Swinging Bridge Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 10482 ......(FERC No. 10481), and the Rio...

Swinging Bridge Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 10482)

Mongaup Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 10481)

Rio Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 9690)

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN

Prepared for:

EAGLE CREEK RENEWABLE ENERGY

Prepared by:

September 12, 2017

i

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR THE

SWINGING BRIDGE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 10482)

MONGAUP FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 10481)

RIO HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 9690)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page No.

List of Acronyms ..................................................................................................... vii

1 Introduction and Background ............................................................................ 1

1.1 Study Plan Overview ..................................................................................................1

1.1.1 Eagle Creek’s Proposed Study Plan .............................................................5

1.1.2 Comments on Proposed Study Plan .............................................................6 1.1.3 PSP Meeting.................................................................................................6

1.2 Project Location and Description ...............................................................................6

1.2.1 Swinging Bridge Project ..............................................................................7 1.2.2 Mongaup Falls Project .................................................................................8

1.2.3 Rio Project ...................................................................................................8

2 Additional Information Requested .................................................................... 9

3 Requested Studies Not Adopted ...................................................................... 10

3.1 Studies Not Adopted ................................................................................................10

3.1.1 Swinging Bridge Spillway Habitat Study ..................................................11 3.1.2 Bald Eagle Management Study ..................................................................12

3.1.3 Black Brook Dam Removal Study .............................................................16 3.1.4 Base and Bypass Flow Study .....................................................................18 3.1.5 Socioeconomic Impacts Study ...................................................................20

3.2 Informal Study Requests ..........................................................................................22 3.2.1 Geology Study ...........................................................................................22

3.2.2 Aesthetics Study.........................................................................................23

3.2.3 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Study ......................................................23

3.2.4 Water Resources and Wetland Resource Study .........................................23 3.2.5 Water and Surface Navigability Study ......................................................24

3.3 Similar Study Requests ............................................................................................24 3.3.1 Special-Status Wildlife Species and Habitat Assessment ..........................24 3.3.2 Special-Status Plant Species and Noxious Weed Assessment ...................24

3.3.3 Wetland Delineation ..................................................................................25

4 Proposal for the PSP Meeting .......................................................................... 26

5 Reservoir Water Level Fluctuation/Operation Study Plan .............................. 27

5.1 Study Requests .........................................................................................................27 5.2 Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................29

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(Continued)


ii

5.3 Resource Management Goals ...................................................................................29 5.4 Public Interest ...........................................................................................................30 5.5 Background and Existing Information .....................................................................30 5.6 Project Nexus ...........................................................................................................31

5.7 Methodology ............................................................................................................31 5.8 Level of Effort and Cost ...........................................................................................32 5.9 Schedule and Deliverables .......................................................................................32 5.10 Deviations from Requested Studies .........................................................................32

6 Aquatic Habitat Assessment Study Plan ......................................................... 34

6.1 Study Requests .........................................................................................................34 6.2 Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................36 6.3 Resource Management Goals ...................................................................................37 6.4 Public Interest ...........................................................................................................37

6.5 Background and Existing Information .....................................................................37 6.6 Project Nexus ...........................................................................................................39

6.7 Methodology ............................................................................................................39 6.7.1 Aquatic Habitat Survey and Assessment ...................................................39 6.7.2 Data Analysis and Reporting .....................................................................40

6.8 Level of Effort and Cost ...........................................................................................40

6.9 Schedule and Deliverables .......................................................................................41 6.10 Deviations from Requested Studies .........................................................................41 6.11 References ................................................................................................................41

7 Fisheries Survey Study Plan ............................................................................ 42

7.1 Study Requests .........................................................................................................42

7.2 Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................44 7.3 Resource Management Goals ...................................................................................44 7.4 Public Interest ...........................................................................................................44 7.5 Background and Existing Information .....................................................................44

7.6 Project Nexus ...........................................................................................................45

7.7 Methodology ............................................................................................................45

7.7.1 Collectors Permits ......................................................................................45 7.7.2 Late Summer/Early Fall Baseline Survey ..................................................45

7.8 Level of Effort and Cost ...........................................................................................46 7.9 Schedule and Deliverables .......................................................................................47 7.10 Deviations from Requested Studies .........................................................................47

7.11 References ................................................................................................................48

8 Fish Passage Study Plan .................................................................................. 49


8.3 Resource Management Goals ...................................................................................50 8.4 Public Interest ...........................................................................................................50

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(Continued)


iii

8.5 Background and Existing Information .....................................................................50 8.6 Project Nexus ...........................................................................................................51 8.7 Methodology ............................................................................................................51 8.8 Level of Effort and Cost ...........................................................................................51

8.9 Schedule and Deliverables .......................................................................................52 8.10 Deviations from Requested Studies .........................................................................52 8.11 References ................................................................................................................52

9 Water Quality Study Plan ................................................................................ 53

9.1 Study Requests .........................................................................................................53

9.2 Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................55 9.3 Resource Management Goals ...................................................................................55 9.4 Public Interest ...........................................................................................................56 9.5 Background and Existing Information .....................................................................56

9.6 Project Nexus ...........................................................................................................58 9.7 Methodology ............................................................................................................58

9.7.1 Continuous Water Temperature and DO Monitoring ................................59 9.7.2 Routine Water Quality Monitoring ............................................................60 9.7.3 Reservoir Profile Data................................................................................60

9.7.4 Comparison with Historic Water Quality Data ..........................................60

9.8 Level of Effort and Cost ...........................................................................................61 9.9 Schedule and Deliverables .......................................................................................61 9.10 Deviations from Requested Studies .........................................................................61

9.11 References ................................................................................................................62

10 Macroinvertebrate and Mussel Survey Study Plan ......................................... 63

10.1 Study Requests .........................................................................................................63 10.2 Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................63 10.3 Resource Management Goals ...................................................................................64 10.4 Public Interest ...........................................................................................................64

10.5 Background and Existing Information .....................................................................64

10.6 Project Nexus ...........................................................................................................65

10.7 Methodology ............................................................................................................65 10.7.1 Macroinvertebrate Survey ..........................................................................65 10.7.2 Mussel Survey ............................................................................................67

10.8 Level of Effort and Cost ...........................................................................................68 10.9 Schedule and Deliverables .......................................................................................68

10.10 Deviations from Requested Studies .........................................................................68 10.11 References ................................................................................................................69

11 Recreation Facility Inventory, Recreation Use and Needs Assessment, and

Reservoir Surface Area Assessment Study Plan ............................................. 70


TABLE OF CONTENTS

(Continued)


iv

11.3 Resource Management Goals ...................................................................................74 11.4 Public Interest ...........................................................................................................75 11.5 Background and Existing Information .....................................................................75 11.6 Project Nexus ...........................................................................................................77

11.7 Methodology ............................................................................................................77 11.7.1 Conduct a Recreation Facility Inventory ...................................................77 11.7.2 Recreation Use and Needs Assessment .....................................................78 11.7.3 Quantification of the Relationship between Reservoir Surface Area

and Reservoir Levels..................................................................................79 11.8 Level of Effort and Cost ...........................................................................................80 11.9 Schedule and Deliverables .......................................................................................80

11.10 Deviations from Requested Studies .........................................................................80 11.11 References ................................................................................................................82

12 Whitewater Boating Assessment Study Plan .................................................. 96 12.1 Study Requests .........................................................................................................96

12.2 Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................97 12.3 Resource Management Goals ...................................................................................97 12.4 Public Interest ...........................................................................................................97

12.5 Background and Existing Information .....................................................................97

12.6 Project Nexus ...........................................................................................................99 12.7 Methodology ............................................................................................................99

12.7.1 Literature Review.......................................................................................99

12.7.2 Hydrologic Assessment ...........................................................................100 12.7.3 Boater Survey...........................................................................................100

12.7.4 Evaluation of Current Rio Project Whitewater Boating Accesses...........101 12.7.5 Prepare Report .........................................................................................101

12.8 Level of Effort and Cost .........................................................................................101

12.9 Schedule and Deliverables .....................................................................................101 12.10 Deviations from Requested Studies .......................................................................102 12.11 References ..............................................................................................................102

13 Shoreline Management Assessment Study Plan .............................................107

13.1 Study Requests .......................................................................................................107 13.2 Goals and Objectives ..............................................................................................107 13.3 Resource Management Goals .................................................................................108 13.4 Public Interest .........................................................................................................108

13.5 Background and Existing Information ...................................................................108 13.6 Project Nexus .........................................................................................................109 13.7 Methodology ..........................................................................................................110

13.7.1 Questionnaire ...........................................................................................110 13.7.2 Data Analysis and Reporting ..................................................................110

13.8 Level of Effort and Cost .........................................................................................111 13.9 Schedule and Deliverables .....................................................................................111

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(Continued)


v

13.10 Deviations from Requested Studies .......................................................................111 13.11 References ..............................................................................................................111

14 Cultural Resources Study Plan .......................................................................118

14.1 Study Requests .......................................................................................................118 14.2 Goals and Objectives ..............................................................................................118 14.3 Resource Management Goals .................................................................................118 14.4 Public Interest .........................................................................................................119

14.5 Background and Existing Information ...................................................................119 14.6 Project Nexus .........................................................................................................120

14.7 Methodology ..........................................................................................................120 14.7.1 APE Determination ..................................................................................121 14.7.2 Phase IA Literature Review and Sensitivity Assessment ........................121 14.7.3 Phase IA Archaeological and Historic Structures Field Survey ..............122

14.7.4 Native American Consultation .................................................................122 14.7.5 Reporting..................................................................................................122

14.8 Level of Effort and Cost .........................................................................................123 14.9 Schedule and Deliverables .....................................................................................123 14.10 Deviations from Requested Studies .......................................................................123

14.11 References ..............................................................................................................124

15 Schedule for Conducting Proposed Studies....................................................125

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – STAKEHOLDER DISTRIBUTION LIST

APPENDIX B – COMMENTS ON PAD AND STUDY REQUESTS

APPENDIX C – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

APPENDIX D - PREVIOUS LICENSING STUDY REPORTS

vi

PROPOSED STUDY PLAN FOR THE

SWINGING BRIDGE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 10482)

MONGAUP FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 10481)

RIO HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 9690)

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page No.

TABLE 11-1 MONGAUP RIVER PROJECTS FORMAL AND INFORMAL

RECREATION SITES...........................................................................................75

TABLE 15-1 SCHEDULE FOR CONDUCTING PROPOSED STUDIES1 ..............................125

LIST OF FIGURES

Table Title Page No.

FIGURE 11-1. SWINGING BRIDGE PROJECT RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ...................84 FIGURE 11-2. MONGAUP FALLS PROJECT RECREATIONAL FACILITIES .....................85 FIGURE 11-3. RIO PROJECT RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ................................................86

FIGURE 11-4. DRAFT SITE INVENTORY FORM....................................................................87 FIGURE 11-5. DRAFT RECREATION USER SURVEY ...........................................................91

FIGURE 12-1. MONGAUP RIVER WHITEWATER BOATING SURVEY ...........................103 FIGURE 13-1. DRAFT SURVEY FOR ABUTTING SHORELINE PROPERTY

OWNERS .............................................................................................................113

vii

List of Acronyms

ACHP ...........................................Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

AMC ............................................Appalachian Mountain Club

APE ..............................................Area of Potential Effects

AW ...............................................American Whitewater

CFR ..............................................Code of Federal Regulations

CRIS .............................................Cultural Resources Information System

DO ................................................dissolved oxygen

EA ................................................Environmental Assessment

FERC or Commission ..................Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

GIS ...............................................geographic information systems

GPS ..............................................global positioning system

HOOT ..........................................Homeowners on Toronto, Inc.

HPMP ...........................................Historic Properties Management Plan

IFIM .............................................Instream Flow Incremental Methodology

ILP................................................Integrated Licensing Process

ISR ...............................................Initial Study Report

KCCNY........................................Kayak and Canoe Club of New York

kV .................................................kilovolt

mg/l ..............................................milligrams per liter

MW ..............................................megawatts

NEPA ...........................................National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NGOs ...........................................non-governmental organizations

NHPA ...........................................National Historic Preservation Act

NOI ..............................................Notice of Intent

NPS ..............................................National Park Service

NRHP ...........................................National Register of Historic Places

NWI..............................................National Wetland Inventory

NYSDEC......................................New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NYSHPO......................................New York State Historic Preservation Office

PAD..............................................Pre-Application Document

List of Acronyms

viii

PM&E ..........................................protection, mitigation, and enhancement

PSP ...............................................Proposed Study Plan

RSP ..............................................Revised Study Plan

RTE ..............................................rare, threatened, and endangered

SD1 ..............................................Scoping Document 1

SD2 ..............................................Scoping Document 2

Section 106...................................Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

SPD ..............................................Study Plan Determination

TU ................................................Trout Unlimited

U.S.C. ...........................................United States Code

USFWS ........................................U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS ...........................................U.S. Geological Survey

1

Section 1

Introduction and Background

Eagle Creek Hydro Power, LLC; Eagle Creek Water Resources, LLC; and Eagle Creek Land

Resources, LLC (collectively and herein after "Eagle Creek") are the Licensees of the Swinging

Bridge Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 10482), the Mongaup Falls Hydroelectric Project

(FERC No. 10481), and the Rio Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 9690) (collectively "Mongaup

River Hydroelectric Projects" or the "Projects"). Combined, the three Projects have a Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC" or "Commission") total authorized capacity of 26.55

megawatts (MW) and are located on the Mongaup River in Sullivan and Orange Counties, New

York.

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 Federal

Power Act. Each Project’s original license was issued for a term of 30 years and expires on

March 31, 2022. Consequently, Eagle Creek is pursuing new licenses for the Projects, and has

opted to use the Commission’s Integrated Licensing Process (ILP), as detailed at 18 Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 5 of the Commission’s regulations. This Proposed Study Plan

(PSP) is being filed with the Commission pursuant to 18 CFR §5.11 and the Process Plan and

Schedule included in the Commission’s May 30, 2017 Scoping Document 1 (SD1). This PSP is

also being distributed to the stakeholders and interested parties listed in Appendix A of this

document.

1.1 Study Plan Overview

On March 30, 2017, Eagle Creek filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD) that addressed the

three Projects as well as three separate Notices of Intent (NOIs) to initiate the ILP proceedings in

support of relicensing the three Projects. The PAD provides a comprehensive description of the

Projects and summarizes the existing, relevant, and reasonably available information to assist the

Commission, resource agencies, Indian tribes, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and

other stakeholders to identify issues, determine information needs, and prepare study requests.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Commission’s regulations, and

other applicable statutes require the Commission to independently evaluate the environmental

Section 1 Introduction and Background

2

effects of issuing new licenses for the Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects and to consider

reasonable alternatives to relicensing. At this time, the Commission has expressed its intent to

prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) that describes and evaluates the site-specific and

cumulative potential effects (if any) of issuing new licenses, as well as potential alternatives to

relicensing. The EA is being supported by a scoping process to identify issues, concerns, and

opportunities for necessary mitigation associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the

Commission issued SD1 for the Projects on May 30, 2017. SD1 was intended to advise resource

agencies, Indian tribes, NGOs, and other stakeholders as to the proposed scope of the EA and to

seek additional information pertinent to the Commission’s analysis. As provided in 18 CFR

§5.8(a) and §5.18(b), the Commission issued a notice of commencement of proceeding

concomitant with SD1.

On June 22, 2017, the Commission held public scoping meetings in Monticello, New York.

During these meetings, FERC staff presented information regarding the ILP and details

regarding the study scoping process and how to request a relicensing study, including the

Commission’s study criteria. In addition FERC staff solicited comments regarding the scope of

issues and analysis for the EA. Pursuant to 18 CFR §5.8(d), a public site visit of the Projects was

performed on June 21, 2017.

Resource agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties were afforded a 60-day period to

request studies and provide comments on the PAD and SD1. The comment period was initiated

with the Commission’s May 30, 2017 notice and concluded on July 29, 20171.

During the comment period, a total of 37 stakeholders filed letters with the Commission

providing general comments, comments regarding the PAD, comments regarding SD1, and/or

study requests. Nine stakeholders filed timely formal study requests during the comment period

including FERC, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Park Service (NPS), New

York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), American Whitewater

(AW), Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC), Kayak and Canoe Club of NY, Homeowners on

Toronto, Inc. (HOOT), and Swinging Bridge Property Owners Association. Copies of the letters

filed with the Commission are provided in Appendix B of this document. The ILP requires Eagle

1 July 29, 2017 was a Saturday, so the official conclusion of the comment period was Monday, July 31, 2017.


3

Creek to file this PSP within 45 days from the close of the July 29, 2017 comment period, which

is September 12, 2017.

FERC’s ILP regulations require that stakeholders who provide study requests include specific

information in the request in order to allow the Licensee, as well as Commission staff, to

determine a requested study’s appropriateness and relevancy to the Projects and proposed action.

As described in 18 CFR §5.9(b) of the Commission’s ILP regulations, and as presented by FERC

staff during the June 22, 2017 meetings, the required information to be included in a study

request is as follows:

(1) Describe the goals and objectives of each study and the information to be obtained

(§5.9(b)(1));

This section describes why the study is being requested and what the study is intended to

accomplish, including the goals, objectives, and specific information to be obtained. The goals of

the study must clearly relate to the need to evaluate the effects of the Project on a particular

resource. The objectives are the specific information that needs to be gathered to allow

achievement of the study goal.

(2) If applicable, explain the relevant resource management goals of the agencies or Indian

tribes with jurisdiction over the resource to be studied (§5.9(b)(2));

This section must clearly establish the connection between the study request and management

goals or resource of interest. A statement by an agency connecting its study request to a legal,

regulatory, or policy mandate needs to be included that thoroughly explains how the mandate

relates to the study request, as well as the Project impacts.

(3) If the requester is not a resource agency, explain any relevant public interest

considerations in regard to the proposed study (§5.9(b)(3));

This section is for non-agency or Indian tribes to establish the relationship between the study

request and the relevant public interest considerations.


4

(4) Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal and the need

for additional information (§5.9(b)(4));

This section must discuss any gaps in existing data by reviewing the available information

presented in the PAD or information relative to the Project that is known from other sources.

This section must explain the need for additional information and why the existing information is

inadequate.

(5) Explain any nexus between project operation and effects (direct, indirect, and/or

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

development of license requirements (§5.9(b)(5));

This section must clearly connect Project operations and Project effects on the applicable

resource. This section can also explain how the study results would be used to develop

protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures. The PM&E measures can include

those related to any mandatory conditioning authority under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act2

or Sections 4(e) and 18 of the Federal Power Act, as applicable.

(6) Explain how any proposed study methodology is consistent with generally accepted

practices in the scientific community or, as appropriate, considers relevant tribal values

and knowledge. This includes any preferred data collection and analysis techniques, or

objectively quantified information, and a schedule including appropriate field season(s)

and the duration (§5.9(b)(6));

This section must provide a detailed explanation of the study methodology. The methodology

may be described by outlining specific methods to be implemented or by referencing an

approved and established study protocol and methodology.

2 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.


5

(7) Describe considerations of level of effort and cost, as applicable, and why any proposed

alternative studies would not be sufficient to meet the stated information needs

(§5.9(b)(7));

This section must describe the expected level of cost and effort to conduct the study. If there are

proposed alternative studies, this section can address why the alternatives would not meet the

stated information needs.

The purpose of this PSP is to present the studies that are being proposed by Eagle Creek and to

address the comments and study requests submitted by agencies and additional stakeholders.

This PSP also provides FERC, regulatory agencies, Indian tribes, and other stakeholders with the

methodology and details of Eagle Creek’s proposed studies. As necessary, Eagle Creek will

prepare a revised study plan (RSP) that will incorporate the interested parties’ comments to the

extent practicable. Pursuant to the ILP, Eagle Creek will file the RSP with the Commission on or

before January 10, 2018, and the Commission will issue a final study plan determination letter by

February 9, 2018.

1.1.1 Eagle Creek’s Proposed Study Plan

Eagle Creek has evaluated all the study requests submitted by the stakeholders, with a focus on

the requests that specifically addressed the seven criteria set forth in §5.9(b) of the Commission’s

ILP regulations, as discussed above. For the study requests that did not attempt to address the

seven study criteria, where appropriate, Eagle Creek considered the study in the context of

providing the requested information in conjunction with one of Eagle Creek’s proposed studies.

Based on Eagle Creek’s review of the requested studies, FERC criteria for study requests under

the ILP, and available information (e.g., associated with the previous licensing effort or resulting

from ongoing monitoring activities), Eagle Creek is proposing ten studies to be performed in

support of issuing new licenses for the Projects. Information regarding each of these studies is

provided in Sections 5 through 14 of this PSP. For each of Eagle Creek’s proposed studies, this

PSP describes:

1. The goals and objectives of the study,

2. A summary of resource management goals identified by resource agencies,


6

3. The stakeholders requesting the study and the relevant public interest considerations,

4. A summary of existing information pertaining to the study,

5. The nexus between Project operations and effects on the resources to be studied,

6. The proposed study methodology, and

7. Level of effort, cost, and schedules for conducting the study and filing the resulting report.

1.1.2 Comments on Proposed Study Plan

Comments on this PSP, including any additional or revised study requests, must be filed within

90 days of the filing date of this PSP, which is December 11, 2017. Comments must include an

explanation of any study plan concerns and any accommodations reached with Eagle Creek

regarding those concerns (18 CFR §5.12). Any proposed modifications to this PSP must address

the Commission’s criteria as presented in 18 CFR §5.9(b).

1.1.3 PSP Meeting

In accordance with 18 CFR §5.11(e), Eagle Creek plans to hold a PSP Meeting on October 4,

2017 in Monticello, New York. The purpose of the PSP Meeting will be to clarify the intent and

contents of this PSP, explain information gathering needs, and resolve outstanding issues

associated with the proposed studies. Additional details regarding the meeting are presented in

Section 4 of this document.

1.2 Project Location and Description

The Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects consist of three separate FERC-jurisdictional

Projects: Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls, and Rio. All three Projects are located on the

Mongaup River in Sullivan County, New York, with a portion of the Rio Project also located in

Orange County, New York. The Swinging Bridge Dam is the most upstream dam on the

Mongaup River. The Mongaup Falls Dam is located approximately 2.9 miles downstream of the

Swinging Bridge Dam, and the Rio Dam is located approximately 4.5 miles downstream of the

Mongaup Falls Dam. The Mongaup River flows southeast for 4.6 miles downstream of the Rio

Dam to the confluence with the Delaware River.

The Toronto Dam creates a reservoir on Black Lake Creek, a tributary of the Mongaup River.

Water stored in Toronto Reservoir is released to Cliff Lake Reservoir, which releases the water


7

to Swinging Bridge Reservoir via a tunnel, enabling the flow to be utilized at the Swinging

Bridge Development and subsequently at the two downstream Projects (Mongaup Falls and Rio)

for renewable energy generation.

