kimberly d. bose secretary federal energy regulatory ... · john mudre indicated that ferc will not...

1

A. Karen Hill, Esq. Telephone 202.347.7500 Vice President Fax 202.347.7501 Federal Regulatory Affairs www.exeloncorp.com Exelon Corporation 101 Constitution Avenue, NW Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20001

Via Electronic Filing October 21, 2011 Kimberly D. Bose Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20426 Re: Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 405, Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project, FERC Project No. 2355, Filing of the Meeting Notes Summary Dear Secretary Bose: Exelon Corporation, on behalf of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon), encloses for filing a Meeting Notes Summary for the relicensing of the Conowingo Hydroelectric Project (Conowingo Project), FERC Project No. 405, and the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project, FERC Project No. 2355. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact Colleen Hicks. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

Colleen E. Hicks

Manager Regulatory and Licensing, Hydro Exelon Power 300 Exelon Way Kennett Square, PA 19348 Tel: (610) 765-6791 Email: [email protected] A. Karen Hill Vice President Federal Regulatory Affairs Exelon Corporation 101 Constitution Ave. Suite 400E Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 347-8092

Email: [email protected] CC: Distribution List-Attachment E

20111021-5138 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/21/2011 2:58:49 PM

2

Conowingo and Muddy Run Project FERC Relicensing Meeting Notes Summary

September 22, 2011

Conowingo Visitors Center 4948 Conowingo Road, Darlington, MD

List of Attendees: See Attachment A Thursday, September 22, 2011 Introductions and Meeting Purpose Tom Sullivan (Gomez and Sullivan) welcomed the group and introduced the general structure of the meeting. Kirk Smith (Gomez and Sullivan) reviewed the meeting agenda, the anticipated schedule and the background for the meeting. Conowingo 3.15 – Sediment Introduction and Transport Study Marjorie Zeff (URS) presented the Conowingo Sediment Introduction and Transport Initial Study Report (Attachment B). Shawn Seaman (MDNR) asked if there was enough confidence in the current report findings to develop a sediment management plan. Tom Sullivan (Gomez and Sullivan) indicated that there is enough information to develop a sediment management plan for Exelon’s responsibilities, but not for a Susquehanna River-wide management plan. Tom added that it was not clear that the sediment issue behind Conowingo Dam had a nexus to the project. Shawn Seaman (MDNR) said the FERC study plan determination required a management plan be developed to support the license application. Tom Sullivan (Gomez and Sullivan) stated that Exelon met its obligations outlined in the study plan determination, with the exception of the development of benchmarks for potential impacts and actions. Tom indicated that it was Exelon’s desire that the stakeholder group get together to determine action thresholds and what Exelon’s responsibility is if these thresholds are met. Mike Langland (USGS) suggested that the total concentration of sand, silt and clay be included instead of percent because the volume can be vastly different (pertaining to slide 16 of the presentation) and that the percentage can be misleading-Action Item. It was suggested that Table 5.5-1 (slide 19 of the presentation) be broken out by dredging techniques to better define feasibility-Action Item Shawn Seaman (MDNR) indicated that the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) sediment study is funded for 18 months and is scheduled to commence in October 2011, and that the accuracy of the current 400,000 cfs scour threshold will not be evaluated in the USACE work. Tom Sullivan stated his understanding was that hydraulic and sediment modeling was part of the USACE work plan, and therefore scour thresholds could be evaluated. Shawn indicated that his expectation had been that the USACE report would build upon the findings from Exelon’s study report, any comments to contrary need to be removed from the Exelon report-Action Item.


3

Mike Langland (USGS) gave a brief presentation. In relation to the 400,000 cfs scour threshold: Mike stated there were 2 lines of evidence used for this: 1) a 1978 paper by Gross et al. and 2) sediment laden water discharged at Conowingo Dam changes color around 400,000 cfs, presumably due to the mobilization of anaerobic sediments (i.e., scouring of bottom sediments). Mike indicated that steady state equilibrium is a long term condition, not a year to year condition and that there are obvious short term (year to year) changes in deposition or scour. He stated that the HEC-6 model is a poor model at high flows and that the model USACE is planning on using for its upcoming work is a 2-D unsteady state and not a true 3-D model. Bill Richkus (Versar) asked if the consequences of a major scour event would be part of FERC’s cumulative impact analysis. John Mudre (FERC) stated that FERC has not made a decision on this, but will after evaluating all study material and stakeholder comments. Michael Helfrich (Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper) expressed concern that the FERC analysis may inadvertently rely on studies with questionable findings, such as the USGS HEC-6 model report and a U.S. Department of Agriculture study. John Mudre indicated that FERC will not use any information that it feels is invalid or inappropriate. Michael Helfrich (Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper) indicated that Task 2 of the revised study plan has not been addressed. Tom Sullivan (Gomez and Sullivan) indicated that the study plan stipulated a quantitative assessment of the lower river and not an analysis on the effects of the Conowingo Project on Chesapeake Bay. Michael also pointed out that the Maryland Port Authority was trying to decide how to deal with their dredge material, and he offered to provide more details to the stakeholder group later-Action Item. Mike also indicated that Exelon should consider paying for the costs of dredging or sluicing sediment through proceeds available via a low impact hydropower certification, which stakeholders could support and help Exelon procure. Shawn Seaman (MDNR) reiterated the question as to whether Exelon believes that there is enough information to complete a sediment management plan and, if so, why is one not being completed. He indicated his objective is to be prepared to take action when the reservoir is full as opposed to making a mitigation decision at the last moment. Shawn also indicated that benchmarks were not developed as required. Tom Sullivan (Gomez and Sullivan) indicated that the term “benchmark” needs to be defined and agreed upon by the stakeholder group. Shawn suggested that Exelon was supposed to come up with those, and not the stakeholder group, and he is concerned that the benchmark has already been passed and it may be too late to develop them. It was suggested that conducting bathymetry mapping of Conowingo Pond at regular intervals, and using the information to make projections of sediment deposition/scour rates would begin to address benchmark development-Action Item. This information would allow decision-makers to determine when appropriate mitigation measures (e.g., dredging), if any, could be implemented. Larry Miller (USFWS) indicated that sedimentation is a natural function of rivers, where heavier sediment settles out and dams tend to block sediments. There are ongoing and continual effects on the system due to the project in relation to sediment accumulation and transport. Tom Sullivan (Gomez and Sullivan) indicated that Exelon is willing to have discussions on downstream habitat improvements. Bob Sadzinski (MDNR) indicated that he thought that the purpose of Task 2 was to quantify habitat below Conowingo Dam based on substrate mobility and that the purpose of a reference reach was to determine what the lower reach would look like as opposed to guessing from historical record. Michael Helfrich (Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper) indicated that the dam does not allow for natural change that may occur from year to year (drought years vs. flood years). Larry Miller (USFWS)


