FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION Volume II of V (Public) - Eagle ...

FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION

Volume II of V (Public) Exhibit E

Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects: Swinging Bridge Hydroelectric Project (No. 10482) Mongaup Falls Hydroelectric Project (No. 10481) Rio Hydroelectric Project (No. 9690)

March 2020

Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects Final License Application

i

Contents Exhibit E Environmental Report (18 CFR §5.18) ......................................................................................... E-1

E.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. E-1 E.2 General Description of the River Basin (18 CFR §5.18(b)(1)) ....................................................... E-4

E.2.1 River Basin Overview ...................................................................................................... E-4 E.2.1.1 Drainage Area and Length of River ................................................................ E-4

E.2.2 Tributary Rivers and Streams ......................................................................................... E-6 E.2.3 Topography .................................................................................................................... E-6 E.2.4 Climate ........................................................................................................................... E-8 E.2.5 Major Land and Water Uses ........................................................................................... E-8

E.2.5.1 Major Land Uses ............................................................................................ E-8 E.2.5.2 Major Water Uses ........................................................................................ E-10

E.2.6 Economic Activities ...................................................................................................... E-10 E.2.7 Dams and Diversions within the Basin ......................................................................... E-10

E.3 Cumulative Effects (18 CFR §5.18(b)(2)) ..................................................................................... E-12 E.3.1 Resources That Could Be Cumulatively Affected ......................................................... E-12 E.3.2 Geographic Scope ......................................................................................................... E-12 E.3.3 Temporal Scope ............................................................................................................ E-12

E.4 Compliance with Applicable Laws (18 CFR §5.18(b)(3)) ............................................................. E-12 E.4.1 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act ............................................................................. E-13 E.4.2 Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................... E-13 E.4.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ................................ E-13 E.4.4 Coastal Zone Management Act .................................................................................... E-13 E.4.5 National Historic Preservation Act ............................................................................... E-14 E.4.6 Wild and Scenic Rivers and Wilderness Act ................................................................. E-14

E.5 Project Facilities and Operation (18 CFR §5.18(b)(4)) ................................................................ E-14 E.5.1 Maps of Project Facilities within Project Boundaries ................................................... E-14 E.5.2 Project Facilities ........................................................................................................... E-14

E.5.2.1 Dams and Spillways ...................................................................................... E-15 E.5.2.2 Intakes .......................................................................................................... E-18 E.5.2.3 Powerhouses ................................................................................................ E-20 E.5.2.4 Tailraces ....................................................................................................... E-21 E.5.2.5 Appurtenant Equipment .............................................................................. E-22

E.5.3 Project Waters .............................................................................................................. E-23 E.5.4 Turbine and Generator Specifications .......................................................................... E-23 E.5.5 Dependable Capacity and Average Annual Energy Production ................................... E-25 E.5.6 Project Operations ....................................................................................................... E-26

E.5.6.1 Current Project Operations .......................................................................... E-26 E.5.6.2 Proposed Project Operations ....................................................................... E-31

E.6 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives (18 CFR §5.18(b)(5))................................................. E-31 E.6.1 Summary of Existing Measures .................................................................................... E-31 E.6.2 Summary of Proposed Measures ................................................................................. E-32

E.7 Environmental Analysis by Resource Area ................................................................................. E-34 E.7.1 Geological and Soil Resources ...................................................................................... E-35

E.7.1.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................. E-35 E.7.1.1.1 Geology ................................................................................ E-35 E.7.1.1.2 Soils ...................................................................................... E-37 E.7.1.1.3 Shoreline and Streambanks ................................................. E-42

E.7.1.2 Environmental Analysis ................................................................................ E-44 E.7.1.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ............................................................. E-45


ii

E.7.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ..................................................................... E-45 E.7.2 Water Resources .......................................................................................................... E-46

E.7.2.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................. E-46 E.7.2.1.1 Water Quantity .................................................................... E-46 E.7.2.1.2 Water Quality ....................................................................... E-52

E.7.2.2 Environmental Analysis ................................................................................ E-67 E.7.2.2.1 Water Quantity .................................................................... E-67 E.7.2.2.2 Water Quality ....................................................................... E-69

E.7.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ............................................................. E-71 E.7.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ..................................................................... E-72

E.7.3 Aquatic Resources ........................................................................................................ E-72 E.7.3.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................. E-72

E.7.3.1.1 Aquatic Habitat .................................................................... E-73 E.7.3.1.2 Essential Fish Habitat ........................................................... E-83 E.7.3.1.3 Fish Community ................................................................... E-83 E.7.3.1.4 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates .............................................. E-129 E.7.3.1.5 Freshwater Mussels ........................................................... E-148

E.7.3.2 Environmental Analysis .............................................................................. E-151 E.7.3.2.1 Aquatic Habitat .................................................................. E-152 E.7.3.2.2 Fish Community, Passage, and Protection ......................... E-154 E.7.3.2.3 Macroinvertebrate and Mussels ........................................ E-168

E.7.3.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ........................................................... E-169 E.7.3.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................................... E-170

E.7.4 Terrestrial Resources .................................................................................................. E-171 E.7.4.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................ E-171

E.7.4.1.1 Wildlife ............................................................................... E-171 E.7.4.1.2 Botanical Resources ........................................................... E-178 E.7.4.1.3 Invasive Plant Species ........................................................ E-181 E.7.4.1.4 Wetland, Riparian, and Littoral Habitats ............................ E-183

E.7.4.2 Environmental Analysis .............................................................................. E-189 E.7.4.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ........................................................... E-189 E.7.4.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................................... E-190

E.7.5 Rare, Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species ............................................. E-190 E.7.5.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................ E-190

E.7.5.1.1 Federal-listed Species......................................................... E-194 E.7.5.1.2 State-listed Species ............................................................ E-198


E.7.6 Recreation and Land Use ............................................................................................ E-201 E.7.6.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................ E-201

E.7.6.1.1 Recreation .......................................................................... E-201 E.7.6.1.2 Land Use ............................................................................. E-215

E.7.6.2 Environmental Analysis .............................................................................. E-216 E.7.6.2.1 Recreation .......................................................................... E-217 E.7.6.2.2 Land Use ............................................................................. E-226


E.7.7 Aesthetic Resources ................................................................................................... E-229 E.7.7.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................ E-229 E.7.7.2 Environmental Analysis .............................................................................. E-232


iii


E.7.8 Socioeconomic Resources .......................................................................................... E-233 E.7.8.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................ E-233 E.7.8.2 Environmental Analysis .............................................................................. E-234 E.7.8.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ........................................................... E-234 E.7.8.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................................... E-234

E.7.9 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... E-235 E.7.9.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................ E-236

E.7.9.1.1 Area of Potential Effects .................................................... E-236 E.7.9.1.2 Cultural Context ................................................................. E-236 E.7.9.1.3 Cultural Resources Studies ................................................. E-241 E.7.9.1.4 Traditional Cultural Properties ........................................... E-244


E.8 Economic Analysis (18 CFR§5.18(b)(5)(ii)(E)) ........................................................................... E-246 E.8.1 Current Annual Value of the Developmental Resource ............................................. E-246 E.8.2 Current Annual Cost of Operations, Maintenance, and Administration

of the Project .............................................................................................................. E-246 E.8.3 Estimated Annual Costs of Proposed Resource Protection, Mitigation, and

Enhancement Measures ............................................................................................. E-247 E.8.3.1 Resource Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures Proposed

by Agencies, Native American Tribes, and Members of the Public ........... E-250 E.8.4 Reduction in the Value of the Developmental Resource ........................................... E-253

E.9 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans (18 CFR §5.18(b)(5)(ii)(F)) ......................................... E-253 E.10 Consultation Documentation (18 CFR§5.18(b)(5)(ii)(G)) .......................................................... E-257 E.11 Literature Cited (18 CFR§5.18(b)(5)(ii)(H)) ............................................................................... E-257

Appendices Appendix A – Reservoir Mesohabitat Maps Appendix B – Stream Reach Mesohabitat Maps Appendix C – Photographs of Toronto East Access Area

List of Tables Table E.2-1 Drainage Area of Projects’ Dams and Nearby USGS Gages ................................................... E-4 Table E.2-2 Climate Data in the Vicinity of the Projects ........................................................................... E-8 Table E.2-3 Approximate Land Cover Classifications and Corresponding Percent Cover in the

Mongaup River Basin ............................................................................................................ E-8 Table E.5-1 Summary of Transmission Lines .......................................................................................... E-22 Table E.5-2 Summary of Service Lines .................................................................................................... E-22 Table E.5-3 Reservoir Characteristics ..................................................................................................... E-23 Table E.5-4 Swinging Bridge Turbine and Generator Data ..................................................................... E-24 Table E.5-5 Mongaup Falls Turbine and Generator Data ....................................................................... E-24 Table E.5-6 Rio Turbine and Generator Data ......................................................................................... E-25 Table E.5-7 Dependable Capacity and Average Annual Energy Production for the Mongaup

River Hydroelectric Projects ................................................................................................ E-25


iv

Table E.5-8 Current Minimum Flow Requirements at the Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects ....... E-26 Table E.5-9 Normal Maximum, Minimum, and Target Reservoir Elevations for the Projects’

Reservoirs ............................................................................................................................ E-26 Table E.5-10 Toronto Development Seasonal Target Reservoir Elevations ............................................. E-27 Table E.5-11 Swinging Bridge Development Seasonal Target Reservoir Elevations................................. E-27 Table E.5-12 Mongaup Falls Project Seasonal Target Reservoir Elevations ............................................. E-28 Table E.5-13 Rio Project Seasonal Target Reservoir Elevations ............................................................... E-28 Table E.6-1 Existing PM&E Measures for the Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects ........................... E-31 Table E.6-2 Proposed PM&E Measures for the Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects ........................ E-33 Table E.7-1 Substrate Categories for the Reservoirs’ Fluctuation Zones ............................................... E-41 Table E.7-2 Slope Categories for the Reservoirs’ Fluctuation Zones ...................................................... E-42 Table E.7-3 Percentage of Shoreline Erosion Observed at the Projects’ Reservoirs .............................. E-45 Table E.7-4 Drainage Areas for the Mongaup River Projects ................................................................. E-46 Table E.7-5 Prorated Flow Data into the Swinging Bridge Project Reservoir (October 1, 2002 to

September 30, 2019)1 ......................................................................................................... E-47 Table E.7-6 Mongaup River Flow Data Downstream of the Rio Project (September 30, 2013 to

September 30, 2019)1 ......................................................................................................... E-48 Table E.7-7 Classification and Standards of Waters in the Projects’ Area ............................................. E-53 Table E.7-8 Best Usage of Class B and B(T) Waters ................................................................................ E-53 Table E.7-9 Numeric Water Quality Standards for Class B and B(T) Waters .......................................... E-53 Table E.7-10 Narrative Water Quality Standards for Class B and B(T) Waters ......................................... E-54 Table E.7-11 2018 Water Quality Monitoring Locations and Elevations, Associated Water Quality

Classification Standards, and Basis for Estimated Streamflow ........................................... E-57 Table E.7-12 Summary of 2018 Reservoir Profile Data ............................................................................ E-63 Table E.7-13 Summary of 2018 Continuous DO Data ............................................................................... E-64 Table E.7-14 Full, Normal Upper/Lower Target, and Low Elevations for the Projects’ Reservoirs .......... E-73 Table E.7-15 Study Fluctuation Zones for the Projects’ Reservoirs .......................................................... E-73 Table E.7-16 Cover Type Categories for the Reservoirs’ Fluctuation Zones ............................................. E-73 Table E.7-17 Stream Segments and Reaches Assessed During 2018 Survey ............................................ E-75 Table E.7-18 2018 Baseline Fisheries Survey Sample Location, Effort (Days), and Dates ........................ E-84 Table E.7-19 2018 Baseline Fisheries Survey Sample Location and Effort per Gear Type ....................... E-85 Table E.7-20 Fish Species Collected in the Toronto Reservoir During 2018 Baseline Fisheries

Survey .................................................................................................................................. E-87 Table E.7-21 Fish Species Historically Collected in Toronto Reservoir - Species Temporal

Distribution ......................................................................................................................... E-89 Table E.7-22 Fish Species Collected in Black Lake Creek Reach 1 During 2018 Baseline Fisheries

Survey .................................................................................................................................. E-90 Table E.7-23 Fish Species Hisotrically Collected in Black Lake Creek Reach 1 - Species Temporal

Distribution ......................................................................................................................... E-91 Table E.7-24 Fish Species Collected in the Cliff Lake Reservoir During 2018 Baseline Fisheries

Survey .................................................................................................................................. E-92 Table E.7-25 Fish Species Historically Collected in Cliff Lake Reservoir - Species Temporal

Distribution ......................................................................................................................... E-94


v

Table E.7-26 Fish Species Collected in Black Lake Creek Reach 2 during 2018 Baseline Fisheries Survey .................................................................................................................................. E-94

Table E.7-27 Fish Species Historically Collected in Black Lake Creek Reach 2 - Species Temporal Distribution ......................................................................................................................... E-97

Table E.7-28 Fish Species Collected in the Swinging Bridge Reservoir During 2018 Baseline Fisheries Survey ................................................................................................................... E-98

Table E.7-29 Fish Species Historically Collected in Swinging Bridge Reservoir - Species Temporal Distribution ....................................................................................................................... E-101

Table E.7-30 Fish Species Collected in Mongaup River Reach 1 During 2018 Baseline Fisheries Survey ................................................................................................................................ E-102

Table E.7-31 Fish Species Historically Collected in the Mongaup River Reach 1 - Species Temporal Distribution ....................................................................................................................... E-104

Table E.7-32 Fish Species Collected in the Mongaup Falls Reservoir During 2018 Baseline Fisheries Survey ................................................................................................................. E-105

Table E.7-33 Fish Species Historically Collected in Mongaup Falls Reservoir - Species Temporal Distribution ....................................................................................................................... E-107

Table E.7-34 Fish Species Collected in the Mongaup River Reach 2 During 2018 Baseline Fisheries Survey ................................................................................................................................ E-108

Table E.7-35 Fish Species Historically Collected in the Mongaup River Reach 2 - Species Temporal Distribution ....................................................................................................................... E-109

Table E.7-36 Fish Species Collected in the Rio Reservoir during 2018 Baseline Fisheries Survey .......... E-110 Table E.7-37 Mongaup River Projects Fish Sampling – Rio Reservoir - Species Temporal

Distribution ....................................................................................................................... E-113 Table E.7-38 Fish Species Collected in the Mongaup River Reach 3 during 2018 Baseline Fisheries

Survey ................................................................................................................................ E-114 Table E.7-39 Fish Species Historically Collected in the Mongaup River Reach 3 - species temporal

distribution ........................................................................................................................ E-116 Table E.7-40 Fish Species Collected in Reach 4 of the Mongaup River During 2018 Baseline

Fisheries Survey ................................................................................................................. E-117 Table E.7-41 Fish Species Historically Collected in the Mongaup River Reach 4 - Species Temporal

Distribution ....................................................................................................................... E-119 Table E.7-42 Fish Species Collected in Gill Nets Set in the Vicinity of the Projects’ Intakes in 2018 ..... E-122 Table E.7-43 Results of the Target 300- to 350-Organism Replicate Subsamples Collected from

Toronto Reservoir (T1 and T2) and Black Lake Creek Downstream of Toronto Dam (Site 1) ............................................................................................................................... E-134

Table E.7-44 Index Values and Associated Score used to Calculate the BAP Score for 100-Organism Data Set from Riffle Sample Replicates Collected from Black Lake Creek Downstream of Toronto Dam (Site 1) ............................................................................... E-135

Table E.7-45 Results of the Target 300- to 350-Organism Replicate Subsamples Collected from Cliff Lake Reservoir (C1 and C2) and Black Lake Creek Downstream of Cliff Lake Dam (Site 2) ............................................................................................................................... E-136

Table E.7-46 Index Values and Associated Score used to Calculate the BAP Score for 100-Organism Data Set from Riffle Sample Replicates Collected from Black Lake Creek Downstream of Cliff Lake Dam (Site 2) ............................................................................. E-136

Table E.7-47 Results of the Target 300- to 350-Organism Replicate Subsamples Collected from Swinging Bridge Reservoir (S1 and S2) and the Mongaup River Downstream of Swinging Bridge Dam (Site 3) ............................................................................................ E-137


vi

Table E.7-48 Index Values and Associated Score used to Calculate the BAP Score for 100-Organism Data Set from Riffle Sample Replicates Collected from the Mongaup River Downstream of Swinging Bridge Dam (Site 3) .................................................................. E-138

Table E.7-49 Results of the Target 300- to 350-Organism Replicate Subsamples Collected from Mongaup Falls Reservoir (M1 and M2), Mongaup Falls Bypassed Reach (Site 4), and Mongaup River Downstream of the Black Brook Confluence (Site 5) .............................. E-139

Table E.7-50 Index Values and Associated Score used to Calculate The BAP Score for 100-Organism Data Sets from Riffle Sample Replicates Collected from the Mongaup Falls Bypassed Reach (Site 4) and the Mongaup River Downstream of the Black Brook Confluence (Site 5) .................................................................................................. E-140

Table E.7-51 Results of the Target 300- to 350-Organism Replicate Subsamples Collected from Rio Reservoir (R1 and R2), Rio Bypassed Reach (Site 6), the Mongaup River Downstream of the Rio Main Powerhouse (Site 7), and the Mongaup River Upstream (Site 8) and Downstream (Site 9) of Midway Point Between Rio Main Powerhouse and Delaware River ...................................................................................... E-142

Table E.7-52 Index Values and Associated Score used to Calculate the BAP Score for 100-Organism Data Sets in Riffle Replicates Collected in the Rio Bypassed Reach (Site 6), the Mongaup River Downstream of the Rio Main Powerhouse (Site 7), and the Mongaup River Upstream (Site 8) and Downstream (Site 9) of Midway Point Between Rio Main Powerhouse and Delaware River........................................................ E-143

Table E.7-53 Results of the Target 300- to 350-Organism Replicate Subsamples Collected from Black Brook Upstream of the Black Brook Dam Impoundment (Site 10), within the Impoundment (Site 11 and B1) and Downstream of Black Brook Dam (Site 12) .............. E-144

Table E.7-54 Index Values and Associated Score used to Calculate the BAP Score for 100-Organism Data Sets from Riffle Sample Replicates Collected from Black Brook Upstream of the Black Brook Dam Impoundment (Site 10) and Downstream of Black Brook Dam (Site 12) ................................................................................................. E-145

Table E.7-55 Mussels Survey Dates, Methods, and Results ................................................................... E-149 Table E.7-56 Estimated Number of American Shad Potentially Supported by River Segment .............. E-156 Table E.7-57 Potential Shad Passage Measures at the Rio Project ........................................................ E-156 Table E.7-58 Potential Eel Passage Measures by Project and Development ......................................... E-157 Table E.7-59 Estimated Costs Associated with American Eel Passage and Protection Measures.......... E-158 Table E.7-60 Low/Moderate Flow Conditions at Black Brook Dam ........................................................ E-161 Table E.7-61 High Flow Conditions at Black Brook Dam ......................................................................... E-162 Table E.7-62 List of Fish Species Collected at each Project during the 1992-1993 Entrainment

Study ................................................................................................................................. E-164 Table E.7-63 Monthly Estimated Number of Individuals Entrained for each Species at Mongaup

Falls Project Based on the 1992/1993 Study..................................................................... E-165 Table E.7-64 Mammals Observed or Anticipated to Occur in the Projects’ Vicinity1 ............................. E-172 Table E.7-65 List of Avifauna Observed or Anticipated to Occur within the Projects’ Vicinity .............. E-174 Table E.7-66 List of Herptile Species Observed or Anticipated to Occur in the Projects’ Vicinity .......... E-177 Table E.7-67 Plants Identified in the Vicinity of Black Brook Dam ......................................................... E-181 Table E.7-68 Wetland Classifications Occurring in the Study Area ........................................................ E-184 Table E.7-69 List of RTE Species that May Occur in the Vicinity of the Projects .................................... E-191 Table E.7-70 Relative Index of Needs for Sullivan and Orange Counties ............................................... E-214


vii

Table E.8-1 Swinging Bridge Project Estimated Capital and Annual O&M Costs for Proposed PM&E Measures ................................................................................................................ E-247

Table E.8-2 Mongaup Falls Project Estimated Capital and Annual O&M Costs for Proposed PM&E Measures ................................................................................................................ E-248

Table E.8-3 Rio Project Estimated Capital and Annual O&M Costs for Proposed PM&E Measures .... E-249 Table E.8-4 Summary of Stakeholder-Proposed PM&E Measures ....................................................... E-251

List of Figures Figure E.1-1 Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects Location Map ........................................................... E-3 Figure E.2-1 Mongaup River Basin ............................................................................................................. E-5 Figure E.2-2 Mongaup River Tributaries in the Vicinity of the Mongaup River Hydroelectric

Projects .................................................................................................................................. E-7 Figure E.2-3 Land Use in the Vicinity of the Projects ................................................................................. E-9 Figure E.2-4 Dams/Barriers Located on Black Brook and its Tributaries ................................................. E-11 Figure E.7-1 Mapped Soils in the Vicinity of the Swinging Bridge Hydroelectric Project ........................ E-38 Figure E.7-2 Mapped Soils in the Vicinity of the Mongaup Falls Hydroelectric Project .......................... E-39 Figure E.7-3 Mapped Soils in the Vicinity of the Rio Hydroelectric Project ............................................. E-40 Figure E.7-4 Mongaup and Delaware River Flows Upstream of Port Jervis, NY Compared to Gage

Height in the Delaware River at Port Jervis, NY During a Low Flow Period ........................ E-50 Figure E.7-5 Mongaup and Delaware River Flows Upstream of Port Jervis, NY Compared to Gage

Height in the Delaware River at Port Jervis, NY During a Mean Flow Period ..................... E-50 Figure E.7-6 Mongaup and Delaware River Flows Upstream of Port Jervis, NY Compared to Gage

Height in the Delaware River at Port Jervis, NY During a High Flow Period ....................... E-51 Figure E.7-7 Mongaup and Delaware River Flows Upstream of Port Jervis, NY Compared to Gage

Height in the Delaware River at Port Jervis, NY .................................................................. E-51 Figure E.7-8 Water Quality Monitoring Locations at Toronto and Cliff Lake Developments .................. E-58 Figure E.7-9 Water Quality Monitoring Locations at Swinging Bridge Development and Mongaup

Falls Project ......................................................................................................................... E-59 Figure E.7-10 Water Quality Monitoring Locations at Rio Project ............................................................ E-60 Figure E.7-11 2018 and 2019 Delaware River Water Temperature Monitoring Locations ....................... E-66 Figure E.7-12 Length Frequency of Walleye Collected In Toronto Reservoir In 2018 ............................... E-88 Figure E.7-13 Length Frequency of Eastern Brook Trout Collected in Black Lake Creek Reach 1 in

2018 ..................................................................................................................................... E-90 Figure E.7-14 Length Frequency of Walleye Collected in Cliff Lake Reservoir In 2018.............................. E-93 Figure E.7-15 Length Frequency of Eastern Brook Trout Collected in Black Lake Creek Reach 2 in

2018 ..................................................................................................................................... E-95 Figure E.7-16 Length Frequency of Brown Trout Collected in Black Lake Creek Reach 2 in 2018............. E-96 Figure E.7-17 Length Frequency of Walleye Collected in the Swinging Bridge Reservoir in 2018 ............ E-99 Figure E.7-18 Length Frequency of Eastern Brook Trout Collected in Mongaup River Reach 1 in

2018 ................................................................................................................................... E-103 Figure E.7-19 Length Frequency of Brown Trout Collected in Mongaup River Reach 1 in 2018 ............. E-103 Figure E.7-20 Length Frequency of Walleye Collected in Mongaup Falls Reservoir in 2018 ................... E-106 Figure E.7-21 Length Frequency of Brown Trout Collected in Mongaup Falls Reservoir in 2018 ........... E-106


viii

Figure E.7-22 Length Frequency of Walleye Collected in Rio Reservoir in 2018 ..................................... E-111 Figure E.7-23 Length Frequency of Largemouth Bass Collected in Rio Reservoir in 2018 ...................... E-112 Figure E.7-24 Length Frequency of Brown Trout Collected in Mongaup River Reach 3 in 2018 ............. E-115 Figure E.7-25 Length Frequency of American Eel Collected in Mongaup River Reach 3 in 2018 ............ E-115 Figure E.7-26 Length Frequency of Brown Trout Collected in Mongaup River Reach 4 in 2018 ............. E-118 Figure E.7-27 Length Frequency of American Eel Collected/Observed in Mongaup River Reach 4 in

2018 ................................................................................................................................... E-118 Figure E.7-28 Number of Individuals Collected in Gill Nets Set in the Vicinity of the Projects’

Intakes in 2018 .................................................................................................................. E-123 Figure E.7-29 Length Frequencies of Individuals Collected in Gill Nets Set in the Vicinity of the

Projects’ Intakes ................................................................................................................ E-123 Figure E.7-30 2018 American Eel Survey Sample Locations in Vicinity of the Rio Dam and Rio

Minimum Flow Powerhouse ............................................................................................. E-125 Figure E.7-31 2018 American Eel Survey Sample Locations in Vicinity of Rio Main Powerhouse

Tailrace .............................................................................................................................. E-126 Figure E.7-32 Number of American Eel Observed by Size Class During Nighttime Spotlight Surveys

at the Rio Project from May 3 – October 30, 2018 ........................................................... E-127 Figure E.7-33 American Eel Collections by Location and Date at the Rio Project from May 3 –

October 30, 2018............................................................................................................... E-128 Figure E.7-34 American Shad Observed by Location and Date at the Rio Project from May 3 –

October 30, 2018............................................................................................................... E-129 Figure E.7-35 Macroinvertebrate Survey Sample Location Map for Swinging Bridge Project ................ E-131 Figure E.7-36 Macroinvertebrate Survey Sample Location Map for Mongaup Falls and Rio Projects .... E-132 Figure E.7-37 Average and Range of Water Quality Impact Scores for Riffle Sample Replicates

Collected Throughout the Study Area ............................................................................... E-147 Figure E.7-38 Black Brook Dam and Natural Falls (Looking Upstream Under Low Flow Conditions) ...... E-160 Figure E.7-39 Cover Type Mapping of Natural Communities within the Vicinity of Black Brook

Dam ................................................................................................................................... E-180 Figure E.7-40 Swinging Bridge Project Recreational Facilities ................................................................. E-205 Figure E.7-41 Mongaup Falls Project Recreational Facilities ................................................................... E-206 Figure E.7-42 Rio Project Recreational Facilities ..................................................................................... E-207 Figure E.7-43 Swinging Bridge Reservoir, Dam and Powerhouses .......................................................... E-230 Figure E.7-44 Mongaup Falls Reservoir ................................................................................................... E-231 Figure E.7-45 Rio Reservoir, Dam, Penstock, and Minimum Flow Unit Powerhouse .............................. E-232


ix

List of Acronyms

°F degrees Fahrenheit

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

APE area of potential effects

BAP Biological Assessment Profile

CAB Conte Airlift Bypass

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

cm centimeters

CPUE catch per unit effort

CUI Controlled Unclassified Information

CWA Clean Water Act

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

DLA Draft License Application

DO dissolved oxygen

DOS Department of State (New York State)

DRBC Delaware River Basin Commission

EFH essential fish habitat

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) Taxa Richness

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or Commission

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FLA Final License Application

FPA Federal Power Act

ft/s feet per second

GIS graphic information system

HBI Hilsenhoff Biotic Index

hp horsepower

HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan

ISR Initial Study Report

km kilometers

kV kilovolt


x

kVA kilovolt-ampere

kW kilowatts

LPC LiDAR Point Cloud

mg/L milligram per liter

MGD million gallons per day

mi2 square miles

mm millimeters

MW megawatts

MWh megawatt hours

NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988

NBI-P Nutrient Biotic Index for phosphorus

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NGOs non-governmental organizations

NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

NGVD29 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOI Notice of Intent

NPS National Park Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NRI Nationwide Rivers Inventory

NSBP National Scenic Byways Program

NWI National Wetland Inventory

NYCRR New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations

NYISO New York Independent System Operator

NYNHP New York Natural Heritage Program

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NYSHPO New York State Historic Preservation Officer

O&M operations and maintenance

PAD Pre-Application Document

PM&E protection, mitigation, or enhancement

PSP Proposed Study Plan

RM river mile

rpm rotations per minute

RSP Revised Study Plan


xi

RTE rare, threatened, and endangered

SAV submerged aquatic vegetation

SCORP Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan

SD1 Scoping Document 1

SD2 Scoping Document 2

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SPD Study Plan Determination

T trout

TCP traditional cultural properties

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

USR Updated Study Report

V Voltage

WQC Water Quality Certificate

YOY young of year


E-1

Exhibit E

Environmental Report (18 CFR §5.18) E.1 Introduction

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”), under the authority of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 United States Code (USC) §791(a), et seq., may issue a license for up to 50 years for the construction, operation, and maintenance of non-federal hydroelectric developments. Eagle Creek Hydro Power, LLC; Eagle Creek Water Resources, LLC; and Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC (collectively and hereinafter “Eagle Creek” or “Licensee”), are the Licensees of the Swinging Bridge Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 10482), Mongaup Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 10481), and Rio Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 9690) (collectively “Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects” or “Projects”).

On April 14, 1992, the Commission issued three original and separate licenses for the operation of the Projects in accordance with the Commission’s delegated authority under the FPA. Each Project’s original license was issued for a term of 30 years and expires on March 31, 2022. In accordance with 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §5.17(a), Eagle Creek must file its Final License Application with the Commission for new licenses no later than March 31, 2020. Eagle Creek is applying for three separate, new 50-year licenses for the Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects. The Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects consist of three separate FERC-jurisdictional projects: Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls, and Rio. All three of the Projects are located in Sullivan County, New York, and a portion of the Rio Project is also located in Orange County, New York.

The Projects were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s (with the Black Brook Development added in the 1940s) to supply electricity to the growing surrounding towns and cities at that time. The Projects were owned and operated by Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. until 1999. Since that time, the Projects have transferred ownership a number of times, including acquisition by Eagle Creek in 2011. The variable ownership of the Projects over the last two decades contributed to inconsistencies associated with Project operations and stakeholder relations. Since acquiring the Projects in 2011, Eagle Creek has endeavored to work collaboratively with stakeholders to operate the Projects in a manner that balances the resources associated with the Projects.

The Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects consist of three separate FERC-jurisdictional projects: Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls, and Rio. All three of the Projects are located in Sullivan County, New York, and a portion of the Rio Project is located in Orange County, New York. The Swinging Bridge Project includes the Toronto Development, the Cliff Lake Development, and the Swinging Bridge Development. Water stored in Toronto Reservoir is released to Cliff Lake Reservoir, which releases the water to Swinging Bridge Reservoir via a tunnel, enabling the flow to be utilized at Swinging Bridge and at the two downstream projects for renewable energy generation.

The Toronto Dam creates a reservoir on Black Lake Creek, a tributary of the Mongaup River. The Toronto Dam is located within the Town of Bethel, approximately 8 miles west-southwest of the City of Monticello. The Cliff Lake Dam is also on Black Lake Creek, approximately 2 miles downstream of Toronto Dam. Cliff Lake is located in the Town of Lumberland, approximately 7.5 miles southwest of Monticello. The Swinging Bridge Dam is the most upstream dam on the Mongaup River located in the Towns of Forestburgh and Lumberland, 7 miles southwest of the City of Monticello, New York. The authorized installed capacity of the Swinging Bridge Project


E-2

is 7.85 megawatts (MW) and generates an annual average of approximately 11,639 megawatt-hours (MWh) of clean, renewable energy (based on annual generation from October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2019).

The Mongaup Falls Project includes the Mongaup Falls Development and Black Brook Development. The Mongaup Falls Dam is located on the Mongaup River approximately 2.9 miles downstream of the Swinging Bridge Dam. The Mongaup Falls Development is located in the Towns of Forestburgh and Lumberland, approximately 10 miles southwest of Monticello. The Black Brook Development is located on Black Brook approximately 1 mile upstream from the confluence with the Mongaup River. The Mongaup Falls Project has an authorized installed capacity of 4.0 MW and generates an annual average of approximately 10,860 MWh of clean, renewable energy (based on annual generation from October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2019).

The Rio Dam is located on the Mongaup River, approximately 4.5 miles downstream of the Mongaup Falls Dam and 4.6 miles upstream of the confluence of the Mongaup River with the Delaware River. The Rio Dam is located in in the Town of Deerpark, Orange County and the Town of Lumberland, Sullivan County, approximately 7 miles northwest of Port Jervis, New York. The Rio Dam is the most downstream dam in the Mongaup River drainage sub-basin. The Rio Project has an authorized installed capacity of 10.8 MW and generates an annual average of approximately 24,956 MWh of clean, renewable energy (based on annual generation from October 1, 2009 through September 20, 2019).

The Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects’ location and facilities are shown on Figure E.1-1. Depiction of the current FERC Project boundary for each Project is provided in Exhibit G of this application1.

1 The figures provided throughout this application incorporate a representation of the approximate FERC Project boundary in relation to various resources; however, some figures may not depict the boundary associated with appurtenant areas of the Projects (i.e., the Toronto East Access Area access road and/or the abandoned Black Brook Development). The formal drawings that depict the FERC Project boundary for each Project are provided in Exhibit G of this application.


E-3

FIGURE E.1-1 MONGAUP RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS LOCATION MAP


E-4

E.2 General Description of the River Basin (18 CFR §5.18(b)(1))

E.2.1 River Basin Overview

The Mongaup River is a tributary of the Delaware River and is located in Sullivan and Orange counties, New York. The river originates as three branches in the southwestern Catskill Mountains at an elevation of approximately 2,000 feet. The three branches flow south until they converge approximately four miles north of the Swinging Bridge Reservoir. In addition to the five impoundments associated with the Projects, the Mongaup River Basin consists of a series of lakes, ponds, and tributaries. (Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. [Orange and Rockland] 1988).

E.2.1.1 Drainage Area and Length of River

The Mongaup River Basin is located between the southwestern portion of the Catskill Mountains and the Delaware River in southeastern New York State (Figure E.2-1). The basin is approximately 29 miles long from north to south and approximately 12 miles wide from east to west, and it has a total drainage area of approximately 210 square miles. The basin is drained by the Mongaup River, which discharges into the southeast-flowing Delaware River upstream of Port Jervis, New York. The basin is bounded on the west by the Callicoon River watershed and on the east by the Neversink River watershed. The Mongaup River Basin constitutes approximately 1.6 percent of the total drainage area of the larger Delaware River Basin (Orange and Rockland 1988). A description of the drainage areas associated with the Projects’ dams as well as upstream and downstream river gages is provided in Table E.2-1.

TABLE E.2-1 DRAINAGE AREA OF PROJECTS’ DAMS AND NEARBY USGS GAGES

Project Dam or USGS Gage Drainage Area (sq mi)

Toronto Dam 22.5 Cliff Lake Dam 6.5

Mongaup River at Mongaup Valley, NY (USGS Gage 01432900) 76.6 Swinging Bridge Dam 118.5 Mongaup Falls Dam 160.4

Rio Dam 194.8 Mongaup River near Mongaup, NY (USGS Gage 01433500) 200

The Mongaup River originates in the Catskill Mountains and flows approximately 35 miles between its origin and its confluence with the Delaware River. The gradient of the Mongaup River averages 40 feet per mile in the headwaters and reduces to 17 feet per mile above the Mongaup Falls, which is the site of the Mongaup Falls Dam. Downstream of the Mongaup Falls Dam, the river gradient increases again to an average slope of 48 feet per mile and continues to the river’s confluence with the Delaware River, which is approximately 9 miles downstream of Mongaup Falls (Orange and Rockland 1988).


E-5

FIGURE E.2-1 MONGAUP RIVER BASIN


E-6

E.2.2 Tributary Rivers and Streams

The Mongaup River originates as three branches in the southwestern Catskill Mountains. After converging above the Swinging Bridge Reservoir, the river eventually flows into the Delaware River. Figure E.2-2 provides the location of various streams and brooks that drain toward the Mongaup River. In addition, the following is a list of the larger and named streams and brooks within the basin.

• Falls Bush Kill • Black Brook • Ruddick Brook • Long Falls Brook • Black Lake Creek • Hemp Meadow Brook • White Lake Brook

• Lybolt or Phillips Brook • Judson Brook • Kinne Brook • Beaverdam Brook • Mill Brook • Spring Brook • Trout Brook

In addition to the streams and brooks listed above, the basin includes a number of smaller and unnamed streams and brooks. Furthermore, the basin includes approximately 37 lakes, reservoirs, and larger ponds, as well as a number of additional smaller unnamed ponds (Orange and Rockland 1988).

E.2.3 Topography

The Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects are all located within the Low Poconos/Mongaup Hills (62b) ecoregion (Bryce et al. 2010) (Figure E.2-2). The glaciated Low Poconos/Mongaup Hills ecoregion is lower in elevation than other portions of Ecoregion 62.

The Swinging Bridge Project is located in the southern New York Section of the Eastern Appalachian Basin, a major physiographic province. The basin is an area of relatively flat-lying sedimentary rock units composed largely of siltstone and sandstone of the Upper Devonian Age. The folded Appalachian Highlands are located to the east and south of the Swinging Bridge Project (Stetson-Harza 1988 as cited in Eagle Creek 2014).

The Mongaup Falls and Rio Projects are located in the Appalachian Uplands physiographic province of New York State. This province (the northern extent of the Appalachian Plateau) was formed by dissection of the uplifted but flat lying sandstones and shales of the middle and upper Devonian Catskill Delta. Relief is high to moderate. Maximum dissection occurs in the Catskill Mountain area, where only the mountain peaks approximate the original plateau surface. Drainage is generally south or southwest toward the Delaware River system (O’Brien & Gere 1994 as cited in Devine Tarbell & Associates [DTA] 2004a; Obrien & Gere 1994a as cited in DTA 2004b).


E-7

FIGURE E.2-2 MONGAUP RIVER TRIBUTARIES IN THE VICINITY

OF THE MONGAUP RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS


E-8

E.2.4 Climate

Average annual precipitation in the area of the Projects is approximately 46 inches. Average monthly temperature ranges from 24.6 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in January to 71.2 °F in July. Climate data are summarized in Table E.2-2.

TABLE E.2-2 CLIMATE DATA IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECTS

Period Average Temperature (⁰F)1 Precipitation (inches)2 January 24.6 3.23

February 27.7 2.91 March 36.1 3.66 April 48.0 4.06 May 58.3 4.02 June 66.7 4.41 July 71.2 3.94

August 69.5 3.90 September 61.7 4.53

October 50.0 4.41 November 40.0 3.58 December 29.4 3.78

Annual 48.6 (average) 46.43 (total) 1Temperature based on data from Port Jervis, New York (Arguez et al. 2010).

2Precipitation based on data from Port Jervis, New York (U.S. Climate Data 2019).

E.2.5 Major Land and Water Uses

E.2.5.1 Major Land Uses

The predominant habitat type within the Mongaup River Basin is forest (approximately 81%), including deciduous, mixed, and evergreen forest habitats (Table E.2-3). Anthropogenic use accounts for approximately 12 percent of the basin, which primarily includes agricultural uses, with smaller amounts of developed open space and low-intensity development (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] and the Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2011). Land use is discussed in further detail in Section E.7.6.2 of this application.

TABLE E.2-3 APPROXIMATE LAND COVER CLASSIFICATIONS

AND CORRESPONDING PERCENT COVER IN THE MONGAUP RIVER BASIN Classification Approximate Cover (%)

Deciduous forest 46 Mixed forest 23 Evergreen forest 12 Hay/pasture 5 Developed, open space 5 Open water 4 Woody wetlands 3 Developed, low intensity 2 TOTAL 100%

Source: USDA and NRCS 2011.

The Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects are situated primarily within a forested rural area with little to no development. Figure E.2-3 provides an overview of land use within the vicinity of the Projects.


E-9

FIGURE E.2-3 LAND USE IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECTS


E-10

E.2.5.2 Major Water Uses

Major water uses in the Mongaup River Basin are for power generation and recreation. In addition, during a Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC)-declared Drought Emergency, the Projects’ waters may be used to supply additional flows to the Delaware River (DRBC 2009). In accordance with the Delaware River Basin Compact, the DRBC has the authority to manage the approximately 15 billion gallons of water storage in the Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects System (DRBC 2016).

E.2.6 Economic Activities

The Projects are located in Orange and Sullivan counties, New York.

The largest employment industries in Orange County are educational, health care, and social assistance (25.7%, combined); retail trade (13.8%); and professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services (9.0%, combined) (U.S. Census Bureau undated-a). The top major employers in the county are United States Military Academy at West Point, Orange Regional Medical Center, Crystal Run Healthcare, Access: Supports for Living, St. Luke’s Cornwall Hospital, Elant, Inc., C&S Wholesale Grocers Inc., and Mount Saint Mary College (Orange County Partnership 2016b).

The largest employment industries in Sullivan County are educational, health, and social services (31.4%, combined); retail trade (18.2%); and arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services (10.3%, combined) (U.S. Census Bureau undated-b). The Center for Discovery in Harris is the largest single employer in Sullivan County (Economic Development Corporation of Sullivan County 2010). The Center for Discovery enables people with disabilities to develop skills to engage in the workforce.

E.2.7 Dams and Diversions within the Basin

In addition to the dams associated with the three Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects, there are nearly 70 additional dams located within the Mongaup River Basin. The majority of these dams support activities associated with recreation, with a smaller number of the dams supporting fire protection and fish and wildlife management activities (NYSDEC 2017a). Additionally, there are several dams/barriers located on Black Brook and its tributaries upstream of Black Brook Dam as shown in Figure E.2-4.


E-11

FIGURE E.2-4 DAMS/BARRIERS LOCATED ON BLACK BROOK AND ITS TRIBUTARIES


E-12

E.3 Cumulative Effects (18 CFR §5.18(b)(2))

According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR §1508.7), a cumulative effect is the effect on the environment that results from the incremental effect of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time, including hydropower and other land and water development activities.

E.3.1 Resources That Could Be Cumulatively Affected

Through scoping, agency consultation, review of the Pre-Application Document (PAD), and Commission staff’s preliminary analyses, the Commission noted in its Scoping Document 2 (SD2) issued on September 12, 2017, that water quality, water quantity, fisheries, and federally-listed species have the potential to be cumulatively affected by the continued operation and maintenance of the Projects in combination with other hydroelectric projects and activities in the Mongaup River Basin.

E.3.2 Geographic Scope

As noted in the Commission’s SD2 issued for the Projects, on September 12, 2017, the geographic scope of analysis for cumulatively affected resources is defined by the physical limits or boundaries of: (1) the proposed action's effect on the resources, and (2) contributing effects from other hydropower and non-hydropower activities within the Mongaup River Basin. Because the proposed action can affect resources differently, the geographic scope for each resource may vary. The Commission defined the geographic scope for water quality, water quantity, fishery resources, recreation resources, and federally-listed species to include the Mongaup River Basin from its headwaters to its confluence with the Delaware River and the Delaware River, to the extent that project operations affect this water body.

E.3.3 Temporal Scope

The temporal scope of the cumulative effects analysis in this exhibit addresses past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and their effects on each resource that may be cumulatively affected. Based on the potential terms of the new licenses, the Commission’s SD2 defined the temporal scope of this analysis to address reasonably foreseeable actions 30-50 years into the future. Historical discussion would, by necessity, be limited by the amount of available information for each resource.

E.4 Compliance with Applicable Laws (18 CFR §5.18(b)(3))

Eagle Creek has consulted with stakeholders throughout this relicensing process, as described below and throughout this license application with copies of the correspondence provided in Appendix B of Volume I of this application.


E-13

E.4.1 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act

Section 401(a)(1) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit for any activity that may result in a discharge into navigable waters of the United States to provide the licensing or permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge originates. A state Water Quality Certificate (WQC), therefore, is a prerequisite for obtaining a license from the Commission. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) is the state agency designated to carry out the certification requirements prescribed in Section 401 of the CWA for waters of New York. Pursuant to 18 CFR §5.23(b), Eagle Creek will file an application for a WQC for each Project with the NYSDEC within 60 days following the Commission’s Notice of Acceptance and Ready for Environmental Analysis.

E.4.2 Endangered Species Act

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (19 USC §1536(c)), as amended, requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions will not adversely impact or jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such species. Under the ESA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for freshwater and terrestrial species, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible for marine and anadromous species. In the Notice of Intent to File License Application, Filing of PAD, Commencement of Pre-filing Process, and Scoping issued for the Projects by the Commission on May 30, 2017, the Commission designated Eagle Creek as the Commission’s non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. Information from the USFWS and the NYSDEC has been used by the Licensee to identify endangered or threatened species in the vicinity of the Projects. A discussion of the rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) species relevant to the Projects is provided in Section E.7.5 of this exhibit.

E.4.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act authorized the NMFS, in coordination with regional fisheries management councils, to delineate essential fish habitat (EFH) for the protection of habitat of marine, estuarine, and anadromous finfish, mollusks, and crustaceans. EFH includes “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” Based on a review of the NMFS online database, no EFH designated under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act or established by the NMFS has been identified in the vicinity of the Projects (NOAA undated).

E.4.4 Coastal Zone Management Act

Section 307(c)(3) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires that activities conducted or supported by a federal agency that affect the coastal zone be consistent with the enforceable policies of the federally-approved state coastal management plan to the maximum extent practicable. Based on previous proceedings associated with the Projects and a review of the State’s coastal zone boundary, the Projects appear to be located outside of New York’s coastal zone. Via letter dated February 26, 2020, Eagle Creek requested a review by the New York State Department of State (DOS) regarding the applicability of the State’s Coastal Zone Program to the Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects. Based on correspondence received from the DOS on March 30, 2020, the Projects are not located within the State’s coastal zone.


E-14

E.4.5 National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on such actions. Historic properties include significant sites, buildings, structures, districts, and individual objects listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). If a property has not yet been nominated to the NRHP or determined eligible for inclusion, it is the responsibility of the Commission to ascertain its eligibility.

The Commission’s issuance of new licenses for the continued operation of the Projects is considered an undertaking subject to the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 800. By notice dated May 30, 2017, the Commission initiated informal consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and designated Eagle Creek as its non-federal representative for purposes of conducting informal consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA. A discussion of historical properties associated with the Projects and the consultation conducted to date under Section 106 of the NHPA for the relicensing of the Projects is contained in Section E.7.9 of this exhibit.

E.4.6 Wild and Scenic Rivers and Wilderness Act

The Mongaup River is not classified as a Wild and Scenic River under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The Mongaup River flows into the Delaware River approximately three river miles downstream of the Rio Project boundary. At its confluence with the Mongaup River, the Delaware River is designated as a Scenic and Recreational River and is protected by Congressional designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 2017). The Projects are not located within or adjacent to lands designated as a wilderness area under the Wilderness Act.

E.5 Project Facilities and Operation (18 CFR §5.18(b)(4))

E.5.1 Maps of Project Facilities within Project Boundaries

The Project boundaries for the Swinging Bridge Project, Mongaup Falls Project, and Rio Project is shown and described in greater detail in Exhibit G (Volume III) of this application.

E.5.2 Project Facilities

The Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects consist of three separate FERC-jurisdictional projects: Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls, and Rio. All three of the Projects are located in Sullivan County, New York, and a portion of the Rio Project is located in Orange County, New York.

The Swinging Bridge Project includes the Toronto Development, the Cliff Lake Development, and the Swinging Bridge Development. Water stored in Toronto Reservoir is released to Cliff Lake Reservoir. Water flows between Cliff Lake Reservoir and Swinging Bridge Reservoir via an underground tunnel, enabling the flows from Toronto and Cliff Lake reservoirs to be utilized at the Swinging Bridge Development and at the two downstream projects for renewable energy generation. The Mongaup Falls Project includes the Mongaup Falls Development and Black Brook Dam.


E-15

Toronto Dam creates a reservoir on Black Lake Creek, a tributary of the Mongaup River. Cliff Lake Dam is also on Black Lake Creek, approximately 2 miles downstream of Toronto Dam. Swinging Bridge Dam is the most upstream dam on the Mongaup River. Mongaup Falls Dam is located on the Mongaup River approximately 2.9 miles downstream of the Swinging Bridge Dam. Black Brook Dam is located on Black Brook almost 1 mile upstream from the Mongaup River confluence. Rio Dam is located on the Mongaup River, approximately 4.5 miles downstream of the Mongaup Falls Dam and 4.6 miles upstream of the confluence of the Mongaup River with the Delaware River.

The physical composition, dimensions, and generation configuration of the facilities that comprise the Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects are described in the following subsections.

E.5.2.1 Dams and Spillways

Swinging Bridge Project

Toronto Development

The Toronto Dam is an earth-fill structure, constructed in 1926, 1,620 feet long with a maximum height of 103 feet, a crest width of 25 feet, and an impervious core. The crest of the dam is at elevation 1,230 feet (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 [NGVD29])2. The dam creates the Toronto Reservoir above the junction of the Black Lake Creek and Hemp Meadow Brook, a tributary to Black Lake Creek.

This dam has a 50-foot-wide concrete and rock side channel spillway at its west end, blasted through solid rock for a distance of 700 feet. The discharge channel is approximately 900 feet long. The sill of the spillway is at an elevation of 1,215 feet and is designed to discharge a flood flow of approximately 5,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) when the reservoir surface water elevation is approximately 1,220 feet. The dam’s side channel spillway has a total capacity of 8,900 cfs and is equipped with 5-foot-high, 50-foot-wide, pin-type flashboards that are designed to fail when overtopped by approximately 2 feet of water.

The Toronto Development does not have a bypassed reach.

Cliff Lake Development

Cliff Lake Dam was constructed in 1939 and includes (from left to right)3 the east (left) earthen embankment, concrete non-overflow section, spillway, and right (west) earthen embankment. The east (left) embankment is 95 feet long, 20 feet wide, has a maximum height of approximately 36 feet and joins the left abutment with the non-overflow wall. The concrete non-overflow section is 150 feet long, 44 feet wide, and has a maximum height of approximately 36 feet. The concrete overflow spillway structure is approximately 100 feet long, 5 feet wide, and has a maximum height of approximately 26 feet. The west (right) embankment is approximately 270 feet long, 20 feet wide, has a maximum height of approximately 50 feet, and is located to the right of the spillway. The dam, concrete abutments, and earth embankments total approximately 610 feet in length. The crests of the earth dam sections are at elevation 1,080 feet. The top of the concrete non-overflow wall is at

2 All elevations referenced in this application are expressed in NGVD29, unless indicated otherwise. 3 All references to “left” or “right” are looking downstream, unless indicated otherwise.


E-16

elevation 1,080 feet. The dam’s spillway has a crest elevation of 1,070 feet. In addition, the spillway is equipped with 13-inch-high flashboards that are designed to fail when overtopped by approximately 2 feet of water.

The Cliff Lake Development does not have a bypassed reach.

Swinging Bridge Development

The Swinging Bridge Dam is an earth-fill structure, which is approximately 965 feet long and 135 feet high. The crest of the earth dam is at elevation 1,080 feet and is 25 feet wide. The dam was constructed in 1930 with a clay and fine-sand core. A separate concrete side channel spillway is located approximately 750 feet upstream of the dam. The spillway channel was cut through the bedrock at the right rim of the reservoir. The spillway is approximately 250 feet wide, with the structure’s sill at elevation 1,065 feet. The northern half of the spillway crest is equipped with a 5-foot-high Obermeyer gate section that spans 122.5 feet between two abutments. On the remaining half of the spillway, there are five motor-driven, vertical-lift timber gates, each of which are 22.5 feet wide and 5 feet high.

The Swinging Bridge Development does not have a bypassed reach as the Unit No. 2 and 3 powerhouses discharge into the Mongaup River at the toe of the dam.

Mongaup Falls Project

Mongaup Falls Development

The Mongaup Falls Dam was constructed in 1923 at the crest of the naturally occurring Mongaup Falls. The dam’s major features consist of a 155-foot-long, ungated, concrete gravity spillway; an 83-foot-long, 25-foot, 4-inch-high earth dam section with a concrete core wall along the right abutment; and an approximately 125-foot-long, 127-foot-high concrete retaining wall along the left abutment. An intake and gatehouse are located to the left of the spillway. The intake gatehouse measures approximately 11 feet-high and 22 feet square in plan view. The operating floor level is at elevation 945 feet. The deepest section of the intake is founded on bedrock at approximate elevation 895 feet.

The dam’s spillway is 40 feet high, with a crest elevation of 930 feet. The spillway is equipped with 4-foot, 10-inch-high flashboards. The design capacity of the 155-foot-long spillway is approximately 25,500 cfs with a reservoir elevation of 942.2-feet (i.e., 12.2 feet of water over the spillway crest). The spillway’s flashboards are designed to fail when overtopped by approximately 2 feet of water.

A lower earthen closure dike is located approximately 150 feet from the spillway and supports a lower section of the reservoir rim. The maximum height of the earthen closure section is about 4.5 feet. The crest elevation corresponds approximately to the top of the non-overflow walls of the dam, which has an elevation of 945 feet. The length of the earthen dike is about 250 feet.

The Mongaup Falls bypassed reach extends approximately 6,650 feet from the Mongaup Falls Dam to the Mongaup Falls Powerhouse tailrace.


E-17

Black Brook Development

Black Brook Dam was constructed at the location of a natural falls on Black Brook in 1942. The dam consists of an approximately 70-foot-long dam with a 34-foot-long concrete spillway section and 10-foot-long stoplog section. The stoplog section consists of a 2-foot-wide concrete pier that divides the 8-foot-long stoplog section from the spillway. The concrete spillway is approximately 10 feet high from the base to the crest and, based on drawings of the dam, is shown as being keyed into bedrock at its upstream face with a 3-foot by 3-foot keyway. Prior to failure of the penstock, pond control was accomplished with an 8-foot-wide stoplog section and 34-foot-wide flashboard section, each erected to a height of 5 feet above the dam crest. The gate structure was approximately 20 feet long and located along the left abutment (looking downstream). Subsequent to failure of the penstock in 1984, the 8-foot-wide, 5-foot-high stoplog section on the right side of the dam and the 5-foot-high flashboards were removed. Currently, Black Brook Dam is a run-of-river, uncontrolled spillway with a crest elevation of 943 feet and a dam/spillway toe elevation of approximately 930-933 feet (including the 3-foot by 3-foot keyway).

The Black Brook Development does not have a bypassed reach.

Rio Project

The Rio Dam is an earth-fill structure with an ungated concrete overflow spillway that was constructed in 1927. The overall length of the dam is approximately 1,500 feet. The dam includes a 264-foot-long, gravity-type concrete spillway with a maximum height of 101 feet. The spillway was built with a horizontal radius of 400 feet to best fit the topography. The spillway section is flanked by east and west abutments.

The west abutment consists of a 22-foot-long, concrete gravity intake structure; a 99-foot-long, concrete gravity non-overflow section; and a 540-foot-long, earth-fill embankment. The east abutment consists of a 102-foot-long, concrete gravity non-overflow section and an approximately 460-foot-long, earth-fill embankment. The crest of the earth-fill embankment is at an elevation of 825 feet and is approximately 20 feet wide.

A public road runs along the top of the dam and abutments. The surface elevation of the highway and of the reinforced-concrete bridge over the spillway is at an elevation of 825 feet, which is 15 feet above the structure’s permanent spillway crest.

The crest of the spillway is at an elevation of 810 feet. The spillway is divided into eight clear openings, each 30 feet long. The bridge and roadway over the embankments leading to the spillway have a clear width of 16 feet. The top of the dam is equipped with 5-foot-high flashboards that are designed to fail when overtopped by approximately 2 feet of water.

The Rio bypassed reach extends approximately 1.5 miles from the Rio Dam to the Rio main powerhouse tailrace.


E-18

E.5.2.2 Intakes


Toronto Development

Discharges from Toronto Reservoir to Black Lake Creek and Cliff Lake Reservoir are made through an 8-foot by 8-foot, reinforced-concrete, horseshoe-shaped conduit, 565 feet long from intake to outlet. The invert of the conduit is located at elevation 1,143 feet at the intake and at elevation 1,140 feet at the outlet. There is a diffuser chamber located at the discharge end of the conduit, which is designed to prevent erosion of the downstream channel by dissipating the energy of the discharged water.


Water flows between Cliff Lake Reservoir and Swinging Bridge Reservoir through an unlined, horseshoe-shaped tunnel. The tunnel extends approximately 2,115 feet and is 5 feet, 4 inches wide and 6 feet, 8 inches high. The invert of the tunnel at the Cliff Lake end is at an elevation of 1,040.6 feet. Flows through the tunnel are controlled by a 5-foot-wide by 5-foot-high lift gate, located on the Swinging Bridge end of the tunnel. The invert of the tunnel at the Swinging Bridge end is at elevation 1,038.8 feet. The discharge gate is located at an invert elevation of 1,040 feet, approximately 55 feet from the Swinging Bridge end of the tunnel. The gate is operated by a manual screw-stem operator located on a deck at the top of the gate shaft. The discharge gate is generally left in the open position and water levels in each reservoir are approximately equal.

Swinging Bridge Development

Swinging Bridge Unit No.1, permanently out of service since 2005 and decommissioned in place, was supplied from the Swinging Bridge Reservoir by a steel-lined, circular, concrete penstock, 692 feet long and 10 feet in diameter, running approximately under the center of the dam. The penstock was permanently filled with cementitious material in 2007 for the entire length of the penstock. A butterfly-type, motor-operated valve, 8 feet in diameter, is located in the gate tower directly on top of the penstock and is 246 feet downstream of the penstock intake. The gate tower has a height of 43 feet, 6 inches above the horizontal centerline of the penstock. An upstream steel bulkhead wall and a structural tremie-placed concrete plug between the butterfly valve and upstream bulkhead created a watertight seal.

Swinging Bridge Unit No. 2 is supplied from the Swinging Bridge Reservoir through a concrete-lined tunnel running approximately 784 feet around the west end of the dam and connected to an all-steel penstock approximately 188 feet long. The lined tunnel has a diameter of approximately 9 feet, 9 inches; the steel penstock a diameter of 10 feet. The centerline of the tunnel intake is located at elevation 1,020 feet. A penstock measuring approximately 10 feet long and 4 feet in diameter was installed off the existing penstock of Unit No. 2 to convey flows to the newly constructed Unit No. 3 powerhouse. The intake is covered by an inclined, 22-foot-wide, 32.3-foot-high trashrack from elevation 1,015 to 1,045 feet. The trashracks have bar clear spacing of 2.6 inches.

A Broome gate, located 145 feet downstream of the intake, controls flow to the scroll case of Swinging Bridge Unit No. 2 and Unit No. 3 and serves as the headgate for the units. The Broome gate is approximately 16 feet high and 10 feet wide. The Broome gate is located in a shaft opening of varying width, with a maximum width of approximately 11.5 feet. The gate is driven from elevation 1,085 feet to elevation 1,024.9 feet.


E-19

A steel surge tank is located approximately 571 feet downstream of the intake. The surge tank is 30 feet in diameter with a wood exterior and is located on the longitudinal centerline of the penstock. The top of the foundation of the surge tank is at elevation 1,026 feet and is hydraulically effective to an elevation of 1,098.08 feet.

In 2019, a siphon system was installed at the Swinging Bridge Development to provide a means for providing minimum flow into the Mongaup River below the Swinging Bridge Dam when the Unit 2/3 penstock is unavailable. The siphon system consists of a single pipe that extends approximately 940 linear feet from the system’s intake in Swinging Bridge Reservoir to the Mongaup River, which consists of 320 linear feet of a 36-inch-diameter pipe from the system’s intake to the high point and then reduces to 620 linear feet of 28-inch-diameter pipe that terminates at the discharge manifold. The siphon is primed with a prime line pump situated inside the siphon pumphouse. The siphon is designed to provide a maximum flow of 60 cfs into the Mongaup River.


Mongaup Falls Development

The Mongaup Falls Reservoir is connected to the Mongaup Falls powerhouse by an 8-foot-diameter, wood-stave penstock with a steel penstock section. The penstock is 2,650 feet long and is supported above ground by wood or steel cradles on rock or concrete foundations, respectively, throughout its entire length.

Water into the penstock is controlled by a Broome gate located on the centerline of and in front of the penstock inlet at an elevation of 905 feet. The gate is 10 feet wide by 12 feet high and is raised and lowered by an electric hoist. The inclined 14-feet-wide, 32-feet-high trashrack covers the intake entrance to the penstock from elevation 900 to 932 feet. The trashracks have bar clear spacing of 1.7 inches.

A steel surge tank is located approximately 125 feet upstream of the powerhouse. This tank, 106 feet high by 26 feet in diameter, is hydraulically effective to elevation 961.5 feet. A 9-foot-diameter, concrete-encased steel pipe manifold, reducing down into 4 concrete-encased steel pipe legs, each 5 feet in diameter, directs water into each of the four hydraulic turbines at the powerhouse.

Black Brook Development

As indicated above, in 1984, the penstock at the Black Brook Development failed along most of its length and, subsequently, portions of the penstock were removed. Prior to failure, the penstock was approximately 4 feet in diameter and 4,300 feet long and directed flows into the Mongaup Falls Development surge tank. Flow into the penstock was controlled by two 4-foot, 8-inch-square timber gates with the invert of the gates at elevation 943 feet and the intake structure at elevation 934 feet.

Rio Project

Water from the Rio Reservoir is supplied to the main Rio Powerhouse by means of a 7,000-foot-long steel penstock, 11 feet in diameter. The intake structure to the penstock consists of the trashracks, intake gate, and entrance to the penstock. The trashrack structure is approximately 15 feet wide and extends approximately from the top of the dam (elevation 810 feet) to elevation 764 feet. The trashracks have a bar clear spacing of 2.9 inches. The intake structure is a reinforced-concrete gravity section with a reinforced-concrete gatehouse.


E-20

The intake is located at the right end of the spillway. The gatehouse measures approximately 22 feet square in plan view. The trashrack structure is approximately 15 feet wide and extends approximately from the top of the dam (elevation 810 feet) to an elevation of 764 feet (height of 46 feet).

A steel intake gate measures 14 feet high by 11 feet wide. The intake opening measures 12 foot, 6 inches high by 9 foot, 6 inches wide. The gate and gate operator are located in the gatehouse. The intake gate is controlled by a single screw-stem hoist operated by a motor through a set of worm and spur gears. The capacity of the hoist is 75 tons, which is sufficient to operate the gate under unbalanced conditions. A 30-inch, motor-operated, filler gate is also provided. Both motors can be operated from the gatehouse which is located on the intake. Water exits the intake area through a 90-foot-long, steel-elbow penstock, with centerline at an elevation of 750 feet. This steel section connects into the steel penstock.

The 7,000-foot-long penstock is connected to a surge tank. The surge tank has a diameter of 40 feet, is 65 feet high, and is constructed of riveted-steel plate. The surge tank is hydraulically efficient to elevation 835 feet.

A 10-foot-diameter, buried steel penstock with two 7-foot-diameter legs conveys flow to the powerhouse, located approximately 380 feet downstream of the surge tank. The penstock wye is located approximately 100 feet from the centerline of the units. A 6-foot, 6-inch-diameter butterfly valve is located at the inlet to the scroll case of each unit.

The Minimum Flow Powerhouse is supplied with water by a 4-foot-diameter, high-density polyethylene penstock. The penstock taps into the steel penstock for the Main Powerhouse about 300 feet downstream of the dam and travels about 100 feet down a hill to the Minimum Flow Powerhouse on the riverbank. The polyethylene penstock is buried beneath at least two feet of earth for most of its length.

E.5.2.3 Powerhouses


There are three powerhouses at the Swinging Bridge Development (Unit No. 1, Unit No. 2, and Unit No. 3). Unit No. 1 powerhouse has been permanently out of service since 2005. Unit No. 2 powerhouse is currently operational. Unit No. 3 powerhouse was constructed in 2019 and began commercial operation in February 2020.

Through a non-capacity license amendment, the Swinging Bridge Unit No. 1 powerhouse has been decommissioned in place and no longer contributes to the authorized capacity of the Project. The powerhouse is constructed of brick and steel and is 46 feet, 8 inches wide, 30 feet, 2 inches long, and is approximately 36 feet high. The main floor of the powerhouse is located at an elevation of 962.5 feet. The concrete powerhouse substructure consists of one horseshoe-shaped discharge bay, measuring 22 feet wide by 12 feet high. The discharge bay contains a suspended steel conical draft tube. The powerhouse structure contains a 30-ton overhead crane for servicing and/or removing turbine generator parts.

The Unit No. 2 powerhouse is constructed of brick and steel and is 48 feet wide, 33 feet long, and rises approximately 35 feet, 8 inches above the concrete substructure. The main floor of the powerhouse is located at elevation 959.5 feet. The powerhouse structure contains a 40-ton overhead steel crane for servicing and/or removing turbine generator parts.


E-21

The Unit No. 3 powerhouse was constructed in 2019 immediately adjacent to (north of) the existing Unit No. 2 powerhouse. The powerhouse consists of a concrete and steel structure measuring approximately 30 feet long by 30 feet wide, with an average height of 20 feet from operating floor to roof.


The Mongaup Powerhouse is constructed on a reinforced-concrete substructure. The substructure is designed to support the penstock and the connections to the turbine scroll cases. The powerhouse includes an L-shaped superstructure and is constructed of brick.

The generating room is approximately 90 feet, 8 inches long by 25 feet, 2 inches wide. The distance from the generator floor to the bottom of the steel roof trusses is 22 feet, 3 inches. The overall building height is 33 feet, 3 inches. The roof is constructed of shingles on wood planking. The generating floor of the powerhouse is located at an elevation of 838 feet. The powerhouse consists of four discharge bays, each measuring approximately 14 feet wide by 16 feet high. Each discharge bay contains a suspended steel conical draft tube. The powerhouse structure contains a 10-ton overhead steel crane for maintenance purposes.

Rio Project

The main powerhouse is constructed of brick and steel on a reinforced-concrete substructure which is designed to support the penstocks and their connections to the turbine scroll cases. The powerhouse superstructure is constructed of brick and is 82 feet long, 30 feet wide, and approximately 33 feet high. The main operating floor is located at elevation 649.5 feet. The roof is constructed of reinforced concrete covered with tar and gravel. The concrete powerhouse contains two horseshoe-shaped discharge bays, each measuring 18 feet wide by 17 feet high. The discharge bays contain suspended steel conical draft turbines. A 30-ton overhead crane is located in the powerhouse for maintenance needs.

The minimum flow powerhouse was constructed in 2013 and is a 30-foot-long, 27-foot-wide, by approximately 24-foot-high, reinforced-concrete structure.

E.5.2.4 Tailraces


The Unit No. 2 tailrace is 25 feet wide and extends approximately 75 feet from the draft tube discharge to the Mongaup River. Normal tailwater is at elevation 945.5 feet. The draft tube discharges through a short, 20-foot-longtailrace to the Mongaup River.

The Unit No. 3 tailrace is approximately 6 feet wide by 20 feet long located adjacent to the tailrace of the existing Unit No. 2 powerhouse.


The four generating units at the Mongaup Falls Powerhouse discharge directly into the Mongaup River with normal tailwater at elevation 818 feet.


E-22

Rio Project

Discharge from the main powerhouse flows into a 45-foot-wide by 225-foot-long tailrace. An approximately 65-foot-long, concrete weir at the bank of the Mongaup River maintains normal tailrace water at elevation 630 feet in order to keep the draft tubes submerged.

Water from the minimum flow powerhouse leaves the powerhouse through a 10-foot-wide by 38-foot-long tailrace comprised of concrete training walls and riprap and returns to the Mongaup River about 300 feet downstream from the dam.

E.5.2.5 Appurtenant Equipment

The substations at each Project are directly connected to and incorporated into Orange and Rockland Utilities’ transmission system via the interconnects located within the adjacent substation. Therefore, the Projects’ transmission lines are limited to the generator leads from each powerhouse to the adjacent substation, summarized in Table E.5-1.

TABLE E.5-1 SUMMARY OF TRANSMISSION LINES

Swinging Bridge

No. 2 Powerhouse

Swinging Bridge No. 3

Powerhouse

Mongaup Falls Powerhouse

Rio Main Powerhouse

Rio Minimum Flow

Powerhouse Length 150 feet 250 feet 100 feet 150 feet 7,600 feet Voltage 2.3 kV 4 kV 2.3 kV 4 kV 4 kV Type Underground Raceway Underground Underground Aboveground No. Poles -- -- -- -- 55 Pole Type -- -- -- -- Wood

In addition, there is one station service distribution line (240 volt) running from the Rio Minimum Flow Powerhouse panel board (PPH-2) to the gate house at the Rio Dam and one station service distribution line running from the Mongaup Falls substation to the gate house at the Mongaup Falls Dam (Table E.5-2). The Rio Minimum Flow Powerhouse transmission line is connected to the substation adjacent to the main powerhouse.

TABLE E.5-2 SUMMARY OF SERVICE LINES

Mongaup Falls Rio

Length 2,900 feet 300 feet Voltage 2.3 kV 240 V No. Poles 34 n/a Pole Type Wood Wood


E-23

E.5.3 Project Waters

Details regarding the Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects reservoirs are provided in Table E.5-3. The surface area and storage capacities were derived from the bathymetric data collected during the relicensing studies performed in 2018.

TABLE E.5-3 RESERVOIR CHARACTERISTICS

Characteristic

Reservoir

Swinging Bridge Project Mongaup Falls Rio Toronto Cliff Lake Swinging

Bridge Normal Maximum Surface Elevation

1,220 1,071.1 1,070 935 815

Minimum Surface Elevation

1,170 1,048 1,048 910 805

Normal Maximum Surface Area (acres)

843 183 980 133 444

Gross Storage Capacity (acre-feet)

27,064 3,200 35,925 1,782 14,536

Useable Storage Capacity (acre-feet)

26,038 2,694 16,519 879 3,354

E.5.4 Turbine and Generator Specifications


The Swinging Bridge Hydroelectric Project has an authorized capacity of 7.85 MW represented by 6.75 MW from Unit No. 2 and 1.1 MW from Unit No. 3. Unit No.1 has been permanently out of service since 2005 and, therefore, is not included in the Project’s authorized capacity and is not included in the table below. Turbine and generator information for Unit Nos. 2 and 3 are provided in Table E.5-4.


E-24

TABLE E.5-4 SWINGING BRIDGE TURBINE AND GENERATOR DATA

Turbines Powerhouse No. 2 Powerhouse No. 3 Number of Units 1 1 Type Vertical Francis Horizontal Francis Rated Head 110 feet 126.7 feet Rated Output 9,500 hp 1,475 hp Rated Discharge 1,015 cfs 125 cfs Minimum Hydraulic Capacity 550 62.5 cfs Maximum Hydraulic Capacity 1,015 cfs 125 cfs Operating Speed 360 rpm 720 rpm

Generators Type Alternating Current Generator Alternating Current Generator Rated Capacity 6.75 MW 1.1 MW Rate Output 7,500 kVA 1,296 kVA Power Factor 0.90 0.85 Phase 3 3 Voltage 4,000 volts 4,160 volts Frequency 60 60 Synchronous Speed 360 rpm 720 rpm


The Mongaup Falls Hydroelectric Project has an authorized capacity of 4 MW and contains four vertical-axis Francis type turbines. Turbine and generator information are provided in Table E.5-5.

TABLE E.5-5 MONGAUP FALLS TURBINE AND GENERATOR DATA

Turbines Number of Units 4 Type Vertical Francis Rated Head 110 feet Rated Output (per unit) 1,645 hp Rated Discharge (per unit) 155 cfs Minimum Hydraulic Capacity (per unit) 80 Maximum Hydraulic Capacity (per unit) 155 cfs Operating Speed 360 rpm

Generators Type Alternating Current Generator Rated Capacity (per unit) 1 MW Rate Output (per unit) 1,250 kVA Power Factor 0.80 Phase 3 Voltage 2,300 volts Frequency 60 Synchronous Speed 360 rpm


E-25

Rio Project

The Rio Hydroelectric Project has a total authorized capacity of 10.8 MW and includes one horizontal-axis and two vertical-axis Francis type turbines. Turbine and generator information are provided in Table E.5-6.

TABLE E.5-6 RIO TURBINE AND GENERATOR DATA

Turbines Main Powerhouse (Units 1-2) Min Flow Powerhouse (Unit 3) Number of Units 2 1 Type Vertical Francis Horizontal Francis Rated Head 170 feet 98 feet Rated Output 6,629 hp (per unit) 1,250 hp Rated Discharge 435 cfs (per unit) 120 cfs Minimum Hydraulic Capacity 240 (per unit) 60 cfs Maximum Hydraulic Capacity 435 cfs (per unit) 120 cfs Operating Speed 360 rpm 720 rpm

Generators Type Alternating Current Generator Synchronous Generator Rated Capacity 5 MW (per unit) 0.837 MW Rate Output 6,250 kVA (per unit) 930 kVA Power Factor 0.80 0.90 Phase 3 3 Voltage 4,000 V 4,000 V Frequency 60 60 Synchronous Speed 360 rpm 720 rpm

E.5.5 Dependable Capacity and Average Annual Energy Production

The dependable capacity and the average annual energy production for the Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects is provided in Table E.5-7. The average annual energy production is based on annual generation from water years 2010 through 2019.

TABLE E.5-7 DEPENDABLE CAPACITY AND AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION FOR THE MONGAUP RIVER

HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS

Project Dependable Capacity (MW) Average Annual Energy Production (MWh)

Swinging Bridge 7.7 (Unit 2) 11,639 (Unit 2)

Mongaup Falls 3.6 (Units 1-4) 10,860 (Units 1-4)

Rio 10.2 (Units 1-3) 24,9561 1. Represents average annual generation based on operation of Units 1-2 from 2010 to 2013 and operation of Units 1, 2, and 3 from 2014 to 2019, reflective of an extended outage of Unit 3 in 2015.


E-26

E.5.6 Project Operations

E.5.6.1 Current Project Operations

The Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects operate in a peaking mode while maintaining minimum flow requirements and seasonal target reservoir elevations. Eagle Creek monitors current and forecasted load demands, reservoir elevations, available storage, and weather/inflow data to determine effective operation of the generating stations and to balance the resource interests associated with the Projects. The Projects are required to operate in a coordinated manner such that the downstream units at the Mongaup Falls and Rio Projects are operated first in order to drawdown their respective reservoirs to accommodate the water released from the larger upstream Swinging Bridge Project.

The minimum flow requirements for each Project, as established by the Projects’ water quality certificates that were issued by the NYSDEC in September 1989, are summarized in Table E.5-8.

TABLE E.5-8 CURRENT MINIMUM FLOW REQUIREMENTS AT THE MONGAUP RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS

Location Flow Requirement Swinging Bridge Project --- Toronto Dam 10 cfs Cliff Lake Dam 10 cfs Swinging Bridge Dam 100 cfs or inflow (but not less than 60 cfs) Mongaup Falls Project --- Bypassed reach 70 cfs or inflow (but not less than 60 cfs) Powerhouse 20 cfs Rio Project --

Bypassed Reach 100 cfs or inflow (but not less than 60 cfs)

The normal maximum, minimum, and normal target reservoir elevations for each reservoir are provided in Table E.5-9. Although not requirements of the current licenses, Eagle Creek utilizes the normal upper and lower target reservoir elevations to balance hydrologic conditions and the demands of the power grid with environmental and recreational interests of the Projects’ stakeholders.

TABLE E.5-9 NORMAL MAXIMUM, MINIMUM, AND TARGET RESERVOIR ELEVATIONS

FOR THE PROJECTS’ RESERVOIRS Reservoir Normal Maximum Upper Target Lower Target Minimum

Toronto 1,220 1,218 1,200 1,170

Cliff Lake 1,071.1 1,068 1,049 1,048

Swinging Bridge 1,070 1,068 1,049 1,048

Mongaup Falls 935 934-935 929 910

Rio 815 814-815 808 805

Within the upper and lower target reservoir elevations, Eagle Creek utilizes seasonal target reservoir elevations at each development, which are presented as a range in Tables E.5-10 through E.5-13. As noted above, these


E-27

target elevations do not represent the allowable minimum or maximum reservoir operating elevations. Eagle Creek optimizes target elevations on an ongoing basis to balance hydrologic conditions and the demands of the power grid with environmental and recreational interests.

The Toronto Reservoir is targeted to be at a minimum elevation of at least 1,187.7 feet by June 1 to ensure sufficient water to provide the required minimum downstream flows of 10 cfs through a period of low inflows without drawing the reservoir elevation below 1,170 feet. The reservoir is maintained at an elevation of at least 1,170 feet throughout the year to permit use of the upper outlet works for protection of water quality.

TABLE E.5-10 TORONTO DEVELOPMENT SEASONAL TARGET RESERVOIR ELEVATIONS

Date Range Seasonal Target Reservoir Elevation Range

January 1 – January 15 1,210 – 1,218

January 16 – March 30 1,200 – 1,212

April 1 – May 31 1,205 – 1,218

June 1 – July 15 1,212 – 1,218

July 16 – August 30 1,210 – 1,218

September 1 – December 31 1,205 – 1,218

The Swinging Bridge Reservoir is maintained at or above 1,060 feet between June 1 and September 30 in support of recreational interests. Eagle Creek aims to maintain the reservoir above elevation 1,063.0 feet on June 1, decreasing to 1,061.0 feet on September 30. In support of recreational and shoreline interests, the Project is operated to ensure an elevation of 1,063.0 feet on June 1. In addition, Swinging Bridge Reservoir is maintained at an elevation above 1,049.0 feet during all times of the year to ensure dependable performance of Project equipment. If the Toronto Reservoir is near its minimum elevations, Swinging Bridge may need to be maintained higher than elevation 1,049 feet to ensure adequate water for downstream minimum flow releases.

Cliff Lake Reservoir is hydraulically connected to Swinging Bridge Reservoir via an underground tunnel and, therefore, does not have specific target operating reservoir elevations. Target reservoir elevations for Cliff Lake Reservoir are approximately equal to Swinging Bridge Reservoir elevations or up to 10 feet higher than Swinging Bridge Reservoir elevation depending on releases from Toronto Reservoir.

TABLE E.5-11 SWINGING BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT SEASONAL TARGET RESERVOIR ELEVATIONS


January 1 – February 14 1,055 – 1,068 February 15 – March 30 1,049 – 1,058 April 1 – April 30 1,053 – 1,068 May 1 – June 30 1,062.5 – 1,068 July 1 – July 31 1,062 – 1,068 August 1 – August 31 1,061.5 – 1,068 September 1 – September 30 1,061 – 1,068 October 1 – December 31 1,055 – 1,068


E-28

The Mongaup Falls Reservoir is maintained above elevation 933.5 feet between May 15 and June 30 to ensure the reservoir remains within one foot above or below the target elevation of 934.5 feet (to be reached on May 15) in support of bass spawning habitat. The Mongaup Falls Reservoir is generally maintained above elevation 927.0 feet during other times of the year to maintain dependable performance of Project equipment.

TABLE E.5-12 MONGAUP FALLS PROJECT SEASONAL TARGET RESERVOIR ELEVATIONS


January 1 – May 14 929 – 935

May 15 – June 30 933.5 – 934.5

July 1 – December 31 929 – 935

The Rio reservoir is maintained above elevation 813.5 feet from May 15 to June 30 to ensure the reservoir remains within one foot above or below a target elevation of 814.5 feet (to be reached on May 15) to support bass spawning habitat. The Rio Reservoir is generally maintained above elevation 807.0 feet during other times of the year to maintain dependable performance of Project equipment.

TABLE E.5-13 RIO PROJECT SEASONAL TARGET RESERVOIR ELEVATIONS


January 1 – May 14 808 – 815

May 15 – June 30 813.5 – 815

July 1 – December 31 808 – 815


Operation during Mean Flow

During periods of mean flow, the Swinging Bridge Project is operated to maintain seasonal target reservoir elevations at Toronto Reservoir, Cliff Lake Reservoir, and Swinging Bridge Reservoir to ensure sufficient water to provide the required minimum flows below Toronto Dam, Cliff Lake Dam, and Swinging Bridge Dam.

Minimum flows are released downstream of Toronto Dam into Black Lake Creek and flow into Cliff Lake Reservoir. Minimum flows are released downstream of Cliff Lake Dam into Black Lake Creek and flow into the Mongaup River. Water flows between Cliff Lake Reservoir and Swinging Bridge Reservoir via an underground tunnel extending between the two reservoirs as further described in Section A.1.3 of this application. Prior to construction of Swinging Bridge Unit No. 3, the required minimum flows were released from the Swinging Bridge Minimum Flow Discharge Valve adjacent to the Unit No. 2 Powerhouse into the Mongaup River and flow into the Mongaup Falls Reservoir. Following completion of construction of the new minimum flow unit in 2019, Swinging Bridge Unit No. 3 has been used as the primary source to provide the minimum flow into the Mongaup River downstream of the Swinging Bridge Dam.

