run Project 

Muddy Run reservoir can have water surface elevation changes of up to 50 feet on 

a weekly basis during typical operation. Although such fluctuations create poor 
140 

nearshore habitat for aquatic biota, creel surveys in 1972 and 1987 (when the public was 

allowed to fish the reservoir) identified gamefish populations in Muddy Run reservoir; 

large white crappie dominated the catch. This suggests that the forage base in the 

reservoir is adequate. The likely source of both forage and game fish is pumping 

operation from Conowingo Pond. However, Muddy Run reservoir is currently off-limits 

to public recreation and is surrounded by fencing that precludes public access. The 

Muddy Run Recreation Lake, which abuts Muddy Run reservoir, is a 100-acre lake that 

provides a stable water level habitat that supports an important recreational fishery from 

the entire shoreline and small boats.

Exelon is not proposing any changes in its Muddy Run Project operation, and no 

specific recommendations pertaining to reservoir fluctuations have been made by any 

commenting entities. 

Our Analysis 

Sufficient angling opportunities exist at this project at the Recreation Lake under 

current conditions, and they would continue during the term of a new license. Significant 

fluctuations in the Muddy Run reservoir would continue to affect fish populations, but 

given that the reservoir would remain off-limits to the public, there would be little benefit 

to restricting current fluctuations. We discuss reservoir fluctuations at Conowingo Pond, 

the lower reservoir of the Muddy Run Project, in the following section.

Conowingo Project 

Exelon proposes to continue to operate the Conowingo Project as it has in the past, 

including maximum reservoir fluctuations between elevations 101.2 and 110.2 feet. On 

weekends between Memorial Day and Labor Day, however, the water level would be 

maintained at or above elevation 107.2 feet to accommodate recreational boating and 

associated activities. No entity has recommended an alternative reservoir fluctuation 

regime. However, The Nature Conservancy and American Rivers suggest run-of-river 

operation of the Conowingo Project. Such operation would result in a relatively constant 

water surface elevation except when inflow to the project exceeds the hydraulic capacity 

of the turbines. 

Our Analysis 

Conowingo Pond fluctuations primarily influence aquatic habitat in the lower 11 

miles of the reservoir (from Hennery Island to Conowingo dam, referred to as the lower 

pond). Upstream of Hennery Island, flow releases from the Holtwood Project have a 

greater influence on water surface elevations than operation of the Conowingo Project. 

Although the current license for the Conowingo Project allows the reservoir to fluctuate 

between elevations 101.2 and 110.2 feet, typical operation results in reservoir fluctuations 

between elevations 105.2 and 109.2 feet. As shown in figure 3-3, the minimum average 

monthly reservoir elevation from January 2004 through September 2010 was at or above 

elevation 104.7 feet for nearly the entire 6+ year period. This is most likely because the 

Muddy Run Project experiences pumping cavitation when Conowingo Pond is below this 
141 

elevation. Exelon estimates that there are a total of 453 acres of habitat within the 9-foot 

permitted reservoir fluctuation zone based on an analysis of bathymetry and reservoir 

fluctuations in the lower pond. Of this total, 380 acres (84 percent) are between 

elevations 101.2 and 106.0 feet. The greatest amount of habitat in any 1-foot increment 

in the maximum drawdown zone (98 acres) is between elevations 104 and 105 feet. 

Consequently, under current and proposed future operation, most of the aquatic habitat in 

the drawdown zone would remain submerged.

A key element of nearshore habitat for aquatic biota in lakes and reservoirs is 

cover, where benthic macroinvertebrates and young fish can forage and hide from larger 

predators. In Conowingo Pond, a substantial amount of cover is provided by SAV. 

Exelon estimates that 320.8 acres of SAV occupy the drawdown zone, which is 71 

percent of the total aquatic drawdown zone habitat of the lower pond. Most of the SAV 

was found between elevations 104 and 107 feet. The primary growing season for SAV is 

during the warm summer months (June, July, and August). This also is the primary 

spawning and nursery period for important nearshore spawning fish such as black bass 

and sunfish. This corresponds with the period when Exelon is required to maintain the 

water level of Conowingo Pond at or above elevation 107.2 feet on weekends for 

recreational purposes. The net result of this requirement is evident in figure 3-3, where 

the minimum monthly elevation during June, July, and August is above elevation 105.5 

feet and the average monthly elevation is above elevation 108.0 feet. During this period, 

weekly average water surface fluctuations range between elevation 107.5 and 108.8 feet. 

This likely explains why most but not all of the SAV occurs below elevation 107 feet 

under current conditions. 

Consequently, continuing to maintain the existing reservoir fluctuation regime 

within an overall range between elevations 101.2 and 110.2 feet and a summer weekend 

minimum elevation of 107.2 feet would be protective of nearshore aquatic habitat and 

associated biota. We note that when inflow to Conowingo Pond exceeds the hydraulic 

capacity of the turbines, Exelon would operate the spill gates to maintain reservoir level 

control, but under spillage conditions the maximum water level in the pond may exceed 

the elevation 110.2-foot high end of the permissible range. We acknowledge that if the 

Conowingo Project would be operated in a run-of-river mode, as The Nature 

Conservancy and American Rivers suggest, the reservoir level would be essentially 

constant at elevation 110.2 feet, which would represent a slight enhancement to nearshore 

habitat compared to existing conditions. An elevation of 110.2 feet would provide an 

additional 55 acres of aquatic habitat, compared to the current normal maximum 

elevation of 109.2 feet. We expect the incremental benefits of run-of-river operation over 

existing conditions to be minimal. 

While a constant reservoir elevation of 110.2 feet would result in a slight 

enhancement to nearshore habitat, it would also allow nuisance invasive plant species 

such as hydrilla to infest areas between the 107-foot contour and the full pond elevation 

of 110.2 feet. This would likely negatively affect shoreline fishing and boating. In 

addition, as discussed in section 3.3.5.2, Recreation and Land Use Resources, 
142 

Environmental Effects, it would also negatively affect the ability of larger boats to access 

the reservoir from the tributary boat ramps because at full pond they are not able to pass 

under the railroad bridges at Peters and Conowingo Creeks. 

Downstream Flow Releases 

York Haven Project 

In the Settlement Agreement, York Haven Power proposes a continuous minimum 

flow release of 1,000 cfs and an average daily minimum flow release of 2,500 cfs, or 

inflow if less, as measured at the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USGS gaging station (York 

Haven Power, 2014a). However, York Haven Power also proposes to install a new 

nature-like fishway at the north end of the main dam, which would serve as the primary 

fish passage facility. The east channel fishway would continue to operate as a secondary 

passage facility. York Haven Power proposes to continue the existing flow releases at 

the east channel dam until the nature-like fishway is operational, and then attraction flows 

would be reallocated. Table 3-18 presents a summary of the flow management 

distribution at the project before and after the proposed nature-like fishway construction. 

The proposed flow distribution once the nature-like fishway is operational would 

result in a lower minimum flow in the east channel during the upstream passage seasons 

for American shad and resident species, and more flow at the apex of the main dam, to 

enhance passage through the nature-like fishway. 

The only comment received by the Commission in opposition to the settlement 

agreement proposed flow releases was from PPL BI in regard to adequate flows for its 

cooling water purposes, as discussed above.

Our Analysis

York Haven Power’s flow proposal is similar to its currently licensed flow regime 

that it has provided for more than 30 years. The primary difference would be less flow in 

the east channel, which has had additional flow releases since the east channel fishway 

began operating in 2000 to attract fish to that facility. The current proposal would shift 

primary upstream fish passage route to the nature-like fishway, less flow would be 

provided to the east channel, and more flow would shift to the nature-like fishway and 

main dam most of the year. The current 4,000-cfs flow along the main dam during the 

shad migration season (2 months) would no longer be provided, but a 1,000-cfs flow 

would be provided at the apex of the main dam with Three Mile Island. Changes would 

likely have minimal effects on downstream aquatic habitat, although some previously 

wetted areas would receive less, and other areas would receive more, flow. No 

stakeholders expressed concerns about the environmental effects of these flow 

distribution changes, which overall should improve upstream fish passage once the 

nature-like fishway is operating. Because the project has a low hydraulic capacity and 

minimal control over flows, with spillage occurring on average about 60 percent of the 

time, flow distribution changes would only be evident at extremely low river flow levels. 
143 

Table 3-18. Proposed minimum flow schedule for York Haven Project (Source: York Haven Power, 2014a). 

Location and Season

Before Nature-like Fishway 

Construction (existing 

conditions)

After Nature-like Fishway 

Construction 

Reason for Change (from 

existing conditions to after 

fishway construction)

Minimum flow below project

(powerhouse + main dam + 

east channel) (all year)

Continuous: 1,000 cfs or 

inflow, whichever is less

Average daily: 2,500 cfs or 

inflow, whichever is less

Continuous: 1,000 cfs or 

inflow, whichever is less

Average daily: 2,500 cfs or 

inflow, whichever is less

No change. These flows may 

be delivered via any 

combination of turbines, spill at 

the main dam, and gate 

releases.

East channel dam

(1) Resident upstream fish 

passage (April 1 through 

beginning of American 

shad passage season (about 

mid-April)

400 cfs 267 cfs

Flow shift to nature-like

fishway as primary resident 

fish passage route; discourage 

migration into east channel

(2) American shad 

upstream passage (about 

mid-April through midJune) 

2,000 cfs 267 cfs

Flow shift to maximize 

attraction flow to nature-like

fishway; discourage migration 

into east channel

(3) Resident fish passage 

(mid-June to end of 

upstream passage season –

December 15)

400 cfs 267 cfs

Flow shift to the nature-like

fishway as primary resident 

fish passage route; discourage 

migration into east channel

(4) Winter (December 15 

through April 1) 0 267 cfs

Enhance east channel winter 

habitat conditions; east channel 

fishway to be left open during 

winter
144 

Location and Season

Before Nature-like Fishway 

Construction (existing 

conditions)

After Nature-like Fishway 

Construction 

Reason for Change (from 

existing conditions to after 

fishway construction)

Main channel dam/ nature-like 

fishway 

(1) American shad 

upstream passage season 

(about mid-April through 

mid-June)

4,000 cfs 

1,000 cfs (total) through naturelike fishway channel and 

nature-like fishway

supplemental attraction flow 

channel

Design to provide total 

attraction flow ≥ 5 percent of 

river flow from 5,000 to 

150,000 cfs.

Provide attraction flow to 

nature-like fishway at main 

dam apex; maintain habitat and 

adequate migration flow below 

main dam

(2) Resident fish passage 

(mid-June through midApril)

0

200 cfs minimum flow through 

nature-like fishway channela

Provide attraction flow to 

nature-like fishway at main 

dam apex for resident fish; 

enhance main channel habitat 

conditions; maintain nature-like

fishway as resident fish passage 

route year round

a When river flows are greater than the hydraulic capacity of the generating units plus the required flows in the east 

channel, and at the main dam/ nature-like fishway, flows would be managed to maintain an east channel flow of 267 cfs, 

and maximize the remainder of flows over the main dam and through the nature-like fishway, with the supplemental 

attraction flow channel to be operated with the objective of maintaining a higher attraction flow through the nature-like 

fishway (except during the winter period of December 15 to the earlier of April 1 or the start of the American shad 

upstream passage season, when total nature-like fishway flow would be 200 cfs).
145 

Conowingo Project 

Exelon proposes to continue to provide the minimum flow releases required under 

the current license, as follows: 

 March 1 – March 31: 3,500 cfs or natural river flow (as measured at the 

upstream USGS Marietta gage No. 0157600), whichever is less; 

 April 1 – April 30: 10,000 cfs or natural river flow, whichever is less; 

 May 1 – May 31: 7,500 cfs or natural river flow, whichever is less; 

 June 1 – September 14: 5,000 cfs or natural river flow, whichever is less; 

 September 15 – November 30: 3,500 cfs or natural river flow, whichever is 

less; and 

 December 1 – February 28: 3,500 cfs intermittent release (maximum 6 

hours off followed by equal amount on). 

Several commenters made statements regarding the adverse effects of flow 

releases from the project. Interior, in its section 10(j) recommendation, states that Exelon 

should finalize and implement a flow management plan and implement the flow 

recommendations of The Nature Conservancy or any more restrictive flows required by 

the Maryland certification (when that is issued), returning the river downstream of 

Conowingo to more natural conditions. The Nature Conservancy, in its comments filed 

January 31, 2014, recommended flows be released downstream of Conowingo dam 

sufficient to achieve the following objectives: 

(1) restore persistent habitat and maximum weighted usable area (MWUA)62 for 

the spawning, migration, and egg and larval development of diadromous and 

resident fish and for macroinvertebrates by providing at least 50 percent of 

historic maximum persistent habitat, minimize the amount of time that less 

than 25 percent of historic maximum persistent habitat is available, and target 

70 percent of MWUA across species and life stages; 

(2) increase the probability of lift entry for American shad, river herring, and

American eel; 

(3) eliminate stranding-related mortality of adult and juvenile fish; 

(4) provide at least 50 percent of available mussel habitat with suitable shear 

stress; 

 

62 Weighted usable area is an index of aquatic habitat that is calculated using the 

Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. It is meant to be used as a comparative 

statistic (for comparing alternative flow levels) and is not an absolute measure of habitat.
146 

(5) increase the stability and suitability of basking and hibernation habitats for 

map turtles; and 

(6) increase the suitability for SAV and emergent vegetation establishment. 

The Nature Conservancy also recommends that the EIS evaluate two operational 

alternatives: (1) run-of-river operation (passage of the daily average flow measured at 

the USGS Marietta, Pennsylvania, gage plus any intervening flows that enter the river 

between the Marietta gage and Conowingo dam); and (2) the set of operational 

constraints that The Nature Conservancy identified as a potential approach for meeting its 

performance goals, listed above. We refer to this second alternative as the TNC Flow 

Regime. Table 3-19 summarizes the components of the TNC Flow Regime, and includes 

Exelon’s proposed flow regime. The TNC Flow Regime includes restrictions on 

upramping and downramping. In addition, Pennsylvania FBC recommends that Exelon 

should reduce ramping-related stranding of migratory fish by (1) extending the retaining 

wall at the east end of the east fish lift or adding boulder fill in that area to prevent 

generation flow from flooding the spillway pool at high levels of generation, or 

(2) dredging a channel(s) from the spillway pool area to downstream areas to provide 

egress for stranded fishes.

Table 3-19. Summary of Exelon and TNC flow recommendations (Source: staff).

Month

Minimum flow (cfs)

TNC

Maximum 

flow (cfs)

TNC

Maximum

Downramping 

(cfs/hr)

TNC

Maximum 

Upramping 

(cfs/hr)

Exelon TNC

Minimum

Minimum 

Q>50b

Minimum 

Q<50

January 0/3,500a 11,000

86,000

(January 

and 

February)

20,000

(January 

through June)

40,000

(yearround)

February 0/3,500 12,500

March 3,500 30,000 24,000

April 10,000 35,000 29,000

May 7,500 25,500 17,500

June 5,000 14,000 10,000

July 5,000 8,500 5,500

65,000

(March 

through 

September)

10,000 if 

Q<30,000

20,000 if 

Q<86,000 

(July through 

September)

August 5,000 6,000 4,500

September 

1-14 5,000 5,500 3,500
147 

Month

Minimum flow (cfs)

TNC

Maximum 

flow (cfs)

TNC

Maximum

Downramping 

(cfs/hr)

TNC

Maximum 

Upramping 

(cfs/hr)

Exelon TNC

Minimum

Minimum 

Q>50b

Minimum 

Q<50

September 

15-30 3,500 5,500 3,500

October 3,500 6,000 86,000

(October 

through 

December)

20,000

(October 

through 

December)

November 3,500 11,000

December 0/3,500 11,000

a

 From December 1 through February 28, Exelon proposes an intermittent flow regime, 

with 6 hours of 3,500 cfs followed by 6 hours with no minimum flow.

b

 If natural inflow is greater than the median flow. 

Under Exelon’s proposed flows, minimum flow releases would range from as low 

as 0 cfs for up to 6 hours at a time from December through February, up to 10,000 cfs in 

April. Minimum flows under the TNC Flow Regime would vary monthly between 3,500 

and 35,000 cfs, also depending on whether natural flows at the Marietta gage are greater 

than or less than the median flow (for the months of March through September). Under 

the TNC Flow Regime, the maximum generating flow would also be limited to 65,000 

cfs from March through September,63 upramping rates would be limited to 40,000 cfs per 

hour year-round, and downramping rates would be limited to 20,000 cfs per hour overall 

and 10,000 cfs from July through September if flows are less than 30,000 cfs.

Exelon, in its reply comments filed on March 18, 2014, states that (1) commenting 

entities have no basis for stating that the existing flow regime harms fish and wildlife, 

(2) stranding has not resulted in adverse effects on migratory and resident fishes, (3) a 

robust fishery occurs both upstream and downstream of the project, and (4) the 

recommended TNC Flow Regime would have a major adverse effect on project power 

production and economics. 

 

63 The Nature Conservancy recommendation does not specify what would occur if 

inflows to the Conowingo Project exceed 65,000 cfs, as often occurs during the spring 

months, but we assume that maximum generating flows could exceed 65,000 cfs so that 

flows in excess of 65,000 cfs are not spilled, up to the maximum generating capacity at 

Conowingo (86,000 cfs).
148 

Our Analysis

The flow regime downstream of Conowingo dam has the potential to affect a wide 

range of resources, including SAV; the spawning, incubation, and rearing habitat for a 

variety of fish species; and habitat for freshwater mussels, other invertebrates, map 

turtles, and waterfowl nesting. Flow fluctuations associated with project operation also 

have the potential to cause fish mortality due to stranding and to affect upstream fish 

migration. We assess the effects of Exelon’s proposed operation, alternative run-of-river 

operation, and the TNC Flow Regime on SAV, fish habitat, fish migration, fish stranding, 

freshwater mussels, and other aquatic invertebrates. Effects on map turtles and waterfowl 

nesting habitat are evaluated in section 3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources. 

SAV. As we previously described, SAV downstream of Conowingo dam is limited 

to areas that have finer-grained substrate or are protected from high water velocities 

associated with high river flows. The highest concentrations of SAV are in the lower part 

of the river closer to the mouth of the river, where river levels are influenced by tidal 

flow from the Chesapeake Bay and velocities tend to be lower. Portions of the river 

closest to Conowingo dam have a steeper gradient, a substrate of primarily bedrock and 

boulder, and little SAV. SAV distribution downstream of the dam is more influenced by 

existing substrate conditions and natural high-flow events, which have the potential to 

scour and redistribute finer-grained substrate, than by normal day-to-day project 

operation. While normal peaking operations may result in discharges as high as 86,000 

cfs (although USGS flow records indicate normal peaking operations seldom exceed a 

maximum discharge of 80,000 cfs and are often less than 70,000 cfs during the summer 

months), those typical peaking flows have less of an effect on scouring and substrate 

redistribution than typical annual high-flow events. For example, monthly 10-percent 

exceedance flows are greater than 80,000 cfs in 6 months of the year (December through 

May), while maximum recorded flows representing natural high-flow events exceed 

200,000 cfs in all months of the year, reaching the range of 400,000 to 600,000 cfs in the 

spring months (table 3-6). These natural high-flow events that are several magnitudes 

greater than normal project discharges would logically have a greater effect on scour and 

substrate redistribution, and therefore affect the distribution of substrate suitable for 

SAV growth. 

Fish Habitat. To assess the effects of proposed operation and alternative flow 

regimes on habitat for fish and invertebrates, Exelon conducted study 3.16, Instream 

Flow Habitat below Conowingo Dam (Gomez and Sullivan and Normandeau, 2012a). 

The study included evaluation of effects on different life stages of American shad, striped 

bass, shortnose sturgeon, smallmouth bass, several taxa of aquatic insects (mayflies, 

stoneflies, caddisflies), and freshwater mussels. The study used the River2D model to 

simulate hydraulic conditions in a study reach extending from Conowingo dam to the 

downstream end of Spencer Island (where tidal effects begin). The calibrated hydraulic 

model was used to simulate habitat conditions over a range of flows. In addition, the 

study included a habitat persistence analysis to assess the effects of peaking operation by 

determining the area of habitat that maintained a habitat rating of “good” (composite 
149 

habitat suitability index of 0.5) or higher over the flow range that represents a given 

peaking cycle.64 The Nature Conservancy used the results of this persistence analysis to 

develop the TNC Flow Regime. 

Implementing run-of-river operation downstream of Conowingo dam would 

benefit motile life stages of fish (fry, juveniles and adults) by reducing the frequency and 

magnitude of flow changes compared to current and proposed operation, which would 

improve habitat stability. This would help fish to seek out and remain in areas with 

suitable depth, velocity, and substrate conditions, without incurring the energetic costs 

associated with shifting locations to seek favorable habitat when flow conditions change. 

Implementing the TNC Flow Regime flows would reduce the magnitude and rate of flow 

changes compared to existing and proposed operation, which would provide an 

intermediate level of reduction in energetic costs. Reducing the magnitude and extent of 

flow fluctuations would provide even greater benefits to non-motile life stages of fish 

(eggs) and less motile organisms including fish larvae and aquatic invertebrates. Any 

increase in the production of aquatic insects would increase the amount of forage 

available and the potential production of juvenile fish.

Assessing the extent of the benefit that would be provided to any individual life

stage and species of fish or invertebrate from reducing the magnitude of flow fluctuations 

is a complex challenge. Evaluating the effects on any individual life stage requires 

substantial assumptions to be made regarding the effects of changes in amount, quality, 

and location of the available habitat for that life stage, as well as the influence of the rate 

at which those attributes change. Any benefits that may occur to a particular species and 

life stage from a specific flow level, however, may not necessarily transfer to another 

species and life stage. These uncertainties are magnified during the assessment of 

potential population effects for a species, which requires incorporating effects on each 

life stage.

Focusing the instream flow evaluation on the spring migration and spawning 

period for American shad, river herring, and hickory shad may have the most merit. 

Enhancing flows during the spring period has the potential to provide increases in the 

production of these anadromous species without unnecessarily constraining project 

operation in other seasons, including the summer and winter seasons when there are 

 

64 The persistence analysis was not a field evaluation of habitat availability at 

different flows, but instead was a modeling exercise in which polygon areas of quality 

habitat for one flow for a particular species life stage were overlaid with the quality 

habitat polygon area for the same species for another flow. The persistent habitat was the 

area of overlap between the quality habitat polygons, with the assumption that this 

overlap area had quality habitat for both flows (typically a minimum flow and a higher 

generation flow). This analysis was most useful for assessing effects on non-motile 

life stages.
150 

peaks in the demand for power for cooling and heating. Substantial use of the river 

downstream of Conowingo dam for spawning by each of these species has been 

documented (Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan, 2012b), and juveniles of these 

species (as well as gizzard shad) likely provide a seasonal source of forage for migratory 

striped bass. We provide a further analysis of effects on anadromous and resident species 

below under “Alternative Flow Regime.” 

Fish Migration. Although Exelon’s studies have found little evidence of a 

relationship between operational flow releases and the ability of upstream migrating fish 

to find and enter the east and west fish lifts, it is possible that reducing the frequency and 

magnitude of flow fluctuations could improve fish passage efficiency.65 The results of 

radio telemetry studies conducted in 2010 and 2012 (Normandeau and Gomez and 

Sullivan, 2011; 2012c) indicate that many American shad that migrate upstream to the 

tailrace area subsequently returned downriver within a few hours or days. While this 

type of movement has been observed on other rivers unaffected by fluctuating flow 

releases from hydroelectric projects, if the magnitude of operational flow changes was 

reduced during the migration season, it is possible that some of these fish would remain 

in the tailrace area for a longer period of time and increase their success in finding and 

entering one of the fish lifts. Additional discussion of effects on fish migration is 

included below under our discussion of upstream fish passage.

Fish Stranding. Reducing the magnitude and frequency of flow fluctuations could 

benefit fisheries resources by reducing the number of fish that are injured or killed when 

they are stranded as flow and water levels downstream of Conowingo dam are reduced. 

However, stranding studies conducted by Exelon (Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan, 

2012d) indicated that few fish are killed by stranding under existing operation, and about 

90 percent of those killed were gizzard shad, carp, and catfish species (table 3-20). 

Although implementing run-of-river or TNC Flow Regime flows could reduce this source 

of mortality, the results of Exelon’s stranding surveys indicate that the magnitude of this 

benefit would be minor. There would also be minimal benefit in implementing the 

Pennsylvania FBC recommendation to extend the retaining wall at the east end of the east 

fish lift, add boulder fill in that area to prevent generation flow from flooding the 

spillway pool at high levels of generation, or dredge a channel(s) from the spillway pool 

area to downstream areas to provide egress for stranded fishes. 

 

65 However, the fish lifts at Conowingo were designed so that the tailrace 

entrances are functional at the full range of normal operations at the project, from 

minimum to maximum generation flows and up to a specific level of spillage. 
151 

Table 3-20. Total number of dead fish and crabs observed during 12 stranding 

surveys (4 in each season) conducted within and just downstream of the 

spillway reach below Conowingo dam (Source: Normandeau and 

Gomez and Sullivan, 2012d).

Spring Summer Fall Total %

American eel 1 1 0.1

River herring 1 1 0.1

American shad 46 46 4.4

Gizzard shad 675 40 41 756 72.5

Carp 80 4 3 87 8.3

Minnows 1 1 0.1

Quillback 2 2 0.2

Shorthead redhorse 1 1 2 0.2

Catfishes 75 7 12 94 9.0

White perch 1 1 0.1

Striped bass 1 1 0.1

Banded killifish 6 6 0.6

Smallmouth bass 2 1 3 0.3

Largemouth bass 9 1 10 1.0

Sunfish 4 4 0.4

Walleye 1 4 5 0.5

Darters 3 3 0.3

Unidentified 19 19 1.8

Blue crabs 1 1 0.1

Freshwater Mussels. As part of study 3.16, Instream Flow Habitat Below 

Conowingo Dam (Gomez and Sullivan and Normandeau, 2012a), Exelon examined the 

effects of operational flows on mussel habitat by calculating and mapping shear stress at 

the river bed in the study area over a range of flows. Study results indicated that stations 

with the highest CPUEs tended to have relatively low shear stresses. At river discharge 

values of 3,500 cfs and 5,000 cfs, the highest CPUEs were associated with shear stress 

less than 40 to 60 dynes per square centimeter. Results of Exelon’s instream flow study, 

as well as observations by field biologists, indicated that distribution and abundance of 
152 

mussels in the study reach were negatively affected by high shear stress brought about by 

high-flow events or peaking operations. 

Currently, mussel distribution and abundance below Conowingo dam is limited by 

the shear stress that occurs during high-flow events. Areas that are sufficiently protected 

from high shear stress during these events would likely be sufficiently protected from 

shear stress during peaking operation. We conclude that reducing flow fluctuations by 

implementing run-of-river or the TNC Flow Regime operations would provide a limited 

benefit to mussels. Impacts on mussels due to high shear stress would still occur in the 

Susquehanna River during natural high-flow events. 

Alternative Flow Regime. Our analysis of Exelon’s instream flow study indicates 

that several combinations of minimum and maximum flows may improve habitat for 

some species and life stages, but those flow combinations are not consistent among the 

evaluation species. Certain flows may improve habitat for some species and life stages, 

while those same flows would reduce habitat for other species and life stages. Selection 

of an alternative flow regime would require balancing among the several target species 

and life stages (determine which life stage is most important for each time interval), as 

well as consideration of the effects of an alternative regime on project power production 

and economics. As we note above, Exelon’s instream flow study included a habitat 

persistence analysis, and the report summarized that analysis by month, using only the 

species and life stage that may be present during that month and for which there is a 

relatively high amount of structural habitat available (relative to total wetted area). 

Based on comments filed on the draft EIS that our representation of Exelon’s 

habitat persistence analysis was incorrect, we provide further information and analysis of 

that habitat persistence analysis, which was a modeling exercise to attempt to illustrate 

the amount of potential quality habitat that would be available over the range of operating 

flows (from the minimum flow up to the maximum generation flow). While we agree 

that such an analysis is insightful in helping to understand the effects of flow fluctuations, 

“persistent habitat” may be difficult to simulate under “real world” conditions using flow 

pairs, because habitat is constantly changing in the lower Susquehanna River. Under 

typical peaking operations at Conowingo, flow releases from the dam may be at the 

licensed minimum flow for some hours per day, at a mid-range peaking flow for part of 

the day, and at a higher peaking flow (up to the maximum hydraulic capacity of the 

project, but not always66) for some hours per day. The amount of time that project 

 

66 For example, while the Conowingo Project may occasionally generate up to its 

maximum hydraulic capacity of 86,000 cfs, based on flow data from the Conowingo 

USGS gage no. 01578310, it more commonly generates up to a maximum of about 

78,000 to 80,000 cfs, because that is the most efficient gate setting for full generation at 

the project. During the summer, low-flow months, discharges from the project seldom 

reach greater than 70,000 cfs during peaking operations. 
153 

releases are either at the minimum flow or at a higher generation flow varies on a daily, 

weekly, or seasonal basis depending on natural river flow, electrical demand, or other 

constraints on operation. 

In comparing flow pairs for the habitat persistence analysis (such as a proposed 

minimum flow and a maximum generation flow), those flow pairs would not be constant 

throughout the entire period for a specific life stage (such as for shad spawning). Flow 

releases would be variable throughout a life stage period, for the reasons discussed above, 

especially a life stage that may have a duration of residence downstream of the project 

covering 2 to 3 months.67 To better represent the actual flow ranges that now occur 

downstream of Conowingo dam on a monthly and seasonal basis, we examined the flow 

record from the Conowingo USGS gage no. 01578310 (table 3-6). The 90 percent 

exceedance flow (a flow that is exceeded 90 percent of the time, based on the flow 

record) would represent the lower end of the flow range that would typically occur under 

normal project operations. The 10 percent exceedance flow (the flow that is exceeded 10 

percent of the time) would represent the higher end of the flow range that would normally 

occur. While these flow metrics are based on daily average flows measured at the 

Conowingo gage, those daily average flows are reflective of the hourly flows occurring 

throughout the day. As an alternative to an analysis of flow pairs assuming that a specific 

minimum and maximum flow occurs throughout a life stage period (regardless of river 

flow conditions), we assessed persistent habitat using the 90 percent and 10 percent 

exceedance flows, by month, to represent actual average flow conditions currently 

occurring downstream of Conowingo dam. 

Table 3-21 summarizes our analysis of flow pairs using The Nature Conservancyrecommended minimum and maximum flows, compared to existing flow conditions 

downstream of Conowingo dam using the monthly 90 percent exceedance flows as the 

minimum flow, and the 10 percent exceedance flow as the maximum generation flow.68 

 

67 For example, river flows in April and early May may be too high for the project 

to be able to reduce generation to as low as its licensed minimum flow, and generation 

during those months may more resemble run-of-river operations where generation and 

flow releases would remain relatively constant or would not vary substantially over a 24-

hour period. Lower flows in June may allow the project to reduce generation to the 

minimum flow, and allow a store-and-release mode of operation. Lower summer river 

flows, however, may also not allow the project to reach maximum generation levels in all 

days, weeks, or months, as illustrated by USGS gaging data. 

68 Most of the life stages in table 3-21 occur in the spring and early-summer 

period, although we include the deep-slow habitat guild that includes a total of 13 fish 

species plus macroinvertebrates that have life stages present year-round. If the 10 percent 

exceedance flow for a month equals or exceeds the maximum generation flow of 86,000 

cfs, we use 86,000 cfs as the maximum generation flow. 
154 

We used the habitat persistence tables in appendix G of Gomez and Sullivan and 

Normandeau (2012a) as the data source for persistent habitat, and use the flow pairs in 

those tables that are as closely matched as possible to the flow levels analyzed herein. 

This analysis indicates that the amount of persistent habitat is similar and the ranges in 

persistent habitat actually overlap for some life stages between the two flow scenarios. 

While the TNC Flow Regime generally shows a higher range of percent of maximum 

persistent habitat, the range is higher for smallmouth bass under the existing flow 

scenario. It is not known, however, whether higher persistent habitat would necessarily 

result in significant enhancements for these life stages because there is no information to 

indicate the current “carrying capacity” of habitat in the lower Susquehanna River.69 

Table 3-21 also includes data on percent of MWUA that would occur under run-of-river 

operation, based on the mean monthly flows at the Conowingo gage (see table 3-6). 

While MWUA is not directly comparable to persistent habitat, MWUA under a run-ofriver alternative would essentially be “persistent” because flow releases would not vary 

substantially during the day; Exelon would be required to match project discharges to the 

daily average flow measured at the USGS Marietta, Pennsylvania, gage, plus any 

intervening flows that enter the river between the Marietta gage and Conowingo dam. 

These data indicate that run-of-river operation may have the highest biological benefits, 

but there are other potential issues with run-of-river operations that we discuss following 

the table. 

Table 3-21. Summary of habitat persistence analysis, comparing the TNC flow regime 

to existing flow conditions, along with percent of MWUA for run-of-river 

operation (Source: Gomez and Sullivan and Normandeau, 2012a; staff). 

Species/Life 

Stage

Minimum Flow Scenario (% of maximum 

persistent habitat) Run-of-River

Operation – % of 

MWUA (mean 

TNC monthly flows)

Existing Conditions (90% 

exceedance as min. flow/10% 

exceedance as max. flow)

American shad 

spawning

9 to 74 12 to 48 73 to 100

American shad fry 13 to 56 23 to 37 93 to 98

Shortnose 

sturgeon spawning

59 to 83 56 to 66 93 to 100

 

69 In addition, for American shad, the overall objective of the restoration plan is to 

maximize the upstream movement of shad to upriver spawning areas, so the contribution 

of habitat in the lower river to the overall restoration program may be less important than 

upriver habitat. 
155 

Species/Life 

Stage

Minimum Flow Scenario (% of maximum 

persistent habitat) Run-of-River

Operation – % of 

MWUA (mean 

TNC monthly flows)

Existing Conditions (90% 

exceedance as min. flow/10% 

exceedance as max. flow)

Shortnose 

sturgeon fry

3 to 40 7 to 27 94 to 99

Striped bass 

spawning

16 to 88 18 to 71 89 to 97

Striped bass fry 1 to 88 2 to 69 64 to 96

Smallmouth bass 

spawning

5 to 6 3 to 7 37

Smallmouth bass 

fry

7 to 8 8 to 13 29 to 34

Deep-slow habitat 

guild

4 to 10 5 to 13 16 to 59

Note: Range in percentages reflects the ranges in minimum flows over the 2- to 3-month 

periods for most of these life stages, and a 12-month period for the deep-slow 

guild. Also, the TNC Flow Regime includes two different minimum flows for 

several months, depending on inflow. Maximum flow for the TNC Flow Regime 

ranges from 65,000 to 86,000 cfs, depending on month (see table 3-19). 

In response to comments on the draft EIS, we also revisited our analysis of the 

range of flows that would provide The Nature Conservancy target of 70 percent of 

MWUA by month. Table 5.1-1 of Gomez and Sullivan and Normandeau (2012a) shows 

the flow ranges that provide a range of percentages of MWUA for several species and life 

stages.70

 Table 3-22 summarizes the flow ranges that provide 70 percent of MWUA for 

evaluation species and life stages, as reported in table 5.1-1 of the instream flow report. 

Table 3-22 also shows the normal range of flows during Exelon’s existing and proposed 

operation, and the median unregulated flow. This table shows the evaluation fish species

 

70 Gomez and Sullivan and Normandeau (2012a) state that some flow ranges were 

limited by the lowest or highest production run flow (modeled flows ranged from 2,000 

to 86,000 cfs), thus the true flow range providing this habitat may fall outside of the 

modeled flows. However, flows less than 2,000 cfs would not be associated with project 

generation and would essentially be leakage, while flows greater than 86,000 cfs would 

mean the project is spilling and flows would be beyond the control of Exelon. 
156 

selected by the Exelon/agency study team, as well as the deep-slow habitat guild. This 

guild represents 13 fish species plus macroinvertebrates that have life stages present yearround. Table 3-22 also highlights the “key” species (American shad and striped bass), if 

the management objective is to focus on key species, with lower priorities for other 

species. Table 3-22 does not show shortnose sturgeon as a key species. While shortnose 

sturgeon is a federally listed endangered species, because only occasional sturgeon have 

been documented in the lower Susquehanna River, the river probably does not support a 

spawning population. Because the project (or any hydroelectric project) typically 

provides only one minimum flow on any given day (although the minimum flow may be 

varied over the season, as now occurs), some species or life stages may benefit from a 

specific minimum flow, while others may not benefit from the same flow. Thus, 

decisions would need to be made as to what the key management species are. 

Table 3-22 indicates that, overall, the current and proposed Exelon operation 

generally brackets the range of flows that would provide 70 percent of MWUA for all the 

evaluation species combined. From December through March, when Exelon reduces to 

zero minimum flow for 6-hour intervals, however, the MWUA criterion would not be 

met for those 6-hour intervals. Eliminating the zero minimum flow periods during those 

months would provide some benefits to aquatic habitat, and Exelon would likely have no 

trouble in meeting a continuous flow requirement (of 3,500 cfs), because median flows 

during those months are higher than most other months of the year, except April and 

May. For the remainder of the year, Exelon’s minimum flows are higher than the low 

end of the 70 percent MWUA criterion from April through November. 

However, if only the key species are considered as shown in table 3-22, Exelon’s 

minimum flows are lower than the low end of the 70 percent MWUA criterion from 

January through June. From January through March, the low end of the 70 percent 

MWUA criterion would be 21,450 cfs, based on the adult striped bass life stage. This 

compares to the Exelon minimum flow of an intermittent 3,500 cfs in January and 

February and a continuous 3,500 cfs in March. However, it is unlikely that adult striped 

bass occur in the Susquehanna River during the winter months, as striped bass are 

believed to overwinter in deeper channels within the Chesapeake Bay or in coastal areas 

near Virginia/North Carolina. Crance (1984) also reports that preferred water 

temperatures for adult striped bass range from about 50 to 85°F, indicating that adult 

striped bass would avoid the cold overwinter water temperatures (which reach the 

30°s F). In April, Exelon provides a minimum flow of 10,000 cfs (compared to the 70 

percent minimum criterion of 13,861 cfs, for the key species), but because April is the 

highest flow month of the year, Exelon overall maintains higher average releases during 
157 

April, and minimum releases may on average exceed the licensed minimum flow.71 In 

May and June, Exelon’s minimum flow is lower than the 70 percent minimum criterion 

for the key species designated in table 3-22. In June, at the end of the spawning period 

for shad and striped bass, Exelon currently reduces its minimum flow from 7,500 to 

5,000 cfs. If that reduction occurs on June 1 (as it does currently), that could adversely 

affect spawning and early-fry development for later spawning shad and striped bass by 

reducing the area of suitable spawning and incubation habitat during the period of the day

when only the minimum flow is provided. Areas that would be available for spawning 

and incubation during higher generation periods of the day may not be available or may 

be dewatered at a minimum flow of 5,000 cfs. This indicates that there would be 

justification for increasing the minimum flow in the month of June. Extending the 7,500-

cfs minimum flow until mid-June would provide additional protection to spawning and 

incubation habitat. There would be no need to extend this minimum flow into late June, 

as spawning and early-fry development would have ended by then. For the remainder of 

the year, Exelon minimum flows are higher than the low end of the 70 percent MWUA 

criterion for the key species. 

Maximum flows have also been a concern at Conowingo, and The Nature 

Conservancy recommended that maximum flows be capped at 65,000 cfs from March 

through September.72 The MWUA analysis, however, does not support such a restriction, 

as some of the key life stages in all months still maintain the 70 percent minimum 

criterion at the full station discharge of 86,000 cfs. While 86,000 cfs is the high end of 

the flow range that was limited by the production run flow, according to Gomez and 

Sullivan and Normandeau (2012a), that analysis still indicates that there is little basis for 

a 65,000-cfs maximum flow cap. In addition, as we describe above, a maximum flow of 

86,000 cfs may seldom occur in reality. Based on our review of flow data from the 

Conowingo USGS gage, maximum generation usually is in the range of 78,000 to 80,000 

cfs, because that is the most efficient gate setting for full generation at the project. 

During the summer low-flow months, maximum discharges from the project seldom 

reach greater than 70,000 cfs during peaking operations, close to the maximum releases 

recommended by The Nature Conservancy. Figure 3-4 shows typical operation in 

September 2013, when the maximum release exceeded 70,000 cfs on only 1 day. For the 

remainder of the days, maximum releases were generally in the range of 40,000 to 60,000 

cfs. While this figure is only a small snapshot of operations at Conowingo, review of the 

 

71 The 90 percent exceedance flow in April at the Conowingo USGS gage is 

29,690 cfs (see table 3-6). Because of the higher April flows, Exelon may in fact be 

unable to reduce project releases to its licensed minimum flow. 

72 However, as we state above, we assume that this is contingent upon river flows 

allowing station discharges to be capped at 65,000 cfs.
158 

Conowingo USGS gage data indicates that this is typical operation during the summer 

and fall months. 

The analysis of instream flows downstream of Conowingo is complex, where

certain species and life stages may have narrower or higher flow bands where MWUA is 

provided, and results depend on which evaluation species and life stages are selected as 

being most important. However, Exelon’s studies have provided substantial information 

on the effects of flow releases from Conowingo. Based on this information, Exelon’s 

current flow regime is generally adequate for protection of aquatic resources downstream 

of the project, although some adjustments to these flows as we discussed (eliminating 

periods of zero minimum flow in December through February, and increasing the 

minimum flow to 7,500 cfs in the first half of June) could provide additional protection to 

downstream aquatic habitat. 

The Nature Conservancy recommends that run-of-river operation be considered at 

Conowingo. We previously discussed potential benefits of such operation (see table 3-

21), but strict run-of-river operation may not be technically feasible at Conowingo. If 

any run-of-river operation is tied to inflow at the Marietta gage (plus inflow downstream 

of Marietta), Exelon may not be able to duplicate Marietta flows, because of the 

operation of the upstream Safe Harbor and Holtwood Projects. Safe Harbor, with a total 

hydraulic capacity of 110,000 cfs, generally controls lower Susquehanna River flows at 

natural inflow less than its hydraulic capacity. Safe Harbor is a peaking station with no 

required minimum flow releases, so downstream flows may fluctuate from zero up to full 

capacity on a daily basis. The Holtwood Project is immediately downstream of Safe 

Harbor and also controls the river up to its current newly expanded capacity of about 

61,000 cfs. If Conowingo was to attempt to operate so that it passes on a continuous 

basis the daily average flow at the Marietta gage, plus inflow downstream of Marietta, as 

recommended by The Nature Conservancy, it would likely be an operational challenge.73 

Exelon’s operation would likely be in a constant state of flux because actual inflow to 

Conowingo Pond would be fluctuating over a wide range (as a result of upstream 

operation at Safe Harbor and Holtwood), potentially causing major fluctuations in 

Conowingo Pond as Exelon attempted to match Conowingo releases to the Marietta flows 

(plus other inflow), as well as operate the Muddy Run Project. In addition, not all of the 

tributaries between Marietta and Conowingo are gaged, so Exelon would not have 

reliable inflow data for all of the tributaries. 

 

73 The Nature Conservancy recommends providing run-of-river flows on an 

hourly basis. 
159 

Table 3-22. Summary of Exelon’s habitat persistence analysis by month, showing the range of flows (cfs) providing 

70 percent of the MWUA for evaluation species and life stages likely to occur during each month,74 compared 

to Exelon’s current operation and median unregulated flow. Shaded cells indicate the “key” evaluation 

species (Source: Gomez and Sullivan and Normandeau, 2012a; staff). 

Species/ 

life stage Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Shad 

spawning

- - - 14,472 

to 

82,757

14,472 

to 

82,757

14,472 

to 

82,757

- - - - - -

Shad fry - - - - 7,744 to 

67,028

7,744 to 

67,028

7,744 to 

67,028

- - - - -

Shad 

juvenile

- - - - - - 2,000 to 

52,641

2,000 to 

52,641

2,000 to 

52,641

2,000 to 

52,641

2,000 to 

52,641

-

Shad adult - - - 13,861 

to 

86,000

13,861 

to 

86,000

13,861 

to 

86,000

- - - - - -

SNS 

spawning

- - - 13,008 

to 

86,000

13,008 

to 

86,000

- - - - - - -

SNS fry - - - - 8,546 to 

86,000

8,546 to 

86,000

8,546 to 

86,000

- - - - -

 

74 This table uses the evaluation species and life stages, and the timing of those life stages, as presented in Gomez 

and Sullivan and Normandeau (2012a). 
160 

Species/ 

life stage Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

SNS 

juvenile

6,228 

to 

86,000

6,228 

to 

86,000

6,228 to 

86,000

6,228 to 

86,000

6,228 to 

86,000

6,228 to 

86,000

6,228 to 

86,000

6,228 to 

86,000

6,228 to 

86,000

6,228 to 

86,000

6,228 to 

86,000

6,228 to 

86,000

SNS adult 6,228 

to 

86,000

6,228 

to 

86,000

6,228 to 

86,000

6,228 to 

86,000

6,228 to 

86,000

6,228 to 

86,000

6,228 to 

86,000

6,228 to 

86,000

6,228 to 

86,000

6,228 to 

86,000

6,228 to 

86,000

6,228 to 

86,000

Striped bass 

spawning

- - - 20,450 

to 

86,000

20,450 

to 

86,000

20,450 

to 

86,000

- - - - - -

Striped bass 

fry

- - - 22,977 

to 

86,000

22,977 

to 

86,000

22,977 

to 

86,000

22,977 

to 

86,000

- - - - -

Striped bass 

juvenile

- - - - - 7,961 to 

86,000

7,961 to 

86,000

7,961 to 

86,000

7,961 to 

86,000

7,961 to 

86,000

7,961 to 

86,000

7,961 to 

86,000

Striped bass 

adult

21,450 

to 

86,000

21,450 

to 

86,000

21,450 

to 

86,000

21,450 

to 

86,000

21,450 

to 

86,000

21,450 

to 

86,000

21,450 

to 

86,000

21,450 

to 

86,000

21,450 

to 

86,000

21,450 

to 

86,000

21,450 

to 

86,000

21,450 

to 

86,000

SMB 

spawning

- - - - 2,000 to 

13,430

2,000 to 

13,430

- - - - - -

SMB fry - - - - - 2,000 to 

3,778

2,000 to 

3,778

- - - - -

SMB 

juvenile

- - - - - - - 2,000 to 

18,051

2,000 to 

18,051

2,000 to 

18,051

2,000 to 

18,051

2,000 to 

18,051
161 

Species/ 

life stage Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

SMB adult 3,127 

to 

44,491

3,127 

to 

44,491

3,127 to 

44,491

3,127 to 

44,491

3,127 to 

44,491

3,127 to 

44,491

3,127 to 

44,491

3,127 to 

44,491

3,127 to 

44,491

3,127 to 

44,491

3,127 to 

44,491

3,127 to 

44,491

Deep-slow 

guild

2,000 

to 

12,565

2,000 

to 

12,565

2,000 to 

12,565

2,000 to 

12,565

2,000 to 

12,565

2,000 to 

12,565

2,000 to 

12,565

2,000 to 

12,565

2,000 to 

12,565

2,000 to 

12,565

2,000 to 

12,565

2,000 to 

12,565

Flow range 

for 70% 

MWUA (all 

species 

combined)

2,000 

to 

86,000

2,000 

to 

86,000

2,000 to 

86,000

2,000 to 

86,000

2,000 to 

86,000

2,000 to 

86,000

2,000 to 

86,000

2,000 to 

86,000

2,000 to 

86,000

2,000 to 

86,000

2,000 to 

86,000

2,000 to 

86,000

Flow range 

for 70% 

MWUA 

(key 

species) 

21,450 

to 

86,000

21,450 

to 

86,000

21,450 

to 

86,000

13,861 

to 

86,000

13,861 

to 

86,000

13,861 

to 

86,000

2,000 to 

86,000

2,000 to 

86,000

2,000 to 

86,000

2,000 to 

86,000

2,000 to 

86,000

7,961 to 

86,000

Current 

Exelon 

operation

0/3,500 

to 

86,000

0/3,500 

to 

86,000

3,500 to 

86,000

10,000 

to 

86,000

7,500 to 

86,000

5,000 to 

86,000

5,000 to 

86,000

5,000 to 

86,000

5,000/3,

500 to 

86,000

3,500 to 

86,000

3,500 to 

86,000

0/3,500 

to 

86,000

Median 

unregulated 

flow

27,732 32,617 61,744 63,752 38,768 20,661 13,045 9,201 7,995 9,845 22,927 30,672

Note: SNS = shortnose sturgeon; SMB = smallmouth bass. 
162 

Upstream Fish Passage 

As we described in section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment, 

volitional upstream fish passage for anadromous species has been provided at the four 

lower-river hydroelectric projects since the year 2000. An experimental fish trap (with 

trucking) was first installed in 1972 at Conowingo dam, but passage was not provided at 

all four dams until completion of the east channel fishway at York Haven in 2000. While 

fish passage facilities have been in place for many years, inefficiencies in their operation 

have been documented at some of the projects. Only the Safe Harbor Project has 

demonstrated consistently high efficiency. Inefficiencies in upstream passage were a 

stakeholder concern at both York Haven and Conowingo, and those issues are discussed 

separately by project. American eel passage to date has been limited to experimental 

operations and trapping and trucking from Conowingo, but is also an issue for all the 

projects on the Susquehanna River. The American eel issue is discussed 

separately below. 

York Haven Project

York Haven Power is proposing, consistent with the Settlement Agreement, to 

improve upstream fish passage at the project by constructing a nature-like fishway where 

the upstream end of the main dam joins Three Mile Island (referred to as the “apex”). 

Pennsylvania DEP did not sign the agreement but has indicated it would issue 

certification that is consistent with the agreement. 

Our Analysis

American shad passage counts on the river (table 3-13) show that shad passage at 

the east channel fishway has been relatively low, generally only from about 2 to 

22 percent of the count at the downstream Safe Harbor dam, and not exceeding 

10 percent since 2003. This may not have been entirely as a result of inefficiency at the 

east channel fishway.75 Radio telemetry studies conducted by York Haven Power in 

2010 found that many shad that did reach the project area did not reach the east channel 

fishway. Of 174 radio-tagged shad exiting the downstream Safe Harbor fish lift, 

70 percent reached the York Haven Project area. Of those, 100 percent passed through 

the York Haven tailrace and 78 percent were detected in the apex area of the main dam, 

where tagged fish spent the most time of any of the locations at York Haven. Only 

 

75 There is spawning habitat in the 22 river miles between the Safe Harbor Project 

and York Haven and in years when spring water temperatures increase rapidly in the 

river, shad may cease migration once spawning temperatures are reached and use 

spawning habitat downstream of York Haven. While some shad may spawn downstream 

of York Haven in any year that portion of the run may be greater if water temperatures 

increase rapidly. 
163 

4 percent (5 tagged shad) successfully passed above York Haven dam through the east 

channel fishway, and another 2 fish passed through the fishway but immediately dropped 

back downstream through the attraction flow gates (York Haven Power, 2011; 2013). 

These data indicate that the apex area of the main dam would be a good location for a 

fishway, likely a better location than the existing east channel fishway. 

Fish passage options at this site, which has a maximum head of only 7 feet, would 

be a pool and weir or vertical slot fishway, similar to the east channel fishway, or a 

nature-like fishway. A fish lift would not be a good option at this site because of the low 

head and the somewhat remote location, making operation and maintenance more 

difficult. As the record shows, consultations with the fisheries agencies resulted in the 

selection of the nature-like fishway as the preferred alternative, ultimately resulting in the 

inclusion of this design in the Settlement Agreement. The proposed fishway would 

consist of an approximately 300-foot-wide and 500-foot-long channel with arched weirs 

made from natural stone and boulders to be harvested from the river immediately 

downstream of the main dam. The fishway base material would consist of a large stone 

mix with a median diameter (D50) of 18 inches, and large rock/boulders that form the 

fishway weirs would be 3- to 5-foot-diameter rock set into the 18-inch D50 base material. 

The large rocks would be arranged to form an arched weir, with the large rocks 

approximately 1-foot apart. Flows through the fishway would pass between and over the 

large rocks with the water level dropping approximately 0.7-foot from the upstream to 

downstream side of each rock weir. There would be a 65-foot-wide ‘thalweg’ located 

within the fishway, which would have a channel invert approximately 1-foot lower in 

elevation than the adjacent fishway channel. This would provide a deeper channel to 

concentrate flows during periods of low headpond elevations and river flows outside of 

the adult American shad migration season. The gradient through the fishway would be 

approximately 1.5 percent. Figure 3-14 shows the location of the proposed nature-like 

fishway, the east channel dam, the rock harvesting area, and staging areas. 

The fishway would have a normal minimum flow through the fishway of 200 cfs 

and would include a supplemental attraction water supply of 800 cfs, to be provided via a 

parallel concrete channel. This would result in a total minimum flow of 1,000 cfs from 

the apex area of the dam, to attract shad to the fishway location. At the same time, the 

minimum flow from the east channel would be reduced to 267 cfs year-round (from the 

current minimum of 2,000 cfs during the shad passage season). This would reduce 

attraction of shad to the east channel and increase attraction toward the nature-like 

fishway, which would become the primary route for upstream passage at the project. The 

east channel fishway would continue to operate year-round for resident fish passage, but 

it would become a secondary route for shad and other anadromous species. The naturelike fishway would also be designed so that a full range of anadromous, catadromous, and 

resident species could use the facility for upstream passage, and downstream passage if 

fish can locate the facility on their downstream migration. Downstream passage is 

discussed below in greater detail. 
164 

Figure 3-14. Proposed location of the York Haven nature-like fishway and associated 

construction sites (Source: York Haven Power filing of updated figure for 

Nature-like Fishway Conceptual Design Final Report, filed June 10, 2013). 

With this arrangement for fish passage, some shad would likely continue to be 

attracted to the powerhouse tailrace, because under low-flow conditions the majority of 

flow from the project would be released from the powerhouse (up to full powerhouse 

capacity). However, the applicant’s radio telemetry studies found that 78 percent of the 
165 

fish that were detected in the tailrace ended up in the apex area, where the nature-like 

fishway would be located, and those fish lingered in that area for the longest time of any 

of the locations monitored. The proposed location and design of the nature-like fishway 

would constitute an enhancement of existing upstream fish passage facilities at the 

project, and should improve fish passage effectiveness at the project. Another future 

monitoring technology provided for in the Settlement Agreement is the use of PIT tag 

monitoring devices. While the methodology for using these devices in a 300-foot-wide 

nature-like fishway has not yet been developed, the upstream end of the nature-like 

fishway would be designed to accommodate future installation of PIT tag monitoring 

devices at such time that these tag monitoring devices become available and feasible for 

reliably monitoring American shad exiting the fishway. 

Under the Settlement Agreement, York Haven Power proposes to conduct an 

effectiveness study beginning in year 2 of fishway operation, continuing for 2 years, 

using radio-tagged shad. The Settlement Agreement establishes an “Upstream Shad 

Passage Target” that at least 75 percent of the shad counted at the downstream Safe 

Harbor Project be passed above York Haven dam (using all passage routes), and a 

“Project Area Passage Success Criteria” that 85 percent of the shad that reach the York 

Haven Project successfully pass upstream of the project (using all passage routes). If the 

passage target or success criteria are met after 2 successive years of study, then the 

project would be considered as successfully meeting its target and no additional passage 

studies would be needed. If the target effectiveness or success criteria are not met, after 

consideration of extenuating circumstances such as unusual river flows or high water 

temperatures, 2 additional years of study would be conducted after a hydraulic evaluation 

of the fishway and possible modifications to the design or operation (attraction flows) of 

the fishway. 

Radio telemetry studies can be an effective methodology for monitoring fish 

movements as they approach a fishway and for determining the percentage of fish that are 

able to pass it. The proposed studies are appropriate for a major new fish passage 

facility, particularly because a nature-like fishway design has never been constructed for 

American shad at a hydroelectric project on a major North American river.76 The 

establishment of passage targets and success criteria, used properly, allow a 

determination of whether the fishway is operating as designed. Caution is needed, 

however, because many factors beyond engineering design and hydraulics may affect 

effectiveness, particularly for shad. 

The Safe Harbor Project is considered to have the most effective upstream fish 

passage facilities on the Susquehanna River, and perhaps one of the most effective on the 

 

76 A nature-like fishway was recently installed on a lock and dam on the Cape Fear 

River in North Carolina, but effectiveness data are not yet available for that facility. 
166 

Atlantic coast. Safe Harbor consistently lifts on-average about 71 percent of the shad 

counted at the downstream Holtwood Project, but that has ranged from 45 to 98 percent 

since 1997, with 13 of 17 years not reaching the target effectiveness of 75 percent 

(table 3-23). While Safe Harbor has not met the 75 percent criteria proposed for York 

Haven in all years, Safe Harbor is still considered highly effective. The distance between 

Holtwood and Safe Harbor is only 7 miles of reservoir habitat, while the distance 

between Safe Harbor and York Haven is about 22 miles, including both large reservoir 

(about 10 miles) and riverine habitat (about 12 miles) that contains suitable spawning 

habitat. It may be unrealistic to expect that the same effectiveness can be achieved at 

York Haven, especially because fish reaching York Haven would be doing so at the end 

of the migration period when water temperatures may be warming quickly, and reaching 

the range when fish would begin spawning.77 

Table 3-23. Numbers of shad lifted at Holtwood and Safe Harbor dams, and the 

effectiveness of the Safe Harbor fish lift, reported as percent of the 

Holtwood passage (Source: staff).

Year Holtwood Safe Harbor % of Holtwood

1997 28,063 20,828 74

1998 8,235 6,054 74

1999 34,702 34,150 98

2000 29,421 21,079 72

2001 109,976 89,816 82

2002 17,522 11,705 67

2003 25,254 16,646 66

2004 3,428 2,109 62

2005 34,156 25,425 74

2006 35,968 24,929 69

2007 10,338 7,215 70

2008 2,795 1,252 45

2009 10,896 7,994 73

 

77 In fact, York Haven Power’s 2010 radio telemetry study found that only 70 

percent of the tagged fish released at Safe Harbor reached the York Haven Project area, 

indicating that some fish did use the habitat between the projects, or had no motivation to 

continue upstream migration to York Haven. 
167 

Year Holtwood Safe Harbor % of Holtwood

2010 16,472 12,706 77

2011 21 8 --

a

2012 4,238 3,089 73

2013 2,503 1,927 77

2014 2,528 1,336 53

Average 71

a The Conowingo and Holtwood fish lifts were not operated the entire migration season 

because of construction at Holtwood, so 2011 was not a representative year. 

The Settlement Agreement acknowledges this issue, and while the upstream shad 

passage target is at least 75 percent of the shad counted at the downstream Safe Harbor 

Project to be passed above York Haven dam, compliance is based on the project area 

passage success criteria that 85 percent of the shad that successfully reach the York 

Haven Project area successfully pass upstream of the project. This properly recognizes 

that York Haven Power has no control over whether or not shad reach the project area. 

Muddy Run Project 

The Muddy Run Project is a pumped storage project with an offstream upper 

reservoir that does not physically block upstream fish migration, but instead may affect 

migration by creating flow patterns that may confuse migrating fish or create areas with 

high velocities that may delay migration. There is no proposal or need for passing fish 

into the Muddy Run upper reservoir, and in fact the objective is to keep migrating fish 

out of the reservoir. Some migrating fish would be entrained and pumped into the upper 

reservoir, resulting in a loss of those fish to the overall population, unless those fish are 

able to survive passage back to the Susquehanna River/Conowingo Pond during the 

generation cycle. Both Interior and NMFS reserve their authority to prescribe fishways 

during the term of the license, and both agencies recommend that the project be operated 

to allow safe, timely, and effective fish passage past the project. Interior, as part of its

preliminary fishway prescription, requires preparation of FPOP to describe Muddy Run 

Project operation during the fish passage season including regular maintenance activities 

and emergency procedures. Interior also requires an FPMP, including an American shad 

passage monitoring plan, for post-FPOP implementation monitoring, with the criteria for 

success to be consistent with the goals and objectives set forth in the Susquehanna River 

Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan (85 percent passage effectiveness), along with a 

recently developed goal of passage of 80 percent within 36 hours (Sweka and Eyler, 

2013). However, in a letter filed with the Commission on February 28, 2014, Interior 

amended its preliminary fishway prescription, and dropped the requirement for specific 

target effectiveness at Muddy Run (80 percent within 36 hours), but instead would 
168 

require that Muddy Run demonstrate safe, timely, and effective fish passage past the 

project, based on site-specific studies or other available information. Interior states that 

while it believes that Muddy Run operation may affect fish migration, the effects may not 

be sufficient to affect the fisheries agencies goals for this reach of the river. As part of 

the FPMP, Exelon would be required to conduct an effectiveness monitoring study every 

10 years beginning in 2018, and if effectiveness is not met, Exelon would be required to 

implement operational or structural measures to improve effectiveness.78

 NMFS is 

concerned that flow patterns in the vicinity of the project may delay American shad 

migration, and recommends that FWS’ reanalysis of a 2008 shad radio telemetry study be 

considered in the analysis of this issue. Passage measures related to American eel are 

discussed below in a separate section. 

In its reply comments filed on March 18, 2014, Exelon states that it is opposed to 

Interior’s preliminary fishway prescription, but is in agreement with the conditions of the 

draft certification. Pennsylvania DEP issued a final certification on June 3, 2014, and 

filed a clarified version of the certification on December 10, 2014. By letter filed January 

21, 2015, Exelon confirmed that the clarified water quality certification filed by 

Pennsylvania DEP on December 10, 2014, continues to represent Exelon's licensing 

proposal for the Muddy Run Project. Thus, we conclude that Exelon is in agreement with 

the fish passage conditions of the certification that require at least 88 percent successful 

passage of upstream-migrating adult shad past the Muddy Run Project,79 80 percent 

survival of downstream-migrating adult shad, and 95 percent survival of downstreammigrating juvenile shad. In addition, Exelon agrees to conduct additional effectiveness 

studies at Muddy Run if the upstream Holtwood Project fails to meet its target 

effectiveness and Pennsylvania DEP determines that Muddy Run operation is a 

proximate cause for Holtwood failing to meet its target. Radio telemetry studies would 

be conducted over a 4-year period, and if the studies demonstrate that less than 88 percent 

 

78 By its filing of March 28, 2014, Interior notified the Commission that it had 

reached an agreement in principle with Exelon on a modified fishway prescription, but 

that agreement has yet to be reduced to writing and signed. Because we are unsure of the 

details of that agreement, our analysis focuses on the preliminary fishway prescription, as 

amended by Interior’s February 28, 2014, filing. 

79 This differs slightly from Interior’s previously recommended 85 percent passage 

effectiveness, with target passage of 80 percent within 36 hours. However, Interior 

commented that the Pennsylvania DEP certification conditions for fish passage (when 

issued) should be considered an alternative for consideration. The clarified certification 

also provided somewhat different criteria that 75 percent of the shad that pass the 

downstream Conowingo Project should pass through the Holtwood Project fish passage 

facilities (Tier I requirement), and that 50 percent of the shad that pass the Conowingo 

Project should pass the Holtwood Project within 5 days (Tier II requirement). 
169 

of the tagged shad are successful in passing upstream of the Muddy Run Project area, 

Exelon would amend its FPOP to provide measures to enhance upstream passage past 

Muddy Run. Exelon would also submit a plan to continue to provide for the target 

downstream passage survival rates (80 percent for adult shad and 95 percent for juvenile 

shad) by January 15, 2015. By February 15, 2026, Exelon would prepare a plan for 

Pennsylvania DEP approval to measure the passage of American shad moving 

downstream through the project area. If the studies determine that the project is not 

achieving the minimum passage rates, then Exelon would be required to develop a 

mitigation plan. 

Our Analysis

Exelon conducted multiple studies on the effects of Muddy Run operation on 

migratory fishes, summarized in Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan (2012k). These 

studies included three radio telemetry studies involving more than 500 radio-tagged adult 

shad, data from other lower Susquehanna River studies pertaining to shad run timing, 

hydraulic modeling from the expansion of the upstream Holtwood Project, and near-field 

velocity profiles at Muddy Run. Other available reports included FWS re-analysis of 

Exelon telemetry data and juvenile shad entrainment at Muddy Run (Sweka, 2013; 

Pugh, 2013). The Exelon studies concluded that the effects of the Muddy Run Project on 

upstream and downstream shad passage are negligible. Radio telemetry studies found 

that a majority of shad in upper Conowingo Pond migrate upstream along the east bank 

of the river and would pass in close proximity to the Muddy Run tailrace. This would be 

expected because higher flows occur on the east side of the river associated with flows 

discharging from the upstream Holtwood tailrace and Muddy Run releases. Those 

studies found that successful upstream passage of tagged (and detected) shad past the 

Muddy Run Project was 91 percent in 1989, 80 percent in 2001, and 84.5 percent in 2008 

(average of 85.2 percent). Telemetry studies in 2001 and 2008 provided data on the adult 

shad entrainment rate during Muddy Run pumping operation from April to June, and 

those rates ranged from 3.6 to 5.1 percent. Exelon’s review of Holtwood Project 

modeling found that river velocities may approach 7.5 to 10.0 fps when both postexpansion Holtwood and Muddy Run are generating at or near full capacity (total flow of 

about 94,000 cfs). This indicates that parts of the river channel would be reaching 

velocities that may deter shad, potentially causing some migratory delays, but Exelon 

states that large portions of the river channel would remain with suitable velocities for 

upstream migration, based on field measurements of velocities in the immediate project 

vicinity. For downstream juvenile shad passage, Exelon estimated that for fish that were 

in the zone of influence during pumping, 22.6 percent of those fish could be entrained. 

For the overall population, however, Exelon estimated that only 2.9 to 6.6 percent of the 

population would be vulnerable to entrainment during peak outmigration times, because 

the project is not pumping during many of the peak hours of outmigration (Normandeau 

and Gomez and Sullivan, 2012g). These data indicate that the project already meets the 

agencies’ effectiveness targets for upstream adult shad passage and downstream juvenile 

shad passage. 
170 

The reviews by Sweka (2013) and Pugh (2013), however, do not agree with the 

Exelon study results and argue that Exelon has understated the effects of the project on 

upstream migration and entrainment of juvenile shad. Sweka (2013) states that the 

Exelon data show that project releases do result in a slower travel time for adult shad 

migrating upstream in those flows. He also states that only 18 percent of upstream forays 

by migrating shad were successful at continued passage past the Muddy Run tailrace 

from the downstream Sicily Island to the upstream Deepwater Island with no fall back 

behavior, and some individual fish needed to make several forays prior to successfully 

passing Muddy Run. Sweka concludes that project operation results in migratory delays 

and possible termination of upstream migration by shad. Pugh (2013) states that by 

adjusting the periods when juvenile shad may actually be passing the project, based on 

information from the scientific literature, the actual entrainment rate for juvenile shad 

would be from 12.3 to 14.5 percent of the population, and not 2.9 to 6.6 percent as 

estimated by Exelon. 

Exelon, in its reply comments filed on March 18, 2014, states that the Sweka 

(2013) and Pugh (2013) reviews of the data were flawed and that they overstate the actual 

effects of the project. 

Our assessment of these conflicting studies and analyses is that the argued 

differences in migration and entrainment rates may be within the range of error for the 

field studies and the data analysis. While the field studies may do a reasonable job of 

representing the “real world,” there are issues with any field study (tag losses, differences 

in behavior of tagged fish, equipment failures, etc.) that may influence the study results. 

Instead of trying to determine whose studies or analyses are most correct, our conclusion 

is that the studies and analyses have overall shown that the Muddy Run Project does not 

have an adverse effect on a major proportion of the shad population migrating past the 

project, and has not resulted in major delays to the shad migration. In addition, with 

Exelon now agreeing to the conditions of the certification, Exelon has committed to 

maintaining the effectiveness targets required by Pennsylvania DEP, would monitor this 

effectiveness via the studies required by the certification as part of its FPOP, and would 

mitigate any effects of the project if the target effectiveness is not maintained. 

Both the fishway prescription and the certification would require additional 

effectiveness studies, but on different time schedules. The fishway prescription would 

require periodic studies (every 10 years) beginning in 2018, while the certification would 

require upstream passage effectiveness studies only if Pennsylvania DEP determines that 

Muddy Run operation is causing the upstream Holtwood Project to not meet its

effectiveness targets. Downstream passage effectiveness studies would be required 

beginning in 2026, for the certification. Both the fishway prescription and the 

certification would require that additional measures be implemented if effectiveness 

targets are not met. It appears that the fishway prescription and the certification would 

accomplish the same goals, but on a slightly different timetable. 
171 

Conowingo Project

The Conowingo Project currently operates two fish passage facilities: the east fish 

lift for volitional upstream passage into Conowingo Pond, and the west fish lift, for 

collection of adult shad for egg-taking and other experimental purposes. Exelon proposes 

to continue operating these facilities and to implement a preventive maintenance program 

at the east fish lift, to extend the life of the facility through the new license term. Several 

commenting entities have stated that the current facilities are inadequate and outdated and 

fail to meet the required effectiveness to achieve successful anadromous fish restoration 

in the Susquehanna River. Both Interior and NMFS reserve their authority to prescribe 

additional fishways during the term of the license. Interior also recommends an operation 

and maintenance plan and a fish passage effectiveness monitoring plan (FEMP) for the 

Conowingo fish passage facilities. Interior originally recommended, as a section 10(j) 

measure, implementing an alternative G to improve fish passage at the project.80 

Alternative G would include: 

 Phase I: Construct a new west fish lift for both trap and trucking and direct 

volitional upstream shad passage (two 6,500-gallon hoppers), with an 

auxiliary water system of 2,600 cfs. The objective would be to truck 

50,000 adult shad per year. Create a 5,000-foot zone of passage81 on the 

east and west shores of the tailrace below the dam. Implement a maximum 

downramping rate of 20,000 cfs/hour. Make channel modifications 

downstream to eliminate stranding in the spillway channel. 

 Phase II: Modify the east fish lift stilling basin to allow a 900-cfs attraction 

flow, as originally designed. Relocate east fish lift entrance A to upstream 

of the Kaplan unit boils. Construct a new entrance D and collection gallery 

to east fish lift, along the Kaplan units and connect to a new second hopper. 

Reconstruct entrance B to the east fish lift at 45 degrees to the river flow 

(see figure 3-15). 

 Phase III: If passage efficiency is not met in Phase I and II, make daily 

adjustments to minimum flows and turbine operation, construct an east fish 

lift auxiliary water supply of 4,325 cfs, and upgrade east fish lift equipment 

to allow a 15-minute cycle time. 

 

80 Alternative G was one of several alternatives that Interior studied for 

improvement of the Conowingo Project fish passage facilities. 

81 A zone of passage is a reach within a stream where depth and velocities are 

maintained within suitable ranges for upstream or downstream fish passage. 
172 

Figure 3-15. View of the east end of the Conowingo powerhouse showing the 

approximate locations of Interior’s alternative G entrance modifications to 

the east fish lift (Source: Google Earth; Morales and Towler, 

undated; staff). 

Exelon, in its reply comments, states that there is currently no need to construct 

additional fish passage facilities at Conowingo dam, that the recent shad population 

trends in the Susquehanna River and along the Atlantic coast do not indicate that large 

increases in shad populations are likely, and that there is no scientific basis for the target 

effectiveness rates that Interior and other agencies have recommended for fish passage 

facilities at Conowingo and the other Susquehanna River hydroelectric projects. Exelon 

also comments that past agency management decisions for the Susquehanna River have 

been flawed, including the decision to terminate shad trap and truck operations from 

Conowingo after 1996, resulting in a decrease in the number of spawners reaching 

upriver spawning habitat. 

In its comments on the draft EIS, Interior withdrew its section 10(j) 

recommendation to implement alternative G. However, we retain our analysis of 
173 

alternative G because Interior indicates that alternative G is its most developed alternative 

and its section 18 fishway prescription, when eventually issued, may be similar to 

alternative G. While Interior is not yet formally recommending or prescribing alternative 

G, we evaluate it as a potential fish passage alternative in our discussion of fish passage 

requirements at the Conowingo Project. However, because Interior no longer 

recommends alternative G, we do not analyze the expected cost in our economic analysis 

in section 4 of this EIS. 

Our Analysis

Exelon conducted several studies as part of relicensing to assess the effectiveness 

of the existing fish lifts and to identify which operating conditions at the project resulted 

in the best fish passage. Exelon also conducted an engineering evaluation to assess 

alternatives for improvements to the facilities to improve fish passage. In addition to the 

current studies, there are more than 40 years of operational experience with the fish 

passage facilities at Conowingo dam, with a multitude of associated studies. Numerous 

other studies and operational experiences at fish passage facilities for American shad and 

other anadromous species are also available for other projects on the Atlantic and Pacific 

coasts that may have some applicability to the Susquehanna River. Fish passage at 

Conowingo is one of the primary issues for relicensing, as passage at Conowingo has a 

major effect on fish passage upstream of Conowingo and on the restoration program for 

the Susquehanna River. Ultimately, should Interior and NMFS file fishway prescriptions 

under section 18, they would become conditions of any license issued for Conowingo. 

Nevertheless, we present our independent analysis of this issue below including our 

assessment of alternative G. 

Fishway Effectiveness

Fishway effectiveness is an important aspect of fishway operations on the 

Susquehanna River, as the objective is to pass as many spawners as possible to areas 

upstream of York Haven dam, where the best spawning habitat for shad occurs. Some 

spawning habitat is also available between the Safe Harbor and York Haven Projects 

(about 12 miles of river), in some of the tributaries (such as the Conestoga River), and in 

limited areas in the upper reaches of Conowingo Pond and Lake Aldred (Holtwood 

reservoir). But the primary focus of the shad restoration program has always been a 

target population as measured at the York Haven Project. As stated in the current 

restoration plan for the river (SRAFRC, 2010), the goal of the program is: “Restore selfsustaining, robust, and productive stocks of migratory fish capable of producing 

sustainable fisheries, to the Susquehanna River Basin throughout their historic ranges in 

Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York. The goals are 2 million American shad and 5 

million river herring spawning upstream of the York Haven Dam. Goals for American 

eel and other migratory species are yet to be determined.” In order to achieve that goal, 

the plan also states as a primary objective (Task A1): “Develop and implement upstream 

passage plans and performance measures at all four lower river hydroelectric dams to 

ensure that each facility passes at least 75 percent of the adult American shad passed at 
174 

the next downstream facility, or at least 85 percent of the adult American shad reaching 

project tailwaters.” The fishway effectiveness target has also recently been revised 

slightly by Interior to say that 80 percent of the fish in each tailwater must pass within 36 

hours, to reduce delay at each project.82 The basis for the restoration plan effectiveness 

targets is not provided in the plan, but is believed to be a reflection of the effectiveness at 

the Safe Harbor Project, which has the highest effectiveness of any shad passage facility 

on the Susquehanna River (or perhaps on the Atlantic coast), averaging about 71 percent 

of the passage at the downstream Holtwood Project. Recent population modeling by both 

Exelon (Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan, 2012j) and FWS (Sweka and Eyler, 2013; 

Sweka, 2014) also indicate that the most important factor in achieving a population 

growth in line with restoration goals is providing a sufficient numbers of spawners to 

upriver habitat. Without high fishway effectiveness or trucking of spawners to that 

habitat, the shad population would not substantially grow or reach restoration goals. This 

modeling also included hatchery contributions of shad fry, and while hatchery production 

may result in some population growth, the most important factor is providing sufficient 

numbers of spawners to upriver habitat (see discussion below on Susquehanna River 

Shad Population Trends).

While fishway effectiveness is important, we previously discussed our concerns 

about specific target effectiveness goals at the York Haven Project, and whether target 

effectiveness is something that can entirely be controlled by the licensees. At 

Conowingo, Exelon’s studies showed that the east fish lift attraction efficiency83 ranged 

from 73 percent in 2010 to about 44 percent in 2012 (Normandeau and Gomez and 

Sullivan, 2012a; 2012b). Total fish passage effectiveness84 ranged from 45 percent in 

2010 to 26 percent in 2012. Several variables were assessed for the two study years; 

river flows and project discharges were generally higher in 2012 than 2010, possibly 

resulting in lower attraction efficiency in 2012. The portion of those fish that entered the 

fish lift and ended up successfully passing the fish lift was similar in both years (61.5 

percent in 2010 and 58.6 percent in 2012). This would be expected as once fish are 

 

82 This new effectiveness target was developed by FWS as a result of a modeling 

evaluation of the effects of migratory delays on shad spawning success in the 

Susquehanna River (Sweka and Eyler, 2013). Alternative G includes this target 

effectiveness as a goal for any fish passage improvements at the Conowingo Project. 

However, Pennsylvania FBC has a slightly different criterion that 80 percent of the fish 

should pass a project within 5 days.

83 That is, the percentage of radio-tagged shad documented in the tailrace that 

subsequently entered the east fish lift. 

84 That is, the percentage of radio-tagged shad documented in the tailrace that 

successfully completed passage through the east fish lift. 
175 

inside the facility the hydraulic conditions are more controlled than what fish may 

experience in the river or tailrace. However, in both years fish made multiple forays, 

both successful and unsuccessful, into the fish lift and were detected in many areas of the 

tailrace, indicating searching behavior. 

This searching behavior results in delay of fish locating the fish lift entrances and 

achieving passage, and is a concern expressed by Interior and other agencies. Fish that 

experience delays in passing Conowingo and the other lower river hydroelectric projects 

may not reach upstream spawning areas in time to complete spawning, as Susquehanna 

River water temperatures typically increase quickly in late spring as river flows recede. 

FWS analyzed radio telemetry data from the 2010 and 2012 studies, to assess the amount 

of delay that fish encountered in entering and passing the east fish lift (Morales, undated). 

According to this analysis, fish in 2010 required from 3.5 hours to 383 hours (average of 

129 hours – about 5.4 days) from their initial entry into the tailrace (as detected by radio 

telemetry), for successfully completing passage into Conowingo Pond, and only 10.1 

percent of the fish met the current Interior criteria that passage should occur within 36 

hours. In 2012, fish required from 56 hours to 768 hours (average of 276 hours – 11.5 

days) for completing passage, and no fish met the Interior criterion that passage should 

occur within 36 hours. 

The basis for Interior 36-hour criteria appears to be the modeling by Sweka and 

Eyler (2013), but what an acceptable delay may be in the “real world” may be more 

difficult to determine. To further assess potential “acceptable” delays, we examined 

water temperature data from the Harrisburg USGS gage (No. 01570500), located just 

upstream of York Haven, for 2008 through 2013 (data not available for 2011), to 

determine when water temperatures typically reach the upper range of most suitable 

spawning temperatures for shad (71°F – Walburg and Nichols, 1967). The assumption is 

that once the maximum suitable temperature is reached and maintained and then 

exceeded, there would be little successful spawning after that point. In reality, however, 

some spawning would likely continue at higher temperatures, as Walburg and Nichols 

(1967) report that spawning may occur at temperatures as high as 78°F. The following 

summarizes when a temperature of 71°F was first reached and then maintained at 

Harrisburg:85

 

 2008 – May 31 

 2009 – June 7 

 

85 There were instances when this temperature was reached for a short time, but 

then decreased after a few days as a result of colder weather or higher flows. We used 

the date when the temperature first reached 71°F and then remained above that for a 

prolonged period. 
176 

 2010 – May 26 

 2012 – June 9 

 2013 – May 28. 

Conowingo dam typically begins fish lift operations by about April 1, although 

substantial numbers of shad are usually not available until mid-April. An approximate 

average of the above dates when water temperatures would exceed 71°F would 

conservatively be about May 31, which would mean that shad reaching Conowingo dam 

in mid-April would need to pass York Haven in about 45 days. This would mean that 

fish would need an average of about 10 days to pass each project dam and migrate the 

distance between each project.86 For later arriving fish, however, this window would be 

shorter, with fish arriving by May 1 having a 30-day window, needing to pass each 

project in an average of about 7 days. If we subtract the travel time (5 to 6 days – see 

footnote below), this would further reduce the window at each project to an average of 

about 6 days for fish to locate and successfully pass the fishway at each dam. While we 

understand Interior’s objective to reduce delay at each project, our simple analysis 

indicates that Interior’s 36-hour criteria may be overly conservative, and that fish could 

still reach habitat upstream of York Haven at suitable spawning temperatures as long as 

they could pass each project within a matter of days. Our estimate is more in line with 

the Pennsylvania FBC criteria that 80 percent of the fish pass a project within 5 days.

In any event, the fish passage effectiveness at Conowingo dam, based on Exelon’s 

studies, appears relatively low (45 percent in 2010 to 26 percent in 2012), with average 

delay ranging from 5.4 to 11.5 days. While this effectiveness may be within the range of 

other fish passage facilities in the Northeast (such as Holyoke dam on the Connecticut 

River), the Holyoke dam is located at RM 86, and has suitable and ample spawning 

habitat both downstream and upstream of the dam. On the Susquehanna River, fish must 

pass four dams before reaching the best spawning habitat. 

 

86 The distances between projects on the lower Susquehanna River, however, are 

not large, although fish would also have to pass by the Muddy Run Project. With 

Conowingo dam at river mile 10 and York Haven dam at river mile 54, shad would only 

need to travel 44 river miles to reach York Haven. At a shad cruising speed of about 3 

fps (2 miles per hour) (Bell, 1991), an unobstructed shad could travel 44 miles in about 

22 hours (about a day), if it migrated continuously. However, Normandeau and Gomez 

and Sullivan (2012h) reported much slower migration speeds in Conowingo Pond of 4 to 

6.7 miles per day. At an average speed of 5 miles per day, fish would require about 

9 days to reach York Haven. Because the 44-mile-reach is a combination of reservoir 

and riverine habitat, we assume that travel time to York Haven may be in the range of 5 

to 6 days, for a freely-migrating shad. 
177 

The best example of a multiple-dam system that has an established healthy shad 

run is the Columbia River, although the American shad is an introduced species in the 

Columbia River and is not a management species of interest. The Columbia River shad 

runs have reached more than 6 million fish annually, probably the largest run in North 

America, and the hydroelectric projects have large fishways designed for salmon with 

high volumes of attraction water not typically seen in Atlantic coast projects. Table 3-24 

summarizes American shad counts on the Columbia River for three lower-river dams: 

The Dalles, John Day, and McNary. Bonneville dam is the lowermost dam on the river, 

but because a large segment of the shad run passes through the navigation lock at 

Bonneville (resulting in higher counts at the next upstream dam, The Dalles), we are 

using The Dalles counts as the “beginning” count on the Columbia. 

While some shad may use navigation locks for passage at all the dams on the 

Columbia River, the fishway counts at The Dalles and above dams are believed to 

reasonably represent shad passage at these dams. These data show that John Day dam 

passes an average of 51 percent of the count at The Dalles (range of 27 to 70 percent), 

and McNary dam passes an average of 55 percent of the John Day passage (range of 32 

to 108 percent [potential counting error]). The Dalles reservoir is about 24 miles long, 

and John Day reservoir is about 76 miles long, and both reservoirs contain suitable shad 

spawning habitat that is likely used by shad that cease upstream migration. The passage 

at McNary dam averages 28 percent of the passage at The Dalles (range of 13 to 58 

percent). These data show that there has been a wide range in passage effectiveness 

through the years, but the long-term average is that about 50 percent of the fish passed at 

the lower dam is passed at the next upstream dam. These long-term data show that the 

target passage effectiveness recommended for the Susquehanna River (75 percent from 

dam to dam) has only been occasionally met on the Columbia River, and in most years is 

much less than that target. While the shad is not a target species of interest on the 

Columbia River, the Corps and fisheries agencies still have an interest in effectively 

passing the shad at each dam, so that shad successfully move through the fishways and do 

not affect or block the passage of the salmonid species of interest, many of which are 

federally listed. Consistently maintaining a high fish passage effectiveness (75 percent) 

on all the Susquehanna River Projects, as recommended by Interior and other 

commenting entities, may not be a realistic objective, but as fish counts on the Columbia 

River have shown, somewhat lower passage efficiencies may still result in substantial 

growth and maintenance of a large shad population (table 3-24). 
178 

Table 3-24. American shad passage at lower Columbia River dams, and passage 

effectiveness between dams, 1984 to 2013 (Source: http://www.fpc.org/, 

accessed March 22, 2014).

Year The Dalles 

(RM 192)a

John Day 

(RM 216)

JD % of 

The Dalles

McNary 

(RM 292)

McN % of 

John Day

McN % of 

The Dalles

2013 --

b

-- -- 1,246,494 -- --

2012 -- -- -- 675,421 -- --

2011 -- -- -- 224,905 -- --

2010 1,241,770 -- -- 276,673 -- 22

2009 1,641,362 -- -- 486,725 -- 30

2008 1,805,516 -- -- 623,010 -- 35

2007 3,591,988 -- -- 985,466 -- 27

2006 4,611,592 -- -- 1,176,899 -- 26

2005 6,067,028 -- -- 1,951,001 -- 32

2004 5,472,400 -- -- 1,751,728 -- 32

2003 4,258,889 2,735,108 64 1,077,670 39 25

2002 3,218,050 1,850,942 58 599,294 32 19

2001 2,724,946 1,796,826 66 1,063,568 59 39

2000 1,556,619 851,598 55 350,457 41 23

1999 1,718,679 763,007 44 248,895 33 14

1998 2,149,097 1,025,044 48 393,305 38 18

1997 2,571,260 1,007,896 39 340,090 34 13

1996 2,648,553 959,262 36 352,755 37 13

1995 1,959,564 1,033,727 53 481,081 47 25

1994 1,801,545 935,958 52 668,528 71 37

1993 2,394,394 647,097 27 701,404 108 29

1992 2,824,313 1,963,060 70 1,635,089 83 58

1991 2,191,077 1,382,009 63 674,483 49 31

1990 3,706,855 1,641,943 44 866,940 53 23

1989 2,971,017 1,773,938 60 1,076,473 61 36

1988 2,008,572 908,741 45 665,925 73 33
179 

Year The Dalles 

(RM 192)a

John Day 

(RM 216)

JD % of 

The Dalles

McNary 

(RM 292)

McN % of 

John Day

McN % of 

The Dalles

1987 1,289,698 748,767 58 575,338 77 45

1986 1,361,854 609,363 45 307,361 50 23

1985 1,389,547 682,344 49 438,329 64 32

1984 1,135,982 586,015 52 281,793 48 25

Average % 51 55 28

a Bonneville dam is at RM 146. 

b The Corps ended shad counts at The Dalles in 2011 and at John Day in 2004. 

Susquehanna River American Shad Population Trends 

The resource agencies and cooperating project owners have made progress in 

restoration of shad to the Susquehanna River over the past 40 years. As described in 

Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative (SRAFRC, 2010), the 

number of shad collected annually in the west fish lift generally numbered in the 

hundreds of fish in the 1970s and early 1980s, and did not consistently exceed 1,000 fish 

until 1985. As table 3-13 shows, the numbers of shad passed at Conowingo increased 

substantially into the late 1990s with the completion of the east fish lift and reached a 

peak of 193,574 in 2001. Since 2001, however, the numbers have consistently declined. 

Maryland DNR has also been making shad population estimates for the Conowingo 

tailrace since the 1980’s (SRAFRC, 2013), using both a Petersen mark/recapture 

methodology and surplus production method (SPM).87 These estimates are shown in 

figure 3-16, and show a similar trend to the fish lift counts, with strong population growth 

up until 2000 to 2001, with an overall decline since then. The Petersen estimates show 

much higher numbers than the SPM in some years, believed to be because of very low 

recapture rates in some years. Both methods show a small increase in population 

estimates from 2007 to 2012. In 2012, Maryland DNR estimated a tailrace shad 

population of 150,743 fish using the Petersen method and 111,500 fish using the SPM.88

 

 

87 The SPM is a mathematical technique in which the population estimate is based 

on the previous-year’s population, the intrinsic rate of population increase, the estimated 

maximum population size, and assumed losses associated with upstream and downstream 

fish passage and by-catch mortality in the Atlantic herring fishery in the previous year. 

88 The east fish lift passed 22,143 shad in 2012, or about 15 percent of the Petersen 

population estimate and 20 percent of the SPM estimate. An additional 1,486 shad were 

collected in the west fish lift for egg collections and other experimental purposes. 
180 

Maryland DNR finds that the Petersen method may overestimate the actual population 

size, while the SPM may underestimate the population, but also indicates that the 

cessation of trucking in 1997 has been a factor in the decline of the shad population in the 

lower river (SRAFRC, 2013). 

Figure 3-16. Maryland DNR American shad population estimates for the Conowingo 

tailrace, 1986 to 2012 (Source: SRAFRC, 2013). 

Other factors in the decline may include the strong growth of the gizzard shad 

population, the increase in the number of predators in the river (including the introduction 

of the flathead catfish), and continued harvest of shad in offshore fisheries. Table 3-14 

illustrates the strong increase in the gizzard shad population in the river, with annual 

passage at the Conowingo east lift now reaching more than 1 million gizzard shad, and an 

additional 300,000 to 400,000 gizzard shad taken in the west lift. The effects of 

crowding in the fish lifts are unknown but there is the potential that large numbers of

gizzard shad may delay or hinder American shad entry to the lifts. Another effect of 

gizzard shad on American shad and other species that rely on zooplankton as a food 

source for early life stages (larvae and juveniles), is that large numbers of larval and 

juvenile gizzard shad may have an adverse effect on zooplankton populations via 

extensive grazing of that population (Sullivan et al., 2011). With a large population of 

juvenile gizzard shad in the lower river, interspecific competition for that food source 

may affect the growth and survival of juvenile American shad. The effects of a voracious 

predator such as flathead catfish has not been quantified, but this invasive species is now 
181 

regularly caught throughout the lower river, with hundreds now typically collected in the 

Conowingo lifts and in the York Haven east channel ladder, and is also recorded in the 

Holtwood and Safe Harbor fish lifts (SRAFRC, 2013). Flathead catfish has also now 

become a target species of interest for anglers in the Susquehanna River, and the 

Pennsylvania FBC reports that flathead catfish in excess of 40 pounds are commonly 

caught within Pennsylvania (http://www.fish.state.pa.us/catfish_flathead.htm, accessed 

May 15, 2014). An offshore ocean fishery for American shad, both directed and bycatch, continues along the Atlantic coast, although that fishery has shown declines as the 

stocks have reached lower levels and with the closure of an ocean intercept fishery in

2005.89 Because of its concern about this continued source of mortality to American shad 

stocks, including the Susquehanna River, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission (ASMFC) has adopted a strategy to quantify and manage sources of bycatch mortality where possible (ASMFC, 2010). 

Several comments have been made by both the agencies and Exelon that the 

cessation of trucking to upriver habitat has been a factor in the recent decline of the shad 

population, and that reinstatement of some trucking would likely benefit the population 

by “jump-starting” population growth. We further examined this issue by summarizing 

the total number of spawners reaching upriver habitat by trucking from the east and west 

fish lifts since the beginning of the program, as well as out-of-basin trucking,90 and 

compared that to the number of spawners reaching upriver habitat since volitional 

passage was established at all the dams in 2000. Table 3-25 and figure 3-17 show that 

the number of spawners reaching upriver spawning habitat since trucking was eliminated 

in 2000 has decreased significantly, particularly after 2001. Based on these data, it is 

likely that the recent decrease in the shad numbers at Conowingo is related to the 

significant decrease in spawners reaching upriver habitat. The peak number of upstream 

spawners occurred from 1994 to 1996, followed by peak returns to the east lift in 2000 to 

2004, from 4 to 8 years after the peak number of upstream spawners occurred. Most shad 

return to spawn at ages IV to VII, with some age VIII fish reported (SRAFRC, 2013). To 

illustrate the potential benefits of trucking, simple math shows that if fish are allowed to 

pass the three dams upstream of Conowingo via volitional passage at 75 percent 

effectiveness at each dam, only about 42 percent of the fish exiting the Conowingo fish 

lifts would reach above York Haven. In contrast, 100 percent of the fish trucked from 

Conowingo would reach habitat upstream of York Haven, minus any mortalities in 

transport, which in past trucking operations were minimal. A sustained trucking program 

 

89 An ocean intercept fishery is a commercial fishery in the ocean directed at 

stocks of migratory fishes on their way to spawning streams.

90 From 1980 to 1987 pre-spawn shad were trucked to the Susquehanna River from 

other river basins (most from the Delaware River). 
182 

would have the potential to maintain greater numbers of spawners in upriver locations 

when the shad population is low, as now, than volitional passage over four dams. 

Table 3-25. Number of American shad spawners, from multiple sources reaching 

upriver spawning habitat (primarily upstream of York Haven), 1980 to 

2014 (Source: SRAFRC, 2010; Pennsylvania FBC, 2014).

Year

Out-of-basin 

Trucking

Trucking from 

Conowingo

Volitional 

Passage to 

York Haven

Total 

Spawners

1980 114 -- -- 114

1981 1,165 -- -- 1,165

1982 2,565 800 -- 3,365

1983 4,310 64 -- 4,374

1984 3,777 0 -- 3,777

1985 2,834 967 -- 3,801

1986 4,965 4,172 -- 9,137

1987 6,051 7,202 -- 13,253

1988 -- 4,736 -- 4,736

1989 -- 6,469 -- 6,469

1990 -- 15,075 -- 15,075

1991 -- 24,662 -- 24,662

1992 -- 15,674 -- 15,674

1993 -- 11,717 -- 11,717

1994 -- 28,681 -- 28,681

1995 -- 56,370 -- 56,370

1996 -- 33,825 -- 33,825

1997 -- 10,528 -- 10,528

1998 -- 4,593 -- 4,593

1999 -- 5,508 -- 5,508

2000 -- 1,351 4,675 6,026

2001 -- -- 16,200 16,200

2002 -- -- 1,555 1,555

2003 -- -- 2,536 2,536
183 

Year

Out-of-basin 

Trucking

Trucking from 

Conowingo

Volitional 

Passage to 

York Haven

Total 

Spawners

2004 -- -- 219 219

2005 -- -- 1,772 1,772

2006 -- -- 1,913 1,913

2007 -- -- 192 192

2008 -- -- 21 21

2009 -- -- 402 402

2010 -- -- 907 907

2011 -- -- 0 0

2012 -- -- 224 224

2013 -- -- 202 202

2014 -- -- 8 8
184 

Figure 3-17. Graphical depiction of number of American shad spawners, from multiple 

sources, reaching upriver spawning habitat (primarily upstream of York 

Haven), 1980 to 2014 (Source: SRAFRC, 2010; Pennsylvania FBC, 

2014). 

Hatchery production of shad has also been a part of the Susquehanna River 

restoration program since 1976. Fertilized American shad eggs have been collected over 

the years on several rivers on the Atlantic coast (Susquehanna, Delaware, Connecticut, 

Hudson, Potomac, York, James River and its tributaries) and from the Columbia River in 

Oregon/Washington. In recent years, egg-taking has also occurred at the west fish lift via 

artificial tank spawning. Since the Pennsylvania FBC Van Dyke hatchery went into 

operation in 1976, more than 220 million shad fry and juveniles (mostly fry) have been 

stocked into the Susquehanna River and its tributaries, ranging on an annual basis from 

660,000 to 13.5 million. In the last 5 years the numbers stocked have ranged from about 

2.5 to 5.5 million, totaling 18.6 million, almost exclusively fry. SRAFRC (2013) 

estimated that for the 1986-2007 year classes, stocking of approximately 404 hatchery 

larvae was required to return one adult to the Conowingo lifts. Assuming that 400 fry are 

required for each adult return, stocking in the past 5 years could result in a return of about 

46,500 adult shad to the lifts, but spread over 4 to 5 years and longer. For trucked fish, 

SRAFRC (2013) estimated that transport of 1.28 adults to upstream areas was required to 

return one wild fish to the lifts. Thus, 59,520 fish would need to be trucked to produce a 

return of 46,500 fish. However, past experience has shown that up to 56,000 fish were 

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008201020122014

Number of spawners

Years

Total Spawners per Year (1980-2014)
185 

trucked in 1 year (see table 3-25), so this production could occur in 1 year, instead of 

being spread over 5 years, as with the recent hatchery program. Even a more modest 

trucking program of 30,000 fish per year over 5 years (stocking of 150,000 spawners) 

would result in the production of about 117,000 returning adults to the lifts, using current 

survival rates. A modest trucking program would have the potential to produce more 

adult returns than a hatchery program similar to that of the recent 5 years. Actual 

survival rates and adult returns to the Conowingo tailrace may even be higher, however, 

than estimated by SRAFRC because not all returning adults successfully enter the lifts. 

Atlantic coast and Chesapeake Bay American shad population trends

The current decline in shad populations on the Susquehanna River parallels 

declines that have been occurring coast wide, including in the Chesapeake Bay. A report 

by the Chesapeake Bay program 

(http://www.chesapeakebay.net/indicators/indicator/american_shad_abundance, accessed 

March 26, 2014) states that, in 2013, the Bay-wide shad restoration program reached 

41 percent of its goal, but most of the increase in recent years has been due to the 

improvement in the Potomac River shad run.91 The recent trend for the other major 

tributaries to the Bay has been either a decline or continued maintenance of lower levels 

short of the goals. These other rivers include the York, James, Rappahannock, and 

Susquehanna. Fish passage impediments were removed on the James River (Bosher’s 

dam fishway) and on the Rappahannock River (removal of Embrey dam) some years ago, 

but shad populations have not responded as expected to this increased availability 

of habitat. The James River shad population has remained at relatively low levels, and 

the Rappahannock River shad population, while recently reaching about 90 percent of its 

population target, has been relatively stable and not shown a major population increase in 

response to removal of Embrey dam in 2004, compared to the population level prior to 

dam removal. 

For other Atlantic coast rivers, ASMFC (2010) reports that shad populations in 

most of the Atlantic coast rivers remain at historic lows and are not recovering to 

acceptable levels. ASMFC (2010) notes that data on annual numbers of fish passing 

upriver at dams on several Atlantic coastal rivers showed a coast-wide pattern of an 

increase followed by a decrease in the past 20 to 30 years. In fact, most fish passage 

numbers declined at about the same time (beginning in the late 1990s to early 2000s). 

 

91 Jim Cummins, director for living resources at the Interstate Commission on the 

Potomac River Basin and co-chair of the Chesapeake Bay Program’s American Shad 

Indicator Action Team, recently stated, “While there are several factors behind the shad 

recovery in the Potomac River, improved water quality is the cornerstone” 

(http://www.chesapeakebay.net/blog/post/potomac_river_sees_rise_in_returning_shad_dr

iving_bay_wide_abundance_trend, accessed December 29, 2014). 
186 

This simultaneous decline suggests a coast wide change in environmental conditions or 

mortality factors that affected stocks from South Carolina to Maine within the last 5 to 10 

years. This suggests that operation of hydroelectric projects on Atlantic coast rivers, 

many of which have fish passage facilities, has not been a primary cause of the 

population declines observed, and that additional or more effective fish passage facilities 

on these rivers may not necessarily result in population increases. 

Alternative G and improvements to Conowingo fish lifts 

As described above, alternative G would include major renovations to the 

Conowingo fish lifts. Other agencies and other entities also generally recommend major 

renovations to the lifts to improve the effectiveness of the lifts, but only Pennsylvania 

FBC provides specific step by step recommendations for fish lift improvements. Table 3-

26 summarizes the improvements included in alternative G and recommended by 

Pennsylvania FBC. 

Table 3-26. Summary of alternative G and Pennsylvania FBC recommendations for 

upstream anadromous fish passage at Conowingo dam (Source: Interior 

and Pennsylvania FBC terms and conditions; staff).

Alternative G

Pennsylvania FBC recommended 

improvements

Phase I: Construct a new west fish lift for 

both trap and trucking and direct volitional 

upstream shad passage (two 6,500-gallon 

hoppers), with an auxiliary attraction water 

system of 2,600 cfs. The objective would 

be to truck 50,000 adult shad per year. 

Create a 5,000-foot zone of passage on the 

east and west shores of the tailrace below 

the dam. Implement maximum 

downramping rate of 20,000 cfs/hour. 

Make channel modifications downstream to 

eliminate stranding in the spillway.

Timeline: No schedule given, but we 

assume 1 year for design and 2 years for 

construction, for total of 3 years.

Item 1: Incorporate performance criteria 

into new license where 80 percent of the 

shad that enter the project area must pass 

the project within 5 days, to be based on 

telemetry study of 150 shad per year for 3 

years. If goal is not reached, initiate 

operational changes as specified by the 

agencies and test for 3 years using 

telemetry study. If goal is still not reached 

after 3 years, make structural changes to 

the fish lifts as specified by the agencies, 

and test for an additional 3 years using a 

telemetry study. If goal is still not reached 

within 3 years, additional structural 

changes may be required, depending on 

behavior of tagged shad.

Timeline: Potential for 12 years – 3 years 

for initial studies, 3 years for study of 

operational changes, 3 years for structural 

changes, and 3 years for additional 

monitoring. 
187 

Alternative G

Pennsylvania FBC recommended 

improvements

Phase II: Modify the east fish lift stilling 

basin to allow 900-cfs attraction flow, as 

originally designed. Relocate east fish lift 

entrance A to upstream of the Kaplan unit 

boils. Construct new entrance D and 

collection gallery to east fish lift, along the 

Kaplan units and connect to a new second 

hopper. Reconstruct entrance B to east fish 

lift at 45 degrees to the river flow (see 

figure 3-15).

Timeline: To begin when new west fish lift 

begins operation; we assume 1 year for 

design and 2 years for construction, for 

total of 3 years

Item 2: Modify east fish lift to include a 

larger hopper, increased attraction flow, 

and addition of a collection gallery in front 

of units 8-11. 

Timeline: No schedule given as to when 

improvements would be required in relation 

to item 1, but we assume these would be 

the structural changes that would occur 

after the first 6 years of studies. Assume 1 

year for design and 2 years for 

construction. Similar to Interior Phase II. 

Phase III: If passage efficiency is not met 

in Phase I and II, make daily adjustments to 

minimum flows and turbine operation, 

construct an east fish lift auxiliary 

attraction water supply of 4,325 cfs, and 

upgrade east fish lift equipment to allow a 

15-minute cycle time. 

Timeline: No timeline given but we 

assume 1 year for design and 1 year for 

construction, for total of 2 years.

Item 3: Complete the rebuild of the west 

fish lift to include additional attraction 

water and provision to expand to volitional 

passage if needed. Ultimately, fish passage 

facilities at Conowingo will need to pass a 

design population of 5 million fish, and fish 

lifts will be required on both sides of the 

tailrace.

Timeline: No schedule given as to when 

improvements would be required in relation 

to item 1, but we assume these would be 

the structural changes that would occur 

after the first 6 years of studies. Assume 1 

year for design and 2 years for 

construction. Similar to Interior Phase I.

Item 4: Telemetry study of gizzard shad is 

needed to understand the issues of passage 

efficiency, capacity, and interference with 

American shad, and the recycling of 

gizzard shad in the west fish lift.

Timeline: No schedule given but we 

assume a 1-year study during the first 3 

years of study in Item 1.
188 

Alternative G and Pennsylvania FBC’s recommendations are similar in that they 

both call for the complete re-build of the west fish lift and major improvements to the 

east fish lift that would involve major structural changes. The Pennsylvania FBC 

recommendations differ from alternative G, in that Pennsylvania FBC appears to 

recommend that at least 6 years of radio telemetry studies first be conducted to determine 

fish passage effectiveness before structural changes are made, and after first studying 

operational changes for 3 of those 6 years. Interior does not specify any studies prior to 

making structural improvements in alternative G, only after the improvements are made. 

While we understand that any final Interior fishway prescription that would 

require major structural improvements to the fish lifts would become conditions of any 

license issued, rebuilding both the east and west fish lifts does not appear to be justified 

at this time. Although we describe above that the effectiveness of the Conowingo fish 

lifts have not been high in two recent years of studies (2010 and 2012), we also find that 

other fish passage facilities for American shad have similarly exhibited a wide range of 

effectiveness, with some exhibiting low effectiveness. Even at Safe Harbor dam, which 

has demonstrated the highest effectiveness of the four fish passage facilities on the 

Susquehanna River (and perhaps of any fish passage facility on the Atlantic coast), has 

not met the minimum Interior criteria in many years. The current declining trend in the 

shad population in the Susquehanna River and elsewhere along the Atlantic coast also 

does not indicate that the existing fish passage facilities will be exceeding their current 

design capacity for American shad anytime soon. There is, however, a concern about the 

continuing increase in the gizzard shad population in the Susquehanna River, and the 

ability of the current lifts to handle that population. 

Other concerns are that the existing facilities have not been well maintained by 

Exelon, are showing their age, and have not been operating as originally designed. For 

example, the west fish lift first began operation in 1972 for a 5-year period, and is still in 

operation, but with a hopper that is relatively small and that has the capacity to hold 

fewer numbers of fish than desired in light of current fish populations in the tailrace 

(particularly gizzard shad). The east fish lift was designed to operate with an attraction 

flow of 900 cfs (about 1 percent of the full Conowingo station capacity of about 86,000 

cfs), but because of excessive turbulence within the fish lift at that flow, and issues with 

some of the gates, it now operates at an attraction flow of only 300 cfs (0.3 percent of full 

capacity). The west fish lift was designed with a total attraction flow of 300 cfs, so 

current total attraction flow at Conowingo is 600 cfs (about 0.7 percent of full capacity). 

Experience has shown that the Conowingo fish lifts are most effective when station 

discharge is much less than full capacity, when the total attraction flow is a greater 

percentage of ambient station discharge. The Interior and NMFS criterion for attraction 

flow is that it should be from 3 to 5 percent of full powerhouse capacity (Towler and 

Orvis, 2013), which at Conowingo would range from 2,580 to 4,300 cfs. Towler and 

Orvis (2013) also provide a summary table of attraction flows at fish passage facilities 

along the Atlantic coast, and for the major fish passage facilities listed (including those 

on the Connecticut, Merrimack, Penobscot, and Santee Rivers), Conowingo attraction 
189 

flows are the lowest percentage of any of the major facilities. Conowingo also has the 

lowest attraction flows of the Susquehanna River fish passage facilities. Making 

structural modifications within the east lift to increase the east lift attraction flow to its 

original design capacity of 900 cfs would be a reasonable way to increase attraction to the 

east lift without having to make major changes to the lift associated with constructing a 

new attraction water supply system. 

Another operational deficiency of the existing east fish lift is that entrance A, 

which faces the Kaplan units (numbers 8 through 11), is not usable when the Kaplan units 

are operating. The Kaplan units’ discharge drowns out the attraction flow from 

entrance A, resulting in the closure of that entrance when the Kaplan units are operating. 

Alternative G would relocate entrance A to upstream of the Kaplan unit boils, to provide 

a better attraction flow jet to the quiescent area upstream of the boils (see figure 3-15). 

While this may have some merit, in that it would be similar to one of the Safe Harbor 

dam fish lift entrances that operates with good effectiveness, this would involve a major 

modification of the east lift. An alternative approach would be to first restore the 900-cfs 

attraction flow, and determine whether that additional flow, combined with operational 

modifications with the Kaplan units, would provide better attraction to entrance A when 

the Kaplan units are in operation. If the attraction problem persists after restoration of the 

900-cfs flow, then the feasibility of relocating the entrance could be investigated. 

Alternative G would also reconstruct entrance B to a 45-degree angle to the river flow. 

This appears to be counter to normal Interior guidance that attraction flow should be 

parallel to river flow, but this is another entrance modification that could be investigated 

if restoration of the 900-cfs attraction flow does not produce improvements in attraction 

flow patterns. 

Interior’s alternative G and Pennsylvania FBC’s recommendation call for 

construction of a collection gallery upstream of the Kaplan units’ discharge, with 

alternative G stating that the collection gallery be connected to a new second hopper, to 

increase the capacity of the east fish lift, in light of the large number of gizzard shad now 

being lifted, and to help meet the American shad design capacity. Addition of a 

collection gallery would also be a major modification to the east lift, and may not be 

warranted, based on the current population size and the questionable value of a collection 

gallery for shad. Few of the major passage facilities for shad on the Atlantic coast have 

collection galleries,92 and where small collection galleries have been installed (Holyoke 

and Turners Falls dams on the Connecticut River), shad primarily use the shoreline 

entrances and the gallery entrances have collected few fish and in some cases have been 

closed. The Safe Harbor Project, which has a similar size tailrace to Conowingo with a 

total hydraulic capacity of 110,000 cfs (larger than Conowingo), does not have a 

 

92 The Columbia River projects that pass shad have collection galleries, originally 

built for salmon, but the extent of collection gallery use by shad has not been reported. 
190 

collection gallery and has the highest fishway effectiveness on the river. Construction of 

a collection gallery should be a last step in making improvements to the fish lift entrances 

at Conowingo, and only if the previously discussed steps (restoring 900-cfs attraction 

water, and reconstructing entrances A and B) are unsuccessful, and there is evidence that 

large numbers of shad are in the tailrace and not locating the entrances. The past 

operation of the east fish lift has shown the capability to collect and lift large numbers of 

American shad (193,574 in 2001), as well as more than a million gizzard shad in recent 

years, so making a major modification such as a collection gallery should not be required 

unless a preponderance of information indicates that large numbers of shad are not 

locating the entrances. 

The installation of a second hopper, however, is an east lift improvement that 

warrants consideration. The current hopper at the east lift has a stated design capacity of 

750,000 shad annually, and an unknown number of other species. As we illustrated in 

table 3-14, large numbers of adult gizzard shad are now lifted at Conowingo (and all the 

Susquehanna River Projects), and the gizzard shad, which is only slightly smaller than 

the American shad, occupies much of the available space in the east-lift hopper. Addition 

of a second hopper, while it may not double the capacity at the lift, should provide an 

increase in capacity of at least 150 percent (Gomez and Sullivan and Normandeau, 2012). 

The original design of the east lift included the provision for adding a second hopper, so 

the space is there and no major modifications to the overall fish lift structure would be 

required. We have additional discussion of required hopper size below, under our 

discussion of west lift improvements. 

Phase III of alternative G also calls for addition of an auxiliary attraction water 

supply of 4,325 cfs at the east lift (5 percent of the maximum powerhouse discharge) if 

passage efficiency is not met in Phase I and II, and the modification of fish lift equipment 

to allow a 15-minute lift cycle time. While we do not agree that an auxiliary attraction 

water supply is needed at this time,93 we do agree that the fish lift should be able to 

achieve a lift cycle time of 15 to 20 minutes (the original design was to be a 15-minute 

cycle). Gomez and Sullivan and Normandeau (2012) report that the current lift cycle 

time is about 1 hour, which is inadequate for a fish lift that is handling millions of 

clupeids and other species annually. A shorter lift cycle time is needed to minimize the 

delay in lifting fish, and to reduce the potential for overcrowding the hopper on days of 

peak fish movement. Gomez and Sullivan and Normandeau (2012) state that one of the 

main reasons that the cycle time is about an hour is that the hopper floats when it is 

lowered back into the collection channel, and takes a while to fill with water and sink to 

the bottom. This has not been a major issue at other fish lifts on the Susquehanna and 

 

93 As we describe earlier in this section, we conclude that the originally designed 

900-cfs attraction flow should first be restored and tested before making any major 

changes to the attraction flow system. 
191 

elsewhere, and it appears it could be easily remedied by the installation of hinge flap 

valves on the hopper floor. 

Alternative G and the Pennsylvania FBC recommendation call for complete 

reconstruction of the west fish lift so that it can serve as a trap and truck facility and for 

volitional passage. Alternative G would include volitional passage and operation of a 

trap and truck facility (50,000-fish capacity) with two large hoppers (6,500-gallon) and a 

2,600-cfs attraction water supply. Pennsylvania FBC does not specify the facilities 

required at the west lift, although it appears to also recommend a trap and truck facility 

with the provision to expand to volitional passage if needed in the future, to meet the 

design population of 5 million shad at Conowingo. We agree that the west lift should be 

improved and used for trap and trucking of shad, but it is premature to completely 

reconstruct the lift on the scale described in alternative G. Even in its current condition, 

the west lift continues to collect about 5 to 20 percent of the shad lifted at the east lift, 

with 2,030 collected in 2013 (16 percent of the east lift catch).94 During the peak year of 

trap and trucking (1995) when about 56,000 shad were trucked upstream from 

Conowingo, about 12,000 shad were collected in the west lift and trucked upstream (21 

percent of the total trucked). While trucking of shad has not occurred since the year 

2000, the current fish sorting process at the west lift is labor-intensive and is essentially 

the same process using the same sorting tank initially installed in 1972. Trap and 

trucking operations at more recently constructed fish lifts typically involve a more 

automated process where transported fish can be more efficiently delivered to the 

transport truck, reducing the stress on trucked fish. Modifying the west lift facilities to 

improve the sorting and loading process would be an important measure as part of the 

reestablishment of a trap and trucking program from Conowingo. While alternative G

would establish an objective to truck 50,000 shad per year, the peak shad catch for the 

west lift was about 16,000 fish in 1990, so the initial handling facilities could be sized 

with a lower capacity but use a design that could be expanded in the future if needed. 

Reestablishment of trap and trucking would also require purchase of trucks and transport 

tanks and associated aeration systems, unless some of that equipment is available from 

the previous program. 

Another alternative G west lift improvement would be replacement of the existing 

hopper, which has a volume of 900 gallons, or the capacity to hold 700 fish (1.3 gallons 

per fish) according to Gomez and Sullivan and Normandeau (2012).95

 Interior has 

commented that the current hopper volumes at both lifts are inadequate for the design 

population and the other non-target species collected with shad (particularly gizzard shad 

that vastly outnumber American shad). Towler and Morales (2012) have estimated that 

 

94 The west lift also collected 480,000 gizzard shad in 2013.

95 In contrast, the east lift hopper has a capacity of 3,300 gallons.
192 

using a design population of 2 million shad, and the Interior criterion of 0.10 cubic foot 

per pound of fish in a hopper, the required hopper size at Conowingo (total of both lifts) 

would range from 842 to 1,768 cubic feet (depending on whether a 1963 log-correlation 

or a 2011 regression is used). At 7.48 gallons per cubic foot, this would require hopper 

sizes of 6,298 gallons to 13,225 gallons (alternative G describes hopper sizes of 6,500 

gallons at a new west lift). Towler and Morales (2012), however, also factor in a nontarget species allowance (gizzard shad), which increases these hopper sizes by 9 times 

with an 800 percent non-target species allowance. Towler and Morales (2012) conclude 

that sufficient hopper volume, as per the Interior criterion, cannot be achieved through 

any reasonable number of lifts at Conowingo, and recommend sorting as a way to 

eliminate nontarget species from the lifts. 

At the current hopper size and using the Interior criterion of 0.10 cubic foot per 

pound of fish, the west lift hopper with 900 gallons (120.3 cubic feet) would have a 

capacity of about 1,200 pounds of fish. The east lift hopper at 3,300 gallons (441.2 cubic 

feet) would have a capacity of about 4,400 pounds of fish. If we use a combined average 

weight of 2 pounds for American and gizzard shad,96 the west lift hopper has a capacity 

of about 600 fish and the east lift hopper has a capacity of about 2,200 fish. Gomez and 

Sullivan and Normandeau (2012) estimated that the current west lift hopper has a 

capacity of 700 fish (which would be an average weight of 1.7 pounds). Gomez and 

Sullivan and Normandeau (2012) also describe that the existing west lift hopper could be 

replaced with a larger 1,500-gallon hopper without changing the existing footprint of the 

west lift, although it would require changes in the steel superstructure and electrical and 

other mechanical components. This would have a capacity of about 2,000 pounds of fish, 

or about 1,000 fish using our calculations, and 1,150 fish as stated by Gomez and 

Sullivan and Normandeau (2012). While this would not meet the alternative G design for 

a 6,500-gallon hopper (capacity of about 8,700 fish), that design is well in excess of what 

is currently needed. A new 1,500-gallon hopper would increase the fish capacity by 

about 40 percent, which would be a substantial improvement over the existing hopper, 

particularly if hopper replacement is combined with structural and electrical/mechanical 

improvements, and an improved fish sorting and delivery system. Adding a second 

hopper of 3,300 gallons to the east lift as we describe above, would increase the lifting 

capacity of the east lift by an average of 2,200 fish, meaning that the total lifting capacity 

at Conowingo would increase to about 1,100 cubic feet (8,100 gallons), with a fish lifting 

capacity of about 5,500 fish. Even if the lifts were only able to cycle at one lift per hour 

(which we believe should be shortened), this would provide a lifting capacity of about 

 

96 Walburg and Nichols (1967) state that male American shad average 2 to 

3 pounds, and female shad average 3 to 4 pounds. Gizzard shad are generally smaller 

than American shad, but larger gizzard shad do overlap in size with American shad. 

Morales (2013) uses an average weight of 1.2 pounds for gizzard shad. 
193 

55,000 fish over a 10-hour day, a substantial improvement over the existing capacity 

at Conowingo. 

Alternative G would include a major increase in attraction flows at the west lift to 

2,600 cfs under phase I, and an increase in attraction flows at the east lift to 4,325 cfs 

under phase III, as we previously discussed. A flow of 2,600 cfs would be 3 percent of 

the powerhouse maximum hydraulic capacity, while the combined attraction flows of 

6,925 cfs would be 8 percent of powerhouse capacity. We previously discussed that it 

would be appropriate to increase the east lift attraction flow to its original design capacity 

of 900 cfs. For the west lift, the current attraction flow is supplied by the house 

generating units, which provide on-site local power to the station, and is limited to about 

300 cfs. This is a somewhat low attraction flow for the west side of the tailrace, and an 

attraction flow similar to the restored east lift flow (900 cfs) would be desirable, 

providing a total attraction flow from Conowingo of 2.1 percent, coming close to the 

Interior minimum of 3 percent of total station discharge. In addition, if higher attraction 

flows could be provided during periods of lower generation, these attraction flows could 

be more effective in attracting shad during off-peak generation. Providing additional 

attraction flow at the west lift would require additional structures at the lift, because the 

current supply through the house units could not be increased. Tailrace pumps or 

additional withdrawals from the reservoir would be required, and it is not known if the 

existing lift structure could accommodate an additional 600 cfs through its entrance weir 

gates without modification. Gomez and Sullivan and Normandeau (2012) did not include 

an assessment of adding additional attraction flow to the west lift, so a feasibility study 

would be required before additional action could be taken on this measure. 

Alternative G and the Pennsylvania FBC recommendation both call for 

modification of the west lift so that it could be used for direct volitional passage to 

Conowingo Pond. Alternative G would provide volitional passage now, while the 

Pennsylvania FBC recommendation is that a new west lift be designed so that volitional 

passage could be provided later, if needed. We agree with Pennsylvania FBC that there 

would be no immediate need for west lift volitional passage, which would be a 

challenging engineering project. The west bank has no easy access route to Conowingo 

Pond for a volitional fish passage facility because of the west dam embankment, the 

presence of U.S. Route 1 on the dam, and the administrative offices on the west end of 

the powerhouse. Any fish passage channel conveying fish to Conowingo Pond would 

need to tunnel through the dam embankment and under U.S. Route 1, or pass through the 

administrative offices. An alternative approach would be to dedicate the west lift to trap 

and trucking, egg taking, and experimental purposes, while the east lift would continue 

operating exclusively for volitional passage. Upstream project owners also have major 

investments in fish passage facilities, so it wouldn’t be appropriate to substantially reduce 

volitional upstream migration from Conowingo. The east lift has been shown to be 

capable of lifting large numbers of American shad in the past, and if additional 

improvements are made as we describe, this capability should be enhanced. Enhancing 

the west lift for trap and trucking, as we discuss, would provide an important boost to the 
194 

overall shad population if good numbers of shad can be successfully trucked to upstream 

habitat. A decision on volitional passage at the west lift could be postponed until all the 

project fish passage improvements (including trap and trucking) that we describe are 

implemented and are operated for a period of time, to determine (based on fish returns) 

whether any additional volitional passage is required, or whether trap and trucking is 

still needed. 

Alternative G also includes in phase I the creation of a 5,000-foot zone of passage 

on the east and west shores of the tailrace below the dam, implementation of a maximum 

downramping rate of 20,000 cfs/hour, and channel modifications downstream of the dam 

to eliminate stranding in the spillway. Our review of Exelon’s report on tailrace water 

velocities (Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan, 2012o) and several other studies 

conducted in the tailrace (such as shad radio telemetry studies in 2010 and 2012), found 

no indication of a blockage or substantial hindrance to migration associated with high 

water velocities. While high velocities were observed in the tailrace, there were also 

adequate zones of passage along the shoreline and in other locations, and none of the 

radio telemetry studies indicated that fish were unable to reach the powerhouse. While 

rapid downramping can cause fish stranding below hydroelectric projects, Exelon’s fish 

stranding survey did not find evidence of substantial stranding of target species 

downstream of Conowingo dam (Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan, 2012d). 

Although some fish stranding was observed, non-target species such as carp and gizzard 

shad comprised more than 90 percent of those observed. Total mortality of stranded fish 

ranged from 18 percent of the fish observed in the spring to 4 percent in other seasons. 

There appears to be little justification for requiring specific measures to prevent stranding 

below the dam. 

Pennsylvania FBC recommends additional effectiveness studies for 3 to 6 years 

before any structural improvements to the fish lifts are made. We find that this additional 

round of studies would be unnecessary. Exelon has decade’s worth of operational 

experience with the Conowingo fish lifts, and also conducted several studies during 

relicensing to address the fish passage issues. Sufficient information is available now to 

serve as the basis for fish passage improvements. We agree that additional effectiveness 

studies would be necessary to evaluate improvements made, but not prior to making the 

improvements. Pennsylvania FBC also recommends a gizzard shad telemetry study to 

understand the issues of passage efficiency, capacity, and interference with American 

shad, and the recycling of gizzard shad in the west fish lift.97

 This would be an important 

study to better understand how the gizzard shad affects the passage of American shad in 

the Conowingo lifts.

 

97 Recycling means that fish enter the west fish lift, are sorted and released back to 

the tailrace, and then the fish re-enter the fish lift.
195 

Downstream Passage and Fish Entrainment 

York Haven Project

At each of the hydroelectric projects on the Susquehanna River, fish are 

susceptible to injury or mortality if they are entrained through the powerhouse turbines. 

Migratory fish species in the Susquehanna River that are susceptible to entrainment 

during their migration to the ocean include American shad, river herring (alewife and 

blueback herring) and American eel. River herring and American eel, however, have 

only been documented in the York Haven project area a few times since fish passage in 

the east channel became operational in 2000. Resident game fish including smallmouth 

bass, walleye, sunfish, and catfish that occur in the project area do not need to migrate 

downstream past the project to complete their life history, but these species may also be 

subject to entrainment through the project turbines.

Post-spawned adult American shad in the Susquehanna generally migrate 

downstream from June through mid-July, and juveniles migrate downstream from midSeptember through mid-November. Post-spawned river herring tend to migrate 

downstream during the late-spring and summer, and the juvenile outmigration extends 

into the early fall. Adult American eel migrate downstream in the fall. 

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, York Haven Power has agreed to 

implement several measures that are intended to or may serve to reduce fish entrainment 

mortality. These include: (1) increasing spill flows at the east channel and main dams 

during the American shad upstream passage season98; (2) continuing the current 

downstream juvenile American shad passage protocol, which schedules the operation of 

units 1-6 (Kaplan and propeller units) to be first online and last offline during the juvenile 

shad downstream migration period (which typically is from October 1 through November 

30); (3) pass about 370 cfs through the forebay sluice gate for 1 or 2 hours in the morning 

during weekdays if river flows exceed the sum of the turbine hydraulic capacity, flows 

through the nature-like fishway (once constructed), flows through the east channel, and 

flows (if any) over the main dam from May 1 through June 30 to facilitate downstream 

passage of post-spawning adult American shad; (4) pass about 370 cfs through the 

forebay sluice gate between the hours of 5 p.m. and 11 p.m. during the entire juvenile 

American shad passage period to facilitate downstream passage of juvenile American 

shad; and (5) develop designs within 4 years of license issuance for removal of 

obstructions in or deepening of the downstream plunge pool from the forebay sluice gate, 

and a chute structure to convey flows beyond the roadway on the downstream side of the 

 

98 The magnitude of these flows would vary depending on whether the nature-likefishway is in operation or not. Post-spawned shad begin downstream migration 

immediately after spawning, and could take advantage of increased spillage flow during 

the upstream passage season.
196 

cable alley structure to protect outmigrating juvenile and adult American shad that land in 

the downstream pool.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, York Haven Power also proposes to 

construct, operate, and maintain a nature-like fishway in the vicinity of the apex of the 

main dam and Three Mile Island in compliance with design criteria specified in appendix 

A of the Settlement Agreement. Upon completion of the nature-like fishway, York 

Haven Power proposes to implement several additional measures that may reduce fish 

entrainment mortality. These include: (1) conducting a juvenile American shad headrace 

turbine avoidance study; (2) if the juvenile American shad headrace turbine avoidance 

goals are not achieved, implement measures that would enhance the effectiveness and 

conduct a supplemental juvenile American shad headrace turbine avoidance study within 

2 years of implementing the measures; (3) provide an average daily minimum flow of 

267 cfs in the east channel below the east channel dam year round; (4) provide at least 

5 percent of river flow through the nature-like fishway and supplemental attraction flow 

channels when flows entering the project during the American shad upstream passage 

season are between 5,000 and 150,000 cfs; (5) provide a minimum flow of 200 cfs 

through the nature-like fishway when the river elevation is at the crest of the main dam 

and outside of the American shad upstream passage season; and (6) to the extent 

controllable by York Haven Power, when flows exceed the hydraulic capacity of all 

available generating units, manage flows to maximize flow over the main dam and the 

nature-like fishway. 

Our Analysis

Currently, both migratory and resident fish species can move downstream past the 

project via four routes: (1) the powerhouse turbines, (2) the sluice gate located at the 

downstream end of the powerhouse, (3) the main dam spillway, and (4) the east channel 

dam spillway and gates. Once construction of the nature-like fishway has been 

completed, this will provide a fifth potential avenue for downstream passage. 

As part of study 2.3, Assessment of American Shad at the York Haven Project, 

York Haven Power conducted a desktop assessment of turbine entrainment and mortality, 

which was included as appendix G in the Initial Study Report. The assessment included a 

literature review of relevant fish entrainment and passage survival data applicable to the 

project and an evaluation of the flows passed via each potential passage route to assess 

the overall effects of entrainment and passage survival at the project.

Passage survival over the project spillways and sluice gate was evaluated by 

reviewing studies conducted at other low-head (equal to or less than 60 feet) non-turbine 

exit routes including sluices, spillways, and bypass pipes. These studies were conducted 

at seven different hydroelectric projects under a total of 17 different release locations or 

test conditions (head or spill volume). Survival rates estimated during these studies using 

the balloon-tag testing method ranged from 91 to 100 percent. Based on a comparison of 

site characteristics to the sites where the field studies were collected, York Haven Power 
197 

concluded that the survival rate of fish passing the spillways and sluice gate at York 

Haven is likely about 97 percent.

York Haven Power used a variety of approaches to estimate the likely fish passage 

survival rates for fish that are entrained through the project turbines, based on an 

assessment prepared by Normandeau (2011), which was included as Attachment B of the 

desktop assessment. This included a review of site-specific data, analysis of comparable 

data from similar projects, and the use of a predictive turbine blade strike model 

developed by Franke et al. (1997). For outmigrating juvenile American shad, 

Normandeau estimated that the survival rate of juvenile American shad likely ranges 

between 83 and 98 percent at the six Kaplan units (units 1-6), and 66-92 percent at the 14 

Francis units (units 7-20). The available data for juvenile American shad included the 

results of site-specific tests conducted in 2000, which produced survival estimates of 

92.7 percent at unit 3 and 77.1 percent at unit 7, both of which fell within the ranges 

estimated for Kaplan and Francis units, respectively. For outmigrating post-spawned 

adult American shad, Normandeau estimated that the survival rate likely ranges between 

61 and 91 percent at the Kaplan units (units 1-6), and 60-78 percent at the Francis units 

(units 7-20). The turbine blade strike model predicted that survival rates at all turbines 

would decline with increasing fish size, from about 95 percent for 4-inch fish to about 

54 percent for a 40-inch fish, the approximate maximum length for an adult American 

eel. More typical sizes for adult eels are from 18 to 30 inches (Scott and Crossman, 

1973), so survival should be higher for the more typical sizes. 

The percentage of fish passing the project that are entrained through the 

powerhouse and subject to potential turbine entrainment mortality is likely to be roughly 

proportional to the percentage of the river flow that passes through the powerhouse. The 

hydraulic capacity of the project is exceeded about 60 percent of the time, and on average 

the proportion of the flow that passes through the project powerhouse varies from about 

23 percent in April to nearly 100 percent from July through September. However, fall 

rainstorms that increase Susquehanna River flows (and may trigger downstream 

migrations of juvenile shad and American eel) may also result in spillage at York Haven, 

providing for safe downstream passage. Each of the measures proposed by York Haven 

Power that would increase the amount of flow that passes the project via routes other than 

the turbines (including spillways, sluice gates and the nature-like fishway, once 

constructed) are likely to reduce the number of fish that are entrained through the turbines 

and subject to potential injury or mortality. York Haven Power’s proposal to remove 

obstructions in or deepen the plunge pool below the forebay sluice gate, and a chute 

structure to convey flows beyond the roadway, would help to ensure that fish passed via 

the sluice gate would be subject to minimal, if any, injury or mortality.

York Haven Power’s proposal is to continue the current downstream juvenile 

American shad passage protocol, which requires the operation of units 1-6 (Kaplan and 

propeller units) to be first online and last offline during the juvenile shad downstream 

migration period (which typically is from October 1 through November 30), and to pass 

about 370 cfs through the forebay sluice gate between the hours of 5 and 11 p.m. during 
198 

the entire juvenile American shad passage period. This protocol would reduce 

entrainment mortality by reducing the amount of flow that passes through the Francis 

turbines and by increasing the proportion of fish that emigrate through the sluice gate, as 

opposed to the turbines. Conducting a juvenile American shad headrace turbine 

avoidance study and implementing any measures that may be needed to meet headrace 

turbine avoidance goals would further improve the survival rate of juvenile American 

shad passing the project.

York Haven Power’s proposal for downstream passage of post-spawned adult 

American shad is to pass about 370 cfs through the forebay sluice gate for 1 or 2 hours in 

the morning during weekdays if river flows exceed the sum of the turbine hydraulic 

capacity, pass flow through the nature-like fishway (once constructed), continue flow 

through the east channel, and utilize any spillage flow over the main dam from May 1 

through June 30. During the radio telemetry monitoring conducted by York Haven 

Power in 2012 (York Haven Power, 2012b), 13 out of 59 adult American shad 

(22 percent) that were documented passing the project passed through the forebay sluice 

gate. Continuing the operation of this sluice gate would ensure that a considerable 

portion of downstream-migrating adults can utilize this safe passage option, while other 

passage routes would provide additional options for safe passage. 

Muddy Run Project 

Downstream passage concerns at Muddy Run are somewhat different than at the 

other projects, because Muddy Run does not form a blockage to migration (like a dam), 

and fish do not require passage through the project to reach the ocean. The primary 

concern at Muddy Run is that downstream-migrating fish may be entrained and killed or 

pumped to the upper reservoir, and lost to the population. Resident species may also be 

entrained but few concerns were expressed by stakeholders about effects on resident 

fishes. Commenting agencies have generally recommended the same downstream 

passage survival rates at Muddy Run as recommended at the other projects (80 percent 

survival of adult shad and 95 percent survival of juvenile shad). Exelon states that it 

believes the downstream passage survival criteria are already met, but also has agreed to 

the Pennsylvania DEP certification conditions. Those conditions state that: (1) Exelon 

must submit a plan and schedule to provide for 95 percent survival of juvenile American 

shad and 80 percent survival of adult American shad that pass through the project area, 

with full implementation of the plan by 2015; (2) by February 15, 2026, or later, Exelon 

would be required to submit a plan to measure the passage of American shad moving 

downstream past the project to Pennsylvania DEP for approval (the “discrete passage 

study”); (3) Exelon would conduct the discrete passage study, and if results indicate that 

passage goals are met, specific operational measures or protocols would be incorporated 

into the FPOP to ensure that goals are continued to be met; and (4) if study results 

indicate that passage goals are not met, Exelon would propose a plan and schedule for 

mitigation to meet the passage goals. 
199 

Our Analysis 

We previously discussed the downstream migration of juvenile shad past the 

Muddy Run Project. Exelon’s studies estimated that for juvenile shad that were in the 

zone of influence during pumping, 22.6 percent of those fish could be entrained. For the 

overall population, however, Exelon estimated that only 2.9 to 6.6 percent of the 

population would be vulnerable to entrainment during peak outmigration times, because 

the project is not pumping during many of the peak hours of outmigration (Normandeau 

and Gomez and Sullivan, 2012g). These data indicate that the project essentially already 

meets the target effectiveness for downstream juvenile shad passage. The FWS review of 

Exelon’s study (Pugh, 2013) stated, however, that by adjusting the periods when juvenile 

shad may actually be passing the project, based on information from the scientific 

literature, the actual entrainment rate for juvenile shad would be from 12.3 to 14.5 

percent of the population, and not 2.9 to 6.6 percent as estimated by Exelon. Exelon, in 

its reply comments filed on March 18, 2014, states that the Pugh (2013) review of the 

data was flawed and that he overstates the actual effects of the project. We previously 

concluded that: (1) these conflicting studies and analyses and the argued differences in 

migration and entrainment rates may be within the range of error for the field studies and 

the data analysis; and (2) the studies and analyses have overall shown that the Muddy 

Run Project has not had an adverse effect on a major proportion of the shad population 

migrating downstream past the project. Interior also states, in an amendment to its 

preliminary fishway prescription filed on February 28, 2014, that while it believes that 

Muddy Run operation may affect fish migration, the effects may not be sufficient to 

affect the fisheries agencies goals for this reach of the river. 

In addition, with Exelon now agreeing to the conditions of the Pennsylvania DEP 

certification, Exelon has committed to maintaining the effectiveness targets required by 

Pennsylvania DEP, would monitor this effectiveness via the studies required by the 

certification as part of its FPOP, and would mitigate any effects of the project if the target 

effectiveness is not maintained. 

Conowingo Project

The Conowingo Project has the potential to entrain and injure or kill migratory 

fish moving downstream, as well as non-migratory species from Conowingo Pond. As is 

the case for the upstream hydroelectric projects, large numbers of American shad migrate 

past the project each year (although those numbers have decreased in recent years), while 

very few American eel and river herring occur upstream of Conowingo dam. Resident 

game fish species that are common in Conowingo Pond that may be subject to turbine 

entrainment include channel catfish, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, walleye, green 

sunfish, pumpkinseed, bluegill, and white crappie. The reservoir currently supports a 

large population of gizzard shad as well as other species of forage fish, which may also 

be subject to entrainment. 

Exelon proposes to continue to provide downstream passage via the project 

turbines at the Conowingo Project for juvenile and adult American shad. Interior, The 
200 

Nature Conservancy, Pennsylvania FBC, and Chesapeake Bay Foundation all 

recommend that Exelon implement measures to meet the downstream passage survival 

goal of 95 percent for juvenile American shad passing the Conowingo Project, as

specified in the SRAFRC 2010 Restoration Plan. The Nature Conservancy and 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation further recommend that Exelon meet the 80 percent 

downstream passage survival goal for adult American shad established in the SRAFRC 

2010 Restoration Plan. 

Interior also recommends that Exelon develop an FEMP in consultation with 

Interior, to ensure that any changes in structure or operation as a result of relicensing 

continue to meet the survival goal for juvenile American shad of 95 percent. Interior 

recommends that Exelon provide an annual report detailing implementation of the FEMP 

to the resource agencies, including any deviations from the FEMP, followed by an annual 

meeting. Any required modifications to the FEMP would have to be submitted to the 

resource agencies within 30 days of receipt of a request for the modification unless a 

longer period is approved by Interior. The modifications to the FEMP would have to be 

implemented consistent with the approval of Interior. 

In its reply comments, Exelon contends that relicensing studies demonstrate that 

the project meets the downstream targets requested by the parties and it is unnecessary to 

include these passage rates as conditions in the license.

Our Analysis 

As part of Revised Study Plan (RSP) 3.2, Exelon conducted a desktop study of 

turbine entrainment and mortality (Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan, 2012i). The 

study included an assessment of the potential for fish impingement on the trashracks, 

assessment of entrainment potential based on habitat use, and estimation of passage 

survival rates for the Francis and Kaplan turbines at the project. The turbine passage 

survival assessment included a review of site-specific studies, analysis of comparable 

data from similar projects, and the use of a predictive turbine blade strike model 

developed by Franke et al. (1997). 

To evaluate the potential for impingement on the trashracks, the desktop 

assessment included an evaluation of the swimming capability of American shad, 

American eel, and six representative resident fish species in relation to the approach 

velocity at the powerhouse trashracks, estimated fish widths, and trashrack spacing. The 

estimated approach velocity at the trashracks ranged from 2.4 to 3.7 feet per second at 

Units 1-11, which have trashracks with a 5.37-inch clear spacing. The two smaller house 

units have a clear spacing of 1.5 inches and an estimated approach velocity of 1.4 feet per 

second. The results of this analysis indicate that the potential for fish impingement at the 

project is minimal, because most larger fish would have sufficient swimming ability to 

avoid being swept into the trashracks, and smaller fish with lower swim speeds would 

likely pass through the trashracks and pass through the units. A possible exception is that 

larger channel catfish could be impinged, because they may have lower swimming speeds 

than other species, although no swim speed information was available. Results of the 
201 

habitat use assessment indicated that entrainment potential was low for littoral species 

such as bluegill, largemouth bass and smallmouth bass because the bottom intakes are in 

the deepest part of the reservoir and not located near shallow water littoral areas where 

these species are typically found.

The desktop assessment also included an evaluation of turbine passage survival 

rates measured at other sites, but the results of these studies showed a wide range of 

values that are likely less informative than the results of site-specific testing that Exelon 

performed using juvenile and adult American shad. 

Site-specific testing of turbine passage survival of juvenile American shad was 

conducted in 1993 (RMC, 1994) at one of the Kaplan turbines and in 2011 (Normandeau 

and Gomez and Sullivan, 2012n) at one of the Francis turbines using the balloon tag 

testing technique. Testing at the Kaplan turbine (unit 8) was conducted with a wicket 

gate opening of 55-56 percent, which was considered to provide less than optimal 

passage conditions, and resulted in a short-term (1-hour) survival estimate of 94.9 

percent. Testing of juvenile American shad passed through the Francis turbine (unit 5) in 

2011 resulted in a survival estimate of 89.9 percent. Testing at the Francis unit was 

conducted at near-peak efficiency, the setting the unit operates at most of the time when 

juvenile American shad would be moving past the Conowingo Project.

Site-specific testing of the turbine passage survival of adult American shad was 

conducted in 2011, also using the balloon tag testing technique (Normandeau and Gomez 

and Sullivan, 2012f). Testing was conducted at the Francis turbine (unit 2) at near-peak 

efficiency, and testing at the Kaplan turbine (unit 8) was conducted at a turbine discharge 

of 8,842 cfs (efficiency not given, but assumed to be near-peak). The resulting survival 

estimates for adult American shad passed through the Francis and Kaplan turbines were 

93.0 and 86.3 percent, respectively. The turbine passage survival rate of adult American 

shad was also estimated using the turbine blade strike model developed by Franke et al. 

(1997). The blade strike model predicted a survival rate of 79.8 to 90.4 percent for the 

Francis unit and 82.1 to 94.5 percent for the Kaplan unit. 

The site-specific turbine passage survival rates estimated for adult American shad 

using the balloon-tag testing technique were consistent with survival rates estimated 

using the blade strike model, providing a reasonable degree of assurance that the passage 

survival rates for adult American shad meet or exceed the 80 percent downstream 

passage survival goal for adult American shad established in the SRAFRC 2010 

Restoration Plan. The site-specific passage survival estimated for juvenile American 

shad indicates that survival rates likely equal the downstream passage survival goal of 95 

percent at the Kaplan turbines, but are about 5 percent below this goal in the 

Francis turbines.

An FEMP, as recommended by Interior, would provide additional information on 

any variations in turbine passage survival associated with differences in operating 

conditions, and would provide an improved understanding of the survival rates of 

juvenile and adult American shad that are entrained through turbines at the Conowingo 
202 

Project. Although the available data indicate that the passage survival rate for juvenile 

American shad through the Francis units may be about 5 percent lower than the passage 

survival goal of 95 percent, none of the stakeholders have suggested measures that may 

be feasible to improve passage survival in order to meet this goal. In the absence of any 

potentially feasible measures that could be implemented, the benefit of conducting 

additional testing of passage survival rates is unclear.

American Eel Passage 

Our previous discussion of upstream and downstream fish passage focused on 

anadromous species. Because American eel differ in life history (a catadromous species), 

behavior, and swimming ability, they require different types of passage facilities. 

Accordingly, we discuss American eel passage separately. 

York Haven Project

Eel passage has not been a major issue at York Haven because American eel have 

not occurred in appreciable numbers in the project area since construction of the lower 

river dams blocked upstream migration. American eel have occasionally been 

experimentally stocked in the upper river through the years, and recent studies and 

restoration efforts to date have been focused at Conowingo. Some eels collected at 

Conowingo have been transported to Susquehanna River tributaries upstream of York 

Haven (York Haven Power, 2011).99 

York Haven Power conducted a review of potential upstream and downstream eel 

passage measures at the project (York Haven Power, 2011), and included provisions for 

eel passage in the Settlement Agreement. No additional upstream fish passage measures 

are proposed for eels, because York Haven Power and the signatories to the Settlement 

Agreement believe that the proposed nature-like fishway and the low-head nature of the 

dam would provide adequate upstream passage. For downstream passage, York Haven 

Power would cooperate with the agencies and other project owners in a lower 

Susquehanna River downstream eel study to investigate the behavior and passage routes 

for migrating silver eels in the lower river and in the vicinity of York Haven. This would 

be a 2-year study to occur in about 2017-2020. York Haven Power would also conduct 

an eel survival study for passage through the turbines. If studies indicate that eel survival 

objectives are not met, York Haven Power would conduct a downstream eel 

improvements study, to identify measures that could be implemented to improve survival, 

to be followed by implementation and testing of those measures, and additional 

consultations as required.

 

99 FWS has been trapping and trucking eels from the Conowingo tailrace since 

2008, and transported about 300,000 eels through 2012. 
203 

Our Analysis

American eels do not occur in the project area in any numbers, with only 

experimental upstream stockings to date. Because upstream passage at downstream dams 

on the river would require several years to be implemented, it would be many years 

before upstream migrating eels arrive in the project area through volitional migrations. 

We agree that the nature-like fishway and the low-head configuration of the dam would 

likely provide for adequate upstream passage once upstream migrating eels arrive at the 

project. If trap and trucking of eels is implemented at Conowingo as proposed, it is likely 

that eels would be trucked upstream of York Haven in the immediate coming years.100

 

These eels would remain in the river for 10-20 years before maturing to the silver eel 

phase and out-migrate to the ocean. At that time, downstream passage over the project 

would be needed. 

The Settlement Agreement includes provisions for the eventual downstream 

passage of eels at the project, including studying the migratory pathways at the project 

and survival through the turbines, and then implementing protective measures if needed. 

These provisions of the Settlement Agreement would adequately protect downstream 

migrating eels once they arrive at the project. 

Muddy Run Project 

American eel are not currently migrating through the Muddy Run Project area, as 

existing studies are focused downstream of Conowingo dam, and any experimental 

trucking has focused on upriver areas. However, the certification for the project has 

several measures related to eel, although many of those measures would be implemented 

at Conowingo. Exelon would be required to implement its American Eel Passage Plan 

with all measures to occur at Conowingo. Thus, we discuss those measures below under 

the Conowingo Project.101 For downstream passage, Exelon would comply with 

downstream eel passage rates of at least 85 percent through the Muddy Run Project area. 

However, the compliance date when that would be required is October 1, 2026, once 

sufficient numbers of eels have been released into the Susquehanna River to produce a 

substantial number of downstream migrating silver eels. Exelon would be required to 

conduct studies to demonstrate compliance with the passage rate, and if not achieved 

would be required to provide mitigation.

 

100 Exelon would begin trap and trucking after issuance of any new license and 

would continue that program until 2029, when volitional passage would begin. 

101 Although mandatory conditions such as those contained in the certification 

would be requirements of any license issued, the Commission could not require a 

condition in the Muddy Run license for actions to take place at another licensed project 

(Conowingo).
204 

Both NMFS and Interior reserve their authority to require fishways during the 

term of the license, and Interior also provides a preliminary fishway prescription. For 

American eel, the preliminary fishway prescription requires an eel passage program with 

other licensees on the river, so that operation at Muddy Run does not interfere with 

passage objectives at the upstream Holtwood Project. The prescription also requires 

establishment of an Eel Passage Advisory Group within 6 months of license issuance, and 

an American Eel Passage Plan that would be implemented at the downstream Conowingo 

Project, which we discuss below.102 

For downstream passage, Interior requires a downstream eel passage study to 

evaluate the timing, magnitude, duration, annual variation and environmental conditions 

associated with active migration of silver eels from tributaries stocked with elvers, 

through the lower Susquehanna River and past the Muddy Run Project to the Chesapeake 

Bay. This study would be conducted for at least 2 years and would begin 3 years after 

license issuance. Concurrent with the downstream eel passage study or at a later date as 

approved by Interior, Exelon would also conduct a site-specific route of passage study to 

evaluate the entrainment rate of silver eels migrating in the vicinity of the project. If the 

results of the study indicate that the project’s existing operating measures do not meet the 

downstream passage criterion (survival of 85 percent of silver eels passing the project),

Exelon would prepare and submit a plan and schedule for evaluating the feasibility and 

costs of potential physical and/or operational modifications to the project to facilitate 

downstream eel passage. 