4

indicated that the dam is holding up depositional substrate that may deposit annually (and then possibly be washed out in the same year) and are important to aquatic species on a temporary basis. Shawn Seaman (MDNR) asked when FERC will decide if Exelon should complete a sediment transport model. John Mudre (FERC) indicated a timeline has not been set. Conowingo 3.4-American Shad Population Model John Rinehart (Normandeau) presented the sensitivity analysis of variables within Exelon’s American shad population model of the lower Susquehanna River (Attachment C). Specifically, the sensitivity of model results to varying NetR, net upstream passage, net downstream passage, the proportion of repeat spawners, and the proportion of spawning below York Haven was examined. Bob Sadzinski (MDNR) asked when the model would be distributed to the stakeholder group. Tom Sullivan (Gomez and Sullivan) stated that some biological parameters would have to be provided and input into the model first. Tom requested that resource agencies meet to discuss appropriate values for: 1) age structure, 2) production below York Haven, 3) NetR, 4) sex ratio, and 5) repeat spawner proportion. Larry Miller indicated that the model does not address migration delays. Tom Sullivan suggested that it may be worthwhile to have a separate NetR for wild and hatchery fish as it is not likely the same for each group. It was agreed that the resource agencies would convene to discuss appropriate values for 1) age structure, 2) production below York Haven, 3) NetR, 4) sex ratio, and 5) repeat spawner proportion; and the resulting information would be discussed within the entire stakeholder group at a meeting on October 26th. Conowingo 3.5 and 3.6-Statistical Analysis Methodology for the American Shad Telemetry and Attraction Flow Studies Sue Haney (Normandeau) provided an update on the progress of the statistical analysis (Attachment D). Sue suggested that the flow bins be broken out at 7,500 or 10,000 cfs increments as opposed to 5,000 cfs. Susan Haney presented z-scores and indicated that flow plots will be sent to the stakeholder group. Additionally, Susan will provide the group with distributions of sample size after dividing them into the new flow bins. The group also discussed whether turbine operating scenarios with a small number of occurrences should be removed from the dataset. It was agreed that Sue would analyze the dataset, and make a recommendation to the stakeholder group-Action Item. It was agreed that station flow data should be used for parsing the flow bins as opposed to the USGS gage data-Action Item. In terms of analyzing the 2010 telemetry data, Mike Hendricks (PFBC) suggested taking each individual fish, determining how long it was in the tailrace and under what conditions, and then determine under what conditions it entered the fish lift; and then determine the probability of passage per generation scenario. In the end, Mike felt this was the most likely method for determining a preferred operating scenario for passage for American shad.


5

Attachment A-List of Attendees

Name Affiliation Email Address

Julia Wood Van Ness Feldman [email protected]

Valencia McClure Exelon [email protected]

Lisa Reeves Tierney [email protected]

Robert Lynch Exelon [email protected]

Mike Langland USGS [email protected]

Aaron Henning SRBC [email protected]

Bill Richkus Versar [email protected]

Bryan Strawn URS [email protected]

Bob Judge Exelon [email protected]

Bob Sadzinski MDNR [email protected]

Colleen Hicks Exelon [email protected]

Dilip Mathur Normandeau [email protected]

Don Capecci PPL [email protected]

Don Pugh American Rivers [email protected]

Gary Lemay Gomez and Sullivan [email protected]

Jay Ryan VNF [email protected]

Jim Spontak PA DEP [email protected]

John Mudre FERC [email protected]

Kimberly Long Exelon [email protected]

Kirk Smith Gomez and Sullivan [email protected]

Larry Miller USFWS [email protected]

Marjie Zeff URS [email protected]

Lenny Rafalko ERM [email protected]

Chris Frese Kleinschmidt Associates [email protected]

Michael Helfrich Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper [email protected]

Mike Hendricks PFBC [email protected]

Ray Bleistine Normandeau [email protected]

Shawn Seaman MDNR/PPRP [email protected]

Steve Leach Normandeau [email protected]

Steve Shreiner Versar [email protected]

Tim Brush Normandeau [email protected]

Tom Hoffman Gomez and Sullivan [email protected]

Tom Sullivan Gomez and Sullivan [email protected]

Wade Cope SRBC [email protected]

John Rinehart Normandeau Associates [email protected]

Woohee Cui FERC [email protected]

Monir Chowdry FERC [email protected]

Andy Bernick FERC [email protected]


6

Attachment B- Sediment Introduction and Transport Initial Study Report Presentation


Conowingo Hydroelectric Project (FERC No 405)Conowingo Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 405)Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 2355)

Study Report Meetingy p gSeptember 22, 2011


Conowingo 3.15 Sediment Introduction and Transport

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Provide data that will be useful in the future development of an overall

sediment management strategy for the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake

Bay

WORK CONDUCTED

Three Study Tasks

• Review and compile existing information (Task 1)

• Quantitatively assess sediment-related impacts of Project on downstream habitat (Task 2)( )

• Evaluate options to manage sediment at Project (Task 3)

Initial Study Report filed with FERC May 6, 2011y p y ,

2



STUDY SUMMARY

Task 1 (Review and Compile Existing Information)

• Sedimentary context of the Project area• Sedimentary context of the Project area– Sedimentary geology

– Modern sedimentary setting

• Previous studies of the Project areaPrevious studies of the Project area– Sediment accumulation

– Sediment scour

– Rates of sediment accumulation

– Reservoir storage volume and sediment-storage capacity

– Sediment quality

– Sediment transport modeling (HEC-6 and scour regression analysis)

– Flow and sediment regimes below Conowingo Dam

• Relicensing field studies– Shoreline erosion and sediment deposition studies

– Downstream EAV/SAV study

3



Task 1(cont.)

