ML103350271
| ML103350271 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 12/13/2010 |
| From: | Bo Pham License Renewal Projects Branch 1 |
| To: | Colligan M US Dept of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service |
| Leslie Perkins, 415-2375 | |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2011-0113 | |
| Download: ML103350271 (61) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001 December 13. 2010 Mary A. Colligan Assistant Regional Administrator for Protect Resources National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Regional Office 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930-2276
SUBJECT:
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION AND SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2
Dear Ms. Colligan:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared the enclosed biological assessment (BA) (Enclosure 1) to evaluate whether the proposed renewal of the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) and Salem Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2 (Salem) operating licenses for a period of an additional 20 years would have adverse effects on listed species.
The proposed action (license renewal) is not a major construction activity.
In a letter dated December 23, 2009, the NRC requested that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provide information on Federally listed endangered or threatened species, as well as proposed, or candidate species, and any designated critical habitat that may be in the vicinity of HCGS and Salem sites and their transmissions line corridors. The NMFS replied to this request on February 11, 2010, and identified five federally listed species and one candidate species under NMFS jurisdiction that could occur in the Delaware Estuary in the vicinity of HCGS and Salem sites. These species included the endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), the candidate Atlantic sturgeon (A. oxyrinchus oxyrinch us), and four sea turtles: the threatened loggerhead (Carretta carretta), the endangered Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempi/), the green (Chelonia mydas), and the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea).
This BA provides an evaluation of the potential impact of renewing the HGCS and Salem operating licenses for an additional 20 years of operation on five Federally listed threatened species and one candidate species with the potential to occur in the Delaware Estuary in the vicinity of HCGS and Salem sites.
The NRC staff has determined that license renewal for HCGS will have no effect on any listed species. For Salem, the NRC staff has determined that license renewal may affect but not likely to adversely affect the endangered snortnose sturgeon, the threathened loggerhead and green turtles and the endangered Kemp's ndley and the candidate Atlantic sturgeon. The NRC staff determined that license renewal for Salem will have no effect on the leatherback turtles in the Delaware Estuary.
M. Colligan
-2 We are requesting your concurrence with our determination. In reaching our conclusion, the NRC staff relied on information provided by the applicant, on research performed by NRC staff, and on information from NMFS (including current listings of species provided by the NMFS). If you have any questions regarding this BA or the staff's request, please contact Ms. Leslie Perkins, Environmental Project Manager, at 301-415-2375 or bye-mail at leslie.perkins@nrc.gov.
Sincerely, Bo M. Pham, Chief Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-272, 50-311, and 50-354
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv
Biological Assessment Salem Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2 Hope Creek Generating Station Unit 1 License Renewal DECEMBER 2010 Docket Numbers 50-272, 50-311, and 50-354 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................1 2.0 Description of Proposed Action.............................................................................2 2.1 Site Location and Description................................................................................2 2.2 Cooling Water System Description and Operation................................................. 7 2.2.1 Salem Circulating and Service Water Systems................................................ 7 2.2.2 HCGS Circulating and Service Water Systems............................................... 9 2.3 Surface Water Use and Facility NJPDES Permits' Limitations............................. 10 2.4 Salem and HCGS Section 7 Consultation History................................................ 14 2.4.1 Section 7 Consultation History Overview................................. :..................... 14 2.4.2 Current Biological Opinion Limits and Conditions.......................................... 15 3.0 Proposed Action Area: the Delaware Estuary.....................................................16 4.0 Federally Listed Species Considered..................................................................17 4.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle.............,.......................................................................... 18 4.2 Green Sea Turtle................................................................................................. 19 4.3 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle.................................................................................... 21 4.4 Leatherback Sea Turtle....................................................................................... 22 4.5 Shortnose Sturgeon...........................................................................................24 4.6 Atlantic Sturgeon.................................................................................................25 5.0 Proposed Action Effects Analysis.......................................................................26 5.1 Historical Incidental Takes of Listed Species....................................................... 26 5.2 Incidental Takes of Listed Species, 1999-Present............................................... 28 5.3 Loggerhead Sea Turtle........................................................................................28 5.4 Green Sea Turtle............................................................................................ 31 5.5 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle.................................................................................... 31 5.6 Leatherback Sea Turtle....................................................................................... 32 5.7 Shortnose Sturgeon.............................................................................................33 5.8 Atlantic Sturgeon.................................................................................................35 6.0 Cumulative Effects Analysis................................................................................36 6.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle...................................................................................... 37 6.2 Green Sea Turtle.................................................................................................38 6.3 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle....................................................................................40 6.4 Leatherback Sea Turtle.......................................................................................40 6.5 Shortnose Sturgeon.............................................................................................41 6.6 Atlantic Sturgeon.................................................................................................42 7.0 Conclusion and Determination of Effects...........................................................43
1 7.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle........................................................................................43 2
7.2 Green Sea Turtle.................................................................................................43 3
7.3 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle....................................................................................43 4
7.4 Leatherback Sea Turtle.......................................................................................43 5
7.5 Shortnose Sturgeon.............................................................................................44 6
7.6 Atlantic Sturgeon.................................................................................................44 7
8.0 References.............................................................................................................44 8
Figures 9
Figure 1. Location of the Salem and HCGS Sites Within a 6-Mile Radius....................... 3 10 Figure 2. Location of the Salem and HCGS Sites Within a 50-Mile Radius.....................4 11 Figure 3. Salem Site and Facility Layout.............................. "................. "...................... 5 12 Figure 4. HCGS Site and Facility Layout........................................................................6 13 Tables 14 Table 1. NJPDES Permit Requirements for Salem Nuclear Generating Station............ 11 15 Table 2. NJPDES Permit Requirements for HCGS........................................................ 13 16 Table 3. Salem and HCGS Incidental Take Statement Limits........................................ 15 17 Table 4. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Aquatic Species of the Delaware 18 Estuary in the Vicinity of Salem and HCGS................................................................... 17 19 Table 5. Historical Incidental Takes of Listed Species at Salem, 1979-1998................. 27 20 Table 6. Reported Incidental Takes of Listed Species at Salem, 1999-Present............. 28 21 Table 7. Loggerhead Incidental Takes, 1999-Present................................................... 29 22 Table 8. Shortnose Sturgeon Incidental Takes, 1999-Present....................................... 33 23 Table 9. Summary of Threats to Sea Turtle Species..................................................... 36 ii
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1
Abbreviations and Acronyms 2
3
°C of degrees Celsius degrees Fahrenheit 4
ac acre cm centimeter 6
DPS distinct population segment 7
DRBC Delaware River Basin Commission 8
ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 9
fps feet per second ft foot 11 FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 12 g
gram 13 gal gallon 14 gal/yr gallons per year ha hectare 16 HCGS Hope Creek Generating Station 17 hrs hours 18 in.
inch 19 kg kilogram Ib pound 21 m
meter 22 23 m/s m 3 meters per second cubic meters 24 m 3/day m3/yr cubic meters per day cubic meters per year 26 MBTUlhr million British thermal units per hour 27 mg/L milligrams per liter 28 mgd million gallons per day 29 mi mile MSL mean sea level 31 mtlyr metric tons per year 32 NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 33 NJPDES
!\\lew Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 34 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 36 oz ounce 37 ppt parts per thousand 38 PSEG PSEG Nuclear, LLC 39 ROW right-of-way Salem Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 41 SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement iii
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1
Biological Assessment of the Potential Effects on Federally 2
Listed Endangered or Threatened Species from the Proposed 3
License Renewal for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station and 4
Hope Creek Generating Station 1.0 Introduction 6
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prepared this Biological Assessment to 7
support the draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for renewal of the 8
operating licenses for Salem Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2 (Salem) and 9
Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS), the notice of availability of which was published in the Federal Register on October 28, 2010 (75 FR 66398). Salem and HCGS are 11 located in New Jersey on the eastern shore of the Delaware Estuary. The current 40 12 year licenses expire on August 13, 2016, for Salem, Unit 1; April 18, 2020, for Salem, 13 Unit 2; and April 11, 2026, for HCGS. The proposed license renewals for which this 14 Biological Assessment has been prepared would permit the facilities to operate for an additional 20 years.
16 PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG), which operates Salem and HCGS, prepared 17 Environmental Reports (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b) as part of its applications for 18 renewal of the Salem and HCGS licenses. In the Environmental Reports, PSEG 19 analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the proposed license renewals, considered alternatives to the proposed actions, and reviewed mitigation measures for 21 reducing adverse environmental effects. NRC is using the Environmental Reports, 22 information published by other Federal agencies, and available scientific literature as the 23 basis for this Biological Assessment and the SEIS (NRC, 2010), which is a facility 24 specific supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437 (NRC, 1996).
26 Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, NRC 27 staff requested via letter dated December 23,2009 (NRC, 2009a), that the U.S. Fish and 28 Wildlife Service (FWS) provide information on Federally listed endangered or threatened 29 species, as well as proposed or candidate species, and any designated critical habitats that may occur in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS. In their response to NRC, the FWS 31 (2010) indicated that no Federally listed species under the FWS's jurisdiction are known 32 to occur in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS. The FWS (2010) noted that areas of 33 potential habitat and/or known occurrences of the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergil) 34 and swamp pink (Helonias bullata) exist along two transmission line rights-of-way (ROWs) associated with Salem and HCGS, but that continued operation of Salem and 36 HCGS are unlikely to adversely affect either species because PSEG had previously 37 committed to adopting FWS-recommended conservation measures along the 38 transmission line ROWs.
39 Concerning species under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA regarding Salem and HCGS has 41 been ongoing between the NRC and NMFS since 1979, and NMFS most recently issued 42 a Biological Opinion for the two facilities on May 14, 1993 (NMFS, 1993), which was 43 then amended by letter dated January 21,1999 (NMFS, 1999). The 1993 Biological 44 Opinion's Incidental Take Statement pertained to the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys 46 kempil), and shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Because the proposed 47 license renewal of Salem and HCGS would be a Federal action that requires 1
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1
consultation under Section 7, NRC contacted NMFS on December 23,2009 (NRC, 2
2009b), to request updated information on Federally listed endangered or threatened 3
species, as well as proposed or candidate species, and any designated critical habitats 4
that may occur in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS. In the NMFS's response to NRC's request, the NMFS (2010) identified the four Federally listed species mentioned above, 6
as well as the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) and one candidate species 7
the Atlantic sturgeon (A. oxyrinchus oxyrinchus)-that occur in the Delaware Estuary 8
and may be present within the vicinity of Salem and HCGS, The NMFS (2010) noted that 9
the NMFS would be required to issue a new Biological Opinion and associated Incidental Take Statement if the NRC and NMFS determine through consultation that the proposed 11 action is likely to adversely affect any listed species.
12 Accordingly, this Biological Assessment focuses on evaluating the potential effects from 13 continued operation of Salem and HCGS on the Federally listed species under NMFS's 14 jurisdiction that occur in the Delaware Estuary.
2.0 Description of Proposed Action 16 The proposed Federal action is NRC's decision of whether or not to renew each of the 17 operating licenses for Salem and HCGS for an additional 20 years beyond the original 18 40-year term of operation. PSEG initiated the proposed Federal action by submitting 19 applications for license renewal of Salem, for which the existing licenses, DPR-70 (Unit
- 1) and DPR-75 (Unit 2), expire August 13,2016, and April 18, 2020, respectively; and 21 HCGS, for which the existing license, NPF-57, expires April 11, 2026. If NRC issues 22 renewed licenses for Salem and HCGS, PSEG could continue to operate until the 20 23 year terms of the renewed licenses expire in 2036 and 2040 for Salem, Unit 1 and Unit 24 2, respectively, and 2046 for HCGS. If the operating licenses are not renewed, then the facilities must be shut down on or before the expiration date of the current operating 26 licenses: August 13, 2016, and April 18, 2020, for Salem, Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively; 27 and April 11, 2026, for HCGS.
28 No major construction, refurbishment, or replacement activities are associated with the 29 license renewals. During the proposed license renewal term, PSEG would continue to perform site maintenance activities as well as vegetation management on the 31 transmission line ROWs that connect Salem and HCGS to the electric grid, 32 2.1 Site Location and Description 33 Salem and HCGS lie at the southern end of Artificial Island located on the east bank of 34 the Delaware River in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey, at which point the river is approximately 2,5 miles (mi; 4 kilometers [kmD wide. Artificial 36 Island is a man-made island approximately 1,500 ac (600 ha) in size that consists of tidal 37 marsh and grassland. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) created the island in 38 the twentieth century by the deposition of hydraulic dredge spoil material atop a natural 39 sand bar that projected into the river. The average elevation of the island is about 9 feet (ft; 3 meters [m]) above mean sea level (MSL) with a maximum elevation of 41 approximately 18 ft (5.5 m) above MSL (AEC, 1973). The site is located approximately 42 17 mi (27 km) south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, 35 mi (56 km) southwest of 43 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and 8 mi (13 km) southwest of the City of Salem, New 44 Jersey, Figures 1 and 2, respectively, show the location of the Salem and HCGS facilities and the areas within a 6-mi (10-km) radius and 50-mi (80-km) radius of the 46
- facility, 2
1 Figure 1. Location of the Salem and HCGS Sites Within a 6-Mile Radius
.--=--==-__-==::::J___ Miles
'* Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations o 0,5 2
J 4
- Populated Place C::J County Boundary Primary Highway with Limited Access Primary Highway Secondary Road Local Road Vllater 2
3 Source: PSEG, 2009a; 2009b Legend 3
1 Figure 2. Location of the Salem and HCGS Sites Within a 50-Mile Radius
- Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations
_-====-__-======::::J! Miles o
5 10 20 30 CJ State Boundary L-:=J County Boundary Primary Highway with Limited Access
~ Primary Highway Urban Area
\\/Vater 2
3 Source: PSEG, 2009a; 2009b 4
WN o
0.05 0.1 0.2 i..__-====-______ Miles (j) 0 c....,
0
<D "lJ (j)
(]I m
G)
N a a co Q)
Legend Discharge DSalem
=-=- PSEG Boundary cC' c...
CD
~
en I>>
a; 3
en ;:
I>>
- l Co I>>
o
~
r I>>
'< o C-
WN Low Level Radioactive Waste Interim Storage Facility en o
c a
~
'1J Q) en m
G)
N o o (0
tT Legend Discharge o
Hope Creek Facility
~ PSEG Boundary o
0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3
__-====-____c:::======::J! Miles "T1 (C"
c ;
~
- J:
(")
G')
en en it I>>
- s Q.
"T1 I>>
~.
~
r I>>
'< o C....
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1
PSEG owns approximately 740 ac (300 ha) at the southern end of the Artificial Island, of 2
which Salem occupies approximately 220 ac (89 ha) and HCGS occupies about 153 ac 3
(62 ha). The remainder of Artificial Island, north of the PSEG property, is owned by the 4
U.S. Government and the State of New Jersey; this portion of the island remains undeveloped. The land adjacent to the eastern boundary of Artificial Island consists of 6
tidal marshlands of the former natural shoreline. The northernmost tip of Artificial Island 7
(owned by the U. S. Government) is within the State of Delaware boundary (PSEG, 8
2009a; 2009b). Figures 3 and 4 are aerial photographs of the Salem and HCGS sites, 9
respectively.
The region within 15 mi (24 km) of the site is primarily utilized for agriculture. The area 11 also includes numerous parks, wildlife refuges, and preserves such as Mad Horse Creek 12 Fish and Wildlife Management Area to the east; Cedar Swamp State Wildlife 13 Management Area to the south in Delaware; Appoquinimink, Silver Run, and Augustine 14 State Wildlife Management areas to the west in Delaware; and Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge to the north. The Delaware Bay and estuary is recognized as 16 containing wetlands of international importance and an international shorebird reserve 17 (NJSA, 2008). The nearest permanent residences are located 3.4 mi (5.5 km) south 18 southwest and west-northwest of Salem and HCGS across the river in Delaware. The 19 nearest permanent residence in New Jersey is located 3.6 mi (5.8 km) east northeast of the facilities (PSEG, 2009d). The closest densely populated center (with 25,000 21 residents or more) is Wilmington, Delaware, located 15 mi (24 km) north of Salem and 22 HCGS. No heavy industry exists in the area surrounding Salem and HCGS; the nearest 23 such industrial area is located approximately 10 mi (16 km) northwest of the site near 24 Delaware City, Delaware (PSEG, 200ge).
2.2 Cooling Water System Description and Operation 26 The Delaware Estuary provides condenser cooling water and service water for both 27 Salem and HCGS. However, the Salem and HCGS facilities use different types of 28 cooling water systems.
29 Salem is a two-unit station with pressurized water. Each of the two units has a once-through cooling water system that withdraws brackish water from the Delaware Estuary 31 through an intake structure located at the shoreline on the southern end of the site.
32 Salem also withdraws water from the estuary for its service water system. (PSEG, 33 2009a) 34 HCGS is a one-unit station with a boiling water reactor. HCGS has a closed-cycle cooling water system for that includes intake and discharge structures in the Delaware 36 Estuary and a natural draft cooling tower. HCGS also withdraws water from the estuary 37 for its service water system. (PSEG, 2009b) 38 Each facility's system is described in more detail in the following sections.
39 2.2.1 Salem Circulating and Service Water Systems Salem has two intake systems: the circulating water system, which provides cooling 41 water for main condenser cooling, and the service water system, which provides water 42 for the reactor safeguard and auxiliary systems.
7
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Circulating Water System Intake The circulating water system withdraws brackish water from the Delaware Estuary via 12 cooling water pumps that connect to a 12-bay intake structure located on the shoreline at the south end of the site.
Before water is processed through the circulating water system, it must pass through several features that prevent intake of debris and biota into the cooling water pumps (PSEG, 2006b):
Removable Ice Barriers. During the winter, removable ice barriers are installed in front of the intakes to prevent damage to the intake pumps from ice formed on the Delaware Estuary. These barriers consist of pressure treated wood bars and underlying structural steel braces. The barriers are removed early in the spring and replaced in late fall.
- Trash Racks. After intake water passes through the ice barriers (when installed), it flows through fixed course-grid trash racks. These racks prevent large organisms and debris from entering the pumps. The racks are made from 0.5 inch (in.; 1.3 centimeters [cm]) steel bars placed on 3.5-in. (8.9-cm) centers, which create a 3-in. (7.6-cm) clearance between each bar. The racks are inspected regularly by PSEG employees, who remove any debris caught on them with mechanical, clamshell-type trash rakes. The trash rakes include a hopper that stores and transports removed debris to a pit at the end of each intake, where it is dewatered by gravity and disposed of off-site.