In addition to operation of Unit No. 3 to provide the required minimum flow, during periods of mean flow, Eagle Creek operates Unit No. 2 to optimize hydroelectric operations to meet the needs of the regional


E-29

electrical grid. During periods of mean flow, Eagle Creek does not typically release flow over the side channel spillway.

Operation during High Flow

During periods of high flow, flows released from Toronto Dam and Cliff Lake Dam may be increased to avoid spill conditions at Toronto Dam and Cliff Lake Dam. The Swinging Bridge Development is operated to pass flows through the Unit No. 2 Powerhouse (and Unit No. 3 powerhouse). If inflows exceed the hydraulic capacity of the powerhouse(s) (1,140 cfs) and the Swinging Bridge Reservoir is at full elevation, flows are spilled via the Swinging Bridge side channel spillway.

Operation during Adverse Flow

Periods of adverse flow are determined by the 7-day average daily inflow to Swinging Bridge Reservoir (based on flows recorded at U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gage No. 01432900 adjusted by 1.62). Eagle Creek uses systematic steps and thresholds based on the 7-day average daily inflow to Swinging Bridge Reservoir and surface water elevations at Toronto and Swinging Bridge reservoirs to determine (in consultation with the NYSDEC) when a reduction in the required minimum flows from the Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls, and Rio developments is warranted. Additionally, between March 15 and September 30, Eagle Creek evaluates surface water elevations at Swinging Bridge Reservoir in relation to inflow and system demand conditions to determine when conditions warrant a restriction of hydroelectric generation at the Project.

Minimum flows below 60 cfs are below the minimum hydraulic capacity of Unit No. 3 and, therefore, are provided by the existing minimum flow discharge valve located adjacent to the Unit No. 2 Powerhouse.



During periods of mean flow, the Mongaup Project is operated to maintain seasonal target reservoir elevations to ensure sufficient water to provide the required minimum flows below Mongaup Falls Dam and Powerhouse.

Minimum flows are released from the Mongaup Falls Dam into the Mongaup River (bypassed reach) and flow into Rio Reservoir. An additional 20 cfs is provided via leakage from the Mongaup Falls Powerhouse into the Mongaup River.

During periods of mean flow, Eagle Creek operates the Mongaup Falls Powerhouse to optimize hydroelectric operations to meet the needs of the regional electrical grid.


During periods of high flow, flows released from Mongaup Falls Dam may be increased to avoid spill. Additionally, Mongaup Falls Powerhouse is operated to pass inflows. If inflows exceed the hydraulic capacity of the powerhouse (620 cfs) and the Mongaup Falls Reservoir is at full elevation, flows are spilled at the Mongaup Falls Dam.


E-30


Periods of adverse flow are determined by the 7-day average daily inflow to Swinging Bridge Reservoir (based on flows recorded at USGS Gage No. 01432900 adjusted by 1.62). Eagle Creek uses systematic steps and thresholds based on the 7-day average daily inflow to Swinging Bridge Reservoir and surface water elevations at Toronto and Swinging Bridge reservoirs to determine (in consultation with the NYSDEC) when a reduction in the required minimum flows from the Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls, and Rio developments is warranted. Additionally, between March 15 and September 30, Eagle Creek evaluates surface water elevations at Swinging Bridge Reservoir in relation to inflow and system demand conditions to determine when conditions warrant a restriction of hydroelectric generation at the Project.

Rio Project


During periods of mean flow, the Rio Project is operated to maintain seasonal target reservoir elevations to ensure sufficient water to provide the required minimum flows below Rio Dam.

Minimum flows are released from the Rio Minimum Flow Powerhouse into the Mongaup River (bypassed reach) and eventually flow into the Delaware River.

During periods of mean flow, Eagle Creek operates the Rio Main Powerhouse to optimize hydroelectric operations to meet the needs of the regional electrical grid.


During periods of high flow, the Rio Minimum Flow and Main powerhouses are operated to pass inflows to avoid spill at Rio Dam. If inflows exceed the hydraulic capacity of the powerhouse(s) (990 cfs) and the Rio Reservoir is at full elevation, flows are spilled at the Rio Dam.


Periods of adverse flow are determined by the 7-day average daily inflow to Swinging Bridge Reservoir (based on flows recorded at USGS Gage No. 01432900 adjusted by 1.62). Eagle Creek uses systematic steps and thresholds based on the 7-day average daily inflow to Swinging Bridge Reservoir and surface water elevations at Toronto and Swinging Bridge reservoirs to determine (in consultation with the NYSDEC) when a reduction in the required minimum flows from the Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls, and Rio developments is warranted. Additionally, between March 15 and September 30, Eagle Creek evaluates surface water elevations at Swinging Bridge Reservoir in relation to inflow and system demand conditions to determine when conditions warrant a restriction of hydroelectric generation at the Project.

Minimum flows below 60 cfs are below the minimum hydraulic capacity of Unit No. 3 in the Rio Minimum Flow Powerhouse and, therefore, are provided by the existing minimum flow discharge valve off the penstock immediately below the dam.


E-31

E.5.6.2 Proposed Project Operations

In general, Eagle Creek proposes to continue operating the Projects in a manner similar to the aforementioned current operations during adverse, mean, and high flow water years. However, in support of the proposed protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures, Eagle Creek proposes modifications to the existing operations that include the following:

• Provide a minimum flow below Swinging Bridge Dam to the Mongaup River of 100 cfs, or, if less, the 7-day average inflow to Swinging Bridge Reservoir, to a minimum of 60 cfs. If the 7 day average inflow falls below 40 cfs, flow may be reduced to equal inflow if peaking generation releases are discontinued.

• Operate the Swinging Bridge Project to maintain reservoir elevations above 1,060.0 feet in Swinging Bridge Reservoir and above 1,210.0 feet in Toronto Reservoir from Memorial Day to Labor Day.

• Provide a minimum flow of 70 cfs to the bypassed reach below Mongaup Falls Dam and a total flow of 90 cfs below the Mongaup Falls Powerhouse (inclusive of the bypassed reach flow), or if less, the 7-day average inflow to Swinging Bridge Reservoir, to a minimum of 60 cfs total flow below the Mongaup Falls Powerhouse. If the 7-day average inflow to Swinging Bridge Reservoir falls below 40 cfs, the total flow below the Mongaup Falls Powerhouse may be reduced to inflow if peaking generation releases are discontinued.

• Limit start-up and shut-down to no more than two units per 30 minutes at the Mongaup Falls Powerhouse.

• Provide a minimum flow below Rio Dam to the bypassed reach of 100 cfs, or, if less, the 7-day average inflow to Swinging Bridge Reservoir, to a minimum of 60 cfs. If the 7-day average inflow to Swinging Bridge Reservoir falls below 40 cfs, flow may be reduced to equal inflow if peaking generation releases and whitewater recreation releases are discontinued.

• Limit start-up and shut-down to no more than one unit per 30 minutes at the Rio Main Powerhouse.

E.6 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives (18 CFR §5.18(b)(5))

E.6.1 Summary of Existing Measures

Eagle Creek currently implements the following PM&E) measures for the protection of aquatic, water quality, geologic/soil, recreation, and cultural resources pursuant to the existing licenses for the Projects.

TABLE E.6-1 EXISTING PM&E MEASURES FOR THE MONGAUP RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS

Protected Resource

Article No.

Type Requirement

Swinging Bridge Project Aquatic; Water

Quality 401 Minimum Flows • Provide a continuous minimum flow of 10 cfs below

Toronto Dam into Black Lake Creek. • Provide a continuous minimum flow of 10 cfs below Cliff

Lake Dam into Black Lake Creek. • Provide a continuous minimum flow of 100 cfs or inflow,

but not less than 60 cfs below Swinging Bridge Dam into Mongaup River.


E-32

Protected Resource

Article No.

Type Requirement

Recreation 405 Recreation • Operate and maintain recreation facilities owned by Eagle Creek.

Cultural 406 Cultural • Consult with New York State Historic Preservation Officer (NYSHPO) prior to land-disturbing activities.

Mongaup Falls Project Aquatic; Water

Quality 401 Minimum Flows • Provide a continuous minimum flow of 70 cfs or inflow, but

not less than 60 cfs below Mongaup Falls Dam into the bypassed reach of the Mongaup River.

• Provide a continuous minimum flow of 20 cfs as leakage from the Mongaup Falls Powerhouse into the Mongaup River.

Aquatic 402 Reservoir Levels • Limit reservoir fluctuation to no more than 1 foot in the Mongaup Falls Reservoir from May 15 through June 30, annually for bass spawning habitat.

Aquatic; Water Quality;

Geology/Soils

404 Ramping Rates • Limit the maximum rate of change in river flow downstream of the Mongaup Falls Powerhouse by 2 units per hour during start-up and shut-down.


Cultural 407 Cultural • Consult with NYSHPO prior to land-disturbing activities. Rio Project

Aquatic; Water Quality

401 Minimum Flows • Provide a continuous minimum flow of 100 cfs or inflow, but not less than 60 cfs below the Rio Dam into the bypassed reach of the Mongaup River.

Recreation 401 Recreation Flows • Operate one or two turbine-generating units in the Rio Main Powerhouse for 4 continuous hours between 11:00 and 15:00 on alternative Saturdays and Sundays between April 15 and October 31.

Aquatic 402 Reservoir Levels • Limit reservoir fluctuation to no more than 1 foot in the Rio Reservoir from May 15 through June 30, annually for bass spawning habitat.

Aquatic; Water Quality;

Geology/Soils

404 Ramping Rates • Limit the maximum rate of change in river flow downstream of Rio Main Powerhouse by 1 unit per hour during start-up and shut-down.


Cultural 409 Cultural • Consult with NYSHPO prior to land-disturbing activities.

E.6.2 Summary of Proposed Measures

The comprehensive studies, consultation, and evaluation of the Projects during the previous licensing of the Projects resulted in the development and implementation of multiple comprehensive PM&E measures. Based on these earlier post-Electric Consumers Protection Act proceedings, in combination with the robust studies performed during this licensing proceeding, Eagle Creek is proposing PM&E measures consistent with the measures required by the Projects’ existing licenses as well as the new or slightly modified measures as listed below.


E-33

TABLE E.6-2 PROPOSED PM&E MEASURES FOR THE MONGAUP RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS

Swinging Bridge Project • Toronto Development – provide a minimum flow of 10 cfs below Toronto Dam to Black Lake Creek. • Cliff Lake Development – provide a minimum flow of 10 cfs below Cliff Lake Dam to Black Lake Creek. • Swinging Bridge Development – provide a minimum flow below Swinging Bridge Dam to the Mongaup River

of 100 cfs, or, if less, the 7-day average inflow to Swinging Bridge Reservoir, to a minimum of 60 cfs. If the 7-day average inflow falls below 40 cfs, flow may be reduced to equal inflow if peaking generation releases are discontinued.


• Operate the Swinging Bridge Development to maintain compliance with applicable dissolved oxygen (DO) standards in the Mongaup River as measured at USGS Gage 01433005.

• Operate and maintain the current FERC-approved recreation facilities owned by Eagle Creek at the Project. • Enhance the boat launch at the Swinging Bridge East Access to ensure functionality down to elevation 1,060

feet. • Develop a Recreation Management Plan to be filed with the Commission within 1 year of issuance date of

the new license. • Develop a Shoreline Management Plan to be filed with the Commission within 2 year of issuance date of the

new license. • Develop a Historic Properties Management Plan to be filed with the Commission within 1 year of issuance

date of the new license. • Develop a Bald Eagle Management Plan to be filed with the Commission within 1 year of issuance date of the

new license. • Develop a Northern Long-eared Bat Management Plan to be filed with the Commission within 1 year of

issuance date of the new license. • Develop an Invasive Plant Species Management Plan to be filed with the Commission within 1 year of

issuance date of the new license. Mongaup Falls Project


• Limit reservoir fluctuation to no more than 1 foot above or below the May 15 elevation in the Mongaup Falls Reservoir from May 15 through June 30 for bass spawning habitat.

• Limit start-up and shut-down to no more than 2 units per 30 minutes at the Mongaup Falls Powerhouse. • Operate and maintain the current FERC-approved recreation facilities owned by Eagle Creek at the Project. • Decommission Black Brook Development in place with no modification for fish passage. • Develop a Recreation Management Plan to be filed with the Commission within 1 year of issuance date of

the new license. • Develop a Historic Properties Management Plan to be filed with the Commission within 1 year of issuance




issuance date of the new license.


E-34

Rio Project • Provide a minimum flow below Rio Dam to the bypassed reach of 100 cfs, or, if less, the 7-day average inflow

to Swinging Bridge Reservoir, to a minimum of 60 cfs. If the 7-day average inflow to Swinging Bridge Reservoir falls below 40 cfs, flow may be reduced to equal inflow if peaking generation releases and whitewater recreation releases are discontinued.

• Operate the Rio Project to maintain compliance with applicable DO standards as measured downstream of the Rio Minimum Flow Powerhouse and USGS Gage 01433500 downstream of the Rio Main Powerhouse.

• Limit reservoir fluctuation to no more than 1 foot above or below the May 15 elevation in the Rio Reservoir from May 15 through June 30 for bass spawning habitat.

• Limit start-up and shut-down to no more than 1 unit per 30 minutes at the Rio Main Powerhouse. • Provide the USGS Office of the Delaware River Master with a 7-day forecast of flow releases from Rio.

Provide USGS Office of the Delaware River Master with immediate notification of a change in a forecast of 50 cfs or greater when flow recorded at USGS Gage 01438500 is equal to or less than 2,000 cfs.

• Provide recreational boating flow releases into the lower Mongaup River by operating one or two turbine-generating units in the Rio Main Powerhouse for 4 continuous hours between 11:00 and 15:00 every two weeks, alternating between Saturdays and Sundays, between April 15 and October 31. File the recreation flow release schedule for the upcoming season by March 15, annually.

• Operate and maintain the current FERC-approved recreation facilities owned by Eagle Creek at the Project. • Develop a Recreation Management Plan to be filed with the Commission within 1 year of issuance date of

the new license. • Develop a Historic Properties Management Plan to be filed with the Commission within 1 year of issuance




issuance date of the new license.

E.7 Environmental Analysis by Resource Area

Pursuant to 18 CFR §5.18(b)(5), this section explains effects of the Projects on environmental resources using the information filed in the Licensee’s PAD, information developed through implementation of the Commission-approved study plans, and additional information otherwise developed or obtained by the Licensee.

This section is divided into the following major resource areas:

• Geological and Soil Resources • Water Resources • Aquatic Resources • Terrestrial Resources • Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species • Recreation and Land Use • Aesthetic Resources • Socio-economic Resources • Cultural Resources


E-35

Each of the above resource areas are further divided into the following major subsections:

• Affected Environment - This subsection uses existing, relevant, and reasonably available information included in the PAD and the results of the relicensing studies to describe the condition of the existing environment at the Projects. In general, the affected environment discussion is divided into major areas of interest for each resource area.

• Environmental Analysis - This subsection describes the beneficial and potential adverse effects of continued operation of the Projects, as proposed. For each resource, this subsection also describes the Licensee’s proposed PM&E measures designed to address effects from the Projects. The proposed measures are listed in Section E.6.2 and described in greater detail in these subsections, as appropriate.

• Proposed Environmental Measures - This subsection describes how the Licensee’s proposed measures would protect or enhance the existing environment.

• Unavoidable Adverse Effects - This subsection describes any adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts that would occur despite the recommended environmental measures.

E.7.1 Geological and Soil Resources

E.7.1.1 Affected Environment

E.7.1.1.1 Geology

Physiography and Topography

The Swinging Bridge Project is located in the southern New York Section of the Eastern Appalachian Basin, a major physiographic province. The basin is an area of relatively flat-lying sedimentary rock units composed largely of siltstone and sandstone of the Upper Devonian Age. The folded Appalachian Highlands are located to the east and south of the Project (Stetson-Harza 1988 as cited in Eagle Creek 2014).

The Mongaup Falls and Rio Projects are located in the Appalachian Uplands physiographic province of New York State. This province (the northern extent of the Appalachian Plateau) was formed by dissection of the uplifted but flat-lying sandstones and shales of the middle and upper Devonian Catskill Delta. Relief is high to moderate. Maximum dissection occurs in the Catskill Mountain area, where only the mountain peaks approximate the original plateau surface. Drainage is generally south or southwest toward the Delaware River system (O’Brien & Gere 1994 as cited in Devine Tarbell & Associates [DTA] 2004a; Obrien & Gere 1994a as cited in DTA 2004b).

Bedrock Geology

The Swinging Bridge Project is located in an area of relatively flat-lying sedimentary rock units composed largely of sandstone and shale layers of the Middle and Late Devonian Age and are part of the Catskill Delta complex deposited near shore river environments and/or shallow (near sea level) waters. The thick upper layers of Devonian and Carboniferous-age rocks that slid to the northwest without major faulting (subhorizontal) are present in rock mass above the major fault. These faults generally occur within the weaker shale layers. Folds


E-36

are very gentle (limbs dip less than 1 degree) and have wavelengths up to 15 kilometers (km) (DTA 2005 as cited in Eagle Creek 2014).

Two large, prominent joint sets are present in the plateau province. The two dominant joint directions are north south (strike-joints) and east west (cross-joints). The north-south joint set is parallel to the direction of the layer parallel shortening related to the Alleghanian deformation. The east-west joint set is a release joint related to uplift after the end of the deformation. A late northeast striking set is present in portions of the region and are orientated parallel to the present day maximum horizontal in-situ stress direction (DTA 2005 as cited in Eagle Creek 2014).

The nearest limestone formation underlying the upper Devonian Upper Walton Formation is the Middle Devonian Onondaga Limestone. Five thousand to sixty-nine hundred feet of interlayered shale, siltstone, sandstone, and conglomerate separate the Middle Devonian Onondaga Limestone from the Upper Walton Formation. This suggests that karstic behavior is not associated with the Project (DTA 2005 as cited in Eagle Creek 2014).

Similarly, the Mongaup Falls Project bedrock consists of thinly-bedded, fine-grained sandstone with thin shale interbeds. Bedrock strikes approximately N14°W and dips approximately 5 degrees to the southwest. This orientation results in the rock having an apparent dip of approximately 4 degrees beneath the area of the Mongaup Falls Dam, dipping in the upstream direction (O’Brien & Gere 1994 as cited in DTA 2004a).

The Rio Project is founded on bedrock at shallow depths consisting of sandstone interbedded with shale or siltstone (Obrien & Gere 1994a as cited in DTA 2004b).

Surficial Geology

Overlying the bedrock in the Mongaup River Projects’ area and the surrounding area are glaciofluvial materials in the river channel, comprising 1 to 3 meters of glacial till. The till has a highly variable texture (clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders) but tends to be sandy in the reservoir area with variable clast content depending on the till location. The valley tills tend to have abundant, well-rounded, diverse clast lithologies while the upland till has less diverse clast lithologies (primarily channel), underlying the till are outwash deposits related to the fluctuation (advance and retreat) of the most recent continental ice sheet. The deposits consist of well-layered, sorted beds of sand and silt, with minor interbeds of clay and gravelly sand (DTA 2005 as cited in Eagle Creek 2014).

Mineral Resources

There are no mapped oil, gas, or mineral resources within the Mongaup River Projects’ boundaries. Sand/gravel, shale, and sandstone mining occur within Sullivan County and sand/gravel, shale, limestone, glacial till, and topsoil mining occur within Orange County. Four sand/gravel mines are located in the town of Lumberland; nine sand/gravel mines are located in Bethel; and nine sand/gravel and sandstone mines are located in Deerpark (NYSDEC 2014a). A sand/gravel quarry is located approximately 0.5 mile northeast from the upstream extent of the Swinging Bridge Reservoir.


E-37

E.7.1.1.2 Soils

Soil types in the vicinity of the Mongaup River Projects are variable and reflect the diversity of parent materials, the local topography, and the physiographic position of landforms. Soils within the Mongaup River Projects’ area are composed of soil series formed primarily by glaciofluvial deposits and recent alluvium, (Bryce et al. 2010). Common soil types known to occur in the Projects’ area include Alden silt loam, Arnot-Lordstown complex, Arnot-Oquaga complex, Arnot-rock outcrop complex, Oquaga, Cadosia, Barbour loam, and various additional types (USDA undated). The potential for mass soil movements at the Mongaup River Projects is low. The dominant mapped soils in the vicinity of the Projects are presented in Figures E.7-1 through E.7-3.

Additionally, the substrate categories identified and mapped in each of the Projects’ reservoirs during the 2018-2019 Aquatic Habitat Assessment Study are listed in Table E.7-1 and shown on maps provided in Appendix A of this volume. In Toronto Reservoir between elevations 1,200 and 1,220 feet, rocky fine and fine substrates are dominant whereas fine substrates are dominant between elevations 1,170 and 1,200 feet. In Cliff Lake Reservoir between elevations 1,048 and 1,071.1 feet, fine substrates are dominant. In Swinging Bridge Reservoir between elevations 1,048 and 1,070 feet, rocky fine and fine substrates are dominant. In Mongaup Falls Reservoir between elevations 910 and 935 feet, fine substrates are dominant. In Rio Reservoir between elevations 805 and 815 feet, fine; gravel, rubble, cobble; and rocky fine substrates are dominant.


E-38

FIGURE E.7-1 MAPPED SOILS IN THE VICINITY OF THE SWINGING BRIDGE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT


E-39

FIGURE E.7-2 MAPPED SOILS IN THE VICINITY OF THE MONGAUP FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT


E-40

FIGURE E.7-3 MAPPED SOILS IN THE VICINITY OF THE RIO HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT


E-41

TABLE E.7-1 SUBSTRATE CATEGORIES FOR THE RESERVOIRS’ FLUCTUATION ZONES

Zone (reservoir elevation)

Substrate Category Area (acres)

Fine Gravel Gravel, Rubble, Cobble

Rocky Fine

Rocky Boulder Bedrock

Sandy/Silt-Loam-Soil Complex

Riprap/ Artificial

Shore

Total Area (acres)

Toronto Reservoir Zone 1 (1,220 - 1,218) 4.00 0.83 5.03 10.37 0.36 0.64 -- 0.21 21.44 Zone 2 (1,218 - 1,200) 75.81 3.89 36.79 105.28 2.51 3.41 0.06 2.39 230.14 Zone 3 (1,200 - 1,170) 406.00 -- 1.02 35.22 4.87 -- -- -- 447.11 Total Area (acres) 485.81 4.72 42.84 150.87 7.74 4.05 0.06 2.60 698.69

Cliff Lake Reservoir Zone 1 (1,071.1 - 1,068) 12.11 -- 2.72 0.40 0.70 -- 2.94 0.08 18.95 Zone 2 (1,068 - 1,049) 78.34 -- 18.18 4.60 2.02 -- 0.58 0.28 104.00 Zone 3 (1,049 - 1,048) 2.98 -- 0.33 -- -- -- -- -- 3.31 Total Area (acres) 93.43 -- 21.23 5.00 2.72 -- 3.52 0.36 126.26

Swinging Bridge Reservoir Zone 1 (1,070 - 1,068) 8.04 0.21 3.14 11.88 1.82 0.22 6.34 0.18 31.83 Zone 2 (1,068 - 1,049) 147.86 1.69 32.15 117.87 14.30 2.04 2.78 1.77 320.46 Zone 3 (1,049 - 1,048) 6.60 0.01 1.75 5.02 0.69 0.06 -- 0.08 14.21 Total Area (acres) 162.50 1.91 37.04 134.77 16.81 2.32 9.12 2.03 366.50

Mongaup Falls Reservoir Zone 2 (935 - 929) 13.18 6.73 7.24 2.72 -- -- 2.18 0.10 32.15 Zone 3 (929 - 910) 54.60 2.07 19.61 7.92 -- -- 0.02 -- 84.22 Total Area (acres) 67.78 8.80 26.85 10.64 -- -- 2.20 0.10 116.37

Rio Reservoir Zone 2 (815 - 808) 15.11 -- 13.66 10.46 0.54 -- 0.58 0.42 40.77 Zone 3 (808 - 805) 9.29 -- 6.04 6.89 0.38 -- -- 0.25 22.85 Total Area (acres) 24.40 -- 19.70 17.35 0.92 -- 0.58 0.67 63.62


E-42

E.7.1.1.3 Shoreline and Streambanks

Reservoir Shoreline

The five reservoirs associated with the Mongaup River Projects have varying levels of use, development, and steepness. Below is a brief description of the Projects’ reservoir shorelines based on data collected during the 2018 and 2019 studies including the Aquatic Habitat Assessment Study. For the purposes of this application, Black Brook upstream of Black Brook Dam is not considered a reservoir and, thus, is not included in discussions regarding reservoirs or shorelines.

Toronto Reservoir is surrounded by forested vegetation with private residences primarily located along the reservoir’s eastern, northern, and western shorelines. Shoreline slopes between elevations 1,170 and 1,220 feet are largely gradual (0-15 degrees) with lesser amounts of moderate and steep slopes and isolated occurrences of vertical slopes (Table E.7-2).

Cliff Lake Reservoir is surrounded by forested vegetation and no private land development. The reservoir is accessible by an unpaved access road. Shoreline slopes between elevations 1,048 and 1,071.1 feet are largely gradual with lesser amounts of moderate slopes (Table E.7-2).

Swinging Bridge Reservoir is surrounded by forested vegetation, numerous private residences, some commercial development including two marinas, and paved roads. Shoreline slopes between elevations 1,048 and 1,070 feet are largely gradual with lesser amounts of moderate slopes and few areas with steep slopes (Table E.7-2).

Mongaup Falls Reservoir is surrounded by heavily forested, largely undeveloped land. Shoreline slopes between elevations 910 and 935 feet are largely gradual with lesser amounts of moderate slopes and a few areas with steep, very steep, or vertical slopes (Table E.7-2).

Rio Reservoir is surrounded by largely undeveloped forested land. Shoreline slopes between elevations 805 and 815 feet are largely gradual with less amounts of moderate and steep and isolated areas of vertical slope (Table E.7-2).

TABLE E.7-2 SLOPE CATEGORIES FOR THE RESERVOIRS’ FLUCTUATION ZONES


Slope Category (acres) Total Area (acres) Gradual Moderate Steep Very Steep Vertical

0-15° 16-30° 31-50° 51-75° 76-90° Toronto Reservoir

Zone 1 (1,220 - 1,218)

15.20 5.79 0.43 -- 0.02 21.44

Zone 2 (1,218 - 1,200)

176.10 44.18 9.83 -- 0.03 230.14

Zone 3 (1,200 - 1,170)

428.38 17.76 0.98 -- -- 447.12

Total Area (acres) 619.68 67.73 11.24 -- 0.05 698.70


E-43


Slope Category (acres) Total Area (acres) Gradual Moderate Steep Very Steep Vertical

0-15° 16-30° 31-50° 51-75° 76-90° Cliff Lake Reservoir

Zone 1 (1,071.1 - 1,068)

15.44 3.49 -- -- -- 18.93

Zone 2 (1,068 - 1,049)

83.76 20.26 -- -- -- 104.02

Zone 3 (1,049 - 1,048)

2.98 0.33 -- -- -- 3.31

Total Area (acres) 102.18 24.08 -- -- -- 126.26 Swinging Bridge Reservoir

Zone 1 (1,070 - 1,068)

19.41 10.58 1.84 -- -- 31.83

Zone 2 (1,068 - 1,049)

190.31 108.36 21.78 -- -- 320.45

Zone 3 (1,049 - 1,048)

7.84 5.23 1.17 -- -- 14.24

Total Area (acres) 217.56 124.17 24.79 -- -- 366.52 Mongaup Falls Reservoir

Zone 2 (935 - 929)

16.80 13.75 0.49 1.23 0.51 32.78

Zone 3 (929 - 910)

59.67 24.19 0.33 -- 0.02 84.21

Total Area (acres) 76.47 37.94 0.82 1.23 0.53 116.99 Rio Reservoir

Zone 2 (815 - 808)

23.41 10.85 6.46 -- 0.05 40.77

Zone 3 (808 - 805)

11.74 7.38 3.68 -- 0.05 22.85

Total Area (acres) 35.15 18.23 10.14 -- 0.10 63.62

Streambanks

The Projects are located on Black Lake Creek, the Mongaup River, and Black Brook. A description of the streambanks for Black Lake Creek, the Mongaup River, and Black Brook in the vicinity of the Projects is provided below based on the results of the studies performed by Eagle Creek in 2018 including the Fisheries Survey Study, Wetland Study, Black Brook Dam Decommissioning Study, and Base/Bypass Flow Transect Evaluation Study.

The banks of Black Lake Creek downstream of the Toronto Dam and Cliff Lake Dam are dominated by low-to-moderate slopes with scattered areas of steeper terrain dominated by forest canopy vegetation and underlain by established shrub and herbaceous layers. Additionally, some areas of the shoreline, including the streambed itself, are dominated by cobble shore wet meadow areas with and abundance of tussock sedge (Carex stricta). Small-to-large boulders, cobbles, and some areas of exposed bedrock are common along the shorelines.

The banks of the Mongaup River from the Swinging Bridge Dam to the Mongaup Falls Reservoir are dominated by low-to-moderate slopes with scattered areas of steeper terrain dominated by forest canopy vegetation and underlain by established shrub and herbaceous layers. In some areas, large areas of vegetated cobble bars are


E-44

common. Riprap borders the banks of the Mongaup River below Swinging Bridge Dam which transitions to areas dominated with small-to-large boulders, cobbles, and some areas of gravel and rubble.

The banks of the Mongaup River from the Mongaup Falls Dam to the Rio Reservoir consist of low-to-steep slopes with scattered areas of flatter terrain (especially near the Rio Reservoir) dominated by forest canopy vegetation and underlain by established shrub and herbaceous layers. However, the slopes of the Mongaup River below Mongaup Falls Dam are generally steep and dominated by exposed bedrock and scattered small-to-large boulders.

The banks of Black Brook in the vicinity of Black Brook Dam are largely dominated by steep slopes with extensive bedrock outcrops and large boulders. The shoreline is well armored by these ledges and boulders with some interstitial cobble and smaller boulders occupying the streambed and immediate banks. Where the bedrock is not exposed, the banks are heavily vegetated with a vigorous herbaceous, shrub, and canopy layers. Some flatter areas within the floodplain contain wetlands and occur upstream and downstream where the floodplain is a bit wider and the underlying bedrock is not exposed.

The banks of the Mongaup River from the Rio Dam to the Delaware River consist of low-to-moderate slopes with scattered areas of steeper terrain dominated by forest canopy vegetation and underlain by established shrub and herbaceous layers. Several areas of steep topography occur along this segment of the Mongaup River, and in some areas the river is bordered by bedrock ledges. Small-to-large boulders, cobbles, and gravel and rubble substrates are common along the shorelines.

E.7.1.2 Environmental Analysis

The Commission’s SD2 identified effects of continued operation of the Projects on erosion of reservoir shorelines and stream banks due to water level fluctuations and peaking operations as a potential resource issue relating to geologic and soil resources for the Projects.

Eagle Creek is not proposing new construction activities in this application that have the potential to mobilize soil during construction. Continued operation of the Projects is not anticipated to affect geologic resources in the vicinity of the Projects. Continued operation of the Projects could potentially contribute to shoreline erosion over the term of the new licenses. However, many natural and other anthropogenic factors also contribute to shoreline erosion, making the influence of the Projects (if any) difficult to identify.

In May 2019 and September 2019, as part of the Aquatic Habitat Assessment Study, the shorelines of the Projects’ reservoirs were inventoried for erosion sites. The inventory was conducted by boat and on foot. Erosion types in the study area consisted of: 1) undercut banks; 2) shallow translational slides; 3) slumping; 4) rills/gullies; and 5) trampling. The total estimated percentage of observed shoreline erosion at the Projects’ reservoirs is listed in Table E.7-3 and is shown on maps provided in Appendix A of this volume.


E-45

TABLE E.7-3 PERCENTAGE OF SHORELINE EROSION OBSERVED AT THE PROJECTS’ RESERVOIRS

Reservoir Total Length of Shoreline (miles)

Total Estimated Erosion (% of Total Shoreline)

Toronto 11.37 3.00 Cliff Lake 5.93 11.79 Swinging Bridge 19.87 3.74 Mongaup Falls 5.08 17.00 Rio 9.15 4.20

Fluvial and lacustrine environments are naturally dynamic and erosion can typically occur along the outside or cutbanks of turns and meanders of riverine and stream sections, as well as along the shoreline of lakes and reservoirs encompassing their water surface elevations. Various natural and anthropogenic causes can be attributed to the minor erosional areas identified at the Mongaup River Projects.

Natural processes of erosion identified as occurring at the Mongaup River Projects include but may not be limited to historical natural high-flow events, ice scour, wind-induced wave action, seeping/piping, freeze/thaw cycles, shoreline slope steepness, and the erodibility of the underlying soil complex. Anthropogenic processes of erosion include but may not be limited to wave action from boating, hydroelectric project operations, trampling, and shoreline land-use practices.

Both natural and anthropogenic factors contribute proportionately different to the observed erosion at each reservoir. Swinging Bridge and Toronto reservoirs are more-predominantly influenced by boat action, natural wind/wave action, and ice scour, whereas Mongaup Falls and Rio reservoirs are more-predominantly influenced by shoreline steepness, underlying soil complex, recreational trampling. Cliff Lake has limited anthropogenic effects and the minimal erosion observed at the development is likely predominantly due to underlying soil complex and project operations.

Based on field observations during the 2018 and 2019 field studies, most of the erosion occurring at the Mongaup River Projects is not active and appears to be naturally stabilizing as evidenced by the growth of herbs, saplings, and small shrubs. Additionally, the underlying nature of the soils assists in armoring and protection of the shoreline in most areas. Large areas of bedrock outcrops, large boulders, and cobble line the shorelines of the Projects’ reservoirs and serve to armor and protect these areas from significant erosion. Additionally, mature forests line most of the shores of these reservoirs and also protect these areas from erosional forces.

E.7.1.3 Proposed Environmental Measures

Based on the minimal or lack of direct effect from Project operations on geologic and soil resources at the Projects, Eagle Creek will continue to operate the Projects as proposed in this application, with no specific PM&E measures proposed for geological or soil resources.

E.7.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

The continued operation of the Projects as proposed by Eagle Creek is not expected to have unavoidable adverse impacts on geological or soil resources.


E-46

E.7.2 Water Resources

The subsections below further describe water resources in the vicinity of the Projects and consider the potential effects of continued operation of the Projects as proposed by the Licensee on water quantity and quality using available data presented in the PAD and the results of the 2018-2019 Water Quality Study and 2018-2019 Delaware River Flow Study.


E.7.2.1.1 Water Quantity

The Mongaup River watershed encompasses approximately 210 square miles (mi2) and lies entirely within New York State. The Mongaup River watershed constitutes approximately 1.6 percent of the total drainage area to the Delaware River Basin (Orange and Rockland 1988). The watershed discharges into the Delaware River approximately 2.8 miles downstream of the Rio Project’s main powerhouse. The drainage areas for the Projects’ reservoirs are listed in Table E.7-4.

TABLE E.7-4 DRAINAGE AREAS FOR THE MONGAUP RIVER PROJECTS

Project Dam Drainage Area (mi2)

Swinging Bridge 118.5

Toronto 22.5

Cliff Lake 6.5

Mongaup Falls 160.4

Rio 194.8

Project Hydrology

Inflow to Toronto Reservoir was estimated utilizing flows recorded at the USGS gage at Mongaup River at Mongaup Valley, NY (01432900) for the period October 1, 2002, through December 31, 2017, and the USGS gage at Beaver Kill near Cooks Falls, NY (01420500) for the period January 1, 1988, through September 30, 2002. The flows recorded at the Beaver Kill near Cooks Falls, NY gage were prorated to the drainage area of Toronto Dam by a direct drainage area proration factor of 0.09. The prorated values were then adjusted by a factor of 0.773 to correlate the total accumulated volume between the Beaver Kill near Cooks Falls, NY and the Mongaup River at Mongaup Valley, NY gages. The flows recorded at the USGS gage at Mongaup River at Mongaup Valley, NY (01432900) were prorated to the drainage area of Toronto Dam by a direct drainage area proration factor of 0.29. For the period January 1, 1988, through December 31, 2017, the estimated average inflow to Toronto Reservoir was 44 cfs, the estimated median inflow was 27 cfs, the estimated minimum daily average inflow was 2 cfs, and the estimated maximum daily average inflow was 1,205 cfs. The July through September estimated average inflow for this 30-year period was 24 cfs; however, for 8 of the 30 years in this period, the July through September estimated average inflow was less than 10 cfs, with the minimum July through September estimated average inflow of 4 cfs in 1991.

Daily average incremental inflow to the Swinging Bridge Reservoir was estimated by prorating the USGS Gage in the Mongaup River at Mongaup Valley, NY (Station No. 01432900). The Mongaup Valley gaging station is


E-47

located approximately 400 feet upstream of the bridge on State Highway 17B, just upstream from the Project and encompasses approximately 76.6 square miles. Mongaup Valley gage flows were multiplied by a factor of 1.547 to account for the 41.9 square miles of incremental drainage area in the Mongaup River basin between the Mongaup Valley gage and the Swinging Bridge Dam, and do not include drainage area or inflows from the Black Lake Creek basin. A 17-year period of record, October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2019, was selected for this analysis based on the availability of records at the Mongaup Valley gage.

The maximum recorded inflow to the Swinging Bridge Reservoir was approximately 5,925 cfs and occurred on April 3, 2005, and the minimum recorded daily inflow was approximately 16 cfs and occurred on several occasions in 2005 (August 26-27 and September 23 to 25) based on prorated inflows to USGS gage in the Mongaup River at Mongaup Valley (Station No. 01432900) (Table E.7-5). Annual and monthly flow duration curves based on the prorated inflows are provided in Exhibit B of this application.

TABLE E.7-5 PRORATED FLOW DATA INTO THE SWINGING BRIDGE PROJECT RESERVOIR

(OCTOBER 1, 2002 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2019)1

Period Minimum

(cfs)

90% Exceedance

(cfs)

Average (cfs)

10% Exceedance

(cfs)

Maximum (cfs)

Annual 16 46 261 538 5,925 January 75 109 302 580 2,537 February 55 80 236 445 2,831 March 62 116 414 958 4,038 April 75 124 396 757 5,925 May 49 92 231 420 1,593 June 31 58 209 390 4,130 July 25 40 142 282 2,073 August 16 33 178 373 4,316 September 16 22 196 440 5,415 October 17 34 249 548 3,620 November 23 64 254 496 1,903 December 63 119 326 599 3,295

1 Flows are presented as daily averages.

Daily average outflows from the Rio Project are based on data recorded at the USGS Gage in the Mongaup River near Mongaup, NY (Station No. 01433500). This USGS gage is located immediately downstream of the confluence of the Rio Main Powerhouse tailrace and the bypassed reach and encompasses approximately 200 square miles. A period of record from September 30, 2013 through September 30, 2019 was selected for this analysis based on the availability of records at the Mongaup River gage reflective of operation of the Projects pursuant to the existing licenses (i.e., post 1992). No data is available for USGS Gage 01433500 from April 1, 1995 to September 29, 2013.

The maximum recorded outflow from the Rio Project during the period of record was approximately 1,790 cfs and occurred on November 27, 2018, and the minimum recorded daily outflow was approximately 9 cfs and


E-48

occurred on November 22, 20144 (Table E.7-6). Annual and monthly flow duration curves are provided in Exhibit B of this application.

TABLE E.7-6 MONGAUP RIVER FLOW DATA DOWNSTREAM OF THE RIO PROJECT

(SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2019)1

Period Minimum

(cfs)

90% Exceedance

(cfs)

Average (cfs)

10% Exceedance

(cfs)

Maximum (cfs)

Annual 9 93 363 862 1,790 January 89 136 514 1,050 1,140 February 121 144 508 1,014 1,690 March 119 146 401 767 1,560 April 81 130 633 1,081 1,650 May 113 141 401 834 1,350 June 92 109 265 482 920 July 93 115 299 486 1,120 August 84 97 220 409 640 September 58 80 150 288 654 October 48 77 254 684 1,530 November 9 47 347 1,091 1,790 December 82 89 373 876 1,440

1 Flows are presented as daily averages.

Rio Project Releases and Delaware River Flows

As further described in the Delaware River Flow Study provided in the USR previously filed with the Commission on February 10, 2020, Eagle Creek evaluated the general effect and sub-hourly effects of flow releases from the Rio Project on the Delaware River downstream of its confluence with the Mongaup River from 2016 through 2019. Representative periods of low, normal, and high flows in the Delaware River (as measured at USGS Gage 01434000 at Port Jervis, NY) were evaluated in relation to Rio Project operation during normal operations (i.e., minimum flow only [100 cfs], minimum flow plus one-unit release [535 cfs], and minimum flow plus two-unit release [970 cfs]).

During periods of no generation at the Rio Main Powerhouse, the Mongaup River contributed approximately 1 to 7 percent of flow to the Delaware River (at USGS Gage 01434000) during periods of low, normal, and high flow periods. During periods of one unit of generation at the Rio Main Powerhouse, the Mongaup River contributed approximately 1 to 38 percent of flow to the Delaware River (at USGS Gage 01434000) during low, normal, and high flow periods. During periods of two units of generation at the Rio Main Powerhouse, the Mongaup River contributed approximately 3 to 64 percent of flow to the Delaware River (at USGS Gage 01434000) during low, normal, and high flow periods. The greatest percent contribution of flow of the Mongaup River to the Delaware River was seen during a low flow period in 2019, when a two-unit release contributed approximately 64 percent of the flow to the Delaware River at the USGS Gage No. 01434000 at

4 This flow occurred during an interruption of the required minimum flows as a result of a structural failure of the penstock for the Rio Minimum Flow Powerhouse.


E-49

Port Jervis, NY. However, percent contribution of flow did not exceed 50 percent in any other year evaluated (2016-2018). In addition, the percent contribution of flow from the Mongaup River to the Delaware River decreased further downstream of Port Jervis, NY, based on the higher flows in the Delaware River extending downstream.

An evaluation of the 2016 through 2019 flow data indicated that there are many periods when the flow in the Delaware River in the vicinity of the Mongaup River confluence significantly increases and decreases within the span of a single day, irrespective of operation of the Rio Project. Factors contributing to variation in flows in the Delaware River irrespective of Rio Project operations include natural precipitation events as well as releases from other storage and/or hydroelectric projects located on the East and West Branches of the Delaware River, as well as tributaries to the Delaware River both upstream and downstream of the Mongaup River confluence. Major tributaries to the Delaware River in this region includes the Lackawaxen River (approximately 17 miles upstream of the Mongaup River confluence), Neversink River (approximately 7.6 miles downstream of the Mongaup River confluence) and the Lehigh River (over 70 miles downstream of the Mongaup River confluence).

During development of this application, Eagle Creek further evaluated the flow releases from the Mongaup River into the Delaware River by graphing gage height in the Delaware River at Port Jervis, NY, in relation to flow in the Mongaup River downstream of the Rio Project (USGS Gage 01433500) and flows on the Delaware River upstream of the Mongaup River confluence (USGS Gages 01428500 and 01432160). During a low flow period in October 2017, the gage height at Port Jervis increased by approximately 0.4 feet during a two-unit release at the Rio Project and 0.2 feet during a one-unit release at the Rio Project (Figure E.7-4). During a mean low period in May 2019, the gage height at Port Jervis increased by approximately 0.2 feet during a two-unit release at the Rio Project and less than 0.1 feet during a one-unit release at the Rio Project (Figure E.7-5). No discernable effect on gage height at Port Jervis occurred during Rio Project releases during high flow periods (Figure E.7-6). Additionally, as shown on Figure E.7-7, the gage height at Port Jervis fluctuated to the same degree or at times to a greater degree on a daily basis, irrespective of Rio Project operations.


E-50

FIGURE E.7-4 MONGAUP AND DELAWARE RIVER FLOWS UPSTREAM OF PORT JERVIS, NY COMPARED TO GAGE

HEIGHT IN THE DELAWARE RIVER AT PORT JERVIS, NY DURING A LOW FLOW PERIOD


HEIGHT IN THE DELAWARE RIVER AT PORT JERVIS, NY DURING A MEAN FLOW PERIOD


E-51


HEIGHT IN THE DELAWARE RIVER AT PORT JERVIS, NY DURING A HIGH FLOW PERIOD


HEIGHT IN THE DELAWARE RIVER AT PORT JERVIS, NY

Existing and Proposed Uses of Project Waters

There are no permitted water withdrawals for irrigation, domestic water supply, or industrial use within the immediate vicinity of the Projects (NYSDEC 2017a). The closest withdrawal is approximately 0.4 mile northeast of the northern-most portion of the Swinging Bridge Reservoir where a concrete asphalt aggregate company


E-52

withdraws ground water and surface water for mine dewatering. The average daily withdrawal is 0.09 million gallons per day (MGD) and the maximum daily withdrawal is 0.15 MGD (NYSDEC 2017a).

Major water uses of the Mongaup River Basin are for power generation and recreation. The Mongaup River Projects are also the subject of DRBC Docket Nos. D-2001-038 CP-2 and D-2011-020 CP-1, which require the submission of operating plans to the DRBC, and Section 2.5.5 of the DRBC Water Code. The DRBC’s interest is in preserving water storage to provide for releases into the Delaware River during DRBC-declared drought emergencies in the Delaware River Basin.

During a DRBC-declared Drought Emergency, the Projects’ waters may be utilized to supply additional flows to the Delaware River (DRBC 2009). In accordance with the Delaware River Basin Compact, the DRBC has the authority to manage the approximately 15 billion gallons of water storage within the Mongaup River Hydroelectric Project System (DRBC 2016).

Existing Instream Flow Uses

Existing instream flow uses of waters of the Black Lake Creek and the Mongaup River within the immediate vicinity of the Projects include various recreational activities (e.g., fishing and recreational boating) and hydroelectric generation. No other instream flow uses of the Projects’ waters have been identified.

E.7.2.1.2 Water Quality

Available water quality data for the Mongaup River within the general vicinity of the Projects consists of information obtained from the following resources:

• Water quality data collected annually by Eagle Creek downstream of Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls, and Rio Main powerhouses (2016 and 2017); and

• Water quality data collected during the 2018 Water Quality Study.

Water Quality Standards

Water quality standards for the waters of the Mongaup River Projects are regulated by the NYSDEC, as delegated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Surface waters and ground water classifications are described in New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (NYCRR) 6 NYCRR §701, and numeric and narrative water quality standards are located in 6 NYCRR §703 and §704. In addition, waters within the Delaware River Basin are classified in 6 NYCRR §815.

Waters in the Projects’ area have been designated as Class B and Class B (trout [T]) waters. A summary of the water quality standards applicable to the Projects is included in Tables E.7-7 through E.7-10.


E-53

TABLE E.7-7 CLASSIFICATION AND STANDARDS OF WATERS IN THE PROJECTS’ AREA

Item No.1 Name1 Description1 Class1 Standards1

141 Mongaup River Mouth to trib. 29 B B(T) 156 Rio Reservoir -- B B(T) 163 Black Brook and tributaries -- B B(T) 172 Mongaup Falls Reservoir -- B B 180 Black Lake Creek Mouth to outlet of Cliff Lake B B(T) 181 Black Lake Creek From Cliff Lake to outlet of Black Lake B B 183 Cliff Lake Reservoir -- B B 185 Toronto Reservoir -- B B 197 Swinging Bridge Reservoir -- B B

1Pursuant to 6 NYCRR §815.6 Table 1.

TABLE E.7-8 BEST USAGE OF CLASS B AND B(T) WATERS

Class Best Usage

Class B Primary and secondary contact recreation and fishing. These waters shall be suitable for fish, shellfish, and wildlife propagation and survival.

Class B(T) Primary and secondary contact recreation and fishing. These waters shall be suitable for fish, shellfish, and wildlife propagation and survival. In addition, classified waters in the specific area are trout waters (T).

Source: 6 NYCRR §815.6 §701.7 §701.25

TABLE E.7-9 NUMERIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS B AND B(T) WATERS

Parameter Standard

pH Shall not be less than 6.5 nor more than 8.5.

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) The minimum daily average shall not be less than 5.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L), and at no time shall the DO concentration be less than 4.0 mg/L. For trout waters (T), the minimum daily average shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L, and at no time shall the concentration be less than 5.0 mg/L.

Dissolved Solids Shall be kept as low as practicable to maintain the best usage of waters but in no case shall it exceed 500 mg/L.

Total Coliform (number per 100 milliliters)

The monthly median value and more than 20 percent of the samples, from a minimum of five examinations, shall not exceed 2,400 and 5,000, respectively.

Fecal Coliform (number per 100 milliliters)

The monthly geometric mean from a minimum of five examinations shall not exceed 200.

Source: 6 NYCRR §703.3 §703.4


E-54

TABLE E.7-10 NARRATIVE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS B AND B(T) WATERS

Parameter Standard

Taste-, color-, and odor-producing, toxic, and other deleterious substances

None in amounts that will adversely affect the taste, color, or odor thereof, or impair the waters for their best usages.

Turbidity No increase that will cause a substantial visible contrast to natural conditions.

Suspended, colloidal, and settleable solids

None from sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes that will cause deposition or impair the waters for their best usages.

Oil and floating substances No residue attributable to sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes, nor visible oil film nor globules of grease.

Phosphorus and nitrogen None in amounts that will result in growths of algae, weeds, and slimes that will impair the waters for their best usages.

Thermal discharges • All thermal discharges to the waters of New York State shall assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the body of water.

The following general criteria shall apply: • The natural seasonal cycle shall be retained; • Annual spring and fall temperature changes shall be gradual; • Large day-to-day temperature fluctuations due to heat of artificial origin

shall be avoided; • Development or growth of nuisance organisms shall not occur in

contravention of water quality standards; • Discharges which would lower receiving water temperature shall not

cause a violation of water quality standards and section 704.3 of this Part; and

• For the protection of the aquatic biota from severe temperature changes, routine shut-down of an entire thermal discharge at any site shall not be scheduled during the period from Dec. through March.

The following special criteria shall apply to non-trout waters. • The water temperature at the surface of a stream shall not be raised to

more than 90°F at any point. • At least 50 percent of the cross-sectional area and/or volume of flow of

the stream, including a minimum of one-third of the surface as measured from shore to shore, shall not be raised to more than 5°F over the temperature that existed before the addition of heat of artificial origin or to a maximum of 86°F, whichever is less.

• At least 50 percent of the cross-sectional area and/or volume of flow of the stream, including a minimum of one-third of the surface as measured from shore to shore, shall not be lowered more than 5°F degrees from the temperature that existed immediately prior to such lowering.

The following special criteria shall apply to trout waters. • No discharge at a temperature over 70°F shall be permitted at any time to

streams classified for trout. • From June through September, no discharge shall be permitted that will

raise the temperature of the stream more than two Fahrenheit degrees over that which existed before the addition of heat of artificial origin.


E-55

Parameter Standard

• From October through May, no discharge shall be permitted that will raise the temperature of the stream more than 5°F over that which existed before the addition of heat of artificial origin or to a maximum of 50°F, whichever is less.

• From June through September no discharge shall be permitted that will lower the temperature of the stream more than 2°F from that which existed immediately prior to such lowering.

Flow No alteration that will impair the waters for their best usages. Source: 6 NYCRR §703.2 §704.2

Historical Water Quality Data at the Projects

As described in Eagle Creek’s March 30, 2017 Pre-Application Document (PAD) and January 10, 2018 Revised Study Plan (RSP), water quality data (water temperature and DO) has historically been collected at the Projects, including during studies associated with the previous licensing effort (i.e., 1988 Instream Flow Study), post-license issuance studies (i.e., 1994 Fish Entrainment Study), and annual monitoring performed since 2012 by Eagle Creek downstream of the Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls, and Rio Main powerhouses.

An evaluation of the historic water quality data (water temperature and DO) collected at the Projects indicates that, in general, water quality at the Projects exhibit thermal and chemical stratification of varying strengths and depths in the reservoirs throughout the seasons. The stratification of the reservoirs, at times, contributes to reduced DO concentrations in the riverine reaches downstream of the dam, or powerhouse discharges when anoxic water is pulled from the stratified reservoirs to meet minimum flow requirements, or for generation at the powerhouses (particularly at the Swinging Bridge Development).

2016, 2017, and 2018 Water Quality Data at the Projects

A discussion of the water quality data collected in 2016, 2017, and 2018 is provided below and represents water quality conditions in relation to estimated streamflows at the Projects during a dry, normal, and wet water year, respectively. Additional information related to water quality at the Projects is provided in the Water Quality Study Report in the Initial Study Report (ISR) filed with the Commission on February 8, 2019.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Projects’ existing licenses, from June 1 through October 31 water quality data (temperature and DO) was collected continuously at 1-hour intervals in the Mongaup River downstream of the Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls, and Rio Main powerhouses. The data collected in 2016 and 2017 (representing dry and normal water years, respectively) are summarized below and further described in the Water Quality Study Report included in the Updated Study Report (USR) filed with the Commission on February 10, 2020.

Additionally, in accordance with the Commission’s Study Plan Determination (SPD), from April 26, 2018, through November 7, 2018, Eagle Creek conducted a comprehensive Water Quality Study at the Projects. In 2018, water quality data (temperature and DO) was collected continuously at 15-minute intervals from 18 locations at the Projects and discrete water quality measurements of temperature, DO, pH, and specific conductance were collected approximately every seven to ten days at each of the locations of the continuous water quality data loggers. Water quality profile data was collected at approximately 1-meter intervals from


E-56

the water surface to a depth two meters below the elevation indicating anoxic conditions or to the bottom or the reservoir, whichever was encountered first. Water quality monitoring locations as well as the associated water quality standard and basis for estimated streamflows are described in Table E.7-11 and shown on Figures E.7-8 through E.7-10. The data collected in 2018 (representing a wet water year) are summarized below and further described in the Water Quality Study Report included in the USR filed with the Commission on February 10, 2020.


E-57

TABLE E.7‐11 2018 WATER QUALITY MONITORING LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS, ASSOCIATED WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS, AND BASIS FOR ESTIMATED STREAMFLOW

Monitoring Station No.

Waterbody Description of Monitoring Location Elevation1 of Monitoring Device

Elevation1 of Gate/Intake

Classification Basis for Estimated Streamflow

1 Toronto Reservoir Vicinity and depth of Toronto Dam gate(s) 1,182 1,179.5‐1,184.5 (upper)

1,143.5‐1,148.5 (lower)

B N/A

2 Black Lake Creek Downstream of Toronto Dam gate(s) ‐‐ ‐‐ B Discharges from Toronto Dam 3 Black Lake Creek Upstream of Cliff Lake Reservoir ‐‐ ‐‐ B Discharges from Toronto Dam 4 Cliff Lake Reservoir Vicinity and depth of Cliff Lake Dam sluice gate 1,039 1,037‐1,041 B N/A 5 Black Lake Creek Downstream of Cliff Lake Dam sluice gate ‐‐ ‐‐ B(T) Discharges from Cliff Lake Dam 6 Black Lake Creek Downstream of Swinging Bridge Side Channel Spillway ‐‐ ‐‐ B(T) Discharges from Cliff Lake Dam and Swinging Bridge Side Channel Spillway 7 Swinging Bridge

Reservoir Vicinity and depth of Swinging Bridge Unit 2 intake 1,034 / 1,0192 1,015‐1,0253 B N/A

8 Mongaup River At discharge of Swinging Bridge Unit No. 2 Powerhouse4 ‐‐ ‐‐ B(T) Discharges from Unit No. 2 Powerhouse (including minimum flow discharge valve) 9 Mongaup River Upstream of Mongaup Falls Reservoir ‐‐ ‐‐ B(T) Discharges from Unit No. 2 Powerhouse (including minimum flow discharge valve) and

inflow from Black Lake Creek 10 Mongaup Falls Reservoir Vicinity and depth of Mongaup Falls intake 905 901‐912 B N/A 11 Mongaup River Upstream of Mongaup Falls Powerhouse tailrace (lower bypassed reach) ‐‐ ‐‐ B(T) Discharges from Mongaup Falls Dam 12 Mongaup River Downstream of Mongaup Falls Powerhouse tailrace4 ‐‐ ‐‐ B(T) Discharges from Mongaup Falls Dam and Powerhouse 13 Rio Reservoir Vicinity and depth of Rio intake 774 769.5‐782 B(T) N/A 14 Mongaup River Downstream of Rio Minimum Flow Powerhouse (upper bypassed reach) ‐‐ ‐‐ B(T) Discharges from Rio Dam and Minimum Flow Powerhouse 15 Mongaup River Upstream of Rio Main Powerhouse (lower bypassed reach) ‐‐ ‐‐ B(T) Discharges from Rio Dam, Minimum Flow Powerhouse, and inflow from tributaries 16 Mongaup River Downstream of Rio Main Powerhouse tailrace4 ‐‐ ‐‐ B(T) Discharges from Rio Main Powerhouse and inflow from Rio Bypassed Reach 17 Black Brook Upstream of Black Brook Dam impoundment influence ‐‐ ‐‐ B(T) N/A 18 Black Brook Downstream of Black Brook Dam ‐‐ ‐‐ B(T) N/A

1 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). 2 From April 26 to July 25, 2018, the monitoring device at station 7 was located off the Unit 1 intake bridge at elevation 1,034 feet. From July 25 to November 7, the monitoring device was located near the Unit 2 intake at elevation 1,019 feet. 3 Elevation of Unit No. 2 intake. 42018 Monitoring Station Nos. 8, 12, and 16 are consistent with monitoring locations for the 2016 and 2017 water quality data provided in the USR.


E-58

FIGURE E.7-8 WATER QUALITY MONITORING LOCATIONS AT TORONTO AND CLIFF LAKE DEVELOPMENTS


E-59

FIGURE E.7-9 WATER QUALITY MONITORING LOCATIONS AT SWINGING BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT AND MONGAUP

FALLS PROJECT


E-60

FIGURE E.7-10 WATER QUALITY MONITORING LOCATIONS AT RIO PROJECT


E-61

Profile and continuous water quality data collected at the Projects’ reservoirs indicated that thermal and DO stratification occurs in each reservoir, but to a lesser degree in the Mongaup Falls Reservoir. The thermocline in the reservoirs typically begins to develop by late spring, is well established from early summer through late summer, and begins to dissolve by early to mid-fall. The depth of the thermocline varies amongst the reservoirs as well as over time by gradually moving downward in the water column until lake turnover occurs. In 2018, lake turnover appeared to occur earlier at the Cliff Lake and Mongaup Falls reservoirs (by mid-October) than at Toronto, Swinging Bridge, and Rio reservoirs (early November). Anoxic conditions occurred at varying depths and timeframes during periods of stratification in all reservoirs, but to a lesser degree in the Mongaup Falls Reservoir. A summary of the reservoir water quality profile data is provided in Table E.7-12.

Continuous water quality data collected in 2018 in the riverine reaches associated with the Projects indicates that water quality was in compliance with the applicable DO standards throughout the study period at the following monitoring locations:

• Black Lake Creek upstream of Cliff Lake Reservoir (Monitoring Station No. 3);

• Black Lake Creek downstream of Cliff Lake Reservoir (Monitoring Station Nos. 5 and 6);

• Mongaup River downstream of Mongaup Falls Dam (Monitoring Station No. 11);

• Mongaup River downstream of the Mongaup Falls Powerhouse (Monitoring Station No. 12);

• Mongaup River in the lower bypassed reach downstream of Rio Dam (Monitoring Station No. 15);

• Mongaup River downstream of Rio Main Powerhouse (Monitoring Station No. 16); and

• Black Brook upstream and downstream of the Black Brook Dam (Monitoring Station Nos. 17 and 18).

Continuous water quality data collected in 2018 in the riverine reaches associated with the Projects indicates that water quality was slightly below the applicable DO standards on a periodic basis at the following monitoring locations:

• Black Lake Creek downstream of Toronto Dam (Monitoring Station No. 2) – note discussion below regarding discrete water quality monitoring indicating that this reach maintained compliance throughout the survey period;

• Mongaup River downstream of Swinging Bridge powerhouses (Monitoring Station Nos. 8 and 9); and

• Mongaup River downstream of Rio Minimum Flow Powerhouse (Monitoring Station No. 14).

At Monitoring Station No. 2 (Black Lake Creek downstream of Toronto Dam), DO concentrations sporadically fell below the applicable DO standard on 10 days between August 31 and October 4, 2018. However, during this same period, DO concentrations recorded by the discrete water quality monitoring device during periodic data download events remained well above the applicable DO standard. Based on site conditions observed during these periodic data downloads, it appears the low DO concentrations are a result of biofouling of the DO sensor cap of the continuous monitoring device. This is also evident based on the increase in DO concentrations concurrent with the data download events, at which time the continuous monitoring device


E-62

was cleaned. Additionally, DO concentrations in Toronto Reservoir at the location and depth of the discharge gate remained above 4 mg/L and DO concentrations further downstream in Black Lake Creek at Monitoring Station No. 3 remained in compliance with applicable DO standards.

At Monitoring Station Nos. 8 and 9 (Mongaup River downstream of Swinging Bridge powerhouses), DO concentrations fell slightly below the applicable DO standard during some periods of generation at the Unit No. 2 powerhouse between July 5 and September 19, 2018, as a result of the low DO concentrations in Swinging Bridge Reservoir at the location and depth of the intake.

At Monitoring Station No. 14 (Mongaup River downstream of the Rio Minimum Flow Powerhouse), DO concentrations fell slightly below the applicable DO standard during certain periods between August 5 and September 21, 2018, as a result of the low DO concentrations in Rio Reservoir at the location and depth of the intake.

A summary of the minimum and maximum DO concentrations, as well as the number of days when an excursion of the daily average or instantaneous DO standard occurred, and the period when excursions occurred during the 2018 monitoring period is provided in Table E.7-13.

An evaluation of the water quality data collected in 2016 and 2017 in the Mongaup River downstream of the Swinging Bridge Unit No. 2 Powerhouse (consistent with Monitoring Station No. 8), downstream of the Mongaup Falls Powerhouse (consistent with Monitoring Station No. 12), and downstream of the Rio Main Powerhouse (consistent with Monitoring Station No. 16) indicate consistent trends in water quality data compared to the 2018 water quality data. These trends indicate that in 2016, 2017, and 2018, DO concentrations were below applicable standards downstream of the Swinging Bridge Unit No. 2 Powerhouse during generation during seasonally warmer months, and DO concentrations were in compliance with applicable standards downstream of the Mongaup Falls5 and Rio Main powerhouses.

5 During the 2017 continuous monitoring period, DO concentrations in the Mongaup River downstream of the Mongaup Falls Powerhouse ranged from 2.58 to 10.68 mg/L, with concentrations in compliance with the applicable state water quality standards from June 1 through October 31 with the exception of six days, which occurred on July 8 and September 23, 24, 25, 27, and 28, 2017. Per review of the data and field notes from the 2017 monitoring season, it appears that the excursions were a result of fouling of the monitoring equipment deployment tube. The Mongaup Falls Powerhouse was not generating during any of the days in which an excursion occurred in 2017.


E-63

TABLE E.7‐12 SUMMARY OF 2018 RESERVOIR PROFILE DATA

Waterbody Gate/Intake Elevation Thermal Stratification Chemical (DO) Stratification

Toronto Reservoir

1,179.5‐1,184.5 feet (upper) 1,143.5‐1,148.5 feet (lower)

Thermal stratification began to develop in May, was strongly developed by June, and continued through October.

Depth of the thermocline gradually moved downward in the water column over time, but remained above the elevation of the upper gate until mid to late October.

Water temperature near the depth of the upper gate remained below 50°F throughout the summer, rising to approximately 61°F as the thermocline dropped in October.

By early November, the water temperature was uniform with depth, indicating stratification had dissolved.

DO concentrations throughout the water column were fairly uniform in early spring, a gradually decreased with depth in June, and a rapidly decreased (representing the thermocline) from late‐June through early November.

Depth of the thermocline gradually moved downward in the water column over time, but remained above the elevation of the upper gate until mid to late October.

By mid‐June and continuing into early November, DO concentrations rapidly decreased, reaching anoxic levels at elevation 1,160 feet by mid‐July.

The depth of the anoxic conditions changes position in the water column throughout the summer and fall, ranging from elevation 1,160 feet in mid‐July to approximately 1,190 feet in mid‐August and then deepening to approximately 1,150 feet in November when lake turnover occurs.

Cliff Lake Reservoir

1,037‐1,041 feet Thermal stratification was evident by June and continued into October. From early July through early October, water temperatures steadily decreased with

depth as compared to a strong thermocline.

DO concentrations throughout the water column are fairly uniform in early spring, with stratification beginning in early May and continuing through mid‐October.

DO concentrations in surface waters remained above 8 mg/L throughout the summer with a trend where DO concentrations initially increased with depth, then rapidly decreased to anoxic conditions (<2.0 mg/L) near the gate depth and bottom waters

By late October, it appears lake turnover had occurred as the depth of the thermocline continued to decrease resulting in uniform DO concentrations throughout the water column, with the exception of bottom waters.

Swinging Bridge Reservoir

1,015‐1,025 feet Thermal stratification began to develop in early June, was strongly developed by mid‐June, and continued through October.

Depth of the thermocline moved over time establishing above the Unit No. 2 intake in June, then at the Unit No. 2 intake in July and gradually moving downward in August until eventually dissolved by late October.

Temperature near the intake depth varied widely depending on the position of the thermocline, but generally ranged from approximately 41°F on September 24 to 70°F on August 27 and September 5.

DO concentrations throughout the water column were fairly uniform in early spring with two layers of stratification forming from early July through late September and then beginning to dissolve by early to mid‐October as lake turnover occurs.

The degree of changes in DO concentrations and depths of occurrence varied throughout the summer and continued to a lesser degree in the fall.

DO concentrations at the intake depth also varied with the depth of stratification, with anoxic DO conditions occurring at the intake depth from late July to mid‐September.

Mongaup Falls Reservoir

901‐912 feet A weak and temporary thermocline began to develop in early June, became more established by mid‐June, and primarily dissolves by early August.

The weak thermocline remained above the intake depth through July.

DO concentrations throughout the water column were fairly uniform from early spring through mid‐June, and slightly decreased in the mid‐water column in late June and July with stratification evident from late August through late September.

A strong DO stratification was established from late August to late September when DO concentrations at the surface rapidly decreased, then were relatively uniform with depth (including the intake depth) until decreasing near the bottom.

By September 26, it appears fall turnover had occurred as the DO concentrations were similarly high (≥8 mg/L) throughout the water column, with the exception of a slightly lower concentration near the bottom (7.6 mg/L).

Rio Reservoir 769.5‐782 feet Thermal stratification was evident throughout the entire monitoring period with variable strengths.

Water temperatures at the intake depth ranged widely from approximately 55°F to 70°F, depending on the position of the thermocline.

The thermocline continued to move downward in the water column as lake turnover occurs by early November.

DO concentrations throughout the water column were fairly uniform in early spring with multiple layers of stratification forming from early June through late September and then beginning to dissolve by early to mid‐October as lake turnover occurs.

By late May, a pattern began to develop (similar to Swinging Bridge Reservoir) where DO concentrations rapidly decreased from surface levels, then rapidly increased (often to concentrations consistent with those measured in near surface waters), and then decreased again.

By early to mid‐October, it appears that the layers of stratification begin to dissolve and move downward in the water column (with anoxic conditions near the bottom) as lake turnover occurs.


E-64

TABLE E.7‐13 SUMMARY OF 2018 CONTINUOUS DO DATA

Monitoring

Station No. Waterbody Description of Monitoring Location Classification

DO Concentration Data during 2018 Study Period

Minimum (mg/L)

Maximum (mg/L)

Number of Days with an Excursion

Period Excursions Occurred

1 Toronto Reservoir Vicinity and depth of Toronto Dam gate(s) B 3.51 12.95 1* Sep 10 2 Black Lake Creek Downstream of Toronto Dam gate(s) B 0.96 11.25 10 Aug 31 – Oct 41 3 Black Lake Creek Upstream of Cliff Lake Reservoir B 5.35 12.97 0 N/A 4 Cliff Lake Reservoir Vicinity and depth of Cliff Lake Dam sluice gate B 0.83 12.91 28* Sep 3 – Oct 15 5 Black Lake Creek Downstream of Cliff Lake Dam sluice gate B(T) 5.78 11.72 0 N/A 6 Black Lake Creek Downstream of Swinging Bridge Side Channel Spillway B(T) 7.45 11.68 0 N/A 7 Swinging Bridge Reservoir Vicinity and depth of Swinging Bridge Unit 2 intake B 0.00 12.91 107* Jun 21 – Oct 31 8 Mongaup River At discharge of Swinging Bridge Unit No. 2 Powerhouse B(T) 3.54 13.46 26 Jul 5 – Sep 19 9 Mongaup River Upstream of Mongaup Falls Reservoir B(T) 3.26 12.15 39 Jun 30 – Sep 20 10 Mongaup Falls Reservoir Vicinity and depth of Mongaup Falls intake B 0.72 12.71 27* Aug 3 – Sep 24 11 Mongaup River Upstream of Mongaup Falls Powerhouse tailrace (lower bypassed reach) B(T) 6.90 11.15 0 N/A 12 Mongaup River Downstream of Mongaup Falls Powerhouse tailrace B(T) 5.03 11.80 0 N/A 13 Rio Reservoir Vicinity and depth of Rio intake B(T) 0.87 13.17 31* Aug 17 – Oct 3 14 Mongaup River Downstream of Rio Minimum Flow Powerhouse (upper bypassed reach) B(T) 4.00 12.23 76 Aug 5 – Sep 21 15 Mongaup River Upstream of Rio Main Powerhouse (lower bypassed reach) B(T) 7.61 11.54 0 N/A 16 Mongaup River Downstream of Rio Main Powerhouse tailrace B(T) 5.39 11.95 0 N/A 17 Black Brook Upstream of Black Brook Dam impoundment influence B(T) 6.85 11.70 0 N/A 18 Black Brook Downstream of Black Brook Dam B(T) 6.39 11.56 0 N/A

*DO excursions in the Projects’ reservoirs occurred below the epilimnion during periods when the reservoirs were stratified. 1Between August 31 and October 4, DO concentrations fell below the instantaneous water quality standard as recorded by the continuous water quality monitoring device; however, during this same period, DO concentrations recorded by the discrete water quality monitoring device remained well above the instantaneous water quality standard. Based on site conditions observed during these periodic data downloads, it appears the low DO concentrations may have been a result of biofouling of the DO sensor cap on the continuous monitoring device. This is also evident based on the increase in DO concentrations concurrent with the data download event, at which time the continous monitoring devices were cleaned.


E-65

2018 and 2019 Water Temperature Data in the Delaware River

In June 2018, a total of 12 water temperature monitoring devices were deployed across 4 transects in the Delaware River representing river left (RL), river center (RC), and river right (RR). Monitoring locations were based on consultation performed with resource agencies. One transect was located upstream of the Delaware River’s confluence with the Mongaup River (T1) and three transects were located downstream of the confluence (T2, T3, and T4 from upstream to downstream) with the furthermost transect located approximately 1.5 river miles downstream of the confluence (Figure E.7-11). Due to high flows experienced in 2018, only 7 of the 12 monitoring devices (T1-RR, T1-RL, T2-RR, T2-RL, T3-RL, T4-RR, and T4-RL) deployed in 2018 were able to be found/retrieved. It is believed the remaining five monitoring devices were destroyed/washed downstream in the Delaware River.

Additionally, from June 27, 2019, through September 11, 20196, a total of four water temperature monitoring devices were deployed in the thalweg of the Delaware River. One device was located upstream of the Delaware River’s confluence with the Mongaup River (T1), one device was located in the Delaware River at the confluence with the Mongaup River (T2), and two devices were located downstream of the confluence (T3 and T4 from upstream to downstream) with the furthermost device located approximately 2.8 river miles downstream of the confluence (Figure E.7-11).

In addition, when comparing water temperatures in the Delaware River upstream of the Mongaup River confluence (at USGS Gage 01432805) to those in the lower Mongaup River (USGS Gage 01433500) between 2014 and 2019, water temperatures in the Delaware River were generally warmer than water temperatures in the lower Mongaup River during June, July, and August, with the exception of 2018 (wet water year) when water temperatures in the Delaware River were colder than those in the lower Mongaup River beginning in late July.

In 2018, flows measured in the Delaware River at USGS Gage 01434000 (downstream of the Mongaup River confluence) ranged from approximately 1,100 cfs to 24,000 cfs in July; 3,400 cfs to 27,000 cfs in August; 3,000 cfs to 26,000 cfs in September; and 4,600 cfs to 21,000 cfs in October. From June through late July 2018, water temperatures in the Delaware River upstream of the Mongaup River confluence were warmer than water temperatures in the lower Mongaup River, resulting in a decrease in water temperature at T2 (with the 50th percentile delta ranging from approximately 1 to 6⁰F) and no change to a slight increase in water temperature at T3 and T4 (with the 50th percentile delta ranging from approximately 1 to 4⁰F). From late July through October 2018, water temperatures in the Delaware River upstream of the Mongaup River confluence were colder than water temperatures in the lower Mongaup River, resulting in an increase in water temperatures at T2, T3, and T4 (with the 50th percentile delta ranging from 1 to 7⁰F).

6No data were available after September 3, 2019 for the T2 monitoring device.


E-66

FIGURE E.7-11 2018 AND 2019 DELAWARE RIVER WATER TEMPERATURE MONITORING LOCATIONS


E-67

In 2019, flows measured in the Delaware River at USGS Gage 01434000 (downstream of the Mongaup River confluence) ranged from approximately 1,200 cfs to 4,800 cfs in July and August. In July 2019, water temperatures at T2 were approximately 9 to 11⁰F colder than T1, temperatures at T3 were approximately 1.5 to 5⁰F colder than T1, and temperatures at T4 were approximately 1 to 2⁰F colder than T1. In August 2019, water temperatures at T2 were approximately 5.5 to 8⁰F colder than T1, temperatures at T3 were approximately 1 to 3⁰F colder than T1, and temperatures at T4 were approximately 0 to 1⁰F colder than at T1.

Eagle Creek notes that the range of temperature changes in the Delaware River downstream of the Mongaup River in 2018 and 2019 occurred both during times of generation at the Rio Main Powerhouse as well as during times of no generation at the Rio Main Powerhouse. Additionally, a review of water temperatures in the Delaware River upstream of the Mongaup River confluence (i.e., no affect from the Mongaup River) show that a daily fluctuation of at least 2 to 7⁰F occurs routinely.


E.7.2.2.1 Water Quantity

The Commission’s SD2 identified effects of continued operation of the Projects on water quantity (e.g., streamflows and reservoir elevations) as a potential resource issue relating to water resources for the Projects.

Site-Specific Effects

Mongaup River Projects

The Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects operate in a peaking mode while maintaining minimum flow requirements, recreation flow release requirements, and seasonal target reservoir elevations. In addition, the Projects provide higher than natural downstream flows during seasonal low flow periods. Eagle Creek monitors current and forecasted load demands, reservoir elevations, available storage, and weather/inflow data to determine effective management of water quantity and operation of the generating stations. The Projects are required to operate in a coordinated manner such that the downstream units at the Mongaup Falls and Rio Projects are operated first in order to drawdown their respective reservoirs to accommodate the water released from the operation of upstream Swinging Bridge Project. Similarly, water to provide flows for the recreation flow releases from Rio Dam are supported by flows released from the Swinging Bridge Project.

As indicated by the hydrology of the Projects, including inflows to the Swinging Bridge Project, the Projects are located in a relatively small basin (210 mi2) with small drainage areas, which also experience a high degree of variation in seasonal flows (i.e., higher inflows in the spring and lower inflows in the summer, which at times are less than 5 cfs into Toronto Reservoir and less than 15 cfs into Swinging Bridge Reservoir). This, in turn, results in a finite amount of water available to satisfy the potentially competing interests associated with maintaining higher reservoir elevations at the Toronto and Swinging Bridge reservoirs, minimum flows, and recreation flow releases, as demonstrated by the results of the Operations Model Scenario Run Results provided in the USR filed with the Commission on February 10, 2020. Additionally, the Operations Model Scenario Run Results demonstrated that maintaining higher elevations at the Toronto Reservoir will result in more days with lower elevations at the Swinging Bridge Reservoir, particularly between Memorial Day and Labor Day with no provision for reduced minimum flows.


E-68

Eagle Creek operates the Projects to manage water in the system to effectively maintain continuous minimum flows below each dam and recreation flow releases below the Rio Project while maintaining seasonal target reservoir elevations that support recreational uses and aquatic habitat. Eagle Creek’s current operations are based on simulations using the hydrology for the period of February 1937 through December 2013 to understand how the continuous minimum flows affect reservoir elevations in sustained dry hydrologic conditions. This period incorporates the drought of record in water years 1964-1965. The simulation indicated that during dry hydrologic conditions, providing the required minimum flows downstream of Swinging Bridge Dam would require the use of reservoir storage to supplement inflows. In order to balance hydroelectric operations, downstream minimum flows, and reservoir elevations during all hydrologic conditions, including dry periods, Eagle Creek implemented the current normal upper and lower target reservoir elevations indicated. Additionally, Eagle Creek proposes to maintain the reservoir elevations above 1,060.0 feet at Swinging Bridge Reservoir and above 1,210.0 feet at Toronto Reservoir from Memorial Day to Labor Day.

Therefore, continued operation of the Projects is not expected to have an adverse effect on water quantity in the system, and in fact, is expected to have a benefit on water quantity in the system as the operation of the Projects allows continuous flows and recreation flows while maintaining seasonal target reservoir elevations largely irrespective of inflow (i.e., with the exception of periods of extreme low inflow or drought conditions).

Delaware River

Eagle Creek evaluated the general and sub-hourly effects of flow releases from the Rio Project on the Delaware River downstream of the Mongaup River confluence from 2016 through 2019. Based on the evaluation, flows and gage height on the Delaware River (e.g., at the downstream USGS gage at Port Jervis, NY) are affected to a greater extent by other contributing factors than flow releases from the Mongaup River. This determination is consistent with the statement in the NPS’ 2012 Delaware River Basin National Wild and Scenic River Values document. Based on the evaluation performed in support of the relicensing process, during mean and high flow periods (when flows are greater than 3,200 cfs at the USGS gage at Port Jervis), flows from the Mongaup River have no discernable effect on gage height at Port Jervis during high flow periods, or increase the gage height by approximately 0.2 feet during a two-unit release at the Rio Project and less than 0.1 feet during a one-unit release. To demonstrate the maximum observed effect on downstream flows, during a low flow period in October 2017, the gage height at Port Jervis increased by approximately 0.4 feet during a two-unit release at the Rio Project and 0.2 feet during a one-unit release at the Rio Project. However, as presented in this application, the gage height at Port Jervis fluctuated to the same degree or greater, on a daily basis, independent of generation releases from the Rio Project.

Furthermore, an evaluation of the 2016 through 2019 flow data indicated that there are many periods when the flow in the Delaware River in the vicinity of the Mongaup River confluence significantly increases and decreases within a 24-hour period, independent of Project operations. Therefore, based on studies performed in support of the relicensing process, Delaware River flow and water level fluctuations resulting from Rio Project operations are within the range of the variabilities that occur on a daily basis within the downstream river reach with no indication that Project operations increase the measured variabilities.

In addition, based on the continuous water quality monitoring performed by Eagle Creek downstream of the Rio Powerhouse, via the existing USGS Gage, flows downstream of the Rio Powerhouse maintained compliance with all applicable water quality standards, including dissolved oxygen and temperature, throughout the study period. Therefore, the water quality for streamflow in the lower Mongaup River that flows into the Delaware


E-69

River was in compliance with all applicable water quality standards throughout the study period. Therefore, there are no issues with the water quality for flows from the lower Mongaup River to the Delaware River and such flows are typical to colder water tributaries flowing into the larger stem river. Consistent with consultation with USFWS and NYSDEC in support of other hydropower relicensing proceedings in New York, such discharges of colder tributary water to the mainstem river have been viewed as a positive ecological feature that provides both refuge and an indicator of colder water habitat for species requiring cooler waters.

In support of continuing to provide adequate flows to the Delaware River, as part of the new licenses, Eagle Creek is proposing to provide a minimum flow below Rio Dam to the Project’s bypassed reach, operate the Rio Project to maintain compliance with applicable water quality standards, and provide the USGS Office of the Delaware River Master with a 7-day forecast of flow releases from the Rio Project. In addition, Eagle Creek is proposing to provide the USGS Office of the Delaware River Master with immediate notification of a change in a generation/flow forecast of 50 cfs or greater when flow recorded at USGS Gage 01438500 is equal to or less than 2,000 cfs. Therefore, continued operation of the Projects as proposed in this application is not expected to have an adverse effect on water quantity (flows) related to the Delaware River.

