PAD Conowingo Hydroelectric Project - Exelon Corporation

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 

March 12, 2009 

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, N.E. 


Re: Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, 

FERC Project No. 405 

Pre-Application Document 

Dear Secretary Bose: 

Pursuant to Section 5.6 of the rules and regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (Commission or FERC), 18 C.F.R. § 5.6, Exelon Corporation on behalf of its 

wholly-owned subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon), licensee of the 

Conowingo Hydroelectric Project (Project), encloses for filing the Pre-Application Document 

(PAD) to relicense the Project. The Project consists of a dam and appurtenant facilities located 

on the Susquehanna River, in Harford and Cecil Counties, Maryland, and Lancaster and York 

Counties, Pennsylvania. The current license will expire on September 1, 2014. Concurrently 

with this filing, but under separate cover, Exelon is filing a Notification of Intent to file an 

application for a new license for the Project. 

The PAD describes the existing Project facilities and operations and provides information 

on the existing environment, existing data and studies relevant to the existing environment, and 

any known and potential effects of the Project on the specified resources, as required by 18 

C.F.R. § 5.6. 

In accordance with Section 5.6(a)(1) of the Commission’s regulations, 18 C.F.R. § 

5.6(a)(1), Exelon is providing a copy of the PAD to appropriate federal and state resource 

agencies, Indian tribes, local governments, and members of the public likely to be interested in 

the proceeding, as set forth on the attached distribution list. In addition, Exelon will provide a 

paper copy of the PAD to Commission Staff in the Office of Energy Projects and Office of 

General Counsel – Energy Projects, as required by the Commission’s filing guidelines. Further, 

as required by 18 C.F.R. § 5.2(a), Exelon is making available to the public the PAD and all 

1

materials referenced therein at the Visitor’s Center at Muddy Run Recreation Park in Holtwood, 

Pennsylvania, and the Darlington Public Library in Darlington, Maryland, during regular 

business hours. 

Exelon looks forward to working with the Commission, agencies, Indian tribes, local 

governments, and members of the public on the relicensing of the Project. If you have any 

questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. 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: Colleen.hicks@exeloncorp.com 

A. Karen Hill 

Vice President Federal Regulatory Affairs 

Exelon Corporation 

101 Constitution Ave. 

Suite 400E 


Tel: (202) 347-8092 

Email: Karen.Hill@exeloncorp.com 

2

Mr. Michael Brownell 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission 

1721 N. Front Street 

Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391 

Mr. Larry Miller 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

1601 Elmerton Avenue 

Harrisburg, PA 17110 

Shawn A. Seaman 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

Power Plant Research Program 

Tawes State Office Building B-3 

580 Taylor Avenue 

Annapolis, Maryland 21401 

Mr. John McGillen 

Maryland Department of the Environment 

Industrial Discharge Permits Division 

1800 Washington Blvd 

Baltimore, MD 21230 

Mr. Elder Ghigiarelli 

Deputy Administrator 


Wetlands and Waterways Program 



Mr. Kevin Mendik 

National Park Service 

Boston Support Office 

15 State Street 

Boston, MA 02109 

Mr. James Kardatzke 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

545 Mariott Drive, Suite 700 

Nashville, TN 37214 

PAD Distribution List for FERC Project No. 405 

3 

Mr. Jon Kurland 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Northeast Regional Office 

One Blackburn Drive 

Gloucester, MA 01930-2298 

Mr. William T. Wisniewski 

Deputy Regional Administrator 

US Environmental Protection Agency- 

Region III 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

Mr. Larry Williamson 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation 

and Natural Resources 

PO Box 1554 


Mr. James Spontak 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection 



Mr. Andrew Shiels 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 


PO Box 67000 


Mr. James Leigey 

Pennsylvania Game Commission 

Bureau of Land Management 

2001 Elmerton Ave 


Mr. Wayne Spilove 

Pennsylvania Historical & Museum 

Commission 

300 North Street 

Harrisburg, PA 17120-0093

J. Rodney Little 

Director and SHPO 

Maryland Historical Trust 

100 Community Place 

Crownsville, Maryland 21032 

Alliance for Chesapeake Bay 

6600 York Rd. 

Suite 100 


Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Commission 

1444 Eye St. NW 

6th Floor 


Cecil County Parks & Recreation 

200 Chesapeake Blvd. 

Suite 1200 

Elkton, MD 21921 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

6 Herndon Ave. 

Annapolis, MD 21403 

Harford County Parks & Recreation 

702 N. Tollgate Rd. 

Bel Air, MD 21014 

Lancaster County Parks & Recreation 

1050 Rockford Rd. 

Lancaster, PA 17602 

Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper 

324 W. Market St. 

York, PA 17401 

York County Parks & Recreation 

400 Mundis Race Rd. 

York, PA 17406 

York County 

100 W Market Street 

York, PA, 17401 

4 

Lancaster County 

50 North Duke Street 

Lancaster, PA. 17608 

Cecil County 


Elkton, MD 21921 

Harford County 

212 South Bond Street 


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 

PO Box 38 

Drumore, PA 17518 

Fulton Township 

777 Nottingham Road 

Peach Bottom, PA 17563 

City of Havre de Grace 

711 Pennington Avenue 

Havre de Grace, MD 21078 

City of Port Deposit 

64 S. Main Street 

Port Deposit, MD 21904 

Borough of Oxford 

401 Market Street 

Oxford, PA 19363

Town of Bel Air 

39 Hickory Avenue 


City of Aberdeen 

60 North Parke Street 

Aberdeen, MD 21001 

5 

Delaware Nation 

P.O. Box 825 

Anadarko, OK 73005

PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT 

FOR THE 

CONOWINGO HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 

FERC PROJECT NUMBER 405 

EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC 

March 2009

Conowingo Hydroelectric Project Pre-Application Document 

FERC No. 405 March 2009 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... vi 

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

2.0 PROCESS PLAN AND SCHEDULE ........................................................................................ 2-1 

3.0 PROJECT LOCATION, FACILITIES, AND OPERATION ................................................ 3-1 

3.1 Project Location ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.2 Project Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.3 Project Location and Lands .................................................................................................... 3-5 

3.4 Current Project Operation ...................................................................................................... 3-5 

3.5 Reservoir Storage ................................................................................................................... 3-7 

3.6 Other Project Information ...................................................................................................... 3-8 

3.6.1 Current License Requirements ......................................................................................... 3-8 

3.6.2 Compliance History ....................................................................................................... 3-10 

3.6.3 Current Net Investment .................................................................................................. 3-11 

3.6.4 Proposed Operation ........................................................................................................ 3-11 

3.6.5 Summary of Project Generation ..................................................................................... 3-11 

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE IMPACTS (18 

C.F.R. §5.6 (d)(3) ...................................................................................................................................... 4-1 

4.1 General Description of the River Basin (18 C.F.R. §5.6 (d)(3)(xiii) ..................................... 4-1 

4.1.1 Major Land Uses .............................................................................................................. 4-1 

4.1.2 Major Water Uses ............................................................................................................ 4-1 

4.1.3 Basin Dams and other Energy Producers ......................................................................... 4-2 

4.1.4 Tributary Streams ............................................................................................................ 4-3 

4.2 Geology and Soils (18 C.F.R. §5.6(d)(3)(ii) .......................................................................... 4-3 

4.2.1 Topography ...................................................................................................................... 4-3 

4.2.2 Geology ............................................................................................................................ 4-4 

4.2.2.1 Bedrock Geology ....................................................................................................... 4-4 

4.2.2.2 Surficial Geology ...................................................................................................... 4-5 

4.2.3 Soils ................................................................................................................................. 4-5 

4.2.3.1 Pennsylvania .............................................................................................................. 4-6 

4.2.3.2 Maryland ................................................................................................................... 4-6 

4.2.4 Reservoir Shoreline .......................................................................................................... 4-7 

i



4.2.4.1 Field studies ............................................................................................................... 4-7 

4.2.4.2 Shoreline Types ......................................................................................................... 4-7 

4.2.4.3 Erosion Features ........................................................................................................ 4-7 

4.2.4.4 Shoreline Erosion Inventory ...................................................................................... 4-8 

4.2.4.5 Depositional Features ................................................................................................ 4-9 

4.2.4.6 Potential Project-Related Causes of Shoreline Erosion ............................................. 4-9 

4.3 Water Resources (18 C.F.R. §5.6 (d)(3)(iii) ......................................................................... 4-10 

4.3.1 Water Quantity ............................................................................................................... 4-10 

4.3.1.1 Hydrology and Streamflow ..................................................................................... 4-10 

4.3.1.2 Major Water Withdrawals and Use ......................................................................... 4-11 

4.3.1.3 Surface Water Discharges ....................................................................................... 4-13 

4.3.2 Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 4-14 

4.3.2.1 Water Quality Standards and Classifications .......................................................... 4-14 

4.3.2.2 Sediment and Nutrient Loading .............................................................................. 4-17 

4.3.2.3 Existing Water Quality Studies ............................................................................... 4-19 

4.3.2.4 Existing Water Chemistry ....................................................................................... 4-23 

4.3.2.4.1 Conowingo Pond ......................................................................................................... 4-23 

4.3.2.4.2 Conowingo Tailrace ..................................................................................................... 4-25 

4.4 Fish and Aquatic Resources (18 C.F.R. §5.6 (d)(3)(iv) ....................................................... 4-27 

4.4.1 Resident Fish Species .................................................................................................... 4-27 

4.4.1.1 Conowingo Pond ..................................................................................................... 4-28 

4.4.1.2 Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam ........................................................... 4-31 

4.4.2 Migratory fish species .................................................................................................... 4-32 

4.4.2.1 Anadromous Fish Species below Conowingo Dam ................................................ 4-33 

4.4.2.2 Anadromous Fish Species in Conowingo Pond ...................................................... 4-45 

4.4.2.3 Catadromous Fish Species ....................................................................................... 4-48 

4.4.2.4 Commercial Fishing below Conowingo Dam ......................................................... 4-51 

4.4.3 Recreational Fishery ...................................................................................................... 4-52 



4.4.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrates ........................................................................................... 4-58 

4.4.4.1 Lower Susquehanna River Basin ............................................................................ 4-59 


ii



4.4.4.3 Conowingo Dam Tailrace and Points Downstream ................................................ 4-61 

4.4.4.4 Nuisance Macroinvertebrate Species ...................................................................... 4-62 

4.4.5 Phytoplankton and Zooplankton .................................................................................... 4-63 

4.4.6 Aquatic Habitat .............................................................................................................. 4-64 


4.5 Terrestrial Wildlife and Botanical Resources (18 C.F.R. §5.6 (d)(3)(v)) ............................. 4-66 

4.5.1 Upland Botanical Resources .......................................................................................... 4-66 

4.5.2 Terrestrial Wildlife ........................................................................................................ 4-68 

4.5.2.1 Mammals ................................................................................................................. 4-69 

4.5.2.2 Birds ........................................................................................................................ 4-69 

4.6 Wetlands, Riparian, and Littoral Habitat (18 C.F.R. §5.6 (d)(3)(vi))................................... 4-69 

4.6.1 Wetland Habitat ............................................................................................................. 4-70 


4.6.1.2 Below Conowingo Dam .......................................................................................... 4-72 

4.6.2 Littoral Zone Habitat ..................................................................................................... 4-72 


4.6.2.2 Below Conowingo Dam .......................................................................................... 4-75 

4.6.3 Riparian Zone Habitat .................................................................................................... 4-75 

4.6.4 Wetland, Littoral, and Riparian Vegetation ................................................................... 4-76 

4.6.5 Wetland, Littoral, and Riparian Wildlife ....................................................................... 4-76 

4.7 Critical Habitat and Threatened and Endangered Species (18 C.F.R. §5.6(d)(3)(vii)) ........ 4-77 

4.7.1 Natural Areas ................................................................................................................. 4-77 

4.7.2 T & E Species (Federal and State Listed Species) ......................................................... 4-83 

4.7.2.1 Birds ........................................................................................................................ 4-84 

4.7.2.2 Reptiles and Amphibians ......................................................................................... 4-86 

4.7.2.3 Fish 4-87 

4.7.2.4 Plants ....................................................................................................................... 4-91 

4.7.3 Non-Listed Rare Species ............................................................................................... 4-98 

4.7.3.1 Birds ........................................................................................................................ 4-98 

4.7.3.2 Fish 4-99 

4.7.3.3 Invertebrates .......................................................................................................... 4-100 

4.7.3.4 Plants ..................................................................................................................... 4-100 

4.8 Recreation and Land Use (18 C.F.R. §5.6 (d)(3)(viii) ....................................................... 4-104 

iii



4.8.1 Existing Recreational Facilities and Opportunities ...................................................... 4-104 

4.8.1.1 Conowingo Pond Recreation Facilities ................................................................. 4-105 

4.8.1.2 Downstream Recreation Facilities ......................................................................... 4-107 

4.8.1.3 State Parks ............................................................................................................. 4-108 

4.8.1.4 Other Recreational Facilities ................................................................................. 4-109 

4.8.2 Recreational Use .......................................................................................................... 4-109 

4.8.3 Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 4-110 

4.8.3.1 Currently Designated Natural Areas ..................................................................... 4-111 

4.8.3.2 Project Boundary ................................................................................................... 4-112 

4.8.3.3 Shoreline Management .......................................................................................... 4-112 

4.9 Aesthetic Resources (18 C.F.R. §5.6 (d)(3)(ix) .................................................................. 4-112 

4.9.1 Landscape Description ................................................................................................. 4-112 

4.9.2 Scenic Byways and Viewscapes .................................................................................. 4-113 

4.10 Cultural Resources (18 C.F.R. §5.6 (d)(3)(x) ..................................................................... 4-114 

4.10.1 Prehistoric Context ...................................................................................................... 4-115 

4.10.2 Historic Context ........................................................................................................... 4-117 

4.10.3 Archeology ................................................................................................................... 4-122 

4.10.4 Historic Structures ....................................................................................................... 4-123 

4.11 Socio-Economic Resources (18 C.F.R. §5.6 (d)(3)(xi) ...................................................... 4-123 

4.11.1 Population Patterns ...................................................................................................... 4-123 

4.11.2 Economic Patterns ....................................................................................................... 4-123 

4.11.3 Transportation Infrastructure and Access .................................................................... 4-124 

4.12 Tribal Resources (18 C.F.R. §5.6(d)(3)(xii) ....................................................................... 4-124 

5.0 PRELIMINARY ISSUES AND STUDIES LIST (18 C.F.R. §5.6(d)(4) ................................. 5-1 

5.1 Issues Pertaining to the Identified Resources ......................................................................... 5-1 

5.2 Potential Studies or Information Gathering ............................................................................ 5-2 

5.3 Relevant Comprehensive Waterway Plans ............................................................................. 5-4 

5.4 Relevant Resource Management Plan .................................................................................... 5-7 

iv



6.0 LITERATURE AND INFORMATION SOURCES CITED IN THE DESCRIPTIONS AND 

SUMMARIES OF EXISTING RESOURCE DATA (18 C.F.R. §5.6(c)(2) ......................................... 6-1 

7.0 APPENDIX A – SUMMARY OF CONTACTS AND CORRESPONDENCE LETTER 

MADE IN PREPARING THE PAD (18 C.F.R. §5.6(d)(5) ................................................................... 7-1 

8.0 APPENDIX B – PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT CONTENT CROSS REFERENCE 

TABLE ...................................................................................................................................................... 8-1 

9.0 APPENDIX C – AGENT FOR THE APPLICANT 18 C.F.R. 5.6(d)(2)(i) ............................ 9-1 

10.0 APPENDIX D – CURRENT LICENSE AND AMENDMENTS .......................................... 10-1 

v



LIST OF TABLES 

(Following Sections) 

Table 2.0-1 ................................................................................................................................................ 2-3 

Process Plan and Schedule .................................................................................................................. 2-3 

Table 3.2-1 .............................................................................................................................................. 3-12 

Summary of Turbine Characteristics at the Conowingo Project ....................................................... 3-12 

Table 3.2-2 .............................................................................................................................................. 3-13 

Summary of Electric Generator Characteristics at the Conowingo Project ...................................... 3-13 

Table 3.6.5-1 ........................................................................................................................................... 3-14 

Summary of Net Conowingo Project Generation (MWH) for 1996-2008 ........................................ 3-14 

Table 3.6.5-2 ........................................................................................................................................... 3-15 

Summary of Net Conowingo Project Average Monthly and Annual Outflows (cfs) for 

1996-2008 as Measured at the Susquehanna River at Conowingo, Maryland (No. 01578310) ........ 3-15 

Table 4.1-1 ............................................................................................................................................ 4-125 

Characteristics of the Susquehanna River Subbasins ...................................................................... 4-125 

Table 4.1.3-1 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-126 

Hydropower in the Lower Susquehanna River Subbasin ................................................................ 4-126 

Table 4.1.4-1 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-127 

Major Tributaries to the Lower Susquehanna River ....................................................................... 4-127 

Table 4.2.2.1-1 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-128 

Bedrock Geologic Units of the Project Area in Pennsylvania ......................................................... 4-128 

Table 4.2.2.1-2 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-129 

Bedrock Geologic Units of the Project Area in Maryland .............................................................. 4-129 

Table 4.2.2.2-1 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-130 

Surficial Geologic Units of the Project Area in Pennsylvania ........................................................ 4-130 

Table 4.2.3.1-1 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-131 

Soil Units of Project Area in Pennsylvania ..................................................................................... 4-131 

Table 4.2.3.2-1 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-133 

Soil Units of Project Area in Maryland ........................................................................................... 4-133 

Table 4.3.1.1-1 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-134 

Corps of Engineers Storage Reservoirs within the Susquehanna River Basin ................................ 4-134 

vi



Table 4.3.1.1-2 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-135 

Minimum, Median, Mean, and Maximum Flow by Month at Marietta USGS Gage, 1967-2008 .. 4-135 

Table 4.3.1.1-3 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-136 

Minimum, Median, Mean, and Maximum Flow by Month at Conowingo USGS Gage, 

1967-2008 ........................................................................................................................................ 4-136 

Table 4.3.1.3-1 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-137 

Summary of NPDES Dischargers along the Conowingo Pond Segment of the 

Susquehanna River .......................................................................................................................... 4-137 

Table 4.3.2.1-1 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-138 

Summary of Pennsylvania’s Protected Water Use Categories ........................................................ 4-138 

Table 4.3.2.1-2 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-140 

Pennsylvania’s Maximum Water Temperature ............................................................................... 4-140 

Criteria Specified for Warm Water Fishes ...................................................................................... 4-140 

Table 4.3.2.1-3 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-141 

Summary of Maryland’s Designated Use Categories ...................................................................... 4-141 

Table 4.3.2.1-4 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-142 

Summary of “2006 List of Impaired Surface Waters [303(d) List] and Integrated Assessment of 

Water Quality in Maryland” Listings for the Mainstem of the Susquehanna River within the 

Conowingo Dam Basin and Lower Susquehanna River Basin ....................................................... 4-142 

Table 4.3.2.2-1 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-144 

Annual Sediment and Nutrient Loadings Below Conowingo Dam (1985-2004) ............................ 4-144 

Table 4.3.2.4-1 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-145 

Comparison Of Frequency Distribution Of Hourly DO Measurements Monitored in the Tailrace 

(Station 643), Conowingo Hydro Station, June-September 1982-1988 .......................................... 4-145 

Table 4.3.2.4-2 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-147 

Select Water Quality Parameters Collected by USGS for the Susquehanna River at the 

Conowingo Dam, January 1978-June 2000 ..................................................................................... 4-147 

Table 4.4.1-1 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-150 

Fish Species within the Conowingo Project Waters ........................................................................ 4-150 

Table 4.4.1.1-1 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-155 

Summary Of Annual Fish Catches In Conowingo Pond Relative To PBAPS, 1996-1999. Taxa Listed 

Comprised ≥ 5% of the Annual Total Of Fish Collected By All Gears In At Least One Year. ...... 4-155 

Table 4.4.1.2-1 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-156 

Electrofishing Catches in the Susquehanna River Below Conowingo Dam, 

vii



January-November 1983. ................................................................................................................ 4-156 

Table 4.4.1.2-2 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-157 

Gill Net Catches in the Susquehanna River Below Conowingo Dam, July-November 1983. ........ 4-157 

Table 4.4.1.2-3 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-158 

Comparison of Annual Catch of Common Resident Species at Conowingo Dam West Fish 

Lift, 1991-2008 ................................................................................................................................ 4-158 

Table 4.4.1.2-4 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-160 

Comparison of Annual Catch of Common Resident Species at Conowingo Dam East 

Fish Lift, 1991-2008. ....................................................................................................................... 4-160 

Table 4.4.2-1 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-161 

Annual Count of Migratory Fishes at the Conowingo Dam West Fish Lift (1972-2008) ............... 4-161 

Table 4.4.2-2 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-163 

Annual Count of Migratory Fishes at the Conowingo Dam East Fish Lift (1991-2008) ................ 4-163 

Table 4.4.2.1-1 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-164 

Juvenile Abundance Index for American Shad Collected By Haul Seine in the 

Susquehanna River at Marietta, Columbia, and Wrightsville, 1990-2005. ..................................... 4-164 

Table 4.4.2.1-2 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-165 

Juvenile Abundance Index for American Shad Collected By Lift Net in the Forebay of 

Holtwood Hydroelectric Station, Susquehanna River, 1985-2005 .................................................. 4-165 

Table 4.4.2.2-1 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-166 

Estimated Spawning Condition of Adult American Shad, Natural River Flows, and Water 

Temperature during the Various Radio Telemetry Studies in Conowingo Pond, 1987-2001 ......... 4-166 

Table 4.4.3.2-1. ..................................................................................................................................... 4-168 

Estimated Annual Fishing Pressure in the Lower Susquehanna River Below Conowingo Dam, 

Maryland. ........................................................................................................................................ 4-168 

Table 4.4.3.2-2 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-169 

Annual Fish Harvest Composition (%) and Mean Annual Harvest (Number) by 

Recreational Anglers in the Susquehanna River Below Conowingo Dam, 1981-1987. ................. 4-169 

Table 4.4.4.1-1 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-170 

Benthic Macroinvertebrates Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Area .......................... 4-170 

Table 4.4.5-1 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-178 

Algal Species Identified in Conowingo Pond.................................................................................. 4-178 

viii



Table 4.4.5-2 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-179 

Dominant Zooplankton Species Identified in Conowingo Pond ..................................................... 4-179 

Table 4.4.6-1 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-180 

Proportional Habitat Composition of Non-Tidal River below Conowingo Dam ............................ 4-180 

Table 4.5.1-1 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-181 

Vegetation Species Near Northern Project Area ............................................................................. 4-181 

Table 4.5.2.1-1 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-190 

Mammals Near Northern Project Area ............................................................................................ 4-190 

Table 4.5.2.2-1 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-192 

Birds Observed Along Susquehanna River Near Conowingo Dam (Glen Cove Marina to 

Deer Creek) ..................................................................................................................................... 4-192 

Table 4.6.2.1-1 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-201 

Mt. Johnson Island – Littoral Zone Substrate.................................................................................. 4-201 

Table 4.6.2.1-2 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-202 

Peters Creek-Littoral Zone Substrate .............................................................................................. 4-202 

Table 4.6.2.1-3 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-203 

Fishing Creek – Littoral Zone Substrate ......................................................................................... 4-203 

Table 4.6.4-1 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-204 

Riverbed Wetland Near Norman Wood Bridge Vegetation ............................................................ 4-204 

Table 4.6.4-1a ....................................................................................................................................... 4-205 

Emergent Wetland Plants of Conowingo Pond ............................................................................... 4-205 

Table 4.6.4-2 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-208 

Shoreline Margin Wetland Near Norman Wood Bridge Vegetation ............................................... 4-208 

Table 4.6.4-3 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-209 

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Conowingo Pond ...................................................................... 4-209 

Table 4.6.4-4 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-210 

Mt. Johnson Island Riparian Vegetation ......................................................................................... 4-210 

Table 4.6.4-5 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-212 

Conowingo Pond Near Peters Creek Riparian Vegetation .............................................................. 4-212 

Table 4.6.4-6 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-213 

Conowingo Pond Near Fishing Creek Riparian Vegetation ............................................................ 4-213 

Table 4.6.5-1 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-214 

Reptiles and Amphibians Near Northern Project Area ................................................................... 4-214 

ix



Table 4.7.2.1-1 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-215 

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Bird Species Potentially in Conowingo Project Area ............. 4-215 

Table 4.7.2.2-1 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-216 

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Reptile and Amphibian Species Potentially in 

Conowingo Project Area ................................................................................................................. 4-216 

Table 4.7.2.3-1 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-217 

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Fish and Invertebrate Species Potentially in 

Conowingo Project Area ................................................................................................................. 4-217 

Table 4.7.2.4-1 ...................................................................................................................................... 4-218 

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plant Species Potentially in Conowingo Project Area ............ 4-218 

Table 4.11.1-1 ....................................................................................................................................... 4-220 

Population and Housing Data in Cecil, Harford, York and Lancaster Counties ............................. 4-220 

Table 4.11.1-2 ....................................................................................................................................... 4-221 

Population Trends within Cecil, Harford, York and Lancaster Counties ........................................ 4-221 

Table 4.11.1-3 ....................................................................................................................................... 4-222 

Major Population Centers Near the Conowingo Project ................................................................. 4-222 

Table 4.11.2-1 ....................................................................................................................................... 4-223 

Income Distribution within Cecil, Harford, York, and Lancaster Counties .................................... 4-223 

Table 4.11.2-2 ....................................................................................................................................... 4-224 

Occupation Distribution Within Cecil, Harford, York, And Lancaster Counties ........................... 4-224 

x



LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 3.1-1 ............................................................................................................................................. 3-16 

Conowingo Hydroelectric Project ..................................................................................................... 3-16 

Figure 3.1-2 ............................................................................................................................................. 3-17 

Conowingo Hydroelectric Project Location Map .............................................................................. 3-17 

Figure 3.2-1 ............................................................................................................................................. 3-18 

Conowingo Dam Spillway Rating Curve .......................................................................................... 3-18 

Figure 3.2-2 ............................................................................................................................................. 3-19 

Conowingo Dam Tailwater Rating Curve ......................................................................................... 3-19 

Figure 4.1-1 ........................................................................................................................................... 4-225 

Lower Susquehanna River Subbasin ............................................................................................... 4-225 

Figure 4.1.2-1 ........................................................................................................................................ 4-226 

Lower Susquehanna River Subbasin ............................................................................................... 4-226 

Figure 4.1.3-1 ........................................................................................................................................ 4-227 

Dams in the Lower Susquehanna .................................................................................................... 4-227 

Figure 4.1.4-1 ........................................................................................................................................ 4-228 

Major Tributaries to the Susquehanna River in the Lower Susquehanna River Subbasin .............. 4-228 

Figure 4.2.2.1-1 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-229 

Bedrock Geology Conowingo Hydroelectric Project ...................................................................... 4-229 

Figure 4.2.3-1 ........................................................................................................................................ 4-230 

Soils Within 2000 Feet of Project Boundary ................................................................................... 4-230 

(Maryland) ....................................................................................................................................... 4-230 

Figure 4.2.3-2 ........................................................................................................................................ 4-231 

Soils Within 2000 Feet of Project Boundary Extent 1 .................................................................... 4-231 

(Pennsylvania) ................................................................................................................................. 4-231 

Figure 4.2.3-3 ........................................................................................................................................ 4-232 

Soils Within 2000 Feet of Project Boundary Extent 2 .................................................................... 4-232 

(Pennsylvania) ................................................................................................................................. 4-232 

Figure 4.2.4.4-1a ................................................................................................................................... 4-233 

Shoreline Erosion Study Extent 1 .................................................................................................... 4-233 

Figure 4.2.4.4-1b ................................................................................................................................... 4-234 


xi



Figure 4.2.4.4-1c ................................................................................................................................... 4-235 


Figure 4.2.4.4-1d ................................................................................................................................... 4-236 


Figure 4.2.4.4-1e ................................................................................................................................... 4-237 


Figure 4.2.4.4-1f .................................................................................................................................... 4-238 


Figure 4.3.1.1-1 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-239 

Susquehanna River at Marietta, PA USGS Gage, January, February, March, and April 

Flow Duration Curves, Period of Record: 1967-2008 ..................................................................... 4-239 

Figure 4.3.1.1-2 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-240 

Susquehanna River at Marietta, PA USGS Gage, May, June, July, and August Flow 

Duration Curves, Period of Record: 1967-2008 .............................................................................. 4-240 

Figure 4.3.1.1-3 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-241 

Susquehanna River at Marietta, PA USGS Gage, September, October, November, and 

December Flow Duration Curves, Period of Record: 1967-2008 ................................................... 4-241 

Figure 4.3.1.1-4 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-242 

Susquehanna River at Marietta, PA USGS Gage, Annual Flow Duration Curve, 

Period of Record: 1967-2008 .......................................................................................................... 4-242 

Figure 4.3.1.1-5 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-243 

Susquehanna River at Conowingo, MD USGS Gage, January, February, March, and 

April Flow Duration Curves, Period of Record: 1967-2008 ........................................................... 4-243 

Figure 4.3.1.1-6 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-244 

Susquehanna River at Conowingo, MD USGS Gage, May, June, July, and August Flow 

Duration Curves, Period of Record: 1967-2008 .............................................................................. 4-244 

Figure 4.3.1.1-7 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-245 

Susquehanna River at Conowingo, MD USGS Gage, September, October, November, and 

December Flow Duration Curves, Period of Record: 1967-2008 ................................................... 4-245 

Figure 4.3.1.1-8 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-246 

Susquehanna River at Conowingo, MD USGS Gage, Annual Flow Duration Curves, 

Period of Record: 1967-2008 .......................................................................................................... 4-246 

xii



Figure 4.3.1.3-1 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-247 

Location of NPDES Discharge Facilities within the Conowingo Pond Segment of the 

Susquehanna River .......................................................................................................................... 4-247 

Figure 4.3.2.1-1 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-248 

Location of Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Tributary Water Quality Segments within the Lower 

Susquehanna River. ......................................................................................................................... 4-248 

Figure 4.3.2.2-1a ................................................................................................................................... 4-249 

Susquehanna River Annual Loads – Total Nitrogen ....................................................................... 4-249 

Figure 4.3.2.2-1b ................................................................................................................................... 4-250 

Susquehanna River Annual Loads – Total Phosphorus ................................................................... 4-250 

Figure 4.3.2.2-1c ................................................................................................................................... 4-251 

Susquehanna River Annual Loads – Sediment................................................................................ 4-251 

Figure 4.3.2.3-1 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-252 

Water Quality Stations Sampled in Conowingo Pond Relative to Peach Bottom Atomic Power 

Station, 1970-1987. Locations With Asterisks (*) Sampled in 1981-1987. ................................... 4-252 

Figure 4.3.2.3-2 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-253 

Primary Locations Sampled for Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and Water Temperature Relative to 

Conowingo Hydroelectric Station. .................................................................................................. 4-253 

Figure 4.3.2.3-3 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-254 

DO and Thermal Mapping Locations Sampled in Conowingo Pond Relative to Cooling Tower 

Reduction Studies, 1996-1999. (Station 611, Located Near Conowingo Dam Not Shown). ......... 4-254 

Figure 4.3.2.4-1 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-255 

Summary of Monthly Average Minimum, Mean, and Maximum Daily Water Temperature in the 

River Inflow to Conowingo Pond, 1956-2007. Data Courtesy of PPL, Inc. at Holtwood Dam. .... 4-255 

Figure 4.3.2.4-2 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-256 

Temperature (Top) And DO (Bottom) Profile Data Collected at Station 611 During 1999. .......... 4-256 

Figure 4.3.2.4-3 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-257 

Summary of Monthly Average Minimum, Mean, and Maximum Surface Dissolved Oxygen 

(DO mg/l) in Conowingo Pond, 1971-1983, and 1996-1999. ......................................................... 4-257 

Figure 4.3.2.4-4 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-258 

Example of Seasonal Variations in Water Temperature at Station 643 Downstream of the 

Conowingo Hydroelectric Station. .................................................................................................. 4-258 

xiii



Figure 4.3.2.4-5 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-259 

Example of Diurnal Variation in Dissolved Oxygen and Water Temperature in the Tailrace 

(Station 643), Conowingo Hydroelectric Station, 1-6 August 2007. .............................................. 4-259 

Figure 4.3.2.4-6 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-260 

Seasonal Variation in the Biweekly Mean DO Measured in the Outflow (Conowingo Dam) of 

Conowingo Pond, 1979-1983 And 1984. ........................................................................................ 4-260 

Figure 4.3.2.4-7 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-261 

Comparison of Mean Daily DO in the Conowingo Tailrace (Station 643) and Mean DO at Depth 

(40-70 Ft) in Conowingo Pond During the Turbine Venting, 1 June to 30 September 1991. ......... 4-261 

Figure 4.4.1.2-1 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-262 

Lower Susquehanna River Below Conowingo Dam to Susquehanna Flats .................................... 4-262 

Figure 4.4.2.1-1 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-263 

Relative Estimates of American Shad Population Downstream of Conowingo Dam. Source: 

SRAFRC (1985-2005) and MDNR. ................................................................................................ 4-263 

Figure 4.4.2.1-4 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-264 

American Shad Passage at Upstream Dams Expressed as Percentage of Shad Passed at 

Conowingo. Source: ASMFRC (2007) And Normandeau Associates (2006-2007). ..................... 4-264 

Figure 4.4.2.1-2 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-265 

American Shad Passage Counts at Conowingo East Fish Lift, 1991-2007. Source: SRAFRC 

(1992-2005) And Normandeau Associates (2006-2007). ................................................................ 4-265 

Figure 4.4.2.1-3 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-266 

Upper Chesapeake Bay Juvenile American Shad Geometric Mean Catch Per Effort (CPUE) 

with 95% Confidence Intervals (1959-2005). Source: ASMFC (2007). ........................................ 4-266 

Figure 4.4.2.2-1 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-267 

American Shad Release Locations in Conowingo Pond and Number Released for Various 

Adult Shad Migration Studies 1987-2001 ....................................................................................... 4-267 

Figure 4.4.3.2-1 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-268 

Mean Monthly Fishing Pressure (Angler-Hours) in the Conowingo Dam Tailrace and Tidal 

Lower River, 1981 - 1987 ............................................................................................................... 4-268 

Figure 4.4.6-1 ........................................................................................................................................ 4-269 

Aquatic Habitat Map of the Non-tidal Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam ...................... 4-269 

Figure 4.4.6-2 ........................................................................................................................................ 4-270 

Aquatic Habitat Map of the Non-tidal Susquehanna River near Octoraro Creek ........................... 4-270 

xiv



Figure 4.6.1.1-1 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-271 

Riverbed Emergent Wetlands .......................................................................................................... 4-271 

Figure 4.6.1.1-2 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-272 

Water Willow and Purple Loosestrife in Rock Crevasses ............................................................... 4-272 

Figure 4.6.1.1-3 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-273 

Riverbed Emergent Wetland Zones ................................................................................................. 4-273 

Figure 4.6.1.1-4 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-274 

Pond Wetlands ................................................................................................................................. 4-274 

Figure 4.6.2.1-1 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-275 

Mt. Johnson Island Area Depth Contours & Sampling Locations .................................................. 4-275 

Figure 4.6.2.1-2 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-276 

South Shore of Mt. Johnson Island .................................................................................................. 4-276 

Figure 4.6.2.1-3 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-277 

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation ....................................................................................................... 4-277 

Figure 4.6.2.1-4 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-278 

Peter’s Creek Area Depth Contours & Sampling Locations ........................................................... 4-278 

Figure 4.6.2.1-5 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-279 

Fishing Creek Area Depth Contours & Sampling Locations .......................................................... 4-279 

Figure 4.6.2.1-6 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-280 

Cobble/Pebble Bar at Fishing Creek ............................................................................................... 4-280 

Figure 4.6.2.2-1 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-281 

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation ....................................................................................................... 4-281 

Figure 4.6.3-1 ........................................................................................................................................ 4-282 

Riparian Zones ................................................................................................................................ 4-282 

Figure 4.7.1-1a ...................................................................................................................................... 4-283 

Protected Areas Map Extent 1 ......................................................................................................... 4-283 

Figure 4.7.1-1b ...................................................................................................................................... 4-284 

Protected Areas Map Extent 2 ......................................................................................................... 4-284 

Figure 4.8.1-1 ........................................................................................................................................ 4-285 

Existing Recreation Sites ................................................................................................................. 4-285 

Figure 4.8.3-1a ...................................................................................................................................... 4-286 

Existing Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 4-286 

xv



Figure 4.8.3-1b ...................................................................................................................................... 4-287 


Figure 4.8.3-1c ...................................................................................................................................... 4-288 


Figure 4.8.3-1d ...................................................................................................................................... 4-289 


Figure 4.8.3-1e ...................................................................................................................................... 4-290 


Figure 4.9.2-1 ........................................................................................................................................ 4-291 

View From Hawk’s Point Overlook ................................................................................................ 4-291 

Figure 4.11-1 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-292 

Major Transportation Corridors ...................................................................................................... 4-292 

xvi



ABB Asea Brown Boveri, Inc. 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

ASBCA Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act 

ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 

BMP Best Management Practices 

BP Before Present 

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations 

Cfs Cubic Feet per Second 

Cm/s Centimeter per Second 

COMAR Code of Maryland Regulations 

CPUE Catch per Unit Effort 

CWA Chester Water Authority 

DO Dissolved Oxygen 

DOE Department of Energy 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EAP Emergency Action Plan 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ERM Environmental Resources Management 

Exelon Exelon Generation Company, LLC 

FAC Flow-Adjusted Concentrations 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FPA Federal Power Act 

FWC Flow-Weighted Concentrations 

xvii



Hp Horsepower 

Hz Hertz 

IIP Initial Information Package 

ILP Integrated Licensing Process 

kV Kilovolt 

kVA Kilovolt-Ampere 

LYHR Lancaster York Heritage Region 

MAAC Mid-Atlantic Area Council 

MBSS Maryland Biological Stream Survey 

MDE Maryland Department of Environment 

MDNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

MGD Millions Gallons per Day 

Mg/L Milligrams per Liter 

MGS Maryland Geological Survey 

MHT Maryland Historic Trust 

MIHP Maryland Inventory of History Properties 

Mm Millimeter 

MW Megawatts 

MWH Megawatt-Hour 

MWI Maryland (Department of Natural Resources) Wetlands Inventory 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NERC North American Electric Reliability Council 

NGVD 1929 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

xviii



NOI Notice of Intent 

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWI National Wetland Inventory 

PAD Pre-Application Document 

PADEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

PADCNR Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

PBAPS Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 

PECO PECO Energy Company 

PEPCo PECO Energy Power Company 

PFBC Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 

PGC Pennsylvania Game Commission 

PGS Pennsylvania Geological Survey 

PJM Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland Interconnection 

Ppt Parts per Thousand 

PSD Proportional Stock Density 

PUC Public Utility Commission 

RBP Rapid Bioassessment Protocols 

RIM River Input Modeling 

RPM Revolutions per Minute 

SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

SD1 Scoping Document 1 

xix



SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SRAFRC Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Committee 

SRBC Susquehanna River Basin Commission 

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database 

STATSGO State Soil Geographic Database 

T & E Threatened and Endangered 

URDC Urban Research and Development Corporation 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

WWF Warm Water Fishes 

WSSC Wetlands of Special State Concern 

YOY Young-of-the-Year 

xx



1.0 INTRODUCTION 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) is licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC, or the Commission) to operate the 573-megawatt (MW) Conowingo Hydroelectric Project 

(Conowingo Project) (FERC No. 405). The current license for the Conowingo Project was issued on 

August 14, 1980 and expires on September 1, 2014. 

Exelon is filing with the Commission a Notification of Intent (NOI) to relicense the existing Conowingo 

Project. The Conowingo Project consists of a dam and appurtenant facilities located on the Susquehanna 

River near Darlington, MD. At this time, Exelon is not proposing to add capacity or make any physical 

modifications to the Project under the new license. 

Exelon will apply for license renewal using the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) as set forth in Part 5 of 

the Commission’s regulations (18 C.F.R. Pt.5). The ILP was developed to integrate the pre-filing 

consultation with the Commission’s scoping pursuant to the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) 

(42 USC 4321, et seq.). As required under the ILP (18 C.F.R., §5.6), this Pre-Application Document 

(PAD) will be filed concurrently with the NOI and will be distributed to federal and state resource 

agencies, local governments, Indian tribes, and members of the public interested in the application. 

The PAD provides engineering, operational, economical, and environmental information pertaining to the 

Conowingo Project that is reasonably available at the time the NOI is filed. As part of the ILP process, 

the PAD will evolve into Exhibit E (the environmental exhibit in the license application) and help 

interested parties scope issues and identify study needs for the Commission's NEPA document. The PAD 

also supplies information to help identify and evaluate potential impacts resulting from Conowingo 

Project operations. This evaluation will be documented in the license application to be prepared by 

Exelon and filed with the Commission. 

In compliance with the Commission’s regulations governing the content of the PAD, Exelon contacted 

appropriate state and federal resource agencies and interested public parties that may have information 

related to the Conowingo Project’s impact on the Susquehanna River. Exelon requested that all parties 

provide any relevant studies, data, and information on topics such as water quality, fisheries, recreation, 

wildlife, wetlands, aesthetics, and cultural resources. Appendix A contains a form letter sent to 

potentially interested stakeholders requesting that information on the Conowingo Project be provided for 

incorporation in the PAD. Appendix A also contains a list of contacts made by Exelon in connection with 

preparing this PAD. 

1-1



The information contained in this document was assembled based on the requirements set forth in 18 

C.F.R. §5.6 (c) and (d) and is organized as follows: 

• Section 2 – Process plan and schedule for all pre-application activities, 18 C.F.R. §5.6(d)(1). 

• Section 3 – General description of the Project location, facilities, and operations, 18 C.F.R. 

§5.6(d)(2). 

• Section 4 – Description of the existing environment and resource impacts, 18 C.F.R. §5.6(d)(3). 

• Section 5 – Preliminary list of resource issues and potential studies or information gathering 

needs associated with the issues, relevant qualifying Federal and state or tribal comprehensive 

waterway plans; and relevant resource management plans. 18 C.F.R. §5.6(d)(4). 

• Section 6 – Literature and information sources cited in the descriptions and summaries of existing 

resource data, 18 C.F.R. §5.6(c)(2). 

• Appendix A – Summary of contacts and correspondence letter made in preparing the PAD, 18 

C.F.R. §5.6(d)(5). 

• Appendix B– Pre-Application Document Content Cross Reference Table. 

• Appendix C– Agent for the Applicant. 

• Appendix D– Current License and Amendments. 

1-2



2.0 PROCESS PLAN AND SCHEDULE 

On March 12, 2009, Exelon filed this PAD and the NOI to seek a new license for the Conowingo Project 

utilizing the ILP. Pursuant to 18 C.F.R. Part 5, the filing of the NOI commences the relicensing process 

and sets the schedule for further licensing activities. Thirty days following the filing of the NOI and 

PAD, the Commission will hold an initial tribal consultation meeting with any federally recognized 

Indian tribe potentially affected by the license application pursuant to 18 C.F.R. §5.7 and the Tribal 

Policy Statement (18 C.F.R. Part 2). 

The Commission will issue a notice of commencement of the proceeding and scoping document within 60 

days of receipt of Exelon’s NOI and PAD. FERC will hold a public scoping meeting and site visit within 

30 days of issuing the notice of commencement. Information regarding the location of the scoping 

meeting is provided to all interested parties as set forth in 18 C.F.R. §5.8(e). The meeting will be held 

within the vicinity of Darlington, MD; further details of the scoping meeting and site visit will be 

published in FERC’s notice of commencement of proceeding and scoping document. 

Comments on the PAD and FERC staff’s scoping document must be filed with the Commission within 60 

days following the Commission’s notice of commencement of proceeding. Parties are responsible for 

including in their comments any information needs or study requests. The Commission has established 

criteria for information and study requests. Specifically, stakeholders requesting studies must: 

• Describe the goals and objectives of each study proposal and information sought; 

• Explain the relevant resource management goals of the agency or tribe with jurisdiction 

over the resource to be studies, if applicable; 

• Explain any relevant public interest considerations relating to the proposed study, if the 

requester is not a resource agency; 

• Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal, and the need 

for additional information; 

• Explain the nexus between Project operations and effects (direct, indirect, and/or 

cumulative) on the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the 

development of license requirements; 

• Explain how any proposed study methodology is consistent with generally accepted 

practice in the scientific community or considers relevant tribal values and knowledge, if 

appropriate; and 

2-1



• Describe considerations of level of effort and cost involved in the proposed study, and 

explain why any alternative studies proposed by Exelon would not be sufficient to meet 

the stated information needs. 

The Commission has noted in an ILP guidance document that participants should provide study requests 

that address each criteria thoroughly, are as detailed as possible, and clearly relate how the information to 

be gathered pertains directly to any mandatory conditioning authority. 

A detailed Process Plan and Schedule with a timetable for the balance of the licensing process is shown in 

Table 2.0-1. The process plan may reflect deadlines on the weekend (Saturday or Sunday). Weekend 

deadlines will default to the following Monday. The Process Plan and Schedule was developed in 

accordance with the regulations in 18 C.F.R. Part 5. The Process Plan and Schedule incorporates the time 

frames set forth in 18 C.F.R. Part 5, reflecting flexibility inherent in the ILP. Additional information 

regarding scheduling of events in the timetable will be provided in subsequent notification from the 

Commission and Exelon in accordance with 18 C.F.R. Part 5. 

2-2



TABLE 2.0-1 

PROCESS PLAN AND SCHEDULE 

Activity Responsibility Time Frame Citation Deadline 

File Notice of Intent (NOI) and 

Pre-Application Document (PAD) 

Hold Initial Tribal Consultation Meeting 

(if necessary) 

Notice NOI/PAD and Issue Scoping 

Document 1 (SD1) 

Applicant 

At least 5 (but no more than 5 1/2) years 

before existing license expires 

2-3 

18 C.F.R. § 

5.5(d) 

March 12, 2009 

April 11, 2009 

FERC Within 30 days of filing of NOI & PAD 18 C.F.R. § 5.7 

FERC Within 60 days of filing of NOI & PAD 

Hold Scoping Meeting/Site Visit FERC Within 30 days of issuance of SD1 

Comment on PAD and SD1; 

Submit Study Requests 

File Proposed Study Plan Applicant 

Hold Study Plan Meeting Applicant 

Stakeholders Within 60 days of issuance of SD1 

Within 45 days of deadline for filing 

comments on PAD and SD1 


proposed SP 

Comment on Proposed Study Plan Stakeholders Within 90 days of filing proposed SP 

File Revised Study Plan (if necessary) Applicant 


comments on proposed SP 

Comment on Revised Study Plan Stakeholders Within 15 days of filing of revised SP 

Issue Study Plan Determination FERC Within 30 days of filing of revised SP 

Initiate Formal Study Dispute Resolution 

Process 


Stakeholders 

Within 20 days of issuance of SP 

Determination 

Conduct Field Studies Applicant Pursuant to approved SP 

File Study Progress Report(s) Applicant Six months after studies begin 

File Initial Study Report Applicant 

Hold Study Results Meeting Applicant 

Pursuant to approved SP or no later than 

1 year after approval of SP 

Within 15 days of filing of initial study 

report 

File Study Results Meeting Summary Applicant Within 15 days of study results meeting 

File Meeting Summary Disagreements Stakeholders 

File Responses to Disagreements Applicant 

Resolve Disagreements FERC 

File Updated Study Report (if applicable) Applicant 

File Preliminary Licensing Proposal (PLP) 

or 

Draft License Application 

Comment on PLP, Additional Information 

Requests 


Applicant 

Stakeholders 

File License Application Applicant 

Within 30 days of filing of study results 

meeting summary 

Within 30 days of filing of meeting 

summary disagreements 

Within 30 days of filing of responses to 

disagreements 

Pursuant to approved SP or no later than 

2 years after approval of SP 

No later than 150 days before final 

application is filed 

Within 90 days of filing of PLP or draft 

license application 

No later than 24 months before existing 

license expires 

18 C.F.R. § May 11, 2009 

5.89(a) 

18 C.F.R. § June 10, 2009 

5.8(d) 

18 C.F.R. § July 10, 2009 

5.9(a) 

August 24, 2009 

18 C.F.R. § 5.9 

18 C.F.R. § 

5.11(e) 

18 C.F.R. § 

5.12 

18 C.F.R. § 

5.13(a) 

18 C.F.R. § 

5.13(b) 

18 C.F.R. § 

5.13(c) 

18 C.F.R. § 

5.14(a) 

18 C.F.R. § 

5.15 

18 C.F.R. § 

5.15(b) 

18 C.F.R. § 

5.15(c)(1) 

18 C.F.R. § 

5.15(c)(2) 

18 C.F.R. § 

5.15(c)(3) 

18 C.F.R. § 

5.15(c)(4) 

18 C.F.R. § 

5.15(c)(5) 

18 C.F.R. § 

5.15(c)(6) 

18 C.F.R. § 

5.15(f) 

18 C.F.R. § 

5.16(a) 

18 C.F.R. § 

5.16(e) 

18 C.F.R. § 

5.17(a) 

September 23, 2009 

November 22, 2009 

December 22, 2009 

January 6, 2010 


February 10, 2010 

2010-2011 




March 22, 2011 

April 21, 2011 

May 21, 2011 

November 1, 2011 

December 1, 2011 


August 31, 2012



3.0 PROJECT LOCATION, FACILITIES, AND OPERATION 

3.1 Project Location 

The Conowingo Project (Figure 3.1-1) is located on the Susquehanna River (at river mile 10) in 

Pennsylvania and Maryland, and has a total drainage area of 27,510 square miles. 

Conowingo Dam is located in Maryland connecting Cecil and Harford counties, as is the lowermost six 

miles of the Project reservoir, Conowingo Pond. The remaining eight miles of Conowingo Pond are 

located in Pennsylvania, within York and Lancaster counties (see Figure 3.1-2). 

Cecil and Harford counties have 99,695 and 239,993 residents, respectively, and population densities of 

239 and 545 people per square mile, respectively. York and Lancaster counties have 421,049 and 

498,465 residents, respectively, and population densities of 465 and 525 people per square mile, 

respectively. The nearest metropolitan area within the Susquehanna River watershed is Lancaster, 

Pennsylvania, approximately 32 miles to the northeast, with a population of about 54,672 people. 

Baltimore, Maryland with a population of approximately 637,455 lies 45 miles to southwest of the 

Conowingo Project (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). 

The Conowingo Project is the most downstream of the five hydroelectric projects located on the Lower 

Susquehanna River. The upstream projects (York Haven, Safe Harbor, Holtwood, and Muddy Run) are 

located at river miles 56, 32, 24, and 22, respectively. Tidewater reaches up the Susquehanna River 

within four miles downstream of the Conowingo Dam, and the river is navigable by large vessels to Port 

Deposit, Maryland, located four miles downstream of the dam. 

3.2 Project Facilities 

Conowingo Pond 

The reservoir, known as Conowingo Pond and formed by Conowingo Dam, extends approximately 14 

miles upstream from Conowingo Dam to the lower end of the Holtwood Project tailrace. The Conowingo 

Pond is generally maintained at an elevation of 109.2 feet (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

[NGVD 1929]), with a surface area of 9,000 acres and a design storage capacity of 310,000 acre-feet, of 

which 71,000 acre-feet are usable storage. 

The Conowingo Pond serves many diverse uses including hydropower generation, water supply, 

industrial cooling water, recreational activities and various environmental resources. Relative to 

hydropower generation, the Conowingo Pond serves as the lower reservoir for the 800-MW Muddy Run 

3-1



Pumped Storage Project (Muddy Run Project), located 12 miles upstream of the Conowingo Dam. It also 

serves as the source of cooling water for the 2,186 MW Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), 

located approximately seven miles upstream of the Conowingo Dam. The Muddy Run Project has a 

maximum pumping capacity of 28,000 cfs, while PBAPS has a maximum withdrawal capacity of 2,230 

MGD (3,450 cfs). 

Conowingo Pond is used as a public water supply source, with the City of Baltimore and Chester Water 

Authority (CWA) having permitted withdrawals of 250 MGD (387 cfs) and 30 MGD (46 cfs), 

respectively. 

Conowingo Dam 

The Conowingo Dam is a concrete gravity dam with a maximum height of approximately 94 feet and a 

total length of 4,648 feet. The dam consists of four distinct sections from east to west: a 1,190-foot long 

non-overflow gravity section with an elevation of 115.7 feet; an ogee shaped spillway, the major portion 

of which is 2,250 feet long with a crest elevation of 86.7 feet, and the minor portion of which is 135 feet 

long with a crest elevation of 98.7 feet; an intake-powerhouse section which is 950 feet long; and a 100foot-long 

abutment section. 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. 

Highway Route No. 1. 

During original construction, the entire dam was erected upon a solid rock formation of granite and 

diorite. In 1978, to increase the capacity and upgrade the structure to meet stability requirements, the dam 

was anchored into the bedrock foundation rock by a post-tensioned anchorage system consisting of 

stranded wire tendons installed in holes drilled 105 feet through the structure and continuing another 60 

feet into the foundation rock. A total of 537 tendons were installed across the non-overflow, spillway and 

powerhouse intake monoliths. 

Spillway 

Flow over the ogee spillway sections is controlled by 50 stony-type crest gates with crest elevations of 

86.7 feet and two regulating gates with crest elevations of 98.7 feet. Each of the crest gates are 22.5 feet 

high by 38 feet wide and have 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. A spillway rating curve is shown in Figure 3.2-1. Tailwater, 

3-2



which varies with discharge, is at an approximate elevation of 20.5 feet with all units operating with no 

spillway discharge (i.e. 86,000 cfs). A tailwater rating curve is shown in Figure 3.2-2. 

One 90-ton and two 60-ton gantry cranes are used to perform gate operations. All three gantry cranes can 

be powered from the 440-volt bus on the headworks. The two 60-ton gantry cranes each contain diesels 

for emergency backup power. The cranes are mounted on tracks that traverse the powerhouse intake 

structure and spillway sections of the dam. 

Intakes and Powerhouse 

The first seven turbine/generating units (1-7) are completely enclosed within the powerhouse, while the 

last four units (8-11) are an outdoor type of construction thereby eliminating a superstructure in this area. 

For Units 1-7, a 27-foot-diameter butterfly valve is installed at the entrance to the scroll case. These 

valves are operated by oil pressure cylinders which are operated from a central oil pressure system, but 

are rarely used. Unwatering is performed by placement of headgates and stoplogs. 

The main power station superstructure enclosing Units 1-7 includes the generator room and the electrical 

bay. The electrical bay is located between the generator room and the powerhouse headworks and 

consists of the 13.8-kilovolt (kV) bus and switching equipment. Compartments for step-up transformers 

are located on the roof of the electrical bay, together with the station service control room and the main 

control room, from which windows afford a direct view of the generator room. 

Units 8-11 are of an outdoor type of construction. Generator circuit breakers and electrical equipment are 

located in a two-story structure between the generator area and the headworks. The main step-up 

transformers are located on the roof of this structure. 

The intakes for each unit are individually protected by seven trash racks; five are entirely steel (clear 

spacing of 5.375 inches) and two are steel framed with wood racks (clear spacing of 4.75 inches). The 

top two racks are constructed of wood due to frazzle ice accumulations on the steel sections. The racks 

were previously cleaned by a stationary crane. However, a multi-purpose gantry crane was installed in 

2007 and is now used as a trash rake. 

The current hydraulic equipment (Table 3.2-1) for Units 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 consist of Francis-type single 

runner hydraulic turbines, operating at 81.8 revolutions per minute (RPM) and designed to develop 

64,500 horsepower (hp) each at a point of best efficiency, under a normal head of 89 feet. Units 2 and 5 

consist of 54,000 hp Francis-type turbines with single runners, operating at 81.8 rpm at a point of best 

efficiency under a normal head of 89 feet. 

3-3



The electric generating equipment (Table 3.2-2) for Units 1 and 3 are Asea Brown Boveri, Inc. (ABB) 

50,000 kilovolt-amperes (kVA) and 53,000 kVA, respectively, at 0.9 power factor, 60 hertz (Hz), 13,800 

volt, three-phase vertical shaft water wheel type generators. Units 2, 4, 6 and 7 are Voith Siemens 53,000 

kVA at 0.9 power factor, 60 Hz, 13,800 volt, three-phase vertical shaft water wheel type generator. Unit 

5 is an ABB 40,000 kVA at 0.9 power factor, 60 Hz, 13,800 volt, three-phase vertical shaft water wheel 

type generator. Each generator is equipped with a static excitation system supplied with power from the 

main generator terminal. Switching and control equipment is provided to connect each pair of generators 

through individual 13.8 kV circuit breakers to a 13.8/220 kV transformer. 

The hydraulic equipment (Table 3.2-1) for Units 8-11 consists of a Voith-Siemens mixed flow turbines. 

Each of these turbines operates at 120 rpm and is designed to develop not less than 85,000 hp each under 

a normal head of 86 feet. 

The electric generating equipment (Table 3.2-2) for Unit 8 is a Voith Siemens 75,000 kVA at 0.9 power 

factor, 60 Hz, 13,800 volt, three-phase vertical shaft water wheel type generator. Units 9, 10, and 11 were 

orginally supplied by Westinghouse Electric Corporation. These units were rewound by National Electric 

Coil Company with ratings of 61,800 kVA at 0.9 power factor, 60 Hz, 13,800 volt, three-phase vertical 

shaft water wheel type generators. Each generator is equipped with a static excitation system supplied 

with power from the main generator terminal. Switching and control equipment is provided to connect 

each pair of the four generators through individual 13.8 kV circuit breakers to a 13.8/220 kV transformer. 

Additionally, two house turbines manufactured by S. Morgan-Smith, Inc. have been installed with a full 

gate capacity of 1,900 hp each when operating under a normal net head of 89 feet. The generators for 

these units are of Westinghouse manufacture and are rated at 1,600 kVA at 0.9 power factor each. These 

units provide station service and “black-start” capability. 

Fish Passage Facilities 

The Project currently operates two fish lifts. The west lift, adjacent to the right abutment, is currently 

operated under an agreement with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for American 

shad egg production and other research purposes. The newer east lift, which uses regulating gate bays for 

attraction flow, is used primarily to pass American shad and other migratory fishes during the April – 

June migration season. 

3-4



3.3 Project Location and Lands 

Lands within the presently approved boundary for the Project comprise approximately 3,700 acres, and 

generally extend along Conowingo Pond and the Susquehanna River from Holtwood Dam to Havre de 

Grace, Maryland 1 (see Figure 3.1-2). 

3.4 Current Project Operation 

The Conowingo Project is characterized as a modified run-of-river hydroelectric facility in that limited 

active storage is available owing to reservoir size and the relatively small allowable variation in 

headwater level. Safe Harbor Corporation’s operation of Safe Harbor Dam (FERC No. 1025), a peaking 

facility located 24 miles upstream, primarily determines the operation of the Conowingo Project in terms 

of energy generation timing. Maximum hydraulic capacity of Safe Harbor Dam (110,000 cfs) is more 

than that of the Conowingo powerhouse (86,000 cfs). There is approximately a two-hour lag time for the 

arrival of water released at Safe Harbor to reach Conowingo. 

The Conowingo Project license allows for the Conowingo Pond to normally fluctuate between elevation 

(El.) 100.5 feet and 109.5 feet (Conowingo Datum). The datum used in this document is NGVD 1929. 

The NGVD 1929 datum elevation is 0.7 feet higher than the Conowingo Datum. Therefore, the licensed 

permitted range of water level fluctuation in Conowingo Pond is El. 101.2 to 110.2 NGVD 1929. 

The following factors also influence the management of water levels within the Conowingo Pond: 

• The Conowingo Pond must be maintained at an elevation of 107.2 feet on weekends 

between Memorial Day and Labor Day to meet recreational needs; 

• The Muddy Run Project cannot operate its pumps below elevation 104.7 feet due to 

cavitation; 

• PBAPS begins experiencing cooling problems when the elevation of the pool drops to 

104.2 feet; 

• The CWA cannot withdraw water below elevation 100.5 feet; 

1 Exelon intends to file with the Commission an application for license amendment to modify the existing 

Conowingo Project Boundary near the upper end of Conowingo Pond. 

3-5



• The Nuclear Regulatory Commission license for PBAPS requires the plant to shut down 

completely at 99.2 feet; and 

• The City of Baltimore cannot withdraw water below elevation 91.5 feet. 

The current flow regime below Conowingo Dam was formally established with the signing of a 

settlement agreement in 1989 between the project owners and several federal and state resource agencies 

(FERC 1989). The flow regime was determined through negotiation and based on several studies, 

including a habitat based instream flow study conducted by SRBC. In addition, studies were 

subsequently completed by MDNR that examined benthic macroinvertebrate populations. These study 

results were used to establish the flow regime below Conowingo Dam as follows: 

March 1 – March 31 3,500 cfs or natural river flow 2 , 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 

December 1 – February 28 3,500 cfs intermittent (maximum six hours off followed by 

equal amount on) 

The downstream discharge must equal these values or the discharge measured at the Susquehanna River 

at the Marietta United States Geological Survey (USGS) gage (No. 01576000), whichever is less. The 

Marietta USGS gage is located approximately 35 miles upstream of Conowingo Dam above the Safe 

Harbor Dam. 

During periods of regional drought and low river flow, Exelon has requested and received FERC approval 

for a temporary variance in the required minimum flow release from the Conowingo Project. 

Specifically, in the summers of 1999, 2001, 2002, 2005, and 2007 Exelon has sought approval to count 

the leakage from the Conowingo Project (approximately 800 cfs) as part of the minimum flow discharge. 

This temporary variance is typically approved by resource agencies (i.e., SRBC, MDNR, PFBC, and 

USFWS) as well. 

3-6



When implemented, the temporary variance allows Exelon to maintain an adequate pond level elevation 

and storage capacity throughout a low flow period. Maintaining water storage volume is critical under 

low flow conditions, 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. In 2002, the 

SRBC formed the Conowingo Pond Workgroup to develop a management plan for Conowingo Pond. The 

Workgroup was composed of representatives from federal and state agencies, operators of the 

hydroelectric facilities and PBAPS, local water utilities, local utilities, and the SRBC. The Workgroup 

completed recommendations for their plan in March 2006, and over the intervening period used a 

hydrologic model to evaluate a total of 32 operational alternatives for Conowingo Pond. 

The Workgroup identified the leakage and the minimum flow requirement at the Project as the most 

critical parameters in managing low flows and enabling the Conowingo Pond to remain viable during 

droughts. Therefore, the selected Conowingo Pond Management Plan was based on establishing a formal 

protocol to implement a credit for leakage, and to specify the hydrologic conditions under which the 

credit is warranted. 

Specifically, the plan includes initiation of an automatic credit for leakage of up to 800 cfs when the flow 

conditions at the Marietta USGS gage decline to a flow of 1,000 cfs greater than the current seasonal 

minimum flow requirements. However, the Workgroup conditioned this recommendation with 

restrictions that prohibit Exelon from automatically taking a credit for leakage during the spring spawning 

season (April 1 – June 30). 

3.5 Reservoir Storage 

The reservoir, known as Conowingo Pond and formed by Conowingo Dam, extends approximately 14 

miles upstream from Conowingo Dam to the lower end of the Holtwood Project tailrace. The Conowingo 

Pond is generally maintained at an elevation of 109.2 feet (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

[NGVD 1929], with a surface area of 9,000 acres and a design storage capacity of 310,000 acre-feet, of 

which 71,000 acre-feet are usable storage. 

2 As measured at the Susquehanna River at Marietta USGS gage (No. 0157600). 

3-7



3.6 Other Project Information 

3.6.1 Current License Requirements 

The following is a summary of the license requirements that govern operation of the Conowingo Project. 

A complete set of license articles, amendments to the license, and orders establishing license requirements 

is provided in Appendix D. 

Conowingo Reservoir 

Exelon must make Conowingo Pond available to the Muddy Run Project as a lower pool for pumpedstorage 

operations and to the PBAPS as a source of cooling water (Article 31). In making Conowingo 

Pond available for these purposes, Exelon is required to maintain a minimum elevation of 101.2 feet 

(100.5 feet Conowingo datum) and a normal maximum elevation of 110.2 feet (109.5 feet Conowingo 

Datum) (Article 32). Exelon also must provide 35,500 acre-feet of pondage weekly to the Muddy Run 

Project from Conowingo Pond (Article 32). 

Recreation 

Exelon is under a general obligation to provide reasonable recreational facilities at the Conowingo Project 

(Article 17). This obligation requires Exelon to provide access to Project lands and waters for navigation 

and outdoor recreation, including fishing and hunting (Article 18). Pursuant to a recreation plan accepted 

by the Commission in June 16, 1994, the licensees operate various recreation facilities at the Project, 

which are set forth in Exhibit R. Exelon must update the Commission when it changes recreational access 

at the Conowingo Project (Article 43). Under the Commission’s regulations, Exelon must provide a 

report of recreational resources at the Project to the Commission every six years. 

Fish and Wildlife Resources 

Exelon was obligated to develop, in consultation with federal and state fishery agencies, a plan to improve 

water quality and minimum flow releases to protect fish and wildlife resources (Article 34). Pursuant to 

this requirement, Exelon continuously monitors dissolved oxygen from May 1 through October 1. Exelon 

was also required to construct reasonable facilities for the protection of fish as required by the 

Commission (Article 15). Pursuant to a settlement agreement on water quality and fish passage approved 

by the Commission on January 24, 1989, Exelon operates the East and West Fish lifts at the Conowingo 

Project (FERC). 

3-8



Project Safety 

To ensure public safety, Exelon has implemented an emergency action plan to warn upstream and 

downstream users of an unexpected release of water caused by an accident or failure of the Project 

(Article 35). Exelon has also installed and maintained warning devices to notify the public of fluctuations 

in the flow from the Project (Article 39). To protect the public from hazards created by transmission lines 

on Project property, Exelon has implemented measures to prevent contact between Project lines and 

telephone or other power transmission lines (Article 14). It has also taken precautionary measures to 

prevent wires from falling and endangering human life (Article 14). Pursuant to these articles and the 

Commission’s regulations at 18 C.F.R. Part 12, Exelon has Commission-approved emergency action and 

public safety plans. 

Navigation 

The United States retains the right to use water for navigation purposes (Article 12), and Exelon must 

convey to the United States lands and rights-of-way for the construction of navigation facilities (Article 

22). Any navigation facilities constructed on the Project will be controlled in the interest of navigation 

(Article 23), and Exelon must provide power to operate such navigation facilities (Article 24). For 

navigation safety, Exelon must install lights and signals on the waterway at its own expense (Article 25). 

Use and Occupancy 

Under specified conditions, Exelon may grant the right to use or occupy Project lands without 

Commission authorization, so long as it protects or enhances the scenic, recreational, and other 

environmental values of the Project. Exelon also may grant easements, rights-of-way across, or lease 

Project lands for a variety of purposes. Before conveying an interest, Exelon must consult with federal 

and state agencies and the State Historic Preservation officer (Article 38). Exelon must supervise and 

control those individuals with use and occupancy rights to ensure their compliance with the license, and 

take any lawful action necessary against individuals who violate any condition of the use or occupancy, 

including cancellation of the use and occupancy and requiring the removal of any non-complying 

structures and facilities. 

Annual Charges 

Exelon must pay reasonable annual charges to the Commission to recover the United States’ costs of 

administering Part I of the Federal Power Act (Article 30). 

3-9



Streamflow and Water Quality 

Exelon must install and maintain gages to track the flow of water and the amount held and withdrawn 

from storage at the Project (Article 8). For water quality, Exelon was required to develop, in consultation 

with federal and state fishery agencies, a plan to improve water quality and minimum flow releases to 

protect fish and wildlife resources (Article 34). As a result of this consultation, the Conowingo Project 

operates subject to certain minimum flow requirements, established in a settlement agreement approved 

by the Commission on January 14, 1989 (FERC 1989). Exelon maintains the following minimum flow 

requirements pursuant to this settlement: 3,500 cfs or inflow from March 1 to March 31; 10,000 cfs or 

inflow from April 1 to April 30; 7,500 cfs or inflow from May 1 to May 31; 5,000 cfs or inflow from June 

1 to September 14; 3,500 cfs or inflow from September 15 to November 30; and 3,500 cfs or inflow from 

December 1 to February 28, consisting of six hours off followed by six hours on. 

The license also requires Exelon to operate the Project in coordination with adjacent Projects (Article 10). 

If Exelon benefits from a headwater improvement by another licensee on the river or the United States, 

Exelon must reimburse the owner of the headwater improvement, as directed by the Commission (Article 

11). 

Changes to the Project 

The license prohibits Exelon from making substantial changes to the Project without prior approval by the 

Commission (Article 2). Once the Commission approves a revised exhibit, the Project must conform to 

the approved exhibit (Article 3). Minor changes may be made to the Project without prior approval by the 

Commission (Article 3). Prior to commencing construction or development of Project works or other 

facilities, Exelon must consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer to evaluate the need for 

archeological or historic resource surveys to preserve historic sites (Article 37). The operation and 

maintenance of the Project is at all times subject to the supervision and inspection of the Commission’s 

Regional Engineer (Article 4). If Exelon makes any changes to lands within the Project boundary, it must 

file revised exhibits with the Commission reflecting the changes (Article 40). 

3.6.2 Compliance History 

The Conowingo Project has been, and continues to be, in compliance with the terms and conditions of the 

current license. Over the term of the license, the Project has been subject to FERC's standard operational 

and environmental inspections. Any compliance related issues noted during the inspections have been 

promptly addressed by Exelon. 

3-10



3.6.3 Current Net Investment 

As per 18 C.F.R. § 5.6(d)(2), Exelon’s estimated net investment (book value) at the Conowingo Project is 

$237,944,040. 

3.6.4 Proposed Operation 

At this time, there are no proposed changes in operation compared to the present mode of operation as 

described in Section 3.4, Current Operation. 

3.6.5 Summary of Project Generation 

The maximum generating capacity of the Conowingo Project is 573 MW. The average annual power 

generation from 1996 to 2008 was 1,836,125 megawatt-hours (MWH). Average monthly energy 

production for this period varied from 64,125 MWH in August to 260,532 MWH in April. Tables 3.6.5-1 

and 3.6.5-2 summarize net Project generation and outflow records for the period 1996 to 2008. Project 

outflow (which includes both turbine outflow and spillage) was measured at the USGS gage on the 

Susquehanna River at Conowingo, Maryland (No. 01578310), located on the downstream side of 

Conowingo Dam. The gage period of record is October 1967 to present. Monthly flow statistics and 

flow duration curves for this USGS gage, as well as the USGS gage on the Susquehanna River at 

Marietta, Pennsylvania (No. 01576000), are presented in Section 4.3.1. 

3-11



TABLE 3.2-1 

SUMMARY OF TURBINE CHARACTERISTICS AT THE CONOWINGO PROJECT 

Unit Type Manufacturer 

3-12 

Rated 

Head (feet) 

Runner 

Speed (rpm) 

Rated 

Output (hp) 

1 Francis Voith-Seimens 89 81.8 64,500 







8 Mixed Flow Kaplan Voith-Seimens 86 120 85,000 




House Francis S. Morgan-Smith 89 1,900 

House Francis S. Morgan-Smith 89 1,900 

(Source: Data from Exelon 2009)



TABLE 3.2-2 

SUMMARY OF ELECTRIC GENERATOR CHARACTERISTICS AT THE CONOWINGO PROJECT 

Unit Manufacturer Capacity 

(kVA) 

3-13 

Power 

Factor 

Frequency 

(Hz) 

Voltage Phases 

1 Asea Brown Boveri, Inc. 50,000 0.9 60 13,800 3 

2 Voith-Siemens 53,000 0.9 60 13,800 3 

3 Asea Brown Boveri, Inc. 53,000 0.9 60 13,800 3 

4 Voith-Siemens 53,000 0.9 60 13,800 3 

5 ABB 40,000 0.9 60 13,800 3 

6 Voith-Siemens 53,000 0.9 60 13,800 3 

7 Voith-Siemens 53,000 0.9 60 13,800 3 

8 Voith-Siemens 75,000 0.9 60 13,800 3 

9 Westinghouse Electric 61,800 0.9 60 13,800 3 



House Westinghouse Electric 1,600 0.9 60 13,800 3 

House Westinghouse Electric 1,600 0.9 60 13,800 3 

(Source: Data from Exelon 2009)



TABLE 3.6.5-1 

SUMMARY OF NET CONOWINGO PROJECT GENERATION (MWH) FOR 1996-2008 

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 

1996 151,326 213,083 286,439 276,379 271,704 130,862 129,311 76,897 172,406 182,791 218,840 293,074 2,403,112 

1997 159,696 191,499 311,568 189,021 145,916 112,842 40,281 33,806 35,369 30,185 162,712 144,453 1,557,348 

1998 255,415 230,684 303,511 309,578 253,762 123,398 106,071 33,078 18,615 34,368 18,461 27,483 1,714,424 

1999 145,016 181,916 253,409 265,420 89,790 32,223 18,602 19,167 91,668 89,773 68,584 157,185 1,412,753 

2000 113,236 148,678 310,981 310,183 228,057 189,101 72,574 65,397 44,949 53,974 49,495 127,166 1,713,791 

2001 71,909 150,631 216,348 289,489 76,161 94,250 43,249 19,149 32,273 33,774 25,949 109,828 1,163,010 

2002 67,109 162,970 158,844 198,041 285,302 184,817 44,710 18,542 18,988 116,854 174,760 207,812 1,638,749 

2003 179,166 119,514 296,640 277,388 197,671 276,408 122,471 182,015 201,743 193,222 250,705 302,838 2,599,781 

2004 201,261 122,076 294,234 296,600 266,556 132,778 129,884 201,881 196,474 146,450 147,408 286,909 2,422,511 

2005 260,473 202,055 210,016 238,836 96,181 57,565 59,865 23,696 28,177 135,231 167,276 204,930 1,684,301 

2006 327,129 217,652 135,949 147,974 127,193 154,695 177,811 71,501 149,499 155,866 261,472 159,450 2,086,191 

2007 264,151 74,018 298,309 281,658 148,579 54,737 32,665 48,649 25,487 45,636 120,692 235,109 1,629,690 

2008 220,717 285,138 310,672 245,901 220,173 68,864 56,708 39,849 38,907 39,952 67,255 249,826 1,843,962 

Average 185,893 176,916 260,532 255,882 185,157 124,042 79,554 64,125 81,120 96,775 133,355 192,774 1,836,125 

(Source: Data from Exelon 2009) 

3-14



TABLE 3.6.5-2 

SUMMARY OF NET CONOWINGO PROJECT AVERAGE MONTHLY AND ANNUAL OUTFLOWS (CFS) FOR 1996-2008 

AS MEASURED AT THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AT CONOWINGO, MARYLAND (NO. 01578310) 

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 

1996 126,335 69,379 71,261 72,123 79,348 28,243 26,342 16,355 39,083 52,503 69,697 113,729 63,622 

1997 33,632 48,311 73,826 42,067 31,187 24,289 9,076 7,862 8,372 7,297 40,193 32,024 29,705 

1998 92,574 79,589 98,319 77,513 68,713 25,563 21,386 8,167 5,608 8,347 5,465 6,733 41,327 

1999 46,293 41,671 51,900 56,393 19,984 7,691 5,338 5,304 20,836 19,290 15,647 32,839 26,831 

2000 23,899 39,728 81,845 82,043 49,852 40,733 15,932 14,493 11,108 12,588 11,811 28,781 34,350 

2001 15,804 35,271 47,248 77,467 18,813 23,018 10,927 5,694 7,977 8,411 7,353 26,562 23,560 

2002 15,894 44,571 40,723 47,160 81,132 47,033 11,137 4,803 5,173 25,286 36,270 42,598 33,386 

2003 45,462 27,594 104,426 76,380 45,900 84,223 27,690 42,577 54,317 48,145 75,060 94,726 60,681 

2004 56,174 28,986 89,977 84,567 67,561 33,257 37,123 52,826 129,767 45,994 50,920 108,100 65,536 

2005 107,313 55,007 67,910 113,520 22,473 13,143 13,427 5,912 6,766 35,928 43,743 65,216 45,805 

2006 91,180 61,790 31,420 35,170 29,100 61,660 53,250 16,100 36,190 37,350 76,440 37,360 47,251 

2007 66,420 18,220 102,400 75,510 34,020 11,960 7,219 10,200 5,735 10,011 26,869 56,442 35,417 

2008 50,580 81,570 118,400 54,620 48,210 15,050 11,900 8,655 8,511 8,928 15,433 70,948 41,067 

Average 

59,351 48,591 75,358 68,810 45,869 31,989 19,288 15,304 26,111 24,621 36,531 55,081 42,195 

(Source: USGS 2008) 

3-15



FIGURE 3.1-1 

CONOWINGO HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 

3-16



Total Discharge-All Gate (cfs) 

1,400,000 

1,200,000 

1,000,000 

800,000 

600,000 

400,000 

200,000 

FIGURE 3.2-1 

CONOWINGO DAM SPILLWAY RATING CURVE 

All Gates Combined 

Single Crest Gate 

Single Regulating Gate 

0 

0 

106 108 110 112 

Reservoir Level (ft) 

114 116 118 120 

(Source: Susquehanna Electric Company, 2002) 

3-18 

30,000 

25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

Discharge-Single Gate (cfs)



Tailwater Elevation (ft) 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

FIGURE 3.2-2 

CONOWINGO DAM TAILWATER RATING CURVE 

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 

Discharge (cfs) 

(Source: Susquehanna Electric Company, 2002) 

3-19



4.0 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE IMPACTS (18 

C.F.R. §5.6 (D)(3) 

4.1 General Description of the River Basin (18 C.F.R. §5.6 (d)(3)(xiii) 

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) (Figure 4.1-1). The drainage 

area of the Susquehanna River encompasses portions of New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland and 

covers 27,510 square miles. The Susquehanna River Basin can be divided into six major subbasins: the 

Upper Susquehanna, Chemung, West Branch Susquehanna, Middle Susquehanna, Juniata, and Lower 

Susquehanna. The Conowingo Project is located on the main stem of the Susquehanna River, within the 

Lower Susquehanna subbasin, at River Mile (RM) 10 in Maryland. The main stem flows 130 miles 

through the Lower Susquehanna subbasin and the impoundment formed upstream of the Conowingo 

Project extends approximately 14 miles. Table 4.1-1 illustrates the drainage area and population within 

each subbasin. 

4.1.1 Major Land Uses 

The Lower Susquehanna subbasin drains 5,809 square miles from Sunbury, Pennsylvania to Havre de 

Grace, Maryland (SRBC 2008b). Two-hundred eighty square miles are in Maryland. It is the most 

developed of the six subbasins. Some of the most productive agricultural lands and largest population 

centers of the Susquehanna River Basin are located in the Lower Susquehanna subbasin as well. Major 

population centers include Harrisburg (47,196), Lancaster (54,672), and York (40,226), Pennsylvania 

(2007 population estimates) (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). 

The National Land Cover Dataset (2001) of the Lower Susquehanna subbasin consists of forested areas 

(40 percent), pasture/hay (28 percent), cultivated crops (16.6 percent), developed (11.9 percent), open 

water and wetlands (2.9 percent), and barren land (0.6 percent). Section 4.8 provides a detailed analysis of 

land use within the Conowingo Project. 

4.1.2 Major Water Uses 

Power generation accounts for the largest quantity of water withdrawn for use in the Lower Susquehanna 

River (89 percent) (SRBC 2008b) (Figure 4.1.2-1). Additonal water withdrawals are applied to other uses: 

industrial (4.8 percent), municipal (4.2 percent), agricultural (1.2 percent), and domestic (0.8 percent). 

Data provided by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) (Krista Nelson, SRBC, personal 

communication, 2006) indicate that surface water uses withdraw 454.03 million gallons per day (MGD) 

4-1



(702 cubic feet per second [cfs]) and groundwater users withdraw 78.16 MGD (121 cfs). Consumptive 

water use in the subbasin is 356.59 MGD (552 cfs). 

The power producers use surface water while non-power users also rely on groundwater (Risser and 

Siwiec 1996; Lindsey, et al. 1998). 

The Conowingo Project, located in Maryland, creates the Conowingo Pond, a 14-mile-long 9,000-acre 

pond, extending into Pennsylvania, with 35 miles of shoreline, a width varying from 0.5 to 1.3 miles, and 

a maximum depth of about 98 feet (SRBC 2006c). The Conowingo Pond is currently a source of water for 

the: 

• Conowingo Project, located in Cecil and Harford Counties, Maryland; 

• Muddy Run Project, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania; 

• PBAPS, York County, Pennsylvania; 

• City of Baltimore, Maryland, municipal water supply; 

• Harford County, Maryland, public water supply (provided by Baltimore’s system); 

• CWA water supply utility, serving areas of southeast Pennsylvania and northern 

Delaware; 

• Recreational uses, including boating and fishing; and 

• Sustained stream flows downstream of the dam. 

A proposed thermoelectric power station (Delta Power Plant Project), located in Peach Bottom Township, 

York County, Pennsylvania, will withdraw water from the Conowingo Pond but is not expected to exceed 

a maximum daily consumptive water loss of 8.7 MGD (13 cfs) (SRBC 2006c). 

4.1.3 Basin Dams and other Energy Producers 

Five dams cross the main stem of the Susquehanna River in the lower subbasin. These consist of four 

hydroelectric dams (Conowingo, Holtwood, Safe Harbor, and York Haven) and the Adam T. Bower 

Memorial Dam (the Sunbury fabridam). On Muddy Run, a tributary to the Lower Susquehanna River, 

there are four dams associated with the Muddy Run Project: the Main Dam, East Dike, Intake Channel 

Dam, and Recreation Dam. Nearly 300 smaller dams are also distributed throughout the subbasin 

(Howard Weinberger, Chesapeake Bay Program, personal communication, 2006) (Figure 4.1.3-1). Many 

of these dams may be removed in the future, as part of efforts unrelated to this relicensing proceeding. 

4-2



Ten dams related to hydropower production are located within the lower subbasin (Table 4.1.3-1). Three 

of these dams (Conowingo Dam, Holtwood Dam, and Safe Harbor Dam) form a reservoir system 

(Conowingo Pond, Lake Aldred, and Lake Clarke, respectively). Upstream of these reservoirs is the York 

Haven dam. The Muddy Run Project Main Dam crosses the Muddy Run ravine a few miles below 

Holtwood. The Muddy Run Project pumps water from a lower reservoir (Conowingo Pond) to an upper 

reservoir (Muddy Run Reservoir) formed by the Main Dam. 

4.1.4 Tributary Streams 

There are 21 major tributaries to the Susquehanna River (each with a drainage area of greater than 100 

square miles) in the lower subbasin (Risser and Siwiec 1996). These tributaries are listed in Table 4.1.4-1 

and depicted in Figure 4.1.4-1. 

Muddy Creek is a major tributary to the Conowingo Pond. Smaller named tributaries to the Conowingo 

Pond include Conowingo Creek, Broad Creek, Hanes Branch, Michaels Run, Peters Creek, Barnes Run, 

Fishing Creek, Wissler Run, and Muddy Run. Numerous unnamed tributaries also discharge to 

Conowingo Pond. The major tributaries of the Conowingo Project below the Conowingo Dam are 

Octoraro Creek and Deer Creek. 

4.2 Geology and Soils (18 C.F.R. §5.6(d)(3)(ii) 

4.2.1 Topography 

The Conowingo Project is located in the Piedmont Upland Section of the Piedmont Physiographic 

Province of Pennsylvania and Maryland. The region is characterized by a rolling upland with broad hills 

and some steep-sided valleys (Risser and Siwiec 1996). The Susquehanna River valley narrows and 

deepens abruptly to a steep-walled gorge (the Holtwood Gorge) nearly 600 feet deep flanked by gentlyrolling 

upland with under 100 feet of local relief as the river enters the Upland Section (Pazzaglia and 

Gardner 1993). Upland elevations of the Project area boundary decrease downstream, from generally 200 

to 300 feet to less than 100 feet NGVD 1929. 

The distinctive topography and landforms characterizing the Project area developed from the weathering 

and erosion of the underlying geologic units described in the next section. 

4-3



4.2.2 Geology 

The Piedmont Upland Section contains crystalline bedrock (low-grade metamorphic rocks and 

metamorphosed igneous rocks) with a mantle of unconsolidated in situ or transported surficial material. 

The underlying geologic structure is the result of multiple episodes of metamorphism and deformation. 

The Pennsylvania Geological Survey (PGS), Maryland Geological Survey (MGS), and USGS each use 

different rock unit terms to represent different levels of detail of geologic mapping in different regions. 

The bedrock geology described in this report is based on a digital map compiled by the Susquehanna 

River Basin Commission (SRBC 2006d) by merging the digitally updated 1980 Geologic Map of 

Pennsylvania (PGS 2001) and a USGS modification of the 1968 Geologic Map of Maryland. 

Outcropping bedrock islands in the Susquehanna River from below Holtwood Dam to Mt. Johnson 

Island, collectively called the Conowingo Islands, are recognized as an outstanding geologic feature of 

Pennsylvania (Geyer and Bolles 1979). Most of the islands are concentrated between Holtwood Dam and 

Muddy Creek. This area of the Susquehanna River is also known as the Holtwood Gorge. The potholes 

and cliffs of the gorge area are regarded by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources (PADCNR) as heritage geology sites called Erosional Remnants. The gorge contains three 

distinct bedrock terraces representing episodes of rapid downcutting that took place about 13,000 to 

35,000 years ago (Reusser et al. 2004). 

4.2.2.1 Bedrock Geology 

The bedrock geology of the Project area is illustrated in Figure 4.2.2.1-1 and described in Tables 4.2.2.1-1 

and 4.2.2.1-2. 

In Pennsylvania, the Project area is mostly underlain with the Octoraro Formation (Xo) and Peters Creek 

Schist (Xpc). The Peach Bottom Slate and Cardiff Conglomerate (undivided) (Xpb) crosses the Project 

area near PBAPS and Peters Creek. Ultamafic rocks consisting primarily of serpentinite (Xu) are present 

near Peters Creek. Metabasalt is also present immediately below the Holtwood Dam and near the shore 

above Fishing Creek. The Sams Creek Metabasalt (Xsc) encroaches the margin of the Project area just 

above Fishing Creek. Jurassic and Triassic (?) diabase dikes (Jd and Tr(?)d, respectively) also intrude the 

region and edges of the Project area. 

In Maryland, the major bedrock units are the Metagraywacke Member of the Wissahickon Formation 

(wmg), Boulder Gneiss Member of the Wissahickon Formation (wbg), Ultramafic Rock (um), Baltimore 

Gabbro Complex (bgb), Gabbro and Quartz Diorite Gneiss (Pzgd), Wissahickon Formation (undivided) 

4-4



(wu), Port Deposit Gneiss (Pzpd), Metagabbro and Amphibolite (mgb), and Volcanic Complex of Cecil 

County (vc). 

4.2.2.2 Surficial Geology 

Surficial geologic units overlap with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils described in the next section. Descriptions of surficial 

geologic units provide information not available in USDA/NRCS soil descriptions. 

Surficial geologic units within the Project area in Pennsylvania form a discontinuous mantle of 

unconsolidated in situ material (weathered bedrock) and transported material (alluvium and colluvium) 

(Sevon 1996). Weathered bedrock consists of all in situ rock between the surface and unweathered rock 

at depth that is broken or breaks readily with minimal force. Alluvium is material transported and 

deposited by running water. Colluvium is material mass transported by gravity. 

Some of this material is deposited on lower terraces located within about 150 feet above the present 

channel along the margins of the Conowingo Pond and Susquehanna River and at major tributary mouths 

throughout the Project area, and on upland terraces located about 260 and 460 feet above the present 

channel (Pazzaglia and Gardner 1993). 

The different surficial units mapped in the Project area in Pennsylvania by Sevon (1996) are described in 

Table 4.2.2.2-1. Similar mapping of the Maryland portion of the Project area is not available. However, 

Pazzaglia and Gardner (1993) identified the presence of lower terrace deposits at the mouths of Broad and 

Deer Creeks and immediately above the Conowingo Dam in Harford County. 

Other surficial geologic features of the Project area are the exposed bedrock islands, large rounded 

boulders scattered on the islands, and very deep potholes in the Holtwood Gorge portion of the Project 

area (Thompson 1990). Along the eastern wall of the gorge, unconnected and elongated, spoon-shaped 

“deeps” over 3,000 feet in length, about 300 feet across, and up to 115 feet deep occur (Pazzaglia and 

Gardner 1993). 

4.2.3 Soils 

The most up-to-date soils mapping and map unit descriptions available come from the State Soil 

Geographic database (STATSGO) for Maryland (Figure 4.2.3-1) and the Soil Survey Geographic 

database (SSURGO) for Pennsylvania (Figures 4.2.3-2 and 4.2.3-3). The scale of map units for each 

4-5



database differs drastically. SSURGO map units consist of individual soil series and STATSGO map 

units are generalized soils associations. 

4.2.3.1 Pennsylvania 

The Project area in Pennsylvania is covered primarily with Manor and Mt. Airy soils that developed from 

weathered bedrock on steep slopes. Soils associated with flowing water also occur. Each of these soil 

map units is dominantly non-hydric. However, the Cm, Ff, and Ud map units may contain inclusions of 

hydric soils. Hydric soils form under conditions that promote the development of wetlands. The soil map 

units within the Project area in Pennsylvania are described in Table 4.2.3.1-1. 

4.2.3.2 Maryland 

The Project area in Maryland consists of five general soil associations: 

• Othello-Elkton-Mattapex (MD005) 

• Manor-Glenelg-Chester (MD011) 

• Neshaminy-Lehigh-Glenelg (MD029) 

• Chrome-Conowingo-Neshaminy (MD030) 

• Chester-Glenelg-Manor (MD031) 

Each of these associations is present in Harford County while only the Manor-Glenelg-Chester and 

Neshaminy-Lehigh-Glenelg associations are present in Cecil County. In the Project area, the Chester- 

Glenelg-Manor association is limited to the border with Pennsylvania and the Othello-Elkton-Mattapex is 

restricted to the Havre De Grace vicinity. 

These associations are named for the dominant soils series of the map unit. Elkton soils (a member of the 

generalized association near Havre De Grace) develop on the coastal plain deposits and would not be 

found in the Project area. Available descriptive information from the NRCS of these soil series in Cecil 

and Harford Counties is provided in Table 4.2.3.2-1. Othello soils are hydric. Mattapex soils may 

contain inclusions of hydric Othello soils. 

4-6



4.2.4 Reservoir Shoreline 

4.2.4.1 Field Studies 

Field studies were conducted in 2006 and 2007 to characterize bank stability, shoreline erosion, and 

nearshore sedimentation along Conowingo Pond margins, islands, and tributaries. Pond tributaries 

inventoried were Muddy Creek, Broad Creek, Conowingo Creek, Peters Creek, and Fishing Creek with 

surveys extending as much as 2,000 feet upstream. The findings of these studies are summarized in this 

section. Streambank soils and bedrock are also described above in Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3. Streambank 

vegetation is described in Section 4.6. 

4.2.4.2 Shoreline Types 

The shorelines of Conowingo Pond consist of a discontinuous distribution of the following types: 

• Bedrock outcrops; 

• Weathered bedrock (fractured and fragmented); 

• Alluvium (material transported and deposited by running water); 

• Colluvium (material mass transported by gravity); and 

• Disturbed/Artificial 

Bedrock outcrops occur as exposures along the river and island shorelines and mid-stream (inundated or 

exposed). Bedrock may be bare, covered with alluvium, and/or with colluvium at the toe-of-slope. 

Weathered bedrock consists of fragmented rock of varying sizes (boulders to gravel). Vegetation may be 

present and rooted in rock fractures or unconsolidated sediment. Distinguishing properties such as 

stratification in alluvium, bank failure by mass wasting (e.g., slumps, fallen trees by undercutting), and 

soil profile development are evident. Disturbed/artificial shorelines consist of retaining walls, docks, 

armored shores (e.g., riprap, gabions), canal towpath berm, rail embankment fill, laid rock (purpose 

unknown), industrial structures (e.g., Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station and the Muddy Run Project), 

and manicured lawns to the water’s edge. 

4.2.4.3 Erosion Features 

Evidence of shoreline erosion is ubiquitous along unconsolidated shorelines. Typical features are bank 

undercutting, fallen trees, mass wasting, terraces, and scarps. In general, two zones of erosion (not always 

4-7



present at a single location) are recognizable in Conowingo Pond. A lower zone was visible within 1 to 3 

feet of the water elevation at the time of the survey (within the range of Project water level fluctuation in 

the pool) and a higher zone extended 10 to 15 feet above the water elevation at the time of the survey 

(above the range of pool fluctuation). 

The Norfolk Southern railroad embankment dominates the eastern shoreline of Conowingo Pond. 

Exposed vertical banks reached about 20 feet above the water level at the time of survey. The abandoned 

and collapsing Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal towpath berm dominates the western shoreline below 

the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission boat launch opposite the Muddy Run powerhouse. For the 

most part, the erosion consists of nominal undercutting, but greater erosion (e.g., 5 to 6 feet vertical bank) 

was noted below the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. In summary, erosion is ongoing along 'soft' 

shorelines that consist predominantly of unconsolidated sediment. Where shorelines are 'hard' (i.e, 

predominantly, bedrock, retaining wall, rip-rap) there is little to no erosion. 

4.2.4.4 Shoreline Erosion Inventory 

Shorelines are categorized and mapped by the predominance of erosion properties as follows: 

Low to Moderate Erosion: Predominantly unconsolidated material; includes natural shoreline 

(alluvium or colluvium) or disturbed/artificial shoreline (e.g., canal towpath berm, rail 

embankment); resource not adversely affected. 

Residential: Predominantly disturbed/artificial shorelines clearly associated with residential use; 

includes hard and soft shorelines. 

Minimum to None: Predominantly bedrock outcrops or non-residential disturbed/artificial hard 

shorelines. Bedrock may be bare, covered with alluvium, and/or with colluvium at toe-ofslope; 

bedrock may be weathered. Non-residential hard shorelines include industrial and 

engineered structures not clearly associated with residential use. 

The shoreline erosion inventory of Conowingo Pond is illustrated in Figure 4.2.4.4-1. The degree of 

erosion observed in the pond is variable, and generally falling within the low to moderate range. 

Instances of high erosion do not encroach on infrastructure, therefore, severe erosion was not a ranking 

category identified in the erosion inventory. Shoreline erosion in tributaries is also ranked low to 

moderate. 

4-8



4.2.4.5 Depositional Features 

Some shorelines are not erosional but are actively accreting, that is, gradually extending into the pond by 

sedimentation. Sediment originating outside of the Conowingo Project system, as well as some of the 

sediment eroding from Project area banks, are transported and deposited as alluvium elsewhere in the 

system. Large expanses of alluvium are deposited as accretionary features at or near the downstream 

ends of existing islands and at or near tributary mouths. 

Accretionary features are stabilized by vegetation when optimal conditions of inundation and sediment 

stability are reached. Once established, the vegetation initiates a cycle of sediment trapping, stabilization 

and accretion. Different degrees of stabilization and vertical accretion have been reached in the Pond, 

ranging from littoral areas with or without submerged aquatic vegetation to wetlands with emergent 

vegetation. This process is particularly prominent at Mt. Johnson Island, Peters Creek, and Fishing Creek 

(see Section 4.6.2.1). Another example of an accretionary shoreline is seen in Peters Creek several 

hundred feet upstream of the mouth. A laterally and vertically accreting point bar has developed on the 

inside bend of the channel opposite Peach Bottom Marina. A prominent wetland has become established 

on this point bar deposit (see Section 4.6.1.1). 

The depositional nature of other shorelines along the Pond is manifested by gently sloping deposits at the 

water’s edge. These deposits include sediment at the mouths of minor streams entering the river (e.g., 

Muddy Run), sediment associated with stormwater runoff that drains riparian areas, and sediment 

deposited by receding floodwaters. 

4.2.4.6 Potential Project-Related Causes of Shoreline Erosion 

The observed erosion along Conowingo Pond is predominantly due to natural processes - wind generated 

waves, river flow, surface runoff, and mass wasting. Boat wakes are likely another contributing factor at 

the summer recreation level of the Pond, and ice effects may be important during colder winters. 

Considering these processes act concurrently and Conowingo Pond is a flowing waterbody experiencing 

strong currents at times (the Conowingo Project is run-of-the-river), effects of Project operations, if any, 

are not discernable. 

4-9



4.3 Water Resources (18 C.F.R. §5.6 (d)(3)(iii) 

4.3.1 Water Quantity 

The total drainage area of the Susquehanna River basin is 27,510 square miles, of which 6,270 square 

miles are in south-central New York, 20,950 square miles are in central Pennsylvania, and 280 square 

miles are in northeastern Maryland. Of this total drainage area, approximately 27,100 square miles are 

located above Conowingo Dam. 

4.3.1.1 Hydrology and Streamflow 

There are 14 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) storage reservoirs located throughout the 

Susquehanna River basin (Table 4.3.1.1-1). The reservoirs have a total usable storage capacity of 

approximately 1,457,887 acre-feet, and regulate flows within portions of the basin to varying degrees. 

These reservoirs are primarily operated for flood control, and many of them also support other uses such 

as recreation. Raystown Lake, with the largest usable storage, also is used to augment low streamflow. 

In addition, Cowanesque Lake storage is used for water supply purposes. 

The nearest USGS gages on the main stem Susquehanna River are: 

• Susquehanna River at Conowingo, Maryland (No. 01578310), located on the downstream 

side of Conowingo Dam, and 9.9 miles upstream from mouth. The gage effectively 

records discharge from the Conowingo Project. The total drainage area at the gage is 

27,100 square miles. The gage has a period of record from October 1967 to present. 

• Susquehanna River at Marietta, Pennsylvania (No. 01576000), located 35 miles upstream 

from mouth. The total drainage area at the gage is 25,990 square miles. The gage has a 

period of record from October 1931 to present. Between Conowingo Dam and the 

Marietta USGS gage are two other hydroelectric facilities on the Susquehanna River 

main stem (in upstream to downstream order: Safe Harbor and Holtwood) as well as the 

Muddy Run Pump Storage Project. 

Monthly and annual flow duration curves for the period October 1, 1967 through December 31, 2008 

were calculated for each gage, and are presented in Figures 4.3.1.1-1 through 4.3.1.1-8. Minimum, 

median, mean, and maximum flows at each gage for the period October 1, 1967 through December 31, 

2008 are provided in Tables 4.3.1.1-2 and 4.3.1.1-3 for each month of the year. 

The maximum flood discharge recorded at the Conowingo Dam Site (records go back to approximately 

1740) was 972,000 cfs on June 24, 1972. This flood, which was a result of Tropical Storm Agnes, 

resulted in a maximum headwater level of 112.3 feet. In January 1996, a combination of heavy rain, 

4-10



melting snowpack, and ice jams on the Susquehanna River resulted in a peak discharge through the 

Conowingo Project of approximately 909,000 cfs and a maximum headwater elevation of 110.5 feet. 

4.3.1.2 Major Water Withdrawals and Use 

The Lower Susquehanna River subbasin, in particular Conowingo Pond, is one of the major sources of 

freshwater for the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Recent data provided by the Susquehanna 

River Basin Commission (SRBC) (Krista Nelson, SRBC, personal communication, 2006) indicate that 

surface water users withdraw 454.03 MGD1 (702 cfs) and groundwater users withdraw 78.16 MGD (121 

cfs). Consumptive water use in the subbasin is 356.59 MGD (552 cfs). Power generation accounts for 

the greatest water withdrawn from the Lower Susquehanna River subbasin (89 percent) (SRBC 2008b). 

Additional water withdrawals are applied to other uses: industrial (4.8 percent), municipal (4.2 percent), 

agricultural (1.2 percent), and domestic (0.8 percent). Described below are the major water withdrawers 

within the Project area. 

Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project 

Conowingo Pond acts as the lower reservoir for the 800-MW Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project (FERC 

No. 2355), owned by Exelon. The Muddy Run Project is located approximately 12 miles upstream of 

Conowingo Dam. The powerhouse turbines have a total discharge capacity from the powerhouse of 

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

Typical operations consist of pumping water from Conowingo Pond to the Muddy Run Reservoir, which 

has 35,500 acre-feet of active storage available for pump storage operations. Pumping occurs during low 

load periods while generation at Muddy Run occurs during high load periods. With the implementation 

of a deregulated power market, operation of the Muddy Run Project is not specifically coordinated with 

the Conowingo Project. 

1 This number was supplied by SRBC. Clarification is being sought because the combined total potential withdrawal from PBAPS and the Muddy Run Pumped 

Storage Project is greater than this reported number. 

4-11



City of Baltimore 

Conowingo Pond has been used as partial domestic water supply for the City of Baltimore since 1966. 

The Maryland Legislative Acts of 1955, Chapter 203, gave the City of Baltimore rights to withdraw water 

from the Susquehanna River. 

Currently, the City of Baltimore is approved by the SRBC to withdraw a maximum of 250 MGD (387 

cfs) from the Conowingo Pond, but is currently limited by its pumping capacity to a withdrawal of 

approximately 137 MGD (212 cfs), depending upon system hydraulics. During low flow periods on the 

Susquehanna River, the maximum 30-day average withdrawal is reduced to 64 MGD (99 cfs). 

The Conowingo Pond withdrawal is principally used during major drought periods or under emergency 

operating conditions. 

The infrastructure associated with the withdrawal was built in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and consists 

of an intake structure with a 500 MGD (774 cfs) capacity located 1,000 feet upstream of Conowingo 

Dam; a 144-inch and 108-inch tunnel and pipeline with a potential capacity of 500 MGD (774 cfs); the 

Deer Creek Pumping Station, currently equipped with three pumps at a rating of 50 MGD (77 cfs) each 

and expandable to five pumps with a combined safe capacity of over 250 MGD (387 cfs); and 

approximately 35 miles of 108-inch and 96-inch transmission main to the Montebello Filtration Plants 

located in Baltimore, Maryland. The transmission main on the discharge side of the pumping station has 

a design capacity of approximately 250 MGD (387 cfs). An additional right-of-way was acquired at the 

time of transmission main construction in anticipation of the need to build a parallel conduit at some 

future date (SRBC 2006c). 

Chester Water Authority (CWA) 

The SRBC has permitted CWA to withdraw up to 30 MGD (46 cfs) of water from Conowingo Pond. 

Increasing water supply demands may lead CWA to request an increase in its maximum withdrawal to 40 

MGD (62 cfs). The intake works are located just north of the mouth of Brown’s Run on the east bank, 

approximately seven miles upstream of Conowingo Dam. CWA began withdrawals in 1970 and supplies 

public water to areas in southeast Pennsylvania and northern Delaware (SRBC 2006e). 

The infrastructure associated with the withdrawal consists of a pumping station with a submerged 12foot-diameter 

grated intake located about 10 feet below normal pool elevation (109.2 feet). A 54-inch 

pipe delivers the water from the intake to the sump of the Susquehanna Pumping Station. Three 15-MGD 

(23 cfs) vertical turbine pumps, each driven by a 1,500 hp constant speed motor, are used to pump the 

4-12



water through approximately 13 miles of 42-inch and 36-inch transmission main to the CWA Octoraro 

Treatment Plant. The station capacity with one pump running is approximately 17 MGD (26 cfs); with 

two pumps running it is 30 MGD (46 cfs). The third pump is for back-up purposes only (SRBC 2006c). 

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS) 

Conowingo Pond also is used as a source of cooling water for PBAPS, which has two units with a total 

generating capacity of 2,186 MW. A total of approximately 2,230 MGD (3,450 cfs) is required at full 

power operation. Peach Bottom is co-owned by Exelon Generation and Public Service Electric and Gas 

of New Jersey (SRBC 2006c). 

Conectiv Mid Merit, LLC 

A new electric generating facility, having a maximum capacity of 1,100 MW, has been proposed by 

Conectiv Mid Merit, LLC for construction in Peach Bottom Township, Pennsylvania. Currently, the 

proposed project is under review by several regulatory agencies. The facility would be located inland 

approximately 2.5 miles from the Conowingo Pond. Major water needs for the proposed project would 

be met by a withdrawal from Conowingo Pond. 

Water withdrawn from Conowingo Pond could be pumped at a maximum daily rate of 19.0 MGD (29 cfs) 

using three pumps. Under normal operating conditions, it is planned for two pumps to be active with a 

withdrawal rate ranging from 3.5 MGD (5 cfs) to 12.6 MGD (19 cfs), depending on the mode of 

operation at the power plant. The amount of consumptive use would vary depending on plant operations 

with a maximum daily loss of 8.7 MGD (13 cfs) (SRBC 2006c). 

4.3.1.3 Surface Water Discharges 

Discharges to the Susquehanna River include both point and nonpoint sources. Nonpoint sources consist 

of those not traceable to a pipe, such as agricultural and urban runoff. Point source discharges typically 

include manufacturing plants and municipal wastewater treatment plants. Control of pollution from point 

source discharges is managed through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit program. 

As shown in Table 4.3.1.3-1, the Conowingo Pond segment of the Susquehanna River receives discharges 

from a total of 13 NPDES registered facilities (USEPA 2006). The locations of these NPDES discharges 

are shown in Figure 4.3.1.3-1. 

4-13



4.3.2 Water Quality 

The Lower Susquehanna subbasin has some of the most highly productive agricultural lands in the 

Susquehanna River Basin in addition to population and industrial centers (SRBC 2004). Impairments to 

water quality in the Lower Susquehanna subbasin occur largely due to nutrient enrichment and siltation 

from these land uses. Agricultural runoff and livestock in streams commonly cause increased nutrient 

levels and sedimentation. In addition, wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff from populated and 

industrial areas also increase nutrient and sediment loadings. Nutrients and suspended solids from the 

Susquehanna River Basin contribute to nutrient enrichment of the Chesapeake Bay. The Susquehanna 

River Basin contributes nearly 50 percent of the freshwater discharge to the Chesapeake Bay (Langland 

and Hainly 1997). Therefore, the Susquehanna River Basin has been the focus of nutrient reduction 

efforts for decades. Numerous state and federal agencies, as well as watershed and conservation groups 

have implemented Best Management Practices (BMPs) in efforts to improve water quality. However, 

significant problems still exist within the basin. Information pertaining to water quality within the basin 

is regularly collected by numerous resource agencies including the USGS, the Pennsylvania Department 

of Environmental Protection (PADEP), the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), and the 

SRBC. In addition, water quality investigations have been conducted within the vicinity of the 

Conowingo Project pertaining to the operation of the PBAPS and to study the effects of hydropower 

operations (Exelon 2008). 

The following sections discuss Pennsylvania and Maryland water quality standards that are applicable to 

the operation of the Conowingo Project, as well as results from water quality investigations that pertain to 

the Conowingo Pond and Lower Susquehanna River. 

4.3.2.1 Water Quality Standards and Classifications 

Pennsylvania 

The Pennsylvania Code (Title 25, Chapter 93) establishes narrative and numeric water quality criteria 

needed to support a variety of protected water uses (Table 4.3.2.1-1). All surface waters in Pennsylvania 

are protected for aquatic life (warm water fishes), water supply (potable, industrial, livestock, wildlife, 

and irrigation), and recreation (boating, fishing, water contact sports, and aesthetics). The segment of the 

Susquehanna River between the confluence with the Juniata River and the Pennsylvania-Maryland border 

where the Project is located has a warm water fishes (WWF) designated water use. In addition to 

general/narrative standards that are applicable to all surface waters, specific water quality criteria for 

4-14



parameters such as pH, alkalinity, bacteria, color, dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature, and certain ions, 

metals, and nutrients are established for critical uses (i.e., the most sensitive designated or existing use 

designated for protection). 

Water quality parameters that have been most closely monitored with regard to the operation of the 

Conowingo Project include DO and temperature. For WWF waters, the Pennsylvania DO standard is a 

minimum daily average of 5.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L) with an instantaneous minimum of 4.0 mg/L. 

The standard recognizes the natural process of stratification in lakes, ponds and impoundments and 

applies to flowing waters and to the epilimnion of a naturally stratified lake, pond or impoundment and 

throughout the water column for non-stratified bodies of water. 

Maximum temperature limits vary with the time of year. The maximum temperature criteria for WWF are 

summarized in Table 4.3.2.1-2. These temperature standards apply only to waters affected by heated 

discharges (Barbara Lathrop, PADEP, personal communication, 2006ab). In addition to these 

temperature criteria, heated waste sources may not result in a change of temperature in receiving waters 

of more than 2°F during a one-hour period. 

PADEP has an ongoing program to assess the quality of waters in Pennsylvania and to identify streams 

and other bodies of water that do not meet water quality standards (i.e., considered impaired). Reports 

that assess the health of the state’s waters and the extent to which water quality standards are being met 

are issued every two years. The latest assessment lists the Pennsylvania segment of Conowingo Pond in 

Category 2 (i.e., waters where some, but not all, designated uses are met). This segment has been 

assessed for and has attained the Aquatic Life protected use but the attainment status of the remaining 

designated uses is unknown (PADEP 2004, 2006). 

Maryland 

Maryland’s surface water quality standards (Code of Maryland Regulations Title 26, Subtitle 08, Chapter 

2) segment the state’s surface waters into eight designated uses (Table 4.3.2.1-3) based on existing 

conditions and potential uses which may be achieved through anticipated improvements in water quality. 

All surface waters in Maryland must be protected to support water contact recreation, fishing, aquatic life, 

wildlife, and water supply (agricultural, industrial). In addition, each major stream segment within the 

state has been assigned to one of the eight designated use categories with associated minimum water 

quality criteria. 

Numeric water quality criteria for various water quality parameters (e.g., bacteria, DO, temperature, pH, 

turbidity, color, toxic substances, etc.) are specified for each designated use. Those water quality 

4-15



parameters that have been most closely monitored with regard to the operation of the Conowingo Project 

include DO and temperature. Maryland’s water quality standards state the maximum temperature outside 

of a mixing zone (i.e., 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. In addition, the standards state that a 

thermal barrier that adversely affects aquatic life may not be established. 

Under the current license, Exelon is required to maintain the Maryland State water quality standard for 

DO in releases from the Conowingo Station for the life of the license (until 2014). The applicable State 

standard was for DO not to be less than 5 mg/l at any time. This numeric DO criterion remained in effect 

until revised by Maryland in 2005. 

In the current regulations (MDE 2008), the reach of the Susquehanna River from the north side of the 

Conowingo Dam to the Maryland/Pennsylvania border (i.e., Conowingo Pond) is designated as Use I-P 

(Water Contact Recreation, Protection of Aquatic Life, and Public Water Supply). The DO criterion is 

that DO may not be less than 5 mg/l at any time. The Susquehanna River mainstem from Conowingo 

Dam downstream to the confluence with the Chesapeake Bay is designated as Use II (Support of 

Estuarine and Marine Aquatic Life and Shellfish Harvesting - includes applicable Use I-P categories). 

Water quality standards for the Chesapeake Bay and tidal tributaries (e.g., Susquehanna River 

downstream of Conowingo Dam) are further assessed on a Bay Segment scale for four segments with 

“Migratory Spawning and Nursery Use” and “Open Water Fish and Shellfish Use” sub-category 

designations during specified periods of time (Figure 4.3.2.1-1). 

Based on the criteria for Use II and sub-category designations, the current DO standard applicable to 

discharges from Conowingo is summarized below: 

• February 1 through May 31: DO ≥ to 6 mg/l for a 7-day averaging period, 

• June 1 to January 31: DO ≥ 5.5 mg/l for a 30-day averaging period; 4.0 mg/l for a 7-day 

average; 3.2 mg/l as an instantaneous minimum year round; and for protection of 

endangered shortnose sturgeon, 4.3 mg/l as an instantaneous minimum at water column 

temperatures 77°F (25°C). 

As required by the Clean Water Act, the MDE has an ongoing program to assess whether surface water 

bodies within the state meet surface water quality standards. Every two years, the MDE issues a report 

that assesses the health of the state’s waters and lists watersheds (rather than specific stream lengths) that 

are not meeting surface water quality standards. The latest report, “2006 List of Impaired Surface Waters 

[303(d) List] and Integrated Assessment of Water Quality in Maryland” (MDE 2006) is presently in draft 

4-16



form. A summary of listings from this report for the mainstem waters within the Conowingo Dam Basin 

and Lower Susquehanna River Basin is provided in Table 4.3.2.1-4. 

4.3.2.2 Sediment and Nutrient Loading 

Fine-grained suspended sediment and particle-bound and dissolved nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) 

originate within the Chesapeake Bay watershed from upland erosion by different land uses (e.g., 

agriculture, mining, construction) and from stream corridor erosion (channel bed and banks) (Gellis et al. 

2003, 2005). Sediment also originates from the ocean and from within the Bay itself (shoreline erosion, 

coastal marsh erosion, biogenic material) (Langland et al. 2003). Dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus are 

transported to surface waters by point source discharges, runoff and soil water, and groundwater (Phillips 

and Lindsey 2003). 

In a year of normal or average streamflow, the Susquehanna River contributes nearly 50 percent of the 

freshwater discharge to Chesapeake Bay and about 25 percent of the sediment load from non-tidal areas 

(Langland 1998). The Susquehanna River is the major source of sediment to the northern bay (Langland 

et al. 2003). Agriculture is the dominant source of nitrogen and phosphorus to the Susquehanna River 

Basin (Sprague et al. 2000). 

Before reaching Chesapeake Bay, sediment originating from upland erosion is stored within the 

watershed on upland surfaces (e.g., bases of hillslopes, swales and depressions), in reservoirs and 

impoundments behind dams, and on floodplains (Herman et al. 2003). During storm events, sediments 

delivered to impoundments and sediment already stored within impoundments are made available for 

deposition, resuspension, scour, and transport downstream. Legacy sediments eroded during the extensive 

land clearing of the 18th and 19th centuries and temporarily trapped behind colonial mill dams are being 

recognized as an important upland sediment source to Chesapeake Bay (Merritts and Walter 2003). 

The three hydroelectric dams in the Lower Susquehanna River (Safe Harbor Dam, Holtwood Dam, and 

Conowingo Dam) form three reservoirs (Lake Clarke, Lake Aldred and Conowingo Pond, respectively). 

After construction, the reservoirs began filling with the sediment trapped behind the dams (Hainly et al. 

1995). Since 1950, the water-storage capacity of Lake Clarke has been relatively constant. The waterstorage 

capacity of Lake Aldred has changed little since construction of Holtwood Dam in 1910. In other 

words, these reservoirs have reached a state of equilibrium (steady-state) with respect to sediment 

deposition. As a consequence, these reservoirs no longer store increasing volumes of sediment (Hainly et 

al. 1995; Reed and Hoffman 1997; Langland and Hainly 1997). Lake Clarke and Lake Aldred have 

4-17



reached their sediment-storage capacity (i.e., there is a net throughput of sediment). In contrast, 

Conowingo Pond continues to trap sediment and fill (i.e., there is a net deposition of sediment). 

Scouring during major flood events, however, interrupts “steady-state” periods of reservoir filling 

(Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 1994). The dynamics of sediment and nutrient storage in 

the reservoir system can more accurately be described as periods of gradual accumulation (net deposition) 

punctuated by scour events (major storms) that remove stored sediment and increase storage capacity. A 

flood pulse of sediment and nutrient loading to the Bay is followed by a decrease in loading as deposition 

replaces scoured sediment. The impact of this process on sediment and nutrient loading to Chesapeake 

Bay is to alter the timing of sediment and nutrient delivery to the Bay (more during major floods and less 

during non-flood periods). During the January 1996 flood event, peak flows through the reservoirs 

exceeded 100-year storm flows. USGS estimated that the sediment scoured from the three reservoir 

system during the January 1996 flood was about the same as what would have been deposited in four to 

six years (Langland and Hainly 1997). Some of this material was redeposited within the system. 

USGS completed new bathymetric surveys of the three reservoirs in Fall 2008 (Michael Langland, USGS, 

personal communication, November 19, 2008). 

Suspended sediment and nutrients are monitored at USGS Gage Station 01578310 located on the 

Susquehanna River immediately downstream of the Conowingo Dam as part of the River Input 

Monitoring (RIM) program. 2 

Concentrations are the mass of constituents per volume of water (milligrams or micrograms per liter). 

Variations in streamflow can affect concentrations due to dilution and variations in flow path or source. 

Flow-weighted concentrations (FWCs) are estimates of mean concentrations measured at a point. FWCs 

are useful in assessing actual concentrations moving through the system and concentration variability. 

Flow-adjusted concentrations (FACs) are computed to estimate trends independent of the effects of 

streamflow. While FAC trends can be used as indicators of human influences in the watershed (e.g., the 

effectiveness of nutrient control measures and best management practices to reduce runoff), their 

interpretation needs to also consider other hydrologic processes that deliver constituents to streams (e.g., 

2 

RIM sites are located near the most downstream limit of nontidal waters on the nine major tributaries of 

Chesapeake Bay. 

4-18



the roles of groundwater and atmospheric deposition by precipitation). Loads are the total amount of 

constituents carried by a stream over a time period (kilograms or pounds per year). Loads are also highly 

dependent on streamflow. 

FAC trend computations at the Conowingo Dam RIM station for the period 1985-2006 show statistically 

significant downward trends in total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), and suspended sediment (SED) 

(Langland et al 2007). Annual FWCs for the same period were generally decreasing for TN. The 

Conowingo Dam site has the lowest long-term annual mean FWC for TP of all nine RIM sites. Relative 

to the other RIM sites, Conowingo Dam also has a low long-term annual mean FAC for SED. Sediment 

and nutrient loadings in million pounds per year at Conowingo Dam are graphically displayed in Figure 

4.3.2.2-1 and in million kilograms per year in Table 4.3.2.2-1. 

4.3.2.3 Existing Water Quality Studies 

Water quality studies, particularly DO and water temperature, have been conducted in Project waters 

(Conowingo Pond and/or below Conowingo Dam) beginning in 1959-1960 and thereafter from the late 

1960’s through to the present to evaluate the effects of the thermal discharge from PBAPS and operations 

of the Conowingo Project on Conowingo Pond and in the river downstream of the Dam. Sampling and 

associated objectives of these studies are described below. 

Whaley (1960) 

The first published study (April 1959 through May 1960) of water quality in the Conowingo Pond was 

undertaken by Whaley (1960). The objectives were to determine water movements in the Conowingo 

Pond in relation to inflow, outflow, wind and thermal stratification; seasonal and spatial distribution of 

temperature, DO and pH; and the organic production by aquatic plants and the oxygen balance in the 

Conowingo Pond. The study was undertaken to determine the suitability of the Pond as a spawning and 

nursery area for anadromous fish. Nearly 2500 water temperature and 550 DO measurements along with 

other parameter determinations were taken. Relative to DO and water temperature distribution, Whaley 

(1960) noted vertical stratification in DO in the lower Conowingo Pond, but not in water temperature. 

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS) Pre- and Post Operational Water Quality Studies 

These studies including DO, water temperature, and water chemistry began in June 1967 and continued 

through 1987. The objectives were to determine the effects of the operation of PBAPS on the water 

quality of Conowingo Pond. Before 1970, multiple locations were sampled on an exploratory basis, 

primarily from late spring through summer. Systematic sampling at 11 locations throughout Conowingo 

4-19



Pond occurred on a bi-weekly basis thereafter (Figure 4.3.2.3-1). Sampling in 1970-1980 was conducted 

in the fulfillment of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commissions’ Environmental Technical Specifications 

for operation of PBAPS. On a voluntary basis, PECO continued an abbreviated sampling program in 

spring to fall at five key locations (Figure 4.3.2.3-1) through 1987. 

DO, water temperature, and water chemistry data along with other study aspects in 1970 through 1980 

were summarized in Pre-operational (PBAPS 1974) and Post-operational reports (PBAPS 1974-1980). 

During these study years over 3,500 DO and water temperature profiles were taken throughout 

Conowingo Pond. 

Anadromous Fish Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Surveillance 

DO and fish surveillance at Conowingo Dam was initiated in 1968 for protection of migrating 

anadromous fish species during spring, but was expanded in later years for fish (anadromous and resident 

species) protection and DO compliance monitoring in spring-early fall. From 1988 through 1991, 

activities focused primarily on refinement, maintenance and calibration of DO equipment, and 

development of procedures to maintain DO in station releases at or above the Maryland DO standard (≥ 5 

mg/l). 

During the most intensively sampled years (1980-1991), DO was routinely measured (by grab sampling 

and/or continuous monitor) primarily at four locations (Figure 4.3.2.3-2): Elevation 35 (tap off thrust 

bearing cooling water line for one or more of the Francis units); Upper Tailrace (in the discharge boil 

areas for the Francis and/or Kaplan units); Lower Tailrace (Station 643 about 0.6 mile downstream of the 

dam); and the Lower River (about 1.3 mile downstream of the dam). 

In 1988-1991, the Upper Tailrace and Lower Tailrace were the primary locations sampled with the Lower 

Tailrace continuous monitor at Station 643 designated as the primary location for determining compliance 

with the Maryland State DO standard. Overall, more than 250,000 DO and temperature measurements 

were taken in 1980 to 1991. 