- Traveling Screens. After intake water passes through the trash racks, it then travels through finer vertical travelling screens. These are modified Ristroph screens designed to remove debris and biota small enough to have passed through the trash racks while minimizing death or injury. The travelling screens are made of wire mesh with 0.25 in. x 0.5 in. (0.64 cm x 1.3 cm) openings. Water moves through these screens at approximately 0.9 foot per second (fps; 0.3 meters per second [m/s]) at mean low tide.
Fish Return System. 10-ft (3-m) fish buckets are attached across the bottom of each traveling screen panel. As the travelling screens reach the top of each rotation, fish and other organisms slide along horizontal catch screens and are caught in the fish buckets. As the travelling screens continue to rotate, the buckets invert, a low pressure water spray washes fish off the screen, and the fish slide through a flap into a two-way fish trough.
Remaining debris is then washed off the screen by a high-pressure water spray and disposed of in a separate debris trough. The contents of both the fish troughs and the debris troughs return to the estuary. The release of fish and debris is timed so that tidal flow will carry them away from the intake, reducing the likelihood of re-impingement. Thus, the troughs empty on either the north or south side of the intake structure depending on the direction of tidal flow.
Service Water System Intake The service water system intake is located approximately 400 ft (122 m) north of the cooling water system intake within the Delaware Estuary. The service water system intake has 4 bays, each containing 3 pumps, for a total of 12 service water pumps. The average velocity throughout the service water system intake is less than 1 fps (0.3 m/s).
The service water system intake structure is equipped with trash racks, traveling 8
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1
screens, and a fish return system to prevent the intake of debris and biota similar to 2
those described for the circulating water system (PSEG, 1999b):
3 Trash Racks. Before entering the intake bays, service water travels through 4
mechanical trash racks composed of 0.5-in. (1,3-cm)-wide steel bars with slot openings of 3 in. (7,6 cm). The trash racks remove large debris and 6
organisms, which are disposed of off-site.
7 Traveling Screens and Fish Return System. After intake water passes 8
through the trash racks, it then travels under a curtain wall and then through 9
conventional vertical traveling screens to remove debris and biota small enough to have passed through the trash racks while minimizing death or 11 injury. The travelling screens are made of wire mesh with 3/8-in.2 (0.95-cm2) 12 openings. Water moves through these screens at less than 1 fps (0.3 m/s) at 13 mean low tide. The screens are washed with a low-pressure spray, and 14 debris and organisms are deposited into troughs and routed back to the Delaware Estuary.
16 Water Discharge 17 Both the Salem circulating water and service water systems discharge heated water 18 back to the Delaware Estuary through a single discharge piping system. This piping 19 system consists of six adjacent pipes that are 7 ft (2 m) in diameter and spaced 15 ft (4,6 m) apart. As water travels through these pipes towards the estuary, the 12 pipes merge 21 into 3 larger pipes that are 10ft (3 m) in diameter (PSEG, 2006b). The discharge piping 22 is buried the majority of its 500-ft (150-m) length. Water is discharged into the estuary 23 and perpendicular to the prevailing currents at a depth of about 31 ft (9.5 m) at mean 24 tide (PSEG, 1999b). At full power, Salem is designed to dischar~e approximately 3,200 million gallons per day (mgd; 12 million cubic meters per day [m Iday]) at a velocity of 26 about 10 fps (3 m/s) (PSEG, 1999b). Water at the discharge point is 0 to 15 OF (0 to 8.3 27°C) warmer than the estuary water to which it is being discharged (PSEG, 1999b). The 28 average temperature increase at the discharge is from 8 to 10°F (4 to 6°C) (PSEG, 29 1999b).
2.2.2 HCGS Circulating and Service Water Systems 31 HCGS withdraws water through only one intake structure. Once withdrawn from the 32 estuary, water first runs through the service water system, and is then sent to the 33 circulating water system for use as cooling tower make-up water. As with Salem, the 34 HCGS circulating water system provides water for main condenser cooling, while the service water system provides water for reactor safeguard and auxiliary systems.
36 Service Water System Intake 37 Water is withdrawn from the Delaware Estuary via an eight-bay intake that is situated 38 parallel to the shoreline. Only four of the eight bays are operational; the remaining four 39 were constructed for a second HCGS reactor, which was never built. At the intake, water flows into the intake structure at a maximum velocity of 0.35 fps (0.11 m/s). As with 41 Salem's intakes, the HCGS intake includes several features to prevent intake of debris 42 and biota before water enters the cooling water pumps (PSEG, 2009b):
43 Trash Racks, Before water enters the intake, trash racks prevent large 44 organisms and debris from entering the intake by regularly sweeping the face of the intake structure. Mechanical rakes remove any collected debris and 9
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1
deposit it for off-site disposal. Water travels through the trash racks at about 2
0.1 fps (0.03 m/s).
3 Skimmer Wall: A skimmer wall is located behind the trash racks to prevent 4
the intake of oil slicks or ice. Water travels under the skimmer wall and into one of the four active bays at a maximum speed of 0.35 fps (0.11 m/s).
6 Traveling Screens. After entering one of the four active bays, water passes 7
through traveling screens with 1/2 in. x 1/8 in. (1.3 cm x 0.32 cm) openings in 8
order to remove debris and biota small enough to have passed through the 9
trash racks and skimmer wall while minimizing death or injury (NRC, 2007).
Traveling screens are rotated regularly, but not continuously.
11 Fish Return System. Buckets, located on the lower lip of the traveling 12 screens, catch fish and other organisms. As the travelling screens reach the 13 top of each rotation, fish and other organisms are caught in the fish buckets.
14 As the travelling screens continue to rotate, the buckets invert, a low pressure water spray washes fish off the screen and into return troughs. Remaining 16 debris is then washed off the screen by a high-pressure water spray. Fish 17 and debris return to the Delaware Estuary in combined troughs south of the 18 intake structure.
19 After passing through the trash racks, skimmer wall, and traveling screens, water enters the service water pumps and is processed through the service water system. To prevent 21 organic buildup and biofouling in the heat exchangers and piping of the service water 22 system, sodium hypochlorite is continuously injected at the suction of the service water 23 pumps.
24 Circulating Water System and Water Discharge HCGS's circulating water system consists of one 512-ft (156-m) high, single counterflow, 26 hyperbOlic, natural draft cooling tower with make-up, blowdown, and basin bypass 27 systems; four circulating water pumps; a two-pass condenser; and a closed-loop 28 circulating water piping arrangement. Once water is processed through the service water 29 system, it is sent to the circulating water system to cool the main condenser and for use as cooling tower make-up water; therefore, debris and biota have already been removed 31 from the water before it enters the circulating water system. Sodium hydroxide and 32 sodium hypochlorite are added to the circulating water system to minimize scaling and 33 prevent biofouling in the cooling tower. Cooling tower blowdown is de-chlorinated with 34 ammonium bisulfate before being discharged to the Delaware Estuary. (PSEG, 2009b)
The HCGS circulating water system loses water through evaporative loss from the 36 cooling tower and blowdown removed from the system to control the buildup of 37 suspended solids. Heated water from cooling tower blowdown is discharged to the 38 estuary through an underwater conduit located 1,500 ft (460 m) upstream of the HCGS 39 intake. The HCGS discharge pipe extends 10 ft (3.0 m) offshore and is situated at mean tide level. (PSEG, 2009b) 41 2.3 Surface Water Use and Facility NJPDES Permits' Limitations 42 The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) and the State of New Jersey regulate 43 surface water use for Salem and HCGS. The DRBC authorizes Salem to withdraw 44 surface water from the Delaware Estuary under a contract that was originally signed in 1977 (DRBC, 1977) and was approved for a 25-year term in 2001 (DRBC, 2001). The 46 DRBC authorizes HCGS to withdraw surface water from the Delaware Estuary under a 10
1 contract that was originally signed in 1975 that was then revised in 1985 following 2
PSEG's decision to build only one unit (DRBG, 1984a). The State of New Jersey 3
regulates water use and effluent discharges under the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge 4
Elimination System (NJPDES) Permit Nos. NJ005622 (for Salem) and NJ0025411 (for 5
HGGS).
6 Salem 7
Salem's NJPDES permit limits the total withdrawal of Delaware River water to 3,024 8
mgd (11.4 million m3/d), with a monthly maximum of 90,720 million gallons (gal.; 343 9
million cubic meters [m3]) (NJDEP, 2001). DRBG's contract with Salem authorizes the 10 facility to withdraw water not to exceed 97,000 million gal. (367 million m3) in a single 30 11 day period (DRBG, 1977; DRBG, 2001). PSEG reports withdrawal volumes to the New 12 Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) through monthly Discharge 13 Monitoring Reports.
14 From June 1 through September 30, Salem may discharge water at a maximum 15 temperature of 115 of (46.1 0c) (PSEG, 1999b). Year-round, Salem's NJPDES permit 16 limits the change in temperature such that discharged water may not exceed a 27.5 of 17 (15.3 0c) change in temperature from the ambient estuary water temperature (PSEG, 18 1999b).
19 Table 1 summarizes specific discharge locations, their associated reporting 20 requirements, and discharge limits under Salem's NJPDES.
21 Table 1. NJPDES Permit Requirements for Salem Nuclear Generating Station Discharge Description Required Reporting Permit Limits DSN 048C Input is NRLWDS and Effluent flow volume None Outfall DSN 4878 Total suspended solids 50 mg/L monthly average Discharges to outfall DSNs 100 mg/L daily maximum 481A,482A,484A,and 485A Ammonia (Total as N) 35 mg/L monthly average 70 mg/L daily maximum Petroleum hydrocarbons 10 mg/L monthly average 15 mg/L daily maximum Total organic carbon Report monthly average 50 mg/L daily maximum DSNs 481A, Input is cooling water, Effluent flow volume None 482A,483A, service water, and DSN Effluent pH 6.0 daily minimum 484A,485A, 048C and 486A (the 9.0 daily maximum Outfall is six separate same discharge pipes requirements Intake pH None for each)
Chlorine-produced oxidants 0.3 mg/L monthly average 0.2 and 0.5 mg/L daily maximum Temperature None DSN 4878
- 3 skim tank, and storm Effluent flow None water from north portion pH 6.0 daily minimum 11
Discharge Description Required Reporting Permit Limits 9.0 daily maximum Total suspended solids 100 mg/L daily maximum Temperature 43.3°C daily maximum Petroleum hydrocarbons 15 mg/L daily maximum Total organic carbon 50 mg/L daily maximum DSN 489A Oil/water separator, Effluent flow None turbine sumps, and storm water from south portion pH 6.0 daily minimum 9.0 daily maximum Total suspended solids 30 mg/L monthly average 100 mg/L daily maximum Petroleum hydrocarbons 10 mg/L monthly average 15 mg/L daily maximum Total organic carbon 50 mg/L daily maximum DSN Outfall Combined for discharges Net temperature (year 15.3°C daily maximum FACA 481A, 482A, and 483A round)
Gross temperature 46.1 °C daily maximum (June to September)
Gross temperature 43.3°C daily maximum (October to May)
DSN Outfall Combined for discharges Net temperature (year 15.3°C daily maximum FACB 484A, 485A, and 486A round)
Gross temperature 46.1*C daily maximum (June to September)
Gross temperature 43.3°C daily maximum (October to May)
MBTU/hr =million British thermal units per hour mg/L = milligrams per liter Source: NJDEP. 2001 1
HCGS 2
Though PSEG is required to measure and report withdrawal volumes to the NJDEP, 3
HCGS's NJPDES permit does not specify limits on the total withdrawal volume of 4
Delaware Estuary water (NJDEP, 2003). HCGS's actual withdrawal of water averages to 5
about 66.8 mgd (253 million m3/day), of which 6.7 mgd (25.400 m3/day) are returned as 6
screen backwash, and 13 mgd (49,000 m3/day) are evaporated. The remainder 7
(approximately 46 mgd [174,000 m3/dayD is discharged back to the estuary (PSEG, 8
2009b). DRBC's contract with HCGS authorizes the facility to withdraw 16.998 billion 9
gal. per year (gallyr; 64.3 million cubic meters per year [m3/yr]), including up to 4.086 10 billion gal. (17.44 million m3) of consumptive use (DRBC, 1984a; DRBC, 1984b). To 11 compensate for evaporative losses in the system, the DRBC authorization requires 12 releases from storage reservoirs, or reductions in withdrawal, during periods of low-flow 12
1 conditions at Trenton, New Jersey (DRBC, 2001). To accomplish this, PSEG is one of 2
several utilities that owns and operates the Merrill Creek Reservoir in Washington, New 3
Jersey, which is used to release water during low-flow conditions as required by the 4
DRBC authorization (PSEG, 2009b).
5 HCGS's NJPDES permit limits heat dissipation from discharged water to an area no 6
larger than 2500 ft (762 m) upstream or downstream and 1500 ft (457 m) offshore from 7
the discharge point. Outside of the designated area, water temperature changes 8
attributable to the plant cannot exceed the estuary's ambient water temperature by more 9
than 4 OF (2.2 0c) from September through Mayor by 1.5 OF (0.8 0) in June, July, and 10 August (Najarian Associates, 2004). In addition, the maximum water temperature 11 attributable to the plant outside of the designated area cannot exceed 86 OF (30 "C) 12 (Najarian Associates, 2004).
13 Table 2 summarizes specific discharge locations, their associated reporting 14 requirements, and discharge limits under HCGS's N...IPDES.
15 Table 2. NJPDES Permit Requirements for HCGS Discharge Description OSN 461A Input is cooling water blowdown and OSN 461C Outfall is discharge pipe OSN 461C Input is low volume oily waste from oillwater separator Outfall is to OSN 461A OSN 462B Sewage treatment plant effluent, discharges to 461 A Required Reporting Effluent flow Intake flow Effluent pH Chlorine-produced oxidants Effluent gross temperature Intake temperature Total organic carbon (effluent gross, effluent net, and intake)
Heat content (June to August)
Heat content (September to May)
Effluent flow Total suspended solids Total recoverable petroleum Hydrocarbons Total organic carbon Effluent flow Total suspended solids Biological oxygen demand (BOD)
Permit limits None None 6.0 daily minimum 9.0 daily maximum 0.2 mg/L monthly average 0.5 mg/L daily maximum 36.20C daily maximum None None 534 MBTU/hr daily maximum 662 MBTU/hr daily maximum None 30 mg/L monthly average 100 mg/L daily maximum 10 mg/L monthly average 15 mg/L daily maximum 50 mg/L daily maximum None 30 mg/L monthly average 45 mg/L weekly average 83% removal daily minimum 8 kg/day monthly average 30 mg/L monthly average 45 mg/L weekly average 13
Discharge Description Required Reporting Permit Limits 87.5 percent removal daily minimum Oil and grease 10 mg/L monthly average 15 mg/L daily maximum Fecal coliform 200 /100 ml monthly geometric 400 1100 ml weekly geometric average 6 separate metal and inorganic None contaminants (cyanide. nickel. zinc.
cadmium. chromium. and copper)
S16A Oil/water separator 24 separate metal and inorganic None residuals from 461 C contaminants 24 separate organic contaminants None Volumes and types of sludge None produced and disposed Source: NJDEP. 2005 1
2.4 Salem and HCGS Section 7 Consultation History 2
2.4.1 Section 7 Consultation History Overview 3
Consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA regarding Salem and HCGS has been 4
ongoing between the NRC and NMFS since 1979. In 1980, NMFS issued a Biological 5
Opinion that concluded that the continued operation of these facilities was not likely to 6
jeopardize the shortnose sturgeon and set a take limit of up to 11 shortnose sturgeon 7
per year. Sea turtles were not included in the 1980 Biological Opinion.
8 The NRC reinitiated consultation on August 19,1988, because Salem had impinged a 9
number of sea turtles. The NMFS issued a revised Biological Opinion on January 2, 10 1991, to include sea turtles. In this Biological Opinion, the NMFS concluded that 11 continued operation of Salem and HCGS would affect sea turtles, but would not 12 jeopardize the continued existence of any populations of threatened or endangered 13 species. The 1991 Biological Opinion also reduced the number of allowable shortnose 14 sturgeon takes based on actual levels of impingement at Salem and HCGS up to that 15 point 16 The NMFS modified the 1991 Biological Opinion on August 4, 1992, to increase the total 17 allowable take limit for loggerheads and shortnose sturgeon. However, between June 18 and October 1992, Salem and HCGS exceeded their take limit for Kemp's ridley 19 mortalities and met their take limit for shortnose sturgeon mortalities. The NMFS issued 20 another Biological Opinion on May 14,1993 (NMFS, 1993), which did not change the 21 take limits of listed species, but which specified that Salem and HCGS should develop a 22 research program using mark/recapture to determine whether Salem has features that 23 attract sea turtles. Also in 1993, PSEG implemented a policy of removing the ice barriers 24 from the trash racks on the intake structure during the period between May 1 and 25 October 24, which resulted in substantially lower turtle impingement rates at Salem.
26 The NRC reinitiated Section 7 Consultation in 1998 to remove the study requirement 27 from the Salem and HCGS's Incidental Take Statement The NRC cited the change in 28 PSEG procedure regarding removal of ice barriers during the spring and summer. In 14
1 response, the NMFS issued a Biological Opinion on January 21,1999, that removed the 2
study requirement and decreased the number of annual allowable takes of shortnose 3
sturgeon from 10 individuals to 5 individuals based on the review of shortnose sturgeon 4
capture rates at Salem and HCGS. The Biological Opinion also formalized ice barrier 5
removal from May 1 through October 24 by making it a requirement in the "Terms and 6
Conditions" section of the Biological Opinion. In order to implement the 1999 Biological 7
Opinion, PSEG developed associated guidance documents, Biological Opinion 8
Compliance (PSEG, 1999a) and Species Management (PSEG, 1999c).
9 Table 3 provides a summary of the incidental take limits for each Biological Opinion that 10 NMFS issued, including the current 1999 Biological Opinion take limits. Neither the 11 leatherback sea turtle nor the Atlantic sturgeon have been included in previous 12 assessments of Salem and HCGS impacts or in previous Biological Opinions.
