ML11353A055
| ML11353A055 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/2010 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 21569, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 NUREG-1437, S38, V3 | |
| Download: ML11353A055 (154) | |
Text
NYS00133J Submitted: December 16, 2011 Appendix H 1 More than 30 years of extensive fisheries studies of the Hudson River in the 2 vicinity of IP2 and IP3 support current operations. The results of the studies 3 performed from 1974 to 1997, the period of time covered in the DEIS, are 4 referenced and summarized in the DEIS, and have not shown any negative 5 trend in overall aquatic river species populations attributable to plant 6 operations ...
7 The ER also stated that ongoing studies continue to support these conclusions. Thus, the 8 applicant determined impingement impacts to be small, suggesting that the withdrawal of water 9 from the Hudson River for the purposes of once-through cooling for IP2 and IP3 did not have 10 any demonstrable negative effect on representative Hudson River fish populations, nor did it 11 warrant further mitigation measures.
12 To support this assessment the applicant provided two reviews, Barnthouse et al. (2002) and 13 Barnthouse et al. (2008). These reviews addressed the status and trends of fish populations 14 and communities of the Hudson River estuary in relation to the operation of Bowline Point IP2 15 and IP3, and Roseton generating stations, which currently share a State Pollutant Discharge 16 Elimination System (SPDES) permit. Barnthouse et al. (2002) was based on a review of the 17 DEIS, comments on the DEIS abundance indices though 2000 (CHGEC 1999). and the annual 18 Year Class Report (ASA 2000). Barnthouse et al. (2008) was based on abundance indices 19 through 2005, the spawning stock biomass-per-recruit model (SSBRL and CMR estimates.
20 Although both reviews recognized that the long-term population trends reflected the combined 21 effects of entrainment and impingement the 2008 report focused on entrainment and suggested 22 that the existing retrofits (Ristroph screens and fish returns) have resolved the concerns 23 regarding impingement. Additional discussions concerning the results of the Barnthouse et al.
24 (2008) analyses are provided in Section H.2.
25 NYSDEC Assessment 26 With respect to the operation of the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems, the NYSDEC regulatory role 27 includes protecting aquatic resources from impacts associated with impingement entrainment 28 and thermal and chemical discharges. Based on activities conducted under the Hudson River 29 Settlement Agreement (H RSAL subsequent Consent Orders, and existing agreements with the 30 operators of IP2 and IP3, Roseton, and Bowline Point power generation stations, NYSDEC 31 concluded that IP2 and IP3 have achieved some reductions in intake volumes through the use 32 of dual-speed and variable-flow pumps and have improved impingement survival through the 33 installation of modified Ristroph traveling screens (NYSDEC 2003a). However, NYSDEC stated 34 that "while these represent some level of improvement compared to operations with no 35 mitigation or protection, there are still significant unmitigated mortalities from entrainment and 36 impingement at all three of the HRSA facilities." In a petition submitted to the NRC to intervene 37 in the IP2 and IP3 license renewal proceeding dated November 30, 2007, the NYSDEC stated 38 the following:
39 December 201 0 H-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00499
Appendix H 1 The plants' outdated design and operation have caused significant adverse 2 environmental impacts to the Hudson River. These impacts include 3 impingement. entrainment. and heat shock to numerous fish species in the 4 Hudson, including the endangered sturgeon. In the alternative, even if the NRC 5 were to grant the license renewal application, it could only do that by 6 conditioning the renewal on the construction and use of closed-cycle cooling 7 water intake systems at IP2 and IP3. As was stated in the above contention on 8 impingement and entrainment. the perpetuation of once-through cooling here, 9 with its long history of massive injury and destruction of tens of millions of 10 Hudson River fish, is simply no longer tenable, either in fact or in law.
11 NYSDEC stated further that the applicant would need a Clean Water Act Section 316(b) 12 determination, a demonstration that the current cooling water intake structure reflects the best 13 technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts (NYSDEC 2007). However, 14 the NYSDEC states the following:
15 Entergy has not and could not demonstrate that its once-through cooling water 16 intake structures at IP2 and IP3 reflects the best technology available for 17 minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Indeed, the New York State 18 Department of Environmental Conservation has determined in the pending 19 SPDES permit renewal proceeding that closed-cycle cooling, and not once-20 through cooling, represents the best technology available for minimizing adverse 21 environmental impacts.