Annual reports (Conowingo DO 1969-1991) summarized DO surveillance activities. Data collected, 

particularly in 1979 and later years, were utilized to characterize and determine effects of Conowingo 

operation on downstream DO conditions. 

4-20



Conowingo Dam Article 34 and Related Water Quality Studies 

As part of the current license, water quality issues (primarily DO) were specifically addressed in four 

objectives contained in Article 34 of the license. In consultation with cooperating agencies, a mutually 

satisfactory study plan addressing these issues was accepted by FERC in April 1981. 

Objectives 1 through 3 

Objectives 1 through 3 addressed DO characterization and dynamics in Conowingo Pond and the river 

downstream of the dam and the effect of Project operations on DO conditions. They were fulfilled by 

utilizing the long-term temporal and spatial water quality data (e.g., DO, water temperature, and other 

physicochemical parameters) collected throughout Conowingo Pond (1970-1984) and in and below 

Conowingo Dam (in 1978-1984 and via the DO surveillance activities described above). Studies in 1978- 

1984 included comprehensive short-term surveys to characterize DO dynamics and water temperature 

variations due to operations of the Conowingo Project in lower Conowingo Pond and below Conowingo 

Dam (RMC Environmental Services 1985a, 1985b, Mathur et. al 1988). These included 16 surveys 

ranging from 24 to 72 hours in duration conducted on weekdays and weekends, primarily in July through 

September, the period of low natural river flows and high water temperatures. More than 1,000 profiles 

were taken over diverse prevailing meteorological and generation operations at the Conowingo Project. In 

1981 and 1982 additional specific studies (DO/temperature profiling, biological productivity/water 

column metabolism, sediment oxygen demand, flow/velocity patterns, DO modeling, and other near field 

studies/assessments) were conducted as provided in the study plan and/or initiated in collaboration with 

resource agencies. 

Long term and specific near-field data evaluated in addressing one or more of these objectives were 

collected from over 55 locations in Conowingo Pond and below Conowingo Dam. The primary near-field 

locations sampled for DO and water temperature are shown in Figure 4.3.2.3-2. The data collected from 

these locations were used to characterize and interpret the water quality dynamics of the Project area, 

effects of Project operations on DO, and other specific objectives. 

Objective 4 (Turbine Aeration) 

Objective 4 called for the assessment and use of methods for ensuring that water released from the Project 

will meet Maryland State water quality standards for DO. Twelve DO enhancement techniques were 

reviewed for potential use at Conowingo Dam (Canberra-RMC 1986). Of these, turbine aeration (venting) 

and intake air/oxygen injection were considered the most feasible for further evaluation and study at the 

4-21



dam (C. T. Main 1987). In June 1987, the Licensees submitted to FERC a plan to meet the Maryland DO 

standard (≥ 5 mg/l). The Plan was phased beginning in 1988 as follows: 

• Test the reliability and effectiveness of full scale prototype turbine venting system; 

• Test the intake air injection system at Francis Turbine Unit 5 individually and in 

combination with turbine venting; 

• Test augmentation with oxygen injection into the draft tube venting system if there is a 

minor shortfall (



location (Station 611) in the lower Pond near to Conowingo Dam was profiled at least once a week for 

DO and temperature as a check on conditions for comparative purposes, if needed. 

DO Compliance Monitoring in Turbine Discharge 

Between 1988 and 1991, a DO compliance monitoring/testing program was initiated to meet the 

Maryland state standard (≥5 mg/l at all times). These included development and use of specific 

maintenance, calibration, data acquisition, data compliance analysis, and reporting protocols (PECO 

1989b); field studies in support of aeration from the turbine venting system at Francis turbines 1 to 7 and 

other techniques for DO enhancement; and development and use of an operation manual (SECO 1997) 

and procedures to ensure that the Maryland DO standard is met. Procedures and protocols developed 

during this period formed the basis for compliance monitoring that continues through the present. 

4.3.2.4 Existing Water Chemistry 

The following sections describe the water quality conditions within Conowingo Pond and the Lower 

Susquehanna River based on information from historical studies and surveys (1959-2007) provided 

above. 

4.3.2.4.1 Conowingo Pond 

Water Temperature 

Results of long-term monitoring studies conducted within Conowingo Pond indicate that water 

temperature generally follows a seasonal pattern of variation typical for temperate waters (Figure 4.3.2.4- 

1). Water temperatures are lowest in the winter (typically 32-40°F), increase in spring (45-65°F) to 

seasonal highs (at or near 80-86°F) in summer and then decline in the fall (70-40°F). Temperatures 

throughout the water column in the upper, shallower areas of the Pond remain relatively well mixed 

throughout the year; differences in temperature between the surface and bottom are usually less than 1 o F 

(Whaley 1960; RMC Environmental Services 1985a, 1985b; Normandeau 1998-2000). Long term 

monitoring of water temperature at the MD-PA state line relative to Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 

heated water effluent showed that the respective allowable water temperature standards were met. 

Although a distinct summer thermal stratification is absent in the deeper waters in the lower third of the 

Pond, surface waters often exceed bottom temperatures by several degrees, particularly on sunny calm 

days. Figure 4.3.2.4-2 shows example profiles for selected dates in 1999. Similar patterns were observed 

in other years sampled for various studies. 

4-23



Analysis of data from 1956–1999 indicates that the range in water temperature at the Pond outflow at 

Conowingo Dam was similar to the temperature ranges of the inflow values measured at Holtwood 

(Normandeau 2000). 

Dissolved Oxygen 

Although variations between years occurs, surface DO levels are highest in winter (12-15 mg/l), decline 

through spring to seasonal lows during summer (5-7 mg/l), and then increase through fall (Figure 4.3.2.4- 

3). The general pattern of seasonal variation has remained the same throughout the years of study. 

DO levels in the water column remain relatively well mixed throughout most of the year. However, 

variations at depth occur in summer, particularly in the deeper waters in the lower Pond near Conowingo 

Dam (Figure 4.3.2.4-2). When stratified, primarily in July-September, differences in DO between surface 

and bottom of up to 9 mg/l may occur. Significant stratification of DO rarely occurs in other months or at 

locations in the more shallow areas of the Pond (RMC Environmental Services 1985a, 1985b; 

Normandeau 1998-2000). 

The time of initial development, strength, duration, and stability of DO stratification depends primarily on 

prevailing natural river flow (70°F and increasing), 

rainstorms, and wind conditions. Typically, stratified conditions initially develop in late June-early July 

with low DO levels (



waters > 20 ft deep). On bright sunny days, daily maximum DO values occur in mid to late afternoon 

with minimum values occurring just before or after sunrise. Diurnal variations occur due to natural 

processes (i.e., net production of oxygen from photosynthetic organisms during daylight and net 

respiratory consumption of oxygen through the nighttime). The magnitude of diurnal variations (up to 5 

mg/L in surface waters) is affected by wind, rain storms, and/or prolonged cloud cover (RMC 

Environmental Services 1985a). 

4.3.2.4.2 Conowingo Tailrace 

Variations in Water Temperature and DO 

Long-term monitoring efforts for water temperature and DO have been in effect downstream of the 

Conowingo Dam since 1968 as part of the anadromous fish surveillance and DO compliance monitoring 

programs. Seasonal and diurnal variations in water temperature downstream of Conowingo Dam parallel 

those observed in surface waters in Conowingo Pond. Seasonally, water temperatures are highest in 

summer and lowest in winter (Figure 4.3.2.4-4). During the day, water temperatures in the tailrace usually 

are a few degrees higher in mid to late afternoon and lowest at night (Figure 4.3.2.4-5). 

Seasonal variations in DO downstream of Conowingo Dam (Figure 4.3.2.4-6) also parallel those observed 

in the surface water in Conowingo Pond (Figure 4.3.2.4-3). In studies prior to 1989 (and the start of 

turbine aeration) DO levels in summer below the dam ranged from 2 to 6 mg/l with values frequently > 5 

mg/l (RMC Environmental Services 1985a, 1985b). Summer DO values in the discharge and downstream 

of the powerhouse also reflected and were dependent on the average DO in water at 40 to 70 ft (Mathur 

et. al 1988). However, since completion of the installation of the turbine venting system on all Francis 

Units in 1991, summer DO levels in turbine discharges typically have been greater than the Maryland 

State DO standard. The studies also showed that DO concentrations downstream of Conowingo Dam 

were unaffected by changes in Project operation from peaking to run-of-river (RMC Environmental 

Services 1985a). 

Meeting the Maryland DO Standard 

In 1988, FERC approved a phased study plan in which Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO), a 

predecessor of Exelon, addressed Article 34, Objective 4, requiring the Licensee to take necessary 

measures to maintain Maryland State water quality standard for DO (> 5 mg/) downstream of the dam. 

Based on study results in 1988 (PECO 1989a) and 1989 (PECO 1990), a modified turbine venting system 

was selected as the method to meet this requirement. The system was installed on all of the seven Francis 

4-25



Units beginning in summer 1989 through spring 1991. Exelon also developed specific maintenance, 

calibration, data acquisition, data compliance analysis, and reporting protocols (PECO 1989b) to maintain 

DO levels downstream of the Dam at or above the 5 mg/L standard in 1989-spring 1991 (the interim 

period until all Francis units were equipped with the venting system) and summer 1991 and thereafter 

(following installation of the venting system on the last Francis unit). The SECO DO Shed (Station 643, 

located along the west shore 0.6 mile downstream of the dam) was designated as the primary location for 

monitoring compliance to the Maryland State standard (see Figure 4.3.2.3-2). 

The success of the venting system installed on all Francis units was most evident in summer 1991. Mean 

river inflow in June-September 1991 was the lowest, while water temperature was the highest since 1970. 

DO at depth (40-70 ft) in the Pond just upstream of the dam remained 5 

mg/l). 

Since initial installations in 1989, the turbine venting system has been utilized to meet the Maryland DO 

standard through to the present (including the new DO criteria since adopted in 2005). Table 4.3.2.4-1 

provides a comparison of the available hourly DO monitoring data in summer months (June-September) 

in 1982-1988 (no turbine venting), and 1989-2007 (venting system on one or more Francis units). For the 

sake of brevity, DO data for May and October are not presented because naturally occurring DO was > 5 

mg/l in these months and venting was not used. A minimum flow release of 5,000 cfs was in effect in all 

years. 

The comparison shows the significant effectiveness of turbine venting in maintaining the Maryland State 

DO standard (Table 4.3.2.4-1). With no venting from 1982-1988, hourly DO values were less than 5 mg/l 

20.3% of the time with 8.6% of the values less than 4.0 mg/l; in some years, DO values less than 5 mg/l 

occurred nearly 40% of the time. In contrast, in 1989-2007, hourly DO values less than 5 mg/l occurred 

only 0.03% (11 h) of the time and none were less than 4.3 mg/l in any year. Based on the past 

performance of the installed venting systems to date, DO in releases from the Conowingo Project are 

expected to meet the existing State DO criteria in the future. In addition, Exelon installed aerating turbine 

runners to one Francis unit in 2005, with a second unit planned in 2008 as end-of-life replacements. 

These upgrades provide additional measures to increase DO concentrations in Project discharges. 

4-26



Other Water Quality Parameters 

Information pertaining to water chemistry is collected above the head of tide to enable a causal 

relationship to be established with upstream influences (USGS 2004a). The principal water quality 

monitoring station for the Lower Susquehanna River (USGS 01578310) is located in the discharge boil 

for unit #8 at the Conowingo Dam. Discrete water quality samples are collected monthly or bi-monthly 

under base flow conditions and during storm events (USGS 2004b). Results of water quality 

measurements collected at this site are summarized in Table 4.3.2.4-2. 

4.4 Fish and Aquatic Resources (18 C.F.R. §5.6 (d)(3)(iv) 

The Lower Susquehanna River in the Project area contains a variety of freshwater habitats that support 

communities of benthic macroinvertebrates, non-migratory and migratory fishes, amphibians, and 

reptiles. The upper portion of Conowingo Pond and the Conowingo Dam tailrace provide riverine 

conditions based on their downstream proximity to the Holtwood and Conowingo Projects, respectively. 

The majority of Conowingo Pond provides more lentic conditions with generally greater depths and lower 

water velocities compared to the riverine portions of the Project area. 

Multiple ecological studies have been conducted since 1966 in Conowingo Pond and in the vicinity of 

Conowingo Dam, primarily on the resident and anadromous fishes that utilize these portions of the river 

for feeding, spawning, rearing, migration, or other life requisite behavior. A total of 79 fish species have 

been identified in the Project area. Both the Conowingo Pond and the non-tidal portion of the 

Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam maintain numerous resident game and forage fish species and 

support anadromous and catadromous fishes during their migration. 

The following sections summarize fish and other aquatic resources (macroinvertebrates and plankton) 

identified in the Project area. Reptiles and amphibians are discussed in Section 4.6.5. 

4.4.1 Resident Fish Species 

The Lower Susquehanna River that includes the Conowingo Project supports a diverse assemblage of 

warmwater fishes that have been studied and monitored by many entities, including but not limited to the 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), the Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

(MDNR), the SRBC, and several non-governmental organizations. These studies have included fisheries 

population surveys and sampling (including entrainment and impingement) in support of various power 

plant projects and impact assessments (Normandeau Associates 2003; PPL and Kleinschmidt Associates, 

4-27



2006). Numerous investigations have been conducted to evaluate various life history aspects of the 

resident riverine fishes. A total of 58 species of warmwater, coolwater, and coldwater fishes have been 

identified in the Project area (Table 4.4.1-1). Resident fishes include 20 species of minnows 

(Cyprinidae), ten species of sunfishes (Centrarchidae), seven species of perches (Percidae), seven species 

of catfishes (Ictaluridae), and five species of suckers (Catostomidae). Resident fish species accounts are 

based on studies conducted in Conowingo Pond in the vicinities of Holtwood Dam and PBAPS (RMC 

1979; Normandeau Associates 2000, 2001; PPL and Kleinschmidt 2006); studies focused on the 

Conowingo Dam tailrace and downstream (ERM 1981; RMC 1985 unpublished); and historic and recent 

Conowingo Dam fish lift operations (SRAFRC 2006). 

The principal resident gamefish species of the Conowingo Project include walleye (Sander vitreus), 

smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), largemouth bass (M. salmoides) and channel catfish (Ictalurus 

punctatus). Forage species in the Lower Susquehanna River include the gizzard shad (Dorosoma 

cepedianum) and various species of minnows (cyprinids) and darters (percids). Young gizzard shad are 

the principal forage for several predatory species, including smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, channel 

catfish, walleye, and striped bass. Gizzard shad, the most abundant fish species, was inadvertently 

introduced into Conowingo Pond in 1972 and juveniles may be outcompeting other species in Conowingo 

Pond (e.g., white crappie [Pomoxis annularis]) for food (Normandeau Associates 2000). In 2005, more 

than 305,000 gizzard shad (81 percent of the total catch) were trapped below the Conowingo Dam and 

passed to the Pond via the east lift (SRAFRC 2006). Four species of salmonids occur seasonally in the 

Project area: brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), brown trout (Salmo trutta), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss), and splake (Salvelinus fontinalis x S. namaycush). These species are coldwater taxa and likely 

emigrated to the mainstem of the river from various tributaries or from upriver sources (splake). 

Salmonids are uncommon in the Project area. 

4.4.1.1 Conowingo Pond 

Since 1966, numerous fishery studies in Conowingo Pond using trap nets, otter trawls, seines, plankton 

meter nets, and other fisheries gear yielded 56 species of fish, the most common and widely distributed of 

which were white crappie, channel catfish, bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and spotfin shiner (Cyprinella 

spilopterus) (Robbins and Mathur 1976; RMC 1979). Wide fluctuations in the annual abundances of 

common fishes were noted. Tagging studies assessing the movement of common fishes in Conowingo 

Pond indicated that white crappie moved from deeper water and creek mouths in the lower part of the 

Pond in early to mid-spring to the upper part of the Pond in mid- to late spring (RMC 1979). In late fall, 

4-28



this species moved back to lower portions of the Pond and into coves, where they supported a major 

winter sport fishery (Euston and Mathur 1979). Channel catfish exhibited no significant movement 

patterns in Conowingo Pond (RMC 1979). 

Based on the results of more recent monitoring studies of the Conowingo Pond between 1996 and 1999 in 

support of PBAPS, the fish community was determined to be little changed from the 1970s (Normandeau 

2000). During 1996-1999, up to 54 fish species per year were collected in various locations throughout 

Conowingo Pond via electroshocking, seines, trap nets, and semi-balloon bottom trawls. Seven species 

were the most commonly captured, including channel catfish, spotfin shiner, bluegill, gizzard shad, 

tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus), and spottail shiner 

(Table 4.4.1.1-1). Collectively these seven species formed 79% to 83% of all fishes collected annually. 

The greatest apparent change in the fish community in Conowingo Pond since the 1970s was an increase 

in relative abundance of gizzard shad, a concomitant reduction in white crappie abundance, and 

occurrence of some anadromous fishes such as American shad and white perch resulting from East Fish 

Lift operations (see Section 4.4.2). 

A detailed analysis of white crappie changes in abundance relative to the PBAPS thermal discharge 

following 1993 NPDES permit sampling in Conowingo Pond (RMC 1994a) suggested that the depressed 

white crappie population in Conowingo Pond was unrelated to the PBAPS heated discharge (RMC 

1994b). Contributing factors to white crappie abundance fluctuations noted historically included abiotic 

factors such as weather (which induce water temperature changes) and extreme hydrological events (e.g., 

Tropical Storm Agnes). Among biotic factors, gizzard shad and white crappie were shown to occupy 

similar thermal niches and to use similar habitats at the same time for spawning. Further, both species 

feed initially on zooplankton. As a result, abundant larval gizzard shad appeared to depress zooplankton 

populations (Mathur et al. 1980) at the times and in habitats also first occupied by larval white crappie. 

Poorer larval feeding conditions have apparently depressed recruitment of white crappie from the larval to 

older life stages. 

Other studies of Conowingo Pond fishes conducted by resource agencies were primarily focused on the 

well-being of species of management interest or resident fish contaminant levels (e.g., mercury in 

largemouth bass). The most recent investigations were by MDNR since, by agreement, Maryland sport 

fishing regulations are applied to both portions of Conowingo Pond (58 PA Code, Chapter 61, 2007). The 

PFBC has not conducted comprehensive fisheries management investigations in Conowingo Pond since 

the 1970s (M. Kauffman, PFBC, personal communication) 

4-29



Game fish and forage fish abundance in lower Conowingo Pond was examined by MDNR using night 

electrofishing in October 2005 (MDNR 2005). Indices calculated included fish relative abundance 

(CPUE; fish per hour), plus stock condition (relative weight; Wr), and stock structure (proportional stock 

density; PSD) of black basses. 

Walleye were the most abundant gamefish species collected, with 94% of all walleye aged as young-ofyear, 

suggesting good 2005 year class success. All walleye were noted in excellent condition. Walleye 

abundance and growth was described as remarkable. Largemouth bass were next in gamefish abundance; 

largemouth bass CPUE (> 300mm) was 30/hour; proportional stock density (PSD) was 31%. Smallmouth 

bass > 300mm were less abundant in the lower portion of Conowingo Pond (CPUE = 6/hour); PSD was 

45%. Relative weight (Wr) of all black bass was excellent. Bass stocks were considered healthy and 

indicative of stable recruitment (MDNR 2005). 

Green sunfish and bluegill were the dominant panfish species. Overall forage fish abundance was 

excellent. The dominant forage species was gizzard shad, but alewife were also abundant. Since alewife 

are not normally passed into Conowingo Pond by the East Fish Lift, recruitment may come from 

upstream sources (e.g. Raystown Lake in central Pennsylvania). 

Limited sampling of fish in 2005 by seine and electrofishing in upper Conowingo Pond in and near the 

Holtwood tailrace exit collected 28 species (PPL and Kleinschmidt Associates 2006). The most common 

fishes were those cyprinids, sunfishes, and darters identified during the more comprehensive sampling 

efforts from 1996-1999 (see above). Companion visual and electrofishing surveys in several lentic pools 

below the Holtwood Dam spillway identified the area as spawning and rearing habitat for smallmouth 

bass, rock bass, other sunfishes, white sucker, and quillback. 

Agency fisheries management activities in Conowingo Pond also include fish stocking by MDNR 

(walleye, tiger muskellunge) and PFBC (striped bass fingerlings). In addition, the PFBC and other 

agencies are closely monitoring the Susquehanna River smallmouth bass population due to recent summer 

fish kills of juveniles, mainly young of year. During 2005, 2007, and 2008 smallmouth bass juveniles 

acquired bacterial infections believed to reduce year class recruitment. The infections appeared to occur 

during extended periods of warm water temperatures and low river flows. The special, multi-agency 

investigative study of river water quality in 2008, designed in response to the smallmouth bass problem, 

did not include study sites in Conowingo Pond areas below Holtwood Dam. 

4-30



4.4.1.2 Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam 

Studies conducted in 1980 and 1981 on the resident fishes inhabiting the Susquehanna River below 

Conowingo Dam (Figure 4.4.1.2-1) indicated that the white perch (Morone americana) was the most 

abundant species (ERM 1981). Channel catfish were second in abundance, but accounted for the greatest 

biomass. Other species captured via electroshocking, gill-netting, and trap-netting included common carp 

(Cyprinus carpio), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), and American eel (Anguilla rostrata). Gizzard shad 

abundance could not be estimated, but this species may have been as abundant numerically as white perch 

(ERM 1981). 

Fish distribution and abundance studies conducted monthly (river flows permitting) from 1982-1987 

documented broad use of the Conowingo tailrace, non-tidal pooled areas, and upper tidal habitats by 

numerous species of resident fish (RMC 1985, unpublished report). For example, the most common fishes 

collected by night electrofishing in January-November 1983, a representative year, were gizzard shad, 

American eel, white perch, yellow perch, channel catfish, pumpkinseed, redbreast sunfish, bluegill, and 

common carp (Table 4.4.1.2-1). Several common estuarine species were unique to the tailrace (Atlantic 

menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus) or upper tidal reach (bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli and tidewater 

silverside (Menidia beryllina). Overnight gill net sets in 1983 (July-November) were dominated by 

channel catfish, gizzard shad, white perch, striped bass, shorthead redhorse, Atlantic menhaden, and 

common carp (Table 4.4.1.2-2). 

The West Fish Lift operation in spring (April-early June) also documents abundance of resident fishes in 

the Conowingo tailrace. Results are tabulated since the 1980s in the series of annual SRAFRC progress 

reports. Catches of selected resident fish species at the West Fish Lift from 1991-2008 are shown in Table 

4.4.1.2-3. Catches are typically dominated by adult gizzard shad. In spring 2008, more than 724,000 

gizzard shad were counted, and more than one million were counted in 1992. Other abundant resident 

species caught by the West Fish Lift in spring 2008 included channel catfish, common carp, shorthead 

redhorse, quillback, brown bullhead, smallmouth bass, and walleye (Table 4.4.1.2-3). 

Resident fish from the Conowingo tailrace are also passed into Conowingo Pond during spring via the 

East Fish Lift. Gizzard shad also dominate East Lift resident fish catches; nearly 920,000 were passed into 

Conowingo Pond in 2008, but more than one million gizzard shad have been passed in some years (Table 

4.4.1.2-4). Smaller numbers of walleye, channel catfish, quillback, carp, and smallmouth bass from the 

tailrace are also commonly passed into Conowingo Pond. 

4-31



Maryland DNR sampled two reaches of the Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam by daytime 

electrofishing in October-November 2005 (MDNR 2006). The dominant gamefish species collected was 

largemouth bass. Most were taken in tidal water below Lapidum and were in excellent condition. Other 

taxa collected included tiger muskellunge, common carp, gizzard shad, and yellow perch. Smallmouth 

bass and walleye provide recreational fisheries in this reach but were not captured. 

Seasonal Use of the Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam by Resident Fishes 

A series of radiotelemetry investigations in the 1980s documented seasonal usage of the Susquehanna 

River below Conowingo Dam (Figure 4.4.1.2-1) for several species (e.g., RMC 1985, unpublished 

report). These included the important resident gamefish species smallmouth bass, walleye, and channel 

catfish. Brief synopses of seasonal use determined during the multi-year studies are provided below. 

Smallmouth bass ascended in early spring to the Conowingo tailrace from tidal lower river wintering 

areas. Smallmouth bass remained in or near the tailrace into June, then dispersed downriver and 

established individual home ranges in the lower non-tidal section or in tidal water. Individual smallmouth 

bass occupied well-defined home ranges throughout summer into fall. During mid-fall the home ranges 

broke down, and bass gradually dispersed to deeper overwintering habitats. 

Walleye utilized the Conowingo tailrace in spring, but by mid-July were found throughout the 10-mile 

reach of river below the dam. May and June was a period of frequent, nomadic movement. After mid- 

July, many walleye had moved to areas where water temperatures were cooler, including in-river 

locations but also to sites well upstream into Octoraro Creek in Pennsylvania, an east shore tributary. By 

October, walleye began to exit summer habitats and move generally upriver to the Conowingo tailrace. 

Channel catfish also moved upriver to the Conowingo tailrace in spring. Little movement occurred after 

spring, and movement patterns appeared to reflect establishment of home ranges throughout the 10-mile 

river reach below the dam. A general downriver movement began in late summer, as fish moved to 

deeper areas of the tidal lower river, or out of the river entirely to the Susquehanna Flats or upper 

Chesapeake Bay. 

4.4.2 Migratory Fish Species 

Anadromous fishes are those fish species that spend all or part of their adult life in saltwater and return to 

freshwater streams and rivers to spawn. All species of anadromous fish undergo a period of migration 

between freshwater and saltwater environments at certain stages to complete their life cycle. Conversely, 

catadromous fishes are species that reproduce in offshore ocean waters but spend most of their lives in 

4-32



freshwater, estuaries, or inshore ocean waters. Anadromous fish species occurring in the Project area are 

listed in Table 4.4.1-1. The only catadromous species in the Susquehanna River is the American eel 

(Anguilla rostrata) which exhibits facultative catadromy. 

The fish lift facilities at the Conowingo Dam are designed to pass migratory fishes, particularly members 

of the herring family (Clupeidae), including the American shad (Alosa sapidissima), alewife (Alosa 

pseudoharengus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), and hickory shad (Alosa mediocris). These 

species, along with the catadromous American eel, are targets of restoration. Most of these species have 

experienced population declines throughout their range, including the Susquehanna River Basin. Hickory 

shad in the Susquehanna River represent an exception. 

The Susquehanna River has long been the subject of coordinated efforts among various agencies and 

utilities to provide safe passage and restore self-sustaining populations of American shad, river herring, 

and other migratory fishes to the Susquehanna River. In recent years, efforts have been focused on 

providing upstream passage at the dams along the Susquehanna River. The Conowingo Dam contains 

two fish passage facilities, one at each end of the powerhouse (East Fish Lift and West Fish Lift). 

Operations of these facilities have been instrumental in the anadromous fish restoration program. Annual 

catches of migratory fishes in the west (1972-2008) and east (1991-2008) lifts are provided in Tables 

4.4.2-1 and 4.4.2-2, respectively. 

Life history profiles for each of the migratory fishes in the Lower Susquehanna River are provided in the 

following sections. Where available, specific Susquehanna River information for these species is also 

provided. Section 4.4.2.1 focuses on migratory species in the Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam. 

Additionally, the use of Conowingo Pond and several tributaries by anadromous fishes as a result of 

restoration activities has been evaluated by resource agencies. These latter studies are summarized in 

Section 4.4.2.2. 

4.4.2.1 Anadromous Fish Species below Conowingo Dam 

American Shad (Alosa sapidissima) 

The American shad is the largest herring in North America, reaching a maximum size of 30 inches. On 

the east coast of the United States, the range of the American shad extends from the Bay of Fundy in 

Nova Scotia to the St. Johns River in Florida. American shad spend the summer months actively feeding 

on zooplankton and small fish in the Gulf of Maine, Bay of Fundy, and the St. Lawrence estuary. In midfall, 

large schools migrate south, where they overwinter in deeper pelagic habitats off the Mid-Atlantic 

4-33



coast, particularly from Maryland to North Carolina (ASMFC 1999). Water temperatures between 50˚F 

and 59˚F (10˚C and 15˚C) trigger spawning migrations to natal rivers; however, photoperiod, flow 

velocity, and water turbidity also influence the onset of spawning (USFWS 1985a, 1986). Migrations are 

generally far enough upstream such that eggs hatch prior to drifting into saltwater (USFWS 1985a). 

Spawning occurs at water temperatures between 55˚F and 68˚F (13˚C and 20˚C), with a reported peak 

spawning temperature of 65-68˚F (18.3-20˚C). Spawning in the Susquehanna River generally occurs 

from late-April to early June (Leggett and Carscadden 1978). 

American shad eggs are non-adhesive and are dispersed in open water where they are fertilized by 

surrounding males. Spawning usually begins after dusk and continues through the night. After 

fertilization and water hardening, eggs slowly sink while drifting with the current until hatching takes 

place in four to seven days, depending on water temperature (USFWS 1985a). Current velocity is critical 

in removing silt deposits, as eggs are susceptible to oxygen deprivation from smothering and abrasion. 

American shad larvae are initially planktonic, but exhibit rapid growth under a diet of primarily 

zooplankton. Within four to five weeks, the larvae develop into juveniles, which continue to feed on 

cladocerans, copepods, and other invertebrates. Juvenile American shad reside in freshwater nursery 

areas for approximately six months, growing to three to five inches in length (USFWS 1985a). Nursery 

habitat occurs downstream of spawning grounds generally in deeper pools of non-tidal environments 

(ASMFC 1999). Heavy rainfall, high water levels, and sudden drops in water temperature may trigger 

schools of juvenile American shad to migrate downstream. Emigration occurs in the fall and is initiated 

when water temperatures drop below 60˚F (15˚C) (USFWS 1985b). Juvenile shad emigration through the 

Conowingo Project is discussed in Section 4.4.2.2. 

Once in the open ocean, young American shad join schools from other rivers and begin their seasonal 

migrations northward and southward along the Atlantic Coast. Sexual maturation occurs in three to six 

years (USFWS 1985a; ASMFC 1999). Adult American shad then return to their natal rivers to repeat the 

spawning cycle. Repeat spawning by American shad exhibits a north-south cline along the Atlantic coast. 

The proportion of repeat spawners is higher in northern rivers. The percentage of repeat spawners below 

Conowingo Dam ranged from 3.8% to 48.1% from 1988-2005; the median was 16.3% (Heisey et al. 

2008). 

In the Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam, American shad spawning has been documented in the 

upper tidal reach approximately 6.5 km (4 mi) below the dam near Port Deposit (Figure 4.4.1.2-1). Radiotagged 

shad were followed from daytime staging areas off Port Deposit to late evening and night locations 

4-34



in a 500-m flowing section associated with mid-river islands (RMC 1985, unpublished report; Markham 

and Weinrich 1994). Shad that roamed upriver into the non-tidal river reach during daytime also utilized 

this spawning area later in the evening. Ichthyoplankton samples collected in the evening and at night 

included numerous shad eggs. Utilization of this area for shad spawning was most intense in mid-May as 

water temperature increased from 65 to 68°F. 

Few shad juveniles apparently rear in the tidal Susquehanna River proper (RMC 1985, unpublished 

report) but young shad are a component of juvenile finfish index seine surveys conducted on the 

Susquehanna Flats annually by MDNR. The Flats comprise a portion of sites in the Upper Bay segment 

of the surveys. Record numbers of young-of-year American shad were collected in 2007 Upper Bay 

surveys (MDNR press release, October 1, 2007). 

Juvenile American shad (and hickory shad, below) rearing in the tidal portion of the Susquehanna River 

was investigated by MDNR beginning in 2005. Six beaches were sampled biweekly with a 100-ft x 0.25inch 

haul seine. One juvenile American shad was caught in 2005. Most of the catch was juvenile gizzard 

shad (SRAFRC 2006). 

The American shad has been the focus of intensive restoration efforts in the Lower Susquehanna River for 

several decades. Restoration efforts have included a trap and truck transport program, direct lifting of fish 

from the Conowingo Dam tailrace to the Conowingo Pond, monitoring of downriver juvenile migrants, 

telemetry and turbine mortality studies, spawning studies using synthetic reproductive hormones, and 

stocking of juvenile fish from eggs collected in various east coast and west coast rivers. Based on the 

data available from otolith markings, 62 percent of sacrificed American shad collected at the Conowingo 

Dam lift facilities from 1988 to 2005 are of hatchery origin (Hendricks 2006). Conversely, Chapman 

(1993) could attribute at most only 40 percent of the Susquehanna population to stocking efforts 

following genetic analyses of shad collected from ten east coast rivers and one west coast river. 

However, the latter study was based on small sample sizes, limiting the ability to draw definitive 

conclusions. 

Commercial shad fishing has been part of North American history long before Europeans arrived on the 

continent. The American shad has not maintained its value in the modern market and commercial fishing 

is no longer a lucrative business venture. In 1989, it was estimated, using econometric models, that a 

restored American shad fishery in the Chesapeake Bay could be valued anywhere from 42 million to 178 

million dollars (Chesapeake Executive Council 1989). To enhance restoration efforts of American shad, 

the PFBC and MDNR have imposed a year-round closed season (i.e., no takes) in the Susquehanna River 

4-35



in both Pennsylvania and Maryland. Captured shad by commercial or recreational fishers cannot be kept, 

but catch-and-release shad angling below Conowingo Dam is popular. 

2007 American Shad Stock Assessment 

The Susquehanna River drains about 27,500 square miles from Cooperstown, NY to Havre de Grace, 

MD; it provides over 50% of the freshwater input to the Chesapeake Bay. 

Populations of American shad have declined along the Atlantic Coast, and the Susquehanna River stock 

had dwindled to such a low level that the State of Maryland declared a moratorium on both the 

commercial and recreational fisheries in 1980. Pennsylvania landings ceased after 1928 (Gerstell 1998). 

The causes of decline and population dynamics of shad in the Susquehanna River and elsewhere along the 

Atlantic Coast have been investigated for decades and reported in many studies (Mansuetii and Kolb 

1953; Walburg and Nichols 1960, 1967; ASMFC 1988, 1998, 2007). Except for the recent ASMFC 

(2007) report, most of the other studies relied on commercial fishery data for stock assessments. While it 

is difficult to ascribe proportionally which factors caused the decline of the American shad in the 

Susquehanna River, three primary factors have been cited in earlier assessments: construction of dams, 

overfishing, and pollution. More recently, predation on shad by striped bass has been identified as a 

potential cause of decline. 

Three separate assessments of the Susquehanna River American shad stock have been made within the 

last 20 years using a variety of fishery-based (commercial and recreational) and fishery-independent (fish 

passage counts and population estimates via mark-recapture method) analytical tools and indices (Gibson 

et al. 1988; ASMFC 1988, 1998, 2007). Gibson et al. (1988) conducted the first ASMFC assessment of 

the Susquehanna River American shad stock using the Shepherd stock-recruitment model. Their analysis 

indicated that data points were widely scattered and poorly described by the model (ASMFC 2007). They 

attributed this to either significant measurement errors in the stock or recruitment estimates or recruitment 

variability resulting from density independent (environmental) factors. However over-harvest was 

suggested as the major cause of the stock collapse in the late 1970’s (ASMFC 1988). 

The second assessment was conducted by ASMFC in 1998 and concluded that shad population 

abundance (in-river stock size plus coastal landings from Upper Chesapeake Bay) increased steadily from 

a low of about 14,000 fish in 1980 to a high of 342,000 fish in 1995; the population dropped to 213,000 

fish in 1996. The increase in stock abundance was in part due to hatchery releases. The overall trend in 

shad recruitment to the Upper Bay, based on juvenile abundance, generally increased from 1984 through 

4-36



1995 and was not solely due to the hatchery releases (ASMFC 1998). There was no evidence that the 

shad stocks from the Upper Bay had suffered recruitment failure or a recent adult stock decline. 

The most recent assessment of the Susquehanna River American shad stock was conducted by ASMFC 

(2007). The assessment was primarily fishery-independent index based. The indices used were: 

American shad population estimates downstream of Conowingo Dam, passage counts at the two fish lifts 

at Conowingo Dam, and juvenile in-river (1985-2005) and Susquehanna Flats (1959-2005) abundance 

indices. Based on otolith tagging analysis, shad in the Upper Chesapeake Bay comprises two separate 

stocks; one destined for the upper Susquehanna River (evident from greater hatchery contribution, 29 to 

90%) and the other spawning downstream of Conowingo Dam (14 to 58% hatchery origin). 

Figure 4.4.2.1-1 shows the relative estimates of the American shad population downstream of the 

Conowingo Project. The population increased substantially from 1984 to 1992, dipped in 1993, and 

generally increased thereafter until 2004. The increase in population during 1984 through 2001 may be 

reflective of the large stocking effort (3 to 14 million fry per year) (ASMFC 2007). Hatchery fish 

returned in large numbers as adults until 1996, as indexed by otolith analysis of adults captured at the 

Conowingo West Fish Lift. The population has been in general decline since 2001 coincident with low 

passage rates at upstream facilities, suggesting low recruitment from upstream areas. 

The decline in the relative estimates of the American shad population downstream of Conowingo Dam is 

also supported by passage counts between 1991 and 2007 at Conowingo East Fish Lift (Figure 4.4.2.1-2). 

The passage counts generally increased from 1991 to 2001 and have declined since then. 

The third metric used to assess American shad stock, juvenile abundance indices (one in-river and the 

other Susquehanna Flats), exhibited somewhat different trends (Figure 4.4.2.1-3). The juvenile 

abundance index for the Susquehanna Flats for the period 1959-2005, mostly wild fish, showed an 

exponential increase since 1980 (ASMFC 2007). The in-river juvenile abundance index (developed from 

sampling sites upstream of Safe Harbor Dam and in Holtwood Dam forebay) exhibited much variability 

with a general decline at all sites since 2001 (Tables 4.4.2.1-1 and 4.4.2.1-2). The higher abundance 

values generally coincided with years of upstream transport of adult American shad from Conowingo 

Dam (until 1996) or high passage at the York Haven fish ladder. The potential recruitment of juveniles 

from the contribution of wild fish to the abundance index has generally been negligible since 2001; 2001 

was the highest shad passage count year at the York Haven fish ladder. These fish, through successful 

reproduction, contributed to the increased “wild fish” component of the abundance index. 

4-37



The significance of the contribution of wild fish to the in-river juvenile index was noted by ASMFC 

(2007). Of the 24 statistical correlations, only three were significant. All three relationships involved 

wild fish as follows: (1) the relationship between number of adult shad transported or passed above Safe 

Harbor Dam and haul seine catch per unit effort (CPUE); (2) the number of adults passed or transported 

above York Haven and Lift-net catch; and (3) number of adults passed or transported above York Haven 

and haul seine CPUE. No significant correlation was observed between number of hatchery fish stocked 

and the two hatchery juvenile indices. 

Poor recruitment or low reproduction by adults in upstream areas may also result from low passage rates 

at fishways upstream of Conowingo Dam (Figure 4.4.2.1-4). With some exceptions, the passage rates at 

upstream fishways have been less than 50% of passage rates at Conowingo. The passage rate at York 

Haven has been less than 5% of that at Conowingo. Thus, only a small percentage of adult American 

shad is reaching the desired spawning area above York Haven to successfully spawn and expand the wild 

fish component of the run. 

The most recent ASMFC shad stock assessment did not explicitly account for potential losses to predators 

such as striped bass (e.g., Crecco et al. 2006) or flathead catfish, a recent introduction in the Susquehanna 

River. The striped bass population has increased substantially in the Upper Bay in recent years. Striped 

bass were reported to have consumed a significant number of adult American shad such that the depressed 

status of the shad population in the Connecticut River is linked to striped bass predation (Crecco et al. 

2006). No data were found to support this linkage in the Susquehanna River. The 2007 ASMFC 

assessment report, however, recommends evaluating American shad losses to both striped bass and 

flathead catfish. 

In summary, the recent decline in American shad population downstream of Conowingo Dam may be due 

to (a) failure of a significant proportion of the pre-spawners to reach spawning areas upstream of York 

Haven and contribute to the expansion of the population; it may be postulated that those fish not reaching 

the desired area are essentially “lost” to the population because of a lack of successful spawning in 

intervening reservoirs; (b) an unknown proportion of American shad may fall prey to striped bass, the 

population of which has increased substantially in the Upper Bay in recent years. 

Hickory Shad (Alosa mediocris) 

The hickory shad is similar morphologically to the American shad, but is generally smaller and has a 

strongly protruding lower jaw. Research regarding hickory shad life history is relatively scarce, and 

many assumed that the biology and ecology of the hickory shad was similar to that of the American shad. 

4-38



Hickory shad enter the Chesapeake Bay estuary and its tributaries earlier in the spring (March to April) 

than do American shad (MDNR 2006a). Recent spawning by hickory shad has been documented as far 

north as the Connecticut River. Studies suggest that hickory shad migrate in a pattern similar to the 

coastal migrations of American shad, feeding on small fish, squid, fish eggs, zooplankton, and small 

crustaceans (ASFMC 1999). 

Spawning by adult hickory shad occurs over a water temperature range of 54 o F to 72 o F (12 o C to 22 o C), 

and may take place in a diversity of physical habitats, including sloughs, backwaters, tributaries, and tidal 

and non-tidal portions of large rivers. Spawning sites in Maryland generally occur in mainstem rivers at 

the fall line, but hickory shad are known to enter tributaries of the Susquehanna River below Conowingo 

Dam (e.g., Octoraro Creek, Deer Creek) to spawn (ASMFC 1999; MDNR 2006a). Repeat spawning in 

hickory shad may occur but varies among river systems (ASMFC 1999). Spawned eggs are buoyant and 

moderately adhesive. Fertilized eggs are transported by river currents and hatch within a few days. 

Larval fish drift with the river current until maturation into juveniles. 

Documentation of nursery areas of hickory shad is problematic given the rarity of capture of juvenile fish 

(MDNR 2006a). Some studies suggest that the majority of juveniles leave freshwater and brackish areas 

in early summer and migrate to estuarine nursery areas; however, other studies indicate that juveniles may 

migrate directly from freshwater to saltwater. After spawning, adults, which can grow to two feet in 

length, return to the ocean. Their marine distribution and movements are unknown, but it is believed that 

they follow a pattern similar to the coastal migrations of American shad, moving northward from the mid- 

Atlantic and southeast after spawning (ASMFC 1999). 

Hickory shad have not been a target of commercial fishermen but were often times harvested as by-catch 

in gear set for American shad and striped bass (Chesapeake Executive Council 1989). Historically, 

annual harvests were generally below 10,000 pounds per year and rarely reached 50,000 pounds per year 

in Maryland. Hickory shad were not as abundant as other alosine species in the lower Susquehanna 

River, but were intensively targeted as game fish (Carter 1973). The majority of harvested hickory shad 

were captured through recreational angling during spring months in upper Chesapeake Bay tributaries 

(Chesapeake Executive Council 1989). Hickory shad in 1981 were added to the American shad harvest 

moratorium imposed in 1980 (Lukacovic and Pieper 1996). 

Rebounding stocks have revived the status of the hickory shad as an important game species in the Lower 

Susquehanna River, but only on a catch-and-release basis. Most fishing occurs at the mouth of Deer 

Creek, at several locations in the lower two miles of Deer Creek and Octoraro Creek, and in the 

4-39



Conowingo tailrace (Figure 4.4.1.2-1). Hickory shad catches by cooperating anglers are monitored by 

MDNR. Angler-caught hickory shad are also used to provide MDNR and PFBC with fertilized eggs for 

hatchery-rearing and stocking at sites within and out-of-basin. Although apparently abundant below 

Conowingo Dam, few are caught in either fish lift (Tables 4.4.2-1 and 4.4.2-2). 

River Herring – Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis) 

Alewife and blueback herring are common forage fishes that migrate annually on the east coast of North 

America. The alewife ranges from Newfoundland to South Carolina; the blueback herring ranges from 

Nova Scotia to Florida. These forage species serve as linkages in the aquatic food chain between 

zooplankton and piscivorous fishes. Although the two species are morphologically similar, they may be 

distinguished from one another by their scale imbrication patterns, number of vertebrae and gill rakers, 

color of peritoneum, and eye diameter to snout length ratios (USFWS 1983a). Adults generally reach a 

size of 8 to 12 inches (ASMFC 1985). 

Spawning by alewives and blueback herring occurs once per year in spring or early summer. Minimum 

spawning temperatures for the alewife and blueback herring are 51˚F to 57˚F (11˚C and 14˚C), 

respectively. The lower minimum spawning temperature for the alewife generally results in spawning of 

this species three to four weeks prior to that of blueback herring, with peak spawning separated by two to 

three weeks in sympatric areas (USFWS 1983b). Spawning ceases for both species when water 

temperatures reach 80˚F (27˚C) (USFWS 1983a). The two species prefer different spawning habitats as 

well as temperatures. Alewives prefer to spawn in sluggish water over a range of substrates including 

sand, gravel, detritus, and submerged vegetation (ASMFC 1999). Blueback herring require higher water 

velocities coupled with gravel or other hard substrate to broadcast their eggs (USFWS 1983a; ASMFC 

1999). Spawning may occur in a variety of habitats, from small streams to large rivers. The upper 

Chesapeake Bay and all of its major tributaries (including the Susquehanna River) have been identified as 

spawning areas for both alewife and blueback herring (Chesapeake Executive Council 1989). 

Spawning runs of river herring, principally in Deer Creek, a tributary at the head of tide, were 

investigated by MDNR from 1968-1970 (Carter 1973). Runs began in April and initially were mostly 

alewife. Blueback herring dominated during several pulses in May. River herring run sizes in Deer Creek 

during 1969 and 1970, including a small proportion of hickory shad, were estimated at 797,000 and 

362,000 fish, respectively. 

Following installation of a Denil fishway at Wilson Mill Dam in Deer Creek during 1999-2000, MDNR 

evaluated fishway passage of anadromous and resident fishes using a net trap at the fishway exit. More 

4-40



than 58,000 river herring, mostly alewife, passed through the ladder in spring 2000 and spawned in 

upstream areas (Koslow et al. 2001). Substantially fewer river herring (126 alewife only) passed upstream 

in spring 2007 during a follow-up survey (Thompson and Botowski 2007). 

Adults migrate downstream immediately after spawning. The adhesive eggs remain attached until water 

hardening is complete (approximately 24 hours), after which they ascend into the water column. 

Juveniles feed primarily on zooplankton in freshwater nursery areas until spring to early summer 

(ASFMC 1999). At 45 mm, juveniles are fully developed and begin emigration from fresh and brackish 

water to saltwater between June and November along much of the Atlantic coastline (USFWS 1983b). 

Natural environmental factors such as heavy rainfall, high water levels, and sudden decreases in water 

temperature have been identified as triggers for emigration of river herring (USFWS 1983a). 

Historic data from 1931 indicate that river herring were first in quantity and fifth in total value of all 

finfish landed in the state of Maryland for that year, with a total harvest of over 25 million pounds. As of 

2004, this number had dropped to 70,000 pounds (MDNR 2005). Historically, a large recreational and 

bait fishery existed for both alewife and blueback herring in the tributaries of Chesapeake Bay. Although 

some fish were collected through hook-and-line angling, the majority of individuals were collected using 

dip nets during March, April, and May (Chesapeake Executive Council 1989). Principal locations of the 

dip net fishery in the Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam were along the west bank at the mouth 

of Deer Creek, near Rock Run in Susquehanna State Park, and near the Lapidum boat launch. Harvested 

fish were used as bait for game fish species, fertilizer, animal feed, and for human consumption (USFWS 

1983a). Herring are now the preferred live bait for the Susquehanna River and Flats spring catch-andrelease 

fishery for striped bass. 

Blueback herring typically outnumber alewife in catches at both the East and West Fish Lifts (Tables 

4.4.2-1 and 4.4.2-2). Blueback herring catches at the East Lift exceeded 242,000 individuals in both 1997 

and 2001 but recent catches at both lifts have declined markedly since 2001. Four blueback herring were 

caught by the East Lift in 2005; none were caught at the West Lift. More alewife are typically caught at 

the West Lift than the East Lift. Since 1985, the peak alewife catch at the West Lift (9,189) occurred in 

2001. However, no alewife were caught in either 2004 or 2005, a decline that parallels that of blueback 

herring (SRAFRC 2006). 

Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) 

The striped bass ranges from Canada to Florida along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, in California on the 

Pacific coast, and is an important commercial and recreational fish in the Chesapeake Bay. Striped bass 

4-41



may grow to several feet in length and are highly predatory, feeding on a variety of fishes and 

invertebrates. Spawning occurs once annually in fresh or brackish water during the months of April, 

May, and June in the mid-Atlantic region. Spawning commences with the arrival of males on spawning 

grounds in the spring, followed by the arrival of females. Spawning occurs over a period of 

approximately four hours, during which eggs are loosely broadcasted into the water (USFWS 1983c). 

The spherical, non-adhesive, semi-buoyant eggs drift for several days before hatching. Striped bass eggs 

require a minimum flow velocity of 1 foot per second (30.5 centimeters per second (cm/s)) in order to 

prevent the eggs from sinking and becoming starved of oxygen in sediments. They are capable of 

withstanding temperatures between 57˚F and 73˚F (14˚C and 23˚C). Eggs will generally be rendered 

unviable at turbidity levels greater than 1,000 mg/L. 

Larvae are more tolerant of flow conditions but require that temperatures remain between 50˚F and 77˚F 

(10˚C and 25˚C), with a maximum turbidity of 500 mg/L (USFWS 1983c). The yolk-sac larvae and 

finfold larvae stages of the striped bass life cycle are the most critical stages in terms of future cohort 

strength, given that these stages suffer higher mortality rates than any other life stage (USFWS 1983c). 

Larvae feed primarily on zooplankton. The juvenile stage may be represented by individuals from one 

inch to 20 inches in length, depending on sex and location. The majority of juveniles remain in the area 

of the river in which they were spawned; however, young-of-the-year (YOY) may move downstream and 

shoreward (USFWS 1983c). Shoals and clean sandy bottoms have been reported as nursery areas 

(USFWS 1982). Females generally reach sexual maturity at age 5-8, whereas males reach sexual 

maturity at 2-3 years. 

Migratory stocks in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries may account for as much as 90 percent of the 

recruitment in the Atlantic coastal fishery (USFWS 1982). Because it is a highly sought sport and 

commercial fish, catch data are closely monitored for fishery sustainability and resiliency to withstand 

both recreational and commercial fishing pressure as well as environmental degradation. The Atlantic 

Striped Bass Conservation Act (ASBCA), originally enacted in 1984 and then reauthorized in 1997, 

requires that biennial reports containing annual stock assessments, population dynamic studies, and 

various other biological and ecological studies be submitted to Congress and to the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). Maryland imposed a moratorium on recreational and commercial 

striped bass fishing in 1985 through 1989. The state lifted the moratorium in 1990, and subsequently 

instituted a strictly regulated fishery for this species. Both commercial and recreational fisheries have 

expanded steadily since 1990. The state of Maryland produced the highest catch totals of striped bass in 

4-42



2003 and 2004, with 1,336,900 and 1,066,800 individuals caught during these years, respectively. These 

figures include both recreational and commercial landings (NMFS & USFWS 2005). 

The striped bass fishery creates employment in the Chesapeake Bay region and bolsters the local 

economy by drawing recreational fishermen to the region. Certain areas of Chesapeake Bay and the 

Susquehanna River have been designated as striped bass spawning areas by the state of Maryland, 

including below the Conowingo Dam (Code of Maryland [COMAR] 08.02.15.03). This area, as well as 

several other tidal tributaries and portions of Chesapeake Bay, are subject to restrictions on striped bass 

fishing. The restrictions are designed to protect spawning striped bass and essential spawning habitats in 

an attempt to promote the self-sustainability of the fishery. 

In recent years (until 2008) recreational striped bass harvest in the Susquehanna River was prohibited 

until June 1. Regulated catch-and-release fishing in spring on the Susquehanna Flats began initially in 

1999, and in 2008 extended for more than 60 days from March through early May. The Flats catch-andrelease 

spring fishery was extended into the lower Susquehanna River up to the Lapidum/Port Deposit 

area in 2007 to accommodate extensive participation (Figure 4.4.1.2-1). In 2008, striped bass harvest in 

the Susquehanna River was permitted beginning May 16 (D. Weinrich, MDNR, personal 

communication). 

Striped bass historically used the Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam for feeding, particularly on 

young white crappie during summer (Plosila 1961). More recently, striped bass forays into the lower 

Susquehanna River in summer were to feed on abundant gizzard shad (Euston and Rinehart 1984). 

Striped bass use of the lower Susquehanna River is primarily nomadic; fish move into and out of the river 

regularly (RMC 1985, unpublished report). Large striped bass (> 10 pounds) are most abundant in the 

Susquehanna River and Flats in early spring, when they are available to the popular catch-and-release 

fishery. Smaller striped bass dominate in these areas later in the year. 

White Perch (Morone americana) 

The white perch is a migratory species that is tolerant of a wide range of environmental conditions. The 

white perch is considered “semi-anadromous,” living entirely within the Chesapeake Bay estuary where it 

is a popular sport fish. Its natural range encompasses the coastal areas from New Brunswick and Nova 

Scotia south to South Carolina (USFWS 1983d). White perch are bottom-oriented and predaceous on 

benthic crustaceans and small fishes. White perch prefer to spawn in freshwater; however, spawning in 

brackish water in salinities up to 4.2 ppt have been observed. Spawning may occur in slow or fast water 

4-43



and in clear to turbid water. Substrates reported to be used for spawning include clay, sand, gravel, and 

crushed shells (USFWS 1983d), but fine gravel or sand substrates are typically used (MDNR 2006b). 

Spawning is triggered by rising water temperatures in the spring and may occur from March through July, 

depending on climatic conditions and salinity. White perch may spawn in the same body of water where 

they are resident or migrate long distances. Males proceed to spawning areas before females. White 

perch reach sexual maturity at two to four years of age, with males maturing before females. Female 

white perch are typically more fecund compared to other similar-sized fish, and can release anywhere 

from 20,000-200,000 eggs. Eggs adhere to the substrate immediately in slow water; however, under 

intensive spawning, the eggs may become cohesive and pelagic, particularly in free-flowing streams and 

rivers (USFWS 1983d; MDNR 2006b). Eggs are tolerant of siltation, remaining viable at particulate 

concentrations of 500 mg/L. Incubation lasts from one to six days and is temperature-dependent. 

Juvenile fish gradually move downstream toward brackish water as they grow (Lippson and Lippson 

1984). 

White perch are caught by recreational and commercial fishermen throughout the year, with the largest 

catches during the spring spawning season. Individuals may also be taken in the fall, when large schools 

congregate to feed on menhaden, shad, and river herring (MDNR 2006b). Greater than 80 percent of the 

total landings of white perch in the Chesapeake Bay are from Maryland waters (MDNR 2006b). 

Commercial fishing is conducted by trawls, haul seines, and drifting gill nets in the Chesapeake Bay 

(USFWS 1983d). 

White perch arrive in the Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam by late March, and provide a 

popular sport fishery through spring and summer. After spawning, many white perch return to Upper 

Chesapeake Bay waters, but many also remain in the river and occupy habitats throughout the tailrace, 

non-tidal section, and upper tidal areas (RMC 1985, unpublished report). Susquehanna River seasonally 

resident white perch were ranked third in abundance (after gizzard shad and American eel, or channel 

catfish) in 1983 electrofishing and gill net samples (Tables 4.4.1.1-1 and 4.4.1.2-1). White perch that 

remain in the river and tailrace after spawning will, along with striped bass, feed on young gizzard shad. 

Most young white perch spawned in the river do not rear in the river; young-of-year white perch were 

more abundant in electrofishing samples from the Susquehanna Flats than at any site within the river 

(RMC, unpublished data). 

4-44



Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) 

Sea lamprey are a parasitic anadromous species caught in low numbers each spring in both fish lifts. In 

2005, the West and East lifts accounted for 10 and 35 sea lamprey, respectively (Tables 4.4.2-1 and 4.4.2- 

2). In either lift, lamprey are noted as large free-swimming adults returning from the ocean to spawn, or 

as recently transformed juveniles just beginning the parasitic phase. The recently transformed lampreys 

that have not yet descended to the ocean are small (8-12 inches) and typically observed attached to either 

gizzard shad or American shad. 

Sea lamprey live in fresh water habitats as juveniles (termed ammocetes) for up to seven years, then 

mature and migrate to the ocean (Cooper 1983). Ammocetes are not parasitic, but rather are filter feeders. 

Typical freshwater habitat for juveniles is silt or mud banks in tributary streams. They return from the 

ocean after about one year as large, matured adults to freshwater streams to spawn in spring. Sea lamprey 

spawn in both Octoraro and Deer Creeks and ammocetes occur in both streams. More than 1,000 sea 

lamprey were counted passing the Wilson Mill fishway in Deer Creek during spring 2007 (Thompson and 

Butowski 2007). 

4.4.2.2 Anadromous Fish Species in Conowingo Pond 

Anadromous fishes have been passed directly into Conowingo Pond from the East Fish Lift since 1997. 

At least for American shad, Conowingo Pond was expected to serve primarily as a migration corridor to 

the Fish Lift at Holtwood Dam, the next facility upstream. However, SRAFRC through the PFBC also 

investigated the potential use of tributaries to the Susquehanna River, both in Conowingo Pond and in 

upriver reaches, for potential use by anadromous fishes, particularly American shad and river herring. 

Shad passage through Conowingo Pond was investigated before and after 1997 when direct passage to 

Holtwood and Safe Harbor dams was implemented. During 1987-2001 there were seven migration studies 

(RMC 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995; Normandeau Associates 2001) of gastric-implanted radio-tagged adult 

American shad in Conowingo Pond, each with differing objectives and release and tagging procedures 

(Table 4.4.2.2-1). These studies were conducted over a wide range of hydrological conditions utilizing 

American shad in various stages of sexual maturity and released at different locations depending upon 

study objectives (Figure 4.4.2.2-1). 

Taking into account the known potential effects of handling, tagging, and release on upstream migration 

of radio-tagged American shad, a relatively high proportion of pre-spawned radio-tagged American shad 

(70% in 1989, 86% in 1993, and 67% in 2001) successfully migrated upstream of the Muddy Run Project 

4-45



with minimal delay. Several of the radio-tagged shad migration studies also confirmed that the thermal 

plume from Peach Bottom Station did not affect through-pond migration of adult shad. The higher 

proportion of tagged fish successfully migrating past the stations in 1989, 1993, and 2001 indicated that 

neither the Muddy Run Project nor Peach Bottom caused a significant adverse impact on the upstream 

migration of adult American shad. The 2001 study also estimated that about 5.1% of tagged adult shad 

were entrained at the Muddy Run Project. Another comprehensive evaluation of American shad passage 

utilizing radio telemetry in Conowingo Pond was conducted in spring 2008 (Normandeau 2009). A total 

of 317 adult American shad comprising early, mid, and late run fish were equipped with radio tags and 

released into the Conowingo East Fish Lift exit flume. Fourteen tags were found in the flume at the study 

concusion, so 303 shad left the exit flume. Thirty nine (12.9% of 303) shad returned to and passed 

through Conowingo Dam within about seven days and five were never detected again after exiting the 

fish lift. Two hundred fifty-nine (85.5 % of 303) were monitored at detection sites upstream of 

Conowingo Dam. 

As in previous studies, most fish traveled through the lower Pond along the western shoreline, passing the 

Broad Creek or Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS) monitoring sites. Once fish left the Broad 

Creek and Peach Bottom regions (west shore) of the Pond they tended to cross over Pond at some point 

and travel along the east side of the Pond. Two hundred thirty two (90%) out of 259 fish were 

subsequently detected at either Sicily Island below the Muddy Run Project or at the Muddy Run Project. 

Muddy Run Station appeared to have a minimal effect on upstream migration of radio tagged American 

shad. Two hundred five (79.2% of 259) shad reaching Sicily Island or the Muddy Run Station migrated 

to detection points upstream of Muddy Run. Most of the remaining shad which were not located upstream 

of Muddy Run Station left Conowingo Pond during a period of sustained high river flows (>50,000 cfs) 

that occurred between May 13 and May 24. 

Nine (3.6% of 248 exposed to Muddy Run Station) shad were entrained at the Muddy Run Project; two 

were entrained prior to reaching Holtwood and seven went to Holtwood during daily lift operation hours 

and were available for passage prior to being entrained. Two of the seven reaching Holtwood were 

entrained following termination of lift operations at Holtwood on 9 June. These findings are similar to 

those observed in the 2001 study (Normandeau 2001). 

Fourteen (5.4 % of 259 shad that migrated upstream) utilized the Holtwood fish lift. Most passage 

occurred late in the migration season following a decrease in consistently high river flows that occurred 

during the mid portion of the migration season. 

4-46



The PFBC contracted Penn State University to evaluate lower Susquehanna River tributary habitat for 

alosid spawning potential. Aquatic habitat within several Conowingo Pond tributaries was examined, 

including the location of the first migration barrier (Carline et al. 1994-1997). This study identified that 

the tributaries were capable of providing alosid spawning habitat, and formed the basis for a 1998 pilot 

study of alosid use of upper Conowingo Pond and lower Susquehanna River tributaries. Three 

Pennsylvania tributaries to Conowingo Pond were included for evaluation, including Muddy Creek (York 

County), Peters Creek, and Fishing Creek (both in Lancaster County) (Figure 4.4.2.2-1). Adult alosids 

were sampled by daytime electrofishing. 

Studies of alosid use of the Conowingo Pond and tributaries extended from 1998 through 2001. Six 

American shad were captured in 1998 during the pilot study in upper Conowingo Pond. Two adult 

American shad were collected in Muddy Creek in 2001. No other adult shad, or adult river herring, were 

captured in the three tributaries studied. Tributary sampling continued in upriver areas above Holtwood 

Dam through 2003, but work in the Conowingo Pond tributaries ceased after 2001. 

Upper Conowingo Pond was sampled for juvenile alosids during 1999-2003. Young shad and river 

herring were sampled with a push net deployed off the bow of a small boat. Juvenile shad were captured 

in 1999 (3) and 2001 (136). Two adult shad in post-spawn condition were also captured during the period. 

Additionally, alewife were captured in 2002 and 2003, but were believed to originate from upriver 

sources since fewer than 75 alewife were passed into Conowingo Pond in each of those years 

(Normandeau Associates 2002, 2003). 

Adult American shad migrating through Conowingo Pond were targeted by the PFBC during 2003-2005 

as a potential additional source of fertilized shad eggs to augment annual PFBC hatchery production of 

shad fry used to stock the lower Susquehanna River. Drift gill nets were deployed at dusk at several 

locations in upper Conowingo Pond when water temperature reached 15.5°C. Sampling conducted in 

2003 yielded 138 shad and two liters of eggs. Sampling in 2004 and 2005 yielded no shad eggs as the 

number of shad, particularly ripe females, declined. The east side of Conowingo Pond just below Sicily 

Island was the most productive area sampled (Figure 4.4.2.2-1). 

Juvenile American shad migrate downstream through Conowingo Pond each fall. Catches by different 

methods at Holtwood Dam, PBAPS, and Conowingo Dam are used as indices to track annual juvenile 

shad abundance and run timing (SRAFRC 2006). In 2005, 200 juvenile shad were collected at Holtwood, 

135 at PBAPS, and 25 at Conowingo Dam. Peak catches of outmigrating juvenile shad can occur in 

October or November. 

4-47



4.4.2.3 Catadromous Fish Species 

The American eel (Anguilla. rostrata) is the only catadromous fish species in North America. The 

conventional paradigm for catadromy is spawning takes place in the ocean but rearing occurs in 

freshwater systems. Recent evidence indicates, however, that catadromy of American eel is facultative 

and not obligatory, since eels may complete the life cycle in saline environments as well. 

American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) 

The American eel is the only catadromous species present on the Atlantic coast. It is found from the tip 

of Greenland, along the entire Atlantic coast of North America, the Gulf of Mexico, and as far south as 

the Caribbean and Venezuela in coastal and marine habitats. Inland habitats range from the St. Lawrence 

Seaway to the Great Lakes. It comprises a substantial proportion of the biomass of fish fauna in the 

Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries (Chesapeake Bay Program 2004). Its life cycle is complex and poorly 

understood, and typically includes oceanic, estuarine, and freshwater (riverine) phases. The life cycle is 

also more variable than thought earlier, since recent evidence suggests that some anguillids may complete 

the life cycle without a freshwater phase (USFWS 2007). 

American eel spawn in the winter and early spring in the Sargasso Sea, a large portion of the western 

Atlantic Ocean east of the Bahama Islands. There is no information on the spawning depth, incubation 

period, exact spawning location, or required environmental conditions for American eel eggs. Fecundity 

has been reported to range from 0.5 to 4.0 million eggs per female (ASMFC 2000). The spawning and 

nursery habitat provided by the Sargasso Sea is considered an essential component of the hatching 

success of American eel eggs. Adult American eel are semelparous and die after spawning. 

The many different stages of the American eel life cycle have been categorized by common names. 

Following the egg stage, the American eel succeeds from the larval (leptocephalus) stage to the glass eel, 

elver eel, yellow eel, and finally to the sexually mature stage known as silver eel (sometimes called 

“bronze eel”). There is a period of migration within each of the aforementioned life stages. Larval eels 

spawned in the Sargasso Sea are carried by the Antilles, Florida, and Gulf Stream currents to coastal 

North America (USFWS 1987). Leptocephali hatch from buoyant eggs and drift in the water column for 

several months, growing rapidly until October when growth slows or stops (ASMFC 2000). The duration 

of the larval stage is approximately one year (USFWS 1987). 

The glass eel is the first stage associated with the transition from offshore marine to inshore habitats. 

Glass eels are morphologically similar to yellow eels but lack pigmentation. They are transparent with 

4-48



elongated, ribbon-like bodies, ranging in size from 2 to 2.5 inches. Glass eels actively migrate to coastal 

areas, estuaries, and freshwater rivers during the late winter and early spring (USFWS 1987). 

As the glass eel migrates inshore, it becomes pigmented and becomes an elver eel. Elver eels are 

photonegative and display daytime burrowing behavior, preferring to seek refugia in burrows, tubes, 

vegetation, shelter, or the substrate itself, while remaining active at night. The presence of soft, 

undisturbed bottom sediments provides critical shelter for migrating elvers. Mid-Atlantic elver eel 

migrations usually begin in the late winter and early spring. Elver eels slowly become more active during 

daylight hours and begin to migrate farther upstream (USFWS 1987). Because of their small size and 

limited swimming speed, elvers depend on tides to aid upstream migration. Upstream migration of elvers 

may occur over a broad period of time from May (peak migration) through October, and occurs earlier in 

the southern portion of its range than in the northern portion (ASMFC 2000). It is during this time period 

that the elver eel transitions to the yellow eel stage of its life cycle. 

Yellow eels remain in inshore habitats for as little as five years and as many as 20 or more years. Yellow 

eels are sexually immature, and hermaphroditic individuals are common at this life stage. Sexual 

dimorphism does not occur until individuals grow to a size range of about 200 to 250 mm (USFWS 

1987). Yellow eels are nocturnally active benthic omnivores, feeding on insects, mollusks, crustaceans, 

worms, and other fishes. While male yellow eels typically remain in estuarine waters, females often take 

more than a year to reach an upstream location (USFWS 2005). Maximum sizes of yellow eels are five 

feet for females and two feet for males (Chesapeake Bay Program 2004). Yellow eels may move upriver 

or downriver within a tributary (Machut et al. 2007), or between fresh and brackish water (USFWS 2007). 

Yellow eels become silver eels once sexual maturity has been reached. The silver life stage is the adult 

life stage of the American eel. The transition to the silver eel phase is accompanied by several 

physiological changes, including a color change from yellow/green to metallic bronze-black, body 

fattening and skin thickening, and enlargement of the eye (USFWS 1987; ASMFC 2000). Silver eels 

begin the spawning migration in late summer and fall in the Mid-Atlantic region (USFWS 1987). 

Outmigration of silver phase eels occurs mainly at night (ASMFC 2000). 

The American eel has historically supported a commercial fishery along the Atlantic Coast. Available 

harvest data from Maine to Florida indicate that the American eel harvest has declined since the mid- 

1970s. Annual eel catch ranged from 913,251 pounds to 3,626,936 pounds between 1970 and 1995. Eel 

landings peaked during 1970-1995 at 3.6 million pounds in 1979. Following the 1979 peak, landings 

trended downward, reaching no higher than 1.8 million pounds in 1985 and declining overall more than 

4-49



75% through the period. The fishery has since then declined to an all time low in 2002, with only 

649,000 pounds of eel harvested (American Eel Plan Review Team 2005). Many eels are commercially 

caught in a bait fishery and used for recreational striped bass fishing. 

Between 1957 and 1980, elver-stage eels (from 23,000 to 6,000,000 individuals) were stocked annually in 

the Susquehanna River upriver of hydroelectric dams (ASMFC 2000). Approximately 2,500 juvenile eels 

were stocked above Safe Harbor Dam in June 1983 (RMC 1985, unpublished report). No known stocking 

occurred above Conowingo Dam through 2007. American eels were commonly caught in PBAPS-related 

studies during the 1970s but were absent from catches during the most recent PBAPS studies during 

1996-1999. 

Currently, commercial eel fishing in the state of Pennsylvania is closed, and personal use harvesters are 

restricted to 50 eels per person per day. The state of Maryland’s current regulations for recreational 

harvest/personal use require that individuals be a minimum of six inches in length and that no more than 

25 individuals may be harvested daily. A commercial license is required in tidal waters, and monthly 

reporting to the state is mandatory (American Eel Plan Review Team 2005). 

The West Fish Lift provides a lengthy timeline of freshwater American eel catches from the Conowingo 

tailrace during normal spring operations. American eels appeared more abundant in the 1970s than at 

present, although operating conditions have been substantially altered since then (Table 4.4.2-1). Most eel 

captures occurred in June (SRAFRC 2006). Few eels apparently use the East Fish Lift, although some 

may also pass unobserved into Conowingo Pond (Table 4.4.2-2). 

Yellow-stage American eels were a major component of monthly electrofishing catches throughout the 

Conowingo tailrace, non-tidal, and upper tidal areas (all freshwater) in the 1980s. American eel ranked 

second in abundance in samples aggregated across four sampling reaches (Table 4.4.1.2-1). Abundance 

was comparable in all four of the sampling zones located within a four mile reach below Conowingo Dam 

to Port Deposit (RMC 1985, unpublished report). 

The USFWS initiated a study of American eel in the Conowingo tailrace in 2005 (SRAFRC 2006). Eels 

were captured using eel pots and an in-water Irish elver ramp from locations near the West Fish Lift 

during 18 May to 2 August. The combined gears captured 251 eels that measured 93 to 733 mm. Elver 

catches in the ramp were highest in early July. The study was continued from 10 May to 26 June 2006 

when the same gears captured 384 eels over a similar size range. An additional 192 eels were captured 

over seven days of special operation between 14 and 26 June 2006 at the West Fish Lift. Elvers were 

4-50



experimentally tagged with oxytetracycline (OTC) for an age validation study (Minkinnen and Park 

2008). 

The Conowingo tailrace eel work was expanded in 2007. In addition to continued sampling by eel pots 

and Irish elver ramp, the USFWS constructed an informal elver ascent ramp and collection system on the 

river bank near the West Fish Lift. Attraction water provided to the base of the bank attracted eels to a 

climbing ramp that leads to a collection trap on top of the bank. All gears combined yielded 3,878 eels 

(Minkkinen and Park 2008). Elvers captured ranged from 76mm to 169mm. Yellow eels measured 

256mm to 734mm, and each received a PIT tag before release back to the tailrace. Elvers were 

transported to a site above the first barrier (Wilson Mill Dam) in Deer Creek, a Susquehanna River 

tributary 3.5 miles below the dam. 

Tailrace eel studies by USFWS have continued in 2008, incorporating an improved climbing ramp and 

collection system. The 2008 efforts also included transport of 20,000 elvers above Conowingo and 

Holtwood dams to the Conestoga River system in Lancaster County, PA. 

4.4.2.4 Commercial Fishing below Conowingo Dam 

Commercial fishing in the tidal Susquehanna River, most notably for American shad, has a lengthy 

history. Once prominent as far upriver as the Lapidum/Port Deposit area, commercial (and recreational) 

shad harvest has been illegal since 1980 due to the moratorium enacted by Maryland. Moreover, other 

traditional commercial fisheries at present are substantially reduced in scope and participation since the 

1980s. Commercial fishing is prohibited in the non-tidal Susquehanna River. 

White perch, channel catfish, and American eel remain as commercially targeted species in the tidal 

Susquehanna River. White perch are harvested by hoop nets in the spring. Channel catfish are caught by 

hoop nets (also termed "catfish pots”) in spring through fall (D. Weinrich, MDNR, personal 

communication). Yellow perch, while probably not specifically sought, may be legally harvested during a 

brief winter season. Hoop nets also account for the occasional capture of endangered shortnose sturgeon 

in the tidal Susquehanna River (Mangold et al. 2007). A reward program is in place to encourage 

watermen to report such incidental sturgeon captures. 

American eel are harvested on a limited basis using baited eel pots. Harvested eels are used as bait for the 

Chesapeake Bay blue crab fishery and striped bass recreational fishery, among other uses such as exports. 

Mean reported length of commercially harvested American eels in the tidal Susquehanna River during 

June 1998 was approximately 30 cm (Weeder 1999). Commercial effort for eel is market-driven and 

4-51



effort in the tidal Susquehanna River is now reduced due to low eel prices (D. Weinrich, MDNR, personal 

communication). 

Striped bass commercial fishing in the upper Chesapeake Bay is tightly regulated by ASMFC and 

MDNR, and is prohibited in the tidal Susquehanna River. 

4.4.3 Recreational Fishery 

The Lower Susquehanna River Basin is an attractive and popular area for recreational fishing. There are 

several high value recreational fish available in the Conowingo Project area, including striped bass, 

walleye, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, channel catfish, flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), various 

sunfish, white perch, and yellow perch. Recreational fishing for anadromous fishes is also a valued 

attraction. Species such as the American shad, hickory shad (both catch-and-release only), striped bass, 

and white perch attract local, as well as out-of-state, anglers during their spring migrations. The local 

recreational fisheries for hickory shad and striped bass have been described as some of the best in the 

world. 


The Conowingo Pond offers a diverse and plentiful community of game fish species to be pursued by 

anglers. Fishing regulations on the pool are reciprocal and anglers licensed in either Pennsylvania or 

Maryland are permitted to fish in Conowingo Pond. By agreement, Maryland’s regulations are applied to 

both states’ portions of Conowingo Pond. Open fishing seasons on naturally reproducing species such as 

largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, walleye, various sunfish species, black and white crappie, common 

carp, channel catfish, white sucker, yellow perch exist within the reservoir. Pure strain striped bass are 

stocked by the PFBC. More than 5,000 striped bass fingerlings were stocked in Conowingo Pond in each 

of 2005 and 2006 (PFBC website). Hybrid striped bass are no longer stocked into Conowingo Pond, and 

those that are caught are transients from upriver sources, including an upriver commercial hatchery. 

Walleye and tiger muskellunge are stocked by Maryland (MDNR 2005). 

Historically, white crappie and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) made up the majority of the angler 

catch in Conowingo Pond (Robbins and Mathur 1976). White crappie also stimulated development of a 

substantial winter fishery (Euston and Mathur 1979; RMC 1979). For example, 62% of the white crappie 

harvest occurred during December through March during a 13-month survey period in 1978-79 (RMC 

1979). Development of other recreational fisheries in Conowingo Pond also occurred during the 1970s, 

such as tournament angling for black bass. Other focused sport fisheries occur, such as that for walleye in 

4-52



the thermal plume of Peach Bottom Station (RMC 1979). Overall, sport fishing participation was 

dominated by anglers residing within 24 km (15 miles) of the reservoir. 

The steep wooded topography of much of the Conowingo Pond shoreline, as well as railroad postings, 

limit angling access from the shore. Shoreline fishing is available at various locations on the west side of 

the Pond and at locations where there are railroad crossings on the east side. Boat angling is the preferred 

method on Conowingo Pond, particularly in the Pennsylvania portion of the reservoir. Shore angling is 

more prevalent in lower Conowingo Pond. Ice fishing occurs during cold winters in several tributary 

mouths in Maryland. 

Tributaries of Conowingo Pond, including Fishing Creek in Lancaster County and Muddy Creek and 

Michaels Run in York County, Pennsylvania are stocked with trout and represent put-and-take fisheries. 

Wild trout are produced in several Conowingo Pond tributaries. These include brown trout in Fishing 

Creek (PA) and Conowingo Creek (PA/MD), and brook trout in Wissler Run (PA). Trout are not 

regularly caught in Conowingo Pond. 

Bass tournaments are regular events on Conowingo Pond. During a recent year (2003), permit 

applications for 12 tournaments were submitted to the PFBC (R. Lorantas, PFBC, personal 

communication). Events were planned for February through November for up to 100 participants each. 

Smallmouth and largemouth bass were both caught in catch reports. Other species reported caught were 

channel catfish, walleye, and bluegill. Most events emanating from Pennsylvania were based at the 

Muddy Creek Fishing Access in York County. Additional bass tournaments in Conowingo Pond are 

based out of Maryland access points such as Glen Cove Marina in Harford County. 


The 10-mile reach of river below Conowingo Dam supports numerous varied and highly popular 

recreational fisheries. Recreational species sought by anglers include smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, 

striped bass, white perch, channel catfish, walleye, and common carp (Plosila 1961; Carter 1973; RMC 

1985, unpublished report). American shad and hickory shad provide catch-and-release angling in spring 

(Lukacovic 1998). Initial sport fishing surveys from 1958-1960 (Plosila 1961) and in 1970 (Carter 1973) 

described the specific fishery components below Conowingo Dam and the seasonality and use of each 

fishery. Each of these historical surveys illustrated the importance of alosids, channel catfish, and striped 

bass to recreational fishers. More recent data are available from a series of annual comprehensive sport 

fishing surveys conducted from 1981 though 1987 (e.g., Euston and Rinehart 1984; RMC 1985, 

4-53



unpublished report), and surveys by MDNR that target the present-day fisheries for American shad and 

hickory shad. 

The tidal section of the Susquehanna River from Port Deposit to Havre de Grace also receives angling 

pressure from numerous black bass tournaments each year. Typically, anglers fish in the Susquehanna 

River as part of tournaments held in a broad area of tidal water that includes the Susquehanna Flats and 

Upper Bay tributaries. During 2007, MDNR was aware of at least 31 black bass tournaments with 715 

participants in this reach (Mary Groves, MDNR, personal communication). Bass fishing organizations 

staged events at two ramps in the Susquehanna River, at Lapidum Launch in Susquehanna State Park and 

at Tydings Park in Havre de Grace at the river mouth. 

1981-1987 Angling Surveys 

The 1980s represented a volatile period in terms of angling and angling regulations for anadromous 

species in Maryland, including the Susquehanna River downstream of Conowingo Dam. Dwindling sport 

and commercial harvests of American shad throughout the 1970s resulted in passage of moratoria in 1980 

and 1981 that prevented harvest of American and hickory shad, respectively, by both user groups. The 

moratoria remained in effect throughout the creel survey duration and continue today. 

Regulatory changes also affected striped bass angling in the Susquehanna River in Maryland during this 

period. Poor striped bass reproductive success throughout Chesapeake Bay during most of the 1970s 

caused substantial population declines that resulted in increased size and reduced possession limits during 

the early 1980s. These harvest restrictions failed to reverse declining abundance, and Maryland legislated 

a moratorium on pursuit and harvest of striped bass in 1985. Thus, by 1985, anglers could no longer 

harvest two anadromous species that historically stimulated substantial fishing pressure in the 

Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam. 

A series of annual sport fishing surveys of the 10-mile reach of river below Conowingo Dam was initiated 

by Exelon in 1981 and continued through 1987. Access point survey methodology used throughout the 

survey period followed that reported for the same reach by Carter (1973), and also implemented his 

recommendation that the Conowingo tailrace represent a separate survey stratum. As a result, independent 

surveys were performed that treated access areas in the tailrace as one stratum and access areas in the tidal 

reach as a second stratum (Figure 4.4.1.2-1). Each year except 1981 the survey began in mid-March and 

continued through mid-November. These dates best accommodated observed angling effort and usually 

approximated the limits of good fishing weather. For reporting purposes, data from March and November 

were included with those from April and October, respectively. The 1981 survey immediately followed 

4-54



conclusion of a spring creel survey conducted by MDNR (Weinrich et al. 1982). Effort and catch data 

from the independent MDNR and RMC surveys in 1981 were simply added to yield the annual totals for 

that year. 

An average of more than 3,600 anglers were interviewed each fishing season for a total of 25,587 anglers 

during the seven year period. Most anglers (7-year average of 79%) were interviewed in the Conowingo 

tailrace. The proportion of anglers interviewed in the tidal portion of the river ranged from 18% to 27% in 

a given year. Clerks interviewed more than 95% of the anglers exiting an access point. 

Annual estimated fishing effort below Conowingo Dam ranged from 275,805 to 372,313 angler hours, an 

average of 312,199 angler hours per year (Table 4.4.3.2-1). Fishing pressure in the Conowingo tailrace 

comprised 34% to 45% of the angler hours expended annually, suggesting that angler distribution was 

more highly concentrated in the tailrace than in the tidal lower river. 

The seasonal pattern of fishing effort below Conowingo Dam is shown in Figure 4.4.3.2-1. Peak fishing 

pressure occurred in May through July in each survey area. The May through July period accounted for 

65% of the average annual fishing effort expended in the entire survey area. Tailrace fishing pressure was 

remarkably consistent from May through July, which contrasted with a more variable fishing pressure 

pattern in the tidal river section during the same three months. In each area, however, bimodal peaks 

occurred in May and July. Mean monthly fishing pressure in the tidal river section exceeded that in the 

tailrace in all months except September. 

More than four out of five anglers were Maryland residents. Most non-residents were from Pennsylvania. 

Shore-based fishing predominated in the tailrace; boat anglers represented ≤ 10% of tailrace anglers 

annually. Boat anglers represented the majority of those interviewed in the tidal river annually. Boat 

fishing was focused near the head of tide from Lapidum Launch to Deer Creek, particularly in the vicinity 

of the remnant bridge piers offshore of Susquehanna State Park/Port Deposit. Up to 15% of boat anglers 

originating from tidal river launch ramps fished non-tidal reaches as far upstream as Conowingo Dam, 

while a comparable proportion fished the Susquehanna Flats in some years. 

Anglers from both study reaches primarily sought striped bass when harvest was legal. Pursuit of striped 

bass dominated angler preferences from about Memorial Day through November, especially among boat 

anglers. Prior to Memorial Day, anglers sought mostly black bass and catfish in the tailrace and white 

perch in the tidal river. After the closure of striped bass fishing in 1985, the proportion of black bass 

anglers, and to a lesser extent channel catfish anglers, increased. The proportion of anglers seeking 

common carp in the tailrace also increased. 

4-55



White perch, catfish, striped bass, gizzard shad, common carp, and smallmouth bass formed over 90% of 

fishes harvested from the entire study area each year except 1983 (Table 4.4.3.2-2). White perch and 

catfish (mostly channel catfish) together comprised 71% to 86% of the harvest across years. Striped bass 

harvest during 1981-1984 averaged 8,438 fish per year. Age 2 or Age 3 striped bass dominated the striped 

bass harvested in all years (Euston and Rinehart 1984). The striped bass harvest was higher in the tailrace 

than in the tidal river during two of the three years where delineation was possible (1982-1984). Among 

other species, catfishes, gizzard shad, and common carp harvest was higher in the tailrace, whereas white 

perch and smallmouth bass harvest was more prevalent in the tidal portion of the river. 

Specific temporal patterns were evident for the six species that dominated angler harvest. Peak harvests of 

white perch, gizzard shad, common carp, and smallmouth bass typically occurred in May. Catfish and 

striped bass harvest peaked in July. Smallmouth bass exhibited a secondary harvest peak in September 

that resulted from tidal reach angling, whereas the May harvest peak was produced by tailrace anglers. 

Harvests of common carp and gizzard shad throughout the year occurred only in the tailrace. 

Winter Angling 

Winter (mid-November to mid-March) angling in both survey areas below Conowingo Dam was 

examined during the same time frame (six winters) by a less intensive survey. Angler effort in the 

Conowingo tailrace was light and sporadic and responded to periods of good weather. Gizzard shad, carp, 

and channel catfish comprised most of the tailrace catch. Periodic incursions of striped bass stimulated 

fishing in the tidal reach. The most consistent angling effort and catches in tidal water targeted yellow 

perch from shore in Port Deposit. 

Catch-and-release Fishing for American shad and Hickory Shad 

The moratorium on American shad and hickory shad harvest imposed by MDNR in 1980 and 1981, 

respectively, continues today. However, anecdotal reports of high shad catches and angler participation by 

the early 1990s prompted an investigation by MDNR of whether catch-and-release fishing for American 

shad or hickory shad posed a problem relative to alosid restoration goals. A creel survey of Conowingo 

tailrace anglers seeking American shad was conducted for MDNR in 1996, followed by a short-term 

hooking mortality study in 1997 (Lukacovic 1998). A catch-and-release mortality study of hickory shad 

in Deer Creek was also conducted by MDNR in 1996 (Lukacovic and Pieper 1996). 

Most of the tailrace anglers surveyed in 1996 on the west shoreline immediately below the dam (65%) 

targeted either American shad or hickory shad. Striped bass anglers (27%) occurred after the season 

opened on June 1 when shad fishing ceased. Anglers expended 1,200 hours of effort to catch 1,838 

4-56



hickory shad, 1,791 American shad, and 1,532 river herring. Catch per unit of effort (CPUE) for 

American shad and hickory shad was 1.6 and 1.9 fish per angler hour, respectively. Most anglers resided 

in Maryland (63%) or Pennsylvania (33%), but six other states were also represented. 

The companion hooking mortality study in the Conowingo tailrace in 1997 utilized holding tanks and 

water supplied by the West Fish Lift. American shad for testing were provided by west shore tailrace 

anglers. Water temperature during the study ranged from 11.6 to 18.1°C. Short term mortality for 309 

total American shad among 13 trials was less than 1%. The study of angler-caught hickory shad in Deer 

Creek in 1996 yielded 0% mortality rate. No hickory shad died among 150 fish in 10 trials (Lukacovic 

and Pieper 1996). 

Catch-and-release angling for American shad and hickory shad at present is tracked by MDNR through 

focused tailrace creel surveys and logbook reports provided by cooperating shad anglers. During 2001- 

2005, limited tailrace interviews of 29 to 97 angler parties per season yielded CPUE estimates of 0.49 to 

5.52 American shad per angler hour. American shad angler logbook data for 1999-2005 revealed CPUE 

estimates of 0.94 to 7.76 fish per angler hour (SRAFRC 2006). The hickory shad fishery in Deer Creek 

supports higher catch rates. Logbook reports for 1998-2005 (11-19 separate reports per year) documented 

CPUE estimates of 4.3 to 8.3 hickory shad caught per angler hour (SRAFRC 2006). 

Hickory shad are caught at specific locations in the Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam, as well 

as in the two large tributaries, Deer Creek and Octoraro Creek. The recreational catch-and-release fishery 

in Deer Creek deserves particular mention. Anglers near the mouth of Deer Creek utilize mostly spinning 

tackle, whereas anglers upstream in the creek favor fly fishing (Lukakovic and Pieper 1996). Fly fishing 

for hickory shad is extremely popular and closely tracked each spring by mid-Atlantic anglers, tackle 

shops, print media, and internet reports. 

Striped bass Sport Fishery 

The Susquehanna River sport fishing surveys conducted below Conowingo Dam by Exelon extended 

from 1981 through 1987. From 1981 through 1984, striped bass was the principal driver of sport fishing 

pressure in the tailrace and downstream tidal areas (Euston and Rinehart 1984). The significance of 

striped bass to Susquehanna River anglers meant that a series of changes to local striped bass angling 

regulations that resulted from federal and state management actions had profound effects on river sport 

fishing. 

Maryland DNR imposed a moratorium on striped bass harvest beginning in 1985 that lasted through 

1989. Federal guidelines permitted resumption of harvest in Maryland on a limited basis in fall 1990 after 

4-57



certain striped bass reproduction targets were met. Brief fall seasons followed in 1991-1993, although 

season length and harvest targets were gradually increased. Longer seasons and size limit changes ensued 

after the Chesapeake Bay striped bass population was declared restored in 1995. In addition, for 

emergency enforcement purposes the regulatory tide line was moved upriver to Conowingo Dam in 1991, 

and codified in 1992 (Dale Weinrich, MDNR, personal communication). Thus, the 3.5 miles of river 

below Conowingo Dam is no longer considered “inland waters” for fisheries management or general 

licensing purposes. 

A major development in 1999 that affected fishing pressure was creation by MDNR of the Susquehanna 

River and Susquehanna Flats striped bass catch-and-release season in early spring. The season was 

temporally limited to 1-30 April in 2000, and limited spatially to just the Susquehanna Flats. Season 

length was gradually extended to 64 days, so that by 2008 the season opened March 1 and closed May 3. 

The Susquehanna River was re-opened to catch-and-release fishing for striped bass in 2007, permitting 

angling upriver to a line extending from Lapidum to Port Deposit. Spatial expansion of the fishery into 

the Susquehanna River was made to accommodate high participation, since the catch-and-release season 

proved enormously popular across a broad spectrum of anglers. Catches of large striped bass exceeding 

50 pounds, while not common, are not rare. 

The spring catch-and-release striped bass fishery attracts both private boat and charter boat anglers. No 

angler use or catch data are available for the Spring Flats fishery. Preliminary creel survey results from 

2008 angler interviews may be available in 2009 (Dale Weinrich, MDNR, personal communication). 

Historically, fishing at the Conowingo Dam could be conducted from the upper and lower catwalks that 

span the powerhouse. These facilities were closed to the public for security reasons following the 

September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. New fishing facilities, including construction of a handicappedaccessible 

boardwalk and pier, are planned. The new tailrace facilities will permit fishing hours to be 

extended. New fishing access is also available (as of June 2008) to anglers on Octoraro Creek from U.S. 

Route 222 to the creek’s confluence with the Susquehanna River (MDNR 2006d). 

4.4.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrates 

Benthic macroinvertebrates play an important role in the structure and function of freshwater stream and 

river food webs by limiting the standing crop of primary producers (e.g., periphyton, benthic algae), 

breaking down the allochthonous input to these systems (e.g., leaf litter), and providing a forage base for 

juvenile piscivorous fishes and adult insectivorous fishes. Throughout the Susquehanna River Basin, 

macroinvertebrates are abundant and diverse, with densities averaging 10,000 to 30,000 individuals/m 2 in 

4-58



riffle areas (Jackson, et al. 2005). Baetid, isonychiid, and heptageniid mayflies, hydropsychid caddisflies, 

and midges are common in high-energy riffle environments. In depositional environments, oligochaete 

worms, midges, elmid beetles, and anthopotamid mayflies predominate. 

Two crayfish species are native to the main stem Susquehanna River, spinycheek crayfish (Orconectes 

limosus) and Allegheny crayfish (Orconectes obscurus); one non-native species, rusty crayfish 

(Orconectes rusticus), is common in portions of the lower basin (Jackson, et al. 2005). Abundant 

mollusks include fingernail clams (Sphaeriidae), limpets (Ancylidae), sinistral pond snails (Physidae), 

and mystery snails (Viviparidae). Thirteen species of unionid bivalves (Unionidae) are present in the 

river basin, including the widespread eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata), triangle floater (Alasmidonta 

undulata), elktoe (Alasmidonta marginata), creeper (Strophitis undulatas), and yellow lampmussel 

(Lampsilis cariosa). 

4.4.4.1 Lower Susquehanna River Basin 

Numerous studies have been conducted of the benthic macroinvertebrate communities in the Lower 

Susquehanna River Basin. In 1986, the SRBC instituted an interstate water monitoring program for the 

Susquehanna River Basin from New York to Maryland using a modification of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP) (Barbour, et al. 1999) 

to assess water quality in the basin. This was accomplished in part through the collection of benthic 

macroinvertebrate samples and evaluation of habitats at various tributaries and river sites within or 

adjacent to the river continuum. 

Two water quality stations were established by the SRBC in the Lower Susquehanna River mainstem, one 

at river mile 44.5 in Marietta, Pennsylvania, and one at river mile 10 in Conowingo, Maryland, directly 

below the Conowingo Dam. The Marietta station is sampled annually for benthic invertebrates, as deep 

waters and absence of riffle habitat at the Conowingo station preclude sampling at this location (SRBC 

2003, 2004). High water levels in 2003 prevented invertebrate sample collection at the Marietta station. 

In August 2002, a total of 16 genera were collected from a riffle/run area using a one-meter-square kick 

screen. The fingernet caddisfly (Chimarra sp.) was the dominant taxon, comprising 28 percent of the 

composite sample. The elmid beetle (Stenelmis sp.) was second in abundance, comprising 21 percent of 

the sample. A total of 17 taxa, including five mayfly (Ephemeroptera) genera, four caddisfly 

(Trichoptera) genera, and two beetle (Coleoptera) genera were reported at this location, contributing to an 

RBP water quality condition of “slightly impaired”. This score represents a slight decrease in quality 

4-59



from the “non-impaired” designation reported in 2003 (SRBC 2003). The habitat condition category at 

the Marietta station was rated as “excellent” in 2003 and 2004 (SRBC 2003, 2004). 

Similar to the monitoring conducted by the SRBC, MDNR implemented the Maryland Biological Stream 

Survey (MBSS) program to assess the ecological health of the State’s rivers and streams. The MBSS 

program in part includes the collection of benthic macroinvertebrates from about 1,000 randomly selected 

shallow stream sites throughout Maryland, including several locations in the Lower Susquehanna River 

Basin (MDNR 2000). Forty-seven families of benthic invertebrates were identified throughout the Lower 

Susquehanna River Basin (Millard, et al. 1999), including 50 taxa of flies (Diptera), 15 genera of 

caddisflies, 14 genera of mayflies, 12 genera of beetles, and nine genera of stoneflies (Plecoptera) (Table 

4.4.4.1-1). 


Benthic invertebrate samples obtained from various locations in Conowingo Pond between 1967 and 

1984 yielded 61 taxa (Normandeau Associates 2001). Primary components of the benthic community 

were oligochaetes and chironomids, with the tubificid worm Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri, the midge 

Procladius sp., the phantom midge Chaoborus punctipennis, the midge Chironomus attenuatus, the 

midge Coelotanypus consinnus, and the tubificid worm Ilyiodrilus templetoni comprising 94-98 percent 

of the total abundance in various years. Few mussels were observed. The generally sparse invertebrate 

community in the lower two-thirds of the Conowingo Pond may be due to unfavorable substrate 

conditions (sand-coal fines and silt) (Normandeau 2001). Burrowing mayflies such as Hexagenia limbata 

in this reach provide a significant food resource for species such as smallmouth bass, white crappie, and 

channel catfish (RMC 1976). 

A study of the macroinvertebrate community was conducted below Holtwood Dam in September 2005 

(Normandeau 2006a). A total of 38 taxa, including insects, crayfish, and snails, were collected in pools 

and riffles within one mile downstream of Holtwood Dam in areas of flowing water and coarse substrate 

(Table 4.4.4.1-1). The macrobenthic community in the riffles was determined to be similar to that of the 

pools, and the taxonomic composition was judged to be similar to other areas of the Susquehanna River 

(Normandeau 2006a). 

An assessment of the mussel community conducted below Holtwood Dam in September 2005 revealed 

little available mussel habitat in the spill pool and tailrace areas below the Dam. A total of six live 

4-60



mussels (five eastern elliptio and one yellow lampmussel) were identified downstream of the Holtwood 

Dam from a single sheltered location of the shoreline adjacent to the tailrace (Normandeau 2006b). 

4.4.4.3 Conowingo Dam Tailrace and Points Downstream 

Benthic macroinvertebrates were studied in three habitat types below the Conowingo Dam in the summer 

of 1980: constantly submerged channel, isolated pools, and exposed areas (those dewatered during low 

dam discharges) (Martin Marietta Corporation 1982). A total of 110 taxa were collected in basket 

samplers, with 15 of the 110 taxa constituting 90 percent of the total abundance. The amphipod 

Gammarus lacustris (32.2 percent), the turbellarian flatworm Dugesia tigrina (25.1 percent), the midge 

Dicrotendipes sp. (5.5 percent), the netspinning caddisfly Cheumatopsyche sp. (3.5 percent), the 

oligochaete worm Nais pseudobtusa (3.5 percent), and the ramshorn snail Gyraulis sp. (3.5 percent) were 

the numerically dominant species (Martin Marietta Corporation 1982). General results of this study 

indicated low invertebrate abundance in the intermittently exposed areas and significant community 

differences between the channel and isolated pool habitats. Channel habitats contained relatively fewer 

filter-feeders and more shredders, with a decreasing trend in abundance downstream. Gastropods, 

oligochaetes, and turbellarians are taxa tolerant of fluctuations in dissolved oxygen and were prevalent in 

isolated pool habitats (Martin Marietta Corporation 1982). 

The benthic macroinvertebrate community was also characterized via basket samplers and modified Tsamplers 

in the Susquehanna River downstream of the Conowingo Dam near the confluence of Octoraro 

Creek. Collections made between 1982 and 1984 found that Chironomidae (midge) larvae, the 

polychaete Manayunkia speciosa, the amphipod Gammarus fasciatus, tricladid worms, and the caddisfly 

Cheumatopsyche were the dominant taxa (Weisberg and Janicki 1985). The 17 taxa comprising 97 

percent or greater of collections are listed on Table 4.4.4.1-1. Benthic drift organisms were also sampled 

in 1983 using stationary nets deployed in the river channel below the Dam. Fifty-three taxa of 

invertebrates were identified; eight taxa comprised 97.5 percent of the collections numerically. 

Leptodora kindtii, the giant water flea, was the most abundant species (75 percent of the total catch per 

unit effort); phantom midge (Chaoborus) larvae and pupae, oligochaetes, chironomid larvae and pupae, 

Manayunkia speciosa, and the caddisfly Cheumatopsyche were also abundant in drift samples (Weisberg 

and Janicki 1985). 

Benthic macroinvertebrate populations were evaluated between 1988 and 1993 as part of series of studies 

for determining a suitable schedule of wintertime minimum flows below Conowingo Dam (Weisberg and 

Scott 1990; Scott 1991; Scott and Richkus 1994). Macroinvertebrates were collected from gravel and 

4-61



bedrock substrates over three distinct flow regimes (continuous, intermittent, no-flow) on the northeast 

side of Rowland Island, located approximately one mile downstream of the Conowingo Dam near the 

confluence of Octoraro Creek. The benthic macroinvertebrate community observed in the 1988-1993 

studies was similar to that observed in 1980 and 1982-1984. Eleven taxa dominated collections: the 

Asiatic clam Corbicula fluminea, the polychaete Manayunkia speciosa, the flatworm Dugesia tigrina, 

segmented worms (Oligochaeta), netspinning caddisflies (Hydropsychidae), the limpet Ferrissia 

rivularis, the amphipod Gammarus fasciatus, the midge Polypedilum sp., the ramshorn snail Menetus sp., 

other Chironomidae, and the midge Cricotopus sp. (Weisberg and Scott 1990) (Table 4.4.4.1-1). The 

relative importance of taxa differed between substrate types; tube-building and netspinning organisms 

were more abundant on bedrock, while free-living organisms were more abundant in gravel. 

Benthic macroinvertebrates represent important food resources to fishes below Conowingo Dam, 

particularly juveniles of important game species. The diets of young-of-year striped bass and smallmouth 

bass (60-100mm) showed heavy utilization of chironomids and amphipods prior to the onset of piscivory 

by these species (McKeown et al. 1984) 

4.4.4.4 Nuisance Macroinvertebrate Species 

The Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) is a small bivalve native to southeastern Asia often found at high 

densities in clear, well-oxygenated waters. Since the mid-1980s, this species has rapidly colonized the 

Lower Susquehanna River (Exelon 2001). The Asiatic clam was detected in the Conowingo Pond in 

1985 downstream of the PBAPS discharge and the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project, and was the 

focus of a surveillance program for assessing the extent of biofouling on the operations at PBAPS 

(Normandeau 2003). Colonization of the Susquehanna River below the Conowingo Dam by the Asiatic 

clam has occurred since 1997 (Foster, et al. 2006). Another non-indigenous bivalve is the zebra mussel 

(Dreissena polymorpha), a small, fingernail-sized mussel native to the Caspian Sea region of Asia. An 

ongoing monitoring program has been established in the Conowingo Pond in the vicinity of the PBAPS in 

response to the presence of zebra mussels in the upper Susquehanna River drainage (Normandeau 2003; 

Kazya et al. 2005). To date, no zebra mussels have been found as a result of the monitoring program. 

However, several zebra mussels were recently detected at two locations in Conowingo Pond (October 

2008) and in Muddy Run Reservoir (November 2008) by other monitoring programs. The initial animal 

found was live and discovered in a cooling water strainer at Conowingo Dam in late October. Subsequent 

zebra mussels found in both Conowingo Pond and Muddy Run Reservoir were dead. Pennsylvania Sea 

Grant confirmed the identification of the zebra mussels and received the associated information about the 

4-62



discoveries (dates, locations, live/dead, etc.). Sea Grant then notified PADEP who disseminated the 

information via a press release. 

The macrobenthic community of the Lower Susquehanna River Basin appears to have changed little over 

the past 25 years, with the exception of the introduction of the Asiatic clam and now the zebra mussel. 

Aquatic insects (particularly chironomid larvae) and oligochaetes dominate the macrobenthos. 

4.4.5 Phytoplankton and Zooplankton 

Pelagic algae, or phytoplankton, represent the base of the aquatic food chain, converting sunlight into 

biomass and providing a food source for zooplankton and small invertebrates. Zooplankton are grazers of 

phytoplankton and are the primary food source for zooplanktivorous fish and invertebrates. Most studies 

have evaluated the association between nutrients from the river and phytoplankton blooms in the 

Chesapeake Bay. Riffle areas in the North Branch of the Susquehanna River are reported to have high 

pelagic algal densities, with biomass averaging 30–90 mg chlorophyll a per square meter (Jackson, et al. 

2005). Pools in the North Branch have limited algal biomass due to a reduction in sunlight from 

suspended fine particle transport. 

The Conowingo Pond plankton community was characterized during ecological studies conducted at 

various locations in the Pond from 1966 through 1978 (RMC 1979). A total of 44 genera of algae were 

identified in Conowingo Pond in the vicinity of the Muddy Run Project, including the most common 

genera observed: Pandorina, Pleodorina, Pediastrum (green algae), Melosira (diatom), and Anacystis, 

Gomphosphaeria, and Anabaena (blue-green algae) (Table 4.4.5-1). Diatoms comprised 50 percent of 

the phytoplankton population in Conowingo Pond. Green algae were common in August and September, 

brown algae in October, diatoms in June and July, and blue-green algae in September. Phaeopigments 

and chlorophyll a are algal indicators that varied seasonally. Elevated levels were found during the 

summer months, with a peak in June (RMC 1979). Chlorophyll a concentrations were generally higher in 

surface waters of the Conowingo Pond, particularly in deeper areas of the Pond. 

The zooplankton community in Conowingo Pond was evaluated in studies conducted between 1966 and 

1978 (RMC 1979). The community was comprised of 53 species, and was numerically dominated by six 

taxa: the water fleas Diaphanosoma leuchtenbergianum, Daphnia spp., and Bosmina longirostris, the 

cyclopoid copepod Cyclops vernalis, cyclopoid copepodids, and general copepod nauplii (Table 4.4.5-2). 

The mean monthly density of these dominant taxa was greatest between the months of June and 

September, with densities exceeding 100 individuals/L (RMC 1979). Densities averaged less than three 

individuals/L from November through May. Peak abundance occurred at times of warm water 

4-63



temperatures and low river inflow. The production of zooplankton increased considerably when flushing 

time exceeded 15 days (RMC 1979). 

During studies of the benthic macroinvertebrate community conducted from 1982 to 1984 downstream of 

the Conowingo Dam, Weisberg and Janicki (1985) found that the giant water flea numerically dominated 

the invertebrate drift catch in August and September 1983. This species comprised nearly 75 percent of 

the total catch per unit effort. It is a large cladoceran that is a voracious predator of other cladocerans, 

copepods, and rotifers. It is typically found in lacustrine habitats and is present in Conowingo Pond. 

Other unspecified cladoceran taxa and copepods were observed in invertebrate drift samples and in the 

stomachs of white perch, white catfish, and yellow perch collected below the Conowingo Dam near 

Rowland Island (Weisberg and Janicki 1985). Striped bass young-of-year also foraged heavily on these 

cladoceran and copepod resources (McKeown et al. 1984). 

4.4.6 Aquatic Habitat 


The current flow regime within the Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam was formally established 

with the signing of a settlement agreement in 1989 between the project owners and several federal and 

state resource agencies (FERC 1989). The flow regime was determined through negotiation and based on 

several studies, including a habitat based instream flow study conducted by SRBC. In addition, studies 

were subsequently completed by MDNR that examined benthic macroinvertebrate populations. These 

study results were used to establish the flow regime below Conowingo Dam as follows: 3,500 cfs or 

inflow from March 1 to March 31; 10,000 cfs or inflow from April 1 to April 30; 7,500 cfs or inflow from 

May 1 to May 31; 5,000 cfs or inflow from June 1 to September 14; 3,500 cfs or inflow from September 

15 to November 30; and 3,500 cfs or inflow from December 1 to February 28, consisting of 6 hours off 

followed by 6 hours on. 

Baseline aquatic habitat data were acquired in summer 2008 to develop a habitat map of the non-tidal 

portion of the Susquehanna River from Conowingo Dam downstream to Deer Creek, which is the natural 

upstream limit of tidal influence. The study area was approximately 3.5 miles in length. The field surveys 

were conducted in August and September during summer minimum flow generation from Conowingo 

Dam. Summer minimum flows were provided by one small generating unit discharging approximately 

5,700 cfs (USGS gage at Conowingo Dam). Two separate crews surveyed the entire reach in small boats, 

each covering mid-river to a respective shoreline. Habitat mapping was accomplished using a 

4-64



morphological typing scheme. Conventional channel geomorphic units such as riffle, run, pool, 

backwater, side channel, etc. were assigned to individual habitat polygons. Hybrid classifications such as 

“ruffle” (displaying both run and riffle characteristics) also proved useful. Additionally, crews spatially 

defined special reach features such as the spillway area and the tailrace. 

Habitat polygons were identified using GPS technology, with habitat boundaries recorded as data points 

in the GPS. The various polygons were also drawn and annotated on aerial photograph base maps of the 

survey area. Except for the tailrace and spillway areas, the substrate composition and occurrence of 

submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) within each polygon was visually determined and recorded. As 

necessary, crews waded to make specific observations, particularly in small areas of diverse habitat, such 

as the habitat complex at the Octoraro Creek mouth. All information was processed and stored as various 

layers in a GIS database. Historical names of certain habitat features significant to recreational anglers, 

for example, were added to the final map product. 

The base habitat map of the non-tidal reach is shown in Figure 4.4.6-1. An accompanying table within the 

figure provides the surface area (acres) of each habitat polygon and the proportional substrate 

composition. Table 4.4.6-1 provides the assigned habitat type for each polygon, its surface area, and its 

proportional contribution to the surface area of the non-tidal reach. The estimated surface area of the nontidal 

reach, including tailrace and spillway, was 1,177.5 acres. The hybrid habitat type “ruffle” formed 

59% of the non-tidal reach, comprising a contiguous pathway from below the tailrace-spillway area to the 

tidal limit. The combined tailrace and spillway area, as defined for this study (Figure 4.4.6-1), formed 

15.1% of the non-tidal reach. Two deep pools within the ruffle segment formed 8.2% of the non-tidal 

surface area. 

A subset of non-tidal habitat adjacent to the mouth of Octoraro Creek was mapped in finer detail (Figure 

4.6.6-2). The area features shallow riffles, shallow pools, and a unique habitat type comprising more than 

eight acres termed “interconnected shallow pools”. This area consisted of small, shallow riffles 

connecting varying sizes of shallow pools in an area treated as a single habitat type. The side channel 

habitats that originated at Octoraro Creek likely represent remnants of historic canal pathways based on 

available maps. 

Bedrock formations with scattered areas of variable-sized cobble characterized the majority of substrates 

in the non-tidal habitat area below the tailrace/spillway, especially in the predominant ruffle and deep 

pool habitats. Much of the substrate in the vicinity of Octoraro Creek was cobble. A fairly even 

4-65



distribution of cobble, boulders, and bedrock occurred in the “interconnected shallow pools” habitat. 

Patches of SAV were scarce, mainly found in small habitats near Octoraro Creek. 

4.5 Terrestrial Wildlife and Botanical Resources (18 C.F.R. §5.6 (d)(3)(v)) 

4.5.1 Upland Botanical Resources 

The region encompassing the Project area is characterized by a diversity of terrestrial botanical resources 

influenced by geologic features, soil type, hydrology, climate, and historic and current land use. 

Examples of geologic and geomorphic features influencing the botanical communities include: 

• The steeply incised gorge formed by the Susquehanna River and the associated deep 

ravine habitats of tributary streams; 

• The rocky outcrops and cliffs along the gorge, including rare serpentine bedrock 

outcrops; and 

• The bedrock and alluvial islands within the Susquehanna River. 

A detailed description of the geology of the Project area is provided in Section 4.2.2. Recognized species 

and communities of concern and their habitats are identified and described in Section 4.7. 

Botanical investigations have assessd areas near or overlapping the Conowingo Project area. These 

studies include those conducted as part of the Holtwood Redevelopment Project (PPL and Kleinschmidt 

2006), Conowingo Islands Ecological Survey (RMC 1981), Keever (1972), Harrison (2004), and USDA 

(2004). They provide data to generally describe the predominant terrestrial botanical communities that 

may lie within and in the vicinity of the Conowingo Project. 

Based on the classification system developed by PADCNR (Fike 1999), the dominant vegetative 

assemblages within the Project vicinity fall within several terrestrial and palustrine systems and forest 

physiognomic categories. Some confined areas represent other sub-dominant vegetative communities 

within two forest physiognomic categories. Though this system was developed for Pennsylvania, it is 

useful for describing portions of the Project in Maryland. Within this context, the primary natural plant 

communities are likely to include: 

• Mixed mesophytic and rich hemlock-mesic hardwood forest; 

• Dry oak-mixed hardwood or red oak-mixed hardwood forest; and 

• Virginia pine-mixed hardwood forest. 

4-66



Limited areas also may support Serpentine Virginia pine-oak forest characterized by an open canopy and 

flora occurring on serpentinite-derived soils. These forest communities are described below. 

Mixed Mesophytic and Rich Hemlock-Mesic Hardwood Forest 

These communities are associated with the deep ravines and gorges that occur along the tributary streams 

leading into the Project area. Muddy Creek, Broad Creek, Bald Friar Ravine (about 4,500 feet below the 

Pennsylvania/Maryland border in Cecil County) and the Ferncliff Wildlife and Wildflower Preserve are 

examples of locations where these communities dominate. A few of these areas may support virgin 

stands of timber along the steep slopes. Species dominance within these communities is variable between 

locations, and assemblages differ slightly from those listed in Fike (1999). 

In the Ferncliff area, dominant species (in descending order) include American beech (Fagus 

grandifolia), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera), white ash (Fraxinus 

americana), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), scarlet oak (Q. coccinea), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), 

chestnut oak (Q. montana), and American basswood (Tiliea americana) (Keever 1972). Additional 

species that may occur at other locations include cucumber-tree (Magnolia acuminata), black cherry 

(Prunus serotina), black walnut (Juglans nigra), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), Ohio buckeye 

(Aesculus glabra), and yellow buckeye (A. flava). The understory of this community may include 

pawpaw (Asimina triloba), bladdernut (Staphylea trifolia), rosebay (Rhododendron maximum), eastern 

redbud (Cercis canadensis), and witch-hazel (Hamamelis virginiana). 

Dry Oak-Mixed Hardwood and Red Oak-Mixed Hardwood Forest 

These assemblages primarily consist of hardwoods occurring on mesic (red oak-mixed) and drier (dry 

oak-mixed) conditions. Red oak-mixed hardwood forests make up much of Pennsylvania’s hardwood 

forests (Fike 1999). 

This community is found throughout the region at elevations somewhat greater than the mixed 

mesophytic forests. Species typically found within this community include northern red oak, red maple 

(Acer rubrum), black oak (Quercus velutina), white oak (Q. alba), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), 

and mockernut hickory (C. tomentosa). Understory shrubs include northern arrowwood (Virburnum 

recognitum), maple-leaved viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), and H. 

virginiana. The herbaceous layer is variable and may include wild-oats (Uvularia sessilifolia), may-apple 

(Podophyllum peltatum), and striped wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata). 

4-67



Virginia Pine-Mixed Hardwood Forest 

This community is found in dry, rocky, higher elevation areas and is dominated by three species, 

including chestnut oak, Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), and table mountain pine (P. pungens) (USDOI 

1980). Other species that may be associated with this community include red oak, scarlet oak, black oak, 

and white oak, along with black cherry, red maple, sweet birch (Betula lenta), and hickories (Carya spp.). 

The understory is a mix of northern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), shining sumac (Rhus copallina), 

and Allegheny blackberry (Rubus allegheniensis) (Fike 1999). 

Serpentine Virginia Pine-Oak Forest 

This community is represented by a mix of pine and oak trees, underlain by serpentine bedrock where 

serpentinite chemistry still characterizes the soils and influences species composition (Fike 1999). 

Community composition may include Virginia pine, pitch pine (Pinus rigida), post oak (Quercus 

stellata), blackjack oak (Q. marilandica), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), black cherry, northern red cedar, 

black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), and red maple. The understory of this 

community is often dense and difficult to traverse, and may include greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), 

catbrier (S. glauca), lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium palidum), and deerberry (V. stamineum) (Fike 1999). 

Other communities are likely associated with wetland and riparian areas and may include red maple-black 

gum palustrine forest, sycamore-river birch-box elder floodplain forest, and red maple-elm-willow 

floodplain swamp. Wetland vegetation is described in Section 4.6.4. 

Species identified in botanical surveys conducted for the Holtwood Redevelopment Project (PPL and 

Kleinschmidt 2006), which included the northern part of the Conowingo Project, are listed in Table 4.5.1- 

1. 

4.5.2 Terrestrial Wildlife 

The physiographic setting of the Project area, with its relatively large tracts of undisturbed terrestrial 

habitats and the broad-leaved terrestrial and palustrine forests, provides a wide variety of habitats for 

terrestrial wildlife. These include over-wintering and breeding habitats for migratory and resident bird 

species. Terrestrial wildlife surveys have been performed for areas adjacent to and including parts of the 

Project (PPL and Kleinschmidt 2006). Wildlife identified in these surveys is likely to be similar to 

wildlife within the Project area, and include songbirds, large and small mammals, and herptiles (reptiles 

and amphibians). Mammal species that may occur in or near the Conowingo Project, and birds residing 

4-68



in, near, or migrating through the Conowingo Project, are described below. Herptile species are discussed 

in Section 4.6.5 as wetland, littoral, or riparian species. 

4.5.2.1 Mammals 

Forested areas provide habitats for red and gray fox, raccoon, red and grey squirrel, chipmunk, opossum, 

and white-tailed deer. Mammals such as mink and raccoon forage for food along the shore. Mammals in 

the Project area are likely to be similar to the species reported in the PPL study. The presence of most of 

the mammals identified in the PPL surveys was deduced from tracks, scat, or skeletal remains, not from 

direct observations. River otter or muskrat middens were observed below the Holtwood Dam (and within 

the Conowingo Project). 

A list of mammals observed or historically recorded in the vicinity of Lake Aldred is presented in Table 

4.5.2.1-1. 

4.5.2.2 Birds 

Herons, egrets and gulls have been reported within the Conowingo Project between Holtwood Dam and 

the Norman Wood Bridge (Route 372)(PPL and Kleinschmidt 2006). Additionally, avian wildlife 

observed in the Project area in Maryland is documented by the Harford County Bird Club. The Harford 

Bird Club, a chapter of the Maryland Ornithological Society, maintains a list of birds (244 species) 

observed by local birders along the Susquehanna River from the mouth of Deer Creek below the 

Conowingo Dam to Glen Cove Marina above the dam, and within an inland area that extends about 200 

yards from the shoreline (Blom 1999). This list is presented in Table 4.5.2.2-1. 

4.6 Wetlands, Riparian, and Littoral Habitat (18 C.F.R. §5.6 (d)(3)(vi)) 

The Conowingo Project encompasses a variety of water-dependent habitats that can be variously defined 

by frequency of inundation, water depth, and geomorphic position in the landscape adjacent to an open 

body of water. These habitats are characterized by a variety of vegetation types and wildlife species. 

Wetlands, the riparian zone, and the littoral zone are three broad habitat types that are present in the 

Project area. Field studies were conducted 2006-2008 to investigate the character of the Conowingo 

Project shoreline and the distribution of wetland, riparian, and littoral habitats of Conowingo Pond. 

Vegetation surveys were part of these studies. Additionally, wetland and benthic invertebrate studies 

conducted in support of the Holtwood Redevelopment Project overlap with the portion of the Conowingo 

4-69



Project above Norman Wood Bridge. The findings of these and other studies are provided below. The 

occurrence, distribution, and characterization of wetland, littoral, and riparian habitats are described 

below in Sections 4.6.1, 4.6.2, and 4.6.3, respectively. While vegetation and wildlife may be discussed 

therein, additional discussions of vegetation and wildlife are provided in Sections 4.6.4 and 4.6.5. Rare, 

threatened and endangered (RTE) species, and critical habitats, are discussed in Section 4.7. 

4.6.1 Wetland Habitat 


The Susquehanna River between the Holtwood Dam and the downstream end of Hennery Island is a 

bedrock stream reach (Reusser et al. 2004). Downstream of Hennery Island the bedrock channel bottom 

is covered with a thickening wedge of sediment that has been accumulating behind the Conowingo Dam 

since its construction in 1928 (Hainly et al. 1995; Langland and Hainly 1997; Hill et al. 2006). The 

accumulation of sediment above Hennery Island is minimal because of the high-water velocities 

associated with releases from the Holtwood Dam, discharges from the Muddy Run facility, and the 

narrow channel geometry in this section of the Pond. Thus, the Conowingo Pond reach of the 

Susquehanna River acts as a mixed bedrock-alluvial system. The characteristics of wetlands in the 

bedrock-dominated reach of Conowingo Pond and the more alluvial reach below Hennery Island differ as 

a function of hydrology and sedimentary processes. 

Bedrock-Dominated Reach 

The bedrock reach is characterized by riverbed emergent wetlands. For a distance of about 7,000 feet a 

large extent of riverbed is exposed below the Holtwood Dam spillway, between Piney Island and the 

York County shoreline. This area is comprised of intermittently exposed bedrock with shallow pools at 

low water levels (Figure 4.6.1.1-1). A change in habitat character occurs about 3,500 feet below the 

spillway. This correlates with a hydrologic change manifested by a line of rapids on USGS topographic 

maps and breaking water on aerial photographs. 

The upstream section appears to be a higher energy flow regime. Vegetation grows in cracks and 

crevasses on the protected downstream side of rocks. The pools here are smaller and more isolated (10 to 

100 square feet) while the downstream section has larger more contiguous areas of open water (1,000 to 

10,000 square feet) that are wider and deeper. Upstream vegetation is generally shorter and less abundant 

than that downstream. As the energy conditions diminish downstream, the vegetation becomes more 

4-70



prominent, growing on most available rock surfaces, upstream and downstream. The downstream area 

corresponds to the riverbed emergent marsh of PPL and Kleinschmidt (2006). 

Pioneer vegetation (primarily water willow [Justicia Americana] and purple loosestrife [Lythrum 

salicaria]) become established in silt deposited by receding waters in crevasses on bare rock and in the 

silt matrix of predominantly weathered bedrock and gravel/cobble substrates (Figure 4.6.1.1-2). Dense 

root mats with trapped sediment ultimately develop and may be stripped from the rock by moving water. 

The root mats are important for the development of more complex vegetation zones because, as they 

continue to trap sediment, they become thicker and provide a foundation for soil development. 

Vegetative zones correlating with elevation and inundation are evident. The water willow and purple 

loosestrife zone (lower elevation with longer periods of inundation) transitions to grasses, sedges and 

rushes (Figure 4.6.1.1-3). The width of these zones is a function of slope (i.e., narrow zones with steep 

slopes). An element of protection against erosion is afforded to the vegetation growing at higher 

elevations. 

The mosaic of water willow and soft rush patches, undercut root mats, rock ledges and rivulets between 

bedrock and boulders serves as a nursery for small fish by providing habitat and protection. Fish are 

observed hiding in and amongst plant stems and root mat ledges over the water. 

A different type of wetland is found at the shore margins of the river and islands where riverbed emergent 

marsh zones transition to woody vegetation such as black willow (Salix nigra) and red maple (Acer 

rubrum) saplings. The wetland community here is more diverse than the riverbed emergent wetland. The 

vegetation near the shoreline is composed of elements found growing on the riverbed as well as elements 

that are encroaching from the riparian forest located upgradient. 