Cumulative Effects

Continued operation of the Projects as proposed by Eagle Creek is not expected to have cumulative adverse effects on water quantity in the Mongaup River Basin or the Delaware River.

E.7.2.2.2 Water Quality

The Commission’s SD2 identified effects of continued operation of the Projects on water quality (e.g., temperature and DO) as a potential resource issue relating to water resources for the Project.


In addition to the historical water quality data collected at the Projects, a comprehensive water quality data set was collected from the Projects’ area during the 2018 study season from late April through early November. The 2018 data (wet water year) was compared to the data collected below the Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls, and Rio Main powerhouses in 2016 (dry water year) and 2017 (normal water year). Overall, water quality data collected downstream of the Projects’ powerhouses exhibited similar trends during a dry, normal, and wet water year.


Profile and continuous water quality data collected at the Toronto, Cliff Lake, and Swinging Bridge reservoirs indicated that thermal and DO stratification occurs in each reservoir. The thermocline in the reservoirs typically begins to develop by late spring, is well established from early summer through late summer, and begins to dissolve by early to mid-fall. The depth of the thermocline varies amongst the reservoirs as well as over time by gradually moving downward in the water column until lake turnover occurs. In 2018, lake turnover appeared to occur earlier at the Cliff Lake Reservoir (by mid-October) than at Toronto and Swinging Bridge reservoirs (early November). Anoxic conditions occurred at varying depths and timeframes during periods of stratification in all three reservoirs.


E-70

Water quality in Black Lake Creek downstream from the Toronto and Cliff Lake dams were in compliance with applicable DO standards during the 2018 monitoring period. Accordingly, Eagle Creek proposes a continuation of the current minimum flows in Black Lake Creek.

During the 2016, 2017, and 2018 monitoring periods, minimum flow discharges (100 cfs) below Swinging Bridge Dam (provided by the minimum flow discharge valve) remained well above the applicable DO standards due to the aeration that occurs in the minimum flow discharge valve. However, during periods of generation at Unit No. 2, during the warm summer months (i.e., July, August, and September), DO concentrations fall below the applicable DO standard due to the volume (approximately 1,000 cfs) of water with low DO concentrations being pulled from the Swinging Bridge Reservoir. Accordingly, Eagle Creek proposes to operate the Swinging Bridge Development to maintain compliance with applicable DO standards as measured at USGS Gage 01433005.


Profile and continuous water quality data collected at the Mongaup Falls Reservoir indicated that a weak thermal and DO stratification occurs. The thermocline in the Mongaup Falls Reservoir developed in early June and primarily dissolved by early August. In 2018, lake turnover appeared to occur earlier at the Mongaup Falls Reservoir (by late September) than other reservoirs at the Projects (late October to early November). Anoxic conditions occurred at varying depths and timeframes during periods of stratification in all reservoirs, but to a lesser degree in the Mongaup Falls Reservoir.

Water quality was in compliance with the applicable DO standards at the monitoring locations in the Mongaup River downstream of the Mongaup Falls Dam (2018) and Powerhouse (2016, 2017, and 2018) as well as in Black Brook upstream and downstream of the Black Brook Dam (2018).

Rio Project

Profile and continuous water quality data collected at the Rio Reservoir indicated that thermal and DO stratification occurs and typically begins to develop by late spring, is well established from early summer through late summer, and begins to dissolve by early to mid-fall. In 2018, lake turnover appeared to begin at Rio Reservoir in mid-October. Anoxic conditions occurred at varying depths and timeframes during periods of stratification in the Rio Reservoir.

Water quality was in compliance with the applicable DO standards at the monitoring locations in the Mongaup River in the lower bypassed reach (2018) and downstream of the Rio Main Powerhouse (2016, 2017, and 2018). During the 2018 monitoring period, DO concentrations fall below the applicable DO standard downstream of the Rio Minimum Flow Powerhouse during times when DO concentrations are low in the vicinity and depth of the intake in Rio Reservoir. Accordingly, Eagle Creek proposes to operate the Rio Minimum Flow Powerhouse to maintain compliance with applicable DO standards as measured downstream of the Rio Minimum Flow Powerhouse, utilizing the existing aeration valve on Unit No. 3 and/or the existing minimum flow discharge valve located off the penstock immediately below the dam, when necessary.

Delaware River

When comparing water temperatures in the Delaware River upstream of the Mongaup River confluence (at USGS Gage 01432805) to those in the lower Mongaup River (USGS Gage 01433500) between 2014 and 2019, water temperatures in the Delaware River were generally warmer than water temperatures in the lower


E-71

Mongaup River during June, July, and August, with the exception of 2018 (wet water year) when water temperatures in the Delaware River were colder than those in the lower Mongaup River beginning in late July.

During these months, flows from the Mongaup River may affect (with an increase or decrease) water temperatures in the Delaware River immediately downstream of the Mongaup River confluence by approximately 0 to 11⁰F and to a lesser degree as thermal mixing occurs. However, a review of water temperatures in the Delaware River upstream of the Mongaup River confluence (i.e., no affect from the Mongaup River) show that a daily fluctuation of at least 2 to 7⁰F occurs routinely. Additionally, as shown in more detail in the Water Quality Study Report (Figure 5.4-9 and 5.4-13) provided in the USR previously filed with the Commission, the change in temperature measured in the Delaware River downstream of the Mongaup River was similar if not more variable at times when the Rio Project was not generating compared to when the Rio Project was generating.

Overall, Eagle Creek believes that operation of the Rio Project has a negligible effect, if any, on water temperatures in the Delaware River downstream of the Mongaup River confluence, particularly when looking at the changes in water temperature that routinely occur in the Delaware River irrespective of operation of the Rio Project.

Cumulative Effects

Continued operation of the Projects as proposed by Eagle Creek is not expected to have any cumulative adverse effects on water quality in the Mongaup River Basin or Delaware River as the water quality data collected at the Projects does not show a continued degradation of water quality from upstream to downstream or over time.


Eagle Creek proposes continued operation of the Projects with the following proposed PM&E measures related to water quantity and quality as listed below.


• Toronto Development – provide a minimum flow of 10 cfs below Toronto Dam to Black Lake Creek.

• Cliff Lake Development – provide a minimum flow of 10 cfs below Cliff Lake Dam to Black Lake Creek.

• Swinging Bridge Development – provide a minimum flow below Swinging Bridge Dam to the Mongaup River of 100 cfs, or, if less, the 7-day average inflow to Swinging Bridge Reservoir, to a minimum of 60 cfs. If the 7-day average inflow falls below 40 cfs, flow may be reduced to equal inflow if peaking generation releases are discontinued.

• Operate the Swinging Bridge Development to maintain compliance with applicable DO standards in the Mongaup River as measured at USGS Gage 01433005.

• Operate the Project to maintain reservoir elevations above 1,060.0 feet in Swinging Bridge Reservoir and above 1,210.0 feet in Toronto Reservoir from Memorial Day to Labor Day.


E-72



Rio Project



• Provide the USGS Office of the Delaware River Master with a 7-day forecast of flow releases from Rio. Provide USGS Office of the Delaware River Master with immediate notification of a change in a forecast of 50 cfs or greater when flow recorded at USGS Gage 01438500 is equal to or less than 2,000 cfs.


As noted above, Eagle Creek expects that continued operation of the Projects as proposed will not have a short- or long-term, unavoidable, adverse impact on water quantity or quality.

E.7.3 Aquatic Resources

The subsections below describe fish and aquatic resources in the vicinity of the Projects and considers the potential effects of continued operation of the Projects as proposed by the Licensee on these resources. Descriptions of the affected environment, the environmental analysis, the proposed environmental measures, and the identification of unavoidable adverse effects were developed based on available data presented in the Licensee’s PAD and the results of the relicensing studies presented in the ISR and the USR, including the Aquatic Habitat Assessment Study, Wetland Study, Bypass and Base Flow Transect Evaluation Study, Mussel and Macroinvertebrate Study, Fisheries Survey Study, Black Brook Dam Decommissioning Study, Alewife Study, Fish Entrainment and Turbine Survival Study, and Fish Passage and Protection Study.


The Mongaup River is a tributary of the Delaware River and is located in Sullivan and Orange counties, New York. The river originates as three branches in the southwestern Catskill Mountains at an elevation of approximately 2,000 feet. The three branches flow south until they converge approximately four miles north of the Swinging Bridge Reservoir. The five impoundments and riverine reaches located in Black Lake Creek, the


E-73

Mongaup River, and Black Brook downstream of the Projects’ facilities provide varying types of aquatic habitat in the Mongaup River Basin as described below.

E.7.3.1.1 Aquatic Habitat

In 2018 and 2019, Eagle Creek conducted an Aquatic Habitat Assessment Study within each of the Projects’ five reservoirs to identify the aquatic habitat within the normal fluctuation zones (i.e., the area within the reservoir elevation operating ranges) associated with the Projects (Table E.7-14). Each reservoir’s maximum elevation operating range was separated into different zones for this study as indicated in Table E.7-15. The Aquatic Habitat Assessment Study Report presents detailed maps and information regarding the results of the study. The reservoir mesohabitat maps are also provided in Appendix A of this volume of the application. Additional details associated with operation of the Projects in relation to reservoir elevations is provided in Section E.5.6 of this exhibit.

TABLE E.7-14 FULL, NORMAL UPPER/LOWER TARGET, AND LOW ELEVATIONS FOR THE PROJECTS’ RESERVOIRS

Toronto Cliff Lake Swinging Bridge

Mongaup Falls

Rio

Full Reservoir (Max.) 1,220 1,071.1 1,070 935 815 Normal Upper Target1 1,218 1,068 1,068 935 815 Normal Lower Target1 1,200 1,049 1,049 929 808 Low Reservoir (Min.) 1,170 1,048 1,048 910 805 Reservoir Maximum Elevation Operating Range

50 feet 23.1 feet 22 feet 25 feet 10 feet

1The target elevations do not necessarily represent the minimum or maximum reservoir operating elevations.

TABLE E.7-15 STUDY FLUCTUATION ZONES FOR THE PROJECTS’ RESERVOIRS

Toronto Cliff Lake Swinging Bridge Mongaup Falls Rio

Zone 1 1,220 - 1,218 1,071.1 - 1,068 1,070 - 1,068 NA1 NA1

Zone 2 1,218 - 1,200 1,068 - 1,049 1,068 - 1,049 935 – 929 815 - 808 Zone 3 1,200 - 1,170 1,049 - 1,048 1,049 - 1,048 929 - 910 808 – 805

1Zone 1 was not applicable for Mongaup Falls and Rio reservoirs because the full reservoir elevation is the same as the normal upper target elevation.

As further described below for each Project, the following aquatic habitat cover types were observed and mapped at the Mongaup River Projects’ reservoirs within the reservoir’s fluctuation zones (Table E.7-16).

TABLE E.7-16 COVER TYPE CATEGORIES FOR THE RESERVOIRS’ FLUCTUATION ZONES


Cover Type Category Total Area (acres)

Large Woody Debris

Invasive Aquatic Plant

Species

Submerged Aquatic

Vegetation

Centrarchid Nesting Areas1

Toronto Reservoir Zone 1 (1,220 - 1,218) 0.70 -- 0.82 0.08 1.60 Zone 2 (1,218 - 1,200) 1.41 -- 117.49 3.04 121.94 Zone 3 (1,200 - 1,170) -- -- 0.45 -- 0.45 Total Area (acres)1 2.11 -- 118.76 3.12 124.00


E-74


Cover Type Category Total Area (acres)

Large Woody Debris

Invasive Aquatic Plant

Species

Submerged Aquatic

Vegetation

Centrarchid Nesting Areas1

Cliff Lake Reservoir Zone 1 (1,071.1 - 1,068) 0.22 -- -- -- 0.22 Zone 2 (1,068 - 1,049) 0.80 -- -- 0.10 0.90 Zone 3 (1,049 - 1,048) 0.01 -- -- -- 0.01 Total Area (acres)1 1.03 -- -- 0.10 1.13

Swinging Bridge Reservoir Zone 1 (1,070 - 1,068) 0.24 -- -- -- 0.24 Zone 2 (1,068 - 1,049) 1.44 -- 2.35 1.11 4.90 Zone 3 (1,049 - 1,048) -- -- -- -- -- Total Area (acres)1 1.68 -- 2.35 1.11 5.14

Mongaup Falls Reservoir Zone 2 (935 - 929) 0.93 -- 0.04 0.752 0.97 Zone 3 (929 - 910) 2.35 -- -- -- 3.13 Total Area (acres)1 3.28 -- 0.04 0.75 4.10

Rio Reservoir Zone 2 (815 - 808) 0.59 0.15 -- 2.06 2.80 Zone 3 (808 - 805) 0.27 0.01 -- -- 0.28 Total Area (acres)1 0.86 0.16 -- 2.06 3.08

1 Centrarchid nesting areas were digitized based on approximated boundaries. 2 Centrarchid nesting areas in the Mongaup Falls Reservoir were incorrectly listed as occurring in Zone 3 in the USR

filed with the Commission; the information has been corrected as reflected in this FLA.

In addition to the Aquatic Habitat Assessment Study performed in the Projects’ reservoirs, Eagle Creek also conducted a Bypass/Base Flow Transect Evaluation Study within the Projects’ riverine reaches to supplement the existing baseline dataset provided by the 1988 Mongaup Basin Instream Flow Study; Final Report (Stetson-Harza and Icthyological Associates 1988) (“1988 Instream Flow Study” or “1988 report”). During the study, channel conditions were reevaluated by locating and resurveying a subset of the transects associated with the 1988 Instream Flow Study. Data was collected at randomly selected transects from the 1988 Instream Flow Study, as well as from three transects within Black Lake Creek downstream of Cliff Lake Dam that were not included in the 1988 Instream Flow Study. In total, eight stream reaches within six stream segments were assessed as part of this study (Table E.7-17). As part of this study, data were collected to support a description of each reach and the available substrates and mesohabitats found within the reach. Substrate and mesohabitat mapping were conducted by foot from the shoreline, or by wading in shallow areas. For overall habitat characterization and mapping, each habitat section was placed into one of 10 general habitat types based on dominant substrate type. The Bypass/Base Flow Transect Evaluation Study Report (Eagle Creek 2019) presents detailed maps and information regarding the results of the study. Stream reach mesohabitat maps associated with this study are also provided in Appendix B of this volume of the application.


E-75

TABLE E.7-17 STREAM SEGMENTS AND REACHES ASSESSED DURING 2018 SURVEY

Development Stream Stream Segment Stream Reach

Toronto Black Lake Creek Toronto Downstream Toronto Downstream Cliff Lake Black Lake Creek Cliff Lake Downstream Cliff Lake Downstream

Swinging Bridge Mongaup River Swinging Bridge Downstream Swinging Bridge Downstream Mongaup Falls Mongaup River Mongaup Falls Bypassed Reach Mongaup Falls Bypassed Reach

Rio Mongaup River Rio Bypassed Reach

Rio Bypassed Reach 1 Rio Bypassed Reach 2

Rio Powerhouse Rio Powerhouse Reach 3 Rio Powerhouse Reach 4


Toronto Reservoir

The shoreline of Toronto Reservoir is surrounded by forested vegetation and private residences. A multitude of residential docks along the shore coupled with sporadic large boulders, fallen trees, exposed root wads, and some emergent and terrestrial vegetation at higher water levels provides the most abundant cover along the shoreline of the reservoir. The aquatic habitat of Toronto Reservoir is generally classified as lentic. Eagle Creek mapped substrates and cover types within a total of 698.7 acres in Toronto Reservoir between reservoir elevations of 1,170 and 1,220 feet. Fine substrates dominate Toronto Reservoir accounting for approximately 69.5 percent (485.81 acres), with 21.6 percent (150.87 acres) attributed to rocky fine substrate; 6.1 percent (42.84 acres) of gravel, rubble, cobble substrate; 1.1 percent (7.74 acres) of rocky boulder substrate; 0.7 percent (4.72 acres) of gravel substrate; 0.6 percent (4.05 acres) of bedrock; 0.4 percent (2.60 acres) of riprap/artificial shore; and 0.008 percent (0.06 acre) of sandy/silt-loam-soil complex. Dominant cover types consisted of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) (118.76 acres), Centrarchid nesting areas (3.12 acres), and large woody debris (2.11 acres). Shoreline slopes ranged from gradual to vertical, with gradual slopes occurring in 88.7 percent of mapped mesohabitat units (Eagle Creek 2020).

Black Lake Creek downstream of Toronto Dam

Black Lake Creek from Toronto Dam to Cliff Lake Reservoir is comprised of two distinct reaches based on channel characteristics and gradient. The upstream reach is characterized by a single channel with a high gradient. Flow is primarily riffle in nature with little pool or run habitat. The downstream reach has a fairly low gradient and consists of a braided channel in many areas flowing through a relatively wide flood plain. Substrates in the upstream reach consist primarily of large gravel, cobble, and rubble. Substrates in the downstream reach consist primarily of sand and gravel.

As part of the Bypass/Base Flow Transect Evaluation Study, a habitat mapping and characterization effort was conducted in Black Lake Creek from approximately 0.94 to 1.11 miles below the Toronto Dam. A private, reinforced, wooden, access road bridge crosses over this study reach and connects to Pine Grove Road in Forestburgh, New York. This section of riverine habitat is approximately 0.17 mile long, extends through a range


E-76

of elevations from 1,095.6 to 1,084.6 feet (North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD88])7, has a mean gradient of about 64.71 feet/mile, and a slope of approximately 0.012 ft/ft. A total of 0.66 acre of aquatic habitat (6 habitat units) was mapped in this reach during the 2018 survey. Riffle habitat dominates this reach, accounting for approximately 44.9 percent (0.29 acre), with 34.5 percent (0.23 acre) attributed to runs, followed by rapids at 14.0 percent (0.09 acre), and glide habitat at 6.5 percent (0.04 acre). The majority of the substrate in this reach is dominated by cobble/rubble (46.0% or 0.30 acre of total aquatic habitat area). The subdominant substrate consisted of gravel (40.1% or 0.26 acre of total aquatic habitat area). Average stream widths in the reach were approximately 32 feet. Black Lake Creek upstream from the access road bridge and near the upper extent of the Toronto Downstream Reach is characterized as a relatively steep (0.02 ft/ft) rapid/fast run area with average stream widths of approximately 34 feet. Downstream of the access road bridge, Black Lake Creek has a milder slope (0.007 ft/ft) with substrates dominated by gravel and cobble/rubble. Substrate immediately downstream of the access road bridge is dominated by cobble/rubble (Eagle Creek 2019).


Cliff Lake Reservoir has two distinct sections, shallow waters in the northern half and deeper waters in the southern half. The shoreline habitat and cover primarily consists of fallen trees and areas of accumulated large woody debris and overhanging shoreline canopy. The northern half of Cliff Lake Reservoir, upstream of the islands and the underground tunnel intake channel, is relatively shallow (8 to 10 feet in the former Black Lake Creek channel and shallower outside of this channel), providing considerable littoral zone habitat. This area is characterized as having relatively fine sediment substrates with numerous tree stumps and rooted emergent and submerged vegetation scattered throughout the area. The southern portion of Cliff Lake Reservoir, between the islands and the dam, has a steeper shoreline with cobble and boulders surrounded by interstitial gravel and occasional areas of sand. Water depths of 30 to 40 feet occur near the shoreline throughout much of this area (Eagle Creek 2017).

Eagle Creek mapped aquatic substrates and cover types within a total of 126.26 acres in Cliff Lake Reservoir between reservoir elevations of 1,048 and 1,071.1 feet. Fine substrates dominate the Cliff Lake Reservoir, accounting for approximately 73.9 percent (93.43 acres), with 16.8 percent (21.23 acres) attributed to gravel, rubble, cobble substrate, followed by 3.9 percent (5.00 acres) of rocky fine substrate, 2.8 percent (3.52 acres) of sandy/silt-loam-soil complex, 2.2 percent (2.72 acres) of rocky boulder, and 0.3 percent (0.36 acre) of riprap/artificial shore (Appendix A). Dominant cover types consisted of large woody debris and Centrarchid nesting areas, 1.03 and 0.10 acres, respectively. Shoreline slopes ranged from gradual to moderate, with gradual slopes occurring in 80.9 percent of mapped mesohabitat units (Eagle Creek 2020).

Black Lake Creek Downstream of Cliff Lake Dam

In Black Lake Creek downstream of Cliff Lake Dam, the confluence with the Mongaup River and the presence of several relatively large pools/ponded areas in the reach, created either by the topography of the valley or by beaver activity, provides a relatively diverse assemblage of fish habitat types. Abundant riparian vegetation

7 Elevations used in this section of the exhibit to describe the percent gradient of river reaches/segments have been derived from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) LiDAR Point Cloud (LPC) data for Sullivan County, New York, 2007, acquired from New York State Information Technology GIS Program Office (accessed January 9, 2019) or from site-specific survey data collected as part of the Bypass/Base Flow Transect Evaluation Study.


E-77

along the margin and within the stream channel provides suitable cover for Brook Trout and other fish species. The habitat mapping and characterization effort was conducted in Black Lake Creek in the Cliff Lake Downstream Segment on October 3, 2018, as part of the Bypass/Base Flow Transect Evaluation Study. The mapped habitat within the Cliff Lake Downstream Segment, and detailed data for the mesohabitat features mapped, are provided in the ISR filed with the Commission on February 8, 2019. The Cliff Lake Downstream Segment is located in Black Lake Creek from the Cliff Lake Dam to the confluence with the Mongaup River. This section of riverine habitat is approximately 1.70 miles long, ranges in elevation from 1,025.4 to 932.8 feet, has a mean gradient of about 54.47 ft/mile, and has an average slope of approximately 0.010 ft/ft (Eagle Creek 2019).

A total of 9.06 acres of aquatic habitat (58 habitat units) was mapped in the Cliff Lake Downstream Segment during the 2018 survey. As mentioned above, pool habitat dominates this segment accounting for approximately 49.7 percent (4.50 acres), with 25.4 percent (2.30 acres) attributed to riffle-pool complexes, followed by riffle at 14.0 percent (1.27 acres), glide habitat at 6.3 percent (0.57 acre), riffle-step pool complexes at 2.2 percent (0.20 acre), runs at 1.9 percent (0.17 acre), cascades at 0.3 percent (0.03 acre), and falls and rapids each at 0.1 percent (0.01 acre), respectively. The majority of the substrate in this segment is dominated by cobble/rubble (43.5% or 3.94 acres of total aquatic habitat area). The subdominant substrate consisted of mud/soft clay (30.0% or 2.71 acres of total aquatic habitat area). The sub-subdominant substrate consisted of gravel (17.5% or 1.59 acres of total aquatic habitat area). Average stream widths in the segment were approximately 31 feet (Eagle Creek 2019).

From Cliff Lake Dam to a point approximately 540 feet downstream, Black Lake Creek flows through a series of cascades and step-pool habitat with some vertical drops of approximately 5 to 8 feet. This section of the segment is steep (average slope of 0.055 ft/ft) and is bedrock controlled. Immediately downstream of this habitat, is a relatively large pool (approximately 150 feet long by 85 feet wide) located just upstream of a relatively large meander in Black Lake Creek. Downstream of this pool, Black Lake Creek flows into an approximately 2,550-foot-long riffle complex/pool area with an average slope of 0.009 ft/ft and stream widths that vary between approximately 15 and 50 feet. Between the downstream end of this riffle complex/pool area and the confluence of the Swinging Bridge spillway channel, Black Lake Creek flows through a major pool area. This pool is approximately 1,100 feet long and averages approximately 131 feet wide (approximately 182 feet wide at its widest point). The margins of the pool are bordered by emergent and scrub-shrub wetland vegetation, submerged and exposed stumps, and evidence of beaver activity was observed during the site investigation. The substrate of the pool was dominated by soft sediments/organics. Downstream of this major pool, Black Lake Creek flows through an approximately 4,000-foot-long riffle complex/pool type habitat with an average slope of 0.008 ft/ft and stream widths of approximately 22 to 60 feet (Eagle Creek 2019).

Stream cover within the segment was provided primarily by cobble/rubble, areas of scattered small boulders, and some areas of accumulated large woody debris. Emergent and scrub-shrub wetland vegetation, as well as decaying logs/stumps, provide the majority of stream cover in the major pool area (Eagle Creek 2019).


In addition to the cobble, rubble, and gravel substrates typical of the area, the Swinging Bridge Reservoir also has sandier substrates scattered around the perimeter of the reservoir. The Swinging Bridge Reservoir littoral zone is relatively steep-sided in the southern half of the reservoir from the public boat launch downstream to the dam. With the exception of a few private docks on the southern half of the reservoir, the main cover


E-78

consists of large fallen trees along the shoreline coupled with some mammoth boulder fields that are largely exposed during low water events. Water depths in the southern half reach 110 feet a short distance upstream of the dam. The northern portion of the reservoir contains numerous private boat docks, 2 marinas, several named and unnamed tributary inlets, and the Mongaup River inlet, all of which provide ample and variable fish cover and habitat. Water depths in the northern portion of the reservoir reach 40 feet in the main channel but are generally 5 to 18 feet.

The aquatic habitat of the Swinging Bridge Reservoir is generally classified as lentic. Eagle Creek mapped aquatic substrates and cover types within the Swinging Bridge Reservoir between reservoir elevations of 1,048 and 1,070 feet. A total of 366.50 acres of aquatic habitat was mapped in the Swinging Bridge Reservoir. Fine substrates dominate the Swinging Bridge Reservoir accounting for approximately 44.3 percent (162.50 acres), with 134.77 acres attributed to rocky fine substrate (36.8%), followed by gravel, rubble, cobble at 10.1 percent (37.04 acre), rocky boulder at 4.6 percent (16.81 acre), sandy/silt-loam-soil complex at 2.5 percent (9.12 acre), bedrock at 0.6 percent (2.32 acre), riprap/artificial shore at 0.6 percent (2.03 acre), and gravel at 0.5 percent (1.91 acre) (Appendix A). Dominant cover types consisted of SAV (2.35 acres), large woody debris (1.68 acres), and Centrarchid nesting areas (1.11 acres). Shoreline slopes ranged from gradual to steep, with gradual slopes occurring in 59.4 percent of mapped mesohabitat units (Eagle Creek 2020).

Mongaup River downstream of Swinging Bridge Dam

Mongaup River from the Swinging Bridge Dam to the Mongaup Falls Reservoir is characterized by two distinct habitat types. From the Swinging Bridge Dam to the access road bridge, the river is a relatively narrow shallow glide with a few areas of riffle and run habitat under minimum flow (100 cfs or inflow, but not less than 60 cfs) conditions. Downstream of the access road bridge to the confluence of Black Lake Creek, the river consists largely of riffle habitat under minimum flow conditions and a relatively fast run during operation of the Swinging Bridge Unit No. 2 Powerhouse. A continuous minimum flow of 100 cfs or inflow, but not less than 60 cfs, is provided to the Mongaup River Reach 1. Additional flow is provided from the Swinging Bridge Unit No. 2 Powerhouse (maximum hydraulic capacity of 1,015 cfs) to the Mongaup River Reach 1 during periods of generation.

The Swinging Bridge Downstream Segment is located in the Mongaup River below the Swinging Bridge Powerhouse to a point just past the confluence with Black Lake Creek. This section of riverine habitat is approximately 0.78 mile-long, ranges in elevation from 943.7 to 931.2 feet, has a mean gradient of about 16.03 feet/mile, and has an average slope of approximately 0.003 ft/ft (Eagle Creek 2019). A total of 7.60 acres of aquatic habitat (23 habitat units) was mapped in the Swinging Bridge Downstream Segment during the 2018 survey. Glide habitat dominates this reach accounting for approximately 49.6 percent (3.77 acre), followed by 40.4 percent (3.07 acres) attributed to riffles, 8.3 percent (0.63 acre) attributed to runs, 1.1 percent (0.08 acre) attributed to backwaters, and 0.6 percent (0.05 acre) attributed to pools. The majority of the substrate in this reach is dominated by cobble/rubble (90.0% or 6.84 acres of total aquatic habitat area). The subdominant substrate consisted of gravel (9.0% or 0.68 acres of total aquatic habitat area). Additionally, small to large boulders are common in this segment, especially in the upstream section of the segment near the Swinging Bridge Powerhouse. Average stream widths in the reach were approximately 65 feet (Eagle Creek 2019).

Further downstream from the access road bridge, the segment is generally a repeating series of glide/riffle habitats, interspersed with short sections of run habitat. The substrates in this section of the segment are


E-79

dominated by cobble/rubble, with areas of scattered small and large boulders. Stream widths in this section of the segment vary from 77 to 168 feet (Eagle Creek 2019).

Backwater habitats in this segment were generally minimal. Stream cover within the segment was provided primarily by cobble/rubble, areas of scattered small and large boulders, and some areas of accumulated large woody debris (Eagle Creek 2019).



The Mongaup Falls Reservoir is relatively shallow compared to the other Projects’ reservoirs. The mean depth is approximately ten feet with only a small area in front of the dam ranging to approximately 40 feet. Overall, the littoral zone is relatively steep sided, consisting of gravel, rubble, cobble, and some areas of gravel interspersed with large boulders. Overhanging shoreline canopy cover and large fallen trees are abundant along the undeveloped shore. No public or private docks exist on this reservoir, resulting in fish habitat and cover being provided by the aforementioned natural shoreline features. There are two backwater areas upstream of the New York State Route 43 bridge that are relatively shallow (1-4 feet) with some inundated scrub-shrub wetlands and a silt substrate that provides cover and habitat for many littoral zone fish species. The reservoir extends upstream past these two backwater areas at full pond and is a moderate velocity riverine section. Substrate in this section is largely gravel with areas of fine substrate, especially near the shorelines, with an abundance of large woody debris in the form of fallen trees that nearly cross the Mongaup River in this reach, creating excellent fish habitat and cover.

Eagle Creek mapped aquatic substrates and cover types within the Mongaup Falls Reservoir between reservoir elevations of 910 and 935 feet. A total of 116.37 acres of aquatic habitat was mapped in the Mongaup Falls Reservoir. Fine substrates dominate the Mongaup Falls Reservoir accounting for approximately 58.2 percent (67.78 acres), with 26.85 acres attributed to gravel, rubble, cobble substrate (23.1%), followed by rocky fine at 9.1 percent (10.64 acre), gravel at 7.6 percent (8.80 acre), sandy/silt-loam-soil complex at 1.9 percent (2.20 acre), and riprap/artificial shore at 0.09 percent (0.10 acre) (Appendix A). Dominant cover types consisted of large woody debris (3.28 acres), Centrarchid nesting areas (0.75 acres), and areas of SAV (0.04 acres). Shoreline slopes ranged from gradual to vertical, with gradual slopes occurring in 65.4 percent of mapped mesohabitat units (Eagle Creek 2020).

Mongaup River downstream of Mongaup Falls Dam

The Mongaup River from the Mongaup Falls Dam to the Rio Reservoir consists of a relatively wide river channel and includes the Mongaup Falls Bypassed Reach and the Mongaup Falls Powerhouse tailrace. The habitat in this reach can be divided into two distinct types. Upstream of the Mongaup Falls Bypassed Reach fisherman access, the habitat is characterized as a moderate gradient split channel with a consistent composition of riffle, run, and pool habitats. This portion of the reach receives a continuous minimum flow of 70 cfs, but occasionally sees higher flows during spring freshet and high precipitation events. Downstream of the Mongaup Falls Bypassed Reach fisherman access, the channel turns to a more gradual gradient with a long riffle/glide complex leading to the confluence with Black Brook. From Black Brook to the backwater of Rio Reservoir, the river is relatively steep and the habitat can be characterized primarily as riffle. Substrates vary from large boulders


E-80

strewn throughout the upper portion of the channel to large gravel in the lower end of the reach (Orange and Rockland 1988), but cobble seems to dominate throughout.

For the Bypass/Base Flow Transect Evaluation Study, the Mongaup Falls Bypassed Reach consisted of the area from approximately 0.15 to 0.32 miles below the Mongaup Falls Dam on the Mongaup River. This section of riverine habitat is approximately 0.17 mile-long, ranges in elevation from 833.2 to 823.0 feet, has a mean gradient of about 60.00 feet/mile, and has an average channel bottom slope of approximately 0.014 ft/ft. A total of 1.40 acres of aquatic habitat (9 habitat units) was mapped in the Mongaup Falls Bypassed Reach study area during the 2018 survey. Riffle habitat dominates this reach accounting for approximately 82.8 percent (1.16 acres), followed by 7.6 percent (0.11 acre) attributed to rapids, 6.8 percent (0.09 acre) attributed to glides, and 2.8 percent (0.04 acre) attributed to pool habitat. The majority of the substrate in this reach is dominated by cobble/rubble (55.9% or 0.78 acre of total aquatic habitat area). The subdominant substrate consisted of boulder (44.1% or 0.62 acre of total aquatic habitat area). Average stream widths in the reach were approximately 41 feet. Backwater habitats in this reach were minimal. Stream cover within the study reach was provided primarily by cobble/rubble, areas of scattered small and large boulders, with no significant areas of large woody debris (Eagle Creek 2019).

Black Brook

Black Brook in the immediate upstream vicinity of Black Brook Dam consists primarily of riverine habitat with shallow shoreline areas, a small shallow backwater area immediately upstream of Black Brook Dam on river left (facing downstream), and a small area of deeper water immediately upstream of Black Brook Dam on river right. Under normal flow conditions, mid-channel water depths range from approximately 6 inches to 3 feet (not inclusive of the pool immediately upstream of the dam) (Eagle Creek 2019).

The shallow, sloped shoreline areas were dominated by coarse sediments with intermittent cobbles and small boulders, and many of the shallow, leveled shoreline areas contain narrow patches of emergent aquatic vegetation. The small shallow backwater area immediately upstream of Black Brook Dam (on river left) is seasonally inundated and consists of scattered areas of emergent aquatic vegetation. The deeper water area immediately upstream of Black Brook Dam on river right consists primarily of silt, sand, and gravel substrate. Additionally, a relatively large cobble bar (estimated to be 0.1 acre) is located approximately 70 feet upstream of Black Brook Dam and is dominated by cobble, gravel, and sand substrate. An area of accumulated woody debris is located at the southern end of the cobble bar upstream of Black Brook Dam (Eagle Creek 2019).

A total of 0.48 acre of aquatic habitat was mapped immediately upstream of Black Brook Dam which is dominated by glides accounting for approximately 55.4 percent (0.26 acre), followed by 28.5 percent (0.14 acre) attributed to pools and riffles, 10.2 percent (0.05 acre) attributed to riffle complexes, and 5.9 percent (0.03 acre) attributed to runs. The majority of the substrate immediately upstream of Black Brook Dam is dominated by cobble (83.2 percent [0.40 acre]), followed by silt (16.2 percent [0.08 acre]), and bedrock (0.6 percent [0.003 acre]). Stream cover was provided primarily by scattered small boulders with small amounts of large woody debris (Eagle Creek 2019).

Black Brook immediately downstream of Black Brook Dam consists of riverine habitat with a waterfall underlying Black Brook Dam and bedrock at the toe of the dam into a relatively small pool and steep shoreline habitats dominated by bedrock. Under normal flow conditions, mid-channel water depths throughout the downstream reach ranged from approximately 1 foot to several feet in the pool downstream of the dam. The


E-81

deep water habitat downstream of Black Brook Dam consists primarily of bedrock and small to large boulders. The steep, sloped shoreline habitat is dominated by bedrock and boulders with intermittent cobbles (Eagle Creek 2019).

A total of 0.40 acre of aquatic habitat was mapped in the study area downstream of Black Brook Dam, which was dominated by riffles accounting for approximately 40.5 percent (0.16 acre), followed by 47.3 percent (0.19 acre) attributed to glides and mid-channel pools, 6.8 percent (0.03 acre) attributed to pools, and 5.4 percent (0.02 acre) attributed to cascades. The majority of the substrate mapped downstream of Black Brook Dam is dominated by bedrock (59.5 percent [0.24 acre]) and cobble (40.5 percent [0.16 acre]). Stream cover was provided primarily by areas of exposed bedrock as well as scattered small and large boulders with small amounts of large woody debris (Eagle Creek 2019).

Rio Project

Rio Reservoir

The Rio Reservoir is similar to the other Projects’ reservoirs in that the shoreline is gradual to steep, consisting largely of gravel, rubble, cobble, and rocky fine substrate with an abundance of overhanging shoreline canopy cover and fallen trees. The shoreline is generally undeveloped with the exception of a public boat launch and a private beach at the northern end, a remnant pipeline bridge just upstream of the boat launch, a private residence on the eastern shore approximately in the middle of the reservoir that sits back from the shoreline, and an private camp on the western shore approximately in the middle of the reservoir. Substrate immediately upstream and downstream of the pipeline bridge is dominated by silt, sand, and mud as well as the bay area on the river left shoreline (facing downstream) between the private beach and the boat launch.

Eagle Creek mapped aquatic substrates and cover types within the Rio Reservoir between reservoir elevations of 805 and 815 feet. A total of 63.62 acres of aquatic habitat was mapped in the Rio Reservoir. Fine substrates dominate the Rio Reservoir accounting for approximately 38.4 percent (24.40 acres), with 19.70 acres attributed to gravel, rubble, cobble substrate (31.0%), followed by rocky fine at 27.3 percent (17.35 acre), rocky boulder at 1.4 percent (0.92 acre), riprap/artificial shore at 1.1 percent (0.67 acre), and sandy/silt-loam-soil complex at 0.9 percent (0.58 acre). Dominant cover types consisted of Centrarchid nesting areas (2.06 acres), large woody debris (0.86 acres), and invasive aquatic plant species (0.16 acres). Shoreline slopes ranged from gradual to vertical, with gradual slopes occurring in 55.2 percent of mapped mesohabitat units (Eagle Creek 2020).

Mongaup River downstream of Rio Dam (Bypassed Reach)

The Mongaup River from the Rio Dam to the Rio Main Powerhouse tailrace (the Rio Bypassed Reach), is characterized as a relatively well-defined channel (50 to 120 feet wide), with a relatively high gradient throughout the reach.

The Rio Bypassed Reach Segment extends approximately 1.5 miles along the Mongaup River from the Rio Dam to the upstream side of the Rio Main Powerhouse tailrace. This section of riverine habitat ranges in elevation from 718.7 to 628.0 feet, has a mean gradient of about 56.69 feet/mile, and has an average slope of approximately 0.011 ft/ft. A total of 15.01 acres of aquatic habitat (20 habitat units) was mapped in the Rio Bypassed Reach Segment during the 2018 survey. Riffle habitat dominates this reach accounting for


E-82

approximately 75.8 percent (11.37 acres), with 11.6 percent (1.74 acres) attributed to pools, 9.6 percent (1.44 acres) attributed to runs, and 3.0 percent (0.45 acre) attributed to glide run complex habitat. The majority of the substrate in this segment is dominated by boulder (86.0% or 12.90 acres of total aquatic habitat area). The subdominant substrate consisted of cobble/rubble (8.0% or 1.20 acres of total aquatic habitat area). Average stream widths in the reach were approximately 70 feet (Eagle Creek 2019).

The Rio Bypassed Reach Segment is generally a repeating series of riffle and run habitats, interspersed with pool habitat, and a small section of glide-run complex habitat. Major pools (with depths approaching 10 feet) exist at the base of Rio Dam and at a point approximately 5,300 feet downstream from the dam. The substrate in the pool located at the base of the Rio Dam is dominated by bedrock, and the banks of the Mongaup River in this area are near vertical. Stream cover within the pool was provided primarily by large broken pieces of bedrock, as well as boulders. The substrate in the pool located approximately 5,300 feet downstream from the Rio Dam is dominated by bedrock; however, silt and sand were common along the margins of the pool on river left facing downstream (Eagle Creek 2019).

Stream widths vary from approximately 50 to 95 feet at the upstream end of the study segment. At the downstream end of the Rio Bypassed Reach Segment, stream widths vary from 60 to 120 feet. Shoreline slopes in this segment range from vertical to gradual and are well vegetated. Backwater habitats in this segment were minimal. Stream cover within the Rio Bypassed Reach Segment was provided primarily by small to large boulders, some areas of accumulated large woody debris, and broken pieces of bedrock below Rio Dam (Eagle Creek 2019).

Mongaup River downstream of Rio Main Powerhouse

The Rio Powerhouse Segment extends approximately 3 miles along the Mongaup River, from the upstream side of the Rio Main Powerhouse tailrace where it meets the Mongaup River to the confluence of the Mongaup and Delaware Rivers. This section of riverine habitat ranges in elevation from 628.0 to 469.9 feet, has a mean gradient of about 52.70 feet/mile, and has an average slope of approximately 0.010 ft/ft. A total of 34.20 acres of aquatic habitat (54 habitat units) was mapped in the Rio Powerhouse Segment during the 2018 survey. Riffle habitat dominates this reach accounting for approximately 53.8 percent (18.39 acre), with 21.5 percent (7.36 acres) attributed to runs, 8.4 percent (2.86 acres) attributed to riffle-run complex, 8.0 percent (2.72 acres) attributed to pools, 6.1 percent (2.10 acres) attributed to glide habitat, and 2.2 percent (0.76 acre) attributed to glide-run complex habitat. The majority of the substrate in the Rio Powerhouse Segment is dominated by boulder (73.6% or 25.16 acres of total aquatic habitat area). The subdominant substrate consisted of cobble/rubble (21.8% or 7.47 acres of total aquatic habitat area). Average stream widths in the segment were approximately 75 feet (Eagle Creek 2019).

Stream widths vary from approximately 41 to 125 feet at the upstream end of the study segment and approximately 60 to 100 feet at the downstream end of the study segment. Shoreline slopes in this segment range from gradual to vertical and are well vegetated. Backwater habitats in this segment were minimal. Stream cover within the Rio Powerhouse Segment was provided primarily by small to large boulders with some areas of accumulated large woody debris (Eagle Creek 2019).


E-83

E.7.3.1.2 Essential Fish Habitat

Based on a review of the NMFS online database, no essential fish habitat designated under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act or established by the NMFS has been identified in the vicinity of the Projects (NOAA undated).

E.7.3.1.3 Fish Community

Relevant and existing fisheries data for each of the Projects’ reservoirs and affected riverine reaches were compiled based on information obtained and presented in the previous licensing of the Projects, information collected by the NYSDEC at the Projects over time, and information collected at the Projects by Eagle Creek during the 2018 Fisheries Survey Study.

From 1930 to present, NYSDEC has conducted a significant number of fishery surveys within the Projects’ five reservoirs, Black Lake Creek and the Mongaup River from Swinging Bridge Dam to the Delaware River. Specifically, a number of fish population sampling events and monitoring efforts have been performed by the NYSDEC since the previous licensing (1987) and as recently as 2017. While some of these sampling events and monitoring efforts have focused on selected fish species (e.g., Walleye, Alewife, Striped Bass x White Bass hybrids) or families (e.g., Percidae), by-catch and bulk fish data are plentiful among the collected data and can help illustrate relative changes in the fish community/composition at the Mongaup River Projects’ reservoirs and associated riverine reaches. Historical fisheries data are summarized below in comparison to the data collected by Eagle Creek in 2018. Additional detail on historical fisheries data is provided in the PAD, RSP, and ISR previously filed with the Commission.

Historical Stocking and Management

The NYSDEC has implemented different management objectives for the Projects’ reservoirs for several different species over time including management of game species (e.g., Lake Trout, Tiger Muskellunge, Walleye, Black Bass, Yellow Perch, hybrid species, etc.) within the reservoirs and management of trout species on the riverine reaches including Black Lake Creek and the Mongaup River. The NYSDEC also supports an annual spring and fall trout stocking program whereby fish are released along various stretches of the Mongaup River.

Historically, NYSDEC stocked Swinging Bridge Reservoir with approximately 10,000 yearling Lake Trout each year through 1972 when the program was terminated due to the eutrophic nature of Swinging Bridge and low DO concentrations in the hypolimnion (Gann 1976). In 1980, the NYSDEC began stocking 6,000 Tiger Muskellunge (Esox masquinongy X Esox lucius) on an annual basis, but discontinued the stocking effort three years later when survey results indicated that a population had not become established. In August of the same year the Tiger Muskellkunge program was discontinued, the NYSDEC initiated a sterile hybrid Striped Bass (Merone chrysop x M. saxatilus) program with the initial stocking of approximately 11,700 fingerling. Subsequently, the NYSDEC discontinued the hybrid White Bass stocking and evaluation program. A total of 8,600 hybrid White Bass fingerlings were stocked in 1984, 1985, and 1986 (Orange and Rockland 1988). Beginning in 1993, Walleye fry stocking occurred in Swinging Bridge Reservoir and ended in 1998 with the stocking of 5,000,000 Walleye fry released in the upper portion of the Swinging Bridge Reservoir with the goal of establishing a viable reproducing population of Walleye. Monitoring has occurred periodically and as recently as 2017. The 2017 spawning year class of Walleye appears unsuccessful, with no young of year (YOY) walleye collected.


E-84

The NYSDEC instituted a policy of stocking 500 Brown Trout and 500 Rainbow Trout yearlings annually in the Mongaup Reservoir. In 1973 the policy was changed, and the NYSDEC now stocks approximately 1,250 to 1,500 Brown Trout each year (NYSDEC 2017b).

The NYSDEC initiated a stocking program in 1968 in Rio Reservoir with the introduction of 2,500 Brown Trout and 2,500 Rainbow Trout yearlings. This program was continued until 1973, when the NYSDEC decided to stock 5,000 Brown Trout annually. The program was terminated in 1975 when the NYSDEC concluded that Rio Reservoir was not suitable for trout due to the lack of optimum summer habitat. However, a Brown Trout sport fishery still exists in this reservoir (NYSDEC 2017b).

The Mongaup River from Rio Dam to the Delaware River contains wild (propagating) Brown Trout and is considered an outstanding trout fishery (DRBC 2004). Management by the NYSDEC consists of imposing fishing restrictions intended to preserve the wild Brown Trout population which uses a tributary entering the river from the west for spawning.

2018 Baseline Fisheries Survey and Historical Data

In accordance with 18 CFR §5.15, Eagle Creek conducted studies pursuant to Eagle Creek’s January 10, 2018 RSP as modified and approved in the Commission’s February 9, 2018 SPD. Between July 24 and October 10, 2018, a baseline fisheries survey was performed to supplement the existing fisheries data and describe the fish community in the Projects’ reservoirs and associated riverine reaches. The survey location, date, effort, and methods of the 2018 Fisheries Survey Study are provided below in Tables E.7-18 and E.7-19. The results of the 2018 Fisheries Survey Study are summarized below with additional detail provided in the ISR, ISR Meeting Summary, and Responses to Comments on the ISR and New Study Requests, all previously filed with the Commission.

TABLE E.7-18 2018 BASELINE FISHERIES SURVEY SAMPLE LOCATION, EFFORT (DAYS), AND DATES

Sample Location Sample Effort (days)

Sample Dates

E-fishing Gill Nets Seine Nets


Toronto Reservoir 6 Oct 1, 4, 5, 8, 12

Aug 9 Sep 13

Black Lake Creek Reach 1 (Toronto Dam to Cliff Lake Reservoir)

1 Aug 10, 27 -- --

Cliff Lake Reservoir 4 Sep 17-19 Aug 10 Sep 19

Black Lake Creek Reach 2 (Cliff Lake Reservoir to Mongaup River)

1 Jul 24, Aug 10

-- --

Swinging Bridge Reservoir 6 Sep 19, 20, 27, 28

Aug 27 Sep 13

Mongaup River Reach 1 (Swinging Bridge Dam to Mongaup Falls Reservoir)

2 Aug 28-29 -- --


E-85

Sample Location Sample Effort (days)

Sample Dates

E-fishing Gill Nets Seine Nets


Mongaup Falls Reservoir 4 Oct 11, 12 Aug 10 Sep 13

Mongaup River Reach 2 (Mongaup Falls Dam to Rio Reservoir)

1 Aug 29, Sep 12

-- --

Rio Project

Rio Reservoir 4 Oct 8-10 -- Sep 13

Mongaup River Reach 3 & 4 (Rio Dam to Delaware River)

3 Aug 29, Sep 11-12

-- --

TOTAL 32 -- -- --

TABLE E.7-19 2018 BASELINE FISHERIES SURVEY SAMPLE LOCATION AND EFFORT PER GEAR TYPE

Sample Location

Shoreline/ Reach Length

Reservoir Area

(acres)

Boat Electrofishing Backpack Electrofishing

Gill Nets (sets)

Seine Net

(sets) General Fisheries Game

Swinging Bridge Project Toronto Reservoir

10 miles 860 ac. 6 hrs. @ shoreline; 8-15 min. episodes

8-30 min. episodes

N/A 8 8

Black Lake Creek (Reach 1)

1.6 miles -- N/A N/A 3-300 ft reaches

N/A N/A


4.5 miles 190 ac. 1 lap @ shoreline; 4-15 min. episodes

4-30 min. episodes

N/A 3 3

Black Lake Creek (Reach 2)


N/A N/A


11 miles 1,000 ac. 6 hrs. @ shoreline; 8-15 min. episodes

8-30 min. episodes

N/A 81 8

Mongaup River (Reach 1)

1 miles -- N/A N/A 2-300 ft reaches

N/A N/A

Mongaup Falls Project Mongaup Falls Reservoir

3.5 miles 120 ac. 1 lap @ shoreline; 4-15 min. episodes

4-30 min. episodes

N/A 3 3


0.7 mile -- N/A N/A 2-300 ft reaches

N/A N/A

Rio Project Rio Reservoir 8 miles 460 ac. 1 lap @ shoreline;

8-15 min. episodes 8-30 min. episodes

N/A 81 8



N/A N/A



N/A N/A

1Following fish mortality occurrence via gill net in the Toronto, Cliff Lake, and Mongaup Falls reservoirs, the Swinging Bridge gill net effort was reduced to 3 events and the gill net effort at Rio Reservoir did not occur.

Field data was organized by sample location (i.e., per reservoir or riverine reach) and fish species and was summarized for basic community indices such as total number collected, percent relative abundance (RA %),


E-86

and Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) in terms of number of fish captured per hour, length frequency histograms, and Shannon Wiener Diversity (H’) as described below.

• Relative Abundance - Relative species abundance is defined as how common or rare a species is relative to other species in a defined location or community.

• CPUE - The CPUE was determined by dividing the number of fish collected by the total effort (time) spent collecting those individuals. Each active gear sampling method (i.e., boat and backpack electrofishing) were standardized and reported as number of fish collected per hour. Passive gear sampling (e.g., gill nets, seine nets, eel pots) were reported as soak time in hours. Eel pots were also recorded as soak time in hours; therefore, the CPUE for this gear type is reported as number of fish per overnight set. CPUE for notable species and observations at each survey are presented below while CPUE Lf histograms are available for all species of interest in the ISR.

• Lf Histograms - Lf histograms (50-millimeter [mm] length intervals) for target fish species (i.e., all trout species, game species, and species of interest) were created for each sample area regardless of the number of individuals captured. Lf histograms for notable species and observations at each survey are presented below while Lf histograms are available for all species of interest in the ISR.

• Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index (H’) - A measure of species richness and community balance (evenness). The H’ values were calculated using the formula identified in Weber (1973). High H’ values are associated with highly diverse, well-balanced communities while low H’ numbers indicate an unbalanced or low-diversity community. This information is presented in the ISR filed with the Commission on February 8, 2019.


Toronto Reservoir

2018 Baseline Fisheries Survey Data

A total of 2,970 fish representing 19 species were collected from Toronto Reservoir using gill netting and boat electrofishing. Total species, catch, CPUE, and RA are provided in Table E.7-20. Alewife was the most abundant species contributing 31.2 percent of the catch followed by Yellow Perch at 28.1 percent, Bluegill at 11.5 percent, Largemouth Bass at 6.4 percent, Chain Pickerel at 5.2 percent, Golden Shiner at 3.7 percent, Red-Breasted Sunfish at 2.7 percent, and Green Sunfish at 2.0 percent. Notable species contributing to the remaining 9.2 percent included Walleye, Yellow Bullhead, Pumpkinseed, Smallmouth Bass, and White Catfish.

The dominant catch for the 114.7 hours of gill netting conducted at Toronto Reservoir were White Catfish and Walleye, whereas Alewife and Yellow Perch dominated the boat electrofishing catch. No catch resulted from seining largely due to the rough substrate, steep banks, and minimal fish cover in the sampling areas.


E-87

TABLE E.7-20 FISH SPECIES COLLECTED IN THE TORONTO RESERVOIR DURING 2018 BASELINE FISHERIES SURVEY

Common Name

Scientific Name Littoral Zone

Catch1

Littoral Zone CPUE

Deep Water Catch2

Deep Water CPUE

Total Catch

RA (%)

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus

927 69.58 -- 0.00 927 31.21

Brown Bullhead

Ameiurus nebulosus 1 0.08 9 0.08 10 0.34

Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus

1 0.08 3 0.03 4 0.13

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 370 27.77 -- 0.00 370 12.46 Chain Pickerel Esox niger 153 11.48 2 0.02 155 5.22 Creek Chubsucker

Erimyzon oblongus 1 0.08 -- 0.00 1 0.03

Common Carp Cyprinus carpio -- 0.00 1 0.01 1 0.03 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 60 4.50 -- 0.00 60 2.02 Golden Shiner Notemigonus

crysoleucas 111 8.33 -- 0.00 111 3.74

Largemouth Bass

Micropteris salmoides

186 13.96 3 0.03 189 6.36

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbous 34 2.55 -- 0.00 34 1.14 Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 6 0.45 4 0.03 10 0.34 Red-Breasted Sunfish

Lepomis auritus 79 5.93 3 0.03 82 2.76

Smallmouth Bass

Micropteris dolomieui

42 3.15 5 0.04 47 1.58

Walleye Sander vitreus 4 0.30 30 0.26 34 1.14 White Catfish Ameiurus catus 2 0.15 50 0.44 52 1.75 White Sucker Catostomus

commersonii 2 0.15 7 0.06 9 0.30

Yellow Bullhead

Ameiurus natalis 34 2.55 6 0.05 40 1.35

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens 824 61.85 10 0.09 834 28.08 TOTAL 2837 212.94 133 1.16 2970 100.00

1Littoral zone boat electrofishing; 2Deep water gill nets.

Consistent with recent fish surveys performed by the NYSDEC, Walleye caught in Toronto Reservoir show a larger relative abundance of adult-sized fish with no recruitment or evidence of successful spawning (Figure E.7-12). Several size class cohorts of adult Walleye were collected in 2018 with a CPUE from boat electrofishing of 0.30 fish/hour and from gill netting of 0.26 fish/hour. Additional information on gamefish species collected in this area, including length frequency and CPUE data are available in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.


E-88

FIGURE E.7-12 LENGTH FREQUENCY OF WALLEYE COLLECTED IN TORONTO RESERVOIR IN 2018

Historical Data

NYSDEC conducted surveys of the fish population in Toronto Reservoir prior to 1980 and in 1995 and 2009. Each of these surveys was conducted to update the status of the fish population in Toronto Reservoir and to inform the NYSDEC management decisions for the reservoir.

A summary of the species collected within the Toronto Reservoir by the NYSDEC (pre-1980, 1995, and 2009), Orange and Rockland (1987), and Eagle Creek (2018) is presented in Table E.7-21. Species collected from the reservoir in 2018 are remarkably similar to the species collected by the NYSDEC in 2009. Similar to previous studies, Alewife, the main forage species, collected in 2018 continues to provide food for the gamefish (e.g., Walleye, Yellow Perch, Smallmouth Bass, Largemouth Bass, and Chain Pickerel) in Toronto Reservoir. During many of the NYSDEC targeted fisheries surveys, other species (by-catch/bulk fish) were collected and processed, providing valuable information on the fisheries resources within the Toronto Reservoir. Both the 1995 and 2009 fisheries data were collected by the NYSDEC using boat electrofishing. The 1995 data shows low relative abundance of Walleye but indicates that fish in the smaller size classes as well as larger size classes occur in the Toronto Reservoir. The 2009 data shows that more relative abundance of adult Walleye occur, while no YOY or juvenile Walleye were collected. Additional historical information on gamefish species collected in this area, including length frequency and CPUE data are available in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.


E-89

TABLE E.7-21 FISH SPECIES HISTORICALLY COLLECTED IN TORONTO RESERVOIR - SPECIES TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION

Common Name Scientific Name

Toronto Reservoir

Pre-1980 NYSDEC

1987 Orange and

Rockland

1995 NYSDEC

2009 NYSDEC

2018 Eagle Creek

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus X X X X X Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus -- -- -- X X Blacknose Shiner Notropis heterolepis -- -- -- X -- Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus X X X X X Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus X X -- X X Brown Trout Salmo trutta -- -- X -- -- Carp Cyprinus carpio X -- -- -- X Chain Pickerel Esox niger X X X X X Creek Chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus -- X -- -- -- Fallfish Semotilus corporalis X X -- -- -- Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas X X X -- X Goldfish Carassius auratus -- -- -- -- X Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus -- -- -- X X Lake Chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta X -- -- -- -- Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides X X X X X Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus X X -- X X Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus X X X X X Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris -- X X X X Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu -- -- X X X White Catfish Ameiurus catus X -- X -- X Walleye Sander vitreus -- -- X X X White Sucker Catostomus commersoni X X X X X Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis X X X X X

Black Lake Creek Reach 1: Toronto Dam to Cliff Lake Reservoir


A total of 396 fish representing 8 species were collected from Black Lake Creek Reach 1 (Table E.7-22). The most abundant species captured was Brook Trout (95.2 percent of the catch), followed by Pumpkinseed at 1.5 percent and Longnose Dace at 1.0 percent. Species contributing to the remaining 1.3 percent were White Sucker, Yellow Bullhead, White Catfish and Chain Pickerel.


E-90

TABLE E.7-22 FISH SPECIES COLLECTED IN BLACK LAKE CREEK REACH 1 DURING 2018 BASELINE FISHERIES SURVEY

Common Name Scientific Name Total Catch CPUE RA (%)

Chain Pickerel Esox niger 1 0.94 0.3 Eastern Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis 377 356.13 95.2 Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae 4 3.78 1.0 Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbous 6 5.67 1.5 Tessellated Darter Etheostoma olmstedi 1 0.94 0.3 White Catfish Ameiurus catus 2 1.89 0.5 White Sucker Catostomus commersonii 3 2.83 0.8 Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis 2 1.89 0.5

TOTAL 396 374.08 100.00

All life history stages of Eastern Brook Trout are represented in the data collected in this reach (Figure E.7-13). Backpack electrofishing encompassed 1.06 hours and resulted in a CPUE for Eastern Brook Trout in Black Lake Creek Reach 1 of 356.13 fish/hour. Additional information on gamefish species collected in this area, including length frequency, CPUE, data are available in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.

FIGURE E.7-13 LENGTH FREQUENCY OF EASTERN BROOK TROUT COLLECTED IN BLACK LAKE CREEK REACH 1 IN 2018

Historical Data

NYSDEC has not collected fisheries data in Black Lake Creek Reach 1. Surveys of the fish populations in this reach have only been conducted by the prior licensee in May, July, and October 1987 (Orange and Rockland 1988) and Eagle Creek in 2018 (Table E.7-23).


E-91

TABLE E.7-23 FISH SPECIES HISOTRICALLY COLLECTED IN BLACK LAKE CREEK REACH 1 - SPECIES TEMPORAL

DISTRIBUTION


Black Lake Creek Reach 1 (Toronto Dam to Cliff Lake Reservoir)

May 1987 Orange and

Rockland

Oct 1987 Orange and

Rockland

2018 Eagle Creek

Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys attratulus X X -- Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis X X X Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus X -- -- Chain Pickerel Esox niger -- -- X Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae -- -- X Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus -- -- X Tessellated Darter Etheostoma olmstedi -- -- X White Catfish Ameiurus catus -- -- X White Sucker Catostomus commersoni X X X Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis -- -- X Yellow Perch Perca flavescens X -- --



A total of 1,181 fish representing 12 species were collected from Cliff Lake Reservoir (Table E.7-24). Bluegill was the most abundant species collected in Cliff Lake Reservoir contributing 27.0 percent of the catch, followed by Yellow Perch at 22.6 percent, Common Shiner at 16.9 percent, Rock Bass at 10.3 percent, Chain Pickerel at 5.8 percent, Pumpkinseed at 4.9 percent, Largemouth Bass at 4.1 percent, and Smallmouth Bass at 2.6 percent. Notable species contributing to the remaining 5.8 percent included Walleye, Yellow Bullhead, and White Sucker.

The 2018 survey in Cliff Lake Reservoir consisted of 5.34 hours of boat electrofishing pedal time, 50.82 hours of gill net soak time, and 3 seining events. The gill net portion of the survey collected relatively few fish but included four Walleye, six White Sucker, two Smallmouth Bass and a single Largemouth Bass and Chain Pickerel from three overnight gill net sets. The most abundant species collected during boat electrofishing were Bluegill, Yellow Perch, Common Shiner, and Rock Bass. No catch resulted from seining due to the rough substrate, steep banks, and minimal fish cover in the sampling areas.


E-92

TABLE E.7-24 FISH SPECIES COLLECTED IN THE CLIFF LAKE RESERVOIR DURING 2018 BASELINE FISHERIES SURVEY

Common Name Scientific Name Littoral

Zone Catch1

Littoral Zone CPUE

Pelagic/ Deep Water Catch2

Pelagic/ Deep Water CPUE

Total Catch RA (%)

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus

2 0.37 -- 0.00 2 0.17


6 1.12 -- 0.00 6 0.51

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 319 59.72 -- 0.00 319 27.01 Chain Pickerel Esox niger 68 12.74 1 0.02 69 5.84 Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus 200 37.47 -- 0.00 200 16.93 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 11 2.06 -- 0.00 11 0.93 Largemouth Bass

Micropteris salmoides 47 8.81 1 0.02 48 4.06

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbous 58 10.87 -- 0.00 58 4.91 Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 121 22.67 -- 0.00 121 10.25 Red-Breasted Sunfish

Lepomis auritus 3 0.56 -- 0.00 3 0.25

Smallmouth Bass

Micropteris dolomieui 29 5.43 2 0.40 31 2.62

Walleye Sander vitreus 1 0.19 4 0.80 5 0.42 White Sucker Catostomus

commersonii 23 4.31 6 0.12 29 2.46

Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis 12 2.25 -- 0.00 12 1.02 Yellow Perch Perca flavescens 267 50.02 -- 0.00 267 22.61

TOTAL 1167 218.59 14 1.36 1181 100.00 1Littoral zone boat electrofishing; 2Deep water gill nets

Similar to Toronto Reservoir, the Walleye collected in Cliff Lake Reservoir in 2018 were low in relative abundance consisting of adult-sized fish with no recruitment or evidence of successful spawning (Figure E.7-14). Individuals were collected in three length cohorts with a boat electrofishing CPUE of 0.19 fish/hour and gill netting CPUE of 0.08 fish/hour. Additional information on gamefish species collected in this area, including length frequency and CPUE data are available in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.


E-93

FIGURE E.7-14 LENGTH FREQUENCY OF WALLEYE COLLECTED IN CLIFF LAKE RESERVOIR IN 2018

Historical Data

NYSDEC conducted surveys of the fish population in Cliff Lake Reservoir prior to 1980 and in 1991. The 1991 survey was a general biological survey characterizing the bulk weight of Alewives, gamefish, and general fisheries and was conducted by boat electrofishing in mid-May.

A summary of the species collected at Cliff Lake Reservoir by the NYSDEC, Orange and Rockland in 1987, and Eagle Creek in 2018 is provided in Table E.7-25. Species collected from the reservoir in 2018 are very similar to the species collected by the NYSDEC in 1991 and prior to 1980. Similar to previous studies, Alewife, the main forage species collected in 2018, continues to provide food for the gamefish (e.g., Chain Pickerel, Largemouth Bass, Smallmouth Bass, Yellow Perch, and Walleye) of Cliff Lake Reservoir.

Similar to the Toronto Reservoir studies, the targeted surveys also captured other species (by-catch/bulk fish), which were collected and processed, providing valuable information on the fisheries resources within Cliff Lake Reservoir. Additional historical information on gamefish species collected in this area, including length frequency and CPUE data are available in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.


E-94

TABLE E.7-25 FISH SPECIES HISTORICALLY COLLECTED IN CLIFF LAKE RESERVOIR - SPECIES TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION



Pre-1980 NYSDEC

1987 Orange and Rockland

1991 NYSDEC

2018 Eagle Creek

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus X X X X Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus -- X X X Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus X X X X Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus -- -- -- X Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus X X X -- Brown Trout Salmo trutta -- X -- -- Carp Cyprinus carpio -- X -- -- Chain Pickerel Esox niger X X X X Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas X X -- -- Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus -- -- -- X Lake Chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta X -- -- -- Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides X X X X Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus X X X X Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus X -- X X Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris X X X X Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu X X X X Walleye Sander vitreus -- -- -- X White Perch Morone americana -- -- -- X White Sucker Catostomus commersoni X X X X Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis X X X X Yellow Perch Perca flavescens X X X X

Black Lake Creek Reach 2: Cliff Lake Dam to confluence with Mongaup River


A total of 434 fish representing 14 species were collected from Black Lake Creek Reach 2 (Table E.7-26). The most abundant species captured was by far Brook Trout (70.0 percent of the catch), followed by Blacknose Dace at 15.9 percent, Tessellated Darter at 3.7 percent, Brown Trout at 3.2 percent, and Green Sunfish at 2.8 percent. Species contributing to the remaining 4.4 percent included White Sucker, Yellow Bullhead, Yellow Perch, Pumpkinseed, Largemouth Bass, Golden Shiner, Common Shiner, Brown Bullhead, and Chain Pickerel.

TABLE E.7-26 FISH SPECIES COLLECTED IN BLACK LAKE CREEK REACH 2 DURING 2018 BASELINE FISHERIES SURVEY


Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 2 1.79 0.46 Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus 69 61.59 15.90 Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 1 0.89 0.23 Brown Trout Salmo trutta 14 12.50 3.23 Chain Pickerel Esox niger 1 0.89 0.23 Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus 1 0.89 0.23


E-95


Eastern Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis 304 271.36 70.05 Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 2 1.79 0.46 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 12 10.71 2.76 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 2 1.79 0.46 Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbous 1 0.89 0.23 Tessellated Darter Etheostoma olmstedi 16 14.28 3.69 White Sucker Catostomus commersonii 7 6.25 1.61 Yellow Perch Perca flavescens 2 1.79 0.46

TOTAL 434 387.4 100.00

Similar to Black Lake Creek Reach 1, Eastern Brook Trout were also overwhelmingly abundant in Black Lake Creek Reach 2 representing 70 percent of the collection (Figure E.7-15). All length cohorts were represented in the catch in Reach 2 although YOY were low in abundance and no large fish over 300 mm were collected. Backpack electrofishing CPUE for Eastern Brook Trout was 271.36 fish/hour.

FIGURE E.7-15 LENGTH FREQUENCY OF EASTERN BROOK TROUT COLLECTED IN BLACK LAKE CREEK REACH 2 IN 2018

Brown Trout caught in Black Lake Creek Reach 2 had large numbers of YOY and only a single adult (Figure E.7-16). This would indicate that the reach is likely utilized by Brown Trout for spawning and YOY habitat but as Brown Trout grow and age, they may move downstream to larger waters (e.g., Mongaup Falls Reservoir or the Mongaup River Reach 1). Backpack electrofishing CPUE for Brown Trout was 12.50 fish/hour. Additional information on gamefish species collected in this area, including length frequency and CPUE data are available in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.


E-96

FIGURE E.7-16 LENGTH FREQUENCY OF BROWN TROUT COLLECTED IN BLACK LAKE CREEK REACH 2 IN 2018

Historical Data

Surveys of the fish population in Black Lake Creek Reach 2 were performed by the NYSDEC in 1997, the prior licensee in May, July, and October 1987 (Orange and Rockland 1988), and Eagle Creek in 2018. The predominant species collected for all temporal surveys was Brook Trout. YOY, juveniles, and adults were collected in each of the studies (Table E.7-27). Additional historical information on gamefish species collected in this area, including length frequency and CPUE data are available in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.


E-97

TABLE E.7-27 FISH SPECIES HISTORICALLY COLLECTED IN BLACK LAKE CREEK REACH 2 - SPECIES TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION


Black Lake Creek Reach 2 (Cliff Lake Reservoir to Mongaup River)

May 1987 Orange and

Rockland

July 1987 Orange and

Rockland

Oct 1987 Orange and

Rockland

1997 NYSDEC

2018 Eagle Creek

Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys attratulus X X X -- X Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus -- -- -- -- X Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis X X X X X Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus -- -- -- -- X Brown Trout Salmo trutta X X -- -- X Chain Pickerel Esox niger X -- -- -- X Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus -- -- -- -- X Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus -- -- -- -- X Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas X X X -- X Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus -- -- -- X X Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus -- -- -- X -- Tessellated Darter Etheostoma olmstedi X X X -- X White Sucker Catostomus commersoni -- X X X X Yellow Perch Perca flavescens -- -- X X X


E-98



A total of 2,082 fish representing 20 species were collected from the Swinging Bridge Reservoir (Table E.7-28). Smallmouth Bass was the most abundant species contributing 22.3 percent of the catch, followed by Bluegill at 21.6 percent, Alewife at 11.1 percent, Yellow Perch at 10.9 percent, Common Carp at 8.5 percent, Largemouth Bass at 7.0 percent, and Green Sunfish at 5.2 percent. Notable species contributing to the remaining 13.4 percent included Pumpkinseed, White Sucker, Chain Pickerel, and Walleye.

The 2018 survey consisted of 11.75 total hours of boat electrofishing (pedal time), 185.3 hours of intake gill net soak time, 41.88 hours of baseline fisheries gill net soak time, and 8 seining events. The gill net sampling collected a number of Walleye and White Sucker during three overnight gill net sets. The most abundant species collected during boat electrofishing were Smallmouth Bass, Bluegill, Alewife, Yellow Perch, Largemouth Bass, Common Carp, and Green Sunfish. No catch resulted from seining due to the rough substrate, steep banks, and minimal fish cover in the sampling areas.

TABLE E.7-28 FISH SPECIES COLLECTED IN THE SWINGING BRIDGE RESERVOIR

DURING 2018 BASELINE FISHERIES SURVEY


Littoral Zone

Catch1

Littoral Zone CPUE



Total Catch RA (%)

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus 232 19.74 -- 0.00 232 11.13 Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 8 0.68 2 0.05 10 0.48 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 450 38.30 -- 0.00 450 21.58 Bluntnose Minnow

Pimephales notatus 4 0.34 -- 0.00 4 0.19

Chain Pickerel Esox niger 18 1.53 6 0.14 24 1.15 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio 178 15.15 -- 0.00 178 8.54 Common Shiner

Luxilus cornutus 2 0.17 -- 0.00 2 0.10

Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 107 9.11 1 0.02 108 5.18 Largemouth Bass

Micropteris salmoides 139 11.83 6 0.14 145 6.95

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbous 66 5.62 -- 0.00 66 3.17 Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 12 1.02 3 0.07 15 0.72 Red-Breasted Sunfish

Lepomis auritus 13 1.11 -- 0.00 13 0.62

Smallmouth Bass


Tessellated Darter

Etheostoma olmstedi 5 0.43 -- 0.00 5 0.24

Walleye Sander vitreus 6 0.51 19 0.43 25 1.20 White Catfish Ameiurus catus -- 0.00 4 0.10 4 0.19 White Perch Morone americana 8 0.68 3 0.07 11 0.53 White Sucker Catostomus commersonii 82 6.98 19 0.41 101 4.84 Yellow Bullhead

Ameiurus natalis 2 0.17 -- 0.00 2 0.10

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens 217 18.47 9 0.21 226 10.84 TOTAL 2008 170.90 77 1.76 2085 100.00

1Littoral zone boat electrofishing; 2Deep water gill nets.


E-99

Walleye collected in Swinging Bridge Reservoir were more abundant than in Cliff Lake or Toronto reservoirs (Figure E.7-17). Their distribution, while across several size class cohorts, were grouped among the larger adult cohorts with no Walleye collected shorter than 401 mm, indicating that Alewife continue to feed on Walleye fry and have since approximately 2011, the last time a YOY Walleye was collected from the Swinging Bridge Reservoir (DiSarno 2018). Individuals were collected in six size class cohorts with a boat electrofishing CPUE of 0.51 fish/hour and gill netting CPUE of 0.43 fish/hour. Additional information on gamefish species collected in this area, including length frequency and CPUE data are available in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.

FIGURE E.7-17 LENGTH FREQUENCY OF WALLEYE COLLECTED IN THE SWINGING BRIDGE RESERVOIR IN 2018

Historical Data

NYSDEC conducted surveys of the fish population in Swinging Bridge Reservoir prior to 1980 and between 1988 and 2017 (with the exception of 2002, 2005, 2006, and 2010). These data sets include general biological surveys (n=8), percid sampling/Walleye-specific sampling (n=15), Alewife-specific sampling (n=2), Striped Bass x White Bass hybrid-specific sampling (n=2), and combination (species) fish sampling (n=5). Like the Toronto and Cliff Lake reservoirs, other species (by-catch/bulk fish) were collected and processed, providing valuable information on the fisheries resources within the Swinging Bridge Reservoir.

A summary of the species collected at Swinging Bridge Reservoir by the NYSDEC, Orange and Rockland in 1987, and Eagle Creek in 2018 is presented in Table E.7-29. Species collected from the reservoir in 2018 are very similar to the species collected by the NYSDEC in 1991 and in subsequent surveys. Similar to previous studies, Alewife, the main forage species collected in 2018, continues to provide food for the gamefish of Swinging Bridge Reservoir which is largely comprised of Walleye, the Black Basses and Pickerel.


E-100

Length frequency distribution for Walleye show a wide distribution through the 2009 sampling year with length cohorts representing all life stages of fish including YOY and juveniles in most years since 2009; however, the distribution has shifted to moderate and large-sized adults with no YOY cohorts showing up in the collections from 2009 to present. This data indicates a population of Walleye have historically inhabited the Swinging Bridge Reservoir; however, only an adult population existed after 2009 and no recruitment is shown by the data. All sampling years for Walleye used boat electrofishing with the exception of 1994, 1995, 2000 (071), 2001 (062), and 2016 (013) when gill netting was used. Additional historical information on gamefish species collected in this area, including length frequency and CPUE data are available in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.


E-101

TABLE E.7‐29 FISH SPECIES HISTORICALLY COLLECTED IN SWINGING BRIDGE RESERVOIR ‐ SPECIES TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION



Pre‐1980

NYSD

EC

1987 Orange

and Rockland

1988 NYSD

EC

1989 NYSD

EC

1990 NYSD

EC

1991 NYSD

EC

1992 NYSD

EC

1993 NYSD

EC

1994 NYSD

EC

1995 NYSD

EC

1997 NYSD

EC

1998 NYSD

DEC

1999 NYSD

EC

2000 NYSD

EC

2001 NYSD

EC

2003 NYSD

EC

2004 NYSD

EC

2007 NYSD

EC

2008 NYSD

EC

2009 NYSD

EC

2011 NYSD

EC

2012 NYSD

EC

2013 NYSD

EC

2014 NYSD

EC

2015 NYSD

EC

2016 NYSD

EC

2017 NYSD

EC

2018 Eagle

Creek

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus X X X X X X X X X X ‐‐ X ‐‐ X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X X X X ‐‐ X ‐‐ X Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus X X X X X X ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X X ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X X X X X ‐‐ X X X Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus X X ‐‐ X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X X ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X X X X X ‐‐ X ‐‐ X Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus X X ‐‐ X X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X X ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Brown Trout Salmo trutta X X ‐‐ X ‐‐ X X X ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Carp Cyprinus carpio X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X ‐‐ X X X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X Chain Pickerel Esox niger X X ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X ‐‐ X ‐‐ X X X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X X Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X Cutlip Minnow Exoglossum maxillingua X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Eastern Silvery Minnow Cyprinus carpio ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides ‐‐ X ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Fallfish Semotilus corporalis X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X X ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas X X ‐‐ X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X X ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X X ‐‐ X X ‐‐ X ‐‐ X ‐‐ X X X X X Lepomis Hybrid Lepomis x Lepomis ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus X X ‐‐ X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X X X ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ X X ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus X X ‐‐ X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X Redfin Pickerel Esox americanus X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris X X ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ X ‐‐ X Rosyface Shiner Notropis rubellus ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu X X ‐‐ X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Striped Bass X White Bass Morone saxatilis x M. chrysops ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X X X X X X ‐‐ X ‐‐ X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Tessellated Darter Etheostoma olmstedi ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X Walleye Sander vitreus ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X White Catfish Ameiurus catus ‐‐ X ‐‐ X X X X X X X ‐‐ X X X X ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ White Perch Morone americana ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X X ‐‐ X ‐‐ X White Sucker Catostomus commersoni X X ‐‐ X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X X X ‐‐ ‐‐ X X ‐‐ X X X X ‐‐ X ‐‐ X Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis X X ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ X Yellow Perch Perca flavescens X X ‐‐ ‐‐ X ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ X X X X ‐‐ X X X X X X X X ‐‐ X ‐‐ X


E-102

Mongaup River Reach 1: Swinging Bridge Dam to Mongaup Falls Reservoir


A total of 44 fish representing 7 species were collected from Reach 1 of the Mongaup River (Table E.7-30). The most abundant species captured in the Mongaup River Reach 1 was Brook Trout contributing 38.64 percent of the catch followed by White Sucker at 29.55 percent and Green Sunfish at 11.36 percent. The remaining 20.45 percent of the catch consisted of Yellow Perch, Largemouth Bass, Smallmouth Bass, and Brown Trout.

TABLE E.7-30 FISH SPECIES COLLECTED IN MONGAUP RIVER REACH 1 DURING 2018 BASELINE FISHERIES SURVEY

Species Total Catch CPUE RA%


Brown Trout Salmo trutta 2 2.07 4.55 Eastern Brook Trout

Salvelinus fontinalis 17 17.61 38.64

Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 5 5.18 11.36 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 4 4.14 9.09 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu 1 1.04 2.27 White Sucker Catostomus commersonii 13 13.47 29.55 Yellow Perch Perca flavescens 2 2.07 4.55

TOTAL 44 45.58 100.00

Eastern Brook Trout were the dominant fish collected in this reach but were relatively low in abundance (Figure E.7-18). In addition to several smaller fish collected, two large adults were collected from river left upstream of the access bridge that displayed spawning coloration. The presence of these two large adult and some of the smaller size class cohort suggest that some spawning of Brook Trout may be occurring in this reach. Backpack electrofishing CPUE for Eastern Brook Trout was 17.61 fish/hour.

Two Brown Trout were collected from the Mongaup River Reach 1, a single larger adult and a YOY individual (Figure E.7-19). Backpack electrofishing CPUE for Brown Trout in the Mongaup River Reach 1 was 2.07 fish/hour. Additional information on gamefish species collected in this area, including length frequency and CPUE data are available in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.


E-103

FIGURE E.7-18 LENGTH FREQUENCY OF EASTERN BROOK TROUT COLLECTED IN MONGAUP RIVER REACH 1 IN 2018

FIGURE E.7-19 LENGTH FREQUENCY OF BROWN TROUT COLLECTED IN MONGAUP RIVER REACH 1 IN 2018


E-104

Historical Data

Surveys of the fish in the Mongaup River Reach 1 were conducted by the NYSDEC in 1989 for the purpose of assessing Hybrid Striped Bass x White Bass that had purportedly been washed downstream during a flood event. No additional fish were reported to be collected as part of this survey and no other historical fisheries surveys are reported to have been conducted by the NYSDEC. Other fisheries surveys performed in this reach include those from Orange and Rockland in 1987 and Eagle Creek in 2018 (Table E.7-31).

TABLE E.7-31 FISH SPECIES HISTORICALLY COLLECTED IN THE MONGAUP RIVER REACH 1 - SPECIES TEMPORAL

DISTRIBUTION


Mongaup River Reach 1 (Swinging Bridge Dam to Mongaup Falls Reservoir)

May 1987 Orange & Rockland

Jul 1987 Orange & Rockland

Oct 1987 Orange & Rockland

1989 NYSDEC

2018 Eagle Creek

Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys attratulus X X X -- -- Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis -- -- -- -- X Brown Trout Salmo trutta -- X X -- X Chain Pickerel Esox niger X -- -- -- -- Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus -- -- -- -- X Largemouth Bass Micropteris salmoides -- -- -- -- X Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus X -- -- -- -- Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus X -- -- -- -- Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu X -- -- -- X Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius X X -- -- -- Striped Bass X White Bass Hybrid

Morone saxatilis x M. chrysops

-- -- -- X --

Tessellated Darter Etheostoma olmstedi -- X -- -- -- White Sucker Catostomus commersoni X X X -- X Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis -- X -- -- -- Yellow Perch Perca flavescens X X -- -- X




A total of 295 fish representing 18 species were collected from the Mongaup Falls Reservoir (Table E.7-32). The most abundant species captured was Yellow Perch at 35.2 percent of the catch, followed by White Sucker at 28.3 percent, Chain Pickerel at 8.2 percent, Largemouth Bass at 5.3, Common Carp at 3.5 percent, and Smallmouth Bass and Walleye at 3.1 percent each. The remaining 13.3 percent was comprised largely of Sunfish and Catfish/Bullhead species.