1.2.1 Swinging Bridge Project

The Swinging Bridge Hydroelectric Project consists of three developments: Toronto, Cliff Lake,

and Swinging Bridge. The Toronto and Cliff Lake Developments are storage reservoirs for the

Swinging Bridge Development. The Toronto Development consists of: (1) a 1,620-foot-long

earthfill dam with a maximum height of 103 feet, a crest width of 25 feet, and an impervious

core; (2) a 50-foot-wide concrete and rock side channel spillway at its west end, equipped with

5-foot-high, pin-type flashboards; (3) a gate tower with a 4-foot by 5-foot upper gate and a 3-foot

by 5-foot lower gate; (4) a reservoir with a surface area of 860 acres with a full pond elevation of

1,220 feet U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and a storage capacity of 25,211 acre-feet with a 50-

foot maximum drawdown; (5) a 565-foot-long, 8-feet by 8-feet reinforced-concrete, horseshoe-

shaped conduit providing discharge from Toronto Reservoir to Cliff Lake Reservoir; and (6)

appurtenant facilities.

The Cliff Lake Development consists of: (1) a dam composed of a 270-foot-long, 50-foot-high

west earth embankment section, a 100-foot-long, 25-foot-high concrete gravity overflow

spillway with 13-inch-high flashboards, a 150-foot-long, 36-foot-high concrete gravity non-

overflow section east of the spillway, and a 95-foot-long, 25-foot-high east earth embankment;

(2) a reservoir with a surface area of 190 acres with a full pond elevation of 1,071.1 feet USGS,

and a storage capacity of 2,873 acre-feet with a 23.1-foot maximum drawdown; (3) a 4-by-4-foot

sluice gate through the bottom of the spillway; (4) a 5.3-foot-wide, 6.7-foot-high, 2,100-foot-

long horseshoe-shaped tunnel with a submerged intake that conveys water from the Cliff Lake

Reservoir to the Swinging Bridge Reservoir; and (5) a 5-by-5-foot lift gate located

approximately 55 feet from the tunnel outlet; (6) and appurtenant facilities.

The Swinging Bridge Development consists of (1) a 975-foot-long earthfill dam, 135 feet high

and 25 feet wide; (2) a 250-foot-wide separate concrete side channel spillway structure equipped

with 5-foot-high Obermeyer gates and five vertical life gates; (3) a reservoir with a surface area

of 1,000 acres with a full pond elevation of 1,070 feet USGS and a usable storage capacity of

17,222 acre-feet with a 22-foot maximum drawdown; (4) a 692-foot-long, steel-lined concrete


8

penstock to Unit No. 1 (out-of-service since 2005) with a gate tower; (5) an out-of-service

powerhouse containing Unit No. 1; (6) a concrete-lined tunnel connected to an 188-foot-long

steel penstock with a steel surge tank to supply Unit No. 2; (7) a powerhouse containing one

generating unit (Unit No. 2) with a rated capacity of 6.75 MW; (8) minimum flow outlet; (9) a

2.3-kilovolt (kV) underground transmission line 150 feet long; and (10) appurtenant facilities.

1.2.2 Mongaup Falls Project

The Mongaup Falls Hydroelectric Project consists of: (1) a 155-foot-long ungated, concrete

gravity spillway equipped with 4-foot-10-inch-high flashboards; (2) an 83-foot-long earth dam

section with a concrete core wall on the right abutment (looking downstream); (3) a 125-foot-

long concrete retaining wall on the left abutment; (4) a 20-foot-long intake house adjacent to the

spillway; (5) a low earth closure dike approximately 250 feet long; (6) a reservoir with a surface

area of 120 acres, with a full pond elevation of 935 feet USGS and a reservoir volume of 1,779

acre-feet; (7) a 2,650-foot-long, wood-stave penstock with a steel surge tank 125 feet from the

powerhouse; (8) a powerhouse containing four generating units with a total capacity of 4 MW;

(9) a minimum flow outlet structure downstream of the intake; (10) a 2.3 kV underground

transmission line 100 feet long; (11) the Black Brook Dam and former Black Brook diversion;

and (12) appurtenant facilities.

1.2.3 Rio Project

The Rio Hydroelectric Project consists of: (1) a 264-foot-long ungated concrete overflow

spillway; (2) a west abutment consisting of a 22-foot-long intake structure, 99-foot-long concrete

abutment, and a 540-foot-long earthfill embankment; (3) an east abutment consisting of 102-

foot-long abutment wall and a 460-foot-long earthfill embankment; (4) a reservoir with a surface

area of 460 acres with a full pond elevation of 815 feet USGS and a storage capacity of 3,650

acre-feet with a 10-foot maximum drawdown; (5) a 7,000-foot-long, above-grade steel penstock,

a steel surge tank, and a 380-foot-long buried steel penstock; (6) a powerhouse containing two

generating units with a total capacity of 10 MW; (7) a minimum flow powerhouse containing

one generating unit with a capacity of 0.8 MW; (8) a 4 kV underground transmission line 150

feet long; (9) a 4 kV aboveground transmission line 6,200 feet long; and (10) appurtenant

facilities.

9

Section 2

Additional Information Requested

A total of 37 letters were filed with FERC consisting of the following:

Twelve stakeholders filed comments specific to the content of the PAD and/or SD1.

These stakeholders consisted of FERC, USFWS, NPS, NYSDEC, Town of Thompson,

AW, AMC, Kayak and Canoe Club of NY, Iroquois Hunting and Fishing Club, HOOT,

Swinging Bridge Property Owners Association, and Nicholas LaHowchic.

Nine stakeholders filed formal ILP study requests. These stakeholders consisted of

FERC, USFWS, NPS, NYSDEC, American Whitewater, Appalachian Mountain Club,

Kayak and Canoe Club of NY, HOOT, and Swinging Bridge Property Owners

Association.

In addition, within the 37 letters, stakeholders filed general information, statements,

and/or informal study requests related to the Projects and/or relicensing process.

Copies of the 37 letters are provided in Appendix B of this PSP. In addition, a summary of the

comments and information requests from each letter, as well as the associated responses, are

provided in Appendix C of this PSP.

10

Section 3

Requested Studies Not Adopted

3.1 Studies Not Adopted

Eagle Creek is proposing ten separate studies in support of obtaining new licenses for the

Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects. Where appropriate, the ten proposed studies incorporate

stakeholder study requests filed with the Commission. In addition, in some instances a proposed

study plan combines multiple or similar requests into a single study plan.

As noted in Sections 1 and 2 of this PSP, nine stakeholders filed formal study requests with the

Commission. In addition to the formal study requests, additional stakeholders filed informal

requests for studies. Although not required by the Commission’s regulations, Eagle Creek

reviewed all study requests, both those that attempted to address the Commission’s study criteria

(i.e., formal study requests) and those that did not (i.e., informal study requests). Eagle Creek’s

review of each study request was based on the Commission’s study criteria as presented by

Commission staff during the June 22, 2017 meetings, as outlined in 18 CFR §5.9(b) of the

Commission’s regulations, and as presented in Section 1 of this PSP. Eagle Creek notes that with

the exception of FERC’s study requests, the requests generally did not meet Criteria 6 and 7 of

Commission’s regulations. However, as noted in Section 1, Eagle Creek evaluated all the study

requests submitted by the stakeholders, and for the study requests that did not meet the

Commission’s seven study criteria, where appropriate, Eagle Creek considered the study in the

context of providing the requested information in conjunction with one of Eagle Creek’s

proposed studies.

The following presents the formal study requests filed with the Commission that Eagle Creek has

determined do not meet the Commission’s study criteria, and in particular, where existing

information is sufficient to answer the questions posed.

Section 3 Requested Studies Not Adopted

11

3.1.1 Swinging Bridge Spillway Habitat Study

The USFWS requested a study to determine if a new and additional flow can be provided out of

the Swinging Bridge Reservoir to provide a habitat for macroinvertebrates and herpetofauna

associated with the Swinging Bridge emergency spillway. Eagle Creek is not proposing this

study based on the Commission’s following study criteria and the request is to evaluate a PM&E

measure prior to determining if such a measure is warranted.

There is no evidence of a problem and/or the study request is an attempt to search

for the existence of a “nexus” (Study Criteria No. 5): Under FERC policy and

regulations, the requestor must provide evidence of a problem and the study request must

not be an attempt to search for the existence of a nexus. If the study request is an attempt

to search for a Project effect, then it does not meet the criteria for a study request. In the

Centralia decision (City of Centralia v FERC, 213 F.3d 742, 749 (D.C Cir., 2000)), the

Court of Appeals held that while “FERC is certainly empowered to require an applicant

to conduct a study when there is some evidence of a problem and a study is necessary to

determine the extent of the harm,” an applicant does not have “a duty to determine if a

problem exists.” Since Centralia, FERC has consistently noted that “where evidence of a

problem has not been shown, the licensee does not have a duty to perform studies to

determine whether a problem exists.” City of Jackson, Ohio, 105 F.E.R.C, ¶61,136 n. 9

(2003); see FPL Energy Maine Hydro, LLC, 95 F.E.R.C. ¶61,106 n.15 (2001); Allegheny

Energy Supply Company, LLC, 109 F.E.R.C. ¶61,028, 61,117 (2004). The Court of

Appeals further held in Centralia v FERC that it is not enough to speculate that a problem

may exist or that the “evidence” of a problem is simply based on a “prediction based on

opinions.”

In the case of the this study request, USFWS personnel observed puddles of water in the

Swinging Bridge emergency spillway channel and is now requesting a study to evaluate a

new and additional flow (i.e., a PM&E measure) from Swinging Bridge reservoir into the

spillway channel in order to provide habitat for macroinvertebrates and herpetofauna

within the Swinging Bridge emergency spillway channel. Eagle Creek is not adopting

this study because there is no evidence of a problem. Given that the Swinging Bridge

spillway is designed as an emergency spillway, it is limited to spilling during high flow


12

events. The spillway is not designed to provide continual or periodic releases, or to divert

additional water from the Swinging Bridge Reservoir to establish macroinvertebrate or

herpetofauna habitat. It is premature to consider operational or design changes to the

Swinging Bridge Project (e.g., establishing a new bypass flow) to support the

development of a new habitat.

Study request does not propose a specific methodology, proposes a methodology

that is untried or uncertain, or proposed a methodology that will not meet the stated

objective or yield the intended results (Study Criteria No 6): The study request does

not provide a methodology. The Commission cannot require a study that lacks definition

and methodology to perform the study.

Study request does not provide an estimate of effort and cost (Study Criteria No. 7):

FERC policy and regulations require a study request to include an estimate of effort and

cost. The study request does not provide an estimate of cost for the requested study. The

Commission’s study criteria are clear regarding the requirement to provide a cost

estimate for each requested study.

3.1.2 Bald Eagle Management Study

Both the USFWS and NYSDEC requested a study to provide information regarding bald eagle

populations at the Projects, including the winter roosting and nesting locations near the Projects.

Eagle Creek is not proposing this study based on the Commission’s following study criteria.

Study request is not necessary because existing information is sufficient to answer

the questions posed (Study Criteria No. 4): Bald eagle habitat, including winter

roosting and the establishment of additional habitat areas associated with the Projects,

was a primary PM&E measure resulting from the previous license proceedings. As a

result of the previous license proceedings, and consultation between the previous

Licensee, NYSDEC, and USFWS, extensive portions of land associated with the Projects

were transferred to the NYSDEC and placed in conservation easements in support of

establishing bald eagle habitat and public viewing areas. As a result of this consultation,

designated lands within the vicinity of the Mongaup River Projects are located within the

Mongaup Valley Bird Conservation Area, which includes all of the Mongaup Valley


13

Wildlife Management Area. NYSDEC’s website states that the Project area hosts one of

the largest bald eagle wintering sites in New York and supports several active eagle nests.

Additionally, pursuant to NYSDEC’s website, NYSDEC states that habitat management

activities needed to maintain the Mongaup Valley Bird Conservation Area include the

following: “In accordance with a settlement agreement between NYS, USFWS and

Southern Power Co. (formerly Orange and Rockland Utilities), and the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) license, pulsed water releases by Southern Power to

generate hydropower keep the reservoirs and river from freezing completely, thereby

providing a foraging area for wintering eagles. Eagles feed on fish pulled into the

turbines during hydroelectric generation (in particular, alewives) that pass through and

into the open stream sections below. These dead, injured and stunned fish provide an

invaluable forage base for wintering eagles

(http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/27139.html).”

Both the USFWS and NYSDEC request that Eagle Creek consult with the NYSDEC to

obtain bald eagle data and information maintained by the NYSDEC. In follow up to this

comment, Eagle Creek requests that the NYSDEC and other parties provide information

related to the topic.

The bald eagle population and habitat associated with project area, as well as the larger

Delaware River watershed, are well understood and managed. In addition, as a result of

the previous license proceedings, the conditions and project operations that support the

population and habitat in the project area are well understood. Furthermore, as noted

above, the USFWS, NYSDEC, and the previous Licensee understood the conditions that

have led to the successful bald eagle population and wintering habitat that exists today.

The previous license proceedings resulted in extensive protection and mitigation

measures for bald eagles, including land transfers and conservation easements,

construction of public viewing areas, and operational considerations in support of eagle

foraging.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/27139.html)


14

















opinions.”

With regard to the bald eagle population and habitat and the conditions that support the

population, there is no evidence of a problem. To the contrary, as noted above, the

NYSDEC’s website states that the Project area hosts one of the largest bald eagle

wintering sites in New York and support several active eagle nests. Additionally,

pursuant to NYSDEC’s website, NYSDEC states that habitat management activities

needed to maintain the Mongaup Valley Bird Conservation Area include the following:

“In accordance with a settlement agreement between NYS, USFWS and Southern Power

Co. (formerly Orange and Rockland Utilities), and the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC) license, pulsed water releases by Southern Power to generate

hydropower keep the reservoirs and river from freezing completely, thereby providing a

foraging area for wintering eagles. Eagles feed on fish pulled into the turbines during

hydroelectric generation (in particular, alewives) that pass through and into the open

stream sections below. These dead, injured and stunned fish provide an invaluable forage

base for wintering eagles (http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/27139.html).”

http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/27139.html)


15

The study request does not demonstrate a problem associated with the established bald

eagle population or habitat that requires study. Eagle Creek believes that the stakeholders

engaged in the current license proceeding should appreciate the measures established by

their predecessors to enhance this valuable bald eagle nesting and wintering area.



objective or yield the intended results (Study Criteria No 6): Both the USFWS and

NYSDEC study requests are limited to “the recommended study uses standard avian

monitoring techniques.” Both requests also discuss obtaining information from the

NYSDEC and performing targeted surveys; however, no additional detail is provided.

The Commission cannot require a study that lacks definition and methodology to perform

the study.



cost. Neither the USFWS nor the NYSDEC study requests provide an estimate of cost for

their requested studies. The Commission’s study criteria is clear regarding the

requirement to provide a cost estimate for each requested study.

Furthermore, Eagle Creek is not proposing any construction or tree clearing activities associated

with the issuance of the new licenses.

Although Eagle Creek is not adopting this study as requested, Eagle Creek recognizes that

personnel will be on-site during other relicensing field studies, which provides Eagle Creek

opportunities to collect incidental data while on-site for other field studies. Therefore, Eagle

Creek is proposing to document observed bald eagle nest locations, individual sightings, and

behavior while on-site for other relicensing field study activities. Whereas this proposal does not

include a bald eagle-specific survey or study or any winter surveys, incidental observations of

bald eagles will be documented in field logs during field activities. Information obtained during

these events will be incorporated into the Aquatic Habitat Assessment Study Report.


16

3.1.3 Black Brook Dam Removal Study

The USFWS requested a study to provide information regarding the potential for removing

Black Brook Dam, a component of the Mongaup Falls Project. Eagle Creek is not proposing this

study based on the Commission’s following study criteria and given that the request is to

evaluate a PM&E measure prior to determining if such a measure is warranted.












determine whether a problem exists.” City of Jackson, Ohio, 105 F.E.R.C. ¶61,136 n. 9





opinions.”

This study was requested by the USFWS to provide information regarding a PM&E

measure when there is no indication that such measures are needed (e.g., the structure is

inhibiting the upstream or downstream passage of any migratory fish species relative to

the natural stream gradient) and, therefore, Eagle Creek is not adopting this study because

this study is considered a request to investigate a specific PM&E measure. It has been

FERC’s practice under the ILP that studies of potential PM&E measures are premature

until the requisite studies have been performed that establish that such a PM&E measure

may be appropriate or needed (see, for example, pages 102 and 103 of the December 22,


17

2011 Study Plan Determination for the Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.

2299). FERC has consistently applied this approach to study requests by others that seek

to examine specific potential PM&E measures prior to the necessary studies being

conducted. Asking a licensee to undertake a costly study before the need for such a

PM&E measure has been established is an inefficient use of limited resources.

FERC drew a similar conclusion in another recent relicensing where stakeholders

requested a study of a project reconfiguration to avoid certain environmental effects. (see

page B-60-61 of the September 13, 2013 Study Plan Determination for FERC Nos. 2485

and 1889). While FERC’s Study Plan Determination (SPD) concluded that the study was

not warranted until a study indicating a problem was completed, FERC was not able to

decide that the project’s ongoing effects could not be reasonably mitigated under its

current physical configuration. Therefore, FERC did not agree with the need for the

licensee to conduct the requested study given that the study was judged by FERC to be a

study of an alternative PM&E measure not yet shown to be needed.

The Fish Survey Study will provide information regarding the migratory species

currently upstream of Rio Dam that would require passage upstream of Black Brook

Dam. It is premature to consider the removal of the Black Brook Dam, especially as no

issues with the presence of this dam have been identified.




not provide a methodology. The Commission cannot require a study that lacks definition






estimate for each requested study.


18

3.1.4 Base and Bypass Flow Study

The USFWS, NYSDEC, and Swinging Bridge Property Owners Association each requested a

study that would evaluate flows downstream of the Projects’ powerhouses and additional

downstream reaches. Whereas Eagle Creek agrees that the stakeholders associated with this

relicensing should reconsider the minimum base and bypass flows that will be required in the

new licenses, Eagle Creek is not proposing this study based on the Commission’s following

study criteria.

Study request is not necessary because existing information is sufficient to answer

the questions posed (Study Criteria No. 4): A robust Instream Flow Incremental

Methodology (IFIM) study was conducted in 1988 in support of the original license

proceedings. The 1988 IFIM study was performed in coordination with the USFWS and

NYSDEC and pursuant to industry standards. A copy of the 1988 IFIM Study Report is

provided in Appendix D of this PSP.

The 1988 IFIM study included the following:

Evaluation of historic (unregulated) hydrology data;

Evaluation of extensive water quality data collected in all reservoirs and

downstream stream reaches of Black Lake Creek and the Mongaup River;

A steady-state habitat analysis of the stream reaches below each reservoir (with the

exception of Cliff Lake);

Habitat time series evaluations of the stream reaches downstream of the reservoirs;

Habitat suitability index evaluations for species of conservation concern in the

system; and

Evaluation of reservoir water level management.

Whereas the stakeholders may disagree regarding the priority of importance of the

resources (e.g., whitewater recreation, trout fishing, downstream macroinvertebrate

habitat, reservoir levels), the data resulting from the robust 1988 IFIM study is still

applicable and can be used by the stakeholders to evaluate priorities and for the

Commission to issue new licenses pursuant to the Federal Power Act as amended by the

Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986.


19

Eagle Creek acknowledges that the USFWS states in their study request that the minimum

flows required by the existing licenses were determined by those provided by the

NYSDEC in the water quality certifications issued for the Projects, which were greater

than the flows proposed by the previous applicant and recommended by FERC, but less

than the minimum flows recommended by the USFWS. Accordingly, in issuing the 1992

licenses, the Commission found that pursuant to Section 10(j)(2)(A) that the minimum

flow recommended by the USFWS is inconsistent with Section 10(a)(1) of the Federal

Power Act, which is not best adapted to a comprehensive plan for beneficial uses of the

waterway.

The 1988 IFIM study provides a thorough evaluation of the resources to be considered

when determining the minimum flows best suited to balance the various uses of the

reservoirs and stream reaches. There have been no appreciable physical changes to the

Projects’ impoundments and downstream reaches since the 1988 IFIM study that would

change the evaluation or outcome of the evaluation completed in 1988. In fact, in the

USFWS study request, the USFWS outlines on page 18 of their request the following

regarding the NYSDEC and USFWS recommendations of 100 cfs and 150 cfs

respectively:

Downstream of Swinging Bridge – increase spawning and incubation habitat for

brown trout by 132 and 186 percent.

Downstream of Mongaup Falls – Similar to Swinging Bridge.

Downstream of Rio – increase of American shad spawning habitat by 275 to 359

percent and 931 to 1,097 percent, and incubation habitat by 83 to 179 percent and

168 to 479 percent, depending on habitat type.

It is the robustness of the 1988 study that provides the USFWS with these percentage

increases referenced in their request.

As noted, Eagle Creek contends that no significant changes in the downstream reaches

have occurred over the past 30 years that would change the gradients, geometry,

hydrology, or other aspects that would invalidate the results of the previous quantitative

study. Although the USFWS, NYSDEC, and AW may have interest in increasing the


20

minimum required flows associated with the Projects, and other stakeholders may have

interest in reducing the flows, Eagle Creek contents that the existing information resulting

from the previous study provides sufficient information for the stakeholders to evaluate

the flows and resources and for the Commission to issue the new licenses.

Eagle Creek notes that other studies proposed in this PSP, such as the Fish Survey Study,

the Macroinvertebrate and Mussel Survey Study, and the Water Quality Study, will

provide information regarding the aquatic environment of the downstream reaches. In the

event data collected associated with these studies identifies a target species of significance

that was not sufficiently addressed by a similar species during the 1988 study, Eagle Creek

can apply the 1988 IFIM study results to the new target species.



objective or yield the intended results (Study Criteria No 6): The study requests

provided by the USFWS and NYSDEC do not provide a methodology. The requests

make suggestions regarding the types of studies that can be performed; however, no

methodologies are provided. The Commission cannot require a study that lacks definition




cost. The study requests provided by the USFWS, NYSDEC, and Swinging Bridge

Property Owners Association do not provide an estimate of cost for their requested

studies. The Commission’s study criteria are clear regarding the requirement to provide a

cost estimate for each requested study.

3.1.5 Socioeconomic Impacts Study

HOOT requested that Eagle Creek study the impact of Toronto Reservoir elevation and

fluctuation on the local economy (i.e., quantify the extent to which Toronto Reservoir operations

could increase tourism in Sullivan County). HOOT also requested that Eagle Creek quantify the

contribution of development near Toronto Reservoir to the local property tax base and estimate

the impacts of the Toronto Reservoir on land use and the tax base. It states that quantification of


21

the impact of recreation availability at Toronto Reservoir will inform the Commission’s decision

making with respect to both Toronto Reservoir operating regime and recreation-related license

requirements. Eagle Creek is not proposing this study based on the Commission’s following

study criteria.

















opinions.”