• Additional relevant literature– Substrate mobility and biotaSubstrate mobility and biota

– Sediment processes downstream of dams

– Storm events and sediment pulses

T i l St A– Tropical Storm Agnes

Key Findings (Task 1)

• Existing Project area consists of three segments along a bedrock-alluvial continuum. g j g g

Sediment transport studies of this system need to consider the constraints of each

segment type.

Hi t i d l i d t i di t th t i t t ti f C i D th• Historic and geologic data indicate that prior to construction of Conowingo Dam the

Susquehanna River in the Project area appears to have been similar to the condition

of river today downstream of the dam. Flow was strong enough to inhibit sediment

deposition until near the river mouth

4

deposition until near the river mouth.



5



Key Findings (Task 1) (cont.)

This review identified underlying assumptions of previous studies which warrant

reevaluation.

1) Flood event of 400,000 cfs triggers scour in LSR reservoirs

• This value is based on Gross et al (1978) and Lang (1982) who compared sediment loads at Harrisburg and Conowingo Dam without consideration of sediment sources other than the reservoirs themselves.

• Schuleen and Higgins (1953) cited in Reed and Hoffman (1997) report net scour of silt and clay when >250,000 cfs and net scour of sand when >840,000 cfs

2) Lake Clarke and Lake Aldred are at steady-state equilibrium with respect to sediment trapping (tested in Task 2)

• Langland (2009) reports net deposition of 1,700,000 and 1,000,000 tons of sediment in Lake Clarke and Lake Aldred, respectively, between 1996 and 2008. , p y,

3) Tropical Storm Agnes was associated with major scour event in Conowingo Pond (this is tested in Task 2)

6



STUDY SUMMARY (cont.)

Task 2 (Quantitatively Assess Sediment-related Impacts of Project on Downstream

Habitat)

Analysis 1: Identify Project-related impacts to downstream sediment that

could affect habitat.

Analysis 2: HEC-6 analysis of scour (resuspension) in three reservoirsAnalysis 2: HEC 6 analysis of scour (resuspension) in three reservoirs

during major storm events.

7




Analysis 1: Identify Project-related impacts to downstream sediment that could affect habitat.y y j p

Rationale/Methodology

– Benthic habitat affected by substrate mobility

P t ti l f di t t bili d i l fl t d l i t t– Potential for sediment to mobilize under varying release flows to adversely impact most

susceptible biota (limited mobility/immobile)

– When τc (critical shear stress) equals τ0 (boundary shear stress) there is a 50% chance for

i ti l tgiven particle to move

– When τ0 > 2 τc all grains of given size in motion

– Entrainment Potential (EP) equals τ0 / τc ; EP=1 (incipient movement of a few particles or in a

small area); EP=2 (widespread mobility)small area); EP=2 (widespread mobility)

– τ0 for simulated releases (RSP 3.16); substrate and vegetation data (RSP 3.17); τc from

literature; applied to persistent habitats for immobile life stages (RSP 3.16)

8



9



3500 cfs 5000 cfs 7500 cfs

1011

10,000 cfs 86,000 cfs



E t i t P t ti l f M bil S b t tEntrainment Potential of Mobile SubstratesTable 4.1.4‐4

• Entrainment Potential: 1 = incipient movement of a few particles; 2 = widespread mobility• Model releases in cfs : 3500, 5000, 7500, 10,000, 86,000 (different bottom shear stresses) (RSP 3.16)• Acres of mobile substrate (RSP 3.17)• Areas 3 and 11 had no persistent habitats for immobile life stages (RSP 3.16)

• Potential for substrate instability impacts for target species, if present, in sand and gravel C ( 9 10 12) f 00 86 000 f

• Areas 1, 9, 10, and 12 had most widespread occurrences of persistent habitat (more life stages under more flow conditions) (RSP 3.16)

11

substrates below Deer Creek (Areas 9, 10, and 12) for modeled Project operation releases ranging 7,500-86,000 cfs.

• SAV mitigates impact of habitat instability during growing season.



Analysis 2: HEC-6 analysis of scour (resuspension) in three reservoirs during major storm


events.

Inquiries

1. Are HEC-6 simulations of scour and deposition during storms > 400,000 cfs consistent

with scour quantities predicted by regression scour model based on a 400,000 cfs scour

threshold?

2 Are HEC 6 simulations of sediment movement between reservoirs in bulk and by grain2. Are HEC-6 simulations of sediment movement between reservoirs in bulk and by grain

size consistent with storm scour quantities determined from mass balance input/output

models that compare Harrisburg/Marietta suspended loads with Conowingo Dam

suspended loads?

3. Are large quantities of reservoir bottom scour recognized as a source of suspended

12

sediment at Conowingo Dam by its grain size distribution?




• Sensitivity analysis performed on original

USGS HEC-6 model to see if changes in

water depth since 1987-1989 calibration

affect simulated velocities and shear

stresses at each model transect.

• Analysis was performed for the Agnes

storm. Conowingo Pond bottom raised 5

feet.