13 Table 3. Salem and HCGS Incidental Take Statement limits Annual Take Limit Set by NMFS Biological Opinions1a/
Species 1980 1991 1992 1993 1999 loggerhead sea turtle 10 (5) 30 (5) 30 (5) 30 (5) green sea turtle 5 (2) 5 (2) 5 (2) 5 (2)
Kemp's ridley sea turtle 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) shortnose sturgeon 11 2 (2) 10 (2) 10 (10) 5 (5)
(a)The number given is the total number of allowable takes followed in parentheses by the number of takes out of the total that may be lethal takes.
Sources: NMFS, 1993; NMFS, 1999 14 2.4.2 Current Biological Opinion limits and Conditions 15 The current Biological Opinion (NMFS, 1999)'s Incidental Take Statement was amended 16 on January 21, 1999, and allows Salem and HCGS to incidentally take up to the 17 following number of individual listed species:
18 30 loggerheads (of which, up to 5 may be injured or dead),
19 5 green sea turtles (of which, up to 2 may be injured or dead),
20 5 Kemp's ridleys (of which, up to 1 may be injured or dead), and 21 5 shortnose sturgeon (of which, up to 5 may be injured or dead).
22 The Biological Opinion also contains the following "Reasonable and Prudent Measures,"
23 which apply to Salem:
24 Removable ice barriers located on the trash racks must be removed by May 1 25 of each year and replaced after October 24 of each year, 26 Trash racks associated with Salem's circulating water system must be 27 cleaned three times per week from May 1 through November 15 and must be 28 cleaned daily from June 1 through October 15, 29 Trash racks must be inspected every two hours from June 1 through October 30 15, and 15
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1
If a lethal incidental take that is directly attributable to the plant occurs 2
between June 1 and October 15, monitoring of the trash racks must be 3
increased to hourly for the remainder of the year.
4 The Biological Opinion does not contain "Reasonable and Prudent Measures" specific to HCGS. The previous Biological Opinion (NMFS, 1993) concluded that HCGS would not 6
affect listed species because no species had been documented at the site between 7
when the plant began operating in 1986 and the issuance of the Biological Opinion in 8
1993, and the 1993 Biological Opinion did not require monitoring at HCGS beyond 9
normal cleaning operations. The 1999 Biological Opinion did not modify any requirement specific to HCGS.
11 The "Terms and Conditions" portion of the Biological Opinion requires PSEG to report all 12 incidental takes to NMFS within 30 days of the take and to include appropriate 13 documentation in the report. Additionally, the "Terms and Conditions" detail a number of 14 requirements for sea turtle resuscitation, live sea turtle inspection, dead sea turtle necropsy reports, shortnose sturgeon tagging and inspection.
16 3.0 Proposed Action Area:~6elaware Estuary 17 From the mouth of Delaware Bay upstream through the estuary and to the river, the 18 aquatic environment transitions from saltwater, to tidally influenced brackish water of 19 variable salinity, and then to tidal freshwater. Brackish and saltwater marshes occur along the margins of the estuary. The estuary's substrate provides a range of benthic 21 habitats with characteristics dictated by salinity, tides, water velocity, and sediment type.
22 Sediments in the estuary zone surrounding Artificial Island are primarily mud, muddy 23 sand, and sandy mud (PSEG, 2006b).
24 At Artificial Island, the estuary is tidal with a net flow to the south. The USACE maintains a dredged navigation channel near the center of the estuary about 6,600 ft (2,000 m) 26 west of the shoreline at Salem and HCGS. The navigation channel is about 40 ft (12 ft) 27 deep and 1,300 ft (400 m) wide. On the New Jersey side of the channel, water depths in 28 the open estuary at mean low water are fairly uniform at about 20 ft (6 m). Predominant 29 tides in the area are semi-diurnal, with a period of 12.4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> (hrs) and a mean tidal range of 5.5 ft (1.7 m). Tidal currents flow fastest in the channel and more slowly in 31 shallower areas (NRC, 1984; Najarian Associates, 2004).
32 Salinity is an important determinant of biotic distribution in estuaries, and salinity near 33 the Salem and HCGS facilities varies with river flow. NRC (1984) reported that average 34 salinity in this area during periods of low flow ranged from 5 to 18 parts per thousand (ppt;.005 to.018 milligrams per liter [mg/L]) and during periods of higher flow ranged 36 from 0 to 5 ppt (0 to 0.005 mg/L). Najarian Associates (2004) and PSEG (2005) 37 characterized salinity at HCGS as ranging from 0 to 20 ppt (0 to.02 mg/L) and typically 38 exceeding 6 ppt (0.006 mg/L) in summer during periods of low flow. Based on 39 temperature and conductivity data collected by the USGS at Reedy Island just north of Artificial Island, Najarian Associates (2004) calculated salinity from 1991 through 2002.
41 Their data indicate that salinity during the study period had a median of about 5 ppt 42 (0.005 mg/L); exceeded 12 ppt (0.012 mg/L) in only two years and 13 ppt (0.013 mg/L) 43 in only one year; and never exceeded 15 ppt (0.015 mg/L) during the entire 11-year 44 period. Based on these observations, NRC staff assumes that salinity in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS is typically from 0 to 5 ppt (0 to 0.005 mg/L) in periods of low flow 46 (usually, but not always, summer) and 5 to 12 ppt (0.005 to 0.012 mg/L) in periods of 16
1 high flow. Within these larger patterns, salinity at any specific location also varies with 2
the tides (NRC, 2007).
3 Monthly average surface water temperatures in the Delaware Estuary vary with season.
4 Between 1977 and 1982, water temperatures ranged from 30.4 degrees Fahrenheit (OF; 5
-0.89 degrees Celsius [OCl) in February 1982 to 86.9 OF (32.0 °C) in August 1980.
6 Although the estuary in this reach is generally well mixed, it can occasionally stratify, 7
with surface temperatures 2 OF to 4 OF (1°C to 2 0c) higher than bottom temperatures 8
and salinity increasing as much as 2.0 ppt (0.002 mg/L) per 3.3 ft (1.0 m) of water depth 9
(NRC, 1984).
10 The estuary reach adjacent to Artificial Island is at the interface of the oligohaline and 11 mesohaline zones, based on Cowardin et al. (1979)'s estuary classification criteria.
12 Thus, the estuary reach bordering Salem and HCGS is oligohaline during high flow and 13 mesohaline during low flow conditions. Based on water clarity categories of good, fair, or 14 poor, the EPA (1998) classified the water clarity in this area of the estuary as generally 15 fair (meaning that a wader in waist-deep water would not be able to see his feet). The 16 EPA classified the water clarity directly upstream and downstream of this reach as poor 17 (meaning that a diver would not be able to see his hand at arm's length). EPA (1998) 18 classified most estuarine waters in the Mid-Atlantic as having good water clarity and 19 stated that lower water clarity typically is due to phytoplankton blooms and suspended 20 sediments and detritus.
21 The Delaware Bay is a complex estuary, with many individual species playing different 22 roles in the system, and often, species play several ecological roles throughout their 23 lifecycles. Major assemblages of organisms within the estuarine community include 24 plankton, benthic invertebrates, and fish. Detailed descriptions of these assemblages 25 can be found in Section 2.2.5 of the NRC (2010a)'s draft SEIS for Salem and HCGS.
26 4.0 Federally Listed Species Considered 27 NMFS (2010) identified five aquatic species under its jurisdiction that are Federally listed 28 as threatened or endangered and one species that is listed as a candidate that may 29 occur in the Delaware Estuary in the vicinity of the Salem and HCGS facilities. These 30 species are listed in Table 4 and also described in detail in the following sections.
31 Table 4. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Aquatic Species 32 of the Delaware Estuary in the Vicinity of Salem and HCGS.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal StatuS(l, Caretta caretta loggerhead sea turtle T
Chelonia mydas green sea turtle T
Lepidochelys kempii Kemp's ridley sea turtle E
Dermochelys coriacea leatherback sea turtle E
Acipenser brevirostrum shortnose sturgeon E
A. oxyrinchus oxyrinchus Atlantic sturgeon e
(jje =candidate; E =endangered; T =threatened Source: NMFS, 2010 17
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 4.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle Species Description The Federally threatened loggerhead turtle has a slightly elongated, heart shaped carapace that tapers towards the posterior and has a broad, triangular head (Pritchard et aI., 1983). Loggerheads normally weigh up to 450 pounds (Ib; 200 kilograms [kg]) and attain a straight carapace length of up to 48 in. (120 cm) (Pritchard et aI., 1983). Their general coloration is reddish-brown dorsally and creamy-yellow ventrally (Hopkins and Richardson, 1984). Morphologically, the loggerhead is distinguishable from other sea turtle species by the following characteristics: 1) a hard shell; 2) two pairs of scutes on the front of the head; 3) five pairs of lateral scales on the carapace; 4) plastron with three pairs of enlarged scutes connecting the carapace; 5) two claws on each flipper; and, 6) reddish-brown coloration (Nelson, 1988; Dodd, 1988; Wolke and George, 1981).
Loggerheads reach sexual maturity at about 35 years of age (NOAA, 2010e). Females nest on sandy, ocean beaches every other to every third year from April through September along the southeastern coast of the U.S., and nesting usually peaks in late June and July (Dodd, 1988; Hopkins and Richardson, 1984). Females lay 2 to 3 clutches of eggs per nesting year, and each clutch consists of 35 to 180 eggs (Hopkins and Richardson, 1984). The eggs hatch in 46 to 68 days, and 2-in. (5-cm) hatchlings emerge at night, move rapidly towards the water, and swim out to sea (Hopkins and Richardson, 1984). Loggerhead hatchlings are brown dorsally with light margins ventrally and have five pairs of lateral scales (Pritchard et aI., 1983). Many hatchlings fall prey to sea birds and other predators following emergence. Those hatchlings that reach the water quickly move offshore and remain in the open sea until maturity (Carr, 1986).
Distribution and Habitat Loggerhead turtles are circumglobal, inhabiting continental shelves, bays, lagoons, and estuaries in the temperate, subtropical and tropical waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans (Dodd, 1988; Mager, 1985). In the western Atlantic Ocean, loggerhead turtles occur from Argentina northward to Newfoundland including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea (Dodd, 1988; Mager, 1985; Nelson, 1988). Sporadic nesting is reported throughout the tropical and warmer temperate range of the species' distribution, but the most important nesting areas are the Atlantic coast of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina (Hopkins and Richardson, 1984).
Loggerheads occupy three types of habitat during their lifecycle: oceanic beaches, deep water ocean, and nearshore ocean (NOAA, 2010e). Loggerheads begin their lives on coastal beaches when hatchlings emerge from the nest. Hatchlings quickly move towards the water and are swept through the surf zone and into deeper ocean water.
Between the ages of 7 to 12 years old, juveniles migrate to nearshore coastal areas, which provides foraging habitat. Loggerheads are primarily carnivorous and eat a variety of benthic organisms that are found nearshore, including mollusks, crabs, shrimp, jellyfish, sea urchins, sponges, squids, and fishes (Nelson, 1988; Seney et aI., 2002).
Adult loggerheads occupy a combination of all three zones during their migration from foraging habitats to nesting beaches. Some populations stay along the continental shelf during their migration routes, while other populations migrate through deep water to and from the Bahamas, Cuba, and the Yucatan Peninsula (NOAA, 2010e).
Population Trends and ESA Listing History The FWS listed the loggerhead on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the ESA on July 28, 1978 (43 FR 323800). In 1985, the NMFS conducted 18
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1
a five-year review (Mager, 1985) for the species based on estimates of nesting female 2
populations. Mager (1985) considered 52 populations throughout the Atlantic, Pacific, 3
and Indian Oceans and concluded that 33 of the 52 populations were declining; 18 were 4
of unknown status; and 1 population. the southeast U.S. Atlantic population, was increasing. The FWS conducted a second five-year review (56 FR 56882) in 1991 that 6
assessed multiple species in addition to the loggerhead within the review. No change in 7
the loggerhead's listing status resulted from the 1991 status review. In 1995. NMFS and 8
FWS conducted a third five-year review (Plotkin. 1995), which indicated that the number 9
of nesting females in South Carolina and Georgia was declining at a rate of 5 percent and 3 percent per year, respectively. Data on the Florida loggerhead population, which 11 accounts for over 90 percent of loggerhead nesting activity. indicated that it was stable.
12 but that increasing human presence near nesting habitat could impact the population in 13 the future (Plotkin, 1995). NMFS and FWS (2007d) conducted a fourth five-year review 14 of the loggerhead in 2007, which indicated that loggerhead populations may be able to be separated by distinct population segments (DPSs) based on ocean basins. In 16 accordance with the NMFS and FWS's 1996 DPS policy (61 FR 4722), NMFS and FWS 17 convened a Loggerhead Biological Review Team in February 2008 to review the newly 18 available information on loggerhead populations and determine if the DPS criteria 19 applied to the species. Conant et al. (2009a) published a status review associated with this effort, which identified nine loggerhead DPSs distributed throughout the globe. On 21 March 16. 2010. the NMFS published a proposed rule to list 9 loggerhead DPSs under 22 the ESA (75 FR 12598). The proposed rule identifies the Northwest Atlantic DPS, which 23 includes those loggerheads nesting along the coasts of North America. Central America, 24 northern South America, the Antilles, and The Bahamas. as an endangered DPS. This DPS constitutes the most significant nesting assemblage of loggerheads in the western 26 hemisphere and would include those loggerheads that migrate as far north as New 27 Jersey.
28 4.2 Green Sea Turtle 29 Species Description The Federally threatened green sea turtle is the largest of the hard-shelled sea turtles.
31 but has a small. nearly oval carapace and a small, rounded head (Pritchard et aI., 1983).
32 Its carapace is olive brown in color with darker streaks and spots, and its plastron is 33 yellow. Full grown adult green turtles weigh 220 to 330 Ib (100 to 150 kg) and attain a 34 straight carapace length of 35 to 40 in. (90 to 100 cm) (Pritchard et al., 1983; Hopkins and Richardson. 1984; Witherington and Ehrhart, 1989). Morphologically. this species 36 can be distinguished from the other sea turtles by the following characteristics: 1} a 37 relatively smooth shell with no overlapping scutes; 2) one pair of scutes on the front of 38 the head; 3} four pairs of lateral scutes on the carapace; 4) plastron with four pairs of 39 enlarged scutes connecting the carapace; 5} one claw on each flipper; and. 6) olive. dark brown mottled coloration (Nelson, 1988; Pritchard et aI., 1983).
41 Green turtles reach sexual maturity at 20 to 50 years of age (NOAA, 2010b). In the 42 southeastern U.S.* females nest between June and September. with peak nesting 43 between June and July (NOAA, 2010b). Although males mate annually, females only 44 nest every two to four years (NOAA, 2010b). Mature females may nest 1 to 7 times per season at about 10- to 18-day intervals (Carr et al.. 1978). Average clutch size varies 46 between 100 and 200 eggs. and eggs usually hatch within 45 to 60 days (Hopkins and 47 Richardson, 1984). Hatchlings emerge at night, travel quickly to water, and swim out to 48 sea. Hatchlings are about 0.88 ounces (oz; 25 grams [g]), 2.2 in. (5.5 cm) long, and 19
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 have a black carapace that is white on the ventral side. As with loggerhead hatchlings, many green hatchlings are attacked by predators before reaching the ocean. Those hatchlings that reach the water quickly move offshore and remain in the open sea until maturity.
Distribution and Habitat Atlantic green turtles are circumglobally distributed mainly in waters between the northern and southern 68 OF (20°C) isotherms (Mager, 1985) and may inhabit the coastal waters of over 140 countries (NMFS and FWS, 2007a). In the western Atlantic, several major assemblages have been identified and studied (Parsons 1962; Pritchard, 1966; Schulz, 1975; 1982; Carr et aI., 1978). In U.S. Atlantic waters, green turtles are found around the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the continental United States from Texas to Massachusetts (NMFS and FWS, 1991). Nesting grounds extend from Texas to North Carolina, as well as in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and important feeding ground within the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico includes the Indian River Lagoon, the Florida Keys, Florida Bay, Crystal River, and St. Joseph Bay (NOAA, 2010b). Critical habitat is designated in waters around Isla Culebra, Puerto Rico (NOAA, 2010b).
Green turtles occupy three types of habitat during their lifecycle: oceanic beaches, convergence zones in the open ocean, and nearshore benthic feeding grounds. Green turtles begin their lives on coastal beaches when hatchlings emerge from the nest.
Hatchlings quickly move towards the water and swim to offshore to open ocean, where they remain for several years (NOAA, 2010b). Post-hatchlings are most likely omnivorous and eat a combination of pelagic plants and animals (NOAA, 2010b). Upon reaching a straight carapace length of about 8 to 10 in. (20 to 25 cm), green turtles move closer to shore into benthic foraging areas (Mager, 1985). Adults are almost exclusively herbivores and eat sea grasses and algae, though they also may consume jellyfish, sponges, and other organisms living on sea grass blades and algae (Mager, 1985; NMFS and FWS, 1991). Adult females migrate up to thousands of miles from benthic foraging areas to mainland or island beaches to nest every two to four years (NOAA, 2010b).
Population Trends and ESA Listing History The FWS listed the green sea turtle on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the ESA on July 28, 1978 (43 FR 323800), and the NMFS and FWS published a recovery plan for the U.S. green turtle population in 1991 (NMFS and FWS, 1991). In 2004, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)'s Marine Turtle Specialist Group report that a 48 to 65 percent decline in the number of mature nesting females has occurred in all major ocean basins over the past 100 to 150 years (Seminoff, 2004). In 2007, the NMFS and FWS published a five-year review of the green sea turtle (NMFS and FWS, 2007a). The NMFS and FWS (2007a) reported that out of 23 major nesting sites, 10 nesting populations were increasing, 9 were stable, and 4 were decreasing. Within the western Atlantic Ocean, NMFS and FWS (2007a) reported that four of the six major nesting rookeries had shown population increases, and data for the other two nesting rookeries indicated that the populations were stable. However, the report noted that because of the green sea turtle's long lifespan and the lack of long-term data at the majority of the sites, this information may be misleading (NMFS and FWS, 2007a). In the five-year review, the NMFS and FWS (2007a) recommended that the green sea turtle remain listed under the ESA, but that a review of the species should 20
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1
be conducted to determine the applicability of the 1996 DPS policy (61 FR 4722) to the 2
species.