With respect to project nexus, a socioeconomic impact study regarding local tourism and

the local property tax base is not needed to inform the Commission’s decision regarding

the identification of recreation-related protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures to

be included in a new license. Other studies being proposed by Eagle Creek, including

specifically the Recreation Facilities Inventory, Recreation Use and Needs Assessment,

and Reservoir Surface Area Assessment will yield sufficient information to determine the

impact of reservoir levels and fluctuations on future recreation growth and opportunity at

the Projects and inform the need for future license conditions related to recreation. In

addition, there are many factors which may contribute to property development on the

Toronto Reservoir or local tourism in the area, which are unrelated to the Swinging


22

Bridge Project (e.g., local zoning requirements; local comprehensive management plans

for the area; the current state of the national, state, and regional economy; or interest

rates).




reference input-output economic models, such as INPLAN, however, this is not a defined

methodology. In addition, the Commission cannot require a study that lacks definition






estimate for each requested study. In addition, the additional level of effort to conduct a

socioeconomic study, which includes input-output modeling, will not yield significant

additional information useful to the Commission in informing a decision on recreation-

related protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures.

3.2 Informal Study Requests

Beyond the formal study requests that Eagle Creek considered, Eagle Creek also considered each

informal study request. As noted above, informal study requests do not attempt to address the

Commission’s study criteria. In addition to not addressing the Commission’s study request

criteria, the following provides specifics as to why Eagle Creek is not proposing the requested

study.

3.2.1 Geology Study

The Iroquois Hunting and Fishing Club requested a geology study to identify unique or sensitive

physical features on the Toronto Reservoir and adjacent lands. Eagle Creek is not adopting this

study because there is a lack of connection between operation of the Toronto Development and

an effect on a resource, the study request is an attempt to search for the existence of a “nexus,”


23

there is no evidence of a problem, and the study would not support development of new license

conditions.

3.2.2 Aesthetics Study

The Iroquois Hunting and Fishing Club requested an aesthetics study for Toronto Reservoir to

identify scenic views known to be of importance or value to the area residents. Eagle Creek is

not adopting this study as requested. While the study request does not meet any of FERC’s study

criteria, Eagle Creek is proposing to collect information on important scenic views as part of the

Recreation Facilities Inventory, Recreation Use and Needs Assessment, and Reservoir Surface

Area Assessment as well as the Shoreline Management Assessment (See Figure 11-5 in Section

11 and Figure 13-1 in Section 13).

3.2.3 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Study

The Iroquois Hunting and Fishing Club requested a terrestrial and aquatic ecology study of the

Toronto Reservoir. This study was not adopted by Eagle Creek as a stand-alone study, but

aspects of this study request have been incorporated into other studies, such as the Aquatic

Habitat Mapping Study, Fisheries Survey Study, Macroinvertebrate and Mussel Survey Study,

and Water Quality Study. See Sections 6, 7, 9, and 10 as to how this study request has been

integrated into this PSP.

3.2.4 Water Resources and Wetland Resource Study

The Iroquois Hunting and Fishing Club requested a water resources and wetland resources study

to describe the surface water, ground water, and wetland resources on the site and adjacent area

of the Toronto Reservoir. Eagle Creek is not adopting this study as requested. While the study

request does not meet any of FERC’s study criteria, Eagle Creek is proposing to collect

information on surface water and wetland resources as part of other studies, such as the Aquatic

Habitat Mapping Study and Water Quality Study. See Sections 6 and 9 as to how this study

request has been integrated into this PSP.


24

3.2.5 Water and Surface Navigability Study

The Iroquois Hunting and Fishing Club requested a water and surface navigability study to

evaluate the existing water surface use patterns in the near-shore area of the Toronto Reservoir

including the types and sizes of boats, sailing vessels, and personal watercraft and the general

patterns of boat traffic flow using the Toronto Reservoir. While the study request does not meet

any of FERC’s study criteria, Eagle Creek is proposing to collect recreation use information as

part of the Recreation Facilities Inventory, Recreation Use and Needs Assessment, and Reservoir

Surface Area Assessment. See Section 11 as to how this study request has been integrated into

this PSP.

3.3 Similar Study Requests

To execute the studies systematically, study requests addressing similar resource areas have been

combined. In particular, Eagle Creek has incorporated aspects of the following requested studies

into other proposed studies.

3.3.1 Special-Status Wildlife Species and Habitat Assessment

The Special-Status Wildlife Species and Habitat Assessment was requested by FERC.

This study was not adopted by Eagle Creek as a standalone study, but special-status

wildlife species and habitat surveying is proposed as part of the Aquatic Habitat Mapping

Study. See Section 6 as to how this study request has been integrated into this PSP.

3.3.2 Special-Status Plant Species and Noxious Weed Assessment

The Special-Status Plant Species and Noxious Weed Assessment was requested by

FERC. This study was not adopted by Eagle Creek as a standalone study, but special-

status plant and noxious weed surveying is proposed as part of the Aquatic Habitat

Mapping Study. See Section 6 as to how this study request has been integrated into this

PSP.


25

3.3.3 Wetland Delineation

The Wetland Delineation was requested by the USFWS and NYSDEC. This study was

not adopted by Eagle Creek as a standalone study, but Eagle Creek is proposing to verify

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and NYSDEC mapped wetlands as part of the

Aquatic Habitat Mapping Study. See Section 6 as to how this study request has been

integrated into this PSP.

26

Section 4

Proposal for the PSP Meeting

Pursuant to 18 CFR §5.11(e) of the Commission’s ILP regulations, Eagle Creek is providing

information regarding the PSP Meeting that will be held for the purposes of clarifying the PSP,

explaining information gathering needs, and resolving outstanding issues associated with the

proposed studies. The Commission’s regulations and the approved Process Plan and Schedule

require Eagle Creek to conduct the PSP Meeting within 30 days of the filing of this PSP.

Accordingly, Eagle Creek will hold the PSP Meeting on October 4, 2017, at the Monticello

Firehouse in Monticello, New York. This is the same facility where FERC held the June 22,

2017 public scoping meetings.

Additional details regarding the meeting are presented below.

Date: Wednesday October 4, 2017

Time: 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM

(there will be an approximately one hour break to allow participants to

have lunch on their own)

Location: Monticello Firehouse

23 Richardson Avenue

Monticello, NY 12701

(845) 794-5121

For additional information, please contact:

Jane Manibusan, Compliance Associate

Eagle Creek Renewable Energy

Telephone: (920) 293-4628

E-mail: [email protected]

27

Section 5

Reservoir Water Level Fluctuation/Operation Study

Plan

5.1 Study Requests

FERC, USFWS, NYSDEC, NPS, HOOT, and Swinging Bridge Property Owners Association

each formally requested studies related to reservoir elevations and associated downstream flows.

FERC requested development of a reservoir operations model to predict reservoir elevation at the

Projects’ reservoirs under different operation scenarios.

The USFWS and NYSDEC requested an impoundment fluctuation study to assist in the

determination of the potential aquatic resources that are being impacted and to what degree.

Eagle Creek is proposing to address this request through a combination of the Aquatic Habitat

Assessment Study (Section 6) and the results of this proposed Reservoir Water Level

Fluctuation/Operation Study.

The NPS requested a flow study to compare resulting flows for various USGS gage locations on

the Delaware River above and below the Mongaup River under timeframes of influence and non-

influence by Mongaup Project releases. Eagle Creek is proposing to address this request through

the results of this proposed Reservoir Water Level Fluctuation/Operation Study.

HOOT requested a Toronto Reservoir recreation needs and impacts study to, among other

objectives, evaluate the impact of Toronto Reservoir elevation and reservoir fluctuations on

recreation use at the reservoir. Eagle Creek is proposing to address this request through a

combination of the Recreation Facility Inventory, Recreation Use and Needs Assessment, and

Reservoir Surface Area Assessment Study (Section 11) and the results of this Reservoir Water

Level Fluctuation/Operation Study.

The Swinging Bridge Property Owners Association requested a flow/recreation use study to

examine the impact of the current minimum flow releases on water levels in the Swinging Bridge

Reservoir. Eagle Creek is proposing to address this request through the results of this proposed

Reservoir Water Level Fluctuation/Operation Study.

Section 5 Reservoir Water Level Fluctuation/Operation Study Plan

28

Specifics regarding the requested studies are provided below.

FERC:

Develop, calibrate, and validate an operations model that integrates each of the three

Mongaup River Projects and supports the evaluation of proposed and potential

recommendations for Project operations at an hourly (or better) time-step and under various

reservoir inflow and outflow conditions. The operations model should be capable of

predicting reservoir elevations, surface areas, available storage, and generation that would

result from various operational scenarios.

USFWS & NYSDEC:

Derive a calculation of storage at the Mongaup River Projects at different depths and the

degree to which different flow releases can be maintained at differing starting elevations.

Estimates should be quantitative and based on million gallons per day estimates of the

releases in relation to total storage.

Prepare a consolidated figure or table that presents all of the relevant elevations for Mongaup

River Project operations. This figure or table should include the dam crest, maximum and

minimum fluctuation ranges, any intake/outlet gate inverts (and height), any required

seasonal limitations on fluctuations and their duration, and the target elevations proposed by

the Applicant and their duration.

(Requested by NYSDEC only) Develop a table or chart that clearly shows the volume

released from each reservoir (i.e., Cliff Lake, Toronto, and Swinging Bridge) to meet the

minimum flow target over the course of the year compared to the amount released for

generation on a typical year. This should also be modelled to show the range of likely

operations during high and low power demand years. Ideally these volumes would be

graphically represented to show how they relate to vertical drawdowns in each waterbody.

This could also be done to account for typical high and low water years.


29

NPS:

Analyze and compare resulting flows for various USGS gage locations on the Delaware

River above and below the Mongaup River under timeframes of influence and non-influence

by Mongaup Project releases.

HOOT:

Evaluate reservoir fluctuations of the Toronto Reservoir to assess recreation needs and

impacts.

Swinging Bridge Property Owners Association:

Evaluate the impact of current minimum flow releases on water levels in the Swinging

Bridge Reservoir and, if such minimum flow releases currently do not maintain adequate

levels, whether they can be lowered to raise water levels during drought periods while

maintaining adequate habitat for the adult brown trout.

5.2 Goals and Objectives

The goal of this study is to develop an operations model that may be used to predict reservoir

elevations for each of the Mongaup River Project reservoirs under various operation constraints

(e.g., minimum flow, reservoir level, and hydrology). The operations model will support an

assessment of potential Project effects on aquatic, terrestrial, recreation, land use, and aesthetic

resources that may result from proposed or recommended Project operational scenarios.

Specifically, for each Project reservoir, the model will use historic hydrology to predict reservoir

outflow, reservoir elevations, surface areas, and corresponding Project generation at an hourly

time-step. The additional goals and objectives of this study are to support the requests from NPS,

HOOT, and Swinging Bridge Property Owners Association as described in Section 5.1.

5.3 Resource Management Goals

The Mongaup River and Black Lake Creek, in the vicinity of the Projects, are managed by

NYSDEC as a combination of a warmwater, coolwater, and coldwater fishery, with a focus on


30

brook and brown trout in the Projects’ downstream reaches. In addition, the Projects’ reservoirs

and the Mongaup River downstream of the Rio Powerhouse provide recreational resources.

5.4 Public Interest

The following stakeholders have expressed interest in this study:

FERC

USFWS

NPS

NYSDEC

HOOT

Swinging Bridge Property Owners Association

TU

Town of Bethel, NY

Town of Thompson, NY

Additional Individuals

5.5 Background and Existing Information

As further described in Section 4.4 of the PAD, the Projects operate in a peaking mode while

maintaining minimum flow requirements and target reservoir elevations. Eagle Creek provides

the required minimum flow of 10 cfs below Toronto Dam, 10 cfs below Cliff Lake Dam, 100 cfs

(or inflow, but not less than 60 cfs) below Swinging Bridge Dam, 70 cfs below Mongaup Falls

Dam plus 20 cfs below Mongaup Falls Powerhouse (or inflow, but not less than 60 cfs at the

Dam and total), and 100 cfs (or inflow, but not less than 60 cfs) below Rio Dam.

The target reservoir elevations include the following: 1,170 ft to 1,220 ft for Toronto Reservoir;

1,049 ft to 1,070 ft for Swinging Bridge Reservoir and Cliff Lake Reservoir; 927 ft to 935 ft for

Mongaup Falls Reservoir; and 807 ft to 815 ft for Rio Reservoir. More specifically, the Projects

are operated to achieve seasonal target reservoir elevations to ensure sufficient water is available

to maintain minimum flows; protection of water quality, spawning habitat, and recreation use; as

well as compliance with target reservoir elevations.


31

Eagle Creek has an established operating procedure to follow when the Delaware River Basin

Commission (DRBC) declares a drought emergency. During DRBC-declared drought warnings

or drought conditions, the DRBC will direct flows in a manner consistent with the Drought

Operating Rule Curves in the Drought Conditions Operating Plan3. The Drought Conditions

Operating Plan incorporates the goal of refilling the reservoirs during the worst hydrologic year

of record so that they are full on June 1, at the beginning of the next potential drought season.

5.6 Project Nexus

Project operations have the potential to affect reservoir elevations for each of the Projects’ five

reservoirs. The requested operations model will provide information on reservoir water surface

area, elevations, and fluctuation rates and support an assessment of potential Project effects on

aquatic, terrestrial, recreation and land use, and aesthetic resources associated with the reservoirs

and that may result from proposed and/or recommended Project operational scenarios. This

information will assist with the development of potential license conditions that consider the

non-developmental values of the Project, as well as their power and developmental values.

5.7 Methodology

Eagle Creek will develop, calibrate, and validate an operations model that integrates each of the

Mongaup River Projects and supports the evaluation of proposed and potential recommendations

for Project operations at an hourly time-step, and under various reservoir inflow and outflow

conditions. The operations model will be capable of predicting reservoir elevations, surface

areas, available storage, and generation that would result from various operational scenarios.

The model will derive a calculation of storage at the Mongaup River Projects at various depths

and the degree to which different flow releases can be maintained at differing starting elevations.

Estimates will be based on cubic feet per second estimates of the releases in relation to total

storage.

Eagle Creek will prepare a consolidated table that presents the relevant elevations for operation

of the Mongaup River Projects. The table will include the dam crest, maximum and minimum

3 The Drought Conditions Operating Plan was provided as Appendix D in the PAD filed with the Commission on

March 30, 2017.


32

fluctuation ranges, intake/outlet gate inverts (and height), required seasonal limitations on

fluctuations and their duration, and proposed target elevations and duration.

Eagle Creek will develop a table that presents the volume released from each reservoir to meet

the minimum flow target over the course of the year compared to the amount released for

generation on a typical year.

The model will support evaluations associated with potential impacts to recreation and

impoundment elevations based on various operating scenarios for the Projects.

In addition to the model output, Eagle Creek will graph the flows associated with the USGS gage

immediately downstream of the Rio powerhouse, as well as the USGS Delaware River gages

located immediately upstream and downstream of the confluence of the Mongaup River and the

Delaware River. The data from the three gages will be graphed separately, as well as on a

combined graph for comparison. This data will allow the stakeholders to correlate the flows from

the Projects relative to the flows both upstream and downstream of the confluence.

5.8 Level of Effort and Cost

This study will occur during the 2018 study year and be conducted by a team of hydrologic and

hydraulic engineers. This study is estimated to cost approximately $75,000 to complete.

5.9 Schedule and Deliverables

Development of this model will occur in 2018. A report summarizing the details of the model

outputs and results will be prepared and provided in the Initial Study Report (ISR) to be

distributed to the relicensing parties and filed with the Commission in accordance with the

Commission’s ILP Process Plan and Schedule.

5.10 Deviations from Requested Studies

Eagle Creek has generally accepted the methodologies requested by FERC, USFWS, NPS,

NYSDEC, HOOT, and Swinging Bridge Property Owners Association.


33

Note that the USFWS and NYSDEC requested that the aerial extent and habitat of the reservoirs’

fluctuation zones be mapped between the full pond and drawn down elevations. As compared to

this study, this mapping is being proposed as a component of the Aquatic Habitat Assessment

Study (Section 6).

34

Section 6

Aquatic Habitat Assessment Study Plan

6.1 Study Requests

FERC, USFWS, NYSDEC, and HOOT formally requested studies pertaining to an aquatic

habitat assessment of the Projects’ reservoirs. Specifics regarding the requested studies are

provided below.

FERC (Aquatic Habitat Mapping of the Projects’ Reservoirs):

Conduct field surveys of aquatic habitat during full-pool from the head of each of the

Project’s reservoirs to the associated dam.

Categorize habitat survey information per accepted practices in the scientific community

(e.g., habitat type, substrate type, depths, etc.) and plot on aerial maps that demarcate

proposed minimum and maximum reservoir elevations.

Collect in-situ water quality data (temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and

conductivity) and document the presence of invasive aquatic vegetation (species and

location).

Prepare a report that includes a summary of the data collected. Include in the report, aerial

habitat maps that demarcate proposed minimum and maximum reservoir elevations; habitat

descriptions; Project operations, reservoir elevations, and surface areas during the surveys;

effects of proposed Project operations on the aquatic habitat(s); and in-situ water quality data.

Include all data used to develop the report in an appendix.

FERC (Special-Status Wildlife Species and Habitat Assessment):

Prior to field surveys, confirm the candidate list of special-status wildlife species in

consultation with the USFWS and NYSDEC.

Determine recommended survey protocols for each species through consultation.

Use habitat maps and/or aerial photographs to determine habitats that have the potential to

support special-status wildlife species for field surveys.

Conduct field surveys in appropriate habitats by experienced individuals.

Section 6 Aquatic Habitat Assessment Study Plan

35

Conduct multiple field surveys that cover the entire area directly and indirectly affected by

the Project during the appropriate seasons.

Survey Project features that may provide suitable roosting and hibernating habitat for special-

status bat species.

Document and locate on maps the abundance, distribution and habitat use of all special-status

species and their potential habitat showing relation to Project features.

Prepare a report that includes the results of the surveys and mapping efforts and identifies,

describes, and assesses the extent to which Project-related actions and activities may affect

special-status wildlife area.

FERC (Special-Status Plant Species and Noxious Weed Assessment):

Prior to field surveys, confirm the current list of special-status plants in consultation with

USFWS and NYSDEC.

Use habitat maps and/or aerial photographs to determine vegetation cover types that have the

potential to support special-status plant species for field surveys.

Conduct field surveys in appropriate areas by experienced individuals for special-status plant

species and aquatic and noxious weeds.

Conduct two seasons of field surveys that cover the entire area affected by the Project during

the appropriate blooming periods.

Document and locate on maps the abundance and distribution of all special-status species and

their relationship to Project features.

Identify the current extent of weed infestation in a general sense throughout the Project area,

the species that occur, and the relative abundance of each species.

Prepare a report that includes the results of the surveys and mapping efforts and identifies,

describes, and assesses the extent to which Project-related actions and activities may affect

special-status plants and noxious weeds.

USFWS & NYSDEC (Impoundment Fluctuation Study):

Map the aerial extent and habitat in the fluctuation zones at full pond and at drawdowns

consistent with Project operations. The maps should identify the extent of the changes in, and


36

adjacent to, the impoundment areas, substrate and type of habitat, the depth at various pond

levels, and any important habitat types (i.e., wetlands and submerged aquatic vegetation) that

may be present. Steep slopes, fluctuations in stream flow, and fluctuations in reservoir

elevations can lead to mass movement, and we recommend that eroding or potentially

erodible areas within the fluctuation zone be evaluated and included in the maps.

USFWS & NYSDEC (Wetland Delineation):

Document and characterize all wetlands and other aquatic vegetation within the vicinity of

the Projects.

HOOT:

Conduct an aquatic habitat study to evaluate impact from operation on littoral habitat (e.g.,

largemouth bass spawning habitat) at Toronto Reservoir.


The goal of this study is to identify the aquatic habitat within the normal fluctuation zone (i.e.,

target elevations) of each of the five reservoirs associated with the Mongaup River Projects and

identify potential effects Project operations may have on these habitats. The specific objectives

of this study are as follows:

Conduct a combination of field surveys and desktop analysis to identify and map aquatic

habitats within the Projects’ reservoirs fluctuation zones.

Document rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) species observed during aquatic habitat

mapping.

Document the presence and general behavior of bald eagles observed during mapping

activities.

Document invasive species observed during aquatic habitat mapping.

Verify NWI and NYSDEC mapped wetlands within the Projects’ boundaries.

Document unique attributes such as fish spawning beds, mussel beds, or shell material

observed during aquatic habitat mapping.


37

Describe the potential influences of the Projects’ operations on aquatic habitats within the

impoundments.




brook and brown trout in the Projects’ downstream reaches. The Projects’ reservoirs and the

river reach downstream of the Rio Powerhouse provide recreational resources.

6.4 Public Interest


FERC

USFWS

NYSDEC

HOOT

Iroquois Hunting and Fishing Club


General descriptions of habitat in the Projects’ reservoirs were gathered in the original licensing

process, provided in the PAD, and are summarized below. In addition, the reservoirs’ target

elevations are presented in Section 5.5 of this PSP.

Toronto Reservoir: Reservoir margins are relatively steep-sided and consist of rubble and gravel

with little or no rooted aquatic vegetation. The substrate composition, coupled with the

reservoir’s steep sides, limits the availability of littoral habitat. The shoreline is surrounded by

forested vegetation and multiple private residences are located along the reservoir’s shoreline.

(Orange and Rockland 1988).

Cliff Lake Reservoir: The upper half of this reservoir, upstream of the islands, and the intake

channel is relatively shallow (8 to 10 feet), providing considerable littoral zone habitat. This area

is characterized as having relatively fine sediment substrates with numerous tree stumps and


38

rooted emergent and submergent vegetation scattered throughout the area. This type of habitat is

conducive to supporting abundant smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, and sunfish populations.

The lower portion of this reservoir, between the islands and the dam, is characterized as having

quite a steep shoreline with gravel and rubble substrates. Water depths of 30 to 40 feet occur

quite near the shoreline throughout much of this area. The lower end of the Cliff Lake Reservoir

stratifies during the summer months with anoxic conditions prevailing in the hypolimnion. The

Cliff Lake Reservoir is largely undeveloped, with no private land development. The reservoir is

accessible by an unpaved access road. The area surrounding the reservoir is heavily forested with

moderate slopes surrounding the reservoir. The reservoir’s shoreline substrates consist primarily

of gravel and rubble, with intermittent areas of sandy substrates. (Orange and Rockland 1988).

Swinging Bridge Reservoir: The Swinging Bridge Dam creates a reservoir covering

approximately 1,000 acres when full. The Swinging Bridge Reservoir is traversed by roads on

both shores of the reservoir, and numerous private residences are located along the shoreline

(Orange and Rockland 1988). In addition to the gravel and rubble substrates typical of the area,

the Swinging Bridge Reservoir has sandier substrates surrounding the perimeter of the reservoir,

which is consistent with the presence of the sand/gravel quarry located approximately 0.5 mile

from the reservoir’s shoreline. The area surrounding the reservoir is heavily forested and

includes moderate slopes. As with the Toronto Reservoir, the hypolimnion, which develops

during the summer, becomes anoxic, thus preventing the establishment of a coldwater fishery.