Our Analysis

The downstream passage measures at Muddy Run required by both the 

certification (which Exelon has agreed to) and the Interior preliminary fishway 

prescription are similar, in that they both require monitoring studies of downstreammigrating silver eels past the project. If downstream passage survival criteria are not met, 

then operational or physical changes to the project would be required to mitigate any 

effects. Exelon has already conducted a radio telemetry study of silver eel passage past 

the Muddy Run Project (Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan, 2012g), and found that 

nearly all the eels migrated past the project with minimal delay, and that the entrainment 

rate (i.e., pumped to the upper reservoir) was only 7 percent (exceeding the Interior 85 

percent passage survival criterion). Eels used in the study were transported from the 

Delaware River, because virtually no silver eels are currently available from the 

Susquehanna River upstream of Conowingo. 

 

102 Interior does not specify the location of upstream eel passage facilities, only 

that immigrating juvenile eels be trapped “from a point downstream of the Muddy Run 

Project, and transport them to designated points in the Susquehanna River watershed.” 

We assume that this unnamed location would be the Conowingo dam tailrace, where the 

FWS has been conducting eel trapping investigations for more than 8 years. 
205 

The certification and Interior preliminary fishway prescription requiring later 

monitoring of downstream silver eel passage past the project is reasonable, although it 

would be more appropriate to conduct these studies farther into the future when “native” 

Susquehanna River silver eels are available for passage studies. The certification 

requirement appears to reflect that objective, in that it would not require such studies 

until after 2026 (at least 12 years into the future). The Interior preliminary fishway 

prescription, however, requires a 2-year study that would begin 3 years after license 

issuance. This would be much too soon to have substantial numbers of Susquehanna 

River silver eels available from any required trap and trucking operation (typical 

freshwater residence time is 10 to 20 years), and any such study would essentially be a 

repeat of Exelon’s recent study using eels from another river system. More valuable data 

would be collected if naturally migrating Susquehanna River silver eels were used in the 

study, instead of eels trucked from another river. 

Conowingo Project

Exelon’s proposal for upstream passage at Conowingo is to construct an eel trap 

and transport facility on the west side of the tailrace, and cooperate with other licensees 

in implementing a trap and transport program for eel downstream passage from 

tributaries upstream of York Haven. As we discussed above, as part of the Interior

preliminary fishway prescription for Muddy Run, Interior is requiring an eel trap and 

transport program from downstream of Muddy Run (we assume Conowingo) to upstream 

locations. Interior’s recommendations for Conowingo103 include an eel trap and transport 

program beginning with a facility on the west shore of the Conowingo tailrace, to be 

completed within 1 year of completion of any construction at the west fish lift, or within 

1 year of license issuance if no construction occurs at the west fish lift. This trap and 

truck facility would operate until 2029, and volitional passage would begin in 2030. 

Exelon would also be required to investigate a location for an eel trap on the east side of 

the Susquehanna River or in Octoraro Creek, and establish a temporary trap and truck 

facility within 2 years of license issuance and a permanent facility within 5 years of 

license issuance. This trap and truck facility would be operated until 2029; volitional 

passage would begin in 2030, we assume from a facility on the east side of the 

Susquehanna River below Conowingo dam. 

Interior included additional details on upstream eel passage in its Muddy Run 

preliminary fishway prescription that it did not include in its Conowingo 

recommendations. However, because it appears the Muddy Run preliminary fishway 

 

103 Interior’s recommended terms and conditions filed January 31, 2014, include a 

statement that the Commission should require the conditions included in Attachment A to 

their letter in any license issued for the Conowingo Project. Attachment A includes 

measures for upstream eel passage as described herein. 
206 

prescription actually applies to actions at Conowingo, we discuss those details here.104 

Interior recommends that Exelon provide financial support to Interior of $20,000/year for 

its eel trapping facility at Conowingo dam until Exelon’s facility is completed. The 

recommendation would require field testing to determine the best locations for eel traps, 

prior to construction of permanent traps that would consist of two ramp-style traps with 

capacity to pass 50,000eels/day. Exelon would also need to provide facilities for holding 

and transport and implement a quality assurance/quality control program to ensure that a 

target survival of 95 percent is achieved. An instream evaluation of the presence of eels 

in the river and tributaries would be required every 3 years, and a 2-year downstream 

passage study of silver eels would be required within 3 years of license issuance

(discussed above under Muddy Run). 

The certification for Muddy Run also provides substantial detail for American eel 

passage in its specified American Eel Passage Plan. This plan is very similar to the 

Interior Muddy Run preliminary fishway prescription, requiring facilities at Conowingo 

and the detailed steps and schedules required. The certification also requires an eel trap 

and truck facility on the east shore, although it specifies that the facility be placed in 

Octoraro Creek, with the caveat that the location may be changed to other locations on 

the east side of the tailrace if the Octoraro Creek location is not successful. Similar to the 

Muddy Run preliminary fishway prescription, the certification also requires volitional 

passage at Conowingo, but states that will occur if the eel trap and transport program 

terminates in 2030. 

Our Analysis

Because Exelon has accepted the conditions of the certification for Muddy Run, it 

has essentially also accepted the FWS preliminary fishway prescription for Muddy Run, 

with some minor differences. As American eel restoration in the Susquehanna River is in 

its beginning stages, a phased approach for passage at Conowingo as agreed upon by 

Exelon, FWS, and Pennsylvania DEP is a reasonable way to proceed. We note that all 

parties have agreed to proceed with volitional passage at Conowingo at a fixed date in the 

year 2030. The assumption may be that over the next 15-year period the number of 

juvenile eels approaching the dam would increase to the point that trucking would no 

longer be a viable option, or that it may take that long to properly design and construct 

 

104 As previously noted, although mandatory conditions such as those contained in 

a fishway prescription would be requirements of any license issued for the Muddy Run 

Project, the Commission could not require a condition in the Muddy Run license for 

actions to take place at another licensed project (Conowingo).
207 

effective volitional facilities at all projects that may need them.105 The former may or 

may not be a good assumption, because even if the number of silver eels emigrating from 

the Susquehanna River increases over the next several years of trap and trucking, that 

would not necessarily translate into an increasing number of juvenile eels returning from 

the sea. Because American eel are thought to be one, well-mixed, single-breeding 

population (panmictic), the distribution of juvenile eels along the Atlantic coast is 

random with no homing to specific watersheds (Interior, 2007). A trap and trucking 

program may still be viable past 2030 and would give managers the option to stock 

specific watersheds that may not be available with volitional passage, or in the event 

volitional passage facilities at the three lower Susquehanna River projects are not 

highly effective. 

For downstream passage, Exelon proposed to cooperate with other licensees on the 

lower Susquehanna River in implementing a trap and transport program and studies on 

eel passage from upstream of York Haven. In its comments on the draft EIS, however, 

Exelon states that, based on available study data and subsequent discussions with 

resource agencies, downstream trap and trucking of American eel is no longer a 

component of its licensing proposal. Because essentially no silver eels are currently 

emigrating from the Susquehanna River, and because site-specific studies for Muddy Run 

and Conowingo demonstrate that downstream eel passage past the Muddy Run 

pump/turbines and through the Conowingo turbines does not result in significant 

mortality (Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan, 2012g; FWS, 2012), downstream eel 

passage is not a major issue or requirement at this time. 

Freshwater Mussels 

York Haven Project

Because substratum in the project area consists mainly of bedrock and large 

boulders and is subjected to frequent periods of elevated water velocity, this river reach 

provides little optimum mussel habitat. Based on sampling conducted in August 2010, 

five mussel species and 56 individuals were collected during 21.8 hours of searching; half 

of the sites yielded no live mussels. Weathered shells and shell material were observed 

along the shore and in shallow water, and there were no large deposits of fresh shells that

indicate presence of a nearby dense mussel assemblage. Although obtaining quantitative, 

total substratum sampling was not an objective of this survey, the fact that some small 

mussels were collected using qualitative methods indicates that conditions are suitable for 

limited mussel recruitment. 

 

105 The year 2030 is also the year that the upstream Holtwood and Safe Harbor 

project licenses will expire (and potentially be renewed), and may coincide with 

implementation of eel passage measures at those projects. 
208 

Our Analysis

The York Haven Project operates run-of-river and is not designed for flood 

control; therefore, downstream frequencies of major hydraulic events remain largely 

unchanged from pre-project conditions. There are no specific effects on resident mussels 

associated with operation of this project. The relatively low habitat value of the project 

area, compared with other reaches of the Susquehanna River, results mainly from existing 

conditions of substratum and water flow. 

In June 2010, York Haven Power agreed to maintain minimum releases of 400 cfs 

in the east channel for aquatic habitat enhancement and resident fish passage.106 

Continuing this minimum release would benefit mussels and other aquatic organisms in 

the east channel. Based on results of York Haven Power’s mussel surveys, the east 

channel provides the best aquatic habitat for mussels in the project area. 

Lellis et al. (2013) determined that the American eel is the most effective host 

species for the eastern elliptio mussel. Two other reported hosts for this mussel species 

(mottled sculpin and slimy sculpin) are not found in the lower Susquehanna River. The 

other two reported host species (brook trout and lake trout) are occasionally taken by 

anglers in the lower Susquehanna River; because they are likely part of a put-grow-andtake fishery in tributaries to the Susquehanna River, they do not reproduce in the river. 

Because eel passage is limited by the dams, it is likely that eastern elliptio abundance in 

the lower river, with the exception of the reach below Conowingo dam, is negatively 

affected by limited upstream eel passage at the lower river dams. Downstream of York 

Haven dam, the eastern elliptio ranked third in abundance and comprised 12.5 percent of 

the assemblage. This was considerably less abundant than downstream of Conowingo 

dam, where the species dominated the mussel fauna (compare tables 3-15 and 3-17). 

Exelon proposes an interim trap and transport program, and ultimately volitional 

upstream passage facilities, to enhance upstream passage of American eel at Conowingo 

dam. The Holtwood Project, as a requirement of its recent license amendment to add a 

second powerhouse, will also provide dedicated upstream eel passage when facilities at 

Conowingo are operational. These eel passage improvements would increase the number 

of American eels successfully passing the lower river projects, which should ultimately 

benefit the eastern elliptio population. An increase in the eastern elliptio population 

would have secondary beneficial effects on water quality and suspended sediments in the 

Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay. 

Conowingo Project

The Conowingo Project has the potential to affect freshwater mussels downstream 

of the dam by flow and water level fluctuations associated with peaking operation, 

 

106 The minimum releases are pursuant to the June 2010 Consent Order and 

Agreement between York Haven Power and Pennsylvania DEP. 
209 

impeding the passage of fish species that serve as hosts for mussel species and altering 

substrate composition downstream of the dam. Exelon proposes measures to restore 

passage of American eel to tributaries upstream of the project by implementing a trap and 

truck program, which could benefit the eastern elliptio by expanding the range of this 

host species. The Nature Conservancy recommends that Exelon mitigate for loss of 

coarse sediments (such as sand, gravel, and cobble) within the project area between 

Conowingo dam and the Chesapeake Bay, to enhance the habitat for living resources, 

including freshwater mussels. 

Our Analysis 

The Nature Conservancy suggests that loss of coarse sediments below Conowingo 

dam could be mitigated by extracting appropriate material from another location and 

placing it in appropriate areas that would not be subjected to erosive flow. Although this 

would likely increase the quantity of suitable habitat, it is unlikely that this would cause a 

notable increase in either mussel density or species richness. Mussel habitat below the 

dams is negatively affected by high discharge events, and increasing the amount of 

substrate appropriate for mussels would not eliminate the effects of high flow events. 

Implementing Exelon’s proposal to transport American eel to and from tributaries 

upstream of the York Haven Project could provide some benefit to the eastern elliptio, 

but because many other species of fishes act as fish host for eastern elliptio this benefit is 

likely to be minimal. Given the diverse fishery that occurs upstream and downstream of 

Conowingo dam and the variety of fish that are passed upstream of Conowingo dam via 

the existing fish lifts, it is likely that there would continue to be sufficient fish host 

species to support a diverse freshwater mussel fauna. 

We addressed the potential effects of flow and water level fluctuations associated 

with project operation and recommendations to modify operational constraints earlier in 

this section in our discussion under Downstream Flow Releases. 

Invasive Species 

Limited numbers of zebra mussels have been detected downstream of Conowingo 

and York Haven dams, although no major infestations have been documented at the 

lower Susquehanna River projects, which do not directly influence spread of the invasive 

zebra mussel and other exotic mollusks. Because of concern over fouling by non-native 

bivalves at power plants, Exelon developed a set of mussel fouling prevention/control 

options that would be a starting point in developing an effective zebra mussel control 

program. Measures include oxidizing biocides, non-oxidizing molluscicides, and a series 

of non-chemical options such as manual cleaning, use of pigs,107 high pressure water jets, 

 

107 Pigs are devices that are placed inside pipes, to clean the inside of the pipe, 

often while the pipe remains in operation. 
210 

strains, traps, filters and thermal treatment. Personnel would be prepared to further 

evaluate and deploy any of these control methods if required. 

3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects 

We previously identified water quantity, water quality, migratory fishes, and 

Chesapeake Bay habitat as resources that could be cumulatively affected by operation of 

the three projects, in combination with other projects and activities in the basin. While 

there would be some continuing effects from all the lower river hydroelectric projects 

related to flow regulation and effects on migratory species, the applicants for the York 

Haven, Muddy Run, and Conowingo Projects are proposing a number of environmental 

enhancement measures that would offset some of the continuing effects. Staff is also 

recommending modifications to the applicant-proposed measures, and additional 

measures that would act to minimize cumulative effects. In addition to measures already 

implemented (such as minimum flows and fish passage facilities at the projects), new 

measures proposed and recommended include: (1) a nature-like fishway at the York 

Haven main dam, as well as measures to protect eel passage once they arrive in the 

project area; (2) investigations to ensure that migratory fish are successfully migrating 

past the Muddy Run Project; (3) increased minimum flows at Conowingo as 

recommended by staff; (4) improvements to the existing fish lifts at Conowingo as 

recommended by staff; and (5) provision of eel passage at Conowingo. All of these 

measures, in combination with fish passage improvements recently completed at the 

Holtwood Project, and the ongoing operation of the highly effective Safe Harbor Project 

fish lift, would result in an overall positive cumulative effect on migratory fish passage in 

the Susquehanna River. Flow regulation in the lower Susquehanna River would not be 

substantially changed under alternatives evaluated by the staff, although we evaluated an 

increase in minimum flows at Conowingo, which should enhance aquatic habitat 

downstream of the project into the Chesapeake Bay. 

Consumptive water uses in the lower Susquehanna River also would not change as 

a result of relicensing the three hydroelectric projects. As we previously described, 

consumptive uses in the lower river are relatively minor compared to the total flow of the 

Susquehanna River, and even with the addition of the proposed Wildcat Point Project, 

with a net consumption of 7.9 mgd from Conowingo Pond (FERC, 2014), would not 

result in adverse cumulative effects on water consumption in the lower river. Water 

quality has generally been protected in the lower river, including downstream of 

Conowingo dam with the addition of turbine venting and aeration that now maintains 

state DO standards nearly 100 percent of the time. Exelon is proposing to continue DO 

monitoring downstream of Conowingo and at Muddy Run in the future, and this would 

help ensure that state DO standards are continuing to be met. Overall, these measures 

would have a net beneficial cumulative effect on water quality, and aquatic habitat in the 

lower Susquehanna River and parts of the upper Chesapeake Bay that are influenced by 

project operation. 
211 

The Susquehanna River watershed would continue to contribute a high sediment 

load to the river and to the Chesapeake Bay, some of which would continue to settle out 

in Conowingo Pond and other lower river hydroelectric project reservoirs located 

upstream of Conowingo Pond. However, the draft LSRWA study report (Corps and 

MDE, 2014) concludes that all three lower Susquehanna River reservoirs (Lake Clarke, 

Lake Aldred, and Conowingo Pond) are no longer trapping sediment over the long-term. 

The reservoirs have reached a state of dynamic equilibrium in which the net change in 

sedimentation (i.e., deposition during low-flow periods and scour during floods) remains 

relatively constant. On a long-term basis, the full sediment load carried by the river is 

transported into the Chesapeake Bay, as would have occurred prior to construction of the 

lower Susquehanna River reservoirs. The primary water quality effect of this sediment 

loading is the nutrients associated with scoured sediment, which may be more harmful to 

the Bay’s aquatic life than the sediment itself. Particle-bound nutrients settle to the 

bottom of the Bay and under certain conditions can recycle back into the water column in 

dissolved form where they contribute to algae growth. Excessive algae growth in turn 

may result in DO depletion in some parts of the Bay. Based on the findings of Corps and 

MDE (2014), however, because the lower river reservoirs have reached a long-term state 

of dynamic equilibrium, continued operation of the projects would not cumulatively 

affect sediment and nutrient loading to the Chesapeake Bay. 

3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources 

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment 

Vegetation

The dominant upland cover classes in the vicinity of all three projects form a 

mosaic of agricultural, forest, and developed lands. Agricultural land ranges from 

intensely cropped cornfields and horticultural nurseries to less intensely used hayfields 

and pastures. Upland forest is typically found on land that has marginal utility for 

contemporary agricultural use, such as steep slopes and poorer quality soils. 

Natural overstory vegetation within the York Haven project boundary includes red 

and silver maple, yellow birch, and black and northern red oak. Common shrub species 

include northern arrowwood, hornbeam, witch-hazel, and spicebush. The herbaceous 

layer is highly variable. Representative species include wild oats, false Solomon's-seal, 

May-apple, and pipissewa. The major upland vegetation type within the project 

boundary is red oak-mixed hardwood forest, which is characterized by a well-developed 

canopy of mature red and black oak and red maple. Most of this community is located on 

the southern section of Three Mile Island.

Overstory vegetation within the Muddy Run and Conowingo project boundaries 

includes green ash, sycamore, black willow, and box elder along the reservoir shorelines; 

red and white oak, American beech, eastern hemlock, pignut hickory, sweet birch, black 

cherry, tulip polar, and sugar maple in forest interiors, with black locust and black walnut 
212 

along forest edges. Evergreen communities are present in the project area, including 

eastern red cedar and Virginia, white, and sort-leaf pine. Representative shrub species 

include pawpaw, bladdernut, rosebay, eastern redbud, witch-hazel, northern arrowwood, 

maple-leaved viburnum, and spicebush. Herbaceous vegetation may include wild oats, 

may-apple, and striped wintergreen. The major upland vegetation type within both 

project boundaries is mixed mesophytic and species-rich hemlock-mesic hardwood forest 

(1,260 acres at Muddy Run and 856 acres at Conowingo). Lesser amounts of upland 

vegetation types include dry oak-mixed hardwood or red oak-mixed hardwood forest 

(265 acres at Muddy Run and 202 acres at Conowingo) and Virginia pine-mixed 

hardwood forest (38 acres at Muddy Run and 323 acres at Conowingo). In addition, 

maintained lawns comprise about 257 acres and agricultural croplands about 148 acres of 

vegetation within the Muddy Run project boundary. About 800 acres, some of which is 

within the Muddy Run project boundary, is the Muddy Run WMA, which is managed to 

provide food and cover for wildlife. As noted in section 2.1.1, Existing Project 

Facilities, of the three projects, only the Muddy Run Project has primary transmission 

lines, two 4.25-mile-long, 230-kV transmission lines running from the powerhouse to the 

PBAPS North Substation along a 300-foot-wide corridor. The transmission lines pass 

from the powerhouse across about 0.5 mile of open water of the Susquehanna River. On 

the west side of the Susquehanna River, the transmission lines are surrounded by 

deciduous forest for about 1 mile after which the lines pass through agricultural fields 

(pasture and cropland) to the substation. 

Wetland and Riparian Habitat 

York Haven Project

York Haven Power characterized wetland habitats occurring within the project 

boundary using FWS’ National Wetland Inventory digital mapping, which provides 

information on wetland habitats using remote sensing and aerial photo interpretation 

techniques (table 3-27). Extensive vegetated wetland communities are generally lacking 

in the project boundary. Wetlands within the project area are represented by riverine 

(open-water), palustrine forested, and palustrine emergent wetland types. 

Open-water areas are well represented in and adjacent to the project boundary, and 

Lake Frederic is an example of this open-water wetland habitat. Open-water habitats 

associated with Lake Frederic occupy about 2,363 acres. Lake Frederic contains many 

areas of SAV (primarily wild celery; Torocco et al., 2012) mostly found along island 

perimeters and areas of shallow water depth. 

The palustrine forested wetland habitats located within the project boundary are 

primarily forested silver maple floodplain areas. This forested wetland type typically 

occurs along larger rivers with a well-developed floodplain. Aside from the usually 

dominant silver maple, other trees include red maple, black willow, river birch, and 

American elm. Shrubs include poison ivy, spicebush, American elder, and northern 

arrow-wood. Common herbs include jewelweed, Japanese stiltgrass, and sensitive fern.
213 

The largest areas of emergent wetlands occur on the southern section of Three 

Mile Island, within topographic depressions separate from the riparian zone associated 

with Lake Frederic. Several small emergent wetlands are mapped in the vicinity of 

where the main dam abuts Three Mile Island. Large areas of emergent vegetation are 

found bordering the western side of the access road leading to Three Mile Island. This 

area supports a variety of communities located within the floodplain of the Susquehanna 

River that are formed naturally by river flows and sedimentation. However, York Haven 

Power observed evidence of fill berms, old access roads, and other types of disturbance 

during various site visits associated with relicensing studies. 

Table 3-27. York Haven Project wetland types and acreages (Source: York Haven 

Power, 2012). 

Class (FWS map 

code) Subclass Water Regime Total Acres Within Project Boundary

Unconsolidated 

bottom (R2UBH)

Not applicable Permanently flooded 2,240

Unconsolidated shore 

(R2USC)

Not applicable Seasonally flooded 111

Emergent (R2EM2H) Nonpersistent Permanently flooded 10

Unconsolidated 

bottom (R2UBHx)

Not applicable Permanently flooded 3

Forested (PFO1E) Broad-leaved 

deciduous

Seasonally 

flooded/saturated

31

Forested (PFO1C) Broad-leaved 

deciduous

Seasonally flooded 4

Scrub-shrub (PSS1) Broad-leaved 

deciduous

Seasonally flooded 6

Forested (PFO1A) Broad-leaved 

deciduous

Temporarily flooded 13

Unconsolidated 

bottom (PUBHx)

Not applicable Permanently flooded 1

Emergent (PEM1Cx) Persistent Seasonally flooded 17

Total wetland acreage 2,436

Three Mile Island has a mixture of floodplain forest located along the island 

boundaries, areas of emergent wetland, and large areas of open water bordered by 

palustrine forested and palustrine scrub-shrub wetland communities. York Haven Power 

notes that during overbank flooding this area holds a considerable amount of floodwater 
214 

as the open water areas are inundated with water up to several feet in depth. The water 

regime in this system is typically seasonally flooded (i.e., surface water present for 

extended periods at certain times of the year). The vegetation associated with the 

wetlands on Three Mile Island consists of a mature canopy of various trees including red 

maple, silver maple, river birch, and sycamore. Common shrubs include species 

contained in the over-story layer, as well as black willow, elderberry, and silky dogwood. 

The herbaceous layer contains cattails, bur-reed, common rush, sedges, and smartweeds. 

Muddy Run Project 

The Muddy Run Project power reservoir and the Recreation Lake provide open 

water habitat, and Exelon estimates that 84 percent of the reservoir shoreline is bordered 

by riparian woody vegetation, such as green ash, sycamore, black willow, and box elder. 

The littoral zone around the power reservoir is about 240 acres, and the reservoir margin 

is free of emergent or submergent vegetation because of the magnitude and frequency of 

rapid water fluctuations (up to 50 feet on a weekly basis). Exelon identified six wetlands 

within the project boundary using FWS National Wetland Inventory mapping but did not 

quantify the area of each, although the descriptions suggest that they are relatively small. 

Each of these six wetlands was reviewed in the field to enable further characterization. 

Three wetlands are emergent wetlands (PEM) that appear to be supported by 

springs or seeps, and only one is adjacent to the power reservoir. Two of these emergent 

wetlands are dominated by sedges, rushes, and jewelweed. One of these two wetlands is 

within the transmission line right-of-way in a pasture. The third emergent wetland, 

located along a non-project natural gas pipeline, is dominated by the invasive common 

reed and reed canary grass; sedges, rushes, and jewelweed are also present along with 

cattails, goldenrod, and aster. This wetland has compacted soils related to the presence of 

the pipeline.

One wetland is a forested wetland (PFO1) along a small stream that drains into the 

power reservoir. It is dominated by red maple, spicebush, and skunk cabbage. A second 

forested wetland with emergent components (PFO1/EM) is associated with a stream that 

ultimately flows into the reservoir. Dominant vegetation in this wetland includes 

sycamore and skunk cabbage.

The sixth wetland within the Muddy Run project boundary is an emergent/scrubshrub (PEM/SS1) wetland adjacent to the upper reaches of the recreation lake. Dominant 

vegetation in this wetland includes sedges, rushes, cattails, rice cutgrass, sweetflag, and 

blue vervain. 

Conowingo Project

Wetland habitat within the Conowingo Project boundary is governed by 

predominant substrate type and river hydrology. Conowingo Pond is generally operated 

at a maximum elevation of 109.2 feet, at which 8,605 acres of open-water habitat is 

provided. In the 7,000-foot-long reach from Holtwood dam to the downstream end of 

Hennery Island (see figure 2-2), the substrate is predominantly exposed bedrock. 
215 

Downstream of Hennery Island, the bedrock channel bottom is covered with a thickening 

wedge of alluvial sediment that has been accumulating behind Conowingo dam since its 

construction in 1928. Downstream of Conowingo dam, a bedrock channel similar to that 

downstream of Holtwood dam influences the types of wetlands that are present. We 

discuss wetland habitat separately for the bedrock and alluvial channel types within the 

project boundary. 

Bedrock reach--The bedrock reach at the upstream end of Conowingo Pond is 

characterized by riverbed emergent wetlands (REM). The wetland vegetation in the 

upper portion of the reach grows in cracks and crevasses on the protected downstream 

side of rocks. Pools in this upper reach are smaller (less than 100 square feet) and more 

isolated than further downstream where the pools are larger with more contiguous areas 

of open water (up to 10,000 square feet). Upstream vegetation is generally shorter and 

less abundant than downstream vegetation because the upstream, more-constricted reach 

is subjected to higher water levels and velocities than lower reaches. As the energy 

conditions diminish downstream, the vegetation becomes more prominent, growing on 

most available rock surfaces. Dominant vegetation within the lower elevation channel 

with longer periods of inundation includes water willow and purple loosestrife. Dense 

root mats with trapped sediment ultimately develop and may be stripped from the rock 

during high-flow events. This lower elevation zone transitions to grasses, sedges, and 

rushes, the width of which is a function of slope. Along the shore margins of the river 

and islands, the riverbed emergent wetlands transition to a riparian wetland community 

dominated by woody vegetation such as black willow and red maple saplings (PSS1). 

The vegetation near the shoreline is composed of elements found growing on the riverbed 

as well as elements that encroach from the riparian forest located upgradient.

Similar to the riverbed emergent wetlands described in the previous paragraph, 

wetlands downstream of Conowingo dam consist largely of water willow that has taken 

root in fine sediment trapped within bedrock crevasses and interstices among boulders. 

However, emergent vegetation does not extend across the channel, as it did at places in 

the upper end of Conowingo Pond, but is restricted to river and island margins and 

tributary mouths. 

Alluvial reach--In the alluvial-dominated reach of Conowingo Pond, 

opportunities for the establishment of wetlands occur at sites of accumulating sediment, 

often at the mouths of tributaries. Wetland surveys of the alluvial reach conducted by 

Exelon in 2008 and 2010 identified 32 emergent wetlands (PEM) within the project 

boundary with varying degrees of open-water and scrub-shrub elements. The distribution 

of these wetlands reflects different geomorphic settings, water sources, and 

hydrodynamics. Although these wetlands are mapped, no indication of the area of each 

wetland or the total acreage of wetlands is provided. From the descriptions of the 

wetlands, they appear to be relatively small (i.e., each less than 1 acre). During typical, 

non-storm conditions, Exelon determined that the major driver of wetland properties of 9 

wetlands was primarily flows in the Susquehanna River (pond margin), 2 wetlands were 
216 

strongly influenced by both the river and tributaries (pond/tributary), and 21 wetlands 

were influenced primarily by tributaries.

Common species occurring in the emergent wetlands include water willow, water 

pepper, broadleaf cattail, purple loosestrife, and Japanese stiltgrass. Although water 

willow was observed in most emergent wetlands, wetland vegetation generally comprised 

more than one dominant species (URS and Gomez and Sullivan, 2012a).

Invasive Plant Species

Invasive upland, wetland, and aquatic plants are known to occur at all three 

projects. The applicants did not propose and no entities requested that directed invasive 

plant surveys be conducted. However, incidental observations of invasive species were 

made during other studies at all three projects. York Haven Power identified invasive 

species that have the potential to occur at the York Haven Project, and this listing would 

also be applicable to the other two projects (table 3-28). Similarly, it would be expected 

that invasive species found at Conowingo or Muddy Run could be found at York Haven.

Table 3-28. Invasive plants with potential to occur in the vicinity of the Susquehanna 

River Projects (Source: York Haven Power, 2012; Exelon, 2012a, 

2012b, staff). 

Observed in Vicinity of Projectsa

Common name York Haven Muddy Run Conowingo

Aquatic

Eurasian water-milfoil X

Hydrilla X

Water chestnut

Brittle waternymph X

Terrestrial

Goutweed

Garlic mustard

Musk thistle

Canada thistle

Bull thistle

Jimsonweed

Goatsrue

Giant hogweed
217 

Observed in Vicinity of Projectsa

Common name York Haven Muddy Run Conowingo

Dame’s rocket

Purple loosestrife X

Star-of-Bethlehem

Wild parsnip

Beefsteak plant

Japanese knotweed X X

Lesser celadine

Cheatgrass

Japanese stiltgrass X X X

Reed canary grass X

Shattercane

Common reed X X

Johnson grass

European barberry

Russian olive

Autumn olive X

Border privet

Common privet

Amur (bush) honeysuckle X

Morrow’s honeysuckle

Bell’s honeysuckle

Standish honeysuckle

Tartarian honeysuckle

Common buckthorn

Glossy buckthorn

Wineberry

Multiflora rose X

Sycamore maple
218 

Observed in Vicinity of Projectsa

Common name York Haven Muddy Run Conowingo

Tree-of-heaven X X

Empress tree

Siberian elm

Fiveleaf akebia

Porcelain-berry

Oriental bittersweet

Japanese honeysuckle

Mile-a-minute vine X X

Kudzu

a Directed surveys for invasive plant species were not conducted at any of the three 

projects, but incidental observations were made during fieldwork associated with 

other studies.

At the York Haven Project, Japanese stiltgrass, Japanese knotweed, and mile-aminute vine were observed along old road edges and disturbed areas in the southern 

section of Three Mile Island. Within the floodplain of the Susquehanna River below the 

east channel dam and spillway, located in the southern section of Three Mile Island, large 

infestations of Japanese stiltgrass were observed in monotypic stands, where mile-aminute vine was also commonly observed. 

Invasive species, including mile-a-minute, tree-of-heaven, autumn olive, bush 

honeysuckle, and Japanese stiltgrass, were prevalent in areas along the western shore of 

the Muddy Run reservoir, but less so along the eastern shore. Invasive plants were most 

common along edge areas near the recreation park and in transmission line rights-of-way. 

Hydrilla and Eurasian water-milfoil were often the dominant species in SAV beds in the 

alluvial-dominated reach of Conowingo Pond. Downstream of Conowingo dam, 

Eurasian water-milfoil is the dominant SAV species, and hydrilla and purple loosestrife 

are also present. SAV is discussed in greater detail in section 3.3.2, Water Resources. 

Sensitive Plants 

York Haven Power and Exelon consulted with state natural resource agencies 

during pre-filing consultation and reviewed available literature to identify state-protected 

plant species and plant species that could be state-protected in the future with the 

potential to occur in the vicinity of each project. This process identified 31 such species 

that could occur near at least one of the projects (table 3-29), along with habitat 

preferences and whether or not the species was observed. 
219 

Table 3-29. State protected plant species with potential to occur in the vicinity of the York Haven, Muddy Run, and/or 

Conowingo Projects (Source: York Haven Power, 2012; Exelon, 2012a, 2012b). 

Common Name 

(Scientific 

Name) State--Status

Potential 

Project 

Occurrencea Preferred Habitat Documented Occurrence

Bradley's 

spleenwort 

(Asplenium 

bradleyi)

PA -- Threatened C Acidic rock outcrops and 

barrens, within crevices and 

ledges, and on cliff faces

Historically occurred in the 

vicinity of the Conowingo 

project area. Although the 

general habitat for a plant may 

be present in the project area, 

Bradley’s spleenworts were 

not observed in the project 

area. 

Aster-like 

boltonia 

(Boltonia 

asteroides)

PA, MD --

Endangered

YH, C Open canopy wetlands with 

sandy to loamy acidic soils; 

gravel shores; sandy, wet

thickets, alluvial meadows and 

marshes, and openings in 

forested floodplains

Reportedly found in the 

riverside outcrop community 

of the Holtwood dam spillway 

area; however, none were 

observed in the project area. 

Reflexed 

flatsedge 

(Cyperus 

refractus)

PA --

Endangered

MR, C Found in dry woods with an 

open canopy and sandy soils; 

also associated with fields, 

barrens

Historically occurred in the 

vicinity of the Conowingo 

Project area. Although the 

general habitat for a plant may 

be present in the project area, 

reflexed flatsedges were not 

observed in the project areas. 
220 

Common Name 

(Scientific 

Name) State--Status

Potential 

Project 

Occurrencea Preferred Habitat Documented Occurrence

Flat-stemmed 

spike-rush 

(Eleocharis 

compressa)

PA, MD --

Endangered

YH, C Found in wet depressions in 

woodlands and limestone 

glades, wet prairies, roadside 

ditches; and other wet seeps in 

calcareous grasslands, fens, 

sandy ground, stream banks and 

waste places

Reportedly found between 

Conowingo dam and the 

mouth of Octoraro Creek (in or 

near Susquehanna Floodplain 

Protection Area). However, 

this species was not observed 

within the project boundary. 

Ellisia (Ellisia 

nyctelea)

PA -- Threatened YH Found in damp, shady stream 

banks with rich alluvial soils 

and sometimes on disturbed 

ground

Potentially could occur within 

0.5 mile of the York Haven 

Project area. Although the 

general habitat for the plant 

may be present in the project 

area, ellisia was not observed 

in the project area.

Harbinger-ofspring (Erigenia 

bulbosa)

PA -- Threatened C Found in rich, mixed hardwood 

forests located in lowlands, 

coastal plains, and mountain 

valleys

Historically occurred in the 

vicinity of the Conowingo 

Project area. Although the 

general habitat for the plant 

may be present in the project 

area, harbinger-of-spring was 

not observed in the project 

area.
221 

Common Name 

(Scientific 

Name) State--Status

Potential 

Project 

Occurrencea Preferred Habitat Documented Occurrence

Bicknell’s hoary 

rockrose 

(Helianthemum 

bicknellii)

PA, MD --

Endangered

C Found in dry, open areas with 

abundant sun and generally thin 

soil; around exposed banks, dry 

rocky slopes and outcrops, open 

woods, serpentine barrens and 

open forests

Historically occurred in the 

vicinity of the Conowingo 

Project area. Although the 

general habitat for a plant may 

be present in the project area, 

Bicknell’s hoary rockroses 

were not observed in the 

project area.

American holly 

(Ilex opaca)

PA -- Threatened C Typically found in shallow, 

well-drained, sandy soil; also 

found in coastal dunes and 

deciduous woodlands; and 

within moist alluvial woods and 

along wooded slopes

Historically occurred in the 

vicinity of the Conowingo 

Project area. Although the 

general habitat for a plant may 

be present in the project area, 

American hollies were not 

observed in the project area.

Common 

hemicarpa 

(Lipocarpha 

micrantha)

PA --

Endangered

C Prefers moist, sandy soil; found 

along sparsely vegetated ponds, 

streams, and sandy beaches 

without large water level 

fluctuations or strong currents

Historically occurred in the 

vicinity of the Conowingo 

Project area. Although the 

general habitat for a plant may 

be present in the project area, 

common hemicarpas were not 

observed in the project area.
222 

Common Name 

(Scientific 

Name) State--Status

Potential 

Project 

Occurrencea Preferred Habitat Documented Occurrence

False loosestrife 

seedbox 

(Ludwigia 

polycarpa)

PA --

Endangered

C Found on level terrain in open 

canopy areas, including former 

oxbows, river channels in 

floodplain swamps, marshes, 

and wet prairies, and on the 

shores of ponds and other wet 

places

Historically occurred in the 

vicinity of the Conowingo 

Project area. Although the 

general habitat for a plant may 

be present in the project area, 

false loosestrife seedbox were 

not observed in the project 

area.

Umbrella 

magnolia 

(Magnolia 

tripetala)

PA -- Threatened MR, C Prefers upland areas with fine to 

medium textured soils that are 

neutral to slightly acidic; found 

in rich woods and ravines, near 

mountain streams and other wet 

areas, and in mesic shaded 

coves

Historically occurred in the 

vicinity of both Muddy Run 

and Conowingo Project areas. 

Although the general habitat 

for a plant may be present in 

the project areas, umbrella 

magnolias were not observed 

in the project area.

Three-flowered 

melicgrass 

(Melica nitens)

PA -- Threatened C Prefers a partly open canopy 

and calcareous or sandy loam 

soil; found in open dry woods; 

rocky grasslands; streambanks; 

and dry to mesic prairies

Historically occurred in the 

vicinity of the Conowingo 

Project area. Although the 

general habitat for a plant may 

be present in the project area, 

three-flowered melicgrasses 

were not observed in the 

project area.
223 

Common Name 

(Scientific 

Name) State--Status

Potential 

Project 

Occurrencea Preferred Habitat Documented Occurrence

Sticky 

goldenrod 

(Solidago 

simplex ssp. 

randii var. 

racemosa)

PA --

Endangered

C Typically found in 

boulder/cobble river bars

Documented community in a 

riverside outcrop below 

Holtwood Dam, included areas 

downstream of the Norman 

Wood Bridge within the 

Conowingo Project. However, 

this species was not identified 

within the project boundary.

Slender 

goldenrod 

(Solidago 

erecta)

PA --

Endangered and 

MD --

Threatened

C Found in both loamy and sandy 

soils; typically in open woods 

and fields

Historically occurred in the 

vicinity of the Conowingo 

Project area. Although the 

general habitat for a plant may 

be present in the project area, 

slender goldenrods were not 

observed in the project area. 

Tawny 

ironweed 

(Vernonia 

glauca)

PA --

Endangered

C Typically found in sandy to clay 

soils that can be acidic, neutral, 

or basic; usually in upland 

woods, dry fields and clearings, 

and rich woods

Historically occurred in the 

vicinity of the Conowingo 

Project area. Although the 

general habitat for a plant may 

be present in the project area, 

tawny ironweeds were not 

observed in the project area. 
224 

Common Name 

(Scientific 

Name) State--Status

Potential 

Project 

Occurrencea Preferred Habitat Documented Occurrence

Appalachian 

gametophyte 

fern (Vittaria 

appalachiana)

PA -- Threatened C Found on noncalcareous rocks, 

in dark moist cavities, and 

occasionally as an epiphyte on 

tree bases

Historically occurred in the 

vicinity of the Conowingo 

Project area. Although the 

general habitat for a plant may 

be present in the project area, 

Appalachian gametophyte 

ferns were not observed in the 

project area.

Davis' sedge 

(Carex davisii)

MD --

Endangered

C Found in both upland and 

floodplain woodlands where the 

canopy is somewhat open; also 

inhabits deciduous forested 

floodplains and moist limestone 

woodlands, rocky shores, 

abandoned fields and wet 

meadows, and unpaved trails

Documented scattered 

populations found in forested 

floodplains, rocky shores, and 

moist woods in or near the 

Northern Susquehanna Canal 

Protection Area north of the 

mouth of Deer Creek. 

However, this species was not 

observed within the project 

boundary.

Hitchcock's 

sedge (Carex 

hitchcockiana)

MD --

Endangered

C Found under a mostly closed 

canopy of rich mesic woods, in 

rock soils along unstable slopes, 

and in calcium-rich loams on 

slopes near streams

Documented occurrences in or 

near the Susquehanna Slopes 

Protection Area along the 

wooded shoreline slopes north 

of Conowingo Creek. 

However, this species was not 

observed within the project 

boundary.
225 

Common Name 

(Scientific 

Name) State--Status

Potential 

Project 

Occurrencea Preferred Habitat Documented Occurrence

Glade fern 

(Diplazium 

pycnocarpon)

MD --

Threatened

C Prefers neutral to slightly 

alkaline soils and found in 

moist open woods and slopes, 

moist meadows, swamps, and 

forested ravines

Documented scattered 

populations found in forested 

floodplains, rocky shores, and 

moist woods in or near the 

Northern Susquehanna Canal 

Protection Area north of the 

mouth of Deer Creek. 

However, this species was not 

observed within the project 

boundary.

Sweet-scented 

Indian plantain 

(Hasteola 

suaveolens)

MD --

Endangered

C Prefers an open Canopy; found 

in alluvial soils on high-energy 

floodplains and stream banks 

but can also be found within 

open woodlands and along the 

edges of thickets

Documented scattered 

populations were found in 

forested floodplains, rocky 

shores, and moist woods in or 

near the Northern Susquehanna 

Canal Protection Area north of 

the mouth of Deer Creek. 

However, this species was not 

observed within the project 

boundary.
226 

Common Name 

(Scientific 

Name) State--Status

Potential 

Project 

Occurrencea Preferred Habitat Documented Occurrence

Goldenseal 

(Hydrastis 

canadensis)

MD --

Threatened

C Found in moist, well-drained 

acidic sandy loam soil that 

contains abundant organic 

matter; possibly found within 

mixed hardwood forests 

(Henson, 2001), rich moist 

woodlands, and along wooded 

streams

Documented population in the 

wooded bluffs in or near Glen 

Cove Marina and in or near the 

Susquehanna Slopes Protection 

Area along the wooded 

shoreline between U.S. Route 

1 and Conowingo Creek boat 

landing and north of 

Conowingo Creek. However, 

this species was not observed 

within the project boundary. 

American 

gromwell 

(Lithospermum 

latifolium)

PA -- and MD --

Endangered

C Prefers a partly closed canopy 

with light to medium shade; 

found in loamy soil that 

contains abundant organic 

matter in rich deciduous woods, 

wooded slopes, and along 

shaded riverbanks

Documented along the 

shoreline, mostly in rich moist 

woods, between U.S. Route 1 

and Conowingo Creek boat 

landing (in or near the 

Susquehanna Slopes Protection 

Area). However, this species 

was not observed within the 

project boundary.
227 

Common Name 

(Scientific 

Name) State--Status

Potential 

Project 

Occurrencea Preferred Habitat Documented Occurrence

Tall dock 

(Rumex 

altissimus)

MD --

Endangered

C Prefers full to part sun and rich 

fertile soil and may tolerate 

gravel and/or clay; found in wet 

depressions, stream margins and 

low areas along ponds, lakes 

and riverbanks

Documented on the north and 

south sides of the Octoraro 

Creek mouth (in or near the 

Susquehanna Floodplain 

Protection Area). However, 

this species was not observed 

within the project boundary.

Veined skullcap 

(Scutellaria 

nervosa)

MD --

Endangered

C Found in wet to mesic 

deciduous woodlands, near 

wetland edges, and in wet 

depressional floodplain forests

Documented along the 

shoreline, mostly in rich moist 

woods, between U.S. Route 1 

and Conowingo Creek boat 

landing (in or near the 

Susquehanna Slopes Protection 

Area). However, this species 

was not observed within the 

project boundary.

Virginia mallow 

(Sida 

hermaphrodita)

PA -- and MD --

Endangered

C Prefers mostly open canopy; 

found in sandy or rocky alluvial 

soil and on stream and 

riverbanks

Documented in the Wetlands 

of Special State Concern of 

Wildcat Ravine. However, 

this species was not observed 

within the project boundary.
228 

Common Name 

(Scientific 

Name) State--Status

Potential 

Project 

Occurrencea Preferred Habitat Documented Occurrence

Star-flowered 

false Solomon's 

seal (Smilacina 

stellata)

MD --

Endangered

C Prefers wetlands and shallow 

soils; also found on rocky, welldrained side hills, coastal plains, 

thickets, and open forests 

adjacent to streams

Scattered populations observed 

in the forested floodplains, 

rocky shores, and moist woods 

in or near the Northern 

Susquehanna Canal Protection 

Area north of the mouth of 

Deer Creek. However, this 

species was not observed 

within the project boundary.

Swamp oats 

(Sphenopholis 

pensylvanica)

MD --

Threatened

C Requires full sun and grows in 

wet meadows and woods, 

swamps, and stream sides

Documented along the 

shoreline in swamp habitat 

between U.S. Route 1 and 

Conowingo Creek boat landing 

(in or near the Susquehanna 

Slopes Protection Area). 

However, this species was not 

observed within the project 

boundary.
229 

Common Name 

(Scientific 

Name) State--Status

Potential 

Project 

Occurrencea Preferred Habitat Documented Occurrence

Valerian 

(Valeriana 

pauciflora)

MD --

Endangered

C Found in the rich loamy soils 

associated with forested 

floodplains, mesic forests, and 

along moist wooded stream 

banks

Documented on the floodplain 

downstream of Octoraro Creek 

(in or near the Susquehanna 

Floodplain Protection Area) 

and in forested floodplain, 

rocky shore, and moist woods 

habitat in or near the Northern 

Susquehanna Canal Protection 

Area north of the mouth of 

Deer Creek. However, this 

species was not observed 

within the project boundary.

Eastern gamagrass 

(Tripsacum 

dactyloides)

PA --

Undetermined

MR Found in wetter areas associated 

with swales, thickets, woodland 

borders, abandoned fields, wet 

shores, roadsides, and limestone 

glades and prefers an open 

canopy

Historically, may have occurred 

in the vicinity of Muddy Run 

Project area. Although the 

general habitat for a plant may 

be present in the project area, 

this species was not observed in 

the project area.

Cranefly orchid 

(Tipularia 

discolor)

PA -- Rare MR An upland plant species found 

in rich well-drained soils within 

in mixed hardwood forests. 

Known to occur within the 

boundaries of the Ferncliff 

Wildlife and Wildflower 

Preserve

Historically occurred in the 

vicinity of Muddy Run Project 

area. Although the general 

habitat for a plant may be 

present in the project area, 

cranefly orchids were not 

observed in the project area.
230 

Common Name 

(Scientific 

Name) State--Status

Potential 

Project 

Occurrencea Preferred Habitat Documented Occurrence

Netted chainfern 

(Woodwardia 

areolata)

PA -- Non-listed MR Typically found in wetlands 

with moist, acidic soils; found 

in acidic bogs, woodland 

swamps, thickets, on seeps, 

siliceous cliffs and ledges, and 

near still water

Historically occurred in the 

vicinity of Muddy Run Project 

area. Although the general 

habitat for a plant may be 

present in the project area, this 

species was not observed in the 

project area.

a YH= York Haven, MR= Muddy Run, C= Conowingo
231 

Wildlife 

Open-water, wetland, riparian, and upland habitat within the three project 

boundaries supports a variety of wildlife. Wildlife occupying each habitat type at all 

three projects is expected to be similar.

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Representative reptile and amphibians that are typically found in open-water, 

riparian, and wetland habitats such as Lake Frederic, tributaries, and the Susquehanna 

River include snapping turtle, red-eared slider, common musk turtle, map turtle, northern 

water snake, northern spring peeper, bullfrog, northern leopard frog, pickerel frog, and 

green frog. These species use aquatic habitats for foraging, resting, protection, 

reproduction, and hibernation. Representative reptiles and amphibians typically found in 

upland and riparian habitat in the vicinity of the projects include: eastern garter snake, 

northern ribbon snake, American toad, gray tree frog, wood frog, spotted salamander, and 

northern red-backed salamander. 

Birds

The Susquehanna River and associated water resources and bottomland areas in 

the projects’ vicinity are used by migratory waterfowl, neotropical passerines, and 

numerous other species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Representative 

avian species typically found in wetland habitats and along the shoreline include the great 

blue heron, cattle egret, great egret, yellow-crowned night heron, red-winged blackbird, 

swamp sparrow, song sparrow, mallard, wood duck, American black duck, common 

merganser, and Canada goose.108 Species such as the ducks may nest within vegetated 

shallows and bottomlands and forage in open water.

Upland and riparian habitat associated with project areas provide breeding, 

migratory stopover, and wintering habitat for a high diversity of bird species including 

neotropical songbirds and resident species. Black capped chickadee, house wren, song 

sparrow, white-breasted nuthatch, brown creeper, and an assortment of woodpeckers 

occur along the wooded shorelines. Birds that inhabit non-forested areas within the 

project areas include American robin, eastern bluebird, mourning dove, and rock dove. A 

high diversity of migrating warblers also use upland habitats, and several birds of prey, 

including bald eagle, osprey, Cooper’s hawk, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, great 

 

108 According to the Maryland and District of Columbia’s breeding bird atlas 

(2002 to 2006), several waterfowl species (including mallard, wood duck, American 

black duck, and Canada goose) are confirmed or probable breeding birds in the vicinity 

of Conowingo dam. Data are available at: 

http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bba/index.cfm?fa=explore.ResultsSummary&BBA_ID=mddc

2002, accessed December 11, 2014. 
232 

horned owl, and barred owl, are known or suspected to use project areas. These species 

use different habitat types throughout the year including woodland, scrub-shrub or early 

successional areas, and wetland, and open-water areas. 

Mammals

White-tailed deer is the most common big game species in the project vicinities, 

commonly occurring along forest edges characterized by brushy and woody vegetation, 

swamp borders, and areas interspersed with fields and woodland openings. Raccoon are 

also common, especially along the riparian corridor associated with the Susquehanna 

River. Other mammals present in the project vicinities include: urban and suburban 

species such as striped skunk and opossum; furbearers such as red and gray fox and longtailed weasel; small game species such as gray and red squirrel and eastern cottontail; 

rodents such as white-footed, deer and house mouse; and little and big brown bat. 

Sensitive Wildlife Species 

York Haven Power and Exelon conducted pre-filing consultation with state natural 

resource agencies and reviewed available literature to identify state-protected wildlife 

species that may occur in the project vicinity; 13 state-listed species either do or could 

occur in the vicinity of at least one of the three projects. Several of these, including 

eastern redbelly turtle (York Haven), bald eagle (Muddy Run and Conowingo), osprey 

(Muddy Run and Conowingo), black-crowned night-heron (Conowingo), and rough 

green snake (Muddy Run), were studied during licensing proceedings. Table 3-30 shows 

the 13 state-protected species and the one species proposed for federal listing, along with 

habitat preferences and whether or not the species were observed in the vicinity of the 

project. The bog turtle is both state and federally listed and is discussed in section 3.3.4, 

Threatened and Endangered Species. In addition, FWS has proposed to list the northern 

long-eared bat for protection under the ESA, as discussed in section 3.3.4, Threatened 

and Endangered Species. Existing and potential future project operation could affect the 

bald eagle, osprey, northern map turtle, and northern long-eared bat, and we provide 

more detailed information regarding these species in the following subsections. 

Bald eagle

The bald eagle is listed as threatened in Pennsylvania and is federally protected 

under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended. Bald eagles are 

currently found in every state except Hawaii. Eagles prefer undisturbed areas near large 

lakes and reservoirs, marshes and swamps, and stretches along rivers with open water and 

their primary food, fish. Nests are primarily constructed in dominant mature trees (often 

pine, sycamore, red oak, and red maple), or cliffs near water but occasionally are also 

built on man-made structures. Egg laying and incubation by local populations occur 

between January and April with fledging occurring as early as mid-June and as late as the 

end of July. Nesting eagles are particularly sensitive to human intrusions and such 

activities can compel eagles to abandon a nest. 
233 

Table 3-30. State-protected wildlife species with potential to occur in the vicinity of the York Haven, Muddy Run, and/or 

Conowingo Projects (Source: York Haven Power, 2012; Exelon, 2012a, 2012b). 

Common Name State Status Potential Project 

Occurrencea Preferred Habitat Documented Occurrence

Bald eagle PA --

Threatened

YH, MR,b C

c Undisturbed areas near large 

lakes and reservoirs, marshes 

and swamps, or stretches along 

rivers with open water and 

access to fish; nearby tall trees 

for roosting and nesting. Can 

be found in the projects’ 

vicinities year round.

Please see previous detailed 

discussion.

Osprey PA --

Threatened

YH, MR,d C

e Along seacoast and major 

waterways with access to fish; 

nests usually built near water in 

large trees, but also use channel 

markers, telephone poles, 

chimneys, and platforms built 

specifically for their use. 

Found near projects in spring 

and summer.

Please see previous detailed 

discussion.

Peregrine falcon PA --

Endangered

YH Nest and roost on high 

prominences, building, cliffs, 

and other open spaces with 

expansive views.

Reportedly a pair returned to 

nest at the Three Mile Island 

Unit 1 Reactor Building in 

2010; however, none 

observed during projectrelated field work, and there 

is no suitable nesting habitat 

in the project area, other than 
234 

Common Name State Status Potential Project 

Occurrencea Preferred Habitat Documented Occurrence

at Three Mile Island.

American 

bittern

PA --

Endangered

YH Found in expansive wetland 

habitats and wetland borders 

along lakes, ponds, rivers, and 

streams; breed in large 

wetlands, especially those with 

dense stands of cattails, 

bulrushes, grasses, and sedges, 

and pockets of open water.

Not observed in the vicinity 

of the project and expansive 

wetland habitats are lacking.

Yellowcrowned nightheronPA --

Endangered

YH Typically feed along small, 

shallow streams and nest in 

brush or trees, usually 

sycamores, found on islands or 

along streams.

The project area below the 

east channel dam and along 

the southeastern side of 

Three Mile Island provides 

riparian forest and scrubshrub wetlands that could 

provide suitable habitat, but 

none observed during 2010 

and 2011 field seasons.

Black-crowned 

night-heron

PA --

Endangered

YH, Cf Found primarily near rivers and 

creeks, but also margins of 

lakes and reservoirs and 

wetlands; often colonial nest on 

forested islands or along 

wooded streams.

Reported to occur in the 

vicinity of York Haven but 

none were observed during 

2010 and 2011 field seasons. 

Three to six black-crowned 

night-herons were regularly 

observed near the 

Conowingo dam tailrace and 

spillway and on Rowland 
235 

Common Name State Status Potential Project 

Occurrencea Preferred Habitat Documented Occurrence

Island during 2010 and 2011, 

foraging below the dam and 

roosting in trees on the 

island. No nests observed, 

but potential nesting habitat 

is present.

Common tern PA --

Endangered

YH Typically seen flying over 

lakes, slow-moving rivers, or 

occasionally marshes, or 

perched on beaches, sand pits, 

mudflats, or on structures such 

as buoys or piers. Nesting 

habitat restricted to sandy 

shorelines and barren islands of 

large lakes; currently not 

known to nest in PA.

No common terns were 

observed during 2010 or 

2011 field seasons.

Black tern PA --

Endangered

YH When not nesting, found along 

the coast; move inland to nest 

on prairies or extensive marsh 

complexes that are half open 

water and half emergent 

vegetation. Northwest PA is 

the only location in state where 

nesting occurs.

Expansive wetland 

complexes do not occur in 

the vicinity of the project. 

No black terns observed 

during 2010 or 2011 field 

survey seasons.

Yellow-bellied 

flycatcher

PA --

Endangered

YH In shady coniferous forests and 

forested wetlands at higher 

elevations; nesting occurs in 

Habitat generally lacking in 

the project boundary. No 

yellow-bellied flycatchers 
236 

Common Name State Status Potential Project 

Occurrencea Preferred Habitat Documented Occurrence

remote areas. were observed during 2010 

and 2011 field survey 

seasons.

Hellbender 

salamander

MD --

Endangered

C Fast-moving, mid-sized 

streams/channels with good 

water quality and gravel or sand 

substrate and abundant large 

structures for hiding; breed in 

late summer.

Only historic (confirmed and 

unconfirmed) records of 

occurrence in Cecil County 

and unconfirmed historic 

records for Harford County, 

all in the Susquehanna River 

and tributaries (Stranko et 

al., 2010).

Northern map 

turtle

MD --

Endangered

C Deep slow-moving large rivers 

and lakes with ample locations 

for basking; muddy bottoms 

with aquatic vegetation are 

preferred.

Please see previous detailed 

discussion.

Eastern redbelly 

turtle

PA --

Threatened

YHg Water depths ranging from 6.5 

to 12.0 feet deep with an 

abundance of aquatic 

vegetation, reduced current 

velocities, soft substrates, and 

rocks and logs for basking. 

They nest on sandy areas along 

shorelines.

York Haven Power 

conducted targeted surveys 

during 2011 for eastern 

redbelly turtles in Lake 

Frederic using established 

protocols and none were 

found.

Rough green 

snake

PA --

Endangered

YH, MR,h C Moist areas such as wet 

meadows and the borders of 

lakes, marshes, and woodland 

Documented in PA only 

from Greene and southern 

Chester Counties although 
237 

Common Name State Status Potential Project 

Occurrencea Preferred Habitat Documented Occurrence

streams; frequently found in 

woody vegetation growing 

along or overhanging water.

recent evidence places them 

in Lancaster County near the 

Muddy Run and Conowingo 

Projects. Suitable habitat is 

present in the vicinity of the 

projects. No rough green 

snakes were observed during 

targeted surveys (at Muddy 

Run) or other field studies at 

all three projects.

Northern longeared batPA -- Candidate 

for rare species 

designation

YH, MR, C During the summer, roosting 

occurs underneath bark, 

cavities, or hollows of trees or 

snags; in winter, they hibernate 

in caves or similar sites

See section 3.3.4, 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species.

a YH= York Haven, MR= Muddy Run, C= Conowingo

b Study 3.8: Study to identify habitat use areas for bald eagle, Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project. 

c Study 3.23: Study to identify habitat use areas for bald eagle, Conowingo Hydroelectric Project. 

d Study 3.15: Osprey nesting survey, Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project. 

e

 Study 3.30: Osprey nesting survey, Conowingo Hydroelectric Project. 

f

 Study 3.31: Black-crowned night-heron nesting survey, Conowingo Hydroelectric Project. 

g Eastern redbelly turtle phase II presence/absence and nesting surveys for the York Haven Hydroelectric Project. 

h Study 3.9B: Study to identify potential habitat and presence/inferred absence of rough green snake, Muddy Run 

Pumped Storage Project.
238 

At the York Haven Project, one bald eagle nest was reported to occur at the 

southern end of Three Mile Island based on York Haven Power’s review of available 

information (no site specific surveys for bald eagles were proposed by the applicant or 

recommended by other entities). Lake Frederic provides large populations of warmwater fish species that form a reliable source of live prey for foraging bald eagles. One 

active nest and a communal roosting site have been documented within the Muddy Run 

Project boundary and a reported nest was found on a Conowingo Pond island traversed 

by the Muddy Run transmission line corridor. At the Conowingo Project, bald eagle 

surveys conducted by Exelon documented 11 pairs of breeding bald eagles, 18 communal 

bald eagle roosts, and many foraging bald eagles along Conowingo Pond and 

downstream of Conowingo dam. Exelon observed up to 153 bald eagles per week during 

bald eagle surveys of known roosting areas in 2010 and 2011 (Center for Conservation 

Biology et al., 2012). Bald eagles occur in the vicinity of the three projects year round, 

but are less common during the winter.

Osprey 

The osprey is listed as threatened in Pennsylvania and is federally protected under 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Ospreys are found along seacoasts and major 

waterways on every continent except Antarctica. Fish are the primary prey for osprey, 

although they also feed on small waterfowl, mammals, and carrion. Ospreys typically 

inhabit salt marshes, large inland rivers, lakes, ponds, and wetlands bordered by mature 

trees. Nests are usually built near water in large, often dead, trees but nests have also 

been found on channel markers, telephone poles, chimneys, and manmade platforms built 

specifically for their use. Preferred foraging habitat of local osprey populations was 

reported to be shallow water with low turbidity. Osprey pairs typically return to 

Pennsylvania in late March to early April to nest and depart by the end of September. 

At the York Haven Project no directed osprey surveys were proposed or requested, 

but an osprey nest is located on the York Haven powerhouse and field staff performing 

other studies frequently observed osprey flying in the vicinity of Lake Frederic. Exelon 

conducted osprey nest surveys at the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects in 2010 and 

2011. During both years an active osprey nest was documented along the shore of 

Muddy Run reservoir. Eleven osprey nests were documented in the Conowingo project 

area in 2010, and a twelfth in 2011 (8 were in Pennsylvania and 4 in Maryland). All of 

the nests observed in 2010 were active in 2011, with the exception of two nests in 

Pennsylvania. Osprey activity was frequently observed at the Muddy Run transmission 

line crossing of the river and entailed ospreys using the transmission towers for perching.

Northern map turtle 

The northern map turtle is listed by Maryland as an endangered species. Map 

turtles are found in deep, slow-moving large rivers and lakes with ample locations for 

basking. Muddy bottom with aquatic vegetation are preferred and vegetation comprises 

the majority of the map turtle diet. Mollusks and crayfish are also occasionally 
239 

consumed. Eggs are laid from April to mid-July in areas with open canopies most often 

on sunny days after rain events. Turtles were found to make almost immediate use of 

newly-opened gaps (i.e., tree-falls) in the forest canopy. Hatching occurs from midAugust through September.

According to Towson University studies, a reproductively active population 

occurs both upstream and downstream of Conowingo dam, although most turtles are 

concentrated in a 1.2-mile-long river reach downstream of the dam in the vicinity of Port 

Deposit and Susquehanna State Park in Maryland (Seigel et al., 2014). Nesting occurs in 

relatively open areas on both in-river islands, along the banks of Octoraro and Deer 

Creeks, and in the town of Port Deposit. Most nesting areas are heavily disturbed by 

recreational visitors, raccoons, foxes, and feral dogs. Towson University biologists 

observed basking map turtles from late April through mid-November, with the most 

intensive activity in September. Basking occurs predominantly on rocks and large woody 

debris, but can also occur on man-made structures such as bulkhead footings and riprap. 

Basking is an essential activity for most aquatic turtles, serving to raise body 

temperatures so that physiological processes such as digestion and egg development are 

maximized. Reptiles that are precluded from basking may suffer reduced reproductive 

output and growth rates (Seigel et al., 2014). 

3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects 

Effects of project operation and water level fluctuations on riparian, littoral, 

and wetland habitat 

For all three projects, project operation, including water level fluctuations, could 

affect riparian, littoral, and wetland habitat. Reservoir fluctuations and changes in 

downstream flows could affect the distribution, species composition, and health of 

wetland and riparian habitat. Wetland and riparian habitats are important for functions 

such as water quality, habitat for fish and wildlife, regulating flooding, and 

stream recharge. 

According to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, York Haven Power proposes 

to maintain the overall project minimum flow requirements downstream of the project, 

but it would modify project flow releases to redistribute minimum flow releases among 

the various project flow release structures (east channel spillway, east channel fishway, 

nature-like fishway, main dam, and powerhouse).

Exelon does not propose any changes to the existing project operation at Muddy 

Run or Conowingo. There are no recommended measures specifically relating to 

wetlands, riparian, or littoral habitat at either project; however, The Nature Conservancy 

recommended, and Interior endorsed, an alternate flow regime for flows below 

Conowingo dam, referred to as the TNC Flow Regime. The TNC Flow Regime is 

described in greater detail in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, but 

in general it would stabilize flows below the dam, particularly from March through June. 
240 

Our Analysis

Under existing and proposed operation, extensive vegetated wetland communities 

are and would be generally lacking in the York Haven Project boundary. Three Mile 

Island contains the largest of the emergent marsh wetlands as well as forested floodplain 

wetlands. Existing and proposed project operations would allow for 1.1 feet of draw 

down from the impoundment for dam maintenance activities. Because proposed 

operation would not change the reservoir levels or the overall minimum flows 

downstream of the York Haven Project, it is not expected that wetland, riparian, or 

wildlife habitat conditions would change. 

The Muddy Run Project operates as a pumped storage facility by moving water 

from the upper reservoir to the lower reservoir (Conowingo Pond) via gravity to generate 

power. Water levels in the upper reservoir can fluctuate up to 50 feet within a week. 

With these large fluctuations, shoreline habitat would vary between dry and flooded 

periods. As a result, the upper reservoir margins are generally free of emergent or 

submerged vegetation. Exelon plans to implement an SMP that includes erosion control 

measures (see further discussion in section 3.3.5, Recreation and Land Use Resources) at 

the Muddy Run upper reservoir to minimize erosion. Of the six wetlands identified in the 

project boundary, only one (which is adjacent to the upper reservoir) would appear to be 

affected by project operation; however, even this wetland has its own source of 

hydrology. Because the Muddy Run Project would be operated as it has in the past, the 

existing wetland and riparian habitat would remain similar to their present condition and 

wildlife habitat would not be affected. Fluctuations of the lower reservoir, Conowingo 

Pond, are discussed below for the Conowingo Project. 

Within the Conowingo Project, wetlands are prevalent in the alluvial reach of the 

Conowingo Pond where the river deposits sediment loads, but are not as prevalent 

elsewhere. Conowingo Pond generally operates with a maximum pool elevation of 

109.2 feet, but allows for a maximum fluctuation of 9 feet, from elevation 110.2 down to 

101.2 feet. The existing wetland and riparian habitat distribution is affected by current 

project operation (and the operation of the Muddy Run Project). For example, in the 

bedrock reach at the upstream end of Conowingo Pond, vegetation is generally shorter 

and less abundant than downstream vegetation, as the upstream, more-constricted reach is 

subjected to higher water levels and velocities than lower reaches. As the energy 

conditions diminish downstream, the vegetation becomes more prominent, growing on 

most available rock surfaces. Because Exelon does not propose to change Conowingo or 

Muddy Run project operations, the existing wetland and riparian conditions in the 

upstream reach would be expected to remain unchanged, and wildlife habitat would not 

be affected. Additionally, although Conowingo Project operation may influence 

sediment distribution and water level fluctuations in the alluvial reach of Conowingo 

Pond, because Exelon does not propose to change project operation, the existing 
241 

conditions would be expected to remain unchanged. However, the TNC Flow Regime,109

if implemented, would stabilize flow releases below the dam, which could benefit 

wetlands, riparian habitat, and wildlife habitat downstream. In addition, more stabilized 

minimum flows may or may not result in less fluctuation in Conowingo Pond; less 

fluctuation would also benefit wetlands. However, based on our evaluation of 

Conowingo Pond fluctuations in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental 

Effects, Reservoir Fluctuations, any such benefits would be minor. 

Maintenance of project facilities and right-of-way 

York Haven Power and Exelon manage vegetation around project facilities, 

including the project transmission line at Muddy Run, around powerhouses, and

recreation areas during routine maintenance activities. Vegetation maintenance could 

affect the presence or proliferation of invasive species, rare plant species, and wildlife 

habitat. Neither York Haven Power nor Exelon conducted targeted surveys for rare 

plants at any of the three projects; however, there are multiple rare plant species known to 

historically occur within 0.5 mile of the three projects. 

York Haven Power and Exelon propose no specific project maintenance measures, 

invasive species management measures, or rare plant protection measures. However, 

Exelon manages vegetation along the 4.25-mile-long transmission line right-of-way at the 

Muddy Run Project in accordance with American National Standards Institute A300 

standards, which includes Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM). This approach 

provides for managing plant communities in which compatible and incompatible 

vegetation are identified, action thresholds considered, control methods evaluated, and 

selected controls implemented to achieve a specific objective. IVM also includes 

provisions for protection of species of concern, wetlands and streams, and cultural 

resources. The portion of the right-of-way within the wire zone110 is managed to 

promote a low-growing plant community dominated by grasses, herbs, and small shrubs 

less than 3 feet high. The rest of the right-of-way is managed to promote shrubs and 

small trees lower than 25 feet high at maturity. Exelon uses a combination of manual, 

mechanical, and herbicide control techniques. In addition, Exelon proposes the 

implementation of an SMP at both the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects. The SMP 

contains shoreline vegetation management measures to protect shoreline vegetation 

wherever feasible and sensitive natural resources policies that would limit or restrict land 

use in areas of rare species and wetlands. 

 

109 This flow regime has been recommended by The Nature Conservancy and 

Interior and would include increased and more stabilized minimum flow releases and 

decreased maximum flow releases from the project. 

110 The wire zone is the section of right-of-way directly under the transmission 

wires and extending outward 10 feet on each side of the wires. 
242 

There were no recommendations made by stakeholders regarding vegetation 

maintenance at any of the three projects. 

Our Analysis 

Rare Plants

Although it is possible that rare plant species occur within any of the three 

projects, no rare plant species were observed within the project boundaries during studies 

conducted for the projects. Project maintenance at all three projects would be expected to 

continue similarly to how it has in the past, with vegetation habitats remaining as they 

exist currently. Overall, proposed maintenance activities such as tree trimming, lawn 

care, herbicide use, and building maintenance would create minimal vegetation 

disturbance and result in minimal vegetation removal. As a result, it is expected that if 

rare plant species exist in the project areas they are not likely to be affected by 

project maintenance. 

At the Muddy Run Project, Exelon uses manual, mechanical, and herbicide 

methods to maintain the transmission line right-of-way free of tall-growing species that 

could interfere with line reliability. Again, because this IVM would continue under the 

terms of any new license, any rare plant species that currently may exist in the right-ofway would not be expected to be affected by the proposed project maintenance. The 

proposed SMP at the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects would likely benefit rare plant 

species, if they occur, because it would limit the amount of shoreline vegetation removed 

and, if any rare plants are found during the life of any licenses issued, these locations 

would be integrated into the SMP’s sensitive natural resources land use 

protection program. 

Invasive Species

Regular project maintenance activities, such as vegetation mowing, trimming, and 

clearing, and herbicide applications around project facilities, as well as project-related 

recreation facility use at all three projects would create disturbance that could contribute 

to the spread of invasive species. The presence and spread of invasive species could also 

affect rare plant populations by outcompeting such species. At the York Haven Project, 

York Haven Power observed invasive species along road edges and disturbed areas of 

Three Mile Island and at the Muddy Run Project, Exelon observed invasive species along 

the western shore of the power reservoir and areas near recreation facilities and in the 

transmission line right-of-way. All of these areas are routinely disturbed by project 

maintenance and, in some cases, public use. With York Haven and Exelon continuing 

their project maintenance activities, invasive species would continue to exist in the 

project boundaries and could potentially spread. Eradicating or even controlling invasive 

species populations is very difficult, however, because outside activities can continuously 

introduce new populations of invasive species into the project boundary. Because the 

presence and spread of invasive species is an issue that extends far beyond the three 

projects, the effect of project maintenance on invasive species proliferation would be 
243 

minimal. In addition, at Muddy Run, at the location where invasive species could 

directly affect the federally listed bog turtle, Exelon proposes, as part of its Bog Turtle 

Management Plan, to conduct invasive species control measures. The bog turtle is 

discussed further in section 3.3.4.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, 

Environmental Effects. 

Recreation Facilities 

Existing and proposed recreation facilities at the three project areas could cause 

disturbance to wildlife by creating noise and human activities, which cause wildlife to 

leave the area. Proposed recreation facilities would result in the loss of some wildlife or 

possibly rare plant habitat, if any still exists. 

York Haven Power does not propose any new recreation facilities. Exelon 

proposes improvements to existing recreational areas within the Muddy Run Project. 

Improvements that would disturb vegetation include: a new boat ramp and shoreline 

improvements at the Muddy Run Campground, and expanding the playground and other 

facilities at the Visitor’s Center. At the Conowingo Project, Exelon proposes several 

recreation facility improvements that would disturb vegetation such as vegetation 

clearing, additional parking spaces, and new docks at Lock 13 and 15; a new parking lot 

and concrete pad for restroom placement at the Cold Cabin Campground; installation of 

new drainage ditches at the Conowingo Creek boat launch; parking lot expansion at the 

Glen Cove Marina; replacing the existing pavilion and removing a portion of the parking 

lot at the Conowingo dam overlook; widening access roads, constructing a retaining wall, 

creating additional parking, constructing a new boat launch, and replacing the existing 

launch area at the Fisherman’s parking/Shures landing site; and, constructing a new road 

at the Peach Bottom access. See section 3.3.5.2, Recreation and Land Use Resources, 

Environmental Effects, for additional details describing specific changes made in 

each area. 

Our Analysis

Existing recreation facilities in the three project boundaries are not expected to 

adversely affect wildlife species because it is likely that most wildlife species that occur 

in those areas have adapted to current levels of activity. Some more sensitive wildlife 

species would likely continue to move out of the areas during high recreation use. 

Proposed recreation improvements at Muddy Run and Conowingo are expansions or 

improvements to existing facilities. As a result, increased noise and human activity 

would be expected to result in only minor disturbance to wildlife. Proposed recreation 

enhancements at Muddy Run and Conowingo would, however, result in the loss of 

wildlife habitat through the removal of vegetation. Although the exact amount of 

vegetation that would be cleared for the proposed facilities is unknown, the nature of the 

facilities at both Muddy Run and Conowingo is not expected to have a large construction 

footprint outside already disturbed areas. Because all of Exelon’s proposed improvements 

would be at existing sites, most land clearing would likely occur in previously disturbed 
244 

areas. Direct mortality of smaller, less mobile wildlife species could occur; however, 

more mobile species would be expected to disperse into nearby similar habitat. In 

addition, ground disturbance during construction could result in the increased presence 

and proliferation of invasive species. 

Nature-like Fishway Construction at the York Haven Project 

York Haven Project

In the Settlement Agreement, York Haven Power proposes, and the Settling 

Parties recommend, the installation of a nature-like fishway at the north end of the main 

dam. Further discussion can be found in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, 

Environmental Effects. The nature-like fishway would serve as a primary fish passage 

facility. The facility would consist of an in-river nature-like fishway near the toe of the 

main dam and reaching upstream from the main dam and would be approximately 300 

feet wide. York Haven Power proposes in the explanatory statement filed with the 

Settlement Agreement that during the finalization of the nature-like fishway plans and 

required permitting it would conduct vegetation cover type mapping, wetland delineation, 

invasive species surveys, rare species surveys, a bog turtle habitat assessment, and a bald 

eagle survey in 2014 in the area right around the proposed nature-like fishway. In 

addition, it would follow all necessary steps to submit applications for a section 404 

permit from the Corps and an NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with 

Construction Activities from Pennsylvania DEP in 2015. Interior commented that York 

Haven Power should follow conservation measures that protect bald eagles in addition to 

adopting the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. 

Our Analysis

Construction of the proposed nature-like fishway would disturb vegetation located 

at the apex of the main dam and abutment with the west shore of Three Mile Island and 

wetlands within the Susquehanna River. Initial construction of the nature-like fishway 

would result in the loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat in the construction footprint. 

During construction, human activity and construction noise would result in a temporary 

disturbance to wildlife in the area. Following construction, wildlife disturbance would 

return to pre-construction conditions. 

Ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities associated with construction 

of the nature-like fishway could disturb or directly affect rare plant and wildlife species 

such as the bald eagle, as well as result in the spread of invasive species or wetland 

impacts. However, because York Haven proposes to conduct all the indicated surveys, 

complete the resource agency consultation required to obtain the section 404 and NPDES 

permits, and follow all protection measures and BMPs contained in any permits they 

receive, including measures to protect any bald eagles identified during surveys and FWS 

consultation, the proposed nature-like fishway would not adversely affect rare 

terrestrial resources. 
245 

Bald Eagle and Osprey Management 

Bald eagle and osprey populations occur within the vicinity of all three project 

areas mainly along the reservoirs and river edges. Project recreation and maintenance 

could potentially affect raptors such as the bald eagle and osprey by creating human 

disturbance and cutting trees and vegetation. The Muddy Run transmission line could 

also potentially affect large raptors from electrocutions or collisions. 

York Haven Project 

Although York Haven Power does not propose any measures specifically for bald 

eagle, osprey, or raptor management, York Haven Power proposes to conduct a bald 

eagle survey around the proposed nature-like fishway facility. No resource agencies 

recommend any raptor measures at the York Haven Project other than the Settling 

Parties’ recommendation to construct the nature-like fishway facility as included in the 

Settlement Agreement and Interior’s comment that York Haven Power follow 

conservation measures that protect bald eagles and adopt the National Bald Eagle 

Management Guidelines.111 This is discussed above under Nature-like Fishway 

Construction at the York Haven Project. Overall, even though bald eagles, osprey, and 

other raptors occur in the York Haven project area, because York Haven Power does not 

propose to change the overall minimum flows below the dam or any new recreation 

facilities and the project does not include a transmission line, it would not affect these 

species and they are not analyzed further.

Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects 

At both the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects, Exelon proposes to implement 

the Bald Eagle Management Plans included in its license applications that provide for the 

management of bald eagle habitat on Exelon lands based on recommendations from the 

FWS National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines and state agency guidance. This 

includes implementing distance and landscape buffers around nesting sites and avoiding 

certain activities during nesting season. In addition, the Bald Eagle Management Plans 

include general guidelines for activities around roosting and foraging areas. The plans 

also include provisions for monitoring of nesting, roosting, and foraging sites every 5 

years and injury and mortality procedures. 

In addition, Exelon proposes, as part of the SMPs at both projects, to implement 

an osprey management policy that states that Exelon would work with state and federal 

agencies to provide appropriate buffers dictated by the types of activities carried out in 

 

111 In letters filed January 7, 2015, and January 28, 2015, regarding endangered 

species concurrence for the York Haven and Muddy Run projects, FWS’ Pennsylvania 

Field Office also provided general recommendations for avoiding and minimizing 

impacts on migratory birds (including bald eagles) within and around the project area, for 

both the York Haven and Muddy Run projects. 
246 

either visual or auditory proximity to nests during breeding and nesting season (January 

to late July). This includes implementation of: (1) nest buffers during the breeding 

season of 330 feet for most activities and larger buffers up to 600 feet for activities with 

the potential to emit excessive noise (which excludes routine project operation and 

maintenance activities); and (2) restriction on herbicide application within 330 feet of 

osprey nests during breeding season. Exelon would also consult with FWS and 

Pennsylvania Game Commission to determine BMPs and obtain applicable permits in the 

event an osprey nest on project transmission line towers is identified as a problem nest 

that needs to be removed or relocated.

For both the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects, Interior recommends under 

section 10(j) that Exelon finalize and implement Bald Eagle Management Plans in 

consultation with FWS, Maryland DNR, and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. The 

management plan would manage bald eagle habitat on Exelon land in accordance with 

recommendations in the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (FWS, 2007a) and 

state agency guidance. Bald eagle habitat, including nest sites, forage sites, and 

communal roost sites, would be managed through a range of conservation measures that 

meet the provisions of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, including incidental 

take of eagles. The range of measures would include seasonal restrictions, distance 

buffers, and landscape buffers. For the Conowingo Project, Interior indicates two 

specific measures that Exelon should reconcile to avoid disturbance of eagle 

concentration areas: (1) enforcement of human traffic restrictions on both sides of 

Rowland Island, under the towers in the river, and on the Cecil County side of the river 

where current human activities disturb perching and foraging eagles; and (2) a 

requirement that Exelon release information pertaining to federal regulations that protect 

eagles and great blue heron rookeries, and other migratory birds if any lands are 

potentially donated by Exelon.112

Exelon, in its response to Interior’s recommendations on the Conowingo Project, 

states that its proposed Bald Eagle Management Plan was developed in consultation with 

FWS and Maryland DNR. Exelon states that its proposed Bald Eagle Management Plan 

would manage, through a range of measures, bald eagle nest habitat, including nest sites, 

forage sites, and communal roost sites, on Exelon land. Exelon states that it would 

consult with FWS and other pertinent resource agencies to finalize the Bald Eagle 

Management Plan. 

 

112 We interpret Interior’s comment as recommending, in the event that Exelon 

donates land, that Exelon must provide information to the recipient regarding bald eagles 

and other migratory bird species that are present, and the state and federal protection 

afforded to these species. 
247 

Our Analysis

In August 2012, Exelon completed a transmission line avian interaction study 

report for the Muddy Run Project. The report focused on the biology and morphology of 

avian species, environmental factors, and site configuration of the lines and structures. 

Birds that are large in size, such as eagles, osprey, herons, and vultures are thought to 

have a greater risk of mortality around transmission lines due to large body size and wing 

span contacting transmission lines during flight, and nesting on towers. Many avian 

species prefer nesting on these structures because of height and openness overlooking 

foraging areas. 

As part of the study, Exelon conducted bird surveys between April 2010 and 

October 2010 along the 4.25-mile-long transmission line right-of-way that connected the 

Muddy Run powerhouse to the PBAPS north substation. Data collected were used to 

determine the potential risk of electrocution and collision at the project transmission line. 

The study covered 86 observational hours with 1,376 avian sightings and one mortality. 

Large raptors, including bald eagles and osprey, concentrate in a section of the project, 

known as the Water Crossing, where the transmission line perpendicularly crosses 

Conowingo Pond from the Muddy Run powerhouse to a slope above Muddy Creek Boat 

Launch. The 2012 study determined this area to have a higher collision risk for raptors 

and other birds because the abundance of large species, the configuration of lines 

perpendicular to shorelines in an open/shoreline environment, and the presence of shield 

wires. Electrocution, on the other hand, is not a risk because the separation of the 

transmission line’s energized and grounded components is larger than the wing span of 

the largest bird in the area. Electrocution is unlikely to occur if a bird is not able to touch 

multiple components at once. 

Overall, although the Water Crossing area of the Muddy Run Project has a higher 

risk for avian collision, the transmission line interaction study documented only one 

mortality with more than 1,376 avian sightings, suggesting that raptor mortality from 

collisions with the transmission line may not be common. Although the study is unlikely 

to have observed every instance of avian mortality and occasional mortality from 

collisions is possible, the Muddy Run Project transmission line is not expected to result in 

adverse effects on raptor populations, including bald eagles and osprey. 

Implementation of the Bald Eagle Management Plan, as proposed by Exelon and 

recommended by Interior, would benefit bald eagles within the Muddy Run and 

Conowingo project boundaries. FWS’ National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines

include active nest protection buffers ranging from 330 feet to 1 mile, depending on the 

nature of disturbance under consideration. By following the proposed Bald Eagle 

Management Plan, Exelon would comply with bald eagle management guidelines and 

state guidelines, as they relate to nesting eagles, during construction of recreational 

facility enhancements, project maintenance, and other proposed project measures. In 

addition, conducting monitoring every 5 years would identify new nesting, roosting, and 

foraging sites and identify sites that have been abandoned. This would ensure that future 
248 

bald eagle nest, roost, and foraging areas are also protected by the Bald Eagle 

Management Plan. Finally, the mortality reporting component of the proposed plan 

would ensure that FWS and the Pennsylvania Game Commission are aware of any 

project-related bald eagle mortality for the term of any new license and allow Exelon and 

the agencies to identify and address any increase in project-related mortality. 

At the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects, both the Exelon proposed and 

Interior recommended Bald Eagle Management Plans would result in the same benefit to 

nesting, roosting, and foraging bald eagles. At the Conowingo Project, Interior’s 

recommendation to enforce restrictions to human activity in the vicinity of eagle 

concentration areas would result in greater protection of foraging and communal roosting 

bald eagles from human disturbance. Although Exelon’s proposed Bald Eagle 

Management Plan provides project-specific restrictions, buffers, and other measures to 

protect nests in accordance with the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, it only 

mentions general guidelines related to foraging and roosting areas. Exelon has current 

human activity restrictions below Conowingo dam; however, information provided by 

Interior in its 10(j) letter indicates that Exelon is not implementing protection measures to 

avoid or minimize disturbance to the large core of non-breeding, overwintering eagles 

present on structures, rocky shoreline, and forested habitats downstream of Conowingo 

dam, and that FWS receives inquiries from the public about disturbances to eagles at 

Conowingo dam. Interior’s recommendation would require Exelon to develop measures 

as part of the Bald Eagle Management Plan to enforce the existing restrictions, as they 

relate to foraging, perching, and roosting bald eagles. Such measures could include 

increased signage, patrols of the area, or possibly, physical restrictions. As Exelon has 

not proposed to donate lands as part of the proposed project, it is not necessary at this 

time to include a measure in the proposed Bald Eagle Management Plan that would 

require Exelon to release information on bald eagles or other migratory species to 

a recipient.

Similar to the bald eagle, Exelon’s proposed osprey management policy would 

result in landscape and seasonal buffers around osprey nests. By implementing 

appropriate buffers, as determined in consultation with FWS and Pennsylvania Game 

Commission, Exelon is likely to protect the osprey during construction of recreational 

facility enhancements, project maintenance, and other proposed project measures. In 

addition, it would ensure that Exelon follows BMPs identified by FWS and the 

Pennsylvania Game Commission and obtains necessary permits before removing active 

osprey nests. Overall, the proposed policy would benefit the osprey by enacting 

protection measures. 

Waterfowl Nesting Protection 

Waterfowl nesting habitat is present in wetland and riparian habitat within the 

projects’ boundaries. As a result, project operations that result in water level fluctuations 

in project reservoirs or varying flows downstream could flood waterfowl nests. 

Waterfowl species, protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and reported as 
249 

nesting in the vicinity of Conowingo dam, include wood duck, American black duck, 

mallard, and Canada goose. 

York Haven Power and Exelon do not propose measures related to waterfowl 

protection, and waterfowl nesting protection was not identified as a concern by resource 

agencies or other stakeholders at the York Haven or Muddy Run Projects. 

For the Conowingo Project, Interior recommended under section 10(j) that Exelon 

develop a waterfowl nesting protection plan in consultation with FWS. The plan would 

identify waterfowl nesting areas within the project area that are vulnerable to flooding 

associated with project peaking operations during nesting season, and create a range of 

alternatives and recommendations to avoid flooding active nests.

Exelon, in its response to Interior’s recommendation, states that there is no 

evidence that Conowingo Project operation affects waterfowl or that a waterfowl 

protection plan would be necessary. Exelon states that it was not asked to conduct an 

assessment of the effects of project operation on waterfowl during the relicensing 

process. In addition, Exelon states that the zone of fluctuation around Conowingo Pond 

does not provide waterfowl nesting habitat and that project fluctuations around 

Conowingo Pond and flows downstream of the dam would not affect foraging habitat. 

Our Analysis

Exelon does not propose to change project operation at the Conowingo Project; 

however, project operation would continue to result in fluctuations of Conowingo Pond 

of up to 9 feet. In addition, waterfowl nesting downstream of the Conowingo Project 

could be affected by proposed seasonal fluctuations in flow, specifically the increase in 

minimum flow, from 3,500 cfs in March to 10,000 cfs in April, during the early stages of 

waterfowl nesting. The perimeter of Conowingo Pond and the Susquehanna River 

downstream of Conowingo dam does provide waterfowl nesting habitat, and water level 

fluctuations due to project operation, where peaking flows may range from the minimum 

flow up to about 80,000 cfs, may affect nesting success, if fluctuating flows and reservoir 

levels coincide with critical periods of waterfowl nesting (egg laying or incubation). 

Therefore, implementation of a waterfowl nesting protection plan, as recommended by 

Interior, would be valuable in identifying areas where waterfowl nesting habitat is 

affected by inundation or dewatering due to project operation. If specific, project-related 

effects on waterfowl nesting are identified, then such a plan would then allow appropriate 

protection or mitigation measures to be established. Overall, implementation of a 

waterfowl nesting protection plan at the Conowingo Project, in consultation with FWS 

and the state agencies, would benefit nesting waterfowl by allowing Exelon to determine 

if the Conowingo Project is affecting waterfowl nesting habitat, identifying which species 

of nesting waterfowl the project is affecting, and establishing appropriate protection or 

mitigation measures. The TNC Flow Regime, if implemented, would result in more 

stable minimum and maximum flows during waterfowl nesting season, which could 

result in less inundation due to peaking operations downstream of the dam. 
250 

Northern Map Turtle Management 

The northern map turtle is known to occur at several locations along the 

Susquehanna River both above and below Conowingo dam, including Wood Island, the 

town of Port Deposit, and Octoraro Beach. Operation of the Conowingo Project, 

including changes in minimum flow releases could affect map turtle nesting and basking 

sites. Maryland DNR comments that Exelon failed to address effects on the map turtle, 

which occurs upstream and downstream of Conowingo dam. It states that constant water 

level changes from the Conowingo Project affect map turtle basking sites, nesting areas, 

and egg production and viability. 

The Nature Conservancy and Interior recommended an alternative flow regime 

downstream of Conowingo dam, partly to benefit basking northern map turtles. The 

TNC Flow Regime would result in more stable flows downstream of the dam, 

particularly during the spring season. 

Exelon, in its response to Maryland DNR’s comment, stated that it has funded 

several map turtle studies through Towson University since 2011; however, at this time 

there is no substantial evidence that project operation is adversely affecting the map turtle 

and that implementing any protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would be 

premature. Exelon states that it is currently working with the State of Maryland and 

Towson University researchers to develop a plan of study for 2014, which would include 

the following research components: (1) nesting habitat enhancement; (2) assessment of 

ecology and viability of populations upstream of Conowingo; (3) development of 

artificial basking structures to mitigate loss of basking sites; (4) rapid assessment of 

population size to determine population trends; (5) hatchling and juvenile ecology; and 

(6) working with the State of Maryland to develop potential protection and enhancement 

measures for any identified project-related adverse effects. 

Our Analysis

Towson University conducted interim northern map turtle studies from 2011-2013 

that discussed the effect of Conowingo Project operation on the northern map turtle 

(Seigel et al., 2014). The studies have indicated that turtle nest predation and disturbance 

is prevalent in the Conowingo Project area, particularly at the Octoraro Beach site. 

Encroachment of woody vegetation and brush at the site meant that the turtles had to 

concentrate nests in the few open areas where predators could locate nests more easily. 

Exelon, at Towson’s request made some nesting habitat improvements in 2012 and 

2013, and Towson’s study indicates that these improvements, such as opening up canopy, 

decreased predation and improved nesting success. In 2011, the map turtle predation rate 

was 96.7 percent. Following Exelon’s habitat improvements in 2012 and 2013, the 

predation rates lowered to 44 percent and 66 percent, respectively. Towson stated that 

such habitat manipulations would need to continue biannually to maintain the improved 

conditions. In addition, human disturbance to nesting areas during nesting season is 

likely to limit the nesting success. 
251 

The studies also have shown that basking sites below the dam are affected by 

human disturbance during recreation and could be affected by water level and flow 

changes. According to the 2013 study, kayaks appeared to be the most likely cause of 

disturbance to basking turtles; however, other sources of disturbance include fishing 

boats, speed boats, canoes, and swimmers. Additionally, the seasonal period when boat 

traffic is the heaviest (specifically, June and August) and the time of day when boat 

traffic is heaviest (between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m.) coincided with the map turtle’s critical 

basking times. The study hypothesized that the disturbance to basking turtles as a result 

of boat traffic during the early summer may lead to reduced production of map 

turtle offspring. 

Although some map turtle disturbance, such as predation, is not a result of project 

operation, fluctuations in river flow and human disturbance from recreational activities 

may be partly project-related. The 2013 study determined that a combination of flow 

rates from the dam in combination with tide level results in water level fluctuations that 

submerge basking sites, limiting the ability of the map turtle to bask. As described 

above, initial studies indicate that project operation and project-related recreation could 

affect map turtle nesting and basking success. Although Exelon indicates that it is 

continuing to work with Towson University and the State of Maryland on northern map 

turtle studies and the development of protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures, 

if Exelon develops and implements a formal northern map turtle protection plan, in 

consultation with Towson University and Maryland DNR, that incorporates nest 

management and mitigation measures to improve and maintain nesting habitat, create 

new alternative nesting and basking sites, and implement measures to restrict human 

access to nesting sites during nesting season, the project would benefit the northern 

map turtle. 

In addition, it appears that high flow releases from Conowingo dam may 

contribute to the submergence of turtle basking sites, which in turn could affect 

reproductive success. It is likely that more stable flows, such as those in the TNC Flow 

Regime, would benefit basking turtles by allowing basking sites to be available for 

longer periods. 

Wildlife Species of Special Concern 

In addition to the species of special concern discussed above (e.g., bald eagle, 

osprey, and northern map turtle), there are four additional species that are either known to 

occur or could potentially occur within the three project boundaries during the year, for 

breeding, foraging, migration, or overwintering. Neither York Haven Power nor Exelon 

proposed any measures and no stakeholders proposed measures relating to these species 

in response to the Commission’s ready for environmental analysis notice. 

The peregrine falcon has been observed in and around the York Haven Project; 

however, the project contains no suitable nesting habitat other than buildings. In 

addition, York Haven Power does not propose to change existing project operation. 
252 

Because project operation would not change, York Haven Power does not propose any 

additional recreation facilities which would increase human disturbance, and project 

maintenance is unlikely to affect falcon habitat it is unlikely that the York Haven Project 

would affect any peregrine falcons that may use the project area. 

According to the license applications, black-crowned night-herons were not 

observed at either the York Haven or Muddy Run Projects; however, this species has 

been observed regularly foraging and roosting in the Conowingo dam tailrace, spillway, 

and around Rowland Island. However, Conowingo Project operation and maintenance, 

and recreation activities at the project, particularly in the portion of Rowland Island 

identified as potential nesting habitat, may affect black-crowned night-heron nesting 

activity. Exelon does not propose to change existing project operation or maintenance, 

nor does it propose any recreation facilities on Rowland Island; therefore, it is likely that 

night-herons that presently forage within the project area would continue to do so. The 

TNC Flow Regime would result in more stable flows below the dam, which could 

improve night-heron habitat suitability. 

York Haven Power and Exelon did not observe the rough green snake during any 

non-targeted surveys in 2010 and 2011. Although potential habitat was identified in the 

Muddy Run Project, no rough green snakes were observed during Exelon’s targeted 

surveys at the Muddy Run Project. It is unlikely that this species would be affected by 

operation of the three projects. Project maintenance in suitable rough green snake habitat 

at the three projects has the potential to cause mortality to individuals, but based on the 

lack of observation, it is unlikely that maintenance would affect this species. Lastly, 

construction of staging areas for the York Haven Project’s nature-like fishway would not 

likely affect this species, as management practices to minimize impacts on wildlife 

during construction would be employed. 

Exelon did not observe the red-bellied turtle during any non-targeted surveys in 

2010 and 2011, nor has it been identified as occurring in the project areas. Although 

potential habitat was identified in the York Haven area, York Haven Power conducted 

protocol-level surveys and did not locate any turtles. Although project operation could 

affect red-bellied turtle habitat, because red-bellied turtles were not observed in the 

project area after a thorough search, this species would not likely be affected. 

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Review for Muddy Run 

Pennsylvania DEP filed with the Commission on June 9, 2014, a water quality 

certification for the Muddy Run Project, and filed a clarified version of the certification 

on December 10, 2014. The certification included a mandatory condition requiring 

Exelon to conduct an evaluation of all state and federal endangered or threatened species 

that may be present within the project boundary every 10 years, and to propose a plan and 

schedule for protection if its evaluation identifies the presence, critical habitat, or critical 

dependence of such species within the Muddy Run project boundary. 
253 

Over the course of any new license, the presence and locations of rare, threatened, 

and endangered species in the Muddy Run project boundary is likely to change. Exelon 

proposes to evaluate all state and federal endangered or threatened species that may be 

present within the project boundary once every 10 years through the term of the license. 

If the evaluation identifies the presence, critical habitat, or critical dependence of 

endangered species, Exelon would propose and, following approval, implement a plan to 

ensure protection of endangered or threatened species.

Although we agree that this measure would allow Exelon to continue to be aware 

of the current rare, threatened, and endangered species populations in the Muddy Run 

Project during the length of any license, the Commission typically includes in its licenses 

a standard license article with a fish and wildlife reopener provision that could be used to 

require changes to project facilities upon Commission motion or as recommended by the 

appropriate federal and state fish and wildlife agencies after notice and opportunity for 

hearing. This standard reopener provision retains authority for the Commission to 

implement any measures that may be needed to protect threatened or endangered species 

or other fish and wildlife resources over the term of any license issued for the project. 

3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 

3.3.4.1 Affected Environment 

In a letter filed January 4, 2007, Interior provided a list of federally listed species 

that may occur in the project area. Staff also referred to FWS’ website 

(http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/; accessed March 11, 2014, and May 12, 2014) to gather recent 

information on the potential presence of federally listed threatened and endangered 

species within the counties that contain the three projects, and contacted FWS and 

Maryland DNR regarding a bog turtle record close to Conowingo dam. Six federally 

listed species are known to occur in the vicinity of one or more of the projects: shortnose 

sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), 

bog turtle (Glyptemys [Clemmys] muhlenbergii), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), Delmarva 

Peninsula fox squirrel (Sciurus niger cinereus), and swamp pink (Helonias bullata). 

Aquatic Species

Shortnose Sturgeon 

The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is a federally listed (endangered)

species with a range along the Atlantic coast extending from New Brunswick, Canada, to 

Florida. NMFS recognizes 19 distinct population segments (DPSs) occurring in New 

Brunswick, Canada (1), Maine (2), Massachusetts (1), Connecticut (1), New York (1), 

New Jersey/Delaware (1), Maryland/Virginia (1), North Carolina (1), South Carolina (4), 

Georgia (4) and Florida (2). The species typically occurs in coastal tidal rivers and 

spawns in fresh water, sometimes moving substantial distances upstream. Shortnose 

sturgeon have been collected in the Connecticut River as far upstream as the Holyoke 
254 

Project, at RM 86. Shortnose sturgeon are not considered anadromous or strongly 

migratory but have been found in brackish and salt water, moving some distance from its 

natal stream (Scott and Crossman, 1973). It is a relatively small sturgeon, seldom 

reaching a length of greater than 35 inches and a weight of 8 or 9 pounds. The 

populations of shortnose sturgeon vary substantially over their range, and it is thought 

that they no longer occur in some tributary rivers to the Chesapeake Bay, including the 

Susquehanna. The nearby Delaware River, however, has been estimated to have a stable 

shortnose sturgeon population of from 10,000 to 20,000 fish, based on several population 

estimates. Delaware River fish are able to access the lower Susquehanna River via the 

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, which connects Delaware Bay to the upper 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Documented shortnose sturgeon occurrences in the Susquehanna River in recent 

years have been limited, with only a total of seven fish reported. Five fish were recorded 

in the tidal portion of the river from 1992 to 2004, and two fish were reportedly caught by 

anglers in the Conowingo tailrace in 1986. No shortnose sturgeon are known to have 

been collected or passed via the Conowingo fish lifts since they began operation in 1972 

(Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan, 2012l). An additional three shortnose sturgeon 

were collected in the upper Chesapeake Bay (Susquehanna Flats), but analysis of genetic 

samples found that the source of these fish was likely Delaware Bay. In 2010 and 2011, 

Exelon conducted monitoring for acoustically tagged shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon in 

the lower Susquehanna River downstream of Conowingo dam near Port Deposit and 

downstream of the I-95 bridge. The objective was to determine if any sturgeon 

acoustically tagged by other researchers in Chesapeake and Delaware bays made forays 

into the Susquehanna River. No tagged fish were recorded. 

Exelon assessed Susquehanna River shortnose sturgeon (and other species) habitat 

downstream of Conowingo dam in the 4.5-mile non-tidal reach ending just upstream of 

Port Deposit (Gomez and Sullivan Engineers and Normandeau Associates, 2012). 

Shortnose sturgeon was selected as one of the target species of special concern, and the 

analysis found that there is suitable habitat for all sturgeon life stages in this reach of the 

river at a range of flows modeled.

Atlantic Sturgeon

The Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) is also federally listed 

with a range along the Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida. NMFS recognizes five 

DPSs: Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic. 

Atlantic sturgeon are listed as threatened in the Gulf of Maine DPS and endangered in the 

remaining four DPSs. Atlantic sturgeon are considered an anadromous species, spawning 

in freshwater generally in the spring and early-summer and returning to estuarine or 

marine waters where they spend most of their lives. Atlantic sturgeon are believed to be 

present in 32 rivers along the Atlantic coast, with spawning occurring in 20 of those 

rivers. Atlantic sturgeon are larger in size than shortnose sturgeon, and may reach a 

length of 14 feet and up to 800 pounds 
255 

(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/atlanticsturgeon.htm#distribution, accessed 

March 7, 2014). 

Atlantic sturgeon are commonly reported in the Chesapeake Bay, particularly 

during the winter months, but none have been documented in the Susquehanna River. 

Undocumented anecdotal reports of Atlantic sturgeon in the Susquehanna River have 

been made, but none in recent years. As with shortnose sturgeon, there is evidence that 

Atlantic sturgeon may use the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal for movement between 

the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. No Atlantic sturgeon have been collected in the 

Conowingo dam fish lifts since beginning operations in 1972. Exelon’s instream flow 

study (Gomez and Sullivan Engineers and Normandeau Associates, 2012a) did not use 

Atlantic sturgeon as an evaluation species, but did include the species in the “deep slow” 

and “deep fast” habitat guilds, and found suitable habitat for all Atlantic sturgeon life 

stages in the lower Susquehanna River. 

Bog Turtle

The bog turtle (Glyptemys [Clemmys] muhlenbergii) is a federally listed species 

(threatened) that has been documented at the Muddy Run Project, and has the potential to 

occur at the York Haven and Conowingo Projects. The bog turtle was listed as 

threatened under the ESA in 1997. The bog turtle is also listed by Maryland DNR as a 

threatened species, and by Pennsylvania FBC as an endangered species. 

The bog turtle is native to the eastern United States and ranges from Georgia to the 

lower New England states. In Pennsylvania, extant populations of bog turtle are known 

from 14 counties (including Lancaster and York) located primarily in the southeastern 

quadrant of the Commonwealth. Bog turtle populations are also known from the vicinity 

of Conowingo dam in adjoining Harford County, Maryland. 

Bog turtles inhabit distinct types of headwater wetland habitats that include 

spring-fed hydrology and loose, saturated soils. Small spring-courses, rivulets, and 

shallow pockets of surface water typify the surface hydrology of bog turtle wetlands. 

Subterranean tunnels that access flowing groundwater are often used by bog turtles as 

hibernacula for winter brumation and as refugia during the hot summer months. Deep, 

loose, saturated soils (unofficially described as “mucky”, and not to be confused with 

muck) in which bog turtles can burrow are an important component of their habitat. Ideal 

bog turtle wetlands contain mostly emergent vegetation with open canopy (minimal 

woody species), though some shrubs and small trees may be scattered throughout. 

Bog turtles in Pennsylvania typically emerge from hibernation in March or early 

April, and return to hibernacula in late October to November, depending on weather 

conditions. Breeding occurs from late April through early June, with nesting in 

Pennsylvania occurring from June through early July. Turtles typically lay eggs within or 

on top of suitable vegetation such as sedges or sphagnum moss. Hatchlings emerge from 

the nest August through September and overwinter near their nest. 
256 

York Haven Project 

Although the York Haven Project is located within the range of the bog turtle, 

York Haven Power did not conduct specific surveys during its relicensing proceedings. 

Potential habitat for bog turtles may exist within the project boundary, mostly on the 

southern section of Three Mile Island within the relatively large wetland complexes, 

York Haven Power noted several small fringe riparian wetlands along the banks of the 

east channel and in isolated pockets below the main dam and headrace wall, but the 

frequent flooding of these wetlands during high-flow periods likely makes these habitats 

unsuitable for bog turtles. The wetland habitat located on Three Mile Island within the 

project boundary may provide habitat for bog turtles; however, no bog turtles were 

observed during the Eastern Redbelly Turtle Phase II Presence/Absence and Nesting 

Survey or any other surveys conducted in 2010 or 2011. York Haven Power indicates 

that it will conduct a bog turtle habitat assessment in the vicinity of the nature-like 

fishway during the 2014 field season. 

Muddy Run Project 

The Muddy Run Project is located within the range of the bog turtle. Exelon 

conducted studies during the spring and summer of 2010 and 2011 to identify potential 

habitat for herpetofaunal species within the Muddy Run Project area. Qualified 

biologists searched all land areas to identify potential habitats. Of the six wetlands 

identified within the project study area, four wetlands were not potential habitat and did 

not warrant further surveys, and two wetlands were potential habitat. Bog turtles were 

found to occupy one wetland within the project study area during surveys in June 2011. 

Conowingo Project 

According to the Muddy Run bog turtle report, bog turtles are known to exist in 

the vicinity of Conowingo dam in adjoining Harford County, Maryland. Exelon 

conducted surveys in 2008 and determined that none of the 31 wetlands surveyed around

Conowingo Pond contain suitable bog turtle habitat. As documented in telephone and email memoranda filed April 23, 2014, and June 9, 2014, FWS staff stated that a bog turtle 

was sighted close to Conowingo dam in 2013, and directed Commission staff to contact 

Maryland DNR for further information. On October 14, 2014, Exelon filed additional, 

privileged information it had previously received from Maryland DNR indicating that 

bog turtles have been found twice in the past 10 years in a wetland and a stream located 

near a project recreation area. 

Terrestrial Species 

Indiana Bat

The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) was originally listed as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. Currently, the Indiana bat is federally 

listed as endangered. This species, mainly dominant in Indiana, ranges from Florida 

north to Vermont and extending as far west as Eastern Oklahoma. It could potentially 
257 

occur throughout Pennsylvania. The Indiana bat is a temperate, insectivorous, migratory 

bat that hibernates colonially in caves and mines in the winter. Spring migration to new 

habitat happens from mid-March to mid-May. During spring months, females migrate, 

forming maternity colonies to raise their young in wooded areas. Males and nonreproductive females remain near their location for winter hibernation or migrate to 

summer habitat. Summer colony roosts are typically behind exfoliating bark of large, 

often dead, trees (typically >5 inches dbh) where individuals roost in similar smaller trees 

(as small as 3 inches dbh). Between mid-August and mid-October, males and females 

return to their dwelling to hibernate. During winter months, Indiana bats are restricted to 

underground dwelling, but during summer month’s female roosts seek out forested 

habitat. Roosting Indiana bats prefer the bark of dead trees that retain large, thick slabs 

of peeling bark, such as shagbark hickory and oaks, that are usually located within 

canopy gaps, along fence lines and wooded edges. Indiana bats typically roost in riparian 

zones, forested wetlands and upland communities, and forage along forested edges and 

within forested and riparian areas (FWS, 2007). 

Delmarva Peninsula Fox Squirrel

The Delmarva Peninsula fox squirrel (Sciurus niger cinereus) is federally listed as 

endangered. Historically, the fox squirrel was found within the eight counties in the 

Delmarva Peninsula of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, including Cecil County. 

Although SD1 indicated that the Delmarva Peninsula fox squirrel would be assessed, the 

FWS website indicates that this species is not currently known to occur in Cecil County, 

Maryland (FWS, 2014c). Therefore, we do not analyze it further in this document. 

Swamp Pink 

Swamp pink (Helonias bullata) is federally listed as a threatened plant species. 

New Jersey contains the majority of the remaining populations of the species; however, 

according to FWS, the species is known to occur or is believed to occur in Cecil County 

(FWS, 2014b). Swamp pink belongs to the lily family and is characterized by a hollow 

flower stem (1 to 3 feet tall), evergreen, lance shaped leaves that lay flat on the ground, 

and topped by a cluster of pink flowers (FWS, 2006). Swamp pink inhabits forested and 

scrub-shrub wetlands usually bordering meandering streamlets, headwater wetlands, and 

spring seepage areas, although swamp pink is limited to perennial saturated wetlands that 

are not inundated by floodwater. Ideal swamp pink habitat contains mainly shaded 

forested areas with the water close to surface level fluctuating little during the spring 

and summer. 

Because the swamp pink is not listed by FWS as occurring in the counties 

occupied by York Haven or Muddy Run Projects, these projects would have no effect on 

the species and it is not analyzed further in this document. Although Exelon did not 

conduct targeted swamp pink surveys at the Conowingo Project, and no swamp pink 

communities were incidentally observed during any of Exelon’s 2010 and 2011 field 
258 

survey activities, potential habitat may occur within the Conowingo Project area in 

forested wetland, riparian habitat along the river and reservoir edges and Rowland Island. 

Northern long-eared bat 

The northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is not currently federally 

listed, but has been proposed for listing under the ESA.113 In Pennsylvania, it is a 

candidate for listing as a rare species, but more information is needed before adequate 

management decisions can be made (PNHP, 2014). 

The northern long-eared bat’s range extends from Maine to North Carolina along 

the Atlantic coast, including the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the three projects. 

The northern long-eared bat historically occurred in Lancaster County based on pre-1980 

data, and currently occurs in York and Dauphin Counties based on data from 1980 to the 

present (PNHP, 2014). During winter hibernation, the northern long-eared bat dwells in 

underground caves and similar sites. Suitable roosting caves need large open space with 

cracks and crevices, cool temperature (32 to 48°F), high humidity, and low air 

movement. Spring migration to new habitat happens from mid-March to mid-May. 

During summer migration, roosting occurs underneath bark, cavities or hollows of trees 

or snags (typically greater than 3 inches diameter at breast height [dbh]), although 

occasional roosting in barns and sheds have occurred. Preferred roosting trees such as 

shagbark hickory and oaks usually display exfoliating bark, hollows, cavities, and 

crevices. The northern long-eared bat forages in lowland woods, along forest edges and 

in corridors, feeding on insects. Fall migration and the return to wintering habitat occur 

between mid-August and mid-October (FWS, 2014a). Neither York Haven Power nor 

Exelon conducted surveys for the northern long-eared bat and no entity requested that 

surveys be conducted. 

3.3.4.2 Environment Effects 

Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon

Both sturgeon species have been reported in the Chesapeake and Delaware bays, 

but neither species has been documented in the lower Susquehanna River or in the 

Conowingo tailrace, other than anecdotal reports. 

 

113 FWS has proposed to create a species-specific rule for the northern long-eared

bat under section 4(d) of the ESA if it deems listing as a threatened species is appropriate, 

and reopened the public comment period on its previous October 2, 2013, proposed rule 

to list the northern long-eared bat under the ESA as an endangered species. See 80 

Federal Register 2371 (January 16, 2015). 
259 

Our Analysis

Neither sturgeon species has any possibility of occurring near the York Haven 

Project, unless they were to pass upstream through the existing fish lifts at the 

Conowingo, Holtwood, and Safe Harbor Projects. None, however, have been recorded 

passing these projects since the fish lifts began volitional passage in 1997. No sturgeon, 

likewise, have ever been reported at the Conowingo fish lifts since they first began 

operations in 1972. Thus, we conclude that relicensing of the York Haven and Muddy 

Run Projects would have no effect on the shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon. While there is 

suitable habitat downstream of Conowingo for both species, only occasional individual 

shortnose sturgeon have been reported from the river below the dam, and there is no 

evidence of any recent occurrence of Atlantic sturgeon in the lower Susquehanna River. 

Therefore, continued operation of the Conowingo Project would not be likely to 

adversely affect either the shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon. NMFS concurred with our no 

effect determination for shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon for the York Haven and 

Muddy Run Projects, by letter filed September 23, 2014, but has not yet concurred with 

our determination for the Conowingo Project. 

Bog Turtle

No bog turtles are known to occur within the York Haven project area. 

Nevertheless, there is potential habitat in the vicinity of the proposed nature-like fishway 

and construction activities could affect any turtles occupying that area. As bog turtles 

have been confirmed within the Muddy Run Project area, recreation and maintenance 

activities that occur within the Muddy Run Project boundary have the potential disturb 

bog turtles or habitat. Interior, in its January 31, 2014, letter, states that bog turtles and 

habitat are present near Conowingo dam. 

York Haven Power proposes to conduct bog turtle surveys at the proposed naturelike fishway site during the 2014 field season. York Haven Power would provide the 

results of the field studies to applicable agencies for review and adhere to any provisions 

contained in state or federal wetland permitting and NPDES permitting. In addition, 

Interior commented that York Haven Power should contact the FWS Pennsylvania Field 

Office prior to any land-clearing activity. 

Exelon proposes, and Interior recommends, the finalization and implementation of 

the Bog Turtle Management Plan for the Muddy Run Project, in consultation with FWS 

and Pennsylvania FBC. Both the Exelon proposed and the Interior recommended Bog 

Turtle Management Plan would include three components: (1) restriction of mowing in 

the wetland documented to support bog turtles; (2) invasive plant and woody plant 

control, particularly for reed canary grass; and (3) possible limits on public access to the 

wetland without advertising the reason. In its January 7, 2015, letter, FWS’ Pennsylvania 

Field Office recommends that the restrictions for mowing areas C, D, and F in the Bog 

Turtle Management Plan be revised to state “avoid mowing April to October during the 

turtle’s active period.” 
260 

Exelon does not propose any specific bog turtle measures at the Conowingo 

Project. Interior recommends under section 10(j) that Exelon develop and implement a 

bog turtle management plan in consultation with FWS, Pennsylvania FBC, and Maryland 

DNR as appropriate. The bog turtle management plan would include three components: 

(1) restriction of mowing in the wetland documented to support bog turtles; (2) invasive 

plant and woody plant control, particularly for reed canary grass; and (3) possible limits 

on public access to the wetland without advertising the reason. 

In its response to Interior’s 10(j) recommendation at the Conowingo Project, 

Exelon indicates that no study requests were made at the Conowingo Project for bog 

turtle and therefore it cannot respond to Interior’s statement that the bog turtle is known 

in the project area. Exelon indicates that if there is a known bog turtle record in the 

Conowingo Project area, the record information and a study request should have been 

provided by Interior during the relicensing study plan development process. 

Our Analysis

York Haven Project 

Bog turtles are not known to occur at the York Haven Project. However, 

construction of the nature-like fishway has the potential to affect potential bog turtle 

individuals and habitat located on Three Mile Island. According to the January 30, 2014, 

Settlement Agreement for the York Haven Project, York Haven Power has agreed to 

conduct bog turtle habitat assessments and surveys prior to construction to determine if 

bog turtles exist in this area. York Haven also proposes to consult with FWS and 

Pennsylvania FBC, and adhere to any protection or mitigation measures recommended by 

the agencies, such as time of year restrictions or pre-construction exclusion surveys, as 

part of required permits. Therefore, by following the above measures, construction of the 

nature-like fishway at the York Haven Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect, the bog turtle. In its letter filed January 7, 2015, FWS’ Pennsylvania Field Office 

agreed with our finding that project impacts in this area are not likely to adversely affect 

this species within the majority of the project boundary, and that once it receives and 

reviews York Haven Power’s bog turtle habitat assessment for the proposed nature-like 

fishway, “...it will make an effects determination for this portion of the project.” 

Muddy Run Project 

Recreational and maintenance activities that occur within the Muddy Run Project 

boundary could affect known bog turtles if protection measures are not implemented. 

Maintained trails currently traverse the habitat, increasing accessibility to the area and the 

potential for habitat disturbance. These recreation trails would continue to be used in the 

same manner under any new license for the project. Exelon’s proposed Bog Turtle 

Management Plan includes measures to prevent the public from veering off the trails and 

protocols for maintaining the habitat and trails. In addition, invasive species such as reed 

canary grass and mowing in the bog turtle wetland during the bog turtle’s most active 

time could decrease the habitat quality and affect the bog turtle population health. In its 
261 

letter filed January 7, 2015, FWS’ Pennsylvania Field Office recommended that Exelon’s 

plan be changed to increase the time restriction in mowing areas C, D, and F to be 

between April and October, as opposed to the April and June period in the plan. 

Although Exelon’s plan would ensure that invasive species are controlled in the area and 

bog turtles are not affected by vegetation management during the emergence and 

breeding season, including FWS’ extended mowing time restriction until October for 

areas C, D, and F would extend this protection through the bog turtle’s active season. If 

the Exelon-proposed and Interior-recommended Bog Turtle Management Plan is 

developed and implemented by Exelon, in consultation with FWS and Pennsylvania 

FBC, it would protect the turtle by restricting access to the area, restricting mowing, and 

controlling invasive species. Through implementation of the Bog Turtle Management 

Plan, in consultation with FWS and Pennsylvania FBC, the Muddy Run Project would be 

not likely to adversely affect the species. In a letter filed on January 7, 2015, FWS’ 

Pennsylvania Field Office concurred with our finding, provided that its modified mowing 

restrictions are included in Exelon’s Bog Turtle Management Plan. 

Conowingo Project 

During relicensing investigations, Exelon determined that none of the 31 wetlands 

surveyed in 2008 at Conowingo Pond contained potential bog turtle habitat and neither 

Interior, nor Maryland DNR, nor Pennsylvania FBC requested further bog turtle studies. 

In its January 31, 2014, terms and prescriptions letter, Interior states that “[a] survey for 

bog turtle habitat and bog turtles has confirmed their presence near the dam.” According 

to the April 23, 2014, and June 9, 2014, telephone and e-mail memoranda, FWS stated 

that the bog turtle sighting was “close” to Conowingo dam. On October 14, 2014, Exelon 

filed additional, privileged information it had previously received from Maryland DNR 

indicating that bog turtles have been found in a wetland and a stream located near a 

project recreation area twice in the past 10 years. If Exelon develops and implements 

Interior’s recommended bog turtle management plan, in consultation with FWS and 

Maryland DNR, it would protect the turtle by restricting access to the area, restricting 

mowing, and controlling invasive species. Through implementation of a bog turtle 

management plan, in consultation with FWS and Maryland DNR, the Conowingo Project 

would not be likely to adversely affect the species. In a letter filed on January 7, 2015, 

FWS’ Chesapeake Bay Field Office concurred with our finding. 

Indiana Bat 

All three project areas are located within the range of the Indiana bat. Project 

maintenance, such as cutting trees over 5 inches dbh, could affect the Indiana bat by 

removing potential roosting habitat or causing direct mortality during roosting season. 

Neither York Haven Power nor Exelon proposed any measures directly related to 

the Indiana bat. In addition, no resource agency or other stakeholder recommended any 

Indiana bat measures. In its terms and conditions letters for the three projects, Interior 

did not identify the Indiana bat as species of concern in any of the three project areas. 
262 

Our Analysis 

Although potential habitat may exist within the three project areas, along the 

riparian forested edges of the river and reservoirs, and forested edges along transmission 

line rights-of-way and recreational areas, neither York Haven Power nor Exelon propose 

any activities that would result in more than a minimal amount of tree clearing. At the 

Muddy Run Project, continued routine vegetation management practices, such as 

trimming and herbicide application, would be unlikely to affect trees large enough to 

provide roosting habitat. Therefore, York Haven, Muddy Run, and Conowingo Projects 

would not be likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat. In letters filed January 7, 2015, 

the FWS’ Pennsylvania Field Office and Chesapeake Bay Field Office concurred with 

our findings for all three projects. 

Swamp Pink

Although the swamp pink is known or is believed to occur in Cecil County, where 

the Conowingo Project is partly located, the FWS Information, Planning, and 

Conservation System website (FWS, 2014c) indicates that swamp pink has not been 

documented within the specific project area. Because this species does not appear to 

occur in the immediate project area, the Conowingo Project would have no effect on the 

swamp pink. 

Northern Long-eared Bat 

Although potential roosting and foraging habitat for the northern long-eared bat 

exists within the three project areas, along the riparian forested edges of the river and 

reservoirs, and forested edges along transmission line rights-of-way and recreational 

areas, neither York Haven Power nor Exelon propose any activities that would result in 

more than a minimal amount of tree clearing. Continued vegetation management 

practices, such as trimming and herbicide application, would be unlikely to affect trees 

large enough to provide roosting habitat for bats. Therefore, the York Haven, Muddy 

Run, and Conowingo Projects are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 

northern long-eared bat. In letters filed on January 7, 2015, the FWS’ Pennsylvania Field 

Office stated that: (1) it would be available to discuss potential conservation measures 

for the York Haven Project114; and (2) as continued routine vegetation management at the 

Muddy Run Project would be unlikely to affect trees large enough to provide suitable 

 

114 If FWS lists the northern long-eared bat for protection under the ESA, further 

consultation may be necessary to determine if the York Haven Project, specifically 

construction of the proposed nature-like fishway, would be likely to adversely affect the 

northern long-eared bat. However, as of the date of this final EIS, FWS’ Pennsylvania 

Field Office has not disagreed with our finding that the York Haven Project is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of the northern long-eared bat. 
263 

habitat, the Muddy Run Project is not likely to adversely affect the northern long-eared 

bat. In a letter filed on the same day, FWS’ Chesapeake Bay Field Office stated that, as 

long as the current or future activities at the Conowingo Project do not involve any tree 

clearing, it would not anticipate any effects on the northern long-eared bat. 

3.3.5 Recreation and Land Use Resources 

3.3.5.1 Affected Environment

Regional Resources

Recreation resources in the region provide a full range of activities, including 

boating, canoeing, swimming, fishing, water sports, hiking, camping, hunting, biking, 

and nature viewing. Lakes and reservoirs in the region, including the project reservoirs, 

provide a variety of recreation opportunities and varying levels of developed facilities for 

overnight and day-use activities. Paved roads and boat launches in the area provide 

opportunities for motorized boat use. The varying physical characteristics of the area 

provide for diverse recreational opportunities. 

Safe Harbor and Holtwood hydroelectric reservoirs are located downstream of 

York Haven and upstream of Conowingo and Muddy Run. These FERC-licensed 

projects provide water-oriented recreation opportunities such as fishing, boating, 

swimming, and nature viewing that are similar to those offered at the projects analyzed in 

this document. 

Susquehannock State Park is located on the eastern shore of Conowingo Pond 

downstream of the Muddy Run powerhouse, adjacent to the Muddy Run Project 

boundary and just outside the Conowingo Project boundary. The park is about 224 acres 

and offers recreational opportunities including scenic views from the 380-foot-high cliffs 

that overlook the river, picnicking, hiking/walking and horseback riding trails, and 

organized group overnight camping. 

The lower section of the Susquehanna River Water Trail (see 

http://www.susquehannawatertrail.org/) extends from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to the 

Broad Creek Public Landing just below the Pennsylvania/Maryland state line (about 

53 miles) and is part of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network and a 

designated National Recreation Trail. 

Ferncliff Wildflower and Wildlife Preserve in Lancaster County is a designated 

National Park Service National Natural Landmark.115 The preserve is located on the east 

 

115 The National Landmark Program is administered by the National Park Service 

and recognizes and supports the voluntary conservation of outstanding geological and 

biological sites, regardless of ownership. Land acquisition by the federal government is 

not a goal of the program. 
264 

side of Conowingo Pond across from the PBAPS and encompasses old growth forest and 

wooded ravines home to plants common to the region. The preserve was established in 

1972 due to the exceptional old growth forest and seasonal wildflowers at this 65-acre 

site, which has a short (0.62-mile) hiking trail for visitors. The preserve lands are 

privately owned and open to the public. 

The Mason-Dixon Trail is a 193-mile-long trail that connects the Appalachian 

Trail with the Brandywine Trail. The trail begins in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 

travels east towards the Susquehanna River where it follows the western shoreline south 

to Havre de Grace before heading across the river and north to its terminus at Chadds 

Ford, Pennsylvania. The Appalachian Trail is a 2,180-mile-long continuously marked 

footpath along the crests and valleys of the Appalachian mountain range from Springer 

Mountain, Georgia, to Katahdin, Maine. The Brandywine Trail is a 36-mile-long trail 

along the East Branch of Brandywine Creek and the Brandywine River in Delaware. 

Sections of the Mason-Dixon Trail cross Exelon-owned land. 

The Conestoga Trail is a 61-mile-long trail that begins in Furnace Hills where it 

intersects with the Horse-Shoe Trail, before meandering throughout Lancaster County, 

Pennsylvania and reaching its terminus with the Mason-Dixon Trail. Near the Muddy 

Run Project, the trail travels near the northwestern section of the Muddy Run WMA, 

before travelling across Holtwood Road, Route 372, to intersect with the MasonDixon Trail. 

Public Recreation Sites around the Projects 

York Haven Project 

Recreation facilities available at the York Haven Project include boat launches, 

fishing platforms, a portage trail, nature trails, and day-use areas with picnic facilities, 

ball courts, and a catwalk fishing platform on the side of the powerhouse. Lake Frederic 

contains five significant islands (Battery, Beshore, Goodling, Goosehorn, and Shelley) 

with picnic facilities and nature trails provided and maintained by York Haven Power. 

Beshore Island currently only includes York Haven Power-licensed recreational lot sites 

and a boat launch. In addition, Lake Frederic contains several smaller islands that do not 

have facilities, but may be accessed by boaters. Camping and overnight use of the 

islands outside a recreational lot lease is prohibited. None of the publicly available 

recreation sites accommodate overnight use. Fishing platforms are provided in the 

headrace and tailrace areas. The tailrace fishing access is located on a walkway along the 

downstream face of the powerhouse. The land immediately adjacent to the York Haven 

Project powerhouse provides a playground and picnic facilities as well as tennis and 

basketball courts and ample parking. A 0.25-mile portage trail is provided on the right 

bank at this location. 

There are five boat launches within the project boundary owned and operated by 

York Haven Power or public entities: Newberry Township Boat Launch, Beshore Island 

Boat Launch, Goldsboro Borough Boat Launch, Pennsylvania FBC Boat Launch, and the 
265 

East Shore Boat Launch (figure 3-18). Additionally, the Falmouth Boat Launch, owned 

and operated by Pennsylvania FBC, is located on the eastern shore of the Susquehanna 

River, downstream of the dam and across the river from the powerhouse. Although this 

boat launch is located outside of the project boundary, it often is used to gain access to 

the project spillway and tailrace. Three privately owned marinas and boat launches are 

also present along the shoreline of Lake Frederic. Fuel is available at Goldsboro Marina, 

Tri County Boat Club, and the Riverside Marina. Table 3-31 summarizes the recreation 

sites at the York Haven Project.

Muddy Run Project 

At the Muddy Run Project, existing formal recreation opportunities include the 

Muddy Run Park and Campground, Wissler’s Run Park, and Muddy Run WMA 

(figure 3-19). Exelon owns all of the lands used for recreation at the Muddy Run Project, 

and leases the operation of Muddy Run Park and Campground and the Muddy Run WMA 

to other parties. Exelon reports two informal recreation areas exist within the Muddy 

Run Project boundary. These are areas without developed recreation infrastructure and 

are not managed or maintained as such by any entity. The sites provide fishing access or 

informal boat launch access to the project. 

The 800-acre Muddy Run Park and Campground is in the northern section of the 

project boundary. Within the park is the 100-acre Recreation Lake, separated from the 

Muddy Run reservoir by a dam and concrete sill that maintains a stable water elevation. 

The park is operated by a vendor, and the developed portion of the park includes 

overnight and day-use facilities. A 189-site campground with showers, playgrounds, 

covered picnic pavilions, and many other amenities is located on the northern shore of the 

Recreation Lake. The park also provides numerous separate facilities including picnic 

areas, trails, an outdoor amphitheater, ball field, sport courts, restrooms, wildlife viewing 

areas, and shoreline fishing opportunities. Boat rentals (canoes, kayaks, paddleboats, 

rowboats) are available at the park, as well as a boat ramp for visitors to launch their own 

boats. Gasoline-powered boats, swimming, and wading are not allowed in the Recreation 

Lake. A visitor’s information center contains displays (static and interactive) and 

meeting rooms. The center also is used for park-related programs and rental functions. 

Table 3-32 summarizes the recreation facilities associated with the Muddy Run Project. 

Wissler’s Run is located on the eastern shore of Conowingo Pond just downstream 

of the Muddy Run powerhouse. The park provides a large green open space area for 

picnicking, bank fishing, and an overlook of the upper Conowingo Pond and islands. The 

site also includes a non-functioning fish cleaning station. A paved 130-space parking lot 

services the site. The Muddy Run WMA surrounds the southern portion of the Muddy 

Run reservoir. The 800-acre site is leased to Pennsylvania Game Commission and 

managed to provide food and cover for wildlife, which in turn promotes hunting and 

wildlife viewing opportunities. Two gravel parking areas provide vehicle access to the 

WMA while additional management roads and trails provide access for hunters, hikers, 

birders, and equestrians. 
266 

Figure 3-18. York Haven Project recreation facilities (Source: York Haven Power, 

2012, as modified by staff).
267 

Table 3-31. Recreation sites at the York Haven Project (Source: York Haven 

Power, 2012, as modified by staff).

Site Name Owner

Project 

Facility

Facilities and 

Opportunities

Annual 

Estimated Usea

(Historic) Canal Lock York Haven 

Power

Yes Abandoned canal lock, 

picnic area

596

East Shore Boat 

Launch

York Haven 

Power

Yes Boat launch, trail, picnic 

area

1,580

Goosehorn Island 

Picnic Area

York Haven 

Power

Yes Picnic area 3,908

Shelley Island 

Recreation Area

York Haven 

Power

Yes Recreational lots, picnic 

area, interpretive display, 

nature trail, historic 

cemetery

123

Goodling Island York Haven 

Power

Yes Picnic Area 740

Pennsylvania FBC 

Boat Launch

Pennsylvania 

FBC

No Boat launch 6,903

Goldsboro Borough 

Boat Launch

Goldsboro 

Borough

No Boat launch 235

Beshore Island 

Recreation Area

York Haven 

Power

Yes Recreational lot sites not applicable

Battery Island 

Recreation Area

York Haven 

Power

Yes Picnic area 1,292

Newberry Township 

Boat Launch (Falls 

Landing)

Newberry 

Township

No Boat launch 1,006

Cly Shore York Haven 

Power

Yes Recreational lot sites not applicable

York Haven Power 

Plant Recreation Area

York Haven 

Power

Yes Visitor’s center, fishing 

pier, tailwater fishing, 

playground, picnic area, 

sport court

944

Canoe Portage Trail York Haven 

Power

Yes Canoe portage 28

a Estimated from spot counts conducted over 32 days throughout the year; estimate 

presented is the highest recorded number of visitors to each site observed during all 

visits to each site.
268 

Figure 3-19. Muddy Run Project recreation facilities (Source: Exelon, 2012a, as 

modified by staff). 
269 

Table 3-32. Recreation facilities in the Muddy Run Project area (Source: Exelon, 

2012a, as modified by staff).

Site Name Owner Project 

Facility

Facilities and 

Opportunities

Annual 

Estimated Use

Muddy Run Park 

and Campground

Exelon 

(leased to 

vendor)

Yes Camping, 

picnicking, fishing, 

boating (electric 

motor only), 

playgrounds, 

sports fields and 

courts, etc.

254,000a

Wissler’s Run Exelon Yes Fishing, 

picnicking, 

wildlife/nature 

viewing

5,800b

Muddy Run 

WMA

Exelon 

(leased to 

Pennsylvania 

Game 

Commission)

Yes Hunting, wildlife 

viewing, hiking 

and horseback 

riding

7,500b

a Estimated from a combination of data supplied by facility operator, traffic counts, and 

spot counts over 12 months.

b Estimated from spot counts recorded 6 days a month for 12 months.

Within the Muddy Run Project, the Mason-Dixon Trail crosses the transmission 

parcels located in York County, and travels near several recreation sites in the 

Conowingo Project. Exelon entered into a license agreement with the Mason-Dixon Trail 

System, Inc., allowing sections of the trail to be located on Muddy Run Project land. 

Conowingo Project 

The Conowingo Project is the most downstream of the FERC projects on the 

Susquehanna River and offers a large component of recreation opportunities in the lower 

Susquehanna River. There are 15 project recreation public access areas (see figure 3-20). 

Table 3-33 summarizes the public recreation facilities associated with the Conowingo 

Project. Exelon also identifies numerous informal access points around the reservoir and 

downstream of the dam. 

Lock 13 is located at the site of the Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal Lock 13. 

The facility is maintained in a primitive state with no public amenities or interpretive 

improvements. Lock 13 is owned and managed by Exelon, but is accessed from the PPL 

Holtwood LLC Lock 12 parking lot (Holtwood Project, FERC No. 1881) via the Mason- 
270 

Dixon Trail. Recreation opportunities at Lock 13 include the Mason-Dixon trail and 

shoreline fishing.

Lock 15 is owned and operated by Exelon as a day-use and interpretive area. The 

site has a 36-space gravel parking lot and portable restrooms, and offers picnicking and 

shoreline fishing opportunities. There are interpretive signs on-site that describe the 

Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal system, how the lock worked, and the history of the 

site. A pathway connects the picnic area with the Muddy Creek Boat Launch 

immediately downstream. The Mason-Dixon Trail runs through the site and connects 

Lock 15 with Lock 13 to the north and Muddy Creek Boat Launch to the south.

Muddy Creek Boat Launch is owned by Exelon and leased and operated by 

Pennsylvania FBC. The facility provides shoreline fishing access, a 20-foot-wide hard 

surface ramp, courtesy docks, and portable toilets. The site is serviced by a paved 

parking lot (44 boat trailer spaces and 26 vehicle spaces) and used by both power boaters 

and car-top boaters. The Mason-Dixon Trail connects the site to the Lock 15 

interpretive area.

Cold Cabin Boat Launch is owned by Exelon and managed by Peach Bottom 

Township, which developed the recreation facilities. Amenities include a 12-foot-wide 

hard surface boat launch, informal parking for approximately five vehicles, and a small 

picnic area. The Mason-Dixon Trail passes through this site.

Dorsey Park Boat Launch is located just upstream of PBAPS. Although the 

majority of the site is located outside of the project boundary, the boat ramps extend into 

and provide access to project waters. The site, which is owned and operated by Exelon, 

includes boat launching, shoreline fishing, and picnicking opportunities with several 

tables and grills. Amenities include two 32-foot-wide boat ramps, courtesy docks, a 

paved parking lot (25 boat trailer spaces and 30 vehicle spaces), portable toilets, picnic 

tables, and grills.

Peach Bottom Marina is owned by Exelon and operated by a commercial 

contractor. The marina offers boat launching, shoreline fishing, and picnicking 

opportunities. The facility amenities include a 25-foot-wide boat hard surface ramp, a 

paved parking area (17 boat trailer spaces and 33 vehicle spaces), boater courtesy docks, 

tie-up rental space, boat storage, repair shop, portable toilet, fueling facilities, and picnic 

tables. There is a launch fee charged to use the ramp. The marina is located on Peters 

Creek, a tributary on the east side of Conowingo Pond. The Norfolk Southern rail line 

extends along the entire east shore of the pond and access to/from the marina requires 

boating under the train trestle spanning Peters Creek. 

The Line Bridge Access site is owned by Exelon and managed and maintained by 

Harford County under an agreement with Exelon. The property provides informal 

shoreline access, a three car parking area, and an unimproved carry-in boat access area. 
271 

Figure 3-20. Conowingo Project recreation facilities (Source: Exelon, 2012b, as 

modified by staff). 
272 

Table 3-33. Recreation facilities in the existing Conowingo Project boundary 

(Source: Exelon, 2012b, as modified by staff). 

Site Name Owner

Project 

Facility

Facilities and 

Opportunities

Annual 

Estimated Usea

Lock 13 Exelon Yes Unrestored site 

with no public 

amenities or 

interpretive 

improvements

782

Lock 15 Exelon Yes Interpretive 

displays, picnic 

tables, bank 

fishing

13,066

Muddy Creek 

Boat Launch

Exelon (leased to 

Pennsylvania 

FBC)

Yes Boat ramp, 

courtesy docks, 

and interpretive 

panels

38,742

Cold Cabin Boat 

Launch

Exelon (leased to 

Peach Bottom 

Township)

Yes Boat ramp, picnic 

tables, and 

interpretive sign

11,968

Dorsey Park Exelon (as part 

of Peach Bottom 

Nuclear Station)

Yes Boat ramp, picnic 

tables, grills, 

benches, and 

interpretive signs

16,706

Peach Bottom 

Marina

Exelon (operated 

by commercial 

operator)

Yes Boat ramp, docks, 

fuel, and boat 

maintenance

538

Line Bridge Exelon (leased to 

Harford County)

Yes Informal 

shoreline access; 

hand launch

5,789

Broad Creek 

Public Landing

Exelon (leased to 

Harford County, 

Maryland)

Yes Boat ramp and 

courtesy dock, 

small open space 

for day use

10,138

Conowingo 

Creek Boat 

Launch

Exelon Yes Boat ramp, 

courtesy dock

10,594
273 

Site Name Owner

Project 

Facility

Facilities and 

Opportunities

Annual 

Estimated Usea

Glen Cove 

Marina

Exelon (operated 

by commercial 

operator)

Yes Boat ramp, docks, 

picnic area, fuel, 

repair services, 

store and boat 

slips. Also serves 

as the take out for 

the Conowingo 

dam portage.

707

Funk’s Pond Exelon Yes Shoreline fishing, 

picnic area, and 

pedestrian trail

4,380

Conowingo 

Swimming Pool 

and Visitors 

Center

Exelon (operated 

by commercial 

operator)

Yes Swimming pools, 

picnic tables, 

restrooms, 

playground, and 

visitor center

8,471

Conowingo Dam 

Overlook

Exelon Yes Picnic tables and 

view of the 

powerhouse and 

dam

closed during 

study period

Fisherman’s 

Park/Shures 

Landing

Exelon Yes Shoreline and 

platform fishing, 

carry-in boat 

launch, 

observation areas, 

picnic areas

141,580

Octoraro Creek 

Access

Exelon Yes Creekside trail 

connecting to 

Susquehanna 

River, 

informational 

kiosk

7,485
274 

Site Name Owner

Project 

Facility

Facilities and 

Opportunities

Annual 

Estimated Usea

3.5 miles of 

Mason-Dixon 

Trail

Exelon (managed 

and maintained 

by Mason-Dixon 

Trail System, 

Inc.)

No Trail passes 

through Lock 13, 

Lock 15, Muddy 

Creek, Cold 

Cabin, Broad 

Creek, Glen 

Cove, Swimming 

Pool/Visitors 

Center, and 

Fisherman’s 

Park)

No estimate 

available

Lower 

Susquehanna 

Heritage 

Greenway Trail

Exelon (leased to 

State of 

Maryland)

No Paved trail from 

Fisherman’s Park 

to Deer Creek, 

collocated with 

Mason Dixon 

Trail, benches, 

tables, 

interpretive 

displays, and 

boardwalk

No estimate 

available

Susquehanna 

State Park

Exelon (leased to 

State of 

Maryland)

No Camping, 

picnicking, 

shoreline fishing, 

walking trails, 

boat ramps, 

playgrounds, bike 

and equestrian 

riding trails, 

hunting area and 

an archery range

No estimate 

available

Deer Creek 

Access

Part of 

Susquehanna 

State Park

No Informal car top 

boat launch, 

parking and 

shoreline access

No estimate 

available
275 

Site Name Owner

Project 

Facility

Facilities and 

Opportunities

Annual 

Estimated Usea

Lapidum Boat 

Launch

Part of 

Susquehanna 

State Park

No Boat ramp, 

parking, 

restrooms, 

interpretive 

displays

No estimate 

available

McLhinney Park Exelon (leased to 

City of Havre de 

Grace)

No Playground, 

picnic area, 

restrooms, green 

space and nonmotorized trails

No estimate 

available

a Estimated from one or a combination of methods depending on the type of site and 

could include spot counts, traffic counters, or facility operator records recorded over 

12 months. 

The Broad Creek Public Landing is owned by Exelon and managed and 

maintained by Harford County under agreement with Exelon. The facility provides a 

hard surface boat launch, small dock, shoreline fishing opportunities, and parking for four 

vehicles. A 33-space boat trailer off-site parking lot was constructed on nearby Paddrick 

Road due to the steep terrain and limited parking available at the boat launch site. The 

Mason-Dixon Trail extends through this site. 

The Conowingo Creek boat launch is owned and operated by Exelon. The facility 

provides an 80-foot-wide hard surface boat ramp, two parking areas (one for 9 boat 

trailers and one for 10 vehicles), a small picnic area and shoreline fishing opportunities. 

The site is located on Conowingo Creek, a tributary on the east side of Conowingo Pond. 

The Norfolk Southern rail line extends along the entire east shore of the pond and access 

to/from the ramp requires passing under the train trestle spanning Conowingo Creek. 

Glen Cove Marina is owned by Exelon and operated by a commercial contractor. 

Recreation opportunities include boat launching and picnicking. Facility amenities 

include a hard surface boat ramp, boat slips, portable toilets, fueling facilities, picnic 

tables, and parking for 16 boat trailers and 20 vehicles. There is a launch fee charged to 

use the ramp. The operator also provides repair services and a small onsite store. This 

facility also serves as the take-out for the Conowingo dam canoe portage. The MasonDixon Trail runs through the site.

Funk’s Pond is a small inlet separated from Conowingo Pond by the Norfolk 

Southern rail line. The “pond” is within the project boundary and accessed from a 

24-vehicle parking lot and trail on adjacent non-project land. The site is owned and 

operated by Exelon. The site provides a non-motorized, 0.45-mile trail, picnicking and 

shoreline fishing opportunities.
276 

The Conowingo swimming pool complex and Visitor’s Center are located just 

upstream of Conowingo dam on U.S. Route 1. The Conowingo swimming pool complex 

is owned by Exelon and operated by a commercial contractor. Pool facilities include a 

swimming pool, wading pool, playground area, picnic area, concession stand, and 

changing/restrooms. The pool is open 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. from May to September, 

and users are charged an entrance fee. The Visitor’s Center contains informational 

displays and brochures, restrooms, conference rooms, and office space for the Lower 

Susquehanna Heritage Greenway. The center is owned, operated, and staffed by Exelon. 

A small picnic area is also provided. A 213-space paved parking lot is shared by these 

two facilities. The Mason-Dixon Trail extends through the site. 

Fisherman’s Park is located on the western shore of the Susquehanna River 

immediately downstream of Conowingo dam and powerhouse. Fisherman’s Park is 

owned and operated by Exelon and is a popular fishing and bird watching area. 

Amenities at the park include shoreline and platform fishing, a carry-in boat launch 

(Shure’s Landing), observation areas, portable toilets, picnic areas, and scenic views. 

This area also serves as a trailhead for the Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway Trail 

to Deer Creek and a wildflower viewing area. There is a 124-space paved vehicle 

parking lot, a 14-space paved boat trailer parking lot, and a 12-vehicle gravel parking lot 

associated with this site. The fishing platform is accessible to persons with disabilities. 

The Mason-Dixon Trail passes through the lower part of the parking lot. The park is 

open 1 hour before sunrise to 1 hour after sunset. 

Exelon investigated tributary access to the main reservoir between full pond 

(109.2 feet) and the minimum weekend recreation pool level (107.2 feet) between 

Memorial Day and Labor Day. Exelon reported that five tributaries provide recreational 

value; four due to the presence of public boat launch facilities, all of which are also 

commercial marinas (Peters Creek/Peach Bottom Marina, Conowingo Creek, Glen Cove, 

and Broad Creek). The fifth tributary, Muddy Creek, provides recreation value due to its 

large size.

Shallow water depths due to sediment accumulation limit boat launch egress and 

ingress at Peters Creek (Peach Bottom Marina), Conowingo Creek, and Broad Creek. 

The minimum recreation pool elevation is 107.2 feet. During a field reconnaissance of 

navigability conducted in August 2012 when the pool elevation ranged between 107.32 to 

107.64 feet, Exelon documented that the boat launch and areas immediately surrounding 

the ramp at Broad Creek were not usable for motorized boats due to the shallow water 

and dense vegetation. Water depths leading to the boat launch were generally 2 feet with 

areas near the launch being less than 1 foot. At Conowingo Creek, water depths in the 

main channel were 4.5 feet and 2 feet in the vicinity of the boat launch. At Peters Creek, 

water depths were 4 to 5 feet in the main channel and zero at mud flats exposed at the 

time of the survey. 

Exelon concluded that pond elevations do influence boat access at three of the four 

tributary boat launches. At full pond, boats higher than 5.2 feet above the water cannot 
277 

navigate under the railroad bridge at Peters Creek. Similarly, boats higher than 4.9 feet 

cannot navigate under the railroad bridge at Conowingo Creek. Conversely, the 

minimum weekend recreation season elevation is too shallow to launch a boat limiting 

access from three tributary launches: Peters Creek, Conowingo Creek, and Broad Creek 

ramps. In addition, dense beds of SAV hamper the approach for boaters attempting to 

use these ramps at elevations of 107.2 feet or less. When Conowingo Pond elevation 

reaches 105.9 feet, boat access is denied at three of the four tributary boat launches. 

Recreation in the River Downstream 

York Haven Project 

Pennsylvania FBC owns and operates the Falmouth Boat Launch located across 

from the York Haven powerhouse on the east shore of the Susquehanna River. The 

launch is outside the project boundary but provides water access, albeit shallow, to the 

bypassed reach, project spillway, and tailrace areas, as well as points further downstream 

within the Safe Harbor reservoir.