• Nominal change in simulated velocitiesNominal change in simulated velocities

and shear stresses

• 1990 model suitable for this analysis

13




percentages

• Conowingo and Clarke trap sand received from upstream• Aldred passes sand received from 2 major tributaries to be deposited in Conowingo• Silt/clay passes through system; minor scour in Aldred and Clarke

14



HEC‐6

15



STUDY SUMMARY (cont.)USGS Suspended Sediment Database (1979‐1996)

• USGS suspended sediment database (1979-1996); 3 events >400,000 cfs; no significant difference in suspended

sand transport >/< 400,000cfs

• Agnes sedimentary record - laminated silts and clays with minor fine sand

16

• Pre-Agnes sedimentary record - structureless/bioturbated silts and clays with minor sands

• Agnes laminations destroyed by infauna by June 1973



Key Findings of Analysis 2


17



Task 3 (Evaluate Options to Manage Sediment at Project)

C t P d BMP D ib d


• Current Programs and BMPs Described– EPA Chesapeake Bay TMDL Program– Watershed Implementation Plans– Documented success of BMP implementation– USGS recognizes basin-wide BMPs have led to reduction in sediment accumulation

rate in Conowingo Pond (Langland 2009)

• Methods to preserve reservoir storage capacity

• In-reservoir options for Conowingo Pond

• Coarse Sediment Replenishment– Active (direct) placement of sediment where needed

– Passive (indirect) introduction of sediment upstream

Potential components of a Proposed Sediment Management Plan

18

Cumulative Impacts Analysis of Project Relicensing



19



20




Project Sediment Management

Potential components of a proposed Sediment Management Plan for Project

– Stream restoration/stabilization to reduce erosion and provide habitat

– Stream bank/channel stability assessment

– Riparian buffers

– Natural/constructed wetlands

In conjunction with Project shoreline management and recreation plans

– Identify potential shoreline sites for bank stabilization to reduce sediment loads to ireservoir

– Assess targeted dredging at sites where sedimentation affects recreation

21




Cumulative Impacts Analysis of Project Relicensing

Cumulative impacts to Susquehanna River Basin and Chesapeake Bay

The cumulative impact of the Project will be to continue to reduce

sediment/nutrient loads to Chesapeake Bay until sediment storage

capacity is reached.

22


7

Attachment C-American Shad Population Model Presentation


Sim lation ofSim lation of the Ann althe Ann al Spa ningSpa ningSimulation of Simulation of the Annual the Annual Spawning Spawning Run Run of American Shad Returning to of American Shad Returning to

ConowingoConowingo DamDam

Model Sensitivity AnalysisModel Sensitivity Analysis

22 September 201122 September 2011

11


Input Input Parameter Sensitivity AnalysisParameter Sensitivity Analysis

•• All input variables held constant except for parameter of All input variables held constant except for parameter of interest; varied over a range of values.interest; varied over a range of values.•• Net RNet R

N t U t PN t U t P•• Net Upstream PassageNet Upstream Passage•• Net Downstream Passage Net Downstream Passage •• Repeat Repeat spawnerspawner proportionsproportions•• Proportion spawning below York HavenProportion spawning below York Haven

•• Model run 30 years starting with 10,000 adults from year 2020 Model run 30 years starting with 10,000 adults from year 2020 ––2049.2049.

•• Exponential or power function fit to output at year 30 for each series Exponential or power function fit to output at year 30 for each series of runs.of runs.

•• Coefficient used to compare sensitivity among parametersCoefficient used to compare sensitivity among parameters..Susquehanna River Shad ModelInput parameter sensitivity analysis

Fixed parameters:Starting year 2020, 30 years (to 2049)Starting population: 10,000Sex ratio (F): 0.46First spawn age dist: 0.37, 0.40, 0.19, 0.04 Repeat spawn proportions: 0.25, 0.10, 0.05Transport: 0

Table 1. Susquehanna River American Shad Model Sensitivity analysis. Values for inputs that were not varied in analysis (fixed parameters).

22

pHatchery: 0YH spawning: 0

Result index: # adults returning to Conowingo in 2049


SENSITIVITY OF VARYING NET R with two levels of net upstream passage (1.0, 0.5)

Net RNet upstream passage 1.0Net downstream passage 1.0

Net R Result5 786 567

Result5 786,567 6 2,226,446 7 5,398,934 8 11,679,507 9 23,141,989 10 42,771,567

y = 70.136x5.7861

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

120,000,000

140,000,000

Result

Power (Result)er o

f Adu

lts

11 74,681,459 12 124,409,087

Net upstream passage 0.5Net downstream passage 1 0

‐

20,000,000

40,000,000

0 5 10 15

Power (Result)

Net R

Num

be

Net downstream passage 1.0

Net R Result5 16,278 6 44,853 7 105,254 2,000,000

2,500,000

Result

dult

s

8 222,663 9 432,843 10 786,693 11 1,354,022 12 2,226,389

y = 1.9035x5.6175

‐

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

Num

ber

of A

d

33

0 5 10 15

Net R


SENSITIVITY OF VARYING NET UPSTREAM PASSAGE with two levels of Net R (8, 12)

Net upstream passage (all facilities)Net R: 8.0Net downstream passage: 1.0

Net U.P. Result0 2 1 430 Result0.2 1,430 0.3 13,009 0.4 63,815 0.5 222,663 0.6 624,000 0.7 1,500,663

y = 1E+07x5.5888

3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000

Result

ber

of A

dult

s

0.8 3,224,485 0.9 6,352,609

Net R: 12.0Net downstream passage 1 0

‐ 1,000,000 2,000,000

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Net Upstream PassageN

umb

Net downstream passage 1.0

Net U.P. Result0.2 12,996 0.3 123,193 0.4 623,789

80,000,000

Result

ults

0.5 2,226,389 0.6 6,353,543 0.7 15,500,900 0.8 33,697,063 0.9 67,060,178

y = 1E+08x5.6892

‐

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

Num

ber

of A

du

44

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Net Upstream Passage


SENSITIVITY OF VARYING NET DOWNSTREAM PASSAGE with two levels of Net R (8, 12)

Net downstream passage (all facilities)Net R: 8.0Net upstream passage: 1.0

Net D.P. Result0 2 1 433 Result0.2 1,433 0.3 13,004 0.4 63,835 0.5 222,639 0.6 623,837 0.7 1,500,776

y = 1E+07x5.5878

3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000

Result

ber

of A

dult

s

0.8 3,223,874 0.9 6,352,393

Net R: 12.0Net upstream passage 1 0

‐ 1,000,000 2,000,000

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Net Downstream Passage

Num

b

Net upstream passage 1.0

Net D.P. Result0.2 13,004 0.3 123,209 0.4 623,837

80,000,000

Resultdu

lts

0.5 2,226,446 0.6 6,352,393 0.7 15,499,143 0.8 33,701,109 0.9 67,068,489

y = 1E+08x5.6889

‐

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

Num

ber

of A

d

55

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Net Downstream Passage


SENSITIVITY OF VARYING PROPORTION OF REPEAT SPAWNERS (AGE 4)with two levels of Net R (8, 12)