The 2018 survey encompasses 4.42 total hours of boat electrofishing (pedal time), 164.95 hours of intake gill net soak time, 40.07 hours of general fisheries gill net soak time, and 3 seining events. The gill net portion of


E-105

the survey collected an abundance of White Sucker, as well as Walleye, Smallmouth Bass, and Common Carp from three overnight gill net sets. The most abundant species collected during boat electrofishing were Yellow Perch, White Sucker, Chain Pickerel, and Largemouth Bass. No catch resulted from seining due to the rough substrate, steep banks, and minimal fish cover in the sampling areas.

TABLE E.7-32 FISH SPECIES COLLECTED IN THE MONGAUP FALLS RESERVOIR

DURING 2018 BASELINE FISHERIES SURVEY


Zone Catch1

Littoral Zone CPUE



Total Catch RA (%)


1 0.23 -- 0.00 1 0.31

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 7 1.58 -- 0.00 7 2.20 Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus -- 0.00 1 0.01 1 0.31 Brown Trout Salmo trutta 1 0.23 3 0.00 4 1.26 Chain Pickerel Esox niger 19 4.30 2 0.02 21 6.60 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio 5 1.13 6 0.15 11 3.46 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 6 1.36 -- 0.00 6 1.89 Golden Shiner Notemigonus

crysoleucas 9 2.04 -- 0.00 9 2.83

Largemouth Bass

Micropteris salmoides 17 3.85 -- 0.00 17 5.35

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbous 4 0.91 -- 0.00 4 1.26 Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 1 0.23 4 0.10 5 1.57 Smallmouth Bass


Walleye Sander vitreus 1 0.23 9 0.15 10 3.14 White Catfish Ameiurus catus -- 0.00 6 0.15 6 1.89 White Perch Morone americana -- 0.00 2 0.02 2 0.63 White Sucker Catostomus

commersonii 27 6.11 63 1.40 90 28.30

Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis 1 0.23 1 0.00 2 0.63 Yellow Perch Perca flavescens 112 25.36 -- 0.00 112 35.22

TOTAL 218 49.37 100 2.07 318 100.00 1Littoral zone boat electrofishing; 2Deep water and intake gill nets.

Walleye collected in Mongaup Falls Reservoir showed similar trends to the Toronto, Cliff Lake, and Swinging Bridge reservoirs. Their distribution, while across several size class cohorts were grouped among the larger adult cohorts with no walleye collected shorter than 451 mm (Figure E.7-20). Similar conditions to the Swinging Bridge Reservoir likely exist in the Mongaup Falls Reservoir; although, no alewife have been collected in the Mongaup Falls Reservoir since 1992. Individuals were collected in five adult-size class cohorts. Boat electrofishing CPUE for Walleye was 0.23 fish/hour, and gill netting CPUE was 0.15 fish/hour.

Brown Trout abundance was low in the Mongaup Falls Reservoir collections and were limited to two cohorts of large adults (Figure E.7-21). Boat electrofishing CPUE for Brown Trout was 0.23 fish/hour, and gill netting CPUE was 0.02 fish/hour. Additional information on gamefish species collected in this area, including length frequency and CPUE data are available in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.


E-106

FIGURE E.7-20 LENGTH FREQUENCY OF WALLEYE COLLECTED IN MONGAUP FALLS RESERVOIR IN 2018

FIGURE E.7-21 LENGTH FREQUENCY OF BROWN TROUT COLLECTED IN MONGAUP FALLS RESERVOIR IN 2018


E-107

Historical Data

NYSDEC conducted surveys of the fish population in Mongaup Falls Reservoir prior to 1980, from 1989 to 1993, and 2004. The surveys targeted Alewife, Hybrid Striped Bass x White Bass, and Percids. As with the other reservoirs, bulk fish were collected and processed, providing valuable information of the fisheries resources within the Mongaup Falls Reservoir. Also, no Alewife have been caught in the Mongaup Falls Reservoir since the 1992 NYSDEC sampling event. A summary of the species collected at Mongaup Falls Reservoir by the NYSDEC, Orange and Rockland in 1987, and Eagle Creek in 2018 is presented in Table E.7-33. Species collected from the reservoir in 2018 are very similar to the species collected by the NYSDEC in 1993. Additional historical information on gamefish species collected in this area, including length frequency and CPUE data are available in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.

TABLE E.7-33 FISH SPECIES HISTORICALLY COLLECTED IN MONGAUP FALLS RESERVOIR - SPECIES TEMPORAL

DISTRIBUTION


Mongaup Falls Reservoir Pr

e-19

80 N

YSDE

C

1987

Ora

nge

and

Rock

land

1989

NYS

DEC

1990

NYS

DEC

1991

NYS

DEC

1992

NYS

DEC

1993

NYS

DEC

2004

NYS

DEC

2018

Eag

le C

reek

American Eel Anguilla rostrata X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus X -- X X X X -- -- -- Black Crappie Pomoxis

nigromaculatus X X -- X X -- X -- X

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus -- X -- X -- -- X -- X Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis -- X -- -- -- -- X -- X Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus -- X -- -- X -- -- -- -- Brown Trout Salmo trutta X X X X -- -- X -- -- Carp Cyprinus carpio X X -- -- -- -- X -- X Chain Pickerel Esox niger X X -- -- X X X X X Eastern Silvery Minnow

Hybognathus regis -- -- -- X -- -- X -- --

Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas

X X X -- -- -- X -- X

Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides X X -- -- -- -- X -- X Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus X X -- X -- -- X X X Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus X X -- X -- -- X X -- Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris X X -- -- -- -- X X X Rosyface Shiner Notropis rubellus -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu X X -- X -- -- X X X Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius -- -- X X X X -- -- -- Striped Bass X White Bass

Morone saxatilis x M. chrysops

-- -- X X X X -- -- --


E-108



Pre-

1980

NYS

DEC

1987

Ora

nge

and

Rock

land

1989

NYS

DEC

1990

NYS

DEC

1991

NYS

DEC

1992

NYS

DEC

1993

NYS

DEC

2004

NYS

DEC

2018

Eag

le C

reek

Walleye Sander vitreus -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X White Catfish Ameiurus catus X -- X X X X -- -- X White Perch Morone americana -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X White Sucker Catostomus

commersoni X X -- X X X X X X

Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis X X -- X -- -- X -- X Yellow Perch Perca flavescens X X -- X -- X X X X

Mongaup River Reach 2: Mongaup Falls Dam to Rio Reservoir


A total of 80 fish representing 12 species were collected from the Mongaup River Reach 2 (Table E.7-34). The most abundant species captured was Red-Breasted Sunfish contributing 50.00 percent of the catch, followed by Largemouth Bass at 21.25 percent, Tessellated Darter at 11.25 percent, and Brown Trout at 3.75 percent. The remaining 13.75 percent consisted of Brook Trout, Bluegill, White Sucker, and Rock Bass and other riverine species in low abundance.

TABLE E.7-34 FISH SPECIES COLLECTED IN THE MONGAUP RIVER REACH 2 DURING 2018 BASELINE FISHERIES SURVEY



Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 2 1.85 2.50 Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus 1 0.92 1.25 Brown Trout Salmo trutta 3 2.77 3.75 Eastern Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis 1 0.92 1.25 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 1 0.92 1.25 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 17 15.72 21.25 Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 2 1.85 2.50 Red-Breasted Sunfish Lepomis auritus 40 36.98 50.00 Tessellated Darter Etheostoma olmstedi 9 8.32 11.25 Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis 1 1.85 2.50 White Sucker Catostomus commersonii 2 0.92 1.25 Yellow Perch Perca flavescens 1 0.92 1.25

TOTAL 80 73.96 100.00

One Eastern Brook Trout was collected in the Mongaup River Reach 2. Backpack electrofishing CPUE for Eastern Brook Trout was 0.92 fish/hour. Three Brown Trout were collected from the Mongaup River Reach 2. Backpack electrofishing CPUE for Brown Trout was 2.77 fish/hour. Additional information on gamefish species collected


E-109

in this area, including length frequency and CPUE data are available in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.

Historical Data

Surveys of the fish population in the Mongaup River Reach 2 were conducted by the NYSDEC in 1998 for the Catch Rate Oriented Trout Stocking (CROTS) Program, Orange and Rockland in 1987, and Eagle Creek in 2018. The predominant game species collected in the Mongaup River Reach 2 was Brown Trout (Table E.7-35). Additional historical information on gamefish species collected in this area, including length frequency and CPUE data are available in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.


DISTRIBUTION


Mongaup River Reach 2 (Mongaup Falls Dam to Rio Reservoir)

May 1987 Orange and

Rockland

July 1987 Orange

and Rockland

Oct 1987 Orange

and Rockland

1998 NYSDEC

2018 Eagle Creek

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus -- X -- -- -- Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys attratulus -- -- -- -- X Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus -- -- -- -- X Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis -- X -- X X Brown Trout Salmo trutta X X X X X Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus -- -- -- -- X Largemouth Bass Micropteris salmoides -- -- -- -- X Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus -- -- -- -- X Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss X X -- -- -- Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus -- X -- -- X Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris X X -- X X Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu -- X -- X -- Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius X -- -- -- -- Tessellated Darter Etheostoma olmstedi -- X -- -- X White Sucker Catostomus

commersoni X X -- X X

Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis -- X -- -- X Yellow Perch Perca flavescens X -- -- -- X

Rio Project

Rio Reservoir


A total of 2,538 fish representing 18 species were collected from the Rio Reservoir (Table E.7-36). The most abundant species captured was Alewife at 28.4 percent of the catch, followed by Bluegill at 18.1 percent, Red-


E-110

Breasted Sunfish at 10.9 percent, Yellow Perch at 8.5 percent, Largemouth Bass at 8.5, White Sucker at 7.0 percent, and Pumpkinseed at 7.0 percent. Notable species contributing to the remaining 11.6 percent were Smallmouth Bass, Green Sunfish, Chain Pickerel, and a few Brown Trout.

The 2018 survey consisted of 18.00 total hours of boat electrofishing (pedal time), 175 hours of intake gill net soak time, and 8 seining events. The most abundant species collected during boat electrofishing were Alewife and Bluegill. Seining captured 26 fish including several Largemouth Bass and two Banded Killifish. Similar to the other four reservoirs, habitat included rough substrate, steep banks, and minimal fish cover in the sampling areas.

TABLE E.7-36 FISH SPECIES COLLECTED IN THE RIO RESERVOIR DURING 2018 BASELINE FISHERIES SURVEY


Zone Catch1, 2

Littoral Zone CPUE

Intake Gill Net Catch3

Intake Gill Net

CPUE

Total Catch RA (%)

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus 722 40.11 0 0 722 28.38 Banded Killifish Fundulus diaphanus 2 0.25 0 0 2 0.08 Black Crappie Pomoxis

nigromaculatus 8 0.44 0 0 8 0.31

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 461 25.50 0 0 461 18.12 Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 0 0 1 0.01 1 0.04 Brown Trout Salmo trutta 4 0.22 0 0 4 0.16 Chain Pickerel Esox niger 51 2.83 0 0 51 2.00 Golden Shiner Notemigonus

crysoleucas 1 0.06 0 0 1 0.04

Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 66 3.67 0 0 66 2.59 Largemouth Bass Micropteris salmoides 216 11.50 0 0 216 8.49 Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbous 178 9.89 0 0 178 7.00 Red-Breasted Sunfish

Lepomis auritus 277 14.67 0 0 277 10.89

Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 18 1.00 0 0 18 0.71 Smallmouth Bass Micropteris dolomieui 94 5.22 0 0 94 3.69 Walleye Sander vitreus 19 1.06 5 0.03 24 0.94 White Sucker Catostomus

commersonii 202 11.22 0 0 202 7.94

Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis 2 0.11 0 0 2 0.08 Yellow Perch Perca flavescens 217 12.05 0 0 217 8.53

TOTAL 2,538 139.80 6 0.04 2544 100.00 1Littoral zone boat electrofishing; 2Littoral zone seining, 3Intake gill netting.

Walleye collected in the Rio Reservoir showed a similar trend to the other reservoirs. Their distribution, while across several size class cohorts, were grouped among the larger adult cohorts with no Walleye collected shorter than 401 mm (Figure E.7-22). Similar conditions to the Swinging Bridge Reservoir likely exist in the Rio Reservoir as the relative abundance of Alewife in the Rio Reservoir was high. Individuals were collected in six adult-size class cohorts. Boat electrofishing CPUE for Walleye was 1.06 fish/hour, and intake gill netting CPUE was 0.03 fish/hour.

Largemouth Bass collected in 2018 in the Rio Reservoir showed a very good distribution of length cohorts and in relatively high abundances (Figure E.7-23). An adult population of several size classes of Largemouth Bass


E-111

contributes to a large relative YOY cohort (51-100 mm). The YOY fish show a strong relative abundance and indicate an adult spawning population in the Rio Reservoir. Boat electrofishing CPUE for Largemouth Bass was at 11.50 fish/hour, and seining CPUE was 1.63 fish/seine. Additional information on gamefish species collected in this area, including length frequency and CPUE data are available in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.

FIGURE E.7-22 LENGTH FREQUENCY OF WALLEYE COLLECTED IN RIO RESERVOIR IN 2018


E-112

FIGURE E.7-23 LENGTH FREQUENCY OF LARGEMOUTH BASS COLLECTED IN RIO RESERVOIR IN 2018

Historical Data

Surveys of the fish population in Rio Reservoir were conducted by the NYSDEC prior to 1980, from 1989 to 1993, and from 2010 to 2017. The 1990 and 1992 survey events were a general biological survey while the remainder of the surveys targeted Alewife, hybrid White Bass x Striped Bass, Walleye, and Percids. Bulk fish species were also collected and processed in the Rio Reservoir, providing valuable insight into the fisheries resources within the Rio Reservoir. A summary of the species collected at Rio Reservoir by the NYSDEC, Orange and Rockland in 1987 and Eagle Creek in 2018 is presented in Table E.7-37. Species collected from the reservoir in 2018 are very similar to the species historically collected by the NYSDEC in several of the study years.

Historical length frequency data for Walleye collected in Rio Reservoir has similarities to the historical Walleye data collected in the Swinging Bridge Reservoir. Length frequency distribution for Walleye show a wide distribution in the 2013 sampling year with length cohorts representing all life stages of fish including YOY, juveniles, and adults. Data from 2011 and 2012 show more individuals in the YOY and early juvenile cohorts, while data from 2010 and 2014 through 2017 show mostly larger adults. The distribution has shifted to moderate and large-sized adults with no YOY cohorts showing up in the collections since 2013. This data indicates a population of Walleye have historically inhabited the Rio Reservoir; however, only an adult population existed after 2013 and no recruitment is shown by the data. All sampling years for Walleye used boat electrofishing.

Brown Trout were collected in the Rio Reservoir by the NYSDEC during 1993, 2010, 2012, 2016, and 2017 by boat electrofishing and in 1989 and 1992 by gill netting. Data through 1993 show a wide distribution of length cohorts skewed towards moderate to large adults. Each progressive sampling event by the NYSDEC shows a continuing shift to larger-sized adults. Additional historical information on gamefish species collected in this area, including length frequency and CPUE data are available in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.


E-113

TABLE E.7-37 MONGAUP RIVER PROJECTS FISH SAMPLING – RIO RESERVOIR - SPECIES TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION


Rio Reservoir

Pre

-19

80

NY

SD

EC

19

87

Ora

ng

e

an

d R

oc

kla

nd

19

89

NY

SD

EC

#

19

90

NY

SD

EC

19

91

NY

SD

EC

19

92

NY

SD

EC

19

93

NY

SD

EC

20

10

NY

SD

EC

20

11

NY

SD

EC

20

12

NY

SD

EC

20

13

NY

SD

EC

20

14

NY

SD

EC

20

15

NY

SD

EC

20

16

NY

SD

EC

20

17

NY

SD

EC

20

18

Ea

gle

Cre

ek

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus X X X X X X X -- X X X X X -- -- X Banded Killifish Fundulus diaphanus -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus -- X X X -- -- X -- X X -- X -- -- -- -- Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus X X X X -- -- X -- X X X X -- -- -- X Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus X X X -- -- -- X -- -- -- -- -- X -- -- X Brown Trout Salmo trutta X X X X -- X X X -- X -- -- -- X X X Carp Cyprinus carpio -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X -- -- -- -- Chain Pickerel Esox niger X X -- -- -- -- X -- X X -- X X -- X X Eastern Silvery Minnow Hybognathus regis -- -- -- X -- -- X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Golden Shiner Notemigonus

crysoleucas X X X -- -- -- X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X -- X X -- -- -- X Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides X X X -- -- -- X -- X X X X X X X X Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus X X -- X -- -- X -- X X X X X -- -- X Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus X X -- X -- X X -- X X X X X -- -- X Redfin Pickerel Esox americanus -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris X X -- -- -- -- X -- X -- X X X -- -- X Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu X X -- X -- -- X -- X -- X X X X X X Striped Bass X White Bass

Morone saxatilis x M. chrysops -- -- X X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Walleye Sander vitreus -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X X X X X White Catfish Ameiurus catus -- -- X X -- X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- White Sucker Catostomus commersoni X X X X -- -- X -- X X -- X X -- -- X Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis X X -- X -- -- X -- X X X -- -- -- -- X Yellow Perch Perca flavescens X X X X -- -- X -- X X X X X X X X


E-114

Mongaup River Reach 3: Rio Dam to Rio Main Powerhouse


A total of 262 fish representing 13 species were collected by backpack electrofishing from the Mongaup River Reach 3 (Table E.7-38). The most abundant species collected during the backpack electrofishing was overwhelmingly the American Eel representing 72.52 percent of the catch, followed by Blacknose Dace at 8.78 percent, Bluegill at 4.96 percent, and Brown Trout at 4.58 percent of the catch. The remaining 9.16 percent included mostly Minnows, Darters, Smallmouth Bass, and Brook Trout.

TABLE E.7-38 FISH SPECIES COLLECTED IN THE MONGAUP RIVER REACH 3 DURING 2018 BASELINE FISHERIES SURVEY



American Eel Anguilla rostrata 190 166.18 72.52 American Shad Alosa sapidissima 4 3.50 1.53 Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus 23 20.12 8.78 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 13 11.37 4.96 Brown Trout Salmo trutta 12 10.50 4.58 Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum 2 1.75 0.76 Cutlips Minnow Exoglossum maxillingua 4 3.50 1.53 Eastern Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis 2 1.75 0.76 Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae 1 0.87 0.38 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu 3 2.62 1.15 Tessellated Darter Etheostoma olmstedi 6 5.25 2.29 White Sucker Catostomus commersonii 2 1.75 0.76

TOTAL 262 229.16 100.00

Brown Trout collected from the Mongaup River Reach 3 had a wide distribution of size classes with both spawning-sized adults and abundant YOY fish (Figure E.7-24). Backpack electrofishing CPUE for Brown Trout was 10.50 fish/hour.

American Eel were very abundant in the Mongaup River Reach 3. Individuals were collected in nearly all size classes with the 51-100 mm, 201-250 mm, and 301-350 mm cohorts overwhelmingly dominated the collection (Figure E.7-25). Backpack electrofishing CPUE for American Eel was 166.18 fish/hour. Additional information on gamefish species collected in this area, including length frequency and CPUE data are available in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.


E-115


FIGURE E.7-25 LENGTH FREQUENCY OF AMERICAN EEL COLLECTED IN MONGAUP RIVER REACH 3 IN 2018


E-116

Historical Data

A summary of the species collected in the Mongaup River Reach 3 (from the Rio Dam to the Rio Main Powerhouse tailrace) by Orange and Rockland Utilities in 1987, the NYSDEC in 1998 and 1999, and Eagle Creek in 2018 is presented in Table E.7-39.


DISTRIBUTION


Mongaup River Reach 3 (Rio Dam to Rio Main Powerhouse)

Jul 1987 Orange

and Rockland

Oct 1987 Orange

and Rockland

1998 NYSDEC

1999 NYSDEC

2018 Eagle Creek

American Eel Anguilla rostrata X X X -- X American Shad Alosa sapidissima -- -- -- -- X Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys attratulus -- -- -- -- X Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus -- -- X X X Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis -- -- -- -- X Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus -- -- -- X -- Brown Trout Salmo trutta X X X X X Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus X -- X -- X Cutlip Minnow Exoglossum maxillingua X X X X X Fallfish Semotilus corporalis X -- X X -- Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum -- -- X -- -- Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus -- -- -- -- X Largemouth Bass Micropteris salmoides -- -- X -- -- Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae X X X X X Margined Madtom Notorus insignis X -- -- -- -- Northern Hogsucker Hypentelium nigricans -- -- -- -- X Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus -- -- X X -- Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris -- -- -- X X Shield Darter Percina peltata X X -- X -- Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu -- -- X X X Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius -- -- -- -- X Tessellated Darter Etheostoma olmstedi X X -- X X White Sucker Catostomus commersoni X X X X X Yellow Perch Perca flavescens -- -- -- X --

Mongaup River Reach 4: Rio Main Powerhouse to Delaware River


A total of 207 fish representing 14 species were collected from the Mongaup River Reach 4 (Table E.7-40). The most abundant species captured/observed was the American Eel contributing 65.22 percent of the catch,


E-117

followed by Spot Tail Shiner at 9.18 percent, Tessellated Darter at 8.70 percent, and Brown Trout at 4.83 percent. The remaining 12.07 percent of the catch in the Mongaup River Reach 4 consisted largely of Blacknose Dace, Cutlips Minnow, Longnose Dace, and Smallmouth Bass.

TABLE E.7-40 FISH SPECIES COLLECTED IN REACH 4 OF THE MONGAUP RIVER DURING 2018 BASELINE FISHERIES

SURVEY



American Eel Anguilla rostrata 135 86.8 65.22 Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus 5 3.21 2.42 Brown Trout Salmo trutta 10 6.43 4.83 Cutlips Minnow Exoglossum maxillingua 5 3.21 2.42 Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus 1 0.64 0.48 Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum 2 1.29 0.97 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 1 0.64 0.48 Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae 3 1.93 1.45 Northern Hogsucker Hypentelium nigricans 1 0.64 0.48 Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 1 0.64 0.48 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu 4 2.57 1.93 Spot Tail Shiner Notropis hudsonius 19 12.22 9.18 Tessellated Darter Etheostoma olmstedi 18 11.57 8.70 White Sucker Catostomus commersonii 2 1.29 0.97

TOTAL 207 133.08 100.00

Brown Trout collected from the Mongaup River Reach 4 had a wide distribution of size classes with representation in most cohorts with juveniles, adults, and YOY fish (Figure E.7-26). Backpack electrofishing CPUE for Brown Trout was 6.43 fish/hour.

American Eel were abundant in the Mongaup River Reach 4, but less so than in the Mongaup River Reach 3. Individuals were collected in the larger length cohorts, but smaller length cohorts were not present in the sampling of this reach (Figure E.7-27). Backpack electrofishing CPUE for American Eel was 86.80 fish/hour. Additional information on gamefish species collected in this area, including length frequency and CPUE data are available in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.


E-118


FIGURE E.7-27 LENGTH FREQUENCY OF AMERICAN EEL COLLECTED/OBSERVED IN MONGAUP RIVER REACH 4 IN 2018


E-119

Historical Data

NYSDEC conducted surveys of the fish population in Reach 4 of the Mongaup River in 1999 and 2005 for various purposes including for population estimates (1999). The predominant species collected for all temporal surveys was Brown Trout. YOY, and age 1, 2, and 3 juveniles and adults were collected. Additional surveys of the fish populations in this reach were conducted by the prior licensee in May, July, and October 1987 (Orange and Rockland 1988). A summary of the species collected in the Mongaup River Reach 4 by the NYSDEC, Orange and Rockland in 1987, and Eagle Creek in 2018 is presented in Table E.7-41. Additional historical information on gamefish species collected in this area, including length frequency and CPUE data are available in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.


DISTRIBUTION


Mongaup River Reach 4 (Rio Main Powerhouse to Delaware River)

Pre-1980 NYSDEC

Jul 1987 Orange

and Rockland

Oct 1987 Orange

and Rockland

1999 NYSDEC

2005 NYSDEC

2018 Eagle Creek

American Eel Anguilla rostrata X X X -- -- X Blacknose Dace

Rhinichthys attratulus

X -- -- -- -- X

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus

X -- -- -- -- --

Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis X -- -- -- -- -- Brown Trout Salmo trutta X X X X -- X Central Stoneroller

Campostoma anomalum

-- -- -- -- -- X

Common Shiner

Luxilus cornutus -- X -- -- -- X

Cutlip Minnow Exoglossum maxillingua

X X X X -- --

Fallfish Semotilus corporalis -- X X X X -- Golden Shiner Notemigonus

crysoleucas X -- -- -- -- --

Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus -- -- -- -- -- X Longnose Dace

Rhinichthys cataractae

-- X X X -- X

Margined Madtom

Notorus insignis -- X -- -- -- --

Northern Hogsucker

Hypentelium nigricans

-- -- -- -- -- X

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus X -- -- -- -- -- Redbreast Sunfish

Lepomis auritus X -- -- X -- --

Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris

-- -- -- -- -- X

Shield Darter Percina peltata -- X X X -- --


E-120


Mongaup River Reach 4 (Rio Main Powerhouse to Delaware River)

Pre-1980 NYSDEC

Jul 1987 Orange

and Rockland

Oct 1987 Orange

and Rockland

1999 NYSDEC

2005 NYSDEC

2018 Eagle Creek

Smallmouth Bass

Micropterus dolomieu

-- -- -- X -- X

Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius -- -- -- -- -- X Tessellated Darter

Etheostoma olmstedi

-- X X -- -- X

White Sucker Catostomus commersoni

X X X X -- X

Yellow Bullhead

Ameiurus natalis X -- -- -- -- --

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens X -- -- -- -- --

Summary of 2018 Baseline Fisheries Survey and Historical Data

Historical fish surveys conducted by the NYSDEC from the study area resulted in the collection of 15,658 fish consisting of 41 species (between 1988 and 2017). Fish surveys during 2018 collected by Eagle Creek resulted in the collection of 11,549 fish consisting of 34 species. Both datasets combined resulted in a total collection of 27,207 fish. In addition 7,692 fish representing 29 species collected by Orange and Rockland in 1987 (Culp and Homa 1987) were reviewed; however, statistical analysis of this data was not performed due to the use of differing gear types and the limited amount of fish length data provided in the 1987 report. General inferences from the 1987 data are made in the context of the fisheries summary below.

Relationships among existing native fish stocks, non-native fish introductions, gamefish stocking, and Project operations over the past 30 years characterize a resilient fishery that has been heavily utilized, studied, and managed for many decades. The predominant cool/warm-water fishery of the Projects’ reservoirs appear to host healthy gamefish populations with a variety of species targeted by anglers that include Walleye, Brown Trout, Chain Pickerel, Smallmouth and Largemouth Bass, Yellow Perch, and Black Crappie as well as an abundance of Catfish and Pan Fish.

The fish assemblages and relative abundances within the Projects’ reservoirs appear to be very similar to each other and to previous data sets with regard to fish assemblage and relative abundances. Some subtleties with regard to abundance and length distribution occur among the reservoirs but can likely be attributed to the seasonality of fish collections. Largemouth Bass, Smallmouth Bass, Chain Pickerel, and Yellow Perch are abundant in the Projects’ reservoirs and show a wide distribution of length cohorts, indicating a healthy and well-balanced population of these species.

Fish species with lower abundance within the Projects’ reservoirs include Black Crappie, Walleye, Brown Trout, and Minnow species. With the exception of Walleye, the abundances of these three species has been historically low in the Projects’ reservoirs as evidenced by the historical catch data.

Non-game species are comprised mostly of the Sunfishes. The bait fishery was dominated by Alewife in the Projects’ reservoirs, and by Darters and Minnows in the riverine reaches. Larger non-game species such as


E-121

White Sucker, Common Carp, Yellow Bullhead, Brown Bullhead, and White Catfish were well represented in the Projects’ reservoirs; however, very few Minnows were collected from the reservoirs.

From the 2018 data and field observations (e.g., schooling at the surface) it is evident that Alewife overwhelmingly dominate the prey population of the Projects’ reservoirs. Alewife are abundant and contribute to supporting a very predatory heavy system to the extent that very few smaller Minnow species were collected from the Projects’ reservoirs during 2018. Review of the historical NYSDEC data show that low abundances of Minnow species appear in nearly all of the sampled years.

Walleye were stocked in the Swinging Bridge Reservoir from 1993 until 1998, and once stocking ceased, a natural population of Walleye was found in the Swinging Bridge Reservoir. During 2017, the NYSDEC performed a boat electrofishing survey, targeting gamefish only and no YOY Walleye collected. No Walleye fry or YOY have been collected in the Swinging Bridge Reservoir since 2011 (DiSarno 2018). The NYSDEC attributes the likely cause of the failed reproduction of Walleye as the result of heavy predation of young Walleye soon after hatching by Alewife.

Eagle Creek collected 99 Walleye from general fisheries gill netting, intake gill netting and boat electrofishing among the Projects’ reservoirs. This data corroborates the data collected by the NYSDEC and shows that only larger adults were collected with no YOY or juvenile fish collected at any of the reservoirs.

Data collected from the Black Lake Creek reaches showed very consistent results to those historically collected by the NYSDEC and to what would be expected in a cold water stream such as Black Lake Creek. Eastern Brook Trout of all life stages (with the exception of fry) were collected from these reaches in very high abundances.

Mongaup River Reach 1 (Swinging Bridge Dam to Mongaup Falls Reservoir) showed a strong presence of Eastern Brook Trout of the YOY, juvenile, and adult-length cohort, suggesting that spawning may be occurring in this reach of the Mongaup River.

Mongaup River Reach 2, which includes the Mongaup Falls Project Bypassed Reach and Powerhouse tailrace, showed a larger species composition than Reach 1 with only a few Brown Trout and a single Brook Trout. The Sunfish and Basses dominated this catch, which is likely due to the immediate proximity of the Rio Reservoir to the sampled reach.

In the Mongaup River Reaches 3 and 4, downstream of Rio Dam, American Eel represented by all life stages dominated the catch and contributed approximately 75 percent of the overall abundance in those reaches. American Shad were also collected in the Mongaup River Reach 3. These reaches also contain wild (propagating) Brown Trout. These reaches are considered an outstanding Trout fishery (DRBC 2004). As with the collections made in the Mongaup River Reach 3, the principle species collected from Reach 4 included American Eel, Brown Trout, White Sucker, and a variety of Minnows, Darter, and Dace.

Comparisons of fish data collected in 2018 with that of the most recent collections by the NYSDEC suggest that fish population structures within areas of the Project developments have remained relatively similar, if not improved. Sample locations in 2018 were replicated from the previous relicensing studies and from NYSDEC sampling over the past 30 years to the extent practical. Overall, baseline fish assemblages and species relative abundances have changed relatively little and appear representative of those for the associated geographic regions in New York (e.g., Catskill Mountains and Delaware River Basin).


E-122

2018 Intake Gillnet Survey

In the February 9, 2018 SPD, the Commission provided its review of the 1992-1993 fish entrainment study (Lawler, Matusky and Skelly 1994) performed at the Projects and found that the entrainment data collected between November 1992 and March 1993 is reliable and sound and would inform an analysis of late-fall, winter, and early spring entrainment at the Projects sufficient to inform potential license applications. However, the Commission required Eagle Creek to conduct two seasonal experimental gill net sample events during spring, summer, and fall (a total of six sampling events) to characterize the occurrence, relative abundance, and size distribution of fish in proximity to the Projects’ intakes during the months that were not equitably sampled during the 1992-1993 study. The gill net sampling provides complementary data to the prior study, as well as baseline information to guide the qualitative desktop analysis of entrainment, impingement and turbine passage survival for species encountered in the vicinity of each of the Projects’ powerhouse intakes.

During the six experimental intake gill net surveys at the Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls, and Rio reservoirs, the total number of individuals collected among all nets and dates was 26. The greatest number of individuals of a single species was nine for both Walleye and White Sucker. Other species collected were Brown Bullhead, Brown Trout, Chain Pickerel, White Perch and Yellow Bullhead (Table E.7-42). The greatest number of individuals collected during a survey event were eight on October 2 and seven on May 24, both at the Mongaup Falls Reservoir. The surveys at the Swinging Bridge Reservoir had the lowest number of individuals collected during all survey events, limited to three on June 13. No individuals were collected at any location on September 19. The Mongaup Falls Reservoir was the only location where individuals were collected in October (Figure E.7-28).

TABLE E.7-42 FISH SPECIES COLLECTED IN GILL NETS SET IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECTS’ INTAKES IN 2018

Reservoir Date Generation1 (Y/N)

Brown Bullhead

Brown Trout

Chain Pickerel

Walleye White Perch

White Sucker

Yellow Bullhead

Total

Swinging Bridge

5/24 Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6/13 N 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 7/24 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9/19 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10/2 Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10/17 Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mongaup

Falls 5/24 Y 0 3 1 0 0 2 1 7 6/13 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7/24 Y 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 9/19 Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10/2 Y 1 0 0 2 1 4 0 8

10/17 Y 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Rio 5/24 Y 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

6/13 Y 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 7/24 Y 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 9/19 Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10/2 Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10/17 Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total -- 2 3 1 9 1 9 1 26

1Y indicates generation occurred for all or a portion of the net set time.


E-123

FIGURE E.7-28 NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS COLLECTED IN GILL NETS SET IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECTS’ INTAKES IN

2018

The length frequencies of the majority of the individuals collected were in the 16 – 24 inch length category (Figure E.7-29). The two Bullhead species were the shortest of all species with lengths in the 8 – 12 inch category. Two White Sucker individuals were in the 12 – 16 inch length category. The three Brown Trout individuals were in the 24 – 28 inch length category. Walleye lengths were between 16 – 28 inches.

FIGURE E.7-29 LENGTH FREQUENCIES OF INDIVIDUALS COLLECTED IN GILL NETS SET IN THE VICINITY OF THE

PROJECTS’ INTAKES

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

5/24 6/13 7/24 9/19 10/2 10/17

No.

col

ecte

d

Collection Date

Rio Mongaup Falls Swinging Bridge

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

8 to 12 12 to 16 16 to 20 20 to 24 24 to 28

Freq

uenc

y

Length (Inches)


E-124

2018 American Eel Survey

The 2018 American Eel survey occurred in and around the Rio Dam (dam toe), the Rio Minimum Flow Powerhouse (Unit 3) tailrace, and the Rio Main Powerhouse (Units 1 and 2) tailrace (Figures E.7-30 and E.7-31). Twenty-five spotlighting episodes and twenty-five overnight sets of nine eel pots were conducted at the locations described above from May 3 through October 30, 2018. On five occasions (May 3, 10, and 23, July 18, and August 7), one to two eel pots (EP#8, EP#9) could not be safely deployed due to high flows. Flows varied at each of the sampling locations dependent on Project operations and natural precipitation within the watershed.

A total of 803 American Eel were observed during the nighttime spotlighting events and 27 American Eel were collected in the eel pots. Based on the survey methodology, the potential exists that the same eels were counted more than one time between spotlighting events. The highest total number of American Eel observations occurred at the dam toe (56.7%), followed by the Unit 1/2 Tailrace (34.5%). The fewest number of American Eel were observed at the Unit 3 Tailrace (8.8%). There was a seasonal pattern evident with the earliest American Eel observed at the dam toe, with a few eels noted in the Unit 3 Tailrace area. American Eel were not observed in the Unit 1/2 Tailrace until June 13, 2018. The majority of American Eels were observed from May through August (95.3%), with 4.5 percent observed in September and 0.2 percent observed in October. For all locations, the highest number of American Eel observed during a single event occurred on August 1, 2018, with a total of 159.

The number of American Eel observed by estimated size class for each survey date is presented in Figure E.7-32. An evaluation of data from all survey sites combined indicates the majority of American Eels were 6 to 12 inches in length, accounting for 48.8 percent, followed by 30.8 percent of eels greater than 12 inches and 20.4 percent of eels less than 6 inches. All size classes were observed throughout the survey period. While there was no apparent trend in numbers observed with generation in the Unit1/Unit2 Tailrace, observations were negatively affected due to reduced visibility when generation was occurring. The number of American Eels observed also does not appear to be affected by moon phase or weather. Water temperature in the Mongaup River downstream of the Rio Main Powerhouse was 47.1 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) on May 3, rising gradually until August 5 and stabilizing from approximately 71.9 to 72.7°F until September 5, then declining gradually through October.


E-125

FIGURE E.7-30 2018 AMERICAN EEL SURVEY SAMPLE LOCATIONS IN VICINITY OF THE RIO DAM AND RIO MINIMUM

FLOW POWERHOUSE


E-126

FIGURE E.7-31 2018 AMERICAN EEL SURVEY SAMPLE LOCATIONS IN VICINITY OF RIO MAIN POWERHOUSE TAILRACE


E-127

FIGURE E.7-32 NUMBER OF AMERICAN EEL OBSERVED BY SIZE CLASS DURING NIGHTTIME SPOTLIGHT SURVEYS AT

THE RIO PROJECT FROM MAY 3 – OCTOBER 30, 2018


E-128

The numbers of American Eels collected in the eel pots generally followed the same abundance pattern observed during spotlight surveys (Figure E.7-33). The highest abundance was observed on July 24, 2018. Spatially, the greatest numbers of eels (9) were collected at EP3, located at the mouth of a tributary, followed by five eels collected in the U3 Tailrace, and four eels collected each at EP5 (Bypassed Reach) and EP9 (U1/U2 Tailrace).

FIGURE E.7-33 AMERICAN EEL COLLECTIONS BY LOCATION AND DATE AT THE RIO PROJECT

FROM MAY 3 – OCTOBER 30, 2018

Other fish species observed and collected during the American Eel survey events included one Walleye (dam toe) and two Yellow Perch observed during the May 3 spotlight survey, as well as one White Sucker collected in an eel pot deployed in the Bypassed Reach on August 15. Additionally, an estimated 237 American Shad were observed during the American Eel survey events. The first observation occurred on June 13, 2018, at the Unit 3 Tailrace and the last date that American Shad were observed was September 24, 2018. The highest estimated count for American Shad was 55 on August 7, 2018. The majority of the fish were seen during the months of July and August (Figure E.7-34). Eighty-four percent of the American Shad observed during the entire season were at the Unit 3 Tailrace. Similar to the eel surveys, based on the survey methodology, the potential exists that the same individual fish was counted more than one time between spotlighting events.


E-129

FIGURE E.7-34 AMERICAN SHAD OBSERVED BY LOCATION AND DATE AT THE RIO PROJECT

FROM MAY 3 – OCTOBER 30, 2018

E.7.3.1.4 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

Biological sampling of macroinvertebrates is used as an indicator of water quality and was previously performed in the area of the Projects by the prior licensee in 1987 and by the NYSDEC in 1999. The results of these studies are summarized below and are presented in greater detail in the PAD previously filed with the Commission.

Additionally in 2018, Eagle Creek performed a Macroinvertebrate and Mussel Study in accordance with the Commission’s February 9, 2018 SPD. This study characterized the macroinvertebrate community in Projects’ reservoirs and riverine reaches and also calculated several indices of biotic integrity. These indices were used to provide an assessment of water quality in the Projects’ riverine reaches based on the macroinvertebrate community. The results of the 2018 study are summarized below and are presented in greater detail in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.

Historical Data

Samples of the invertebrate communities were collected during May of 1987 by the prior licensee. In general, the macroinvertebrate communities are typical of small, clear water streams dominated by gravel and cobble substrates and riffle-type flow patterns. The most abundant group of organisms represented in the samples were the caddis flies (Trichoptera). Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) and stoneflies (Plecoptera) were also well represented in the samples from the riverine reaches of Black Lake Creek and the Mongaup River in the vicinity


E-130

of the Projects. Diversity indices calculated from the results indicate a moderate to high diversity of organisms inhabit the reaches. Although densities of individuals were not high, the community appeared sufficiently productive to support the trout populations found in the reaches (Orange and Rockland 1988).

The NYSDEC conducted a biological (macroinvertebrate) assessment of the Mongaup River reach below Rio Reservoir to the mouth of the river in 1999. Due to high flow releases, results were indeterminate. The NYSDEC lists this reach as non-impacted, but stressed due to fluctuating water levels and temperatures (NYSDEC 2002). As a result, if the original licensing process, a minimum flow of 100 cfs is provided in the reach between the Rio Dam and Rio Main Powerhouse. This flow is provided by the Rio Minimum Flow Unit (Unit 3) located immediately downstream of the Rio Dam. The NYSDEC also evaluated the streams and tributaries between the Swinging Bridge Reservoir and the Rio Reservoir. This stretch was also listed as a non-impacted reach, but stressed due to fluctuating water levels and temperatures (NYSDEC 2002).

2018 Macroinvertebrate Survey Data

In 2018, macroinvertebrate sampling was performed to evaluate the macroinvertebrate community within Projects’ reservoirs (Toronto, Cliff Lake, Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls, and Rio), the Mongaup Falls and Rio bypassed reaches, and select downstream riverine reaches during a representative summer low flow period in accordance with the NYSDEC’s Standard Operating Procedure: Biological Monitoring of Surface Waters in New York State (NYSDEC 2016). Additional detail on the sampling procedure and methodology is provided in the ISR previously filed with the Commission. The reservoir and riverine reach sampling areas are listed below and are shown in Figures E.7-35 and E.7-36 below.

1. Black Lake Creek downstream of Toronto Dam (Site 1) 2. Black Lake Creek downstream of Cliff Lake Dam (Site 2) 3. Mongaup River downstream of Swinging Bridge Dam (Site 3) 4. Mongaup River downstream of Mongaup Falls Dam (bypassed reach) (Site 4) 5. Mongaup River downstream of confluence with Black Brook (Site 5) 6. Mongaup River downstream of Rio Dam (bypassed reach) (Site 6) 7. Mongaup River downstream of Rio Main Powerhouse tailrace (Site 7) 8. Mongaup River upstream of midway point between Rio Main Powerhouse and Delaware River (Site 8) 9. Mongaup River downstream of midway point between Rio Main Powerhouse and Delaware River

(Site 9) 10. Black Brook immediately upstream of the Black Brook Dam impoundment (Site 10) 11. Black Brook within the Black Brook Dam impoundment (Site 11) 12. Black Brook immediately downstream of Black Brook Dam (Site 12)


E-131

FIGURE E.7-35 MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY SAMPLE LOCATION MAP FOR SWINGING BRIDGE PROJECT


E-132

FIGURE E.7-36 MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY SAMPLE LOCATION MAP FOR MONGAUP FALLS AND RIO PROJECTS


E-133

Watershed Assessment Associates (WAA), a certified lab in eastern and western taxonomy, analyzed the macroinvertebrate samples collected from the study area in 2018. Organisms were identified to the lowest practicable taxon. Data obtained from 300- to 350-organism replicate subsamples were applied to standard indices, such as:

A. Species Richness - The total number of species or taxa found in the sample. Higher species richness values are often associated with good water quality conditions.

B. Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) - This index is a measure of the tolerance of the organisms in the sample to organic pollution and low DO concentrations. Low HBI values are associated with good water quality.

C. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) Taxa Richness - The total number of species or mayfly (Ephemeroptera), stonefly (Plecoptera), and caddisfly (Trichoptera) taxa in the subsample. These are considered mostly clean-water organisms and their presence is associated with good water quality.

D. Percent Model Affinity - A measure of the similarity of the subsample to a model non-impacted community based on the percent abundance of seven major groups.

E. Species Dominance - The percent contribution of the most numerous species, which is a measure of community balance, or evenness of the distribution of individuals among the species. Dominance-3 is the combined percent contribution of the three most numerous taxon. High dominance values indicate and unbalanced community.

F. Species Diversity - A value that combines species richness and community balance (evenness). High species-diversity values are associated with diverse, well-balanced communities.

G. Water Quality Analysis using Biological Assessment Profile (BAP).

Samples collected in riffle habitats underwent further analysis, where 100 organisms were randomly selected via computer generation from each of the 300- to 350-organism replicate subsamples. These data were applied to indices A through D listed above, as well as the Nutrient Biotic Index for phosphorus (NBI-P). The NBI-P is a measure of stream nutrient enrichment based on assigned tolerance values, where higher values are associated with higher nutrient concentrations and diatom communities. The average index value was calculated for each site and was converted to a common water quality impact scale, which ranges from 0 (severe impact) to 10 (non-impact). The mean score of the five family-level indices or BAP was calculated and used to indicate the overall level of water quality impact. Impact categories of BAP scores are non-impact (10.0 to 7.5), slight impact (7.5 to 5.0), moderate impact (5.0 to 2.5), and severe impact (2.5-0.0) (NYSDEC 2016). Typically, BAP scores increase with water quality.

The macroinvertebrate community and the results of the indices described above are summarized below for each study area. Additional detail and information on the substrates and water quality at each sample area is available in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.


E-134


Toronto Reservoir (T1 and T2)

Samples collected in Toronto Reservoir were dominated by aquatic worms, non-biting midges (Cryptochironomus sp., Chironomus sp.), or pea clams (Musculium sp.). As indicated in the ISR, the nearly anoxic conditions at the bottom of Toronto Reservoir at sample location T2 may have contributed to the poor quality of macroinvertebrate communities at this sample. The metric data from the samples collected in Toronto Reservoir are provided in Table E.7-43.

Black Lake Creek Downstream of Toronto Reservoir Dam (Site 1)

All habitats sampled in Black Lake Creek downstream of Toronto Dam were dominated by a genus of isopod (Caecidotea sp.), with the exception of one replicate collected in riffle habitat where black fly larvae (Simulium sp.) were the dominant taxa. Caecidotea sp. comprised approximately 19 to 82 percent of the taxa collected in sample replicates. Simulium sp. comprised 61 percent of the community composition in one of the riffle replicates and were relatively abundant in other riffle replicates. Other common taxa at sites in Black Lake Creek downstream of Toronto Dam included several taxa of non-biting midges and pea clams (Pisidium sp.) Index values and associated scores used to calculate BAP scores for the 100-organism data set from the riffle sample replicates is provided in Table E.7-44. BAP scores of the riffle sample replicates collected from Black Lake Creek downstream of Toronto Dam ranged from 2.06 to 2.43, which categorizes this site as severely impacted.

TABLE E.7-43 RESULTS OF THE TARGET 300- TO 350-ORGANISM REPLICATE SUBSAMPLES COLLECTED

FROM TORONTO RESERVOIR (T1 AND T2) AND BLACK LAKE CREEK DOWNSTREAM OF TORONTO DAM (SITE 1)

Habitat Replicate Total Number

Density (#/m2)

Species Richness HBI EPT Taxa

Richness PMA Species Dominance

Species Diversity

Riverine Riffle 1 -- 617 10 5.67 1 16 93.3 1.70

2 -- 354 15 6.41 4 32 83.6 2.11 3 -- 553 12 6.06 2 30 90.8 2.00

Average -- 508 12 6.05 2 26 89.3 1.94 Run 1 -- 159 18 7.17 3 29 83.5 1.64

2 -- 196 13 7.54 3 24 90.1 1.21 3 -- 303 14 7.41 2 31 90.1 1.39

Average -- 219 15 7.37 3 28 87.9 1.41 Pool 1 -- -- 16 7.65 1 19 91.1 1.31

2 -- -- 16 7.42 2 25 86.6 1.57 3 -- -- 21 6.94 3 31 82.1 2.03

Average -- -- 18 7.34 2 25 86.6 1.64 Reservoir

T1 1 25 1076 6 7.88 0 34 84.0 2.01 2 43 1851 14 6.54 0 52 62.8 2.97 3 19 818 7 6.88 0 51 79.0 2.03

Average 29 1249 9 7.10 0 46 75.2 2.34 T2 1 152 6544 4 9.93 0 40 99.3 0.93

2 15 646 1 10.00 0 20 100.0 0.00 3 13 560 2 10.00 0 40 100.0 1.00

Average 60 2583 2 9.98 0 33 99.8 0.64 Notes: HBI = Hilsenhoff Biotic Index, EPT = Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, PMA = Percent Model Affinity.


E-135

TABLE E.7-44 INDEX VALUES AND ASSOCIATED SCORE USED TO CALCULATE THE BAP SCORE FOR 100-ORGANISM

DATA SET FROM RIFFLE SAMPLE REPLICATES COLLECTED FROM BLACK LAKE CREEK DOWNSTREAM OF TORONTO DAM (SITE 1)

Site Replicate Species

Richness EPT Taxa Richness

HBI PMA NBI P BAP Score

Value Score Value Score Value Score Value Score Value Score 1 A 7 1.15 1 1.25 5.56 6.18 20 0 7.32 1.7 2.06

B 11 2.79 1 1.25 6.35 5.19 31 1.9 7.62 0.95 2.42 C 9 1.92 1 1.25 6.26 5.3 31 1.9 7.29 1.77 2.43

Notes: HBI = Hilsenhoff Biotic Index, EPT = Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, PMA = Percent Model Affinity, NBI_P = Nutrient Biotic Index Total Phosphorus.

Cliff Lake Reservoir (C1 and C2)

Samples collected in Cliff Lake Reservoir (C1 and C2) were dominated by aquatic worms, non-biting midges, and pea clams. The dominant taxa at sample location C1 were two genera of non-biting midges (Tanytarsus sp., Heterotrissocladius sp.). Tanytarsus sp. comprised 30 to 40 percent, and Heterotrissocladius sp. comprised 39 percent, of the community composition in replicate samples. Pea clams were also relatively abundant at this site. The dominant taxa at sample location C2 was also a non-biting midge (Chironomus sp.), which comprised 25 to 82 percent of the macroinvertebrate community in replicate samples. Worms (undetermined Naididae) were also abundant at this site and comprised 9 to 63 percent of the taxa in replicate samples. The number of taxa collected and macroinvertebrate diversity at sample location C1 appeared to be much greater than at C2 (Table E.7-45). As indicated in the ISR, the nearly anoxic conditions at the bottom of Cliff Lake Reservoir at sample location C2 may have contributed to the poor quality of macroinvertebrate communities at this sample location.

Black Lake Creek Downstream of Cliff Lake Dam (Site 2)

Riffle replicates from Black Lake Creek downstream of Cliff Lake Dam (Site 2) were solely dominated by blackfly larvae (Simulium sp.), which comprised 43 to 70 percent of the community composition. The pool and run habitats were typically dominated by a genus of isopod (Caecidotea sp.), which comprised 9 to 51 percent of the community composition. Other common taxa in run habitat included black fly larvae (Simulium sp.), non-biting midges (Tvetenia bavarica gr., Eukiefferiella brehmi gr.), amphipods (Gammarus sp.), mayfly larvae (Maccaffertium sp.), and stonefly larvae (Leuctra sp.). In pools, common taxa also included non-biting midges (Orthocladius sp., Micropsectra sp., Stictochironomus sp.) and amphipods (Gammarus sp.), as well as worms (Nais sp.).


E-136

TABLE E.7-45 RESULTS OF THE TARGET 300- TO 350-ORGANISM REPLICATE SUBSAMPLES COLLECTED FROM CLIFF LAKE RESERVOIR (C1 AND C2) AND BLACK LAKE CREEK DOWNSTREAM OF CLIFF LAKE DAM (SITE 2)


Density (#/m2)



Species Diversity

Riverine Riffle 1 -- 2238 26 4.71 7 37 81.8 2.03

2 -- 4370 29 4.94 5 41 69.4 2.81 3 -- 340 29 4.28 10 55 58.2 3.24

Average -- 2316 28 4.64 7 44 69.8 2.69 Run 1 -- 898 40 5.45 10 51 34.5 4.36

2 -- 1518 40 4.59 12 62 26.5 4.65 3 -- 205 31 4.99 11 62 43.6 3.96

Average -- 873 37 5.01 11 58 34.9 4.33 Pool 1 -- -- 34 6.46 10 44 46.6 3.81

2 -- -- 30 6.90 4 34 58.6 3.51 3 -- -- 22 7.83 1 31 76.6 2.58


C1 1 126 5425 18 6.90 1 57 64.3 3.07 2 134 5769 14 5.54 0 38 79.9 2.45 3 91 3918 9 5.89 0 59 68.1 2.71

Average 117 5038 14 6.11 0 51 70.8 2.74 C2 1 33 1421 4 9.77 0 35 97.0 0.95

2 13 560 3 9.50 0 48 100.0 1.14 3 8 344 3 8.00 0 40 100.0 1.30


Index values and associated scores used to calculate BAP scores for the 100-organism data set from the riffle sample replicates are provided in Table E.7-46. BAP scores within riffle sample replicates collected from Black Lake Creek downstream of Cliff Lake Dam ranged from 4.22 to 5.38, which categorizes this site as moderately to slightly impacted.


DATA SET FROM RIFFLE SAMPLE REPLICATES COLLECTED FROM BLACK LAKE CREEK DOWNSTREAM OF CLIFF LAKE DAM (SITE 2)


Richness EPT Taxa Richness HBI PMA NBI P BAP

Score Value Score Value Score Value Score Value Score Value Score 2 A 15 3.97 4 4.17 4.71 7.24 38 3.15 6.98 2.55 4.22

B 16 4.26 5 4.72 4.89 7.01 42 3.79 7.24 1.90 4.34 C 18 4.85 5 4.72 4.06 7.94 58 6.45 6.82 2.95 5.38

Notes: HBI = Hilsenhoff Biotic Index, EPT = Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, PMA = Percent Model Affinity, NBI P = Nutrient Biotic Index Total Phosphorus.

Swinging Bridge Reservoir (S1 and S2)

Samples collected from the Swinging Bridge Reservoir (S1 and S2) were comprised of aquatic worms, non-biting midges, and one isopod individual. There appeared to be substantially fewer taxa collected at sample location


E-137

S2 than S1. At sample location S1, worms were the dominant taxa and accounted for 60 to 77 percent of the macroinvertebrate community in sample replicates. At sample location S2, a genus of non-biting midge (Chironomus sp.) was the dominant taxon, which comprised 46 to 100 percent of the community composition in sample replicates. As indicated in the ISR, the low DO concentrations measured at the bottom of Swinging Bridge Reservoir likely contributes to the poor quality of macroinvertebrate community at sample location S2. The metric data from the samples collected from Swinging Bridge Reservoir are provided in Table E.7-47.

Mongaup River Downstream of Swinging Bridge Dam (Site 3)

Riffle habitats were dominated by a genus of isopod (Caecidotea sp.), a genus of caddisfly (Cheumatopsyche sp.), and a species of mayfly (Baetis intercalaris). Caecidotea sp. comprised 13 to 24 percent, Cheumatopsyche sp. comprised 11 to 18 percent, and B. intercalaris comprised 10 to 20 percent of the macroinvertebrate community in riffle sample replicates. Aquatic worms (Nais sp.) were relatively abundant in one of the replicates collected in riffle habitat. Caecidotea sp. was also a dominant taxon in run habitat comprising 11 to 19 percent of the macroinvertebrate community composition; however, non-biting midges (Cricotopus sp., Cricotopus/Orthocladius Complex), and worms (Nais sp.) were often the most abundant taxa, comprising between 12 and 26 percent of two of the run sample replicates. Cheumatopsyche sp., a species of mayfly (Baetis tricaudatus), and a net-spinning caddisfly (Ceratopsyche sparna) were other relatively abundant taxa.

TABLE E.7-47 RESULTS OF THE TARGET 300- TO 350-ORGANISM REPLICATE SUBSAMPLES COLLECTED FROM

SWINGING BRIDGE RESERVOIR (S1 AND S2) AND THE MONGAUP RIVER DOWNSTREAM OF SWINGING BRIDGE DAM (SITE 3)


Density (#/m2)



Species Diversity

Riverine Riffle 1 -- 235 34 5.59 11 61 50.6 3.81

2 -- 244 36 6.05 12 54 52.7 3.72 3 -- 792 42 6.10 14 52 44.2 4.17

Average -- 423 37 5.91 12 56 49.2 3.90 Run 1 -- 147 34 6.16 11 47 51.8 3.86

2 -- 308 29 6.26 8 46 45.3 3.96 3 -- 908 36 5.74 13 46 50.6 3.80

Average -- 454 33 6.05 11 46 49.2 3.88 Reservoir

S1 1 114 4098 5 9.69 0 37 93.9 1.17 2 10 431 4 8.56 0 50 90.0 1.57 3 15 646 4 8.00 0 47 93.3 1.24

Average 46 1995 4 8.75 0 45 92.4 1.33 S2 1 3 129 1 10.00 0 20 100.0 0.00

2 11 474 3 9.25 0 50 100.0 1.54 3 6 258 2 10.00 0 30 100.0 0.65

Average 7 287 2 9.75 0 33 100.0 0.73 Notes: HBI = Hilsenhoff Biotic Index, EPT = Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera Taxa Richness, PMA = Percent Model Affinity.

Index values and associated scores used to calculate BAP scores for the 100-organism data set from riffle sample replicates are provided in Table E.7-48. BAP scores at riffle sample replicates collected from the


E-138

Mongaup River downstream of Swinging Bridge Dam ranged from 4.53 to 5.95, which categorizes this site as moderately to slightly impacted.


DATA SET FROM RIFFLE SAMPLE REPLICATES COLLECTED FROM THE MONGAUP RIVER DOWNSTREAM OF SWINGING BRIDGE DAM (SITE 3)



Score Value Score Value Score Value Score Value Score Value Score

3 A 23 6.47 8 6.36 5.63 6.09 59 6.61 6.42 3.95 5.90 B 18 4.85 4 4.17 6.26 5.30 52 5.48 6.86 2.85 4.53 C 28 8.06 11 8.00 6.25 5.31 51 5.32 6.78 3.05 5.95



Mongaup Falls Reservoir (M1 and M2)

Samples collected in the Mongaup Falls Reservoir were dominated by a variety of non-biting midges and aquatic worms. No EPT taxa were obtained in the samples collected in the Mongaup Falls Reservoir. The total number of individuals and number of taxa collected at sample location M1 appeared to be greater than M2 (Table E.7-49).

Mongaup River Bypassed Reach (Site 4)

All three riffle sample replicates collected from the Mongaup Falls bypassed reach (Site 4) were dominated by a species of net-spinning caddisfly (Ceratopsyche sparna), which comprised from 22 to 31 percent of the community composition of sample replicates. Other dominant taxa collected in riffle habitat included non-biting midges (Polypedilum flavum), a species of caddisfly (Chimarra aterrima), and a genus of mayfly (Ephemerella sp.). The run sample replicates were dominated by C. sparna, a species of mayfly (Ephemerella invaria), and a genus of pea clam (Pisidium sp.). Other common taxa present in run sample replicates included crane flies (Antocha sp.) and a genus of a longhorned case maker caddisfly (Ceraclea sp.).

Mongaup River Downstream of Black Brook Confluence (Site 5)

Riffle sample replicates collected from the Mongaup River downstream of the Black Brook confluence (Site 5) were typically dominated by C. sparna, which accounted for 27 to 53 percent of the community composition in replicate samples. A genera of net-spinning caddisfly (Cheumatopsyche sp.) was the dominant taxa in one of the replicates collected in riffle habitat and represented approximately 43 percent of the community composition. In run habitats, Cheumatopsyche sp. was the most abundant taxa in two of the replicates comprising between 18 to 24 percent of the community composition in replicate samples. C. sparna did not appear to be as abundant in run habitat, except in one replicate where the species accounted for 35 percent of the community composition. Ceraclea sp. was the second most abundant taxa in one of the replicates, but only accounted for approximately 11 percent of the community composition. Dominant taxa in pool sample replicates were Pisidium sp. and Antocha sp., which accounted for approximately 29 to 37 percent and 30 percent of the pool community composition, respectively. The second most abundant taxa at two of the pool


E-139

sample replicates was a genus of isopod (Caecidotea sp.), which accounted for approximately 13 to 15 percent of the individuals collected. C. sparna and amphipods (Gammarus sp.) were also common in pool habitat.

TABLE E.7-49 RESULTS OF THE TARGET 300- TO 350-ORGANISM REPLICATE SUBSAMPLES COLLECTED FROM MONGAUP FALLS RESERVOIR (M1 AND M2), MONGAUP FALLS BYPASSED REACH (SITE 4), AND

MONGAUP RIVER DOWNSTREAM OF THE BLACK BROOK CONFLUENCE (SITE 5)


Density (#/m2)



Species Diversity

Riverine Site 4

Riffle 1 -- 474 46 4.83 19 62 45.2 4.22 2 -- 269 41 5.09 17 54 54.6 3.91 3 -- 546 35 5.04 15 50 62.5 3.58

Average -- 430 41 4.99 17 55 54.1 3.90 Run 1 -- 166 44 4.54 17 71 41.5 4.40

2 -- 142 51 4.45 20 68 28.6 4.80 3 -- 545 46 4.88 20 57 33.1 4.60

Average -- 284 47 4.62 19 65 34.4 4.60 Site-5

Riffle 1 -- 908 30 5.72 13 32 69.7 2.78 2 -- 550 29 5.56 13 34 71.3 2.87 3 -- 1470 30 5.35 13 25 77.1 2.70

Average -- 976 30 5.54 13 30 72.7 2.78 Run 1 -- 199 47 5.17 19 56 37.1 4.57

2 -- 622 53 4.98 18 53 36.5 4.53 3 -- 450 40 5.47 14 35 68.8 3.32

Average -- 424 47 5.21 17 48 47.5 4.14 Pool 1 -- -- 52 5.85 13 47 49.4 4.22

2 -- -- 38 5.99 15 36 63.5 3.43 3 -- -- 41 4.57 18 44 47.3 4.19


M1 1 60 2583 14 6.60 0 23 68.3 2.94 2 89 3832 15 7.19 0 39 57.3 3.19 3 78 3358 15 6.91 0 37 62.8 3.11

Average 76 3258 15 6.90 0 33 62.8 3.08 M2 1 13 560 7 8.64 0 38 69.2 2.35

2 34 1464 11 6.36 0 51 58.8 3.04 3 73 3143 9 6.21 0 51 74.0 2.42


Index values and associated scores used to calculate BAP scores for the 100-organism data set from the riffle sample replicates collected from the Mongaup Falls bypassed reach and the Mongaup River downstream of the Black Brook confluence are provided in Table E.7-50. BAP scores for the riffle sample replicates collected from the Mongaup Falls bypassed reach ranged from 6.40 to 7.16, which categorizes this reach as slightly impacted. BAP scores for the riffle sample replicates collected from the Mongaup River downstream of the Black Brook confluence ranged from 4.15 to 4.96, which categorizes this reach as moderately impacted.


E-140

TABLE E.7-50 INDEX VALUES AND ASSOCIATED SCORE USED TO CALCULATE THE BAP SCORE FOR

100-ORGANISM DATA SETS FROM RIFFLE SAMPLE REPLICATES COLLECTED FROM THE MONGAUP FALLS BYPASSED REACH (SITE 4) AND THE MONGAUP RIVER DOWNSTREAM

OF THE BLACK BROOK CONFLUENCE (SITE 5)




4 A 27 7.78 13 9.00 4.66 7.3 63 7.26 6.22 4.45 7.16 B 23 6.47 11 8.00 5.03 6.84 57 6.29 6.23 4.42 6.40 C 25 7.06 12 8.50 5.21 6.61 48 4.76 5.87 5.32 6.45

5 A 14 3.68 6 5.45 5.84 5.83 27 1.21 6.16 4.6 4.15 B 16 4.26 10 7.27 5.54 6.2 37 2.98 6.36 4.1 4.96 C 15 3.97 8 6.36 5.38 6.4 21 0.17 6.14 4.65 4.31


Rio Project

Rio Reservoir (R1 and R2)

The dominant taxa varied between replicates within the two sample locations in Rio Reservoir. At sample location R1, a genus of amphipod (Hyalella sp.) was the dominant taxon in two replicates, comprising 25 percent and 44 percent of the community composition. Caecidotea sp. was the most abundant taxon in the other replicate and comprised 21 percent of the sample. Biting midges (undetermined Ceratopogonidae), snails (undetermined Hydrobiidae), and Pisidiidae were also relatively common in replicates at sample location R1. At sample location R2, a species of non-biting midge (Cladotanytarsus sp.) was the most abundant taxa in two of the replicates and comprised 30 to 57 percent of the community composition. A species of worm (Dero flabelliger) was most abundant in the other replicate accounting for 27 percent of the taxa. Other abundant taxa included Tubificidae worms and non-biting midges (Procladius sp., Polypedilum halterale gr., Tanytarsus sp.). One EPT taxon was collected in a single replicate from sample location R1, a genus of caddisfly (Oecetis sp) (Table E.7-51).

Mongaup River Rio Bypassed Reach (Site 6)

Riffle sample replicates collected from the Rio bypassed reach (Site 6) were typically dominated by a genera of net-spinning caddisfly taxa (Cheumatopsyche sp.) and a species of non-biting midges (Cricotopus bicinctus). Cheumatopsyche sp. accounted for 15 to 23 percent of the riffle community, and C. bicinctus comprised 13 to 23 percent, of the macroinvertebrate community composition in riffle replicates. Other non-biting midges (Cricotopus/Orthocladius Complex, Tvetenia bavarica gr.) and net-spinning caddisfly (Ceratopsyche sparna) were also relatively common in riffles. Run sample replicates collected from the Rio bypassed reach were dominated by non-biting midges (C. bicinctus, Cricotopus trifascia gr., Psectrocladius sp.), snails (Physidae), isopods (Caecidotea sp.), and amphipods (Gammarus sp.). Pool sample replicates were dominated by a non-biting midges (Phaenopsectra sp., Cricotopus sp., Psectrocladius sp.), which comprised between 22 and 24 percent of the community and Gammarus sp., which comprised up to 17 to 19 percent of pool community composition. Other non-biting midge and worm taxa were common in pool habitats.


E-141

Mongaup River Downstream of Rio Main Powerhouse (Site 7)

The most dominant taxon identified within riffle and run sample replicates collected from the Mongaup River downstream of the Rio Main Powerhouse (Site 7) was a group of non-biting midges (Cricotopus/Orthocladius Complex), which accounted for 11 to 24 percent of the individuals in replicate samples. Other non-biting midges (Eukiefferiella devonica gr.), a genus of amphipod (Gammarus sp.), a genus of mayfly (Ephemerella sp.), and C. sparna were other common taxa in these habitat types. The dominant taxa found in pool habitats varied. Caecidotea sp. was the most abundant genus in one of the replicates and accounted for 50 percent of individuals. It was also abundant in one of the other replicates and comprised 27 percent of the community composition. Gammarus sp. was the most abundant genus in the other replicates and comprised 28 and 47 percent of these replicates. Another genus of amphipod (Crangonyx sp.) and C. bicinctus were also relatively common in pool habitat.

Upper Mongaup River between Rio Main Powerhouse and Delaware River (Site 8)

The dominant taxa in riffle sample replicates collected from the Mongaup River between the Rio Main Powerhouse and the Delaware River (upper) (Site 8) varied between replicates and included a species of case-building caddisfly (Brachycentrus solomoni), Cheumatopsyche sp., and a species of riffle beetle (Promoresia tardella), which comprised 18 percent, 14 percent, and 27 percent of the community composition, respectively. Other common taxa in riffle samples included C. sparna and a non-biting midge (Rheotanytarsus exiguous gr.). The most abundant species in run habitat replicates was B. solomoni, which comprised 17 to 42 percent of the community composition. Other dominant taxa included non-biting midges (Orthocladius sp., R. exiguous gr.) and pea clams (Pisidium). The dominant taxa in pools varied between replicates and included a species of midge (Rheotanytarsus pellucidus), Pisidium sp., and B. solomoni, which comprised 19 percent, 27 percent, and 14 percent of the community composition, respectively. Cheumatopsyche sp. and snails (Undetermined Physidae) were also relatively common in pools.

Lower Mongaup River between Rio Main Powerhouse and Delaware River (Site 9)

Riffle sample replicates collected from the Mongaup River between the Rio Main Powerhouse and the Delaware River (lower) (Site 9) had a similar community composition to the upper portion of this reach (Site 8). The dominant taxa in riffle replicates varied and included Cheumatopsyche sp., Pisidium sp., and B.solomoni. These taxa comprised 17 percent, 15 percent, and 14 percent of the riffle community composition, respectively. Other common taxa in riffles were non-biting midges (Polypedilum aviceps), C. sparna, a species of caddisfly (Chimarra aterrima), and Ephemerella sp. In run habitats, Orthocladius sp., snails, and B. solomoni were the dominant taxa, which comprised 21 percent, 14 percent, and 13 percent of the community composition in replicate samples, respectively. Pisidium sp. was also common in one run replicate. Dominant taxa in the pool habitat included a genus of non-biting midge (Sublettea sp.) and Pisidium sp., which individually accounted for 10 to 19 percent of the macroinvertebrate pool community. Other common taxa in pool replicates were Orthocladius sp., an undetermined freshwater clam (Pisidiidae), and snails.


E-142

TABLE E.7-51 RESULTS OF THE TARGET 300- TO 350-ORGANISM REPLICATE SUBSAMPLES COLLECTED FROM RIO

RESERVOIR (R1 AND R2), RIO BYPASSED REACH (SITE 6), THE MONGAUP RIVER DOWNSTREAM OF THE RIO MAIN POWERHOUSE (SITE 7), AND THE MONGAUP RIVER UPSTREAM (SITE 8) AND DOWNSTREAM

(SITE 9) OF MIDWAY POINT BETWEEN RIO MAIN POWERHOUSE AND DELAWARE RIVER


Density (#/m2)



Species Diversity

Riverine Site 6

Riffle 1 -- 1413 37 5.76 11 46 46.1 3.98 2 -- 1382 27 5.41 7 39 57.0 3.31 3 -- 2192 31 5.71 10 44 56.3 3.56

Average -- 1662 32 5.63 9 43 53.1 3.62 Run 1 -- 607 34 6.74 8 39 42.6 3.71

2 -- 1435 33 6.37 7 43 42.7 4.11 3 -- 1099 30 6.60 5 34 50.5 3.67

Average -- 1047 32 6.57 7 39 45.2 3.83 Pool 1 -- -- 39 6.88 7 38 49.4 3.90

2 -- -- 27 6.68 5 35 52.6 3.58 3 -- -- 36 6.58 10 37 37.9 4.28

Average -- -- 34 6.71 7 37 46.6 3.92 Site 7

Riffle 1 -- 384 29 4.61 13 52 55.0 3.57 2 -- 188 41 4.62 16 62 40.0 4.36 3 -- 127 38 4.76 14 61 31.6 4.31

Average -- 233 36 4.66 14 58 42.2 4.08 Run 1 -- 122 38 5.12 15 52 36.1 4.43

2 -- 271 35 5.28 14 50 39.9 4.20 3 -- 56 37 4.55 11 64 37.8 4.50

Average -- 150 37 4.98 13 55 37.9 4.38 Pool 1 -- -- 8 7.18 0 21 83.5 2.13

2 -- -- 13 6.84 0 35 73.9 2.73 3 -- -- 16 6.64 1 27 64.1 2.82

Average -- -- 12 6.89 0 28 73.8 2.56 Site 8

Riffle 1 -- 1457 47 3.90 18 58 36.0 4.43 2 -- 458 51 3.69 20 64 47.0 4.27 3 -- 483 47 3.32 19 56 44.4 4.38

Average -- 799 48 3.64 19 59 42.5 4.36 Run 1 -- 148 37 3.35 14 46 63.1 3.40

2 -- 80 40 3.65 17 52 44.0 4.32 3 -- 168 51 4.17 19 55 40.6 4.61

Average -- 132 43 3.72 17 51 49.2 4.11 Pool 1 -- -- 18 4.17 7 46 48.4 3.76

2 -- -- 50 6.08 14 39 47.0 4.23 3 -- -- 45 4.52 17 54 28.6 4.85

Average -- -- 38 4.92 13 46 41.3 4.28


E-143


Density (#/m2)



Species Diversity

Site 9 Riffle 1 -- 2067 38 4.45 15 42 40.0 4.21

2 -- 568 47 3.89 21 61 29.0 4.80 3 -- 281 40 3.25 23 54 37.7 4.44

Average -- 972 42 3.86 20 52 35.6 4.48 Run 1 -- 396 45 4.51 20 53 34.6 4.55

2 -- 320 52 4.32 22 53 39.6 4.51 3 -- 328 56 3.90 24 56 29.2 4.90

Average -- 348 51 4.24 22 54 34.5 4.65 Pool 1 -- -- 19 5.41 5 47 46.0 3.70

2 -- -- 40 4.73 15 52 28.6 4.72 3 -- -- 45 5.27 10 54 34.8 4.69


R1 1 34 1464 10 7.94 0 53 70.6 2.57 2 28 1206 15 6.96 0 68 50.0 3.53 3 59 2540 21 7.32 1 70 44.1 3.74

Average 40 1737 15 7.41 0 64 54.9 3.28 R2 1 113 4865 18 7.49 0 50 66.4 3.09

2 42 1808 11 6.26 0 34 78.6 2.24 3 48 2067 13 7.70 1 52 54.2 3.18


Index values and associated scores used to calculate BAP scores for the 100-organism data sets at Site 6 through 9 are provided in Table E.7-52. BAP scores in riffle replicates collected from the Rio study area sites ranged from 3.89 to 8.09 Site 6 was categorized as moderately impacted, Site 7 was categorized as slightly impacted, and Sites 8 and 9 were categorized as slightly to non-impacted.

TABLE E.7-52 INDEX VALUES AND ASSOCIATED SCORE USED TO CALCULATE THE BAP SCORE FOR 100-ORGANISM DATA SETS IN RIFFLE REPLICATES COLLECTED IN THE RIO BYPASSED REACH (SITE 6), THE MONGAUP

RIVER DOWNSTREAM OF THE RIO MAIN POWERHOUSE (SITE 7), AND THE MONGAUP RIVER UPSTREAM (SITE 8) AND DOWNSTREAM (SITE 9) OF MIDWAY POINT BETWEEN RIO MAIN

POWERHOUSE AND DELAWARE RIVER

Site Replicate Species Richness

EPT Taxa Richness HBI PMA NBI P BAP


6 A 25 7.06 5 4.72 5.80 5.88 44 4.11 7.24 1.90 4.73 B 16 4.26 4 4.17 5.50 6.25 34 2.41 7.06 2.35 3.89 C 22 6.18 7 5.91 5.61 6.11 45 4.27 6.92 2.70 5.03

7 A 21 5.88 9 6.82 4.53 7.46 56 6.13 6.66 3.35 5.93 B 27 7.78 8 6.36 4.59 7.39 58 6.45 7.37 1.57 5.91 C 28 8.06 11 8.00 4.91 6.99 58 6.45 6.76 3.10 6.52

8 A 27 7.78 13 9.00 3.98 8.02 53 5.65 5.77 5.58 7.21 B 22 6.18 10 7.27 3.31 8.69 57 6.29 5.46 6.35 6.96 C 33 9.44 12 8.50 3.51 8.49 59 6.61 6.25 4.38 7.48


E-144

Site Replicate Species Richness

EPT Taxa Richness HBI PMA NBI P BAP


9 A 26 7.35 9 6.82 4.27 7.73 46 4.44 5.51 6.23 6.51 B 37 10.00 16 10.00 4.08 7.92 65 7.60 6.03 4.92 8.09 C 31 8.89 17 10.00 3.10 8.90 51 5.32 5.67 5.83 7.79


Black Brook

Black Brook Dam Impoundment (B1 and Site 11)

Kicknet samples collected within the impoundment (Site 11) were dominated by H. borealis, which accounted for 15 to 35 percent of the composition in replicate samples. The ponar sample replicates collected from the impoundment (B1) were dominated by Pisidium sp., aquatic worms, non-biting midges, and a genus of isopod (Caecidotea sp.) (Table E.7-53).

Upstream (Site 10) and Downsstream (Site 12) of Black Brook Impoundment

The dominant taxa in riffle habitat upstream (Site 10) and downstream (Site 12) of the Black Brook impoundment was a species of net-spinning caddisfly (Ceratopsyche sparna), which comprised 16 to 32 percent of the replicate samples. A species of snailcase making caddisfly (Helicopsyche borealis) was the dominant species at two of the replicates collected in run habitat upstream from the Black Brook impoundment, which comprised 21 percent and 44 percent of the communities. This was the second most abundant taxon in the other replicate, which was dominated by a species of water penny (Psephenus herricki) and constituted 16 percent of the community. The dominant taxa in the pool upstream of the Black Brook impoundment were a genus of non-biting midge (Paratendipes sp.) and pea clams (Pisidium sp.). Paratendipes sp. comprised 55 percent of the macroinvertebrate community in one of the pool replicates. Pisidium sp. accounted for just over 30 percent of the community composition in the other replicates. Other common taxa included H. borealis.

TABLE E.7-53 RESULTS OF THE TARGET 300- TO 350-ORGANISM REPLICATE SUBSAMPLES COLLECTED FROM BLACK

BROOK UPSTREAM OF THE BLACK BROOK DAM IMPOUNDMENT (SITE 10), WITHIN THE IMPOUNDMENT (SITE 11 AND B1) AND DOWNSTREAM OF BLACK BROOK DAM (SITE 12)


Density (#/m2)



Species Diversity

Riverine Site 10

Riffle 1 -- 211 53 4.29 21 64 36.0 4.63 2 -- 543 45 3.74 17 75 33.5 4.56 3 -- 353 50 4.16 19 73 32.0 4.77

Average -- 369 49 4.06 19 71 33.9 4.65 Run 1 -- 269 45 3.68 16 52 55.1 3.73

2 -- 415 51 4.61 22 62 32.6 4.76 3 -- 241 57 4.04 21 55 35.2 4.76

Average -- 308 51 4.11 20 56 40.9 4.41 Pool 1 -- -- 22 6.21 4 40 76.7 2.53

2 -- -- 26 4.57 10 50 66.3 3.27 3 -- -- 27 5.13 8 55 50.0 3.87

Average -- -- 25 5.30 7 48 64.3 3.22


E-145


Density (#/m2)



Species Diversity

Site 11 Run 1 -- 158 56 4.28 19 54 39.5 4.55

2 -- 225 51 4.34 17 49 54.8 3.92 3 -- 213 53 4.29 20 56 32.0 4.75

Average -- 199 53 4.30 19 53 42.1 4.41 Site 12

Riffle 1 -- 169 46 3.92 20 62 41.6 4.34 2 -- 181 52 4.37 21 63 44.4 4.36 3 -- 180 46 3.78 21 59 36.8 4.50

Average -- 177 48 4.02 21 61 40.9 4.40 Run 1 -- 133 49 3.87 19 48 34.7 4.51

2 -- 108 44 4.05 19 58 48.0 4.15 3 -- 164 45 4.54 17 56 43.6 4.30

Average -- 135 46 4.15 18 54 42.1 4.32 Pool 1 -- -- 35 5.24 13 57 39.6 4.38

2 -- -- 38 5.38 11 57 41.5 4.31 3 -- -- 27 4.58 11 44 42.7 3.95

Average -- -- 33 5.07 12 53 41.3 4.21 Impoundment

B1 1 47 2204 13 6.50 1 60 59.6 3.05 2 35 1507 15 7.10 1 76 37.1 3.67 3 127 5468 17 7.52 2 64 76.4 2.74


Index values and associated scores used to calculate BAP scores for the 100-organism data sets collected at Sites 10 and 12 are provided in Table E.7-54. BAP scores in riffle replicates from the Black Brook study area ranged from 7.59 to 8.21, which categorizes both sites as non-impacted by the BAP index .

TABLE E.7-54 INDEX VALUES AND ASSOCIATED SCORE USED TO CALCULATE THE BAP SCORE FOR 100-ORGANISM DATA SETS FROM RIFFLE SAMPLE REPLICATES COLLECTED FROM BLACK BROOK UPSTREAM OF THE

BLACK BROOK DAM IMPOUNDMENT (SITE 10) AND DOWNSTREAM OF BLACK BROOK DAM (SITE 12)




10 A 34 9.72 17 10 4.12 7.88 59 6.61 5.73 5.67 7.98 B 31 8.89 12 8.5 3.71 8.29 72 8.27 5.72 5.7 7.93 C 33 9.44 14 9.5 4.2 7.8 71 8.17 5.54 6.15 8.21

12 A 28 8.06 12 8.5 3.61 8.39 64 7.42 5.76 5.6 7.59 B 32 9.17 16 10 4.34 7.66 64 7.42 5.38 6.55 8.16 C 32 9.17 17 10 3.83 8.17 60 6.77 5.42 6.45 8.11



E-146

Summary of 2018 Macroinvertebrate Survey Data

Based on the average BAP scores in riffle habitats, the majority of the sample sites within the study area were determined to be non-impacted (Site 10, 12) and slightly impacted (Site 3, 4, 7, 8, 9), which included the three sites along the mainstem of the Mongaup River downstream of the Projects between the Rio Reservoir and the confluence with the Delaware River (Figure E.7-37). Three sites were determined to be moderately impacted (Site 2, 5, 6) and one site was determined to be severely impacted (Site 1). Black Lake Creek downstream of Toronto Dam (Site 1) and downstream of Cliff Lake Dam (Site 2) is a relatively small, shallow, cold-water stream. Water temperatures in these reaches appeared to be substantially lower than other waters with the study area. Additionally, the surface water in Black Lake Creek downstream of Toronto Dam was notably rust-colored and much of the substrate appeared to be covered with filamentous material. Collectively, these factors may have influenced the macroinvertebrate community at these sites.