The Lancaster County Natural Areas Inventory (Nature Conservancy 1990, 1993) indicates that the 

western margin of Lower Bear Island, between two cleared power rights-of-way, consists of a hardwood 

dominated wetland. Reconnaissance level field observations recorded at the northernmost edge of this 

area along the shore identify river birch and purple loosestrife. 

In support of the Holtwood Development Project, PPL investigated wetlands between the Holtwood Dam 

and Norman Wood Bridge (PPL and Kleinschmidt 2006). Emergent and forested wetlands along the 

tailrace on the east margin and downstream tip of Piney Island and in the spillway along the western 

margin of the river were delineated. Riverbed emergent marsh consisting of a patchy mosaic of equal 

parts open water, rock, and emergent wetland was identified below Brushy Island and upstream of the 

4-71



Norman Wood Bridge, and erosional remnant wetlands were identified in bedrock scour depressions at 

the upstream tip of Piney Island and on adjacent Fry and Holly Islands. 

Alluvial-Dominated Reach 

The distribution of vegetation in riverbed emergent wetlands is limited by the location of silt in rock 

crevasses and pockets of weathered bedrock and gravel/cobble substrates with a silt matrix. In contrast, 

wetlands that have developed in the alluvial reach, located at sites of accumulating sediment, densely 

cover the substrate. 

Thirty-one emergent wetlands have been identified between Lower Bear Island and Conowingo Dam 

(Figure 4.6.1.1-4). The majority are associated with tributary creeks to Conowingo Pond. Non-native, 

invasive species include tree-of-heaven, day lily, purple loosestrife, and Japanese knotweed. Commonly 

observed species in the alluvial-dominated reach are provided in Table 4.6.4-1. 

4.6.1.2 Below Conowingo Dam 

Below the dam, Maryland Wetland Inventory maps depict the presence of deciduous broad-leaved 

forested and scrub-shrub wetlands and persistent emergent wetlands subject to a variety of water regimes 

(i.e., temporarily flooded, seasonally flooded, seasonally flooded/saturated, semi-permanently flooded, or 

seasonal tidal). At the farthest downstream extent of the Project area, on the western shore near US Route 

40, the river is tidally influenced and a freshwater tidal emergent wetland is indicated. 

4.6.2 Littoral Zone Habitat 

The littoral zone is the near-shore area extending from the seasonal high water level to the furthest extent 

of rooted aquatic vegetation. Typically, rooted aquatic vegetation is distributed as an upper zone of 

emergent rooted vegetation, a middle zone of floating-leaved rooted vegetation, and a lower zone of 

submersed rooted vegetation (Wetzel 1975). The field study of littoral habitat in Conowingo Pond 

distinguished between a shallow littoral zone (0 to 5 feet) and deep littoral zone (5 to 10 feet). 


Major littoral habitats are situated on alluvium. Large expanses of alluvium are deposited as accretionary 

features at/near the downstream ends of existing islands and at/near tributary mouths. Accretionary 

features are stabilized by vegetation when optimal conditions of inundation and sediment stability are 

reached. Once established, the vegetation initiates a cycle of sediment trapping, stabilization and 

4-72



accretion. This process is particularly prominent at Mt. Johnson Island, Peters Creek, and Fishing Creek. 

Alluvial accretionary features also are found below the Norman Wood Bridge, e.g., at an unnamed island 

below Piney Island. 

Some shorelines are characterized by gently sloping, yet very narrow, deposits at the water’s edge. These 

include sediments deposited at the mouths of minor tributaries entering Conowingo Pond (e.g., Muddy 

Run), sediments associated with stormwater runoff that drained riparian areas, and sediments deposited 

by receding floodwaters. 

Field observations in 2007 generally support geomorphic features of the Conowingo Pond bottom 

depicted by the 1993 bathymetric survey by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (Reed and 

Hoffman 1997). Between Hennery Island and the vicinity of the Maryland-Pennsylvania border, 

Conowingo Pond is characterized by broad expanses of relatively flat bottom with less pronounced 

channelization than the bottom below this section to the Conowingo Dam. Much of this area is at or 

below the maximum littoral zone depth of 10 feet when water levels are at the minimum licensed 

reservoir elevation of 101.7 ft (100.5 ft Conowingo Datum). Thus, a substantial portion of Conowingo 

Pond in Pennsylvania is within littoral depths at some point within the licensed range of water level 

fluctuation. 

The sediment composition of accretionary littoral zone substrates is consistent with the findings of the 

USGS and Maryland Geological Survey (MGS) (Hainly et al. 1995; Hill et al. 2006). The USGS and 

MGS studies both identified a major property of bottom sediments in Conowingo Pond below Hennery 

Island to be significant anthracite coal content associated with sands. 

Mt. Johnson Island 

Accretionary sediment deposition is evident on the downstream side of Mt. Johnson Island from aerial 

photographs (Figure 4.6.2.1-1). Depth soundings indicate that the margins of the accretionary zone 

visible on these aerials correlate with depth contours of 5 and 10 feet below normal pool elevation. Two 

shallow littoral shoals (at normal pool) are separated by a narrow channel. Flow is stronger in the channel 

than on the shoals. The portion of the shoal along the southeast corner of Mt. Johnson Island was 

subaerially exposed during field work. 

Near the water’s edge at the upper limits of the littoral zone, along the south shore of the island, the 

substrate consists of bedrock and boulders of weathered bedrock (Figure 4.6.2.1-2). The shoal substrate 

consists of sand and silt (Table 4.6.2.1-1). The sands are predominantly sub-angular to well-rounded 

4-73



quartz (coarse-to-fine) with varying amounts of coal. Sand-sized grains of coal are angular and can be 

abundant. Biotite flakes and coal are found in sands and silts. 

The SAV is primarily Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) but pondweed (Potamogeton sp.) and 

water star grass (Heteranthera dubia) also are present. The SAV distribution varies from dense to 

sporadic clusters (Figure 4.6.2.1-3). This is an invasive species of milfoil. When present as dense mats on 

the water surface, Eurasian milfoil blocks sunlight from reaching other SAV and interferes with boating 

and fishing. Blue-green algae, at times thick, may cover the SAV or float in clumps on the water surface. 

There is a sharp line visible on the water surface that demarcates areas of dense milfoil and no milfoil. 

The water depth along this “veg line” was recorded and is very consistent. Dense milfoil is restricted, for 

the most part, to depths of 5 to 6 feet below mean pool elevation. Areas free of milfoil are generally in 

depths under 5 feet and over 6 feet below mean pool elevation. 

Peters Creek 

Sediment deposition at the mouth of Peters Creek also is evident on aerial photographs (Figure 4.6.2.1-4). 

Depth soundings indicate that the edge of the visible delta-like deposition correlates with depths of 5 and 

10 feet below normal pool elevation, similar to Mt. Johnson Island. Relative to normal pool elevation the 

shallow littoral zone is extremely narrow a few hundred feet upstream of Peters Creek, whereas 

downstream it extends more than half a mile as a flat bed a few hundred feet wide. This configuration 

suggests the sediment load of Peters Creek is primarily deposited near shore and downstream of the creek. 

The deep littoral zone widens downstream from 200 to 300 feet to over a thousand feet. 

The littoral substrate consists of a sub-angular to rounded medium sand and silt or “jelly-like” mud (Table 

4.6.2.1-2). The sand is predominantly quartz with varying amounts of coarse sand-sized angular coal 

grains. Biotite flakes are present in the sand. The organic rich silt sample had a minor amount of coal. 

Milfoil is the dominant SAV. Milfoil and pondweed have a much sparser distribution here than at Mt. 

Johnson Island. Blue-green algae are also present attached to the SAV. 

Fishing Creek 

Sediment deposition at the mouth of Fishing Creek also is evident on aerial photographs (Figure 4.6.2.1- 

5). Depth soundings indicate that the 5-foot and 10-foot contours parallel the shoreline in a fairly uniform 

manner. The shallow littoral zone is wide and flat (slope less than 1%) while the deep littoral is narrow 

and much steeper (slope approximately 5%). 

4-74



The substrate ranges from pebbles and cobbles at the shallowest area to sand and silt elsewhere (Table 

4.6.2.1-3). Silts contained some sand (quartz and coal). One sample was medium-to-coarse grained coal 

sand. 

The SAV is primarily milfoil with some pondweed. Blue-green algae can be found attached to SAV. 

Water willow is established on the cobble/pebble bar opposite the stream mouth. This bar is visible on 

aerial photos. Waves were seen breaking on the cobble/pebble bar which may be an incipient island 

(Figure 4.6.2.1-6). Snags promote vertical accretion by trapping sediment. As the water willow becomes 

established, more sediment is trapped and the bar stabilizes and continues to aggrade horizontally and 

vertically. 

4.6.2.2 Below Conowingo Dam 

The Chesapeake Bay Program’s annual SAV survey indicates that there is suitable littoral habitat for 

SAV in the tidal portion of the Project. The SAV beds are identified through the analysis of aerial 

photographs obtained from flights that extend upstream in the Susquehanna River as far as the 

Conowingo Dam. SAV maps for 2006 identify no SAV beds below the dam to Robert Island (Orth et. al. 

2007). Moderate to dense SAV beds are identified within the Conowingo Project boundary below Robert 

Island (Figure 4.6.2.2-1). Ground surveys of SAV species at these particular locations are not reported. 

4.6.3 Riparian Zone Habitat 

Riparian zones border waterways landward of the littoral zone. In Fischer, et al. (2000), the USACE 

defines riparian zones as long strips of vegetation adjacent to inland aquatic systems that affect or are 

affected by the presence of water. Riparian habitat can be a wetland or non-wetland (upland) (Tiner 

1999). Field surveys of riparian habitat of Conowingo Pond defined riparian habitats as non-wetland 

areas only. 

The characteristics of upland riparian habitat along Conowingo Pond and island margins are directly 

influenced by shoreline sedimentation and erosion. The riparian zone is situated at the water’s edge at 

elevations higher than adjacent wetlands and littoral zones, if present. Riparian vegetation may be rooted 

in rock fractures or unconsolidated sediment (alluvium, colluvium, and soil). Root undercutting is 

commonplace along unconsolidated shorelines. The width of the riparian zone is a function of slope 

(Figure 4.6.3-1). Where the upland topography is very steep, the riparian zone is very narrow to absent. 

4-75



Along Mt. Johnson Island, steep topography and a rocky substrate limit the riparian area to a zone that is 

only several meters wide before the forest transitions to a non-riparian upland forest. The riparian 

vegetation is dominated by trees, and the shrubs and herbs are confined to the shoreline. At Peters Creek, 

the riparian zone is located between the shoreline and railroad embankment. The substrate is composed 

largely of boulders and gravel and the vegetation is typical of that observed in disturbed areas (e.g., 

sumac). Black cherry and silver maple are the dominant trees. The Fishing Creek riparian zone also is 

located between the shoreline and railroad embankment. The banks slope away from the water’s edge at 

approximately 25 to 30 degrees. The composition of the riparian vegetation at Fishing Creek is similar, 

but slightly more diverse, than that observed at Peters Creek. 

The species composition and structure of riparian forests observed upgradient of wetlands were the same 

as that seen in the riparian areas located adjacent to littoral zones. Topography also strongly influences 

the extent of riparian forests located adjacent to the wetlands. 

4.6.4 Wetland, Littoral, and Riparian Vegetation 

Field inventories of wetland, littoral, and riparian vegetation within Conowingo Pond were conducted in 

2007 and 2008. Plant species identified in wetlands, littoral, and riparian habitats are listed in Tables 

4.6.4-1 through 4.6.4-4. 

4.6.5 Wetland, Littoral, and Riparian Wildlife 

Littoral zones provide habitat for fish and benthic invertebrates. These aquatic resources are described in 

Section 4.4. Wetlands and the riparian zone also provide habitats for many forms of wildlife. 

Documentation of reptiles and amphibians likely to utilize Project area wetlands and riparian zones is 

based on surveys conducted near Lake Aldred for the Holtwood Redevelopment Project (PPL and 

Kleinschmidt 2006) and ancillary observations of wildlife during field investigations for vegetation and 

physical processes. These surveys included areas within the Conowingo Project area between Holtwood 

Dam and the Norman Wood Bridge (Route 372). Reptiles and amphibians in the Project area are likely to 

be similar to the species reported in the PPL study. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

During the PPL surveys, grey tree frogs were heard from vernal pools on the rock islands below 

Holtwood Dam (and within the Conowingo Project). They are likely to also be present in riparian forests. 

Pickerel, green, leopard, and bull frogs were observed along tributaries and wetlands. Many frogs were 

observed in the erosional remnant wetlands just below Holtwood Dam. These wetlands protect the frogs 

4-76



from predatory fish. Amphibian tadpoles and adults were observed in wetlands adjacent to the Holtwood 

Hydroelectric Station. Snapping turtles, red-eared sliders, painted turtles, common map turtles, and wood 

turtles were observed basking along the shore. The black rat snake and northern water snake also were 

observed. Water snakes were observed in Conowingo Pond during 2008 wetland surveys. 

A list of reptiles and amphibians observed or historically recorded in the vicinity of Lake Aldred is 

presented in Table 4.6.5-1. 

4.7 Critical Habitat and Threatened and Endangered Species (18 C.F.R. §5.6(d)(3)(vii)) 

Knowledge of RTE species use of habitats within the boundary of the Conowingo Project is based on 

historical and current documented occurrences on record with resource agencies and observations by the 

public. The following Federal and state agencies were contacted in 2006 regarding the potential presence 

of RTE species and critical habitats within the Conowingo Project boundary: 

• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – PA and MD offices 

• Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) 

• Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PADCNR) 

• Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) 

• Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) 

A request for information was again submitted to these agencies in 2008 to inform this Pre-Application 

Document. These resource agencies identified known or potential occurrences of listed and non-listed 

species. This section summarizes the occurrence, distribution, and habitat requirements of the RTE 

species identified by these resource agencies and others recently reported to be in the vicinity of the 

Conowingo Project. 

4.7.1 Natural Areas 

Natural areas with unique habitats known to support, or potentially support, listed and non-listed species 

or communities of concern are partly within the Conowingo Project boundary. These include: 

• USFWS designated Critical Habitat at Deer Creek 

• MDNR recommended Protection Areas 

4-77



• MDNR designated Non-tidal Wetlands of Special State Concern 

• Erosional Remnants (recognized by PADCNR) 

• Riverside Outcrop Plant Community (recognized by PADCNR) 

• National Park Service Natural Landmark at Ferncliff Wildlife and Wildflower Preserve 

• Upland Slopes of Conowingo Pond (Lancaster County Natural Heritage Area) 

These areas are discussed below. 

USFWS Critical Habitat 

USFWS designated the main channel of Deer Creek in Harford County, Maryland, from Elbow Branch to 

the Susquehanna River as critical habitat for the Maryland darter (Etheostoma sellare) (49 Fed. Reg. 

34,228-32; Aug. 29, 1984). Although the Maryland darter is thought to be extirpated from the state, it 

may occur in the critical habitat designated at Deer Creek, which crosses the thin strip of Project lands 

along the Harford County shoreline below Conowingo Dam. USFWS initiated a 5-Year Review of the 

Maryland darter and several other listed species by notice issued January 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 4,018-19; 

Jan. 29, 2007). 

MDNR Protection Areas 

Twelve areas located wholly or partly within the Conowingo Project boundary have been recommended 

by MDNR for protection to the Maryland Natural Heritage Program based on the quality of the 

communities and the presence of rare species (Figure 4.7.1-1). These are: 

• Wildcat Ravine (Cecil County) 

• Bald Friar Ravine (Cecil County) 

• Susquehanna Floodplain (Cecil County) 

• Susquehanna Slopes (Cecil County) 

• South Lapidum (Harford County) 

• Glen Cove Marina (Harford County) 

• Bald Hill (Harford County) 

• Northern Susquehanna Canal (Harford County) 

• Deer Creek (Harford County) 

4-78



• Broad Creek Woods (Harford County) 

• Stafford Road Slopes (Harford County) 

• I-95 Crossing (Harford County) 

The exact locations of RTE plants documented in these areas have not been revealed by resource agencies 

and, therefore, the actual recorded occurrences of RTE plants within the Conowingo Project boundaries 

are uncertain for those areas only partly within the Conowingo Project. The rationales for protection and 

recent documentations of rare species are briefly described below. 

Wildcat Ravine (Cecil County) 

Wildcat Ravine is characterized by steep slopes and rock soil that support large hemlock and tulip trees 

which are rare in Cecil County (McCarthy 1988a). At the mouth of the tributary stream leaving the 

ravine, a culvert conveys flow under the railroad. A pond and emergent wetland has developed behind 

the railroad embankment. This wetland has been designated as a Nontidal Wetland of Special State 

Concern (see below) wherein MDNR documents the occurrence of the state listed Virginia mallow (S. 

hermaphrodita) (letter dated July 21, 2006). The Conowingo Project boundary extends into the ravine 

from the Susquehanna River. 

Bald Friar Ravine (Cecil County) 

Bald Friar Ravine is characterized by extremely steep and stony slopes that support a lush deciduous 

forest with an exceptionally diverse herbaceous layer (McCarthy 1988b). The tributary stream at the base 

of the ravine flows through a culvert under the railroad. This restriction has created a small pond along 

the railroad bank. The Conowingo Project boundary extends into the ravine from its confluence with the 

Susquehanna River. Wetland habitat at the mouth of the ravine has been designated by the State as a 

Nontidal Wetland of Special State Concern (see below). 

Susquehanna Floodplain (Cecil County) 

The Susquehanna Floodplain lies within the Conowingo Project boundary extending approximately 1.5 

miles downstream from just below the Conowingo Dam. The area includes the confluence of Octoraro 

Creek with the Susquehanna River. The floodplain forest and exposed riverine rock and pools support 

numerous rare plants (MDNR 1998a). MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) identified documented 

occurrences of the state listed plants in this area - valerian (V. pauciflora) species in the area extending 

3,700 feet south of Octoraro Creek; tall dock (R. altissimus) on the north and south sides of the Octoraro 

Creek mouth; and flat-stemmed spike-rush (E. compressa) between Conowingo Dam and mouth of 

Octoraro Creek. Non-listed plant species of concern also identified by MDNR in this area are butternut (J. 

4-79



cinerea) and ostrich fern (M. struthiopteris). MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) also documents the map 

turtle (G. geographica) at the mouth of Octoraro Creek and colonies of great blue heron (Ardea herodias) 

and black-crowned night-heron (N. nycticorax) on the forested floodplain. 

Susquehanna Slopes (Cecil County) 

Susquehanna Slopes extends from the Conowingo Dam upstream past Conowingo Creek. The mesic 

forests of the rocky slopes and ravines, and the young woods of Funk’s Pond, support numerous rare 

plants (MDNR 1998b). Six listed plant species are documented as present here by MDNR (July 21, 

2006). These are: Hitchcock’s sedge (C. hithcockiana) and Goldenseal (H. canadensis) along the wooded 

slopes near Camp Conowingo and goldenseal, swamp oats (S. pensylvanica), veined skullcap (S. 

nervosa), and American gromwell (L. latifolium) between Route 1 and the Conowingo Creek boat 

landing. 

South Lapidum (Harford County) 

South Lapidum contains suitable habitat for the state endangered map turtle (G. geographica) within its 

non-tidal wetlands, streams tributary to the Susquehanna River, the river shoreline, and old canal (Farr 

1988a). Unique to the Piedmont of Maryland, Canadian hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) is found growing in 

rock crevices along its steep slopes. The emergent marsh here is designated a Nontidal Wetland of Special 

State Concern (see below). 

Glen Cove Marina (Harford County) 

Glen Cove and the associated marina are located at the mouth of Peddler Run. Goldenseal populations 

are on the forested slopes along the margins of the cove (Farr 1988b; MDNR letter dated July 21, 2006). 

Bald Hill (Harford County) 

Bald Hill consists of serpentine outcrops along an existing cleared transmission line corridor downstream 

of Broad Creek and in a 100-foot strip of forest on either side of the right-of-way. This area supports a 

serpentine barrens plant community known to include state listed harebell (C. rotundifolia) (Farr 1988c; 

MDNR letter dated July 21, 2006). 

Northern Susquehanna Canal (Harford County) 

The Northern Susquehanna Canal area overlaps part of the Deer Creek Protection Area described below. 

It includes steep slopes and ravines with a well-stratified, mature forest with a herbaceous ground layer 

with rare plants (Farr 1988d). River floodplain wetlands at lower elevations include a WSSC (see below). 

Birds indicative of high quality forest habitat are found here. MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) 

identified documented occurrences of the following state listed plant species in the forested floodplains, 

4-80



rocky shores, and moist woods of the Northern Susquehanna Canal area: Davis’ sedge (C. davisii), glade 

fern (D. pycnocarpon), sweet-scented Indian-plantain (H. suaveolens), star-flowered false Solomon’s-seal 

(S. stallata), and valerian (V. pauciflora). 

Deer Creek (Harford County) 

Deer Creek has been discussed above as critical habitat designated by USFWS for the Maryland darter. 

Lower Deer Creek was recommended for protection by MDNR not only for the Maryland darter, but also 

for the shortnose sturgeon (A. brevirostrum), Atlantic sturgeon (A. oxyrhinchus), and logperch (P. 

caprodes) which were observed using the waterbody for spawning (Farr 1988e). Plant species of note that 

may occur within the area are identical to those presented for the North Susquehanna Canal and may 

reflect the common boundaries the areas share. The Deer Creek Protection Area contains the USFWS 

Critical Habitat. 

Broad Creek Woods (Harford County) 

Broad Creek Woods encompasses ravines draining to Broad Creek with nearly pristine old-growth stands 

of Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) (Farr 1988f). While common in the cooler mountainous western 

Maryland, a stand of Eastern hemlock of this size (over 75 acres) and quality is very rare in the warmer 

Piedmont. 

Stafford Road Slopes (Harford County) 

Stafford Road Slopes is comprised of steep, rocky slopes and moderately sloping hillsides with seeps, a 

mature forest and abundance of wildflowers (Farr 1988g). MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) documents 

the occurrence of the state rare Emory’s sedge along the river bank north of Rock Run; the rare tenuis 

amphipod (Stygobromus tenuis tenuis) in a spring seep on a rocky hillside above Stafford Road; a 

population of the state rare large-seeded forget-me-not (Myosotis macrosperma) in a forested floodplain 

near the railroad tracks at Lapidum and Herring Run; and the state endangered hellbender salamander (C. 

allegheniensis) at Rock Run. Rock Run and Herring Run are designated as Nontidal Wetlands of Special 

State Concern (see below). 

I-95 Crossing (Harford County) 

The I-95 Crossing area contains suitable habitat for the state endangered map turtle (G. geographica) 

within its non-tidal wetlands, streams tributary to the Susquehanna River, the river shoreline, and old 

canal (Farr 1988h). Unique to the Piedmont of Maryland, Canadian hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) is found 

growing in rock crevices along its steep slopes. The wetland complex here is designated a Nontidal 

Wetlands of Special State Concern (see below). 

4-81



MDNR Nontidal Wetlands of Special State Concern 

Wetlands that may provide unique habitat value and/or those that support RTE species are designated as 

Nontidal Wetlands of Special State Concern by the State of Maryland. These wetlands, identified and 

regulated under the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE), are mapped for guidance purposes and 

listed in Maryland’s Code of Regulations (Md. Code Regs. 26.23.06). These wetlands receive special 

protection such as an expanded buffer from development (Md. Code Regs. 26.23.01.04). 

Several Nontidal Wetlands of Special State Concern designations occur within Conowingo Project 

boundaries (Figure 4.7.1-1). These include wetlands associated with the Wildcat Ravine, Bald Friar 

Ravine, Northern Susquehanna Canal, Deer Creek, South Lapidum, and I-95 Crossing Protection Areas 

described above. Wetlands associated with Rock Run and Herring Run, tributaries to the Susquehanna 

River within the Stafford Roads Slopes Protection Area, and an unnamed tributary 550 feet north of I-95, 

are identified as Nontidal Wetlands of Special State Concern by MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) but 

are not listed in the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) or shown on the MDNR map. 

Erosional Remnants 

Erosional Remnants are a heritage geology type identified by the PADCNR (PADCNR 2008). These are 

landforms or outcrops produced by erosion, e.g., free-standing rock columns or boulders; bedrock 

pinnacles, peaks or cliffs; and non-glacial potholes. 

Riverside Outcrop Community 

The Riverside Outcrop Community is recognized by the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program as an 

imperiled to critically imperiled plant association. It is found along banks of major rivers with rock 

outcrops subject to winter ice scour, periodic flooding, and periods of drought. This community is 

present in the Conowingo Islands reach of the Conowingo Project, often associated with erosional 

remnants. 

Peavine Island and the rock outcrop river shoreline of the Conowingo Islands reach along Lower 

Chanceford Township are part of the Conowingo Island Macrosite, identified in the York County Natural 

Areas Inventory (NAI) as a Priority Preservation Site for maintaining biological diversity in York County 

(Nature Conservancy 2004). The York County NAI reports 12 occurrences of species of special concern 

as well as other uncommon species. This area supports a diverse plant community within habitats that 

range from floodplain thickets and forests, to outcrop cliffs, vernal ponds, dry shrub heath, mesophytic 

and dry rocky forests, and littoral zone. Plants on rocks typically grow in crevices and hollows where 

sediment accumulates. 

4-82



The Lancaster County Natural Heritage Inventory (PNHP 2008), the 2008 update of the 1990 Lancaster 

County NAI,) includes the Conowingo Islands and adjacent riverside areas of the Lower Susquehanna 

River (Riverside Cliff/Outcrop Community) as a Natural Heritage Area providing habitat to 16 plant 

species of concern and three animal species of concern and the exposed rock outcrops facing the river 

downstream of Wissler Run as part of the Midway Station/Wissler Run Natural Heritage Area as 

supporting two fern species of concern. 

Recent botanical surveys of this community in a portion of the Conowingo Project were conducted in 

support of the Holtwood Redevelopment Project (Kleinschmidt 2005; 2007). The Pennsylvania 

endangered sticky goldenrod (S. simplex spp. randii var. racemosa) was identified in the riverside outcrop 

community on Rocky Island below the Norman Wood Bridge and islands adjacent to Piney Island below 

Holtwood Dam. Additionally, PA endangered aster-like boltonia (also known as false aster or white 

doll’s daisy) is found in the riverside outcrop community of the Holtwood Dam spillway area. 

Ferncliff Wildlife and Wildflower Preserve 

The Ferncliff Wildlife and Wildflower Preserve in Lancaster County was designated by the National Park 

Service as a National Natural Landmark in November 1972. The preserve is situated along Benton Ravine 

(Barnes Run) northeast of Mt. Johnson Island. It is a steep-sided forested, narrow valley with a cascading 

stream and large rock exposures (PNHP 2008). High quality hemlock-tuliptree-birch forest and spring 

wildflowers are present. Towards the river, the landscape drops off abruptly to form a rideline of steep 

bluffs. The Conowingo Project boundary extends upstream in Barnes Run and may encompass areas 

within into the preserve and the Lancaster County Benton Ravine Natural Heritage Area. 

Upland Slopes of Conowingo Pond 

The slopes of the Susquehanna River below the cluster of Conowingo Islands to the Conowingo Dam are 

identified as unique habitats for RTE species and natural communties (PNHP 2008). The forested slopes 

and rock cliffs on both sides of the river are included in two Natural Heritage Areas - Lower Susquehanna 

River and Haines Glen. Mt. Johnson Island is part of the Lower Susquehanna River area. It was 

designated a bald eagle sanctuary in 1936 by the National Audubon Society (Cohen 2004). 

4.7.2 T & E Species (Federal and State Listed Species) 

In response to requests for information, Federal and state resource agencies identified listed threatened or 

endangered species and non-listed rare species that occur or may be present within the boundaries of the 

Conowingo Project. Listed species are discussed in this section and non-listed species are discussed in 

4-83



Section 4.7.3. For Maryland, the status reported here is from the county lists for Harford and Cecil 

Counties. 

4.7.2.1 Birds 

Three bird species were identified by PGC, USFWS, and MDNR: 

• Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

• Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax 

• Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

Table 4.7.2.1-1 provides the listing status of these species. Background on these species is provided 

below. 

Bald eagle (PA and MD Threatened) 

Bald eagles nest in and near the Project area in both Pennsylvania and Maryland. PGC identified seven 

known bald eagle nests within the Conowingo Project in Pennsylvania (letter dated June 5, 2008). These 

are at Lower Bear Island (1), Upper Bear Island (2), Piney Island (1), eastern shore of the Susquehanna 

River across form Piney Island (2) and the western shore of the Susquehanna River across from Piney 

island (1). In Maryland, the MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) indicated that known bald eagle nests are 

located along the Susquehanna River in Harford County, MD between Line Bridge Road and Broad 

Creek; on Roberts Island; at an unnamed tributary to the Susquehanna River about 3,000 feet north of I- 

95; and on a tower between Conowingo Dam and the mouth of Octoraro Creek. 

Regionally, bald eagles are becoming increasingly abundant, and are present throughout the year within 

the Conowingo Project. There is an over-wintering population throughout the Project area and their 

concentration near the Conowingo Dam is well documented. Twenty to 50 eagles may regularly occur in 

the area in the winter (Crable 2000), attracted to abundant fish resources. 

Bald eagles prefer large rivers and lakes with abundant fisheries stock, which serve as their primary food 

source. Preferred water bodies include those with adjacent banks vegetated with mature canopy trees used 

for perches and for nesting. Nests are primarily constructed in dominant mature trees (often pine, 

sycamore, red oak and red maple), or cliffs near water, but occasionally are built on man-made structures. 

Kleinschmidt (2006) reported that egg laying and incubation occur between January and April with 

fledging occurring as early as mid-June and as late as the end of July. 

Black-crowned night-heron (PA Endangered) 

4-84



PGC documents a known occurrence of the black-crowned night-heron on the western shore of the 

Susquehanna River a little over two miles north of the Maryland-Pennsylvania state line (letter dated June 

5, 2008). While not listed in Maryland, the black-crowned night-heron also occurs in the Susquehanna 

Floodplain Protection Area on the east side of the Susquehanna River below the Conowingo Dam 

(MDNR letter dated July 21, 2006). 

These areas are used during the breeding season, where night-herons can be found foraging well away 

from nesting colonies in these areas. The only area in Pennsylvania known to support wintering nightherons 

is in the southeastern most portion of the State in Philadelphia (i.e., Tinicum) (McWilliams and 

Brauning 2000). As such, this species presence within the Conowingo Project is limited to the months of 

April through October. 

The black-crowned night-heron is a communal nester, building nests near lakes, streams and on wooded 

river islands. The nests are built at the top of deciduous and coniferous trees 20 to 40 feet above the 

ground. This species arrives in late March/early April, peaking in mid to late April. While fall migration 

is not well defined, by the second week of August through October, individuals move away from nesting 

colonies (Brauning 1992; McWilliams and Brauning 2000). Black-crowned night-herons forage on a 

variety of prey including fish, crustaceans, plants, small reptiles and amphibians, insects, mussels and 

even carrion (PGC 2006). As their name suggests, this night-heron is primarily nocturnal, but may also 

be active at dawn and dusk. 

Osprey (PA Threatened) 

PGC identified six known osprey nests within the Conowingo Project in Pennsylvania (letter dated June 

5, 2008). These are at Piney Island (2), on the western shore of the Susquehanna River across from Piney 

Island (2), and in the Conowingo Reservoir (2) about three miles north of the Maryland-Pennsylvania 

state line. In Maryland, ospreys have historically built nests on Rowland Island just below the Conowingo 

Dam (McConaughy 1997). Cohen (2004) states that osprey are regularly observed at Hawk Point in 

Susquehannock State Park. 

This bird prefers salt marshes, large inland rivers, lakes, ponds and marshes bordered by mature trees. 

Given that their diet is primarily fish, they require access to an abundant supply, however, they also will 

take small waterfowl/mammals and carrion. Kleinschmidt (2006) reported that preferred foraging habitat 

by local osprey was associated with shallow water with low turbidity. They nest in snags and on 

structures and have been observed locally perching on transmissions towers and on trees on the islands. 

4-85



Ospreys are found throughout the Project area during only a portion of the year. Kleinschmidt (2006) 

reported that ospreys migrate into the area in April and depart by the end of September. Winter reports of 

osprey were not found, therefore it is presumed that they are present in the Project area during migration 

and the breeding season only. 

4.7.2.2 Reptiles and Amphibians 

Four listed herptile species were identified by USFWS, PFBC, and MDNR. These species are: 

• Hellbender salamander Cryptobranchus alleganiensis 

• Bog turtle Glyptemys muhlenbergii (formerly Clemmy muhlenbergerii) 

• Map turtle Graptemys geographica 

• Rough green snake Opheodrys aestivus 

Table 4.7.2.2-1 provides the listing status of these species. 

Hellbender salamander (MD Endangered) 

MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) documents the occurrence of the hellbender salamander at Rock Run, 

a Wetland of Special State Concern. 

This wholly aquatic salamander prefers gravel or sand substrate conditions. Abundant large structure is 

needed for hiding given its secretive behaviors. Preferred water conditions include fast-moving, midsized 

streams/channels with good water quality. Hellbender breeds in August/September and builds a 

nest in a saucer shaped excavation in the stream’s substrate. Their prey base includes crayfish and snails 

and will also consume aquatic invertebrates such as insects and worms. 

Bog turtle (PA Endangered; MD and Federal Threatened) 

The Conowingo Project is within the range of the federally and Maryland threatened and Pennsylvania 

endangered bog turtle (letters from USFWS and PFBC dated July 27, 2006 and August 18, 2006, 

respectively). USFWS has prepared a bog turtle recovery plan (USFWS 2001). 

The actual presence of this species within Project boundaries is wholly dependent upon the type of 

wetlands present given that this species is a habitat specialist. The omnivorous bog turtle prefers 

wetlands with cool spring water, mucky substrates and hummocky vegetation with an open canopy. None 

of the 31 wetlands surveyed in the Conowingo Pond in 2008 are suitable as potential bog turtles habitats. 

4-86



Bog turtles migrate, often through forested areas and small stream channels, between hibernation sites and 

sites used for foraging, basking and reproduction. 

Map turtle (MD Endangered) 

MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) documents the map turtle near the mouth of Broad Creek; the 

occurrence of a breeding population during the 1970s at an unidentified linear cove along the Harford 

County side of the river; a population recorded in the 1990s at Steele Island and near Steele Island on the 

Cecil County shoreline; and at the mouth of Octoraro Creek. The rocks north of Steele Island are a good 

basking location for these turtle (White and White 2002). 

The map turtle is found in deep, slow-moving large rivers and lakes with ample locations for basking. 

Muddy bottoms with aquatic vegetation are preferred. In addition to vegetation, which comprises a 

majority of the diet, mollusks and crayfish supplement the largely vegetarian diet. Map turtles lay a 

clutch of eggs April to mid-July with hatching occurring later in the summer (mid-August to September). 

Rough green snake (PA Endangered) 

PFBC (letter dated August 18, 2006) identified known occurrences of the rough green snake near 

Conowingo Project. At the very northern portion of its range in the Susquehanna River Valley, this snake 

is an inhabitant of marshes and moist areas near streams, lakes and marshes. It is an arboreal species, 

preferring particularly dense growth of brush, trees and vines and it forages primarily on insects (INHS 

2004). 

4.7.2.3 Fish 

Four listed fish species were identified by USFWS (Maryland), NMFS, and MDNR. Hickory shad is a 

Pennsylvania endangered anadromous fish. 

• Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum 

• Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus 

• Hickory shad Alosa mediocris 

• Maryland darter Etheostoma sellare 

• Logperch Percina caprodes 

Table 4.7.2.3-1 provides the listing status of these species. 

4-87



Shortnose sturgeon (PA, MD, and Federal Endangered) 

The shortnose sturgeon is an anadromous species. NMFS (letter dated August 14, 2006) identified ten 

shortnose sturgeon captures in the lower Susquehanna River, Susquehanna Flats, and Upper Chesapeake 

Bay. Three captures were made by commercial watermen in the tidal reach of the lower Susquehanna 

River and were tagged for later recapture (Welsh et al. 2002). One Susquehanna River shortnose sturgeon 

tagged with a sonic transmitter was recaptured within one month in the C&D canal. This occurrence, plus 

recent genetic analysis (Grunwald et al. 2002; Wirgin et al. 2005), suggests that shortnose sturgeon using 

the lower Susquehanna River, Flats, and upper bay may be wanderers from the more abundant Delaware 

River/estuary population (Welsh et al. 2002). 

Much of the recent data on shortnose sturgeon utilizing the tidal Susquehanna River accrued from a 

Reward Program initiated in 1996 that targeted Atlantic sturgeon captures by commercial fishermen in the 

Chesapeake Bay (Mangold et al. 2007). Maryland DNR provided an updated list of shortnose sturgeon 

captures reported to them through 2004 by commercial watermen via the Reward Program. Eleven 

shortnose sturgeon were reported from either the tidal lower Susquehanna River (Perryville RR bridge to 

Port Deposit) or Susquehanna Flats (Figure 4.4.1.2-1). Of the eight captures within the river, five came 

from above the I-95 bridge. 

Two shortnose sturgeon are also known from the Conowingo tailrace, both occurring in 1986. One was 

captured by an angler in May, retrieved by West Fish Lift personnel, and returned alive to the tailrace 

after measurement. The other was also angler-captured later in the year but succumbed. The specimen 

was forwarded to the Maryland Natural Heritage Program and now resides at the Academy of Natural 

Sciences in Philadelphia, PA. 

Atlantic sturgeon (PA Endangered) 

The Atlantic sturgeon is a Federal species of concern and candidate species (71 Fed. Reg. 61,022-61,025 - 

Oct. 17, 2006) and Pennsylvania endangered species. NMFS (letter dated August 14, 2006) documented 

occurrences of Atlantic sturgeon in the lower Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam and MDNR 

(letter dated July 21, 2006) cites the known occurrences of Atlantic sturgeon at the Conowingo Dam. The 

recent (1996-2000) compilation of commercial watermen incidental capture data reported by Welsh et al. 

(2002) identified two Atlantic sturgeon from the Susquehanna Flats but none from the lower Susquehanna 

River. Both captures were wild fish. Hatchery-raised Atlantic sturgeon juveniles have also been marked 

and released into the Nanticoke River, MD, a mid-Chesapeake Bay tributary. Although juveniles are 

known to range widely within and outside of estuaries, no hatchery juveniles were recaptured in the lower 

Susquehanna River or Flats (Welsh et al. 2002). 

4-88



Logperch (MD Threatened) 

Logperch are insectivores that inhabit warm streams, large moderate-gradient rivers and lakes, and spawn 

over sand or gravel (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993). Four recorded logperch observances in the Maryland 

portion of the Conowingo Project were reported by MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) in lower 

Conowingo Pond. Additional occurrences are noted below. 

Logperch were captured in low numbers by multiple gear types (seine, bottom trawl) annually throughout 

Conowingo Pond during the 1970s (RMC 1978; 1979). Most were taken by seine. Maryland captures 

were comparatively few since most seine sites were in Pennsylvania. For example, one of 12 logperch 

captures in 1977 occurred in Maryland. During 1978, 50 of 63 total logperch were captured by seine, 

none from Maryland. 

More recently, 211 logperch were captured in Conowingo Pond in 1996, mostly by seine but also by 

bottom trawl, trap net, and electrofishing. Seine stations with the highest catch rates (catch per station) 

included the boat launch in Broad Creek, a west shore Conowingo Pond tributary in Harford County, MD, 

and Fishing Creek, an east shore tributary in PA (Normandeau 1997). Additional logperch were captured 

in Broad Creek in 1999 and near Frazer Tunnel (Cecil County, MD) among 55 total individuals 

(Normandeau 2000). Mean seine catch rate (all stations) for logperch in 1996 and 1999 was 1.07 and 1.43 

logperch per collection. During both study periods (1970s, 1990s), overall logperch abundance was ≤ 

0.8% of all fishes sampled. Although logperch captures have occurred throughout Conowingo Pond, most 

logperch captures occurred just above the Maryland state line in Pennsylvania near PBAPS due to the 

sampling protocols. 

Logperch also occur in the Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam. Electrofishing in the Conowingo 

tailrace and at five stations in the upper tidal zone between Deer Creek and Port Deposit, MD yielded 

logperch in 1982 and 1983 (RMC, unpublished reports). Logperch were also caught in the Conowingo 

tailrace during West Fish Lift operations in spring through at least 2001, typically one or two individuals 

per year (SRAFRC 1991; 1992; 2002). 

Maryland darter (MD and Federal Endangered) 

The Maryland darter was declared endangered in 1967 and a short section of lower Deer Creek, including 

the confluence with the tidal Susquehanna River, was identified as “Critical Habitat” in 1984 (Federal 

Register, August 29, 1984) (see Section 4.7.1). The critical habitat designation included a tributary of 

nearby Swan Creek, also in Harford County. The last known sighting in Deer Creek occurred in 1988 in a 

permanent riffle about 0.5 miles upstream of the confluence, well beyond the influence of the 

4-89



Susquehanna River (Federal Register, February 15, 1996). The Maryland darter is a habitat specialist, 

preferring cobble/gravel riffle habitats and feeding on aquatic insects and snails. 

More recently (1995) the Maryland Farm Bureau petitioned USFWS to de-list the Maryland darter 

(Federal Register, February 15, 1996) due to lack of recent sightings. The published 90-day finding 

asserted that de-listing was not warranted. Moreover, the USFWS speculated that the Maryland darter 

may also continue to survive in the Susquehanna River adjacent to Deer Creek, and that such cannot be 

ruled out until proper searches have occurred. 

The USFWS in 2007 initiated a 5-year status review of 10 northeastern listed species, including the 

Maryland darter. Any new information on species biology, habitat conditions, implemented conservation 

measures, or threat status is being solicited for the determination (Federal Register, January 29, 2007). 

The SRBC recently issued a report on water availability, use and demand issues in Deer Creek through 

2025 (SRBC 2008c). 

Hickory shad (PA Endangered) 

Hickory shad have passed into Conowingo Pond via the East Fish Lift very infrequently (12 fish since 

1991) (SRAFRC 2005). One hickory shad was observed in the Holtwood Fish Lift in 1997 (SRAFRC 

1998). Few, if any, are caught by the West Fish Lift (SRAFRC 2005). 

Hickory shad have become relatively abundant in the Conowingo Dam tailrace in the early spring of 

recent years. Anglers engaged in catch-and-release fishing for hickory shad in the Conowingo tailrace 

cooperate with MDNR and PFBC to provide brood stock for tank or hatchery spawning. Hatchery-raised 

progeny of these individuals are stocked as fry in Chesapeake Bay tributaries by MDNR. The PFBC 

stocks most hickory shad fry out-of-basin, but one in-basin location that received hickory shad fry for five 

years beginning in 2003 was the Muddy Creek Fishing Access, just upstream of Muddy Creek, a west 

shore upper Conowingo Pond tributary in PA. As many as 5.4 million hatchery-marked fry were stocked 

(2005) annually during the five-year period. Hickory shad fry stocking at Muddy Creek was discontinued 

after 2007. Octoraro Creek, a known hickory shad spawning tributary (east shore) of the lower 

Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam, received an initial stocking of 3.5 million fry near Pine 

Grove, PA in 2008. 

Hickory shad also are abundant in the tidal Susquehanna River below the tailrace during late March 

through early May, particularly within and at the mouth of Deer Creek. Deer Creek, in particular, is 

known for high-caliber catch-and-release angling for hickory shad. Angler-caught hickory shad from the 

mouth of Deer Creek are also used for hatchery production of fry by both Maryland and Pennsylvania. 

4-90



4.7.2.4 Plants 

PADCNR (letter dated August 23, 2006) identified 12 Pennsylvania state listed plant species known to 

have historically occurred in the vicinity of the Conowingo Project in Pennsylvania. In 2008, PADCNR 

removed two species (*) and added five species (letter dated June 3, 2008) (**). In Maryland, MDNR 

identified 13 Maryland state listed plant species (letter dated July 21, 2006). While MDNR provided 

information on location, PADCNR did not. These species are described in the following sections. The 

listing status of these plant species are provided in Table 4.7.2.4-1. 

PADCNR 

• Arrow-feathered three awned Aristida purpurascens* 

• Leopard's-bane Arnica acaulis* 

• Bradley's spleenwort Asplenium bradleyi 

• Aster-like boltonia Boltonia asteroides 

• Reflexed flatsedge Cyperus refractus 

• Flat-stemmed spike-rush Eleocharis compressa 

• Harbinger-of-spring Erigenia bulbosa ** 

• Bicknell’s hoary rockrose Helianthemum bicknellii ** 

• American holly Ilex opaca 

• Common hemicarpa Lipocarpha micrantha 

• False loosestrife seedbox Ludwigia polycarpa 

• Umbrella magnolia Magnolia tripetala ** 

• Three-flowered melicgrass Melica nitens 

• Sticky goldenrod Solidago simplex ssp. randii var. racemosa 

• Slender goldenrod Solidago speciosa var. erecta 

• Tawny ironweed Vernonia glauca ** 

• Appalachian gametophyte fern Vittaria appalachiana ** 

4-91



Arrow-feathered three awned (PA Threatened) 

Arrow-feathered three awned is a perennial graminoid (USDA NRCS 2008). This upland plant is 

typically found in prairies and meadows with sandy soils and within barrens. The plant requires an open 

canopy with full sun (OHDNR 2008). 

Leopard's-bane (PA and MD Endangered) 

Leopard's-bane is a perennial forb primarily found in upland habitats (USDA NRCS 2008). It grows in 

rocky soils of open woods, thickets and serpentine barrens (NatureServe 2008). 

Bradley's spleenwort (PA Threatened) 

Bradley's spleenwort is a perennial forb (USDA NRCS 2008). This plant grows in acidic rock outcrops 

and barrens, within crevices and ledges, and on cliff faces (OHDNR 2008). In its letter dated June 3, 

2008, PADCNR describes the habitat for this plant as crevices of dry, shaded, acid rock outcrops. 

Aster-like boltonia (PA and MD Endangered) 

The Aster-like boltonia (also known as White doll’s daisy or False aster) is a perennial forb often found in 

wetlands (USDA NRCS 2008) with an open canopy (Hilty 2008). The species prefers sandy to loamy 

acidic soils; gravel shores; sandy, wet thickets (Slattery et al. 2003); alluvial meadows and marshes; and 

openings in forested floodplains (Hilty 2008). The Aster-like boltonia is found in the riverside outcrop 

community of the Holtwood Dam spillway area (Kleinschmidt 2007). In its letter dated June 3, 2008, 

PADCNR describes the habitat for this plant as rocky shores and exposed rocky river beds. 

Reflexed flatsedge (PA Endangered) 

Reflexed flatsedge is a perennial graminoid (USDA NRCS 2008). This primarily upland plant species 

(USDA NRCS 2008) prefers an open canopy and sandy soils, and is typically associated with fields, open 

dry woods, and barrens (OHDNR 2008). In its letter dated June 3, 2008, PADCNR describes the habitat 

for this plant as sand, alluvial banks and dry woods. 

Flat-stemmed spike-rush (PA and MD Endangered) (also noted by MDNR) 

Flat-stemmed spike-rush is a perennial graminoid associated with wetlands (USDA NRCS 2008) that 

typically grows in wet sand and gravel or mud (Hilty 2008). This species prefers the full sun and is found 

in wet depressions in woodlands and limestone glades, wet prairies, roadside ditches (Hilty 2008), and 

other wet seeps in calcareous grasslands, fens, and waste places (FNA 2002). MDNR (letter dated July 

21, 2006) reports a population of this species between Conowingo Dam and the mouth of Octoraro Creek 

(in or near in the Susquehanna Floodplain Protection Area). In its letter dated June 3, 2008, PADCNR 

describes the habitat for this plant as wet, sandy ground and stream banks. 

4-92



Harbinger-of-spring (PA Threatened) 

Harbinger-of-spring is a perennial and annual forb (USDA NRCS 2008) found in rich, mixed hardwood 

forests located in lowlands, coastal plains, and mountain valleys (PNHP 2008). In its letter dated June 3, 

2008, PADCNR describes the habitat for this plant as seeps and spring heads on wooded slopes. 

Bicknell’s hoary rockrose (PA and MD Endangered) 

Bicknell’s hoary rockrose is a perennial subshrub/forb (USDA NRCS 2008) that prefers dry, open areas 

with abundant sun and generally thin soil (e.g., rock outcrops, exposed banks, barrens, and open forests) 

(Kunsman 2006). In its letter dated June 3, 2008, PADCNR describes the habitat for this plant as dry 

rocky slopes, open woods and serpentine barrens. 

American holly (PA Threatened) 

American holly is a perennial shrub or small tree that typically grows in uplands (USDA NRCS 2008). 

This species can tolerate a variety of light conditions; grows in shallow, well-drained, sandy soil (USDA 

NRCS 2008); and is adapted to a wide range of habitats, including coastal dunes (USDA NRCS 2008) 

and deciduous woodlands (Steury and Davis 2003). American holly is found on Piney Island as mature 

trees and understory (Kleinschmidt 2005, 2007) and on a historic causeway between Piney island and 

Barclay Island. In its letter dated June 3, 2008, PADCNR describes the habitat for this species as moist 

alluvial woods and wooded slopes. 

Common hemicarpa (PA Endangered) 

Common hemicarpa is an annual graminoid typically associated with wetlands (USDA NRCS 2008). This 

plant prefers moist, sandy soil (OHDNR 2008) and grows in areas of sparse vegetation along the borders 

of ponds and streams (MNAP 2004) and on sandy beaches (COSEWIC 2002), which often provide the 

required open canopy. Common hemicarpa is generally very sensitive to habitat disturbance and is found 

in areas that are protected from strong currents or rough water (COSEWIC 2002). In its letter dated June 

3, 2008, PADCNR describes the habitat for this plant as moist sand. 

False loosestrife seedbox (PA Endangered) 

False loosestrife seedbox is a semi-aquatic (Ramstetter and Mott-White 2002) perennial forb associated 

with wetlands (USDA NRCS 2008). This plant is generally found on level terrain (Ramstetter and Mott- 

White 2002) and can grow in a variety of substrates, including sand, gravel, silt and muck (Peng 1989). 

The plant prefers a mostly open canopy (Ramstetter and Mott-White 2002). Typical habitats for this 

species are former oxbows, river channels in floodplain swamps (Sorrie 1986), marshes and wet prairies 

4-93



(Gleason and Cronquist 1991), and on the shores of ponds and other wet places (Fernald 1950). In its 

letter dated June 3, 2008, PADCNR describes the habitat for this plant as wet meadows and swales. 

Umbrella magnolia (PA Threatened) 

Umbrella magnolia is a perennial tree usually found in upland areas, preferring fine to medium textured 

soils that are neutral to slightly acidic. This species has a low tolerance for drought and is shade tolerant 

(USDA NRCS 2008). It is found in rich woods and ravines (FNA 1993+), near mountain streams and 

other wet areas (Kling et al. 2008), and in mesic shaded coves (OHDNR 2008). In its letter dated June 3, 

2008, PADCNR describes the habitat for this species as rich wooded slopes and floodplains. 

Three-flowered melicgrass (PA Threatened) 

Three-flowered melicgrass is a perennial graminoid that prefers a partly open canopy and calcareous or 

sandy loam soil (USDA NRCS 2008). Typical habitats for this species include open dry woods; rocky 

grasslands; streambanks; and dry to mesic prairies (OHDNR 2008). In its letter dated June 3, 2008, 

PADCNR describes the habitat for this plant as steep rocky slopes and river banks. 

Sticky goldenrod (PA Endangered) 

Sticky goldenrod is a perennial forb (USDA NRCS 2008) that grows in boulder/cobble river bars 

(KYNPC 2006a). This plant is found in the riverside outcrop community below Holtwood Dam, 

including areas downstream of the Norman Wood Bridge within the Conowingo Project (Kleinschmidt 

2005, 2007). In its letter dated June 3, 2008, PADCNR describes the habitat for this plant as rock crevices 

and shores. 

Slender goldenrod (PA Endangered and MD Threatened) 

Slender goldenrod is a perennial forb (USDA NRCS 2008) that grows in both loamy and sandy soils, 

prefers full sun or partial shade, and is found in open woods and fields (Slattery et al. 2003). In its letter 

dated June 3, 2008, PADCNR describes the habitat for this plant as dry, acidic shaley banks. 

Tawny ironweed (PA Endangered) 

Tawny ironweed is a perennial forb (USDA NRCS 2008) that grows in sandy to clay soils that can be 

acidic, neutral, or basic (Plants for a Future 2008). It is found in upland woods and dry fields and 

clearings (Rhoads and Block 2000) and rich woods (Citizens United 2008; Foster and Duke 1990). In its 

letter dated June 3, 2008, PADCNR describes the habitat for this plant as dry fields, open slopes or 

clearings. 

4-94



Appalachian gametophyte fern (PA Threatened) 

Appalachian gametophyte fern is a perennial forb (USDA NRCS 2008) mostly found growing on 

noncalcareous rocks, in dark moist cavities, and occasionally as an epiphyte on tree bases (Farrar 1993). 

In its letter dated June 3, 2008, PADCNR describes the habitat for this plant as heavily shaded, moist 

crevices and overhangs in noncalcareous rock. 

MDNR 

• Davis' sedge Carex davisii 

• Hitchcock's sedge Carex hitchcockiana 

• Glade fern Diplazium pycnocarpon 

• Flat-stemmed spike-rush Eleocharis compressa 

• Sweet-scented Indian plantain Hasteola suaveolens 

• Goldenseal Hydrastis canadensis 

• American gromwell Lithospermum latifolium 

• Tall dock Rumex altissimus 

• Veined skullcap Scutellaria nervosa 

• Virginia mallow Sida hermaphrodita 

• Star-flowered false Solomon's seal Smilacina stellata 

• Swamp oats Sphenopholis pensylvanica 

• Valerian Valeriana pauciflora 

Davis' sedge (MD Endangered) 

Davis' sedge is a perennial graminoid (USDA NRCS 2008) found growing in both upland and floodplain 

woodlands where the canopy is somewhat open (Hilty 2008). It is known to inhabit deciduous forested 

floodplains and moist limestone woodlands; rocky shores; abandoned fields and wet meadows; and 

unpaved trails (NYNHP 2008a). MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) documents scattered populations of 

this species 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. 

4-95



Hitchcock's sedge (MD Endangered) 

Hitchcock's sedge is a perennial graminoid (USDA NRCS 2008) that grows under a mostly closed canopy 

of rich mesic woods, in rock soils along unstable slopes (MADFW 2004), and in calcium-rich loams on 

slopes near streams (FNA 1993+). MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) identified documented 

occurrences of this sedge in or near the Susquehanna Slopes Protection Area along the wooded shoreline 

slopes north of Conowingo Creek. 

Glade fern (MD Threatened) 

Glade fern is a perennial forb (USDA NRCS 2008) that prefers neutral to slightly alkaline soils and grows 

in moist open woods and slopes, moist meadows, swamps (Connecticut Botanical Society 2005) and 

forested ravines (Steury and Davis 2003). MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) documents scattered 

populations of this species 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. 

Flat-stemmed spike-rush (PA and MD Endangered) (also noted by PADCNR) 

Flat-stemmed spike-rush is a perennial graminoid associated with wetlands (USDA NRCS 2008) that 

typically grows in wet sand and gravel or mud (Hilty 2008). This species prefers the full sun and is found 

in wet depressions in woodlands and limestone glades, wet prairies, roadside ditches (Hilty 2008), and 

other wet seeps in calcareous grasslands, fens, and waste places (FNA 2002). MDNR (letter dated July 

21, 2006) reports a population of this between Conowingo Dam and the mouth of Octoraro Creek (in or 

near in the Susquehanna Floodplain Protection Area). 

Sweet-scented Indian plantain (MD Endangered) 

Sweet-scented Indian plantain is a perennial forb (USDA NRCS 2008). The species prefers an open 

canopy, though it will tolerate some shade. The plant grows in alluvial soils that are found on high-energy 

floodplains and stream banks but can also be found within open woodlands and along the edges of 

thickets (Sharp 2000). The species requires some disturbance to maintain suitable habitat; ice and river 

scour may be immediately destructive to established plants but are necessary to regenerate suitable habitat 

(Sharp 2000). MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) documents scattered populations of this species 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. 

Goldenseal (MD Threatened) 

Goldenseal is a perennial forb (USDA NRCS 2008) that requires a mostly closed canopy (Henson 2001). 

The plant typically grows in moist, well-drained acidic sandy loam soil that contains abundant organic 

4-96



matter (Henson 2001). Goldenseal may be found within mixed hardwood forests (Henson 2001), rich 

moist woodlands, and along wooded streams (Penskar et al. 2001). MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) 

identified documented occurrences of Goldenseal sub-populations in the wooded bluffs in or near Glen 

Cove Marina and in or near the Susquehanna Slopes Protection Area along the wooded shoreline between 

Route 1 and Conowingo Creek boat landing and north of Conowingo Creek. 

American gromwell (PA and MD Endangered) 

American gromwell is a perennial forb (USDA NRCS 2008) that prefers a partly closed canopy that 

provides light to medium shade (Hilty 2008). This plant grows in loamy soil that contains abundant 

organic matter in rich deciduous woods, wooded slopes and along shaded riverbanks (Hilty 2008). 

MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) identified documented occurrences along the shoreline, mostly in rich 

moist woods, between Route 1 and Conowingo Creek boat landing (in or near the Susquehanna Slopes 

Protection Area). 

Tall dock (MD Endangered) 

Tall dock is a perennial forb (USDA NRCS 2008) which prefers full to part sun and rich fertile soil, 

although it may tolerate gravel and/or clay (Hilty 2008). The plant grows in wet depressions, stream 

margins (Hoagland et al. 2001) and low areas along ponds, lakes and riverbanks (Hilty 2008). MDNR 

(letter dated July 21, 2006) documents the occurrence of this species on the north and south sides of the 

Octoraro Creek mouth (in or near the Susquehanna Floodplain Protection Area). 

Veined skullcap (MD Endangered) 

Veined skullcap is a perennial forb (USDA NRCS 2008) which grows in wet to mesic deciduous 

woodlands, near wetland edges, and in wet depressional floodplain forests (Steury and Davis 2003). 

MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) identified documented occurrences along the shoreline, mostly in rich 

moist woods, between Route 1 and Conowingo Creek boat landing (in or near the Susquehanna Slopes 

Protection Area). 

Virginia mallow (PA and MD Endangered) 

Virginia mallow is a perennial forb (USDA NRCS 2008) that prefers a mostly open canopy (OHDNR 

2008). The plant grows in sandy or rocky alluvial soil (Gleason and Cronquist 1991) on stream and 

riverbanks (MDWHS 2007; OHDNR 2008). MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) documents the 

occurrence of this species in the WSSC of Wildcat Ravine. 

4-97



Star-flowered false Solomon's seal (MD Endangered) 

Star-flowered false Solomon's seal is a perennial forb associated with wetlands (USDA NRCS 2008) and 

grows in shallow soils that range in texture from gravelly loam to silt and sandy loam (Pfister et al. 1977; 

Severson and Thilenius 1976; Wasser and Hess 1982; Youngblood et al. 1985). This species generally 

prefers moist environments; however, it also grows on rocky, well-drained side hills, coastal plains 

(Cholewa and Johnson 1983; Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973), thickets, and open forests adjacent to 

streams (Habeck 1992; Lackschewitz 1991; Youngblood et al. 1985). MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) 

documents scattered populations of this species 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. 

Swamp oats (MD Threatened) 

Swamp oats is a perennial graminoid associated with wetlands (USDA NRCS 2008). The plant requires 

full sun and grows in wet meadows and woods, swamps and streamsides (Gleason and Cronquist 1991; 

OHDNR 2008). MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) identified documented occurrences along the 

shoreline in swamp habitat between Route 1 and Conowingo Creek boat landing (in or near the 

Susquehanna Slopes Protection Area). 

Valerian (MD Endangered) 

Valerian is a perennial forb usually associated with wetlands (USDA NRCS 2008). This plant grows in 

the rich loamy soils associated with forested floodplains, mesic forests (Iverson et al. 1999), and along 

moist wooded stream banks (NatureServe 2008). MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) documents this 

species 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. 

4.7.3 Non-Listed Rare Species 

Non-listed species identified by resource agencies are discussed in this section. 

4.7.3.1 Birds 

One bird species was identified by PGC (letter dated August 24, 2006). 

Prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea) 

Prothonotary warbler is a Pennsylvania species of concern identified by the PGC as having “historically 

occurred and might presently occur” within the vicinity of the Project boundaries. Cohen (2004) indicates 

4-98



that prothonotary warbler is an uncommon nester in the riverine habitat adjacent to the Muddy Run 

reservoir, which is interpreted to mean along the Susquehanna River. Breeding records indicate that this 

species has been documented breeding in Washington Boro in Lancaster County and along the 

Susquehanna River near Conowego Heights in York County (McWilliams and Brauning 2000). Both of 

these locations are north of the Project area, which indicates that prothonotary warblers could occur 

within the Project area during migration. In Maryland, the prothonotary warbler was identified as 

occurring in vicinity of the Project in the Northern Susquehanna Canal and South Lapidum Protection 

Areas (Farr 1988a; 1988d). 

This insectivorous bird species is typically associated with large swamps, wet woods bordering bodies of 

open water (e.g., lakes), river bottomlands, willow-lined backwaters and wooded settings around standing 

water. The prothonotary warbler is a migratory species arriving in late April and departing in late 

summer. This species is a cavity nester using woodpecker holes, old fence posts and nest boxes over 

water. 

4.7.3.2 Fish 

Two non-listed species may be present in the Conowingo Project. The listing status of these species are 

provided in Table 4.7.2.3-1. 

• Bowfin Amia calva 

• American eel Anguilla rostrata 

Bowfin 

The Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program lists the bowfin as “imperiled or vulnerable” and as 

“candidate proposed” status by the Pennsylvania Biological Survey. Bowfin are rare in Pennsylvania, and 

prefer heavily vegetated warm lakes and rivers (Cooper 1983). Bowfin are historically known in upper 

Conowingo Pond in Pennsylvania from two individuals captured in 1974. 

American eel 

A petition submitted to the USFWS to list the American eel as threatened or endangered was denied in 

2007 (Federal Register, February 2, 2007). American eel commonly occur in the Susquehanna River 

below Conowingo Dam. American eel studies by USFWS are currently underway in the Conowingo 

tailrace. For more information on American eel in the Conowingo Project area see Section 4.4.2.3. 

4-99



4.7.3.3 Invertebrates 

One RTE invertebrate species was identified within the vicinity of the Conowingo Project. The listing 

status of this species is provided in Table 4.7.2.3-1. 

Tenuis amphipod (Stygobromus tenuis tenuis) 

The tenuis amphipod was identified by the MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) as occurring at a spring 

seep on a rocky hillside above Stafford Road in Harford County (see Stafford Road Slopes Protection 

Area). According to the MDNR’s website, the status of this amphipod is “SU”, which indicates that the 

species is “possibly rare in Maryland, but of uncertain status for reasons including lack of historical 

records, low search effort, cryptic nature of the species, or concerns that the species may not be native to 

the State” (MDNR 2007). This species is known to prefer shallow groundwater habitats, wells, seeps 

and springs. Information on breeding, disturbance tolerance and preferred substrate conditions were not 

found. 

4.7.3.4 Plants 

PADCNR (letter dated August 23, 2006) identified six non-listed plant species of concern known to have 

historically occurred in the vicinity of the Conowingo Project in Pennsylvania. In 2008, PADCNR added 

four species (letter dated June 3, 2008). In Maryland, MDNR identified six non-listed plant species (letter 

dated July 21, 2006). These species are: 

PADCNR 

• Lobed spleenwort Asplenium pinnatifidum 

• Wild oat Chasmanthium latifolium 

• Fringe tree Chionanthus virginicus 

• Swamp-dog hobble Leucothoe racemosa 

• Prickly-pear cactus Opuntia humifusa 

• Leaf-cup Polymnia uvedalia 

• Tooth-cup Rotala ramosior 

• Cranefly orchid Tipularia discolor 

• Eastern gama-grass Tripsacum dactyloides 

4-100



• Netted chainfern Woodwardia areolata 

The listing status of these plant species are provided in Table 4.7.2.4-1. 

Lobed spleenwort 3 

Lobed spleenwort is a perennial forb (USDA NRCS 2008). The species grows on cliffs, ledges, and in 

crevices of acidic rocks, including sandstone boulders (FNA 1993+). In its letter dated June 3, 2008, 

PADCNR describes the habitat for this plant as crevices of dry, lightly shaded cliffs of noncalcareous 

rocks. 

Wild oat 

Wild oat is a perennial graminoid that usually occurs in upland areas (USDA NRCS 2008). This species 

is found on streambanks, shaded slopes, in alluvial woods, and in bottomland hardwood forests (Slattery 

et al. 2003; USDA NRCS 2008). Habitat preferences for wild oat include well-drained, rich soil that is 

acidic to neutral and full sun or partial shade (NCSU 2008; Slattery et al. 2003). In its letter dated June 3, 

2008, PADCNR describes the habitat for this plant as river and stream banks and alluvial woods. 

Fringe tree 

Fringe tree is a perennial shrub or small tree (USDA NRCS 2008). This species prefers medium to 

coarse, moist acidic soils; is shade tolerant; and occurs on moist woods, hillsides, and streambanks, as 

well as limestone glade margins, rocky bluffs, and ledges (MBG 2008; USDA NRCS 2008). In its letter 

dated June 3, 2008, PADCNR describes the habitat for this species as moist woods. 

Swamp-dog hobble 

Swamp-dog hobble is a perennial shrub (USDA NRCS 2008). It is a shade tolerant shrub that prefers fine 

to medium grained, acidic soils. Its native habitat is thickets located near lakes or ponds (UTA 2008). In 

its letter dated June 3, 2008, PADCNR describes the habitat for this species as wet woods and thickets. 

3 PADCNR identified this plant as a species of concern although it has no status in Pennsylvania. While this plant is a state 

endangered species in Maryland, the MDNR did not identify it as known to occur in the vicinity of the Conowingo Project. 

4-101



Pickly-pear cactus 

Prickly pear cactus is a perennial shrub (USDA NRCS 2008). It is drought tolerant and shade intolerant 

(Kaul and Keeler 1980; Weaver and Albertson 1944). Prickly-pear cactus can tolerate a wide variety of 

soils conditions: silty loam to sand and gravel, soils with low nutrient levels, and acidic or alkaline soils 

(Benson 1982). This species is generally found in sandy areas that are in early successional stages and in 

various communities, including deserts, grasslands, prairies, and woodlands (Benson 1982; Environment 

Canada 2008). In its letter dated June 3, 2008, PADCNR describes the habitat for this species as dry, 

shaley cliffs and barrens. 

Leaf-cup 

Leaf-cup is a perennial forb (USDA NRCS 2008) that grows in rich woods, moist thickets, ravines, 

stream and riverbanks (Fernald 1950; PNHP 2008). In its letter dated June 3, 2008, PADCNR describes 

the habitat for this plant as ravines, thickets and river or stream banks. 

Tooth-cup 

Tooth-cup is an annual forb USDA NRCS 2008) associated with open canopy wetlands (Mattrick 2001). 

Typical habitats include wet sandy or mucky shores and margins of lakes and ponds, wet depressions, 

riparian wetlands, and irrigated fields (Beal 1977; Correll and Correll 1972; Eisendrath 1978; Merriman 

1930). Mattrick (2001) reports that the species is known to occur in various locations along the lower 

Susquehanna River. One specific occurrence is under one of the high-tension utility lines, adjacent to the 

River. In its letter dated June 3, 2008, PADCNR describes the habitat for this plant as wet sandy shores 

and other swampy open grounds. 

Cranefly orchid 

Cranefly orchid is a perennial forb (USDA NRCS 2008). This primarily upland plant species is found 

growing in rich well-drained soils within in mixed hardwood forests (Perles et al. 2006; USDA NRCS 

2008). Cranefly orchid occurs within the boundaries of the Ferncliff Wildlife and Wildflower Preserve 

(LYHR 2006). In its letter dated June 3, 2008, PADCNR describes the habitat for this plant as deciduous 

forests and stream banks. 

Eastern gamagrass 

Eastern gamagrass, is a perennial graminoid (USDA NRCS 2008). This plant is typically found in wetter 

areas associated with swales, thickets, woodland borders, abandoned fields, wet shores, roadsides and 

limestone glades and prefers an open canopy (Hilty 2008; Slattery et al. 2003; USDA NRCS 2008). Soil 

4-102



conditions are generally loam to clay with and range from neutral to acidic (Slattery et al. 2003). In its 

letter dated June 3, 2008, PADCNR describes the habitat for this plant as swamps and wet shores. 

Netted chainfern 

Netted chainfern, a perennial forb, usually occurs in wetlands where moist, acidic soils are found (FNA 

1993+; MBG 2008; PNHP 2008; USDA NRCS 2008; UTA 2008). Netted chainfern occurs in acidic 

bogs, woodland swamps, thickets, on seeps, siliceous cliffs and ledges, and near still water. In its letter 

dated June 3, 2008, PADCNR describes the habitat for this plant as moist or wet woods and acidic bogs. 

MDNR 

• Koehne's ammannia Ammannia latifolia 

• Harebell Campanula rotundifolia 

• Emory's sedge Carex emoryii 

• Butternut Juglans cinerea 

• Ostrich fern Matteuccia struthiopteris 

• Large-seeded forget-me-not Myosotis macrosperma 

Koehne's ammannia 

Koehne's ammannia is an annual subshrub (USDA NRCS 2008) associated with wetlands and grows in 

brackish marshes (USFWS 1997). Although MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) refers to its presence in a 

WSSC north of Port Deposit in 1975, the agency states they have no current records to verify the presence 

of this population still exists. 

Harebell 

Harebell is a perennial forb (USDA NRCS 2008) associated with open to shaded upland habitats, 

including moist limestone cliffs, rocky shores, shady hillsides, roadsides, rock crevices, pine woods, and 

prairies (OHDNR 2008; UMH 2008). MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) identifies the known 

occurrence of this species in the serpentine barrens in or near the Bald Hill Protection Area. 

Emory's sedge 

Emory's sedge is a perennial graminoid associated with wetlands (USDA NRCS 2008). Typical habitats 

include water edges, floodplain terraces, stream and riverbanks, sandy gravel bars, and marshes (Fernald 

1970; Fleming et al. 2006; NYNHP 2008b; Voss 1972). This sedge prefers calcareous or basic waters 

4-103



(Fernald 1970). MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) cites the known occurrence of this species along the 

river bank just north of Rock Run, a WSSC. 

Butternut 

The butternut tree grows in rocky, alluvial soils (DLIA/ATBI 2008). This tree requires an open canopy, as 

it is intolerant of shade (George and Fischer 1989). Butternut is typically found in stream benches and 

terraces and in the talus of rock ledges (Nowacki et al. 1990; Smith et al. 1975). MDNR (letter dated July 

21, 2006) documents populations of this species on the floodplain downstream of Octoraro Creek (in or 

near the Susquehanna Floodplain Protection Area) and along the shoreline, mostly in rich moist woods, 

between Route 1 and Conowingo Creek boat landing (in or near the Susquehanna Slopes Protection 

Area). 

Ostrich fern 

Ostrich fern is a perennial forb typically associated with wetlands (USDA NRCS 2008). This fern prefers 

a mostly closed canopy that provides light to full shade. It grows in slightly acidic alluvial soils that are 

high in organic content and range in texture from sandy loam to muck (Rook 2004; Swain and Kearsley 

2001). Typical habitat for the Ostrich fern includes deciduous and mixed forest, wooded river bottoms, 

and swamps (Rook 2004). MDNR (letter dated July 21, 2006) documents populations of this species on 

the floodplain downstream of Octoraro Creek (in or near the Susquehanna Floodplain Protection Area). 

Large-seeded forget-me-not 

Large-seeded forget-me-not is an annual forb (USDA NRCS 2008). This species grows in a range of 

habitats including woodlands, forest edges, prairies, meadows, fields, bogs, and fens and is equally likely 

to occur in wetland or upland habitats (Evergreen 2008; USDA NRCS 2008). MDNR (letter dated July 

21, 2006) documents populations of this species on the floodplain downstream of Octoraro Creek (in or 

near the Susquehanna Floodplain Protection Area) and along the railroad in the forested floodplain at 

Lapidum in or near the Herring Run WSSC and Stafford Roads Slopes Protection Area. 

4.8 Recreation and Land Use (18 C.F.R. §5.6 (d)(3)(viii) 

4.8.1 Existing Recreational Facilities and Opportunities 

Visitors to the Conowingo Project area can participate in a variety of recreation activities. There are 

currently 21 formal and 10 informal/unimproved recreation sites within the Project area that offer fishing, 

hiking, boating, camping, wildlife viewing, sightseeing, swimming, and picnicking opportunities. Some 

of the recreation facilities contain historic features which include Locks 12, 13, 15, and portions of the 

4-104



“Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal” system. There are nine formal boat launching facilities within the 

Conowingo Project, which offer amenities such as boater courtesy docks, boat slips, gas, a repair shop 

and dry storage. Of the 12 recreation facilities that offer shoreline fishing opportunities, one offers a 

fishing platform or pier, and two contain a bait or tackle shop. Nine recreation facilities offer picnicking 

opportunities. Eight of the recreation facilities contain some form of restroom facility. In addition to the 

above facilities, there are two state parks that are located partially within the Project boundary and offer 

camping opportunities and other recreational opportunities. The following sections provide a description 

of each recreational facility or opportunity that is currently available within the Project boundary. Figure 

4.8.1-1 shows the locations of the facilities listed below. 

4.8.1.1 Conowingo Pond Recreation Facilities 

Lock 12 Historic Area - 1 

This facility is located within the Project boundary and is owned by Exelon and PPL and is operated by 

PPL. The facility is also located within the Holtwood Project boundary. The facility is located at the site 

of Lock 12, which was part of the Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal. The facility offers picnicking and 

shoreline fishing opportunities and includes a parking lot, picnic area with grills, picnic tables, play 

equipment, interpretive displays, and restrooms. 

Lock 13 Historic Area -2 

This facility is located within the Project boundary and is owned by Exelon and PPL. The facility is 

located at the site of the Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal Lock 13. There is a trail that runs between 

Lock 12 and Lock 13, and the site offers bankfishing opportunities. The facility is protected but remains 

in a primitive state with no public amenities or interpretive improvements. 

Lock 15 Interpretive Area -3 

This day use area is located within the Project boundary and is owned and operated by Exelon. 

Recreation users of the area will find 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. There is a pathway that connects the picnic area with the Muddy 

Creek Boat Launch. The Mason-Dixon trail runs through and connects Lock 15 Park with Locks 13, and 

12 north of the facility. 

4-105



Muddy Creek Boat Launch -4 

This boating facility is owned by Exelon and was developed and is leased to and operated by the 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. The facility provides shoreline fishing access, a launching 

ramp, courtesy docks, and portable toilets. The site is used by both power boaters and car top boaters. 

Individuals who wish to have a picnic can take a pathway that connects this site to the Lock 15 

Interpretive Area. The facility is located within the Project boundary. 

Cold Cabin Boat Launch - 6 

This small boat launch area is located within the Project boundary and is owned by Exelon and leased to 

Peach Bottom Township who has developed parking and recreation facilities. Amenities include a hard 

surface boat launch, parking and a picnic area. 

Dorsey Park Boat Launch - 7 

This day use facility is located outside of the Project boundary; however, it allows access to the Project 

area. The site, which is owned and operated by Exelon, includes boat launching, courtesy docks, 

shoreline fishing, and picnicking opportunities. Amenities include two boat ramps, portable toilets, picnic 

tables, and grills. 

Peach Bottom Marina - 8 

The marina is located within the Project boundary, owned by Exelon, and operated by a contractor. The 

facility offers boat launching, shoreline fishing, and picnicking opportunities. The facility amenities 

include a boat launch, boater courtesy docks, boat storage, repair shop, portable toilet, fueling facilities 

and picnic tables. 

Line Bridge Access - 9 

This site is located within the Project boundary and is owned by Exelon (project lands) and Harford 

County (non-project back lands). The property provides shoreline access, small parking area and an 

informal gravel boat launch. There are no additional amenities available at this site. The site is 

maintained by Harford County. 

Broad Creek Public Landing - 10 

This facility is located within the Project boundary and is owned by Exelon and operated by Harford 

County. The facility offers boat launching and shoreline fishing opportunities. Due to the steep terrain 

and limited parking at the site, off-site parking has been provided by Exelon. 

4-106



Conowingo Creek Boat Launch - 11 

The boat launching facility is located within the Project boundary and is owned and operated by Exelon. 

The facility offers boat launching and shoreline fishing opportunities. 

Glen Cove Marina - 12 

The marina, located within the Project boundary, is owned by Exelon and is operated by a contractor. 

Recreation opportunities available at the facility include boat launching and picnicking. Facility 

amenities include a boat ramp, boat slips, portable toilets, fueling facilities and picnic tables. 

Funk’s Pond - 13 

This site is located within the Project boundary and is owned and operated by Exelon. The site offers 

picnicking and shoreline fishing opportunities. Picnic tables and trash cans are available at the site. 

There is a pedestrian trail that leads from the parking area to Funk’s Pond and doubles as a maintenance 

road. 

Conowingo Swimming Pool - 14 

The swimming pool complex, located within the Project boundary, is owned by Exelon and operated by a 

contractor This facility is located on the north side of Route 1 adjacent to the Project visitor and meeting 

center. 

4.8.1.2 Downstream Recreation Facilities 

Conowingo Fisherman’s Park – 15, 16 

The park is located within the Project boundary on the western shore of the Susquehanna River 

immediately downstream of the Conowingo Dam/powerhouse. The facility is a popular fishing and bird 

watching area. Amenities at the park include shore fishing, a car top boat launch, observation areas, 

portable toilets, picnic areas and scenic views. Improvements to enhance bankfishing are currently under 

construction and should be completed later this year. This area also serves as a trailhead for the Lower 

Susquehanna Heritage Greenway to Deer Creek and the wildflower viewing area. 

Octoraro Creek Access - 17 

This access area is located within the Project boundary on the southern shore of Octoraro Creek. The area 

includes a new parking lot, public safety signage, a public information kiosk, and shoreline access trail. 

4-107



The area offers shoreline fishing opportunities for both Octoraro Creek and the eastern shore of the 

Susquehanna River. 

Deer Creek Access Site - 29 

This facility is located within the Project boundary, on property owned by Exelon, and leased to the State 

of Maryland as part of Susquehanna State Park. The site provides carry-in boat launching and shoreline 

fishing opportunities. There is a hiking trail that extends from this site north to the Dam. 

Lapidum Boat Launch – 30 

The facility is located within the Project boundary, on the west side of the Susquehanna River and is part 

of Susquehanna State Park. The site provides two boat launches, a courtesy dock, and restrooms. 

McLhinney Park or North Park - 31 

The property is owned by Exelon and is leased to the City of Havre de Grace. The park amenities include 

a picnic area and a playground. The park is located within the Project boundary. 

Susquehanna Museum of Havre de Grace - 32 

This facility is owned by the city of Havre de Grace and operated by the Susquehanna Museum of Havre 

de Grace, Inc. The museum is located within the Project boundary. This site includes the restored lock 

house and a portion of the southerly terminus of the Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal. Lectures, guided 

tours and other special events are held at this site on a regular basis throughout the year. There is a 

walking trail that leaves the site and loops through McLhinney Park. There are also bankfishing 

opportunities and restrooms at this site. 

4.8.1.3 State Parks 

Susquehannock State Park - 5 

The Susquehannock State Park is located adjacent to the Conowingo and Muddy Run Projects. Portions 

of the park are located within the Conowingo Project boundary and are leased to the State of 

Pennsylvania. The park offers numerous opportunities including limited camping, hiking, picnicking, 

scenic views, and horseback riding trails. 

Susquehanna State Park - 30 

The Susquehanna State Park is located downstream of the Conowingo Dam in Maryland. The majority of 

the park is located outside of the Project boundary; however, parts of the facility are located within the 

4-108



Project boundary and leased to the state. This facility offers a boat launch, campsites, fishing, hiking, 

picnicking, horseback riding trails, bow hunting opportunities, playground, and more. Lapidum Boat 

Launch is part of the park and provides access to the Lower Susquehanna River. There are also 

opportunities to view historic sites within the park. 

4.8.1.4 Other Recreational Facilities 

The Mason-Dixon Trail - 19 

The Mason-Dixon Trail is a 190-mile hiking trail that connects the Appalachian Trail with the Horseshoe 

Trail. Approximately 25 miles of the trail run along the Project area and occasionally enter the Project 

boundary. The trail was constructed and is maintained by a group of volunteers. The trail currently 

connects Lock 15 interpretive area and Lock 12 historic area, both of which are within the Project 

boundary. 

Lower Susquehanna Heritage Trail – 18, (20-28) 

The Lower Susquehanna Heritage Trail (LSHT) is a 2.2-mile improved section of trail that travels 

between Conowingo Dam and Stafford Road at Deer Creek. The trail is accessible from the Deer Creek 

Picnic Area or Conowingo Dam parking area. Interpretive panels are located along the improved section 

of the trail. A one-mile unimproved section continues along the Susquehanna River to the trestle bridge 

at the mouth of Deer Creek. The Greenways trail continues on a 3-mile unimproved section by following 

the Susquehanna Ridge Trail from the trestle or picnic area at Lapidum. Portions of the trail are located 

within the Project boundary. There are nine informal bank fishing access trails that leave from the LSHT 

and offer shoreline fishing opportunities. 

Susquehanna River Water Trail- 33 

A portion of the Susquehanna River Water Trail extends from the northerly terminus of the Conowingo 

Project to the Maryland border. A 103-mile section of the river from Sunbury to the Maryland border has 

been designated as a National Recreational Trail by the U.S. Department of the Interior. This designation 

recognizes exceptional trails that connect people to resources and improve the quality of life. 

4.8.2 Recreational Use 

Recreational use numbers within the Project boundary come from the FERC Form 80 Recreation Report, 

which was completed in March of 2003. According to the Form, a total of 25,000 daytime recreation 

days and 6,000 nighttime recreation days were recorded in 2002. The Form 80 indicated that the marinas 

4-109



are used at 70 percent of their capacity and the boat ramps/launching lanes are used at 60 percent 

capacity. Revised recreational use figures and capacity utilization rates will be available in April 2009. 

The revised use figures will cover the period from April 2008 to February 2009. 

The majority of users come to the site from the cities and suburbs of Lancaster and York, Pennsylvania. 

Lancaster is located approximately 32 miles to the northeast of the Project area and has a population of 

about 54,672 people. York is located approximately 38 miles to the northwest of the Project area and has 

a population of about 40,226. The majority of recreation users to the Project area participated in boating 

or fishing activities. Other popular activities included picnicking, swimming and camping. Individuals to 

the area also participate in sightseeing, wildlife viewing and hiking activities. 

According to Pennsylvania’s Recreation Plan 2004-2008, the most popular activity for the Project area is 

walking. This was followed by sightseeing, swimming, wildlife viewing, visiting wild areas, picnicking, 

hiking, nature walks, fishing and sledding. The report also indicates that bird and wildlife watching are 

growing in popularity. 

4.8.3 Land Use 

The Conowingo Project is located within the Lower Susquehanna subbasin on the main stem of the 

Susquehanna River. Overall land use in the subbasin includes agricultural, forest, urban, and wetland 

uses. Some of the most productive agricultural lands and largest population centers of the Susquehanna 

River Basin are located in the Lower Susquehanna subbasin as well. Major population centers include 

Harrisburg (47,196), Lancaster (54,672), and York (40,226), Pennsylvania (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). 

The fertile limestone soils in the area yield a high agricultural production and landscape consists of small 

farms. 

Land use within the Project boundary has been classified into 10 major use classes (Figure 4.8.3-1). The 

classes are defined as: 

Class 1: Project Operations - All Project lands used for Project operations. 

Class 2: Developed Recreation - Project lands managed for concentrated, active recreational 

activities. 

Class 3: Industrial/Commercial - Project lands that are managed for economic development 

purposes. This includes industrial facilities, business parks, and industrial water access 

(intakes, discharges, barge terminals, etc.). 

Class 4: Residential - Project lands where private residential property exists. 

4-110



Class 5: Sensitive Resources - Project lands managed for protection and enhancement of sensitive 

resources. Sensitive resources are defined as resources protected by the state or federal 

law or executive order, and other natural features that Exelon considers important to the 

area or natural environment. 

Class 6: Forest Management/Undeveloped - Project lands that are being managed for timber and 

pulp production or are undeveloped. These lands are generally available for public use. 

Class 7: Agricultural Land – Project lands that are being managed for agricultural use or are 

adjacent to agricultural use. 

Class 8: Cottages – Project lands that are currently leased to individuals for seasonal cottages. 

Class 9: Protected Forest Lands – Project lands that are currently designated as protected forests 

and will remain unharvested. These areas are generally open to the public. 

Class 10: Public Access Lands: - Project lands that will continue to be leased to state, county or 

conservation entities. These lands are generally open to the public but are managed by a 

state, county or conservation entity. 

Approximately 692 acres (21 percent of the lands within the Project boundary) are fully open for public 

use. These include public access lands (17 percent), and developed recreation lands (5.4 percent). In 

addition, another 583 acres (24 percent of lands within the Project boundary) are classified as Forest 

Management/Undeveloped areas and are generally open to the public. Sensitive resources occupy 

approximately 883 acres (36 percent) of Project lands. 

There are approximately 61.2 miles of shoreline within the Project boundary. A large percentage of the 

shoreline is open for public use including shoreline classified as public access (15 percent) and developed 

recreation (6 percent). A significant portion (37 percent) of the shoreline located within the Project 

boundary is classified as Forest Management/Undeveloped and again is generally open to the public. An 

active railroad right-of-way on the eastern shore of the Project makes areas of the Project shoreline 

inaccessible to the public. Some of the shoreline lands may also be too steep for public access to the 

shoreline. Additionally, sensitive resources occupy 14 percent of the shoreline and are not available for 

public use. 

4.8.3.1 Currently Designated Natural Areas 

The designation of the potholes in Holtwood Gorge of the Susquehanna River by PADCNR as heritage 

geology sites is discussed in Section 4.2.2 (Geology). 

4-111



Several other sites have been recognized and/or designated as natural areas by various agencies, and these 

are detailed in Section 4.7.1 (Natural Areas). 

4.8.3.2 Project Boundary 

The Conowingo Project has 12,400 acres of land within the Project boundary 4 . These lands include the 

Conowingo Pond. The lands are located within Lancaster and York counties in Pennsylvania and Harford 

and Cecil counties in Maryland. The water area within the Project boundary covers approximately 10,400 

acres; the remaining 2,000 acres consist of upland areas that exist in the Project. 

4.8.3.3 Shoreline Management 

The licensee manages forested lands within the Project boundary to enhance multiple uses. These uses 

include: timber products, wildlife habitat, recreation, watershed protection and aesthetics. Buffer zones 

are maintained around areas of special value or use, which includes waterways, roads, important wildlife 

areas, recreation areas, and other public use areas. The licensee also manages several cottage clusters and 

leases several single cottages along the Conowingo Pond and downstream of the Dam. Those cottages 

that are leased on islands must adhere to the Conowingo Islands Public Use Policy. A comprehensive 

shoreline management plan for the Conowingo Project will be developed as part of the relicensing 

process. 

4.9 Aesthetic Resources (18 C.F.R. §5.6 (d)(3)(ix) 

4.9.1 Landscape Description 

The Conowingo Project section of the Susquehanna River offers a diversity of natural and built 

environments. The Lower Susquehanna is over a mile and a half wide in places, and several towns along 

or near the river actively market their commerce, unique heritage, and recreation opportunities 

(Susquehanna Greenway Partnership 2004). 

4 Exelon will file with the Commission an application for license amendment to modify the existing Conowingo 

Project Boundary near the upper end of Conowingo Pond. 

4-112



The Project lands include many areas of high aesthetic value due to their topography, geology, and 

vegetation. The landscape surrounding Conowingo Project reflects the agricultural economy that has 

historically dominated the area. The rolling landscape consists of small farmsteads, some of which were 

settled by Amish families and colonists from other religious sects. Single-family homes and scattered 

low-density residential developments are located among these farms. Tiny villages that have grown up 

around the busiest intersections provide the farm community with basic goods and services. Clustered 

around these village centers is a handful of industrial sites including feed and grain mills, rock quarries 

and produce packaging plants. Woodland and open space areas commonly exist along the major stream 

valleys where steep slopes and poor soils discourage land development. 

The hillsides of the Conowingo Project are part of this open network and are relatively undeveloped. The 

only substantial land uses, other than open space, currently found along the Conowingo Project shoreline 

are the electric power production facilities and various recreation amenities (Urban Research & 

Development Corporation 1993). In the area of the Project lands, the Susquehanna River landscape is 

also rural and scenic, as the river flows between steep gorge-like ridges. The forested areas of the 

landscape are markedly different from the surrounding farmlands. 

4.9.2 Scenic Byways and Viewscapes 

From Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to Havre de Grace, Maryland, the lower section of the Susquehanna River 

Water Trail shows off the scope of this largest tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. This 65-mile segment of 

the trail helps boaters, canoeists and kayakers explore and enjoy the river's history and scenic beauty. 

Twenty-one interpretive panels at access points guide users to the water trail from Harrisburg to the 

Mason-Dixon line. The remaining stretch to Havre de Grace is now under development. 

A portion of the Mason-Dixon Trail is located along the west bank of the Susquehanna River and the 

Conowingo Pond. The 190-mile-long trail starts at Whiskey Springs, on the Appalachian Trail, in 

Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and heads east towards the Susquehanna River, following the west 

bank of the Susquehanna south to Havre de Grace. 

Sightseers interested in the natural beauty of Conowingo Pond enjoy Susquehannock State Park. The 

224-acre park is on a wooded plateau overlooking the Susquehanna River in Drumore, Pennsylvania. 

Among the park’s primary attractions are the river overlooks, which afford panoramic views of the lower 

reaches of the Susquehanna River. Hawk Point, the park’s main overlook, provides a spectacular view of 

the upper reaches of Conowingo Pond (Figure 4.9.2-1). Many islands are in view from Hawk Point 

including Mt. Johnson Island, the world’s first bald eagle sanctuary. Also located at the park is Wissler’s 

4-113



Run Overlook, which gives an excellent view of the original rocky nature of the Susquehanna River’s 

natural riverbed and the Muddy Run Pumped Storage hydroelectric plant with the well-known Norman 

Wood Bridge (Route 372) in the background (PADCNR 2006). 

There are over 60 islands in the Conowingo Pond segment of the Susquehanna River. These islands are 

comprised of the erosional remnants of the native bedrock, unlike other islands further upstream, which 

are primarily alluvial in nature. The groups of islands within the upper portion of Conowingo Pond 

(Conowingo Islands), in particular, represent one of the most scenic areas in the local region. In addition, 

the Ferncliff Wildflower and Wildlife Preserve, located in Drumore, Pennsylvania, is one of only about 

600 National Natural Landmark sites that encourage the conservation of outstanding examples of our 

country's natural history. The preserve is a scenic wooded ravine that is a favorite spot for bald eagles 

that nest nearby and often are seen soaring above or hunting for fish. Barnes Run, which flows through 

the preserve, is a direct tributary to Conowingo Pond. Ferncliff also features an old-growth forest and 

contains many spring wildflowers (LYHR 2006). 

4.10 Cultural Resources (18 C.F.R. §5.6 (d)(3)(x) 

In Pennsylvania, the Project is located in Lancaster and York Counties. In Lancaster County, the Project 

area is located in Martic, Drumore, and Fulton Townships. The primary towns or villages in Martic 

Township are Holtwood and Bethesda; in Drumore Township, the primary towns or village are Liberty 

Square and Drumore; and in Fulton Township, Peach Bottom is the primary town. Lancaster County, 

named for Lancashire, England, was created from part of Chester County on May 10, 1729 (Stevens 

1964:364). In York County, the Project area is located in Lower Chanceford and Peach Bottom 

Townships, whose primary towns or villages include Boeckel Landing and Coal Cabin Beach and Coyne 

Locke, respectively. York County was named for either the Duke of York or the city and shire of York, 

England and was created on August 19, 1749 from part of Lancaster County. 

In Maryland, the Project area is located in both Harford and Cecil Counties. Cecil County was formed in 

1679, and Harford County was formed in 1773. In Harford County, primary towns or villages include 

Havre de Grace, Lapidum, Rock Run, Darlington, Berkley, and Castleton. Primary towns or villages in 

Cecil County include Pilot Town, Oakwood, Mt. Zoar, Kilby Corner, Conowingo Station, Octoraro, 

Rollandsville, and Port Deposit. 

4-114



4.10.1 Prehistoric Context 

The prehistory of the northeastern United States is generally divided into three broad periods: the 

Paleoindian Period (before 8000 BC), the Archaic Period (8000–1000 BC), and the Woodland Period 

(1000 BC–AD 1600). A fourth period of much shorter duration, the Contact Period, is used to describe 

the time of initial Native American–European interaction, and before all native peoples were assimilated 

and/or removed from the region. These various periods are associated with unique sets of social, 

political, and technological adaptations that arose, at least in part, in response to gradually changing 

environmental conditions following the end of the last Ice Age. Native American archaeological sites 

dating to all these time periods, and representing all manner of local cultural adaptations, are known to 

exist within the immediate vicinity of the Conowingo Dam Project area and throughout the surrounding 

region. 

Paleoindian Period (before 8000 BC) 

The ancestors of the first people to occupy what is today the eastern United States entered the North 

American continent from northeast Asia at least 15,000 years ago. By about 14,000 Before Present (BP), 

groups of these early Native Americans, or Paleoindians, had entered the Susquehanna River basin. 

Paleoindians practiced a hunting-and-gathering way of life, and employed a wide-ranging, highly mobile 

settlement system. This settlement pattern was, in part, based on the acquisition of widely dispersed highquality 

lithic materials that could be used for tool making and hunting of migratory large, cold-adapted 

game animals — mastodon, caribou, and woodlands bison, along with horse, deer, giant beaver, moose, 

elk, and mammoth — that inhabited the grasslands and forests south of the Laurentide Ice Sheet (Fagan 

2000). The most distinctive artifact in the Paleoindian toolkit is the fluted point (Justice 1987), and 

variations of this projectile point form have been found as surface finds and in stratified sites throughout 

the Susquehanna River Valley. 

Archaic Period (8000–1000 BC) 

The Archaic Period developed from the preceding Paleoindian Period. It represents a time of marked 

cultural change, as modern environmental conditions slowly emerged. The Archaic is generally divided 

into three sub-periods: Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, and Late Archaic (Gardner 1980). The specific 

cultural differences among these periods is primarily in the diversity of tool types found within sites, and 

the organization of a more sedentary way of life (evidenced by gradual increases in site size, duration of 

occupation, and frequency across the landscape). The transition from early to late subperiods is also 

characterized by an increasing reliance on the exploitation of aquatic and plant food resources, and a 

4-115



continued expansion of regional population density (Custer 1996; Funk 1978; Kraft and Mounier 1982). 

Diagnostic artifact types include a diverse array of side- and corner-notched projectile points, primarily 

made from locally available lithic materials. By the Late Archaic Period, toolkits had been expanded to 

commonly include a variety of groundstone artifacts, steatite and sandstone containers, atlatl weights, 

mortars, pestles, and full-grooved axes (Justice 1987). 

Woodland Period (1000 BC–AD 1600) 

The Woodland Period emerged out of a series of cultural adaptations that began in the terminal portion of 

the Late Archaic. The overall cultural tendency in the period 1000 BC–AD 1600 was toward moresedentary 

lifestyles and was associated with a growing reliance on the exploitation of imported 

domesticated plant species (Raber 1985). Technological advances that accompanied this social change 

included the development of ceramic containers and food storage capabilities, and the introduction of the 

bow and arrow. The introduction of domesticated plants helped to establish a more stable way of life and 

allowed, among other innovations, the establishment of regionally distinct tribal networks, the elaboration 

of sociopolitical systems (including the emergence of ranked, stratified societies), and increased burial 

ceremonialism (Custer 1996; Stewart and Cavallo 1983). 

By the Late Woodland (AD 1000 to 1500), maize-focused horticulture had become well established 

throughout much of the Susquehanna drainage basin and helped create a trend toward the establishment 

of permanent, year-round settlements on large floodplains and terraces of major stream channels (Kraft 

1986). In the Susquehanna River Valley, small farmsteads began to appear by about 1000 AD. 

Settlement by this time was focused primarily on floodplain settings, and settlement concentration over 

time eventually led to the formation of full-fledged horticultural villages. By the end of this period, 

increased population density may have served to heighten tensions between regional tribes, contributed to 

escalating episodes of warfare, and led to the first appearance of fortified village settlements in easily 

defended locations. In addition to the cultivation of plants, such as maize, beans, and squash, Late 

Woodland people in south central Pennsylvania continued to hunt, fish, and gather wild plant foods into 

the Contact period (AD 1500 to 1750) (Raber 1985; Custer 1996; Kraft 1986). The Woodland Period 

terminates with the introduction of European goods into Late Woodland assemblages. 

4-116



4.10.2 Historic Context 

Industrial History of the Project Area 

The early history of the Project area was marked by agriculture, iron forging, quarrying, and milling. For 

example, in the seventeenth century in both Cecil and Harford Counties in Maryland, the economy was 

primarily based on tobacco agriculture, until overproduction compelled settlers to begin milling as a 

means of income. In these areas, settlers made use of natural resources, such as those required in the 

production of iron (Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway 2006). Drumore Township had an 

agricultural focus early on as well (Snyder and Boyle 1984a). 

Two eighteenth century industries in Cecil County’s town of Port Deposit (known as Creswell’s Ferry 

until 1812) were milling and the quarrying of the area’s bluish gray granite. The town’s role as a port of 

deposit for raw materials floated down the Susquehanna River gave rise to its new name. In addition to 

the quarrying and the port function, the town supported lumber mills, gin mills, foundries, and other 

industries for processing and distribution (Maryland Historic Trust [MHT], National Register of Historic 

Places [NRHP] Detail Report, Port Deposit Historic District, CE-1291). 

Mills and forges were evident from early in the history of Lapidum, Harford County, and a large 

warehouse that was built in 1772 was used for these industries (MHT, Maryland Inventory of History 

Properties (MIHP) Property Detail Report, Lapidum Warehouse Wharf Site, Darlington, HA-376). From 

the mid-eighteenth century to the mid-nineteenth century, Martic Forge, on Pequea Creek (roughly six 

miles above the Project area) in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, was the industrial center of Martic 

Township. Here too, iron production was the industrial focus for this area early on, and it was also one of 

the more important iron-producing centers for Lancaster County. In addition to iron production, again 

several mills existed in the area in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (Snyder and Boyle 

1984b). 

In Cecil and Harford Counties in Maryland, early manufacturing and excavating industries focused on 

exploiting fish, agricultural products, forests and mineral resources (Lower Susquehanna Heritage 

Greenway 2006). Iron production could be found in many communities, including Rowlandsville, Cecil 

County where it started in the late-eighteenth century and continued for most of the nineteenth century. 

In addition to mining, milling, foraging, and agriculture, production of sickles was important in Drumore 

Township and Lancaster Township in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as well (Snyder and Boyle 

1984a). In Lancaster County, iron production at Martic Forge and Colemanville Forge and rolling mill 

continued in operation until roughly the mid-nineteenth century (Clare 1892:1). Statistics indicate the 

4-117



importance of milling throughout the region, primarily in the mid-nineteenth century, when in Martic 

Township there were 12 mills in 1840. By 1860, the number had dropped to three mills and five saw mills. 

In Drumore Township, milling was most important in the 1840s and 1860s when there were six mills and 

nine saw mills in 1848 and five mills and eight saw mills in 1860. Lastly, in Fulton Township, the midnineteenth 

century saw the highest number of mills with seven mills and seven saw mills in 1848, but only 

eight mills in 1860 (Roddy 1916). By the end of the nineteenth century, Lancaster County furnaces and 

forges on the Conowingo and Octoraro Creeks were no longer running (Clare 1892:1). 

Although abandoned by 1895, chrome mining at Rock Spring and Epsom salt mining had been notable 

industries in Peach Bottom Township, York County. Originally used for medicinal purposes, by the end 

of the nineteenth century, Black Barren Springs had become a resort for invalids (Pardoe 1895:22–23). 

Stone quarries in Southern York County were producing slate from the mid-1800s into the twentieth 

century. Welsh immigrants were attracted to the area, because the slate was so similar to that which they 

quarried in Wales. They built homes in a style similar to those in the slate regions they came from (Sheets 

1991:124). 

Just after 1900, two square miles of slate were discovered in Peach Bottom Township. Across the United 

States, Peach Bottom slate was used for roofing, paving, and for tombstones (Sheets 1991:125). At the 

time, both the Maryland and Pennsylvania and the Baltimore and Delta Railroads served the Peach 

Bottom area. Due to the railroad depots at Peach Bottom, it became a shipping center and consequently, 

warehouses, coal yards, hotels, and mills were built there (Smeltzer 1963:54). Rowlandsville in Cecil 

County supported the Morocto Paper Company, which produced roofing paper into the twentieth century 

(MHT, MIHP Property Detail Report, Rowlandsville Iron Train Bridge, CE-881). 

In the early-twentieth century, creameries were a significant element of Lancaster’s economy. In 1916 

there were 40 creameries in the county. One of the biggest, Farmer’s Creamery, was located in Drumore 

Township (Roddy 1916). Agricultural land use continued into the twentieth century; in 1960, Lancaster 

County was the largest farming county in Pennsylvania with 4,650 farms (Stevens 1964:345). In 

comparison, York County had 2,700 farms, a little more than half of those in Lancaster County (Stevens 

1964:345). 

Also in the early-twentieth century, power production facilities were developed to take advantage of the 

Susquehanna River’s force. In 1904, the York Haven Hydroelectric Station, located at Conewago Falls, 

was opened (Sheets 1991:210). In 1916, there were nine hydroelectric plants in Lancaster County (Roddy 

1916). The Holtwood Power Plant, which began operation in 1910, was the largest and is a major 

4-118



producer of electricity for south central Pennsylvania (Synder and Boyle, Martic Township 1984). In 

northern Maryland, the agrarian economy shifted toward an industrial one in the early part of the 

twentieth century and populations decreased in the two counties. As in Pennsylvania, power plants were 

constructed on and along the river. The Conowingo Dam was built linking Cecil and Harford Counties 

near Darlington between 1926 and 1928 to provide hydroelectric power (Lower Susquehanna Heritage 

Greenway 2006; MHT Determination of Eligibility (DOE) Form, US 1 over Susquehanna 

River/Conowingo Dam, HA-1971). 

In York County, PBAPS is located on the western bank of the Susquehanna River. Unit 1, which is 

retired, was originally built to demonstrate the commercial viability of nuclear power (Lancaster Guide 

1973:137). PBAPS, co-owned by Exelon Generation and Public Service Electric and Gas of New Jersey, 

was the second nuclear power plant to operate in Pennsylvania. It was completed in 1967. The opening of 

the Bainbridge Naval Training Center, now closed, in Port Deposit, Cecil County, resulted in a tripling of 

the town’s population during WWII. This influx of people also encouraged growth in agriculture and 

industry. However, as in many outlying regions, farmland is decreasing and being replaced by sprawling 

residential development. 

Transportation History of the Project Area 

The development of many of the settlements and villages surrounding the Project area relate directly to 

the proximity to the Susquehanna River and its tributaries and creeks. As these areas developed, the need 

for various modes of transportation grew as well. The use of roads, ferries, bridges, and canals, in 

addition to railroads and modern highways, allowed residents and businesses to transport their goods and 

travel throughout the region. 

Roads often served as the earliest and simplest transportation routes. The first post road from Alexandria 

to Philadelphia ran through Harford, located adjacent to the Project area, by 1670. The road followed the 

first settlements along the coastal areas, and was essential in providing early landowners with a crude 

highway for their travel to the early government seats. By 1687, a second post road was laid out and was 

noted as a more direct north-south route. It was known as the “path that runs from the Potomack to the 

Susquehanna” and the “King’s Road” (Wright 1967:102–103). A public road system was enacted in 

Maryland by 1783, and an act in 1785 stated that every farmer or landowner must have the right to a road 

to his property (Wright 1967:104). In 1815, an act in Harford called for the first stone or gravel roads in 

the county; these passed from Belle Aire to the river at Rock Run and toward McCall’s ferry near 

Holtwood, as well as across the river at Conowingo (Wright 1967:106). 

4-119



Crossing the Susquehanna was often accomplished by ferry in the early periods. Holtwood village in 

Lancaster is located near the site of an early ferry that crossed the Susquehanna. William H. Nelson 

started the ferry service in 1738, and it was transferred to James McCall in 1806. The well-used ferry, 

later renamed Clark’s ferry, continued throughout the nineteenth century, and was closed around 1936 

(Snyder and Boyle 1984c). Another ferry was in operation by the mid-eighteenth century from Lapidum 

in Harford County across the river to Port Deposit in Cecil County. This ferry was in view of the 

Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal (MHT, DOE Form, Stafford Run over Herring Run Bridge H-19, 

Harford County, HA-1877). 

Several bridges have spanned the Susquehanna in the Project area. By 1815, a wooden bridge designed 

by Theodore Burr was constructed at Holtwood and spanned the Susquehanna River (Snyder and Boyle 

1984c). At Darlington in Harford County, there was a covered bridge that spanned the river that was built 

by the Rock Run Bridge and Banking Company in 1818. This bridge replaced a ferry that was located in 

Lapidum (MHT, MHIP Property Detail Report, Rock Run Bridge Piers, HA-196). A wooden spanned 

railroad bridge carrying the Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore line was constructed across the river 

at Havre de Grace in 1866, since ferry and steamboat were not efficient. The Pennsylvania Railroad 

Company built a new bridge here by 1909, which later became a toll bridge operated by the County of 

Harford. It was later a double-decker bridge and was closed by 1939 when Route 43 was constructed 

upstream (MHT, NRHP Detail Report, Havre de Grace Historic District, HA-1617). Another later bridge 

of note is the Conowingo Bridge, constructed as part of the Conowingo Dam in 1927 to carry US Route 1 

over the Susquehanna River (MHT, DOE Form, US 1 over Susquehanna River, HA-1971). 

After the American Revolution, the Lower Susquehanna region grew rapidly, partly due to great 

navigational improvements. Shipping became central to the prosperity of the region (Lower Susquehanna 

Heritage Greenway 2006). The advent of canals was significant for the shipping industry. In the 

nineteenth century, canals and later railroads connected inland cities to those on the coast, fostered 

western expansion, and encouraged greater industrial production by facilitating transportation of more 

goods and raw materials. Large amounts of coal and lumber were transported on canals in the nineteenth 

century. In Cecil County in 1783, a group of Baltimore merchants were granted permission by the 

general Assembly of Maryland "to cut and take out a canal at Love-island, [just below the Pennsylvania 

state line] and continue the same to tide water in Susquehanna river, and make said canal not less than 

thirty feet wide, and three feet deep" (Hanson 1787:364). The charter referred to this group as the 

”Proprietors of the Susquehanna Canal.” The group included Augustine Washington, half-brother of 

George Washington, as well as John Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence. The 

4-120



Susquehanna Canal, also known as the Maryland, Port Deposit, and Conowingo Canal, was opened to 

traffic in 1803 and was located on the east bank of the Susquehanna. It ran from the Pennsylvania- 

Maryland border to the outskirts of Port Deposit. It is noted as contributing greatly to the growth of 

towns in Cecil County along the Susquehanna, including Port Deposit (MHT, NHRP Detail Report, Port 

Deposit Historic District, CE-1291). The canal included nine locks. In spite of the corporation holding 

exclusive rights to the canal and any gristmills or water works built upon it, it was not financially 

successful (Wilner 1984:5). It was bypassed frequently on the river heading downstream, so not enough 

tolls were collected to maintain it properly. The canal was sold at auction in 1817 and was abandoned 

when the Susquehanna and Tidewater canal opened in 1840. (Shank 1982). In 1829, the Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal opened, connecting the head of the Chesapeake with the Delaware River (Lower 

Susquehanna Heritage Greenway 2006). Steam tugs were used on this canal to bring canal boats to 

Philadelphia and Baltimore (Shank 1982). 

The Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal was the most significant canal for the area with a charter that was 

approved on April 18, 1835 by the Pennsylvania and Maryland legislatures. Open by 1840, it was located 

on the west bank of the river and went as far as Wrightsville on the west side of the Susquehanna in York 

County, terminating in Havre De Grace in Harford County (Smeltzer 1963:13). Most of the traffic on this 

canal was going to Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York (Smeltzer 1963:42). There was a two-tiered 

towpath built on the canal; the mules on the lower walkway went east and the mules on the upper 

walkway traveled west (Smeltzer 63: 43). In 1843, groceries were the largest item traveling up the river, 

and to a lesser extent iron products, coffee, bricks, and dry goods. Coal was the most significant product 

going down river, in addition to lumber, bacon, tobacco, and whiskey. The canal had steady traffic; in 

1850, there were 1,640 boats towed to Baltimore and 2,560 towed to Philadelphia from Havre De Grace 

(Shank 1988:6). A count of four dams, five culverts, 18 overhead bridges, 33 waste-weirs, and six 

aqueducts were located on the canal (Shank 2001:71). By 1870, the traffic on the canal began to decline, 

mostly due to railroad competition (Shank 1988:7). 

The rains associated with the Johnstown Flood, or the great storm of 1889, had a large impact on the 

Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal in the Project area, and was a result of a storm that began on May 30, 

1889. The storm lasted for 36 hours in some areas, with over eight inches of rain covering a 12,000 

square mile area in central Pennsylvania. Fourteen miles above Johnstown, the storm first swept away the 

South Fork Dam on the Conemaugh River, causing the City of Johnstown to get hammered by flood 

waters. The city was destroyed in ten minutes and over 2,200 people were killed. By May 31 st , the west 

branch of the Susquehanna was filled with logs and began to rise. Fifty people along this branch were 

4-121



killed as well (Stranahan 1993: 120). Then the log dam at Lockhaven broke on June 1 st , as logs poured 

through the river. An estimated 73,000,000 feet of lumber traveled through the river as the flood waters 

then reached Williamsport. Here, a log boom held the logs in place for a while, but eventually 

150,000,000 feet of logs broke through and moved toward the Susquehanna’s main branch. When the 

flood reached the junction city of Sunbury, it first rushed up into the north branch before flowing down 

the main channel of the Susquehanna (Shappee 1940). Horses, homes, mills, lumber, and crops were 

carried down the river in the flood (Walker 1922). The flood dealt a huge blow to the canal, destroying 

the gates at Muddy Creek and miles of the canal, marking the beginning of the end (Smeltzer 63:54). The 

canal was bought by the Reading Railroad by the 1890s and closed by 1900. 

Trains proved to be more dependable than canals. Unprofitable canals could be filled in and converted to 

carry railroad tracks (Stranahan 1993:69). Planned in 1828 and finished in 1834, the "Iron Rail Road" 

was built from Philadelphia to Columbia on the Susquehanna River and included a stop in Lancaster. It 

was the first government-built railroad in the world. In 1837, the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and 

Baltimore line reached the Susquehanna. By 1838, the city of Baltimore had constructed a railroad to 

York (Stevens 1964:155-156). The Pennsylvania Railroad was chartered on April 13, 1846. Beginning in 

Harrisburg, where a connection could be made to Philadelphia, the railroad reached Pittsburgh by 1852. 

In 1857, Pennsylvania Railroad purchased the Philadelphia to Columbia (State) Railroad and the main 

line of the state canals. It also came to control the routes connecting Columbia to Lancaster and 

Lancaster to Harrisburg (Ayres 1859: vi). A railroad building frenzy occurred in the 1850s when many 

shorter lines were constructed to link railroads and canals together (Stevens 1964:156). By the 1860s, a 

network of lines had developed along the Susquehanna River and its tributaries. These included the 

Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad along Muddy Creek and the Octoraro Railroad along Octoraro 

Creek and the Susquehanna River (Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway 2006). 

4.10.3 Archeology 

Preliminary research was conducted at the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Bureau for 

Historic Preservation and the Maryland Historic Trust for information on previously recorded 

archaeological sites. There are several previously-recorded historic and prehistoric sites and resources in 

the vicinity of the Project area in both Maryland and Pennsylvania. Information regarding these sites is 

available at the State Historic Preservation Offices in their respective states. 

4-122



4.10.4 Historic Structures 

Preliminary research was conducted at the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Bureau for 

Historic Preservation and the Maryland Historic Trust for information on previously recorded historic 

above ground structures. Historic structures in the vicinity of the Conowingo Dam Project area include 

those that are listed on or are eligible for the State or National Registers and those of undetermined status. 

Some properties have been recorded but were found to be ineligible. Information regarding these sites is 

available at the State Historic Preservation Offices in their respective states. 

4.11 Socio-Economic Resources (18 C.F.R. §5.6 (d)(3)(xi) 

4.11.1 Population Patterns 

The area immediately surrounding the Project is relatively rural in nature. Based on results of the 2007 

population estimates (Table 4.11.1-1), Cecil and Harford counties have 99,695 and 239,993 residents, 

respectively, and population densities of 239 and 545 people per square mile. York and Lancaster 

counties have 421,049 and 498,465 residents, respectively, and population densities of 465 and 525 

people per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). Population growth within the four counties ranged 

from approximately 17% in Lancaster County to 40% in Cecil County between 1990 and 2007 (Table 

4.11.1-2). In general, the Pennsylvania counties exhibited slower population growth (U.S. Census Bureau 

2008). 

The nearest metropolitan area within the Susquehanna River watershed is Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 

approximately 32 miles to the northwest, with a population of about 54,672 people. Outside of the 

Susquehanna River watershed, Baltimore, Maryland with a population of approximately 637,455 lies 45 

miles southwest of the Project. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, located approximately 72 miles to the 

northwest, has a population of 1,449,634. Significant population centers near the Conowingo Project are 

shown in Table 4.11.1-3 (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). 

4.11.2 Economic Patterns 

The economic status of the Project area varies considerably (see Table 4.11.2-1). The 1999 median 

income in Cecil and Harford counties was $50,510 and $57,234, respectively. For Maryland, the 1999 

median income is $52,868. In 1999, 9.8% and 7.3% of households in Cecil County and Harford counties, 

respectively, had incomes of less than $15,000. Households earning more than $100,000 comprised 

11.7% (Cecil) and 16.2% (Harford) of the total within each county (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). 

4-123



The 1999 median income in York and Lancaster counties was $45,268 and $45,507, respectively (1999 

median income is $40,106 in Pennsylvania). Households earning less than $15,000 comprised 11.3% 

(York) and 10.7% (Lancaster) of the total within each county. In York and Lancaster counties, 

respectively, 8.7% and 9.8% of households had incomes of more than $100,000 (U.S. Census Bureau 

2008). 

Table 4.11.2-2 illustrates the percent distribution by occupation within Cecil, Harford, York, and 

Lancaster Counties. In general, the distribution does not vary much by county, aside from a few 

exceptions. Within Harford County, more people are employed in professional related occupations 

compared to other counties. In addition, York County and, to some extent, Cecil and Lancaster Counties 

have a larger agricultural job component compared to Harford County. 

4.11.3 Transportation Infrastructure and Access 

A variety of transportation routes provide access to the Project area. Several major highways following 

north-south or east-west directional patterns link the large metropolitan areas with the smaller cities in the 

vicinity of the Conowingo Project. These highways (Interstate 83 from Harrisburg to Baltimore, U.S. 

Route 30 from York to Philadelphia, and U.S. Route 40 and Interstate 95 from Baltimore to Philadelphia) 

provide regional access to the Project area. Five smaller roadways (U.S. Routes 1 and 222, Maryland 

Route 623 and Pennsylvania Routes 74 and 272) provide more proximal access to Conowingo Pond. 

Transportation from one side of the Susquehanna River to the other is made possible by: the Norman 

Wood Bridge (Route 372) at the north end of Conowingo Pond; U.S. Route 1 over Conowingo Dam; and 

I 95 and US Route 40 at the south end (Figure 4.11-1). Rail transportation via the Norfolk Southern 

Railroad can also be found along Conowingo Pond. Although direct service to Conowingo Pond is not 

provided, freight trains traveling from Baltimore to Harrisburg utilize the Columbia-Port Deposit Branch, 

which parallels the eastern shoreline of Conowingo Pond and the Lower Susquehanna River (Urban 

Research & Development Corporation 1993). 

4.12 Tribal Resources (18 C.F.R. §5.6(d)(3)(xii) 

There are no Federal or Indian reservation lands within the Project boundary. The only federally 

recognized Indian tribe whose interests may be affected by the relicensing is the Delaware Nation. 

Mr. Edgar L. French, President 

Delaware Nation 

P.O. Box 825 

Anadarko, OK 73005 

4-124



TABLE 4.1-1 

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER SUBBASINS 

Subbasin Drainage Area (square miles) Population 

Upper Susquehanna 4,944 488,800 

Chemung 2,595 225,350 

West Branch Susquehanna 6,978 475,350 

Middle Susquehanna 3,771 696,800 

Juniata 3,404 312,750 

Lower Susquehanna 5,809 1,761,500 

Susquehanna River Basin Total 27,501 3,960,550 

(Source: SRBC 2008b) 

4-125



TABLE 4.1.3-1 

HYDROPOWER IN THE LOWER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER SUBBASIN 

Project Dams River (River Mile) 1 NID ID 1 

4-126 

NID 

Height 

(feet) 2 

NID Length 

(feet) 2 

NID Storage 

(acre-feet) 2 

Generating Capacity 

(megawatts) 1 

Conowingo Susquehanna (10) MD00097 94 4,648 310,000 573 

Muddy Run Main Dam Muddy Run(22) 2 PA00266 260 4,800 60,500 800 3 

Muddy Run Intake Channel Dam (Canal Dam) Muddy Run (NA) PA83008 35 2,300 60,500 NA 

Muddy Run Recreation Dam Muddy Run (NA) PA83009 90 750 3,000 NA 

Muddy Run East Dike Muddy Run (NA) PA83010 12 800 60,500 NA 

Holtwood Susquehanna (24.6) PA00854 55 3,075 19,000 107 

Safe Harbor Susquehanna (32.2) PA00855 75 4,869 144,000 417 

York Haven Main Dam Susquehanna (56.1) PA00515 23 7,970 13,300 19 

York Haven East Channel Dam Susquehanna (NA) PA83001 10 935 13,300 NA 

York Haven Headrace Susquehanna(NA) PA83004 28 3,500 13,300 NA 

1 

FERC (2004) 

2 

USACE (2005) 

NA Not Applicable 

2 

Susquehanna Electric Co. (2005) 

3 

Pennsylvania PUC (2005)



Tributary 

TABLE 4.1.4-1 

MAJOR TRIBUTARIES TO THE LOWER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER 

Drainage Area 

(square miles) 

4-127 

State Physiographic Province 

Shamokin Creek 137 PA Ridge and Valley 

Middle Creek 175 PA Ridge and Valley 

Penns Creek 533 PA Ridge and Valley 

Mahanoy Creek 157 PA Ridge and Valley 

Mahantango Creek 164 PA Ridge and Valley 

Wiconisco Creek 116 PA Ridge and Valley 

Sherman Creek 244 PA Ridge and Valley 

Conodoguinet Creek 506 PA Ridge and Valley 

Yellow Breeches Creek 219 PA Ridge and Valley 

Swatara Creek 571 PA Ridge and Valley 

Bermudian Creek 110 PA Piedmont 

Conewago Creek 515 PA Piedmont 

South Branch Codorus Creek 117 PA Piedmont 

Codorus Creek 278 PA Piedmont 

Chickies Creek 126 PA Piedmont 

Cocalico Creek 140 PA Piedmont 

Conestoga River 277 PA Piedmont 

Pequea Creek 154 PA Piedmont 

Muddy Creek 139 PA Piedmont 

Octoraro Creek 210 MD & PA Piedmont 

Deer Creek 170 MD & PA Piedmont 

(Source: Risser and Siwiec 1996)



TABLE 4.2.2.1-1 

BEDROCK GEOLOGIC UNITS OF THE PROJECT AREA IN PENNSYLVANIA 

Unit Map Symbol Age Description 

Octoraro Formation Xo Probably lower Paleozoic 

4-128 

Albite-chlorite schist with phyllite, hornblend gneiss, and 

granitized members 

Peters Creek Schist pc Probably lower Paleozoic Chlorite-sericite schist with interbedded quartzite 

Peach Bottom slate and Cardiff 

Conglomerate (undivided) 

Xpb Probably lower Paleozoic 

Bluish-black slate and quartz conglomerate having matrix 

of sericite and chlorite 

Ultramafic rocks Xu Probably lower Paleozoic Serpentinite with pyroxenite and steatite 

Sams Creek Metabasalt Xsc Probably lower Paleozoic Green, altered basaltic flows; schistose 

Metabasalt mb Precambrian Metabasalt 

Diabase dike Jd Jurassic Medium- to coarse grained, quartz tholeiite 

Quarryville Diabase Tr(?)d Triassic (?) 