Conowingo Project

The Conowingo Project boundary extends 2.5 miles downstream of the dam along 

the east bank of the river and 0.5 mile downstream along the west bank of the river. In 

addition to Fisherman’s Park/Shures Landing, access to the river below the dam within 

the project boundary is provided at the Octoraro Creek Access on the east bank and 

Susquehanna State Park on the west bank. Land based, non-project recreation exists 

further downstream along the Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway, which provides 

trails and informal access points to the river. Access to the Susquehanna River also is 

available at non-project public launch and commercial marinas downstream of 

Conowingo dam. Public access is provided at Deer Creek Access about 3 miles 

downstream of the dam, Lapidum boat launch, within Susquehanna State Park, about 

5 miles downstream of the dam, in Port Deposit, Maryland, across the river from 

Lapidum boat launch, and McLhinney Park (or North Park) in Havre de Grace, which 

provides shoreline fishing and other predominantly passive recreational opportunities. 

Recreation Use

York Haven Project

York Haven Power estimates that the York Haven Project supported more than 

17,000 recreation days116 during the 2008-2009 sampling season. The greatest use occurs 

during weekends during the late May through early September, peak season. The 

 

116 A recreation day is considered each visit by a person to a development for 

recreational purposes during any portion of a 24- hour period. 
278 

Goldsboro Borough Boat Launch was the most visited recreation site (see table 3-31). 

York Haven Power reports that an overwhelming majority of visitors to recreation 

facilities at the project are from Pennsylvania (99 percent), with many of those from the 

local, southeastern region of Pennsylvania, including the Harrisburg, Lancaster, and York 

areas. York Haven Power notes that peak weekend use approaches or exceeds capacity 

when the weather is favorable; however, the sites are capable of absorbing a great deal 

more use if visitors were to shift their use patterns and use the project sites more 

frequently or in greater numbers outside the peak weekends. 

During the 2008-2009 recreation study, York Haven Power estimated the physical 

utilization for each recreation site. Table 3-34 shows the parking site utilization rates 

observed during the recreation study. Typically, use of the parking areas is well below 

the capacity; however, both Goldsboro Borough Boat Launch and East Shore Boat 

Launch were observed at or near capacity on holiday weekends. In general, all sites were 

observed well below capacity throughout the peak season. 

Table 3-34. Physical capacity utilization of York Haven Project recreation sites 

(Source: York Haven Power, 2012, as modified by staff). 

Site Name

Number of 

Parking 

Spaces

Highest Number 

of Spaces Used on 

Summer Weekend

Average 

Percent 

Utilization

Maximum 

Percent 

Utilization

Pennsylvania FBC

Goldsboro Boat 

Launch

242a 209 23 86

East Shore Boat 

Launch 57 57 31 100

York Haven Power 

Plant Recreation 

Area

31 6 3 19

a

 Covering three parking areas. 

Muddy Run Project

Exelon estimates that the Muddy Run Project supported slightly more than 

267,000 recreation days during 2008-2009, with 95 percent occurring within the Muddy 

Run Park and Campground (see table 3-32). Exelon reports the majority of visitation 

occurs during summer (late May to late August) and that an estimated 21 percent of the 

recreation days spent at the park were coupled with overnight stays (camping). 

Swimming and wading are not permitted at any location within the park, and this 

limitation was cited most frequently in the Exelon visitor survey (27 percent). Activities 

in the WMA vary by season with hunting popular in the fall and winter, and running and 
279 

walking popular in the summer. Wissler’s Run Park saw the greatest usage during the 

spring season (52 percent), followed by summer (35 percent). Sightseeing is the most 

popular activity (71 percent), followed by shoreline fishing (21 percent). 

During its 2008-2009 recreation study, Exelon estimated the physical utilization 

for each recreation site. Table 3-35 shows the utilization rates observed during the 

recreation study by recreation site. 

Table 3-35. Physical capacity utilization of Muddy Run Project recreation sites (Source: 

Exelon, 2012b, as modified by staff). 

Site Name Number of 

Parking Spaces

Average Spaces 

Used on Summer 

Weekend

Percent Utilization

Muddy Run Park & 

Campground 582 338 58

Muddy Run WMA 80 3 4

Wissler’s Run Park 130 3 2

 

Conowingo Project 

Exelon estimates that the Conowingo Project supported just under 271,000 

recreation days in 2008-2009, with about half of those recorded at Fisherman’s 

Park/Shures Landing immediately downstream of the dam (see table 3-33). The vast 

majority of recreation days were recorded during the summer season. Within the 

Conowingo Project, the top three recreation activities were sightseeing (29 percent of 

total use), shoreline fishing (22 percent), and boating (21 percent). These three activities 

accounted for more than 7 out of every 10 visitors to the project in 2008-2009. 

Exelon conducted a user preference survey that revealed recreation sites within the 

Conowingo Project were well regarded as a whole. Fisherman’s Park received positive 

scores with 9 of 10 respondents giving the park a good or excellent rating. The most 

frequently requested specific improvements throughout the Conowingo Project were 

restrooms, boat ramps, parking, and trash cans/clean-up of site. Highest on the list for 

Fisherman’s Park was the desire to reopen the catwalk on the downstream side of the 

powerhouse for fishing. 

During the recreation study, Exelon also estimated the physical capacity utilization 

for each recreation site. Table 3-36 shows utilization rates observed during 2008-2009 by 

recreation site. As the table indicates, many of the sites are used well below the site 

capacity, with the exception of Cold Cabin Boat Launch and Line Bridge, both of which 

offer only a small number of parking spaces. 
280 

Table 3-36. Physical capacity utilization of Conowingo Project recreation sites 

(Source: Exelon, 2012b, as modified by staff). 

Site Name Number of Parking 

Spaces

Average Spaces 

Used on Summer 

Weekend

Percent Utilization

Lock 13 22 1 5

Lock 15 36 1 3

Muddy Creek Boat 

Launch 69 31 45

Cold Cabin Boat 

Launch 5 5 100

Dorsey Park 57 6 11

Line Bridge 3 3 100

Broad Creek Public 

Landing 41 4 12

Glen Cove Marina 47 22 47

Conowingo 

Swimming Pool and 

Visitors Center

213 80 38

Peach Bottom 

Marina 48 7 15

Conowingo Creek 

Boat Launch 19 3 16

Funk’s Pond 24 2 8

Fisherman’s 

Park/Shures 

Landing

124 34 27

Octoraro Creek 

Access 12 2 17

Land Use 

Land use in the Susquehanna River Basin is primarily forest (70 percent), 

farmland (22 percent), and urban areas (7 percent). All three projects are located within 

the Lower Susquehanna Subbasin, which exhibits similar land use patterns to the overall 

basin. Harrisburg, the capital of Pennsylvania, is about 17 miles upstream of the York 
281 

Haven Project. Most of the population is centered in the urban areas of Harrisburg, York, 

and Lancaster, all within an hour drive from at least one of the projects. The larger cities 

of Baltimore, Wilmington, and Philadelphia are generally within a 2-hour drive of some 

portion of project waters. 

Below the Conowingo Project, the Susquehanna River flows about 10 miles to the 

head of the Chesapeake Bay at Havre De Grace, Maryland. Counties in the project areas 

include Dauphin, York, and Lancaster in Pennsylvania and Harford and Cecil 

in Maryland. 

York Haven Project 

The York Haven Project includes about 3,220 acres, of which York Haven Power 

has acquired fee title and flowage rights to land within the project boundary, and claims 

by easement to all other near shore lands adjoining Lake Frederic. All of the islands 

within the impoundment are within the project boundary except for the portion of Hill 

Island located above the 282.5-foot contour, and the northern portion of Three Mile 

Island, where Exelon’s Three Mile Island nuclear facility is located. The Three Mile 

Island nuclear facility has a 2,000-foot exclusion zone from the two nuclear reactors on 

the site that encompasses a small slice of shoreline on Shelley Island. The lands within 

the exclusion zone on Shelley Island are considered non-project lands located in the 

project boundary. The impoundment is about 3.5-miles-long with approximately 

29 miles of shoreline. The York Haven Project boundary extends about 3.5 miles from 

the top of the impoundment to the downstream face of the dam and powerhouse. There 

are no lands of the United States within the project boundary. 

York Haven Power leases 288 recreational lots at Cly Shore, Shelley Island, and 

Beshore Island. Sites are available to the public for a small fee. Current York Haven 

Power policy does not provide for new permitted recreational lots within the project 

boundary. In addition, permits for existing recreational lots that are abandoned or where 

existing structures become damaged and are not replaced by structures conforming to all 

applicable federal, state, and local regulations would be terminated.

York Haven Power lease conditions and rules require lot residents to comply with 

applicable federal, state, and local laws, including requirements related to potable water, 

sanitation, sewage facilities, waste disposal, and dock placement and use. Lease holders 

are not allowed to cut trees without York Haven’s permission nor plant any nonindigenous or invasive plants on the islands. York Haven Power conducted an 

assessment of the sewage disposal systems by recreational lots on Shelley and Beshore 

Islands and five parcels near Cly Shore. York Haven Power reported that almost every 

site had water service through a well or withdrawal from the Susquehanna River and 

every site appeared to have sewage disposal means, either through an outhouse, septic 

tank, or a drain line that went underground. 

The Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act and regulations adopted under that 

statute, including the Londonderry Township On-Lot Disposal Systems ordinance, cover 
282 

sewage waste at leased recreational lots. The York Haven Power lot lease states that lot 

lessees are responsible for completing any sewage system upgrades or replacements 

required to comply with these statutes and ordinances.

In 2010, after a sewerage assessment on the islands, York Haven Power prohibited 

the use of water withdrawn from wells or the river for any potable purposes (drinking, 

cooking, showering, dishwashing, oral hygiene, etc.). Lot leaseholders are expected to 

provide their own supplies of bottled water for potable purposes. York Haven Power 

further noted that the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act required ordinances related to 

sewage facilities are adopted at the local level and that new language in the local 

ordinance (2012) would force upgrades or replacements at the majority of leased lots. 

York Haven Power lease agreements make it clear this is the responsibility of 

the leaseholder. 

Muddy Run Project 

The Muddy Run Project lands include the 900-acre power reservoir and the 

100-acre Recreation Lake in Lancaster County, and the transmission line corridor that 

spans the Susquehanna River and extends into York County. In total, the project consists 

of about 2,790 acres, 1,790 of which are upland consisting primarily of agricultural fields 

and forested land. The Muddy Run project boundary is irregularly shaped around the 

upper reservoir, parallels the Susquehanna River in the areas of Wissler’s Run and the 

powerhouse and then extends east, and continues to parallel the river for another roughly 

5,000 feet. The project boundary extends west across the Susquehanna River 

encompassing the transmission lines for about 4.5 miles to PBAPS. 

Exelon has classified land use throughout the project based on its primary use. 

Existing classifications include:

 Project Operation (425 acres) – Lands used for power generation and 

electric transmission/distribution infrastructure and purposes;

 Developed Recreation (667 acres) – Lands managed for developed public 

recreation facilities and activities. This includes commercial recreation 

facilities. 

 Public Access Lands (701 acres) – Lands generally open to the public but 

that are managed by a federal, state, county, or conservation entity. 

Exelon has an SMP for the Muddy Run Project to manage shoreline resources 

through the following programs and policies: shoreline erosion control; general 

maintenance; woody debris management; game species management; sensitive natural 

resource projection overlays and policies; leased premises policy; and a policy restricting 

certain recreational uses. No lands of the United States are within the project boundary.

Conowingo Project 

The Conowingo Project is located in Pennsylvania and Maryland. The northern

8 miles lie within Lancaster and York Counties, Pennsylvania, while Conowingo dam 
283 

and the southern 5 miles within the project boundary are within Cecil and Harford 

Counties, Maryland. The Conowingo Project boundary extends approximately 14 miles 

upstream from Conowingo dam to the lower end of the Holtwood Project tailrace. The 

project boundary crosses the river just below Holtwood Road (Route 372) at the Norman 

Wood Bridge on the western shoreline, to approximately 0.5-mile south of the bridge on 

the eastern shoreline. The project boundary extends 2.5 miles downstream of Conowingo 

dam along the west bank of the river and 0.5 mile downstream along the east bank of the 

river. No lands of the United States are within the project boundary.

The Conowingo Project encompasses 11,721 acres: 9,951 acres of flowed land 

and 1,770 acres above the normal high water elevation. The land in and around the 

project boundary is mostly rural, consisting primarily of agriculture fields and 

forested lands. 

Exelon leases more than 420 lots on project lands for seasonal residential cottage 

use. The leases stipulate that the cottages must remain shuttered from November through 

March 1. In addition to complying with all environmental regulations, zoning standards, 

and building codes, the cottage leases include a uniform set of standards that address the 

size, materials, and floatation materials used in dock construction as well as erosion 

control, vegetation removal, wastewater disposal, shoreline development, and cultural 

resource protection. Residents cannot dig wells, install septic systems, or expand homes 

without permission from the county and Exelon. It is Exelon’s current policy not to 

create any new cottage lease lots within the project boundary and that any leases for 

existing cottages that are abandoned or become damaged and are not replaced by 

structures conforming to all applicable regulations will be terminated. All structures and 

improvements will be removed from the leased lot, the land will be restored to a natural 

condition, and the site will be precluded from future cottage leases. 

3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects 

Recreation Management 

York Haven Project

York Haven Power proposes to maintain the existing public recreation facilities at 

the York Haven Power Plant Recreation Area (including the canoe portage trail), Battery 

Island Picnic Area, Goodling Island Picnic Area, Shelley Island Recreation Area, 

Goosehorn Island Picnic Area, and the East Shore Boat Launch and Canal Lock to ensure 

continued public use and enjoyment of project lands and waters through a future license. 

York Haven Power does not propose any improvements to these project recreation sites. 

York Haven Power also does not propose a recreation management plan; however, it 

proposes to consult with the Pennsylvania DEP, Pennsylvania DCNR, SRBC, and 

Pennsylvania FBC to consider the recreation resources and management strategies at the 

York Haven Project 10 years after the effective date of a future license. The review 

would take into consideration the recreation facilities, use levels, and operation and 
284 

maintenance of both York Haven Power project facilities, as well as private and 

commercial facilities at the project. York Haven Power suggests it would conduct a 

recreation study if such information would be helpful in the consultation process. 

The adequacy and condition of existing recreation facilities and access at the York 

Haven Project, including the ease of portaging and the potential for additional recreation 

facilities, was raised as a concern during project scoping. Specifically, Pennsylvania 

FBC recommended improvements to non-motorized watercraft portages at the project so 

that boaters would not have to notify York Haven Power in advance for assistance. 

Our Analysis

York Haven proposes a number of operational and maintenance activities related 

to recreation, such as allowing anglers to fish the project’s catwalk, maintaining public 

boat access areas, consulting on the recreation resources 10 years after license issuance, 

and complying with FERC Form 80 reporting requirements. York Haven Power does 

not, however, include a plan for implementing these measures or investigating whether or 

not the sites are meeting the demand over the course of a license. Developing a formal 

recreation management plan would provide a more cohesive guide for the protection, 

mitigation, and enhancement of these resources. Effective recreation management plans 

ensure that the project adequately provides for the recreation needs of the area. An 

effective plan would include procedures to consult with the Pennsylvania FBC, 

Pennsylvania DNR, and Pennsylvania Game Commission over the course of any license. 

Comprehensive recreation management plans would include summaries of the facilities 

and uses, current and future visitation estimates, and formal monitoring plans every 

10 years as proposed by York Haven Power to ensure the sites meet the demand. 

There are currently no known issues of crowding, overutilization, unsafe 

conditions, or general issues that compromise recreation use, access, and enjoyment of 

the York Haven Project lands and waters. Retrieval of river rocks for the proposed

nature-like fishway would require the use of heavy machinery driving back and forth 

downstream of the main dam to collect and deliver the large boulders in an area popular 

with anglers, kayakers, and general exploration of the rocks. BMPs for in-water and 

near-water construction work associated with the nature-like fishway, including 

protecting human safety during construction, would be addressed within any required 

Corps’ permits. 

Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects 

Exelon proposes to implement Recreation Management Plans for both the Muddy 

Run and Conowingo Projects. The plans address recreation resources, including: 

recreation facilities that are located within the FERC project boundary, are owned and 

managed by Exelon, and are on lands owned in fee title by Exelon. The plans would 

address maintenance and capital improvements to ensure continued public use and 

enjoyment of project lands and waters through a future license. The three recreation 

areas addressed by the proposed Recreation Management Plan at the Muddy Run Project 
285 

include: Muddy Run Park and Campground, Muddy Run WMA, and Wissler’s Run 

Park. The 15 recreation sites addressed by the proposed Recreation Management Plan for 

the Conowingo Project include: Lock 13, Lock 15, Muddy Creek Boat Launch, Cold 

Cabin Boat Launch, Dorsey Park, Line Bridge, Broad Creek Public Landing, Glen Cove 

Marina, Conowingo Swimming Pool and Visitors Center, Peach Bottom Marina, 

Conowingo Creek Boat Launch, Funk’s Pond, Conowingo Dam Overlook, Fisherman’s 

Park/Shures Landing, and Octoraro Creek Access. Specific elements of the plans, such 

as facility improvements, operation and maintenance, monitoring, and plan updates, are 

addressed below in our analysis. 

In comments on the draft EIS, the Park Service recommends Exelon update the 

Recreation Management Plan for the Conowingo Project every 6 years (instead of every 

12), which would coincide with all FERC Form 80 filings. The Park Service also wishes 

to be included in the list of parties to be consulted in implementing the Recreation 

Management Plan. 

Recreational Facility Improvements and Rehabilitation

As part of the proposed Recreation Management Plans, Exelon would make 

capital improvements to two facilities at the Muddy Run Project and 13 facilities at the 

Conowingo Project. Proposed improvement projects would be implemented within the 

first year of license issuance. In addition, Exelon suggests it would pursue dredging as a 

means to maintain boater access at Peters, Conowingo, and Broad Creeks. 

Exelon proposes to upgrade a variety of amenities within Muddy Run Park and

make repairs at Wissler’s Run Park near the Muddy Run powerhouse. As part of the 

improvements, Exelon would replace the existing boat launch facility at the Recreation 

Lake with a new concrete plank ramp that includes a new gangway and floating dock 

(barrier free) and also make shoreline improvements to limit erosion. Exelon also 

proposes to upgrade the barrier-free picnic site, stabilize 150 feet of the shoreline at the 

Recreation Lake between the barrier-free picnic site and the rental boat dock, convert the 

timber retaining wall to sheetpile retaining wall, upgrade service to 50-ampere electrical 

service at 50 sites, expand the playground adding a tot lot, construct a spray park, and 

provide Wi-Fi service to park users. 

At Wissler's Run Park, Exelon proposes improvements that include removing the 

non-functioning fish cleaning station, rebuilding and repaving the existing walkway 

along the top of the bank, and designating two parking spaces near the picnicking 

pavilion as accessible for persons with disabilities. The walkway from the parking area 

to the picnic area and the parking lot were both repaved in 2011.

As part of the plan, Exelon also proposes to erect and maintain FERC Part 8 signs 

at River Road and Furniss Road Muddy Run WMA parking areas. Exelon proposes to 

continue to lease these lands to Pennsylvania Game Commission for the term of a 

future license. 
286 

The State of Maryland agrees that Exelon’s proposed improvements to existing 

recreation facilities would enhance recreation use at the projects; however, it 

recommends additional measures, such as providing additional facilities for bird watchers 

and more hiking trails. 

A number of individuals commented that the biggest issue at Peach Bottom 

Marina is that the harbor and river just outside of the railroad bridge are so badly silted in 

that boats cannot access the marina at normal low or even medium water levels.

Exelon proposes to upgrade and improve 13 existing recreation facilities at the 

Conowingo Project. The proposed recreation enhancements include:

 adding fencing and vegetation removal at Lock 13;

 new restrooms, dock, and parking enhancements at Lock 15;

 boat launch enhancements at Muddy Creek;

 parking, picnic area, and boat ramp upgrades at Cold Cabin;

 restroom and boat ramp upgrades at Dorsey Park;

 creek stabilization at Conowingo Creek;

 parking and wall improvements at Glen Cove Marina;

 improved signage at Funk’s Pond;

 providing accessibility improvements at Conowingo Pond for persons with 

disabilities;

 upgrading pavilion, picnic area, fence and parking at Overlook;

 providing improvements to the boat ramp at Fisherman’s Park;

 bank stabilization at Line Bridge; and

 providing shore access at Peach Bottom.

Recreation Facility Operation and Maintenance

As part of the proposed Recreation Management Plans, Exelon would maintain the 

existing and proposed recreation facilities as described in the plan for the term of a FERC 

license. Exelon, at its discretion, may also restrict use and access to (or close) a site, or 

any portion thereof, on a short-term basis for maintenance/construction activities, unsafe 

conditions, emergencies, and operational reasons. At the Conowingo Project, Exelon 

also proposes a number of programs and measures to meet safety objectives including: 

water release safety devices, upstream boat buoys and warning signs, flow information, a 

canoe portage shuttle, boat launch channel markers, security fencing/warning signs, 

maintaining water levels during the boating season, and general facility maintenance. 

Exelon states that, should additional project facilities be developed over the term of the 
287 

FERC license, it would be receptive to partnering with interested parties for the 

development, operation, and management of such facilities. Exelon would ensure that 

project facilities, existing and future, that are managed and operated by third parties, 

would be managed and operated in accordance with FERC rules and regulations and any 

license articles.

Susquehanna River Boaters Association comments that the recreation boating 

season is too short and raises issue that there are no minimum pond levels in place on 

weekdays. To remedy this concern, the Susquehanna River Boaters Association 

recommends: (1) extending the recreation boating season from May 1 to October 1 (from 

the current season of Memorial Day to Labor Day) and maintaining the recreational 

minimum water level on all holidays during the boating season, regardless of what day of 

the week they occur; (2) establishing a Peach Bottom Marina dredging plan; 

(3) measuring recreational minimum water levels at point of access not at the dam;

(4) refunding two months of lease payments to Peach Bottom Marina members due to 

lack of dredging and boater access; (5) refunding lost revenue to the marina; and

(6) adding new channel markers and updating maps.

Recreation Monitoring Program

As part of the Recreation Management Plans, Exelon proposes to use the FERC 

Form 80 Licensed Hydropower Development Recreation Use Report to assess and report 

recreation use and capacity every 6 years. Exelon states this level of monitoring would 

provide a comparison with the recreation use projections provided in the Recreation 

Management Plans to help determine if additional recreation facilities are warranted 

during the license period. 

Our Analysis

Exelon (2012a and 2012b) concludes that, although visitors indicated high 

satisfaction with the facilities, many of the recreation sites managed by Exelon exhibited 

deferred maintenance (e.g., boat ramp upgrades, parking resurfacing) or a complete lack 

of highly desired amenities, such as restrooms. The lack of restrooms or restrooms in 

disrepair could pose potential health risks if visitors are forced elsewhere. Broken 

amenities, amenities in a state of disrepair, or amenities in need of routine maintenance 

also provide unsafe and uninviting conditions that diminish the quality of the recreation 

experience and resources. Implementation of the proposed Recreation Management 

Plans and the specific enhancements would provide a framework to guide the 

management of recreational resources to ensure that these sites receive 

updated amenities. 

As currently proposed, the plans for the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects put 

an increased emphasis on facility improvements, especially boater access and parking, 

and restrooms. Overall, 96 percent of survey respondents rated the facilities at Muddy 

Run Park as ‘good’ or ‘excellent.’ The comment received most frequently (27 percent) 

was that a swimming pool within the park or a roped-off swimming area at the recreation 
288 

reservoir was desired by visitors. Construction of Exelon’s proposed spray park would

provide the body-contact recreation visitors requested while preserving the no-swimming 

policy at the Recreation Lake. 

Improvements to the Recreation Lake boat ramp, barrier-free picnic area, shoreline 

and retaining walls would improve boater access and maintain water quality by reducing 

erosion from these areas. Improvements to the ramp would enhance boater access; a 

popular activity on the lake. Similarly, improvements to the campground electrical 

service, such as more 50-ampere service campgrounds and Wi-Fi, would address modern 

camper needs such as increased use of electronic devices (e.g., recreational vehicles with 

air conditioning, personal computers, smart phone charging). 

Removal of the non-functioning fish cleaning station at Wissler’s Park would 

eliminate the temptation for users to clean fish on site and leave the waste, which could 

negatively impact the aesthetics of the area. Enhancements to the pathway and 

designating two additional parking areas accessible for persons with disabilities would 

improve the overall recreation resources at the site.

As licensee, Exelon is responsible for providing reasonable public access to 

project lands and waters. Through the proposed Recreation Management Plans, Exelon 

recognizes the importance the two projects play in providing recreation in the region and 

acknowledge that the recreation facilities will be maintained for the duration of any 

license. However, the plans are limited in scope by failing to identify specifics of any 

monitoring programs to ensure the sites are meeting demand throughout any license other 

than through the FERC Form 80 process. 

The FERC Form 80 is useful to analyze overall use levels and project-wide 

capacity; however, it provides broad, rather than site-specific, recreation information. 

Development of a monitoring program that includes input from users that mimics the 

methods used during the relicensing studies would enable Exelon to meet its stated goal 

of comparing recreation data, by site, with future use estimates, as described in the 

Recreation Management Plans. A recreation use and needs study would provide the 

mechanism to quantitatively and qualitatively assess recreation resources at the project 

and ensure the level of service the facility upgrades provide is maintained throughout the 

license term, while also balancing trends in changing recreation activities. As required 

now, the FERC Form 80 reports annual use estimates for the entire project, while Exelon 

is proposing a strategy that looks more closely at recreation use levels at each site. 

Including the methods of this monitoring effort in revised Recreation Management Plans 

for both projects would ensure the proper data collection to guarantee all the facilities are 

meeting the demand. Visitation rates can change dramatically year to year and through 

time; however, given the proposed facility enhancements, conducting a recreation use 

study every 12 years, consistent with every other FERC Form 80 reporting deadline 

throughout the license term, would ensure the proposed plans are current and the sites are 

meeting the demand. 
289 

Similarly, Exelon does not include provisions to update the plans. Since the 

projects were first constructed, recreation demand for water-based recreation has steadily 

grown. Over time, the facilities have aged, and as documented in the recreation reports, 

they exhibit wear and tear associated with regular use. Addressing maintenance of the 

recreation facilities is an important component of a recreation management plan. 

Recreation is not static, and ensuring that facilities are the right type for the demands over 

the term of a typical license requires monitoring to ensure the proposed Recreation 

Management Plans are revised to prevent any drop off in the quality of the resource. A 

revised recreation management plan that includes scheduled updates coordinated around 

a recreation use study could capitalize on the timing and information to address any 

changes in recreation resources that may be necessary in the middle of any license term. 

Having a scheduled update ensures the plan is kept current regardless of the extent of 

changes between plans. Given the larger costs associated with administering a recreation 

use and needs study, coordinating around every other Form 80 reporting year provides a 

reasonable balance between data collection, analysis, and Recreation Management Plan 

updates and the evolution of recreation trends, user perceptions, and facility conditions. 

Development of the recreation use monitoring methods in consultation with interested 

agencies and stakeholders would ensure sites and uses are monitored to guarantee that the 

recreation management plan remains current and includes appropriate diversity in 

recreation resources.

Exelon’s proposed boat ramp and boat launch enhancements at existing recreation 

facilities would provide improvements to the project’s recreational resources. 

Implementation of the proposed Sediment Management Plan, as discussed in section 

3.3.1.2, Geology and Soils, Environmental Effects, would include monitoring the water 

depth at Peter’s Creek (Peach Bottom Marina), Conowingo Creek, and Broad Creek 

(Harford County boat launch) every 5 years. However, the plan stops short of identifying 

at what depths the locations need to be dredged, scheduling dredging, identifying 

thresholds that would trigger dredging, or addressing storm events that could fill in the 

tributary boat launch areas between the 5-year intervals. These three boat ramps 

represent half of the boat ramps providing access to Conowingo Pond for motorized 

boating. Visitor survey results indicate that 6 percent of the comments received at 

Conowingo Creek targeted shallow water/dredging needs; however, because Exelon 

maintains the minimum pond elevation at 107.2 feet on weekends between Memorial 

Day and Labor Day, boaters may not perceive a need for dredging at most sites. 

Maintaining the minimum pond elevations as currently required would ensure the boating 

resources are maintained through the term of any license for weekend boaters. Dredging 

the tributary access areas and developing a plan to ensure they are maintained would 

ensure boating resources are available without being compromised by sediment. In 

addition to depth of water thresholds, dredging schedules could be based on thresholds 

related to sedimentation factors such as storm size (flows, precipitation, etc.) or 

frequency (e.g., annually). Development of the final Sediment Management Plan in 

consultation with resource agencies would ensure the correct measures are in place to 
290 

minimize impacts on boating access stemming from sedimentation in these tributary 

boating access areas. 

At Broad Creek Public Landing, the two most common comments received were 

the need for an improved boat ramp (29 percent) and higher water levels (14 percent) as 

mentioned by those fishing in the spring and summer. Stakeholders consulted in 

development of the Recreation Management Plan expressed dissatisfaction with the water 

depths and amount of siltation at Peach Bottom Marina. Because this is the only marina 

with gas on the Pennsylvania side of the river, siltation of the marina compromises a 

boater’s ability to access the marina and weakens the businesses’ ability to operate. 

Exelon reported that the depth of water at the toe of the Peach Bottom boat ramp was 

3 feet, meeting the States for Organizational Boating Access Design Handbook for 

Recreational Boating & Fishing Facilities recommended minimum water depth of 3 feet. 

Overall, Peach Bottom Marina received the smallest share of visitation to the Conowingo 

Project; however, it is not clear how much sedimentation of the marina or other factors 

played in the site receiving such low amounts of use. After issuance of the draft EIS, 

Exelon filed with the Commission a summary of a meeting with the Susquehanna River 

Boaters Association in which it agreed to immediately initiate the permitting and 

dredging process for this marina (Exelon, 2014). 

Maintaining pond elevations at 107.2 feet on weekends from Memorial Day 

through Labor Day ensures that the majority of recreational boaters can launch a boat at 

the project. Hydropower generation releases from Conowingo, as well as pumping 

operations from Muddy Run, could result in pond elevations lower than 107.2 feet during 

the week, which could compromise the ability to launch a boat. Exelon’s tributary access 

study (Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan, 2012q) reported that at minimum 

recreational pool (107.2 feet), a water depth of 2 to 3 feet near the boat launches at Peters 

Creek, Conowingo Creek, and Broad Creek may exclude larger boats and, at a pond level 

of 106.2 feet, most motorized boats are excluded from these three boat launches. At 

106.2 feet, the Glen Cove Marina boat launch remains usable, but the approach to the gas 

dock is less than 1.5 feet. Dredging these areas would extend their utility during 

weekdays. Updating maps and adding channel markers could help inform boaters, after 

dredging, of the new boating channel into and out of these marinas. Refunds to marina 

members and owners would be at the discretion of Exelon under the authority of the 

existing lease structure. Extending the recreation boating season to include the period 

from May 1 to October 1, as recommended by the Susquehanna River Boaters 

Association, would increase the number of guaranteed weekend boating opportunities by 

16 to 20 days depending on the year. Currently, the boating season is approximately 

15 weekends and, as discussed above, ensures access when the pond is maintained at the

recreation minimum level. Review of the water level management study (URS and 

Gomez and Sullivan, 2012a) pond elevation frequencies indicates pond levels are above 

the minimum recreation boating level between May 1 and October 1 the majority of the 

time under current operations. When considering the volume of stakeholder comments 

relative to boating issues, this finding suggests that reservoir levels are less of an issue for 
291 

boating than boat access at the tributary access sites and debris management. Additional 

study of the demand for changes to the boating season could be included in the recreation 

use and needs study associated with the Recreation Management Plan update. 

Exelon study results indicate the combination of pool elevation and sediment 

accumulation compromises motorboat launches from these sites under specific 

conditions. Cross referencing the bathymetric mapping proposed under the Sediment 

Management Plan at the three sites into the final Conowingo Recreation Management 

Plan would ensure bathymetric mapping sediment monitoring results are included in 

discussions related to boater access to the reservoir. Development of a final Sediment 

Management Plan that includes detailed benchmarks for dredging, a schedule, and 

commitment to dredging the three access areas as soon as the benchmark water depths are 

reached would ensure that recreation access is not lost or compromised indefinitely. 

Reopening Catwalk on Conowingo Dam

Not included as part of the proposed Conowingo Recreation Management Plan is 

the continued closure of the catwalk on the downstream face of Conowingo dam. The 

catwalk is a narrow, steel and reinforced concrete extension walkway attached to the 

exterior of the powerhouse wall. The catwalk spans 820 feet along the length of 

the powerhouse. 

The catwalk was very popular with anglers prior to its closure after the events of 

September 11, 2001. On May 1, 2007, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects 

issued an Order Amending Exhibit R (119 ¶ FERC 62,088) removing the catwalk as a 

project recreation facility. The order authorized new recreation facilities at Fisherman’s 

Park on the west side of the river, which now provides anglers the only opportunity to 

fish just below the dam (the Fisherman’s Wharf). This order also authorized public 

fishing access along the north and south banks of Octoraro Creek on the east side of the 

river. Exelon completed construction of the Octoraro Creek facility in May 2008 and 

completed the Fisherman’s Park/Wharf in 2009. Fishing is allowed along the shoreline 

of the park (about 700 yards) except for an area within 100 yards of Conowingo dam. 

Exelon evaluated closing of the catwalk to recreational fishing and concluded that 

while reopening the catwalk is physically feasible, opportunities at the project are 

sufficient to meet existing and reasonably projected demand without the catwalk. Exelon 

further questions the benefit gained by investing in security upgrades prior to opening 

the catwalk.

The State of Maryland disagrees with Exelon's proposal to keep the powerhouse 

catwalk closed to the public, and believes the new fishing pier does not mitigate for the 

loss of the catwalk. About a half dozen private citizens also recommend that Exelon 

reopen the catwalk because it provides a better angling experience. 

Private anglers also recommend that Exelon expand the operating hours of 

Fisherman’s Park/Wharf so as to be open between 4 a.m. to midnight. The comments 

received indicate the current policy of dawn to dusk limits the hours for boating access 
292 

downstream of Conowingo dam because anglers would prefer to launch early in order to 

get lines in the water before sunrise when light changes drastically. Similarly, anglers 

would appreciate launching in the evening and being able to stay on the water later into 

the night to take advantage of feeding times around the changing light. According to the 

comment letters, striped bass, a popular game fish residing in the tailwater, feed closest to 

the surface and shore during these predawn and post dusk times. 

Our Analysis

Reopening the catwalk would provide access to a historically popular angler 

opportunity. Fishing from the catwalk offers a different opportunity and experience than 

fishing from the shoreline, allowing anglers to cast with the river flow and directly into 

the middle of the channel. Seasonally, this can be advantageous depending on the fish 

run(s) because some species are more likely to be caught from the middle of the channel 

than from the bank (casts from the bank are pushed to the sides of the channel by 

the flow). 

Since Exelon closed the catwalk in October 2001, it constructed a new fisherman’s 

platform along the west bank of the shoreline and developed new trail access to the river 

on the east bank at Octoraro Creek. The Fisherman’s Wharf provides barrier-free ramps 

and a concrete platform above the shoreline for anglers, while Octoraro Creek provides 

parking and a trail to the shore along the creek. Although neither provides anglers a 

chance to fish the main channel in a way that was similar to fishing from the catwalk, the 

enhancements do provide additional opportunities for this reach of the project. A third 

site, the Lower Susquehanna Greenway, provides shoreline access between the 

Fisherman’s Park and Deer Creek. Exelon estimates that Fisherman’s Park and Octoraro 

Creek receive the greatest percent of shoreline fishing activity downstream. Exelon 

estimates a reopened catwalk could support 150 anglers at one time. Exelon projections 

show the existing access below capacity out to year 2050; however, the estimates are 

based on general recreation trends and are not specific to unique features like the catwalk 

or tailraces of dams like at Conowingo. 

Upstream of Conowingo, angling on the downstream faces of dams is popular on 

the catwalks at the York Haven and Safe Harbor Projects. York Haven Power can close 

the site with a single chain-link fence gate. Access is provided in proximity to both the 

sluice gate and the base of the powerhouse wall. Similarly, anglers at Safe Harbor are 

afforded access directly below the powerhouse; however, they must pass a security guard 

station prior to gaining access to fish. Additionally, Corps’ lock and dam systems that 

also produce power often provide similar fishing opportunities in the tailrace below 

the powerhouses. 

Exelon security experts recommend a number of improvements to the catwalk 

before considering reopening, including measures that deter, detect, and assess any 

unwanted activity; delay escape; respond to a threat; and harden the physical structure. 
293 

If Exelon were to reopen the catwalk to provide better angler access to the middle 

of the channel, it could implement select security measures that were identified as 

appropriate in its catwalk study report for addressing security risks at the catwalk 

(Security Management Solutions, 2012). Security measures, such as installing a new 

security guard station, checking anglers in and out, and operating on a limited basis, 

could provide angler opportunities while minimizing any potential security risks Exelon 

has reservations about public use of the catwalk. Limited operation of a reopened 

catwalk could follow specific fish species open seasons when use would be expected to 

be highest. On-line discussion forums warn anglers that fishing the shoreline 

downstream of Conowingo dam can be shoulder to shoulder during certain seasons with 

multiple anglers, indicating the shoreline immediately downstream of the dam is crowded 

(Stripers Online, 2014). Given the relative proximity of the dam to the large metropolitan 

areas of Baltimore, Maryland, and Wilmington, Delaware, reopening the catwalk would 

enhance the angling resources by providing access to a historically popular site and a 

different opportunity than is currently available. 

Debris Management 

Debris accumulation, removal, and passing are part of operating a hydroelectric 

project. The presence of debris in project reservoirs can present safety and aesthetic 

hazards; however, the dynamic nature of the volume and timing of debris within any 

reservoir at any given time makes managing it dynamic as well. The removal and/or 

passing of debris that has accumulated in front of the trashracks is an important 

component of operating hydroelectric projects of any size. Given the size of the lower 

Susquehanna River watershed, the amount of debris arriving and passing these projects 

can be significant. 

York Haven Project 

York Haven Power estimates the project traps an estimated 5,000 cubic yards of 

debris in the powerhouse trashracks annually. It states that almost all of the debris arrives 

at the project during high-flow events when river flows far exceed the hydraulic capacity 

of the project. In those conditions, much of that debris passes over the main dam. Nonnatural debris that accumulates in the forebay is removed, and the remaining debris is 

sluiced downstream through a gated opening in the masonry non-overflow wall at the 

downstream end of the forebay. Prior to opening the sluice gate, York Haven Power 

notifies PPL’s Brunner Island Station that debris is to be sluiced. 

In 2010, York Haven Power and Pennsylvania DEP reached an agreement that is 

reflected in the project’s current NPDES permit and in section 3.3 of the Settlement 

Agreement, providing for an annual payment of $25,000 to the York County 

Conservation District to finance debris removal in the Lower Susquehanna River 

Watershed. The Settlement Agreement requires York Haven Power to continue its 

current debris management practices, including prior notice to PPL's Brunner Island 

Station when debris is to be sluiced (absent extraordinary or emergency conditions). 
294 

Conowingo Project 

During the initial scoping meeting held on the evening of June 11, 2009, the 

Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper expressed concern that debris passing the Conowingo 

dam under high-flow conditions often gets deposited in the Sassafras River, causing 

damage and expense for cleanup to those living along the river. The Sassafras River is 

located in Maryland, approximately 10 miles downstream of the mouth of the 

Susquehanna River at the head of the Chesapeake Bay on the east side of the bay. The 

conditions described by the Riverkeeper were that the high flows entering the 

Chesapeake Bay from the Susquehanna River cause a backwater flow up the Sassafras 

River, such that instead of the debris passing out through the Chesapeake Bay, some of it 

gets trapped in the Sassafras River. 

Historically, Exelon employed a skimmer boat to collect surface debris from 

throughout the pond and used gantry cranes with grapple attachments in front of the dam. 

Exelon retired the previous skimmer boat in 2008. In a letter to the Commission filed 

July 18, 2014, Exelon indicated it employs a new skimmer boat purchased in 2013 to 

clear floating debris in front of the dam in concert with the cranes. Debris removal 

occurs during low and normal flow conditions, but cannot take place during high river 

flows due to safety concerns. The methods and practices employed at Conowingo are 

comparable to methods employed at the York Haven, Safe Harbor, and Holtwood dams. 

The amount of natural and human-made debris reaching Conowingo dam 

fluctuates from year to year. Between 1989 and 2011 (for years Exelon removed debris), 

Exelon estimates between 60 and more than 4,000 cubic yards have been removed on an 

annual basis. Exelon states some of the debris build-up can be as deep as 75 feet under 

the water surface in front of the dam. All debris removed is taken to Hopkinton Cove 

where it is separated and sorted as organic, tires, plastic, trash, or metal. Organic 

(natural) debris is recycled and ground up for mulch. All other debris is sent to a 

disposal/recycling facility or landfill. 

Exelon also sponsors community-based clean-up events for the shoreline upstream 

and downstream of the dam, such as the Exelon Clean-up Day, clean-up of the 

Conowingo Creek boat launch, and the Lower Susquehanna Greenway River Sweep.

Based on the results of Exelon’s debris management study (URS and Gomez and 

Sullivan, 2012c), Exelon determined that no additional practices were needed. None of 

the stakeholders recommended additional measures pertaining to debris management 

at Conowingo. 

We discuss the aesthetics of the debris in section 3.3.7, Aesthetic Resources. 

Our Analysis

A 2012 report on debris management (URS and Gomez and Sullivan, 2012c) 

identified quantities of debris passed and removed from the river at York Haven, Safe 

Harbor, Holtwood, and Conowingo dams; analyzed flow conditions that result in debris 
295 

being passed naturally at the dams; and reviewed debris management methods and 

practices employed at the four dams. 

Debris typically gets trapped at the dams when river flows are less than the 

hydraulic capacity of each project powerhouse, and are typically passed naturally over or 

through the dams when flows exceed the hydraulic capacity of the powerhouses in March 

and April. Since the hydraulic capacities of the four projects differ significantly (York 

Haven – 17,000 cfs; Safe Harbor – 110,000 cfs; Holtwood – 31,500 cfs; and 

Conowingo – 86,000 cfs), debris is passed naturally under different hydrologic 

conditions. Debris would only be passed downstream from Safe Harbor when inflows 

exceed 110,000 cfs. Similarly, debris is only passed at Conowingo when inflows exceed 

86,000 cfs. 

York Haven Project

Formalizing debris management at the York Haven Project as detailed in the 

Settlement Agreement would ensure debris does not pose long-term hazards to people 

and project operation. Notification of PPL’s Brunner Island steam plant would be a 

continuation of the courtesy York Haven Power provides so as to allow PPL opportunity 

to plan or prepare for any inconvenience from passing debris. 

Conowingo Project 

As noted by the Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper, debris is primarily deposited in 

the Sassafras River under high-flow conditions, when backwater effects on the 

Chesapeake Bay flow upstream into the Sassafras River. When river flows are between 

86,000 and 110,000 cfs, debris is passed naturally at Conowingo dam from upstream in 

the watershed between Safe Harbor dam and Conowingo dam. When river flows exceed 

110,000 cfs, debris from the entire Susquehanna watershed can be passed downstream of 

Conowingo. Under these conditions, the natural passage of debris is beyond the control 

of the Conowingo Project. 

Review of the record on eLibrary indicates debris management has been an issue 

for the Conowingo Project throughout its existing license. URS and Gomez and Sullivan 

(2012c) report that debris trapped at Conowingo dam does not always originate from the 

entire Susquehanna watershed due to the hydraulic capacities of the two upstream 

hydroelectric projects. The report states that the quantity of debris reaching Conowingo 

dam is a combined function of the varied hydraulic capacities of upstream facilities and 

changing contributing watershed areas. Debris management practices employed at the 

Conowingo Project are consistent with BMPs and practices at the other dams upstream of 

Conowingo. Current practices remove up to several thousand cubic yards of debris each 

year. The State of Maryland, Susquehanna River Boaters Association, the Broad Creek 

Civic Association, and members of the public at the draft EIS public meetings expressed 

concerns that the amount of floating debris on Conowingo Pond poses risks to boats, 

boater safety, and compromises some types of boating activities (e.g., waterskiing). This 

could be coincidental to debris accumulating on the pond after Exelon retired its self-
296 

propelled skimmer in 2008, a reflection of the amount of large woody debris within the 

watershed, or wind patterns distributing the debris away from Exelon cleanup operations. 

URS and Gomez and Sullivan (2012c) report that, when the skimmer boat was 

operating, even when only deployed a few days a year, it outperformed the clamming 

method in front of the dam on a per unit of time basis. Deployment of the new skimmer 

boat, as recently indicated by Exelon, in addition to continuing to clam debris in front of 

the intakes, should improve boater safety because more debris would be removed from 

the pond surface. Debris removal in front of the intakes likely removes only a small 

fraction of the total amount of debris at the project after it has already floated the length 

of the pond and affected boating. 

Deploying the new marine trash skimmer boat on a regular schedule would 

quickly and effectively reduce the amount of floating debris in areas where the skimmer 

is deployed, thereby enhancing boater safety throughout the recreation season in those 

areas. Developing BMPs for the storage of the debris materials at Hopkins Cove would 

ensure debris is secured on land so as to stay out of the pond. 

Revising the Recreation Management Plan to include the debris management 

program and expanding it to include a new skimmer collection component would 

improve boating resources and safety. Including a complete description of how decisions 

relate to deploying debris collection, as well as how debris is managed after its collection, 

would ensure collection efforts are conducted regularly to minimize the amount of 

floating debris on the pond that could compromise boating. A revised Recreation 

Management Plan with debris management components developed in consultation with 

interested agency stakeholders and boating interest groups would provide: a mechanism 

to formalize the goals and methods of debris management; timeframes for when debris 

would be collected; frequency of skimmer and clamming operations; specifications of

size criteria; procedures for storage and removal of stored debris; procedures for tracking 

debris storage and removal; and coordination with community-based clean-ups. 

Inclusion of a public hotline so boaters could link directly with Exelon to expedite the 

debris removal actions would help facilitate more immediate responses and could be 

tracked over time as another way to measure the debris removal effectiveness. Including 

debris management in a revised Recreation Management Plan would emphasize its 

importance to boaters; provide Exelon and consulting stakeholders an opportunity to 

reflect on the effectiveness of the measures; and allow for modification during Recreation 

Management Plan updates, as necessary.

Effects of Proposed Shoreline Management Plans 

York Haven Power is not proposing an SMP as part of its final license application; 

however, it is proposing to continue to implement its shoreline leases of residential lots. 

York Haven Power would maintain the recreation lot lease program at the project (total 

of 288 leases) but indicates that it would terminate any leases when lots are abandoned by 
297 

the lessee or when existing structures are damaged and not replaced by structures that 

meet current regulations. 

As part of York Haven Power’s lease agreement, renters may have non-permanent 

structures within an 8-foot by 32-foot area; however, as noted during the environmental 

site visit May 21, 2013, many lots have substantial additions of a more permanent nature. 

Lots can be handed down from generation to generation; however, once the chain stops 

or the structures are more than 50 percent damaged or destroyed, the lot is eliminated 

from the rental program. This allows York Haven Power to slowly reduce the number of 

lots for rent over time. 

As part of its final license applications, Exelon proposes to implement the SMPs 

filed in August 2012 for both the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects. The SMPs 

provide the framework for Exelon to manage the environmental and recreational 

resources within the project. Measures in the SMPs include general maintenance, 

shoreline erosion control, erosion and remediation policy, woody debris management, 

non-project use of project lands, shoreline vegetation management, viewsheds, access 

trails, and sensitive natural resource protection overlays and policies. Other land

management-related policies include an HPMP (see section 3.3.6, Cultural Resources), 

Conowingo Island public use policy, and leased premises policy for cottages. Exelon 

also proposes to amend the SMP as the facts and circumstances may warrant. 

The project land classifications used to define allowable uses are similar for both 

Muddy Run and Conowingo. Land classifications at Muddy Run include: (1) Project 

Operations, which identifies project lands used for generation and transmission facilities; 

(2) Developed Recreation, which identifies lands managed for public recreation facilities 

(including commercial facilities) and activities; and (3) Public Access lands, which 

identifies lands managed by federal, state, county, or conservation organizations under 

agreement with Exelon, whereby public access and use of the lands is allowed according 

to the rules of the managing entity (these lands are typically unimproved).

The land classifications at the Conowingo Project include the same classifications 

as Muddy Run and also include the following three classifications: 

(1) Natural/Undeveloped, which identifies lands that are primarily undeveloped and 

available for public access and use; (2) Industrial and Other non-project lands, which 

identify lands managed for industrial/commercial uses and other non-project uses 

including shoreline stabilization projects; and (3) Cottage Lands, which identifies lands 

leased to individuals for seasonal use. 

The proposed leased premises policies address both private cottage lots, and public 

(state, county, or local agencies), or commercial vendors for the development of 

recreation related structures and facilities. Cottage lessees are required to comply with all 

applicable local, state, and federal laws for the development and use of the land, as well 

as the Exelon-imposed land use rules. Exelon rules and regulations for cottages address 

such issues as construction permits, lease transfers, erosion control, vegetation removal, 

water connections, wastewater disposal, shoreline development (e.g., piers, docks, 
298 

boathouse, bulkhead, retaining wall), and cultural resource protection. In 2012, Exelon 

added language to the Conowingo lease documents that the “tenant must provide 

certification that all sanitary and gray water systems are in good working order in 

accordance w/applicable regulations, and tenant is not in default under any sewage 

pumping agreement by a cert. vendor on or before Nov. 1 annually.” It is Exelon’s 

policy not to create any new cottage lease lots within the project boundaries. As existing 

cottages are abandoned or become damaged and are not replaced due to local zoning 

restrictions, leases would be terminated. In such cases, all structures and improvements 

would be removed from the leased lot, and the property would be restored to a natural 

condition and the site would be precluded from future cottage leases. 

Leases for public recreation and access facilities must comply with Exelon’s 

“Rules and Regulations Governing the Use and Occupancy of Leased Premises,” which 

parallel those developed for the cottage leases. In addition, leases must use the properties 

for park and public recreation access and facilities must comply with applicable local, 

state, and federal regulations. 

Interior makes a 10(a) recommendation that Exelon prepare and implement SMPs 

in consultation with FWS that are consistent with Guidance for Shoreline Management 

Planning at Hydropower Projects (FERC, 2012). The SMPs shall include specific 

measures and policies related to shoreline vegetation management and erosion control, 

woody debris management, game species management, sensitive natural resource 

protection, recreation use, and use of project lands. The licensee shall adopt BMPs for 

controlling sediment introduction from lands within the project boundary. 

The lack of a central septic system for the islands where York Haven Power issues 

lease permits for residential lots was raised as a concern during project scoping. Each 

camp has some type of on-lot sewage disposal system; however, Pennsylvania FBC 

questions if this is an adequate, ecologically sound system for the island environment. 

Our Analysis

York Haven Project 

York Haven Power does not have a comprehensive shoreline permitting program; 

however, it does permit non-project uses via the existing standard land use article and 

shoreline permits for recreational lots. Implementation of York Haven Power’s cottage 

lease agreements would continue to allow private use of portions of the islands and 

shoreline around Lake Fredric. York Haven Power suggests that routine monitoring 

would occur to ensure that cottages in disrepair are taken out of the program; however, 

the amount and type of monitoring of structures (e.g., conditions or encroachments) is not 

clearly described in the license application. Without a transparent process it is not clear 

what methods or interval York Haven Power uses to make findings to terminate leases 

and reclaim the lot area. 
299 

York Haven’s policies implemented in 2010 prohibiting the use of water 

withdrawn from wells or the river should reduce the amount of wastewater being 

produced at the cottages because residents must now provide their own supply of bottled, 

potable water. According to York Haven Power, many of the lots are expected to use 

substandard sewage disposal systems. Lease agreements make it clear that leaseholders 

are responsible to undertake and complete any sewage system upgrades or replacements 

required to comply with the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act and related rules and/or 

the Londonderry Township On-Lot Disposal System ordinance. 

Although we have no reason to conclude that county and local agencies 

responsible for monitoring and issuing on-lot disposal system permits would allow 

systems to continue in an environmentally irresponsible manner, the ultimate 

responsibility for project land and the protection of associated water quality and 

recreation resources at Lake Fredric lies with York Haven Power. The Commission has 

no authority over the county or local agencies, and York Haven Power has an ongoing 

responsibility to supervise and control shoreline developments to ensure that they are not 

inconsistent with project purposes, including protection and enhancement of the project’s 

scenic, recreational, and environmental values. 

The Commission recognizes the need to consider multiple resource concerns and 

interests in the development of a comprehensive plan to manage the shoreline, and the 

need to involve interested parties in the development process. The lot lease agreements 

only address some of the resource values at the York Haven Project. Licensees have a 

responsibility to ensure that shoreline development activities that occur within a project 

boundary are consistent with project license requirements, purposes, and operation. A 

well prepared SMP can assist the licensee in meeting its responsibilities throughout the 

term of any license. While these plans are specific to a particular project, SMPs should 

generally contain a summary of the purpose, goals and objectives of the plan and a 

description of the shoreline use classifications, which identifies allowable and prohibited 

uses for existing and future use of the shoreline. A plan may have multiple classification 

or sub-classification types, but they usually fall within three general types: (1) a 

protected or natural resource preservation classification, (2) a limited development 

classification, and (3) a more intensive development classification. SMPs should also 

include: (a) maps showing the shoreline classifications in relation to the project 

reservoir, project boundary, and various other features; (b) a permitting program and 

guidelines developed by the licensee; (c) a monitoring and enforcement program; and 

(d) provisions for periodic review and update of the plan. Development and 

implementation of a comprehensive SMP in accordance with the Commission’s 

published guidelines (FERC, 2012), and submitted for Commission review and approval, 

would ensure the shorelines are managed for the scenic, recreational, and environmental 

values for the duration of any future license. 
300 

Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects 

Implementation of Exelon’s proposed SMPs would provide a single source for 

shoreline management guidelines, policies, and an overall framework for managing the 

Muddy Run and Conowingo shorelines over the terms of any new licenses. Currently, 

cottage lots are managed with multiple policies and agreements, such as lot leases and 

erosion control permits. These documents do not, however, identify sensitive shoreline 

resources, public access areas, enforcement measures, or provisions for periodic review 

and updates. The proposed plans would bring all existing shoreline management 

programs and activities, such as the current residential lot and cottage lease program, and 

any other guidelines, into a single, comprehensive document. 

Implementation of the land classification and shoreline management policies 

would provide for the management of land uses within the project boundaries. Project 

lands would remain available for public recreational uses, and private and commercial 

uses would continue to be allowed on project lands pending proper reviews. Exelon 

would review permit applications for activities such as improvements to leased cottages, 

construction of boat docks, piers, and landscaping, and would ensure that all residential 

cottages sewage systems meet local standards on an annual basis. 

The proposed SMPs provide Exelon an opportunity to amend the plans as facts 

dictate; however, the plans do not include routine monitoring or consultation to verify the 

conditions that may warrant changing the plans. A monitoring and review process would 

inform Exelon and other interested parties if changes to the SMPs are necessary through 

the term of any license. The frequency with which an SMP should be reviewed depends 

upon several factors, including the rate of change on project lands and adjacent lands, as 

well as the level of stakeholder interest in shoreline development or water access. An 

SMP for a project located in an area subject to heavy development pressure or high 

stakeholder interest would likely need to be reviewed and updated more often than an 

SMP for a project located in an area that is not experiencing rapid change or is not of 

particular concern to stakeholders. FERC Guidance for Shoreline Management Planning 

at Hydropower Projects (2012) recommends SMPs be updated every 5 to 10 years. 

Given Exelon’s policy to not issue new leases and terminate leases on abandoned 

cottages, and the lack of comments received from stakeholders specific to the proposed 

policies within the SMP, updating the SMP every 10 years would be reasonable. 

Consultation with the appropriate agencies and other stakeholders as part of periodic 

review would ensure that multiple interests and needs are addressed. Preparation of 

revised SMPs that includes regular consultation with interested stakeholders would 

ensure the plan is consistent with conditions at the projects. 

The Park Service is responsible for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National 

Historic Trail and the Star-Spangled Banner National Trail. Because of its involvement 

in numerous projects in the project area, including working with the Pennsylvania 

Historical and Museum Commission, Maryland Historical Trust, and the Onondaga 

Nation to identify contact period landscapes associated with the Captain John Smith 
301 

Chesapeake National Historic Trail, the Park Service has a direct interest in the 

management of project land and water resources. For this reason, including the Park 

Service as a consulting party in the SMP would be appropriate. 

Erosion has occurred along various segments of Muddy Run and Conowingo 

shorelines as discussed in section 3.3.1, Geology and Soils. Exelon does not propose any 

changes to project operations that would affect existing erosion rates. However, because 

wind and wave action are likely to continue, erosion issues are likely to persist.

Effects of Changes to Project Boundary 

York Haven Power proposes to add 1.9 acres to the total project boundary acreage 

to encompass the project’s East Shore Boat Launch and Canal Lock recreation area. The 

proposed boundary modification would include the recreation site completely within the 

project boundary. The lands proposed to be added to the project are all owned in fee by 

York Haven Power and are outside the 30-foot setback from the centerline of the adjacent 

railroad line that constrains the project boundary on both sides of the impoundment. 

Exelon proposes to remove 1,965 acres from the Conowingo Project boundary. A 

1,760-acre area would be removed from the east and west banks downstream of 

Conowingo dam as the existing project boundary extends to Havre de Grace. The 

proposed project boundary would extend from a point approximately 3,000 feet 

downstream of Conowingo dam on the western shoreline continuing downstream across 

the river to a point along Maryland State Route 222 (Susquehanna River Road), 

approximately 2,000 feet downstream of the confluence of Octoraro Creek and the 

Susquehanna River. The original area within the existing project boundary was 

necessary during construction of the project; however, since construction is completed, 

Exelon proposes the lands are no longer necessary for the operation and maintenance of 

the project. The boundary adjustment would remove four non-project recreation facilities 

from the project boundary, including portions of the Lower Susquehanna Heritage 

Greenway, Deer Creek Access, Lapidum Boat Launch, and McLhinney Park.

A 205-acre area would be removed near the Boy Scout dam on Broad Creek in 

Maryland. The area begins at a point about 1 mile downstream from the Route 623 

Bridge across Broad Creek and encompasses land along Broad Creek between this point 

and the Boy Scout dam. The area does not contain any existing project recreation 

facilities and is not necessary for operation and maintenance of the project. 

Exelon would negotiate leases with recreation facility operators that would no 

longer exist in the project boundary, and would negotiate a new lease with Maryland 

DNR for continued operation of the Lower Susquehanna Greenway Trail and MasonDixon Trail on Exelon-owned lands. 

Lancaster County Conservancy commented that the landscape of the lower 

Susquehanna River has been designated a Pennsylvania Conservation Landscape (known 

as the Susquehanna Riverlands), and is part of the Susquehanna Gateway Heritage Area. 

The area (potentially) affected by these projects includes a significant portion of the 
302 

Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail and part of the MasonDixon Trail. 

Our Analysis

The addition of 1.9 acres of project lands at the York Haven Project would ensure 

the entire East Shore Boat Launch and Canal Lock recreation area is recognized as a 

project feature and managed under any future license for the project. Currently, the 

project boundary does not encompass the entire recreation area. These lands would be 

managed for their recreation resources consistent with the requirements of any license 

issued for the project. 

A relatively thin ribbon of land on the west bank downstream of Conowingo dam 

was included in past licenses so as to include the railroad that was used to shuttle material 

to the dam during construction. The old railroad is gone and lands in this area are now 

used for recreation; however, these lands serve no direct project purpose. Continuation 

of the lease agreements with the State of Maryland for Susquehanna State Park (which 

includes the Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway Trail, Deer Creek Access, and 

Lapidum Boat Launch) and the City of Havre de Grace for McLhinney Park would 

maintain recreation access at these locations if the project boundary were changed. With 

the exception of the Lower Susquehanna Greenway Heritage Trail, which connects 

Fisherman’s Park with Susquehanna State Park lands, the rest of these sites are nonproject recreation sites located more than 3 miles downstream of Conowingo dam. 

Removal of these lands would be consistent with FERC policy that only lands and waters 

needed for project purposes for the continued operation of the project should be included 

in the project boundary. Lands and waters needed may include those for (1) construction 

and operation of its project, and (2) to carry out other project purposes such as recreation, 

wildlife protection, and enhancement, etc. Execution of a new lease with Maryland DNR 

would ensure these lands are maintained for public recreation purposes; however, they 

would not be under FERC jurisdiction. 

3.3.6 Cultural Resources 

3.3.6.1 Affected Environment 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires the Commission to evaluate potential effects on 

properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register prior to an undertaking. 

An undertaking means a project, activity, or program funded in whole, or in part, under 

the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including, among other things, 

processes requiring a federal permit, license, or approval. In this case, the undertakings 

are the relicensing of the Susquehanna River Projects. Potential effects associated with 

these undertakings include project-related effects associated with any new construction 

activities associated with the projects, and the day-to-day operation and maintenance of 

the projects.
303 

Historic properties are defined as any district, site, building, structure, or object 

that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Traditional cultural 

properties are a type of historic property eligible for the National Register because of 

their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that: (1) are 

rooted in that community’s history or (2) are important in maintaining the continuing 

cultural identity of the community. In this EIS, we also use the term cultural resources to 

include properties that have not been evaluated for eligibility for listing in the National 

Register. In most cases, cultural resources less than 50 years old are not considered 

eligible for the National Register.

Section 106 also requires that the Commission seek concurrence with the 

Pennsylvania SHPO and Maryland SHPO on any finding involving effects or no effects 

on historic properties, and allow the Advisory Council an opportunity to comment on any 

finding of effects on historic properties. If Native American properties have been 

identified, section 106 also requires that the Commission consult with interested Native 

American tribes that might attach religious or cultural significance to such properties. 

By letters filed May 11, 2009 (Muddy Run and Conowingo), and July 24, 2009 

(York Haven), the Commission designated Exelon and York Haven Power, respectively, 

as the Commission’s non-federal representatives for carrying out day-to-day consultation 

in regard to the relicensing efforts pursuant to section 106 of the NHPA. The 

Commission, however, remains ultimately responsible for all findings and determinations 

regarding project effects on any historic property, pursuant to section 106. 

Area of Potential Effects 

Pursuant to section 106, the Commission must take into account whether any 

historic property within each project’s APE could be affected by the issuance of new 

licenses. According to the Advisory Council’s regulations, the APE is defined as “the 

geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause 

alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist” 

(36 CFR 800.16[3]). The APE encompasses the likely extent of project operations and 

project-related environmental measures that could be undertaken during the term of any 

new licenses that are issued for the proposed projects. 

In its application, York Haven Power defined the APE for the York Haven Project 

as the area within the project boundary as shown on the exhibit G maps provided in the 

application and includes all lands associated with York Haven dam and reservoir, the east 

channel dam, the powerhouse, transmission line, and associated project features. By 

letter filed April 26, 2010, the Pennsylvania SHPO concurred with this definition of the 

APE (letter from D.C. McLearen, Chief, Division of Archaeology and Protection, 

Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission, Bureau for Historic Preservation, 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to D. Weaver, York Haven Power Company, York Haven, 

Pennsylvania, filed December 28, 2012). 
304 

In its application, Exelon proposed an APE for the Muddy Run Project that 

consists of all lands located within the project boundary as shown on the exhibit G maps 

provided in the application and includes all lands associated with Muddy Run dam and 

reservoir, the powerhouse, transmission line, and associated project features. In 

approving Exelon’s study plan dated December 22, 2009, the Commission also approved 

the project APE.

In its application, Exelon proposed a revised project boundary for the Conowingo 

Project that includes Conowingo dam and reservoir, powerhouse, transmission line, and 

associated project features but terminates just downstream from Conowingo dam. Exelon 

describes the APE as including all lands located within this proposed project boundary 

plus an additional 3.8 miles downstream to Spencer Island that are located in the current 

project boundary. While Exelon proposes to remove lands currently in the project 

boundary located downstream of Spencer Island from the current project boundary, it

stated that these lands would remain in the project APE because cultural resource sites 

could be affected by project-related flows in this area (personal communication between 

E. Carter [FERC], T. Sullivan, K. Smith, M. Hoover, and G. Lemay [Gomez and 

Sullivan]; B. Lynch and C. Hicks [Exelon]; and J. Ryan [VanNess Feldman], 

Washington, D.C., April 8, 2013). A narrow strip of land located in the current project 

boundary extending downstream from Spencer Island along the west side of the 

Susquehanna River to the city of Havre de Grace, Maryland, was excluded from the APE 

because Exelon did not identify any project effects in this area. 

Cultural History Overview

The following discussion is adapted from the cultural overview provided in York 

Haven Power and Exelon’s license applications. 

The prehistory of the Susquehanna River Projects area can be divided into four 

general time periods: Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Protohistoric. Paleoindian 

peoples (12,000 – 7,500 B.C.) were nomadic hunter-gatherers who routinely used natural 

rockshelters as dwellings. Paleoindian sites are recognized by the presence of large 

fluted projectile points suitable for hunting large game present at the end of the 

Pleistocene. There are very few documented Paleoindian sites in the region, but one 

important site, Meadowcroft Rockshelter, is located in southwestern Pennsylvania. 

During the Archaic period (7,500 – 1,000 B.C.), people adapted to a warmer climate and 

increasingly relied on smaller game and abundant plant resources. These changes are 

reflected in changes in tool technologies to include smaller notched projectile points, 

groundstone tools, and steatite vessels. The Woodland period (1,000 B.C. – A.D. 1600) 

is marked by a transition to a more sedentary settlement pattern and the appearance of 

horticultural practices, elaborate ceramics, and increased ceremonialism evidenced by 

mound construction. The Susquehanna River Project areas primarily contain evidence of 

Archaic and Woodland period occupations, although one site believed to date to the 

Paleoindian period was identified within the York Haven APE. The final Prototohistoric 

period is characterized by profound changes in cultural practices as a result of contact 
305 

with European explorers and settlers. Today, the Delaware Nation of Native Americans 

retains ties to the Susquehanna River region. Additionally, the Onondaga Nation has 

demonstrated ties to the Muddy Run and Conowingo project areas. 

European exploration of the Susquehanna River region began in 1608 when John 

Smith reached the mouth of the river. However, European settlements did not appear 

until the late 1600s when William Penn began to grant settlement rights in the region. 

Lancaster County was established in 1729 and subsequently divided into York, 

Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon, and Northumberland Counties. The economy of the 

region was based primarily on mining, quarrying, milling, and agriculture, with tobacco 

being an important crop. The Colombia and Port Deposit Railroad was completed in the 

middle 1930s, and the Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal was opened in 1840. These 

developments provided an important means of transport to the larger eastern cities. 

The York Haven and Conowingo Projects were two of four hydroelectric facilities 

built on the Lower Susquehanna River between 1904 and 1932. The York Haven Project 

Water and Power Company was incorporated in 1895 as a water supplier to York Haven 

residents and businesses. Construction of the project began in June 1901, and a 

powerhouse was designed by John Augustus Dempwolf using both utilitarian and 

Romanesque features. In March 1904, the structure was collapsed by an ice gorge and 

floodwaters, but repairs were completed by August of that same year. The powerhouse 

was expanded in 1907 to include additional generation capacity and new operating units 

went online in 1914. East channel dam was constructed in 1918. 

Conowingo dam was constructed between 1926 and 1928 to supply power to 

Philadelphia and southeastern Pennsylvania. The facility also provided power to railroad 

lines between Washington, D.C., and New York. In 1927, PECO Energy Company, 

Public Service Company of New Jersey, and PPL reached a cooperative agreement to 

interconnect their power systems through transmission lines to concentrate power in 

industrial areas of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Construction of the Conowingo Project 

was a large endeavor, and required the relocation of the village of Conowingo and 

rerouting 16 miles of Pennsylvania Railroad track and Baltimore Pike. At the time of its 

construction, it was the second largest hydroelectric development in the United States. 

A license to construct the Muddy Run Project was issued to PECO Energy 

Company in September 1964. Construction of the project began that year, and the 

facility was in operation in 1967. At that time, it was the largest pumped storage facility 

in the world. 

Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Resources

York Haven Project

York Haven Power conducted research at the Pennsylvania Historical and 

Museum Commission and identified 24 previously recorded sites within the project APE 

and three areas that had been given “general site designations.” The three “general site 

designations” were attributed to Shelley Island (36DA3), Three Mile Island (36DA52), 
306 

and Hill Island (36DA86) for their general cultural sensitivity but are not considered to be 

sites per se. In June 2010, a shoreline archaeological reconnaissance of the known sites 

within the APE was undertaken (Stallings and Franz, 2011) to assess all known cultural 

sites in the APE for project-related effects. Of the 24 known sites, 17 are located on 

privately owned lands and were either not inspected or were surveyed by boat only. The 

remaining seven sites (36DA3, 36DA102, 36DA103, 36DA104, 36DA105, 36DA150, 

36DA151) are located on lands owned by York Haven Power. None of the 24 sites have 

been formally evaluated for listing on the National Register, although 36DA99, 

36DA100, 36DA101, and 36DA235 were described as being potentially eligible. 

Muddy Run Project 

Archival research conducted at the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum 

Commission enabled Exelon to identify three previously recorded sites within the Muddy 

Run Project APE (36LA67, 36LA103, 36LA368). Site 36LA67 is also located within the 

APE for the adjacent Conowingo Project. Phase IA archaeological studies also identified 

12 areas of archaeological sensitivity. The shorelines of these AOIs were visited by boat 

and areas of erosion were identified and photographed. The resulting field inspections 

were described in Phase IA Archaeological Study and Preliminary Historic Structures 

Assessment Report for the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Relicensing Application Project, 

Lancaster and York Counties, Pennsylvania (Sara et al., 2011a). Field inspections 

indicated that one of the previously recorded sites (36LA0103) is currently inundated by 

Muddy Run reservoir. While the Phase IA report identified a moderate to high potential 

for archaeological resources at most of the 12 AOIs, only two AOIs (AOI 1, AOI 9) were 

identified as worthy of additional field research because they contained high localized 

erosion as well as moderate to high probability for sites. The other AOIs were not further 

inspected. In its December 28, 2012, response to the Commission’s November 2, 2012, 

Additional Information Request, Exelon explained that the two AOIs identified for 

further research were located within the boundaries of a previously recorded site 

(36LA0067). These two AOIs were further investigated during Phase IB research with 

results presented in Phase IB Archaeological Survey of Two High Priority Areas of 

Interest (AOIs 1 and 9), Muddy Run Pumped Storage Relicensing Application Project, 

Lancaster and York Counties, Pennsylvania (Sara et al., 2012a). A series of 19 shovel 

test pits was excavated in the two AOIs; no cultural materials were identified. The 

Pennsylvania SHPO agreed with Exelon’s Phase IB recommendations and stated that no 

further archaeological work at the two AOIs was required (letter from D.C. McClearen, 

Chief, Division of Archaeology and Protection, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum 

Commission, Bureau for Historic Preservation, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to C.E. Hicks, 

Exelon Corporation, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, February 9, 2012). The third 

previously recorded site (36LA368) is situated above the shoreline and did not warrant 

further Phase IB investigations. No new archaeological resources were identified during 

Phase IA and Phase IB studies. 
307 

Conowingo Project

Archival research conducted at the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum 

Commission enabled Exelon to identify 37 previously recorded sites within the 

Conowingo Project APE. Phase IA studies also identified 45 areas of archaeological 

sensitivity. These AOIs and subsequent boat inspections of specific shoreline locations 

were described in Phase IA Archaeological Study and Preliminary Historic Structures 

Assessment Report for the Conowingo Relicensing Application Project, Harford and 

Cecil Counties, Maryland and Lancaster and York Counties, Pennsylvania (Sara et al., 

2011b). During the Phase IA research, Exelon identified 19 AOIs with high localized 

erosion as well as a high probability for archaeological resources; nine of these were 

recommended for further field investigations. Subsequent Phase IB research entailed the 

excavation of a total of 369 shovel test pits dispersed throughout these nine AOIs. The 

results were presented in Conowingo Project Relicensing Application, Harford and Cecil 

Counties, Maryland and Lancaster and York Counties, Pennsylvania, Phase IB 

Archaeological Survey of Nine High Priority Areas of Interest (AOIs 6, 18, 19, 33, 36A, 

36B, 38, 39, and 45), FERC No. 405 (Sara et al., 2012b). During this study, seven new 

sites (18HA317, 18HA318, 18HA319, 18HA320, 18CE373, 18CE374, and 18CE375) 

and two isolated finds were documented bringing the total site count to 44 sites. As a 

result of both the Phase IA and IB studies, Exelon identified one site (18CE82) that has 

been previously determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register and one site 

(18CE16) that has been previously determined to be ineligible. Three previously 

recorded sites also considered to be eligible for listing (36LA51, 36LA56, 36LA67) and 

two sites (18CE14, 36LA69) were recommended as potentially eligible. Of these sites,

36LA67 is also located within the APE established for the Muddy Run Project. All seven 

of the newly identified sites were also recommended as potentially eligible. The 

remaining 30 sites in the Conowingo Project APE have not been evaluated, and their 

National Register eligibility is unknown. 

Table 3-37 shows all archaeological and historic sites identified within the APEs 

for the Susquehanna River Projects. 

Table 3-37. Recorded archaeological and historic sites identified within the 

Susquehanna River Projects APEs (Sources: Stallings and Franz, 2012; 

Exelon, 2012). 

Resource 

Number Resource Type National Register Eligibility

York Haven Project

36DA3

(general) General prehistoric, open habitation n/a

36DA51 General prehistoric, open habitation Unknown
308 

Resource 

Number Resource Type National Register Eligibility

36DA52

(general) General prehistoric, open habitation n/a

36DA86

(general) General prehistoric, open habitation n/a

36DA93 Late Woodland, open habitation Unknown

36DA94 Transitional, open habitation Unknown

36DA95 Late Archaic - Late Woodland, open 

habitation Unknown

36DA98 General prehistoric, open habitation Unknown

36DA99 Late Archaic, open habitation Potentially eligible

36DA100 Early Archaic, open habitation Potentially eligible

36DA101 Late Archaic; Late Woodland; 19th century, 

multi-component Potentially eligible

36DA102 Late Archaic open habitation Unknown

36DA103 Middle - Late Archaic open habitation Unknown

36DA104 Late Archaic, open habitation Unknown

36DA105 Late Archaic, open habitation Unknown

36DA106 Late Archaic, open habitation Unknown

36DA107 Late Archaic - Transitional Archaic, open 

habitation Unknown

36DA139 Island Late Archaic; Middle-Late Archaic, 

open habitation Unknown

36DA149 Late Archaic, open, unknown function Unknown

36DA150 General prehistoric; Late Woodland, open, 

unknown function Unknown

36DA151 Late Woodland, open, known function Unknown

36DA152 Archaic-Late Woodland, open, unknown 

function Unknown

36DA235 18th to 20th century, farmstead Potentially eligible
309 

Resource 

Number Resource Type National Register Eligibility

36YO256 Archaic-Late Woodland, open habitation Unknown

36YO264 General prehistoric, open habitation Unknown

36YO300 Paleoindian-Archaic, Late Woodland, general 

historic, open, unknown function Unknown

36YO334 Unknown Unknown

Muddy Run Project

36LA67 Prehistoric open habitation Considered eligible

36LA103 Rockshelter Unknown

36LA368 Prehistoric open habitation Unknown

Conowingo Project

Maryland

18CE14 Multi-component Prehistoric Potentially Eligible

18CE16 Late Archaic Ineligible

18CE82 Rock art Eligible

18CE347 19th century domestic Unknown

18CE348 19th-20th century farm Unknown

18CE349 Industrial Susquehanna Canal Unknown

18CE366 Industrial Susquehanna Canal Lock Unknown

18CE373 Prehistoric, Archaic-Woodland village site; 

18th-20th century cemetery Potentially Eligible

18CE374 Prehistoric, open habitation Potentially Eligible

18CE375 Prehistoric, open habitation Potentially Eligible

18HA21 Transitional Archaic; 19th century canal Unknown

18HA240 19th-20th century canal lock gates Unknown

18HA248 Middle to Late Archaic short-term camp Unknown

18HA254 Middle to Late Archaic short-term camp Unknown

18HA255 Late Archaic short term camp Unknown
310 

Resource 

Number Resource Type National Register Eligibility

18HA256 Late Archaic Lithic Scatter; 18th century 

domestic site Unknown

18HA267 Late 19th-early 20th century barge/wreck Unknown

18HA268 19th-20th century barge/shipwreck Unknown

18HA269 Historic landing or wharf site Unknown

18HA285 Mill Ruins Unknown

18HA317 19th-20th century domestic structure and 

refuse Potentially Eligible

18HA318 Archaic-Woodland base camp, 18th-20th 

century Potentially Eligible

18HA319 Prehistoric, unknown lithic scatter Potentially Eligible

18HA320 Woodland base camp, 18th-20th century Potentially Eligible

Pennsylvania

36LA28 Open habitation, prehistoric Unknown

36LA29 Open habitation, prehistoric Unknown

35LA34 Prehistoric open habitation Unknown

36LA35 Prehistoric open habitation Unknown

36LA43 Open habitation Unknown

36LA45 Open habitation Unknown

36LA47 Historic, prehistoric Unknown

36LA51 Open habitation Considered Eligible

36LA56 Prehistoric, open habitation Considered Eligible

36LA65 Late Archaic, open habitation Unknown

36LA67 Prehistoric, open habitation Considered Eligible

36LA68 Prehistoric, open habitation Unknown

36LA69 Prehistoric, open habitation Potentially Eligible

36LA70 Prehistoric, open habitation Unknown

36LA118 Prehistoric, open habitation Unknown

36LA120 Prehistoric, open habitation Unknown

36LA1252 Rockshelter Unknown
311 

Resource 

Number Resource Type National Register Eligibility

36LA1253 Prehistoric, open Unknown

36LA1254 Shelter Unknown

36YO381 Historic mill race Unknown

Historic Structures

York Haven Project

York Haven Power conducted an architectural survey and identified five historic 

structural resources in the project APE (Stallings and Franz, 2011). Three of these 

structural resources are located on Shelley Island: the Shelly Island Schoolhouse and two 

historic cemeteries. By letter filed May 2, 2011, the Pennsylvania SHPO determined that 

the Shelley Island Schoolhouse is ineligible for listing117 on the National Register (letter 

from D.C. McLearen, Chief, Division of Archaeology and Protection, Pennsylvania 

Historical and Museum Commission, Bureau for Historic Preservation, Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania, to F. P. Stallings, Brockington Cultural Resources Consulting, Norcross, 

GA, May 2, 2011). The survey report also notes that cemeteries are generally not eligible 

for listing on the National Register but can be eligible under the National Register criteria 

if they obtain their primary significance from graves of person of transcendent 

importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from an association with 

historic events (Park Service, 1992). York Haven Power recommended that the two 

cemeteries do not meet these criteria. The Three Mile Island nuclear plant is also located 

within the APE and has been previously determined eligible for listing on the National 

Register. However, while this facility is technically located within the project APE, it is 

situated within an area excluded from FERC jurisdiction. Only the York Haven Project 

was identified within the APE as potentially eligible for listing on the National Register 

under Criterion A for its contribution to the history of hydroelectric power in the region 

between 1901 and 1904. It was also recommended as eligible under Criterion C because 

of its association with the John Augustus Dempwolf firm and reflects both utilitarian and 

Richardsonian Romanesque architectural styles. In its May 2, 2011, letter, the 

Pennsylvania SHPO concurred with these recommendations. 

 

117 The Pennsylvania SHPO did not indicate why the schoolhouse is ineligible for 

listing; however, the final license application at page 273 states: “many of the buildings 

on Shelley Island are replacements of earlier structures that were destroyed or heavily 

damaged during the Hurricane Agnes Flood of 1972.” 
312 

Muddy Run Project 

Exelon conducted a study of potentially eligible historic structures associated with 

both the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects. The results of the study for the Muddy 

Run Project are presented in Final Report, Historic Structures Assessment Report for the 

Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project Relicensing Application, Drumore and Martic 

Townships, Lancaster County and Lower Chanceford and Peach Bottom Townships, 

York County, Pennsylvania (Henry and Jenkins, 2012a). A single structure, the historic 

Ritchie-Robinson House (ca. 1846), was identified. According to the report, the 

Pennsylvania SHPO had previously determined that the structure was ineligible for 

listing on the National Register in 2001. Exelon re-evaluated the structure at the request 

of the Pennsylvania SHPO (letter from D. C. McLearen, Chief, Division of Archaeology 

and Protection, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Bureau for Historic 

Preservation, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to F. P. Stallings, Brockington Cultural 

Resources Consulting, Norcross, GA, January 6, 2011). Exelon recommended that the 

house remain ineligible because (a) its previous occupants, William Ritchie and Michael 

Robinson, were not persons of historical significance on the local, state, or national level; 

(b) the structure has been altered with modern materials and additions that have 

compromised the house’s integrity of design, materials, and workmanship; and (c) the 

farmstead itself does not contain a range of typical buildings and landscape features that 

would demonstrate important changes over time in the region’s agricultural history. In its 

December 28, 2012, response to the Commission’s November 2, 2012, Additional 

Information Request, Exelon explained that while the Pennsylvania SHPO’s concurrence 

on this recommendation had been requested, no response had been received. The Muddy 

Run Project does not yet meet the 50-year threshold for National Register eligibility. 

However, Exelon’s historic structures report states that the system is potentially eligible 

for listing under National Register Criterion A (energy production), Criterion C 

(engineering), and Criterion Consideration G, which recognizes significant architectural 

resources less than 50 years old. The report recommended further research and field 

survey to complete the Historic Structures Resource form for the Muddy Run facility and 

to formally evaluate its eligibility for the National Register. 

Conowingo Project

A reconnaissance level architectural survey for the Conowingo Project identified a 

number of historic structures located within the project APE (table 3-38). The results of 

the study are presented in Final Report, Historic Structures Report for the Conowingo 

Hydroelectric Project Relicensing Application, Hanford and Cecil Counties, Maryland, 

FERC Project No. 405 (Henry and Jenkins, 2012b). Archival research identified four 

structures or structural districts currently listed on the National Register (HA-112, HA113, 

HA-1551, and HA1591). By letter filed May 1, 2012, the Pennsylvania SHPO stated that 

the Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal (HA-112) and the Columbia & Port Deposit 

Railroad (CE-1554) had been evaluated for another project and were determined ineligible 

for inclusion in the National Register (letter from D.C. McClearen, Chief, Division of 

Archaeology and Protection, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Bureau 
313 

for Historic Preservation, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to C.E. Hicks, Exelon Corporation, 

Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, filed August 31, 2012). However, subsequently, the 

Pennsylvania SHPO reversed this determination and stated that these two structures are 

indeed eligible (letter from D.C. McClearen, Chief, Division of Archaeology and 

Protection, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Bureau for Historic 

Preservation, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to K. Smith, Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, 

Henniker, NH, July 23, 2012). No reason for this change was provided. The Lower Deer 

Creek Valley Historic District (HA-1551) contains a number of contributing elements, 

nine of which are within the project APE. While the boundaries of the Havre De Grace 

Historic District (HA-1591) are also located within the APE, no structures associated with 

the district are present in the APE. There are five additional previously documented 

resources in the APE, three of which (CE-874, HA-1877, and HA-1971) have also been 

previously determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register. Two others (HA1035 and HA-1183) are recommended as ineligible. One historic bridge (HA-1581) was 

demolished in 1997. A total of seven additional resources were newly identified during 

the study. All seven were recommended as ineligible for listing on the National Register. 

Table 3-38. Historic structures identified within the Susquehanna River Projects APEs 

(Sources: Stallings and Franz, 2011; Henry and Jenkins, 2012a, 2012b). 

Resource 

Number Resource Type National Register Eligibility

York Haven Project

Unassigned Shelley Island Schoolhouse Ineligible

Unassigned Shelley Family Cemetery Recommended ineligible

Unassigned Shelley Island Cemetery Recommended ineligible

Unassigned Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant Eligible

Unassigned York Haven Hydroelectric Project Eligible

Muddy Run Project

Unassigned Ritchie-Robinson House Recommended ineligible

Unassigned Muddy Run Hydroelectric Project Potentially eligible

Conowingo Project

CE-0874 Bell Manor Road Bridge Determined eligible 2001 

(per Exelon)

CE-1554/ 

1558 (new)

Columbia & Port Deposit Railroad 

including Bridge and Tunnels

Eligible (Pennsylvania

SHPO 7/23/2012)

CE-1555 Perpendicular Lock of Susquehanna Canal Recommended ineligible
314 

Resource 

Number Resource Type National Register Eligibility

(new)

CE-1556 

(new)

Palmer House 900 Susquehanna Road Recommended ineligible

CE-1557 

(new)

McClenahan Bros./John W. Malone Quarry 

Building

Recommended ineligible

HA-0112 Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal 

Southern Terminus

National Register listed 

1987, determined 

eligible (Pennsylvania

SHPO 7/23/2012)

HA-0113 Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal 

Lockmasters House

National Register listed 

1987

HA-1035 Old U.S. Route 1 (Glen Cove Road) Recommended ineligible

HA-1183 Whitney Cottage Recommended ineligible

HA-1581 MD 623 Bridge over Broad Creek Demolished in 1997

HA-1591 Havre De Grace Historic District National Register listed 

1982

HA-1877 County Road 19 Bridge Determined eligible 2001 

(per Exelon)

HA-1971 U.S. Route 1 bridge over Conowingo Dam 

(Conowingo Hydroelectric Facility)

Determined eligible 2001 

(per Exelon)

HA2210/2211 

(new)

Susquehanna Power Company Railroad 

Spur and Bridge

Recommended ineligible

HA-2212 

(new)

Trenton Flint and Spar Company Building 

Ruins

Recommended ineligible

HA-2213 

(new) 

Bridge Recommended ineligible

HA-2214 

(new)

Culvert Recommended ineligible

HA-1551 Lower Deer Creek Valley Historic District Listed 1987
315 

Resource 

Number Resource Type National Register Eligibility

HA-191 Rock Run Mill Contributes to District

HA-195 Rock Run Bridge Toll House Contributes to District

HA-196 Rock Run Bridge Piers Contributes to District

HA-376 Lapidum Warehouse Wharf Road Contributes to District

HA-377 Lapidum Inn site Contributes to District

HA-380 Abrahams/Nicholson House Contributes to District

HA-381 Pugh House/Ferncliff Contributes to District

HA-382 Lapidum Lock Contributes to District

HA-2190 Neff House Contributes to District

Traditional Cultural Properties 

On June 12, 2009, the Commission initiated consultation with the Delaware 

Nation and inquired regarding its interest in the Susquehanna River Projects relicensing 

(letter from A. Miles, Director of Hydropower Licensing, FERC, Washington, D.C., to 

K. Holton, President, Delaware Nation, Anadarko, OK, June 12, 2009). The Commission 

offered to meet with the tribe to discuss any issues or concerns that the tribe might have. 

York Haven Power also consulted with the Delaware Nation during study plan 

development and on October 26, 2010, the tribe responded by email stating that it desired 

to be a consulting party.118 On April 7, 2011, York Haven Power provided the tribe with 

a copy of the cultural resources report for review and comment.119 The tribe was also 

 

118 October 26, 2010, email from J. Ross, Cultural Preservation Department, 

Delaware Nation, Anadarko, OK, to P. Stallings, Brockington and Associates, Inc. 

Norcross, GA, filed December 28, 2012. 

119 April 7, 2011, letter from F.P. Stallings, Brockington and Associates, Inc. 

Norcross, GA, to T. Francis, Cultural Preservation Director, Delaware Nation, Anadarko, 

OK, filed June 12, 2009.
316 

provided a copy of the draft and final license applications. The Delaware Nation is also 

included on Exelon’s list of consulting parties. To date, no specific comments have been 

received from the Delaware Nation and no concerns regarding cultural resources in the 

project APE have been reported. On December 13, 2013, the Onondaga Nation 

expressed an interest in the lower Susquehanna River Projects.120

 Specifically, the tribe 

expressed concerns regarding cultural resources including traditional trails and trade 

routes in the vicinity of the Conowingo and Muddy Run project areas. 

3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects 

Project-Related Effects on Cultural Resources 

Project-related effects on cultural resources within the APEs could occur from 

project operations, any proposed modifications to project facilities, changes in project 

boundaries, public use of project lands, and other activities. Project effects are 

considered to be adverse when an activity may alter, directly or indirectly, the 

characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National 

Register. If adverse effects are found, such effects would need to be resolved in 

consultation with the Maryland SHPO, Pennsylvania SHPO, and other parties. For the 

most part, assessment of effects on archaeological resources located within the APEs of 

the three projects focused on erosional effects.

York Haven Project 

In its application, York Haven Power stated that, because 17 of the 24 previously 

recorded sites are located on private lands, they were not assessed for project effects, and 

are not subject to the management responsibilities of York Haven Power. Six of the 

17 sites (36DA100, 36DA101, 36DA235, 36DA51, 36DA98, 36DA99) are situated 

within a “FERC-designated exclusion zone” established for the Three Mile Island Project 

and are exempt from cultural resource consideration associated with the project. Several 

sites are located on York Haven Power fee lands that are either permitted lots (36DA139, 

36DA150, 36DA151) or are subject to non-intrusive agricultural practices (36DA104, 

36DA105). Two additional sites on fee lands are reported to have been heavily collected 

in the past (36DA102, 36DA103). Regardless, York Haven Power stated that its 

archaeological reconnaissance did not identify any project-related effects on any of the 24 

registered sites within the APE. Although areas of erosion were observed at several sites, 

and one site (36DA152) was identified as intermittently inundated, York Haven Power 

stated that any shoreline erosion at these sites is a consequence of natural river flows and 

not project operation (York Haven Power, 2012a). 

 

120 December 12, 3013, Motion to Intervene of the Onondaga Nation from Chief 

I. Powless, Jr., Secretary, Onondaga Nation, Nedrow, NY, filed December 24, 2013. 
317 

Five historic structural resources were identified within the York Haven Project 

APE. One of these has been determined to be ineligible for listing on the National 

Register, and three are recommended as ineligible. Effects to these resources have 

therefore not been assessed. The remaining two structures are eligible or potentially 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Of these, the Three Mile Island nuclear 

plant is located within the FERC-designated “exclusion zone.” No project effects on the 

plant were identified. However, normal operation and maintenance activities associated 

with the historic York Haven Hydroelectric Project facilities could adversely affect the 

character-defining features of this facility. 

Muddy Run Project 

In its November 2, 2012, Additional Information Request, the Commission 

requested that Exelon provide a discussion of the current status of the three previously 

recorded sites identified during Phase IA cultural resources studies. In its 

December 28, 2012, response, Exelon explained that one site is currently inundated by 

the Muddy Run reservoir (36LA103), and one site is unaffected by project-related 

erosional impacts (36LA368). Exelon stated that AOI 1 and AOI 9, which were 

investigated during Phase IB studies, were located within the boundaries of the third site 

(36LA67) and that no cultural materials or features were observed. However, because 

this site lies within the APEs for both the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects, the 

Phase IB report recommends further investigation of the site as part of the Conowingo 

Project relicensing to determine the site’s condition and to assess erosional impacts (Sara 

et al., 2012a). Exelon concluded in section 3.3.8.2 of its application that the continued 

operation of the Muddy Run Project and “associated Project recreation” could affect 

cultural resources. Exelon also notes that siltation may be considered to have a positive 

effect in some situations because it provides a layer of protection. 

Exelon’s application identifies a single architectural resource present within the 

Muddy Run Project APE. The Ritchie-Robinson House has been recommended as 

ineligible for listing on the National Register and therefore, project effects on this 

resource need not be assessed. Exelon’s historic structures report (Henry and Jenkins, 

2012a) also identified the Muddy Run Hydroelectric Project system as a potential historic 

property. Because the system has not yet reached the 50-year threshold for National 

Register eligibility, Exelon did not complete an assessment of effects for this resource. 

Conowingo Project

Exelon concluded in section 3.3.8.2 of its application that the continued operation 

of the Conowingo Project and “associated Project recreation” could affect cultural 

resources. Exelon also noted that siltation may be considered to have a positive effect in 

some situations because it provides a layer of protection. Exelon’s Phase IB report (Sara 

et al., 2012b) also recommended additional field study of the eight sites investigated in 

the study to determine site boundaries and eligibility. However, by letter filed July 3, 

2012 (letter from D.L. Henry, Preservation Officer, Maryland Historical Trust, 

Crownsville, Maryland, to K.D. Bose, Secretary, FERC, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2012),
318 

the Maryland SHPO provided comments on Exelon’s cultural resources investigations 

and stated that no further archaeological investigations were necessary for the relicensing 

at this time. Additionally, by email on April 26, 2012, the Maryland SHPO stated that 

the removal of specified lands from the Conowingo Project boundary and from federal 

jurisdiction would not result in an adverse effect on the Susquehanna and Tidewater 

Canal terminus because the Maryland Historical Trust holds a perpetual preservation 

easement on the property (email from D.L. Henry, Preservation Officer, Maryland 

Historical Trust, Crownsville, Maryland, to D.S. Searman, Maryland DNR, Annapolis, 

Maryland, filed June 21, 2011). The Maryland SHPO concluded that continued operation 

of the Conowingo Project would have no adverse effect on historic properties, including 

the historic Conowingo Project Hydroelectric Project facilities. 

A ninth site investigated during the Phase IB study is located in Pennsylvania 

(36LA69). By letter filed February 16, 2012, the Pennsylvania SHPO recommended 

completing Phase II evaluations at this site because the site is threatened by 

ongoing erosion. 

Historic Properties Management Plans

York Haven Project 

In April 2012, York Haven Power prepared a draft HPMP to address projectrelated effects on historic properties and unevaluated cultural resources. The 

Pennsylvania SHPO provided comments on the draft HPMP (letter from D.C. 

McClearen, Chief, Division of Archaeology and Protection, Pennsylvania Historical and 

Museum Commission, Bureau for Historic Preservation, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to 

D. Weaver, York Haven Power Company, York Haven, Pennsylvania, 

September 14, 2012), and York Haven Power addressed those comments in a revised 

HPMP filed with the Commission on December 28, 2012 (Stallings and Franz, 2012). 

In its HPMP, York Haven Power proposes to appoint a cultural resources 

coordinator and implement review procedures that would apply to non-routine 

maintenance activities, structural modifications, or additions that may be necessary in the 

future. Additionally, the HPMP includes measures and procedures for: (a) an employee 

cultural resources awareness program; (b) the treatment of inadvertent discoveries of 

cultural materials; (c) the treatment of human remains that may be identified during 

project activities; (d) additional archaeological investigations including protocols for any 

new construction activities intended to avoid affecting National Register-eligible 

resources; (e) any sale or transfer of project lands; (f) ground maintenance and 

landscaping within the project APE; (g) monitoring archaeological sites identified within 

the project APE including inspection and reporting policies; (h) potential effects on 

historic hydroelectric system structures; (i) activities that are exempt for further 

section 106 consultation; and (j) review and updates of the HPMP should license 

modifications become necessary or should regulation change. If these situations do not 

occur, the HPMP would be reviewed and revised every 10 years in consultation with the 
319 

Commission, the Pennsylvania SHPO, interested Native American tribes, and other 

parties as appropriate. 

Muddy Run Project 

Exelon stated that continued operation of the Muddy Run Project would not affect 

historic properties that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register. For this 

reason, Exelon did not develop an HPMP for the Muddy Run Project. However, Exelon 

also stated that continued operation and maintenance and project-related recreation 

activities have the potential to affect sites and that “in some cases, sites are being affected 

by siltation, which may be considered a positive effect because it provides site 

protection.” Exelon proposes to perform section 106 consultation prior to any projectrelated ground-disturbing activity, including recreational development. If previously 

unidentified cultural resources are identified during such activity, Exelon would consult 

with the Pennsylvania SHPO and if necessary, prepare a cultural resources management 

plan to address the discovery in compliance with section 106. 

In its January 31, 2014, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and 

conditions, and preliminary prescriptions, Interior provides a 10(a) recommendation in 

accordance with the FPA that Exelon prepare an HPMP for the Muddy Run Project in 

consultation with the Pennsylvania SHPO and other parties. 

Conowingo Project

In its HPMP, Exelon proposes to appoint a cultural resources coordinator and 

implement review procedures that would apply to non-routine maintenance activities, 

structural modifications, or additions that may be necessary in the future. Additionally, 

the HPMP includes measures and procedures for: (a) appointment of a cultural resources 

coordinator who would be responsible for overseeing implementation of the HPMP and 

coordinating consultation activities; (b) potential project effects on the historic 

Conowingo Project facility and other historic structures, including consultation with the 

Maryland SHPO or Pennsylvania SHPO and others as appropriate; (c) ground-disturbing 

activities that have the potential to affect archaeological resources; (d) monitoring all 

archaeological sites and 19 AOIs identified within the project APE including inspection 

and reporting policies and a requirement to consult with the Maryland SHPO or 

Pennsylvania SHPO and others as appropriate should effects be identified; (e) Phase II 

evaluations at site 18LA69 as requested by the Pennsylvania SHPO within 1 year of 

HPMP implementation; (f) archaeological public outreach and interpretation programs, 

(g) the treatment of inadvertent discoveries of cultural materials; (h) emergency situations 

with the potential to affect historic properties; (i) consultation with the Delaware Nation

and the Onondaga Nation; (j) the treatment of human remains that may be identified 

during project activities; (k) the curation of any cultural materials that may be recovered 

during archaeological fieldwork; (l) annual reporting to the Pennsylvania SHPO and 

Maryland SHPO; and (m) review and amendment of the HPMP as needed. 
320 

On October 17, 2014, the Onondaga Nation filed comments on Exelon’s draft 

HPMP. Specifically, the Onondaga Nation stated that (a) it desired to be consulted 

regarding ground-disturbing activities; (b) it should be identified in the HPMP as a 

federally recognized Indian Nation with interests in the project; (c) it should receive 

copies of Exelon’s proposed Annual Report on Historic Properties, (d) it should be 

permitted to suggest amendments to the HPMP; and (e) the project APE should include 

all lands affected by the project, not just lands within the project boundary.

Our Analysis

York Haven Project

York Haven Power’s HPMP includes many of the standard requirements of an 

HPMP. However, some measures contained within the draft HPMP would benefit from 

clarification and/or more detail, and there are other measures that would be worth 

inclusion in the final HPMP. 

A comprehensive archaeological survey of all lands within the York Haven 

Project APE was not undertaken, site boundaries and exact locations are not known, and 

many of the previously documented sites identified in the APE are situated on privately 

held lands. Where possible, these sites were inspected by boat. In its HPMP, York 

Haven Power states that it has no management responsibilities for sites on private lands 

without right-of-way entry permission from the relevant landowners. Section 106 of the 

NHPA and its implementing regulations found at 36 CFR 800.4(b)(1), require licensees 

to make a “reasonable and good faith effort” to identify historic properties within a 

project APE regardless of property ownership. However, no attempt was made by York 

Haven Power during study implementation to obtain permission from property owners to 

access these sites for recordation or assessment purposes. Section 106 permits a 

“phased” approach to inventory and evaluation in situations where access to lands within 

an APE is restricted (36 CFR 800.4[b][2]). To clarify, this approach is acceptable for

sites located on privately held lands within the APE where access was requested 

but declined. 

In its HPMP, York Haven Power includes shoreline sites on private lands in its 

proposed monitoring plan. Section 3.6 of the HPMP specifies that consultation with the 

Pennsylvania SHPO, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, Indian Tribes, and other 

parties would be conducted if shoreline monitoring efforts identify project-related effects 

on archaeological sites in the future. However, the HPMP also states that “all 

archaeological sites within YHPC-owned lands will be protected under the provisions of 

this HPMP. Archaeological evaluations may be warranted by monitoring 

recommendations in the future” (italics added). If project effects on sites located on 

private lands are identified during shoreline monitoring, the HPMP should be clear that 

these sites are also protected under the provisions of the HPMP and section 106. If 

section 106 consultation is necessary to address these effects, inclusion in the HPMP of a 

requirement for the licensee to request landowner permission to access and evaluate these 

sites would ensure that the sites are appropriately addressed in accordance with section 
321 

106. Further, requesting access to sites on private lands concurrent with consultation 

with the SHPO and others would ensure that property owners are aware of the situation 

and would enable their input to be considered during determination of preferred 

preservation or mitigation measures. 

In its HPMP, seven sites were identified that are located on York Haven Power fee 

lands (36DA102, 36DA103, 36DA104, 36DA105, 36DA139, 36DA150, 36DA151). 

York Haven Power states that some of these sites are subject to no-till farming, and 

others are reported to have been heavily collected in the past. York Haven Power 

proposes to undertake annual monitoring of these sites. While property owners may 

restrict access to privately held lands for survey purposes, this restriction does not apply 

to York Haven-owned fee lands. Full recordation of these sites would not require private 

landowner permission, would not require ground disturbance, and would enable site 

boundaries to be documented. This would result in a more accurate and timelier 

assessment of any potential effects. 

In addition, inclusion of a plan and schedule to survey and record sites on fee 

lands and evaluate them for their National Register eligibility in the HPMP would ensure 

that any effects on sites owned by York Haven Power are fully considered in accordance 

with section 106. In its October 9, 2014, comments on the draft EIS, York Haven Power 

states that a requirement to evaluate sites on fee lands is not warranted given the 

“conservation archaeology approach”121 reflected in the draft HPMP. For resources on 

both York Haven and private lands, it may be possible to evaluate sites using minimally 

intrusive methods (e.g., post hole inspections, inspection of cleared cut banks to 

determine depth of any archaeological deposit) combined with ethnographic research of 

the area. If evaluation is not possible at a particular site without full archaeological test 

excavation, and no project effects are identified, then York Haven Power’s conservation 

archaeology approach would be acceptable on a case-by-case basis. In such situations, a 

site may be presumed to be eligible and the schedule for evaluation would call for the site 

to be evaluated on an as-needed basis in the future. However, if any sites are being 

affected by project activities, lessee activities on fee lands, or ongoing artifact collection, 

 

121 In accordance with 36 CFR 800.4, National Register evaluation of sites 

identified within a project APE is required. However, a “conservation archaeology 

approach” to section 106 compliance refers to an approach that is sometimes used when 

there are no potential effects on a site and (a) section 106 consultations have identified 

concerns related to ground disturbance that could require evaluation of the site for listing 

on the National Register; or (b) there are other reasons why evaluation of the site would 

not be the best course of action (e.g., access restrictions, concerns regarding effects on 

other sensitive resources). In these situations, the “conservation archaeology approach” 

postpones evaluation until it is necessary to address identified project effects. 
322 

these sites should be evaluated using whatever means is necessary and mitigation 

measures developed in consultation with the SHPO and other parties as appropriate. 

Appendix B of the HPMP provides a schedule for monitoring of archaeological 

sites located within the project APE based on potential effects, property ownership, and 

whether or not the sites are already being monitored under the requirements of an HPMP 

developed for the Three Mile Island Project. The monitoring plan and schedule is 

appropriate, but excludes monitoring of two sites: 36YO300 and 36YO334. These two 

sites are not listed in appendix B. While they are situated on privately held lands, it is not 

clear if they are located on the shoreline and can be monitored by boat like other sites on 

private lands, or if they are interior sites that cannot be monitored. Inclusion of these two 

sites in the monitoring schedule, or clarification regarding why they were excluded, 

would ensure that they are appropriately addressed. In its comments on the draft EIS, 

York Haven Power stated that the exclusion of these two sites from the monitoring 

schedule was an error and that the HPMP would be revised to include these sites in the 

monitoring program. 

The Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail and the Star-Spangled 

Banner National Trail are located in the vicinity of the project. For this reason, inclusion 

in the HPMP of the Park Service as a consulting party would be appropriate. 

Muddy Run Project 

Exelon proposes to prepare a cultural resources management plan only if cultural 

materials are identified during project-related activities. However, there are several 

reasons why the development of an HPMP prior to that time would be beneficial. 

In the Commission’s November 2, 2012, Additional Information Request, we 

requested that Exelon provide a discussion of the current status of the three sites 

identified during Phase IA cultural resources studies, including archaeological site 

36LA67, which is considered eligible for listing on the National Register. In its response, 

Exelon stated that the two AOIs (1 and 9) investigated during Phase IB studies were 

located within the boundaries of site 36LA67 and that no cultural materials or features 

were observed. However, according to figure 4-1 of the Phase IA report (Sara et al., 

2011a), AOI 1 is located on the northern shoreline of Muddy Run reservoir and AOI 9 is 

located in the vicinity of the dam.122

 According to figure 3-12 of the report, site 36LA67 

is not located in either of these two locations but is in proximity to the project 

transmission line. Potential effects associated with the maintenance of this line are not 

 

122 The Phase IA report prepared for the Muddy Run Project (Sara et al., 2012a) 

does not identify any AOI where site 36LA67 is located. However, this area is also 

located within the APE for the Conowingo Project and is identified as AOI 13 in the 

Phase IA report prepared for that project (Sara et al., 2011b). AOI 13 is described as 

having a high potential for archaeological resources.
323 

addressed in the application. Further, this site is situated within an area that may be 

affected by reservoir discharge. While Exelon clarified that site 36LA103 is currently 

inundated, the current condition of sites 36LA67 and 36LA368 remains unclear. Two 

additional sites are located outside of the project boundary (36LA70, 36LA47) but also 

appear to be close to the reservoir discharge area and near the transmission line. Potential 

project effects on these sites as a result of discharge and transmission line access and 

maintenance should be considered in an HPMP. 

While Exelon has stated that there are no project effects on historic properties, the 

three sites identified in the Phase IA report have not been formally evaluated and 

therefore remain potentially eligible for listing on the National Register. As noted by 

Exelon in its application, and as discussed above, these sites and others could be affected 

by continued operation, maintenance, and recreational activity associated with the 

project. Additionally, in its application, Exelon states that “some sites” are being affected 

by siltation and notes that this may result in a positive effect. However, the specific sites 

affected by siltation are not identified, and siltation does not necessarily result in a 

positive effect in all situations. Only a formal assessment of effects on a case-by-case 

basis in consultation with the Pennsylvania SHPO would establish whether there is any 

effect. To our knowledge, the Pennsylvania SHPO has only concurred that no further 

work is needed within the two AOIs investigated during the Phase IB study and has not 

concurred with Exelon’s recommendation that the project will not affect 

historic properties. 

A comprehensive archaeological survey of all lands within the Muddy Run Project 

APE was not undertaken, and only 2 of the 12 AOIs identified during Phase IA studies 

were inspected during Phase IB studies. The potential for additional, previously 

unidentified cultural resources that may be eligible for listing on the National Register 

within the project APE remains. Exelon’s Phase IB report recommends that additional 

AOIs should be surveyed during the development of a future HPMP (Sara et al., 2012a). 

Additionally, while the pumped storage project facility may not currently meet the 

general 50-year threshold for National Register eligibility, the facility will meet that 

threshold within 2 years. Staff agrees with Exelon’s historic structures report (Henry and 

Jenkins, 2012a) that recommends evaluating the system for listing. 

Staff agrees with Interior’s recommendation that development of an HPMP would 

be appropriate for this undertaking because unevaluated properties that are potentially 

eligible for listing on the National Register and may be affected by future operation, 

maintenance, and project-related recreational activities, are located within the Muddy 

Run Project APE. Preparation of an HPMP that includes the following items would 

ensure that cultural resources are appropriately addressed in compliance with section 106: 

(1) a plan for further archaeological investigations of additional AOIs and other 

potentially affected areas, as recommended in the Phase IB report; (2) a detailed 

discussion of the three sites (36LA67, 36LA103, 36LA368) identified during the Phase 

IA cultural resources survey and two additional sites (36LA70, 36LA47) located outside 

of the project boundary that could be affected by the project; (3) requirements for 
324 

National Register evaluation of affected sites in consultation with the Pennsylvania 

SHPO; (4) requirements for formal National Register evaluation of the Muddy Run 

Project facility; (5) documentation of all consultation with the Delaware Nation and 

Onondaga Nation; and (6) designation of the Park Service as a consulting party. Further, 

the HPMP should be prepared in accordance with the Advisory Council and 

Commission’s joint guidance document for preparing hydroelectric project HPMPs 

(FERC and Advisory Council, 2002). 

The Delaware Nation and the Onondaga Nation have been identified as the 

federally recognized tribes with cultural ties to the Muddy Run Project area and should be 

identified in the HPMP. In accordance with section 106, the tribes should be included in 

all correspondence related to cultural resources; however, the application does not 

describe consultation with the tribes completed by Exelon to date. The HPMP should 

identify both tribes as consulting parties and specify when consultation with the Delaware 

Nation and the Onondaga Nation would be required. Both tribes should receive copies of 

all correspondence related to cultural resources, including copies of any annual reports 

related to historic properties. Copies of all consultation documentation should be 

included as an appendix to the HPMP. 

The Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail and the Star-Spangled 

Banner National Trail are located in the vicinity of the project. For this reason, including 

the Park Service as a consulting party in the HPMP would be appropriate. 

Conowingo Project

Exelon’s August 2012 HPMP includes many of the requirements of an HPMP. 

However, there is background information provided that is not entirely clear, and there 

are several measures that would benefit from clarification and/or more detail. We also 

suggest other measures worthy of inclusion in the HPMP. 

Exelon proposes a new project boundary that excludes lands downstream from 

Conowingo dam. The project APE includes most of these lands because Exelon states 

they may be affected by project operation in the future. The inclusion of these lands in 

the project APE is appropriate. However, while the Maryland SHPO concluded in its 

July 3, 2012, letter that continued operation of the Conowingo Project would have no 

adverse effect on historic properties, it is our understanding that this determination is 

primarily considering erosion and other physical effects on cultural resources. Interior’s 

January 31, 2014, and September 29, 2014,123 comments, however, express concern for 

the potential loss of resource protection, including protections to cultural resources, 

should lands be removed from the project boundary. Further, in accordance with 36 CFR 

800.5(a)(2)(vii) of the regulations implementing section 106 of the NHPA, the “transfer, 

lease, or sale of property out of Federal ownership or control without adequate and 

 

123 The Park Service comments are included in Interior’s comment letter. 
325 

legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation” of historic 

properties may constitute an adverse effect. 

For this reason, all lands within the current project boundary could be affected by 

a change in the project boundary and must be included in the project APE. This would 

include a narrow strip of land located in the current project boundary that extends

downstream from Spencer Island along the west side of the river to the city of Havre de 

Grace, Maryland. Exelon excluded this area from the APE because it did not identify any 

physical project effects here. The APE maps provided in the HPMP therefore do not 

include this area. According to the Phase IA report (Sara et al., 2011a), this strip of land 

contains four additional previously recorded archaeological sites (18HA240, 18HA267, 

18HA268, 18HA269). None of these sites are discussed in the text of the HPMP, 

although site 18HA269 is listed in the HPMP’s table 3-2. Inclusion of these lands in the 

project APE would ensure that all four of these sites, and any other previously 

unidentified resources that may be present in this area, remain protected under 

the HPMP. 

While the Commission determined that the removal of the Susquehanna and 

Tidewater Canal Southern Terminus (HA-112) from the project boundary would have an 

adverse effect on this resource (letter from C. Yeakel, Division of Hydropower 

Compliance, FERC, Washington, D.C., to R. Little, Maryland SHPO, Maryland Historic 

Trust, Crownsville, Maryland, May 14, 2010), as mentioned above, on April 26, 2011, 

the Maryland SHPO subsequently determined that removal of lands from the project 

boundary would not adversely affect this structure. However, inclusion in the HPMP of 

requirements to inventory any lands within the project APE (particularly AOIs identified 

in the Phase IA study that were not subject to Phase IB study), evaluate any identified 

cultural resources for National Register eligibility, and address potential effects prior to

any sale or transfer of those lands would ensure that cultural resources located on these 

lands would be appropriately considered in compliance with section 106. This 

requirement would primarily relate to lands owned in fee by Exelon, although sites on 

privately held lands might also be affected. If project effects of any kind on cultural 

resources on private lands are identified over a new license term, Exelon would make a 

good faith effort to obtain access to the property to conduct appropriate studies. 

In sections 3.3.8.1.3 and 3.3.8.2 of its application, Exelon states that nine 

archaeological sites were identified in the project APE during Phase IB studies. 

However, while Exelon is correct there were nine sites documented during this study, 

(two previously recorded sites and seven newly identified sites), the total number of sites 

identified in the Conowingo Project APE is 48, including 37 sites that had been identified 

during the Phase IA study and the additional four sites downstream of Spencer Island 

discussed above. Further, Exelon’s HPMP includes a plan to monitor only 37 of the 48 

archaeological sites located within the project APE. Revision of the HPMP to include all 

identified 48 sites would ensure that they are appropriately addressed in accordance with 

section 106. 
326 

A total of 27 historic structures or historic districts were identified within the 

Conowingo Project APE (see table 3-38). However, table 3-1 of Exelon’s Conowingo 

HPMP lists only seven historic structures. One of the seven structures in the table is the 

Lower Deer Creek Valley Historic District (HA-1551); three structures (HA-191, HA195, HA-196) are identified in the table as being contributing elements of the district that 

are located within the project APE. However, according to Exelon’s historic structures 

report (Henry and Jenkins, 2012b), six additional structures that contribute to the district 

(HA-376, HA-377, HA-380, HA-381, HA-382, HA-2190) are also located within the 

project boundary and APE and have been excluded from the HPMP. Additionally, there 

are 14 other structures that have been excluded. Three of these structures are listed on 

the National Register, one is eligible for listing, and one has been demolished. The 

remaining nine structures have been recommended as ineligible for listing but to our 

knowledge, neither the Maryland SHPO nor the Pennsylvania SHPO has concurred with 

these recommendations. Inclusion of all 27 structures in the HPMP or an explanation 

regarding why they need not be considered in the HPMP would clarify their current status 

and ensure that they are considered under the requirements of section 106.

Of the seven structures listed in table 3-1, the National Register eligibility of the 

Columbia & Port Deposit Railroad is identified as both “undetermined” and “not 

eligible.” In its letter filed July 23, 2012, the Pennsylvania SHPO determined that this 

structure is indeed eligible for listing on the National Register. 

Exelon’s historic structures report (Henry and Jenkins, 2012b), identifies site 

HA-1971 as both “Conowingo Hydroelectric Facility” and “U.S. 1 over Susquehanna 

River (Conowingo Dam),” while the description provided in table 3-1 of the HPMP 

identifies it as the “Conowingo Hydroelectric Facility.” The structures report explains

that, in 2001, a Historic Bridge Inventory Form was prepared for the U.S. Route 1 bridge 

(which consists of the dam), and that the bridge was recommended as eligible for listing 

on the National Register under Criterion C. According to the structures report, the 

Maryland Historical Trust accepted the Historic Bridge Inventory on April 3, 2001, and 

at that time, recommended that a separate form be completed for Conowingo dam and the 

hydroelectric components of the structure. However, Exelon’s structures report further 

explains that Exelon’s consultant was informed by the Maryland SHPO on 

October 21, 2010, that a separate form and evaluation of the hydroelectric component of 

the facility need not be completed for the hydroelectric facility. Clear identification in 

the HPMP of the name of the structure provided on the form for HA-1971 and 

documentation of the Maryland SHPO’s current position on the necessity of any new 

form for the Conowingo Project structures would settle the issue. Exelon’s HPMP 

contains a list of the character-defining features of the facility, which includes the 

powerhouse and machinery, the bridge, and the dam. In the HPMP, Exelon stated that it 

would consult with the Maryland SHPO to establish a PA that would detail project 

activities involving the system that can be completed without Maryland SHPO review. A 

list of activities exempt from SHPO review is provided in the HPMP. While we are not 

aware of any concurrence yet received from the SHPO on this list, staff finds that the 
327 

activities listed would not require specific section 106 consultation. As the Commission 

intends to execute a PA with the Maryland SHPO that would implement a final HPMP 

that includes a list of exempt activities, an additional PA between Exelon and the 

Maryland SHPO would not be necessary. However, should the Maryland SHPO identify 

additional activities not currently included on the list, the HPMP could be revised to 

include those activities. 

Exelon’s HPMP states that, should ground-disturbing activities be proposed within 

the APE in an area that contains an existing archaeological site or could contain an 

archaeological site, Exelon would consult with the appropriate SHPOs regarding 

potential effects of the activity. However, in areas that have not been subject to 

archaeological survey, the HPMP does not specify how Exelon would make the 

determination that archaeological sites would or would not be affected. Inclusion in the 

HPMP of how these determinations would be made would provide clarity. 

In the HPMP, Exelon proposes to conduct a public outreach program to inform the 

public about culturally significant areas within the APE to discourage vandalism and 

looting. While such outreach programs are worthwhile, they should focus on the general 

sensitivity of the project as a whole and not identify the locations of specific culturally 

sensitive areas.

The Delaware Nation and the Onondaga Nation have been identified as the 

federally recognized tribes with cultural ties to the Conowingo Project area and should be 

identified in the HPMP. In its HPMP, Exelon states that any correspondence would be 

directed to the Delaware Nation, but the HPMP does not specify when consultation with 

the tribe would be required nor does the application or HPMP describe consultation with 

the tribes completed by Exelon to date. In accordance with section 106, both tribes 

should be included in the HPMP as consulting parties and should receive copies of all 

correspondence related to cultural resources, including copies of any annual reports 

related to historic properties. Copies of consultation documentation should be included 

as an appendix to the HPMP. 

The Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail and the Star-Spangled 

Banner National Trail are located in the vicinity of the project. For this reason, inclusion 

in the HPMP of the Park Service as a consulting party would be appropriate. 

Programmatic Agreements 

The Commission intends to execute PAs among the Commission, Maryland 

SHPO, Pennsylvania SHPO, and the Advisory Council (should it choose to participate). 

York Haven Power, Exelon, the Park Service, participating tribes, and others, as 

appropriate, would be invited to sign the PAs as concurring parties. Any licenses issued 

for the projects would include a stipulation that would implement the PA for that project. 

If the HPMPs are finalized prior to license issuance, the PAs would include a measure to 

implement the final HPMP upon license acceptance. If the HPMPs are not finalized prior 

to license issuance, the PAs would instead require each HPMP to be finalized within a 
328 

specified period of time post license acceptance, typically 1 year. Revising and 

implementing the HPMPs for the York Haven and Conowingo Projects to include 

Commission staff’s additional measures and corrections, and the development of an 

HPMP for the Muddy Run Project, in consultation with the Maryland SHPO, 

Pennsylvania SHPO, participating tribes, and the Commission, would ensure that 

potential adverse effects of continued operation, maintenance, recreation or other 

activities on cultural resources would be addressed over the term of the licenses. 

Draft PAs for the York Haven, Muddy Run, and Conowingo Projects were issued

on September 8, 2014. York Haven Power filed comments on the York Haven draft PA 

on October 9, 2014, and the Onondaga Nation filed comments on the draft PAs for the 

Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects on October 17, 2014. 

In its comments on the York Haven Project draft PA, York Haven Power 

questioned the necessity of including the Onondaga Nation as a consulting party for the 

project because the tribe has not previously expressed concerns or interest in the project. 

Further review of the record verifies this statement. 

In its October 17, 2014, letter, the Onondaga Nation stated that the PAs for the 

Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects should be amended to provide the Native American 

Nation signatories similar power to terminate the PA upon consultation with other 

signatories. Pursuant to 36 CFR §§800.14(b)(3) and 800.6(c)(1), however, the only 

required signatories on a complex undertaking PA, such as the PAs for the Muddy Run 

and Conowingo Projects, are the agency that is triggering the relevant undertaking (in this 

case FERC, through its issuance of a new license), the relevant SHPO, and the Advisory 

Council if it is participating in the consultation. Furthermore, where historic properties 

may be affected, the Commission cannot issue licenses without executed PAs, and 

inviting other signatories would complicate our ability to execute PAs and issue licenses 

in a timely manner. Not being a signatory to the PA, however, does not limit the 

Onondaga Nation’s, or any other concurring parties’ ability to participate in consultations 

related to the Muddy Run or Conowingo project HPMPs. 

3.3.7 Aesthetic Resources 

3.3.7.1 Affected Environment

The Susquehanna River from Harrisburg to its confluence with the upper 

Chesapeake Bay passes through diverse natural and human built environments. The river 

corridor provides a wide range of geologic features, habitats, and human development 

such as hydropower plants and industrial yards dating back to the early 1900s. The river 

has a variety of unique geologic features including river potholes, exposed bedrock, steep 

cliffs, and wide deep pools. River banks and shorelines are generally covered in 

deciduous forest with residential lots, recreation access, and transportation infrastructure 

visible throughout. The river provides water to four hydroelectric facilities, one pumped 

storage project, two nuclear power plants, and one steam-electric station. Lands 

surrounding the river are rural with majority in agricultural uses. Higher elevations 
329 

provide opportunities for sweeping views across the rolling topography and river valley 

and are dominated by the rural setting through which the river transverses.

At the York Haven Project, aesthetic features of Lake Frederic include views of 

surrounding shorelines, islands, and project features. Human development includes 

shoreline development (residential lots, recreation access, and commercial marinas), open 

space, and larger industrial features such as Three Mile Island nuclear generating station 

and Brunner Island Station, a coal-fired steam electric generating plant located about 

1.5 miles downstream of York Haven. 

Project features are only visible in proximity to the main dam, powerhouse, and 

east channel dam and fishway. The red brick powerhouse is characteristic of industrial 

structures built in the early 1900s while most of the other structures are of grey concrete. 

The islands within the impoundment consist of mixed uses including industrial (Three 

Mile Island generating station), cultivated crops, recreational lots, and developed 

recreation sites. The remainder of the York Haven Project area visual landscape includes 

rural community residential and commercial development, regional infrastructure (e.g., 

railroad), and deciduous forests. 

Aesthetic features surrounding the Muddy Run Project are dominated by rolling 

hills covered with deciduous forest, agricultural uses, and recreation uses associated with 

Muddy Run Park and WMA and adjacent to the powerhouse. Views within the 

Recreation Lake and Muddy Run Park areas consist of manicured park settings with 

maintained lawns, mature trees, and public recreation infrastructure like buildings, picnic 

shelters, sports areas, a boat ramp, campgrounds, and other amenities described in detail 

in section 3.3.5, Recreation and Land Use Resources. The visual setting within the 

WMA is natural with the majority of the area in forested setting with small tracts of land 

cleared for parking areas or feed plots. Large portions of the project around the upper 

reservoir near the intake towers are not visible to the public because of limited access. 

The powerhouse is visible from Conowingo Pond and is set against the steep topography 

between the Muddy Run powerhouse along the Conowingo Pond shoreline and the upper 

reservoir. The powerhouse exhibits large industrial-type features dominated by grey 

concrete, the riprapped shoreline, overhead crane, transformer, substation, transmission 

lines, and parking areas. Portions of the upper reservoir dam are also visible from 

Conowingo Pond. 

U.S. Route 1 crosses the top of Conowingo dam providing views of the reservoir 

and river downstream to passing motorists. Project structures of this area include the 

powerhouse, Conowingo dam, and the spillway. These facilities dominate the views 

from Fisherman’s Park/Shures Landing immediately below the powerhouse. Within 

Conowingo Pond, views include islands, residential lots, recreational access, and 

industrial features such as the Muddy Run Project facilities and PBAPS located on the 

west shoreline near the midpoint of the reservoir. Lands adjacent to the project boundary 

offer diverse aesthetic qualities because of the rolling topography, vegetation, agricultural 

uses, and general open space. 
330 

3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects 

For all three projects, existing project facilities and operations are generally 

consistent with the existing visual aesthetics of the area. Some facilities are visible on the

landscape and contrast with the surrounding setting, but have not been shown to detract 

substantially from the natural character of the area. York Haven Power and Exelon do 

not propose any specific measures for aesthetic resources. However, proposed 

environmental measures, such as construction of the nature-like fishway, operation of the 

Muddy Run Project, and debris removal from Conowingo Pond, may affect visual 

aesthetics over the term of any new licenses for the projects. 

Effects of Construction of the Nature-Like Fishway 

York Haven Power proposes to construct a nature-like fishway near the eastern 

end of the main dam and Three Mile Island. The fishway would consist of a series of 

rock weirs allowing fish passage over the main dam. Construction would include: 

improving existing access roads on Three Mile Island; a temporary, two-lane access road 

for retrieval and transport of river rock across the river bed below the dam; three staging 

areas on Three Mile Island; a cofferdam; a rock ramp fishway; an attraction water 

system; and concrete abutment walls. The new feature would extend from the toe of the 

dam into the existing reservoir, which at the apex of the main dam and Three Mile Island 

is about 10 feet high. The proposed fishway would be about 300 feet wide and about 

500 feet long. York Haven Power expects the rock retrieval period of the project to last 

3 years and final construction to be finished 8 years after any license is issued. 

Our Analysis

Nature-like fishways are designed to simulate the geomorphology, hydraulics, and 

functions of natural river channels. Construction of the nature-like fishway would 

require the installation of a temporary cofferdam to isolate the construction of the rock 

ramp and other structures (e.g., intake gates and attraction water system). Large 

excavators would shuttle between extracting exposed river rock and transporting the 

rocks to the fishway weirs for about 3 years. The use of native river rocks would give the 

new structure a more naturally appearing aesthetic than traditional geometric fish ladders. 

The east edge of the fishway would terminate in a combination of a poured concrete 

abutment and conveyance system designed to control flows in the rock weirs and provide 

attraction flows to the base of the fishway, respectively. The finished fishway would be 

most visible to kayakers and other recreation users in the main channel downstream from 

the dam, in proximity to Three Mile Island. Between April and June when water is 

directed into the fishway for operations, the fishway would be covered in water as it 

flows through the artificial pool-riffle weirs. During times of the year when flows are not 

sufficient to spill and fill the fishway naturally, the rock ramp weirs would be dry with 

some pools of water. 
331 

Effects of Operation of the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project 

During project scoping, commenters raised concerns about the effects of lighting 

and project-associated noise on visitors to the area. Specifically, commenters raised 

concerns about the lighting and noise associated with the operations (generation and 

pumping) at Muddy Run; however, no specific locations or receptors were identified. 

Lights are installed on the intake towers in the upper reservoir and throughout the 

powerhouse area and access road along the shore with Conowingo reservoir. 

Exelon does not propose, nor does any other entity recommend specific measures 

that pertain to managing light and noise specifically related to the project. 

Our Analysis 

Several formal recreation facilities are located within or in proximity to the Muddy 

Run Project boundary, including Wissler’s Run Park, Muddy Creek Boat Launch, the 

Lock 15 Interpretive Area, Susquehannock State Park, Cold Cabin Boat Launch, Muddy 

Run WMA, and Muddy Run Recreation Park (see section 3.3.5, Recreation and Land 

Use Resources). Additionally, several islands are located in the Susquehanna River near 

the Muddy Run Project. Although there are no formal recreation facilities on these 

islands, they provide opportunity for passive daytime recreation, and some contain lots 

that are currently leased by cottage owners. Nighttime use of the islands is restricted to 

cottage owners.

Exelon recorded noise levels and took representative photos of day- and nighttime conditions from 10 representative locations in relative proximity to project features. 

Figure 3-21 shows the locations of these public areas. 

Typical operation of the Muddy Run Project consists of pumping water from 

Conowingo Pond to the Muddy Run reservoir during low-load (typically nighttime) 

periods when energy costs are low, then generating (releasing water from the Muddy Run 

reservoir back to Conowingo Pond) during high load (typically daytime) periods. 

Exelon’s aesthetic study results indicate that the level of impact (intensity of light 

or noise) is related to proximity to the powerhouse and that some sites are affected more 

than others. The Muddy Run powerhouse is clearly visible during both day and night 

from islands directly across from the powerhouse (Turkey Island, Lower Bear Island, and 

Big Chestnut Island), as well as from Wissler’s Run Park. At the Muddy Creek Boat 

Launch, Lock 15 Interpretive Area, and Susquehannock State Park (public recreation 

areas in relative proximity to the powerhouse), the powerhouse usually cannot be clearly 

seen during the day, but the glow of its lights is visible at night. Other facilities, such as 

the transmission line towers on Lower Bear Island (day) and the intake towers lights 

(night), are generally visible at these sites. 
332 

Figure 3-21. Aesthetic (audio and visual) assessment locations for the Muddy Run 

Project (Source: Exelon, 2012a, as modified by staff). 
333 

At Cold Cabin Boat Launch, no facilities can be seen during the day, and only the 

intake tower lights can be seen at night. At Muddy Run WMA, only the dam and 

reservoir can be seen during the day, and a faint glow from the powerhouse and/or intake 

towers can sometimes be seen at night. Lastly, at Muddy Run Recreation Park, only the 

power reservoir can be seen during the day; no lights can be seen at night. 

Project lighting at nighttime is highest at select locations (i.e., Conowingo 

Islands); however, the Conowingo Islands have restrictions against public use at night. 

The amount of lighting visible from the surrounding locations changes with the seasons 

as leaf off conditions allow better sight lines to see the project’s night lighting. 

Noise has the potential to disturb visitors to the Muddy Run Project and vicinity, 

as well as to some of the Conowingo Project formal recreation sites. Noise-producing 

equipment at the projects includes pump-generators, ventilation fans, transformers, fans 

on the transformers, and powerlines. Exelon measured the ambient acoustic environment 

(the all-encompassing sound in a given environment) at the 10 locations. The soundscape 

at each location is influenced by motorboat, vehicular, and air traffic; construction 

activities; human activities; and other natural sound sources. To capture ambient sound 

levels, Exelon recorded 5 seconds of ambient noises every 5 minutes and averaged these 

for the duration (deleting loud, temporary sounds like a passing truck or overhead 

airplane) of the recording. 

Exelon’s results show that average ambient noises ranged from 34 to 

61 decibels (dB) across all sites and seasons.124 Not every site was dominated by sounds 

from the powerhouse; at some sites the project was audible and at other, more distant 

locations, the project was not audible at all. Table 3-39 summarizes average noise levels 

at each site by season for day and night. Comparing measurements with table 3-40 

suggests that, at locations dominated by powerhouse sounds, noise levels are comparable 

to quiet urban settings. 

Table 3-39. Audio assessment results (dB) for the Muddy Run Project (Source: Exelon, 

2012a, as modified by staff).

Site Name

Spring Summer Fall Winter

Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night

Turkey Island 48 52 50 56 54 57 52 57

Lower Bear Island 44 44 43 53 50 52 46 52

Big Chestnut 

Island 40 39 43 50 42 46 42 52

 

124 Logarithmic scale known as the decibel scale (dB) used to quantify sound 

pressure into a manageable range. 
334 

Site Name

Spring Summer Fall Winter

Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night

Wissler’s Run Park 40 41 44 48 41 45 48 50

Muddy Creek Boat 

Launch 39 39 41 55 49 54 41 47

Lock 15 

Interpretive Area 41 38 49 61 47 55 42 44

Susquehannock 

State Park 46 37 46 57 44 58 40 49

Cold Cabin Boat 

Launch 38 37 46 53 46 51 42 54

Muddy Run WMA 37 34 45 59 46 54 42 43

Muddy Run Park 41 36 45 52 42 50 43 43

Key: Red=powerhouse noise dominant; Yellow=powerhouse noise audible but not 

dominant; Green=powerhouse noise not audible. 

Table 3-40. Loudness comparison chart (Source: Exelon, 2012a). 

Common Outdoor Sounds Noise Level (dB)

Threshold of human hearing 0

Quiet rural nighttime 20

Quiet suburban nighttime 30

Quiet urban nighttime 40

Quiet urban daytime 50

Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60

Lawn mower at 100 feet 70

Boat (single outboard) at 50 feet 80

Threshold of hearing damage due to prolonged exposure 85

Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet 110

Exelon’s aesthetic assessments indicate that the current levels of light are relative 

to the proximity of the viewer to the light source and clearly visible from the islands and 

Wissler’s Run park; however, nighttime use of the islands is prohibited. Public 

recreation sites on the west side of the river across from Muddy Run do not have clear 

sight lines but can see the glow of the lights on the powerhouse at night. The same 
335 

assessment for noise indicates that noise at sites where powerhouse sounds are audible, 

but not the dominant sound, measure as much noise as the sites close to the powerhouse. 

This indicates that there are sufficient background noises other than the powerhouse that 

contribute to the overall noise levels in the project vicinity. 

Effects of Debris Removal from the Conowingo Project

As discussed in section 3.3.5, Recreation and Land Use Resources, some of the 

natural and human-generated debris moving through the Susquehanna River watershed 

gets trapped behind the hydroelectric facilities on the mainstem of the lower Susquehanna 

River. Most debris is transported during high-flow events, particularly during March and 

April. Exelon has participated in clean-up efforts and debris studies dating back to 1982, 

and these studies reported that 75 percent of the total estimated volume of debris was 

discharged during high-flow events (January through May). A 1989 cooperative 

agreement by the operators of York Haven, Safe Harbor, Holtwood, Conowingo, SRBC, 

and regulatory agencies led to routine debris removal actions during normal to low flows. 

As such, Exelon routinely employs cranes and skimmers to reduce the amount of debris 

buildup behind Conowingo dam during low-flow periods. 

Visitor perceptions and attitudes towards the debris were not recorded during 

relicensing studies. Within Conowingo Pond, debris typically accumulates near the dam 

intakes, within tributaries, and under or behind the railroad trestle bridges. Debris 

trapped in the reservoir makes its way to the dam where it is corralled and removed. The 

majority of the debris is natural; however, artificial (man-made) debris is intermixed with 

the large woody and natural debris degrading the visual appearance of the accumulated 

materials. The large accumulation of debris near the powerhouse intakes is visible for 

short durations from traffic on U.S. Route 1 (most notably for vehicles moving east to 

west) and boaters near the dam. Most of the other areas of debris accumulation are only 

visible from the water. 

Our Analysis

Exelon’s proposal to continue to remove debris from in front of the intakes is 

consistent with the cooperative agreement with the upstream hydroelectric projects and 

agencies. The amount of debris arriving at Conowingo Pond on an annual basis is a 

function of the flood flows during the winter months. The Susquehanna watershed is 

flood-prone, so passing and removing debris is a dynamic process causing Exelon to react 

to what arrives. Visually, the amount of debris on the pond, in tributaries, and collected 

in front of the intakes varies from year to year. Although debris removal coincides with 

the warmer, recreation season when more visitors are able to see Exelon actively 

removing the debris, those activities are concentrated in the area near the dam. 
336 

3.3.8 Socioeconomics 

3.3.8.1 Affected Environment

For this socioeconomics discussion, the local area is defined as the area 

encompassing and immediately surrounding the project areas along the Susquehanna 

River. This includes residential and commercial developments, in addition to 

recreational and park lands, along the river shorelines. Socioeconomic information is 

also provided for the study area, which is the five-county region surrounding the projects. 

The York Haven Project is located in York, Lancaster, and Dauphin Counties, 

Pennsylvania, with a total of eight townships and/or boroughs within the project area. 

The Muddy Run Project is located in Lancaster County, and Peach Bottom Township is 

the only census-designated place (CDP) within this project boundary. The Conowingo 

Project area includes Lancaster and York Counties in Pennsylvania and Harford and 

Cecil Counties in Maryland. 

Population

The state of Maryland experienced a 9 percent population increase between 2000 

and 2010, ranking 23rd in the United States for growth rate, and Pennsylvania 

experienced a 3 percent population increase between 2000 and 2010, ranking 42nd in the 

United States for rate of population growth (Census Scope, 2010a). Tables 3-41 and 3-42 

summarize population trends for both states and all five counties. 

Table 3-41. Population in Cecil and Harford Counties, Maryland, and the state of 

Maryland (Source: Census Scope, 2010a & b). 

Year Maryland Cecil Harford

2010 5,773,552 101,108 244,826

2000 5,296,486 85,951 218,590

1990 4,781,468 71,347 182,132

1980 4,216,975 60,430 145,930

1970 3,922,399 53,291 115,378

1960 3,100,689 48,408 76,722
337 

Table 3-42. Population in Dauphin, Lancaster, and York Counties, Pennsylvania, and 

the state of Pennsylvania (Source: Census Scope, 2010a & b). 

Year Pennsylvania Dauphin Lancaster York

2010 12,702,379 268,100 519,445 434,972

2000 12,281,054 251,798 470,658 381,751

1990 11,881,643 237,813 422,822 339,574

1980 11,863,895 232,317 362,346 312,963

1970 11,793,909 223,834 319,693 272,603

1960 11,319,366 220,255 278,359 238,336

Within York County, the York Haven Project is partially located within York 

Haven Borough (population 709), Goldsboro Borough (population 952), and Newberry 

Township (population 15,285). Within Dauphin County, the project is partially located 

in Londonderry Township (population 5,232), Lower Swatara Township (population 

8,268), Middletown (population 8,901), and Royalton Borough (population 907). The 

project is also partially located within Conoy Township (population 3,194) in Lancaster 

County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a). 

The Muddy Run Project is located entirely within Lancaster County and partially 

within Peach Bottom Township (population 4,813) (United States Census Bureau,

2010a). The project is not located within any other CDPs or communities in 

Lancaster County. 

The Conowingo Project boundary contains no CDPs or communities, but includes 

two incorporated municipalities in Harford County: Aberdeen and Havre de Grace. The 

City of Havre de Grace has a population of 12,952, and the City of Aberdeen has a 

population of 14,959. The project boundary includes lands within Cecil County, but no 

CDPs or communities. 

Employment and Income 

Employment

Employment in Dauphin, Lancaster, and York Counties represented 2, 4, and 

4 percent of total employment in the state of Pennsylvania in 2012, respectively; Cecil 

and Harford Counties represented 2 and 4 percent of total employment in the state of 

Maryland in 2012, respectively (BLS, 2013). Unemployment rates in Dauphin, 

Lancaster, and York Counties were lower than in the state of Pennsylvania as a whole; 

while unemployment rates were higher in Cecil and Harford Counties than in the state of 

Maryland as a whole in 2012. Of the five counties in the study area, Lancaster County 

had the lowest unemployment rate in 2012, while Cecil County had the highest 
338 

unemployment rate (BLS, 2013). Employment levels along with unemployment rates are 

presented in table 3-43. 

Table 3-43. Employment and unemployment percent numbers 2012 (Source: 

BLS, 2013). 

Geography Total Employment Unemployment Rate (%)

United States 142,469,000 8.1

Maryland 2,909,571 6.8

Cecil County 46,810 8.4

Harford County 129,802 7.0

Pennsylvania 5,973,407 7.9

Dauphin County 128,581 7.7

Lancaster County 250,980 6.6

York County 211,027 7.7

Dauphin County is less rural than the other counties in the study area with the city 

of Harrisburg, the capital of Pennsylvania, located on the east side of the Susquehanna 

River within the county. According to the 2012 Census, the primary industries in 

Dauphin County are education (23 percent of total employment); retail trade (11 percent 

of total employment); and professional, scientific, management, administrative and waste 

management services and public administration (10 percent of total employment) 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). 

Lancaster, York, Cecil, and Harford Counties are largely rural in nature and 

dominated by agricultural land uses. However, employment in agriculture represents 

between less than 1 and 3 percent of total employment in these counties. The two 

industrial sectors with the largest employment in these counties are educational services 

and healthcare, and manufacturing sectors. The educational services and healthcare 

sector accounted for 23 percent of total employment in both Lancaster and York Counties 

and 22 percent in both Harford and Cecil Counties in 2012 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b) 

(EDC, 2012). Employment in manufacturing accounted for 16 and 18 percent of total 

employment in Lancaster and York Counties, respectively, and 11 and 7 percent of total 

employment in Cecil and Harford Counties, respectively, in 2012. Employment in retail 

trade accounted for between 10 and 14 percent of total employment in these counties in 

2012 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b). 

Income

Per capita income in the Pennsylvania counties is lower than per capita income in 

the Maryland counties within the study area. Lancaster County is lower than the 
339 

Pennsylvania average, while York and Dauphin County have similar per capita incomes 

to that of Pennsylvania. Dauphin and Lancaster Counties have experienced negative 

growth in per capita income between 2000 and 2010; York County has experienced no 

growth; and the state of Pennsylvania has only experienced a slight increase in per capita 

income during this period. Cecil and Harford Counties have slightly lower per capita 

income than that of Maryland, although all per capita income in the geographies has 

grown in Maryland (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b). Table 3-44 shows per capita income 

for the study area and the states of Maryland and Pennsylvania. 

Table 3-44. Per capita income for Pennsylvania and Maryland Counties in 2000 and 

2010, with percent change (inflation adjusted, 2010$) (Source: U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2010b). 

Geography 2000 2010 Percent Change

Maryland $32,435 $34,469 6%

Cecil County $27,079 $28,358 5%

Harford County $30,685 $33,372 9%

Pennsylvania $26,440 $27,004 2%

Dauphin County $28,028 $27,052 -3%

Lancaster County $25,830 $24,871 -4%

York County $26,678 $26,702 0%

Project Power

All three projects offer benefits to the region in terms of providing low-cost 

energy; local, county, and state tax payments; employment and economic activity related 

to operation and maintenance of the project facilities; and public use facilities owned and 

operated by others that are located within the project areas. The York Haven Project has 

an installed capacity of 19.62 MW while the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects have 

installed capacities of 800.25 and 574.54 MW, respectively. This amount of capacity at 

York Haven is capable of providing the equivalent of approximately 14,700 households 

with electricity each year; while the capacity at Muddy Run and Conowingo can provide 

the equivalent of approximately 600,000 and 430,000 households with electricity each 

year, respectively, assuming 1 MW of power services an average of 750 households per 

year (York Haven Power, 2012a; Exelon, 2012b).

Project Taxes

York Haven Power and Exelon are subject to a variety of state income and local 

property taxes. In 2010, these taxes totaled $143,615 for York Haven Power. In 2011, 

Exelon paid $5 million and $10.5 million in state income and local property taxes on the 
340 

Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects, respectively. Taxes paid by these two companies 

positively affect the public because state taxes are deposited into general funds, which are 

directed, in part, back to the county and city governments (York Haven Power, 2012; 

Exelon, 2012).

Project Employment 

The York Haven Project is operated and maintained by 22 full-time employees, 

and the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects are each operated by 56 employees. These 

employees positively affect the local and regional economy by consuming goods and 

services and paying taxes (York Haven Power, 2012; Exelon, 2012). 

Project Recreation

As described in section 3.3.5, Recreation and Land Use Resources, recreation 

resources in the region provide a full range of activities, including boating, canoeing, 

swimming, fishing, water sports, hiking, camping, hunting, biking, and nature viewing. 

Recreation visitors spend money on activities and at business establishments during their 

stay in the region, supporting local and regional economies. This visitor spending 

supports local jobs and income, which, in turn, induces additional economic activity 

within the local economy, providing additional employment, income, and tax revenues to 

local governments. 

Additionally, York Haven Power leases 288 recreational lots to the public for a 

small fee, while Exelon leases 420 lots for seasonal residential cottage use (as described 

in section 3.3.5, Recreation and Land Use Resources). Residents of these lots provide a 

positive benefit to the local economy through local spending that supports local jobs and 

income, which, in turn, induces additional economic activity within the local economy, 

providing additional employment, income, and tax revenues to local governments. These 

leaseholders also provide a small income to York Haven Power and Exelon through their 

fee payments. 

3.3.8.2 Environmental Effects 

York Haven Project

Current project operation has provided significant socioeconomic benefit to the 

area. The continued operation of the project, which includes the proposed construction of 

a new fish ladder, would have a positive effect on local and regional socioeconomic 

conditions by providing both direct and indirect jobs and significantly contributing to 

state, county, and local tax revenues. There are no plans for changing the operation of 

the facility that would significantly reduce these benefits, and there are no proposed 

environmental measures that would have a significant negative socioeconomic effect per 

the application provided by York Haven Power. 
341 

Our Analysis

Continued operation of the project, as well as project spending related to 

construction of the new fish ladder and other ongoing maintenance, would have a positive 

effect on the regional economy. Positive effects would be realized through support of 

companies providing materials and services for the project, the presence of the project 

workforce and associated consumer spending, and project tax contributions to state and 

local governments. As discussed in section 3.3.5, Recreation and Land Use Resources, it 

is York Haven Power’s current policy not to create any new cottage lease lots within the 

project boundary and that any leases for existing cottages that are abandoned or become 

damaged and are not replaced by structures conforming to all applicable regulations will 

be terminated. Termination of lot leases would likely cause a decrease in spending in the 

local economy, along with a decrease in local income and property taxes, and result in 

negative impacts on the local economy. However, these permit terminations are expected 

to occur over a number of decades, resulting in minimal long-term impacts on the local 

economy. The proposed, continued operation of the York Haven Project would have no 

unavoidable adverse effect on socioeconomic resources. 

Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects 

Current operations have provided significant socioeconomic benefit to the area. 

The continued operation of these projects would have a positive effect on local and 

regional socioeconomic conditions by providing both direct and indirect jobs and 

significantly contributing to state, county, and local tax revenues. There are no plans for 

changing the operation of the facilities at these projects that would reduce these benefits. 

Therefore, there are no proposed environmental measures that would impact 

socioeconomics per the application provided by Exelon. 