3 4.3 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle 4
Species Description The Federally endangered Kemp's ridley is the smallest of living sea turtle species.
6 Adults weigh up to 90 Ib (42 kg) and attain a straight carapace length up to 27 in. (70 7
cm) (Pritchard et aI., 1983). The Kemp's ridley has a circular carapace and a medium 8
sized pointed head with olive-green coloration on its dorsal side and yellow coloration on 9
its ventral side (Hopkins and Richardson, 1984). Morphologically, the Kemp's ridley is distinguishable from other sea turtle species by the following characteristics: 1) a hard 11 shell; 2) two pairs of scutes on the front of the head; 3) five pairs of lateral scutes on the 12 carapace; 4) plastron with four pairs of scutes with pores, connecting the carapace; 5) 13 one claw on each front flipper and two on each back flipper; and, 6) olive green 14 coloration (Pritchard et aI., 1983; Pritchard and Marquez, 1973).
Kemp's ridleys reach sexual maturity between the ages of 10 and 15 years (IUCN 16 Marine Turtle Specialist Group, 2010). Females lay 2 to 3 clutches of about 100 eggs 17 each between May and July along the coast near Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico 18 (Pritchard and Marquez, 1973; Hopkins and Richardson, 1984). During the nesting 19 season, females aggregate onshore in large groups to lay eggs (NOAA, 2010c). The species' synchronized nesting behavior may be triggered by offshore winds, lunar 21 cycles, and the release of pheromones, but is a phenomenon that is not well understood 22 by scientists (NOAA, 2010c). Kemp's ridley eggs hatch in 45 to 70 days, and 1.5-in. (3.8 23 cm) hatchlings emerge 2 to 3 days later (Hopkins and Richardson, 1984; NOAA, 2010c).
24 Hatchlings weigh about 0.5 oz (14 g) and are dark grey-black dorsally and white ventrally (Pritchard et aI., 1983; Pritchard and Marquez, 1973). Hatchings move quickly 26 towards the ocean once they hatch, though many are attacked by predators before 27 reaching the ocean. Those hatchlings that reach the water quickly move offshore and 28 remain in the open sea until maturity.
29 Distribution and Habitat The Kemp's ridley has the most restricted geographical range of the sea turtle species 31 because they are only known to primarily nest in one main beach area-Rancho Nuevo, 32 Tamaulipas, Mexico (Pritchard and Marquez, 1973; Hopkins and Richardson, 1984).
33 Females occasionally use two additional nesting grounds in Padre Island, Texas, and 34 Veracruz, Mexico (Mager, 1985; Turtle Expert Working Group, 2000). Adults migrate through the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean, and the northwest Atlantic Ocean.
36 Kemp's ridleys inhabit nearshore habitat that contains muddy or sandy bottoms that 37 support their prey-swimming crabs, small fish, jellyfish, and mollusks (NOAA, 2010c).
38 Adults occupy deeper ocean only during migration, and Plotkin (1995) suggested that 39 Kemp's ridleys rarely occupy waters deeper than 160 ft (50 m). Some males migrate annually within the Gulf of Mexico between feeding and breeding grounds, while other 41 males do not migrate at all (NOAA, 2010c). Females migrate through foraging areas 42 between the Yucatan Peninsula to southern Florida and return to beach habitat along 43 the coast of Mexico to nest (NOAA, 2010c).
44 Population Trends and ESA Listing History The FWS listed the Kemp's ridley on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 46 Wildlife under the ESA on December 2,1970 (35 FR 18319), and NMFS and FWS 21
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1
published a recovery plan for the species in 1992 (NMFS and FWS, 1992). In 1977, the 2
FWS and Mexican Government began a cooperative program to take about 2,000 eggs 3
per year from Rancho Nuevo, hatch Kemp's ridley eggs in captivity, and release them 4
once they had passed through vulnerable life stages (NMFS, 1994). This "headstart" program was controversial among sea turtle biologists. Between 1947 and 1992, the 6
population of nesting females in Rancho Nuevo declined by over 98 percent, from a 7
documented 40,000 females during a single breeding event to less than 500 (NMFS, 8
1994). By 1985, the estimated number of nesting females had declined even further to 9
approximately 234 turtles (NMFS and FWS, 2007b). The nesting female population remained well below 1,000 during the 1980s, but began to increase in the 1990s. Plotkin 11 (1995) reported that juvenile Kemp's ridleys were appearing in the northern Gulf of 12 Mexico, whereas Kemp's ridleys had not been encountered in this area when initial 13 surveys of the species had been completed in the 1950s. By 2002, the FWS reported 14 over 6,000 nests in Tamaulipas and Veracruz, which equates to approximately 1,897 nesting females (NMFS and FWS, 2007b). In a five-year review of the species, the 16 NMFS and FWS (2007b) reported that an estimated 12,143 females nested in Mexico in 17 2006, and an additional 100 nests were recorded in the U.S., primarily in Texas. In the 18 five-year review, the NMFS and FWS (2007b) recommended that the Kemp's ridley sea 19 turtle remain listed under the ESA as endangered, but that the recovery plan for the species be updated based upon newly available scientific information. NOAA issued a 21 Draft Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii),
22 Second Revision, for public comment on March 16, 2010 (75 FR 12496). The draft 23 recovery plan (NMFS and FWS, 2010) predicts that, assuming current survival rates 24 remain constant and based on data from Heppel et al. (2005), the Kemp's ridley population with grow between 12 and 16 percent per year and could reach 10,000 26 nesting females per season by 2015.
27 4.4 Leatherback Sea Turtle 28 Species Description 29 The Federally endangered leatherback sea turtle is the largest living sea turtle and is the only sea turtle that does not have a hard, bony shell. It has an elongated, somewhat 31 triangularly shaped body with longitudinal ridges or keels. It has a leathery, blue-black 32 shell composed of a thick layer of oily, vascularized, cartilaginous material, strengthened 33 by a mosaic of thousands of small bones. Its blue-black shell may also have variable 34 white spotting, and its plastron is white. Leatherbacks can weigh up to 2,000 Ib (900 kg) and attain a straight carapace length of 55 in. (140 cm) (NOAA, 2010d; Pritchard et aI.,
36 1983; Hopkins and Richardson, 1984). Morphologically, this species can be easily 37 distinguished from the other sea turtles by the following characteristics: 1) its smooth 38 unscaled carapace with seven longitudinal ridges; 2) head and flippers covered with 39 unscaled skin; and, 3) no claws on the flippers (Nelson, 1988; Pritchard et aI., 1983; Pritchard, 1971).
41 Leatherbacks reach sexual maturity at the age of 12 to 15 years. Leatherbacks mate in 42 waters adjacent to nesting grounds, and the species nests around the world including 43 along the coasts of northern South America, west Africa, the U.S. Caribbean, the U.S.
44 Virgin Islands, and southeast Florida (NOAA, 2010d). Females nest from late February or March to September 1 to 9 times per season at about 9-to 17-day intervals (Hopkins 46 and Richardson, 1984). Females lay between 50 and 170 eggs, which hatch within 50 47 to 75 days (Hopkins and Richardson, 1984). Two to 3-in. (50- to 77-cm) hatchlings 22
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 weighing 1.4 to 1.8 oz (40 to 50 g) emerge at night, travel quickly to the water, and swim out to sea.
Distribution and Habitat Leatherbacks are circumglobally distributed and occur in the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans. They range as far north as Labrador, Canada, and the state of Alaska to as far south as Chile and the Cape of Good Hope. The leatherback is highly migratory, and tagged females have been found to migrate from French Guiana to the east coast of North America and as far north as Newfoundland (NOAA, 2010d). The species is able to maintain a body temperature warmer than the surrounding seawater over a long period of time due to its counter-current body heat exchange, high oil content, and large body size, and these adaptations likely accounts for its occurrence farther north than other sea turtle species (NOAA, 2010d). Shoop et al. (1981) reported that, from April to November, leatherbacks occur from North Carolina to north to Nova Scotia but that during the summer months, leatherbacks are most likely to restrict their range from the Gulf of Maine south to Long Island. The NMFS designated critical habitat for the species in the coastal waters adjacent to Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (44 FR 17710).
Leatherbacks spend the majority of their lives in deep, open ocean, but may also forage in coastal waters. The diet of the leatherback consists primarily of soft-bodied animals such as jellyfish and tunicates, together with juvenile fishes, amphipods, and other organisms, which can be found in either coastal areas or deeper ocean (Hopkins and Richardson, 1984). The habitat preferences of juvenile leatherbacks are not well understood, though Eckert (2002) noted that leatherbacks smaller than 39 in. (100 cm) are only sighted in waters warmer than 79 of (26°C).
Population Trends and ESA Listing History The FWS listed the leatherback on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the ESA on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491). Pritchard (1982) estimated the worldwide population of leatherbacks to be 115,000 individuals based on estimates from nesting female surveys. In January 1996, NOAA published a notice of availability of a status review of the species (61 FR 17). In the review, Plotkin (1995) noted that the species population had declined since Pritchard's 1982 estimate and that available data indicated that only 20,000 to 30,000 females remained. Plotkin (1995) concluded that it was unknown whether leatherback populations under U.S. jurisdiction were stable, increasing, or decreasing, but that some U.S. nesting populations, such as those in St.
John and St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, were near extirpation. In 1998, the NMFS and FWS published a recovery plan for the Pacific population of leatherbacks (63 FR 28359).
No such recovery plan has been published for the Atlantic population. In the 2007 five-year review of the species NMFS and FWS (2007c) indicated that the Atlantic population within Florida has shown an increase in nests from 98 in 1988 to 800 to 900 in the early 2000s. Nesting also increased in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the British Virgin Islands from the 1980s to the 2000s (NMFS and FWS, 2007c). However, Leatherback nesting along the Costa Rica Atlantic coast decreased 67.8 percent from 1995 to 2006 (NMFS and FWS, 2007c). In 2007, the Turtle Expert Working Group (2007) estimated the Atlantic population to be between 34,000 and 94,000 individuals strong. The species has not been officially divided into DPSs, but in the most recent five-year review, the NMFS and FWS (2007c) recommended that the leatherback sea turtle remain be reviewed to specifically determine the applicability of the 1996 DPS policy (61 FR 4722) to the species.
23
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1
4.5 Shortnose Sturgeon 2
Species Description 3
The shortnose sturgeon is an anadromous, primitive bonyfish that can be differentiated 4
by other sturgeon species by its smaller size and shorter and blunter nose than other sturgeon species. Shortnose sturgeons grow to a length of 4.7 ft (1.4 m) and typically 6
weigh up to 50.71b (23 kg) (NOAA, 2010f). Juveniles mature into adults at a fork length 7
of 18 to 22 in. (45 to 55 cm), which, in the Delaware River, coincides to about 3 to 5 8
years of age in males and 6 to 7 years of age in females (NOAA, 201 Of). The 9
shortnose's lifespan varies from 30 years (males) to 67 years (females).
The shortnose sturgeon migrates earlier in the year than other Atlantic sturgeon species.
11 Adults begin to migrate upstream to freshwater beginning in the winter, spend most of 12 the winter in deep waters of rivers and estuaries, and spawn between January and mid 13 May (Dadswell et aI., 1984). Water temperature is a major determining factor of 14 spawning time, and shortnose begin to spawn when water temperatures reach 46 to 48 OF (8 to 9°C) (Gilbert, 1989), which in the Delaware Estuary is early to mid-April (NODC, 16 2010). Females produce 40,000 to 200,000 dark brown to black-colored eggs each 17 spring and lay their eggs in faster flowing waters over rock, rubble, or hard clay substrate 18 (Gilbert, 1989). Eggs are separate when spawned, but become adhesive within 20 19 minutes of being fertilized and adhere to hard substrates on the river bottom (Dadwell et aI., 1984). Eggs hatch in 4 to 15 days with incubation time being inversely correlated 21 with water temperate; eggs hatch in 8 days at 63 OF (17°C) and in 13 days at 50 OF (10 22°C) (Gilbert, 1989). Larvae consume their yolk sac and begin feeding in 8 to 12 days, as 23 they migrate downstream and away from the spawning site (Kynard, 1997; Colette and 24 Klein-MacPhee, 2002). Juveniles, which feed on benthic insects and crustaceans, remain in freshwater until the following winter, at which time they migrate to brackish 26 estuaries, where they remain for 3 to 5 years. Shortnose sturgeon are considered adults 27 at a fork length of 18 to 22 in. (45 to 55 cm) and age of 3 to 10 years (Gilbert, 1989). As 28 adults, they migrate to the nearshore marine environment, where their diet consists of 29 mollusks and large crustaceans (Shepard, 2006).
Distribution and Habitat 31 Shortnose sturgeons inhabit rivers, estuaries, and nearshore marine environments. The 32 species spawns in coastal rivers along the Atlantic coast from St. Johns River, New 33 Brunswick, Canada, south to St. Johns River, Florida (NOAA, 201 Of). Shortnose occur in 34 most major river systems along the Atlantic coast, including the Savannah River, Georgia; the Chesapeake Bay system; the Delaware River; the Hudson River, New 36 York; the Connecticut River; and the lower Merrimack River, Massachusetts (NOAA, 37 201 Of).
38 Sturgeon larvae hatch in freshwater, and juveniles migrate from freshwater riverine 39 environments to brackish estuarine environments between the ages of 3 to 5 years.
Adults inhabit nearshore marine areas and are not believed to travel long distances 41 offshore during their annual migration routes (NOAA, 2010f).
42 Population Trends and ESA Listing History 43 No historical population estimates are available for the shortnose sturgeon. Though the 44 species has never been widely commercially fished, the species was often incidentally taken in fishing gear, and by the 1950s, the lack of recorded shortnose landings led the 46 FWS to conclude that the species was in danger of extinction (NOAA, 201 Of). The FWS 47 listed the shortnose sturgeon on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 24
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1
under the ESA on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001). In the 1980s, Hastings et a!. (1987) 2 estimated the Delaware River population to be 6,408 to 14,080 adults. This estimate 3
suggested that the Delaware River short nose population was one of the healthiest at the 4
time; however, because these estimates did not account for recruitment and migration rates between population segments, it was unclear whether the estimates truly 6
represented the total population in the river (SSRT, 1998; Pyle, 2005). A Recovery Plan 7
(SSRT, 1998) was developed for the species in 1998, which recognized 19 distinct 8
population segments along the Atlantic Coast because shortnose sturgeon return to their 9
natal rivers to spawn each year, which results in minimal genetic intermixing (SSRT, 1998). The Recovery Plan did not provide any updated information specific to the 11 Delaware River population. The NMFS initiated a status review of the short nose 12 sturgeon on November 30,2007 (72 FR 67712). The NMFS expected to complete the 13 status review in 2009 (NOAA, 2009); however, the deadline for providing comments 14 pertaining to the review was extended on January 29, 2008 (73 FR 5177), and to date, this status review has not been published.
16 4.6 Atlantic Sturgeon 17 Species Description 18 The Atlantic sturgeon is an anadromous bonyfish that can grow to 14 ft (4.3 m) and 19 weigh up to 800 Ibs (370 kg) (Gilbert, 1989; NOAA, 2010a). Atlantic sturgeon are similar in appearance to shortnose sturgeon-bluish-black to olive brown dorsally with pale 21 sides and underbelly-but are larger in size and have a smaller and differently shaped 22 mouth (NOAA, 2010a). Females reach maturity at 7 to 30 years of age, and males reach 23 maturity at 5 to 24 years of age, with those fish inhabiting the southern range maturing 24 earlier (ASMFC, 2007).
In the mid-Atlantic, adults migrate upriver from April to May to spawn. Females in the 26 Delaware River produce 0.8 to 2.4 million highly adhesive eggs, which fall to the bottom 27 of the water column and adhere to cobble or other hard bottom substrate (ASSRT, 2007; 28 Gilbert, 1987). Eggs hatch in 94 to 140 hours0.00162 days <br />0.0389 hours <br />2.314815e-4 weeks <br />5.327e-5 months <br /> at temperatures of 20°C (68 OF) and 18 °C 29 (64.4 OF), respectively (ASSRT, 2007). Larvae consume their yolk sac in 8 to 12 days, during which time larvae migrate downstream into brackish water, where they live for a 31 few months (ASSRT, 2007). When juveniles reach a size of 30 to 36 in. (76 to 92 cm),
32 they migrate to nearshore coastal waters, where they feed on benthic invertebrates, 33 including crustaceans, worms, and mollusks (NOAA, 2010a).
34 Distribution and Habitat Historically, the Atlantic sturgeon has inhabited riverine, estuarine, and coastal ocean 36 waters from St. Lawrence River, Canada, to St. John's River, Florida (ASMFC, 2009).
37 However, within the U.S., the species is only known to remain in the Hudson River, 38 Delaware River, and a few South Carolina river systems (ASMFC, 2009).
39 Atlantic sturgeon larvae hatch in freshwater, and larvae migrate from freshwater to brackish estuarine environments, where they remain for a few months to a few years 41 (NOAA, 2010a). Juveniles and non-spawning adults inhabit estuaries and coastal marine 42 waters dominated by gravel and sand substrates (NOAA, 2010a).
43 Population Trends and ESA Listing History 44 Atlantic sturgeon have been commercially fished from as early as 1628, though a substantial Atlantic sturgeon fishery did not appear until the late 1800s (Shepard, 2006).
46 Overfishing and habitat degradation caused a decline in landings beginning in the early 25
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1
1900s; however, landings increased from 1950 to 1980, specifically in the Carolinas, and 2
ranged from 45 metric tons per year (mtlyr) to 115 mt/yr (Shepard, 2006). In 1998, the 3
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, which manages the commercial harvest of 4
the species, instituted a moratorium on Atlantic sturgeon harvest in U.S. waters until the population grows to at least 20 protected age classes in each spawning stock, which 6
may take up to 40 years (NOM, 2010a). Today, the species is still caught as bycatch.
7 Based on data from 2001 to 2006, the ASMFC (2007) estimated that between 2,752 and 8
7,904 individuals per year are caught as bycatch in sink gillnets, and 2,167 to 7,210 9
individuals per year are caught as bycatch in trawls. In a 2007 Status Review of the species, the Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team (2007) noted that little is known 11 about the size and spawning of the Delaware River population, but that the current 12 population has been greatly reduced within all life stages.