22 H.1.1.3. NRC Staff Assessment of Impingement Impacts 23 To assess impingement impacts, the NRC staff evaluated weekly estimated impingement 24 numbers at IP2 and IP3 from January 1975 to November 1980, and seasonally estimated 25 impingement numbers from January 1981 and December 1990. The combined numbers of 26 young of year (YOY). yearling, and older fish were used for analysis since these data were 27 available for all years of sampling.
28 29 The applicant's monitoring data showed that a total of 141 fish taxa and blue crab were 30 collected and identified at IP2 and IP3 during this 16-year period. At IP2, the estimated number 31 of representative important species (RIS; as defined in Table 2-4 in the main text) fish impinged 32 made up greater than 85 percent of the total impinged (fish and blue crab; Figure H-1, solid 33 lines). Until 1984, the RIS fish made up at least 95 percent of the total impinged. When blue 34 crab are included with the RIS fish, the estimated number impinged made up greater than 90 35 percent of the total impinged for all but one year. The total number of fish and blue crab 36 impinged at IP2 has significantly decreased at a rate of 0.15 million per year (linear regression; 37 n = 16; p = 0.025) from 1975 to 1990. Total impingement approached or exceeded 4 million in 38 1977 and 1981 (Figure H-1, dashed line). Impingement of all fish and blue crab was lowest in 39 1984 (about 0.5 million).
40 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-8 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00500
Appendix H 100% 5.0
.:...\
.... ....
,...~ v
~ IJ 4.5 95% w
~ ;r
... ... , . .........
90% 4.0
\ \ \ u I 3.5
..: \ ....... .. \.\
85% : ,
80% *,,
\}T 3.0 75% .
.
\.I 2.5 70% ... f \
.
\
\ ,-,
2.0 1.5 65% ._, '------...... 1.0
\
'- .........,\ ,,.... __ ,/
60% .......,' 0.5 55% 0.0 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992
__.,.._ RIS Fish -o-RIS Fish+ Blue Crab ---------Total Impinged Unit 2 1
2 Figure H-1 Percentage of impingement composed of RIS fish and RIS fish plus blue crab 3 relative to the estimated total impingement at IP2 (data from Entergy 2007b and 2009 [NL-4 09-131]).
5 At IP3, the estimated number of RIS fish impinged made up greater than or equal to 95 percent 6 of the total impinged except for the last three years (Figure H-2, solid lines). When blue crab 7 were included with the RIS fish, the estimated number impinged was greater than 85 percent for 8 all but one year. The total number of fish and blue crab impinged at IP3 significantly decreased 9 from 1976 to 1990 at a rate of 0.08 million per year (linear regression; n = 15; p = 0.002).
10 Except for 1983, for which IP3 had extensive outages, the numbers of fish and crab impinged 11 annually at IP2 are 2.6 times greater than those at IP3. The highest total impingement at IP3 12 occurred in 1977 at just over 1.8 million fish and blue crab; the lowest occurred in 1983 at about 13 0.03 million (Figure H-2, dashed line).
14 Total impingement trends at IP2 and IP3 suggest that the total number of fish and blue crab 15 impinged tended to decrease between 1977 and 1982, then leveled off between 1982 and 1990.
16 From 1975 to 1990, the number of days of operation at IP2 and IP3 has shown a general 17 increase of eight days per year for IP2 and five days per year for IP3 (linear regression, 18 p = 0.004 and p = 0.286 for IP2 and IP3, respectively). The total volume circulated at IP2 and 19 IP3 combined has also shown a general increase of 26.2 x 106 cubic meters (m 3 ) (linear 20 regression, p = 0.164). If the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems are considered a relatively constant 21 sampler of Hudson River aquatic biota (recognizing the slight increase in frequency and volume 22 of water circulated). then the decrease in the percent of RIS impinged and total impingement 23 would suggest that RIS and all other taxa within the vicinity of IP2 and IP3 have decreased from 24 a high in 1977 to a relatively constant lower level of impingement between 1984 and 1990. This 25 will be explored further in Section H.3.