Mongaup Falls Reservoir: This reservoir is largely undeveloped and surrounded by heavily

forested lands. Slopes surrounding the reservoir are moderate and the surrounding substrates are

a combination of gravel and rubble materials. Unlike the other reservoirs, the hypolimnion in the

Mongaup Falls Reservoir maintains some oxygen concentration through the summer. This is due

primarily to the relatively short residence time of water in this reservoir. Because the storage

capacity of this reservoir is small, operation of the Swinging Bridge and Mongaup Falls

generating facilities cause considerable turbulence in this reservoir, which disrupts thermocline

development.

Rio Reservoir: This reservoir is fed by discharges from the Mongaup Falls Project and by Black

Brook, which enters the Mongaup River from the east, immediately upstream from this reservoir.

It is largely undeveloped with limited private developments on the east side of the reservoir. The


39

shoreline is surrounded by forested land, with a distribution of sandy areas along the shoreline.

Slopes surrounding the reservoir are moderate, with gravel and rubble substrates. Populations of

both brown trout and rainbow trout are most likely limited by the occurrence of anoxic

conditions in the hypolimnion when the Rio Reservoir is thermally stratified during the summer

months (Orange and Rockland 1988).

6.6 Project Nexus

The Projects’ reservoirs provide aquatic habitat for fish, macroinvertebrates, and other species

associated with Mongaup River Projects. This study, in conjunction with existing information,

will result in aquatic habitat mapping of the reservoirs’ fluctuation zones, which will be used to

evaluate the potential population level impact of project operations on habitats and species of

interest.

6.7 Methodology

6.7.1 Aquatic Habitat Survey and Assessment

Eagle Creek will use a combination of field surveys and desktop analysis to identify and map the

aquatic habitat present within the Projects’ reservoirs fluctuation zones and delineate the relative

quantity and spatial distribution of the habitat types. As conditions allow, Eagle Creek will

conduct field surveys to identify aquatic habitat types in the five reservoirs associated with the

fluctuation zones ranging from full pond to the lower target elevation. Note that field surveys and

data collection at the lower target elevation will be performed as hydrology and operations allow.

Given the Projects’ recreational users and limited watershed, Eagle Creek does not propose to

draw each reservoir down to the lower target elevation to perform field surveys. As operations

and hydrology allow, following Labor Day in 2018, Eagle Creek proposes to obtain available

field data with limited impact on surface water levels.

Delineation of habitats in the five reservoirs will be conducted by boat, or on foot where too

shallow, and will occur during full pond elevations of the reservoirs to evaluate the extent of

wetted habitat, as well as the lower target elevation. Mapping will be conducted in the field using

handheld global positioning system (GPS) units, and the upstream and downstream boundaries


40

of each habitat unit within the study area will be delineated and geo-referenced. As data allows,

the reservoir shorelines will be mapped at 5-foot contours.

Where appropriate, additional features of habitats will be recorded, including dominate and

subdominate substrates, relative embeddedness, cover type and relative abundance, estimated

bank slope, range and average water depths, general shoreline description, and photos of

representative habitat types.

Biological characteristics will also be recorded during habitat surveys, including readily

observable aquatic fauna. Fish spawning beds, mussel beds, or evidence of shell material

observed during the aquatic habitat surveys will be documented and their location recorded using

GPS.

Existing NWI and NYSDEC wetland maps will be field verified in areas within the Projects’

boundaries during the field surveys, and major discrepancies will be noted on aerial maps and

provided in the study report.

In-situ water quality data will be collected during the surveys at the beginning and end of the

each day during the field survey. The presence of invasive species will be documented.

Surveyors will also note the presence of habitat suitable for listed species and document

observations of listed species, including bald eagles during the surveys.

6.7.2 Data Analysis and Reporting

Eagle Creek will prepare habitat maps based on the results of aquatic habitat field surveys of the

five reservoirs. Maps will show the extent of habitats, substrates, vegetative cover, locations of

listed and invasive species, wetlands, and other information, as applicable.


The aquatic habitat survey will occur in the summer and fall of 2018 with four to five field

biologists. This study is estimated to cost approximately $150,000 to complete.


41


Aquatic habitat field surveying will occur in the summer and fall of 2018 using the above

methodologies. A report including details and results of the habitat survey and in-situ water

quality data collected concurrent with the habitat survey, including habitat maps will be prepared

and provided in the ISR to be distributed to the relicensing parties and filed with the Commission

in accordance with the Commission’s ILP Process Plan and Schedule. Data will be presented in

concise tables, graphs, and maps, where appropriate.


Deviations from the requested studies consist of the following:

Eagle Creek has incorporated the requested details from the study requests for aquatic habitat

mapping, with the addition of surveying for listed species habitat, bald eagles, and invasive

species.

Eagle Creek will conduct the habitat mapping when the reservoirs are drawn down as a result

of normal operations and based on available hydrology, in addition to when the reservoirs are

at full pond elevations as requested by FERC. This will allow for the collection and mapping

of habitat information for the fluctuation zone.

Eagle Creek is proposing to perform the components of the Special-Status Plant Species and

Noxious Weed Assessment and Special-Status Wildlife Species and Habitat Assessment

requested by FERC during one season, as compared to multiple seasons.

6.11 References

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.

42

Section 7

Fisheries Survey Study Plan

7.1 Study Requests

FERC, USFWS, and NYSDEC formally requested a fisheries survey study. Specifics regarding

the requested study are provided below.

FERC:

Conduct electrofishing surveys during late summer or fall in each of the Project

impoundments, tailwaters, downstream riverine corridors, and bypassed reaches.

Conduct sampling in order to observe annual juvenile production (juvenile fish would be

large enough to collect).

Establish sampling locations that represent the full extent and types of habitat in the study

area.

Separately target upstream (late spring/early summer for elvers and yellow eels) and

downstream (fall for silver eels) migrating American eels for sampling using generally

accepted methods, such as electrofishing, trap/fyke netting, eel pots, etc. to provide data on

the abundance of American eels at various life stages and where they tend to congregate.

Identify to species and count all collected fish while weighing and measuring only a

subsample. Measure eye diameters of captured American eels for use in evaluating the silver

eels phase. Identify and record the habitat type and substrate of each sampling location, and

record in-situ water quality conditions (temperature, DO, pH, conductivity).

Prepare a report that includes a summary of the data above.

USFWS:

Conduct fisheries surveys in the vicinity of the Projects including the Projects’ reservoirs

(and the Black Brook diversion impoundment), the Mongaup River from above the Swinging

Bridge Reservoir to the confluence with the Delaware River, Black Lake Creek from above

the Toronto Reservoir to the confluence with the Mongaup River, and Black Brook from

above the diversion impoundment to the confluence with the Mongaup River.

Section 7 Fisheries Survey Study Plan

43

Conduct a fisheries survey using a variety of sampling gear, including gill nets, trap nets,

seines, and electroshocking.

Conduct the study for one full year, with provision for a second year of study if data

collected are inadequate based on review by USFWS and NYSDEC.

Collect information including species, size, age, sex and condition, as well as movement

patterns and habitat utilization.

Collect standard water quality data (water temperature, DO, pH, etc.) in conjunction with

these surveys.

The survey should focus on general fishery resources as well as important game,

interjurisdictional, and migratory species in the vicinity of the Projects, such as walleye, trout

(brook, brown, and rainbow), bass (largemouth and smallmouth), American shad, white

sucker, and American eel.

Compare the current fisheries populations to those sampled during the original licensing.

NYSDEC:

Conduct a fisheries survey in the vicinity of the Mongaup River Projects, including areas

upstream and downstream of the dams.

Conduct a fisheries survey using a variety of sampling gear, including gill nets, trap nets,

seines, and electroshocking.

Conduct the study for one full year, with provision for a second year of study if data

collected are inadequate based on review by USFWS and NYSDEC.

The survey should cover at least three seasons (spring, summer, and fall), and all four

seasons, if possible.

Collect information including species, size, age, sex and condition, as well as movement

patterns and habitat utilization.

Collect standard water quality data (water temperature, DO, pH, etc.) in conjunction with

these surveys.

The survey should focus on general fishery resources.


44


The goals and objectives of this study are to supplement the existing baseline fisheries dataset for

the Projects by obtaining additional baseline data for the existing fishery resources in the

Projects’ impoundments, tailraces, downstream riverine corridors and bypass reaches during late

summer/early fall.




brook and brown trout in the Projects’ downstream reaches.

7.4 Public Interest


FERC

USFWS

NYSDEC

TU




Fish and aquatic resources in the Mongaup River include a variety of warmwater, coolwater, and

coldwater species and habitats, represented in the Projectsʼ five reservoirs and associated

interconnecting streams, the Mongaup River, and Black Lake Creek. Based on the PAD

questionnaire responses and literature review, the currently available fisheries information is

from surveys conducted by the NYSDEC before 1980 and surveys conducted in 1987 during the

previous licensing effort. A description of the aquatic habitat, fish, and other aquatic resources in

the Projectsʼ reservoirs and streams is presented in Section 5.4 of the PAD. In general, popular

games species in the area include brook trout, brown trout, walleye, largemouth and smallmouth


45

bass, and other various centrarchid species. Additional studies with fisheries information

conducted in support of the previous licensing effort are included in the Appendices.

Specifically, the 1978 Mongaup River Creel Census Report (Appendix D), the 1992-1993

entrainment studies (Appendix D), and the 1987 Fisheries Investigation of the Mongaup River

and Tributaries (Appendix D).

Eagle Creek is aware of additional fish sampling conducted by the NYSDEC, particularity in the

Swinging Bridge and Rio reservoirs. The NYSDEC Bureau of Fisheries Annual Reports for 2013

and 2014 indicate that electrofishing events targeting walleye were conducted during these two

years, as well as a creel survey in the Swinging Bridge Reservoir in 2014 (NYSDEC 2014 and

2015). Eagle Creek requests that this data be made available to Eagle Creek to supplement the

existing available information.

7.6 Project Nexus

Potential Project effects on fishery resources may include fish impingement and entrainment,

flows within downstream reaches, and reservoir fluctuations. Information on the existing

fisheries community will help identify the fish species associated with the Project and project

operations.

7.7 Methodology

The methodology described in this section was developed based on the requests by FERC,

USFWS, and NYSDEC, as well as input from professional fisheries biologists who have

supported previous FERC relicensing activities in New York.

7.7.1 Collectors Permits

Eagle Creek will file the collector permit applications required for fisheries sampling work and

will not begin fieldwork prior to receiving the necessary permits.

7.7.2 Late Summer/Early Fall Baseline Survey

Consistent with FERC’s study request, Eagle Creek will perform the fisheries survey in late

summer/early fall to collect baseline fisheries community data in the Projects’ impoundments,


46

tailraces, and bypasses reaches. Site-specific conditions will dictate how sampling gear will be

used, but it is expected to include backpack electrofishing (Smith-Root Model 12), boat

electrofishing (an 18-foot aluminum Monarch®

jon boat equipped with a Smith-Root® 7.5.0 gas-

powered pulsator [GPP] portable electrofisher), deployment of gill nets (if suitable depths occur

in the impoundment), and/or eel pots. The sampling methods used will be based on effectiveness

and personnel safety considerations at various locations in the study area. Effective sampling will

depend on habitat characteristics such as water depth, bottom features/substrates, water velocity,

and water clarity. Sampling locations will be selected according to habitat type, with the goal of

obtaining representative samples in the five impoundments, tailraces/discharges and bypassed

reaches.

Sampled fish will be identified and counted. Game species (e.g., trout species, smallmouth bass,

walleye, and yellow perch) of up to 30 individuals, as well as species of interest (e.g., American

eel), will be weighed and measured. The remaining individuals will be counted and recorded on

standard field data sheets. Capture location and gear type will also be documented. Relative

abundance, size structure, and catch-per-unit effort will be determined from the collected data.

Fish will be released unless required for confirmation of species identification.

Concurrent with fish surveys, water quality data will be collected in-situ at each sampling

location (e.g., reservoir or downstream reach) at the beginning and end of the sampling event

each day. A Hydrolab MS5 multiparameter sonde (or similar model) will be used to record water

quality measurements, including pH, DO, temperature, and specific conductivity. Water clarity

will be determined by standard Secchi Disk (as possible). Sampling date, time, duration,

location, and general observations of physical habitat characteristics, such as bottom substrate,

cover type, and station depth, will also be recorded. Site GPS coordinates will be determined and

locations will be identified on a Project area map.


The baseline fisheries survey will occur over three weeks in the late summer/early fall, with four

to five experienced field biologists. This study is estimated to cost approximately $125,000 to

complete.


47


Fish sampling will occur in the late summer/early fall (August/September) of 2018 using the

above methodologies. A report summarizing the results, specifically species richness, relative

abundance of species, size class structure, condition, and habitat use, will be prepared and

provided in the ISR to be distributed to the relicensing parties and filed with the Commission in

accordance with the Commission’s ILP Process Plan and Schedule. The ISR will include details

of the fishing efforts and in-situ water quality conditions at the time of sampling. Data will be

presented in concise tables and graphs, where appropriate.


Deviations from the requested studies consist of the following.

As compared to three seasons (spring, summer, and fall) and a fourth season if possible as

requested by NYSDEC, sampling would be performed during the late summer/early fall.

Eagle Creek believes that the late summer/early fall surveys will provide the information

necessary to understand the fish populations associated with the Projects.

Eagle Creek is not proposing to conduct the fisheries sampling in the downstream riverine

corridors (e.g., downstream of Rio Powerhouse) as requested by FERC and USFWS.

Sampling within the habitats most affected by Project operations (i.e., tailraces,

impoundments, and bypassed reaches) will provide an adequate representation of the

fisheries community found in the Project areas.

FERC requested extensive targeted American eel sampling. Eagle Creek believes that if

American eels are present, they will be captured during the late summer/early fall sampling

events via electroshocking or eel pots. Eagle Creek does not believe that an upstream and

downstream migration timing study would produce useful data. The late summer/early fall

survey will provide data on American eel presence upstream of the Rio Project. See the Fish

Passage Study Plan for details about researching potential timing of upstream and

downstream eel migrations in the vicinity of the Projects.


48

7.11 References

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2014. Bureau of

Fisheries 2013-2014 Annual Report. [Online) URL: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/

fish_marine_pdf/fshannrpt14.pdf Accessed on September 11, 2017.

_____. 2015. Bureau of Fisheries 2014-2015 Annual Report. [Online) URL:

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/fshannrpt15.pdf Accessed on September

11, 2017.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/%20fish_marine_pdf/fshannrpt14.pdf%20%20Accessed%20on%20September%2011

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/%20fish_marine_pdf/fshannrpt14.pdf%20%20Accessed%20on%20September%2011

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/fshannrpt15.pdf%20Accessed%20on%20September%2011

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/fshannrpt15.pdf%20Accessed%20on%20September%2011

49

Section 8

Fish Passage Study Plan

8.1 Study Requests

USFWS and NYSDEC formally requested studies pertaining to fish passage and protection.

Specifics regarding the requested study are provided below.

USFWS:

Collect field data related to downstream passage and entrainment of fish at the five Project

dams as well as the Black Brook Development.

Evaluate the potential for entrainment mortality at the Projects through a desktop analysis of

previous entrainment mortality studies at projects with similar head, turbine, and operational

characteristics, as available.

Collect site-specific data from the Projects and conduct a preliminary analysis for feasibility

to aid in the design of protection and passage facilities.

NYSDEC:

Conduct a literature review of existing downstream passage alternatives that can be applied

to the Project to keep fish out of turbines and get safely downstream.

Collect site-specific information to aid in the design of protection and passage facilities, such

as flows, water velocities, depths, and substrates.

Collect existing data on target fish swim speeds, migration behavior, and the use of

attractants and repellants that can help guide fish safely downstream.


The goals and objectives of this study are to collect site-specific information and conduct a

literature review of fish passage alternatives to evaluate options at the five Project dams as well

as the Black Brook Development.

Section 8 Fish Passage Study Plan

50




brook and brown trout in the Projects’ downstream reaches.

8.4 Public Interest


USFWS

NYSDEC


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 (Lawler, Matusky &

Skelly Engineers [LMS] 1994). A copy of the 1994 Entrainment Study Report is provided in

Appendix D. This study 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 Mongaup River Hydroelectric 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).

Migratory fish are not present above the Rio Project. American eel and American shad have been

documented downstream of the Rio Project. Historically, these diadromous species may have

been present up to Mongaup Falls, a natural barrier to migration further up the Mongaup River.


51

8.6 Project Nexus

Hydroelectric dams may pose potential barriers to upstream and downstream movement of

aquatic species. In addition, intakes and turbines may cause injury or mortality to fish passing

downstream by impinging them against trashracks or entraining them through the intakes and

turbines.

8.7 Methodology

Eagle Creek will calculate the average flow through approach velocity 1 foot in front of the

existing trashrack structures for the Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects.

Eagle Creek will perform desktop research regarding the timing of upstream and downstream

American eel migration in the Mongaup River and Delaware River Watersheds to inform the

timing of potential American eel passage or protection measures that may be proposed.

Based on the results of the proposed Fisheries Survey Study, Eagle Creek will perform a

literature review of the applicability and potential means of providing fish passage at the

structures for those migratory species identified during the Fisheries Survey. In particular, the

literature review will address upstream and downstream passage designs for migratory species

such as American eel. Facilities at similar hydroelectric dams will be investigated. Information

on passage requirements, such as swimming speeds, water column locations, attractants, and

repellants that can guide fish will be collected.

Eagle Creek will conduct a site visit with relevant stakeholders (e.g., USFWS and NYSDEC) to

review the facilities relative to the migratory species identified and the potential for passage

and/or protection structures. The meeting will include a visit to the Projects.


The Fish Passage Study will occur after the Fisheries Survey is complete in the late fall 2018.

This study is estimated to cost approximately $75,000 to complete.


52


This study will be conducted in the late fall 2018, following the completion of the Fisheries

Survey. The site visit with stakeholders will occur in the late fall 2018 as well. A report

summarizing the study findings, including potential fish passage options, will be prepared and


accordance with the Commission’s ILP Process Plan and Schedule.


Eagle Creek has not adopted the USFWS request to conduct an entrainment mortality assessment

as part of this study. Eagle Creek believes that the 1992-1993 empirical site-specific data is

sufficient to support this relicensing process and is more valuable than using data from other

sites. In addition, Eagle Creek believes that the study was well conducted and well representative

of entrainment effects that occur at the Projects. The findings from the requested desktop

entrainment analysis are anticipated to yield similar results that will be sufficient to support the

issuance of new licenses.

The several issues with the 1992-1993 studies that were listed by the USFWS in their study

request are common in field entrainment studies, including those found in the Electric Power

Research Institute entrainment database, which would be used for the desktop entrainment

analysis not adopted herein.

8.11 References

Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1994. 1992-1993 Entrainment Studies Mongaup

Hydroelectric Projects. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. June 1994.

144 pp.

53

Section 9

Water Quality Study Plan

9.1 Study Requests

FERC, USFWS, NYSDEC and HOOT formally requested that a water quality study be

conducted. Specifics regarding the requested studies are provided below.

FERC (Stream Reach Water Quality Study):

Using generally accepted practices in the scientific community, monitor water quality (DO

and water temperature) from June 1 through September 30 on a 15-minute interval at the

following locations:

o Black Lake Creek at the discharge of the Toronto Reservoir;

o Immediately upstream of the mouth of Black Lake Creek at Cliff Lake;

o Black Lake Creek at the discharge of Cliff Lake;

o Black Lake Creek immediately upstream of its confluence with the Mongaup River;

o Mongaup River immediately upstream of the Mongaup Falls Project reservoir;

o Mongaup River immediately downstream of the Mongaup Falls Project’s minimum

flow outlet structure discharge (upper extent of the bypass reach);

o Mongaup River immediately upstream of the Mongaup Falls tailrace (lower extent of

the bypassed reach);

o Mongaup River immediately downstream of the Rio minimum flow powerhouse (upper

extent of the bypassed reach); and

o Mongaup River immediately upstream of the Rio Project’s tailrace (lower extent of the

bypassed reach).

Document and record stream flows within each Project-affected stream reach during the

study period on the same 15-minute interval that water quality data is collected.

Record ambient air temperature at each water quality monitoring location during the study

period.

Prepare a comprehensive water quality study report for each of the Projects’ affected stream

reaches that incorporates all existing water quality data collected pursuant to the current

license and USGS Gage Station No. 01433500, the new water quality data collected pursuant

Section 9 Water Quality Study Plan

54

to this study request, and considers the influence of ambient air temperature and stream flows

on water quality within the Project-affected stream reaches.

FERC (Reservoir Water Quality Study):

Using generally accepted practices in the scientific community, monitor water quality (e.g.,

water temperature and DO) within each of the Projects’ reservoirs from ice-off in the spring

until ice-on in the winter. Water quality data must be monitored at appropriate locations

within each reservoir and at 1-meter increments in depth from the reservoir surface to its

bottom. An additional monitoring location must be established at the Project intakes (depth

and location) within each reservoir. Data collected should be sufficiently robust to evaluate

and consider what, if any, short- and/or long-term (seasonal) influences Project operations

may have on reservoir water quality (e.g., thermocline depth, water temperature, etc.)

Prepare a comprehensive water quality study report for each of the Projects’ reservoirs that

incorporates the water quality data collected pursuant to this study request and as appropriate,

the in-situ water quality data collected pursuant to the aquatic habitat mapping study

discussed above.

USFWS:

Monitor water temperature and dissolved oxygen on a continuous basis for at least one full

year, along with monthly sampling of other parameters such as pH, turbidity, and

conductivity.

Collect water quality data, beyond the data currently collected below the Projects’

powerhouses, in the impoundments, the bypass reaches, and the areas upstream and

downstream from the Projects, as well as tributary streams that are sampled for the fisheries

study.


55

NYSDEC:

Monitor water temperature and dissolved oxygen on a continuous basis for at least one full

year, along with monthly sampling of other parameters such as pH, turbidity, and

conductivity.

Collect data in the impoundments, the bypass reaches, and the areas upstream and

downstream from the Projects.

Summarize data in a manner to allow for appropriate analysis of the current flow regime.

Explore and model the potential effectiveness of methods for mitigating water quality

problems.

HOOT

Provide data and an analysis of how the Toronto Reservoir’s ability to meet state water

quality criteria is affected by Project operations. If such data do not exist, conduct a water

quality study on which to base an analysis of the impact of Project operations on Toronto

Reservoir water quality.


The goals and objectives of this study are to monitor baseline water quality within the Projects’

streams and reservoirs to evaluate potential effects on water quality and determine compliance

with applicable state water quality standards.


The Mongaup River and Black Lake Creek, in the vicinity of the Project areas, are managed by

NYSDEC as a warmwater, coolwater, and coldwater fishery. Water quality is a critical

component of sustaining a viable and healthy fishery. Suitable water temperatures and DO

concentrations are required by aquatic organisms for subsistence and are, therefore, essential to

the integrity and sustainability of a healthy ecosystem. Baseline water quality data are needed to

allow for an accurate determination of potential Project effects and compliance with water

quality standards.


56

9.4 Public Interest


FERC

USFWS

NYSDEC

HOOT

TU

Iroquois Hunting & Fishing Club


Water quality in the Delaware River basin is good to excellent (NYSDEC 2002). Lightly

populated areas and large areas of forested land attribute to the general good water quality in the

area. The high-quality water resources of the basin support numerous recreational activities

(fishing, swimming, and boating).