13 In 2007, the NMFS considered listing the Atlantic sturgeon under the ESA, but 14 concluded that listing was not warranted at that time. In 2009, the Natural Resources Defense Council petitioned for the NMFS to reconsider the listing of the species (NRDC, 16 2009). The NMFS accepted the NRDC's petition in a 90-Day Finding on January 6, 2010 17 (75 FR 838). On October 6, 2010, the NMFS published Proposed Listing Determinations 18 for five Atlantic sturgeon DPSs (75 FR 61872; 75 FR 61904). Atlantic Sturgeon found 19 within the vicinity of Salem and HCGS in the Delaware Estuary are part of the proposed New York Bight DPS, which includes the Long Island Sound, the New York Bight, and 21 the Delaware Bay from Chatham, Massachusetts, to the Delaware-Maryland border.
22 5.0 Proposed Action Effects Analysis 23 Salem and HCGS may affect Federally listed species in the Delaware Estuary by:
24
- 1) Impingement of listed individuals as juveniles or adults at the facilities' water intake pOints. Impingement occurs when aquatic 26 organisms are pinned against intake screens or other parts of the 27 cooling water system intake structure.
28
- 2) Entrainment of eggs or larvae of listed species at the facilities' 29 water intake points. Entrainment occurs when aquatic organisms (usually eggs, larvae, and other small organisms) are drawn into the 31 cooling water system and are subjected the thermal, physical, and 32 chemical stress.
33
- 3) Heat shock from the discharge of heated water at the facilities' 34 discharge points. Heat shock is acute thermal stress caused by exposure to a sudden elevation of water temperature that adversely 36 affects the metabolism and behavior of fish and other aquatic 37 organisms.
38 This section summarizes historical incidental takes of listed species, incidental takes of 39 species since issuance of the current Biological Opinion (f\\lMFS, 1999), and expected impacts to each listed species during the remaining 6, 10, and 16-year period of 41 operation for Salem, Unit 1; Salem, Unit 2; and HGCS, respectively, as well as the 42 proposed 20-year relicensing period.
43 5.1 Historical Incidental Takes of Listed Species 44 HCGS has not reported any impingement of listed species in its intake since it began operating in 1986 (PSEG, 2009b), and thus, has no historical impingement records.
26
1 Salem's historical impingement data prior to NMFS's issuance of the most recent 2
Biological Opinion (NMFS, 1999) is summarized by species and year in Table 5.
3 Table 5. Historical Incidental Takes of Listed Species at Salem, 1979-1998 Year Number Impinged(a)
Loggerhead Green Sea Kemp's Ridley Leatherback Shortnose Atlantic Sea Turtle Turtle Sea Turtle Sea Turtle Sturgeon Sturgeon 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2 (2) 1 (0) 3 (2) 1 (1) 1 (1) 2 (2) 1 (1) 2 (2) 1 (0) 6 (5) 2 (1) 1 (1) 3 (0) 3 (2) 8 (6) 2 (1) 2 (0) 6 (2) 23(b) (1) 1 (0) 1 (0) 10 (0) 1 (1) 4 (2) 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 3 (3) 2 (2) 2 (2) 3 (1)
TOTAL 65 (24) 2 (1) 24 (11) 0(0) 13 (11) 0(0)
Sources: NMFS, 1993; PSEG, Undated (a)The number impinged is shown as the total number impinged, followed by the number of individuals out of the total that were either dead when found in the intake or dead afterward shown in parentheSiS. A"*"
indicates that no impingements of that species occurred during the given year.
(b)Two of the live turtles in 1991 were recaptures.
4 In 1991, at total of 25 sea turtles were observed, captured or recovered at the Salem 5
Circulating water intake. In 1992, during a period of re-initiated Section 7 consultation, 6
PSEG removed the ice barriers attached to the trash racks of the intake, which had 7
previously been left on year-round (PSEG, 2009a). PSEG and NMFS suspected that the 8
ice barriers were attracting sea turtles or in some way reducing sea turtles' ability to 9
easily exit the immediate intake area, and thus, increasing the sea turtles' susceptibility 10 to impingement (PSEG, 2009a). As discussed in Section 2.4.1, in 1993, PSEG began 11 removing the ice barriers between May 1 and October 24 of each year, and in 1999, the 27
1 NMFS formalized seasonal ice barrier removal as a requirement of the Biological 2
Opinion (NMFS, 1999). Since 1993, Salem has impinged a dramatically reduced number 3
of sea turtles, which is likely correlated with the seasonal removal of the ice barriers.
4 5.2 Incidental Takes of Listed Species, 1999-Present 5
Since the issuance of the 1999 Biological Opinion (NMFS, 1999), Salem has impinged a 6
total of 3 loggerheads (2 of which were dead), and 6 shortnose sturgeon (5 of which 7
were dead) (see Table 6). No green sea turtles, Kemp's ridleys, or leatherbacks were 8
impinged since the issuance of the last Biological Opinion, and no takes of any species 9
occurred in 2009 or in 2010, up to the date of this document's publication.
10 PSEG does not have record of any Atlantic sturgeon impingements in its intake.
11 However, PSEG does not regularly monitor for Atlantic sturgeon in or near its intake 12 structures because this species is not part of the 1999 Biological Opinion reporting 13 requirements.
14 Table 6. Reported Incidental Takes of Listed Species at Salem, 1999-Present Year Number Impinged1al Loggerhead Green Sea Kemp's Ridley Leatherback Shortnose Atlantic Sea Turtle Turtle Sea Turtle Sea Turtle Sturgeon Sturgeon 2000 2 (1) 1 (1) 2001 1 (1) 2002 2003 1 (1) 2004 1 (1) 2005 2006 2007 1 (1) 2008 1 (1) 2009 2010(1))
TOTAL 3 (2) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 6 (5) 0(0)
Sources: PSEG.2000a;2001a; 2002; 2003a; 2004a; 2005; 2006a; 2 007a;2008a;2009c;2010 (a)The number impinged is shown as the total number impinged. followed by the number of individuals out of the total that were either dead when found in the intake or dead afterward shown in parenthesis. A"*"
indicates that no impingements of that species occurred during the given year.
(b)Neither Salem nor HCGS have reported incidental takes from January through November 2010 or in December 2010 up to the date of publication of this document.
15 5.3 Loggerhead Sea Turtle 16 Impingement 17 Loggerhead turtles have been the most abundantly taken species at Salem and HCGS.
18 Since Salem began operation in 1977, PSEG has reported 68 loggerhead individuals (42 28
1 live; 26 dead) that have been incidentally taken due to impingement in the Salem 2
circulating water intake (see Tables 5 and 6), which represents 60.2 percent of Salem's 3
total sea turtle takes. HCGS has not reported any impingement of loggerheads or any 4
other species in its intake since it began operating in 1986 (PSEG, 2009b).
5 As discussed in Section 6.2.1, once PSEG began seasonally removing its ice barriers, 6
PSEG reported an immediate and drastic reduction in sea turtle impingements, 7
specifically of loggerheads, at the circulating water intake. Since 1993, Salem has 8
impinged a total of 6 loggerheads (2 live; 4 dead), and since the issuance of the most 9
recent Biological Opinion (NMFS, 1999), Salem has impinged 3 loggerheads (1 live; 2 10 dead). The details of the loggerhead incidental takes from 1999-Present are listed in 11 Table 7 below.
12 Table 7. Loggerhead Incidental Takes, 1999-Present Date Condition Straight Carapace Straight Carapace Weight in Comments Length in inches Width in inches Ibs (kg)
(cm)
(cm) 7112/00 Dead 24 (60) 22 (55) n.a.
Severely decomposed; front third of animal missing; clean cut suggestive of boat strike 8/31/00 Live 25 (63) 22 (56.5) 125 (56.7)
Recovered unharmed; tagged and released 8/31/01 Dead 21 (53) 20 (50) n.a.
Severely decomposed; missing right front flipper and most of right side; assumed dead prior to entering trash racks n.a. =
Sources: PSEG, 2000a; 2001a; 2001b; Undated 13 Data from the past 11 years of Salem operation (1999-2010) suggest that the 14 impingement loggerhead sea turtle has become relatively rare. No loggerheads have 15 been impinged in the past 9 years of operation. The recorded sizes of the three 16 individuals impinged between 2000 and 2001 indicate that they were juveniles, and two 17 of these were severely decomposed. Because PSEG is required to clean the trash racks 18 three times per week and monitor the trash racks every two hours during turtle season, 19 the two decomposed turtles likely died previous to entering the Salem intake and were 20 then swept into the trash racks due to the increased velocity of water near the intake.
21 Though loggerhead impingement is of low likelihood, turtles that are in a weakened 22 condition due to fatigue associated with migration; injury from boats; entanglement with 23 or injury from fishing equipment; or disease may not be able to escape the approach 24 velocity (0.9 fps [0.3 m/s]) at the Salem intake and could become impinged. No changes 25 to station operation or maintenance are expected during the period of continued 26 operation or during the proposed 20-year license renewal period. Therefore, the rate of 27 loggerhead impingement experienced at Salem from 1993 through 2010 (after PSEG 28 began to seasonally remove ice barriers) of 1 loggerhead per 3 years can be expected 29 to remain relatively constant with small fluctuations due to variance in the loggerhead 30 population size.
29
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 The NRC staff anticipates that Salem is likely to take a small number of loggerheads during its period of continued operation under its current licenses and its proposed 20 year relicensing period, The NRC staff believes that impingement of a small number of loggerheads may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the loggerhead population in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS.
Entrainment Because of their life history characteristics, entrainment of loggerhead eggs or hatchlings is not possible. Loggerheads lay eggs on beaches along the southeastern coast of the U,S., and after emerging, hatchlings quickly swim to deep ocean water where they remain until the age of 7 to 12 years (NOAA, 201 Oe). When juveniles are old enough to migrate to nearshore coastal areas, they are large enough that they would be susceptible to impingement, but not entrainment The NRC staff does not anticipate entrainment to adversely affect the loggerhead population in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS.
Heat Shock The potential impacts of increased water temperatures at the Salem and HCGS discharges on loggerheads are expected to be minimal. Both Salem and HCGS have NJPDES permits which place thermal limits on the maximum discharge temperature and maximum change in ambient estuary temperature cause by facility discharge (see Section 2.3). The high exit velocity of discharge water produces rapid dilution, which limits high temperatures to relatively small areas of the initial mixing zones for both Salem and HCGS. Loggerheads may largely avoid these areas due to high velocities and turbulence. The thermal discharges are not expected to alter foraging behavior because juvenile and adult loggerheads eat mollusks, crabs, shrimp, and other bottom-dwelling fish and invertebrates, while the buoyant thermal plume will rise toward the surface of the estuary. However, if loggerheads do inhabit the discharge area, because the species generally prefers warmer water temperatures and occurs in the Delaware Estuary only during warm months, it is unlikely to be sensitive to the localized area of elevated temperatures at the Salem and HCGS discharges, Cold-stunning, a condition that occurs when sea turtles remain in localized areas of warm water and then migrate later in the season through waters lower in temperature than they can biologically tolerate (generally lower than 46. 4 OF [8°C]), can cause sea turtles to become comatose and/or die. NMFS's 1993 Biological Opinion noted that concern surrounding cold-stunning as a result of increased water temperatures at commercial facility discharge points is not supported by existing data, Additionally, the Delaware Estuary does not drop to temperatures as low as 46.4 OF (8°C) until late November or early December (NODC, 2010), and no turtles of any species have been observed at Salem or HCGS this late in the year. PSEG (Undated)'s impingement data indicates that the majority of loggerheads leave the area by late September. The majority of impingements (47.1 percent) have occurred in July, and the latest in the year that PSEG has reported a loggerhead impingement is September 30 (in 1985) (PSEG, Undated).
The NRC staff does not expect heat shock to adversely affect the loggerhead population in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS.
30
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1
or injury from fishing equipment; or disease may not be able to escape the approach 2
velocity (0.9 fps [0.3 m/s]) at the Salem intake and could become impinged. The NRC 3
staff concludes that Salem could, but is not likely to, incidentally take a very small 4
number of Kemp's ridleys during its period of remaining operation under its current licenses and during its proposed 20-year relicensing period. The NRC staff believes that 6
impingement of a very small number of Kemp's ridleys is not likely to adversely affect the 7
Kemp's ridley sea turtle population in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS.
8 Entrainment 9
Because of their life history characteristics, entrainment of Kemp's ridley eggs or hatchlings is not possible. Kemp's ridleys's nesting behavior is restricted to primarily one 11 beach area-Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico-and occasionally the species uses 12 two additional nesting grounds in Padre Island, Texas, and Veracruz, Mexico. Once 13 juveniles begin to migrate north up the coast, they are large enough that they would be 14 susceptible to impingement, but not entrainment.
The NRC staff does not expect entrainment to adversely affect the Kemp's ridley sea 16 turtle population in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS.
17 Heat Shock 18 The impacts of heat shock on the Kemp's ridley are the same as those described for the 19 loggerhead in Section 5.3. The NRC staff does not expect heat shock to adversely affect the Kemp's ridley population in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS.
21 5.6 Leatherback Sea Turtle 22 Impingement 23 The leatherback sea turtle is known to occur in the vicinity of the Delaware Estuary in the 24 summer months, but the species has never been impinged at Salem or HCGS and was not included in the any of the previous Biological Opinions for Salem and HCGS. Due to 26 the leatherback adults' large size (up to 2,000 Ibs [900 kg] and 55 in. [140 cm]) (NOAA, 27 2010d), adult individuals would be able to escape the Salem circulating water intake 28 despite the intake water velocity. Hatchlings and juvenile leatherbacks smaller than 39 29 in. (100 cm) are not expected to be in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS because Eckert (2002) noted that leatherbacks smaller than 39 in. (100 cm) are only sighted in waters 31 warmer than 79 of (26 "C). According to the National Oceanographic Data Center's 32 Coastal Water Temperature Guide for the Central Atlantic Coast (NODC, 2010), the 33 Delaware Estuary's average water temperatures do not reach as high as 79 "F (26 "C),
34 even in August. Therefore, the NRC staff does not anticipate the leatherbacks of any life stage to be impinged at Salem or HCGS during the remaining period of operation or 36 during the proposed 20-year period of license renewal.
37 Entrainment 38 Because of their life history characteristics, entrainment of leatherback eggs or 39 hatchlings is not possible. Leatherbacks lay eggs on beaches far south of Salem and HCGS-in the U.S. Caribbean, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and southeast Florida, and other 41 tropical beaches around the globe. After emerging, hatchlings quickly swim to deep 42 ocean water where they remain until they reach the juvenile stage. When juveniles are 43 old enough to migrate to nearshore coastal areas, they are large enough that they would 44 be susceptible to impingement, but not entrainment.
32
1 The NRC staff does not expect entrainment to adversely affect the leatherback sea turtle 2
population in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS.
3 Heat Shock 4
The impacts of heat shock on the leatherback are the same as those described for the 5
loggerhead in Section 5.3. The NRC staff does not expect heat shock to adversely affect 6
the leatherback turtle population in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS.
7 5.7 Shortnose Sturgeon 8
Impingement 9
Since PSEG began seasonally removing Salem's ice barriers in 1993, the sea turtle 10 impingement rate has decreased drastically, and the shortnose sturgeon has become 11 the most abundantly taken protected species at Salem. Shortnose sturgeon account for 12 61 percent of listed species impingements from the period 1993 through 2010. Since 13 Salem began operation in 1977, PSEG has reported 19 shortnose sturgeons (3 live; 16 14 dead) that have been incidentally taken due to impingement in the Salem circulating 15 water intake (see Tables 5 and 6). HCGS has not reported any impingement of 16 shortnose sturgeon or any other species in its intake since it began operating in 1986 17 (PSEG,2009b).
18 Table 8. Shortnose Sturgeon Incidental Takes, 1999-Present Date Condition Fork Length in Total Length in Weight in Comments inches (cm) inches (cm)
Ibs (kg) 3/31/99 Live 23 (59) 25 (63) 2.2 (1) n.a.
4/18/00 Dead 30 (76) 33 (85) 4.6(2.1)
Wound behind right gill and two gashes on top and right side of body 4/09/03 Dead
-27 (-69) n.a.
-5.5 Live when caught; tail
(-2.5) mostly severed; died shortly after recovery 10/01/04 Dead 25.4 (64.6) 29.0 (73.7) 2.4(1.1)
Died shortly after recovery; appeared weak and underweight for its size 11/28107 Dead n,a, 26.5 (67.4) 5 (11)
Mostly decomposed 7/31108 Dead n.a, 20 (50.8) 2,0 (0.9)
Severely decomposed n.a. =not available Sources: PSEG,2000a;2000b;2003a;2003b;2004a;2004b;2007a;2007b; 2008a; 2008b; Undated 19 Data from 1977 through 2010 indicate that the 1993 PSEG ice barrier procedure change 20 did not impact the likelihood of shortnose sturgeon to be impinged. Pre-1993, Salem 21 impinged shortnose at a rate of 0.50 individuals per year, and post-1993, Salem has 22 impinged shortnose at a rate of 0.65 individuals per year. The variance in impingement 23 rates over the two time periods may be attributable to fluctuations in the shortnose 24 population in the vicinity of Salem, 25 Of the shortnose that have been impinged since the issuance of the current Biological 26 Opinion (NMFS, 1999), the recorded sizes of the six individuals impinged (see Table 8) 33
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 indicate that they were juveniles and that the majority were either dead upon recovery or died soon after recovery. In three of the five cases of lethal shortnose takes between 1999 and 2010, individuals had fresh wounds that were likely directly attributable to plant operation. Healthy adult and juvenile shortnose sturgeon would be strong enough swimmers to escape the increased water velocity at the intake; therefore, the NRC staff expects Salem to impinge weakened, injured, diseased, or deceased shortnose with higher frequency.
No changes to station operation or maintenance are expected during the period of continued operation or during the proposed 20-year license renewal period. Therefore, the rate of approximately one shortnose sturgeon impingement per two years that Salem has experienced from 1978 through 2010 can be expected to remain relatively constant with small fluctuations due to variance in the shortnose sturgeon population size.