The BAP score appeared to be substantially lower at the Mongaup River downstream of the Black Brook confluence (Site 5), than found upstream within the Mongaup Falls bypassed reach (Site 4). The BAP in Black Brook indicated this tributary was non-impacted. Although determined to be non-impacted, the increased flows downstream of the confluence with Black Brook may affect the macroinvertebrate community. This sample reach was also relatively difficult to sample due to the substrate composition.

With the exception of the Mongaup Falls Reservoir, which undergoes weak thermal stratification during the summer, the Projects’ reservoirs are thermally stratified throughout the summer, which often results in relatively low or anoxic dissolved oxygen concentrations in the hypolimnion. Within each reservoir, sample sites were located in different locations and depths. Relatively low dissolved oxygen concentrations were observed near the bottom of Toronto Reservoir (T2), Cliff Lake (C2), and Swinging Bridge (S2) reservoirs. With the exception of T2, these sites had much lower densities than the other sites collected within the same reservoir (T1, C1, S1). These sites, including T2, had lower species richness and diversity with more tolerant taxa. These relatively substantial differences in macroinvertebrate community between sites were not observed at sites in the Mongaup Falls Reservoir (M1, M2) and Rio Reservoir (R1, R2) where dissolved oxygen concentrations were much higher at the bottom of the reservoir.


E-147

FIGURE E.7-37 AVERAGE AND RANGE OF WATER QUALITY IMPACT SCORES FOR RIFFLE SAMPLE REPLICATES

COLLECTED THROUGHOUT THE STUDY AREA

1. Black Lake Creek downstream of Toronto Dam. 2. Black Lake Creek downstream of Cliff Lake Dam. 3. Mongaup River downstream of Swinging Bridge Dam. 4. Mongaup Falls bypassed reach. 5. Mongaup River downstream of Black Brook confluence. 6. Rio bypassed reach. 7. Mongaup River downstream of Rio Main Powerhouse. 8. Mongaup River between Rio Main Powerhouse and Delaware River (upper). 9. Mongaup River between Rio Main Powerhouse and Delaware River (lower). 10. Black Brook upstream of Black Brook Dam impoundment. 11. Black Brook downstream of Black Brook Dam.

0.00

2.50

5.00

7.50

10.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12

Wat

er Q

ualit

y Sc

ale

Stream Site

Average BAP Scores Among RiffleReplicates

non-

Slig

htM

oder

ate

Seve

re

Wat

er Q

ualit

y Im

pact


E-148

E.7.3.1.5 Freshwater Mussels

Mongaup River Projects Reservoirs and Riverine Reaches

Prior to surveys conducted by Eagle Creek in 2018, information regarding freshwater mussels in the Projects’ area appeared to be limited, and no rare, threatened, or endangered freshwater mussel species have been identified within the Projects’ reservoirs or associated reaches. Within the larger Delaware River watershed, the federally-endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) may occur (NatureServe 2017).

In 2018 Eagle Creek conducted a qualitative mussel survey in representative habitats (e.g., riffle, run, pool) in four representative 100-foot linear transects within the riverine sections associated with the Projects for a total of 20 mussel survey sites. The riverine segments surveyed were the following:

• Two sites in the Mongaup River downstream of the Swinging Bridge Dam, upstream of the confluence with Black Lake Creek (T01 and T02);

• Two sites in the Mongaup River downstream of the Swinging Bridge Dam, downstream of the confluence with Black Lake Creek (T03 and T04);

• Four sites in the Mongaup River downstream of the Mongaup Falls Dam (T05 – T08); • Four sites in Black Lake Creek downstream of Toronto Dam (T09 – T12); • Four sites in Black Lake Creek downstream of Cliff Lake Dam (T13 – T16); and • Four sites in the Mongaup River downstream of the Rio Dam (Rio bypassed reach) (T17 – T20).

The survey methodology consisted of a qualitative timed-search effort with visual searches conducted by snorkeling or wading/bucket-viewing shallow water areas. No live freshwater mussels nor shell evidence of mussels of any species were found during the survey. In addition, no evidence of invasive or non-native freshwater clam (Corbicula spp.) or zebra mussels were observed. At least two species of gastropods (i.e., snails) were observed in low abundance throughout the survey sites. The results of this survey effort are summarized in Table E.7-55 below.


E-149

TABLE E.7-55 MUSSELS SURVEY DATES, METHODS, AND RESULTS

Survey Site No.

Survey Location Survey Date

Survey Method(S)

Total Search Time

(Minutes)

Mussel Shell(S) Found

Live Mussel(S)

Found T01 Mongaup River downstream of Swinging Bridge

Dam, upstream of Black Lake Creek confluence Jul 9, 2018 Snorkeling 60 None None

T02 Mongaup River downstream of Swinging Bridge Dam, upstream of Black Lake Creek confluence

Jul 9, 2018 Snorkeling, view buckets, grubbing

122 None None

T03 Mongaup River downstream the confluence with Black Lake Creek

Jul 9, 2018 Snorkeling, view bucket

88 None None

T04 Mongaup River downstream of the confluence with Black Lake Creek

Jul 9, 2018 Snorkeling 34 None None

T05 Mongaup Falls bypassed reach Jul 11, 2018 View bucket 40 None None T06 Mongaup Falls bypassed reach Jul 11, 2018 Snorkeling 80 None None T07 Mongaup River downstream of Mongaup Falls

Powerhouse Jul 9, 2018 Snorkeling, view

bucket 70 None None

T08 Mongaup River downstream of Mongaup Falls Powerhouse and Black Brook confluence

Jul 9, 2018 Snorkeling 46 None None

T09 Black Lake Creek downstream of Toronto Dam Jul 11, 2018 View bucket 80 None None T10 Black Lake Creek downstream of Toronto Dam Jul 11, 2018 View bucket 62 None None T11 Black Lake Creek downstream of Toronto Dam Jul 10, 2018 View bucket, grubbing 66 None None T12 Black Lake Creek downstream of Toronto Dam Jul 10, 2018 View bucket 60 None None T13 Black Lake Creek downstream of Cliff Lake Dam Jul 10, 2018 View bucket 48 None None T14 Black Lake Creek downstream of Cliff Lake Dam Jul 10, 2018 View bucket 50 None None T15 Black Lake Creek downstream of Cliff Lake Dam Jul 11, 2018 View bucket 32 None None T16 Black Lake Creek downstream of Cliff Lake Dam Jul 10, 2018 View bucket 60 None None T17 Rio bypassed reach Jul 12, 2018 View bucket 60 None None T18 Rio bypassed reach Jul 12, 2018 View bucket 54 None None T19 Rio bypassed reach Jul 12, 2018 View bucket 42 None None T20 Rio bypassed reach Jul 12, 2018 View bucket 48 None None

Total Search Time 1,202


E-150

Additionally, a mussel bed mapping survey was conducted in the lower Mongaup River from the Rio Main Powerhouse to the confluence with the Delaware River. The federally-endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) is known to occur in the Delaware River. The aquatic habitat in the lower reach of the Mongaup River is connected with the Delaware River; therefore, pursuant to a request by the USFWS and consistent with the Commission’s SPD, the Mongaup River from the Rio Main Powerhouse to the confluence with the Delaware River was surveyed for mussel habitat and presence of mussel beds.

On July 9 and10, 2018, the lower reach of the Mongaup River (Rio Main Powerhouse tailrace to the Delaware River) was surveyed to map the presence and location of mussel beds. Water clarity was high, with the stream bottom visible from the water’s surface throughout the study area except in two large pools where water depth exceeded 10 feet. In these locations, the bottom was still visible by snorkelers below the surface. No live mussels or shells were observed within the study area.

Based on the field observations, habitat throughout most of this reach of the Mongaup River appears to be unsuitable for mussels. The primary limiting factor appears to be a lack of fine substrates, particularly fine gravel, sand, and silt into which mussels can burrow and anchor themselves. Some limited areas with apparently suitable habitat occurred within the reach. These areas contained a mix of relatively consolidated gravel and sand substrate with scattered cobbles and boulders. These areas were typically sheltered from the main flow of the river (e.g., located along the shoreline). Despite thorough searches of these areas, no mussels or mussel shells were found in the Mongaup River downstream of the Rio Main Powerhouse. A detailed survey report of the results of the mussel bed mapping in the lower Mongaup River is provided in Attachment 3 of Macroinvertebrate and Mussel Study in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.

Field biologists made supplemental observations of aquatic life and habitat while conducting additional relicensing field studies in 2018. No live mussels or shell material were observed in any of the riverine reaches. However, a few live freshwater mussels and shells were observed in Rio Reservoir by field staff performing other relicensing field studies in 2018. In addition, two mussel (deceased) shells were observed in the deep pool just downstream of Rio Dam during eel survey activities in 2018. Based on photographs of these specimens, they appear to be the paper pondshell (Utterbackia imbecilis). The paper pondshell mussel is a small, thin-shelled species that typically prefers finer substrates and quiet waters of lake or pond-like habitats. The paper pondshell is also one of the few mussel species that is thought to be hermaphroditic and does not require a fish host to successfully metamorphose into juveniles, thereby completing reproduction and recruitment (Strayer and Jirka 1997). This characteristic also facilitates the species ability to colonize areas without the constraint of dispersing within drainage basins (Strayer and Jirka 1997).

Delaware River

Eagle Creek reviewed publically available information to understand the potential occurrence of dwarf wedgemussels in the Delaware River in the vicinity of the Mongaup River confluence. Additional discussion of dwarf wedgemussel is provided in Section E.7.5 of this application. Based on qualitative and quantitative freshwater mussel surveys conducted by USGS in 2000 to 2002, dwarf wedgemussels have not been found to occur in the Delaware River in the vicinity of the Mongaup River confluence (Galbraith et al. 2016).

The 2000 to 2002 survey extended from the confluence of the East and West Branches of the Delaware River near Hancock, NY (River Mile [RM] 331) downstream to the confluence with Paulins Kill near Columbia, NJ (RM 208), and encompassed 1,095 consecutive stream sections of approximately 200 meter in length (which


E-151

included the area in the vicinity of the Mongaup River confluence located at RM 261.1) (DRBC 2016). Three subpopulations of dwarf wedgemussels were identified within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (Delaware River upstream of Callicoon, NY), but none in the remaining mainstem river. Playfoot (2004) collected genetic material from dwarf wedgemussels from these three locations and identified them as the Frisbie site near Long Eddy, NY; Callicoon site near Callicoon, NY; and Hankins site near Hankins PA. All three locations are upstream of the confluence with the Mongaup River. A single dwarf wedgemussel was found in the mainstem Delaware River just downstream of the confluence with the Neversink River (RM 253.6), but was thought to have been dislodged from the Neversink River, a tributary known to contain a dwarf wedgemussel population, versus constituting a subpopulation in the mainstem river (Galbraith et al. 2016).

Additional surveys have been conducted in the mainstem Delaware River in the vicinity of the Pond Eddy Bridge upstream of the Mongaup River confluence. No dwarf wedgemussels were found in multiple surveys at this location (Galbraith 2012).

Additional survey work was also conducted near Callicoon, NY, for a bridge rehabilitation project in the Delaware River (USFWS 2019). While no dwarf wedgemussels were found during a 2015 survey, surveys conducted in 2006 and 2008 collected dwarf wedgemussels on the Pennsylvania-side of the islands upstream of the bridge.

A survey of the lower 75-mile reach of the Delaware River from Portland-Columbia (PA/NY) to the head of tide at Trenton, NJ, by Silldorff and Schwartz (2014) did not find any dwarf wedgemussels.

From 2006 to 2009, the USGS conducted surveys in multiple tributaries to the Delaware River (Big Flat Brook, Little Flat Brook, Neversink River, Paulinskill River, Bush Kill River, Brodhead Creek, Marshalls Creek, Shawnee Creek, and Vancampens Brook). Subpopulations of dwarf wedgemussels were found in four of these tributaries; Big Flat Brook, Little Flat Brook, Neversink River, and Paulinskill River (Galbraith et al. 2016) as well as the mainstem Delaware River. Of the five rivers where dwarf wedgemussels were found (mainstem Delaware River and 4 tributaries), the Delaware River mainstem contained the fewest individuals (14). In addition to these four tributaries, two live dwarf wedgemussels were found in another tributary to the Delaware River in NJ, the Pequest River (USFWS 2019).

Based on the aforementioned information, dwarf wedgemussels have not been found immediately upstream or downstream of the Mongaup River confluence in the Delaware River. In fact, of the 220-mile reach of the upper, middle, and lower (non-tidal) mainstem Delaware River surveyed, only three small subpopulations were found, all of them in the upper Delaware River, more than 42 miles upstream of the Mongaup River confluence. The Neversink River, a major tributary to the Delaware River that enters near Port Jervis, NY, contains a viable population of dwarf wedgemussels in multiple mussel beds in the lower reach of the river (Baldigo et al. 2008, Campbell 2014, Galbraith et al. 2016, USFWS 2019).


The Commission’s SD2 identified the following potential resource effects related to aquatic resources:

• Effects of continued Project operation on aquatic habitat in the reservoirs, including bass spawning habitat. Effects of continued Project operations and entrainment on reservoir fish populations.


E-152

• Effects of the Projects on migratory (i.e., American Eel and Alewife) and resident fish (e.g., Brown Trout and Brook Trout) and their habitat in Project waters.

• Effects of peaking operations on downstream aquatic habitats including erosion, sedimentation, and turbidity.

An analysis of the effects of continued operation of the Project as proposed by the Licensee on aquatic resources follows.

E.7.3.2.1 Aquatic Habitat

As described in the Aquatic Habitat Assessment Study Report (provided in the USR), aquatic habitat and water levels in the fluctuation zones at the Projects’ reservoirs may be affected by various factors including, but not limited to, natural processes and/or Project operations. As a result, littoral aquatic habitat and aquatic species that utilize the habitat may be affected by water level fluctuations. Impoundment fluctuations at hydropower reservoirs can potentially affect littoral spawning and rearing habitats of resident fish (Ploskey et al. 1984). Many biotic and abiotic factors, independent of lake-level fluctuations, can also limit the reproductive success of these shallow water nest-building species (Rohde et al. 1994; Jenkins and Burkhead 1993; Jackson and Noble 2000a, 2000b; Miranda et al. 1984; Kramer and Smith 1962). Primary biotic factors include individual reproductive fitness, mate selection, predation, cover, and food availability for the young. Primary abiotic factors include water quality (primarily temperature and DO), substrate and cover availability, and weather. Littoral zone habitats in the Projects’ reservoirs experience fluctuating water levels on a variable basis, but are generally maintained at stable elevations for long durations.

As described previously in this exhibit, the Projects operate in a peaking mode while maintaining minimum flow requirements and seasonal target reservoir elevations. Eagle Creek monitors current and forecasted load demands, reservoir elevations, available storage, and weather/inflow data to determine effective operation of the generating stations. The Projects are required to operate in a coordinated manner such that the downstream units at the Mongaup Falls and Rio Projects are operated first in order to draw down their respective reservoirs to accommodate the water released from the operation of the unit(s) at the larger, upstream Swinging Bridge Project. The minimum flow requirements for each Project are summarized in the water quality certificates issued for each Project by the NYSDEC in September 1989 and in Section E.5.6.

Although not requirements of the current licenses, Eagle Creek utilizes the normal upper and lower target reservoir elevations to balance hydrologic conditions and the demands of the power grid with environmental and recreational considerations. Water levels in the Projects’ reservoirs at any location at any time is, therefore, a complex function of both natural and human factors (Eagle Creek 2020).

Understanding the life history of the Centrarchid species, including spawning substrate, depth, temperature, timing, and frequency and relating them to reservoir fluctuations, magnitude, duration, frequency, and seasonality are important in assessing the Projects’ reservoirs fluctuation effects on the Centrarchid population within the reservoirs.

Gradual and moderate sloped areas of Zone 1 (for the Toronto, Cliff Lake, and Swinging Bridge Reservoirs) are largely bordered by areas of scrub-shrub and emergent vegetation and may be exposed during the spawning season (approximately May through August, and dependent on water temperature) and, therefore, may not be available for Centrarchid nesting unless seasonal conditions influence water levels (i.e., late spring freshet,


E-153

high seasonal precipitation events). Evidence of Centrarchid nesting/spawning was minimally observed within Zone 1 in the Toronto Reservoir during the field surveys performed for the Aquatic Habitat Assessment Study.

Gradual and moderate sloped areas of Zone 2 are dominated by fine and gravel, rubble, cobble substrates. As expected, Zone 2 contains approximately 88.4 percent of the observed remnant nests across the Projects’ reservoirs. Specifically, Zone 2 contains 97.4 percent of observed Centrarchid nests on the Toronto Reservoir, 100 percent on the Cliff Lake, Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls, and Rio reservoirs. Centrarchids nesting in Zone 2 may experience nest success depending on the timing of spawning and the frequency and magnitude of any reservoir drawdowns during a given spawning season. Centrarchids may nest unsuccessfully if a reservoir is drawndown during the peak spawning period; however, several of these species may re-nest within Zone 2 or may relocate to Zone 3 for additional nesting opportunities, if needed. Additionally, the Mongaup Falls and Rio Reservoirs are maintained within one foot above or below the May 15 elevation between May 15 and June 30 to support bass spawning habitat.

Zone 3 is dominated by fine sediments and experiences the least occurrence of exposure during reservoir fluctuations during the Centrarchid spawning season in all of the Project reservoirs. Gradual and moderately sloped areas are more abundant in Zone 3 than in Zone 2 in the Mongaup Falls Reservoir. Gradually sloped areas are more abundant in Zone 3 than in Zone 2 of the Toronto Reservoir. In the Swinging Bridge, Cliff Lake, and Rio reservoirs, Zone 3 shows a decrease in gradual and moderately sloped areas over the other zones.

A review of the cover type and substrate data; the fisheries relative abundance data; and reservoir fluctuation frequency, magnitude, and seasonality indicate that the Projects’ operations do not likely have a significant effect on the Centrarchid populations of the Projects’ reservoirs. Their relative abundance was as expected based on the habitat and cover types observed in the reservoirs during the 2018 and 2019 studies. From the observations of Centrarchid nesting areas and the relative abundance from the data collected during the Fisheries Survey Study, the Projects’ reservoirs support sustainable populations of Centrarchids.

The Bypass/Base Flow Transect Evaluation Study found that the Projects’ riverine reaches have not undergone geomorphological modifications that influence the channel dimensions or the associated substrate over the past 30 years since the 1988 Instream Flow Study. Additionally, in evaluating the results of the mesohabitat mapping conducted as part of this study, overall, the mesohabitat type composition, variety of cover types, and substrates mapped were found to be similar to those mapped in the study area as part of the 1988 Instream Flow Study (Eagle Creek 2019).

Due to the findings of the relicensing studies conducted in 2018 and 2019 and summarized above, Project effects related to fluctuations of the Projects’ reservoirs are minimal and adverse effects will not occur to aquatic resources as a result of issuance of a new license that approves the current operating conditions of the Projects.

Currently, minimum flows are provided at the Mongaup River Projects in accordance with the provisions described in Section E.5.6, which were based on the results of the comprehensive studies performed during the previous post-Electric Consumers Protection Act licensing proceeding and as mandated by the NYSDEC via the Projects’ Section 401 Water Quality Certificates. Based on the 1988 Instream Flow Study and the Commission’s 1991 Environmental Assessment for the Projects, the Commission found that the NYSDEC-required minimum flows (consistent with the current and proposed minimum flows at the Projects) below Swinging Bridge Dam, Mongaup Falls Dam, and Rio Dam were higher than the flows necessary to provide


E-154

adequate aquatic habitat for the species of interest. Therefore, Eagle Creek believes that the implementation of the proposed minimum flows sufficiently enhances aquatic resources habitat and aquatic populations downstream of the Projects, including the support of the recreational trout fishery. Given the required minimum flow releases and seasonal target reservoir elevations, Eagle Creek believes that the Proposed Action will continue to provide adequate aquatic habitat for the species of interest in the Projects’ stream reaches.

E.7.3.2.2 Fish Community, Passage, and Protection


Fish Community

Relationships among existing native fish stocks, non-native fish introductions, gamefish stocking, and operation of the Projects over the past 30 years characterize a resilient fishery that has been heavily utilized, studied, and managed for many decades. The predominant cool/warm-water fishery of the Projects’ reservoirs appear to host healthy gamefish populations with a variety of species targeted by anglers that include Walleye, Brown Trout, Chain Pickerel, Smallmouth and Largemouth Bass, Yellow Perch, and Black Crappie as well as an abundance of Catfish and Pan Fish.

The fish assemblages and relative abundances within the Projects’ reservoirs appear to be very similar to each other and to previous data sets with regard to fish assemblage and relative abundances. Some subtleties with regard to abundance and length distribution occur among the reservoirs but can likely be attributed to the seasonality of fish collections. Largemouth Bass, Smallmouth Bass, Chain Pickerel, and Yellow Perch are abundant in the Projects’ reservoirs and show a wide distribution of length cohorts, indicating a healthy and well-balanced population of these species.

Comparisons of fish data collected in 2018 with that of the most recent collections by the NYSDEC suggest that fish population structures within areas of the Project developments have remained relatively similar, if not improved. Sample locations in 2018 were replicated from the previous relicensing studies and from NYSDEC sampling over the past 30 years to the extent practical. Overall, baseline fish assemblages and species relative abundances have changed relatively little and appear representative of those for the associated geographic regions in New York (e.g., Catskill Mountains and Delaware River Basin).

Based on the information presented in this license application, continued operation of the Project as proposed by Eagle Creek is not expected to have adverse effects on the fisheries community in the Projects’ reservoirs or downstream reaches.

Fish Passage

Based the observation of American shad and American eel in the Mongaup River downstream of the Rio Dam during the 2018 Fisheries Survey Study, Eagle Creek evaluated the suitability of habitat and the existing and potential upstream and downstream passage routes for American shad and American eel in the Mongaup River Projects system as part of the 2019 Fish Passage and Protection Study. A summary of the findings of the 2019 Fish Passage and Protection Study is provided below.

Based on recent communications with the NYSDEC and Trout Unlimited, brook trout and brown trout are known to occur in Black Brook (NYSDEC 2016a), (Michael Flaherty [NYSDEC] and Roger Olsen [TU] 2020,


E-155

personal communication). Additionally, based on fish distribution maps from Raney (Smith 1985) as well as a review of The Atlas of Inland Fishes of New York (Carlson et al 2016), American eel were historically present in the Mongaup River Watershed and, therefore, it is likely that American eel also historically occurred in Black Brook. Based on the presence of Black Brook Dam, Eagle Creek evaluated the suitable habitat and potential upstream and downstream passage for trout species and American eel at the Black Brook Dam, which is further described below.

American Shad

American shad are anadromous and make spawning migrations up medium to large coastal rivers in the spring and early summer months. American shad spawning habitat features are summarized in Greene et al. (2009) and generally consist of:

• Current velocity between 0.3 to 0.9 meters per second or 1 to 3 feet per second;

• DO concentrations greater than 4 mg/L;

• Water depths of 0.46 to 6.1 meters or 1.5 to 20 feet; and

• Water temperatures of 8 to 26 °C or 46.4 to 78.8 ⁰F.

Flowing water/current velocity is an important factor in determining the suitability of spawning habitat for American shad (Greene et al. 2009, Stier and Crance 1985, Bilkovic et al. 2002.) and that a minimum flow velocity may be necessary to prevent siltation on eggs (Williams and Bruger 1972, Bilkovic 2000). Due to the presence of Rio Reservoir and the limited area of lotic habitat in the area between the Rio and Mongaup Falls dams (with the natural falls at Mongaup Falls being the natural barrier for American shad), only a small portion of the available habitat represents suitable spawning and rearing habitat for American shad.

The carrying capacity of riverine habitat for spawning shad was estimated to range between 19.75 and 50 shad per acre. These estimates were developed using historical stock data from the Connecticut River and have been used as estimates for other river systems (St. Pierre 1979, Hightower and Wong 1997, Weaver et al. 2003, Harris and Hightower 2012). The acreage of riverine habitat below Rio Dam and below Mongaup Falls Dam were estimated, then the carrying capacities were applied to the acreages to provide a coarse estimate of

spawning shad that could potentially be supported in each area of habitat.

There is considerably more potential spawning habitat available in the Mongaup River downstream of the Rio Dam than the Mongaup River between Rio Dam and Mongaup Falls. As a conservative measure, Black Brook was assumed to represent potential shad spawning habitat for the purposes of this assessment; however, it is much smaller than rivers typically associated with shad runs and is not expected to provide meaningful amounts of shad spawning habitat. Based on the carrying capacity assessment, the Mongaup River downstream of Rio Dam can potentially support 970 to 2,455 spawning shad while the Mongaup River upstream of Rio Dam would only support an estimated 241 to 610 shad (Table E.7-56). While shad were observed in the Mongaup River below Rio Dam, data is not available on the total run size or density of shad within the Mongaup River system relative to its carrying capacity.


E-156

Due to the minimal amount of suitable shad spawning habitat upstream of the Rio Project, the continued operation of all Projects without the installation of shad passage at Rio Dam would not be expected to have a significant impact on shad populations.

TABLE E.7-56 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF AMERICAN SHAD POTENTIALLY SUPPORTED BY RIVER SEGMENT

River Segment (downstream to upstream)

Length (miles)

Area (acres)

No. Shad Supported at 19.75 Shad/Acre Carrying Capacity

No. Shad Supported at 50 Shad/Acre

Carrying Capacity CURRENTLY AVAILABLE SHAD SPAWNING HABITAT DOWNSTREAM OF RIO DAM

Mongaup River from Delaware River to Rio Dam

4.6 49.1 970 2,455

POTENTIAL SHAD SPAWNING HABITAT UPSTREAM OF RIO DAM Mongaup River from head of Rio Reservoir to Mongaup Falls

1.25 6.97 138 349

Black Brook from Mongaup River to Black Brook Dam

1.06 5.22 103 261

Total Upstream of Rio Dam 2.31 12.19 241 610

Although the aforementioned information demonstrates that suitable shad spawning habitat upstream of Rio Dam is very limited, Eagle Creek evaluated upstream and downstream fish passage options at the Rio Dam as well as the likely affects to shad populations if passed at Rio Dam, as further described below.

As further described in the 2019 Fish Passage and Protection Study provided in the USR, potential upstream and downstream passage measures at Rio Dam for American shad were evaluated (Table E.7-57). The evaluation was limited to Rio Dam as the natural falls at the Mongaup Falls Dam and Black Brook Dam represent natural barriers to historic upstream migrating shad populations. The measures that were evaluated result in either significant capital costs, significant staff hours for operation and maintenance, or both.

TABLE E.7-57 POTENTIAL SHAD PASSAGE MEASURES AT THE RIO PROJECT

Project Upstream Downstream RIO PROJECT Partial elevation fish lift in conjunction

with trap and truck program Surface bypass into pipe

In the Northeast, American shad are typically iteroparous, meaning they make multiple spawning migrations before dying. Repeat spawning shad are typically larger and exponentially more fecund than smaller, first-time spawning shad and are an important component of healthy shad populations. Leggett et al. (2004) found that following the implementation of upstream passage enhancements at multiple dams on the Connecticut River, a significant reduction in the proportion of repeat spawning shad was observed, which resulted in corresponding reductions in overall population fecundity and annual recruitment to the population. Studies and modeling efforts in multiple river systems found that the provision of upstream shad passage and subsequent access to additional spawning habitat comes at the expense of repeat spawning (Leggett et al. 2004, Castro Santos and Letcher 2010, Harris and Hightower 2012, Stich et al. 2019). The decline in repeat spawning is believed to be due to a combination of direct mortality at hydropower facilities and the increased consumption of energy reserves due to migratory delay at barriers and the increased total migratory distance.


E-157

Given the limited amount of suitable spawning habitat located upstream of the Rio Dam, it is possible that limited potential additional production of shad would be offset by the mortality, delay, and reduction in repeat spawning associated with the downstream passage of post-spawn adults. The height of the Rio Dam (approximately 100 feet) and the lack of regular spill will likely be a significant challenge to the passage and survival of post-spawn shad.

The identified potential passage measures may not be feasible to implement, particularly in the case of American shad for the following reasons: 1) the size, number, and in some cases remote locations of the Projects’ developments; 2) the small quantities of American shad attempting to migrate upstream on the Mongaup River (which is not expected to increase because there are no downstream barriers currently preventing shad migration to the Mongaup River); 3) the limited availability of shad habitat upstream of the Rio Dam; 4) the abundance of available quality habitat in the Mongaup River downstream of Rio Dam and the Delaware River for American shad; and the likely outcome of reductions in repeat spawning and corresponding reductions in overall population fecundity and annual recruitment to the population, which are an important component of healthy shad populations. For these reasons, Eagle Creek is not proposing to construct upstream or downstream fish passage structures at any of the Projects’ developments.

American Eel

The reservoirs and river segments associated with the Projects would be suitable for foraging, growth, and development of American eel prior to their downstream spawning migrations. American eels are adaptable and can utilize a wide range of riverine, lake, or reservoir habitat (McCleave 2001a, Greene et al. 2009). The passage of American eel upstream of hydropower dams can expose the eventual out-migrating silver eels to migratory delay at each dam and mortality when passing through turbines or over spillways. The mainstem Delaware River is one of the largest stretches of undammed riverine habitat in the eastern United States and represents significant eel habitat. The Upper Delaware River provides an abundance of suitable habitat along its entire length. The continued operation of the Projects would result in the ongoing limitation of access to habitats in the Mongaup River system upstream of Rio Dam, while also limiting exposure to migratory delay and turbine mortality. Eels would continue to have access to the 4.6 miles of Mongaup River habitat below the Rio Dam and the large amount of habitat in the Delaware River.

Although there is suitable habitat for American eel in the lower Mongaup River and the mainstem Delaware River, Eagle Creek evaluated upstream and downstream passage options at the Projects’ dams, which are described in Table E.7-58 and further described in the 2019 Fish Passage and Protection Study provided in the USR. The measures that were evaluated result in either significant capital costs, significant staff hours for operation and maintenance, or both as described in Table E.7-59.

TABLE E.7-58 POTENTIAL EEL PASSAGE MEASURES BY PROJECT AND DEVELOPMENT

Project Upstream Downstream RIO PROJECT Permanent eel pass trap to collect eels for

distribution into upstream habitats. A portable eel trap should be used to help locate a suitable location for a permanent trap.

Conte Airlift Bypass (CAB) combined with reduced bar spacing (3/4-inch) trashracks.


E-158

Project Upstream Downstream MONGAUP FALLS PROJECT

Portable eel pass trap and/or Delaware-style trawl net pass.

Spillway or CAB combined with reduced bar spacing (3/4-inch) trashracks.

SWINGING BRIDGE PROJECT Swinging Bridge Development

Portable eel pass trap. CAB combined with reduced bar spacing (3/4-inch) trashracks.


Portable eel pass trap. Existing bottom release gate.

Toronto Reservoir Development

Portable eel pass trap. Existing bottom release gate.

TABLE E.7-59 ESTIMATED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH AMERICAN EEL PASSAGE AND PROTECTION MEASURES

Passage and Protection Measure

Estimated Cost Considerations Reference(s)

Trap and Truck $0.5 to $1 million Staff to operate and maintain transport vehicle.

Storage tanks, elevated sorting and holding facilities, and multiple transport vehicles.

Permanent Eel Ladder Trap

$200,000 to $350,000

Rugged design for permanent installation and water supply, including access to trap, includes design. Price will vary with access requirements. Staff needed for maintenance and eel handling.

--

Portable Eel Ladder Trap $200 - $2,000

Battery powered pumps and solar panels can be necessary if gravity fed attraction flow or electricity to power pumps are not available or practical. Staff needed to maintain and check trap.

--

Downstream Surface Bypass

$250,000 to $2 million

High head downstream passage requires significant piping to meet USFWS criteria for safe passage. May involve construction of pools at point of discharge to achieve required depth.

--

CAB $20,000 to $70,000 -- --

Trashrack Modifications

$300 per square foot of rack area --

Based on 30 feet of head without structural support; 2006 pricing escalated to 2020.

In addition to evaluating upstream and downstream passage at the Projects’ facilities on Black Lake Creek and the Mongaup River, Eagle Creek also evaluated American eel passage of Black Brook Dam. Based on the available literature and documented abilities of American eel to bypass physical barriers (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994), eels were likely to have historically ascended the falls at the current location of the Black Brook Dam to reach and utilize the habitat within Black Brook. Young or juvenile eels attempting to access the upper portions of Black Brook would have likely been able to navigate or crawl up portions of the face of the falls underlying the existing Black Brook Dam. These falls are characterized as having several cracks, crevices, and interstitial


E-159

spaces conducive to eel climbing. While the construction of the Rio Dam in 1927 undoubtedly reduced the potential for eels to occur in Black Brook, anecdotal information suggests that some eels may successfully pass above the Rio Dam and may potentially utilize the habitat of Black Brook. Currently, eels reaching Black Brook Dam likely have the ability to navigate upstream, over the existing dam to reach additional habitat upstream of Black Brook Dam based on the low height (approximately 10 feet), the moderate slope (approximately 45 degree ogee shape), and the surface roughness of the spillway (naturally weathered aggregate concrete).

Eagle Creek is not proposing to construct upstream or downstream passage structures for American eel at the Projects’ developments based on the following: 1) the ability for American eels to pass the current configuration at Black Brook Dam (if eels were to be present); 2) the abundance of suitable habitat available in the lower Mongaup River and the undammed mainstem Delaware River and its tributaries; 3) the potential for introduction of invasive species in the Mongaup River system, which could negatively affect the existing and important fish community and game fisheries; 4) the expected mortality of upstream and downstream passage of the species at each of the Projects’ dams; and 5) the significant costs and logistical challenges associated with construction of safe and effective upstream and downstream passage of American eel at the Projects’ facilities.

Trout in Black Brook

Brook trout and brown trout are known to occur in Black Brook (NYSDEC 2016a), (Michael Flaherty [NYSDEC] and Roger Olsen [TU] 2020, personal communication). Although trout species are not considered migratory species that depend on upstream and downstream migrations to complete their life cycle, Eagle Creek evaluated whether the natural falls at the location of Black Brook Dam would have created a natural barrier to trout species in Black Brook (prior to construction of Black Brook Dam).

The feasibility of trout to ascend the natural falls at Black Brook Dam was evaluated by considering the height and structure of the falls and the leaping/swimming ability of trout. The physical characteristics of the falls underlying Black Brook Dam, the estimated seasonal flows in Black Brook, and the maximum burst swimming speed and vertical jumping ability of brown and brook trout are the main factors limiting the ability of trout to ascend physical barriers such as the falls at Black Brook Dam.

The face of the falls underlying Black Brook Dam is irregular, with a large bedrock outcrop directly in the middle of the stream channel (Figure E.7-38). The length of the ascent (downstream to upstream) varies from approximately 8 feet to 16 feet with an elevation difference ranging from 5.0 feet to 6.7 feet. A series of vertical steps located on river left present the most moderate slope (approximately 5.0 feet from the plunge pool water surface to the bottom sill of Black Brook Dam) and the longest ascent. The shortest potential route is on river right but consists of a vertically undercut step (approximately 5.7 feet from the top of the ledge to the plunge pool water surface). The plunge pool at the base of these falls is estimated to be approximately 3.5 feet deep and is underlain by a smooth bedrock substrate.


E-160

FIGURE E.7-38 BLACK BROOK DAM AND NATURAL FALLS (LOOKING UPSTREAM UNDER LOW FLOW CONDITIONS)

Low/Moderate Flow Conditions (25-100 cfs)

The most likely route of trout passage under low to moderate flow conditions (25-100 cfs) would be along the river left side of the falls where the gradient (although stepped with steep intervals) is most gradual. Passage via this route would require a trout to make a vertical leap of approximately 5.5 feet, combined with a horizontal distance of approximately 6 feet to clear the uppermost portion of the bedrock outcrop. A successful jump would require plunge pools of sufficient depth downstream and upstream of the barrier to allow the safe clearance of the barrier. The Oregon Department of Forestry characterizes gradient barriers as natural falls and chutes of greater than 4 feet for resident trout and any falls greater than 2 feet must have a jump pool that is 1.25 times deeper than the jump height (CALFISH 2020). For resident trout to be able to physically pass the Black Brook falls at low and/or moderate flows, this would equate to a downstream plunge pool depth of at least 6.25 feet. Kondratieff and Myrick reported that some larger brook trout have been documented making a jump over a stationary flashboard of up to 2.4 feet but only with appropriate downstream plunge pool depths, and that adult trout are incapable of jumping barriers over 5.0 feet in height regardless of the plunge pool depth at the downstream approach (Kondratieff and Myrick 2006). Given the dimensions of the approach paths to the Black Brook falls under the Black Brook Dam and since trout have been shown to be incapable of jumping barriers at the heights (5 or more feet) required to ascend the falls, it is unlikely that resident trout historically passed upstream of Black Brook falls during low to moderate flows.


E-161

A streamlined hydraulic analysis was performed for flows up to 100 cfs in increments of 25 cfs to determine if low to moderate flow scenarios would provide depths and velocities to facilitate fish swimming upstream of the falls at Black Brook Dam. The results of this analysis include average depths, average velocities, and the percent of occurrence and are provided in Table E.7-60. This demonstrates that for all flows analyzed, average depths are below 0.79 feet, the minimum requirement for upstream passage over a barrier (USDA 2009) and velocities are above 4.0 ft/s, the maximum velocity for culvert passage (USDA 2009) for flows greater than approximately 35 cfs. These velocities may be adequate for trout to pass upstream of this potential barrier at burst swimming speeds; however, the average depths at these velocities are exclusionary. Therefore, adult trout could not utilize swimming as a method for passing upstream of these falls during low and moderate flows.

TABLE E.7-60 LOW/MODERATE FLOW CONDITIONS AT BLACK BROOK DAM

Flow Conditions1 (cfs)

Calculated Flow (cfs)

Estimated Depth (feet)

Estimated Velocity (ft/s)

Approximate Percent of

Occurrence2

25 25.2 0.32 3.6 40% 50 49.4 0.48 4.7 17.5% 75 75.4 0.62 5.6 9%

100 100.9 0.74 6.3 6.5% 1. Flow analysis based on data from Stream Stats Report for Black Brook. Workspace ID:

NY20200323154922620000 2 Gazoorian 2015.

High Flow Conditions (greater than 100 cfs)

Under high flow conditions (flows greater than 100 cfs), trout may be physically capable to pass upstream of the Black Brook falls using burst speeds or using burst speeds combined with jumping, however, flows above 100 cfs are relatively uncommon in Black Brook and occur less than two percent of the time. As further described below, it is considered very unlikely that trout were historically successful in passing upstream of the Black Brook falls.

The most likely routes for trout to pass the Black Brook falls under high flow conditions would likely be similar to the routes under low and/or moderate flow conditions. The large bedrock outcrop located in the center of the channel directs the majority of flows to each side of the channel under high or low to moderate flow conditions. The large bedrock outcrop is also likely to prohibit fish from swimming or jumping over the falls in the center of the channel where it is located.

Fish often use burst speeds to pass through short, high-velocity areas. For a trout to pass upstream of the existing falls beneath the Black Brook Dam under a high flow condition, an adult trout would need to utilize burst speed swimming and may also need to rely on some jumping ability to ascend this potential natural barrier. Relative burst speeds for adult brown trout under optimal physical conditions range from 6.1 ft/s to 12.8 ft/s (Bell 1991, Peake 2008) and can be maintained for approximately 20 seconds before the fish would experience fatigue (Beamish 1978). Theoretically, this would allow an adult brown trout under optimal conditions to travel a distance of 122-256 feet at burst speeds before experiencing fatigue. However, prolonged swimming at burst speeds to pass through high velocity areas can negatively impact a fish’s ability to recover and to perform multiple bouts of exhaustive swimming.


E-162

A trout’s ability to swim in burst mode may be limited in the short term (a few hours to a day) because some fish species require relatively long periods to recover from exhaustive exercise (Black et al, 1962). Additionally, some fish die after performing exhaustive exercise. For example, trout subjected to intensive exercise for six minutes had a mortality rate of 40 percent with the majority of death occurring four to eight hours post-exercise (Wood et al. 1983). Salmonids have high burst speeds but appear to recover relatively slowly. Steelhead were able to repeat their baseline swim speed after six hours (Paulik and DeLacy 1957).

Similar to the analysis above for low/moderate flow conditions, a streamlined hydraulic analysis was also performed for high flow conditions (100 to 500 cfs in increments of 100 cfs) (Table E.7-61). High flow conditions provide an average depth that is theoretically adequate for trout to move upstream (i.e., greater than 0.79 ft.). A high flow condition of 200 cfs shows an average depth of 1.12 feet and an average estimated velocity of 8.2 ft/s over the existing falls. Note that this flow and velocity are calculated averages across the channel area. Actual velocities and depths may vary considerably based on the configuration of the channel and the non-conforming characteristics of the underlying bedrock falls, as well and any reconfiguration of the upstream portion of the stream channel. These data are calculated using a theoretical laminar flow, which would not be the case at the Black Brook falls. Flows of 200 cfs or greater would be turbulent with higher velocities and varying depths. The velocities calculated to occur at 200 cfs and greater would likely inhibit most resident trout in Black Brook from passing upstream if the Black Brook Dam were not in place.

TABLE E.7-61 HIGH FLOW CONDITIONS AT BLACK BROOK DAM

Flow Conditions1 (cfs)

Calculated Flow (cfs)

Estimated Depth (feet)

Estimated Velocity (ft/s)

Approximate Percent of

Occurrence2

200 199.2 1.12 8.2 2% 300 300.4 1.44 9.6 <1% 400 401.0 1.72 10.7 <1% 500 499.5 1.97 11.7 <1%

1 Flow analysis based on data from Stream Stats Report for Black Brook. Workspace ID: NY20200323154922620000

2 Gazoorian 2015.

As described above, Black Brook Dam being situated atop a bedrock outcrop waterfall with an approximate hydraulic jump of 5.0 - 6.7 feet, it is believed to significantly inhibit or prevent the potential for resident trout to successfully ascend the natural falls under low, moderate, or high flow conditions to access upstream habitat. In addition, given the presence of trout both upstream and downstream of the dam, it is believed that habitat exists in both portions of the river to support the species life cycle.

Fish Protection

Hydroelectric facilities have the potential for some level of entrainment of biota into intakes. The potential for fish to become entrained or impinged at a hydroelectric facility is dependent on a variety of factors such as fish life history, size, and swimming ability, as well as operating regimes, inflow, magnitude and duration of intake velocities, trashrack bar spacing, and intake/turbine configurations (Cada et al. 1997). Proximity to feeding and rearing habitats also affect the potential for a fish to become entrained. These factors and several others are used to make general assessments of entrainment and impingement potential at hydroelectric projects using a desktop study approach.


E-163

Numerous fish turbine passage survival evaluations have been conducted over the past few decades, which provide a considerable data set to use to qualitatively assess turbine passage survival at the Projects. Winchell et al. (2000) summarized turbine passage survival data reported in the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1997) database by turbine type and characteristics and fish size. Based on the consistency of results from numerous studies, it is apparent that fish size rather than species is the primary variable in determining the probability of survival through turbines (Franke et al. 1997, Winchell et al. 2000). Smaller fish are more likely to survive turbine passage. In addition, species-specific estimates of fish mortality through Francis-type turbines (EPRI 1992) indicate that survival rates across species are generally uniform.

1992-1993 Entrainment Study

The prior licensee (Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.) conducted empirical entrainment studies at the Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls, and Rio Projects in 1992 and 1993, with results provided in the 1994 Entrainment Study Report (Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers [LMS] 1994). A copy of the 1994 Entrainment Study Report was provided as an appendix of the Proposed Study Plan (PSP) and Eagle Creek provided additional information regarding the study in the PSP supplement filed with the Commission on December 1, 2017.

The 1992-1993 study performed following the issuance of the Projects’ existing licenses, found higher numbers of alewife entrainment in winter months, likely due to cold stress. Other than high alewife entrainment in winter, seasonal entrainment peaks for other species occurred in September and October. Species entrained in substantial numbers (annual totals) include yellow perch (13,385), juvenile sunfish species (3,027), largemouth bass (1,511), brown trout (935), and black crappie (913). It was noted that many of the brown trout likely originated in the tailraces and swam into the sampling nets and were never entrained. The majority of all fish were juveniles. An entrainment survival rate of approximately 70 percent was estimated through the Projects and concluded that entrainment effects are small at all of the Projects due to the small proportion of the populations entrained and the relatively high survival rates of those that are entrained (LMS 1994). The studies also concluded that lower DO concentrations near the intakes when the impoundment is stratified provides a deterrent for fish to swim near the intakes, avoiding or minimizing impingement or entrainment during the warmer summer months.

Nineteen species of fish were collected among all three Projects during the 1992-1993 entrainment study. The Mongaup Falls Project contained the greatest diversity of fish, 19 species, while Rio had the least diversity of fish, 2 species (Table E.7-62). Alewife were the dominant species collected. Alewife were estimated to be 98.7 percent of the total number of individuals of all species entrained. The monthly entrainment estimates for all species collected at the Mongaup Falls Project are provided in Table E.7-63. The majority of the alewife entrainment occurred at night during the winter months. For the additional species collected, more individuals were entrained at night, consistent with alewife. The length frequency histograms of alewife show a distinct bimodal distribution that relates to the presence of two age classes. Most individuals of all species were less than 150 mm (6 inches) in length.


E-164

TABLE E.7-62 LIST OF FISH SPECIES COLLECTED AT EACH PROJECT DURING THE 1992-1993 ENTRAINMENT STUDY

Station Common Name Scientific Name Swinging Bridge Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus

Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius White catfish Ictalurus catus Yellow perch Perca flavescens

Mongaup Falls Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas Tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides Chain pickerel Esox niger White sucker Catostomus commersoni Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius White catfish Amelurus catus Yellow perch Perca flavescens Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus Brown trout Salmo trutta Brook trout Salvelinus fonrinalis Unidentified sunfish Centrarchidae White bass Morone chrysops Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss

Rio Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum


E-165

TABLE E.7-63 MONTHLY ESTIMATED NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS ENTRAINED FOR EACH SPECIES AT MONGAUP FALLS PROJECT BASED ON THE 1992/1993 STUDY

Taxon 1992 1993 Total % Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Alewife 4,063 5,301 1,531,428 25,318 31,314 75,921 183 0 -- 56,675 71 33 1,730,307 98.7 Pumpkinseed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 154 -- 147 99 513 913 0.1 Black crappie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 28 386 414 <0.1 Golden shiner 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 0 -- 0 14 160 266 <0.1 Tessellated darter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 28 <0.1

Largemouth bass 0 0 0 0 0 0 183 0 -- 98 1,006 224 1,511 0.1

Chain pickerel 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 0 -- 0 0 0 92 <0.1 White sucker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 98 14 33 145 <0.1 Spottail shiner 96 0 0 0 0 0 183 0 -- 98 0 64 441 <0.1 White catfish 0 0 0 0 0 0 275 0 -- 0 14 33 322 <0.1 Yellow perch 0 279 273 0 0 573 183 541 -- 392 6,589 4,555 13,385 0.8 Rock bass 0 0 0 0 0 190 0 0 -- 0 14 0 204 <0.1 Redbreast sunfish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 14 64 78 <0.1

Brown trout 290 0 0 105 0 0 366 77 -- 0 0 97 935 0.1 Brook trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 33 33 <0.1 Unidentified sunfish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 147 56 2,824 3,027 0.2

White bass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 -- 0 0 0 77 <0.1 Longear sunfish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 49 0 0 49 <0.1

Yellow bullhead 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 14 33 47 <0.1

Rainbow trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 28 0 28 <0.1 Total: 4,449 5,580 1,531,701 25,423 31,314 76,684 1,557 849 -- 57,704 7,989 9,052 1,752,302 --


E-166

Juvenile alewife were the dominant entrained species, representing more than 98 percent of the total number of individuals entrained, with entrainment most likely to occur at night during the winter months. The study concluded that the presence of abundant juvenile alewives during the winter months provides a sustained forage base for the bald eagles that migrate to the Mongaup River during winter. This result fulfilled a primary objective of the 1992-1993 entrainment study to describe alewife entrainment at the Projects and evaluate its availability as bald eagle forage.

An objective of the 1992-1993 entrainment study was to describe the trophic relationship between entrained alewife and bald eagle resulting from the operation of the Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects. This relationship was discussed in the Environmental Assessment for the Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects included in the 1992 licenses, which states “the existing trashracks would be adequate to allow alewives to be entrained, thereby providing the forage base for bald eagles.” The results of the previous entrainment study highlighted that the continued entrainment of alewife at the Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects is essential to maintaining a forage base for piscivorous bald eagles. The availability of alewife as forage for overwintering birds is critical to their presence and successful use of the Mongaup Valley. As further described in the Bald Eagle Study Plan provided in the RSP (previously filed with the Commission), multiple references by NYSDEC biologists and other subject-matter experts in the region indicate that alewife availability for bald eagle forage is essential to maintaining bald eagle populations in the Mongaup Valley. Any reduction to this forage availability would undoubtedly be detrimental as it would reduce bald eagle presence and use of the Projects and Mongaup Valley.

2018 Impingement, Entrainment and Survival Study

The primary purpose of the 2018 Impingement, Entrainment, and Survival Study and 2019 update (to incorporate the newly constructed Unit No. 3 at the Swinging Bridge Development) was to supplement the information collected during and used in support of the 1992-1993 entrainment study at the Projects to update the mortality/turbine survival analysis for each Project and characterize the occurrence, relative abundance, and size distribution of fish in proximity to the Projects’ intakes. Detailed information on the study methodology and Projects are available in the ISR and USR previously filed with the Commission.

Evaluating the potential for entrainment for the fish community within the Projects’ reservoirs requires combining and synthesizing the species-specific behavioral traits, life stages, and swimming capabilities and comparing them to each of the Projects’ unique intake, water conveyance, and turbine infrastructure characteristics.

In general, smaller sized forage fish and panfish are likely to become entrained because they fit through the trashrack spacing at each of the Projects. However, forage fish and panfish were not collected in the 2018 intake gill nets and are unlikely to be present in the vicinity of the intakes during the months of May through October. Larger predatory and benthic dwelling fish species were collected in the 2018 intake gill nets during this time period. Although present in the vicinity of the intakes during the spring, summer, and fall months, the large body sizes of the predatory fishes caught in the gill nets exclude them from being entrained. Smaller-sized benthic species would likely be entrained similar to the estimates reported by EPRI (1997). If entrained, the smaller-sized individuals are more likely to survive passing downstream through the turbines as the Franke blade strike survival rate estimates are highest for the smallest size classes.


E-167

The primary findings of the 2018 fish entrainment, impingement, and turbine survival evaluation and 2019 update include:

• A total of 26 individuals of seven different fish species were collected during the May 24, June 13, July 24, September 19, October 2, and October 17, 2018 intake gill net surveys at the Projects.

• The lengths of the individuals collected in the 2018 intake gill nets from all species were between 10 and 25 inches.

• The majority of the individuals caught during the 2018 intake gill nets were collected at the Mongaup Falls Reservoir.

• Operations at the Projects did not appear to influence the number of individuals collected during the 2018 intake gill net surveys.

• Persistent low DO concentrations existed at the depth of the intake at the Swinging Bridge Reservoir from July through mid-September during water quality monitoring performed in 2018.

• Burst swim speeds differ between life stages of each fish species found in the Projects’ reservoirs. Because of this, the entrainment potential for each fish species depends on the life stage found in the vicinity of the Projects’ intakes.

• The intake trashracks at the Mongaup Falls Project exclude fishes of smaller sizes than the Swinging Bridge and Rio Projects.

• The EPRI entrainment database search for sites similar to the Projects yielded five of the seven fish species collected during the Projects’ 2018 intake gill net surveys; White Sucker and Bullhead less than 6 inches in length were the most abundant of all five species.

• The highest turbine survival estimates for the longest individuals are at the Rio Main Powerhouse and lowest at the Rio Minimum Flow Powerhouse.

Delaware River

Based on the discussion above (including the discussion regarding fresh water mussels in Section E.7.3.1.5), the studies performed in support of the relicensing, additional evaluations performed by Eagle Creek in support of preparing the application, and additional available information, there is no indication that Project operations have an adverse impact to aquatic species or habitat associated with the larger Delaware River basin. Similar to other tributaries that flow into larger mainstem rivers in New York and throughout the Northeast, the Mongaup River routinely provides cooler waters to the Delaware River. However, as noted by the studies, Delaware River flows upstream of the Mongaup River confluence are periodically cooler than the water provided by the Mongaup River. In addition, as noted above, all flows provided by the lower Mongaup River meet the state water quality standards applicable to the Mongaup River.

Based on consultation, stakeholders have indicated that the dwarf wedgemussel is the species of interest in the Delaware River. As indicated by the information provided above, based on qualitative and quantitative freshwater mussel surveys conducted by USGS in 2000 to 2002, dwarf wedgemussels have not been found to occur in the Delaware River in the vicinity of the Mongaup River confluence (Galbraith et al. 2016). The surveys indicate that three subpopulations of dwarf wedgemussels were identified within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (Delaware River upstream of Callicoon, NY), but none were identified further downstream in the mainstem river. The single dwarf wedgemussel that was found in the mainstem Delaware River just downstream of the confluence with the Neversink River (RM 253.6), was believed to be dislodged from the Neversink River, a tributary with an established dwarf wedgemussel population. As noted above, a


E-168

2012 survey in the vicinity of the Pond Eddy Bridge indicated dwarf wedgemussels were not found, and the same was true in support of a bridge rehabilitation project near Callicoon, NY, in a 2015 survey. As noted above, the three small subpopulations that have been found on the mainstem Delaware River are located more than 42 miles upstream of the Mongaup River confluence. Therefore, there are no indications that flows from the Mongaup River have any adverse effects on aquatic species populations of interest associated with the Delaware River.

Cumulative Effects

Eagle Creek believes that the continued operation of the Projects, as proposed, will limit cumulative effects on the aquatic habitat and fisheries communities based on the proposed minimum flows throughout the system, operating the Projects to maintain water quality standards in the stream reaches below the Projects, maintain minimum reservoir elevations between Memorial Day and Labor Day at the Toronto and Swinging Bridge reservoirs, limitations in fluctuation at the Mongaup Falls and Rio reservoirs during the bass spawning period between May 15 and June 30, and unit ramping procedures limiting start-up and shut-down to 1 unit per 30 minutes at Rio and 2 units per 30 minutes at Mongaup Falls.

By not installing upstream or downstream passage for American shad and American eel at the Projects, cumulative effects will be avoided related to the unavoidable result of delayed passage and/or mortality of species during passage at the Projects as well as the undesired potential for introduction of invasive species into the system. Rather, cumulative effects to American shad and American eel as a result of no passage at the Projects is expected to be limited based on the abundance of suitable habitat for these species to complete their life cycles available in the lower Mongaup River and the undammed mainstem Delaware River and its tributaries. Additionally, cumulative effects to trout populations are not anticipated given the presence of healthy populations of trout throughout the system and that operations of the Projects, as proposed, including the in-place decommissioning of Black Brook Dam, do not have an adverse effect on the habitat or conditions necessary to support their life cycle.

E.7.3.2.3 Macroinvertebrate and Mussels

Based on the average BAP scores in riffle habitats, the majority of the sample sites within the study area were determined to be non-impacted or slightly impacted. Three sites were determined to be moderately impacted (Black Lake Creek below Cliff Lake Dam, the Mongaup River below the Black Brook Confluence, and the Rio Dam) and one site was determined to be severely impacted (Black Lake Creek below Toronto Dam).

Black Lake Creek downstream of Toronto Dam (Site 1) and downstream of Cliff Lake Dam (Site 2) is a relatively small, shallow, cold-water stream. Water temperatures in these reaches appeared to be substantially lower than other waters with the study area. Additionally, the surface water in Black Lake Creek downstream of Toronto Dam was notably rust-colored and much of the substrate appeared to be covered with filamentous material. Collectively, these factors may have influenced the macroinvertebrate community at these sites.

The BAP score appeared to be substantially lower at the Mongaup River downstream of the Black Brook confluence (Site 5), than found upstream within the Mongaup Falls bypassed reach (Site 4). The BAP in Black Brook indicated this tributary was non-impacted. Although determined to be non-impacted, the increased flows downstream of the confluence with Black Brook (natural flows) may affect the macroinvertebrate community. This sample reach was also relatively difficult to sample due to the substrate composition.


E-169

With the exception of the Mongaup Falls Reservoir, which undergoes weak thermal stratification during the summer, the Projects’ reservoirs are thermally and chemically stratified throughout the summer, which often results in relatively low or anoxic DO concentrations in the hypolimnion. Within each reservoir, sample sites were located in different locations and depths. Relatively low DO concentrations were observed near the bottom of Toronto (T2), Cliff Lake (C2), and Swinging Bridge (S2) reservoirs. With the exception of T2, these sites had much lower densities than the other sites collected within the same reservoir (T1, C1, and S1). These sites, including T2, had lower species richness and diversity with more tolerant taxa. These relatively substantial differences in macroinvertebrate community between sites were not observed at sites in the Mongaup Falls Reservoir (M1 and M2) and Rio Reservoir (R1 and R2) where DO concentrations were much higher at the bottom of the reservoir.

Continued operations of the Project results in thermal or hydrologic alterations in the river reaches downstream of the Projects, which may affect the macroinvertebrate communities to some degree; however, Eagle Creek anticipates that continued operation of the Projects as proposed will not cumulatively or incrementally affect macroinvertebrate communities.

Additionally, based on the results of the comprehensive mussel survey performed in 2018, it appears that the conditions in the stream reaches of the Mongaup River Projects system (gradient, substrates, and colder water temperatures, which are desired for trout streams) may largely be unsuitable for successful mussels propagation in these stream reaches; therefore, continued operation of the Projects as proposed is not anticipated to have site-specific or cumulative effects on mussels.


Eagle Creek proposes continued operation of the Projects with the PM&E measures related to the protection of aquatic resources as listed below.







• Provide a minimum flow of 70 cfs to the bypassed reach below Mongaup Falls Dam and a total flow of 90 cfs below the Mongaup Falls Powerhouse (inclusive of the bypassed reach flow), or if less, the 7-day average inflow to Swinging Bridge Reservoir, to a minimum of 60 cfs total flow below the Mongaup Falls Powerhouse. If the 7-day average inflow to Swinging Bridge Reservoir falls below 40 cfs, the total


E-170

flow below the Mongaup Falls Powerhouse may be reduced to inflow if peaking generation releases are discontinued.


• Limit start-up and shut-down to no more than two units per 30 minutes at the Mongaup Falls Powerhouse.

• Decommission Black Brook Development in place with no modification for fish passage.

Rio Project




• Limit start-up and shut-down to no more than 1 unit per 30 minutes at the Rio Main Powerhouse.


Resident Species

The 2018 Fisheries Survey Study documented that overall the fish community in the study area is diverse, abundant, and healthy, and is a good representation of the communities associated with the geographic region in this portion of the Mongaup River system. Results from these surveys indicate that fish populations documented in 2018 are similar to surveys conducted during historical and recent fisheries surveys in the region. These comprehensive survey results, along with historical and regional comparisons, suggest that continued operation of the Projects’ will have limited, if any, adverse effect on the persistence of suitable aquatic habitat and a diverse cool and warm water fishery.

Anadromous and Catadromous Species Continued operation of the Rio Project will continue to restrict access to upstream habitats and block migratory movements for American shad and American eel, while continued operation of the Mongaup and Swinging Bridge Projects may continue to restrict access to farther upstream habitats and block migratory movements for American eel. For shad, these impacts will be minor due to the large amount of habitat available in the Delaware River watershed, very limited amount of suitable upstream spawning habitat and the small number of fish it would be capable of supporting, and challenges and associated impacts to shad populations with


E-171

passage. For eels, the adverse impacts are also expected to be minor given the amount of habitat within the Delaware watershed available to eels that does not require the passage upstream and downstream of dams/hydropower projects and the associated risk of mortality.

With the inclusion of the proposed environmental measures summarized in Section E.7.3.3 above, unavoidable adverse impacts to aquatic resources are anticipated to be negligible to the overall population and success of anadromous and catadromous species as a result of the continued operation of the Projects as proposed by Eagle Creek.

E.7.4 Terrestrial Resources

The subsections below describe terrestrial resources in the vicinity of the Projects, and considers the effects of continued operation of the Projects as proposed by Eagle Creek on these resources. Descriptions of the affected environment, environmental analysis, proposed environmental measures, and identification of unavoidable adverse effects were developed based on available data presented in the Licensee’s PAD and the relicensing studies performed in 2018 including:

• Wetland Study; • Black Brook Dam Decommissioning Study; and • Special-Status Species Survey Study.


The Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects are all located within the Low Poconos/Mongaup Hills (62b) ecoregion (Bryce et al. 2010). The glaciated Low Poconos/Mongaup Hills ecoregion is lower in elevation than other portions of Ecoregion 62. Over 90 percent of the Mongaup Hills ecoregion is forested with northern hardwoods and Appalachian oak forest. Soils in the region are not suited for agriculture due to rocky substrate, steep slopes, deeply-incised stream channels, and a seasonal high water table (Bryce et al. 2010). Within the vicinity of the Projects, a largely undeveloped area, this ecoregion supports a diverse range of terrestrial wildlife and botanical species and habitats, including wetland, riparian, and littoral habitats.

E.7.4.1.1 Wildlife

The vegetative community types associated with the Projects provide suitable habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Although dominated by forest lands, the occurrence of the wetland, as well as riverine systems, increases the diversity of wildlife habitats available for indigenous and transient mammal species (Eagle Creek 2017).

In accordance with the Commission’s SPD, in 2018, Eagle Creek conducted a Wetland Study to verify the USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and NYSDEC-mapped wetlands within the study area, and document the type and location of unmapped wetlands observed during the survey. Additionally, as part of this study, incidental wildlife observations and signs of wildlife (e.g., vocalizations, tracks, scat, and hair) were noted during the wetland field verification activities, with particular emphasis on birds and aquatic mammals that could be influenced by the Projects’ operations. Wildlife observations were recorded during fieldwork and if possible, the location, species, and activity were noted. In addition, incidental wildlife encountered during other terrestrial field studies was also noted and is summarized below.


E-172

Mammals

A total of 15 mammal species were recorded during incidental observations conducted during the Wetland Study, as well as during the field activities in support of the other relicensing studies. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) is the most common big game species in the Projects’ vicinity, occurring in a wide variety of habitats. This species is most prevalent along forest edges characterized by brushy and woody vegetation, swamp borders, and areas interspersed with fields and woodland openings (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001, Doutt et al. 1977). Raccoon (Procyon lotor) are also common, especially along the riparian corridors associated with the Mongaup River and the other brooks and stream within the Projects vicinity. Other wildlife observations included beaver (Castor canadensis) lodges and dams in backwaters and evidence of bank dens along some of the streams within the Projects’ vicinity and a single juvenile river otter (Lontra Canadensis) was observed on the Mongaup River between the Rio Main Powerhouse tailrace and the Delaware River. Other mammals present in the Projects’ vicinity include furbearers, small game species, rodents, and bats. These wildlife species reside in many different habitat types such as woodland, scrub-shrub or early successional areas, and grassland areas; use of these areas may shift during different life stages and/or times or year (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001, Doutt et al. 1977). Table E.7-64 presents a list of mammalian species that were observed within the Projects’ vicinity during the Wetlands Study, and other study activities, in addition to those species likely to occur within the Projects’ vicinity.

TABLE E.7-64 MAMMALS OBSERVED OR ANTICIPATED TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECTS’ VICINITY1


Opossum* Didelphis marsupialis Masked shrew Sorex cinereus Smoky shrew Sorex fumeus Shorttail shrew Blarina brevicauda Starnose mole Condylura cristata Eastern mole Scalopus aguaticus Hairytail mole Parascalops breweri Eastern pipistrel Pipistrellus subflavus Big brown bat Eptericus fuscus Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Black bear* Ursus americanus Raccoon* Procyon lotor Shorttail weasel Mustela erminea Longtail weasel Mustela frenata Mink Mustela vison River otter* Lutra oanadensis Striped skunk* Mephitis mephitis Coyote* Canis latrans Red fox* Vulpes fulva Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus Bobcat Lynx rufus Woodchuck* Marmota monax Eastern chipmunk* Tamias striatus Eastern gray squirrel* Sciurus carolinensis


E-173


Red squirrel* Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Southern flying squirrel Glaucomya volana Northern flying squirrel Glaucomya sabrinus Beaver* Castor canadensis Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus Southern bog lemming Synaptomys cooperi Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus Pine vole Pitymya pinetorum Muskrat Ondatra zibethica Norway rat Rattus norvegicus House mouse* Mus musculus Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius Porcupine* Erethizon dorsatum Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus European hare Lepus europaeus Whitetail deer* Odocoileus virginianus 1 The list was adapted from the Application for a License for Major Projects Existing Dams for the Mongaup Basin Hydroelectric Projects: Swinging Bridge Project, Mongaup Falls Project, Rio Project (Volume II) (Orange and Rockland 1998). The list was supplied by the NYSDEC for the Lower Hudson River region of New York. Asterisk (*) indicates the species was observed or heard during the 2018 Wetland Study.

Regarding mammals that may inhabit the Projects’ area, mammals such as gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), longtail weasel (Mustela frenata), northern flying squirrel (Glaucomya sabrinus), American mink (Mustela vison), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus LeConte), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), starnose mole (Condylura cristata), masked shrew (Sorex cinereus), and northern shorttail shrew (Blarina brevicauda) may inhabit the area (Eagle Creek 2017), some of which may use the habitat within the Projects’ boundaries for permanent, temporary, or transient uses.

Avifauna

The vegetative community types in this region provide breeding, migratory stopover, and wintering habitat for a high diversity of avifauna including neotropical songbirds, resident species, waterbirds, and waterfowl (Eagle Creek 2017). A total of 57 bird species were observed or heard during the Wetland Study, and other study activities. Species such as the black capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), and northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), and an assortment of woodpeckers occur within the wooded areas of the Projects’ vicinity. Birds that inhabit non-forested areas within the Projects’ area include American robin (Turdus migratorius) and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura).

The Mongaup River corridor, including the Projects’ reservoirs and adjacent wetlands, attracts a variety of waterfowl. Six species of waterfowl were observed throughout the area associated with the Wetland Study: Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), common merganser (Mergus merganser), wood duck (Aix sponsa), black duck (Anas rubripes), and double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). Double-crested cormorants were observed on several occasions within the Swinging Bridge Reservoir as well as at near the Mongaup River’s confluence with the Delaware River. Broods of common merganser young were


E-174

also seen along the Mongaup River within the Projects’ vicinity while performing field activities in support of other relicensing studies.

Shoreline-dependent species were also noted throughout the Projects’ vicinity. Spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularia) was occasionally seen along the water’s edge on both protected and exposed shorelines primarily on the Mongaup River.

Belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) and great blue heron (Ardea herodias) observations were common while conducting various relicensing studies associated with the Projects. These species were usually noted perching on trees or flying.

Several species of birds of prey are known or suspected to use the Projects’ area. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) juveniles and adults were observed in multiple locations throughout the study area, as were numerous other raptors: turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). These species utilize many different habitat types throughout the year including woodland, scrub-shrub or early successional areas, and wetland and open water areas.

Table E.7-65 presents the avifauna that were observed or heard within the Projects’ vicinity during the Wetlands Study in addition to those species likely to occur within the Low Poconos/Mongaup Hills ecoregion.

TABLE E.7-65 LIST OF AVIFAUNA OBSERVED OR ANTICIPATED TO OCCUR WITHIN THE PROJECTS’ VICINITY


Canada goose* Branta canadensis Snow goose Chen caerulescens Mallard* Anas platyrhynchos Black duck* Anas rubripes Common scoter Melanitta nigra Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula Canvasback Aythya valisineria Wood duck* Aix sponsa Redhead Aythya americana Common merganser* Mergus merganser Green-winged teal Anas crecca Blue-winged teal Anas discors Common loon Gavia immer Double-crested cormorant* Phalacrocorax auritus Wild turkey* Meleagris gallopavo Ruffed grouse* Bonasa umbellus Great blue heron* Ardea herodias Green heron Butorides virescens Yellow-crowned night heron Nyctanassa violacea Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis Turkey vulture* Cathartes aura Bald eagle* Haliaeetus leucocephalus


E-175


Osprey* Pandion haliaetus Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus Broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus Red-tailed hawk* Buteo jamaicensis Barred owl Strix varia Barn owl Tyto alba Great horned owl Bubo virginianus Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus Spotted sandpiper* Actitis macularius Mourning dove* Zenaida macroura Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor Ruby-throated hummingbird* Archilochus colubris Belted kingfisher* Megaceryle alcyon Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Downy woodpecker* Picoides pubescens Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus Northern flicker* Colaptes auratus Pileated woodpecker* Dryocopus pileatus Eastern wood-pewee Contopus virens Acadian flycatcher Empidonax virescens Least flycatcher Empidonax minimus Eastern phoebe* Sayornis phoebe Eastern kingbird* Tyrannus tyrannus Evening grosbeak* Coccothraustes vespertinus Great crested flycatcher* Myiarchus crinitus Hooded warbler* Setophaga citrina Blue-headed vireo* Vireo solitarius Northern mockingbird* Mimus polyglottos Yellow-throated vireo Vireo flavifrons Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus Blue jay* Cyanocitta cristata Killdeer* Charadrius vociferus Wilson’s snipe Gallinago delicata American crow* Corvus brachyrhynchos Common raven* Corvus corax Tree swallow* Tachycineta bicolor Bank swallow Riparia riparia Cliff swallow* Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Barn swallow* Hirundo rustica Black-capped chickadee* Poecile atricapillus Tufted titmouse Baeolophus bicolor Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis White-breasted nuthatch* Sitta carolinensis Brown creeper Certhia americana Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus


E-176


House wren* Troglodytes aedon Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Veery Catharus fuscescens Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis Purple martin Progne subis Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus Wood thrush* Hylocichla mustelina American robin* Turdus migratorius Gray catbird* Dumetella carolinensis European starling Sturnus vulgaris Cedar waxwing* Bombycilla cedrorum Northern parula Parula americana Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica Magnolia warbler Dendroica magnolia Black-throated blue warbler Dendroica caerulescens Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Yellow warbler* Dendroica petechia Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata Black-throated green warbler Dendroica virens Blackburnian warbler Dendroica fusca Black-throated blue warbler Dendroica caerulescens Pine warbler* Dendroica pinus Black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia Louisiana waterthrush Seiurus motacilla American redstart Setophaga ruticilla Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla Common yellowthroat* Geothlypis trichas Canada warbler Wilsonia canadensis Prairie warbler* Setophaga discolor European starling Sturnus vulgaris Bobolink* Dolichonyx oryzivorus Scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea Eastern towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina Field sparrow Spizella pusilla White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Song sparrow* Melospiza melodia Swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana House sparrow* Passer domesticus Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis Northern cardinal* Cardinalis cardinalis Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Indigo bunting* Passerina cyanea Common grackle* Quiscalus quiscula Red-winged blackbird* Agelaius phoeniceus Brown-headed cowbird* Molothrus ater Baltimore oriole* Icterus galbula House finch Carpodacus mexicanus


E-177


Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus American goldfinch* Carduelis tristis Rock dove* Columba livia Source: NYSDEC undated. Asterisk (*) indicates the species was observed or heard during the 2018 Wetland Study.

Amphibians and Reptiles

Amphibians and reptiles are common and well represented in the Projects’ vicinity. A total of 12 herptile species were observed during the Wetland Study, as well as during other relicensing studies. These amphibian and reptile species inhabit many different habitat types such as woodland, scrub-shrub or early successional areas, and grassland; use of these areas may shift during different life stages and/or times of year.

Species typically found in wetland and open water areas include: green frog (Lithobates clamitans), bullfrog (L. catesbeianus), northern spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), and the northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon) (DeGraaf and Rudis 1983; Tyning 1990; Hunter et al. 1999). These amphibians and reptiles are normally found in wetland and open water areas due to food and reproductive requirements.

Species typically found in woodland areas include: spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), American toad (Anaxyrus americanus), gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor), wood frog (Lithobates sylvaticus), and the northern two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata) (DeGraaf and Rudis 1983; Tyning 1990; Hunter et al. 1999). These amphibians are normally found in woodland areas due to food and reproductive requirements. A list of herptile species observed, may occur, or may utilize habitat in the vicinity of the Projects is included in Table E.7-66.

TABLE E.7-66 LIST OF HERPTILE SPECIES OBSERVED OR ANTICIPATED TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECTS’ VICINITY

Common Name Scientific Name Reptiles Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina Eastern musk turtle Sternotherus odoratus Spotted turtle Clemmys guttata Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergi Wood turtle Clemmys insculpta Eastern box turtle Terrapene carolina Northern diamond-backed terrapin Malaclemys terrapin Map turtle Graptemys geoqraphica Painted turtle Chrysemys picta Blanding's turtle Emydoidea blandinqi Spiny softshell turtle Apalone spinifera Fence lizard Sceloporus undulatus Common watersnake Nerodia sipedon Northern brown snake Storeria dekayi Red-bellied snake Storeria occipitomaculata Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis Ribbon snake Thamnophis sauritus Eastern hog-nosed snake Heterodon platirhinos Northern ring-necked snake Diadophis punctatus


E-178


Eastern wormsnake Carphophis amoenus Black racer Coluber constrictor Smooth green snake Opheodrys vernalis Eastern ratsnake Pantherophis alleghaniensis Milk snake Lampropeltis triangulum Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus Amphibians Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus Jefferson salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum Blue-spotted salamander Ambystoma laterale Marbled salamander Ambystoma opacum Spotted salamander Ambystoma maculatum Eastern red-spotted newt Notophthalmus viridescens Dusky salamander Desmognathus fuscus Allegheny mountain dusky salamander Desmognathus ochrophaeus Red-backed salamander Plethodon cinereus Four-toad salamander Hemidactylium scutatum Spring salamander Gyrirophilus porthyriticus Red salamander Paeudotriton ruber Two-lined salamander Eurycea bislineata Long-tailed salamander Eurycea longicauda Eastern american toad Anaxyrus americanus Fowler's toad Anaxyrus fowleri Spring peeper Pseudacris crucifer Gray treefrog Hyla versicolor Bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus Green frog Lithobates clamitans Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens Pickerel frog Lithobates palustris Wood frog Lithobates sylvaticus Sources: Orange and Rockland 1998; NYSDEC 2010

E.7.4.1.2 Botanical Resources

As presented in Section E.7.4.1, the Projects are located within the glaciated Low Poconos/Mongaup Hills ecoregion (Bryce et al. 2010). The surrounding area can be defined as a vast, elevated plateau, with soils low in nutrients; minor areas of pasture and cropland; and woodland, urban, and suburban developments dominating much of the landscape. In the Low Poconos/Mongaup Hills ecoregion, the topography is hummocky, with moderate- to high-gradient streams dominated by boulder and cobble substrates. Larger streams in the ecoregion are incised and kettle lakes and wetlands are common. The surficial and bedrock geology of the ecoregion consists of Pleistocene glacial till, kame deposits, and fluvial sand and gravel; Middle and Upper Devonian shale, sandstone, and conglomerate (Bryce et al. 2010). The three major vegetation communities within the Projects’ area include: 1) successional northern hardwoods; 2) Appalachian oak-hickory forest; and 3) floodplain forest, which are described below (Eagle Creek 2017).

The successional northern hardwoods is a broadly defined forest community with several seral and regional variants. This community typically occurs on sites that have been cleared or otherwise disturbed. The tree and shrub layers consist of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), big-tooth aspen (P. grandidentata), balsam poplar


E-179

(P. balsamifera), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), gray birch (B. populifolia), pin cherry (Prunus pensylvanica), black cherry (P. serotina), red maple (Acer rubrum), white pine (Pinus strobus), with lesser amounts of white ash (Fraxinus americana), green ash (F. pennsylvanica), and American elm (Ulmus americana) (Edinger et al. 2014).

The Appalachian oak-hickory forest community is a broadly defined forest community with several regional and edaphic variants. The underlying soils are usually loams or sandy loams and the vegetation community occurs on well-drained sites, usually on ridgetops, upper slopes, or south and west-facing slopes. Dominant trees include one or more of the following oaks: red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Q. alba), and black oak (Q. velutina). At a lower density, one or more of the following hickories are mixed with the oaks: pignut (Carya glabra), shagbark (C. ovata), and sweet pignut (C. ovalis). Other common trees include white ash, red maple, and hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana). Both tall and low shrub layers might be present and composed primarily of flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), gray dogwood (C. racemosa), witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea), choke cherry (Prunus virginiana), maple-leaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium), red raspberry (Rubus idaeus), and beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta). Commonly found vegetation in the herbaceous layer includes wild sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), false Solomon’s seal (Maianthemum racemosum), Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica), black cohosh (Cimicifuga racemosa), rattlesnake root (Prenanthes alba), mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum), and round-lobed hepatica (Anemone americana) (Edinger et al. 2014).

As described by Edinger et al. (2014), floodplain forests occur on mineral soils on low terraces of river floodplains and river deltas. These areas are characterized by their flood regime; lower areas are annually flooded in spring, whereas higher areas are flooded irregularly. The most abundant trees include silver maple (Acer saccharinum), ashes (Fraxinus pensylvanica, F. nigra, F. americana), red maple, elms (Ulmus americana, U. rubra), hickories (Carya cordiformis, C. ovata, C. laciniosa), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), oaks (Quercus bicolor, Q. palustris), and river birch (Betula nigra) (Edinger et al. 2014). The most abundant shrubs in this community type include ironwood (Carpinus carolinianus), speckled alder (Alnus incana ssp. rugosa), dogwoods, and various viburnum species (Viburnum spp.). Herbaceous vegetation commonly found in this community type include sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), jewelweeds (Impatiens capensis, I. pallida), ostrich fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris), and goldenrods (Solidago spp.). As noted in Edinger et al. 2014, the composition of the forest changes in relation to flood frequency and elevation of floodplain terraces along larger rivers.

2018 Black Brook Dam Environmental Reconnaissance

In June 2018, a site reconnaissance was performed to evaluate and document the aquatic and terrestrial environment in the immediate vicinity (approximately 200 yards upstream and 100 yards downstream) of Black Brook Dam. Black Brook Dam is located in a rural area dominated by forested land consisting primarily of deciduous forest, evergreen forest, and mixed forest. The two major vegetation communities that were found to occur in the vicinity of the study area included successional northern hardwoods and floodplain forest. The vegetation cover types in the vicinity of the Black Brook Dam are shown in Figure E.7-39.


E-180

FIGURE E.7-39 COVER TYPE MAPPING OF NATURAL COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE VICINITY OF BLACK BROOK DAM


E-181

A list of the plant species identified in the vicinity of Black Brook Dam is provided in Table E.7-67.

TABLE E.7-67 PLANTS IDENTIFIED IN THE VICINITY OF BLACK BROOK DAM


Canada thistle Cirsium arvense True forget-me-knot* Myosotis scorpioides Japanese knotweed* Fallopia japonica Japanese stiltgrass* Microstegium vimineum White pine* Pinus strobus Eastern hemlock* Tsuga canadensis Tussock sedge* Carex stricta Wood nettle Laportea canadensis Wild strawberry Fragaria vesca Riverbank grape Vitis riparia Spotted jewelweed* Impatiens capensis Deer-tounge grass* Dichanthelium clandestinum Soft rush Juncus effusus Ironwood Ostrya virginiana Sensitive fern* Onoclea sensibilis Sallow sedge* Carex lurida Japanese barberry* Berberis thunbergii Fringed sedge Carex crinita Northern blue flag Iris versicolor Tall meadow rue Thalictrum pubescens Broadleaf meadowsweet Spiraea latifolia Great mullein Verbascum thapsus Broom sedge Carex scoparia Halberdleaf tearthumb Polygonum arifolium Mountain laurel* Kalmia latifolia Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans Hay-scented fern Dennstaedtia punctilobula Bladder sedge Carex intumescens Fringed sedge Carex crinita New York fern* Thelypteris noveboracensis Red maple Acer rubrum Goldenrods Solidago spp. Red oak Quercus rubra Hornbeam Carpinus caroliniana Species considered to be dominant in the vicinity of the Black Brook Dam are indicated with an asterisk (*).