26 To determine trends in RIS impingement. the NRC staff examined quarterly data from IP2 and 27 IP3 from 1975 to 1990 (Table H-4). The two major time periods (1975-1980) and (1981-1990) 28 December 201 0 H-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 00501
Appendix H 10o% *:**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~********************************r 5.0
"'C 95% 4.5 ~
ltl gj, M ._
c:
- a. 90% ,.................................................................................... tl 4.0 :!:::: ~
c: :I E 85% *=***********************************************************************************************'\-*\ 3.5 ::J iii
.....
80%
3.0 ~ -g QJ ltl 2.5 b.O..c:
75% :******************************************************************************************* I c: "'
2.0 *a. u:::
70% *=*****************;'**~**************************************************************************\ e-1.5 ~ ~
65%
1.0 ~ ~
60% :*******'*************************************~**********~-~********************* lc~******* ~.
0.5 55% ., ............ ,.............. ,............ ,............ ,..... .... ,............. ,............ ,...... :....... ,............ ,. 0.0
- .~
-*e 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992
- * * - RIS Fish ---o-RIS Fish+ Blue Crab --------*Total Impinged Unit 3 1
2 Figure H-2 Percentage of impingement composed of RIS fish and RIS fish plus blue crab 3 relative to the estimated total impingement at IP3 (data from Entergy 2007b and 2009 [NL-4 09-131]).
5 were analyzed separately to account for the differences in impingement sampling strategies 6 discussed above. Eight RIS taxa, including blue crab, accounted for 96 percent (IP2) and 93 7 percent (IP3) of the total number of RIS impinged over all years. During January to March 8 sampling events for both units and all years, white perch was the most commonly impinged 9 species, accounting for 78 to 98 percent of the RIS impinged. Impingement of RIS was more 10 variable during other sampling periods but was dominated by white perch, Atlantic tomcod, bay 11 anchovy, and blueback herring. The notable exception to this pattern occurred between 1981 12 and 1990, when the percentage of hogchoker and weakfish impinged increased at both units 13 during the spring and summer sampling periods compared to estimates obtained from 1975 to 14 1980 (Table H-4). Greenwood (2008) stated that power station cooling-water intake screens 15 are effective estuarine fish sampling devices. Therefore, if we regard the cooling systems 16 associated with IP2 and IP3 as an efficient environmental sampler, then the patterns observed 17 in the impingement data could indicate a change in species composition in the vicinity of IP2 18 and IP3 occurred in the 1980s.
19 20 As a result of the HRSA, operational measures were implemented to reduce the loss of aquatic 21 resources to impingement. These measures included the installation of dual-speed intake 22 pumps at IP2 in 1984, installation of variable-speed pumps at IP3 in 1985, and the installation of 23 modified Ristroph screens and fish-return systems at both units in 1991. The plant operators 24 also developed programs to employ flow-reduction measures and scheduled outages to reduce 25 impingement and entrainment impacts. Flow rates are dependent on intake water temperature, 26 with increased flow required when water temperatures rise above 15° C. For example, the 27 average monthly water temperatures taken near Poughkeepsie, New York from 1992 to 2006 28 (Figure H-3) suggests to NRC staff that greater flow would be required during the months of NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-10 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00502
Appendix H 1 May through October. This roughly corresponds to the second and third quarters of 2 impingement sampling (April-September timeframes in Table H-4). The seasonal percentage 3 of RIS fish impinged as a function of the annual number of RIS fish impinged at IP2 was 4 significantly different between seasons with January to March greater than April to June 5 (Kruskai-Wallis, p = 0.04). Thus, a greater percentage of impingement occurred at IP2 when 6 the average intake water flow was relatively low compared to the rest of the year. The median 7 seasonal percentage impinged over years was 14 to 32 percent.