Available water quality and macroinvertebrate data within the Projects are summarized in the

PAD and consist of information obtained from the following resources:

Eagle Creek Water Quality Monitoring – Eagle Creek has been collecting water temperature

and DO data downstream of the Swinging Bridge and Mongaup Falls powerhouses from

June through October since 2011. Typically measured DO concentrations downstream of the

Projects are well above state water quality standards and instantaneous measurements fall

below the 5.0 mg/l standard on a limited basis, which often has been associated with the

dislodging of water quality monitors and/or vegetation buildup on the monitoring device.

Eagle Creek continues to consult with NYSDEC and USFWS regarding DO levels associated

with the downstream reaches.

USGS Mongaup River Gage Station (Station No. 01433500) – The gage is located

immediately downstream of the confluence of the Rio bypass reach and the main powerhouse

tailrace. Daily DO, water temperature, specific conductance, pH, and flow data are collected

at this station. Measured DO concentrations at this location are typically well above state


57

water quality standards and instantaneous measurements fall below the 5.0 mg/l standard on

a limited basis.

Water Body Inventory/Priority Waterbodies List (WI/PWL) – NYSDEC conducted

assessments of water quality in New York State including the Swinging Bridge Reservoir

and sections of the Mongaup River within the Project areas.

Recreational uses in Swinging Bridge Reservoir were considered to be stressed due to

slightly elevated nutrient levels, algal growth, and decreased water clarity. The Swinging

Bridge Reservoir was included on the New York State 2002 Section 303(d) List of Impaired

Waters; however, it is no longer listed (NYSDEC 2016).

In 1987, macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted by the prior licensee in the Project areas.

In general, the macroinvertebrate communities were 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 caddisflies. Mayflies and stoneflies were

also well represented in the samples from the riverine reaches of Black Lake Creek and the

Mongaup River in the Projects. Macroinvertebrate sampling was also conducted by the

NYSDEC in the Mongaup River in 1999, but results were spurious and indeterminate due to

high flows. Previous sampling on the river has indicated non-impacted water quality

conditions (NYSDEC 2002).

In addition to the existing resources identified above, profile data were collected at the Projects’

reservoirs during the 1988 IFIM Study (Stetson-Harza 1988) and the 1992-1993 Entrainment

Study (LMS 1994). These studies are provided in Appendix D in this PSP. In July and

September 1987, temperature and DO profiles were collected in the Projects’ reservoirs (Stetson-

Harza 1988). The Toronto Reservoir was stratified with anoxic conditions observed during these

surveys. The Cliff Lake Reservoir was stratified and anoxic conditions were observed during the

July survey, and lower levels of DO were recorded near the bottom of the reservoir in

September. The Swinging Bridge Reservoir was also stratified and experienced anoxic

conditions. The Mongaup Falls Reservoir was well mixed and DO was present at all depths

during sampling. The Rio Reservoir was stratified in July, but not in September (Stetson-Harza

1988).


58

As part of the 1992-1993 fish entrainment study, a thorough, one-year DO and temperature

profile study was conducted in the Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls, and Rio Projects (LMS

1994). Water quality sampling occurred biweekly at the Projects, except from late November to

late March when sampling was conducted on a single day in January and February. During ice-

free periods, sampling was conducted 50 to 100 feet upstream from the intake. At the Swinging

Bridge Reservoir, profiles were taken at the intake of both units if only one of the units was

operating. If neither unit was operating, a profile was taken at the intake of Unit No. 1. If both

intakes were operating, sampling occurred approximately 1,500 feet north of both intakes. Due to

safety concerns during periods of ice-cover, profiles were collected from the intake gatehouse

structures immediately in front of the trashracks at the Mongaup Falls and Rio Projects and from

the bridge to the intake gate tower at Unit No. 1 (LMS 1994) at the Swinging Bridge

Development.

Results from this study showed that temperature stratification in the reservoirs occurred in early

to late May and preceded DO depression below the thermocline by up to one month (LMS

1994). By late June, thermal stratification was evident at all sites, which started to end by mid-

September and sites were essentially isothermal by mid-October to early November. DO levels

were generally above 5 milligrams per liter (mg/l) at the intake in the Mongaup Falls Reservoir

by mid-October, which occurred in late October to early November at the intakes in the Rio and

Swinging Bridge Reservoirs (LMS 1994).

9.6 Project Nexus

Operation of hydropower facilities can potentially alter stream flow, which may influence

downstream water quality (i.e., water temperature and DO).

9.7 Methodology

The proposed methodology for the water quality study will consist of four primary tasks:

Task 1 – Continuous Water Temperature and DO Monitoring

Task 2 – Routine Water Quality Monitoring

Task 3 – Reservoir Profile Data


59

Task 4 – Comparison of Historic and Current Water Quality Data

9.7.1 Continuous Water Temperature and DO Monitoring

Eagle Creek proposes to collect hourly water temperature and DO data from June 1 through

September 30 at the following locations:

1. One representative location within the Toronto Reservoir;

2. One location in the immediate vicinity and at the depth(s) of the Toronto gate(s);

3. Black Lake Creek at the discharge of the Toronto Reservoir;

4. Immediately upstream of the mouth of Black Lake Creek at Cliff Lake;

5. One representative location within the Cliff Lake Reservoir;

6. One location in the immediate vicinity and at the depth of the Cliff Lake sluice gate;

7. Black Lake Creek at the discharge of Cliff Lake;

8. One representative location within Swinging Bridge Reservoir;

9. One location in the immediate vicinity and at the depth of the Swinging Bridge intake

structure for Unit No. 2 powerhouse;

10. Mongaup River downstream of the Swinging Bridge Unit No. 2 powerhouse (i.e.,

continuation of the established monitoring location);

11. One representative location within Mongaup Falls Reservoir;

12. One location in the immediate vicinity and at the depth of the Mongaup Falls intake

structure;

13. Mongaup River immediately downstream of the Mongaup Falls Project’s minimum flow

outlet structure discharge (upper extent of the bypass reach);

14. Mongaup River downstream of the Mongaup Falls powerhouse (i.e., continuation of the

established monitoring location);

15. One representative location within Rio Reservoir;

16. One location in the immediate vicinity and at the depth of the Rio intake structure;

17. Mongaup River immediately downstream of the Rio minimum flow powerhouse (i.e.,

continuation of the established monitoring location); and

18. Mongaup River immediately downstream of the Rio main powerhouse (i.e., the

currently established monitoring location via use of the USGS gaging station).


60

Water quality loggers will be deployed at representative locations from June 1 through

September 30. Water quality equipment will be calibrated prior to deployment. Data will be

downloaded every 7 to 10 days throughout the monitoring period. Routine maintenance (i.e.,

cleaning loggers) will occur throughout the monitoring period, as necessary. Water quality

monitoring locations will be geo-referenced using GPS and will be selected with consideration of

worker safety (e.g., in front of intakes and near high flow velocity areas).

9.7.2 Routine Water Quality Monitoring

In-situ water quality data, including water temperature, DO, pH, and specific conductance, will

be collected at each of the continuous monitoring sites using a MS5 Hach Hydrolab® or

equivalent during water quality data download events. In addition, water quality data will also be

collected concurrent with the Fisheries Survey Study and Macroinvertebrate Study field

activities).

9.7.3 Reservoir Profile Data

Between June 1 and September 30, profile data (water temperature and DO) will be collected in

each of the five reservoirs at a single location upstream of the dam intakes/gates in safe locations

during the summer months (June 1 through September 30). Profile data will be collected every 7

to 10 days (concurrent with data download events at the continuous monitoring locations) at

approximately 1-meter intervals from the water surface to a depth two meters below the

elevation indicating anoxic conditions or the bottom or the reservoir, whichever is encountered

first.

9.7.4 Comparison with Historic Water Quality Data

Eagle Creek will compare the water quality data collected during this study with historic data

collected to date and in association with the original licenses to evaluate any change in

conditions since that time.


61


This study will be performed over the course of 4 months with data collection/downloads every

7-10 day by two field scientists. This study is estimated to cost approximately $200,000 to

complete.


This study will be conducted from June through September in 2018. A report summarizing the

study will be prepared and provided in the ISR to be distributed to the relicensing parties and

filed with the Commission in accordance with the Commission’s ILP Process Plan and Schedule.

The ISR will include details of the water quality data collected in support of this study. Data will

be presented in concise tables and graphs, where appropriate.



Stream Reach Water Quality Study

Eagle Creek is proposing to monitor DO and water temperature from June through

September as requested by FERC rather that throughout an entire year as requested by

USFWS and NYSDEC.

Eagle Creek is proposing to monitor DO and water temperature on an hourly basis, rather

than at 15-minutes intervals, as requested by FERC.

Eagle Creek is not proposing to model mitigative water quality measures at this time, as

requested by NYSDEC.

Eagle Creek believes the proposed monitoring in the dam tailraces/discharges and in the

upper extent of the Rio and Mongaup Falls bypassed reaches will provide sufficient data to

evaluate Project effects on water quality in the stream reaches. Therefore, Eagle Creek is

proposing to continuously monitor DO and water temperature at the locations requested by

FERC, with the exception of those listed below:

o Black Lake Creek immediately upstream of its confluence with the Mongaup River;

o Mongaup River immediately upstream of the Mongaup Falls Reservoir;


62

o Mongaup River immediately upstream of the Mongaup Falls tailrace (lower extent of

the bypassed reach); and

o Mongaup River immediately upstream of the Rio Project’s tailrace (lower extent of the

bypassed reach).

Eagle Creek is not proposing to collect field data for ambient air temperature, as requested by

FERC.

Reservoir Water Quality Study

Eagle Creek is adopting the requested reservoir water quality study as requested by FERC,

USFWS, and NYSDEC, with modification. Eagle Creek is proposing to collect reservoir

profile data at one location upstream of the intakes where practicable for each of the five

reservoirs during the summer months (June through September), as opposed to collecting

profile data from ice-off in the spring to ice-on in the winter at two locations in each

reservoir, as requested by FERC.

9.11 References

Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1994. 1992-1993 Entrainment Studies Mongaup

Hydroelectric Projects. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. June 1994.

144 pp.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2002. The 2001

Delaware River Basin Water Inventory and Priority Waterbodies List. Online [URL]:

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/pwldela02a.pdf (Accessed August 17, 2017).

_____. 2016. Proposed Final 2016 New York State Section 303(d) List. http://www.

dec.ny.gov/chemical/31290.html. Accessed on February 27, 2017

Stetson-Harza. 1988. Mongaup Basin Instream Flow Study. Final Report. Vol I. September.

63

Section 10

Macroinvertebrate and Mussel Survey Study Plan

10.1 Study Requests

The USFWS and NYSDEC formally requested a macroinvertebrate study. Specifics regarding

the requested study are provided below.

USFWS:

Conduct one year of macroinvertebrate community sampling, including freshwater mussels.

Collect data from the impoundments, the bypassed reaches, and areas upstream and

downstream from the Projects.

NYSDEC:

Information is needed regarding macroinvertebrate populations in the impoundment and

downstream of the dam and tailrace as well as the bypass reaches of the Mongaup Projects.

Conduct a critical evaluation (both qualitative and quantitative) of macroinvertebrate

communities in all instream habitats affected by the operation of the Mongaup River

Projects.

Sampling should be conducted seasonally and include the use of both shallow water and deep

water sampling gear.

Collections should be stratified by microhabitat (sediment size).

Macroinvertebrates should be identified to species.

Since any one sampling year may experience atypical environmental conditions, more than

one year of data collection is recommended to try to capture typical environmental conditions

and to establish current baseline conditions.


The goals and objectives of this study are to conduct a field survey to evaluate the

macroinvertebrate and mussel community within the Projects’ streams and reservoirs.

Section 10 Macroinvertebrate and Mussel Survey Study Plan

64


The Mongaup River and Black Lake Creek, in the vicinity of the Project areas, are managed by

NYSDEC as a warmwater, coolwater, and coldwater fishery. Benthic macroinvertebrates are a

critical component of the food web in sustaining a viable and healthy fishery. Macroinvertebrates

are also useful indicators of water quality. Baseline macroinvertebrate and mussel data are

needed to allow for an accurate determination of potential Project effects.

10.4 Public Interest


USFWS

NYSDEC



As part of the 1988 IFIM Study (provided in Appendix D of this PSP), macroinvertebrate

sampling was conducted by the prior Licensee in the Project areas. In general, the

macroinvertebrate communities were 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 caddisflies. Mayflies and stoneflies were also well represented

in the samples collected from the riverine reaches of Black Lake Creek and the Mongaup River

in the Project areas. In 1999, the NYSDEC also conducted macroinvertebrate sampling in the

Mongaup River and smaller tributaries from the mouth of the Rio Reservoir. Due to high flow

releases, results of the 1999 NYSDEC sampling were indeterminate. The NYSDEC lists this

reach as non-impacted but stressed, due to fluctuating water levels and temperatures (NYSDEC

2002). The NYSDEC also evaluated the Mongaup River and smaller streams and tributaries

between the Swinging Bridge Reservoir and the Rio Reservoir. This reach of the river was also

listed as a non-impacted reach but stressed, due to fluctuating water levels and temperature

(NYSDEC 2002).


65

Information regarding freshwater mussels in the Project areas appears 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).

10.6 Project Nexus

Hydroelectric dams alter flow, which may impact macroinvertebrate and mussel propagation and

survival.

10.7 Methodology

10.7.1 Macroinvertebrate Survey

Sample Collection

Aquatic macroinvertebrate communities will be evaluated using the NYSDEC’s, Standard

Operating Procedure: Biological Monitoring of Surface Waters in New York State (NYSDEC

2016). Sampling will occur in the reservoirs, the bypass reaches, and in an area downstream from

each Project. A Petite Ponar grab sampler will be used to collect quantitative samples at a single

site in each reservoir. Four replicates will be collected at each site, which will each be processed

separately. Contents of the sampler will be sieved in a bucket with a U.S. No. 30 standard sieve

and large debris will be discarded after careful inspection and removal of all organisms.

Semi-quantitative kick sampling will used in the wadeable flowing areas. Kick sampling will be

conducted in suitable riffle habitat and non-riffle habitat (i.e., run, pool) at one location in the

bypass reach below the Mongaup Falls Dam and Rio Dam and in a wadeable sample reach

downstream of each Project reservoir consisting of: 1) within Black Lake Creek downstream of

the Toronto Reservoir, 2) within Black Lake Creek downstream of the Cliff Lake Reservoir, 3)

within the Mongaup River downstream of the Swinging Bridge Reservoir (below the confluence

with Black Lake Creek), 4) within the Mongaup River downstream of the Mongaup Falls

Reservoir (below the confluence with Black Brook), and 5) within the Mongaup River below the

Rio Reservoir (below the confluence with the Rio powerhouse tailrace). Four replicates will be

collected at each site, each of which will be processed separately. Upon completion of each


66

replicate, the contents in the net will be emptied into a pan containing stream water, and large

debris will be discarded after careful inspection and removal of all organisms.

At each site, physical data (wetted width, depth, velocity, substrate type and size, embeddedness,

canopy cover, and water temperature) and water quality data will be collected.

Sample Sorting

In the laboratory, three of the four replicate samples will be processed separately. Ponar samples

will be drained through a U.S. No. 40 standard sieve. The sample will be transferred to a pan and

a small amount of the sample will be randomly removed with a spatula, placed in a petri dish,

and examined under a microscope.

Kick samples will be drained through a U.S. No. 60 sieve and placed in a gridded pan for

subsample removal. A subsample will be randomly removed from a grid section with a spatula,

placed in a petri dish, and examined under a microscope. All invertebrates that are larger than

1.5 millimeters (mm) will be removed, counted, and sorted into major taxonomic groups. Sorting

will continue until approximately 300 to 350 organisms have been removed for identification

within a complete subsample, or the entire sample has been processed. The total number of

subsamples sorted will be recorded and used to calculate density estimates. A rapid, 5-minute,

large-rare scan will be conducted on the remaining subsample after 350 organisms have been

removed to assure other taxa were not overlooked. For purposes of evaluating water quality, a

random 100 organisms from the riffle samples will be used to calculate the Biological

Assessment Profile (BAP), which is described further below.

Data Analysis

All organisms will be identified to the lowest practicable taxon. Data obtained from the 350-

organism replicate subsamples will be 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.


67

C. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera Taxa Richness (EPT 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.

F. Species Diversity - A value that combines species richness and community balance

(evenness). High species-diversity values are associated with diverse, well-balanced

communities.

Samples collected in riffle habitats will undergo further analysis, where 100 organisms will be

randomly selected via computer generation from each of the 350-organism replicate subsamples.

These data will be applied to indices A through D that are listed above. The average index value

will be calculated for each site and will be converted to a common water quality impact scale,

which ranges from 0 (severe impact) to 10 (non-impact). The mean score of the four family-level

indices or BAP will be calculated and used to indicate the overall level of water quality impact.

Typically, BAP scores increase with water quality.

10.7.2 Mussel Survey

A qualitative mussel survey will be conducted in representative habitats (e.g., pool, riffle, run) in

up to four representative areas downstream of the Projects’ reservoirs, which will include the

Projects’ bypass reaches. Depending on water depths and flow conditions, the surveys are

expected to consist of qualitative visual timed-searches using snorkel, view buckets, or wading

of shallow water areas. Starting from the downstream end of a transect or survey site, the visual

survey will consist of searching for freshwater mussels or shell material in a meandering or “zig-

zag” pattern, being sure to include representative habitats of the river reach between the

powerhouse and the downstream confluence. Shoreline areas will also be searched for evidence

of any shell material or middens. All mussels observed will be counted and identified to species

and carefully placed back into the same habitat. Basic habitat information such as substrate type


68

(e.g. gravel, cobble, boulder), water depth, habitat type (e.g., riffle, run, pool), cover type (e.g.

woody debris), stream width, and qualitative water velocity will be recorded. Data will be

recorded on field data sheets and mussel locations marked on field maps. Representative

photographs will be taken for each species as vouchers.


This study will occur in mid-summer of 2018 and will be completed over two weeks by four

field biologists with macroinvertebrate and mussel survey experience. This study is estimated to

cost approximately $115,000 to complete.


This study will be conducted mid-summer of 2018. A report summarizing the study findings will

be prepared and provided in the ISR to be distributed to the relicensing parties and filed with the

Commission in accordance with the Commission’s ILP Process Plan and Schedule. The ISR will

include details of the macroinvertebrate and mussel data collected in support of this study. Data

will be presented in concise tables and graphs, where appropriate.



NYSDEC requested two years of study. Eagle Creek is proposing to conduct a study

during a single field season and believes that given the flexibility to collect the samples

during appropriate flows during the season, an accurate representation of the

macroinvertebrate and mussel community will be identified in the Project areas.

USFWS requested macroinvertebrate and mussel surveys be performed in the

impoundments, the bypassed reaches, and areas upstream and downstream from the

Projects. Eagle Creek is proposing to collected data from the impoundments, the

bypassed reaches and areas downstream from the Projects, as Eagle Creek believes this

will provide an accurate representation of the macroinvertebrate and mussel community

potentially affected by the operations of the Projects.


69

10.11 References

NatureServe. 2017. Online [URL]: http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm. (Accessed August

18, 2017).

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 (Accessed August 18, 2017).

_____. 2016. Standard Operating Procedure: Biological Monitoring of Surface Waters in New

York State. April. [Online] URL: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/sbusop2016.pdf

(Accessed August 18, 2017).

http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/%20widelawmongaup.pdf

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/%20widelawmongaup.pdf

70

Section 11

Recreation Facility Inventory, Recreation Use and

Needs Assessment, and Reservoir Surface Area

Assessment Study Plan

11.1 Study Requests

FERC, NPS, NYSDEC, HOOT, and Swinging Bridge Property Owners Association formally

requested a recreation study be conducted that include a recreation facility inventory, a recreation

use and needs assessment, and a reservoir surface area assessment.

Specifics regarding the requested studies are provided below.

FERC:

Update existing data on recreation resources adjacent to and within the Projects through site

assessment and consultation with public and private recreation providers.

Update the inventory of informal and formal public and private waterfront recreational

sites/facilities within and adjacent to the Project boundaries. Identify all informal and formal

public and private recreational sites/facilities within the Project areas.

Develop and implement a site condition evaluation criterion of measurable and manageable

indicators for facilities and dispersed recreation area conditions. Site condition assessments

should be conducted at all formal and informal publicly accessible recreation sites. Eagle

Creek should also consult with the NYSDEC on the need of including other NYSDEC

recreational developments that serve the Projects into the site condition assessment.

The use and needs assessment should include all recreation activity types known to occur or

potentially occurring at the Projects. Specific methods should include visitor observations

and on-site visitor intercept surveys at formal and informal public recreation areas at the

Projects’ reservoirs and riverine areas, including the bypassed reach between the Rio Project

minimum flow powerhouse tailrace and the main powerhouse tailrace.

Recreation Facility Inventory, Recreation Use and Needs Assessment,

Section 11 and Reservoir Surface Area Assessment Study Plan

71

Specific methods for each sampling approach in the use and needs assessment:

o The visitor observations should capture information such as location, date, time,

weather, number of vehicles, watercraft (if any), number of recreation users or party

size, and recreation activity engaged in.

o The visitor survey sampling should be based on a stratified random sample that

includes all seasons, various locations, and various times of week and day to enable

representative responses from the visitors, while ensuring interview coverage during

key times.

o The survey instrument should include items that assess visitor perceptions of crowding,

recreational conflict, conflicts between the public and adjacent property owner(s),

welcoming public access, adequacy and placement of signage, adequacy of recreation

facilities and access to the Projects, and effects of Project operations and management

on recreation and recreation opportunities at the Projects.

In conjunction with the Whitewater Study, consult with stakeholder groups to develop a

whitewater boating-specific addendum to the survey instrument that would rate satisfaction

with the current whitewater boating flow release schedule, access facilities, and boating

information.

Quantify annual recreation use by activity type and season to include both formal and

informal publicly accessible recreation sites.

The needs assessment should also include a future demand estimate from both current use

and unmet demand based on guidance from Haas et al. (2007) based on (1) prior and current

Project use data; (2) state, regional, and national recreation trend data; and (3) population

growth data.

Quantify and map the relationship between reservoir surface area and reservoir levels for the

range of operation at each Project reservoir.

Identify potential measures to alleviate or reduce any negative effects of Project operations,

to enhance existing recreation opportunities, and (if appropriate) provide additional public

access at the Project reservoirs or riverine reaches.

Develop a Recreation Management Plan for the Projects.



72

NPS:

Conduct a recreation site inventory for all publicly accessible Project sites and informal sites

within the Project-affected area to document existing facilities and resources.

Amenities at each site will be recorded along with digital photos and GPS points.

Formal and informal river access sites will be visually assessed and photographed to record

any opportunities or challenges for craft or anglers.

The inventory should cover all four seasons.

The study should review land ownership (including the applicants) surrounding the Project

area and investigate shoreline slope conditions (e.g., steepness, length) for alternative public

access options.