(Source: PGS 2001) 

Very dark gray, medium- to coarse-grained olivine 

tholeiite



TABLE 4.2.2.1-2 

BEDROCK GEOLOGIC UNITS OF THE PROJECT AREA IN MARYLAND 

Unit 

4-129 

Map 

Symbol 

Metagraywacke Member of the Wissahickon Formation wmg Schist 

Boulder Gneiss Member of the Wissahickon Formation wbg Gneiss with schist 

Ultramafic rock um Massive 

Description 

Baltimore Gabbro Complex bgb Mixed gabbro; massive 

Gabbro and Quartz Diorite Gneiss Pzgd Quartz gabbro with quartz gneiss; massive 

Wissahickon Formation (undivided) wu Schist 

Port Deposit Gneiss Pzpd Gneiss with diorite; massive 

Metagabbro and Amphibolite mgb Metagabbro with amphibolite 

Volcanic Complex of Cecil County vc Metaigneous with metavolvanics (locally) 

(Source: SRBC 2006b)



TABLE 4.2.2.2-1 

SURFICIAL GEOLOGIC UNITS OF THE PROJECT AREA IN PENNSYLVANIA 

Unit Description 

Rock and alluvium undivided Flat to vertical surfaces of schist bedrock either bare or covered with 

alluvium. Exposed areas in bed of Susquehanna River. 

Schist bedrock and colluvium undivided Surfaces with low to steep slopes underlain by unweathered or weathered 

schist bedrock and thin (< 6 feet), discontinuous deposits of colluvium. 

Rock Surfaces with steep to very steep slopes underlain by unweathered or 

weathered rock that is at or very close to the surface. Some colluvium may 

occur at the base of the slope. 

Alluvium Material underlies narrow to broad, flat-surfaced floodplains of perennial 

streams. Comprises stratified sand, silt and clay in upper part; same plus 

gravel in lower part. Generally less than 10 feet thick. 

Alluvium and colluvium undivided Alluvium and colluvium are mapped together where the valley in which 

they occur is too narrow to map the units separately at 1:24,000 scale. 

Colluvium Colluvium is unsorted and unstratified to crudely stratified debris derived 

from underlying bedrock. Comprised of fragments set in finer-grained 

matrix. Platy fragments in schist bedrock areas. Mapped where greater 

than 6 feet thick. 

(Source: Sevon 1996) 

4-130



Map Unit 

TABLE 4.2.3.1-1 

SOIL UNITS OF PROJECT AREA IN PENNSYLVANIA 

Map 

Symbol 

Chagrin silt loam Cd 

Comus silt loam Cm 

Fluvaquents and Udifluvents, 

loamy 

Glenelg silt loam 8 to 15 percent 

slopes 

Manor very stony silt loam, 8 to 

25 percent slopes 

Manor very stony silt loam, 25 to 

60 percent slopes 

Mt. Airy and Manor soils, 8 to 15 

percent slopes 

Ff 

GbC 

MbD 

MbF 

MOC 

4-131 

Description 

Chagrin soils make up 85 percent of this map unit. Deep and well 

drained; potentially highly erodible; forms in recent alluvial 

material on floodplains. Other minor soils make up the remainder 

of the map unit. 

Comus soils make up 90 percent of this map unit. Deep and well 

drained; potentially highly erodible; forms in micaceous alluvial 

material on floodplains. Other minor soils make up the remainder 

of the map unit. 

Fluvaquents soils make up 60 percent of this map unit and 

Udufluvents soils make up 25 percent. Silty sediment frequently 

flooded and reworked by rivers. Occur mainly in areas with low 

flow velocities. 

Glenelg soils make up 85 percent of this map unit. Very deep and 

well drained; highly erodible; forms in weathered micaceous schist 

and gneiss. Other minor soils make up the remainder of the map 

unit. 

Manor soils make up 90 percent of this map unit. Very deep and 

well drained to somewhat excessively drained; highly erodible; 

forms in weathered micaceous schist. Other minor soils make up 

the remainder of the map unit. 

Manor soils make up 90 percent of this map unit. Very deep and 

well drained to somewhat excessively drained; highly erodible; 

forms in weathered micaceous schist. Other minor soils make up 

the remainder of the map unit. 

Mt. Airy soils make up 55 percent of this map unit and Manor 

soils make up 25 percent. Moderately deep to very deep and well 

drained to somewhat excessively drained; potentially highly 

erodible; forms in weathered micaceous crystalline rock. Other 

minor soils make up the remainder of the map unit.



Map Unit 


percent slopes 


percent slopes, very stony 


percent slopes, extremely stony 

Map 

Symbol 

MOD 

MPD 

MRF 

Rock outcrop Rc Bedrock exposures on surface. 

Udorthents, loamy Ud 

4-132 

Description 


soils make up 20 percent. Moderately deep to deep and well 


erodible; forms on weathered micaceous crystalline rock. Other 

minor soils make up the remainder of the map unit. 











Udorthents soils make up 90 percent of this map unit. Well 

drained; potentially highly erodible; typically high in rock 

fragments. Other minor soils make up the remainder of the map 

unit 

(Source: SSURGO)



TABLE 4.2.3.2-1 

SOIL UNITS OF PROJECT AREA IN MARYLAND 

Map Unit Description 

Chester Series 

Chrome Series 

The Chester series consists of very deep and well drained soils; forms in weathered 

micaceous schist; typically has dark brown silt loam surface layer; slopes range 

from 0 to 65 percent. 

The Chrome series consists of moderately deep and well drained soils; forms in 

weathered serpentine or other rocks very high in magnesium; typically has brown 

gravelly loam surface layer; slopes range from 3 to 45 percent. 

Conowingo Series Current data not available for Harford or Cecil Counties. 

Glenelg Series 

The Glenelg series consists of very deep and well drained soils; forms mainly in 

micaceous schist and gneiss; typically has dark yellowish-brown channery loam 

surface layer; slopes range from 0 to 50 percent. 

Lehigh Series Current data not available for Harford or Cecil Counties. 

Manor Series 

Mattapex Series 

Neshaminy Series 

Othello Series 

The Manor series consists of very deep and well drained to somewhat excessively 

drained soils; forms mainly from micaceous schist; typically has dark yellowishbrown 

loam surface layer; slopes range from 0 to 65 percent. 

The Mattapex series consists of very deep and moderately well drained soils; forms 

in silty sediments of marine or alluvial origin; dark grayish-brown loam surface 

layer; slopes range from 0 to 30 percent; may contain hydric inclusions (Othello 

series). 

The Neshaminy series consists of deep and very deep, and well drained soils; forms 

in mixed basic and acidic rocks; typically has yellowish brown channery silt loam 

surface layer; slopes range from 0 to 60 percent. 

The Othello series consists of very deep and poorly drained soils: typically have a 

dark grayish-brown silt loam surface; slopes range 0 to 5 percent; hydric soil. 

(Source: STATSGO) 

4-133



TABLE 4.3.1.1-1 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS STORAGE RESERVOIRS WITHIN THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN 

Headwater Project Name Stream Name State Drainage Area (sq. mi) Usable Storage (ac-ft) 

East Sidney Ouleout Creek NY 102 33,500 

Whitney Point Otselic River NY 255 86,440 

Arkport Dam Canisteo River NY 31 7,950 

Almond Lake Canacadea Creek NY 56 14,240 

Raystown Lake Raystown Branch Juniata River PA 960 762,000 

Indian Rock Codorous Creek PA 94 28,000 

Kettle Creek Kettle Creek PA 226 75,000 

Cowanesque Cowanesque River PA 298 89,100 

Curwensville West Branch Susquehanna River PA 365 124,200 

Hammond Crooked Creek PA 122 63,000 

F.J. Sayers Bald Eagle Creek PA 339 99,100 

Tioga Tioga River PA 280 62,000 

Stillwater Lake Lackawana River PA 37 11,657 

Aylesworth Creek Lake Aylesworth Creek PA 6.2 1,700 

(Source: FERC 1996) 

4-134



TABLE 4.3.1.1-2 

MINIMUM, MEDIAN, MEAN, AND MAXIMUM FLOW BY MONTH AT MARIETTA USGS GAGE, 1967-2008 

Month Minimum Flow (cfs) Median Flow (cfs) Mean Flow (cfs) Maximum Flow (cfs) 

January 4,200 27,000 43,056 556,000 

February 4,180 33,000 48,795 446,000 

March 9,000 59,500 74,001 444,000 

April 12,000 53,750 76,523 431,000 

May 11,500 32,700 46,875 223,000 

June 4,830 18,900 32,990 1,040,000 

July 3,710 11,600 18,989 213,000 

August 2,630 9,135 13,914 199,000 

September 2,150 9,645 17,638 545,000 

October 3,590 21,650 22,712 246,000 

November 3,860 36,700 34,755 265,000 

December 5,110 26,700 48,910 348,000 

Note: Drainage Area = 25,990 Square Miles 


4-135



TABLE 4.3.1.1-3 

MINIMUM, MEDIAN, MEAN, AND MAXIMUM FLOW BY MONTH AT CONOWINGO USGS GAGE, 1967-2008 

Month Minimum Flow (cfs) Median Flow (cfs) Mean Flow (cfs) Maximum Flow (cfs) 

January 511 31,200 46,723 622,000 

February 758 37,200 51,018 470,000 

March 287 58,950 74,215 462,000 

April 6,090 62,400 78,501 467,000 

May 5,220 38,800 46,689 235,000 

June 622 23,850 34,460 1,120,000 

July 269 15,200 19,790 213,000 

August 367 10,100 14,371 202,000 

September 363 10,040 18,908 662,000 

October 295 13,800 23,755 245,000 

November 303 28,700 36,037 272,000 

December 777 40,500 50,745 357,000 

Note: Drainage Area = 27,100 Square Miles, (Source: USGS 2008) 

4-136



TABLE 4.3.1.3-1 

SUMMARY OF NPDES DISCHARGERS ALONG THE CONOWINGO POND SEGMENT OF THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER 

NPDES ID Facility Name Average Design Flow (MGD) Receiving Waters Location 

PA0009741 Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project 2.64 Susquehanna River Drumore, PA 

PA0246948 Donald Eckman -- Watershed 7-K Peach Bottom, PA 

PA0088889 Graywood Farms, LLC -- Watershed 7-K Peach Bottom, PA 

PA0247031 Red Knob Farm -- Watershed 7-K Peach Bottom, PA 

PA0246417 State Line Sales Inc. -- Conowingo Creek Peach Bottom, PA 

PA0085332 Delta Borough WWTP 0.24 Scott Creek Delta, PA 

PA0009733 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 0.048 Susquehanna River Delta, PA 

PA0081833 Peach Bottom Inn 0.013 Scott Creek Delta, PA 

MD0053139 Camp Shadowbrook WWTP 0.004 Susquehanna River Conowingo, MD 

MDG766829 Indian Lake Christian Service Camp -- Susquehanna River Darlington, MD 

MD0002518 Conowingo Hydroelectric Station 47.74 Susquehanna River Darlington, MD 

(Source: USEPA 2006) 

4-137



TABLE 4.3.2.1-1 

SUMMARY OF PENNSYLVANIA’S PROTECTED WATER USE CATEGORIES 

Protected Use Description 

Aquatic Life 

CWF Cold Water Fishes – Maintenance or propagation, or both, of fish species including the family Salmonidae and additional flora and fauna 

which are indigenous to a cold water habitat. 

WWF Warm Water Fishes – Maintenance and propagation of fish species and additional flora and fauna which are indigenous to a warm water 

habitat. 

MF Migratory Fishes – Passage, maintenance and propagation of anadromous and catadromous fishes and other fishes which ascend to 

flowing waters to complete their life cycle. 

TSF Trout Stocking – Maintenance of stocked trout from February 15 to July 31 and maintenance and propagation of fish species and additional 

flora and fauna which are indigenous to a warm water habitat. 

Water Supply 

PWS Potable Water Supply – Used by the public as defined by the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 300F, or by other water 

users that require a permit from the Department under the Pennsylvania Safe Drinking Water Act (35 P. S. § § 721.1-721.18), or the act of 

June 24, 1939 (P. L. 842, No. 365) (32 P. S. § § 631-641), after conventional treatment, for drinking, culinary and other domestic 

purposes, such as inclusion into foods, either directly or indirectly. 

IWS Industrial Water Supply – Use by industry for inclusion into nonfood products, processing and cooling. 

LWS Livestock Water Supply – Use by livestock and poultry for drinking and cleansing. 

AWS Wildlife Water Supply – Use for waterfowl habitat and for drinking and cleansing by wildlife. 

IRS Irrigation – Used to supplement precipitation for growing crops. 

Recreation and Fish Consumption 

B Boating – Use of the water for power boating, sail boating, canoeing and rowing for recreational purposes when surface water flow or 

impoundment conditions allow. 

4-138



Protected Use Description 

F Fishing – Use of the water for the legal taking of fish. For recreation or consumption. 

WC Water Contact Sports – Use of the water for swimming and related activities. 

E Esthetics – Use of the water as an esthetic setting to recreational pursuits. 

HQ High Quality Waters 

EV Exceptional Value Waters 

Special Protection 

Other 

N Navigation – Use of the water for the commercial transfer and transport of persons, animals and goods. 

4-139



TABLE 4.3.2.1-2 

PENNSYLVANIA’S MAXIMUM WATER TEMPERATURE 

CRITERIA SPECIFIED FOR WARM WATER FISHES 

Critical Use Period 

4-140 

Temperature Criteria 

(oF) 

January 1-31 40 

February 1-29 40 

March 1-31 46 

April 1-15 52 

April 16-30 58 

May 1-15 64 

May 16-31 72 

June 1-15 80 

June 16-30 84 

July 1-31 87 

August 1-15 87 

August 16-30 87 

September 1-15 84 

September 16-30 78 

October 1-15 72 

October 16-31 66 

November 1-15 58 

November 16-30 50 

December 1-31 42



TABLE 4.3.2.1-3 

SUMMARY OF MARYLAND’S DESIGNATED USE CATEGORIES 

Designated Use Description 

Use I Water Contact Recreation, and Protection of Nontidal Warmwater Aquatic Life 

Use I-P Water Contact Recreation, Protection of Aquatic Life, and Public Water Supply 

Use II Support of Estuarine and Marine Aquatic Life and Shellfish Harvesting 

Shellfish Harvesting Subcategory 

Seasonal Migratory Fish Spawning and Nursery Subcategory (Chesapeake Bay only) 

Seasonal Shallow-Water Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Subcategory (Chesapeake 

Bay only) 

Open-Water Fish and Shellfish Subcategory (Chesapeake Bay only) 

Seasonal Deep-Water Fish and Shellfish Subcategory (Chesapeake Bay only) 

Seasonal Deep-Channel Refuge Use (Chesapeake Bay only) 

Use II-P Tidal Fresh Water Estuary – includes applicable Use II and Public Water Supply 

Use III Nontidal Cold Water 

Use III-P Nontidal Cold Water and Public Water Supply 

Use IV Recreational Trout Waters 

Use IV-P Recreational Trout Waters and Public Water Supply 

(Source: MDE 2006a) 

4-141



303(d) 

Listing 

Year 

TABLE 4.3.2.1-4 

SUMMARY OF “2006 LIST OF IMPAIRED SURFACE WATERS [303(D) LIST] AND INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF WATER 

QUALITY IN MARYLAND” LISTINGS FOR THE MAINSTEM OF THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER WITHIN THE CONOWINGO 

DAM BASIN AND LOWER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN 

Designated Use Impairment Category Potential Sources Priority Notes 

CONOWINGO DAM BASIN 

Category 3 – Waters with insufficient information to determine if water quality standards are attained 

2002 -- Dissolved Oxygen Unknown Low Conowingo Pond Source: 1993- 

1995 Lake Assessment Nutrientdriven, 

seasonal low DO < 5 

mg/L 

Category 3a – Waters having an insufficient data quantity to evaluate watershed attainment status 

2006 -- Biological Unknown -- Insufficient data to make an 

assessment 

Category 5 – Impaired waters for which a TMDL is required 

1996 -- Nutrients Non-point source, natural Low 1996 305(b) Report 

1996 -- Sediments Non-point source, natural Low Source: 2001 305(b) Update; 

1996 305(b) Report 

LOWER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN (non-tidal) 

Category 3a – Waters having an insufficient data quantity to evaluate watershed attainment status 

2006 -- Biological Unknown -- Insufficient data to make an 

assessment 

4-142



303(d) 

Listing 

Year 

Designated Use Impairment Category Potential Sources Priority Notes 

Category 2 – Water bodies meeting some water quality standards but with insufficient data and information to determine if other water quality 

standards are being met 

1996 Use 1 -Recreational/Aquatic Life Nutrients Non-point, natural Low Corresponds to new Chesapeake 

Bay segment CB1TF.Source: 

1996 305(b) Report 

Category 5 – Impaired waters for which a TMDL is required 

1996 Use 1 -Recreational/Aquatic Life Metals (Cadmium) Non-point, natural High Source: 1996 305(b) Report 

Impairment addressed in 2 years 

1996 Use 1 -Recreational/Aquatic Life Sediments Non-point, natural Low Corresponds to new Chesapeake 

Bay segment CB1TF.Source: 

1996 305(b) Report 

2002 Use 1 -Recreational/Aquatic Life Toxics (PCBs in Fish Tissue) Legacy High Source: MDE, 2000 & UMCES, 

2000 

4-143



TABLE 4.3.2.2-1 

ANNUAL SEDIMENT AND NUTRIENT LOADINGS BELOW CONOWINGO DAM (1985-2004) 

Parameter 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

Total Suspended 

Sediment 

Total Nitrogen 

Total 

Phosphorus 

Dissolved Nitrite 

+ Nitrate as N 

Dissolved 

Orthophosphorus 

as P 

417 

(7) 

49 

(3) 

1.3 

(7) 

30 

(4) 

0.3 

(14) 

1,120 

(10) 

73 

(3) 

2.4 

(7) 

46 

(3) 

0.4 

(13) 

669 

(7) 

64 

(3) 

2.1 

(6) 

44 

(3) 

0.4 

(12) 

435 

(7) 

52 

(3) 

1.6 

(6) 

36 

(3) 

0.2 

(11) 

914 

(7) 

62 

(3) 

2.3 

(7) 

43 

(3) 

0.2 

(11) 

530 

(5) 

63 

(3) 

1.7 

(6) 

47 

(3) 

0.3 

(11) 

829 

(6) 

72 

(3) 

2.1 

(7) 

58 

(3) 

0.4 

(14) 

322 

(6) 

44 

(3) 

1.0 

(7) 

34 

(3) 

0.2 

(13) 

2,860 

(11) 

81 

(3) 

3.2 

(11) 

61 

(3) 

0.6 

(15) 

2,120 

(9) 

80 

(3) 

2.8 

(10) 

61 

(3) 

0.6 

(15) 

382 

(9) 

43 

(3) 

0.9 

(10) 

36 

(3) 

0.4 

(18) 

4-144 

2,960 

(21) 

76 

(3) 

3.0 

(15) 

59 

(3) 

0.6 

(17) 

1,370 

(11) 

64 

(3) 

2.3 

(10) 

51 

(3) 

0.5 

(17) 

1,270 

(11) 

70 

(3) 

2.2 

(9) 

55 

(3) 

0.4 

(18) 

Notes: # x 10 6 = load in kilograms per year 

(standard error +/- percent) 

316 

(13) 

32 

(3) 

0.9 

(8) 

25 

(4) 

0.2 

(20) 

(Source: Chesapeake Bay River Input Monitoring Program 2008) 

500 

(9) 

47 

(3) 

1.6 

(7) 

35 

(4) 

0.3 

(15) 

246 

(9) 

33 

(3) 

1.0 

(6) 

24 

(4) 

0.2 

(16) 

382 

(11) 

37 

(3) 

1.3 

(6) 

28 

(4) 

0.3 

(15) 

913 

(11) 

70 

(3) 

2.7 

(6) 

53 

(4) 

0.6 

(14) 

3,150 

(27) 

94 

(3) 

5.0 

(10) 

71 

(4) 

1.0 

(16) 

1,860 

(16) 

76 

(3) 

3.5 

(8) 

59 

(4) 

0.8 

(16) 

1,700 

(22) 

69 

(3) 

2.8 

(8) 

52 

(4) 

0.6 

(16) 

1,020 

(13) 

63 

(5) 

2.2 

(8) 

47 

(6) 

0.5 

(22)

Year 



TABLE 4.3.2.4-1 

COMPARISON OF FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF HOURLY DO MEASUREMENTS 

MONITORED IN THE TAILRACE (STATION 643), CONOWINGO HYDRO STATION, JUNE- 

SEPTEMBER 1982-1988 

< 3.0 mg/l 3.0-3.9 mg/l 4.0-4.9 mg/l > 5.0 mg/l Total 

4-145 

River Flow 

(cfs) 

N % N % N % N % N (Jul-Sep) 

Francis Turbines Not Vented 

1982 73 2.7 339 12.7 616 23.1 1,635 61.4 2,663 11,600 

1983 246 9.0 389 14.2 458 16.8 1,638 60.0 2,731 9,477 

1984 0 0 42 1.8 2,327 98.2 2,369 24,557 

1985 47 1.8 354 13.4 301 22.8 1,632 62.0 2,634 9,027 

1986 0 18 0.6 235 8.4 2,555 91.0 2,808 14,527 

1987 17 0.6 165 6.1 547 20.3 1,961 72.9 2,690 18,690 

1988 2 0.1 2 0.1 103 3.6 2,772 96.3 2,879 9,937 

1982-1988 385 1.9 1267 6.7 2302 12.3 14,520 77.3 18,774 

Some or All Francis Turbines 

1989 0 - 0 - 0 - 2,873 100.0 2,873 22,013 

1990 0 - 0 - 0 - 2,890 100.0 2,890 21,457 

1991 0 - 0 - 10 0.3 2,848 99.65 2,858 5,323 

1992 0 - 0 - 0 - 2,900 100.0 2,900 21,070 

1993 DO Compliance Data Not Readily Available 7,757 



1996 DO Compliance Data Not Readily Available 27,373

Year 



< 3.0 mg/l 3.0-3.9 mg/l 4.0-4.9 mg/l > 5.0 mg/l Total 

4-146 

River Flow 

(cfs) 

N % N % N % N % N (Jul-Sep) 

1997 0 - 0 - 0 - 2,928 100.0 2,928 8,100 



2000 0 - 0 - 0 - 2,916 100.0 2,916 13,243 

2001 0 - 0 - 1 0.03 2,924 99.97 2,925 7,633 

2002 0 - 0 - 0 2,928 100.0 2,928 6,454 

2003 0 - 0 - 0 - 2,925 100.0 2,925 39,679 

2004* 0 - 0 - 0 - 596 100.0 596 64,561 

2005 Data for 1 Jun-13 Jul Not Readily Available - 1,884 100.0 1,884 7,771 

2006 0 - 0 - 0 - 2,928 100.0 2,928 34,192 

2007 0 - 0 - 0 - 2,928 100.0 2,928 7,098 

1989-2007 0 0 11 0.03 34,468 99.97 34,479 

(Full Scale Turbine Venting Not Available) And 1989-2007 (Full Scale Venting Available At One Or More Francis Units With 

All Units Vented By Summer 1991). 

N=The Number Of Hourly Measurements 

DO was monitored hourly through 16 June. Thereafter and per MDNR approval, DO in the discharge boil of all operating 

turbines was monitored twice daily (AM and PM) due to Colonial Pipeline's construction activities to repair a damaged line in the 

tailrace.



TABLE 4.3.2.4-2 

SELECT WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS COLLECTED BY USGS FOR THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AT THE CONOWINGO 

DAM, JANUARY 1978-JUNE 2000 

Parameter Units N * Min Mean Max Median Std Dev 



O C 701 0.0 13.4 31.0 11.6 8.7 

O F 701 32.0 56.2 87.8 52.9 15.7 

Instantaneous Discharge cfs 913 844 110,399 623,000 78,100 99,650 

Turbidity NTU 171 0 13 410 4 38 

Specific Conductivity uS/cm @ 25C 784 110 218 420 209 70 

Dissolved Oxygen mg/LL 609 1.4 10.4 17.8 11.4 3.5 

DO Saturation % 453 18 95 143 101 19 

pH-Field su 697 6.0 7.5 8.8 7.5 .4 

Alkalinity, dissolved mg/L CaCO3 541 8 40 82 38 14 

Bicarbonate, dissolved mg/L HCO3 175 15 48 101 44 19 

Total Residue mg/L 185 61 142 254 135 47 

Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 291 53 120 246 110 45 

TDS Loading tons/day 292 490 29,332 99,500 22,900 21,259 

Total Suspended Solids mg/L 786 1 45 1200 18 88 

TSS Loading tons/day 782 12 32,230 2,020,000 3,790 122,540 

Total Nitrogen mg/L N 751 0.4 1.8 6.6 1.7 0.5 

Dissolved Nitrogen mg/L N 604 0.8 1.7 5.7 1.6 0.5 

Nitrate Nitrogen mg/L N 512 0.33 1.23 4.73 1.19 0.42 

4-147




Total Nitrite + Nitrate mg/L N 749 0 1 5 1 0 

Total Phosphorus mg/L P 764 0.010 0.072 1.500 0.050 0.077 

Dissolved Phosphorus mg/L P 725 0.000 0.021 0.158 0.018 0.016 

Ortho Phosphorus mg/L P 638 0.000 0.012 0.137 0.008 0.013 

Total Organic Carbon mg/L C 716 1.1 3.8 26.0 3.3 2.1 

Dissolved Organic Carbon mg/L C 105 1.0 3.1 16.0 2.7 1.9 

Total Hardness mg/L CaCO3 305 30 80 160 74 32 

Noncarbonate Hardness mg/L CaCO3 116 13 44 94 41 18 

Calcium, dissolved mg/L Ca 305 9 22 42 20 8 

Magnesium, dissolved mg/L Mg 305 0.7 6.2 14.0 5.6 2.9 

Sodium, dissolved mg/L Na 305 2.9 8.2 29.0 7.3 4.2 

Potassium, dissolved mg/L K 308 0.4 1.9 23.0 1.6 1.3 

Choloride, dissolved mg/L CL 308 3 13 32 11 6 

Sulfate, dissolved mg/L SO4 307 13 37 98 32 17 

Fluoride, dissolved mg/L F 159




Barium, total ug/l Ba 14



TABLE 4.4.1-1 

FISH SPECIES WITHIN THE CONOWINGO PROJECT WATERS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Anadromous Species 

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus 

American shad Alosa sapidissima 

Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis 

Hickory shad Alosa mediocris 

Sea lamprey 

4-150 

Petromyzon marinus 

Striped bass Morone saxatilis 

White perch 1 Morone americana 

Catadromous Species 

American eel Anguilla rostrata 

Resident Species 

Banded darter Etheostoma zonale 

Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus 

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

Blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 

Bluespotted sunfish Enneacanthus gloriosus 

Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus




Bowfin Amia calva 

Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis 

Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 

Brown trout Salmo trutta 

Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum 

Chain pickerel Esox niger 

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 

Comely shiner Notropis amoenus 

Common carp Cyprinus carpio 

Common shiner Luxilus cornutus 

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus 

Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus 

Cutlips minnow Exoglossom maxillingua 

Fallfish Semotilus corporalis 

Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas 

Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris 

Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 

Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 

Greenside darter Etheostoma blennioides 

4-151




Hybrid striped bass Morone saxatilis x M.chrysops 

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 

Logperch Percina caprodes 

Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae 

Margined madtom Noturus insignis 

Mimic shiner Notropis volucellus 

Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus 

Muskellunge Esox masquinongy 

Northern hogsucker Hypentelium nigricans 

Northern pike Esox lucius 

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 

Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus 

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus 

River chub Nocomis micropogon 

Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris 

Rosyside dace Clinostomus funduloides 

Satinfin shiner Cyprinella analostana 

Shield darter Percina peltata 

Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum 

4-152




Silverjaw minnow Notropis buccatus 

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu 

Splake Salvelinus fontinalis x S. namaycush 

Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 

Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius 

Swallowtail shiner Notropis procne 

Tadpole madtom Noturus gyrinus 

Tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi 

Tiger muskellunge Esox lucius x E. masquinongy 

Walleye Sander vitreus 

White catfish Ameiurus catus 

White crappie Pomoxis annularis 

White sucker Catostomus commersonii 

Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis 

Yellow perch Perca flavescens 

Estuarine/Marine Species 

Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus 

Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina 

Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus 

Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 

4-153




Striped mullet Mugil cephalus 

Accidental Species 

Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 

Blue tilapia Oreochromis aureus 

Goldfish Carassius auratus 

Lake herring Coregonus artedi 

Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax 

1 Considered “semi-anadromous” based on migration from brackish water to tidal-freshwater to spawn. 

Sources: 

Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Committee (2006), PPL and Kleinschmidt (2006), Normandeau (2001), Normandeau (2000), ERM (1981), RMC 

4-154



TABLE 4.4.1.1-1 

SUMMARY OF ANNUAL FISH CATCHES IN CONOWINGO POND RELATIVE TO PBAPS, 

1996-1999. TAXA LISTED COMPRISED ≥ 5% OF THE ANNUAL TOTAL OF FISH 

COLLECTED BY ALL GEARS IN AT LEAST ONE YEAR. 

Percent of total catch 

Species/taxa 1996 1997 1998 1999 

Channel catfish 43.8 33.5 26.3 9.9 

Spotfin shiner 9.3 12.3 23.6 28.1 

Bluegill 7.6 7.8 8.9 8.9 

Gizzard shad 6.0 3.0 5.3 19.7 

Lepomis spp. 5.2 < 0.1 1.0 0.1 

Tessellated darter 3.5 17.8 4.9 6.9 

Bluntnose minnow 3.0 5.9 5.4 5.8 

Spottail shiner 0.9 1.8 7.8 0.5 

All other taxa 20.7 17.9 16.8 20.1 

Total catch 57,676 23,373 21,875 15,328 

No. species 54 44 42 45 

4-155



TABLE 4.4.1.2-1 

ELECTROFISHING CATCHES IN THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BELOW CONOWINGO 

DAM, JANUARY-NOVEMBER 1983. 

Electrofishing Locations 

Species Tailrace Lee's Ferry The Pool Tidal Zone Total 

Gizzard shad 6,852 66 30 1,494 8,442 

American eel 2,900 860 950 1,378 6,088 

White perch 1,287 1,816 1,536 1,179 5,818 

Yellow perch 1,135 46 12 1,427 2,620 

Channel catfish 640 649 529 397 2,215 

Pumpkinseed 828 8 5 628 1,469 

Redbreast sunfish 244 1 4 1,151 1,400 

Bluegill 819 0 0 387 1,206 

Carp 378 52 53 432 915 

Other 1,935 80 103 1,023 3,141 

Total 17,018 3,578 3,212 9,396 33,204 

Effort (hr) 14.5 5.8 6.0 17.8 44.1 

4-156



TABLE 4.4.1.2-2 

GILL NET CATCHES IN THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BELOW CONOWINGO DAM, JULY- 

NOVEMBER 1983. 

Gill Net Locations 

Species Tailrace Lee's Ferry The Pool Tidal Zone Total 

Channel catfish 381 60 43 56 540 

Gizzard shad 281 49 2 120 452 

White perch 168 95 18 80 361 

Striped bass 65 2 2 2 71 

Shorthead redhorse - 32 4 10 46 

Atlantic menhaden 4 - - 27 31 

Common carp 10 10 - 5 25 

Other 25 5 2 4 36 

Total 934 253 71 304 1,562 

Effort (net-night) 9 12 12 12 45 

4-157



TABLE 4.4.1.2-3 

COMPARISON OF ANNUAL CATCH OF COMMON RESIDENT SPECIES AT CONOWINGO 

DAM WEST FISH LIFT, 1991-2008 

Species 

Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

No. days 63 64 45 47 68 28 44 41 43 

No. lifts 1257 1559 1032 964 1245 464 611 476 709 

Gizzard shad 433,108 1,450,299 666,010 511,139 799,694 196,019 126,570 497,375 652,770 

Carp 8257 4105 8488 7403 6209 5726 2281 8206 5124 

Quillback 2990 132 746 1576 981 583 780 280 823 

Shorthead redhorse 2871 1813 858 1994 2098 754 3134 357 1485 

White catfish 1284 152 97 187 403 293 140 216 0 

Brown bullhead 260 107 73 9 281 54 27 398 8 

Channel catfish 10,252 7070 10,841 3551 2,432 5487 977 17,250 2,564 

Redbreast sunfish 281 154 170 165 1045 179 430 259 123 

Pumpkinseed 48 118 22 22 53 11 51 15 13 

Bluegill 486 813 200 244 505 158 277 381 605 

Smallmouth bass 704 411 227 132 362 232 251 812 1306 

Largemouth bass 176 211 84 78 174 23 55 49 78 

Walleye 411 203 217 653 1736 964 1063 827 547 

Species 

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

No. days 34 41 31 31 14 30 37 29 34 

No. lifts 424 425 417 367 151 295 394 288 481 

Gizzard shad 366,099 218,124 339,292 118,852 22,899 82,412 149,250 146,821 724,737 

Carp 3236 994 225 1110 2702 1179 716 372 400 

Quillback 154 76 13 91 52 848 289 73 52 


White catfish 351 36 49 7 271 24 9 5 5 


Channel catfish 8,394 228 844 626 4,839 1,692 2,880 1,480 781 

4-158




Pumpkinseed 13 27 26 3 3 2 23 8 8 

Bluegill 292 260 155 45 15 14 145 85 60 



Walleye 177 274 79 68 57 217 1962 1776 1971 

4-159



TABLE 4.4.1.2-4 

COMPARISON OF ANNUAL CATCH OF COMMON RESIDENT SPECIES AT CONOWINGO 

DAM EAST FISH LIFT, 1991-2008. 

Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

No. days 60 70 42 55 68 49 64 50 52 

No. lifts 1168 1774 848 955 986 599 652 652 610 

Species 

Gizzard shad 575,505 2,351,351 504,116 1,025,418 1,737,685 455,317 344,332 654,575 950,500 

Carp 23,833 6072 6649 5042 3262 4139 3256 6205 2430 

Quillback 3220 483 540 2507 2910 3773 2488 218 144 


White catfish 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 2 


Channel catfish 321 1124 534 544 90 1037 1,178 4,135 266 


Pumpkinseed 16 13 2 3 0 1 36 4 1 

Bluegill 149 399 58 45 46 37 334 354 159 



Walleye 335 150 71 255 271 351 2334 685 421 

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

No. days 45 43 49 44 44 52 61 39 50 

No. lifts 570 559 560 645 590 541 619 479 483 

Species 

Gizzard shad 317,753 429,461 513,794 459,634 602,677 305,378 655,990 508,627 919,975 

Carp 388 1267 172 561 257 540 108 107 199 

Quillback 408 241 400 548 308 2145 407 1236 400 


White catfish 1 0 1 1 5 1 0 0 0 


Channel catfish 677 29 199 57 928 83 75 108 496 


Pumpkinseed 3 0 14 0 1 1 4 2 4 

Bluegill 96 55 130 37 19 10 25 27 65 



Walleye 177 91 88 59 156 47 641 695 2088 

4-160



Year 

TABLE 4.4.2-1 

ANNUAL COUNT OF MIGRATORY FISHES AT THE CONOWINGO DAM WEST FISH LIFT (1972-2008) 

Days 

Operated 

Number 

of Lifts 

Operating 

Time (hr) 

Number 

of Taxa 

American 

Shad 

4-161 

Blueback 

Herring 

Alewife Hickory 

Shad 

American Eel White 

Perch 

1972 54 817 608 40 182 58198 10345 429 805 50991 3142 

1973 62 1527 996 43 65 330341 144727 739 2050 647493 495 

1974 58 819 500 42 121 340084 16675 219 91937 897113 1150 

1975 55 514 307 41 87 69916 4311 20 64375 511699 174 

1976 63 684 375 38 82 35519 235 0 60409 568018 13 

1977 61 707 413 40 165 24395 188 1 14601 224843 1196 

1978 35 358 212 44 54 13098 5 0 5878 113164 934 

1979 29 301 187 37 50 2282 9 0 1602 43103 260 

1980 30 403 221 42 139 502 9 1 377 26971 904 

1981 37 490 275 48 328 618 129 1 11329 83363 3277 

1982 44 725 502 48 2039 25249 3433 15 3961 53527 60 

1983 29 648 299 41 413 517 50 5 1080 23151 23 

1984 34 519 251 35 167 311 26 6 155 6402 181 

1985 55 1118 542 41 1546 6763 379 9 550 68344 213 

1986 59 831 546 43 5195 6327 2822 45 364 56977 194 

1987 60 1414 639 46 7667 5861 357 35 1662 29995 1337 

1988 63 1339 637 49 5146 14570 674 64 103 90651 874 

1989 51 1117 539 45 8218 3598 1902 28 157 15713 357 

Striped 

Bass



Year 

Days 

Operated 

Number 

of Lifts 

Operating 

Time (hr) 

Number 

of Taxa 

American 

Shad 

4-162 

Blueback 

Herring 


Shad 

American Eel White 

Perch 

1990 64 1363 664 43 15719 9658 425 77 224 24581 1068 

1991 64 1262 685 45 13332 15616 2649 120 213 14996 1722 

1992 64 1559 698 46 10335 27533 3344 376 2622 37521 2094 

1993 45 1032 506 0 5343 4052 572 0 0 0 1595 

1994 27 964 535 0 5615 2603 70 1 0 0 4261 

1995 68 1245 744 0 15588 93859 5405 36 0 0 5467 

1996 28 464 285 0 11473 871 1 0 0 0 1845 

1997 44 611 348 39 12974 133257 11 118 110 58685 2665 

1998 41 476 238 38 6577 5511 31 6 89 32891 2570 

1999 43 709 315 34 9658 8546 1795 32 234 35357 1001 

2000 34 424 206 37 9785 14326 9189 1 735 40318 2453 

2001 41 425 195 38 10940 16320 7824 36 437 44364 710 

2002 31 417 147 35 9347 428 141 0 144 65031 2086 

2003 31 367 172 30 9802 183 16 1 20 14476 703 

2004 14 151 74 30 3426 1 0 0 61 976 458 

2005 30 295 166 36 3896 0 0 0 25 1102 489 

2006 37 394 215 38 3970 6 2 0 12 1001 383 

2007 29 288 135 34 4272 153 7 0 27 2276 263 

2008 34 481 174 37 2627 7 2 0 26 2036 42 

Striped 

Bass



Year Days 

Operated 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

TABLE 4.4.2-2 

ANNUAL COUNT OF MIGRATORY FISHES AT THE CONOWINGO DAM EAST FISH LIFT (1991-2008) 

Number 

of Lifts 

Operating Time 

(hr) 

Number 

of Taxa 

American 

Shad 

4-163 

Blueback 

Herring 


Shad 

American Eel White Perch Striped 

Bass 

60 1168 648 42 13897 13149 323 0 103 2610 581 

70 1774 732 35 15386 7347 285 20 119 8725 213 

42 848 464 29 8203 4574 0 0 0 0 327 

55 955 575 36 26715 248 5 1 0 0 506 

68 986 706 36 46062 4004 170 1 0 0 505 

78 464 285 35 11473 871 1 0 0 0 1845 

64 652 640 36 90971 242815 63 0 13 27312 1015 

50 652 640 33 39904 700 6 0 5 2731 1467 

53 610 467 31 69712 130625 14 0 3 27133 1231 

45 570 368 30 153546 14963 2 0 0 4387 802 

43 559 360 30 193574 284921 7458 0 0 2659 543 

51 560 441 31 108001 2037 74 0 0 29404 913 

44 645 417 25 125135 530 21 0 0 1572 272 

44 590 390 30 109360 101 89 0 0 512 391 

52 541 434 30 68926 4 0 0 5 0 0 

61 619 430 30 56899 0 0 4 11 277 73 

39 479 335 29 25464 460 429 0 0 1434 127 

50 483 407 26 19914 1 4 0 0 388 20 

Table compiled from data in annual SRAFRC reports.

Year 



TABLE 4.4.2.1-1 

JUVENILE ABUNDANCE INDEX FOR AMERICAN SHAD COLLECTED BY HAUL SEINE IN THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AT 

MARIETTA, COLUMBIA, AND WRIGHTSVILLE, 1990-2005. 

Number 

of Hauls 

Number 

Of Fish 

Mean 

Combined 

Daily 

CPUE 

Total Wild Hatchery 

GM** 

Combined 

Daily 

CPUE 

GM 

Individual 

Haul 

CPUE* 

Number 

Of Fish 

Mean 

Combined 

Daily 

CPUE 

GM** 

Combined 

Daily 

CPUE 

4-164 

Number 

Of Fish 

Mean 

Combined 

Daily 

CPUE 

GM** 

Combined 

Daily 

CPUE 

Larvae 

Stocked 

Cohort 

Recruitment 

to Lifts 

Shad 

Transported or 

Passed Above 

Safe Harbor 

1990 87 285 4.40 1.23 0 0.15 0.11 272 4.251 1.181 5619000 44415 15075 

1991 144 170 1.01 0.54 80 0.48 0.35 90 0.526 0.211 7218000 44820 24662 

1992 92 269 4.24 1.45 146 2.49 0.78 172 2.630 0.913 3039400 39852 15031 

1993 111 218 1.90 1.22 174 1.61 1.01 44 0.291 0.194 6541500 80499 11171 

1994 110 390 4.74 2.29 254 3.19 1.38 322 3.639 2.039 6420100 93746 28269 

1995 48 409 8.92 7.89 58 1.29 1.06 351 7.630 6.848 

1000100 

0 

135916 55766 

1996 105 283 2.89 2.05 157 1.61 1.20 126 1.280 0.994 7465500 214718 33825 

1997 90 879 9.77 6.77 3.36 136 1.51 1.24 743 8.259 5.648 8019000 238811 31356 

1998 94 230 2.51 1.03 0.50 5 0.05 0.05 225 2.457 0.972 

1999 90 322 3.58 1.16 0.67 13 0.15 0.13 309 3.431 1.058 

1175700 

0 

1350100 

0 

172314 10647 

2000 90 31 0.34 0.26 0.14 0 0.00 0.00 31 0.344 0.264 9460728 21876 

2001 90 377 4.19 3.04 1.52 119 1.32 1.25 258 2.870 2.139 5510184 89816 

2002 84 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 2588797 11705 

2003 48 17 0.35 0.28 0.20 2 0.04 0.04 15 0.313 0.254 

2004 66 25 0.38 0.25 0.17 0 0.00 0.00 25 0.379 0.246 25 0 

2005 90 23 0.26 0.24 0.16 21 0.23 0.24 2 0.022 0.019 3570675 25425 

Data Reproduced From ASMFC (2007) Table 10.27. 

** Abundance index used for statistical correlations by ASMFC (2007) 

1068525 

2 

39658 

16646

Year 



Number 

of Lifts 

TABLE 4.4.2.1-2 

JUVENILE ABUNDANCE INDEX FOR AMERICAN SHAD COLLECTED BY LIFT NET IN THE FOREBAY OF HOLTWOOD 

HYDROELECTRIC STATION, SUSQUEHANNA RIVER, 1985-2005 

Number 

Of Fish 

Mean 

Combined 

Daily 

CPUE 

Total Wild Hatchery 

GM** 

Combined 

Daily 

CPUE 

GM 

Individual 

Lift 

CPUE* 

Area*** 

Under 

the 

Curve 

CPUE 

Number of 

Fish 

Mean 

Combined 

Daily CPUE 

1985 378 3626 20.31 7.55 1422 ** ** 

1986 404 2926 10.30 5.71 888 ** ** 

1987 428 832 3.17 1.90 178 ** ** 

1988 230 929 3.87 1.28 254 ** ** 

1989 286 556 0.8639 .43 53 ** ** 

4-165 

GM 

Combine 

d Daily 

CPUE 

Area*** 

Curve 

Under the 

CPUE 

Number of 

Fish 

Mean 

Combined 

Daily 

CPUE 

GM Combined 

Daily CPUE 

1990 290 3988 13.75 3.67 1059 70 .24 .18 16 3984 13.74 3..66 1042 

1991 370 208 .56 .39 72 19 .05 .05 7 189 .51 .36 65 

1992 250 39 0.16 .12 13 14 .06 .05 5 25 .10 .08 9 

1993 250 1095 4.38 1.20 383 669 2.79 .86 233 426 1.70 .72 149 

1994 250 206 .82 .48 71 35 .15 .13 12 171 .68 .42 59 

1995 115 1048 9.11 1.26 1.07 801 83 .72 .32 53 965 8.39 1.01 742 

1997 300 1372 4.57 .88 .61 411 100 .33 .23 30 1272 4.24 .85 381 

1998 300 180 .60 .37 .22 53 9 .03 .03 2 171 .57 .35 49 

1999 300 490 1.63 .78 .50 145 19 .06 .07 5 471 1.57 .76 140 

2000 300 406 1.35 .61 .18 121 4 .01 .01 1 402 1.34 .60 120 

2001 299 1245 4.18 1.37 .43 273 538 1.81 .45 112 707 2.38 .99 161 

2002 220 68 0.31 .15 .09 20 15 .07 .05 3 53 .24 .13 16 

2003 300 61 .20 .13 .07 17 3 .01 .01 1 58 .23 .15 17 

2004 240 0 .00 .00 .00 0 0 .00 .00 0 0 0 0 0 

2005 300 200 .67 .15 .10 59 47 .16 .11 13 153 0 0 46 

Data Reproduced From ASMFC (2007) Table 10.26, *Required By ASMFC, **Most Of The Holtwood Samples Processed Were From Cast Net Collections, 

***Abundance Index Used For Statistical Correlations By ASMFC (2007) 

Area*** 

Under the 

Curve CPUE



Year Funding 

Source 

TABLE 4.4.2.2-1 

ESTIMATED SPAWNING CONDITION OF ADULT AMERICAN SHAD, NATURAL RIVER FLOWS, AND WATER 

TEMPERATURE DURING THE VARIOUS RADIO TELEMETRY STUDIES IN CONOWINGO POND, 1987-2001 

No. 

Released 

1987 Exelon 26 

(l group) 


(2 groups) 


(3 groups) 

1992 PPL 100 

(4 groups) 

Release 

Location 

Upstream of 

PBAPS 

Spawning 

Condition 

Prespawned, 

partially spent, 

spent 

River Flow* 

(kefs) 

4-166 

Water Temp 

(0 F) 

Tracking 

Method 

Objectives 

10.6-31.9 65.8-72.0 Mobile boat Assess dispersal and behavior of 

American shad in Conowingo Pond 

and utilize resulting data for flow 

needs for adult down migrants. 

Glen Cove Post-spawned 4.3-20.8 68.2-71.1 Mobile boat in 

pond; continuous 

at Conowingo 

and downstream 

Baltimore City 

intake 

Muddy Cr. 

Boat Launch 

Prespawned, 

partially spent, 

post-spawned 

17.7-223.0 58.6-72.5 Mobile boat; 

continuous 

monitors at 

Holtwood, 

Norman Wood 

Br., Muddy Run 

Project; 


Holtwood 

Prespawned 10.9-57.5 59.9-70.4 4 continuous 

monitors at 

Holtwood 

Project; aerial 

tracking 

Assess flow needs for adult postspawned 

down migrants at 


Determine proportion that move to 

Holtwood; routes selected to reach 

Holtwood; movement patterns near 

Holtwood; effects of spillage; and 

flow needs for down migrants at 

Conowingo Dan 

Determine location for fish ways 

at Holtwood; nel for a fishway at 

Holtwood spillway; need for a 

collection gallery; potential for 

fish stranding in ~ pools; and 

usage of the spillway area.



Year Funding 

Source 

1993 PPL 

No. 

Released 

74 

(3 groups) 

1994 PPL 75 

(3 groups) 


(7 groups) 

Release 

Location 

Peach Bottom 

Marina 

Muddy Cr. 

Boat Launch 

Conowingo 

East Fish Lift 

exit flume or 

in entrance 

channel 

Spawning 

Condition 

River Flow* 

(kefs) 

4-167 

Water Temp 

(0 F) 

Prespawned 13.5-52.2 62.6-73.4 

Tracking 

Method 

Continuous 

monitors at 

Holtwood 

Prespawned 14.5-51.9 60.6-64.4 Continuous 

monitors at 

Holtwood 

Prespawned 12.3-32.7 60.0-72.0 Fixed location 

monitors 

Objectives 

Determine location for fishways at 

Holtwood; need for a fishway at 

Holtwood spillway; need for a 

collection gallery; potential for fish 

stranding in pools; and usage of the 

spillway area. 

Determine the proportion of fish 

lifted at Conowingo that reach 

Holtwood; "fall back" at 

Conowingo; “fall back” at 

Conowingo; a congregation in 

Conowingo Pond; effects of PBAPS 

Muddy Run discharges on upstream 

movement; distri. patterns in the 

project area; and residency times.



TABLE 4.4.3.2-1 

ESTIMATED ANNUAL FISHING PRESSURE IN THE LOWER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER 

BELOW CONOWINGO DAM, MARYLAND. 

Angler-hours 

Year Tailrace Lower River Total 

1981 N/A N/A 306,437 a 

1982 154,530 217,783 372,313 

1983 107,722 198,866 306,588 

1984 125,060 150,745 275,805 

1985 126,511 176,016 302,527 

1986 125,453 159,641 285,094 

1987 113,344 223,288 336,632 

Average 125,437 b 

187,723 b 

a Total includes data from Weinrich et al. (1982). 

b Mean of 1982-1987 data 

c Mean of 1981-1987 data 

4-168 

312,199 c



TABLE 4.4.3.2-2 

ANNUAL FISH HARVEST COMPOSITION (%) AND MEAN ANNUAL HARVEST (NUMBER) 

BY RECREATIONAL ANGLERS IN THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BELOW CONOWINGO 

DAM, 1981-1987. 

Survey Year Mean Harvest 

Species 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 All Years 

White Perch 30 34 42 40 50 60 64 70,291 

Catfish 48 43 34 31 31 23 22 48,319 

Striped Bass 7 8 3 10 MORATORIUM 8,438 

Gizzard Shad 5 5 2 6 8 6 4 7,347 

Carp 3 4 2 7 4 4 2 5,262 

Smallmouth Bass 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2,192 

Other 6 4 15 4 6 5 7 

4-169



TABLE 4.4.4.1-1 

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT AREA 

Order or Family Genus or Species Common Name Lower 

Susquehanna River 

Basin 1 

Ancylidae 

Mollusks 

4-170 


Below 

Holtwood Dam 2 

Ferrissia Limpet X X 

Below Conowingo 

Dam 3 

Ferrissia rivularis Limpet X 

Bivalvia Clam, mussel X 

Corbiculidae Corbicula fluminea Asiatic clam X X 

Physidae Physella Snail X 

Planorbidae 

Helisoma Ramshorn snail X 

Menetus Ramshorn snail X 

Pleuroceridae River snail X 

Sphaeriidae Peaclam X 

Sphaeriidae 

Pisidium Peaclam X 

Sphaerium Peaclam X X 

Elliptio complanata Eastern elliptio X 

Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel X 

Amphipods 

Crangonyctidae Crangonyx Amphipod X X 

Gammaridae 

Gammarus Amphipod X X 

Gammarus fasciatus Amphipod X X 

Stygonectes Amphipod X 


Dam 4





Basin 1 

Hyallelidae Hyalella Amphipod X 

Mayflies 

Ameletidae Ameletus Minnow mayfly X 

Baetidae 

Acentrella Small mayfly X X 

Acerpenna Small mayfly X 

Baetis Small mayfly X X 

Centroptilum Small mayfly X 

Heterocloeon Small mayfly X 

Caenidae Caenis Small square-gill mayfly X 

Ephemerellidae 

Heptageniidae 

Ephemerella Spiny crawler mayfly X 

Eurylophella Spiny crawler mayfly X 

Serratella Spiny crawler mayfly X 

Epeorus Mayfly X 

Heptagenia Mayfly X 

Stenacron Mayfly X X 

Stenonema Mayfly X X 

Isonychiidae Isonychia Brushlegged mayfly X 

Leptophlebiidae 

Leptophlebia Prong-gilled mayfly X 

Paraleptophlebia Prong-gilled mayfly X 

Potamanthidae Anthopotamus Hacklegill mayfly X 

Tricorythidae Tricorythodes Little stout crawler mayfly X 

4-171 


Below 



Dam 3 


Dam 4





Basin 1 

Potamanthidae Anthopotamus Hacklegill mayfly X 

Damselflies/Dragonflies 

Calopterygidae Calopteryx Broad-winged damselfly X 

Coenagrionidae Argia Narrow-winged damselfly X X 

Corduliidae Neurocordulia Emerald dragonfly X 

Gomphidae Dromogomphus Clubtail X 

Libellulidae Leucorrhinia Common skimmer X 

Stoneflies 

Chloroperlidae Sweltsa Sallfly X 

Leuctridae Leuctra Needlefly X 

Nemouridae 

Perlidae 

Amphinemura Forestfly X 

Prostoia Forestfly X 

Acroneuria Common stonefly X 

Agnetina Common stonefly X 

Eccoptura Common stonefly X 

Perlodidae Isoperla Stripetail X 

Pteronarcyidae Pteronarcys Salmonfly X 

Taeniopterygidae Strophopteryx Willowfly X 

Corydalidae 

Dobsonflies 

Corydalus Dobsonfly X X 

Nigronia Dobsonfly X 

4-172 


Below 



Dam 3 


Dam 4





Basin 1 

Sialidae Sialis Dobsonfly X 

Caddisflies 

4-173 


Below 


Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly X 

Leptoceridae Oecetis Longhorned caddisfly X 

Limnephilidae 

Goera Northern caddisfly X 

Ironoquia Northern caddisfly X 

Pycnopsyche Northern caddisfly X 

Odontoceridae Psilotreta Tube-case maker X 

Philopotamidae 

Polycentropodidae 

Chimarra Finger-net caddisfly X X 

Dolophilodes Finger-net caddisfly X 

Polycentropus Trumpet-net caddisfly X 

Cyrnellus fraternus Trumpet-net caddisfly X 

Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila Free-living caddisfly X 

Trichoptera Caddisfly X 

Uenoidae Neophylax Uenoid caddisfly X 

Dytiscidae 

Elmidae 

Beetles 

Agabus Predaceous diving beetle X 

Hydroporus Predaceous diving beetle X 

Dubiraphia Riffle beetle X X 

Macronychus Riffle beetle X 

Optioservus Riffle beetle X X 


Dam 3 


Dam 4





Basin 1 

Oulimnius Riffle beetle X 

Promoresia Riffle beetle X 

Stenelmis Riffle beetle X X 

Hydrophilidae Hydrobius Water scavenger beetle X 

Psephenidae 

Ectopria Water-penny beetle X 

Psephenus Water-penny beetle X X 

Ptilodactylidae Anchytarsus Ptilodactylid beetle X 

Ceratopogonidae 

Flies 

Bezzia Biting midge X 

Ceratopogon Biting midge X 

Probezzia Biting midge X 

4-174 


Below 


Chaoboridae Chaoborus Phantom midge X 

Chironomidae 


Dam 3 

Midge X X X 

Apsectrotanypus Midge X 

Brillia Midge X 

Cardiocladius Midge X 

Cladotanytarsus Midge X 

Conchapelopia Midge X 

Corynoneura Midge X 

Cricotopus/Orthocladius Non-biting midge X X 

Cryptochironomus Midge X 


Dam 4





Basin 1 

Chironomidae 

Chironomidae 

Diamesinae Midge X 

Diamesa Non-biting midge X 

Diplocladius Midge X 

Eukiefferiella Midge X 

Heleniella Midge X 

Heterotrissocladius Midge X 

Hydrobaenus Midge X 

Larsia Midge X 

Microspectra Midge X 

Microtendipes Midge X 

Tanytarsus Midge X 

Thienemanniella Midge X 

Thienemannimyia Midge X 

Trissopelopia Midge X 

Tvetenia Non-biting midge X 

Unniella Midge X 

Zavrelia Midge X 

Dolichopodidae Long-legged fly X 

Empididae 

Chelifera Dance fly X 

Clinocera Dance fly X 

Hemerodromia Dance fly X 

4-175 


Below 



Dam 3 


Dam 4





Basin 1 

Muscidae Limnophora House fly X 

Simuliidae 

Cnephia Black fly X 

Prosimulium Black fly X 

Simulium Black fly X 

Stegopterna Black fly X 

Tabanidae Chrysops Horse fly X 

Tipulidae 

Gerridae 

Antocha Crane fly X 

Dicranota Crane fly X 

Limonia Crane fly X 

Tipula Crane fly X 

Others 

Gerris Water strider X 

Trepobates Water strider X 

Cambaridae Orconectes Crayfish X 

4-176 


Below 


Cladocera Leptodora kindtii Giant water flea X 

Isopoda Caecidotea Isopod X 

Lepidoptera Petrophila Snout-moth X 

Lumbriculidae Earthworm X 

Naididae Annelid worm X 

Nemertea Ribbon worm X 

Nemertea Prostoma Ribbon worm X 


Dam 3 


Dam 4





Basin 1 

4-177 


Below 



Dam 3 

Oligochaeta Earthworm X X X 

Planariidae 

Cura Flatworm X 

Dugesia tigrina Flatworm X 

Sabellidae Manayunkia speciosa Polychaete worm X X 

Tricladida Tricladid flatworm X 

1 Data presented only for tributaries to the Lower Susquehanna River. Does not include data obtained from river mainstem. Source: Millard et al. (1999). 

2 Source: Normandeau Associates (2006). 

3 Source: Weisberg and Janicki (1985). 

4 Sources: Weisberg and Scott (1990); Scott (1991); Scott and Richkus (1994) 


Dam 4



TABLE 4.4.5-1 

ALGAL SPECIES IDENTIFIED IN CONOWINGO POND 

Euglenoids Yellow-Green Algae 

Euglena Gloeobotrys 

Trachelomonas Yellow-Brown Algae 

Green Algae Mallomonas 

Chlamydomonas Synura 

Eudorina Dinobyron 

Pandorina* Diatoms 

Pleodorina* Melosira* 

Volvox Stephanodiscus 

Haematococcus Asterionella 

Sphaerocystis Fragilaria 

Golenkinia Gyrosigma 

Micractinium Navicula 

Errerella Nitzschia 

Dictyosphaerium Brown Algae 

Coelastrum Ceratium 

Hydrodictyon Peridinium 

Pediastrum* Blue-Green Algae 

Oocystis Anacystis* 

Ankistrodesmus Coccochloris 

Closteriopsis Gomphosphaeria* 

Kirchneriella Anabaena* 

Selenastrum Aphanizomenon 

Actinastrum Nostoc 

Scenedesmus Rivularia 

Closterium Oscillatoria 

Cosmarium Spirulina 

Staurastrum 

Spirogyra 

*Most common genera observed. 

(Source: RMC 1979) 

4-178



TABLE 4.4.5-2 

DOMINANT ZOOPLANKTON SPECIES IDENTIFIED IN CONOWINGO POND 

Cladocera Copepoda 

Diaphanosoma leuchtenbergianum Copepod nauplii 

Daphnia spp. Cyclopoid copepodids 

Bosmina longirostris Cyclops vernalis 

(Source: RMC 1979) 

4-179



TABLE 4.4.6-1 

PROPORTIONAL HABITAT COMPOSITION OF NON-TIDAL RIVER BELOW 

CONOWINGO DAM 

Habitat Type Habitat area (acres) Percent of total area 

Ruffle 695 59.0 

Spillway 106 9.0 

Deep Pool 96.6 8.2 

Shallow Run 78.2 6.6 

Tailrace 71.6 6.1 

Shallow Pool 56.7 4.8 

Deep Run 24.8 2.1 

Side Channel 20.0 1.7 

Spill Pool 12.1 1.0 

Interconnected shallow pools 8.3 0.7 

Backwater 4.2 0.4 

Shallow Riffle 1.7 0.1 

Outcrop 1.4 0.1 

Perched backwater pool 0.3 0.0 

Dry Side Channel 0.2 0.0 

Totals 1,178 100 

4-180



TABLE 4.5.1-1 

VEGETATION SPECIES NEAR NORTHERN PROJECT AREA 

Scientific Name Common Name Type 

Alnus glutinosa Alder, Black Upland Deciduous Trees 

Fraxinus nigra Ash, Black Upland Deciduous Trees 

Fraxinus americana Ash, White Upland Deciduous Trees 

Populus grandidentata Michx. Aspen, Bigtooth Upland Deciduous Trees 

Elaeagnus umbellata Autumn Olive Upland Deciduous Trees 

Fagus grandifolia Beech, American Upland Deciduous Trees 

Betula nigra Birch, Black Upland Deciduous Trees 

Betula populifolia Birch, Gray Upland Deciduous Trees 

Betula papyrifera Birch, Paper Upland Deciduous Trees 

Betula lenta L. Birch, Sweet Upland Deciduous Trees 

Acer negudo Box Elder Upland Deciduous Trees 

Catalpa speciosa Catalpa, Northern Upland Deciduous Trees 

Prunus serotina Cherry, Black Upland Deciduous Trees 

Prunus virginiana Cherry, Choke Upland Deciduous Trees 

Castanea dentata Chestnut, American Upland Deciduous Trees 

Magnolia acuminata Cucumbertree Magnolia Upland Deciduous Trees 

Cornus florida Dogwood, Flowering Upland Deciduous Trees 

Ulmus americana Elm, American Upland Deciduous Trees 

Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Upland Deciduous Trees 

Crategus coccinea Hawthorn, Scarlet Upland Deciduous Trees 

Crategus crus-galli Hawthorn, Cockspur Upland Deciduous Trees 

Carya glabra Hickory, Pignut Upland Deciduous Trees 

Carya cordiformis Hickory, Bitternut Upland Deciduous Trees 

Carya tomentosa Hickory, Mockernut Upland Deciduous Trees 

Carya laciniosa Hickory, Shellbark Upland Deciduous Trees 

Ilex opaca Holly, American Upland Deciduous Trees 

Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood (American hornbeam) Upland Deciduous Trees 

Gledistia triacanthos Locust, Honey Upland Deciduous Trees 

4-181




Robinia pseudoacacia Locust, Black Upland Deciduous Trees 

Acer rubrum Maple, Red Upland Deciduous Trees 

Acer saccharum Maple, Sugar Upland Deciduous Trees 

Acer platanoides Maple, Norway Upland Deciduous Trees 

Morus rubra Mulberry, Red Upland Deciduous Trees 

Queurcus marilandica Oak, Black-Jack Upland Deciduous Trees 

Quercus coccinea Oak, Scarlet Upland Deciduous Trees 

Quercus velutina Oak, Black Upland Deciduous Trees 

Quercus rubra Oak, Northern Red Upland Deciduous Trees 

Quercus alba Oak, White Upland Deciduous Trees 

Quercus muehlenbergii Oak, Chinquapin Upland Deciduous Trees 

Quercus palustris Oak, Pin Upland Deciduous Trees 

Quercus prinus Oak, Chestnut Upland Deciduous Trees 

Populus tulipifera Poplar, Tulip Upland Deciduous Trees 

Paulownia tomentosa Princess Tree Upland Deciduous Trees 

Cercis canadensis Red Bud Upland Deciduous Trees 

Sassafras albidum Sassafras Upland Deciduous Trees 

Rhus hirta Sumac, Staghorn Upland Deciduous Trees 

Rhus copallina Sumac, Winged Upland Deciduous Trees 

Ailanthus altissima Tree-of-Heaven Upland Deciduous Trees 

Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree Upland Deciduous Trees 

Magnolia tripetala Umbrella Tree Upland Deciduous Trees 

Juniperus virginiana Cedar, Eastern Red Upland Coniferous Trees 

Tsuga canadensis Hemlock, Eastern Upland Coniferous Trees 

Larix larcina Larch, American Upland Coniferous Trees 

Pinus strobus Pine, Eastern White Upland Coniferous Trees 

Pinus rigida Pine, Pitch Upland Coniferous Trees 

Pinus sylvestris Pine, Scotch Upland Coniferous Trees 

Picea abies Spruce, Norway Upland Coniferous Trees 

Berberis thunbergii Barberry Upland shrubs 

4-182




Vaccinium spp. Blueberries Upland shrubs 

Euonymus atropurpureus Burning Bush Upland shrubs 

Gaylussacia frondosa Dangleberry Upland shrubs 

Rhododendron maximum Great Rhododendron Upland shrubs 

Corylus americana Hazelnut, American Upland shrubs 

Viburnum acerifolium Mapleleaf Viburnum Upland shrubs 

Kalmia latifolia Mountain Laurel Upland shrubs 

Rosa multiflora Multiflora Rose Upland shrubs 

Physocarpus opuliflorus Ninebark, Eastern Upland shrubs 

Rubus spp. Raspberry Upland shrubs 

Viburnum dentatum Southern Arrowwood Upland shrubs 

Hamamelis virginiana Witch Hazel Upland shrubs 

Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Herbaceous plants and vines 

Ammania coccinea Ammannia, Scarlet Herbaceous plants and vines 

Peltandra virginica Arrow Arum Herbaceous plants and vines 

Sagittaria latifolia Arrowhead Herbaceous plants and vines 

Commelina communis Asiatic Day Flower Herbaceous plants and vines 

Aster novae-angliea Aster, New England Herbaceous plants and vines 

Aster divaricatus Aster, White Wood Herbaceous plants and vines 

Aster spp. Asters Herbaceous plants and vines 

Geum rivale Avens, Purple Herbaceous plants and vines 

Galium tinctorium Bedstraw, Dye/Clayton's Herbaceous plants and vines 

Gallium asprellum Bedstraw, Rough Herbaceous plants and vines 

Galium mollugo Bedstraw, Smooth Herbaceous plants and vines 

Epifagus virginiana Beech Drops Herbaceous plants and vines 

Bidens frondosa Beggar-Tick, Devil's Herbaceous plants and vines 

Calystegia sepium Bindweed, Hedge Herbaceous plants and vines 

Celastrus orbiculatus Bittersweet, Oriental Herbaceous plants and vines 

Rudbeckia hirta Black Eyed Susan Herbaceous plants and vines 

Iris versicolor Blue Flag Herbaceous plants and vines 

4-183




Andropogon gerardii Bluestem, Big Herbaceous plants and vines 

Eupatorium perfoliatum Boneset Herbaceous plants and vines 

Saponaria officinalis Bouncing Bet Herbaceous plants and vines 

Scirpus spp. Bulrush Herbaceous plants and vines 

Scirpus pungens Bulrush, Three Square Herbaceous plants and vines 

Sicyos angulatus Bur Cucumber Herbaceous plants and vines 

Ranunculus septentrionalis Buttercup, Swamp/Marsh Herbaceous plants and vines 

Diodia teres Buttonweed Herbaceous plants and vines 

Silene alba Campion Herbaceous plants and vines 

Maianthemum canadense Canada Mayflower Herbaceous plants and vines 

Lobelia cardinalis Cardinal Flower Herbaceous plants and vines 

Typha latifolia Cattail, Broadleaved Herbaceous plants and vines 

Schoenoplectus pungens Chairmaker's Rush Herbaceous plants and vines 

Stellaria media Chickweed, Common Herbaceous plants and vines 

Potentilla spp. Cinquefoil Herbaceous plants and vines 

Potentilla arguta Cinquefoil, Tall Herbaceous plants and vines 

Trifolium repens Clover, White Herbaceous plants and vines 

Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur Herbaceous plants and vines 

Digitaria sanguinalis Crab Grass Herbaceous plants and vines 

Potamogeton crispus Curlyleaved pondweed Herbaceous plants and vines 

Euphorbia cyparissias Cypress Spurge Herbaceous plants and vines 

Erigeron annuus Daisy fleabane Herbaceous plants and vines 

Hemerocallis lilio-asphodelus Day lily Herbaceous plants and vines 

Dianthus armeria Depford, Pink Herbaceous plants and vines 

Rubus hispidus Dewberry Herbaceous plants and vines 

Penthorum sedoides Ditch Stonecrop Herbaceous plants and vines 

Rumex spp. Dock Herbaceous plants and vines 

Cuscuta spp. Dodder Herbaceous plants and vines 

Apocynum spp. Dogbane Herbaceous plants and vines 

Sporobolus vaginiflorus Drop Seed, Poverty Herbaceous plants and vines 

4-184




Lemna minor Duckweed, Lesser Herbaceous plants and vines 

Oenothera spp. Evening Primrose Herbaceous plants and vines 

Pteridum aquilinum Fern, Bracken Herbaceous plants and vines 

Polystichum acrostichoides Fern, Christmas Herbaceous plants and vines 

Osmunda cinnamomoea Fern, Cinnamon Herbaceous plants and vines 

Dennstaedtia punctilobula Fern, Hayscented Herbaceous plants and vines 

Thelypteris thelypteroides Fern, Marsh Herbaceous plants and vines 

Thelypteris noveboracensis Fern, New York Herbaceous plants and vines 

Matteuccia struthiopteris Fern, Ostrich Herbaceous plants and vines 

Osmunda regalis Fern, Royal Herbaceous plants and vines 

Onoclea sensibilis Fern, Sensitive Herbaceous plants and vines 

Dryopteris spinulosa Fern, Spinulose Wood Herbaceous plants and vines 

Festuca spp. Fescue Herbaceous plants and vines 

Myosotis scorpiodes Forget-me-not, True Herbaceous plants and vines 

Alopecurus pratensis Foxtail Grass Herbaceous plants and vines 

Spartina pectinata Freshwater Cordgrass Herbaceous plants and vines 

Vitis riparia Michx. Frost Grape Herbaceous plants and vines 

Solidago canadensis Goldenrod, Canada Herbaceous plants and vines 

Solidago memoralis Goldenrod, Gray Herbaceous plants and vines 

Solidago simplex ssp. randii Goldenrod, Sticky Herbaceous plants and vines 

Vitis spp. Goosefoot, Oakleaf Herbaceous plants and vines 

Echinochloa crus-galli Grape Herbaceous plants and vines 

Dichanthelium clandestum Grass, Barnyard Herbaceous plants and vines 

Gyceria striata Grass, Deer-Tounge Herbaceous plants and vines 

Glyceria spp. Grass, Fowl Meadow Herbaceous plants and vines 

Phalaris arundinacea Grass, Reed Canary Herbaceous plants and vines 

Smilax glauca Grass, spp. Herbaceous plants and vines 

Chenopodium glaucum Greenbriar Herbaceous plants and vines 

Glechoma hederacea L. Ground Ivy Herbaceous plants and vines 

Eupatorium spp. Hairy Boneset Herbaceous plants and vines 

4-185




Hieraceum paniculatum Hawkweed, panicled Herbaceous plants and vines 

Veratum viride Hellebore, False Herbaceous plants and vines 

Hibiscus spp. Hibiscus Herbaceous plants and vines 

Amphicarpaea bracteata Hog-peanut, American Herbaceous plants and vines 

Lonicera japonica Honeysuckle, Japanese Herbaceous plants and vines 

Apocynum cannabinum Indian Hemp Herbaceous plants and vines 

Baptisia australis Indigo, Blue False Herbaceous plants and vines 

Veronia noveboracensis Ironweed, New York Herbaceous plants and vines 

Arisaema triphyllum Jack-in-the-pulpit Herbaceous plants and vines 

Fallopia japonica Japanese Knotweed Herbaceous plants and vines 

Microstegium viminieum Japanese Stiltgrass Herbaceous plants and vines 

Datura stramonium Jimson Weed Herbaceous plants and vines 

Eupatorium fistulosom Joe-pye-weed, Hollow Herbaceous plants and vines 

Eupatorium maculatum Joe-pye-weed, Spotted Herbaceous plants and vines 

Polygonum virginianum Jumpseed Herbaceous plants and vines 

Poa pratensis Kentucky Blue Grass Herbaceous plants and vines 

Polygonum persicaria Lady's Thumb Herbaceous plants and vines 

Erigeron strigosus Lesser daisy fleabane Herbaceous plants and vines 

Saururus cernuus Lizard's Tail Herbaceous plants and vines 

Lobelia siphilitica Lobelia, Great Herbaceous plants and vines 

Lythrum salicaria Loosestrife, Purple Herbaceous plants and vines 

Lycopus americanus Lycopus Herbaceous plants and vines 

Malva moschata Mallow, Musk Herbaceous plants and vines 

Polygonum perfoliatum Mile-a-Minute Vine Herbaceous plants and vines 

Asclepias tuberosa Milkweed, Butterfly Herbaceous plants and vines 

Asclepias syriaca Milkweed, Common Herbaceous plants and vines 

Asclepias incarnata Milkweed, Swamp Herbaceous plants and vines 

Mimulus alatus Monkey Flower Herbaceous plants and vines 

Ipomea henderacea Morning Glory, Ivy Leaf Herbaceous plants and vines 

Pycnanthemum spp. Mountian Mint Herbaceous plants and vines 

4-186




Verbascum blattaria Mullein, Moth Herbaceous plants and vines 

Verbascum thapsus Mullein, Common Herbaceous plants and vines 

Alliara officinalis Mustard, Garlic Herbaceous plants and vines 

Boehmeria cylindrica Nettle, False Herbaceous plants and vines 

Laportea canadensis Nettle, Canadian Wood Herbaceous plants and vines 

Urtica dioica Nettle, Stinging Herbaceous plants and vines 

Solanum dulcamara Nightshade, Bittersweet Herbaceous plants and vines 

Solanum nigrum Nightshade, Black Herbaceous plants and vines 

Solanum carolinense Nightshade, Carolina Herbaceous plants and vines 

Bidens cernua Nodding bur marigold Herbaceous plants and vines 

Physostegia virginiana Obedient Plant Herbaceous plants and vines 

Dichanthelium scabriuscukum Panic Grass, Wolly Herbaceous plants and vines 

Myriophyllum aquaticum Parrot Feather Herbaceous plants and vines 

Mitchella repens Partridgeberry Herbaceous plants and vines 

Pontederia cordata Pickerelweed Herbaceous plants and vines 

Chenopodium album Pigweed Herbaceous plants and vines 

Chimaphila umbellata Pipsissewa Herbaceous plants and vines 

Goodyera pubescens Plantain, Rattlesnake Herbaceous plants and vines 

Plantago spp. Plantains Herbaceous plants and vines 

Phytolacca americana Pokeweed Herbaceous plants and vines 

Ampelopsis brevipedunculata Porcelainberry Herbaceous plants and vines 

Toxicodendron radicans Posion-ivy Herbaceous plants and vines 

Lamium purpureum L. Purple Dead Nettle Herbaceous plants and vines 

Eragrostis spectabilis Purple Love Grass Herbaceous plants and vines 

Epilobium coloratum Purple-Leaf Willow-Herb Herbaceous plants and vines 

Portulaca oleracea Purslane Herbaceous plants and vines 

Ludwigia palustris Purslane, Water Seedbox Herbaceous plants and vines 

Daucus carota Queen Anne's Lace Herbaceous plants and vines 

Ambrosia artemisifolia Ragweed Herbaceous plants and vines 

Ambrosia trifida Ragweed, Giant Herbaceous plants and vines 

4-187




Leersia oryzoides Rice Cut Grass Herbaceous plants and vines 

Lavatera trimestris Rose Mallow Herbaceous plants and vines 

Andropogon virginicus Sedge, Broom Herbaceous plants and vines 

Carex vulpinodea Sedge, Fox Herbaceous plants and vines 

Carex folliculata Sedge, Long Herbaceous plants and vines 

Carex lurida Sedge, Lurid Herbaceous plants and vines 

Carex pennsylvanica Sedge, Pennsylvania Herbaceous plants and vines 

Dulichium arundinaceum Sedge, Three Way Herbaceous plants and vines 

Cyperus esculentus Sedge, Yellow Nut Herbaceous plants and vines 

Ludwigia alternifolia Seedbox Herbaceous plants and vines 

Chamaecrista nictitans Sensitive Plant Herbaceous plants and vines 

Scutellaria lateriflora Skullcap, Mad-dog Herbaceous plants and vines 

Scutellaria galericulata Skullcap, Marsh Herbaceous plants and vines 

Symplocarpus foetidus Skunk Cabbage Herbaceous plants and vines 

Polygonum pennsylvanicum Smartweed, Penn/pinkweed Herbaceous plants and vines 

Eupatorium rugosum Snakeroot, White Herbaceous plants and vines 

Chaenorrhinum minus (L) Lange Snapdragon, Dwarf Herbaceous plants and vines 

Helenium autumnale Sneeze Weed Herbaceous plants and vines 

Juncus effusus Soft Rush Herbaceous plants and vines 

Polygonatum biflorum Solomon's Seal Herbaceous plants and vines 

Smilacina racemosa Solomon's Seal, False Herbaceous plants and vines 

Oxalis spp. Sorrel, Wood Herbaceous plants and vines 

Veronica persica Speedwell Herbaceous plants and vines 

Veronica serpyllifolia Speedwell, Thyme-Leaved Herbaceous plants and vines 

Impatiens capensis Spotted Jewel Weed Herbaceous plants and vines 

Hypericum stragulum St. Andrew's Cross Herbaceous plants and vines 

Hypericum densiflorum St. John's Wort, Bushy Herbaceous plants and vines 

Hypericum perforatum St. John's Wort, Common Herbaceous plants and vines 

Hypericum prolificum St. John's Wort, Shrubby Herbaceous plants and vines 

Aster linariifolius Stiff Aster Herbaceous plants and vines 

4-188




Helianthus spp. Sunflower spp. Herbaceous plants and vines 

Cynanchum louiscae Swallowwort, Black Herbaceous plants and vines 

Lysimachia terrestris Swamp Candles Herbaceous plants and vines 

Acorus calamus Sweet Flag Herbaceous plants and vines 

Panicum virgatum Switch Grass Herbaceous plants and vines 

Polygonum sagitatum Tearthumb, Arrow -leaved Herbaceous plants and vines 

Polygonum arifolium Tearthumb, Halberd-leaf Herbaceous plants and vines 

Acalypha rhomboidea Three Seeded Mercury Herbaceous plants and vines 

Lotus corniculatus Trefoil, Birdsfoot Herbaceous plants and vines 

Desmodium spp. Trefoil, Tick Herbaceous plants and vines 

Chelone glabra Turtlehead Herbaceous plants and vines 

Verbena hastata Vervain, Blue Herbaceous plants and vines 

Verbena urticifolia Vervain, White Herbaceous plants and vines 

Viola spp. Violets Herbaceous plants and vines 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper Herbaceous plants and vines 

Sium sauve Water Pepper Herbaceous plants and vines 

Persicaria hydropiper Water-Parsnip, Hemlock Herbaceous plants and vines 

Echinocystis lobata Wild Cucumber Herbaceous plants and vines 

Allium canadense Wild Garlic Herbaceous plants and vines 

Decodon verticillatus Willow, Water Herbaceous plants and vines 

Rubus phoenicolasius Wineberry Herbaceous plants and vines 

Verbesina alternifolia Wingstem Herbaceous plants and vines 

Chimaphila maculata Wintergreen, striped Herbaceous plants and vines 

Achillea millefolium Yarrow Herbaceous plants and vines 

(Source: PPL and Kleinschmidt 2006) 

4-189



TABLE 4.5.2.1-1 

MAMMALS NEAR NORTHERN PROJECT AREA 

Common Name Latin Name 

Beaver Castor canadensis 

Boreal red-backed vole Clethrionomys gapperi 

Coyote Canis latrans 

Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus 

Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus 

Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus 

Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus 

Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis 

Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus 

House mouse Mus musculus 

Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus 

Long tailed weasel Mustela frenata 

Masked shrew Sorex cinereus 

Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius 

Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus 

Mink Mustela vison 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum 

Raccoon Procyon lotor 

Red fox Vulpes vulpes 

4-190




River Otter Lontra canadensis 

Short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda 

Short-tailed weasel Mustela erminea 

Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus 

Star-nosed mole Condylura cristata 

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis 

Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana 

White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus 

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus 

Woodchuck Marmota monax 

Woodland jumping mouse Napaeozapus insignis 


4-191



TABLE 4.5.2.2-1 

BIRDS OBSERVED ALONG SUSQUEHANNA RIVER NEAR CONOWINGO DAM 

(GLEN COVE MARINA TO DEER CREEK) 


Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens 

American Black Duck Anas rubripes 

American Coot Fulica americana 

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 

American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica 

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis 

American Kestrel Falco sparverius 

American Pipit Anthus rubescens 

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla 

American Robin Turdus migratorius 

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea 

American Wigeon Anas americana 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula 

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia 

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 

Barred Owl Strix varia 

Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea 

Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon 

Black Scoter Melanitta nigra 

Black Tern Chlidonias niger 

Black Vulture Coragyps atratus 

Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia 

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola 

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus 

Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca 

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus 

4-192




Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax 

Black-headed Gull Larus ridibundus 

Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla 

Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata 

Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens 

Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens 

Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea 

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata 

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea 

Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius 

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors 

Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia 

Brant Branta bernicla 

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus 

Brown Creeper Certhia americana 

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis 

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum 

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

California Gull Larus californicus 

Canada Goose Branta canadensis 

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria 

Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina 

Carolina Chickadee Parus carolinensis 

Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus 

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia 

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis 

4-193




Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 

Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea 

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica 

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica 

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina 

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula 

Common Loon Gavia immer 

Common Merganser Mergus merganser 

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor 

Common Raven Corvus corax 

Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago 

Common Tern Sterna hirundo 

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 

Common/Mew Gull Larus canus 

Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii 

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis 

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens 

Dunlin Calidris alpina 

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis 

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis 

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus 

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna 

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe 

Eastern Screech-Owl Otus asio 

Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens 

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris 

4-194




Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus 

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla 

Fish Crow Corvus ossifragus 

Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri 

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca 

Franklin's Gull Larus pipixcan 

Gadwall Anas strepera 

Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus 

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos 

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa 

Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis 

Gray-cheeked/Bicknell’s Thrush Catharus minimus/bicknelli 

Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus 

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias 

Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo 

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus 

Great Egret Ardea alba 

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus 

Greater Scaup Aythya marila 

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 

Green Heron Butorides virescens 

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca 

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus 

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus 

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus 

Herring Gull Larus argentatus 

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 

Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina 

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus 

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus 

4-195




House Sparrow Passer domesticus 

House Wren Troglodytes aedon 

Iceland Gull Larus glaucoides 

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea 

Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus 

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 

Laughing Gull Larus atricilla 

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus 

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla 

Least Tern Sterna antillarum 

Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus 

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis 

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 

Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii 

Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea 

Little Gull Larus minutus 

Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla 

Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 

Merlin Falco columbarius 

Mississippi Kite Ictinia mississippiensis 

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura 

Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia 

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla 

Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus 

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus 

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis 

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 

Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos 

4-196




Northern Parula Parula americana 

Northern Pintail Anas acuta 

Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata 

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis 

Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis 

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi 

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus 

Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica 

Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum 

Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus 

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos 

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 

Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus 

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps 

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus 

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus 

Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus 

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor 

Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea 

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus 

Purple Martin Progne subis 

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus 

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator 

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis 

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus 

Redhead Aythya americana 

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena 

4-197




Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus 

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis 

Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata 

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis 

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris 

Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus 

Rock Dove Columba livia 

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus 

Royal Tern Sterna maxima 

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula 

Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris 

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis 

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres 

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus 

Sanderling Calidris alba 

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 

Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus 

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea 

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus 

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla 

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus 

Slaty-backed Gull Larus schistisagus 

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens 

Snowy Egret Egretta thula 

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria 

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia 

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia 

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus 

4-198




Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata 

Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus 

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana 

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina 

Thayer's Gull Larus thayeri 

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor 

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator 

Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor 

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus 

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 

Veery Catharus fuscescens 

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus 

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri 

Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana 

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys 

White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus 

White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis 

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis 

White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca 

Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo 

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii 

Wilson’s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor 

Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla 

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes 

Wood Duck Aix sponsa 

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina 

Worm-eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorus 

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia 

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris 

4-199




Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus 

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens 

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron Nyctanassa violacea 

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata 

Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons 

Yellow-throated Warbler Dendroica dominica 

(Source: Blom 1999) 

4-200



Sample 

ID 

GPS 

TABLE 4.6.2.1-1 

MT. JOHNSON ISLAND – LITTORAL ZONE SUBSTRATE 

Depth 

(feet below normal 

pool elevation) 

Approx. 

Size * 

(Φ-scale) 

Predominant Grains Coal 

4-201 

Roundness 

Approx. 

Size * 

(Φ-scale) 

Roundness 

MJ-1 39° 46.243' N 3.8 silt __ 2.5 __ biotite flakes 

MJ-2 76° 14.981' W 6.3 1.0-2.5 sub-angular to subrounded 

MJ-3 39° 45.983' N 4.0 0.0-2.5 sub-angular to wellrounded 

Other 

0-0.5 __ __ 

0-0.5 angular __ 

MJ-4 76° 14.882' W 9.8 silt __ 0-4.0 angular biotite flakes 

MJ5 39° 45.792' N 12.5 1.0-2.0 sub-rounded to 

rounded 

PHI (Φ)-scale = log 2 (diameter in millimeters) 

Example: millimeter diameter grain = −4Φ 

sand = -1.0Φ to 4Φ 

0-1.0 angular __

Sample 

ID 



GPS 

TABLE 4.6.2.1-2 

PETERS CREEK-LITTORAL ZONE SUBSTRATE 

Depth 



PC-1 39° 45.460' N 76° 14.213' W 5.4 1.5-2.0 

PC-2 39° 45.364' N 76° 14.086' W 4.7 1.0-2.0 

Approx. 

Size * 

(Φ-scale) 


4-202 

Roundness 

sub-rounded to 

rounded 

sub-angular to 

rounded 

Approx. 

Size * 

(Φ-scale) 

Roundness 

- 0.5-1.0 angular 

0.5-1.0 angular 

PC-3 39° 45.084' N76° 13.793' W __ silt / mud __ __ __ 


Example: 1/16 millimeter diameter grain = −4Φ 


Other 

sand mostly 

quartz; coal 

40% 

sand mostly 

quartz; coal 5- 

10%; biotite 

flakes 

minor coal; 

minor sand



Sample ID GPS 

FC-1 

FC-2 

FC-3 

39° 47.181' N 

76° 15.701' W 

39° 47.347' N 

76° 15.992' W 

39° 47.512' N 

76° 16.158' W 

Depth 



TABLE 4.6.2.1-3 

FISHING CREEK – LITTORAL ZONE SUBSTRATE 

Approx. 

Size * 

(Φ-scale) 


Roundness 

4-203 

Approx. 

Size * 

(Φ-scale) 

Roundness 

3.8 silt __ 2 sub-rounded 

6.3 0.5-1.5 

sub-angular to subrounded 

0.5-1.5 sub-angular to sub-rounded 

3.6 silt __ 0-1.5 sub-angular to sub-rounded 


Example: 1/16 millimeter diameter grain = −4Φ 


Other 

contains quartz 

sand (2Φ) 

predominantly 

coal 

contains quartz 

sand (1.5-3.0 Φ)



TABLE 4.6.4-1 

RIVERBED WETLAND NEAR NORMAN WOOD BRIDGE VEGETATION 

Common Name Latin Name Northeast (Region 1) Wetland Indicator Status 

Common water willow Justicia americana OBL 

Dodder Cuscuta sp. -- 

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria FACW+ 

Sedge Carex sp. -- 

Soft rush Juncus effusus FACW+ 

Note: Taxonomy and wetland indicator status according to Reed (1988). 

-- Wetland indicator status is species-specific. However, the species could not be identified because of the 

lack of fruiting heads. Most species of Carex are FACW and/or OBL. 

OBL Obligate Wetland (>99% occurrence in wetlands) 

FACW+ Facultative Wetland Plus (84-99% occurrence in wetlands) 

4-204



Common 

Names 

American 

basswood 

1 WET 

Scientific Names Indicator 

1 

Tilia americana FACU 

WET 

2 

WET 

3 

WET 

4 

WET 

5 

WET 

6 

WET 

7 

TABLE 4.6.4-1A 

EMERGENT WETLAND PLANTS OF CONOWINGO POND 

WET 

8 

WET 

9 

WET 

10 

WET 

11 

American beech Fagus grandifolia FAC+ x x x x x x 

American 

sycamore 

Platanus 

occidentalis 

FACW- 

x 

x 

Bitter Dock Rumex obtusifolius OBL x x x x x x x x x x x 

Black locust 

Robinia 

pseudoacacia 

FACU- 

x 

x x x x x 

WET 

12 

x 

WET 

13 

4-205 

WET 

14 

WET 

15 

WET 

16 

x 

WET 

17 

WET 

18 

WET 

19 

x x 

WET 

20 

WET 

21 

WET 

22 

WET 

23 

WET 

24 

x x 

x x x x 

Black willow Salix nigra FACW+ x x x x x x x x x 

WET 

25 

WET 

26 

WET 

27 

WET 

28 

WET 

29 

WET 

30 

x x x x x 

Box-elder Acer negundo FAC+ x x x 

Broomsedge 

Andropogon 

virginicus 

FACU 

Burr reed Carex sparganioides FACU x 

Buttonbush 

Cephalanthus 

occidentalis 

OBL 

x 

Cardinal flower Lobelia cardinalis OBL x 

Christmas fern 

Common 

arrowhead 

Polystichum 

acrostichoides 

FACU- 

Sagittaria latifolia OBL 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x x 

x 

x 

x x 

x x x x x 

Common cattail Typha latifolia OBL x 

Common 

mullein 

Common 

pawpaw 

Verbascum thapsus NI 

Asimina triloba FACU+ 

x x x 

x 

x 

x x x 

Common reed Phragmites australis FACU+ x 

Day lily Hemerocallis fulva NI x x x x x x x x x x 

Elephant ear Colocasia sp. -- x 

False hellebore Veratrum viride FACW+ x 

Green ash Fraxinus profunda OBL x 

Greenbrier Smilax rotundifolia OBL x 

Hedge 

bindweed 

Convolvulus sepium FAC- 

x 

x 

Hickory Carya sp. -- x x x x x x x x 

Honeysuckle Lonicera sp. -- x 

Jack-in-thepulpit 

Japanese 

knotweed 

Ladyfern 

May apple 

Arisaema atrorubens FAC- 

Polygonum 

cuspidatum 

Athyrium filixfemina 

Podophyllum 

peltatum 

FACU- x 

FAC x x x 

FACU x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x x x x x 

x 

x x 

x 

x 

x 

x x 

WET 

31 

x 

x



Common 

Names 

1 WET 


1 

WET 

2 

Monkey Flower Mimulus sp. -- x 

WET 

3 

WET 

4 

WET 

5 

WET 

6 

WET 

7 

WET 

8 

WET 

9 

WET 

10 

WET 

11 

WET 

12 

Mountain maple Acer spicatum FACU- x x x x 

Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora FACU x x x x x 

Panic grass Panicum sp. -- x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Pin oak Quercus palustris FACW x 

Poison ivy 

Pokeweed 

Purple 

loosestrife 

Toxicodendron 

radicans 

Phytolacca 

americana 

FAC 

FACW- 

Lythrum salicaria FACW+ 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Red maple Acer rubrum FACW+ x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Redbud Cercis canadensis FACU- x x x 

Rose mallow Hibiscus sp. -- x 

Sassafras Sassafras albidum FACU- x 

Sedge Carex sp. -- x x x x x x x x x x x 

Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis FACW x x 

Silktree Albizia julibrissin NI x x x 

Silver maple Acer saccharinum FACW x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Slippery elm Ulmus rubra FAC x x x x 

Small-flowered 

agrimony 

Agrimonia 

parviflora 

FAC 

Smooth alder Alnus serrulata OBL x x x x 

x 

Soft rush Juncus effusus FACW+ x x x x 

Spikerush Eleocharis sp. -- x 

Spotted 

jewelweed 

Impatiens capensis FACW 

WET 

13 

x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Steeplebush Spiraea tomentosa FACW x 

Stinging nettle Urtica dioica FACU x x x x x x x x x x 

4-206 

WET 

14 

WET 

15 

WET 

16 

x 

WET 

17 

WET 

18 

WET 

19 

x x 

x x 

WET 

20 

WET 

21 

WET 

22 

WET 

23 

WET 

24 

x x x x 

Striped maple Acer pensylvanicum FACU x 

Sugar maple Acer saccharum FACU- x x 

Swamp oak Quercus bicolor FACW+ x 

WET 

25 

WET 

26 

WET 

27 

x 

WET 

28 

WET 

29 

x 

WET 

30 

x x x x x 

Tearthumb Polygonum sp. -- x x x x x 

Tree of heaven Ailanthus altissima NI x x x x x x x x 

Tuliptree 

Virginia creeper 

Liriodendron 

tulipifera 

Parthenocissus 

quinquefoilia 

FACU 

FACU 

x 

x x x x 

x 

x 

Water willow Justicia americana OBL x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

White oak Quercus alba FACU- x 

Wild grape Vitus rotundifolia FAC- x x x x x x 

Wild strawberry Fragaria virginiana FACU x x 

x x 

x 

x 

WET 

31 

x



Common 

Names 

Witch-hazel 

Yellow birch 

1 WET 


1 

Hamamelis 

virginiana 

Betula 

alleghaniensis 

FAC- 

FAC 

WET 

2 

WET 

3 

x x 

WET 

4 

WET 

5 

WET 

6 

WET 

7 

WET 

8 

x 

WET 

9 

WET 

10 

Yellow iris Iris pseudacorus OBL x x x x x 

Yellow pond 

lily 

Nuphar sp. -- 

1 USFWS. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northeast (Region 1). 1988. Biological Report 88(26.1) 

x 

OBL = Obligate Wetland - Occurs almost always (estimated probability 99%) under natural conditions in wetlands. 

FACW = Facultative Wetland - Usually occurs in wetlands (estimated probability 67% - 99%), but occasionally found in non-wetlands. 

FAC = Facultative - Equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (estimated probability 34% - 66%). 

FACU - Facultative Upland - Usually occurs in non-wetlands (estimated probability 67% - 99%), but occasionally found on wetlands (estimated probability 1% - 33%). 

WET 

11 

WET 

12 

NI = No Indicator - Insufficient information was available to determine an indicator status. 

A positive (+) or negative (-) sign, when used with indicators, attempts to more specifically define the frequency of occurrence in wetlands. A positive sign indicates "slightly more frequently found in wetlands" and the negative sign indicates "slightly less frequently found in wetlands". 

-- Wetland indicator status is species-specific. However, the species could not be identified because of the lack of fruiting heads. Nevertheless, most species in this region of Carex are OBL and/or FACW; Carya are FAC and/or FACU; Colocasia are OBL and/or FACW; Eleocharis are OBL; 

Hibiscus are OBL; Lonicera are FACU; Mimulus are OBL; Nuphar are OBL; Panicum are FAC and/or FACW; Polygonum are OBL, FAC, and/or FACU. 

Plant species listed are representatives of wetland community. Not all species in wetlands are listed. 

WET 

13 

4-207 

WET 

14 

WET 

15 

WET 

16 

WET 

17 

WET 

18 

WET 

19 

WET 

20 

x 

WET 

21 

WET 

22 

WET 

23 

WET 

24 

WET 

25 

WET 

26 

WET 

27 

x 

WET 

28 

WET 

29 

WET 

30 

WET 

31



TABLE 4.6.4-2 

SHORELINE MARGIN WETLAND NEAR NORMAN WOOD BRIDGE VEGETATION 

Common Name Latin Name Northeast (Region 1) Wetland Indicator Status 

Aster Aster sp. -- 

Black willow Salix nigra FACW+ 

Box elder Acer negundo FAC+ 

Common water willow lusticia americana OBL 

Eastern cottonwood Populus deltoides FAC 

Nodding beggar-ticks Bidem' cernua OBL 

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria FACW+ 

Red maple Acer rubrum FAC 

River birch Betula nigra FACW 

Sedge Carex sp. -- 

Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis FACW 

Soft rush luncus effusus FACW+ 

Threesquare Scirpus pungens FACW+ 

Note: Taxonomy and wetland indicator status according to Reed (1988) 

-- Wetland indicator status is species-specific, however, the species could not be identified because of the lack of fruiting 

heads. Most species of Carex are FACW and/or OBL. 

OBL Obligate Wetland (>99% occurrence in wetlands) 

FACW+ Facultative Wetland Plus (67-99% occurrence in wetlands; frequency toward higher end) 

FACW Facultative Wetland (67-99% occurrence in wetlands) 

FAC+ Facultative Plus (34-66% occurrence in wetlands; frequency toward higher end) 

FAC Facultative (34-66% occurrence in wetlands; equally likely to be found in wetlands or nonwetland) 

4-208



TABLE 4.6.4-3 

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IN CONOWINGO POND 


Eurasian milfoil Myriophyllum spicatum 

Pondweed Potamogeton sp. 

Water star grass Heteranthera dubia 

4-209



TABLE 4.6.4-4 

MT. JOHNSON ISLAND RIPARIAN VEGETATION 

Common Name Scientific Name* 

American basswood Tilia americana 

American elm Ulmus americana 

Black cherry Prunus serotina 

Black walnut Juglans nigra 

Eastern hemlock Tsuga canadensis 

Ferns Pteridophyta 

Grasses Poaceae 

Honey locust Gleditsia triacanthos 

Lichen ---- 

Moss Bryophyta 

Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans 

Red maple Acer rubrum 

Red oak Quercus rubra 

Rhododendron Rhododendron sp. 

Royal paulownia Paulownia tomentosa 

Sassafras Sassafras albidum 

Silver maple Acer saccharinum 

4-210




Speckled alder Alnusincana 

Staghorn sumac Rhus hirta 

Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 

Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia 

Western red cedar Thuja plicata 

Yellow birch Betula alleghaniensis 

Yellow poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 

* Nomenclature according to the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 

URL http://www.itis.gov/index.html viewed October 24, 2007. 

4-211



TABLE 4.6.4-5 

CONOWINGO POND NEAR PETERS CREEK RIPARIAN VEGETATION 


Allegheny blackberry Rubus allegheniensis 


Black willow Salix nigra 

Box elder Acer negundo 

Common mullein Verbascum thapsus 

Flowering dogwood Cornusflorida 

Green ash Fraxinus pennsvlvanica 


Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora 









Nomenclature according to the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 

URL http://www.itis.gov/index.html viewed October 24, 2007 

4-212



TABLE 4.6.4-6 

CONOWINGO POND NEAR FISHING CREEK RIPARIAN VEGETATION 


Allegheny blackberry Rubus allegheniensis 

Ash Fraxinus sp. 


Black willow Salix nigra 

Box elder Acer negundo 

Common mullein Verbascum thapsus 

Flowering dogwood Comus florida 

Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 


Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora 


Red maple Acer rubrum 




Speckled alder Alnusincana 



Tree of heaven Ailanthus altissima 


Yellow birch Betula alleghaniensis 


* Nomenclature according to the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 

URL http://www.itis.gov/index.html viewed October 24, 2007. 

4-213



TABLE 4.6.5-1 

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS NEAR NORTHERN PROJECT AREA 


American toad Bufo americanus 

Black racer Coluber constrictor 

Black rat snake Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana 

Common map turtle Graptemys geographica 

Dusky salamander Desmognathus fuscus 

Eastern box turtle Terrapene carolina 

Eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis 

Four-toed salamander Hemidactylium scutatum 

Gray treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis 

Green frog Rana clamitans melanota 

Marbled salamander Ambystoma opacum 

Northern brown snake Storeria dekayi 

Northern copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix 

Northern water snake Nerodia sipedon 

Painted turtle Chrysemys picta 

Pickerel frog Rana palustris 

Red-backed salamander Plethodon cinereus 

Red eared slider Trachemys scripta elegans 

Red-spotted newt Notophthalmus viridescens 

Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina 

Spotted salamander Ambystoma maculatum 

Spring peeper Hyla crucifer 

Two-lined salamander Eurycea bislineata 

Wood frog Rana sylvatica 

Wood turtle Clemmys insculpta 


4-214



TABLE 4.7.2.1-1 

RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED BIRD SPECIES POTENTIALLY IN 

CONOWINGO PROJECT AREA 

Great egret 1,2 

Common Name Scientific Name 3 

Listed Species 

4-215 

State Status 

PA MD 4 

Federal 

Status 

Ardea alba (also 

Casmerodius albus) E NL NL 

Black tern 1,2 Chlidonias niger E NL NL 

Yellow-bellied flycatcher 1,2 Empidonax flaviventris E NL NL 

Peregrine falcon 1,2 Falco peregrinus E NL NL 

Bald eagle 5,6,7 Haliaeetus leucocephalus T T NL 

Yellow-crowned night-heron 1,2 Nyctanassa violacea E NL NL 

Black-crowned night-heron 5,7 Nycticorax nycticorax E NL NL 

Osprey 5 Pandion haliaetus T NL NL 

Common tern 1,2 Sterna hirundo E NL NL 

Non-Listed Rare Species 

Prothonotary warbler 5 Protonotaria citrea SC NL NL 

1 Blom (1999) 

2 Cohen (2004) 

3 Taxonomy according to Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) online at http://www.itis.usda.gov/ 

4 Maryland T&E status for Cecil and Harford Counties 

5 PGC (letter August 24, 2006) 

6 USFWS (Pennsylvania and Maryland) in letters August 22, 2006 and September 22, 2006, respectively 

7 MDNR (letter July 21, 2006) 

E – Endangered, T – Threatened, NL – Not Listed, SC – Species of Concern



TABLE 4.7.2.2-1 

RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED REPTILE AND AMPHIBIAN SPECIES 

POTENTIALLY IN CONOWINGO PROJECT AREA 


4-216 

State Status 

PA MD 4 

Federal 

Status 

Hellbender 2 Cryptobranchus alleganiensis NL E NL 

Bog turtle 1,3 Glyptemys muhlenbergii 5 E T T 

Map turtle 2 Graptemys geographica NL E NL 

Rough green snake 1 Opheodrys aestivus E NL NL 

1 PFBC (letter August 18, 2006) 


3 USFWS (Pennsylvania) (letter July 27, 2006) 

4 Maryland T&E status for Cecil and Harford Counties 

5 Formerly Clemmys muhlenbergerii 

6 Taxonomy according to Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) online at http://www.itis.usda.gov/ 

E – Endangered, T – Threatened, NL – Not Listed



TABLE 4.7.2.3-1 

RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED FISH AND INVERTEBRATE SPECIES 

POTENTIALLY IN CONOWINGO PROJECT AREA 



4-217 

State Status 

PA MD 4 

Federal Status 

Shortnose sturgeon 1,2 Acipenser brevirostrum E E E 

Atlantic sturgeon 1,2 Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus E NL SC,C 

Logperch 2 Percina caprodes NL T NL 

Maryland darter 2,3 Etheostoma sellare NL E E 

Hickory shad 5 Alosa mediocris E NL NL 


Bowfin 6 Amia calva I/V,CP NL NL 

American eel Anguilla rostrata NL NL Reviewed for listing 

Tenuis amphipod 2 Stygobromus tenuis tenuis NL SU NL 

1 NMFS (letter dated August 14, 2006) 


3 USFWS (Maryland) (letter September 22, 2006) 

4 Maryland T&E status for Cecil and Hartford Counties 

5 SRAFRC (2006) 

6 Cooper (1983) 

E – Endangered, T – Threatened, NL – Not Listed, SC – Species of Concern, C – Candidate, I/V – imperiled or vulnerable, CP – 

Candidate Proposed, SU – “possibly rare in Maryland, but of uncertain status for reasons including lack of historical records, low 

search effort, cryptic nature of the species, or concerns that the species may not be native to the State.” (MDNR 2007)



TABLE 4.7.2.4-1 

RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIES POTENTIALLY IN 

CONOWINGO PROJECT AREA 


Arrowed-feathered three awned 1,6 

Leopard’s-bane 1,6 


4-218 

State Status Federal 

Status 

PA MD 4 

Aristida purpurascens T NL NL 

Arnica acaulis E E NL 

Bradley’s spleenwort 1 Asplenium bradleyi T X NL 

Aster-like boltonia 1 Boltonia asteroides E E NL 

Davis’ sedge 2 Carex davisii NL E NL 

Hitcock’s sedge 2 Carex hitchcockiana NL E NL 

Reflexed flatsedge 1 Cyperus refractus E NL NL 

Glade fern 2 Diplazium pyncnocarpon NL T NL 

Flat-stemmed spike-rush 1, 2 Eleocharis compressa E E NL 

Harbinger-of-spring 5 Erigenia bulbosa T NL NL 

Sweet-scented Indian-plantain 2 Hasteola suaveolens NL E NL 

Bicknell’s hoary rockrose 5 Helianthemum bicknellii E E NL 

Goldenseal 2 Hydrastis canadensis NL T NL 

American holly 1,3 Ilex opaca T NL NL 

Common hemicarpa 1 Lipocarpha micrantha E E NL 

American gromwell 2 Lithospermum latifolium E E NL 

False loosestrife seedbox 1 Ludwigia polycarpa E NL NL 

Umbrella magnolia 5 Magnolia tripetala T NL NL 

Three-flowered melic-grass 1 Melica nitens T T NL 

Tall dock 2 Rumex altissimus NL E NL 

Veined skullcap 2 Scultellaria nervosa NL E NL 

Virginia mallow (Sida) 2 Sida hermaphrodita E E NL 

Star-flowered false Solomon’s-seal 2 Smilacina stellata NL E NL 

Sticky goldenrod 1,3 Solidago simplex spp. randii var. 

racemosa 

E NL NL 

Slender goldenrod 1 Solidago speciosa var. erecta E T NL 

Swamp oats 2 Spenopholis pensylvanica NL T NL 

Valerian 2 Valeriana pauciflora NL E NL 

Tawny ironweed 5 Vernonia glauca E NL NL





4-219 

State Status Federal 

Status 

PA MD 4 

Appalachian gametophyte fern 5 Vittaria appalachiana T NL NL 


Koehne's ammannia 2 Ammannia latifolia NL NL NL 

Lobed spleenwort 1 Asplenium pinnatifidum N/PR E NL 

Harebell 2 Campanula rotundifolia NL NL NL 

Emory's sedge 2 Carex emoryii NL NL NL 

Wild oat 1 Chasmanthium latifolium TU/PE NL NL 

Fringe tree 1 Chionanthus virginicus N/PT NL NL 

Butternut 2 Juglans cinerea NL NL NL 

Swamp-dog hobble 1 Leucothoe racemosa TU/PT NL NL 

Ostrich fern 2 Matteuccia struthiopteris NL NL NL 

Large-seeded forget-me-not 2 Myosotis macrosperma NL NL NL 

Prickly-pear cactus 1 Opuntia humifusa PR NL NL 

Leaf-cup 1 Polymnia uvedalia N/PT NL NL 

Tooth-cup 1 Rotala ramosior PR NL NL 

Cranefly orchid 1 Tipularia discolor PR NL NL 

Eastern gamma-grass 1 Tripsacum dactyloides TU/PE NL NL 

Netted chainfern 1 1 

PADCNR (letter August 23, 2006) 

2 

MDNR (letter July 21, 2006) 

3 

PPL and Kleinschmidt (2006) 

Woodwardia areolata N/PT NL NL 

4 

Maryland T&E status for Cecil and Harford Counties 

5 

PADCNR (letter June 2008) 

6 

PADCNR (removed - letter June 2008) 

7 

Taxonomy according to Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) online at http://www.itis.usda.gov/ 

E – Endangered, T – Threatened, C – Candidate, X – Endangered Extirpated, NL – Not Listed, PE – Proposed Endangered, PR – 

Proposed Rare, PT – Proposed Threatened, N – No Status, TU – Tentatively Undetermined



County 

TABLE 4.11.1-1 

POPULATION AND HOUSING DATA IN CECIL, HARFORD, YORK AND LANCASTER 

COUNTIES 

Population 

(2007) 

Housing Units 

(2007) 

Land Area 

(sq. mi.) 

4-220 

Population Density 

(people/sq. mi.) 

Housing Density 

(units/sq. mi.) 

Cecil 99,695 39,758 418 239 95 

Harford 239,993 94,643 440 545 215 

York 421,049 171,618 904 466 190 

Lancaster 498,465 192,351 949 525 203 

(Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2008)



TABLE 4.11.1-2 

POPULATION TRENDS WITHIN CECIL, HARFORD, YORK AND LANCASTER COUNTIES 

County Population (1990) Population (2007) Percent Change 

Cecil 71,347 99,695 39.7% 

Harford 182,132 239,993 31.8% 

York 339,574 421,049 24.0% 

Lancaster 422,822 498,465 17.9% 

(Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2008) 

4-221



TABLE 4.11.1-3 

MAJOR POPULATION CENTERS NEAR THE CONOWINGO PROJECT 

City Population (2007) Approximate Distance from Project (miles) 

Philadelphia 1,449,634 72 

Baltimore 637,455 45 

Reading 80,769 62 

Wilmington 72,868 44 

Lancaster 54,672 32 

Harrisburg 47,196 70 

York 40,226 51 

(Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2008) 

4-222



TABLE 4.11.2-1 

INCOME DISTRIBUTION WITHIN CECIL, HARFORD, YORK, AND LANCASTER 

COUNTIES 

County Median Income 

(1999) 

Percent of Households with Incomes 

more than $100,000 

4-223 

Percent of Households with Incomes 

less than $15,000 

Cecil $50,510 11.7 9.8 

Harford $57,234 16.2 7.3 

York $45,268 8.7 11.3 

Lancaster $45,507 9.8 10.7 




TABLE 4.11.2-2 

OCCUPATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN CECIL, HARFORD, YORK, AND LANCASTER 

COUNTIES 

County Professional 

Occupations 

Service 

Occupations 

Sales and 

Office 

Occupations 

Farming, Fishing 

and Forestry 

Occupations 

4-224 

Construction, 

Extraction, And 

Maintenance 

Occupations 

Production, 

Transportation, and 

Material Moving 

Occupations 

Cecil 28.1 13.3 26.4 0.6 14.3 17.2 

Harford 38.0 13.0 27.4 0.1 10.2 11.2 

York 28.1 13.9 24.9 1.1 10.0 22.0 

Lancaster 28.4 12.5 26.2 0.4 9.9 22.7 




FIGURE 4.3.1.1-1 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AT MARIETTA, PA USGS GAGE, JANUARY, FEBRUARY, MARCH, AND APRIL FLOW DURATION 

CURVES, PERIOD OF RECORD: 1967-2008 

FLOW (CFS) 

550,000 

500,000 

450,000 

400,000 

350,000 

300,000 

250,000 

200,000 

150,000 

100,000 

50,000 

0 

January 

February 

March 

April 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

% OF TIME FLOW IS EQUALLED OR EXCEEDED 


4-239



FIGURE 4.3.1.1-2 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AT MARIETTA, PA USGS GAGE, MAY, JUNE, JULY, AND AUGUST FLOW DURATION CURVES, 

PERIOD OF RECORD: 1967-2008 

FLOW (CFS) 

550,000 

500,000 

450,000 

400,000 

350,000 

300,000 

250,000 

200,000 

150,000 

100,000 

50,000 

0 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 



4-240 

May 

June 

July 

August



FIGURE 4.3.1.1-3 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AT MARIETTA, PA USGS GAGE, SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, AND DECEMBER FLOW 

DURATION CURVES, PERIOD OF RECORD: 1967-2008 

FLOW (CFS) 

550,000 

500,000 

450,000 

400,000 

350,000 

300,000 

250,000 

200,000 

150,000 

100,000 

50,000 

0 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 



4-241 

September 

October 

November 

December



FIGURE 4.3.1.1-4 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AT MARIETTA, PA USGS GAGE, ANNUAL FLOW DURATION CURVE, 



4-242



FIGURE 4.3.1.1-5 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AT CONOWINGO, MD USGS GAGE, JANUARY, FEBRUARY, MARCH, AND APRIL FLOW DURATION 

CURVES, PERIOD OF RECORD: 1967-2008 


4-243



FIGURE 4.3.1.1-6 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AT CONOWINGO, MD USGS GAGE, MAY, JUNE, JULY, AND AUGUST FLOW DURATION CURVES, 



4-244



FIGURE 4.3.1.1-7 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AT CONOWINGO, MD USGS GAGE, SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, AND DECEMBER FLOW 

DURATION CURVES, PERIOD OF RECORD: 1967-2008 


4-245



FIGURE 4.3.1.1-8 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AT CONOWINGO, MD USGS GAGE, ANNUAL FLOW DURATION CURVES, 



4-246



FIGURE 4.3.2.2-1A 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER ANNUAL LOADS – TOTAL NITROGEN 

Langland et. al. (2007) 

4-249



FIGURE 4.3.2.2-1B 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER ANNUAL LOADS – TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 

Langland e.t al.. (2007) 

4-250



FIGURE 4.3.2.2-1C 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER ANNUAL LOADS – SEDIMENT 

Langland et. al. (2007) 

4-251



FIGURE 4.3.2.4-1 

SUMMARY OF MONTHLY AVERAGE MINIMUM, MEAN, AND MAXIMUM DAILY WATER 

TEMPERATURE IN THE RIVER INFLOW TO CONOWINGO POND, 1956-2007. DATA 

COURTESY OF PPL, INC. AT HOLTWOOD DAM. 

Water Temperature (°F) 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

1956-2007 

4-255 

Min Monthly Mean 

Ave Monthly Mean 

Max Monthly Mean



FIGURE 4.3.2.4-2 

TEMPERATURE (TOP) AND DO (BOTTOM) PROFILE DATA COLLECTED AT STATION 

611 DURING 1999. 

4-256



FIGURE 4.3.2.4-3 

SUMMARY OF MONTHLY AVERAGE MINIMUM, MEAN, AND MAXIMUM SURFACE 

DISSOLVED OXYGEN (DO MG/L) IN CONOWINGO POND, 1971-1983, AND 1996-1999. 

Dissolved Oxygen (DO mg/l) 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

1971-1983 and 1996-1999 

4-257 

Min Monthly Mean 

Ave Monthly Mean 

Max Monthly Mean



FIGURE 4.3.2.4-4 

EXAMPLE OF SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN WATER TEMPERATURE AT STATION 643 

DOWNSTREAM OF THE CONOWINGO HYDROELECTRIC STATION. 

4-258



Dissolved Oxygen (DO, mg/l) 

12 

11 

10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

FIGURE 4.3.2.4-5 

EXAMPLE OF DIURNAL VARIATION IN DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND WATER 

TEMPERATURE IN THE TAILRACE (STATION 643), CONOWINGO HYDROELECTRIC 

STATION, 1-6 AUGUST 2007. 

DO (mg/l) Temp (°C) 

8/1 8/2 8/3 8/4 8/5 8/6 

August 2007 

4-259 

39 

36 

33 

30 

27 

24 

21 

18 

15 

12 

9 

6 

3 

0 

Water Temp (C)



FIGURE 4.3.2.4-6 

SEASONAL VARIATION IN THE BIWEEKLY MEAN DO MEASURED IN THE OUTFLOW (CONOWINGO DAM) OF 

CONOWINGO POND, 1979-1983 AND 1984. 

4-260

Mean DO (mg/l) 



FIGURE 4.3.2.4-7 

COMPARISON OF MEAN DAILY DO IN THE CONOWINGO TAILRACE (STATION 643) 

AND MEAN DO AT DEPTH (40-70 FT) IN CONOWINGO POND DURING THE TURBINE 

VENTING, 1 JUNE TO 30 SEPTEMBER 1991. 

10.0 

9.0 

8.0 

7.0 

6.0 

5.0 

4.0 

3.0 

2.0 

1.0 

0.0 

Tailrace DO 

Pond DO (40-70 ft) 

1-Jun 11-Jun 21-Jun 1-Jul 11-Jul 21-Jul 31-Jul 10-Aug 20-Aug 30-Aug 9-Sep 19-Sep 29-Sep 

June-September 1991 

4-261



FIGURE 4.4.2.1-1 

RELATIVE ESTIMATES OF AMERICAN SHAD POPULATION DOWNSTREAM OF 

CONOWINGO DAM. SOURCE: SRAFRC (1985-2005) AND MDNR. 

Estimated Number of Shad X 1000 

1,100 

1,000 

900 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

Year (1984-2007) 

4-263



FIGURE 4.4.2.1-4 

AMERICAN SHAD PASSAGE AT UPSTREAM DAMS EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGE OF 

SHAD PASSED AT CONOWINGO. SOURCE: ASMFRC (2007) AND NORMANDEAU 

ASSOCIATES (2006-2007). 

% of Conowingo Shad Passed at Upstream Dams 

60.0 

55.0 

50.0 

45.0 

40.0 

35.0 

30.0 

25.0 

20.0 

15.0 

10.0 

5.0 

0.0 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

N = 90,971 39,904 69,712 153,546 193,574 108,001 125,135 109,360 68,926 56,899 25,464 

Year & Number (N) of Shad passed at Conowingo East Lift 

4-264 

at Holtwood 

at Safe Harbor 

at York Haven



FIGURE 4.4.2.1-2 

AMERICAN SHAD PASSAGE COUNTS AT CONOWINGO EAST FISH LIFT, 1991-2007. 

SOURCE: SRAFRC (1992-2005) AND NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES (2006-2007). 

Estimated Number of Shad X 1000 

300 

200 

100 

0 

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

4-265 

Year (1991-2007)



FIGURE 4.4.2.1-3 

UPPER CHESAPEAKE BAY JUVENILE AMERICAN SHAD GEOMETRIC MEAN CATCH 

PER EFFORT (CPUE) WITH 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS (1959-2005). SOURCE: 

ASMFC (2007). 

4-266



FIGURE 4.4.3.2-1 

MEAN MONTHLY FISHING PRESSURE (ANGLER-HOURS) IN THE CONOWINGO DAM 

TAILRACE AND TIDAL LOWER RIVER, 1981 - 1987 

4-268



FIGURE 4.6.1.1-1 

RIVERBED EMERGENT WETLANDS 

View Of Holtwood Dam From Norman Wood Bridge 

Riverbed Emergent Marsh With Scrub-Shrub Island Margin Wetland In Center Of Photo 

4-271



FIGURE 4.6.1.1-2 

WATER WILLOW AND PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE IN ROCK CREVASSES 

4-272



FIGURE 4.6.1.1-3 

RIVERBED EMERGENT WETLAND ZONES 

Water Willow Transition To Sedges 

4-273



FIGURE 4.6.2.1-2 

SOUTH SHORE OF MT. JOHNSON ISLAND 

4-276



FIGURE 4.6.2.1-3 

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION 

Dense Eurasian Milfoil 

Clusters Of SAV. Mt. Johnson Island In Background. 

4-277



FIGURE 4.6.2.1-6 

COBBLE/PEBBLE BAR AT FISHING CREEK 

Waves Break On Incipient Island Accreting At Mouth Of Fishing Creek 

4-280



FIGURE 4.6.3-1 

RIPARIAN ZONES 

Steep Topography Limits Width Of Riparian Zone At Mt. Johnson Island 

Wider Riparian Zone Below PBAPS Where Slopes Beyond Cut Bank Are Gentler 

4-282



FIGURE 4.9.2-1 

VIEW FROM HAWK’S POINT OVERLOOK 

4-291



5.0 PRELIMINARY ISSUES AND STUDIES LIST (18 C.F.R. §5.6(D)(4) 

A primary purpose of the PAD is to identify environmental resources that exist at the Project and to 

determine if additional information is needed in order to understand the effects that the Project may have 

on those affected resources. 

This section describes issues Exelon has identified that pertain to the operation of the Conowingo 

Hydroelectric Project. The issues identified are based upon the existing resource information summarized 

in Section 4. During the public scoping process, which FERC staff will initiate upon issuing Scoping 

Document 1 (SD1), Federal and state resource agencies, Indian tribes, non-governmental organizations, 

and individuals will be invited to participate in refining the resource issues to be analyzed in Exelon’s 

license application. 

5.1 Issues Pertaining to the Identified Resources 

Geology and Soils Issues 

• No issues have been identified with regard to this resource area. 

Water Quantity and Quality Issues 

• Flow management in the Lower Susquehanna River. 

Fish and Aquatic Resources Issues 

• Effects of project operations on American eel. 

• Effects of project operations on American shad. 

Wildlife and Botanical Resources Issues 


Wetlands, Riparian, and Littoral Habitat Issues 

• Effect of project water level fluctuations on wetland and littoral habitat. 

Rare, Threatened and Endangered (RTE) Species Issues 


Recreation and Land Use Issues 

• Public recreational use and status of project facilities. 

• Use and maintenance of project lands 

Aesthetic Resources Issues 


Cultural Resources Issues 

5-1



• Effect of project operations on historic properties. 

Socio-Economic Resources Issues 


Tribal Resources Issues 

• No tribal resource issues have been identified. 