E.7.4.1.3 Invasive Plant Species

Invasive species are defined as non-indigenous plant or animal species that aggressively compete with native species. These species often out-compete local native species, impacting biodiversity, recreation, and human health. Invasive plants tend to appear on disturbed ground, and the most aggressive have the ability to invade existing ecosystems.


E-182

Non-native invasive species and noxious weeds are typically prolific pioneering species that have the ability to quickly outcompete native vegetation. They grow rapidly, mature early, and effectively spread seeds that can survive for significant periods in the soil until site conditions are favorable for growth.

Invasive plant species are very prevalent throughout the Mongaup River Basin, and have been observed in abundance along the banks of the Mongaup River, Black Brook, Black Lake Creek and bordering some of the vegetation communities within the Projects’ vicinity. Specifically, as part of the 2018 Wetland Study, seven plant species, which are designated as invasive or non-native species (NYSDEC 2014b, Catskill Regional Invasive Species Partnership [CRISP] undated), were documented in the Projects’ vicinity:

• Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) • Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) • Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) • Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) • Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) • Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) • Phragmites (Phragmites australis)

Invasive plant species in the Projects’ vicinity exhibit two patterns of occurrence; localized and widespread as described below. Given that the majority of the observed invasive species occurring in the Projects’ vicinity were predominantly widespread, most invasive species observations were not mapped.

Localized invasive plant species were observed to generally exist as individual groups and their distribution is considered to be more restricted within the study area. Some species have a propensity to occur as relatively large, dense clusters and as individual plants or as groups of thinly dispersed plants. These species include multiflora rose, oriental bittersweet, garlic mustard, and phragmites. For example, multiflora rose was observed along the Mongaup River below the Rio Dam occurring in relatively small, localized, dense clumps. Additionally, oriental bittersweet occurred sporadically throughout forested cover types bordering sections of Black Lake Creek downstream of Toronto Dam. Phragmites was observed growing along the upper margin of an emergent wetland at the public boat launch located off Moscoe Road. Additionally, a small patch of Phragmites was also observed along the western shoreline of the Rio Reservoir. Widespread invasive plant species are described by their general range of distribution within the study area and are considered to be widespread invasive species both within the study area and this region of New York. These species include Japanese knotweed, Japanese barberry, and Japanese stiltgrass. These invasive plant species have the propensity to occur as relatively large, dense stands and can occur as individual plants or as groups of thinly dispersed plants. The presence of these species in the study area was most notable along riparian and floodplain habitats, along the edges of forested habitat, along roadways, and within/adjacent to recreation areas. Japanese stiltgrass was the most pervasive species being found in near-monocultures at some locations and in a variety of habitats. Dense growth of Japanese stiltgrass was observed in areas along stream courses, access paths, and unpaved roadways within the Projects’ vicinity. Japanese barberry was also widely distributed throughout the study area in dense patches, predominantly on river and stream banks, gravel/cobble bars, in emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands, and along the upland/riparian interfaces of rivers and streams within the study area. It also occurred as discrete smaller patches within larger, typically forested plant communities bordering the Mongaup River and other streams within the study area.


E-183

E.7.4.1.4 Wetland, Riparian, and Littoral Habitats

Wetlands are generally defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Most formal wetland definitions emphasize three primary components that define wetlands: the presence of water, unique soils, and hydrophytic vegetation.

Riparian habitats are areas that support vegetation found along waterways such as lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and streams. The boundary of the riparian area and the adjoining uplands is gradual and not always well defined. However, riparian areas differ from the uplands because of their high levels of soil moisture, frequency of flooding, and unique assemblage of plant and animal communities (Virginia State University 2000). These habitats can range from mature forests to areas covered by emergent vegetation and shrubs. Riparian habitats are unique because of their linear form and because they process large fluxes of energy and materials from upstream systems (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Riparian areas and the associated vegetation provide important habitat for wildlife and often contain a higher number of species, both plant and animal, than surrounding upland areas due to the proximity to water. These areas are also important avian habitats for resident and migratory birds. Riparian habitats typically function as travel corridors for migratory wildlife species. The riparian zone serves as the primary interface between riverine and upland habitats, influencing both the primary productivity and food resources within a river. Primary wildlife resources associated with riparian habitats include early spring plant growth in lowland riparian habitats, which provide food sources for migrating birds, black bear, and white-tailed deer.

2018 Wetlands Survey Study

Eagle Creek conducted a Wetland Study to identify and characterize wetland, riparian, and littoral habitats in the Projects’ area. The methods and results of the Wetland Study are presented in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.

The Wetland Study was designed to verify the USFWS NWI- and NYSDEC-mapped wetlands within the study area, document observed discrepancies of NWI/NYSDEC-mapped wetlands, document the type and location of unmapped wetlands observed during the survey, and document observed invasive plant species.

Based on satellite imagery, NWI and NYSDEC wetland data, and from the results of the Wetland Study conducted in 2018, extensive wetland communities are generally lacking within the study area. The NWI and NYSDEC-mapped wetland boundaries within the study area were found to generally represent the correct classifications and areal extents. During ground-truthing of the NWI and NYSDEC-mapped wetlands, approximately 75.53 acres of additional wetlands were observed and mapped as indicated on the figures provided in the Wetland Study Report included in the ISR previously filed with the Commission. The wetland types observed in the study area were reflective of the natural community expectations for this area and typical of an eastern environment.

Three major types of wetland habitat systems occur in the study area:

• Open-water lacustrine systems of the Projects’ reservoirs (approximately 2,405 acres); • Palustrine wetland systems dominated by trees, shrubs, emergent vegetation, or unconsolidated

bottom located within the study area (approximately 109 acres); and


E-184

• Riverine systems consisting of open-channel habitats along the Mongaup River and the other streams and brooks included in the study area (approximately 88 acres).

The most commonly observed palustrine NWI-mapped wetlands within the study area include emergent wetlands. Some of the largest emergent wetland habitat areas occur near the shorelines of the Projects’ reservoirs. This study found that riparian habitat is also present in relatively large amounts adjacent to the Mongaup River and the other streams and brooks associated with the Projects. Riverine and lacustrine wetlands are the most common of the non-palustrine wetlands and emergent and scrub-shrub are the most common palustrine wetlands in the study area. Table E.7-68 provides mapping code descriptions for the NWI codes found on the wetland base maps. NWI-mapped wetlands account for approximately 2,527 acres of wetlands within the study area and include lacustrine, riverine, and palustrine (emergent, scrub-shrub, forested, and unconsolidated bottom) wetland types. One NYSDEC-mapped emergent wetland accounts for approximately 9.82 acres within the study area. Approximately 75.53 acres of wetlands were identified that were not reflected on the existing NWI or NYSDEC wetland mapping or were incorrectly classified/mapped by NWI/NYSDEC. Most of the NWI and NYSDEC mapped wetland boundaries overlay each other, therefore NWI wetland acreages are presented in Table E.7-68. Wetland types as described by the USFWS within the Projects’ area are summarized below.

Function and values assessments were performed for the five most common wetland types in the study area to determine the principal functions and values provided by each of these habitats. Study area wetlands provide almost all of the 13 functions and values evaluated by the Wetlands Functions and Values: A Descriptive Approach described in The Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement (Supplement) (USACE 2015); however, not all of them occurred at a principal level. Widely occurring principal functions consisted of flood flow alteration, fish habitat, sediment/toxicant retention, nutrient removal, sediment/shoreline stabilization, and wildlife habitat. Occurring less commonly at a principal level were the groundwater recharge/discharge and production export functions and the visual quality/aesthetics value. The educational/scientific and uniqueness/heritage values were not determined to occur at a principal level in any of the study area wetlands. Emergent and forested wetlands provide the most functions at a principal level in the study area followed by scrub-shrub, lacustrine, and riverine. The palustrine wetland types provide many of the same functions at principal levels.

TABLE E.7-68 WETLAND CLASSIFICATIONS OCCURRING IN THE STUDY AREA

Map Code System Subsystem Class Subclass

Water Regime/Chemistry/Special

Modifiers

NWI- Mapped

Wetlands (Acres)1

Eagle Creek-

Mapped Wetlands (Acres)1

R3UBH Riverine Upper Perennial

Unconsolidated Bottom

-- Permanently Flooded 72.36 N/A

R5UBH Riverine Unknown Perennial

Unconsolidated Bottom

-- Permanently Flooded 7.51 N/A

R4SBC Riverine Intermittent Streambed -- Seasonally Flooded 7.31 N/A R3USA Riverine Upper

Perennial Unconsolidated

Shore -- Temporarily Flooded 0.41 N/A

L1UBHh Lacustrine Limnetic Unconsolidated Bottom

-- Permanently Flooded/Diked/Impounded

1,843.08 12.93


E-185



Modifiers

NWI- Mapped

Wetlands (Acres)1

Eagle Creek-


L1UBH Lacustrine Limnetic Unconsolidated Bottom

-- Permanently Flooded N/A 1.70

L2USA Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Shore

-- Temporarily Flooded 2.85 N/A

L2USAh Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Shore

-- Temporarily Flooded/Diked/Impounded

4.26 N/A

L2USCh Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Shore

-- Seasonally Flooded/Diked/Impounded

540.37 N/A

PEM1Ah Palustrine -- Emergent Persistent Temporarily Flooded/Diked/Impounded

5.95 N/A

PEM1Ch Palustrine -- Emergent Persistent Seasonally Flooded/Diked/Impounded

2.19 N/A

PEM1Eb Palustrine -- Emergent Persistent Seasonally Flooded/Saturated/Beaver

7.69 N/A

PEM1Eh Palustrine -- Emergent Persistent Seasonally Flooded/Saturated/Diked/

Impounded

9.29 N/A

PEM1E Palustrine -- Emergent Persistent Seasonally Flooded/Saturated

N/A 21.28

PEM1C Palustrine -- Emergent Persistent Seasonally Flooded N/A 0.22 PEM1B Palustrine -- Emergent Persistent Seasonally Saturated N/A 8.96 PEM1A Palustrine -- Emergent Persistent Temporarily Flooded N/A 0.22 PFO1A Palustrine -- Forested Broad-

Leaved Deciduous

Temporarily Flooded 5.78 0.50

PFO1C Palustrine -- Forested Broad-Leaved

Deciduous

Seasonally Flooded N/A 1.78

PFO1Ch Palustrine -- Forested Broad-Leaved

Deciduous

Seasonally Flooded/Diked/ Impounded

1.45 N/A

PFO1E Palustrine -- Forested Broad-Leaved

Deciduous

Seasonally Flooded/Saturated

10.28 3.62

PFO1J Palustrine -- Forested Broad-Leaved

Deciduous

Intermittently Flooded N/A 0.08

PSS1A Palustrine -- Scrub-Shrub Broad-Leaved

Deciduous

Temporarily Flooded N/A 0.26

PSS1B Palustrine -- Scrub-Shrub Broad-Leaved

Deciduous

Seasonally Saturated N/A 5.47

PSS1C Palustrine -- Scrub-Shrub Broad-Leaved

Deciduous

Seasonally Flooded N/A 1.47


E-186



Modifiers

NWI- Mapped

Wetlands (Acres)1

Eagle Creek-


PSS1Ch Palustrine -- Scrub-Shrub Broad-Leaved

Deciduous

Seasonally Flooded/Diked/ Impounded

2.74 0.41

PSS1E Palustrine -- Scrub-Shrub Broad-Leaved

Deciduous

Seasonally Flooded/Saturated

N/A 7.34

PSS1F Palustrine -- Scrub-Shrub Broad-Leaved

Deciduous

Semipermanently Flooded N/A 8.80

PUBH Palustrine -- Unconsolidated Bottom

-- Permanently Flooded 0.14 0.33

PUBHh Palustrine -- Unconsolidated Bottom

-- Permanently Flooded/ Diked/Impounded

3.44 N/A

PUB1G Palustrine -- Unconsolidated Bottom

Cobble-Gravel

Intermittently Exposed N/A 0.15

PUB1H Palustrine -- Unconsolidated Bottom

Cobble-Gravel

Permanently Flooded N/A 0.01

PUBF Palustrine -- Unconsolidated Bottom

-- Semipermanently Flooded N/A 0.02

PWP2 Palustrine -- -- -- Seasonally Flooded/Saturated

N/A N/A

Total Acreage 2,527.10 75.53 Sources: USFWS 2018, NYSGIS Clearinghouse undated-b. 1 Wetland acreage as contained within the study area. 2 PWP = Potential Woodland Pool (small seasonal open-water body; pools or dry depressions in the landscape that appear to have the potential to meet the definition of a woodland pool).

Open-Water Wetland Habitat

Open-water areas are well represented in and adjacent to the Projects’ area, and the Projects’ reservoirs are examples of these open-water wetland habitats. The Mongaup Falls Reservoir has a relatively simple shoreline when compared to the coves, points, and greater water depths of the more complex Swinging Bridge and Toronto reservoirs. Fringe lacustrine wetlands are limited in some sections of the Projects’ reservoirs by the presence of relatively steep banks. According to Cowardin et al. 1979, the Projects’ reservoirs are classified as L1UBHh (lacustrine, limnetic, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded, diked/impounded).

Riparian Hardwood

Typically, dominant canopy species in this cover type include red maple (Acer rubrum), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), red oak (Quercus rubra), American elm (Ulmus americana), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana). Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), speckled alder (Alnus incana ssp. rugosa), and Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) were often common in the understory, and cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), ostrich fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), fowl mannagrass (Glyceria striata), Canada mayflower (Maianthemum canadense), and blue vervain (Verbena hastata) were abundant in the herbaceous layer. These forests appeared to be


E-187

flooded on a seasonal or annual basis. The majority of riparian hardwood areas evaluated as part of the wetland study were at a mid-successional stage, with most trees at an intermediate age and height, a few large trees, and a generally moderate shrub and sapling layer. The canopy reached heights of 40 to 90 feet and canopy closures ranged from 40 to 75 percent. As evidence of riverine influence on these communities, fine natural debris and leaf litter was often absent or sparse in areas subject to periodic flooding but was replaced by alluvial sediment deposits. Coarse litter was abundant in some locations in the form of trees, limbs, and other wrack washed in during high water events.

The creation and operation of the Projects’ has allowed the development of riparian habitat. The 2018 wetlands study found that riparian habitat was present in relatively large amounts adjacent to the Projects’ reservoirs. Additionally, some relatively large tracts of riparian habitat are associated with the Mongaup River, Black Lake Creek, and Black Brook. These areas supported a wide variety of communities on the small islands, rocky slopes, and floodplains that formed by natural river flows and sedimentation. The areas had a mixture of forests, forested wetlands, scrub-shrub wetlands, and emergent wetlands. Based on the results of the Wetlands Study, which are provided in the ISR, and the Projects’ Project boundaries, one can compare the locations of established riparian habitat areas with the boundaries.

Floodplain Forest

Floodplain forests within the study area occur on mineral soils on low terraces of river and stream floodplains. These sites are characterized by their flood regime; low areas are annually flooded in spring and high areas are flooded irregularly. Some sites may be quite dry by late summer, whereas other sites may be flooded again in late summer or early autumn. According to Edinger et al. (2014), this is a broadly defined community that illustrates high variability and diversity. Characteristic canopy species include silver maple (Acer saccharinum), red maple, box elder (A. negundo), American elm, sycamore, and hickories (Carya cordiformis, C. ovata, and C. laciniosa). Characteristic shrubs include American hornbeam, speckled alder, silky dogwood, and sapling canopy species. Characteristic herbs include sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), jewelweeds (Impatiens capensis, I. pallida), ostrich fern, white snakeroot (Ageratina altissima var. altissima), wood nettle (Laportea canadensis), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), and goldenrods (Solidago spp.) (Edinger et al. 2014). The majority of floodplain forest areas observed during the wetland study were at a mid-successional stage, with most trees at an intermediate age and height, a few large trees, and a generally limited shrub and sapling layer. The composition of these forested areas changes in relation to flood frequency and elevation of floodplain terraces within the study area. The canopy reached heights of 40 to 90 feet and canopy closures ranged from 40 to 70 percent.

Several areas within the wetlands study area are representative of floodplain forest; although, no significant large tracts of floodplain forest were observed during the wetland study. One relatively large contiguous tract of floodplain forest was observed on the Toronto Reservoir located across from the boat launch in the northern portion of the reservoir off of Moscoe Road. This area is located northeast of the boat launch on the eastern side of the reservoir near the confluence of Black Lake Creek where it flows into the northern portion of the reservoir. This area contained large areas of water-stained leaves and was dominated by red maple trees.

Scattered areas of floodplain forest were also located along Black Lake Creek below Toronto Dam to the confluence of Cliff Lake Reservoir. Similarly, scattered areas of floodplain forest were also observed along the shorelines of Black Lake Creek from below Cliff Lake Dam to the confluence with the Mongaup River. These areas of floodplain forest are found in relatively thin bands along the shorelines of Black Lake Creek and


E-188

occurred intermittently within these areas. The Mongaup River within the wetlands study area also contained some stretches of floodplain forest occurring on the mineral soils and low terraces. One notable area is located in the southern portion of the wetlands study area, but well downstream of the Rio Project boundary, approximately one mile upstream of the confluence with the Delaware River. This area was located on a low terrace within the river channel which exhibited varying flooding regimes; lower areas were saturated/inundated with water and had some scattered emergent/aquatic wetland species while the higher areas near the top of the terrace contained more faculatative wetland species (e.g., red maple) and some upland tree species (e.g., red oak).

Palustrine Emergent Wetlands

Palustrine emergent wetlands within the study area occur primarily as fringe wetlands along portions of the Projects’ reservoirs and along the shorelines of the Mongaup River, Black Lake Creek, and Black Brook. Some of these areas do not clearly fit into a natural community type and are small inclusions of variation resembling the Cobble Shore Wet Meadow community, which is a community that occurs on the cobble shores of lakes and streams where the substrate is moist from seepage or intermittent flooding (Edinger et al. 2014). The substrate in many of these cobble shore emergent wetlands within the study area was dominated by a mixture of cobbles and coarse gravel, with some areas of sand. Several emergent aquatic communities also occur in shaded backwater areas associated primarily with the Toronto and Swinging Bridge reservoirs. These wetlands are found in thin bands along the shorelines of some of the reservoirs underneath overhanging tree branches where there are silty and mucky substrates.

Dominant species within these wetlands include sensitive fern, cinnamon fern, fringed sedge (Carex crinita), pointed broom sedge (C. scoparia), shallow sedge (C. lurida), common fox sedge (C. vulpinoidea), tussock sedge (C. stricta), spotted Saint John's-wort (Hypericum punctatum), spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), spotted joe-pye weed (Eutrochium maculatum), broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), true forget-me-knot (Myosotis scorpioides), and royal fern (Osmunda regalis). Invasive non-native species such as Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) and Japanese barberry were also observed in varying densities along the upland boundaries within some of the evaluated emergent wetlands. Emergent wetlands were typically located within one to two feet of the estimated high water levels along the Projects’ reservoirs and were typically saturated or subject to frequent flooding. Litter was minimal to moderate at some sites and was composed of small amounts of herbaceous material and woody debris forming a drift deposit line.

Palustrine Forested Wetlands

Palustrine forested wetlands were generally evenly distributed across the study area and were generally found in medium to large tracts in backwaters, along some point bars on the Mongaup River, along Black Lake Creek upstream of the Cliff Lake Reservoir, and in the lower reaches of some tributary streams located within the study area. These areas are often inundated during the spring by high water.

Dominant overstory species include red maple, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm, and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis). Characteristic shrub species include winterberry (Ilex verticillata), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), common elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. canadensis), and various shrubby dogwoods (Cornus sericea, C. racemosa, and C. amomum). Herbaceous vegetation includes sensitive fern, ostrich fern, blue flag iris (Iris versicolor), clearweed (Pilea pumila), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), royal fern, marsh fern (Thelypteris palustris), tall meadow rue (Thalictrum pubescens), and poison ivy. The palustrine forested wetlands were at an early to mid-successional stage. Canopy species reached heights of 50


E-189

to 70 feet and canopy closures ranged widely from 30 to 80 percent. Most of this cover type appeared to be periodically flooded; however, some of these wetlands were located at slightly higher elevations and were less likely to be flooded on a frequent or routine basis.

Palustrine Scrub-shrub Wetlands

Palustrine scrub-shrub wetland types often occur in association with larger emergent or forested wetland complexes. The shrub wetlands occur along the fringes of emergent wetlands or intermixed in open canopy areas adjacent to or within forested communities. Within the study area, a large majority of palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands occur primarily as fringe wetlands along portions of the Projects’ reservoirs. Dominant shrub vegetation within these wetlands includes speckled alder, button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), winterberry, red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), silky dogwood, high bush blueberry, broad-leaf meadow sweet (Spiraea latifolia), and steeplebush (S. tomentosa). Herbaceous vegetation varies depending on light penetration, but may include sensitive fern, horsetails (Equisetum spp.), spotted touch-me-not, ostrich fern, royal fern, cinnamon fern, interrupted fern (Osmunda claytonia), and various sedge species (Carex spp.). This cover type was frequently located slightly higher in elevation above the emergent wetland areas, but still showed signs of frequent inundation as exhibited by multiple wrack lines and water stains on lower trunks and leaves. Along primarily the Toronto, Swinging Bridge, and Cliff Lake reservoirs, the scrub-shrub cover type often formed a band between emergent wetland habitat and the upland or forested wetland. On average, estimated percent cover for scrub-shrub vegetation ranged from 20-75 percent.


The Commission’s SD2 identified the following potential resource effects relating to terrestrial resources for the Projects:

• Effects of continued Project operation, including reservoir fluctuations, on riparian and wetland habitat and associated wildlife, including waterfowl, wetland-dependent birds, and aquatic reptiles and amphibians.

• Effects of the Projects on upland wildlife habitat (including herpetofauna) and associated wildlife including avian electrocution and collision with transmission lines.

• Effects of the Projects on invasive terrestrial plan and animal species.

The wildlife, botanical, and wetland resources associated with the Projects have developed under the current conditions and were generally found to be stable, mature, and well established. Based on the field studies performed in 2018, there was no evidence of any ongoing adverse effects to riparian or wetland resources, waterfowl, wetland dependent birds, or aquatic reptiles or amphibians due to operations of the Projects. The wildlife, botanical, and wetland resources associated with the Projects provide a robust and healthy habitat for terrestrial species associated with the Projects’ areas. Additionally, operations of the Projects appear to have very little, if any, effect on the upland wildlife habitat or resources within and bordering the boundaries of the Projects. Eagle Creek has not observed avian electrocution or collision with the two overhead transmission lines at the Projects.


Eagle Creek proposes continued operations of the Projects along with the development of an Invasive Plant Species Management Plan that will have a focus on construction activities (which are not currently proposed,


E-190

but could occur at a future date) for the Projects to be filed with the Commission within 1 year of the license issuance.


Continued operation of the Projects as proposed by Eagle Creek is not anticipated to result in unavoidable adverse impacts to terrestrial resources.

E.7.5 Rare, Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species

The subsections below describe rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) species as well as certain protected species anticipated to occur in the Projects’ area (i.e., bald eagle) and consider the effects of continued operation of the Projects as proposed by Eagle Creek on these resources. Descriptions of the affected environment, environmental analysis, proposed environmental measures, and identification of unavoidable adverse effects were developed based on available data presented in the PAD, ISR, and USR previously filed with the Commission, including the Special-Status Species Study, Wetland Study, Aquatic Habitat Assessment Study, Fisheries Study, and Macroinvertebrate and Mussel Survey Study.


To assess the potential occurrence of RTE species and significant habitats in the Projects’ area, Eagle Creek consulted several resources. Via letter dated December 2, 2016, Eagle Creek requested the identification of existing, relevant, and reasonably available information related to the Projects, including RTE species information. On February 14, 2017, HDR, on behalf of Eagle Creek, submitted a request for threatened and endangered species information via email to the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP). On February 16, 2017, NYNHP responded to this data request and provided a report of rare or state-listed animals and plants occurring in the Projects’ vicinity. Subsequently, in order to obtain updated information and more detailed species/suitable habitat occurrence information, Eagle Creek consulted with the National Park Service (NPS), USFWS, NYSDEC, and NYNHP via letters dated May 16, 2018. Via letters dated June 14, 2018, and June 26, 2018, the NYNHP and the USFWS provided the requested information, respectively.

Based on the information received from the USFWS, NYSDEC, and NYNHP, Eagle Creek compiled information regarding the habitat requirements and life history for the identified special-status species that may occur in the study area. Subsequently, Eagle Creek evaluated the record locations of special-status species identified through resource agency consultation in relation to the Projects’ boundaries. Based on the results of the consultation, habitat/life history evaluation, and mapping activities, Eagle Creek performed field surveys for the species in which record locations or species-specific habitat exists within the study area, and where Project operations, maintenance, land management, or use of formal recreation areas may affect the species. A summary of the results of the aforementioned evaluation is provided in Table E.7-69.


E-191

TABLE E.7-69 LIST OF RTE SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECTS

Species

Federal Status State Status NYNHP Status

Potential Habitat

Present in Study Area

Species Potentially

Present in the Study Area

Field Survey Required Common Name

Latin Name

Dwarf Wedgemussel

Alasmidonta heterodon

Endangered Endangered -- Yes Yes Yes. Mussel surveys were performed pursuant to the Mussel Study.

Northeastern bulrush

Scirpus ancistrochaetus

Endangered Endangered -- Yes Yes Yes, pursuant to June 26, 2018 letter from USFWS.

Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis Endangered Endangered -- Yes Yes No. No tree clearing proposed; therefore, no direct Project effect and no field survey required.

Northern Long-eared

Bat

Myotis septentrionalis

Threatened Threatened -- Yes Yes No. No tree clearing proposed; therefore, no direct Project effect and no field survey required.

Bog turtle Glyptemys muhlenbergii

Threatened Endangered -- No No No, per June 26, 2018 letter, USFWS does not expect suitable habitat in the Projects’ areas and, therefore, does not recommend field surveys for this species.

Small Whorled Pogonia

Isotria medeoloides

Threatened Endangered -- Yes Yes Yes, pursuant to June 26, 2018 letter from USFWS.

Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa

Under Review Threatened -- Yes Yes Yes. Mussel surveys were performed pursuant to the Mussel Study.

Swamp Buttercup

Ranunculus septentrionalis

var. nitidus

Not Listed Endangered Critically Imperiled

Yes Yes Yes, pursuant to species occurrence information provided by NYNHP.

Riverbank Quillwort

Isoetes riparia Not Listed Endangered Critically Imperiled

Yes No No. No direct Project effect anticipated and, therefore, no field survey required.

Peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus MBTA Endangered -- Yes Yes No. However during the bald eagle surveys, field staff looked for peregrine falcon nests or observations.

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos

BGEPA; MBTA Endangered -- Yes Yes Yes. Golden eagle surveys were performed pursuant to the separate Bald Eagle Study.

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

BGEPA; MBTA Threatened -- Yes Yes Yes. Bald eagle surveys were performed pursuant to the separate Bald Eagle Study.

Timber Rattlesnake

Crotalus horridus Not Listed Threatened -- Yes Yes No. No direct Project effect anticipated and, therefore, no field survey required.


E-192

Species


Potential Habitat


Species Potentially



Latin Name

Dwarf Sand-cherry

Prunus pumila var. depressa

Not Listed Threatened Imperiled Yes No No. No direct Project effect anticipated and, therefore, no field survey required.

Cerulean warbler

Setophaga cerulea

MBTA Species of Special

Concern

-- Yes Yes No. No tree clearing proposed; therefore, no direct Project effect and no field survey required.

Red-headed woodpecker

Melanerpes erythrocephalus

MBTA Species of Special

Concern

-- Yes Yes No. No tree clearing proposed; therefore, no direct Project effect and no field survey required.

Delaware River Clubtail

Gomphus septima

delawarensis

Not Listed Species of Special

Concern

Critically Imperiled

Yes Yes Yes. Macroinvertebrate surveys were performed pursuant to the separate Macroinvertebrate Study.

Green-faced Clubtail

Gomphus viridifrons

Not Listed Not Listed Critically Imperiled


Rapids Clubtail Gomphus quadricolor

Not Listed Not Listed Vulnerable Yes Yes Yes. Macroinvertebrate surveys were performed pursuant to the separate Macroinvertebrate Study.

Southern Pygmy Clubtail

Lanthus vernalis Not Listed Not Listed Critically Imperiled


Spine-crowned Clubtail

Gomphus abbreviatus



Blacknose Shiner

Notropis heterolepis

Not Listed Not Listed Imperiled Yes Yes Yes. Fish surveys were performed pursuant to the Fisheries Study.

Alewife Floater

Anodonta implicata


Yes Yes Yes. Mussel surveys were performed pursuant to the Mussel Study.

Black-capped chickadee

Poecile atricapillus

MBTA Not Listed -- Yes Yes No. No tree clearing proposed; therefore, no direct Project effect and no field survey required.

Canada warbler

Cardellina canadensis



E-193

Species


Potential Habitat


Species Potentially



Latin Name

Prairie warbler Setophaga discolor


Wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina


Yellow-bellied sapsucker

Sphyrapicus varius



E-194

E.7.5.1.1 Federal-listed Species

Information provided by the USFWS indicated there are five federally-listed species that occur or may occur in the vicinity of the Projects, including dwarf wedgemussel, Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, northeastern bulrush, and small whorled pogonia. Additionally, bog turtle is a federally listed species in New York, but the USFWS indicated that there is no suitable habitat in the Projects’ area.

Of the five federally-listed species, Eagle Creek performed field surveys for dwarf wedgemussel, northern bulrush, and small whorled pogonia in the Projects’ area. As described in the ISR and USR previously filed with the Commission, no specimens of northeastern bulrush, small whorled pogonia, or dwarf wedgemussel were identified during the field surveys. Additionally, no suitable habitat was identified for northeastern bulrush. Suitable habitat was identified for small whorled pogonia in portions of each site surveyed for this species; however, given the location of these areas relative to the Projects, Project operations, maintenance, or land use activities are not anticipated to affect these areas.

Northern Long-Eared Bat

The northern long-eared bat is found across much of eastern and north-central United States and all Canadian provinces from the Atlantic Ocean west to the southern Yukon Territory and British Columbia. It is a medium-sized bat, measuring 3.0 to 3.7 inches, with a wingspan of 9 or 10 inches. Its fur color can be medium to dark brown on the back and tawny to pale-brown on the underside (USFWS 2015). The bat is distinguished by its longer ears relative to other bats in the genus Myotis (USFWS 2015).

The northern long-eared bat spends winters hibernating in caves and mines, preferring hibernacula with very high humidity. During the summer months, the northern long-eared bat prefers to roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in the crevices of live or dead trees. Breeding begins in late summer or early fall when males swarm near hibernacula. After a delayed fertilization, pregnant females migrate to summer colonies where they roost and give birth to a single pup. Young bats start flying 18 to 21 days after birth, and adult northern long-eared bats can live up to 19 years (USFWS 2015).

The most severe and immediate threat to the northern long-eared bat is white-nose syndrome. As a result of this disease, numbers have declined by 99 percent in the northeast. Other significant sources of mortality include impacts to hibernacula from human disturbance. Loss or degradation of summer habitat as a result of highway or commercial development, timber management, surface mining, and wind facility construction and operation can also contribute to mortality (USFWS 2015).

No Biological Opinions have been developed by the USFWS for the northern long-eared bat in the Projects’ area. In addition, no status reports or recovery plans were located for this species in the vicinity of the Projects. The USFWS has not designated critical habitat for the northern long-eared bat in the vicinity of the Projects.

Based on consultation with the USFWS and NYSDEC, there are no known hibernacula or roosting trees for northern long-eared bat in the immediate vicinity of the Projects’ facilities.

Indiana Bat

Indiana bats are found over most of the eastern half of the United States. Almost half of all Indiana bats (207,000 in 2005) hibernate in caves in southern Indiana. In 2005, other states which supported populations


E-195

of over 40,000 included Missouri (65,000), Kentucky (62,000), Illinois (43,000), and New York (42,000). Other states within the current range of the Indiana bat include Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. The 2005 population estimate is about 457,000 Indiana bats, half as many as when the species was listed as endangered in 1967 (USFWS 2016).

Indiana bats are vulnerable to disturbance because they hibernate in large numbers in only a few caves (the largest hibernation caves support from 20,000 to 50,000 bats). Indiana bats hibernate during winter in caves or, occasionally, in abandoned mines. For hibernation, they require cool, humid caves with stable temperatures, under 50° F but above freezing. Very few caves within the range of the species have these conditions. Other threats that have contributed to the Indiana bat's decline include commercialization of caves, loss of summer habitat, pesticides and other contaminants, and most recently, the white-nose syndrome disease (USFWS 2016).

Indiana bats are quite small, weighing only one-quarter of an ounce (about the weight of three pennies); although, in flight they have a wingspan of 9 to 11 inches. Their fur is dark-brown to black. They hibernate during winter in caves or, occasionally, in abandoned mines. During summer they roost under the peeling bark of dead and dying trees. Indiana bats eat a variety of flying insects found along rivers or lakes and in uplands (USFWS 2016).

No Biological Opinions have been developed by the USFWS for the Indiana bat in the Projects’ area. In addition, no status reports or recovery plans were located for this species in the vicinity of the Projects. The USFWS has not designated critical habitat for the Indiana bat in the vicinity of the Projects.

Based on consultation with the USFWS and NYSDEC, there are no known hibernacula or roosting trees for Indiana bat in the immediate vicinity of the Projects’ facilities.

Dwarf Wedgemussel

The dwarf wedgemussel was listed as endangered by the USFWS in 1990 (USFWS 2017) and is currently found at 17 sites within seven Atlantic Coast drainages located in New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, Maryland , Virginia, and North Carolina (NYSDEC 2017). There are no historical or current documented records of the dwarf wedgemussel occurring in the Mongaup River, Black Lake Creek, or Black Brook. The closest known occurrences of the dwarf wedgemussel to the Mongaup River Projects are in the Neversink River (a tributary to the Delaware River located approximately 8 river miles downstream from the Mongaup River confluence with the Delaware River), the Delaware River mainstem at Callicoon (approximately 45 river miles upstream of the Mongaup River confluence) and between Shawnee and Philadelphia (approximately 50 river miles downstream of the Mongaup River confluence), Pennsylvania (NPS 2020).

The dwarf wedgemussel is a small freshwater mussel that is typically 1.5 inches or less in length at maximum age. Shells can be greenish-brown with green rays when young, turning to darker black or brown with age. The dwarf wedgemussel has atypical lateral dentition, opposite of other mussel species with two lateral teeth in the right valve and on in the left (USFWS 1993).

Although dwarf wedgemussel inhabits a variety of river and stream sizes from small tributaries to large order rivers, it mostly prefers smaller substrates including silt, sand and gravel and is often found in areas along logs or root mats (USFWS 1993). Dwarf wedgemussel spawning appears to be similar to other mussel species with


E-196

males discharging sperm, which are then taken up by the female via siphoning. The eggs are subsequently fertilized on the gills of the female. They are considered long-term breeders as fertilization occurs in mid-summer or fall while the release of glochidia may not be until late fall or winter (USFWS 1993). Tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), Johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum), and Mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi) are known to be the primary hosts for the released glochidia.

The most severe and immediate threat to the dwarf wedgemussel is pollution, sedimentation, impoundments, habitat fragmentation, artificial flow regimes, riparian disturbance, and climate change. These factors can affect both the dwarf wedgemussel and its fish hosts. These factors in addition to a short life span, low fecundity, a high degree of host specificity, and low existing populations have resulted in a reduction from historically documented 70 locations in 15 Atlantic Coast drainages to the current status (USFWS 2017).

No Biological Opinions have been developed by the USFWS for the dwarf wedgemussel in the Projects’ area; however, biological opinions for dwarf wedgemussel have been developed for unrelated projects in New Hampshire, Connecticut, Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York. Aside from internet-based fact sheets, updated status reports for this species are not known to occur. In 1993 the USFWS, Northeast Region developed a Dwarf Wedgemussel Recovery Plan that outlines the status, habitat requirements, limiting factors, recovery objectives and criteria, and actions needed.

No USFWS designated critical habitat for the dwarf wedgemussel has been identified.

In 2018, Eagle Creek performed a species-specific survey for the dwarf wedgemussel in the Mongaup River from Rio Dam to the Delaware River confluence consistent with a request by the USFWS and pursuant to the Commission’s SPD. No live freshwater mussels or shell material of any species were found during this survey (Eagle Creek 2019).

Northeastern Bulrush

Northeastern bulrush was listed as endangered by the USFWS in May of 1991. It is a non-showy obligate wetland plant that occurs in isolated areas across seven states in the northeast as its name suggests. It occurs in acidic to circumneutral wetlands in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York (only historical occurrences), Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. This plant is a perennial herb that grows approximately 80-120 centimeters (cm) in height (USFWS 1993). The lower leaves are 8mm wide and 40-60 times as long. The stems are produced from short, woody underground rhizomes. Small, elongated flow clusters emanate as arching rays with brown spikelets. This species flowers from mid-June through July with persistent fruiting bodies from July through September (USFWS 1993).

Northeastern bulrush prefers wet areas, usually smaller wetlands, sinkholes, or wet meadows with seasonally fluctuating water levels. It can be found at the water’s edge in both deep and shallow water settings (USFWS 2006). Other than occurring in wetlands and associated wet areas, this species does not appear to have an obvious unique habitat requirement other than it is very well adapted to seasonal and annual water level fluctuations. It prefers open sunlight over shaded areas and prefers the riparian zone on both the aquatic and upland sides.

The most severe and immediate threat to the Northeastern bulrush is climate change and genetic diversity from low population levels. Additional concerns with human related activities that cause the destruction or


E-197

modification of habitat are also threats. Most populations are on private lands and therefore are subject to agricultural and developmental (especially residential) activities (USFWS 2019a).

No Biological Opinions have been developed by the USFWS for the Northeastern Bulrush. The USFWS has not designated critical habitat for the Northeastern bulrush in the vicinity of the Projects.

In 1993 the USFWS, Region 5 developed a Northeastern Bulrush Recovery Plan that outlines the status, habitat requirements, limiting factors, recovery objectives and criteria, and actions needed. Additionally, the USFWS issued 5-year reviews in 2005, 2010, 2018, and 2019.

As of August, 2019, there was only one known historical extirpated population in New York which was located near the Vermont border. A second population was discovered in 2010 in New York adjacent to central Pennsylvania, and a third population exists in New York at a Wetland Trust and Upper Susquehanna Coalition implemented pilot propagation program using transplanted individuals (USFWS 2019a).

According to the 5-year reviews, the Northeastern bulrush appears to be trending toward good/excellent resiliency and redundancy with 149 known extant populations resulting in a recommendation for delisting (USFWS 2019a).

In 2018, the USFWS issued information to Eagle Creek identifying two sites in and/or near the Rio Project boundary consisting of total of 5.1 acres that may provide suitable habitat for the Northeastern bulrush. Based on these identified areas, field surveys were performed at each of these locations (Eagle Creek 2019). No occurrences of Northeastern bulrush or suitable habitat was identified at either of these locations indicating that suitable habitat for the Northeastern bulrush may not exist with the existing Project boundaries or in the immediate vicinity of the Projects. Additional information associated with the locations surveyed can be found in the ISR and USR previously filed with the Commission as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)/Privileged information.

Small Whorled-Pogonia

Small whorled pogonia was originally listed as endangered by the USFWS in September 1982, but was reclassified to threatened October of 1994 (USFWS 2019b). It is a perennial upland herb with a light green to white stem that grows 3-13 inches in height. It has 5-6 grayish leaves surrounding the stem in a whorled pattern. From the center of this whorl 1-2 greenish to greenish-white, scentless, nectar-less, self-pollinating flowers emerge. It occurs from northern Ontario, Canada across to Maine, south to Georgia, and west to Missouri (USFWS 2019b). Typical populations are less than 20 plants.

This plant usually emerges from the leaf litter in April or May and can flower from four days to a few weeks (Mehrhoff 1983). Due to its self-pollination, a staggered emergence of flowering, fruiting, and vegetative plants may occur within a population and the species is believed to reproduce vegetatively in some instances (USFWS 1992). Although no specific confirmation has been obtained for the period, this plant is known to go through a dormancy phase. Additionally, it has a symbiotic relationship with mycorrhizal fungi which is required to complete its life cycle. The seeds of this orchid do not contain a food source used in photosynthesis and, therefore, it must rely on the mycorrhizal fungi relationship.

The small-whorled pogonia is somewhat shade intolerant and prefers small canopy openings with some penetrating light. It usually occurs where there is little to moderate ground cover but seems to be well suited


E-198

to corridor growth (e.g. trails, roadsides, streams) (USFWS 2019b). It can grow in mixed-deciduous forests and coniferous-deciduous forests alike but usually in acidic, moist soil with few nutrients like those conditions found in second- or third-growth successional forests (USFWS 1992).

The most severe and immediate threat to the small-whorled pogonia is habitat destruction from residential and commercial development, followed by specimen or general public collection. Additional threats include recreation, herbivory, and inadvertent damage from research activities (USFWS 1992).

Several Biological Opinions have been developed by the USFWS for the small-whorled pogonia, but none in New York and none within any proximity to the Projects. The USFWS has not designated critical habitat for the small-whorled pogonia in the vicinity of the Projects.

In 1992 the USFWS, Region 5 developed a Small-whorled Pogonia Recovery Plan that outlines the status, habitat requirements, limiting factors, recovery objectives and criteria, and actions needed. Additionally, the USFWS issued 5-year reviews in 2007 and 2012. For unknown reasons, many of the action items for this recovery plan have not been started or have been discontinued and the 5-year reviews indicate that the published recovery criteria are outdated (USFWS 2020).

As of the fall of 2008, there were no sites in New York where small-whorled pogonia have been identified with the exception of six historical sites (USFWS 2008).

According to the 5-year reviews, the number of known or extant populations of small-whorled pogonia has increased by five-fold with most of the new population identified in the southern portion of this species range are on Federal land (USFWS 2008). Although the minimum measure of viability has not been met at most of the sites where this plant occurs, an extended dormancy period of individual plants confounds population estimates (USFWS 2008).

In 2018, the USFWS provided information to Eagle Creek identifying five sites (four of which were in and/or near the Rio Project boundary and one of which was along the Mongaup River downstream of the Rio Project boundary) consisting of total of 28.0 acres that may provide suitable habitat for the small-whorled pogonia. Based on these identified areas, field surveys were performed at each of these locations (Eagle Creek 2019). No occurrences of small-whorled pogonia were identified at any of the five locations. Potential suitable habitat was identified for the small-whorled pogonia in portions of each site surveyed for this species. Maps of these locations were included in the Special-Status Species Study Report provided in the ISR and USR filed with the Commission as CUI/Privileged information.

E.7.5.1.2 State-listed Species

Information provided by the NYSDEC and NYNHP indicated there are 17 state-listed species that occur or may occur in the vicinity of the Projects, the majority of which are not anticipated to be affected by operation or maintenance of the Projects. Of the 17 state-listed species identified, Eagle Creek performed field surveys for bald eagle, mussels, and swamp buttercup at the Projects, results of which were provided in the ISR and USR previously filed with the Commission as CUI/Privileged information. No federal or state-listed mussels were identified in the Projects’ area. A summary of the results of the field surveys for bald eagle and swamp buttercup is provided below.


E-199

Bald Eagle

Eagle Creek conducted a Bald Eagle Study to summarize existing information regarding bald eagle nesting and winter foraging activities associated with the Projects and to document the location and status of bald eagle nests and overnight roost sites occupied by bald eagles, as well as foraging behaviors in the immediate vicinity of the Projects.

During the nest surveys associated with the Bald Eagle Study, nine bald eagle nests were located at the Projects in 2018 and 2019, of which two were on/near the Toronto Reservoir shoreline, two were on/near the Swinging Bridge Reservoir shoreline, two were on/near the Cliff Lake Reservoir shoreline, one was on/near the Mongaup Falls Reservoir shoreline, and two were on/near the Rio Reservoir shoreline. Of the nine nests, five were occupied by nesting bald eagle pairs in 2019. Of these, two nests are considered new or undocumented nests, one on Toronto Reservoir and one on Swinging Bridge Reservoir. Additionally, a nest on Swinging Bridge Reservoir and a nest on Cliff Lake Reservoir, were both observed as occupied by breeding pairs during the Wetland Study performed in 2018, but were observed as not occupied by breeding pairs during the bald eagle surveys performed in 2019.

During the winter surveys associated with the Bald Eagle Study, the highest concentration of winter communal roosting was observed along the Mongaup River downstream of the Swinging Bridge Powerhouse. On December 19, 2018, 30 adults and 7 immature bald eagles were observed in this area with the majority of these eagles perched along the water, some on low branches (apparently foraging, though no foraging behavior was directly observed) and others were perched higher in the trees. Additionally, on February 5, 2019, 8 adult and 13 juvenile bald eagles were observed at the Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls, and Rio Reservoir survey areas. The majority of these observations consisted of eagles flying in the vicinity of the survey areas and on two occasions eagles were observed on the ice on the Mongaup Falls and Rio Reservoirs. Furthermore, a total of 97 adult and 51 immature bald eagles were observed as part of the nest and winter surveys associated with the Bald Eagle Study.

As part of the bald eagle surveys performed in support of construction of the new minimum flow powerhouse at the Swinging Bridge Development, a total of 238 bald eagle observations were made during the survey period.

Swamp Buttercup

During relicensing studies performed in June 2018, biologists surveyed areas suitable for the growth of swamp buttercup. During these surveys, field biologists observed plants within the study area that had physical characteristics similar to Ranunculus hispidus var. nitidus (swamp buttercup), a state-listed endangered plant. Biologists were unable to make a positive identification of the observed plants in the field. On November 16, 2018, Eagle Creek submitted photographs of the observed plants and a map showing the locations of the observations to the NYNHP, seeking concurrence of the identification of the potential rare plant species. On November 26, 2018, the NYNHP responded to Eagle Creek’s November 16, 2018 species identification request letter via email indicating that, based on the photographs provided, the NYNHP was unable to make a positive identification of the species.


E-200


The Commission’s SD2 identified the effects of the Projects on the federally-listed and proposed endangered, threatened, and candidate plant and animal species including: dwarf wedgemussel, small whorled pogonia, northern long-eared bat, Indiana bat, and bog turtle as potential resource aspects relating to threatened and endangered species at the Projects.

No federal or state-listed mussels or confirmed specimen for swamp buttercup were identified in the Projects’ area during comprehensive field surveys performed at the Projects. No suitable habitat for bog turtle is expected in the Projects’ area and no suitable habitat for northeastern bulrush was identified in the Projects’ area.

Suitable habitat was identified for small whorled pogonia in portions of each site surveyed for this species; however, given the location of these areas relative to the Projects, Project operations, maintenance, or land use activities are not anticipated to affect these areas.

There are no known hibernacula or roost trees for Indiana bat or northern long-eared bat in the immediate vicinity of the Projects’ facilities. Additionally, the occurrence and distribution of terrestrial wildlife resources in the Projects’ area is generally unrelated to operation of the Projects. The operation of the Projects as proposed is not expected to have any adverse effects on Indiana bat or northern long-eared bat; however, in the event Eagle Creek performs maintenance activities at the Projects that could affect bat habitat, Eagle Creek will perform the required consultation and protection measures pursuant to applicable federal and state laws and regulations, including the Endangered Species Act.

Bald eagles are known to use the Mongaup River Basin year-round for breeding and wintering habitat based on the additional bald eagle habitat areas, which were placed in conservation easements (i.e., the Wildlife Management Areas owned and managed by NYSDEC extending from the southern portion of the Swinging Bridge Reservoir to the Delaware River) as a result of the previous licensing proceeding. As noted by the NYSDEC during the previous licensing proceedings, as well as during these licensing proceedings, the Projects’ area hosts one of the largest bald eagle wintering sites in New York and supports several active eagle nests. Additionally, during the previous licensing proceeding, the NYSDEC, USFWS, and the licensee at the time, acknowledged that the peaking operations of the Projects keep the reservoirs and rivers from freezing over completely in the winter, thereby providing a foraging area for wintering eagles. It was agreed that the eagles feed on fish pulled into the powerhouses during generation and provide an invaluable forage base for wintering eagles in the vicinity of the Projects. Continued operation of the Projects as proposed by Eagle Creek is expected to have very low potential to impact or even a benefit to bald eagles and their habitat.

Although it is recognized that, overall, the Projects protect and benefit the bald eagle population, in the event Eagle Creek performs maintenance activities at the Projects that could affect eagles or their habitat, Eagle Creek will perform the required consultation and protection measures pursuant to applicable federal and state laws and regulations including the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.


Although no impact to protected species is anticipated by the continued operation of the Projects, as a proactive protection measure, Eagle Creek proposes to develop a Northern Long-eared Bat Management Plan


E-201

and a Bald Eagle Management Plan that will have a focus on construction and tree clearing activities for the Projects, to be filed with the Commission within 1 year of license issuance.


As described in the section above, the current operation of the Projects does not have any unavoidable adverse impacts on RTE or protected species in the Projects’ area. Alternatively, continued operation of the Projects is expected to have a beneficial impact on bald eagles by providing an essential forage base for piscivorous bald eagles as a result of entrained alewifes at the Projects. The availability of alewife as forage for overwintering birds is critical to their presence and successful use of the Mongaup Valley. Based on the results of the previous licensing proceeding, Eagle Creek believes that operational or structural modifications to the Project (e.g., a reduction of the Projects’ existing intake trashrack clear bar spacing) may have a detrimental effect on nesting and over wintering bald eagle populations associated with the Projects’ area.

E.7.6 Recreation and Land Use

The subsections below describe recreation and land use in the vicinity of the Projects and consider the effects of continued operation of the Projects as proposed by the Licensee on these resources. Descriptions of the affected environment, environmental analysis, proposed environmental measures, and identification unavoidable adverse effects were developed based on available data presented in the Licensee’s PAD, ISR, and USR, including the following studies:

• Recreation Facility Inventory, Recreation Use and Needs Assessment, and Reservoir Surface Area Assessment Study;

• Whitewater Boating Assessment Study; • Whitewater Boating Flow Assessment Study; and • Shoreline Management Assessment Study.


E.7.6.1.1 Recreation

There are multiple recreation facilities within the Projects’ boundaries that offer a variety of recreation opportunities. Existing facilities at each of the three Projects are briefly described below and shown on Figures E.7-40 through E.7-42. Additional information regarding recreation facilities is provided in the Recreation Facility Inventory, Recreation Use and Needs Assessment, and Reservoir Surface Area Assessment Study Report in the USR previously filed with the Commission.

The Licensee owns and operates the following recreation facilities within the Projects’ boundaries: Swinging Bridge North Public Access; Swinging Bridge Reservoir Trail; Swinging Bridge East Access; Swinging Bridge East Access Picnic Area; Toronto Moscoe Road Public Access; Toronto East Public Access; Black Lake Creek Trail (Toronto East Parking Lot Trail); Black Brook and Mongaup River Public Access Areas; three shoreline fishing access areas on Mongaup River downstream of the Rio Dam; and Rio Whitewater Boating Access. Additional recreation facilities are located in the Projects’ boundaries and are owned and managed by the NYSDEC, which include the Cliff Lake Parking Lot, Cliff Lake Trail, Cliff Lake Public Access Area, County Route 43/Forestburgh


E-202

Road Boat Launch, Mongaup Eagle Viewing Station, Rio Boat Launch, Rio Eagle Viewing Station, and Rio Carry-in Boat Launch.

Existing Recreational Facilities at the Projects


Toronto Moscoe Road Public Access

This site is located on the northern shore of the Toronto Reservoir at the end of Moscoe Road and is open to the public every day until sunset. This site has a gravel parking area with one ADA parking space, two regular spaces, and 4 spaces that can accommodate vehicles with trailers. The site has a one land gravel boat launch and offers bank fishing along the shoreline. The facility is owned and managed by Eagle Creek.

Toronto East Public Access

This site is located on the eastern shore of the Toronto Reservoir at the end of a dirt road off Pine Grove Road. The site is open November through February from 6 am to 5 pm, March through April from 6 am to 8 pm, May through August from 5 am to 9 pm, and September through October from 6 am to 8 pm. This has a parking area with room for approximately 8 vehicles and 2 vehicles with trailers. The site provides a gravel boat launch, bank fishing, trash receptacle, and a seasonal portable toilet. Additionally, the Black Lake Creek Trail starts at the parking area and share parking with the Toronto East Public Access. The site is owned and managed by Eagle Creek.

The dirt access road extends approximately 1.8 miles from Pine Grove Road to the Toronto East Public Access Area. The road also provides access to private homes that are part of the Chapin Estates Development; however, Eagle Creek is currently required to maintain the road to provide year-round public access to the Toronto East Public Access Area. Eagle Creek maintains the road by plowing the road after snowstorms in the winter and hiring a contractor to regrade the road in the spring. Additionally, pursuant to 18 CFR Part 8, Eagle Creek maintains signage at the entrance to the access road, along the access road, and at the Toronto East Public Access Area. Photographs showing the current condition of the dirt road (in February 2020) and posted signage are provided in Appendix C. The dirt access road is included in the Project boundary, which is depicted on the Swinging Bridge Project boundary drawings provided in Exhibit G of this application.

Black Lake Creek Trail (Toronto East Parking Lot Trail)

This trail is adjacent to the Toronto East Public Access and provides access to the approximately 1,800 feet of the upstream portion of Black Lake Creek. The trail is open November through February from 6 am to 5 pm, March through April from 6 am to 8 pm, May through August from 5 am to 9 pm, and September through October from 6 am to 8 pm. The trail offers bank fishing and hiking. This site is owned and managed by Eagle Creek.

Cliff Lake Parking Lot, Trail and Public Access Site

The Cliff Lake Parking Lot is accessible from a dirt road off of Route 43 and is open May 1 through November 30 from dawn to dusk. The parking area is gravel and has space for approximately 7 vehicles. The parking lot is owned and managed by the NYSDEC.


E-203

The Cliff Lake Trail is associated with the Cliff Lake Parking Lot and Public Access Site. The trail begins at the end of the parking lot and continues approximately 0.8 mile to Cliff Lake Reservoir. The site is owned and managed by NYSDEC.

The Cliff Lake Reservoir Public Access Site is associated with the Cliff Lake Parking Log and Cliff Lake Trail and is located at the end of the Cliff Lake Trail. The site offers of hand boat launch and areas to fish from shore. The site is owned and managed by NYSDEC.

Swinging Bridge North Public Access

This site is located at the northern end of Swinging Bridge Reservoir on the east side of Plank Road. The site provides a parking for 7 parking spots for vehicles with trailers, an unimproved hand boat launch, and bank fishing. This site is owned and managed by Eagle Creek.

Swinging Bridge Reservoir Trail (Swinging Bridge Peninsula Trail)

This site is located on the northern end of Swinging Bridge Reservoir. The parcels of land adjacent to the trail are not owned by Eagle Creek so access to the trail is from the water or across private property at the end of Plank Road. There is parking for approximately one vehicle along Plank Road. The trail is owned and managed by Eagle Creek.

Swinging Bridge East Access Boat Launch and Picnic Area

This site is located within the on the eastern shore of Swinging Bridge Reservoir off of Starlight Road. This site provides a gravel parking area for approximately 14 vehicles and approximately 17 vehicles with trailers as well as one hard surface boat launch, bank fishing, two trash receptacles, and a seasonal portable toilet. A picnic area is located in the woods on the south side of the parking area. This site is owned and managed by Eagle Creek.


County Route 43/Forestburgh Road Boat Launch

This site is located on the northeastern shore of Mongaup Falls Reservoir off of County Route 43/Forestburgh Road in the Town of Forestburgh. The site is open from April 1 through November 30. The site provides a gravel parking lot for approximately 7 vehicles with trailers, a paved boat launch, and a 200-foot-long trail through the woods. This site is owned and managed by the NYSDEC.

Mongaup Eagle Viewing Station

This site is located on the northern end of Mongaup Falls Reservoir off of Route 43 in the Town of Forestburgh and is open year-round. The site provides parking for approximately 9 vehicles and an ADA accessible eagle viewing blind with interpretive display signs. The site is owned and managed by the NYSDEC.


E-204

Black Brook and Mongaup River Public Access Areas

This site is located off of Plank Road A and is open year-round. This site provides parking for approximately 2 vehicles or a gravel pull off for approximately 4 cars, two marked trails (Black Brook Trail and Mongaup River Trail), a picnic table, and a portable toilet. This site is owned and managed by Eagle Creek.

Rio Project

Rio Boat Launch

The Rio boat launch is located at the northern end of Rio Reservoir off of Plank Road. The site is open from April 1 through November 30. The site provides a gravel parking area for approximately 11 vehicles with trailers, a hard-surface boat launch with a 6-foot-wide by 50-foot-long metal dock adjacent to the launch, and an interpretive display. The site is owned and managed by the NYSDEC.

Rio Eagle Viewing Station

This site is located on the eastern shore of Rio Reservoir off of Plank Road. The site provides a gravel parking area for approximately 3 vehicles and a gravel path to the eagle view station with interpretive display panels. This site is owned and managed by NYSDEC.

Rio Carry-In Boat Launch

The Rio Carry-in Boat Launch is located on the southwestern shore of Rio Reservoir off of Rio Dam Road and is open from April 1 through November 30. This site provides a gravel parking area for approximately 6 vehicles and a 110-foot-long gravel trail to a hand boat launch. The site is owned and managed by NYSDEC.

Shoreline Fishing Access Areas

There are two shoreline fishing access areas along the western shoreline of the bypassed reach of the Mongaup River downstream from the Rio Dam. There is one gravel parking area for approximately 4 vehicles with trails that provide shoreline fishing at the toe of the Rio Dam as well as approximately 0.9 mile downstream (accessed via a wooden staircase over the above-ground penstock). This site is owned and managed by Eagle Creek.

Rio Whitewater Boating Access and Shoreline Fishing Access

The Rio Whitewater Boating Access is located at the end of Powerhouse Road at the Rio Main Powerhouse. This site has a gravel parking area for approximately 9 cars, a sign, hand boat launch, trash receptacle, and portable toilet. The site also provides access for bank fishing. The site is owned and managed by Eagle Creek.


E-205

FIGURE E.7-40 SWINGING BRIDGE PROJECT RECREATIONAL FACILITIES


E-206

FIGURE E.7-41 MONGAUP FALLS PROJECT RECREATIONAL FACILITIES


E-207

FIGURE E.7-42 RIO PROJECT RECREATIONAL FACILITIES


E-208

Existing Recreational Facilities Downstream of Rio Project

Mongaup River Trail

The Mongaup River Trail is a linear 2-mile trail located along the Mongaup River just downstream of the Rio Project which connects to Route 97, which has a small pull-off with a bulletin board. The trail offers a moderate hike, is closed from December 1 through April 1st, and is owned by the NYSDEC (Trail Keeper 2019).

Mongaup River Access County Route 31

This site is located on the western shore of the Mongaup River upstream of the confluence of the Mongaup and Delaware River and is open year-round. The site has a gravel parking area for approximately 6 vehicles and a trail down to the Mongaup River. The site is owned and managed by the NYSDEC.

Route 97 Parking Area East of Mongaup River Bridge

This site is located on the eastern shore of the Mongaup River at the confluence of the Mongaup and Delaware Rivers. The site provides a gravel parking area for approximately 6 vehicles and two trails towards the Mongaup River. This site is owned and maintained by the NYSDEC.

Route 97 Delaware River Access

This site is located on the northern shore of the Delaware River upstream of the confluence of the Mongaup and Delaware Rivers off of Route 97. This site provides a gravel parking area for approximately 45 vehicles and 8 vehicles with trailers. The site has three carry-in launch/takeout locations that are accessible by trails from the parking area and two portable toilets. The site is owned and managed by the NYSDEC.

Private Recreation Sites at the Projects

Starlight Marine – Swinging Bridge Reservoir

The Starlight Marina is located at 26 Marina Road in Monticello on Swinging Bridge Reservoir. The marina has 55 boat slips, 14 jet-ski slips, and 8 boats available for public rental.

Starlight Marine – Swinging Bridge Reservoir

The Swinging Bridge Marina is located at 271 Starlight Road in Monticello on Swinging Bridge Reservoir. The marina has 70 boat slips and 7 boats available for daily rental. The marina also has 10 camper hook-ups for RVs on-site.

Recreational Attractions in the Vicinity of the Projects

There are multiple recreational facilities offering a variety of recreational opportunities within the vicinity of the Projects. The regional recreational facilities described below are located anywhere from 0.6 miles to 8 miles from the Projects.


E-209

Town of Bethel Recreational Facilities

The Town of Bethel Park and Pool is located on Old White Lake Turnpike and offers residents a basketball court, playground, pavilion, bathrooms, picnic area, and a pool. The park is located approximately 3 miles northwest of the Swinging Bridge Project (Town of Bethel, Sullivan County, New York 2019).

Lake Superior State Park

Lake Superior State Park, located in the Town of Bethel, is comprised of 1,409 acres and contains Lake Superior and Chestnut Ridge Pond. The park is operated by Sullivan County. Lake Superior’s Beach Area features a swimming area, sand beach, picnic areas with grills, picnic pavilion, rowboat and paddleboat rentals, boat launch for electric motors, food concessions, restrooms, shower and changing area, fishing, volleyball court, and a playground. Lake Superior’s Dam Picnic Area features picnic tables and grills, a group picnic pavilion, portable toilet facilities, and fishing access to the lake. The park is open year-round. Big game hunting, ice fishing, hiking, and sleigh riding are allowed. The beach is open for swimming on weekends and holidays from Memorial Day weekend through June and daily beach operation starts the last week of June and commences through Labor Day (Town of Highland 2019). This park is located approximately 0.6 miles northwest of Toronto Reservoir.

Swan Lake Golf and Country Club

Swan Lake Golf and Country Club is a semi-private, 18-hole golf course which is open from April 15th through November 1st. It is located near the northern boundary of the Town of Bethel, approximately 5 miles northwest of the Swinging Bridge Project (Golf Advisor 2019).

Town of Thompson Recreational Facilities

The Town of Thompson Park is a 173-acre park off the Old Liberty Road. The park currently has two pavilions, a community building, a barbeque pit, hiking trails, a swimming pool, playgrounds, and restrooms. The park is used year-round and a town-run day camp is held in the park during the summer. The park may be reserved for use by a group or small groups (Town of Thompson 2019). It is located approximately 5 miles to the northeast of the Swinging Bridge Project.

Wolf Brook Multiple Use Area

The Wolf Brook Multiple Use Area is an approximately 585-acre area located in the Town of Thompson owned by NYSDEC. It is open for recreation year-round and features 1.9 miles of trails and unpaved roads, fishing, two hiking trails, primitive camping, hunting and trapping, and wildlife viewing. Snowshoeing, cross-county skiing, mountain biking, snowmobiling, and horseback riding take place in this area (NYSDEC 2019a). The area is located approximately 8 miles to the east of the Swinging Bridge Reservoir.

The Concord Monster Golf Club

The Concord Monster Golf Club is an 18-hole public golf course, located in part along the eastern shore of Kiamesha Lake in the Town of Thompson. The club operates from April through December, weather permitting (Golf Link 2019a). This course is located approximately 6 miles northeast of the Swinging Bridge Project.


E-210

Village of Monticello Recreational Facilities

The Village of Monticello, within the Town of Thompson, hosts the following recreational facilities: Ted Stroebele Recreation Center, which hosts many of the village’s offices and is a meeting place for community groups; DeHoyos Park, which is open from 8 am to 8 pm/dusk, has a pavilion and barbecue pit for public use, playgrounds, and tennis courts; DeHoyos Park Pond, with a walking trail, scenic overlook, and ice skating; Dillon Park Pool; a basketball court; and a skatepark (Village of Monticello New York 2019). These facilities are located approximately 4 to 5 miles east of the Swinging Bridge Reservoir.

Kutshers Country Club

Kutshers County Club is an 18-hole public golf course and 30-tee driving range located in the Village of Monticello (Golf Link 2019b), approximately 5 miles northeast of the Swinging Bridge Project.

Neversink River Unique Area

The Neversink River Unique Area is 6,580 acres, located in the Towns of Forestburgh and Thompson with a gorge and two major waterfalls (Denton Falls and High Falls), which offers hiking, paddling, fishing, hunting, trapping, wildlife viewing, and cross-country skiing opportunities. Camping is not allowed. There are multiple access points and 10 trails to this area. Two access points have maintained parking and trails: Katrina Falls Road Access and Cold Spring Road Access. This area is owned by the NYSDEC (NYSDEC 2019b; Trail Keeper 2019). This area is located approximately 4.5 miles east of the Mongaup Falls Project.

Town of Highland Recreational Facilities

The Town of Highland is comprised of five hamlets: Barryville; Eldred; Highland Lake; Minisink Ford; and Yulan. Barryville offers public access to the Delaware River along Route 97 and has a gazebo park. Eldred has a small parcel with park benches across from town hall. Highland Lake offers a site with public access. Minisink Ford is near the Delaware River access via Lackawaxen, Pennsylvania (Town of Highland 2019). These hamlets are located approximately 4 to 8 miles southwest of the Projects.

Minisink Battleground Park

Minisink Battleground Park, located on County Road 168 in the Town of Highland, is managed by Sullivan County. The park is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is dedicated to the men who fought and died at the “Battle of Minisink,” which was the Upper Delaware’s only major Revolutionary War skirmish. The park is comprised of 57 acres, includes picnic areas, a group picnic pavilion, restroom facilities, walking trails, and an interpretive center, and is open daily from 8 am to dusk from Mother’s Day Weekend through Columbus Day (Sullivan County 2019). This park is located approximately 10 miles southwest of the Mongaup Falls Project.

Hickok Brook Multiple Use Area

Hickock Brook Multiple Use Area is over 1,000 acres, is located in the Town of Highland, and offers multiple use trails for hiking, Hickok Brook and a small pond for fishing, parking area off Barker Road, and designated campgrounds. The area also offer cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, and mountain biking. It is open year-round for recreation; however, the gate into the area is open only from May 1st through when winter


E-211

conditions make the road impassable. It is owned by the NYSDEC (NYSDEC 2019c; Town of Highland 2019). This area is located approximately 5 miles west of the Rio Project.

Town of Lumberland Recreational Facilities

The Town of Lumberland operates Circle Park, located on Proctor Road near the Town Hall and which includes nature trails, a playground, and picnic area; Lumberland Pavilion, adjacent to the Town Hall with picnic tables and a barbeque area; and Pond Eddy Park located on Hollow Road in Pond Eddy, which has a playground (Town of Lumberland 2019). These facilities are located 3 to 4 miles south to southeast of the Rio Project.

Deerpark/New York City Northwest KOA

The Deerpark/New York City Northwest KOA is located approximately 7.5 miles southeast of the Rio Project in Cuddleback. It is located on the Neversink River between the Catskills and the Delaware Water Gap in the Hudson Valley. The campground features a fishing pond, pool, sand volleyball court, driving range, and access to the Delaware River for fly fishing, swimming, tubing, and kayaking (Deer Park KOA 2019).

Delaware and Hudson Canal Park

The Delaware and Hudson (D&H) Canal Park is a 246-acre park with a 1-mile section of the D&H Canal, located in Cuddleback off Route 209. It is a National Historic Landmark, open daily from dawn to dusk, which also offers fishing, picnic shelters, picnic tables, benches, playgrounds, scenic trails along the D&H Canal Towpath, a visitor’s center, parking, and the Neversink Valley Museum offering D&H Canal exhibits and artifacts (Orange County New York Parks, Recreation and Conservation 2019). This park is located approximately 8 miles southeast of the Rio Project.

Neversink Preserve

The Neversink Preserve is an approximately 550-acre preserve located in the Town of Deerpark, created by the Nature Conservancy in 1993, and includes a large intact floodplain forest along the Neversink River. The preserve is open to the public and contains four trails which total approximately 2.9 miles (The Nature Conservancy 2019a, 2019b). This preserve is located approximately 7 miles southeast of the Rio Project.

Huckleberry Ridge State Forest

Huckleberry Ridge State Forest is located in the Towns of Deerpark and Greenville and is 1,450 acres consisting of 11 segmented parcels of land. The forest features hiking trails along a portion of the Shawangunk Ridge Trail and the Long Path as well as other trails, hunting and trapping, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and wildlife viewing. The forest does not have designated campsites; however, primitive camping is allowed. Snowmobiling, mountain biking, and horseback riding are allowed but there are no designated trails or maintained areas for these activities. The forest is open year-round and is owned by the NYSDEC (NYSDEC 2019d). This forest is located approximately 8 miles southeast of the Rio Project.


E-212

Eddy Farm Golf

Eddy Farm Golf is located in Sparrow Bush to the north of the Delaware River, south of Route 42, and approximately 4 miles southeast of the Rio Project. This 9-hole golf course is open from March 15th through November 30th (Golf Now 2019).

Regionally or Nationally Significant Recreation Areas

Mongaup Valley Wildlife Management Area

A large portion of the lands surrounding the Projects (approximately 10,894 acres) were acquired by the NYSDEC in accordance with a July 9, 1990 MOU between the original licensee, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. and the NYSDEC, and are included in the NYSDEC’s Mongaup Valley Wildlife Management Area (WMA).

The WMA area is managed by NYSDEC for the protection and preservation of bald eagle habitat and for conserving the environmental and aesthetic values of the area, while providing for public access and use. The Mongaup Valley WMA is open year-round and is located in the Towns of Forestburgh, Highland and Lumberland in Sullivan County and the Town of Deerpark in Orange County. Recreation offered in this management area includes hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, and ramp and hand boat launches. Eagle-viewing blinds are offered at the Mongaup Falls Reservoir on County Route 43/Forestburgh Road and on Rio Reservoir at Plank Road and the Mongaup Falls Reservoir on County Route 43/Forestburgh Road (NYSDEC 2019e).

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area

The Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area is located approximately 8 miles south and downstream of the Projects in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. This recreation area includes 40 miles of the Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River; 67,000 acres of forested mountains, riverine valleys, and fertile floodplains; the Delaware Water Gap; more than 100 miles of hiking trails; 27 miles of the Appalachian Trail; more than 100 miles of scenic roadways; historic villages, structures and landscapes from the valley’s colonial past; and agricultural fields (NPS 2019a). It also includes 3 seasonal visitors centers; 1 year-round visitors center; Dingmans Campground in Pennsylvania; 216 picnic sites; 6 boat and 6 canoe boat launches; 3 beaches staffed by lifeguards; and 2 group campsites. There are 487 archaeological sites covering more than 500 acres; the Minisink Archeological Site National Historic Landmark in Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and four historic districts within this recreation area. The Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area receives approximately 5 million recreation visits annually (NPS 2019b).

Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

The Mongaup River is not part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The Mongaup River flows into the Delaware River approximately three river miles downstream of the Rio Project boundary. At its confluence with the Mongaup River, the Delaware River is designated as a Scenic and Recreational River (National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 2019). The Upper Delaware River was designated as a Scenic and Recreational River in 1978, after approximately 50 years of operation of the Mongaup River Projects and approximately 24 years after implementation of the 1954 Amended Supreme Court Decree establishing water management rules on the Delaware River.


E-213

The New York State Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Act protects those rivers of the State that possess outstanding scenic, ecological, recreational, historic, and scientific values (NYSDEC 2019f). State policy is to preserve designated rivers in a free-flowing condition, protecting them from improvident development and use. According to the NYSDEC Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers website (NYSDEC 2019f), the Projects boundaries do not fall within any of the designated areas that are included in this program.

Nationwide Rivers Inventory

The Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) is a listing of more than 3,400 river segments in the United States believed to possess one or more outstandingly remarkable natural or cultural values judged to be of more than local or regional significance (National Park Service [NPS] 2019d). The Mongaup River is not included within the NRI.

Scenic Byways

The National Scenic Byways Program (NSBP) is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The program was established by Congress in 1991 to help recognize, preserve, and enhance selected roads throughout the United States. The FHWA’s May 18, 1995 interim policy provides the criteria for the NSBP. The policy sets forth the procedures for designation of roads as National Scenic Byways or All-American Roads based on their archaeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational, and scenic qualities. There are 150 such designated byways in 46 states. There are no National Scenic Byways or All-American Roads located in the vicinity of the Projects (USDOT 2019).

In New York State, there are several types of corridors that fall under the state Scenic Byways Program, which was created in 1992. State Scenic Byways are transportation corridors which are of particular statewide interest because they are representative of a region's scenic, recreational, cultural, natural, historic, or archaeological significance (New York State Department of Transportation 2019a). There are two byways in the general vicinity of the Projects. The Upper Delaware Scenic Byway parallels the Delaware River in Sullivan and Orange counties and crosses the Mongaup River just north of its confluence with the Delaware River, approximately 3 river miles downstream of the Rio Project. The Shawangunk Mountains Scenic Byway is located approximately 10 miles to the east of the Projects (New York State Department of Transportation 2019b).

National Trails System and Wilderness Areas

The Projects are not located within or adjacent to lands included in, or under study for inclusion in, the National Trails System (NPS 2019c) or designated as, or under study for inclusion as, a Wilderness Area (The University of Montana 2019).

Recreation Needs Identified in Management Plans

The New York State Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) was completed in 2014 and covers the period from 2014-2019. The Projects are located in the Palisades State Park Region of New York, which contains 316 recreational facility sites (New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation [NYSOPRHP] 2014). The 2014 New York State SCORP identifies recreational aspects of statewide


E-214

importance and which of those aspects will be addressed through New York’s share of the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund grants. The SCORP uses the Relative Index of Needs to identify recreational needs within a given area.

Recreation need considers the supply of recreation facilities and the level of participation, as well as how the level of participation will change, both geographically and quantitatively, in the future. Table E.7-70 provides the relative degree to which additional recreational facilities are needed to meet future demand over the next 20 years for Sullivan and Orange Counties (NYSOPRHP 2014). The Relative Index of Needs scale ranges from 1 to 10. A “1” indicates a large availability of recreation resources relative to demand with little or no crowding, while a “10” indicates that an area is heavily used. Intermediate values indicate relative levels of use of those recreational resources. A value of “5” indicates that, for a given activity, the projected supply/demand ratio in the year 2030 will be at the statewide average.

TABLE E.7-70 RELATIVE INDEX OF NEEDS FOR SULLIVAN AND ORANGE COUNTIES

Type of Activity Description

Relative Index of Need in Sullivan

County

Relative Index of Need in Orange

County Park Relaxing in the park, picnicking, playground

use, other generic day use. 5 5

Swim Outdoor swimming; either pool, lake, ocean, or other.

5 7

Bike Non-motorized use of bicycles whether on trails, established paths, off-road, or on highways for recreational purposes.

5 6

Golf Golfing on either regulation 18 or 9-hole courses as well as par 3 and pitch and putt courses.

5 5

Court Court games include basketball, handball, and similar sports.

7 9

Field Field games include baseball, football, soccer, and other similar sports.

6 7

Walk Walking/jogging on paths and trails. Walking for pleasure, generally requiring less equipment than hiking.

4 3

Camp Camping including tent, RV camping, and backpacking.

6 6

Fish Fishing, salt and fresh water fishing from either shore or a boat, but not ice fishing.

6 6

Boat Boating including canoeing, sailing, motor boating, row boating.

5 6

LocW Miscellaneous local winter activities: Ice skating, sledding, hockey.

10 8

Ski Downhill skiing and snowboarding. 6 6

SnM Snowmobiling. 7 8


E-215

Based on the relative index of need for 13 various recreational activities within Sullivan County, one activity (Walk) received a score of 4, indicating that the projected supply/demand ratio in the year 2030 will be below the statewide average. Five of the activities received scores of 5 (Park, Swim, Bike, Golf, and Boat), which is considered the statewide average. Approximately half of the activities received a score of 6 or 7, indicating that the projected supply/demand ratio in the year 2030 will be above the statewide average. One activity (LocW) received a score of 10.

Based on the relative index of need for 13 various recreational activities within Orange County, one activity (Walk) received a score of 3. Two activities received a score of 5 (Park and Golf). Five activities received a score of 6, two received a score of 7, two received a score of 8, and one received a score of 9.

E.7.6.1.2 Land Use

The Swinging Bridge Project is located in the towns of Bethel, Thompson, Highland, Lumberland, and Forestburgh, in Sullivan County, New York. The Swinging Bridge Project boundary encompasses a total land area of approximately 2,292 acres. Development within the Swinging Bridge Project boundary is limited to the power generation facilities and auxiliary structures located on the southern shoreline of Swinging Bridge Reservoir, the dams located on the southern shoreline of Cliff Lake and the southeastern shoreline of Toronto Reservoir, and the Project recreation sites described above.

The Mongaup Falls Project is located in the towns of Forestburgh and Lumberland in Sullivan County, New York. The Project boundary encompasses a total land area of approximately 210 acres. Development within the Mongaup Falls Project boundary is limited to the power generation facilities and auxiliary structures located on the southern shoreline of Mongaup Falls Reservoir and the recreation sites described above.

The Rio Project is located in the towns of Lumberland and Forestburgh in Sullivan County and the town of Deerpark in Orange County, New York. Development within the Rio Project boundary is limited to the power generation facilities and auxiliary structures located on the southern shoreline of Rio Reservoir and the recreation sites described above.

Associated land use activities may include, but are not limited to, land maintenance, road and trail maintenance, and vegetation clearing.

Iroquois Hunting and Fishing Club

Toronto Reservoir is a man-made reservoir created in the mid-1920s by Catskill Power Corporation (Catskill) via the construction of a dam on the southeastern side of a valley. In order to acquire the land necessary to flood the valley and create Toronto Reservoir, Catskill entered into a “land swap” agreement with the Iroquois Hunting and Fishing Club, Inc. (Iroquois), dated July 15, 1925. This agreement resulted in a deed exchange authorized by New York State Supreme Court Special Proceeding. Pursuant to the deed exchange dated July 23, 1925, Iroquois granted Catskill certain real property while expressly reserving exclusive recreational rights and interests to a substantial portion of Toronto Reservoir including exclusive boating, ice boating, fishing, hunting and bathing rights within the waters of the western branch of the Toronto Reservoir that cover 71.9 acre (more or less depending on water elevation) parcel of property and a 435.3 acre (more or less depending on water elevation) parcel of property within the reservoir’s 1,230-foot contour line. Additional details regarding Iroquois’s interests in the reservoir and the adjacent land is provided in Iroquois’ January 3,


E-216

2017 response to the PAD Questionnaire distributed by Eagle Creek in support of the relicensing, which was provided in an appendix to the PAD filed with the Commission on March 30, 2017.

Posted signs designating the in-water boundary of Iroquois’ recreational rights are posted at the southern shoreline of the western branch of the reservoir adjacent to their upland property line along the 1,230-foot contour line at approximately S06o18’01”W10.00’ and extending north northwest to the opposite shore (northern shore of the western branch of the reservoir) to the 1,230-foot contour line.

In addition, Iroquois owns several properties adjacent to and above the 1,230-foot contour largely on the southern and western side of the Toronto Reservoir. During relicensing studies in 2018 and 2019, recreational activities, or evidence, thereof occurring on the western branch of the Toronto Reservoir and on lands owned by Iroquois included hunting (upland game and waterfowl), fishing (via shoreline and boat), and recreational boating.

Existing recreational facilities owned and operated by Iroquois include but may not be limited to a club property building with a boat ramp, a two-story clubhouse, and boat docks. The clubhouse is located along New York State Route 55 in White Lake, New York. The facility appears to be used by club members for meetings, gatherings and general boating and recreational use.

A more primitive boat launch, bath house, and cleared area with a pavilion and benches occurs on the southern shore approximately 2,000 feet east of State Route 55. This area can be accessed via boat upon the reservoir and what appears to be an informal logging road from the south.

Existing Shoreline Buffer Zones

The full pond elevation at Toronto Reservoir has a full pond elevation of 1,220 feet and the Project boundary generally follows elevations between 1,225 and 1,230 feet. The full pond elevation at Swinging Bridge Reservoir is 1,070 feet and the Project boundary generally follows elevations between 1,075 and 1,080 feet. The full pond elevation at Cliff Lake is 1,071.1 feet and the Project boundary follows elevation 1,077 feet. The full pond elevation at Mongaup Falls Reservoir is 935 feet and the full pond elevation at Rio Reservoir is 815 feet. The Project boundary elevations of these two Projects vary as a result of the property that was transferred to the NYSDEC as a result of the previous licensing process.