Assess the inventory information in conjunction with a visitor intercept survey.

Conduct a use and needs assessment to document recreation activity types known to occur or

potentially occurring at in the Project- affected area.

Collect existing recreational visitor use data through existing public use (traffic counters,

spot counts, and visitor intercept interviews).

Collect potential recreational visitor use data through questionnaire.

Future use estimates should be calculated by assessing future demand for recreation activities

and population trends for the expected term of the new license. Growth in recreation

activities and recreation use projections for the anticipated growth in recreational use through

2060 should be developed using Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National

Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends (Cordell et al., 1999), and Outdoor Recreation

Participation in the United States – Projections to 2060 (Bowker et al., 2012).

NYSDEC:

Study should provide information on the existing public access facilities in the vicinity of the

Mongaup River Projects (within 1 mile upstream and downstream of the Projects' boundary,

including the potential to create additional public access where feasible and the current

condition of the existing public access facilities and the need for improvements, especially

upgrades that would be necessary.



73

An evaluation of alternatives for improving access to Cliff Lake and identify any potential

impacts that the increased use of Cliff Lake may have on the fishery or nesting eagles.

Expansion of stream access below all the Projects should be looked at, including additional

parking, foot trails, and the potential for permanent easement with NYSDEC for Public

Fishing Rights should be explored on all properties not owned by NYSDEC.

HOOT:

The Licensee should conduct a Toronto Reservoir Recreation Needs and Impacts Study that

evaluates Toronto Reservoir elevation fluctuations on recreation use at the reservoir,

estimates the future recreation demand for Toronto Reservoir, evaluates the adequacy of

existing recreation facilities, and studies the potential for developing new recreation

facilities.

Develop a Recreation Plan for Toronto Reservoir.

The study should estimate likely recreation use if Toronto Reservoir water level were

maintained at 1,218 msl, plus or minus 2 feet, during the recreation season, and at 1,215 msl,

plus or minus 5 feet, year-round, and should compare that estimated use against current

recreational capacity at the reservoir.

Swinging Bridge Property Owners Association:

The flow/recreational use study should examine the impact of the current minimum flow

releases on water levels in the Swinging Bridge Reservoir and, if such minimum flow

releases currently do not maintain adequate levels, whether they can be lowered to raise

water levels during drought periods.

Obtain information on changes and increases in recreational usage of the Swinging Bridge

Reservoir by lakeshore residents and others outside the immediate area.

Obtain information on changes to recreational usage of the Mongaup River.

Obtain information on whether current minimum flow releases have maintained adequate

water levels in the Swinging Bridge Reservoir for recreational purposes in all years since the

initial license were issued for the months April through October.



74

Obtain information on sediment deposits on bottom of Swinging Bridge Reservoir to

determine if current minimum water levels still support recreational uses.

Obtain information on whether minimum flow levels could be reduced without materially

impacting recreational usage of Mongaup River.


The goal of this study is to complete a baseline inventory of the existing recreation facilities at

the Projects and to compile data on the existing recreation use, access, and demand at the

Projects.

The specific objectives of this study are as follows:

Obtain information about the condition of existing recreation facilities and access sites at the

Projects (including the non-Project NYSDEC sites listed in Table 11-1 and shown on Figures

11-1, 11-2, and 11-3).

Obtain information on the existing recreation use, access, and demand at the Projects.

Conduct an assessment of the need to enhance recreation opportunities and access at the

Projects.

Quantify and map the relationship between reservoir surface area and reservoir levels

(obtained from the operations model discussed in Section 5).

Use the information obtained during the study to inform the development of a Recreation

Management Plan to be submitted with the Draft and/or Final License Application.


Recreation has been identified as a Project purpose by the Commission. Identifying effects of

Project operation pertaining to recreation is relevant to the Commission’s public interest

determination in issuing new licenses for the continued operation of the Projects.



75



FERC

NPS

NYSDEC

Swinging Bridge Property Owners Association

HOOT

TU

Iroquois Hunting & Fishing Club

Town of Bethel, NY

Town of Thompson, NY



The formal and informal recreation sites associated with the Projects are listed in Table 11-1 and

shown on Figures 11-1, 11-2, and 11-3. Recreation use at the Projects includes boating,

picnicking, fishing, canoeing, kayaking, sightseeing, hiking, wildlife viewing, and walking.

TABLE 11-1

MONGAUP RIVER PROJECTS FORMAL AND INFORMAL RECREATION SITES

Swinging Bridge Project

Swinging Bridge North Public Access

Swinging Bridge Reservoir Trail (Swinging Bridge Peninsula 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)

Cliff Lake Trail

Cliff Lake Parking Lot

Cliff Lake Public Access Site

Mongaup Falls Project

County Route 43/Forestburgh Road Boat Launch

Mongaup Eagle Viewing Station



76

Black Brook and Mongaup River Public Access Area

Mongaup River Access Area4

Rio Project

Rio Boat Launch

Rio Eagle Viewing Station

Shoreline Fishing Access (western shoreline of Mongaup River

downstream of the Rio Reservoir)

Shoreline Fishing Access (western shoreline of Mongaup River

downstream of the Rio Reservoir)

Rio Carry-In Boat Launch and Shoreline Fishing Access

Rio Hand Boat Launch

Whitewater Boating Access

Shoreline Fishing Access (adjacent to Whitewater Boating Access)

FERC regulations require that Eagle Creek file a FERC Form 80 report for the Projects every six

years. This form provides data on recreational facilities located within the Projectsʼ boundary

and recreational use of those facilities for the calendar year prior to the filing year. The most

recent Form 80s for the Projects were filed in 2015.

The 2015 FERC Form 80 indicated that the daytime use at the Swinging Bridge Development

facilities was 4,011 recreation days and that peak weekend use averaged 140 recreation days

(FERC 2015a). FERC defines a recreation day as the number of visits to a recreational facility by

a person during a 24-hour period. The 2015 FERC Form 80 indicated that the daytime use at the

Toronto Development facilities was 2,792 recreation days and that peak weekend use averaged

124 recreation days (FERC 2015b). The 2015 FERC Form 80 indicated that the daytime use at

the Cliff Lake Development facilities was 233 recreation days and that peak weekend use

averaged 5 recreation days (FERC 2015c). Swinging Bridge Development facilities and Cliff

Lake Development facilities were used at 5 percent and 3 percent of their designed capacity,

respectively, while Toronto Development facilities were used at 42 percent of their designed

capacity.

4 In addition to the Project recreation areas described in the PAD, Eagle Creek submitted comments on SD1 that

included a recreation area associated with the Mongaup Falls Project, which was inadvertently not included in the

PAD. The additional recreation area is the Mongaup River Access Area, which is located approximately 250 feet

downstream of the Mongaup Falls powerhouse. The site provides access to the Mongaup River for anglers and

parking for approximately five cars. The site is accessed from Plank Road in the town of Forestburgh, NY, and is

shown on Figure 11-2.



77

The 2015 FERC Form 80 indicated that the daytime use at the Mongaup Falls Project facilities

was 901 recreation days and that peak weekend use averaged 49 recreation days (FERC 2015d).

Mongaup Falls Project facilities were used at 18 percent of designed capacity.

The 2015 FERC Form 80 indicated that the daytime use at the Rio Project facilities was 3,926

recreation days and that peak weekend use averaged 139 recreation days (FERC 2015e). Rio

facilities were used at 10-25 percent of designed capacity.

11.6 Project Nexus

FERC regulations require that the license application include a statement of the existing

recreation measures or facilities to be continued or maintained and the new measures or facilities

proposed by the applicant for the purpose of creating, preserving, or enhancing recreational

opportunities at the Projects and in their vicinities and for the purpose of ensuring the safety of

the public in its use of Project lands and waters. In addition, recreation is a recognized Project

purpose at FERC-licensed projects under section 10(a) of the Federal Power Act.

11.7 Methodology

11.7.1 Conduct a Recreation Facility Inventory

Eagle Creek will update existing data on recreation resources adjacent to and within the Projects

through site assessment and consultation with public and private recreation providers.

For the site assessment, Eagle Creek has developed a standardized site inventory form (see

Figure 11-4) to evaluate each formal and informal recreation site listed in Table 11-1 and shown

on Figures 11-1, 11-2, and 11-3, which will be used to determine the general condition of the

facilities and available amenities. The inventory will be conducted once and information

collected will include information on access to the recreation site; the owner and manager for

each site; the number and types of facilities and amenities, including identifying ADA-related

amenities at formal recreation sites; amount of available parking; observed activities; available

services; and the general aesthetics of the site. Photos of the recreation sites will be taken and a

GPS datapoint will be recorded while in the field for each facility at the recreation area, which

will be entered into a GIS format.



78

With respect to privately-owned recreation sites within and abutting the Project reservoirs, such

as marinas, Eagle Creek will conduct background research to identify these sites and will consult

with their owners to obtain information on the site’s available amenities and services, as well as

hours of operation. Photos of these sites will be taken and a GPS datapoint will be recorded

while in the field, which will be entered into a GIS format.

11.7.2 Recreation Use and Needs Assessment

Eagle Creek will conduct a recreation use and needs assessment for the Projects using a

combination of methods – spot counts, visitor intercept surveys, and actual use numbers for

recreation sites where use numbers are collected. The field work for this study will be conducted

between the months of April 2018 through October 2018.

Spot Counts

Spot counts will be conducted at each formal and informal recreation site listed in Table 11-1

and shown on Figures 11-1, 11-2, and 11-3. Spot counts are short duration counts which will be

utilized as a snapshot of use at each survey location. Individuals conducting the count will collect

data immediately upon arriving at the survey location. Once the spot count is completed,

individuals conducting the count will administer a user survey as described below. Surveys will

be administered for approximately two hours at each survey location.

Spot counts will be conducted at each survey location on two weekdays and two weekend days a

month and on one day of the following holiday weekends between April and October: Memorial

Day, Independence Day (weekend closest to July 4th

), Labor Day, and Columbus Day, and on the

opening day of trout season (typically April 1). The number of vehicles parked at each site and

any observed recreation use will be recorded on data forms to determine the time-of-day use

patterns at the sites. The number of vehicles parked will be factored into the recreation use

estimates based on the occupancy rates obtained from the user survey. The spot count data will

be a component in the development of the overall use levels. On the basis of this schedule, a total

of 37 spot counts will be conducted at each of the formal and informal recreation sites listed in

Table 11-1 and shown on Figures 11-1, 11-2, and 11-3.



79

Consistent with standard sampling techniques, all sampling days will be randomly selected and

survey routes will be completed on a rotating basis and at different times of day to account for

time-of-use patterns and to eliminate sampling bias.

User Contact Survey

A proposed user contact survey has been developed (see Figure 11-5) to determine users’

perceptions with respect to their recreation use of the formal and informal recreation sites listed

in Table 11-1 and shown on Figures 11-1, 11-2, and 11-3. Among other things, the survey will

ask recreationists to identify the recreational activities they are participating in at the Project that

day, and the user’s zip code to determine how far users travel to visit the Project for recreational

purposes. This information will also be used to determine length of stay, number of people in a

party, and the opinion of the user with regard to the amount and types of recreation opportunities

offered at the Projects. The survey will be administered during the spot count site visits to the

formal and informal recreation sites listed in Table 11-1 and shown on Figures 11-1, 11-2, and

11-3.

Actual Use Records

Actual use records to the extent they are readily available for the Whitewater Boating Access

Area and any of the sites managed by the NYSDEC will be utilized as an additional method of

determining the level of use.

11.7.3 Quantification of the Relationship between Reservoir Surface Area and

Reservoir Levels

As discussed in Section 5, an operations model will be developed that can be used to predict

reservoir elevations for each of the reservoirs of the Mongaup River Projects under various

operation constraints (e.g., minimum flow, reservoir level, etc.). The operations model will be

used to quantify and map the relationship between reservoir surface area and reservoir levels for

the range of operation at each Project reservoir.



80

11.7.4 Report

A report summarizing the results of the recreation facilities inventory and the recreation use and

needs assessment will be prepared. The report will include a description of each area which

includes the available amenities and coordinates of those amenities, ownership and management,

general condition, and a representative photo. Maps of the recreation areas will also be included.

Spot counts and actual use data will be analyzed by a statistician to determine the amount of use

occurring at the Projects and to Project future recreational use over the term of a new license.

Recreation use data will be summarized by season and activity type for each area surveyed.

Future recreation demand at the Projects will be estimated by analyzing prior and current Project

use data; trend data from state, regional, and national resources, as applicable; and population

growth data, as applicable. The report will also analyze survey responses with respect to

respondents’ perceptions of crowding, recreational conflict, welcoming public access, signage,

adequacy of recreational facilities and access, and effects of Project operation.

Site inventory forms, spot count forms, and survey responses will be included in an appendix to

the report.




Field work will occur from April 2018 through October 2018. A report containing the results of

the recreation facility inventory and recreation use and needs assessment will be prepared and


accordance with the Commission’s ILP Process Plan and Schedule.


Deviations from the requested studies consist of the following.

FERC requested that the survey instrument include a whitewater-specific boating addendum

to rate satisfaction with the current whitewater boating flow release schedule, access



81

facilities, and boating information. The survey instrument in Figure 11-5 does not include a

whitewater boating-specific addendum because a separate whitewater-specific survey

instrument will be used as part of the Whitewater Boating Assessment (see Section 12 of the

PSP).

FERC requested that the use and needs assessment should include all recreation activity

types known to occur or potentially occurring at the Projects. Due to the minimal amount of

winter recreation use of the Projects, the spot counts and surveys will not be conducted

during the months of November – February. In June 2016, Eagle Creek filed with the

Commission the results of a winter monitoring study of the Toronto East Access Area, one of

the more heavily used of the recreation sites associated with the Projects (Eagle Creek 2013).

In that filing, Eagle Creek proposed that it would not provide a ranger to monitor the site

during the winter months. In an order dated March 13, 2014, the Commission approved with

one exception Eagle Creek’s proposal for operation of the Toronto East Access Area (FERC

2014). That exception did not relate to the proposal to forego monitoring of the site during

the winter months.

NPS requested that the Licensee collect data on potential (future) recreational visitors

through a mailed or online questionnaire. The Licensee is not proposing to survey potential

i.e., non-users, of the Projects because there could be a number of reasons why people do no

utilize the Projects, many of which are unrelated to recreation or the Projects. FERC has

rejected requests to survey potential recreational visitors in other relicensing proceedings

(e.g., FERC 2015; FERC 2013).

NPS requested that the recreation site inventory cover all four seasons. The recreation facility

inventory would be conducted once during the study period, because this is standard practice

and allows sufficient information to be gathered as to the condition of a recreation site.

FERC and HOOT requested that a Recreation Management Plan be developed as part of the

study. A Recreation Management Plan will be developed after completion of the study. The

results of this study would inform the development of a Recreation Management Plan that

would be submitted with the Draft and/or Final License Application.

NYSDEC requested an evaluation of alternatives for improving access to Cliff Lake

Reservoir and expansion of stream access below all the Projects. NPS requested that the

study should review land ownership (including the applicants) surrounding the Project area



82

and investigate shoreline slope conditions (e.g., steepness, length) for alternative public

access options. HOOT requested that the study examine the potential for developing new

recreation facilities. Evaluation of additional alternative or enhanced recreational access or

facilities are not included in this study plan because it would be premature at this time. Such

an evaluation would be considered during the development of the Recreation Management

Plan if the study determines that there is a need.

11.11 References

Bowker et al. 2012. Outdoor Recreation Participation in the United States - Projections to 2060:

A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech.

Rep. SRS-160. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern

Research Station.

Cordell et al. 1999. Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and

Supply Trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Eagle Creek Renewable Energy. 2013. Final Toronto East Access Area Recreation Report for

Swinging Bridge Hydroelectric Project (No. 10482).

_____. 2017. Pre-Application Document for Swinging Bridge Hydroelectric Project (No. 10482),

Mongaup Falls Hydroelectric Project (No. 10481), and Rio Hydroelectric Project (No.

9690). Volume I of III. March 2017.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2013. Study Plan Determination for the

Turners Falls Hydroelectric Project and the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage

Project. Issued on September 13, 2013.

_____. 2014. Order Modifying And Approving In Part Amendments To Article 405. Issued on

March 13, 2014.

_____. 2015. Study Plan Determination for the Blenheim-Gilboa Pumped Storage Project (No.

2685). Issued on February 19, 2015.



83

_____. 2015a. Swinging Bridge Facilities FERC Form 80 (FERC No. 10482). Accession No.:

20150518-5299. Issued on May 18, 2015.

_____. 2015b. Toronto Facilities FERC Form 80 (FERC No. 10482). Accession No.: 20150518-

5297. Issued on May 18, 2015.

_____. 2015c. Cliff Lake Facilities FERC Form 80 (FERC No. 10482). Accession No.:

20150519-5035. Issued on May 19, 2015.

_____. 2015d. Mongaup Falls FERC Form 80 (FERC No. 10481). Accession No.: 20150518-

5251. Issued on May, 18, 2015.

_____. 2015e. Rio FERC Form 80 (FERC No. 9690). Accession No.: 20150518-5304. Issued on

May 15, 2015.

Haas, et al. 2007. Estimating Future Recreation Demand: A Decision Guide for the Practitioner.

US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.



84

FIGURE 11-1. SWINGING BRIDGE PROJECT RECREATIONAL FACILITIES



85

FIGURE 11-2. MONGAUP FALLS PROJECT RECREATIONAL FACILITIES



86

FIGURE 11-3. RIO PROJECT RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

87

FIGURE 11-4. DRAFT SITE INVENTORY FORM

Inspector:_____________________ Date: ____________ Time: ___________ Photo No: __________

Project: ______________ Reservoir: ________________ Site Name/Code: ______________________

Owner: _______________________________________ GPS Coordinates: ______________________

Weather: _________________

Recreation Amenity Type: Boat Launch

Marina

Portage

Tailwater Fishing

Reservoir Fishing

Swim Area

Trails

Active Recreation Area

Picnic Area

Overlook/Vista

Interpretive Display

Hunting Area

Informal Use Area

Access Point

Access:

_____ Water access

_____ Paved access ______ # of lanes

_____ Unpaved access (conventional motor vehicle) ______ # of lanes

_____ Unpaved access (4WD vehicle) ______ # of lanes

_____ ORV access (ATV) ______ width

_____ Foot access ______ width

Ownership/Management

Licensee Federal State County Local Private Other

Ownership _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ______________

Management _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ______________

Operations:

Staffed ____ Commercial_____ Fee_____ Open to public?______________

Operating Schedule: __________________________________________________

General Area:

Is the area associated with other facilities or activities?______________________________

General Topography: __________________________ Erosion/Soils: _________________________

Compaction: _________________________ Approximate Shoreline Footage: ___________

Bank Fishing (Yes/No):_______________

Sanitation Facilities: (Yes/No)

# of Units # of Units

Type: Unisex Women Men ADA Accommodations

Flush ______ ________ ________ ________________________

Composting ______ ________ ________ ________________________

Vault ______ ________ ________ ________________________

Pit ______ ________ ________ ________________________

Portable ______ ________ ________ ________________________

Wilderness ______ ________ ________ ________________________

88

Site Facilities:

# Type Condition GPS ADA Accommodations

(Good, Coordinates

Adequate,

Poor)

_____ Picnic Tables ________ _______ ______________________________

_____ Grills ________ _______ ______________________________

_____ Firepit/ring ________ _______ ______________________________

_____ Trails (specify

use and length) ________ _______ ______________________________

_____ Shelter ________ _______ ______________________________

_____ Potable Water ________ _______ ______________________________

_____ Boat Ramp ________ _______ ______________________________

_____ Launching Lanes ________ _______ ______________________________

_____ Playground ________ _______ ______________________________

_____ Benches ________ _______ ______________________________

_____ Interpretive. Displays: ________ _______ ______________________________

_____ Part 8 Sign ________ _______ ______________________________

_____ Other: _________ ________ _______ ______________________________

_____ Other: _________ ________ _______ ______________________________

_____ Other: _________ ________ _______ ______________________________

_____ Other: _________ ________ _______ ______________________________

_____ Other: _________ ________ _______ ______________________________

Activities occurring: # of Adults # of Minors Total # of users

Picnicking _________ _________ _____________

Camping _________ _________ _____________

Walking/hiking _________ _________ _____________

Swimming _________ _________ _____________

Beach Activities _________ _________ _____________

Launching boats _________ _________ _____________

Fishing _________ _________ _____________

Hunting _________ _________ _____________

________________ _________ _________ _____________

Parking Areas: Surface Code Dimensions

# ADA spaces _________ _________ _________

# Regular spaces _________ _________ _________

# Vehicle & trailer spaces _________ _________ _________

# of vehicles parked _________ Space delineated_________ Curbs_________

Boat Launch Facilities:

Hard surface _____ Gravel _____ Unimproved _____ Carry In __________

Docks/Piers/Floats Total Docks____________ Total Slips _____________

Material code: #1______ #2______ #3______ #4______ #5______

Dimensions: #1______ #2______ #3______ #4______ #5______

# of slips: #1______ #2______ #3______ #4______ #5______

ADA accommodations: #1______ #2______ #3______ #4______ #5______

89

Site Aesthetics:

Viewshed from site: __________ Viewshed from shoreline: ____________

1 – No noticeable development

2 – Very limited primitive development

3 – Five (5) or less buildings in view

4 – Six (6) to ten (10) buildings in view

5 – Ten (10) or more buildings in view

6 – Highly developed

Nature of abutting development/land use: ________________________________________

Evidence of use at site: _____________________________

*(C) Compaction, (E) Erosion, (G) Garbage, (GD) Ground disturbance, (HW) Human waste, (UI) Unauthorized improvements,

(V) Vandalism, (VR) Vegetation removal, (O) Other (Specify)

Evidence of Overcrowding: _________________________ *(A) Anecdotal information, (FA) facility/amenity @ capacity, (I) Improper parking, (S) Signage, (SD) site degradation, (U)

Unauthorized sites, (W) Waiting lines, (O) Other (Specify)

Notes: ________________________________________________________________________

90

Sketch:

91

FIGURE 11-5. DRAFT RECREATION USER SURVEY

Interviewer: ___________ Date/Time: _______________ Location: ______________

Weather: ______________ Air Temp: __________Declined Survey: ____________

To be determined Post Survey: Pond Elevation: ________ Flow (cfs): _______________

Good Afternoon. My name is _____ and I am conducting a recreation use survey of visitors to the

Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls, and Rio Hydroelectric Projects (collectively the Mongaup River

Projects) for Eagle Creek. Collected information will assist Eagle Creek in understanding more about land

and water based recreation in this area of the Mongaup River. Responses from the survey will remain

anonymous. Would you mind answering a few questions?

1. Have you participated in this survey effort before?

Yes_____ Thank you for your time. We are only interviewing each person once with this survey.