5.2 Potential Studies or Information Gathering 

This section identifies potential studies or information gathering that may be needed to analyze the 

preliminary resource issues identified in Section 5.1. In accordance with 18 CFR § 5.9(a), and as 

reflected in the Process Plan and Schedule, all stakeholders will be required to file their comments on this 

PAD and the Commission staff’s Scoping Document 1 (SD1) within 60 days following the Commission’s 

notice of commencement of the licensing proceeding pursuant to 18 CFR § 5.8. As set forth by the 

Commission in 18 CFR § 5.9(b), any information gathering and study requests accompanying these 

comments must contain the following: 

• Describe the goals and objectives of each study proposal and the information to be obtained; 

• If applicable, explain the relevant resource management goals of the agencies or Indian tribes 

with jurisdiction over the resource to be studied; 

• If the requester is not a resource agency, explain any relevant public interest considerations in 

regard to the proposed study; 

• Explain any nexus between project operations and effects (direct, indirect, and/or cumulative) on 

the resource to be studied, and how the study results would inform the development of license 

requirements; 

• Describe considerations of level of effort and cost, as applicable, and why any proposed 

alternative studies would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs; 

• Explain how any proposed study methodology (including any preferred data collection and 

analysis techniques, or objectively quantified information, and a schedule including appropriate 

field season(s) and the duration) is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific 

community or, as appropriate, considers relevant tribal values and knowledge; and 

• Describe considerations of level of effort and cost, as applicable, and why any proposed 

alternative studies would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs. 

Exelon considered these criteria and the potential issues identified in Section 5.1 to identify the following 

potential studies or information gathering needs by resource area. In accordance with 18 CFR § 5.11, 

Exelon will file with the Commission its proposed study plans within 45 days following the deadline for 

filing comments on the PAD and SD1. 

Geology and Soils Issues 

• Exelon believes adequate information exists (Section 4.2) to assess this resource area as it relates 

to Project operations. 

Water Quantity and Quality Issues 

5-2



• Conowingo is the only hydroelectric project on the lower Susquehanna River with an established 

minimum flow regime. Exelon proposes to conduct an assessment to examine the impacts of 

coordinated flow releases at the Safe Harbor, Holtwood, and Conowingo hydropower projects in 

lower Susquehanna River. 

Fish and Aquatic Resources Issues 

• Exelon is proposing to complete a literature based study on American eel to: (1) summarize 

available scientific and commercial information; (2) identify suspected factors affecting the 

American eel population; (3) examine the engineering feasibility of upstream and downstream 

passage options for American eel; and (4) examine the potential impact of upstream and 

downstream passage of American eels in the Susquehanna River on the American eel population. 

• Exelon is proposing a literature based study to: (1) summarize American shad passage 

enhancement measures undertaken by hydroelectric projects on the Susquehanna River to date; 

(2) analyze available data regarding shad passage and population numbers on the Susquehanna 

River over the last three decades; (3) examine shad passage and population numbers on other 

river systems; and (4) identify factors affecting shad population and migration. 

Wildlife and Botanical Resources Issues 

• Section 4.5 describes wildlife and terrestrial botanical resources and habitats in the region 

encompassing the Project area. A number of studies have already been conducted to assess areas 

adjacent to the Conowingo Project area and provide data that generally describe the predominant 

wildlife and terrestrial botanical communities within, and in the vicinity of, the Conowingo 

Project. Therefore, Exelon believes adequate information exists to assess this resource area as it 

relates to Project operations. 

Wetlands, Riparian, and Littoral Habitat Issues 

• Exelon conducted field studies in 2007 and 2008 (Section 4.6) to investigate the character of the 

Conowingo Project shoreline and the distribution of wetland, riparian, and littoral habitats and 

vegetation. Exelon believes this information is adequate to assess this resource area as it relates 

to Project operations. 

Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species Issues 

• Prior to issuing the PAD, Exelon contacted a number of federal and state agencies regarding the 

potential presence of RTE species and critical habitats within the Conowingo Project boundary. 

In response to Exelon’s request for information, these agencies identified listed threatened or 

endangered species and non-listed rare species that occur or may be present within the 

Conowingo Project. This information, as well as data from recent studies, is set forth in Section 

4.7 Exelon believes adequate information exists to assess this resource area as it relates to Project 

operations. 

Recreation and Land Use Issues 

• Exelon proposes to complete recreation and shoreline management plans for the Project. The 

guidelines contained within these plans will address issues related to the Project’s recreation 

facilities and their use, as well as use and maintenance of Project lands. 

Aesthetic Resources Issues 

• Section 4.9 describes the landscape associated with the Conowingo Project. Exelon believes 

adequate information exists to assess this resource area as it relates to Project operations. 

5-3



Cultural Resources Issues 

• Exelon proposes to conduct a Phase 1A assessment of areas within the project lands that have a 

high potential to contain historic properties. 

• Exelon will also conduct a National Register Eligibility Assessment of potential historic 

properties associated with the Project. 

• In addition, Exelon expects to enter a Programmatic Agreement with FERC and the Maryland 

and Pennsylvania SHPO. Exelon also proposes to prepare a Historic Properties Management 

Plan for the Project. 

Socio-Economic Resources Issues 

• Section 4.11 describes the population data, economic patterns, and transportation infrastructure in 

the region surrounding the Conowingo Project. Exelon believes this information is adequate to 

assess this resource area as it relates to Project operations. 

Tribal Resources Issues 

• There are no Indian reservation lands within the Conowingo Project boundary. Exelon will 

contact the Delaware Nation, the only federally-recognized Indian tribe identified by FERC that 

may have an interest in this relicensing. 

5.3 Relevant Comprehensive Waterway Plans 

During a relicensing proceeding, Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 803(a)(2)(A), requires the 

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. 

On April 27, 1988, the FERC issued Order No. 481-A, revising Order no. 481, issued October 26, 1987, 

establishing that the FERC will accord FPA Section 10(a)(2)(A) comprehensive plan status to any federal 

or state plan that: 

Is a comprehensive study of one or more of the beneficial uses of a waterway or waterways; specifies the 

standards, the data, and the methodology used; and is filed with the Secretary of the FERC. 

FERC currently lists a total of 24 comprehensive plans for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and 17 

for the State of Maryland. Of these, the following plans are pertinent to the Susquehanna River basin: 

Pennsylvania 

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. 1998. Interstate fishery management plan for 

Atlantic striped bass. (Report No. 34). January 1998. 

5-4




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. 

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. 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. 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. 1987. Comprehensive plan for management and 

development of the water resources of the Susquehanna River Basin. Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania. June 1987. 153 pp. 

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. Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North American waterfowl 

management plan. Department of the Interior. Environment Canada. May 1986. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. The Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Basin: A component 

of the North American waterfowl management plan. December 29, 1988. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Undated. Fisheries USA: the recreational fisheries policy of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C 

Maryland 

5-5




Atlantic striped bass. (Report No. 24). March 1995. 


Management Plan for Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus). (Report No. 31). July 

1998. 


Atlantic striped bass. (Report No. 34). January 1998. 


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. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1984. Maryland rivers study - final report. 

Annapolis, Maryland. July 1984. 

Maryland Department of State Planning. 1983. Maryland recreation and open space plan, Report 

V: strategy and summary. Annapolis, Maryland. September 1983. 

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 Park Service. 1982. The nationwide rivers inventory. Department of the Interior, 

Washington, D.C. January 1982. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Revised Maryland darter recovery plan. Department of the 

Interior, Newton Corner, Massachusetts. September 1985. 

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. 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. 

5-6



5.4 Relevant Resource Management Plan 

The following resource management plan was identified that is relevant to the Project: 

Hendricks, M.L. and R. A. St. Pierre. 2002. Alosid Management and Restoration Plan for the 

Susquehanna River Basin. SRAFRC, Harrisburg, PA. 37 pp. 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission. 2006. Conowingo Pond Management Plan, Publication 

No. 242. 

5-7



6.0 LITERATURE AND INFORMATION SOURCES CITED IN THE DESCRIPTIONS 

AND SUMMARIES OF EXISTING RESOURCE DATA (18 C.F.R. §5.6(C)(2) 

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 1994. Issues Regarding Estimated Impacts of the Lower 

Susquehanna River Reservoir System on Sediment and Nutrient Discharge to Chesapeake Bay. 

Report No. 94-20. September. 20p. 

American Eel Plan Review Team. 2005. Review of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 

Fishery Management Plan for American Eel (Anguilla rostrata). 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1985. Fishery Management Plan for the 

Anadromous Alosid Stocks of the Eastern United States: American Shad, Hickory Shad, Alewife, 

and Blueback Herring: Phase II in Interstate Management Planning for Migratory Alosids of the 

Atlantic Coast. Washington, DC. 

ASMFC. 1999. Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Shad & River Herring. 

Fishery Management Report No. 35. April. 

ASMFC. 2000. Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Eel. Fishery Management Report No. 

36. April. 

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for 

Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish, Second 

Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; 

Washington, D.C. 

Beal, E.O. 1977. A Manual of Marsh and Aquatic Vascular Plants of North Carolina with Habitat Data. 

North Carolina Experiment Station, Technical Report No. 247, North Carolina State University, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. Cited in Mattrick (2001). 

Benson, L. 1982. The cacti of the United States and Canada. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 

1044 p. Cited in Taylor (2005). 

Blom, R. 1999. Conowingo Dam Annotated Checklist. Last update August 12, 1999. URL: 

http://www.harfordbirdclub.org/conolist.html 

Brauning, D.W. 1992. Atlas of Breeding Birds in Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh 

Press. 

6-1



Canberra/RMC Environmental Services, Inc. (Canberra RMC). 1986. Review of Reaeration Techniques 

at Hydroelectric Projects and Preliminary Recommendations for Conowingo Hydroelectric 

Station. Prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company, 36 pp. January. 

Carline, .R.F. and 5 co-authors. 1994-1997. Impediments to fish passage and habitat suitability for 

anadromous fish in Pennsylvania tributaries to the Susquehanna River, phases I-III. Pennsylvania 

State University School of Forest Resources, University park, PA. 

Carter III, W.R. 1973. Ecological study of Susquehanna River and tributaries below the Conowingo Dam. 

Federal Aid Report, Project No. AFSC-1, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis. 

Chapman, R.W. 1993. Genetic Investigation of the Resurgance of American Shad in the Susquehanna 

River. Final Report to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake Bay 

Research and Monitoring Division, Power Plant Topical Research Program. July. 

C. T. Main. 1987. Evaluation of Methods to Increase Dissolved Oxygen in Water Released from 

Conowingo Hydroelectric Station. Report Prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company by C. T. 

Main, Inc., Boston, MA. 

Chesapeake Executive Council. 1989. Chesapeake Bay Alosid Management Plan Agreement 

Commitment Report. Chesapeake Bay Program. July. 

Chesapeake Bay Program. 2004. Fish – American Eel. 

URL: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/Info/american_eel.cfm 

Cheasapeake Bay River Input Monitoring Program, 2008. Last modified: May 25, 2007. 

URL: http://va.water.usgs.gov/chesbay/RIMP/loads.html 

Cholewa, A.F. and F.D. Johnson. 1983. Secondary succession in the Pseudotsuga menziesii/Phyaocarpus 

malvaceus association. Northwest Science. 57(4): 273-282. Cited in Habeck (1992). 

Citizens United. 2008. On-line Guide to Plants of Southern New Jersey. Vernonia glauca Plant Profile. 

Available on-line at: http://www.cumauriceriver.org/botany/Vernonia_glauca.html. Site accessed 

August 22, 2008. 

Clare, Israel Smith. 1892. Brief History of Lancaster County: With Special Reference to the growth and 

development of its institutions. Lancaster, PA: Argus Publishing Company. 

6-2



Cohen, M. 2004. Phase I Conservation Plan. Pennsylvania Important Bird Area #57 – Lower 

Susquehanna River Gorge. May 2004. 11p. URL: 

http://pa.audubon.org/IBA_Consplans/IBA57.pdf. 

Coladonato, M. 1991. Juglans cinerea. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory 

(Producer). Available on-line at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2008, August 20]. 

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2002. COSEWIC Assessment 

and Update Status Report on the Small-flowered Lipocarpha Lipocarpha micrantha in Cananda. 

Ottawa. vi + 16 pp. URL: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/CW69-14-255-2003E.pdf. 

Available on-line at http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Epubs/epub_author01-e.html. Site last updated 

May 15, 2005. 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 2006. The Pennsylvania Code: Chapter 93. Water Quality Standards. 

URL: http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter93/chap93toc.html 

Connecticut Botanical Society. 2005. Narrow-leaved Spleenwort (Narrow-leaved Glade Fern), 

Diplazium pycnocarpon (Athyrium pycnocarpon, Asplenium pycnocarpon). Available on-line at 

http://ct-botanical-society.org/ferns/diplaziumpycn.html. Site last updated November 25, 2005. 

Site accessed August 15, 2008.Conowingo DO. 1969-1991: Annual reports on Anadromous 

Fish/DO Surveillance Below Conowingo Dam. Prepared for Philadelphia Electric Company. 

Cooper, E.C. 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania. Penn State University Press, University Park. 243 pp. 

Correll D.S. and H.B. Correll. 1972. Aquatic Plants and Wetland Plants of Southwestern United States. 

EPA Research and Monitoring, Water Pollution Control Research Series, U.S. Government 

Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA. Cited in Mattrick (2001).Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. 

Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United 

States. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-79/31. December. 

131p. 

Crable, A. 2000. A Site for Gulls and Bald Eagles. Birder’s World. Vol. 14, No. 1. pp. 56-61. 

Custer, Jay F. 1996. Prehistoric Cultures of Eastern Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum 

Commission, Harrisburg. 

6-3



Discover Life in America All Taxa Biodiveristy Inventory (DLIA/ATBI). Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park. Available on-line at: http://www.dlia.org/atbi/species/index.shtml. Site accessed 

August 20, 2008. 

Eisendrath, E.R. 1978. Missouri Wildflowers of the St. Louis Area. Monographs in Systematic Botany 

from MBG. Missouri Botanic Garden, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. Cited in Mattrick (2001). 

Environmental Resources Management (ERM). 1981. Resident Fisheries Survey, Lower Susquehanna 

River, Maryland, Final Report. Prepared for Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Power 

Plant Siting Program. May. 

Environment Canada. 2008. Species at Risk Public Registry, [Online]. Available on-line at: 

http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/. Species Profile Eastern Prickly Pear Cactus. URL: 

http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=188. Site last updated August 

21, 2008. 

Euston, E.T. and D. Mathur. 1979. Effects of heated discharges on the winter fishery in Conowingo Pond, 

Pennsylvania. Proceedings of the PA Academy of Science 53:156-160. 

Euston, E.T. and J.M. Rinehart. 1984. Increased harvest of striped bass in the sport fishery of the lower 

Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam, Maryland. Presented at 114 th Annual Meeting of the 

American Fisheries Society, Ithaca, NY. 

Evergreen. 2008. Native Plant Database. Plant Detail, Myosotis macrosperma. Available on-line at: 

http://www.evergreen.ca/nativeplants/search/view-plant.php?ID=05395. Site accessed August 

20, 2008. 

Exelon Generating Company, LLC. (Exelon) 2001. License Renewal Application, Peach Bottom Atomic 

Power Station Units 2 and 3, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278. Appendix E – Environmental 

Report. July. 

Exelon. 2008. Synthesis of Historical Studies Relative to the Effects and/or Operation of Conowingo 

Hydro Station on Tailrace Dissolved Oxygen Conditions and Compliance with the Maryland 

State Standards. Final Draft. 

Fagan, Brian M. 2000. Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Third edition. 

Thames & Hudson, New York, NY. 

Farr, P.M. 1988a. Protection Area Summary. South Lapidum. September 29, 1988. 

6-4



Farr, P.M. 1988b. Protection Area Summary. Glen Cove Marina. December 7, 1988. 

Farr, P.M. 1988c. Protection Area Summary. Bald Hill. November 22, 1988. 

Farr, P.M. 1988d. Protection Area Summary. Northern Susquehanna Canal. October 26, 1988. 

Farr, P.M. 1988e. Protection Area Summary. Deer Creek. December 15, 1988. 

Farr, P.M. 1988f. Protection Area Summary. Broad Creek Woods. December 16, 1988. 

Farr, P.M. 1988g. Protection Area Summary. Stafford Road Slopes. December 21, 1988. 

Farr, P.M. 1988h. Protection Area Summary. I-95 Crossing. October 29, 1988. 

Farrar, D. 1993. Vittariaceae. In Flora of North America North of Mexico, Vol. 2. Flora of North America 

Editorial Committee (ed.). Oxford University Press, NY. Cited in NatureServe (2008). 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1989. Order Approving Settlement Agreement for the 

Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, Project No. 405-009. Docket No. EL80-38-000. January 24, 

1989. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1996. Order Determining Headwater Benefits in the 

Susquehanna River Basin. Docket No. HB52-92-3-003. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2004. Evaluation of Mitigation Effectiveness at 

Hydropower Projects: Fish Passage. September. 63p. 

Fernald, M.L. 1950. Gray’s Manual of Botany. Dioscorides Press, Portland, Oregon, USA. Cited in 

Ramstetter and Mott-White (2000); Plants for a Future (2008). 

Fernald, M.L. 1970. Gray's Manual of Botany. 8th edition. D. Van Nostrand, New York. 1632 pp. Cited 

in NYNHP (2008b). 

Fike, J. 1999. Terrestrial & Palustrine Plant Communities of Pennsylvania. 

Fischer, R.A., C.O. Martin, J.T. Ratti, and J. Guidice. 2000. Riparian Terminology: Confusion and 

Clarification. ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-25. United States Army Engineer Research and 

Development Center. Vicksburg, MS. URL: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr25.pdf 

Fleming, G.P., P.P. Coulling, K.D. Patterson, and K. Taverna. 2006. The natural communities of Virginia: 

classification of ecological community groups. Second approximation. Version 2.2. Virginia 

Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. 

6-5



Available on-line at: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/ncintro.shtml. Site accessed 

August 20, 2008. 

Flora of North America (FNA) Editorial Committee. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 

12+ vols. New York and Oxford. Available on-line at: 

http://www.efloras.org/flora_page.aspx?flora_id=1. Site accessed August 21, 2008. 

Flora of North America (FNA) Editorial Committee. 2002. Flora of North America. Vol. 23. 

Cyperaceae. Oxford University Press, Oxford. P. 71, 83-84. Cited in LeBlanc (2003). 

Foster, S. and J.A. Duke. 1990. A Field Guide to Medicinal Plants. Eastern and Central N. America. 

Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston. Cited in Plants for a Future (2008). 

Foster A. M., P. Fuller, A. Benson, S. Constant, and D. Raikow. 2006. Corbicula fluminea. USGS 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL. 

Funk, James A. 1978. Post –Pleistocene Adaptations. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 

15: The Northeast. Edited by Bruce Trigger, pp. 16-28. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington 

D.C. 

Gardner, William M. 1980. The Archaic. Paper presented at the 10 th Annual Middle Atlantic 

Archaeological Conference, Dover, Delaware. 

Gellis, A., S. Smith, and S. Stewart. 2003. Watershed Sediment Sources. In: M. Langland and T. Cronin 

(editors). A Summary Report of Sediment Processes in Chesapeake Bay and Watershed. United 

States Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4123. pp. 29-33. 

Gellis,A., W.S.L. Banks, M.J. Langland, and S.K. Martucci, 2005. Summary of Suspended-Sediment 

Data for Streams Draining the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Water Years 1952-2002. United 

States Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5056. 59p. 

George, D.W. and B.C. Fischer. 1989. The effect of site and age on tree regeneration in young upland 

hardwood clearcuts. In: Rink, G. and C.A. Budelsky, eds. Proceedings, 7th Central Hardwood 

Conference; 1989 March 5-8; Carbondale, IL. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-132. St. Paul, MN: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station: 40-47. 

Cited in Coladonato (1991). 

Gerstell, R. 1998. American shad-a 300 year history in the Susquehanna River Basin. The Penn State 

University Press, University park, PA. 217 pp. 

6-6



Geyer, A.R. and W.H. Bolles. 1979. Outstanding Scenic Geological Features of Pennsylvania. 

Pennsylvania Geologic Survey. Environmental Geology Report 7. 508p. 

Gleason, H.A. and A.C. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and 

Adjacent Canada. D. Van Nostrand Company, New York, USA. 910 pp. Cited in Ramstetter and 

Mott-White (2000); NatureServe (2008); KYNPC (2006b); NYNHP (2008b). 

Grunwald, C., J. Stabile, J.R. Waldman, R. Gross, and I. Wirgin. 2002. Population genetics of shortnose 

sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum based on mitochondrial DNA control region sequences. 

Molecular Ecology 11(10):1885-1898. 

Habeck, R.J. 1992. Maianthemum stellatum. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences 

Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2008, August 20]. 

Hainly, R.A., L.A. Reed, H.N. Flippo, Jr., and G.J. Barton. 1995. Deposition and Simulation of 

Sediment Transport in the Lower Susquehanna River Reservoir System. United States 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4122. 39p. Hanson, A.C. (editor). 

1787. Laws of Maryland: made since M,DCC,LXIII, [1763] consisting of acts of Assembly under 

the proprietary government, resolves of convention, the Declaration of rights, the constitution and 

form of government, the Articles of confederation, and, acts of Assembly since the revolution. 

(Annapolis: Frederick Green, 1787). From Archives of Maryland Online Accessed December 

19, 2006. 

Harrison, J.W. 2004. Classification of vegetation communities of Maryland: First iteration. NatureServe 

and Maryland Natural Heritage Program, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Maryland Department of 

Natural Resources. Annapolis, MD. 

URL: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/revisedmdclassification.pdf 

Hendricks, M.L. 2006. Analysis of Adult American Shad Otoliths, 2005. Job V – Task 2. In: 

Restoration of the American Shad to the Susquehanna River. Annual Progress Report, 2005. 

Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Committee. February. 

Henson, J.F. 2001. Goldenseal, Hydrastis canadensis L. Plant Guide. Prepared by USDA NRCS 

National Plant Data Center. December 6, 2001. A reproduction of: Sinclair, A. and P.M Catling. 

2001. Cultivating the increasingly popular medicinal plant, goldenseal: Review and update. 

American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 16 (3), 131-40. Available on-line at 

6-7



http://plants.usda.gov/java/nameSearch?keywordquery=goldenseal&mode=comname&submit.x= 

15&submit.y=8. Site accessed August 15, 2008. 

Herman, J., C. Hupp, and M. Langland. 2003. Watershed Sediment Deposition and Storage. In: M. 

Langland and T. Cronin (editors). A Summary Report of Sediment Processes in Chesapeake Bay 

and Watershed. United States Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03- 

4123. pp. 42-48. 

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. In: Susquehanna River Basin 

Commission Publication 239. Comprehensive Analysis of the Sediments Retained Behind 

Hydroelectric Dams of the Lower Susquehanna River. Appendix A. 

Hilty, J. 2008. Illinois Wildflowers. Available on-line at http://www.illinoiswildflowers.info/. Site 

accessed August 20, 2008.Historical Society of Cecil County. 2006. Formation of Cecil County. 

Electronic document, cchistory.org, accessed May 24. 

Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of 

Washington Press. 730 p. Cited in Habeck (1992). 

Hoagland, B.W., I. Butler, and N.A. McCarty. 2001. Identification and Assessment of Ecologically 

Significant Wetland Communities in North Central, Northwestern, and the Panhandle of 

Oklahoma: Final Report. Oklahoma Biological Survey/Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory. 

University of Oklahoma. 39pp. Available on-line at: http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/report.html. 

Site last updated January 5, 2006. Site accessed August 20, 2008. 

Hoffman, J. L.R. 2004. The 2004 Susquehanna River Basin Water Quality Assessment Report. April 30, 

2004. 269 p. 

Ichthyological Associates, Inc. 1976. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Postoperational Report No. 5 

on the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period of July 1975-December 1975. Prepared for 

Philadelphia Electric Company. 

Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS). 2004. Opheodrys aestivus -- Rough Greensnake. Amphibian and 

Reptile Collection URL: http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/cbd/herpdist/species/op_aestivu.html. Site last 

updated July 23, 2004. 

6-8



Iverson, L.R., D. Ketzner, and J. Karnes. 1999. Illinois Plant Information Network (ILPIN). Database at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/delaware/ilpin/ilpin.html. Illinois Natural History Survey and USDA 

Forest Service. Site accessed May 9, 2007. 

Jackson, J.K., A.D. Huryn, D.L. Strayer, D.L. Courtemanch, and B.W. Sweeney. 2005. Atlantic Coast 

Rivers of the Northeastern United States. In: A. Benke and C. Cushing (eds.). Rivers of North 

America. Academic Press. 1168 pp. 

Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, 

Bethesda, Maryland. 

Justice, N.D. 1987. Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. 

Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana. 

Kaul, R.P. and K.H. Keeler. 1980. Effects of grazing and juniper canopy closure on the prairie flora in 

Nebraska high-plains canyons. In: Kucera, Clair L., ed. Proceedings, 7th North American prairie 

conference; 1980 August 4-6; Springfield, MO. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri: 95-105. 

Cited in Taylor (2005). 

Keever, C. 1972. Evaluation of the Ferncliff Wildlife and Wildflower Preserve. July. 15 p. 

Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (KYNPC). 2006a. Rand's Goldenrod, Solidago simplex 

ssp. randii var. racemosa. Available on-line at: 

http://eppcapps.ky.gov/nprareplants/details.aspx?species=Solidago%20simplex%20ssp.%20randi 

i%20var.%20racemosa. Site last updated April 2006. Site accessed August 15, 2008. 

KYNPC. 2006b. Swamp Wedgescale, Sphenopholis pensylvanica. Available on-line at: 

http://eppcapps.ky.gov/nprareplants/details.aspx?species=Sphenopholis%20pensylvanica. Site 

last updated April 2006. Site accessed August 20, 2008. 

Kleinschmidt Associates (Kleinschmidt). 2005. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plant Species. Results 

of 2005 Survey at the Holtwood Hydroelectric Project. September 2005. 

Kleinschmidt. 2006. Holtwood Redevelopment Project, Bald Eagle and Osprey Report. December 

2006. 

Kleinschmidt. 2007. Environmental Report. Holtwood Hydroelectric Station. FERC No. 1881. Volume 2 

of 2. December 2007. 

6-9



Kling, G.J., C.P. Lindsey, and M.E. Zampardo. 2008. University of Illinois, UI Plants: Woody 

Ornamentals. Mangolia tripetala, Umbrella magnolia. Available on-line at: 

http://woodyplants.nres.uiuc.edu/plant/magtr. Site accessed August 21, 2008. 

Knapp, W.M. and C.T. Frye. 2002. Ecologically Significant Areas in Somerset County. Sites Newly 

Identified or Updated in 2001. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and 

Heritage Service. February 2002. 

Koslow, D, B. O’Roarke, J. Fary, D. Sutherland, and J. Thompson. 2001. Spring 2000 Monitoring Annual 

Progress Report. MDNR, Fish Passage Program, Annapolis, MD. 

Kraft, H. C. 1986. The Lenape: Archaeology, History, and Ethnography. New Jersey Historical Society, 

Newark. 

Kraft, H.C. and RA. Mounier. 1982. The Archaic Period in New Jersey. In: New Jersey’s 

Archaeological Resources From the Paleo-Indian Period to the Present: A Review of Research 

Problems and Survey Priorities, edited by Olga Chesler, pp. 52-102, Office of Cultural and 

Environmental Services, Trenton, New Jersey. 

Kunsman, J. 2006. Inventory of Plant Species of Special Concern at Gettysburg National Military Park 

and Eisenhower National Historic Site. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2006/042. National 

Park Service. Philadelphia, PA. June 2006. Available on-line at: 

http://www.nps.gov/nero/science/FINAL/GETT-EISE_T+Eplants/GETT-EISE_T+Eplants.htm. 

Lackschewitz, K. 1991. Vascular plants of west-central Montana--identification guidebook. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. INT-227. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station. 648 p. Cited in Habeck (1992). 

Lancaster Guide. 1973. Guide to Lancaster and South-Central Pennsylvania. Lancaster Guide, Lititz, 

Pennsylvania. 

Lancaster York Heritage Region (LYHR). 2006. URL: http://www.lyhr.org. 

Langland, M.J. 2008. Personal Communication. United States Geological Survey. 

Langland, M.J., D.L. Moyer, and J. Blomquist. 2007. Changes in Streamflow, Concentrations, and Loads 

in Selected Nontidal Basins in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 1985-2006. United States 

Geological Survey Open File Report 2007-1372. 68p. 

6-10



Langland, M.J. 1998. Changes in Sediment and Nutrient Storage in Three Reservoirs in the Lower 

Susquehanna River Basin and Implications for the Chesapeake Bay. United States Geological 

Survey Fact Sheet 003-98. March. 

Langland, M.J. and R.A. Hainly, 1997. Changes in Bottom-Surface Elevations in Three Reservoirs on 

the Lower Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania and Maryland, Following the January 1996 Flood – 

Implications for Nutrient and Sediment Loads to Chesapeake Bay. United States Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4138. 34p with plates. 

Langland, M.J., D.L. Moyer, and J. Blomquist. 2007. Changes in Streamflow, Concentrations, and Loads 

in Selected Nontidal Basins in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 1985-2006. United States 

Geological Survey Open File Report 2007-1372. 68p. 

Langland, M., T.Cronin, and S. Phillips, 2003. Executive summary. In: M. Langland and T. Cronin 

(editors). A Summary Report of Sediment Processes in Chesapeake Bay and Watershed. United 

States Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4123. pp. 1-20. 

Lathrop, B. 2006a. Personal communication. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

September 27 (email). 

Lathrop, B. 2006b. Personal communication. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

October 11 (phone). 

LeBlanc, D. 2003. Conservation Assessment for Flatstem Spike-Rush (Eleocharis compressa) Sullivant. 

USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region. URL: http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/tes/caoverview/docs/plant_Eleocharis_compressa-Flatstem_Spike_Rush.pdf. 

Available on-line at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/tes/ca-overview/plants.html. Site accessed August 20, 2008. 

Leggett, W.C. and J.E. Carscadden. 1978. Latitudinal variation in reproductive characteristics of 

American shad (Alosa sapidissima): evidence for population specific life history strategies. 

Journal of the Fisheries Board of Canada. 35:1469-1478. 

Lindsey, B.D., K.J. Breen, M.D. Bilger, and R.A. Brightbill. 1998. Water Quality in the Lower 

Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland: 1992-1995. United States Geological 

Survey Circular 1168. 38p. 

Lippson, A.J. and R.L. Lippson. 1984. Life in the Chesapeake Bay. The Johns Hopkins University press, 

Baltimore, MD. 229 pp. 

6-11



Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway. 2006. History of Lower Susquehanna Region. Electronic 

document. URL: http://www.hitourtrails.com/history.html, accessed May 24, 2006. 

Lukacovic, R. 1998. Mortality of American shad Alosa sapidissima caught and released by anglers below 

Conowingo Dam. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis. 10 pp. 

Lukacovic, R. and L. Pieper. 1996. An evaluation of the short term mortality rate of hickory shad, Alosa 

mediocris, caught and released by fly fishermen in Deer Creek, Maryland. Maryland Department 

of Natural Resources, Annapolis. 

Machut, L.S., K.E. Limburg, R.E. Schmidt, and D. Dittman. 2007. Anthropogenic impacts on American 

eel demographics in Hudson River tributaries, New York. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 136:1699-1713. 

Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP). 2004. Lipocarpha micrantha (Vahl) G. Tucker, Dwarf Bulrush. 

Rare Plant Fact Sheet PMCYP0H040. Biological and Conservation Database. Available on-line 

at: http://www.mainenaturalareas.org/docs/rare_plants/factsheets.php. Site accessed August 20, 

2008. 

Mangold, M., S. Eyler, S. Minkinnen, and B. Richardson. 2007. Atlantic sturgeon reward program for 

Maryland waters of the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries, 1996-2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Annapolis, MD. 

Markham, C.A. and D.R. Weinrich. 1994. Maryland’s upper Chesapeake Bay American shad survey: an 

overview. Pages 97-107 in Anadromous Alosa Symposium, Tidewater Chapter, American 

Fisheries Society. 

Martin Marietta Corporation. 1982. Benthic Invertebrate Communities in the Fluctuating Riverine 

Habitat below Conowingo Dam. Maryland Power Plant Siting Program, UBLS-82-1. 

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2006. 2006 List of Impaired Surface Waters [303(d) 

List] and Integrated Assessment of Water Quality in Maryland. Draft. January. URL: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/TMDL/Maryland%20303%20dlist/2006_ 

draft_303d_list_PN.asp. 

MDE. 2008. Current Water Quality Standards (COMAR 26.08.02). URL. 

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/idq_files/search.idq 

6-12



Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 1998. Nontidal Wetlands of Special State 

Concern. Digital Map. URL: www.msgic.state.md.us/techtool 

MDNR. 1998a. Protection Area Summary. Susquehanna Floodplain. 

MDNR. 1998b. Protection Area Summary. Susquehanna Slopes. 

MDNR. 2000. 2000 Maryland Section 305(b) Water Quality Report. August. 

MDNR. 2004. Maryland Biological Stream Survey, Data Summary for: CDAM-212-R-2004. 

URL: http://mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/mbss/SA_site2k.cfm?siteyr=CDAM-212-R-2004. 

MDNR. 2004a. Current and Historical Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species of Cecil County, 

Maryland. May 10. URL: 

MDNR. 2004b. Current and Historical Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species of Harford County, 

Maryland. May 10. URL: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/rte/rte04harf.pdf 

MDNR. 2005. Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Management Plan: Alosids. 

URL: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/management/FMP/FMPAlosines04.pdf. 

MDNR. 2006a. Hickory Shad Fact Sheet 

URL: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/education/hi_shad/hickshad.html. 

MDNR. 2006b. White Perch Fact Sheet. 

URL: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/education/whiteperch/wperch.html. 

MDNR. 2006c. Freshwater fishing hotspots: Deer Creek. 

URL: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/recreational/fwhotdeercr.html. 

MDNR. 2006d. DNR and Exelon Generation announce public access improvements at Conowingo Dam. 

URL: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/dnrnews/pressrelease2006/040306b.html. 

MDNR. 2006. Conowingo Reservoir, Harford/Cecil County. Federal Aid Report. 

MDNR. 2006. Susquehanna River, Harford and Cecil Counties. Federal Aid Report. 

MDNR. 2007. Explanation of Rank and Status Codes. December 20, 2007. Prepared by MDNR, 

Wildlife and Heritage Service, Natural Heritage Program. Site available at: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/rte/rank_status.pdf. Available on-line at: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/rteanimals.asp. Site last updated December 20, 2007. 

Maryland Historic Trust (MHT), various years: 

6-13



• Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) Property Detail Report, Rowlandsville Iron 

Train Bridge, CE-881. 

• Determination of Eligibility Form (DOE), Bridge 7026, CE-1482. 

• MIHP Property Detail Report, Railroad Bridge Pilings across the Susquehanna, Havre De Grace, 

HA-836. 

• National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Detail Report, Havre De Grace Historic District, 

HA-1617. 

• MIHP Property Detail Report, Rock Run Bridge Piers, HA-196. 

• MIHP Property Detail Report, Lapidum Warehouse Wharf Site, Darlington, HA-376. 

• DOE Form, Stafford Run over Herring Run, Bridge H-19, Harford County, HA-1877. 

• NRHP Detail Report, Port Deposit Historic District, CE-1291. 

• DOE Form, US 1 over Susquehanna River/ Conowingo Dam, Bridge 12001, HA-1971. 

Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Service (MDWHS). 2007. Virginia Mallow. Endangered Plants of 

Maryland. Endangered Plant Fact Sheets. Available on-line at: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/rtevirginiamallow.asp. Site last updated January 18, 2007. 

Site accessed August 20, 2008. 

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MADFW). 2004. Hitchcock's Sedge, Carex 

hitchcockiana. Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. Updated July 2004. 

Available on-line at 

http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/species_info/mesa_list/mesa_list.htm. Site accessed 

August 15, 2008. 

Mathur, D., T.W. Robbins and E.J Purdy, Jr. 1980. Assessment of thermal discharges on zooplankton in 

Conowingo Pond, Pennsylvania. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40:2144- 

2152. 

Mathur, D., E.S., McClellan, and S.A. Haney. 1988. Effects of Discharge Schemes on Dissolved 

Oxygen at a Hydroelectric Station. Water Resources Bulletin. 24: 159-167. February. 

Mattrick, C. 2001. Rotala ramosior (L.) Koehne (Toothcup) Conservation and Research Plan. New 

England Wild Flower Society, Framingham, Massachusetts, USA. URL: 

http://www.newfs.org/docs/pdf/Rotalaramosoior.pdf. Available on-line at: 

6-14



http://www.newfs.org/protect/rare-plants-and-conservation/conservation-research- 

plans/conservation-and-research-plans.html. Site last updated December 17, 2007. 

McCarthy, K.A. 1988a. Protection Area Summary. Wildcat Ravine. December 1988. 

McCarthy, K.A. 1988b. Protection Area Summary. Bald Friar Ravine. December 1988. 

McConaughy, M.A., 1997. Central Pennsylvania Birdline. State Museum of Pennsylvania and Patriot- 

News. May 1, 1997. URL: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgibin/wa?A2=ind9705a&L=birdeast&P=67. 

McWilliams, G.M. and D.W. Brauning. 2000. The Birds of Pennsylvania. Ithaca: Cornell University 

Press. 479 pp. 

Merriman, P.R. 1930. The Flora of Richmond and Vicinity (Exclusive of grasses, sedges, and trees). 

Virginia Academy of Science, Committee on Virginia Flora, Richmond, Virginia, USA. Cited in 

Mattrick (2001). 

Merritts, D. and R. Walter. 2003. Colonial mill ponds of Lancaster County Pennsylvania as a major 

source of sediment pollution to the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay. Southeast Friends of 

the Pleistocene Guidebook, Fall 2003 Field Trip. October 17-19, 2003. 

Millard, C.J., P.F. Kazyak, and D.M. Boward. 1999. Lower Susquehanna Basin, Environmental 

Assessment of Stream Conditions. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Resource 

Assessment Service, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division. Chesapeake Bay and 

Watershed Programs, CBWP-MANTA-EA-99-10. September. 

Millard, C.J., P.F. Kazyak, and A.P. Prochaska. 2001. Cecil County, Results of the 1994-1997 Maryland 

Biological Stream Survey: County Assessments. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 

Resource Assessment Service, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division. Chesapeake Bay 

and Watershed Programs, CBWP-MANTA-EA-01-22. December. 

Minkinnen, S. and I. Park. 2008. American eel sampling at Conowingo Dam 2007. Preliminary Draft 

Document. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, MD. 

Missouri Botanical Garden (MBG). 2008. PlantFinder Database [Online]. Available on-line at: 

http://www.mobot.org/gardeninghelp/plantfinder/Alpha.asp. Site accessed August 22, 2008. 

National Land Cover Dataset. 2001. 

6-15



National Marine Fisheries Service & United States Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS & USFWS). 2005. 

Atlantic Striped Bass Studies: 2005 Biennial Report to Congress. 

Nature Conservancy. 2004. York County Natural Areas Inventory. Pennsylvania Science Office. 

October 2004 (amended). 

Nature Conservancy. 1990. A Natural Areas Inventory of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania 

Science Office. June 1990. 

Nature Conservancy. 1993. Lancaster County Natural Areas Inventory Update. Pennsylvania Science 

Office. April 1993. 

NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.0. 

NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: 

August 20, 2008). 

Nelson, K. 2006. Personal Communication. Susquehanna River Basin Commission. 

New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP). 2008a. Online Conservation Guide for Carex davisii. 

Available from: http://www.acris.nynhp.org/guide.php?id=9474. Accessed August 20 th , 2008. 

NYNHP. 2008b. Online Conservation Guide for Carex emoryii. Available from: 

http://www.acris.nynhp.org/report.php?id=9478. Accessed August 20 th , 2008. 

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 1997. A report on the assessment of fish populations and thermal 

conditions in Conowingo Pond relative to the variable cooling tower operation at the Peach 

Bottom Atomic Power Station. Prepared for PECO Energy Company, Philadelphia, PA. 

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 1998; 1999; 2000. Reports on the Thermal Conditions and 

Fish Populations in Conowingo Pond Relative to Zero Cooling Tower Operation at the Peach 

Bottom Atomic Power Station (June-October 1997, 1998, and 1999). Prepared for PECO Energy 

Company. 

Normandeau. 2001. Cooling Water Intake Structure Assessment for the Delta Power Plant Project. 

Report prepared for Conectiv Mid-Merit, Inc. April. 

Normandeau. 2001. Adult American shad movement in the vicinity of Conowingo and Holtwood 

Hydroelectric Stations, Susquehanna River, during spring 2001. Prepared for U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, PPL Holtwood LLC, and Exelon. 

6-16



Normandeau. 2002. Report on biomonitoring for juvenile alosids by pushnet in Conowingo Reservoir in 

2002. Prepared for Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, State College, PA 

Normandeau. 2003. Report on biomonitoring for juvenile alosids by pushnet in Conowingo Reservoir in 

2002. Prepared for Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, State College, PA 

Normandeau. 2003. Description of Ecological Studies Conducted on the Lower Susquehanna River. 

Prepared for Susquehanna Electric Company and Exelon Energy Corporation. 

Normandeau. 2006a. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Survey in the Vicinity of the Holtwood Hydroelectric 

Project. Report Prepared for Kleinschmidt Associates. January. 

Normandeau. 2006b. Characterization of Mussel Habitat Utilization in the Vicinity of the Holtwood 

Hydroelectric Project. Report Prepared for Kleinschmidt Associates. March. 

Normandeau. 2006c. Personal communication. May. 

Normandeau. 2009. DRAFT. Upstream migration of adult American shad in Conowingo Pond relative to 

Muddy Run Pumped Storage Station and Holtwood Hydroelectric Station, Susquehanna River, 

spring 2008. Prepared for Exelon. 

North Carolina State University (NCSU). 2008. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Plant 

Fact Sheets. Available on-line at: 

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/consumer/factsheets/index.html. Site accessed August 22, 

2008. 

Nowacki, G.J., M.D. Abrams, and C.G. Lorimer. 1990. Composition, structure, and historical 

development of northern red oak stands along an edaphic gradient in north-central Wisconsin. 

Forest Science. 36(2): 276-292. Cited in Coladonato (1991). 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (OHDNR). 2008. Rare Native Ohio Plants 2008-2009 Status List 

Abstracts. Division of Natural Areas and Preserves. Available on-line at 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/tabid/2018/Default.aspx. Site visited August 20, 2008. 

Orth, R.J., D.J. Wilcox, L.S. Nagey, A.L. Owens, J.R. Whiting, and A.K. Kenne. 2007. 2006 Distribution 

of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Bays. VIMS Special 

Scientific Report #150. December 2007. URL: http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav06/index.html. 

Pardoe, H.C. 1895. Up the Susquehanna. New York: Hunt & Eaton. 

6-17



Pazzaglia, F.J. and T.W. Gardner. 1993. Fluvial terraces of the Lower Susquehanna River. 

Geomorphology. 8(83-113). 

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS) Pre- and Postoperational Reports, 1974-1980; 


Peng, C. I. 1989. The systematics and evolution of Ludwigia section Microcarpium (Onagraceae). Annals 

of the Missouri Botanical Garden 76: 221-302. Cited in Ramstetter and Mott-White (2000). 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). 2006. 2006 Pennsylvania 

Integrated List of All Waters. 

http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/watersupply/cwp/view.asp?a=1261&q=480056#List 

Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources (PADCNR). 2008. Heritage Geology Definitions. URL: 

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/pnhp/pnhpdef.aspx 

Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC). 2006. Black-crowned night-heron. URL: 

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=486&q=167170. 

Pennsylvania Geological Survey (PGS). 2001. Bedrock Geology of Pennsylvania. Edition 1.0. URL: 

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/map1/bedmap.aspx 

Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program (PNHP). 2008. Species Fact Sheet. Available on-line at: 

http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/Factsheets.aspx. Site accessed August 21, 2008. 

PNHP. 2008. Natural Heritage Inventory of Lancaster County - Update 2008. Pennsylvania Natural 

Heritage Program and Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. Middletown, PA. 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PADCNR). 2006. URL: 

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/stateparks/parks. 

PADCNR. Bureau of Forestry. 1999. 86p. June 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC). 2004. Commercial Shad Landings. URL: 

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/education/whereshaddata.pdf 

PFBC. 2005. PFBC probing infection impacting young smallmouth bass in Susquehanna watershed. 

Press Release. July 26. 

PFBC. 2006. Endangered and Threatened Species of Pennsylvania Website, URL: 

http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/etspecis.htm 

6-18



PFBC. Year unknown. Migratory Fish Restoration and Passage on the Susquehanna River. 

Pennsylvania State Climate Office. URL: http://climate.met.psu.edu/data/IA/ 

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC), 2005. Electric Utility Operation Report. March. 

Penskar, M.R., E.G. Choberka, and P.J. Higman. 2001. Special Plant Abstract for Hydrastis canadensis 

(goldenseal). Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Lansing, MI. 3 pp. Available on-line at: 

http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/explorer/species.cfm?id=14625. Site accessed August 20, 2008. 

Perles, S.J., G.S. Podneisinski, W.A. Millinor, and L.A. Sneddon. 2006. Vegetation Classification and 

Mapping at Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historic Park. Draft 

Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--XXXX/XXX. National Park Service. Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania. Cited in Kunsman (2006). 

Pfister, R.D., B.L. Kovalchik, S.F. Arno, and R.C. Presby. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. INT-34. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain. 

PPL Holtwood, LLC and Kleinschmidt Associates (PPL and Kleinschmidt). 2006. Initial Consultation 

Document for License Amendment. Holtwood Hydroelectric Station. FERC No. 1881. March 

2006. 

Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO). 1972. Application for New License for the Conowingo 

Hydroelectric Project. No. 405. November. 

PECO. 1989a. Evaluation of Turbine Aeration Tests at Conowingo Hydroelectric Station, Project No. 

405. January. 

PECO. 1989b. Licensees’ Procedures to Ensure that Maryland’s Dissolved Oxygen Standard is met in 

Releases from Conowingo Hydroelectric Station, Project No. 405. July. 

PECO. 1990. Evaluation of Turbine Aeration Tests in 1989 at Conowingo Hydroelectric Station, Project 

No. 405. 

Phillips, S.W. and B.D. Lindsey. 2003. The Influence of Ground Water on Nitrogen Delivery to the 

Chesapeake Bay. United States Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-091-03. 

Plants for a Future. 2008. Species Database. Available on-line at: http://www.pfaf.org/index.php. Site 

accessed August 22, 2008. 

6-19



Plosila, D.S. 1961. Lower Susquehanna River sport fishery survey, 1958-1960. Pages 55-76 in The 

Susquehanna River Fishery Study, 1957-1960. Contribution No. 169, Maryland Department of 

Research and Education, Solomons, MD. 

PPL Holtwood, LLC (PPL). 2006. Impoundment Fluctuation Report. FERC Project No. 1881. Holtwood 

Hydroelectric Station. April. 

Raber, P. 1985. Environmental and Culture History in Pennsylvania. In: A Comprehensive State Plan 

for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources, Vol. II, prepared by Paul Raber, pp. 5–22. 

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. 

Ramstetter, J. and J. Mott-White. 2000. New England Plant Conservation Program Conservation and 

Research Plan – Ludwigia polycarpa Short & Peter, Many-Fruited False-Loosestrife. Prepared for 

New England Wild Flower Society. URL: 

http://www.newfs.org/docs/pdf/Ludwigiapolycarpa.pdf. Available on-line at 

http://www.newfs.org/protect/rare-plants-and-conservation/conservation-researchplans/conservation-and-research-plans.html. 

Site last updated December 17, 2007. 

Read, A.N. 2004. Characterizing American Shad Spawning Habitat in the Upper Roanoke River Basin, 

Virginia. M.S. Thesis. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 

Reed, L.A. and S.A. Hoffman. 1997. Sediment Deposition in Lake Clarke, Lake Aldred, and Conowingo 

Reservoir, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1910-93. US Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 96-4048. 14p with plates. 

Reed, P.G., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northeast (Region 1). U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 88(26.1). May 1988. 111 pp. 

Reusser, L.J., P.R. Bierman, M.J. Pavich, E. Zen, J. Larsen, and R. Finkel. 2004. Rapid late Pleistocene 

incision of Atlantic passive-margin river gorges. Science 305:499-502. 

Rhoads, A.F. and T.A. Block 2000. The Plants of Pennsylvania: an illustrated manual. University of 

Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia PA. 

Risser, S.W. and S.F. Siwiec. 1996. Water-Quality Assessment of the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, 

Pennsylvania and Maryland: Environmental Setting. United States Geological Survey Water- 

Resources Investigations Report 94-4245. 70p. 

6-20



RMC. 1978. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Postoperational Report No. 9 on the ecology of 

Conowingo Pond for the period of July 1977-December 1977. Prepared for Philadelphia Electric 

Company. RMC Environmental Services 1985a. Water Quality Studies Relative to Objectives 1 

to 3 of Article 34 for the Conowingo Hydroelectric Station (Project No. 405). August. 

RMC Environmental Services. 1985b. Water quality studies relative to Conowingo Hydroelectric Station 

1984. 

Radiation Management Corporation (RMC). 1979. Ecological Studies of the Muddy Run Pumped 

Storage Project: 1966-1978. Prepared by RMC Ecological Division for Philadelphia Electric 

Company. May. 

RMC-Ecological Division.1979. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Postoperational Report No. 11 on 

the ecology of Conowingo Pond for the period of July 1978-December 1978. Prepared for 


RMC. 1981. Conowingo Islands Ecological Survey. Prepared by RMC Environmental Services 

Division for Philadelphia Electric Company. August. 

RMC. 1985. Annual Report (Article 34; Objective 5): 1983 fisheries studies for the determination of flow 

needs for protection and enhancement of fish populations below Conowingo Dam. Prepared for 

Philadelphia Electric Company. Unpublished draft report. 

RMC. 1990. Migration of radio tagged adult American shad through Conowingo Pond to the Holtwood 

Hydroelectric Station. Prepared for Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Committee, 

Harrisburg, PA. 

RMC. 1992. Report on the distribution of telemetered shad in the tailwaters and spillage areas of the 

Holtwood, Safe Harbor, and York Haven Hydroelectric Projects, Susquehanna River, 

Pennsylvania. Report prepared for Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, Safe Harbor Water 

Power Corporation, and Metropolitan Edison Company. 

RMC. 1994a. A report on the fish populations in Conowingo Pond relative to the NPDES permit 

application for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Pennsylvania. Prepared for Philadelphia 

Electric Company. 

RMC. 1994b. Analysis of potential factors affecting the white crappie population in Conowingo Pond. 

Prepared for PECO Energy Company. 

6-21



RMC. 1994c. Report on the distribution of telemetered shad in the tailwaters and spillage areas of the 




RMC. 1995. Report on the distribution of telemetered shad in the tailwaters and spillage areas of the 




Robbins, T.W. and D. Mathur. 1976. The Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project: a Case History. Trans. 

Amer. Fish. Soc. 105(1): 165-172. 

Roddy, H.J. 1916. Physical and Industrial Geography of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Electronic 

document, Heritagequestonline.com, accessed May 24, 2006. 

Rook, E.J.S. 2004. Matteuccia struthiopteris Ostrich Fern. A Boundary Waters Compendium. 

Available on-line at: http://www.rook.org/earl/bwca/nature/ferns/matteuccia.html. Site last 

updated July 3, 2004. Site accessed August 15, 2008. 

Scott, L. 1991. The Effects of Winter Intermittent Minimum Flows from the Conowingo Hydroelectric 

Dam on Macroinvertebrate Populations of the Susquehanna River. Prepared by Versar, Inc. for 

the Maryland Power Plant and Environmental Review Division. September. 

Scott, L. and W. Richkus. 1994. The Effects of a Winter No-Flow Regime from the Conowingo 

Hydroelectric Facility on Macroinvertebrate Populations of the Susquehanna River. Prepared by 

Versar, Inc. for the Maryland Power Plant and Environmental Review Division. March. 

Severson, K.E. and J.F. Thilenius. 1976. Classification of quaking aspen stands in the Black Hills and 

Bear Lodge Mountains. Res. Pap. RM-166. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 24 p. Cited in Habeck 

(1992). 

Sevon, W.D. 1996. Surficial Geology of the Airville, Conestoga, Gap, Glen Rock, Holtwood, Kirkwood, 

Quarryville, Red Lion, Safe Harbor, Stewartstown, Wakefield, and York Quandangles and the 

Pennsylvania Part of the Conowingo Dam, Delta, Fawn Grove, New Freedom, Norrisville, and 

Rising Sun Quadangles in York, Lancaster, and Chester Counties, Pennsylvania. Open-file 

6-22



Reports 96-01 to 96-18. Pennsylvania Geological Survey. Fourth Series. Harrisburg, PA. 22p. 

with maps. 

Shank, W.H. June 6, 1982. Canals of the Lower Susquehanna. Based on a talk delivered at the 

Dedication Ceremonies of the New Susquehanna Museum of Havre de Grace. 

Shank, W.H. 1988. The History of the Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal. Available at Maryland 

Historic Trust- Harford County files. 

Shank, W.H. 2001. The Amazing PA Canals, 170 th Anniversary Edition. York: American Canal and 

Transportation Center. 

Shappee, N.D. 1940. Exerpt from History of Johnstown. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University 

of Pittsburghh. Available on URL: http:// www.jaha.org/edu. 

Sharp, P.C. 2000. New England Plant Conservation Program Conservation and Research Plan – Hasteola 

suaveolens (L.) Pojark., Sweet Indian Plantain. Prepared for New England Wild Flower Society. 

URL: http://www.newfs.org/docs/pdf/Hasteolasuaveolens.pdf. Available on-line at: 

http://www.newfs.org/protect/rare-plants-and-conservation/conservation-research- 

plans/conservation-and-research-plans.html. Site last updated December 17, 2007. 

Sheets, George R. 1991. Made in York. York: Agricultural and Industrial Museum of York County. 

Slattery, B.E., K. Reshetiloff, and S.M. Zwicker. 2003. Native Plants for Wildlife Habitat and 

Conservation Landscaping: Chesapeake Bay Watershed. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 

Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD. 82 pp. Available on-line at: 

http://www.nps.gov/plants/pubs/chesapeake/. Site last updated March 23, 2005. 

Smeltzer, Gerald. 1963. Canals Along the Lower Susquehanna (1796 to 1900). York: Historical Society 

of York County, PA. 

Smith, D.W., R. Suffling, D. Stevens and T.S. Dai. 1975. Plant community age as a measure of sensitivity 

of ecosystems to disturbance. Journal of Environmental Management. 3: 271-285. Cited in 

Coladonato (1991). 

Snyder, J.J. Jr., and E.F.Boyle. 1984a. PHMC Comprehensive Historic Sites Survey of Lancaster 

County Zone Form, Drumore Township, July 1984. Available from the Pennsylvania Historic 

Museum Commission, Harrisburg. 

6-23



Snyder, J.J. Jr., and E.F.Boyle. 1984b. PHMC Comprehensive Historic Sites Survey of Lancaster 

County Zone Form, Martic Township, July 1984. Available from the Pennsylvania Historic 

Museum Commission, Harrisburg. 

Snyder, J.J. Jr., and E.F.Boyle. 1984c. PHMC Historic Resources Survey Form, Holtwood Power Plant, 

July 1984. 

Sorrie, B.A. 1986. Distribution and habitat of Ludwigia polycarpa in New England USA. American 

Journal of Botany 73: 677. Cited in Ramstetter and Mott-White (2000). 

Southeast Regional Climate Center. URL: http://www.sercc.com/climateinfo/climate_info.html 

Sprague, L.A., M.J. Langland, S.E. Yochum, R.E. Edwards, J.D. Blomquist, S.W. Phillips, G.W. Shenk, 

and S.D. Preston. 2000. Factors Affecting Nutrient Trends in Major Rivers of the Chesapeake 

Bay Watershed. United States Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00- 

4218. 109p. 

Steury, B.W and C.A. Davis. 2003. The Vascular Flora of Piscataway and Fort Washington National 

Parks, Prince Georges and Charles Counties, Maryland. Castanea 68 (4). 271-99. URL: 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4060/is_200312/ai_n9303717/. 

Stevens, S.K. 1964. Pennsylvania: Birthplace of a Nation. Random House, New York.Stewart, R.M. and 

J.Cavallo. 1982. Cultural History. In Abbott Farm National Landmark, Phase II Cultural 

Resources Survey and Mitigation Plans (2 volumes). Louis Berger and Associates, Inc., The 

Cultural Resources Group, East Orange, New Jersey. 

Stranahan, S.Q. 1993. Susquehannna River of Dreams. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, 

Maryland. 

Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative (SRAFRC). 1991; 1992; 1998; 2002; 

2005. Restoration of American shad to the Susquehanna River. Annual Progress Reports. 

Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Committee. 

Susquehanna Electric Company. 2005a. Muddy Run Emergency Action Plan. March 1. 

Susquehanna Electric Company. 2005b. Emergency Action Plan, Conowingo Hydro Station. 

Susquehanna Electric Company. 2002. Eighth Independent Consultant Safety Inspection Report, 

Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 405-MD. 

6-24



Susquehanna Electric Company (SECO). 1997. (Draft) DO Compliance Manual: Conowingo Hydro 

Station. May. 

Susquehanna Greenway Partnership. 2004. Susquehanna Greenway: A Vision for Connecting 

Communities to the River. 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC). 2003. Assessment of Interstate Streams in the 

Susquehanna River Basin. Monitoring Report No. 16, July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002. 

Publication 227. July 31. 

SRBC. 2004. Assessment of Interstate Streams in the Susquehanna River Basin. Monitoring Report No. 

17, July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003. Publication 233. July 30. 

SRBC. 2005a. Groundwater Management Plan for the Susquehanna River Basin. Technical Report. 

Publication No. 236. June 2005 (Revised October 2005). 176p. 

SRBC. 2005b. Flow-Adjusted Concentrations 2004. URL: http://www.srbc.net/trends.htm. 

SRBC. 2006a. SRBC Overview. http://www.srbc.net/geninfo.htm. Accessed 2006. 

SRBC. 2006b. Lower Susquehanna subbasin. 

URL: http://www.srbc.net/lowersus.htm. Accessed 2006. 

SRBC. 2006c. Conowingo Pond Management Plan. Publication No. 242. June 2006. 153p. 

SRBC. 2006d. Geology by Rock Type of the Susquehanna River Basin. April 21. 

SRBC. 2006e. http://www.srbc.net/subbasin.htm. 

SRBC. 2008a. SRBC Overview. http://www.srbc.net/gneinfo.htm. Accessed 2008. 

SRBC. 2008b. Subbasin information. http://www.srbc.net/subbasin/lowersus.htm. Accessed 2008. 

SRBC. 2008c. Deer Creek Water Availability Study, Publication No. 256. Susquehanna River Basin 

Commission, Harrisburg, PA. 

Swain, P.C. and J.B. Kearsley. 2001. Classification of the Natural Communities of Massachusetts. V. 1.3. 

Prepared for Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, Division of 

Fisheries and Wildlife. Available on-line at: 

http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/natural_communities/natural_community_classification. 

htm. Site accessed August 20, 2008 

6-25



Taylor, J. 2005. Opuntia humifusa. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory 

(Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2008, August 21]. 

Thompson, G.H. 1990. Geomorphology of the Lower Susquehanna River Gorge. In Guidebook for the 

55th Annual Field Conference of Pennsylvania Geologists Carbonates, Schists, and 

Geomorphology in the Vicinity of the Lower Reaches of the Susquehanna River. October 4, 

5,and 6, 1990. Lancaster, PA. pp. 86-106. 

Thompson, J. and N. Butowski. 2007. Spring 2007 Monitoring Annual Progress Report: Wilson’s Mill 

Fish Ladder. MDNR, Fish Passage Program, Annapolis, MD. 

Thompson, R. E. 1996. Statewide Floods in Pennsylvania, January 1996. United States Geological 

Survey Fact Sheet 103-96. March. 

Tiner, R.W. 1999. Wetland Indicators: A Guide to Wetland Identification, Delineation, Classification, 

and Mapping. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, FL. 392p. 

USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers), 2005. National Inventory of Dams. URL: 

http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/nid.cfm Last updated February 2005. 

United States Census Bureau. 2008. URL: http://www.census.gov. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2004. Landscape Analysis and Assessment. URL: 

http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/4803/landscapes/index.html. Update August 2004. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 2008. 

The PLANTS Database. (http://plants.usda.gov, 19 August 2008). National Plant Data Center, 

Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. 

United States Department of the Interior (USDOI). 1980. Natural Landmark Brief. Susquehanna 

Piedmont Gorge. October. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Chesapeake Bay American Eel 

Management Plan (Pamphlet). Chesapeake Bay Program. December. 

USEPA. 2006. URL: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/index.html 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Coastal 

Stocks of Striped Bass. FWS/OBS-82/10.1. United States Department of the Interior. February. 

6-26



USFWS. 1983a. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and 

Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic): Alewife/Blueback Herring. FWS/OBS-82/11.9. United States 

Department of the Interior. October. 

USFWS. 1983b. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Alewife and Blueback Herring. FWS/OBS-82/10.58. 

United States Department of the Interior. September. 

USFWS. 1983c. Species Profiles Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and 

Invertebrates: Striped Bass. FWS/OBS-82/11.8. United States Department of the Interior. 

October. 

USFWS. 1983d. Species Profiles Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and 

Invertebrates: White Perch. FWS/OBS-82/11.7. United States Department of the Interior. 

October. 

USFWS. 1985a. Species Profiles Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and 

Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic): American Shad. Biological Report 82(11.37). United States 

Department of the Interior. April. 

USFWS. 1985b. Habitat Suitability Index Models and Instream Flow Suitability Curves: American 

Shad. BiologicalReport 82 (10.88). United States Department of the Interior. June. 

USFWS. 1986. Species Profiles Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and 

Invertebrates (South-Atlantic): American Shad. Biological Report 82(11.45). United States 

Department of the Interior. April. 

USFWS. 1987. Species Profiles Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and 

Invertebrates: American Eel. Biological Report 82(11.74). United States Department of the 

Interior. August. 

USFWS. 1997. Significant Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the New York Bight Region. Final 

Report. Southern New England – New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems Program. Published 

November 1997. Available on-line at: 

http://training.fws.gov/library/pubs5/web_link/text/toc.htm. Site accessed August 20, 2008. 

USFWS. 2001. Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), Northern Population, Recovery Plan. Hadley, MA. 

USFWS. 2005. American Eel (Anguilla rostrata). United States Fish and Wildlife Office, Northeast 

Region, Hadley, MA. 

6-27



USFWS. 2006a. Critical Habitat Portal – Website based mapping tool. URL: 

http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov. 

USFWS. 2006b. Species Profile for Maryland Darter. URL: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E003 

USFWS. 2006c. Species Profile for Shortnose Sturgeon. 

URL:http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E00B 

USFWS. 2006d. Octoraro Creek Dam Removal. 

URL: http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/Newsletter/Fall05/Octoraro/Octoraro.htm. United 

States Geological Survey (USGS). 1997. Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4138 

USGS. 2004a. Chesapeake Bay River Input Monitoring Program: General Information. URL: 

http://va.water.usgs.gov/chesbay/RIMP/generalinfo.html 

USGS. 2004b. Chesapeake Bay River Input Monitoring Program: Methods Used in the River Input 

Monitoring Program. URL: http://va.water.usgs.gov/chesbay/RIMP/methods.html 

USGS. 2006. USGS Surface-Water Data for the Nation. URL: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/sw 

University of Minnesota Herbarium (UMH). 2008. J.F. Bell Museum of Natural History Herbarium 

Vascular Plant Collection Database [Online]. Available on-line at: 

http://www.wildflowers.umn.edu/. Site accessed August 22, 2008. 

University of Texas at Austin (UTA). 2008. Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, Native Plant 

Information Network (NPIN), Native Plants Database [Online]. Available on-line at: 

http://www.wildflower.org/explore/. Site accessed August 22, 2008. 

Urban Research & Development Corporation (URDC). 1993. Conowingo Pond and Lower Susquehanna 

River Area, Comprehensive Recreation Master Plan. 

Van Fleet, K. 2006. Personal Communication. Pennsylvania Audubon Society. 

Voss, E.G. 1972. Michigan Flora, Part I. Gymnosperms and Monocots. Cranbrook Institute of Science 

Bulletin 55 and the University of Michigan Herbarium. Ann Arbor. 488 pp. Cited in NYNHP 

(2008b). 

Walker, J.H. 1922. Rafting Days in Pennsylvania. Times Tribune Co: Altoona, PA. Available on URL: 

http://Apps.libraries.psu.edu/digital bookshelf/index.cfm. 

6-28



Wasser, C.H. and K. Hess. 1982. The habitat types of Region II, U.S. Forest Service: a synthesis. Final 

Report Cooperative Agreement No. 16-845-CA. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Region 2. 140 p. Cited in Habeck (1992). 

Weaver, J.E. and F.W. Albertson. 1944. Nature and degree of recovery of grassland from the great 

drought of 1933 to 1940. Ecological Monographs. 14(4): 392-479. Cited in Taylor (2005). 

Weeder, J. 1999. Maryland American eel population study. Completion Report-Project 3-ACA-026. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Tidewater Administration. 32 pp. 

Weinberger, H. 2006. Personal Communication. Chesapeake Bay Program. 

Weinrich, D.R., M.E. Dore, and W.R. Carter III. 1982. Investigation of American shad in the upper 

Chesapeake Bay 1981. Federal Aid Project F-37-R. Annual Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 112 pp. 

Weisberg, S.B. and A. Janicki. 1985. The Effects of an Interim Minimum Flow from the Conowingo 

Dam on Fish Feeding and Benthos in the Susquehanna River. PPSP-UBLS-85-4. Prepared by 

Martin Marietta Environmental Systems for the Maryland Power Plant Siting Program. June. 

Weisberg, S.B. and L.C. Scott. 1990. The Effects of Winter Intermittent Minimum Flows from the 

Conowingo Hydroelectric Dam on Macroinvertebrate Populations of the Susquehanna River. 

Prepared by Versar, Inc. for the Maryland Power Plant and Environmental Review Division. 

September. 

Welsh, S.A., M.F. Mangold, J.E. Skjeveland, and A.J. Spells. 2002. Distribution and movement of 

shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) in the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 25(1):101-104. 

Wetzel, R.G. 1975. Limnology. W.B. Saunders Company. Philadelphia, PA. 743p. 

Whaley, R. C. 1960. Physical and chemical limnology of Conowingo Reservoir. Tech. Rept. XX, Data 

Rept. 32, Ches. Bay Inst. The John Hopkins Univ., Ref. 60-2. 140 pp. 

White, J.F. and A.W. White. 2002. Amphibians and Reptiles of Delmarva. Tidewater Publishers. 

Centreville, Maryland. 248 pp. 

Wilner, A.M. 1984. The Maryland Board of Public Works: A History. (Annapolis: Hall of Records 

Commission). From Archives of Maryland Online . Accessed December 19, 2006. 

6-29



Wirgin, I., C. Grunwald, E. Carlson, J. Stabile, D.L. Peterson, and J. Waldman. 2005. Range-wide 

population structure of shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum based on sequence analysis of 

the mitochondrial DNA control region. Estuaries 28(3):406-421. 

Wright, C.M. 1967. Our Harford Heritage: A History of Harford County. C. Milton Wright, Hartford 

County, Maryland. 

Youngblood, A.P., W.G. Padgett, A.H. Winward. 1985. Riparian community type classification of eastern 

Idaho – western Wyoming. R4-Ecol-85-01. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Region. 78 p. Cited in Habeck (1992). 

6-30



7.0 APPENDIX A – SUMMARY OF CONTACTS AND CORRESPONDENCE LETTER 

MADE IN PREPARING THE PAD (18 C.F.R. §5.6(D)(5) 

7-1



Numerous contacts were made to federal and state agencies to acquire relevant background information to 

assist in developing a comprehensive PAD (see table below). In addition, the attached letter was sent to 

the contact list (the contact list follows the letter) in an effort to solicit additional pertinent information 

related to the Project. 

Date Contact Agency Purpose of Contact 

4/27/2006 Krista Nelson SRBC Inquiry related to water use data 

5/1/2006 Krista Nelson SRBC Inquiry related to water use data 

5/17/2006 Carol Beyers Muddy Run Recreation 

Park 

7-2 

Inquiry related to bluebird nest boxes 

6/30/2006 Kim Van Fleet PA Audubon Society Inquiry related to Mt. Johnson Island 

designation as Bald eagle sanctuary 

9/27/2006 Rodney Kime PADEP Inquiry related to data supporting impaired 

status 

9/27/2006 Barbara Lathrop Clean Lakes Program, 

Bureau of Watershed 

Management, PADEP 







Inquiry related to water quality criteria and 2000 

EPA data in support of impaired status 

Inquiry related to clarification of water quality 

sampling locations 

Inquiry related to water quality temperature 

standards 

12/22/2006 Jennifer Hoffman SRBC Inquiry related to request for clarification of 

water use data 

1/9/2007 Bruce Wappman SRBC Inquiry related to water use data 

6/10/2008 Mike Kauffman PFBC Inquiry related to Conowingo Pond fishery 

studies 

6/10/2008 Christine Hobbs PFBC Inquiry related to bass tournament information 

6/10/2008 Brett Coakley MDNR Inquiry related to 2005 Conowingo Reservoir 

bass study 

6/10/2008 Mike Brownell SRBC Inquiry related to MD darter/flow study 

6/10/2008 Andrew Dehoff SRBC Inquiry related to Deer Creek fishery report



Date Contact Agency Purpose of Contact 

6/11/2008 Bob Lorantas PFBC Inquiry related to bass tournament information 

6/13/2008 Dale Weinrich MDNR Inquiry related to availability of fishery studies 

6/13/2008 Brian Richardson MDNR Inquiry related to shortnose sturgeon 

6/13/2008 Brett Coakley MDNR Inquiry related to resident fish studies below 


6/25/2008 Christine Hobbs PFBC Inquiry related to bass tournament information 

6/30/2008 Steve Minkkinen USFWS Inquiry related to 2007 tailrace eel data 

7/1/2008 Steve Minkkinen USFWS Inquiry related to 2007 tailrace eel data 

7/11/2008 Brett Coakley MDNR Inquiry related to bass tournament information 

below Conowingo 

7/21/2008 Ray Borras; Mary Groves MDNR Inquiry related to bass tournament information 


7/22/2008 Mary Groves MDNR Inquiry related to bass tournament information 


7/25/2008 Mike Kauffman PFBC Inquiry related to 1980s fish survey data 

7/29/2008 Mike Kauffman PFBC Inquiry related to 1980s walleye study; current 

trout stocking; channel catfish status 

9/22/2008 Michael Langland USGS Inquiry related to bathymetry study of lower 

Susquehanna River reservoirs 

10/7/2008 Dale Weinrich MDNR Inquiry related to current commercial fishery 

information 

10/15/2008 Dale Weinrich MDNR Inquiry related to current commercial fishery 

information 

12/09/08 Andrew Dehoff SRBC Clarify meaning of water use percentages on the 

SRBC website 

3/2/09 Cynthia Obenstine SRBC Requested update of water use information 

provided by Krista Nelson in May 2006 

7-3






610-765-5826 Phone 

610-765-5980 Fax 

April 30, 2008 

Re: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Relicensing of the Conowingo Hydroelectric Project on the 

Susquehanna River, FERC No. 405. 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

Susquehanna Power Company and PECO Energy Power Company, wholly owned subsidiaries of Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC (Exelon), are beginning the process of relicensing the Conowingo 

Hydroelectric Project (Project) with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The 

Conowingo Dam is situated approximately 10 miles upstream of Chesapeake Bay on the Susquehanna 

River near the town of Darlington and within Cecil and Harford Counties, Maryland (see Figure 1). 

Exelon currently plans to use the FERC’s Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) for the relicensing effort. 

The Project license expires on September 1, 2014. Exelon must file a license application with FERC no 

later than September 1, 2012 (i.e., two years prior to the expiration date). Exelon’s Notice of Intent 1 

(NOI) and Pre-Application Document (PAD) must be filed no later than 5 to 5.5 years prior to the license 

expiration, which falls within the March 1 to September 1, 2009 timeframe. 

As one of the first steps in the ILP, Exelon will develop and file a PAD with the FERC. The PAD is a 

document that summarizes all existing, relevant, and reasonably available information on the Project that 

has been collected by Exelon, state, federal and non-government organizations. Below is a brief table of 

contents for a typical PAD. 

1 The NOI consists of paperwork that must be filed with FERC and essentially indicates that Exelon will be seeking 

a new operating license for the Project. Exelon will file the NOI during the filing of the PAD to state that they have 

opted to relicense the project. 

7-4



1. Introduction 

2. Process Plan and Schedule 

3. Description of the Project Location, Facilities, and Operations 

4. Description of Existing Environment and Resource Impacts 

- Geology & Soils - Water Quantity & Quality 

- Fisheries & Aquatic Resources - Wildlife & Botanical Resources 

- Wetlands, Riparian, Littoral Habitat - Rare, Threatened, & Endangered Species 

- Recreation & Land Use - Aesthetic Resources 

- Cultural Resources - Socio-Economic Resources 

- Tribal Resources - General Description of Basin 

5. A Preliminary list of Issues and Studies 

In January 2007, Exelon published an Initial Information Package (IIP) for the Project, which was 

circulated to federal and state regulatory agencies 2 . The IIP was an informal document not required as 

part of the FERC licensing regulations. However, the content and format of the IIP is very similar to a 

PAD. Exelon will use the IIP as the basis for completing the PAD, and is now in the process of acquiring 

any new or updated relevant information that was unavailable at the time of the IIP publication. Of 

particular interest to Exelon is information related to the Existing Environmental Resources and Impacts 

sections of the PAD: 

• Fisheries-(i.e., any stocking records, regulation and management plans, population surveys, creel 

surveys, target fish community, diadromous fish information) 

• Water Quality-(i.e., any water quality data collected within the Project area); 

• Wetlands-(i.e., any known wetlands that occur within the Project area); 

• Any historical, archeological or cultural resources in the Project area; 

• Any rare, threatened or endangered species in the Project area; and 

• Any recreational information in the Project area. 

2 The IIP is available upon request for those entities not included as part of the original distribution. 

7-5



We request any information your organization may have collected on the environmental, recreational, 

and/or historical resources on the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the Project. Please provide this 

information to us before June 20 th , 2008. 

Exelon has contracted with Gomez and Sullivan to assist them with their relicensing effort. If you have 

any questions about this request, please feel free to contact Kirk Smith of Gomez and Sullivan at 603- 

529-4400 or . Attached is a contact list that received this letter. 

Thank you in advance for your assistance in providing background information to assist Exelon with the 

development of a comprehensive PAD for the relicensing of the Conowingo Hydroelectric Project. 

Sincerely, 

Colleen Hicks 

Manager, Regulatory and Licensing-Hydro 


Office # (610) 765-6791 

Cell # (610) 888-4022 

Attachments: Figure 1, Contact List 

7-6



Mr. Michael Brownell 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission 

1721 N. Front Street 


717-238-0425 Ext. 0 

Mr. Larry Miller 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 


Harrisburg, PA 17110 

Phone: 717-705-7838 

Mr. Rich McLean 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

Tawes State Office Building 

580 Taylor Avenue 

Annapolis, MD 21401-2351 

Phone: 410-260-8662 

Mr. John McGillen 


Industrial Discharge Permits Division 



Phone: 410-537-3631 

Mr. Elder Ghigiarelli 

Deputy Administrator 


Wetlands and Waterways Program 



Phone: 410-537-3000 

Contact List 

7-8 

Mr. Kevin Mendik 

National Park Service 

Boston Support Office 

15 State Street 

Boston, MA 02109 

Phone: 617-223-5299 

Mr. James Kardatzke 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

545 Mariott Drive, Suite 700 

Nashville, TN 37214 

Phone: 615-564-6830 

Mr. Jon Kurland 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Northeast Regional Office 

One Blackburn Drive 

Gloucester, MA 01930-2298 

Phone: 978-281-9300 

Mr. William T. Wisniewski 

Deputy Regional Administrator 

US Environmental Protection Agency-Region III 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

Phone: 215-814-5000



Mr. Larry Williamson 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources 

PO Box 1554 


Phone: 717-787-9293 

Mr. James Spontak 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 



Phone: 717-705-4707 

Mr. Andrew Shiels 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 


PO Box 67000 


Phone: 717-705-7800 

Mr. James Leigey 

Pennsylvania Game Commission 

Bureau of Land Management 

2001 Elmerton Ave 


Phone: 717-783-5957 

Mr. Wayne Spilove 

Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission 



Phone: 717-787-3362 

7-9 

J. Rodney Little 

Director and SHPO 

Maryland Historical Trust 

100 Community Place 

Crownsville, Maryland 21032 

Phone: 410-514-7602



8.0 APPENDIX B – PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT CONTENT CROSS REFERENCE TABLE 

8-1



PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT CONTENT CROSS-REFERENCE 

PAD Content Requirement 18 C.F.R. § 

5.6(d) 

Process plan and schedule (1) 2 

Project location, facilities, and operations (2) 3 

Description of existing environment and resource 

impacts 

8-2 

(3) 4 

General requirements (3)(i) 4 

Geology and soils (3)(ii) 4.2 

Water resources (3)(iii) 4.3 

Fish and aquatic resources (3)(iv) 4.4 

Wildlife and botanical resources (3)(v) 4.5 

Wetlands, riparian, and littoral habitat (3)(vi) 4.6 

Rare, threatened, and endangered species (3)(vii) 4.7 

Recreation and land use (3)(viii) 4.8 

Aesthetic resources (3)(ix) 4.9 

Cultural resources (3)(x) 4.10 

Socio-economic resources (3)(xi) 4.11 

Tribal resources (3)(xii) 4.12 

River basin description (3)(xiii) 4.1 

Preliminary issues and studies (4) 5 

PAD Section 

Summary of contacts (5) Appendix A



9.0 APPENDIX C – AGENT FOR THE APPLICANT 18 C.F.R. 5.6(D)(2)(I) 

9-1



18 C.F.R. 5.6(d)(2)(i) The exact name, business address, and telephone number of each person authorized 

to act as agent for Exelon; 

Ms. Colleen Hicks 




Phone: 610-765-6791 

Fax: 610-765-5980 

colleen.hicks@exeloncorp.com 

9-2



10.0 APPENDIX D – CURRENT LICENSE AND AMENDMENTS 

10-1

CCH Internet Research NetWork 

COMM-OPINION-ORDER, 19 FERC 61,348, Susquehanna Power Company, Project No. 405, Philadelphia 

Electric Power Company, Project No. 405, (Aug. 14, 1980) 

© 2008, CCH INCORPORATED. All Rights Reserved. A WoltersKluwer Company 

Susquehanna Power Company, Project No. 405, Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Project No. 405 

[61,681] 

Susquehanna Power Company, Project No. 405 

[61,348] 

Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Project No. 405 

Order Issuing New Major License 

(Issued August 14, 1980) 

Before Commissioners: Charles B. Curtis, Chairman; Georgiana Sheldon, and George R. Hall. 

[Editor's Note: This order was inadvertently omitted from printing at time of issuance.] 

The Susquehanna Power Company and the Philadelphia Electric Power Company (referred to jointly 

hereinafter as "Applicant") filed an application for new major license to authorize the continued operation and 

maintenance of the Conowingo Project, FERC No. 405. The Conowingo Project is located on the Susquehanna 

River, a navigable waterway of the United States, in Maryland and Pennsylvania. The project reservoir covers 

parts of Harford and Cecil Counties in Maryland, and York and Lancaster Counties in Pennsylvania. 

Public notice of the application was given. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission (PFC), Maryland Department of 

Natural Resources (MDNR), and Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) 1 petitioned for and were 

granted intervention in the proceeding. 

Project Description 

The project consists principally of a concrete gravity dam, a powerhouse, and a reservoir. The dam is 94 feet 

high and 4,660 feet long. The powerhouse is integral with the dam and contains 11 main units and 2 house units 

having a total installed capacity of 514.4 MW. The reservoir has a gross storage capacity of 310,000 acre-feet. 

U.S. Highway Route No. 1 crosses the dam. 

Safety and Adequacy 

Page 1 of 17 

The stability of the spillway, powerhouse, and abutment sections under normal and maximum hydrostatic 

loadings were investigated by a board of independent consultants in accordance with Part 12 of the Commission's 

regulations. Maximum hydrostatic loading was determined by considering water levels during a flood having a 

peak inflow of 1,170,000 cfs, the Spillway Design Flood (SDF). As a result, the consultant recommended that the 

Conowingo Dam be strengthened to withstand the SDF by tying the structure into bedrock with post-tensioned 

http://business.cch.com/primesrc/bin/highwire.dll 

10/15/2008


anchors consisting of bundles of steel strands placed vertically through the dam into the bedrock and then 

bonded with cement grout. The Commission-authorized installation and post-tensioning were completed in June 

1978 at a cost of $5.0 million. The 537 tendons are grouted into solid rock up to 55 feet deep. 2 Our staff's stability 

analyses show that the post-tensioned anchors stabilize the structures sufficiently so that the stresses under 

normal loading plus combinations of ice and earthquake loads and hydrostatic loading from the SDF are within 

acceptable limits and the structures would be safe. The project structures under Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) 

loading would be safe, except for the retaining wall and two unreinforced abutment monoliths which develop 

tension. Our staff's analyses show that it is preferable not to order post-tensioning of the retaining wall and the 

two abutment monoliths. Simultaneous failure of those structures would not significantly endanger life and 

property downstream in the communities of Havre de Grace and Port Deposit. Post-tensioning the retaining wall 

and the two abutment sections of the dam to prevent failure would, in the event of the PMF, cause the reservoir to 

rise and wash the spillway gates downstream and would also restrict operation of the Muddy Run and Peach 

Bottom Power Plants. 

Applicant has filed an emergency action plan which provides for warning downstream interests of impending 

flood hazards. Our New York Regional Office approved the plan on January 21, 1976. Article 35 would provide for 

continued implementation of the project emergency action plan. 

Based upon the Part 12 Safety Inspection Reports of 1967, 1972, and 1977, the annual operation reports and 

other special reports, it is concluded that the concrete structures, machinery, and equipment are being properly 

maintained and are in stable condition. 

[61,682] 

Recreation 

Page 2 of 17 

Recreational activities available at the project include fishing, water skiing, camping, picnicking, boating, and 

hiking. The Applicant has developed two major public recreation areas at the project, the Conowingo Fishermen's 

Park (Park) and the Conowingo Creek Boat Launch (Launch). The Park includes an 860-foot long fishermen's 

platform (along and parallel to the downstream face of the powerhouse), a shelter, restrooms, a fish cleaning 

facility, and a parking area for 224 automobiles. The Launch area includes a boat ramp with 4 launching lanes, a 

docking area, restrooms, and a parking area for 20 cars and 30 cars with trailers. In addition to these 

developments, the Applicant leases numerous project shoreline areas to individuals for cottage developments and 

to government agencies and local groups for public and quasi-public recreational developments and as natural 

areas. A 9.4-acre area is also leased to the Pennsylvania Fish Commission for a public boat launching facility. 

The Applicant proposes two new public recreation developments at the project. Four other areas are slated for 

potential development when future needs require. The two initial developments would be Conowingo Recreation 

Park and Conowingo Visitors Center. The Park would be located on 150 acres on the west bank of the reservoir 

immediately above the dam. Facilities would include over 200 camping units, 300 picnic units, a boat ramp, 

restrooms with showers, scenic overlooks, a combined administration/concession building, and other buildings, 

roads, and parking areas. The Visitors Center at the dam would include exhibition and observation areas and an 

auditorium which would seat 150 people. 

SRBC, commenting on recreational development at the project, recommended that the Applicant maintain 

public access facilities on the left bank upstream from the dam and on the right bank at the upstream end of the 

Peach Bottom Nuclear Station; schedule development of access areas at Peters and Fishing Creeks with means 

for safe railroad crossings; maintain the Launch access area; develop suitably marked harbors of refuge on both 

banks for use during storms; and, limit or possibly eventually preclude the development of residential or overnight 

camping areas on upper reservoir islands. 

The Applicant stated that, although it did not feel that development of any new public access facilities was 

warranted at this time because of lack of public use of existing sites, it will continue to monitor the use of the 


10/15/2008


reservoir annually to determine when additional recreational facilities are warranted. Article 17 provides for the 

development of future recreational facilities at the project. The Applicant has also agreed to repair the vandalism 

at the Launch, provided a suitable Maryland agency prevents future vandalism. Temporary safe harbors will be 

identified, cleared and marked, as requested. With respect to the proposed restriction on use of the islands 

located in the upper reach of the Conowingo reservoir, Applicant stated that it would investigate the need to 

protect the islands and, if the ecological or geological values are significant, post the island accordingly. Article 42 

directs the Applicant to file within one year of the issuance of the license a report on its investigation of the upper 

islands along with any recommendations for future use. 

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources, in a supplemental letter dated December 6, 1976, stated that 

the new license should include some provision that would guarantee public access to, and enjoyment of, the 

lands and islands owned by the Applicant downstream of Conowingo Dam. The Applicant stated that the lands 

downstream from the dam were not included within the proposed project boundary as shown on the revised 

Exhibit K drawings because they were not considered essential for the operation of the project. However, we have 

determined in consultation with other agencies that the existing project lands in the vicinity of the Susquehanna 

and Tidewater Canal on the west bank of the Susquehanna River downstream from Conowingo Dam, the existing 

project land on the east bank of the river, and the islands downstream from the dam within the existing project 

boundary have significant scenic, recreational, historic, and environmental value. For these reasons, we shall 

direct that all of the existing project land downstream from Conowingo Dam remain within the project boundary, 

and the Exhibit K drawings, filed on July 29, 1975, be revised to include this land. 

We find that the Applicant's plans for water-related recreational facilities adequately satisfy the identified needs 

in the project area. We shall include in the license Article 39 which requires the installation of warning devices to 

protect the public in its use of project recreational facilities and Article 40 which requires the filing of revised 

exhibits to include the previously discussed lands within the project boundary. 


Project lands and waters provide suitable habitats for a diverse wildlife community. 

[61,683] 

Page 3 of 17 

Common game animals include white-tailed deer, grey squirrel, and red fox. The Susquehanna River basin is a 

major flyway for a number of species of waterfowl and Conowingo Reservoir is utilized as a resting area along 

that flyway during annual migration periods. 

Conowingo Reservoir supports an abundance of warm-water fishes. Important sport fish include catfish, 

crappie, and various sunfish. Certain tributary streams support a put-and-take trout fishery. The powerhouse 

tailrace also supports an important sport fishery. Resident species harvested in the tailrace include catfish, carp, 

smallmouth bass, crappie, white perch and the anadromous hickory shad, striped bass, blueback herring, and 

American shad. A small commercial fishery for American shad exists in the lower reaches of the Susquehanna. 

Both the sport and commercial fishery for American shad was, however, closed in 1980. 

Large numbers of anadromous fish once migrated up the Susquehanna River. Since the completion in 1928 of 

Conowingo Dam, the lowermost of the Susquehanna River dams, the American shad fishery in the river below the 

dam has declined. In addition to the physical obstruction of migration, problems of water quality and fishery 

management also appear to have contributed to the decline of anadromous fish in the Susquehanna River Basin. 

A number of federal and state agencies commenting on the application, including the intervenors (PFC, MDNR 

and SRBC) proposed the construction of fish passage facilities at the dam as the only feasible means to reestablish 

the anadromous fishery. Applicant maintains that construction of fish ladders is unwarranted at this time. 

By separate order, we are providing for a hearing on the issue of the installation of fish passage facilities at the 

Conowingo Project No. 405 and three other licensed projects on the Susquehanna River (Project Nos. 1025, 

1881 and 1888). Article 15 of the license expressly reserves to the Commission the authority to order the 

construction, maintenance and operation of facilities and modifications of project structures and operation in the 


10/15/2008


interest of fish wildlife resources. Inasmuch as the project is currently operating under annual licenses, and 

would continue to do that until a new license went into effect, nothing would be gained by deferring issuance of 

the new license until the questions we are setting for hearing are ripe for resolution. 3 

Streamflow and Water Quality 

At present, the dissolved oxygen (DO) levels of the river immediately below the project, and also within the 

reservoir, sometimes fall to less than 1.0 mg/1 during low-flow periods, and thus, do not always meet state 

standards. Immediately downstream, particular DO problems are encountered related to the peaking regime of 

the project, which curtails all flow during most week-ends of July through October, except for certain minimum 

flows noted below. During at least 70 percent of the period from July through October the project is utilized for 

peaking purposes. This mode of operation requires reservoir recharge, which can stop the flow from the project 

from 8 to 48 hours each weekend. During these no-flow periods, pools for at least a mile below the project may 

approach anoxic conditions (no oxygen); this condition effectively eliminates that stretch of the river for many 

biologic activities, including spawning, rearing, and feeding of fish. 

Complicating this problem are the reduced DO levels encountered in the reservoir. During the low-flow season, 

July through October, DO levels in the lower reservoir strata near the dam approach anoxic levels. Thus, when a 

flow of water is released, the beneficial impact on anoxic pools for some distance downstream is minimal, since 

the released water has a DO concentration similar to that in the pools. 

MDNR requested that for assured maintenance of aquatic habitat the Applicant should be required to maintain 

a minimum flow of 5,000 cfs and a dissolved oxygen (DO) level of at least 5mg/1 in the tailrace. 

The Applicant maintains that suitable aquatic habitat is being maintained below the dam, and that a minimum 

flow of 5,000 cfs is provided from March 15, to June 1, when MDNR determines it necessary for water quality 

maintenance during anadromous fish runs. This minimum flow requirement is the subject of a 1972 agreement 

between the Applicant and MDNR as well as discharge permits the Applicant sought and obtained from MDNR's 

Water Resources Administration. 4 The Applicant also noted that DO is being continuously monitored immediately 

downstream of the dam. 

Harford County, Maryland in the interests of possible future use of the stream for water supply requested that 

the license ensure that no restrictions are placed on flows below the Conowingo Dam. The Applicant responded 

that project operation does not cause major flow restrictions. The project has relatively limited storage capacity 

and, on a weekly basis, the quantity of water that flows into the reservoir is released through the dam. 

SRBC emphasized the lack of water quality data for the Conowingo pool and tailrace area. SRBC stated that 

applicable 

[61,684] 

Page 4 of 17 

water quality standards are not met at all times in the pool and in the project tailrace. SRBC recommended that 

any license for the Conowingo Project require development and implementation of a program to monitor water 

quality at appropriate locations in the Conowingo pool, in the project tailrace, and at some suitable location in the 

area downstream of the spillway, on a continuous basis throughout the period May 1st through October 31st of 

each year and on a weekly basis for the remainder of the year. SRBC also stated that specific water quality 

parameters to be measured should include dissolved oxygen and temperature values. 

Pointing to the requirements of its Comprehensive Plan stating that water releases at dams on the 

Susquehanna River should be consistent with instream flow needs of indigenous and migrating fishes and the 

protection of the stream's natural biological community, SRBC stated that there is a need to modify the overall 


10/15/2008


power generation schedules if other uses are to be satisfactorily met. SRBC set forth an interim schedule of 

initial flow releases to be required from the project, ranging from 3,500 cfs to 15,000 cfs, but did not provide any 

rationale for the specific flows recommended. SRBC indicated that any license issued should include these 

interim flow releases or releases "determined adequate on a temporary basis by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and Pennsylvania Fish Commission, to support at all times a full range of life processes for indigenous 

and, as necessary, anadromous fisheries. . . ." SRBC would further require that the licensee develop a study plan 

in consultation with appropriate agencies to validate or modify the interim flow schedule imposed to assure it 

would: (1) provide for the optimum use of flow for power generation, cooling, public water supply, and general 

recreation; (2) effectively attract and lead, during the migration period, anadromous fish from the Chesapeake Bay 

into the Susquehanna River upstream to the Conowingo Dam; and (3) support a full range of life processes for 

indigenous and anadromous fishes in the Susquehanna River between the Conowingo Dam and the head of 

tidewater at all times of the year. 

In response to SRBC's recommendation, Applicant stated that it has cooperated in various flow studies and 

that the Applicant has not seen the results or any test or study that clearly shows the need to provide a 

continuous flow. Applicant evaluated, in June 1979, the added cost to its customers of a modified operating 

procedure as proposed by SRBC and asserts that it would increase the annual cost by about $3,800,000. 

Applicant states that it will continue to cooperate with the appropriate agencies in the conduct of studies but 

submits that the prime responsibility rests with SRBC. 

In light of our determination to set the question of fish passage facilities for consolidated hearing, we can see 

no justification at this time for imposing flows or requiring, as a separate matter apart from that proceeding, the 

licensee to study flows to attract and protect anadromous fish. Such a requirement will properly be a matter for 

consideration in the fish passage facility hearings. 5 On the issue of minimum flows to enhance indigenous fishery 

resources and water quality, we do, however, feel that certain additional measures must be taken, although the 

information available in the record is insufficient to permit us to establish any particular flow release now. 

Appropriate rates of release can only be established through studies carried out by the licensee in consultation 

with state and federal agencies. Accordingly, we are including license Article 34, which requires the licensee to 

develop, in consultation with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Maryland Department of Health 

and Mental Hygiene, the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission, a mutually satisfactory study plan to determine dissolved oxygen and 

temperature levels, the effect of project operation on dissolved oxygen levels, the extent of oxygen-demanding 

materials in the project reservoir, the most feasible methods for ensuring the releases meet state water quality 

standards and minimum flow releases necessary to protect and enhance fish and wildlife resources, and the 

effects of the operations of other projects located on the upper reaches and tributaries of the river. The study plan 

is to be coordinated with coincident study plans of dissolved oxygen and temperature conditions and flow 

releases being developed for three other licensed projects on the Susquehanna River, Project Nos. 1025, 1881 

and 1888. The study plan is to be filed for approval within 4 months from the date of issuance of this license. After 

the studies are completed, the Applicant must file for approval a report on them and its proposals for minimum 

flow releases or other water quality measures, with copies to the interested agencies. We are convinced that this 

procedure will provide adequately for the concerns raised by these agencies, in particular SRBC and MDHMH. As 

we noted with respect to the fish passage issues, 6 there is no purpose in deferring issuance of a new license 

pending resolution of these matters. Under Articles 9 and 12 of this license, we retain authority to impose any 

minimum flow requirements or 

[61,685] 

other water quality measures that may prove to be in the public interest. 

Debris Management 

Page 5 of 17 

Floating debris passing down the Susquehanna River is an issue of concern that was discussed by SRBC in its 

comments on the application. At the Conowingo Project some of the floating debris passing down river collects 

along the west bank and is passed through a spillway gate. The hazards to recreationists and property presented 

by this floating debris has been a subject of concern to private and public interests in Maryland. It is SRBC's 

position that "[w]hile it would seem unreasonable and impractical to require collection of all floating debris at all 


10/15/2008


dams along the river, debris removal should be required at dams having controlled spill and/or where large 

amounts of floating debris accumulate within easy reach of appropriate snagging equipment." SRBC recommends 

an overall cooperative debris removal and management program among the licensees of the licensed projects on 

the Susquehanna River (Project Nos. 405, 1025, 1881 and 1888). 

The Applicant has indicated its willingness to cooperate in such a program and has suggested that it will agree 

to remove the debris from the water if others will make arrangements for its disposal. The Applicant maintains that 

this debris problem must be treated as a basin-wide problem and cannot be solved by action only at the last dam 

on the river. 

We agree that a cooperative debris removal and management program is required for the Susquehanna River 

licensed projects. The removal of debris is the proper responsibility of a licensee in the interests of public safety 

and project operation. We cannot state, however, that regardless of the magnitude or source of the debris, a 

licensee must bear the complete expense and responsibility for the removal of all floating debris. Should the 

debris problem be of such a magnitude that substantial expense would be involved in its removal, that burden 

should be allocated among all concerned parties including the licensees and proper government agencies. 

Accordingly, we are including Article 41 in this license to require the licensee, in consultation with the Corps of 

Engineers, SRBC, and the licensees of the other Susquehanna River licensed projects (Project Nos. 1025, 1881 

and 1888) to conduct a study to determine both the magnitude and an appropriate plan for the disposition of river 

borne debris. The result of this study and the management plan shall be filed within two years of the issuance of 

this license. Should there continue to be disagreement regarding the allocation of expense and responsibility for 

debris removal, the Commission will determine the extent of its licensees' responsibilities at that time. 

Historical and Archeological Resources 

Comments on the application were solicited from the Historic Preservation Officers of Pennsylvania and 

Maryland. Pennsylvania offered no significant comments and Maryland did not respond. A review of the National 

Register of Historic Places revealed one historic site within the project boundary, the terminal facilities of the 

Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal located with the City of Harve de Grace. That site located on two contiguous 

tracts of project land was conveyed in fee to the City of Harve de Grace with Commission approval by order 

issued April 13, 1979. 7 To protect any cultural resources that may be affected by the project during the new 

license term, Article 37 will be included in the license to require consultation with the State Historic Preservation 

Officers prior to commencement of any construction or development of facilities at the project. 

Water Supply 

The Conowingo reservoir is used for power production, recreation, and municipal water supply purposes. The 

reservoir supplies 230 cfs (in the future 460 cfs) to the City of Baltimore and 50 cfs to the Chester Water Authority. 

It serves as the lower reservoir for the 800-MW Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project No. 2355 and as a source of 

processing, service, and condenser cooling water in the amount of 3,462 cfs for the 2,170-MW Peach Bottom 

Nuclear Plant. 8 

SRBC has recommended that "any FERC license should defer to the SRBC the task of allocating water from 

the Project reservoir for public water supply, and make any right to use river flowage conferred by such license, 

subject to the SRBC's responsibility and authority for water supply." SRBC states that the Applicant "requires 

reimbursement on the basis of capacity and energy loss charges, for withdrawals of water . . . from the 

Conowingo Project reservoir." SRBC suggests that such charges imposed by the licensee are "predicated on the 

presumption by the Licensee that the present FERC license allocates the total flow of the river for the sole use of 

the Licensee to generate hydroelectricity thereby overriding all other public interests and uses." 

SRBC's concerns are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the charges imposed 


Page 6 of 17 

10/15/2008


[61,686] 

at the Conowingo Project and the effect of a FERC license. The Applicant has agreements with the City of 

Baltimore (City) and the Chester Water Authority (CWA) whereby a fee is charged for withdrawing water from the 

project reservoir. The charge is imposed not on the water itself but rather on the use made of the project reservoir 

by placing their respective structures there. These agreements, approved by the Commission, provide 

compensation to the licensee for the benefit received by the City and CWA in using the project reservoir. Absent 

the project dam, the City and CWA would have to construct an impoundment to facilitate their intake structure 

requirements. The licensee makes no claim that its FERC license allocates the flow of the river for its sole use to 

generate electricity, as alleged by SRBC. 

A license issued under the Federal Power Act does not allocate the flow of the stream on which the project is 

located. No water rights at all are granted by the license. A licensee is directed to obtain sufficient property rights, 

including water rights, for project purposes and hold those rights for the duration of the license (see, e.g., Article 

5, Form L-3 (October 1975)). Any utilization of project property by a third party for a previously unauthorized use 

is subject to the prior approval of the Commission to insure comprehensive development. This arrangement 

accommodates a variety of uses of project property including municipal water uses and local water resource 

management authority such as SRBC's authority in managing the waters of the Susquehanna River Basin. 

Standard license Article 13 directs licensees upon order of the Commission to permit reasonable use of project 

reservoirs and properties in the interests of, inter alia, conservation and utilization of the water resources of the 

region for purposes of municipal or similar uses. Provision is also made for compensation for the use of the 

project reservoir or other project properties. 9 

SRBC's concerns are thus adequately assured by the terms and conditions of this license. No right to allocate 

the flow of the stream is conferred by this or any FERC license. Should any entity wish to use the project reservoir 

or other project properties for the purpose of withdrawing water from the reservoir for municipal purposes, that 

entity would first obtain permission for that allocation of water from the SRBC The Commission, having reserved 

the authority to direct the licensee to permit reasonable joint use of project property, would not act to approve 

such joint use until SRBC had acted on the third party's allocation request indicating its judgment of the 

compatibility of the joint use proposal with its Comprehensive Plan. The terms of any compensation to the 

licensee for the use of project property would be fixed by the Commission by approval of an agreement between 

the licensee and the joint user or, in the absence of agreement, after notice and opportunity for hearing. The 

views of SRBC with respect to compensation to the licensee will be welcomed in the Commission's deliberations. 

We are confident that this cooperative procedure will properly protect SRBC's responsibility for water supply and 

the Commission's interest in supervising the use of project property. 

Flood Control 

Page 7 of 17 

In the interests of preventing loss of life and significantly reducing future damage from floods, SRBC 

recommended that licensees at the other licensed projects on the Susquehanna River conduct a review of the 

leasing of project lands and discontinue leasing involving residential or nonconforming commercial development 

within the 100 year floodplain or areas subject to frequent ice jam related flooding. 

We share this concern for public safety and the need to minimize property damage in flood-prone areas within 

the project boundary and will include Article 29 which directs the licensee to prepare a floodplain management 

report in consultation with SRBC and other appropriate agencies. The report will identify any project lands within 

the 100 year flood plain and subject to frequent ice jam related flooding, inventory current uses of flood plain 

lands, assess the hazard presented by such uses, involve consultation with current lessees, provide guidelines for 

future use of project flood plain lands and recommendations for retiring nonconforming uses. With respect to 

future leases of project lands, Article 38 confers on the licensee the authority without prior approval to permit 

certain minor uses of project lands and waters. Uses encompassed by this authorization include, inter alia, 

retaining walls, boat docks, roads, sewers. All other uses of project lands, including leasing of project lands for 

residential development, are subject to review to determine if prior Commission approval is required. It is 

incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate to the Commission that the proposed conveyance and use of 

project lands would be in the public interest, including the safety of persons and property. Upon completion of its 


10/15/2008


flood plain management report pursuant to Article 29, Applicant will also have guidelines for future use of 

project flood plain lands developed in consultation with appropriate agencies. 

Other Environmental Considerations 

Approval of a new license for Project No. 405 would permit continued operation of a 

[61,687] 

facility which began operation over 50 years ago. Although the ecosystem of the project area has reached some 

state of equilibrium, certain environmental impacts as discussed in this order are still occurring and we have 

therefore conditioned this license to provide for the protection of the environmental resources of the project area. 

On the basis of the record, including agency and intervenor comments and the Commission staff's independent 

analysis, we conclude that issuance of this new license for Project No. 405, as conditioned, would not constitute a 

major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 

Comprehensive Development 

The Conowingo Project utilizes all available head from the tailwater of the upstream Holtwood Project to 

tidewater in Maryland. Operation of the project is coordinated with the operation of the 800-MW Muddy Run 

Pumped Storage Project No. 2355, located 12 miles upstream from Conowingo Dam on the east bank of the 

Susquehanna River. Articles 31 and 32 provide for the coordinated operation of the Conowingo and Muddy Run 

Projects. 

The continued operation of the Conowingo Project would provide 514,400 kW of installed capacity capable of 

an average annual generation of 1.7 million MWh, and would utilize a renewable resource that would save the 

equivalent of approximately 2.8 million barrels of oil a year. 

A review of the staff's Evaluation Report for the upstream York Haven Development and SRBC's 

Comprehensive Plan for Management and Development of the Susquehanna Basin indicates that the project is 

not in conflict with the plan. There are 12 existing hydroelectric installations located upstream of the project with a 

total installed capacity of 1,169,535 kilowatts. All of the plants operate principally on a run-of-river basis, with 

sufficient pondage for daily peaking operations. In addition, there are several potential hydroelectric project sites 

within the Susquehanna River Basin, all of which are located upstream from the project area. Conowingo, in 

conjunction with the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project, fully utilizes the power potential at the site. 

Considering that the project fully develops the available head, utilizes practically all of the flow of the 

Susquehanna River at the site, and provides a multipurpose reservoir, it is concluded that the project will be best 

adapted to a comprehensive plan for developing the Susquehanna River, upon compliance with the terms and 

conditions of this license. 

Federal Takeover 

Page 8 of 17 

Section 14 of the Federal Power Act reserves to the United States the right to take over a non-publicly owned 

project upon expiration of the license, after paying to the licensee the net investment in the project, not to exceed 

the fair value of the property taken, plus severance damages, if any. No federal department or agency, state, or 

municipality recommended takeover or redevelopment of the project by the United States or any other entity. The 

project is not in conflict with any project authorized or under study by the United States. None of the above 

governmental units has objected to the relicensing of the project. We know of no reason why federal takeover of 

the project would better serve the public interest than issuance of this license. Consequently, we shall not 

recommend federal takeover. 


10/15/2008


Term of License 

The original license for Project No. 405 was issued on February 20, 1926 for a fifty-year period terminating 

February 19, 1976. The project has been operating under successive annual licenses since that time. 

The Commission policy enunciated in the Order Issuing New License (Major) for Project No. 2301 provides 

that, in general, the term of relicense for projects issued under Section 15 of the Act, where no substantial 

redevelopment is contemplated or proposed, should be limited to 30 years from the expiration date of the original 

license. In the instant case, that would result in the new license terminating in 2006. However, inasmuch as the 

Conowingo Project No. 405 and the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project No. 2355 are contiguous and their 

operations are coordinated, it would be desirable to provide for concurrent relicensing of the two projects. The 40 

year license for the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project will expire September 1, 2004. Accordingly, we will 

provide for concurrent relicensing by issuing the license for the Conowingo Project for a period to expire on 

September 1, 2004. 10 

The Commission orders: 

(A) A license is hereby issued under Part I of the Federal Power Act (Act) to the Susquehanna Power 

Company and the Philadelphia Electric Power Company for a period effective the first day of the month of in 

which this license is issued, and terminating September 1, 2004, for the continued operation and maintenance of 

the Conowingo Project No. 405 located on the Susquehanna River, a navigable waterway of the United States, in 

Maryland and Pennsylvania, subject to the terms and conditions of the Act which is 

[61,688] 

incorporated by reference as a part of this license and subject to the regulations the Commission issues under the 

provisions of the Act. 

(B) The Conowingo Project consists of: 

(i) all lands to the extent of the Licensee's interests in those lands, constituting the project area and enclosed 

by the project boundary. The project area and project boundary are shown and described by certain exhibits that 

form part of the application for license and that are designated and described as: 

Exhibit FERC NO. 405- Showing 

J. Sheet 1 163 General Map 

K, Sheets 1 164 through 204 Project Map 

through 41 

(ii) Project works consisting of: 

Page 9 of 17 

(1) a concrete dam 94-feet high at the crest (maximum) section consisting of: (a) a non-overflow gravity section 

1,225 feet long at elevation 115.0 msl; (b) on ogee shaped spillway section, the major portion of which is 2,250 

feet long and having a crest elevation of 86.0 feet msl controlled by 50 crest gates, each 40 feet wide and 22.5 

feet high; and the minor portion of which is 135 feet long adjacent to the powerhouse and having a crest elevation 

of 98.5 feet msl, controlled by 3 lift-type gates each 40 feet wide and 10 feet high; (c) an intake-powerhouse 

section 950 feet long; (d) a gravity non-overflow section 100 feet long; (2) the reservoir extending 14 miles 

upstream at normal maximum surface water elevation of 109.5 feet covering 8,640 acres with a gross storage 

capacity of 310,000 acre-feet, 71,000 acre-feet of which are usable in nine feet of drawdown; (3) one-foot-high 

stop logs for all gates to keep the pool elevation at 109.5 feet; (4) two 60-ton and one 90-ton spillway gate cranes; 


10/15/2008


(5) a powerhouse integral with the dam, housing; (6) seven indoor generating units each comprised of a 

54,000-hp turbine and a 36,000-kW direct-coupled generator and four outdoor units each comprised of 85,000-hp 

turbine and a direct-coupled 65,000-kW generator; (7) two 1,900-hp house turbines each coupled to 1,200-kW 

generators; (8) the two 220-kV transmission lines extending from the project substation to East Nottingham; (9) 

the 13.8-kV generator leads, 13.8/33-kV step-up transformers, the 33-kV bus and other transmission equipment, 

and (10) appurtenant facilities. The location, nature and character of these project works are generally shown and 

described by the exhibits cited above and more specifically shown and described by certain other exhibits that 

also form part of the application for license and that are designated and described as: 

Exhibit L 

Sheet No. FERC No. Title 

1 of 17 405-74 Plan of Development 

2 of 17 405-75 General Plan and Sections 

of Dam 

3 of 17 405-85 General Plan and Sections 

of Spillway 

4 of 17 405-56 Pan and Sections--Railroad 

Dike 

5 of 17 405-57 Power Station--General Plan 

Sheet No. 1 


Sheet No. 2 


Sheet No. 3 

8 of 17 405-60 Power Station--Section 

Elevation Sheet No. 1 





11 of 17 405-63 Power Station--Cross Section 

Unit No. 4 


Unit No. 5 

13 of 17 405-65 220-kV Transmission Line 

R/W Showing Towers 

14 of 17 405-66 220-kV Transmission Line 

Susquehanna River Crossing 


Unit No. 8 


Unit No. 10 

17 of 17 405-80 Power Station--East End 

Elevation 

Exhibit M--consisting of six pages, entitled "General Description of Mechanical, Electrical, and Transmission 

Equipment and Appurtenances" filed with the Commission on November 8, 1972. 

The Revised Exhibit R filed July 29, 1975, consisting of: 

(A) 5 pages of Text, and 3 tabulations, 

(B) the following 10 drawings: 

Sheet No. FERC No. Title 


Page 10 of 17 

10/15/2008


[61,689] 

1 405-205 Detailed Inventory of Existing Recreation 

above Conowingo Dam 

2 405-206 Detailed Inventory of Existing Recreation 

below Conowingo Dam 

3 405-153 Key Map, Initial and Ultimate Recreational 

Development 

4 405-154 Conowingo Creek Boat Launching Facility 

5 405-155 Conowingo Fishermen's Park and Fishermen's 

Warning System 

6 405-156 Conowingo Fishermen's Park, Picnic Pavillion, 

Floor Plans 

7 405-157 Proposed Conowingo Recreation Park--Plot Plan 

8 405-158 Proposed Conowingo Recreation Park--Administration 

Building 

9 405-159 Proposed Conowingo Recreation Park--Washroom 

and Laundry 

10 405-160 Proposed Conowingo Recreation Visitors Center 

(iii) all of the structures, fixtures, equipment, or facilities used or useful in the maintenance or operation of the 

project and located within the project boundary, all portable property that may be employed in connection with the 

project, located within or outside the project boundary, as approved by the Commission, and all riparian or other 

rights, that are necessary or appropriate in the maintenance or operation of the project. 

Exhibit S--consisting of 23 pages of text filed July 29, 1975. 

Page 11 of 17 

(C) Exhibits J, L, M and R, as designated and described in paragraph (B) above, are approved and made a 

part of the license. Exhibit K is approved to the extent that it shows the general locations, description and nature 

of the project. 

(D) The license is also subject to the Articles 1 through 28 set forth in Form L-3 (Revised October, 1975) 

entitled, "Terms and Conditions of License for Constructed Major Project Affecting Navigable Waters of the United 

States," attached to [reported at 54 FPC 1817] and made a part of this license. This license is also subject to the 

following additional articles. 

Article 29. In consultation with appropriate Federal, State and local agencies, including the Susquehanna River 

Basin Commission, the Licensee shall prepare a flood plain management report to be filed with the Commission 

within one year of the issuance date of this license. The report shall: (1) identify all project lands within the 100 

year flood plain; (2) specify which of those lands are subject to frequent flooding due to ice jamming; (3) identify 

the type of use made of each designated parcel of project flood plain lands; (4) assess the consistency of each 

specified use with any hazard to life or property presented by its location in the flood plain; (5) detail consultation 

with current lessees; (6) include any recommendations for retiring any existing uses of the project flood plain that 

are incompatible with public safety and prudent flood plain management; and, (7) provide guidelines for future 

uses of project flood plain lands. 

Article 30. The Licensee shall pay the United States, for the costs of administration of Part I of the Act, a 

reasonable annual charge as determined by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of its regulations, 

in effect from time to time. The authorized installed capacity for such purposes is 686,000 horsepower. 

Article 31. The Conowingo Reservoir shall be available to the Muddy Run Project, FERC No. 2355, as a lower 

pool for pumped-storage operations and to the Peach Bottom Nuclear Plant as a source of cooling water. 


10/15/2008


Article 32. The Licensee shall operate the Conowingo Reservoir between minimum elevation 100.5 feet and 

normal maximum elevation 109.5 feet, shall permit the Licensee of Muddy Run Project, FERC No. 2355, to utilize 

a maximum of 35,500 acre-feet of pondage weekly from Conowingo Reservoir, and shall coordinate the operation 

of the Conowingo Project with the Muddy Run Project in such a manner as to maximize total power benefits from 

both projects. 

Article 33. The Licensee shall file within 60 days from the issuance date of the license "as-built" Exhibit L 

drawings showing the reinforcing tendons in the dam. 

Article 34. Licensee shall, in consultation with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Maryland 

Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

of the Department of the Interior, and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, develop a mutually satisfactory 

study plan to determine: (1) the seasonal variations of dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration and temperature in 

the project reservoir, in the discharge from the project, and in the Susquehanna River downstream to the 

Interstate Highway 95 bridge; (2) the effects of project operation on temperature and DO levels in the reservoir, in 

the discharge from the project, and downstream; (3) the source, nature, and quantity of oxygen-demanding 

materials present in and entering the project reservoir; (4) the most feasible methods for ensuring that water 

released from the project meets State water quality standards; and (5) the minimum flow releases from the project 

that are necessary to protect and enhance fish and wildlife resources. The development of the plan shall be 

coordinated with the coincident study plans of DO conditions and flow releases being developed for the Holtwood 

Project, FERC No. 1881, the Safe Harbor Project, FERC No. 1025, and the York Haven Project, FERC No. 1888, 

and shall include consideration of the operation of other headwater developments in the basin. Within four months 

after the date of issuance of this license, the 

[61,690] 

Page 12 of 17 

Licensee shall file with the Commission for approval a mutually satisfactory study plan. If the Licensee and the 

agencies consulted cannot agree on a study plan, then within four months from the date of issuance of this 

license the Licensee shall file its proposed study plan with the Commission for approval, together with any reports 

or comments it has received on the plan from any consulted agency. At the same time, copies of the filing shall be 

served upon the agencies consulted. The Commission reserves the right to require modifications to the study 

plan. 

The Licensee shall conduct the study as approved by the Commission. Within three months after the date of 

completion of the study, the Licensee shall file with the Commission for approval a report on the results of the 

study, including a schedule of minimum flow releases from the project and recommended measures for the 

maintenance of State water quality standards. At the same time, copies of the report shall be served upon the 

agencies consulted. 

Article 35. Licensee shall implement and modify when appropriate the emergency action plan on file with the 

Commission designed to provide an early warning to upstream and downstream inhabitants, property owners, 

and recreational users if there should be an impending or actual sudden release of water caused by an accident 

to, or failure of, project works. That plan shall include: instructions to be provided on a continuing basis to 

operators and attendants for actions they are to take in the event of an emergency; detailed and documented 

plans for notifying law enforcement agents, appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, operators of waterrelated 

facilities, and those residents, owners of properties, and recreational users that could be endangered; 

actions that would be taken to reduce the inflow to the reservoir, if possible, by limiting the outflow from upstream 

dams or control structures; and actions to reduce downstream flow by controlling the outflow from dams located 

on tributaries to the stream on which the project is located. Licensee shall also submit a summary of the study 

used as a basis for determining the areas that may be affected by any emergency, including criteria and 

assumptions used. Licensee shall monitor any changes in upstream or downstream conditions which may 

influence possible flows or affect areas susceptible to damage, and shall promptly make and file with the 

Commission appropriate changes in the emergency action plan. The Commission reserves the right to require 

modifications to the plan. 


10/15/2008


Article 36. Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Act, a specified reasonable rate of return upon the net investment in 

the project shall be used for determining surplus earnings of the project for the establishment and maintenance of 

amortization reserves. One-half of the project surplus earnings, if any, accumulated under the license, in excess 

of the specified rate of return per annum on the net investment, shall be set aside in a project amortization 

reserve account as of the end of each fiscal year: Provided, that, if and to the extent that there is a deficiency of 

project earnings below the specified rate of return per annum for any fiscal year under the license, the amount of 

such deficiency shall be deducted from the amount of any surplus earnings accumulated thereafter until 

absorbed, and one-half of the remaining surplus earnings, if any cumulatively computed, shall be set aside in the 

project amortization reserve account; and the amounts thus established in the project amortization reserve 

account shall be maintained therein until further order of the Commission. 

The annual specified reasonable rate of return shall be the sum of the weighted cost components of long-term 

debt, preferred stock, and the cost of common equity, as defined herein. The weighted cost component for each 

element of the reasonable rate of return is the product of its capital ratios and cost rate. The current capital ratios 

for each of the above elements of the rate of return shall be calculated annually based on an average of 13 

monthly balances of amounts properly includable in the Licensees' long-term debt and proprietary capital 

accounts as listed in the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts. The cost rates for such ratios shall be the 

weighted average cost of long-term debt preferred stock for the year, and the cost of common equity shall 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 37. Prior to the commencement of any construction or development of any project works or other 

facilities at the project, the Licensee shall consult and cooperate with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) to determine the need for, and extent of, any archeological or historic resource surveys and any 

mitigative measures that may be necessary. The Licensee shall provide funds in a reasonable amount for such 

activity. If any previously unrecorded archeological or historic sites are discovered during the course of 

construction, construction activity in the vicinity shall be halted, a qualified archeologist shall be consulted to 

determine the significance of the sites, and the Licensee shall consult with 

[61,691] 

Page 13 of 17 

the SHPO to develop a mitigation plan for the protection of significant archeological or historic resources. If the 

Licensee and the SHPO cannot agree on the amount of money to be expended on archeological or historic work 

related to the project, the Commission reserves the right to require the Licensee to conduct, at its own expense, 

any such work found necessary. 

Article 38. (a) In accordance with the provisions of this article, the Licensee shall 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 other 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 shall also have continuing responsibility to supervise and control the uses 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 shall take any lawful action necessary to correct 

the violation. For a permitted use or occupancy, that action includes, if necessary, cancelling the permission to 

use and occupy the project lands and waters and requiring the removal of any non-complying structures and 

facilities. 

(b) The types 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; and (3) embankments, bulkheads, retaining walls, or similar structures for 


10/15/2008


erosion control to protect the existing shoreline. To the extent feasible and desirable to protect and enhance 

the project's scenic, recreational, and other environmental values, the Licensee shall require multiple use and 

occupancy of facilities for access to project lands or waters. The Licensee shall also ensure, to the satisfaction of 

the Commission's authorized representative, that the uses 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 shall: (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 reservoir 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 modifications 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 and roads for which 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 cable 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 reservoir. No later than January 31 of each year, the Licensee shall 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 

certificates 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 

[61,692] 

obtained; (5) private or public marinas that can accommodate no more than 10 watercraft at a time and are 

located at least one-half mile from any other private or public marina; (6) recreational development consistent with 

an approved Exhibit R or 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 the edge of the project reservoir at normal maximum 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 45 days before conveying any interest in project lands under this paragraph (d), the 

Licensee must file a letter to the Director, Office of Electric Power Regulation, 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 or 

K 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 Director, 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 paragraphs (c) or (d) of this 

article: 

(1) Before conveying the interest, the Licensee shall consult with Federal and State fish and wildlife or 

recreation agencies, as appropriate, and the State Historic Preservation Officer. 


Page 14 of 17 

10/15/2008


(2) Before conveying the interest, the Licensee shall determine that the proposed use of the lands to be 

conveyed is not inconsistent with any approved Exhibit R or approved report on recreational resources of an 

Exhibit E; or, if the project does not have an approved Exhibit R or approved report on recreational resources, that 

the lands to be conveyed do not have recreational value. 

(3) The instrument of conveyance must include covenants running with the land adequate to ensure that: (i) the 

use of the lands conveyed shall not endanger health, create a nuisance, or otherwise be incompatible with overall 

project recreational use; and (ii) the grantee shall 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. 

(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 or K 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 shall be 

consolidated for consideration when revised Exhibit G or K drawings would be filed for approval for other 

purposes. 

Article 39. The Licensee shall, to the satisfaction of the Commission's authorized representative, install and 

operate any signs, lights, sirens, barriers or other safety devices that may reasonably be needed to warn the 

public of fluctuations in the flow from the project, and to protect the public in its recreational use of project lands 

and waters. 

Article 40. The Licensee shall, within one year from the date of issuance of this license, file a revised Exhibit F 

and, for Commission approval, revised Exhibit K and R drawings which include within the project boundary all 

recreational lands developed or proposed for development, and all existing project land downstream from 


Article 41. Licensee shall, in consultation with the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers and the 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission, and in cooperation with the licensees of Holtwood Project, FERC No. 

1881, Safe Harbor Project, FERC No. 1025, and York Haven Project, FERC No. 1888 conduct a study to 

determine both the magnitude and an appropriate plan for disposition of river borne debris. The results of the 

debris study, and a plan for implementing the recommendations contained therein shall be filed with the 

Commission within two years from the date of issuance of this license. 

Article 42. Licensee shall conduct a study of the islands in the upper reach of the project reservoir to determine 

the ecological characteristics of the islands and the need for 

[61,693] 

Page 15 of 17 

restricting or precluding recreational or other use. A report of the results of the study along with any 

recommendations for the use of the islands shall be filed with the Commission within one year of the issuance of 


10/15/2008


the license. 