Repeat spawning proportionsNet R: 8.0Net upstream passage: 0.5Net downstream passage: 0.8RS5=RS4/3; RS6=RS5/2

R.S. Age 4 Result0.12 39,917 0.18 48,493 0.24 58,822 0.3 71,228 0 39 94 654

y = 27340e3.182x

80 000 100,000 120,000 140,000

Result

of A

dult

s

0.39 94,654 0.45 114,080

‐ 20,000 40,000 60,00080,000

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Proportion Repeat Spawning (age 4)N

umbe

r Net R: 12.0Net upstream passage 0.5Net downstream passage: 0.8RS5=RS4/3; RS6=RS5/2

R.S. Age 4 Result 1 000 000

1,200,000

Result

dult

s

g0.12 397,237 0.18 479,446 0.24 578,000 0.3 695,550 0.39 914,896 0 45 1 096 100

y = 275589e3.0752x

‐

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

Num

ber

of A

d

.

0.45 1,096,100 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

66

Proportion Repeat Spawning (age 4)


York Haven spawning proportionNet R: 8.0Net upstream passage: 0.52 (0.85 @4 dams)Net dowstream passage: 0.8

SENSITIVITY OF VARYING PROPORTION SPAWNING BELOW YORK HAVEN

YH Spawn Result0.01 81,939 0.05 85,233 0.1 89,526 0.2 98,430 0.3 108,265 0.4 118,787 0.5 130,263 0 6 142 546

y = 81526e0.9322x

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

Result

Net R=8, U.P.=0.85 (all)

ber

of A

dult

s

0.6 142,546 0.7 155,711

Net R: 8.0Net upstream passage: 0.31 (0.85 @3 dams, 0.50@ YH)Net dowstream passage: 0.8

‐0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Proportion Spawning Below YH

Num

b

YH Spawn Result0.01 4,609 0.05 5,691 0.1 7,333 0.2 11,800 0.3 18,339 0.4 27,617

y = 4830.3e4.173x

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

Result

Net R=8, U.P.=0.85 at C, H, SHand U.P.=0.5 at YH r

of A

dult

s

0.5 40,437 0.6 57,876 0.7 81,137

Net R: 12Net upstream passage: 0.31 (0.85 @3 dams, 0.50@ YH)Net dowstream passage 0 8

‐

20,000

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8


Num

be

Net dowstream passage: 0.8

YH Spawn Result0.01 42,741 0.05 53,028 0.1 68,704 0.2 111,735 0.3 174,950

y = 44878e4.2552x

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

ResultNet R=12, U.P.=0.85 at C, H, SHand U.P.=0.5 at YH

of A

dult

s

77

0.3 174,950 0.4 265,565 0.5 391,750 0.6 564,739 0.7 796,498 ‐

200,000

400,000

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8


Num

ber

o


8

Attachment D- Statistical Analysis Methodology Presentation


Conowingo RSP 3.6 EFL Attraction Flow Study Additional StatisticalFlow Study Additional Statistical

AnalysisProgress update since Resource

Agency meeting on August 23, 2011


Items discussed during August, 2011 Meeting

• Limit analysis to peak of run, based on plot ofLimit analysis to peak of run, based on plot of Julian dates, to April 25 to May 21, 2001‐2010

• Divide passage period into 3 ten‐day periodsDivide passage period into 3 ten day periods to explore run segments (early, mid, and late run shad)

• Standardize counts (z‐scores, ) to account for different‐sized runs

• Plot transformed counts against 15‐minute USGS river flows


Items discussed during August, 2011 ( d)Meeting (Continued)

• Fish counts and transformed counts lagged 0 5Fish counts and transformed counts lagged 0.5 hour to conditions fish were exposed to prior to entering EFLto entering EFL

• First hourly counts of each day excludedD d i 5 000 f i• Data segregated into 5,000 cfs increments up to 100,00 cfs

• Attempt to analyze data from gates A and C separately


Julian Date Plot to Determine Peak Run

4


Example Gate A Z‐ScoreExample Gate A Z Score Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6 Unit 7 Unit 8 Unit 9 Unit 10 Unit 11 Mean z score N

on on -0 53 23

10,000-15,000cfs

on on 0.53 23on on -0.39 15on on 0.60 11

on on -0.79 8on on -0.56 7

on on -0.33 7on on 0.51 6

on on -0.41 3on on on on -0.87 2

on on on 0.37 1


Example Gate C Z‐ScoreExample Gate C Z ScoreUnit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6 Unit 7 Unit 8 Unit 9 Unit 10 Unit 11 Mean z score N

on on on on on on on on on on 0 27 30

70,000-75,000cfs

on on on on on on on on on on 0.27 30on on on on on on on on on on -0.41 14on on on on on on on on on on 0.16 5on on on on on on on on on on on -0.35 4

on on on on on 0.69 2on on on on on on on on 0.72 2on on on on on 1.63 1on on on on on on 0.21 1on on on on on on on 0.73 1

on on on on on on on -0.06 1


Lagged Data Set (10,000‐15,000 cfs)Lagged Data Set (10,000 15,000 cfs)Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6 Unit 7 Unit 8 Unit 9 Unit 10 Unit 11 Total Mean shad counts N

on on 41719 563.8 74

10,000-15,000cfs

on on 15103 335.6 45on on 3557 122.7 29

on on 7779 486.2 16on on 1519 101.3 15

on on 2197 199.7 11on on 4173 417.3 10

on on 3081 308.1 10on on 3277 655.4 5

on on 371 123.7 3on on on on 193 96.5 2

on on on 261 261.0 1on on on on on 135 135.0 1

on 79 79.0 1on on on 735 735.0 1

on on on on on 198 198.0 1on on on on on 14 14.0 1


Lagged Data Set (70,000‐75,000 cfs)Lagged Data Set (70,000 75,000 cfs)Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6 Unit 7 Unit 8 Unit 9 Unit 10 Unit 11 Total Mean shad counts N

on on on on on on on on on on 9774 264.2 37on on on on on on on on on on 160 7 3 22