Our Analysis 

Changes to Muddy Run and Conowingo project operations are not proposed, so no 

changes to socioeconomic conditions are expected. Project operations would continue to 

supply low cost electricity. Continued operation of the projects would have a positive 

effect on the regional economy through support of companies providing materials and 

services for the projects, the presence of the project workforces and associated consumer 

spending, and project tax contributions to state and local governments. Continued 

maintenance of the projects’ facilities, including recreation facilities, would result in 

some construction-related jobs, although the labor force required is likely to be small and 

temporary. Continued operation of the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects would have 

no known unavoidable adverse effects on socioeconomic resources.

Exelon’s current policy of not creating any new leases on cottages within the 

Conowingo Project boundary, as discussed in section 3.3.5, Recreation and Land Use 

Resources, would continue. In addition, as existing cottages are abandoned or become 

damaged and are not replaced due to local zoning restrictions, leases would be 

terminated. Termination of lot leases would likely result in a decrease in spending in the 
342 

local economy along with a decrease in local income and property taxes, resulting in 

negative impacts on the local economy. However, removal of leased cottages from 

Conowingo’s land is expected to occur over many decades and would not result in 

significant adverse effects on socioeconomic resources. 

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the no-action alternative, the projects would continue to operate as they 

have in the past. None of York Haven Power’s or Exelon’s proposed measures or the 

resource agencies’ recommendations and mandatory conditions would be required. 
343 

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS 

In this section, we look at the York Haven, Muddy Run, and Conowingo Projects’ 

use of the Susquehanna River for hydropower purposes to see what effect various 

environmental measures would have on the projects’ costs and power generation. Under 

the Commission’s approach to evaluating the economics of hydropower projects, as 

articulated in Mead Corp.,

125 the Commission compares the current project cost to an 

estimate of the cost of obtaining the same amount of energy and capacity using a likely 

alternative source of power for the region (cost of alternative power). In keeping with 

Commission policy as described in Mead Corp., our economic analysis is based on 

current electric power cost conditions and does not consider future escalation of fuel 

prices in valuing the hydropower project’s power benefits. 

For each of the licensing alternatives, our analysis includes an estimate of: (1) the 

cost of individual measures considered in the EIS for the protection, mitigation, and 

enhancement of environmental resources affected by the projects; (2) the cost of 

alternative power; (3) the total project cost (i.e., for construction, operation, maintenance, 

and environmental measures); and (4) the difference between the cost of alternative 

power and total project cost. If the difference between the cost of alternative power and 

total project cost is positive, the project produces power for less than the cost of 

alternative power. If the difference between the cost of alternative power and total 

project cost is negative, the project produces power for more than the cost of alternative 

power. This estimate helps to support an informed decision concerning what is in the 

public interest with respect to a proposed license. However, project economics is only 

one of many public interest factors the Commission considers in determining whether, 

and under what conditions, to issue a license.

4.1 POWER AND DEVELOPMENTAL BENEFITS OF THE PROJECTS 

Table 4-1 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use in our 

analysis for the York Haven Project, based on information provided by York Haven 

Power in its license application and subsequent submittals. Tables 4-2 and 4-3 

summarize the assumptions and economic information we use in our analysis for the 

Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects, respectively, based on information provided by 

Exelon in its license application and subsequent submittals. We find that the values 

provided by the applicants are reasonable for the purposes of our analysis. For each 

project, cost items common to all alternatives include: taxes and insurance costs; 

 

125 See Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division, 72 FERC ¶ 61,027 

(July 13, 1995). In most cases, electricity from hydropower would displace some form of 

fossil-fueled generation, in which fuel cost is the largest component of the cost of 

electricity production.
344 

estimated capital investment required to develop the project; licensing costs; normal 

operation and maintenance cost; and Commission fees. 

Table 4-1. Parameters for economic analysis of the York Haven Project (Sources: 

York Haven Power and staff).

Parameter Valuea

Period of analysis (years) 30

Term of financing (years) 20

Federal income tax rate, (%) 35.00

Local tax rate, (%) 3.00

Insurance rate Included in the operation and maintenance cost

Energy value, $/MWh 39.75

Capacity value, ($/kW-year) 45.53

Interest rateb 8.00

Discount ratec 8.00

Net investment $900,000 (2011)

Licensing cost,

d $ $3,000,000 (2011)

Operation and maintenance, $/year $4,822,547 (2011)

Commission fees, $/yeare $54,129

a Values provided by York Haven Power in the license application, unless otherwise 

noted. 

b Interest rate assumed by staff. 

c

 Assumed by staff to be same as interest rate.

d Excludes protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures. 

e

 Commission fees are the estimated value for 2013 from the FERC website. 
345 

Table 4-2. Parameters for economic analysis of the Muddy Run Project (Sources: 

Exelon and staff).

Parameter Valuea

Period of analysis (years) 30

Term of financing (years) 20

Federal income tax rate, (%) 34.9

Local tax rate, (%) 3.00

Insurance rate Included in the operation and maintenance cost

Energy value,

b $/MWh 51.34

Pumping energy,

b $/MWh 27.76

Capacity valueb($/kW-year) 73.53

Ancillary services value,b $/year $8,602,000

Interest ratec 8.00

Discount rated 8.00

Net investment, $ $140,505,000 (2011)

Licensing cost, $e $7,026,000 (2011)

Operation and maintenance, $/year $6,857,000 (2011)

Commission fees, $/yearf $1,201,106 

a Values provided by Exelon in the license application unless otherwise noted.

b Values from Exelon, filed with the Commission on March 24, 2014. 

c Interest rate assumed by staff. 

d

 Assumed by staff to be same as interest rate.

e Excludes protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures. 

f

 Commission fees are the estimated value for 2013 from the FERC website. 
346 

Table 4-3. Parameters for economic analysis of the Conowingo Project (Sources: 

Exelon and staff).

Parameter Valuea

Period of analysis (years) 30

Term of financing (years) 20

Federal income tax rate, (%) 34.9

Local tax rate, (%) 3.00

Insurance rate Included in the operation and maintenance cost

Energy valueb, $/MWh 40.55

Capacity valueb, ($/kW-year) 73.53

Ancillary services valueb, $/year $405,000

Interest ratec 8.00

Discount rated 8.00

Licensing cost, $e $14,989,000 (2011)

Operation and maintenance, $/year $15,985,000 (2011)

Annual capital cost, $/year $15,974,000 (2011)

Commission fees, $/yearf $1,209,228 

a Values provided by Exelon in its license application unless otherwise noted. 

b Values from Exelon, filed with the Commission on March 24, 2014.

c Interest rate assumed by staff. 

d

 Assumed by staff to be same as interest rate.

e Excludes protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures. 

f

 Commission fees are the estimated value for 2013 from the FERC website. 

4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

Tables 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6 summarize, for the York Haven, Muddy Run, and 

Conowingo Projects, respectively, the installed capacity, annual generation, cost of 

alternative power, estimated total project cost, and difference between the cost of 

alternative power and total project cost for each of the alternatives considered in this EIS: 

no-action, the applicant’s proposal, the staff alternative, and for York Haven and Muddy 

Run only, the staff alternative with mandatory conditions. 
347 

Table 4-4. Summary of the annual cost of alternative power and annual project cost for 

four alternatives for the York Haven Project (Source: staff).

No Action

York Haven 

Power’s 

Proposal

Staff 

Alternative

Staff 

Alternative 

with 

Mandatory 

Conditions

Installed capacity 

(MW)

19.62 19.62 19.62 19.62

Annual generation 

(MWh)

132,271 131,771 131,771 131,771

Dependable Capacity 

(MW)

17.57 17.57 17.57 17.57

Annual cost of 

alternative power 

($/MWh)

$6,058,010

45.80

$6,037,750

45.82

$6,037,750

45.82

$6,037,750

45.82

Annual project cost 

($/MWh)

$5,777,920

43.68

$6,374,440

48.38

$6,370,400

48.34

$6,386,650

48.47

Difference between 

the cost of alternative 

power and project 

cost ($/MWh)

$280,090

2.12

($336,690)

(2.56)

($332,650)

(2.52)

($348,900)

(2.65)

Table 4-5. Summary of the annual cost of alternative power and annual project cost for 

four alternatives for the Muddy Run Project (Source: staff).

No Action

Exelon’s 

Proposal

Staff 

Alternative

Staff Alternative 

with Mandatory 

Conditions

Installed capacity 

(MW)

800.25 800.25 800.25 800.25

Annual generation 

(MWh)a

1,615,813 1,615,813 1,614,882 1,614,882

Annual pumping 

(MWh)a

2,096,726 2,096,726 2,095,633 2,095,633

Dependable Capacity 

(MW)

1,070 1,070 1,070 1,070
348 

No Action

Exelon’s 

Proposal

Staff 

Alternative

Staff Alternative 

with Mandatory 

Conditions

Annual cost of 

alternative power 

($/MWh)

$169,563,420

104.94

$169,563,420

104.94

$169,498,010

104.96

$169,498,010

104.96

Annual project cost 

($/MWh)

$118,797,090

73.52

$119,329,530

73.85

$119,000,190

73.69

$119,325,730

73.89

Difference between 

the cost of alternative 

power and project 

cost ($/MWh)

$50,766,330

31.42

$50,233,890

31.09

$50,497,820

31.27

$50,172,280

31.07

a The incremental difference between the annual generation and pumping energy for 

the staff alternative versus the no-action alternative and Exelon’s proposal was 

computed from the most recent OASIS model run results filed with the Commission 

by Exelon on September 29, 2014. 

Table 4-6. Summary of the annual cost of alternative power and annual project cost for 

three alternatives for the Conowingo Project (Source: staff).

No Action

Exelon’s 

Proposal

Staff 

Alternative

Installed capacity (MW) 574.54 574.54 574.54

Annual generation (MWh)a 1,823,193 1,823,193 1,820,743

Dependable Capacity (MW) 566.14 566.14 566.14

Annual cost of alternative power 

($/MWh)

$115,955,070

63.60

$115,955,070

63.60

$115,853,880

63.63

Annual project cost ($/MWh) $81,232,410

44.56

$83,481,890

45.79

$84,625,070

46.48

Difference between the cost of 

alternative power and project cost 

($/MWh)

$34,722,660

19.04

$32,473,180

17.81

$31,228,810

17.15

a The incremental difference between the annual generation for the staff alternative 

versus the no-action alternative and Exelon’s proposal was computed from the most 

recent OASIS model run results filed with the Commission by Exelon on 

September 29, 2014. 
349 

4.2.1 No-Action Alternative 

Under the no-action alternative, the York Haven, Muddy Run, and Conowingo 

Projects would continue as currently constructed and operated. 

The York Haven Project would have a total capacity of 19.62 MW, a dependable 

capacity of 17.57 MW, and an average annual generation of 132,271 MWh. The average 

annual cost of alternative power would be $6,058,010, or $45.80/MWh. In total, the 

average annual project cost would be $5,777,920, or $43.68/MWh. Overall, the project 

would produce power at a cost that is $280,090, or $2.12/MWh, less than the cost of 

alternative power.

The Muddy Run Project would have a total capacity of 800.25 MW, a dependable 

capacity of 1,070 MW, an average annual generation of 1,615,813 MWh, and pumping 

energy requirements of 2,096,726 MWh. The average annual cost of alternative power 

would be $169,563,420, or $104.94/MWh. In total, the average annual project cost 

would be $118,797,090, or $73.52/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at a 

cost that is $50,766,330, or $31.42/MWh, less than the cost of alternative power.

The Conowingo Project would have a total capacity of 574.54 MW, a dependable 

capacity of 566.14 MW, and an average annual generation of 1,823,193 MWh. The 

average annual cost of alternative power would be $115,955,070, or $63.60/MWh. In 

total, the average annual project cost would be $81,232,410, or $44.56/MWh. Overall, 

the project would produce power at a cost that is $34,722,660, or $19.04/MWh, less than 

the cost of alternative power.

4.2.2 Applicants’ Proposals

Under the applicants’ proposal, the existing projects would be modified or 

enhanced as described by the applicants, and would include environmental measures to 

protect and enhance project resources. The individual costs of these changes are 

presented in tables 4-7, 4-8, and 4-9. 

Under York Haven Power’s proposal, the York Haven Project would have a total 

capacity of 19.62 MW, a dependable capacity of 17.57 MW, and an average annual 

generation of 131,771 MWh. The average annual cost of alternative power would be 

$6,037,750, or $45.82/MWh. In total, the average annual project cost would be 

$6,374,440, or $48.38/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at a cost that is 

$336,690, or $2.56/MWh, more than the cost of alternative power. 

Under Exelon’s proposal, the Muddy Run Project would have a total capacity of 

800.25 MW, a dependable capacity of 1,070 MW, an average annual generation of 

1,615,813 MWh, and pumping energy requirements of 2,096,726 MWh. The average 

annual cost of alternative power would be $169,563,420, or $104.94/MWh. In total, the 

average annual project cost would be $119,329,530, or $73.85/MWh. Overall, the 

project would produce power at a cost that is $50,233,890, or $31.09/MWh, less than the 

cost of alternative power. 
350 

Under Exelon’s proposal, the Conowingo Project would have a total capacity of 

574.54 MW, a dependable capacity of 566.14 MW, and an average annual generation of 

1,823,193 MWh. The average annual cost of alternative power would be $115,955,070, 

or $63.60/MWh. In total, the average annual project cost would be $83,481,890, or 

$45.79/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at a cost that is $32,473,180, or 

$17.81/MWh, less than the cost of alternative power. 

4.2.3 Staff Alternative 

The staff alternative would include the respective staff-recommended additions, 

deletions, and modifications to each applicant’s proposed environmental protection and 

enhancement measures. For the York Haven, Muddy Run, and Conowingo Projects, 

tables 4-7, 4-8, and 4-9, show the respective staff-recommended additions, deletions, and 

modifications to each applicant’s proposed environmental protection and enhancement 

measures, and the estimated cost of each. 

For the York Haven Project, based on a total installed capacity of 19.62 MW, a 

dependable capacity of 17.57 MW, and an average annual generation of 131,771 MWh, 

the cost of alternative power would be the same as for the applicant’s proposal: 

$6,037,750, or $45.82/MWh. The average annual project cost would be $6,370,400, or 

$48.34/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at a cost that is $332,650, or 

$2.52/MWh, more than the cost of alternative generation. 

For the Muddy Run Project, based on a total installed capacity of 800.25 MW, a 

dependable capacity of 1,070 MW, an average annual generation of 1,614,882 MWh 

(loss of 931 MWh compared to the no-action/proposed alternatives), the cost of 

alternative power would be $169,498,010, or $104.96/MWh. The average annual project 

cost, which includes pumping energy requirements of 2,095,633 MWh (reduction of 

1,093 MWH of pumping energy costs compared to the no-action/proposed alternatives),

would be $119,000,190, or $73.69/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at a 

cost that is $50,497,820, or $31.27/MWh, less than the cost of alternative generation.

For the Conowingo Project, based on a total installed capacity of 574.54 MW, a 

dependable capacity of 566.14 MW, and an average annual generation of 

1,820,743 MWh (loss of 2,450 MWh compared to the no-action/proposed alternatives), 

the cost of alternative power would be $115,853,880, or $63.63/MWh. The average 

annual project cost would be $84,625.070, or $46.48/MWh. Overall, the project would 

produce power at a cost that is $31,228,810, or $17.15/MWh, less than the cost of 

alternative generation.

4.2.4 Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions (York Haven and Muddy 

Run only) 

The staff alternative with mandatory conditions would include the respective staffrecommended additions, deletions, and modifications to each applicant’s proposed 

environmental protection and enhancement measures, as well as any mandatory 
351 

conditions imposed on the projects under section 18 of the FPA and/or section 401 of the 

Clean Water Act. For the York Haven and Muddy Run Projects, tables 4-7 and 4-8, 

show the respective staff-recommended additions, deletions, and modifications to each 

applicant’s proposed environmental protection and enhancement measures, as well as any 

mandatory conditions, and the estimated cost of each.

For the York Haven Project, this alternative would include the staff alternative 

with one additional measure: to contribute $25,000 per year to the York County 

Conservation District or such other entity identified by Pennsylvania DEP for the 

purposes of debris removal in the lower Susquehanna River watershed. Based on a total 

installed capacity of 19.62 MW, a dependable capacity of 17.57 MW, and an average 

annual generation of 131,771 MWh, the cost of alternative power would be the same as 

for the applicant’s proposal: $6,037,750, or $45.82/MWh. The average annual project 

cost would be $6,386,650, or $48.47/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at 

a cost that is $348,900, or $2.65/MWh, more than the cost of alternative generation. 

For the Muddy Run Project, this alternative would include the staff alternative 

with four additional measures: (1) implement the Eel Management Plan filed with the 

license application for the eel trap and truck program to trap, hold, and transport 

American eels from the Conowingo Project to designated points in the Susquehanna 

River watershed until at least 2030, and then either continue the trap and truck program 

or construct a volitional eel passage facility at Conowingo dam; (2) provide the version of 

the Lower Susquehanna River OASIS Model to the Susquehanna River Basin 

Commission within 30 days after the Conowingo and Muddy Run water quality 

certifications and new FERC licenses become ‘final’ (i.e., are no longer appealable or 

subject to ongoing litigation) as provided in the “Letter Agreement Addressing Exelon’s 

Provision of an OASIS Model to SRBC”; (3) provide annual grants up to $450,000 total to 

be split between the Lancaster County and York County Conservation Districts through 

2030 for the implementation of agricultural pasture and barnyard BMPs to control 

sediment loading to the Susquehanna River; and (4) provide $50,000 annually to 

Pennsylvania FBC to perform habitat improvement projects including the removal of 

small dams. 

Based on a total installed capacity of 800.25 MW, a dependable capacity of 1,070 

MW, an average annual generation of 1,614,882 MWh (loss of 931 MWh compared to 

the no-action/proposed alternatives), the cost of alternative power would be 

$169,498,010, or $104.96/MWh. The average annual project cost, which includes 

pumping energy requirements of 2,095,633 MWh (reduction of 1,093 MWh of pumping 

energy costs compared to the no-action/proposed alternatives), would be $119,325,730, 

or $73.89/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at a cost that is $50,172,280, 

or $31.07/MWh, less than the cost of alternative generation. 
352 

4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES 

Tables 4-7, 4-8, and 4-9 give the cost of each of the environmental enhancement 

measures considered in our analysis for the York Haven, Muddy Run, and Conowingo 

Projects, respectively. We convert all costs to equal annual (levelized) values over a 

30-year period of analysis to give a uniform basis for comparing the benefits of a 

measure to its cost. 
353 

Table 4-7. Cost of environmental mitigation and enhancement measures considered in assessing the environmental 

effects of continuing to operate the York Haven Project (Source: staff and York Haven Power).

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital 

Costa

(2014$)

Annual 

Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

Geology and Soils Resources

1. Develop an erosion and sediment control plan for

construction of the nature-like fishway. 

York Haven Power, 

Staff

$5,000 $0 $370c

Aquatic Resources

2. Continue to operate and maintain the existing east 

channel fishway for upstream fish passage until the 

proposed nature-like fishway is completed.

York Haven Power, 

Settling Parties,

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$0 $0 $0d

3. Continue the current downstream juvenile American 

shad passage protocol, which calls for the operation of 

units 1-6 (Kaplan and propeller units) to be first online 

and last offline during the juvenile shad downstream 

migration period (which typically is from October 1 

through November 30). If river flows exceed the capacity 

of units 1-6, unit 14 would be operated, and if flows 

exceed the capacities of units 1-6 and 14, units 7-13, and 

15-20 would be operated in ascending order.

York Haven Power,

Settling Parties,

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$0 $0 $0d

4. Provide a year-round, continuous, minimum flow 

from the project of 1,000 cfs and an average daily 

minimum flow of 2,500 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less. 

York Haven Power, 

Settling Parties, 

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$0 $0 $0d
354 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital 

Costa

(2014$)

Annual 

Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

5. Continue to operate the project in a run-of-river mode 

when inflow to the project is less than 3,000 cfs, without 

deliberate impoundment drawdown or storage for 

purposes of generating electricity in particular time 

periods.

York Haven Power, 

Settling Parties, 

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$0 $0 $0d

6. Pass about 370 cfs through the forebay sluice gate for 

1 or 2 hours in the morning during weekdays if river flows 

exceed the sum of the turbine hydraulic capacity, flows 

through the nature-like fishway, once constructed, flows 

through the east channel, and flows (if any) over the main 

dam from May 1 through June 30 to facilitate downstream 

passage of post-spawning adult American shad and during 

the fall American shad passage period to facilitate 

downstream passage of juvenile American shad.

York Haven Power, 

Settling Parties, 

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$0 $0 $0e

7. Pass about 370 cfs through the forebay sluice gate 

between the hours of 5 and 11 p.m. during the entire 

juvenile American shad passage period to facilitate 

downstream passage of juvenile American shad.

York Haven Power, 

Settling Parties, 

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$0 $0 $0e

8. Develop designs within 4 years of license issuance 

for (1) removal of obstructions in or deepening of the 

downstream plunge pool from the forebay sluice gate; and 

(2) a chute structure to convey flows beyond the roadway 

on the downstream side of the cable alley structure to 

protect outmigrating juvenile and adult American shad 

during passage to the downstream plunge pool.

York Haven Power, 

Settling Parties, 

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$20,000 $0 $1,480f
355 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital 

Costa

(2014$)

Annual 

Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

9. Cooperate with resource agencies and other interested 

parties to conduct a lower Susquehanna River downstream 

eel migration study. This compensation would include 

monitoring of silver eels at the project and providing 

$25,000 to support the study.

York Haven Power, 

Settling Parties, 

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$25,000 $0 $1,850g

10. Conduct a site-specific silver eel route of passage 

study as described in appendix G of the Settlement 

Agreement including the potential for providing $50,000 

to resource agencies for collection and tagging of silver 

eels at upstream locations.

York Haven Power, 

Settling Parties, 

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$50,000 $0 $3,700g

11. Conduct a site-specific eel survival study as 

described in appendix H of the Settlement Agreement.

York Haven Power, 

Settling Parties, 

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$50,000 $0 $3,700f

12. Conduct a downstream eel passage improvement 

study if downstream eel passage goals are not achieved 

with provisions for subsequent monitoring and 

adjustments.

York Haven Power, 

Settling Parties, 

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$0 $0 $0h

13. Until the nature-like fishway is completed, provide a 

minimum flow of 2,000 cfs at east channel dam and a 

spillage flow of 4,000 cfs at the main dam during the 

American shad upstream passage season when the east 

channel fishway is in operation (generally from mid-April 

through mid-June). 

York Haven Power, 

Settling Parties, 

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$0 $0 $0e
356 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital 

Costa

(2014$)

Annual 

Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

14. Until the nature-like fishway is completed, after the 

American shad upstream passage season until the end of 

the resident fish passage season (the earlier of December 

15 or until the average daily river temperature is ≤ 40°F), 

maintain a minimum flow of 400 cfs in the east channel 

downstream of the east channel fishway during the period 

that the east channel fishway is operated to allow 

upstream passage of resident fish species, per the June 

2010 Consent Order and Agreement between York Haven 

Power and Pennsylvania DEP.

York Haven Power, 

Settling Parties, 

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$0 $0 $0e

15. Construct, operate, and maintain a nature-like 

fishway with required attraction flows. 

York Haven Power, 

Settling Parties, 

Interior, 

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$6,315,520 $145,890 $562,020i

16. Upon completion of the nature-like fishway, conduct 

American shad upstream passage effectiveness studies 

using telemetry beginning during the second year of 

nature-like fishway operation.

York Haven Power, 

Settling Parties,

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$220,000 $0 $16,280f

17. Upon completion of the nature-like fishway, conduct 

a juvenile American shad headrace turbine avoidance 

study consistent with design criteria included in appendix 

D of the Settlement Agreement.

York Haven Power, 

Settling Parties, 

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$50,000 $0 $3,700f
357 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital 

Costa

(2014$)

Annual 

Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

18. If the juvenile American shad headrace turbine 

avoidance goals are not achieved, implement measures 

that would enhance the effectiveness and conduct a 

supplemental juvenile American shad headrace turbine 

avoidance study within 2 years of implementing the 

measures.

York Haven Power,

Settling Parties, 

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$0 $0 $0h

19. Upon completion of the nature-like fishway, provide 

an average daily minimum flow in the east channel below 

the east channel dam of 267 cfs year round.

York Haven Power, 

Settling Parties, 

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$0 $0 $0e

20. Upon completion of the nature-like fishway, provide 

a minimum of 5 percent of the river flow through the 

nature-like fishway during the American shad upstream 

passage season such that when inflows to the project are 

between 5,000 and 150,000 cfs, total flow through the 

nature-like fishway would range from about 1,000 to 

7,500 cfs, depending on inflow.

York Haven Power, 

Settling Parties, 

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$0 $0 $0e

21. Upon completion of the nature-like fishway, provide 

a minimum flow of 200 cfs through the nature-like 

fishway when river elevation is at the crest of the main 

dam and outside of the American shad upstream passage 

season.

York Haven Power, 

Settling Parties,

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$0 $0 $0e
358 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital 

Costa

(2014$)

Annual 

Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

22. Upon completion of the nature-like fishway, to the 

extent controllable by York Haven Power, when flows 

exceed the hydraulic capacity of all available generating 

units, manage flows to maximize flow over the main dam 

and the nature-like fishway.

York Haven Power, 

Settling Parties, 

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$0 $0 $0e

Terrestrial Resources

23. Conduct vegetation surveys, wetland delineations, 

invasive species surveys, rare species surveys, bog turtle 

habitat assessments, and bald eagle surveys in the area of 

the nature-like fishway prior to construction.

York Haven Power, 

Interior, Staff

$50,000 $0 $3,700f

Recreation and Land Use

24. Develop and implement a recreation management 

plan, and update the plan every 12 years consistent with 

every other Form 80 reporting period deadline.

Staff $40,000 $1,160 $3,710j

25. Maintain existing recreation facilities on four islands 

in Lake Frederic and the recreation facilities at the 

powerhouse, including a portage trail for canoeists and 

fishing access along the downstream face of the 

powerhouse, and consult with the resource agencies about 

recreation management and strategies every 10 years after 

the effective date of any new license.

York Haven Power, 

Staff

$0 $0 $0d
359 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital 

Costa

(2014$)

Annual 

Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

26. Continue the licensing program for approximately 

300 recreational lots and terminate permits and remove 

from the licensing program existing recreational lots upon 

abandonment by the lessee, or when existing structures 

become damaged and are not replaced by structures 

conforming to all applicable federal, state, and local 

regulations.

York Haven Power, 

Staff

$0 $0 $0k

27. Develop and implement an SMP to include: 

(a) summary of the purpose, goals, and objectives of the 

plan; (b) descriptions of shoreline use classifications, 

which identifies allowable and prohibited uses for existing 

and future use of the shoreline; (c) maps showing the 

shoreline classifications in relation to the project 

reservoir, project boundary, and various other features; 

(d) the lot lease and permitting program and guidelines 

developed to manage public uses; and (e) a monitoring 

and enforcement program; and provisions to update the 

plan every 10 years.

Staff $70,000 $2,410 $6,750l

28. Remove non-natural debris from the forebay and 

sluice remaining natural debris downstream after 

notifying the downstream PPL BI station.

York Haven Power, 

Settling Parties, 

Pennsylvania DEP, 

Staff

$0 $0 $0d

29. Contribute $25,000 per year to the York County

Conservation District or such other entity identified by 

Pennsylvania DEP for the purposes of debris removal in 

the lower Susquehanna River watershed.

York Haven Power, 

Settling Parties, 

Pennsylvania DEP

$0 $25,000 $16,250g
360 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital 

Costa

(2014$)

Annual 

Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

Cultural Resources

30. Implement the HPMP filed with the Commission on 

December 28, 2012.

York Haven Power $0 $5,170 $3,360

31. Implement York Haven’s proposed HPMP with the 

following modifications: (a) include a requirement to 

request access to sites on private lands within the project 

boundary if project impacts are identified during shoreline 

monitoring activities, assess these effects, and evaluate the 

affected sites for listing on the National Register;

(b) develop a plan and schedule to survey and record

archaeological sites on York Haven-owned fee lands in 

the project boundary and evaluate them for their National 

Register eligibility to ensure that any effects on sites 

owned by York Haven Power are fully considered in 

accordance with section 106; (c) include two additional 

sites (36YO300, 36YO334) in the monitoring schedule, or 

clarification regarding why they were excluded; and 

(d) include the Park Service as a consulting party. 

Implement the final plan.

Staff $20,000 $5,170 $4,840m

a

 All capital and annual costs were provided in 2011 dollars or 2013 dollars and were escalated to 2014 dollars for the purpose of 

this analysis. Annual costs typically include operational and maintenance costs and any other costs that occur on a yearly basis. 

All costs were provided by York Haven Power in its license application unless otherwise noted. 

b

 All capital and annual costs are converted to equal annual costs over a 30-year period to give a uniform basis for comparing costs. 

c Staff estimated the cost; assumes implementation cost is included in construction cost for nature-like fishway below. 

d

 Staff estimates no additional cost because this is a continuing measure. 

e Staff assumes that the cost of any lost energy is included in the lost energy estimate for the nature-like fishway below. 
361 

f Staff estimated the cost. 

g Cost provided by York Haven Power in the Settlement Agreement. 

h No cost estimated for this measure as it is speculative and may not be needed.

i

 Cost provided by York Haven Power in its additional information response filed with the Commission on March 15, 2013. 

Includes 500 MWh/year lost energy cost. 

j Staff estimated the cost; annual cost assumes $50,000 in years 13 and 25 to update the plan. 

k

 Staff assumed that no additional cost would be required for this measure. 

l

 Staff estimated the cost; annual cost assumes $20,000 in years 11 and 21 to update the plan. 

m Staff estimated the cost; capital cost for item (b) only. 
362 

Table 4-8. Cost of environmental mitigation and enhancement measures considered in assessing the environmental 

effects of continuing to operate the Muddy Run Project (Source: staff and Exelon).

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized Annual 

Costb

(2014$)

Aquatic Resources

1. Develop a DO monitoring plan no earlier than 

November 1, 2027, with measures designed to ensure that 

the project does not violate DO standards.

Exelon, 

Pennsylvania 

DEP, Staff

$0 $0 $0

c

2. Implement the modified store-and-release flow 

regime proposed by The Nature Conservancy and 

recommended by Interior for the Conowingo Project 

(effect on Muddy Run operation).

TNC, Interior $0 $3,055,520

(reflects a loss 

of generation 

with a 

reduction in 

annual 

pumping 

costs)

$1,989,490d

3. Implement the Staff-recommended flow regime 

determined for Conowingo (effect on Muddy Run 

operation).

Staff $0 $22,410 (loss 

of generation

with a 

reduction in 

annual 

pumping 

costs)

$14,590e
363 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized Annual 

Costb

(2014$)

4. Develop and implement FPOP for upstream and 

downstream fish passage and file with Pennsylvania DEP 

for review and approval by January 15, 2015.

Exelon, 

Pennsylvania

DEP, Interior, 

Staff

$0 $0 $0f

5. In 2018, develop a plan and schedule for a radio 

telemetry study or equivalent Tier II study of American 

shad passage and behavior within the Muddy Run Project 

boundary, although no such plan would be required if 

available data indicate that 75 percent of the shad that 

pass the downstream Conowingo Project also pass 

through the Holtwood Project fish passage facilities (Tier 

I requirement), and that 50 percent of the shad that pass 

the Conowingo Project pass the Holtwood Project within 

5 days (Tier II requirement). The Tier II study, if 

required, would determine the percentage of shad that 

enter the Muddy Run Project area at the northern tip of

Sicily Island and exit the Muddy Run Project area at the 

southern tip of Deepwater Island. Objective is that 88 

percent of the shad successfully pass through the Muddy 

Run Project area.

Exelon, 

Pennsylvania

DEP, Interior, 

Staff

$0 $0 $0g
364 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized Annual 

Costb

(2014$)

6. Implement the Eel Management Plan filed with the 

license application for the eel trap and truck program to 

trap, hold, and transport American eels from the 

Conowingo Project to designated points in the 

Susquehanna River watershed until at least 2030 and then 

either continue the trap and truck program or construct a 

volitional eel passage facility at Conowingo dam.

Exelon, 

Pennsylvania 

DEP, Interior

$0 $0 $0h

7. Develop and implement a downstream eel passage 

plan to ensure safe and timely passage past the Muddy 

Run Project.

Exelon, 

Pennsylvania

DEP, Interior, 

Staff

$0 $0 $0i

8. At all times, allow the project to be subject to 

inspection by representatives of FWS, to ensure 

compliance with any fish and wildlife protection, 

mitigation, and enhancements that may be contained in 

any Commission license issued for the project.

Interior, Staff $0 $0 $0f

9. Provide the version of the Lower Susquehanna River 

OASIS Model to the Susquehanna River Basin 

Commission within 30 days after the Conowingo and 

Muddy Run water quality certifications and new FERC 

licenses become ‘final’ (i.e., are no longer appealable or 

subject to ongoing litigation) as provided in the “Letter 

Agreement Addressing Exelon’s Provision of an OASIS 

Model to SRBC.”

Exelon, 

Pennsylvania

DEP, SRBC

$0 $0 $0
365 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized Annual 

Costb

(2014$)

Terrestrial Resources

10. Implement the Bald Eagle Management Plan filed 

with the license application. 

Exelon, 

Interior, Staff

$0 $1,150 $750

11. Implement the Bog Turtle Management Plan filed 

with the license application, which includes three 

components that Exelon would implement: (1) 

restriction of mowing in the wetland documented to 

support bog turtles; (2) invasive plant and woody plant 

control, particularly for reed canary grass; and (3) limits 

on public access to the wetland without advertising the 

reason.

Exelon, Interior $0 $12,650 $8,240

12. Implement the proposed Bog Turtle management 

Plan with a modification to the restrictions for mowing 

areas C, D, and F to state, “avoid mowing between April 

to October to avoid turtle’s active period.”

Staff $0 $12,650 $8,240

13. Before ground disturbance work begins, visit the 

FWS Chesapeake Bay Field Office and Pennsylvania 

Field Office websites and follow bog turtle and bald 

eagle management guidelines.

Interior, Staff $0 $0 $0f
366 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized Annual 

Costb

(2014$)

14. Once every 10 years through the term of the license, 

evaluate all state and federally listed endangered and 

threatened species that may be present within the project 

boundary, and if the evaluation identified the presence, 

critical habitat, or critical dependence of endangered 

species, propose and implement a protection plan for 

each species.

Exelon, 

Pennsylvania

DEP

$0 $70 $50j

15. Implement the osprey management policy, as 

described in the SMP.

Exelon, Staff $0 $0 $0k

16. Provide annual grants up to $450,000 total to be split 

between the Lancaster County and York County 

Conservation Districts through 2030 for the 

implementation of agricultural pasture and barnyard 

BMPs to control sediment loading to the Susquehanna 

River.

Exelon, 

Pennsylvania

DEP

$0 $450,000 $292,960l

17. Provide $50,000 annually to Pennsylvania FBC to 

perform habitat improvement projects including the 

removal of small dams.

Exelon, 

Pennsylvania 

DEP

$0 $50,000 $32,550l

Recreation and Land Use 

18. Implement the Recreation Management Plan filed 

with the license application.

Exelon, Interior $0 $0 $0m
367 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized Annual 

Costb

(2014$)

19. At the Muddy Run Park: (1) replace the Recreation 

Lake boat launching facilities and boat dock with an 

improved launching ramp and ADA-compliant dock; 

(2) implement shoreline erosion measures to improve 

runoff and stability in the vicinity of an ADA-compliant 

picnic area and boat rental dock; (3) replace an existing 

wood retaining wall with a sheet pile retaining wall to 

reduce shoreline erosion near the boat dock area; 

(4) upgrade the electric service to 50 campsites in the 

park, and monitor future need and upgrade additional 

sites when the demand occurs; (5) expand an existing 

playground near the visitor’s center with safety swings 

and three modular play structures suitable for younger 

children (tot lot); and (6) install a mulch safety surface, 

and construct a 2,000 square foot water spray park near 

the park entrance, along with paving resurfacing.

Exelon, Staffr$2,045,000 $66,000 $194,510

20. At Wissler’s Run Park: (1) complete the 

replacement of the picnic pavilion, (2) designate and sign 

two additional ADA-compliant parking spaces near the 

picnic pavilion for compliance with standards set by the 

ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and 

Facilities, and (3) demolish the existing non-functioning 

fish cleaning station.

Exelon, Staff $16,000 $2,500 $2,810n
368 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized Annual 

Costb

(2014$)

21. At Muddy Run WMA: (1) continue to lease the 

Muddy Run WMA to the Pennsylvania Game 

Commission for the management of the Muddy Run 

WMA to provide hunting opportunities in the area; and 

(2) erect and maintain FERC Part 8 signs at River Road 

and Furness Road WMA parking areas to identify the 

conditions of access to the site.

Exelon, Staff $0 $0 $0f

22. Implement Exelon’s proposed Recreation 

Management Plan with the addition of provisions to 

revise the plan in year 1 to include both recreation use 

monitoring and plan updates every 12 years in concert 

with every other the Form 80 reporting deadline.

Staff $12,000 $2,280 $2,370o

23. Implement the SMP filed with the license 

application consistent with Guidance for Shoreline 

Management Planning at Hydropower Projects.

Exelon,

Interior

$0 $0 $0

p

24. Implement Exelon’s proposed SMP with the 

addition of a provision to review and update the plan 

every 10 years in consultation with appropriate agencies 

and other stakeholders.

Staff $12,000 $840 $1,440q

Cultural Resources

25. Prepare a cultural resources management plan if 

cultural materials are identified during project-related 

activities.

Exelon $8,000 $0 $590
369 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized Annual 

Costb

(2014$)

26. Prepare an HPMP in accordance with FERC and 

Advisory Council guidance to address potential project 

effects on historic properties including: (a) a plan for 

further archaeological investigations of additional AOIs 

and other potentially affected areas as recommended in 

the Phase IB report; (b) a detailed discussion of the three 

sites identified during Phase IA cultural resources 

(36LA67, 36LA103, 36LA368) and two additional sites 

(36LA70, 36LA47) located outside of the project 

boundary that could be affected by the project; (c) 

requirements for National Register evaluation of affected 

sites in consultation with the Pennsylvania SHPO; (d) 

requirements for formal National Register evaluation of 

the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project facility; 

(e) documentation of all consultation with the Delaware 

Nation and Onondaga Nation; and (f) the Park Service as 

a consulting party.

Interior,

Staff

$25,000 $45,000 $31,150r

a

 All capital and annual costs were provided in 2011 dollars and were escalated to 2014 dollars for the purpose of this analysis. 

Annual costs typically include operational and maintenance costs and any other costs that occur on a yearly basis. All costs were 

provided by Exelon in its license application unless otherwise noted. 

b

 All capital and annual costs are converted to equal annual costs over a 30-year period to give a uniform basis for comparing costs. 

c No additional cost; continuing measure. 

d Cost based on energy estimates filed with the Commission by Exelon on September 29, 2014; a loss of 146,837 MWh in 

generation and a reduction of 189,635 MWh of pumping energy. 

e Cost based on energy estimates filed with the Commission by Exelon on September 29, 2014; a loss of 931 MWh in generation 

and a reduction of 1,093 MWh of pumping energy). 

f Staff assumes no additional cost to implement this measure. 

g No cost estimated for this measure because it is speculative and may not be needed. 
370 

h No cost directly related to Muddy Run Project; cost would be covered by the Conowingo Project and is addressed below. 

i No cost is estimated at this time as the cost would occur more than 10 years into the future, and any mitigation would be 

speculative and would depend on whether or not the target passage rates would be met. 

j Staff estimated the cost; annual cost assumes $1,000 in years 10, 20, and 30. 

k This measure is included in the SMP, and the cost is assumed to be part of the ongoing costs of the project. 

l This measure and cost were provided by Exelon in its reply comments filed March 18, 2014. 

m Cost of enhancements to individual recreation facilities are shown below. 

n

 Exelon proposes to construct facilities that are ADA-compliant; however, the staff alternative only requires that Exelon take into 

account persons with disabilities in the construction of its recreation facilities. 

o Staff estimated the cost; annual cost assumes $50,000 in years 13 and 25 for updates to the plan. 

p The only element of the SMP that would have additional cost is the Bald Eagle Management Plan, and the costs of that plan are 

listed separately above. 

q Staff estimated the cost; capital cost to revise SMP, and annual cost assumes $15,000 in years 11 and 21 for updates to the plan. 

r Staff estimated the cost; capital cost for items (a), (b), and (c). 
371 

Table 4-9. Cost of environmental mitigation and enhancement measures considered in assessing the environmental 

effects of constructing and operating the Conowingo Project (Source: staff and Exelon).

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

Geologic and Soil Resources

1. Implement the Sediment Management Plan filed with 

the license application that identifies benchmarks and 

thresholds for action to address sediment issues that may 

affect project operation. 

Exelon $0 $9,550 $6,220

2. Conduct bathymetric surveys of Conowingo Pond at 

5-year intervals, starting in year 2016.

Exelon $0 $16,100 $10,480c

3. Implement Exelon’s proposed Sediment Management 

Plan with the addition of provisions to (1) incorporate 

Exelon’s proposed periodic dredging at the Conowingo 

Creek, Peters Creek (Peach Bottom Marina), and Broad 

Creek boat ramps, where sediments have been 

accumulating, to improve and maintain recreational 

boating access; and (2) include with the results of each 

bathymetric survey an analysis of any change in sediment 

deposition or scour in the pond from the previous 

survey(s).

Staff $0 $25,650 $16,700

d
372 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

Aquatic Resources

4. Operate the project with a normal range of operation 

of Conowingo Pond between the elevations 101.2 feet 

and 110.2 feet with a minimum elevation of 107.2 feet on 

weekends between Memorial Day and Labor Day, to 

meet recreational needs.

Exelon, Staff $0 $0 $0

e

5. Provide minimum flow releases from the project as 

described below or a minimum flow equal to the 

discharge measured at the upstream USGS Marietta gage, 

whichever is less: (1) March 1-March 31: 3,500 cfs or 

natural inflow (as measured at the Marietta gage), if less; 

(2) April 1-April 30: 10,000 cfs or natural inflow, if less; 

(3) May 1-May 31: 7,500 cfs or natural inflow, if less; 

(4) June 1-September 14: 5,000 cfs or natural inflow, if 

less; (5) September 15-November 30: 3,500 cfs or natural 

inflow, if less; (6) December 1-February 28: 3,500 cfs 

intermittent (maximum 6 hours off followed by equal 

amount on).

Exelon $0 $0 $0

e

6. Develop and implement a flow management plan. Interior $40,000 $0 $2,960f

7. Implement the modified store-and-release flow 

regime proposed by The Nature Conservancy and 

recommended by Interior.

Interior, TNC $0 -$534,740 (gain 

in generation)

-$348,130g
373 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

8. Implement the staff-recommended modified 

minimum flow regime that would enhance Exelon’s 

proposed minimum flows from December through 

February and in the first 2 weeks of June, as follows: 

September 15 – March 31: 3,500 cfs or natural inflow 

(as measured at the USGS Marietta gage No. 0157600), 

whichever is less; April 1 – April 30: 10,000 cfs or 

natural inflow, whichever is less; May 1 – June 15: 

7,500 cfs or natural flow, whichever is less; June 16 –

September 14: 5,000 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is 

less.

Staff $0 $99,886 (loss in 

energy)

$65,030h

9. Continue the DO enhancement at the project using 

the turbine venting systems on units 1-7 and the aerating 

runners on units 2 and 5, and continuously monitor DO 

levels from May 1 through October 1 at the Station 643 

location approximately 0.6 mile downstream of 

Conowingo dam.

Exelon, Staff $0 $0 $0

e

10. Operate the east fish lift for upstream passage of 

American shad, river herring, and other migratory fishes, 

and the west fish lift for American shad egg collections 

and other research purposes.

Exelon, Staff $0 $0 $0

e

11. Implement a preventative maintenance program for 

the east fish lift that would extend the useful life of the 

facility over the next license term. 

Exelon, Staff $0 $200,000 $130,200
374 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

12. Use the project turbines as the route for downstream 

passage of American shad and river herring, based on 

studies that show high survival for fish passing through 

the turbines.

Exelon, Staff $0 $0 $0

e

13. Incorporate performance criteria into the new license 

where 80 percent of the shad that enter the project area 

must pass the project within 5 days, to be based on 

telemetry study of 150 shad per year for 3 years. If the 

goal is not met, initiate operational changes as specified 

by the agencies and test for 3 years using a telemetry 

study. If the goal is still not reached after 3 years of 

monitoring, make structural changes to the fish lifts as 

specified by the agencies, and test for an additional 3 

years using a telemetry study. If the goal is still not 

reached after 3 years, additional structural changes may 

be required, depending on the behavior of tagged shad.

Pennsylvania 

FBC

$300,000 $0 $22,230i

14. If warranted by the Pennsylvania FBC study above, 

complete the rebuild of the west fish lift to include 

additional attraction water and provision to expand to 

volitional passage if needed. Ultimately, fish passage 

facilities at Conowingo would need to pass a design 

population of 5 million fish, and fish lifts would be 

required on both sides of the tailrace.

Pennsylvania 

FBC

$0 $0 $0

j
375 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

15. If warranted by the Pennsylvania FBC study above, 

modify the east fish lift to include a larger hopper, 

increased attraction flow, and addition of a collection 

gallery in front of units 8-11.

Pennsylvania 

FBC

$0 $0 $0

j

16. Reduce stranding of migratory fish by: (1) extending 

the retaining wall at the east end of the east fish lift; or 

(2) adding boulder fill in that area to prevent generation 

flow from flooding the spillway pool at high levels of 

generation; or (3) dredging a channel(s) from the 

spillway pool area to downstream areas to provide egress 

for stranded fishes.

Pennsylvania 

FBC

$1,000,000 $0 $74,100k

17. Conduct a study of the effect of gizzard shad on 

passage efficiency, capacity, and interference with 

American shad use of the lifts, and the recycling of 

gizzard shad in the west fish lift.

Pennsylvania 

FBC, Staff

$3,530 $0 $260l

18. Modify the west fish lift by replacing the existing 

hopper with a 1,500-gallon hopper, including associated 

structural, electrical, and mechanical upgrades. 

Staff $3,159,090 $0 $234,100m

19. Improve the west fish lift sorting and loading process 

to facilitate trap and truck operations, and purchase 

trucks, transport tanks, and associated equipment for the 

implementation of trap and truck operations.

Staff $979,340 $626,030 $480,120m
376 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

20. Conduct a feasibility study to determine if additional 

attraction flow is necessary at the west fish lift.

Staff $30,000 $0 $2,220f

21. If the feasibility study determines that additional 

attraction flows are necessary and feasible at the west 

fish lift, install additional flow capacity.

Staff $0 $0 $0

j

22. Restore the original east fish lift design for a 900-cfs 

attraction flow.

Staff $1,500,000 $0 $111,560f

23. Add a second 3,300-gallon hopper to the east fish lift 

in the space provided for the original design, and upgrade 

the electrical and mechanical equipment to allow a 

15-minute lift cycle.

Staff $1,683,470 $0 $124,750n

24. After restoration of the 900-cfs attraction flow, 

conduct a 2-year effectiveness study.

Staff $100,000 $0 $7,410f

25. If the 2 years of effectiveness studies show poor 

attraction to the east fish lift at that flow, conduct a 

feasibility study of modifying the locations of entrances 

A and B.

Staff $0 $0 $0

j

26. If the feasibility study shows that modifications to 

entrances A and B are technically feasible and would 

result in improved effectiveness, implement changes to 

the entrances.

Staff $0 $0 $0

j
377 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

27. Construct a west bank American eel trap and 

transport facility that consists of a limited length eel ramp 

and a collection facility in the existing parking lot. 

Exelon, 

Interior, 

Pennsylvania 

FBC, Staff

$660,120 $604,340 $442,340o

28. Construct a west bank American eel volitional 

passage near the west fish lift that consists of a full eel 

ramp with resting pools from the tailrace to the pond 

elevation sited near the west fish lift superstructure.

Exelon, 

Interior, Staff

$1,751,030 $206,610 $264,260o

29. Construct an east bank American eel trap and 

transport facility that consists of a limited length eel ramp 

and a collection facility in the existing access area below 

the non-overflow section of the dam.

Exelon, 

Interior, Staff

$642,560 $604,340 $441,040o

30. Construct an east bank American eel volitional 

passage facility (after 2030) that consists of a full eel 

ramp with resting pools from the tailrace to the top of the 

dam.

Exelon, 

Interior, 

Pennsylvania 

FBC, Staff

$1,162,190 $206,610 $203,140o

31. Continue a debris management program that includes 

clamming (with three gantry cranes with grapple 

attachments) to remove submerged debris from the area 

upstream of the powerhouse intakes and floating surficial 

debris in front of the powerhouse intakes, and the 

sponsorship of community-based clean-ups in the pond 

and downstream of the dam.

Exelon $0 $0 $0

e
378 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

Terrestrial Resources

32. Implement the Bald Eagle Management Plan filed 

with the license application. 

Exelon $0 $2,670 $1,740

33. Implement Exelon’s proposed Bald Eagle 

Management Plan with the addition of a provision to 

minimize recreation-related disturbance in proximity to 

roosting or foraging eagles.

Interior, Staff $0 $2,670 $1,740p

34. Develop and implement a bog turtle management 

plan.

Interior, Staff $0 $12,650 $8,240q

35. Develop and implement a northern map turtle 

protection plan.

Staff $30,000 $19,370 $14,830f

36. Develop and implement a waterfowl nesting 

protection plan in consultation with FWS that would 

(a) identify specific project-related effects on waterfowl, 

such as flooding during nesting season causing nest 

failure; (b) identify which species of waterfowl are 

affected, if any; and, (c) if project-related effects are 

identified, establish appropriate protection or mitigation 

measures.

Interior, Staff $50,000 $25,000 $19,980f

37. Implement the osprey management policy, as 

described in the SMP.

Exelon, Staff $0 $0 $0

r
379 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

Recreation and Land Use

38. Maintain several public recreation facilities within 

the project boundary.

Exelon, Staff $0 $0 $0

e

39. Implement the Recreation Management Plan filed as 

part of the license application to guide the operation and 

maintenance of Exelon’s recreation facilities, and the 

implementation of recreation facility enhancements 

outlined below. 

Exelon $0 $0 $0

s

40. Implement improvements at Lock 13 to install a 

trailhead directional sign at the Lock 12 parking area, and 

clear vegetation from within the lock to provide an 

unobstructed view on each side of the lock structure to 

protect visitors.

Exelon, Staff $30,000 $500 $2,550

41. Implement improvements to Lock 15 to designate 

two ADA-compliant parking spaces in the existing 

parking area and install a dock on the shoreline near the 

picnic area to allow boaters to access the site; construct a 

concrete pad for portable restroom placement; stabilize 

the open shoreline area near the parking area to prevent 

erosion.

Exelon, Staff $60,000 $1,200 $5,230t
380 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

42. Implement improvements at Muddy Creek Boat 

Launch to designate two boat trailer spaces and one 

vehicle space for ADA-compliant parking in the existing 

parking lot; stabilize areas adjacent to the parking area to 

improve drainage and redirect flow away from the 

parking area and the river; install a sign providing 

information on the Conowingo dam canoe portage and 

the location of the portage take-out.

Exelon, Staff $72,000 $6,000 $9,240t

43. Implement improvements to the Cold Cabin Boat 

Launch to improve access by designating a one-way 

directional traffic pattern through the site and 

constructing parking for 11 vehicles (five boat trailer and 

six vehicle spaces), including two ADA-compliant

spaces; reinforce existing boat ramp to prevent 

undermining of the ramp and install a boat dock; install a 

sign providing information on the Conowingo dam canoe 

portage and the location of the portage take-out; provide 

two ADA-compliant picnic tables; install a concrete pad 

for the placement of two portable restrooms 

(one ADA-compliant, one standard).

Exelon, Staff $210,000 $2,500 $17,190t
381 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

44. Implement improvements to Dorsey Park to rebuild 

both boat ramps at Dorsey Park; designate one 

ADA-compliant boat trailer space and one ADA vehicle 

space in the existing lot; install a concrete pad for three 

portable restrooms (one ADA-compliant, two standard); 

install a sign providing information on the Conowingo 

dam canoe portage and the location of the portage takeout.

Exelon, Staff $274,000 $18,000 $32,020t

45. Implement improvements to the Conowingo Creek 

boat launch to designate one ADA-compliant parking 

space in the existing parking area; stabilize a roadside 

ditch along Mt. Zoar Road and construct a stone-lined 

drainage ditch along the south side of the parking lot to 

redirect runoff from the parking lot and boat ramp; install 

a sign providing information on the Conowingo dam 

canoe portage and the location of the portage take-out.

Exelon, Staff $56,000 $3,600 $6,490t

46. Implement improvements to the Glen Cove Marina 

to expand the marina by adding seven additional trailer 

spaces (one ADA-compliant) and 11 vehicle (two 

ADA-compliant) spaces; repair the marina’s bulkhead 

wall.

Exelon, Staff $220,000 $1,700 $17,410t

47. Implement improvements at Funk’s Pond to 

designate one ADA-compliant parking space in the 

existing parking area.

Exelon, Staff $300 $500 $350t
382 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

48. Implement improvements to Line Bridge to perform 

shoreline erosion control and stabilization at this 

unimproved carry-in boat access area.

Exelon, Staff $9,000 $500 $490

49. Implement improvements at Conowingo swimming 

pool to install an ADA-compliant access facility at the 

swimming pool and an ADA-compliant access ramp at 

the wading pool.

Exelon, Staff $173,000 $3,500 $15,100t

50. Implement improvements at Conowingo dam 

overlook to reopen the facility and designate three 

ADA-compliant vehicle spaces in the existing parking 

lot; demolish the existing pavilion and replace it with a 

new 24-foot by 24-foot wooden pavilion; remove 

pavement from the easterly corner of the existing paved 

parking area, loam and seed, and install three 

ADA-compliant pathways and picnic tables; install 

security fencing around the site to restrict unobstructed 

views from the pavilion and picnic area.

Exelon, Staff $232,000 $3,000 $19,150t
383 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

51. Implement improvements to Fisherman’s Park and 

Shures Landing to widen the access road to the facility 

by 3 to 5 feet to allow construction of 12-foot-wide lanes; 

construct a retaining wall along the easterly 250 feet of 

the existing parking area along the access road; designate 

five additional ADA-compliant parking spaces in the 

existing parking lot; widen the access road leading to 

Shures Landing by 4 feet along the eastbound lane for 

320 feet; and widen the access road from the trailhead 

parking north of the retaining wall by 2 feet; construct an 

additional 13-space parking area near the Lower 

Susquehanna Heritage greenway trailhead at the 

southerly end of Fisherman’s Park; demolish the existing 

hard surface boat launch and asphalt access at Shure’s 

Landing and place stone fill next to the existing wall 

down to existing grade along the Susquehanna River 

shoreline; and construct a new 20-foot-wide hard surface 

carry-in boat launch with a floating dock and breakwater 

at Shure’s Landing to replace the existing launch area.

Exelon, Staff $1,194,000 $2,900 $90,370t

52. Implement improvements at Peach Bottom access to 

construct a small (four vehicle) road-side parking area 

near the existing informal boat launch area south of 

Peter’s Creek; install a sign providing information on 

Conowingo dam canoe portage and the location of the 

portage take-out.

Exelon, Staff $20,000 $1,800 $2,650
384 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

53. Implement Exelon’s proposed Recreation 

Management Plan with the addition of provisions to 

revise the plan in year 1 to include consultation with the 

Park Service, and also include both recreation use 

monitoring and plan updates every 12 years in concert 

with every other Form 80 reporting deadline; as part of 

the Recreation Management Plan, develop a debris 

management plan, in consultation with agency 

stakeholders and boating interest groups, that includes: 

debris management goals, methods of debris 

management (i.e., deployment of skimmer boat), 

frequency of operation, size criteria specifications, 

procedures for removal of stored debris, tracking 

procedures, and a schedule to update the plan.

Staff $80,000 $2,280 $7,410u

54. Open the catwalk (at least on a limited basis) for 

angling with new security gate and check in/out 

procedures for anglers.

Staff $1,908,000 $0 $141,390v

55. Conduct dredging at the Conowingo Creek, Peach 

Bottom Creek, and Broad Creek boat ramps.

Exelon, Staff $6,653,230 $0 $493,030w
385 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

56. Implement the SMP filed with the license application 

including specific measures and policies related to 

shoreline vegetation management and erosion control, 

woody debris management, game species management, 

sensitive natural resource protection, recreation use, 

BMPs for controlling sediment introduction from lands 

within the project boundary, and use of project lands.

Exelon, 

Interior

$0 $0 $0x

57. Implement Exelon’s proposed SMP with the addition 

of a provision to update the SMP every 10 years in 

consultation with appropriate agencies and interested 

stakeholders.

Staff $12,000 $840 $1,440y

58. Revise the project boundary by removing lands that 

are not necessary for the safe and efficient operation and 

maintenance of the project or for other specified project 

purposes, such as public recreation or protection of 

environmental resources.

Exelon, Staff $0 $0 $0z

Cultural Resources 

59. Implement the HPMP filed with the Commission on

December 28, 2012.

Exelon $95,000 $21,150 $20,810
386 

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Entity

Capital Costa

(2014$)

Annual Costa

(2014$)

Levelized 

Annual Costb

(2014$)

60. Revise and implement Exelon’s proposed HPMP to 

include: (a) a revised APE to include the narrow strip of 

land in the current project boundary extending downstream 

from Spencer Island along the west side of the river to 

Havre de Grace; (b) a discussion of all 48 sites and 27 

historic structures identified to date within the project APE 

or an explanation of why they are not considered; (c) a 

correction to identify the Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal 

and Columbia & Port Deposit Railroad eligible for listing; 

(d) requirements to inventory any lands within the revised 

APE, evaluate identified cultural resources for eligibility, 

and address potential effects before sale or transfer of those 

lands; (e) a requirement to make good faith effort to obtain 

access to private property to conduct studies if project 

effects on cultural resources on private lands are identified; 

(f) a revised list of project activities involving the 

Conowingo Project that can be completed without 

Maryland SHPO review; (g) a process for assessing projectrelated ground-disturbing activities to determine whether or 

not archaeological sites would be affected, particularly in 

areas that have not had archaeological surveys; 

(h) requirements to ensure confidentiality of cultural 

resources location information during implementation of 

public outreach programs; (i) a description of projectrelated activities that would require consultation with the 

Delaware Nation and the Onondaga Nation in accordance 

with section 106 of the NHPA and documentation of all 

consultation with the Delaware Nation and Onondaga 

Nation; and (j) the Park Service as a consulting party.

Staff $105,000 $45,000 $37,080f
387 

a

 All capital and annual costs were provided in 2011 dollars and were escalated to 2014 dollars for the purpose of this analysis. 

Annual costs typically include operational and maintenance costs and any other costs that occur on a yearly basis. All costs were 

provided by Exelon in its license application unless otherwise noted. 

b

 All capital and annual costs are converted to equal annual costs over a 30-year period to give a uniform basis for comparing costs. 

c Cost estimated by staff, which assumes $75,000 per year in years 2, 7, 12, 17, 22, and 27. 

d The cost of the staff alternative plan would be the same as the cost of the proposed Sediment Management Plan plus the cost of the 

bathymetric surveys, with no additional cost to include the two additional provisions. The cost of the dredging is included with 

item 55 under Recreation.

e

 No additional cost; continuing measure. 

f Staff estimated the cost. 

g Cost based on energy estimates filed with the Commission by Exelon on September 29, 2014; gain of 13,116 MWh of generation. 

h Cost based on energy estimates filed with the Commission by Exelon on September 29, 2014; loss of 2,450 MWh of generation. 

i Cost estimated by staff assumes $100,000 per year in years 1-3 for the initial telemetry study; no cost was estimated beyond year 3 

as the phase after year 3 is speculative and may not be needed. 

j

 No cost estimated for this measure as it is speculative and may not be needed. 

k Cost estimate by staff is a preliminary ballpark estimate. Actual cost would depend on the alternative selected and the design of 

the alternative. 

l Staff estimated the cost; assumes $50,000 in year 3. 

m Cost provided by Exelon in study report RSP 3.9, Biological and Engineering Studies of East and West Fish Lifts.

n Cost provided by Exelon in study report RSP 3.9, Biological and Engineering Studies of East and West Fish Lifts, for second 

hopper plus $200,000 estimated by staff for electrical and mechanical upgrades. 

o Cost estimated by Exelon in study report RSP 3.3, Biological and Engineering Studies of American Eel.

p Staff estimates the slight differences between Interior’s recommended measure and Exelon’s proposed plans would not require 

additional costs to implement the differences. 

q Staff assumed that the Muddy Run Bog Turtle Management Plan could be adapted for Conowingo and that the implementation 

costs would be comparable to the costs estimated by Exelon for Muddy Run. 

r This measure is included in the SMP, and the cost is assumed to part of the ongoing costs of the project. 

s Cost of enhancements to individual recreation facilities are shown below. 

t

 Exelon proposes to construct facilities that are ADA-compliant; however, the staff alternative only requires that Exelon take into 

account persons with disabilities in the construction of its recreation facilities. 

u Staff estimated the cost; annual cost assumes $50,000 in years 13 and 25 for updates to the plan. 

v The cost was provided by Exelon in study RSP 3.32, Re-evaluate the Closing of the Catwalk to Recreational Fishing, filed with 

the Commission on January 31, 2012. Note that the report was filed as a Critical Energy Infrastructure Information document, 
388 

which is not directly available to the public. If the catwalk is updated instead of being replaced, the cost would be $1,484,000. In 

addition, Exelon based its cost estimates on a 12 hours per day and 365-day per year opening, and the capital cost included staffing 

for security personnel. If the catwalk is only open on a limited basis, the staffing costs would be less. 

w Cost provided by Exelon in its March 25, 2014, filing. 

x The only element of the SMP that would have additional cost is the Bald Eagle Management Plan, and the costs of that plan are 

listed separately above. 

y Staff estimated the cost; capital cost to revise SMP, and annual cost assumes $15,000 in years 11 and 21 for updates to the plan. 

z Staff assumed no additional cost would be required for this measure. 
389 

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED 

ALTERNATIVE 

Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA require the Commission to give equal 

consideration to the power development purposes and to the purposes of energy 

conservation; the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and 

wildlife; the protection of recreational opportunities; and the preservation of other aspects 

of environmental quality. Any license issued shall be such as in the Commission's 

judgment will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a 

waterway or waterways for all beneficial public uses. This section contains the basis for, 

and a summary of, our recommendations for relicensing the York Haven, Muddy Run, 

and Conowingo Projects. We weigh the costs and benefits of our recommended 

alternative against other proposed measures. 

Based on our independent review of agency and public comments filed on these 

projects and our review of the environmental and economic effects of the proposed 

projects and their alternatives, we selected the staff alternative as the preferred alternative 

for each of the projects. In each case, the staff alternative includes elements of the 

applicants’ proposals, resource agency recommendations, and some additional measures. 

We recommend these alternatives because: (1) issuance of new hydropower licenses by 

the Commission would allow York Haven Power and Exelon to operate the projects as 

economically beneficial and dependable sources of electrical energy for their customers; 

(2) generation from the York Haven and Conowingo Projects, with total installed 

capacities of 19.62 and 574.54 MW, respectively, comes from a renewable resource that 

does not contribute to atmospheric pollution;126 (3) the public benefits of these 

alternatives would exceed those of the no-action alternatives; and (4) the recommended 

measures would protect and enhance water, fish and wildlife resources, protect cultural 

resources, and provide improved recreation opportunities at the projects.

In the following sections, we make recommendations as to which environmental 

measures proposed by the applicants or recommended by agencies or other entities 

should be included in any new license issued for the projects, and discuss the rationale for 

the measures we are recommending or not recommending. In addition to the applicants’ 

proposed environmental measures, we recommend additional staff-developed 

environmental measures to be included in any new license issued for the projects, and we 

describe these requirements in the draft license articles in appendices A, B, and C of 

this EIS. 

 

126 The 800.25 MW of capacity from the Muddy Run Project cannot be considered 

renewable because power used for pumping may come from non-renewable sources.
390 

5.1.1 York Haven Project

5.1.1.1 Measures Proposed by York Haven Power 

Based on our environmental analysis of York Haven Power’s proposal in 

section 3, Environmental Effects, and the costs presented in section 4, Developmental 

Analysis, we conclude that the following environmental measures proposed by York 

Haven Power would protect and enhance environmental resources and would be worth 

the cost. Therefore, we recommend including these measures in any license issued for 

the project. We discuss any modification to York Haven Power’s proposed measures 

below under Measures Recommended by Staff for the York Haven Project.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, York Haven Power would 

implement the following environmental measures at the York Haven Project: 

 Construct, operate, and maintain a nature-like fishway in the vicinity of the 

apex of the main dam and Three Mile Island, in compliance with design 

criteria specified in appendix A of the Settlement Agreement, which would 

become the primary means of upstream fish passage at the project. 

 Develop an erosion and sediment control plan for construction of the 

nature-like fishway. 

 Operate and maintain the existing east channel fishway as the primary 

means for upstream fish passage until the proposed nature-like fishway is 

completed. 

 Continue the existing downstream juvenile American shad passage protocol 

that calls for the operation of units 1-6 (Kaplan and propeller units) to be 

first online and last offline during the juvenile shad downstream migration 

period (which typically is from October 1 through November 30), and 

opening the forebay sluice gate at specific times for downstream fish 

passage. If river flows exceed the capacity of units 1-6, unit 14 would be 

operated, and if flows exceed the capacities of units 1-6 and 14, units 7-13 

and 15-30 would be operated in ascending order. 

 Provide a year-round, continuous, minimum-flow from the project of 

1,000 cfs and an average daily minimum flow of 2,500 cfs, or inflow, 

whichever is less to protect and enhance aquatic resources downstream of 

the project. 

 Continue to operate the project in a run-of-river mode when inflow to the 

project is less than 3,000 cfs. 

 Pass about 370 cfs through the forebay sluice gate for 1 or 2 hours in the 

morning during weekdays if river flows exceed the sum of: (1) the turbine 

hydraulic capacity; (2) flows through the nature-like fishway, once 

constructed; (3) flows through the east channel; and (4) flows (if any) over 
391 

the main dam from May 1 through June 30, to facilitate downstream 

passage of post-spawning adult American shad; and any day that river flow 

exceeds the combined hydraulic capacity during the fall American shad 

emigration period, to facilitate downstream passage of juvenile 

American shad. 

 Pass about 370 cfs through the forebay sluice gate between the hours of 

5 p.m. and 11 p.m. during the entire fall juvenile American shad passage 

period to facilitate downstream passage of juvenile American shad. 

 Develop designs within 4 years of license issuance for: (1) removal of 

obstructions in or deepening of the downstream plunge pool for the forebay 

sluice gate, and (2) a chute structure to convey flows beyond the roadway 

on the downstream side of the stone masonry forebay bulkhead wall, to 

protect outmigrating juvenile and adult American shad passing into the 

downstream plunge pool. 

 Cooperate with resource agencies and other interested parties to conduct a 

lower Susquehanna River downstream eel migration study including 

monitoring silver eels at the project and providing $25,000 to support 

the study. 

 Conduct a site-specific silver eel route of passage study and a survival 

study at the project, including the potential for providing $50,000 to 

resource agencies for collection and tagging of silver eels at 

upstream locations. 

 Conduct a downstream eel passage improvement study if downstream eel 

passage goals are not achieved with provisions for subsequent monitoring 

and adjustments. 

 Prior to construction of the proposed nature-like fishway: 

o Provide a minimum flow of 2,000 cfs at the east channel dam and a 

spillage flow of 4,000 cfs at the main dam during the American shad 

upstream passage season when the east channel fishway is 

in operation. 

o After the American shad upstream passage season until the end of 

the resident fish passage season, maintain a minimum flow of 400 

cfs in the east channel downstream from the east channel fishway 

during the period that the east channel fishway is operated to allow 

upstream passage of resident fish species, per a June 2010 Consent 

Order and Agreement between York Haven Power 

Pennsylvania DEP. 
392 

o Conduct vegetation surveys, wetlands delineations, invasive species 

surveys, rare species surveys, bog turtle habitat assessments, and 

bald eagle surveys in the area of the nature-like fishway.127

 

 After construction of the nature-like fishway: 

o Conduct American shad upstream passage effectiveness studies 

using radio telemetry beginning the second year of the nature-like 

fishway operation. If the project area passage success criterion is 

not achieved, York Haven Power would implement corrective 

measures, followed by two additional years of radio telemetry 

studies to confirm achievement of the project area passage success 

criterion.

o Conduct a juvenile American shad headrace turbine avoidance study. 

o If the juvenile American shad headrace turbine avoidance goals are 

not achieved, implement measures that would enhance the 

effectiveness of downstream passage and conduct a supplemental 

juvenile American shad headrace turbine avoidance study within 2 

years of implementing the measures. 

o Provide an average daily minimum flow in the east channel below 

the east channel dam of 267 cfs year round to protect aquatic 

resources in the east channel and provide a minimum passage flow 

for fish ascending the east channel and using the east channel 

fishway. 

o Provide a minimum of 5 percent of the river flow through the 

nature-like fishway during the American shad upstream passage 

season such that when inflows to the project are between 5,000 and 

150,000 cfs, total flow through the nature-like fishway ranges from 

about 1,000 to 7,500 cfs, depending on inflow. 

o Outside of the American shad upstream passage season, provide a 

minimum flow of 200 cfs through the nature-like fishway when the 

river elevation is at the crest of the main dam. 

o When flows exceed the hydraulic capacity of all available generating 

units, and to the extent controllable by York Haven Power, manage 

flows to maximize flow over the main dam and the nature-like 

 

127 These proposed measures, which are cited in the explanatory statement 

accompanying the Offer of Settlement, would be implemented prior to the construction of 

the nature-like fishway. 
393 

fishway to provide attraction flow to the vicinity of and from the 

nature-like fishway to maximize fishway effectiveness. 

 To prevent a buildup of debris that could affect project and fish passage 

operations, remove non-natural debris from the forebay and sluice 

remaining natural debris downstream, after notifying the downstream PPL 

Brunner Island Station. 

In addition to those measures specified in the Settlement Agreement, York Haven 

Power also proposes to implement the following measures included in its final license 

application:

 Maintain existing project recreation facilities, and consult with the resource 

agencies on recreation resources and management strategies every 10 years 

after the effective date of any new license. 

 Continue the current permitting program for the approximately 300 

recreational lots located within the project boundary, but terminate permits 

and remove lots from the program if structures are abandoned by the lessee, 

or when existing structures become damaged and are not replaced by 

conforming structures. 

 Implement the HPMP filed with the Commission on December 28, 2012, to 

manage project effects on historic properties eligible for listing on the 

National Register. 

5.1.1.2 Additional Measures Recommended by Staff for York Haven

We recommend the York Haven Power-proposed measures described above with 

the following additions or modifications: 

 Develop a Recreation Management Plan that provides for York Haven’s 

proposed maintenance of its existing recreation facilities with additional 

provisions to update the plan every 12 years consistent with every other 6-

year Form 80 reporting period deadline, continuation of the licensing 

program for approximately 300 recreational lots within the project 

boundary, and implementation of revisions to the program to allow for the 

termination of permits and removal of lots from the program if structures 

are abandoned by the lessee, or when existing structures become damaged 

and are not replaced by conforming structures. 

 Develop an SMP that includes specific measures and policies related to 

shoreline management at the project and a provision to update the plan 

every 10 years. 

 Modify York Haven’s proposed HPMP with the following additional 

provisions: (a) request access to sites on private lands within the project 

boundary if project impacts are identified during shoreline monitoring 
394 

activities, assess these effects, and evaluate the affected sites for listing on 

the National Register; (b) develop a plan and schedule to survey and record 

archaeological sites on York Haven-owned fee lands within the project 

boundary and evaluate them for their National Register eligibility to ensure 

that any effects on sites owned by York Haven Power are fully considered 

in accordance with section 106; (c) include two additional sites (36YO300, 

36YO334) in the monitoring schedule, or clarification regarding why they 

were excluded; and (d) include the Park Service as a consulting party. 

Below we discuss the rationale for recommending proposed measures, modified 

measures, and additional staff measures for the York Haven Project. 

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 

York Haven Power, in the explanatory statement filed with the Settlement 

Agreement, states that it would develop and implement an erosion and sediment control 

plan prior to constructing the nature-like fishway. This measure, however, is not 

included in the Settlement Agreement. To protect water quality during construction, we 

recommend the development and implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan 

for the fishway construction as a condition of any license issued because it would 

minimize effects on the river’s aquatic habitat. The water quality certification for the 

project also requires preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan for the fishway 

construction, so this plan would become a mandatory condition of any license issued. 

We estimate that the levelized annual cost of implementing this plan would be $370 and 

conclude the benefits of protecting the aquatic habitat justify the cost. 

Instream Flows and Flow Distribution 

York Haven Power is proposing to continue its current continuous minimum flow 

of 1,000 cfs from the powerhouse and an average daily flow of not less than 2,500 cfs; if 

inflow to the impoundment is less than these amounts, discharge from the project would 

not be less than the inflow. Under the Settlement Agreement, York Haven Power would 

provide further refinements to the minimum and other project flows, including 

redistribution of flows for enhancement of upstream and downstream fish passage as 

described below and summarized as follows: (1) operate the project in a run-of-river 

mode when inflow to the project is less than 3,000 cfs; (2) prior to completion of the 

nature-like fishway (see below), provide a minimum flow of 2,000 cfs at the east channel 

dam during the American shad upstream passage season and 400 cfs during the resident 

fish passage season, and a spillage flow of 4,000 cfs at the main dam during the shad 

upstream passage season when the east channel fishway is in operation; (3) after 

completion of the nature-like fishway, reduce the east channel minimum flow to 267 cfs 

year-round, reduce the flow at the main dam to a minimum of 1,000 cfs (through the 

nature-like fishway and supplemental attraction flow channel) during the shad upstream 

passage season, and further reduce the main dam flow (through the nature-like fishway) 

to 200 cfs during the resident fish passage season; (4) provide at least 5 percent of river 
395 

flow through the nature-like fishway and supplemental attraction flow channel when 

flows entering the project during the American shad upstream passage season are 

between 5,000 and 150,000 cfs; (5) when flows exceed the hydraulic capacity of all 

available generating units, manage flows to maximize flow over the main dam and the 

nature-like fishway; and (6) pass about 370 cfs through the forebay sluice gate at 

specified times for downstream passage of adult and juvenile shad (see below). The main 

purpose of this flow redistribution is to shift the emphasis of upstream passage to the 

nature-like fishway, while still providing passage through the east channel fishway. 

Overall, flows past the project would not be substantially different than current 

conditions, and because of the low hydraulic capacity of the project, would on average 

continue to spill about 60 percent of the time. The flow redistribution to enhance fish 

passage should act to guide fish to the new main route for upstream fish passage, the 

nature-like fishway. We estimate that the proposed minimum flows and flow 

redistribution can be provided at no additional cost. 

Nature-Like Fishway 

York Haven Power proposes to construct a nature-like fishway in the vicinity of 

the apex of the main dam and Three Mile Island, consistent with the design criteria set 

forth in appendix A of the Settlement Agreement. While the east channel fishway would 

remain in operation, the nature-like fishway would become the main route for upstream 

passage at the project. In conjunction with the installation of the nature-like fishway, 

York Haven Power proposes to modify project flow releases that would provide fish 

passage attraction flows to the nature-like fishway and establish this fishway as the 

primary fish passage facility and the existing east channel fishway as the secondary 

passage facility. The proposed flow release changes, as described above, would 

redistribute minimum flow releases among the various project flow release structures 

(east channel spillway, east channel fishway, nature-like fishway, main dam, and 

powerhouse). The overall minimum flow releases downstream of the project would not 

change. The nature-like fishway would also be designed so that a full range of 

anadromous, catadromous, and resident species could use the facility for upstream 

passage. In addition, York Haven Power proposes to conduct vegetation surveys, 

wetlands delineations, invasive species surveys, rare species surveys, bog turtle habitat 

assessments, and bald eagle surveys in the area of the nature-like fishway prior to 

construction. These surveys, done in consultation with the state resource agencies and 

FWS, would identify if any terrestrial resource protection measures would be required 

prior to construction. In section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, under 

Upstream Fish Passage, we conclude that the proposed location and design of the naturelike fishway would be a substantial enhancement of existing upstream fish passage 

facilities and should improve fish passage effectiveness at the project. We estimate the 

levelized annual cost of conducting the pre-construction surveys would be $3,700 and the 

levelized annual cost constructing the nature-like fishway would be $562,020, and the 

benefit to Susquehanna River migratory species would be worth the cost. 
396 

Fish Passage Effectiveness Study

York Haven Power proposes to conduct an effectiveness study, using radio-tagged 

shad, beginning in year 2 of the nature-like fishway operation and continuing for 2 years. 

We agree with the need for an effectiveness study for a new fish passage facility, and 

especially for the novel natural-like design, which has not been constructed at any 

hydroelectric project on a major Atlantic coast river. The establishment of passage 

targets and success criteria, used properly, allow a determination of whether the fishway 

is operating as designed. Caution is needed, however, because many factors beyond 

engineering design and hydraulics may affect effectiveness, particularly for shad. For 

example, York Haven Power’s 2010 radio telemetry study found that only 70 percent of 

the tagged fish released at the downstream Safe Harbor Project reached the York Haven 

Project area, indicating that some fish used the habitat between the projects, or had no 

motivation to continue upstream migration to York Haven. The Settlement Agreement 

acknowledges this issue, and while the upstream shad passage target is that at least 

75 percent of the shad counted at the downstream Safe Harbor Project be passed above 

York Haven dam, compliance is based on the project area passage success criteria that 

85 percent of the shad that reach the York Haven Project area successfully pass upstream 

of the project. This properly recognizes that York Haven Power has no control over 

whether or not shad reach the project area, and the proposed fish passage effectiveness 

study would provide additional information on the behavior of shad approaching and 

ultimately passing the York Haven Project. We estimate that the proposed fish passage 

effectiveness study would have a levelized annual cost of $16,280, and would be worth 

the cost to ensure that the proposed fishway is effective for upstream passage. 

Downstream Fish Passage 

York Haven Power is proposing to continue its downstream fish passage protocol 

that it has been implementing for the past several years. This includes: (1) when river 

flow is less than the project hydraulic capacity, prioritization of powerhouse generation 

through units 1 through 6 (propeller units) on a first-on/last-off basis, followed by units 7 

through 20 (Francis units); (2) opening the forebay sluice gate located in the lower 

forebay corner adjacent to unit 1 for downstream fish passage; and (3) using temporary 

lighting above the forebay sluice gate to aid in attracting alosine species to the sluice gate 

entrance. At river flow greater than project hydraulic capacity, which occurs about 60 

percent of the time, downstream fish passage occurs via spillage over the dam. Under the 

Settlement Agreement, York Haven Power proposes a suite of additional measures for 

downstream passage, including: (1) passing about 370 cfs through the forebay sluice gate 

for 1 or 2 hours in the morning during weekdays if river flows exceed the sum of the 

turbine hydraulic capacity, flows through the nature-like fishway, once constructed, flows 

through the east channel, and flows (if any) over the main dam from May 1 through 

June 30 to facilitate downstream passage of post-spawning adult American shad, and 

during the juvenile American shad downstream passage period to facilitate downstream 

passage of juvenile American shad; (2) passing about 370 cfs through the forebay sluice 
397 

gate between the hours of 5 p.m. and 11 p.m. during the entire juvenile American shad 

passage period to facilitate downstream passage of juvenile American shad; and 

(3) developing designs within 4 years of license issuance for: (a) removal of obstructions 

in or deepening of the plunge pool below the forebay sluice gate, and (b) a chute structure 

to convey flows beyond the roadway on the downstream side of the cable alley structure 

to protect outmigrating juvenile and adult American shad that pass into the downstream 

plunge pool. York Haven Power is also proposing to conduct studies on the downstream 

migration of juvenile shad, once the nature-like fishway is in operation, including a 

juvenile shad headrace turbine avoidance study consistent with design criteria included in 

appendix D of the Settlement Agreement. If the juvenile shad headrace turbine 

avoidance goals are not achieved, York Haven Power would implement measures that 

would enhance the effectiveness of downstream passage and conduct a supplemental 

juvenile shad headrace turbine avoidance study within 2 years of implementing the 

measures. All of these measures would enhance downstream fish passage survival at 

York Haven, would ensure that downstream passage survival goals are met, and should 

be implemented by York Haven Power. We estimate that these measures would have a 

levelized annual cost of $1,480, while the juvenile shad headrace turbine avoidance study 

would have a levelized annual cost of $3,700. These measures would be worth the cost 

to ensure that survival goals are met. 

American Eel Study 

York Haven Power proposes to cooperate with resource agencies and other 

interested parties to conduct a lower Susquehanna River downstream American eel study 

including site-specific silver eel route of passage and survival studies. American eels do 

not currently occur in the project area in any numbers, with those present being the result 

of experimental upstream stockings. Because upstream passage at downstream dams, 

discussed under the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects below, would require several 

years to develop, it would be many years before upstream migrating eels arrive in the 

York Haven Project area through volitional migrations. If trap and trucking of eels is 

implemented at Conowingo as proposed, it is likely that eels would be trucked upstream 

of York Haven within 2 to 3 years of license issuance and would remain in the river for 

10 to 20 years before reaching the silver eel phase and out-migrating to the ocean. The 

nature-like fishway and the low-head configuration of the dam would likely provide for 

adequate upstream passage once upstream migrating eels arrive at the project, either from 

trucking of eels to locations downstream of York Haven, or any future volitional passage 

at downstream projects. Once sufficient numbers of silver eels are migrating downstream 

at York Haven, downstream passage measures should be implemented to ensure safe and 

timely downstream passage. The Settlement Agreement includes provisions for the 

eventual downstream passage of eels at the project, including studying the migratory 

pathways at the project and survival through the turbine generators, and then 

implementing protective measures if needed. These provisions of the Settlement 

Agreement would adequately protect downstream migrating eels once they arrive at the 

project. We estimate that the levelized annual cost of the route of passage study and 
398 

survival study would be $3,700 each, and the benefit to migrating eels would be worth 

the cost. 

Recreation Management 

York Haven Power proposes a number of operational and maintenance activities 

related to recreation, such as maintaining canoe portage trails, fishing access, and public

boat access areas and consulting with the stakeholders on recreation resources about 

recreation management and strategies every 10 years after license issuance. However, 

York Haven Power does not propose a recreation management plan. Project recreation 

sites, including the four islands in Lake Frederic, and sites that are leased or managed by 

others, receive regular use by visitors at project lands and waters. The Commission 

requires these facilities to be maintained and available for public recreational uses 

throughout the term of any future license. Development of a formal recreation 

management plan that includes a facility inventory with ownership and management 

responsibilities for each site, as well as measures to provide for periodic monitoring, 

would ensure the recreation facilities and sites are managed to meet use and demand over 

the term of any future license. Consultation with the resource agencies, counties, and 

other interested stakeholders in the project, including Pennsylvania FBC and 

Pennsylvania DCNR, in the development of the plan would ensure that stakeholder 

interests are represented and the facilities meet regional needs. We also agree with York 

Haven Power’s proposal to include the entirety of the Lock 15 facility within the project 

boundary because the site is associated with the project’s East Shore Boat Launch. The 

benefit to recreation resources of the development of a recreation management plan

would be worth the estimated levelized annual cost of $3,710. 

Shoreline Management 

Aquatic, recreational, and natural resources exist along the shorelines of the York 

Haven Project. Operation and management of project lands and waters would continue to 

affect the conditions of these shoreline resources. York Haven Power proposes to 

continue to provide public recreation access and lease recreational lots on the islands of 

the project. We conclude in section 3.3.5.2, Recreation and Land Use Resources, 

Environmental Effects, that preparation of an SMP that combines the shoreline permit 

program, York Haven’s proposed monitoring program, development of an enforcement 

program, and provides a classification system to ensure resources are balanced in a 

comprehensive manner would be beneficial and ensure that the shoreline development 

pattern is consistent with project purposes, objectives, and any future license 

requirements. Development of a final SMP in consultation with the Pennsylvania FBC, 

Pennsylvania DCNR, and FWS would help to ensure that the management of project 

lands and waters along Lake Frederic’s shorelines is consistent with the latest Guidance 

for Shoreline Management Planning at Hydropower Projects (FERC, 2012). Updating 

the SMP every 10 years would recognize the potential for growth and development along 

the project reservoir over the term of the license. We estimate the levelized annual cost 
399 

to develop and update an SMP every 10 years would be $6,750. The benefit to the 

environmental resources along the shoreline would be worth the cost. 

Debris Removal

York Haven Power proposes, consistent with the Settlement Agreement, to 

continue to remove non-natural debris from the forebay and sluice remaining natural 

debris downstream, with advance notification to PPL BI. As discussed in section 3.3.5.2, 

Recreation and Land Use Resources, Environmental Effects, and section 3.3.7.2,

Aesthetic Resources, Environmental Effects, debris accumulation, removal, and passing 

are part of operating a hydroelectric project. The presence of debris in project reservoirs 

can present safety and aesthetic hazards; however, the dynamic nature of the volume and 

timing of debris within any reservoir at any given time makes managing it dynamic as 

well. The removal and/or passing of debris that has accumulated in front of the 

trashracks are important components of operating hydroelectric projects of any size. 

Given the size of the lower Susquehanna River watershed, the amount of debris arriving 

and passing these projects can be significant. Implementing the debris management as 

detailed in the Settlement Agreement and proposed by York Haven Power would ensure 

debris does not pose long-term hazards to people and project operation. Notification of 

PPL’s Brunner Island steam plant would be a continuation of the courtesy York Haven 

Power provides to allow PPL opportunity to plan or prepare for any inconvenience from 

passing debris. The continuation of debris removal immediately downstream of the York 

Haven Project is a benefit to the project that would not add any additional cost. 

Project Boundary

The East Shore boat launch and Lock 15 provide recreation access and 

opportunities to York Haven Project lands and waters; however, not all of the lands 

associated with these two project recreational features are currently within the project 

boundary. The Commission would not have jurisdiction over areas if they are located 

outside of the project boundary. Commission regulations require that all lands necessary 

for the operation and maintenance of the project and for other purposes, such as 

recreation, be included in the project boundary. Modifying the project boundary to 

include all of the lands associated with the East Shore boat launch and Lock 15 would 

ensure these recreation amenities are provided for the public’s enjoyment for the term of 

any license issued for the project. We estimate that the cost of including these sites 

within the project boundary would be minimal, and the benefits would be worth the costs. 

Cultural Resources

York Haven Power proposed to implement the HPMP, filed on 

December 28, 2012, that provides for the management of cultural resources and historic 

properties within the York Haven APE. Our analysis in section 3.3.6.1, Cultural 

Resources, Affected Environment, indicates that, while the HPMP includes many of the 

standard requirements of a historic properties management plan, some measures 
400 

contained within the HPMP would benefit from clarification and/or more detail. In 

addition, there are other measures that would be worth inclusion in the HPMP, and 

inclusion of these measures would ensure that the York Haven Project would not 

adversely affect historic properties over the term of any license. As such, we recommend 

the implementation of York Haven’s proposed HPMP, but with the following additions: 

(a) a requirement to request access to sites on private lands within the project boundary if 

project impacts are identified during shoreline monitoring activities, assess these effects, 

and evaluate the affected sites for listing on the National Register; (b) develop a plan and 

schedule to survey and record archaeological sites on York Haven-owned fee lands 

within the project boundary and evaluate them for their National Register eligibility to

ensure that any effects on sites owned by York Haven Power are fully considered in 

accordance with section 106; (c) inclusion of two additional sites (36YO300, 36YO334) 

in the monitoring schedule, or clarification regarding why they were excluded; and 

(d) inclusion of the Park Service as a consulting party. Finally, because the Onondaga 

Nation has not expressed concerns or interest in the proposed York Haven Project, we do 

not recommend that York Haven Power consult with the Onondaga Nation as a 

consulting party in the future. We estimate that the levelized annual cost to revise and 

implement the HPMP for the project would be $4,840 and conclude the benefits of 

cultural resource protection justify the cost. 

5.1.1.3 Measures Not Recommended 

Debris Removal in the Lower Susquehanna River Watershed

York Haven Power proposes to provide $25,000 to an entity identified by 

Pennsylvania DEP to remove debris in the lower Susquehanna River watershed as 

provided for in the Settlement Agreement, and as also required by the water quality 

certification. As discussed in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects,

and section 3.3.5.2, Recreation and Land Use Resources, Environmental Effects, almost 

all of the debris arrives at the York Haven project and passes over the main dam during 

high-flow events when river flows far exceed the hydraulic capacity of the project. York 

Haven removes the non-natural debris that accumulates in the forebay, and the remaining 

debris is sluiced downstream. We find that, under these conditions, York Haven has no 

control over the quantity of debris that flows downstream or where it is deposited. This 

proposed measure appears not to be related to any specific project impact at York Haven, 

nor would the measures necessarily be implemented in the project area. With a lack of 

nexus to the project, and because providing funds is inconsistent with Commission’s

guidelines on environmental measures,128 we do not recommend including this as a 

license condition. While York Haven is free to provide these funds, we do not include 

 

128 See Policy Statement on Hydropower Licensing Settlements, issued 

September 21, 2006. 
401 

this measure in our staff alternative; however, we recognize that the Commission must 

include this condition in any license issued due to its mandatory nature. 

5.1.2 Muddy Run Project 

5.1.2.1 Measures Proposed by Exelon 

Based on our environmental analysis of Exelon’s proposal in section 3, 

Environmental Effects, and the costs presented in section 4, Developmental Analysis, we 

conclude that the following environmental measures proposed by Exelon would protect 

and enhance environmental resources and would be worth the cost. Therefore, we 

recommend including these measures in any license issued for the project. We discuss 

any modification to Exelon’s proposed measures below under Measures Recommended 

by Staff for the Muddy Run Project.

 Develop a DO monitoring plan no earlier than November 1, 2027, with 

measures designed to ensure that the project does not violate DO standards. 

 Develop FPOP for minimizing delay and potential fish entrainment during 

upstream and downstream fish passage past the project tailrace during 

generating and pumping cycles. 

 Develop a plan and schedule for a radio telemetry study or equivalent Tier 

II study of American shad passage and behavior within the Muddy Run 

Project boundary if resource agencies determine that operation of the 

Muddy Run Project is causing the Holtwood Project to fail to meet the 

Tier I upstream American shad target specified in the water quality 

certification for the Holtwood Project. 

 Implement the Bald Eagle Management Plan filed with the license 

application to minimize impacts on bald eagles and their habitat within the 

project boundary in accordance with recommendations from the National 

Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (FWS, 2007a) and state agency 

guidance. 

 Implement the Bog Turtle Management Plan filed with the license 

application to minimize impacts on bog turtles and that includes: (1) the 

restriction of mowing in the wetland documented to support bog turtles; 

(2) invasive and woody plant control, particularly for reed canary grass; and 

(3) limits on public access to the wetland without advertising the reason. 

 Implement the Recreation Management Plan filed with the license 

application that includes the following improvements to project recreation 

facilities: an improved launching ramp and barrier-free dock; shoreline 

erosion measures; an improved retaining wall; electric upgrades; expanded 

playground area near the Visitor’s Center; and construction of a 2,000-

square-foot water spray park near the park entrance, along with paving 
402 

resurfacing (see section 2.2, Applicants’ Proposals, for a full description of 

proposed capital improvements at each site). 

 Implement the SMP filed with the license application that includes 

measures and policies related to shoreline vegetation management and 

erosion control, woody debris management, game species management, 

sensitive natural resource protection, recreation use, and use of project 

lands and BMPs for controlling sediment introduction. 

 Implement the osprey management policy described in Exelon’s proposed 

SMP.

5.1.2.2 Additional Measures Recommended by Staff for Muddy Run

We recommend Exelon’s proposed measures as described above with the 

following additions or modifications: 

 Visit FWS’ Chesapeake Bay Field Office and the Pennsylvania Field Office 

websites prior to any ground disturbance, and follow the bog turtle and bald 

eagle guidelines. 

 Modify the restrictions for mowing areas C, D, and F in Exelon’s proposed 

Bog Turtle Management Plan to state, “avoid mowing between April to

October to avoid turtle’s active period.” 

 Modify Exelon’s proposed Recreation Management Plan to include 

recreation use monitoring and plan updates every 12 years in concert with

every other 6-year Form 80 reporting deadline. 

 Modify Exelon’s proposed SMP to include a provision to update the plan 

every 10 years. 

 Develop an HPMP that provides for the management of historic properties 

and unevaluated cultural resources within the project APE and includes: 

(a) a plan for further archaeological investigations of additional AOIs and 

other potentially affected areas as recommended in the Phase IB report; 

(b) a detailed discussion of the three sites (36LA67, 36LA103, 36LA368) 

identified during the Phase IA cultural resources survey and the two 

additional sites (36LA70, 36LA47) located outside of the project boundary 

that could be affected by the project; (c) requirements for National Register 

evaluation of affected sites in consultation with the Pennsylvania SHPO; 

(d) requirements for formal National Register evaluation of the Muddy Run 

Project; (e) documentation of all consultation with the Delaware Nation and 

Onondaga Nation; and (f) the Park Service as a consulting party. 
403 

Below we discuss the rationale for recommending proposed measures, modified 

measures, and additional staff measures for the Muddy Run Project. 

DO Monitoring

Exelon proposes, consistent with the Pennsylvania DEP certification, to develop a 

DO monitoring plan no earlier than November 1, 2027, with measures designed to ensure 

that the project does not violate DO standards. While water quality monitoring at the 

project found that violations of state water quality standards are rare, implementing this 

plan would ensure that standards are maintained. We did not estimate a cost for 

developing and implementing a DO monitoring plan because it would be more than 

10 years before the plan would be developed, and any estimated costs developed now 

may not be relevant in the future. 

Fish Passage

Exelon proposes, consistent with the clarified Pennsylvania DEP certification filed 

on December 10, 2014, to develop and implement an FPOP for upstream and 

downstream fish passage, and to develop and implement a plan and schedule for a radio 

telemetry study or equivalent Tier II study of American shad passage and behavior within 

the Muddy Run Project boundary, although no such plan would be required if available 

data indicate that 75 percent of the shad that pass the downstream Conowingo Project 

also pass through the Holtwood Project fish passage facilities (Tier I requirement), and 

that 50 percent of the shad that pass the Conowingo Project pass the Holtwood Project 

within 5 days (Tier II requirement). The Tier II study, if required, would determine the 

percentage of shad that enter the Muddy Run Project area at the northern tip of Sicily 

Island and exit the Muddy Run Project area at the southern tip of Deepwater Island. At 

the end of the 4-year study period, or such longer time as established by Pennsylvania 

DEP, if the results indicate that, as a result of Muddy Run operations, less than 88 percent 

of the American shad that enter the Muddy Run Project area in turn exit the Muddy Run 

Project area, Exelon would propose a plan and schedule for operational modifications to 

the extent feasible, reasonable, and technically sound to enhance fish passage past the 

Muddy Run Project. As we describe in our discussion of upstream fish passage in section 

3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, the Muddy Run Project is not a 

blockage to upstream migration, but may affect migrating fish by causing flow patterns 

that may confuse or delay fish passing the project, or may entrain fish during the 

pumping cycle. While such effects may occur, information to date indicates that the 

project has not had a substantial effect on upstream and downstream shad movement past 

the project. Nonetheless, Exelon proposes to monitor future passage by the project by 

use of the FPOP and a possible Tier II study. These measures would provide a 

mechanism for determining whether passage objectives are met, and if not, would allow 

application of potential corrective measures. We estimate that implementation of an 

FPOP would not require additional costs above current operation and maintenance costs, 

while a future Tier II study is speculative and may or may not occur in the future.
404 

Downstream Eel Passage Plan

Exelon proposes, consistent with the Pennsylvania DEP certification, to 

implement a downstream eel passage plan to ensure safe and effective downstream eel 

passage past the project. Exelon would maintain downstream eel passage efficiency rates 

of at least 85 percent through the Muddy Run Project area. However, our recommended 

compliance date when that would be required is October 1, 2026, consistent with the 

certification, once sufficient numbers of eels have been released into the Susquehanna 

River to produce a substantial number of downstream-migrating silver eels. Exelon 

would be required to conduct studies to demonstrate compliance with the passage rate, 

and if not achieved would be required to provide mitigation. We have not included an 

estimated cost for this measure because it would occur more than 10 years into the future, 

and any mitigation would be speculative and dependent on whether or not the target 

passage rates would be met. 

Bald Eagle Management Plan

Exelon proposes to implement the Bald Eagle Management Plan filed with the 

license application that provides for the management of bald eagle habitat on Exelon 

lands at the Muddy Run Project based on recommendations from the FWS National Bald 

Eagle Management Guidelines and state agency guidance. This includes implementing 

distance and landscape buffers around nesting sites and avoiding certain activities during 

nesting season. In addition, the Bald Eagle Management Plan includes guidelines for 

activities around roosting and foraging areas. The plan also includes provisions for 

monitoring of nesting, roosting, and foraging sites every 5 years and injury and mortality 

reporting procedures. Interior also recommends, as a 10(j) measure, the development a 

bald eagle management plan based on the FWS National Bald Eagle Management 

Guidelines and state agency guidance. Our analysis in section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial 

Resources, Environmental Effects, provides our rationale for recommending the 

implementation of the Bald Eagle Management Plan, as proposed by Exelon and 

recommended by Interior, because it would benefit bald eagles within the Muddy Run 

Project boundary by complying with bald eagle management guidelines and state 

guidelines, ensuring that future bald eagle nest, roost, and foraging areas are also 

protected by the Bald Eagle Management Plan, and ensuring that FWS and Pennsylvania 

Game Commission are aware of any project-related bald eagle mortality for the term of 

any new license. We estimate that the levelized annual cost of implementing the Bald 

Eagle Management Plan would be $750 and conclude the benefits of protecting bald 

eagles justify this minimal cost.

Osprey Management Policy 

Exelon proposes to implement the osprey management policy described in the 

SMP filed with the license application that states Exelon would work with state and 

federal agencies to provide appropriate buffers dictated by the types of activities carried 

out in either visual or auditory proximity to nests during breeding and nesting season 
405 

(January to late July). This includes implementation of: (1) nest buffers during the 

breeding season of 330 feet for most activities and larger buffers up to 600 feet for 

activities with the potential to emit excessive noise (which excludes routine project 

operation and maintenance activities), and (2) restriction on herbicide application within 

330 feet of osprey nests during breeding season. Under the policy, Exelon would consult 

with FWS and Pennsylvania Game Commission to determine BMPs and obtain 

applicable permits in the event an osprey nest on project transmission line towers is 

identified as a problem nest that needs to be removed or relocated. We recommend 

adoption of Exelon’s proposed osprey management policy. Our analysis in section 

3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, indicates implementation of the 

osprey management policy would benefit the osprey by enacting protection measures and 

following BMPs. The costs associated with implementation of the osprey management 

policy are included in the cost estimate for implementing the SMP. 

Bog Turtle Management Plan 

Exelon proposes to implement the Bog Turtle Management Plan filed with the 

license application. The Plan is consistent with Interior’s recommended measure to 

develop and implement, in consultation with FWS and Pennsylvania FBC, a bog turtle 

management plan for the Muddy Run Project; however, in its January 7, 2015, letter

concurring with our not likely to adversely affect determination, FWS’ Pennsylvania 

Field Office recommends the plan be modified to extend the restrictions for mowing 

areas C, D, and F to the time period from April to October to avoid the turtle’s active 

period. Exelon’s proposed Bog Turtle Management Plan includes: (1) a restriction of 

mowing in the wetland documented to support bog turtles; (2) invasive plant and woody 

plant control, particularly for reed canary grass; and (3) possible limits on public access 

to the wetland without advertising the reason. We provide our rationale for 

recommending the Bog Turtle Management Plan, with FWS’ recommended 

modification, in section 3.3.4.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, Environmental 

Effects. This section indicates the Bog Turtle Management Plan with FWS’ 

recommended modification would ensure that invasive species are controlled in the area 

and bog turtles are not affected by vegetation management during their active period. We 

estimate that the levelized annual cost of the Bog Turtle Management Plan would be 

$8,240 and conclude the benefits of protecting the federally listed bog turtle justify 

the cost.

Recreation Management Plan

Exelon proposes to implement the Recreation Management Plan filed with the 

license application that also includes a schedule for implementing proposed recreational 

enhancements at the Muddy Run Project. A recreation plan would allow Exelon to 

implement facility improvements and install new facilities in a coordinated manner, and 

would ensure that the proposed recreational facility improvements meet the intended 

purposes. However, the plan does not include a specific provision for reviewing and 
406 

updating the plan over the term of any license issued. The staff alternative would include 

revising the plan to specify visitation and sedimentation monitoring of the boat ramp to 

maintain boater access and consultation efforts as part of the plan. We recommend that 

the Recreation Management Plan include measures to conduct a recreation use study 

every 12 years, consistent with every other FERC Form 80 reporting deadline, as well as 

review and consultation with resource agencies, counties, and other interested 

stakeholders in the project area, such as Pennsylvania FBC, Pennsylvania DCNR, 

Maryland DOE, and Maryland DNR. We estimate the levelized annual cost of the 

revised plan would be $2,370. We conclude that these costs would be worth the 

substantial benefits that would be derived from implementing the revised plan. 

Recreation Facility Improvements

As part of the Recreation Management Plan, Exelon proposes to upgrade a variety 

of amenities within Muddy Run Park and make repairs at Wissler’s Run Park near the 

Muddy Run powerhouse. Exelon would replace the existing boat launch facility at the 

Recreation Lake with a new concrete plank ramp, a new gangway, and floating dock 

(accessible to persons with disabilities), and also make shoreline improvements to limit 

erosion. Exelon also proposes to upgrade the barrier-free picnic site, stabilize 150 feet of 

the shoreline at the Recreation Lake between the barrier-free picnic site and the rental 

boat dock, convert the timber retaining wall to sheetpile retaining wall, upgrade service to 

50-ampere electrical service at 50 sites, expand the playground adding a “tot lot,” 

construct a spray park, and provide Wi-Fi service to park users. Proposed improvements 

to Wissler's Run Park would include removing the non-functioning fish cleaning station, 

rebuilding and repaving the existing walkway along the top of the bank, and designating 

two parking spaces near the picnicking pavilion as accessible to persons with disabilities. 

As part of the plan, Exelon also proposes to erect and maintain FERC Part 8 signs at 

River Road and Furniss Road Muddy Run WMA parking areas. Exelon proposes to 

continue to lease these lands to the Pennsylvania Game Commission for the term of a 

future license. 

In our analysis in section 3.3.5.2, Recreation and Land Use Resources,

Environmental Effects, we conclude that improvements to the Recreation Lake boat 

ramp, barrier-free picnic area, shoreline, and retaining walls would improve boater access 

and maintain water quality by reducing runoff from these areas. Further, improvements 

to the ramp would enhance boater access; a popular activity on the lake. Similarly, 

improvements to the campground electrical service that include more 50-ampere service 

campgrounds and Wi-Fi would address modern camper needs such as increased use of 

electronic devices (e.g., recreational vehicles with air conditioning, personal computers, 

and smart phone charging). Removal of the non-functioning fish cleaning station at 

Wissler’s Park would eliminate the temptation for users to clean fish on site and leave the 

waste, which could negatively affect the aesthetics of the area. Enhancements to the 

pathway and designating two additional parking areas as accessible to persons with 

disabilities would improve the overall recreation experience. For these reasons, we 
407 

recommend implementation of Exelon’s proposed recreation facility improvements. The 

estimated levelized annual cost of these capital improvements would be $197,320. The 

benefit of upgrading and expanding recreational opportunities at the project recreation 

sites is worth the cost. 

Shoreline Management Plan 

Exelon proposes to implement the SMP filed with the license application that 

includes specific measures and policies related to shoreline vegetation management and 

erosion control, woody debris management, game species management, sensitive natural 

resource protection, recreation use, and use of project lands and BMPs for controlling 

sediment loading from lands within the project boundary. In our analysis in 

section 3.3.5.2, Recreation and Land Use Resources, Environmental Effects, we conclude 

that implementation of the SMP would provide policies to manage the project’s 

shorelines and protect the environmental resources, including bald eagle and osprey 

habitat and aesthetics along the Muddy Run Project’s upper reservoir and would help to 

minimize effects from erosion on the reservoir’s shoreline. Revising the SMP to include 

regular updates every 10 years in consultation with interested stakeholders consistent 

with the latest Guidance for Shoreline Management Planning at Hydropower Projects 

(FERC, 2012) would ensure the plan is harmonious with conditions at the project. We 

conclude that the addition of regular updates and consultation to the SMP would be worth 

the estimated levelized annual cost of $1,440 to revise the SMP.

Historic Properties Management Plan 

Exelon proposes to develop a cultural resources management plan if cultural 

materials are identified during project-related activities. Interior, under section 10(a), 

recommends that Exelon develop and implement an HPMP that provides for the 

management of historic properties and unevaluated cultural resources within the project 

APE. The HPMP would be prepared in accordance with the Advisory Council and 

Commission’s joint guidance document for preparing hydroelectric project HPMPs 

(FERC and Advisory Council, 2002) and would include: (a) a plan for further 

archaeological investigations of additional AOIs and other potentially affected areas as 

recommended in the Phase IB report; (b) a detailed discussion of the three sites (36LA67, 

36LA103, 36LA368) identified during the Phase IA cultural resources survey and two 

additional sites (36LA70, 36LA47) located outside of the project boundary that could be 

affected by the project; (c) requirements for National Register evaluation of affected sites 

in consultation with the Pennsylvania SHPO; (d) requirements for formal National 

Register evaluation of the Muddy Run Project facility; (e) documentation of all

consultation with the Delaware Nation and Onondaga Nation; and (f) the Park Service as 

a consulting party. Our analysis in section 3.3.6.2, Cultural Resources, Environmental 

Effects, concludes that implementation of this measure would ensure that the Muddy Run 

Project would not adversely affect historic properties during the term of any license. We 

estimate that the levelized annual cost of development and implementation of an HPMP 
408 

for the project would be $31,150 and conclude the benefits of protecting cultural 

resources and historic properties justify the cost. 

5.1.2.3 Measures Not Recommended

Eel Passage Plan

The certification requires implementation of Exelon’s American Eel Passage Plan, 

in which Exelon would establish an Eel Passage Advisory Group to help implement the 

plan, and would trap, hold, and transport American eels from Conowingo dam to 

designated points in the Susquehanna River watershed. Exelon has agreed to this 

measure in the certification for the Muddy Run Project, and would also implement this 

plan as a measure for the Conowingo Project. While we are recommending these 

measures at Conowingo (see section 5.1.3.1, Conowingo Project – Measures Proposed 

by Exelon), we do not recommend those measures as requirements of any license for the 

Muddy Run Project because the Commission cannot require a condition in any Muddy 

Run license that would need to be implemented at another licensed project (Conowingo). 

In addition, there is a lack of nexus to the Muddy Run Project, because the Conowingo 

Project is blocking the upstream passage of American eels, not the Muddy Run Project.

Grants to Conservation Districts and Pennsylvania FBC 

Consistent with the water quality certification, Exelon proposes to provide 

$450,000 total to be split between the Lancaster County and York County Conservation 

Districts through 2030 for the implementation of agricultural pasture and barnyard BMPs 

to control sediment introduction into the Susquehanna River. Exelon would provide 

another $50,000 to Pennsylvania FBC to perform habitat improvements, including the 

removal of small dams. 

While the certification states that the compensation is for the entrainment of 

resident fish, the certification does not describe how the compensation amount was 

determined, or how it would mitigate for fish entrainment. Funds would be used for 

BMPs to reduce sediment loading to the river and for habitat improvement, including

dam removal. This requirement appears not to be related to any specific project impact, 

nor would the measures necessarily be implemented in the project area. With a lack of 

nexus to the project, and because providing funds is inconsistent with Commission’s

guidelines on environmental measures,129 we do not recommend it be included as a 

license condition. While implementing BMPs to reduce sediment loading to the river and 

for habitat improvement in the Susquehanna River basin would be beneficial, we do not 

include this funding measure in our staff alternative. We recognize, however, that these 

 

129 See Policy Statement on Hydropower Licensing Settlements, issued 

September 21, 2006. 
409 

measures are included in the certification for the Muddy Run Project, so they would be a 

mandatory condition of any license issued for the project. 

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Annual Evaluation 

Exelon proposes a plan to evaluate all state and federal endangered or threatened 

species that may be present within the project boundary once every 10 years through the 

term of the license. If the evaluation identifies the presence, critical habitat, or critical 

dependence of endangered species, Exelon would propose and, following approval, 

implement a plan to ensure protection of endangered or threatened species. Our analysis 

in section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, indicates that although 

we agree that this measure would allow Exelon to continue to be aware of the current 

rare, threatened, and endangered species populations in the Muddy Run Project during 

the length of any license, the Commission typically includes in its licenses a standard 

license article with a fish and wildlife reopener provision that could be used to require 

changes to project facilities or operation upon Commission motion or as recommended 

by the appropriate federal and state fish and wildlife agencies after notice and opportunity 

for hearing. This standard reopener provision retains authority for the Commission to 

implement any measures that may be needed to protect threatened or endangered species 

or other fish and wildlife resources over the term of any license issued for the project. 

Although we have no objection to Exelon conducting this agency consultation, we feel 

that the standard license article would provide a similar level of protection as the 

proposed measure. We recognize, however, that this measure is included in Pennsylvania 

DEP’s water quality certification for the Muddy Run Project, so it would be a mandatory 

condition of any license issued for the project. 

Providing OASIS Model to SRBC 

Exelon proposes to provide the version of the Lower Susquehanna OASIS model 

to SRBC within 30 days after the Conowingo and Muddy Run water quality certifications 

and new FERC licenses become final (i.e., are no longer appealable or subject to ongoing 

litigation), as per the letter agreement filed November 19, 2013. Pennsylvania DEP’s 

water quality certification for the Muddy Run Project also requires this provision of the 

OASIS model to SRBC, but we are not recommending this as a requirement of any 

license issued because it is not a specific measure for protection or enhancement of 

environmental resources, and instead appears to be a transfer of information to SRBC. 

While transfer of this model to SRBC would likely be beneficial to SRBC for its 

management responsibilities in the basin, this should not be a license condition. We 

recognize, however, that this measure is included in Pennsylvania DEP’s water quality 

certification for the Muddy Run Project, so it would be a mandatory condition of any 

license issued for the project. 
410 

5.1.3 Conowingo Project 

5.1.3.1 Measures Proposed by Exelon 

Based on our environmental analysis of Exelon’s proposal in section 3, 

Environmental Effects, and the costs presented in section 4, Developmental Analysis, we 

conclude that the following environmental measures proposed by Exelon would protect 

and enhance environmental resources and would be worth the cost. Therefore, we 

recommend including these measures in any license issued for the project. We discuss 

any modification to Exelon’s proposed measures under Measures Recommended by Staff 

for the Conowingo Project.

 Operate the project with a normal range of operation of Conowingo Pond 

between elevations 101.2 and 110.2 feet, with a minimum elevation of 

107.2 feet on weekends between Memorial Day and Labor Day, to meet 

recreational needs.

 Enhance DO at the project using the turbine venting systems on Units 1 

through 7 and the aerating runners on Units 2 and 5, and continuously 

monitor DO levels from May 1 through October 1 at the Station 643 

location about 0.6 mile downstream of Conowingo dam. 

 Operate the east fish lift to pass American shad, river herring, and other 

migratory fishes, and the west fish lift for American shad egg collections 

and other research purposes.

 Manage debris to include clamming (with three gantry cranes with grapple 

attachments) to remove submerged debris from the area upstream of the 

powerhouse intakes and floating surficial debris in front of the powerhouse 

intakes, and sponsoring community-based clean-ups in the pond and 

downstream of the dam. 

 Implement the Sediment Management Plan filed with the license 

application that identifies benchmarks and thresholds for action to address 

sediment issues that may affect project operation. 

 Conduct a bathymetric survey of Conowingo Pond every 5 years to monitor 

sediment transport and depositional patterns. 

 Implement a preventive maintenance program for the east fish lift to extend 

the useful life of the facility over the next license term.

 Use the project turbines as the route for downstream passage of American 

shad and river herring.
411 

 Construct a permanent trap and transport facility for upstream passage of 

American eel, consisting of an eel ramp and collection facility on the west 

bank of the Conowingo tailrace and a similar facility on the east side of the 

river on Octoraro Creek. 

 After 2030, construct volitional eel passage facilities on the west and east 

banks that consist of full eel ramps with resting pools. 

 Implement the Bald Eagle Management Plan filed with the license 

application to minimize impacts on bald eagles and their habitat within the 

project boundary in accordance with recommendations from the National 

Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (FWS, 2007a) and state agency 

guidance. 

 Implement the Recreation Management Plan filed with the license 

application that provides for improvements to 13 project recreation 

facilities, including directional signage to facilities and canoe portages, 

expanded parking, barrier-free boat trailer parking spaces, fencing, 

shoreline stabilization, new or repaired boat ramps, picnic tables, portable 

restrooms, and other amenities. 

 Implement the SMP filed with the license application that includes 

measures and policies related to shoreline vegetation management and 

erosion control, woody debris management, game species management, 

sensitive natural resource protection, recreation use, BMPs for controlling 

sediment introduction from lands within the project boundary, and use of 

project lands. 

 Implement the osprey management policy described in Exelon’s SMP. 

 Implement the HPMP filed with the license application for the management 

of archaeological and historic resources, including: (1) a schedule and 

methodology for completing any additional recommended studies and 

implementing monitoring measures; (2) management measures for 

identified historic properties including Conowingo dam and powerhouse; 

(3) protection of any historic properties threatened by project-related 

activities, including project operation, shoreline and aquatic recreation, 

shoreline development, routine project maintenance, and other project 

activities or operations; and (4) public outreach, education, and signage for 

the purpose of reducing looting and vandalism of sites. 

5.1.3.2 Additional Measures Recommended by Staff for Conowingo

We recommend Exelon’s proposed measures as described above, with the 

following additions and modifications: 
412 

 Modify Exelon’s proposed Sediment Management Plan to include periodic 

dredging at the Conowingo Creek, Peters Creek (Peach Bottom Marina), 

and Broad Creek boat ramps, where sediments have been accumulating, to 

improve and maintain recreational boating access; include metrics 

(magnitude or frequency of sediment loading storm events) that would 

trigger action to protect boating access between the 5 year monitoring 

interval; and include with the results of each bathymetric survey an analysis 

of any change in sediment deposition or scour in the pond from the 

previous survey(s). 

 Modify Exelon’s proposed minimum flow regime to enhance minimum 

flows from December through February, by eliminating periods with no 

minimum flow, and by increasing the minimum flow during the first 2 

weeks of June, summarized as follows: 

 September 15 – March 31: 3,500 cfs or natural inflow (as measured at 

the USGS Marietta gage No. 0157600), whichever is less; 

 April 1 – April 30: 10,000 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is less; 

 May 1 – June 15: 7,500 cfs or natural flow, whichever is less; 

 June 16 – September 14: 5,000 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is less. 

 Implement measures designed to improve upstream fish passage through 

modification to the existing west and east fish lifts, including: (a) replacing 

the existing hopper at the west fish lift with a 1,500 gallon hopper; 

(b) improving the west fish lift sorting and loading process to facilitate trap 

and truck operations, and implementing a trap and truck program for 

American shad; (c) conducting a feasibility study for adding attraction flow 

at the west fish lift and if feasible and beneficial, installing additional flow 

capacity; (d) restoring the original design for the 900-cfs attraction flow in 

the east fish lift; (e) adding a second 3,300-gallon hopper to the east fish lift 

in the space provided for in the original design, and upgrading the electrical 

and mechanical equipment to allow for a 15-minute lift cycle; and (f) if 2 

years of effectiveness studies, after restoration of the 900-cfs attraction 

flow, show poor attraction at the east fish lift, conducting a feasibility study 

for modifying the locations of entrances A and B, and implementing the 

modifications, if feasible. 

 Modify Exelon’s proposed Bald Eagle Management Plan to include 

measures to minimize recreation-related disturbance in proximity to 

roosting or foraging eagles.

 Develop a northern map turtle protection plan to minimize project impacts 

on map turtles through monitoring, habitat management, and nest 

site protection. 
413 

 Develop a waterfowl nesting protection plan to identify waterfowl nesting 

habitat that is routinely flooded by project peaking operations during the 

breeding season, and where feasible, establish mitigation measures to 

minimize impacts on waterfowl nests. 

 Develop a bog turtle management plan, in consultation with FWS and 

Maryland DNR, to minimize impacts on bog turtles, that includes: 

(1) the restriction of mowing in the wetland documented to support bog 

turtles; (2) invasive plant and woody plant control, particularly for reed 

canary grass; and (3) limits on public access to the wetland without 

advertising the reason.

 Modify Exelon’s proposed Recreation Management Plan to include 

recreation use monitoring and plan updates every 12 years in concert with 

every other 6-year Form 80 reporting deadline; inclusion of the Park 

Service as a consulting party; a provision to provide angler access to the 

catwalk on a limited basis and security measures in place that address the 

vulnerability of the facility and the safety of the users of the catwalk; a 

cross reference to the Sediment Management Plan to provide periodic 

dredging of tributary boat access areas; and development and 

implementation of a debris management program in consultation with 

Pennsylvania FBC, Maryland DNR, and Susquehanna River Boaters 

Association that includes: (1) debris management goals, (2) BMPs for 

debris management on Exelon-owned lands to minimize additional inputs 

into the pond, (3) methods of debris management (e.g., clamming in front 

of dam and by skimmer boat), (4) timeframes for when debris would be 

collected and frequency of skimmer boat and clamming operations, (5) size 

criteria specification, (6) removal of stored debris procedures, (7) tracking 

procedures, and (8) a hotline for boaters to directly link with Exelon staff. 

 Modify Exelon’s proposed SMP with the addition of a provision to update 

the plan every 10 years. 

 Modify Exelon’s proposed HPMP to include the following additional 

provisions: (a) a revised APE with the narrow strip of land in the current 

project boundary extending downstream from Spencer Island along the 

west side of the river to Havre de Grace, Maryland; (b) a discussion of all 

48 sites and 27 historic structures identified to date within the project APE 

or an explanation of why they are not considered; (c) correction to identify 

the Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal and Columbia & Port Deposit 

Railroad eligible for listing; (d) requirements to inventory any lands within 

the revised APE, evaluate identified cultural resources for eligibility, and 

address potential effects before sale or transfer of those lands; (e) a 

requirement to make a good faith effort to obtain access to private property 

to conduct studies if project effects on cultural resources on private lands 
414 

are identified; (f) a revised list of project activities involving the 

Conowingo Project that can be completed without Maryland SHPO review; 

(g) a process for assessing project-related ground-disturbing activities to 

determine whether or not archaeological sites would be affected, 

particularly in areas that have not had archaeological surveys; 

(h) requirements to ensure confidentiality of cultural resources location 

information during implementation of public outreach programs; (i) a 

description of project-related activities that would require consultation with 

the Delaware Nation and the Onondaga Nation in accordance with section 

106 of the NHPA and documentation of all consultation with the Delaware 

Nation and Onondaga Nation; and (j) inclusion of the Park Service as a 

consulting party. 

Below we discuss the rationale for recommending proposed measures, modified 

measures, and additional staff measures for the Conowingo Project. 

Reservoir Operations

Exelon is proposing to continue operating Conowingo Pond using the same 

reservoir operating limits as currently employed. Currently, Exelon operates Conowingo 

Pond between elevations 101.2 and 110.2 feet, with a minimum elevation of 107.2 feet on 

weekends between Memorial Day and Labor Day, to meet recreational needs. No entity 

made recommendations to change the current reservoir elevations, and our analysis found 

that current reservoir operation adequately protect aquatic resources and recreational use 

of the reservoir. Therefore, we are recommending continuation of existing reservoir 

operation, which can be implemented at no additional cost to the project. 

DO Enhancement Measures 

Exelon is proposing to continue DO enhancement at the project using turbine 

venting and aeration. Since placed into operation, these systems have been shown to 

maintain adequate DO levels downstream of the project nearly 100 percent of the time. 

Exelon would also continuously monitor DO levels from May 1 through October 1 at the 

Station 643 location about 0.6 mile downstream of Conowingo dam. No entities have 

recommended additional measures for protection or enhancement of DO levels, and 

because state standards are being met, we are recommending continuation of existing DO 

measures and DO monitoring. These measures and monitoring can be implemented at no 

additional cost to the project. 

Sediment Management and Bathymetric Surveys 

Exelon proposes to implement the Sediment Management Plan filed with the 

license application to identify benchmarks and thresholds for actions to address sediment 

issues that may affect project operation. Exelon also proposes to conduct bathymetric 

surveys every 5 years. In section 3.3.1.2, Geology and Soils, Environmental Effects, we 
415 

conclude that these measures are relevant tools for managing the sediment accumulation 

issues in the reservoir, ensuring effective power generation, maintaining recreation

facilities, as well as providing information for environmental management of the lower 

Susquehanna River system and the Chesapeake Bay. Implementation of the proposed 

Sediment Management Plan would include monitoring of the water depth at Peter’s 

Creek (Peach Bottom Marina), Conowingo Creek, and Broad Creek (Harford County 

boat launch) every 5 years; however, the plan stops short of identifying at what depths the 

locations need to be dredged and scheduling dredging. These three boat ramps represent 

half of the boat ramps providing access to Conowingo Pond for motorized boating. As 

discussed in our analysis in section 3.3.5.2, Recreation and Land Use Resources,

Environmental Effects, cross referencing the bathymetric mapping proposed under the 

Sediment Management Plan at the three sites into the final Conowingo Recreation 

Management Plan would ensure bathymetric mapping results are included in discussions 

related to boater access to the reservoir. Development of a final Sediment Management 

Plan that includes detailed benchmarks for dredging, a schedule, and commitment to 

dredging the three access areas as soon as the benchmark water depths are reached would 

ensure that recreation access is not lost or compromised indefinitely. Including measures 

that account for high flows and sediment loading between the 5-year surveys would 

ensure recreational boating opportunities are not compromised longer than necessary. 

We estimate that the levelized annual cost of implementing regular bathymetric surveys 

at 5-year intervals and implementing the Sediment Management Plan would be $10,480 

and $6,220, respectively. We estimate the levelized annual cost of dredging at the three 

boat ramps would be $493,030. We conclude that the benefits of understanding and 

managing sedimentation issues in the reservoir and ensuring accessing to the reservoir 

justify the cost of these measures. 

Instream Flows 

Exelon proposes to continue its current minimum flow releases from the project, 

which are an alternating 0/3,500 cfs (6 hours on/6 hours off) from December through 

February, 3,500 cfs in March, 10,000 cfs in April, 7,500 cfs in May, 5,000 cfs from June 

through September 14, and 3,500 cfs from September 15 through November.130 Exelon 

is not proposing any changes in the current maximum generating flow rate from the 

project (86,000 cfs), or in project ramping rates. Interior, in its section 10(j) 

recommendation, stated that Exelon should finalize and implement a flow management 

plan and implement the flow recommendations of The Nature Conservancy or any more 

restrictive flows required by the Maryland certification (when issued), returning the river

downstream of Conowingo to more natural conditions. The Nature Conservancy 

recommended flows be released downstream of Conowingo dam sufficient to achieve 

 

130 Exelon would provide the lesser of these flows or the natural inflow at the 

upstream Marietta, Pennsylvania USGS gage No. 0157600. 
416 

several habitat objectives for diadromous and resident fish species, mussels, map turtles, 

and submerged aquatic and emergent vegetation (the TNC Flow Regime). The Nature 

Conservancy also recommended that the EIS evaluate two operational alternatives: 

(1) run-of-river operation (passage of the daily average flow measured at the USGS 

Marietta, Pennsylvania, gage plus any intervening flows that enter the river between the 

Marietta gage and Conowingo dam); and (2) the set of operational constraints that The 

Nature Conservancy identified as a potential approach for meeting its performance goals. 

Our revised flow analysis found that the amount of persistent aquatic habitat is 

similar and the ranges of persistent habitat actually overlap for some life stages between 

the current Exelon flow regime and the TNC Flow Regime. In addition, overall, the 

current and proposed Exelon operations generally bracket the range of flows that would 

provide 70 percent of MWUA (a primary goal of the TNC Flow Regime) for target 

species, as determined by Exelon’s instream flow study. However, we also found that 

some small adjustments to Exelon’s proposed flow regime would provide additional 

benefits to aquatic habitat. These adjustments include: (1) eliminating the 6-hour periods 

of zero minimum flow from December through February, resulting in a continuous 

minimum flow of 3,500 cfs from September 15 through March; and (2) increasing the 

minimum flow from 5,000 to 7,500 cfs during the first 2 weeks in June, to protect the end 

of the spawning period for shad and striped bass. 

While we conclude that the flow issue downstream of Conowingo dam is 

complex, our analysis found that Exelon’s current flow regime is generally adequate for 

protection of aquatic resources downstream of the project, although the adjustments to 

these flows as we discussed would provide additional protection to aquatic habitat. 

Therefore, we recommend that Exelon provide, upon issuance of any new license, a 

modified minimum flow regime downstream of the project as follows: 

 September 15 – March 31: 3,500 cfs or natural inflow (as measured at the 

USGS Marietta gage No. 0157600), whichever is less; 

 April 1 – April 30: 10,000 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is less; 

 May 1 – June 15: 7,500 cfs or natural flow, whichever is less; 

 June 16 – September 14: 5,000 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is less. 

This modified flow regime would provide the environmental benefits described 

above and would result in an energy loss at Conowingo (levelized annual value of 

$65,030), and a small loss in energy (levelized annual value of $14,590) at Muddy Run. 

This, however, would be worth the cost in providing additional protection to aquatic 

resources, and it would preserve the developmental benefits of the project, including 

peaking generation and ancillary services. 
417 

Upstream Fish Passage 

The Conowingo Project currently operates two fish lifts at the project: the west 

fish lift first constructed in 1972, and now operated primarily for shad egg taking and 

experimental purposes, and the east fish lift constructed in 1991, which provides 

upstream volitional passage for American shad and other species. Exelon proposes to 

continue operating these facilities and to implement a preventive maintenance program at 

the east fish lift to extend the life of the facility through the new license term. Several 

commenting entities have stated that the current facilities are inadequate and outdated and 

fail to meet the current resource agency effectiveness targets to achieve successful 

anadromous fish restoration in the Susquehanna River. Both Interior and NMFS reserve 

their authority to prescribe additional fishways during the term of the license. Interior 

also recommends that Exelon prepare an operations and maintenance plan for Conowingo 

fish passage facilities, and an FEMP. Interior initially recommended as a section 10(j) 

measure that an alternative G be implemented to improve fish passage at the Conowingo 

Project.131

 As noted previously, Interior has since withdrawn its section 10(j) 

recommendation for alternative G; however, we retain our analysis of alternative G 

because Interior indicates that alternative G is its most developed alternative and its 

fishway prescription, when issued, may be similar. Alternative G includes: 

(1) construction of a new west fish lift with two lifts for both trap and trucking and direct 

volitional upstream shad passage; (2) modification of the east fish lift stilling basin to 

allow 900-cfs attraction flow, as originally designed, relocation and reconstruction of 

entrances A and B, and construction of a new entrance D and collection gallery; and 

(3) adjustment of minimum flows and turbine operations, construction of an east fish lift 

auxiliary water supply of 4,325 cfs, and upgrades to the east fish lift equipment to allow a 

15-minute cycle time if FWS fish passage efficiency targets are not met after 

implementation of the above measures. 

Exelon, in its reply comments, states that there is currently no need to construct 

additional fish passage facilities at Conowingo dam, that the recent shad population 

trends in the Susquehanna River and along the Atlantic coast do not indicate that large 

increases in shad populations are likely, and that there is no scientific basis for the target 

effectiveness rates that Interior and other agencies have recommended for fish passage 

facilities at Conowingo and the other Susquehanna River hydroelectric projects. Exelon 

also comments that past agency management decisions for the Susquehanna River have 

been flawed, including the decision to terminate shad trap and truck operations from 

Conowingo after 1996, resulting in a decrease in the number of spawners reaching 

upriver spawning habitat. 

 

131 Alternative G was one of several alternatives that Interior evaluated for fish 

passage improvements at the project. 
418 

As part of our analysis, we assessed fish passage effectiveness for shad at 

Conowingo, other Susquehanna River Projects, and other hydroelectric projects in North 

America. We also assessed shad population trends on the Susquehanna River and 

elsewhere on the Atlantic coast, and analyzed the fish passage designs discussed by 

Interior, compared to alternative designs. Our analysis could not find any specific 

scientific basis for the agencies’ effectiveness targets; however, those targets are 

specified in the Migratory Fish Management and Restoration Plan for the Susquehanna 

River Basin (SRAFRC, 2010).132 We also could not find any examples where shad 

upstream passage effectiveness has consistently reached such high levels. Safe Harbor 

Project has the highest effectiveness on the Susquehanna River, averaging 71 percent of 

the fish passed at the downstream Holtwood Project, but in many years does not reach 

that effectiveness. On the Columbia River, which has an established large shad 

population on a multiple dam system, passage effectiveness is typically only about 50 to 

55 percent of the next lower dam. While we do not dispute that high effectiveness should 

be an objective for any fish passage facility, the specific effectiveness targets of Interior

and other agencies may not be realistic or achievable. Our review of the shad population 

in the Susquehanna River found that the river exhibited strong population growth from 

the 1970s into the early 2000s, as a result of restoration efforts, but has been in decline 

since 2001. Exelon and the agencies both comment that one of the major reasons for that 

decline was the suspension of shad trapping and trucking in 2000, and the switch to 

volitional passage in that year. We agree and found that the number of shad reaching 

prime upstream spawning habitat has declined significantly since trucking was 

eliminated. We also discuss other potential reasons for the decline in the population, 

including the very large increase in the gizzard shad population in the river since 2000, 

the introduction of predator species such as the flathead catfish, and the continuation of 

an offshore fishery for shad. The Susquehanna River shad population trends also mirror 

the trends in many other rivers tributary to the Chesapeake Bay and along the Atlantic 

coast, which has been acknowledged by ASMFC. 

Even though the agency fishway effectiveness targets may be overly optimistic 

and shad populations are depressed coast-wide, we reviewed the fish passage designs at 

Conowingo in light of alternative G and other agency recommendations calling for fish 

 

132 The SRAFRC (2010) effectiveness targets are: that 75 percent of the fish 

passed at a lower dam must be passed at the next upstream dam, and that the total passage 

should be 85 percent of those fish that arrive at each dam. Another recently developed 

agency target is that, of the fish that reach each dam, 80 percent of those fish must pass 

within 36 hours. The 80 percent passage within 36 hours effectiveness target was 

developed by the FWS as a result of theoretical modeling that evaluated the effects of 

migratory delays on shad spawning success in the Susquehanna River (Sweka and Eyler, 

2013). Alternative G includes this target effectiveness as a goal for any fish passage 

improvements at the Conowingo Project. 
419 

passage improvements, and because fish passage effectiveness at Conowingo has been 

shown to be low in some years. Our assessment of alternative G is that the designs called 

for are overly ambitious and would require a major investment by Exelon in facilities that 

are not needed at present. In the draft EIS, we estimated that alternative G would have a 

high levelized annual cost of $2,334,260. We agree, however, with Interior and other 

commenters that improvements are needed at the fish lifts, because of maintenance 

requirements, the fact that these facilities are “showing their age,” and that for the east 

fish lift, it has not been operating as it was originally designed. As such, we recommend 

a phased approach to these improvements. The following summarizes the improvements 

that we recommend: (1) replace the existing west lift hopper with a 1,500-gallon hopper, 

and associated structural, electrical, and mechanical upgrades; (2) improve the west lift 

fish sorting and loading process, to facilitate trap and trucking, and purchase trucks, 

transport tanks and associated equipment and implement trap and trucking at the west lift; 

(3) conduct a feasibility study on increasing the west lift attraction flow, and install 

additional attraction flow capacity if needed; (4) restore the original design of 900-cfs 

attraction flow in the east lift; (5) add a second 3,300-gallon hopper in the east lift in the 

space provided for in the original design, and upgrade electrical and mechanical 

equipment to allow a 15-minute lift cycle time; (6) after restoration of the 900-cfs 

attraction flow and if 2 years of effectiveness studies at that flow show poor attraction to 

the lift, conduct a feasibility study for modifying the locations of entrances A and B; and 

(7) implement changes to entrances A and B if the feasibility study indicates it would be 

technically feasible and result in improved effectiveness. We also recommend a study on 

effects of gizzard shad on passage efficiency, capacity, and interference with American 

shad use of the Conowingo fish lifts. This study may provide information on how lift 

operations may be modified to discourage gizzard shad use of the lifts, or potential 

sorting mechanisms to separate the two species. 

Under the staff alternative, we recommend the above lift improvements so that 

trapping and trucking can be restored to the west lift as a primary function, along with the 

west lift’s secondary functions for collection of shad eggs and other experimental 

purposes, while the east lift would continue to operate as a volitional passage facility, to 

supply fish to upstream fish passage facilities. We conclude that, while this alternative 

would involve substantial costs (levelized annual cost of $959,760 for identified 

engineering costs, and $260 levelized annual cost for the gizzard shad study), it would 

enhance American shad restoration in the Susquehanna River in a phased and 

economically reasonable manner. 

American Eel Passage

At the Muddy Run Project, Exelon incorporated the Pennsylvania DEP 

certification into its proposal for the project, which requires Exelon to implement 

Exelon’s American Eel Passage Plan, with all measures to occur at Conowingo. Thus, 

Exelon proposes upstream eel passage at Conowingo. That would include interim trap 

and truck facilities on the west side of the tailrace and another similar facility on the east 
420 

side of the river on Octoraro Creek. Those facilities would operate until 2030, when the 

facilities would be replaced with volitional passage facilities. Interior also recommends 

construction of eel trapping and trucking and eventually volitional facilities on both 

shorelines at the Conowingo Project.133 For downstream passage, Interior recommends 

that Exelon maintain downstream eel passage survival rates of at least 85 percent through 

the Conowingo Project, with follow-up effectiveness studies to determine whether 

downstream passage rates are achieved. If not achieved, Exelon would evaluate changes 

in operation and fish guidance systems to provide safe, timely, and effective downstream 

fish passage. We are in agreement with the proposed and recommended American eel 

passage measures and recommend that they become conditions of any license issued. 

One caveat that we recommend is that the transition to volitional passage at Conowingo 

not be set to a fixed date (in the year 2030), but be based on a specific need. A trap and 

trucking program may still be viable past 2030 and it would give managers the option to 

stock specific watersheds that may not be available with volitional passage, or in the 

event volitional passage facilities at the three lower Susquehanna River Projects are not 

highly effective. We estimate that the levelized annual cost for the trap and transport 

facilities would be $883,380, and the volitional facilities would be $467,400. While 

these costs would be substantial, they are justified because implementation of these 

measures would allow for upstream passage of the American eel, which has been 

excluded from the Susquehanna River since the original construction of Conowingo dam 

in 1928. 

Bald Eagle Management Plan

Exelon proposes and Interior recommends a measure to finalize and implement the 

Bald Eagle Management Plan filed with the license application that provides for the 

management of bald eagle habitat on Exelon lands at the Conowingo Project. The Bald 

Eagle Management Plan is based on recommendations from the FWS National Bald 

Eagle Management Guidelines and state agency guidance. It includes implementing 

distance and landscape buffers around nesting sites and avoiding certain activities during 

nesting season. In addition, the Bald Eagle Management Plan includes general guidelines 

for activities around roosting and foraging areas. The plan also includes provisions for 

monitoring of nesting, roosting, and foraging sites every 5 years and injury and mortality 

procedures. Interior indicates two specific measures that Exelon should reconcile to 

avoid disturbance of eagle concentration areas: (1) enforcement of human traffic 

restrictions on both sides of Rowland Island, under the towers in the river, and on the 

Cecil County side of the river where current human activities disturb perching and 

 

133 Interior’s recommended terms and conditions filed January 31, 2014, include a 

statement that the Commission should require the conditions included in Attachment A to 

its letter in any license issued for the Conowingo Project. Attachment A includes 

measures for upstream eel passage as described herein. 
421 

foraging eagles; and (2) a requirement that Exelon release information pertaining to 

federal regulations that protect eagles and great blue heron rookeries, and other migratory 

birds if any lands are potentially donated by Exelon. 

We provide our analysis for recommending Exelon’s proposed Bald Eagle 

Management Plan in section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects. This 

section indicates implementation of the Bald Eagle Management Plan, as proposed by 

Exelon and recommended by Interior, would benefit bald eagles within the Muddy Run 

and Conowingo project boundaries by complying with bald eagle management guidelines 

and state guidelines, ensuring that future bald eagle nest, roost, and foraging areas are 

also protected by the bald eagle management plan, and ensuring that FWS and 

Pennsylvania Game Commission are aware of any project-related bald eagle mortality for 

the term of any new license. In addition, Interior’s recommendations to enforce 

restrictions to human activity in the vicinity of eagle concentration areas would result in 

greater protection of foraging and communal roosting bald eagles from human 

disturbance. Although Exelon’s proposed Bald Eagle Management Plan provides 

project-specific restrictions, buffers, and other measures to protect nests in accordance 

with the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, it only mentions general 

guidelines related to foraging and roosting areas. As such, we recommend the plan 

become a condition of any license issued for the project, with the addition of Interior’s 

recommendations for Exelon to develop and implement measures to enforce restrictions 

on human activity in proximity to roosting or foraging eagles. Such measures could 

include increased signage, patrols of the area, or, possibly, physical restrictions. As 

Exelon has not proposed to donate lands as part of the proposed project, it is not 

necessary at this time to include a measure in the proposed Bald Eagle Management Plan 

that would require Exelon to release information on bald eagles or other migratory 

species to a recipient. We estimate that the levelized annual cost of implementing the 

bald eagle management plan would be $1,740 and conclude the benefits of protecting 

bald eagles justify the cost associated with implementing the revised plan. 

Osprey Management Policy 

Exelon’s proposed osprey management policy, described in Conowingo’s 

proposed SMP, states that Exelon would work with state and federal agencies to provide 

appropriate buffers dictated by the types of activities carried out in either visual or 

auditory proximity to nests during breeding and nesting season (January to late July). 

This includes implementation of: (1) nest buffers during the breeding season of 330 feet 

for most activities and larger buffers up to 600 feet for activities with the potential to emit 

excessive noise (which excludes routine project operation and maintenance activities); 

(2) restrictions on herbicide application within 330 feet of osprey nests during breeding 

season; and (3) consultation with FWS and Pennsylvania Game Commission to 

determine BMPs and obtain applicable permits in the event an osprey nest on project 

transmission line towers is identified as a problem nest that needs to be removed or 

relocated. Our analysis in section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, 
422 

indicates implementation of the osprey management policy would benefit the osprey by 

enacting protection measures and following BMPs. Therefore, we recommend adopting 

this recommendation. The estimated annual cost of implementing the osprey 

management policy is included in the cost of implementing the SMP. 

Waterfowl Nesting Protection Plan 

Interior recommends under section 10(j) that Exelon develop and implement a 

waterfowl nesting protection plan in consultation with FWS and file it with the 

Commission for approval. Such a plan would: (a) identify specific project-related effects 

on nesting waterfowl, such as flooding during nesting season; (b) identify which species 

of nesting waterfowl are affected, if any; and (c) if project-related effects are identified, 

establish appropriate protection or mitigation measures, in consultation with FWS. In our 

analysis in section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, we conclude 

that implementation of a waterfowl nesting protection plan at the Conowingo Project 

would identify any specific project-related effects on waterfowl nesting and allow 

appropriate protection or mitigation measures to be established. Overall, implementation 

of a waterfowl nesting protection plan at the Conowingo Project, in consultation with 

FWS and the state agencies, would benefit nesting waterfowl. We recommend adopting 

the plan and estimate that the levelized annual cost of implementing the waterfowl 

nesting protection plan would be $19,980. We find that the benefits of protecting nesting 

waterfowl at the project warrant the cost of developing and implementing a plan. 

Northern Map Turtle Protection Plan 

Although Exelon did not propose any specific measures for the protection of 

northern map turtles at the project, Exelon has worked with Towson University and 

Maryland DNR to develop potential measures that could enhance the map turtle 

population; some of these measures (i.e., artificial basking platforms) are still 

experimental, however, and it may take several years to develop an optimal design. 

Other potential measures (i.e., restricting public access at Octoraro Beach during the 

nesting season and educating recreational boaters regarding the need to minimize 

disturbance of basking map turtles) may take several years to implement and additional 

time after that for any positive population trend to be documented. Negative effects, such 

as nest destruction and predation on incubation eggs, are likely to continue in the future. 

Consequently, a relatively long-term population monitoring program would be necessary 

to document whether implemented enhancements are resulting in the expected positive 

population effects. We recommend the development and implementation of a formal 

northern map turtle protection plan at the Conowingo Project, in consultation with 

Maryland DNR, that incorporates nest management and mitigation measures to create 

new alternative nesting and basking sites. There are numerous factors that contribute to 

the breeding success or failure of map turtles, and some may be project-related. The 

northern map turtle protection plan should include the development and implementation 

of nest management and alternate basking site mitigation and protection measures 
423 

identified and studied during the ongoing Towson University map turtle studies; annual 

monitoring of the northern map turtle population at the Conowingo Project for 10 years; 

annual monitoring of the use and success of both the mitigation and protection measures 

for 10 years; an assessment of the northern map turtle’s response to any changes in 

operating regime as a result of any license issued; and methods of altering or amending 

protection and mitigation measures as a result of the monitoring, in consultation with 

Towson University and Maryland DNR. Our analysis in section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial 

Resources, Environmental Effects, indicates that implementation of a northern map turtle 

protection plan would benefit the map turtle by increasing nesting success and providing 

more stable basking sites. We estimate that the levelized annual cost of implementing the 

northern map turtle protection plan would be $14,830 and conclude the benefits of 

protecting northern map turtles justify the cost. 

Bog Turtle Management Plan 

Interior recommends that Exelon develop and implement a bog turtle management 

plan, in consultation with FWS and Maryland DNR, for the Conowingo Project. 

Interior’s recommended plan includes: (1) a restriction of mowing in the wetland 

documented to support bog turtles; (2) invasive plant and woody plant control, 

particularly for reed canary grass; and (3) possible limits on public access to the wetland 

without advertising the reason. We provide our rationale for recommending a bog turtle 

management plan in section 3.3.4.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, Environmental 

Effects. This section indicates a bog turtle management plan would ensure that invasive 

species are controlled in the area and the wetland is not affected by vegetation 

management during the emergence and breeding season. We estimate that the levelized 

annual cost of a bog turtle management plan would be $8,240 and conclude the benefits 

of protecting the federally listed bog turtle justify the cost.

Recreation Management Plan

The Conowingo Project provides a variety of recreational resources, and Exelon 

developed a Recreation Management Plan and schedule for implementing proposed 

recreational enhancements to enhance these resources. Exelon proposes to implement the 

proposed Recreation Management Plan to manage the project reaction facilities. As 

discussed in in section 3.3.5.2, Recreation and Land Use Resources, Environmental 

Effects, a recreation plan would allow Exelon to implement facility improvements and 

install new facilities in a coordinated manner, and would ensure that the proposed 

recreational facility improvements meet the intended purposes while making a range of 

amenities accessible for persons with disabilities. However, the plan does not include a 

specific provision for reviewing and updating the plan over the term of any license 

issued. Similarly, the sedimentation of Peach Bottom Marina, Conowingo Creek, and 

Broad Creek on Conowingo Pond could compromise access at these locations. The staff 

alternative includes revising the plan to cross reference the Sediment Management Plan 

and specify visitation and sedimentation monitoring and dredging activities, as well as 
424 

consultation efforts as part of the plan. We recommend that the final Recreation 

Management Plan for the project include measures for conducting a recreation use study 

every 12 years throughout the license term, consistent with every other 6-year FERC 

Form 80 reporting period, to ensure the proposed plans are current and the sites are 

meeting the demand. We also recommend that Exelon review and update the plan every 

12 years in consultation with resource agencies, counties, and other interested 

stakeholders in the project area, such as Pennsylvania FBC, Pennsylvania DCNR, 

Maryland DOE, Maryland DNR, and the Park Service. We also agree with the current 

practice of maintaining a minimum level of 107.2 feet at Conowingo Pond during 

weekends between Memorial Day and Labor Day to ensure sufficient depths for 

recreational boating activities over the term of any future license; however, this operation 

can be reviewed as part of a future update. We estimate the levelized annual cost of the 

final Recreation Management Plan would be $7,410. We conclude that this cost would 

be worth the substantial benefits that would be derived from implementing the plan 

as revised. 

Recreation Facility Improvements 

Exelon proposes improvements at 13 recreation facilities. In our analysis in 

section 3.3.5.2, Recreation and Land Use Resources, Environmental Effects, we conclude 

that Exelon’s proposed boat ramp and boat launch enhancements at existing recreation 

facilities would provide significant improvements to the project’s recreational resources. 