(E) This order is final unless an application for rehearing is filed within 30 days from the date of its issuance, as 

provided in Section 313(a) of the Act. The filing of an application for rehearing does not operate as a stay of the 

effective date of this license or of any other date specified in this order, except as specifically ordered by the 

Commission. Failure of the Licensee to file an application for rehearing shall constitute acceptance of this license. 

In acknowledgment of acceptance of this license, the license shall be signed for the Licensee and returned to the 

Commission within 60 days from the date of issuance of this order. 

-- Footnotes -- 

Page 16 of 17 

1 The Susquehanna River Basin Commission was established pursuant to the Susquehanna River Basin 

Compact (Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509 et seq.) with duties and responsibilities for comprehensive planning, 

programming and management of the water and related resources of the Susquehanna River Basin. The 

Commission and SRBC executed a memorandum of understanding on November 5, 1975 providing cooperative 

procedures for processing license applications under Part I of the Federal Power Act and committing themselves 

to give due regard to the recommendations of each other. 

2 Article 33 requires the Applicant, within 60 days of the date of issuance of the license, to file as-built Exhibit L 

drawings showing the reinforcing tendons in the dam. 

3 This holds for the licenses we are concurrently issuing for the upstream Projects Nos. 1025, 1881, and 1888, 

as well. 

4 In 1975, the Water Resources Administration issued a water quality certification for the Conowingo Project 

under Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), 33 U.S.C. §1341, conditioned upon 

compliance with state discharge permit No. 75-DP-0491. That permit incorporated the 5,000 cfs minimum flow 

agreement. On July 1, 1980, the state transferred responsibility for administering water quality programs to its 

Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (MDHMH). On July 29, 1980, MDHNH filed a letter with the 

Commission purporting to rescind or revoke the 1975 water quality certification and issue a new temporary 

certification, pending completion of field studies of water quality and fishery below the dam, on the conditions in 

state permit No. 75-DP-0491 and an additional condition. The additional condition would demand that, from about 

March 15 to about October 15 of each year, the Applicant release flows as directed by MDHMH, to maintain 

dissolved oxygen and temperature standards at an unspecified point below the dam. Neither Section 401 of the 

FWPCA nor the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulations under Section 401 (40 C.F.R. Part 

121) provide for rescission or revocation of a water quality certification once issued by the state. (Maryland has no 

statute or regulations implementing Section 401 of the FWPCA, even assuming it would have any authority to 

enact or issue them.) The EPA regulations permit a certifying state agency to modify a certification only if, among 

other things, the permitting or licensing federal agency agrees. 40 C.F.R. §121.2(b). Even assuming that EPA has 

authority to issue regulations permitting a state agency to modify a state certification after the one-year action 

period prescribed in Section 401 has expired, we believe it would be inappropriate to agree to any modification of 

the 1975 certification for the Conowingo Project. MDHMH's proposed new condition has no specification of a limit 

on minimum flows that might be required and acknowledges that its own studies to determine appropriate flows 

are not completed. As explained below, we are requiring additional studies on appropriate minimum flow 

requirements. For these reasons, this license is issued pursuant to the 1975 state water quality certification. As 

noted below, we retain authority to impose any additional minimum flow requirements that may prove to be in the 

public interest. 

5 We are not, however, ruling out the possibility that data obtained under the required flow release/water quality 

study may be relevant to anadromous fishery issues in the consolidated proceeding. 


10/15/2008


6 Supra p. 5 n. 3 and accompanying text. 

7 In that order the Commission stated that a companion request to grant an easement to the Arundel 

Corporation for industrial development would be dealt with in a future order. That request is still pending and will 

not be acted upon in this order. 

8 The use of the project reservoir for water supply for the Peach Bottom Nuclear Plant was approved by 

Commission order issued October 13, 1970. The use of the Conowingo reservoir as the lower reservoir for the 

Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project No. 2355 was authorized in the order granting a license for Project No. 2355 

issued September 21, 1964. 

9 For an extended discussion of the standard license condition on joint use of project boundary, see Rumford 

Falls Power Company, Project No. 2333, 36 FPC 605 (1966). 

10 New licenses issued this same day for Holtwood Project No. 1881 and York Haven Project No. 1888, both 

upstream of Conowingo, also provide for expiration of those licenses on September 1, 2004. Only the Safe 

Harbor Project No. 1025 will not expire concurrently with the other licensed projects on the Susquehanna River 

but will be subject instead to a 50 year license term due to the substantial redevelopment authorized by that 

license. 



Page 17 of 17 

10/15/2008


COMM-OPINION-ORDER, 13 FERC 61,132, Susquehanna Power Company, Project No. 405, Philadelphia 

Electric Power Company, Project No. 405, (Nov. 18, 1980) 


Susquehanna Power Company, Project No. 405, Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Project No. 405 

[61,269] 

Susquehanna Power Company, Project No. 405 

[61,132] 

Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Project No. 405 

Order on Rehearing 

(Issued November 18, 1980) 

Before Commissioners: Charles B. Curtis, Chairman; Georgiana Sheldon, Matthew Holden, Jr., and J. 

David Hughes. 

On August 14, 1980, the Commission issued an "Order Issuing New Major License" to Susquehanna Power 

Company and Philadelphia Electric Power Company (referred to jointly hereinafter as "Licensee") for the 

continued operation and maintenance of the Conowingo Project, FERC No. 405. Applications for rehearing of that 

order were filed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania-Pennsylvania Fish Commission (PFC), the State of 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) on 

September 15, 1980. 1 By order issued October 15, 1980, we granted rehearing for the purpose of further 

consideration of the applications filed. We will turn now to consider the allegations raised by PFC, MDNR, and 

SRBC (referred to hereinafter jointly as "Petitioners") in their applications for rehearing. 

Jurisdiction 

SRBC in its application for rehearing states that the "Commission erred in failing to defer to the jurisdiction of 

the SRBC and its requirements on all matters raised in the Review and Requirements." 

We did not include in the license verbatim the conditions set forth in SRBC's filing entitled "Review and 

Requirements for Project No. 405." We did, however, address and provide a mechanism for resolving all of the 

major concerns raised by SRBC. Our actions are totally in accord with our responsibilities under the 

Susquehanna River Basin Compact (Compact). As set forth in the conditions and reservations under which the 

United States consented to participate in the Compact, our responsibilities and jurisdiction under the Federal 

Power Act (Act) and other relevant statutes are not altered, provided that "whenever a comprehensive plan, or 

revision thereof, has been adopted with the concurrence of the member appointed by the President, the exercise 

of any power conferred by law on any . . . agency . . . of the United States with regard to water and related land 

resources in the Susquehanna River Basin shall not substantially conflict with any such portion of such 

comprehensive plan . . ." 2 

[61,270] 


Page 1 of 7 

10/15/2008


The Compact has not relieved this Commission of its responsibility under Section 313 of the Act and the 

provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act to base its decisions on substantial evidence. Under our 

memorandum of understanding executed with SRBC on November 5, 1975, the Commission committed itself to 

cooperate with SRBC in the processing of license applications and to give due regard to its recommendations. 

That agreement does not oblige us, however, to include verbatim and without question all requirements or 

recommendations for license conditions forwarded by SRBC. As the discussion of our disposition of the individual 

issues of concerns will show, we took no action in substantial conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. On some 

issues, it was our judgment that further study is required before substantial evidence will exist on which 

appropriate requirements can be fashioned. On others, contested issues of fact as well as contested positions 

with respect to the sufficiency of available evidence required that we sever those issues for separate resolution 

after an evidentiary hearing. On issues where sufficient evidence existed we adopted the recommendation of 

SRBC and fashioned an appropriate license article. In each of the first two kinds of circumstances, the issues 

would not have been resolved any more rapidly if we had deferred issuing the license and we have fully reserved 

the authority to resolve these issues after further studies or hearings. We conclude that the approach used in 

issuing the license for Project No. 405 has not prejudiced the interests of the SRBC, but has fully preserved them 

to the extent that the issues remain unresolved, and that our action does not substantially conflict with the 

comprehensive plan for the Susquehanna River Basin. 

Mimimum Flow 

Page 2 of 7 

The Petitioners criticize the Commission's order for noting the serious water quality problems below the project 

but failing to impose any immediate continuous flow requirement to mitigate the adverse impacts of project 

operation on water quality. We did, as the Petitioners note with approval, include Article 34 which requires the 

Licensee to develop, in consultation with the PFC, MDNR, the Maryland Department of Health and Mental 

Hygiene (MDHMH), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and SRBC, a mutually satisfactory study plan to 

determine the nature and extent of the project's adverse impact on water quality and the minimum flow releases 

necessary to enhance fish and wildlife resources. The study plan is to be coordinated with identical study 

requirements of the other licensed Susquehanna projects and is to be completed within four months of the date of 

issuance of the license. 

SRBC had proposed an interim flow release schedule, but failed to provide any rationale for the specific flows 

recommended. In ordering the study, the Commission noted that "the information available in the record is 

insufficient to permit us to establish any particular flow release now." SRBC, on rehearing, alleges that "the 

Commission has ignored the recognized impact of the Project operation on factors relevant to the public interest." 

In support of its position, SRBC's rehearing application cites a report on a survey, Dissolved Oxygen and 

Temperature Survey of the Lower Susquehanna River, August 9th and 10th, 1979, published in September 1980 

and thus unavailable at the time the license order was issued. This report may serve to shorten the time required 

to complete the study required by Article 34. It does not by itself provide sufficient evidence to negate the need for 

the comprehensive study required by Article 34. PFC insists that an interim minimum flow is required to protect 

fisheries resources while the Article 34 studies are continuing. MDNR maintains that the licensee must be 

required to operate the project to meet state water quality standards. 

We do agree with the Petitioners that the need for resolution of water quality problems that may be caused or 

aggravated by project operation is urgent. The participation of the Petitioners, among others, in the Article 34 

study should serve to expedite the process. The Petitioners request, however, that we impose a minimum flow 

schedule in the interim until the study is complete. Absent reliable base data and without knowing what 

operational modifications will be required under the study to be developed by SRBC, the Licensee, PFC, MDNR, 

MDHMH and USFWS, we cannot meaningfully fashion interim flow requirements on our own here. We shall, 

however, revise Article 34 to require the Licensee, in conjunction with the agencies involved in to the development 

of the study to propose intereim flow requirements for those periods of time that project operation would not 

otherwise be dictated by the needs of the study. Pending the results of the Article 34 study, the Licensee and 

consulting agencies are in the best position to negotiate an acceptable interim minimum flow requirement that will 

provide for the aquatic habitat downstream of Conowingo dam, while taking into account the Licensee's 

generation needs and operational constraints. Failure of these parties to reach agreement on interim flows--as 

well details of 


10/15/2008


[61,271] 

the study--will be resolved by the Commission as rapidly as possible on the basis of whatever information the 

parties have been able to develop. 

Water Quality Monitoring 

SRBC stated in its Review and Requirements that "any license for the Project must require development and 

implementation of a program to monitor water quality . . ." at the project. On rehearing, SRBC notes that this 

requirement is based upon specific provisions of SRBC's Comprehensive Plan and alleges that "[b]y failing to 

include in the License the requirement for monitoring water quality, the Commission's Order, inter alia, clearly and 

substantially conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan . . . ." The Commission has, however, required the monitoring 

of water quality. The two water quality parameters SRBC recommended measuring, temperature and dissolved 

oxygen, are included among the water quality parameters to be studied under Article 34. It is implicit in the 

provisions of Article 34 that water quality monitoring will be required to assess the nature and extent of water 

quality problems as well as the success of any measures in improving water quality. As a participant in the 

development of the study plan, SRBC may play a direct role in further defining proper features for a water quality 

monitoring system for the project. 


PFC states that the Licensee should be required to develop and implement a program to improve and enhance 

the fish and wildlife resources on project waters. PFC asserts that the Licensee should be required "to develop 

and implement such programs as may be required "to develop and implement such programs as may be required 

by the state agency having primary jurisdiction over the wildlife resources or the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service." Such a delegation of authority to the state resource management agency or the USFWS, however, 

would potentially subordinate overall comprehensive development under Section 10(a) of the Act, to narrower 

concerns about fish and wildlife, which we shall not do. We have, however, made adequate provision for the 

protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources for the future under Article 15 of the license. Article 15 

requires the Licensee, for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources, to construct and 

operate such reasonable facilities and comply with such reasonable modifications of the project structures and 

operation, as may be ordered by the Commission upon its own motion or upon the recommendation of the 

Secretary of the Interior or the fish and wildlife agency of any state in which the project is located. Additionally, a 

number of the special license conditions imposed address current issues of concern to fish and wildlife resources, 

such as, water quality, minimum flows, anadromous fishery needs, and land use restrictions. 

Study Periods 

SRBC avers that the Commission "erred in failing to require Licensee to complete the studies required by 

Article 34 and 41 within one year from date of the order." 

Page 3 of 7 

Article 34 requires the Licensee to conduct a water quality/minimum flow study in consultation with MDNR, 

MDHMH, PFC, USFWS and SBRC. A study plan is to be filed within four months from the date of issuance of the 

license. Comments of the consulting agencies are to be filed if the agencies and the Licensee cannot agree. The 

Commission has reserved the right to require modifications to the study plan. The term of the study is to be 

determined as part of the study plan in consultation with the specified agencies, including SRBC. Should SRBC 

find that it disagrees with the scheduled study completion date as set forth in the study plan, it will have an 

opportunity to present its arguments to the Commission at the time the proposed study plan is filed. 

Article 41 requires the Licensee to conduct a debris management study in consultation with SRBC, the Corps 

of Engineers and the licensees of the other licensed Susquehanna projects. The results of the study and a plan 

for implementing recommendations are to be filed within two years of the license. In light of the coordination that 

will be required, we deem it unreasonable to require completion of the study and preparation of an implementation 

plan within one year of the date of issuance of the license. As one of the specified consulting agencies, SRBC will 


10/15/2008


be in a position to assist in the expedition of the study. 

Recreation 

SRBC asserts that the Commission erred in failing to require the Licensee to begin within one year of the date 

of the order development and construction of recreation facilities at the six areas stated for development by the 

Licensee. SRBC made no such recommendation in its Review and Requirements filed November 16, 1979. In 

that document, SRBC did recommend development of the two new public recreational developments proposed by 

the Licensee within five years of the issuance of the license and scheduling development of access areas at 

[61,272] 

Peters and Fishing Creeks within ten to fifteen years. 

There is no demonstrated need in the record to support immediate development of all six proposed 

recreational developments. The Licensee has agreed to continue to monitor recreational use at the project to 

determine when additional recreational facilities are warranted. PFC states that the Licensee must be ordered to 

follow a precise schedule concerning further planning and development of recreational facilities, and suggests 

incorporating the schedule set forth by SRBC in its November 16, 1979 filing. We agree that further attention to a 

schedule for development is required and shall add Article 43 to the license for Project No. 405 to require the 

Licensee, in consultation with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies, to conduct a study of the need for 

construction within the next five years of project recreational facilities, including, but not limited to, the Conowingo 

Recreation Park (Development Area 1), Conowingo Visitor Center (Development Area 2), Conowingo Dam 

Development on the east bank above the dam (Development Area 6), and the Peach Bottom Boat Launch on the 

west bank of the project reservoir near the nuclear station (Development Area A). Within one year of the date of 

issuance of the license, the Licensee will be required to file a report on the results of the study and a schedule for 

the initial development of recreational facilities determined necessary by the study. 

PFC further asserts that standard license Article 17, which requires the Licensee to provide for such 

reasonable recreational facilities as the Commission may prescribe upon its own motion or the motion of other 

interested state or federal agencies, should be supplemented by the requirement that the Licensee shall operate 

such recreational facilities as may be required by state agencies having primary jurisdiction over the recreational 

use. As we explained in response to PFC's similar suggestion with respect to fish and wildlife programs, we shall 

not subordinate in this manner our statutory responsibilities for comprehensive development of the waterway 

involved. Article 17, as written, does, however, specifically provide for cooperation with interested state and 

federal agencies. 

Joint Use of Project Property 

Page 4 of 7 

Reaffirming its previous position, SRBC asserts that "[t]he method for computing charges imposed by Licensee 

on third parties for taking water from the project is, inter alia, not supported by the Federal Power Act. 

We dealt with this matter at length in our August 14, 1980 order. With respect to the Applicant's agreement with 

the City of Baltimore (City) and the Chester Water Authority (CWA), we explained that the charges were assessed 

for the use of the project reservoir. 

Although SRBC speaks of "charges imposed by Licensee on third parties." It is important to note that the joint 

use arrangements at Project No. 405 do not involve charges unilaterally imposed by the Licensee. They are 

based on agreements reached between the Licensee and the joint-users. Pursuant to standard Article 13, any 

person, association, corporation, federal agency, state or municipality may apply for and the Licensee must permit 

reasonable joint use of the project reservoir or other project properties. The terms of compensation are 

established either by Commission approval of an agreement between the Licensee and the joint user or users or, 


10/15/2008


in the event the Licensee and the proposed joint-users cannot reach agreement, the charges will be 

determmined by the Commission after notice and opportunity for hearing. No objection to the terms of the jointuse 

agreements at Project No. 405 have been raised by the parties to those agreements. More significantly, no 

joint use agreements involving Project No. 405 have expired and thus no joint use agreement is before us for 

approval. 

We have previously discussed that we would not act to approve any proposed joint use involving the allocation 

of water for municipal purposes until SRBC had acted on the allocation request and indicated its judgment as to 

the compatibility of the proposed joint use with the Comprehensive Plan. We reiterate that the views of SRBC with 

respect to compensation will be welcomed in the Commission's subsequent deliberations. 

Need for Adjudicatory Hearing 

The Petitioners allege that the Commission erred in failing to conduct adjudicatory hearings on numerous 

disputed relevant and material issues of fact. The allegations raised do not discuss specific issues of fact, how 

they were contested or how Commission action in issuing the license order resolved these issues prejudicing the 

rights of the Petitioners. A review of the license order wiil reveal that no disposition of these issues was 

undertaken to the detriment of Petitioners' positions. Resolution of those issues to which the Petitioners 

apparently refer was deferred pending the completion of a study or preparation of a plan in consultation with 

appropriate agencies under a license condition providing for Commission approval in the future. Consultations in 

conducting such 

[61,273] 

Page 5 of 7 

required studies or preparing plans often provide contesting parties an opportunity to reach an accord. Should a 

dispute persist, however, upon the filing of the plan or study results, the objections of any interested party can and 

should be raised at that time. In each instance the Commission has reserved sufficient authority to resolve the 

dispute and impose appropriate requirements on the Licensee. 

The Petitioners imply that in setting certain matters aside for study, we did so in lieu of resolving numerous 

material facts and issues. On the contrary, we did so because there was not sufficient data upon which to make a 

judgment. We have denied no one the right of opportunity for hearing. Should there be material and relevant 

contested issues of fact that remain upon the completion of a required study or plan, an adjudicatory hearing will 

be held at that time. We are under no obligation to hold an adjudicatory hearing at this time, when to do so would 

be pointless. The right of opportunity for hearing does not require a procedure that will be empty sound and show 

signifying nothing. 3 

Petitioners allege that it was improper to issue the license prior to a resolution of the issues set for study and/or 

remanded for hearing. To proceed to issue a license for a project while relegating certain unresolved issues for 

further study or separate hearing might be considered objectionable if, in so doing, the Commission prejudiced 

the rights of parties to the proceeding or diminished its authority to impose appropriate requirements on the 

licensee in the future. The terms and conditions of the license issued do neither. For example, in setting for 

hearing the question of the status of the anadromous fishery in the Susquehanna River Basin and what 

measures, if any, should be required to protect or enhance that fishery, we stated: 

Deferring resolution of the anadromous fisheries question while going forward with issuing new licenses for the 

licensed Susquehanna projects will not in any way diminish our authority to resolve this question. The 

Commission has reserved sufficient authority in the new licenses concurrently issued for the licensed 

Susquehanna projects to require the licensees to undertake any appropriate measures related to the fishery 

resources of the project area. 

No party supporting or opposing fishery enhancement measures at the project is in any way prejudiced by the 


10/15/2008


Commission's action in going forward with the issuance of the license. Similarly, with their right to participate in 

consultations and to raise any objections upon completion of one of the required studies, the Commission has 

not prejudiced the rights of the Petitioners by proceeding to issue a new license. The Commission's authority to 

impose open-ended license conditions to provide for future determinations is well established. 4 

MDNR stated that the Commission should have required the Licensee to complete the studies required under 

Article 29, 34, 41 and 42 of the new license before issuing the license. To the contrary, we believe the public 

interest is best served by bringing a previously licensed project under the terms and conditions of a new license 

rather than continuing to regulate the operation of the project by the issuance of an annual license, extending the 

provisions of the old license. The terms and conditions under a new license are far more expansive than those 

included in the past and the new requirements and procedures provided for assuring regulatory control over the 

project are more effective in protecting the public interest. We also note that refusal on our part to issue a new 

license at this time would not serve to resolve outstanding issues any earlier than will be the case under the 

provisions of the new license. Having reserved adequate authority to resolve in an orderly fashioned the 

outstanding issues with respect to the Conowingo Project, we were justified in finding as required by Section 10 

(a), that the project, as modified by the terms and conditions of the license, would be best adapted to the 

comprehensive development of the waterway and that the issuance of a license to Susquehanna Power 

Company and Philadelphia Electric Power Company would be in the public interest. 

* * * 

Those allegations in the applications for rehearing that are not specifically discussed in this order raise no new 

questions of law, fact, or policy and thus require no further discussion. 


(A) The applications for rehearing of the Commission's "Order Issuing New Major License" for Project No. 405, 

issued August 14, 1980, are denied except to the extent provided in ordering paragraphs (B) and (C) below. 

(B) Article 34 of the license for Project No. 405 is modified to read: 

Article 34. License shall, in consultation with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Maryland 


of the Department of the Interior and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, develop a mutually satisfactory 

study plan to 

[61,274] 

Page 6 of 7 

determine: (1) the seasonal variations of dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration and temperature in the project 

reservoir, in the discharge from the project, and in the Susquehanna River downstream to the Interstate Highway 

95 bridge; (2) the effects of project operation on temperature and DO levels in the reservoir, in the discharge from 

the project and downstream; (3) the source, nature, and quantity of oxygen-demanding materials present in and 

entering the project reservoir; (4) the most feasible methods for ensuring that water released from the project 

meets State water quality standards; and (5) the minimum flow releases from the project that are necessary to 

protect and enhance fish and wildlife resources. In addition, and in consultation with the Commission's staff and 

the above-listed agencies, the Licensee shall develop a schedule of interim minimum flow releases for aquatic 

habitat downstream of the Conowingo dam pending completion of the study required by this article. The 

development of the interim flow schedules and the study plan shall be coordinated with the coincident study plans 

of DO conditions and flow releases, and, if appropriate, interim flow schedules being developed for the Holtwood 

Project, FERC No. 1881, the Safe Harbor Project, FERC No. 1025, and the York Haven Project, FERC No. 1888, 

and shall include consideratiton of the operation of other headwater developments in the basin. Within four 

months after the date of issuance of this license the License shall file with the Commission for approval a mutually 

satisfactory interim flow schedule and study plan. If the Licensee and the parties consulted cannot agree on either 

the interim flow schedule or the study plan, then the Licensee shall, within the four month period provided in this 


10/15/2008


article, file its proposed interim flow schedule or study plan with the Commission for approval, together with 

reports or comments it has received on the interim flow schedule or plan from any consulted party. At the same 

time, copies of the filing shall be served upon the parties consulted. The Commission reserves the right to require 

modifications to the interim flow schedule or the study plan. 



study, including a schedule of minimum flow releases from the project and recommended measures for the 



(C) The following Article 43 is added to the License to Project No. 405. 

Article 43. Licensee shall, in consultation with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies, conduct a study to 

determine the need for initial development (within five years of the date of issuance of the license) of project 

recreational facilities, including, but not limited to, Development Areas 1, 2, 6, and A as described in the approved 

Exhibit R (Drawing FERC No. 405-153). Licensee shall, within one year from the date of issuance of the license, 

file with the Commission a report on the results of the study and, if warranted by the results of the study, an 

application for Commission approval of an amendment to the Exhibit R to include Licensee's plan for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of recreational facilities to be developed initially. 


1 An application was filed by the Licensee on September 11, 1980, seeking clarification of the license 

expiration date. That matter was clarified by Errata Notice issued October 7, 1980, and Licensee's application was 

denied by operation of law pursuant to Section 1.34(c) of our Regulations (18 CFR §1.34(c)). 

2 Compact, Part II, Section 2, (r)(2). 

3 Citizens for Allegan County v. FPC, 414 F.2d 1125, 1128 (1969). 

4 See, e.g., Portland General Electric Company v. FPC, 328 F.2d 165, 175. 



Page 7 of 7 

10/15/2008


COMM-OPINION-ORDER, 13 FERC 61,192, Susquehanna Power Company & Philadelphia Electric Power 

Company, Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, York Haven 

Power Company, EL80-38, Project Nos. 405, 1025, 1881, 1888, (Dec. 02, 1980) 


Susquehanna Power Company & Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Safe Harbor Water Power 

Corporation, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, York Haven Power Company, EL80-38, Project Nos. 

405, 1025, 1881, 1888 

[61,395] 

[61,192] 

Susquehanna Power Company & Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Safe Harbor Water Power 

Corporation, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, York Haven Power Company, EL80-38, Project 

Nos. 405, 1025, 1881, 1888 

Order Denying Petition for Interim Relief and for Expedited Consideration 

(Issued December 2, 1980) 

Before Commissioners: Charles B. Curtis, Chairman; Matthew Holden, Jr., George R. Hall and J. David 

Hughes. 

On September 29, 1980, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (Petitioner) filed a petition for an order 

granting interim relief and for expedited consideration of its request that the Commission impose interim minimum 

flows at Project Nos. 405, 1025 and 1881, three of the four licensed Susquehanna River projects. 1 Responses in 

opposition to the petition were filed by Pennsylvania Power & Light Company and Safe Harbor Water Power 

Corporation, jointly, and by Susquehanna Power Company and Philadelphia Electric Power Company, jointly. 

On August 14, 1980, we issued orders issuing new major licenses for the Susquehanna River projects. 2 By 

order issued that same day, we ordered that a hearing be held on the common issue of the status of the 

anadromous fishery in the Susquehanna River, in a new consolidated proceeding designated EL 80-38. 

Subsequently, by orders issued on November 18 and 19, 1980, we acted on applications for rehearing filed by the 

Petitioner and others with respect to the four orders issuing new major licenses for the Susquehanna River 

projects. 

The Petitioner requests that the Commission immediately order the licensees for Project Nos. 405, 1025 and 

1881 to maintain, on an interim basis, certain continuous releases of water at the respective dams allegedly 

needed to support, maintain, and protect the biological needs of indigenous fish below the respective dams. The 

Petitioner requests that the proposed interim flow requirement remain effective until the Commission's August 14, 

1980 licensing orders and orders on rehearing have become final and no longer subject to judicial review, and 

until further proceedings and studies as are necessary have been completed. 

Petitioner's request is, in essence, a restatement of its position on the need for 


Page 1 of 2 

10/15/2008


[61,396] 

interim continuous flow requirements at Project Nos. 405, 1025 and 1881 as set forth in its applications for 

rehearing filed September 15, 1980, eleven days prior to filing of the subject petition. In our orders on rehearing 

issued November 18 and 19, 1980, we responded to the allegations raised by the Petitioner regarding interim 

flows Provisions were made for determining interim continuous flow requirements at Project Nos. 405, 1025 and 

1881, pending completion of the coordinated studies of water quality and permanent minimum flow requirements 

under the new licenses for the Susquehanna River projects. Accordingly, we need not reconsider or repeat our 

consideration and disposition of that issue here. 


The petition for interim relief and expedited consideration filed by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission 

on September 26, 1980, with respect to Project Nos. 405, 1025, 1881 and 1888 is denied. 


1 We note that Petitioner included Docket No. EL80-38 and Docket Nos. 405, 1025, 1881 and 1888 in the 

heading on its pleading. The Docket No. EL80-38 preceeding is a consolidated proceeding on the issue of the 

anadromous fishery and is pending before an Administrative Law Judge. Petitioner's prayer for relief is beyond 

the scope of that consolidated proceeding and we shall therefore act on the petition as a matter separate from 

that proceeding. 

2 Susquehanna Power Company & Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Conowingo Project No. 405; Safe 

Harbor Water Power Corporation, Safe Harbor Project No. 1025; Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, 

Holtwood Project No. 1881; and York Haven Power Company, York Haven Project No. 1888. 



Page 2 of 2 

10/15/2008


ALJ-DEC, 18 FERC 63,083, Philadelphia Electric Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. EL80-38-000, et al. 

(Phase II) *, (Mar. 25, 1982) 


Philadelphia Electric Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. EL80-38-000, et al. (Phase II) * 

[65,221] 

[63,083] 

Philadelphia Electric Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. EL80-38-000, et al. (Phase II) * 

Order of Presiding Judge Establishing Susquehanna River Technical Committee 

(Issued March 25,1982) 

David I. Harfeld, Presiding Administrative Law Judge. 

Page 1 of 2 

Article 34 of the License for Project No. 405 at the Conowingo Dam on the Susquehanna River in Northern 

Maryland requires these Licensees, in consultation with the involved fishery agencies, to develop studies to 

determine, inter alia, what steps, if any, are necessary to improve the water quality and what minimum flow 

releases, if any, are needed to protect and enhance the fish and wildlife resources. At an Oral Argument in this 

docket (prior to its phasing), held February 9, 1982, Staff counsel indicated that there is a dispute among the 

parties and Staff concerning the scope and implementation of these required Article 34 studies, and that they 

were attempting to create a technical group to resolve the problems. (Tr. 4780, 5138-5147) At that Oral Argument, 

the Presiding Judge suggested that such a technical group might be arranged in a manner similar to a 

comparable system established to address similar issues in a proceeding involving the Nisqually River. (Tr. 4799- 

4800) (See, City of Tacoma, Washington, Project No. 1862, Order of Presiding Judge Establishing Nisqually River 

Coordinating Committee and Designating Interim Flow Regime, issued August 15, 1978). 

At a Post-Hearing Conference in the above proceeding held on March 9, 1982, the parties and Staff indicated 

that they had reached an agreement on the make-up of this technical committee and the time frame in which it 

should operate, similar to the system suggested by the Presiding Judge as described above, as follows (Tr. 5201- 

4): this committee should be comprised of one representative each from Staff, Licensees, and the following 

Intervenors--Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Department of the 

Interior, and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission; and the committee would act only by unanimous vote 

(Tr. 5201, 5203-5204). It was further agreed that the committee would be given 60 days to reach an agreement 

concerning the nature, scope, design, and implementation of the required Article 34 studies; and that, if unable to 

achieve this purpose, Staff counsel would notify the Presiding Judge promptly, and the parties and Staff would 

submit written statements of position to the Presiding Judge within ten days after such notice. The Presiding 

Judge would then rule based upon these written presentations, and, if necessary, oral argument. 

Such an arrangement is deemed to be in the public interest as the most effective vehicle for achieving a 

developed and implemented mutually satisfactory study flow plan as required by Article 34 of the license for 

Project No. 405. With regard to the extent of Staff's responsibilities on the type of committee envisioned by the 

affected parties and herein approved, the Presiding Judge deems it appropriate to be guided by Rule 1.1(2) of the 

Commission's Rules and Regulations which clearly characterize Staff as a participant, rather than a party, to all 

proceedings before it. Thus, Staff's status on such a committee will be defined as liaison, with full rights of 

attendance and participation in all discussions. This comports with the similar arrangements approved in the City 


10/15/2008


of Tacoma proceeding, supra. Accordingly, pursuant to the agreement between the parties and Staff, as herein 

modified, and for good cause shown, 

It is ordered that: 

1. Susquehanna River Technical Committee is hereby established. Each of the following parties shall appoint, 

within five 

[65,222] 

days of this Order, a representative to serve on this Committee: Conowingo Licensees (for this purpose, the 

Licensees are considered one party), the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, the 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission. A representative of 

the Commission Staff shall be designated as liaison to the Committee, and shall have the right to attend all 

meetings and participate in all discussions. Designation of representatives, and any changes in designations, 

shall be served upon all parties, Staff and the Presiding Judge. A chairman shall be designated for administrative 

purposes and will be responsible for calling meetings of the Committee. The Committee will act only be 

unanimous decision. 

2. The Committee will consider the nature, scope, design and implementation of the studies required by Article 

34 of the Conowingo License as amended and clarified by the Commission Orders issued in Project No. 405 on 

November 18, 1980 [13 FERC 61,132 ] (Order on Rehearing), and January 11, 1982 (Order Responding to Joint 

Motion and Setting Procedural Time Schedule). If, within 65 days of the date of this Order, the Committee cannot 

agree upon any of these matters, the parties represented and Staff shall submit written statements within 75 days 

of the date of this Order to the Presiding Judge outlining their respective positions. On the basis of these 

statements and, if deemed necessary, oral argument, the Presiding Judge will rule on the disputes presented. 

The Presiding Judge shall retain jurisdiction in this matter for the purposes delineated in the Commission's 

Orders (1) of February 3, 1982, in Project No. 405, "Setting Hearings and Consolidating Dockets", and (2) of 

August 14, 1980, in Docket No. EL80-38 , et al., "Providing for Hearing." This Order shall remain in effect until 

modified or vacated by the Presiding Judge. 

* This phase of the subject docket is designed to address resolution of a permanent suitable flow regime at 

all involved hydroelectric facilities covered by Project Nos. 405, 1025, 1881 and 1888, respectively, to be 

commenced following completion of certain studies required to be developed by the licensees of the affected 

Projects. (See my prior Order of February 19, 1982, Phasing Proceedings in Lead Docket and Establishing 

Expedited Procedural Schedule in Project No. 405-009 ). 



Page 2 of 2 

10/15/2008


OD-ORDER, 18 FERC 62,539, Susquehanna Power Company and the Philadelphia Electric Power 

Company, Project No. 405-010, (Mar. 30, 1982) 


Susquehanna Power Company and the Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Project No. 405-010 

[63,924] 

[62,539] 

Susquehanna Power Company and the Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Project No. 405-010 

Order Approving Change In Land Rights 

(Issued March 30, 1982) 

Robert E. Cackowski, Deputy Director, Office of Electric Power Regulation. 

On December 29, 1981, the Susquehanna Power Company and the Philadelphia Electric Power Company 

(Licensees) filed an application for a change in land rights at the Conowingo Project on the Susquehanna River, 

near the City of Havre de Grace, Maryland. 1 Specifically, the Licensees request approval of an agreement 

executed on May 2, 1978, to grant an easement across a narrow strip of project land to the Arundel Corporation 

(Arundel) to facilitate the loading of crushed or sized stone from a quarry located adjacent to the project. 

processing, handling, storage, and loading facilities would be constructed and an existing wharf would be utilized. 

Application History 

On August 17, 1978, the Licensees filed a combined application seeking approval of the Arundel easement, 

and the sale of project land to the land of Havre de Grace for historic restoration. On April 13, 1979, 7 FERC an 

order was issued approving only the sale of land. 

[63,925] 

Page 1 of 2 

This combined application was given public notice on November 2, 1978, and on December 18, 1978, the 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) petitioned to intervene because of its plans to develop a hiking 

and bike trail in the area, a land-use which DNR believed to be incompatible with Arundel's proposed use. 

Intervention was granted on April 30, 1979. 

On October 31, 1978, the staff requested supplemental information on the Arundel easement, referencing the 

Department of the Interior's comment filed on the relicense application for Project No. 405 that a hiking trail 

extending from the dam area to Havre de Grace was being planned. The staff received no response to this 

request. On October 27, 1980, the Arundel application was rejected. Subsequently, on November 7, 1980, 

Arundel and DNR entered into a Stipulation and Agreement, settling the issue of potential recreational conflict. On 

March 6, 1981, an offer of settlement incorporating the Stipulation and Agreement was filed. The present 

application represents a refiling of the original Arundel easement application, including the Stipulation and 

Agreement. 


10/15/2008


Environmental Impacts 

The proposed easement lands are located in a narrow strip of project land one mile long on the west side of 

the river downstream from the dam. These project lands served as a railroad right-of-way used to haul equipment 

from Havre de Grace for the construction of Conowingo Dam. The railroad is not in use. 

In the Stipulation and Agreement, Apendix III, Maryland DNR waived all objections to the proposed change in 

land rights. Arundel agreed to provide access to DNR through the buffer area around its property to establish a 

section of hiking trail. 

Any future improvement in the river's shad fishery could increase shoreline fishing activities near the proposed 

easement. Article 15 of the executed agreement would ensure adequate future recreational access to the river. 

The proposed change in land rights and granting of an easement across project lands for a gravel storage and 

loading area would be compatible with existing land use in the area. Environmental impacts resulting from 

approval of the application would be associated with the activities of the gravel operations that would occur in part 

on project lands. These impacts are expected to be of short-term duration and minor in nature and end with the 

completion of the gravel operation. 

It is concluded that approval of the application would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting 

the quality of the human environment. 


A. The application filed by the Philadelphia Electric Power company and the Susquehanna Power Company on 

December 29, 1981, is hereby approved. 

B. This order is final unless an application for rehearing is filed within 30 days from the date of its issuance, as 

provided in Section 313(a) of the Act. The filing of an application for rehearing does not operate as a stay of an 

date specified in this order, except as specifically ordered by the Commission. 

-- Footnote -- 

1 Authority to act on this matter is delegated to the Deputy Director, Office of Electric Power Regulation under 

§375.308 of the Commission's regulations 45 Fed. Reg. 21216 (1980), as amended by Order No. 112 in Docket 

No. RM81-5 , issued November 21, 1980, [FERC Statutes and Regulations 30,211 ] (45 Fed. Reg. 79024). 



Page 2 of 2 

10/15/2008


ALJ-DEC, 19 FERC 63,099, Susquehanna Power Company, Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Project No. 405-009, 

(June 30, 1982) 


Susquehanna Power Company, Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Project No. 405-009 

[65,310] 

[63,099] 

Susquehanna Power Company, Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Project No. 405-009 

Order Establishing Interim Flow Regime 


Statement of the Case 

(Issued June 30, 1982) 

This case presents the question of whether and to what extent the Licensees for Project 405 should be required to provide 

minimum flows at their hydroelectric Project on an interim basis, pending their completion of required studies, which will provide the 

basis for a permanent flow regime. The unusually complex history of this proceeding is set out below. 

By Order of August 14, 1980, the Commission issued a new major license to the Philadelphia Electric Power Company and the 

Susquehanna Power Company (Licensees) authorizing the continued operation of the Conowingo Hydroelectric Project No. 405 

located on the Susquehanna River. Susquehanna Power Company and Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Project No. 405, 

Order Issuing New Major License, [19 FERC 61,348 ]. By separate Orders issued the same day, the Commission granted new 

licenses for three other hydroelectric projects located on the Susquehanna River upstream 

[65,311] 

Page 1 of 17 

from the Conowingo Project. 1 A number of State and Federal agencies had intervened or filed comments in the Project No. 405 

relicensing proceeding and urged the Commission to include in the license various provisions to, inter alia, protect and enhance fish 

and wildlife resources including the institution of interim minimum flow releases. These agencies also requested that the 

Commission require the construction of fish passage facilities for the restoration of the anadromous fishery. 

Responding to the claims of these agencies, the Commission included in the Project 405 license Articles 9, 12 and 15 reserving 

the authority to order changes in project operations, including the institution of a minimum flow regime, and to order the construction, 

maintenance, and operation of facilities in the interest of fish and wildlife resources. Id., mimeo pp. 5-9. Identical provisions were 

included in the other three licensees. To determine the level and duration of minimum flows to enhance the indigenous (resident) 

fishery, the Commission included Article 34 in the license, which requires the Licensees to consult with the involved State and 

Federal agencies and develop "a mutually satisfactory study plan to determine [inter alia the] . . . minimum flow release necessary to 

protect and enhance fish and wildlife resources." Id., p. 8. Determination of the minimum flows needed to attract and protect the 

anadromous (migratory) fish and the need, if any, for fish passage facilities were set for hearing in a separate proceeding, in a 

separate Order issued concurrently with the licenses. Philadelphia Electric Power Company, et al., Docket No. EL80-38 , et al., 

Order Providing for Hearing. 2 

The involved fishery agencies filed for rehearing of the August 1980 Order granting the Conowingo license, and they faulted the 

Commission for its failure to direct the Licensees to institute minimum flow releases immediately. The Commission agreed that the 

issues raised should be resolved expeditiously, but observed that there was insufficient reliable data on which an interim flow regime 

could be based. Thus, the petitioning agencies' request that a minimum flow regime be imposed was rejected, and, instead, the 

Commission modified Article 34 to require the Licensees, "in consultation with the Commission's staff and the . . . [involved] 

agencies, [to] . . . develop a schedule of interim minimum flow releases for aquatic habitat downstream of the Conowingo dam 

pending completion of the study required by this article." Susquehanna Power Company and the Philadelphia Electric Power 

Company, Project No. 405, Order on Rehearing, issued November 18, 1980 [13 FERC 61,132 ], mimeo, p. 10. In the event the 


10/15/2008


parties were unable to agree, the Commission indicated that it would decide the issue on the basis of the information available. 

On January 11, 1982, the Commission, in response to a Joint Motion filed on December 7, 1981, by Licensees and the involved 

fishery agencies, issued an Order acknowledging "that the requirements of Article 34 of the license for Project No. 405 encompass 

both migratory and resident species of fish." Philadelphia Electric Power Company and the Susquehanna Power Company, Project 

No. 405, Order Responding to Joint Motion and Setting Procedural Time Schedule, 18 FERC 61,031, p. 61,044 . This Order 

requires that the Article 34 studies, including the development of an interim minimum flow regime if found to be necessary and 

required, consider the needs of both the anadromous and the resident species in the affected area of the Susquehanna River. 

In the meantime, the involved parties and Staff were unable to agree on a suitable interim flow regime for Project 405, as 

reflected in their respective submissions. Consequently, the Commission, in an Order issued February 3, 1982, set the matter for 

hearing before this Presiding Judge and consolidated this matter with the proceedings in Docket No. EL80-38-000 , et al., finding 

that the existing record in Project 405 was still inadequate to sustain a decision on which of the proposed interim flow regimes, if 

any, should be adopted. Susquehanna Power Company and the Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Project No. 405, Order 

Setting Hearings and Consolidating Dockets, 18 FERC 61,090 (1982). 3 In this Order, the Commission explained that "[t]he 

hearings will be for the immediate purpose of considering what interim flow changes, if any, should be imposed to protect the fishery 

downstream of Conowingo dam." Id., p. 61,165. With regard to the provisions of Article 34, the Commission noted that the Presiding 

Judge ". . . may also be directed to monitor the implementation of the Commission's directive for the study plan." Id., footnote 

omitted. 4 After noting the provisions of the Articles of the license reserving authority to alter project operations, the Commission 

observed that a "final disposition of this docket . . . will result from a determination of a suitable flow regime for the project." (Id.) 

The second ordering paragraph of this February 3 Order delegated to the Presiding Judge the authority to order interim changes 

in the operations of Project No. 405, and provided that "[a]ppeals from any such orders shall comply with Section 1.28 of the 

Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure which governs interlocutory appeals. While this prescribed 

[65,312] 

procedure was challenged by Licensees during post-hearing oral argument in this matter, held on April 15, 1982, the Presiding 

Judge ruled that the Commission's Order is clear on its face, and that any appeals must be filed in accordance with the 

Commission's directive. (Tr. 542) 

Following this February Order, the Presiding Judge phased the proceedings in Docket No. EL80-38-000 , et al., and provided for 

the resolution of the interim flow question in the instant proceeding to be handled on an expedited basis. Philadelphia Electric 

Company, et al., Order Phasing Proceedings in Lead Docket and Establishing Expedited Procedural Schedule in Project No. 405, 

issued February 19, 1982, 18 FERC 63,064 . This proceeding, now docketed as Project No. 405-009 , is limited to the resolution of 

the issue of interim minimum flows, considering both anadromous and resident species. The question of permanent minimum flows 

will be determined in Phase II of the lead docket (Docket No. EL80-38-000 , et al.) following completion of the Article 34 studies. The 

permanent flows will, of course, supersede any interim flows established in this case. All other issues in the Docket No. EL80-38- 

000 proceeding remain for decision in Phase I. 

Hearings in this matter commenced March 29, 1982, and were concluded April 13, 1982. A post-hearing Conference was held on 

April 15, 1982. Initial and Reply Briefs were filed on May 6, 1982, and May 13, 1982, respectively, by Staff, Licensees and, jointly, by 

the following Intervenors: U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior), Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC), Pennsylvania 

Fish Commission (PFC), Maryland Department of Natural Resources (Maryland), Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources 

(Pennsylvania), Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsman's Clubs (Sportsman's Club), and the Upper Chesapeake Watershed 

Association (Chesapeake). 5 

Preliminary Matters 

Page 2 of 17 

On May 26, 1982, Intervenors filed a joint Motion to Strike directed to Appendices A, C, D, and related text and one footnote of 

Licensees' Reply Brief. Intervenors contend that the challenged portions of the Brief contain material which should have been 

submitted as part of Licensees' direct case, and that Intervenors have effectively been denied an opportunity to cross-examine the 

sponsor of the material or to file rebuttal evidence. Staff filed an answer in support of this Motion on June 1, 1982. 

In a response (denominated "Answer") filed on June 3, 1982, Licensees contend that the Administrative Procedure Act is 

sufficiently broad to allow admission of any relevant evidence. Licensees submit that the rules excluding certain evidence apply only 

where a jury is involved and not to administrative proceedings. Alternatively, Licensees argue that since Intervenors' Motion contains 

substantive argument on the merits of this case it is an unauthorized brief and, therefore, should be rejected. 


10/15/2008


Licensees have apparently misconstrued Intervenors' position. Intervenors do not contend that the challenged Appendices and 

other portions of the Brief in issue are inadmissible as evidence, but rather that the procedure by which Licensees have submitted 

this material denies them the right to cross-examination and rebuttal. 

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that "[a] party is entitled to present his case or defense by oral or documentary 

evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of 

the facts" 5 U.S.C. §556(d). One commentator states that "this provision [of] the APA recognizes one of the fundamentals of a fair 

hearing--namely a reasonable opportunity to test and controvert adverse evidence." 6 McCormick, Evidence, p. 287 (1972). In fact, 

the Courts have held that where, as here, the standards of admissibility are broad, it is imperative that the rules of evidence by 

which the parties assert their rights must be carefully observed. See e.g., ICC v. Louisville & N.R.R. Co., 227 US 88 (1907). 

In the instant case, Intervenors have made a valid argument with respect to Appendices A and C and the related text of 

Licensees' Reply Brief. On its face, the material in these Appendices was available prior to the hearing and should have been 

introduced at that time in order to allow the other side a reasonable opportunity to offer evidence in rebuttal. With respect to 

Appendix A, Licensees state that it was included in their Reply Brief because the record on the issue of the state of the fishery was 

"inadequate." (Answer, p. 5) While it is not disputed that this assessment of the record may be accurate, the APA does not allow 

deficiencies in the record to be corrected on brief. Licensees offered no explanation for not including Appendix C in their direct case. 

Accordingly, Intervenors' Motion is granted with respect to Appendices A and C, the parenthetical notation at the end of the second 

complete paragraph on page 2, and the fourth complete paragraph on page 8. These portions of Licensees' Reply Brief are stricken. 

[65,313] 

Intervenors' Motion is denied in all other respects. Appendix D is not submitted as proof of any fact but is merely a statement of 

Licensees' position with regard to the Article 34 studies. The second footnote on page 5 is also not objectionable. It is merely an 

addendum to witness Mathur's credentials and has a very limited impact on the issues presented here. It is found that these 

challenged portions of Licensee's Reply Brief are valid. 

As an Appendix to their Answer, Licensees have submitted a publication dealing with fishing in the States of Maryland, Virginia 

and Delaware. Acting sua sponte, the Presiding Judge strikes this Appendix for the reasons discussed above. This submission also 

represents an improper attempt to submit evidence concerning the status of the fishery without affording the other side any 

opportunity to present rebuttal evidence or cross-examine the sponsoring witness. 

Licensees' alternative request that Intervenors' Motion be stricken is denied. Intervenors raised some valid challenges to portions 

of Licensees' Reply Brief, and it is not objectionable that some of the arguments presented deal with substantive issues. 

The Issue 

For purposes of assessing the evidence presented and the various arguments of the parties and Staff, the substantive issue 

presented can be broken down into three subparts: 

1. Is the fishery below the Conowingo Dam adversely affected by the current flow regime and, if so, will the respective flow 

releases proposed by Staff and Intervenors mitigate the problem? 

2. What is the increased cost which would result from instituting each of the proposed flow regimes? 

3. Is an environmental impact statement needed? 

The statutory framework involved here is, of course, the Federal Power Act. Section 10(a) of the Act provides that: 

All licenses issued under this Part shall be on the following conditions: 

Page 3 of 17 

(a) That the project adopted . . . shall be such as in the judgement of the Commission 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, and for other beneficial public uses, including recreational purposes; . . . 


10/15/2008


16 U.S.C. §803 (a). When evaluating a license, the Commission must balance the public interest in using the waterways for power 

generation against the public interest in other beneficial uses. See e.g. Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. FPC, 354 F.2d 

608, 614 (2d Cir. 1965); cert. denied sub. nom. Consolidated Edison Company of N.Y. v. Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference, 

384 U.S. 941 (1966); Consolidated Edison Company of N.Y., Inc., 33 FPC 428, 435 (1965). One significant competing public 

interest is the protection of fish and wildlife resources, which is a recognized, legitimate concern. Udall v. FPC, 287 U.S. 428 (1967). 

As explained by Justice Douglas in the Udall case: 

The test is whether the project will be in the public interest. And that determination can be made only after an exploration of all 

issues relevant to the "public interest," including future power demand and supply, alternate sources of power, the public interest 

in preserving rocks of wild reaches of wild rivers and wilderness areas, the preservation of anandromous fish for commercial and 

recreational purposes, and the protection of wildlife. 

387 U.S. at 450. In the instant case, the public interest in maintaining the Conowingo project as a source of peaking power 

conflicts with the interest in protecting and enhancing the fishery in the River below the dam. 

Discussion 

Issue 1--Is the fishery below the Conowingo Dam adversely affected by the current flow regime and, if so, will the respective flow 

releases proposed by Staff and Intervenors mitigate the problem? 

Beginning in 1972, the Licensees of Project 405 voluntarily instituted a minimum flow regime under which 5,000 cfs is released 

continuously from April 15 through June 15 of each year, and, in July of 1981, this procedure was expanded to include an annual 

release of 5,000 cfs for four hours following any eight hour period of no generation (shutdown) from June 15 to September 15. There 

are no minimum flow releases from September 15 to April 15. (Ex. 86, p.3) Intervenors and Staff contend that this current method of 

operation has damaged and continues to inflect damage on the fishery and aquatic habitat below the project. Citing the 

Commission's February 3, 1982, Order, these parties and Staff assert that the Commission has already found that a prima facie 

case of damage to the fishery has been established. 7 (Staff I.B., p. 6; Intervenor I.B., pp.6-7) They take the position that Licensees 

have failed to rebut this prima facie 

[65,314] 

case, and, therefore, that a judgment in their favor is warranted. 

Staff and Intervenors further argue that, regardless of the Commission's findings, the evidence presented in this proceeding 

supports their allegations of damage to the fishery and the need for increased minimum flows. In support of this contention, they 

collectively cite five indicia of harm to the fishery in the nontidal area, which is the three mile stretch of the River extending from the 

base of the Dam to the tide line. (Tr. 56-7, 64, 69) There are no allegations of damage in other areas of the River. The first, and 

allegedly most significant, relates to fish kills. Beginning in 1965, there have been eight documented fish kills characterized as 

significant in the River below Conowingo Dam, as follows: 

1. May 2, 1965--no estimate of the number or type of fish killed was given. 

2. (No date)--"second kill" of white perch and channel catfish. 

3. May 9, 1971--approximately 1.25 million herring plus "lesser numbers of other species." 

4. May 17, 1971--3 million fish comprised of 22 species, primarily white perch and channel catfish. (second kill) 

5. August 2, 1978--19,000 Atlantic menhaden plus other species in small numbers. 

6. July 7-9, 1980--16,959 white perch, 1,310 striped bass, 1,208 menhaden, and 162 carp. 

7. July 8, 1980--"tens of thousands" of menhaden plus some gizzard shad and channel catfish. 


Page 4 of 17 

10/15/2008


8. July 21, 1981--16,700 Atlantic menhaden (second kill) 

(Ex. 1, pp. 3-4) 8 

It is Staff's and Intervenors' position that these fish mortalities were caused by a combination of low dissolved oxygen (D.O.) 

levels, rapid changes in water temperature, and the generally unstable aquatic environment existing below the Dam due to the lack 

of sufficient, continuous flow releases. (Staff I.B., pp. 9-12; Intervenors I.B., pp. 9-10) 

A second factor which purportedly evidences damage to the fishery is the elimination of the nontidal area for spawning, rearing 

and feeding. Intervenors and Staff allege that the current operating regime creates unsuitable conditions in the nontidal area and 

that the fish, therefore, cannot utilize that section of the River. 

The third and fourth items cited as evidence of damage are the tendency for the resident species to avoid the nontidal area below 

the Dam during the summer (Staff I.B., p. 11, Intervenor I.B., p. 13) and the reduced growth rates of the resident species which 

remain in this area. (Staff I.B., p. 13, Intervenors I.B., pp. 13-14) Staff and Intervenors conclude that the present flow regime does 

not provide adequate protection for the fishery and that the project's operating schedule must be altered in the respective manners 

proposed so as to prevent further adverse effects. 

The fifth indicia of damage advanced by Intervenors and Staff is the adverse impact on the fishery resulting from the alleged 

degradation of the benthic invertebrate community in the nontidal area. The D.O. and water temperature factors noted above, 

coupled with the periodic dewatering of parts of the nontidal area during shutdown, are alleged to have critically reduced the size 

and diversity of the population of benthic organisms which are an important source of food for the fish. (Staff I.B., pp. 12-13; 

Intervenors I.B., pp. 11-12) 

Regarding proposed corrective actions, Staff and Intervenors both claim that continuous, year-round flows are needed, but they 

differ on the levels of those flows. Staff originally proposed flow releases at the Dam of 5,000 cfs from April 1 to June 15 and 3,000 

cfs for the remainder of the year. (Ex. 34, attached as Appendix A to this Order) Later, Staff changed its proposal to provide 

increased flow levels, measured at the U.S. Geological Survey gauging station at Conowingo (Gauge No. 01578310), as follows: 

April 1 to June 15--10,000 cfs; June 16 to September 30--5,000 cfs; and October 1 to March 31--3,000 cfs. (Id.) Staff's latter 

proposal would take into account leakage from the Dam, which is estimated at 1,000 cfs. (Ex. 62, p. 3) Actual discharges at the 

powerhouse would be less than the proposed flows by an amount equal to this leakage. 

Witness Robinson explained that the original flow regime proposal was based on the assumption that the interim flows would last 

approximately one year. The latter proposal was made because Staff believed that the interim flows may last more than one year 

and that the original proposal was inadequate as a long-term interim regime. (Ex. 62, pp. 12-14) 

Staff claims its flow regime is adequate for alleviating the claimed adverse impacts and for stabilizing the aquatic environment. 

While conceding that "Intervenor's proposal provides more water to the aquatic system and for that reason alone will be marginally 

more beneficial for those resources," Staff maintains that its proposal "maximizes peak power generation while providing the 

minimum amount of water to protect and enhance the aquatic resources below the dam". (I.B., p. 29) 

[65,315] 

Page 5 of 17 

Intervenors' proposal, also known as the SRBC proposal, consists of seven different flow releases (measured at the powerhouse) 

ranging from 15,000 cfs during the spring to 5,000 cfs during the late summer, fall and winter. Their proposal correlates not only to 

changes in the season, but also to changes in water temperature. (Ex. 34; Appendix A hereto) 

Intervenors assert that their proposal has "distinct advantages" to Staff's, and that the cost differential between the two is "de 

minimus". (R.B., p. 2) Essentially, Intervenors aver that their flow regime would provide additional protection against low D.O. levels, 

more wetted habitat, and generally a more stable environment at an additional cost of approximately $773,634 per year or 21.6 

cents per customer per year, and submit that the additional protection more than justifies the relatively small cost increase. (Id.) 

Licensees strenuously resist any changes to the current flow regime in effect at the project. They maintain that the nontidal 

portion of the river supports a diverse, large, stable and healthy fish population which is adequately protected by the present 

schedule of flow releases. (I.B., pp. 7-9) Citing the testimony of witnesses Mathur and Bason, Licensees argue that the Conowingo 

Project should be operated so as to maximize its electrical generating efficiency, and that no evidence has been presented which 

supports any other course. 


10/15/2008


In addition, Licensees claim that increasing the level and duration of flows will not cure the problems alleged by Staff and 

Intervenors. Licensees contend that the fish kills have not resulted from the project operations and, in fact, that periodic kills are 

normal for the involved species. (R.B., pp. 7-8) Addressing the concern for the D.O. levels recorded for the nontidal area below the 

Dam, Licensees submit that increasing water releases will not raise D.O. concentration because the D.O. levels are lower in the 

Conowingo reservoir than in the affected area below the Dam. (R.B., p. 8) They make a similar argument with regard to the benthic 

community allegedly under severe stress, contending that the benthic organisms fare better in the isolated pools than in the free 

flowing channel areas and that releasing more water actually would decrease the number of pools. (R.B., p. 9) 

Licensees further criticize Staff's and Intervenor's case for its failure to establish that the claimed consequences of the Dam's 

operations have detrimentally impacted upon the fish population. They urge that there has been no showing of specific, measurable 

harm resulting from low D.O. levels, water temperature fluctuations and the makeup and size of the benthic invertebrate community. 

(R.B., pp. 8-9) Licensees conclude that no increase in minimum flows is justified, especially in light of the costs involved which range 

from approximately $2 million to almost $4 million. (I.B., p. 5) Licensees submit that a viable alternative to the minimum flow 

proposals is a fish stocking program, which assertedly would improve the quality of the fish population by displacing low value 

species with high quality sport-fish. (R.B., p. 10) 

Licensees' primary argument is that the nontidal area supports a thriving resident fish population which disproves any allegations 

that the dam operations have adversely affected the aquatic habitat or that the present flow regime is insufficient to protect the 

fishery. In support of this position, Licensees emphasize the testimony of their witness, Dr. Mathur, that the indigenous population in 

the nontidal area is over one million fish comprised mostly of channel catfish and white perch. (Tr. 364, 367) This assessment is 

supported by witness Bason. (Ex. 91, p. 2) Licensees contend that the anadromous (migratory) fish population is also faring well 

under the present conditions, citing a pleading filed by the PFC which states that American shad currently are being caught in the 

Conowingo fish lift in "unprecedentedly large numbers" (Motion for Scheduling of Visit to Conowingo Dam and Fish Lift, filed May 14, 

1982, p. 1), and noting that, as of May 13, 1982, 1,170 fish had been lifted. (R.B., p. 4) Licensees urge that this fishery needs no 

additional protection in the form of increased flows. 

On cross-examination, however, witness Mathur admitted that his population estimate was based only on a 1980 study which he 

conceded "is not a very good estimate". (Tr. 426, 424-5) This study involved only two species--channel catfish and white perch--with 

estimated population ranges of 89,229 to 3,212,250 and 367,688 to 1,890,964 for each species respectively. (Tr. 425) In addition, 

Dr. Mathur stated that the population density for sport-sized catfish in the Susquehanna flats 9 is 1,200 to 700 fish per acre, while in 

the nontidal section, the density, based on his population estimates, is only 321 fish per acre. (Tr. 427-8) 

As discussed more fully below, Licensees' position with regard to the shad population is supported by the greater weight of the 

evidence, and it is found that these fish do not at this time need further protection on an interim basis. However, Licensees' evidence 

does not support their contention that a thriving resident fishery exists below Conowingo. A single year's study which examined only 

two 

[65,316] 

Page 6 of 17 

species and which, according to the sponsoring witness, is not a reliable estimate is simply not sufficient to sustain Licensees' claim 

of "a long existent, thriving and stable fish population below Conowingo Dam." (R.B., p. 4, cites omitted) In addition, Intervenors and 

Staff have presented evidence showing the contrary--that the nontidal fishery is adversely impacted by the current flow regime. 

Staff and Intervenors, as noted, cite three consequences of the dam's present operating schedule: (1) low D.O. levels, (2) water 

temperature fluctuations, and (3) periodic dewatering, which they claim have damaged the fishery by causing fish kills, preventing 

use of the nontidal area for spawning, rearing and feeding, causing out migration of fish, slowing growth rates and reducing the size 

and diversity of the benthic community. Based on this evidence, they claim that the fishery is neither large nor thriving. While not all 

of these claims are found to be valid, the record demonstrates that the present flow regime is inadequate, and that additional flow 

releases are required on an interim basis to protect the fishery resources below this project. However, the evidence presented does 

not support the proposals put forth by Staff and Intervenors and, therefore, a more modest change in the current flow regime is 

adopted reflecting a need for additional flows only during the summer. 

In discussing each of the five items of damage alleged, three questions must be addressed. First, has the damage, in fact, 

occurred? Second, is that damage a result of the dam's operations? Third, will increasing the amount and duration of the flows 

mitigate the damage? Obviously all three must be answered affirmatively before a change in the flow regime is justified under the 

statutory scheme discussed above. 

Intervenors' and Staff's arguments center on the eight fish kills. They claim that these kills are the result of D.O. problems and 

water temperature fluctuations caused by Conowingo's operating regime. (Intervenor's I.B., p. 10, Staff's I.B., pp. 9-10) Witness 

Carter testified that the 1965 and 1971 initial fish kills were caused by low D.O. levels in the waters below the dam. (Ex. 1, p. 7) He 


10/15/2008


explained that the secondary kills--the ones occurring within two weeks of the first kill--were caused by "the development of large 

reservoirs of bacteria upon the decomposing carcasses" of the fish involved in the initial kills. (Id.) In addressing the other four kills, 

he stated that Conowingo's "operating regime causes extreme fluctuations in both temperature and dissolved oxygen levels . . . 

which, when combined with the presence of large numbers of fish below the dam, cause these mortalities." (Id.) Mr. Carter 

concluded that the kills were caused by the dam's operations. (Id., p. 17) 

Other witnesses also testified that the D.O. level and water temperature problems are directly related to the dam operation. 

(Dwyer, Ex. 11, pp. 7-12; Pavol, Ex. 6, pp. 5-8) They testified that adoption of greater and longer minimum flows would mitigate or 

eliminate these problems. (Ex. 11, pp. 14-17; Ex. 6, pp. 14-15) 

Licensees do not deny the occurrence of the fish kills, but they take issue with Staff's and Intervenors' claims regarding the cause 

of the kills and the need for increased flows to alleviate the danger of future kills. It is Licensees' position that there is no connection 

between D.O. levels and flow releases, and that, in fact, increasing flows may actually decrease D.O. levels because of D.O 

problems in the reservoir. (R.B., p. 8) Further, Licensees submit that the kills which occurred prior to 1972 are not relevant, since 

they occurred before the present flow regime was adopted, and that the other kills at issue here involved primarily menhaden, a fish 

having little value. Licensees also argue that similar kills of the involved species have occurred elsewhere and are a natural method 

of population control to be considered normal (R.B., p. 7) Overall, Licensees contend that these fish kills should not be considered 

significant since these are the only kills which Staff and Intervenors have cited occurring during the 50-year period since the 

Conowingo Dam was built. 

On this issue, the evidence does not support either side's position entirely, but it does justify an alteration of the present flow 

regime to increase summer flows. 

As Licensees correctly state, the pre-1972 kills are not significant, since they occurred before the present flow regime was 

adopted. All of these kills occurred in the spring and, according to witness Carter, "appear to have had their inceptions in shutdowns 

of durations of 3 to 31/2 hours." (Ex. 1, p. 13) Since the Licensees now maintain an annual continuous 5,000 cfs flow from April 15 to 

June 15, it appears unlilkely that these springtime kills will be repeated. The other kills, however, occurring subsequent to 1972, are 

significant and are related to the current flow regime. 

Initially, it is held that Licensees' argument concerning the value of the fish predominately involved in the latter kills--menhaden--is 

irrelevant. 10 In setting this matter for hearing, the Commission did not limit consideration only to those species having significant 

commercial value. In addition, even 

[65,317] 

Page 7 of 17 

if menhaden are not considered deserving of protection, these post 1972 kills, nevertheless, are important for two reasons. First, as 

discussed by witness Carter, the decaying fish and accompanying bacteria from one fish kill may trigger a secondary kill of other 

species. (Id., p. 14) Second, a kill of any species due to the conditions cited by Carter evidences an unstable and unhealthy aquatic 

environment. (Id., p. 17) Having established the existence and significant of these kills, the next question is whether they were 

caused by the operation of the licensed Conowingo Project. 

It appears that herring kills have occurred on the Connecticut River and are considered normal by Connecticut State biologists, 

and that menhaden kills also occur frequently in the Chesapeake Bay. (Tr. 18, 24) These facts however, do not sustain Licensees' 

position that the kills involved here should be considered natural. No link has been established between the herring kills on the 

Connecticut River and the menhaden kills on the Chesapeake Bay, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the documented kills 

of those species on the Susquehanna River such that it would be reasonable to conclude that the Susquehanna River kills are either 

normal or natural. In fact, the kills in the affected area on the Susquehanna River have not been considered normal by the 

investigating biologists and are attributed to low D.O. levels. (Tr. 28-9) Reports prepared by the Licensees' own consultants reached 

similar conclusions. (Tr. 45, Item by Reference E, p. 2222, 2273-8) The record does not contain any biological evidence or opinion 

supporting Licensees' arguments. Hence, the evidence adduced by Licensees merely suggests another cause of the fish kills but 

does not refute the conclusions of the biologists who studied these kills. The weight of the evidence shows that the post 1972 kills 

were caused by the D.O. problems cited by witness Carter. 

Licensees next argue that the current operating regime is not the cause of the low D.O. levels, and submit that the problem is 

related to low D.O. levels in the reservoir. They cite Staff witness Robinson's testimony in support. (R.B., p. 8) On this point, 

Intervenors' and Staff's position is found to be more convincing. 

Witness Robinson testified that low D.O. levels are caused by two factors--(1) low flows coupled with diurnal phytobentic 

processes, and (2) intermittent, high volume releases of water having a low D.O. level. (Ex. 62, p. 5) The portion of witness 

Robinson's testimony cited by Licensees did not address the low D.O. problem generally but rather referred only to the specific 


10/15/2008


problem of "the rapid degradation of dissolved oxygen levels related to intermittent, high volume, low dissolved oxygen 

discharge", and he noted his concern that this particular problem may not be cured by a minimum flow. (Id., p. 6) He repeatedly 

stated his opinion, however, that a continuous minimum flow would reduce the extent of the D.O. problem caused by the first factor. 

(Id., pp. 5, 12, 14) This conclusion is supported by witness Dwyer's testimony. He stated that the lowest D.O. levels were observed 

from Saturday to Monday and corresponded to periods of little or no generation. (Ex. 11, p. 11) A study performed by Dr. Dwyer in 

the Summer of 1981 showed that, during a period of continuous flow of 5,000 cfs, D.O. levels fell below 5 ppm only 7 percent of the 

time, but that, after the dam operators reverted to the present regime of four hours of discharge following eight hours of shutdown, 

D.O. levels went below 5 ppm 61 percent of the time. (Ex. 11, pp. 12-14) 

Witness Dwyer also noted the existence of a D.O. problem in the reservoir, and concluded that increased minimum flows would 

not only alleviate D.O. problems below the dam but might create beneficial turbulence which, in turn, might raise D.O. levels in the 

reservoir. (Ex. 11, pp. 15-17) Several other witnesses agreed with the conclusion that institution of minimum flows would improve 

D.O. levels below the dam. (Pavol, Ex. 6, p. 14; Foote, Ex. 59, p. 6) Licensees presented no convincing evidence to the contrary. 

Hence, it is found that this damage relating to fish kills has occurred, that it is caused by dam operations and that increasing the 

level and duration of the flows will mitigate the damage. 

The minimum flows on an interim basis needed to relieve the D.O. problem and the related danger of fish kills, however, need not 

be as extensive as those proposed by Staff or Intervenors. As noted above, the four post-1972 fish kills all occurred during the 

summer and have been related to dam shutdowns. Further, the D.O. problem itself is primarily a summer occurrence. Almost all of 

the instances of low D.O. levels or wide fluctuations in D.O. levels cited by witness Dwyer occurred during the period from late June 

to early September. (Ex. 11, pp. 11-14, 16-17) This is true of the studies done or cited by witnesses Pavol, (Ex. 6, pp. 5-8, 14), 

Foote (Ex. 59, pp. 3, 6), and Robinson (Ex. 62, p. 5). The record is barren of any evidence of fish kills or D.O. problems in nonsummer 

months. Hence, this record only justifies additional minimum flows at most during the summer-early fall season on an 

interim basis. 

This conclusion also holds for the other factor involved in the fish kills--fluctuations 

[65,318] 

Page 8 of 17 

in water temperature. As explained by witness Robinson, water temperature fluctuations occur when the water is warmed by high 

temperatures during periods of little or no flows and then rapidly cooled when discharges from the dam increase. (Ex. 62, p. 4; see 

also Dwyer, Ex. 11, pp. 8-9; Pavol, Ex. 6, pp. 5-8) Licensees offered no evidence disputing the occurrence of these fluctuations, that 

they are related to the dam operations, or that they are, in part, responsible for the fish kills. These temperature fluctuations are, 

however, exclusively a warm weather occurrence, and the evidence in this respect supports only an interim increase in minimum 

flows between June 15 and September 15. 

Much of the preceding discussion applies with equal force to the other four items of alleged damage, because each is related to 

the D.O. and water temperature problems. The record evidence with regard to certain of these items similarly justifies an increase in 

the flows only during the period outlined above. 

Intervenors and Staff claim, as noted above, that, due to the project operations, the nontidal area is eliminated as a spawning, 

rearing and feeding habitat, and that many species migrate out of the nontidal area during the summer. (Intervenors I.B., p. 11; Staff 

I.B., p. 11) Intervenor witness Pavol's testimony established that young-of-the-year resident game fish find the mid-summer 

conditions in the nontidal area unsatisfactory and, therefore, avoid that stretch of the river during July and August. (Ex. 6, p. 10) He 

stated that "[t]he percentage of game fish, small-mouth bass in particular, declined between the May-June and July-August periods 

of the study . . . suggesting movement out of the study area during the period when dam-related fluctuations in DO and temperature 

are greatest." (Ex. 6, p. 11, see also Ex. 59, p. 3) While some downstream movement is normal for small-mouth bass, the witness 

emphasized that the movement he observed is greater than normal and, in his opinion, evidences an avoidance reaction to 

unsuitable conditions. (Tr. 57-8) Witnesses Foote and Robinson agreed with this assessment. (Ex. 59, p. 3; Ex. 62, p. 8) Licensees 

offered no evidence disputing this testimony. 

It is found that all three of the questions have been answered affirmatively with regard to these two items. The damage alleged 

has occurred, it is caused by the project's operation and a change in the flow regime will mitigate the damage. The nontidal area of 

the river is eliminated as a viable habitat for certain species as a result of dam operations which, in turn, forces the involved fish to 

migrate out of the region. All of the witnesses testifying on this point stated that increasing the minimum flows would increase the 

available habitat. (Ex. 6, p. 14; Ex. 59, p. 5; Ex. 62, p. 8) However, the described problem, as can be seen in the testimony of 

witness Pavol, quoted above, occurs only during the summer and only supports a need for increased "summer" flows. 

Another item of damage to the fishery alleged by Intervenors and Staff is that the adverse effects of the dam operations have 

slowed the growth rate of certain species. Witness Foote found that white perch and channel catfish "exhibited slower growth rates 

than reported elsewhere in the literature." (Ex. 59, p. 3) However, he conceded, on cross-examination, that these low growth rates 


10/15/2008


could be attributable to the large population of these species below the dam. (Tr. 182) 

Staff and Intervenors have not proved that these low growth rates evidence damage to the fishery or that they are the result of 

project operations. Foote's own testimony on cross-examination shows that the conclusion he drew from the data is somewhat 

speculative and that there are other possible causes of the problem. Hence, it is not found that this damage is related to dam 

operations or that it will be mitigated by any increased minimum flows. 

One item receiving considerable attention is the status of the benthic invertebrate community. Benthic invertebrates include 

insects, snails and aquatic worms and are "a primary source of fish food." (Ex. 69, p. 5) Staff and Intervenors claim that this 

community shows signs of stress reflected in abnormal size and diversity, and that this adverse condition, in turn, demonstrates the 

unhealthy state of the aquatic habitat below the dam. (Staff I.B., pp. 12-13; Intervenors I.B., pp. 11-12) According to Maryland 

witness Janicki, the peaking mode operation of the project and resulting dewatering "results in the intermittent exposure [dewatering] 

of river bottom habitats and the establishment of isolated water pools." (Ex. 69, p. 5) He explained that "[i]t is the presence of the 

exposed and isolated pool habitat types, which may be potentially adverse, as the abundance, distribution, and composition of the 

benthic invertebrate community may be affected." (Id., p. 6) The results of his study showed that "[t]he exposed habitats had 

significantly fewer benthic invertebrates than either of the other two habitat types" and that the pool and channel areas had roughly 

equal numbers of organisms. (Id., p. 9) He also found that the preferred food of white perch--gammarids and dipteran larvae--were 

more abundant in the channel habitats than in the other two areas. (Id., pp. 10-11) Dr. Janicki concluded that "of the three habitat 

types the channel provides a 

[65,319] 

Page 9 of 17 

suitable environment for the establishment of a benthic community that is composed of relatively large populations of those 

organisms most often fed upon by the white perch", and that any mode of project operation which increases channel habitat should 

increase prey abundance and will increase the white perch population. (Id., pp. 12-13) 

There are two problems with this argument. First, although this witness claimed that channel and pool habitats contained roughly 

equal size populations, page 29 of his Exhibit 71 shows that for three of the four transects sampled the isolated pool habitat 

contained a much larger benthic population than the channel habitat; and, in the fourth transect, that the channel habitat population 

was only slightly larger than the pool areas. Thus, increasing flows to increase the amount of channel habitat and decrease the 

relative amount of isolated pool and exposed habitat may not lend to an overall increase in the benthic population. The gain in 

population attributable to the increase in the amount of the more densely populated channel habitat over the virtually unpopulated 

exposed habitat may be offset by a loss due to a decrease in the amount of pool habitat, which was the most densely populated. In 

fact, nowhere in Janicki's testimony does he project an overall increase in the benthic population resulting from an increase in flows. 

A second problem with this study is that it is limited to white perch. While his study shows that increasing flow will provide more of 

the preferred prey of white perch, Dr. Janicki did not provide any information of how an increase in the relative amount of channel 

habitat and corresponding change in the relative abundance of the various types of benthic invertebrates would affect the other 

species of fish in the nontidal area. The focus of this proceeding is the entire fishery, not any one particular species, and a change in 

the flow regime cannot be justified on the grounds that it might provide more of the preferred food for one species, especially when 

the effect on other species is unknown. 

Additional evidence of damage to the benthic community came from the testimony of Staff witness Robinson. This witness found 

"the benthic community below the Conowingo Project . . . [to be] a classic example of a stressed biologic system." (Ex. 62, p. 6) 

Evidence of this stress is the few taxa in the community and the relative abundance of amphipods and dipterans. (Id.,) He attributes 

the degradation of the benthic community to D.O. problems and water temperature and flow fluctuations, and states that 

improvement would occur if minimum flows are increased. (Id., pp. 6-7) On brief, Staff avers that this stress is significant because 

the benthic community is "a processor of organic material and is a major food source for the stream fishes." (I.B., p. 12) 

The difficulty with this witness' testimony is that he fails to demonstrate how this stressed benthic community affects the fishery. 

Simply showing that the relative population abundance is somehow abnormal is not enough. Specifically, there is no evidence that 

the stressed community provides less of or an unsuitable food supply for the fishery. Pursuant to the Commission's directives, a 

change in the flow regime must be justified by a showing of damage to the fish population. No such showing has been made with 

respect to this alleged damage. 

Both witnesses, Janicki and Robinson, have failed to correlate the problems in the size and make-up of the benthic community 

below Conowingo to any measurable damage to the fishery. At best, the evidence presented raises some questions concerning the 

long-term stability of this food supply, and this issue should probably be explored through the studies being conducted pursuant to 

Article 34 of the license. On this record, the evidence does not justify increased minimum flows on an interim basis for the needs of 

the benthic community. 


10/15/2008


Licensees' stocking proposal is also rejected. The record here establishes that the aquatic habitat below the dam is, in certain 

respects, unsuitable for the resident species. Adding more fish or changing the relative abundance of the various species will not 

cure the problems in the waters below Conowingo. Accordingly, it is found that the stocking proposal cannot be adopted. 

Thus far, the discussion here has been limited to possible problems experienced by the resident species. Intervenors claim that 

the anadromous fishery also needs protection in the form of increased minimum flows. They argue that increased flows will enhance 

the immigration of spawning adults during the spring and out migration of juveniles during the fall. (I.B., p. 16) However, there is no 

data supporting this position. The only testimony on this issue came from witness Foote, who stated that "an increase in minimum 

flow . . . could reduce any delay that might occur during migration." (Ex. 59, p. 6, emphasis added) This testimony is simply too 

speculative to support an increase in the flow regime. Moreover, no evidence has been presented which shows that shad are 

currently having any difficulty migrating to the base of the dam and into the fish lift or that there is a need for interim flows for the 

shad's downstream 

[65,320] 

Page 10 of 17 

migration. Hence, it is found that, on this record, no increase in the minimum flows is needed at this time to protect the anadromous 

fishery. 11 

The evidence adduced in this case does not justify the adoption of any of the proposed interim flow regimes. 12 Staff's and 

Intervenors' proposals each calls for continuous year-round flows, yet the record here only supports continuation of the present 

spring flow and an increase in the summer flow. In discussing the flow regime which is adopted here, the year is divided into three 

periods: (1) April 15 to June 15; (2) June 15 to September 15 (summer); and (3) September 15 to April 15. It is found that the current 

flow releases from April 15 to June 15 are adequate and should continue; that the current summer intermittent flow regime is 

insufficient and must be increased to the level proposed by Staff; and that the present policy of no minimum flow releases from 

September 15 to April 15 has not been shown to be inadequate and, therefore, should continue. 

Licensees' existing flow regime calls for a minimum flow release of 5,000 cfs continuously from April 15 until June 15 and they 

proposed that these flows continue. While both Staff's and Intervenors' proposals each call for an increase in the level of flows 

during this period, the record contains no convincing evidence that these flows are inadequate. No testimony or exhibits have shown 

that any of the items of damage occur during this period. As discussed above, all of the damage to the fishery is related primarily to 

D.O. problems and water temperature fluctuations. These conditions, in turn, are the result of periodic shutdowns (June 15-- 

September 15). With a continuous flow of 5,000 cfs during this period, the danger of the occurrence of any damage appears to be 

eliminated. 

Staff witness Robinson testified that a 10,000 cfs flow is needed from April 1 to June 15 principally for migration and spawning. 

(Ex. 62, pp. 14) Intervenors apparently make the same claim for their proposed spring flow. (I.B., p. 16; R.B., p. 20) However, no 

evidence supports these claims. Accordingly, Licensees' proposal of a continuous release of 5,000 cfs from April 15 to June 15 is 

adopted as the proper interim flow release. 

For the period June 15 to September 15, Staff's proposal of a 5,000 cfs is adopted. Staff witness Robinson testified that his 

proposed flow is adequate to alleviate the problems occurring below the dam during the summer. (Ex. 62, p. 14) Intervenors argue 

that their proposed flow regime "more closely approximates natural flows" and would provide additional protection at an additional 

yearly cost of only $773,634. (R.B., p. 2) These arguments are not persuasive. The reason for this hearing is not to develop flows 

which are as close as possible to the natural flows, but rather to determine the minimum flows necessary to protect and enhance the 

fishery. There is nothing to show that the fishery needs the "additional protection" allegedly provided by Intervenors' proposal. 

The 5,000 cfs flow adopted for this period is not the same as has been adopted for the April 15 to June 15 period. The flow for the 

former period includes any leakage from the Dam, and, therefore, actual flow releases will be less than the 5,000 cfs figure (supra, 

p. 8) Conversely, Licensees' flows do not take into account any leakage, and, consequently, the prescribed flows for April 15--June 

15 will be greater than 5,000 cfs. Both flows are the minimum necessary on an interim basis to provide adequate protection during 

the period each is in effect. The slightly higher river flows during the April 15 to June 15 period are necessary because of greater 

biological activity during the spring. 

The last period, September 15 to April 15, encompasses primarily fall and winter. Licensees' argument that no flows are needed 

during this period is found to be correct. Neither Intervenors nor Staff have presented any convincing evidence of damage to the 

fishery occurring during this period, and, therefore, no interim minimum flow releases are required. 

Staff and Intervenors advance only two reasons for establishing interim minimum flows during the winter--(1) to provide some 

wintering habitat and (2) to protect and rejuvenate the benthic community. (Staff I.B., p. 15; Intervenor I.B., p. 21) Neither reason 


10/15/2008


justifies establishing winter flows on an interim basis at this time. No additional flows are required for the benthic community's 

benefit because, as already discussed, there has been no showing that the condition of this community is harmful to the affected 

fishery. As to the first reason, Staff witness Foote conceded that he had no direct evidence that the present winter flows adversely 

affected the fish. (Tr. 184-5) Accordingly, it is found that no increased flows are needed during the winter. The evidence presented to 

support a change in the flow regime during this period is insufficient. See Upper Peninsula Power Company, Project No. 2402, Initial 

Decision Denying Petition to change Operation of Hydroelectric Project, 14 FERC 63,069 ; aff'd, Order Affirming and Clarifying 

Initial Decision, 15 FERC 61,147 (1981). 

No convincing reason is given by Staff or Intervenors for their proposals to establish minimum flows during the late fall and early 

spring. Intervenors cite the needs of the migratory fish (I.B., p. 16) but failed to introduce any studies supporting that need. Hence, it 

is found that no interim minimum flows are required from September 15 to April 15. 

[65,321] 

As all parties agreed at the post-hearing Conference held on April 15, 1982, an escape clause should be included in any order 

establishing an interim flow regime, in order that changes can be made for purposes of the related Article 34 studies. Staff proposed 

language for such a clause in its Initial Brief, and that clause appears valid and is adopted. It is reflected in the second ordering 

paragraph below. 

The flows adopted here meet the balancing test in the Udall case. They are the lowest of the flows proposed which provide the 

necessary interim protection for the fishery. And, as shown in the next section, the cost of these flows is relatively low. 

Issue 2--What is the increased cost which would result from instituting each of the proposed flow regimes? 

Throughout this proceeding, Licensees have stressed that the mandatory flows reflected in either Intervenors' or Staff's proposals 

will impose a substantial additional cost on the Licensees' ratepayers, because the proposed flow regimes would result in, inter alia, 

a loss of valuable peaking energy. Licensees' witness Boyer estimated this cost at $3,840,000 for Intervenors' proposal, $2,020,000 

for Staff's original proposal and $2,740,000 for Staff's current flow proposal. (Ex. 95) Part of this additional cost would be the result 

of having to use more expensive oil fired generation to replace the peak power that would no longer be available from Conowingo. 

That is, "releasing water at night will replace relatively cheap coal or nuclear energy. Not being able to release that same water in 

the daytime will require additional generation using high cost . . . oil." (I.B., p. 4) Licensees also contend that the increased oil use 

would require increased oil imports and run counter to this country's policy of reducing dependence on foreign oil. (I.B., p. 6) 

Intervenors and Staff generally dispute all of these points. They argue that Licensees' cost estimates are considerably overstated 

and that the true figures, as derived by Staff witness Biggerstaff, range from $1,946,588 to $832,789 for the three proposed flow 

regimes. (Staff I.B., pp. 17-23; Intervenor I.B., pp. 23-29) Similarly, they contend that Licensees' estimates of additional oil use are 

overstated, and that there has been no showing that this oil would be imported. Intervenors argue that, even if Licensees' cost 

estimates are accepted, the average ratepayer's bill would increase less than $1.00 per year, and that this cost is not substantial 

when compared to the resulting benefits. Further, Intervenors submit that Section 10(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §803 

(a), requires that Licensees mitigate the adverse impacts on the aquatic environment caused by their project. Thus, it is urged that 

the costs of such mitigation need not be justified by a favorable cost/benefit ratio. (I.B., p. 2-5) 

Three issues must be addressed in resolving the costs question. First, it must be determined which of the cost estimates is 

correct. Discussion of this first issue will be limited to Staff's second proposal, since a part of that flow regime has been approved 

and adopted herein. Specific criticisms of Licensees' calculation of the costs of the other proposals will not be considered. Once the 

correct method of calculating the costs is found, the second issue is how to adjust that methodology to determine the cost of that 

portion of Staff's proposal adopted here. Finally, it must be determined whether that cost is appropriate within the governing 

statutory criteria. 

I. 

Page 11 of 17 

The first issue is decided against the Licensees, for it is found that their methodology overstates the costs and is not fully 

supported by the evidence. According to Staff witness Biggerstaff and Maryland witness Boland, Licensees' calculations are in error 

in four respects. First, witness Boland contends that Licensees' "analysis assumes that each period is statistically independent of 

other periods, ignoring possible persistence in low and high flow events." (Ex. 74, p. 8) He was unable, however, to determine the 

scope of this error and, therefore, this point does not sustain Intervenors' position. 

A second criticism made by Mr. Boland is that Licensees' estimates were based on three improper assumptions: (1) that flows 

into the Conowingo reservoir not larger than 40,000 cfs can be stored in the pond during weekday, off-peak periods; (2) that flows 


10/15/2008


not larger than 13,000 cfs could be stored during weekend, off-peak periods; and (3) that Conowingo operates 16 hours a day on 

weekdays and not at all during weekends and holidays. (Ex. 74, pp. 8-9) He testified that these assumptions concerning storage 

capacity do not take account of seasonal variations, and that the operating assumptions do not comport with reality. According to 

this witness, in 1980, a low flow year, Conowingo operated 16 hours on only 70 of 254 weekdays, and operated on 24 out of 112 

weekend and holiday days; and in 1971, a year of approximately average flows, there were only 99 weekdays of 16 hour generation 

and 91 days of weekend and holiday generation. He concludes that these erroneous assumptions resulted in an overstatement of 

costs. 

[65,322] 

Licensees do not address this specific criticism on brief, but only argue generally and unpersuasively that witness Boland had no 

experience with electric utilities. (R.B., p. 10) Thus, based on witness Boland's undisputed testimony, it is found that Licensees' 

calculations are based on erroneous assumptions concerning storage and operations noted above and, therefore, overstate the 

costs. The amount of the overstatement was not put in evidence. 

Licensees' cost estimates reflect a further error. Intervenors and Staff correctly argue that the relevant cost is the additional cost 

of increasing flows above the level presently being released. Witness Boyer conceded that his estimates include the cost of the 

current flow releases. (Tr. 510-11) Consequently, Licensees' cost estimate should be reduced by the cost of the present flow regime, 

estimated by witness Biggerstaff at approximately $177,000. (Ex. 79) 13 

The fourth and most significant error alleged by Intervenors and Staff is that Licensees' method of estimating costs assumes an 

inefficient operation of the project. Specifically, witnesses Boland and Biggerstaff each testified that Licensees' method assumes that 

increased minimum flows would be achieved by uniformly reducing generation during the peak hours, the so-called "off-the-top" 

method, while the correct assumption is the "off-the-shoulders" method where generation is reduced during those hours when the 

cost is lowest. (Boland, Ex. 74, pp. 12-13; Biggerstaff, Tr. 333-4) 

Once again, Licensees offer no specific rebuttal of this argument, but merely contend that, if witness "Biggerstaff had used the 

more accurate 30 years of data employed by Mr. Boyer, instead of the imprecise average year figures for 1934-35," Biggerstaff's 

results would have been much closer to those presented by Licensees. (R.B., p. 11) This argument does not refute Staff's and 

Intervenors' contentions. Moreover, it assumes, without proof, that use of a 30 year average is more accurate than employing data 

for an average flow year. Hence, it is found that Licensees' "off the top" method overstates the costs of the minimum flows, and that 

the use of an average flow year of 1934-35 is not less accurate than the use of an average of 30 years' data. 

Licensees also fault Biggerstaff's cost estimate for his failure to include three cost penalties which allegedly are aasociated with 

mandatory flows, viz. (1) loss of energy due to inefficient turbine operation; (2) loss of energy from the Muddy Run pump storage 

facility; and (3) loss of an operating credit from the PJM Interconnection. 14 Item one is a consequence of minimum flows which do 

not match the optimum turbine flow requirements. (Ex. 93, p. 3) Addressing the second cost item, witness Boyer testified that the 

proposed flows would draw down the Conowingo reservoir to the point that the Muddy Run facility, which draws water from this 

reservoir, could not be fully refilled over the nights and weekends, resulting in a loss of peaking energy. (Id., p. 4) The last cost 

penalty arises where the Conowingo Project is prevented from operating at full capacity for a minimum number of hours as a result 

of any minimum flow regime. (Id.) The total estimated cost of these items is said to range from $800,000 to over $1,000,000. (Ex. 

95) 

As noted by Staff, Licensees have provided absolutely no backup data to support or quantify any of these cost penalty figures. 

Witness Boland testified that he was unable to analyze these costs because of the lack of supporting facts, assumptions or 

calculations. (Ex. 74, p. 6) He also conceded that these costs could arise from the improper assumptions made by Licensees 

concerning how the Dam would operate under the proposed flow regimes. (Id.) 

On this record, Licensees' cost estimates for these items must be rejected. As proponents of these cost figures, Licensees have 

the burden of providing the underlying data to support them. The relatively sparce testimony addressing these alleged cost penalties 

without at least some explanation of the methodology is merely self-serving, totally lacking in probative value, and will not suffice. 15 

The same conclusion is reached with respect to Licensees' arguments concerning increased oil consumption. Since their 

methodology overstates the dollar cost, and since the same methodology was used to calculate oil usage, it must also overstate the 

amount of additional oil use. Moreover, as explained by witness Biggerstaff, even if Licensees' estimate is accepted, the increased 

oil consumption for the PJM System was 0.1 to 0.3 percent. (Ex. 77, p. 8) Such an increase in oil consumption is not found to be 

significant. 

II. 


Page 12 of 17 

10/15/2008


Having determined that Staff's cost estimates are more accurate than Licensees', the next step is to use witness Biggerstaff's 

methodology in determining the cost to Licensees of the flows adopted here. This is done simply by referring to Exhibit 81 

sponsored by this witness, which gives a breakdown of costs for each month and for each of nine different flow levels. Utilizing his 

[65,323] 

assumption that leakage equals 1,000 cfs, the 5,000 cfs flow ordered below for the period June 15 through September 15 would be 

equivalent to a 4,000 cfs release. Since Exhibit 81 does not include cost figures for a 4,000 cfs release, those figures are calculated 

below by interpolating from the figures in the Exhibit representing 3,000 cfs and 5,000 cfs, respectively. 16 The cost for half a 

month's flow is assumed to be half the cost of the whole month. Thus: 

Period Cost 

June 15-30 = [($169,863 + $310,969)/2]/2 = $120,208.00 

July = ($ 42,711 + $ 82,234)/2 = 62,472.50 

August = ($190,648 + $335,252)/2 = 262,950.00 

September 1-15 = [($195,605 + $339,976)/2]/2 = 233,895.25 

______________________ 

Total $579,525.75 

III. 

In setting this case for hearing, the Commission found that "if any increased flow could be achieved at modest cost to other 

beneficial public uses, such an increase on its face would appear to be justifiable." (February 3, 1982, Order, at pp. 61, 165-6; 

emphasis added) While the Commission did not define "modest", it is found that the flows adopted here can be instituted at a 

relatively small cost in generating efficiency. Accordingly, in view of the documented damage to the fishery and the need for interim 

minimum flows to the extent described above, this cost is deemed "modest", as reasonable and appropriate within the purview of 

Section 10(a) of the Federal Power Act. 16 U.S.C. §803 (a). 

Issue 3: 

Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1979, 42 USC §4332(2)(c), requires that all proposals for 

"major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" include an EIS. The Commission's Regulations 

implementing NEPA and the Commission's Opinions require the Commission Staff, or the party proposing a change in the status 

quo, to "make a detailed environmental statement when the regulatory action taken by [the Commission] . . . will have a significant 

environmental impact." 18 CFR §2.80 (b); Upper Peninsula Power Company, 15 FERC 61,147 (1981). 

Staff here submitted a statement of its position on this issue (Exhibit 67) wherein it concluded that no EIS is needed. Staff 

reached this result based on seven factors: 

1) The flows involved are only interm - remaining in effect only until the Article 34 studies are completed. 

2) There is no evidence that imposition of proposed flows would have a significant adverse impact on the affected aquatic 

environment. 

3) The Commission has already noted the existence of damage to the fishery and the need for improvement. 

4) There would be no significant irreversible commitment of resources. 

5) The proposed flows are designed to enhance and protect the affected aquatic environment. 

6) The additional oil needed to meet the lost generation is de minimis. 

7) No new facilities would need to be constructed. 


Page 13 of 17 

10/15/2008


On this issue, Intervenors agree with Staff's assessment, while Licensees "take the position that we have no position." (Tr. 189) 

Staff's assessment of the record on the matter of the need for an EIS is deemed correct and equally applicable to the interim flow 

regime found to be required here. No party has presented evidence or argument to the contrary. Based on the record, it is found that 

no EIS is needed for the interim action ordered herein. 

Ultimate Findings and Conclusions 

Upon consideration of the evidence of record, it is found and concluded that: 

1. The present flow regime at Project No. 405 is inadequate on an overall interim basis to protect the fishery in the nontidal area 

below the Conowingo Dam. 

2. The present flow of 5,000 cfs released from April 15 to June 15 of each year is sufficient to protect the fishery during this 

particular period and should continue on an interim basis. 

3. The present intermittent flow release of 5,000 cfs for four-hour periods after eight consecutive hours of shutdown from June 15 

to September 15 has been shown to be insufficient and should be increased on an interim basis to provide a continuous flow in the 

affected area of the River of 5,000 cfs during this period. 

4. The present policy of no minimum flow releases during the period September 15 through April 15 has not been shown to be 

inadequate and, hence, no increase in flows during this period on an interim basis is warranted. 

[65,324] 

5. The flow regime ordered herein provides for two different flows on each of three days: April 15, June 15 and September 15. 

Since the mechanics involved in changing from one flow level to another have not been made part of this record, the precise time of 

the change on each of those three days is left to the discretion of the Licensees. 

6. The minimum flow regime adopted here is found to be the best balance, on an interim basis, between the public interest in 

inexpensive electric power and the public interest in the fish and wildlife resources in the affected area of the Susquehanna River. 17 

Order 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that: 

(1) Appendices A and C, the parenthetical notation at the end of the second complete paragraph on page 2, and the fourth 

complete paragraph on page 8 of Licensees' Reply Brief, and the Appendix to Licensees' Answer to Motion to Strike, are stricken; 

and 

(2) The license for Project 405 is hereby amended effected as of July 15, 1982, to include the following Article: 

Article 43: Licensees shall maintain the following interim minimum flow releases or the unregulated Susquehanna River flow, 

whichever is less: 

April 15--June 15--5,000 cfs 

Page 14 of 17 

June 15--September 15--5,000 cfs--as measured at the U.S. Geological Survey Gauge No. 01578310 at Conowingo Dam 


10/15/2008


September 15--April 15--no minimum flow required 

Licensees shall have the discretion to choose the exact time on each of the three days of overlap that the change in the flow is 

effected. 

These flows may be modified if required (1) by operating emergencies beyond the control of the Licensees, (2) for minimum flow 

studies required by Article 34 of this license, and (3) for short periods for fishery management purposes upon mutual agreement 

between Licensees, U.S. Department of the Interior--Fish and Wildlife Service, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, and the 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Notice of any such changes must be served on the Presiding Judge, Staff, all parties, 

and the Commission at least 15 days prior to the effective date of any modification, unless such advance notice is impossible due to 

exigent circumstances (in which event service is to be effected in as timely a fashion as possible). 

These flows will remain in effect until modified as above or by order of the Presiding Judge or the Commission. 

Appendix A 

Interim Minimum Flow Proposals 1 

Project No. 405-009 

FERC STAFF 

Dates Flow (cfs) 

(1)April 1 -- June 15 5,000 

June 16 -- March 31 3,000 

(2)April 1 -- June 15 10,000 

June 16 -- September 30 5,000 

October 1 -- March 31 3,000 

SRBC 

Dates Flow (cfs) Exception 

March 1 -- May 31 5,000 * When 80% of River 

15,000 ** flow is equal to or 

less than the 

required release, 

the release is set 

at 80% of the net 

inflow. 

June 1 -- June 7 12,500 

June 8 -- June 14 10,000 

June 15 -- June 21 8,000 

June 22 -- June 28 6,000 

June 29 -- February 28 5,000 

* Prior to water temperature at Dam first exceeding 45 degrees 

Fahrenheit. 

** Subsequent to water temperature at Dam first exceeding 

45 degrees Fahrenheit. 

[65,325] 

LICENSEES 

Dates Flow (cfs) 

April 15 -- June 15 5,000 

June 15 -- September 15 5,000 for 4 hours 

after any 8 hour 

period of 

shutdown. 

September 15 -- April 15 0 

------------------------------------------------ 

1 All proposals are for discharges from the 


(i.e. over spillways) except for Staff proposal No. 2 


Page 15 of 17 

10/15/2008


(10,000/5,__ 

numer_000/3,000), which refers to 

flow in the 

Susquehanna River as measured at the U.S. Geological 

Survey's Conowingo gauging station (including discharge and 

leakage). 


1 The other projects are the Holtwood, Safe Harbor and York Haven Dams, designated Project Nos. 1881, 1025 and 1888, 

respectively. 

2 As noted below, this proceeding was subsequently phased. Hearings in Phase I have been completed and the proceeding 

currently is pending the filing of briefs. 

3 The reason for the consolidation, as explained by the Commission, is that "the ongoing proceedings in Docket No. EL80-38 also 

concern Conowingo flows, [and, therefore,] we will consolidate this matter with Docket No. EL80-38 . However, the matters of 

concern herein should be dealt with by separate hearings and decision." (18 FERC at 61,165 ) 

4 The parties are currently attempting to resolve some disputes concerning the nature, scope, design, and implementation of 

these studies by means of a technical committee. (See Philadelphia Electric Power Company, et al., Docket No. EL80-38-000 , et al. 

(Phase II), Order of Presiding Judge Establishing Susquehanna River Technical Committee, issued March 25, 1982, 18 FERC 

63,083 ) 

5 The record on which this Order is based consists of seven volumes of transcript, comprising pages 1 through 653; 97 exhibits 

(numbers 1 through 98; Exhibit No. 86 was withdrawn); and five Items by Reference given letter designations A through E. 

6 While some cases have held that cross-examination of a witness is not an undeniable right (See e.g. American Public Gas 

Association v. FPC, 498 F.2d 718 (D.C. Cir. 1974), there are no cases holding that a party may be denied, in toto, the opportunity to 

rebut adverse evidence. 

7 In that Order, the Commission states that "[i]n view of record evidence of damage to the fishery resulting from the existing 

regime, there is, as we have noted, a prima facie case that the fishery would be enhanced and protected to some degree by 

increased minimum flows," 18 FERC, 61,165. 

8 Licensees refer to only five kills. They apparently consider the secondary kills as part of the initial kills. 

9 The Susquehanna Flats is roughly the area of the River below Havre De Grace, Maryland and above the Bay. 

Page 16 of 17 

10 Witness Carter initially testified that one fish kill July 7-9, 1980--consisted primarily of white perch. However, on crossexamination, 

it became unclear whether this was a separate kill or part of a larger one involving "tens of thousands" of menhaden. 

(Tr. 18-20) 

11 This Order does not render any opinion on the issue of whether and what level of minimum flows might be needed for any 

anadromous fish restoration program, which is an issue in the Docket No. EL80-38-000 case. 

12 Based on the evidence presented, the Intervenors and Staff have adequately supported their arguments for increased 

minimum flows on an interim basis to the extent herein authorized. For this reason, it is unnecessary to reach the issues raised 

concerning the Commission's finding of a prima facie case. The findings herein are not based upon any prior findings made by the 

Commission. 


10/15/2008


13 The dollar amount included in Licensees' estimate for the cost of the current minimum flows is probably higher than $177,000 

for it is one part of the calculations which have been found to overstate costs. Licensees did not submit their work papers, however, 

and this segment of their estimate cannot be computed. 

14 The PJM Interconnection is a power pool encompassing utilities in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland. Licensees are 

members of this power pool. 

15 Even if Licensees' cost penalty estimates are accepted as valid, the amount is not deemed excessive for the flow regime 

adopted. Originally, Licensees calculated the cost of these three items at $1,830,000 for a 5,000 cfs year-round flow release. (Ex. 

98, Table 2) These cost figures were later determined to be too high, but revised figures for the 5,000 cfs year-round flow were not 

submitted. (Tr. 455-7, Ex. 95) However, comparing the Mwhrs diversion for a 5,000 cfs for Exhibit 98, Table 2, with the diversion for 

Staff's latest flow proposal (Ex. 95) shows that the megawatt diversion is similar, and, therefore, the costs should be similar. Exhibit 

95 shows these costs as $880,000. Table 3 of Exhibit 98 shows that the percentage of the annual penalty for a 5,000 cfs flow which 

occurs from June 15 to September 15 is 42.65 percent. Thus, a rough estimate of the cost of these three items for the new 5,000 cfs 

flow regime adopted here for June 15 to September 15 can be made by applying the 42.65 percent to the $880,000 cost to obtain a 

figure of approximately $375,000, at most. 

16 This is done simply be adding the cost of a 5,000 cfs flow to the cost of 3,000 cfs flow. The 

[65,326] 

symbol"/" used in these calculations is meant to denote a division sign. The resulting figure is only an approximation, since it 

assumes a straight line progression in costs which may not be the case. However, the net figures produced are deemed to be 

reasonable on the basis of the record as developed here. 

17 The Commission has found that flows for part of the year may be sufficient to protect fish and wildlife resources. See Portland 

General Electric Company, Project Nos. 2030 and 2259, 24 FPC 408 (1960). 



Page 17 of 17 

10/15/2008


OD-ORDER, 20 FERC 62,010, The Susquehanna Power Company and Philadelphia Electric Power 

Company, Project No. 405-011, (July 06, 1982) 


The Susquehanna Power Company and Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Project No. 405-011 

[63,015] 

[62,010] 

The Susquehanna Power Company and Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Project No. 405-011 

Order Amending License 

(Issued July 6, 1982) 

Robert E. Cackowski, Acting Director, Office of Electric Power Regulation. 

The Susquehanna Power Company and the Philadelphia Electric Power Company (Licensees) filed an 

application for amendment of license on March 23, 1982, for their Conowingo Project No. 405. 1 The project is 

located on the Susquehanna River in York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania and Cecil and Harford 

Counties, Maryland. 

The license amendment would provide for the replacement of the highway bridge at Conowingo Dam, and 

modifications to the east and west approaches. The present highway bridge has deteriorated to the point where it 

cannot be repaired, and traffic has been restricted to vehicles with a gross weight of 8,000 pounds or less. U.S. 

Highway No. 1, which crosses Conowingo Dam on this bridge, is a main north - south route, and the load 

restriction limits both local and through traffic, including emergency vehicles. Replacement of this bridge with a 

new one will restore full use of U.S. No. 1 to all traffic, and will eliminate present inconveniences. 

The license amendment would involve the removal of the existing highway bridge built on the powerhouse, 

spillway, and abutment sections of the dam, and that portion of the bridge over the Conrail railroad, to be replaced 

by the construction of a new highway bridge and modifications to the east and west approaches. The new bridge 

will consist of two 14-foot-wide traffic lanes at the spillway and abutment sections. A cantilevered concrete cap will 

be constructed on existing piers to support precast concrete members of the new bridge structure at this location. 

At the powerhouse, the new bridge will have a cast-in-place concrete deck on steel framing, supported by the 

existing powerhouse structure and the existing headworks structures. The new roadway will be widened to 

approximately 21.5 feet without modifying the existing powerhouse structure. The bridge over the Conrail railroad 

will be widened to improve the intersection of U.S. Route 1 with Maryland Route 222 at the east approach. 

[63,016] 

Page 1 of 3 

Modifications to the bridge approaches will consist of improved grade conditions at the east and west approaches, 

and a truck climbing lane at the east approach. 


10/15/2008


Public notice of the application was given on May 3, 1982; no protests, petitions to intervene or letters of 

comment were filed. 

Safety and Adequacy 

The safety of the existing project structures was examined in the Order Issuing New Major License dated 

August 14, 1980 [19 FERC 61,348 ]. The proposed new highway bridge and modifications to the east and west 

approaches would have no adverse effects on the safety, stability or adequacy of the project structures, nor would 

they affect the operation of the project. 

Environmental Concerns 

The proposed actions would have no effect upon the cultural resources included in or eligible for inclusion in 

the National Register of Historic Places. No existing or proposed recreational facilities or resources would be 

adversely impacted, although access to the project's recreational facilities would be slightly diminished during 

construction. There are no known threatened or endangered plant or animal species in the area. Water quality 

would not be affected. The proposed construction would result in the generation of some noise and dust. 

However, because the environmental impacts would be of a minor nature and of short-term duration, it is 

concluded that approval of the application would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment. 


(A) Subject to the conditions of this order, the application for amendment of license filed by the Susquehanna 

Power Company and the Philadelphia Electric Power Company on March 23, 1982, for the Conowingo Project 

No. 405 is hereby approved. 

(B) The following Exhibit L drawings are approved and made a part of the license for FERC Project No. 405: 

Superseding 

Exhibit FERC No. 405- Title FERC No. 405- 

L, Sheet 2 207 General Plan and 75 

Sections of Dam 

L, Sheet 3 208 General Plan and 85 

Sections of Spillway 

L, Sheet 4 209 Plan and Sections-- 56 

Railroad Dike 

L, Sheet 11 210 Power Station--Cross 63 

Section Unit No. 4 







L, Sheet 17 214 Power Station--East 80 

End Elevation 

(C) The above-described superseded exhibits are removed from the license. 


Page 2 of 3 

10/15/2008


(D) This order is final unless a petition appealing it to the Commission is filed within 30 days from the date of its 

issuance, as provided in Section 1.7(d) of the Commission's regulations, 18 C.F.R. Section 1.7 (d) (1981). The 

filing of a petition appealing this order to the Commission or an application for rehearing as provided in Section 

313(a) of the Act does not operate as a stay of the effective date of this license or of any other date specified in 

this order, except as specifically ordered by the Commission. 

-- Footnote -- 

1 Authority to act on this matter is delegated to the Director, Office of Electric Power Regulation, under 18 

C.F.R. §375.308 (1982). 



Page 3 of 3 

10/15/2008


OD-ORDER, 23 FERC 62,022, Susquehanna Power and Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Project 

No. 405-008, (Apr. 08, 1983) 


Susquehanna Power and Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Project No. 405-008 

[63,029] 

[62,022] 

Susquehanna Power and Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Project No. 405-008 

Order Approving in Part Amendment to Exhibit R and Requiring Further Modifications to Exhibit R 

(Issued April 8, 1983) 

Lawrence R. Anderson, Director, Office of Electric Power Regulation. 

Page 1 of 4 

The Susquehanna Power Company and Philadelphia Electric Power Company (referred to jointly hereinafter 

as "Licensees") filed for approval on November 19, 1981, an amendment to their approved Exhibit R 1 for the 

Conowingo Project, FERC Project No. 405. 

Pursuant to the requirements of Article 43 2 of the license, the Licensees conducted a study in consultation with 

appropriate agencies to determine the need for initial development of project recreational facilities within 5 years 

of the date of issuance of the license. Based on the results of their study, a 5-year plan (Plan) for construction, 

operation, and maintenance of certain recreational facilities was formulated by the Licensees and is described in 

the subject amendment. 

The Licensees' study determined that there was an immediate need for improved boat access and swimming 

facilities in the vicinity of the project. The proposed Plan will improve and expand six existing marinas and other 

boat access areas on Conowingo Reservoir. The Licensees also propose to perform a location analysis and 

feasibility study of constructing an appropriate swimming facility within 5 years, provided a suitable operating 

entity can be identified. 

In addition, the Licensees propose to prepare a Comprehensive Master Recreational Plan (CMRP) for the 

entire Conowingo Reservoir area, including the Conowingo and Muddy Run (FERC Project No. 2355) Projects 

and the Peach Bottom Nuclear Station. The CMRP would be filed with the Commission upon completion, and 

updated at regular intervals. 

The Licensees' study indicates that there is no need for development of camping, sightseeing, or picnicking 

facilities at this time. Therefore, the proposed development of Conowingo Recreation Park, Conowingo Visitors 

Center, and the Conowingo Dam East Abutment Picnic and Overlook Area (identified in the approved Exhibit R as 

Areas 1, 2, and 6) has been withdrawn. In addition, the Licensees have withdrawn their plan for initial 

development of the Peach Bottom Boat Launch (identified as Area A in the approved Exhibit R). 


10/15/2008


The Commission granted Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) intervenor status on November 9, 

1982, in the subject proceeding, based on its alleged statutory regional governmental role under authority of 

provisions in the Susquehanna River Basin Compact. 

Discussion and Conclusions 

Recreational Needs-Methodology 

The SRBC questioned the methodology employed in the recreational study. SRBC specifically noted the lack 

of adequate boating access and related facilities at the project. 

The Pennsylvania Fish Commission (PFC) and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources 

(DER) indicated that the demand for public use facilities in the project area is understated by the Licensees, and 

noted the need for picnicking, fishing, camping, hiking, and biking facilities in the region, in addition to boating and 

swimming needs. DER referenced the potential for improved fishing opportunities at the project based on the 

proposed shad restoration program. 

The Licensees, responding to PFC's and DER's comments, noted that the proposed Plan is only for initial 

development, and that they will address further recreational needs in the CMPR. 

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) also advised the Commission that it disagrees with the 

Licensees' study, especially the needs methodology. However, DNR indicated that the proposed plan will improve 

public recreational opportunities at the project. Lancaster County anticipates that Licensees' CMRP will result in 

further recreational development. 

Analysis of the Licensees' proposed amendment to Exhibit R, agency comments, and Staff's field inspection 

indicate that the Licensees have not considered all of the 

[63,030] 

recreational needs in the region, but the amendment does propose implementation of needed recreational 

improvements at the project. It is concluded that further analysis of recreational needs prior to the implementation 

of the presently proposed improvements is not warranted. Therefore, this order approves in part the proposed 

amendment to Exhibit R, but also requires further actions by the Licensees. 

SRBC and DER expressed concern about the Licensees' withdrawal of their previously proposed recreational 

developments in the approved Exhibit R plan. The project lands reserved for these previously proposed 

recreational developments are retained within the project boundary and should be considered for potential future 

public recreational use and the specific recreational needs noted by commenting agencies should be addressed 

in Licensees' CMRP. Article 17 of the license requires the Licensees to develop additional recreational facilities at 

the project, as a need arises. 

Boat Access Facilities 

Page 2 of 4 

SRBC and DER indicated that the Licensees' proposed Plan for improving boat access at the project is 

inadequate. In support of this, both agencies referenced the heavy use of boating facilities in the region, and both 

specifically cited the attractiveness of the Peach Bottom site on the western shoreline, for initial development. 


10/15/2008


The Licensees, responding to SRBC and DER, noted that their consultation with the Peach Bottom Township 

Commissioners revealed that the Township had no interest in a public access facility at this location, but instead 

preferred another parcel of Licensees' land for a baseball field. 

However, the Licensees' own recreational study indicates an immediate need for improved boat access at the 

project. Furthermore, the Licensees acknowledged the potential of the Peach Bottom site for development in their 

approved Exhibit R. The site possesses good road access and ample area for development of boat launching and 

related public use facilities. In addition, the proximity of the site to the Licensees' existing visitor facilities at the 

Peach Bottom Nuclear Facility should enable the Licensees to maintain the boat access area without significant 

difficulty. 

It is, therefore, concluded that the Licensees should prepare a plan for boat access facilities at the Peach 

Bottom site, and construct or arrange for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities within 2 

years from the date of issuance of this order. Article 44 is being added to the license, requiring the Licensees to 

file with the Commission, within 2 years from the date of issuance of this order, a revised Exhibit R drawing 

describing the type and location of recreational facilities provided at the Peach Bottom site. 

DER also recommended various other improvements in boat access along the western shoreline of Conowingo 

Reservoir in Pennsylvania. It is concluded that the Licensees should consider DER's additional proposals in the 

preparation of the CMRP. Article 46 is being added to the license requiring the Licensees to file a copy of the plan 

with the Commission upon its completion. 

Swimming Facilities 

SRBC stated that the Licensees' commitment to developing a swimming facility, contingent upon obtaining an 

appropriate entity to operate and maintain such a facility, is not in the public interest. Responding to this 

allegation, the Licensees noted that they did not believe that they should be the owner and operator of a 

swimming facility, but would cooperate with private enterprise, township, or county agencies in planning and 

developing such a facility. Article 45 is being added to the license requiring the Licensees to file, within 2 years 

from the date of issuance of this order, an amendment to the Exhibit R, outlining the results of a study in 

consultation with their recently established interagency Consultation Committee, to determine the feasibility of 

providing a swimming facility for the project. The need for such a facility is not related to or dependent upon the 

Licensees finding an entity to operate and maintain such a facility. 

Environmental Impacts 

Approval of the proposed action, and the additional development of a boat access facility at the Peach Bottom 

area, will result in minor environmental impacts that will be limited to the construction period. 

On the basis of the record, and Staff's independent analysis, it is concluded that approval of the proposed 

action will not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 


(A) The amendment of the Exhibit R for FERC Project No. 405-008 , consisting of 33 pages of text and 

graphics entitled "Amended Exhibit R," filed on November 19, 1981, is approved in part and made part of the 

license. 

(B) In addition, the following articles are added to the license for Project No. 405: 


Page 3 of 4 

10/15/2008


[63,031] 

Article 44. The Licensees shall, within 2 years from the date of issuance of this order, construct and place in 

operation boat access facilities at the Peach Bottom site, identified as Area A in the approved Exhibit R for the 

project. Licensees shall file with the Commission an original and two Diazo-type duplicate aperture cards of each 

revised Exhibit R drawing delineating type and location of the facilities provided at the Peach Bottom site. 

Article 45. The Licensees shall, in cooperation with the interagency Consultation Committee identified in the 

Exhibit R, conduct a study to determine the feasibility of providing swimming facilities for the project. Licensees 

shall, within 2 years from the date of issuance of this order, file with the Commission a report on the study, 

including copies of any comments from consulted agencies, and for approval an amendment to the Exhibit R 

describing any facilities to be provided, their type and location, and a construction schedule. 

Article 46. The Licensees shall file with the Commission a copy of the Comprehensive Master Recreational 

Plan for the Conowingo Reservoir area upon its completion. 

(C) The Licensees' failure to file a petition appealing this order to the Commission shall constitute acceptance 

of this license. In acknowledgment of acceptance of this order and its terms and conditions, it shall be signed by 

the Licensees and returned to the Commission within 60 days from the date this order is issued. 


1 Authority to act on this matter is delegated to the Director, Office of Electric Power Regulation, under 

§375.308 of the Commission's regulations, 18 C.F.R. §375.308 (1982). This order may be appealed to the 

Commission within 30 days of its issuance pursuant to Rule 1902, 18 C.F.R. §385.1902 , 47 Fed. Reg. 19014 

(1982). Filing an appeal and final Commission action on that appeal are prerequisites for filing an application for 

rehearing as provided in Section 313(a) of the Act. Filing an appeal does not operate as a stay of the effective 

date of this order or of any other date specified in this order, except as specifically directed by the Commission. 

2 See Susquehanna Power Company, Project No. 405, 13 FERC 61,132 (November 18, 1980). 



Page 4 of 4 

10/15/2008


OD-ORDER, 26 FERC 62,008, Susquehanna Power Company and Philadelphia Electric Power Company, 

Project No. 405-015, (Jan. 13, 1984) 


Susquehanna Power Company and Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Project No. 405-015 

[63,010] 

[62,008] 

Susquehanna Power Company and Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Project No. 405-015 

Order Approving Additional Water Withdrawals 

(Issued January 13, 1984) 

Lawrence R. Anderson, Director, Office of Electric Power Regulation. 

The Susquehanna Power Company and the Philadelphia Electric Power Company (Licensees) filed on 

November 17, 1981, and supplemented on May 25, 1983, an application for approval of additional water 

withdrawals pursuant to Article 13 of the license for the Conowingo Project No. 405. 1 

Page 1 of 3 

The Licensees seek Commission approval of an agreement entered into by the Mayor and the City Council of 

Baltimore, Maryland, the Licensees and their associated companies. The agreement is dated August 12, 1981, 

and was modified by a letter dated September 11, 1981. The agreement amends a previous agreement reached 

between the same parties on June 23, 1960, and approved by the Federal Power Commission on August 17, 

1960. 

This latest agreement provides that the City of Baltimore (City) may withdraw for municipal purposes up to 250 

million gallons of water per day [approximately 390 cubic feet per second (cfs)] from the project reservoir before 

permission must be obtained from the Licensees for further withdrawals. The current withdrawal rates, available 

to the City of Baltimore prior to permission being necessary, are 100 cfs when river flows are less than 5,000 cfs, 

200 cfs when river flows are between 5,000 and 85,000 cfs, and 300 cfs when river flows are greater than 85,000 

cfs. No construction of any new facility would be required. The Licensees would be compensated for loss in 

generating capacity due to increased water withdrawals. 

In responding to the public notice of the application, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) stated 

that it had no objection to the withdrawal of water by the City of Baltimore, and that the withdrawal was compatible 

with its Comprehensive Plan. However, SRBC did object to the present and proposed formula for assessing 

charges to the City because SRBC believed that the formula wrongly suggests that the City is paying for water 

when it should be paying for placement of its water pumping equipment at the project reservoir. Additionally, 

SRBC proposed an alternative method of determining compensation. This method is based on the fact that 

Conowingo Dam and Pond reduces the total dynamic head at that point in the river by 80 feet. This significantly 

reduces the power necessary to pump the water needed for the City's municipal water supply. SRBC holds that its 

method "avoids tying charges directly to the quantity of water taken, while maintaining the approximate level of 

the charges agreed to by the parties." 


10/15/2008


The Licensees responded by a filing on December 5, 1983. They maintain that the method of compensation 

agreed to by the Licensees and the City agrees with the Commission's standards as discussed in Rumford Falls 

Power Company, Project No. 2333, 36 FPC 605 (1966). 2 

Terms of Compensation 

As stated above, the agreement now before the Commission amends a previous agreement reached between 

the same parties on June 23, 1960, and approved by the Federal Power Commission on August 17, 1960. 

In the Rumford Falls Order of September 9, 1966, the Commission said: 

(4) What is the standard of compensation? Article 31 provides that the licensee shall receive "such reasonable 

compensation as may be appropriate." The Commission orders had given no real indication as to the nature of 

any compensation contemplated or the standards intended to be applied. It is our intention that the licensee at 

least be made whole for any damages or expenses which the joint use causes him to incur. 

Suppose, for example, that the joint use results in an impairment in the licensee's power operations. Typically, 

the Commission's licensees are electric utilities having multiple generating stations and interconnections with 

other systems, and if power is not produced at the licensed project, it can be produced at another station or 

purchased from another utility. When, as in the present case, the licensee has only one generating source, it 

can presumably purchase power from the electric utility servicing the area. The annual compensation for the 

power impairment would be the annual additional cost of obtaining the power from an alternate source. 

[63,011] 

The SRBC in its comments entitled "Review and Requirements Regarding Relicensing of the Conowingo 

Hydroelectric Project" filed on November 16, 1979, charged that the Licensees required "reimbursement on the 

basis of capacity and energy loss charges for withdrawals of water. . . ." However, the Commission expressed a 

different view in its Order Issuing New Major License of August 14, 1980 [19 FERC 61,348 ]. In that order the 

Commission held that "the charge is imposed not on the water itself but rather on the use made of the project 

reservoir by placing their respective structures there." The license order also stated that: (1) a FERC license does 

not confer the right to allocate the flow of the stream; (2) any entity wishing to withdraw water from the Conowingo 

Reservoir must obtain SRBC's approval of that withdrawal; (3) FERC would not act on any joint use unless SRBC 

had indicated the compatibility of that joint use with SRBC's Comprehensive Plan; (4) compensation terms would 

be fixed by FERC's approval of an agreement between the Licensees and the joint users; and (5) SRBC's views 

concerning compensation would be welcomed in FERC's deliberations. 