Based on the historic rate of shortnose impingement, the NRC staff anticipates that Salem is likely to take up to 15 to 20 shortnose sturgeon during the proposed 20-year license renewal term, which would extend the operating period of Salem through August 13,2036, and April 18, 2040, for Salem, Units 1 and 2, respectively. The NRC staff believes that impingement of this number of shortnose sturgeon may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the shortnose sturgeon population in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS.
Entrainment The life history of the shortnose sturgeon suggests that entrainment of its eggs or larvae is unlikely. Within the Delaware Estuary-River complex, shortnose sturgeon spawn north of Trenton (about 79.5 river miles [128 river kilometers] upstream from Salem) in fresh reaches of the Delaware River. Eggs adhere to river substrate, and juvenile stages tend to remain in freshwater or fresher areas of the estuary for 3 to 5 years before moving downriver to more saline reaches of the estuary or ocean. Thus, shortnose sturgeon eggs or larvae are unlikely to be present in the water column at the Salem or HCGS intakes, and entrainment of the species' eggs or larvae is unlikely.
Additionally, in the SEIS for Salem and HCGS (NRC, 2010) the NRC staff evaluated the potential effects of entrainment, impingement, and thermal discharges on aquatic species in Sections 4.5.2,4.5.3, and 4.5.4. Based on an examination of PSEG's entrainment data, the NRC (2010a) noted that PSEG has not collected the eggs or larvae of shortnose sturgeon in annual entrainment monitoring samples from 1978 to 2008, and the NRC staff concluded that no evidence existed that would suggest that the eggs or larvae of shortnose sturgeon might be entrained at Salem or HCGS.
Heat Shock The potential impacts of increased water temperatures at the Salem and HCGS discharges on shortnose sturgeon are expected to be minimal. Both Salem and HCGS have NJPDES permits which place thermal limits on the maximum discharge temperature and maximum change in ambient estuary temperature cause by facility discharge (see Section 2.3). The high exit velocity of discharge water produces rapid dilution, which limits high temperatures to relatively small areas of the initial mixing zones for both Salem and HCGS. Shortnose sturgeon may largely avoid these areas due to high velocities and turbulence. Shortnose sturgeon spawning and nursery areas do not occur in the area of the discharge in the estuary. Juvenile and adult sturgeon forage on the river bottom, while the buoyant thermal plume will rise toward the surface 34
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1
of the estuary. Therefore, the NRC does not expect the thermal discharge to adversely 2
affect any life stage of the shortnose sturgeon.
3 5.B Atlantic Sturgeon 4
Impingement Because the Atlantic sturgeon was not proposed for listing under the ESA until January 6
2010 (75 FR 838), it is not included in Salem and HCGS's 1999 Biological Opinion.
7 Bottom trawl data indicate that the Atlantic sturgeon is present in the vicinity of Salem 8
and HCGS (PSEG, Undated). PSEG has not recorded any Atlantic sturgeon 9
impingements at Salem or HCGS. However, PSEG does not specifically monitor for Atlantic sturgeon. Because HCGS has not impinged any listed species since it began 11 operation, the NRC staff assumes that HCGS would also not impinge any Atlantic 12 sturgeon.
13 Atlantic sturgeon are similar in life history and appearance to the shortnose sturgeon, but 14 Atlantic sturgeon grow to be up to three times the size in length and significantly heavier than shortnose sturgeon, which suggests that Atlantic sturgeon would be more capable 16 of escaping the increased water velocity at the intake. The size of the Delaware River 17 population of Atlantic sturgeon is largely unknown; however, the Atlantic Sturgeon Status 18 Review Team (2007) noted that population estimates based on mark and recapture of 19 juveniles indicated that between 1991 and 1995, the Delaware River Atlantic sturgeon population fluctuated between an estimated 1,000 and 5,600 individuals. By contrast, 21 Hastings et al. (1987) and the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team (1998) reported that 22 the shortnose sturgeon population within the Delaware River was between 6,408 and 23 14,080 individuals. Though these numbers only provide a crude comparison, this data 24 indicates that the Atlantic sturgeon population is the smaller of the two sturgeon populations within the Delaware Estuary-River complex, and would, therefore, be 26 statistically less likely to be impinged at Salem.
27 Given the larger size of the Atlantic sturgeon and smaller population size in comparison 28 to the shortnose sturgeon, the NRC staff anticipate that Atlantic sturgeon are less likely 29 to be impinged in Salem's intake than the shortnose sturgeon. The NRC staff concludes that Salem could, but is not likely to, incidentally take a very small number of Atlantic 31 sturgeon during its period of remaining operation under its current licenses and during its 32 proposed 20-year relicensing period. The NRC staff believes that impingement of a very 33 small number of Atlantic sturgeon is not likely to adversely affect the species' population 34 in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS.
Entrainment 36 The life history of the Atlantic sturgeon suggests that entrainment of its eggs or larvae is 37 unlikely. Within the Delaware Estuary-River complex, Atlantic sturgeon spawn upriver of 38 Salem and HCGS in fresh reaches of the Delaware River. Eggs adhere to river 39 substrate, and juvenile stages remain in freshwater or fresher areas of the estuary for a number of months before migrating downstream to more saline reaches of the estuary or 41 ocean. Because larvae actively migrate in deep waters, the Atlantic Sturgeon Status 42 Review Team (2007) noted that the species' migratory behavior means that larvae avoid 43 intake structures of water-withdrawing facilities. Thus, Atlantic sturgeon eggs or larvae 44 are unlikely to be present in the water column at the Salem or HCGS intakes, and entrainment of the species' eggs or larvae is unlikely.
35
1 Additionally, as described in Section 5.7, the NRC staff evaluated the potential effects of 2
entrainment, impingement, and thermal discharges on aquatic species in the SEIS for 3
Salem and HCGS (NRC, 2010). Based on PSEG's annual entrainment monitoring 4
samples from 1978 to 2008, the NRC staff concluded that no evidence existed that 5
would suggest that the eggs or larvae of Atlantic sturgeon might be entrained at Salem 6
or HCGS.
7 Heat Shock 8
The impacts of heat shock on the Atlantic sturgeon are the same as those described for 9
the short nose sturgeon in Section 5.7. The NRC staff does not expect heat shock to 10 adversely affect any life stage of the Atlantic sturgeon.
11 6.0 Cumulative Effects Analysis 12 The four sea turtle species discussed in this Biological Assessment are affected by the 13 same human-induced and natural threats but to varying degrees based on differences in 14 each species' range, migratory patterns, and behaviors. Table 9 provides a summary of 15 the major threat categories for the loggerhead, green, Kemp's ridley, and leatherback 16 sea turtles and the extent to which each category affects each species expressed as 17 "low," "moderate," or "high." The following sections discuss the cumulative effects of 18 threats to each species individually.
19 Table 9. Summary of Threats to Sea Turtle Species Species Description of Threat(a)
Threat Loggerhead Green Kemp's Ridley Leatherback Direct Impacts Fisheries Includes bottom trawl; HIGH.
MODERATE.
HIGH. Bottom HIGH.
Bycatch top/mid-water trawl;
- Longline, Given the green
- trawl, Longline and dredge; longline; bottom and sea turtles' use of specifically bottom trawl gillnet; pot!trap; haul mid-water both nearshore within the pose the seine; purse seine; trawls pose and deep ocean shrimp largest threat.
and commercial hook the largest habitat, it is industry, poses and line.
threats.
susceptible to all the largest types of fisheries.
threat.
Non-fishery Includes illegal LOW HIGH. The MODERATE.
HIGH. Many Resource harvest; illegal species is not Boat strikes leatherbacks Use harvest for research afforded official affect a high nest in and other purposes; protection in all percentage of countries that industrial plant countries, and Kemp's ridley do not have impingement!
harvest of all life due to their regulations entrainment; and boat stages is a major preference for prohibiting strikes.
problem nearshore harvest of the worldwide.
habitat.
species.
Indirect Impacts Construction Includes beach LOW MODERATE.
LOW HIGH. Many nourishment; beach Green sea turtles leatherbacks armoring; shoreline use beaches nest in stabilization; worldwide in countries that dredging; and oil, countries that may do not have gas, and natural gas not have stringent specific exploration, restrictions on habitat development, and shoreline protection.
removal development.
36
Description of Threat(al Threat Loggerhead Green Kemp's Ridley Leatherback Ecosystem Includes trophic LOW LOW LOW LOW Alteration changes from fishing; trophic changes from benthic habitat alteration; beach erosion; dams; runoff and hypoxia; vegetation alteration in coastal areas; and sand mining.
Pollution Includes marine HIGH.
HIGH. Juveniles LOW LOW debris ingestion Juveniles are are especially and/or entanglement; especially susceptible to beach debris susceptible to marine debris obstruction; oil. fuel, marine debris ingestion and tar. and chemicals; ingestion and entanglement.
light pollution; noise entanglement pollution; and other toxins.
Species Includes predation; LOW MODERATE.
MODERATE.
LOW Interactions pathogens and Fibropapillomatosis A high natural disease; domestic is becoming more predator load animals; exotic prevalent in in Rancho species; and toxic stranded green sea Nuevo species.
turtles.
increases the likelihood of unprotected nests to be destroyed.
Other Includes climate MODERATE.
MODERATE.
LOW LOW Factors change; natural Climate Climate change catastrophe; change may may affect conservation/
affect available nesting research activities; available habitat and alter military activities; and nesting the species' range.
cold stunning.
habitat and alter the sex ratio.
(a)For a more detailed description of each threat, refer to "Table A 1-1. Threat Categories and Description" in NMFS and FWS, 2010 This table is based on data from the following sources: Conant et aI., 2009a; 2009b; NMFS and FWS, 2007a; 2007b; 2007c; 2007d; 2008; 2010; Seminoff, 2004; Turtle Expert Working Group, 2007 1
Though the shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons have similar life histories, and therefore, 2
face similar threats, the species are discussed in Sections 6.5 and 6.6 separately due to 3
the fact that Atlantic sturgeon is not formally protected under the ESA and has been 4
extensively harvested in more recent years.
5 6.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle 6
During the most recent NMFS status review of the loggerhead, Conant et al. (2009a) 7 created a stage-based deterministic model to predict each proposed loggerhead DPS's 8
extinction risk. Conant et al. (2009a) concluded that even with maximum population 37
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1
growth and a lowered threat of human-related mortality, the Northwest Atlantic DPS will 2
likely decline in the forseeable future.
3 Longline fishing and entanglement in marine debris pose the greatest threat to juvenile 4
and adult loggerheads. Conant et al. (2009b) characterized these as "medium-high" threats with an increasing trend. Other types of fisheries-bottom and mid-water trawl, 6
dredge, gillnet, pot/trap-in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic coast pose a 7
"medium" level threat to juveniles and adults, specifically those migrating or foraging 8
nearer to the shore. Conant et al. (2009b) also considered boat strikes to be a "medium" 9
and growing threat, with the number of reported boat strikes or injured sea turtle strandings increasing yearly.
11 Though habitat modification and destruction has been a major threat to the 12 loggerhead-especially to nesting females, eggs, and hatchlings-in the past, since the 13 listing of the species under the ESA, this threat has drastically decreased. Conant et al.
14 (2009b) noted that only a few nesting females are documented as being killed as a result of habitat modification, and that even though a number of factors (including beach/shore 16 modifications/stabilization, coastal construction, human presence, lighting, and fencing) 17 threaten eggs and hatchings, the overall threat level is believed to be relatively low.
18 Illegal harvest of eggs continues to occur, though at very low numbers. The estimated 19 annual illegal egg harvest ranges from 1,001 to 10,000 eggs, based on combined estimates from Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina (Conant et aI.,
21 2009b). Disease and predation-related mortalities are also believed to be low (Conant et 22 al., 2009).
23 Sea level rise and increasing ocean temperatures associated with climate change has 24 the potential to threaten the loggerhead's nesting sites and loggerhead sex ratios.
Increased beach erosion due to sea level rise, increase in storm frequency, and changes 26 in prevailing currents could reduce available nesting habitat (NMFS and FWS, 2008).
27 Increases in ambient ocean temperature may impact the loggerhead populations' sex 28 ratio because loggerheads exhibit a temperature-dependent sex distribution, with more 29 females resulting from eggs incubated at higher temperatures (NMFS and FWS, 2008).
Though the impingement of loggerheads in commercial facility intake systems has been 31 documented along the U.S. Atlantic coast from New Jersey to Florida and along the Gulf 32 of Mexico in Texas, the NMFS and FWS (2008) reported that the average capture rates 33 from coastal commercial plants is very low.
34 Overall, longline fishing and entanglement in marine debris pose the greatest threat to the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead population, and when considered with other threats 36 such as other types of fisheries, boat strikes, habitat modification/destruction, illegal egg 37 harvest, climate change, and power facility impingement, the cumulative impacts to the 38 loggerhead are likely to result in a significant and large cumulative effect. The NMFS and 39 FWS (2008) reported a declining population trend in all five recovery units within the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead population, and Conant et al. (2009a) concluded that the 41 population is likely to continue to decline under all potential population growth and 42 human threat level scenarios.
43 6.2 Green Sea Turtle 44 Due to the green sea turtle's similar life history to the loggerhead, cumulative impacts to the green sea turtle are similar to those discussed in Section 6.1 for the loggerhead.
46 However, because the applicability of the DPS policy has not been assessed for the 38
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 green turtle, to conservatively estimate the cumulative impacts to the green turtle population, the NRC staff has included threats posed globally and not just those in the U.S. and neighboring countries.
In their five-year review of the green sea turtle, the NMFS and FWS (2007a) noted that illegal harvest of eggs, injuring or killing of nesting females on beaches, direct hunting of adults in foraging areas, and fishery bycatch pose the highest threat level to the green sea turtle. Egg harvesting is minimal within the U.S., but continues to be a major threat worldwide in Comoras Island, Costa Rica, Gambia, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Panama, Philippines, Sao Tome e Principe, Saudi Arabia Senegal, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam (Seminoff, 2004).
The loss of nesting females reduces both the adult population and the population's potential annual egg production. Because females do not mature until 20 to 50 years of age (NOAA, 2010b), nesting female mortality is a substantial loss due to the replacement time and the lost egg production during this lapse. Australia, Bioko Island, Costa Rica, Guinea-Bissau, India, Japan, Mexico, Seychelles, and Yemen are all known to have issues with harvesting of nesting females (Seminoff, 2004).
Foraging juveniles and adults are often harvested within nearshore foraging habitat, which when considered with the loss of nesting females, may cause a crash in the adult nesting population in coming decades. Poachers along the coast of Nicaragua killed approximately 11,000 green sea turtles per year in the 1990s (NMFS and FWS, 2007a).
In Southeast Asia, up to 100,000 green sea turtles were harvested annually as recent at the late 1990s, and in the eastern Pacific, up to 10,000 green sea turtles were harvested per year (NMFS and FWS, 2007a). Seminoff (2004) cited 34 specific countries off the coast of which green sea turtle harvesting is known to occur and poses a threat to the species.
Fishery bycatch, especially in nearshore fisheries, is likely to significantly affect the green sea turtle, though specific estimates on the number of fishery bycatch-related green sea turtles mortalities is not available.
Fibropapillomatosis, a disease that causes external tumors that can interfere with swimming, vision, feeding, and escape from predators if they tumors grow too large (FFWCC, 2010), is most prevalent in green sea turtles and may also cumulatively contribute to the decline of the species. From 1980 to 2005, the Florida Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network reported that 22.2 percent of stranded green turtles in Florida had fibropapillomatosis tumors (FFWCC, 2010). Statistics for infection rates of green sea turtles found migrating as far north as New Jersey are unavailable.
Overall, illegal harvest of eggs, injuring or killing of nesting females on beaches, direct hunting of adults in foraging areas, fishery bycatch, and other human-related causes of sea turtle mortality such as those discussed in Section 6.1 are likely to cumulatively result in a significant and moderate cumulative effect. The NMFS and FWS (2007a) concluded that of 23 nesting concentrations, 9 were believed to be stable and 4 were believed to be decreasing. The NMFS and FWS (2007a) noted that populations in the Pacific, Western Atlantic, and Central Atlantic Ocean were increaSing, while populations in Southeast Asia, the Eastern Indian Ocean, and the Mediterranean were likely decreasing.
39
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 6.3 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle In March 2010, the NMFS and FWS (2010) published a draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle that identified a" significant sources of Kemp's ridley mortality and included an in-depth threat analysis by life stage and ecosystem. The NMFS and FWS (2010) identified the highest human-related threats to the species as fishery bycatch and boat strikes.
Unlike other sea turtle species that are most sensitive to long line fisheries, the overwhelming majority of Kemp's ridley mortalities are estimated to be as a result of bottom trawling for shrimp off the U.S. Atlantic coast and Gulf of Mexico due to the fact that the Kemp's ridley rarely travels long distances offshore. The NMFS and FWS (2010) estimated shrimp trawl-related mortalities to be 10 times greater than that of a" other human-related threats combined. In the U.S. and Gulf of Mexico, the estimated annual mortality is up to 4,208 individuals based on data through 2001, though the NMFS and FWS (2010) suggested that the reduced shrimping effort in recent years would be expected to directly reduce annual Kemp's ridley mortalities. In 1987, NMFS adopted a standardized guideline on Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs)-devices capable of separating the target catch from the bycatch-to require approved TEDs to be 97 percent effective in excluding turtles. Though TEDs have the potential to drastically reduce Kemp's ridley bycatch, TEDs are not required of all fisheries or in a" U.S. states.
In addition to bottom trawl, the NMFS and FWS (2010) identified other types of fisheries, including mid-water trawl, gi"net, commercial hook and line, long line, and others, to cumulatively account for approximately 4,960 Kemp's ridley deaths per year (NMFS and FWS, 2010).
Kemp's ridleys are likely more susceptible to boat strikes than other sea turtle species because Kemp's ridleys spend the majority of their lives in the nearshore zone. The NMFS and FWS (2010),s threat analysis indicated that between 101 and 1,000 Kemp's ridley mortalities per year can be attributed to boat strikes. Additionally, many live Kemp's ridleys would be expected to sustain wounds but not die from boat strikes. From 1997 to 2001, the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network reported that 12.7 percent of stranded turtles have injuries attributable to boat strikes (NMFS and FWS, 2010).