Implementation of the proposed Sediment Management Plan, as discussed in section 

3.3.1, Geology and Soils, would, at a minimum, monitor the depth of sediment at Peter’s 

Creek (Peach Bottom Marina), Conowingo Creek, and Broad Creek (Harford County 

boat launch) every 5 years; however, the plan stops short of identifying at what depths the 

locations need to be dredged and scheduling dredging. These three boat ramps represent 

half of the boat ramps providing access to Conowingo Pond for motorized boating. 

Visitor survey results indicate that 6 percent of the comments received at Conowingo 

Creek targeted shallow water/dredging needs. Similarly, maintaining the minimum pond 

elevation at 107.2 feet on weekends between Memorial Day and Labor Day as currently 

required would ensure the boating resources are maintained through the term of any 

license. Cross-referencing the sediment monitoring proposed at the three access sites 

under the Sediment Management Plan into the final Conowingo Recreation Management 

Plan would ensure sediment monitoring results are included in discussions related to 

boater access to the reservoir. Development of a final Sediment Management Plan that 

includes detailed benchmarks for dredging, a schedule, and commitment to dredging the 

three access areas as soon as the benchmark sediment depths are reached would ensure 

that recreation access is not lost or compromised indefinitely. Implementation of the 

proposed improvements at Exelon’s recreation facilities would have an estimated 

levelized annual cost of $218,240 (not including the Sediment Management Plan, which 

is discussed separately above). The benefit of safe, accessible, and well-maintained 

recreation facilities at this highly used reservoir warrants the annual cost of implementing 

these measures. 
425 

Catwalk 

Exelon has closed the catwalk for angling since October 2001, citing security 

concerns related to public access in proximity to the powerhouse. Maryland DNR and a 

number of citizens recommend reopening the catwalk for angler access. Exelon has 

denied these requests citing safety and security concerns and stated that the construction 

of the wharf at Fisherman’s Park and the new access at Octoraro Creek Park were 

provided to mitigate for the closure of the catwalk. Recreation use numbers collected by 

Exelon for Fisherman’s Park indicate the site is popular and provides shore-based fishing 

as well as boat launch opportunities to the river below the dam. Although not measured 

directly, the latent demand for angling from a re-opened catwalk could be comparable to, 

or higher than use at the upstream York Haven and Safe Harbor Projects. We conclude 

(see section 3.3.5.2, Recreation and Land Use Resources, Environmental Effects) that the 

catwalk provides exceptional angling opportunities different from those currently 

provided at the new access sites. Angling from similar structures at upstream 

hydropower projects is both allowed (with minimal security measures) and popular. 

Comments during relicensing indicated that fishing from the shore at Fisherman’s 

Park is difficult because the main channel is far away and lures are pushed downstream 

and to the shore. The proximity of Conowingo dam to large population centers offers 

more anglers opportunities to fish this unique and historically popular resource. 

Providing this opportunity at Conowingo, even on a limited basis, would expand the 

diversity of angler opportunities by providing anglers access to fish the main channel 

under a range of operating conditions. Therefore, we recommend that Exelon revise its 

Recreation Management Plan to include a plan to reopen the catwalk on a limited basis 

(e.g., the catwalk could be opened for fishing derbies, during holiday weekends, during 

peak fishing periods, or other occasions) that would be developed in consultation with 

interested stakeholders. We recommend that any plan to reopen the catwalk include 

security measures that address the vulnerability of the facility and the safety of the users 

of the catwalk. Such measures could include, but not be limited to, on-site inspections, 

video surveillance, pre-screening procedures, capacity limits, security personnel, and 

physical infrastructure modifications. 

The cost to safely reopen the catwalk to anglers would depend upon the number of 

days that the facility would be open to the public and the specific measures that would be 

implemented to ensure a safe and secure environment. We estimate that opening the 

catwalk on a limited basis could cost less than the $141,390 levelized annual cost 

estimated by Exelon, which based its cost estimates on a 12 hours per day and 365-day 

per year opening and factored in reconstructing the catwalk to be accessible to persons 

with disabilities. We conclude that, from a recreational resource perspective, the costs 

would be worth the benefits. Nevertheless, the ultimate decision on whether the catwalk 

can be reopened to the public, even on a limited basis, would depend upon the 

Commission’s evaluation of the plan and whether it satisfies public safety and 

security concerns. 
426 

Debris Management

In its July 18, 2014, letter to the Commission, Exelon confirmed it clears debris by 

two general methods: (i) operating three gantry cranes stationed on the head works with 

a clamming attachment to remove debris blown against the dam; and (ii) operating a new 

skimmer boat purchased in 2013, which is used to remove debris in the pond in the 

vicinity of the dam. The State of Maryland, Broad Creek Civic Association, and public 

testimony provided during the draft EIS comment period recommended Exelon increase 

the use of its skimmer boat to increase debris removal from the pond to improve boater 

safety and opportunities (e.g., water skiing). Exelon proposes to continue to operate its

three gantry cranes with clamshell grapplers. Exelon also relies on community-sponsored 

clean-ups in the pond and downstream of the dam. 

Debris is delivered to Conowingo Pond as a result of myriad inputs in the 

watershed above Conowingo dam and delivered downstream during storm events. 

Operation of the Conowingo and Muddy Run Projects results in fluctuating pond levels, 

which can mobilize debris from the shoreline to the pond and vice versa throughout the 

operation schedule, which is further influenced by river flows and wind direction. The 

presence of floating debris in the pond poses a risk to boaters and waterskiers. Review of 

Exelon’s debris management study results indicates that, although the previous skimmer 

boat was retired in 2008, and it operated at times only a few days each year, it removed 

more volume of waste than the cranes in front of the dam for the amount of time in use. 

Debris management activities that utilize a new skimmer boat could remove more volume 

of debris, across more surface area of the reservoir, per unit of effort compared to using 

only the cranes. Therefore, we recommend that Exelon revise the Recreation 

Management Plan to include debris management to address the floating debris during the 

recreation boating season. Including it as part of the Recreation Management Plan would 

convey the important link with boater safety and allow for its evaluation during the 

recommended 12-year updates to the Recreation Management Plan. 

We recommend the final debris management program be developed in 

consultation with the Pennsylvania FBC, Maryland DNR, Broad Creek Civic 

Association, Susquehanna River Boaters Association, and the Park Service. The debris 

management component of the Recreation Management Plan should include debris 

management goals, methods of debris management (e.g., clamming shells, skimmer 

boat), timeframes for when debris would be collected, the frequency of skimmer and 

clamming operations, specification of size criteria, storage and removal of stored debris 

procedures, tracking procedures, and coordination with community-based clean-up 

efforts. Implementing BMPs for debris management on Exelon-owned lands would 

prevent additional debris from entering Conowingo Pond from Exelon property. The cost 

to prepare and implement a debris management plan is included in the cost of the 

Recreation Management Plan discussed above. We conclude that, from a boater safety 

and opportunity perspective, the costs are worth the benefits. 
427 

Shoreline Management 

The Conowingo Project provides access to many recreational, natural, and 

shoreline resources within the lower Susquehanna River. Through a collaborative 

process, Conowingo developed a single shoreline management document to address 

concerns while maintaining provisions to protect shoreline environmental resources. 

Exelon proposes to implement the proposed SMP to manage the environmental 

resources around Conowingo Pond’s shore. As discussed in section 3.3.5.2, Recreation 

and Land Use Resources, Environmental Effects, the SMP would include specific 

measures and policies related to shoreline vegetation management, sediment and erosion

control, woody debris management, game species management, sensitive natural resource 

protection, recreation use, and use of project lands. We recommend including the SMP 

in any new license issued but with our recommended revisions for regular updates. 

Revising the SMP to include regular updates every 10 years in consultation with 

interested stakeholders, consistent with the latest Guidance for Shoreline Management 

Planning at Hydropower Projects (FERC 2012), would ensure the plan is harmonious 

with conditions at the project. We conclude that the addition of regular updates and 

consultation to the SMP would be worth the estimated levelized annual cost of $1,440.

Historic Properties Management Plan

Exelon proposes to implement the HPMP filed with the license application for the 

management of archaeological and historic resources throughout the term of any new 

license, including: (1) a schedule and methodology for completing any additional 

recommended studies and implementing monitoring measures; (2) management measures 

for identified historic properties including Conowingo dam and powerhouse; 

(3) protection of any historic properties threatened by project-related activities, including 

project operations, shoreline and aquatic recreation, shoreline development, routine 

project maintenance, and other project activities or operations; and (4) public outreach, 

education, and signage for the purpose of reducing looting and vandalism of sites, with 

staff modifications. 

As discussed in section 3.3.6.2, Cultural Resources, Environmental Effects, we 

conclude that the following revisions would make the HPMP more comprehensive and 

complete: (a) revise the project APE to include the narrow strip of land located in the 

current project boundary that extends downstream from Spencer Island along the west 

side of the river to the city of Havre de Grace, Maryland that contains four additional 

previously recorded archaeological sites (18HA240, 18HA267, 18HA268, 18HA269); (b) 

inventory any lands within the project APE (particularly AOIs identified in the Phase IA 

study that were not subject to Phase IB study), evaluate any identified cultural resources 

for National Register eligibility, and address potential affects prior to any sale or transfer 

of those lands; (c) make a good faith effort to obtain access to private property to conduct 

appropriate studies should project effects of any kind to cultural resources on private 

lands be identified over a new license term; (d) discuss all 48 sites identified to date 
428 

within the project APE; (e) discuss all 27 historic structures identified in the APE or an 

explanation regarding why they need not be considered in the HPMP; (f) correctly 

identify the Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal and Columbia & Port Deposit Railroad as 

eligible for listing on the National Register; (g) revise the list (as necessary) of project 

activities involving the Conowingo Project system that can be completed without 

Maryland SHPO review; (h) include a process for how project-related ground-disturbing 

activities would be assessed to determine whether or not archaeological sites would be 

affected, particularly in areas that have not been subject to previous archaeological 

survey; (i) ensure confidentiality of cultural resources locational information during 

implementation of public outreach programs; (j) include a description of project-related 

activities that would require consultation with the Delaware Nation and the Onondaga 

Nation in accordance with section 106 of the NHPA and documentation of all 

consultation with the Delaware Nation and Onondaga Nation; and (j) include the Park 

Service as a consulting party. 

Our analysis in section 3.3.6.2, Cultural Resources, Environmental Effects, 

indicates implementation of the proposed HPMP with our recommended measures would 

ensure that the Conowingo Project would not adversely affect historic properties during 

the course of any license. We estimate that the levelized annual cost to revise and 

implement the HPMP for the project would be $37,080 and conclude the benefits of 

protecting cultural resources justify the cost. 

Project Boundary

Exelon proposes to remove 1,965 acres from the Conowingo Project boundary that 

includes areas that were necessary during construction of the project but are no longer 

needed for project purposes. As discussed in section 3.3.5.2, Recreation and Land Use 

Resources, Environmental Effects, removing these lands would remove four non-project 

recreation facilities from the project boundary, including the Lower Susquehanna 

Heritage Greenway, Deer Creek Access, Lapidum Boat Launch, and McLhinney Park. A 

relatively thin ribbon of land on the west bank of the Susquehanna River downstream of 

Conowingo dam was included in past licenses so as to include the railroad that was used 

to shuttle material to the dam during initial construction. While the lands in this area are 

now used for non-project recreation, these lands serve no direct project purpose. Project 

recreation demand is currently met through 15 project recreation sites located around 

Conowingo Pond and immediately downstream. Continuation of the lease agreements 

with the State of Maryland for Susquehanna State Park (which includes the Lower 

Susquehanna Heritage Greenway Trail, Deer Creek Access, and Lapidum Boat Launch) 

and the City of Havre de Grace for McLhinney Park would maintain recreation access at 

these locations. Removal of the 1,965 acres of lands would be consistent with FERC 

policy that only lands and waters needed for project purposes should be included in the 

project boundary. Lands and waters needed may include those for (1) construction and 

operation of its project, and (2) to carry out other project purposes such as recreation, 

wildlife protection, and enhancement. While these lands provide recreation 
429 

opportunities, these opportunities are not related to the project. In addition, removing 

these non-project recreation sites from the project boundary would not limit the 

recreation opportunities available in the area downstream of Conowingo dam. Execution 

of a new lease with Maryland DNR would ensure these lands are maintained for public 

recreation purposes; however, they would not be under FERC jurisdiction. Because the 

lands proposed for removal from the Conowingo project boundary are no longer used for 

project purposes, removing these lands would be consistent with Commission policy. 

5.1.3.3 Measures Not Recommended 

TNC Flow Regime

We do not recommend adopting Interior’s recommendation for implementing the 

TNC Flow Regime or a Maryland DOE certification, if more restrictive. Our reasons for 

not adopting are discussed in section 5.1.3.2, Conowingo Project, Additional Measures 

Recommended by Staff for Conowingo, Instream Flows. Our recommendation for a 

modified flow regime, however, is based on the TNC criteria for the habitat persistence 

analysis that the range of flows during peaking operation provides the TNC target of 70 

percent of MWUA by month. Our primary reason for not adopting the TNC Flow 

Regime is the benefits to some species life stages would not justify the effects on project 

operation and costs. While there would be a small gain in generation at the Conowingo 

Project (13,116 MWh), with a levelized annual value of $348,130, there would be a 

major loss of generation at the Muddy Run Project (146,837 MWh), with a levelized 

annual loss of $1,989,490, or about 9 percent of the annual generation at the project.134 

Operation under the TNC Flow Regime would be restrained and would eliminate many 

of the peaking and ancillary services benefits to the PJM region from the Conowingo 

Project, and only provide minimal benefit to the downstream habitat for some species 

while negatively affecting other species. Ancillary services include those services 

necessary to maintain the reliability of the interconnected transmission system. Flow

requirements of any future Maryland DOE certification are not known at this time, and 

cannot be analyzed. 

Fish Stranding 

Exelon is proposing to continue the same ramping rates of about 70,000 to 

80,000 cfs per hour or less and maximum generating flows as currently operated. To 

address fish stranding, the Nature Conservancy recommends the implementation of 

ramping rates as part of its TNC Flow Regime. Under the TNC Flow Regime, the 

 

134 The annual loss of $1,989,490 would be the net loss. There would be some 

cost savings related to a 9 percent reduction in pumping energy required, because less 

water would be available for pumping from Conowingo Pond as more flow would be 

released downstream to satisfy the TNC Flow Regime.
430 

maximum generating flow would be limited to 65,000 cfs from March through 

September, upramping rates would be limited to 40,000 cfs per hour year-round, and 

downramping rates would be limited to 20,000 cfs per hour overall, and 10,000 cfs from 

July through September, if flows are less than 30,000 cfs. Interior’s prescription includes 

a maximum downramping rate of 20,000 cfs/hour. Interior prescribes and the 

Pennsylvania FBC recommends channel modifications to eliminate stranding in the 

spillway channel. We provide our analysis of the effects of ramping rates and channel 

modifications on fish stranding downstream of the Conowingo dam in section.3.3.2.2, 

Water Resources, Environmental Effects. Our assessment of stranding below the project 

indicates that few fish are killed by stranding under existing operation, and about 90 

percent of those killed were gizzard shad, carp, and catfish species, with few diadromous 

fish affected. We concluded that the existing changes in flow levels are not having 

significant adverse effects on aquatic resources, and that maximum flows from the 

project (86,000 cfs) generally remain within the TNC target of 70 percent of MWUA for 

the key life stages analyzed. Restraining ramping rates to those recommended in the 

TNC Flow Regime would adversely affect project operation by limiting the project’s 

ability to respond to changes in load in the PJM system, reducing the ancillary services 

benefits of the project. There would also be minimal benefit in implementing the 

Pennsylvania FBC recommendation to extend the retaining wall at the east end of the east 

fish lift, add boulder fill in that area to prevent generation flow from flooding the 

spillway pool at high levels of generation, or dredge a channel(s) from the spillway pool 

area to downstream areas to provide egress for stranded fishes. Implementing these 

structural measures downstream of Conowingo dam would have a relatively high cost 

(levelized annual cost of $74,100), would involve in-river construction activities that 

would affect both fish and wildlife usage of the area, but would benefit only a small 

number of fish. Therefore, we are not recommending the imposition of ramping rates, 

lower maximum discharges, or structural measures to reduce the potential for fish 

stranding. While we do not find that stranding is an issue requiring mitigation 

downstream of Conowingo dam, we acknowledge that Interior’s downramping provision 

in its final prescription would become a condition of any license issued for the project. 

5.2 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS 

Fluctuations in reservoir levels would continue to result in unavoidable minor 

bank erosion for all three projects (York Haven, Muddy Run, and Conowingo). In 

addition, natural high-flow events would continue to mobilize bed substrate downstream 

of Conowingo dam. 

The sediment storage capacity of the reservoirs in the lower Susquehanna River 

(including Conowingo Pond) has been reached; these reservoirs are in a state of dynamic 

equilibrium (Corps and MDE, 2014). Averaged over time, the full sediment load carried 

by the Susquehanna River again reaches the Chesapeake Bay, as it did prior to the 

construction of the lower river reservoirs from 1910 to 1930. The only difference 

between the present and 1910 conditions is the periodic deposition and scouring in the 
431 

reservoirs. As the LSRWA study (Corps and MDE, 2014) describes, the primary effect 

on living resources in the Bay is from nutrients associated with the sediment, primarily 

from sources in the Susquehanna River watershed and the rest of the Chesapeake 

Bay watershed. 

The York Haven Project would result in the unavoidable loss of vegetation and 

wildlife habitat during construction of the nature-like fishway within the construction 

footprint. At both the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects, the proposed projects would 

result in the unavoidable loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat during the expansion of 

recreation facilities.

5.3 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS 

Under the provisions of section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued 

by the Commission shall include conditions based on recommendations provided by 

federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, and 

enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. In response to our 

REA notice, Interior filed recommendations for all three projects on 

January 30 and 31, 2014.135

 Pennsylvania FBC filed recommendations for the 

Conowingo Project on December 11, 2013. 

Section 10(j) of the FPA states that whenever the Commission believes that any 

fish and wildlife agency recommendation is inconsistent with the purposes and the 

requirements of the FPA or other applicable law, the Commission and the agency will 

attempt to resolve any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations, 

expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency. Table 5-1 lists the federal and 

state recommendations filed subject to section 10(j), and whether the recommendations 

are adopted under the staff alternative. Environmental recommendations that we consider 

outside the scope of section 10(j) have been considered under section 10(a) of the FPA 

and are addressed in the specific resource sections of this document and the 

previous section. 

For the York Haven Project, Interior made two recommendations that we consider 

within the scope of section 10(j), and we adopt both. For the Muddy Run Project, 

Interior made five recommendations, two of which we consider within the scope of 

section 10(j), and we adopt all five recommendations. For the Conowingo Project, 

Interior made eight recommendations, five of which we consider within the scope of 

section 10(j), and Pennsylvania FBC made 13 recommendations, nine of which we 

consider within the scope of section 10(j). We adopt six of Interior’s recommendation 

and seven of Pennsylvania FBC’s recommendations. 

 

135 In its comments on the draft EIS, Interior withdrew its section 10(j) 

recommendation to install and operate fishways as described in alternative G, which is an 

alternative described in its reservation of authority for the Conowingo Project, 
432 

The Commission staff makes a preliminary determination that three 

recommendations by Interior and five recommendations by Pennsylvania FBC for the 

Conowingo Project may be inconsistent with the purpose and requirements of the FPA or 

other applicable law. 

Table 5-1. Fish and wildlife agency recommendations for the Susquehanna River 

Projects (Source: staff). 

Recommendation Agency

Within the 

Scope of 

Section 10(j)

Levelized 

Annual Cost Adopted?

York Haven Project

1. To help evaluate safe and 

effective passage of 

American eels through the 

project, cooperate with FWS 

and other interested parties 

in the funding, planning and 

conduct of a lower 

Susquehanna River 

downstream eel study to 

evaluate the timing, 

magnitude, duration, annual 

variation, and environmental 

conditions associated with 

the active migration of silver 

eels through the 

Susquehanna River to the 

Chesapeake Bay

Interior Yes $5,550 Yes

2. Operate to maintain an 

instantaneous minimum flow 

below the project of 1,000 

cfs or inflow, whichever is 

less; an average daily flow 

of 2,500 cfs or inflow, 

whichever is less; whenever 

river flow is less than 3,000 

cfs, operate as run of river; 

and provide for temporary 

modifications resulting from 

operating exigencies beyond 

the control of the licensee. 

Interior Yes $0 Yes 
433 

Recommendation Agency

Within the 

Scope of 

Section 10(j)

Levelized 

Annual Cost Adopted?

Muddy Run Project

3. Before starting any grounddisturbing work, visit the 

FWS Chesapeake Bay Field 

Office and Pennsylvania 

Field Office websites and 

follow the Bog Turtle and 

Bald Eagle management 

guidelines.

Interior No. Not a

specific 

measure to 

protect, 

mitigate, or 

enhance fish 

and wildlife 

resources.

$0 Yes

4. Develop and implement a 

bog turtle management plan.

Interior Yes $8,240 Yes 

5. Finalize and implement the 

Bald Eagle Management 

Plan and as part of the 

licensee’s compliance under 

the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act, FERC 

should require the licensee 

to follow conservation 

measures that protect bald 

eagles in addition to 

adopting the National Bald 

Eagle Management 

Guidelines.

Interior Yes $750 Yes

6. Develop and implement an 

SMP.

Interior No. Not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect, 

mitigate, or 

enhance fish 

and wildlife 

resources.

$0 Yes

7. The project shall be subject 

to inspection by FWS to 

ensure compliance with 

protection, mitigation, and 

enhancement measures.

Interior No. Not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect, 

mitigate, or 

enhance fish 

and wildlife 

resources.

$0 Yes
434 

Recommendation Agency

Within the 

Scope of 

Section 10(j)

Levelized 

Annual Cost Adopted?

Conowingo Project

8. Early in the planning process 

for any ground-disturbing 

work, visit the FWS 

Chesapeake Bay Field 

Office and Pennsylvania 

Field Office websites and 

follow the Bog Turtle and 

Bald Eagle Management 

Guidelines.

Interior No. Not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect, 

mitigate, or 

enhance fish 

and wildlife 

resources.

$0 Yes

9. Develop and implement a 

bog turtle management plan.

Interior Yes $8,240 Yes

10. Finalize and implement the 

Bald Eagle Management 

Plan and as part of the 

licensee’s compliance under 

the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act, FERC 

should require the licensee 

to follow conservation 

measures that protect bald 

eagles in addition to 

adopting the National Bald 

Eagle Management 

Guidelines.

Interior Yes $1,740 Yes

11. Develop and implement an 

SMP.

Interior No. Not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect, 

mitigate, or 

enhance fish 

and wildlife 

resources.

$0 No
435 

Recommendation Agency

Within the 

Scope of 

Section 10(j)

Levelized 

Annual Cost Adopted?

12. Prepare, develop, and 

implement a study to 

evaluate safe and effective 

downstream passage of 

American eels through the 

project. Coordinate with 

FWS and other interested 

parties in the funding, 

planning and conduct of a 

lower Susquehanna River 

downstream eel study to 

evaluate the timing, 

magnitude, duration, annual 

variation, and environmental 

conditions associated with 

the active migration of silver 

eels through the 

Susquehanna River to the 

Chesapeake Bay

Interior Yes $5,550 Yes

13. Project shall be subject to 

inspection by FWS to ensure 

compliance with protection, 

mitigation, and enhancement 

measures.

Interior No. Not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect, 

mitigate, or 

enhance fish 

and wildlife 

resources.

$0 Yes

14. Prepare and implement 

waterfowl nesting protection 

plan.

Interior Yes $19,980 Yes

15. Finalize and implement a 

flow management plan and 

implement the flow 

recommendations of The 

Nature Conservancy or the 

Maryland DOE certification, 

whichever is more restrictive 

to return river to more 

natural conditions 

downstream.

Interior Yes $1,644,320 

(loss of 

generation and 

decreased 

pumping cost 

at Muddy 

Run, a gain of 

energy at 

Conowingo, 

plus cost of 

flow plan)

No
436 

Recommendation Agency

Within the 

Scope of 

Section 10(j)

Levelized 

Annual Cost Adopted?

16. Incorporate performance 

criteria into new license 

where 80% of the shad that 

enter the project area must 

pass the project within 5 

days, to be based on 

telemetry study of 150 shad 

per year for 3 years. If

criterion is not reached, 

initiate operational changes 

as specified by the agencies 

and test for 3 years using 

telemetry study. If criterion

is still not reached after 3 

years, make structural 

changes to the fish lifts as 

specified by the agencies, 

and test for an additional 3 

years using telemetry study. 

If criterion is still not 

reached within 3 years, 

additional structural changes 

may be required, depending 

on behavior of tagged shad.

Pennsylvania 

FBC

Yes $22,230 No

17. Modify east fish lift to 

include a larger hopper, 

increased attraction flow, 

and addition of a collection 

gallery in front of units 8-11.

Pennsylvania 

FBC

Yes $0 No136

 

136 We are recommending a larger hopper and increased attraction flow, but are 

not recommending addition of a collection gallery. 
437 

Recommendation Agency

Within the 

Scope of 

Section 10(j)

Levelized 

Annual Cost Adopted?

18. Complete the rebuild of the 

west fish lift to include 

additional attraction water 

and provision to expand to 

volitional passage if needed. 

Ultimately, fish passage 

facilities at Conowingo will 

need to pass a design 

population of 5 million shad 

and other species, and fish 

lifts will be required on both 

sides of the tailrace.

Pennsylvania 

FBC

Yes $0 No

19. Telemetry study of gizzard 

shad is needed to understand 

the issues of passage 

efficiency, capacity, and 

interference with American 

shad.

Pennsylvania 

FBC

No. Study 

could have 

been done 

pre-licensing.

$260 Yes

20. Telemetry study to 

understand recycling of 

gizzard shad in the west fish 

lift.

Pennsylvania 

FBC

No. Study 

could have 

been done 

pre-licensing.

$0137 Yes

21. Downstream passage 

survival of juvenile shad 

must be 95% or higher.

Pennsylvania 

FBC

No. Not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect, 

mitigate, or 

enhance fish 

and wildlife 

resources.

$0 No

 

137 We assume the studies recommended in Pennsylvania FBC recommendations 

4 and 5 (table items 19 and 20) would be combined and conducted at the same time. As 

such, the estimated levelized cost for recommendation 4 (item 19) would cover the cost 

for recommendation 5 (item 20). 
438 

Recommendation Agency

Within the 

Scope of 

Section 10(j)

Levelized 

Annual Cost Adopted?

22. Construct eel passage 

facility near west fish lift, 

with capability to modify the 

location of the facility and to 

change to volitional passage.

Pennsylvania 

FBC

Yes $442,340 Yes 

23. Test additional locations for 

eel passage near the west 

fish lift.

Pennsylvania 

FBC

Yes $0 Yes

24. Test additional locations for 

eel passage near the east fish 

lift and construct permanent 

traps as needed.

Pennsylvania 

FBC

Yes $0 Yes

25. Test additional capture 

locations on Octoraro Creek 

at base of Octoraro reservoir 

dam, and install additional 

traps there. 

Pennsylvania 

FBC

Yes $0 Yes

26. Transport 1 million eels 

annually from 2015 to 2030 

to sites above Conowingo 

and York Haven dams until 

permanent volitional 

facilities are operating 

effectively.

Pennsylvania 

FBC

Yes $0 No

27. Once sufficient eels are in 

the system, cooperate with 

other utilities to conduct a 

study on eel downstream 

passage and ensure 

downstream passage 

survival of 80% at 

Conowingo for silver eels. 

Make operational and 

structural modifications as 

needed to achieve 80% 

survival.

Pennsylvania 

FBC

No. Not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect, 

mitigate, or 

enhance fish 

and wildlife 

resources. 

$203,140 Yes
439 

Recommendation Agency

Within the 

Scope of 

Section 10(j)

Levelized 

Annual Cost Adopted?

28. Exelon should reduce 

stranding of migratory fish 

by (1) extending the 

retaining wall at the east end 

of the east fish lift or adding 

boulder fill in that area to 

prevent generation flow 

from flooding the spillway 

pool at high levels of 

generation, or (2) dredging a 

channel(s) from the spillway 

pool area to downstream 

areas to provide egress for 

stranded fishes.

Pennsylvania 

FBC

Yes $74,100 No (see 

section 

5.1.3.3)

We do not recommend adopting Interior’s recommendation for a flow 

management plan and for implementing the flow recommendations of The Nature 

Conservancy or the Maryland DOE certification, whichever is more restrictive to return 

the river to more natural conditions downstream of Conowingo. As we discuss in section 

5.1.3.3, Conowingo Project, Measures Not Recommended, our analysis found that the 

TNC Flow Regime would not provide substantially more aquatic habitat benefits than the 

staff-recommended flow regime, but would have a substantial levelized net annual cost of 

$1,641,260, when the operational impacts on the Muddy Run Project are considered, and 

would eliminate many of the peaking and ancillary services benefits to the PJM region 

from the Conowingo Project. Flow requirements of any future Maryland DOE 

certification are not yet known. Based on this information, we find that Interior’s 

recommendation to implement a flow management plan and the TNC Flow Regime, or a 

yet unknown flow requirement of any Maryland DOE certification, may be inconsistent 

with the comprehensive planning standard of section 10(a) and the equal consideration 

provision of section 4(e) of the FPA. 

We do not recommend adopting Pennsylvania FBC’s recommendation to 

incorporate performance criteria into any new license for the Conowingo Project, where 

80 percent of the shad that enter the project area must pass the project within 5 days, 

along with additional studies to test that performance that would be followed up by more 

studies and operational and structural changes over a period of 12 years. As we discuss 

in section 5.1.3.2, Conowingo Project, Additional Measures Recommended by Staff for 

Conowingo, Upstream Fish Passage, intensive fish passage studies have already been 

conducted at Conowingo dam over a period of decades, and we are recommending a suite 

of fish passage improvements at the project that would enhance upstream fish passage, 
440 

and that would be implemented without further delay due to additional studies. Based on 

this information, we find that Pennsylvania FBC’s recommendation to incorporate 

performance criteria and conduct many more years of studies may be inconsistent with 

the comprehensive planning standard of section 10(a) and the equal consideration 

provision of section 4(e) of the FPA. 

We do not recommend adopting Pennsylvania FBC’s recommendation to modify 

the Conowingo east fish lift by adding a collection gallery in front of units 8 to 11. As 

we discuss in section 5.1.3.2, Conowingo Project, Additional Measures Recommended by 

Staff for Conowingo, Upstream Fish Passage, there is insufficient justification to make 

major structural changes to the entrances to the east fish lift at this time; these changes

would be costly with a levelized annual cost likely similar to that estimated for Interior’s 

alternative G improvements to the east fish lift entrances ($852,190). We are 

recommending improvements to the entrances only if additional studies, after 

implementing our recommended improvements, find that effectiveness remains low. 

Based on this information, we find that Pennsylvania FBC’s recommendation to construct 

a collection gallery on the east fish lift may be inconsistent with the comprehensive 

planning standard of section 10(a) and the equal consideration provision of section 4(e) 

of the FPA. 

We do not recommend adopting Pennsylvania FBC’s recommendation to 

complete the rebuild of the Conowingo west fish lift to include additional attraction water 

and provision to expand to volitional passage, if needed, with an ultimate total design 

population of 5 million American shad (plus other species) at the project. As we discuss 

in section 5.1.3.2, Conowingo Project Resources, Additional Measures Recommended by 

Staff for Conowingo, Upstream Fish Passage, implementing the full range of fish passage 

facilities recommended by Pennsylvania FBC, would not be needed at this time and 

would be costly with a levelized annual cost likely similar to that estimated for alternative 

G ($2,334,260). We are recommending fish passage improvements at the project that 

would still enhance upstream fish passage but at a substantially lower cost. Based on this 

information, we find that Pennsylvania FBC’s recommendation to complete the rebuild of 

the west fish lift and install facilities with a total design population of 5 million shad (plus 

other species) may be inconsistent with the comprehensive planning standard of section 

10(a) and the equal consideration provision of section 4(e) of the FPA. 

We do not recommend adopting Pennsylvania FBC’s recommendation to transport 

1 million eels annually from 2015 to 2030 to sites above Conowingo and York Haven 

dams until permanent volitional facilities are operating effectively. There is no indication 

that 1 million eels are currently available in the lower Susquehanna River for capture and 

transport at the Conowingo Project, and requiring this specific design population for any 

eel trap and transport program would require Exelon to expend an unknown amount of 

effort and financial resources in an attempt to meet this requirement. Based on this 

information, we find that Pennsylvania FBC’s recommendation to require an American 

eel design population of 1 million fish to transport may be inconsistent with the 
441 

comprehensive planning standard of section 10(a) and the equal consideration provision 

of section 4(e) of the FPA. 

We do not recommend adopting Pennsylvania FBC’s recommendation to reduce 

stranding of migratory fish downstream of the Conowingo Project by (1) extending the 

retaining wall at the east end of the east fish lift or adding boulder fill in that area to

prevent generation flow from flooding the spillway pool at high levels of generation, or 

(2) dredging a channel(s) from the spillway pool area to downstream areas to provide 

egress for stranded fishes. As we discuss in section 5.1.3.3, Conowingo Project, 

Measures not Recommended, our analysis found that few fish are currently being 

stranded under existing project operation, and there would be no need for implementing 

measures to reduce stranding, at a relatively high levelized annual cost of $74,100. 

Based on this information, we find that Pennsylvania FBC’s recommendation to make 

structural changes downstream of Conowingo dam to reduce fish stranding may be 

inconsistent with the comprehensive planning standard of section 10(a) and the equal 

consideration provision of section 4(e) of the FPA. 

On August 12, 2014, following issuance of the draft EIS, Commission staff sent 

letters to both Interior and Pennsylvania FBC, requesting to resolve the preliminary 

inconsistencies described in the draft EIS. We invited both agencies to file comments in 

response to our preliminary determination of inconsistencies, including any modified 

recommendations, or to also request a meeting, telephone or video conference, or other 

additional procedure to attempt to resolve any preliminary determination of 

inconsistency. Neither Interior nor Pennsylvania FBC responded to our invitation to 

attempt to resolve the preliminary inconsistencies. 

Although the noted inconsistencies for the Conowingo Project remain unresolved, 

we recommend numerous measures that would adequately and equitably protect, mitigate 

damage to, and enhance fish and wildlife resources affected by the project, including: 

increased minimum flows at the project, a suite of fish passage improvements at the 

project that would enhance upstream passage of American shad and other anadromous 

species, and provision of upstream passage facilities for American eel. 

5.4 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans

Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C.§803(a)(2)(A) (2006), requires the 

Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with the federal or 

state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or 

waterways affected by the project. We reviewed 26 comprehensive plans listed below 

that are applicable to the Susquehanna River Projects, located in Pennsylvania and 

Maryland. No inconsistencies were found. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1995. Interstate fishery management plan 

for Atlantic striped bass. (Report No. 24). March 1995. 
442 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1998. Interstate fishery management plan 

for Atlantic striped bass. (Report No. 34). January 1998. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1998. Amendment 1 to the Interstate 

fishery management plan for Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus). 

(Report No. 31) July 1998. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1999. Amendment 1 to the Interstate 

Fishery Management Plan for shad and river herring. (Report No. 35). 

April 1999. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000. Technical Addendum 1 to 

Amendment 1 of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for shad and river 

herring. February 9, 2000. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000. Interstate Fishery Management 

Plan for American eel (Anguilla rostrata). (Report No. 36). April 2000. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2009. Amendment 2 to the Interstate 

Fishery Management Plan for shad and river herring. Arlington, Virginia. May 

2009. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2010. Amendment 3 to the Interstate 

Fishery Management Plan for shad and river herring. Arlington, Virginia. 

February 2010. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1984. Maryland rivers study – final report. 

Annapolis, Maryland. July 1984. (Conowingo Project only)

Maryland Department of State Planning. 1983. Maryland recreation and open space 

plan, Report V: strategy and summary. Annapolis, Maryland. September 1983. 

(Conowingo Project only)

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Final Recovery Plan for the shortnose 

sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery 

Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

December 1998. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1980. Pennsylvania coastal zone 

management program and final environmental impact statement. Department of 

Commerce, Washington, D.C. August 1980. 

National Park Service. 1993. The nationwide rivers inventory. Department of the 

Interior, Washington, D.C. 
443 

National Park Service. 2010. Comprehensive management plan and environmental 

assessment for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. 

Annapolis, Maryland. September 2010.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1983. Pennsylvania State water 

plan. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. January 1983. 20 volumes. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1986. Pennsylvania’s recreation 

plan, 1986-1990. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1988. Pennsylvania 1988 water 

quality assessment. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. April 1988. Three volumes. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1990. The Pennsylvania scenic 

rivers program scenic rivers inventory. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. April 1990. 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission. 2012. Comprehensive plan for the water 

resources of the Susquehanna River Basin. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. June 2012. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Chesapeake Bay striped bass management plan. 

Annapolis, Maryland. December 1989.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Chesapeake Bay Alosid (shad and river herring) 

management plan. Annapolis, Maryland. July 1989. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Chesapeake Bay American eel fishery 

management plan. Annapolis, Maryland. December 18, 1992. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Migratory fish management and restoration plan 

for the Susquehanna River Basin. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. November 15, 2010. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. The American eel restoration plan for the 

Susquehanna River Basin. Addendum to the 2010 migratory fish management and 

restoration plan for the Susquehanna River Basin. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 

December 5, 2013. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North American 

waterfowl management plan. Department of the Interior. Environment Canada. 

May 1986. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Undated. Fisheries USA: the recreational fisheries 

policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
444 

This page intentionally left blank.
445 

6.0 LITERATURE CITED 

Allen, D.C. and C.C. Vaughn. 2010. Complex hydraulic and substrate variables limit 

freshwater mussel species richness and abundance. Journal of the North American 

Benthological Society 29(2): 383-394. 

Ashton, M.J. 2009. Recent mussel surveys in the Susquehanna River below Conowingo 

Dam, Maryland. Ellipsaria 11(3): 12. 

Ashton, M. 2011. Results from ongoing freshwater mussel surveys in the Susquehanna 

River and the first collection of Dreissena polymorpha below Conowingo Dam, 

Maryland. Ellipsaria, Newsletter of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society. 

Volume 13, number 1, March 2011. 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2010. Amendment 3 to the 

Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Shad and River Herring (American Shad 

Management). Approved February 2010. 

Bell, M.C. 1991. Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological 

Criteria. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division. 

Biodrawversity Inc. and Gomez and Sullivan Engineers. 2012. Freshwater mussel 

characterization study below Conowingo Dam (RSP 3.19). Prepared for Exelon 

Generation, LLC. Kennett Square, PA. 

BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2013. Local area unemployment statistics. Year: 

2012. Total employment and unemployment rate. Available online at: 

http://www.bls.gov/lau/. Accessed on December 6, 2013. 

Census Scope. 2010a. United States: Population-Counties. Available at: 

http://www.censusscope.org/2010Census/PDFs/Population-Counties.pdf. 

Accessed October 9, 2013. 

Census Scope. 2010b. United States: Population-Counties. Available at: 

http://www.censusscope.org/2010Census/PDFs/Population-States.pdf. Accessed 

October 9, 2013. 

Center for Conservation Biology of The College of William & Mary/Virginia 

Commonwealth University, URS Corporation, and Gomez and Sullivan 

Engineers. 2012. Final study report. Study to identify habitat use areas for bald 

eagle. RSP 3.23. Conowingo Hydroelectric Project. Prepared for Exelon. 

August 2012. 

Cheng, P., M. Li, and Y. Li. 2013. Generation of estuarine sediment plume by a tropical 

storm. Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 118, p. 856-868. 
446 

Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and MDE (Maryland Department of the 

Environment). 2014. Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment, 

Maryland and Pennsylvania. Phase I. October 2014 Draft. Prepared in 

partnership between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Maryland 

Department of Environment. Available online at: 

http://mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/LSRWA/report.cfm. 

Crance, J.H. 1984. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow suitability curves: 

Inland stocks of striped bass. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/10.85. 63 pp. 

EDC (York County Economic Development Council EDC). 2012. York County 

Pennsylvania, Economic and community profile. York, PA. Available online at: 

http://www.yceapa.org/clientuploads/PDFs/Community%20Profile/November%202013/Employers

-%20November%20Edits.pdf. Accessed on December 6, 2013. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Final Chesapeake Bay Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/ChesapeakeBay/tmdlexec.html. 

EPA. 2010. Assessment of the Susquehanna River Reservoir Trapping Capacity and the 

Potential Effect on the Chesapeake Bay. Appendix T: Sediments behind the 

Susquehanna Dams Technical Documentation. Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 

(December 29, 2010). Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/FinalBayTMDL/AppendixTSusqu

ehannaDams_final.pdf.

Exelon (Exelon Generation Company LLC). 2014. Meeting notes of September 10, 

2014, meeting between Exelon and the Susquehanna River Boaters Association, 

Conowingo Hydroelectric Project (P-405). Filed with the Commission on 

September 17. 

Exelon. 2012a. Final License Application for Muddy Run Power Project. August 2012. 

Exelon Generation Company LLC. FERC Project Number 2355. 

Exelon. 2012b. Final License Application for Conowingo Power Project. August 2012. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC. FERC Project Number 405. 

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2014. Environmental Assessment - 

Application for Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters, Conowingo 

Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 405-111. Office of Energy Projects, 

Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance. December 2014. 

FERC. 2012. Guidelines for Shoreline Management Planning at Hydropower Projects. 

Office of Energy Projects. July 2012. 
447 

FERC. 2010. Order approving revised Exhibit M and revising annual charges under 

article 30. Conowingo Project. March 2, 2010.

FERC. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for License Amendment for the 

Holtwood Hydroelectric Project. FERC Project Number 1881.

FERC and Advisory Council (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation). 2002. 

Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC 

Hydroelectric Projects. May 20, 2002. 

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. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, Contract DE-AC07-

94ID13223. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014a. Northern Long-Eared Bat Interim 

Conference and Planning Guide, January 6, 2014. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/pdf/NLEBinterimGuidance6Jan2014.pdf

Accessed on March 13, 2014. 

FWS. 2014b. Swamp Pink: Species Profile. Updated on March 12, 2014. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q2B8. 

Accessed on March 13, 2014.

FWS. 2014c. Information, Planning and Conservation System (IPaC) website 

(http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/; accessed March 11, 2014.

FWS. 2012. Silver Eel Migrations at Conowingo Dam – Fall 2011 Study Results. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service – Maryland Fishery Resources Office. March 26, 2012. 

FWS. 2008. Delmarva Peninsula Fox Squirrel, February. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/squirrel.pdf, accessed on March 13, 

2014. 

FWS. 2007a. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. May 2007. 

FWS. 2007b. Indiana bat (Myotis sodalist) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision. April 

2007. 

FWS. 2006. Northeast Region, Swamp Pink, December 2006. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pdf/swamppin.pdf. Accessed on March 13, 2014.
448 

Gomez and Sullivan (Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C.). 2012a. Effect of project 

operations on downstream flooding (RSP 3.29). Prepared for Exelon Generation, 

LLC. Kennett Square, PA. August 2012. 

Gomez and Sullivan. 2012b. Final study report, salinity and salt wedge encroachment 

study. RSP 3.20. Conowingo Hydroelectric Project. FERC No. 405. August 

2012. 

Gomez and Sullivan (Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C.) and Normandeau 

(Normandeau Associates, Inc.). 2012a. Final Study Report, Instream Flow 

Habitat Assessment Below Conowingo Dam, RSP 3.16. Conowingo 

Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 405. Prepared for Exelon Generation, LLC. 

Kennett Square, PA. August 2012. 

Gomez and Sullivan and Normandeau. 2012b. Final Study Report: Hydrologic study of 

Muddy Run water withdrawal and return characteristics for the Muddy Run 

Pumped Storage Project. Prepared for Exelon Generation, LLC. Kennett Square, 

PA. August 2012. 

Gomez and Sullivan and Normandeau. 2012c. Final Study Report: Biological and 

engineering studies of the East and West Fish Lifts. RSP 3.9. Conowingo 

Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 405. Prepared for Exelon Generation, 

LLC. Kennett Square, PA. 

Henry, G.B. and E. Jenkins. 2012a. Final report, historic structures report for the Muddy 

Run Pumped Storage Project relicensing application, Drumore and Martic 

Townships, Lancaster County and Lower Chanceford and Peach Bottom 

Townships, York County, Pennsylvania, FERC Project No. 2235 TRC 

Environmental Corporation, Lanham, MD. Report prepared for Exelon Generation 

Company, LLC. Filed August 31, 2012.

Henry, G.B. and E. Jenkins. 2012b. Final report, historic structures report for the 

Conowingo Hydroelectric Project relicensing application, Conowingo 

Hydroelectric Project relicensing application, Hanford and Cecil Counties, 

Maryland and Lancaster and York Counties, PA,, FERC Project No. 405. TRC 

Environmental Corporation, Lanham, MD. Report prepared for Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC., York Haven, PA. Filed August 29, 2012. 

Hill, J.M., G. Wikel, R. Mason, J. Baker, D. Connell, and D. Liebert. 2006. 

Characterization of bed sediment behind the lower three dams on the Susquehanna 

River. Final report to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission. 

Hirsch, R.M. 2012. Flux of nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended sediment from the 

Susquehanna River Basin to the Chesapeake Bay during Tropical Storm Lee, 
449 

September 2011, as an indicator of the effects of reservoir sedimentation on water 

quality. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5185. 

Interior (U.S. Department of the Interior). 2007. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; 12-month finding on a petition to list the American Eel as Threatened or 

Endangered. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 50 CFR Part 17. 

Interior. 2014. Review of Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis, 

Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 405-106, Comments, 

recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary 

prescriptions. Philadelphia, PA. January 31, 2014. 

Kazyak, P.F., Kilian, J.V. Stranko, S.A., Hurd, M.K., Boward, D.M., Millard, C.J., and 

A. Schenk. 2005. Maryland Biological Stream Survey 2000-2004, Volume 9: 

Stream and Riverine Biodiversity. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 

Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division. 

Langland, M.J. 2009. Bathymetry and sediment-storage capacity change in three 

reservoirs on the Lower Susquehanna River, 1996–2008: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5110, 21p. 

Langland, M.J. 2013. Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment. In: Lower 

Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment, Quarterly Team Meeting. Baltimore, 

Maryland. (August 15, 2013) Available at: 

http://mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/LSRWA/Docs/LSRWA%20Aug%2015%202013%

20meeting%20enclosures.pdf.

Langland, M.J. and E.H. Koerkle. 2014. Calibration of a One-Dimensional Hydraulic 

Model (HEC-RAS) for Simulating Sediment Transport through Three Reservoirs in 

the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, 2008-2011, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment (LSRWA), Phase 1, Appendix A 

with 3 Attachments.

Layzer, J. B. and L.M. Madison. 1995. Microhabitat use by freshwater mussels and 

recommendations for determining their instream flow needs. Regul. Rivers: Res. 

Mgmt. 10:329-345. 

Lellis, W.A., White, B. S., Cole J.C., Johnson, C.S., Devers, J.L., Gray, E.V.S., and H.S. 

Galbraith. 2013. Newly documented host fishes for the eastern elliptio mussel 

Elliptio complanata. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 4(1):75–85; e1944-

687X. doi: 10.3996/102012-JFWM-094. 

Marshall, W.B. 1930. Mollusks from below Conowingo Dam, Maryland. Nautilus 

43(3): 87-88. 
450 

Morales. J. 2013. Proposed Conowingo Lift Capacity. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

memo. July 22, 2013. 

Morales, J. Undated. Spreadsheet analysis of radio telemetry data. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Morales, J. and B. Towler. Undated. Preliminary conceptual drawing – East Lift at 

Conowingo Dam. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Fisheries, Fish 

Passage Branch. 

Morales, Y., Weber, L.J. Mynett, A.E., and T.J. Newton. 2006. Effects of substrate and 

hydrodynamic conditions on the formation of mussel beds in a large river. Journal 

of the North American Benthological Society 25(3): 664-676. 

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web 

application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. [Online] URL: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: December 7, 2010.) 

Nedeau, E.J., McCollough, M.A., and B.I. Swartz. 2000. The freshwater mussels of 

Maine. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta, ME. 

118 pp. 

Nedeau, E.J. 2008. Freshwater mussels and the Connecticut River watershed. 

Connecticut River Watershed Council, Greenfield, MA. 

Neopane, H., O.G. Dahlhaug, and M. Cervantes. 2011. Sediment erosion in hydraulic 

turbines. Global Journal of Researches in Engineering, v. 11, No. 6, version 1. 

Normandeau (Normandeau Associates, Inc.). 2011. York Haven Hydroelectric Project 

downstream fish passage survival estimate. Prepared for HDR/DTA. 

Normandeau. 1998. Survival of adult American shad in passage through turbines at the 

Safe Harbor Station on the Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania. March 1998. 

Normandeau (Normandeau Associates Inc.) and Gomez and Sullivan (Gomez and 

Sullivan Engineers, P.C.). 2012a. Analysis of the 2010 American Shad radio 

telemetry animations. RSP 3.5. Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project 

No. 405. Prepared for Exelon Generation, LLC. Kennett Square, PA. 

Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan. 2012b. Analysis of the 2012 American Shad 

radio telemetry animations. RSP 3.5. Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, FERC 

Project No. 405. Prepared for Exelon Generation, LLC. Kennett Square, PA. 
451 

Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan. 2012c. Upstream fish passage effectiveness 

study, RSP 3.5. Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 405. Prepared for 

Exelon Generation, LLC. Kennett Square, PA. September 2012. 

Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan. 2012d. Final Study Report: Downstream flow 

ramping and stranding study, RSP 3.8. Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, FERC 

No. 405. Prepared for Exelon Generation, LLC. Kennett Square, PA. August 

2012. 

Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan. 2012e. Freshwater mussel characterization study 

below Conowingo Dam (RSP 3.19). Prepared for Exelon Generation, LLC. 

Kennett Square, PA. 

Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan. 2012f. Estimation of survival of adult American 

Shad passed through Francis and Kaplan turbines, RSP 3.2. Prepared for Exelon 

Generation, LLC. Kennett Square, PA. 

Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan. 2012g. Final Study Report: Movement and 

behavior of telemetered emigrating American Eel in the vicinity of the Muddy 

Run Project. RSP 3.3. Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project, FERC Project 

Number 2355. 

Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan. 2012h. Final Study Report: Muddy Run Project 

effects on migratory fishes: Interactions with the PBAPS thermal plume. RSP 

3.6. Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project. FERC Project No. 2355. 

Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan. 2012i. Final Study Report: Downstream fish 

passage effectiveness assessment, RSP 3.2. Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, 

FERC No. 405. Prepared for Exelon Generation, LLC. Kennett Square, PA. 

Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan. 2012j. American Shad passage study: 

Susquehanna River American Shad model. Model production runs. RSP 3.4. 

Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 405. Prepared for Exelon 

Generation, LLC. Kennett Square, PA. 

Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan. 2012k. Final Study Report: Near field effects of 

the Muddy Run Project on migratory fishes, RSP 3.5. Muddy Run Pumped 

Storage Project, FERC Project No. 2355. 

Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan. 2012l. Final Study Report: Shortnose and 

Atlantic Sturgeon life history studies, RSP 3.22. Conowingo Hydroelectric 

Project, FERC No. 405. August 2012. 
452 

Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan. 2012m. Upstream fish passage effectiveness 

study. RSP 3.5. Conowingo Hydroelectric Project. FERC Project 405. Prepared 

for Exelon Generation, LLC. Kennett Square, PA. 

Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan. 2012n. Final Study Report, Estimation of 

Survival of Juvenile American Shad Passed through Francis Turbines, RSP 3.2. 

Prepared for Exelon Generation, LLC. Kennett Square, PA. 

Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan. 2012o. Final Study Report: Fish passage 

impediments study. Analysis of 2010 Radio Telemetry Data. RSP 3.7. 

Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project Number 405.

Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan. 2012p. Final study report, Muddy Run water 

quality study, year 2 (2011) sampling. RSP 3.1. Muddy Run Pumped Storage 

Project, FERC Project Number 2355. August 2012. 

Normandeau and Gomez and Sullivan. 2012q. Final Study Report, Study to Assess 

Tributary Access in Conowingo Pond. RSP 3.13. Conowingo Hydroelectric 

Project. FERC Project 405. Prepared for Exelon Generation, LLC. 

Park Service (National Park Service). 1992. National Register Bulletin 41: Guidelines 

for evaluating and registering cemeteries and burial places. National Park Service, 

Washington, D.C. 

Pennsylvania FBC (Fish and Boat Commission). 2014. Susquehanna River American 

Shad, 2014. Available at: http://www.fish.state.pa.us/shad_susq.htm. Accessed 

June 24, 2014.

PNHP (Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program). 2014. Accessed at 

www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/sspecies.aspx, on May 15, 2014. Site last updated 

in February 2014. 

PNHP (Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program). 2011a. Invertebrate species list. 

[Online] URL: http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/invertebrates.aspx.

(accessed February 5, 2011.)

PNHP. 2011b. Species Fact Sheets. [Online] URL: 

http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/ Factsheets.aspx. (accessed February 5, 

2011.) 

PPL BI, 2012. PPL Brunner Island, LLC. Review comments for Draft License 

Application (DLA): York Haven Hydroelectric Project – FERC Project No. 1888. 

August 6, 2012.
453 

PPL BI. 2014. PPL Brunner Island, LLC. Protest and comment in opposition to Offer 

of Settlement dated January 30, 2014. February 19, 2014. 

Pugh, D. 2013. Review of Muddy Run juvenile shad entrainment report – 3.3. 4 pp. 

RMC Environmental Services, Inc. 1991. Turbine passage survival of juvenile American 

shad, Alosa sapidissima, at the Safe Harbor Hydroelectric Station (FERC Project 

No. 1025), Pennsylvania. February 1991.

RMC (Radiation Management Corporation). 1994. Turbine passage survival of juvenile 

American shad (Alosa sapidissima) at Conowingo Hydroelectric Station. Prepared 

for Susquehanna Electric Co. 

Sara, T.M., E. Jenkins, G. Henry, J. Mundt, P. Walters, and R. Wall. 2011a. Phase IA 

archaeological study and preliminary historic structures assessment report for the 

Muddy Run Pumped Storage relicensing application project, Lancaster and York 

Counties, Pennsylvania, FERC No. 2355. TRC Environmental, Inc. Lanham, 

Maryland. Report prepared for York Haven Power Company, LLC, York Haven 

PA. Filed August 31, 2012. 

Sara, T.M., E. Jenkins, G. Henry, J. Mundt, P. Walters, and R. Wall. 2011b. Phase IA 

archaeological study and preliminary historic structures assessment report for the 

Conowingo Hydroelectric Project relicensing application, Hanford and Cecil 

Counties, Maryland and Lancaster and York Counties, PA, FERC Project No. 405. 

TRC Environmental Corporation, Lanham, MD. Report prepared for Exelon

Generation Company, LLC, York Haven, PA. Filed August 29, 2012.

Sara, T.M., G. Henry, P. Walters, E. Jenkins, and R. Wall. 2012. Conowingo 

Hydroelectric Project historic properties management plan, FERC No. 405. TRC 

Environmental, Inc., FERC No. 2355. Lanham, Maryland. Report prepared for 

York Haven Power Company, LLC, York Haven Pennsylvania. Filed August 29, 

2012. 

Sara, T.M., P. Walters, K. Nelson, and R. Wall. 2012a. Phase IB archaeological survey 

of two high priority areas of interest (AOIs 1 and 9), Muddy Run Pumped Storage 

relicensing application project, Lancaster and York Counties, Pennsylvania. TRC 

Environmental, Inc., FERC No. 2355. Lanham, Maryland. Report prepared for 

York Haven Power Company, LLC, York Haven Pennsylvania. Filed August 31, 

2012. 

Sara, T.M., P. Walters, K. Nelson, and R. Wall. 2012b. Conowingo Project relicensing 

application, Lancaster and York Counties, Pennsylvania, Phase IB archaeological 

survey of nine high priority areas of interest (AOIs 6, 18, 19, 33, 36A, 36B, 38, 39, 

add 45). TRC Environmental, Inc., FERC No. 2355. Lanham, Maryland. Report 
454 

prepared for York Haven Power Company, LLC, York Haven Pennsylvania. Filed 

August 29, 2012.

Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184. 

Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa. (3.3.4) 

Security Management Solutions. 2012. Updated Study Report, Re-evaluate the closing 

of the catwalk to recreational fishing, RSP No 3.32. Conowingo Hydroelectric 

Project, FERC Project Number 405. Prepared for Exelon Generation, LLC. 

Kennett Square, PA. January 2012. 

Shenk, T. 2011. 2010 Susquehanna Large River Assessment Project. Prepared for the 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Publication 276. September. 

Shiels, A.L. 2007. Resident fish passage in the Susquehanna River at four hydroelectric 

dams. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Bureau of Fisheries, Division of 

Fish Production Services. September 10, 2007. 17 pp. 

Seigel, R.A., A. Anderson, T.M. Richards-Dimitrie, and N. Eller. 2014. Nesting and 

basking ecology of northern map turtles in the Susquehanna River: Impacts of 

human disturbance and effectiveness of mitigation measures. Towson University. 

March 2014.

Smullen, J. T., J. Taft, and J. Macknis. 1982. Nutrient and sediment loads to the tidal 

Chesapeake Bay system, in Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A 

synthesis, edited by E. G. Macalaster, D. A. Barker and M. Kasper, pp. 147–262, 

U.S. Environment Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (not seen as cited in 

Cheny et al., 2013). 

Spoo, A. 2008. The Pearly Mussels of Pennsylvania. Coachwhip Publications. 

Landisville, PA. 210 pp. 

SRBC (Susquehanna River Basin Commission). 2013. State of the Susquehanna. 

Available at http://www.srbc.net/stateofsusq2010/wateruse.htm: Accessed on 

November 14, 2013. Susquehanna River Basin Commission. Harrisburg, PA. 

SRAFRC. 2010. Migratory fish management and restoration plan for the Susquehanna 

River basin. Approved by the Policy Committee. November 15, 2010. 

Stallings, F.P. and D. Franz. 2011. Cultural resources study of the York Haven 

Hydroelectric Project (FERC #1888), Dauphin, York, and Lancaster Counties, 

Pennsylvania. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Norcross, GA. Report prepared 

for York Haven Power Company, LLC, York Haven Pennsylvania. Filed April 7, 

2011). 
455 

Stallings, F.P., and D. Franz. 2012. Historic properties management plan: York Haven 

Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 1888), York, Dauphin, and Lancaster Counties, 

Pennsylvania. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Norcross, GA. Report prepared 

for York Haven Power Company, LLC, York Haven Pennsylvania. Filed 

December 28, 2012. 

Stranko, S, S. Smith, L. Erb, and D. Limpert. 2010. A key to the amphibians and reptiles 

of Maryland. December 2010. 

Strayer, D. L. and A. R. Fetterman. 1999. Changes in the distributions of the freshwater 

mussels (Unionidae) in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin, 1955-1965 to 1996-

1997. Am. Mid. Nat. 142:328-339. 

Strayer, D. L. and K. J. Jirka. 1997. The Pearly Mussels of New York State. The New 

York State Education Dept., Albany, NY 113 pp and plates. 

Stripers Online. 2014. public forum. Accessed May 15, 2014. Available online at: 

http://www.stripersonline.com/t/909839/conowingo-dam-area-questions. 

Sullivan, C., C. Schoenebeck, K. Koupal, W. Hoback, and B. Peterson. 2011. Patterns 

of age-0 Gizzard Shad abundance and food habits in a Nebraska irrigation 

reservoir. The Prairie Naturalist 43(3/4):110–116; 2011. 

Sweka, J. 2014. American Shad population model runs to evaluate the effects of 

juvenile stocking and trap and transport operations. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 

Northeast Fishery Center. February 5, 2014. 

Sweka, J.A. 2013. Re-analysis of the 2008 American Shad telemetry study. FWS 

Northeast Fishery Center.

Sweka, J.A. and S. Eyler. 2013. Evaluation of Migratory Delays on the Spawning 

Success of American Shad in the Susquehanna River. FWS Northeast Fishery 

Center and FWS Maryland Fisheries Resource Office. December 6, 2013. 

Torocco, M.E., Q. Bickley, and R. T. Zappalorti. 2012. Eastern redbelly turtle 

(Pseudwmys reubrivengtris) phase II presence/absence and nesting surveys for the 

York Haven Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 1888) in York, Dauphin, and 

Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania. Submitted to York Haven Power Company 

January 5, 2012. 

Towler, B. and J. Morales. 2012. Preliminary fish passage design criteria for the 

Conowingo Hydroelectric Project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service memo. 

December 10, 2012. 
456 

Towler, B. and C. Orvis. 2013. FWS upstream attraction flow criterion. Memo dated 

August 13, 2013.

URS and Gomez and Sullivan. 2012a. Final Study Report: Water level management 

study, RSP 3.12. Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project Number 405. 

Prepared for Exelon Generation, LLC. Kennett Square, PA. (August 2012). 

URS Corporation and Gomez and Sullivan. 2012b. Final Study Report, Downstream 

EAV/SAV Study RSP 3.17. Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project 

Number 405. Prepared for Exelon Generation, LLC. Kennett Square, PA. 

(August 2012).

URS and Gomez and Sullivan. 2012c. Final Study Report: Debris management study 

RSP 3.14, Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project Number 405. August 

2012. 

URS Corporation and Ecological Associates, LLC. 2012. Application for new license 

for major water power project – Existing dam. Muddy Run Pumped Storage 

Project FERC Project Number 2355. Volume 4 of 4. Bog Turtle Management 

Plan. August 2012. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. Table DP-03. 2010 ACS 1-Year estimates. Accessed on 

December 6, 2013. Available online at: http://www.factfinder2.census.gov. 

U.S. Census Bureau (United States Census Bureau). 2010a. Table DP-1. 2010 SF1 100% 

Data. Accessed on December 6, 2013. Available online at: 

http://www.factfinder2.census.gov. 

United States Census Bureau. 2010b. Table DP-03. 2010 ACS 1-Year estimates. 

Accessed on December 6, 2013. Available online at: 

http://www.factfinder2.census.gov. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2013. Surface water for Pennsylvania web page. 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/pa/nwis/sw. Accessed on October 25, 2013. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 

USGS, 2014. U.S. Geological Survey. Minimum of daily mean values for each day for 

123 years of record for USGS Gaging Station No. 01570500 Susquehanna River at 

Harrisburg, PA. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. Accessed March 13, 2014. 

Walburg, C.H. and P.R. Nichols. 1967. Biology and management of the American Shad 

and status of the fisheries. Atlantic coast of the United States, 1960. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report 550, Washington, D.C. 
457 

Wick, P.C. 2006. Fish hosts and demographics and Lampsilis cariosa and Leptodea 

ochracea, Two threatened freshwater mussels in Maine. M.S. Thesis submitted to 

University of Maine Graduate School.

York Haven Power (York Haven Power Company). 2014a. York Haven Power 

Company. Offer of Settlement - York Haven Hydroelectric Project. January 30, 

2014. 

York Haven Power. 2014b. York Haven Power Company. Response of York Haven 

Power Company, LLC to PPL Brunner Island, LLC. March 4, 2014. 

York Haven Power. 2013. York Haven Project nature-like fishway conceptual design 

final report. FERC No. 1888. March 2013. 

York Haven Power. 2012a. Final License Application for York Haven Power Project. 

August 2012. York Haven Hydroelectric Project. FERC Number 1888. 

York Haven Power. 2012b. American shad radio telemetry report. Filed December 31, 

2012, in response to additional information request issued on January 13, 2013. 

York Haven Power. 2011. Assessment of American shad at the York Haven Project 

(FERC Project No. 1888). April 2011. 
458 

This page intentionally left blank.
459 

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Emily Carter—Project Coordinator, Recreation and Land Use, Cultural Resources, and 

Aesthetics (Environmental Biologist; Masters of Natural Resources; A.B., 

Environmental Studies) 

Andy Bernick—Terrestrial Resources, Threatened and Endangered Species, and Mussels 

(Wildlife Biologist, Ph.D, Ecology, Evolutionary Biology, and Behavior; B.S., 

Wildlife Biology and Management) 

Monir Chowdhury—Geology and Soils, Water Resources (Water Quality), 

Socioeconomics, Engineering, Need for Power and Developmental Analysis 

(Engineer; Ph.D and M.S., Environmental Engineering; B.S., Civil Engineering, 

P.E.) 

Woohee Choi—Water Resources and GIS (Environmental Engineer; Ph.D and M.S., 

Civil and Environmental Engineering; B.S., Civil Engineering) 

John Mudre—Water Resources (Ecologist; Ph.D., Fisheries Science) 

Louis Berger Group

Patricia Weslowski—Task Management, Cultural Resources (Preservation Planner; 

Masters of Public Administration)

Holly Bender—Socioeconomics (Senior Economist; PhD and M.S., Mineral Economics, 

B.A., Economics and Political Science)

Brian Csernak – Terrestrial Resources (Environmental Scientist; M.S., Environmental 

Science and Policy; B.S., Biology) 

Sue Davis—Terrestrial Resources and Threatened and Endangered Species (Terrestrial 

Biologist; B.S., Wildlife Management)

Chris Dixon—Socioeconomics (Planner; MURP, Urban and Regional Planning, M.B.A., 

Business Administration; B.S., Environmental Economics and Management) 

Peter Foote—Task Management and Fisheries and Water Quality (Senior Fisheries 

Biologist; M.S., Fisheries Biology; B.S., Wildlife Biology)

Bernward Hay—Water Resources (Principal Environmental Scientist; Ph.D., 

Oceanography (Marine Geology); M.S., Geological Sciences and Remote 

Sensing) 
460 

Doug Hjorth—Quality Control (Principal Scientist; M.A. Biology; B.S., Fisheries 

Biology) 

Kenneth Hodge—Need for Power and Developmental Analysis (Senior Engineer; B.S., 

Civil Engineering) 

Alison Macdougall—Cultural Resources (Senior Environmental Manager; B.A., 

Anthropology)

Drew Miller—Mussels (Aquatic Biologist; Ph.D, Aquatic Biology; M.S., Aquatic 

Biology; B.S., Biology) 

Tyler Rychener—GIS, Terrestrial (Environmental Scientist/GIS; M.S., Plant Biology; 

B.S., Biology)

Denise Short—Editorial Review (Technical Editor; M.S., Agriculture, Food, and the 

Environment; B.A., English) 

Jot Splenda—Recreation and Land Use, Aesthetics (Senior Project Manager; M.E.S.M, 

Water Resource Management; B.S., Ecology and Evolution) 

Heather Unger—Bog Turtles (Project Scientist; B.S., Environmental Resources 

Management) 
461 

8.0 LIST OF RECIPIENTS 

David R Poe, Partner

Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

2000 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006

Jill Dinneen, Attorney

1 Capital Plaza

Concord, NH 03302

Jay T Ryan, Partner

Baker Botts, LLP - The Warner

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Mark Bryer, 

Nature Conservancy

5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 100

Bethesda, MD 20814

John A Whittaker

Winston & Strawn LLP

1700 K St. NW

Washington, DC 20006

Shawn A Seaman, Program Manager

Maryland Dept of Natural Resources

Tawes State Office Building

580 Taylor Ave., B-3

Annapolis, MD 21401

Kevin Mendik, ESQ,

NPS Hydro Prgm Coord

U.S. National Park Service

15 State Street 10th floor

Boston, MA 02109

Rupak Thapaliya, Coordinator

Hydropower Reform Coalition

1101 14th St NW, Suite 1400

Washington, DC 20005

M. Curtis Whittaker, Partner

Rath, Young & Pignatelli

One Capital Plaza

Box 1500

Concord, NH 03302

Richard A. Cairo, General Counsel

Susquehanna River Basin Commission

4423 North Front Street

Harrisburg, PA 17102

Robert G. Grassi, Senior Counsel

PPL Services Corporation

Two North Ninth St.

Allentown, PA 18101

M. Dukes Pepper, Assistant Counsel

Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental 

Protection

909 Elmerton Ave.

Harrisburg, PA 17110

Sarah G. Novosel, ESQ, 

Senior VP and Managing Counsel

Calpine Corporation

875 15th Street, NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20005

Michael R Helfrich, 

Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper

324 W Market St

York, PA 17401

John C. Seebach, Director, 

Hydropower Reform

American Rivers

1101 14th Street NW, Suite 1400

Washington, DC 20005

James Spontak, Program Manager

Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental 

Protection

South Central Regional Office

909 Elmerton Avenue

Harrisburg, PA 17110

Brian J. McManus, ESQ 

Jones, Day Reavis & Pogue

1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW

Washington, DC 20007

Thomas W. Beauduy, Deputy Director

Susquehanna River Basin Commission

4423 North Front Street

Harrisburg, PA 17102
462 

Michael Brent Hare, Counsel

Maryland Energy Administration

60 West Street, Suite 300

Annapolis, MD 21401

Christine T Lewis-Coker, Hydraulic Engineer

U.S. Army Corps of Eng., Philadelphia Dist.

USACE, Wanamaker Building

100 Penn Square East

Philadelphia, PA 19107

Andrew Tittler, Attorney-Advisor

U.S. Department of Interior

One Gateway Center

Suite 612

Newton, MA 02458

James E Hooper, President, M-DTS

Mason-Dixon Trail System

309 Bank Hill Rd

Wrightsville, PA 17368

Michael Hoover, Senior Regulator Specialist

Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.

41 Liberty Hill Road Bldg 1

Henniker, NH 03242

Robert Steelman, 

3529 Greenspring Rd

Havre de Grace, MD 21078

Charles A. Patrizia, Partner

Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP

701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20004

Harford Land Trust, 

P.O. Box 385

Churchville, MD 21028

Peter Dunbar, 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Tawes State Ofc Bldg - B3

Annapolis, MD 21401

Juan Kimble, P.E., 

Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation

1 Powerhouse Rd

Conestoga, PA 17516

Brent A Bolea, Assistant Attorney General

Maryland Office of the Attorney General

60 West Street, Suite 300

Annapolis, MD 21401

County Clerk, 

County of York

100 W Market Street

York, PA 17401

Al Ryan

Exelon Business Services Company

2301 Market

Philadelphia, PA 19103

County Clerk, 

County of Lancaster

50 North Duke Street

PO Box 83480

Lancaster, PA 17608

Colleen E Hicks, Manager

Exelon Corporation

300 Exelon Way

Kennett Square, PA 19348

County Clerk, 

Count of Harford

212 South Bond Street

Bel Air, MD 21014

Executive Director, 

Delaware River Basin Commission

PO Box 7360

25 State Police Rd

West Trenton, NJ 08628

Lower Chanceford Township

4120 Delta Road

Airville, PA 17302

U.S. Coast Guard

MSO PHILADELPHIA

1 Washington Ave

Philadelphia, PA 19147

Peach Bottom Township

545 Broad Street, Extended

Delta, PA 17314
463 

Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission

450 Robinson Ln

Bellefonte, PA 16823

Martic Township

370 Steinman Farm Road

Pequea, PA 17565

West Virginia Dept. of Education & Arts

Division of Culture & History

Capitol Complex

Charleston, WV 25305

Drumore Township

1675 Furniss Rd

Drumore, PA 17518

Commanding Officer, 

U.S. Coast Guard

MSO Buffalo

1 Fuhrmann Blvd

Buffalo, NY 14203

Fulton Township

777 Nottingham Road

Peach Bottom, PA 17563

Director

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

PO Box: 67000

Harrisburg, PA 17106

City Clerk, 

City of Havre de Grace

711 Pennington Avenue

Havre de Grace, MD 21078

Ryan Smith, V. President

58 Commerce Rd

Stamford, CT 06902

Borough of Oxford

401 Market Street

Oxford, PA 19363

Ben L Cardin, Senator

U.S. Senate

509 Hart Senate Office Bldg

Washington, DC 20510

Town Clerk, 

Town of Bel Air

39 Hickory Avenue

Bel Air, MD 21014

U.S. Coast Guard

MSO Baltimore

2401 Hawkins Point Rd Bldg 70

Baltimore, MD 21226

City Clerk, 

City of Aberdeen

60 North Parke Street

Aberdeen, MD 21001

Field Manager

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200

Milwaukee, WI 53202

Kerry A. Abrams, Mayor

Town of Port Deposit

64 S. Main Street

Port Deposit, MD 21904

Project Manager - Hydro, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engs, Pittsburgh District

2200 W. S. Moorhead Federal Bldg

1000 Liberty Ave

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Dutch Ruppersberger, Congressman

2453 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Attorney General

Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General

16tn Floor

Strawberry Square

Harrisburg, PA 17120

Director, 

Maryland Department of the Environment

1800 Washington Blvd

Baltimore, MD 21230
464 

Director

University of Maryland

Center for Environ. & Estuaring Studies

Cambridge, MD 21613

Monica E Marcum, President

Broad Creek Civic Association

9211 Hines Road

Baltimore, MD 21234

Barbara A Mikulski, Honorable

U.S. Senate

503 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Joseph R Pitts, Congressman

420 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Section Chief, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region III

1650 Arch St

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Jan Nethen, 

Conowingo Lake Caretakers

PO Box 5869

Darlington, MD 21034

Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental 

Protection

Southwest Regional Office

400 Waterfront Dr

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Ken Sommer, 

PO Box 560811

Miami, FL 33256

Michael J Connolly, 

GPU Service, Inc.

300 Madison Ave Fl 3

PO Box 1911

Morristown, NJ 07962

Hoss HL Liaghat, 

Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental 

Protection

400 Market street

Harrisburg, PA 17105

Pennsylvania Game Commission

2001 Elmerton Ave

Harrisburg, PA 17110

Leo Wallace, ESQ, Attorney

Malone and Neubaum

42 South Duke Street

York, PA 17363

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Chesapeake Bay Field Office

177 Admiral Cochrane Dr

Annapolis, MD 21401

Andrew D. Dehoff, Executive Director

Susquehanna River Basin Commission

4423 North Front Street

Harrisburg, PA 17110

Scott L Guibord, 

GPU Service, Inc.

300 Madison Ave

PO Box 1911

Morristown, NJ 07962

Dawn and Glenn Linton, 

Conowingo Hydro Project

115 Vineyard Drive

Port Deposit, MD 21904

FERC Contact

Upper Chesapeake Watershed Assoc.

13801 York Rd, Apt P12

Cockeysville, NY 21030

PA Dept., Div of Planning & Conservation

PO Box 8467

Harrisburg, PA 17105

Dennis T Guise, 

2313 Forest Hills Dr

Harrisburg, PA 17112

Candice Castaneda, Associate

Paul Hastings LLP

875 15th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005
465 

Director

Pennsylvania Dept. of Conserv./Nat. Res.

Bureau of Forestry

PO Box 8767

Harrisburg, PA 17105

Stuart Widom, Director, Gov and Reg Affairs

Calpine

500 Delaware Ave, Suite 600

Wilmington, DE 19801

Bonita C Hoke, Director

Pennsylvania Fed. of Sportsmens Clubs

2426 N 2nd St

Harrisburg, PA 17110

Kathleen Barron, 

Exelon Corporation

101 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20005

Peco/Energy One

2301 Market St

PO Box 8699

Philadelphia, PA 19101

Robert Gallagher, 

West/Rhode Riverkeeper, Inc

4800 Atwell Road #6

Shady Side, MD 20764

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

2301 N Cameron St

Harrisburg, PA 17110

Wayne Melnick, ESQ, Assistant Counsel

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

PA Fish and Boat Commission

1601 Elmerton Avenue

Harrisburg, PA 17110

Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental 

Protection

Office Of Pollution Prevention & Compl.

PO Box 8772

Harrisburg, PA 17105

Donald Capecci, 

PPL Holtwood, LLC

Two North Ninth Street

Allentown, PA 18101

Governor

Pennsylvania Office of the Governor

225 Main Capitol

Harrisburg, PA 17120

Elizabeth M Fain, Paralegal

Calpine Corporation

875 15th ST NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20005

County of York

York County Courthouse

28 E Market St

York, PA 17401

Nicholas T Niiro, Administrator/Attorney

Water and Power Law Group PC

2140 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 801

Berkeley, CA 94704

Governor

Maryland Office of the Governor

State House

Annapolis, MD 21401

Matthew D. Walderon, Federal Consist. 

Coord.

Pennsylvania Dept, Interstate Waters Office

400 Market St

PO Box 8465

Harrisburg, PA 17101

Maryland Geological Survey

2300 Saint Paul St

Baltimore, MD 21218

Joel Dunn, Executive Director

716 Giddings Ave, Ste 42

Annapolis, MD 21401

Pennsylvania Wildlife Federation

PA Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, Inc.

2426 N 2nd St

Harrisburg, PA 17110

Kimberly Ognisty, 

Winston & Strawn LLP

1700 K Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006
466 

County of Dauphin

Board of County Commissioners

Front & Market Streets

Harrisburg, PA 17101

Jennifer C Chavez, 

1625 Massachusetts Ave NW, Suite 702

Washington, DC 20036

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

315 S Allen St Ste 322

State College, PA 16801

Seth L Johnson, Associate Attorney

Earthjustice

1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Ste. 702

Washington, DC 20036

Glenn R Meloy, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

North Pacific Division

PO Box 2870

Portland, OR 97208

Jefferson L Blomquist, Attorney

36 S. Charles Street

Twelfth Floor

Baltimore, MD 21201

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

550 Main Street

Cincinnati, OH 45202

Paul W. Smail, ESQ, Staff Litigation 

Attorney

Chesapeake Bay Foundation

6 Herndon Avenue

Annapolis, MD 21403

M Brent Hare, Atty. Gen.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Tawes State Office Building, C-4

580 Taylor Ave

Annapolis, MD 21401

Jon Mueller, Vice President for Litigation

Chesapeake Bay Foundation

6 Herndon Ave

Annapolis, MD 21403

Maryland Public Service Commission

6 St. Paul Centre, 16th Floor

Baltimore, MD 21202

Anna L Wolgast, Executive Director

400 South Cross Street, Suite 2

Chestertown, MD 21620

R. Timothy Weston, 

K&L Gates LLP

17 N 2nd St Fl 18

Harrisburg, PA 17101

Thelma M Grumbein, Residence

1864 Rivervue Drive, North

Drumore, PA 17518

Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental 

Protection

Bureau of Policy Communication

PO Box 2063

Harrisburg, PA 17105

George Jugovic, JR, 

200 Second Avenue, Suite 200

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

David David, 

York Haven Power Company LLC

York Haven Hydro Plant

Locust St. & Hydro Park Drive

PO Box 67

York Haven, PA 17370

Jill Burke, President 

Cecil Land Use Assoc

PO Box 215

Colora, MD 21917
467 

Regional Director

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

Northeast Regional Office-DOC/NOAA

55 Great Republic Dr

Gloucester, MA 01930

Joseph J Heath, 

512 Jamesville Avenue

Syracuse, NY 13210

Regional Director

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

300 Westgate Center Dr

Northeast Regional Office

Hadley, MA 01035

Honorable George W Gekas, 

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Executive Director

Historical & Museum Commission

300 North St

Harrisburg, PA 17120

Becca Smith, 

Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

2000 K Street NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20006

Office of the Solicitor, 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

1849 C Street, NW, MS 6557

Washington, DC 20240

Stuart S Elstein, Associate

Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

2000 K Street, NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20006

Andrew C Zemba, 

Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental 

Protection

400 Market St Fl 2

PO Box 2063

Harrisburg, PA 17105

Executive Director, 

Maryland Historic Preservation Officer

100 Community Pl

Crownsville, MD 21032

John Garver, 

Tri-County Boat Club

Middletown, PA 17057
468 

This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX A 

DRAFT LICENSE ARTICLES 

YORK HAVEN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 
This page intentionally left blank.
A-1 

Appendix A 

Draft License Articles

York Haven Hydroelectric Project 

Article 201. Administrative Annual Charges. The licensee must pay the United 

States annual charges, effective the first day of the month in which the license is issued, 

and as determined in accordance with provisions of the Commission's regulations in 

effect from time to time, for the purposes of: 

(a) reimbursing the United States for the cost of administration of Part I of the 

Federal Power Act. The authorized installed capacity for that purpose is 

19.62 megawatts. 

Article 202. Exhibit F Drawings. Within 45 days of the date of issuance of this 

license, as directed below, the licensee must file two sets of the approved exhibit 

drawings in electronic file format on compact disks with the Secretary of the 

Commission, ATTN: OEP/DHAC. 

Digital images of the approved exhibit drawings must be prepared in electronic 

format. Prior to preparing each digital image, the FERC Project-Drawing Number 

(i.e., P-1888-1001 through P-1888-###) must be shown in the margin below the title 

block of the approved drawing. Exhibit F drawings must be segregated from other 

project exhibits, and identified as Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) 

material under 18 CFR §388.113(c). Each drawing must be a separate electronic file, and 

the file name must include: FERC Project-Drawing Number, FERC Exhibit, Drawing 

Title, date of this license, and file extension in the following format [P-1888-####, F-1, 

Description, MM-DD-YYYY.TIF]. All digital images of the exhibit drawings must meet 

the following format specification: 

IMAGERY - black & white raster file 

FILE TYPE – Tagged Image File Format, (TIFF) CCITT Group 4 

 (also known as T.6 coding scheme) 

RESOLUTION – 300 dpi desired, (200 dpi min) 

DRAWING SIZE FORMAT – 22” x 34” (min), 24” x 36” (max) 

FILE SIZE – less than 1 MB desired 

Article 203. Exhibit G Drawings. Within 90 days of the date of issuance of this 

license date, the licensee must file, for Commission approval, revised Exhibit G drawings 

enclosing within the project boundary all principal project works necessary for operation 
A-2 

and maintenance of the project, including all of the lands encompassing the East Shore 

Boat Launch and Canal Lock recreation area. The Exhibit G drawings must comply with 

sections 4.39 and 4.41 of the Commission’s regulations. 

Article 204. Amortization Reserve. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal 

Power Act, a specified reasonable rate of return upon the net investment in the project 

must be used for determining surplus earnings of the project for the establishment and 

maintenance of amortization reserves. The licensee must set aside in a project 

amortization reserve account at the end of each fiscal year one-half of the project surplus 

earnings, if any, in excess of the specified rate of return per annum on the net investment. 

To the extent that there is a deficiency of project earnings below the specified rate of 

return per annum for any fiscal year, the licensee must deduct the amount of that 

deficiency from the amount of any surplus earnings subsequently accumulated, until 

absorbed. The licensee must set aside one-half of the remaining surplus earnings, if any, 

cumulatively computed, in the project amortization reserve account. The licensee must

maintain the amounts established in the project amortization reserve account until further 

order of the Commission. 

The specified reasonable rate of return used in computing amortization reserves 

must be calculated annually based on current capital ratios developed from an average of 

13 monthly balances of amounts properly included in the licensee's long-term debt and 

proprietary capital accounts as listed in the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts. 

The cost rate for such ratios must be the weighted average cost of long-term debt and 

preferred stock for the year, and the cost of common equity must be the interest rate on 

10-year government bonds (reported as the Treasury Department's 10-year constant 

maturity series) computed on the monthly average for the year in question plus four 

percentage points (400 basis points). 

Article 205. Headwater Benefits. If the licensee's project was directly benefited 

by the construction work of another licensee, a permittee, or the United States on a 

storage reservoir or other headwater improvement during the term of the original license 

(including extensions of that term by annual licenses), and if those headwater benefits 

were not previously assessed and reimbursed to the owner of the headwater 

improvement, the licensee must reimburse the owner of the headwater improvement for 

those benefits, at such time as they are assessed, in the same manner as for benefits 

received during the term of this new license. The benefits will be assessed in accordance 

with Part 11, Subpart B, of the Commission's regulations.
A-3 

Article 301. Contract Plans and Specifications. At least 60 days prior to the start 

of any construction, the licensee must submit one copy of its plans and specifications and 

supporting design document to the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and 

Inspections (D2SI) – New York Regional Engineer, and two copies to the Commission 

(one of these must be a courtesy copy to the Director, D2SI). The submittal to the D2SI 

New York Regional Engineer must also include as part of preconstruction requirements: 

a Quality Control and Inspection Program, Temporary Construction Emergency Action 

Plan, and Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The licensee may not begin 

construction until the D2SI-New York Regional Engineer has reviewed and commented 

on the plans and specifications, determined that all preconstruction requirements have 

been satisfied, and authorized start of construction. 

Article 302. Cofferdam Construction Drawings and Deep Excavations. Before 

starting construction, the licensee must review and approve the design of contractordesigned cofferdams and deep excavations and must make sure that construction of 

cofferdams and deep excavations is consistent with the approved design. At least 30 days 

before starting construction of the cofferdam, the licensee must submit one copy to the 

Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Inspections (D2SI) - New York Regional 

Engineer and two copies to the Commission (one of these copies must be a courtesy copy 

to the Commission's Director, D2SI), of the approved cofferdam construction drawings 

and specifications, and the letters of approval.

 Article 303. As-built Drawings. Within 90 days of completion of construction of 

the facilities authorized by this license, the licensee must file for Commission approval, 

revised exhibits A, F, and G, as applicable, to describe and show those project facilities 

as built. A courtesy copy must be filed with the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety 

and Inspections (D2SI) - New York Regional Engineer, the Director, D2SI, and the 

Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance.

Article 304. Project Modification Resulting From Environmental Requirements. 

If environmental requirements under this license require modification that may affect the 

project works or operations, the licensee must consult with the Commission’s Division of 

Dam Safety and Inspections—New York Regional Engineer. Consultation must allow 

sufficient review time for the Commission to ensure that the proposed work does not 

adversely affect the project works, dam safety, or project operation. 
A-4 

Article 401. Commission Approval and Reporting. 

(a) Requirement to File Plans for Commission Approval 

Various conditions of this license found in the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (Pennsylvania DEP) final section 401 Water Quality 

Certification (WQC) conditions (Appendix __) and the U.S. Department of the Interior 

(Interior) fishway prescription (Appendix __) require the licensee to prepare plans in 

consultation with other entities for approval by Pennsylvania DEP or Interior (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service [FWS]) for submittal to the Commission and implement specific 

measures without prior Commission approval. Each such plan must also be submitted to 

the Commission for approval. These plans are listed below. 

WQC Condition 

No. a

Interior

Condition No. a Description Due Date

III.A.1.a 9.8 Fishway operating 

procedures

90 days prior to the 

start of construction 

of the nature-like 

fishway (NLF)

III.A.2.b.i 9.9.1.b Final plans and 

specifications for NLF b

January 31, 2016

III.A.2.b.ii N/A

Erosion and sediment 

control plan for NLF 

construction

July 15, 2015

III.B.1.b.iv 9.9.3.b.iv NLF monitoring plan December 31, 2021

III.B.3 9.9.6.d Juvenile American shad 

headrace turbine 

avoidance study plan

90 days prior to the 

start of construction 

of the NLF

III.B.3.e 9.9.6.e

Designs for removal of 

barriers to downstream 

migration

90 days prior to the 

start of construction 

of the NLF
A-5 

WQC Condition 

No. a

Interior

Condition No. a Description Due Date

III.C.2.c 9.9.7.c

Site specific silver eel 

route of passage study 

plan

90 days prior to the 

start of construction 

of the NLF

III.C.2.c 9.9.7.c Eel survival study plan

90 days prior to the 

start of construction 

of the NLF

a The conditions shown in this table were filed by Pennsylvania DEP on 

August 19, 2014, and by Interior on February 7, 2014. 

b Filing must include the results of the pre-construction environmental studies for the 

following: (a) vegetation cover-type mapping, (b) wetlands delineations, (c) invasive 

species surveys, (d) rare species surveys, (e) a bog turtle habitat assessment, and (f) a 

bald eagle survey. The filing must also include any state and federal agency 

comments on the completed studies, and any protection measures proposed as a result 

of the studies.

The licensee must include with each plan filed with the Commission 

documentation that the licensee has received approval from Pennsylvania DEP or 

Interior, as appropriate. 

The Commission reserves the right to make changes to any plan submitted. Upon 

Commission approval, the plan becomes a requirement of the license, and the licensee 

must implement the plan or changes in project operations or facilities, including any 

changes required by the Commission. 

(b) Requirement to File Reports 

Certain conditions of the Pennsylvania DEP WQC and Interior fishway 

prescription require the licensee to file reports with other entities. Because these reports 

relate to compliance with the requirements of this license, each such report must also be 

submitted to the Commission. These reports are listed in the following table: 
A-6 

WQC 

Condition 

No.

Interior

Condition 

No.

Description Due Date

III.A.1.d 9.8.d Fish passage operating procedures annual 

report

By December 31 

of each year

The licensee must submit to the Commission documentation of any consultation, 

and copies of any comments and recommendations made by any consulted entity in 

connection with each report. The Commission reserves the right to require changes to 

project operations or facilities based on information contained in the report and any other 

available information. 

Article 402. Reservation of Authority to Prescribe Fishways. Authority is 

reserved to the Commission to require the licensee to construct, operate, and maintain, or 

provide for the construction, operation, and maintenance of, such fishways as may be 

prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Power 

Act.

Article 403. Recreation Management Plan. Within 6 months of license issuance, 

the licensee must file, for Commission approval, a recreation management plan that 

details measures to ensure the recreation facilities and sites are managed to meet use and 

demand over the term of the license. The plan shall cover operation and maintenance of 

the following facilities: (a) York Haven Power Plant Recreation Area; (b) Battery Island 

Picnic Area; (c) Goodling Island Picnic Area; (d) Shelley Island Recreation Area; 

(e) Goosehorn Island Picnic Area; (f) East Shore Boat Launch; and (g) East Shore Canal 

Lock. The plan must include: (a) a facility inventory with ownership and management 

responsibilities for each site; (b) measures to provide for periodic monitoring; (c) details 

of how the licensee will continue the licensing program for approximately 300 

recreational lots within the project boundary; (d) details on how the licensee will 

implement revisions to the program that allow for the termination of permits and removal 

of lots from the program if structures are abandoned by the lessee, or when existing 

structures become damaged and are not replaced by conforming structures; (e) provisions 

to update the recreation management plan every 12 years in concert with every other 

Form 80 reporting period; and (f) provisions to consult with the Pennsylvania Fish and 

Boat Commission, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and the Susquehanna 
A-7 

River Basin Commission about recreation management and strategies every 10 years 

after the effective date of the new license. If the licensee proposes changes to the 

existing facilities, the licensee must file the changes with the Commission for approval.

The plan must be developed after consultation with resource agencies; York, 

Dauphin, and Lancaster counties; and other interested stakeholders, including the 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, and the National Park Service. The licensee must include with the 

plan an implementation schedule, documentation of consultation, copies of 

recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the 

entities above, and specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments are 

accommodated by the plan. The licensee must provide a minimum of 30 days for the 

entities to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan with the 

Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing must include 

the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information. 

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. Implementation 

of the plan must not begin until the licensee is notified by the Commission that the plan is 

approved. Upon Commission approval, the licensee must implement the plan, including 

any changes required by the Commission. 

Article 404. Shoreline Management Plan. Within one year of license issuance, 

the licensee must file, for Commission approval, a shoreline management plan (SMP). 

The plan must be developed in accordance with the Commission’s Guidance on Shoreline 

Management Planning at Hydroelectric Projects and include policies to ensure that the 

shorelines are managed for the scenic, recreational, and environmental values for the 

duration of the license term, including but not limited to: (a) a summary of the purpose, 

goals and objectives of the plan; (b) a description of the shoreline use classifications, 

which identifies allowable and prohibited uses for existing and future use of the 

shoreline; (c) a shoreline permitting program; (d) a monitoring and enforcement program; 

and (e) a provision to update the plan every 10 years. 

As part of the SMP, the licensee must continue the licensing program for 

approximately 300 recreational lots at Cly Shore, Shelley Island, and Beshore Island. 

The licensee must implement revisions in the licensing program to allow the termination 

of permits and removal from the licensing program of existing recreational lots that are 

abandoned by the lessee, or when existing structures become damaged and are not 

replaced by structures conforming to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. 
A-8 

The plan must be developed in accordance with the Commission’s Guidelines for 

Shoreline Management Planning at Hydropower Projects dated July 2012. The plan 

must be developed in consultation with the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection. The licensee must include with the plan an 

implementation schedule, documentation of consultation, copies of recommendations on 

the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the entities above, and 

specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments are accommodated by the plan. The 

licensee must provide a minimum of 30 days for the entities to comment and to make 

recommendations before filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not 

adopt a recommendation, the filing must include the licensee’s reasons, based on projectspecific information. 

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. Implementation 

of the plan must not begin until the licensee is notified by the Commission that the plan is 

approved. Upon Commission approval, the licensee must implement the plan, including 

any changes required by the Commission. 

Article 405. Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management 

Plan. The licensee must implement the Programmatic Agreement Between the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission and the Pennsylvania Historic Preservation Officer for 

Managing Historic Properties that May be Affected by Issuing a New License to York 

Haven Power Company, LLC, for the Continued Operation of the York Haven Project in 

York, Dauphin, and Lancaster counties, Pennsylvania (FERC No. 1888-030), executed 

on ____________, and including but not limited to the Historic Properties Management 

Plan (HPMP) for the project. Pursuant to the requirement of this Programmatic 

Agreement, the license must file, for Commission approval, a revised HPMP within six 

months of issuance of this order. The revised HPMP must be based on the draft HPMP 

filed with the Commission on December 28, 2012. 

The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any 

time during the term of the license. If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated prior to 

Commission approval of the HPMP, the licensee must obtain approval from the 

Commission and the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer, before engaging in 

any ground-disturbing activities or taking any other action that may affect any historic 

properties within the project's area of potential effects. 
A-9 

Article 406. Use and Occupancy. (a) In accordance with the provisions of this 

article, the licensee must have the authority to grant permission for certain types of use 

and occupancy of project lands and waters and to convey certain interests in project lands 

and waters for certain types of use and occupancy, without prior Commission approval. 

The licensee may exercise the authority only if the proposed use and occupancy is 

consistent with the purposes of protecting and enhancing the scenic, recreational, and 

other environmental values of the project. For those purposes, the licensee must also 

have continuing responsibility to supervise and control the use and occupancies for which 

it grants permission, and to monitor the use of, and ensure compliance with the covenants 

of the instrument of conveyance for, any interests that it has conveyed, under this article. 

If a permitted use and occupancy violates any condition of this article or any other 

condition imposed by the licensee for protection and enhancement of the project's scenic, 

recreational, or other environmental values, or if a covenant of a conveyance made under 

the authority of this article is violated, the licensee must take any lawful action necessary 

to correct the violation. For a permitted use or occupancy, that action includes, if 

necessary, canceling the permission to use and occupy the project lands and waters and 

requiring the removal of any non-complying structures and facilities. 

(b) The type of use and occupancy of project lands and waters for which the 

licensee may grant permission without prior Commission approval are: (1) landscape 

plantings; (2) non-commercial piers, landings, boat docks, or similar structures and 

facilities that can accommodate no more than 10 water craft at a time and where said 

facility is intended to serve single-family type dwellings; (3) embankments, bulkheads, 

retaining walls, or similar structures for erosion control to protect the existing shoreline; 

and (4) food plots and other wildlife enhancement. To the extent feasible and desirable to 

protect and enhance the project's scenic, recreational, and other environmental values, the 

licensee must require multiple use and occupancy of facilities for access to project lands 

or waters. The licensee must also ensure, to the satisfaction of the Commission's 

authorized representative, that the use and occupancies for which it grants permission are 

maintained in good repair and comply with applicable state and local health and safety 

requirements. Before granting permission for construction of bulkheads or retaining 

walls, the licensee must: (1) inspect the site of the proposed construction, (2) consider 

whether the planting of vegetation or the use of riprap would be adequate to control 

erosion at the site, and (3) determine that the proposed construction is needed and would 

not change the basic contour of the impoundment shoreline. To implement this 

paragraph (b), the licensee may, among other things, establish a program for issuing 

permits for the specified types of use and occupancy of project lands and waters, which 

may be subject to the payment of a reasonable fee to cover the licensee's costs of 
A-10 

administering the permit program. The Commission reserves the right to require the 

licensee to file a description of its standards, guidelines, and procedures for implementing 

this paragraph (b) and to require modification of those standards, guidelines, or 

procedures. 

(c) The licensee may convey easements or rights-of-way across, or leases of 

project lands for: (1) replacement, expansion, realignment, or maintenance of bridges or 

roads where all necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) storm 

drains and water mains; (3) sewers that do not discharge into project waters; (4) minor 

access roads; (5) telephone, gas, and electric utility distribution lines; (6) non-project 

overhead electric transmission lines that do not require erection of support structures 

within the project boundary; (7) submarine, overhead, or underground major telephone 

distribution cables or major electric distribution lines (69-kV or less); and (8) water 

intake or pumping facilities that do not extract more than one million gallons per day 

from a project impoundment. No later than January 31 of each year, the licensee must 

file three copies of a report briefly describing for each conveyance made under this 

paragraph (c) during the prior calendar year, the type of interest conveyed, the location of 

the lands subject to the conveyance, and the nature of the use for which the interest was 

conveyed. 

(d) The licensee may convey fee title to, easements or rights-of-way across, or 

leases of project lands for: (1) construction of new bridges or roads for which all 

necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) sewer or effluent lines that 

discharge into project waters, for which all necessary federal and state water quality 

certification or permits have been obtained; (3) other pipelines that cross project lands or 

waters but do not discharge into project waters; (4) non-project overhead electric 

transmission lines that require erection of support structures within the project boundary, 

for which all necessary federal and state approvals have been obtained; (5) private or 

public marinas that can accommodate no more than 10 water craft at a time and are 

located at least one-half mile (measured over project waters) from any other private or 

public marina; (6) recreational development consistent with an approved report on 

recreational resources of an Exhibit E; and (7) other uses, if: (i) the amount of land 

conveyed for a particular use is five acres or less; (ii) all of the land conveyed is located 

at least 75 feet, measured horizontally, from project waters at normal surface elevation; 

and (iii) no more than 50 total acres of project lands for each project development are 

conveyed under this clause (d)(7) in any calendar year. At least 60 days before 

conveying any interest in project lands under this paragraph (d), the licensee must file a 

letter with the Commission, stating its intent to convey the interest and briefly describing 
A-11 

the type of interest and location of the lands to be conveyed (a marked Exhibit G map 

may be used), the nature of the proposed use, the identity of any federal or state agency 

official consulted, and any federal or state approvals required for the proposed use. 

Unless the Commission's authorized representative, within 45 days from the filing date, 

requires the licensee to file an application for prior approval, the licensee may convey the 

intended interest at the end of that period.

(e) The following additional conditions apply to any intended conveyance under 

paragraph (c) or (d) of this article: 

(1) Before conveying the interest, the licensee must consult with federal and state 

fish and wildlife or recreation agencies, as appropriate, and the State Historic 

Preservation Officer. 

(2) Before conveying the interest, the licensee must determine that the proposed 

use of the lands to be conveyed is not inconsistent with any approved report on 

recreational resources of an Exhibit E; or, if the project does not have an approved report 

on recreational resources, that the lands to be conveyed do not have recreational value. 

(3) The instrument of conveyance must include the following covenants running 

with the land: (i) the use of the lands conveyed must not endanger health, create a 

nuisance, or otherwise be incompatible with overall project recreational use; (ii) the 

grantee must take all reasonable precautions to ensure that the construction, operation, 

and maintenance of structures or facilities on the conveyed lands will occur in a manner 

that will protect the scenic, recreational, and environmental values of the project; and (iii) 

the grantee must not unduly restrict public access to project waters.

(4) The Commission reserves the right to require the licensee to take reasonable 

remedial action to correct any violation of the terms and conditions of this article, for the 

protection and enhancement of the project's scenic, recreational, and other environmental 

values. 

(f) The conveyance of an interest in project lands under this article does not in 

itself change the project boundaries. The project boundaries may be changed to exclude 

land conveyed under this article only upon approval of revised Exhibit G drawings 

(project boundary maps) reflecting exclusion of that land. Lands conveyed under this 

article will be excluded from the project only upon a determination that the lands are not 

necessary for project purposes, such as operation and maintenance, flowage, recreation, 

public access, protection of environmental resources, and shoreline control, including 

shoreline aesthetic values. Absent extraordinary circumstances, proposals to exclude 
A-12 

lands conveyed under this article from the project must be consolidated for consideration 

when revised Exhibit G drawings would be filed for approval for other purposes. 

(g) The authority granted to the licensee under this article must not apply to any 

part of the public lands and reservations of the United States included within the project 

boundary. 
APPENDIX B 

DRAFT LICENSE ARTICLES 

MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT 
This page intentionally left blank.
B-1 

Appendix B

Draft License Articles

Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project 

Article 201. Administrative Annual Charges. The licensee must pay the United 

States annual charges, effective the first day of the month in which the license is issued, 

and as determined in accordance with provisions of the Commission's regulations in 

effect from time to time, for the purposes of: 

(a) reimbursing the United States for the cost of administration of Part I of the 

Federal Power Act. The authorized installed capacity for that purpose is 

800.25-megawatts. 

Article 202. Exhibit Drawings. Within 45 days of the date of issuance of this 

license, as directed below, the licensee must file two sets of the approved exhibit 

drawings and GIS data in electronic file format on compact disks. 

(a) Digital images of the approved exhibit drawings must be prepared in 

electronic format. Prior to preparing each digital image, the FERC Project-Drawing 

Number (i.e., P-2355-1001 through P-2355-###) must be shown in the margin below the 

title block of the approved drawing. The licensee must file two separate sets of exhibit 

drawings in electronic format on compact disks with the Secretary of the Commission, 

ATTN: OEP/DHAC. Exhibit F drawings must be segregated from other project exhibits, 

and identified as Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) material under 

18 CFR §388.113(c). Each drawing must be a separate electronic file, and the file name 

must include: FERC Project-Drawing Number, FERC Exhibit, Drawing Title, date of this 

license, and file extension in the following format [P-2355-####, G-1, Project Boundary, 

MM-DD-YYYY.TIF]. All digital images of the exhibit drawings must meet the 

following format specification: 

IMAGERY - black & white raster file 

FILE TYPE – Tagged Image File Format, (TIFF) CCITT Group 4 

 (also known as T.6 coding scheme) 

RESOLUTION – 300 dpi desired, (200 dpi min) 

DRAWING SIZE FORMAT – 22” x 34” (min), 24” x 36” (max) 

FILE SIZE – less than 1 MB desired 

Each Exhibit G drawing that includes the project boundary must contain a 

minimum of three known reference points (i.e., latitude and longitude coordinates, or 
B-2 

state plane coordinates). The points must be arranged in a triangular format for GIS 

georeferencing the project boundary drawing to the polygon data, and must be based on a 

standard map coordinate system. The spatial reference for the drawing (i.e., map 

projection, map datum, and units of measurement) must be identified on the drawing and 

each reference point must be labeled. In addition, each project boundary drawing must 

be stamped by a registered land surveyor. 

(b) The licensee must file two separate sets of the project boundary GIS data on 

compact disks with the Secretary of the Commission, ATTN: OEP/DHAC. The data 

must be in a georeferenced electronic file format (such as ArcView shape files, 

GeoMedia files, MapInfo files, or a similar GIS format). The filing must include both 

polygon data and all reference points shown on the individual project boundary drawings. 

An electronic boundary polygon data file(s) is required for each project development. 

Depending on the electronic file format, the polygon and point data can be included in 

single files with multiple layers. The georeferenced electronic boundary data file must be 

positionally accurate to ±40 feet in order to comply with National Map Accuracy 

Standards for maps at a 1:24,000 scale. The file name(s) must include: FERC Project 

Number, data description, date of this license, and file extension in the following format 

[P-2355, boundary polygon/or point data, MM-DD-YYYY.SHP]. The data must be 

accompanied by a separate text file describing the spatial reference for the georeferenced 

data: map projection used (i.e., UTM, State Plane, Decimal Degrees, etc.), the map datum 

(i.e., North American 27, North American 83, etc.), and the units of measurement (i.e., 

feet, meters, miles, etc.). The text file name must include: FERC Project Number, data 

description, date of this license, and file extension in the following format [P-2355, 

project boundary metadata, MM-DD-YYYY.TXT]. 

Article 203. Amortization Reserve. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal 

Power Act, a specified reasonable rate of return upon the net investment in the project 

must be used for determining surplus earnings of the project for the establishment and 

maintenance of amortization reserves. The licensee must set aside in a project 

amortization reserve account at the end of each fiscal year one-half of the project surplus 

earnings, if any, in excess of the specified rate of return per annum on the net investment. 

To the extent that there is a deficiency of project earnings below the specified rate of 

return per annum for any fiscal year, the licensee must deduct the amount of that 

deficiency from the amount of any surplus earnings subsequently accumulated, until 

absorbed. The licensee must set aside one-half of the remaining surplus earnings, if any, 

cumulatively computed, in the project amortization reserve account. The licensee must
B-3 

maintain the amounts established in the project amortization reserve account until further 

order of the Commission. 

The specified reasonable rate of return used in computing amortization reserves 

must be calculated annually based on current capital ratios developed from an average of 

13 monthly balances of amounts properly included in the licensee's long-term debt and 

proprietary capital accounts as listed in the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts. 

The cost rate for such ratios must be the weighted average cost of long-term debt and 

preferred stock for the year, and the cost of common equity must be the interest rate on 

10-year government bonds (reported as the Treasury Department's 10-year constant 

maturity series) computed on the monthly average for the year in question plus four 

percentage points (400 basis points). 

Article 204. Headwater Benefits. If the licensee's project was directly benefited 

by the construction work of another licensee, a permittee, or the United States on a 

storage reservoir or other headwater improvement during the term of the original license 

(including extensions of that term by annual licenses), and if those headwater benefits 

were not previously assessed and reimbursed to the owner of the headwater 

improvement, the licensee must reimburse the owner of the headwater improvement for 

those benefits, at such time as they are assessed, in the same manner as for benefits 

received during the term of this new license. The benefits will be assessed in accordance 

with Part 11, Subpart B, of the Commission's regulations. 

Article 301. Project Modification Resulting From Environmental Requirements. 

If environmental requirements under this license require modification that may affect the 

project works or operations, the licensee must consult with the Commission’s Division of 

Dam Safety and Inspections—New York Regional Engineer. Consultation must allow 

sufficient review time for the Commission to ensure that the proposed work does not 

adversely affect the project works, dam safety, or project operation. 

Article 401. Commission Approval and Reporting. 

(a) Requirement to File Plans for Commission Approval 

Various conditions of this license found in the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (Pennsylvania DEP) final section 401 Water Quality 

Certification (WQC) conditions (Appendix __) and U.S. Department of the Interior 

(Interior) fishway prescription (Appendix __) require the licensee to prepare plans in 

consultation with other entities for approval by Pennsylvania DEP or Interior (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service [FWS]) for submittal to the Commission and implement specific 
B-4 

measures without prior Commission approval. Each such plan must also be submitted to 

the Commission for approval. These plans are listed below. 

WQC 

Condition 

No.a

Interior

Condition 

No.a

Description Due Date

III.A.1.a (not 

numbered) Fish passage operating procedures April 15, 2015

III.B.2. (not 

numbered)

Downstream American shad 

passage survival plan and schedule

April 15, 2015

III.B.2.a (not 

numbered)

Downstream American shad 

passage discrete passage study 

plan and schedule

May 15, 2026

III.C.2.c (not 

numbered)

American eel downstream passage 

compliance study

Within 9 months of 

the trigger date for 

initiation of the 

downstream eel 

passage studies, 

which shall not occur 

prior to 

October 1, 2026

IV.A.2 NA Dissolved oxygen monitoring plan November 1, 2027

a The conditions shown in this table were filed by Pennsylvania DEP on December 15, 

2014, and by Interior on January 31, 2014, and amended on February 28, 2014. 

The licensee must include with each plan filed with the Commission 

documentation that the licensee has received approval from Pennsylvania DEP or FWS, 

as appropriate.

The Commission reserves the right to make changes to any plan submitted. Upon 

Commission approval, the plan becomes a requirement of the license, and the licensee 

must implement the plan or changes in project operations or facilities, including any 

changes required by the Commission.
B-5 

(b) Requirement to File Reports 

Certain conditions found in the Pennsylvania DEP WQC conditions 

(Appendix __) and Interior fishway prescription (Appendix __) require the licensee to file 

reports with other entities. Because these reports relate to compliance with the 

requirements of this license, each such report must also be submitted to the Commission. 

These reports are listed in the following table: 

WQC 

Condition No.

Interior 

Condition No. Description Due Date

III.A.1.d (not 

numbered)

Fish passage operating procedures annual 

report

By 

December 31 

of each year

III.B.2.b (not 

numbered)

Downstream American shad passage 

discrete passage study report

Within 180 

days of the 

completion 

of the study

III.C.2.d

(not 

numbered)

American eel downstream passage 

compliance study report

Within 180 

days of the 

completion 

of the study

The licensee must submit to the Commission documentation of any consultation, 

and copies of any comments and recommendations made by any consulted entity in 

connection with each report. The Commission reserves the right to require changes to 

project operations or facilities based on information contained in the report and any other 

available information.

Article 402. Reservation of Authority to Prescribe Fishways. Authority is 

reserved to the Commission to require the licensee to construct, operate, and maintain, or 

provide for the construction, operation, and maintenance of, such fishways as may be 

prescribed by the Secretaries of the Interior and/or Commerce pursuant to section 18 of 

the Federal Power Act.
B-6 

Article 403. Bald Eagle Management Plan. The Bald Eagle Management Plan, 

filed on August 29, 2012, is approved with the following modification: before any 

ground disturbance work begins within the project boundary, the licensee must visit the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) Chesapeake Bay Field Office and Pennsylvania 

Field Office websites and comply with current bald eagle management guidelines. If 

there are updated guidelines, the licensee must revise the Bald Eagle Management Plan to 

incorporate any new guidelines issued by the FWS during the term of the license, and 

provide the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan to the Commission for approval. The 

licensee must implement the plan according to the schedule included in the plan. The 

Commission reserves the right to require any additional changes to the plan. 

Article 404. Bog Turtle Management Plan. The Bog Turtle Management Plan, 

filed on August 29, 2012, is approved with the following modifications: (a) before any 

ground disturbance work begins within the project boundary, the licensee must visit the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Chesapeake Bay Field Office and Pennsylvania Field 

Office websites and comply with current bog turtle management guidelines; if there are 

updated guidelines, the licensee must revise the Bog Turtle Management Plan to 

incorporate any new guidelines issued by the FWS during the term of the license and 

provide the revised Bog Turtle Management Plan to the Commission for approval; and 

(b) modify the restrictions for mowing areas C, D, and F to state, “avoid mowing between 

April to October to avoid turtle’s active period.” The licensee must implement the plan 

according to the schedule included in the plan. The Commission reserves the right to 

require any additional changes to the plan. 

Article 405. Recreation Management Plan. The Recreation Management Plan, 

filed on August 29, 2012, is approved with the following modification: (a) conduct a 

recreation use study every 12 years, starting in 2026 and continuing throughout the 

license term, consistent with every other 6-year Form 80 reporting period deadline (April 

1), to ensure the proposed plans are current and the sites are meeting the demand; and 

(b) update the Recreation Management Plan every 12 years in concert with the recreation 

use study and every other 6-year Form 80 reporting period (report and plan update due 

April 1).

Each update to the plan must be developed in consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

and the National Park Service. The licensee must include with the updated plans an 

implementation schedule, documentation of consultation, copies of recommendations on 

the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the entities above, and 

specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments are accommodated by the plan. The 
B-7 

licensee must provide a minimum of 30 days for the entities to comment and to make 

recommendations before filing the updated plans for Commission approval. If the 

licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing must include the licensee’s reasons, 

based on project-specific information. 

The licensee must continue to operate and maintain the following existing 

facilities for the term of the license: Muddy Run Park and Campground, Wissler’s Run 

Park, and Muddy Run Wildlife Management Area. If the licensee proposes changes to 

the existing facilities, the licensee must file the changes with the Commission 

for approval. 

The licensee must implement the Recreation Management Plan, or updates to the 

plan, according to the schedule included in the plan. The Commission reserves the right 

to require any additional changes to the plan. 

Article 406. Shoreline Management Plan. The Shoreline Management Plan, filed 

on August 29, 2012, is approved with the following modification: the plan must be 

updated every 10 years from the date of issuance of this license, and filed for 

Commission approval. 

Each updated plan must be developed in consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources. The licensee must include with the updated plans an implementation 

schedule, documentation of consultation, copies of recommendations on the completed 

plan after it has been prepared and provided to the entities above, and specific 

descriptions of how the entities’ comments are accommodated by the plan. The licensee 

must provide a minimum of 30 days for the entities to comment and to make 

recommendations before filing the updated plans with the Commission. If the licensee 

does not adopt a recommendation, the filing must include the licensee’s reasons, based on 

project-specific information. 

The licensee must implement the Shoreline Management Plan, or updates to the 

plan, according to the schedule included in the plan. The Commission reserves the right 

to require any additional changes to the plan. 

Article 407. Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management 

Plan. The licensee must implement the Programmatic Agreement Between the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission and the Pennsylvania Historic Preservation Officer for 

Managing Historic Properties that May be Affected by Issuing a New License to Exelon 
B-8 

Generation Company, LLC, for the Continued Operation of the Muddy Run Pumped 

Storage Project in Lancaster and York counties, Pennsylvania, (FERC No. 2355-018),

executed on ____________, and including but not limited to the Historic Properties 

Management Plan (HPMP) for the project. Pursuant to the requirement of this 

Programmatic Agreement, the license must file, for Commission approval, an HPMP, 

within one year of issuance of this order.

The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any 

time during the term of the license. If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated prior to 

Commission approval of the HPMP, the licensee must obtain approval from the 

Commission and the Pennsylvania SHPO, before engaging in any ground-disturbing 

activities or taking any other action that may affect any historic properties within the 

project's area of potential effects. 

Article 408. Use and Occupancy. (a) In accordance with the provisions of this 

article, the licensee must have the authority to grant permission for certain types of use 

and occupancy of project lands and waters and to convey certain interests in project lands 

and waters for certain types of use and occupancy, without prior Commission approval. 

The licensee may exercise the authority only if the proposed use and occupancy is 

consistent with the purposes of protecting and enhancing the scenic, recreational, and 

other environmental values of the project. For those purposes, the licensee must also 

have continuing responsibility to supervise and control the use and occupancies for which 

it grants permission, and to monitor the use of, and ensure compliance with the covenants 

of the instrument of conveyance for, any interests that it has conveyed, under this article. 

If a permitted use and occupancy violates any condition of this article or any other 

condition imposed by the licensee for protection and enhancement of the project's scenic, 

recreational, or other environmental values, or if a covenant of a conveyance made under 

the authority of this article is violated, the licensee must take any lawful action necessary 

to correct the violation. For a permitted use or occupancy, that action includes, if 

necessary, canceling the permission to use and occupy the project lands and waters and 

requiring the removal of any non-complying structures and facilities. 

(b) The type of use and occupancy of project lands and waters for which the 

licensee may grant permission without prior Commission approval are: (1) landscape 

plantings; (2) non-commercial piers, landings, boat docks, or similar structures and 

facilities that can accommodate no more than 10 water craft at a time and where said 

facility is intended to serve single-family type dwellings; (3) embankments, bulkheads, 

retaining walls, or similar structures for erosion control to protect the existing shoreline; 

and (4) food plots and other wildlife enhancement. To the extent feasible and desirable to 
B-9 

protect and enhance the project's scenic, recreational, and other environmental values, the 

licensee must require multiple use and occupancy of facilities for access to project lands 

or waters. The licensee must also ensure, to the satisfaction of the Commission's 

authorized representative, that the use and occupancies for which it grants permission are 

maintained in good repair and comply with applicable state and local health and safety 

requirements. Before granting permission for construction of bulkheads or retaining 

walls, the licensee must: (1) inspect the site of the proposed construction, (2) consider 

whether the planting of vegetation or the use of riprap would be adequate to control 

erosion at the site, and (3) determine that the proposed construction is needed and would 

not change the basic contour of the impoundment shoreline. To implement this 

paragraph (b), the licensee may, among other things, establish a program for issuing 

permits for the specified types of use and occupancy of project lands and waters, which 

may be subject to the payment of a reasonable fee to cover the licensee's costs of 

administering the permit program. The Commission reserves the right to require the 

licensee to file a description of its standards, guidelines, and procedures for implementing 

this paragraph (b) and to require modification of those standards, guidelines, or 

procedures. 

(c) The licensee may convey easements or rights-of-way across, or leases of 

project lands for: (1) replacement, expansion, realignment, or maintenance of bridges or 

roads where all necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) storm 

drains and water mains; (3) sewers that do not discharge into project waters; (4) minor 

access roads; (5) telephone, gas, and electric utility distribution lines; (6) non-project 

overhead electric transmission lines that do not require erection of support structures 

within the project boundary; (7) submarine, overhead, or underground major telephone 

distribution cables or major electric distribution lines (69-kV or less); and (8) water 

intake or pumping facilities that do not extract more than one million gallons per day 

from a project impoundment. No later than January 31 of each year, the licensee must 

file three copies of a report briefly describing for each conveyance made under this 

paragraph (c) during the prior calendar year, the type of interest conveyed, the location of 

the lands subject to the conveyance, and the nature of the use for which the interest was 

conveyed. 

(d) The licensee may convey fee title to, easements or rights-of-way across, or 

leases of project lands for: (1) construction of new bridges or roads for which all 

necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) sewer or effluent lines that 

discharge into project waters, for which all necessary federal and state water quality 

certification or permits have been obtained; (3) other pipelines that cross project lands or 
B-10 

waters but do not discharge into project waters; (4) non-project overhead electric 

transmission lines that require erection of support structures within the project boundary, 

for which all necessary federal and state approvals have been obtained; (5) private or 

public marinas that can accommodate no more than 10 water craft at a time and are 

located at least one-half mile (measured over project waters) from any other private or 

public marina; (6) recreational development consistent with an approved report on 

recreational resources of an Exhibit E; and (7) other uses, if: (i) the amount of land 

conveyed for a particular use is five acres or less; (ii) all of the land conveyed is located 

at least 75 feet, measured horizontally, from project waters at normal surface elevation; 

and (iii) no more than 50 total acres of project lands for each project development are 

conveyed under this clause (d)(7) in any calendar year. At least 60 days before 

conveying any interest in project lands under this paragraph (d), the licensee must file a 

letter with the Commission, stating its intent to convey the interest and briefly describing 

the type of interest and location of the lands to be conveyed (a marked Exhibit G map 

may be used), the nature of the proposed use, the identity of any federal or state agency 

official consulted, and any federal or state approvals required for the proposed use. 

Unless the Commission's authorized representative, within 45 days from the filing date, 

requires the licensee to file an application for prior approval, the licensee may convey the 

intended interest at the end of that period.

(e) The following additional conditions apply to any intended conveyance under 

paragraph (c) or (d) of this article: 

(1) Before conveying the interest, the licensee must consult with federal and state 

fish and wildlife or recreation agencies, as appropriate, and the State Historic 

Preservation Officer. 

(2) Before conveying the interest, the licensee must determine that the proposed 

use of the lands to be conveyed is not inconsistent with any approved report on 

recreational resources of an Exhibit E; or, if the project does not have an approved report 

on recreational resources, that the lands to be conveyed do not have recreational value. 

(3) The instrument of conveyance must include the following covenants running 

with the land: (i) the use of the lands conveyed must not endanger health, create a 

nuisance, or otherwise be incompatible with overall project recreational use; (ii) the 

grantee must take all reasonable precautions to ensure that the construction, operation, 

and maintenance of structures or facilities on the conveyed lands will occur in a manner 

that will protect the scenic, recreational, and environmental values of the project; and (iii) 

the grantee must not unduly restrict public access to project waters.
B-11 

(4) The Commission reserves the right to require the licensee to take reasonable 

remedial action to correct any violation of the terms and conditions of this article, for the 

protection and enhancement of the project's scenic, recreational, and other environmental 

values. 

(f) The conveyance of an interest in project lands under this article does not in 

itself change the project boundaries. The project boundaries may be changed to exclude 

land conveyed under this article only upon approval of revised Exhibit G drawings 

(project boundary maps) reflecting exclusion of that land. Lands conveyed under this 

article will be excluded from the project only upon a determination that the lands are not 

necessary for project purposes, such as operation and maintenance, flowage, recreation, 

public access, protection of environmental resources, and shoreline control, including 

shoreline aesthetic values. Absent extraordinary circumstances, proposals to exclude 

lands conveyed under this article from the project must be consolidated for consideration 

when revised Exhibit G drawings would be filed for approval for other purposes.

(g) The authority granted to the licensee under this article must not apply to any 

part of the public lands and reservations of the United States included within the project 

boundary. 
B-12 

This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX C 

DRAFT LICENSE ARTICLES 

CONOWINGO HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 
This page intentionally left blank.
C-1 

Appendix C 

Draft License Articles

Conowingo Hydroelectric Project 

Article 201. Administrative Annual Charges. The licensee must pay the United 

States annual charges, effective the first day of the month in which the license is issued, 

and as determined in accordance with provisions of the Commission's regulations in 

effect from time to time, for the purposes of: 

(a) reimbursing the United States for the cost of administration of Part I of the 

Federal Power Act. The authorized installed capacity for that purpose is [the authorized 

capacity was previously determined to be 574,540 kW; but the value needs to be recomputed per the latest regulations after the ratings of each of the turbines and generators 

are verified] _______ megawatts. 

Article 202. Exhibit F Drawings. Within 45 days of the date of issuance of this 

license, as directed below, the licensee must file two sets of the approved exhibit 

drawings in electronic file format on compact disks with the Secretary of the 

Commission. ATTN: OEP/DHAC. 

Digital images of the approved exhibit drawings must be prepared in electronic 

format. Prior to preparing each digital image, the FERC Project-Drawing Number 

(i.e., P-405-1001 through P-405-###) must be shown in the margin below the title block 

of the approved drawing. Exhibit F drawings must be segregated from other project 

exhibits, and identified as Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) material 

under 18 CFR §388.113(c). Each drawing must be a separate electronic file, and the file 

name must include: FERC Project-Drawing Number, FERC Exhibit, Drawing Title, date 

of this License, and file extension in the following format [P-405-####, F-1, Description, 

MM-DD-YYYY.TIF]. All digital images of the exhibit drawings must meet the 

following format specification: 

IMAGERY - black & white raster file 

FILE TYPE – Tagged Image File Format, (TIFF) CCITT Group 4 

(also known as T.6 coding scheme) 

RESOLUTION – 300 dpi desired, (200 dpi min) 

DRAWING SIZE FORMAT – 22” x 34” (min), 24” x 36” (max) 

FILE SIZE – less than 1 MB desired 
C-2 

Article 203. Exhibit G Drawings. Within 90 days of the license issuance date, the 

licensee must file, for Commission approval, revised Exhibit G drawings enclosing 

within the project boundary all principal project works necessary for operation and 

maintenance of the project, and reflecting the removal of 1,965 acres of lands from the 

current project boundary that do not contain existing project facilities and are not 

necessary for the operation and maintenance of the project. The Exhibit G drawings must 

comply with sections 4.39 and 4.41of the Commission’s regulations. 

Article 204. Amortization Reserve. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal 

Power Act, a specified reasonable rate of return upon the net investment in the project 

must be used for determining surplus earnings of the project for the establishment and 

maintenance of amortization reserves. The licensee must set aside in a project 

amortization reserve account at the end of each fiscal year one half of the project surplus 

earnings, if any, in excess of the specified rate of return per annum on the net investment. 

To the extent that there is a deficiency of project earnings below the specified rate of 

return per annum for any fiscal year, the licensee must deduct the amount of that 

deficiency from the amount of any surplus earnings subsequently accumulated, until 

absorbed. The licensee must set aside one-half of the remaining surplus earnings, if any, 

cumulatively computed, in the project amortization reserve account. The licensee must

maintain the amounts established in the project amortization reserve account until further 

order of the Commission. 

The specified reasonable rate of return used in computing amortization reserves 

must be calculated annually based on current capital ratios developed from an average of 

13 monthly balances of amounts properly included in the licensee's long-term debt and 

proprietary capital accounts as listed in the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts. 

The cost rate for such ratios must be the weighted average cost of long-term debt and 

preferred stock for the year, and the cost of common equity must be the interest rate on 

10-year government bonds (reported as the Treasury Department's 10-year constant 

maturity series) computed on the monthly average for the year in question plus four 

percentage points (400 basis points). 

Article 205. Headwater Benefits. If the licensee's project was directly benefited 

by the construction work of another licensee, a permittee, or the United States on a 

storage reservoir or other headwater improvement during the term of the original license 

(including extensions of that term by annual licenses), and if those headwater benefits 

were not previously assessed and reimbursed to the owner of the headwater 

improvement, the licensee must reimburse the owner of the headwater improvement for 

those benefits, at such time as they are assessed, in the same manner as for benefits 
C-3 

received during the term of this new license. The benefits will be assessed in accordance 

with Part 11, Subpart B, of the Commission's regulations.

Article 301. Public Safety Plan. At least 60 days prior to reopening of the 

Conowingo powerhouse catwalk or installation of any new recreation facilities, the 

licensee must submit one copy to the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and 

Inspections (D2SI) - New York Regional Engineer and two copies to the Commission 

(one of these copies must be a courtesy copy to the Commission’s Director, D2SI) of an 

updated Public Safety Plan. The plan must include an updated evaluation of public safety 

concerns at the project site, including all updated designated recreation areas, and assess 

the need for the installation of safety devices or other safety measures. The submitted 

plan must include a description of all public safety devices and signage, as well as a map 

showing the location of all public safety measures. For guidance on preparing public 

safety plans the licensee can review the Guidelines for Public Safety at Hydropower 

Projects on the FERC website. 

Article 302. Project Modification Resulting From Environmental Requirements. 

If environmental requirements under this license require modification that may affect the 

project works or operations, the licensee must consult with the Commission’s Division of 

Dam Safety and Inspections—New York Regional Engineer. Consultation must allow 

sufficient review time for the Commission to ensure that the proposed work does not 

adversely affect the project works, dam safety, or project operation.

Article 401. Sediment Management Plan. The Sediment Management Plan, filed 

on August 31, 2012, is approved with the following modifications: 

a) Include a provision to conduct dredging with the frequency and depth needed 

to maintain the navigation channel at the Conowingo Creek, Peters Creek 

(Peach Bottom Marina), and Broad Creek boat ramps, where sediments have 

been accumulating, in order to improve and maintain recreational boating 

access. 

b) Beginning in 2016, the licensee must conduct a bathymetric survey of 

Conowingo Pond at 5-year intervals to monitor sediment transport and 

depositional patterns within the pond. The licensee must file the results of 

each bathymetric survey with the Commission by March 31 of the following 

year. The results of each bathymetric survey must include an analysis of any 

change in sediment deposition or scour in the pond from the previous 
C-4 

survey(s), including the 2011 survey,1so that any changes in sediment 

depositional or scour patterns in the pond over time since the 2011 survey can

be monitored. 

c) Include measures (e.g., metrics for magnitude or frequency of sediment 

loading following high flows and storm events) that would trigger action to 

maintain boating access between the 5-year monitoring intervals. 

The licensee must implement the plan according to the schedule included in the 

plan. The Commission reserves the right to require any additional changes to the plan. 

Article 402. Conowingo Pond Level Management. Upon license issuance, the 

licensee must operate the project with a normal range of operation for Conowingo Pond 

between elevations 101.2 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) and 

110.2 feet NGVD 29, with a minimum elevation of 107.2 feet NGVD 29 on weekends 

between Memorial Day and Labor Day, to meet recreational needs. 

Conowingo Pond level may be temporarily modified if required by operating 

emergencies beyond the control of the licensee, and for short periods upon mutual 

agreement among the licensee, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection, and Maryland Department of the Environment. If pond levels are so 

modified, the licensee must notify the Commission, in writing, as soon as possible, but no 

later than 10 days after each such incident. 

Article 403. Minimum Flow Requirements. Upon license issuance, the licensee 

must provide minimum flow releases from the project, as described below, or a minimum 

flow equal to the natural inflow as measured at the Marietta U.S. Geological Survey gage 

(No. 01576000), whichever is less, according to the following schedule: 

a) September 15 – March 31: 3,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) or natural inflow; 

b) April 1 – April 30: 10,000 cfs or natural inflow;

c) May 1 – June 15: 7,500 cfs or natural inflow; and 

d) June 16 – September 14: 5,000 cfs or natural inflow. 

 

1 Exelon Generation Corp. conducted a bathymetric survey of Conowingo Pond in 

support of Conowingo Revised Study Plan 3.15: Sediment Introduction and Transport 

study, and filed with the Commission on February 23, 2012. 
C-5 

Minimum flow releases may be temporarily modified if required by operating 

emergencies beyond the control of the licensee, and for short periods upon mutual 

agreement among the licensee and the Maryland Department of the Environment. If 

minimum flows are so modified, the licensee must notify the Commission, in writing, as 

soon as possible, but no later than 10 days after each such incident. 

Article 404. Dissolved Oxygen Enhancements and Monitoring. Upon license 

issuance, the licensee must continue dissolved oxygen (DO) enhancement at the project 

using the existing turbine venting systems on units 1 through 7 and the aerating runners 

on units 2 and 5. DO levels must be continuously monitored from May 1 through 

October 1 at the existing Station 643 location, about 0.6 mile downstream of Conowingo 

dam. By January 1 of each year, the licensee must file, with the Commission and 

Maryland Department of the Environment, a report on the results of the previous year’s

DO monitoring at the project. 

Article 405. Reservation of Authority to Prescribe Fishways. Authority is 

reserved to the Commission to require the licensee to construct, operate, and maintain, or 

provide for the construction, operation, and maintenance of, such fishways as may be 

prescribed by the Secretaries of the Interior and/or Commerce pursuant to section 18 of 

the Federal Power Act.

Article 406. Continued Fish Passage Operation. The licensee must continue to 

operate the east fish lift as the primary facility for volitional upstream fish passage, with a 

preventive maintenance program to extend the useful life of the facility through the 

license term, along with other improvements required by Article 407. The licensee must 

continue to operate the project turbines as the primary route for downstream fish passage 

of American shad and river herring. The licensee must also continue to coordinate 

annual fish passage operations with the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration 

Cooperative and its member agencies and other entities. 

Article 407. Upstream Fish Passage Improvements Plan. Within 6 months of 

license issuance, the licensee must file with the Commission for approval, an upstream 

fish passage improvements plan. The plan must include the following modifications to 

the existing east and west fish lifts at the project to improve the effectiveness of upstream 

fish passage at the project: 

a) replace the existing hopper at the west fish lift with a 1,500-gallon hopper; 

b) improve the west fish lift sorting and loading process to facilitate trap and 

truck operations, and implement a trap and truck program for American shad; 
C-6 

c) conduct a feasibility study for adding attraction flow at the west fish lift and, if 

feasible and beneficial, install additional flow capacity; 

d) restore the original design for the 900-cubic feet per second (cfs) attraction 

flow in the east fish lift; 

e) add a second 3,300-gallon hopper to the east fish lift in the space provided for 

in the original design, and upgrade the electrical and mechanical equipment to 

allow for a 15-minute lift cycle; and 

f) if 2 years of effectiveness studies, after restoration of the 900-cfs attraction 

flow, show poor attraction at the east fish lift for adult American shad, conduct

a feasibility study for modifying the locations of entrances A and B, and 

implement those modifications if feasible. 

The licensee must prepare the plan after consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 

Commission, and Maryland Department of Natural Resources. The licensee must include 

with the plan an implementation schedule, documentation of consultation, copies of 

recommendations on the completed plan after it was prepared and provided to the entities 

above, and specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments are accommodated by the 

plan. The licensee must provide a minimum of 30 days for the entities to comment and to 

make recommendations before filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does 

not adopt a recommendation, the filing must include the licensee’s reasons, based on 

project-specific information. 

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. Implementation 

of the plan must not begin until the licensee is notified by the Commission that the plan is 

approved. Upon Commission approval, the licensee must implement the plan, including 

any changes required by the Commission. 

Article 408. Upstream American Eel Passage Plan. Within 6 months of license 

issuance, the licensee must file with the Commission for approval, an upstream American 

eel passage plan. The plan must include detailed design drawings together with a 

schedule to construct and install the following facilities to provide for the upstream 

passage of American eel at the project: 

a) an American eel trap and transport facility that consists of a limited-length 

eel ramp and a collection facility in the vicinity of the existing west fish lift; 

b) no sooner than 2030, an American eel volitional passage facility near the 

west fish lift that consists of a full eel ramp with resting pools from the 

tailrace to the Conowingo Pond elevation; 
C-7 

c) an American eel trap and transport facility that consists of a limited-length 

eel ramp and a collection facility located on Octoraro Creek; 

d) an American eel volitional passage facility (after 2030) that consists of a 

full eel ramp with resting pools from the downstream river elevation to the 

Conowingo Pond elevation located on the east bank of the project tailrace 

or on Octoraro Creek. 

The licensee must prepare the plan after consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 

Commission, and Maryland Department of Natural Resources. The licensee must include 

with the plan an implementation schedule, documentation of consultation, copies of 

recommendations on the completed plan after it was prepared and provided to the entities 

above, and specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments are accommodated by the 

plan. The licensee must provide a minimum of 30 days for the entities to comment and to 

make recommendations before filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does 

not adopt a recommendation, the filing must include the licensee’s reasons, based on 

project-specific information. 

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. Implementation 

of the plan must not begin until the licensee is notified by the Commission that the plan is 

approved. Upon Commission approval, the licensee must implement the plan, including 

any changes required by the Commission. 

Article 409. Bald Eagle Management Plan. The Bald Eagle Management Plan, 

filed on August 29, 2012, is approved with the following modifications: 

a) require enforcement of human traffic restrictions on both sides of Rowland 

Island, under the towers in the river, and on the Cecil County side of the river 

where current human activities disturb perching and foraging eagles at eagle 

concentration areas; and

b) before any ground-disturbing work begins within the project boundary, the 

licensee must visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) Chesapeake 

Bay Field Office and Pennsylvania Field Office websites and comply with 

current bald eagle management guidelines. If there are updated guidelines, the 

licensee must revise the Bald Eagle Management Plan to incorporate any new 

guidelines issued by the FWS during the term of the license and provide the 

revised Bald Eagle Management Plan to the Commission for approval. 
C-8 

The licensee must implement the plan according to the schedule included in the 

plan. The Commission reserves the right to require any additional changes to the plan. 

Article 410. Northern Map Turtle Protection Plan. Within 6 months of license 

issuance, the licensee must file, for Commission approval, a northern map turtle 

protection plan for the protection and enhancement of the map turtle population. 

The plan must include, at a minimum: 

a) nest management and alternative basking site mitigation and protection 

measures identified and studied during the ongoing Towson University map 

turtle studies;

b) annual monitoring of the northern map turtle population at the project for 

10 years; 

c) annual monitoring of the use and success of both the mitigation and protection 

measures for 10 years; 

d) an assessment of the northern map turtle’s response to any change in operating 

regime as a result of the license; and 

e) methods of altering or amending protection and mitigation measures as a result 

of the monitoring, in consultation with the Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources (Maryland DNR). 

The plan must be developed after consultation with the Maryland DNR and 

Towson University. The licensee must include with the plan an implementation 

schedule, documentation of consultation, copies of recommendations on the completed 

plan after it has been prepared and provided to the entities above, and specific 

descriptions of how the entities’ comments are accommodated by the plan. The licensee 

must provide a minimum of 30 days for the entities to comment and to make 

recommendations before filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not 

adopt a recommendation, the filing must include the licensee’s reasons, based on projectspecific information. 

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. Implementation 

of the plan must not begin until the licensee is notified by the Commission that the plan is 

approved. Upon Commission approval, the licensee must implement the plan, including 

any changes required by the Commission. 

Article 411. Waterfowl Nesting Protection Plan. Within 6 months of license 

issuance, the licensee must file, for Commission approval, a waterfowl nesting protection 

plan. The plan must: (a) identify specific project-related effects on nesting waterfowl, 
C-9 

such as flooding during the nesting season; (b) identify which species of nesting 

waterfowl are affected, if any; and (c) if project-related effects are identified, establish 

appropriate protection or mitigation measures. 

The plan must be developed after consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, and the Maryland Department of 

Natural Resources. The licensee must include with the plan an implementation schedule, 

documentation of consultation, copies of recommendations on the completed plan after it 

has been prepared and provided to the entities above, and specific descriptions of how the 

entities’ comments are accommodated by the plan. The licensee must provide a 

minimum of 30 days for the entities to comment and to make recommendations before 

filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, 

the filing must include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information. 

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. Implementation 

of the plan must not begin until the licensee is notified by the Commission that the plan is 

approved. Upon Commission approval, the licensee must implement the plan, including 

any changes required by the Commission. 

Article 412. Bog Turtle Management Plan. Within 6 months of license issuance, 

the licensee must file, for Commission approval, a bog turtle management plan for the 

protection and enhancement of the bog turtle population. 

The plan must include, at a minimum: 

a) the restriction of mowing in the wetland(s) documented to support bog turtles;

b) invasive plant and woody plant control, particularly reed canary grass, in the 

areas around the wetland(s) documented to support bog turtles; and 

c) limits on public access to the wetland(s) documented to support bog turtles 

without advertising the reason.

The plan must be developed after consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. The licensee must include 

with the plan an implementation schedule, documentation of consultation, copies of 

recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the 

entities above, and specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments are 

accommodated by the plan. The licensee must provide a minimum of 30 days for the 

entities to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan with the 

Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing must include 

the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information. 
C-10 

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. Implementation 

of the plan must not begin until the licensee is notified by the Commission that the plan is 

approved. Upon Commission approval, the licensee must implement the plan, including 

any changes required by the Commission. 

Article 413. Recreation Management Plan. The Recreation Management Plan, 

filed on August 31, 2012, is approved with the following modifications: 

a) include a provision to review the results of the bathymetric mapping and 

dredging occurring periodically at the Conowingo Creek, Peters Creek (Peach 

Bottom Marina), and Broad Creek boat ramps as required by the Sediment 

Management Plan (Article 401) intended to ensure boater access to the 

reservoir at these locations; 

b) conduct a recreation use study every 12 years, starting in year 2026, and 

continuing throughout the license term (consistent with every other 6-year 

Form 80 reporting period deadline), to ensure the proposed plans are current, 

the sites are meeting the demand, and boating access and season lengths are 

sufficient; update the Recreation Plan every 12 years in concert with the 

recreation use study and every other Form 80 reporting period (report and 

update due April 1); 

c) develop a plan to provide limited access to the catwalk for anglers, with 

security measures in place that address the vulnerability of the facility and the 

safety of the users of the catwalk; such measures could include, but not be 

limited to, on-site inspections, video surveillance, pre-screening procedures, 

capacity limits, security personnel, and physical infrastructure modifications; 

the ultimate decision on whether the catwalk can be reopened to the public, 

even on a limited basis, is dependent upon the Commission’s evaluation of the 

plan and whether it satisfies public safety and security concerns; and 

d) implement a debris management program that includes: (1) debris 

management goals; (2) a description of debris management methods, including 

clamming in front of the dam and deploying a marine trash skimmer boat to 

remove floating debris that poses hazards to recreational boating; (3) best 

management practices for the storage of the debris materials at Hopkins Cove 

and other Exelon-owned lands; (4) timeframes for when debris will be 

collected and frequency of skimmer and clamming operations; (5) specific size 

criteria for target floating debris; (6) procedures for removal of stored debris; 

(7) the sponsorship of community-based clean-ups in the pond and downstream 

of the dam as described in the final license application and the debris 
C-11 

management study report filed with the Commission on August 31, 2012; (8) a 

public hotline for boaters to link directly to Exelon to report areas of hazardous 

floating debris; and (9) an annual report due every April 1 throughout the 

license term, summarizing the previous year’s debris removal efforts, hotline 

action items, and outcomes. 

Each recreation use study and update to the Recreation Management Plan must be 

developed in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Pennsylvania 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 

Commission, the Maryland Department of the Environment, the National Park Service, 

and the Susquehanna River Boaters Association. The licensee must include with the 

study and updated plans an implementation schedule, documentation of consultation, 

copies of recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided 

to the entities above, and specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments are 

accommodated by the plan. The licensee must provide a minimum of 30 days for the 

entities to comment and to make recommendations before filing the study and updated 

plans with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing 

must include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information. 

The licensee must continue to operate and maintain the following existing 

facilities for the term of the license: (a) Lock 13, (b) Lock 15, (c) Muddy Creek Boat 

Launch, (d) Cold Cabin Boat Launch, (e) Dorsey Park, (f) Line Bridge, (g) Broad Creek 

Public Landing, (h) Glen Cove Marina, (i) Conowingo swimming pool and visitor’s 

center, (j) Peach Bottom Marina, (k) Conowingo Creek Boat Launch, (l) Funks Pond, 

(m) Fisherman’s Park/Shures Landing, and (n) Octoraro Creek Access. If the licensee 

proposes changes to the existing facilities, the licensee must file the changes with the 

Commission for approval. 

The licensee must implement the plan according to the schedule included in the 

plan. The Commission reserves the right to require any additional changes to the plan. 

Article 414. Shoreline Management Plan. The Shoreline Management Plan filed 

on August 31, 2012, is approved, with the following modification: update and file the 

plan, for Commission approval, every 10 years. 

Each update to the plan must be developed in consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Pennsylvania Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, and the Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources. The licensee must include with the updated plans an implementation 
C-12 

schedule, documentation of consultation, copies of recommendations on the completed 

plan after it has been prepared and provided to the entities above, and specific 

descriptions of how the entities’ comments are accommodated by the plan. The licensee 

must provide a minimum of 30 days for the entities to comment and to make 

recommendations before filing the updated plans with the Commission. If the licensee 

does not adopt a recommendation, the filing must include the licensee’s reasons, based on 

project-specific information. 

The licensee must implement the Shoreline Management Plan, or updates to the 

plan, according to the schedule included in the plan. The Commission reserves the right 

to require any additional changes to the plan.

Article 415. Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management 

Plan. The licensee must implement the Programmatic Agreement Between the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, the Pennsylvania Historic Preservation Officer, and the 

Maryland Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that May be 

Affected by Issuing a New License to Exelon Generation Company, LLC, for the 

Continued Operation of the Conowingo Project in Lancaster and York counties, 

Pennsylvania, and Cecil and Harford counties, Maryland (FERC No.405-106), executed 

on ____________, and including but not limited to the Historic Properties Management 

Plan (HPMP) for the project. Pursuant to the requirements of this Programmatic 

Agreement, the licensee must file, for Commission approval, a revised HPMP within six 

months of issuance of this order. The revised HPMP must be based on the HPMP filed 

with the Commission on August 31, 2012. 

The Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the HPMP at any 

time during the term of the license. If the Programmatic Agreement is terminated prior to 

Commission approval of the HPMP, the licensee must obtain approval from the 

Commission and the Pennsylvania and Maryland SHPOs, before engaging in any grounddisturbing activities or taking any other action that may affect any historic properties 

within the project's APE. 

Article 416. Use and Occupancy. (a) In accordance with the provisions of this 

article, the licensee must have the authority to grant permission for certain types of use 

and occupancy of project lands and waters and to convey certain interests in project lands 

and waters for certain types of use and occupancy, without prior Commission approval. 

The licensee may exercise the authority only if the proposed use and occupancy is 

consistent with the purposes of protecting and enhancing the scenic, recreational, and 

other environmental values of the project. For those purposes, the licensee must also 
C-13 

have continuing responsibility to supervise and control the use and occupancies for which 

it grants permission, and to monitor the use of, and ensure compliance with the covenants 

of the instrument of conveyance for, any interests that it has conveyed, under this article. 

If a permitted use and occupancy violates any condition of this article or any other 

condition imposed by the licensee for protection and enhancement of the project's scenic, 

recreational, or other environmental values, or if a covenant of a conveyance made under 

the authority of this article is violated, the licensee must take any lawful action necessary 

to correct the violation. For a permitted use or occupancy, that action includes, if 

necessary, canceling the permission to use and occupy the project lands and waters and 

requiring the removal of any non-complying structures and facilities. 

(b) The type of use and occupancy of project lands and waters for which the 

licensee may grant permission without prior Commission approval are: (1) landscape 

plantings; (2) non-commercial piers, landings, boat docks, or similar structures and 

facilities that can accommodate no more than 10 water craft at a time and where said 

facility is intended to serve single-family type dwellings; (3) embankments, bulkheads, 

retaining walls, or similar structures for erosion control to protect the existing shoreline; 

and (4) food plots and other wildlife enhancement. To the extent feasible and desirable to 

protect and enhance the project's scenic, recreational, and other environmental values, the 

licensee must require multiple use and occupancy of facilities for access to project lands 

or waters. The licensee must also ensure, to the satisfaction of the Commission's 

authorized representative, that the use and occupancies for which it grants permission are 

maintained in good repair and comply with applicable state and local health and safety 

requirements. Before granting permission for construction of bulkheads or retaining 

walls, the licensee must: (1) inspect the site of the proposed construction, (2) consider 

whether the planting of vegetation or the use of riprap would be adequate to control 

erosion at the site, and (3) determine that the proposed construction is needed and would 

not change the basic contour of the impoundment shoreline. To implement this 

paragraph (b), the licensee may, among other things, establish a program for issuing 

permits for the specified types of use and occupancy of project lands and waters, which 

may be subject to the payment of a reasonable fee to cover the licensee's costs of 

administering the permit program. The Commission reserves the right to require the 

licensee to file a description of its standards, guidelines, and procedures for implementing 

this paragraph (b) and to require modification of those standards, guidelines, or 

procedures. 