SRBC filed for rehearing of the Commission's August 14, 1980 order on September 15, 1980. One of the 

issues raised was the method for computing charges for withdrawing water from the reservoir. FERC's Order on 

Rehearing of November 18, 1980 [13 FERC 61,132 ], responded by stating that the charges were assessed for 

use of the reservoir, that the charges were mutually agreed upon by the Licensees and the joint users, and that, in 

this case, compensation terms are fixed by FERC's approval of that mutual agreement. Additionally, no party to 

the agreements has raised an objection to the terms of the agreements and no joint use agreement involving 

Project No. 405 has expired and therefore none was before the Commission for approval. The order reiterated 

points (2), (3), and (5) above. 

Conclusion 

Page 2 of 3 

It is concluded that no action to change the method for fixing the terms of compensation for the use of the 

Conowingo Reservoir by the City shall be taken. There are several reasons for this. The basic agreement is one 

of long standing (1960); it was mutually agreed upon and not imposed; and no party has raised any objections to 


10/15/2008


the terms of the agreement since enactment. Additionally, while SRBC has said that its proposal, if adopted, 

would result in maintenance of the approximate level of the agreed-to charges, the Licensees claim that SRBC's 

proposal, if adopted, would result in charges 38% greater on average than the charges produced by their pricing 

formula. Considering these facts, no particular advantage would be realized by any party in this instance by 

ordering a new determination of charges. Arrangements that are of long standing, successful and mutually 

satisfactory should not lightly be revised. 

Environmental Concerns 

Approval of the additional water withdrawals would have no effect on the cultural resources included in or 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. No existing or proposed recreational facilities or 

resources would be adversely impacted. No Federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species 

would be affected by the proposal. Minor increases in the potential rate of water withdrawal during low river flow 

periods would result in a minor increase in the entrainment of fish and other aquatic organisms. Increased rates of 

water withdrawal may to a minor degree affect the Licensees' ability to maintain downstream minimum flow 

releases. It is concluded that approval of the application would not constitute a major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment. 


The application for approval of additional water withdrawals filed by the Susquehanna Power Company and the 

Philadelphia Electric Power Company on November 17, 1981, for the Conowingo Project No. 405 is hereby 

approved. 


1 Authority to act on this matter is delegated to the Director, Office of Electric Power Regulation, under 

§375.308 of the Commission's regulations, 18 C.F.R. §375.308 (1983). This order may be appealed to the 

Commission by any party within 30 days of its issuance pursuant to Rule 1902, 18 C.F.R. §385.1902 (1983). 

Filing an appeal and final Commission action on that appeal are prerequisites for filing an application for rehearing 

as provided in Section 313(a) of the Act. Filing an appeal does not operate as a stay of the effective date of this 

order or any other date specified in this order, except as specifically directed by the Commission. 

2 This case focused on Article 31 of the license for the Rumford Falls Project No. 2333 regarding the use of 

project lands and/or waters by a third party. This Article is included in the Conowingo license as Article 13. The 

Memorandum Opinion responded to four questions raised by the First Circuit Court regarding the meaning of the 

Article. One question addressed the issue of what standard of compensation for use of project lands or waters 

should be used. 



Page 3 of 3 

10/15/2008


ALJ-DEC, 26 FERC 63,111, Philadelphia Electric Power Company and Susquehanna Power Company, et 

al., Docket No. EL80-38-001, et al., (Mar. 30, 1984) 


Philadelphia Electric Power Company and Susquehanna Power Company, et al., Docket No. EL80-38- 

001, et al. 

[65,373] 

[63,111] 

Philadelphia Electric Power Company and Susquehanna Power Company, et al., Docket No. EL80-38-001, 

et al. 

Initial Decision Establishing Study Plan to Determine Permanent Flow Regime (Phase II) 



Appearances 

Peyton G. Bowman, III and Eugene J. Bradley for Philadelphia Electric Power Company and Susquehanna 

Power Company 

Edward F. Lawson and C. Peter Carlucci for Susquehanna River Basin Commission 

Anthony R. Conte for U.S. Department of the Interior 

M. Brent Hare and Steven Sachs for Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

Kathleen C. Meyers for Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources 

Dennis T. Guise for Pennsylvania Fish Commission 

Ronald J. Wilson for Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs 

Herbert H. Ward, III for Upper Chesapeake Watershed Association 

Page 1 of 23 

William J. Madden, Jr., and Dale E. Hollar for Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Safe Harbor Water 

Corporation and York Haven Power Company 


10/15/2008


Richard Miles and Emilia DiSanto for the Staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Table of Contents 

Procedural History 

Introduction 

The Issues 

Factual Background (Issue 1 ) 

The Two Proposed Study Plans (Issue 1) 

Biological/Population Study Plan 

The IFIM Method 

Positions of Parties and Staff (Issue 1) 

Licensees 

Intervenors and Staff 

Discussion and Conclusions (Issue 1) 

The Question of Flows for Outmigrating Fish (Issue 2) 

Order 

Procedural History 

This case presents the question of what study should be undertaken to provide the basis for selecting 

permanent minimum flows at Project 405. 

[65,374] 

Page 2 of 23 

By order of August 14, 1980, the Commission issued a new major 50-year license to Philadelphia Electric Power 

Company and Susquehanna Power Company (Licensees) authorizing continued operation of the Conowingo 

Hydroelectric Project No. 405, located on the Susquehanna River. Susquehanna Power Company, et al., Project 

No. 405, Order Issuing New Major License, 19 FERC 61,348 (1980). To determine the level and duration of 

minimum flow releases from the Project to enhance the indigenous (resident) fishery, the Commission included 

Article 34 in the License (reproduced in the Appendix hereto) requiring the Licensees to consult with the involved 

State and Federal agencies, many of the Intervenors herein, and develop "a mutually satisfactory study plan to 

determine [inter alia the]. . . minimum flow release necessary to protect and enhance fish and wildlife 

resources" (id). 


10/15/2008


On January 11, 1982, the Commission issued an order acknowledging "that the requirements of Article 34 of the 

license for Project No. 405 encompass both migratory and resident species of fish." 18 FERC 61,031 at p. 

61,044 . All Article 34 issues were delegated to the Presiding Judge by the Commission on February 3, 1982. 18 

FERC 61,090 . 

On March 25, 1982, the Presiding Judge issued an Order Establishing the Susquehanna River Technical 

Committee. 18 FERC 63,083 . That Committee was given 65 days to consider the nature of the Article 34 

minimum flow study and a comment period was prescribed in the event no agreement was reached. 

In the meantime, interim minimum flows were established by Commission order of June 30, 1982, in Project No. 

405, 19 FERC 63,099 (A detailed procedural history of this case is included in that order). No agreement on the 

scope of the required Article 34 study was forthcoming, and, following extensive settlement negotiations and at the 

direction of the Presiding Judge, Licensees filed an updated Study Plan on April 15, 1983 (Item by Ref. A), with 

comments in opposition subsequently submitted jointly by Intervenors, consisting of U.S. Department of Interior 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Upper 

Chesapeake Watershed Association, and Susquehanna River Basin Commission; and by Staff. (Items by Ref. B- 

D). The upstream Licensees (Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., Safe Harbor Water Corporation and York Haven 

Power Co.) also intervened initially but have taken no active role in this proceeding to date. 

A number of Prehearing Conferences (April 21, June 14, and August 11, 1983), further meetings of the 

Technical Committee (June 8, and August 3, 1983), and discussions before a Settlement Judge (August 11 and 

November 2, 1983) also failed to result in resolution of the parties' differences. Hearings on this matter commenced 

October 18, 1983, and concluded with oral argument on November 1, 1983, generating 1,076 pages of transcript 

and 50 exhibits (including five Items by Reference). Initial and Reply Briefs were filed on December 1, 1983 and 

December 15, 1983, respectively. 

Introduction 

Initially, at the Prehearing Conference on August 11, 1983, the Presiding Judge determined that a decision 

rendered herein should be in the form of an interlocutory order to expedite the inauguration of an approved study 

plan that ultimately will lead to a specific permanent flow regime endorsed by the Commission. (Tr. 147-149). It 

was noted that this procedure would correspond with that adopted and authorized by the Commission's order of 

February 3, 1982, 18 FERC 61,090 , in the related, Project 405, interim flow proceeding. 

However, upon further reflection, it now appears that the very aggressive disputes and intransigence reflected in 

the respective positions of the parties and Staff advanced on the record and on brief warrant a resolution of the 

matter in the type of format that the vehicle of an initial decision provides, which preserves a full line of appeal for 

aggrieved parties while simultaneously highlighting its findings in a more formal pronouncement. Any potential 

danger of delay through administrative and court litigation in implementing the study plan finally approved in this 

proceeding is deemed outweighed by the necessity for establishing a more formal precedent in the decisional tool 

here employed. The fact that Licensees voluntarily have been conducting extensive fishery studies of the type 

specified in their proposed study plan since April 1982 (Ex. 14 at 6-7) suggests that any delay in a final 

determination in this case occasioned by appeal will not act to deter Licensees in these ongoing efforts. 

The Issues 

Page 3 of 23 

The primary issue presented for determination in this proceeding is: What study plan is best adapted to 

determine the minimum flows, if any, which are necessary to protect and enhance the fish and wildlife below the 

Conowingo Dam? (Issue I). 


10/15/2008


[65,375] 

A secondary issue is: Whether a study should be undertaken at this time using hatchery-reared fish to determine 

what flows or spills, if any, may be necessary for outmigrating anadromous fish (Tr. 128, 150, 164). (Issue 2). 

Factual Background (Issue 1) 

Certain basic facts surrounding the immediate controversy are not in dispute. The affected area of the 

Susquehanna River for which the required Article 34 studies are supposed to produce a specific recommendation 

for a permanent minimum flow regime is a 3-mile warm water stream stretch immediately below the Conowingo 

Dam and characterized as the "non-tidal" area (Item by Ref. A, p. 1 and Fig. 1-3). This ecosystem is recognized as 

reflecting a complex warm water channel structure where over 55 species have been captured below the Dam (Ex. 

14 at 10-11; Tr.953). 

The Conowingo hydroelectric facility is a peaking project at which all inflows are discharged over a weekly cycle, 

with no water diverted from the pond. It operates at full load during spring months, and excess runoffs beyond the 

turbine capacity are spilled (e.g., 80,000 cfs for several weeks during the spring of 1983) (Ex. 14 at 11; Tr. 679- 

682; see also Ex. 19). 

The Two Proposed Study Plans (Issue 1) 

Licensees, Intervenors, and Staff are involved in an aggressive dispute concerning which methodology should 

be employed to determine the appropriate minimum flow releases necessary to protect and enhance fish and 

wildlife resources in the three-mile, non-tidal reach below Conowingo Dam. 

On the one hand, Licensees advance a biological/population-based study as the plan best adapted to determine 

a permanent flow regime necessary to protect and enhance fish and wildlife resources below Conowingo Dam 

(Item by Reference A). Basically, Licensees' plan is designed to monitor the changes, if any, in the activities of the 

fish population (growth, feeding, spawning, migration and rearing) during different selected flow regimes through a 

number of devices, including field sampling, electroshocking and gill netting (Ex. 14 at 6-7). Then, employing 

baseline data, population predictions would be tested against the relative abundance of fish observed under the 

test flows. 

On the other hand, Intervenors and Staff vigorously espouse the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) 

as the appropriate study to be undertaken for this purpose (Ex. 10; Item by Reference E). This approach involves 

essentially a habitat-based assessment of instream flow needs, which assesses the relationship between river 

flows and aquatic habitat for various species and life stages of fish and macroinvertebrates (Ex. 49 at 4; Ex. 1 at 4). 

Specifically, the IFIM examines, among other things, water depth, current velocity, substrate, cover, surface area, 

temperature, and dissolved oxygen concentrations. By examining these independent elements of habitat, the IFIM 

assumes a direct relationship between habitat and fish population to determine an area's instream flow needs. (Id.) 

The main details and overall structure of each plan are set forth below. 

Biological/Population Study Plan 

Page 4 of 23 

Licensees' plan, originally designed to be conducted for a 4-year period, and in effect already for the past 2 

years (Licensees I.B. at 6, 9; Ex. 14 at 6-7), uses the existing interim flow releases ordered by the Commission in 

1982 as the test regime. The Plan's basic elements are described by Licensees as follows: 


10/15/2008


It includes the estimation of relative numbers of all life stages of fish in the non-tidal area below the Conowingo 

Dam as determined by field sampling by the existing fish lift, electroshockers, gill nets, and meter nets; the 

biology of fish (feeding, growth, reproduction, and migration patterns); the fish harvest (commercial and 

recreational); radiotelemetry to determine spawning locations of fish; the duration of usage of the study area; 

any movement restrictions for fish; behavioral reactions to changes in flow and the effects of complete shutdown 

during day or night. Biologists are in the study area below the Conowingo Dam on a daily basis to collect 

the detailed information on fish necessary for a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of flows on fish (Ex. No. 

14, pp. 6-7). 

...(T)he Study Plan also automatically yields an on-site evaluation of the actual effects of flows on fish. It 

therefore provides the decision maker with the information necessary to evaluate actual benefits to fish rather 

than potential habitat values. 

The Licensees' Study Plan addresses the basic questions posed in Objective 5 of Article 34 and will separate 

preconceived from actual effects of the flow discharges from the Conowingo Dam on fish and their activities 

(growth, feeding, spawning, migration, and rearing of fish). For example, if the studies show fish voluntarily leave 

the three square mile non-tidal area while 

[65,376] 

Page 5 of 23 

minimum flows are discharged, continuous flows would be unnecessary at times of the year when target species 

are absent. Providing "potential habitat" via releasing flows at a time when fish are elsewhere would be of no 

value to them and would be a waste of peaking power. Further, if age and growth studies of fish below 

Conowingo show that most fish are as healthy or healthier than those elsewhere then it provides the basis for 

concluding the fish are already protected and enhanced. If contrary results are produced these also will become 

apparent. 

The growth of fish stocked [such as striped bass hybrids] in the area and their subsequent capture by anglers 

will provide additional evidence of suitability of the non-tidal area. Creel census data can provide information on 

catch of citation (trophy size) fish, species sought, and rate of angler exploitation, which can then be used for 

management purposes. Radiotelemetry studies will reveal the true changes in area usage with respect to flows, 

seasonal migratory patterns, spawning locations, and the proportion of fish that use specific portions of the study 

area. If the studies detect a meaningful increase in the number of fish below the Conowingo Dam as a result of 

the present [Commission ordered] flow regime, then appropriate actions can be taken. (Ex. 14, pp. 7-9) 

Licensees' Study Plan uses pre-1982 flows as a baseline. By definition, under scientific procedures a 

baseline is a standard of comparison or an experimental control. Since long term pre-dam fishery data to 

describe the natural river are lacking, the ten years of data collected at the Conowingo fish lift [prior to the 

initiation of Commission ordered interim flows in 1982] represent the only long term consistently gathered data 

available for comparison [and all of the expert witnesses agree that long term baseline data are necessary to 

measure the effects of minimum flows; See, e.g., Tr. 356,391; Ex. 28 at 3; Ex. 50 at 2]. Therefore, these data 

should be the logical choice for the baseline [assuming that the lift accurately measures relative abundances of 

fish in the affected area and is not unduly influenced by other factors, such as dam operation; Tr. 393,397]. 

These data reflect the cumulative environmental effects including those of the dam on nursery areas, 

recruitment, and survival of fishes in the lower river and can be used to establish the relationship between fish 

populations and river flow. As such they provide a basis for determining the suitability of the study area and 

making comparisons with the conditions experienced by fish because of alteration in flows after 1981. (Ex. No. 

14, pp. 9-10) 

. . . (I)mplementation of the Licensees' Study Plan already has produced valuable scientific information 

[including one year of baseline data for the fall and winter and for electroshocking efforts; Tr. 381-382, 410]. The 

Study Plan has shown that extensive reproductive activity occurs in the non-tidal river; however, most of the 


10/15/2008


eggs and larvae are displaced by the current and complete their development in the tidal river, the 

Susquehanna flats, or upper Chesapeake Bay. 

Studies of benthic invertebrates and observation of zooplankton populations indicate there is a large supply of 

high quality food available for resident fish. The robust condition and growth of fish below the Dam attest to the 

existence of an abundant food supply (Ex. No. 20, p. 5). 

In addition, Licensees' Study Plan, in effect, produces a series of base lines. In the first year of the Study the 

Commission mandated flows were compared with the pre-1982 base period. In the second year of the Study 

Licensees were able to compare conditions in 1983 not only with the original base line conditions but also with 

those that existed in 1982. Next year, 1984 conditions can be compared with the original base line conditions, 

conditions in 1982, and conditions in 1983. Thus, as the Study Plan progresses it provides increasingly useful 

information (Tr. 354-355). . . . 

In addition, at the completion of the four year period encompassed in Licensees' Study Plan [under the 

existing interim flow, Item by Ref. A at 1], Licensees have offered to conduct an additional three or more year 

study using flows of 10,000 cfs in April and May. (Ex. No. 17, pp. 8-9). Licensees are also agreeable to testing 

other flows (including year-round flows) if conditions warrant (Tr. 460-463, 466-469, 482-483). 

(Licensees' I.B. at 6-9; emphasis added). 

Within this schematic description as framed by Licensees, the record developed that their plan contemplates the 

use of baseline data to develop approximately 70 predictive regression models, one for each of the various life 

stages of each of the species of interest, that will forecast relative abundances of fish in the absence of flows and 

then compare these predictions to actual relative abundances observed under test minimum flows (Tr. 331, 334, 

347, 364-365, 745-746). Under this approach, Licensees anticipate the ability to detect population changes in the 

10 percent or greater range (Ex. 30 at 5), and the ability to predict the relative number of or increase in 

[65,377] 

Page 6 of 23 

fish at any given flow, assuming the study discloses some relationship between flows and fish (Tr. 364-366). 

According to witness Mathur, a second flow regime proposed to be tested (involving an increased spring flow of 

10,000 cfs) would endow the plan with "a sufficient number of observations to validate what the effects of the flows 

are and what (could be expected) in another, different regime." (Tr. 366). 

The evidence fleshes out other components of this plan in several respects. For instance, Licensees' witnesses 

agree that at least one and preferably two life cycles of data for each species of interest under each tested flow 

regime are required to develop meaningful information (Tr. 382, 457-458; Ex. 14 at 9; Ex. 20 at 6-7; Ex. 28 at 3-4). 

The life cycles of these species range from 3 to 10 years, with most falling in the 4-5 year range (Tr. 423; Ex. 37 at 

2). 

A portion of Licensees' plan is designed to accommodate the intervening federal and state agencies' requests 

for certain habitat information using their preferred techniques conceptually (i.e., measuring velocity, substrate and 

depth at 11 transects but on an observational basis). Witness Mathur, however, considers that such data is useless 

as a tool in predicting changes in fish population (Tr. 605-612). 

With regard to the magnitude of test flow regimes, Licensees consider that there is no rationale for studying 

year-around flows, especially in the fall and winter, in view of their perception that fish are not harmed in the 

affected water stretch during these months. (Tr. 454, 494; Ex. 14 at 8, 18-19; Ex. 20 at 8-10). Nevertheless, as 

reflected in the rebuttal testimony of witness Mathur, they are willing to study the effect not only of a 10,000/5,000 

cfs regime, with the 10,000 cfs release tested for a 3-year period during the spring months (April and May), but also 

of continuous flows if "dramatic" changes/"substantial improvements" in fish population are observed (Tr. 483, 826; 


10/15/2008


Ex. 17 at 9; See also Ex. 18 and Item by Ref. A at 11). The record does not quantify the changes or 

improvements that would trigger this modification to Licensees' study plan. 

The evidence reflects some indefiniteness regarding the duration of Licensees' study plan. As framed, it 

encompasses a 4-year period covering study of the currently prescribed interim flow regime (Item by Ref. A at 1). 

However, as noted above, the plan is apparently flexible enough to accommodate further studies of different flows 

for periods up to 5 years each, corresponding with the life cycles of the species of interest (see, e.g., Tr. 453, 457- 

458, 826). 

Licensees' study plan as framed does not specifically address costs. The record indicates that Licensees 

currently are spending approximately $300,000 - $400,000 per year on their program (Tr. 559), but that additional 

years are envisioned at reduced amounts to the extent that certain samplings and techniques would not have to be 

repeated in each year of the study (id.; Tr. 586-587). The record does not demonstrate whether this figure includes 

the costs of lift operation or those associated with the discharge of any flows above those currently required. 

The IFIM Method 

This plan basically involves collection of physical data and physical modeling, and collection of biological data, 

to establish relationships initially between flow and habitat for various species and life stages of fish and 

macroinvertebrates) and, in turn, between habitat and population (Item by Ref. E; Ex. 10). The methodology does 

not attempt to measure the response of fish populations or changes in relative abundances under different flows 

(Ex. 7 at 4; Ex. 50 at 1-2). IFIM reflects two basic components. The physical component measures depth, velocity, 

substrate and cover at representative transects and uses a hydraulic simulation technique to predict distributions of 

those habitat parameters under different flows (Ex. 1 at 13-17; Ex. 5; Ex. 6). The biological component determines 

the preferences and tolerances of fish to the physical parameters (Ex. 1, p. 17-19). These components are then 

used to determine the amount of habitat usable (or suitable) for a given target species under specific flows (Ex. 1 at 

18). 

Microhabitat preferences for target species are expressed in the form of habitat-suitability curves in which the 

optimum range of a particular habitat variable is assigned a weighting factor of one and the least suitable ranges 

are assigned weighting factors near zero. These curves for each life stage of each target species must be 

developed or available to implement an IFIM study. Such implementation involves the use of a series of computer 

programs called PHABSIM (Physical Habitat Simulation). The major components of the PHABSIM system are 

programs to simulate the physical habitat as a function of stream flow and to transform the hydraulic information 

(depth, velocity, substrate) into a measure of potential usable fish habitat through the use of suitability criteria. The 

PHABSIM system divides the surface of a stream reach into rectangular cells. 

[65,378] 

Page 7 of 23 

Transects (imaginary lines crossing the river) are located to sample selected habitat in the stream reach, and field 

measurements (depth, velocity, and substrate) are made at the exact intervals along the transect at different 

constant flows. The interval width determines the width of the cell. The length of the cell is one-half the distance 

between the adjacent upstream and down-stream transects. A hydraulic-simulation technique is used for 

estimating depths and velocities within each cell as a function of discharge (Ex. 14 at 3-4; Licensees I.B. at 10-11). 

After hydraulic simulation of the stream reach, the estimated depths and velocities at various discharges, 

substrate data from the stream reach, distances between transects, and suitability-criteria curves for target species 

are used as input to another computer program. This program computes the amount of physical habitat weighted 

by its suitability for the target species. The resultant estimate of habitat usability is called weighted usable area. 

This procedure must be repeated for each species and life stage of interest (id.). 

As noted, IFIM measures habitat rather than population size. The methodology presumes that fish populations 

respond favorably to increases in habitat when habitat is limiting (Ex. 11 at 9-10) IFIM does not require an 


10/15/2008


assumption that habitat components are independent (Ex. 1 at 19-20; Ex. 11 at 3). As Intervenors explain, 

witness Bovee testified that: 

. . . when habitat variables for observed fish are measured simultaneously, multivariate equations can be 

established (Ex. 1, p. 19-20). These equations contain terms describing the interaction among variables (Ex. 1, 

p. 19). The variables are treated independently through the use of two dimensional preference curves (Ex. 7) 

only if the multivariate analysis shows interaction between variables to be negligible (Ex. 1, p. 20). 

(Intervenors I.B. at 15). 

IFIM is designed to test a large number of different flow regimes. Intervenors' witness Bovee testified that 1,000, 

5,000, 10,000, 20,000, and 40,000 - 45,000 cfs discharges would be evaluated to assess the effects of peak flows 

below Conowingo Dam. (Ex. 1 at 36). The record establishes that IFIM cannot be applied except by individuals with 

proper training and experience in conducting studies employing this methodology (Ex. 1 at 33; Ex. 49 at 12; Tr. 

246, 924, 926). Apparently, there are several consulting companies which possess these credentials (Tr. 246, 

926). 

Witness Bovee estimates that an IFIM study below Conowingo could be completed in about 3 years (Tr. 222- 

226). On this question of duration, IFIM, according to Staff, is such a remarkable methodology that, once the study 

is completed, no further studies need be undertaken to monitor and verify the result of the flow selected from an 

evaluation of the information derived from such a study (Ex. 49 at 6; Tr. 931, 949-950). In Staff's words: 

The record also shows that at the end of the three-year period, the IFIM will provide the decision-maker with a 

wide range of flows and their associated benefits to the habitat. The decision-maker can then select the 

appropriate minimum flows after having balanced the benefits with associated costs. Moreover, there will not be 

a need for a verification study once the IFIM is completed. (Tr. 949-950). Nor does Staff recommend such a 

study. 

(Staff I.B. at 6). 

On the other hand, Intervenors' position is less rigid and reflects a tacit acknowledgement that "IFIM can provide 

an objective basis for selecting flows to be subsequently monitored through a biological sampling 

program" (Intervenors I.B. at 16, emphasis added; See also Ex. 1 at 42-43; Ex. 31 at 34; Tr. 236, 242, 866-868). 

Since expert witnesses for both Licensees and Intervenor agree that at least one life cycle should be tested which, 

considering the target species here, would involve a duration of about 5 years to cover most these species (see Tr. 

382, 457-458, 826), it appears that endorsement of the IFIM method under Intervenors' approach would entail an 

overall study plan encompassing some 8 years. 

On the matter of cost, Intervenors estimate that an IFIM study could be implemented below Conowingo at a cost 

of between $400,000 and $1 million (Tr. 225). Considering the ecosystem here involved, the evidence suggests 

that the upper range of this estimate would yield the more appropriate number (Tr. 627, 927). 1 If the IFIM 

approach is complemented with a 5-year biological survey for monitoring and verification, then, using Licensees' 

estimates for implementation of that type of survey, an additional amount in the area of $2 million would have to be 

added, generating a total in the neighborhood of $3 million. 

Positions of the Parties and Staff (Issue 1) 

Licensees 

The Licensees tout their proposed biological or population-based study plan as 


Page 8 of 23 

10/15/2008


[65,379] 

the "traditional" one best adapted to determine what minimum flows, if any, are necessary to protect and enhance 

fish and wildlife below Conowingo Dam. They cite to a body of literature published by an employee (Wallburg) of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of Interior, one of the Intervenors, that, in reviewing the overall 

effects of hydroelectric dams, includes several population-based studies (unspecified) conducted up to 1981 below 

such projects (unidentified) focusing on minimum flows (Licensees I.B. at 5-6 and R.B. at 9; Tr. 325-329) 2 

Licensees basically argue that the IFIM method reflects no credible basis for decisions on minimum flow 

requirements in this proceeding, because it totally lacks the capacity to predict the results of altered flows on fish 

protection and/or enhancement to the extent that the assumed equation in this approach of habitat with fish 

population is totally unproven at least on the record here. According to Licensees, this approach 

" only deals with the availability of predicted "potential habitat' at various flows. At Conowingo it will completely 

ignore the thriving existing fishery below the Dam and cannot offer useful fishery enhancement information. 

Article 34 of the Conowingo license addresses protection and enhancement of fish below the Conowingo Dam 

and not the "potential habitat.' 

The IFIM Method was designed for application in small cold water streams inhabited by trout and salmon where 

the water was to be diverted for offstream consumptive uses thereby "permanently' reducing the size of the 

stream. At the Conowingo Dam, all inflows are discharged over a weekly cycle; no water is lost. The cold water 

streams are much simpler ecosystems than the complex warmwater fishery which exists below the Conowingo 

Dam. Over 55 species have been captured below the Dam. The results from the IFIM Method never have been 

implemented in a large river containing warm-water fish. (Ex. No. 14, pp. 10-11) 

Perhaps the greatest fallacy of the IFIM Method (and a failure which, in itself, completely destroys its scientific 

validity) is its equation of "potential physical habitat' with fish population. ('The more habitat, the more fish.') The 

"potential habitat' cannot be equated to the fish population. There is no demonstrated relationship which shows 

that the greater the "potential habitat' the larger the fish population will be. Increases in fish population occur as 

a result of growth and recruitment, and decreases occur due to mortality and fishing. (Ex. 14, p. 12). Because 

this unproven assumption is the very basis for using the IFIM Method, its lack of a valid scientific basis removes 

it from the realm of substantial evidence upon which any decision by this Commission must be based . . . ." 

(Licensees I.B. at 13-14; See also Ex. 14 at 13; Ex. 20 at 7; Ex. 23 at 7; Ex. 28 at 6-7; Ex. 30 at 3). 

Page 9 of 23 

Licensees challenge the claim by Intervenors and Staff that the IFIM Method is an established state-of-the-art 

technique for studies to determine appropriate minimum flow releases on warm water streams such as the affected 

area of the Susquehanna (Licensees R.B. at 3-5). In Licensees' words: 

The Susquehanna River is a large warm water eastern river. As Mr. Bovee testified, the IFIM Method was 

developed for comparatively miniscule cold water trout streams in the Rocky Mountains (Tr. 198). The testimony 

in this proceeding has failed to cite a single instance where flows derived as a result of an IFIM study have 

protected or enhanced fish. In addition, the Commission never even has required an IFIM study on an eastern 

warm water stream. It is noteworthy that all parties including Staff have agreed to study plans for the three 

upstream Susquehanna dams which do not include IFIM studies. 

Attempts by (Staff) Witness Robinson to give examples to fill this regulatory gap further demonstrate the 

weakness of his argument. In one instance (Project No. 618 on the Coosa River in Alabama) the use of the IFIM 

Method was purely a compromise to save the expense of litigation and did not settle any principles. In the other 

example (Saranac River in northern New York) it is questionable an IFIM study was even undertaken. 


10/15/2008


(Id. at 3; emphasis added). 

Further, Licensees question the probative value of the evidence proffered by Intervenors and Staff to prove a 

basic relationship between habitat and (protection and enhancement of) fish population as inapposite to the 

prevailing ecosystem and Project operation in the involved water stretch (id. at 5-7). It is contended that the 

examples cited by the IFIM proponents relate to non-comparable ecosystems involving, collectively, cold water 

streams, very small warm water streams with minimal project flows in question ranging from 0 to 125 cfs, and 

target species different from those of concern here (id.). 

Addressing the concerns of duration and cost, Licensees urge that their proposed plan is 

[65,380] 

not inferior to the IFIM in these respects. To the extent that testing under additional flows, where substantial 

improvements are observed, would prolong their plan, Licensees posit that no one could "complain about a 

situation which was achieving substantial increases in fish populations" (id. at 8). Licensees recognize that their 

plan is more expensive than the IFIM Method, but suggest that the "relatively low costs" of implementing an IFIM 

approach is far outweighed by the ultimately "massive costs" in "millions of dollars" that could be incurred in 

wasting peaking power by releasing unnecessary flows (id.). 

The bottom line position of Licensees is that a reasoned determination on the effects of minimum flows can be 

reached "most directly and with the greatest confidence" by direct observation of the size and health of the fish 

population as embodied in their plan (Licensees I.B. at 15). 

Intervenors and Staff 

The proponents of the IFIM approach basically emphasize the scientific and carefully structured nature of this 

methodology as warranting its endorsement as the best of the two proffered plans to determine a permanent 

minimum flow regime at Project 405. 

Intervenors primarily criticize the alleged gaps and unexplained components in the methodology underlying 

Licensees' plan, which would test population predictions derived from pre-1982 baseline data against relative 

abundances of fish observed under the prescribed interim minimum flows currently in effect. According to these 

parties: 

The record requires a conclusion that the population-based study proposed by Licensees cannot be approved. 

The reasons for this conclusion are as follows: (1) the Licensees have not shown that they can construct their 70 

predictive models; (2) the use of models to accurately predict changes in fish populations has not been 

demonstrated; (3) the specific method of statistical analysis has not been described; (4) the adequacy of the 

scope and intensity of the sampling program has not been demonstrated; (5) the [adequacy of pre-1982 

baseline data is suspect, because the] ability of the Conowingo fish lift to measure relative abundance in the 

three mile non-tidal area has not been demonstrated; (6) the proposed test flow regimes are inadequate and 

have not been fully specified; (7) the duration of the study program described by the Licensees is inadequate; 

(8) the study program would take from 15 to 30 years; (9) the minimum cost of the study would be between $6 

and $12 million (based on examining 1-2 life cycles of 4-5 years each for 3 test flows); (10) the study results 

would have limited utility in selecting a minimum flow; and (11) the Licensees' approach has never been used to 

resolve minimum flow issues at FERC licensed projects. 

. . . the record contains some evidence which could be used to address these deficiencies . . . . 



Page 10 of 23 

10/15/2008


Licensees' plan is further challenged as being unable to detect changes in population "with the small changes in 

flow" proposed, because of the "magnitude of natural variation" (Intervenors R.B. at 2). The IFIM proponents fault 

Licensees' approach in this regard for what they perceive to be a fatal lack of comprehensiveness in only testing a 

limited number of flows. This, they decry, "significantly compromises" the predictive capability of Licensees' plan 

(see, e.g., Staff I.B. at 12). Intervenors urge that, if any population-biological oriented study is approved, at least 

three flow regimes (including the interim flows) should be tested, including a year-round continuous flow and a 

regime providing different flows at different seasons. A major difficulty with the Licensees' approach, according to 

Intervenors, is that it provides no basis for selecting test flows or predicting the effects of other flow regimes. 

(Intervenors I.B. at 7, 9). Further testing under a year-round flow regime is emphasized as absolutely necessary to 

determine whether additional flows during the fall and winter would prevent fish from leaving the area of interest (id. 

at 7, and R.B. at 3). 

In support of their claim that the Licensees' population-based approach has no precedential underpinnings, 

Intervenors cite Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Project No. 178, 8 FERC 61,258 (1979); and Alabama Power 

Company, Project No. 618, Order (of Office of Electric Power Regulation) Approving Minimum Flow Studies, 21 

FERC 62,116 (1982). A use of this approach on the Hudson River, in connection with environmental 

controversies involving the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to measure the impact at various plants involving 15 

years of study at a cost of over $100 million is also described by Intervenors as highlighting the inadequacy of the 

method, since principal biological issues allegedly are still unresolved (Id. at 10). 

The IFIM study plan is lauded as the most appropriate to develop a flow regime at Project 405 for the following 

reasons: 

(1) IFIM can determine which type of habitat limits population, thereby avoiding 

[65,381] 

unnecessary minimum flows (Ex. 1, p. 10); (2) IFIM reveals how much habitat is gained or lost under any flow 

regime (Ex. 1, p. 27; Ex. 49, p. 6; T. 865, 930-932); (3) IFIM can measure the effects of the variations in 

streamflow over time (Ex. 1, p. 28); (4) IFIM can evaluate the effects of high flows (Ex. 1, p. 28); (5) IFIM can 

determine the impacts of fluctuating flows (Ex. 1, p. 29); (6) IFIM can evaluate the effects of changes in water 

quality (Ex. 1, p. 11; T. 198, 232, 862, 863); (7) IFIM provides information to resolve conflicts among the various 

lifestages of a species and among different species (Ex. 11, p. 4; T. 931); (8) IFIM can provide an objective 

basis for selecting flows to be subsequently monitored through a biological sampling program (Ex. 1, p. 42-43; 

Ex. 31, p. 34; T. 236, 242, 866-868); and (9) and IFIM study can be completed in about three years (T. 222, 

226). 

(Intervenors I.B. at 15-16; emphasis added). 

Page 11 of 23 

Intervenors stress that, under their plan, the necessary physical and biological data can be collected, and the 

physical models constructed pursuant to a specific methodology and application clearly and fully described in 

Exhibit 10 and Item by Reference E, in contrast to Licensees' proposal (id. at 17). 

In support of their position that IFIM's assumption of a high correlation between habitat and population is correct, 

Intervenors rely on a number of studies which purportedly verify this relationship (id. at 13). "Previous use" of IFIM 

in resolving minimum flow questions "at a significant number of FERC licensed projects" "on a wide variety of river 

systems" is emphasized (id.at 16). The same cases cited above are re-cited for this proposition. 

Finally, Intervenors urge that any biological/population-based study approved by the Commission be required to 

be preceded by an IFIM study that will be the basis for selecting the flow regime to be tested (id. at 19). 


10/15/2008


On brief, Staff's arguments for the most part echo the Intervenors' positions outlined above. The significant 

difference is that Staff opposes as unnecessary any subsequent verification of an implemented IFIM study through 

a second study of the type Licensees espouse (Staff I.B. at 19; see also Tr. 961). 

Staff particularly emphasizes the components of duration and cost as warranting endorsement of the IFIM 

method. Also stressed is the alleged superior predictive capability of the IFIM to the extent that it will provide a 

greater range of flow regimes from which the Commission can select a reasonable permanent minimum flow, as 

opposed to Licensees' plan which "severely limits the decision-maker's ability to assess the range of minimum 

flows" (id. at 9, 12). According to Staff, the IFIM is a "decision-making tool capable of determining which type of 

habitat limits population" (Staff R.B. at 8). 

Staff also faults Licensees' plan as flawed to the extent that they have failed to quantify the type of "dramatic 

increase" that would trigger further testing under increased flows. 

Discussion and Conclusions (Issue 1) 

I 

The aggressive presentations by the parties and Staff here, one group vigorously espousing a 

population/biological-based study plan, the other touting the virtues of the IFIM approval, and each group strongly 

resisting the other's proposal, is noteworthy in that it presents the Commission with a formally litigated case of first 

impression on this question. The nagging concern that plagues any categorical clear-cut solution in this factual 

context, however, is the recognition that selection of the proper methodology, formulated to the "nth" degree with 

every loose end neatly tied, is really tantamount to a cruise through totally uncharted waters. There is no formal 

Commission precedent whatsoever to steer the decision-maker along a particular course, save for the Pacific Gas 

case, supra, which suggests that test flow releases selected under an undefined method with a 20-year duration 

are not acceptable, apparently due to project inefficiencies that would result through generation loss. In all other 

proceedings before this Commission involving the question at hand cited by Staff, the matter has been resolved on 

an unlitigated basis informally by a "mutually satisfactory" study plan submitted by all parties and approved by the 

Commission's Office of Electric Power Regulation. However, Pacific Gas is not deemed controlling here in view of 

the major differences between the river system and perceived needed test flows in that case and the 

corresponding components in the instant one. 

The underlying statutory framework involved here is, of course, the Federal Power Act. Section 10(a) of that Act 

provides that: 

All licenses issued under this Part shall be on the following conditions: 

(a) That the project adopted . . . shall be such as in the judgement 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, 

[65,382] 

and for other beneficial public uses, including recreational purposes; . . . 

Page 12 of 23 

16 U.S.C. 803 (a). When evaluating a license, the conditions to be affixed thereto, or the methods to implement 

such conditions, the Commission must balance the public interest in using the waterways for power generation 


10/15/2008


against the public interest in other beneficial uses. See, e.g., Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. F.P.C., 

354 F.2d 608, 614 (2d Cir. 1965); cert. denied sub. nom. Consolidated Edison Company of N.Y. v. Scenic 

Hudson Preservation Conference, 384 U.S. 941 (1966); Consolidated Edison Company of N.Y., Inc., 33 FPC 

428, 435 (1965). One significant competing public interest is the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife 

resources, which is a recognized, legitimate concern. Udall v. F.P.C., 287 U.S. 428 (1967). As explained by 

Justice Douglas in the Udall case: 

"The test is whether the project will be in the public interest. And that determination can be made only after an 

exploration of all issues relevant to the "public interest,' including future power demand and supply, alternate 

sources of power, the public interest in preserving rocks of wild reaches of wild rivers and wilderness areas, the 

preservation of anadromous fish for commercial and recreational purposes, and the protection of wildlife." 

387 U.S. at 450. In the instant case, the public interest in maintaining the Conowingo project as a source of 

peaking power conflicts with the interest in protecting and enhancing the fishery in the River below the Dam. 

II. 

The IFIM method, in theory, seems to posit "the best of all possible worlds" in developing sufficient data 

covering a wide range of flows to enable the decision maker to select a particular flow regime at Conowingo that is 

best designed to protect and/or enhance the resident and anadromous fishery resources at this facility. "On paper," 

it is impressive, highly sophisticated in technique, and persuasive. However, where is the required substantial 

proof, the hard, factual probative evidence of record, that such device, in fact, will ultimately enable a beneficial 

flow regime to be selected that, once ordered into effect through formal Commission action, will really generate any 

meaningful protection and/or enhancement of the fish and wildlife resources as envisioned by Objective 5 to Article 

34 of the Conowingo License and, in Staff's view, without any verification through subsequent observation and 

testing under the very type of population/biologically-based study espoused by Licensees? Nowhere, except in the 

judgmental opinions proffered by expert witnesses for Staff and Intervenors, respectively (See, e.g., Tr. 601-603, 

9370939; Exh. 50 at 3). 

At the outset, it seems appropriate to lay to rest the claim of the IFIM proponents that their approach represents 

the "established" and preferred methodology. Intervenors', and particularly Staff's, assertions that the IFIM 

approach is a documented state-of-the-art method with an "established" track record at this Commission, and their 

corresponding claim that habitat is directly related to population (the IFIM's critical assumption), are not 

persuasively demonstrated. None of the cases and studies cited to support this basic proposition involves a 

situation where a specific flow regime was adopted and implemented at a particular hydroelectric project as a result 

of an IFIM study, with a demonstrated effect thereafter on the fish and wildlife resources in terms of protection 

and/or enhancement. 

For example, the situation reflected in Alabama Power, supra, 21 FERC at p. 63,192 (the Coosa River Project 

No. 618), emphasized by the IFIM proponents as one of two eastern warm water streams where the IFIM has been 

involved in determining flows, closely parallels the controversy presented here. In that unlitigated proceeding, when 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (one of the Intervenors here) suggested using an IFIM study at Project 

No. 618, the licensee vigorously opposed it initially, in its "Report on Proposed Plan of Minimum Flows for the 

Jordan Hydroelectric Project", filed January 27, 1982, using many of the same arguments advanced by Licensees 

in this proceeding, as follows: 

The Licensee views the USFWS study plan [an IFIM plan] as a proposal to implement fishery habitat 

methodology that has not been proven to be applicable to warmwater fisheries such as the Coosa River; 

furthermore, Licensee is of the opinion that changes in the fishery resulting from implementation of the program 

cannot be accurately predicted without fishery [biological] studies. 

(See Licensees I.B., Appendix A). 


Page 13 of 23 

10/15/2008


On March 30, 1982, the licensee in that case responded to criticisms of its population-based plan, in 

"Supplemental Information to the Report on Proposed Plan . . .", filed March 31, 1982, as follows: 

Licensee maintains its position relative to the objections stated for application of instream flow methodology. The 

above comment by USFWS staff misinterprets a 

[65,383] 

significant point made by Licensee; to wit, "the USFW instream flow program was developed for cold-water 

streams and has not been utilized, based on discussions with USFWS Staff, on warm-water streams in the 

Southeast (emphasis added). USFWS comments, as previously quoted, omit Licensee's reference to warmwater 

applicability of the program and simply state that Licensee's objection is based on lack of program use on 

Southeastern streams. . . . 

Licensee does not consider the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology "state-of-the-art' for determining 

minimum fishery flows on warm-water streams. Licensee bases its determination in part on USFWS' statement 

that there are many other factors other than flow that affect fish population conditions. The instream flow 

methodology considers habitat suitability and availability for certain target fish, but ignores many complex 

relationships among species within a population. 

(Id., Appendix B). 

Page 14 of 23 

Subsequently, the parties in that case reached a compromise and agreed to utilize both an IFIM Method and a 

population-type study. However, like all settlements, no principles were involved and the licensee never agreed 

that an IFIM Study had any validity whatsoever. Nor did the Commission's Order of the Office of Electric Power 

Regulation accepting the "settlement" (i.e., "mutually satisfactory" study plan) in Alabama Power make any findings 

as to the general validity of the IFIM method. Further, the study in that proceeding is apparently still ongoing, and 

no permanent flow regime emanating therefrom with formal Commission approval and demonstrated results is in 

effect. 

Similarly, the situation on the Saranac River, a small stream in the Adirondack mountains in northern New York 

(flows of 125 cfs; Tr. 956) in Project No. 4114, cited by Staff, also did not involve FERC-ordered flows, but, rather, 

a relatively small negotiated minimum flow agreed to on an informal basis (Tr. 951-956). 

The IFIM approach assumes a direct relationship between aquatic habitat and stream flow for various fish 

species and life stages, which is demonstrated on this record, and, in turn, a high (and the critical) correlation 

between habitat and population, for which, as noted, there is no corresponding record support. The relatively few 

studies relied on by Staff and Intervenors that involved use of the IFIM approach to warm water stream systems 

(Ex. 1 at 8-9, 30-31; Ex. 11 at 7, 10-14; Ex. 12 and 13) are not satisfactorily explained on this record as 

appropriately applicable to the Susquehanna River stretch in question here. For example, one of the much 

emphasized Orth and Maughaun studies (Ex. 12 and 13) focused on a very small stream and employed an earlier 

version of the IFIM methodology that its proponents concede would not work on the nontidal stretch of the 

Susquehanna below Conowingo under examination here (Tr. 198-200; Ex. 11 at 10; See also Tr. 193, 203-204, 

219-220; 956; Ex. 27 at 3). 3 

Similarly, Intervenors' witness Bovee, 4 candidly suggests another related and grave area of concern, namely 

that the basic IFIM methodology is dependent upon habitat preference criteria (i.e., suitability curves) for each life 

stage of each species of interest (Tr. 202, 219-220). Here, one of the prime target species, which is desired to be 

restored (the whole crux of Phase I of this docket), is the anadromous American shad, not part of the current 

resident fishery below Conowingo. It is not inconceivable that the hypothetically ideal habitat suitability curves 

developed by IFIM for shad might be incompatible with those generated for other resident species. According to 

this witness, it is entirely possible either that such criteria cannot even be developed, or that, upon development, 


10/15/2008


shad would be found to have no discernible habitat preferences in the affected Susquehanna stretch (Tr. 217- 

221). In that situation, considering the relative importance of this species, the decision-maker would be deadlocked 

in evaluating the wide range of flows produced, and, to this extent, the IFIM approach would not work below 

Conowingo. Witness Bovee also acknowledges, significantly, that the IFIM is unable to predict either increases in 

population size or the chances of restoring shad to the affected Susquehanna stretch (Tr. 231; See also Tr. 370- 

373). Since these two factors are vital components of the study objectives, the compatibility of an IFIM approach 

per se to these objectives is suspect (Tr. 218). 

In the absence of the necessary showing that the IFIM provides a meaningful relationship between habitat and 

the fish population of concern here, this approach cannot be endorsed as the sine qua non most apt per se to 

enable the decision-maker ultimately to select an appropriate flow regime at Project No. 405 at the Conowingo 

Dam. Further, and despite Staff's contrary assertion (Staff I.B. at 6), Intervenors agree with Licensees that any flow 

regime selected through information developed from implementation of an IFIM approach here, once instituted, still 

would have to be tested and verified over a period of time by some sort 

[65,384] 

of population/biological study (Ex. 1 at 42-43; Ex. 31 at 34; Tr. 236, 246, 866-868). Such verification is not 

practically necessary only if IFIM correctly assumes that a relationship exists between the amount of weighted 

usable habitat and fish population--but this is not demonstrated on the record. 

The fact that the IFIM methodology has been employed pursuant to informally negotiated agreements in a 

number of unlitigated cases before this Commission (Ex. 49 at 10-11) does not rise to the stature of probative and 

persuasive evidence per se such as to justify formal approval of the technique in this forum. One may speculate 

that the IFIM method was selected in those proceedings as the cheaper of the techniques proffered, or as 

appropriate to the peculiar ecosystems of the rivers in question, or because a result might be achieved in a 

relatively short period of time. One should also note that in the preponderance if not all of these proceedings, this 

approach is still in the application phase, with no final results reached. In any event, it is obvious that the 

Commission's approval of a "mutually satisfactory" study plan (tantamount to a settlement) does not constitute 

formal approval of, or precedent regarding, any principle or issue in the involved proceeding. The IFIM 

methodology has yet to receive formal Commission imprimatur in any proceeding before it. 

On this record, the purport of the evidence as a whole is not persuasive of the bona fides of the IFIM approach 

as the basis for designing and implementing a permanent flow regime at Conowingo. While this technique may be 

perceived by some as the current "state-of-the-art" methodology, its appropriateness to the particular ecological 

situation prevailing at the involved hydroelectric facility has not been demonstrated. The only bottom-line 

conclusion concerning the IFIM approach that reasonably can be drawn from the evidence adduced here is that it 

is an interesting but unproven method tantamount to a "suppose one gave a party but no one came" situation. This 

record is simply barren of any probative showing that the creation of hypothetically the most ideal habitat under a 

particular flow regime for the largest variety of both resident and anadromous fish species for all life stages will 

necessarily produce any protection and enhancement of any one species to an appreciable and quantified extent. 

(See, e.g., Tr. 600-605, 953; Ex. 50 at 1). The IFIM approach ignores the demonstrated real-world adaptability of 

fish, including some of the species of concern here, to a broad spectrum of environmental and biological conditions 

including flows (Tr. 592-596, 602, 683; Ex. 28 at 8-9). As Licensees' witness Bason explained, on crossexamination: 

Q. (Staff Counsel) 

Page 15 of 23 

Are the factors that impact fish populations always explainable if they are in constant flux? I mean, if there are 

various factors that affect the fish population, can you give some idea of what those factors can be and what 

they are not? 

A. A multitude of factors are affecting the successes of fish in maintaining their numbers or increasing their 


10/15/2008


numbers. There are environmental factors, such as the weather, temperature, rather rapid changes in 

physical, chemical conditions, things like that. 

Then there are a hoard of biological factors, generally referred to as competition, scarcities of supplies, that 

sort of thing. These are all combined into and eventually account for the number of fish or the number of an 

organism present in any given instant. 

In essence it would always be explainable if you could measure precisely enough and you knew what things 

to measure. The population is always being controlled by some factor, and the way, for instance, the IFIM is set 

up is it equates depth philosophy and substrate and a number of the things they may want to put in as being the 

major controller of a fish population. 

(Tr. 684-607, (emphasis added); see also Tr. 600-602). 

In the circumstances, this record compels the rejection of the proffered IFIM methodology per se as the basis for 

designing and implementing the required Article 34 Studies under Objective 5 for a permanent minimum flow 

regime at Conowingo. 

III. 

The alternative and remaining methodology advanced in this proceeding is the population-based, or biological 

approach, espoused vigorously by Licensees, only tolerated by Intervenors as a second, verifying study of a flow 

regime selected by a preceding IFIM study, and just as vigorously opposed by Staff. This approach, in the form 

drafted by Licensees, also fails to emerge from a critical evaluation unscathed. Initially, as in the case of the IFIM 

method, the type of study plan proffered by Licensees likewise has never obtained formal Commission 

endorsement; nor has a specific minimum flow developed to protect and enhance fish and wildlife resources, and 

based on data gathered from any population/biological-based study, apparently ever been implemented at a 

licensed hydroelectric project (Tr.327-328). The 

[65,385] 

Page 16 of 23 

evidence relating to the so-called Wallburg literature cited by Licensees is too sketchy on this record to label 

justifying their approach as "traditional". 

Nevertheless, on balance, and with certain modifications described below--relating to the baseline period, a 

continuous flow regime required to be tested, a required explanation of the predictive modeling, and the duration of 

the plan--this approach appears to be the more reasonable and appropriate on the record here for producing the 

desired end results. Its initial appeal is that observational testing under specific flow regimes is immediate, so that 

"what you see is what you get." Correspondingly, however, a perceived initial handicap, as pointed out by 

Intervenors and Staff, is that such testing occurs under alternative but arbitrarily selected flows. 5 Thus, Licensees' 

proposed program would provide information only on those flow regimes actually studied (Tr. 856,958-959). At 

least, as the IFIM proponents contend, it is not satisfactorily explained on this record how the type of biological 

approach as framed by Licensees could provide any basis for predicting the effects of other untested flow regimes 

(Tr. 805-806, 856; Ex. 37 at 4). 

While testing under the hypothetically "best" flow regime, selected under IFIM as producing maximum habitat, 

offers no real-world assurance of protection and enhancement, as concluded on this record, Licensees have not 

demonstrated clearly just how the predictive models under their own plan would be constructed or employed to 

predict protection or enhancement components of the fish population under the relatively limited number of flows 

contemplated by their approach. 6 The absence of a change in relative abundance under one regime does not 

necessarily disclose what might occur under some other flow (Tr. 796, 811; Ex. 37 at 3; Staff R.B. at 6). This gap in 

Licensees' plan must be filled in as a condition precedent to its approval. 


10/15/2008


On this record, it can be concluded that two meaningful, logical flow regimes tested under explained predictive 

models and for an appropriate period should yield sufficient comparative data to enable the selection of a 

permanent minimum flow regime that will satisfy the directives of Article 34 of the license for Project 405. The first 

regime should be appropriate to yield meaningful baseline data, and the second should be sufficient in scope for 

comparative purposes. 

In this regard, a flaw in Licensees' plan relates to use of pre-1982 data gathered from 1972-1981, before the 

initiation of the current interim flow regime, as the baseline period for their models. Under Licensees' proposal, it is 

critical for the successful completion of any population-type study to have adequate baseline data that will act as a 

standard of comparison or as an experimental control. (Ex. 14 at 9). All of the expert witnesses agree that the first 

criterion associated with "adequate" baseline data is that it must be sufficiently long so that, in measuring the 

effects of flows, the effects of natural variability in fish population can be taken into account. (Tr. 356, 391; Ex. 28 at 

3; Ex. 50 at 2). At least one life cycle of data (about 5 years for most species of interest) is required (Tr. 382; Ex. 14 

at 9; Ex. 20 at 6-7; Ex. 20 at 3-4). 

To date, Licensees have compiled approximately 10 years of fish data obtained at the fish lift at Conowingo 

Dam (1972-82). Yet, Licensees, admitting that this is the only long-term data available, note further that it lacks any 

long-term, pre-dam or pre-continuous minimum flow release information on relative abundance. This lack of longterm 

data, in Licensees' own terms, severely limits their ability to describe the effect of the Dam or the impact of its 

operation on the fishery. (Item by Reference A at 4-5). Since there is no other long-term data available during this 

period, Licensees are compelled to rely on the fish lift data which they freely characterize "as weak proxy for the 

true baseline condition." (Id. at 5). 

In addition, there is only one year of baseline data for the fall and winter (Tr. 381-382), which Licensees' witness 

Mathur could only characterize as "better than nothing" (Tr. 589). Use of the lift data requires the assumption that 

the lift consistently measures relative abundances of fish in the three mile area below Conowingo (Tr. 393). This 

has not been demonstrated (Tr. 394, 405; Ex. 37 at 5), and the record shows that the lift catch is strongly 

influenced by factors other than population, principally dam operation (Tr. 397). Without an estimate of the existing 

population, however, it appears impossible to establish any meaningful estimates of relative abundance in the 

affected three miles of non-tidal river below Conowingo (Tr. 398-399). 

Even if the fish lift data were considered adequate, other data currently being collected is subject to other 

infirmities. With respect to electroshocking, the Licensees have only one year of baseline data (Tr. 410). The 

Licensees have variously described the baseline data for eggs, larvae and ichthyoplankton as non-existent and 

"scarce", and have conceded that they are collecting those data now (Tr. 411,583-584). A comparison of this spotty 

pre-1982 baseline data with that now being collected would not appear to yield meaningful 

[65,386] 

results in terms of sufficient data to construct predictive models. 

Page 17 of 23 

As noted, Licensees have been collecting comprehensive data under the current interim flow regime pursuant to 

their plan for almost two years. Since it is critical that an adequate baseline study be achieved under the type of 

plan proposed by Licensees, the ongoing study under the current flow regime would better serve that most critical 

function if Licensees' approach is to be followed. One of the test regimes, then, must be the prescribed interim 

minimum flow scheme now in effect and being studied by Licensees. It may be useful to assess the status of the 

fishery resources under the interim flow regime imposed in 1982 with that prevailing in the immediately prior, 10year, 

period to determine if the fish have benefited under the presently prescribed regime. Nevertheless, for the 

reasons stated above, this current regime, studied for one life cycle [here deemed to be 5 years as the period most 

applicable to the greatest number of target species (Tr. 423; Ex. 31 at 25; Ex. 37 at 2; Staff I.B. at 5, n. 7)], qualifies 

as the appropriate baseline that should be employed in Licensees' plan in lieu of the flow conditions prevailing in 

the 1972-81 period. Baseline data should be collected from this regime in years 1 through 5 (Licensees have 

already completed year 1 and 2) of the plan to fully cover one life cycle. 


10/15/2008


Once the baseline data is obtained from this flow for one life cycle, the next step would be to undertake a 

comparable study but with a different flow regime. Upon completion of the second study period (5 years for one life 

cycle), a comparison could be made between these sets of relevant data. What should be the parameters of any 

second comparative flow regime? Licensees' witness Mathur suggests further studies under an increased spring 

flow of 10,000 cfs, but fails to quantify the "dramatic increase" in a species (or even identify the species) that would 

have to be observed to trigger such additional testing (Tr. 1008). Further, Licensees' resistance to study under a 

continuous flow regime (Tr. 370), urged as vital by the Intervenors and Staff, is not entirely clear in view of certain 

uncontroverted evidence that factors such as growth, feeding, mortality, immigration and emigration affect 

population throughout the year (Tr. 343, 508, 739). It would appear that data for all seasons, including fall and 

winter, should be collected under one flow regime for comparative purposes under an appropriate implementation 

of a population-based study to meaningfully assess the effect of minimum flows (Tr. 662-663; Ex. 11 at 15; Item by 

Reference B). Such testing might provide an answer to the question of whether continuous flows during the fall and 

winter might prevent the acknowledged flight of fish during such periods in the first instance from the affected area 

to the tidal area below (Tr. 608; Ex. 20 at 9), thus "protecting" or "enhancing" the fish population in this area 7 (Staff 

R.B. at 3). 

The second flow regime studied for the same period of one, 5-year, life cycle (Ex. 31 at 25), in years 6 through 

10, should be continuous and consist of varying flows at different seasons, in turn different from the first tested, 

current interim minimum flow, regime, to enable meaningful comparisons and predictions. From this record, such a 

regime can be constructed, consisting of 10,000 cfs, April-June; 5,000 cfs, July-September; and 3,000 cfs, 

October-March (Ex. 18). A continuous minimum flow regime of this nature would satisfy Intervenors' and Staff's 

desires for year-round flows in these volumes (see, e.g., Intervenors I.B. at 8). Even Licensees concede that 

testing under a regime with flows of this magnitude and scope is scientifically justified, and they are on record as 

willing to study 10,000/5,000 cfs (spring-summer) and 5,000/3,000 cfs (summer-winter) regimes for 2-5 years (Ex. 

18; Tr. 453, 459, 483, 826; Ex. 17 at 9). Thus, the two regimes selected herein as those governing the application 

of Licensees' plan represent the collective wisdom of both the Commission, to the extent that the currently 

prescribed interim minimum flow regime in effect is designated as the new baseline, and the parties and Staff, as 

reflected in the second, continuous flow regime under which testing is to be continued. 

While studying two life cycles rather than one, and under a greater number of flow regimes, as urged by 

Intervenors, might even be better, it is obvious that testing cannot continue ad infinitum if the real world 

considerations of expense and Licensees' other statutory and business obligations to operate the hydroelectric 

facility at Conowingo are recognized. Licensees' basic plan, as modified here, represents a reasonable effort to 

comply with Article 34 of their License that should ultimately produce meaningful results which, if not theoretically 

optimum, will still afford reasonable protection and enhancement of the fish and wildlife resources below 

Conowingo. 

The flaws of duration and cost prevalent in Licensees' plan are not perceived as a bar to endorsement, in view 

of the required modifications that will have the effect of producing a duration of approximately 8 years from the date 

the plan as ordered to be restructured herein commences. In comparison, any adoption of the IFIM approach here 

would 

[65,387] 

consume a similar period of time encompassing the design and implementation of the methodology (3 years), the 

evaluation by the decision-maker of the data produced and selection of the "best of all possible flow regimes" (an 

undetermined period), and, in the Presiding Judge's view, the required subsequent verification and testing for one 

life cycle under the chosen flow (4-5 years). The cost concern of approving Licensees' plan voiced primarily by 

Staff is, in effect, mooted by this perceived need to test the validity of any flow selected under an IFIM approach, 

which would undoubtedly add sufficient dollars to produce a figure comparable to the cost of the plan herein 

approved. 

IV. 


Page 18 of 23 

10/15/2008


Upon consideration of the record, it is found and concluded that Licensees' study plan as set forth in Item by 

Reference A is here approved as the program to determine the minimum flows necessary to protect and enhance 

the fish and wildlife resources in the affected non-tidal stretch of the Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam, 

but only with the following modifications, which must be incorporated into the plan to fully meet the requirement of 

Article 34 of the involved License, and with a timely compliance refiling required: 

(1) The plan must fully explain the nature and scope of the predictive modeling technique to be employed, 

including a description of the particular analyses to be applied. 

(2) The baseline period is to be 5 years under the currently imposed interim flow regime. 

(3) Following the baseline period testing, testing for an additional five-year period is to be performed under the 

following flow regime: 10,000 cfs, April-June; 5,000 cfs, July-September; 3,000 cfs, October-March. 

Consistent with the findings in the Project No. 405, interim minimum flow, case, infra, seeking to avoid undue 

discharges, and the attendant expenses and waste related thereto, the increased flow levels prescribed for this 

second test regime are to be measured at the Marietta, Pennsylvania, U.S. Geological Survey Gauging Station at 

Conowingo Dam (Gauge No. 01578310). Thus, actual discharges at the power house would be less than the 

prescribed flows by an amount equal to leakage from the Dam, which is estimated at approximately 1,000 cfs. See 

Susquehanna Power Co., et al., Project No. 405-009 , Order Establishing Interim Flow Regime, 19 FERC 63,099 

(1982), aff'd, Order Denying Request for Modification of Interim Flow Regime, 20 FERC 61,273 (1982). 

The duration of the plan should be approximately eight years in view of the two years' study under the current 

interim flow regime already conducted by Licensees pursuant to the plan herein approved, as modified. 

The parties and Staff are urged to consult and cooperate actively with each other through the Susquehanna 

River Technical Committee (established in the Presiding Judge's prior order of March 9, 1982, in Project No. 405) 

during the conduct of the study plan here approved, so that any alterations to this plan that appear to be needed 

during the implementation can be accomplished expeditiously as a mutually satisfactory action. The litigious route 

opted for by Staff and the parties to date in this proceeding, if repeated throughout the conduct of this study, can 

only result in further and interminable delays in the regulatory path of the operations of Project 405, which 

ultimately serves the public interest not a whit. 

The Question of Flows for Outmigrating Fish (Issue 2) 

Page 19 of 23 

Basically, this issue involves a determination of whether any study plan should be developed and implemented 

at this time to assess what flows (or spills), if any, are necessary to ensure downstream migration of anadromous 

adult and juvenile fish, particularly the target shad, at Conowingo Dam. 

Intervenors advocate such a study as described by witness Richkus, purportedly similar to one done on the 

Connecticut River (Intervenors I.B. at 18-19), employing the release of radio tagged, hatchery-bred juvenile shad 

above the Dam (about 200 fish at a time) and observing their downstream passage at six different flows and spills 

to determine optimum conditions for downstream passage (Ex. 31 at 31-34). They urge that the Licensees be 

required to consult with Intervenors and Staff and submit a study plan of this type by a date certain "which meets 

the approval of all parties" (Intervenors I.B. at 20). 

Licensees, relying on the testimony of witness Bason, argue that any such study is unnecessary or at least 


10/15/2008


premature at this time (Licensees I.B. at 16-17). They argue that the potential adverse effects of radio tagging 

upon juveniles, coupled with the fact that hatchery-reared fish cannot be expected to behave in a typically 

migratory fashion, would defeat the purpose of the experiment and rob the study of any predictive value in 

assessing problems at the Dam (id; Ex. 22 at 1-2). 8 Further Licensees urge that "earlier studies conducted at 

Conowingo and other dams on the 

[65,388] 

Susquehanna" indicate no problems relating to downstream migration (Licensees I.B. at 17; Ex. 14 at 20; Ex. 20 at 

6). Finally, it is alleged that any study such as that proposed by witness Richkus would be "extremely 

expensive" (Licensees I.B. at 17), although no support for this contention is supplied (Intervenors R.B. at 5). 

Staff takes the position that any study to determine flows necessary for outmigrating fish should be considered 

and resolved in Phase I of this proceeding, which "focuses entirely on what steps, if any, should be taken to restore 

anadromous fish to the Susquehanna River" (Staff R.B. at 9). 

Licensees' witness Mathur testified that Licensees have been sampling for juvenile shad above and below 

Conowingo Dam, although the specifics of this program are not reflected on the record (Tr. 451). Further, as 

Intervenors point out, the evidence discloses that: 

(1) in 1982, 115 juvenile shad were captured at Peach Bottom in Conowingo Pond, but no juveniles were 

captured below Conowingo Dam (Tr. 438); (2) the Carlson report shows more juvenile shad captured above 

each Susquehanna River dam than below the projects (Tr. 439-440); (3) the Whitney report shows a recapture 

rate for tagged shad released below Conowingo which is four times higher than that for shad released above the 

dam (T. 444-445); and (4) Conowingo Dam kills or injures many gizzard shad (Tr. 436-438), a species closely 

related to American shad (Ex. 14, p. 20). 


While the record here is insufficient at this early stage in the studies to set any minimum flow or spill regime for 

outmigrating anadromous fish (Tr. 986-987), Staff's position that a study in this regard should be deferred and 

made a part of the Phase I proceeding is rejected. The Presiding Judge has previously ruled that the Article 34 

studies must address the issue of flows for outmigrating juvenile and adult shad as a necessary part of any 

permanent flow regime that is to be submitted to the Commission for approval (Tr. 150,164). It is obvious that this 

particular issue is related to the overall restoration question that is the crux of Phase I, because, if no successful 

restoration program ultimately can be implemented so that the target anadromous species in fact are restored to 

produce outmigrating juveniles and adults, the problem is moot (Tr. 128). Nevertheless, this is at least the time to 

fashion a study to address the matter. For the same reasons, Licensees' position that no study at this time should 

be prescribed for downstream migration is also rejected. 

Intervenors' position that this matter is ripe for study now and in the manner suggested by witness Richkus is 

adopted as the only practical way in which to address the full scope of the studies mandated by Article 34 of the 

involved license. However, the date proposed by Intervenors for submission of a mutually approved plan is 

impractically early. The order herein will afford Licensees 60 days from the date of issuance of this Decision to file 

such a study. 

Order 

Wherefore, it is ordered, subject to review by the Commission on exceptions or on its own motion, that: 


Page 20 of 23 

10/15/2008


(1) Within 60 days of the issuance of this Initial Decision, Licensees (Philadelphia Electric Power Company and 

Susquehanna Power Company) shall file with the Commission a revised study plan incorporating the changes and 

modifications described and ordered above, to comply with Article 34 of their License in Project 405. The 

Commission reserves the right to require modifications to the revised study plan. 

(2) Upon notice by the Commission that the revised plan has been approved, the Licensees shall continue to 

implement their study of minimum flow releases but in accordance with the revised plan developed under the 

guidelines and structure described above, and in consultation with the Susquehanna River Technical Committee 

(established in the Presiding Judge's prior order of March 9, 1982, in Project No. 405). Within 60 days from the 

date of completion of the study, Licensees shall file with the Commission for approval a report on the results of the 

study, including recommended minimum flow releases, together with agency comments. 

(3) For a 1-year period following implementation of the minimum flow release approved by the Commission, the 

Licensees will assess the impacts of the release on the fish and wildlife resources of the affected stretch of the 

Susquehanna River in consultation with the named Committee. 

(4) Within 3 months from the date of completion of this assessment, Licensees shall submit a report to the 

Commission containing its findings in consultation with said Committee and, for approval, recommendations of a 

permanent flow release from Project No. 405. 

[65,389] 

(5) Notice of any contemplated alteration of the study plan approved herein during its implementation should first 

be sent to the affected agencies for comment, and then, if found to be mutually satisfactory, filed with the 

Commission, with agency comments attached, within 30 days of the date of such notice. Upon notice of 

Commission approval, such alteration may be implemented. The Commission reserves the right to require 

modifications to any proposed alteration. 

(6) Within 60 days of the issuance of this Initial Decision, Licensees, in consultation with the Susquehanna River 

Technical Committee, shall also file a plan for studying outmigrating anadromous fish, which meets the approval of 

said Committee. 

(7) In light of the Commission's order of February 3, 1982, in Project 405 delegating to the Presiding Judge 

potential responsibility for monitoring the implementation of its directive for the required Article 34 study plan, any 

technical issue which cannot be resolved by the parties through said Committee shall be referred to the Presiding 

Judge immediately for decision. 


Page 21 of 23 

1 The record indicates that the State of Maryland is willing to analyze the data provided by the application of 

IFIM (Ex. 41 at 3). Maryland has offered to spend up to $100,000 for this purpose (Tr. 894-897). Witness Bovee 

indicated that data analysis (as opposed to collection activities) would be about 20% of IFIM costs (Tr. 227). 

2 Witness Mathur also referenced a population-based study undertaken by the named Intervenor at an unnamed 

hydro facility in North Carolina to determine the effects of this project on the fish population (Tr. 326, 330). 

3 As Licensees point out (R.B. at 5), the objectivity of this Study is questionable to the extent that it was funded 

in part by Intervenor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the sponsor of IFIM (Tr. 204-205). 


10/15/2008


4 Witness Bovee's principal employment since college has been devoted to promotion and implementation of the 

IFIM plan as a Hydrologist for the Instream Flow and Aquatic Systems Group, affiliated with the Division of 

Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, one of the Intervenors herein. He was one of the principal 

developers of the IFIM approach (Ex. 1 at 1-2). 

5 Further, Licensees' plan does appear to not but should address the question of the effects of the peaking 

nature of the Dam on fishery resources (see Ex. 19; Tr. 566-570). 

6 While relatively small flow-induced changes in fish populations may be obscured by other extraneous factors, 

as particularly urged by Staff (Ex. 50 at 2), the short answer to this argument is that, if the changes in fish 

population are so minute that they cannot be detected, they are hardly of meaningful impact in determining if the 

fish population is being protected or enhanced. A true practical and reasonable study program should produce 

results which are readily discernable. 

7 It is somewhat difficult, however, to pinpoint the alleged "protection" or "enhancement" that Staff and 

Intervenors urge would occur under continuous flows in the fall and winter. There is nothing of record to suggest 

that any increase in population would occur as a result of fall and winter flows. If such flows merely keep the same 

number/species of fish in the affected three mile non-tidal stretch that otherwise would move out of this area 

downstream to the tidal area, then, in the absence of spawning activities (which no one claims would occur in the 

fall or winter on the part of any of the species of interest), the only benefit appears to relate to recreational, fishing, 

activities in this three-mile area. On the other hand, to the extent that any growth would be observed during a 

specific life stage in any species remaining in the non-tidal area in the fall and/or winter as a result of flows during 

these seasons, such a result could be labeled a "protection" or "enhancement" feature (see, e.g., Tr. 343). 

8 Intervenors attempt to respond to this argument by proffering a November 1983 memorandum from the 

National Environmental Services, Inc., affixed as Appendix A to their Reply Brief and purporting to describe recent 

experiences of outmigrating juveniles at upstream Susquehanna dams. This material is outside the scope of the 

record herein, is not the subject of any formal request to reopen the record herein, and consequently, sua sponte, 

is stricken and will not be considered. 

Appendix 

Article 34 

Article 34. Licensee shall, in consultation with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Maryland 


of the Department of the Interior and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, develop a mutually satisfactory 

study plan to determine: (1) the seasonal variations of dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration and temperature in the 

project reservoir, in the discharge from the project, and in the Susquehanna River downstream to the Interstate 

Highway 95 bridge; (2) the effects of project operation on temperature and DO levels in the reservoir, in the 

discharge from the project and downstream; (3) the source, nature, and quantity of oxygen-demanding materials 

present in and entering the project reservoir; (4) the most feasible methods for ensuring that water released from 

the project meets State water quality standards; and (5) the minimum flow releases from the project that are 

necessary to protect and enhance fish and wildlife resources. In addition, and in consultation with the 

Commission's staff and the above-listed agencies, the Licensee shall develop a schedule of interim minimum flow 

releases for aquatic habitat downstream of the 

[65,390] 


Page 22 of 23 

10/15/2008


Conowingo dam pending completion of the study required by this article. The development of the interim flow 

schedules and the study plan shall be coordinated with the coincident study plans of DO conditions and flow 

releases, and, if appropriate, interim flow schedules being developed for the Holtwood Project, FERC No. 1881, the 

Safe Harbor Project, FERC No. 1025, and York Haven Project, FERC No. 1888, and shall include consideration of 

the operation of other headwater developments in the basin. Within four months after the date of issuance of this 

license the Licensee shall file with the Commission for approval of a mutually satisfactory interim flow schedule and 

study plan. If the Licensee and the parties consulted cannot agree on either the interim flow schedule or the study 

plan, then the Licensee shall, within the four month period provided in this article, file its proposed interim flow 

schedule or study plan with the Commission for approval, together with reports or comments it has received on the 

interim flow schedule or plan from any consulted party. At the same time, copies of the filing shall be served upon 

the parties consulted. The Commission reserves the right to require modifications to the interim flow schedule or 

the study plan. 



study, including a schedule of minimum flow releases from the project and recommended measures for 





Page 23 of 23 

10/15/2008


ALJ-DEC, 34 FERC 63,097, Philadelphia Electric Power Company and Susquehanna Power Company, 

Docket No. EL80-38-000 (Phase I) and Project No. 405-020, (Mar. 19, 1986) 


Philadelphia Electric Power Company and Susquehanna Power Company, Docket No. EL80-38-000 (Phase 

I) and Project No. 405-020 

[65,326] 

[63,097] 

Philadelphia Electric Power Company and Susquehanna Power Company, Docket No. EL80-38-000 (Phase 

I) and Project No. 405-020 

Initial Decision 


Appearances 

Procedural Background 

Issues in Phase I 

Discussion 

I. Purpose and Importance of the Demonstration Program 

II. Inefficiency at the Existing Lift 


Table of Contents 

III. Improving the Fish Collection Facilities at Conowingo Dam 

A. The Need for a New Facility 

B. The Necessity of Improving the Existing Lift 

IV. Design and Cost of Constructing the Proposed New Entrance and Collection Facility 

V. Duration 

VI. The Technical Committee 

VII. The Necessity of Filing an Environmental Impact Statement 

Conclusion and Order 


Page 1 of 20 

10/15/2008


Appendix A [omitted] 

Appendix B 

Appearances 

Peyton G. Bowman, III, Brian J. McManus and Eugene J. Bradley for Philadelphia Electric Power Company 

and Susquehanna Power Company 

Edward F. Lawson, C. Peter Carlucci, Carrol L. Gilliam, Craig W. Hulvey, Peter J. Ressler and Robert J. Bielo 

for Susquehanna River Basin Commission 

Anthony R. Conte for U.S. Department of the Interior 

M. Brent Hare and John B. Griffith for Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

Kathleen C. Meyers for Pennsylvania Division of Environmental Resources 

Dennis T. Guise, Ronald H. Skubecz and Ralph W. Abele for Pennsylvania Fish Commission 

Ronald J. Wilson for Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs 

Herbert W. Ward, III and William Jeanes for Upper Chesapeake Watershed Association 

William J. Madden, Jr., Dale E. Hollar, Richard C. Browne, S. Jan Huddle and McNeill Watkins, II for 

Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, Safe Harbor Water Corporation and York Haven Power Company 

Richard Miles, Timothy Cooney, Emilia DiSanto and Richard Davidson for the Staff of the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission 

Procedural Background 

The complex history of this case begins with a series of five orders issued by the Commission on August 14, 

1980 [18 FERC 62,535, 19 FERC 61,348 , 21 FERC 61,429, 61,430]. Four of these orders granted new licenses 

covering operations of four hydroelectric projects on the Susquehanna River: Conowingo Project No. 405, 

operated by the Philadelphia Electric Power Company and the Susquehanna Power Company ("Conowingo 

Licensees" or "Conowingo"); and Safe Harbor Project No. 1025, operated by the Safe Harbor Water Power 

Company, Holtwood Project No. 1881, operated by the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company; and York Haven 

Project No. 1888, operated by the York Haven Power and Light Company. (The last three operators are hereinafter 

referred to as the "Upstream Licensees.") The Conowingo Project is located only ten miles upstream from the 

mouth of the Susquehanna River. The other Projects are located upstream of Conowingo in the order in which they 

are named above. 

Concurrently with the four new licenses, the Commission issued a fifth order setting for Hearing an issue 


Page 2 of 20 

10/15/2008


common to all four projects raised by the Intervenors, consisting of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission; 

U.S. Department of the Interior--Fish and Wildlife Service; Pennsylvania Fish Commission; Maryland Department 

of Natural Resources; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources; Pennsylvania Federation of 

Sportsmen's Clubs; and the Upper Chesapeake Watershed Association. That issue is: "whether or not the 

respective licensees should be required to construct and operate fish passage facilities at their projects." Order 

Providing for Hearing; issued August 14, 1980, (unreported), 

[65,327] 

mimeo at 1. Specifically, the Commission noted that "[L]arge numbers of anadromous fish once migrated up the 

Susquehanna River through Maryland and Pennsylvania and as far upstream as New York; and that there was 

evidence that millions of pounds of American shad were once harvested in Maryland" (id.). However, the 

Commission observed that, following the construction of the dams, the American shad fishery declined, and that 

the decline appeared to relate to the physical obstruction of the River by the dams as well as to water quality and 

fishery management problems. 

After considering studies and/or proposals by Staff, Intervenors, and Licensees, respectively, the Commission 

concluded: 

In light of the unresolved questions regarding the feasibility and cost of installing fish passage facilities or 

undertaking other mitigative measures at the licensed Susquehanna projects, we find that this matter will be 

best resolved in a hearing. The hearing should focus on the status of the anadromous fishery in the 

Susquehanna River Basin, and its environs, the effects of project operations on the anadromous fishery, and the 

feasibility, including costs and benefits, of measures to protect or enhance those fishery resources. In addition to 

the consideration which must be given to the feasibility, design and cost of fish passage facilities, the proceeding 

should investigate, as well, any other measures that would be required for the restoration of a viable 

anadromous fishery in the Susquehanna River Basin including, but not limited to, hatchery programs and flow 

releases. 

(emphasis added; id. at 2). 

Page 3 of 20 

The hearing on this matter commenced on October 6, 1981, concluded on March 30, 1982 (Tr. 5226), and 

generated 5,227 pages of transcript, 150 exhibits (three were not received into evidence), and two Items by 

Reference. In an attempt to promote settlement, extensive post-hearing conferences and oral arguments were held 

between February 1982 and July 1985, which generated an additional 239 transcript pages. 

At an early stage in this proceeding, in January 1982, the Presiding Judge held two Public Sessions (one in 

Havre de Grace, Maryland, and the second in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) to allow members of the general public to 

present their views regarding proposals to restore an anadromous fishery to the Susquehanna River. While the oral 

and written statements presented during these Sessions do not constitute probative evidence, it is noteworthy that 

over 77 oral and written statements were presented. The majority of the speakers consisted of sport or commercial 

fishermen who generally support any positive efforts to restore the Susquehanna River's anadromous fish 

population. 

On the question of flow releases, one of the mandated matters for investigation, the intervening fishery agencies 

involved in this proceeding filed for rehearing of the August 1980 Order granting the Conowingo License, faulting 

the Commission for its failure to direct the Licensees to institute minimum flow releases immediately. In an Order 

on Rehearing related to Project No. 405, issued November 18, 1980 (13 FERC 61,132 ), the Commission denied 

the Agencies' request, and, instead modified Article 34 of the Conowingo License (which, among other things, 

provided that these Licensees, together with interested agencies, develop a study plan to determine appropriate 

minimum flows for the Project) requiring the Licensees and interested parties to agree on a schedule of interim 

minimum flow releases which would be in effect until studies were completed to determine what permanent 

minimum flows, if any, were desirable. In the event the parties were unable to agree, the Commission indicated 

that it would decide the issue on the basis of the information available. 


10/15/2008


The parties were unable to reach an agreement on a suitable interim flow regime. On February 3, 1982, the 

Commission ordered a hearing in a proceeding docketed "Project No. 405-009" to determine the appropriate 

interim minimum flows for the Conowingo Project No. 405, and consolidated that proceeding with the ongoing 

proceedings herein. Order Setting Hearings and Consolidated Dockets, 18 FERC 61,090 (1982). 

In response to the Commission's order to determine an appropriate interim minimum flow scheme, the Presiding 

Judge provided for an expedited procedural schedule in Project No. 405-009 and phased the proceedings in 

Docket No. EL80-38-000 , et al. Phase I of the instant proceeding was designed to cover all issues except a 

determination of a permanent suitable flow regime, which would be left to resolution in Phase II to be commenced 

following the completion of the Article 34 studies (Order Phasing Proceedings in Lead Docket and Establishing 

Expedited Procedural Schedule in Project No. 405, issued February 9, 1983). 

After hearing and briefing in Project No. 405-009 , the Presiding Judge, by Order Establishing Interim Flow 

Regime, issued on June 30, 1982, 19 FERC 63,099 , ordered interim minimum flows at Conowingo of 5,000 

[65,328] 

Page 4 of 20 

cfs (cubic feet/second) each for the periods April 15--June 15, and June 15--September 15, of each year. For 

September 15--April 15, no interim flow releases were required. These time periods represent mandated interim 

minimum flows for each year until permanent flows are established. The Judge's Order was affirmed by the 

Commission by order issued August 31, 1982 (20 FERC 61,273 ). 

In the meantime, in an effort to expedite the resolution of the scope and implementation of the required Article 

34 studies, the parties and Staff were encouraged to resolve all disputes through the vehicle of a technical 

committee established by the Presiding Judge and consisting of representatives from each party and Staff. Order 

of Presiding Judge Establishing Susquehanna River Technical Committee, issued March 1982, 18 FERC 63,083 . 

However, just as the parties could not come to terms on a suitable interim flow regime, the parties also were 

unable to agree on a study plan required by Article 34 of the Conowingo License to determine what permanent 

minimum flows, if any, were required at the Conowingo Dam. Accordingly, the Presiding Judge directed that an 

evidentiary hearing be held in Phase II of this proceeding to resolve this threshold question of what study plan 

should be approved and implemented by the Conowingo Licensees in order to comply with Article 34 of their 

License. The evidentiary hearing commenced on April 21, 1983, concluded on November 1, 1983, and generated 

50 exhibits, 5 Items by Reference, and 1,076 pages of transcript. The Presiding Judge issued an Initial Decision on 

March 30, 1984 (26 FERC 63,111 ), adopting implementation of a biological study plan substantially as advocated 

by Conowingo Licensees. The plan encompasses two five-year time periods under prescribed flow regimes. The 

first five-year period would utilize the current interim flow regime of 5,000 cfs for April 15--September 15 ("summer 

flows"). The second five-year period provides for flows of 10,000 cfs April--June; 5,000 cfs July--September; and 

3,000 cfs October--March ("year round flows"). This Initial Decision is pending before the Commission on 

exceptions. 

Meanwhile, after hearing in Phase I of the lead docket, a number of post-hearing conferences were convened, 

and active ongoing settlement negotiations continued, extending between February 9, 1982, and July 15, 1985. 

During this period, the parties and Staff requested several extensions of the prescribed briefing schedule in order 

to continue engaging in settlement negotiations and resolve some or all of the issues in this proceeding. These 

extended efforts, which included, in addition to post-hearing conferences, informal settlement conferences and 

formal settlement judge proceedings, generated substantial benefits in terms of greatly reducing the scope of the 

disputed issues regarding the Conowingo Project, as amplified below, and producing a complete settlement with 

respect to the remaining Licensees. 

Thus, on December 1, 1984, Intervenors and those Licensees collectively known as the Upstream Licensees 

filed an uncontested settlement agreement ("Upstream Settlement"), executed by all the parties and Staff, with the 


10/15/2008


Presiding Judge. Under this agreement, the Upstream Licensees are to participate in a 10-year demonstration 

program for restoration of anadromous fish on the Susquehanna River. The salient responsibilities of the Upstream 

Licensees under this settlement include: 

the collection and transplanting above York Haven of prespawned adult shad; the collection of shad eggs and 

the operation, improvement, and expansion of hatcheries for the production of juvenile shad; a study of the 

effects of upstream projects on out-migration of adult shad; and the acquisition of equipment such as sonar and 

electrical shocking equipment to be used in studying and enhancing the effect of controlled spills on 

outmigrating shad. 

(31 FERC 61,038, at p. 61,069 (1985)). 

On January 18, 1985, the Presiding Judge certified this settlement to the Commission. Upon examination of the 

Agreement and the attached supporting Comments, the Commission found the settlement reasonable and in the 

public interest in carrying out the provisions of the Federal Power Act. Thus, on April 10, 1985, the Commission 

approved the Upstream Settlement (31 FERC 61,038 ). 

Although Conowingo Licensees were not a party to the Upstream Settlement, their extended negotiation efforts 

with Intervenors and Staff were not completely futile. These discussions, as noted, resulted in a substantial 

narrowing of the issues to be resolved as more fully described below. In brief, the pertinent inquiry in the Phase I 

proceeding requiring resolution, as agreed to by the remaining parties, viz., Conowingo Licensees, Intervenors, 

and Staff, is now limited to a determination of the scope of the role the Conowingo Licensees should have in the 

demonstration program, the acknowledged first and central step in ultimately determining whether restoration of the 

anadromous fishery on the Susquehanna River is a feasible undertaking. 

[65,329] 

Under the Presiding Judge's directives in his April 24, 1985 Order Establishing Further Procedural Dates, 

restatements of the remaining disputed issues in Phase I of this proceeding were timely submitted by the 

Conowingo Licensees, Intervenors, and Staff. Thereafter, each party filed supplemental and reply Briefs in August 

1985 in order to clarify their respective positions regarding the agreed-upon matters remaining in dispute in this 

proceeding. 

Issues in Phase I 

Page 5 of 20 

During the early stages of this proceeding, the parties initially had agreed to a list of fourteen factual issues (the 

Upstream Licensees had submitted a fifteenth issue; but, in light of the Upstream Settlement, this additional matter 

is moot). These issues, based upon the parties' original submittal of a Statement of Issues and their first set of 

Briefs, were: 

Issue No. 1. Whether the Susquehanna River historically has supported sizeable anadromous fish population, 

and if so, what was the approximate size of those historical populations? 

Issue No. 2. Are the existing hydroelectric dams a major impediment to the restoration of anadromous fishes to 

the Susquehanna River? 

Issue No. 3. Do other factors, such as the effects of Hurricane Agnes in 1972, over fishing both in the Atlantic 

Ocean and the Chesapeake Bay, and the fact that the remnant stock now existing below Conowingo Dam may not 

have the characteristic homing instinct to return to the upper Susquehanna to spawn, or may not be of sufficient 


10/15/2008


size, serve as impediments to restoration of anadromous fishes? 

Issue No. 4. Is the water quality of the Susquehanna River above York Haven suitable for anadromous fish 

restoration? 

Issue No. 5. Is sufficient habitat available above York Haven for a successful anadromous fish restoration 

program? 

Issue No. 6. Is the water quality of the lower mainstem of the Susquehanna (below York Haven) suitable for 

anadromous fish migration and rearing? 

Issue No. 7. Is there sufficient habitat available below York Haven for a successful anadromous fish restoration? 

Issue No. 8. Will conditions downstream from Conowingo Dam, including reduced dissolved oxygen conditions, 

affect the utilization of the river below Conowingo Dam for summer rearing of anadromous fishes? 

Issue No. 9. Could fish passage facilities be designed and constructed at the four hydroelectric dams; and, if so, 

what would be the most appropriate design? 

Issue No. 10. Whether the introduction of non-target species above the hydroelectric dams from the lift facilities 

proposed by Intervenors will be a significant environmental problem? 

Issue No. 11. Whether minimum releases from each of the four dams will be necessary for a successful 

anadromous fish restoration program; and, if so, what should those flows be? 

Issue No. 12. Is restoration of anadromous fish possible, and if so, to what levels? 

Issue No. 13. Whether a restoration program, concentrating primarily on American shad, should be 

implemented, and if so, what should the scope and duration be? 

Issue No. 14. What are the economic benefits and costs from a restoration program? 

Page 6 of 20 

All parties agree that Issues 1, 2, 11 and 12 are not in dispute in this proceeding. Issue No. 1, as Intervenors 

concede, is not in dispute because the Commission has already made a factual finding of an historical anadromous 

fish population in its August 14, 1980, Order Providing for Hearing, and all parties are in basic agreement with this 

position (See Intervenors' Initial Brief at 8; Conowingo Licensees' Initial Brief at 44; Staff Initial Brief at 33). 

Similarly, addressing Issue No. 2, there is agreement that the Conowingo Dam is in fact an impediment to the 

upstream migration of American shad, the primary target species (Intervenors' Initial Brief at 11-12; Conowingo 

Licensees' Initial Brief at 44; Staff Initial Brief at 34). 

Issue No. 11, regarding minimum flows, already has been addressed to the extent of required interim releases in 

Project 405-009 . Further, Phase II of this proceeding is specifically designed to resolve the matter on a permanent 

basis and, as noted, the question has already been the subject of an Initial Decision in this Docket, issued March 

30, 1984 (26 FERC 63,111 ) (See Intervenors' Response to Licensees' Statement of Issues at 7-8; Licensees' 

Reply to Statement of Issues at 11; Staff's Answer to Statements of Issues at 4). Moreover, and dispositive of the 


10/15/2008


matter, is the Presiding Judge's Order Granting Motion To Strike, issued December 9, 1982, in this proceeding 

in which the whole question of minimum flows specifically was held outside the scope of this proceeding. 

Issue No. 12, whether the restoration of anadromous fish is possible, is concededly not ripe for litigation at this 

stage of the proceeding. This is the precise inquiry which the demonstration program, that all parties 

[65,330] 

Page 7 of 20 

accept as the required first undertaking in a restoration project (and which Conowingo Licensees have been 

engaged in voluntary to some extent since 1972), is designed to answer (See Licensees' Statement of Issues at 11 

and Supplemental Brief at 1-2; Intervenors' Response to Licensees' Statement of Issues at 8; Staff's Answer to 

Statements of Issues at 4). As indicated above, the Upstream Settlement involves certain agreed-to activities of the 

Upstream Licensees in an initial demonstration program structured to test the feasibility of continuing with more 

extensive overall restoration efforts. 

While Conowingo Licensees believe that Issues 3-8, relating to sufficiency of habitat and water quality, and 

other ecological considerations, are still in controversy, Staff correctly urges that these issues are not ripe for 

litigation at this point in time (Staff's Answer to Statements of Issues at 3). Intervenors concur that Licensees have 

not explained why these matters must be decided as part of an initial decision on the demonstration program 

(Intervenors' Response to Licensees' Statement of Issues at 3-6). Staffs' and Intervenors' collective position that 

the purpose of the demonstration program is to determine whether and what factors exist which stand as 

impediments to the implementation of a permanent, comprehensive restoration program, and to determine how 

such impediments may be resolved, is found to be reasonable. One of the purposes of the demonstration program 

is to analyze the matters raised by these issues through evidence gathered during the program. Accordingly, any 

consideration of the inquiries addressed by Issues 3-8 are deemed premature at this stage. 

Issue No. 9, regarding the necessity of construction of any new fish passage facility by Conowingo Licensees, 

remains at least partially in dispute by the parties. Intervenors contend not only that a new facility must be 

constructed, although related to collection rather than passage of the target species, (Intervenors' Initial Brief at 27- 

31, 48), but also that there is a concensus among the experts that multiple entrances are also necessary (id. at 30- 

31). Staff concurs with Intervenors' position that "for the demonstration program to serve its purpose, a new fish lift 

must be built on the east side of the Conowingo powerhouse in the near future" (Staff's Answer to Statements of 

Issues at 3). Conowingo Licensees, on the other hand, posit that Issue No. 9 is not presently an issue in this 

proceeding and that the design of any permanent new facilities should await an ultimate finding that restoration is 

possible (Licensees Statement of Issues at 10). While the question addressed in Issue No. 9 is clearly in dispute 

among the parties, it can effectively be combined as a subpart of Issue No. 13 dealing with the scope of 

Conowingo's role in the restoration program. 

While Conowingo Licensees argue that Issues No. 10 and 14 are still viable, Intervenors and Staff effectively 

argue that any inquiries relating to the impacts of introducing non-target species above the hydroelectric dams from 

fish passage facilities proposed by Intervenors (Issue 10) and the economic benefits and costs associated with any 

restoration program (Issue 14) are questions which cannot be addressed until the completion of a demonstration 

program (Staff's Answer to Statements of Issues at 4; Intervenors' Response to Licensees' Statement of Issues at 

7-8). These two issues are deemed premature for judgment at this time for the reasons set forth above applicable 

to Issue Nos. 3-8. 

Issue No. 13, addressing the scope and duration of a restoration program, and the role of Conowingo Licensees 

in this endeavor, surfeits, then, as the major issue in contention in this proceeding. This issue, by consensus of all 

parties and Staff, is further reduced and limited to only the initial phases of restoration efforts representing a 

demonstration program that compliments and corresponds to the activities agreed to be undertaken by the 

Upstream Licensees as reflected in their approved settlement. Component inquiries with regard to the 

demonstration program and their present status as perceived by the parties include: 


10/15/2008


A. Whether the restoration effort should concentrate primarily on American Shad 

All parties agree that the program should in fact focus on shad. (Intervenors' Initial Brief at 49; Conowingo 

Licensees' Initial Brief at 51; Staff Initial Brief at 53). 

B. What should the scope and duration of the initial restoration efforts be under a demonstration program 

(1) Out-of-basin adult transplants 

The Upstream Licensees have assumed responsibility for this part of the program, and, thus, this issue need not 

be addressed in the instant proceeding (Intervenors' Statement of Issues at 53; see also, 31 FERC 61,038 

[1958]). 

(2) Trucking adult shad from the Conowingo Dam (to above York Haven) 

As part of the Upstream Settlement, Upstream Licensees have agreed to assume this task on April 1 of the year 

in which permanent fish passage facilities become 

[65,331] 

operational at Conowingo Dam [31 FERC 61,038 ]. Intervenors and Staff urge that Conowingo Licensees be 

required to undertake trucking operations until permanent passage facilities are functioning (Intervenors' Statement 

of Issues at 6; Staff's Statement of Issues at 2). This issue is not in dispute. Conowingo Licensees have agreed to 

continue their present trucking program "for a reasonable time until the demonstration program proves itself to be 

either a success or a failure" (Licensees' Reply to Intervenors' and Staff's Statements of Issues at 2-3). 

(3) Fish hatchery operations 

The Upstream Licensees have assumed responsibility for these activities and, thus, the matter is not in 

controversy. [31 FERC 61,038 ] 

(4) Improvement of the existing lift at the Conowingo Dam 

Page 8 of 20 

There is some consensus among the parties and Staff that the existing lift is inefficient. (Intervenors' Initial Brief 

at 51-52; Licensees' Initial Brief at 9-10; Staff Initial Brief at 55). The dispute, however, arises over (a) whether and 

what improvements to the existing facility should be undertaken at this time and (b) whether a new collection and 

entrance facility should be built at the east side of Conowingo's powerhouse. 

Intervenors urge that the existing facility must be made more "reliable" and "efficient" (Intervenors' Supp. Brief at 

20). Staff contends that Licensees should be required to make "necessary operational modifications to maximize 

the collection of American Shad . . ." (Staff's Statement of Issues at 2). Conowingo Licensees agree to improve the 

existing lift to the extent it can operate at flows of up to 120,000 cfs. (Licensees' Supp. Brief at 2). Beyond this 

improvement, however, Licensees believe there is no need to presently undertake any further improvements 

(Licensees' Supp. Brief at 3). 

With regard to the question of whether a second entrance should be constructed as an improvement at the 

existing lift facility, Licensees and Intervenors are in disagreement. Conowingo Licensees believe that there is no 

evidence to support the necessity of building a second entrance (Licensees' Supp. Brief at 4). Staff's position is 


10/15/2008


that the construction of a second entrance is not warranted at this time in the absence of further studies (Staff's 

Supp. Brief at 5). Intervenors argue that the record does in fact indicate that construction of an additional entrance 

at the existing facility is required (Intervenors' Supp. Brief at 21); however, they do not advocate the immediate 

construction of such an entrance. Rather, Intervenors maintain that adding another entrance at the present location 

cannot serve as a substitute for a new facility to be constructed on the east side of Conowingo's powerhouse, and 

that the issue of a second entrance should be referred to the appropriate technical committee for further review (id. 

at 21-22). 

The critical issue in dispute in this proceeding is whether a new collection (lift) facility with a single entrance 

should be constructed on the east side of the powerhouse. Conowingo Licensees contend that none of the fish 

passage experts agree that such a new facility is necessary for the demonstration program to be successful 

(Licensees' Supp. Reply Brief at 11), and "vehemently oppose" its construction (Licensees' Initial Brief at 38). Both 

Intervenors and Staff, however, believe that the testimony of these experts supports a contrary conclusion, and that 

a new powerhouse collection facility is imperative to the effective collection of the target species in sufficient 

numbers to allow for a successful program (Intervenors' Supp. Brief at 1-3, 12; Staff's Supp. Brief at 5). 

Intervenors recommend that the design of such a new facility consist of a single entrance to be built adjacent to 

the retaining wall on the east side of the powerhouse (Ex. 62, 63) that would collect and lift fish to the top of the 

dam and then to trucks for transportation to above York Haven, rather than a passage facility that would lift the fish 

over the dam (Intervenors' Supp. Brief at 16). Staff basically concurs with this design scheme, except that Staff 

envisions a facility which would "haul" the fish "across the dam," once lifted, to be "part of" the trucking program. 

(Staff's Supp. Brief at 7 and Supp. Reply Brief at 3). 

(5) and (6) Study of the downstream migration of adult and juvenile American Shad 

According to Intervenors, the parties categorically have agreed to a study plan to assess the needs of 

downstream out-migrating shad as part of the Phase II proceedings (Intervenors' Statement of Issues at 7). Staff 

also concurs with the necessity for Licensees to conduct studies to determine timing, migrational behavior, and 

success of the downstream migration of American shad (Staff's Statement of Issues at 2). Conowingo Licensees 

take no position on this issue (Licensees' Reply to Statements of Issues at 11). This question was resolved in the 

Initial Decision in Phase II of the proceeding, wherein it was held that any study plan addressing downstream 

migration of shad properly is a part of and must be addressed in Phase II (18 FERC 63,111, at p. 65,388). 

(7) Monitoring the return of pre-spawned adult American Shad to the Conowingo Dam 

[65,332] 

The parties agree to the necessity of such monitoring and collecting of pre-spawned adult shad at Conowingo 

Dam (Intervenors' Statement of Issues at 8; see also Intervenors' Initial Brief at 54; Conowingo Licensees' Initial 

Brief at 9-10; Staff's Initial Brief at 55-56). 

(8) Minimum Flows 

Everyone agrees that this issue is no longer a relevant issue in the present proceeding. (Intervenors' Response 

to Licensees' Statement of Issues at 8; Licensees' Reply to Statement of Issues at 11). 

(9) Closure of the fishery for American shad 


Page 9 of 20 

10/15/2008


This issue is subject to the jurisdiction of the involved States (Maryland and Pennsylvania) and, thus, is not an 

appropriate inquiry for review in this proceeding (Intervenors' Statement of Issues at 8). 

(10) Duration of the Demonstration Program 

Intervenors suggest that the duration of Conowingo Licensees' participation in the demonstration program must 

be consistent with the Upstream Settlement and, thus, should be at least 10 years, but in no event should the 

program be interrupted until a final decision is made (id.). Staff also supports a 10-12 year time frame for the 

demonstration program (Staff's Statement of Issues at 3). Conowingo Licensees agree that the duration should be 

10 to 12 years, but urge that the program should not exceed this duration if it appears the demonstration program 

is a failure. (Licensees' Reply to Statements of Issues at 12). 

(11) Trigger Numbers 

This issue, which relates to commencing the design and construction of permanent fish passage facilities, goes 

beyond the parameters of the demonstration phase of a restoration program addressed in this Decision (which 

considers the desirability and need of collection facilities) and, thus, is not ripe for discussion and resolution at this 

stage of the proceeding. (Intervenors' Statement of Issues at 9; Licensees' Reply to Statements of Issues at 12; 

Staff Initial Brief at 65). 

(12) and (13) Timing of Design Work and of Construction 

Intervenors believe that the Initial Decision should prescribe an expedited time frame for the suggested 

improvements to the existing lift and for the construction of the proposed new collection facility (Intervenors' 

Statement of Issues at 9). Conowingo Licensees argue that an appropriate (unspecified) time frame must be 

established, but apparently oppose the expedited dates proposed by Intervenors (Licensees' Reply to Statements 

of Issues at 13). Staff did not state a position on this issue. 

(14) Use of a Technical Committee 

The parties agree that a technical committee should be utilized to monitor the demonstration program and 

resolve disputes, but do not concur as to the appropriate committee membership or dispute resolution procedures. 

Intervenors favor the use of the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Committee (SRAFRC), 

established pursuant to the Upstream Settlement (Intervenors' Statement of Issues at 9-10). Conowingo 

Licensees, however, believe that the Technical Committee to be ordered in this Initial Decision should not have the 

same membership as the SRAFRC because it is "heavily loaded in favor of the Intervenors" (Licensees' Reply to 

Statements of Issues at 12). 

(15) Need for an EIS 

Page 10 of 20 

Intervenors and Staff concur that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required for the construction of 

any new entrance and collection facility on the east side of the powerhouse (Intervenors' Supp. Reply Brief at 5-9; 

Staff's Supp. Reply Brief at 3-4). Conowingo Licensees, on the other hand, argue that, while the continuation of the 

demonstration phase of the restoration program as they have agreed to perform will not be a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the environment, a formal EIS would be required for the construction of a new lift (Licensees' 

Supp. Brief at 7). 


10/15/2008


In summary, the only issue remaining in dispute and requiring resolution in this proceeding is No. 13 (and its 

component inquiries) regarding the scope of the Conowingo Licensees' role in that portion of a comprehensive 

restoration project involving an initial demonstration program. Within such a demonstration program, the question 

of a need to construct a new fish collection facility on the east side of the Conowingo powerhouse (original Issue 

No. 9 now subsumed within part (4) of Issue No. 13) is the most controversial. 

Discussion 

I. Purpose and Importance of the Demonstration Program 

All parties have acknowledged the necessity of a demonstration program which Conowingo Licensees to some 

extent are currently undertaking voluntarily. The purpose of the program is to produce a population of American 

shad with an urge to migrate upstream. As Intervenors and Staff persuasively and accurately point out, while 

[65,333] 

the upstream hatchery and out-of-basin transplant activities undertaken by the Upstream Licensees, pursuant to 

their settlement, will contribute to population growth, the capture of as many adult shad as possible which return to 

Conowingo is essential to this goal. The necessary population cannot be established unless these captured adults 

are moved upstream as quickly as possible and released above York Haven (the historical shad spawning area) in 

sufficient numbers to allow for population growth. The number of adults released above York Haven is, in turn, 

directly related to the efficiency of collection facilities at the Conowingo Project. In short, the more efficient the 

collection facilities are at Conowingo, the greater the chances are that adults will be collected in sufficient numbers 

to allow for a successful program. (Intervenors' Supp. Brief at 2, and Initial Brief at 50-51; Staff's Supp. Brief at 7). 

Thus, it follows that the more efficient the collection facilities at Conowingo, the greater the chances of 

implementing a successful restoration program. 

II. Inefficiency at the Existing Lift 

Page 11 of 20 

Conowingo Licensees acknowledge the need demonstrated on this record to modify the existing fish lift 

collection facility at Conowingo Dam in order for it to operate more efficiently at 120,000 cfs, but their position is 

that this action will not be taken without a specific direction from the Commission (Tr. 5440-5442). They argue, 

however, that "there is not one scintilla of evidence in the present record to support any other improvements 

(including additional construction at this existing facility)" (Licensees' Supp. Brief at 3). This position flies in the face 

of probative record evidence demonstrating the inefficiency of the existing facility to the extent of its inability to 

compete with turbine discharges. 

The record establishes that returning adult shad of upstream origin are attracted to the Conowingo Dam at high 

flows (Tr. 734-735, 1539, 3422-3423, 4639-4640) and return to the foot of the Dam in April and May, which is the 

time of the highest river flows and generation levels when the larger turbines on the east side of Conowingo are 

operating (Tr. 307-309, 3372-4509; Ex. 58, Fig. 8-2). The record further demonstrates that the specific area of 

attraction at this Project for the target species during this period is not the present lift facility, but, rather, the east 

side of the powerhouse at the Conowingo Project (id.; Ex. 58, Fig. 8-7). In addition, most of the shad now captured 

by the existing lift are trapped when only a few turbines are operating (Ex. 115; Tr. 3321-3324). The concensus of 

the expert witnesses who addressed this matter is that the existing lift is unable to compete with turbine discharges 

at the east side of the powerhouse, especially during April (Tr. 566, 698, 777, 781-783, 2343, 2351, 3087, 3327). 

The fact that the existing facility is unable to collect shad at high flows when they are present below Conowingo is 

further confirmed by record evidence of the angler catch reflecting the facts that shad are present in the Conowingo 

tailrace during times of high flows and that the failure of the existing lift to capture shad at high flows is not 

attributable to the absence of shad (Ex. 112; see also Tr. 734, 781; Intervenors' Supp. Brief at 7-8). The angler 

catch evidence also corroborates the fact that shad congregate at the powerhouse on the east side of the Project 

when these larger turbines are operating (Tr. 3427-3433, 4640). 


10/15/2008


Licensees claim that it is impossible to measure the success of the present lift because there have been no 

shad of upstream origin to appear at the base of the dam in sufficient numbers to make valid tests. Intervenors 

adequately refute this assertion by emphasizing a 1980-1981 experiment by biologists working for the Licensees in 

which they marked 444 shad that had been caught in the lift and released below Conowingo (Tr. 734). Only 9 of 

these fish were recaptured, producing an efficiency of only 2 percent. (Intervenors' Supp. Brief at 9). Moreover, as 

Intervenors note, whether or not the lift catches the shad "is dictated principally by the manner in which the 

Conowingo project is operated and not by the presence of shad below the Dam" (id. at 11). 

Licensees further argue that the existing lift is highly efficient by comparing the amount of fish collected at the 

single entrance facility at Rocky Creek Dam on the Columbia River with the "substantial" amount of fish collected at 

Conowingo's existing single entrance lift facility (Licensees' Supp. Brief at 6). Licensees' focus, however, is 

misdirected. While the present lift may be effective in terms of lifting the fish that are attracted to it, these fish by 

and large are non-target species (Intervenors' Supp. Reply Brief at 4). By ignoring the fact that the target shad are 

attracted to flows and, therefore, away from the existing lift to the east side of the powerhouse, where the larger 

turbines are operating, Conowingo Licensees neglect the goal of the current fish collection facility to attract and 

capture the greatest amount of target fish possible (This same point is emphasized in Licensees' own evidence, 

Ex. 58, p. 8-13). 

[65,334] 

III. Improving the Fish Collection Facilities at Conowingo Dam 

A. The Need for a New Facility 

Page 12 of 20 

To achieve the goal of attracting, collecting, and lifting the greatest amount of shad possible, Intervenors and 

Staff concur that a new fish entrance and collection facility should be built at the east side of the powerhouse. This 

issue of whether or not such a new facility is necessary, corresponding to part (4)(b) of Issue No. 13, centers 

around the established fact that the shad are attracted to the east side of the Conowingo powerhouse when the 

larger turbines are operating. All the expert witnesses testifying in this case concur in this regard (St. Pierre, Tr. 

734-35; Burnett, Tr. 1539; Robbins, Tr. 3422-3423; Foote, Tr. 4639-4640; see also Licensees'-sponsored Gilbert 

Report, Ex. 58, p. 2-38). 

While Conowingo Licensees categorically resist building any new entrance and collection facility on the east 

side of the powerhouse (Licensees' Initial Brief at 38 and Supp. Brief at 4-5), the weight of the evidence on this 

question overwhelmingly establishes the need for such a new collection facility, which, on this record, is 

demonstrated to represent the most logical and feasible method of capturing the maximum number of returning 

shad approaching the Conowingo Dam that are attracted to and congregate near this site. Intervenors' witness 

Rizzo emphasized the "critical" need for a new collection facility with "an entrance adjacent to the retaining wall on 

the east side of the powerhouse" (T. 1607-1609, 1617; Ex. 62, 63). Witness Foote similarly testified that a new 

collection facility at this site should have an entrance near the retaining wall of the powerhouse, and a collection 

facility that can be lifted to the top of the dam (Tr. 4560-4561, 4640). Staff witness Wagner also advocated a new 

powerhouse collection facility (Tr. 1777-1779, 1800-1803, 1805) and concurred with the entrance location 

proposed by Witness Rizzo (T. 1802; Ex. 67, p. 3; Ex. 68, Attachment 1, p. 2). 

Even one of Licensees' own expert witnesses acknowledged the need for an additional entrance on the east 

side of the powerhouse. Witness Bell, a leading expert in the design of fish passage facilities, described why a new 

entrance is necessary at the Conowingo Dam: 

Now, all that says is this: that the shad are responding to a change in flow. And that is all I have said here: 

that if you add additional units . . . the fish will respond to that and they will change their position in that tailrace 

in relation to the new flow regime which is produced by these new units. 


10/15/2008


Now, if you operated the old units only during the time of the shad run, then what I said in the book I will stand 

by. But when you add additional units, that means that you have moved the fish farther away from that entrance. 

That is just axiomatic. 

(Tr. 1966-67, emphasis added; see also, Bell, Tr. 1922-1925, 1968-1970; Leonardson, Tr. 2827). 

Conowingo Licensees argue that all the evidence regarding the necessity of constructing a new lift facility is 

directed to a permanent facility under a finally approved restoration program, and not to an initial demonstration 

facility (Licensees' Supp. Brief at 4-5). However, as Intervenors accurately indicate "the licensees' point is 

irrelevant." (Intervenors' Supp. Brief at 2-3). The facility that Intervenors and Staff urge should be constructed as 

part of the demonstration program is a new entrance and collection facility designed to maximize the number of 

shad that can be captured at Conowingo during appropriate periods and, thereby, maximize the overall collection 

capabilities for target species at this Project (See, e.g., Tr. 5335, 5339-5341, 5351, 5362-5363, 5365-5370). The 

proposed lift will simply operate to lift shad to the top of the Dam for trucking, rather than over the Dam as part of a 

comprehensive passage facility under a permanent restoration scheme. Thus, the evidence as to the need for an 

east side lift is as probative to the issue of what is necessary for the demonstration program as it is to the question 

of what is required for the permanent restoration program. 

In summary, and as pointed out by Staff: 

. . . it makes little sense to solely modify the existing facility, study its efficiency for two years, and then argue 

over the results for several more years during a ten-year demonstration program. The record is clear that shad 

can be collected now in greater numbers on the east side of the powerhouse, near the retaining wall. To ignore 

the experts' opinions in this matter, as well as the first hand observations of Dr. Robbins and Mr. Foote, simply 

turns the demonstration program--from the Conowingo's perspective--into a question of how efficient the existing 

facility is or can be. Such a limitation fails to recognize the purpose of the demonstration program, which is to 

catch as many shad as possible and move them as quickly as possible upstream over the next ten years. 

(Staff's Supp. Brief at 7; emphasis added). 

Therefore, from the record evidence, the necessity of constructing a new entrance and fish collection facility at 

the east side of the powerhouse has clearly been demonstrated, and the Order below will so provide. 

[65,335] 

B. The Necessity of Improving the Existing Lift 

Page 13 of 20 

This inquiry corresponds to part (4)(a) of Issue No. 13. As noted, Licensees agree with Intervenors and Staff that 

certain basic improvements to the existing facility are necessary in order that it be able to operate at flows up to 

120,000 cfs. Beyond this improvement, however, Conowingo Licensees contend that "there is not one scintilla of 

evidence" to support further improvements such as moving the location of the current entrance and/or building a 

second entrance at the site of the existing lift (Licensees' Supp. Brief at 3). 

While the record does provide some uncontroverted evidence that the existing facility should be made more 

efficient and reliable, in addition to overhauls so that the present lift can function at flows of up to 120,000 cfs (see, 

e.g., Tr. 1689-1690, 1736, 1791-1792, 1938-1939, 2102; Ex. 58, p. 8-21; Intervenors' Initial Brief at 51-52, and 

Supp. Brief at 20-21), the bottom line, as convincingly argued by Intervenors, is that: 

There is no evidence that such improvements would enable the existing facility to attract the shad which 

congregate on the east side of the powerhouse . . . Therefore, Intervenors submit that adding another facility 

cannot serve as a substitute for the new (facility) . . . 


10/15/2008


(Intervenors' Supp. Brief at 21). 

Staff and Intervenors, while presenting valid concerns as to the need to improve the existing facility (in addition 

to making the lift more functional at higher flows), suggest that this matter be referred to an appropriate technical 

committee for review and recommendations as part of the ongoing demonstration program (Kynard, Tr. 481, 483; 

St. Pierre, Tr. 566; Wagner, Tr. 1903-04; Bell, Tr. 1972; Mathus, Tr. 2433; and Foote, Tr. 4507; Intervenors' Supp. 

Brief at 21-22; Staff Supp. Brief at 5; see also Tr. 5,365-5,366). As Staff points out: 

Any money (that Conowingo Licensees are ordered to spend) at this time should be utilized in the 

construction of a lift located where the (target) fish can be collected in larger numbers and not applied to an 

existing lift simply because it is there. 

(Staff's Supp. Br. at 5). 

This proposal would enable the demonstration program to proceed under the type of flexibility required for such 

schemes, since it is neither practical nor feasible for the Commission to constantly monitor and resolve each and 

every technical and biological matter that arises during the ongoing process of the demonstration program ordered 

below. Accordingly, this proposal will be adopted. 

IV. Design and Cost of Constructing the Proposed New Entrance and Collection Facility 

As previously discussed, the purpose of the demonstration program is to catch as many shad as possible and 

effectively move them upstream. The new facility to be built on the east side of the powerhouse must be designed 

to meet this objective but at a reasonable cost to the Licensees. 

On the question of design, Intervenors and Staff collectively propose a new single entrance and collection facility 

on the east side of the powerhouse, which addresses collection rather than passage of the target species. This 

structure would consist of a facility which would not pass fish over the Dam, but would instead lift them to trucks for 

transportation to above York Haven. (Intervenors' Supp. Brief at 16). Staff concurs with this facility design 

concluding that "the facility built should have an entrance near the retaining wall of the powerhouse and a 

collection facility that can be lifted to the top of the dam." (Staff's Supp. Brief at 7). The nature and scope of the 

new facility required herein to be designed, constructed and operated, and its relation to the overall Conowingo 

Project, is reflected in the Appendices attached hereto. Appendix A to this Decision is a reproduction of Ex. 58, 

Sec. 8, Fig. 8-10, which pictorially reflects the existing lift at the Project. The proposed site at the Dam for the new 

facility in relation to the entire powerhouse is graphically portrayed in Ex. 62, attached hereto as Appendix B. 

The record does not fully spell out the specific design of the new facility in terms of what happens to the shad 

after capture in the new lift. That is, would the facility collect the fish and move them across the Dam by some 

device to become part of the existing trucking operation, or simply lift the shad to the top of the Dam and implement 

a new trucking operation at the east side of the powerhouse? Staff appears to adopt the recommendation of 

Licensees' witness Bell that "once the fish are caught at the new powerhouse entrance, they would then be hauled 

across the dam to be part of the already existing trucking program" (Staff's Supp. Reply Brief at 3; see also Tr. 

1974-1975). In their Initial Reply Brief (at 36), Intervenors also advocate the design scheme suggested by witness 

Bell in his testimony regarding details of how fish would be transported from the new entrance across the face of 

the dam: 

Q. . . . You could envision a situation where you would have an entrance location for the 

[65,336] 


Page 14 of 20 

10/15/2008


new powerhouse and then some sort of transportation facility across the face of the dam then some mechanism 

to get it up to the right bank shoreline . . . 

A. That is correct. 

(Tr. 1986). 

Page 15 of 20 

However, in their Supp. Brief (p. 16), Intervenors simply recommend the construction of a facility which "would 

not lift fish over the dam but would instead lift them to trucks for transportation to above York Haven." While this 

language does not appear to preclude hauling of the shad across the Dam to the existing trucking operations, it 

does not totally clarify the picture on this matter. 

This technical matter of the precise design of that part of the lift facility involving the physical transfer of the shad 

to the trucks for immediate movement to a point on the Susquehanna River above York Haven, to be accomplished 

either by a hauling operation to be designed in conjunction with the existing trucking program or the establishment 

of a new trucking operation on the east side of the Dam, is really an engineering detail more appropriately resolved 

by the technical committee to be designated below. This committee should make this decision upon submittal of 

the Licensees' preliminary design plan as ordered below. Such plan should incorporate and explain the specific 

mechanism for lifting the shad to the top of the Dam and getting the fish into the trucks for transportation. 

Similarly, the technical issue addressing the most effective maximum capacity of the new collection facility in 

terms of number of fish, which was raised by Intervenors (Supp. Brief at 16-17; Tr. 2542-2579), is one more 

appropriately resolved by referral to the technical committee for consideration. 

Parts (12) and (13) of Issue No. 13 raise the question of timing of any required design and construction of new 

facilities and/or improvements ordered to be added to the existing lift. Intervenors and Conowingo Licensees 

collectively agree that some prescribed time frame would be appropriate. The order below establishes a specific 

time frame to achieve expedited results within periods of time deemed most reasonable for the various 

components of the demonstration program that Conowingo Licensees are directed to undertake. 

On the question of cost, Section 10(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §803 (a), requires that all licenses 

issued by the Commission 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, and for other beneficial public uses, including recreational purposes. 16 U.S.C. §803 (a). For 

that reason, the Commission must consider all aspects of the public interest and balance any competing interests 

before it issues a license. Udall v. F.P.C., 387 U.S. 428 (1967). After such consideration, the Commission may 

incorporate into the license such terms and conditions as in its judgment best adapts the project for public 

beneficial uses. City and County of Denver, Colorado, 35 FPC 1135, 1141 (1965). The Commission's plan may 

take whatever form the public interest requires. The record developed in the case will determine whether, as here, 

the proposed fish collection facilities and/or other measures to enhance the anadromous fish population should be 

required of the Licensees to protect the public interest and assure that the Project in question is best adapted to a 

comprehensive plan of development. 

Intervenors and Staff argue that a demonstration program need not be justified by a favorable benefit/cost 

analysis as a prerequisite to requiring Licensees to undertake the measures urged here. (Intervenors' Initial Brief at 

5; Staff Initial and Reply Brief at 12). Conowingo Licensees argue that any of the estimated cost figures advanced 

by Intervenors as applicable to constructing the proposed collection facility in dispute would be too high and 

unjustified (Licensees' Supp. Reply Brief at 12-13). 

In this case, the quantification of the costs associated with the proposed fish collection facilities part of the 

demonstration program is much easier to calculate than the benefits, which per se include intangible items difficult 

to quantify in dollars (Tr. 3520). On the other hand, a complete disregard of all benefit/cost consideration is not in 


10/15/2008


the public interest and would be in derogation of the Commission's responsibilities under Section 10(a) of the 

Act. A rule of reason seems appropriate in the circumstances. Here, the bases for ordering the construction of a 

new entrance and collection facility at Conowingo are the acknowledged large shad population that historically 

existed and the construction of the hydroelectric Dams on the Susquehanna River that, as the Commission found 

in its August 14, 1980, Order Providing for Hearing, became a principal barrier to the restoration of this 

anadromous species. The cited statutory provision, then, requires that Conowingo Licensees mitigate this adverse 

impact upon anadromous fish if the cost of such undertaking can be deemed "reasonable" without slavishly 

[65,337] 

Page 16 of 20 

undertaking a prolonged cost/benefit analysis. The following language from a recent Commission decision is 

deemed particularly appropriate and dispositive of the question: 

In short, fisheries are prominent in hydroelectric licensing generally . . . When the Commission makes its 

broad "public interest" inquiry, it must consider that "fish passage measures are a cost of doing business on a 

river containing anadromous fish populations." 

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Washington, 34 FERC 63,044 (Initial Decision, January 31, 1986, 

mimeo at 11). 

Within this legal framework and the factual circumstances disclosed, the matter readily can be resolved. 

Intervenors provide sufficient evidence to estimate the cost of this required new facility in the range of $3 to $4 

million. Witness Boyer testified that the existing lift cost $1.2 million to construct in 1972 (T. 2017), which is the 

equivalent of $2.9 million in 1985 dollars using a multiplier of 2.38. The conversion to 1985 dollars is based upon 

the Means Twenty City Cost Index, an index of construction costs. (Intervenors' Supp. Brief at 17). The $2.9 million 

figure, however, is concededly a bit low to the extent that the proposed new lift will be larger than the present 

facility and more expensive to construct because it will not be adjacent to the shore. 