8 9 Percentage of RIS taxa impinged as a function of the annual number of RIS taxa impinged at 10 IP3 was not significantly different among seasons (Kruskai-Wallis, p = 0.25; Figure H-4). Thus, 11 even though the plants withdrew a greater volume of water between May and October (analysis 12 of variance (ANOVAL p = 0.02 with a CV = 41 percent and p = 0.53 with a CV = 61 percent for 13 IP2 and IP3, respectively). impingement did not increase during these periods. Instead, the 14 seasonal pattern of impingement may reflect times when susceptible fish are present near the 15 facility.
16 17 Table H-4 Average Percentage Impingement of RIS Compared to Total Impingement per 18 Season for 1975-1980 and 1981-1990 for Selected Taxa (data from Entergy 2007b)
IP2 COOLING SYSTEM 1975-1980 1981-1990 Percent RIS Species Jan- Apr- Jui- Oct- Jan- Apr- Jui- Oct- of 1
Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec RISTaxa White Perch 96 35 17 38 93 44 13 62 50 Atlantic 1 55 27 1 1 35 24 3 14 Tomcod Bay Anchovy 0 2 32 7 0 5 23 8 11 Blueback 0 0 10 45 0 0 2 11 14 Herring Hog choker 0 3 4 3 0 10 12 4 2 Weakfish 0 0 3 0 0 0 9 2 2 Striped Bass 2 0 2 1 4 1 2 4 2 Blue Crab NA NA NA NA 0 0 14 2 1 Percent of 100 99 99 96 99 98 99 98 RIS Fish 19 December 201 0 H-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00503
Appendix H 1 Table H-4 (continued)
IP3 COOLING SYSTEM 1975-1980 1981-1990 Percent RIS Species Jan- Apr- Jul- Oct- Jan- Apr- Jul- Oct- of Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec RISTaxa 1 White Perch 95 55 10 43 91 62 16 56 51 Atlantic 0 23 40 2 0 14 16 2 17 Tomcod Bay Anchovy 0 3 23 2 0 6 17 3 8 Blueback 0 3 6 38 0 3 2 27 10 Herring Hog choker 0 5 8 1 0 8 15 2 3 Weakfish 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 1 1 Striped Bass 2 1 1 6 5 1 1 2 2 Weak Fish NA NA NA NA 0 1 20 6 2 Percent of 99 98 98 98 99 98 99 99 97 2 RIS Fish RIS Taxa include Blue Crab.
2 Percent of RIS Taxa out of all impinged taxa.
NA = Not included in data collection.
2 E :+. _. ._. ._. _. ._. _. ._. ._. _. ._. ._. _. ._. _. ._. ._. _. ._. ._. _. ._. . . . . .
~~~=...~ ....~...~..._... _...._..._..._... _...._..._..._... _...._..._...~
.... ,
~
i3>
~~20+-----------------~~--------~~------~
o_Q)
~ ~
>- ill
~~15~---------------~----------------~-------:
- s Q)
~
0..
~~ 10+------------7~--------------------~--~
Q)-
> Q)
<(.c
>>
£
"
0
- 2:
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 3
4 Source: U.S. Geological Survey Surface Water Data, http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site_no=01372058.
5 6 Figure H-3 Average monthly water temperature taken from below Poughkeepsie, NY, 7 from 1992 to 2006.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-12 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00504
Appendix H 45%
40%
....I'U 35% ___<;:> __
{}.
- C" -* _::*** :~ :::::::::::;*cO".-. J!l.* ~~~~'~.:*
I'U 30%
- l .;....................... *rne'cc.......* .* .*.* .* .* .*.* .* **"-** :-- *.
c
- c 25%
<(
20%
....c0 Q) 15%
u
"-
Q) 10%
0..
5%
0%
Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jui-Sep Oct-Dec
--+---Unit 2 Impingement --D-- Unit 3 Impingement ----<>--- Unit 2 Flow ---[}--- Unit 3 Flow 1
2 Figure H-4 Seasonal percentage of RIS fish impinged out of the annual total taxa 3 impinged and the seasonal percentage of the volume circulated out of the annual total 4 volume circulated from 1975-1990 (data from Entergy 2007b and 2009).