Shoreline Development Policy

Eagle Creek grants permission to others for non-Project uses of the Projects’ lands in accordance with the provisions within of the Projects’ licenses and Eagle Creek’s Shoreline Management Guidelines for Use and Occupancy of Project Lands and Waters, which are applicable to all of the lands owned or controlled by Eagle Creek, including lands at the Projects’ reservoirs. Use or occupation of Eagle Creek’s land is authorized pursuant to the terms of a license agreement that has been executed by Eagle Creek and in accordance with Articles 407, 408, and 410 of the Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls, and Rio Projects’ licenses (FERC 1992b, 1992c, and 1992d), respectively.


The Commission’s SD2 identified the following potential resource effects relating to recreational resources and land use for the Projects:


E-217

• Effects of continued Project operation on recreational use in the Project area, including the adequacy of existing recreational access, the adequacy and capacity of existing recreational facilities, and the adequacy of existing whitewater boating opportunities, information, and flow releases.

• Effects of the Projects on reservoir levels and the effects of reservoir levels on recreation and aesthetics.

• Effects of the Projects on shoreline management and activities.

E.7.6.2.1 Recreation

Pursuant to the FERC-approved study plan, Eagle Creek conducted a Recreation Facility Inventory, Recreation Use and Needs Assessment, and Reservoir Surface Area Assessment Study for the Projects and a Whitewater Boating Assessment Study, and a Whitewater Boating Flow Assessment Study at the Rio Project to identify existing recreation use as well as recreation resources and activities that may be affected by the continued operation of the Projects. The methods and results of these studies are described in detail in the ISR and USR previously filed with the Commission.

Recreation Facility Inventory, Recreation Use and Needs Assessment, and Reservoir Surface Area Assessment Study

A recreation facility inventory of the Projects was conducted on July 19 and 20, 2018 to collect information about the condition of existing recreation facilities and access sites at the Projects (including the non-Project NYSDEC sites) and three non-Project NYSDEC access areas located downstream of Rio Project that are utilized by fishermen and whitewater boaters as take-outs. Additionally, two privately-owned recreation sites within and abutting the Swinging Bridge Reservoir were identified. As previously described in this application, generally, the recreation sites and facilities were in good condition and meeting their intended function.

A recreation use and needs assessment for the Projects was conducted using a combination of methods – spot counts, visitor intercept surveys, and actual use numbers for recreation sites where available. The field work for this study began in April 2018 and was completed in March 2019. In total, 1,026 spot counts were made at the public recreation and access sites included in the study throughout the course of one year. Surveys were offered to recreationists encountered (169 groups, representing an estimated 458 recreationists). While some recreationists declined the survey, ultimately 121 surveys were completed, resulting in almost 3,360 questions answered. As part of the survey, recreationists had the opportunity to provide open-ended responses to a variety of questions. A total of 752 responses to various open-ended comments were received.

Study Results


A total of 21,063 recreation days were spent at the Swinging Bridge Project between April 2018 and March 2019. Based on the Swinging Bridge Project user surveys, ninety-four percent (94%) of respondents had visited the Project area before. Based on their reported place of residence, recreationists at the Swinging Bridge Project traveled an average of 42 miles to recreate at the Projects, with a median distance traveled of 26 miles. When asked how satisfied they were with the reservoir/river water level during their trip, most recreationists at the Swinging Bridge Project responded that they were Extremely Satisfied (30%), Moderately Satisfied (17%), or Satisfied (30%) with water levels.


E-218

Recreationists at the Swinging Bridge Project also provided their perceptions of the range of water levels over the past 5 years. The majority (59%), considered levels to be Normal, while 5 percent considered them Very High, 7 percent High, and 27 percent Low. When asked about their satisfaction with the water level over the past few years, the majority responded that they were Extremely Satisfied (14%), Moderately Satisfied (23%), or Satisfied (45%)8.

Most recreationists (75%) at the Swinging Bridge East Access were Extremely Satisfied, Moderately Satisfied, or Satisfied with the number of facilities at the Project. The overall quality and variety of recreation sites/facilities and amenities were rated positively by recreationists at Swinging Bridge East Access.

Recreationists at the Toronto Moscoe Road Access were also asked about their levels of satisfaction with the number of facilities at the Swinging Bridge Project. Forty percent (40%) of respondents reported being Slightly Satisfied, 20 percent reported being Satisfied, and 20 percent reported being Moderately Satisfied with the number of recreation facilities at the Project. Recreationists perceived the amount of use at Project recreation sites to be Not Crowded (33%), Not Crowded-Somewhat Crowded (17%), Somewhat Crowded (33%), or Extremely Crowded (17%). None of respondents experienced recreational conflicts at the site. The overall quality of recreation sites/facilities and amenities at the Project were rated positively by recreationists at Toronto Moscoe Road but the variety of amenities was not rated favorably. The most common explanation of low ratings was bathroom availability.

At the Toronto East Public Access, all the recreationists surveyed were Satisfied with the number of recreation facilities at the Project. Recreationists perceived the amount of use at Project recreation sites to be Not Crowded (50%) and Not Crowded-Somewhat Crowded (50%). Respondents reported experiencing No Conflicts-Moderate Amount of Conflicts (25%) or No Conflicts (75%). The overall quality of the recreation sites/facilities and amenities was rated positively.

A total of three recreation parties were encountered at Cliff Lake but only one agreed to complete the user survey. The recreationists surveyed reported being Extremely Satisfied with the number of recreation facilities at the Project, felt the site was Somewhat Crowded-Not Crowded at All, and did not experience any recreational conflicts.


A total of 7,999 recreation days were spent at the Mongaup Falls Project between April 2018 and March 2019. Based on the Mongaup Falls Project user surveys, all of the respondents had visited the Project area before. Based on their reported place of residence, recreationists at the Project traveled an average of 38 miles to recreate at the Projects, with a median distance of 30 miles. When asked how satisfied they were with the

8 From approximately 2005 until the summer of 2017, the five-foot-high flashboards were required by FERC to be removed from the Swinging Bridge spillway, resulting in a maximum reservoir elevation of 1,065 feet (5 feet lower than normal maximum reservoir elevation). Normal operating elevations were restored during the summer of 2017 after reinstallation of the flashboards and authorized use of the Obermeyer pneumatic gate system at the Swinging Bridge spillway. Eagle Creek obtained ownership of the Projects in 2011.


E-219

reservoir/river water level during their trip, the majority of recreationists at the Mongaup Falls Project responded that they were Extremely Satisfied (16%), Moderately Satisfied (37%), or Satisfied (42%).

Recreationists at the Mongaup Falls Project also provided their perceptions of the range of water levels over the past 5 years. The majority (72%) considered levels to be Normal, while 17 percent considered them High and 11 percent Low. When asked about their satisfaction with the water level over the past five years, the majority responded that they were Extremely Satisfied (5%), Moderately Satisfied (16%), or Satisfied (53%).

The majority (89%) of the recreationists surveyed at the Mongaup Eagle Viewing Station were Extremely Satisfied, Moderately Satisfied, or Satisfied with the number of recreation facilities at the Project. Recreationists perceived the amount of use at Project recreation sites to be Not Crowded (89%), Somewhat Crowded-Extremely Crowded (6%), or Somewhat Crowded (6%). The majority (72%) of respondents at the Mongaup Eagle Viewing Station experienced no recreational conflicts at the site. The overall quality of the recreation sites/facilities and amenities was rated positively. The majority of recreationists rated the variety of amenities as Excellent or Excellent-Fair.

A total of two recreation parties were encountered at the Route 43 Boat Launch but only one agreed to complete the user survey. The recreationists surveyed reported being Satisfied with the number of recreation facilities at the Project, felt the site was Not Crowded at All, and did not experience any recreational conflicts. The recreationist at Route 43 Boat Launch also rated the overall quality to be Excellent-Fair and facility condition as Excellent. Both variety of amenities and toilets/restrooms were rated Poor.

Rio Project

A total of 9,529 recreation days were spent at the Rio Project between April 2018 and March 2019. Based on the Rio Project user surveys, the majority (92%) of the respondents had visited the Project area before. Based on their reported place of residence, recreationists at the Project traveled an average of 35 miles to recreate at the Projects, with a median distance of 22 miles. When asked how satisfied they were with the reservoir/river water level during their trip, most recreationists at the Rio Project responded that they were Extremely Satisfied (38%), Moderately Satisfied (19%), or Satisfied (41%).

Recreationists at the Rio Project also provided their perceptions of the range of water levels over the past 5 years. The majority (61%) considered levels to be Normal, while 22 percent considered them High and 14 percent Low. When asked about their satisfaction with the water level over the past five years, the majority responded that they were Extremely Satisfied (14%), Moderately Satisfied (14%), or Satisfied (63%).

Most of the recreationists (69%) surveyed at the Rio Boat Launch were Extremely Satisfied, Moderately Satisfied, or Satisfied, with the number of recreation facilities at the Project. Most recreationists surveyed at the Rio Boat Launch perceived the amount of use at Project recreation sites to be Not Crowded (44%), Somewhat Crowded-Extremely Crowded (22%), or Somewhat Crowded (15%). The majority (89%) of respondents experienced no recreational conflicts at the site. The overall quality and condition of the recreation sites/facilities and amenities was rated positively.

At the Shoreline Fishing Access (Western Shore downstream of Rio Dam), all the recreationists surveyed were Extremely Satisfied, Moderately Satisfied, or Satisfied with the number of recreation facilities at the Project. A majority of the recreationists at this site perceived the amount of use at Project recreation sites to be Not


E-220

Crowded (67%) and all respondents reported experiencing no recreational conflicts at the site. The overall quality and condition of the recreation sites/facilities and amenities were rated highly.

At the Rio Carry-in Boat Launch/Shoreline Fishing Access area, two recreation parties were surveyed. Both were satisfied with the number of facilities at the Project. Survey respondents were divided among Not Crowded (50%) and Not Crowded-Somewhat Crowded (50%). Neither of the respondents experienced recreational conflicts at the site. The overall quality of the recreation sites/facilities and amenities was rated positively. Facility condition was rated as Excellent by 50 percent of the respondents and as Fair by the other 50 percent.

At the Rio Whitewater Access Area, recreationists surveyed were Extremely Satisfied or Satisfied (66%) with the number of recreation facilities at the Project, with 33 percent Slightly Satisfied. All recreationists perceived the amount of use at Project recreation sites to be Not Crowded (67%) or Somewhat Crowded (33%). None of the respondents experienced recreational conflicts at the site. The overall quality of the recreation sites/facilities and amenities was rated highly. All of the respondents rated the existing variety of amenities as Excellent-Fair or Excellent.

Future Recreation Demand

Consideration of future recreation demand at the Projects relies on both expected population growth in the region and on expected changes in recreation participation. To evaluate the ability of the facilities at the Projects and the downstream sites to meet future recreation demands, projections were made through 2060 of recreation days by activity at each location. Boating activities, picnicking, swimming, walking/hiking/jogging, and birding are projected to increase faster than the population of the local area. The activities that are anticipated to have the greatest increases in demand are motor boating (18% growth), swimming (14%), and walking/hiking/jogging (20%). Snowmobiling is expected to experience the largest decline over the next several decades (-11%).

Recreation use at the Mongaup River Projects is forecasted to increase from 38,591 recreation days in 2018 to 39,766 recreation days by 2060, an increase of 3.0 percent. Total recreation use at the downstream sites is projected to be 16,687 recreation days, a 4.0 percent increase over the 2018 level of 16,041 recreation days.

Non-motor boating and fishing are expected to continue to be the most popular recreation activities at the Mongaup River Projects through 2060, with approximately 21 percent each of the total recreation days. Motor boating (16%) and bird watching (12%) are also expected to be popular. In 2060, the most popular recreation activity type at the sites downstream of the Rio Main Powerhouse is non-motorized boating with 12,544 recreation days (75% of total recreation days). Walking/hiking/jogging accounted for the second most frequent recreational use with an additional 3,262 recreation days, or 20 percent of the total number of recreation days at the Projects.

Analysis of Study Results

Recreation Facilities • Most of the survey respondents at all three Projects were satisfied with the number of recreation sites

available, experienced no conflicts, and rated the condition and quality of the recreation facilities positively.


E-221

• For the most part, there was not a large number of individuals indicating that the recreation facilities at the three Projects were overcrowded. However, at the Toronto Moscoe Road Access site, 33 percent of survey respondents indicated that this site was somewhat crowded. The variety of recreation facilities available at this site was also ranked not favorable because of the limited availability of bathrooms.

Reservoir Elevations

• Overall, the majority of survey respondents at all three Projects were satisfied with the reservoir and river water levels during their visit and over the last five years.

• In general respondents thought the water levels were normal. Recreation Use

• The total annual recreation use of surveyed recreation and access sites at the Mongaup River Projects was estimated to be 38,591 recreation days. Approximately 57 percent of the recreation use occurred during the summer, followed by 16 percent during winter, 14 percent during fall, and 13 percent during spring.

• Total recreation use at the recreation sites located downstream of the Rio Project was estimated to be 16,041 recreation days. The majority (82%) of use occurred in the summer with spring having the lowest use (5%).

• Based on Recreation User Survey responses and observations of recreation use made during spot counts, the most popular recreation activity type at the Mongaup River Projects was fishing.

The continued operation of the Projects as proposed is not expected to adversely impact recreation resources at the Projects, and to the contrary, is expected to benefit the overall recreation resources at the Projects. Based on the results of the 2018-2019 Recreation Study performed at the Projects, the majority of recreationists are satisfied with the recreation facilities and reservoir elevations at the Projects. Additionally, the majority of recreationists indicated the facilities were not overcrowded and user conflicts were not experienced. Additionally, based on the 2015 FERC Form 80, it does not appear that any of the existing recreation facilities are used to capacity; therefore, the Licensee believes that the current recreation facilities will be able to accommodate estimated future recreation demand at the Projects. Whitewater Boating Assessment Study

Eagle Creek conducted a Whitewater Boating Assessment Study for the Rio Project. The purpose of the assessment was to evaluate the adequacy and appropriateness of the current whitewater boating opportunities at the Rio Project, including flow releases and access facilities, and to identify potential measures to enhance whitewater boating opportunities. The study was also designed to assess whitewater boating opportunities in the bypassed reach between the Rio Dam and the Rio Main Powerhouse.

Mongaup River boater surveys provided excellent information on whitewater boating conditions in the reach between the Rio Main Powerhouse and the Delaware River. Surveys also provided some, but more limited, information on boating conditions in the bypassed reach. In total, 104 surveys were collected over the course of the study season. Surveys were conducted on 10 different weekend whitewater flow release events, including five 1-unit release events, and five 2-unit release events.


E-222

2018 Whitewater Boating Assessment Study Results

Bypassed Reach

Flow into the bypassed reach is currently provided primarily via the Rio Minimum Flow Powerhouse. The ability to provide additional flow into the Rio bypassed reach is limited to flow from the minimum flow bypass valve or uncontrolled spill over the sacrificial flashboards at the Rio Dam. A review of the timing, and magnitude of Rio Dam spill events that occurred between 2007 and 2017 demonstrates that in most years Rio Dam spills several times a year. Between 2007 and 2017, most spill events occurred in the winter and spring, but some occurred in summer, as well. Overall, the analysis indicates that there are boatable flows in the bypassed reach during spill events several times each year, but that such opportunities are infrequent and are more likely to occur outside the recreation season. Additionally, Eagle Creek considers uncontrolled and unpredictable flows provided as spill over the sacrificial flashboards at Rio Dam as a public safety/risk concern (i.e., risk of flashboard failure during a boating event due to an unpredicted thunderstorm event or other cause).

Available survey information regarding the bypassed reach was more limited than the information obtained for the lower reach. Twenty-three (23) survey respondents indicated they had boated the bypassed reach at least once in the past. Several of these respondents indicated they had boated it multiple times, and one boater indicated he/she had boated the bypassed reach 23 times. All boaters with bypassed reach experience indicated they put-in at or below the Rio Dam.

Boaters that rated the difficulty of the bypassed reach generally rated it Class II-III. One boater rated the Rio bypassed reach as Class III-IV at “flood stage.” From the responses received, respondents did not provide enough information about their experience to determine the flows associated with the classification ratings provided by the respondents.

When asked to indicate the minimum and optimum flows needed to boat the bypassed reach, most respondents provided an answer based on “unit flow” (e.g., 1 unit) rather than in cfs. Considering that the only generating unit releasing water into the bypassed reach is the minimum flow unit that releases a continuous 100 cfs into the reach, which is unlikely to be considered a boatable flow in the bypassed reach, it is equally unlikely that this is the unit flow that boaters were suggesting. As a result, the Commission’s Second SPD required Eagle Creek to perform a Level 2 Whitewater Flow Assessment Study to better evaluate and define the minimum flow needed to boat the bypassed reach. Accordingly, Eagle Creek performed an on-water flow assessment on October 27, 2019, which is further described below.

Finally, regarding the adequacy of put-in and take-out locations for the bypassed reach, all boaters indicated they put-in at or below the Rio Dam. Most respondents (58%) noted that put-in conditions were Adequate (48%) or More Than Adequate (10%), but many indicated the put-in to be Less Than Adequate. Specific comments on the put-in included difficult to launch, steep bank, hard to find, and more parking needed. All boaters of the bypassed reach indicated that their take-out location was the Route 97 NYSDEC parking area/Delaware River, which is the same take-out used by the majority of boaters launching from below the Rio Main Powerhouse.

Lower Reach

Survey results found that most boaters rated the difficulty level of the reach from the Rio Main Powerhouse to the Delaware River as Class II-III depending on the number of units releasing flow. This is consistent with the


E-223

AW and other literature reports of the difficulty rating of Class II+ for the run. On 1-unit release days, the difficulty rating was somewhat lower, with 94 percent of respondents rating it Class II and 13 percent rating it Class III, than on 2-unit release days where 65 percent of respondents rated it Class II and 42 percent Class III.

Survey results also found that on a scale of 1 to 5, most boaters rated the whitewater experience provided on the Mongaup River as Excellent (5 rating) during both 1-unit (60%) and 2-unit (63%) release days. The average rating of the experience was also very high (5 being the highest rating), with similar ratings on the 1-unit (4.4) and 2-unit (4.6) release days. Most boaters (90%) indicated that the minimum flow level for whitewater boating is the 1-unit (or flow equivalent, ~400-600 cfs) release from the Rio Main Powerhouse. Most boaters (71%) indicated the optimum flow level for whitewater boating is the 2-unit (or flow equivalent, ~ 850-1000 cfs) release from the Rio Main Powerhouse.

Regarding the availability of boating flows, 96 percent of boaters surveyed indicated that they are Satisfied (42%), Moderately Satisfied (30%) or Extremely Satisfied (24%) with the current release schedule at the Rio Project. Boaters surveyed also indicated satisfaction with the availability of information about the current whitewater release schedule at the Rio Project. Ninety two percent (92%) of respondents said the current release schedule is More Than Adequate (12%) or Adequate (80%). Boaters were slightly less satisfied with the current availability of river flow information with 80 percent indicating flow information is Adequate (79%) or More Than Adequate (1%). Twenty percent (20%) indicated flow information was Less Than Adequate.

Regarding put-in and take-out locations and facilities, 93 percent of boaters surveyed indicated that the put-in and take-out locations used for the reach from the Rio Main Powerhouse to the Delaware River were More Than Adequate (25%) or Adequate (68%), though some respondents did suggest some improvements that could be made at both put-in and take-out locations.


• Almost all of the study participants were satisfied with the current whitewater flow release schedule provided at the Rio Project and thought that the release schedule was more than adequate or adequate.

• Eighty percent were happy with the availability of whitewater release information. • Although the majority of the study participants indicated that the put-in and take-out locations from

Rio Main Powerhouse to the Delaware River and in the bypassed reach were adequate or more than adequate, many study participants noted that improvements could be made to the put-in location below Rio Dam. Specific comments made regarding the put-in included difficult to launch, steep bank, hard to find, and more parking needed.

• Overall, survey responses indicate that whitewater boaters are satisfied with the current whitewater boating opportunities at the Rio Project.

2019 Whitewater Boating Flow Assessment Study Results

The 2019 Whitewater Boating Flow Assessment Study included a Pre-Run Survey and an on-water assessment of the bypassed reach and lower reach.


E-224

Pre-Run Survey

A total of 28 participants completed the Pre-Run Survey. Boaters ranged in age from 15 to 72 with a mean age of 51. Based on their home zip code, boaters traveled an average of 63.4 miles to participate in the whitewater flow assessment. The majority of boaters identified as intermediate to advanced, able to boat class III or above, with a mean of 12 years’ experience. The majority of boaters generally use a hard-shell kayak for whitewater boating. Boaters responded to spend a mean of 58 days per year boating. All 28 boaters responded that they have previously boated the lower Mongaup River, while 6 boaters responded that they have also previously boated the Rio bypassed reach.

Bypassed Reach

Twenty-three (23) boaters participated in the on-water assessment of the bypassed reach. While the target flow for running the bypassed reach was 250 cfs, the actual flow was approximately 170 cfs. Eagle Creek operating personnel determined that there was a mechanical issue with the compressed air system that is operated to fully open the discharge valve and, therefore, since the valve did not fully open at approximately 09:00, this resulted in a lower flow in the bypassed reach than targeted for the study.

Boaters reported a wide range of hits (2-200), stops (0-100), drags (0-100), and portages (0-10) while boating the bypassed reach. Boaters were asked to score characteristics of the bypassed reach on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = totally unacceptable; 2 = unacceptable; 3 = neutral; 4 =acceptable; 5 = totally acceptable). The highest rated category for the bypassed reach was “Aesthetic Quality” with a mean rating of 4.7. A majority of the categories were rated as neutral (2.5-3.5) and the lowest rated category with a mean rating of 2.0 was the “Availability of Powerful Hydraulics.” Many boaters responded that the flow and water level was too low for this run, which exposed too many rocks and caused quite a bit of scratching and scraping on the bottom of their watercraft. Multiple boaters also indicated downed trees affected their experience on this run, but with more flow, it has the potential to be a good beginner or training run.

While the majority of participants were relatively experienced, most boaters rated the bypassed reach Class I-II (8 responses) or II (11 responses) and indicated that the minimum skill level required to boat the bypassed reach would be novice (7 responses), beginner (10 responses), or intermediate (6 responses).

Boaters responded that the primary advantages of the provided flow (170 cfs) included the scenery, that it extended the total run on the Mongaup River, and that it was a good warm up or practice for the more difficult lower Mongaup River. Boaters responded that the primary disadvantage of the provided flow was that it was too low, causing them to scrape or scratch the bottom on exposed rock.

A majority of participants responded that they would possibly (9 responses), probably (7 responses), or would return (4 responses) to run the reach at the flow provided during the study. Only 2 boaters said they would not return at this flow. Boaters said the minimum acceptable flow would be slightly higher (12) or much higher (7). Only 2 boaters said the minimum acceptable flow would be about the same as what they boated. All boating participants stated that the optimal flow for running the bypassed reach would be slightly higher or much higher than the provided flow of approximately 170 cfs.


E-225

Lower Reach

Thirty (30) boaters participated in the on-water assessment of the lower Mongaup River reach. While the target flow for this run was 685 cfs, the actual flow in the lower river during this run was approximately 580 cfs, for the same reason as above.

Boaters reported fewer hits (0-20), stops (0-10), drags (0-3), and portages (0-3) while running the lower reach as compared to the bypassed reach. Boaters were asked to score characteristics of the lower reach on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = totally unacceptable; 2 = unacceptable; 3 = neutral; 4 =acceptable; 5 = totally acceptable). The highest rated characteristic was “Aesthetic Quality” with a rating of 4.8. The remaining characteristics all had a mean rating above neutral (3.0) and the lowest rated category was the “Availability of Powerful Hydraulics” with a mean rating of 3.3. Multiple boaters said that this flow provided a good water level with fun play features and a bit of challenge, making this a great training or beginner run. However, more experienced boaters said this flow did not provide powerful hydraulics or difficult rapid sections.

The majority of boaters rated the lower reach Class II-III (20 responses) or Class II (6 responses) and indicated that either a beginner (15 responses) or intermediate (11 responses) skill level would be required to successfully boat the lower reach.

Boaters responded that the primary advantages of the provided flow (580 cfs) included a good water level with most rocks covered, play boating, and that the flow allowed for an excellent training run with a nice challenge. The main disadvantages of the provided flow that were indicated by multiple boaters include trees and wood in the river, that it was not appealing to advanced paddlers, and there were a few rocks exposed. However, approximately half of the participants stated that there were no disadvantages associated with this flow.

With the exception of one boater who did not respond to the question, all boaters responded that they would return (24 responses) or probably return (5 responses) to run the lower Mongaup River at the flow provided during the study. A majority of boaters responded that the minimum acceptable flow in the lower Mongaup River compared to the flow they experienced (580 cfs) would be slightly lower (11 responses) or about the same (10 responses). The majority of participants determined that the optimal flow to run the Lower Mongaup River compared to the provided flow of 580 cfs would be slightly higher (22 responses).


• While the majority of boaters identified as having intermediate or advanced skill level, a range of skill levels and age of boaters were represented in the 2019 Whitewater Boating Flow Assessment. All boaters had previously boated the lower Mongaup River, while less than a quarter of the boaters who participated in the study had previously run the bypassed reach.

• The overall rating of the bypassed reach was Class I-II and neutral to acceptable. All boaters indicated optimal flow would be slightly (65% of boaters) or much higher (35%) than the flow they experienced. Therefore, it may be inferred that a slightly higher flow of 250 cfs (maximum flow that can be provided from the minimum flow powerhouse and the minimum flow discharge valve), may be the minimum acceptable flow for boating the bypassed reach.


E-226

• Boaters gave the lower reach high ratings in all categories, and rated it Class II-III. Boaters indicated that the minimum acceptable flow would be slightly lower or the same as the provided 580 cfs. However, the majority of boaters stated that the optimal flow for this reach would be slightly higher.

• Boaters also indicated safety concerns regarding the bypassed reach and lower reach. Safety concerns for the bypassed reach included downed trees and that the put-in was too steep and could benefit from stairs. Safety concerns for the lower reach included downed trees and strainers. Half of the boaters indicated no safety concerns with the bypassed reach and three quarters of the boaters indicated no safety concerns with the lower reach.

The continued operation of the Projects as proposed is not expected to adversely impact whitewater boating at the Rio Project, and to the contrary, is expected to benefit the overall whitewater boating opportunities at the Project. Based on the results of the 2018 Whitewater Boating Assessment Study performed at the Rio Project, the majority of boaters are satisfied with the current whitewater release schedule, flows, and facilities. Additionally, as communicated to date during the relicensing proceeding, given the flashboards that are installed on Rio Dam, as well as the potential for uncontrolled spill that can result from a failure of the Rio spillway flashboards, as a public safety measure, the Licensee is not proposing to increase access to the bypassed reach below Rio Dam.

E.7.6.2.2 Land Use

Pursuant to the FERC-approved study plan, Eagle Creek conducted a Shoreline Management Assessment Study to inform the development of a Shoreline Management Plan. The methods and results of this study are briefly described below and further described in the ISR previously filed with the Commission.

Shoreline Management Assessment Study

Study Results

Eagle Creek conducted a Shoreline Management Assessment Study to obtain information on the adequacy and appropriateness of current shoreline management practices by soliciting information using a questionnaire from abutting shoreline property owners at Swinging Bridge and Toronto reservoirs about their recreation activity participation, areas visited, perspectives about reservoir levels and current shoreline management practices, perceived conflicts and crowding, and their satisfaction with or desire for recreational opportunities and facilities. In total, 378 surveys were distributed and 177 (47%) completed questionnaires were returned.

Of shoreline property owners that responded to the questionnaire, 68 percent indicated their property provides access or that they have access rights to Swinging Bridge Reservoir and 32 percent indicated that their property provides access or that they have access rights to Toronto Reservoir. One percent (1%) indicated they had access to both Swinging Bridge and Toronto reservoirs.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of the respondents indicated they have a private boat dock. The average number of boats accommodated by private docks is 3 boats, with 2 being the average number of boats typically docked at the private docks. Fifty-three percent (53%) of the respondents reported that they have other private recreation facilities associated with their property along the reservoir shoreline.


E-227

Regarding their recreation use of the Projects’ reservoirs, most (82%) of the respondents indicated they used the reservoir adjacent to their property for recreation purposes 26 days or more per year. The majority of the respondents indicated they did not use the Mongaup Falls Reservoir (85%) or Rio Reservoir (89%) for recreation purposes.

Reponses to the questionnaire indicated that the most popular recreation activities reported by respondents include walking, eagle viewing, nature observation, power boating, swimming, and kayaking, regardless of the season. Walking, nature observation, eagle viewing, kayaking, and power boating were popular in spring, summer, and fall. Many respondents also reported enjoying swimming, sunbathing, and fishing from shore in the summer. Nature observation, photography, walking, and eagle viewing were popular responses in winter.

The questionnaire results also indicated that on a scale of 1 to 5 regarding the topic of their perception of the amount of use occurring on weekdays on the reservoir or along the reservoir shoreline in vicinity of their property, 50 percent of all respondents indicated that they felt Not Crowded and 36 percent of all respondents indicated that they felt Slightly Crowded, with an average rating of 1.7 (between Not Crowded and Slightly Crowded). However, when asked about their perception of the amount of use occurring on weekends or holidays, 44 percent of all respondents indicated that they felt Somewhat Crowded and 25 percent of all respondents indicated that they felt Moderately Crowded, with an average rating of 3.3, between Somewhat Crowded and Moderately Crowded.

On a scale of 1 to 5 regarding their perception of the amount or level of recreational conflicts occurring on weekdays on the reservoir or along the reservoir shoreline in the vicinity of their property, 57 percent of all respondents indicated No Conflicts and 30 percent of all respondents indicated Slight Amount of Conflicts, with an average rating of 1.6, between No Conflicts and Slight Amount of Conflicts. When asked about their perception of the amount or level of recreational conflicts occurring on weekends or holidays, 33 percent of all respondents indicated Moderate Amount of Conflicts, 26 percent indicated Slight Amount of Conflicts, and 23 percent of all respondents indicated No Conflicts, with an average rating of 2.6, between Slight Amount of Conflicts and Moderate Amount of Conflicts.

The questionnaire results also indicated that on a scale of 1 to 5 regarding their satisfaction with Eagle Creek’s implementation of its shoreline management guidelines and with Eagle Creek’s practices specifically related to structures within the reservoir or along the shoreline, 64 percent of all respondents responded Satisfied, Moderately Satisfied, or Extremely Satisfied.

The questionnaire results also indicated that on a scale of 1 to 5, regarding their satisfaction from 2012 through 2017 with reservoir water levels on the reservoir adjacent to their property or to which they have access rights, 43 percent of all respondents indicated that they were Not Satisfied At All, and 35 percent of all respondents indicated Moderately Unsatisfied. As noted in the final study report, questionnaire responses may have been influenced by the lower than normal reservoir elevations at Swinging Bridge Reservoir from approximately 2005 through mid-2017 as a result of the FERC requirement to remove the 5-foot-high flashboards at the spillway in support of dam remediation efforts causing the reservoir elevation.

When asked what they like most about the recreation experiences available on the reservoir adjacent to or to which they have access rights, the response received most frequently was some sort of a recreation activity (86 responses) followed by beauty/scenery/views (55 responses). The responses received most frequently from respondents about what they like least about the recreation experiences available on the reservoir


E-228

adjacent to or to which they have access rights was variable/unpredictable/fluctuating water levels/water levels vary too much/putting dock in and out followed by water levels too low.

A total of 102 respondents provided additional comments regarding public recreation opportunities and facilities at the Swinging Bridge and Toronto reservoirs. The responses covered a wide range of topics but the response received most frequently was related to water levels being too low or too variable/unpredictable. As previously mentioned in this section, questionnaire responses regarding low or unpredictable water levels may have been influenced by the lower than normal operating elevations at Swinging Bridge Reservoir from approximately 2005 through mid-2017 as a result of the requirement to remove the 5-foot-high flashboards at the spillway in support of dam remediation efforts. As of the summer of 2017, reservoir levels at Swinging Bridge Reservoir were returned to normal operating ranges.


Private development along the shoreline of the Projects’ reservoirs is limited to Toronto and Swinging Bridge reservoirs. There is no private development along the shorelines of Cliff Lake, Mongaup Falls, and Rio reservoirs with the exception of Project facilities and Eagle Creek and/or NYSDEC-owned recreation facilities.

The Shoreline Management Assessment Study indicated that shoreline property owners are largely satisfied with Eagle Creek’s current shoreline management policies and implementation. On weekdays, property owners felt weekday use of the reservoirs was low with low conflicts and weekend use of the reservoirs was moderately high with slight to moderate conflicts. Study respondents indicated that what they like most about the recreational opportunities at the Projects is the various opportunities and scenic value, and what they like least about the recreation opportunities at the Projects is the variable or low reservoir elevations.


Eagle Creek proposes continued operation of the Projects with the PM&E measures listed below related to recreation and land use resources as described below.


• Operate the Project to maintain reservoir elevations above 1,060.0 feet in Swinging Bridge Reservoir and above 1,210.0 feet in Toronto Reservoir from Memorial Day to Labor Day.

• Enhance the boat launch at the Swinging Bridge East Access to ensure functionality down to elevation 1,060 feet.

• Develop a Shoreline Management Plan to be filed with the Commission within 2 years of issuance date of the new license.

Rio Project



E-229

All Projects

• Operate and maintain the current FERC-approved recreation facilities owned by Eagle Creek at the Projects.

• Develop a Recreation Management Plan for each Project to be filed with the Commission within 1 year of the issuance date of the new licenses.


As described in Section E.6.2 of this application, the Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects operate in a peaking mode while maintaining minimum flow requirements and seasonal target reservoir elevations. Eagle Creek monitors current and forecasted load demands, reservoir elevations, available storage, and weather/inflow data to determine effective operation of the generating stations. As noted above, Eagle Creek is proposing to maintain the Toronto and Swinging Bridge Reservoirs at an established elevation in support of recreation and shoreline management. Therefore, little to no unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated based on continued operation of the Projects as proposed by Eagle Creek.

E.7.7 Aesthetic Resources


The Projects are located in Sullivan and Orange counties in the southeastern section of New York State. The basin is mostly wooded and undeveloped with several large reservoirs regulated for hydroelectric power. The two urban areas in the Projects vicinity include Liberty, New York, located in the northern part of the drainage basin and the outskirts of Monticello, New York, located on the eastern edge of the basin. There are also several rural towns located throughout the Projects’ area.

The Mongaup River watershed is marked by broken topography and steep gradients, modified to some extent by heavy glacial deposits. The maximum relief of the basin is approximately 1,700 feet. The highest elevation is in the area north of Liberty and the lowest is at the confluence of the Mongaup and Delaware rivers. The terrain of the area is hilly with the steepest slopes being found along the valley walls of the Mongaup River. Besides being steep, the Mongaup River is narrow, full of boulders, and interspersed with rapids.

A majority of the lands abutting the Projects’ impoundments are owned by Eagle Creek or the NYSDEC, or have an established conservation easement; however, portions of the surrounding land is owned by development companies and private homeowners. These adjoining properties provide opportunities for residential development and home ownership within the Projects’ area. Given the acreage of land that has been preserved for bald eagle habitat and viewing areas, a larger portion of the Projects’ area will be maintained in its natural state.


The Swinging Bridge Project consists of Toronto, Cliff Lake, and Swinging Bridge developments. Toronto and Cliff Lake Dams are located on Black Lake Creek, a tributary entering the Mongaup River below Swinging Bridge Dam. Toronto Reservoir is used for storage purposes and provides controlled releases to Cliff Lake. Water flows between Cliff Lake and Swinging Bridge reservoirs via an underground tunnel extending between the two


E-230

reservoirs. Toronto Dam is an earth-fill dam approximately 1,620 feet long with a rock side channel spillway. Cliff Lake Dam is an earth embankment approximately 270 feet long with a concrete overflow spillway and concrete gravity non-overflow wall. Swinging Bridge Dam is an earth-fill dam approximately 975 feet long and has a separate concrete side channel spillway. The powerhouses at the Swinging Bridge Development are constructed of brick and steel on reinforced-concrete substructures. The Swinging Bridge Project is located in a rural area dominated by forested and undeveloped lands consisting of deciduous forest, evergreen forest, and mixed forest. Figure E.7-43 depicts the Swinging Bridge Reservoir, dam, and powerhouses.

FIGURE E.7-43 SWINGING BRIDGE RESERVOIR, DAM AND POWERHOUSES


The Mongaup Falls Project consists of the Mongaup Falls Dam, located just above Mongaup Falls on the Mongaup River. A wood stave penstock directs flows from the Mongaup Falls dams into the Mongaup Powerhouse. The Mongaup Powerhouse is constructed on a reinforced-concrete substructure. The Mongaup Falls Dam is located at the crest of Mongaup Falls and features a concrete gravity spillway and earth dam section. Figure E.7-44 depicts the Mongaup Falls Reservoir, dam, and gatehouse.

Mongaup Falls is located in a rural area dominated by forested and undeveloped lands consisting of primarily deciduous forest, evergreen forest, and mixed forest. There is low density development located near the northern portion of the Mongaup Falls Reservoir.


E-231

FIGURE E.7-44 MONGAUP FALLS RESERVOIR

Rio Project

Rio Dam is an earth-fill dam with an overall length of approximately 1,500 feet. Unlike the other Mongaup River Projects, a road crosses the top of the dam and abutments. Water from the Rio Reservoir is supplied to the Rio powerhouses via a 7,000-foot-long steel penstock. Figure E.7-45 depicts the Rio Reservoir, dam, penstock, and minimum flow unit powerhouse. Rio is located in a rural area dominated by forested and undeveloped lands mainly consisting of deciduous forest, evergreen forest, and mixed forest.


E-232

FIGURE E.7-45 RIO RESERVOIR, DAM, PENSTOCK, AND MINIMUM FLOW UNIT POWERHOUSE


The Commission’s SD2 identified the effects of the Projects on reservoir levels, and the effects of reservoir levels on recreation and aesthetics as potential resource aspects relating to aesthetic resources for the Projects.

The Projects were originally constructed almost 100 years ago and have been maintained largely in their original state, with the exception of construction of the small minimum flow powerhouses at the Swinging Bridge and Rio projects. The Projects are located in a rural, largely non-developed area within Sullivan and Orange counties where the Projects’ features blend well with the natural surroundings.

As described previously in this application, respondents to surveys administered during relicensing studies indicated they are satisfied with the scenic quality of the Projects. Specifically, most respondents to the recreation survey responded they were satisfied or more than satisfied with the reservoir water level either at the time of their trip to a particular recreation site or during the past five years. When asked to describe any scenic views in the vicinity, many respondents to the recreation survey commented on the overall scenic value of the Projects’ reservoirs. Additionally, in the shoreline management assessment survey, property owners at the Toronto and Swinging Bridge reservoirs highly value the scenery and views available to them through recreational opportunities from their property. Property owners also identified the general shoreline area and views of eagles as aesthetic values available from their property.

Some survey respondents also indicated that the variable or low reservoir elevations were what they least liked about the recreation opportunities at the Projects. Lower reservoir elevations were also identified by property owners to affect aesthetics by exposing some shoreline areas. However, there was no indication that reservoir elevations were adversely impacting the aesthetic quality at the Projects. In an effort to balance the resources at the Projects, Eagle Creek is proposing to maintain reservoir elevations above 1,060.0 feet at the Swinging


E-233

Bridge Reservoir and above 1,210.0 feet at the Toronto Reservoir from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Additionally, as indicated in the Operations Model Study Report provided in the USR previously filed with the Commission, often times during the recreation season, inflows to the Project (relative to required outflows) will result in reservoir elevations higher than the recreation season minimum, particularly with the “or inflow” provision for the minimum flows at the Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls, and Rio developments.


Eagle Creek proposes continued operation of the Projects with PM&E measures consistent with the existing license requirements as well as proposed PM&E measures related to recreation and shoreline resources, which are intended to have a beneficial effect on aesthetic resources at the Projects (i.e., maintaining reservoir elevations above 1,060.0 feet at the Swinging Bridge Reservoir and above 1,210.0 feet at the Toronto Reservoir from Memorial Day to Labor Day.


Eagle Creek operates the Projects to balance resources of interest including aquatic base flows, recreational flows, and recreation season reservoir elevations. Based on historical hydrology for the system, Eagle Creek operates the Projects by lowering reservoir elevations during the winter months to allow storage area for the anticipated spring runoff, freshet, and typical wet spring weather to avoid uncontrolled spill at the Projects. Such operations allow Eagle Creek to balance and optimize the natural river flows in support of the resources of interest. Depending on seasonal inflows to the system, these operations may result in an unavoidable impact to aesthetics associated with reservoir shorelines during the winter months.

E.7.8 Socioeconomic Resources


The Projects are located in Orange and Sullivan counties, New York.

Orange County

The 2010 census reported that 372,813 people reside in Orange County, which encompasses approximately 812 square miles. The estimated 2015 population residing in Orange County was 377,647, which is a 1.3-percent increase from 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau undated-a).

From 2011-2015 the median household income for Orange County was $70,848 which compares to the statewide median household income of $59,269 for the same time period (U.S. Census Bureau undated-c). The unemployment rate for Orange County in 2015 was 4.7 percent, compared to 5.4 percent unemployment in New York State (National Conference of State Legislatures 2017a), and a national unemployment rate of 5.3 percent (National Conference of State Legislatures 2017b).

Orange County is home to three small cities- Newburgh, Port Jervis, and Middletown as well as numerous smaller towns. All three of the small cities have direct access to the metropolitan railroad network connecting Orange County to New York City and northern New Jersey (Orange County Partnership 2016a).


E-234

The largest employment industries in Orange County are educational, health care, and social assistance (25.7%, combined) and retail trade (13.8%) and professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services (9.0%, combined) (U.S. Census Bureau undated-a). The top major employers in the county are United States Military Academy at West Point, Orange Regional Medical Center, Crystal Run Healthcare, Access: Supports for Living, St. Luke’s Cornwall Hospital, Elant, Inc., C&S Wholesale Grocers Inc., and Mount Saint Mary College (Orange County Partnership, 2016b).

Sullivan County

The 2010 census reported that 77,547 people reside in Sullivan County, which encompasses approximately 997 square miles. The estimated 2015 population residing in Sullivan County was 74,877, which is a 3.4-percent decrease from 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau undated-c). Sullivan County is home to 15 townships and numerous villages and hamlets.

From 2011-2015 the median household income for Sullivan County was $50,710 which compares to the statewide median household income of $59,269 for the same time period (U.S. Census Bureau undated-c). The unemployment rate for Sullivan County in 2015 was 6.2 percent, compared to 5.4 percent unemployment in New York State (National Conference of State Legislatures 2017a), and a national unemployment rate of 5.3 percent (National Conference of State Legislatures 2017b).

The largest employment industries in Sullivan County are educational, health, and social services (31.4%, combined), retail trade (18.2%), and arts, entertainment, and recreation and accommodation and food services (10.3%, combined) (U.S. Census Bureau undated-c). The Center for Discovery in Harris is the largest single employer in Sullivan County (Economic Development of Corporation of Sullivan County 2010). The Center for Discovery enables people with disabilities to develop skills to engage in the workforce.


The Commission’s SD2 did not identify potential resource issues relating to socioeconomic resources for the Project. Continued operation of the Projects as proposed is not anticipated to result in adverse effects to the socio-economics in the Projects’ area.


Eagle Creek proposes continued operation of the Projects with PM&E measures largely consistent with the existing license requirements including maintaining reservoir elevations above 1,060.0 feet at Swinging Bridge Reservoir and above 1,210.0 feet at Toronto Reservoir from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Eagle Creek is not proposing PM&E measures specific to socio-economic resources.


No unavoidable adverse impacts to socioeconomic resources are expected by continued operation of the Projects as proposed.


E-235

E.7.9 Cultural Resources

In considering new licenses for the Projects, the Commission has the lead responsibility for compliance with applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies pertaining to historic properties, including the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA).9 Section 106 of the NHPA (Section 106)10 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment.

The term “historic property” is defined in the implementing11 regulations as any precontact or historic period district, site, building, structure, or individual object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including any artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within historic properties, and properties of traditional religious and cultural significance that meet the NRHP criteria. The criteria for evaluating properties for inclusion in the National Register (36 CFR Part 60) has been established by the Secretary of the Interior. In accordance with the criteria, properties are eligible if they are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. The quality of significance is present in historic properties that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association, and:

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;

B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;

C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant or distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.

The regulations implementing Section 106 are intended to accommodate historic preservation concerns with the needs of federal undertakings through a process of consultation among agency officials, Federally recognized Native American tribes, State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO), and other parties, including the public, as appropriate. By letters dated April 27, 2017, the Commission initiated consultation under Section 106 with federally-recognized Native American tribes, including the Delaware Tribe of Indians (Delaware Tribe), Delaware Nation, and Stockbridge-Munsee Community12. The Commission designated Eagle Creek as its non-federal representative for purposes of conducting informal consultation pursuant to Section 106 via the May 30, 2017 Notice of Intent to File License Application for a New License and Commencing Pre-filing Process.

954 USC §300101 et seq. 1054 USC §306108 11 36 CFR Part 800 – The Protection of Historic Properties 12 Via email dated December 19, 2016, the Stockbridge-Munsee community’s THPO notified Eagle Creek that the

tribe does not have concerns regarding the Projects’ relicensing.


E-236


E.7.9.1.1 Area of Potential Effects

The area of potential effects (APE) for any undertaking is defined in 36 CFR §800.16(d) as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking. Although the Projects’ potential effects are limited by the nature of this undertaking (the relicensing and continued operation and maintenance of existing hydroelectric facilities), the Projects have the potential to directly or indirectly affect historic properties (should any such properties exist). As described in the PAD, Project-related effects on historic properties may potentially result from (1) the Projects’ operations, (2) potential enhancement measures at the Projects, and (3) routine maintenance activities. The Projects’ operations cause seasonal fluctuations in reservoir water levels that could potentially contribute, in part, to shoreline erosion. Seasonal reservoir fluctuations could also expose archaeological sites to looting and/or vandalism. Potential enhancement measures at the Projects (e.g., development of new recreation access areas) could result in ground disturbance which has the potential to disturb intact archaeological deposits, should any be present. Routine maintenance activities at the Projects could result in ground disturbance and could also affect the integrity of historic buildings and structures.

Consistent with the scope of potential effects on historic properties, Eagle Creek proposed to define the APE for relicensing the Projects as the lands within the defined FERC Project boundaries. Since the Project boundaries encompass all lands that are necessary for the Projects’ purposes, the definition of the APE is consistent with the 36 CFR §800.16(d) and the manner in which the Commission has defined the APE for similar hydroelectric projects. The Project boundary for each Project is presented in Exhibit G of this application.

Pursuant to the approved Cultural Resources Study Plan, Eagle Creek consulted with the New York SHPO, Delaware Tribe, and Delaware Nation regarding the APE. None of the consulting parties objected to the APE proposed by Eagle Creek.

E.7.9.1.2 Cultural Context

The archaeological record of precontact and historic period populations in New York State begins over 10,000 years ago at the end of the last Ice Age. This section provides a brief overview of the cultural context of the region.

Precontact Period

The earliest evidence of human occupation in New York State dates to the retreat of continental glaciers at the end of the last Ice Age. Although the absolute chronology for the Paleoindian period in North America (and in New York State, specifically) remains in question, the period is generally considered to begin during the terminal stages of the late Wisconsinan glaciation of the Pleistocene epoch (approximately 10,500 B.C.) (Adovasio and Carr 2002). The late glacial and early Holocene transition presented a dynamic mosaic of changing environmental settings. Glacial retreat created rapid, unpredictable, and extreme changes in climate, drainage, topography, and soils. Palynological studies suggest a succession of biotic communities existed that rapidly transitioned from tundra, to spruce parkland, and pine-oak forests (Johnson 1984). The composition of these communities varied significantly from modern analogs, and cannot be closely correlated with


E-237

environmental settings known to exist today (Johnson 1984; Adovasio and Carr 2002). Paleoenvironmental reconstructions indicate that much of present-day New York State south of the glacial margin was open tundra or spruce parkland during the Paleoindian period (Ritchie and Funk 1973). Paleoindian artifact assemblages in the Northeast are dominated by lithic technologies, particularly fluted projectile points, utilized flakes, and smaller bifacial tools, such as scrapers and burins (Adovasio and Carr 2002). Elements of this toolkit appear to be designed for hunting the megafauna that inhabited the region at the Pleistocene/Holocene transition. It is likely that Paleoindian groups were highly mobile and followed the seasonal migration of large mammals. Intact Paleoindian sites in the Northeast have generally been found along moraines, hilltops, and ridges along major waterways, and along the edges of marshes and the margins of postglacial lakes (Pasquariello and Loorya 2006; Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. [Hartgen] 2002). Site selection factors may have included favorable viewsheds for observing the migratory routes of game animals and the proximity to rich ecological zones near lakes and wetlands.

There is a paucity of Paleoindian sites in New York State, and none have been identified within the vicinity of the Projects. A number of factors contribute to the general lack of sites from the Paleoindian period (Heitert 2003; Johnson 1984). The age of Paleoindian deposits, subsequent landscape modifications, and associated ground-disturbing activities (e.g., agriculture and logging) make the likelihood of encountering intact Paleoindian sites relatively low. Other significant factors that affect the visibility of intact sites include the presumed low population densities during the Paleoindian period, the perishable nature of material culture types common to hunter-gatherer groups (e.g., cordage and fiber technologies), and the general environmental conditions in the region at the end of the Wisconsinan glaciation. The paleoenvironmental landscape was significantly altered by natural environmental conditions precipitated by a host of post-glacial processes, including isostatic rebound, eustatic sea level rise, and concomitant changes in the characteristics of alluvial environments. These and other natural processes have further obscured the relationship between the paleotopography and the modern landscape.

A warming and more arid climate following glacial retreat led to increased ecological diversity during the Archaic period (8,000 B.C. – 1,500 B.C.) (Quinn 1999; Ritchie 1965). The Early Archaic was characterized by the spread of boreal (coniferous) forests across the Northeast, followed by the establishment of essentially modern mixed deciduous forests and faunal assemblages by the Middle Archaic (Ritchie and Funk 1973). Relatively little is known about the Early and Middle Archaic in New York State and few sites have been extensively investigated (Nagel et al. 2001). As a result of these factors, Early and Middle Archaic period sites have been identified primarily by a sequence of projectile point typologies (Will at al. 2019). The smaller notched and stemmed Kirk and LeCroy points of the Early Archaic replaced the lanceolate points of the Paleoindian period, reflecting a transition from the pursuit of late Pleistocene/early Holocene megafauna to smaller animals such as deer, turkey, and elk. By the Middle Archaic, there appears to be a continued diversification of subsistence activities, with an increased emphasis on exploitation of seasonal forest and riverine resources (Hartgen 2002). Middle Archaic sites are typically associated with rivers, swamps, lakes, estuaries, and coastlines. Although there is a lack of data for reconstructing subsistence and settlement patterns, the proximity of these sites to existing waterways suggests that Middle Archaic populations were exploiting seasonal fish runs and bird migrations along the Eastern Flyway (Pasquariello and Loorya 2006; Will et al. 2019). The emergence of ground and polished stone tools during the Middle Archaic indicates that techniques to process nuts and edible plants were also becoming better refined during this stage (Ritchie 1965).

The Late Archaic correlates with essentially modern climatic conditions and the stabilization of regional and local environments (Hartgen 2002; Mozzi and Clifford 2000). In New York State, forests were dominated by


E-238

oak, hickory, and walnut, and the stabilization of sea levels led to the emergence of rich riverine habitats (Hartgen 2002). The Late Archaic in New York State is generally represented by diagnostic artifacts associated with the Laurentian tradition. Laurentian tradition subsistence patterns revolved around hunting and fishing, with a toolkit that included projectile points, gouges, adzes, ground slate knives, the ulu, barbed bone projectile points, and a variety of chipped stone tools (Ritchie 1965). The Laurentian tradition was widespread throughout the Northeast and can be subdivided into a number of regional and sequential phases. Within the vicinity of the Projects, these include Vergennes, Vosburg, and later phases (Will et al. 2019). Broad point traditions, including Susquehanna points, are also present. Late Archaic settlement patterns focused on seasonal resource availability, with population aggregation occurring in larger river valleys and along the shorelines of lakes during the warmer months and dispersal of family groups into the uplands and smaller valleys during the winter.

Archaeologists have long recognized a Transitional or Terminal Archaic period that bridges the Archaic and Woodland periods in the Northeast (Ritchie 1965). Characteristics of the Transitional Archaic include the use of steatite cooking vessels and the appearance of Orient Fishtail projectile points. Orient Fishtail points are typically found throughout Long Island, southern New England, and the Hudson River Valley, although morphological correlates have been identified throughout the Northeast (Justice 1987).

The Woodland Period (1,500 BC – AD 1550) was characterized by widespread and significant changes in cultural patterns across the eastern United States (Quinn 1999). The transition from the Late Archaic to the Early Woodland period is typically defined by the manufacture and use of ceramic vessels. This development occurred in areas of eastern North America during the Late Archaic period but became widespread in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic by approximately 1,000 B.C. (Quinn 1999).

Early Woodland cultural traditions are evidence of the continuation, adaptation, and intensification of Archaic period cultural trends and broader interaction spheres of trade and communication across the entirety of the Eastern Woodlands (Nagel et al. 2001; Fagan 2000). Maize, bean, and squash agriculture became an important source of subsistence during the Late Woodland period. Major sociopolitical changes accompanied the widespread adoption of cultivation practices, including increased territorialization and changes in residence patterns. These changes led to the emergence of an identifiable Iroquoian Tradition within western, central, and northern New York State by AD 1300. At the close of the Woodland Period, the Upper Delaware River Valley was occupied by the Munsee, an Algonquian-speaking sub-division of the Lenni Lenape or Delaware (Grumet 1995).

Grumet (1995) defines “Munsee Country” as the region that “stretches across the lower Hudson and upper Delaware river valleys.” Archaeological evidence indicates that the Munsee lived in longhouses similar to their Iroquoian neighbors, but unlike the Iroquois, Munsee villages were not large and fortified towns located on defensible landforms (Grumet 1995). Both Munsee and Iroquoian communities were oriented around maize, bean, and squash cultivation in fields near settlements. Temporary upland camps and task-specific activity sites augmented the resources available in the lowland areas surrounding villages.

Historic Period

While direct contact between Native Americans and Europeans in the North Atlantic region did not occur until the 17th century, European trade items were obtained by indigenous coastal groups from European fishing and whaling fleets and made their way inland from the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coasts through trading intermediaries during the 16th century (Grumet 1995). The European colonization of the New World brought


E-239

massive social, political, and economic changes to Native American communities, and indigenous populations attempted to adapt to these changes in a number of ways. Shifts in cultural patterns and technologies were widespread even prior to direct contact with Europeans.

At the time of European contact, there were at least 12,000 people living in Munsee Country (Grumet 1995). Early explorers including Henry Hudson, Adriaen Block, and Cornelius May documented the indigenous communities in the area in the early 1600s. A series of epidemics and bloody conflicts devastated Munsee communities during the 1600s, and by the end of the 17th century much of the Munsee population had been pushed out of the region. Grumet (1995) summarizes the situation at the beginning of the 18th century:

Indian population in Munsee Country continued to drop precipitously during the first decades of the eighteenth century as recurring outbreaks of smallpox, measles and other diseases took their toll. Finding themselves directly in the path of colonial expansion and increasingly unable to resist the demands of the growing number of settlers flooding their territories, many Indian people remaining in Munsee Country parted with their last lands and moved elsewhere.

Driven from their lands and displaced, the Munsee joined with the French during the Seven Years War, ravaging towns along the Upper Delaware River Valley (Grumet 1995). The British began attacking Indian communities in the region in response and, in 1758, the Munsee surrendered much of their lands to broker a peace agreement with the British. Many of the remaining Munsee then moved west into the Ohio River Valley before eventually dispersing across the Midwest (Grumet 1995).

Early European settlement was concentrated in the southern part of what is now Sullivan County along the Delaware River. There are reports of early Swedish settlers on the Delaware River as far north as Cochecton by 1630, but there were no substantial settlements in the upper valley until the 1750s. In the midst of the French and Indian War, a group of English farmers from central Connecticut established Cushetunk, the first European settlement on the Upper Delaware in present day Sullivan County. Through the auspices of the “The Delaware Company,” these farmers purchased a 10-mile-long strip of land along both sides of the Delaware River from the Lenape Indians in 1754 and either sold or leased it to other Connecticut farmers moving into the frontier. By 1760 there were 30 cabins, a gristmill, and a sawmill. In 1761, a stockade was erected around a portion of the settlement to protect against attack, which occurred by a Lenape war party in 1763. In the years between the French and Indian War and the American Revolution, the fort was abandoned as settlers moved out to establish farms and homes in the area (Sullivan County 2017).

Sullivan County was originally part of Ulster County, which was formed when the colonial Province of New York was divided into twelve counties in 1683. Early land grants in Ulster County led to land speculation among colonial elites but resulted in little settlement, largely due to the county’s poor soil and lack of valuable minerals or other natural resources other than timber. Before the American Revolution there were few people in the area except the Mamakating, Lumberland, Cochecton, and Neversink districts. Small numbers of enslaved Africans were present in what is now Sullivan County, including 51 enslaved and five free black residents (Frisbie 1996).

Transportation improvements during the nineteenth century spurred the settlement of the Sullivan County interior. The construction of the Newburgh and Cochecton Turnpike between 1801 and 1809 connected the Delaware and Hudson rivers and opened the area for a wave of early settlement. The county population nearly doubled from 3,222 in 1800 to 6,108 in 1810. Many of the new settlers were from Connecticut, in addition to


E-240

people of Irish, German, and Swiss descent (Conway 2005). The resulting growth preceded a movement to create a new county in the region. The state legislature created Sullivan County from Ulster County on March 27, 1809, and named it in honor of Major General John Sullivan, a veteran of the Revolutionary War who passed through part of the county in 1779. The county was divided into 15 towns, including Forestburgh near the Mongaup River and the Projects, and six incorporated villages. Due to its advantageous location on the Newburgh and Cochecton Turnpike, the town of Monticello was chosen as the county seat (Frisbie 1996). Other transportation improvements through the county at this time included the 1828 Delaware and Hudson Canal, the 1849 New York and Railroad along the Delaware River, and the New York and Oswego Midland Railroads completed in 1872 (Conway 2005).

Improved transportation and population growth led to industrial development in Sullivan County, including small rural industries and natural resource extraction in the Mongaup River Valley. The timber industry had begun in the 1760s and developed into a focal point of the local economy after the American Revolution. During its peak years in the mid-nineteenth century, over 50 million board feet of pine and hemlock were shipped down the Delaware River annually. The timber industry led to the development of local water-powered sawmills, including the area’s first sawmill built in 1817 in the village of Mongaup Valley, located at the north end of the Projects. The village also had a grist mill and large tannery that employed over 200 men (NPS 2017; Tillotson 1965).

Between the 1850s and 1880s, the region featured a number of large tanneries that used tannins from local hemlock groves to process leather. Mill development and the related timber and tanning industries led to modest population growth in the valley as small hamlets developed into towns with post offices, churches, and schools. By the early twentieth century most of the easily marketable forests were completely logged and the timber and tanning industries declined. Quarrying operations took the place of tanneries and sawmills as the locally renowned bluestone was cut and shipped in large quantities to New York City and Jersey City for use in street and curb construction (NPS 2017; Tillotson 1965).

Agriculture also played a strong role in the development of Sullivan and Orange counties. Row crop agriculture was concentrated along the fertile, well-drained silt and sandy loam soils of the Delaware River Valley along the counties’ western borders. The counties’ interiors were characterized by rolling pasture land that was better suited to livestock and dairy production. After World War II, Sullivan County was the largest producer of eggs in New York with 400 egg farms, and 250 dairy farms in 1968 (Elozua 2017). The famous Woodstock music festival took place on Max Yasgur’s 600-acre dairy farm in the Sullivan County town of Bethel in August 1969.

By the mid-nineteenth century, vacationers looking to escape the oppressive summer heat of New York City discovered respite in Sullivan County. The fresh mountain air and natural beauty of the county, and easy access provided by area railroads, led to the construction of scores of hotels and boarding houses throughout the county, such as the Mountain House Hotel in 1848. The “Silver Age” of tourism in Sullivan County occurred between 1890 and 1915, and it was marked by hotels such as the Wawonda, the Swannanoa in Liberty, the White Sulphur Springs House, the Ferndale Villa, and the Frank Leslie in Monticello. These hotels featured wood-frame construction in the latest Victorian styles, and offered clean air and water, farm fresh food, and popular new pastimes such as golf and tennis. By 1915 many of the hotels had closed or burned, and a stark shift in the local tourism industry began as a seasonal influx of New York City-based Jewish immigrants moved into Sullivan County, some of whom bought remaining hotels. Others came to farm but found they could make a better living by opening boarding houses or running hotels marketed to Jewish vacationers who were previously unwelcome and excluded from the Silver Age resorts (Conway 2005). Consequently, the region’s


E-241

economy in the twentieth century was strongly associated with the “Borscht Belt,” a colloquial term for the popular summer resorts of the Catskill Mountains in parts of Sullivan, Orange, and Ulster counties. These resorts were popular vacation spots for Jewish people from New York City between the 1920s and 1970s. Many Borscht Belt resorts were located in the vicinity of the Projects in the eastern part of Sullivan County. By the 1980s, the growth of air travel and other factors led to the decline and closure of most of the region’s resorts (Sullivan County Historical Society 2016).

With the growth of nearby cities such as Port Jervis and Middletown in the early 20th century, utility engineering firm Charles H. Tenney & Co. saw an opportunity to supply locally generated power from the Mongaup River, which was geologically well-suited for hydroelectric development with its steep changes in slope and narrow valley walls. Beginning in 1922, Tenney & Co. bought additional land and water rights in the river valley through its subsidiary the Rockland Light and Power Company (or “Rockland”), which eventually merged with the Orange County Hydro-electric Corporation to form the Projects’ long-time owner, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (Charles H. Tenney & Company 1929).

Rockland developed a plan to build five reservoirs and three hydroelectric stations at Mongaup Falls, Swinging Bridge, and Rio. Two of the reservoirs, including Toronto and the pre-existing Cliff Lake, would serve as water storage facilities for the Swinging Bridge development. The powerhouse and dam facilities were designed by Chas. T. Main, Inc., in cooperation with the engineering staff of Tenney & Co., and the construction work was completed by Fred T. Ley & Company (Charles H. Tenney & Company 1929).

The Mongaup Falls Project was completed in 1923 and was the first hydroelectric development on the Mongaup River. Original construction of the Rio Project was completed in 1926. Since 1994, the Rio Project releases a portion of the water at the base of the dam to maintain flow in the Mongaup River. In 2013, a new powerhouse and 800-kilowatt generator unit was built near the base of the Rio dam. The new powerhouse generates additional power, making efficient use of the all the water released by the dam while maintaining aquatic habitat from the base of the Rio Dam to the Delaware River. The original construction of the Swinging Bridge Project was completed in 1930 with Powerhouse 1, a 5.0 MW generator unit which has been rendered inoperable and has remained out of service since 2005. Powerhouse 2 was completed in 1939 with a 6.75 MW unit that is still in use today. Swinging Bridge also includes the Toronto Reservoir and Cliff Lake on Black Lake Creek.

E.7.9.1.3 Cultural Resources Studies

Pursuant to the approved Cultural Resources Study Plan, Eagle Creek conducted a cultural resources survey and inventory within the Projects’ APE. A Phase IA Literature Search and Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment (Phase IA Survey) and a Historic Resources Survey were conducted by Eagle Creek to identify archaeological and historic resources within the Projects’ APE that may be affected by the Commission’s issuance of new licenses for the continued operation and maintenance of the Projects.

Eagle Creek conducted background literature and an archival review for the Phase IA Survey, including a review of environmental data, a review of information available from the New York SHPO’s online Cultural Resources Information System (CRIS) database, previous cultural resources studies conducted in the vicinity of the Projects’ APE, secondary literature, historic documents and maps, and pertinent archaeological site files. A reconnaissance survey of the APE was conducted by Eagle Creek in July 2018. The methods and results of the Phase IA Survey are detailed in the Phase 1A Archaeological Review and Assessment of the Mongaup River


E-242

Hydroelectric Projects, Sullivan and Orange Counties, New York (Phase IA Report) included in the ISR filed with the Commission as CUI/Privileged information on February 8, 2019.

In the Phase IA Report, Eagle Creek concluded that both the Rio and Mongaup Falls reservoirs occupied sections of the Mongaup River where the river is deeply incised into a confined physical area. The steep-walled valleys formed by the river in these reaches extends above the high-water mark, and there were no terraces or similar features observed along the shorelines of either the Rio or Mongaup Falls APEs. Eagle Creek’s review of historic maps did not identify any map-documented structures within the Rio or Mongaup Falls APEs, and Eagle Creek did not observe shoreline erosion. For these reasons, Eagle Creek did not recommend any additional archaeological investigations of either the Rio or Mongaup Falls APEs.

Eagle Creek noted that pre-project topographic maps show that the Mongaup River was broad and shallow at the north end of the Swinging Bridge Reservoir compared with the Rio and Mongaup Falls reservoirs. This was also evident for both the Toronto and Cliff Lake reservoirs, which were both constructed on Black Lake Creek. The creek was originally bordered by broad wetlands. Based on the field reconnaissance and a review of aerial imagery, Eagle Creek concluded that the Swinging Bridge, Toronto, and Cliff Lake reservoirs evidence a fluctuation zone that is more prominent in the fall. The Mongaup River and Black Lake Creek may have meandered across their floodplains throughout the Holocene Epoch creating beaches and terraces that could have afforded opportunities for Native American settlement or use in the Precontact period. Seasonal water level fluctuations may expose old shorelines, exposing archaeologically sensitive landforms to potential erosion. Further, a partially submerged historic resource was noted within the Swinging Bridge Reservoir. For these reasons, Eagle Creek recommended a Phase IB Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey (Phase IB Survey) of the Swinging Bridge, Toronto, and Cliff Lake reservoirs to systematically walk and observe exposed shorelines to identify archaeological sites that may be present and to assess the Projects’ potential effects on identified resources.

Eagle Creek also conducted a Historic Resources Survey of historic architectural and engineering resources aged 50 years or older within the Projects’ APE, including both Project-related and non-Project-related facilities, to evaluate their eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP. Eagle Creek conducted background research and an archival review for the Historic Resources Survey, which included a review of information available from the New York SHPO’s CRIS database, original construction drawings, technical documents and reports, historical brochures and books, historic photographs, historic maps, news clippings, and conversations with Project staff. Eagle Creek also consulted information on file with the Ethel B. Crawford Public Library in Monticello, New York, and the Sullivan County Historical Society. A reconnaissance survey of the APE was conducted from June 18 through 22, 2018. The methods and results of the Historic Resources Survey are detailed in Historic Resources Survey, Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects, Sullivan and Orange Counties, New York (Historic Resources Report) included in the ISR filed with the Commission as CUI/Privileged information on February 8, 2019.

In the Historic Resources Report, Eagle Creek recommended that the Projects are eligible for listing in the NRHP as a historic district under Criterion A at the local level in the area of Industry for its significant association with the early-twentieth century development of hydroelectric power on the Mongaup River in Sullivan and Orange counties. Eagle Creek also recommended that the that the proposed Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects Historic District is eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion C at the local level with significance in the areas of Architecture and Engineering. The district’s contributing resources at the Mongaup Falls, Rio, and Swinging Bridge Projects are representative examples of early-twentieth century hydroelectric projects that


E-243

embody the distinctive characteristics of their type, period, and method of construction. Designed and built under the supervision of Charles H. Tenney & Company, the district’s contributing facilities exhibit distinctive and unifying architectural characteristics, including common forms, structures, plans, and materials.

Eagle Creek concluded that the district has a period of significance from 1923 to 1939, which corresponds to the dates of construction of the major developments at the Mongaup Falls, Rio, and Swinging Bridge Projects. Nine Project facilities were recommended as contributing resources, including:

• Toronto Dam

• Cliff Lake Dam

• Swinging Bridge Dam;

• Swinging Bridge Powerhouse 1;

• Swinging Bridge Powerhouse 2;

• Mongaup Falls Dam;

• Mongaup Falls Powerhouse;

• Rio Dam; and

• Rio Main Powerhouse

The contributing resources in the Mongaup River Hydroelectric Historic District retain all seven NRHP aspects of integrity that convey the district’s significance under Criteria A and C, including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The district’s contributing resources have undergone routine maintenance over the years but have not undergone any major alterations or additions. Eagle Creek concluded that the four powerhouses (as listed above) are especially notable for the integrity of their character defining features such as their original doors, windows, hardware, light fixtures, floor plans, finish materials, and power generation equipment.

Eagle Creek also recommended that the Black Brook Dam and an abandoned pipeline trestle in Rio Reservoir be considered non-contributing resources in the historic district. The Black Brook Dam was completed in 1941 after the district’s construction period of significance. The Black Brook Development was difficult to maintain during periods of high water due to the amount of brush and debris caught in its intake racks, and it added only a marginal capacity to the overall power production of the Mongaup Falls Powerhouse. After four decades of use, the Black Brook Dam’s wooden penstock deteriorated and eventually collapsed circa 1986. The penstock was never repaired and the dam was taken out of service. The deteriorated remains of an oil pipeline trestle across Rio Reservoir built in 1927 are not related to hydroelectric power generation and do not contribute to the historical significance of the Mongaup River Hydroelectric Historic District. Additionally, the trestle retains poor integrity with most of its original structure missing or in ruins.

Both the Phase IA Report and the Historic Resources Report were provided in the ISR filed with the Commission as CUI/Privileged information on February 8, 2019 ISR. Concurrently, Eagle Creek distributed the Phase IA Report and the Historic Resources Report to the New York SHPO, Delaware Tribe, and Delaware Nation. The New York SHPO concurred with the results and recommendations presented in the Phase IA Report via letter dated March 1, 2019 (a copy of which is provided in Appendix B in Volume I of this application). Per additional review of the New York SHPO’s online system in March 2020, New York SHPO also indicated concurrence with the findings of the Historic Resources Report; however, Eagle Creek is currently coordinating with the New York


E-244

SHPO to obtain a letter indicating same, which will be filed with the Commission upon receipt. Eagle Creek did not receive a response from the other consulting parties.

On June 17, 2019, the Commission issued the Second SPD for the Projects. In the Second SPD, the Commission determined that additional archaeological investigations were required and recommended that Eagle Creek conduct a systematic pedestrian survey, including shovel testing, within all accessible areas of each Project’s APE. The Commission directed Eagle Creek to record, map, and photograph archaeological sites in compliance with standards established by the New York SHPO and provide the New York SHPO a study report for review and comment.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Commission’s June 10, 2019 SPD, Eagle Creek performed the supplemental Phase IA Literature Review and Sensitivity Assessment as well as initiated the Phase IB Archaeological Field Reconnaissance, including the systematic pedestrian survey with shovel testing within accessible areas of the Projects’ APE.

A total of 290 shovel tests were completed in October and November 2019 at the Rio, Mongaup Falls, Toronto, and the northern portion of Swinging Bridge reservoirs. Therefore, shovel testing is complete at the Rio, Mongaup Falls, and Toronto reservoirs; however, shovel testing is on-going at the Swinging Bridge and Cliff Lake reservoirs. The remaining field activities will be completed when weather conditions and reservoir elevations are suitable to perform the required activities. In addition, the work will be performed when worker health and safety concerns related to the coronavirus have been addressed.

Upon completion of the field work, Eagle Creek will document the results of the survey and provide the report to the New York NYSHPO. Upon completion of consultation with the NYSHPO, Eagle Creek will file the report and consultation documentation with the Commission.

E.7.9.1.4 Traditional Cultural Properties

Properties of traditional religious or cultural significance (often referred to as “traditional cultural properties” or “TCPs”) can qualify as historic properties to the extent they meet the definition under in 36 CFR §800.16(l). The cultural significance of a TCP is derived from the role the property plays in a community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices. National Register Bulletin 38 provides further guidance on identifying and evaluating TCPs (Parker and King 1998). TCPs may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register due to their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community.

Eagle Creek recognizes the special expertise of the Native American tribes to identify and assess TCPs within the Projects’ APE. To-date, none of the consulting parties have provided information regarding TCPs, and Eagle Creek has not identified any properties of traditional religious or cultural significance within the APEs for the Projects.


The NHPA establishes the statutory responsibility of federal agencies to consider historic properties under their jurisdiction. Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The Commission’s issuance of new licenses for


E-245

the Projects is defined as an undertaking under the NHPA and is, therefore, subject to the provisions of Section 106 and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 800.

The Commission’s SD2 identified the effects of continued operation of the Projects on historic or archeological resources, or traditional cultural places that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places as potential resource aspects relating to cultural resources for the Projects.

Eagle Creek is in the process of completing on-going study activities associated with the Phase IB Archaeological Field Reconnaissance. Upon completion of the activities and consultation with the New York SHPO, Eagle Creek will file additional information with the Commission related to the findings of the study and continued operation of the Projects.


While there are presently no identified ongoing or anticipated adverse effects on historic or archaeological resources, the continued operation of the Projects under new licenses issued by the Commission may require maintenance of buildings and structures or ground-disturbing activities. As such, within 1 year after issuance of the new licenses, Eagle Creek will develop and file with the Commission a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) in consultation with the New York SHPO, federally recognized Native American tribes, and other consulting parties.

Eagle Creek will develop historic properties management measures to be incorporated into the HPMP. Eagle Creek has outlined the following two goals for managing historic resources within the Projects’ APE:

• Support continued normal operation of the Projects while maintaining and preserving the integrity of historic properties; and

• To the fullest extent possible, avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on historic properties within the APEs.

To address these goals, the Licensee will develop an HPMP for the Projects in accordance with the Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects promulgated by FERC and the ACHP on May 20, 2002. The HPMP will take into account the results of the ongoing archaeological investigations and describe measures for the management of and protection of historic properties within the Projects’ APEs through the term of the new licenses issued by the Commission.


Eagle Creek is currently performing Cultural Resources Study activities at the Projects, the results of which will be used to evaluate potential unavoidable adverse impacts to cultural resources at the Projects upon completion of the study activities. However, at this time, continued operation of the Projects as proposed by Eagle Creek is not expected to have unavoidable adverse impacts to historic or archaeological resources.


E-246

E.8 Economic Analysis (18 CFR§5.18(b)(5)(ii)(E))

This section of Exhibit E presents the annualized, current cost-based information including the estimated value of developmental resources (i.e., power generation, water supply, irrigation, navigation, and flood control) based on market price, where possible, associated with the Projects under the existing license and Eagle Creek’s proposal, the cost of operating and maintaining the Projects under the existing license, the cost of each PM&E measure proposed by Eagle Creek and stakeholders, and the reduction in the value of the developmental resources of the Projects attributed to proposed PM&E measures.

E.8.1 Current Annual Value of the Developmental Resource

Eagle Creek operates the Projects for the purposes of electrical power generation while maintaining compliance with the applicable Commission regulations and existing license requirements. Consistent with the Commission’s approach to economic analyses, the value of the Projects’ power benefits are determined by estimating the cost of obtaining the same amount of energy and capacity using likely alternative resources available in the region. This analysis is based on current costs and does not consider future escalation of fuel prices in valuing the Projects’ power benefits.13


This information is being filed as CUI//Privileged in Volume V of this application.



Rio Project


E.8.2 Current Annual Cost of Operations, Maintenance, and Administration of the Project





Rio Project


13 See Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division, 72 FERC ¶ 61,027 (July 13, 1995).


E-247

E.8.3 Estimated Annual Costs of Proposed Resource Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures


The estimated capital cost and estimated annual operation and maintenance expense of each proposed PM&E measure for the Swinging Bridge Project are presented in Table E.8-1. The proposed PM&E measures will not require any new lands or water rights for which Eagle Creek does not already have ownership or rights.

TABLE E.8-1 SWINGING BRIDGE PROJECT ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND

ANNUAL O&M COSTS FOR PROPOSED PM&E MEASURES

Proposed PM&E Measure Capital Cost

(2020 dollars)

Incremental O&M or

Annual Cost (2020 dollars)




$0 $0


$0 $0


$0 $20,000

• Operate and maintain the current FERC-approved recreation facilities owned by Eagle Creek at the Project.

$10,000 $5,000

• Enhance the boat launch at the Swinging Bridge East Access to ensure functionality down to elevation 1,060 feet.

$25,000 $5,000

• Develop a Recreation Management Plan. $10,000 $5,000 • Develop a Shoreline Management Plan. $50,000 $20,000 • Develop a Historic Properties Management Plan. $20,000 $10,000

• Develop a Bald Eagle Management Plan. $5,000 $2,500 • Develop a Northern Long-eared Bat Management Plan. $5,000 $2,500 • Develop an Invasive Plant Species Management Plan. $5,000 $2,500

Total $130,000 $72,500


The estimated capital cost and estimated annual operation and maintenance expense of each proposed PM&E measure for the Mongaup Falls Project are presented in Table E.8-2. The proposed PM&E measures will not require any new lands or water rights for which Eagle Creek does not already have ownership or rights.


E-248

TABLE E.8-2 MONGAUP FALLS PROJECT ESTIMATED CAPITAL

AND ANNUAL O&M COSTS FOR PROPOSED PM&E MEASURES


(2020 dollars)

Incremental O&M or



$0 $0


$0 $0

• Limit start-up and shut-down to no more than 2 units per 30 minutes at the Mongaup Falls Powerhouse. $0 $0

• Operate and maintain the current FERC-approved recreation facilities owned by Eagle Creek at the Project. $10,000 $5,000

• Decommission Black Brook Development in place with no modification for fish passage. $25,000 $5,000

• Develop a Recreation Management Plan. $10,000 $5,000

• Develop a Historic Properties Management Plan. $10,000 $10,000

• Develop a Bald Eagle Management Plan. $5,000 $2,500

• Develop a Northern Long-eared Bat Management Plan. $5,000 $2,500

• Develop an Invasive Plant Species Management Plan. $5,000 $2,500

Total $70,000 $32,500


E-249

Rio Project

The estimated capital cost and estimated annual operation and maintenance expense of each proposed PM&E measure for the Rio Project are presented in Table E.8-3. The proposed PM&E measures will not require any new lands or water rights for which Eagle Creek does not already have ownership or rights.

TABLE E.8-3 RIO PROJECT ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND

ANNUAL O&M COSTS FOR PROPOSED PM&E MEASURES


(2020 dollars)

Incremental O&M or



$0 $0


$5,000 $25,000


$0 $0

• Limit start-up and shut-down to no more than 1 unit per 30 minutes at the Rio Main Powerhouse. $0 $0

• Provide the USGS Office of the Delaware River Master with a 7-day forecast of flow releases from Rio. Provide USGS Office of the Delaware River Master with immediate notification of a change in a forecast of 50 cfs or greater when flow recorded at USGS Gage 01438500 is equal to or less than 2,000 cfs.

$0 $10,000


$0 $5,000

• Operate and maintain the current FERC-approved recreation facilities owned by Eagle Creek at the Project. $0 $5,000

• Develop a Recreation Management Plan. $10,000 $5,000

• Develop a Historic Properties Management Plan. $10,000 $10,000

• Develop a Bald Eagle Management Plan. $5,000 $2,500

• Develop a Northern Long-eared Bat Management Plan. $5,000 $2,500

• Develop an Invasive Plant Species Management Plan. $5,000 $2,500

Total $40,000 $67,500


E-250

E.8.3.1 Resource Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures Proposed by Agencies, Native American Tribes, and Members of the Public

During the relicensing proceedings, stakeholders provided written comments related to Project operations and desired PM&E measures. Table E.8-4 provides a comprehensive list of written stakeholder requests provided to date. For the reasons presented in this application, including the existing PM&E measures associated with the Projects’ existing post-Electric Consumers Protection Act license, Eagle Creek is proposing the measures presented and evaluated throughout this application. In support of obtaining the new licenses, Eagle Creek is continuing consultation with stakeholders regarding Eagle Creek’s proposed measures. If this consultation results in a modification of the proposal presented throughout this application, Eagle Creek will file the updated proposal with the Commission and distribute to the Projects’ service list.


E-251

TABLE E.8-4 SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER-PROPOSED PM&E MEASURES

Requesting Party(s) Resource Area Description of Request Origin of Request TUNY Recreation – Facilities Provide additional and/or enhanced parking and access facilities,

including handicap access at the Projects. Comment on PAD/Study Request

TUNY Water Quality Improve water quality (i.e., using aeration valves) and water quantity in Black Lake Creek for the benefit of trout species.

Comment on PAD/Study Request

AW/AMC/KCCNY Recreation – WW Provide public with notification of forecasted generation and spill events.