70,000-75,000cfs

on on on on on on on on on on 160 7.3 22on on on on on on on on on on 2725 454.2 6on on on on on on on on on on on 1043 208.6 5

on on on on on on on on 1014 338.0 3on on on on on 251 125.5 2

on on on on 421 210.5 2on on on on on on on 59 29 5 2on on on on on on on 59 29.5 2

on on on on 469 469.0 1on on on on on 260 260.0 1on on on on on on 39 39.0 1on on on on on on on 296 296.0 1

on on on on on on on on 432 432.0 1on on on on on on on on on on 355 355 0 1on on on on on on on on on on 355 355.0 1on on on on on on on on 15 15.0 1


Passage Data Segregated by Flow Increments (5,000 cfs)


Gate A By Total Discharge (cfs)


Gate C By Total Discharge (cfs)


2010 Radio‐Tagged Shad Foray SummaryTurbine Generation Scenario # of Forays Weir Gate

# Francis #Kaplan

2 0 30 A

3 0 15 A 48/94=51%

4 0 3 A

4 1 10 C

4 2 4 C

4 3 1 C4 3 1 C

6 1 7 C

6 2 1 C 46/94=49%

6 3 7 C

6 4 10 C

7 3 3 C7 3 3 C

7 4 3 C

Total 94


2010 Radio‐Tagged Shad Foray Summary ( i d)(Continued)

*During 7 forays, generation changed from time of initial detection to final detection

Turbine scenario: Initial detection Turbine scenario: final detection # forays

2,0 4,0 1

2,0 4,2 2

4,0 6,4 1

4,1 6,2 1

4 1 6 3 24,1 6,3 2


9

Attachment E-Distribution List for FERC Project No. 405 and 2355

Kerry Anne Abrams City of Port Deposit Mayor 64 South Main Street Port Deposit, MD 21904

Mr. Mark Arbogast 118 North Decatur Street Strasburg, PA 17579

Mr. Charles Arbough 10523 Howard Ave Cockeysville, MD 21030

Mr. Matt Ashton Maryland Department of Natural Resources Natural Resource Biologist III Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment 580 Taylor Ave., C-2 Annapolis, MD 21401

Mr. John W. Balay Susquehanna River Basin Commission Water Resources Management, Hydrologist 1721 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391

Alex Balboa 1996 Waverly Drive Bel Air, MD 21015-1100

Paula Ballaron Susquehanna River Basin Commission 1721 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391

Mr. Thomas W. Beauduy Susquehanna River Basin Commission Deputy Director 1721 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391

Mr. Al Blott National Marine Fisheries Service 113 Bruce Boyer Street PO Box 1692 North Kingstown, RI 02852

Mr. Mark Bryer The Nature Conservancy Director, Chesapeake Bay Program 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 100 Bethesda, MD 20814

Lori Byrne Maryland Department of Natural Resources Tawes State Office Building 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Mr. Richard A. Cairo Susquehanna River Basin Commission General Counsel 1721 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391

Mr. Robert B. Campbell Mason-Dixon Trail System PA Director 811 Marvell Drive York, PA 17402

Mr. Ben L. Cardin United States Senate Senator 509 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington, D.C. 20510

Ruth and Ed Cheslock P.O. Box 82 Delta, PA 17314

Mr. Michael Chezik U.S. Department of the Interior - Office of the Secretary Regional Environmental Officer 200 Chestnut Street Custom House, Room 244 Philadelphia, PA 19106-2904

John M. Cincilla PPL Generation, LLC Manager 2 N 9th Street Allentown, PA 18101-1139

Mr. Kevin Colburn American Whitewater National Stewardship Director 1035 Van Buren Street Missoula, MT 59802


10

Mary Colligan National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office-DOC/NOAA Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucestar, MA 01930-2276

Mr. Wade Cope Susquehanna River Basin Commission 1721 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102

Donna Costango City of Havre de Grace 711 Pennington Ave Havre de Grace, MD 21078

Julie Crocker National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office-DOC/NOAA Protected Resources Division NMFS/NERO 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930

Mr. Phil Cwiek U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District Attn: CENAB-OP-RMN P.O. Box 1715 Baltimore, MD 21203-1715

Mr. Andrew Dehoff Susquehanna River Basin Commission 1721 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391

Mr. Thomas L. Denslinger P.E. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Chief, Water Use Management Section P.O. Box 8555 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555

Mr. David Densmore U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pennsylvania Field Office 315 S. Allen St. Suite 322 State College, PA 16801

Michele M. DePhilip The Nature Conservancy In Pennsylvania Director - Freshwater Conservation 2101 N Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110

Mr. Peter Dunbar Maryland Department of Natural Resources Tawes State Office Building 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, MD 21401

Mrs. Clara Eckelmeyer 9737 High Rock Road Airville, PA 17302

Sheila Eyler U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Maryland Fishery Resources Office 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Annapolis, MD 21401

Elder Ghigiarelli Maryland Department of Environment Wetlands and Waterways Program, Deputy Administrator 1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21230

Mr. Ralph Goodno Lancaster County Conservancy President & CEO 117 South West End Avenue Lancaster, PA 17608

Mr. Dennis T. Guise 2313 Forest Hills Drive Harrisburg, PA 17112-1068

Mr. Dan Haas National Park Service - U.S. Department of Interior 200 Chestnut St. 5 th floor Philadelphia, PA 19106

Mr. Jeffrey Halka Maryland Geological Survey Acting Director 2300 Saint Paul Street Baltimore, MD 21218-5210

Mr. M. Brent Hare Maryland Department of Natural Resources Assistant Attorney General c/o Maryland Energy Administration 1623 Forest Drive, Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401


11

Michael R. Helfrich Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper 324 W. Market Street York, PA 17401