(c) The licensee may convey easements or rights-of-way across, or leases of 

project lands for: (1) replacement, expansion, realignment, or maintenance of bridges or 
C-14 

roads where all necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) storm 

drains and water mains; (3) sewers that do not discharge into project waters; (4) minor 

access roads; (5) telephone, gas, and electric utility distribution lines; (6) non-project 

overhead electric transmission lines that do not require erection of support structures 

within the project boundary; (7) submarine, overhead, or underground major telephone 

distribution cables or major electric distribution lines (69-kV or less); and (8) water 

intake or pumping facilities that do not extract more than one million gallons per day 

from a project impoundment. No later than January 31 of each year, the licensee must

file three copies of a report briefly describing for each conveyance made under this 

paragraph (c) during the prior calendar year, the type of interest conveyed, the location of 

the lands subject to the conveyance, and the nature of the use for which the interest 

was conveyed. 

(d) The licensee may convey fee title to, easements or rights-of-way across, or 

leases of project lands for: (1) construction of new bridges or roads for which all 

necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) sewer or effluent lines that 

discharge into project waters, for which all necessary federal and state water quality 

certification or permits have been obtained; (3) other pipelines that cross project lands or 

waters but do not discharge into project waters; (4) non-project overhead electric 

transmission lines that require erection of support structures within the project boundary, 

for which all necessary federal and state approvals have been obtained; (5) private or 

public marinas that can accommodate no more than 10 water craft at a time and are 

located at least one-half mile (measured over project waters) from any other private or 

public marina; (6) recreational development consistent with an approved report on 

recreational resources of an Exhibit E; and (7) other uses, if: (i) the amount of land 

conveyed for a particular use is five acres or less; (ii) all of the land conveyed is located 

at least 75 feet, measured horizontally, from project waters at normal surface elevation; 

and (iii) no more than 50 total acres of project lands for each project development are 

conveyed under this clause (d)(7) in any calendar year. At least 60 days before 

conveying any interest in project lands under this paragraph (d), the licensee must file a 

letter with the Commission, stating its intent to convey the interest and briefly describing 

the type of interest and location of the lands to be conveyed (a marked Exhibit G map 

may be used), the nature of the proposed use, the identity of any federal or state agency 

official consulted, and any federal or state approvals required for the proposed use. 

Unless the Commission's authorized representative, within 45 days from the filing date, 

requires the licensee to file an application for prior approval, the licensee may convey the 

intended interest at the end of that period.
C-15 

(e) The following additional conditions apply to any intended conveyance under 

paragraph (c) or (d) of this article: 

(1) Before conveying the interest, the licensee must consult with federal and state 

fish and wildlife or recreation agencies, as appropriate, and the State Historic 

Preservation Officer. 

(2) Before conveying the interest, the licensee must determine that the proposed 

use of the lands to be conveyed is not inconsistent with any approved report on 

recreational resources of an Exhibit E; or, if the project does not have an approved report 

on recreational resources, that the lands to be conveyed do not have recreational value. 

(3) The instrument of conveyance must include the following covenants running 

with the land: (i) the use of the lands conveyed must not endanger health, create a 

nuisance, or otherwise be incompatible with overall project recreational use; (ii) the 

grantee must take all reasonable precautions to ensure that the construction, operation, 

and maintenance of structures or facilities on the conveyed lands will occur in a manner 

that will protect the scenic, recreational, and environmental values of the project; and (iii) 

the grantee must not unduly restrict public access to project waters. 

(4) The Commission reserves the right to require the licensee to take reasonable 

remedial action to correct any violation of the terms and conditions of this article, for the 

protection and enhancement of the project's scenic, recreational, and other environmental 

values. 

 (f) The conveyance of an interest in project lands under this article does not in 

itself change the project boundaries. The project boundaries may be changed to exclude 

land conveyed under this article only upon approval of revised Exhibit G drawings 

(project boundary maps) reflecting exclusion of that land. Lands conveyed under this 

article will be excluded from the project only upon a determination that the lands are not 

necessary for project purposes, such as operation and maintenance, flowage, recreation, 

public access, protection of environmental resources, and shoreline control, including 

shoreline aesthetic values. Absent extraordinary circumstances, proposals to exclude 

lands conveyed under this article from the project must be consolidated for consideration 

when revised Exhibit G drawings would be filed for approval for other purposes.

(g) The authority granted to the licensee under this article must not apply to any 

part of the public lands and reservations of the United States included within the 

project boundary. 
C-16 

This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX D 

PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTION 

YORK HAVEN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 
This page intentionally left blank.
United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

 Custom House, Room 244

 200 Chestnut Street

 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-2904

 

February 7, 2014 

9043.1 

ER/ 0275 

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First St., NE 

Washington, DC 20426 

RE: Review of Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis, York Haven 

Power Company Hydroelectric Project (FERC #1888-030) 

COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, PRELIMINARY TERMS AND 

CONDITIONS, AND PRELIMINARY PRESCRIPTION FOR FISHWAYS 

Dear Ms. Bose:

The U.S. Department of the Interior (Department) filed a timely response to the Notice of 

Application Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, 

Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions for the York Haven 

Hydroelectric Project (FERC #1888-030), located on the Susquehanna River in Dauphin and 

Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania. That filing contained inadvertent word processing artifacts. 

Please replace our initial filing with this corrected version of our comments, recommendations, 

and preliminary Prescription for Fishways. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, 

and prescriptions on this application for new license. 

 Sincerely,

 Lindy Nelson 

 Regional Environmental Officer 

cc: York Haven Service List

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1 

United States Department of the Interior

 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

 Custom House, Room 244

 200 Chestnut Street

 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-2904

 January 30, 2014 

9041.3 

ER 13/0275 

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First St., NE 

Washington, DC 20426 

RE: Review of Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis, York Haven 

Power Company Hydroelectric Project (FERC #1888-030) 

COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, PRELIMINARY TERMS AND 

CONDITIONS, AND PRELIMINARY PRESCRIPTION FOR FISHWAYS 

Dear Ms. Bose:

The U.S. Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed the April 29, 2013, Notice of 

Application Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, 

Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions for the existing York 

Haven Hydroelectric Project (Project) (FERC #1888-030), located on the Susquehanna River in 

Dauphin and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania. The Department offers the comments herein on 

behalf of itself and its component Bureaus, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the 

National Park Service (NPS). The Department, through the Service, has reached settlement with 

York Haven Power Company. The Service is signatory to a settlement Agreement with York 

Haven Power Company (license applicant). That Settlement Agreement was filed as an offer of 

Settlement with the Commission pursuant to Rule 602 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure by York Haven Power Company on January 30, 2014. Wherever the Settlement 

differs from the License Application, our comments, recommendations, and preliminary 

prescription provided herein reflect the Settlement. We note that the Commission has indicated 

its intention to prepare one basin-wide Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the relicensing 

of three projects on the lower Susquehanna River, of which this is only one. See, e.g. 

Notification of Updated Schedule, December 19, 2013. The other two are the Exelon – owned 

Muddy Run (P-2355-018) and Conowingo (P-405-106) Projects some distance downstream from 

IN REPLY REFER TO:
2 

this Project. Accordingly some of the comments presented herein relate to the preparation of this 

EIS rather than specifically to this Project. 

This letter is submitted under the following statutory authorities: Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act as amended; Federal Power Act as amended; Endangered Species Act as amended; Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act as amended; Migratory Bird Treaty Act as amended; Outdoor 

Recreation Act of 1963; National Trails and System act of 1968; and the National Park Service 

Organic Act. 

GENERAL COMMENTS

Background

The Department has participated throughout the Integrated Licensing Process for the York 

Haven Project. The Settlement was developed through discussions among the Service, the 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), and the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP) (collectively the “Resource Agencies”) and the York Haven 

Power Company (collectively “the Parties”).

Project Setting

The Susquehanna River is one of America's largest rivers and is approximately 410 mi (715 km) 

long. The river forms in upstate New York and west-central Pennsylvania and drains a watershed 

area of over 27,000 square miles. It is the largest tributary to the Chesapeake Bay, providing over 

60 percent of the freshwater to the Bay. The name of the river comes from an Algonquian word 

for "muddy water." This term may still be an appropriate description of the Susquehanna River 

today as it can be very turbid, particularly during higher flow events. There is also considerable 

run-off from agricultural areas that have long been a major contributor to nutrient loading in the 

Chesapeake Bay. Mean monthly flows are highest in March and April and lowest in August and 

September.

Dam construction in the lower Susquehanna River began in the early 1900’s. A low level (8 to 

16') hydroelectric dam was constructed in 1904 at Conewago Falls near the village of York 

Haven (river mile 55). The first of the high dams, the Holtwood or McCalls Ferry project (55') at 

river mile 25, was completed in 1910. The 75' high Safe Harbor Dam (river mile 32) completed 

in 1931. The 100' high Conowingo Dam (river mile 10) was completed in 1928 (SRAFRC 2010). 

The construction of the dams altered river habitat by creating impoundments that inundated and 

eliminated riverine spawning and rearing habitat for migratory fish in the lower portion of the 

Susquehanna River. Conowingo, Holtwood, Safe Harbor and York Haven dams inundated 14, 8, 

10, and 4 miles of habitat, respectively, resulting in the loss of 36 miles of riverine habitat. The 

Conowingo Reservoir (Conowingo Pool) extends to the Holtwood tailrace and the Holtwood 

Reservoir (Lake Aldred) extends to the Safe Harbor tailrace, resulting in a 32 mile stretch of 

impounded water with little flowing water habitat. Above Lake Clarke (the Safe Harbor 

impoundment) there is 15 miles of free-flowing river to York Haven Dam (SRAFRC 2010). 
3 

Project Works

The existing York Haven Project (Project) consists of a headrace wall, main dam, east channel 

dam, powerhouse, and forebay bulkhead. The stone masonry headrace wall extends 3,000 feet 

upstream from the north end of the powerhouse and, with an average height of 20 feet, directs 

flow to the powerhouse. The main dam is attached to the north end of the headrace where it runs 

diagonally across the main channel of the river approximately 4,970 feet to the west shore of 

Three Mile Island. The main dam is constructed of concrete fill, and has a maximum height at 

the crest of 17 feet and an average height of 10 feet. The east channel dam consists of a concrete 

gravity dam that extends approximately 950 feet east from the east shore of Three Mile Island to 

the east bank of the river. The east channel dam has an average height of 10 feet. The stone 

masonry forebay bulkhead wall, 155 feet long, extends west from the south end of the 

powerhouse to the transformer building, perpendicular to the shoreline. From the transformer 

building, the forebay bulkhead wall extends 475 feet north along the property line to the west 

bank of the river. A 14-foot-wide by 10.5-foot-tall trash sluice gate and associated spillway are 

located adjacent to the southern end of the powerhouse at the eastern end of the forebay wall. 

The Project’s main dam and east channel dam impound the Susquehanna River, forming Lake 

Frederic, extending 3.5 miles upstream from the dam. Total storage in the 1,849-acre reservoir is 

approximately 8,000 acre-feet, and total useable storage is approximately 1,980 acre-feet. The 

current FERC license allows a 1.1-foot fluctuation in the Project impoundment, but is not used 

under normal run-of-river operation. The normal water surface elevation of the Project 

impoundment is 276.5 feet. The elevation of the normal river surface below the dam is 

approximately 251.4 feet. The impoundment provides approximately 22.5 feet of net head for 

power generation purposes. 

The brick and stone masonry powerhouse has approximate dimensions of 470 feet by 48 feet and 

is located at the southern end of the headrace wall and at the eastern end of the forebay bulkhead 

wall. The powerhouse includes 20 turbine-generator units and appurtenant equipment. The 

hydraulic equipment for units 1- 3 are vertical-shaft, fixed-blade, Kaplan turbines; unit 4 is a 

vertical-shaft, manually adjustable blade, Kaplan turbine; units 5 and 6 are vertical-shaft, fixedblade, propeller-type turbines; units 7, 8, 10-13, and 15-20 each consist of two vertical-shaft, 

Francis turbines connected through bevel gears to a single horizontal shaft; unit 9 is a two 

vertical-shaft, Francis turbine connected through a gearbox to a single horizontal shaft; and unit 

14 is a vertical-shaft, Francis turbine. Units 1-5 have 1.6-megawatt (MW) generators; unit 6 has 

a 1.32-MW generator; unit 14 has a 1.2-MW generator; and units 7-13 and 15-20 have 0.7-MW 

generators. The Project has an authorized nameplate generating capacity of 19.65 MW and 

generates and average of 130,812 megawatt hours annually. Water flowing through the turbines 

is discharged into the tailrace immediately below the powerhouse and downstream of the dam.

There is no primary transmission lines included as part of the Project. The Project interconnects 

with the 115-kilovolt (kV) grid at the substation located immediately downstream of the 

Project’s forebay wall. A secondary service feed comes into the Project substation via Line No. 

722 at 13.2 kV. The Licensee is currently studying the feasibility of providing a nature-like 
4 

fishway to enhance fish passage facilities at the Project. No other new developments or changes 

in operation are being proposed at this time.

Fishery Resources

The Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the Project supports a warmwater fishery. Among the 

common riverine fish species are smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), largemouth bass (M. 

salmoides), walleye (Sander vitreus), and white perch (M. americana). In addition, anadromous 

species found in the Project vicinity include blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), alewife (A. 

pseudoharengus), and American shad (A. sapidissima). The catadromous American eel (Anguilla 

rostrata) is also found in the vicinity of the Project. 

High Value Land Resources

The Lower Susquehanna River and Upper Chesapeake Bay region have a long history of 

recreational access and use. As stated in Executive Order 13508 (the EO), the Administration has 

set a goal of 300 additional public access sites and 2 million acres of land to be conserved to 

ensure adequate protection of the resources associated with the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and 

its tributaries including the Susquehanna River. As was accomplished in the PPL Holtwood 

(FERC #1881) proceeding1, Exelon in particular has an exceptional opportunity to preserve and 

protect significant land under their ownership and enhance recreational use and access, both 

within and outside the project boundaries associated with the Conowingo and Muddy Run 

Hydroelectric Projects.

Four units of the National Trail System, including two National Historic Trails, administered by 

the NPS, are located in, adjacent to, or near the collective project boundaries and all have strong 

bearing on the position of the Department regarding the future use and disposition of those lands 

whose condition and status may affect the visitor’s experience in those units as set out below. 

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan (Access Plan) was published in direct 

response to the President's Executive Order 13508, Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the 

Chesapeake Bay. The primary purpose of the Access Plan was to "access the demand for public 

access; describe existing public access facilities; assess barriers to public access; determine gaps 

in the public access system; identify opportunities for new access sites; and help direct federal, 

state and local funding toward public access opportunities.2

 Importantly, the plan is updated 

annually to include newly identified potential public access sites.3

The Access Plan has been certified by FERC as a Comprehensive Plan as defined by Section 

10(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. section 803 (a)(2)(A) which requires 

FERC to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with Federal or state comprehensive 

plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the 

 

1 See FERC Order Amending Project Boundary issued 21 December 2012 (FERC 1881-066) 2 The 2013 Access Plan was prepared by the National Park Service in collaboration with the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia, the 

States of Delaware, Maryland, New York, and West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. 3 Issued January 7, 2014. 

http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/file.axd?file=2014%2F1%2F14_15+WQ+milestones_010714+FINAL+Ver

sion.pdf 
5 

project.4

 In this case, the Final License Applications (FA) for all three subject projects should be 

evaluated for their consistency with the Access Plan.

On May 16, 2012, the Secretary of the Interior designated four water trails in five states as new 

historic connecting components of the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail 

(Captain John Smith Trail), among them the Susquehanna River. In our efforts to determine how 

development of presently undeveloped lands within the viewshed of the Captain John Smith 

Trail would affect the visitor’s experience, the NPS prepared a viewshed map which is intended 

to evoke consideration of how the lands and features surrounding the water trail (the Lower 

Susquehanna River and environs) would have looked to Captain John Smith during his voyage. 

That map is set out below. It was developed as a result of the Captain John Smith Trail being 

extended to include the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania and New York. 

The Captain John Smith Trail commemorates Smith’s voyages of exploration of the Chesapeake 

in 1607-1609, shares knowledge of the Native American societies and cultures of the 

Chesapeake region at the time, and interprets the past and present natural history of the 

Chesapeake Bay and its rivers. 

The National Park Service completed a Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP, NPS 2011) for 

the trail in 20115. The CMP states: “The promise of the Captain John Smith Chesapeake 

National Historic Trail, then, is to help the millions of people in the region and elsewhere 

experience, envision, come to understand, and care to protect what the explorers and the 

inhabitants of the region saw 400 years ago by expanding access to the Bay and rivers; by 

protecting special places reminiscent or evocative of those times; by educating the public of the 

importance and exceptional nature of the region, its people, and its resources; by providing 

recreational experiences throughout the region; by creating partnerships amongst the many 

citizens, groups and jurisdictions to realize the vision; by instilling awe and reverence for the 

special places in the Chesapeake region. Visitor experiences on the trail will include journeys on 

land – walking, bicycling, motoring – and sojourns on water – paddling, sailing and cruising, in 

craft large and small. The trail will provide national park quality experiences through NPS 

partnerships with state and local governments, and non-profit and for profit organizations.” 

Core trail-related resources identified in the CMP include “evocative landscapes - places 

possessing a feeling that expresses the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. 

This feeling results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey a 

landscape’s historic character.” The CMP further defines this as “visible shoreline generally 

evocative of the 17th century - primarily composed of forests and wetlands.” 

Evocative landscapes and other trail resources are the foundation of the visitor experience along 

the trail, an experience that for many visitors takes place from the water in self-guided or guided 

boating trips using a variety of watercraft.

 

4 FERC letter dated December 4, 2013, docket ZZ09-5-000. 5 http://www.nps.gov/cajo/parkmgmt/planning.htm
6 

The NPS prepared a map of evocative landscape along the Lower Susquehanna River segment of 

the Captain John Smith Trail using computer assisted viewshed analysis. This map identifies 

lands which contribute to the trail’s visitor experience and is shown below. 

This map helps guide identification of trail resources, prioritizes conservation efforts and 

development of interpretation opportunities and materials. It provides a broad brush illustration 

of general areas that merit consideration for protection within the context of the CMP and that 

may be able to be accomplished through the current relicensing processes. The CMP has been 
7 

certified by the FERC as a Comprehensive Plan as defined by Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Federal 

Power Act (FPA), see fn4 above. ). In addition, the Onondaga Nation, in their comments dated 

December 13, 2013, noted their support for the establishment of the Captain John Smith Trail.

The Star-Spangled Banner National Trail (Star-Spangled Trail) connects the places, people and 

events that led to the birth of the National Anthem during the War of 1812.This Trail includes 

the Susquehanna River from immediately below the Conowingo Dam to the Chesapeake Bay, 

and therefore, while it should be considered by the Commission in its EIS, will be affected more 

by actions at the lower Exelon Projects than this one. NPS and its partners completed a 

Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) for the trail in 2012 (NPS 2012)6. The Star-Spangled 

Trail CMP includes a framework and action plan for interpreting the history and legacy of the 

War of 1812 in the Chesapeake in ways that are meaningful and relevant to the general public. 

Visitors will be accessing this trail using both land and water routes. As with the Captain John 

Smith Trail, there are evocative landscapes along the Susquehanna River that support the StarSpangled Trail. The Star-Spangled Trail CMP has been certified by FERC as a Comprehensive 

Plan as defined by Section 10 (a) (2) (A) of the FPA, see fn3 above. 

In its comprehensive assessment of the Lower Susquehanna River hydroelectric projects under 

NEPA, we request that the Commission evaluate how this project affects the landscape goals of 

the NPS for the various National Historic Trails, National Recreation Trails and National Natural 

Landmarks and require project specific changes, if necessary, that would ameliorate the project’s 

ongoing and potential future impacts on those landscape goals and resources. In this way, the 

Commission can condition the project pursuant to section 10(a) of the FPA, and thereby license

the project to conform to applicable comprehensive plans for the watershed.

Native American Consultation

We recommend the Licensee consult with any Native American Tribe or Nation whose treaty 

rights may be affected by the Project. Potentially affected tribes can provide guidance in 

developing the project in a manner that seeks to preserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife and 

other tribal-interest resources and environmental values in the project area. It is especially 

important for the Licensee to initiate consultation so that any future studies may begin in a timely 

fashion and delays may be avoided. 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Settlement Agreement

The Department, through the Service, reached settlement with the Licensee on resolution of 

operational, fisheries and aquatic resources, wildlife, and water quality issues, particularly 

including terms for fish passage that would fall under the Department’s authority under Section 

18 of the Federal Power Act. The Settlement Agreement was signed by several parties in 

December 2013 and was filed with the Commission on January 30, 2014. Each of the impacts of 

Project operations was carefully considered in developing the Settlement. Representatives of the 

 

6 http://starspangledtrail.net/about-the-trail/planning-process/
8 

Service worked diligently with Licensee and the other Parties to develop a mutually agreeable 

Settlement for long-term Project management, primarily regarding fish passage. The Department 

supports the Settlement and requests that that the Commission include license conditions 

consistent with it and reflective of its terms.

As is explained in the Settlement, the expectation of the signatories is that the Commission will 

incorporate all of the terms and conditions in Section 3 of the Settlement, as express license 

articles in any license it may issue, such that all of the Settlement terms and conditions are 

enforced by the Commission. Further, we request that the Commission approve the Settlement 

broadly and incorporate it by reference into, and attach it to, the Order Issuing License. To the 

extent that any of the Settlement’s terms and conditions are not incorporated as express license 

articles, or the Commission, for some reason, determines the terms and conditions and/or express 

license articles are not enforceable, the Department requests that the Commission expressly 

identify in its licensing order each Settlement term and condition that it believes is not 

enforceable. Any Settlement term and condition not so expressly identified by the Commission

as unenforceable will be deemed, by all Parties, as enforceable by the Commission. The 

Department expects that the agreement of the Parties to consult with one another before 

undertaking various actions before the Commission (i.e., certain amendment applications) will be 

enforced by the Commission to the extent of requiring evidence of compliance before accepting 

such applications. Retention of Settlement terms such as these, as enforceable license conditions, 

is a necessary and bargained-for part of the agreement.

Fish Passage

The Licensee has agreed to provide fish protection and upstream and downstream passage for 

anadromous and catadromous species. 

Among other things, the Licensee has agreed to construct, operate, and maintain a nature-like 

fishway at the upstream terminus of the mainstem dam at Three-Mile Island to provide safe, 

timely, and effective upstream passage for American shad, river herring, and American eel. 

Riverine fish species are expected to also use the nature-like fishway. The Licensee has also 

agreed to provide a downstream migrant facility (bypass) in the headrace and operational 

measures for out-migrating juvenile and post-spawned adult shad and river herring. Studies will 

be performed for up and downstream migration for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of 

fish passage through the Project. No other new material developments or changes in operation 

are being proposed at this time. 

Pursuant to Section 18 of the FPA, the Department is providing herewith, in Attachment A, it’s

Preliminary Prescription for Fishways, and supporting Decision Document, which is consistent 

with the measures agreed upon in the Settlement. As said in Attachment A, the Administrative 

Record and its Index in support of the Decision Document will be filed separately. 

Federally Protected Species

On August 8, 2007, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was removed from the Federal 

Endangered Species List and is no longer protected under Section 7 of the Federal Endangered 
9 

Species Act (ESA). However, bald eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712; Ch. 

128; July 13, 1918; 40 Stat. 755). Bald eagles are known to nest, forage and communally roost 

along the Susquehanna River, including Dauphin County. As part the Licensee’s compliance 

under BGEPA, the FERC should require the Licensee to follow conservation measures that 

protect bald eagles in addition to adopting the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. 

The federally threatened bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) is also known to occur along the 

Susquehanna River in Dauphin County. As part of the Licensee’s compliance with Section 7 of 

the ESA, the FERC should require the Licensee to contact the Service’s Pennsylvania Field 

Office before any land clearing activity is initiated. If there are any questions regarding bald 

eagles or bog turtles, please contact Ms. Kagel at 814-234-4090. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

In accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and pursuant to Section 10(j) of the 

Federal Power Act, as amended, the Department recommends that the following special articles 

for the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources be included in any 

license the Commission may issue for this Project.

1. To help evaluate safe and effective downstream passage of American eels through the 

Project, the Licensee shall cooperate with the Service and other interested parties in the 

funding, planning, and conduct of a Lower Susquehanna River Downstream Eel Study to 

evaluate the timing, magnitude, duration, annual variation and environmental conditions 

associated with active migration of silver eels through the lower Susquehanna River to 

the Chesapeake Bay.

2. The Project shall be operated to maintain the following minimum flows below the Project 

(the total of flows through the Powerhouse, over the Main Dam and East Channel Dam) 

as indicated in the Final License Application: 

a. 1,000 cfs or inflow from upstream, whichever is less, at all times.

b. An average daily minimum flow of 2,500 cfs or inflow from upstream, whichever 

is less. 

c. Whenever inflow from upstream is less than 3,000 cfs, the Project shall be 

operated on a run-of-river basis, adding or suspending operations at turbines to 

reflect, to the extent practicable, inflow from upstream and without adding or 

suspending turbine operations to deliberately drawdown or store water for 

purposes of generating electricity in particular time periods.

d. Minimum flows may be temporarily modified if required by operating exigencies 

beyond the control of the Licensee. 

* * * * * 
10

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, 

and prescriptions on this application for new license. 

 Sincerely,

 

 Lindy Nelson 

 Regional Environmental Officer 

cc: York Haven Service List 
11

References Cited

National Park Service (NPS). 2010. The Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake 

Bay.

National Park Service (NPS). 2011. Final Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental 

Assessment; Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. 

http://www.nps.gov/cajo/parkmgmt/planning.htm 

National Park Service (NPS). 2012. Final Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental 

Assessment; Star Spangled Banner National Trail. 

http://starspangledtrail.net/about-the-trail/planning-process/ 

National Park Service (NPS). 2013. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan. 

http://www.nps.gov/chba/parknews/chesapeake-watershed-public-access-plan.htm 

Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative (SRAFRC). 2010. Migratory 

fish management and restoration plan for the Susquehanna River Basin. 124pp. 

York Haven Power Company (YHPC). 2012. Final License application. Prepared by York 

Haven Power Company, LLC. York Haven, Pennsylvania, Volume I. August 2012. 
Attachment A 

BEFORE THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Olympus Power, LLC Applicant ) York Haven Power Company 

 ) FERC No. 1888-030 

 

 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'S

DECISION DOCUMENT, 

PRELIMINARY PRESCRIPTION FOR FISHWAYS

PURSUANT TO SECTION 18 OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT

Approved this 31st day of January, 2014, by:

 

_______________________________ 

Genevieve LaRouche, Field Office Supervisor

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

United States Department of the Interior
i

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Administrative process, hearing rights, and submission of alternatives................................................................ 1

3. Resource Description............................................................................................................................................. 2

3.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................................................ 2

3.2 Historic Fishery Resources............................................................................................................................ 5

3.2.1 Anadromous Fish..................................................................................................................................... 5

3.2.2 Catadromous Fish .................................................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Current Fisheries............................................................................................................................................ 6

3.3.1 American Shad......................................................................................................................................... 6

3.3.2 American Eels........................................................................................................................................10

3.3.3 River Herring .........................................................................................................................................11

3.4 Existing Fish Passage Facilities...................................................................................................................12

3.5 Agreements Affecting Future Fish Passage Operations...............................................................................13

3.6 Downstream Fish Passage ...........................................................................................................................13

4. Management Goals..............................................................................................................................................14

4.1 Published Plans............................................................................................................................................15

4.1.1 Resource Agency Plans .........................................................................................................................15

4.1.2 Susquehanna River Settlement Agreements ..........................................................................................16

4.2 Restoration Objectives................................................................................................................................. 16

4.2.1 Anadromous Fish...................................................................................................................................16

4.2.2 Catadromous Fish ..................................................................................................................................18

5. Statutory Authority ..............................................................................................................................................19

6. Administrative Record.........................................................................................................................................19

7. Alternatives Considered.......................................................................................................................................19

8. Reservation of Authority to Prescribe Fishways ................................................................................................. 20

9. Preliminary Prescription for Fishways ................................................................................................................20

9.1 Design Population: American Shad .............................................................................................................21

9.2 Design Population: River Herring (Alewife and Blueback Herring)...........................................................21

9.3 Design Population: American Eel................................................................................................................21

9.4 Operational Flows........................................................................................................................................21

9.4.1 Prior to NLF Facility Completion...............................................................................................................21

9.4.2 After NLF Facility Completion ..................................................................................................................22

9.5 Scheduling ...................................................................................................................................................23

9.6 Specific Prescriptions for the York Haven Project ......................................................................................24

9.7 General Requirements..................................................................................................................................24

9.8 Fishway Operating Procedures (FOP) .........................................................................................................24
ii

9.9 Fish Protection and Passage.........................................................................................................................25

9.9.1 Upstream Fish Passage / Nature-Like Fishway Construction....................................................................25

9.9.2 NLF Facility Operations............................................................................................................................26

9.9.3 Monitoring of Shad Passage Effectiveness & Subsequent Actions...........................................................27

9.9.4 Upstream Passage of Eels..........................................................................................................................31

9.9.5 Downstream Post-Spawning Adult American Shad Passage.....................................................................31

9.9.6 Downstream Juvenile American Shad Passage .........................................................................................31

9.9.7 Downstream Passage for Silver Eels .........................................................................................................35

10. Scientific Names..................................................................................................................................................37

11. References Cited..................................................................................................................................................38

11.1 Comprehensive Plans Filed at FERC...........................................................................................................38

11.2 Documents Incorporated by Reference........................................................................................................38

11.3 Other References Cited in the Decision Document .....................................................................................38

12. Administrative Record.........................................................................................................................................41

 
1 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'S

DECISION DOCUMENT, 

PRELIMINARY PRESCRIPTIONS FOR FISHWAYS

PURSUANT TO SECTION 18 OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT

1. Introduction

The United States Department of the Interior (Department) hereby submits its Decision 

Document and Preliminary Prescription for Fishways for the York Haven Hydroelectric Project

(Project), FERC No. 1888 to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or 

FERC) pursuant to Section 18 of the Federal Power Act, as amended. The Department will 

separately submit its supporting administrative record including an index. 

The Department developed its preliminary prescription for fishways through a review process 

that included consultation among fisheries biologists and fishway engineers from the 

Department's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 

(PFBC), Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), Maryland 

Department Natural Resources (MDDNR), Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC), as 

well as Olympus Power, LLC , and other interested parties. 

The Department has considered the record before the Commission, as well as scientific evidence 

not already included in the record before the Commission. Copies of any supporting documents 

not previously filed with the Commission or publically available will be filed via electronic 

digital media and delivered by express mail service. Copies of the administrative record will be 

provided by the Service. 

2. Administrative process, hearing rights, and submission of alternatives 

This Preliminary Prescription was prepared, and will be processed, in accordance with the 

Department’s regulations at 43 C.F.R. Part 45. These regulations provide that any party to a 

license proceeding before the Commission in which the Department exercises mandatory 

authority is provided both the right to trial-type hearings on issues of material fact and the 

opportunity to propose alternatives to the terms contained in the Preliminary Prescription. 

Therefore, the Department hereby provides notice that any party to the License Application 

Process before the Commission may request a trial-type hearing on any issue of fact material to 

this Preliminary Prescription pursuant to, and in conformance with, the regulations of the 

Department at 43 C.F.R. § 45.21. Such a request for a trial-type hearing must be filed with the 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW, 

Mail Stop 2342, Washington, DC, within 30 days of the submission of this document. Should 

any request for trial-type hearing be filed, other parties may file interventions and responses 

within 15 days of the date of service of the request for a hearing. 43 C.F.R. § 45.22. Trial-type 

hearings will be conducted, and a Modified Prescription for Fishways developed, in accordance 

with the terms and time limits of 43 C.F.R. part 45. 
2 

The Department further provides notice that any party to the License Application Process before 

the Commission may submit alternatives to the terms contained in the Preliminary Prescription 

by filing them pursuant to, and in conformance with, the Department’s regulations at 43 C.F.R. § 

45.71. Any such alternative proposals must be filed with the Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW, Mail Stop 2342, Washington, DC 

20240 within 30 days of the submission of this document. Such alternative proposals will be 

analyzed in accordance with 45 C.F.R. § 45.73. 

Finally, the Department will accept and consider any comments on the Preliminary Prescription 

filed by any member of the public, State or Federal Agency, the Licensee, or other entity or 

person. Comments should be filed within 30 days of the filing of this Preliminary Prescription, 

and should be sent to: Genevieve LaRouche, Field Supervisor, Chesapeake Bay Field Office, 

Annapolis, MD. 

If no hearing is requested or alternative submitted, the Department will finalize its Prescription 

for Fishways, with accompanying analysis, when the Commission requires parties to file 

Modified Terms and Conditions and Prescriptions in accordance with 43 C.F.R. 45.73. 

3. Resource Description

3.1 Project Description

The Project is located on the Susquehanna River in Dauphin and Lancaster Counties in 

southeastern Pennsylvania (Figure 1). The Project is located upstream of Chesapeake Bay at 

river mile 55, immediately downstream of Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant, 17 miles 

downstream of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and 22 miles upstream of the Safe Harbor 

Hydroelectric Station (river mile 33). The Project is the fourth dam on the Susquehanna River 

upstream of Chesapeake Bay and the fifth hydroelectric project in the lower River. 

The Project includes 20 similarly sized hydroelectric turbine units with a current licensed 

capacity of nearly 20 Megawatts. A brick and stone masonry powerhouse approximately 472 feet 

by 48 feet is located parallel to the west bank of the Susquehanna River housing the turbines, 

generators, and appurtenant equipment. Steel trashracks with four-inch clear spacing are installed 

at the intakes for each of the 20 turbines. The forebay includes a trash sluice with gate 

dimensions of 14 feet wide by 10.5 feet tall that discharges approximately 600 cubic feet per 

second (cfs). The Project operates as run of river with an allowable 1.1 foot headpond 

fluctuation. Mean monthly flows are highest in March and April and lowest in August and 

September. The Project is capable of maintaining run-of-river operations and impoundment 

water levels under low to moderate stream flow conditions. During periods of moderate to high 

runoff (>17,000 cfs), the Project turbines cannot control water levels in the impoundment. 

The normal maximum water surface elevation is 277.91 feet (NGVD29) with the value of 277.91 

feet representing the low point of the Main Dam, which under current operations is considered 

the normal elevation when river flows are less than maximum turbine capacity. The Project 

impoundment, Lake Frederic, is approximately 3.5 miles long with a surface area of 2,218 acres 

and all elevations are reference to the 1929 National Geodetic Vertical Datum. The 
3 

impoundment is approximately 9,600 acre-feet of gross storage capacity and a usable storage 

capacity within its allowable 1.1 feet of fluctuation of about 1,700 acre-feet, or approximately 1 

hour of storage at the plant’s maximum hydraulic capacity. The Project is operated with a yearround continuous minimum flow requirement of 1,000 cfs and an average daily minimum flow 

requirement of 2,500 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less, both of which can be delivered through 

the powerhouse. Project currently maintains the minimum flow requirement through spillage 

over the existing dam structures in combination with the operation of a minimum of two turbinegenerator units. Additionally, Project is required to provide a minimum flow of 2,000 cfs at the 

East Channel Dam and spill 4,000 cfs at the Main Dam during the American Shad passage 

season while the upstream fish passage facility is operating.

Lake Frederic, which falls within the Project’s boundary, has approximately 29 miles of total 

shoreline length, including islands. The average maximum depth of Lake Frederic is 

approximately 18 feet with a mean average depth of 6 feet. Lake Frederic is a popular recreation 

site and provides numerous recreational opportunities including fishing, boating, picnic facilities, 

a playground, and tennis and basketball courts. Lake Frederic contains five significant islands 

(Battery, Beshore, Goodling, Goosehorn, and Shelley) with picnic facilities and nature trails 

provided and maintained by the Licensee. In addition, Lake Frederic contains several smaller 

islands which do not have facilities, but may be accessed by boaters. Fishing platforms and 

designated fishing areas are provided in the headrace and tailrace areas. Portages for canoes and 

small boats are provided around the dams. Recreational lot sites are available through a licensing 

program administered by the Licensee, on which annual license holders may place trailers or 

recreational vehicles (with some lots containing pre-existing cabins). The Project also includes a 

recreation site adjacent to the powerhouse, which provides a large grassy area with playground 

and picnic facilities as well as tennis and basketball courts and ample parking. 

The Susquehanna River is one of America's largest rivers and is approximately 444 miles (747 

km) long. The river forms in upstate New York and west-central Pennsylvania and drains a 

watershed area of over 27,000 square miles. It is the largest tributary to the Chesapeake Bay, 

providing over 60 percent of the freshwater to the Bay. The name of the river comes from an 

Algonquian word for "muddy water". This term may still be an appropriate description of the 

Susquehanna today as the River can be very turbid - particularly during higher flow events. 

There is also considerable run-off from agricultural areas that have long been a major contributor 

to nutrient loading in the Chesapeake Bay. 
4 

Figure 1. York Haven Hydroelectric Project Boundary and Overview
5 

3.2 Historic Fishery Resources

3.2.1 Anadromous Fish

The Susquehanna River historically supported large numbers of migratory anadromous fish. 

These were members of the herring family Clupeidae; including the American shad (Alosa 

sapidissima), hickory shad (A. mediocris), blueback herring (A. aestivalis), and alewife (A. 

pseudoharengus), the latter two species being collectively referred to as river herring. 

Populations of sea-run migratory fish have been severely impacted by human activities, 

primarily due to habitat loss from dam construction, habitat degradation and overfishing 

(ASMFC 2007 Vol. I). Construction of canal dams on the Susquehanna River in the mid-1800's 

restricted access to ancestral spawning grounds, but the construction of the four large, 

hydroelectric dams on the lower mainstem river in the early 1900's eliminated access to 

spawning habitat and nursery habitat to all but the lowermost 10 miles of the river (SRAFRC 

2010). In response to serious declines in harvest, all shad fisheries in Chesapeake Bay were 

closed (Maryland in 1980; Virginia in 1994). 

In the United States, the need for fish passage was recognized in the late 19th century and various 

methods were attempted in the early years. Technology in fishway design improved with time 

and experimentation and by the 1940's, successful passage of shad was demonstrated at 

Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River, Oregon. In the 1950's, inspired by improvements in fish 

passage technology, resource agencies began the process of restoring migratory fish to the 

Susquehanna River, focusing on American shad. Much progress has been made in the restoration 

effort, including construction of fish passage facilities at all four lower mainstem dams; stocking 

of pre-spawned adult shad into suitable spawning waters above dams; development of methods 

to rear American shad in the hatchery; the development of marking methods to distinguish 

hatchery reared fish from naturally produced fish; and the stocking of tens of millions of cultured 

American shad larvae. 

Around 1970, the utility companies owning the dams along the Susquehanna River began 

working with Federal and state agencies to stock the upper Susquehanna River with shad eggs 

and built a facility at Conowingo Dam to trap and transfer American shad and river herring 

upstream to spawning areas near Middletown and Columbia, Pennsylvania. The Conowingo 

trapping facility had limited success, however, collecting only 945 shad between 1972 and 1980 

(SRAFRC 2010). 

As part of a 1984 Settlement agreement, Pennsylvania Power and Light (PPL), Safe Harbor 

Water Power Corporation (SHWPC) and the Licensee provided $3.7 million over the period 

from 1985-1994 to fund the trap and transfer program for American shad, expand hatchery 

operations and conduct studies related to American shad restoration. By the late 1980s, the catch 

of returning adult shad at Conowingo had increased to several thousand American shad per year. 

As a result, a new fish passage facility capable of passing 1.5 million shad and 10 million river 

herring was completed in 1991 at Conowingo Dam. In 1993, SHWPC, PPL, and the Licensee

reached a Settlement Agreement with various agencies (Settlement 1993). This agreement 

required Safe Harbor and Holtwood to have fish passage facilities in place by 1997 and required 
6 

the Licensee to install facilities no later than three years after the in service date of the facilities 

at Holtwood and Safe Harbor. The Holtwood fishway was completed in spring 1997. The fish lift

has a design capacity of 2,700,000 shad and 10,000,000 river herring. Since the first year of 

operation at Safe Harbor in 1997, performance beat expectations with the facility lifting over 

200,000 fish past the dam, including nearly 21,000 American shad. Even though counts are low 

today at the Conowingo Dam, Safe Harbor successfully passes 80% of the fish upstream of the 

fish swimming from the Holtwood Dam. 

3.2.2 Catadromous Fish 

The American eel (Anguilla rostrata) is the only catadromous fish in the Susquehanna River. 

Unlike American Shad and river herring, American eel spawn at sea and return as juveniles to 

seek out upstream nursery and foraging habitats. Eel maturation may take 5 to 20 years before

adult eels migrate downstream in the rivers, returning to the ocean to spawn (ASMFC 2012a). 

Historically, American eels were very abundant throughout the Susquehanna River, and 

supported a commercial fishery in the Susquehanna River Basin that exceeded the American 

shad harvest in the late 19th century (SRAFRC 2010). Construction of the mainstem dams in the 

early 20th century precluded juvenile eels from accessing the majority of the Susquehanna River 

Basin. The PFBC collected a total of about 17 million juvenile eels below Conowingo Dam for 

stocking in the Susquehanna River Basin between 1936 and 1980. The fish lifts at Conowingo 

Dam collected a high of 90,000 juvenile American eels in 1974, but those catches have declined 

dramatically in more recent years with less than 10 eels having been captured each year

(SRAFRC 2013a). 

3.3 Current Fisheries 

3.3.1 American Shad

3.3.1.1 Coast-Wide American Shad Status

The current status of American shad along the Atlantic coast is summarized by the Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) in Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery 

Management plan for Shad and River Herring (ASMFC 2010) and the most recent American 

Shad Stock Assessment (ASMFC 2007, Vol. I). Historically, American shad, hickory shad, 

alewife, and blueback herring (collectively termed Alosines) were an extremely important 

fishery resource and supported very large commercial fisheries along the Atlantic coast of both 

the United States and Canada. Coast-wide landings of American Shad at the turn of the century 

were approximately 50 million pounds. However, by 1980 the landings decreased dramatically to 

3.8 million pounds. Total landings of river herring (alewife and blueback herring) varied from 

40-65 million pounds from 1950-1970, then declined steadily thereafter to less than 12 million 

pounds by 1980. These dramatic declines in commercial landings were perceived as an 

indication that a coordinated management action would be required to restore Alosine stocks to 

their former levels of abundance. Therefore, in 1981, the members of the ASMFC recommended 

the preparation of a cooperative Interstate Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for American shad 

and river herrings. The initial FMP was completed in 1985 and recommended management 
7 

measures that focused primarily on regulating exploitation and enhancing stock restoration 

efforts.

In spite of the efforts to develop and implement the FMP, Alosine stocks continued to decline 

and in 1994, ASMFC determined that the original FMP was no longer adequate for protecting 

and restoring remaining shad and river herring stocks. They concluded that the declines may 

have been the result of overharvest by in-river and ocean-intercept fisheries; excessive striped 

bass predation; biotic and abiotic environmental changes; and loss of essential spawning and 

nursery habitat due to water quality degradation and blockages of spawning reaches by dams and 

other impediments. A coast wide assessment was completed in 1998 and Amendment 1 to the 

FMP was adopted in 1999 and additional addendums were added in 2000 and 2002. Amendment 

1 and the addendums focused on maintaining directed fishing mortality below set benchmarks 

which defined ASMFC shad management until the adoption of Amendment 3 in 2010. 

The 2007 stock assessment (ASMFC 2007, Vol. I) found that American shad stocks were at alltime low levels and did not appear to be recovering to acceptable levels. Commercial landings 

declined to 574,300 pounds in 2005 (a reduction of approximately 85% since 1980). The 

primary causes for continued stock declines were attributed to a combination of excessive total 

mortality, habitat loss and degradation, and migration and habitat access impediments. The 2007 

stock assessment also concluded that management based on fishing mortality benchmarks, as in 

Amendment 1, was no longer valid for American shad stocks since they are subjected to several 

sources of human-induced mortality including direct and indirect fisheries as well as fish passage 

mortality at dams and river pollution. Since the components of human-induced mortality (direct 

and indirect fisheries, dam-induced, and pollution) are difficult or impossible to partition, and 

difficult to separate from natural mortality, the 2007 stock assessment suggested the use of a total 

instantaneous mortality rate that preserves 30% of unexploited spawning biomass per recruit as a 

benchmark (Z30) to help guide management and gauge restoration progress.

General conclusions from the 2007 stock assessment were: 

• Ocean mixed stock harvest has been a large component of total American shad 

harvest over the last 25 years and since the late 1980s it was the dominant component 

of shad harvest from north of Virginia. 

• The expected benefits resulting from the ocean intercept fishery closure were not 

obvious in this assessment and might take one or more generations of American shad 

before they are realized.

• Available total mortality estimates generally exceeded Z30 for most years in rivers 

where data were suitable for catch curve analysis and where data supported spawning 

stock biomass per recruit modeling. 

• Data on annual number of fish passing upriver at dams on several Atlantic coastal 

rivers exhibited a coast-wide pattern of an increase followed by a decrease. 

Interestingly, most fish passage numbers declined at about the same time (late 1990s 

to early 2000s).This synchronous decline suggests a coast wide change in 

environmental conditions or mortality factors that affected stocks from South 

Carolina to Maine within a five year period. 

• Continuous fishery dependent and independent catch-per-unit-effort series generally 

only provide insight into recent stock dynamics, except for the Delaware River Lewis 

haul seine index.
8 

• Trends in juvenile production do not show consistent patterns coast-wide; however, 

regional patterns and some local trends were noteworthy: 

• Recruitment has increased in the upper Chesapeake Bay, including the Potomac 

River, and Merrymeeting Bay, Maine in recent years,

• Recruitment patterns in the lower Chesapeake Bay (James, York, and Rappahannock 

Rivers) and in Albemarle Sound have been similar, 

• Relatively low young-of-year production was observed in all New England juvenile 

surveys in 1998 and 2001, and 

• There has been consistent low recruitment in the Hudson River since 2002. 

In response to the 2007 stock assessment, Amendment 3 to the FMP was adopted in 2010. 

Amendment 3 called for the adoption of Z30 as a benchmark to evaluate observed levels of total 

mortality and whether or not population restoration was occurring. It also called for the states or 

jurisdictions to submit sustainability plans for commercial and recreational fisheries. States or 

jurisdictions without an approved plan in place would have their fisheries closed by January 1, 

2013. Currently, Connecticut, the Delaware River Basin, Potomac River Fisheries Commission, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida have an approved sustainability plan. Some 

states such as Maryland have chosen to close their shad and herring fisheries. 

In addition to regulating fisheries via sustainability plans, Amendment 3 recommended states 

and jurisdictions develop habitat plans for American shad to reduce or mitigate the impact of 

dams and other obstructions and water quality and contamination. Some recommendations for 

fish passage included working with Federal agencies and to target hydropower dams for 

appropriate recommendations during FERC relicensing; prioritize barriers in need of fish 

passage based on ecological criteria; develop new technologies to improve fish passage 

efficiency; design passage facilities that work under all water levels; and implement measures to 

pass fish via routes with the best survival. Although the development of habitat restoration and 

protection programs was proposed in Amendment 3, implementation of these programs is not 

required as it is beyond the authority of ASMFC. 

3.3.1.2 Mid-Atlantic Region American Shad Status

Although there has been an overall coast-wide decline in American shad stocks, the 2007 

ASMFC stock assessment found much variation in population trends along the coast. Regional 

trends were apparent with rivers in close geographic proximity showing similar population 

trends. When assessing the status of the Susquehanna River and attempting to give context to 

these trends, it is useful to compare them to rivers of similar size that are also located in the midAtlantic region such as the Delaware River and the Potomac River.

3.3.1.2.1 The Susquehanna River

The Susquehanna River once supported large numbers of migratory fish including the American 

shad (Alosa sapidissima), blueback herring (A. aestivalis), alewife (A. pseudoharengus), and 

hickory shad (A. mediocris), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser 

oxyrinchus), and shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). These stocks have been severely 

impacted by human activities, especially dam building. In the 1950s, the resource agencies 

implemented a program to restore access for migratory fish to the upper Susquehanna River 

basin, focusing on American shad. 
9 

As stated above, in response to harvest declines that signaled critically low fish stock levels, the 

directed American shad fisheries in the Chesapeake Bay region were closed (Maryland in 1980 

and Virginia in 1994). The American shad stock in the Susquehanna River improved slowly and 

made an impressive comeback by 2001 when over 200,000 adult shad were counted at the 

Conowingo Dam fish lifts. However, since 2001, adult numbers have decreased most likely due 

to a variety of factors including: poor efficiency of fish passage measures and facilities; low 

hatchery production in recent years; low numbers of spawning fish accessing quality habitat;

poor young-of-year recruitment upstream of Conowingo Dam; ocean and Chesapeake Bay 

mortality; turbine mortality; and predation (SRAFRC 2010). 

The decline over the past decade in adult shad counted at Conowingo Dam fish lifts also 

coincides with declines seen downstream of the Conowingo Dam tailrace. Abundance estimates 

from mark-recapture and a surplus production model conducted from 1988 through 2012 both 

showed an increase through 2001 followed by a decrease (SRAFRC 2013b). Also, catch-perunit-effort (fish per boat hour) from the Conowingo Dam tailrace showed similar trends 

(SRAFRC 2013b). The percentage of repeat spawning American shad in the Conowingo Dam 

tailrace also increased from 1984 to 2002, but has remained fairly stable since then with 34% of 

males and 73% of females being repeat spawners in 2012. 

3.3.1.2.2 The Delaware River

In the late 1890s, the Delaware River had the largest annual commercial shad harvest of any 

river on the Atlantic Coast with estimates ranging up to 19 million pounds in a given year. The 

harvest began to decline rapidly in the early 1900s due to water pollution, overfishing, and dams 

on major tributaries (ASMFC 2007, Volume II). Despite improved state legislation and 

regulation, and a massive program of artificial propagation of shad stocks in the late 1800s, the 

shad fishery eventually collapsed under the combined pressures. By the 1940s, the commercial 

shad fisheries were mainly limited to the lower reaches of the Delaware River and Delaware Bay 

downstream of Pennsylvania by 1950. The urban reach of the Delaware River was one of the 

most polluted stretches of river in the world (ASMFC 2007, Volume II). 

The Delaware River stock of American shad rebounded from the 1960s through the 1980s, but 

declined again. It is evident that the Delaware River stock of American shad declined through the 

1990s and remains at low levels (ASMFC 2007, Volume II). The catch-per-unit-effort (fish/haul) 

in the Lewis haul seine fishery in the lower Delaware River had a recent peak in 1989 with a 

52.20 fish/haul, but declined to only 2.89 fish/haul in 2005. Relative abundance measures of 

juvenile American shad increased from 1980 through 1996 and have since varied without trend. 

There does not seem to be an identifiable cause of the decline nor an indication as to why the 

stock has remained at low levels in recent years. Although recent high abundances of striped bass 

have been hypothesized to be a reason for continued low abundance of American shad in the 

Delaware River, the 2007 stock assessment found no empirical data to attribute the shad decline 

in the Delaware River solely to striped bass.

3.3.1.2.3 The Potomac River

Among Chesapeake Bay stocks of American shad, the Potomac River population shows the most 
10

promising signs of recovery. The gill-net index, the pound net index, and the juvenile abundance 

index used in the 2007 ASMFC stock assessment (ASMFC 2007, Volume III) depict increasing 

trends in relative abundance. Age structure has broadened and the mean age has increased. 

Estimates of total mortality have declined from 2002 to 2005. Benchmark values Z30 (the total 

mortality that preserves 30% of unexploited spawning stock biomass per recruit) in the 

Chesapeake Bay region (York River, Virginia) derived from a yield model ranged from 0.62 to 

0.86 depending on the assumed level of natural mortality. Total instantaneous mortality 

estimated in 2005 from catch curve (0.82) and repeat spawning (0.66) data were within this 

range indicating that total mortality was not excessive.

Another benchmark for American shad in the Potomac River is the geometric mean of pound net 

catch rates reported in Walburg and Sykes (1957) for the years 1944 to 1952, a value of 31.1 

pounds per net-day. Although pound net catch rates remain below the benchmark, catch rates 

have steadily increased from 0.94 in 1988 to 12.21 in 2005 (ASMFC 2007, Volume III). To 

continue stock rebuilding, there should be no new expansion of the fishery until the benchmark is 

reached. 

It appears the decline in American shad seen on the Susquehanna River over the past decade 

coincides with a decline seen on the Delaware River. However, the American shad population in 

Potomac River is increasing and we would expect that the Susquehanna population should show 

trends more similar to the Potomac River since both are major Chesapeake Bay tributaries.

3.3.2 American Eels

The ASMFC completed a stock assessment in 2012 and concluded that the coast-wide stock of 

eel is depleted, due to a combination of historical overfishing, habitat loss, food web alterations, 

predation, turbine mortality, environmental changes, toxins and contaminants, and disease 

(ASMFC 2012a). Currently, ASMFC is considering changes to its Interstate Fishery 

Management Plan for American Eel. The American Eel Management Board (state directors) 

recently reviewed advice from the American Eel Technical Committee with respect to potential 

management changes needed to address modern population declines. In addition to the 

management actions by ASMFC, the Service was petitioned in 2004 to review the status of 

American eel under the ESA. The Service concluded that the petition warranted further 

consideration, however the Service determined that listing was not warranted at the end of their 

review in 2007. The Service was petitioned again in 2010 by the Council for Endangered Species 

Act Reliability to re-consider listing the American eel under the ESA based on new information. 

In 2011, the Service concluded that the species warrants a more extensive status review which is 

expected to be completed in September 2015. 

American eels have been largely excluded from the Susquehanna River Basin above Conowingo 

Dam since the early 1900’s (SRAFRC 2010). Although PFBC conducted an intermittent trap and 

transfer program through 1980, by 2000 there were essentially no eels remaining in the 

watershed. Fish lifts at the four lower mainstem dams have passed few to no American eels in 

the past 10 years. In 2008, the Service initiated an experimental trap and transfer program at 

Conowingo Dam. This program has released over 300,000 juvenile eels from 2008 through 2012 

at various locations throughout the Susquehanna River Basin (SRAFRC 2013a). A portion of 

these eels have been stocked in areas where freshwater mussels are present, because American 

eel are the primary host species for successful reproduction of the eastern elliptio mussel 
11

(Elliptio complinata) (Lellis et al. 2013). Freshwater mussels have the potential to reduce 

suspended solids and dissolved nutrients (Vaughn 2010, Atkinson et al. 2013, Spooner et al. 

2013). 

 

3.3.3 River Herring

On August 5, 2011, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) received a petition from the 

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) requesting that they list alewife (Alosa

pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (A. aestivalis) under the ESA as threatened throughout all 

or a significant portion of their ranges. Alternatively, NRDC requested the designation of distinct 

population segments of alewife and blueback herring as specified in the petition, including the 

Chesapeake Bay for both species. 

The petition contained information on the two species, including population status and trends, 

and factors contributing to the species’ decline. The petition was determined to be warranted and 

NMFS published a positive 90-day finding on November 2, 2011. NMFS initiated a status 

review of the species to determine if listing under the ESA is warranted by forming an internal 

status review team (SRT) to compile the best commercial and scientific data available for alewife 

and blueback herring throughout their ranges. In May 2012, the ASMFC completed a river 

herring stock assessment, which covers over 50 river-specific stocks throughout the ranges of the 

species in the United States (ASMFC 2012b). NMFS identified the missing data required for 

their review and held workshops/working group meetings focused on addressing information on 

stock structure, extinction risk analysis, and climate change. Reports from each 

workshop/working group meeting were compiled and independently peer reviewed (Carvalho 

2012; Chaput 2012; Hutchings 2012). On August 12, 2013, the NMFS concluded that “listing 

alewife or blueback herring as threatened or endangered under the ESA is not warranted at this 

time” (78 FR 48944). Based on the data available (NEFSC 2013), the SRT concluded that 

alewife are at low risk of extinction and blueback herring are at low to moderate risk of 

extinction. 

Although listing under the ESA was determined not warranted, the conclusions of the SRT 

indicated that both species are at low abundance compared to historical levels and continued 

monitoring is warranted (NEFSC 2013). Hall et al. (2012) noted the loss of anadromous fish 

productivity in Maine was reduced by 90% by the mid-1800s, a loss attributed to lost habitat 

access due to dam construction. By the author’s estimates, this loss of habitat contributed to the 

loss of billions of juvenile alewife and blueback herring annually (Hall et al. 2012). While many 

factors affect anadromous fish returns during any given year, including incidental and direct 

harvest, climate change, and pollution, dams on historical anadromous rivers remain a significant 

impediment to restoration efforts (ASMFC 2012b; Hall et al. 2011). 

The abundance trends analysis for alewife and blueback herring evaluated returns across the 

species entire range and for specific stock complexes (NEFSC 2013). The results indicated that 

all alewife stock complexes range wide have significantly increased over the past 30 years. 

Range-wide, the observed increase in blueback herring was not significant. While the observed 

stock of alewife and blueback herring are either increasing or stable range wide, stock specific 
12

trends indicate areas of concern. Specifically, the Mid-Atlantic stock complex for alewife is 

stable, neither significantly increasing nor decreasing. While stable, the abundance of all stocks 

are greatly diminished compared to historical landings records (Hall et al. 2012). The MidAtlantic stock complex for blueback herring was determined to be significantly decreasing, as 

compared to the other blueback herring stocks that were considered stable. 

3.4 Existing Fish Passage Facilities

The Licensee entered into a Settlement Agreement in 1993 (67 FERC ¶ 62,291) with other 

hydroelectric operators on the Susquehanna River, Federal and state resource agencies, and local 

organizations to provide upstream and downstream fish passage facilities. This 1993 Agreement 

was subsequently modified by a 1997 Settlement Agreement approved by FERC (81 FERC 

¶61,214). The agreed upon upstream fish passage facility was installed and became operational 

in April 2000 and is located at the western end of the East Channel Dam. The fishway includes 

two sections; a “weir cut” and a 250-foot long vertical-notch fish ladder. The “weir cut” 

consisted of an upper portion with three independent groups of 25-foot-diameter coffer cells 

between which two 20-foot fixed-wheel gates are installed and a lower section with a 67-foot 

adjustable weir and a stop gate. The fish ladder has an entrance diffuser, serpentine baffles that 

form eight pools, and an exit flume. The design population (annual passage capacity) of the fish 

ladder is 500,000 shad equivalents7

. East Channel Dam attraction flows are provided through the 

gated openings and a 17-foot-high by 67-foot-long weir constructed on the East Channel Dam 

immediately adjacent to the fish passage facility. A total of 200 cfs is passed through the fishway 

entrance (approximately 40 cfs through the ladder itself and 160 cfs in supplemental attraction 

flow through a rectangular conduit located under the ladder). The serpentine baffles enclose 

eight, four-foot-deep elevated pools that form the fish ladder to the impoundment. A counting 

station is located in the exit channel just upstream of the last fish ladder pool. A minimum flow

of 2,000 cfs at the East Channel Dam is required during the upstream fish migration season from 

mid-April to mid-June, with specific dates for each year determined jointly by dam operators, the 

Service, and the PFBC. The fishway stays open in flows up to 150,000 cfs. Due to safety 

concerns, the fish passage is closed when flows exceed 150,000 cfs. During the upstream 

migration season, the licensee maintains the lake level at an elevation not lower than 277.8 feet 

as measured at the entrance to the headrace. No dedicated downstream bypass facilities are 

installed. Downstream fish passage is provided through the turbines, over the spillway, and 

through the trash sluice located at the powerhouse. 

Under the terms of the 1993 and 1997 Settlement Agreements, the Project is required to provide 

a minimum flow of 2,000 cfs at the East Channel Dam and spill 4,000 cfs at the Main Dam, as 

well as maintaining the lake level at 277.8 feet or above while the upstream fish passage facility 

is operating. In addition, the Licensee and the PADEP entered into a Consent Order and 

Agreement dated June 10, 2010, under which the Licensee committed to: (1) operate and 

maintain the east channel fish passage system to allow passage of resident fish species from 

April 1 through the earlier of December 15 or until the average daily river temperature is 40° F 

for three consecutive days; (2) provide a minimum stream flow of 400 cfs in the east channel fish 

passage system after the American shad upstream passage season and during the resident fish 

passage period; (3) provide flows over the main channel dam and through the east channel after 

the American shad upstream passage season and when river flows exceed the Project’s hydraulic 

 

7 A shad equivalent is the measure of body volume whereby ten alewife or blueback herring equals the volume of 

one shad..
13

capacity, in accordance with objectives and details to be developed through further consultations 

between the Licensee and the PFBC; (4) manage debris to maintain the functioning and 

operability of the passage system during the period of operation of the east channel fish passage 

system; and (5) conduct certain monitoring and allow the Resource Agencies with access to the 

east channel fish passage system counting room to conduct fish monitoring. 

Existing mainstem Susquehanna River upstream fish passage facilities (lifts and ladder) were 

designed, sized and operated to pass anadromous adult shad and herring, and are not effective in 

passing juvenile American eels upstream of the mainstem dams. Specialized fishways designed 

to accommodate eels are needed to allow them access to the watershed above these dams. 

3.5 Agreements Affecting Future Fish Passage Operations

The Licensee has agreed in settlement to implement fish passage enhancements at the Project in 

cooperation and consultation with the Resource Agencies. The Licensee and Resource Agencies

have focused on constructing a nature-like fishway located at the apex of the Main Dam where it 

abuts Three Mile Island. Preliminary designs of the nature-like fishway are included in Appendix 

B of the Settlement Agreement with the Licensee.

3.6 Downstream Fish Passage

Safe and timely downstream passage of post-spawned adult and juvenile American shad past 

hydroelectric projects has long been of considerable concern to the Service and state resource 

agencies. An optimal condition for increasing American shad production in the Susquehanna 

River basin is for all adult and juvenile American shad to out-migrate (downstream) safely 

(without mortality or injury) past all of the hydro, coal, and nuclear electric generation facilities 

on this River. With regard to hydroelectric projects, flow in the impoundment sufficient to guide 

fish; and operational measures, downstream migrant facilities, sluices, bypasses, and physical 

barriers at the dam and/or powerhouse have had measures of success. Operational measures can 

include sequential or selective turbine operation, sequential shutdown, controlled spills, opening 

a gate or sluice, or a combination. Facilities can include devices and structures, sometimes in 

combination, such as pipes, gates, turbine intake screening, and plunge pools. Fish behavior 

modification has been tested and employed at this and other projects with limited success. 

Improvements in turbine design have been presented to increase the safety of turbine passage. 

Laboratory and field testing is in various stages. As a policy matter, the Service does not favor 

turbine passage. A combination of techniques can be used to provide safe and timely passage of 

various life stages of fish migrating downstream. At this time, the goal for downstream passage 

survival at each project for juvenile American shad is 95%, 80% for adult American shad, and 

85% for adult American eel (SAFRAC 2010, SAFRAC 2013a)8

. 

In the spirit of settlement, the Service has agreed with the Licensee to implement a combination 

of sluice/bypass, turbine passage, and dam spillage as the initial means of meeting the 

 

8 The goals apply to each project individually rather than two or more projects cumulatively. They also apply to the 

entire project, rather than separately to any subset of the project operation or works. For example, the goal for the 

American eel is for 85% of all eels that enter the project to exit the project alive and with no injury due to the project 

operation or works. 
14

downstream passage survival goals for the target species. Studies will be completed to determine 

the effectiveness of these measures in meeting the goal. A study is not required for survival of 

adult American shad because previous radio telemetry studies on Adult shad conducted by the 

Licensee at the Project have indicated that current project operations are meeting the passage 

goals. In the event that studies provide evidence that 95% of juvenile American shad and 85% of 

adult American eel are not passing safely downstream, then other operational measures will be

implemented and tested as described in the Settlement. If they fail, the addition of some type of 

fish guidance system will probably be needed to meet the above stated goals.

 4. Management Goals

The Service utilized the 2010 Migratory Fish Management and Restoration Plan for the 

Susquehanna River Basin (SAFRAC 2010) developed by the Susquehanna River Anadromous 

Fish Restoration Cooperative (SRAFRC) Technical Committee and adopted by the SAFRAC 

Policy Committee. The SAFRAC 2010 Plan was peer reviewed by a panel of experts, released in 

draft form for public comment, and all comments were addressed in an appendix to the SAFRAC 

2010 Plan. Following final approval by the SRAFRC Policy Committee, the SAFRAC 2010 Plan

was filed with the Commission as a comprehensive plan. An addendum to the 2010 Migratory 

Fish Management and Restoration Plan was developed and approved by the SRAFRC Policy 

Committee in 2013 (SRAFRC 2013a). The 2013 Addendum specifically addresses American eel 

restoration to the Susquehanna River Basin. The 2013 SRAFRC American Eel Restoration Plan 

for the Susquehanna River Basin was submitted to FERC in December 2013 to be considered as 

a comprehensive plan. 

Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. section 803 

(a)(2)(A), requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with 

Federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or 

waterways affected by a project.

On April 27, 1988, the Commission issued Order No. 481-A, revising Order No. 481, issued 

October 26, 1987, establishing that the Commission will accord FPA section 10(a)(2)(A) 

comprehensive plan status to any Federal or state plan that: (1) is a comprehensive study of one 

or more of the beneficial uses of a waterway or waterways; (2) specifies the standards, the data, 

and the methodology used; and (3) is filed with the Secretary of the Commission. 

The Commission determined that the SAFRAC 2010 Plan satisfied the FERC Order No. 481-A 

criteria for comprehensive plans and the SAFRAC 2010 Plan was listed as a comprehensive plan 

for the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York. 

As part of its independent environmental analysis, the Commission will identify and review 

comprehensive plans relevant to a proposed project and include a discussion of the proposed 

project’s consistency or inconsistency with the plans. The Commission may recommend 

measures to reduce a proposed project's conflict with the goals of accepted plans. These 

measures may be included in the final licensing order. When there are major project-plan 

conflicts that cannot be resolved with mitigation, the FERC may recommend an alternative 

project design or license denial.
15

4.1 Published Plans 

A number of published State, Federal and regional fishery plans contain management goals that 

pertain to the Susquehanna River, which the Service has considered.

 

4.1.1 Resource Agency Plans

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1998. Interstate fishery management plan for 

Atlantic striped bass. (Report No. 34). January 1998. 

 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1998. Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery 

Management Plan for Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus oxyrhynchus). (Report 

No. 31). July 1998. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1999. Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery 

Management Plan for shad and river herring. (Report No. 35). April 1999. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2000. Interstate fishery management 

plan for American Eel. Fishery Management Report No. 36 of the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission. 79pp. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000. Technical Addendum 1 to Amendment 1 of 

the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for shad and river herring. February 9, 2000. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2009. Amendment 2 to the Interstate Fishery 

Management Plan for shad and river herring, Arlington, Virginia. May 2009. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2010. Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery 

Management Plan for shad and river herring, Arlington, Virginia. February 2010. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Final Recovery Plan for the shortnose sturgeon 

(Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. December 1998. 104 pages. 

Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Committee (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 

2010. Migratory Fish Management and Restoration Plan for the Susquehanna River 

Basin. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. November 15, 2010. 

Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Committee (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 

2013. American Eel Restoration Plan for the Susquehanna River Basin; Addendum to the 

2010 Migratory Fish Management and Restoration Plan for the Susquehanna River Basin. 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. December 5, 2013. 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission. 2012. Comprehensive plan for the water resources of 

the Susquehanna River Basin. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. June 2012. 
16

4.1.2 Susquehanna River Settlement Agreements

Settlement Agreement. April 1, 1981. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, and Safe Harbor 

Water Power Corporation, AND Pennsylvania Fish Commission, and Susquehanna River 

Basin Commission.

Settlement Agreement. December 1, 1984. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Safe Harbor 

Water Power Corporation, and York Haven Power Company, AND U.S. Department of 

the Interior – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Resources, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Upper Chesapeake Watershed 

Association, and Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. 

Settlement Agreement. August 26, 1988. Philadelphia Electric Power Company, and 

Susquehanna Power Company, AND U.S. Department of the Interior – U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Susquehanna River 

Basin Commission, Upper Chesapeake Watershed Association, and Pennsylvania 

Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. 

Settlement Agreement. June 1, 1993. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Safe Harbor 

Water Power Corporation, and York Haven Power Company, AND U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service – U.S. Department of the Interior, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 

Commission, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Upper 

Chesapeake Watershed Association, and Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. 

Settlement Agreement. June 1, 1997. York Haven Power Company, AND U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service – U.S. Department of the Interior, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 

Commission, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources, and Susquehanna River Basin Commission. 

4.2 Restoration Objectives

4.2.1 Anadromous Fish

In November 2010 the Policy Committee of the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish 

Restoration Cooperative adopted the Migratory Fish Management and Restoration Plan for the 

Susquehanna River Basin (SRAFRC 2010 Plan) that serves as a plan for future efforts to restore 

important migratory fish resources to the Susquehanna River Basin. 

The goal of the SRAFRC 2010 Plan relating to American shad and river herring is to restore selfsustaining, robust, and productive stocks of migratory fish capable of producing sustainable 

fisheries, to the Susquehanna River Basin throughout their historic ranges in Maryland, 

Pennsylvania, and New York. The goals are 2 million American shad and 5 million river herring 
17

spawning upstream of the York Haven Dam. Goals for American eel and other migratory species 

are yet to be determined.

The steps to achieve this goal are partitioned into five objectives, each with a series of tasks. The 

tasks include a brief description along with timelines, costs, potential sources of funding and an 

assessment of task status. Brief overviews of the five objectives are provided immediately below: 

1. Restore access to historic habitats for juvenile and adult migratory fish. This objective 

calls for development of passage plans and performance measures to achieve specified 

minimum passage efficiency for American shad, American eels, and other migratory fish 

species at major basin dams. Specified minimum passage efficiencies are much higher 

than currently experienced at major Susquehanna River barriers. 

2. Maintain or improve existing migratory fish habitat. This objective focuses on essential 

habitat issues by inventorying blockages and assessing the impact of fish passage 

impediments through active involvement of SRAFRC in watershed project reviews while 

supporting monitoring and improving water quality. 

3. Enhance migratory fish spawning stock biomass and maximize juvenile recruitment 

through natural and/or artificial means. This objective includes a variety of tasks 

designed to directly or indirectly improve migratory fish stocks in the Susquehanna 

River.Tasks focus on improving current techniques for artificial augmentation of 

American shad stocks, developing new techniques for augmenting river herring and eel 

populations, restoring non-Alosine migratory fish, improving instream migration, 

spawning and rearing habitat, and maintaining existing regulatory framework restricting 

harvest of migratory fish. 

4. Evaluate the migratory fish restoration effort and adjust programs or processes as needed. 

This objective stresses the importance of data dissemination and analysis. Tasks included 

in this section will continue to collect baseline data essential to monitor restoration 

progress while researching and experimenting with technologies to improve survival, 

reproduction and spawning biomass. 

5. Ensure cooperation among all restoration partners while generating support for migratory 

fish restoration among the general public and potential funding sources. This objective 

stresses the importance of a watershed approach to restoration and emphasizes the need 

to include coastal states and ocean waters.

The SRAFRC, through its policy and technical committees, member agencies and partners will 

rely on this plan as the foundation of its restoration activities while also recognizing that changes 

in fish stocks, threats, and management techniques will require flexibility and adaptation. 
18

4.2.2 Catadromous Fish 

The ASMFC has developed an American Eel Fishery Management Plan (ASMFC 2000) to 

involve both marine and inland stakeholders in the American eel management process. The 

American Eel Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Coast of the United States is intended to 

aid in restoring a healthy and viable American eel population while providing surplus resources 

for a sustainable eel fishing industry. Loss of access to habitat is a primary factor in the current 

status of the stock (ASMFC 2012a). An objective of the American Eel Fishery Management Plan

is to provide adequate upstream passage and escapement to inland waters of American eel elvers 

and juvenile eels as well as provide adequate downstream passage and escapement to the ocean 

of pre-spawn adult eels. 

Declines in the American eel population in Susquehanna River Basin and elsewhere are 

attributed to a combination of causes, including commercial harvest, pollution, changes in 

oceanic currents, and the negative effects of dams and hydropower facilities (Castonguay et al 

1994, Haro et al 2000). More specifically, hydropower facilities block or restrict migration 

routes, alter freshwater rearing habitats, and cause mortality to eels both during their residency in 

freshwater and as they migrate to the Sargasso Sea to spawn. Passage through multiple 

hydropower dams, as is the case on the Susquehanna River, results in significant cumulative 

mortality of eels. Currently there are no American eel passage facilities or measures in place at 

any of the Susquehanna River hydroelectric projects, although the Service has been stocking eel 

in the Susquehanna Basin since 2008. American Eel in the Susquehanna River would benefit 

from installation of upstream and downstream fishways or implementation of operational 

measures to minimize and avoid impacts associated with upstream passage delays and turbine 

passage entrainment injury or mortality during downstream passage at Susquehanna River 

hydroelectric projects.

The SRAFRC recently drafted an addendum to its 2010 Migratory Fish Management and 

Restoration Plan for the Susquehanna River Basin relating specifically to the goals for American 

eel restoration in the Basin (SRAFRC 2013a). Between the original plan and the addendum, they 

specifically address the restoration goals for American eel in the Susquehanna River Basin. 

The goal of the American Eel Restoration Plan is to ensure that every American eel that 

approaches Conowingo Dam is passed upstream into the Susquehanna River Basin in order to 

restore American eels to the watershed, to provide a net increase of out-migrating American eel, 

and restore the ecosystem functions provided by healthy American eel populations, including 

their role as predator and prey as well as acting as hosts for the glochidia of E. complinata. 

The goal will be achieved through ensuring upstream passage for American eels throughout the 

Basin, increasing survival and escapement of American eels passing barriers and hydroelectric 

facilities during their downstream spawning migration, evaluating efforts to reintroduce 

American eels throughout the Susquehanna River Basin and document the influences on 

American eel on freshwater mussel populations, and increasing public awareness, appreciation, 

and knowledge of American eels. 

Specifically, the SRAFRC 2010 Plan states that upstream passage plans will need to be 

developed and implemented at FERC-licensed dams to ensure adequate passage of American 

eels. The 2013 addendum suggests that a trap and transport program may be initially the most 
19

effective method to support American eel restoration efforts in the basin, through elimination of 

the cumulative upstream passage inefficiencies as a result of passing multiple mainstem dams. 

With regard to downstream protection, the 2010 Plan recommends that FERC-licensed dams 

must implement downstream passage plans and performance measures for silver eels to ensure at 

least 85 percent survival at each hydroelectric development. The Service has developed an Egg 

Per Recruit Model to evaluate the effects of upstream passage efficiency and downstream 

survival on the population of American eel in the Susquehanna River (Sweka et al. 2013). The 

model output provides evidence that with trap and transport of juvenile eels, at least 80% 

downstream survival is required at each of the lower four mainstem dams and one pumped 

storage facility to produce as many eggs from the Susquehanna River compared to what is 

currently being produced by not moving eels upstream of Conowingo Dam. The 85% 

downstream survival target was selected to be slightly more restrictive than the “break-even” 

point in Sweka et al. (2013) and result in a slight increase in eel egg production from the 

Susquehanna River above what is currently occurring with no upstream passage. 

5. Statutory Authority

Section 18 of the Federal Power Act, 16 USCS §811, states in pertinent part: 

The Commission shall require the construction, maintenance and operation by the 

Licensee at its own expense of such fishways as may be prescribed by the Secretary of 

Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior.

Section 1701(b) of the National Energy Policy Act of 1992, P.L. 102-486, Title XVII, §1701(b), 

106 Stat. 3008, states: 

The items which may constitute a ‘fishway’ under section 18 [16 USCS §811] for the 

safe and timely upstream and downstream passage of fish shall be limited to physical 

structures, facilities, or devices necessary to maintain all life stages of such fish, and 

project operations and measures related to such structures, facilities or devices 

necessary to ensure the effectiveness of such structures, facilities, or devices for such 

fish.

6. Administrative Record

Evidence to support the Department’s Preliminary Prescription for Fishways is contained in the 

administrative record before the Commission, and citations to the extant record are provided 

herein. The Department has developed an administrative record in support of its Preliminary 

Prescription for Fishways. 

7. Alternatives Considered

In development of this Preliminary Prescription for Fishways for the York Haven Project both 

upstream and downstream fish passage alternatives were analyzed. Upstream alternatives
20

included expanding the existing fishway located on the East Channel, constructing a new 

fishway at the York Haven Powerhouse on the west side of the river, and the fisheries agencies 

preferred alternative of constructing a nature-like fishway at the apex of the existing dam. A 

2012 telemetry study that was conducted on upstream migrating American shad indicating poor 

passage efficiency of the bypass channel and East Channel Fishway, providing evidence and 

need for additional fish passage facilities at the eastern apex location at the upstream end of the 

dam for American shad (YHPC 2012). The re-licensing team including state, federal, nongovernmental, and power company representatives considered the construction of the nature-like 

fishway primarily for American shad and other riverine species to have the highest fish passage 

priority deferring construction of screening, racks, overlays, guide nets, and other high expense 

downstream facilities. For downstream fish passage alternatives, louvers, guidewalls, angled bar 

racks, reduced rack spacing, overlay racks, and inclined screens or racks were conceptualized 

and found to be costly and have unknown or less than needed effectiveness and efficiency to be 

able to justify or require construction at this time. The positive flow field, increased attraction 

and bypass flows, and improved trash sluice were selected as the cost effective interim 

alternative for downstream passage until technology improves and incremental need is 

established for downstream fish passage.

8. Reservation of Authority to Prescribe Fishways

In order to allow for the timely implementation of fishways, including effectiveness measures, 

the Department requests that the Commission include the following condition in any license(s) it 

may issue for the Project: 

 

Pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Power Act, the Secretary of the Interior herein exercises her

authority under said Act by reserving that authority to prescribe fishways during the term of 

these licenses and by prescribing the fishways described in section 9 of the Department of the 

Interior’s Prescription for Fishways at the Project. 

9. Preliminary Prescription for Fishways

Pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Power Act, as amended, the Secretary of the Department of 

the Interior, as delegated to the Service, proposes to exercises her authority to prescribe the 

construction, operation and maintenance of such fishways as deemed necessary, subject to the 

procedural provisions contained in Section 2 above. 

The Department’s Preliminary Prescription for Fishways reflects a number of issues and 

concerns related to fish restoration and passage that have been raised by the Licensee, 

Commission staff, state resource agencies, and other parties involved in these proceedings. 

Moreover, the Department, through the Service, reached settlement with the Licensee on matters 

of fish passage. The full range of issues settled are described in the Settlement Agreement, which 

includes its appendices. 

Fishways shall be constructed, operated, and maintained to provide safe, timely and effective 

passage for American shad, alewife, blueback herring, and American eels and other designated 

resident riverine fish species at the Licensee's expense. 
21

To ensure the immediate and timely contribution of the fishways to the ongoing and planned 

anadromous and catadromous fish restoration and enhancement program in the Susquehanna 

River, the following are included and shall be incorporated by the Commission to ensure the 

effectiveness of the fishways pursuant to section 1701(b) of the 1992 National Energy Policy Act 

(P.L. 102-486, Title XVII, 106 Stat. 3008). 

9.1 Design Population: American Shad

Fish passage needs to be adequate to maintain self-sustaining annual populations of two million 

American shad reproducing in the free-flowing Susquehanna River above York Haven Dam and 

in suitable tributaries. 

9.2 Design Population: River Herring (Alewife and Blueback Herring)

Fish passage needs to be adequate to maintain self-sustaining annual populations of five million 

river herring, reproducing in the free-flowing Susquehanna River above York Haven Dam and in 

suitable tributaries. 

9.3 Design Population: American Eel

Fish passage needs to be adequate to pass all available upstream migrating eels that arrive to

York Haven Dam to the mainstem of the Susquehanna River above the Project. Downstream 

migration of adult eels must be safe, timely and effective, achieving an 85% survival rate past the 

Project.

9.4 Operational Flows

Licensee shall operate the Project consistent with the flow management targets set forth below. 

The flow values set forth in this section are understood to be approximate and based upon 

reasonable engineering estimates.

9.4.1 Prior to NLF Facility Completion

Prior to completion and operation of the NLF Facility, Licensee shall operate the Project 

consistent with the following flow management criteria. 

a. During the American Shad Upstream Passage Season

i) An average daily minimum flow in East Channel below East Channel Dam of 

2,000 cfs. 

ii) Spill over the Main Dam of equal to or greater than 4,000 cfs. 

b. After the American Shad Upstream Passage Season until end of resident fish passage 

season (earlier of December 15 or until the average daily river temperature is less 
22

than or equal to 40 degrees Fahrenheit for three consecutive days) 

i) The Project shall be operated to provide a minimum stream flow in the East 

Channel below East Channel Dam of 400 cfs. 

ii) When river flows exceed hydraulic capacity of all available hydroelectric 

generating units, Licensee shall manage flows above the hydraulic capacity of 

available units in accordance with the following objectives:

(1) To maintain the minimum flow in the East Channel of 400 cfs. 

(2) To maintain sufficient flow at the Main Dam to assure flow is released to 

the main channel in accordance with the existing Fish Passage Operational 

Plan (FPOP), except during times of maintenance work on the Main Dam 

when reservoir levels are lowered to permit such maintenance to occur 

safely.

(3) To provide additional attraction flows to the East Channel Fish Passage 

System through operation of the wheel gates within their design capacity. 

9.4.2 After NLF Facility Completion 

After completion and operation of the NLF Facility, Licensee shall operate the Project consistent 

with the following flow management criteria

a. During the American Shad Upstream Passage Season:

i) An average daily minimum flow in East Channel below East Channel Dam of 

a minimum of 267 cfs, understanding that as river flow increases above 

21,000 cfs, flows over the East Channel Dam will occur in excess of the 

minimum of 267 cfs. 

ii) Flow through the NLF Facility (passage channel plus supplement attraction 

flow channel) equal to at least 5% of river flow when river flows above the 

Project are between 5,000 and 150,000 cfs. 

b. During the remainder of the year, the project shall be operated to provide: 

i) An average daily minimum flow in the East Channel below the East Channel 

Dam of 267 cfs. 

ii) The NLF Facility will be designed and operated to convey a minimum of 200 

cfs when the river elevation is at the elevation of the Main Dam
23

iii) When river flows exceed the hydraulic capacity of all available hydroelectric 

generating units, the Licensee shall manage flows above the hydraulic 

capacity of available units in accordance with the following objectives:

(1) To maintain a minimum flow in the East Channel of 267 cfs, 

understanding that as river flow increases above 21,000 cfs, flows over the 

East Channel Dam will occur in excess of the minimum of 267 cfs. 

(2) To maximize the remainder of flows abo ve hydraulic capacity flowing 

over the Main Dam and through the NLF facility. Within the limits of 

available flows in excess of the hydraulic capacity, except during the 

period of December 15 to the earlier of April 1 or the start of the 

American Shad Upstream Passage Season, the supplemental attraction 

flow channel will be operated with the objective of maintaining a 

maximum attraction flow through the NLF Facility.

9.5 Scheduling

The timely installation of the prescribed fishway structures, facilities, or devices is a measure 

directly related to those structures, facilities, or devices and is necessary to ensure the 

effectiveness of such structures, facilities, or devices. Therefore, the Department's Prescription 

includes the express requirement that the Licensee notify and obtain approval from the Service 

for any extensions of time to comply with the provisions included in the Department's 

Prescriptions for fishways.

Regarding the timing of seasonal fishway operations, fishways shall be maintained and operated, 

at the Licensee's expense, to maximize fish passage effectiveness throughout the upstream and 

downstream migration periods for American shad, alewife, blueback herring, American eel, and 

designated resident riverine fish. 
24

Table 1. Upstream and downstream migration periods for species covered in this Prescription 

for Fishways. (*)

Species Upstream Migration Period Downstream Migration 

Period

American shad April 1 through June 15 July 1 through November 15 

(juv.) 

April 15 through July 1 (adult) 

Alewife & blueback herring March 1** through June 15 June 15 through October 14 

(juv.) 

April 15 through July 1 (adult) 

American eel April 1 through December 1, 

or whenever river temperature 

is above 50 degrees F *** 

September 15–February 15,

or whenever river temperature 

is above 37 degrees F **** 

* Any of these migration periods may be changed during the term of the license by the 

Department, based on new information, and in consultation with the other fishery agencies and 

the licensee.

** This operational period is based on Alewife migration timing from other tributaries to the 

Chesapeake Bay (Sutherland 2000, Eyler et al. 2002, Slacum 2003) 

***This initial operational period is based on preliminary data on American eel migration timing 

from other tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay. 

**** The Department is calling for the licensee to study the magnitude and timing of 

downstream eel migration through the project so that the effectiveness of a reduced period can be 

evaluated. This initial operational period is based on preliminary data on American eel migration 

timing from other tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay (Welsh et al. 2009). 

9.6 Specific Prescriptions for the York Haven Project 

9.7 General Requirements

9.8 Fishway Operating Procedures (FOP) 

a. The FOP will include, for each fishway, schedules for routine maintenance, 

procedures for routine operations (including: seasonal and daily periods of 

operation, dam and powerhouse operational measures) detailing with how the 

plant shall be operated during fish passage season including sequencing of turbine 

start-up and operation, debris management as well as any other necessary 

provisions for plant operation and related to attraction flow as a component of the 

fish passage system to the operation of the NLF, procedures for monitoring and 
25

reporting on the operation, and procedures for use in case of emergencies and 

Project outages significantly affecting fishway operations. 

b. The Licensee shall implement the FOP consistent with the approval of the 

Service. The Licensee shall provide written documentation to the Resource 

Agencies that all fishway operational personnel have reviewed and understand the 

FOP signed by the operations manager of the Amended Project. 

c. Copies of the approved FOP and all modifications will be provided to the 

Resource Agencies. 

d. By December 31 of each year, following commencement of the Amended Project, 

the Licensee shall provide an annual report detailing; the implementation of the 

FOP, including any deviations from the FOP and a process to prevent those 

deviations in the future to the Resource Agencies; any proposed modifications to 

the FOP, or in the case of emergencies or Project outages, the steps taken by the 

Licensee to minimize adverse effects on fishway operation or fish passage 

measures; and any proposed modifications to those steps to further enhance their 

effectiveness in the future. The Licensee shall meet with the Resource Agencies 

by January 31 of each year unless a different date is mutually agreed upon by the 

Licensee and the Resource Agencies. Any required modifications to the FOP shall 

be submitted to the Resource Agencies within 30 days of receipt of a request for 

the modification unless a longer period is approved by the Service. The 

modifications to the FOP shall be implemented consistent with the approval of the 

Service. Nothing herein shall require the Licensee to make operational or 

structural changes related to the fish passage facilities and measures beyond those 

changes provided for in Section 9.9 hereof. 

e. For fish passage system enhancements and facilities that do not begin operation 

with the entry into operation of the Amended Project, 60 days prior to operation 

of the enhancements and/or facilities, the Licensee shall submit FOP provisions 

for any such new fish passage enhancements, facilities and measures to the 

Resource Agencies for review and approval and shall implement the FOP as 

approved by the Service. 

9.9 Fish Protection and Passage

9.9.1 Upstream Fish Passage / Nature-Like Fishway Construction 

a. Licensee shall finance, design, permit and install a nature-like fishway facility 

(NLF Facility) in the vicinity of the apex of the Main Dam and Three Mile Island 

(TMI) in substantial compliance with the design criteria for the NLF Facility set 

forth in the Settlement Agreement. Licensee shall complete engineering design, 

apply for and obtain required governmental approvals, construct, and place into 

operation the NLF Facility by November 30, 2021.
26

b. In consultation with the Resource Agencies, Licensee shall develop the final plans 

and specifications for the NLF consistent with the design concept and design 

criteria in Appendix A9

9.9.2 NLF Facility Operations

, and shall submit such plans and specifications to the 

Resource Agencies, Licensee shall provide a minimum of 60 days for the 

Resource Agencies to submit comments on such plans and for review by the 

Service and PADEP. Such comments, review and approval shall not result in a 

material change. After approval of such plans by PADEP and the Service, 

Licensee shall submit such plans to the Commission for approval. Licensee shall 

include the final plans submitted to the Commission evidence of Licensee does 

not adopt a recommendation made by a Resource Agency other than PADEP and 

the Service, the filing shall include the Licensee’s reasons together with 

supporting information. The plans shall not be implemented until the Licensee is 

notified that the plans are approved by the Commission. Upon Commission 

approval and the receipt of all other required governmental approvals, the 

Licensee shall implement the plans, including any changes required by the 

Commission.

Following construction of the NLF Facility, Licensee shall perform all required routine 

maintenance of the NLF Facility. Licensee shall conduct periodic inspections of the NLF 

Facility; and manage and remove debris from the NLF Facility to maintain the functioning and 

operability of the NLF Facility sufficient to allow and not significantly impede the passage of 

fish.

Licensee shall prepare an NLF Facility operations and maintenance plan (the “NLF O&M 

Plan”), and will submit the NLF O&M Plan for review by the Resource Agencies and for 

approval by PADEP and the Service. Following review and comment by the Resource Agencies, 

and approval by PADEP and Service, the Licensee shall submit the NLF O&M Plan to FERC, 

and shall implement the NLF O&M Plan for the duration of the License. Licensee shall include 

in the NLF O&M Plan submitted to the Commission documentation of approval by PADEP and 

the Service, consultation with the other Resource Agencies, copies of the Resource Agencies’ 

comments and recommendations, and a description of how the other Resource Agencies’ 

comments are accommodated. Licensee shall provide a minimum of 30 days for review and 

approval of the NLF O&M Plan by PADEP and the Service and for review and comment by the 

other Resource Agencies. 

Any amendment to the NLF O&M Plan that materially alters the operation, maintenance, 

monitoring or reporting procedures relating to the NLF Facility shall be subject to review and 

approval by PADEP and the Service, and review and comment by the other Resource Agencies. 

Licensee shall provide copies of the approved NLF O&M Plan and all amendments thereto to the 

Commission and the Resource Agencies. 

 

 

9 Appendix A, D, E, G, and H are included by reference. They are integral to and attached to the Settlement

Agreement on which this Preliminary Prescription for Fishways is based. 
27

9.9.3 Monitoring of Shad Passage Effectiveness & Subsequent Actions

The Licensee shall perform post-construction monitoring of the NLF Facility in accordance with 

the following provisions in consultation with the Resource Agencies and submit the results of 

such monitoring to the Resource Agencies and the Commission. 

(a) The period from completion of construction through the end of the first American 

shad upstream shad passage season following completion of the NLF Facility will 

be a “shake-down” period, during which Licensee shall conduct visual 

observations and make adjustments to the NLF Facility to address any 

unanticipated inhibitions or barriers that impede the NLF Facility’s performance.

(b) Starting in the second American shad upstream passage season following 

completion of the NLF Facility, Licensee shall commence telemetry studies to 

monitor the overall effectiveness of the NLF Facility, consistent with the 

following: 

(i) The telemetry studies will be conducted for at least two years, and potentially 

a third year if, after consultation with the Resource Agencies, determined to 

be necessary by the Licensee or either the Service or PADEP in order to 

obtain observations over a range of high and low flows typical of American 

shad passage seasons on the Susquehanna River. In general, the range 

defining typical high and low flows during the American shad upstream 

passage season would be anticipated to be as follows: 

• Typical low flow range: 22,000 to 35,300 cfs. 

• Typical high flow range: 35,300 cfs to 55,600 cfs. 

(ii) The telemetry studies will be planned to be conducted during successive shad 

passage seasons, but may be performed on a non-successive basis under the 

following circumstances: 

1. Licensee may postpone conduct of the telemetry studies, after consultation 

with the Resource Agencies and with the concurrence of the Service and 

PADEP, in the event that extenuating circumstances (such as the unusual 

flows, construction at downstream dams or other conditions) are 

interfering or expected to interfere with upstream shad passage. The 

Resource Agencies agree that in the event that they become aware of 

circumstances that would warrant postponement of the telemetry studies, 

they will promptly notify the Licensee, with the objective of providing 

notice to the Licensee to the extent practicable at least 90 days prior to the 

anticipated start of the shad passage season. 

2. Licensee may postpone a successive season’s telemetry study if Licensee 

determines, after consultation with the Resource Agencies and with the 

concurrence of Service and PADEP, that some physical adjustment to the 

NLF Facility is advisable based on the observations during the prior shad 
28

passage seasons, in which case Licensee shall will implement the physical 

adjustments and perform the telemetry study in the American shad 

upstream passage season following implementation of the physical 

adjustment.

(iii) The telemetry studies will utilize American shad tagged at the Safe Harbor 

Project, provided that access is granted by the owner of such Project. 

(iv) The telemetry studies shall utilize radio telemetry, acoustic telemetry, or such 

other technologies as Licensee proposes and PADEP and the Service, after 

consultation with the other Resource Agencies, approve. The general 

parameters and protocols for such telemetry studies (number of fish, fish 

release sites, target areas for telemetry antennas) are described in Appendix D. 

At least 10 months prior to the start of the second Upstream American Shad 

Passage Season following completion of the NLF Facility, Licensee shall 

prepare and submit to the Resource Agencies for review an NLF Facility 

Monitoring Plan (the “NLF Monitoring Plan”) containing detailed protocols 

for the telemetry studies. Licensee shall confer with the Resource Agencies 

regarding the NLF Monitoring Plan, and shall provide for at least 90 days for 

PADEP and the Service to review and approve, and for the other Resource 

Agencies to review and comment on, the NLF Monitoring Plan. At least five 

(5) months prior to the start of the second American shad upstream passage 

season following completion of the NLF Facility, Licensee shall submit the 

NLF Monitoring Plan to the Commission for approval. If Licensee does not 

adopt a recommendation made by a Resource Agency, the filing with the 

Commission shall include the Licensee’s reasons together with supporting 

information. 

(c) Upstream American Shad Passage Target and Effectiveness Criteria:

(i) The target established by the Resource Agencies is for at least 75% of the 

upstream migrating American shad passing the Safe Harbor Dam to pass 

upstream of the Project through the combination of the NLF Facility and the 

East Channel Fishway (the “Upstream Shad Passage Target”).The NLF 

Facility shall be designed and operated to be capable of achieving the 

Upstream Shad Passage Target, provided that adequate numbers of upstream 

migrating American shad reach the Project Area.The Licensee shall not be 

deemed in violation of this condition if the Upstream Shad Passage Target is 

not achieved for reasons beyond the reasonable control of the Project, 

provided that the Licensee complies with Sections 9.9.3(c)(ii)-(v) and (d)-(f)

below.

(ii) The NLF Monitoring Plan will be designed to investigate several issues: (i) 

whether the upriver migrating American shad passing the Safe Harbor Dam 

are reaching the Project Area; (ii) whether upriver migrating American Shad 

entering the Project Area are attracted to the downstream entrance of the NLF 

Facility; and (iii) whether there are barriers to American shad entering into 
29

and passing through the NLF Facility (e.g., velocity barriers or other 

constraints). 

(iii) The NLF Facility will be deemed to be effective if: (1) in two consecutive 

years after installation or subsequent modification of the NLF Facility, (A) the 

Upstream Shad Passage Target is achieved or (B) 85% of the tagged 

American shad that enter the Project Area exit the combination of the NLF 

Facility and the East Channel Fishway (the “Project Area Passage Success 

Criterion”); and (2) Licensee complies with Section 9.9.3(d) below. 

(iv) If the telemetry studies show that the Project Area Passage Success Criterion 

is achieved in two successive American shad upstream passage seasons which 

reflect a range of flows typical of shad passage seasons on the Susquehanna 

River, the Project Area Passage Success Criterion will be deemed achieved 

and the Licensee may terminate the telemetry studies.

(v) If the telemetry studies show that the Project Area Passage Success Criterion 

is not achieved in two successive American shad upstream passage seasons, 

and such failure was not due to unusual or extenuating circumstances (such as 

unusual flow or temperature conditions), the Licensee will undertake the 

actions set forth in Section 9.9.3(e) and then perform a telemetry study for at 

least two additional American shad upstream passage seasons to confirm 

achievement of the Project Area Passage Success Criterion.

(d) Licensee shall, in consultation with the Resource Agencies, evaluate the fish 

movement data from the NLF Monitoring Plan to determine if there are barriers to 

timely passage of upstream migrating American shad within the Project Area. If 

such barriers to timely passage of upstream migrating American shad are 

identified within the Project Area, Licensee shall prepare and submit to the 

Resource Agencies a plan and schedule for those actions to address such 

conditions that are feasible, appropriate under the circumstances, reasonable and 

technically sound, provided that the Project shall not be required to undertake the 

curtailment of electric generating operations. Such plan shall be subject to review 

and approval by PADEP and the Service and review and comment by the other 

Resource Agencies. Following approval by PADEP and the Service, and as 

necessary FERC, Licensee shall implement the approved plan in accordance with 

the approved schedule. 

(e) If the Project Area Passage Success Criterion is not achieved, Licensee shall take 

the following measures, as appropriate and necessary, after consultation with the 

Resource Agencies: 

• Evaluate fishway hydraulics and access for velocity and shear stress 

barriers, recognizing that hydraulics of the NLF Facility will vary with 

river flow and flow through the NLF Facility. 

• Adjust positions of rock weirs and attraction water discharge if necessary. 

• Adjust timing of supplemental attraction flows.
30

• Install ultrasound to deter fish from an area (such as the Powerhouse or 

East Channel).

• Reduce flows in the East Channel to reduce attraction of American shad to 

the East Channel.

• Adjust amount of supplemental attraction flows in the NLF Facility up to 

the Potential Increased Attraction Flow Value.

• Evaluate whether potential barriers exist in the channel downstream of the 

Main Dam hindering fish movement to the entrance of the NLF Facility, 

and if reasonably necessary undertake feasible and cost-effective 

modifications to the channel to remove such barriers. 

(f) The upstream end of NLF Facility shall be designed to accommodate installation 

of Passive Integrated Transponder (“PIT”) tag monitoring devices at such time as 

such PIT tag monitoring devices become available and feasible for reliably 

monitoring American shad exiting the NLF Facility. At such time as requested by 

PADEP or the Service, Licensee shall conduct a feasibility study to evaluate 

whether a PIT tag monitoring facility can be successfully installed and maintained 

near the upper end of the NLF Facility to reliably monitor American shad exiting 

the NLF Facility. Licensee shall install PIT tag readers, or such other monitoring 

technology as may be agreed upon, after consultation with the Resource 

Agencies, by the Licensee, the Service and PADEP, at the upstream end of the 

NLF Facility when such technology becomes available, feasible, and technically 

sound for measuring American shad passage in the conditions of the NLF Facility 

as mutually agreed to, after consultation with the Resource Agencies, by 

Licensee, the Service and PADEP. The Parties contemplate that such monitoring 

will use American shad tagged at Conowingo or Safe Harbor to monitor overall 

effectiveness of American shad upstream passage within the lower Susquehanna 

River.
31

9.9.4 Upstream Passage of Eels

Licensee shall provide for upstream passage of juvenile American eels through maintenance of 

the existing Project and installation of the NLF Facility. Based upon their present understanding 

of the behavior of juvenile American eels and the design of the NLF Facility, the Service expects

that the existing design of the Project in conjunction with the installation of the NLF Facility will 

be adequate to provide for successful upstream passage of juvenile American eels past the 

Project, and no other PM&E measures are presently believed to be necessary for such upstream 

passage of juvenile American eels.

9.9.5 Downstream Post-Spawning Adult American Shad Passage

(a) Licensee shall provide for downstream passage of post-spawning adult American 

shad through maintenance of the existing Project, installation and operation of the 

NLF Facility, and implementation of the protocol set forth in Section 9.9.5(b). 

(b) During the period of May 1 to June 30, if River Flow exceeds the sum of Project 

Hydraulic Capacity, required flows through the NLF Facility, required flows 

through the East Channel, and required flows (if any) over the Main Dam, the 

Licensee will open and spill water via the Forebay Sluice Gate (~370 cfs) to the 

extent practicable during one to two hours during the morning during weekdays, 

subject to Project personnel availability and access requirements for operations 

and maintenance purposes. Such spilling may be provided in connection with 

opening of the Forebay Sluice Gate for purposes of passing debris, it being 

understood by the Parties that during the passage of debris, it will not be feasible 

to utilize the chute structure referenced in Section 9.9.6(e).

9.9.6 Downstream Juvenile American Shad Passage 

(a) After issuance of the New License and until completion of the NLF Facility, 

Licensee shall implement the following protocol to facilitate downstream passage 

of juvenile American shad during the Downstream Juvenile American Shad 

Passage Period:

(i) During the entire Downstream Juvenile American Shad Passage Period, the 

Licensee will operate the Project units in the following order of priority, 

depending upon available River flow: (1) Unit 1-6 (Propeller units) may be 

operated without restriction up to available river flow; (2) Unit 14 (larger 

single Francis unit) may be operated if river flow exceeds capacity of Units 1-

6; (3) Units 7-13 and 15-30 (double Francis units) may be operated in 

ascending order if river flow exceeds capacity of Unit 1-6 and 14. 
32

(ii) During the entire Downstream Juvenile American Shad Passage Period, the 

Licensee will open and spill water via the forebay sluice gate (~ 370 cfs) 

between the hours of 5 pm to 11 pm Eastern Standard Time (“EST”).10

(iii) If River flow exceeds the sum of Project Hydraulic Capacity, required flows 

through the East Channel, and required flows (if any) over the Main Dam, the 

Licensee will open and spill water via the forebay sluice gate (~370 cfs) to the 

extent practicable for one to two hours during the morning, subject to Project 

access requirements for operations and maintenance purposes, in order to 

provide for downstream juvenile American shad passage. 

(b) After completion of the NLF Facility, Licensee shall implement the following 

protocol to facilitate downstream passage of juvenile American shad during the 

Downstream Juvenile American Shad Passage Period: 

(i) During the entire Downstream Juvenile American Shad Passage Period, the 

Licensee will operate the Project units in the following order of priority, 

depending upon available River flow: (1) Unit 1-6 may be operated without 

restriction up to available river flow); (2) Unit 14 may be operated if river 

flow exceeds capacity of Units 1-6; (3) Units 7-13 and 15-30 may be operated 

in ascending order if river flow exceeds capacity of Unit 1-6 and 14. 

(ii) During the entire Downstream Juvenile American Shad Passage Period, the 

Licensee will open and spill water via the forebay sluice gate (~ 370 cfs) 

between the hours of 5 pm to 11 pm EST. 

(iii) The NLF Facility will be operated to maintain a flow through the fishway of 

approximately 200 cfs. 

(iv) If river flow exceeds the sum of Project Hydraulic Capacity, required flows 

through the NLF Facility, required flows through the East Channel, and 

required flows (if any) over the Main Dam, the Licensee will open and spill 

water via the forebay sluice gate (~370 cfs) to the extent practicable for one to 

two hours during the morning, subject to Project access requirements for 

operations and maintenance purposes, in order to provide for downstream 

juvenile American shad passage.

(c) The overall goal for juvenile American shad downstream passage is to achieve 

survival of 95% of juvenile American shad from above the Project powerhouse 

and dam to below the Project powerhouse and dam (the “Downstream Juvenile 

American Shad Passage Goal”). Measurement of such passage effectiveness and 

survival is subject to a margin of error. The effectiveness of downstream passage 

operations for juvenile American shad will be determined based upon (1) a route 

 

10 Note: During the Downstream Juvenile American Shad Passage Season, a portion of the period is in daylight 

savings time and a portion is in standard time. All timeframes stated in this Offer of Settlement are stated in Eastern 

Standard Time. During October, sunset in the central Pennsylvania area is in a range of 5:50-5:05 pm EST. During 

November, sunset in central Pennsylvania occurs in a range of 5:05 pm to 4:42 pm EST.
33

of passage analysis as described in Section 9.9.6(d), and (2) confirmation that 

Forebay Sluice Gate provides for safe passage as described in Section 9.9.6(e). 

(d) For purposes of the route of passage analysis, the Service will assume that (1) 

juvenile American shad will pass through the NLF Facility, through the East 

Channel past the East Channel Dam, over the Main Dam, and into the head race 

in direct proportion to the amount of flow via each such route; (2) any juvenile 

American shad passing through the NLF Facility, through the East Channel past 

the East Channel Dam, over the Main Dam, or through the forebay sluice gate 

will survive; (3) juvenile American shad that do not pass through the NLF 

Facility, through the East Channel past the East Channel Dam, over the Main 

Dam, or through the forebay sluice gate will pass through the turbines that are 

being operated in accordance with the priorities set forth in Section 9.9.6(b), and 

absent observations to the contrary, are allocated between the operating turbines 

in proportion to the flow through each turbine; and (4) the survival rate of juvenile 

American shad passing through individual turbines (based on previous balloon tag 

and blade strike analyses) are as stated in Appendix D. Based upon the foregoing 

assumptions and confirmation that Forebay Sluice Gate provides for safe passage 

as described in Section 9.9.6(f), the juvenile American shad passage goal of 95% 

would be met if at least 60% of the tagged juvenile American shad released into 

the headrace exit via the Forebay Sluice Gate (that is, pass downstream of the 

Project headrace without passing through the turbines) (the “Headrace Shad 

Turbine Avoidance Target”). Licensee shall test the downstream passage 

efficiency of the operating protocols described above by a PIT tag monitoring 

study. Licensee shall, in consultation with the Resource Agencies, prepare a plan 

and schedule for the Headrace Shad Turbine Avoidance Study for review and 

approval of the Resource Agencies, consistent with the design criteria set forth in 

Appendix D. The Project will be deemed to meet the Downstream Juvenile 

American Shad Passage Goal if (1) the Headrace Shad Turbine Avoidance Study 

shows that the Headrace Shad Turbine Avoidance Target is achieved and (2) the 

Licensee complies with the provisions of Section 9.9.6(f) to establish conditions 

under which the Forebay Sluice Gate provides for safe passage of juvenile 

American shad. 

(e) Within four (4) years following License issuance and prior to performance of the 

downstream juvenile American shad studies referenced in Section 9.9.6(d), 

License shall prepare and submit to the Resource Agencies: (i) designs for a chute 

structure to convey flows beyond the roadway on the downstream side of the 

Cable Alley structure, meeting the design criteria set forth in Appendix E 

allowing juvenile and adult American shad to land unimpeded in the downstream 

pool; and (ii) removal of obstructions in or deepening of the downstream pool into 

which flows from the Forebay Sluice Gate land to provide an adequate depth of 1 

foot for each 4 feet of drop into which juvenile or adult American shad may land. 

Licensee shall submit any design plans for improvements as described in this 

Section 9.9.6(e) and a proposed implementation schedule to the Service and 

PADEP for review and approval and to the other Resource Agencies for review 

and comment, and shall implement the proposed improvements in accordance 

with the approved designs and schedule. Any such required improvements shall 
34

be completed coincident with completion of the NLF Facility, and in advance of 

commencement of the monitoring described in Section 9.9.6(d) . 

(f) If the effectiveness monitoring conducted pursuant to Section 9.9.6(d) shows that 

the Headrace Shad Turbine Avoidance Target is not achieved, Licensee shall 

implement the following sequence of adaptive measures in the next passage 

season:

(i) Open the NLF supplemental flow gate (800 cfs) during the same schedule as 

the Forebay Sluice Gate is opened.

(ii) Suspend operation of certain Francis turbine units during the hours of 5-11 pm 

EST when river flows are between 15,000 cfs and 22,000 cfs during the 

Downstream Juvenile American Shad Passage Period, up to a total generation 

loss of 1,000 Megawatt hours (“MWh”). 

(iii) Such other measures as may be agreed to by the Licensee, the Service and 

PADEP, after consultation with the other Resource Agencies, and (to the 

extent required) approved by the Commission. 

(g) Within two years of implementing the adaptive measures referenced in Section 

9.9.6(f), Licensee shall conduct a follow-up Headrace Shad Turbine Avoidance 

Study following the protocols referenced in Section 9.9.6(d) . If the follow-up 

Headrace Shad Turbine Avoidance Study shows that Headrace Shad Turbine 

Avoidance Target is achieved, such adaptive measures shall continue to be 

implemented for the duration of the License. 

(h) If by January 1, 2028, (a) the Headrace Shad Turbine Avoidance Studies have not 

shown that Headrace Shad Turbine Avoidance Target is being achieved by 

adaptive measures implemented at the Project, and (b) based on all available 

information and after consultation with Licensee and the other Resource 

Agencies, the Service renders a determination on the basis of the record 

reasonably finding that (i) Licensee has not demonstrated that the adaptive 

measures implemented at the Project are reasonably anticipated to meet the 

Downstream Juvenile American Shad Passage Goal, and (ii) additional measures 

that are reasonably required to achieve the Downstream Juvenile American Shad 

Passage Goal (the “Additional Measures Determination”) (which Additional 

Measures Determination shall be subject to the dispute resolution / appeal 

procedures set forth in the Settlement):

(i) Within 12 months of the Additional Measures Determination, Licensee shall, 

in consultation with the Resource Agencies, prepare a design and schedule for 

implementation of additional structural and operational measures reasonably 

anticipated to meet the Downstream Juvenile American Shad Passage Goal 

that are feasible, appropriate under the circumstances, reasonable and 

technically sound. Licensee shall evaluate, among other options, options for a 

Fish Guidance System (“FGS”) as described in the report entitled Evaluation 

of Fish Guidance Systems (Draft April 2013), or other appropriate technology 
35

to achieve the Downstream juvenile American shad Passage Goal. As part of 

the evaluation report, Licensee shall provide sufficient information to 

demonstrate the reasonably likelihood of the proposed option and measures to 

meet the Downstream Juvenile American Shad Passage Goal.

(ii) Following approval of the design and schedule by the Service and PADEP, 

after consultation with the other Resource Agencies, Licensee shall prepare 

and submit the applications for all required governmental approvals, including 

FERC approvals, and procure, install and implement the approved structural 

and/or operational measures in accordance with the approved schedule. Such 

approved measures shall be implemented by December 31, 2030 or such other 

date as agreed to by Licensee and the Service, after consultation with the other 

Resource Agencies, or as approved by FERC. 

(iii) If Licensee does not present a design and schedule for implementing 

additional structural and operational measures reasonably anticipated to meet 

the Downstream Juvenile American Shad Passage Goal that are feasible, 

appropriate under the circumstances, reasonable and technically sound, or 

based on all available information and after consultation with Licensee and 

the Resource Agencies, the Service does not approve the Licensee’s design 

and schedule for additional measures submitted pursuant to Section 

9.9.6(h)(i), the Service may elect to exercise its reserved authority to 

prescribe such measures as the Service determines are necessary for safe and 

effective passage of downstream migrating American shad; and Licensee 

retains all rights to challenge any such exercise of reserved authority.

(i) Within one year after the implementation of the structural and operational 

measures implemented under Section 9.9.6(h), Licensee shall perform a follow-up 

Headrace Shad Turbine Avoidance Study to evaluate the number of tagged 

juvenile American shad that exit the Forebay without exposure to the turbines. 

9.9.7 Downstream Passage for Silver Eels

Licensee shall provide for the downstream passage of silver eels in accordance with this Section. 

(a) The overall goal for silver American eel passage shall be to achieve effective 

passage and survival of 85% of silver eels from above the Project dams and 

powerhouse to below the Project dams and powerhouse (the “Downstream Eel 

Passage Goal”). Measurement of such passage effectiveness and survival is 

subject to a margin of error. 

(b) Licensee shall cooperate with the Resource Agencies and other interested parties 

in the conduct of (1) a Lower Susquehanna River Downstream Eel Study to 

evaluate the timing, magnitude, duration, annual variation and environmental 

conditions associated with active migration of silver eels from tributaries stocked 

with elvers, through the lower Susquehanna River to the Chesapeake Bay; and (2) 

a Site-Specific Route of Passage Study to evaluate the route of passage selected 

migrating silver eels in the vicinity of the Project. The design criteria for the 
36

Lower Susquehanna River Downstream Eel Study and the Site-Specific Route of 

Passage Study are described in Appendix G. 

(c) At least 12 months prior to the anticipated date for completion of the NLF 

Facility, in consultation with the Resource Agencies, Licensee shall prepare a 

plan and schedule for conducting a discrete downstream passage effectiveness 

study (“Site-Specific Downstream Eel Study”), consisting of a Site Specific Route 

of Passage Study as described in Appendix G and an Eel Survival Study as 

described in Appendix H. Licensee shall submit the Site-Specific Downstream 

Eel Study plan and proposed schedule to the Resource Agencies, for review and 

approval by the Service and PADEP and for review and comment by the other 

Resource Agencies. Licensee, in cooperation with the Resource Agencies, shall 

conduct the Site-Specific Route of Passage Study following completion of the 

NLF Facility in accordance with the approved plan and schedule, and Licensee 

shall conduct the Eel Survival Study in accordance with the approved plan and 

schedule.

(d) If the results of the Site-Specific Downstream Eel Passage Study indicate that the 

then existing Project operating measures and protocols achieve the Downstream 

Eel Passage Goal, then the Licensee shall continue to implement those protocols 

and measures. 

(e) If the results of the Site-Specific Downstream Eel Passage Study do not indicate 

that the Project’s existing operating measures and protocols do not achieve the 

Downstream Eel Passage Goal, the Licensee will prepare and submit to the 

Resource Agencies a plan and schedule for evaluating the feasibility and costs of 

potential physical and/or operational modifications to the Project to facilitate 

downstream eel passage (the Downstream Eel Improvements Study). The 

Downstream Eel Improvements Study plan and schedule shall be subject to 

review and approval by PADEP and the Service and review and comment by the 

other Resource Agencies. Licensee shall conduct the Downstream Eel 

Improvements Study in accordance with the approved plan and schedule. The 

Downstream Eel Improvements Study will consider and evaluate whether any of 

the following adaptive measures to facilitate downstream eel passage, which may 

be implemented in a sequence or in combination, are feasible, appropriate under 

the circumstances, reasonable and technically sound and are reasonably expected 

to contribute toward achievement of the Downstream Eel Passage Goal:

(i) Adjustment to NLF Facility operations.

(ii) Installation of current inducers. 

(iii)Modifications to the juvenile American shad protection measure.

(iv)Installation of a fish guidance system.

(v) Replacement of turbine runner systems with units designed to have a lower 

mortality impact upon silver eels.

(vi)Other measures mutually agreed to by the Licensee, the Service and PADEP, 

after consultation with the other Resource Agencies.
37

(f) If the Downstream Eel Improvements Study identifies physical or operational 

adaptive measures listed in Section 9.9.7(e) to facilitate downstream eel passage 

that are feasible, appropriate under the circumstances, reasonable and technically 

sound, Licensee shall prepare a plan and schedule for implementing such 

measures and an estimation as to the ability of such measures to achieve the 

Downstream Eel Passage Goal, and will submit the plan and schedule to the 

Resources Agencies for review and approval by the Service and PADEP and 

review and comment by the other Resource Agencies. Following approval of such 

plan and schedule, Licensee shall implement the measures described in the 

approved plan in accordance with the approval schedule. If Licensee does not 

present such a plan and schedule for implementing physical or operational 

adaptive measures listed in Section 9.9.7(e) that are feasible, appropriate under 

the circumstances, reasonable and technically sound, and reasonably anticipated 

to meet the Downstream Eel Passage Goal, or based on all available information 

and after consultation with Licensee and the Resource Agencies, the Service does 

not approve the Licensee’s plan and schedule for such measures submitted 

pursuant to this Section, the Service may elect to exercise its reserved authority to 

prescribe such measures as the Service determines are necessary for safe and 

effective passage of downstream migrating American eel; and Licensee retains all 

rights to challenge any such exercise of reserved authority.

(g) Within 12 months following implementation of any such improvements, Licensee 

shall evaluate and provide a report to the Resource Agencies regarding the 

effectiveness of the measures in relation to achievement of the Downstream Eel 

Passage Goal. 

(h) If the adaptive measures implemented pursuant to the Downstream Eel 

Improvements Study do not result in achievement of the Downstream Eel Passage 

Goal, the Licensee and the Resource Agencies shall on an annual basis consult as 

to potential additional studies or adaptive measures that are or may become 

feasible, appropriate under the circumstances, reasonable and technically sound, 

and reasonably expected to contribute toward achievement of the Downstream Eel 

Passage Goal.

10. Scientific Names

American eel (Anguilla rostrata) 

American shad (Alosa sapidissima) 

Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)

Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis)

Hickory shad (Alosa mediocris)

Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)

Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus)

Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) 
38

11. References Cited

11.1 Comprehensive Plans Filed at FERC

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2000. Interstate fishery management 

plan for American Eel. Fishery Management Report No. 36 of the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission. 79pp. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2010. Amendment 3 to the Interstate 

Fishery Management Plan for Shad and River Herring (American Shad Management). 

Arlington, VA, 169 p. 

Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative (SRAFRC). 2010. Migratory 

fish management and restoration plan for the Susquehanna River Basin. 124pp. 

11.2 Documents Incorporated by Reference

Settlement Agreement. December 1, 1984. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Safe Harbor 

Water Power Corporation, and York Haven Power Company, AND U.S. Department of 

the Interior – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Resources, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Upper Chesapeake Watershed 

Association, and Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. 

Settlement Agreement. June 1, 1993. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Safe Harbor 

Water Power Corporation, and York Haven Power Company, AND U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service – U.S. Department of the Interior, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 

Commission, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Upper 

Chesapeake Watershed Association, and Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. 

York Haven Power Company (YHPC). 2012. Assessment of American Shad, York Haven 

Project, FERC No. 1888. March 2012, York Haven Power Company, LLC, York Haven, 

Pennsylvania. 

11.3 Other References Cited in the Decision Document

Atkinson, C.L., C.C. Vaughn, K.J. Forshay, and J.T. Cooper. 2013. Aggregated filter-feeding 

consumers alter nutrient limitation: consequences for ecosystem and community 

dynamics. Ecology 94:1359-1369. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2007 Vol I. Stock Assessment Report 

No. 07-01 (Supplement) of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, American 

Shad Stock Assessment Report for Peer Review, Volume I. Arlington, VA, 238 p. 
39

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2007 Vol II. Stock Assessment Report 

No. 07-01 (Supplement) of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, American 

Shad Stock Assessment Report for Peer Review, Volume II. Arlington, VA, 422 p. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2007 Vol III. Stock Assessment Report 

No. 07-01 (Supplement) of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, American 

Shad Stock Assessment Report for Peer Review, Volume III. Arlington, VA, 572 p. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2012a. American Eel benchmark stock 

assessment. Stock Assessment Report No. 12-01 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission. 254pp. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2012b. River Herring Stock 

Assessment Report for Peer Review. Stock Assessment Report No. 12-2 of the Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commission (supplement), 1049 p. 

Castonguay, M., P. Hodson, C. Couillard, M. Eckersley, J. Dutil, and G. Verreault. 1994. Why 

is recruitment of the American Eel, Anguilla rostrata, declining in the St. Lawrence River 

and Gulf? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 51:479-488. 

Carvalho, G.R. 2012. Center for Independent Experts (CIE) Independent Peer Review of River 

Herring Stock Structure and Extinction Risk Analysis reports prepared by NMFS. 41pp. 

Chaput, G. 2012. Center for Independent Experts (CIE) Independent Peer Review of the River 

Herring Stock Structure and Extinction Risk Analysis reports prepared by NMFS. 20pp. 

Council for Endangered Species Act Reliability (CESAR). 2010. Petition to list the American 

Eel (Anguilla rostrata) as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act. 

Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on April 30, 2010. 

Eyler, S.M., L.E. Vogel, and F.J. Margraf. 2002. Effectiveness of a fish passage facility for 

anadromous river herring recruitment. Proceedings to the Annual Conference to the 

Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 2002:55-64. 

Hall, C.J., A. Jordaan, M.G. Frisk. 2011. The historic influence of dams on diadromous fish 

habitat with a focus on river herring and hydrologic longitudinal connectivity. Landscape 

Ecology 26:95-107. 

Hall, C.J., A. Jordaan, M.G. Frisk. 2012. Centuries of Anadromous Fish Forage Loss: 

Consequences for Ecosystem Connectivity and Productivity. BioScience 62(8):723-731. 

Haro, A., W. Richkus, K. Whaler, A. Hoar, W.D. Busch, S. Lary and D. Dixon. 2000. Population 

Decline of the American Eel: Implications for Research and Management. Fisheries Vol. 

25, No. 9, pp. 7-16. 

Hutchings, J.A. 2012. Center for Independent Experts (CIE) Independent Peer Review of the 

River Herring Stock Structure and Extinction Risk Analysis reports prepared by NMFS. 

23 pp. 
40

Lellis, W.A., B. St. John White, J.C. Cole, C.S. Johnson, J.L. Devers, E. van Snik Gray, H.S. 

Galbraith. 2013. Newly documented host fishes for the Eastern Elliptio mussel Elliptio 

complinata. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 4:75-85. 

Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC). 2011. Petition to list Alewife (Alosa 

pseudoharengus) and Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis) as Threatened Species and to 

designate Critical Habitat. Submitted to the Secretary of Commerce, 1 August 2011. 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2013. Analysis of trends in Alewife and Blueback 

Herring relative abundance: Report to the NMFS River Herring Status Review Team. 43 

pp. 

Slacum, H.W., D.W. Sutherland, J. Thompson, K. Thompson, and S. Hughes. 2003. Tuckahoe 

Fishway Year 2002 Fish Passage Monitoring Study. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD. 

Spooner, D.E., P.C. Frost, H. Hillebrand, M.T. Arts, O. Puckrin, and M.A. Xenopoulos. 2013. 

 Nutrient loading associated with agriculture land use dampens the importance of 

consumer-mediated niche construction. Ecology Letters 16:1115-1125. 

Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative (SRAFRC). 2013a. 

Susquehanna River Basin American Eel restoration plan, Addendum to the Susquehanna 

River Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative (SRAFRC) 2010 migratory fish 

management and restoration plan for the Susquehanna River Basin. 18 p. 

Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative (SRAFRC). 2013b. Restoration 

of American Shad to the Susquehanna River, Annual progress report 2012. 296pp. 

Sutherland, D. 2000. Tuckahoe Fishway Year 2000 Fish Passage Study. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD

Sweka, J.A., S.M. Eyler, and M.J. Millard. 2013. An Egg-Per-Recruit Model to Evaluate the 

Effects of Upstream Transport and Downstream Passage Mortality of American Eel in 

the Susquehanna River. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Report. December 6, 2013. 

Vaughn, C.C. 2010. Biodiversity losses and ecosystem function in freshwaters: emerging 

conclusions and research directions. Bioscience 60:25-35. 

Walburg, C.H. and J.E. Sykes. 1957. Shad fishery of Chesapeake Bay with special emphasis on 

the fishery of Virginia. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, Research Report 48, 26p. 

Welsh, S.A., D.R. Smith, S. Eyler, J.L. Zimmerman, and M.T. Mandt. 2009. Migration of 

silver-phase and yellow-phase American eels in relation to hydroelectric dams on the 

Shenandoah River. Phase 1 Final Report. West Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit, West Virginia University. 134pp. 
41

12. Administrative Record

The administrative record in support of this Preliminary Prescription of Fishways will be filed 

with the Commission under a separate cover. 

* * * * * 

Any written inquiries, comments, or other correspondence related to this Preliminary Fishway 

Prescription for the York Haven Hydroelectric Project should be sent to: 

Field Supervisor, Chesapeake Bay Field Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

177 Admiral Cochrane Drive 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

 
APPENDIX E 

PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTION 

MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT 
This page intentionally left blank.
1 

 United States Department of the Interior

 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

 Custom House, Room 244

 200 Chestnut Street

 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-2904

 

January 31, 2014 

9043.1 

ER 13/0273 

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First St., NE 

Washington, DC 20426 

RE: Review of Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis, Muddy 

Run Hydroelectric Project, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC 

No. 2355-018) 

COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, PRELIMINARY TERMS AND 

CONDITIONS, AND PRELIMINARY PRESCRIPTIONS

Dear Ms. Bose:

The U.S. Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed the April 29, 2013, 

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions to Intervene and Protests, 

Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, 

Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions for the 

existing Muddy Run Hydroelectric Project (Muddy Run Project) FERC No. 2355-018, 

located on the Susquehanna River in Lancaster and York Counties, Pennsylvania. 

GENERAL COMMENTS

Background

The Department has participated in the Integrated Licensing Process for the Muddy Run 

Project. The Terms and Conditions were developed through discussions among the 

Department, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, the Pennsylvania Department 

of Environmental Conservation, the Maryland Department Natural Resources, the 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission, and the National Marine Fisheries Service and 

Exelon Corporation (“Licensee”). 

IN REPLY REFER TO:
2 

Project Setting

The Muddy Run Project is a large pump-storage hydroelectric project that began 

operation in 1966 and is located in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. It has a generating 

capacity of 800 megawatts (MW) and generates an average of 1,610,611 MW hours 

annually. It is situated on the lower Susquehanna River, 22 miles upstream of 

Chesapeake Bay, and 11 miles upstream of the Conowingo Hydroelectric Dam. The 

Muddy Run Project utilizes Susquehanna River water withdrawn from the impoundment 

formed by the Conowingo Hydroelectric Dam. The impoundment is referred to as 

Conowingo Pond, Conowingo Reservoir, Conowingo Pool, Lake Conowingo, and lower 

reservoir. The Holtwood Hydroelectric Dam is located on the Susquehanna River 3 miles 

upstream of the Muddy Run Project. 

The Muddy Run Project uses upper and lower storage reservoirs for the generation of 

hydroelectric power. The upper reservoir is the 900-acre Muddy River Reservoir, which 

is 411 feet higher than Conowingo Pond when both are at their normal, full-water-surface 

elevations. The upper reservoir is formed by four dams described below (Figure 1). Its 

useable storage capacity and total storage capacity are estimated to be 35,500 and 60,000 

acre-feet at its maximum pool elevation of 520 feet. The lower reservoir is the 9,000-acre 

Conowingo Pond with design storage of 310,000 acre-feet at its normal, full-pool 

elevation of 109.2 feet. The Muddy Run Project operates on a daily pump-storage cycle 

to generate electricity. The powerhouse turbines are reversible and can pump large 

quantities of water from the Susquehanna River (lower reservoir) to the upper reservoir, 

through underground water conduits, for storage at the higher elevation. It can later 

release water down through water conduits to the eight large powerhouse turbines to 

generate electricity. The discharge water is released back into the Susquehanna River 

(Conowingo Pond). 

The upper reservoir water storage consists of two water bodies: the Power Reservoir and 

the Recreational Pond (Figure 1). The Power Reservoir is nearest the river, is formed by 

three dams, and has one spillway. They are the Main Dam Embankment, Canal 

Embankment, East Dike, and Upper Reservoir Spillway - which is on the Canal 

Embankment. The Recreational Pond is formed by the Recreational Pond Dam, which 

has a spillway. The physical features of each structure are described as follows:

• Main Dam Embankment is a rock-filled structure across the Muddy Run ravine 

with a central impervious core. It has a maximum height of approximately 260 

feet, and a total length of 4,800 feet. 

• Canal Embankment has a maximum height of approximately 35 feet.
3 

• East Dike is a zoned-earth and rock-filled embankment with a maximum height 

of approximately 12 feet and a total length of 800 feet. 

• Upper Reservoir Spillway is a non-gated, concrete ogee-type structure that is 

200 feet long, 20 feet high, and has a crest elevation at 521 feet. Any spill is 

directed down through a vegetated natural ravine. 

• Recreation Pond Dam is a zoned earth and rock-filled embankment with a 

maximum height of approximately 90 feet and a total length of 750 feet. 

• Recreation Pond Spillway is a rock-cut channel approximately 140 feet wide 

with a crest elevation of 520 feet.
4 

Figure 1. Muddy Run Project. 
5 

To generate power, project operations allow water stored in the power reservoir to flow 

into power intake facilities in the canal, descend over 400 feet through the water conduits 

to the powerhouse, flow through the turbines, and discharge through the draft tubes and 

trash racks into the tailrace constructed in Conowingo Pond. These project works consist 

of a system of physical structures, facilities, and devices that control the timing and 

volume of water discharged into the river. 

Specifically, there are four intake facilities in the upper reservoir power canal. Each 

consists of a cylindrical tower with four cylinder gates with trash racks. Water entering 

the intake facility flows 430 feet down a vertical shaft to a horizontal power tunnel that 

divides into two sections. Each section transitions to a penstock through which the water 

flows to one of eight Francis turbines in the powerhouse, each of which is equipped with 

a 100-MW generator. 

The powerhouse is located on the bank of the Susquehanna River. It is constructed of 

concrete and is 133 feet wide and 600 feet long. The turbines housed in it are reversible 

and can pump water or generate electricity. When generating, the hydraulic capacity of 

each turbine to discharge is 4,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). The total discharge capacity 

from the powerhouse is 32,000 cfs (8 turbine units x 4,000 cfs). When pumping, the 

hydraulic capacity of each turbine to withdraw water from the river is 3,500 cfs. 

Therefore, the total powerhouse withdrawal (pumping) capability is 28,000 cfs. 

Discharging and withdrawing such large volumes of water changes the instantaneous 

flow in the Susquehanna River and under some conditions may impede fish migrating 

through that zone of passage. 

When the Muddy Run Project withdraws water from Conowingo Pond, by pumping it to 

the upper reservoir to replenish its store of useable water, it reduces the amount and 

velocity of flow (instream flow) in the Susquehanna River downstream of the 

powerhouse. A negative instream flow (i.e., water flowing upstream) can be experienced 

downstream of the Muddy Run Project when pumping (withdrawal) flows exceed the 

instantaneous instream flow in the Susquehanna River. The Muddy Run Project pumping 

capacity exceeds the median monthly flow of the Susquehanna River for six months of 

the year (June through November). 

When the Muddy Run Project is generating, water flowing through the turbines is 

discharged via the draft tubes into the tailrace, which is in the Susquehanna River and is 

an integral physical feature of the powerhouse. The effect of the discharged generation 

flow is additive; i.e., the instream flow in the Susquehanna River at the powerhouse at 

that moment is increased. The possible effects of these phenomena on fish migrating 

upstream and downstream, through that zone of passage, are described below in this 

document. 
6 

Electricity generated at the Muddy Run Project is transmitted approximately 4.25 miles 

across the Conowingo Pond to the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station’s North 

Substation in York County, via two individual 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines from 

the Project switching station.

The Licensee is not proposing any new physical structures, facilities, or devices to the 

Muddy Run Project in its application for a new license.

Resource Description

The Susquehanna River is one of America's largest rivers and is approximately 410 miles

(715 kilometers) long. The river forms in upstate New York and west-central 

Pennsylvania and drains a watershed area of over 27,000 square miles. It is the largest 

tributary to Chesapeake Bay, providing over 60 percent of the freshwater to the Bay. The 

name of the river comes from an Algonquian word for "muddy water". This term may 

still be an appropriate description of the Susquehanna River today as it can be very 

turbid, particularly during higher flow events. There is also considerable run-off from 

agricultural areas that have long been a major contributor to nutrient loading in 

Chesapeake Bay. Mean monthly flows are highest in March and April and lowest in 

August and September.

Fishery Resources

Anadromous Fish 

The Susquehanna River was once home to large numbers of migratory anadromous fish. 

The most important of these were members of the herring family Clupeidae; including 

the American shad (Alosa sapidissima), blueback herring (A. aestivalis), alewife (A. 

pseudoharengus), and hickory shad (A. mediocris). Populations of migratory fish have 

been severely impacted by human activities, the most serious being the impacts due to 

dam-building1,2

. Construction of canal dams in the mid-1800's restricted access to 

ancestral spawning grounds, but the construction of the four large, lower river 

hydroelectric dams in the early 1900's completely eliminated access to the river and the 

migratory fish runs were lost3

. 

In addition to eliminating migratory fish access to upstream spawning and nursery 

habitat, these dams also altered river habitat by creating impoundments that inundated 

and eliminated riverine spawning and rearing habitat in the lower portion of the 

Susquehanna River. Conowingo, Holtwood, Safe Harbor and York Haven dams 

inundated 14, 8, 10, and 4 miles of habitat, respectively, resulting in the cumulative loss 

 

1 Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative (SRAFRC). 2010. Migratory fish 

management and restoration plan for the Susquehanna River Basin. 124pp.

2 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2010. Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management 

Plan for shad and river herring, Arlington, Virginia. February 2010.

3 St. Pierre, R., undated. History of the American Shad Restoration Program on the Susquehanna River. 

Harrisburg, PA.
7 

of 36 miles of riverine habitat. The Conowingo Reservoir extends from the Conowingo 

Dam to the Holtwood tailrace and the Holtwood Reservoir (Lake Aldred) extends from 

the Holtwood Dam to the Safe Harbor tailrace, resulting in a 32 mile stretch of 

impounded water with little flowing water habitat. Above the Safe Harbor impoundment 

(Lake Clarke) there is 15 miles of free-flowing river to York Haven Dam. The majority 

(95%) of the remaining free-flowing river habitat is located upstream of York Haven 

Dam.

Hydroelectric project operations also negatively impact migratory fish habitat by altering 

the river flow regime. The mainstem Susquehanna River hydroelectric projects (with the 

exception of York Haven which operates instantaneous run-of-river) and the Muddy Run 

Project tend to generate power during the daytime peak use period, and refrain from 

generation at night when water storage in mainstem impoundments is replenished with 

incoming river flows, and water from the Susquehanna River is pumped up to the Muddy 

Run Project upper storage reservoir. This results in unnatural flow conditions 

downstream for the hydroelectric projects which can vary from flood to drought flow 

conditions within minutes during any given day. For the Muddy Run Project, pumping 

flows can exceed instream flows in the river resulting in reverse flow in the project area 

which can disorient fish using flow as a migration queue and interfere with normal 

migration, or lead to entrainment of fish attempting to pass through the project area4,5

. 

Few aquatic organisms are adapted to these drastic and abrupt fluctuations in flows, and 

the result is a highly perturbed aquatic ecosystem that is often not suitable for migratory 

fish spawning, nursery habitat, or fish passage. 

In the years following construction of dams on the mainstem of the Susquehanna River, 

fishway design, technology, and operation improved and by the 1940's, successful 

passage of American shad was demonstrated at Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River, 

Oregon. In the 1950's, inspired by improvements in fish passage technology, resource 

agencies began the process of restoring migratory fish to the Susquehanna River, 

focusing on American shad, the largest and locally most important of the herrings. At the 

urging of Pennsylvania sportsmen and the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, the U.S. 

Congress appropriated funds specifically to study the potential to recover American shad 

fisheries in dammed rivers. Ensuing studies, many funded by the hydroelectric dam 

owners/operators on the lower Susquehanna River included: an assessment of the 

migratory response of American shad placed into riverine habitat upstream of 

hydroelectric impoundments (Walburg 1954, Whitney 1961)6

 

4 Sweka, J.A. 2013. Re-analysis of the 2008 American Shad telemetry study. Internal USFWS Report 

drafted December 2, 2013.

; assessment of the 

suitability of the Susquehanna River for American shad reproduction and survival 

5 Exelon. 2009. Assessing the Impacts of Muddy Run Pumped Storage Station and Holtwood Hydroelectric

Station Operations on the Upstream Migration of Adult American Shad (Alosa sapidissma) in Conowingo

Pond, Susquehanna River, Spring 2008. 6 As cited in: Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative (SRAFRC). 2010. Migratory 

fish management and restoration plan for the Susquehanna River Basin. 124pp.
8 

(Carlson 1968)7; and the assessment of the engineering feasibility of American shad 

passage at high dams (Bell and Holmes 1962)8

. 

Anadromous fish restoration on the Susquehanna River was a cooperative venture from 

the beginning. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission (now Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 

Commission), Maryland Board of Natural Resources (now Maryland Department of 

Natural Resources), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) developed an Administrative Committee for 

American shad studies on the Susquehanna River in February 1963 for the purpose of 

determining habitat suitability above dams to support American shad reproduction and 

survival. The study was funded by the lower river hydroelectric dam owners/operators 

during 1963 to 1966. The study results determined that over 300 miles of the mainstem 

Susquehanna River upstream of the York Haven Dam, most of the Juniata River, and the 

lower West Branch of the Susquehanna River were entirely suitable for American shad 

spawning and rearing (Carlson 1968)9. 

Around 1970, the first modern effort to restore the American shad population in the 

Susquehanna River began. The utility companies owning the dams along the 

Susquehanna River worked with various federal and state agencies to stock the upper 

Susquehanna River with shad eggs, and to build a facility at Conowingo Dam to trap fish, 

from which the shad and herring would be transported upstream to spawning areas near 

Middletown and Columbia, Pennsylvania. The Conowingo facility had limited success, 

however, passing only 945 shad between 1972 and 1980. 

As part of a 1984 Settlement Agreement, the Licensee, Safe Harbor Water Power 

Corporation (SHWPC) and York Haven Power Company (YHP) provided $3.7 million 

over the period from 1985 to 1994 to fund a trap and transfer program for shad, expand 

hatchery operations and conduct studies related to shad restoration10. By the late 1980s, 

the catch of returning adult shad at Conowingo had increased to several thousand shad 

per year. As a result a new fish passage facility capable of passing 1.5 million shad and 

10 million herring was completed in 1991 at the Conowingo Dam. 

In 1993, SHWPC, the Licensee, and YHP reached a settlement agreement with various 

agencies11

 

7 Id at 6. 

. This agreement required Safe Harbor and Holtwood to have fish passage 

8 Id at 6. 9 Id at 6. 10 Settlement Agreement. December 1, 1984. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Safe Harbor Water 

Power Corporation, and York Haven Power Company, AND U.S. Department of the Interior – U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Upper 

Chesapeake Watershed Association, and Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs.

11 Settlement Agreement. June 1, 1993. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Safe Harbor Water Power 

Corporation, and York Haven Power Company, AND U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Resources, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Upper 

Chesapeake Watershed Association, and Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs.
9 

facilities in place by 1997 and required York Haven to install facilities no later than three 

years (2000) after the in service date of the facilities at Holtwood and Safe Harbor. 

Upstream fish passage has been installed at all mainstem dams on the Susquehanna 

River; however American shad restoration has not met expectations. While the 

Conowingo Dam fishway has passed large numbers of shad, studies indicate the 

effectiveness to be inadequate. A 2012 radio telemetry study conducted as part of the 

Conowingo Hydroelectric Project relicensing indicated that only 44% of American shad 

attempting to pass the dam made it through the fishway12. Analysis of data from a radio

telemetry conducted at the Muddy Run Project in 2008 indicated considerable delay and 

fall back of shad attempting to pass through the project area13. 

Calculation of upstream passage efficiencies at the other three hydroelectric facilities is 

based on the counts at each facility relative to the number passed at the adjacent 

downstream facility. American shad passage efficiencies for Holtwood, Safe Harbor, and 

York Haven have averaged 32%, 71%, and 11%, respectively, over the period from 1997 

through 2009. Based on the results of a 2008 radio telemetry study14 the passage 

efficiency for American shad that entered the Muddy Run Project area and eventually 

made it past the project was 88%. The cumulative impact of fish passage inefficiencies at 

each of the FERC licensed hydroelectric projects on the lower Susquehanna River results 

in an overall passage efficiency of less than 1% of the American shad attempting to 

migrate upstream of York Haven Dam. The key to increasing wild juvenile recruitment 

(i.e., young fish produced from natural spawning in the Susquehanna River and not 

hatchery reared origin) is directly related to effectively passing pre-spawn anadromous 

fish into the quality spawning and nursery habitat located upstream of the York Haven 

Dam where the majority (95%) of spawning habitat is located. The target passage number 

for adult American shad into spawning habitat upstream of York Haven Dam is 2 million 

fish15. Consequently, overall passage efficiencies must be significantly improved past the 

lower Susquehanna River hydroelectric projects in order to achieve the goal of successful 

restoration of American shad to the Susquehanna River16. 

Catadromous Fish 

American eel (Anguilla rostrata) occupy a significant and unique niche in the estuarine 

and freshwater habitats of the Atlantic coast. Eels are a catadromous species that ascend 

freshwater environments as juveniles. These fish reside in riverine and connected lake 

habitats until reaching maturity at which time they migrate to the Sargasso Sea where 

they spawn once and die. Larval eels are transported by ocean currents to rivers along the 

eastern seaboard of the continent. Unlike anadromous shad and herring, they have no 

particular homing instinct. Historically, American eels were very abundant in East Coast 

 

12 Exelon. 2012. Upstream fish passage effectiveness study RSP 3.5. Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, 

FERC Project Number 405. Prepared by Normandeau and Associates, Inc. with Gomez and Sullivan 

Engineers, P.C. September 2012. 69 pages + Appendices. 13 Id at 4. 14 Id at 5. 15 Id at 6. 16 Id at 6. 
10

streams, comprising more than 25 percent of the total fish biomass in many locations17. 

This abundance has declined from historic levels but remained relatively stable until the 

1970s. More recently, fishermen, resource managers, and scientists have noticed a further 

decline in abundance from harvest and assessment data (ASMFC 2012). Status of the 

American eel population is currently under consideration for protection under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA; 50 FR 60431). There is currently no commercial harvest 

and very few eels are taken by anglers from the Susquehanna River.

Although the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries support a large portion of the coastal 

American eel population, eels have been essentially extirpated from the largest 

Chesapeake Bay tributary, the Susquehanna River. The Susquehanna River basin 

comprises 43 percent of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Construction of Conowingo 

Dam in 1928 effectively closed the river to upstream migration of elvers (i.e., juvenile eel 

hatched in the ocean that migrate upstream to grow and mature) at river mile 10. 

Historically, American eel were found throughout the watershed and supported 

commercial fisheries in Pennsylvania, New York, and Maryland18. Currently no upstream 

or downstream eel passage measures are required, or in place at any of the hydroelectric 

projects in the Susquehanna River basin. The Service is currently studying American eel 

occurrence and passage needs at hydroelectric projects on the lower Susquehanna 

River19. 

Riverine Fish

The lower Susquehanna River watershed has a fishery consisting of a number of resident

species. Several important species within the Muddy Run Project area use the near-shore 

areas of the Conowingo Pond for spawning and rearing habitat. 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Reservation of Authority

The Department will reserve the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to require the 

Licensee to construct, operate, and maintain fish passage facilities and operations that 

may be prescribed in the future by the Secretary. The appropriate language, identified 

below under “Prescriptions,” in Attachment A should be included in any license issued 

for this Project.

 

17 Ogden, J.C. 1970. Relative abundance, food habits, and age of the American Eel, Anguilla rostrata

(LeSueur), in certain New Jersey streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 99(1):54–59. 18 Dittman, D. E., L.S. Machut and J.H. Johnson. 2009. Susquehanna River drainage: American Eel 

history, status, and management options. Final Report for New York State Contract # C005548, 

comprehensive study of the American Eel. State Wildlife Grant T-3, Project 3. Submitted to NYSDEC 

Bureau of Fisheries. 95 p. 19 Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative (SRAFRC). 2013a. Susquehanna River 

Basin American Eel restoration plan, Addendum to the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration 

Cooperative (SRAFRC) 2010 migratory fish management and restoration plan for the Susquehanna River 

Basin. 18 p.
11

Fish Passage Prescription

The Department’s assessment of the Muddy Run Project operations indicates impacts to 

migratory diadromous fish that can negatively impact efforts to restore these fish to the 

Susquehanna River. Therefore, the Department will exercise its authority to prescribe fish 

passage measures for inclusion in any FERC license that may be issued for continued 

operation of the Muddy Run Project. 

As part of the fish passage prescription the Service will require the Licensee to develop a 

Fish Passage Operating Plan (FPOP) and submit it to the Resource Agencies for review 

and approval. The FPOP shall describe Muddy Run Project operations during the fish 

passage seasons, and will address regular maintenance activities as well as emergency 

procedures to accommodate safe, timely, and effective fish passage. The Licensee will 

meet on an annual basis with the Service and the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish 

Restoration Cooperative (SRAFRC) to discuss the FPOP. This meeting will occur well 

before the start of the fish migration season and no later than the month of January each 

year. This meeting is a continuation of the traditional SRAFRC Fish Passage Technical 

Committee (FPTC) meetings with the dam owners on the river to review FPOPs, fish 

passage results from the previous year, and discuss plans for the upcoming passage 

season. Participants at these meetings include: staff biologists from the state natural 

resource agencies of Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York; the Susquehanna River 

Basin Commission; the National Marine Fisheries Service; and the Service.

The Licensee will also develop a Fish Passage Monitoring Plan (Plan) in consultation 

with the Service and submit it to the FERC for approval within 6 months of license 

issuance. The Plan will consist of a post FPOP implementation monitoring of the ongoing 

effectiveness of fish passage measures for juvenile and adult American shad, and 

American eels. For the Muddy Run Project successful passage criteria shall not be 

inconsistent with the goal and objectives set forth in the Susquehanna River Anadromous 

Fish Restoration Plan (SRAFRC 2010, “SRAFRC Plan”)

20. The SRAFRC Plan calls for 

assessment and mitigation of impacts to migratory fish associated with hydroelectric

projects and their operation. The SRAFRC Plan also calls for monitoring and annual 

reporting of adult upstream passage of migratory fish at all hydroelectric projects to 

ensure that fish passage measures and/or facilities are providing safe, timely, and 

effective passage. A monitoring plan will be part of the fish passage prescription 

developed of the Muddy Run Project. 