No_____ Continue with Survey

2. What is your age? _______________ Gender: _______________________

3. How many in your group, including yourself? _________________

4. Which of the following best describes your group? (Check One)

Alone

Family

Friends

Multiple Families

Family & Friends

Organized Outing Group

Educational Group

Other_______

5. How many vehicles did your group use to come here? ____________

6. How many people were in each vehicle? ____________

7. Have you ever visited the Mongaup River Projects area before? Yes__ No__

a. If yes, typically, how many times a year do you visit the Project area for recreation? _____

b. If yes, which Mongaup River Project recreation sites or facilities have you visited

previously?(list) ____________________________________________________________

c. What is your Zip Code? __________ or Town of Residency?_________

8. When did you arrive and plan to depart?

Arrived: Date: ________ Time: ______ AM PM

Estimated Depart: Date: ________ Time: ______ AM PM

92

9. During your visit today what is your perception of the amount of use occurring at this site?

1 2 3 4 5

Not Crowded Somewhat Crowded Extremely Crowded

10. What is your perception of the amount of recreational conflicts that are occurring or has

occurred at this site?

1 2 3 4 5

No conflicts Moderate Amount

of Conflicts

Extreme Amount of

Conflicts

If you have experienced recreational conflict at this site, describe the conflict (e.g., recreational uses

taking place at the site that are not compatible with each other, access to the site has been blocked,

conflict with adjacent property owners, etc.).

11. Please indicate which of the following activities you participate or have participated in at the

Mongaup River Projects by season in the past five years. (Mark all that apply)

Activity Which

Project?

Which

Reservoir?

This

Trip

Spring

(Mar. 1 –

May 31)

Summer

(June 1 –

Aug. 31)

Fall

(Sept. 1 –-

Oct. 31

Backpacking

Birding

Camping

Canoeing

Dog Walking

Driving for Pleasure

Educational

Programs

Fishing from a Boat

Fishing from Shore

Hiking

Horseback Riding

Hunting

93

Activity Which

Project?

Which

Reservoir?

This

Trip

Spring

(Mar. 1 –

May 31)

Summer

(June 1 –

Aug. 31)

Fall

(Sept. 1 –-

Oct. 31

Kayaking

Mountain Biking

Multi-day Float Trip

Nature Observation

Orienteering

Other:___________

Paddle Boarding

Photography

Picnicking

Power Boating

Riding Jet Skis

Road Bicycling

Rock Climbing

Rowing

Running

Sailing

Sightseeing

Sunbathing

Swimming

Tubing

Walking

Waterskiing

Whitewater Boating

12. Of the activities listed above, which is your PRIMARY activity on this trip? _________________

94

13. Did you experience water level fluctuations today? Yes ___________ No __________

If yes, please circle one: Rising Water Stable Water Dropping Water Don’t Know

14. Overall, how satisfied were you with the reservoir/river water level during your trip? (circle number)

1 2 3 4 5

Not Satisfied at

all

Slightly Satisfied Satisfied Moderately

Satisfied

Extremely

Satisfied

If less than satisfied could you explain why?____________________________________

15. Overall, how satisfied were you with the available number of recreation facilities? (circle number)

1 2 3 4 5

Not Satisfied at

all

Slightly Satisfied Satisfied Moderately

Satisfied

Extremely

Satisfied

If less than satisfied could you explain why?____________________________________

16. Please rate the following amenities at this location

Please explain any poor ratings. ______________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

17. How would you rate this recreation site as a public recreation opportunity on a scale of 1 to 5?

1 2 3 4 5

No Value At All Some Value High Value

Poor Fair Excellent

Parking 1 2 3 4 5

Facility Condition 1 2 3 4 5

Variety of Amenities 1 2 3 4 5

Toilets/Restrooms 1 2 3 4 5

River Access 1 2 3 4 5

Reservoir Access 1 2 3 4 5

Overall Quality 1 2 3 4 5

95

18. Would you return to this recreation site over the course of the next year? Yes____ No_____

19. What did you like most about your recreational experience today? __________________________

20. What did you like least about your recreational experience today?__________________________

21. What, if anything, enhanced your recreation experience today? _______________________________

22. What, if anything, detracted from your recreation experience today? If you check any of the below,

please explain. _________________

Facility location ___ Facility condition ___ Lack of amenities ___ Accessibility ___

Trash/Sanitation ___ Debris on the Water ___ Crowding ___ Noise ___ Other _________________

23. What, if anything, caused you to modify your recreation plans today? _________________________

24. Does this recreation site/facility serve your interests? Yes____ No_____

If not why?_______________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

25. Are you aware of any scenic views that are important or of value to the Project area?

Yes___ No_____

If yes, describe and identify the location of the scenic view. __________________________

26. Do you have any additional comments regarding recreation opportunities or scenic views in this area

of the Mongaup River?

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your time and input.

96

Section 12

Whitewater Boating Assessment Study Plan

12.1 Study Requests

FERC and AW/AMC/Kayak and Canoe Club of New York formally requested that a whitewater

boating assessment be conducted at the Rio Project using appropriate research and survey

methods. Specifics regarding the requested study are provided below.

FERC:

Evaluate the adequacy and appropriateness of the current whitewater boating opportunities at

the Project, including flow releases and access facilities.

Assess whitewater boating opportunities in the bypassed reach between the Rio Project

minimum flow powerhouse tailrace and the main powerhouse tailrace.

Identify potential measures to enhance whitewater boating opportunities.

Include consultation with stakeholder groups to develop a whitewater boating-specific

addendum to the recreation use/user survey instrument that would rate satisfaction with the

current whitewater boating flow release schedule, access facilities, and boating information.

The study report should include an assessment of opportunities to modify or enhance the

current whitewater flow release schedule, boater access facilities, and/or boating information.

AW/AMC/Kayak and Canoe Club of New York:

Conduct a whitewater flow study for the Rio Project that assesses the presence, quality,

access needs, flow information needs, and preferred flow ranges for river-based boating

resources in a stepwise manner, including quantitative and qualitative descriptions of:

o The effects of a range of optimal and acceptable flows on whitewater recreation

opportunities for whitewater paddling in the natural river channel, including the

bypassed reach, from the Rio Dam to the confluence of the Mongaup River with the

Delaware River;

o The frequency, timing, duration, and predictability of optimal and acceptable paddling

flows under current, proposed, and alternative modes of operation;

Section 12 Whitewater Boating Assessment Study Plan

97

o The need for and definition of adequate put-in and take-out points that promote car-top

boating, and also identify the needs for parking areas;

o The location, challenge, and other recreational attributes associated with specific

rapids and other river features;

o The access needs of whitewater boating use and the current and potential river access

options for whitewater and other paddling; and

o The flow information needs of whitewater boating and the current and potential flow

information distribution system.


The goals and objectives of the whitewater study are to evaluate whitewater boating

opportunities at the Rio Project.


Recreation has been identified as Project purpose by the Commission. Identifying effects of

Project operation pertaining to recreation is relevant to the Commission’s public interest

determination in issuing a new license for the continued operation of the Projects.



FERC

NPS

AW/AMC/Kayak and Canoe Club of New York

Additional individuals


The Rio Project is the lowermost of the Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects. At the Rio

Project, flows from the Mongaup River are diverted through the penstock to the powerhouse,

creating an approximately 1.5 mile long bypass reach. The current license requires a minimum

flow in the bypass reach of 100 cfs, which is produced through a minimum flow turbine located


98

near the base of the Rio Dam and/or 3-foot-diameter outlet pipe. From the base of the Rio Dam

at an elevation of approximately 714 feet to the bottom of the tailrace at an elevation of 630 feet,

the bypassed reach drops approximately 84 feet over 1.5 miles, or approximately 56 feet per

mile. This gradient is similar to the gradient of the river between the Rio powerhouse and the

Delaware River, which is a 3-mile reach that boaters use during scheduled whitewater releases.

The Rio Project is operated as a peaking facility. At the Rio powerhouse, the Licensee generates

electricity using one or two turbines typically releasing either 435 cfs or 870 cfs into the tailrace,

resulting in flows into the lower Mongaup River of either 535 cfs or 970 cfs when combined

with the 100 cfs minimum flow in the bypassed reach. In addition, Articles 401 and 408 of the

current FERC license for the Rio Project require the provision of 1 unit (435 cfs) or 2 unit (870

cfs) whitewater releases from the Rio powerhouse on alternating weekend days on every other

weekend between April 15 and October 31. A schedule of whitewater releases for the Rio Project

is published by the Licensee annually and is available on their website.

The Mongaup River downstream of the Rio powerhouse off of Powerhouse Road is a popular

area for recreational whitewater boating. The whitewater access area facilities below Rio

powerhouse include a parking area for approximately 10 vehicles, bulletin board, kayak kiosk,

and sign-in book. A carry-in boat launch is managed by the Licensee in association with the

downstream whitewater boating access. These facilities are available to the public daily, year

round.

The Mongaup River reach from Rio powerhouse to the Delaware River is a run of approximately

3 miles in length. Boating conditions are described as relatively continuous Class II and easy

Class III rapids down to the Delaware River (AW 2017). In general terms, while the gradient is

fairly consistent on this reach, the rapids on the second half of the reach (below the lunch spot)

are more sustained than on the upper portion (AW 2017). There are rapids under the Route 97

Bridge which may be the most difficult on the river, and there is a notable wave train at the

confluence with the Delaware (AW 2017).

During the previous FERC licensing of the Rio Project, in 1989 FERC requested the Licensee to

conduct a study of the potential for whitewater boating on the Mongaup River below the Rio

powerhouse. The study examined both the level of difficulty of the rapids, as measured on the

international scale of difficulty, and the appropriate stream flow that would be needed to support


99

whitewater boating. The study was conducted by the licensee in 1990 in cooperation with the

USFWS, NPS, NYSDEC, AWA, and KCCNY. Twice in the spring of 1990, the prior licensee

conducted two experimental whitewater boating releases, one that tested a single turbine release

and a second that tested a two-turbine release. Eighteen whitewater paddlers boated the lower

Mongaup River (below the Rio powerhouse) and completed a questionnaire on their experience.

The results of the study indicated that both a one-turbine and two-turbine flow release created

whitewater boating opportunities. A one-turbine flow release was found to create a Class II+

boating experience, while a two-turbine release was found to provide a Class III boating

experience. With one-turbine, many rocks were showing and the run was scratchy; with two-

turbines, more rocks were covered, less maneuvering was required, and more play spots were

available. No dangerous obstructions were found with either release (FERC 1992). The results of

the 1992 boating study informed a broader study of instream flow needs for this river reach

which considered the balancing of flows among other project resources, as well as boating.

12.6 Project Nexus

The current license for the Rio Project requires scheduled weekend releases based on a study

completed in 1990. Project operations divert flows from the Mongaup River/Rio Reservoir

below the Rio Project’s minimum flow powerhouse. An analysis of Project operation on

whitewater boating may assist in the evaluation of recreational measures to be included in a new

license.

12.7 Methodology

For the purposes of this study, the study area includes two reaches: the 1.5-mile bypass reach

below Rio Dam and the 3-mile river reach from the Rio Project powerhouse to the Mongaup

River’s confluence with the Delaware River.

12.7.1 Literature Review

The Licensee will conduct a review of reasonably available literature, including the study report

and available data from the study conducted in 1990, regarding existing recreational boating

opportunities on the Mongaup River below Rio Dam (i.e., both reaches). Literature searches will

be conducted via internet, libraries, tourist/visitor bureaus, agencies, municipalities, and


100

recreation user group documents (whitewater boating guides, etc.). The literature review will

also include other recreational whitewater boating opportunities in the Project region. Literature

and literature-based information will be analyzed, to the extent available, to evaluate: 1) the

physical characteristics (e.g., length, gradient, channel type, etc.) of the stream reach; 2) the

availability of recreational boating facilities, amenities, or access points (including put-in and

take-out locations) along the stream reach; and 3) hydrologic conditions in the stream reach and

the relationship between stream flow and recreational boating opportunities.

12.7.2 Hydrologic Assessment

The Licensee will conduct a hydrologic assessment of whitewater boating opportunities

downstream of Rio Dam to the confluence with the Delaware River. The Licensee will

summarize recreation-relevant hydrology of the Mongaup River and bypass reach downstream of

Rio Dam and identify operational constraints on flow regimes and the resulting availability of

recreational boating flows. The hydrologic summary will utilize data from existing USGS gage

stations as well as Rio Project operational and modeling data. Hydrologic conditions related to

both flows in the bypass reach and flows downstream of the Rio powerhouse will be summarized

using a variety of graphs, tables, and statistics relevant to recreational boating use and will focus

on average and dry water-year conditions. In conducting the hydrologic assessment, the Licensee

will also consider the typical operation of the Rio Project and the resulting flows in the Mongaup

River downstream of the Rio Project.

12.7.3 Boater Survey

The Licensee will conduct a structured survey of whitewater boaters to gain both quantitative

and qualitative information regarding recreational boating use of the Mongaup River between the

Rio Dam and the Delaware River. The Licensee will interview whitewater boaters at both put-in

and take-out locations to gain first-hand knowledge of boating conditions on the river reach. The

surveys will utilize a standardized questionnaire aimed at providing both a quantitative and

qualitative summary of whitewater boating conditions on the Mongaup River downstream of the

Rio Dam. Survey responses will be analyzed and a summary of interview responses will be

included in the study report and will be used to evaluate the adequacy and appropriateness of the

current whitewater boating opportunities at the projects. See Figure 12-1 for a draft survey

instrument.


101

12.7.4 Evaluation of Current Rio Project Whitewater Boating Accesses

The Licensee will review the existing put-in and take-out whitewater boating locations and

facilities along the Mongaup River between Rio Dam and the Delaware River. Existing access

locations will be surveyed for use and adequacy of the facilities to allow whitewater boaters safe

and accessible ingress and egress. To the extent that these locations are also included in the

recreation site inventory being conducted as part of the separate Recreation Study Plan,

information collected during that inventory will also be used in this assessment.

12.7.5 Prepare Report

The results will be presented in a Whitewater Boating Assessment study report. The study report

will integrate findings from the literature review, hydrology summary, and boater surveys, as

applicable, to describe whitewater boating conditions in both the bypass reach and in the

Mongaup River downstream of the Rio powerhouse. The study report will include

recommendations as to the need for an on-water controlled flow evaluation. The study report will

clearly document all information sources and will include appropriate appendices.




This study will be conducted between April and October of 2018. Boater surveys will be

conducted on scheduled weekend whitewater release days during the recreation boating season,

as well as on a few randomly selected weekdays when peaking operations create whitewater

boating opportunities. A report summarizing the study findings will be prepared and provided in

the ISR to be distributed to the relicensing parties and filed with the Commission in accordance

with the Commission’s ILP Process Plan and Schedule.


102


Deviations from the requested study consist of the following:

AW/AMC/KCCNY requested a controlled flow whitewater boating assessment, including

multiple on water-flow assessments. The Licensee is not proposing to conduct an on-water

controlled flow evaluation at this time as the need for such is dependent on the results of this

assessment.

AW/AMC/KCCNY requested that the Licensee evaluate opportunities to modify or enhance

the current whitewater flow release schedule, boater access facilities, and/or boating

information The Licensee is not proposing to evaluate such opportunities at this time because

the need for modifications or enhancements, if any, is dependent on the results of this

assessment.

12.11 References

American Whitewater (AW). 2017. Mongaup–Rio Dam to Delaware River. https://www.

americanwhitewater.org/content/River/detail/id/1349/ Accessed August 22, 2017.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1992. Order Issuing License (FERC No.

10482-001). Accession No.: 19920415-0451. Issued on April 14, 1992.

103

FIGURE 12-1. MONGAUP RIVER WHITEWATER BOATING SURVEY

Good Afternoon. I am conducting a survey of whitewater boaters for Eagle Creek. Collected

information will assist Eagle Creek in understanding more about whitewater based recreation in

this area of the Mongaup River. Responses from the survey will remain anonymous.

Have you participated in this survey effort before? _________

If yes, thank you for your time. We are only interviewing each person once with this survey.

If no, would you mind answering a few questions?

Interviewer: __________________________

Date: _____________________ Time: ________________

Weather: ____________________________

Location: _________________________________________________

Boater was: Putting-in _____ OR Taking-out ______ (check one)

River Flow (to be determined post survey): _______ cfs

Type of craft being used (circle one):

Canoe Kayak Raft SUP Other

Boating Skill Level (circle one):

Beginner Novice Intermediate Advanced Expert

Zip Code of Respondent: ___________________

PART I: Mongaup River Reach

1. What segment of the River did you or do you plan to run today? (check all that apply)

Rio Dam to Rio Powerhouse (Rio Bypass Reach) _______

Rio Powerhouse to Delaware River ______

Additional reaches of Delaware River ________

Other (describe)

_____________________________________________________________________

PART II: Those running the Rio Bypass Reach, please respond to the following questions.

2. Is/was this your first time running this reach? Yes___ No____

3. If NO, about how many time previously have you run this reach? ______

4. Approximately how many years have you been running this reach? ______

5. At this flow, how would you rate the classification of the boating run on the international

scale of whitewater boating? ________________

(International Scale of River Difficult: Class I (Riffles); Class II (Novice); Class III

(Intermediate); Class IV (Advanced); Class V (Expert); Class VI (Extreme and Exploratory)

104

6. If you have boated this reach at other flows, please provide your best assessment of the

classification range of this river reach at those other flow levels.

Flow ___________ Classification range ______________



7. Are there any particularly noteworthy features or rapids on this reach? Please describe each

feature/rapid to the best of your ability.

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

8. Where do you most typically put-in and take-out when running this reach? (please describe)

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

9. How would you rate the adequacy of the existing access (put-in and take-out) locations for

whitewater canoes and kayaks for this reach? (check one)

More than adequate _____ adequate _____ Less than adequate _________

10. If you rated the access to be less than adequate, please describe the inadequacy and provide

suggestions on how the access could be improved.

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

11. On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being Excellent and 1 being Poor, how would rate the whitewater

boating experience you have (or expect to have) today at this river flow (in the bypass reach).

Provide Rating (1-5) _______

12. On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being Excellent and 1 being Poor, how would rate the potential

whitewater boating experience you would expect to have on this reach at a different river

flow.

Provide Rating (1-5) _______ at Flow _________ cfs

13. How did you find out about the river flows occurring in this reach today? (please describe)

___________________________________________________________________________

105

PART III: Those running the Rio Powerhouse to Delaware River Reach, please respond to

the following questions.

14. Is/was this your first time running this reach? Yes___ No____

15. If NO, about how many time previously have you run this reach? ______

16. Approximately how many years have you been running this reach? ______

17. At this flow, how would you rate the classification of the boating run on the international

scale of whitewater boating? _________

18. If you have boated this reach at other flows, please provide your best assessment of the

classification range of this river reach at those other flow levels.




19. Are there any particularly noteworthy features or rapids on this reach? Please describe each

feature/rapid to the best of your ability.

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

20. Where do you most typically put-in and take-out when running this reach? (please describe)

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

21. How would you rate the adequacy of the existing access (put-in and take-out) locations for

whitewater canoes and kayaks for this reach? (check one)

More than adequate _____ adequate _____ Less than adequate _________

22. If you rated the access to be less than adequate, please describe the inadequacy and provide

suggestions on how the access could be improved.

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

23. On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being Excellent and 1 being Poor, how would rate the whitewater

boating experience you have (or expect to have) today at this river flow.

Provide Rating (1-5) _______

106

24. On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being Excellent and 1 being Poor, how would rate the potential

whitewater boating experience you would expect to have on this reach at a different river

flow.

Provide Rating (1-5) _______ at Flow _________ cfs

25. How did you find out about the river flows occurring in this reach today? (please describe)

__________________________________________________________________

Part IV: Regional Whitewater Boating Information (all respondents please answer these

questions)

26. How far do you travel to get to the Mongaup River? ________________________

27. Do you boat or are you familiar with other whitewater boating opportunities within a 50 mile

radius of here? (Please list and describe as many river reaches as you can think of)

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

28. How would you rate the Mongaup River from Rio Dam to the Delaware River in comparison

to the other regional whitewater boating opportunities with which you are familiar?

Better than most ______ Similar to most _______ Worse than most ________

29. Please check all of the reasons for that rating that apply:

_____ Availability of boating flows

_____ Predictability of boating flows

_____ Adequacy of boating flows

_____ Whitewater Classification of rapids/run

_____ Availability of specific river features (rapids, play spots, learning spots, etc.)

_____ Length of run

_____ Accessibility to public

_____ Other (please describe)

_______________________________________________________

107

Section 13

Shoreline Management Assessment Study Plan

13.1 Study Requests

FERC formally requested a shoreline management assessment study. Specifics regarding the

requested study are provided below.

FERC:

Develop a questionnaire to solicit information from shoreline property owners at each Project

reservoir 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.

Consult with representatives of the various shoreline property owners on the most effective

means of distributing the questionnaire and follow the Dillman (2014) tailored design

method.

Consult with interested stakeholders, including property owner representatives and the

NYSDEC, and Commission staff in the development of the questionnaire.

Prepare a detailed report of the study results.

Use study results in conjunction with the results of the other recreation studies to inform the

development of a Shoreline Management Plan.


The goal of this study is to obtain information on the adequacy and appropriateness of current

shoreline management practices.

The specific objectives of this study are as follows:

Solicit information using a questionnaire from abutting shoreline property owners at

Swinging Bridge and Toronto reservoirs5 about their recreation activity participation, areas

visited, perspectives about reservoir levels and current shoreline management practices,

5 Private residential and commercial development currently exists at Swinging Bridge and Toronto reservoirs only.

Section 13 Shoreline Management Assessment Study Plan

108

perceived conflicts and crowding, and their satisfaction with or desire for recreational

opportunities and facilities.

Use the study results along with resource information derived from other studies to inform

the development of a Shoreline Management Plan that would be submitted with the Draft

License Application.


As a Licensee, Eagle Creek is responsible for shoreline management on its lands within FERC

Project boundary. An assessment of current shoreline management practices would provide the

information necessary to develop a Shoreline Management Plan that would be implemented over

the terms of a new license issued for the Swinging Bridge Project.



FERC

Nicholas LaHowchic


The Swinging Bridge Project is comprised of Swinging Bridge Reservoir, Toronto Reservoir,

Cliff Lake Reservoir, and portions of the Mongaup River and Black Lake Creek (upstream of

Toronto Reservoir and downstream of Toronto Reservoir to the confluence with the Mongaup

River). The Swinging Bridge Project boundary encompasses a total land area of approximately

2,292 acres. The Swinging Bridge Reservoir has a surface area of 1,000 acres at full pond

elevation of 1,070 feet USGS. The Toronto Reservoir has a surface area of 860 acres at full pond

elevation of 1,220 feet USGS, and the Cliff Lake Reservoir has a surface area of 190 acres at full

pond elevation of 1,071.1 feet USGS. 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 Reservoir and the southeastern shoreline of Toronto Reservoir, and Project recreation

sites. As set forth below, there are a number of non-project uses of Project lands, for which Eagle


109

Creek issues license agreements pursuant to its shoreline management guidelines. Private

residential development currently exists only at Swinging Bridge and Toronto reservoirs. There

is no private residential shoreline development around Cliff Lake.