The Licensee-sponsored Gilbert Report also provides a basis to approximate costs, furnishing cost estimates for 

replacing the existing lift with a new lift to be used in conjunction with a trucking operation (Ex. 58, p. 8-19), which 

is comparable to the proposed facility that Licensees will be required to construct on the east side of the 

powerhouse. The Report states the cost to be $2.83 million in 1980 dollars. Applying the Means Twenty City Cost 

Index, a multiplier of 1.32 is used to convert this figure to 1985 dollars and results in a cost of $3.74 million. 

Intervenors recognize that this $3.74 million figure would have to be somewhat increased to account for the added 

cost of construction of the facility at the east side of the powerhouse (Intervenors' Supp. Brief at 18). 

Conowingo Licensees argue that the expenditure of millions of dollars on additional facilities to only implement a 

demonstration program would be fruitless and unwarranted, since the program purportedly has shown no signs of 

success so far and the proposed new entrance and collection facility may not be needed (Supp. Brief at 5 and 

Supp. Reply Brief at 13). Intervenors strongly disagree (Supp. Brief at 22). Staff does not directly address the cost 

question, although, as noted, it previously argued that a favorable benefit/cost analysis is not a prerequisite to 

requiring Licensees to undertake needed restorative measures (Initial and Reply Brief at 12-13). 

Licensees overlook the compelling fact that they have continued voluntarily to participate in many elements of 

an ongoing demonstration program since 1972, and the undertaking to date has yielded certain indications that 

there is currently a substantial number of shad below Conowingo which are imprinted to return upstream but which 

are not being captured by the existing lift facility for the reasons outlined above (Intervenors' Supp. Reply Brief at 

5). The steps ordered to be taken by Licensees herein, including the construction of a new entrance and collection 

facility on the east side of the Dam, represent on this record the most feasible approach to facilitating the 

demonstration program and assuring optimum success in this phase of overall restorative efforts for the 

anadromous fishery on the Susquehanna. 

The foregoing evidence affords a sufficient basis to estimate the cost of constructing the proposed new entrance 


10/15/2008


and collection facility at the east side of the powerhouse as falling within the range of $3 to $4 million. This 

estimated range is deemed reasonable in the circumstances and within the purview of Section 10(a) of the Federal 

Power Act, especially where the costs of the new construction and other steps ordered to be undertaken by 

Conowingo Licensees herein may be outweighed by future benefits to the anadromous fishery on the 

Susquehanna. In any event, should these estimated costs prove on the low side, the demonstration program 

ordered herein is consistent with Licensees' legal obligations to plan for and facilitate restoration of an anadromous 

fishery on the Susquehanna. This mandated undertaking by Conowingo Licensees of certain mitigative measures 

at its licensed Project is best designed to obtain necessary information and commence those initial steps leading to 

restoration of the anadromous fishery resources in an equitable balance with power needs and other concerns 

during the demonstration period as contemplated by the governing statutory dictates. 

V. Duration 

Intervenors recommended a 10-year period for the demonstration program (Initial Brief at 67). The efforts 

required to be undertaken here obviously must dovetail and correspond to the related efforts of the Upstream 

Licensees pursuant to their settlement. Staff also recommends that the demonstration program should be for a 10year 

period which provides 

[65,338] 

the restoration program a fair chance of success (Initial Brief at 69). This time frame appears reasonable. 

Accordingly, the duration of the demonstration program ordered to be implemented in this Decision, corresponding 

to Issue No. 13(10), shall be coextensive with the mitigative measures and studies now underway in a 

demonstration program pursuant to the settlement with the Upstream Licensees covering a 10-year period. The 

Order below will reflect this determination. 

VI. The Technical Committee 

Page 17 of 20 

As indicated in the arguments addressing part (14) of Issue No. 13, the parties agree that a technical committee 

should be used to monitor the demonstration program and to resolve technical and biological disputes that arise 

during its progress. Intervenors believe the appropriate committee is the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish 

Restoration Committee (SRAFRC), established pursuant to the upstream settlement (Intervenors' Statement of 

Issues at 9-10). Conowingo Licensees urge that any proper committee in this regard should not have the same 

membership of the SRAFRC because it is "heavily loaded in favor of the Intervenors" (Licensees' Reply to 

Statements of Issues at 12). 

In Phase II of these proceedings the Presiding Judge established the Susquehanna River Technical Committee 

(SRTC) to implement a permanent flow regime plan as required by Article 34 of the License to the Conowingo 

Project (18 FERC 63,083 ). As between the SRAFRC and the SRTC, the latter is deemed the more appropriate 

vehicle to be employed for purposes of the Phase I issues decided in this Decision. The SRTC, established on 

March 25, 1982, in the Order of Presiding Judge Establishing Susquehanna River Technical Committee (id.), 

includes one representative each of Conowingo Licensees, the U.S. Department of the Interior--U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and the 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission, with a Staff member to fulfill a liaison status on the Committee. Such 

makeup is deemed reasonable and fair for this particular Committee effectively to operate in connection with the 

Phase I matters, directly involving the Conowingo Project, dealt with in this Decision. 

The order below provides that the responsibilities of the SRTC will be broadened to address unresolved 

technical and biological issues arising during the demonstration program portion of the contemplated overall 

restorative efforts in Phase I of this proceeding on an ongoing basis and operating in the same general manner 

and under the procedures set forth in 18 FERC 63,083 , except that all disputes arising under the program 

ordered herein shall be referred to the Commission for resolution. 


10/15/2008


VII. The Necessity of Filing an Environmental Impact Statement 

Conowingo Licensees vigorously contend that an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be necessary if a 

new east side facility as proposed by Intervenors and Staff is ordered to be constructed. The Licensees base this 

assertion on the belief that required "blasting rock and pouring concrete in an area with millions of fish (to construct 

the proposed new entrance and collection facility) cannot be undertaken without a serious impact on the existing 

fish population (Licensees' Supp. Brief at 7). Staff and Intervenors, however, effectively refute this assertion as 

being without record and legal support. 

The Supreme Court in Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223 (1980), emphasized 

the procedural character of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and held that NEPA is designed 

to ensure that an agency has considered the environmental consequences of its action. The record here supports 

a conclusion that the construction and operation of the needed new facility will not result in any greater impacts 

than those already caused by the construction and operation of the existing lift facility (for which an EIS was not 

required). 

Licensees introduced and sponsored the Gilbert Report, an environmental assessment of the Conowingo 

hydroelectric station which purports to be a thorough analysis of the potential environmental impacts of alternative 

fish passage facilities (Ex. 58, p. i). Licensees' witness Burnett, the author of the Report, testified that, as far as he 

knew, no adverse impacts were omitted from the document (Tr. 1570). The Report concludes that there would be 

only minimum impact of constructing a collection facility on the east side of the powerhouse: 

Construction at the mid-dam location would entail minimal disturbance of terrestrial habitat. Increased 

turbidity and downstream siltation as a result of coffer-dam use would be temporary. 

(Ex. 58, p. 8-10; emphasis added). 

Neither the Gilbert Report nor other evidence of record contains any discussion of blasting, and Conowingo 

Licensees have provided no other evidence to support their present 

[65,339] 

Page 18 of 20 

contentions. Moreover, the cited Report states that the Army Corps of Engineers had determined that 

construction of fishway projects is not a major action (Ex. 58, p. 9-1), and that NEPA, which mandates an EIS in 

specific situations, is inapplicable to activities which are not "major federal actions" (Hanley v. Mitchell, 460 F.2d 

640 (2nd Cir. 1972)). 

Staff, in its formal environmental assessment of possible construction impacts of building any new facility, found 

that no significant impacts would occur even from construction of fish passage facilities such as to warrant an EIS. 

(Ex. 72). Clearly, then, an EIS would not be necessary for the demonstration program to be implemented pursuant 

to this Decision. This conclusion is also supported by the testimony of Staff witness Wagner (Tr. 1901; see also 

Staff Initial and Reply Brief at 15). 

Equally important to the question of whether an EIS is necessary for the construction of a new entrance and 

collection lift facility at the Conowingo Dam are the positions of state and Federal agencies overseeing the shad 

fishery. Staff accurately points out that the appropriate agencies of the States of Maryland and Pennsylvania, and 

the United States Department of Interior, Intervenors, have not argued that an EIS is required for the construction 

of a fish collection facility at the Conowingo Dam. (Staff's Supp. Reply Brief at 4). 

Further, Intervenors' witness Rizzo compared the construction of the proposed new collection facility with the 

construction of facilities at other projects on the Connecticut River and concluded that none of these projects had 


10/15/2008


resulted in significant environmental impacts (Tr. 1741-1742). Commission decisions regarding the Connecticut 

River Projects at Holyoke, Turners Falls and Vernon support witness Rizzo's testimony. In Western Massachusetts 

Electric Co., Project No. 1889, 55 FPC 2886 (1976), the Commission ruled that an EIS was not necessary for the 

construction and operation of a fish lift facility at Project 1889 [(see also, Holyoke Water Power Company, 56 FPC 

2914 (1976), 53 FPC 1968 (1973), 49 FPC 1067 (1973)]. Similarly, in New England Power Company, 5 FERC 

61,019 (1978), the Commission, in determining that an EIS was not necessary for the fish passage facilities at the 

Vernon, Wilder and Bellows Falls Projects, ruled that: 

The environmental effects of constructing the proposed facilities would be minimal. . . . There would be some 

construction noise during this period, and possibly some minor turbidity when the coffer dams are installed and 

removed. These temporary effects would be minor and would cease upon completion of construction. The state 

and federal agencies commenting favorably on Exhibit S drawings are thoroughly familiar with the anadromous 

fish restoration program and with any environmental consequences of its implementation, but have identified no 

significant adverse effects from installation of the proposed facilities. For these reasons and considering our 

Staff's independent analysis, we conclude that approval of the functional Exhibit S drawings and the subsequent 

construction of the fish facilities as depicted by the drawings is not a major federal action significantly affecting 

the quality of the human environment. 

(Id. at p. 61,035; emphasis added). 

The above decisions apply with equal validity to a determination regarding the Conowingo Project and, 

combined with the record evidence, are deemed convincing that an EIS is not required here either for the 

construction of a new entrance and collection facility at the Conowingo Dam, or for any of the other steps 

ordered to be taken by Licensees in implementing the required demonstration program. This determination 

resolves part (15) of Issue No. 13. 

Conclusion and Order 

In summary, there is substantial uncontroverted and probative evidence on the record that the demonstration 

program to the extent ordered herein is a necessary prerequisite to the implementation of a viable restoration 

scheme. 

Thus, based on the record, it is ordered that Conowingo Licensees' participation in the demonstration program 

shall include those actions it has already voluntarily assumed and those it has agreed to as needed on the record 

herein, as follows: 

(1) Conowingo Licensees shall continue to truck adult shad captured at Conowingo Dam to above York Haven 

until permanent facilities are functioning, at which time the Upstream Licensees, as part of the Upstream 

Settlement, will assume this task on April 1 of the year the permanent facilities become operational; 

(2) Conowingo Licensees shall continue to monitor the return of pre-spawned adult American shad to the 

Conowingo Dam; 

(3) Conowingo Licensees shall complete a schedule of the improvements necessary to make this existing lift 

reliable and operable at 120,000 cfs and submit the schedule to all parties for review within 60 days of the date of 

this Order; and 

[65,340] 

Page 19 of 20 

(4) Conowingo Licensees shall complete all improvements to the existing lift required in No. (3) above within 6 

months of submission of the improvements schedule. 


10/15/2008


Further, there is substantial and probative evidence in the record to warrant directing Conowingo Licensees, as 

a pivotal element of the demonstration program, to take immediate steps to design and construct a new entrance 

and collection facility on the east side of the powerhouse at the Conowingo Project. Accordingly, it is further 

ordered that: 

(1) Conowingo Licensees shall complete a preliminary design of an east side entrance and collection facility at 

the Conowingo Project and submit the plan to all parties for review within 60 days of the date of this Order; and 

(2) Conowingo Licensees shall complete final design of the described east side facility and submit the plans to 

all parties for review within 6 months of submission of the preliminary design. The final design plans shall contain 

proposed completion and commencement dates, respectively, for construction and operation of the new entrance 

and collection facility. 

Finally, in accordance with the conclusions and findings above, it is further ordered that: 

(1) The duration of the demonstration program shall be coextensive with the measures and studies now 

underway pursuant to the Settlement with the Upstream Licensees covering a 10-year period; 

(2) The Susquehanna River Technical Committee (SRTC) shall during the duration of the demonstration 

program continue to function in the manner set forth in 18 FERC 63,083 , as modified in the body of this Decision, 

and to administer the demonstration program, direct studies, and take any other steps necessary to facilitate this 

program; and 

(3) The SRTC shall commence immediate steps to study and resolve the issue of whether a second entrance 

and/or other improvements to the existing lift facility are necessary to facilitate an effective demonstration program 

at the Conowingo Project. 

[Appendix A omitted.] 

[65,341] 



Page 20 of 20 

10/15/2008


COMM-OPINION-ORDER, 38 FERC 61,003, Philadelphia Electric Power Company and Susquehanna 

Power Company, Docket No. EL80-38-001, , Project No. 405-009, (Jan. 07, 1987) 


Philadelphia Electric Power Company and Susquehanna Power Company, Docket No. EL80-38-001, , 


[61,003] 

[61,003] 

Philadelphia Electric Power Company and Susquehanna Power Company, Docket No. EL80-38-001 

, Project No. 405-009 

Opinion No. 264; Order Modifying and Adopting Initial Decisions and Denying Motion for Relief 


Before Commissioners: Martha O. Hesse, Chairman; Anthony G. Sousa, Charles G. Stalon, Charles A. 

Trabandt and C. M. Naeve. 

[Note: Initial Decisions of the presiding administrative law judge: issued August 31, 1982 appears at 19 

FERC 63,099 ; issued March 30, 1984, appears at 26 FERC 63,111 ; and issued March 19, 1986, 

appears at 34 FERC 63,097 .] 

Before the Commission are two initial decisions and a motion to rescind a prior Commission order, all of which 

concern the Conowingo Project No. 405. The project, which is licensed jointly to the Philadelphia Electric Power 

Company and the Susquehanna Power Company (licensees), was constructed in 1928 and is located on the 

Susquehanna River, ten miles above its confluence with the Chesapeake Bay. 

I. Background 

The Susquehanna River rises in upstate New York, flows through central Pennsylvania and a small portion of 

northern Maryland, and empties into the Chesapeake Bay, providing about 85 percent of the fresh water to the 

northern portion of the Bay. It is the largest river on the east coast, draining an area of over 27,000 square miles 

and having an average discharge of over 37,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). 

Large numbers of American shad (Alosa sapidissima) once migrated up the Susquehanna River. 1 2 By 1928, 

however, construction of hydropower dams blocked their access to waters above rivermile 10, thereby preventing 

their return to their 

[61,004] 

historical spawning areas, which are located above four hydropower projects. Since then, the presence of 


Page 1 of 19 

10/15/2008


American shad on the Susquehanna River has declined to extremely low levels. 3 

On August 14, 1980, the Commission issued a new license for the Conowingo Project. 4 The project consists of 

a concrete gravity dam 94 feet high and 4,660 feet long. The powerhouse is integral with the dam and has an 

installed capacity of 514.4 megawatts (MW). The reservoir has a gross storage capacity of 310,000 acre-feet. The 

maximum flow capacity of the project is 85,000 cfs; the optimum flow capacity is 72,000 cfs. When the river's 

natural flow is less than 72,000 cfs, the project operates in a peaking mode, i.e., it impounds river flows during offpeak 

periods, such as late at night and during weekends, and releases them during peak demand periods. This 

allows use of relatively cheap hydropower in lieu of more expensive fossil fuel peaking facilities. To the extent that 

water is released during off-peak periods, there is less water available to be released during peak periods, and 

the project is less economical. 5 On the other hand, to the extent that streamflows are impounded during off-peak 

periods, the fishery in the Conowingo waters may be adversely affected. 6 

Immediately below the Conowingo dam is a three-mile-long, 2,000-foot-wide, non-tidal, ecologically complex 

stretch of the Susquehanna River, referred to herein as the Conowingo waters. Immediately above the 

Conowingo dam is a reservoir that extends from rivermile 10 to approximately rivermile 24. 7 

Water in the Conowingo waters and reservoir is at times practically anoxic, without oxygen. This has caused 

huge fish kills in the Conowingo waters. To remedy this problem, the Conowingo licensees in 1972 agreed with 

the State of Maryland to maintain continuous flows of at least 5,000 cfs from March 15 through June 1, when 

prespawned adult American shad, an anadromous fish, use the Conowingo waters. 8 

On August 14, 1980, the Commission also issued new licenses to the three hydroelectric projects located 

upstream of Conowingo: (1) the Holtwood Project No. 1881, located at rivermile 26, constructed in 1910 and 

licensed to the Pennsylvania Power & Light Company 9 ; (2) the Safe Harbor Project No. 1025, located at rivermile 

34, constructed in 1928 and licensed to the Safe Harbor Water Power Company 10 ; and (3) the York Haven 

Project No. 1888, located at rivermile 55, constructed in 1904 and licensed to the York Haven Power Company. 11 

We refer herein to these three licensees as the upstream licensees. 

Of major concern in all four licensing proceedings was the requirement for minimum flows at the projects and 

the restoration of anadromous fish to the river above the four projects. 12 The chief intervenors in those 

proceedings, and the current proceedings, are the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and the Pennsylvania Fish Commission 

(referred to collectively herein as the "intervenors"). They proposed in the relicensing proceedings that the 

Commission require each licensee to maintain prescribed minimum flows and to construct fish passage facilities 

to restore the anadromous fishery to the river. The license applicants maintained that there was no proof that 

restoration was feasible and that construction of fish passageways was therefore unwarranted. 

Since there were insufficient data in the record of the four proceedings to resolve these issues, the 

Commission relicensed the four projects with the requirement that the four licensees coordinate study plans 

acceptable to the intervenors to develop, inter 

[61,005] 

Page 2 of 19 

alia, information concerning dissolved oxygen (DO), methods of meeting state water quality standards, and the 

minimum flow releases from the projects that would be necessary to protect and enhance fish and wildlife 

resources. 13 14 

Concomitant with the license orders, the Commission issued an Order Providing for Hearing in Docket No. 

EL80-38 (unreported), directing that an administrative law judge should hold evidentiary hearings on the status of 

the anadromous fishery in the Susquehanna River Basin and its environs, the effects of project operations on the 


10/15/2008


anadromous fishery, and the feasibility of measures to protect or enhance those fishery resources. The order 

specifically directed the judge to investigate any other measures that would be required for the restoration of a 

viable anadromous fishery in the Susquehanna River Basin, including hatchery programs and flow releases. 15 

On rehearing, the Commission amended the licenses to require each licensee to consult with the resource 

agencies and develop a mutually satisfactory interim minimum flow regime to safeguard the water quality and 

fishery pending the determination of permanent minimum flows. 16 The Commission subsequently clarified that 

the interim minimum flows were to protect and enhance both anadromous and resident fishery stock. 17 

The upstream licensees, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, and the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, 

in a settlement agreement dated April 1, 1981, agreed that the licensees of Holtwood and Safe Harbor would 

maintain continuous year-round minimum flows of 3,000 cfs. The intervenors and the Conowingo licensees were, 

however, unable to reach an agreement on interim minimum flows for their project. Therefore, on February 3, 

1982, the Commission ordered evidentiary hearings in Project No. 405-009 to establish an appropriate interim 

minimum flow regime at the Conowingo dam. 18 

On August 31, 1982, the Commission affirmed and adopted 19 the initial decision 20 establishing an interim flow 

regime for the Conowingo project. The decision required the Conowingo licensees to maintain interim minimum 

flows of 5,000 cfs between April 15 and September 15. 

On March 30, 1984, the judge issued an initial decision 21 pertaining to Phase II of the consolidated 

proceedings in Docket No. EL80-38 , in which he ordered the Conowingo licensees, inter alia, to perform 

prescribed population studies to develop the necessary data to enable the Commission to determine an 

appropriate permanent minimum flow regime for the Conowingo project. All the parties and staff filed briefs on 

exceptions and briefs opposing exceptions. 

On April 10, 1985, the Commission approved a second settlement agreement between the intervenors and the 

upstream licensees under which the upstream licensees were released, until January 1, 1995, from obligations to 

provide minimum flows at their respective projects, absent a Commission finding of extraordinary circumstances 

requiring earlier resumption of minimum flows. 22 In return, the upstream licensees agreed to provide up to 

$3,700,000 to finance an anadromous fish restoration demonstration program and to take certain prescribed 

actions, including helping to implement the restoration program and taking additional actions to mitigate the water 

quality and fish stranding problems at their projects that were the cause for the interim minimum flows being 

requested during the relicensing proceedings. 

[61,006] 

Page 3 of 19 

On July 12, 1985, the Conowingo licensees filed a motion (the "motion for relief") requesting rescission of the 

August 31, 1982 interim minimum flow order and dismissal of Phase II (establishment of permanent minimum 

flows). They asked to be released from any further requirement to provide either interim or permanent minimum 

flows, other than during the shad run. 

On March 19, 1986, the judge issued an initial decision in Phase I of Docket No. EL80-38 , in which he ordered 

the Conowingo licensees under Article 34 of their license, inter alia, to participate in the anadromous fish 

restoration demonstration program. 23 He ordered them to modify the existing fish lift at the Conowingo dam and 

to construct a second lift to capture migrating prespawned adult American shad, and to truck for release above 

York Haven all captured prespawned American shad. All the parties and staff filed briefs on exceptions and briefs 

opposing exceptions. 


10/15/2008


II. Phase II Initial Decision 

The primary issue in the Phase II initial decision is: what study plan should the Conowingo licensees perform to 

develop data for the Commission to use in determining what, if any, permanent minimum flows should be 

released at Conowingo dam to enhance and protect the fishery in the Conowingo waters? The secondary issue 

is: should the Conowingo licensees be required now to develop data to help the Commission determine what 

flows or spills, if any, are necessary to allow outmigrating anadromous fish spawned upstream to make their way 

down the river to the Chesapeake Bay? 

A. Establishing a Minimum Flow Study Plan 

The intervenors and the Commission's trial staff support the imposition of increased flows for the purpose of 

protecting and enhancing the fishery below the Conowingo dam. The Conowingo licensees maintain that the 

existing fishery is thriving, that existing interim flows are sufficient to protect it, and that increased flows would not 

enhance it. 24 

The parties proposed two different types of studies. The proponents of each study claim that its study plan 

reflects the scientific technique appropriate for determining minimum flows in this case, and that the other's study 

plan is unsound and wasteful. 

1. Instream Flow Incremental Methodology 

The intervenors and the staff proposed a habitat-based study, using the Instream Flow Incremental 

Methodology (IFIM). 25 Studies under the IFIM are designed to ascertain the available habitat under various flow 

conditions. Under the IFIM, measurements would be made of certain physical aspects of the Conowingo waters, 

including depth, substrate (bottom), cover (hiding places or physically protected areas), and stream velocity. 

Then, using a computer program, the effects of alternative flow regimes on the habitat would be determined. This 

approach would demonstrate how much usable habitat would be available to the fish under various flow regimes. 

The IFIM assumes a direct relationship between the amount of usable habitat and the fish there. The chief 

advantage of a habitat-based study is the ability to evaluate many alternatives in a relatively short time. 26 

The proponents of the IFIM noted that the Commission has approved settlement agreements in other 

proceedings in which the parties to the agreements have used the IFIM to determine minimum flows, thus 

demonstrating the practicality and acceptability of the method. 27 

[61,007] 

2. Population study plan 

Page 4 of 19 

The Conowingo licensees' plan would use "before and after" measurements of the fish population in the 

Conowingo waters as a basis for determining minimum flows. 28 Such a plan would use a variety of techniques to 

collect and measure the fish populations. 

The time span selected for measurement depends on the length of the life cycle of the fish and must allow 

enough time for the tested flow regime to affect the fish to a measurable degree. The Conowingo licensees 

determined that a four-year period would be sufficient to provide an accurate measurement under each flow 

regime. Under this plan, the interim flow regime established in our interim minimum flow order would be compared 

with the flow regime during 1972-81, which preceded the test regime. 29 The Conowingo licensees claimed that 


10/15/2008


the effects of the test regime on the fish population could be used to determine likely changes in population 

that would result from other possible flow regimes. 

3. Discussion 

Estimates of the costs of the two plans were very rough. 30 It appears however that the IFIM study, with no 

follow-up study, would perhaps cost 30 percent less than the population study. 

The intervenors and the staff objected to the use of the licensees' population study on several grounds. First, it 

requires accurate "before" population data for the pre-1982 flow regime, which do not exist. Second, a population 

study can only test one flow regime at a time, whereas an adequate population study should compare at least 

three flow regimes, with each regime being tested over at least two life cycles. Thus, the Conowingo licensees' 

plan, to be properly implemented, would be lengthy and costly. Third, it was argued that the study is not fully 

explained or soundly conceived, and the study's predictive models, sampling program, and statistical analysis 

were questioned. 

Fourth, those objecting to the population study contended that variables other than streamflows can 

significantly affect fishery populations. Thus, because the plan has to allow for natural population variations, it can 

only make crude measurements, which in turn can mask significant changes resulting from altered flows. Fifth, 

the Conowingo licensees do not have complete control over streamflows. During a wet year, actual minimum 

flows might be considerably higher than target minimum flows. This might lead to adoption of minimum flows 

lower than is necessary to protect and enhance the fishery. 

In summary, the intervenors and the staff believe the Conowingo licensees' population study is a crude, 

expensive plan that is able to measure only gross effects and is thus unlikely to give a clear answer to the 

question of what flow regime is best for the fishery. Lacking adequate evidence as to alternatives, the 

Commission would be forced to accept the existing regime, or no minimum flows at all. 

The Conowingo licensees' chief points in opposition to the IFIM study were as follows. First, the effectiveness 

of the IFIM approach has never been verified by a follow-up population study comparing its predicted effects 

under increased flows with actual effects. Second, the IFIM was designed for small, cool-water, western streams 

having relatively simple ecosytems and is unsuitable for a large, complex, warm-water river such as the 

Conowingo waters. 

Third, the IFIM ignores several variables that are important in estimating the effects of flows on fish population. 

These include: water chemistry 31 ; climate; the 

[61,008] 

Page 5 of 19 

interaction of fish populations with one another 32 ; the pressure of fishing; and the effect of the presence just 

downstream of the Conowingo waters of the remaining seven miles of the river, relatively unaffected by the flow 

regime. In other words, the IFIM assumes that habitat is the only significant limiting factor on the fishery. But there 

are allegedly other variables that may be equally important in enhancing and protecting the fishery. 

Fourth, since the IFIM does not measure pre-existing fish populations, it can estimate only the relative, not the 

absolute, effects of increased flows on fish populations. The purpose of the study is to enable the Commission to 

evaluate the costs and benefits of increased flows. But because of this shortcoming, the IFIM will not give a good 

estimate of the benefits. 33 


10/15/2008


In summary, the Conowingo licensees argue that the IFIM assumes a relationship between certain elements of 

habitat and the fishery, which will assure that the study will recommend increased flows. However, they assert 

that this assumption is unproven and therefore provides no basis for believing that the increased flows will in fact 

enhance the downstream fishery. 

4. Initial decision 

The judge evaluated the proposed study plans in light of the "appropriateness to the particular ecological 

situation" at the project. 34 After reviewing criticisms of the IFIM approach he rejected it, stressing that the IFIM 

study relies on limited measures of habitat and omits other factors likely to affect the success of fishery 

populations in the complex ecology of the Conowingo waters. 35 The judge found that on balance the population 

study, with appropriate modifications to correct some of its shortcomings, appeared to be the more reasonable 

and appropriate study for producing the desired end results. 36 The judge therefore ordered the Conowingo 

licensees to perform a population study testing two five-year flow regimes, based on his conclusion that such a 

plan would produce data that would allow selection of a permanent flow regime that would satisfy the objectives of 

protecting and enhancing the fishery in the Conowingo waters. 

The judge, in selecting his plan, agreed with the critics of the Conowingo licensees' study plan that the 

available pre-1982 fishery information was inadequate as baseline data. The judge therefore made the current 

interim flow regime the baseline regime, and chose a second test-flow regime which, for years 6 through 10 of the 

study, would require releases of 10,000 cfs from April through June; 5,000 cfs from July through September; and 

3,000 cfs from October through March. 

The judge noted that the cost of his recommended study, which would exceed the cost of either of the two 

recommended plans, would be comparable to the costs of an IFIM study that included a follow-up five-year 

population study to confirm the IFIM-predicted effects of increased flows. 

The intervenors and the staff, in their exceptions to the judge's decision, essentially repeated their arguments 

for the IFIM and in opposition to the population approach. The Conowingo licensees did not dispute the judge's 

decision to lengthen their study to consider a second flow regime, but objected to certain aspects of the flow 

regime that the judge specified for the second five-year study period. In particular, they opposed as unnecessary 

and wasteful the judge's recommended 10,000 cfs flow for the period April through June, arguing that this flow 

should run only through May, and that the 5,000 cfs flows from July through September should run only through 

[61,009] 

September 15. Finally, they contended that no continuous minimum flows are appropriate from October through 

March. 

5. Commission decision 

Page 6 of 19 

The difficulty in deciding which study plan to adopt is that there is no way to prove which plan will be most 

effective in the unique circumstances of the Conowingo waters. 37 Whereas smaller rivers and tributary streams 

are usually relatively simple, similar to one another, and numerous enough so that generalities may apply to many 

of them, there is only a limited number of large warm-water rivers, such as the Susquehanna, and each is distinct. 

As a consequence, the decision must rely largely on theory. The record demonstrates that predicting changes in 

fishery populations in complex ecologies such as the Conowingo waters is at this point more of an art than a 

science, in light of the large number of variables affecting the fish and the intrinsic difficulties of measuring 

changes in fisheries. 38 The two study approaches espoused in this proceeding approach the objective in a 

different manner and have concomitant advantages and drawbacks, as have been pointed out by the parties. 


10/15/2008


While the judge attempted to compensate for the weaknesses of the study plan he adopted, we conclude that 

there is merit in the objections of the intervenors and staff to the study he devised. All the parties agree that there 

are many variables affecting the fishery in this ecologically complex body of water. We agree with the intervenors 

and staff that it would be unlikely that the effects of the non-flow factors on the fishery could be sufficiently 

accounted for and netted out over only one life cycle per flow. 39 The record does not support the judge's 

conclusion that good biological data can be obtained in fewer than two life cycles per flow regime studied 40 or 

that the study of only two flow regimes could develop meaningful data. 41 Fishery experts testified that each 

tested flow regime should be studied preferably for at least two life cycles and that at least three flow regimes 

should be studied. 42 Since the life cycle for some of the fish of concern here is five years, it would take ten years 

to gather information for each flow regime. The biological study approach would therefore take at least thirty years 

to acquire reasonably good data on the effects of even three minimum flow regimes. Furthermore, the Conowingo 

licensees never explained fully their predictive models, their sampling program, or the statistical analysis that they 

would use. 

Also, a population study can at most show changes in the fishery from one flow regime to another; it cannot 

predict what changes in the fishery would occur at any other flows. 43 Were the best permanent minimum flow 

regime at some level not tested, there would be no way of determining that fact. 

The record shows that the sophistication of the IFIM has in the past several years evoa level that we believe 

can adequately serve in this case. 44 We believe that its reliance on habitat as the most vital factor in the condition 

of the fishery is well founded. 45 We also believe it to be sufficiently reliable to use without requiring a follow-up 

biological study. Moreover, a 30-year delay in obtaining the results is a major, perhaps even dispositive, drawback 

in light of the important anadromous fish restoration efforts now underway in the Susquehanna River Basin. 

Whileowingo licensees may object that it is their ratepayers who will be required to bear the cost of a decision to 

not wait several decades for a more precise measurement of variable flow effects, we conclude that our 

responsibilities under the Federal Power Act, which go to fish and wildlife as well as power production, are more 

appropriately discharged by pursuing a more expeditious resolution of the minimum flow issue. For the fishery 

[61,010] 

resources reaching the Conowingo waters in the next several decades, mitigation delayed will most likely be 

mitigation denied. 46 

Accordingly, we are ordering the Conowingo licensees to perform an IFIM study to predict the effects that 

various flow levels would have on the fishery. 47 48 The interim minimum flows shall be maintained during the 

study, except to the extent necessary to conduct the IFIM study. The judge will then balance the effects that 

different minimum flows would have on the fishery in the Conowingo waters against the costs and other negative 

effects these flows would have on the Muddy Run project, to derive a permanent minimum flow. He will order that 

flow to be the permanent minimum flow at Project No. 405. 49 

B. Flows for Outmigrating Shad 

Page 7 of 19 

The secondary issue is whether a study plan should be developed and implemented to decide what flows are 

desirable for outmigration of juvenile shad past the projects on their way downstream. 

The judge decided that the study to establish a permanent flow regime, which is the object of these 

proceedings, must take into account the needs of outmigrating shad, because such a study could properly identify 

these needs. He therefore directed the Conowingo licensees to include in their study provisions to allow an 

assessment of the flows necessary for outmigrating shad. 


10/15/2008


The weight of the evidence in the record supports the judge's conclusions. The Conowingo licensees did not 

raise on exception any arguments that merit reconsideration of the initial decision as to this issue. 

The Conowingo licensees, on October 1, 1984, submitted to the judge a proposal for an outmigration study 

plan pursuant to his initial decision. He has certified it and submitted to us for consideration. We find the plan 

acceptable and, accordingly, are approving it. 

III. Phase I Initial Decision 

The primary issue in the Phase I initial decision is: what should be the Conowingo licensees' participation in the 

initial phases of the anadromous fish restoration demonstration program? 

A. The Demonstration Program 

All the parties agree that, before an expensive anadromous fish restoration program is undertaken, a 

demonstration program should be conducted to prove that it will work. Since at least 1972, the intervenors, on 

their own, have been stocking the upstream river with shad fry, fingerlings, and prespawned adult hatcheryproduced 

shad. 50 The upstream licensees agreed in the 1985 settlement agreement to participate with the 

intervenors in a joint demonstration program. As part of the program, out-of-basin prespawned adult shad are 

caught and, together with prespawned adult shad raised at hatcheries, are placed upstream of the four 

hydroelectric projects. The progeny of these fish make their way downstream through the four projects to the 

Chesapeake Bay and then to the Atlantic Ocean. After approximately five years, some of these fish return and 

attempt to migrate upstream to spawn. 51 When they arrive at the Conowingo dam, they must be captured quickly 

and trucked past all four dams and released. For the demonstration program to be deemed a success, adult shad 

of upstream origin that have a drive to return and 

[61,011] 

migrate up the Susquehanna to spawn (target fish) must return in large enough numbers to become selfsustaining. 

When the number of returning target fish reaches an as yet undetermined trigger number, it will be 

demonstrated that restoration of the American shad to the Susquehanna is feasible. At that point, any of the 

parties to the agreement can petition the Commission to order construction of fish passage facilities to implement 

the restoration program. 

The Commission's license orders for the four projects set for hearing, pursuant to our reserved authority in 

standard license Article 15, the feasibility of protection and enhancement measures for the anadromous fishery in 

the Susquehanna River. As noted, all parties agree that a demonstration program is warranted. Many of the 

details of the initial phases of the demonstration program were agreed upon by the parties before the Phase I 

initial decision was issued. We are resolving other aspects in this order. In the 1985 settlement agreement, the 

upstream licensees agreed to operate the hatcheries and study at their respective projects the timing, migrational 

behavior, and success of the downstream migration of shad. 52 We are ordering the Conowingo licensees to do 

the same at their project. The measures we are requiring the Conowingo licensees to take will thus be in 

coordination with the measures being taken by the upstream licensees pursuant to the 1985 settlement 

agreement. 

B. Other Issues 

Page 8 of 19 

The issues that remain unresolved, and are ripe for action, concern the efficiency of the fish lift at the 

Conowingo dam; the duration of participation in the program by the Conowingo licensees; the composition and 

appeal procedures of the technical committee that will settle disputes concerning the Conowingo licensees' 

participation in the program; and the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS), if construction is 

necessary at the Conowingo dam. 


10/15/2008


1. Need for a new fish lift at Conowingo dam 

If the program is to succeed, nearly all the target fish must be caught and trucked upstream. Therefore, the fish 

lift at Conowingo must be extremely efficient at capturing the target fish. 53 

The Conowingo licensees argue that the existing lift, which catches millions of fish annually, is efficient and 

would serve the purposes of the program, but that its efficiency for catching shad cannot be determined, because 

the demonstration program so far has not succeeded in producing sufficient numbers of returning shad to be 

caught. Even if the existing lift were not efficient in catching shad, the licensees argue that it would still serve the 

purposes of the program by determining the "relative abundance" of returning shad, as would other tests such as 

sport fishermen catches, the Maryland annual fish population estimate for the Bay, and the studies performed 

under Article 34 of their license. The licensees argue that it is premature to spend substantial sums to modify the 

existing lift or build a second lift, since it is undetermined whether there will ever be any target fish to catch. 

However, if ordered to do so, they agree to improve their existing fish lift so that it will function in flows of up to 

120,000 cfs. 

The intervenors and staff argue that the existing lift is inefficient at catching shad and that its efficiency at 

catching other species of fish is irrelevant. The record demonstrates, they argue, that the existing lift fails to catch 

shad, even when it is known from sampling tests that they are in fact in the tailrace. 54 The chief reason that it fails 

to catch shad is that the shad are drawn away from the existing lift, which 

[61,012] 

is located on the west side of the powerhouse, by the heavy flows emanating from the large turbines, which are 

located on the east side of the powerhouse. They argue that a new and more efficient lift must be built on the east 

side of the powerhouse, where most of the target fish congregate. 55 They also assert that further studies are 

warranted to determine whether a second entrance to the existing fish lift should also be constructed. 

The judge agreed that the record supported the position of the intervenors and staff. He therefore ordered the 

Conowingo licensees to construct a facility on the east side of the powerhouse (at an estimated cost of $3 to $4 

million) and to capture the shad for upstream trucking and release. He ordered modification of the existing lift so 

that it could operate at flows of up to 120,000 cfs, and completion of a preliminary design of an east-side entrance 

and collection facility, to be submitted to all parties for review to determine whether a second entrance and other 

improvements to the existing lift are necessary to facilitate the program. He also ordered the licensees to continue 

to monitor the return of prespawned adult shad to the dam. 

We conclude that the judge correctly analyzed the record and find that the Conowingo licensees have raised 

no arguments on exception that merit reconsideration of the initial decision as to these issues. 56 Accordingly, we 

adopt the judge's analysis and conclusions concerning the need for construction of a second lift, modification of 

the existing lift to function at up to 120,000 cfs, preliminary design for a new entrance to the existing lift, and 

monitoring requirements. 

2. Duration of Conowingo licensees' participation in the demonstration program 

Page 9 of 19 

The judge attempted to dovetail the duration of the Conowingo licensees' obligation to capture and truck target 

fish with the duration of the upstream licensees' obligation under the 1985 settlement agreement to participate in 

the program. He therefore ordered the Conowingo licensees to capture and truck target fish until January 1, 1995, 

the last day of the obligation of the upstream licensees to participate in the program. 57 He did not, however, 

direct the parties as to what they must do at the end of the demonstration program, if they cannot agree on the 

import of its results. 


10/15/2008


The intervenors argue on exception to the initial decision that the Conowingo licensees should be required to 

undertake capture and trucking activities until at least five years after the last stocking of adults by the upstream 

licensees under the program. The staff argues that they should continue until ten years after the second lift is 

operational. Both positions are based on the fact that it takes on average five years from the time the stocked fish 

spawn until their progeny return. Were the Conowingo licensees to discontinue capture and trucking after the 

tenth year of the program, results would not be obtained on the last five years of stocking. By continuing capture 

and trucking until the year 2000, results would be obtained on all ten years of stocking. 

Both the intervenors and staff argue that, if after the demonstration program ends the parties cannot agree on 

what future actions should be undertaken, the Conowingo licensees should be required to continue capture and 

trucking until the Commission decides what should be done. 

The Conowingo licensees argue against lengthening the duration of their required participation. They note that 

the demonstration program has been underway since at least 1981. Therefore, the ten years ordered by the judge 

result in a 14- or 15-year program, during which time there would be at least four double-life cycles of the same 

[61,013] 

progeny and nine separate single-life cycles returning. 58 They note that this is a demonstration program and not 

a restoration program, and assert that their participation in the demonstration after January 1, 1995, is not 

required, since any sudden increase in returning shad after 1994 would be readily apparent from fishermen 

catches and the Maryland annual surveys. Also, under the 1985 settlement agreement, the last date for anyone to 

petition the Commission for construction of permanent fish passage facilities is January 1, 1997. 59 They therefore 

state that any information gathered after that date would be of no use. The licensees argue, finally, that it would 

be unfair to require them to continue their activities longer than those of the upstream licensees. Accordingly, they 

request that their obligation to capture and truck end on December 31, 1994. 

The Conowingo licensees are understandably protective of their financial investment in the measures at issue 

and the effect that costs of their participation in the program would have on their ratepayers, but it is the 

Commission's responsibility to consider all aspects of the public interest. In this instance, we conclude that, while 

the primary purpose of the program is to demonstrate the feasibility of restoration, it would not be in the public 

interest to waste the time and expense already invested and to lose generations of target fish that might form the 

nucleus of a restoration program by allowing the capture and trucking at Conowingo to lapse while the results of 

the demonstration program are being debated. 

Therefore, if, by January 1, 1997--the last date for any parties to the 1985 settlement agreement to petition the 

Commission to order restoration actions--none of the parties has petitioned us, the Conowingo licensees will be 

released from the capture and trucking obligations. If however before that date any party petitions the 

Commission to order a restoration program, the Conowingo licensees shall continue to capture and truck until the 

Commission releases them from this obligation. 

3. Composition of the Supervisory Technical Committee 

Page 10 of 19 

All parties agree that a technical committee is necessary to monitor the Conowingo licensees' implementation 

of our orders regarding their participation in the demonstration program and to resolve any disputes over the 

duration of the program. The Conowingo licensees and the intervenors could not however agree on the 

composition of such a committee or the appeal process in the case of disagreements among the committee 

members. 

Two committees were considered. The intervenors recommended the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish 


10/15/2008


Restoration Committee (SRAFRC), which is composed of the intervenors and the upstream licensees and 

would be amended to include the Conowingo licensees. Under the SRAFRC's procedures, at least six members 

of the Committee must agree. A dissenting member of a six-member committee vote could appeal a committee 

decision to the administrative law judge. If the judge were to decide against the dissenting member, that member 

could appeal the judge's decision to the Commission, but only if it could enlist five other members to recommend 

that the Commission hear the appeal. 

The other committee under consideration was the Susquehanna River Technical Committee (SRTC), which 

was formed at the order of the judge in the Phase II proceeding to supervise the Conowingo licensees' 

implementation of the permanent minimum flow study. It is staffed by a fisheries biologist. It consists of only the 

intervenors and the Conowingo licensees, and requires a unanimous vote to act. The 

[61,014] 

judge ordered use of the SRTC and directed that disputes arising under the demonstration program are to be 

referred to the Commission. 

The intervenors objected, arguing that the SRAFRC's inclusion of the upstream licensees would better enable 

coordination of the activities of the Conowingo licensees with those of the upstream licensees and that this 

coordination is essential for studying the outmigration of adult and juvenile shad, monitoring the dispersal and 

spawning of transplanted adult shad, and other activities. 

The intervenors also argue that, irrespective of which committee is chosen, an expeditious dispute resolution 

procedure must be established to ensure that the success of the program will not be jeopardized by the many 

disputes that the intervenors anticipate, based on past experience, will arise with the Conowingo licensees over 

the design and implementation of the activities required of them. 

The Conowingo licensees object strenuously to use of the SRAFRC because they would lose their veto power 

over decisions by the committee and their right to appeal to the Commission. 

We believe that the intervenors will be able to coordinate activities between the Conowingo licensees and the 

upstream licensees, even if the upstream licensees are not on the technical committee. Of greater concern to us 

is the appeal procedure. We will not adopt an appeal process that precludes an appeal to us concerning matters 

for which no later appeal may be possible. Therefore, we are approving the judge's selection of the SRTC. We 

intend to expedite any appeals as quickly as possible in order that they do not cripple the demonstration program 

through delay. We are moreover retaining the power to restructure the appeal process if we find that the program 

is being unduly hindered by delays occasioned by frequent and/or frivolous appeals. 

4. No Need for an Environmental Impact Statement 

Page 11 of 19 

The Conowingo licensees argue that any requirement to modify the existing fish lift or build a new fish lift at the 

Conowingo dam would be a major federal action significantly affecting the human environment, requiring prior 

preparation of a formal environmental impact statement (EIS). They base this assertion on the claim that blasting 

rock and pouring concrete would cause a serious impact on the existing fish population and that the fish lift's 

introduction upstream of the gizzard shad and asiatic clam could have adverse ecological effects. 

Staff performed an environmental assessment of possible construction impacts of building any such new 

facility, and found that no significant environmental impacts warranting an EIS would occur even from construction 

of fish passage facilities. Moreover, the intervenors' fishery experts testified that the gizzard fish is not a "trash 

fish" to be avoided, nor would introduction of the asiatic clam have any adverse ecological effects. The judge 


10/15/2008


determined that construction of a second fish collection lift and modifications, including possible construction of 

a second entrance to the existing lift, would not significantly affect the human environment. Therefore, he decided 

that an EIS is unnecessary. 

We agree with the judge and adopt his analysis and conclusions regarding the effects of construction. Both the 

construction ordered and the construction under consideration constitute temporary and modest disruptions of the 

environment in the immediate vicinity of the dam. Moreover, the licensees have not demonstrated that the 

[61,015] 

introduction of more gizzard shad or asiatic clams would cause any adverse effect in the upstream waters, and 

the fish and wildlife agencies conclude that they would not. Accordingly, the preparation of an EIS is not required. 

IV. Motion for Relief 

Page 12 of 19 

The Conowingo licensees argue that we should release them from all responsibility to maintain interim or 

permanent minimum flows, except during the shad migration season. They argue that minimum flows are not 

needed at the Conowingo dam, since the 1985 settlement agreement released the upstream licensees from their 

obligation under the 1981 settlement agreement to provide minimum flows at the Holtwood and Safe Harbor 

dams. 

The situation at Conowingo is however not identical to the situation at the upstream projects. The 1985 

settlement agreement requires the upstream licensees, which, unlike the Conowingo licensees, completed, and 

submitted results of, the studies required under their licenses to implement alternate mitigative measures to 

prevent the low DO and fish stranding problems that prompted the intervenors to request the Commission to order 

minimum flows. 60 Also, the operation of the Conowingo project results in much more severe impacts upon habitat 

than does operation of the upstream projects; there are much larger populations of fish below Conowingo, and 

there is no record of extensive fish kills below the upstream projects, but there is at Conowingo. 61 Therefore, the 

release of the upstream licensees from their obligation to maintain minimum flows does not alter the need for 

continued minimum flows at Conowingo. 62 

The Conowingo licensees also argue that implementation of the interim minimum flow order causes them and 

the Muddy Run project licensee to violate their respective licenses. The Conowingo license requires the licensees 

to operate the reservoir between elevation 100.5 feet and 109.5 feet, and to permit the Muddy Run licensees to 

utilize a maximum of 35,500 acre-feet of pondage weekly from Project No. 405 in such a manner as to maximize 

total power from both projects. 63 The Commission's order licensing Muddy Run noted that the contract between 

the Conowingo and Muddy Run licensees required that Conowingo be operated so as to maximize power 

production at Muddy Run. 64 The Conowingo licensees therefore argue that, "[s]ince the [1985 settlement 

agreement] became effective, the absence of minimum flows from Holtwood, coupled with the required minimum 

flows at Conowingo, has made it impossible to operate Muddy Run efficiently and thus is in violation of both 

licenses." 65 

We decline to adopt the Conowingo licensees' strained interpretation of the licenses. The licenses for the two 

projects require that the licensees, who are in the same corporate family, coordinate and try to maximize overall 

power output, but not at the expense of violating the other conditions of the licenses, such as the Conowingo 

licensees' requirement to release appropriate minimum flows to protect and enhance the fishery and wildlife. 

The Conowingo licensees argue further that implementation of the 1985 settlement agreement has changed 

the conditions that existed when the judge ordered the interim minimum flow regime, such that the Commission 

should amend these flows. As a result of the 1985 settlement agreement, the operators of Holtwood no longer 

must release 3,000 cfs during the weekends. As a consequence, in order for the Conowingo licensees to keep the 


10/15/2008


Conowingo reservoir at the required minimum water level, 66 there must be curtailed pumping at the Muddy 

Run pumped-storage project, 

[61,015-2] 

which normally pumps water out of the Conowingo reservoir during the weekends to fill its upper reservoir for 

release during the week for peaking purposes. The licensees assert that this loss of capacity at the Muddy Run 

project increases the risk of blackouts on the licensee's, Philadelphia Electric System. The curtailment of weekend 

flows from the upstream projects has assertedly also caused the annual costs of maintaining minimum flows at 

Conowingo to reach $1.6 million under the present flows and would cost $2.6 million under the higher second flow 

regime ordered in the Phase II initial decision. 

While it is evident that decreases in releases into the Conowingo reservoir and continued flows out of the 

reservoir could affect its operation, it is highly doubtful that the effects are as significant as the Conowingo 

licensees state. Holtwood is essentially a run-of-river project. Because of its small holding capacity, it must 

release all the flows it receives within any 24-hour period. 67 Therefore, it is highly unlikely that it can materially 

affect the operations of either Conowingo or Muddy Run. The Conowingo licensees have moreover given us mere 

unsubstantiated, unverifiable allegations concerning costs and other adverse effects. They have proffered no 

adequate evidence to prove these allegations. We note moreover that the Conowingo licensees did not use their 

opportunity to raise any of their concerns when the 1985 settlement agreement relieving the upstream licensees 

of their minimum flow obligations was pending before the Commission. Accordingly, we are denying their request 

to modify the interim minimum flow requirement or to dismiss Phase II of Docket No. EL80-38 . 68 


(A) With regard to the March 30, 1984 initial decision in Phase II of Docket No. EL80-38 , the Conowingo 

licensees, in a manner and within deadlines to be prescribed by the administrative law judge, shall use the 

Instream Flow Incremental Methodology to develop data to establish an appropriate permanent minimum flow for 

Project No. 405. This information is to be used in the manner discussed above to establish a permanent minimum 

flow. The October 1, 1984 shad outmigration study plan submitted by the Conowingo licensees is approved. In all 

other respects, the March 30, 1984 initial decision is approved and adopted. All exceptions not granted are 

denied. 

(B) With regard to the March 19, 1986 initial decision in Phase I of Docket No. EL80-38 , the Conowingo 

licensees may cease their capture and trucking obligations on January 1, 1997, if no party to this proceeding has 

by that date petitioned us to order restoration of anadromous fishery to the Susquehanna River Basin under the 

terms of the 1985 settlement agreement. If any party has so petitioned us, the Conowingo licensees shall 

continue their capture and trucking activities until we order otherwise. The 60-day deadline established in the 

initial decision for the Conowingo licensees' completion of specified actions is extended to 60 days from the date 

of this order. All exceptions not granted are denied. 

(C) Th2, 1985 motion filed by the Conowingo licensees is denied. 


Page 13 of 19 

1 Records of the National Marine Fisheries Service indicate that over 7 million pounds of American shad were 

taken commerically in Maryland in 1889, prior to major dam construction on the Susquehanna River. 

2 Our primary interest herein is with the American shad. There are more than one species of shad in the 

Susquehanna, but when we refer to shad in this order, it applies only to the American shad. We are however also 

concerned with striped bass, which are taken in the Conowingo waters during late July and August, as well as the 


10/15/2008


resident freshwater fish, which include the smallmouth bass, the walleye, the catfish, the white perch, and a 

striped bass/white bass hybrid. 

3 In addition to the physical obstructions blocking migration, problems of water quality and fishery management 

also appear to have contributed 

[61,015-3] 

to the decline of anadromous fish in the Susquehanna River Basin. 

4 19 FERC 61,348 (1982) (the license order was not published in the FERC Reports until 1982). 

5 When stream inflows are less than 54,000 cfs, the available inflow during a seven-day period beginning 

Friday evening is used and released over a five-day period beginning the following Monday morning and ending 

Friday evening. During these five days, the flow release may be suspended for several hours, depending on 

natural flows. During the weekend, flow releases are more sharply curtailed. The flow is never completely 

eliminated, as there is a minimum flow of 800 to 1,000 cfs from seepage. Natural flows are less than 54,000 cfs 

about 35 percent of the time in April and 65 percent of the time in May. By September and October, the percent 

rises to the high 90's. 

6 See Phase II Ex. 38 at 6-7; cf. Ex. 22 at 7. 

7 Located upstream from the dam along the reservoir are the Peachbottom nuclear power project and the 

Muddy Run Hydroelectric Project No. 2355, licensed to the Philadelphia Electric Company. The Peachbottom 

project takes water from the reservoir to use for cooling purposes. The Muddy Run project uses non-hydroelectric, 

off-peak base power to pump water from the Conowingo reservoir to its own higher elevation reservoir. It then 

releases this water back into the Conowingo reservoir during peak use times. 

8 Anadromous fish migrate from salt water to fresh water to spawn. Their progeny migrate back to salt water to 

stay until ready to spawn. 


10 18 FERC 62,535, at p. 63,909 (1982) (the license order was not published in the FERC Reports until 1982). 


12 Under Section 10(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §803 (a), the Commission is to assure that a 

project will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for water power and other beneficial public uses, including 

fisheries. 

13 See, e.g., Article 34 in the Conowingo license, 19 FERC 61,348 , at p. 61,689. 

Page 14 of 19 

14 Standard Article 15 of each license requires the licensee to construct, maintain, and operate facilities as may 


10/15/2008


be ordered by the Commission for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources. 

15 Judge Harfeld, who has presided over all the Docket No. EL80-38 and Project No. 405-009 evidentiary 

hearings, segregated the issues in Docket No. EL80-38 into two phases. Phase I covers all issues of the 

proceeding, except for the determination of a permanent minimum flow regime. Phase II covers only the 

determination of a permanent minimum flow regime for the Conowingo project. 

16 13 FERC 61,132 (1980). 

17 18 FERC 61,031 (1982). 

18 18 FERC 61,090 (1982). 

19 20 FERC 61,273 (1982). The Commission consolidated that hearing with Docket No. EL80-38 . 

20 19 FERC 63,099 (1982). 

21 26 FERC 63,111 (1984). 

22 31 FERC 61,038 (1985). 

23 34 FERC 63,097 (1986). 

24 The Conowingo licensees later argued in their motion for relief that the flows required under our interim 

minimum flow order were excessive; that, at most, only minimum flows during the spring American shad run were 

necessary. 

25 See Phase II Ex. 1. 

26 See Phase II Ex. 1 at 42. 

27 The IFIM has been approved and used at 35 licensed projects. Phase II Ex. 49 at 10-11. 

28 See Phase II I.D. at 6-10. 

Page 15 of 19 

29 As of 1984, when the Phase II initial decision was issued, measurements for two years of this regime had 

already been made. See Phase II I.D. at 26. 


10/15/2008


30 See Phase II I.D. at 10 and 12. 

31 There are significant intermittent industrial discharges into the Susquehanna. 

32 There are reputedly 55 species of fish in the Conowingo waters. Phase II Ex. 14 at 10-11. 


34 See Phase II I.D. at 23. 

35 See Phase II I.D. at 23-24. 

36 See Phase II I.D. at 25. 

37 For example, there is no citation in the record of either plan having demonstrated its effectiveness in a 

situation analogous to that under consideration here. 

38 See, e.g., Phase II T. 384-85, 628-85; Ex. 20 at 7-8; and Ex. 31 at 34. 

39 See Phase II Ex. 20 at 6-7; Ex. 28 at 4; Ex. 31 at 21, 24; T. 457-458, 491. Two life cycles are needed 

because of the natural variability of fish populations. T. 356; Ex. 50 at 2. 

40 Two of the Conowingo licensees' own witnesses were unwilling to testify that a study of fewer than two 

cycles would produce meaningful results. Phase II Ex. 28 at 4; Ex. 20 at 6-8. 


42 The State of Maryland's witness Dr. Richkus testified that at least three regimes should be tested. (Phase II 

Ex. 31 at 18; T. 822-823, 865.) Staff witness Robinson concurred. (T. 957.) 

43 See Phase II T. 835, 862-867. 

44 See Phase II Ex. 1 and 11. 

45 See Phase II Ex. 1 at 4-9; Ex. 11 at 7-15; Ex. 50 at 2; T. 203, 247, 936-940, 945. 

46 See n. 53, infra. 


Page 16 of 19 

10/15/2008


47 The State of Maryland has offered to contribute $100,000 toward an IFIM-based study. See Phase II T. 896. 

48 Adoption by the Commission of the IFIM as the appropriate minimum flow study methodology to be used in 

this proceeding does not constitute approval of, or precedent regarding, the appropriate methodology to be used 

in other proceedings. The particular facts of each project must be analyzed to 

[61,015-4] 

determine the most appropriate methodology to use in each situation. 

49 If the Conowingo licensees believe that the IFIM-based permanent minimum flows fashioned by the judge 

are not producing the predicted positive effects on the fishery in the Conowingo waters, they may perform 

biological studies during an appropriate period of time, during which the permanent minimum flows are 

maintained, and then petition us under Rule 716 of our Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 C.F.R. §385.716 

(1982)) to reopen this proceeding and modify the permanent minimum flow requirement of their license. 

50 See Phase I Ex. 17. 

51 Adult shad return to spawn from four to seven years after spawning. 

52 The upstream licensees also assumed responsibility, starting on April 1 of the year in which permanent fish 

passage facilities become operational at Conowingo dam, to truck adult shad migrating upstream caught at 

Conowingo to above York Haven, until they have completed construction of permanent fish passageways. 

53 See Phase I T. 5351, 5362-70. 

54 In one test where 444 adult shad were captured in released below the dam, the existing lift caught only two 

percent of captured and released adult shad. See Phase I T. 734. "While this low number can be explained 

partially by the tendency of shad to drop downstream after being tagged (T. 834), the two percent figure is 

consistent with the efficiency levels computed by the licensees (Ex. 114)." See Intervenors' Suppl. Br. at 9. 

55 See Phase I T. 734-35, 1539, 3422-23, 4639-40, Ex. 58 at 2-38. The intervenors and staff want it made 

more reliable and efficient, and operational at flows of up to 120,000 cfs. 

56 The Conowingo licensees argued that the record shows that, as of 1985, the increase in shad caught at the 

dam compared to the numbers caught annually during the 1970s could not be caused by the stocking of shad 

upstream. The record disproves this. It shows that between 1971 and 1979, over 259,000,000 shad eggs were 

transplanted above York Haven. Phase I Ex. 17. Also, production at the Van Dyke hatchery between the 1976 

and 1980 ranged from a low of 663,000 to a high of 3,5000,000 fry, advanced fry, and fingerlings. These were 

placed in the Juniata River, a tributary of the Susquehanna. Therefore, the increase in shad caught at the 

Conowingo dam could logically be a direct result of stocking of shad upstream. See Phase I T. 1096. 

57 See Phase I I.D. at 23. 


Page 17 of 19 

10/15/2008


58 Fish that are hatched in: Return in: 

1981 1986 

1982 1987 

1983 1988 

1984 1989 

1985 1990 

1986 1991 

1987 1992 

1988 1993 

1989 1994 

Thus, the judge's proposal would permit four double cycles (1981-86-91, 1982-87-92, 1983-88-93, 1984-89-94), 

as well as a total of nine single-life cycles. See Phase I Conowingo licensees' Brief Opp'ng Ex. at 11. 

59 If no party petitions the Commission prior to the January 1, 1997 deadline to order a restoration program, or 

if the Commission determines that restoration should not be attempted, the upstream licensees will on January 1, 

1997, be relieved of any obligation to attempt to restore anadromous fish to the basin until after September 1, 

2014. See Agreement at 7-8. 

60 The Conowingo licensees filed on December 1, 1986, results of studies conducted to produce data relative 

to objectives 1 to 3 of Article 34 of their license. The study results are currently being analyzed by the 

Commission. 

61 Intervenors' Ans. to Motion at 9. 

62 The Conowingo licensees assert that the Commission in each of the four licenses required each licensee to 

coordinate its development of minimum flow plans with the other three licensees. Since the other three licensees 

no longer are required to maintain minimum flows, the Conowingo licensees have no one with which to 

coordinate. Therefore, argue the licensees, they should be released from their obligation to maintain minimum 

flows. 

This argument lacks merit. The import of these license articles was that the licensees were to coordinate, 

where possible, so that the flows would do the most good at the least cost. The upstream licensees did 

coordinate and reached a mutual agreement with the intervenors. The fact that the Conowingo licensees have 

failed to coordinate with the intervenors and upstream licensees does not relieve them of providing minimum 

flows. 

63 See Project No. 405's license Article 32, 19 FERC 61,348 at p. 61,689. 

64 See 32 FPC at 829 (19). 

65 Motion at 14 (emphasis in original). 

Page 18 of 19 

66 Project No. 405's license requires the Conowingo licensees to operate recreational projects at the project. 

When the reservoir level falls below the 106.5 foot level, use of the boating facilities is hindered. 


10/15/2008


67 Its holding capacity is about 5 percent of Conowingo's. 

68 The intervenors oppose the Conowingo licensees' motion on procedural grounds. First, they argue that the 

motion violates Rule 601(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, because the Conowingo 

licensees waived their right to comment upon the 1985 upstream settlement by not filing comments within the 20day 

comment period provided in that rule. 18 C.F.R §385.601 (f). Second, they argue that the Conowingo 

licensees are improperly attempting to assert the rights of the Muddy Run licensee, which is not a party to this 

proceeding. 

The intervenors' reliance on Rule 602(f) is misplaced. The purpose of the motion for relief is not to comment 

for or against adoption of the 1985 settlement agreement offer. The purpose is rather to request us to reverse 

our interim minimum flow order in Project No. 405-009 . Therefore, Rule 602(f), and its 20-day comment 

deadline on settlement offers, is not germane to the motion for relief. While the 

[61,015-5] 

intervenors are correct that PECO is not a party to these proceedings and the Conowingo licensees may not 

speak for PECO (although the Conowingo licensees are wholly-owned subsidiaries of PECO), they can 

nevertheless argue that the adverse effects on the operations of Muddy Run of maintaining minimum flows at 

Conowingo should be considered in determining whether the interim minimum flows ordered in our interim 

minimum flow order are in the public interest, or whether they should be modified. 



Page 19 of 19 

10/15/2008


COMM-OPINION-ORDER, 41 FERC 61,256, Philadelphia Electric Power Company and Susquehanna 

Power Company, Docket No. EL80-38-004, , Project No. 405-020, (Dec. 03, 1987) 


Philadelphia Electric Power Company and Susquehanna Power Company, Docket No. EL80-38-004, , 


[61,666] 

[61,256] 

Philadelphia Electric Power Company and Susquehanna Power Company, Docket No. EL80-38-004 

, Project No. 405-020 

Opinion No. 264-A; Order Denying Rehearing 




[Note: Opinion No. 264 modifying and adopting Initial Decisions and denying motion for relief issued 

January 7, 1987, appears at 38 FERC 61,003 .] 

[Opinion No. 264-A Text] 

Before the Commission is a request filed by the Philadelphia Electric Power Company and the Susquehanna 

Power Company, joint licensees of the Conowingo Project No. 405, 1 for rehearing of Opinion No. 264, issued on 

January 7, 1987. 2 In Opinion No. 264, we modified and adopted initial decisions in Phases I 3 and II 4 of Docket 

No. EL80-38 and denied a motion filed by the licensees requesting relief concerning their minimum flow 

requirements at the Conowingo Dam. 

In Opinion No. 264, we ordered the Conowingo licensees to, inter alia, perform an Instream Flow Incremental 

Methodology (IFIM) study to develop data necessary to enable us to establish an appropriate permanent 

minimum flow regime at the Conowingo Dam for the protection and enhancement of fishery resources. We also 

ordered the licensees to participate in an ongoing anadromous fish restoration demonstration program, 5 to 

modify the existing fish lift at the Conowingo Dam, and to construct another fish lift on the east side of the dam in 

order to capture migrating prespawned adult American shad and to truck them for release above the York Haven 

Hydroelectric Project (at rivermile 55). In addition, we denied the licensees' request to dismiss the Phase II 

proceeding and to be released from our August 31, 1982 interim minimum flow order, which requires them to 

release a minimum of 5,000 cfs from March 15 to September 15. 

A. Minimum Flow Study Plan 

Page 1 of 5 

The primary issue in the Phase II proceeding was what study plan the licensees should use to develop data for 


10/15/2008


determining the permanent minimum flow releases at the Conowingo Dam needed for the protection and 

enhancement of the fishery resources in the Conowingo waters. 6 

[61,667] 

The intervenors 7 and staff had proposed a habitat-based study, using the IFIM methodology developed by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is designed to ascertain, by use of a computer program, the available 

"usable habitat" under various flow conditions. The licensees had proposed to do a "population study", which 

would use "before and after" measurements of the fish population in the Conowingo waters as a basis for 

determining appropriate minimum flows. 8 

In Opinion No. 264, we concluded that the IFIM method was preferable to a population study in this 

proceeding. The chief advantage of the habitat-based IFIM study is the ability to evaluate many alternatives in a 

relatively short time. In contrast, it would take at least 30 years using a population study to acquire reasonably 

good data on the effects of three minimum flow regimes. 9 We found such a delay in obtaining the results to be a 

major, perhaps dispositive, drawback in light of the important anadromous fish restoration effects now underway 

in the Susquehanna River Basin. 

On rehearing, the licensees reiterate their arguments made in the course of this proceeding but fail to present 

any new information or raise any new issues that were not previously considered by the Commission in issuing 

Opinion No. 264. We therefore deny the licensees' request for rehearing on this issue. 10 

B. Construction of a New Fish Lift 

Before an expensive anadromous fish restoration program is undertaken to restore the American shad to the 

Susquehanna River Basin, a demonstration program is being conducted to prove that it will work. As part of the 

program, out-of-basin prespawned adult shad are caught and, together with prespawned adult shad raised at 

hatcheries, are placed upstream of the four hydroelectric projects. The progeny of these fish make their way 

downstream through the four projects to the Chesapeake Bay and then to the Atlantic Ocean. After approximately 

five years, some of these fish return and attempt to migrate upstream to spawn (target fish). When they arrive at 

the Conowingo Dam, they must be captured quickly, trucked past all four dams, and released. 

If the program is to succeed, as large a proportion as practicable of the target fish that arrive at the base of the 

Conowingo Dam must be caught and trucked upstream so that, within the remaining life of the demonstration 

program, a body of American shad would develop with the urge to return upstream to spawn. To accomplish this, 

the fish lift at Conowingo must be extremely efficient at capturing the target fish. 

In Opinion No. 264, which adopted without modification the Phase I initial decision as to this issue, we 

concluded that the existing fish lift is inadequate for the program's purposes and ordered the Conowingo 

licensees to modify it and to also construct a second fish lift on the east side of the powerhouse. 11 

On rehearing, the licensees repeat their earlier argument that their existing fish lift is efficient, inasmuch as it 

catches millions of fish annually. The efficiency of the existing lift at catching non-target fish is however irrelevant 

to the question of the lift's efficiency at catching target fish. The licensees present no new facts or arguments that 

warrant discussion. 12 13 

C. Duration of Conowingo's Participation in the Demonstration Program 

Page 2 of 5 

We stated in Opinion No. 264 that, if by January 1, 1997--the last date for any parties to the 1985 settlement 


10/15/2008


agreement to petition the Commission to order restoration actions--none of the parties has so petitioned us, the 

Conowingo licensees 

[61,668] 

will be released from their capture and trucking obligations. If before that date, however, any party petitions us to 

order a restoration program, the Conowingo licensees shall continue to capture and truck until we release them 

from this obligation. 

The licensees ask on rehearing that, although they are not a party to the 1985 settlement agreement, they be 

given the same rights to petition the Commission as the parties to the agreement. 

The settlement agreement sets out the time frame within which the parties must petition the Commission for 

restoration actions or for cessation of the demonstration program. Since the licensees are not parties to the 

agreement, they are not bound by such time restrictions; they may petition the Commission for appropriate relief 

at any time. 14 

D. Motion for Relief 

In Opinion No. 264, we denied the licensees' July 12, 1985 motion for relief, in which they asked to be released 

from all responsibility for maintaining interim or permanent minimum flows, except during the shad migration 

season. The licensees argued that, because of the 1985 settlement agreement, under which the upstream 

licensees were released from their obligation to provide minimum flows at the Holtwood and Safe Harbor Dams, 

15 on summer weekends when the upstream projects are not releasing water there will not be enough water left to 

provide minimum flows at Conowingo, maintain a reasonable level for recreation in the Conowingo Reservoir, and 

at the same time provide the maximum allowable amount of water to Muddy Run. 16 

The Commission rejected these arguments in Opinion No. 264, finding that the licensees had presented no 

evidence that the operation of either project would be significantly affected. On rehearing, the licensees reiterate 

their earlier arguments but again fail to offer any evidence to support these allegations. We accordingly deny their 

request for rehearing on this issue. 


The request for rehearing filed February 6, 1987, by the Philadelphia Electric Power Company and the 

Susquehanna Power Company for rehearing of Opinion No. 264 is denied. 


1 The Conowingo Dam was constructed in 1928 and relicensed in 1980. 19 FERC 61,348 (1982). It is located 

on the Susquehanna River, ten miles above its confluence with the Chesapeake Bay. 

2 38 FERC 61,003 (1987). 

3 34 FERC 63,097 (1986). 


Page 3 of 5 

10/15/2008


4 26 FERC 63,111 (1984). 

5 Pursuant to a settlement agreement, which was approved on April 10, 1985, 31 FERC 61,038 , three 

upstream licensees agreed to provide up to $3,700,000 to finance an anadromous fish restoration demonstration 

program and to help implement the program. The three upstream projects are: (1) the Holtwood Project No. 1881, 

located at rivermile 26, constructed in 1910, and licensed to the Pennsylvania Power & Light Company; (2) the 

Safe Harbor Project No. 1025, at rivermile 34, constructed in 1928, and licensed to the Safe Harbor Water Power 

Company; and (3) the York Haven Project No. 1888, at rivermile 55, constructed in 1904, and licensed to the York 

Haven Power Company. We refer herein to the licensees for these three projects as the upstream licensees. 

6 Immediately below the Conowingo Dam is a three-mile-long, 2,000-foot-wide, non-tidal, ecologically complex 

stretch of the Susquehanna River, referred to herein as the Conowingo waters. Immediately above the 

Conowingo Dam is a reservoir that extends from rivermile 10 to approximately rivermile 24. 

7 Intervenors in these proceedings include the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and the Pennsylvania Fish Commission. 

8 A detailed description of the two methodologies and the parties' assertions with respect to each is 

[61,669] 

contained in Opinion No. 264, 38 FERC 61,003, at p. 61,003 . 

Page 4 of 5 

9 This is because a minimally adequate population study would need to study three different flow regimes, each 

over two life cycles. The life cycle of the American shad is five years. 

10 The licensees do raise several arguments, but they are peripheral to the central issue here and seem to 

indicate a basic misunderstanding of the proposed population study approach. For example, the licensees argue 

that one advantage of their study is that it would test not just one flow regime at a time but many different flows 

over each life cycle, depending on the actual flows in the river. This is in fact one of the drawbacks of the 

population study, because a determination of the long-term effects of different minimum flows on the anadromous 

and resident fishery cannot be made from a study of daily flow variations. 

11 The chief reason for the existing lift's inefficiency is that, during periods of high flows when the large east 

side turbines are operating, the shad are drawn away from the existing lift, which is located on the west side of the 

powerhouse, and congregate at the powerhouse on the east side of the project. 

12 The licensees state that in the spring of 1986 over 5000 shad were caught in the Conowingo lift, and they 

argue that this demonstrates conclusively that the present lift is efficient. This is extra-record evidence and as 

such should not be considered without reopening the evidentiary record, which we decline to do. In any event, this 

figure, which is contained in a progress report filed with the Commission, actually lends support to the 

Commission's position rather than to the licensees'. According to the progress report, 67 percent of the almost 

5200 shad that were caught were captured during off-peak hours, on weekend days when the project's large east 

side turbines typically do not operate, thus reaffirming our position in Opinion No. 264. 

13 Nor do we accept their argument that construction of the new fish lift necessitates the preparation of an 

Environmental Impact Statement. In Opinion No. 264, we determined that such construction would not have a 

significant impact on the quality of the human environment. 


10/15/2008


14 See 18 C.F.R. §385.207 (1987). 

15 Under the 1981 agreement the Holtwood and Safe Harbor licensees agreed to maintain 3,000 cfs 

continuous minimum flows. 

16 The licenses for both the Conowingo Project and the Muddy Run Project require that the operation of both 

projects be coordinated so as to maximize power production. See 19 FERC 61,348, at p. 61,689 (1982); 32 FPC 

at 829 (1964). 



Page 5 of 5 

10/15/2008


COMM-OPINION-ORDER, 41 FERC 61,334, Philadelphia Electric Power Company and The Susquehanna 

Power Company, Project No. 405-021, (Dec. 17, 1987) 


Philadelphia Electric Power Company and The Susquehanna Power Company, Project No. 405-021 

[61,908] 

[61,334] 

Philadelphia Electric Power Company and The Susquehanna Power Company, Project No. 405-021 

Order on Appeal 




On March 31, 1987, the Acting Director, Division of Project Management (Director), issued an order 1 

approving certain studies filed pursuant to Article 34 of the license for Project No. 405 2 and requiring the 

implementation of methods to maintain downstream dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. On April 20, 1987, the State of 

Maryland, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), filed a request for clarification of the Director's order, and, on 

April 30, 1987, the Philadelphia Electric Power Company and the Susquehanna Power Company, licensees for 

Project No. 405, filed a timely appeal of the order. On October 14, 1987, the licensees asked for clarification of 

the effective date of a portion of the March 31 order. 3 

Discussion 

Page 1 of 2 

Article 34 of the license requires the licensees to conduct a study to determine, inter alia, the most feasible 

methods for ensuring that water released from the project meets state water quality standards. The licensees 

must file, within three months of completion of the study, a report on the results of the study, including 

recommended measures for the maintenance of the state standards. 

On February 2, 1987, the licensees filed the required report, which evaluated numerous methods for 

maintaining state DO standards and recommended the use of a turbine venting system. In the March 31 order, 

the Director found the licensees' proposed turbine venting system unacceptable, concluding that it would not 

maintain adequate DO levels downstream of the project. The order stated that the numerous other methods 

discussed in the licensees' report, if used in combination with turbine venting, would maintain adequate DO levels 

in the releases from Conowingo Dam. 

On appeal, the licensees ask us to clarify that they are not limited to only those measures presented in their 

report, but can use other methods as well. While we assumed that the alternatives presented in the report would 

be those considered by the licensees, we will not limit the licensees to only those options. The licensees may take 

whatever measures are necessary to maintain downstream DO levels, so long, of course, as their implementation 

is not inconsistent with other requirements of the license. 


10/15/2008


DNR requests clarification of that portion of the Director's order that requires the licensees, if other measures 

fail to maintain adequate DO levels, to cease project operation. DNR believes that project shut-down should not 

affect the licensees' minimum flow obligations. DNR's interpretation of this requirement is correct; if the licensees 

shut down the project, they would have to discharge all releases over the dam. 4 

In the licensees' October 14, 1987 request for clarification, they argue that one of the ordering paragraphs, 

which requires the licensees to "maintain DO levels in the releases from Conowingo dam in compliance with the 

Maryland State water quality standards," was not meant to become effective immediately. Rather, the licensees 

believe that they will not be required to maintain adequate DO levels until the necessary project modifications are 

completed, several years from now. As support for their position, the licensees cite an apparent inconsistency 

between the requirement to maintain state DO standards and another requirement in the March 31 order to file 

within 90 days a plan of proposed measures to maintain state water quality standards. 

The intent of the March 31 order is to require the licensees to immediately begin complying with state DO 

standards downstream of the Conowingo Dam while they are implementing the proposed structural modifications 

to the project. Such a requirement is not inconsistent with staff's request that the licensees also provide a 

description of proposed measures. The proposed methods relate to the permanent structural modifications that 

the licensees plan to implement. 


(A) The March 31, 1987 order in Project No. 405 is clarified as set forth in this order. 

[61,909] 

(B) The appeal filed by Philadelphia Electric Power Company and the Susquehanna Power Company on 

October 14, 1987, is dismissed. 

1 38 FERC 62,338 (1987). 


2 On August 14, 1980, the Commission issued a new major license for Project No. 405, located on the 

Susquehanna River in Maryland and Pennsylvania. See 19 FERC 61,348 (1980) (The order was inadvertently 

omitted from printing at time of issuance.) 

3 Although the October 14, 1987 filing is styled an appeal of a September 14, 1987 staff letter requesting 

additional information, it is clearly a late-filed appeal of the effective date of the March 31 order and, as such, 

must be dismissed. We will however treat the filing as a request for clarification. 

4 As to the licensees' assertion that the spilling of water over the dam would wash out a temporary road used in 

the construction of a fish passage facility, we believe that, with proper engineering techniques, the licensees can 

construct the roadway so as to avoid this problem. 



Page 2 of 2 

10/15/2008


COMM-OPINION-ORDER, 46 FERC 61,063, Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Docket No. EL80-38- 

003, The Susquehanna Power Company, Project No. 405-009, (Jan. 24, 1989) 


Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Docket No. EL80-38-003, The Susquehanna Power Company, 


[61,286] 

[61,063] 

Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Docket No. EL80-38-003 

The Susquehanna Power Company, Project No. 405-009 

Order Approving Settlement Agreement and Terminating Proceeding 


Before Commissioners: Martha O. Hesse, Chairman; Charles G. Stalon, Charles A. Trabandt, Elizabeth 

Anne Moler and Jerry J. Langdon. 

On August 26, 1988, the Philadelphia Electric Power Company and the Susquehanna Power Company 

(Conowingo licensees), joint licensees for the Conowingo Project No. 405, filed a proposed uncontested 

settlement agreement executed by all the parties to the above-captioned proceedings. In addition to the 

Conowingo licensees, the agreement was signed by all of the intervenors in these proceedings: the Fish and 

Wildlife Service of the United States Department of the Interior, the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, the Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the Susquehanna 

River Basin Commission, the Upper Chesapeake Watershed Association, Inc., and the Pennsylvania Federation 

of Sportsmen's Clubs. Commission trial staff filed comments in support of the settlement agreement on 

September 15, 1988. On October 3, 1988, the administrative law judge (ALJ) for the proceedings certified the 

offer of settlement to the Commission. As discussed below, we find the settlement agreement to be reasonable 

and in the public interest and therefore are approving it herein. 

Background 

Page 1 of 6 

The background of these proceedings is complex and will not be repeated here. 1 In summary, on August 14, 

1980, the Commission issued new licenses for the Conowingo Project No. 405 and three upstream projects, 2 all 

of which are located on the Susquehanna River, and set for hearing (Docket No. EL80-38 ) the issue of what 

measures, including construction of fish passage facilities and release of permanent minimum flows, were needed 

at the four projects in order to implement an anadromous fish (primarily American Shad) restoration program in 

the Susquehanna River. 3 The license orders, as modified, required studies to be conducted by the licensees of 

the four projects on the maintenance of water quality and establishment of interim minimum flows for the purpose 

of protecting and enhancing fish and wildlife resources. 4 

The licensees for the three upstream projects reached an agreement, dated April 1, 1981, with the intervenors 

regarding interim minimum flows at their projects. However, agreement on interim minimum flows for Project No. 

405 could not be reached, and the Commission, 


10/15/2008


[61,287] 

Page 2 of 6 

on February 3, 1982, ordered a hearing to determine the interim flows for the project. 5 The ALJ's initial decision 

on interim minimum flows for Project No. 405 was issued on June 30, 1982, 6 which was adopted by the 

Commission on August 31, 1982. 7 

The ALJ segregated the issues in Docket No. EL80-38 into two phases. Phase I concerned all the matters 

pertaining to the hearing order, except for the establishment of permanent minimum flows. Phase II concerned the 

establishment of permanent minimum flows. On March 30, 1984, the ALJ issued an initial decision on the hearing 

in Phase II. 8 On March 19, 1986, he issued an initial decision on the hearing in Phase I. 9 All parties and staff 

filed exceptions to both decisions. 

In the interim, the three upstream licensees succeeded in reaching a second agreement with the intervenors, 

which the Commission approved on April 10, 1985. 10 This second agreement releases the upstream licensees 

from maintenance of minimum flows until at least January 1, 1995, absent a prior Commission finding of 

extraordinary events requiring resumption of minimum flows. In return, the upstream licensees agreed to fund, 

and participate with the agencies in, a ten-year anadromous fish restoration demonstration program. The 

demonstration program's purpose is to determine whether anadromous fish can reasonably be restored to the 

Susquehanna River Basin. If the program proves that the fish can be restored, any of the parties to the agreement 

can, between January 2, 1989, and January 1, 1997, request that the Commission order the upstream licensees 

to construct permanent fish passage facilities and take whatever other appropriate actions are required to restore 

anadromous fish to the river. The settlement agreement also provided that, if permanent fish passage facilities are 

installed at Project No. 405, the upstream licensees will undertake a program to transport anadromous fish by 

truck above the furthest upstream dam (York Haven) and attempt to reach agreement with the agencies on the 

design of permanent fish passage facilities at the three projects. 

On January 7, 1987, the Commission issued an order 11 addressing the exceptions to the ALJ's initial Phase I 

and II decisions. With regard to Phase I, the Commission affirmed the ALJ's ruling that the Conowingo licensees 

had to, inter alia, modify an existing fish lift at the Conowingo Dam and install a second lift at the dam. As to the 

Conowingo licensees' participation in the anadromous fish demonstration program, the Commission ordered them 

to truck for release above the York Haven Dam all captured prespawned American shad until at least January 1, 

1997, the last day for any parties to the 1985 settlement agreement to petition the Commission to order 

restoration actions. The Commission stated that the Conowingo licensees' obligation to capture and truck would 

cease on January 1, 1997, if no such petition were filed by that date, but would continue indefinitely until 

otherwise ordered by the Commission, if any such petition were filed by January 1, 1997. 

With regard to Phase II, the Commission modified the ALJ decision and ordered the Conowingo licensees to 

perform a habitat-based study using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) to predict the effects that 

various flow levels would have on fishery resources and to release the previously ordered minimum flows during 

the study period. The Commission indicated that the ALJ would then balance the effects that the various minimum 

flows would have on the fishery against the negative effects these flows would have on the upstream Muddy Run 

Hydroelectric Project No. 2355, licensed to the Philadelphia Electric Power Company, and establish a permanent 

minimum flow for the project. 

By order issued March 31, 1987, 12 the Acting Director, Division of Project Management, approved the results 

of the Conowingo licensees' studies on water quality required by their license. The Director's order also required 

the Conowingo licensees to maintain dissolved oxygen levels in compliance with Maryland state water quality 

standards and to file a plan within three months describing how such standards would be met. On appeal, the 

Commission confirmed that the requirement to comply with state dissolved oxygen standards was to be effective 

immediately. 13 

On June 30, 1987, as supplemented on October 30, 1987, the Conowingo licensees filed their plan describing 


10/15/2008


how they would maintain Maryland state water quality standards below Conowingo Dam. By order issued April 

1, 1988, 14 the Director, Division of Project Compliance 

[61,288] 

and Administration, approved the Conowingo licensees' plan with modifications. 

The Settlement Agreement 

The filed settlement agreement resolves all outstanding issues relating to water quality and Phase I and Phase 

II of the proceedings regarding Project No. 405. The major provisions of the settlement agreement are 

summarized below. 

A. Water Quality 

The Conowingo licensees agree to implement the water quality plan filed by them with the Commission on 

June 29, 1987. Compliance with Maryland state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen (DO) will be 

determined in accordance with a continuous DO monitor which the Conowingo licensees, as soon as practicable 

following Commission approval of the settlement agreement, agree to install at Shure's Landing. The licensees 

also agree to ticable following Commission approval of the consult with the intervenors to develop a mutually 

satisfactory plan for installation and operation of the monitor. They also agree to conduct a study following 

installation to determine the accuracy of the monitor and to relocate the monitor if necessary to ensure accurate 

measurements. 

The Conowingo licensees also agree to install turbine venting systems on the project's turbines in accordance 

with a schedule set out in the agreement, together with a compressed air system at the project intakes, both of 

which are to be used to meet state DO standards if necessary. Operation of the project's four newest generating 

units at less than efficient gate is agreed to if necessary to meet state DO standards. 

The settlement agreement also specifies that, if the above measures are insufficient to meet state DO 

standards, the Conowingo licensees will declare a DO emergency and spill specified flows over the project dam 

under specified conditions. 

B. Phase I 

Page 3 of 6 

The settlement agreement specifies that the Conowingo licensees will consider the possibility of constructing 

permanent fish passage facilities at the project in lieu of a second lift at the dam and modifications to the existing 

lift. According to the settlement agreement, the Conowingo licensees, within ten days from the date the settlement 

agreement is filed with the Commission, will provide the intervenors with written notice of their intent, along with 

preliminary engineering drawings and a cost estimate. If the licensees agree to construct permanent fish passage 

facilities, the settlement agreement specifies that, within 30 days from the date the intervenors find the facilities 

acceptable, the licensees will file with the Commission a timetable for filing the plans and a construction schedule 

for the facilities. Commission approval of the plans prior to construction is required by the settlement agreement. 

15 

The agreement states that, if the issue of permanent fish passage facilities is not resolved to the intervenors' 

satisfaction, the Conowingo licensees will carry out the fish passage measures specified in the Commission's 

January 7, 1987 order in these proceedings. If permanent fish passage facilities are not constructed, the 

licensees agree to make every reasonable effort to have the new fish lift required by the Commission's January 7, 

1987 order operational in a timely manner, but not later than April 15, 1990. The agreement specifies that, if the 

new lift is not fully operational by April 15, 1989, the licensees will contribute $100,000 to the Susquehanna River 


10/15/2008


Anadromous Fish Restoration Committee, and the January 1, 1997 date specified in the Commission's January 

7, 1987 order pertaining to the cessation of the Conowingo licensees' capture and trucking obligations will be 

extended to January 1, 1998. If permanent fish passage facilities are constructed, the Conowingo licensees' 

obligation to capture and truck fish shall terminate when the permanent facilities are completed. 

The agreement also specifies that the Susequehanna River Technical Committee (SRTC) will monitor the 

implementation of the anadromous fish restoration program and that the composition of SRTC and the appeals 

process as to its decisions will be governed by the provisions of the Commission's January 7, 1987 order. 

C. Phase II 

The settlement agreement requires the Conowingo licensees to release specified minimum flows of between 

3,500 and 10,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the project from March 1 to November 30 and to conduct benthic 

population studies during the 1988-1989 and 1989-1990 winter seasons to determine flows necessary for the 

December 1 to February 28 period. Under the agreement, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 

will review the results of the studies, and, if DNR 

[61,289] 

determines that the studies indicate that benthic populations are adversely affected, the licensees will release a 

minimum flow of 3,500 cfs during the December 1 to February 28 period. If DNR determines that such populations 

are not adversely affected, the licensees will conduct additional studies during the 1990-1991 winter season 

under a regime of no minimum flows. If DNR determines on the basis of these additional studies that populations 

are being adversely affected, the licensees will release minimum flows during the December 1 to February 28 

period in an amount agreed to by the intervenors, but not to exceed 3,500 cfs. If DNR determines on the basis of 

the additional studies that populations are not being adversely affected, the licensees will not be required to 

release minimum flows during the December 1 to February 28 period. 

The agreement specifies that the results of the studies conducted by the Conowingo licensees will be filed with 

the Commission. However, it also specifies that, so long as the minimum flow provisions of the settlement 

agreement are met, the licensees do not have to conduct the IFIM study required by the Commission's January 7, 

1987 order. 

Discussion 

We have reviewed the provisions of the filed settlement agreement and believe that its water quality and 

anadromous fish passage facility provisions will ensure the maintenance of water quality in the project area and 

the passage of anadromous fish in the Susquehanna River. Although the licensees would not conduct the IFIM 

study required by our January 7, 1987 order, should the settlement agreement be approved, we believe that the 

minimum flow provisions of the agreement will provide sufficient flows for the passage of anadromous fish. 

However, in order to ensure that the ultimate decision of the intervenors and the licensees regarding the minimum 

flow for the December 1 to February 28 period is appropriate, we reserve the right to review, approve, and order 

changes in the agreed-upon flow. 

Based on our review of the record in this proceeding, we believe that the settlement agreement is reasonable 

and in the public interest and, accordingly, should be approved. 


Page 4 of 6 

(A) The settlement agreement certified to the Commission in these proceedings on October 3, 1988, is 

approved, and its terms and provisions are incorporated into the license for Project No. 405 as if set forth fully in 


10/15/2008


this Ordering Paragraph. 

(B) The Commission reserves the right to review, approve, and order changes in the minimum flow for Project 

No. 405 for the December 1 to February 28 period determined pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 6 of the 

above-referenced settlement agreement. 

(C) The proceedings in Docket No. EL80-38-003 are terminated. 

[61,286] 


1 See our January 7, 1987 order (38 FERC 61,003 (1987)) for a full discussion of the background of these 

proceedings. 

2 The Holtwood Project No. 1025, the Safe Harbor Project No. 1881, and the York Haven Project No. 1888, 

licensed to the Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., the Safe Harbor Water Power Corp., and the York Haven Power 

Co., respectively. 

3 The hearing order was unreported. The license orders were not published in our reports until 1982. See 19 

FERC 61,348 (1982) (Project No. 405); 21 FERC 61,429 (1982) (Project No. 1881); 18 FERC 62,535 (1982) 

(Project No. 1025); and 21 FERC 61,430 (1982) (Project No. 1888). 

4 Orders on rehearing were issued in November 1980. See 13 FERC 61,131 (1980) (Project No. 1025); 13 

FERC 61,132 (1980) (Project No. 405); 13 FERC 61,133 (1980) (Project No. 1888); and 13 FERC 61,145 

(1980) (Project No. 1881). The license for Project No. 405 was clarified on January 11, 1982. See 18 FERC 

61,031 (1982). 

[61,287] 

5 18 FERC 61,090 (1982). 

6 19 FERC 63,099 (1982). 

7 20 FERC 61,273 (1982). 

8 26 FERC 63,111 (1984). 

9 34 FERC 63,097 (1986). 

10 31 FERC 61,038 (1985). 

11 38 FERC 61,003 (1987), reh'g denied, 41 FERC 61,256 (1987), appeal dismissed, No. 88-3059 (3rd Cir. 

August 30, 1988). 

12 38 FERC 62,338 (1987). 

13 41 FERC 61,334 (1987). 

14 43 FERC 62,009 (1988). 

[61,288] 

Page 5 of 6 

15 By letter dated September 6, 1988, the licensees notified the intervenors that they would construct permanent 


10/15/2008


fish passage facilities at the project and that the facilities would cost $12.5 million to construct. Attached to the 

letter were preliminary engineering drawings for the facilities. By letter dated October 14, 1988, the Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources indicated that it was pleased with the licensees' proposal and submitted 

detailed comments on the designs. 



Page 6 of 6 

10/15/2008


OD-ORDER, 73 FERC 62,023, Susquehanna Power Company and Philadelphia Electric Power Co., 

Project No. 405-038 -- Maryland, (Oct. 16, 1995) 


Susquehanna Power Company and Philadelphia Electric Power Co., Project No. 405-038 -- Maryland 

[64,027] 

[62,023] 

Susquehanna Power Company and Philadelphia Electric Power Co., Project No. 405-038 -- Maryland 

Order Approving Temporary Modification of Minimum Flow Release Requirement 

(Issued October 16, 1995) 

J. Mark Robinson, Dir., Division of Project Compliance and Administration. 

Page 1 of 2 

On September, 29, 1995, Susquehanna Power Company and Philadelphia Electric Power Company, licensees 

for the Conowingo Project (FERC Project No. 405), filed a request to temporarily deviate from the required 

minimum flow release at the project during October and November 1995. The minimum flow requirement 

established by the license for this period is 3,500 cubic feet per second (cfs). 1 

The licensees propose this modification to assist the downstream migration of juvenile shad during the current 

low-flow conditions in the Susquehanna River. Studies conducted by the licensees have shown that juvenile shad 

passage and survival are maximized when flow is passed through one of their large new kaplan units during the 

daily peak migration period of 1700 to 2300 hours. However, because of unusually low flows this year, these 

release flows and the continuous minimum flows can not both be made without drafting the project's reservoir. 

The licensees propose to release the 9,000 cfs fish flows during the 1700 to 2300 hours period. This would be 

followed by short periods of shutdown of flow release, to allow the reservoir to refill. The exact nature of the flow 

modification would be dependent on the particular river flow for a given day. The licensees would consult with the 

Maryland Department of Natural resources (MDNR) to determine specific acceptable minimum flow adjustments. 

The licensees consulted with the appropriate resource agencies in the development of this plan. By letters 

dated February 28, 1995 and September 21, 1995, the interagency Susquehanna River Technical Committee and 

the MDNR, respectively, expressed concurrence with the proposed strategy. 

The proposed minimum flow modifications are intended to improve the outmigration and survival of juvenile 

shad at the project. The licensees have developed the proposed modifications in consultation with the resource 

agencies, who support the modifications. Although the minimum flow release at the powerhouse would be 

stopped for brief periods, leakage of about 750 cfs would still occur at the dam to protect downstream aquatic 

resources. The flow release requirements would return to normal after the migration season ends or when river 

flows rise. The proposed modifications are in the public interest and should not result in any adverse 

environmental impacts. Consequently, the licensees' request should be approved. 


10/15/2008


The Director Orders: 

(A) The licensees' September 29, 1995 request to temporarily modify minimum flow releases at the project 

during October and November 1995, is approved. 

(B) This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 

days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. §385.713 . 

[64,027] 

1 69 FERC 62,200 (issued December 8, 1994). 




Page 2 of 2 

10/15/2008


OD-ORDER, 83 FERC 62,014, Susquehanna Power Company and Philadelphia Electric Power Company, 

Project Nos. 405-039 and 405-040, (Apr. 06, 1998) 


Susquehanna Power Company and Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Project Nos. 405-039 and 405- 

040 

[64,011] 

[62,014] 

Susquehanna Power Company and Philadelphia Electric Power Company, Project Nos. 405-039 and 405- 

040 

Order Amending License and Approving Revised Exhibits L and M 


Carol L. Sampson, Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing. 

Susquehanna Power Company, licensee for the Conowingo Project, FERC Project No. 405, submitted an 

application to amend their license on January 2, 1996. Supplemental information was filed on January 16, 1996 

and June 12, 1997. The Conowingo Project is located on the Susquehanna River in Harford and Cecil Counties in 

Maryland, and York and Lancaster Counties in Pennsylvania. 

Background 

In orders dated May 17, 1995 and May 15, 1996, the Commission approved the sale and transfer of a portion 

of the Conowingo Project transmission facilities to the Delmarva Power & Light Company (Delmarva). 1 On 

January 2, 1996, the licensee filed an application to amend its license to exclude reference to facilities transferred 

to Delmarva. Supplemental information was filed on January 16, 1996. Commission staff requested additional 

information in several phone conversations with the licensee. Revised Exhibits L and M were filed with the 

Commission on June 12, 1997. 

Review 

A. Transmission Facilities 

The revised Exhibits L and M reflect, among other things, the transfer of a portion of the transmission facilities 

to Delmarva. The revised Exhibit M describes the change in ownership of a portion of the project's 34 kilovolt 

[64,012] 

Page 1 of 3 

(kV) transmission lines identified as the Colora 341 and Susquehanna 341 circuits, or, collectively, the 341 

circuits. The revised Exhibits L and M delete references to the 341 circuits and clarify references to other 

transmission facilities. This order amends the Conowingo Project description to update references to transmission 


10/15/2008


facilities. 

B. Project Features 

The Exhibit L drawings were also updated to show the completion of the following previously approved project 

features: the East Fish Passage Facility, 2 recreational facilities including the swimming pool complex, 3 and the 

visitors center and administration building. 4 

In addition, Exhibits L and M were updated to depict the post-tensioned anchorage system approved in the 

Conowingo Project license. Exhibits L-11 through L-17 were updated to reflect the anchorage system depicted on 

a previously approved Exhibit L-2 drawing. 5 The exhibits conform to the Commission's rules and regulations and 

are approved by this order. To facilitate staff review, the revised Exhibit M filed by the licensee distinguished 

changes from the previously approved Exhibit M with bold-face type. This order requires submittal of an original 

and eight copies of the revised Exhibit M, with the bold-face type removed, for the Commission's records. 

The Director orders: 

(A) The license for the Conowingo Project, FERC Project No. 405, is amended as provided by this order. 

(B) The Exhibit M, filed on June 12, 1997, is approved and made part of the license, superseding the previous 

Exhibit M. 

(C) Within 90 days of the date of issuance of this order, the licensee shall file an original and eight copies of the 

approved Exhibit M with the bold-face type removed. 

(D) Ordering Paragraph (B)(ii) of the license is revised, in part, to read as follows: 

. . . (9) two 34-kV transmission lines, referred to as the Susquehanna 351 circuit and the Conowingo-Peach 

Bottom 191-000 line, the 13.8-kV generator leads, two 13.2/36-kV step-up transformers, the 33-kV bus and 

other transmission equipment, and . . . 

(E) The following exhibits, filed on June 12, 1997, are approved and made part of the license: 

SUPERSEDED/ 

EXHIBIT FERC NO. TITLE DELETED 

------- -------- ----- ------- 

L-1 405-250 Plan of Development 405-74 

L-2 405-251 General Plan and Sections of Dam 405-207 

L-3 405-252 General Plan and Sections of Spillway 405-208 

L-4 405-253 Plan and Sections; Railroad Dike 405-209 

L-5 405-254 Power Station; General Plan; sheet 1 405-57 



L-8 405-257 Power Station; Sectional Elevation; sheet 1 405-60 



L-11 405-260 Power Station; Cross Section; Unit No. 4 405-210 


Page 2 of 3 

10/15/2008



L-13 405-262 220-kV Transmission Line R/W; showing towers 405-65 

220-kV Transmission Line; Susquehanna River 

L-14 405-263 crossing 405-66 



L-17 405-266 Power Station; East End Elevation 405-214 

General Plan and Sections of Dam; Fish Passage 

L-18 405-267 Facility -- 

(F) Within 90 days of the date of issuance of this order, the licensee shall file three aperture cards of the 

approved drawings. The aperture cards should be reproduced on silver or gelatin 35-mm microfilm. All microfilm 

should be mounted on Type D (31/4" x 73/8") aperture cards. 

[64,013] 

Prior to microfilming, the FERC Drawing Number (i.e., 405-250 thru 405-267), shall be shown in the margin 

below the title block of the approved drawing. After mounting, the FERC Drawing Number should be typed in the 

upper right corner of each aperture card. Additionally, the Project Number, FERC Exhibit (i.e., L-1 thru L-18), 

Drawing Title, and date of this order should be typed in the upper left corner of each aperture card. See Figure 1. 

Two aperture cards should be filed with the Secretary of the Commission. The third aperture card should be 

filed with the Commission's New York Regional Office. 

(G) This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 

30 days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. §385.713 . 

[64,011] 


1 71 FERC 61,160 , Order Approving Merger and Sale of Jurisdictional Facilities, Docket No. EC95-3-000 , May 

17, 1995, and 75 FERC 62,117 , Order Authorizing Transfer of Jurisdictional Facilities, Docket No. EC96-9-000 , 

May 15, 1996. 

[64,012] 

2 50 FERC 62,209 , Order Approving Functional Design Drawings and Construction Schedule, March 23, 1990. 

3 31 FERC 62,267, Order Approving Amendment to the Exhibit R, May 31, 1985. 

4 19 FERC 61,348 , Order Issuing New Major License, August 14, 1980. 

5 20 FERC 62,010, Order Amending License, July 6, 1982. 



Page 3 of 3 

10/15/2008


COMM-OPINION-ORDER, 86 FERC 61,095, Susquehanna Power Company and PECO Energy Power 

Company, Project No. 405-043, (Feb. 01, 1999) 


Susquehanna Power Company and PECO Energy Power Company, Project No. 405-043 

[61,341] 

[61,095] 

Susquehanna Power Company and PECO Energy Power Company, Project No. 405-043 

Order Dismissing Petition for Declaratory Order 

(Issued February 1, 1999) 

Before Commissioners: James J. Hoecker, Chairman; Vicky A. Bailey, William L. Massey, Linda Breathitt, 

and Curt Hébert, Jr. 

The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland (City), have filed a petition for a declaratory order with 

respect to the Commission's authority over reservoir pool levels and instream flow requirements at the Conowingo 

Project No. 405. The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (Susquehanna Commission) 1 and the Conowingo 

licensees oppose the City's petition. For the reasons discussed below, we are dismissing the City's petition. 

Background 

Page 1 of 5 

The Conowingo Project is located on the Susquehanna River in Maryland and Pennsylvania. It is the 

lowermost hydroelectric project on the river. The project reservoir supplies water to the City and to the Chester 

Water Authority. 2 It also serves as the lower reservoir for the 800-megawatt (MW) Muddy Run Pumped Storage 

Project No. 2355 3 and as a source of processing, service, and condenser cooling water for the 2,170-MW Peach 

Bottom Nuclear Generating Station. 4 

The Conowingo Project was originally licensed in 1926. Prior to that time, the City entered into a Memorandum 

of Understanding with Susquehanna Power Company and the predecessor in interest to Philadelphia Electric 5 

providing for municipal water supply withdrawals from the project reservoir. Water withdrawals did not begin until 

the 1960s. In 1960, the licensees and the City executed an agreement (the 1960 Agreement) which granted the 

City the right to construct an intake facility and to withdraw water from the reservoir and established a 

compensation schedule. 6 The City constructed the necessary intake and pipeline and has been diverting water 

from the reservoir since that time. 

In 1980, the Commission issued new licenses for the Conowingo Project 7 and three upstream projects 8 on 

the Susquehanna River. The Conowingo license order recognized the City's diversion of water from the 

Conowingo reservoir, 9 and discussed the relationship between this Commission's responsibilities and those of 

the Susquehanna Commission, established in 1970, 10 concerning water allocation and withdrawals. 11 The 

license order also set for hearing the issue of what measures, including fish passage 


10/15/2008


[61,342] 

and minimum flows, were needed at the four projects to implement an anadromous fish restoration program in the 

Susquehanna River. 

In 1981, the licensees and the City executed a supplement to their 1960 Agreement which provides for the City 

to withdraw up to 250 million gallons of water per day from the Conowingo reservoir. 12 The licensees then filed 

an application on the City's behalf for FERC approval of these additional water withdrawals. The Susquehanna 

Commission did not oppose the application, which was approved by the Commission in 1984. 13 That order found 

that the withdrawals were likely to have only a de minimis effect on Conowingo pool levels. 

In 1989, the Commission approved a settlement agreement 14 that resolved the fish passage and minimum 

flow issues that had been set for hearing in 1980, and amended the Conowingo license accordingly. 15 

In early 1998, the Susquehanna Commission commenced a review of its jurisdiction over the City's current and 

potential future withdrawals from Conowingo. 16 On May 12, 1998, the City filed its petition for declaratory order. 

The City requests that we find that this Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over pool elevations and minimum 

flow releases at Conowingo, and that the licensees are required to comply with all orders of this Commission. 

Notice of the City's petition was published in the Federal Register, 17 with responses due by July 27, 1998. 

Timely motions to intervene and protests were filed by the licensees, PECO, and Susquehanna Electric Company 

(SECO) (all three hereafter referred to jointly as the PECO Companies), 18 the Susquehanna Commission, and 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection (Pennsylvania). 19 

Discussion 

The Commission's regulations permit persons to file a petition for a declaratory order for the purpose of 

terminating a controversy or removing uncertainty. 20 The City asserts that there is a controversy over the 

Commission's jurisdiction to establish pool elevations and minimum flows at Conowingo, in that the Susquehanna 

Commission's review of its jurisdiction over the City's water withdrawals is a collateral attack on the finding in our 

1984 order that the City's withdrawals from Conowingo will have a de minimis effect on pool levels. The apparent 

basis for this assertion is that the licensees have argued in the Susquehanna Commission's proceeding that 

existing and potential future withdrawals may adversely affect operation of the Conowingo and Muddy Run 

Projects. 

The Susquehanna Commission responds that the City is attempting to avoid that Commission's jurisdiction 

over the City's water withdrawals and its jurisdictional determinations concerning future projects which, if 

undertaken by the City, would require Susquehanna Commission approval. 21 The Susquehanna Commission 

contends that, as a federal interstate agency operating under a compact adopted by Congress in a federal law (as 

opposed to an interstate compact approved by the Congress), the Susquehanna Commission's regulation of 

municipal water withdrawals is neither preempted by nor in conflict with this Commission's regulation of 

Conowingo under the Federal Power Act. It asserts, moreover, that issues concerning its jurisdiction should be 

heard in United States District Court, not at the Commission. 

The PECO Companies assert that there is nothing in the license order or the 1984 order approving water 

withdrawals which purports to limit the Susquehanna Commission's jurisdiction, 

[61,343] 

Page 2 of 5 

this Commission is not barred from amending the license in light of changes in circumstances during the license 


10/15/2008


term, and that the Licensees, by furnishing information to the Susquehanna Commission, have done nothing to 

violate the terms of the license. 

The Department asserts that allocation of water and diversions of water from the Susquehanna River are 

matters within the Susquehanna Commission's jurisdiction, that this Commission has previously recognized that 

such diversions require the permission of the Susquehanna Commission, and that the proper forum for the City's 

dispute is the Federal District Court. 

As stated above, we previously explained the relation between this Commission's responsibilities and those of 

the Susquehanna Commission in the Conowingo license order. We there stated: 22 

No right to allocate the flow of the stream is conferred by this or any FERC license. Should any entity wish to 

use the project reservoir or other project properties for the purpose of withdrawing water from the reservoir for 

municipal purposes, that entity would first obtain permission for that allocation of water from the [Susquehanna 

Commission]. The Commission, having reserved the authority to direct the licensee to permit reasonable joint 

use of project property, would not act to approve such joint use until [the Susquehanna Commission] had acted 

on the third party's allocation request indicating its judgement of the compatibility of the joint use proposal with 

its comprehensive plan. 

No entity has challenged this statement. The Licensee's factual assertions in proceedings before the 

Susquehanna Commission concerning the effects of the City's water withdrawals on project operations have no 

bearing on the Commission's prior orders in this regard, let alone our jurisdiction. Factual conclusions made at 

any point in time are always subject to review during the term of the license in light of current circumstances. 

Moreover, there is no application before the Commission to amend the Conowingo license with respect to the 

City's water diversions or that seeks to revise the pool elevation and minimum flow release requirements. The City 

has not even asserted that the Licensees have taken or propose to take any measures under the license that 

would violate its terms or impair the City's ability to operate its diversion facility. Thus, we conclude that the City 

has not established that there is a controversy or uncertainty with respect to this Commission's jurisdiction 

requiring resolution. 

We also conclude that issues concerning the validity of the Susquehanna Commission's jurisdictional 

determinations are appropriately heard in United States District Court. Section 2(o) of the Federal Reservation to 

the Compact provides ". . . the United States District Court shall have original jurisdiction to all cases or 

controversies arising under the Compact. . . ." 23 The City and the Susquehanna Commission are currently 

engaged in such litigation to resolve this matter. 24 

For these reasons we will dismiss the City's petition. 


The City of Baltimore's May 12, 1998 petition for declaratory order is dismissed. 

[61,341] 


Page 3 of 5 

1 The Susquehanna Commission was created by the Susquehanna River Basin Compact, Pub. L. No. 91-575, 84 

Stat. 1509 (1970). The Compact is a Federal interstate agreement among Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, 

and the United States. 


10/15/2008


2 Chester Water Authority provides water to parts of Chester and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania, and New 

Castle County, Delaware. 

3 Muddy Run is operated under a license issued to Susquehanna Power Company and Philadelphia Electric 

Power Company (Philadelphia Electric). 32 FPC 826 (1964). In 1994, Philadelphia Electric changed its name to 

PECO Energy Power Company. 

4 PECO Energy Company (PECO), the parent corporation of the licensees, has a 42.495 percent ownership 

interest in Peach Bottom and serves as the project operator. 

5 Susquehanna Water Power Company. 

6 The 1960 agreement was submitted to the Federal Power Commission for approval. An August 9, 1960 letter 

from the Commission's General Counsel to Susquehanna Power Company in response stated that the 

Commission had no objection to the use of the project properties and the withdrawal of water for municipal 

purposes pursuant to the agreement. 

7 Susquehanna Power Company and Philadelphia Electric Power Company, 19 FERC 61,348 (1980), order on 

reh'g, 13 FERC 61,132 (1980). (The Conowingo license order was not published until two years after its 

issuance, hence the earlier FERC cite for the rehearing.) 

8 Pennsylvania Power & Light Company's Holtwood Project No. 1025; Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation's 

Safe Harbor Project No. 1881; and York Haven Power Company's York Haven Project No. 1888. 

9 19 FERC at p. 61,685 . 

10 See n.1, supra. 

11 19 FERC at pp. 61,685 -86, reh'g denied, 13 FERC 61,132, at p. 61,269 (1980). 

[61,342] 

12 250 million gallons per day is about 390 cubic feet per second (cfs). When the current Conowingo license was 

issued, the City was withdrawing about 230 cfs. 

13 Susquehanna Power Company and Philadelphia Electric Company, 26 FERC 62,008 (1984). 

14 Exhibit 1 to City's petition. 

15 Philadelphia Electric Power Company and the Susquehanna Power Company, 46 FERC 61,063 (1989). The 

settlement was executed by representatives of the licensees, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources, 

Susquehanna Commission, and others. Baltimore did not intervene in these proceedings. 

16 Susquehanna Commission Answer at pp. 7-9 and Exhibits 1-7. 

17 63 Fed. Reg. 34,645 (June 25, 1998). 

18 PECO is the parent corporation of Susquehanna Power and PECO Energy (the licensees), and SECO 

operates Conowingo pursuant to a lease arrangement with the licensees. 

19 On August 10, 1998, the City filed a motion for leave to answer and an answer to the motions to intervene and 

protest. On August 20, 1998, Susquehanna Commission filed an answer opposing the motion. Rule 213(a)(2) of 

our Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. §385.213 (a)(2), prohibits an answer to a protest unless otherwise 

ordered by the decisional authority. The City has not persuaded us to allow their answer, which we will therefore 

reject. 

20 18 C.F.R. §385.207 (2). 


Page 4 of 5 

10/15/2008


21 Section 1.2-7 of the Compact defines a "project" as "any work, service, or activity which is . . . undertaken by 

the commission or otherwise within a specified area, for the conservation, utilization, control, development, or 

management of water resources. . . ." 

[61,343] 

22 19 FERC at p. 61,686 . A further explanation of the Commission's administration of the "joint use" article, under 

which approval is sought for specified non-project uses of project lands and waters, is found in Alabama Power 

Company, 74 FERC 61,157 (1996), reh'g denied, 75 FERC 61,025 (1996). 

23 Section 2(o), Pub. L. No. 91-575. 

24 Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland v. Susquehanna River Basin Commission, U.S. District Court 

for the District of Maryland, Civil Action No. WMN-98-3135 (filed September 16, 1998). The Susquehanna 

Commission filed an answer to the City's complaint and a motion seeking to have the court resolve the City's 

complaint on the basis of the administrative record. That motion is pending. 



Page 5 of 5 

10/15/2008


DOC, 109 FERC 62,067, PECO Energy Power Company and Susquehanna Power Company, Project No. 

405-060 November 03, 2004 


PECO Energy Power Company and Susquehanna Power Company, Project No. 405-060 

[64,122] 

[62,067] 

PECO Energy Power Company and Susquehanna Power Company, Project No. 405-060 

Order Amending License 

(Issued November 03, 2004) 

Mohamad Fayyad, Engineering Team Lead, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance. 

On September 1, 2004, PECO Energy Power Company and Susquehanna Power Company, licensees for the 

Conowingo Project, FERC Project No. 405 1 filed an application to amend their license. The licensees are 

requesting Commission approval to delete 10.3 miles of non-jurisdictional transmission lines and associated 

rights-of-way from the project's license. The project is located on the Susquehanna River, and covers parts of 

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

Background 

Pursuant to Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission licenses "dams, water conduits, 

reservoirs, powerhouses, transmission lines, or other project works necessary or convenient for .....the 

development, transmission, and utilization of power..." 2 FPA Section 3(11) 3 defines a "project" as including "the 

primary line or lines transmitting power therefrom to the point of junction with the distribution system or with the 

interconnected primary transmission system." 

The license for the Conowingo Project includes two 220-kV transmission lines extending a distance of 

approximately 10.3 miles from the project substation to East Nottingham Township in Chester County, 

Pennsylvania, where they meet facilities owned by PECO Energy Company. The licensees propose to remove 

the lines from the project because they no longer serve exclusively to transmit power from the project, but are 

used to transmit power from both project and non-project sources. 

Review 

Transmission Facilities 

Page 1 of 3 

The test applied by the Commission to define what a "primary transmission line" is for FPA Part I purposes is 

that primary lines are: 

those necessary to ensure the "viability" of the project in the event of Federal takeover. If a line "is used solely 

to transmit power from [Commission] licensed projects to load centers, and if, without it "there would be no way to 

market the full capacity of the project, then that line is a primary to the project.... 4 


10/15/2008


A public notice of the licensee's proposal to remove the transmission lines from the license was issued on 

September 16, 2004. No comments were received. 

In our review of the Exhibit M for the Conowingo project's license, and the one-line diagram submitted along 

with the amendment application, we found that the transmission lines consist of two 220-kV, 3 phase circuits 

parallel to each other extending from the project's switching station to East Nottingham Township in Chester 

County, Pennsylvania. 

When the project does not generate power, the lines and switching facilities remain energized with power 

coming off the interstate grid at East Nottingham and Colora and flowing through the project's 220-kV switching 

station and back to the grid. The lines provide non-project energy to supply customer demand located beyond the 

project. Based on our review, we conclude that the subject two 220-kV transmission lines are no longer primary 

lines for the project; these lines are part of PECO transmission system. Accordingly, the two transmission lines 

and associated rights-of-way will be deleted from the license. 

Revised Exhibits 

With the deletion of the transmission lines from the project's license the project's boundary and other exhibit 

drawings need to be revised. Our review of the active exhibit drawings for the project found that Exhibit K-37, 

FERC drawing No. 405-200 needs to be revised. Ordering Paragraph (C) of this order requires the licensee to 

submit revised Exhibit M and Exhibit K-37 drawing for Commission approval. The revised Exhibit K-37 drawing 

should be in accordance with the Commission's regulations at 18 C.F.R. §§4.39 and 4.41 . Also, all other Exhibit 

K drawings under the license should be revised to be consistent with the format of the revised K-37 drawing. 

[64,123] 

The Director orders 

(A) PECO Energy Power Company and Susquehanna Power Company's application to amend the license for 

the Conowingo Project, FERC Project No. 405, to remove the transmission facilities from the project's license filed 

on September 1, 2004, is approved. 

(B) Item 8 in Paragraph 1 of Ordering Paragraph (B)(ii) of the license referencing the two 220-kV transmission 

lines is deleted, and item (9) is revised to read as follows: 

...(9) the 13.8-kV generator leads, 13.8/220-kV step-up transformers. 

(C) Within 90 days of issuance of this order, the licensee shall file for Commission approval, revised Exhibit M 

and Exhibit K drawings to reflect the deletion of the two transmission lines from the license. The drawings must 

contain a minimum of three known reference points. The latitude and longitude coordinates or plane coordinates 

of each reference point must be shown. 

(D) This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the commission may be filed within 30 

days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. §385.713. 

1 19 FERC 61,348 Order Issuing New Major License , issued August 14, 1980. 

2 16 U.S.C. §797(e). 

3 16 U.S.C. §796(11). 

Page 2 of 3 

4 See Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 85 FERC 61,411, at p. 62,559 (1998) and the orders cited therein. 


10/15/2008




Page 3 of 3 

10/15/2008


OD-ORDER, 111 FERC 62,035, Susquehanna Power Company and PEPCO Energy Power Company, 

Project No. 405-061 April 8, 2005 


Susquehanna Power Company and PEPCO Energy Power Company, Project No. 405-061 

[64,056] 

[62,035] 

Susquehanna Power Company and PEPCO Energy Power Company, Project No. 405-061 

Order Approving Change in Land Rights and Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters 


John E. Estep, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance. 

On November 2, 2004, Susquehanna Power Company and PEPCO Energy Power Company (licensees), filed 

an application requesting the Commission to authorize the lease of 85 acres of project land located within the 

Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 405, boundary to Cecil County, Maryland. This project is 

located on the Susquehanna River in Maryland and Pennsylvania. 

Licensees' Request 

Specifically, the licensees have requested the Commission to authorize the lease of 85 acres of project land to 

Cecil County for the purpose of incorporating the land into the Lower Susque 

[64,057] 

hanna River Heritage Greenway (LSRHG). 1 The County proposes to construct a recreational trail and provide for 

other passive recreation uses on the leased land. Included in the filing are drawings that depict the location of the 

land to be leased in relation to the project boundary. The proposed leased land is linear and parallels the project 

shoreline. The trail could potentially be three miles in length and connect with other trails in the future. 

The licensees state the proposal is consistent with the project's Comprehensive Recreation Master Plan and 

other local planning efforts. The proposed lease includes covenants that ensure consistency with project 

purposes and operation as required in Article 38 of the project license. 

Consultation and Comments 

Prior to filing the application, the licensees consulted with Federal, state, and local government agencies with 

regard to this proposal. By letter dated August 11, 2004 the licensees sent a copy of the subject filing to the: 

National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Department of the Environment, Maryland Department of State 

Planning, Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Commission, Maryland Historic Trust, Cecil County Board of Planning 

Commission and others. The following table identifies the agencies and other entities that commented on the 

proposal. 

Comments received on the proposal during agency consultation 


Page 1 of 3 

10/15/2008


Consulted Agency Date of Letter 

State of Maryland Critical Area Commission, 

Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays (CAC) August 30, 2004 

Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) September 23, 2004 

Harford County Government, Department of 

Planning and Zoning (HCDPZ) August 13, 2004 

Harford County Government, Department of Parks 

and Recreation (HCDPR) August 16, 2004 

The CAC states that it has no comments regarding the proposed lease at this time. The CAC also states that it 

may have comments about the proposed trail and other recreational uses at a later date. The CAC indicates that 

portions of the proposed lease are located within the Maryland Critical Area. 2 

The MDP states that the State Clearinghouse has coordinated an inter-governmental review of the proposal 

and has determined that the proposal is "consistent with known State, and local plans, programs, and objectives." 

It further states that the Maryland Historic Trust has determined that the proposed action will have no effect on 

historic resources. 

The HCDPZ states that the proposed trail would "provide a vital link in connecting the Heritage Area and will 

benefit residents of the region as well as visitors." Further, it states that development of the trails network as part 

of the LSRHG is consistent with Hartford County's "2004 Master Plan and Land Use Element Plan." 

The MDPR states that it supports the proposal and reiterates the points made by the HCDPZ, adding that both 

Hartford and Cecil Counties benefit from the Greenway. 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

The proposed land lease and recreational use trail are consistent with the project's Comprehensive Recreation 

Master Plan. The proposed action will complement other regional land uses designed to benefit the public. In 

addition, the licensees propose to retain land rights necessary to accomplish all project purposes. 

This proposal is also consistent with §2.7 of the Commission's regulations which encourages cooperative 

efforts between the licensees and Federal, state, and local entities to provide needed recreation facilities and 

uses on project lands and waters. The proposed lease of 85 acres is in the interest of the public and will add to 

public enjoyment of the project and waters. Therefore, the proposed lease of 85 acres for the stated purposes 

should be approved. 

The Director orders: 

(A) The licensees' November 2, 2004 filing, which requests Commission authorization to lease 85 acres of 

project land to Cecil County, Maryland, is approved. 

(B) This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may 

[64,058] 


Page 2 of 3 

10/15/2008


be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. §385.713. 

1 The lease would be between the Susquehanna Electric Company (lessee of the Susquehanna Power 

Company) and the Commissioners of Cecil County. 

2 In 1984, the Maryland General Assembly enacted the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act. The Act required the 16 

counties, Baltimore City, and 44 municipalities surrounding the Bay to implement a land use and resource 

management program designed to mitigate the damaging impact of water pollution and loss of natural habitat, 

while also accommodating future growth. The Critical Area Act recognizes that the land immediately surrounding 

the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries has the greatest potential to affect water quality and wildlife habitat and 

thus designated all lands within 1,000 feet of tidal waters or adjacent tidal wetlands as the "Critical Area." 



Page 3 of 3 

10/15/2008

PAD Conowingo Hydroelectric Project - Exelon Corporation

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?