Prior to 1966, the major threat to the Kemp's ridley's continued existence was egg collection on nesting beaches, but because the species nests in one main location, the Mexican Government afforded the Rancho Nuevo beach official protection in 1966 (NMFS, 1994). Because nesting habitat is protected, the Kemp's ridley's strict loyalty to a sma" number of nesting sites and its reduced range in comparison to other sea turtle species minimizes the likelihood of i"egal harvest of any life stage. The NMFS and FWS (2010) do not consider illegal harvest to be a major threat to the species.
Overa", fishery bycatch-specifica"y bottom trawl, boat strikes, and the cumulative effect of other human-related Kemp's ridley mortality are likely to result in a significant and moderate cumulative effect to the Kemp's ridley population when considered with the discussion of predicted Kemp's ridley population growth in Section 4.3.
6.4 Leatherback Sea Turtle The North Atlantic leatherback population is considered stable according to the Turtle Expert Working Group (2007); however the species is threatened by a number of human-induced threats, the greatest of which are fishery bycatch, marine debris, poaching, and boat strikes. Though the species has not been assessed for applicability 40
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1
of the DPS policy, to conservatively estimate the cumulative impacts to the green turtle 2
population, the NRC staff has included threats posed globally and not just those in the 3
U.S. and neighboring countries.
4 Because leatherbacks nest worldwide, nesting habitat is becoming increasingly impacted through a variety of threats including natural disasters (such as the 2004 6
Indian Ocean tsunami and shifting mudflats in the Guianas), beach development, and 7
beach stabilization or other alterations (NMFS and FWS, 2007c). The majority of 8
countries that the leatherback nests in do not have regulations in place to protect the 9
species' nesting habitat.
Egg collection is also an issue in many countries due to the absence of regulations 11 protecting the leatherback. This combined with leatherback's natural low hatching 12 success could result in a significant impact to the species' population in countries where 13 egg collection is not prohibited.
14 Longline fisheries and bottom-trawl fisheries account for the largest documented takes of leatherbacks in U.S. waters-possibly as many as 3,090 takes per year, of which 80 16 result in death (Expert Turtle Working Group, 2007). Ingestion or entanglement in marine 17 debris, however, is not thought to be a source of concern for the leatherback (Turtle 18 Expert Working Group, 2007), possibly due to its large size.
19 Because the leatherback is the most widely distributed sea turtle species, it may not be noticeably affected by environmental changes attributable to climate change. Some 21 concern exists over increasing temperatures altering the species' sex ratios; however, 22 some leatherback females are known to prefer depositing eggs in cooler tide zones, 23 which may mitigate the effects of rising temperatures (NMFS and FWS, 2007c).
24 Overall, habitat destruction/modification, egg collection, and fishery bycatch are likely to result in a significant and moderate cumulative effect on the leatherback population 26 when considered together.
27 6.5 Shortnose Sturgeon 28 In their recovery plan for the shortnose sturgeon, the NMFS (1998) reported that the 29 U.S. shortnose sturgeon population is most significantly affected by commercial facility intakes, water contaminants, fishery bycatch, bridge construction and demolition, dams, 31 and dredging.
32 The NMFS (1998) reported that commercial facility intakes have the greatest likelihood 33 of directly affecting the sturgeon populations, especially those located upriver, because 34 of the likelihood to entrain vulnerable life stages.
Toxic metals, pesticides, PCBs, and other contaminants can cause lowered larval 36 survival rates, growth retardation, and reproductive failure in fish species. Though 37 specific cause-effect correlations are not known for the shortnose, certain toxins, such 38 as PCBs, are known to accumulate in the tissues of shortnose (NMFS, 1998).
39 Shortnose sturgeon bycatch is common along the U.S. Atlantic coast. One report estimated that in shad fisheries within northeast U.S. rivers, individual fisheries may take 41 up to 20 shortnose per year (NMFS, 1998). Most shortnose are returned to the river 42 unharmed; therefore, bycatch does not ultimately appear to be significantly affecting the 43 shortnose sturgeon's population.
44 Activities that interfere with the shortnose sturgeon's migratory patterns and distribution include bridge construction and demolition and dams. No specific data exists regarding 41
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1
the number of individual mortalities or severity of impact. but the NMFS (1998) 2 suggested that build up of sediments downstream of projects and shock from use of 3
explosives could adversely impact shortnose sturgeon. Hydroelectric dams restrict 4
habitat, alter river flow, and may change river temperature, which can alter or prohibit migration patterns. Kynard (1997) noted that in all but one northeast U.S. river, the first 6
dam on the river is also the upper limit of the shortnose sturgeon's population range, 7
indicating that dams have reduced the shortnose sturgeon's historic range and may 8
ultimately restrict population growth. Sturgeon appear unable to use fish ladders, but are 9
able to navigate dams that have fish lifts (NIVIFS, 1998). Though dams affect the shortnose sturgeon as a whole, the Delaware River does not have any dams, and 11 therefore, the Delaware River population is not threatened by damming.
12 Dredging can directly cause shortnose sturgeon mortality and can indirectly affect the 13 shortnose through changes to the environment such as destruction of benthic feeding 14 areas, disrupting spawning migrations, and filling in spawning habitat. The NMFS (1998) noted that imposing seasonal work restrictions to alternative dredge methods can greatly 16 reduce the likelihood of impacts to shortnose sturgeon.
17 Given that the Delaware River population of shortnose sturgeon is thought to be one of 18 the healthiest shortnose populations (Hastings et aI., 1987), the cumulative impacts of 19 commercial facility intakes, water contaminants, fishery bycatch, bridge construction and demolition, dams, and dredging are likely to result in a significant and small cumulative 21 effect on the shortnose population when considered together.
22 6.6 Atlantic Sturgeon 23 Atlantic sturgeon face the same threats as those described for the shortnose sturgeon in 24 Section 6.5. The Atlantic sturgeon has been commercially fished more heavily and for a longer period of time than the shortnose sturgeon. While shortnose were primarily only 26 taken as bycatch, a thriving Atlantic sturgeon fishery has existed since the mid 27 1800s.Harvests ranged from 7.4 million Ibs (3350 mt) in 1890 to 108,000 Ibs (49 mt) by 28 the early 1990s (ASSRT, 2007). The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries' 1990 Fisheries 29 Management Plan for the Atlantic sturgeon suggested that historic landings indicated rapid over exploitation before the stock collapsed because a majority of females were 31 being harvested before being able to spawn (ASSRT, 2007). In 1998, the Atlantic States 32 Marine Fisheries Commission instituted a moratorium on Atlantic sturgeon harvest in 33 U.S. waters.
34 Despite the fishery moratorium, the Atlantic sturgeon is still caught as bycatch. Based on data from 2001 to 2006, the ASMFC (2007) estimated that between 2,752 and 7,904 36 individuals per year are caught as bycatch in sink gillnets, and 2,167 to 7,210 individuals 37 per year are caught as bycatch in trawls. Poaching may also pose a significant threat, 38 though the magnitude of poaching activity is unknown (ASSRT, 2007).
39 Today, within the Delaware Estuary and proposed New York Bight DPS, the Atlantic sturgeon population's continued existence is threatened primarily by dredging, vessel 41 strikes, reduced water quality, and fishery bycatch (75 FR 61872). Range-wide, habitat 42 degradation, dams, water withdrawals, and declining water quality due to coastline 43 development are among the most common threats to the species (NOAA, 2010a). Given 44 threats discussed in Section 6.5, which also affect the Atlantic sturgeon, the historical effects of the fishery collapse, and the fact that the species is now a candidate for listing 46 under the ESA, the cumulative impacts of these threats are likely to result in a significant 42
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1
and large cumulative effect on the Atlantic sturgeon population when considered 2
together.
3 7.0 Conclusion and Determination of Effects 4
Because HCGS has never impinged a listed species during its 24 years of operation and no additional data exist that indicates that HCGS would have an adverse effect on any 6
listed species in the future, the NRC staff concludes that HCGS will have no effect on 7
any listed species.
8 Conclusions regarding Salem's affect on listed species are addressed below by species.
9 All Salem conclusions are made for the combined period of continued operation under Salem's current operating license (6 and 10 years for Units 1 and 2, respectively) and 11 the proposed 20-year relicensing period.
12 7.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle 13 The NRC staff concludes that Salem may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect 14 the loggerhead sea turtle. The NRC staff concludes that Salem is likely to impinge a small number of loggerhead juveniles and adults over the course of the combined period 16 of continued operation and proposed 20-year relicensing period. The NRC staff believes 17 that the rate of loggerhead impingement will be similar to the rate of impingement 18 recorded from 1993 through 2010-one loggerhead per three years-and may vary by 19 year based on the loggerhead population size, weather events, and other environmental factors.
21 7.2 Green Sea Turtle 22 The NRC staff concludes that Salem may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect 23 the green sea turtle. The NRC staff concludes that Salem is likely to impinge a small 24 number of green sea turtle juveniles and adults over the course of the combined period of continued operation and proposed 20-year relicensing period. Based on data from 26 1993 through 2010, the NRC staff believes that the rate of green sea turtle impingement 27 will be lower than the rate of loggerhead impingement and may vary by year based on 28 the green sea turtle's population size, weather events, and other environmental factors.
29 7.3 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle The NRC staff concludes that Salem may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect 31 the Kemp's ridley turtle. The NRC staff concludes that there is a small likelihood that 32 Salem will impinge one to a few Kemp's ridley sea turtles over the course of the 33 combined period of continued operation and proposed 20-year relicensing period. Salem 34 has not impinged any Kemp's ridleys from 1994 through 2010, which the NRC staff believes to be attributable to PSEG's change in procedures to seasonally remove the ice 36 barriers at the intake beginning in 1993. However, the NRC staff believes that it is 37 possible that Salem may impinge a Kemp's ridley in the future because the species is 38 known to occur in the vicinity of Salem and because the species has historically been 39 impinged at Salem.
7.4 Leatherback Sea Turtle 41 The NRC staff concludes that Salem will have no effect on the leatherback sea turtle.
42 The NRC staff concludes that no leatherback life stage is likely to be impinged at Salem 43 over the course of the combined period of continued operation and proposed 20-year 43
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1
relicensing period due to the species' life history characteristics, large size, and small 2
juveniles' preference for waters warmer than those found in the Delaware Estuary.
3 7.5 Shortnose Sturgeon 4
The NRC staff concludes that Salem may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the shortnose sturgeon. The NRC staff concludes that Salem is likely to impinge some 6
short nose juveniles and adults over the course of the combined period of continued 7
operation and proposed 20-year relicensing period. The NRC staff believes that the rate 8
of shortnose impingement will be similar to the rate of impingement recorded from 1978 9
through 2010-about one shortnose sturgeon per two years-and may vary by year based on the shortnose sturgeon population size, weather events, and other 11 environmental factors.
12 7.6 Atlantic Sturgeon 13 The NRC staff concludes that Salem may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect 14 the Atlantic sturgeon. The NRC staff concludes that Salem is likely to impinge a small number of Atlantic sturgeon juveniles and adults over the course of the combined period 16 of continued operation and proposed 20-year relicensing period. The NRC staff believes 17 that the rate of Atlantic sturgeon impingement will be lower than the rate of shortnose 18 sturgeon impingement based on the larger size and smaller population of Atlantic 19 sturgeon, and the impingement rate may vary by year based on the species' population size, weather events, and other environmental factors.
21 8.0 References 22 32 FR 4001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Native Fish and Wildlife; Endangered 23 Species." Federal Register, Volume 32, No. 48, pp. 4001. March 11, 1967. Available 24 URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/fr/fr32-4001.pdf (accessed November 22, 2010).
35 FR 18319. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Conservation of Endangered Species and 26 Other Fish or Wildlife, List of Endangered Foreign Fish and Wildlife." Federal Register, 27 Volume 35, No. 233, pp. 18319-18322. December 2, 1970. Available URL:
28 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/fr/fr35-18319.pdf (accessed November 17, 2010).
29 35 FR 8491. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Conservation of Endangered Species and Other Fish or Wildlife, List of Endangered Foreign Fish and Wildlife." Federal Register, 31 Volume 35, No.1 06, pp. 8491-8498. June 1, 1970. Available URL:
32 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/fr/fr35-8491.pdf (accessed November 22,2010).
33 43 FR 323800. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Listing and Protecting Loggerhead Sea 34 Turtles as Threatened Species' and Populations of Green and Olive Ridley Sea Turtles as Threatened Species or 'Endangered Species.' " Federal Register. Volume 43, No.
36 146, pp.32800-32811. July 28, 1978. Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
37 pdfs/fr/fr43-32800.pdf (accessed November 15, 2010).
38 44 FR 17710. National Marine Fisheries Service. "Designated Critical Habitat, 39 Determination of Critical Habitat for the Leatherback Sea Turtle." Federal Register, Volume 44, No. 58, pp. 17710-17712. March 23, 1979. Available URL:
41 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/fr/fr44-17710.pdf (accessed November 22,2010).
42 56 FR 56882. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 43 Plants; 5-Year Review of Listed Species." Federal Register. Volume 56, No. 215, pp.
44 56882-56900. November 6, 1991.
44
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 61 FR 17. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Status Reviews of Listed Sea Turtles." Federal Register, Volume 61, No.1, pp. 17. January 2, 1996. Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/
fr/fr61-17.pdf (accessed November 22,2010).
61 FR 4722. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act." Federal Register. Volume 61, No. 26, pp. 4722-4725. February 7,1996. Available URL: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR 1996-02-07/pdf/96-2639.pdf (accessed November 15, 2010).
63 FR 28359. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Recovery Plans for Listed Sea Turtles." Federal Register, Volume 63, No. 99, pp. 23359. May 22, 1998. Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/pdfs/fr/fr63-28359.pdf (accessed November 22, 2010).
72 FR 67712. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Endangered and Threatened Species; Initiation of Status Review for Shortnose Sturgeon." Volume 72, No. 230, pp. 67712-67713. November 30,2007.
73 FR 5177. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Endangered and Threatened Species; Initiation of a Status Review for Shortnose Sturgeon." Federal Register, Volume 73, No. 19, pp. 5177-5178. January 29,2008.
75 FR 12496. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans; Recovery Plan for the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle."
Federal Register, Volume 75, No. 50, pp. 12496-12497. March 16, 2010.
75 FR 12598. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Listing of Nine Distinct Population Segments of Loggerhead Sea Turtles as Endangered or Threatened."
Federal Register. Volume 75, No. 50, pp. 12598-12656. March 16,2010.
75 FR 61872. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Endangered and Threatened and Plants; Proposed Listing Determinations for Three Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon in the Northeast Region." Federal Register, Volume 75, No. 193, pp. 61872-61904. October 6,2010.
75 FR 61904. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Endangered and Threatened and Plants; Proposed Listing Determinations for Two Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon in the Southeast Region." Federal Register, Volume 75, No. 193, pp. 61904-61929. October 6,2010.
75 FR 66398. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplement 45 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2." Federal Register. Volume 75, No. 208, pp. 66398-66399. October 28, 2010.
75 FR 838. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Notice of 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Atlantic Sturgeon as Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)." Federal Register, Volume 75, No.3, pp. 838-841. January 6,2010.
AEC (Atomic Energy Commission). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the Salem Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2, Public Service Electric and Gas Company. Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Washington, D.C., April 1973.
45
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2007. Estimation of Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch in Coastal Atlantic Commercial Fisheries of New England and the Mid-Atlantic. Special Report to the ASMFC Atlantic Sturgeon Management Board.
August 2007. Available URL: http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/sturgeon/
bvcatchReportAug07.pdf (accessed November 29,2010).
ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2009. "Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Habitat Fact Sheet: Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus oxyrhynchus)." Available URL: http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/sturgeon/
habitatFactsheet.pdf (accessed November 29,2010).
ASSRT (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team). 2007. Status Review of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office. February 23, 2007. Available URL:
http://www. nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/atlanticsturgeon2007.pdf (accessed November 29, 2010).
Carr, A 1986. New Perspectives on the Pelagic Stage of Sea Turtle Development.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-190, 36 pp. July 1986. Available URL:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/turtlesITM 190 Carr. pdf (accessed November 15, 2010).
Carr, A, M. Carr, and A Meylan. 1978. The Ecology and Migrations of Sea Turtles, 7.
The West Caribbean Green Turtle Colony. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 162(1): 1 46.
Collette, B.B. and G. Klein-MacPhee (eds.). 1988. Bigelow and Schoeder's Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. 3rd Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press: Herndon, VA Conant, T.A, P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, S.P. Epperly, C.C. Fahy, M.H. Godfrey, S.L.
MacPherson, E.E. Possardt, B.A Schroeder, J.A Seminoff, M.L. Snover, C.M. Upite, and B.E. Witherington. 2009a. Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) 2009 Status Review Under the U. S. Endangered Species Act. Prepared by the Loggerhead Biological Review Team for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/
loggerheadturtle2009.pdf (accessed November 15, 2010).
Conant, T.A, P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, S.P. Epperly, C.C. Fahy, M.H. Godfrey, S.L.
MacPherson, E.E. Possardt, B.A Schroeder, J.A, M.L. Snover, C.M. Upite, and B.E.
Witherington. 2009b. "Loggerhead Turtle: Threat Matrices." Prepared as part of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) 2009 Status Review Under the U. S.
Endangered Species Act. Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prlspecies/turtles/
loggerhead threats.xls (accessed December 2,2010).
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available URL: http://www.opwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/
classwetlindex.htm (accessed September 6,2010).
Dadswell, M.J., B.D. Taubert, T.S. Squiers, D. Marchette, and J. Buckley. 1984.
Synopsis of Biological Data on Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, LeSeuer 1818. NOAA Technical Report NMFS-14, FOA Fisheries Synopsis No. 140. October 1984. Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/shortnosesturgeon biological data.pdf (accessed November 23,2010).
Dodd, K, Jr., 1988. Synopsis of the Biological Data on the Loggerhead Turtle Caretta caretta (Linneaus 1758). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv.! BioI. Rep. 88(14). 110 pp.
46
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 1977. Contract No. 76-EP-482 Covering to Provide the Supply of Cooling Water from the Delaware River, Required for Operation of Salem Units 1 and 2 at Salem Nuclear Generating Station between the Delaware River Basin Commission and Public Service Electric and Gas Company. January 13, 1977.
DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 1984a. Notice of Commission Action:
Revision of the Hope Creek Generating Station Project Previously Included in the Comprehensive Plan. Docket No. 0-73-193 CP (Revised). May 1, 1984.
DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 1984b. Water Contract Between the DRBC and PSEG Concerning the Water Supply at Hope Creek Generating Station, West Trenton, NJ. December 1984.
DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 2001. Letter from M.F. Vaskis, Associate General, Environmental Counsel, to H. Keiser et aI., Public Service Electric and Gas Company.
Subject:
Approval to Revise Delaware Basin Compact. Docket No. 0-68-20 (Revision 2). September 26, 2001.
Eckert, S.A. 2002. Distribution of Juvenile Leatherback Sea Turtle, Oermochelys coriacea, Sightings. Marine Ecology Progress Series 230: 289-293.
Endangered Species Act of 1973.16 U,S.C. 1531, et seq.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Condition ofthe Mid-At/antic Estuaries, EPA 600-R-98-147. November 1998. Available URL:
http://www.epa.gov/emap/htmllpubs/docs/groupdocs/estuary/assess/cond mae.pdf (accessed November 18,2010).
FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2010.
"Fibropapillomatosis and Its Effects on Green Turtles," Available URL:
http://research.myfwc.com/features/view article.asp?id=16691 (accessed November 16, 2010).
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Letter from R Popowski, Assistant Supervisor, to B. Pham, Branch Chief, NRC.
Subject:
Reply to Request for List of Protected Species Within the Area Under Evaluation for the Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations License Renewal Application Review. June 29, 2010.
ADAMS No. ML101970077.
Gilbert, C.R 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic)-Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeons. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82{11.122). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4. December 1989. Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/
species profiles/82 11-122.pdf (accessed November 23,2010).
Hastings, RW., J.C. O'Herron, K. Schick, and M.A. Lazzari. 1987. Occurrence and Distribution of Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, in the Upper Tidal Delaware River. Estuaries 10:337-341.
Heppel, S.S., D.T. Crouse, L.B. Crowder, S.P. Epperly, W. Gabriel, T. Henwood, R Marquez, and N.B. Thompson. 2005. A Populatoin Model to Estimate Recovery Time, Population Size, and Management Impacts on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtles, Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 4(4):767-773.
Hopkins, S. Rand J. I. Richardson, eds. 1984. Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles.
Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service.
47
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 IUCN Marine Turtle Specialist Group (International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Marine Turtle Specialist Group). 2010. "Kemp's Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys kempi,)."
Available URL: http://iucn-mtsg.org/about-turtles/species/kemps-ridley/ (accessed November 17, 2010).
Kynard, B. 1997. Life History, Lattitudinal Patterns, and Status of the Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipensar brevirostrum. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 48: 319-334.
Mager, AM. 1985. Five-Year Status Reviews of Sea Turtles Listed Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Najarian Associates. 2004. Hydrological Modeling Analysis for the Hope Creek Generating Station Extended Power Uprate Project. Final Report. Submitted to PSEG, Environmental Health and Safety, Newark, NJ.
Nelson, D. A. 1988. Life History and Environmental Requirements of Loggerhead Turtles. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service BioI. Rep. 88(23). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-86-2 (Rev.). 34 pp.
NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2005. Final Surface Water Major Mod Permit Action - Clarification of BOD and TSS Minimum Percent Removal Limits, Hope Creek Generating Station, NJPDES Permit No. NJ0025411, January 31, 2005.
NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2001. Final Surface Water Renewal Permit Action for Industrial Wastewater, Salem Generating Station, NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622. June 2001. Provided in Appendix B of Applicant's Environmental Report (PSEG, 2009a).
NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2003. Final Consolidated Renewal Permit Action for Industrial Wastewater and Stormwater, Hope Creek Generating Station, NJPDES Permit No. MJ0025411, January 2003. Provided in Appendix B of Applicant's Environmental Report (PSEG, 2009b).
NJSA (New Jersey State Atlas). 2008. "New Jersey Land Change Viewer: Interactive Maps." Available URL: http://njstateatlas.com/lucl (accessed February 8, 2010).
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1993. Letter from to N. Foster, Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, to C. Miller, NRC.
Subject:
Biological Opinion. May 14, 1993. in Salem/Hope Creek Environmental Audit-Post-Audit Information, Threatened and Endangered Species. ADAMS No. ML101440288.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1994. Review of the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Headstart Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-3. August 1994.
Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/kempsridley headstart.pdf (accessed November 17, 2010).
SSRT (Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team). 1998. Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service. December 1998. Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/pdfs/recoverylsturgeon shortnose. pdf (accessed November 23, 2010).
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Letter from H. Diaz-Soltero, Director, Office of Protected Resources, to T. Essig, Acting Chief, NRC.
Subject:
Revised Biological Opinion. January 21, 1999. in Salem/Hope Creek Environmental Audit-Post-Audit Information, Threatened and Endangered Species. ADAMS No. ML101440288.
48
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2010. Letter from M. A Colligan, Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, to B. Pham, Branch Chief, NRC.
Subject:
Reply to Request for List of Protected Species Within the Area Under Evaluation for the Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations License Renewal Application Review. February 11, 2010. ADAMS No. ML101970073.
NMFS and FWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1991. Recovery Plan for US. Population ofAtlantic Green TuTtle. August 6, 1991. Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/turtle green atlantic. pdf (accessed November 17, 2010).
NMFS and FWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1992. Recovery Plan for the Kemp's Ridley Sea TuTtle (Lepidochelys kempii).
August 21, 1992. Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/
turtle kempsridley.pdf (accessed November 17,2010).
NMFS and FWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007a. Green Sea TuTtle (Chelonia mydas) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. August 2007. Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/
greenturtle 5yearreview.pdf (accessed November 17,2010).
NMFS and FWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007b. Kemp's Ridley Sea TuTtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 5-Year Review:
Summary and Evaluation. August 2007. Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/pdfs/species/kempsridley 5yearreview.pdf (accessed November 17,2010).
NMFS and FWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007c. Leatherback Sea TuTtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 5-Year Review:
Summary and Evaluation. August 2007. Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/pdfs/species/leatherback 5yearreview.pdf (accessed November 17, 2010).
NMFS and FWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007d. Loggerhead Sea TuTtle (Caretta caretta) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. August 2007. Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/
loggerhead 5yearreview.pdf (accessed November 17,2010).
NMFS and FWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Draft Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemp's Ridley Sea TuTtle (Lepidochelys kempii). Second Revision. Prepared in coordination with the Secretariat of Environment & Natural Resources Mexico. March 2010. Available URL:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/turtle kempsridley draft2.pdf (accessed November 18,2010).
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2009. "Status Review of Shortnose Sturgeon Populations Questions and Answers." Available URL:
http://www.nero. noaa.gov/prot res/sturgeon/docs/ShortnoseStatusReviewFAQ. pdf (accessed November 23, 2010).
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010a. "Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipensaroxyrinchus oxyrinchus)." Available URL:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/atlanticsturgeon.htm (accessed November 24, 2010).
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010b. "Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas)." Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/
turtles/green.htm (accessed November 15,2010).
49
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010c. "Kemp's Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys kempi/)." Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prlspecies/turtles/
kempsridley.htm (accessed November 17, 2010).
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010d. "Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)." Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prlspecies/
turtleslleatherback.htm (accessed November 22,2010).
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010e. "Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta)." Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prlspecies/turtles/
loggerhead.htm (accessed November 15,2010).
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010f. "Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)." Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prlspecies/
fish/shortnosesturgeon.htm (accessed November 23,2010).
NODC (National Oceanic Data Center). 2010. "Coastal Water Temperature Guide:
Atlantic Coast: CentraL" November 2010. Available URL: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/
dsdt/cwtg/catl.html (accessed November 23,2010).
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1984. Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Hope Creek Generating Station. NUREG-1074, Washington D.C. Docket Number 50-354. December 1984.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007. Essential Fish Habitat for an Extended Power Uprate at Hope Creek Generating Station. June 2007. Docket No. 50 354. ADAMS No. ML071520463.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. May 1996. ADAMS Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738.
NRC (U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009a. Letter from B. Pham, Branch Chief, to A. Scherer, Senior Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Subject:
Request for List of Protected Species Within the Area Under Evaluation for the Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations License Renewal Application Review.
December 23, 2009. ADAMS No. ML093350019.
NRC (U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009b. Letter from B. Pham, Branch Chief, to P. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Subject:
Request for List of Protected Species Within the Area Under Evaluation for the Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations License Renewal Application Review.
December 23,2009. ADAMS No. ML093500057.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. Draft Report for Comment. NUREG-1437, Supplement 45, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. October 2010. ADAMS Nos. ML102940169 and ML102940267.
NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). 2009. Before the Secretary of Commerce, Petition to List Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) as an Endangered Species, or List Specified Atlantic Sturgeon DPSs as Threatened and Endangered Species, and to Designate Critical Habitat. September 30,2009. Available URL:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/petition atlanticsturgeon nrdc.pdf (accessed November 29,2010).
50
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Parsons, J.J. 1962. The Green Turtle and Man. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL.
Plotkin, P.T. (Editor). 1995. Status Reviews for Sea Turtles Listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/turtles.pdf (accessed November 15, 2010).
Pritchard, P. 1966. Sea Turtles of the Guianas. Bull. Florida State Mus. 13(2): 85-140.
Pritchard, P. 1971. The Leatherback or Leathery Turtle (Oermochelys coriacea). IUCN Monog. No.1, Marine Turtle Series.
Pritchard, P. 1982. Nesting of the Leatherback Turtle, Oermochelys coriacea, in Pacific Mexico, With a New Estimate of the World Population Status. Copeia 1982: 741-747.
Pritchard, P. and R. Marquez. 1973. Kemp's Ridley Turtles or Atlantic Ridley, Lepidochelys kemp;;. IUCN Monog. No.2, Marine Turtle Series.
Pritchard, P., P. Bacon, F. Berry, A. Carr, J. Fletemeyer, R. Gallagher, S. Hopkins, R.
Lankford, R. Marquez, L. Ogren, W. Pringle, H. Reichardt and R. Witham. 1983. Manual of Sea Turtle Research and Conservation Techniques, Second Edition. Edited by K.
Bjorndal and G. Balazs. Center for Environmental Education: Washington, D. C.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1999a. Biological Opinion Guidance, EN-AA-601-0001, Revision 0, in Salem/Hope Creek Environmental Audit-Post-Audit Information, Threatened and Endangered Species. ADAMS No. ML101440288.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1999b. Salem NJPDES Permit Renewal Application, NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622, Public Service Enterprise Group, Newark, NJ.
Appendix B: Description of Station and Station Operating Conditions. March 4, 1999.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1999c. Species Management, EN-AA-603, Revision 0, in Salem/Hope Creek Environmental Audit-Post-Audit Information, Threatened and Endangered Species. ADAMS No. ML101440288.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2000a. 1999 Annual Environmental Operating Report.
Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. April 28, 2000. ADAMS No. ML003711292.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2000b. Letter from G. Salamon, Licenseing Manager, to Document Control Desk, NRC.
Subject:
Report of Impingement of Shortnose Sturgeon, Salem Generating Station Unit No.1, Docket No. 50-272. May 17, 2000. ADAMS No.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2001 a. 2000 Annual Environmental Operating Report.
Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. April 30, 2001. ADAMS No. ML011240012.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2001 b. Letter from J. Eggers, Environmental Licensing Supervisor, to Document Control Desk, NRC.
Subject:
Report of Impingement of Sea Turtle, Salem Generating Station Unit No.1, Docket No. 50-272. September 28, 2001.
ADAMS No. ML012760002.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2002. 2001 Annual Environmental Operating Report.
Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. April 30, 2002. ADAMS No. ML021340155.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2003a. 2002 Annual Environmental Operating Report.
Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. April 30,2003. ADAMS No. ML031250617.
51
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2003b. Letter from J.M. Eggers, Environmental Licensing Supervisor, to Document Control Desk, NRC.
Subject:
Report of Impingement of Shortnose Sturgeon, Salem Generating Station Unit No.1, Docket No. 50-272. May 6, 2003. ADAMS No. ML031360381.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2004a. 2003 Annual Environmental Operating Report.
Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. April 30, 2004. ADAMS No. ML041270187.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2004b. Letter from J.M. Eggers, Environmental Licensing Supervisor, to Document Control Desk, NRC.
Subject:
Report of Impingement of Shortnose Sturgeon, Salem Generating Station Unit No.1, Docket No. 50-272. October 28,2004. ADAMS No. IVIL0431 00569.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2005. 2004 Annual Environmental Operating Report.
Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. April 29, 2005. ADAMS No. ML051260235.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2006a. 2005 Annual Environmental Operating Report.
Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. March 29, 2006. ADAMS No. ML060970102.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2006b. Salem Generating Station NJPDES Permit No.
NJ0005622 Application for Renewal. Public Service Enterprise Group, Newark, NJ.
January 31, 2006.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2007a. 2006 Annual Environmental Operating Report.
Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. April 27, 2007. ADAMS No. ML071270331.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2007b. Letter from C.D. Gibson, Salem Radwaste &
Environmental Supervisor, to Document Control Desk, NRC.
Subject:
Report of Impingement of Shortnose Sturgeon, Salem Generating Station Unit No.1, Docket No.
50-272. December 7,2007. ADAMS No. ML073531871.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2008a. 2007 Annual Environmental Operating Report.
Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. April 11, 2008. ADAMS No. ML081130667.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2008b. Letter from L. Cataldo, Salem Radwaste &
Environmental Supervisor (Acting), to Document Control Desk, NRC.
Subject:
Report of Impingement of Shortnose Sturgeon, Salem Generating Station Unit No.1, Docket No.
50-272. July 31,2008. ADAMS No. ML082200192.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009a. Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application, Appendix E - Applicant's Environmental Report-Operating License Renewal Stage. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey.
August 2009. ADAMS Nos. ML092400532, ML092400531, ML092430231.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009b. Hope Creek Generating Station, License Renewal Application, Appendix E - Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. August, 2009. ADAMS No. ML092430389.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009c. 2008 Annual Environmental Operating Report.
Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. April 15, 2009. ADAMS No. ML091070473.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009d. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 2008 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report. ADAMS Accession No.
IVIL091200612.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 200ge. Salem Generating Station - Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 24. May 11, 2009. ADAMS No. ML091390275.
52
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2010. 2009 Annual Environmental Operating Report.
Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. April 15, 2010. ADAMS No. ML101050012.
PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). Undated. "Tables of Sea Turtle, Shortnose Sturgeon, and Atlantic Sturgeon Data" in Salem/Hope Creek Environmental Audit-Post-Audit Information, Threatened and Endangered Species. April 29, 2010. ADAMS No.
Pyle, J. 2005. "Delaware River Sturgeon" in New Jersey Fish &Wildlife Digest, Vol. 18, NO.3. May 2005. New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife. Available URL:
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/2005/digmar sturgeon. pdf (accessed November 23, 2010).
Schulz, J.P. 1975. Sea turtles Nesting in Surinam. Zool. Verh. (Leiden) No. 143.
Schulz, J.P. 1982. "Status of Sea Turtle Nesting in Surinam With Notes on Sea Turtles Nesting in Guyana and French Guiana" in K. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Seminoff, J.A. 2004. "Chlonia mydas" in IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. Available URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlistldetails/4615/0 (accessed November 17,2010).
Seney, E.E., J.A. Musick, and A.K. Morrison. 2002. Diet Analysis of Stranded Loggerhead and Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtles in Virginia, USA: 2001. Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-503. April 2002. Available URL:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/turtlesITM 503 Seminoff 22.pdf (accessed November 15, 2010).
Shepard, G. 2006. "Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeaster U.S.: Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeons." December 2006. Available URL:
http://www. nefsc. noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/af/sturgeon/archives/42 Atlantic ShortnoseSturge ons 2006.pdf (accessed November 23,2010).
Shoop, C.P., T. Doty, and N. Bray. 1981. "Sea Turtles in the Region of Cape Hatteras and Nova Scotia in 1979" in A Characterization of Marine Mammals and Turtles in the Mid-and North Atlantic Areas of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.
Turtle Expert Working Group. 2000. Assessment Update for the Kemp's Ridley and Loggerhead Sea Turtle Populations in the Western North Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-444. November 2000. Available URL:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/tewg2000.pdf (accessed November 18, 2010).
Turtle Expert Working Group. 2007. An Assessment of the Leatherback Turtle Population in the Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-555.
Available URL: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/turtlesrrM 555 DcTEWG.pdf (accessed December 2, 2010).
Witherington, B. E. and L. M. Ehrhart. 1989. "Status and Reproductive Characteristics of Green Turtles (Chelonia mydas) Nesting in Florida" in Ogren, L., F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R Witham (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS SEFC-226. Available URL: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/turtlesITM 226 Ogren etal WATSII.pdf (accessed November 18, 2010).
53
1 Wolke, R. E. and A. George. 1981. Sea Turtle Necropsy Manual. NOAA Technical 2
Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-24, 20 pp. December 1981. Available URL:
3 http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/turtlesfTM 24 Wolke George.pdf (accessed November 15, 4
2010).
54
M. Colligan
-2 We are requesting your concurrence with our determination. In reaching our conclusion, the NRC staff relied on information provided by the applicant, on research performed by NRC staff, and on information from NMFS (including current listings of species provided by the NMFS). If you have any questions regarding this BA or the staff's request, please contact Ms. Leslie Perkins, Environmental Project Manager, at 301-415-2375 or bye-mail at leslie. perkins@nrc.gov.
Sincerely, IRA!
Bo M. Pham, Chief Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-272, 50-311, and 50-354
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl.: Distribution via Listserv ADAMS Accession No.' ML103350271 OFFICE LA:DLR PM:DLRRPB1 BC:DLRRPB1 NAME IKing LPerkins BPham DATE 12/9/10 12/13/10 12/13/10 OFFICIAL RECORD COpy
Letter to Mary A. Colligan from Bo M. Pham dated December13, 2010.
SUBJECT:
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION AND SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DISTRIBUTION:
HARDCOPY:
DLRRF E-MAIL:
PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RdsNrrDlrRarb Resource RidsNrrDlrRasb Resource RidsNrrDlrRapb Resource RidsOgcMailCenter Resource BPham BBrady LPerkins REnnis CSanders BHarris, OGC ABurritt, RI RConte, RI MModes, RI DTifft, RI NMcNamara, RI