The Mongaup Falls Project is comprised of a portion of the Mongaup River and Mongaup Falls

Reservoir. The Project boundary encompasses a total land area of approximately 210 acres. In

addition, the Mongaup Falls Reservoir consists of 120 acres of surface area at full pond elevation

of 935 feet USGS. 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 Project recreation sites. There is no private residential shoreline development

around Mongaup Falls Reservoir.

The Rio Project is comprised of a portion of the Mongaup River and the Rio Reservoir and

encompasses a total land area of approximately 508 acres. The Rio Reservoir consists of 460

acres of surface area at full pond elevation of 815 feet USGS. 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 Project recreation sites. A pipeline right-of-way

also crosses the northern end of the Rio Reservoir. The Rio Reservoir is largely undeveloped

with very limited private developments on the east side of the reservoir.

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. These guidelines are applicable

to all of the lands owned or controlled by Eagle Creek within the Projects’ boundaries. Use or

occupation of Eagle Creek’s land is authorized only 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 Project licenses (FERC 1992a, 1992b, and 1992c),

respectively.

13.6 Project Nexus

As a Licensee, Eagle Creek is responsible for shoreline management on its lands within the

Project boundary. Input from adjacent private shoreline property owners will help inform the


110

development of a Shoreline Management Plan that would be implemented over the terms of any

new licenses issued for the Projects.

13.7 Methodology

The methodology described in this section was developed based on the request by FERC, as well

as input from recreation and shoreline management specialists who have supported previous

FERC relicensing activities.

13.7.1 Questionnaire

Eagle Creek has developed a draft questionnaire (see Figure 13-1) to collect information from

abutting private shoreline property owners at Swinging Bridge and Toronto Reservoirs. The

questionnaire is designed to ask shoreline property owners about their use of reservoirs for

recreation and their perceptions of potential shoreline crowding and/or recreational use conflicts,

current shoreline management practices, and reservoir water levels. Eagle Creek will finalize the

questionnaire upon receipt of FERC’s Study Plan Determination.

The questionnaire will most likely be administered as a direct mail survey, following a modified

Dillman approach. Eagle Creek will consult with representatives of the various shoreline

property owners regarding the most effective means of distributing the questionnaire. At this

time, however, Eagle Creek proposes to mail the questionnaire in spring 2018 to residential

abutters. A follow-up will be mailed approximately two weeks later to those residences who

have not returned a survey.

13.7.2 Data Analysis and Reporting

Information collected from the survey will be entered into spreadsheets for analysis. The report

for this study will summarize the responses received on the questionnaire. All survey responses

will also be included in an appendix to the report. Information from this study will be used to

inform a Shoreline Management Plan along with information from other relevant resource

studies being conducted at the Project’s reservoirs.


111




Development and distribution of the private property abuttersʼ questionnaire will occur over the

2018 study year. A report summarizing the results will be prepared and provided in the ISR to be

distributed to the relicensing parties and filed with the Commission in accordance with the

Commission’s ILP Process Plan and Schedule.


Deviations from the requested study consist of the following.

FERC’s request for a shoreline management assessment appears to derive, in part, from

complaints received from abutting property owners regarding shoreline management

practices. Because private residential development primarily exists at Swinging Bridge and

Toronto reservoirs, this shoreline management assessment focuses on these two reservoirs.

FERC requested that a Shoreline Management Plan be developed. A Shoreline Management

Plan for the Swinging Bridge Project will be developed as part of the Draft and/or Final

License Application instead of as a part of the study because the results of this study and

other relevant studies are needed to inform the development of a Shoreline Management

Plan.

13.11 References

Dillman, Don A., Smyth, Jolene D., Christian, Leah Melani. 2014. Internet, Phone, Mail and

Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 4th edition. John Wiley: Hoboken,

NJ.

Eagle Creek Renewable Energy. 2017. Pre-Application Document for Swinging Bridge

Hydroelectric Project (No. 10482), Mongaup Falls Hydroelectric Project (No. 10481),

and Rio Hydroelectric Project (No. 9690). Volume I of III. March 2017.


112

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1992a. Order Issuing License (FERC No.

9690-004). Accession No.: 19920415-0448. Issued on April 14, 1992.

_____. 1992b. Order Issuing License (FERC No. 10481-001). Accession No.: 19920415-0450.

Issued on April 14, 1992.

_____. 1992c. Order Issuing License (FERC No. 10482-001). Accession No.: 19920415-0451.

Issued on April 14, 1992

113

FIGURE 13-1. DRAFT SURVEY FOR ABUTTING

SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS

This survey and map are part of a shoreline management assessment, which Eagle Creek

Renewable Energy (Eagle Creek) is conducting pursuant to a request from the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) in connection with the FERC relicensing of the Swinging

Bridge Hydroelectric Project. The survey is directed primarily at private residential property

owners with property immediately abutting the Swinging Bridge Reservoir and Toronto

Reservoir. The survey/questionnaire is intended to systematically collect information from

residential shoreline property owners regarding reservoir shoreline management, private

recreation use of the reservoir, and reservoir levels.

Your responses will remain anonymous and will be used in connection with the results of other

studies being conducted in connection with the FERC relicensing of Eagle Creek’s Mongaup

River Hydroelectric Projects to help inform future shoreline management of the Swinging Bridge

and Toronto reservoirs. Additional information about the FERC relicensing of Eagle Creek’s

Mongaup River Hydroelectric Project can be found at:

http://www.eaglecreekre.com/facilities/operating-facilities/mongaup-river-ny/relicensing-

information.

1. Please circle which reservoir your property is adjacent to below.

Swinging Bridge Reservoir

Toronto Reservoir

2. Please categorize your abutting property by type of residence and land use by circling below.

Residence: Seasonal Year Round

3. Current Use of Land (Please circle all that apply):

Residential

Landscape

Cropland

Livestock

Tree Growth

Future Residential

Conservation Land

Other____________

http://www.eaglecreekre.com/facilities/operating-facilities/mongaup-river-ny/relicensing-information

http://www.eaglecreekre.com/facilities/operating-facilities/mongaup-river-ny/relicensing-information

114

4. Do you, as an abutting shoreline property owner, access the adjoining reservoir from your

property for recreation purposes?

Yes____ No____

5. Do others access the adjacent reservoir across your private property? Yes___ No____

With your permission? _____ Without your permission? _____

Comments_______________________________________________________________

6. Do others utilizing the adjacent reservoir and abutting lands for recreation purposes affect

your property? Yes____ No____

If yes, explain____________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

7. What is your perception of the amount of use occurring on the reservoir or along the reservoir

shoreline in the vicinity of your property? (Circle one rating)

1 2 3 4 5 Not Crowded Somewhat Crowded Extremely Crowded

8. What is your perception of the amount or level of recreational conflicts occurring on the

reservoir or along the reservoir shoreline in the vicinity of your property? (Circle one rating)

(Examples of conflicts might be potential conflicts between swimmers and boaters, or

potential conflicts between anglers and swimmers, etc.)

1 2 3 4 5 No conflicts Moderate Amount

of Conflicts

Extreme Amount of

Conflicts

9. Do you have a private boat dock? Yes________ No____

If yes, how many boats can it accommodate? _____

How many boats are typically docked at your dock? _______

What types of boats are typically docked at your dock? (list)______________________

10. Do you have any other private recreation facilities associated with your property that are

located along the reservoir shoreline? (Please list). (Examples might include, shoreline path

or stairway, swimming platform, fishing pier, etc.)

__________________________________________________________________________

11. Approximately how many days per year do you use the reservoir adjacent to your property

for recreation purposes?

1-25 26-50 51-100 Over 100

12. Approximately how many days per year do you use the OTHER Swinging Bridge Project

reservoirs (Toronto Reservoir, Swinging Bridge or Cliff Lake) for recreation purposes?

1-25 26-50 51-100 Over 100

13. Approximately how many days per year do you use the Mongaup Falls Project reservoir for

recreation purposes?

1-25 26-50 51-100 Over 100

115

14. Approximately how many days per year do you use the Rio Project reservoir for recreation

purposes?

1-25 26-50 51-100 Over 100

15. Do you ever use the public recreation sites associated with the Mongaup River Hydroelectric

Projects (Swinging Bridge Project, Mongaup Falls Project, or Rio Project) (see provided

map)? No _________ Yes __________

If yes, which ones? ________________________________________________________

16. What recreation activities do you usually participate in at the reservoir along which your

property is located? (check all that apply) Activity Spring

(Mar. 1 – May 31)

Summer

(June 1 – Aug. 31)

Fall

(Sept. 1 - Oct. 31)

Backpacking

Birding

Camping

Canoeing

Dog Walking

Driving for Pleasure

Educational Programs

Fishing from a Boat

Fishing from Shore

Hiking

Horseback Riding

Hunting

Kayaking

Mountain Biking

Multi-day Float Trip

Nature Observation

Orienteering

Other:______________

Paddle Boarding

Photography

Picnicking

Power Boating

116

Activity Spring

(Mar. 1 – May 31)

Summer

(June 1 – Aug. 31)

Fall

(Sept. 1 - Oct. 31)

Riding Jet Skis

Road Bicycling

Rowing

Running

Sailing

Sightseeing

Sunbathing

Swimming

Tubing

Walking

Waterskiing

Whitewater Boating

17. What do you like most about the recreation experiences available to you on the reservoir

adjacent to your property?

________________________________________________________________________

18. What do you like least about the recreation experiences available to you on the reservoir

adjacent to your property?

________________________________________________________________________

19. As an adjoining shoreline property owner, overall, how satisfied are you with the shoreline

management practices utilized by Eagle Creek? (circle number)

1 2 3 4 5

Not Satisfied at all Slightly Satisfied Satisfied Moderately Satisfied Extremely Satisfied

If less than satisfied, could you explain why? ________________________________

20. Overall, how satisfied are you with the reservoir water levels on the reservoir adjacent to

your property (circle number)

1 2 3 4 5

Not Satisfied at all Slightly Satisfied Satisfied Moderately Satisfied Extremely Satisfied

If less than satisfied (rating of 1 or 2), could you explain why?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

21. Do you ever use other sites in this area of the Mongaup River for recreation purposes, which

are not shown on the map? No _________ Yes___________________

If yes, for what purposes do you use the site? ___________________________________

Also, please identify the location of the site on the provided map.

117

22. What do you like most about your recreation experiences on this area of the Mongaup River?

________________________________________________________________________

23. What do you like least about your recreation experiences on this area of the Mongaup River?

________________________________________________________________________

24. What, if anything, enhances your recreation experience on this area of the Mongaup River?

________________________________________________________________________

25. What, if anything, detracts from your recreation experience on this area of the Mongaup

River?

________________________________________________________________________

26. Are you aware of any scenic views that are important or of value to the Mongaup Projects

area (Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls, or Rio)?

Yes___ No_____

If yes, describe and identify the location of the scenic view. _______________________

27. Do you have any additional comments regarding recreation opportunities and facilities at the

Mongaup River Projects (Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls or Rio)?

________________________________________________________________________

28. Do you have any additional comments regarding shoreline management practices at the

Mongaup River Projects (Swinging Bridge, Mongaup Falls or Rio)?

________________________________________________________________________

Thank you very much for your time and participation in this survey.

118

Section 14

Cultural Resources Study Plan

14.1 Study Requests

FERC formally requested a study of cultural resources at the Mongaup River Hydroelectric

Project to meet the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of

1966 (NHPA).


The goal of the Cultural Resources Study is to locate cultural resources that are listed in or

eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and may be affected by

Project operations and maintenance (including recreational activities associated with the

Projects’ reservoirs) within the FERC Project boundary and respective area of potential effects

(APE). Such cultural resources would include archaeological sites, Project facilities, historic

structures, and other places of religious and cultural significance to Indian tribes. The study

would determine an APE to locate cultural resources and assess specific Project-related effects to

any cultural resource determined eligible for the NRHP. If existing or potential Project-related

adverse effects are identified on NRHP-eligible cultural resources, a historic properties

management plan (HPMP) would be crafted to resolve any such adverse effects and made part of

any new licenses issued by the Commission.


Section 106 of the NHPA (Section 106)6 directs 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 the continued operation and maintenance of the

Projects is defined as an undertaking and is, therefore, subject to the provisions of Section 106

and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 800 - Protection of Historic Properties. By

notice dated May 30, 2017, the Commission designated Eagle Creek as its non-federal

representative for purposes of conducting informal consultation pursuant to Section 106. The

intent of this consultation is to provide the New York State Historic Preservation Office

6 (16 U.S.C. §470f)

Section 14 Cultural Resources Study Plan

119

(NYSHPO), federally recognized Indian tribes, and other interested parties the opportunity to

identify historic properties potentially affected by the Projects, assess the Projects’ effects on

identified resources, and seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects on

historic properties.

Eagle Creek has outlined the following three goals for managing historic resources within the

Projects’ APE:

Ensure continued normal operation of the Projects while maintaining and preserving the

integrity of historic properties within the Projects’ boundary;

Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on historic properties within the APE; and

Ensure historic properties are managed in a way that does not impede Eagle Creek’s ability

to comply with the terms of its operating license and other applicable federal, state, and local

statutes.



FERC


Archaeological Resources

The New York State Cultural Resources Information System (CRIS) database shows that there

are no known archaeological sites within the FERC Project boundary for the Projects. However,

it does show that three Historic period sites and one Precontact period site are within the vicinity

of the Projects. The eligibility for listing on the NRHP remains undetermined for all of these

archaeological sites.

Two of the historic sites are mills located on small streams that date from the early to mid-19th

century. The first is the Jam Mill Site (NYSOPRHP# 10501.000013), constructed in 1810 and is

located in the hamlet of Smallwood near the northern extent of the Swinging Bridge Project

reservoirs. The second mill site is the Stokes-Hartwell Mill Site (NYSOPRHP# 10506.000015),


120

constructed before 1875 and is located on a tributary to Black Brook in the Village of

Forestburgh. The remaining historic site is a residential site known as the Forestburgh Site

(NYSOPRHP# 10506.000024), constructed in 1812 and is located immediately north of the

Stokes-Hartwell Mill Site in Forestburgh.

The single Precontact period site is located at the southern end of the Rio Reservoir on the west

side of the confluence of the Mongaup River and the Delaware River. The site is known as the

Alexander Site (NYSOPRHP# 10510.000052) and it is associated with the Late Archaic period.

Historic Architectural Resources

The CRIS database shows that there are no NRHP-listed architectural resources within the FERC

Project boundary for the Projects, nor are there any resources previously determined eligible for

listing. The Project facilities at the Swinging Bridge Hydroelectric Plant have been previously

surveyed but their NRHP-eligibility is undetermined. The Project facilities at the Mongaup Falls

Hydroelectric Plant and Rio Hydroelectric Plant are aged 50 years or older but have never been

surveyed or evaluated for NRHP listing. There are three additional previously surveyed

architectural resources in the vicinity of the Projects, two of which were determined not eligible

for listing in the NRHP and the remaining one undetermined.

Section 5.10 of the PAD provides additional information regarding cultural resources within the

Projects’ vicinity.

14.6 Project Nexus

At present, there is no evidence that archaeological or historic resources are currently being

affected by the Projects’ operations, but the Projects have the potential to directly or indirectly

affect historic properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

14.7 Methodology

The proposed study methods are consistent with historical resource studies recently conducted to

assess the potential effects of relicensing similar hydroelectric projects in the region.


121

14.7.1 APE Determination

Eagle Creek proposes to define the APE for this undertaking as the following:

The APE for the Mongaup River Hydroelectric Projects is the lands within the

defined FERC Project boundary.

Eagle Creek will consult with NYSHPO, the Delaware Nation, and Delaware Indian Tribe to

seek written concurrence regarding the Project’s APE prior to conducting field work associated

with this study.

14.7.2 Phase IA Literature Review and Sensitivity Assessment

Eagle Creek will conduct a Phase IA literature review and archaeological sensitivity assessment

of the Projects’ proposed APE in accordance with the New York Archaeological Council’s 1994

Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and the Curation of Archaeological Collections

in New York State (as adopted by NYSHPO) (New York Archaeological Council 1994). The

background study will be conducted by qualified cultural resource professionals7 and will

include a review of the following sources of information:

NYSHPO’s and New York State Museum’s archaeological site files;

Building and structure inventory forms on file with NYSHPO;

Archaeological site files and other data available from the relicensing parties;

Historic maps of the Projects’ vicinity;

Relevant historical accounts of the Project area;

Environmental information, including mapped soils, bedrock geology, physiography, and

hydrology in the vicinity of the Projects; and

Reports on archaeological and architectural resource studies conducted within the Projects’

vicinity.

7 As used in this study plan, a “qualified cultural resource professional” is defined as an individual who meets the

Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR Part 61).


122

14.7.3 Phase IA Archaeological and Historic Structures Field Survey

Eagle Creek will conduct a comprehensive cultural resources survey and inventory within the

proposed Projects’ APE. This will include a systematic pedestrian survey within all accessible

areas of the APE using a crew of qualified professional archaeologists. All archaeological sites

will be recorded, mapped, and photographed in compliance with standards set forth by the

NYSHPO. Such survey methods would reflect Phase IA archaeological assessment guidelines

provided by the NYSHPO.

Eagle Creek will also conduct a survey of architectural and engineering resources aged 50 years

or older within the Projects’ proposed APE, including Project-related facilities and non-Project

related facilities. This work will be conducted according to NYSHPO standards for historic

resources survey, including appropriate site maps, completion of survey files, photography, and

data entry into the online CRIS system. Following background research and field work, each

surveyed architectural resource will be evaluated for its NRHP-eligibility. Eagle Creek will

include a determination of Project-related effects on any resources recommended eligible for

listing in the NRHP.

14.7.4 Native American Consultation

Eagle Creek will contact with the Delaware Nation and Delaware Tribe to obtain information of

any place of religious or cultural significance (i.e., traditional cultural properties, past villages or

sites, gathering areas) and provide the draft cultural resources study report for comment. If such

cultural resources exist within the APE, Eagle Creek will assess their NRHP-eligibility (if

applicable) and potential or existing Project-related effects. This element of the study will be

conducted by a knowledgeable professional with anthropological training in talking with and

gaining information from Indian tribes.

14.7.5 Reporting

Based on the results of the above tasks, Eagle Creek will prepare a cultural resources study

report that contains the following: a discussion of the Phase IA archaeological assessment, a

discussion of the historic structures survey, and results of discussion with the Delaware Nation

and Delaware Indian Tribe. The report will be prepared in accordance with NYSHPO’s standards


123

and guidelines. Specifically, the report will include (1) results of the background literature

review including previous studies; (2) maps and descriptions of reported archaeological and

historic resources within the Projects’ APE; (3) research and field survey methods; (4) tribal

consultation history; (5) a detailed discussion of the cultural history of the Project area; (6)

recommendations as to whether a Phase IB archaeological assessment should be conducted; (7)

NRHP-eligibility recommendations for the historic structures surveyed; and (8) Section 106

effects assessments (as applicable).


This study will occur over the 2018 study year and will be conducted by qualified cultural

resources personnel. The Phase IA archaeological study and historic structures survey, as

described above is estimated to cost approximately $50,000 to complete.


Eagle Creek anticipates initiating the cultural resources study during the spring of 2018 and

completed by fall of 2018. Upon completion of the cultural resources study, a report will be

prepared and provided to the applicable parties in conjunction with the ISR and filed with the

Commission in accordance with the Commission’s ILP Process Plan and Schedule.


FERC requested that Phase IA, Phase IB (if needed), and Phase II (if needed) archaeological

studies be completed within one study season. At this time, it is unknown whether Phase IB or

Phase II archaeological assessments will be needed and, therefore, would not be completed

within one study season. Eagle Creek will propose such studies, if applicable, after consultation

with the NYSHPO, the Delaware Nation, and Delaware Indian Tribe on the report for the Phase

IA archaeological assessment.

FERC requested that the Licensee prepare an HPMP as part of the study. At this time, it is

unknown whether an HPMP will be needed. If needed, Eagle Creek will prepare an HPMP for

inclusion in the Draft or Final License Application. The HPMP will be prepared in accordance

with the Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC


124

Hydroelectric Projects, published by the Commission and the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation (ACHP) on May 20, 2002 and will address the items therein.

14.11 References

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). 2007. Policy Statement Regarding

Treatment of Burial Sites, Human Remains, and Funerary Objects. Washington, D.C.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC). 2002. Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties

Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects. Washington, D.C.

New York Archaeological Council. 1994. Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and

the Curation of Archaeological Collections in New York State. Albany, New York: New

York Archaeological Council.

New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO). 2005. Phase I Archaeological Report

Format Requirements. Albany, New York.

125

Section 15

Schedule for Conducting Proposed Studies

Eagle Creek proposes to conduct the studies described in this PSP in accordance with the master

study schedule presented in Table 15-1. All studies are planned to be conducted during the 2018

study season (March/April through October 2018), and Eagle Creek will distribute three-month

progress reports required pursuant to 18 CFR §5.15(b) to the Project’s distribution list and the

Commission. Eagle Creek’s will distribute the study report in an electronic format.

The final technical study reports prepared for each study will be filed with the Commission on or

before February 9, 2019 as part of the ISR.

TABLE 15-1

SCHEDULE FOR CONDUCTING PROPOSED STUDIES1

Activity Date

File Proposed Study Plan (PSP) with FERC September 12, 2017

Hold Proposed Study Plan Meeting October 4, 2017

Stakeholders File Comments on PSP with FERC December 11, 2017

File Revised Study Plan (RSP) with FERC January 10, 2018

Stakeholders File Comments on RSP with FERC January 25, 2018

FERC Issues Study Plan Determination Letter February 9, 2018

Reservoir Water Level Fluctuation/Operation Study April 2018 - October 2018

Aquatic Habitat Assessment Study April 2018 - October 2018

Fisheries Survey Study April 2018 - October 2018

Fish Passage Study April 2018 - October 2018

Water Quality Study April 2018 - October 2018

Macroinvertebrate and Mussel Survey Study April 2018 - October 2018

Recreation Study March 2018 - October 2018

Whitewater Boating Assessment Study April 2018 - October 2018

Shoreline Management Assessment Study April 2018 - October 2018

Cultural Resources Study April 2018 - October 2018

2018 Three-Month Progress Reports May 1, August 1,

November 1, 2018

File Initial Study Report with FERC February 9, 2019

Hold Initial Study Report Meeting February 24, 2019

File Initial Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC March 11, 2019

Conduct Second Season of Studies (if necessary) 2019

File Updated Study Report (if necessary) February 9, 2020

Hold Updated Study Report Meeting (if necessary) February 24, 2020

File Updated Study Report Meeting Summary with FERC (if necessary) March 10, 2020

File Preliminary Licensing Proposal or Draft License Application November 2, 2019

Section 15 Schedule for Conducting Proposed Studies

126

Activity Date

Stakeholders File Comments on Preliminary Licensing Proposal or Draft

License Application with FERC January 31, 2019

File Final License Application with FERC March 31, 2020

1. If due date falls on a weekend or holiday, the due date is the following business day.

2. Dates associated with specific studies represent potential field activities, as compared to the start or end

dates for all proposed study activities.

Swinging Bridge Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 10482 ......(FERC No. 10481), and the Rio...

Documents

Transcript of Swinging Bridge Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 10482 ......(FERC No. 10481), and the Rio...