Mr. Michael Hendricks Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 450 Robinson Lane Bellefonte, PA 16823

Mr. Jere Hess 2507 Shures Landing Road Darlington, MD 21034

Mr. Alexander R. Hoar U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, MA 01035-9589

Jennifer Hoffman Susquehanna River Basin Commission 1721 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391

Bonita C. Hoke Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs Director 2426 North 2nd Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1104

James Hooper Mason-Dixon Trail System President, M-DTS 309 Bank Hill Road Wrightsville, PA 17368

Donovan J. Houck Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Environmental Planner Rachel Carson State Office Building 400 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17101

Mr. Chris Iverson 1200 Nursery Road Wrightsville, PA 17368

Linda C. Janey Maryland Department of Planning Assistant Secretary for Clearinghouse and Communication 301 West Preston Street Suite 1101 Baltimore, MD 21201-2305

Mr. James Kardatzke U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs 545 Mariott Drive, Suite 700 Nashville, TN 37214

Anne Ketchum Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Executive Assistant P.O. Box 8767 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8767

Juan Kimble Safe Harbor Water Power Company President 1 Powerhouse Road Conestoga, PA 17516-9651

David S. Ladd Susquehanna River Basin Commission 1721 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391

Lynn Lankshear National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office-DOC/NOAA 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930

James Leigey Pennsylvania Game Commission Bureau of Land Management 2001 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17106-9762

Mr. J. Rodney Little Maryland Historical Trust Director and SHPO 100 Community Place Crownsville, MD 21032

Jacqueline Ludwig Harford County Water & Sewer Engineering & Administration 212 South Bond Street, Second Floor Bel Air, MD 21014


12

Ms. Erin Lynam Susquehanna River Basin Commission Aquatic Ecologist, Water Resources Management 1721 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391

Mrs. Monica Marcum Broad Creek Civic Association President 9211 Hines Road Balto, MD 21234

Anthony McClune Harford County Department of Planning and Zoning Director County Office Building 220 South Main Street Bel Air, MD 21014

John McGillen Maryland Department of Environment Industrial Discharge Permits Division 1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21230

Kristan McKinne Lancaster County Conservancy 117 South West End Avenue Lancaster, PA 17603

Douglas C. McLearen Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Bureau for Historic Preservation Chief Division of Archaeology & Protection 400 North Street Commonwealth Keystone Building, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120-0093

James J. McNulty Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Acting Secretary Commonwealth Keystone Building 400 North Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120

Glenn R. Melroy U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 2870 Portland, OR 97208

Kevin Mendik National Park Service, Boston Support Office 15 State Street Boston, MA 02109

Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Anita Miller U.S. Department of Interior - Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance Philadephia Region Custom House, Room 244 Philadelphia, PA 19106

Jeremy Miller Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 909 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17110

Larry Miller U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mid-Atlantic Fishery Resources Office, Project Leader P.O. Box 67000 1601 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17110-7000

Jeral A. Milton Legg Mason Tower 111 South Calvert Street, Ste 2700 Baltimore, MD 21202-6143

Mr. Steve Minkkinen U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Maryland Fishery Resources Office Project Leader 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Annapolis, MD 21401

Joane D. Mueller Maryland Department of Environment MDE Clearinghouse Coordinator 1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21230

Tracey Librandi Mumma Pennsylvania Game Commission 2001 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17110-9797

Margaret Niland Harford Land and Trust P.O. Box 385 Churchville, MD 21028


13

Debby Nizer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District, CENAB-OP-RPA P.O. Box 1715 Baltimore, MD 21203

Janet Norman U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife Biologist Chesapeake Bay Field Office 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Annapolis, MD 21401

John O'Shea Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Commission 1444 Eye Street, NW 6th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005

Jason E. Oyler Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Office of Chief Counsel P.O. Box 67000 1601 Elmerton Ave Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000

M. Dukes Pepper Jr. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Office of Chief Counsel Assistant Counsel 909 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17110-8200

Gary Petrewski P.E. PPL Generation, LLC Two North Ninth Street (GENPL6) Allentown, PA 18101

Mr. Joseph Pfaff Harford County Department of Parks & Recreation Director 702 North Tollgate Road Bel Air, MD 21014

Mark Platts Lancaster York Heritage Region 1706 Long Level Road Wrightsville, PA 17368

Mr. David R. Poe Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLC Counsel for PPL Holtwood, LLC 1101 New York Avenue, NW K Avenue, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005-4213

Niles Primrose Maryland Department of Natural Resources Tawes State Office Building 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, MD 21401

Mr. Don Pugh American Rivers

Mr. Charles Ramsay 3527 Level Road Churchville, MD 21028

Mary Ratnaswamy, PhD U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Program Supervisor, Threatened and Endangered Species 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Chesapeake Bay Field Office Annapolis, MD 21401

Michael Richardson Maryland Department of Environment 1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21230

Jim Richenderfer Susquehanna River Basin Commission 1721 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391

Bill Richkus Versar Inc. 9200 Rumsey Road Columbia, MD 21045

Mr. Herb Sachs Maryland Department of Environment 1800 Washington Blvd Suite 450 Baltimore, MD 21230

Robert Sadzinski Maryland Department of Natural Resources Natural Resources Biologist, Alosids 301 Marine Academy Drive Stevensville, MD 21666


14

Steve Schreiner Versar Inc. 9200 Rumsey Road Columbia, MD 21045

Mr. Shawn A. Seaman Maryland Department of Natural Resources Project Manager Tawes State Office Building B-3 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, MD 21401

John Seebach American Rivers Director, Hydropower Reform Initiative 1101 14th St. NW, Suite 1400 Washington, D.C. 20005

John Seitz York County Planning Commission Water Resources Coordinator 28 East Market Street York, PA 17401-1580

Mr. Eric S. Sennstrom Cecil County Department of Planning & Zoning Director 200 Chesapeake Blvd., Suite 2300 Elkton, MD 21921

Pam Shellenberger York County Planning Commission Chief, Long Range Planning 28 East Market Street York, PA 17401-1580

Laurie E. Shepler Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Office of Chief Counsel P.O. Box 67000 Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000