Federally Protected Species

On August 8, 2007, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was removed from the 

Federal Endangered Species List and is no longer protected under Section 7 of the 

Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). However, bald eagles are protected under the 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) and the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712; Ch. 128; July 13, 1918; 40 Stat. 755). Bald eagles are 

known to nest, forage and communally roost along the Susquehanna River, including 

 

20 Id at 1.
12

Dauphin County. As part the Licensee’s compliance under BGEPA, the FERC should 

require the Licensee to follow conservation measures that protect bald eagles in addition 

to adopting the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. 

The federally threatened bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) is also known to occur along 

the Susquehanna River in Dauphin County. As part of the Licensee’s compliance with 

Section 7 of the ESA, the FERC should require the Licensee to contact the Service’s 

Pennsylvania Field Office before any land clearing activity is initiated. If there are any 

questions regarding bald eagles or bog turtles, please contact Ms. Kagel at 814-234-4090. 

High Value Land Resources

The National Park Service (NPS) has previously filed comments in association with the 

current relicensing (NPS July 6, 2012 Draft Application Comments, NPS April 25 2011 

Initial Study Report Comments, NPS April 23 2012 Updated Study Report Catwalk 

Closing Re-Evaluation Comments). While the Final Applications (FA) have referenced 

the issues and recommendations provided by the NPS, the proposals contained in them 

still leave several important issues to be adequately addressed. Primary among them is 

the proposal to remove considerable lands of high value habitat and recreational use from 

the Conowingo project boundary. Additionally, the future use and demand for active and 

passive recreational activities outside and in several cases, abutting project lands as well 

as non-project lands owned or otherwise controlled by Exelon which abut the project 

boundaries, needs to be more fully evaluated. In some cases, these lands are adjacent to 

lands currently under development protection or of high value in terms of their 

desirability for conservation and/or recreational use. 

The Lower Susquehanna River and Upper Chesapeake Bay region have a long history of 

recreational access and use. As stated in Executive Order 13508 (the EO), the 

Administration has set a goal of 300 additional public access sites and 2 million acres of 

land to be conserved to ensure adequate protection of the resources associated with the 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed and its tributaries including the Susquehanna River. As was 

accomplished in the PPL Holtwood (FERC 1881) proceeding21, Exelon has an 

exceptional opportunity to preserve and protect significant land under their ownership 

and enhance recreational use and access, both within and outside the project boundaries 

associated with the Conowingo and Muddy Run Hydroelectric Projects. 

Four units of the national trail system, including two national historic trails NPS 

administers, are located in, adjacent to or near the collective project boundaries and all 

have strong bearing on the position of the Department regarding the future use and 

disposition of those lands whose practice and status can affect the visitor’s experience in 

those units as set out below. 

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan (Access Plan) was published in 

direct response to the President's Executive Order 13508, Strategy for Protecting and 

Restoring the Chesapeake Bay. The primary purpose of the Access Plan was to "access 

 

21 See FERC Order Amending Project Boundary issued 21 December 2012 (FERC 1881-066)
13

the demand for public access; describe existing public access facilities; assess barriers to 

public access; determine gaps in the public access system; identify opportunities for new 

access sites; and help direct federal, state and local funding toward public access 

opportunities.22 Importantly, the plan is updated annually to include newly identified 

potential public access sites.23

The Access Plan has been certified by FERC as a Comprehensive Plan as defined by 

Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. section 803 (a)(2)(A)

which requires FERC to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with Federal 

or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or 

waterways affected by the project.24 In this case, the FAs for all three subject projects 

should be evaluated for their consistency with the Access Plan. 

On May 16, 2012, the Secretary of the Interior designated four water trails in five states 

as new historic connecting components of the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National 

Historic Trail (John Smith Trail, or CAJO), among them the Susquehanna River. In our 

efforts to determine how development of presently undeveloped lands within the 

viewshed of the John Smith Trail would affect the visitor’s experience, the NPS prepared 

a viewshed map which is intended to evoke consideration of how the lands and features 

surrounding the water trail (the Lower Susquehanna River and environs) would have 

looked to Captain John Smith during his voyage. That map is set out below. It was 

developed as a result of the CAJO Trail being extended to include the Susquehanna River 

in Pennsylvania and New York. 

The Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail commemorates Smith’s 

voyages of exploration of the Chesapeake in 1607 to1609, shares knowledge of the 

American Indian societies and cultures of the Chesapeake region at the time, and 

interprets the past and present natural history of the Chesapeake Bay and its rivers. 

The National Park Service completed a Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) for the 

trail in 2011. http://www.nps.gov/cajo/parkmgmt/planning.htm The CMP states: “The 

promise of the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, then, is to help 

the millions of people in the region and elsewhere experience, envision, come to 

understand, and care to protect what the explorers and the inhabitants of the region saw 

400 years ago: by expanding access to the Bay and rivers; by protecting special places 

reminiscent or evocative of those times; by educating the public of the importance and 

exceptional nature of the region, its people, and its resources; by providing recreational 

experiences throughout the region; by creating partnerships amongst the many citizens, 

groups and jurisdictions to realize the vision; by instilling awe and reverence for the 

special places in the Chesapeake region. Visitor experiences on the trail will include 

journeys on land – walking, bicycling, motoring – and sojourns on water – paddling, 

 

22 The 2013 Access Plan was prepared by the National Park Service in collaboration with the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and 

Virginia, the States of Delaware, Maryland, New York, and West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. 23 Issued January 7, 2014. 

http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/file.axd?file=2014%2F1%2F14_15+WQ+milestones_010714+FI

NAL+Version.pdf 24 FERC letter dated December 4, 2013, docket ZZ09-5-000.
14

sailing and cruising, in craft large and small. The trail will provide national park quality 

experiences through NPS partnerships with state and local governments, and non-profit 

and for profit organizations.” 

Core trail-related resources identified in the CMP include “evocative landscapes - places 

possessing a feeling that expresses the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of 

time. This feeling results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, 

convey a landscape’s historic character.” The CMP further defines this as “visible 

shoreline generally evocative of the 17th century - primarily composed of forests and 

wetlands.” 

Evocative landscapes and other trail resources are the foundation of the visitor experience 

along the trail, an experience that for many visitors takes place from the water in selfguided or guided boating trips using a variety of watercraft. 

The NPS has prepared a map of evocative landscape along the Lower Susquehanna River 

segment of the John Smith Trail using computer assisted viewshed analysis. This map 

identifies lands which contribute to the trail’s visitor experience and is shown below. 

This map helps guide identification of trail resources, prioritizes conservation efforts and 

development of interpretation opportunities and materials. It provides a broad brush 

illustration of general areas that merit consideration for protection within the context of 

the CMP and that may be able to be accomplished through the current relicensing 

processes. Some of these lands are owned by Exelon both within and outside the project 

boundaries. Others abut existing protected lands. The CMP is referenced and has been 

certified by FERC as a Comprehensive Plan as defined by Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the 

FPA. In addition, the Onondaga Nation, in their comments dated December 13, 2013, 

noted their support for the establishment of the John Smith Trail. 

The Star-Spangled Banner National Trail (Star-Spangled Trail) connects the places, 

people and events that led to the birth of the National Anthem during the War of 1812. 

This trail includes the Susquehanna River from immediately below the Conowingo Dam 

to the Chesapeake Bay. NPS and its partners completed a Comprehensive Management 

Plan (CMP) for the trail in 2012. http://starspangledtrail.net/about-the-trail/planningprocess/ The Star-Spangled Trail CMP includes a framework and action plan for 

interpreting the history and legacy of the War of 1812 in the Chesapeake in ways that are 

meaningful and relevant to the general public. Visitors will be accessing this trail using 

both land and water routes. As with the John Smith Trail, there are evocative landscapes 

along the Susquehanna River that support the Star-Spangled Trail. The Star Spangled 

Trail CMP is referenced and has also been certified by FERC as a Comprehensive Plan as 

defined by Section 10 (a) (2) (A) of the FPA. 
15
16

The NPS’ previous comments referred to above relative to the Mason Dixon Trail 

(MDTS) should also be considered in the context that the MDTS is a designated National 

Recreation Trail, with several sections within and connecting to the Conowingo Project 

boundary. As set out in the NPS comments on the Draft Application for Conowingo (and 

herein incorporated by reference), several opportunities exist to provide safer and more 

desirable routings, and significantly improve trail user’s experiences. A routing 

connecting existing sections of the MDTS around the Conowingo Dam on the West side 

has been identified by the Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway (LSHG) and the 

MDTS. In addition, LSHG is working with Vulcan to develop a trail route that 

circumvents the Arundel Quarry to connect the City of Havre de Grace with the Lower 

Susquehanna Heritage Greenway, the Mason Dixon Trail and ultimately to the 

Appalachian Trail at Whisky Springs. Details of both these rerouted and new trail 

segments, along with renderings associated with upgraded riverfront park facilities in 

Havre de Grace will be included in comments to be filed on or before January 31, 2014 

by the Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway. The map below illustrates the number 

and variety of trails and links along the Lower Susquehanna River. 

There are numerous Exelon owned parcels within and abutting the project boundaries of 

Conowingo and Muddy Run which the NPS, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the 

State of Maryland, numerous conservation organizations, local and county government 

entities25 believe are of such high value to their host communities and well beyond in 

terms of remaining undeveloped, that public control (or permanent conservation) of those 

lands and the resources they contain, should be accomplished through or concurrent with, 

these relicensing proceedings. 

 

25 Including, but not limited to The Chesapeake Conservancy, The Wildlife Management Institute, The 

Lancaster County Conservancy, The Nature Conservancy, The Conservation Fund, The Susquehanna 

Gateway Heritage Area, The Harford County Land Trust, The Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway.
17

The Lower Susquehanna has been nationally recognized as a valuable resource by the 

Obama Administration through the EO and was identified as an America’s Great 

Outdoors priority for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through their Conservation 

Landscape Initiative (CLI) program. The State of Maryland is also currently engaged in 

efforts to protect riverfront lands and public access from the Conowingo Dam to the 

river’s confluence with the Chesapeake Bay. The NPS has not at this time identified 

specific Exelon owned parcels (either inside or outside the existing project boundaries of 
18

the Conowingo and Muddy Run projects) that should be permanently protected, as this is 

a task properly left to the local, county and state government entities, their residents and 

NGOs to decide. However, there are a number of conservation principles the NPS 

proposes for application to the subject proceedings as the relicensings have national 

implications and represent a once in a generational opportunity to make lasting 

conservation measures across a broad range of resources, from historic and cultural, to 

aesthetic, to recreational, to habitat and water quality protection and enhancement. This 

set of principles, and the methodology behind them (attached as Appendix C, 

Prioritization Tool)26, has been jointly developed by the NPS and numerous state, county 

and local entities along with several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which have 

or are expected to file comments on the subject FAs. Page 3 of the Prioritization Tool 

lists the five datasets that were used to set the priorities. They include the presence of 

Historic and Cultural Resources, Important Terrestrial Habitats, Ecological Connectivity, 

Relationship to Existing Protected Lands and the Proximity to Existing Public Access 

Points. 

The tool led to the identification of priority conservation areas along the Lower 

Susquehanna River, which will then be used to identify specific Exelon owned parcels 

that are deemed to have the highest conservation values. This allowed for an empirical 

valuation to enable the conservation partners to align their priorities in these critical areas 

and to determine the highest value conservation opportunities along the lower 

Susquehanna River corridor. Specific justifications for each priority area, the rationale 

behind their identification and how they fit within the overall land protection framework 

are set out in the documents entitled Lower Susquehanna Land Conservation 

Opportunities. The December 12, 2013 comments filed by the Chesapeake Conservancy 

set out in detail the rational for and process used to develop the priorities for land 

protection. The NPS fully supports and endorses the permanent protection of lands within 

the areas so identified. Although not shown on the map below, several of the priority 

areas contain bald eagle and map turtle (Graptemys geographica), a Maryland State listed 

species, habitat.

 

All the islands and riparian areas owned by Exelon in the Lower Susquehanna River 

should receive permanent protection and are considered a conservation priority for the 

NPS and the Service. Regardless of their relationship to the project boundaries, these 

lands possess extremely high value habitat, cultural, historic and archaeological resources 

and in some areas are suitable for recreational use. Any such lands to be removed from 

the existing project boundaries or subject to a change in ownership should be 

accompanied by an endowment or the like to the grantee to help pay for ongoing 

monitoring of easements and maintenance of important habitat and/or recreational use 

areas, including bald eagle and map turtle habitat. 

Exelon should continue to work with those entities involved in the relicensing process 

(see fn.3), to insure that all existing public access and recreation facilities are maintained, 

both within and outside the boundary on Exelon owned lands, and the potential for 

 

26 Chesapeake Conservancy: Developing a Web-based Prioritization Tool for the Lower Susquehanna River 

(2013). http://chesapeakeconservancy.org/images/TripsandTips/LSRCOA/Data_Assumptions_Methods.pdf 
19

additional public access, recreation facilities, and trails should be considered on all lands 

that are or will be protected.

 

 

Exelon has stated at numerous meetings and forums that they will discuss land protection 

during Settlement Negotiations, which began subsequent to their filing of the Final 
20

Application (FA), and are expected to continue after the filing of these and other 

comments on the FA. The NPS fully supports this initiative and is confident it will 

complement and build on the ongoing Conservation Landscape Initiative in 

Pennsylvania, the State of Maryland’s efforts to improve public access to recreation and 

land protection in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the Settlement Agreement reached 

in the Holtwood Hydroelectric Project License Amendment Application (FERC 1881). 

Native American Consultation

We recommend the Licensee consult with any Native American Tribe or Nation whose 

treaty rights may be affected by the Muddy Run Project. Potentially affected tribes can 

provide guidance in developing the project in a manner that seeks to preserve, protect, 

and enhance fish, wildlife and other tribal-interest resources and environmental values in 

the project area. It is especially important for the Licensee to initiate consultation so that 

any future studies may begin in a timely fashion and delays may be avoided. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Pursuant to Section 10(a) of the FPA, as amended the Department recommends that the 

following special articles be included in any license the FERC issues for this Project. 

Reporting and further consultation requirements should be required by the FERC to 

ensure timely and adequate compliance with the license articles.

1. The Licensee shall develop and implement a Recreation Management Plan 

(RMP). The RMP will guide the operation and maintenance of Exelon’s 

recreation facilities, and also include proposals for recreation facility 

enhancements outlined in Section 2.2.1.2 of the Licensee’s Draft License 

Application. 

2. The Licensee shall develop and implement a Historic Properties Management 

Plan (HPMP) for the management of archaeological and historic resources 

throughout the term of the new license. The HPMP will be prepared in 

consultation with the Department’s National Park Service, the Pennsylvania State 

Historic Preservation Office, and other stakeholders in accordance with the 

Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for 

FERC Hydroelectric Projects.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Pursuant to Section 10(j) of the FPA, as amended, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act, the Department recommends the following special articles for the protection, 

mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources be included in any license the 

FERC issues for this Project. Reporting and further consultation requirements should be 

required by the FERC to ensure timely and adequate compliance with the license articles.
21

1. Before starting any ground disturbing work, the Licensee shall visit the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Chesapeake Bay Field Office and Pennsylvania Field

Office website and follow the Bog Turtle and Bald Eagle Management 

Guidelines. 

2. The Licensee shall develop and implement a Bog Turtle Management Plan 

(BTMP) in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. This management plan shall include 

three components: 

• Restriction of mowing in the wetland documented to support bog turtles 

• Invasive plant and woody plant control, particularly for reed canary grass

• Possible limits on public access to the wetland without advertising the reason 

3. The Licensee shall finalize and implement a Bald Eagle Management Plan 

(BEMP) in consultation and cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and Pennsylvania Game 

Commission. The BEMP shall provide for the management of bald eagle habitat 

on Exelon lands in accordance with recommendations from the National Bald 

Eagle Management Guidelines and state agency guidance. Bald eagle habitat, 

including nest sites, forage sites, and communal roost sites on Exelon lands shall 

be managed through a range of conservation measures that meet the previsions of 

the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, including incidental take of eagles. 

The range of measures is tailored to types of activities with potential to impact 

eagles and will include, but not be limited to, seasonal restrictions, distance 

buffers, and landscape buffers. 

3. The Licensee shall develop and implement a Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) 

consistent with Guidance for Shoreline Management Planning at Hydropower 

Projects (FERC 2001). The SMP shall include specific measures and policies 

related to shoreline vegetation management and erosion control, woody debris 

management, game species management, sensitive natural resource protection, 

recreation use, and use of project lands. The Licensee shall adopt best 

management practices for controlling sediment introduction from lands within the 

project boundary. 

4. The Muddy Run Project shall at all times be subject to inspection by 

representatives of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in order to ensure compliance 

with any fish and wildlife protection, mitigation and enhancements that may be 

contained in any FERC license issued for the project. 

 
22

Attachment A

PRESCRIPTIONS

In order to allow for the timely implementation of fish passage, including effectiveness 

measures, the Department provides Attachment A to the FERC for inclusion in any new 

license it may issue for the Muddy Run Project. 

* * * * * 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments, recommendations, terms and 

conditions, and prescriptions on this application for new license. 

 Sincerely,

 Lindy Nelson 

 Regional Environmental Officer 

cc: Muddy Run Service List

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Administrative Process, Hearing Rights, and Submission of Alternatives ..................................... 3

Project Description.......................................................................................................................... 4

Existing Fish Passage Facilities and Measures at the Project ......................................................... 7

Resource Description ...................................................................................................................... 8

Susquehanna River ...................................................................................................................... 8

Energy development on the lower Susquehanna River ............................................................... 9

Fishery Resources ...................................................................................................................... 10

Anadromous Fish ................................................................................................................... 11

American Eel .......................................................................................................................... 14

Current Fisheries .................................................................................................................... 15

Coast-Wide American Shad Status ................................................................................... 15

Mid-Atlantic Region American Shad Status..................................................................... 17

The Susquehanna River ................................................................................................ 17

The Delaware River ...................................................................................................... 18

The Potomac River ....................................................................................................... 19

American Eels ................................................................................................................... 19

River Herring .................................................................................................................... 20

Licensee Proposed Fish Passage................................................................................................ 21

Anadromous Fish Passage ...................................................................................................... 21

Catadromous Fish Passage ..................................................................................................... 21

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Proposed 401 Water Quality 

Certification Fish Passage ......................................................................................................... 22

Management Plans ........................................................................................................................ 22

Comprehensive Plans Recognized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Licensing 

Process ....................................................................................................................................... 22

Susquehanna River Settlement Agreements .............................................................................. 24

Resource Agency Plans ............................................................................................................. 25

Restoration Objectives ............................................................................................................... 25

Anadromous fish .................................................................................................................... 25

American Eel .......................................................................................................................... 26

Statutory Authority ....................................................................................................................... 27

Administrative Record .................................................................................................................. 28

Impacts of Muddy Run Project on Migratory Fish ....................................................................... 28

Fish Passage Delays and Fallback ............................................................................................. 29

Fish Entrainment........................................................................................................................ 30

American Eel .......................................................................................................................... 30

American Shad ....................................................................................................................... 31

Alternatives Considered ................................................................................................................ 33

Engineered Facilities and Structures ......................................................................................... 33

Operational Measures ................................................................................................................ 34

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 401 Conditions .................................. 34
ii

Reservation of Authority to Prescribe Fishways .......................................................................... 40

Preliminary Prescription for Fishways .......................................................................................... 41

Fish Passage Requirements ........................................................................................................... 41

Design Populations .................................................................................................................... 41

American Shad ....................................................................................................................... 41

River Herring (Alewife and Blueback Herring) ..................................................................... 42

American Eel .......................................................................................................................... 43

Fish Passage Operating Periods ................................................................................................. 44

Fish Passage Operating Procedures ........................................................................................... 45

Inspection................................................................................................................................... 46

Consultation ............................................................................................................................... 46

American Shad Passage ............................................................................................................. 46

Fish Passage Facilities and Structures .................................................................................... 46

Fish Passage Measures ........................................................................................................... 46

American Shad Passage Monitoring ...................................................................................... 46

Downstream American Shad Passage Monitoring ................................................................. 48

American Eel Passage ............................................................................................................... 48

Eel Passage Measures............................................................................................................. 48

Trapping ............................................................................................................................ 49

Holding ............................................................................................................................. 52

Transport ........................................................................................................................... 52

Release .............................................................................................................................. 53

Quality Assurance/Quality Control................................................................................... 53

Reporting, Monitoring, and Periodic Evaluation .............................................................. 54

Reporting and EPAG Meetings .................................................................................... 54

Periodic Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 55

Downstream Eel Passage Monitoring .................................................................................... 56

Correspondence Regarding the Preliminary Prescription for Fishways ....................................... 56

Appendix 1. Scientific Names ...................................................................................................... 57

Appendix 2. Administrative Record ............................................................................................. 57

Appendix 3. Proposed Water Quality Certification Eel Management Plan .................................. 58
3 

United States Department of the Interior's

Decision Document,

Preliminary Prescriptions for Fishways 

Pursuant to Section 18 of the Federal Power Act

Introduction

The United States Department of the Interior (Department) hereby submits its Preliminary 

Prescription for Fishways for the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project (Muddy Run Project, 

Project, or MRPSP), FERC No. 2355 pursuant to Section 18 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as 

amended. The Department is submitting this Decision Document to the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) with its supporting administrative record.

The Department developed its Preliminary Prescription for Fishways through a review process 

that included consultation among fisheries biologists and fishway engineers from the 

Department's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), the Maryland Department Natural Resources 

(MD DNR), the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC), collectively referred to as the 

“Resource Agencies”, and other interested parties.

The Department is also filing an index to the administrative record in this proceeding. The 

Department has considered the record before the Commission, as well as scientific evidence not 

already included in the record before the Commission or publicly available. Copies of any 

supporting documents not previously filed with the Commission will be filed via electronic 

digital media delivered by regular mail service (due to the large size of the supplemental record).

Copies of the administrative record will be provided by the Service. 

Administrative Process, Hearing Rights, and Submission of 

Alternatives

This Preliminary Prescription was prepared, and will be processed, in accordance with the 

Department’s regulations at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 45. These regulations 

provide that any party to a license proceeding before the Commission in which the Department 

exercises mandatory authority is provided both the right to trial-type hearings on issues of 

material fact and the opportunity to propose alternatives to the terms contained in the Preliminary 

Prescription. 

Therefore, the Department hereby provides notice that any party to the License Application 

Process before the Commission may request a trial-type hearing on any issue of fact material to 

this Preliminary Prescription pursuant to, and in conformance with, the regulations of the 

Department at 43 C.F.R. § 45.21. Such a request for a trial-type hearing must be filed with the 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW, 
4 

Mail Stop 2342, Washington, DC, within 30 days of the submission of this document. Should 

any request for trial-type hearing be filed, other parties may file interventions and responses 

within 15 days of the date of service of the request for a hearing. 43 C.F.R. § 45.22. Trial-type 

hearings will be conducted, and a Modified Prescription for Fishways developed, in accordance 

with the terms and time limits of 43 C.F.R. Part 45. 

The Department further provides notice that any party to the License Application Process before 

the Commission may submit alternatives to the terms contained in the Preliminary Prescription 

by filing them pursuant to, and in conformance with, the Department’s regulations at 43 C.F.R. § 

45.71. Any such alternative proposals must be filed with the Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW, Mail Stop 2342, Washington, DC 

20240 within 30 days of the submission of this document. Such alternative proposals will be 

analyzed in accordance with 45 C.F.R. § 45.73. 

Finally, the Department will accept and consider any comments on the Preliminary Prescription 

filed by any member of the public, State or Federal Agency, the Licensee, or other entity or 

person. Comments should be filed within 30 days of the filing of this Preliminary Prescription, 

and should be sent to: Genevieve LaRouche, Field Office Supervisor, Chesapeake Bay Field 

Office, 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive, Annapolis, MD 21401, genevieve_larouche@fws.gov, 

410.573.4573 – office, 410.266.9127 – fax.

If no hearing is requested or alternative submitted, the Department will finalize its Prescription 

for Fishways, with accompanying analysis, when the Commission requires parties to file 

Modified Terms and Conditions and Prescriptions in accordance with 43 C.F.R. 45.73. 

Project Description

The Muddy Run Project is a large pump-storage hydroelectric project that began operation in 

1966 and is located in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. When it was completed, it was the 

largest pumped-storage hydroelectric power plant in the world. It has a generating capacity of 

800 megawatts (MW) and generates an average of 1,610,611 MW hours annually. It is situated 

on the lower Susquehanna River, 22 miles upstream of Chesapeake Bay, and 11 miles upstream 

of the Conowingo Hydroelectric Dam. The Muddy Run Project utilizes Susquehanna River water 

withdrawn from the impoundment formed by the Conowingo Hydroelectric Dam. The 

impoundment is referred to as Conowingo Pond, Conowingo Reservoir, Conowingo Pool, Lake 

Conowingo, and lower reservoir. The Holtwood Hydroelectric Dam is located on the 

Susquehanna River, 3 miles upstream of the Muddy Run Project. 

The Muddy Run Project uses upper and lower storage reservoirs for the generation of 

hydroelectric power. The upper reservoir is the 900-acre Muddy River Reservoir, which is 411 

feet higher than Conowingo Pond when both are at their normal, full-water-surface elevations. 

The upper reservoir is formed by four dams described below (Figure 1). Its useable storage 

capacity and total storage capacity are estimated to be 35,500 and 60,000 acre-feet at its 

maximum pool elevation of 520 feet. The lower reservoir is the 9,000-acre Conowingo Pond 

with design storage of 310,000 acre-feet at its normal full-pool elevation of 109.2 feet. The 

Muddy Run Project operates on a daily pump-storage cycle to generate electricity. The 
5 

powerhouse turbines are reversible and can pump large quantities of water from the Susquehanna 

River (lower reservoir) to the upper reservoir, through underground water conduits, for storage at 

the higher elevation. It can later release water down through the water conduits to the eight large 

powerhouse turbines to generate electricity. The discharge water is released back into the 

Susquehanna River (Conowingo Pond). 

The upper reservoir water storage consists of two water bodies: the Power Reservoir and the 

Recreational Pond (Figure 1). The Power Reservoir is nearest the river, is formed by three dams, 

and has one spillway. They are the Main Dam Embankment, Canal Embankment, East Dike, and 

Upper Reservoir Spillway - which is on the Canal Embankment. The Recreational Pond is 

formed by the Recreational Pond Dam, which has a spillway. The physical features of each 

structure are described as follows:

• Main Dam Embankment is a rock-filled structure across the Muddy Run ravine with a 

central impervious core. It has a maximum height of approximately 260 feet, and a total 

length of 4,800 feet. 

• Canal Embankment has a maximum height of approximately 35 feet.

• East Dike is a zoned-earth and rock-filled embankment with a maximum height of 

approximately 12 feet and a total length of 800 feet. 

• Upper Reservoir Spillway is a non-gated, concrete ogee-type structure that is 200 feet 

long, 20 feet high, and has a crest elevation at 521 feet. Any spill is directed down 

through a vegetated natural ravine. 

 

• Recreation Pond Dam is a zoned earth and rock-filled embankment with a maximum 

height of approximately 90 feet and a total length of 750 feet. 

• Recreation Pond Spillway is a rock-cut channel approximately 140 feet wide with a 

crest elevation of 520 feet. 
6 

Figure 1. Muddy Run Project. 

To generate power, project operations allow water stored in the power reservoir to flow into 
7 

power intake facilities in the canal, descend over 400 feet through the water conduits to the 

powerhouse, flow through the turbines, and discharge through the draft tubes and trash racks into 

the tailrace constructed in Conowingo Pond. These project works consist of a system of physical 

structures, facilities, and devices that control the timing and volume of water discharged into the 

river. 

Specifically, there are four intake facilities in the upper reservoir power canal. Each consists of a 

cylindrical tower with four cylinder gates with trash racks. Water entering the intake facility 

flows 430 feet down a vertical shaft to a horizontal power tunnel that divides into two sections. 

Each section transitions to a penstock through which the water flows to one of eight Francis 

turbines in the powerhouse, each of which is equipped with a 100 MW generator. 

 

The powerhouse is located on the bank of the Susquehanna River. It is constructed of concrete 

and is 133 feet wide and 600 feet long. The turbines housed in it are reversible and can pump 

water or generate electricity. When generating, the hydraulic discharge capacity of each turbine 

tis 4,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). The total discharge capacity from the powerhouse is 32,000 

cfs (8 turbine units x 4,000 cfs). When pumping, the hydraulic withdraw capacity of each turbine 

to is 3,500 cfs. Therefore, the total powerhouse withdrawal (pumping) capability is 28,000 cfs. 

Discharging and withdrawing such large volumes of water changes the instantaneous flow in the 

Susquehanna River and under some conditions may impede fish migrating through that zone of 

passage.

When the Muddy Run Project withdraws water from Conowingo Pond, by pumping it to the 

upper reservoir to replenish its store of useable water, it reduces the amount and velocity of flow 

(instream flow) in the Susquehanna River downstream of the powerhouse. A negative instream 

flow (i.e., water flowing upstream) can be experienced downstream of the Muddy Run Project 

when pumping (withdrawal) flows exceed the instantaneous instream flow in the Susquehanna 

River. The Muddy Run Project pumping capacity exceeds the median monthly flow of the 

Susquehanna River for six months of the year (June through November). 

When the Muddy Run Project is generating, water flowing through the turbines is discharged via 

the draft tubes into the tailrace, which is in the Susquehanna River and is an integral physical 

feature of the powerhouse. The effect of the discharged generation flow is additive; i.e., the 

instream flow in the Susquehanna River at the powerhouse at that moment is increased. The 

possible effects of these phenomena on fish migrating upstream and downstream, through that 

zone of passage, are described below in this document. 

Electricity generated at the Muddy Run Project is transmitted approximately 4.25 miles across 

the Conowingo Pond to the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station’s North Substation in York 

County, via two individual 220-kilovolt transmission lines from the Project switching station.

The licensee is not proposing any new physical structures, facilities, or devices to the Muddy 

Run Project in its application for a new license. 

Existing Fish Passage Facilities and Measures at the Project
8 

There are currently no fish passage facilities or measures in place at the Muddy Run Project. 

Resource Description

Susquehanna River

The Susquehanna River is one of the oldest existing rivers in the world. It is far older than the 

mountain ridges through which it turns. It forms in upstate New York and west-central 

Pennsylvania. At about 460 miles, the Susquehanna River is the longest river on the American 

East Coast that drains into the Atlantic Ocean. With a drainage basin of 27,500 square miles, it is 

the largest watershed in the Northeast and the Nation's sixteenth largest river by volume (Figure 

2). It is the largest tributary to the Chesapeake Bay, providing over 60 percent of the freshwater 

to the Bay. 

 

Figure 2. The Susquehanna basin comprises 45.5 percent of the land area of Pennsylvania, 13 

percent of New York, and a portion of northeastern Maryland. 

 

For millennia, the Susquehanna River was accessible via the Chesapeake Bay to sea-run 

migratory fish from the mid-Atlantic Coast. Each year, millions of anadromous sea-run fish 

migrated far upstream to spawn and complete their life cycle. The Susquehanna River 

historically played an important role in sustaining coastal fish stocks of several species. The 

goals described in this document aim to restore in part the role the Susquehanna River played in 

contributing to the coastal fish stocks. The Susquehanna supported large numbers of diadromous 

migratory fish.

The Conejohela Valley formed a wide, flat valley through which the lower Susquehanna 
9 

River flowed for about 30 miles through Pennsylvania and Maryland to the Chesapeake Bay. 

The mixed marshy terrain contained rapids and small waterfalls, wetlands, and thick woods 

along both sides of the river within a ten-year floodplain. The varied terrain created many 

biological habitats. Three dams were built across the Conejohela Valley during the first four 

decades of the 20th century to provide hydroelectric power for the southern 

Pennsylvania/Maryland market, including Baltimore and Philadelphia. The first large dam across 

the lower Susquehanna, the Holtwood Dam, was completed in 1910 as McCalls Ferry Dam. 

The Conowingo Dam followed in 1928. The Safe Harbor Dam first closed its gates in 1931 and 

flooded over ten miles of the upper Conejohela Flats, creating the artificial lake Clarke. By then, 

most of the valley was flooded and the ecosystem of the lower Susquehanna River was changed. 

The river was essentially closed to sea run fish migrations.

 

The name of the river comes from an Algonquian word for "muddy water". This term may still 

be an appropriate description of the Susquehanna today as the river can be very turbid - 

particularly during higher flow events. There is also considerable run-off from agricultural areas 

that have long been a major contributor to nutrient loading in the Chesapeake Bay. Mean 

monthly flows are highest in March and April and lowest in August and September.

Energy Development on the Lower Susquehanna River

The large size of this watershed has provided a consistently large volume of water that has made 

the lower Susquehanna River an attractive reach for waterpower development, and for fossil and 

nuclear power plants which required large volumes of water for cooling. At this time, the 

generation capacity of all power projects on the lower Susquehanna River is between 6657 and 

6927 MW. Today, there are five hydroelectric, two atomic (nuclear), and one fossil (coal) 

generation plants on the lower Susquehanna River. Four hydroelectric projects, each requiring a 

dam across the river, were under construction between 1901 and 1930. When Conowingo Dam 

was completed in 1928, producing 252 MW, it became the second largest hydroelectric project in 

the United States, behind Niagara Falls. No new energy plants were built on the river during the 

Great Depression, World War II, or the Korean Conflict. Then, between 1958 and 1968, 

construction of energy projects recommenced when one coal plant, two atomic plants, and a 

pump-storage hydroelectric project (Muddy Run) were built. Exelon owns or has an ownership 

interest in about 54.5 percent (3,628 MW) of the current generation capacity on the lower 

Susquehanna River. 

Project

Capacity

in 2013 

(MW) 

Year

Building

Started

Present ownership interest

(100 % unless stated otherwise)

York Haven Hydro Project 19.6a 1901a Olympus Power

Holtwood Hydro Project 233.0b 1905 PPL

Conowingo Hydro Project 572.0c 1926c Exelon

Safe Harbor Hydro Project 417.5d,e 1930f Exelon (66% - Constellation 

Generation)

LSP Safe Harbor Holdings, LLC 

(33%)g,e

Brunner Island Power Plant 1490.0h ~1958i PPL
10 

Table 1: Energy Development on the Lower Susquehanna River in order of construction 

------------------------------------------------

a YHPC. 2012. Final License Application. August. Exhibit A. P. 1. 

b http://www.pplweb.com/ppl-generation/ppl-holtwood.aspx (accessed January 12, 2014) 

c http://www.exeloncorp.com/PowerPlants/conowingo/Pages/profile.aspx (accessed January 12, 

2014) 

d 417.5 MW @ http://www.shwpc.com/facts_figures.html#station (accessed January 12, 2014) 

e 417.0 MW @ http://www.shwpc.com/about.html (accessed January 12, 2014) 

f http://www.shwpc.com/about.html (accessed January 12, 2014) 

g http://www.shwpc.com/facts_figures.html#river. 

h http://www.pplweb.com/ppl-generation/ppl-brunner-island/ppl-brunnerisland-plant-factsheet.aspx (accessed January 12, 2014) 

i Construction start estimated; commercial operation began in 1961 according to reference at “g” 

j 800 MW is the rated generation capacity for the Muddy Run Powerhouse based on the 

nameplate capacity of the 8 turbine/generator units combined. 1027 MW is the generating 

capacity identified in Exelon’s on-line Project Profile and the capacity the units are capable of 

generating identified in Exelon’s Application for New License filed with FERC August 2012 

(Exhibit A, page 5, Footnote 1). See: 

http://www.exeloncorp.com/powerplants/muddyrun/Pages/profile.aspx and 

http://www.exeloncorp.com/assets/energy/powerplants/docs/MuddyRun/MR_Vol_1_Public_Part

1.pdf

k Exhibit C, Page 2 of Exelon’s Application for New License for Major Water Power Project - 

Existing Dam filed with FERC August 2012 See: 

http://www.exeloncorp.com/assets/energy/powerplants/docs/MuddyRun/MR_Vol_1_Public_Part

1.pdf

l http://www.exeloncorp.com/assets/energy/powerplants/docs/TMI/fact_tmi.pdf

m http://www.exeloncorp.com/assets/energy/powerplants/docs/Peach_Bottom/Fact_PeachBottom.pdf

Fishery Resources

There have been longstanding efforts to conserve and increase sea-run migratory fish use, 

including reproduction, in the lower Susquehanna River. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

Susquehanna River Coordinator from 1979 to 2005 wrote a paper that briefly recounts the 

history of the American shad restoration program on the Susquehanna River, which spans a large 

portion of the 20th century. That paper is incorporated by reference rather than recounting that 

history in this document1

 

1

 St. Pierre, R., 2003. History of the American Shad Restoration Program on the Susquehanna 

. 

Muddy Run Pump Storage 800.0j

 1070.0j

1964k Exelon

Three Mile Island Nuclear 

Plant 

 829.0l 1968l Exelon – Unit 1

Peach Bottom Atomic Power 

Sta.

2296.0m ~1968m Exelon (50%)m

Public Service & Gas of New Jersey 

(50%)

Total Megawatts 6657.1
11 

Anadromous Fish

The Susquehanna River was once home to large numbers of migratory anadromous fish. The 

most important of these were members of the herring family Clupeidae; including the American 

shad (Alosa sapidissima), blueback herring (A. aestivalis), alewife (A. pseudoharengus), and 

hickory shad (A. mediocris). Populations of migratory fish have been severely impacted by 

human activities, the most serious being the impacts due to dam-building2,3. Construction of 

canal dams in the mid-1800's restricted access to ancestral spawning grounds, but the 

construction of the four large, lower river hydroelectric dams in the early 1900's completely 

eliminated access to the river and the migratory fish runs were lost1. 

In addition to eliminating migratory fish access to upstream spawning and nursery habitat, these 

dams also altered river habitat by creating impoundments that inundated and eliminated riverine 

spawning and rearing habitat in the lower portion of the Susquehanna River. Conowingo, 

Holtwood, Safe Harbor and York Haven dams inundated 14, 8, 10, and 4 miles of habitat, 

respectively, resulting in the cumulative loss of 36 miles of riverine habitat. The Conowingo 

Reservoir extends from the Conowingo Dam to the Holtwood tailrace and the Holtwood 

Reservoir (Lake Aldred) extends from the Holtwood Dam to the Safe Harbor tailrace, resulting 

in a 32 mile stretch of impounded water with little flowing water habitat. Above the Safe Harbor 

impoundment (Lake Clarke) there is 15 miles of free-flowing river to York Haven Dam. The 

majority (95%) of the remaining free-flowing river habitat is located upstream of York Haven 

Dam.

Hydroelectric project operations also negatively impact migratory fish habitat by altering the 

river flow regime. The mainstem Susquehanna River hydroelectric projects (with the exception 

of York Haven which operates instantaneous run-of-river) and the Muddy Run Project tend to 

generate power during the daytime peak use period, and refrain from generation at night when 

water storage in mainstem impoundments is replenished with incoming river flows, and water 

from the Susquehanna River is pumped up to the Muddy Run Project upper storage reservoir. 

This results in unnatural flow conditions downstream of the hydroelectric projects which can 

vary from flood to drought flow conditions within minutes during any given day. For the Muddy 

Run Project, pumping water withdrawal flows can exceed instream flows in the river resulting in 

reverse flow in the project area which can disorient fish using flow as a migration queue and 

interfere with normal migration, or lead to entrainment of fish attempting to pass through the 

project area4,5

 

River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Harrisburg, PA. 10pp. 

. Few aquatic organisms are adapted to these drastic and abrupt fluctuations in 

2

 Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative. 2010. Migratory fish 

management and restoration plan for the Susquehanna River Basin. 124pp. 

3 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2010. Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery 

Management Plan for shad and river herring, Arlington, Virginia. February 2010. 

4

 Sweka, J.A. 2013. Re-analysis of the 2008 American Shad telemetry study. Internal USFWS 

Report drafted December 2, 2013. 

5

 Exelon. 2009. Assessing the Impacts of Muddy Run Pumped Storage Station and Holtwood 

Hydroelectric Station Operations on the Upstream Migration of Adult American Shad (Alosa 

sapidissma) in Conowingo Pond, Susquehanna River, Spring 2008. 
12 

flows, and the result is a highly perturbed aquatic ecosystem that is often not suitable for 

migratory fish spawning, nursery habitat, or fish passage. 

In the years following construction of dams on the mainstem of the Susquehanna River, fishway 

design, technology, and operation improved and by the 1940s, successful passage of American 

shad was demonstrated at Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River, Oregon. In the 1950s, 

inspired by improvements in fish passage technology, resource agencies began the process of 

restoring migratory fish to the Susquehanna River, focusing on American shad, the largest and 

locally most important of the herrings. At the urging of Pennsylvania sportsmen and the 

Pennsylvania Fish Commission, the U.S. Congress appropriated funds specifically to study the 

potential to recover American shad fisheries in dammed rivers. Ensuing studies, many funded by 

the hydroelectric dam owners/operators on the lower Susquehanna River included: an assessment 

of the migratory response of American shad placed into riverine habitat upstream of 

hydroelectric impoundments (Walburg 1954, Whitney 1961)6

; assessment of the suitability of 

the Susquehanna River for American shad reproduction and survival (Carlson 1968)7; and the 

assessment of the engineering feasibility of American shad passage at high dams (Bell and 

Holmes 1962)8. 

Anadromous fish restoration on the Susquehanna River was a cooperative venture from the 

beginning. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission (now Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission), 

Maryland Board of Natural Resources (now Maryland Department of Natural Resources), New 

York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Service developed an 

Administrative Committee for American shad studies on the Susquehanna River in February 

1963 for the purpose of determining habitat suitability above dams to support American shad 

reproduction and survival. The study was funded by the lower river hydroelectric dam 

owners/operators during 1963 to 1966. The study results determined that over 300 miles of the 

mainstem Susquehanna River upstream of the York Haven Dam, most of the Juniata River, and 

the lower West Branch of the Susquehanna River were entirely suitable for American shad 

spawning and rearing (Carlson 1968)9

. 

Around 1970, the first modern effort to restore the American shad population in the Susquehanna 

River began. The utility companies owning the dams along the Susquehanna River worked with 

various Federal and state agencies to stock the upper Susquehanna River with shad eggs, and to 

build a facility at Conowingo Dam to trap fish, from which the shad and herring would be 

transported upstream to spawning areas near Middletown and Columbia, Pennsylvania. The 

Conowingo facility had limited success, however, passing only 945 shad between 1972 and 

1980. 

As part of a 1984 Settlement Agreement, the licensee, Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation 

(SHWPC) and York Haven Power Company (YHP) provided $3.7 million over the period from 

 

6 As cited in: Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative. 2010. Migratory 

fish management and restoration plan for the Susquehanna River Basin. 124pp. 

7 Id at 6.

8 Id at 6.

9 Id at 6.
13 

1985 to 1994 to fund a trap and transfer program for shad, expand hatchery operations and 

conduct studies related to shad restoration10. By the late 1980s, the catch of returning adult shad 

at Conowingo had increased to several thousand shad per year. As a result a new fish passage 

facility capable of passing 1.5 million shad and 10 million herring was completed in 1991 at the 

Conowingo Dam. 

In 1993, SHWPC, the licensee, and YHP reached a settlement agreement with various 

agencies11. This agreement required Safe Harbor and Holtwood to have fish passage facilities in 

place by 1997 and required York Haven to install facilities no later than three years (2000) after 

the in service date of the facilities at Holtwood and Safe Harbor.

Upstream fish passage has been installed at all mainstem dams on the Susquehanna River; 

however American shad restoration has not met expectations. While the Conowingo Dam 

fishway has passed large numbers of shad, studies indicate the effectiveness to be inadequate. A 

2012 radio telemetry study conducted as part of the Conowingo Hydroelectric Project relicensing 

indicated that only 44% of American shad attempting to pass the dam made it through the 

fishway12. Analysis of data from a radio telemetry conducted at the Muddy Run Project in 2008 

indicated considerable delay and fall back of shad attempting to pass through the project area13. 

Calculation of upstream passage efficiencies at the other three hydroelectric facilities is based on 

the counts at each facility relative to the number passed at the adjacent downstream facility. 

American shad passage efficiencies for Holtwood, Safe Harbor, and York Haven have averaged 

32%, 71%, and 11%, respectively, over the period from 1997 through 2009. Based on the results 

of a 2008 radio telemetry study14

 

10 Settlement Agreement. December 1, 1984. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Safe 

Harbor Water Power Corporation, and York Haven Power Company, AND U.S. Department of 

the Interior – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Upper Chesapeake Watershed Association, and 

Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. 

the passage efficiency for American shad that entered the 

Muddy Run Project area and eventually made it past the project was 88%. The cumulative 

impact of fish passage inefficiencies at each of the FERC licensed hydroelectric projects on the 

lower Susquehanna River results in an overall passage efficiency of less than 1% of the 

American shad attempting to migrate upstream. The key to increasing wild juvenile recruitment 

11 Settlement Agreement. June 1, 1993. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Safe Harbor 

Water Power Corporation, and York Haven Power Company, AND U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service – U.S. Department of the Interior, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Upper Chesapeake Watershed Association, 

and Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. 

12 Exelon. 2012. Upstream fish passage effectiveness study RSP 3.5. Conowingo Hydroelectric 

Project, FERC Project Number 405. Prepared by Normandeau and Associates, Inc. with Gomez 

and Sullivan Engineers, P.C. September 2012. 69 pages + Appendices.

13 Id at 4.

14 Id at 5.
14 

(i.e., young fish produced from natural spawning in the Susquehanna River and not of hatchery 

reared origin) is directly related to effectively passing pre-spawn anadromous fish into the 

quality spawning and nursery habitat located upstream of the York Haven Dam where the 

majority (95%) of spawning habitat is located. The target passage number for adult American 

shad into spawning habitat upstream of York Haven Dam is 2 million fish15. Consequently, 

overall passage efficiencies must be significantly improved past the lower Susquehanna River 

hydroelectric projects in order to achieve the goal of successful restoration of American shad to 

the Susquehanna River16

American Eel

. 

American eel (Anguilla rostrata) occupy a significant and unique niche in the estuarine and 

freshwater habitats of the Atlantic coast. Eels are a catadromous species that ascend freshwater 

environments as juveniles. These fish reside in riverine and connected lake habitats until 

reaching maturity at which time they migrate to the Sargasso Sea where they spawn once and 

die. Larval eels are transported by ocean currents to rivers along the eastern seaboard of the 

continent. Unlike anadromous shad and herring, they have no particular homing instinct. 

Historically, American eels were very abundant in East Coast streams, comprising more than 25 

percent of the total fish biomass in many locations17. This abundance has declined from historic 

levels but remained relatively stable until the 1970s. More recently, fishermen, resource 

managers, and scientists have noticed a further decline in abundance from harvest and 

assessment data18. Status of the American eel population is currently under consideration for 

protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 50 FR 60431). There is currently no 

commercial harvest and very few eels are taken by anglers from the Susquehanna River.

Although the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries support a large portion of the coastal American eel 

population, eels have been essentially extirpated from the largest Chesapeake Bay tributary, the 

Susquehanna River. The Susquehanna River basin comprises 43 percent of the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed. Construction of Conowingo Dam in 1928 effectively closed the river to upstream 

migration of elvers (i.e., juvenile eel hatched in the ocean that migrate upstream to grow and 

mature) at river mile 10. Historically, American eel were found throughout the watershed and 

supported commercial fisheries in Pennsylvania, New York, and Maryland19

 

15 Id at 6.

. Currently no 

upstream or downstream eel passage measures are required, or in place at any of the 

16 Id at 6.

17 Ogden, J.C. 1970. Relative abundance, food habits, and age of the American Eel, Anguilla 

rostrata (LeSueur), in certain New Jersey streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 99(1):54–59. 

18 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2012. American Eel benchmark stock 

assessment. Stock Assessment Report No. 12-01 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission. 254pp. 

19 Dittman, D. E., L.S. Machut and J.H. Johnson. 2009. Susquehanna River drainage: American 

Eel history, status, and management options. Final Report for New York State Contract # 

C005548, comprehensive study of the American Eel. State Wildlife Grant T-3, Project 3. 

Submitted to NYSDEC Bureau of Fisheries. 95 p. 
15 

hydroelectric projects in the Susquehanna River basin. The Service is currently studying 

American eel occurrence and passage needs at hydroelectric projects on the lower Susquehanna 

River20

Current Fisheries

. 

Coast-Wide American Shad Status

The current status of American shad along the Atlantic coast is summarized by the Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) in Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery 

Management Plan for Shad and River Herring21 and the most recent American Shad Stock 

Assessment (ASMFC 2007, Volume I). Historically, American shad, hickory shad, alewife, and 

blueback herring (collectively termed alosines) were an extremely important fishery resource and 

supported very large commercial fisheries along the Atlantic coast of both the United States and 

Canada. Coast-wide landings of American shad at the turn of the century were approximately 50 

million pounds. However, by 1980 the landings decreased dramatically to 3.8 million pounds. 

Total landings of river herring (alewife and blueback herring) varied from 40-65 million pounds 

from 1950 to 1970, then declined steadily thereafter to less than 12 million pounds by 1980. 

These dramatic declines in commercial landings were perceived as an indication that a 

coordinated management action would be required to restore alosine stocks to their former levels 

of abundance. Therefore, in 1981, the members of the ASMFC recommended the preparation of 

a cooperative Interstate Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for American Shad and river herrings. 

The initial FMP was completed in 1985 and recommended management measures that focused 

primarily on regulating exploitation and enhancing stock restoration efforts. 

In spite of the efforts to develop and implement the FMP, alosine stocks continued to decline and 

in 1994, ASMFC determined that the original FMP was no longer adequate for protecting and 

restoring remaining shad and river herring stocks. They concluded that the declines may have 

been the result of overharvest by in-river and ocean-intercept fisheries; excessive striped bass 

predation; biotic and abiotic environmental changes; and loss of essential spawning and nursery 

habitat due to water quality degradation and blockages of spawning reaches by dams and other 

impediments. A coast wide assessment was completed in 1998 and Amendment 1 to the FMP 

was adopted in 1999 and additional addendums were added in 2000 and 2002. Amendment 1 and 

the addendums focused on maintaining directed fishing mortality below set benchmarks which 

defined ASMFC shad management until the adoption of Amendment 3 in 2010. 

The 2007 stock assessment (ASMFC 2007, Volume I) that found American shad stocks were at 

all-time low levels and did not appear to be recovering to acceptable levels. Commercial 

landings declined to 574,300 pounds in 2005 (a reduction of approximately 85% since 1980). 

The primary causes for continued stock declines were attributed to a combination of excessive 

 

20 Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative. 2013a. Susquehanna River 

Basin American Eel restoration plan, Addendum to the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish 

Restoration Cooperative (SRAFRC) 2010 migratory fish management and restoration plan for 

the Susquehanna River Basin. 18 p. 

21 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2010. Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery 

Management Plan for shad and river herring, Arlington, Virginia. February 2010. 
16 

total mortality, habitat loss and degradation, and migration and habitat access impediments. The 

2007 stock assessment also concluded that management based on fishing mortality benchmarks, 

as in Amendment 1, was no longer valid for American shad stocks since they are subjected to 

several sources of human-induced mortality including direct and indirect fisheries as well as fish 

passage mortality at dams and river pollution. Since the components of human-induced mortality 

(direct and indirect fisheries, dam-induced, and pollution) are difficult or impossible to partition, 

and difficult to separate from natural mortality, the 2007 stock assessment suggested the use of a 

total instantaneous mortality rate that preserves 30% of unexploited spawning biomass per 

recruit as a benchmark (Z30) to help guide management and gauge restoration progress (i.e., 

Z30 represents the total mortality that would yield a population size equivalent to 30% of a 

population that suffered no human-induced mortality (mortality due to fishing, pollution, dams, 

etc.). For example if the population level was 100 pounds of adult fish under a situation of no 

human-induced mortality, the population size would be 30 pounds of adult fish under a situation 

where total mortality (natural + human-induced) equaled Z30))22. 

General conclusions from the 2007 stock assessment were: 

• Ocean mixed stock harvest has been a large component of total American shad harvest 

over the last 25 years and since the late 1980s it was the dominant component of shad 

harvest from north of Virginia; 

• The expected benefits resulting from the ocean intercept fishery closure were not obvious 

in this assessment and might take one or more generations of American shad before they 

are realized;

• Available total mortality estimates generally exceeded Z30 for most years in rivers where 

data were suitable for catch curve analysis and where data supported spawning stock 

biomass per recruit modeling; 

• Data on annual number of fish passing upriver at dams on several Atlantic coastal rivers 

exhibited a coast-wide pattern of an increase followed by a decrease. Interestingly, most 

fish passage numbers declined at about the same time (late 1990s to early 2000s). This 

synchronous decline suggests a coast wide change in environmental conditions or 

mortality factors that affected stocks from South Carolina to Maine within the last five 

years;

• Continuous fishery dependent and independent catch-per-unit-effort series generally only 

provide insight into recent stock dynamics, except for the Delaware River Lewis haul 

seine index;

• Trends in juvenile production do not show consistent patterns coast-wide; however, 

regional patterns and some local trends were noteworthy;

 

22 Kilduff, P., Carmichael, J., and Latour, R. 2009. Guide to Fisheries Science and Stock 

Assessment. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. June 2009.
17 

• Recruitment has increased in the upper Chesapeake Bay, including the Potomac River, 

and Merrymeeting Bay, Maine in recent years;

• Recruitment patterns in the lower Chesapeake Bay (James, York, and Rappahannock 

Rivers) and in Albemarle Sound have been similar; 

• Relatively low young-of-year production was observed in all New England juvenile 

surveys in 1998 and 2001; and

• There has been consistent low recruitment in the Hudson River since 2002. 

In response to the 2007 stock assessment, Amendment 3 to the FMP was adopted in 2010. 

Amendment 3 called for the adoption of Z30 as a benchmark to evaluate observed levels of total 

mortality and whether or not population restoration was occurring. It also called for the states or 

jurisdictions to submit sustainability plans for commercial and recreational fisheries. States or 

jurisdictions without an approved plan in place would have their fisheries closed by January 1, 

2013. Currently, Connecticut, the Delaware River Basin, Potomac River Fisheries Commission, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida have an approved sustainability plan for 

shad, and Maine, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina and South Carolina have an 

approved sustainability plan for river herring. Some states such as Maryland have chosen to 

close their shad and herring fisheries. 

In addition to regulating fisheries via sustainability plans, Amendment 3 recommended states 

and jurisdictions develop habitat plans for American shad to reduce or mitigate the impact of 

dams and other obstructions and water quality and contamination. Some recommendations for 

fish passage included working with Federal agencies and to target hydropower dams for 

appropriate recommendations during FERC relicensing; prioritize barriers in need of fish 

passage based on ecological criteria; develop new technologies to improve fish passage 

efficiency; design passage facilities that work under all water levels; and implement measures to 

pass fish via routes with the best survival. Although the development of habitat restoration and 

protection programs was proposed in Amendment 3, implementation of these programs is not 

required as it is beyond the authority of ASMFC. 

Mid-Atlantic Region American Shad Status

Although there has been an overall coast wide decline in American shad stocks, the 2007 

ASMFC stock assessment found much variation in population trends along the coast. Regional 

trends were apparent with rivers in close geographic proximity showing similar population 

trends. When assessing the status of the Susquehanna River and trying to give context to these 

trends, it is useful to compare them to rivers of similar size that are also located in the midAtlantic region such as the Delaware River and the Potomac River.

The Susquehanna River

The Susquehanna River once supported large numbers of migratory fish including the American 

shad, blueback herring, alewife, and hickory shad, striped bass (Morone saxatilis), Atlantic 
18 

sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus), and shortnose sturgeon (A. brevirostrum). These stocks have 

been severely impacted by human activities, especially dam building. In the 1950s, the resource 

agencies implemented a program to restore access for migratory fish to the upper Susquehanna 

River basin, focusing on American shad. In response to harvest declines that signaled critically 

low fish stock levels, the directed American shad fisheries in the Chesapeake Bay region were 

closed (Maryland in 1980 and Virginia in 1994). The American shad stock in the Susquehanna 

River improved slowly and made an impressive comeback by 2001 when over 200,000 adult 

shad were counted at the Conowingo Dam fish lifts. However, since 2001, adult numbers have 

decreased most likely due to a variety of factors including: poor efficiency of fish passage 

measures and facilities; low hatchery production in recent years; low numbers of spawning fish 

accessing quality habitat: poor young-of-year recruitment upstream of Conowingo Dam; ocean 

and Chesapeake Bay mortality; turbine mortality and predation23. 

The decline over the past decade in adult shad counted at Conowingo Dam fish lifts also 

coincides with declines seen downstream of the Conowingo Dam tailrace. Abundance estimates 

from mark-recapture and a surplus production model conducted from 1988 through 2012 both 

showed an increase through 2001 followed by a decrease24

The Delaware River 

. Also, catch-per-unit-effort (fish per 

boat hour) from the Conowingo Dam tailrace showed similar trends. The percentage of repeat 

spawning American shad in the Conowingo Dam tailrace also increased from 1984 to 2002, but 

has remained fairly stable since then with 34% of males and 73% of females being repeat 

spawners in 2012. 

In the late 1890s, the Delaware River had the largest annual commercial shad harvest of any 

river on the Atlantic Coast with estimates ranging up to 19 million pounds in a given year. The 

harvest began to decline rapidly in the early 1900s due to water pollution, overfishing, and dams 

on major tributaries (ASMFC 2007, Volume II). Despite improved state legislation and 

regulation, and a massive program of artificial propagation of shad stocks in the late 1800s, the 

shad fishery eventually collapsed under the combined pressures. By the 1940s, the commercial 

shad fisheries were mainly limited to the lower reaches of the River and Bay below Pennsylvania 

(Ellis in Delaware River Fish and Wildlife Cooperative 1982). By 1950, the urban reach of the 

Delaware River was one of the most polluted stretches of river in the world (ASMFC 2007, 

Volume II).

It is evident that the Delaware River stock of American shad declined through the 1990s and 

remains at low levels (ASMFC 2007, Volume II). The catch-per-unit-effort (fish/haul) in the 

Lewis haul seine fishery in the lower Delaware River had a recent peak in 1989 with a 52.20 

fish/haul, but declined to only 2.89 fish/haul in 2005. Relative abundance measures of juvenile 

American shad increased from 1980 through 1996 and have since varied without trend. There 

does not seem to be an identifiable cause of the decline nor an indication as to why the stock has 

remained at low levels in recent years. Although recent high abundances of striped bass have 

been hypothesized to be a reason for continued low abundance of American shad in the 

 

23 Id at 2.

24 Id at 20. 
19 

Delaware River, the 2007 stock assessment found no empirical data to attribute the shad decline 

in the Delaware River solely to striped bass.

The Potomac River 

Among Chesapeake Bay stocks of American shad, the Potomac River population shows the most 

promising signs of recovery. The gill-net index, the pound net index, and the juvenile abundance 

index used in the 2007 ASMFC stock assessment (ASMFC 2007, Volume III) depict increasing 

trends in relative abundance. Age structure has broadened and the mean age has increased. 

Estimates of total mortality have declined from 2002 to 2005. Reference values Z30 (the total 

mortality that preserves 30% of unexploited spawning stock biomass per recruit) in the 

Chesapeake Bay region (York River, Virginia) derived from a yield model ranged from 0.62 to 

0.86 depending on the assumed level of natural mortality. Total instantaneous mortality 

estimated in 2005 from catch curve (0.82) and repeat spawning (0.66) data were within this 

range indicating that total mortality was not excessive.

A benchmark for American shad in the Potomac River is the geometric mean of pound net catch 

rates reported in Walburg and Sykes (1957) for the years 1944 to 1952, a value of 31.1 pounds 

per net-day. Although pound net catch rates remain below the benchmark, these catch rates have 

steadily increased from 0.94 in 1988 to 12.21 in 2005 (ASMFC 2007, Volume III). To continue 

stock rebuilding, there should be no new expansion of the fishery until the benchmark is reached. 

It appears the decline in American shad seen on the Susquehanna River over the past decade 

coincides with a decline seen on the Delaware River. The mainstem Delaware River is 

undammed and most of the historic habitat has remained available to American shad, so limited 

access to habitat is likely not the cause for the observed decline. However, the American shad 

population in Potomac River, where fish passage and access to additional habitat has improved, 

is increasing and we would expect that the Susquehanna River population should show trends 

more similar to the Potomac River since both are major Chesapeake Bay tributaries and both 

have had fishways installed at passage barriers in past two decades. As noted above the 

cumulative effectiveness of the fishways on the Susquehanna River has been documented to be 

less than 1%. We conclude that the poor passage effectiveness is the likely a major contributing 

cause for lack of increased American shad population response on the Susquehanna River when 

compared with the Potomac River. 

American Eels

The ASMFC completed a stock assessment in 2012 and concluded that the stock of eel is 

depleted, due to a combination of historical overfishing, habitat loss, food web alterations, 

predation, turbine mortality, environmental changes, toxins and contaminants, and disease 

(ASMFC 2012). Currently, ASMFC is considering changes to its Interstate Fishery Management 

Plan for American Eel. The American Eel Management Board (state directors) recently reviewed 

advice from the American Eel Technical Committee with respect to potential management 

changes needed to address modern population declines. In addition to the management actions by 

ASMFC, the Service was petitioned in 2004 to review the status of American eel under the 

federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Service concluded that the petition warranted 
20 

further consideration, however the Service determined that listing was not warranted at the end 

of its review in 2007. The Service was petitioned again in 2010 by the Council for Endangered 

Species Act Reliability to re-consider listing the American eel under the ESA based on new 

information. In 2011, the Service concluded that the species warrants a more extensive status 

review which is expected to be completed in September 2015. 

American eels have been largely precluded from the Susquehanna River Basin above Conowingo 

Dam since the early 1900’s (SRAFRC 2010). Although PFBC conducted an intermittent trap and 

transfer program through 1980, by 2000 there were essentially no eels remaining in the 

watershed. Fish lifts at the 4 lower mainstem dams have passed few to no American eels in the 

past 10 years. In 2008, the Service initiated an experimental trap and transfer program at 

Conowingo Dam. This program has released over 300,000 juvenile eels from 2008 through 2012 

at various locations throughout the Susquehanna River Basin. A portion of these eels have been 

stocked in areas where freshwater mussels are present, because American eel are the primary 

host species for successful reproduction of the Eastern Elliptio mussel (Elliptio complinata) 

(Lellis et al. 2013). Freshwater mussels have the potential to reduce suspended solids and 

dissolved nutrients25,26,27

River Herring

via their filter feeding, and efforts are underway in the Susquehanna 

River to increase the number of known host fish species, such American eel, in order to enhance

mussel habitat conditions and increase freshwater mussel populations, 

On August 5, 2011, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), received a petition from the 

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), requesting they list alewife and blueback herring 

under the ESA as threatened throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges. Alternatively, 

NRDC requested the designation of distinct population segments of alewife and blueback herring 

as specified in the petition, including the Chesapeake Bay for both species.

The petition contained information on the two species, including population status and trends, 

and factors contributing to the species’ decline. The petition was determined to be warranted and 

NMFS published a positive 90-day finding on November 2, 2011. NMFS initiated a status 

review of the species to determine if listing under the ESA is warranted by forming an internal 

status review team (SRT) to compile the best commercial and scientific data available for alewife 

and blueback herring throughout their ranges. In May 2012, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission completed a river herring stock assessment, which covers over 50 river-specific 

stocks throughout the ranges of the species in the United States (ASMFC 2012b). NMFS 

identified the missing data required for their review and held workshops/working group meetings 

 

25 Atkinson, C.L., C.C. Vaughn, K.J. Forshay, and J.T. Cooper. 2013. Aggregated filter-feeding 

consumers alter nutrient limitation: consequences for ecosystem and community dynamics. 

 Ecology 94:1359-1369. 

26 Spooner, D.E., P.C. Frost, H. Hillebrand, M.T. Arts, O. Puckrin, and M.A. Xenopoulos. 

 2013. Nutrient loading associated with agriculture land use dampens the importance of 

consumer-mediated niche construction. Ecology Letters 16:1115-1125. 

27 Vaughn, C.C. 2010. Biodiversity losses and ecosystem function in freshwaters: emerging 

conclusions and research directions. Bioscience 60:25-35. 
21 

focused on addressing information on stock structure, extinction risk analysis, and climate 

change. Reports from each workshop/working group meeting were compiled and independently 

peer reviewed (Carvalho 2012; Chaput 2012; Hutchings 2012). On August 12, 2013, the NMFS 

concluded that “listing alewife or blueback herring as threatened or endangered under the ESA is 

not warranted at this time” (78 FR 48944). Based on the data available (NEFSC 2013), the SRT 

concluded that alewife are at low risk of extinction and blueback herring are at low to moderate 

risk of extinction. 

Although listing under the ESA was determined not warranted, the conclusions of the SRT 

indicated that both species are at low abundance compared to historical levels and continued 

monitoring is warranted (NEFSC 2013). Hall et. al. (2012) noted the loss of anadromous fish 

productivity in Maine was reduced by 90% by the mid-1800s, a loss attributed to lost habitat 

access due to dam construction. By the author’s estimates, this loss of habitat contributed to the 

loss of billions of juvenile alewife and blueback herring annually (Hall et. al. 2012). While many 

factors affect anadromous fish returns during any given year, including incidental and direct 

harvest, climate change and pollution, dams on historical anadromous rivers remain a significant 

impediment to restoration efforts (ASMFC 2012; Hall et al 2012).

The abundance trends analysis for alewife and blueback herring evaluated returns across the 

species entire range and for specific stock complexes (NEFSC 2013). The results indicated that 

all alewife stock complexes range wide have significantly increased over time. Range-wide, the 

observed increase in blueback herring was not significant. While the observed stock of alewife 

and blueback herring are either increasing or stable range wide, stock specific trends indicate 

areas of concern. Specifically, the Mid-Atlantic stock complex for alewife is stable, neither 

significantly increasing nor decreasing. While stable, the abundance of all stocks are greatly 

diminished compared to historical landings records (Hall e.t al. 2012). The Mid-Atlantic stock 

complex for blueback herring was determined to be significantly decreasing, as compared to the 

other blueback herring stocks that were considered stable.

Licensee Proposed Fish Passage

Anadromous Fish Passage

In the Muddy Run Project Draft Application for New License the license applicant is not 

proposing any upstream or downstream anadromous fish passage facilities or measures other 

than the continued operation of the project in the same manner as during the previous FERC 

license.

Catadromous Fish Passage

For the catadromous American eel, in the Muddy Run Project Draft Application for New License 

the licensee proposes to work with other licensee on the Susquehanna River to implement both 

an upstream and downstream trap-and-transport program to provide American eel passage for 

upstream migrating juveniles and downstream migrating adults between the Conowingo and 

York Haven dams. No specific plans for the program were provided in the Draft Application for 

New License. We generally consider trap-and-transport to be an interim fish passage measure 
22 

during the initial phase of a restoration. However, it is appropriate for these initial stages, and 

this Prescription provides specific plans for a trap and transport program. As efforts to increase 

the Susquehanna River population of American eel expand the capacity of a trap-and-transport

operation to capture and move sufficient numbers of eel upstream will likely be exceeded and 

additional facilities and measures may be needed to accommodate adequate, safe, timely and 

effective passage past the Muddy Run Project area. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Proposed 401 Water 

Quality Certification Fish Passage

On December 21, 2013 the PADEP published notice of the availability of the Proposed Water 

Quality Certification (PWQC) for Muddy Run Project in the Pennsylvania Bulletin noting there 

will be a 30 day public comment period. The PWQC contained several fish passage provisions, 

and an applicant-prepared American Eel Passage Plan (Eel Plan) as a condition of, and 

incorporated into, the PA DEP Water Quality Certification for the Muddy Run Project. We note 

that under Section 401(d) of the Clean Water Act, the Eel Plan would become a condition of the 

FERC license for the Muddy Run Project if it is included in the Final Water Quality 

Certification. Accordingly the Department has considered the PWQC fish passage provisions and 

the Eel Plan as an alternative for fish passage, and has adopted parallel requirements in many 

areas. 

Management Plans

A number of published State, Federal and regional fishery plans contain management goals that 

pertain to the Susquehanna River. 

Comprehensive Plans Recognized by the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission's Licensing Process 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1995. Interstate fishery management plan for 

Atlantic striped bass. (Report No. 24). March 1995. 

 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1998. Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery 

Management Plan for Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus oxyrhynchus). (Report No. 31). 

July 1998. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1998. Interstate fishery management plan for 

Atlantic striped bass. (Report No. 34). January 1998. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1999. Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery 

Management Plan for shad and river herring. (Report No. 35). April 1999. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2000. Interstate fishery management 

plan for American Eel. Fishery Management Report No. 36 of the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission. 79pp. 
23 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000. Technical Addendum 1 to Amendment 1 of 

the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for shad and river herring. February 9, 2000. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2009. Amendment 2 to the Interstate Fishery 

Management Plan for shad and river herring, Arlington, Virginia. May 2009. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2010. Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery 

Management Plan for shad and river herring, Arlington, Virginia. February 2010. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1980. Pennsylvania coastal zone 

management program and final environmental impact statement. Department of Commerce, 

Washington, D.C. August 1980. 

 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Final Recovery Plan for the shortnose sturgeon 

(Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. December 1998. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Fishery Management Report No. 36 of the Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commission: Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American eel 

(Anguilla rostrata). Prepared by the American Eel Plan Development Team. April 2000. 

National Park Service. 1982. The nationwide rivers inventory. Department of the Interior, 

Washington, D.C. January 1982. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1983. Pennsylvania state water plan. 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. January 1983. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1986. Pennsylvania scenic rivers 

inventory. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. January 1986. 

 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1986. Pennsylvania's recreation plan, 

1986-1990. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1988. Pennsylvania 1988 water quality 

assessment. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. April 1988. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1990. The Pennsylvania scenic rivers 

program scenic rivers inventory. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. April 1990. 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission. 1987. Comprehensive plan for management and 

development of the water resources of the Susquehanna River Basin. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 

June 1987. 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission. 2012. Comprehensive plan for the water resources of the 

Susquehanna River Basin. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. June 2012. 
24 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. n.d. Fisheries USA: the recreational fisheries policy of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North American waterfowl 

management plan. Department of the Interior. Environment Canada. May 1986. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Chesapeake Bay striped bass management plan. 

Annapolis, Maryland. December 1989. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Chesapeake Bay Alosid (shad and river herring) 

management plan. Annapolis, Maryland. July 1989. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Chesapeake Bay American eel fishery management plan. 

Annapolis, Maryland. December 18, 1992. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Migratory Fish Management and Restoration Plan for the 

Susquehanna River Basin. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. November 15, 2010. 

Susquehanna River Settlement Agreements

Settlement Agreement. September 29, 1970. Philadelphia Electric Power Company, 

Susquehanna Power Company, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Safe Harbor Water 

Power Corporation, and Metropolitan Edison Company, AND U.S. Department of the Interior – 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and Pennsylvania Fish Commission. 

Settlement Agreement. April 1, 1981. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, and Safe Harbor 

Water Power Corporation, AND Pennsylvania Fish Commission, and Susquehanna River Basin 

Commission.

Settlement Agreement. December 1, 1984. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Safe Harbor 

Water Power Corporation, and York Haven Power Company, AND U.S. Department of the 

Interior – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Maryland Department 

of Natural Resources, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Susquehanna 

River Basin Commission, Upper Chesapeake Watershed Association, and Pennsylvania 

Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. 

Settlement Agreement. August 26, 1988. Philadelphia Electric Power Company, and 

Susquehanna Power Company, AND U.S. Department of the Interior – U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 

Upper Chesapeake Watershed Association, and Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. 

Settlement Agreement. June 1, 1993. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Safe Harbor 

Water Power Corporation, and York Haven Power Company, AND U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
25 

Service – U.S. Department of the Interior, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Upper Chesapeake Watershed Association, 

and Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. 

Settlement Agreement. June 1, 1997. York Haven Power Company, AND U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service – U.S. Department of the Interior, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources, and Susquehanna River Basin Commission. 

Resource Agency Plans

Policy Committee of the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Committee 

(SRAFRC). May 2002. Alosid Management and Restoration Plan for the Susquehanna River 

Basin.

Policy Committee of the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Committee 

(SRAFRC). November 2010. Migratory Fish Management and Restoration Plan for the 

Susquehanna River Basin. 

Policy Committee of the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Committee 

(SRAFRC). December 2013. American Eel Restoration Plan for the Susquehanna River Basin. 

Addendum to the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative (SRAFRC) 

2010 Migratory Fish Management and Restoration Plan for the Susquehanna River Basin. 

Chesapeake Bay Program - Executive Council. January 2005. Fish Passage Goals. 

Chesapeake Bay Program. February 2004. Restoring Fish Passages throughout the Chesapeake 

Bay Watershed.

Chesapeake Bay Program. February 2004. Shad and the Chesapeake Bay. 

Chesapeake Bay Program. January 2000. Migratory Fish Restoration and Passage on the 

Susquehanna River. 

Restoration Objectives

Anadromous Fish

In November 2010 the Policy Committee of the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish 

Restoration Cooperative adopted the Migratory Fish Management and Restoration Plan for the 

Susquehanna River Basin (restoration plan) (SRAFRC 2010) that serves as a plan for future 

efforts to restore important migratory fish resources to the Susquehanna River Basin. 

The goal of the Restoration Plan is:
26 

“Restore self-sustaining, robust, and productive stocks of migratory fish capable of 

producing sustainable fisheries, to the Susquehanna River Basin throughout their 

historic ranges in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York. The goals are 2 million 

American shad and 5 million river herring spawning upstream of the York Haven 

Dam. Goals for American eel and other migratory species are yet to be determined”. 

The steps to achieve this goal are partitioned into five objectives, each with a series of tasks. The 

tasks include a brief description along with timelines, costs, potential sources of funding and an 

assessment of task status. Brief overviews of the five objectives are: 

A. Restore access to historic habitats for juvenile and adult migratory fish. This 

objective calls for development of passage plans and performance measures to achieve 

specified minimum passage efficiency for American shad, American eels, and other 

migratory fish species at major basin dams. 

B. Maintain or improve existing migratory fish habitat. This objective focuses on 

essential habitat issues by inventorying blockages and assessing the impact of fish 

passage impediments through active involvement of SRAFRC in watershed project 

reviews while supporting monitoring and improving water quality. 

C. Enhance migratory fish spawning stock biomass and maximize juvenile recruitment 

through natural and/or artificial means. This objective includes a variety of tasks 

designed to directly or indirectly improve migratory fish stocks in the Susquehanna 

River. Tasks focus on improving current techniques for artificial augmentation of 

American shad stocks, developing new techniques for augmenting river herring and eel 

populations, restoring non-Alosine migratory fish, improving instream migration, 

spawning and rearing habitat, and maintaining existing regulatory framework restricting 

harvest of migratory fish. 

D. Evaluate the migratory fish restoration effort and adjust programs or processes as 

needed. This objective stresses the importance of data dissemination and analysis. Tasks 

included in this section will continue to collect baseline data essential to monitor 

restoration progress while researching and experimenting with technologies to improve 

survival, reproduction and spawning biomass. 

E. Ensure cooperation among all restoration partners while generating support for 

migratory fish restoration among the general public and potential funding sources.

This objective stresses the importance of a watershed approach to restoration and 

emphasizes the need to include coastal states and ocean waters.

The SRAFRC, through its policy and technical committees, member agencies and partners will 

rely on this plan as the foundation of its restoration activities while also recognizing that changes 

in fish stocks, threats, and management techniques will require flexibility and adaptation. 

American Eel
27 

In December 2013 the Policy Committee of the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish 

Restoration Cooperative approved the American Eel Restoration Plan for the Susquehanna River 

Basin (SRAFRC 2013) that will serve as a plan for future efforts to restore American eel to the 

Susquehanna River Basin. 

The goal of the American Eel Restoration Plan is:

“Ensure that every American Eel that approaches Conowingo Dam is passed upstream 

into the Susquehanna River Basin in order to restore American Eels to the watershed, 

to provide a net increase of out-migrating American Eel, and restore the ecosystem 

functions provided by healthy American Eel populations, including their role as 

predator and prey as well as acting as hosts for the glochidia of E. complanata.”. 

The objectives of the Draft Eel Restoration Plan are:

1. Ensure upstream passage of American eel throughout the Susquehanna River Basin. 

2. Increase survival and escapement of American eels passing barriers and hydroelectric 

facilities during their downstream spawning migration.

3. Evaluate efforts to reintroduce American eels throughout the Susquehanna River Basin 

and document the influences of American eel on freshwater mussel populations. 

4. Increase public awareness, appreciation, and knowledge of American eels. 

The SRAFRC 2013 plan states that all available eel seeking passage at a hydroelectric project be 

passed upstream (i.e. no impact), and that there be 85% downstream passage survival at each 

hydroelectric project.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s American Eel Fisheries Management Plan

goals are to maintain and enhance the abundance of American eels in inland and coastal waters, 

and contribute to the viability of the American eel spawning population. One objective is to 

provide adequate upstream passage and escapement to inland waters of elvers and juvenile eels 

as well as provide adequate downstream passage and escapement to the ocean of pre-spawn adult 

eels. American eel in the Susquehanna River would benefit from installation of upstream and 

downstream fishways or implementation of operational measures to minimize and avoid impacts 

associated with upstream passage delays and turbine passage entrainment injury or mortality 

during downstream passage at Susquehanna River hydroelectric projects.

Statutory Authority

Section 18 of the Federal Power Act, 16 USCS §811, states in pertinent part: 

the Commission shall require the construction, maintenance and operation by a licensee 

at its own expense of...such fishways as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce 

or the Secretary of the Interior.
28 

Section 1701(b) of the National Energy Policy Act of 1992, P.L. 102-486, Title XVII, §1701(b), 

106 Stat. 3008, states: 

the items which may constitute a ‘fishway’ under section 18 [16 USCS §811] for the safe 

and timely upstream and downstream passage of fish shall be limited to physical 

structures, facilities, or devices necessary to maintain all life stages of such fish, and 

project operations and measures related to such structures, facilities or devices 

necessary to ensure the effectiveness of such structures, facilities, or devices for such fish. 

Administrative Record

Evidence to support the Department’s Preliminary Prescription for Fishways is contained in the 

Administrative Record before the Commission, and the additional materials are being provided 

under separate cover. Citations to the extant record are provided herein. 

Impacts of Muddy Run Project on Migratory Fish

Migratory impediments to fish attempting to pass through the Muddy Run Project area are the 

direct result of project operations that alter the flow in Susquehanna River channel adjacent to, 

upstream and/or downstream of the Muddy Rum Powerhouse. Both generation and pumping 

operations at Muddy Run Project have been demonstrated to have negative impacts on migratory 

fish passage.

The operation of Muddy Run Project alters the instream river flow that enters the project area 

from upstream. This alteration elicits changes in migratory fish behavior that, as further 

explained below, result in delay or fall back of upstream migration, and entrainment of fish 

through the Muddy Run Project turbines that can kill, injure and or displace fish attempting to 

migrate through the Muddy Run Project area28. 

Migratory fish cannot reason their way through a problem or an impediment. They only respond 

to environmental stimulus in their immediate area (e.g., light, temperature, day length, vision, 

sound, physiological condition, flow). Their response to a stimulus is instinctual, and the result 

of thousands of years of evolution captured in genetic code. For migratory fish physiological 

condition (e.g., sexual maturation), along with environmental stimulus (e.g., day length, water 

temperature), elicit a response to begin the spawning migration. 

For anadromous fish, the spawning migration result is to seek out freshwater spawning habitat in 

its natal watershed. To accomplish this, fish respond to freshwater flow stimulus from its natal 

stream (i.e., migratory fish imprint on the “smell” of their natal stream and later respond to the 

smell by swimming up that stream as adults to spawn) by swimming upstream against the current 

to reach spawning and juvenile rearing habitat29

 

28 Id at 4.

. If an instream flow is not present the fish 

29 Quinn, T. P. and Adams, D. J., 1996. Environmental Changes Affecting the Migratory Timing 

of American Shad and Sockeye Salmon. Ecology, Vol. 77, No. 4 (Jun., 1996), pp. 1151-1162 
29 

cannot distinguish which way to swim to migrate upstream. If the instream flow is too strong the 

fish may not be able to effectively swim upstream, be forced back downstream, and/or seek flow 

velocity refuge until instream flows subside to acceptable levels. If the flow of the stream is 

reversed the fish will be confused and may swim in the wrong direction. 

The catadromous American eel juvenile fish also swim upstream against the river flow and 

would experience the same conditions as the anadromous spawning fish, only the impacts of 

high and reverse flows would be greater due to small size and weaker swimming ability.

Both anadromous and catadromous species must also swim back downstream during portions of 

their life cycle. They respond to flow stimulus by swimming with the flow. Flows that reduce the 

current, head in the upstream direction, and/or lead to hazards (e.g., entrainment through a 

turbine, or dislocation into an off-stream water body) that kill, injure and/or misdirect fish will 

have negative impacts on migration. 

Fish Passage Delays and Fallback

The licensee consultants Normandeau Associates Inc. (Normandeau) and Gomez and Sullivan 

Engineers’ 2008 American shad radio telemetry report concluded that Muddy Run Pumped 

Storage Project had negligible impacts on the migration of American shad in the Susquehanna 

River (Normandeau Associates 2009). In the Department’s assessment30, the original telemetry 

data were reanalyzed in more detail to further examine potential impacts of MRPSP on upstream 

migration of American shad. The objectives of this assessment were to: (1) determine the effect 

of flow on travel time of American shad between Sicily Island, the telemetry station immediately 

downstream of MRPSP, and Deepwater Island, the telemetry station immediately upstream of 

MRPSP (both telemetry stations are approximately equidistant for the MRPSP powerhouse); (2) 

determine if there was a difference in travel times and swim speeds between Sicily Island and 

MRPSP, and MRPSP and Deepwater Island; and (3) determine what proportion of forays from 

Sicily Island were successful in making it past MRPSP. 

It was observed that: median travel times from Sicily Island to Deepwater Island increased with 

the amount of flow experienced by migrating shad; travel times were longer, and swim speeds 

slower between Sicily Island and MRPSP than between MRPSP and Deepwater Island; and only 

18% of upstream forays by migrating shad were successful at continued passage past MRPSP 

from Sicily Island to Deepwater Island with no fall back behavior, and some individual fish 

needed to make several forays prior to successfully passing MRPSP. Contrary to conclusions 

from the report by Normandeau Associates Inc., this assessment provides conclusive evidence 

that MRPSP does indeed impact upstream shad migration by unnaturally altering flow conditions 

in the MRPSP project area that result in migratory delays and possible termination of upstream 

migration by shad. Normandeau (2009) noted the impacts of increased flow on migrating 

American shad stating “...mid run segment in particular was subjected to an increase of river 

flow from 40,000 cfs to 65,000 cfs within 2 days after release, which most likely displaced some 

fish downstream for good. A spike in river flows can disrupt upstream migration of American 

shad.” Peaking discharge flows from the Muddy Run Project elevated instream flows coming 

 

30 Id at 4.
30 

from Holtwood Dam to above 60,000 cfs on 50% of the days during the 2008 fish passage study. 

Table 1 shows delays in tagged shad passage past the Muddy Run Project for American shad 

monitoring during the 2008 Normandeau study. The passage times were estimated from the 

analysis contained in Sweka 2013. The information in the table indicates as flows below the 

Muddy Run powerhouse (represented as the combined flow from Holtwood Dam and Muddy 

Run Project operations) increase so does the delay in passage through the Muddy Run Project 

area. In 2006 the owner of the Holtwood Hydroelectric Project developed a 2-D numeric flow 

model for the area downstream of the Holtwood Dam that included modeling of flow effects 

from operation of the Muddy Run Project31. The study indicated that flows from the Muddy Run 

Project can develop passage bottlenecks in the Susquehanna River downstream of the Muddy 

Run powerhouse under certain river flow conditions, and it can also create flow conditions that 

prevent up migrating fish from locating the Holtwood tailrace, causing a temporary delay in 

upstream migration.

Table 12. American shad upstream passage delays resulting as flow below the Muddy Run 

powerhouse increase (combined net flow resulting from flows Holtwood Dam and project 

operations at the Muddy Run Project, calculated from Sweka 2013). 

Flow (cfs) below MR Time (hours) Sicily Island to Deepwater Island

42,187 12

59,515 24

69,652 36

76,844 48

Sweka and Eyler (2013)32

Fish Entrainment

 found that delays to upstream migration of American shad (Alosa 

sapidissima) at hydroelectric facilities can compromise their ability to successfully spawn by

causing a mismatch between when shad arrive in suitable spawning habitat with optimal 

temperatures for spawning. Their model demonstrated that the passage efficiency and delays can 

have a large effect on the probability of shad reaching areas upstream of York Haven Dam when 

temperatures are optimal for spawning. This will in turn result in lower spawning success that 

leads to decreased juvenile fish recruitment to the Susquehanna River population which would 

be reflected in fewer mature adult fish returning to the river in future years. The impact of delay 

was also noted by the FERC (2004) when it stated “...Upstream-migrating fish may be delayed 

for hours or days searching for passage ...This delay could reduce the fitness of spawning adults 

or the upstream extent of their migration.” 

American Eel

 

31 Gessler, D. and Sullivan, T. J. 2006. 2-D Numeric Modeling of Existing Flow Patterns and 

Velocities in the Susquehanna River Downstream of the PPL Holtwood Hydroelectric Project. 

Prepared for PPL Holtwood, LLC. By Alden Research Laboratory, Inc., December 2006. 

32 Sweka, J.A. and Eyler, S. 2013. Evaluation of Migratory Delays on the Success of American 

Shad in the Susquehanna River. Internal USFWS Report drafted December 6, 2013. 
31 

The licensee consultant Normandeau Associates Inc. (Normandeau 2012) study concluded that 

American eel entrainment at the Muddy Run Project was 7% percent for the tagged study fish. In 

the Department’s assessment33, a re-analysis of the original data used in the Normandeau 2012 

study, we estimated the entrainment rate to be more than double (14.2%) that reported by 

Normandeau. The Department’s modeled values are greater than the modeled value of 7% from 

Normandeau (2012) for two reasons. First, Normandeau (2012) only accounted for 41.7% of the 

migrating silver eel population which are assumed to pass by MRPS during the night time hours 

of 2200 – 0500. However, 58.3% of the population would be passing at other times of the day 

and there is still some level of pumping activity occurring at these other times, albeit lower. 

Second, the data provided in Table 5.3-1 of Normandeau (2012) showed that of the 38 eels 

exposed to pumping 30 were exposed to pumping when 1 – 4 units were pumping and 8 were 

exposed when 5 – 8 units were pumping. Although this was what occurred as these eels passed 

the MRPSP during the study, the relatively low sample size biased the data toward a situation 

which is not typical of what eels would experience during the course of an average day in 

October through November. Combining data in Tables 2.3-1 and 2.3-2 from Normandeau (2012) 

the proportion of time that 1 – 4 and 5 – 8 units are pumping is 21% and 32%, respectively. The 

ratio of these pumping times is approximately 2:3 and of the 38 eels exposed to pumping, 15 

would be expected to be exposed when 1-4 units were running and 23 would be expected to be 

exposed when 5 – 8 units were pumping. Modeling entrainment rates as was done by the 

Department corrected for this bias in the data.

It can take up to 20 years for an American eel to mature in the Susquehanna River basin and 

begin its downstream migration out to the Atlantic Ocean to spawn and replenish the coastal 

population. An annual loss of 14% of the mature spawners at the Muddy Run project is 

substantial and will reduce the recruitment of juvenile eel to the Atlantic coastal population. This 

is compounded by the loss experienced by down migrating mature American eel at each of the 

other four lower Susquehanna River hydroelectric projects. If mortality at the other projects were 

similar to that estimated by Sweka for the Muddy Run Project the total mortality resulting from 

hydroelectric project passage on the lower Susquehanna River would be 53%. 

American Shad

A similar re-assessment to Sweka (2013) was conducted by Don Pugh34 for juvenile American 

shad entrainment data from the 2012 study conducted by Normandeau35

 

33 Sweka, J.A. 2013. American Eel entrainment at the Muddy Run Pump Storage Project. 

Internal USFWS Report drafted August 9, 2013. 

. Normandeau estimated 

a juvenile shad entrainment rate of 9.4%. Pugh estimated higher entrainment rates from 10.3% to 

13.8% and noted that the lower rates reported by Normandeau are due to the incorrect 

assignment of a high passage of shad during a period when Normandeau states that there was no 

pumping and consequently no entrainment. The Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish 

Restoration Cooperative adopted a target passage of 95 percent survival of juvenile alosines for 

34 Pugh, D. 2013. Muddy Run Juvenile Shad Entrainment, Memo drafted June 29, 2013. 

35 Exelon 2012. Muddy Run RSP 3.3: Movement and Behavior of Telemetered Migrant 

American eels in the Vicinity of the Muddy Run Pump Storage Project. Prepared by 

Normandeau and Associates, Inc. with Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C. 
32 

each hydroelectric facility on the Susquehanna River (SRAFRC 2010). All entrained fish are 

removed from the Susquehanna River and can no longer continue downstream migration. 

A graphical review of the adult American shad entrainment information presented in the 2008 

Normandeau radio telemetry study (Figure 2) revealed that all but one of the entrained adult 

American shad were entrained while the Muddy Run Project was pumping at a rate higher than 

the instream Susquehanna River flow passing through the Muddy Run Project area. 

Normandeau’s report notes that “...Virtually all shad entrained in the present study, based on 

time (early June) and prevailing water temperature (> 70° F, higher than the reported peak 

spawning temperatures of 65-68° F) were post-spawned.” And “...As in the previous study most 

entrainment occurred when MRPSS was pumping with 7 or 8 units (24,500 to 28,000 cfs) 

between 0100 and 1000 h in late May to early June.” We conclude that entrainment risks are 

highest for post-spawn American shad that are passing the Muddy Run Project area during 

pumping operations that are withdrawing more water than inflows from the upstream Holtwood 

Dam, usually when 7 to 8 units are pumping. 

Two primary objectives of the Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission’s (ASMFC) 

Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Shad and River Herring are: to 

maximize the number of juvenile recruits emigrating from freshwater stock complexes; and to 

restore and maintain spawning stock biomass and age structure to achieve maximum juvenile 

recruitment. Similar objectives are also found in the SRAFRC plan for the Susquehanna River 

(SRAFRC 2010). Entrainment and its associated mortality at the Muddy Run Project are 

inconsistent with these objectives. American shad that spawn in the Susquehanna River are 

iteroparous (i.e., repeat spawners) and will attempt to migrate back downstream after the 

spawning season to reach the Atlantic Ocean where they can recover from the rigors of 

spawning, replenish egg and sperm reserves, and then return to the river in subsequent years and 

attempt to spawn again. Loss of these potential repeat spawners due to downstream passage 

mortality at hydroelectric projects not only reduces the spawning stock biomass but it also 

removes individual fish that have a proven ability to survive conditions in Chesapeake 

Bay/Atlantic Ocean and return to the Susquehanna as mature fish. They return as older larger 

fish that can produce more reproductive products (eggs and sperm) that can lead to higher 

juvenile recruitment per spawner. 

The entrainment impacts on migratory adult American shad associated with the Muddy Run 

Project have been documented to occur during the downstream post-spawn outmigration period. 

The value of these out-migrants to restoration of American shad on the Susquehanna River 

warrants utmost protection of these fish during this phase of their life-cycle. If entrainment of 

out-migrating post-spawn American shad continues at the Muddy Run Project the licensee will 

need to consult with the Service regarding development of a plan for implementation of project 

operational measures and/or construction of facilities to avoid these impacts.
33 

Figure 23. Flows in the Susquehanna River during the 2008 Normandeau American shad 

migration study. Green line depicts natural river flows measured at the USGS Marietta Gauge 

Station (No. 01576000); Dark Blue line depicts flows from the Holtwood Dam just upstream of 

the Muddy Run Project (generation and spillage combined); Red line depicts flows below the 

Muddy Run Project (Holtwood discharge combined with Muddy Run operation), flow less than 

zero indicates that the Muddy Run Project is pumping more water than is available from 

Susquehanna River basin inflow from upstream of the project; Light Blue line depicts river 

temperature in degrees F (right axis) measured at Conowingo Dam; and the black circles depict 

the time when migrating American shad were entrained at the Muddy Run Project. 

Alternatives Considered

In development of this preliminary prescription for the Muddy Run Project both upstream and 

downstream fish passage alternatives for anadromous and catadromous fish were analyzed.

Engineered Facilities and Structures

The Department considered engineered facilities and structures (e.g., intake screens, instream 

flow diverters and baffles), and the associated project operations and measures to eliminate or 

substantially reduce project operational impacts to migratory fish attempting to pass the Muddy 

Run Project area. These facilities and structure would require considerable time and expense to 

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-20,000

0 

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

22-Apr24-Apr26-Apr28-Apr30-Apr

2-May4-May6-May8-May

10-May12-May14-May16-May18-May20-May22-May24-May26-May28-May30-May

1-Jun3-Jun5-Jun7-Jun9-Jun

11-Jun

13-Jun

Flow (cfs)

Date

Spring 2008 Susquehanna River Flow Data

Marietta Gauge Below Holtwood
34 

install. Post-construction measures would be required to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

structures and facilities to in achieve the desired level of protection, and to tune their operation. 

The facilities and structures would have to be designed to have a large enough intake area to 

allow approach velocities to be low enough to avoid impingement of fish during pumping. The 

Department is not requiring engineered facilities or structures at this time.

Operational Measures

The Department’s assessment of Muddy Run Project impacts on migratory fish indicate that 

impacts are the direct result of projects generation discharge and pumping withdrawal flows. 

These impacts can be reduced by regulating operational activities during the annual periods of 

anadromous and catadromous fish migration. Limits on generation and pumping would be 

implemented upon license issuance and have the immediate positive effect on improving safe, 

timely, and effective migration of fish through the zone of passage in the Muddy Run Project 

area.

The Department considered requiring fish passage operational measures to eliminate upstream 

migratory passage delays and fall back; and downstream passage entrainment. These measures 

include reducing generation discharge during the upstream migration period as follows: when 

natural Susquehanna River flow as measured at the USGS Marietta gauge are less than 70,000 

cfs (70,000 cfs flow is the flow shown to be delay the ability of American shad to migrate 

upstream by 36 hours or more); total flows downstream of the Muddy Run Project should be no 

greater than 70,000 cfs. This will limit the combined flow downstream of the Muddy Run Project 

to 70,000 cfs or less which would result in an average migration delay at the Muddy Run Project 

of 36 hours. 

The pumping withdrawal during the downstream migration periods would be as follows: when 

natural Susquehanna River flow measured at the USGS Marietta gauge is less than 28,000 cfs 

(i.e., the maximum powerhouse pumping capacity), then the maximum flow withdrawn for 

pumping will be no more than the natural river flow measured at Marietta, minus 5,000 cfs. This 

will allow an instream flow of 5,000 cfs to pass by the Muddy Run Project, eliminate reverse 

flow conditions, and provide a downstream migration flow for fish. As an example, if the 

measured flow at Marietta is 25,000 cfs, the pumping withdrawal for the Muddy Run Project 

would be 25,000 cfs – 5,000 cfs = 20,000 cfs. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 401 Conditions

Below is an excerpt of PA DEP’s Proposed 401 Water Quality Certification (Section 401 of the 

Federal Clean Water Act) as pertains to upstream and downstream fish passage for anadromous 

and catadromous fish at the Muddy Run Project. The Proposed 401 Water Quality Certification 

was noticed on December 21, 2013 by the PA DEP for a 30-day public comment period prior to 

final action on the certification. Once finalized by the PA DEP the terms and conditions 

contained in the Final 401 Water Quality Certification will become terms and conditions of the 

any FERC license issued for the Muddy Run Project. Therefore, the Department considered the 

401 Water Quality Certification terms and conditions as they pertain to fish passage as an 

alternative for consideration. 
35 

FISH PASSAGE 

A. General Requirements

1. Fish Passage Operating Procedures (“FPOP”)

a. By January 15, 2015, EXELON shall submit a FPOP to the DEP 

for review and approval. The FPOP will describe existing baseline 

operations during fish passage season, including schedules for 

routine maintenance, procedures for routine operation (including: 

seasonal and daily periods of operation, pump and turbine 

operations), sequencing of pump and turbine start-up and 

operation, procedures for monitoring and reporting flows, 

procedures for monitoring and reporting on the operation of the 

facility, procedures for start-up and shut-down, and procedures for 

use in case of emergencies and project outages significantly 

affecting the conditions of this certification.

b. EXELON shall implement the FPOP consistent with the approval 

of the DEP. EXELON shall provide written documentation to the 

Resource Agencies that operational personnel have reviewed and 

understand the FPOP signed by the operations manager of the 

Project.

c. Copies of the approved FPOP and all modifications will be 

provided to the Resource Agencies. 

d. By December 31 of each year, EXELON shall provide an annual 

report to the Resource Agencies detailing: the implementation of 

the FPOP, including any deviations from the FPOP and a process 

to prevent those deviations in the future; any proposed 

modifications to the FPOP, or in the case of emergencies or project 

outages, the steps taken by EXELON to minimize adverse effects 

on fisheries including any proposed modifications to those steps to 

further enhance their effectiveness in the future. EXELON shall 

offer to meet with the Resource Agencies by January 31 of each 

year unless a different date is mutually agreed upon by EXELON 

and the Resource Agencies. Any required modifications to the 

FPOP shall be submitted to the Resource Agencies within 45 days 

of receipt of a request for the modification unless a longer period is 

approved by the DEP. The modifications to the FPOP shall be 

implemented consistent with the approval of the DEP. In the 

event EXELON fails to submit the modifications as required by 

this paragraph, the DEP, in consultation with the other Resource 

Agencies, may establish modifications and EXELON shall 
36 

implement the modifications consistent with the approval of the 

DEP.

B. American Shad Passage 

1. Upstream Shad Passage 

a. Cooperation with Holtwood. If the Holtwood Hydroelectric 

Facility fails to meet its Tier I upstream shad passage target 

described and included in the 401 Water Quality Certification for 

the Amended Holtwood Hydroelectric Facility, and DEP 

determines that EXELON’s operation of the Muddy Run Project is 

a proximate cause of Holtwood failing to meet the Tier 1 target, 

EXELON shall meet with the Resource Agencies to establish and 

implement a plan and schedule for a radio telemetry study or 

equivalent (Tier II Study) of American shad passage and behavior 

within the Muddy Run project boundary. This meeting shall occur 

within one month of the DEP’s determination that Holtwood failed 

to meet its Tier 1 upstream shad passage target or such longer time 

as established by the DEP in writing.

 

b. Evaluation of Muddy Run Shad Passage. If EXELON is a 

proximate cause of Holtwood’s failure to meet its Tier I upstream 

shad passage target, EXELON shall develop a radio telemetry 

study plan and schedule or equivalent to determine: (1) the 

percentage of American shad that enter Muddy Run project at the 

northern tip of Sicily Island area and subsequently exit the Muddy 

Run project area at the southern tip of Deepwater Island; and (2) 

any delay or impedance of shad passage attributable to the 

redevelopment of the Holtwood Facility. EXELON shall 

coordinate development of this plan with the Holtwood 

Hydroelectric Facility and the Conowingo Hydroelectric Facility. 

The radio telemetry study shall be designed to insert the transmitter 

at the Conowingo facility or at such other location(s) approved by 

the DEP.

 

c. Within two months of the meeting described in Paragraph 

III.B.1.a. or such longer period approved by the DEP in writing, 

EXELON shall submit the fish passage study plan and schedule to 

the Resource Agencies for review and approval by DEP. 

EXELON shall implement the plan according to the schedule 

therein and consistent with the approval of the DEP. In the event 

EXELON fails to submit the plan and schedule as required by this 

paragraph, the DEP, in consultation with the other Resource 

Agencies, may establish a plan and schedule and EXELON shall 
37 

implement that plan and schedule consistent with the approval of 

the DEP. EXELON shall continue implementation of fish passage 

study for a minimum of four years or such other time period as 

required by the DEP in consultation with the other Resource 

Agencies. EXELON shall provide an annual report of the 

monitoring results of fish passage study by December 31st of each 

year.

d. At the end of the four-year study period, or such longer time as 

established by the DEP, if the results indicate that, as a result of 

Muddy Run operations, less than 88% of the American shad that 

enter the Muddy Run project waters at the northern tip of Sicily 

Island exit the Muddy Run project waters at the southern tip of 

Deepwater Island, EXELON shall propose a plan and schedule for 

operational modifications to enhance fish passage at the project. 

EXELON shall not be responsible for mitigating any impacts 

attributable to PPL Holtwood. This plan and schedule shall be 

submitted to the DEP as an amendment to the FPOP for the 

following year. EXELON shall implement the plan and schedule 

consistent with the approval of the DEP. In the event EXELON 

fails to submit the plan and schedule as required by this paragraph, 

the DEP, in consultation with the other Resource Agencies, may 

establish a plan and schedule and EXELON shall implement that 

plan and schedule consistent with the approval of the DEP. 

e. The average of the two highest years in the monitoring period will 

be used determine whether the 88% fish passage percentage is 

achieved. If EXELON implements operational modifications, only 

those years following the operational modifications shall be 

considered to determine whether the 88% passage percentage is 

achieved.

f. If at the end of the monitoring period, or such longer time as 

established by the DEP, the results indicate that the operational 

modifications have resulted in less than 88% of the American shad 

that enter the Muddy Run project waters pass through the Project, 

EXELON shall propose a plan and schedule for mitigation, as 

defined in 25 Pa. Code Section 105.1 for the failure to achieve the 

88% fish passage target. This mitigation shall be: (1) in addition to 

the compensatory mitigation described in this certification; and (2) 

reasonably related and proportional to the identified impact. This 

plan and schedule shall be submitted to the Resource Agencies 

within 6 months from the end of the monitoring period. EXELON 

shall implement the plan and schedule consistent with the approval 

of the DEP. In the event EXELON fails to submit the plan and 
38 

schedule as required by this paragraph, the DEP, in consultation 

with the other Resource Agencies, may establish a plan and 

schedule and EXELON shall implement that plan and schedule 

consistent with the approval of the DEP. 

2. Downstream Shad Passage 

a. Consistent with the relicensing studies for Muddy Run, by January 

15, 2015, EXELON shall submit a plan and schedule to provide for 

95% survival of the juvenile American shad and 80% survival of 

the adult American shad that pass through the project area. The 

schedule shall provide for full implementation of the plan by 2015. 

EXELON shall implement the approved plan and schedule. If 

EXELON fails to submit the plan, the DEP shall develop a plan 

and schedule, in consultation with the other resource agencies, and 

EXELON shall implement that plan and schedule. 

b. By February 15, 2026 or such later date approved by the DEP in 

writing, EXELON shall submit a plan to measure the passage of 

American shad moving downstream past the project to the DEP for 

approval (“Discrete Passage Study”). EXELON shall implement 

the plan to measure the passage of American shad moving 

downstream past the project according to the schedule and 

consistent with the approval of the DEP (“Discrete Passage 

Study”). In the event EXELON fails to submit the plan and 

schedule required by this paragraph, the DEP, in consultation with 

the other Resource Agencies, may establish a plan and schedule 

and EXELON shall implement that plan and schedule consistent 

with the approval of the DEP. 

c. EXELON shall, in accordance with the plan, conduct the Discrete 

Passage Study. EXELON shall provide a report of the Discrete 

Passage Study within 180 days of its completion or such later date 

approved by the DEP in writing to the Resource Agencies. 

d. If the results of the Discrete Passage Study indicate that EXELON 

can operate the Muddy Run project so that EXELON achieves at 

least 95% passage of the juvenile American shad and 80 % passage 

of the adult American shad that pass through the project area based 

on the likelihood of a shad being exposed to typical pumping 

operations and becoming entrained, then EXELON shall 

incorporate into the annual FPOP any required operational 

measures or protocols to meet the established percentages. These 

procedures will be subject to review at the annual meeting for the 

FPOP.
39 

e. If the results of the Discrete Passage Study do not indicate that the 

project can be operated to achieve at least 95% passage of juvenile 

American shad and 80% passage of adult American shad based on 

the likelihood of a shad being exposed to typical pumping 

operations and becoming entrained, EXELON shall propose a plan 

and schedule for mitigation, as defined in 25 Pa. Code Section 

105.1, for the failure to achieve the fish passage target or targets. 

This mitigation shall be: (1) in addition to the compensatory 

mitigation described in this certification; and (2) reasonably related 

and proportional to the identified impact. This plan and schedule 

shall be submitted to the Resource Agencies within 6 months from 

the end of the monitoring period or such later date approved by the 

DEP in writing. EXELON shall implement the plan and schedule 

consistent with the approval of the DEP. In the event EXELON 

fails to submit the plan and schedule as required by this paragraph, 

the DEP, in consultation with the other Resource Agencies, may 

establish a plan and schedule and EXELON shall implement that 

plan and schedule consistent with the approval of the DEP. 

C. Eel Passage 

1. Upstream Eel Passage

The terms and conditions of the EXELON Generation American Eel Passage 

Plan for the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project (P-2355), 

attached hereto as Appendix 1 (Appendix 3 of the Department’s Fish Pasage 

Prescription), are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

2. Downstream Eel Passage 

a. The trigger date for initiation of downstream eel passage studies 

shall be the date on which the DEP, in consultation with the other 

Resource Agencies, determines that available data indicates that 

eels are present upstream of the project or other upstream areas in 

numbers appropriate to require downstream eel passage. This 

trigger date shall not occur prior to October 1, 2026 in order for the 

trapping and transport program to have sufficient time to 

reestablish a significant eel population. 

b. EXELON shall achieve at least 85% eel passage through the 

project area based on the likelihood of an American eel being 

exposed to typical pumping operations and becoming entrained. 

 

c. Within six months of the trigger date in Paragraph (a), or such later 

date approved by the DEP in writing, EXELON shall submit a plan 
40 

to conduct a passage study to the Resource Agencies. The plan 

shall be designed to demonstrate continued compliance with the 85 

% fish passage target. The plan shall include radio telemetry 

studies or such other studies approved by the DEP in consultation 

with the other Resource Agencies. EXELON shall implement the 

plan according to the schedule consistent with the approval of the 

DEP. In the event EXELON fails to submit the plan and schedule 

as required by this paragraph, the DEP, in consultation with the 

other Resource Agencies, may establish a plan and schedule and 

EXELON shall implement that plan and schedule consistent with 

the approval of the DEP. 

d. The study shall be initiated within 1 year of the trigger date unless 

a different time frame is approved by the DEP in writing. 

EXELON shall provide a report of the study results within 180 

days of the date of completion of the study. 

e. If the results of a discrete passage study indicate that EXELON can 

operate the project so that EXELON achieves at least 85% passage 

of the American eel that pass through the project area based on the 

likelihood of an American eel being exposed to typical pumping 

operations and becoming entrained, EXELON shall incorporate 

into the FPOP any operational measures needed to meet this 

percentage. These procedures will be subject to review at the 

annual FPOP meeting.

f. If the results of the studies do not indicate that the project can be 

operated to achieve at least 85% passage of American eel based on 

the likelihood of an American eel being exposed to typical 

pumping operations and becoming entrained, EXELON shall 

propose a plan and schedule for mitigation, as defined in 25 PA. 

Code Section 105.1, for the failure to achieve the 85% eel passage 

target. This mitigation shall be: (1) in addition to the 

compensatory mitigation described in this certification; and (2) 

reasonably related and proportional to the identified impact. This 

plan and schedule shall be submitted to the Resource Agencies 

within 6 months from the end of the monitoring period or such 

later date approved by the DEP in writing. EXELON shall 

implement the plan and schedule consistent with the approval of 

the DEP. In the event EXELON fails to submit the plan and 

schedule as required by this paragraph, the DEP, in consultation 

with the other Resource Agencies, may establish a plan and 

schedule and EXELON shall implement that plan and schedule 

consistent with the approval of the DEP. 

Reservation of Authority to Prescribe Fishways

In order to allow for the timely implementation of fishways, including effectiveness measures, 

the Department proposes to reserve its authority by requesting that the Commission include the 
41 

following condition in any license it may issue for the Project: 

 

Pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Power Act, the Secretary of the Interior herein 

exercises her authority under said Act by reserving that authority to prescribe fishways 

during the term of this license and by prescribing the fishways described in the Department 

of the Interior’s Prescription for Fishways at the Muddy Run Project.

Preliminary Prescription for Fishways

Pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Power Act, as amended, the Secretary of the Department of 

the Interior, as delegated to the Service, proposes to exercise her authority to prescribe the 

construction, operation and maintenance of such fish passage facilities and measures as deemed 

necessary, subject to the procedural provisions contained above. 

The Department’s Preliminary Prescription for Fishways reflects a number of issues and 

concerns related to fish restoration and passage that have been raised by the applicant, 

Commission staff, State resource agencies, and other parties involved in these proceedings. 

Fish passage facilities and or measures shall be constructed, operated, and maintained to provide 

safe, timely and effective passage for American shad, alewife, blueback herring, American eels 

and other designated resident riverine fish species at the licensee's expense. 

To ensure the immediate and timely contribution of the fish passage facilities and measures to 

the ongoing and planned anadromous and catadromous fish restoration and enhancement 

program in the Susquehanna River, the following are included and shall be incorporated by the 

Licensee to ensure the effectiveness of the fishways pursuant to section 1701(b) of the 1992 

National Energy Policy Act (P.L. 102-486, Title XVII, 106 Stat. 3008). 

Fish Passage Requirements

Design Populations

American Shad

The design population at the Project for American shad is derived from the 1993 Settlement 

Agreement for the Development of Fish Passage Facilities at the Holtwood, Safe Harbor, and 

York Haven Projects on the Susquehanna River36

 

36 Settlement Agreement. June 1, 1993. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Safe Harbor 

Water Power Corporation, and York Haven Power Company, AND U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service – U.S. Department of the Interior, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Upper Chesapeake Watershed Association, 

and Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. 

. Pursuant to that agreement the existing 

fishway at the Holtwood Dam immediately upstream of the Muddy Run Project was designed to 

pass 2,700,000 American shad. That same number of shad is the design population for the 
42 

Muddy Run Project, as there is no spawning habitat between the two dams, and all fish need to 

continue migration upstream past Muddy Run Project to account for any migration fallout while 

attempting to pass through upstream hydroelectric projects. 

Delays to upstream migration of American shad at hydroelectric facilities can compromise their 

ability to successfully spawn37 through increasing energetic costs and causing a mismatch 

between when shad arrive in suitable spawning habitat and optimal temperatures for spawning. 

The Service developed a model to evaluate how rates of upstream shad migration (proportion of 

shad passed in a given number of hours) in the Susquehanna River affect the timing of when 

shad arrive in suitable spawning habitat upstream of York Haven Dam relative to optimal 

temperatures for spawning. Shad that reached areas above York Haven Dam prior to a time when 

temperatures would exceed those that are optimal for spawning were considered to have 

successful migrations.

The model estimated 97% of shad had successful migrations if there were no impediments 

(delays) to migration. As the number of hours to pass shad increased at each hydroelectric 

facility, successful migration approached 0% when delay times at a given facility reached 168 

hours (7 days). The rate of passage in terms of percentage passed per time is also an important 

factor when determining the impact of migratory delays (USFWS 2013c). To minimize the 

impact of migratory delays on spawning success for migrating adult American shad, the Service 

is requiring successful passage of 80% of adult American shad at each project within 36 hours of 

arrival to the Project in addition to the SRAFRC Management Plan (2010) requirement of 85% 

overall upstream passage effectiveness for adult American shad38. 

Therefore American shad passage at Muddy Run Project shall be adequate (target number passed 

with minimal delay) so as not to interfere with passage objectives and targets established for the 

Susquehanna River. If fish passage monitoring require in this prescription indicates that 

American shad are not meeting the target passage of 80% of adult American shad at each project 

within 36 hours at the Muddy Run Project the licensee will need to consult with the Service 

regarding development of a plan for implementation of project operational measures and/or 

construction of facilities that will meet the passage target.

River Herring (Alewife and Blueback Herring)

The design population at the Project for river herring is derived from the 1993 Settlement 

Agreement for the Development of Fish Passage Facilities at the Holtwood, Safe Harbor, and 

York Haven Projects on the Susquehanna River, and the existing fishway at Holtwood was 

designed to pass 10,00,000 river herring.

As such river herring passage at Muddy Run Project shall be adequate so as not to interfere with 

passage objectives and targets at the Holtwood Hydroelectric Project immediately upstream of 

 

37 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Division of Hydropower Administration and 

Compliance, Office of Energy Projects, 2004. Evaluation of Mitigation Effectiveness at 

Hydroelectric Projects: Fish Passage. September 2004.

38 Id at 32. 
43 

the Muddy Run Project, or the Conowingo Hydroelectric immediately downstream of the Muddy 

Run Project. 

American Eel

American eel do not currently have access to Project waters due to a lack of upstream passage at 

the Conowingo Hydroelectric Project located downstream, but the Department anticipates that 

passage to the Muddy Run Project area for juvenile eels will shortly become available through 

passage past the Conowingo Hydroelectric Project for migrating eels. While the Department 

does not have a precise estimate of the numbers of eels that would be expected to pass through 

the Muddy Run Project area, measures to achieve safe, timely and effective passage past the 

Muddy Run Project would enhance the eel stocks and help achieve overall management goals of 

federal and state resource agencies. 

As such American eel passage at Muddy Run Project shall be adequate so as not to interfere with 

passage objectives at the Holtwood Hydroelectric Project immediately upstream of the Muddy 

Run Project, or the Conowingo Hydroelectric immediately downstream of the Muddy Run 

Project. The American Eel Restoration Plan for the Susquehanna River Basin (SRAFRC 2013) 

states that all available eel seeking passage at a hydroelectric project be passed upstream (i.e. no 

impact), and that there be 85% downstream passage survival at each hydroelectric project. 
44 

Fish Passage Operating Periods

Regarding the timing of seasonal fish passage operations, fish passage facilities and measures

shall be maintained and operated, at the licensee's expense, to maximize fish passage 

effectiveness throughout the upstream and downstream migration periods for American shad, 

alewife, blueback herring, American eel, and designated riverine fish. 

Table 13: Upstream and downstream migration periods for species covered in this Prescription 

for Fishways. * 

Species Upstream Migration Period Downstream Migration 

Period

American shad April 1 through June 15 July 1 through November 15 

(juv.) 

April 15 through July 1 (adult) 

Alewife & Blueback herring March 1** through June 15 June 15 through October 14 

(juv.) 

April 15 through July 1 (adult) 

American eel May 1 through September

15*** 

September 15–February 15,

whenever river temperature is

above 37 degrees F **** 

* Any of these migration periods may be changed during the term of the license by the 

Department, based on new information, and in consultation with the other fishery agencies and 

the licensee.

** This operational period is based on preliminary data on Alewife migration timing from other 

tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay (Sutherland 2000, Eyler et al. 2002, Slacum 2003). 

***This initial operational period is based on preliminary data on American eel migration timing 

from other tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay. 

**** The Department is requiring the licensee to study the magnitude and timing of downstream 

eel migration through the project so that the effectiveness of the reduced period can be evaluated. 

This initial operational period is based on preliminary data on American eel migration timing 

from other tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay (Welsh et al. 2009). 
45 

Fish Passage Operating Procedures 

The timely and proper implementation of the fish passage measures is necessary to ensure the 

effectiveness of such measures. Therefore, the Department's Prescription includes the express 

requirement that the licensee develop Fish Passage Operating Procedures (FPOP) for 

implementation of operational measures during the migratory fish passage season. 

By January 15, 2015, the licensee shall submit a FPOP to the Department for review and 

approval. The FPOP will describe prescribed baseline operations during fish passage season, 

including schedules for routine maintenance, procedures for routine operation (including: 

seasonal and daily periods of operation, pump and turbine operations), sequencing of pump and 

turbine start-up and operation, procedures for monitoring and reporting flows, procedures for 

monitoring and reporting on the operation of the facility, procedures for start-up and shut-down, 

and procedures for use in case of emergencies and project outages significantly affecting the 

conditions of this prescription. 

The licensee shall implement the FPOP consistent with the approval of the Department. The 

licensee shall provide written documentation to the Resource Agencies that operational 

personnel have reviewed and understand the FPOP signed by the operations manager of the 

Muddy Run Project.

Copies of the approved FPOP and all modifications will be provided to the Resource Agencies. 

By December 31 of each year, the licensee shall provide an annual report to the Resource 

Agencies detailing: the implementation of the FPOP, including any deviations from the FPOP 

and a process to prevent those deviations in the future; any proposed modifications to the FPOP, 

or in the case of emergencies or project outages, the steps taken by the licensee to minimize 

adverse effects on fisheries including any proposed modifications to those steps to further 

enhance their effectiveness in the future. The licensee shall offer to meet with the Resource 

Agencies by January 31 of each year unless a different date is mutually agreed upon by the 

licensee and the Resource Agencies. Any required modifications to the FPOP shall be submitted 

to the Resource Agencies within 45 days or receipt of a request for the modification unless a 

longer period is approved by the Department. The modifications to the FPOP shall be 

implemented consistent with the approval of the Department. In the event the licensee fails to 

submit the modifications as required by this paragraph, the Department, in consultation with the 

other Resource Agencies, may establish modifications and the licensee shall implement the 

modifications consistent with the approval of the Department. 

The Licensee shall prepare the plan after consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection, and the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 

The Licensee shall include with the plan documentation of consultation, copies of comments and 

recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the agencies, 

and specific descriptions of how the agencies’ comments are accommodated by the plan. The 

Licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the agencies and other interested organizations to 
46 

comment and to make recommendations. 

Inspection

The licensee shall provide personnel of the Department, and other Department-designated 

representatives, access to the project site and to pertinent project records for the purpose of 

inspecting the fish passage measures to determine compliance with the fish passage Prescription. 

Consultation

The licensee shall develop in consultation with and submit for approval by the Department, all 

fish passage plans, schedules, and any supporting information to the fish passage measures

described herein.

American Shad Passage

Fish Passage Facilities and Structures

As indicated under “Alternatives Considered” section above the Department is not requiring the 

installation of any engineered facilities or structures (e.g., intake screens, instream flow diverters 

and baffles) to eliminate or substantially reduce project operational impacts to migratory fish 

attempting to pass the Muddy Run Project area at this time.

Fish Passage Measures

The Department concluded that that impacts migrating American shad are the direct result of the 

Muddy Run Project generation discharge and pumping withdrawal flows; and these impacts 

could be reduced or eliminated by regulating these operational activities during the annual 

periods of anadromous and catadromous fish migration. 

The Department is requiring that the licensee develop Fish Passage Operating Procedures 

(FPOP) as described in detail above. The FPOP shall describe the licensee’s proposed baseline 

operations during fish passage season, including schedules for routine maintenance, procedures 

for routine operation (including seasonal and daily periods of operation, pump and turbine 

operations), sequencing of pump and turbine start-up and operation, procedures for monitoring 

and reporting flows, procedures for monitoring and reporting on the operation of the facility, 

procedures for start-up and shut-down, and procedures for use in case of emergencies and project 

outages significantly affecting the conditions of this prescription. 

American Shad Passage Monitoring

The FERC determined that the process of mitigating adverse environmental impacts should 

include an assessment of the effectiveness of the mitigation that is implemented, and that in most 

cases, successful mitigation is dependent upon the development of such effectiveness monitoring 

plans (FERC 2004). The licensee shall implement an American Shad Passage Monitoring Plan

(ASPMP) approved by Department in order to monitor the effectiveness of upstream shad 
47 

passage at the Muddy Run Project. Fish passage monitoring is (or will be) a condition of FERC 

license for the other four hydroelectric projects on the lower Susquehanna River. Each of the 

hydroelectric projects has engineered facilities or structures, and the associated project 

operations and measures as the primary form of upstream fish passage. Each of the existing

upstream passage facilities is equipped with a fish counting window where the number and 

species of fish passaging the project can be visually enumerated by an observer during the fish 

passage season. These counts are used to monitor the effectiveness of fish passage facilities at 

the FERC licensed hydroelectric project.

Since there are no engineered upstream fish passage facilities or structures at the Muddy Run 

Project provisions cannot be made for visual fish counts to monitor American shad passage at the 

Muddy Run Project. The only other method proven to be applicable to monitoring fish passage is 

tracking of a representative sample of migratory fish as was done during the licensee’s 2008 and 

2011 American shad radio telemetry study. FERC (2004) determined that a radio tagging study 

to estimate the proportion of fish that are passed upstream can be an appropriate method of 

assessing effectiveness, and that it is also an appropriate procedure for assessing the 

effectiveness of downstream passage.

Therefore the licensee monitoring plan shall include execution of the radio telemetry monitoring 

similar to that conducted in 2008 for adult American shad, and in 2011for juvenile American 

shad by the licensee’s consultant, unless some other technique is approved in advance by the 

Service. The monitoring measures contained in the ASPMP shall be conducted during the 2018 

fish passage season, and be repeated every ten years thereafter for the term of any new FERC 

license that may be issued for the project. 

The licensee shall implement the ASPMP consistent with the approval of the Department. The 

licensee shall provide written documentation to the Resource Agencies that operational 

personnel have reviewed and understand the ASPMP signed by the operations manager of the 

Muddy Run Project.

Copies of the approved ASPMP and all modifications will be provided to the Resource 

Agencies.

By December 31 of each year in which studies are done, the licensee shall provide an annual 

report to the Resource Agencies detailing: the implementation of the ASPMP, including any 

deviations from the ASPMP and a process to prevent those deviations in the future; any proposed 

modifications to the ASPMP, or in the case of emergencies or project outages, the steps taken by 

the licensee to minimize adverse effects on fisheries including any proposed modifications to 

those steps to further enhance their effectiveness in the future. The licensee shall offer to meet 

with the Resource Agencies by January 31 of each year unless a different date is mutually agreed 

upon by the licensee and the Resource Agencies. Any required modifications to the ASPMP

shall be submitted to the Resource Agencies within 45 days or receipt of a request for the 

modification unless a longer period is approved by the Department. The modifications to the 

ASPMP shall be implemented consistent with the approval of the Department. 

The Licensee shall prepare the ASPMP after consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
48 

Service, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, and the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources.

The Licensee shall include with the ASPMP documentation of consultation, copies of comments 

and recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the 

agencies, and specific descriptions of how the agencies’ comments are accommodated by the 

ASPMP. The Licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the agencies and other interested 

organizations to comment and to make recommendations. 

The licensee shall meet with the Resource Agencies to discuss the results of the above ASPMP. 

The results of this study will be used to determine the need for and form of any additional fish 

passage measures or facilities. If the ASPMP results indicate that the Muddy Run Project is not 

meeting the passage goals prescribed herein, the licensee must propose measures calculated to 

meet the goals, and shall implement such measures upon approval by the Service, Pennsylvania 

DEP, and FERC, as needed. The licensee shall provide daily updates of monitoring results to the 

Resource Agencies. The licensee shall provide an annual report of the monitoring results to the 

Resource Agencies by December 31st of each year.

Downstream American Shad Passage Monitoring

The ASPMP described above will be used to monitor the downstream passage of adult outmigrating post-spawn American shad and assess the effectiveness of downstream passage 

measures at the Muddy Run Project. If the ASPMP results indicate that the Muddy Run Project 

is not meeting the passage goals prescribed herein, the licensee must propose measures 

calculated to meet the goals, and shall implement such measures upon approval by the Service, 

Pennsylvania DEP, and FERC, as needed. 

American Eel Passage 

Eel Passage Measures

For the catadromous American eel the licensee proposes to work with other licensees on the 

Susquehanna River to implement both an upstream and downstream trap-and-transport program 

to provide American eel passage for upstream migrating juveniles and downstream migrating 

adults between the Conowingo and York Haven dams. No specific plans for the program were 

provided in the Muddy Run Project Draft License Application. However the PA DEP Proposed 

401 Water Quality Certification requires the implementation of trap and transport for juvenile 

American eel migrating upstream. We generally consider trap-and-transport to be an interim fish 

passage measure during the initial phase of a river restoration, and is appropriate for these initial 

stages, therefore this Prescription provides specific plans for a trap and transport program. As 

restoration efforts for American eel on the Susquehanna River progress, the capacity of PA DEP 

proposed trap-and-transport operation to move sufficient numbers of eel upstream will likely be 

exceeded and additional facilities and measures may be needed to accommodate adequate, safe, 

timely and effective passage through the Muddy Run Project area. 
49 

The licensee will need to develop a plan to assess placement, design and installation of facilities 

and measures needed to capture eel and provide safe, timely and effective eel passage past the 

Muddy Run Project. The plan should also include a description of studies to test the effectiveness 

of eel trap-and-transport as an interim means of passage at the Muddy Run Project. The licensee

should develop this plan in consultation and cooperation with the Department and state resource 

agencies and provide it to the Department and state resource agencies for review and approval 

before submitting it to the FERC for its review and approval. This American Eel Passage Plan 

(“Eel Plan”) is a condition of, and incorporated into this fish passage prescription. 

To inform implementation of the Eel Plan, the licensee will establish an Eel Passage Advisory 

Group (EPAG) within 6 months of license issuance. EPAG will be chaired by the licensee and 

composed of a representative from each of the following (collectively, the “Resource 

Agencies”): the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP), Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), the 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR), and the Susquehanna River Basin 

Commission (SRBC). Each designated representative shall be knowledgeable of American eel,

the Susquehanna River, ongoing fisheries and other related resource programs being 

implemented in the Lower Susquehanna River (e.g., American shad restoration). 

Consistent with the implementation plan set forth below, the licensee will trap and hold 

immigrating juvenile American eels from a point downstream of the Muddy Run Project, and 

transport them to designated points in the Susquehanna River watershed consistent with the level 

of effort established and described in the plan. 

Trapping

Subject to required regulatory approvals, the licensee will design, install and operate eel trapping 

facilities according to the following schedule, unless an alternative schedule is approved by the 

Department in writing. In the event that the Resource Agencies or FERC determine that 

additional information, revisions, modifications, or amendments are necessary to the plans, 

specifications or construction activities, then within 60 days of receipt of written notice, the 

licensee shall submit to the Department, the Resource Agencies and FERC such information, 

revisions or amendments unless a longer period of time is approved by the requesting agency or 

FERC in writing. 

1. Submit complete design plans and specifications for a trapping facility at a location 

downstream of the Muddy Run Project to the Resource Agencies and FERC within 

one year of license issuance; 

2. Hold preconstruction meeting with the Resource Agencies and Service within 150 

days of approval of the design plans and designs by FERC, the Resource Agencies

and Department; 

3. Begin construction within 180 days of receipt of approval of the design plans and 

specifications by the Resource Agencies and the Department; 

4. Begin operation on May 1 after construction is completed or immediately if 

construction is completed during the upstream passage period for American Eel. 
50 

Beginning immediately after license issuance and until the licensee’s trapping facilities are

completed, the licensee will work with the Service to trap eels using the Service trapping facility 

and will assist in the financial support of the Service trapping facility through a payment of 

$20,000 per year to an entity approved by the Department with the capability of providing 

financial support to the Service’s Maryland Fisheries Resource Office for the eel trapping 

program. This payment will be made by April 1 of each year. Immediately upon license issuance

the licensee will participate in this effort using the Service facilities, including the Service 

trapping facility, tanks and trucks. Beginning May 1 the first year after license issuance, the 

licensee will use its own holding and transport facilities and continue working with the Service 

to trap eels using the Service’s trapping facility. The licensee will begin operating the program 

independently, subject to the Service supervision and input, using its own trapping facility when 

construction of that facility is completed. 

Subject to required regulatory approvals, the licensee also will design, install and operate 

additional temporary eel trapping facilities downstream and upstream of the Muddy Run Project 

or at alternative locations approved by the Department in writing according to the following 

schedule, unless an alternative schedule is approved by the Department in writing. In the event 

that the Resource Agencies, FERC, or the Department determine that additional information, 

revisions, modifications, or amendments are necessary to the plans, specifications or construction 

activities, then within 60 days of receipt of written notice, the licensee shall submit to the 

Department, the Resource Agencies and FERC such information, revisions or amendments 

unless a longer period of time is approved by the requesting agency or FERC in writing. 

1. Conduct field evaluation using visual observation, electrofishing and other methods 

approved by the Department and the Resource Agencies, in writing, to evaluate and 

rank trapping locations beginning on 1 May after construction is completed or 

immediately if construction is completed during the upstream passage period for 

American eel; 

2. Submit complete design plans and specifications to the Resource Agencies by 

November 1withn the same year as field evaluations occurred; 

3. Hold preconstruction meeting with Department and the Resource Agencies within 45 

days of approval of the design plans and designs by FERC, and the Resource 

Agencies; 

4. Begin construction within 90 days of receipt of approval of the design plans and 

specifications by Department and the Resource Agencies; 

5. Begin operation by May 1 the year after field evaluations occur. 

If, after three years of operation, the Department in consultation with EPAG determines the 

temporary eel trapping facility is successful, the licensee will design, install, and operate a 

permanent eel trapping facility at this location in accordance with a schedule established by 

Department in consultation with the other Resource Agencies. 

If, after three years of operation, the Department in consultation with EPAG determines the

temporary eel trapping facilities for juvenile eels are unsuccessful, site-determination studies for 

an additional permanent trap will be performed beginning the following May. Congregations of 
51 

juvenile eels will be documented visually via bi-weekly nighttime surveys during the migration 

period; the locations surveyed will focus on areas that will allow for the collection of eels before 

they are exposed to impacts associated with the Muddy Run Project (i.e., generation and/or 

pumping flows). Based on the results of the site-determination studies, the licensee will design, 

install, and operate temporary mobile traps to inform the potential location of one additional 

permanent eel trapping facility. Temporary exploratory traps will be installed and operated at up 

to five locations determined by the Resource Agencies and the Department for a period of one to 

two additional years, in order to assess the ability to collect sufficient numbers of juvenile eels 

for the eel passage program. Collection facilities for the temporary site determination study will 

be similar to those used in the 2011 and 2012 studies conducted by the licensee for the 

Conowingo Hydroelectric Project. 

Based on the results of the site-determination studies, the licensee, in consultation with EPAG, 

will determine if and where an additional permanent eel trap is justified in support of the Eel 

Passage Program. If a decision is made after the second site determination study to install an eel 

trap at the selected location, unless a different date is established by the Resource Agencies and 

the Department, that trap will be designed and constructed within one year of that determination, 

and operated beginning May 1 of the following year subject to required regulatory approvals. If a 

second year of study is needed, the dates would advance by a year.

The collection device(s) for the two permanent eel trapping facilities will consist of a ramp-style 

trap leading to a collection tank at the top of the ramp. The collection device(s) shall have a 

capacity to pass 50,000 eels over a 24 hour period accommodating a minimum size of 3 inches. 

One or more pumping systems will provide attraction flow at the entrance of the ramp, flow in 

the troughs to allow eels to climb the ramp, and water to the collection and holding tanks. The 

lower section of the ramp will be designed to have removable covers or grating to allow eels to 

enter at differing water surface elevations. The ramp will contain two side-by-side troughs to 

provide redundancy and allow for the potential use of different climbing media in each trough. 

For the ramp on the western shore, the entrance to the ramp will be designed to accommodate the 

normal range of tailwater elevation (El. 12 – 25 ft). The additional permanent collection facilities

will contain elements of the facility on the western shore with the design modified to 

accommodate local conditions. 

The trapping facilities will be operated continuously during the eel migration period from May 1 

to September 15. The licensee will monitor and record days fished, hours fished and the weather. 

Daily counts of eels will be recorded. The method of counting under various capture scenarios 

will be developed in consultation with the EPAG. Temperature data will be obtained from 

Monitoring Station 643 (located approximately 0.6 miles below Conowingo Dam near the 

western shoreline) to examine river temperature in relation to catch rates of juvenile eels. 

Biweekly subsamples of collected eels will be examined for various life history parameters (e.g., 

length, weight, and condition factor). A portion of the subsampled eels will be sacrificed and 

examined for the presence of Anguillicoloides crassus. Some of the sacrificed eels will have the 

otoliths removed and retained for age analysis. Anguillicoloides crassus infection rates 

(proportion of eels infected), the number of parasites per eel, along with associated age, length, 

and weight data will be reported. Additionally, the licensee will pay to have 60 elvers/year sent

to the Service or such other entity that the Department may approve in writing, for wild fish 
52 

health screening. The screening shall occur once per year and can occur anytime during the eel 

upstream passage season. 

Holding

Subject to required regulatory approvals, the licensee also will design, install and operate the 

holding facility for the traps according to the following schedule, unless an alternative schedule 

is approved by the Department in writing. In the event that the Resource Agencies, FERC, or the 

Department determine that additional information, revisions, modifications, or amendments are 

necessary to the plans, specifications or construction activities, then within 60 days of receipt of 

written notice, the licensee shall submit to the Resource Agencies and FERC such information, 

revisions or amendments unless a longer period of time is approved by the requesting agency or 

FERC in writing. 

1. Submit complete design plans and specifications for holding facilities to the Resource 

Agencies within 1 year of license issuance; 

2. Hold preconstruction meeting with Department and Service within 150 days of 

approval of the design plans and designs by FERC, Department and the Resource 

Agencies; 

3. Begin construction within 180 days of receipt of approval of the design plans and 

specifications by Department and the Resource Agencies; 

4. Begin operation by May 1, after construction is completed or immediately if 

construction is completed during the upstream passage period for American eel. 

 

Periodically, consistent with standards established by the Department, and the Resource 

Agencies, eels will be transferred from the collection tank to the holding tank(s) where they will 

be held prior to being transported upstream. The holding tanks will have an automatically 

engaging back up pump and an alarm that sounds in a daily staffed location if the primary pump 

malfunctions. The holding tank will have continuous temperature, dissolved oxygen and 

gallon/minute water exchange monitoring devices with alarms that sound in a daily staffed 

location if levels of any parameter are outside of established limits. Upon observation, dead eels 

will be removed, enumerated, and reported. The holding tank shall be designed and operated to 

hold eels at densities not exceeding 10 elvers per liter unless modified by the Department in 

consultation with the other Resource Agencies. If necessary, aeration will be provided to the 

holding tanks 

Transport

Subject to required regulatory approvals, the licensee will design, construct and operate 

vehicle(s) to transport eels from the trap facilities according to the following schedule, unless an 

alternative schedule is approved by the Department in writing. In the event that the FERC, the 

Resource Agencies, or the Department determine that additional information, revisions, 

modifications, or amendments are necessary to the plans, specifications or construction activities, 

then within 60 days of receipt of written notice, the licensee shall submit to the Resource 

Agencies and FERC such information, revisions or amendments unless a longer period of time is 

approved by the requesting agency or FERC in writing. 
53 

1. Submit complete design plans and specifications to the Resource Agencies and FERC 

within one year of license issuance; 

2. Begin construction within 180 days of receipt of approval of the design plans and 

specifications by the Department and the Resource Agencies; 

3. Begin operation by May 1, after construction is completed or immediately if 

construction is completed during the upstream passage period for American eel. 

Transport of juvenile eels will occur as necessary based on the capacity of holding tanks at the 

eel trapping facilities. All eels shall be moved within 1 week of capture. Eels from the holding 

tank(s) will be transferred to a transport vehicle equipped with an insulated transport container(s) 

that will be covered and aerated. The transport vehicle(s) will have an automatically engaging 

back up pump and an alarm that sounds in the cab of the vehicle(s). The transport vehicle taken 

will have continuous temperature and dissolved oxygen monitoring devices with alarms that 

sound in the vehicle(s) if levels of any parameter are outside of established limits. The transport 

vehicle(s) shall be designed and operated to hold eels at densities not exceeding 10 elvers per 

liter unless modified by the Department in consultation with the other Resource Agencies. If 

necessary, aeration will be provided to the holding tanks on the transport vehicle(s). These eels 

will be trucked to appropriate release locations on the same day of removal from holding. Upon 

observation, dead eels will be removed, enumerated, and reported. 

Release

 

The licensee will release eels at locations identified by the Department in amounts consistent 

with the release information provided to and approved by the Resource Agencies in writing. 

Where feasible, eels will be released at public access locations. Unless otherwise directed by the 

Resource Agencies in consultation with EPAG, eels will be released: (1) at least one hour after 

sunset to promote eel dispersal and minimize predation; and (2) into at least three feet of water at 

multiple locations within designated release areas in order to avoid concentrations of eels that 

could become potential targets for increased predation. If necessary due to time limitations 

established by the Resource Agencies in writing, the licensee shall release eels at alternative

locations to avoid mortality. The estimated number of eels released at each location will be 

documented in writing and on a GPS device capable of being mapped in a database as approved 

by the Resource Agencies. After release, any dead eels remaining in the transport vehicle or 

observed at the stocking locations will be removed, enumerated, and reported.

Any modification of, or revisions to, the release locations shall occur after consultation with 

EPAG and consistent with the approval of the Resource Agencies. 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

The licensee will develop a detailed quality assurance/quality control (“QA/QC) program 

according to the following schedule, unless an alternative schedule is approved by the 

Department in writing. In the event that the Resource Agencies, or the Department determine 

that additional information, revisions, or amendments are necessary to the QA/QC program then 

within 60 days of receipt of written notice, the licensee shall submit to the Resource Agencies 
54 

and the Department such information, revisions or amendments unless a longer period of time is 

approved by the requesting agency in writing. 

1. Submit a draft QA/QC program to the Resource Agencies for approval by April 15, 

of the year in which a new license is issued; 

2. Implement the QA/QC program approved by the Department when trapping and 

transport begin. 

Important parameters associated with trapping, collecting, holding, transport, release, and 

stocking will be recorded to assure and control the quality of various program elements. The 

collection of these data will assure that the program will be conducted according to design 

parameters, will adhere to sound scientific principles, and will allow for any necessary 

adjustments. The results of these quality assurance and quality control measures will be included 

in annual reports to the Resource Agencies and EPAG. Changes to the QA/QC procedures shall 

be submitted as requested by the Department, or the Resource Agencies in writing.

At a minimum, the QA/QC program shall provide:

• Detailed description of the eel trapping and holding process to achieve a minimum 

95% survival rate. 

• Detailed description of the eel transport process to achieve a minimum 95% survival 

rate.

• Collection facilities will be visually inspected daily to ensure proper operation. 

• Design parameters for flows and key critical components (e.g. attraction flow, spray 

bar, collection tank) that will be measured weekly and qualitatively assessed daily to 

ensure that traps are operating within design parameters.

• Water temperature and dissolved oxygen and water exchange in the collection, 

holding, and transport tanks will be monitored continuously to ensure that water 

quality remains suitable for juvenile eels.

• Information on the periodic checks on the accuracy of the estimates of volumetric 

counts. 

• Information on the cleaning and disinfection of the collecting, holding, and 

transportation tanks. 

• Protocols for monitoring, removing, enumerating, and reporting eel mortality. 

Reporting, Monitoring, and Periodic Evaluation 

Reporting and EPAG Meetings
55 

During the eel passage season, the licensee shall provide a daily email to designated members of 

EPAG describing the status of trapping and trucking at each facility, the numbers of eels trapped 

and transported, any deviations from normal facility operations, and the timing and substance of 

the resolution of any deviations. 

On or before December 10 annually, the licensee will submit a report to EPAG summarizing data 

from the trapping, collection, holding, transport, and stocking components of the Eel Plan for the 

calendar year. This report will provide program data to EPAG at the earliest practicable date, and 

provide EPAG with an opportunity to inform development of the Annual Report. On or before 

January 15 of the following year, the licensee will file an Annual Report with EPAG that 

analyzes annual data, including results from QA/QC. 

Upon request, the licensee will meet with EPAG on or before February 15 of each year in which 

the Annual Report is filed. 

Periodic Evaluation 

Every three years, unless a different period is established by the Department in writing beginning 

in in the year following issuance of a new license, the licensee will conduct stream segment 

evaluations through electrofishing or other method identified after consultation with EPAG. 

Representative stream segments will include tributaries and shorelines of the main-stem river. 

The licensee will propose locations and methods for this survey at least one year in advance to 

the Resource Agencies. The licensee shall implement the survey based on approval of the 

Department of the proposed locations and methods. 

To implement the evaluations, eels will be captured by electrofishing, or other methods approved 

by the Department in consultation with the Resource Agencies. Sampling will be performed at 

block-netted transects along river shorelines and at block-netted segments of small tributaries 

using backpack electrofishing. The exact number, length, and location of transects sampled will 

be approved by the Department in consultation with EPAG. Associated water quality parameters 

such as temperature and dissolved oxygen, as well as habitat characteristics, including mussel 

numbers observed, will be collected at each sampling location. 

During sampling, the number of eels captured will be documented and data will be collected 

from a representative subsample of eels. A subsample of captured eels larger than 200 mm will 

be tagged with Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags and released. Sampled eels will be 

scanned for PIT tags and data from recaptured eels will be recorded and included in the annual 

report. Data will include a variety of life history characteristics (e.g., length, weight, and 

condition factor) that can be assessed to determine how well stocked eels are utilizing the river 

and tributaries. A portion of the subsample will be sacrificed and examined for age (otolith 

analysis), gender, and level of Anguillicoloides crassus infection. Eels that are not sacrificed for 

further analysis will be measured, weighed, and released. 

Results of stream segment evaluations will be included in the Annual Report and will document 

dispersal of the stocked eels, estimate the approximate density of stocked eels, and evaluate the 
56 

growth, condition, age, gender and level of infestation with Anguillicoloides crassus of stocked 

eels.

Downstream Eel Passage Monitoring

 

Licensee shall conduct of a downstream eel passage study to evaluate the timing, magnitude, 

duration, annual variation and environmental conditions associated with active migration of 

silver eels from tributaries stocked with elvers, through the lower Susquehanna River and past 

the Muddy Run Project to the Chesapeake Bay. This study will be conducted for at least two 

years and will begin three years after license issuance. The licensee shall submit a draft study 

plan for Department review and approval within one year of license issuance. The plan shall 

include details of how licensee will collect and radio tag adult silver eels from the upper 

Susquehanna Basin for this study. The plan will also detail how the licensee will deploy radio 

telemetry monitoring equipment in the vicinity of Muddy Run Project so as to adequately track 

movement of radio tagged eels through the project area. 

Concurrently with the downstream eel passage study or at a later date as approved by the 

Department, the licensee will also conduct a Site-Specific Route of Passage Study to evaluate the 

entrainment rate of silver eels migrating in the vicinity of the Project. If the results of the SiteSpecific Downstream Eel Passage Study indicate that the Project’s existing operating measures

do not meet the downstream passage criteria (survival of 85% of silver eels passing the Project), 

the Licensee will prepare and submit a plan and schedule for evaluating the feasibility and costs 

of potential physical and/or operational modifications to the Project to facilitate downstream eel 

passage.

Correspondence Regarding the Preliminary Prescription for

Fishways 

Any written inquiries, comments or other correspondence related to this Preliminary Fish

Passage Prescription for the Muddy Run Project should be sent to: 

Field Supervisor, Chesapeake Bay Field Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

177 Admiral Cochrane Drive 

Annapolis, MD 21401 
57 

Appendix 1. Scientific Names

American eel (Anguilla rostrata) 

American shad (Alosa sapidissima) 

alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) 

blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) 

hickory shad (Alosa mediocris) 

Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae)

gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) 

shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) 

Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) 

striped bass (Morone saxatilis) 

walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) 

smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) 

channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) 

Appendix 2. Administrative Record

The Administrative Record is being filed electronically under a separate cover due to its size.
58 

Appendix 3. Proposed Water Quality Certification Eel Management

Plan

Exelon Generation

American Eel Passage Plan

Muddy Run Pumped Storage Hydroelectric

Project (P-2355)

 
59 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. Eel Passage Advisory Group 

III. Upstream Passage (2015-2030) 

 

 A. Trapping

 B. Holding

 C. Transport

 D. Release

 E. Quality Assurance and Control 

 F. Monitoring and Reporting

IV. Upstream Passage (2031 - Term of New License)
60 

I. Introduction

 Pursuant to the Federal Power Act, Exelon Generation (Exelon) filed new license 

applications with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in August 2012 for the 

Muddy Run Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Facility (Muddy Run) and the Conowingo 

Hydroelectric Project (Conowingo). This American Eel Passage Plan (“Eel Plan”) is a condition 

of, and incorporated into, the Water Quality Certification for the Muddy Run Project. Under 

Section 401(d) of the Clean Water Act, the Eel Plan becomes a condition of the FERC license for 

the Muddy Run project. 

 
61 

II. Eel Passage Advisory Group

To inform implementation of the Eel Plan, Exelon will establish an Eel Passage Advisory 

Group (EPAG) by May 1, 2014. EPAG will be chaired by Exelon and composed of a 

representative from each of the following (collectively, the “Resource Agencies”): the 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 

Commission (PAFBC), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission 

(SRBC). Each designated representative shall be knowledgeable of American eel, the 

Susquehanna River, and ongoing fisheries and other related resource programs being 

implemented in the Lower Susquehanna River (e.g., American shad restoration). 
62 

III. Upstream Passage for American Eel (2015-2030) 

 Consistent with the implementation plan set forth below, Exelon will trap, hold and 

transport American eels from the Conowingo Dam and transport them to designated points in the 

Susquehanna River watershed consistent with the level of effort established and described in this 

plan. Any trapping, holding, transportation or monitoring of eels or other eel related activities 

addressed in this plan that occurs in Maryland waters is expressly subject to any permits, licenses 

or authorizations that may be required by the State of Maryland related to such activities. 