Comment on Draft License Application (DLA)

AW/AMC/KCCNY Recreation – WW Provide more 2-unit releases. Comment on DLA AW/AMC/KCCNY Recreation – WW Provide boating flow (from U3 and valve) into the bypassed reach

during scheduled whitewater releases. Comment on DLA

AW/AMC/KCCNY Recreation – WW Modify the existing bypass valve to allow flow releases from the valve of 500 cfs.

Comment on DLA

AW/AMC/KCCNY Recreation – WW Provide consecutive day releases. Comment on DLA AW/AMC/KCCNY Recreation – WW Develop annual release schedule in consultation with boating groups

(i.e., annual meeting) and coordinate schedule with Lehigh River releases.

Comment on DLA

AW/AMC/KCCNY Recreation – Facilities Improve parking and boat launch facilities at formal and informal access locations in reservoirs and riverine reaches to provide boaters, anglers, and other recreationists with easy access to the water and shoreline, including ADA-compliant access.

Comment on DLA

AW/AMC/KCCNY Recreation – Facilities Improve access to Rio Bypassed Reach below Rio Dam Comment on DLA NYCDEP Delaware River Flow

Forecasts License shall require Eagle Creek to coordinate operations and forecasts with ODRM and DRBC.

Comment on DLA

USGS – ODRM Delaware River Flow Forecasts

License shall require Eagle Creek to coordinate operations and forecasts with ODRM based on a 10-day forecast of hydropower production and water releases provided daily with immediate notification of a forecast deviation of >50 cfs when flows at the Montague gage are <2,000 cfs.

Comment on ISR Comment on DLA

NYSDEC Delaware River Flow Forecasts

Supports a license requirement requiring improved coordination and notification from Eagle Creek to ODRM and DRBC.

Comment on DLA


E-252

Requesting Party(s) Resource Area Description of Request Origin of Request DRBC Operating Plans License requirements shall ensure that Operations of the Mongaup

system will meet the refill requirements under a drought of record (i.e., 1960s).

Comment on DLA

DRBC Delaware River Flow Forecasts

License shall require Eagle Creek to provide accurate forecasts to ODRM and DRBC and be required to follow their forecasts during times of low flow particularly when flow measured at the Montague gage is <2,000 cfs.

Comment on DLA

DRBC Obligation to Thermoelectric Power Generators

License shall consider and document Eagle Creek’s obligations for consumptive use replacement releases pursuant to agreements with thermoelectric power generators.

Comment on DLA

HOOT/SBPOA Reservoir Elevations Implement reservoir operating curves at TOR and SWB that account for recreation, particularly during the summer months: Memorial Day Minimum: 1220 at TOR; 1068 at SWB Recreation Season Average: 1218 at TOR; 1066 at SWB (each ± 2 feet) Oct 1 Minimum: 1214 at TOR; 1064 at SWB

Comment on DLA


E-253

E.8.4 Reduction in the Value of the Developmental Resource

Eagle Creek proposed operations and PM&E measures are very similar to those required by the existing licenses; therefore, there would be no material change in average annual generation or value in the Project power from the existing operation and measures under the new licenses.

E.9 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans (18 CFR §5.18(b)(5)(ii)(F))

Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA, 16 USC section 803(a)(2)(A), requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with federal and state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by a project. Under 18 CFR §5.18(b)(5)(ii)(F) each license application must identify relevant comprehensive plans and explain how and why the proposed project would, would not, or should not comply with such plans. In addition, the license application must include a description of any relevant resource agency or Native American Tribe determination regarding the consistency of the project with any such comprehensive plan.

The Commission’s SD2 identified eleven comprehensive plans that are potentially relevant to the Mongaup River Projects. However, based on additional review, it appears that the National Park Service’s 1987 Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River Plan contains the 1986 Conference of Upper Delaware Townships’ Final River Management Plan for the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River and, thus, these two plans have been combined. Additionally, via letter dated February 27, 2020, the Commission approved four additional comprehensive plans, which were filed by the National Park Service on January 7, 2020. Eagle Creek has reviewed the Commission’s list of the available comprehensive plans (including the four additional plans approved by the Commission on February 27, 2020 – two of which Eagle Creek believes are applicable to the Projects). Listed below are the 12 comprehensive plans that Eagle Creek believes are applicable to the Projects. For the reasons noted in this application, Eagle Creek has determined that the continued operation of the Projects, as proposed in this Final License Application, is consistent with these plans.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000. Interstate Fishery Management Plan for America eel (Anguilla rostrata). (Report No. 36). April 2000.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission developed the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American eel in order to protect and restore the species. The plan describes the goals and objectives for the species, its current status, ecological challenges affecting the species, and management options and actions needed to reach and maintain the goals. The plan also identifies issues that need additional research support. A summary of life-history, recent abundance indices, and habitat issues are included in the plan.

Delaware River Basin Commission. 1961. Delaware River Basin Compact. Trenton, New Jersey. January 1961.

The Delaware River Basin Commission published the Delaware River Basin Compact in 1961 in support of addressing a wide variety of topics, including: effective flood damage reduction; conservation and development of ground and surface water supplies for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses; development of recreational facilities in relation to reservoirs, lakes, and streams; propagation of fish and


E-254

game; promotion of related forestry, soil conservation, and watershed projects; protection and aid to fisheries dependent upon water resources; development of hydroelectric power potential; improved navigation; control of the movement of salt water; abatement and control of stream pollution; and regulation of streamflows toward the attainment of these goals.

Delaware River Basin Commission. 1983. Resolution No. 83-13. Criteria for Defining Drought Warning and Drought Conditions and to Schedule Phased Reductions in Diversions and Releases during such Periods. West Trenton, New Jersey. June 29, 1983.

The Delaware River Basin Commission Resolution No. 83-13 published on June 29, 1983, was adopted to define drought warning and drought conditions, and to set schedules for phased reductions in diversions, releases, and flow objectives during such periods. The resolution states that diversions of water from the Delaware River Basin by the City of New York and State of New Jersey, compensating reservoir releases from the New York City Delaware Basin Reservoirs, reservoir releases from Beltzville Reservoir, Blue Marsh Reservoir, and other reservoirs under the jurisdiction or control of the Commission, and streamflow objectives at the USGS gaging stations located at Montague, New Jersey, and Trenton, New Jersey, shall be governed by a schedule based upon a differentiation among "normal," "drought warning," and "drought" conditions defined by the combined storage in the Cannonsville, Pepacton, and Neversink Reservoirs as set forth in the operations curves for Cannonsville, Pepacton, and Neversink Reservoirs.

Delaware River Basin Commission. 1984. Resolution No. 84-7. Coordinated Operation of Delaware River Basin Reservoirs during a Basinwide Drought. West Trenton, New Jersey. April 25, 1984.

The Delaware River Basin Commission Resolution No. 84-7 published on April 25, 1984, was developed to create a plan for coordinated drought operation of other major Federal, State, and utility reservoirs in the Basin, including Lake Wallenpaupack; Lake Nockamixon; and Blue Marsh, Beltzville, and F.E. Walter and Prompton Reservoirs. The operations plan places a series of facilities of the Delaware River Basin Commission’s jurisdiction, including specific schedules and sequences of release and refill geared to maintain key flow and salinity control objectives (Weston 1989).

National Park Service. 1987. Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River. Department of the Interior, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. February 198714.

The Upper Delaware scenic and recreational river management plan was developed to provide direction and parameters for implementing the legislation and all actions of participating organizations for any and all future efforts and actions within the Upper Delaware area. Key provisions in this plan include:

• Retaining local control of the river corridor through the establishment of an Upper Delaware Council,

which has the primary responsibility for coordinating and overseeing the plan;

14 This plan is dated February 1987 in FERC’s List of Comprehensive Plans, however, it appears that the November 1986 version of the plan is the applicable date for this plan.


E-255

• Protection against over-regulation by using only existing local, state, and Federal laws to protect the

river;

• Providing landowners with protections against the use of eminent domain by implementing a multi-

step process that must be followed before eminent domain may be used;

• Emphasizing the need to maintain the local economy and tax base through the use of alternatives to

fee title land acquisition;

• Limiting the total National Park Service land acquisition for management purposes;

• Revision of the plan and guidelines to ensure continuation of such traditional activities such as

recreation, hunting, fishing, trapping, timbering, and agriculture; and

• Providing towns with alternatives and flexibility allowing them to meet the guidelines in their own

way.

As noted above, this plan includes the Conference of Upper Delaware Townships’ 1986 Final River Management Plan for the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River.

National Park Service. 2012. Delaware River Basin National Wild and Scenic River Values. Department of the Interior, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey. September 2012.

The Delaware River Basin National and Wild Scenic River Values provides a description of the various outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) that apply to segments of the Delaware River and its tributaries, such as cultural, ecological, geological, recreational, and scenic values. ORVs are defined by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as special characteristics of a river segment that make it worthy of protection. The Upper, Middle, and Lower Delaware River segments each contain all five of these ORV categories, according to the National Parks Service. The plan states that “[f]lows in the lower section of the Upper Delaware River and the upper section of the Middle Delaware River are impacted by releases from a hydroelectric generating facility (not a NYC reservoir) on the Lackawaxen River, and to a much lesser extent by releases from the Rio hydroelectric generating facility (not a NYC reservoir) on the Mongaup River.”

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. New York Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP): 2014-2019. Albany, New York. March 2014.

The SCORP is prepared every five years by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation to provide statewide policy direction and to fulfill the agency’s recreation and preservation mandate. The purpose of this document is to satisfy eligibility requirements for continued funding under the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The plan also serves as a status report and as an overall guidance document for recreation resource preservation, planning, and development of the State’s resources through 2019.


E-256

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1983. Pennsylvania State Water Plan. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. January 1983. 20 volumes.

The State Water Plan was developed as a management tool to guide conservation, development, and administration of the Commonwealth’s water and related land resources on a comprehensive and coordinated basis. Goals identified in the State Water Plan include:

• Maintain current prosperity;

• Provide adequate flood control for its citizens; and

• Assure supplies of good quality water to meet future needs.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1988. Pennsylvania 1988 Water Quality Assessment. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. April 1988.

The water quality assessment was developed as a report to both Congress and Pennsylvanians on all facets of the state water quality management program. Information is provided on surface and groundwater programs designed to correct pollution-related problems, expenditures for pollution control, and monitoring programs and special concerns such as acid mine damage, atmospheric deposition, and the Chesapeake Bay. The report also aims to determine the degree of support of designated uses for each stream or stream segment.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1990. The Pennsylvania Scenic Rivers Program Scenic Rivers Inventory. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. April 1990.

The Pennsylvania Scenic Rivers Program was designed to protect wild and scenic rivers, pastoral rivers, and recreational and modified recreational rivers within the State of Pennsylvania, governed by the Pennsylvania Scenic Rivers Act of May 1982. Parts of the Delaware River are included as Federally Designated Scenic Rivers.

The Lower Delaware River was listed as a Federally Designated Scenic River in November 2000. The Middle Delaware River was listed as a Federally Designated Scenic River in September 1965. The Upper Delaware River was listed as a Federally Designated Scenic River in November 1978.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Canadian Wildlife Service. 2012. North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Department of the Interior. Environment Canada.

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is an initiative to conserve continental waterfowl populations and habitat. The plan establishes goals and strategic initiatives for management of waterfowl in North America and represents a joint venture between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The plan sets the following three goals for waterfowl conservation:

• Maintain abundant and resilient waterfowl populations to support hunting and other uses without

imperiling habitat;

• Sustain wetlands and related habitats sufficient to sustain waterfowl populations at desired levels,

while providing places to recreate and ecological services that benefit society; and


E-257

• Support growing numbers of waterfowl hunters, other conservationists, and citizens who enjoy and

actively support waterfowl and wetlands conservation.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service undated. Fisheries USA: The Recreational Fisheries Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.

This 12-page policy signed by John F. Turner, then Director of the USFWS, on December 5, 1989, is intended to unite all of the USFWS’ recreational fisheries capabilities under a single policy to enhance the nation’s recreational fisheries. Regional and Assistant directors are responsible for implementing the policy by incorporating its goals and strategies into planning and day-to-day management efforts. The USFWS carries out this policy relative to FERC-licensed hydroelectric projects through federal laws such as the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), the CWA, the ESA, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the FPA, among others.

E.10 Consultation Documentation (18 CFR§5.18(b)(5)(ii)(G))

In preparation of Exhibit E, Eagle Creek consulted with federal, state, and local resource agencies; Native American tribes; the public; and non-governmental organizations. A summary of the formal consultation correspondence and copies of consultation correspondence are provided in Appendix B in Volume I of this application.

E.11 Literature Cited (18 CFR§5.18(b)(5)(ii)(H))

Adovasio, J.M., and K. Carr. 2002. Paleoindians in Pennsylvania. In Ice Age Peoples of Pennsylvania. Edited by J.M. Adovasio and K. Carr. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg, PA.

Arguez, A., I. Durre, S. Applequist, M. Squires, R. Vose, X. Yin, and R. Bilotta. 2010. NOAA's U.S. Climate Normals (1981-2010). NOAA National Climatic Data Center, DOI:10.7289/V5PN93JP [October 3, 2019].

Baldigo, B.P., A.G. Ernst, G.E. Schuler, and C.D. Apse. 2008. Relations of environmental factors with mussel-species richness in the Neversink River, New York. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1283. 8 p. Online URL: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1283/OFR2007-1283.pdf

Beamish, F.W.H. (1978) Swimming capacity. Fish physiology. Academic Press, New York.

Bell, M.C. 1991. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon. 380 p.

Bilkovic, D. M. 2000. Assessment of spawning and nursery habitat suitability for American shad (Alosa sapidissima) in the Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers. Doctoral dissertation. The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Bilkovic, D. M., C. H. Hershner, and J. E. Olney. 2002. Macroscale assessment of American shad spawning and nursery habitat in the Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers, Virginia. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22: 1176-1192.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1283/OFR2007-1283.pdf


E-258

Black, E. C., Connor, A. R., Lam, K., & Chiu, W. (1962). Changes in glycogen, pyruvate and lactate in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) and following muscular activity. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 19, 409–436.

Bowser, C., S. Mount, Z. Maloney, and L. Walker. 2013. The Hudson River Eel Project: Citizen Science Juvenile American Eel Surveys: 2008-2013. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Hudson River Estuary Program.

Bryce, S.A, Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Edinger, S., Vargas, O., and Carlson, D. 2010. Ecoregions of New York (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). Reston, Virginia. United States Geological Survey (USGS). Map scale 1:1,250,000.

Cada, G. F., C. C. Coutant, and R. R. Whitney. 1997. Development of Biological Criteria for the Design of Advanced Hydropower Turbines. DOE/ID-10578. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

California Cooperative Anadramous Fish and Habitat Data Program (CALFISH). 2020. Fish Passage Report. Appendix A(1). ONLINE at https://www.calfish.org/Portals/2/Programs/PAD/docs/FishPassageReport_Appendices.pdf Accessed on March 23, 2020.

Campbell, C.A. 2014. Identifying the Elusive Dwarf Wedgemussel Habitat through Modeling and Field Approaches. Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park. 155 p.

Castro Santos, T. and B.H. Letcher. 2010. Modeling Migratory Energetics of Connecticut River American Shad (Alosa sapidissima): Implications for the Conservation of an Iteroparous Anadromous Fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 2010, 67(5): 806-830.

Carlson, D. M., R. A. Daniels, J. J. Wright. 2016. Atlas of Inland Fishes of New York. New York State Museum Record 7. New York State Education Department and Department of Environmental Conservation.

Catskill Regional Invasive Species Partnership (CRISP). Undated. 2018 Invasive Species Categorization for the Catskill Regional Invasive Species Partnership. Online [URL]: http://catskillinvasives.com/index.php/crisp-invasive-species-prioritization/.

Charles H. Tenney & Company. 1929. “Rockland Light and Power Company, Mongaup River Hydro-Electric Developments.” Reprinted from The Journal of the Boston Society of Civil Engineers. Boston: Wright & Potter Printing Company. Booklet on file at the Eagle Creek administration office at the Mongaup Falls Hydroelectric Project.

Conway, J. 2005. “Sullivan County.” In The Encyclopedia of New York State. Peter Eisenstadt, ed. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Cowardin, L.M., Carter, V., Golet, F.C., LaRoe, E.T. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-79/31. 45 pp.

Culp, Terry R. and John Homa, Jr. 1987. A Fisheries Investigation of the Mongaup River and Tributaries in the vicinity of the Mongaup River Basin Hydroelectric Project, Orange and Sullivan Counties, New York, 20 Through 31 July 1987.

Deer Park KOA. 2019. Camping in the Hudson Valley. [Online] URL: http://www.deerparkkoa.com/. Accessed October 9, 2019.

https://www.calfish.org/Portals/2/Programs/PAD/docs/FishPassage%E2%80%8CReport_%E2%80%8CAppendices.pdf%20Accessed%20on%20March%2023

https://www.calfish.org/Portals/2/Programs/PAD/docs/FishPassage%E2%80%8CReport_%E2%80%8CAppendices.pdf%20Accessed%20on%20March%2023

http://catskillinvasives.com/index.php/crisp-invasive-species-prioritization/

http://www.deerparkkoa.com/


E-259

DeGraaf, R. M., and D.D. Rudis. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of New England – Habitats and Natural History. The University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, Massachusetts.

DeGraaf, R. M., and M. Yamasaki. 2001. New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History, and Distribution. University Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire.

Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC). 2004. Strategy for Resolution of Interstate Flow Management Issues In the Delaware River Basin. http://nj.gov/drbc/library/documents/04flowreport/entire.pdf

_____. 2009. Delaware River Basin Compact. [Online] URL: http://www.nj.gov/drbc/library/documents/compact.pdf. Accessed on February 27, 2017.

_____. 2016. Drought Operating Plans. [Online] URL: http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/programs/flow/drbc_drought-plans.html. Accessed on February 27, 2017.

_____. 2016. Existing Water Quality Atlas of the Delaware River Special Protection Waters. Special Protection Waters Program September 2016 – Edition 1.0. Delaware River Basin Commission, West Trenton, NJ. Online URL: https://www.state.nj.us/drbc/programs/quality/spw_ewq-atlas.html. Accessed March 21, 2020.

Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. (DTA). 2004a. Mongaup Falls Project Supporting Technical Information Document. Issued November 2004.

_____. 2004b. Rio Project Supporting Technical Information Document. Issued December 2004.

DiSarno, Michael. 2018. Swinging Bridge Percid Survey (Survey #:317025) Bureau of Fisheries Technical Brief #2018015. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Bureau of Fisheries

Doutt, J., Heppenstall, C.A., and Guilday, J.E. 1977. Mammals of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Game Commission in Cooperation with Carnegie Museum and Carnegie Institute, Harrisburg, PA.

Eagle Creek Renewable Energy, LLC. 2014. Swinging Bridge Project Supporting Technical Information Document. Issued February 2014.

_____. 2017. Pre-Application Document, Swinging Bridge Hydroelectric Project (No. 10482), Mongaup Falls Hydroelectric Project (No. 10481), and Rio Hydroelectric Project (No. 9690). Eagle Creek Renewable Energy, LLC, Neshkoro, WI. March 30, 2017.

_____. 2019. Initial Study Report, Swinging Bridge Hydroelectric Project (No. 10482), Mongaup Falls Hydroelectric Project (No. 10481), and Rio Hydroelectric Project (No. 9690). Eagle Creek Renewable Energy, LLC, Neshkoro, WI. February 8, 2019.

_____. 2020. Updated Study Report, Swinging Bridge Hydroelectric Project (No. 10482), Mongaup Falls Hydroelectric Project (No. 10481), and Rio Hydroelectric Project (No. 9690). Eagle Creek Renewable Energy, LLC, Neshkoro, WI. February 10, 2020

EcoLogic (n.d.) Delaware River Freshwater Mussel and Aquatic Habitat Survey for Port Jervis. Online URL: https://ecologicllc.com/project/delaware-river-freshwater-mussel-aquatic-habitat-survey-port-jervis/

Economic Development Corporation of Sullivan County. 2010. Business Statistics. [Online] URL: http://www.catskillsedc.com/business-resources/business-statistics/. Accessed: February 27, 2017.

http://nj.gov/drbc/library/documents/04flowreport/entire.pdf

http://www.nj.gov/drbc/library/documents/compact.pdf

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/programs/flow/drbc_drought-plans.html

https://www.state.nj.us/%E2%80%8Cdrbc/programs/quality/spw_ewq-atlas.html.%20Accessed%20March%2021

https://www.state.nj.us/%E2%80%8Cdrbc/programs/quality/spw_ewq-atlas.html.%20Accessed%20March%2021

http://www.catskillsedc.com/business-resources/business-statistics/


E-260

Edinger, G. J., D. J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T. G. Howard, D. M. Hunt, and A. M. Olivero (editors). 2014. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke’s Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1992. Fish entrainment and turbine mortality review and guidelines. Technical Report TR-101231, Project 2694-01. Electrical Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California. 282 p.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1997. Turbine entrainment and survival database - field tests. EPRI Report No. TR-108630.

Elozua, Raymon. 2017. Sullivan County, Egg Basket of New York State. [Online} URL: http://www.eggbasket-scny.us/essay.htm. Accessed February 28, 2017.

Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). 2016. ESRI ARCGIS World Imagery. Online [URL]: http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=10df2279f9684e4a9 f6a7f08febac2a9.

Fagan, B. M. 2000. Ancient North America, 3rd ed. Thames and Hudson, London.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1992a. Order Issuing License. April 14, 1992.

_____. 1992b. Order Issuing License (FERC No. 9690-004). Accession No.: 19920415-0448. Issued on April 14, 1992.

_____. 1992c. Order Issuing License (FERC No. 10481-001). Accession No.: 19920415-0450. Issued on April 14, 1992.

_____. 1992d. Order Issuing License (FERC No. 10482-001). Accession No.: 19920415-0451. Issued on April 14, 1992.

Flaherty, M., and R. Olsen. 2020. Personal Communication. February 20, 2020

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

Frisbie, Richard. 1996. Early Sullivan County History. [Online] URL: http://www.hopefarm.com/sullivny.htm. Accessed February 23, 2017.

Galbraith, H.S. 2012. Phase 1 freshwater mussel survey and comparison to historical surveys at the Pond Eddy bridge, Delaware River, New York and Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1224, 17 p.

Galbraith H.S., W.A. Lellis, J.C. Cole, C.J. Blakeslee, and B. St. John White. 2016. Population demographics for the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 7(2):377–387; 1944-687X. doi: 10.3996/112014-JFWM-084

Gann, M. C. 1976. NYSDEC Memorandum, dated December 29, 1976. 13 pp.

Gazoorian, C.L. 2015. Estimation of Unaltered Daily Mean Streamflow at Ungaged Streams of New York, Excluding Long Island, Water Years 1961-2010: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014-5220. 29 pp.

http://www.eggbasket-scny.us/essay.htm

http://www.eggbasket-scny.us/essay.htm

http://www.hopefarm.com/sullivny.htm


E-261

Golf Advisor. 2019. Swan Lake Golf and Country Club. [Online] URL: http://www.golfadvisor.com/courses/1142-swan-lake-golf-country-club/. Accessed October 9, 2019.

Golf Link. 2019a. The Concord Monster Golf Club. [Online] URL: http://www.golflink.com/golf-courses/course.aspx?course=779945. Accessed October 9, 2019.

_____. 2019b. Kutshers Golf Course Description. [Online] URL: http://www.golflink.com/golf-courses/course.aspx?course=797245. Accessed October 9, 2019.

Golf Now. 2019. Eddy Farm Golf. [Online] URL: https://www.golfnow.com/courses/1034214-eddy-farm-golf-details. Accessed October 9, 2019.

Greene, K. E., J. L. Zimmerman, R. W. Laney, and J. C. Thomas-Blate. 2009. Atlantic coast diadromous fish habitat: A review of utilization, threats, recommendations for conservation, and research needs. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Habitat Management Series No. 9, Washington, D.C.

Grumet, R. S. 1995. Historic Contact. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

Harris, J.E. and J.E. Hightower 2012. Demographic Population Model for American Shad: Will Access to Additional Habitat Upstream of Dams Increase Population Sizes?, Marine and Coastal Fisheries, 4:1, 262-283.

Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. 2002. Phase IA Literature Review, Archeological Sensitivity Assessment, and Phase IB Archaeological Field Investigation, Sullivan County International Airport, Town of Bethel, Sullivan County, New York. Submitted to Clough Harbour & Associates, LLP, Syracuse, New York.

Heitert, K. 2003. Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Archaeological Resources Management Plan, Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Rowe and Monroe, Massachusetts. Prepared by PAL, Pawtucket, RI.

Hightower, J. E. and Wong, R. 1997. Potential benefits to anadromous fishes of providing fish passage within the Roanoke River basin. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Virginia Power, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Hunter, M.L., A. Calhoun, and M. McCullough (eds.). 1999. Maine Amphibians and Reptiles. University of Maine Press, Orono, Maine. 272 pp.

Jackson, J.R. and Noble, R.R. 2000. Relationships between annual variations in reservoir conditions and age-0 largemouth bass year-class strength. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129: 669-715.

Jenkins, R. E., and N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Johnson, E. 1984. Prehistoric Overview. In Historic & Archaeological Resources of the Connecticut River Valley: A Framework for Preservation Decisions. Edited by S. Zimmerman, N. DePaoli, A. Krim, P. Stott, J. Bradley, and D. Brady. Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA.

Justice, N. D. 1987. Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States: A Modern Survey and Reference. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.

Kondrateiff, C.K. and C.A Myrick. 2006. How High Can Brook Trout Jump? A Laboratory Evaluation of Brook Trout Jumping Performance. Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University. Fort Collins Colorado, 80523-1474, USA. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:361-270

http://www.golfadvisor.com/courses/1142-swan-lake-golf-country-club/

http://www.golflink.com/golf-courses/course.aspx?course=779945




https://www.golfnow.com/courses/1034214-eddy-farm-golf-details

https://www.golfnow.com/courses/1034214-eddy-farm-golf-details


E-262

Kramer, R.H. and Smith, L.L. 1962. Formation of Year Classes in Largemouth Bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 91: 29-41.

Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1994. 1992-1993 Entrainment Studies Mongaup Hydroelectric Projects. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. June 1994. 144 pp.

Leggett, W.C., Savoy, T.F., and Tomichek, C.A. 2004. The impact of enhancement initiatives on the structure and dynamics of the Connecticut River population of American shad. In the Connecticut River Ecological Study (1965-1973) revisited; ecology of the Lower Connecticut River 1973-2003. Edited by P.M. Jackman, D.A. Dixon, W.C. Leggett, B.C. Macy, and R.R. Massengill.

Machut et al. 2007. Anthropogenic Impacts on American Eel Demographics in Hudson River Tributaries, new Your Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 136

McCleave, J. D. 2001a. Eels. Pages 800–809 in J. Steele, and C. McNeil, editors. Encyclopedia of Ocean Sciences. Academic Press, London.

_____. 2001b. Simulation of the impact of dams and fishing weirs on reproductive potential of silver-phase American eels in the Kennebec River basin, Maine. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21(3):592–605.

Mehrhoff, L. 1983. Pollination in the Genus Isotria (Orchidaceae). American Journal of Botany 70(10): 1444-1453.

Miranda, L.E., Shelton, W.L. and Bryce, T.D. 1984. Effects of water quality on young-of-year largemouth bass in 1984. West Point reservoir. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4(3) 314-320.

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands (Second Edition). Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.

Mozzi, M. and L. Clifford. 2000. Revised Stage IA and IB Cultural Resources Report for the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company’s Stagecoach Expansion Project in Tioga, Orange, Rockland and Westchester Counties, New York. Submitted to Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts.

Nagel, B., L. Garigen, and R. Corby. 2001. PIN 4031.09.121: Reconstruction of Sections of NYS Routes 31, 31A, 31E, and 63, and Bridge Rehabilitation, Towns of Ridgeway and Shelby and Village of Medina, Orleans County, New York. 3 Volumes. Sponsored by the New York State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Prepared for the New York State Museum, Albany New York.

National Conference of State Legislatures. 2017a. State Unemployment Rates. [Online] URL: http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/2012-state-unemployment-rates.aspx. Accessed: February 27, 2017.

_____. 2017b. National Unemployment Rates. [Online] URL: http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/national-employment-monthly-update.aspx. Accessed: February 27, 2017.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Undated. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper v3.0. [Online] URL: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html. Accessed March 1, 2017.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/2012-state-unemployment-rates.aspx

http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/national-employment-monthly-update.aspx

http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/national-employment-monthly-update.aspx

http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html


E-263

National Park Service (NPS). 2017. History of the Upper Delaware Valley. Available online at https://www.nps.gov/upde/learn/historyculture/index.htm; accessed September 27, 2018.

_____. 2019a. Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Management. [Online] URL: https://www.nps.gov/dewa/learn/management/statistics.htm. Accessed October 8, 2019.

_____. 2019b. Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Plan Visit. [Online] URL: https://www.nps.gov/dewa/planyourvisit/index.htm. Accessed October 8, 2019.

_____. 2019c. National Park System, National Forest System, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management Map. [Online] URL: https://www.nps.gov/nts/maps/National%20Trails%20map.pdf. Accessed October 8, 2019.

_____. 2019d. New York Segments of Nationwide Rivers Inventory. [Online] URL: https://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/states/ny.html. Accessed October 8, 2019.

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 2017. National Wild and Scenic Rivers Story Map. [Online] URL: https://www.rivers.gov/. Accessed February 17, 2017.

_____. 2019. National Wild and Scenic Rivers Story Map. [Online] URL: https://www.rivers.gov/. Accessed October 8, 2019.

_____. 2020. Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Areas NJ, PA. Nature and Science: Animals. Online at: https://www.nps.gov/dewa/learn/nature/mollusks.htm. Accessed on February 26, 2020.

The Nature Conservancy. 2019a. Neversink Preserve Map. [Online] URL: http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/newyork/places-preserves/eastern-neversink-preserve.xml. Accessed October 9, 2019.

_____. 2019b. New York Neversink Preserve. [Online] URL: https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/newyork/places-preserves/neversink-preserve-map.pdf. Accessed October 9, 2019.

NatureServe. 2017. http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm

New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP). 2020. Online Conservation Guide for Floodplain Forest. [Online] URL: https://guides.nynhp.org/floodplain-forest/. Accessed February 26, 2020.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2002. Delaware River Basin, Mongaup River Watershed (0204010401). http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/widelawmongaup.pdf

_____. 2010. Checklist of Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals of New York State. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish & Wildlife. Albany, New York.

_____. 2014a. Mines Data Search. [Online] URL: http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/MinedLand/search/mines/. Accessed on February 15, 2017.

_____. 2014b. New York State Prohibited and Regulated Invasive Plants. Online [URL]: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/isprohibitedplants2.pdf.

_____. 2016. Proposed Final 2016 New York State Section 303(d) List. http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/31290.html. Accessed on February 27, 2017

https://www.nps.gov/upde/learn/historyculture/index.htm

https://www.nps.gov/dewa/learn/management/statistics.htm

https://www.nps.gov/dewa/planyourvisit/index.htm

https://www.nps.gov/nts/maps/National%20Trails%20map.pdf

https://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/states/ny.html

https://www.rivers.gov/

https://www.rivers.gov/

https://www.nps.gov/dewa/learn/nature/mollusks.htm

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/newyork/places-preserves/eastern-neversink-preserve.xml

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/newyork/places-preserves/eastern-neversink-preserve.xml

https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/%E2%80%8Cregions/northamerica/unitedstates/newyork/places-preserves/neversink-preserve-map.pdf

https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/%E2%80%8Cregions/northamerica/unitedstates/newyork/places-preserves/neversink-preserve-map.pdf

http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm

https://guides.nynhp.org/floodplain-forest/

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/widelawmongaup.pdf

http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/MinedLand/%E2%80%8Csearch/mines/

http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/MinedLand/%E2%80%8Csearch/mines/

http://www.dec.ny.gov/%E2%80%8Cdocs/lands_forests_pdf/isprohibitedplants2.pdf

http://www.dec.ny.gov/%E2%80%8Cdocs/lands_forests_pdf/isprohibitedplants2.pdf

http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/%E2%80%8C31290.html

http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/%E2%80%8C31290.html


E-264

_____. 2016a. New York State Bureau of Fisheries Biological Survey Unit. Michael DiSarno. Survey No. 316323.

_____. 2017a. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Maps. [Online] URL: http://www. dec.ny.gov/pubs/103459.html (Accessed February 27, 2017).

_____. 2017b. Swinging Bridge Reservoir, Mongaup Falls Reservoir, Rio Reservoir. [Online]: URL: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/61533.html

_____. 2019a. Wolf Brook Multiple Use Area. [Online] URL: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/104409.html. Accessed October 9, 2019.

_____. 2019b. Neversink River Unique Area. [Online]. URL: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/104402.html. Accessed October 9, 2019.

_____. 2019c. Hickok Brook Multiple Use Area. [Online] URL: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/104404.html. Accessed October 9, 2019.

_____. 2019d. Huckleberry Ridge State Forest. [Online] URL: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/104052.html. Accessed October 9, 2019.

_____. 2019e. Mongaup Valley Wildlife Management Area. [Online] URL: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/68639.html. Accessed October 8, 2019.

_____. 2019f. Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers. [Online] URL: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6033.html. Accessed October 8, 2019.

_____. 2020. Dwarf Wedge Mussel Fact Sheet. Online at: https://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/42253.html. Accessed on February 26, 2020.

_____. Undated. The Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State. [Online] URL: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7312.html. Accessed February 20, 2017.

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). 2019a. New York State and National Scenic Byways. [Online] URL: https://www.dot.ny.gov/display/programs/scenic-byways/maps. Accessed on October 8, 2019.

_____. 2019b. New York State Scenic Byways. [Online] URL: https://www.dot.ny.gov/display/programs/scenic-byways. Accessed on October 8, 2019.

New York State Geographic Information System (NYSGIS) Clearinghouse. Undated-a. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Freshwater Wetlands Maps. Online [URL]: https://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/.

_____. Undated-b. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Freshwater Wetlands Maps. URL: https://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/.

New York State Office of Preservation, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP). 2014. The New York State Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan and Generic Environmental Impact Statement 2014-2019. 2014. Online [URL]: https://parks.ny.gov/inside-our-agency/documents/201419StatewideComprehensiveOutdoorRecreationPlan.pdf. Accessed October 8, 2019.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6033.html

https://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/42253.html

https://www.dot.ny.gov/display/programs/scenic-byways/maps

https://www.dot.ny.gov/display/programs/%E2%80%8Cscenic-byways

https://www.dot.ny.gov/display/programs/%E2%80%8Cscenic-byways

https://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/

https://parks.ny.gov/inside-our-agency/documents/201419StatewideComprehensiveOutdoorRecreationPlan.pdf

https://parks.ny.gov/inside-our-agency/documents/201419StatewideComprehensiveOutdoorRecreationPlan.pdf


E-265

Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (Orange and Rockland). 1988. Application for a License for Major Projects Existing Dams for the Mongaup Basin Hydroelectric Project: Swinging Bridge Project, Mongaup Falls Project, Rio Project; Volume II. September 1988.

Orange County New York Parks, Recreation and Conservation. 2019. D&H Canal Park. [Online] URL: http://www.orangecountynyparks.com/dh-canal-park/. Accessed October 9, 2019.

Orange County Partnership. 2016a. Our Cities. [Online] URL: http://ocpartnership.org/resources/demographics/ourcities.aspx. Accessed: February 27, 2017.

_____. 2016b. Directory of Major Employers. [Online] URL: http://ocpartnership.org/resources/demographics/workforce.aspx. Accessed: February 27, 2017.

Parker, P. L. and T. F. King. 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin No. 38. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Pasquariello, R., and A. Loorya. 2006. Phase IA Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed M29 Transmission Line Project, Westchester, Bronx, and New York Counties, New York. TRC Environmental Corporation. Prepared for the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. TRC Environmental Corporation, Lyndhust, New Jersey.

Paulik, G. J. and DeLacy, A. C. (1957). Swimming abilities of upstream migrant silver salmon, sockeye salmon, and steelhead at several water velocities. Univ. Wash. Sch. Fish. Tech. Rep. 44, 1-40.

Peake, S.J. 2008. Swimming performance and behavior of fish species endemic to Newfoundland and Labrador: a literature review for the purpose of establishing design and water velocity criteria for fishways and culverts. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences: 2843. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, St. Johns, Newfoundland and Labrador. 52 p.

Playfoot, K.M. 2014. Microsatellite DNA Markers Detect Significant Population Structure of Alasmidonta heterodon within the Delaware River Basin. MS Thesis. Pennsylvania State University, Graduate School of Forest Resources. 34 p.

Ploskey, G. R., M. C. Harberg, G. J. Power, C. C. Stone, D. G. Unkenholz, and B. Weidenheft. 1994. Reservoir fish reproduction impact methodology. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Master Water Control Manual Review and Update Environmental Impact Statement: Appendix B of the Reservoir Aquatics Technical Report, Missouri River Division, Omaha, Nebraska.

Quinn, A. 1999. Prehistoric Culture History. In Archaeological Investigation of the Elk Creek Site (36ER162), Girard Township, Erie County, Pennsylvania. By A. Quinn, J.M. Adovasio, C. Pedler, and D. Pedler, with contribturions from L. Baker, M. Buyce, J. Campbell, D. Dirkmaat, D. Hyland, J. Illingsworth, M. Kinnear, M. Schaeffer, J. Thomas, and F. Vento. Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute, Report of Investigations No. 2. Mercyhurst College, Erie, Pennsylvania.

Ritchie, W. 1965. The Archaeology of New York State. The Natural History Press, Garden City, New York.

Ritchie, W.A., and R.E. Funk. 1973. Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. New York State Museum and Science Service, Memoir 20. The University of the State of New York, Albany.

Rohde, F. C., R. G. Arndt, D. G. Lindquist and J. F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 222 pp.

http://ocpartnership.org/resources/demographics/ourcities.aspx

http://ocpartnership.org/resources/demographics/workforce.aspx


E-266

Silldorff, E. and A. Schwartz. 2014. Freshwater Mussel Community Composition and Relative Abundance in the Lower Delaware River. 44 pp.

Smith, C.L. 1985. The inland fishes of New York State. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.

St. Pierre, R. A. 1979. Historical review of American shad and river herring fisheries of the Susquehanna River. U.S, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Report to the Susquehanna River Basin Committee

Stetson - Harza. 1988. Mongaup River Instream Flow Study. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. September 1988.

Stich, D.S., T.F. Sheehan, and J.D. Zydlewski. 2019. A dam passage performance standard model for American shad. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2019, 76(5): 762-779.

Stier, D. J., and J. H. Crance. 1985. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow suitability curves: American shad. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report No. 82(10.88), Washington D.C.

Strayer, D.L. and K.J. Jirka. 1997. The Pearly Mussels of New York State. New York State Museum Memoir 26.113 pp. plus 27 Plates

Sullivan County. 2017. Minisink Battleground Park. [Online] URL: http://www.co.sullivan.ny.us/?TabId=3195. Accessed March 5, 2017.

_____. 2019. Minisink Battleground Park. [Online] URL: http://www.co.sullivan.ny.us/?TabId=3195. Accessed October 9, 2019.

Sullivan County Historical Society. 2016. The Borscht Belt. [Online] URL: http://www.scnyhistory.org/index.php/about-us-sp-71491338/museum/exhibits/726-new-exhibit-the-borscht-belt-opens-sunday-july-3rd. Accessed February 23, 2017.

Sweka, J.A., S. Eyler, and M.J. Millard. 2014. An Egg-Per-Recruit Model to Evaluate the Effects of Upstream Transport and Downstream Passage Mortality of American Eel in the Susquehanna River, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 34:4, 764–773.

Tillotson, Alice. 1965. A Sketch of Mongaup Valley. [Online] URL: http://www.scnyhistory.org/index.php/history/bethel/413-a-sketch-of-mongaup-valley-by-alice-tillotson. Accessed February 23, 2017.

Town of Bethel, Sullivan County, New York. 2019. Parks and Recreation Department. [Online] URL: http://www.town.bethel.ny.us/Parks_and_Recreation_6LNZ.html/. Accessed October 9, 2019.

Town of Highland. 2019. Community Spaces. [Online] URL: http://townofhighlandny.com/community/commspaces.php. Accessed October 9, 2019.

Town of Lumberland. 2019. Parks and Public Lands. [Online] URL: http://www.townoflumberland.org/govt/publiclands.php. Accessed October 9, 2019.

Town of Thompson. 2019. Parks and Recreation. [Online] URL: http://www.townofthompson.com/parks-and-recreation/. Accessed October 9, 2019.

http://www.co.sullivan.ny.us/?TabId=3195

http://www.co.sullivan.ny.us/?TabId=3195

http://www.scnyhistory.org/%E2%80%8Cindex.php/%E2%80%8Cabout-us-sp-71491338/museum/exhibits/726-new-exhibit-the-borscht-belt-opens-sunday-july-3rd



http://www.scnyhistory.org/%E2%80%8Cindex.php/history/bethel/413-a-sketch-of-mongaup-valley-by-alice-tillotson

http://www.scnyhistory.org/%E2%80%8Cindex.php/history/bethel/413-a-sketch-of-mongaup-valley-by-alice-tillotson

http://www.town.bethel.ny.us/Parks_and_Recreation_6LNZ.html/

http://townofhighlandny.com/%E2%80%8Ccommunity/commspaces.php

http://townofhighlandny.com/%E2%80%8Ccommunity/commspaces.php

http://www.townoflumberland.org/govt/publiclands.php

http://www.townoflumberland.org/govt/publiclands.php

http://www.townofthompson.com/parks-and-recreation/

http://www.townofthompson.com/parks-and-recreation/


E-267

Trail Keeper. 2019. Connect to Sullivan County, NY. [Online] URL: http://www.trailkeeper.org/map/. Accessed October 9, 2019.

Tyning, T. F. 1990. A Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, Massachusetts.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2015. The Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement: Wetland Functions and Values - A Descriptive Approach. US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. April 6, 2015, 32 pp.

U.S. Census Bureau. Undated-a. Orange County, New York Facts. [Online] URL: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/36071,00. Accessed: February 27, 2017.

_____. Undated-b. Sullivan County, New York Facts. [Online] URL: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/36105. Accessed: February 27, 2017.

_____. Undated-c. New York Median Household Income. [Online] URL: https://www.census.gov/search-results.html?q=new+york++median+household+income&page=1&stateGeo=none&searchtype=web&cssp=SERP&search.x=0&search.y=0. Accessed: February 27, 2017.

U.S. Climate Data. 2019. Average Weather Port Jervis, NY – 12771 – 1981-2010. [Online] URL: https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/port-jervis/new-york/united-states/usny1163. Accessed October 9, 2019.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (USDA). 2009. Design Information for Fish Passage at Roadway-Stream Crossings. Biology Technical Note No. 58. Technical Notes. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, New Mexico February, 2009.

_____. Undated. Web Soil Survey. [Online] URL: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed on February 20, 2017.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2011. GIS calculated from 2011 National Land Cover Dataset.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Federal Highway Administration. 2019. National Scenic Byways Program. Online [URL]: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/scenic_byways/. Accessed October 8, 2019.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017. Topic Searches, PCS Search [Online] URL: http://www2.epa.gov/enviro/topic-searches#water (Accessed February 27, 2017).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. (USFWS 1992). Small Whorled Pogonia. (Isotria medeoloides) Recovery Plan. First Revision. Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 75 pp.

_____. 1993. (USFWS 1993). Dwarf Wedge Mussel (Alismidonta heterodon) Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 52 pp.

_____. 2008. (USFWS 2008). Small Whorled Pogonia. (Isotria medeoloides) Five Year Review Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New England Field Office, Concord, New Hampshire. 26 pp.

_____. 2015. Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) Fact Sheet. Online [URL]: fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/nlebFactSheet.html.

_____. 2016. Indiana Bat Factsheet [Online] URL: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/mammals/inba/inbafctsht.html.

http://www.trailkeeper.org/map/

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/36071,00

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/36105

https://www.census.gov/search-results.html?q=new+york++median+household+income&page=1&stateGeo=none&searchtype=web&cssp=SERP&search.x=0&search.y=0



https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/port-jervis/new-york/united-states/usny1163

https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

http://www2.epa.gov/enviro/topic-searches#water

https://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/mammals/%E2%80%8Cinba/inbafctsht.html

https://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/mammals/%E2%80%8Cinba/inbafctsht.html


E-268

_____. 2017. (USFWS 2017). Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alismidonta heterodon) Factsheet. Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office. Online at: https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_dwarf_wedgemussel.html. Accessed February 26, 2020.

_____. 2018. National Wetlands Inventory – Wetlands Mapper. [Online] URL: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.

_____. 2019c. Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. New York Field Office, Cortland, NY. Online URL: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc6120.pdf Accessed 3-18-20.

_____. 2019a. (USFWS 2019a). Northeastern Bulrush (Scirpus ancistrochaetus) 5-Year Review. August 2019. U.S. Fish and wildlife Service New England Field Office, Concord, New Hampshire 11 pp.

_____. 2019b. (USFWS 2019b).Small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Factsheet. Southeast Wildlife Plants U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia Online at: https://www.fws.gov/southeast/wildlife/plants/small-whorled-pogonia/ Accessed February 27, 2020.

_____. 2020. (USFWS 2020). Small Whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides). Environmental Conservation Online System. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=Q1XL Accessed on: February 28, 2020.

The University of Montana. 2019. List Wilderness Areas by Location. Online [URL]: http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/stateView?state=NY. Accessed October 8, 2019.

Village of Monticello, New York. 2019. Parks & Recreation. [Online] URL: http://www.villageofmonticello.com/Parks.aspx. Accessed October 9, 2019.

Virginia State University. 2000. Understanding the Science Behind Riparian Forest Buffers: Effects on Plant and Animal Communities. Virginia Tech College of Natural Resources, Blacksburg, VA. 16 pp.

Weaver, L. A., Fisher, M. T., Bosher, B. T., Claud, M. L. and Koth, L. J. 2003. “Boshers Dam vertical slot fishway: a useful tool to evaluate American shad recovery efforts in the upper James River”. In Biodiversity, status, and conservation of the world's shads, Edited by: Limburg, K. E. and Waldman, J. R. 339–347. Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society, Symposium 35.

Weber, C. I., 1973. Biological Field and Laboratory Methods for Waters and Effluents. EPA, EPA 670/4-73-001, Washington, D.C.

Weston, Timothy R. 1989. The Delaware River Basin: Courts, Compacts, and Commissions. [Online] URL: http://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi. Accessed February 10, 2017.

Winchell, F., S. Amaral, and D. Dixon. 2000. Hydroelectric turbine entrainment and survival database: an alternative to field studies. Hydrovision 2000: New Realities, New Responses. HCI Publications, Kansas City, MO.

Will, R., K.E. Mack, and J. Larlee. 2019. Phase IA Archaeological Review and Assessment of the Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects, Sullican and Orange Counties, New York. Prepared for Eagle Creek Renewable Energy, LLC, Morristown, New Jersey.

Williams, R. O., and G. E. Bruger. 1972. Investigations on American shad in the St. Johns River. Florida Department of Natural Resources Marine Research Laboratory Technical Series 66: 1-49.

Wood, C. M., J. D. Turner, M. S. Graham. 1983. Why do fish die after severe exercise? Journal of Experimental Biology. 1983. Vol. 22 (pg.189-201).

https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_dwarf_wedgemussel.html

https://www.fws.gov/%E2%80%8Cwetlands/data/mapper

https://www.fws.gov/%E2%80%8Cwetlands/data/mapper

https://www.fws.gov/southeast/wildlife/plants/small-whorled-pogonia/

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=Q1XL

http://www.wilderness.net/%E2%80%8CNWPS/stateView?state=NY

http://www.villageofmonticello.com/Parks.aspx

http://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi

APPENDIX A

RESERVOIR MESOHABITAT MAPS

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

Rio Minimum Flow Powerhouse

Swinging Bridge Dam

Rio Powerhouse


Rio Dam

Mongaup Falls Dam

Toronto Reservoir

Toronto Dam



Rio Reservoir


Black Brook Dam

Swinging Bridge Powerhouse

Cliff Lake Dam

S12

MF2

S15

S13

S01

S02

S03

S04

S05

S06S07S08

S09

S10

S11

S14

C2

C3

C4

C1

MF1

MF3

MF4

T01T02

T03T06

T05T04

T08T09T07

T10T13

T12

T11

R1

R2

R3

R4

R5R6

R7

±

Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects Aquatic Habitat Assessment Study

Index Sheet and Map Set

0 0.9 1.8Miles

Swinging Bridge Hydroelectric Project(FERC No.10482)

Mongaup Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 10481)

Rio Hydroelectric Project(FERC No. 9690)

Appendix A-1

CR13WHITE LAK E RD

1210

1200

1190

1180

AQUATIC HABITAT ASSESSMENT STUDY

(FERC NO. 10482)SWINGING BRIDGE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - TORONTO RESERVOIR

PAGE T01PATH: \\SYR-SRV01\GIS\PROJECTS\EAGLECREEK\MONGAUP_RELICE\MAP_DOCS\STUDIES\MESOHABITAT\FINAL\MAP_MESO_TORONTO_20191111.MXD - USER: KAUSTIN - DATE: 11/11/2019

Toronto Study Zone(s)

Zone 1 - 1218' to 1220'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1200' to 1218'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1170' to 1200'(NGVD29)

óóóóóóóó Observed ShorelineErosion

Cover Type

SAV - Submerged AquaticVegetation

CNA - Centrarchid NestingArea

LWD - Large Woody Debris

Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel

Gravel-Rubble-Cobble

Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine

Riprap-Artificial Shore

Sandy/Silt-Loam-Soil

Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-2

CR13 WHITE LAKE RD1210

1200

1190

1180

1210

1200

1180

1190





Zone 1 - 1218' to 1220'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1200' to 1218'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1170' to 1200'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-3

1210

1190

1200 1180

1170

120012101190

1180

1210

1210

1190





Zone 1 - 1218' to 1220'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1200' to 1218'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1170' to 1200'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-4

1200

1210

1190

1180





Zone 1 - 1218' to 1220'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1200' to 1218'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1170' to 1200'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-5

1200

1190

1180

1170

1210

1200

1190

1180

1170

1190

1170

1210





Zone 1 - 1218' to 1220'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1200' to 1218'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1170' to 1200'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-6

_̂

TorontoReservoir

1210

1200

1190

1180

1170

12101200

1190

1180

1190

1170





Zone 1 - 1218' to 1220'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1200' to 1218'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1170' to 1200'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-7

óóóóóó

óóóóóóóó

óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óó

óó

1210

1200

1210

1200

1190





Zone 1 - 1218' to 1220'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1200' to 1218'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1170' to 1200'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-8

óóóó

óóóóóóóóóó


M OSCO

ERD





Zone 1 - 1218' to 1220'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1200' to 1218'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1170' to 1200'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-9

óóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóó

1210

1200

1190

1210

1200





Zone 1 - 1218' to 1220'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1200' to 1218'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1170' to 1200'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-10

óó

1210

1200

1190

1180

1170

12001190

11801170

1160

1210

1190

1190

1180

1180

11601160

1210

1190

1180

1170





Zone 1 - 1218' to 1220'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1200' to 1218'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1170' to 1200'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-11

óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóó

óóóóóóóó

óóóóóó

óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

1210

1200

1190

1180

1170

1160

1150

1170

1160

1160

1150





Zone 1 - 1218' to 1220'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1200' to 1218'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1170' to 1200'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-12


1210

1200

1190

1180

1170

1160

1190

1200

1180





Zone 1 - 1218' to 1220'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1200' to 1218'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1170' to 1200'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-13

_̂Toronto Dam

1210

1200

1190

1180

1170

1160

1150

1180

1170

1180

1150

1160

1160





Zone 1 - 1218' to 1220'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1200' to 1218'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1170' to 1200'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-14


1070

1060 1060


(FERC NO. 10482)SWINGING BRIDGE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - CLIFF LAKE RESERVOIR

PAGE C1PATH: \\SYR-SRV01\GIS\PROJECTS\EAGLECREEK\MONGAUP_RELICE\MAP_DOCS\STUDIES\MESOHABITAT\FINAL\MAP_MESO_CLIFF_20191111.MXD - USER: KAUSTIN - DATE: 11/11/2019

Cliff Lake Study Zone(s)

Zone 1 - 1068' to 1071.1'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1049' to 1068'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1048' to 1049'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-15


óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

!

!

!

!!

1060

1050

1070

10601070

1060

1050

1070

1070

1050





Zone 1 - 1068' to 1071.1'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1049' to 1068'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1048' to 1049'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-16

óó

óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóóóóóó

óóóó


óó


!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

_̂

Cliff LakeReservoir

1060

1070

1050

1040

1070

1060

1050

1070

1060

1070

1070

1050





Zone 1 - 1068' to 1071.1'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1049' to 1068'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1048' to 1049'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-17

óóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóóóóóó

óó

óó

óó

óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó


óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóó

óóóóóó

óó

óóóóóóóó

!!

!

!

!

!

_̂

CliffLake Dam

1070

1060

1050

1040

1030

10701060

1050

1030





Zone 1 - 1068' to 1071.1'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1049' to 1068'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1048' to 1049'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-18

óóóó

NY 17B

STARLI

GHT

ROAD

PLANK

RD

PLANK SPUR

1060


(FERC NO. 10482)SWINGING BRIDGE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - SWINGING BRIDGE RESERVOIR

PAGE S01PATH: \\SYR-SRV01\GIS\PROJECTS\EAGLECREEK\MONGAUP_RELICE\MAP_DOCS\STUDIES\MESOHABITAT\FINAL\MAP_MESO_SWB_20191111.MXD - USER: KAUSTIN - DATE: 11/11/2019

Swinging Bridge Study Zone(s)

Zone 1 - 1068' to 1070'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1049' to 1068'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1048' to 1049'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




OS - Observed Stranding

Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-19

óóóóóóóó

óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

óóóó



óóóóóóóó


óó



CAMP RD 1

STARLI

GHTR

OAD

STROU

T RD

S TARLIGHT RO AD

PLANK RD

1060

1060

1050

1060

1050

1060





Zone 1 - 1068' to 1070'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1049' to 1068'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1048' to 1049'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-20

óóóó

STARLIGHT ROAD

STROU

T RD

PLANK RD

1060

1050

1060

1060

1050





Zone 1 - 1068' to 1070'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1049' to 1068'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1048' to 1049'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-21

óóóóóóóó

óóóó

óóóóóó

LAKE S

HORE

DR

1060

1050

1040

1060

1050

1040





Zone 1 - 1068' to 1070'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1049' to 1068'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1048' to 1049'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-22

óóóó

LAKE SHORE DR

STARLIGHT ROAD

SWING

INGBR

IDGE E

STATE

DRE

1050

1040

1030

1060

1050

1040

1030

1060





Zone 1 - 1068' to 1070'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1049' to 1068'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1048' to 1049'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-23

S TARLI

GHTR

OAD

1060

1050

1040

1030

1060

10501040

1030

1060

1060

1040

1020

1020





Zone 1 - 1068' to 1070'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1049' to 1068'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1048' to 1049'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-24



STARLI

GHT R

OAD

1050

1040

1030

1020

1010

1060

1050

1040

1030

1060

1050

1040

1030

1060

1020

1020

1010





Zone 1 - 1068' to 1070'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1049' to 1068'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1048' to 1049'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-25


1060

10501040

1030

1020

1050

1060

1040

1030

1020





Zone 1 - 1068' to 1070'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1049' to 1068'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1048' to 1049'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-26

1060

1050

1040

1030

1060

1060

1040





Zone 1 - 1068' to 1070'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1049' to 1068'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1048' to 1049'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-27

1060

1050





Zone 1 - 1068' to 1070'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1049' to 1068'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1048' to 1049'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-28


óó


óó

STARLIGHT DR

GREGORY RD

PLANK SECTION B

STARLIGHTROAD

1060

1050

1040

10301020

10101000

1060

1050

1040

1030

1020

1010





Zone 1 - 1068' to 1070'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1049' to 1068'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1048' to 1049'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-29

óó

_̂

SwingingBridgeReservoir

STARLI

GHT R

OAD

PLANK SECTION B

1060

1050

1040

1030

1020

1010

1000

990

1060

1050

1040

1030

1020

1010

1000

1060

1050

1010

990





Zone 1 - 1068' to 1070'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1049' to 1068'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1048' to 1049'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-30

óó

1060

1050

1040

1030

1020

10101000

990980

970

1060

1050

1040

1030

1020

1010

1000

990

1060





Zone 1 - 1068' to 1070'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1049' to 1068'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1048' to 1049'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-31

1060

1050

1040

1030

1020

1010

1000

990

980

970

960

1050

1060

1040

1030

1020

1010

1000

990

980

970

1020





Zone 1 - 1068' to 1070'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1049' to 1068'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1048' to 1049'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-32

_̂

SwingingBridge Dam

1060

1050

1040

1030

1020

1010

1000

990

98097

0

960

950

1060

950





Zone 1 - 1068' to 1070'(NGVD29)

Zone 2 - 1049' to 1068'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 1048' to 1049'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-33

CHAPIN RD


(FERC NO. 10481)MONGAUP FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - MONGAUP FALLS RESERVOIR

PAGE MF1PATH: \\SYR-SRV01\GIS\PROJECTS\EAGLECREEK\MONGAUP_RELICE\MAP_DOCS\STUDIES\MESOHABITAT\FINAL\MAP_MESO_MF_20191111.MXD - USER: KAUSTIN - DATE: 11/11/2019

Mongaup Falls Study Zone(s)

Zone 1 - N/A

Zone 2 - 929' to 935'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 910' to 929'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-34


óóóó

óó

óóóóóóóó


_̂

Mongaup FallsReservoir

FORESTBURGH RDCHAPIN RD

930

920

920

920





Zone 1 - N/A

Zone 2 - 929' to 935'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 910' to 929'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




OS - Observed Stranding

Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-35

óóóóóóóó

óóóóóó

óóóó


óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó


óóóóóó

óó


óóóó

óóóó




óóóóóóóó


930

920

910

920

930

920

920

910





Zone 1 - N/A

Zone 2 - 929' to 935'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 910' to 929'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-36

óóóóóó

óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó


óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó

_̂

MongaupFalls Dam

930

920

910

900

930





Zone 1 - N/A

Zone 2 - 929' to 935'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 910' to 929'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-37

óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó


óó

814 816

812

810

808

806

804

802

814

814

806

802

814

PLANK SECTION A


(FERC NO. 9690)RIO HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT - RIO RESERVOIR

PAGE R1PATH: \\SYR-SRV01\GIS\PROJECTS\EAGLECREEK\MONGAUP_RELICE\MAP_DOCS\STUDIES\MESOHABITAT\FINAL\MAP_MESO_RIO_20191111.MXD - USER: KAUSTIN - DATE: 11/11/2019

Rio Study Zone(s)

Zone 1 - N/A

Zone 2 - 808' to 815'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 805' to 808'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-38

óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó


óó

óó

814

812810

808

806

804

802

800

798

796

794

792

814812

810

808

806

804

802

806

806

804

814

806

804

804

804

804

804

802

800

800

800

796

798

796

794

KING ROAD

PLANK

SECTI

ON A

PLANK SECTION A




Rio Study Zone(s)

Zone 1 - N/A

Zone 2 - 808' to 815'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 805' to 808'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-39


óóóóóóóó

814

812

810

808

806

804

802

800

792

794

790

788

786

784

782

780

814

812

810

808

806

804

802

800

794

792

796

798

798

796

796

794794

794

792

792

790

788

786

786

786

784

786

786

784 782

782

782

782

780

782

780

778

778

PLANK

S ECTIO

N A




Rio Study Zone(s)

Zone 1 - N/A

Zone 2 - 808' to 815'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 805' to 808'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-40

óó


óó!

!

_̂Rio Reservoir

814

812

810

808

806

804

802

800

798

796

794

792

790

788

784

782

780

77877

6

774

772

770

768

766

814

812

810

808

806

804

802

800

798

796

790

780

782

784

780

784782

770

768

810812

802

794

786

782

780

778

776

776776

776

776

776

774

774

766

PLANK SECTION A




Rio Study Zone(s)

Zone 1 - N/A

Zone 2 - 808' to 815'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 805' to 808'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-41


óó

óóóóóó

!

814

808

810

806

804

802

798

796

794

792

790

788

786

784

782

780

778

776

774

772

770

768

766

764

760

762

758

756

754

752

814

812

810808

806

804

802

800

792

790

780

77677

4

772

770

768

766

758

756

800

798

796

778

774 774774

772

770

766

764

764

758

748

774

PLANK SECTION A




Rio Study Zone(s)

Zone 1 - N/A

Zone 2 - 808' to 815'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 805' to 808'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




IS - Invasive Plant Species

Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-42

!

814

812

810

808

806

804

802

800

798

796

794

792

790

788

786

782780

778

776

774

772

770

768

766

764

762760

758

756

752

750

748

746

744

742 740

738

814

812810

808

806

804

802

800

798

796

794

790

786

784

782

780

770

768

766

762

760

742

740

738

736

786

784

746

740

808

796

788

788

784

782 780

772

762

764

764

75475

4

750

750

750

748

748

748

748

746

746

746

746

742

736738

736




Rio Study Zone(s)

Zone 1 - N/A

Zone 2 - 808' to 815'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 805' to 808'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




IS - Invasive Plant Species

Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-43

!

_̂

_̂

Rio Dam

Rio MinimumFlow Powerhouse

824

822820

818

814

810

808

806

804

802

800

798

796

794

790

788

786

784

782

780

774

768

766

764

760

756

750

748

742

740

738736

734

732

730728

726

724798

786

784

782

780

778

776

774

772

770

768

766

764

762

760

758

754

750

748

746

744

802

800

798

796

794

792

790

788

822820

790

792

788

786

784

814

812

810

808

806

748

744

746

742

808

804

780

740

740

738

738

736

734

832

824

824816

812 816

796

790

782

778

752756

754

746

744

742

742

740

740

738

738

738

738

736

736

736

734

732

730

730

RIO DAM RD




Rio Study Zone(s)

Zone 1 - N/A

Zone 2 - 808' to 815'(NGVD29)

Zone 3 - 805' to 808'(NGVD29)


Cover Type




Substrate

Bedrock

Fine

Gravel


Rocky Boulder

Rocky Fine



Project Boundary

10-ft Contours

2-ft Contours

0 250 500Feet

±

Appendix A-44

APPENDIX B

STREAM REACH MESOHABITAT MAPS

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

Swinging Bridge Dam

Rio Powerhouse


Rio Dam

Mongaup Falls Dam

Toronto Reservoir

Toronto Dam



Rio Reservoir


Black Brook Dam

Swinging Bridge Powerhouse

Cliff Lake Dam

Rio Minimum Flow Powerhouse

¬«6

¬«10

¬«1

¬«2

¬«3

¬«4

¬«5 ¬«7

¬«8

¬«11

¬«12¬«13

¬«14

¬«15

¬«16

¬«17

¬«18

¬«19¬«20

¬«21

¬«9

±

0 1 2Miles

Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects Bypass / Base Flow Transect Evaluation

Study Index Sheet and Map SetSwinging Bridge Hydroelectric Project

(FERC No.10482)Mongaup Falls Hydroelectric Project

(FERC No. 10481)Rio Hydroelectric Project

(FERC No. 9690)

Appendix B-1

"/

"/

"/"/

F

F

F

TORONTO DOWNSTREAM REACH

TORO

NTO D

AM

CLIFF

LAKE

M - TD - 1

M - TD - 2

M - TD - 3

M - TD - 4M - TD - 5

M - TD - 6Black Lake Creek

TD - 2

TD - 4

TD - 6

P - TD- 55

P - TD - 58P - TD - 62

P - TD - 65

MesohabitatRiffle

Riffle - Pool Complex

Riffle - Step Pool Complex

Riffle - Run Complex

Run

Rapid

Pool

Glide

Glide - Run Complex

Backwater

Cascade

Falls

SubstrateBedrock

Boulder

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

Cobble

Gravel

Mud

Silt

Substrate Observed Above Water

F Flow Direction

"/ Photo Location

Page 1 of 21

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

Bypass / Base Flow Transect Evaluation Study±

0 150 300Feet

2018 Transect LocationTransect Location Digitizedfrom the 1988 MongaupBasin Instream Flow Study

Appendix B-2

_̂

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

CLIFF LAKE DOWNSTREAM SEGMENT

Start Cliff Lake Downstream Segment

M - CLD - 17

M - CLD - 5M - CLD - 7

M - CLD - 1

M - CLD - 2 M - CLD - 4

M - CLD - 3M - CLD - 6

M - CLD - 8M - CLD - 9

M - CLD - 10

M - CLD - 11M - CLD - 12

M - CLD - 13

M - CLD - 14

M - CLD - 15

M - CLD - 16

Black Lake Creek

P - CLD - 20

P - CLD - 22

P - CLD - 23

P - CLD - 24

P - CLD - 25

CliffLake Dam

MesohabitatRiffle




Run

Rapid

Pool

Glide

Glide - Run Complex

Backwater

Cascade

Falls

SubstrateBedrock

Boulder

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

Cobble

Gravel

Mud

Silt


F Flow Direction

"/ Photo Location

Page 2 of 21



0 200 400Feet


Appendix B-3

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

F

F

F

F


M - CLD - 17

M - CLD - 18

M - CLD - 19

M - CLD - 20

M - CLD - 21

Black Lake Creek P - CLD - 3

P - CLD - 5

P - CLD - 6

MesohabitatRiffle




Run

Rapid

Pool

Glide

Glide - Run Complex

Backwater

Cascade

Falls

SubstrateBedrock

Boulder

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

Cobble

Gravel

Mud

Silt


F Flow Direction

"/ Photo Location

Page 3 of 21



0 200 400Feet


Appendix B-4

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

F

F

F

F

F


Cliff La

ke Do

wnstr

eam Re

ach

M - CLD - 22

M - CLD - 23

M - CLD - 24

M - CLD - 25 M - CLD - 26M - CLD - 27

M - CLD - 28

M - CLD - 29

M - CLD - 30

M - CLD - 31

M - CLD - 32

M - CLD - 33M - CLD - 34

M - CLD - 35M - CLD - 36

M - CLD - 37

M - CLD - 38

M - CLD - 39

CLD - G1

Black LakeCreek

CLD - P1

CLD - R1

P - CLD - 8

P - CLD - 10

P - CLD - 12

P - CLD - 14

P - CLD- 30

P - CLD - 34

MesohabitatRiffle




Run

Rapid

Pool

Glide

Glide - Run Complex

Backwater

Cascade

Falls

SubstrateBedrock

Boulder

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

Cobble

Gravel

Mud

Silt


F Flow Direction

"/ Photo Location

Page 4 of 21



0 200 400Feet


Appendix B-5

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

F

F

F

F


M - CLD - 54

M - CLD - 51M - CLD - 52

M - CLD - 50

M - CLD - 49

M - CLD - 40

M - CLD - 41

M - CLD - 42M - CLD - 43

M - CLD - 44

M - CLD - 45

M - CLD - 46

M - CLD - 47

M - CLD - 48

M - SB - 15

M - CLD - 55

M - CLD - 53

B lack La ke

Creek

P - CLD - 19

P - CLD - 26

MesohabitatRiffle




Run

Rapid

Pool

Glide

Glide - Run Complex

Backwater

Cascade

Falls

SubstrateBedrock

Boulder

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

Cobble

Gravel

Mud

Silt


F Flow Direction

"/ Photo Location

Page 5 of 21



0 200 400Feet


Appendix B-6

_̂

_̂

"/

"/

F

F

SWINGING BRIDGE DOWNSTREAM SEGMENT

Start Swinging Bridge Downstream Segment

M - SB - 1

Mongaup RiverSwingingBridge Dam

SwingingBridgePowerhouse

MesohabitatRiffle




Run

Rapid

Pool

Glide

Glide - Run Complex

Backwater

Cascade

Falls

SubstrateBedrock

Boulder

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

Cobble

Gravel

Mud

Silt


F Flow Direction

"/ Photo Location

Page 6 of 21



0 200 400Feet


Appendix B-7

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

F

F

F

F

F

SWINGING BRIDGE DOWNSTREAM SEGMENT

Swinging

Bridge D

ownstream

Reach

Access Road Bridge

M - CLD - 48

M - SB - 2

M - SB - 3

M - SB - 4

M - SB - 5

M - SB - 6

M - SB - 7M - SB - 8

M - SB - 9

M - SB - 10

M - SB - 11

M - SB - 12

M - SB - 13

M - SB - 14

M - SB - 15

M - S

B - 16

SB - 82

Mongaup

River

SB - 86

SB - 74

P - SB - 70

P - SB - 71

P - SB- 72

P - SB - 73

P - SB - 84

P - SB - 87

MesohabitatRiffle




Run

Rapid

Pool

Glide

Glide - Run Complex

Backwater

Cascade

Falls

SubstrateBedrock

Boulder

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

Cobble

Gravel

Mud

Silt


F Flow Direction

"/ Photo Location

Page 7 of 21



0 200 400Feet


Appendix B-8

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

F

F

F


SWINING BRIDGE DOWNSTREAM SEGMENT

End Swinging Bridge Downstream Segment

End Cliff Lake Downstream

Segment

TO SWINGING

BRIDGE DAM

TO MONGAUP FALLS

RESERVOIR

M - CLD - 58

M - CLD - 57M - CLD - 56

M - CLD - 54

M - CLD - 51M - CLD - 52

M - CLD - 50

M - SB - 17

M - SB - 18

M - SB - 19M - SB - 20

M - SB - 21

M - SB -

22

M - SB -

23

M - CLD - 55

M - CLD - 53

Black

Lake

Creek

Mong

aupR

iver

P - CLD - 29

P - SB - 88

P - SB - 91

P - SB - 93

P - SB - 95

MesohabitatRiffle




Run

Rapid

Pool

Glide

Glide - Run Complex

Backwater

Cascade

Falls

SubstrateBedrock

Boulder

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

Cobble

Gravel

Mud

Silt


F Flow Direction

"/ Photo Location

Page 8 of 21



0 200 400Feet


Appendix B-9

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

F

F

F

MONGAUP FALLS BYPASS REACH

MONG

AUP F

ALLS

DAM

RIO RE

SERVO

IR

M - MFB - 3

M - MFB - 5

M - MFB - 7

M - MFB - 4

M - MFB - 6M - MFB - 8

M - MFB - 1M - MFB - 9

M - MFB - 2

Mongaup River

MFB - 2

MFB - 7

P - MFB - 37

P - MFB - 39

P - MFB - 44

P - MFB- 45

P - MFB - 46

P - MFB - 51

P - MFB - 54

MesohabitatRiffle




Run

Rapid

Pool

Glide

Glide - Run Complex

Backwater

Cascade

Falls

SubstrateBedrock

Boulder

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

Cobble

Gravel

Mud

Silt


F Flow Direction

"/ Photo Location

Page 9 of 21



0 125 250Feet


Appendix B-10

_̂

_̂

"/

"/

"/

"/"/

"/

"/

F

F

F

RIO BYPASS SEGMENT

Start Rio Bypass Segment

Rio Bypass Reach 1

M - RB - 1

M - RB - 2

M - RB - 3

M - RB - 4M - RB - 5

M - RB - 6

RioDa

mRo

ad

RB1 - 5

MongaupRiver

RB1 - 3

P - RB - 98

P - RB - 100

P - RB - 104

P - RB - 121P - RB - 122

P - RB - 125

Rio Dam

Rio MinimumFlow Powerhouse

MesohabitatRiffle




Run

Rapid

Pool

Glide

Glide - Run Complex

Backwater

Cascade

Falls

SubstrateBedrock

Boulder

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

Cobble

Gravel

Mud

Silt


F Flow Direction

"/ Photo Location

Page 10 of 21



0 200 400Feet


Appendix B-11

"/

"/

F

F

F

F

RIO BYPASS SEGMENT

M - RB - 7

M - RB - 8

Mongaup River

P - RB - 126

P - RB - 128

MesohabitatRiffle




Run

Rapid

Pool

Glide

Glide - Run Complex

Backwater

Cascade

Falls

SubstrateBedrock

Boulder

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

Cobble

Gravel

Mud

Silt


F Flow Direction

"/ Photo Location

Page 11 of 21



0 200 400Feet


Appendix B-12

"/

"/"/

"/"/

"/

F

F

F

FF

RIO BYPASS SEGMENT

M - R

B - 9

M - RB - 10

M - RB - 11

M - RB - 12

M - RB - 13 M - RB - 14

M - RB - 16

Bush Kill

Mongaup

River

P - RB - 131

P - RB - 132

P - RB - 134

P - RB- 135

P - RB - 136

MesohabitatRiffle




Run

Rapid

Pool

Glide

Glide - Run Complex

Backwater

Cascade

Falls

SubstrateBedrock

Boulder

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

Cobble

Gravel

Mud

Silt


F Flow Direction

"/ Photo Location

Page 12 of 21



0 200 400Feet


Appendix B-13

"/

"/"/

"/"/

"/

F

F

F

F

RIO BYPASS SEGMENT

M - RB - 16

M - RB - 15

M - RB -

17

M - RB

Bush K

ill

Mongaup River

P - RB - 137

MesohabitatRiffle




Run

Rapid

Pool

Glide

Glide - Run Complex

Backwater

Cascade

Falls

SubstrateBedrock

Boulder

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

Cobble

Gravel

Mud

Silt


F Flow Direction

"/ Photo Location

Page 13 of 21


Bypass / Base Flow Transect Evaluation Study

±

0 200 400Feet


Appendix B-14

"/"/"/

"/

"/

"/"/

"/"/

"/

"/

"/"/

"/"/

F

F

F

F

F

RIO POWERHOUSE SEGMENT

Rio Bypass Reach 2

End Rio Bypass Segment / Start Rio Powerhouse Segment M - RB - 17

M - RB -18

M - RB - 19

M - RB - 20

M - RPH - 1

M - RPH - 2

M - RPH - 3

M - RPH - 4

M - R

PH - 6

M - RPH - 5M - RPH - 7

M - RPH - 10 M - RPH - 8

M - RPH - 9

M - RPH - 11

MongaupRiver RB2 - 7RB2 - 4

P - RB- 113

P - RB- 116

P - RB - 117

P - RB- 140

P - RB - 141

P - RPH- 142

P - RPH - 143

P - RPH - 144P - RPH- 145

P - RPH - 146

P - RPH - 150

P - RPH - 152

P - RPH - 153

MesohabitatRiffle




Run

Rapid

Pool

Glide

Glide - Run Complex

Backwater

Cascade

Falls

SubstrateBedrock

Boulder

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

Cobble

Gravel

Mud

Silt


F Flow Direction

"/ Photo Location

Page 14 of 21



0 200 400Feet


Appendix B-15

"/"/

"/"/

"/

"/

F

F

F

F

F


M - RPH - 12

M - RPH - 13

M - RPH - 14

M - RPH - 15

M - RPH - 16

M - RPH - 17M - R

PH - 1

8

M - RPH

- 19

M - RPH - 20

Akeson Road

Mongaup

River

P - RPH - 154P - RPH - 155

P - RPH - 156P - RPH - 157

P - RPH - 158

P - RPH - 160

MesohabitatRiffle




Run

Rapid

Pool

Glide

Glide - Run Complex

Backwater

Cascade

Falls

SubstrateBedrock

Boulder

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

Cobble

Gravel

Mud

Silt


F Flow Direction

"/ Photo Location

Page 15 of 21



0 200 400Feet


Appendix B-16

"/

"/"/

"/"/

F

F

F

F

F


M - RPH - 20

M - RPH

- 21

M - RPH - 22

M - RPH - 23

M - RPH - 24

Monga

upRiv

erP - RPH - 162

P - RPH - 163

P - RPH - 164 P - RPH - 165

MesohabitatRiffle




Run

Rapid

Pool

Glide

Glide - Run Complex

Backwater

Cascade

Falls

SubstrateBedrock

Boulder

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

Cobble

Gravel

Mud

Silt


F Flow Direction

"/ Photo Location

Page 16 of 21



0 200 400Feet


Appendix B-17

"/

"/

"/

"/

F

F

F

F

F

F

F


Rio Powerhouse Reach 3

M - RPH - 25

M - RPH - 26

M - RPH - 27

M - RPH - 28

M - RPH - 29

M - RPH - 30

M - RPH - 31

M - RPH - 32

M - RPH - 33

M - RPH - 24

Mongaup River

RPH3 - 6P - RPH- 107

P - RPH - 166

P - RPH - 170

P - RPH - 174

MesohabitatRiffle




Run

Rapid

Pool

Glide

Glide - Run Complex

Backwater

Cascade

Falls

SubstrateBedrock

Boulder

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

Cobble

Gravel

Mud

Silt


F Flow Direction

"/ Photo Location

Page 17 of 21



0 200 400Feet


Appendix B-18

"/

"/

"/"/

"/

F

F

F

F

F


Rio Po

werho

use Re

ach 4

M - RPH - 33

M - RPH - 34

M - RPH - 35

M - RPH - 36County Road 31

")31

Mongaup River

RPH4 - 1

RPH4 - 2

P - RPH- 109

P - RPH - 176

P - RPH- 177

P - RPH - 178

MesohabitatRiffle




Run

Rapid

Pool

Glide

Glide - Run Complex

Backwater

Cascade

Falls

SubstrateBedrock

Boulder

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

Cobble

Gravel

Mud

Silt


F Flow Direction

"/ Photo Location

Page 18 of 21



0 200 400Feet


Appendix B-19

"/

"/"/

"/

"/"/

F

F

F

F


M - RPH - 37

M - RPH - 38

M - RPH - 39

M - RPH - 41

M - RPH - 42

M - RPH - 43M - RPH - 44

M - RPH - 45

M - RPH - 40Caskey Road

Coun

tyRo

ad31

")31Mongaup

River

P - RPH - 180P - RPH - 181

P - RPH - 185

MesohabitatRiffle




Run

Rapid

Pool

Glide

Glide - Run Complex

Backwater

Cascade

Falls

SubstrateBedrock

Boulder

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

Cobble

Gravel

Mud

Silt


F Flow Direction

"/ Photo Location

Page 19 of 21



0 200 400Feet


Appendix B-20

"/"/

"/"/

F

F

F


M - RPH - 45

M - RPH - 46

M - RPH - 47

M - RPH - 48

EagleCourtWilson Road

Wilso

n Road

¬«97

Delaware River

MongaupRiver

P - RPH - 186

P - RPH - 187

P - RPH - 189

P - RPH - 190

MesohabitatRiffle




Run

Rapid

Pool

Glide

Glide - Run Complex

Backwater

Cascade

Falls

SubstrateBedrock

Boulder

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

Cobble

Gravel

Mud

Silt


F Flow Direction

"/ Photo Location

Page 20 of 21



0 200 400Feet


Appendix B-21

"/"/

"/"/

"/"/

F

F

F


End Rio Powerhouse Segment

M - RPH - 4

9

M - RPH - 50

M - RPH - 51

M - RPH - 52

M - RPH - 53M - RPH - 54

Decker Road Birdsall Lane

County Road 31

Decker Road

Birdsall

Lane

")31

¬«97

Delaware River

MongaupRiver

P - RPH - 191

P - RPH - 192

P - RPH - 193

P - RPH- 194

P - RPH - 195

P - RPH - 196

MesohabitatRiffle




Run

Rapid

Pool

Glide

Glide - Run Complex

Backwater

Cascade

Falls

SubstrateBedrock

Boulder

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

( ( ( (

Cobble

Gravel

Mud

Silt


F Flow Direction

"/ Photo Location

Page 21 of 21



0 200 400Feet


Appendix B-22

APPENDIX C

PHOTOGRAPHS OF TORONTO EAST ACCESS AREA

Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects FERC Relicensing - Final License Application Photographs of Public Access Road and Signage for the Toronto East Access Recreation Area

Photo 1. Eagle Creek signage at beginning of public access road to Toronto East Access Area (February 2020).

Photo 21. Chapin Estate signage along public access road to Toronto East Access Area (February 2020).

Appendix C-1


Photo 3. Chapin Estate signage along public access road to Toronto East Access Area (February 2020).

Photo 4. Public access road to Toronto East Access Area (February 2020).

Appendix C-2




Appendix C-3




Appendix C-4




Appendix C-5



Photo 12. Eagle Creek signage at the entrance to Toronto East Access Area (February 2020).

Appendix C-6


Photo 13. View of Eagle Creek signage and Toronto Dam from East Access Area Parking Lot (February 2020).

Photo 14. Eagle Creek signage at Toronto East Access Area (February 2020).

Appendix C-7


Photo15. Eagle Creek signage at Toronto East Access Area (February 2020).

Appendix C-8

FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION Volume II of V (Public) - Eagle ...

Documents

Transcript of FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION Volume II of V (Public) - Eagle ...