Andrew Shiels Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 1735 Shiloh Road State College, PA 16801

Ellen Shultzabarger Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) Environmental Review Specialist P.O. Box 8552 Hamburg, PA 17105

Julie Slacum U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chesapeake Bay Field Office 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Annapolis, MD 21401

Mr. Edward W. Slicer Jr. Cecil County Department of Parks and Recreation Grants Administrator County Administration Building 200 Chesapeake Blvd Suite 1200 Elkton, MD 21921

Topher Smith American Whitewater 394 Butler Rd Reisterstown, MD 21136

Wayne Spilove Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission 300 North Street Harrisburg, PA 17120-0093

James S. Spontak Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Southcentral Region Program Manager 909 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000

Patricia Stabler Chester Water Authority 100 Ashville Road Nottingham, PA 19362

Scott W. Standish Lancaster County Planning Commission Director 150 N. Queen Street, Suite 320 Lancaster, PA 17603

Mr. Ronald Steelman 3529 Green Spring Road Havre de Grace, MD 21078

Sara Strassman American Rivers, River Restoration Program Associate Director 355 N. 21st Street, Suite 309 Camp Hill, PA 17011


15

David Sutherland U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish Passage Workgroup Chair 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Annapolis, MD 21401

Andrew Tittler U.S. Department of Interior Office of the Solicitor, Northeast Region -Attorney One Gateway Center, Suite 612 Newton, MA 02458-2802

Lisa H Tucker Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Preston Gates Ellis, LLP Partner 1601 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20007

Alliance for Chesapeake Bay 660 York Road Suite 100 Baltimore, MD 21212

Chesapeake Bay Foundation 6 Herndon Aveune Annapolis, MD 21403

Lancaster County Parks & Recreation 1050 Rockford Road Lancaster, PA 17602

York County Parks & Recreation 400 Mundis Race Road York, PA 17406

York County Planning Commission 100 W. Market Street York, PA 17401

Lower Chanceford Township 4120 Delta Road Airville, PA 17302

Peach Bottom Township 545 Broad Street, Extended Delta, PA 17314

Martic Township 370 Steinman Farm Road Pequea, PA 17565

Drumore Township 1675 Furniss Road P.O. Box 38 Drumore, PA 17518

Borough of Millersville 100 Municipal Drive Millersville, PA 17551

Delaware Nation P.O. Box 825 Anadarko, OK 73005

Cecil County 200 Chesapeake Blvd., Suite 2300 Elkton, MD 21921

Harford County 212 South Bond Street Bel Air, MD 21014

Fulton Township 777 Nottingham Road Peach Bottom, PA 17563

City of Havre de Grace 400 Pennington Aveune Havre de Grace, MD 21078

Borough of Oxford 401 Market Street Oxford, PA 19363

City of Aberdeen 60 North Parke Street Aberdeen, MD 21001

Town of Bel Air 39 Hickory Avenue Bel Air, MD 21014

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III Section Chief 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

County of Lancaster P.O. Box 83480 Lancaster, PA 17608-3480

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063

Pennsylvania Game Commission 2001 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17110-9762

Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General 16th Floor Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120

Upper Chesapeake Watershed Association 138 West Lanvale Street Baltimore, MD 21217-4120

County of York, York County Courthouse 28 East Market Street York, PA 17401-1501


16

Maryland Office of the Governor Governor State House Annapolis, MD 21401

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Director P.O. Box 8551 Harrisburg, PA 17105

Maryland Public Service Commission 6 St. Paul Centre, 16th Floor 6 Saint Paul Street Baltimore, MD 21202-6806

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture 2301 N. Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-9405

Pennsylvania Wildlife Federation, PA Federation of Sportsmen's Club, Inc. 2426 North 2nd Street Harrisburg, PA 17110

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director P.O. Box 67000 Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000

Pennsylvania Office of the Governor Governor 225 Main Capitol Harrisburg, PA 17120

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs 1849 C Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20420

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Hadley 300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, MA 01035-9587

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 315 South Allen Street Ste 322 State College, PA 16801-4851

University of Maryland Center for Environmental & Estuarine Studies Director Cambridge, MD 21613

West Virginia Dept. of Education & Arts Division of Culture & History Capitol Complex Charleston, WV 25305

Delaware River Basin Commission Executive Director P.O. Box 7360 West Trenton, NJ 08628-2404

Christopher Urban Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Chief - Natural Diversity Section 450 Robinson Lane Bellefonte, PA 16823-9620

Peter R. Valeri Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Regional Engineer 19 W 34th Street, Room 400 New York, NY 10001-3006

Mr. Clyde S. Van Dyke Cecil County Department of Parks and Recreation Director County Administration Building 200 Chesapeake Blvd., Suite 1200 Elkton, MD 21921

Liana Vitali Chesapeake Research Consortium 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109 Annapolis, MD 21240

Herbert H. Ward Upper Chesapeake Watershed Association 138 West Lanvale Street Baltimore, MD 21217-4120

Douglas Weaver York Haven LLC York Haven Hydro Station P.O Box 67 York Haven, PA 17370

Dale Weinrich Maryland Department of Natural Resources Matapeake Work Center 301 Marine Academy Drive Stevensville, MD 21666

R. Timothy Weston Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Preston Gates Ellis, LLP 17 North 2nd Street Floor 18 Harrisburg, PA 17101-1638

Mr. John A. Whittaker, IV Winston & Strawn, LLP [email protected] 1700 K Street, NW Washington DC, 20006


17

Cynthia Wilkerson National Park Service US Customs House Stewardship and Partnership 200 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106

William T. Wisniewski U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region III Deputy Regional Administrator 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

David & Nancy Yohn Citizen/Landowner P.O. Box 658 Delta, PA 17314

Andrew C. Zemba P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 14105-2301

Zhenxing (Jason Zhang Ph.D. Susquehanna River Basin Commission Water Resources Management, Hydrologist 1721 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391


Document Content(s)

Initial Study Report Meeting Minutes _September 2011_.PDF.............1-59


kimberly d. bose secretary federal energy regulatory ... · john mudre indicated that ferc will not...

Documents