A. Trapping

 Subject to required regulatory approvals, Exelon will design, install and operate an eel 

trapping facility along the western shore of the Conowingo Dam at the location of the current 

USFWS trapping location and facility according to the following schedule, unless an alternative 

schedule is approved by the PADEP in writing. In the event that the MDNR, USFWS or FERC 

determine that additional information, revisions, modifications, or amendments are necessary to 

the plans, specifications or construction activities, then within 60 days of receipt of written 

notice, EXELON shall submit to the Resource Agencies and FERC such information, revisions 

or amendments unless a longer period of time is approved by the requesting agency or FERC in 

writing. 

1. Submit complete design plans and specifications for a trapping facility to the 

Resource Agencies and FERC by October 15, 2014; 

2. Hold preconstruction meeting with MD and USFWS within 150 days of approval of 

the design plans and designs by FERC, MDNR and USFWS; 

3. Begin construction within 180 days of receipt of approval of the design plans and 

specifications by the MDNR and USFWS;

4. Begin operation by May 1, 2016. 

Beginning in 2014 and until Exelon’s trapping facility along the western shore of the Conowingo 

Dam is completed, Exelon will work with the USFWS to trap eels using the USFWS trapping 

facility and will assist in the financial support of the USFWS trapping facility through a payment 

of $20,000 per year to an entity approved by the PADEP with the capability of providing 

financial support to the USFWS Maryland Fisheries Resource Office for the eel trapping 

program. This payment will be made by April 1 of each year. In 2014, Exelon will participate in 

this effort using USFWS facilities, including the USFWS trapping facility, tanks and trucks. 

Beginning May 1, 2015, Exelon will use its own holding and transport facilities and continue 

working with the USFWS to trap eels using the USFWS trapping facility. Exelon will begin 

operating the program independently, subject to USFWS supervision and input, using its own 

trapping facility when construction of that facility is completed. 

Subject to required regulatory approvals, Exelon also will design, install and operate a 

temporary eel trapping facility on Octoraro Creek at a location approved by the PADEP in 

writing according to the following schedule, unless an alternative schedule is approved by the 

PADEP in writing. In the event that the MDNR, FERC, PADEP or the USFWS determine that 

additional information, revisions, modifications, or amendments are necessary to the plans, 
63 

specifications or construction activities, then within 60 days of receipt of written notice, 

EXELON shall submit to the Resource Agencies and FERC such information, revisions or 

amendments unless a longer period of time is approved by the requesting agency or FERC in 

writing. 

1. Conduct field evaluation using visual observation, electrofishing and other methods 

approved by the PADEP and USFWS, in writing, to evaluate and rank trapping 

locations on Octoraro Creek by September 15, 2014. 

2. Submit complete design plans and specifications to the Resource Agencies by 

November 1, 2014; 

3. Hold preconstruction meeting with PADEP and USFWS within 45 days of approval 

of the design plans and designs by FERC, PADEP and USFWS; 

4. Begin construction within 90 days of receipt of approval of the design plans and 

specifications by PADEP and USFWS;

5. Begin operation by May 1, 2015. 

If, after three years of operation, PADEP in consultation with EPAG determines the temporary 

eel trapping facility at Octoraro Creek is successful, Exelon will design, install, and operate a 

permanent eel trapping facility at this location in accordance with a schedule established by 

PADEP in consultation with the other Resource Agencies. 

If, after three years of operation, PADEP in consultation with EPAG determines the temporary 

eel trapping facility at Octoraro Creek is unsuccessful, site-determination studies for an 

additional permanent trap will be performed beginning in 2017. Congregations of juvenile eels 

will be documented visually via bi-weekly nighttime surveys during the migration period; the 

locations surveyed will focus on the East Fish Lift area, the river banks and possibly lower-river 

tributaries, but will exclude the Conowingo Dam spillway. Based on the results of the sitedetermination studies, Exelon will design, install, and operate temporary mobile traps to inform 

the potential location of one additional permanent eel trapping facility. Temporary exploratory 

traps will be installed and operated at up to five locations determined by PADEP, MDNR and 

USFWS during 2018 and, if necessary, 2019, to assess the ability to collect sufficient numbers of 

juvenile eels for the eel passage program. Collection facilities for the temporary site 

determination study will be similar to those used in the 2011 and 2012 studies conducted by 

Exelon. 

Based on the results of the site-determination studies, Exelon, in consultation with 

EPAG, will determine if and where an additional permanent eel trap is justified in support of the 

Eel Passage Program. If a decision is made in 2018 to install an eel trap at the selected location, 

unless a different date is established by the PADEP, MDNR and USFWS, that trap will be 

designed and constructed in 2019-2020, and operated beginning in 2021 subject to required 

regulatory approvals. If a second year of study is needed, the dates would advance by a year. 

Exelon will not be required to maintain and operate more than two permanent eel traps at any 

time during the term of the new license. 

The collection device(s) for the two permanent eel trapping facilities will consist of a ramp-style 

trap leading to a collection tank at the top of the ramp. The collection device(s) shall have a 
64 

capacity to pass 50,000 eels over a 24 hour period accommodating a minimum size of 3 inches. 

One or more pumping systems will provide attraction flow at the entrance of the ramp, flow in 

the troughs to allow eels to climb the ramp, and water to the collection and holding tanks. The 

lower section of the ramp will be designed to have removable covers or grating to allow eels to 

enter at differing water surface elevations. The ramp will contain two side-by-side troughs to 

provide redundancy and allow for the potential use of different climbing media in each trough. 

For the ramp on the western shore, the entrance to the ramp will be designed to accommodate the 

normal range of tailwater elevation (El. 12 – 25 ft). The additional permanent collection facility 

will contain elements of the facility on the western shore with the design modified to 

accommodate local conditions. 

The trapping facilities will be operated continuously during the eel migration period from 

May 1 to September 15. Exelon will monitor and record days fished, hours fished and the 

weather. Daily counts of eels will be recorded. The method of counting under various capture 

scenarios will be developed in consultation with the EPAG. Temperature data will be obtained 

from Monitoring Station 643 (located approximately 0.6 miles below Conowingo Dam near the 

western shoreline) to examine river temperature in relation to catch rates of juvenile eels. 

Biweekly subsamples of collected eels will be examined for various life history parameters (e.g., 

length, weight, and condition factor). A portion of the subsampled eels will be sacrificed and 

examined for the presence of Anguillicoloides crassus.39

 

39 This introduced parasite has been documented in juvenile eels collected at Conowingo Dam 

(Minkkinen and Park 2012) and could affect the overall success of adult outmigration due to 

reduced swimming ability and potentially higher mortality of migrating silver eels (Szekely et al 

2009). 

 Some of the sacrificed eels will have 

the otoliths removed and retained for age analysis. Anguillicoloides crassus infection rates 

(proportion of eels infected), the number of parasites per eel, along with associated age, length, 

and weight data will be reported. Additionally, Exelon will pay to have 60 elvers/year sent to the 

USFWS or such other entity that the PADEP may approve in writing, for wild fish health 

screening. The screening shall occur once per year and can occur anytime during the eel 

upstream passage season. 
65 

B. Holding

Subject to required regulatory approvals, Exelon also will design, install and operate the holding 

facility for the west shore Conowingo Dam and the Octoraro Creek traps according to the 

following schedule, unless an alternative schedule is approved by the PADEP in writing. In the 

event that the MDNR, FERC, PADEP or the USFWS determine that additional information, 

revisions, modifications, or amendments are necessary to the plans, specifications or construction 

activities, then within 60 days of receipt of written notice, EXELON shall submit to the Resource 

Agencies and FERC such information, revisions or amendments unless a longer period of time is 

approved by the requesting agency or FERC in writing. 

1. Submit complete design plans and specifications for holding facilities to the Resource 

Agencies by April 15, 2014; 

2. Hold preconstruction meeting with PADEP and USFWS within 150 days of approval 

of the design plans and designs by FERC, PADEP and USFWS; 

3. Begin construction within 180 days of receipt of approval of the design plans and 

specifications by PADEP and USFWS;

4. Begin operation by May 1, 2015. 

 

Periodically, consistent with standards established by the PADEP, MDNR and USFWS, eels will 

be transferred from the collection tank to the holding tank(s) where they will be held prior to 

being transported upstream. The holding tanks will have an automatically engaging back up 

pump and an alarm that sounds in a daily staffed location if the primary pump malfunctions. The 

holding tank will have continuous temperature, dissolved oxygen and gallon/minute water 

exchange monitoring devices with alarms that sound in a daily staffed location if levels of any 

parameter are outside of established limits. Upon observation, dead eels will be removed, 

enumerated, and reported. The holding tank shall be designed and operated to hold eels at 

densities not exceeding 10 elvers per liter unless modified by PADEP in consultation with the 

other Resource Agencies. If necessary, aeration will be provided to the holding tanks. 
66 

C. Transport

 Subject to required regulatory approvals, Exelon will design, construct and operate 

vehicle(s) to transport eels from the western shore and Octoraro facilities according to the 

following schedule, unless an alternative schedule is approved by the PADEP in writing. In the 

event that the FERC, MDNR, PADEP or the USFWS determine that additional information, 

revisions, modifications, or amendments are necessary to the plans, specifications or construction 

activities, then within 60 days of receipt of written notice, EXELON shall submit to the Resource 

Agencies and FERC such information, revisions or amendments unless a longer period of time is 

approved by the requesting agency or FERC in writing. 

1. Submit complete design plans and specifications to the Resource Agencies and 

FERC by April 15, 2014; 

2. Begin construction within 180 days of receipt of approval of the design plans and 

specifications by PADEP, MDNR and USFWS; 

3. Begin operation by May 1, 2015. 

Transport of juvenile eels will occur as necessary based on the capacity of holding tanks at the 

eel trapping facilities. All eels shall be moved within 1 week of capture. Eels from the holding 

tank(s) will be transferred to a transport vehicle equipped with an insulated transport container(s) 

that will be covered and aerated. The transport vehicle(s) will have an automatically engaging 

back up pump and an alarm that sounds in the cab of the vehicle(s). The transport vehicle taken 

will have continuous temperature and dissolved oxygen monitoring devices with alarms that 

sound in the vehicle(s) if levels of any parameter are outside of established limits. The transport 

vehicle(s) shall be designed and operated to hold eels at densities not exceeding 10 elvers per 

liter unless modified by PADEP in consultation with the other Resource Agencies. If necessary, 

aeration will be provided to the holding tanks on the transport vehicle(s). These eels will be 

trucked to appropriate release locations on the same day of removal from holding. Upon 

observation, dead eels will be removed, enumerated, and reported.
67 

D. Release

 

Exelon will release eels at locations identified in Appendix A in amounts consistent with 

the release information provided to and approved by the PFBC in writing. Where feasible, eels 

will be released at public access locations. Unless otherwise directed by PFBC in consultation 

with EPAG, eels will be released: (1) at least one hour after sunset to promote eel dispersal and 

minimize predation; and (2) into at least three feet of water at multiple locations within 

designated release areas in order to avoid concentrations of eels that could become potential 

targets for increased predation. If necessary due to time limitations established by the Resource 

Agencies in writing, Exelon shall release eels at alternative locations to avoid mortality. The 

estimated number of eels released at each location will be documented in writing and on a GPS 

device capable of being mapped in a database as approved by the Resource Agencies. After 

release, any dead eels remaining in the transport vehicle or observed at the stocking locations 

will be removed, enumerated, and reported. 

 Modification of, or revisions to, the release locations in Appendix A shall occur after 

consultation with EPAG and consistent with the approval of the PFBC. 

 

 
68 

E. Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Exelon will develop a detailed quality assurance/quality control (“QA/QC) program 

according to the following schedule, unless an alternative schedule is approved by the PADEP in 

writing. In the event that the MDNR, PADEP or the USFWS determine that additional 

information, revisions, or amendments are necessary to the QA/QC program, then within 60 days 

of receipt of written notice EXELON shall submit to the Resource Agencies and such 

information, revisions or amendments unless a longer period of time is approved by the 

requesting agency in writing. 

1. Submit a draft QA/QC program to the Resource Agencies for approval by April 15, 

2014; 

2. Implement the QA/QC program approved by the PADEP when trapping and transport 

begins. 

Important parameters associated with trapping, collecting, holding, transport, release, and 

stocking will be recorded to assure and control the quality of various program elements. The 

collection of these data will assure that the program will be conducted according to design 

parameters, will adhere to sound scientific principles, and will allow for any necessary 

adjustments. The results of these quality assurance and quality control measures will be included 

in annual reports to the Resource Agencies and EPAG. Changes to the QA/QC procedures shall 

be submitted as requested by the PADEP, MDNR or USFWS in writing. 

At a minimum, the QA/QC program shall provide:

• Detailed description of the eel trapping and holding process to achieve a minimum 95% 

survival rate.

• Detailed description of the eel transport process to achieve a minimum 95% survival rate. 

• Collection facilities will be visually inspected daily to ensure proper operation. 

• Design parameters for flows and key critical components (e.g. attraction flow, spray bar, 

collection tank) that will be measured weekly and qualitatively assessed daily to ensure 

that traps are operating within design parameters.

• Water temperature and dissolved oxygen and water exchange in the collection, holding, 

and transport tanks will be monitored continuously to ensure that water quality remains 

suitable for juvenile eels.

• Information on the periodic checks on the accuracy of the estimates of volumetric counts. 

• Information on the cleaning and disinfection of the collecting, holding, and transportation 

tanks. 

• Protocols for monitoring, removing, enumerating and reporting eel mortality. 
69 

F. Reporting, Monitoring, and Periodic Evaluation

 1. Reporting and EPAG Meetings 

 During the eel passage season, Exelon shall provide a daily email to designated members 

of EPAG describing the status of trapping and trucking at each facility, the numbers of eels 

trapped and transported, any deviations from normal facility operations and the timing and 

substance of the resolution of any deviations. 

On or before December 10 annually from 2015 through 2030, Exelon will submit a report to 

EPAG summarizing data from the trapping, collection, holding, transport, and stocking 

components of the Eel Plan for the calendar year. This report will provide program data to 

EPAG at the earliest practicable date, and provide EPAG with an opportunity to inform 

development of the Annual Report. On or before January 15 of the following year, Exelon will 

file an Annual Report with EPAG that analyzes annual data, including results from QA/QC. 

 Upon request, Exelon will meet with EPAG on or before February 15 of each year in 

which the Annual Report is filed. 

 2. Periodic Evaluation 

Every three years, unless a different period is established by the PADEP in writing 

beginning in 2018 through 2030, Exelon will conduct stream segment evaluations through 

electrofishing or other method identified after consultation with EPAG. Representative stream 

segments will include tributaries and shorelines of the main-stem river. Exelon will propose 

locations and methods for this survey at least one year in advance to the Resource Agencies. 

Exelon shall implement the survey based on approval of the PADEP of the proposed locations 

and methods. 

 To implement the evaluations, eels will be captured by electrofishing, or other methods 

approved by the PADEP in consultation with the Resource Agencies. Sampling will be 

performed at block-netted transects along river shorelines and at block-netted segments of small 

tributaries using backpack electrofishing. The exact number, length, and location of transects 

sampled will be approved by the PADEP in consultation with EPAG.40 Associated water quality 

parameters such as temperature and dissolved oxygen, as well as habitat characteristics, 

including mussel numbers observed, will be collected at each sampling location. 

 During sampling, the number of eels captured will be documented and data will be 

collected from a representative subsample of eels. A subsample of captured eels larger than 200 

mm will be tagged with Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags and released. Sampled eels 

will be scanned for PIT tags and data from recaptured eels will be recorded and included in the 

annual report. Data will include a variety of life history characteristics (e.g., length, weight, and 

condition factor) that can be assessed to determine how well stocked eels are utilizing the river 

 

40 It is anticipated that two weeks of electrofishing will be conducted during each third-year 

evaluation. 
70 

and tributaries. A portion of the subsample will be sacrificed and examined for age (otolith 

analysis), gender, and level of Anguillicoloides crassus infection. Eels that are not sacrificed for 

further analysis will be measured, weighed, and released. 

Results of stream segment evaluations will be included in the Annual Report and will 

document dispersal of the stocked eels, estimate the approximate density of stocked eels, and 

evaluate the growth, condition, age, gender and level of infestation with Anguillicoloides crassus

of stocked eels. 

III. Upstream Passage (2031 - Term of New License)

 If the upstream American eel passage trap and transport program terminates in 2030, 

Exelon will construct and operate a volitional upstream eel facility at Conowingo Dam through 

the term of the new license. Exelon will design and construct the volitional upstream eel facility, 

which will be operated in consultation with EPAG. In no event will Exelon be required to 

participate in the trap and transport program once the volitional upstream eel passage facility is 

operational. 

 If the upstream eel trap and transport and periodic evaluation program continues beyond 

2030, Exelon will continue to provide access to the Conowingo eel collection facilities for as 

long as the program continues. Exelon, however, shall bear no cost responsibility for the trap 

and transport and periodic evaluation program until 2046, at which time cost responsibility shall 

be shared among all participants in the program. 

 

APPENDIX A

LOCATIONS OF EEL RELEASE

 

Site 

Number Location Water County

1 Conowingo Pool Susquehanna River Lancaster

2 Between Holtwood and Safe 

Harbor Susquehanna River Lancaster/York

2 Between Safe Harbor and 

York Haven Dam Susquehanna River Lancaster

3 Upstream of York Haven 

Dam Susquehanna River Dauphin 

4 West Fairview Access (Route 

11/15) Susquehanna River Cumberland 

5 Fort Hunter Access Susquehanna River Perry

6 Shikellamy State Park Susquehanna River Northumberland 

7 Route 487 Bloomsburg North Branch 

Susquehanna River Columbia 

8 Route 29 Bridge (Wilkes North Branch Luzerne
71 

Barre) Susquehanna River

9 Upstream of Hepburn Street 

Dam (Williamsport)

West Branch 

Susquehanna River Lycoming

10 Upstream of Grant Street Dam West Branch 

Susquehanna River Clinton
72 
References Cited

 

Minkkinen, S. and I. Park. 2012. American eel sampling at Conowingo Dam, 2012. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service – Maryland Fishery Resources Office.

Székely, C., A. Palstra, K. Molnár, and G. van den Thillart. 2009. Impact of the swim-bladder 

parasite on the health and performance of European Eels, Chapter 9 in Spawning Migration of 

the European Eel, Fish & Fisheries Series, Volume 30, pages 201-226. 

 



This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX F 

WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION 

YORK HAVEN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 
This page intentionally left blank.



































































This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX G 

WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION 

MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT 
This page intentionally left blank.










































~i~~ pennsylvania

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

WATERWAYS a WETLANDS PROGRAM

December 10, 2014 -'-'-j '.C I 5 p-. li: 2cj

Ms. Kimberly D. Bose,S~

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, N.E. Rom 1-A

Washington, D.C. 20426

Re: 401 Water Quality Certification

Exelon Generation Company, LLC

DEP File No. EA 36-033

FERC Project P-2355-018

Dear Ms. Bose:

Yesterday, the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection

("Department" ) mailed to you a clarified version ofthe Section 401 Water Quality Certification

for the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Facility, FERC Project P-2355-018, ("Certification" ) which

may have contained an incomplete, misprinted page 5 ofthe signed Certification. Please find

enclosed a corrected page'5 ofthe signed Certification. Please replace page 5 ofthe version that

was mailed to you yesterday with the enclosed version page 5 ofthe Certification. The correct

version will also be filed electronically and emailed to the service list.

Sincerely,

s . Sulhvan, Esq

Assistant Counsel

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection

CCS/1mt

cc: Shelia Eyler at USFWS Chesapeake Bay Field Office

Shawn Seaman at MDNR

Joshua Tryninewski at PFBC

Drew Dehoff at SkSC

"" ';,'j I,

Colleen E. Hicks at Ex'8'otl P'6wer.,". 4 . r in'-,

Scott Williamson at PA. DEP j'

0 u...'...''

I

/

du'outhcentral

Regional Office j 909 Elmerlon Avenue j Harrisburg, PA 17110-6200

717.705.4602 j Fax 717.705.4760 www.depweb.state.pa.us

20141215-0042 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/15/2014
by 2030, and because the FERC licenses for the Holtwood Hydroelectric Facility and the

Safe Harbor Hydroelectric Facility expire in 2030, this certification will be revised in

2030, as necessary to address demonstrated project impacts and subject to the provisions

ofthis certification, to establish requhements consistent with Section 401 ofthe Clean

Water Act, 33 U.S.C Section 1341.

III. FISH PASSAGE

General Requirements

Fish Passage Operating Procedures ("FPOP")

By January 15,2015, EXELON shall submit a FPOP to the

DEP for review and approval. The FPOP will describe

existing baseline operations during fish passage season,

including schedules for routine maintenance, procedures

for routine operation (including: seasonal and daily periods

ofoperation, pump and turbine operations), sequencing of

pump and turbine start-up and operation, procedmes for

monitoring and reporting flows, procedures for monitoring

and reporting on the operation ofthe facility, procedures

for start-up and shut-down, and procedtues for use in case

of emergencies and project outages significantly affecting

the conditions ofthis certification.

b. EXELON shall implement the FPOP consistent with the

approval ofthe DEP. EXELON shall provide written

documentation to the Resoume Agencies that operational

20141215-0042 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/15/2014
APPENDIX H 

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER PROJECTS 
This page intentionally left blank.
H-1 

APPENDIX H 

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER PROJECTS 

York Haven Project—FERC Project No. 1888-030–Pennsylvania 

Muddy Run Project—FERC Project No. 2355-018–Pennsylvania 

Conowingo Project—FERC Project No. 405-106–Maryland/Pennsylvania 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its 

draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the licensing of the Susquehanna River 

Projects (Projects) on July 30, 2014. The Commission requested comments be filed by 

September 30, 2014. In addition, the Commission conducted three public meetings on 

September 16 and 17, 2014. In this appendix, we summarize the written comments 

received on the draft EIS; provide responses to those comments; and indicate, where 

appropriate, how we have modified the text of the final EIS. We group the comment 

summaries and responses by topic for convenience. We do not summarize comments that 

point out minor edits to the draft EIS; however, we have made those edits in the final 

EIS. The following entities filed comments on the draft EIS: 

Commenting Entity Filing Date

York Haven Project

Pennsylvania Game Commission August 14, 2014

Hugh Rogers September 15, 2014

New Energy Capital Partners September 26, 2014

York Haven September 26, 2014

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Susquehanna River 

Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative

September 29, 2014

Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Midshore 

Riverkeeper Conservancy

September 29, 2014

Onondaga Nation September 29, 2014

U.S. Department of the Interior1 September 29, 2014

Exelon September 29, 2014

State of Maryland September 29, 2014

Dr. Amy Roe September 29, 2014

National Marine Fisheries Service September 29, 2014

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency September 29, 2014

Susquehanna River Basin Commission September 29, 2014

 

1

Interior filed a comment letter for the Susquehanna River Projects that includes 

comments on behalf of the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
H-2 

Commenting Entity Filing Date

The Nature Conservancy September 29, 2014

American Rivers September 29, 2014

Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Lower 

Susquehanna Riverkeeper, Waterkeepers Chesapeake

September 29, 2014

Clean Chesapeake Coalition September 29, 2014

Muddy Run Project

Pennsylvania Game Commission August 14, 2014

Hugh Rogers

Patrick Kelly

September 15, 2014

September 19, 2014

New Energy Capital Partners September 29, 2014

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Susquehanna River 

Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative

September 29, 2014

Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Midshore 

Riverkeeper Conservancy

September 29, 2014

Onondaga Nation September 29, 2014

U.S. Department of the Interior September 29, 2014

Exelon September 29, 2014

State of Maryland September 29, 2014

Dr. Amy Roe September 29, 2014

Susquehanna River Basin Commission September 29, 2014

The Nature Conservancy September 29, 2014

American Rivers September 29, 2014

Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Lower 

Susquehanna Riverkeeper, Waterkeepers Chesapeake

September 29, 2014

Clean Chesapeake Coalition September 29, 2014

National Marine Fisheries Service September 29, 2014

Onondaga Nation October 17, 2014

Conowingo Project2

James Byrne August 8, 2014

Pennsylvania Game Commission August 14, 2014

Matt Teffeau August 21, 2014

Maryland Farm Bureau September 9, 2014

Susquehanna River Boaters Association3 September 10, 2014

Hugh Rogers September 15, 2014

 

2 On January 9, 2015, an organization called “Support Conowingo Dam” filed a 

petition of support for the project that included 11,500 signatures. The organization, 

however, did not include any specific comments on the draft EIS. 

3 Motion to Intervene.
H-3 

Commenting Entity Filing Date

The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin September 19, 2014

Patrick Kelly September 19, 2014

Broad Creek Civic Association September 26, 2014

New Energy Capital Partners

Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission

September 26, 2014

Septembers 29, 2014

Susquehanna River Boaters Association4 September 29, 2014

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Susquehanna River 

Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative

September 29, 2014

Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Midshore 

Riverkeeper Conservancy

September 29, 2014

Onondaga Nation September 29, 2014

U.S. Department of the Interior September 29, 2014

Exelon Corporation September 29, 2014

State of Maryland September 29, 2014

Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future September 26, 2014

Dr. Amy Roe September 29, 2014 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency September 29, 2014

Susquehanna River Basin Commission September 29, 2014

The Nature Conservancy September 29, 2014

American Rivers September 29, 2014

Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Lower 

Susquehanna Riverkeeper, Waterkeepers Chesapeake

September 29, 2014

Clean Chesapeake Coalition September 29, 2014

National Marine Fisheries Service September 29, 2014

Onondaga Nation October 17, 2014

GENERAL AND PROCEDURAL 

Comment: The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) requests that we modify 

footnote 24 on page 19 of the draft EIS to: 

SRBC was established by the Susquehanna River Basin Compact, a 

federal interstate agreement among New York, Pennsylvania, 

Maryland, and the United States. Pursuant to the Compact, SRBC 

has specific duties which include developing and effectuating plans, 

policies, and projects relating water resources; adopting, promoting, 

and coordinating policies and standards for water resources 

conservation, control, utilization, and management; and promoting 

 

4 Susquehanna River Boaters Association filed a second Motion to Intervene on 

September 29, 2014. 
H-4 

and implementing the planning, development, and financing of water 

resources projects.

Response: We modified the indicated footnote in the final EIS. 

Comment: The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Midshore Riverkeeper 

Conservancy take exception to the Commission’s denial of Interior’s request for a 60-day 

extension to the comment period for the draft EIS given the document’s length and 

complexity. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy 

state that the Commission has a duty under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) to obtain comments from federal agencies with jurisdiction by law over a project 

or with special expertise. The Clean Chesapeake Coalition similarly objects to the draft 

EIS’ short comment period and the denial of Interior’s request for an extension of time. 

Response: As the Director of the Office of Energy Projects stated in his 

September 8, 2014, letter denying the extension of time request, Commission staff is 

committed to processing license applications expeditiously and granting a 60-day 

extension of the comment period could affect timely completion of other licensing 

milestones. The periods for commenting on the Commission’s NEPA documents 

prepared under the Integrated Licensing Process are specified in the regulations at 

18 CFR §5.25. In addition, the standard time frame for comments under NEPA is 45 

days, and we provided a longer 60-day period for this draft EIS. 

Comment: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) comments that table 1-1 in 

section 1.3 fails to include NMFS and its jurisdiction over shortnose sturgeon and 

Atlantic sturgeon under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

Response: We revised table 1-1 of the EIS to include NMFS. 

Comment: SRBC disagrees with the conclusion in section 1.3.6 of the draft EIS, which 

was based on correspondence from NMFS, that the projects do not affect essential fish 

habitat. SRBC states that, given the very existence of the Susquehanna River Projects 

and that there is essential fish habitat for anadromous species in the river, habitat 

is affected. 

Response: Essential fish habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act applies only to species managed by NMFS and for which Fishery 

Management Plans are in place. This is not the case for anadromous species that occur in 

the Susquehanna River, and we note that NMFS did not dispute our conclusions in 

section 1.3.6. While SRBC may consider the Susquehanna River to be “essential fish 

habitat” under its own definition, this does not invoke the requirements of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 
H-5 

Comment: The State of Maryland comments that the draft EIS fails to state the 

proposed term of a new Conowingo Project license.5 Although the applicant has 

requested a 46-year license for the project, it is not clear from the draft EIS that 

Commission staff supports a license term of that duration. 

Response: Consistent with all licensing proceedings, the Commission makes the final 

determination on the license term in the license order. This determination will be based 

on a review of the record at the time the order is issued. 

Comment: The State of Maryland states that any new license should include reopeners 

that would allow for optimal coordination of environmental measures among all 

hydroelectric projects on the lower Susquehanna River to adequately address cumulative 

impacts.

Response: The State of Maryland already has the ability to petition the Commission to 

reopen any license that may be issued for the projects. The Commission’s standard 

reopener article would be included in any licenses that may be issued for these projects, 

and would be the vehicle for making changes to the license if unforeseen and 

unanticipated environmental effects should occur. The requesting entity would be 

expected to provide support for its request and establish the need to reopen the license 

and the nexus to the project of the actions requested. 

Comment: The Clean Chesapeake Coalition believes that public opinion was left out of 

most studies used as a basis for the draft EIS language, including the Lower Susquehanna 

River Watershed Assessment (LSRWA). It states that hand-picked stakeholders drove 

the LSRWA, often ignoring the lack of meaningful data or ignoring meaningful data, and 

this study is incomplete and inadequate.

Response: As described in section 1.4 of the draft EIS, the Commission provides 

multiple opportunities for the public to provide input to all aspects of the relicensing 

process. The Integrated Licensing Process used in this proceeding includes identifying 

studies that all stakeholders believe should be undertaken and assessing each one based 

on the record provided by the study advocates and making a determination regarding 

which studies would be required of the applicants. The Commission oversees whether 

the studies are implemented in accordance with the approved study plan. During scoping 

for the Susquehanna River Projects, the Commission requested, among other things, that 

stakeholders and the general public identify available information on the resources at 

issue. The LSRWA is one such source of information that was offered. The Commission 

has no authority over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) (the lead agency in this 

assessment) in regards to the study implementation or schedule. It is up to Commission 

staff to determine the credibility of any information, including the draft report of the 

LSRWA (Corps and MDE, 2014) that is entered into the record for this proceeding. 

 

5 The State of Maryland filed on behalf of Maryland DNR and Maryland DOE but 

we use State of Maryland in our comment summaries and responses.
H-6 

Based on our review of Corps and MDE (2014), we find that the report provides credible 

information that we have used in our analysis. 

Comment: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) comments that the 

endangered species management plan, flow management plan, and adaptive management 

plan as they apply to fish passage should be given stronger weight in the EIS to be 

consistent with the equal consideration provision of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 

section 4(e). EPA suggests including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (FBC) recommendations as license conditions 

because these commitments and activities are critical to maintaining or restoring 

ecosystems affected by the hydropower facilities. 

Response: Pursuant to section 10(j) of the FPA, Commission staff gives due weight to 

the recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of fish and wildlife 

agencies. Nevertheless, we are still required to conduct an independent analysis of all

10(j) recommendations. If we find that the environmental benefits of a 10(j) 

recommendation do not warrant the associated cost, based on the available record, we can 

find the recommendation to be inconsistent with the comprehensive planning standard of 

section 10(a) and the equal consideration provision of section 4(e) of the FPA. We find 

this to be the case for the flow management plan and the adaptive management plan (by 

this we assume EPA is referring to Pennsylvania FBC’s recommendation to establish 

performance criteria for shad passing through the Conowingo Project and make 

adjustments at 3-year intervals if the criteria are not met). We explain why we reached 

our conclusions regarding these two measures in section 5.3 of the draft EIS. The 

Commission is required by the FPA to attempt to resolve these inconsistencies prior to 

issuing the final EIS. On August 12, 2014, the Commission issued letters to both 

Pennsylvania FBC and Interior offering to resolve the inconsistencies through meetings 

or further consultations. Neither Pennsylvania FBC nor Interior have responded or 

requested further consultations. We did not find a recommendation from Pennsylvania 

FBC or Interior for an endangered species management plan that applies to fish passage. 

Comment: Senator Cardin comments that it is well-documented that the Conowingo 

dam’s effects on flow and volume in the Susquehanna River extend well beyond the 

limited area assessed in the draft EIS. Citing the preliminary findings of the LSRWA, 

Senator Cardin strongly conveys that downstream impacts and the dam’s effect on the 

Chesapeake Bay water quality must be considered when evaluating the environmental 

impacts of Conowingo dam. EPA also finds the project study area to be overly limited 

and, as a result, the draft EIS does not consider adverse water quality and aquatic life 

impacts on the greater tidal Chesapeake Bay. 

Response: We carefully considered the geographic limits of our effects analysis in the 

draft EIS and determined that, although the 10 miles of the lower Susquehanna River 

may be affected by Conowingo Project operation, those effects generally do not extend 

downstream of the mouth of the river. The river becomes tidal about 5 miles downstream 

of the dam, and an additional 5 miles of tidal river from this point to the mouth of the 
H-7 

river tends to dampen any project effects. However, based on the results of the recently 

released draft LSRWA report (Corps and MDE, 2014), we revised the final EIS to 

include additional discussion of water quality effects on the upper Chesapeake Bay. 

NO ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

Comment: SRBC, EPA, and the Onondaga Nation comment that the natural 

characteristics of the original unaltered river system and not its current state of significant 

alteration should be used as the baseline for the analysis of project effects. 

Response: The Commission’s environmental baseline on relicensing is the environment 

as it exists at the time of relicensing, not pre-project conditions. Our use of the existing 

condition as the baseline for comparing proposed actions and recommendations, and 

evaluating the effects of the proposed and recommended measures on the projects’ 

environmental resources, is a well-established Commission practice that has been 

affirmed in the courts. However, we do consider knowledge of pre-project conditions to 

help inform certain environmental mitigation or enhancement measures. For example, 

knowledge of the historic use of the Susquehanna River for spawning of various 

anadromous fish species may help in the design of appropriate fish passage structures. 

Comment: The Onondaga Nation questions the definition of no action and comments 

that the appropriate no action should be the denial of a new license. It also comments 

that the baseline for comparison should not be continued operation but instead should be 

an assessment of the significance of any environmental harm that would continue or 

increase with ongoing project operations. 

Response: Licensing proceedings require the Commission to take an action of whether 

or not to license a proposed or existing project. In the case of an existing license, the 

FPA Section 15(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. §805(a)(1)) provides for the issuance of a continuation 

of operations if a license expires during a licensing proceeding. Under this provision, no 

action by the Commission is the continued operation of the project. Denial of a new 

license would be an action alternative. As noted in our response to SRBC, our use of the 

existing condition as the baseline for comparing proposed and recommended measures is 

well-established. We address ongoing, adverse effects under our discussion of 

unavoidable adverse effects in the EIS. 

Comment: SRBC questions why section 2.1.2, Public Safety, does not include details on

the safety measures in place at any of the facilities as part of baseline conditions at the 

projects. SRBC suggests expanding this section to articulate those existing safety 

measures, including safety-related planning efforts such as Exelon’s and York Haven’s

involvement in ICEJAMS.6

 

6

ICEJAMS is a model that was developed at the University of Alberta. The 

ICEJAM model (Flato and Gerard, 1986) was developed to calculate the thickness and 
H-8 

Response: The purpose of section 2.1.2 of the EIS is to identify any ongoing safety 

issues at the projects and explain the Commission’s safety inspection program. York 

Haven Power’s and Exelon’s safety-related programs at these projects are detailed in 

exhibit H of their license applications. 

Comment: SRBC suggests that the Commission make edits in section 2.1.3.3 to better 

describe the temporary variance for minimum flow releases during low-flow conditions. 

Response: We revised the language in section 2.1.3.3 of the final EIS, as suggested, and 

included a footnote on the Consumptive Use Mitigation Plan for the Peach Bottom 

Atomic Power Station. 

Comment: American Rivers and The Nature Conservancy comment that the draft EIS 

fails to analyze two complete alternatives – American Rivers’ ecologically preferred 

alternative with and without run-of-river operation that was provided in comments during 

scoping and presented again in its motion to intervene filed on January 31, 2014, and The 

Nature Conservancy’s ecosystem restoration and ecosystem enhancement alternative. 

Because these two complete alternatives are not identified and analyzed as stand-alone 

alternatives in the draft EIS, American Rivers and The Nature Conservancy contend that 

the document fails to include a reasonable set of alternatives. 

Response: The complete alternatives described in American Rivers’ motion to intervene 

focus on project operation, instream flows, and fish passage sediment management. The 

measures included in the alternatives are similar to recommended measures submitted by 

both resource agencies and non-governmental organizations, specifically The Nature 

Conservancy. We reference and analyze American Rivers’ recommended measures 

along with the similar measures recommended by The Nature Conservancy in 

sections 3.3.1, Geology and Soils, and 3.3.2, Water Resources, of this final EIS. We treat 

the measures as alternative flow regimes and measures to address sediment management 

and fish passage, however, and not as stand-alone alternatives. We fully analyze 

American Rivers and The Nature Conservancy’s recommendations in this final EIS. 

Comment: American Rivers and The Nature Conservancy request that the Commission 

approve and add the 2010 Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load for Nitrogen, 

Phosphorus, and Sediment (Bay TMDL) to the Commission’s list of comprehensive 

plans. 

Response: Because the Bay TMDL was not filed by a state or federal agency that has 

comprehensive plan authority in the state where the project is located, it could not be 

considered for addition to the Commission’s list of comprehensive plans (see section 2.19 

of the Commission’s regulations). Because the Bay TMDL document was prepared by 

 

water surface profiles for a cohesionless, wide channel ice jam with a floating toe 

(Source: Flato, G.M. and R. Gerard. 1986. Calculation of ice jam profiles. Proceedings, 

4

th Workshop on River Ice, Montreal. Paper C-3 CGU-HS Committee on River Ice 

Processes and the Environment. Edmonton, Canada). 
H-9 

EPA, we sent a letter to EPA on March 7, 2014, requesting that the agency confirm the 

Bay TMDL is current and that it should be considered under section 10(a)(2)(A) of the 

FPA as a comprehensive plan for the states of Delaware, Maryland, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. To date, we have not received a response 

from EPA. Regardless of whether or not the Bay TMDL is a comprehensive plan as 

defined under section 2.19, it is fully considered in this final EIS. We reference the Bay 

TMDL in our analysis of sediment transport in section 3.3.1.2 of the document and cite 

the Bay TMDL in section 6, Literature Cited. 

Comment: Citing the cost calculator of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Dr. 

Roe comments that, with a conservative average of 8.38 acres/megawatt, the Conowingo 

reservoir would be capable of generating 1.07 gigawatts of solar energy. She further 

notes that converting just a portion of the Conowingo reservoir to solar would be more 

efficient and alleviate the negative impacts on wild fish. She asks that the Commission 

include a comparative analysis of hydroelectric versus solar power in the EIS.

Response: We agree that solar energy is a reasonable energy source; however, the 

proceeding before us is whether or not to relicense the hydroelectric facility. The 

proposal before the Commission is for the relicensing of the existing Conowingo Project 

and is not to decide whether to license a hydroelectric project versus an alternative 

project that operates using an alternative fuel source, such as solar power, which would 

be outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction under the FPA. 

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

Comment: Patrick Kelly comments on the Muddy Run compensatory mitigation 

funding proposed by Exelon and specified in the water quality certification. This funding 

would be for implementation of agricultural pasture and barnyard best management 

practices to address sediment loading in the Susquehanna River and small dam removals. 

Mr. Kelly states that these projects should occur within the river’s watershed. 

Response: Although the condition specifies that mitigation projects would occur in 

Lancaster and York counties, the Commission has no authority over the Lancaster 

County Conservation District, York County Conservation District, or Pennsylvania FBC. 

Consequently, the Commission cannot ensure that projects implemented by others would 

occur within the Susquehanna River watershed. As stated in the Commission’s Policy 

Statement on Hydropower Licensing Settlements, issued on September 21, 2006, a basic 

principle of measures considered for inclusion in a project license is that “actions 

required under measures should occur physically/ geographically as close as possible to 

the project.” This principle would apply to measures pertaining to the Muddy Run 

Project. Although we did not recommend this measure, it would be included in a new 

license because it is a mandatory condition in the water quality certification (see section 

5.1.2.3 of this final EIS). 

Comment: The Clean Chesapeake Coalition raises several questions pertaining to 

suspended sediment entering and leaving the reservoir of the Muddy Run Project, 
H-10 

including settling of sediment in the reservoir, potential flushing of sediment from the 

reservoir back into Conowingo Pond, and scour in Conowingo Pond from the release of 

water from the Muddy Run Project during generation. 

Response: Water that is pumped from Conowingo Pond into the reservoir of the Muddy 

Run Project contains predominantly fine-grained, suspended sediment. Fine-grained 

suspended sediment particles settle out of the water column only very slowly. Thus, most 

of the suspended sediment that enters the Muddy Run reservoir is released back into the 

Conowingo Pond during power generation. Sediment accumulation in the Muddy Run 

reservoir is expected to be minor. Scour in Conowingo Pond from water released from 

the Muddy Run reservoir is also not a concern because the volume of water released from 

the Muddy Run Project remains relatively constant. 

Comment: The Onondaga Nation, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Midshore 

Riverkeeper Conservancy, SRBC, the Maryland Farm Bureau (letter from Charles Fry), 

American Rivers, and The Nature Conservancy commented that the final EIS should 

incorporate information from the LSRWA to be issued by the Corps, to provide a better 

understanding of sediment deposition and transport processes in Conowingo Pond. 

Similarly, in a joint comment letter, the Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, the Lower 

Susquehanna Riverkeeper, and the Waterkeeper Chesapeake (collectively, SOLS et al.) 

stated that they will provide additional comments when the LSRWA becomes available 

to the public. The Onondaga Nation also requested that the public review period for the 

draft EIS be held open until the LSRWA report is issued to allow for incorporation of 

findings into reviewable environmental analysis. The Maryland Farm Bureau requested a 

short-term extension of the current license to Exelon to allow for review of the LSRWA 

report. Mr. James Byrne also requested a temporary license extension (by 1 year) so that 

the issue of sediment buildup can be addressed. American Rivers suggested 

incorporating the findings of the LSRWA in a supplemental EIS. SRBC requested that 

comments from the LSRWA report be included in Exelon’s proposed Sediment 

Management Plan. 

Response: A draft LSRWA study report was issued on November 13, 2014 (Corps and 

MDE, 2014). We reviewed the findings from the report and have incorporated relevant 

information into sections 3.3.1, Geology and Soils, and 3.3.2, Water Resources of this

final EIS. The public review period for the draft EIS was not extended, but because the 

draft LSRWA report was issued on November 13, 2014, the findings of the study were 

considered in this final EIS, including in our analysis of Exelon’s proposed Sediment 

Management Plan, and a supplemental EIS will not be necessary. Regarding the requests 

for license extension, by notice issued September 10, 2014, the Commission authorized 

the continued operation of the Conowingo Project after September 1, 2014 (the expiration 

date of the current license), under an annual license that will be issued year to year until a 

new license is issued. In cases where the Commission is unable to issue a new license by 

the expiration of a license term, the Commission is required by statute to issue to the 

licensee an annual license authorizing continued project operation under the terms and 
H-11 

conditions of the current license until the Commission acts upon the licensee’s relicense 

application. 

Comment: EPA also comments that the draft EIS did not consider the recent findings of 

the LSRWA study. The Clean Chesapeake Coalition commented at the public meeting 

that the draft EIS relied on an internal version of the LSRWA report that had not been 

peer-reviewed or available to the public for review. 

Response: The draft EIS was based on information available on the LSRWA website at 

the time of preparation of the draft EIS. A peer-reviewed draft LSRWA report was not 

available to the Commission at that time. However, findings of the draft LSRWA report 

that was released by the Corps on November 13, 2014, are included in this final EIS. 

Comment: SRBC comments about a statement in the draft EIS regarding the placement 

of coarser substrate below Conowingo dam. Specifically, SRBC questions if the term 

‘mitigate’ used in the statement “we find that any attempt to mitigate that effect by 

placement of coarser grained sediments downstream of the dam would likely have limited 

success...” implies an adverse effect. 

Response: We revised this final EIS to clarify that higher flow velocities in the stretch of 

the river below Conowingo dam are expected to limit the available substrate independent 

of the dam. 

Comment: SRBC comments that two statements in the draft EIS (on page 69) may 

provide conflicting information about the storage capacity considered by EPA. A similar 

comment was made for paragraph 2 on page 71. SRBC also suggests revisions to the text 

in the first paragraph of the draft EIS on page 70 pertaining to a review of various options 

to manage sediment in the lower Susquehanna River reservoirs. SRBC further suggests 

revising text in the third paragraph in the draft EIS on page 70 pertaining to sediment 

management through agitation dredging in the Conowingo Pond and a bypass tunnel. 

Response: The entire section 3.3.1.2, Geology and Soils, Environmental Effects, is 

substantially revised in this final EIS and now incorporates the LSRWA (2014) study 

findings. The issues raised by SRBC are addressed by our revisions in this final EIS. 

Comment: SRBC comments that the basin-wide approach to meet the TMDL for the 

Chesapeake Bay should be inclusive of incremental actions at Conowingo dam. 

Response: We revised section 3.3.1.2, Geology and Soils, Environmental Effects, which 

now includes information from the draft LSRWA (2014) report, which recommends 

further study on nutrient reduction. We state in the EIS that the ultimate resolution of the 

issue of environmental health of the Bay would require more than singular actions at the 

Conowingo Project, and instead would require a basin-wide approach. 

Comment: SRBC comments that the draft EIS, in section 5.2, Unavoidable Adverse 

Effects, neglects to address the unnatural effects of the dam in place, trapping sediments 

and resulting in sediment mobilization during high-flow events, and affecting sediment 

and nutrient loading to the lower Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay. 
H-12 

Response: This section in this final EIS was updated to reflect the findings of the draft 

LSRWA study report (Corps and MDE, 2014) and addresses SRBC’s comment. 

Specifically, the study concludes that all three lower Susquehanna River reservoirs (Lake 

Clarke, Lake Aldred, and Conowingo Pond) are no longer trapping sediment over the 

long term. The reservoirs have reached a state of dynamic equilibrium in which the net 

change in sedimentation (i.e., deposition during low-flow periods and scour during 

floods) remains relatively constant. On a long-term basis, the full sediment load carried 

by the river is transported into the Chesapeake Bay, as would have occurred prior to 

construction of the lower Susquehanna River reservoirs. The lower Susquehanna River 

and the Chesapeake Bay are affected by sediment transport (including sediment scoured 

from Conowingo Pond). The draft LSRWA study report finds that the nutrients 

associated with scoured sediment are more harmful to the Bay’s aquatic life than the 

sediment itself. Particle-bound nutrients settle to the bottom of the Bay and under certain 

conditions can recycle back into the water column in dissolved form where they 

contribute to algae growth. Excessive algae growth in turn may result in dissolved 

oxygen depletion.

Comment: The Chesapeake Bay Foundation disagrees with the findings in the draft EIS 

that there is “...no justification at this time for requiring Exelon to implement measures 

such as dredging to help control sediment and nutrient loading to the Bay....” Similarly, 

SOLS et al. comment that it is premature to eliminate dredging as an alternative and that 

Exelon should be required to remove at least 4 million tons of sediment annually from 

Conowingo Pond to remove all material vulnerable to scouring, rather than only conduct 

bathymetric surveys in Conowingo Pond at 5-year intervals. 

Response: The LSRWA (2014) report drops operational measures to manage sediment 

in Conowingo Pond from further consideration in the assessment. Other sediment 

management options considered by the LSRWA study include dredging. The LSRWA 

report finds that dredging is feasible but very expensive. In addition, the LSRWA study 

finds that the primary effect on the Chesapeake Bay is from nutrients and not from 

sediment; the LSRWA study suggests that nutrient delivery reduction opportunities are 

likely more cost-effective than sediment reduction opportunities to reduce water quality 

and aquatic life effects on the Chesapeake Bay. Applicable findings from the LSRWA 

study pertaining to the issue of sediment management are included in sections 3.3.1, 

Geology and Soils, and 3.3.2, Water Resources, of this final EIS.

Comment: NMFS asks for Commission staff to clarify a statement in the draft EIS that 

suggests that Exelon would only take action if sediment deposition impedes project 

operation. NMFS also suggests considering a review of the cumulative effects of 

potential dredging of Conowingo Pond on load reduction requirements for jurisdictions.

Response: Exelon plans to evaluate conditions in Conowingo Pond based on the 5-year 

bathymetric surveys for potential management activities. These bathymetric surveys are 

designed to provide physical benchmarking needed to develop action benchmarks at the 

powerhouse intakes. A more detailed analysis of load reduction requirements for 
H-13 

jurisdictions from dredging, if deemed feasible, would depend on many variables. In 

essence, because the reservoirs are now filled (i.e., in a state of dynamic equilibrium), 

any sediment removed from the lower Susquehanna River reservoirs and stored upland 

would not be transported into the Chesapeake Bay. However, a watershed-wide 

approach, as specified in the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, would reduce the sediment loading 

to the Susquehanna River and thus to the Bay but would be outside the Commission’s 

jurisdiction to require or enforce.

Comment: The Clean Chesapeake Coalition comments that Exelon’s proposed 5-year 

bathymetric monitoring surveys of Conowingo Pond are ‘entirely meaningless.’

Response: The 5-year bathymetric surveys are designed to provide physical 

benchmarking needed to develop action benchmarks at the powerhouse intakes. The 

surveys would further provide information on storage conditions within Conowingo Pond 

to help understand its present state of dynamic equilibrium, and on conditions for boat 

access to recreational facilities along the shore.

Comment: The Clean Chesapeake Coalition asserts that the draft EIS fails to consider 

much of the literature that discusses the scour phenomenon and its impacts. The Clean 

Chesapeake Coalition lists 10 reports it states were not considered in the draft EIS. 

Response: Preparation of this final EIS considered relevant literature that addresses 

scour. Sediment transport from scour is described in section 3.3.1.1, Geology and Soils, 

Affected Environment, based on publicly available information, including information 

from the LSRWA study. One of the references listed by Clean Chesapeake Coalition as 

missing (Hirsch, 2012), was reviewed and is cited in the Literature Cited section of this

final EIS. Other literature listed by Clean Chesapeake Coalition was reviewed but not 

cited; to avoid redundancy, only key, representative documents are cited in this final EIS 

to support a specific statement, as appropriate.

Comment: Clean Chesapeake Coalition comments that the percentage of sediment from 

high flow events was not discussed. 

Response: Percentages of scour are described in section 3.3.1.1, Geology and Soils, 

Affected Environment, of this final EIS, providing the overall sediment load in the river 

during high-flow events with three different recurrence intervals (10-year, 25-year, and 

80-year). This section has been updated in this final EIS with information from the 

LSRWA (2014).

Comment: Clean Chesapeake Coalition comments that more recent reports by 

Langland/Hirsch establish that Conowingo Pond is so full that it no longer has any 

significant trapping capacity. 

Response: A preliminary draft PowerPoint presentation by the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) (Langland, 2013; available on the LSRWA website, and cited in the draft and 

final EIS) states that “Conowingo Reservoir is in or close to equilibrium phase 

(approximately 93 percent filled).” The draft and final EIS include information from 

Langland (2009), a peer-reviewed USGS report. According to this report, 174 million 
H-14 

tons of sediment was stored in Conowingo Pond in 2008, with 30 million tons of storage 

remaining. However, the draft LSRWA report, released on November 13, 2014, was also 

reviewed and storage capacity estimates from that report were used to update this final 

EIS, reflecting that Conowingo Pond is now filled (i.e., in a state of dynamic 

equilibrium). 

Comment: York Haven Power comments that its proposed erosion and sediment control 

plan is adequately covered in the water quality certification issued by the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). York Haven Power questions the need 

to separately require an erosion and sediment control plan in draft license article 401 and 

also require that the plan be submitted to and approved by the Division of Dam Safety 

and Inspections, as called for in draft license article 301. 

Response: We agree that the water quality certification, issued in August 2014 (after the 

issuance date of the draft EIS), requires that York Haven Power submit an erosion and 

sediment control plan as part of its application for state permits to construct the naturelike fishway. That requirement, as well as draft license article 301, which would require 

an erosion and sediment control plan for any construction involving ground disturbance 

at the project, would ensure that an erosion and sediment control plan is prepared for the 

proposed nature-like fishway. We agree that there would be no need for another separate 

article requiring the plan. 

Comment: Dr. Roe requests that the EIS account for the long-term management of 

sediment at Conowingo dam, including a cost-benefit analysis of scenarios for addressing 

sediment with a drawdown of water in the reservoir and dam removal. 

Response: The transport of sediment into the Chesapeake Bay is a natural process 

throughout the Susquehanna River watershed that would occur with or without the dams 

in place. A wide range of sediment management options are discussed in the publicly 

available draft LSRWA study report (Corps and MDE, 2014), released on the Maryland 

Department of Natural Resource (Maryland DNR) website on November 13, 2014 

(http://mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/LSRWA/report.cfm). We incorporated findings from 

this report, as relevant for sediment management of the Conowingo Project, in this

final EIS.

WATER RESOURCES 

Water Quantity

Comment: Interior disagrees with the draft EIS conclusions on its 10(j) 

recommendations. Interior objects that the draft EIS does not adopt its 10(j) 

recommendations to: (1) finalize and implement a flow management plan, (2) implement 

the flow recommendations of The Nature Conservancy or the Maryland 401 water quality 

certification permit, and (3) return the river to more natural conditions downstream. 

While Interior agrees with parts of the flow analysis in the draft EIS that describe 

potential effects of the current flow regime downstream of Conowingo dam, Interior 
H-15 

states that the staff minimum flow alternative fails to address the important spring and 

fall periods for habitat and fish passage. Interior continues to recommend a flow 

management plan and the TNC Flow Regime, or the flows to be specified in the 

Maryland water quality certification. 

Response: Any flows to be specified in the Maryland water quality certification are not 

yet known, because Maryland has not yet acted on the Exelon request for water quality 

certification. However, in response to several comments on the flow analysis in the draft 

EIS, we now provide additional analysis in this final EIS in support of our recommended 

flow regime downstream of the Conowingo Project. 

Comment: The Nature Conservancy states that the draft EIS mischaracterizes and 

misrepresents the biological objectives developed by The Nature Conservancy. The 

Nature Conservancy requests that the final EIS address three major points of clarification: 

(1) the representation of persistent habitat in articulating The Nature Conservancy's 

biological objectives and comparing alternative operating scenarios, (2) the inaccurate 

values reported in table 3-21, and (3) the basis for and conclusion that “Exelon's current 

flow regime is generally adequate for protection of aquatic resources downstream of the 

project.” The Nature Conservancy disagrees that Exelon’s current flow regime is 

adequate for the protection of downstream aquatic resources. EPA strongly supports 

Interior and The Nature Conservancy’s flow recommendations because of the critical 

spawning and nursery habitat for important species in the lower Susquehanna River and 

upper Chesapeake Bay. 

Response: We revisited our analysis of Exelon’s habitat persistence and maximum 

weighted usable area (MWUA) analyses and added additional discussion to this final 

EIS. We revised table 3-21 (table 3-22 in this final EIS), to provide more details on the 

range of flows that would provide 70 percent of MWUA for evaluation species. We also 

checked all values in table 3-22 against table 5.1-1 of the Exelon instream flow report 

(Gomez and Sullivan and Normandeau, 2012a) to ensure accuracy. The Nature 

Conservancy cites a table 3-1 in the Exelon report, which we were unable to find, 

although we note that table 5.1-1 of the Exelon instream flow report has the results of the 

MWUA analysis. Our revised analysis provides more support for our conclusion that 

Exelon’s flow regime, with the staff-recommended modifications to that regime, would 

adequately protect aquatic resources downstream of Conowingo dam. We acknowledge 

that some of the modeling analyses show that more aquatic habitat would be provided 

downstream of Conowingo dam with the TNC Flow Regime and with run-of-river 

operation, but conclude that such additional habitat may not necessarily result in 

enhancement of the fishery, and may not be worth the costs that would be incurred by 

affecting the operation of both the Conowingo and Muddy Run Projects. 

Comment: NMFS encourages the Commission to consider additional flow and ramping 

alternatives to benefit downstream aquatic habitat and upstream fish passage.

Response: We consider several flow alternatives in the draft and final EIS, including the 

TNC Flow Regime, run-of-river operation, and a staff-recommended alternative. We 
H-16 

also analyze the effects of ramping downstream of Conowingo dam and conclude that 

current ramping is not having a major, adverse effect on the fishery. 

Comment: SRBC states that alternative flow management scenarios developed by the 

stakeholders focused on three major components: minimum flows, ramping rates, and 

constraints on maximum flows. A thorough alternatives analysis for the flow 

management scenarios must be done before approving a new flow management plan for 

the Conowingo Project. This analysis must include a baseline run-of-river alternative and 

other alternatives recommended by the stakeholders. SRBC does not agree that the staff 

alternative related to flow management strikes an appropriate balance between power 

generation and instream flow protection. Nor does the applicant’s proposal or staff 

alternative demonstrate that existing project operations, or slight modifications thereto, 

are best adapted for all beneficial uses of the Susquehanna River. Both alternatives entail 

continued significant hydrologic alteration and do not provide adequate persistent habitat 

downstream of the project. Exelon’s flow modeling for RSP 3.11 was delayed, and the 

final report only included 3 of the 9 modeling runs requested by stakeholders, resulting in 

insufficient information to assess alternative operational scenarios that could balance 

power production and environmental impacts. The report also fails to provide any cost 

information for the modeling runs, or information on persistent habitat. 

Response: As we discuss above, we consider several flow alternatives in the draft and 

final EIS, and have revised our instream flow analysis to provide more information and 

support for our conclusion that Exelon’s flow regime, with the staff-recommended 

modifications to that regime, would adequately protect aquatic resources downstream of 

Conowingo dam. Our revised flow analysis (section 3.3.2.2, Environmental Effects, 

Alternative Flow Regime) found that the amount of persistent aquatic habitat is similar 

and the ranges of persistent habitat actually overlap for some life stages between the 

current Exelon flow regime and the TNC Flow Regime. In addition, overall, the current 

and proposed Exelon operations generally bracket the range of flows that would provide 

70 percent of MWUA (a primary goal of the TNC Flow Regime) for target species, as 

determined by Exelon’s instream flow study. Exelon has updated its flow modeling and 

provided adequate information for our evaluation of the effects of the primary flow 

alternatives on project economics. While Exelon did make available the results of the 

additional six modeling runs, none of those alternatives were recommended by any 

entities and did not require analysis. 

Comment: The State of Maryland agrees with staff recommendations to eliminate 

periods with no minimum flow, but Maryland DNR believes that these flows should be 

adaptive and not rigid guidelines as presented in the draft EIS. Current operations and 

flow releases have had adverse effects on fish migration, habitat availability, fish 

stranding, and listed species, and the State of Maryland states that Exelon’s proposal to 

continue these releases is unacceptable. 

Response: Minimum flows required in project licenses are typically specific values so 

that licensees may plan their operations and so that Commission staff may ensure
H-17 

compliance with license conditions. Minimum flows may vary seasonally in 

consideration of specific fishery needs, and current Conowingo flows do so. Our revised 

analysis of minimum flows in this final EIS provides additional information on effects of 

flow releases from Conowingo dam, and additional support for staff’s modifications to 

Exelon’s proposed regime. 

Water Quality

Comment: Interior considers the information provided on the reduction of sediment 

storage capacity of the Conowingo Pond as a potentially significant change in the 

impoundment, and notes water quality and fish passage concerns. 

Response: Effects of sediment storage on water quality are discussed previously in this 

appendix under Geology and Soils. There is no information to indicate that reduction of 

the reservoir storage capacity has had an adverse effect on fish passage.

Comment: EPA notes that the draft EIS does not consider the effects of polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCB) in Conowingo Pond and the effect of those PCBs on surrounding waters 

(Susquehanna River, Chesapeake Bay). Although characterization of PCBs in 

Conowingo Pond is not complete, current information shows that PCB contamination 

should be considered in future plans for both Conowingo dam and pond. 

Response: PCB impairment was not an issue previously raised during the relicensing 

proceeding for the Conowingo Project. Much of the mainstem Susquehanna River within 

Pennsylvania has a fish consumption advisory for PCBs in channel catfish (also for 

quillback, carp, and walleye in the North Branch Susquehanna River) (Pennsylvania FBC 

Fish Consumption Advisories, 2014), indicating that this is a basin-wide issue and not 

specifically related to the Conowingo Project. 

Comment: The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy 

state that, based on preliminary results from the LSRWA, they find that Conowingo dam 

operations are contributing to the violation of downstream water quality because of the 

accumulated sediments and nutrients behind Conowingo dam, and Exelon should be 

required to mitigate those effects. 

Response: Effects of sediment transport and the results of the LSRWA are discussed 

previously in this appendix under Geology and Soils. 

Comment: Senator Cardin comments that the Chesapeake Bay’s water quality and 

sediment transport model indicates that increased nutrient loading resulting from scour 

events behind Conowingo dam results in serious impairments for dissolved oxygen in 

three segments of the middle Chesapeake Bay, and asks that these impacts not be 

overlooked in the EIS and in the relicensing process. 

Response: The draft EIS devotes considerable discussion to water quality in the area of 

influence of the projects and on the TMDL plans to improve water quality downstream of 

the projects. We also have been following the progress of the LSRWA throughout these 
H-18 

proceedings and reviewed the draft report released on November 13, 2014 (Corps and 

MDE, 2014). Based on the results of the recently released report, we added additional 

discussion of water quality effects on the upper Chesapeake Bay to this final EIS (section 

3.3.2.2, Environmental Effects, Sediment and Nutrient Loading). 

Aquatic Resources 

Upstream Fish Passage 

Comment: Senator Cardin asks that the EIS include measures to improve and modernize 

the fish lift and other fish passage facilities, to improve fish passage past Conowingo 

dam, and include measures to improve the efficiency of American eel passage. 

Response: Section 3.3.2.2, Environmental Effects, of this final EIS provides our analysis 

of alternative measures recommended by stakeholders, resource agencies, and 

Commission staff to improve diadromous fish passage upstream and downstream of the 

Conowingo Project, and section 5.1.3.2, Additional Measures Recommended by Staff for 

Conowingo, recommends a suite of measures designed to modernize and improve the 

efficiency of the project’s upstream fish passage facilities. 

Comment: Dr. Roe comments that the draft EIS disregards the problem of fish passage. 

She states that the draft EIS acknowledges the failure of shad restoration programs and 

seems to establish a new, lower baseline for appropriate fish passage on the Susquehanna 

River. She comments that it would be irresponsible to relicense the projects because 

American shad passage is at an unacceptable level and asks that the EIS be revised to 

include restoration of American shad. 

Response: As noted above, the draft EIS does not disregard the fish passage issue on the 

Susquehanna River. To the contrary, we provide a detailed analysis in section 3.3.2.2 of 

the effects of the lower river dams on the passage of American shad and American eel, 

we consider numerous agency recommendations on measures to enhance passage of 

American shad and American eel, and in sections 5.1.3.2 and 5.1.1.2 we recommend a 

suite of measures designed to modernize and improve fish passage at both the 

Conowingo and York Haven Projects. 

Comment: Exelon and Interior comment that the draft EIS mischaracterizes Interior’s 

Conowingo Project recommendations as a preliminary section 18 fishway prescription 

that, if finalized, would be mandatory. Exelon and Interior state that Interior only 

reserved its authority to prescribe fishways during the term of the license, but also offered 

a range of potential action alternatives for improving fish passage, including an 

alternative G that would involve complete rebuilding of the existing fish lifts. Exelon 

states that it considers Interior’s recommendations as comments and that the final EIS 

should be corrected. Interior states that its final fishway prescription will supersede the 

section 10(j) recommendation previously made (that alternative G be implemented), and 

is likely to present requirements slightly different than alternative G. Therefore, Interior 

withdraws that section 10(j) recommendation and will consider the views of FERC staff 
H-19 

when developing its final fishway prescription. Interior states that when and if it amends 

its preliminary fishway prescription to include measures other than a reservation of 

authority, it will notify the Commission. 

Response: Staff acknowledges that the Interior preliminary fishway prescription is only 

a reservation of authority and that Interior has withdrawn its section 10(j) 

recommendation to implement alternative G. We have made corrections to this final EIS 

to reflect these changes. However, we retain our analysis of alternative G in this final 

EIS, even though the Interior final fishway prescription may differ somewhat from 

alternative G. We appreciate Interior’s consideration of the staff alternative for fish 

passage improvements at Conowingo, and understand that Interior’s final fishway 

prescription would be mandatory; as such, the final prescription would become a 

requirement of any license issued. 

Comment: Exelon believes that Interior’s fish passage recommendations for Conowingo 

are overly ambitious and unjustified. Exelon states that its fish passage proposals offer a 

balanced and measured investment in fish passage that reflects both project impacts and 

other non-project-related impacts on the American shad. While Exelon states that the 

fish passage measures proposed by the staff alternative are grounded in substantial 

evidence and appropriately account for the technological and environmental limitations 

on improving fish passage on the Susquehanna River, Exelon also points out that while it 

may implement a trap and truck program for shad as recommended in the Staff 

Alternative for a limited period, Exelon notes that such a measure would involve four 

other licensed projects and questions FERC’s authority to impose this condition in the 

new license. 

Response: We note Exelon’s general support for the staff alternative. We do not 

recommend a trap and truck program from Conowingo dam as a long-term measure at the 

project, or that fish passage at Conowingo dam should only consist of a trap and truck 

program. We continue to recommend volitional passage at the east fish lift, after 

improvements are made, while trap and trucking from the west lift would serve as a jump 

start to the American shad population. We anticipate that, once the shad population 

shows an increasing trend and reaches a sustainable level as determined by Commission 

staff in consultation with the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration 

Cooperative (SRAFRC), trap and trucking can be phased out, and only volitional passage 

restored. We updated our analysis of fish passage at the Conowingo Project in section 

3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Aquatic Biota, Environmental Effects, and clarify our trap and 

trucking recommendation in section 5.1.3.2, Additional Measures Recommended by Staff 

for Conowingo, of this final EIS. 

Comment: Interior comments that: (1) fish passage efficiency at Conowingo is affected 

by project operations (flow fluctuations, peaking flows), and it continues to recommend a 

criterion of 80 percent passage within 36 hours; (2) Interior will continue to recommend 

the SRAFRC restoration plan goals for each project of 75 percent passage of shad passed 

at the next downstream project or 85 percent of the fish entering a project’s tailrace area, 
H-20 

and because there are no other projects downstream of Conowingo, they use the 

85 percent criterion in the tailrace as the target passage efficiency for Conowingo dam; 

(3) the timing of fish passage on the river is more important than the overall percent 

passage when evaluating fish passage effectiveness; and (4) Interior’s criterion of 

80 percent passage within 36 hours is based on an FWS model, which indicates that 

delaying that passage from 36 to 120 hours (5 days) would result in few fish reaching 

upstream spawning grounds, eliminating any chance of shad restoration in the river. 

Response: We agree with Interior that upstream fish passage at all the Susquehanna 

River Projects should be as efficient and timely as possible so that restoration goals are 

met. However, when Commission staff makes specific recommendations for 

requirements for any licenses that may be issued (such as fish passage modifications or 

efficiency requirements), those recommendations must be based on sound scientific 

justification that any modifications made are needed and would likely be successful. 

While theoretical modeling may be a part of any studies used to support staff findings, 

they should not be the only basis for making recommendations, such as for achieving 

target fish passage efficiencies. In addition, measuring specific fish passage efficiency 

rates can be problematic, particularly at Conowingo dam where lower river/Chesapeake 

Bay shad stocks may be mixed with upriver stocks in the tailrace, so not all shad in the 

tailrace would necessarily have the “drive” to move upstream, confounding any 

efficiency estimates. In addition, weather-related decreases in water temperature, 

particularly at the beginning of the run, may temporarily pause migrations, affecting 

attainment of time-of-travel criteria. We expect that any license conditions would likely 

require that fish passage efficiencies be as high as possible, with probable requirements 

for follow-up effectiveness monitoring. It would be problematic, however, to tie specific 

target efficiency rates to potential future requirements to make major capital expenditures 

(lift modifications) to achieve those rates, as studies have shown that fish passage 

efficiency rates can be highly variable from year to year. 

Comment: Interior comments that it is appropriate to make some comparisons to the 

shad run on the Columbia River, but that passage on the Columbia is influenced by high 

volumes of attraction flow and high downstream passage efficiency that overcompensates for the low upstream passage efficiency. 

Response: We agree that conditions on the Columbia River do not duplicate those on the 

Susquehanna River, in regard to the higher volume of attraction water provided at the 

Columbia River Projects, the highly developed downstream passage facilities for salmon 

(also used by shad), and the presence of suitable spawning habitat between the dams. 

However, the Columbia River remains as the best example of a multi-project river system 

with a large shad population, and the experience with shad on the Columbia River should 

not be overlooked. 

Comment: Interior agrees that trap and trucking from Conowingo would be a good tool 

to mitigate for poor upstream passage efficiency at Susquehanna River dams, with a 
H-21 

suggested capacity of 50,000 shad per year, but trap and trucking is not a good long-term 

solution that would achieve restoration goals.

Response: We agree that trap and trucking should not be a long-term measure at 

Conowingo dam, and that trap and trucking should be phased out as the shad population 

recovers and volitional passage becomes the primary means of upstream passage. 

Comment: Interior comments that Conowingo dam fish lift operations may need to 

begin prior to April 1, to accommodate the earlier running alewife that may begin 

migrations by March 1, and that attraction flows should be provided continuously during 

the migration season. 

Response: We expect that these aspects of fish lift operations at Conowingo would 

continue to be directed by SRAFRC in consultation with Exelon. 

Comment: Interior comments that only about half of the fish that enter the east lift 

successfully exit the lift, indicating internal mechanical and hydraulic problems that have 

plagued the lifts at Conowingo dam since they were built. 

Response: We agree that there are deficiencies in the internal components of the 

existing fish lifts at the Conowingo Project, and we are recommending a suite of 

measures to improve those facilities, as described in section 5.1.3.2 of this final EIS. 

Comment: SRAFRC states that if restoration of the American shad population is to 

occur in the foreseeable future, the upstream passage efficiency goals established by 

SRAFRC (75 percent passage of shad passed at the next downstream project or 85 

percent of the fish entering a project’s tailrace area) must be met. SRAFRC also 

recommends that the hopper capacity at Conowingo should be sized to accommodate 

both the American shad and the large population of gizzard shad and other non-target 

species, and that structural and operational deficiencies with the Conowingo fish lifts be 

addressed. SRAFRC further recommends that turbine operation and sequencing be 

considered while fish lifts are operating to reduce competing flows and improve fish 

passage efficiency. 

Response: As stated above, we agree that any fish passage facility should be as efficient 

as possible, but are not inclined to include specific efficiency rates as requirements of any 

license issued. We also agree that the capacity of the Conowingo fish lifts should be 

increased and that structural and operational deficiencies should be addressed (see section 

5.1.3.2 of the final EIS). 

Comment: SRAFRC does not support the no-action alternative because the current state 

of fish passage in the lower Susquehanna River has not been sufficient to restore 

migratory fish populations. SRAFRC, however, agrees with the draft EIS that trap and 

transport should be reinstated from Conowingo dam. 

Response: We agree with SRAFRC that existing fish passage facilities at the 

Conowingo and York Haven Projects need to be improved, and the staff alternative 

includes the construction of a nature-like fishway at York Haven and a suite of 
H-22 

improvements at the Conowingo dam fish lifts. We are recommending reinstatement of 

trap and transport at Conowingo, but only at the west lift, with volitional passage 

continuing at the east lift. 

Comment: NMFS states that the staff recommendations for fish passage at Conowingo 

dam do not sufficiently address fish volume, attraction flow, or entrance siting design 

features necessary for meeting short- and long-term restoration goals of anadromous fish. 

NMFS comments that staff recommendations appear to be a minimalist approach with 

many intermediate steps. Under the staff alternative, improving fish passage would 

require several studies over many years and entail a great deal of bureaucratic bargaining. 

While that process may be consistent with past methods used by resource agencies to 

incrementally make fish passage improvements, that methodology was inadequate over 

four decades. The present relicensing proceeding is an opportunity for a paradigm shift 

that more equitably balances development with resource interests. FWS’ alternative G 

for improving fish passage is based on lessons learned for implementing fishway 

measures, reflects current science, and balances development needs. 

Response: We do not agree with NMFS’ characterization of the staff alternative. Staff’s 

recommended fish passage measures would address the primary issues associated with 

fish passage at Conowingo dam at a capital cost of more than $7 million for major fish 

lift improvements. We also note that FWS has withdrawn its section 10(j) 

recommendation to implement alternative G and indicates its final fishway prescription 

may differ; however, we continue to analyze this alternative in this final EIS. 

Comment: EPA concurs with an adaptive management approach for improving 

upstream fish passage at Conowingo dam, but recommends that the Commission should 

adopt the upstream passage recommendations of Interior and the Pennsylvania FBC. 

Response: Staff recommends an adaptive management approach to making fish passage 

improvements at Conowingo dam, but does not involve the additional major capital 

expenditures for complete reconstruction of both the east and west fish lifts at the project 

as the first steps in the program (as specified in alternative G) that would have a high 

levelized annual cost of $2,334,260. Our recommended improvements described in 

section 5.1.3.2 of this final EIS should result in more effective and efficient fish passage 

at Conowingo at a fraction of the cost. 

Comment: The Onondaga Nation has concerns about the assessment of fish passage in 

the draft EIS. The Onondaga Nation notes that FERC staff do not adopt Interior’s

recommendations, the draft EIS does not include a cumulative impact assessment of all 

the dams on the lower Susquehanna River, and the draft EIS lacks information regarding 

the capture and transport plans for eels and shad (such as survival rate for transported 

fish). The Onondaga Nation recommends including more information regarding the 

trucking program.

Response: While staff carefully considers the recommendations of Interior and other 

entities, we still must provide our independent analysis of all issues associated with 
H-23 

potential relicensing. However, should Interior prescribe specific fishway designs under 

section 18 of the FPA, then those designs would become a requirement of any license 

issued, regardless of whatever staff analysis and recommendations were made in the EIS. 

The draft EIS did include a cumulative effects analysis of fish passage on the lower river 

(see section 3.3.2.3). In addition, our draft EIS analysis of fish passage for all three 

projects in itself included an analysis of fish passage on the entire lower Susquehanna 

River. Regarding additional information on any trucking program that may be 

implemented, those details are not required for this stage of the relicensing process. We 

expect that any future trucking program would draw upon the expertise of agency 

personnel and Exelon’s consultants involved with past trucking operations on the lower 

Susquehanna River. 

Comment: Pennsylvania FBC comments that it supports some of FERC staff’s 

recommendations for fish passage improvements at Conowingo dam, but staff’s 

recommendations are not comprehensive because they do not incorporate fish passage 

performance criteria or fish passage evaluation requirements. Staff-recommended 

measures generally accepted by Pennsylvania FBC include improvements to the east and 

west fish lifts and American eel passage measures at Conowingo dam that are also 

consistent with the Pennsylvania DEP water quality certification for the Muddy Run 

Project. Pennsylvania FBC recommends fish passage performance criteria to guide the 

development of adaptive management strategies and to efficiently and effectively address 

fish passage issues at Conowingo dam and other hydroelectric projects on the 

Susquehanna River. Pennsylvania FBC notes that performance criteria have been 

adopted at other lower Susquehanna River Projects. Pennsylvania FBC also recommends 

that FERC staff address future shad population growth by including provisions for 

volitional fish passage at the west fish lift, and continues to recommend measures to 

reduce stranding downstream of Conowingo dam. Pennsylvania FBC sees fish stranding 

as a result of Conowingo dam operations as a substantial threat to migratory and resident 

fish that warrants not only mitigation but more thorough investigation(s). Evaluations 

should address frequency of strandings (especially during spring spawning migrations); 

occurrence and impact of fish kills from stranding; stranding mortality estimates for fish 

species targeted for restoration, with assessment of impacts on Susquehanna River 

populations; and identifying potential operational and structural modifications to mitigate 

stranding effects. 

Response: We appreciate Pennsylvania FBC’s support for several of the staffrecommended measures for improving fish passage at Conowingo dam. We also agree 

that evaluation of the performance of the improved fish passage facilities should be 

included, and we recommend an evaluation period for the east lift. In addition, we expect 

that both fish lifts would continue to be monitored (passage counts), as they have been for 

the past 42 years, so passage data would be available as part of SRAFRC’s required 

monitoring. While other licensees on the lower Susquehanna River may have voluntarily 

agreed to specific criteria as part of settlement agreements, in contested proceedings, 

imposition of specific performance criteria (that may later require fish lift modifications 
H-24 

with high capital costs) must be based on substantial evidence. Although any facilities 

should be as efficient as possible, there is insufficient information to specify what those 

efficiencies should be at the Conowingo Project. We do not recommend future volitional 

passage at the west lift because there would be substantial engineering challenges in 

transitioning to volitional passage that would have a high cost. While we acknowledge 

that some shad stranding may occur downstream of Conowingo dam, available data do 

not show a major adverse effect on shad or other target species. Pennsylvania FBC 

recommends another stranding study, but Exelon already conducted a stranding study that 

showed few target species are being affected, and that most of the fish killed were nontarget species. Some commenters have extrapolated the number of American shad 

observed stranded to much higher numbers, making the assumption that fish stranded 

below the dam are represented in the same proportion as fish collected in the fish lifts, 

which may or may not be the case. In any event, as Pennsylvania FBC states, less than 

half of the shad stranded (42.6 percent) were observed as mortalities. 

Comment: The State of Maryland makes several comments on the analysis of fish 

passage in the draft EIS, in particular fish passage at Conowingo dam, including: (1) the 

west lift gizzard shad counts in 2013 and 2014 exceeded Maryland DNR’s estimated 

capacity of a 1,500-gallon hopper, indicating that a new 1,500-gallon hopper would be 

inadequate for safely lifting American shad in the west lift; (2) river herring should be 

included in a trap and transport program, attraction flows should be calibrated to optimize 

fish passage, and the 42-year-old west lift needs major improvements; (3) restoring a 

900-cfs attraction flow at the east lift, as recommended by staff, would not meet current 

FWS specifications of 3 to 5 percent of station capacity, which would be an attraction 

flow of 2,580 to 4,300 cfs; (4) the east lift’s life expectancy would be only 25 to 30 years 

if proper maintenance is performed (which has not been performed in the past 10+ years), 

while the requested license term is for 46 years; (5) the staff recommendation provides no 

requirement for a volitional fish lift during the entire requested license term of 46 years; 

(6) the gizzard shad population has increased steadily since 2000, with the potential for 

the passage of 2.1 million gizzard shad by 2030, and FERC staff failed to consider this 

additional biomass when analyzing hopper capacity; (6) efficiency inside the east lift has 

been poor and may be more problematic than effectiveness in attracting fish into the lift; 

(7) FERC staff’s analysis of passage time to York Haven does not consider that shad 

would also need to access and use hundreds of miles of additional river habitat upstream 

of York Haven for the restoration program to meet its goals; and (8) even though the Safe 

Harbor Project has demonstrated a long-term upstream passage efficiency of 71 percent, 

and both Holtwood and York Haven have agreed to 75- to 85-percent passage goals in 

settlement agreements, staff looks to Columbia River data to justify not requiring 

80 percent passage efficiency at Conowingo, and only recommends minor improvements 

at Conowingo. 

Response: We agree with the State of Maryland that current upstream fish passage 

facilities at Conowingo dam should be upgraded, including increased hopper capacity and 

attraction flows at both fish lifts. Our recommendations for improvement would initially 
H-25 

require substantial improvements in the lifts at a capital cost of more than $7 million, 

with later improvements depending on effectiveness studies of the initial improvements. 

It is incorrect to say that the staff alternative would have no requirement for a volitional 

fish lift during the entire requested license term of 46 years. Our recommendation is that 

the west lift be used for interim trap and trucking, and the east lift continue to be used for 

volitional upstream passage. We provide clarification of this in section 5.1.3.2, 

Additional Measures Recommended by Staff for Conowingo, of this final EIS. Our 

analysis of upstream passage time does consider that shad would require passage to 

habitat well upstream of York Haven, although any discussion of passage time generally 

refers to the average time because some fish would be faster and some slower. However, 

the poor upstream passage now shown on the river is a primary basis for our 

recommendation to restore interim trap and trucking. Regarding upstream passage 

efficiency, staff used the Columbia River data to demonstrate that large runs can be 

maintained with somewhat lower efficiencies, with the understanding that spawning 

habitat does occur between Columbia River dams. While the licensees for the Holtwood 

and York Haven Projects may have agreed to high efficiencies as part of settlement 

agreements, specific requirements in contested proceedings must not be based only on 

theoretical modeling. We do agree that upstream fish passage at all the Susquehanna 

River Projects should be as efficient and timely as possible so that restoration goals 

are met. 

Comment: The Nature Conservancy states that the findings of fact with regard to fish 

passage measures at the project as described in the draft EIS are not supported by 

substantial evidence as required by FPA section 313(b), and do not describe how 

recommended fish passage measures would be consistent with applicable comprehensive 

plans, e.g., amendment 3 of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for shad and river 

herring (February 2010). It is also unclear how the staff-recommended fish passage 

improvements are related to or consistent with biological performance goals established 

through existing comprehensive plans. Staff comparisons to Columbia River shad 

passage are not appropriate because the shad there are an introduced and invasive species 

and not a management target for passage. The Nature Conservancy also disagrees that 

shad populations have not responded to dam removal, citing recent assessments that the 

Rappahannock River has exceeded 80 percent of the restoration goals for the past three 

years and the Potomac River has exceeded its goals. The Nature Conservancy states that 

the passage efficiency at Conowingo dam has declined over the past decade, but that the 

progress shown with other Chesapeake Bay tributary rivers indicates that restoration on 

the Susquehanna River is possible. The Nature Conservancy also requests that the final 

EIS include a comparative analysis of the extent that the staff alternative and Interior’s 

alternative G would achieve the biological performance goals articulated in existing 

comprehensive plans. 

Response: We reviewed amendment 3 of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for 

shad and river herring, prepared by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and 

find no inconsistencies between our recommended measures and the plan. As is typical 
H-26 

for such interstate plans, the goals, objectives, and recommended measures are 

generalized (e.g., improve fish passage at barriers to migration, improve spawning and 

rearing habitat). Because staff-recommended measures would improve fish passage at 

Conowingo and York Haven dams, the shad population in the river would be enhanced, 

which is the overall objective of the plan for the Susquehanna River. As noted above, the 

Columbia River continues to be a good example of the success of shad passage on a 

multiple-dam river system, notwithstanding that they are an introduced species in the 

Columbia River. The Nature Conservancy’s comments on the good success of shad 

restoration on the Potomac and Rappahannock Rivers failed to mention that other major 

tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay (the York and James Rivers) have not met their 

restoration goals, indicating that the low success on the Susquehanna River is not an 

anomaly (see http://www.chesapeakebay.net/images/maps/Shad_Abundance_2013.pdf). 

We also note that success on the Potomac River may have little to do with providing fish 

passage or removing migration barriers. While the low-head Little Falls dam just 

upstream of Washington, D.C., was equipped with a fishway in 1999, that fishway made 

available only an additional 10 miles of riverine habitat, and because fish counts are not 

made at the facility, the number of fish passing upstream is not known. The current 

biological performance goal for the Susquehanna River is described in SRAFRC (2010), 

which states: 

Restore self-sustaining, robust, and productive stocks of migratory 

fish capable of producing sustainable fisheries, to the Susquehanna 

River Basin throughout their historic ranges in Maryland, 

Pennsylvania, and New York. The goals are 2 million American 

shad and 5 million river herring spawning upstream of the York 

Haven dam. Goals for American eel and other migratory species are 

yet to be determined. 

Comparing whether the staff alternative or Interior’s alternative G would achieve the 

biological performance goals of SRAFRC (2010) would involve a theoretical modeling 

of conditions 30 to 50 years into the future. Because such an exercise would be founded 

on many untested assumptions (which may be debatable among the parties to this 

proceeding, as would be the results), we conclude that it would provide little useful 

information for this proceeding. 

Comment: SRBC states that it supports the comments and recommendations made by 

Interior, SRAFRC, Pennsylvania FBC, Maryland DOE, and Maryland DNR regarding 

deficiencies in fish passage that should be corrected at the Conowingo Project. The 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy also note that 

FERC recommendations deviate from the recommendations of Interior regarding 

measures to improve fish passage. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation concurs with the 

SRAFRC (2010) restoration goals and states that the capacity of the fish lifts should be 

based on an expectation of someday achieving the restoration goals. The Chesapeake 

Bay Foundation recommends including Interior’s recommendations in the final EIS.
H-27 

Response: As we describe above, staff is required to do an independent analysis of all 

issues associated with potential relicensing, including fish passage. However, should 

Interior prescribe specific fishway designs under section 18 of the FPA, then those 

designs would become a requirement of any license issued. Interior’s recommendations 

are described and analyzed in detail in the EIS. 

Comment: The Clean Chesapeake Coalition comments that the current Conowingo dam 

fish lifts and overall project operation are not adequate for upstream passage of migratory 

fish and adversely affect fish movement downstream of the dam. The Coalition notes 

that the draft EIS fails to discuss any of the ongoing impacts in a concise, scientific, and 

meaningful way and fails to fashion and discuss alternatives for compensating for such 

negative impacts. 

Response: Section 3.3.2.2 of the draft and final EIS includes a comprehensive analysis 

of fish passage at Conowingo dam, and section 5.1.3.2 presents staff’s recommendation 

for major improvements in the existing fish lifts at a capital cost of more than $7 million. 

Comment: The Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future (The Citizens) state that measures 

recommended in the draft EIS fail to provide adequate protection to the Susquehanna 

River’s vulnerable fish populations. The Citizens recommend: (1) improved up-and

downstream passage for American eel and American shad, (2) a reasonable time frame 

with appropriate measures for the implementation of up-and-downstream passage, and 

(3) the use of trap and trucking only as an interim measure. The final EIS should include 

requirements for volitional passage of both American shad and American eel within the 

next 5 years. The Citizens also support requiring a higher survival rate (85 percent) for 

American shad at each lower Susquehanna River hydroelectric dam. The Citizens note

that the staff recommendations do not follow the current restoration plan and that staff

fails to show that its plan would ensure adequate passage. 

Response: As we note previously, the draft and final EIS include a comprehensive 

analysis of fish passage at Conowingo dam, which concludes that Exelon should make 

major improvements in the existing fish lifts. We recommend reinstating trap and 

trucking of shad at Conowingo dam from the west lift, as an interim measure, as well as 

trap and trucking of American eel. We also recommend continuing volitional upstream 

passage of shad at the east lift, with improvements to that lift, and establishing eel 

volitional passage in the future once studies indicate that volitional passage would be a 

better option than trucking. 

Comment: York Haven Power comments that section 2.2.3.1 of the draft EIS appears to 

confuse the distinction between before and after completion of the nature-like fishway 

and makes reference to the 2010 Consent Order and Agreement between York Haven 

Power and Pennsylvania DEP that also appears to misstate its applicability. York Haven 

Power suggests revisions to three of the bullets in that section. 
H-28 

Response: We revised section 2.2.3.1 of this final EIS to clarify the distinction between 

before and after completion of the nature-like fishway and the applicability of the 2010 

Consent Order and Agreement. 

Downstream Fish Passage 

Comment: Interior states that, while downstream passage survival is relatively high at 

Conowingo dam, juvenile shad passage through the Francis units is about 5 percent lower 

than the 95 percent survival goal. Interior remains concerned about safe, timely, and 

effective downstream fish passage, and continues to recommend periodic downstream 

efficiency testing and studies to determine the operational scenarios that would optimize 

downstream fish passage. 

Response: We note that Interior also comments that FWS evaluated the potential 

benefits of turbine screening and/or a fish guidance system at Conowingo dam and 

concluded that such alternatives were premature. We agree that systems may not be 

available or feasible to improve survival by the relatively small 5 percent shortfall to 

reach the program goals for the Francis turbines, so we continue to question the value of 

conducting additional testing.

American Eel

Comment: Based on site-specific studies at Muddy Run and Conowingo, and agency 

consultations, including with FWS, Exelon no longer proposes downstream trap and 

trucking of American eel from upstream tributaries as a component of its licensing 

proposal. Exelon requests that Commission staff withdraw this measure from the staff 

alternative in the final EIS.

Response: We revised this final EIS to show Exelon’s change in its licensing proposal in 

section 2, and we update our analysis throughout section 3. We no longer include this 

downstream passage measure in the staff alternative because of the unlikely success of 

this measure. 

Comment: York Haven Power comments that the description in the executive summary 

and section 2.2.3 of Exelon’s proposal for downstream passage of silver stage American 

eel could be misinterpreted to suggest that York Haven Power is participating in Exelon’s 

downstream eel passage program. 

Response: As noted above, Exelon has requested that we delete the measure from its 

licensing proposal. We removed that measure in this final EIS and revised all associated 

text. We no longer include this measure in the staff alternative. 

Comment: Interior and SRAFRC agree with most of the eel measures recommended in 

the draft EIS, including trap and trucking from Conowingo dam, but Interior states that 

trap and transport for downstream silver eel passage is infeasible and unreasonable. 

Response: We acknowledge Interior’s and SRAFRC’s general support for the 

recommended eel passage measures, and revised this final EIS to reflect that Interior no 
H-29 

longer supports downstream trap and transport for silver eels and that Exelon no longer 

proposes that measure. 

Comment: NMFS disagrees with the staff recommendation on the timing of the silver 

eel downstream effectiveness study at the Muddy Run Project, which would be after 

2026, the same as required by the water quality certification. Instead, NMFS supports 

Interior’s recommendation that the study begin within 3 years of license issuance, citing 

the anticipation of the outmigration of the 300,000 juvenile eels trucked upstream since 

2008. NMFS believes that silver eels resulting from the upstream trucking program 

would begin outmigrations during 2016 to 2022. 

Response: We agree that it is possible that some of the eels transported upstream since 

2008 may begin outmigration in 2016 to 2022, but it would be more prudent to wait until 

2026, so that more silver eels would be available for capture and use in any studies. 

Comment: EPA comments on Pennsylvania FBC’s recommendation “to transport 

1 million eels annually from 2015 to 2030 to sites above the Conowingo and York Haven 

dams until permanent volitional facilities are operating effectively.” EPA recommends 

that FERC, the resource agencies, and Exelon define “operating effectively” prior to 

issuance of the final EIS. EPA also recommends that FERC consult with the resource 

agencies and require annual population surveys of eels downstream of the dams and then 

require upstream transport of an ecologically significant portion of the population on an 

annual basis.

Response: We expect that the operational details of the American eel restoration plan 

(including the need for any annual surveys) would be determined by SRAFRC and the 

licensees on the Susquehanna River, and should not be specified in any licenses issued 

because the details of the program would depend on ongoing success. We recommend a 

flexible date for transition to volitional passage at Conowingo dam (instead of a specific 

year – 2030) because program results may find that trap and trucking may or may not be 

viable after 2030. Again, those details should be worked out among SRAFRC and the 

licensees. 

Comment: The State of Maryland believes that it is premature to recommend volitional 

eel passage at Conowingo in 2030, and that licensing terms should be flexible to allow 

for modifications to optimize restoration methods, especially in areas with ongoing 

research such as passage of the American eel.

Response: We agree that the date for transition to volitional passage should not be set to 

a specific date, but should instead depend on program results. 

Comment: SOLS comments that Conowingo dam blocks American eel passage in the 

Susquehanna River and impedes restoration efforts on the river. Eel restoration would 

also benefit mussel restoration because eels are known hosts for eastern elliptio (Elliptio 

complanata) glochidia, resulting in water quality enhancement because of increased 

filtering by a restored mussel population. SOLS states that Exelon’s analysis of eel 

passage is flawed, and its plan for eel passage is not adequate and is not consistent with 
H-30 

the restoration plan. The license should require measures that are consistent with the 

SRAFRC eel restoration plan, including permanent volitional upstream and downstream 

passage for eels, and a trap and transport program for upstream passage in the interim. 

SOLS states that the Commission should require measures to allow establishment of a 

population of 11 million eels in the river, with eel passage facilities on both sides of the 

Conowingo tailrace, but not on the east shore of the spillway. FERC should also 

establish a downstream passage efficiency of 90 percent and require Exelon to provide 

permanent volitional American eel downstream and upstream passage program because a 

trap and truck program may result in adverse effects on eels and would be more costly 

than volitional passage. SOLS states that Exelon’s plans for downstream trucking of 

silver eels are inadequate, and that analysis of downstream passage in the draft EIS is 

inadequate. Staff fails to provide an analysis of the date by which downstream passage 

must be in place, which SOLS recommends should be by 2019, which means studies 

would need to begin in 2017. The Citizens also recommend permanent upstream and 

downstream volitional passage for eels and a trap and transport program for upstream 

passage in the interim. A plan for upstream and downstream volitional passage must be 

implemented within the next 5 years, and a timetable established before a new license is 

issued. The Citizens also cite reports on stress and densities in trap and trucking 

operations that may cause fresh water populations of eel to become male dominated, as 

another reason to not delay volitional passage. 

Response: As noted above, Exelon no longer proposes downstream trucking of silver 

eels. Staff’s recommendations for eel passage measures at Conowingo dam are 

consistent with the water quality certification eel passage requirements for the Muddy 

Run Project (which are being implemented at Conowingo dam), and those requirements 

are consistent with the SRAFRC American eel restoration plan. Our recommendation 

includes a transition to volitional passage, when appropriate. We have not specified a 

date when downstream passage must be in place because that date cannot be predicted 

and would depend on the success of the upstream passage program. We expect that most 

of the details of the eel restoration program would be developed by SRAFRC and the 

licensees, as has occurred with the American shad restoration program over the past 

40 years. 

Freshwater Mussels 

Comment: York Haven Power comments that it agrees with the conclusions in 

section 3.3.2.2 of the draft EIS regarding potential effects of continued operation of the 

lower Susquehanna River hydroelectric projects on freshwater mussels, but suggests 

revisions to the text to clarify the east channel minimum flows before and after the 

completion of the nature-like fishway. Prior to construction of the fishway, the minimum 

flow would be 400 cfs during the spring fish migration season, but after construction 

would be 267 cfs year-round, which should benefit low-mobility mussels. 

Response: We revised this final EIS to clarify the east channel minimum flows before 

and after the completion of the nature-like fishway. 
H-31 

Comment: The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy 

express concern about nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediments that have accumulated behind 

Conowingo dam that could be scoured during high water and transported into the 

Chesapeake Bay. They recommend appropriate mitigation as part of the new license for 

the Conowingo Project, including selective dredging of Conowingo Pond, and nutrient 

reduction projects upstream of the dam and in Maryland. These would include improved 

agricultural practices, wastewater treatment plant upgrades, green infrastructure, as well 

as restoration of the system’s “natural filters” such as freshwater mussels and oysters. 

Response: Freshwater and marine bivalves feed by circulating water over their gills and 

then removing or filtering out bits of organic material. Therefore, we agree that riverine 

and estuarine bivalves can reduce particulate organic and inorganic material in the water 

column; however, in large systems their contributions to this process can be difficult to 

measure. We also agree that nutrient reduction projects in the watershed would be 

appropriate, but as we previously discussed in our responses regarding sediment transport 

and management, dredging of Conowingo Pond would not be a cost effective alternative 

for mitigating sediment and nutrient transport to the Bay. 

Comment: SOLS notes that the Conowingo dam blocks American eel passage in the 

Susquehanna River and impedes restoration efforts on the river. SOLS comments that eel 

restoration would benefit mussels because eels are known hosts for eastern elliptio 

glochidia, and that dense mussel populations can positively affect water quality because 

these organisms filter organic and inorganic particulate matter out of the water column.

Response: We revised section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, of this

final EIS to include a discussion of the findings by Lellis et al. (2013), who investigated 

the importance of the American eel as a host for the eastern elliptio. Analysis of the 

restoration plans for the American eel, the most important host fish for the eastern 

elliptio, is also provided in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, Environmental Effects, of 

this final EIS, and we specifically respond to an earlier SOLS’ comment on American eel 

restoration above. That is, staff’s recommendations for eel passage measures at 

Conowingo dam are consistent with the water quality certification eel passage 

requirements for the Muddy Run Project (which are being implemented at Conowingo 

dam), and those requirements are consistent with the SRAFRC American eel 

restoration plan. 

Comment: The Nature Conservancy comments that the statement that mussels 

downriver of the Conowingo dam are limited by shear stress during spring runoff was not 

supported in the draft EIS.

Response: We provide additional supporting documentation on the distribution of 

mussels downstream of Conowingo dam in section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, 

Environmental Effects, of this final EIS. 

Comment: SRBC comments that staff should further evaluate the effects of peaking 

operations at the Conowingo Project on mussel distribution and abundance, as well as the 
H-32 

effects of peaking operations on downstream velocity, shear stress, substrate, and 

dewatered habitat. SRBC requests that staff discuss methods to mitigate the adverse 

effects of peaking operations on mussel populations in the final EIS. 

Response: One of the objectives of Exelon’s instream flow study, described in the draft 

EIS, was to examine mussel distribution in the project area as influenced by shear stress. 

The study concluded that mussels were most abundant in areas of comparatively low 

shear stress, assuming that appropriate substratum conditions for bivalves were met. 

However, any riverine modification, whether for commercial navigation, hydropower, 

recreational use, or flood control, can negatively affect the native aquatic and riparian 

species. Regardless, it would be virtually impossible to quantitatively evaluate effects of 

the project-induced changes in sediment composition and flow patterns on mussel 

assemblages, particularly in separating the scouring effects of peaking operations from 

those of natural high-flow events. Staff finds no basis to require mitigation for project 

effects on the freshwater mussels because proposed project operation would not result in 

large operational changes that would negatively affect current freshwater mussel 

populations and distribution. Further, we find that there would be some beneficial effects 

associated with any new license for the Conowingo Project. For example, staffrecommended improvements to project minimum flows, and the restoration plans for 

American eel, a host species for the eastern elliptio mussel, could have a positive effect 

on this mussel species. 

Comment: SRBC also comments that staff should further evaluate the effects of peaking 

operations at the Conowingo Project on submerged aquatic vegetation distribution 

downstream of the dam, associated with peaking operations creating artificial high-flow 

events during average and low inflow conditions, which also result in high velocities, 

shear stress, and scouring and redistribution of finer grained sediments.

Response: Flows during normal peaking operation at the Conowingo Project, which 

typically range from 70,000 to 80,000 cfs, are likely to have less of an effect on scouring 

and substrate redistribution than typical annual high-flow events. For example, monthly 

10-percent exceedance flows are greater than 80,000 cfs in 6 months of the year 

(December through May), while maximum recorded flows representing natural high-flow 

events exceed 200,000 cfs in all months of the year, reaching the range of 400,000 to 

600,000 cfs in the spring months (see table 3-6 in this final EIS). These natural high-flow 

events that are several magnitudes greater than normal project discharges would logically 

have a greater effect on scouring and substrate redistribution, and therefore affect the 

distribution of substrate suitable for growth of submerged aquatic vegetation. 

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES 

Comment: The State of Maryland agrees with the concept of the Commission’s 

recommendation to protect the state-endangered northern map turtle through monitoring, 

habitat management, and nest site protection; however, any plan should include 
H-33 

provisions that require taking adaptive measures in response to routine population studies 

throughout the license term.

Response: We appreciate Maryland DNR’s support of the development and 

implementation of a northern map turtle protection plan and recognize the need for 

adaptive measures in response to ongoing monitoring. Staff’s recommended plan would 

include, as stated in the draft and final EIS, “methods of altering or amending protection 

and mitigation measures as a result of the monitoring, in consultation with Towson 

University and Maryland DNR.” This would allow for adaptive management in response 

to population studies. 

Comment: The Onondaga Nation notes that the draft EIS rejects a proposal by Exelon to 

conduct a survey of the project area every 10 years to assess threatened and endangered 

species in the area. The Onondaga Nation states that this provision would only miss the 

species that are lost in this time frame, and a more regular review of the project area 

should not only be implemented but treated like the other management plans that require 

a review every 10 years. 

Response: We appreciate the Onondaga Nation's comment; however, the standard 

reopener clause, as discussed in the draft and final EIS, is sufficient for protecting rare 

species that may occur in the project area in the future under any new license. Under the 

reopener clause, if Exelon proposes to change project operation or conduct any activity 

that is not included in the license, Exelon would be required to complete an assessment of 

potential impacts on rare species. Nevertheless, we recognize that this measure is 

included in Pennsylvania DEP’s water quality certification for the Muddy Run Project, so 

it would be a mandatory condition of any license issued for that project.

Comment: Exelon states that the staff alternative includes Interior’s recommended 

modifications to its proposed Bald Eagle Management Plan and believes that the 

additional measures proposed by Interior are unsupported and too vague to enforce. 

Exelon further notes that the current Bald Eagle Management Plan was developed in 

coordination with Interior and in accordance with recommendations from the National 

Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. Exelon notes that neither Interior nor the draft EIS 

articulate what the revisions to the enforcement protocol of the Bald Eagle Management 

Plan would entail. 

Response: Although Exelon’s proposed Bald Eagle Management Plan provides projectspecific restrictions, buffers, and other measures to protect nests in accordance with the 

National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, it only mentions general guidelines related

to foraging and roosting areas. Although Exelon has current restrictions below 

Conowingo dam, information provided by Interior indicates that Exelon is not 

implementing protection measures to avoid or minimize disturbance to the large core of 

non-breeding, overwintering eagles present on structures, rocky shoreline, and forested 

habitats downstream of Conowingo dam, and that FWS receives inquiries from the public 

about disturbances to eagles at Conowingo dam. Staff and Interior’s recommendation 

would require Exelon to develop measures as part of the Bald Eagle Management Plan to 
H-34 

enforce the existing restrictions, as they relate to foraging, perching, and roosting bald 

eagles. We revised section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resource, Environmental Effects, of this

final EIS to more clearly state this objective. 

Comment: Exelon does not agree with the draft EIS recommendation that Exelon 

develop a waterfowl nesting protection plan based on the lack of evidence that the project 

operation affects waterfowl and the fact that concerns over project effects on waterfowl 

were not raised during earlier study-plan stages of the Integrated Licensing Process. 

Exelon states that that the Commission should not include a waterfowl nesting protection 

plan in the staff alternative in the final EIS and should reject Interior's proposed 10(j) 

condition. Exelon also states that the TNC Flow Regime would do little to minimize 

water-level fluctuations in Conowingo Pond and downstream of Conowingo dam, and 

Commission staff should, therefore, remove references to the TNC Flow Regime as 

related to waterfowl nesting. 

Response: We acknowledge Exelon’s comment on the waterfowl nesting protection 

plan. However, we note that, although the licensing proceeding did not include specific 

studies or focus on project impacts on waterfowl nesting, staff continue to recommend a 

waterfowl nesting protection plan. Staff’s recommendation is based on the potential for 

project-related flow fluctuations in areas susceptible to inundation during the nesting 

season (i.e., around Conowingo Pond and downstream of Conowingo dam) to affect 

waterfowl nesting success. Staff’s recommended plan would allow for a measured 

approach to the issue by identifying, through consultation with FWS and appropriate 

resource agencies, specific project-related effects on nesting waterfowl, and determining 

what (if any) protection or mitigation measures would address the issues. Additionally, 

our analysis in section 3.3.3.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects, indicates 

that the TNC Flow Regime would minimize water-level fluctuations downstream of 

Conowingo Pond, so references to the TNC Flow Regime remain in this final EIS, where 

appropriate. We have, however, removed references to the TNC Flow Regime reducing 

fluctuations around Conowingo Pond. 

Comment: Exelon indicates that the reference in section 3.3.3.1; page 197 “(URS et al., 

2012)” is not included in the literature cited section of the draft EIS. 

Response: We corrected the citation in this final EIS. The citation is URS and Gomez 

and Sullivan, 2012b, which appears with complete bibliographic information in section 6, 

Literature Cited. 

Comment: In reference to a statement in the draft EIS that invasive species identified at 

York Haven have the potential to occur also at Muddy Run and Conowingo, Exelon 

commented that species with the potential to occur at Conowingo and Muddy Run also 

may occur at York Haven. 

Response: Thank you for your comment; we have revised this final EIS to include this 

specific information. 
H-35 

Comment: Exelon comments on the following statement on page 223 of section 3.3.3.2 

of the draft EIS: “For example, vegetation in the upstream reaches of Conowingo Pond is 

generally shorter and less abundant than downstream vegetation, as the upstream, moreconstricted reach is subjected to higher water levels and velocities than lower reaches. 

As the energy conditions diminish downstream, the vegetation becomes more prominent, 

growing on most available rock surfaces.” Exelon’s comment is that this statement is 

incorrect because it is describing the bedrock-dominated reach of the pond instead of the 

alluvial-dominated reach, which is affected by the 9-foot water level fluctuation. 

Response: We revised section 3.3.3.1, Terrestrial Resources, Affected Environment, in

this final EIS to correct this error in the description of the bedrock-dominated reach. 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

Comment: The Onondaga Nation states that, given the documented presence of bog 

turtles in the adjacent and hydrologically connected Muddy Run Project area and the 

presence of bog turtle habitat near Conowingo dam, it believes that the bog turtle 

management plan recommended by Interior should be recommended by staff. The bog 

turtle is under serious threat and there is evidence suggesting that this species is or could 

be present in the Conowingo area. The Onondaga Nation supports development and 

implementation of a bog turtle management or protection plan for the Conowingo area. 

Maryland DNR, Maryland DOE, Interior, and EPA all recommend the development of a 

bog turtle management plan for the Conowingo Project. Maryland provided information 

to Commission staff on the bog turtle presence at the Conowingo Project. Senator Cardin 

also notes that the draft EIS questions Interior’s findings that bog turtles are present at the 

Conowingo Project and asks Commission staff to give more credence to the agency’s 

assessment of the habitat and wildlife present in the area. 

Response: Subsequent to the issuance of the draft EIS, Maryland DNR provided 

information on the presence of bog turtles near the Conowingo Project. As a result, we 

revised section 3.3.4.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, Environmental Effects, in 

this final EIS to re-analyze Interior’s recommendation that Exelon develop a bog turtle 

management plan as a condition of any license issued for the project, and adopt the 

measure in section 5.1.3.2, Additional Measures Recommended by Staff for Conowingo. 

Comment: Exelon requests clarification on the staff-recommended measure that calls 

for Exelon to visit FWS’ Chesapeake Bay Field Office and the Pennsylvania Field Office 

websites prior to any ground disturbance and follow the bog turtle and bald eagle 

guidelines. Exelon states that this is vague and would like to know if this could require 

surveys to be completed. 

Response: Exelon would need to conduct a Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory 

Review prior to ground-disturbing activities that could require either National Pollutant 

Discharge and Elimination System or wetland or stream permits. This review can be 

done on-line, and if the presence of bog turtles or bald eagles is indicated, Exelon would 

need to follow bog turtle and bald eagle guidelines to determine what further activities, if 
H-36 

any, are required. The Interior and staff-recommended measure simply calls for Exelon 

to comply with the most current Pennsylvania permit and inventory review requirements 

prior to commencing any ground-disturbing activities. 

Comment: The Nature Conservancy, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and Midshore 

Riverkeeper Conservancy support NMFS’ request that the Commission prepare a 

biological assessment to evaluate the effects of the continued operation of the Conowingo 

Project on shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon for the reasons stated in NMFS’ letter dated 

September 28, 2014. 

Response: We responded to NMFS by letter dated October 23, 2014, indicating that, 

among other things, a stand-alone biological assessment is not necessary because most of 

the information that was requested for the biological assessment is already included in the 

EIS in multiple locations. We provided a table that listed the information requested and 

identified where in the EIS that information is found. We revised section 1.3.3, 

Endangered Species Act, in this final EIS to update the status of our consultation with 

NMFS under section 7 of the ESA. 

RECREATION AND LAND USE RESOURCES 

Comment: York Haven Power comments that it is not necessary to provide specific 

provisions in the Recreation Management Plan to address public safety during 

construction of the nature-like fishway. These provisions would be addressed as part of 

the Corps’ Clean Water Act section 404 permit and associated Pennsylvania DEP section 

401 water quality certification for the nature-like fishway. 

Response: Staff agrees with York Haven Power that the permitting of the in-water 

construction would include public safety components, while the Recreation Management 

Plan would guide resource management over the entire term of a license not just during 

construction of the nature-like fishway. We have revised the staff alternative in section 

5.1.1.2 and our analysis in section 3.3.5.2, Recreation and Land Use Resources, 

Environmental Effects, in this final EIS accordingly. 

Comment: York Haven Power comments on section 5.1.1.2 of the draft EIS and draft 

license article 407 (which is now draft license article 404) that no parties requested 

development of a Recreation Management Plan. York Haven Power indicates that, 

because there were no recommendations from stakeholders for a Recreation Management 

Plan, it must be reasoned that the existing recreation facilities are adequate and can be 

maintained over the next license term without the need for a formal Recreation 

Management Plan. 

Response: As discussed in section 5.1.1.2, which is based on our analysis in section 

3.3.5.2, Recreation and Land Use Resources, Environmental Effects, of the draft EIS, 

York Haven proposes a number of operational and maintenance activities related to 

recreation, but does not propose a plan for implementing these measures or investigating 

whether or not the sites are meeting the demand over the course of a license. 
H-37 

Commission staff analyzed the recreation resources and proposed measures at the York 

Haven Project and concluded that, regardless of the number of stakeholder 

recommendations, there are a sufficient number of measures related to recreation 

resources that could be better managed through the implementation of a comprehensive 

Recreation Management Plan consistent with FERC’s Recreation Development at 

Hydropower Projects Guidelines (1996).

Comment: York Haven Power comments on section 5.1.1.2 of the draft EIS and draft 

license article 408 (which is now draft license article 405) that no parties suggested there 

was a need for, or recommended development of, a Shoreline Management Plan. York 

Haven Power suggests that shoreline management and development at the project, which 

is currently managed by York Haven Power under existing standard land use article 35, 

remain the same under any future license. York Haven Power also notes that the 

Commission has discussed the inclusion of existing article 35 in the new license as 

article 410. 

Response: We analyze the multiple recreation and lot lease policies associated with the 

York Haven Project in section 3.3.5.2, Recreation and Land Use Resources, 

Environmental Effects, of the EIS and conclude in section 5.1.1.2 that organizing all of 

the shoreline property-related management policies into a single comprehensive 

Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) would be beneficial. Draft license article 407 is a 

land use article that is helpful in allowing licensees to manage their shorelines; however, 

development and implementation of a comprehensive plan would provide clear direction 

for cottage leaseholders and Commission staff responsible for ensuring the project is in 

compliance with its license for the future term.

Comment: Exelon disagrees with the analysis related to reopening the catwalk. Exelon 

recently completed upgrades to Fisherman’s Wharf and created new facilities along 

Octoraro Creek to compensate for the loss of catwalk access and asks why Exelon must 

modify its proposed Recreation Management Plan to provide access to the catwalk. 

Exelon notes that the only reason provided in the analysis to open the catwalk is to 

provide a different experience. Exelon finds this recommendation to be arbitrary and 

capricious because Commission staff provides no rationale for diverging from its past 

decision (to close the catwalk and enhance the Fisherman’s Wharf) and believes this 

recommendation should be stricken from the final EIS. SOLS disagree with Exelon's 

proposal to keep the powerhouse catwalk closed to the public and believe the new fishing 

pier does not mitigate for the loss of the catwalk. Restoration of access to the catwalk 

was a major goal of stakeholders to this process because of the unique viewing and 

recreational opportunities provided by the catwalk. The State of Maryland and private 

citizens recommend that FERC should require restoration of this access. SOLS 

comments that it is encouraged by the analysis of reopening the catwalk. SRBC concurs 

with the State of Maryland and FERC staff that Exelon should re-open the catwalk at 

Conowingo dam. The National Park Service (Park Service) also agrees that the catwalk 

should be reopened and recommends that given the high level of public interest in this 

issue, the license order should set out specifically what will be required of the licensee to 
H-38 

ensure adequate public access balanced with the need for fish passage improvements and 

facility safety. 

Response: As noted, we evaluate reopening the catwalk in this final EIS and recommend

Exelon develop a plan to provide limited access to the catwalk for anglers. 

Recommending a plan, rather than more concrete measures, allows Exelon time for 

consultation, design, and to make planning considerations regarding the timing of access 

and security measures. It also affords the Commission a review to ensure the plan 

satisfies public safety and security concerns. As described in section 3.3.5.1, Affected 

Environment, Recreation and Land Use Resources, of the draft and final EIS, reopening 

the catwalk on the downstream face of the Conowingo powerhouse was highest on the 

list of concerns reported by public users during interviews conducted as part of Exelon’s 

recreation study (Exelon, 2012b). Staff maintains that angling from the catwalk offers a 

fundamentally different experience than fishing from the shore. From the catwalk, 

anglers would cast with the river flow and directly into the middle of the channel, 

targeting different species, as opposed to casting their lines across the flow from the 

shore, as happens from Fisherman’s Wharf. This is analogous to anglers fishing from 

shore on a lake without a boat ramp; they can cast into the water but do not have access 

to fish the middle of the lake. In the EIS, we assess the types of fishing opportunities at 

this particular location relative to the entire suite of options and in concert with the 

recommendations from federal and state resource agencies and the public interviewed at 

the site, before recommending that the catwalk be reopened. In order to address Exelon’s 

comments on the draft EIS, we revised the draft license articles to be more specific on 

what will be required in the plan to reopen the catwalk. 

Comment: Exelon expresses its opinion that the Muddy Run and Conowingo Recreation 

Management Plans do not need to be updated every 12 years as recommended in the staff 

alternative of the draft EIS. Exelon states that the recreation study report and Recreation 

Management Plan document estimated future capacity that will extend through the 

proposed license terms and that Exelon’s track record for maintaining recreation sites is 

well regarded. Exelon suggests that the standard Form 80 process is the appropriate 

method for monitoring recreation use and capacity at the projects. The Park Service 

recommends Exelon update the Recreation Management Plan for the Conowingo Project 

every 6 years (instead of every 12), which will coincide with all FERC Form 80 filings. 

The Park Service also wishes to be included in the list of parties to be consulted with on 

draft license article 413, Recreation Management Plan, for the Conowingo Project. 

SRBC recommends that many recreation sites would benefit from regular maintenance 

and support an adaptive Recreation Management Plan. 

Response: Comprehensive recreation plans include measures to monitor recreation use 

and evaluate the existing plan for any modifications deemed necessary based on the 

monitoring. Given the facility upgrades proposed at the project, staff considers 

conducting larger monitoring efforts through a regular recreation use study that includes 

conducting user interviews and detailed site breakdown analysis every 12 years as a 

reasonable period of time to allow the site use to normalize. Because Exelon proposes 
H-39 

upgrades to the majority of the recreation facilities, the goal should be to maintain the 

planned quality of experience at the sites through the term of a license. Providing 

periodic updates ensures the recreation facilities and opportunities are consistent with the 

desired experiences, expectations, and safety levels demanded by the public. As such, we 

continue to recommend conducting a recreation use and needs study every 12 years that 

would inform the Recreation Management Plan update. However, updating a plan and 

conducting a recreation use and needs study can be two independent activities. The Park 

Service does not describe what additional benefit would be realized by updating the plan 

without the supporting recreation use and needs study. While implementation of on-site 

surveys associated with updating the Recreation Management Plan is an important 

function of any Recreation Management Plan update, we also consider the overall cost 

and benefits, as well as the number of facilities relative to the information available, and 

do not believe there is enough evidence to suggest a need to conduct a use and need study 

more frequently than we recommended in the draft EIS (12 years). We revised this final 

EIS to add the Park Service to the list of stakeholders to consult on the Conowingo 

Recreation Management Plan. 

Comment: The Park Service agrees that referencing bathymetric mapping and dredging 

procedures of the proposed Sediment Management Plan in the Recreation Management 

Plan would ensure continued access for the public; however, the Park Service notes that, 

given the frequency, magnitude, and duration of storm events, Exelon should be required 

to evaluate sediment loading after storm events of a particular magnitude and duration (to 

be determined by the appropriate agency) which are likely to cause deposition of 

additional sediments. The Park Service recommends that, at a minimum, an annual 

evaluation should be conducted at each location and a provision put in place to provide a 

trigger (based on storm event) for when additional dredging needs to be accomplished. 

Interior states that simply requiring periodic evaluations and dredging could result in 

situations where access is compromised for unacceptably long periods of time.

Response: The draft EIS recommends development of a final Sediment Management 

Plan that includes detailed benchmarks for dredging, a schedule, and a commitment to 

dredge the three access areas as soon as the benchmark sediment depths are reached to 

ensure that recreation access is not lost or compromised indefinitely. The final Sediment 

Management Plan would be developed with interested stakeholders that could inject into 

that process specific storm metrics (magnitude or frequency) as a benchmark that would 

trigger action to protect boating resources at the tributary access areas. Staff agrees that 

the goal of implementing a plan that triggers dredging is to ensure recreational boating 

access is not compromised for long periods of time. We revised section 3.3.5.2, 

Recreation and Land Use Resources, Environmental Effects, of this final EIS to clarify 

the analysis surrounding the development of the Sediment Management Plan. 

Comment: Broad Creek Civic Association notes that, while the association appreciates 

the expansion of new recreation facilities around the project, most are rendered unusable 

by low water levels, siltation, and debris. 
H-40 

Response: Staff analyzes the recreation boating season water elevations in section 

3.3.5.2 of the draft and final EIS at tributary access points, including Broad Creek, and 

concludes that Broad Creek marina is affected by siltation restricting boating access. The 

draft and final EIS also include an analysis of Exelon’s floating debris management,

reports on historical debris removal from the pond, and concludes that the amount of 

floating debris is dynamic from year to year and the removal in front of the intakes could 

be augmented by the deployment of a skimmer. We revised the staff alternative in this

final EIS to include development of a debris removal plan that includes a skimmer as a 

resource to reduce floating debris during the recreation season as part of the Recreation 

Management Plan. 

Comment: Susquehanna River Boaters Association comments that initiatives agreed 

upon between Susquehanna River Boaters Association and Exelon will be in place for the 

start of the 2015 boating season, including: (1) Exelon will create a time-line/action list 

with target dates for dredging at Peach Bottom Marina; (2) Exelon will seek approval to 

fund and begin the permitting process for dredging Peach Bottom Marina in 2015; and 

(3) Exelon will line the parking lot, upgrade the bathroom facility, and provide riverfront 

signage at Peach Bottom Marina. 

Response: We revised this final EIS to include the agreed-upon updates in the 

discussion of the Peach Bottom Marina in section 3.3.5.2, Recreation and Land Use 

Resources, Environmental Effects. 

Comment: Susquehanna River Boaters Association comments on the water levels and 

the duration of the boating season at Conowingo Pond, stating that the recreation season 

is not sufficient for recreational boating. Susquehanna River Boaters Association states 

that the recreation season is too short and raises issue that there is no minimum pond 

elevation in place for weekdays. Susquehanna River Boaters Association recommends: 

(1) extending the recreation boating season to May 1 - October 1 and that the recreational 

minimum water level is maintained on all holidays during the boating season, regardless 

of what day of the week they occur; (2) establishing a Peach Bottom Marina dredging 

plan; (3) measuring recreational minimum water levels at point of access not at the dam; 

(4) refunding two months to all Peach Bottom Marina members due to lack of dredging; 

(5) refunding lost revenue to the marina; and (6) adding new channel markers and 

update maps. 

Response: The Susquehanna River Boaters Association’s points are pertinent to the 

recreation resources at the Conowingo Project, and we revised section 3.3.5.2, Recreation 

and Land Use Resources, Environmental Effects, of this final EIS to include an analysis 

of some of these additional recommendations. The issue of dredging Peach Bottom 

Marina, and other tributary access areas, is currently addressed in the Sediment 

Management Plan with staff recommendations. Similarly, the topic of measuring the 

recreational minimum water levels at the point of access versus at the dam and deploying 

new channel markers and updating maps could be addressed in the Sediment 

Management Plan. We revised the EIS to address the recommendations to reimburse 
H-41 

marina tenants and business owners. Exelon is ultimately responsible to manage project 

lands and waters, and any discussions related to lease agreements or violations of any 

lease it signs with local operators to assist them in managing the resources do not extend 

to FERC. As for the recommendation to extend the recreation boating season from 

Memorial Day to Labor Day to May 1 – October 1 and all holidays within this period 

regardless of the day of week, we do not believe extending the season is warranted at this 

time. We base our conclusion on several factors. The water level management study 

(URS and Gomez and Sullivan, 2012b) shows that, for the period between 2004 and 

2010, water levels were above the 107.2-foot level (current minimum pond elevations for 

weekends between Memorial Day and Labor Day) the majority of the time between the 

recommended recreation boating season of May 1 to October 1. In addition, the ability to 

access the pond should improve after implementation of our recommended dredging at 

the tributary access sites. To ensure access to the pond, we recommend monitoring 

boating access issues and revisiting the definition of the recreation boating season as part 

of the Recreation Management Plan update. 

Comment: Susquehanna River Boaters Association would like to remind both Exelon 

and FERC that the cottages on the Conowingo Project islands were part of the original 

license agreement and recreational plan. These cottages provide numerous recreational 

opportunities for a wide range of user groups; however, the leases are currently only 

month to month. Susquehanna River Boaters Association comments that leaseholders 

invested tens of thousands of dollars into the cottages to comply with new county 

wastewater regulations, and Susquehanna River Boaters Association would like to see a 

commitment from Exelon that lengthens the lease term to ensure the cottage leaseholders 

are guaranteed a lengthier use of their investment. Susquehanna River Boaters 

Association recommends cottage leases coincide with the staff-recommended recreation 

plan review and updates every 12 years and that the leases cannot be revoked 

without cause. 

Response: We understand the concerns raised by Susquehanna River Boaters 

Association; however, as licensee, Exelon is ultimately responsible for the management 

of the project’s lands and waters. The conditions of the lease term and revocation clauses 

are established by Exelon within the parameters of the Commission’s standard use and 

occupancy license condition. If the Susquehanna River Boaters Association would like 

to see changes to the lease agreements, it should work directly with Exelon.

Comment: The Park Service recommends that the Conowingo SMP should be updated 

and filed on the same timeline as the Recreation Management Plan and FERC Form 80 

(every 6 years). The Park Service also wishes to be included in the list of parties to be 

consulted with on draft license article 414, Shoreline Management Plan, for the 

Conowingo Project. 

Response: As described in the Commission’s Guidance for Shoreline Management 

Planning at Hydropower Projects (2012), the frequency with which an SMP should be 

reviewed depends upon several factors, including the rate of change on project lands and 
H-42 

adjacent lands as well as the level of stakeholder interest in shoreline development and 

water access. An SMP for a project located in an area subject to heavy development 

pressure or high stakeholder interest will likely need to be reviewed and updated more 

often than an SMP for a project located in an area that is not experiencing rapid change or 

is not of particular concern to stakeholders. Given the nature of the shorelines at 

Conowingo, balanced with Exelon’s current shoreline policies to not issue new leases for 

new or abandoned cottages, and combined with a lack of stakeholder comments specific 

to the policies within the SMP, increasing the frequency to every 6 years is not justified 

at this time. The Park Service is responsible for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake 

National Historic Trail and the Star-Spangled Banner National Trail and is involved in 

identifying national landscapes associated with the Captain John Smith Chesapeake 

National Historic Trail. As such, the Park Service has an interest in the management of 

project land resources. We revised section 3.3.5.2, Recreation and Land Use Resources, 

Environmental Effects, of this final EIS to include consultation with the Park Service in 

implementation of the Conowingo SMP. 

Comment: The Park Service recommends that FERC take appropriate steps to ensure 

that the value of lands that would be removed from the Conowingo Project boundary 

(section 5.1.3.2) is not reduced in any way. The Park Service recommends that FERC 

require the licensee to include in its Recreation Management Plan and SMP a mechanism 

for ensuring the permanent protection of all lands proposed to be removed from the 

existing project boundary. The Delaware Nation and Onondaga Nation also comment on 

the removal of significant tracts of land, both upstream and downstream of Conowingo 

dam, and request that FERC take longer consideration of the impacts on cultural, 

historical, and environmental properties of these lands before boundary conditions 

change. The Delaware Nation also mentions that the draft EIS fails to address the 

Chesapeake Conservancy assessment regarding “priority conservation designations” for 

10 specific areas of high ecological, cultural, historic, or recreational value. The 

Delaware Nation asks the Commission to specifically assess the potential long-term 

impacts of removing these sites from the project boundaries.

Response: Once lands are removed from the project boundary, FERC would no longer 

have jurisdiction over those lands and could not require Exelon to include them in the 

Recreation Management Plan and SMPs, as the Park Service suggests. Although FERC 

would no longer have jurisdiction, negotiated leases with recreation facility operators for 

the removed lands, as described in section 3.3.5.2 of the draft EIS, would ensure these 

lands are maintained for public recreation use. As also stated in the draft EIS, our 

analysis determined these lands are no longer required for project purposes. As such, 

removal of these lands would be consistent with FERC policy that only lands and waters 

needed for project purposes for the continued operation of the project should be included 

in the project boundary. 
H-43 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Comment: The Park Service requests that, given its presence in association with the 

Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail and the Star-Spangled Banner 

National Trail, and because of its involvement in numerous projects found in the project 

area, including working with the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 

Maryland Historical Trust, and the Onondaga Nation to identify contact period 

landscapes associated with the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, it 

be consulted on matters pertaining to the Recreation Management Plan, SMP, and 

Historic Properties Management Plans (HPMPs) for all projects. The Park Service also 

expresses concern with regard to cultural sites located on Exelon-owned lands that are

proposed to be removed from the Conowingo Project boundary. 

Response: We revised section 3.3.6.2, Cultural Resources, Environmental Effects, of 

this final EIS to include consultation with the Park Service in implementation of the 

HPMPs for all three projects. We continue to recommend that Exelon revise the HPMP 

to include in the project APE all lands proposed for removal from the Conowingo Project 

boundary and assess all potential adverse effects of removal in accordance with 36 CFR 

800.5(a)(2)(vii) of the regulations implementing section 106 of the NHPA. We address 

the Park Service’s request to be included on the consultation on matters pertaining to the 

Recreation Management Plan and SMP above under Recreation and Land Use 

Resources. 

Comment: York Haven Power cites section 5.1.1.2 and draft license article 409 (which 

is now draft license article 406) and states that FERC recommendations to revise the 

HPMP to include (a) a requirement to request landowner permission to access sites on 

private lands within the project boundary and evaluate them for listing on the National 

Register if project impacts are identified during monitoring activities; and (b) a plan and 

schedule to evaluate archaeological sites on York Haven lands, are not warranted given 

the conservation archaeology approach reflected in the project’s HPMP. With regard to 

the two sites not listed in the HPMP, York Haven Power states this was in error and that 

the HPMP will be revised to include these sites. 

Response: York Haven Power’s proposed conservation archaeology approach to site 

management is appropriate when all lands within a project’s area of potential effects 

(APE) have been fully surveyed, all efforts have been made to document identified sites 

to current standards, and there are no project-related effects. In such situations, 

unevaluated sites are often treated as eligible in an HPMP until formal evaluation is 

necessary. Section 3.5 and appendix B of York Haven Power’s HPMP call for specific 

known sites on private shorelines to be monitored to determine if project effects are 

present. However, in section 2.1.2 of the HPMP, York Haven Power states that sites on 

private lands are outside the management responsibilities of York Haven Power without 

right-of-entry permission and in section 3.6, York Haven Power also states that “all 

archaeological sites within YHPC-owned lands will be protected under the provisions of 

this HPMP. Archaeological evaluations may be warranted by monitoring 
H-44 

recommendations in the future” to identify site boundaries and to determine National 

Register status (italics added). To clarify that all sites within the APE, including those 

located on private lands, are subject to the requirements of section 106 and equally 

considered in the HPMP, we recommend in the draft EIS that the HPMP require York 

Haven Power to request landowner permission to access sites on private lands within the 

project boundary and evaluate them for listing on the National Register if project impacts 

are identified during monitoring activities. We revised section 3.3.6.2, Cultural 

Resources, Environmental Effects, of this final EIS to further clarify that if project 

impacts are identified, requesting access to affected sites on private lands be requested at 

the same time that consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and 

others is initiated, and not after consultation has been completed, would ensure that 

property owners are aware of the situation at the onset and that their input is considered 

during subsequent consultation with the SHPO to determine a preferred preservation or 

mitigation measure. 

While property owners may restrict access to privately held lands for surveys, this 

restriction does not apply to York Haven fee lands. As recommended in the draft EIS, 

section 5.1.1.2, the HPMP should include a plan and schedule to evaluate sites on York 

Haven lands for listing on the National Register in accordance with section 106. We 

revised section 3.3.6.2 of this final EIS to provide more guidance in this regard. 

Comment: The Onondaga Nation notes that, although the cover letter for the draft EIS 

states that the draft EIS documents the view of affected Indian Nations, there has been no 

meaningful consultation between the Onondaga Nation, the licensee, or FERC. The 

Onondaga Nation states that it was able to review the HPMP for Conowingo and Muddy 

Run but was not consulted on any other matters, and that the draft EIS documents should 

be amended to reflect this fact. 

Response: The Onondaga Nation did not express an interest in the Susquehanna River 

Projects until filing its motion to intervene on the Conowingo Project on 

December 24, 2013. The Onondaga Nation was included on the distribution list for the 

projects, and since that time, all public correspondence and cultural resources information 

related to the projects has been provided to the Onondaga Nation for review and 

comment. In the draft EIS, we acknowledged the Onondaga Nation as a consulting party, 

and the Programmatic Agreements (PAs) for the three Susquehanna River Projects 

(issued on September 8, 2014) invites the Onondaga Nation to sign the PAs as a 

concurring party. However, because the Onondaga Nation has only expressed an interest 

in Exelon’s Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects, this final EIS now identifies the 

Onondaga Nation as a consulting party for only these two projects. Our PAs for the 

Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects require Exelon to consult with the Onondaga 

Nation during the development of the Muddy Run Project HPMP and revision of the 

Conowingo Project HPMP. The HPMPs would include descriptions of all project-related 

activities that would require consultation with the Onondaga Nation and the Delaware 

Nation in accordance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

and would also include documentation of all Native American consultation. 
H-45 

Comment: The Onondaga Nation states that it has been invited to comment on the draft 

PA/HPMP and will do so at an appropriate time.7 The Onondaga Nation notes that the 

draft EIS assesses environmental harms in comparison to current conditions and 

dismisses any new harm as minimal or non-existent and states that the draft EIS fails to 

show ongoing environmental damage to cultural and historic properties. The Onondaga 

Nation requests that FERC re-assess the potential environmental impacts. 

Response: In the staff alternative presented in the draft and final EIS, we acknowledge 

that additional work to identify historic properties and assess project effects is needed. 

We also identify other potential effects on historic properties that have not been assessed, 

such as potential effects associated with transmission line construction and maintenance 

and the removal of lands from project boundaries. For these reasons, we recommend 

preparing an HPMP for the Muddy Run Project and revising the HPMP for the 

Conowingo Project to include additional requirements for archaeological survey, 

National Register evaluations as appropriate, and assessment of project effects (see 

sections 5.1.2.2 and 5.1.3.2). 

Comment: The Onondaga Nation states that the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects’ 

PAs should be amended to provide the Native American Nation signatories similar power 

to terminate the PA upon consultation with other signatories. 

Response: Pursuant to 36 CFR §§800.14(b)(3) and 800.6(c)(1), the only required 

signatories on a complex undertaking PA, such as the PAs for the Muddy Run or 

Conowingo Projects, are the agency that is triggering the relevant undertaking (in this 

case the Commission), through its issuance of a new license, the relevant state historic 

preservation officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, if it is 

participating in the consultation. Furthermore, where historic properties may be affected, 

the Commission cannot issue licenses without executed PAs, and inviting other 

signatories would complicate our ability to execute PAs and issue licenses in a timely 

manner. As noted above, however, the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects’ HPMPs 

will require Exelon to consult with the Onondaga Nation, and not being a signatory to the 

PA will not limit this consultation. 

AIR QUALITY 

Comment: EPA comments that the draft EIS does not consider the effects of climate 

change on the Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay over the course of the 

decades-long license for the Susquehanna River Projects. 

Response: Few resources are available for the evaluation of future climate change 

effects as they specifically relate to the projects. The Commission’s standard reopener 

 

7 The Onondaga Nation filed comments on the draft HPMP and draft PA on 

October 17, 2014. These comments are addressed in this final EIS and also will be 

addressed in the final PA. 
H-46 

article would be included in any licenses issued for the Susquehanna River Projects and 

would be the vehicle for making changes to the licenses should a material change in 

conditions occur that results in unanticipated environmental effects.

Comment: Dr. Roe comments that the draft EIS notes eutrophication and hypoxia in 

Conowingo Pond as a concern. She states that hypoxia-induced methane generation is a 

serious source of greenhouse gas emissions and requests that the EIS account for methane 

emissions at all three project reservoirs. 

Response: Methane gas was not a parameter identified in the scoping process for the 

water qualities studies performed by Exelon. Therefore, there are no data available upon 

which to base an accounting of methane gas production in the Conowingo, Muddy Run, 

and York Haven Reservoirs. Water quality studies also indicated that DO levels in the 

three reservoirs are generally adequate most of the year except in deeper parts of 

Conowingo Pond in the summer months, so methane gas production is likely limited.8 

Methane gas production in reservoirs has become a topic of discussion and concern in 

recent years, but there is still much debate as to the magnitude of its effects on air quality 

and global warming.

Comment: Dr. Roe comments that the Muddy Run Project uses baseload power to pump 

water into its reservoir and that it is incorrect in the draft EIS to claim that the Muddy 

Run Project is a source of renewable energy that does not contribute to atmospheric 

pollution. She requests that the EIS include a calculation of the atmospheric emissions of 

the power plant based on the actual baseload consumption for pumping water. 

Response: Exelon purchases pumping energy from the energy market. The actual 

source(s) of the pumping energy that would be used cannot be predicted. The power 

could come from a variety or combination of renewable or non-renewable fuel sources. 

Thus, the requested analysis cannot be performed.

DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS 

Comment: Interior comments that it is not clear if other ecosystem service values such 

as annual losses of fish and other offspring are considered in the analysis of the cost of 

individual environmental mitigation and enhancement measures for the Conowingo 

Project (table 4-9). 

Response: The cost of each environmental measure associated with improved fish 

passage and other enhancements includes only the capital cost of constructing the fish 

passage facility or other measure, and the annual cost for operation and 

maintenance. The cost of any minimum flow modification was evaluated in terms of lost 

 

8 Methane gas is typically produced by microbial decomposition of organic matter 

in oxygen-poor environments, such as in swamps where DO levels may be low for long 

periods of time. 
H-47 

or gained annual generation (and pumping energy for Muddy Run). Valuation of any fish 

losses or enhancements was not considered in our developmental analysis.

Comment: Interior states that information provided in Exelon’s March 24, 2014, filing, 

which updates section 5.0 of the application with an expanded description of how the 

estimated annual value of Conowingo Project power was derived, is inadequate to 

determine how the capacity values were derived. 

Response: We reviewed Exelon’s filing and consider the filing to be an adequate 

response to the Commission’s additional information request. The response explains how 

the capacity value was computed and includes updated capacity rates for 2013. The 2013 

value reflects the variability of the electric market rates over time. 

Comment: Interior finds that it is unclear how the ancillary service value of $405,000 

per year was calculated. It understands that the value is derived from spinning reserve 

and black start benefits from Conowingo, but Exelon’s March 24, 2014, filing provides 

inadequate information on how the values are derived.

Response: We reviewed Exelon’s filing and consider the filing to be an adequate 

response to the Commission’s additional information request. While Exelon does not 

provide individual values for each of the two ancillary services provided by the project, it 

provides the updated total ancillary services value for 2013, as requested. The 2013 

value reflects the variability of the electric market rates over time. 

Comment: Interior comments that the rationale for the assumed interest and discount 

rates of 8 percent in table 4-3, Parameters for Economic Analysis, is unclear. 

Response: Neither Exelon nor York Haven Power provided interest rates or discount 

rates for the economic analysis of their projects. In such cases, Commission staff must 

select and use reasonable proxy values. The interest and discount rates selected likely 

represent the high end of the range of reasonable values to be conservative. Because the 

values are applied to all three projects in the draft EIS and to all of the measures and 

alternatives evaluated, the values affect all costs equitably. While the specific proxy 

values that should be used could be debated, the values used do not significantly affect 

the outcome of the comparative economic analysis and, if changed, would not change any 

of the recommendations included in the staff alternative. 

Comment: Interior and The Nature Conservancy comment that information related to 

the calculations of the annual cost of alternative power and the annual project cost 

provided in table 4-6 (Conowingo) of the draft EIS does not appear to be provided in 

the document. 

Response: The alternative power value for Conowingo is the value of the energy, 

capacity, and ancillary services based on the energy rate, capacity rate, and ancillary 

services rates that are typical for the electric region in which the project is located, and 
H-48 

the corresponding annual generation, capacity, and ancillary services provided by the 

project. These values were provided by Exelon and reflect actual 2013 values applicable 

to the Conowingo Project. The annual cost is the combined cost of all project expenses, 

including the costs to implement any operational and environmental measures required in 

the license for the project. The difference between these two values is computed to 

determine if the project cost is more or less than the value of alternative power. 

Comment: Interior comments that documentation provided in Exelon’s April 22, 2014,

filing is inadequate to explain the calculation of the costs of implementing the TNC Flow 

Regime. 

Response: We reviewed Exelon’s filing and consider the filing to be an adequate 

response to the Commission’s additional information request. The parameters of the 

TNC Flow Regime (modified storage and release – also referred to by The Nature 

Conservancy as the ecosystem enhancement alternative), as listed in table 1 of its 

January 31, 2014, letter filing, were input by Exelon into its OASIS model. The results 

of the model run were provided in attachment A, table 2, of Exelon’s April 9, 2014, email 

to Monir Chowdhury (FERC), as filed in the record on April 22, 2014. Staff used the 

results of this filing for each flow alternative evaluated in the draft EIS. The relative 

gains or losses of annual generation at the Conowingo Project and of annual generation 

and pumping energy for the Muddy Run Project under the TNC Flow Regime and staffrecommended alternatives were compared to the no-action alternative, to value each of 

the flow alternatives. The capacity and ancillary services values were assumed to remain 

constant under all of the flow alternatives; only the annual generation was valued for each 

flow alternative.

Exelon has since updated the OASIS model runs and provided the results of the 

baseline/existing conditions alternative (no-action alternative), TNC-Proposed 

Alternative (TNC Flow Regime), and staff alternative to the Commission on 

September 29, 2014. We use the updated values in this final EIS. 

Comment: SRBC comments that tables 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6 provide a summary of the 

annual cost of alternative power and annual project cost for three alternatives for each of 

the three projects seeking relicensing. Although it finds this comparison of the three 

alternatives to be insightful, SRBC states that a more comprehensive suite of possible 

alternatives should be thoroughly evaluated as part of an EIS covering projects of this 

significance. Because the applicants’ proposals are identical, or nearly identical, to 

existing conditions, the alternatives analysis essentially only covers one action alternative 

(staff alternative) for each project. Furthermore, each action alternative (staff alternative) 

represents only very minor modifications to existing project operations and conditions. 

SRBC comments that a more expansive comparison of action alternatives is necessary 

within the scope of the draft EIS to thoroughly examine differences among the generation 

and cost attributes outlined in tables 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6. 
H-49 

Response: Developmental analysis sections in Commission NEPA documents always 

include a summary table of measures (e.g., draft EIS tables 4-7, 4-8, and 4-9) that present 

all of the measures recommended by the applicant, stakeholders, and staff. Review of 

these tables for the Susquehanna River Projects indicates that many applicant, 

stakeholder, and staff-recommended measures may be similar. Tables 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6 

are summary tables of the alternatives considered in the draft EIS, and these alternatives 

are typically based on the recommending entities or may be a grouping of comparable 

measures. The Commission can and does include other alternatives that represent a 

comparable, complete alternative to the other action alternatives (such as a project 

retirement/dam removal alternative, or an alternative that presents a major modification 

to project structures or operations, such as adding a new powerhouse). That is not the 

case here. Agencies and non-governmental organizations offered different flow regimes 

for consideration but not a complete alternative that could be compared to the applicant’s 

or staff alternatives. While the Susquehanna River Projects’ draft EIS only includes three 

stand-alone alternatives, all measures recommended by all entities were analyzed in the 

draft EIS, both for their potential environmental benefits and their cost. 

Comment: SRBC requests that, in table 4-8, under “Enhancement/Mitigation Measure” 

in the Aquatic Resources category, we add the proposed measure to provide the version 

of the Lower Susquehanna River OASIS Model to SRBC as proposed by Exelon and 

required by the water quality certification.

Response: Exelon has committed to provide (and reiterates this in its October 14, 2014,

reply comments) the OASIS Model to SRBC within 30 days after the Conowingo and 

Muddy Run water quality certifications and new FERC licenses become final (i.e., are no 

longer appealable or subject to ongoing litigation), as set forth in a November 19, 2013, 

“Letter Agreement Addressing Exelon’s Provision of an OASIS Model to SRBC” executed 

by SRBC and Exelon. We had not included this measure in the draft EIS because we 

consider this to be a binding agreement between SRBC and Exelon outside of the current 

licensing proceeding, and is not a specific measure for protection or enhancement of 

environmental resources. However, because this is a mandatory condition included in the 

water quality certification, it would become a requirement of any license issued. 

Therefore we have added it to list of measures in table 4-8. 

Comment: SRBC comments that tables 4-8 and 4-9 provide a summary of the costs of 

environmental mitigation and enhancement measures considered in assessing the 

environmental effects of continuing to operate the Muddy Run and Conowingo Projects. 

Under the Aquatic Resources category, only two action alternatives (described as the 

TNC/Interior flow regime and the staff flow regime) are presented for comparison. 

Again, while this comparison of the two presented alternatives is insightful, it is far from 

being comprehensive of the suite of possible alternatives that should be thoroughly 

evaluated as part of a draft EIS covering projects of this significance. As commented on 

previously, there were nine production run requests, or additional alternative operations 

scenarios, and several other subsequent ones that were submitted by relicensing 
H-50 

stakeholders during the relicensing process. A more expansive comparison of action 

alternatives is necessary within the scope of the draft EIS to thoroughly examine 

differences among the capital and annual cost attributes outlined in tables 4-8 and 4-9. 

Furthermore, the lack of an open process for modeling alternative operations scenarios 

and verifying the associated cost information, involving resource agencies and 

relicensing stakeholders, has precluded the opportunity to fully examine the balance 

between power generation and environmental flows. 

Response: Exelon completed numerous OASIS model runs of variations to the existing 

flow regime at Conowingo (which also have effects on the operation of the Muddy Run 

Project) during the pre-filing Integrated Licensing Process, and some of those runs were 

updated after the license applications were filed. However, several stakeholders 

(including Interior) recommended adoption of the modified storage (also known as

ecosystem restoration) alternative included in The Nature Conservancy’s 

January 31, 2014, recommendations. None of the other alternatives evaluated in the 

Exelon model runs were specifically recommended by any stakeholders in their 

comments, terms, and conditions filed with the Commission, although many stakeholders 

asked that the various flow alternatives included in the Exelon model runs be considered 

by the Commission in its analysis. Commission staff did consider other potential flow 

alternatives, but chose to focus its analysis on the applicant’s proposal, the TNC 

ecosystem restoration alternative (TNC Flow Regime), run-of-river operation (even 

though no one specifically recommended run-of-river operation), and a staffrecommended flow regime. In section 4, we presented only the flow alternatives that 

were recommended by the applicant (existing flow regime), stakeholders (TNC 

alternative), and by Commission staff. 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT LICENSE ARTICLES 

Comment: York Haven Power requests that the Commission revise our draft license 

article 406 regarding its pre-construction environmental studies for the nature-like 

fishway, to recognize that some studies (e.g., vegetation mapping, wetland delineation, 

invasive plant surveys, rare species surveys, and a bog turtle habitat assessment) are 

underway and scheduled for completion in November 2014. 

Response: Because the pre-construction studies are a prerequisite of the construction of 

the facility, we have deleted this draft license article from Appendix A. Instead, 

Article 401, which requires the filing of final plans and specifications for the nature-like 

fishway for Commission approval, also includes a requirement to file the results of the 

pre-construction environmental studies, agency comments on the completed studies, and 

any protection measures proposed as a result of the studies. Any sensitive information, 

such as bog turtle location data, should be filed with the Commission as privileged 

information. Please note that, according to its letter filed January 7, 2015, FWS’ 

Pennsylvania Field Office states that the bog turtle habitat assessment has not been 

submitted to its office, and that it will make a determination regarding project effects on 
H-51 

the endangered bog turtle for the proposed nature-like fishway portion of the York Haven 

Project only after it reviews the survey report. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Corps and MDE. 2014. Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment, Maryland 

and Pennsylvania. Phase I. October 2014 Draft. Prepared in partnership between 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Maryland Department of Environment. 

Available online at: http://mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/LSRWA/report.cfm. 
H-52 

This page intentionally left blank.