5 Based on the above NRC staff analyses, the species with the highest percentage of 6 impingement at IP2 and IP3 from 1975 to 1990 were white perch, Atlantic tomcod, blueback 7 herring, bay anchovy, and hogchoker. Impingement trends for both units show that each of 8 these species was impinged during at least one sampling season in quantities representing at 9 least 10 percent of the total impingement counts for that period. During some sampling 10 seasons, a single species represented over 90 percent of the total impingement (e.g., white 11 perch during January to March). Impingement magnitude does not appear to be directly related 12 to flow; rather, the available information suggests that the frequency of impingement is 13 associated with seasonal patterns of fish and their proximity to IP2 and IP3. The environmental 14 significance of impingement is explored further in Section H-3.
15 H.1.2. Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages 16 Entrainment occurs when small aquatic life forms are carried into and through the cooling 17 system as water is withdrawn for use in the plant's cooling system. Entrainment can affect 18 organisms smaller than the screen mesh (0.25 to 0.5 in.) that are carried into the plant with the 19 pumped water mass and have limited swimming ability to escape. This includes phytoplankton, 20 microzooplankton, and macrozooplankton. Entrained organisms also include the young life 21 stages of fish (eggs, larvae, post-yolk-sac larvae [YSLL and juveniles) and shellfish.
22 Entrained organisms pass through the circulating pumps and are carried with the flow through 23 the intake conduits toward the condenser units. They are then drawn through one of the many 24 condenser tubes used to cool the turbine exhaust steam and enter the discharge canal for December 2010 H-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 00505
Appendix H 1 return to the water. As entrained organisms pass through the intake, they may be injured from 2 abrasion or compression. Within the cooling system, they encounter physical impacts in the 3 pumps and condenser tubing, pressure changes, sheer stress, thermal shock, and chemical 4 exposure to chlorine and residual industrial chemicals discharged at the diffuser ports (Mayhew 5 et al. 2000). Death can occur immediately (direct effect) or after being discharged (indirect 6 effect) from an inability to escape predators, a reduced ability to forage, or other factors.
7 The former owners of IP2 and IP3 conducted studies of entrainment loss associated with IP2 8 and IP3 in 1981 and then annually from 1983 to 1987. Entrainment survival is a disputed 9 subject. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assumes that the mortality 10 associated with entrainment is 100 percent (NYSDEC 2003a). Consolidated Edison Company 11 of New York (Con Edison) and New York Power Authority (NYPA 1984) assume that for the 12 more delicate species (bay anchovy, American shad, clupeids). mortality was 100 percent.
13 However, for other species, mortality could be separated into thermal and mechanical 14 components and overall was less than 100 percent. By 1987, Con Edison estimated the 15 survival of entrained bay anchovy could be up to 52 percent (EA 1989). This assessment 16 recognizes that 96-hr survival of fish following entrainment is not a measure of the potential 17 reduction in ability to forage and avoid predation within hours or days of being discharged at the 18 diffuser ports. Thus, indirect losses for a given species from entrainment for the purpose of this 19 assessment are unknown.
20 H.1.2.1. Summary of Entrainment Survival Monitoring Studies 21 Entrainment studies to evaluate the survival of entrainable aquatic organisms (eggs, larvae, 22 YSL, smalljuveniles) have been conducted at IP2 and IP3 since the early 1970s. A variety of 23 sampling gear has been employed. Study endpoints included estimates of immediate and latent 24 mortality by monitoring collected organisms for up to 96 hr. Initial monitoring efforts were based 25 on the assumption that survival of organisms collected by nets was the same from intake canal 26 samples as it was from discharge canal samples. It was discovered, however, that differences 27 in water velocity at intake and discharge sampling stations may have affected ichthyoplankton 28 survival, and subsequent studies demonstrated that the survival of striped bass eggs and larvae 29 collected using fixed nets were velocity dependent. Based on these results, entrainment 30 survival sampling at IP2 and IP3 in 1977 and 1978 was expanded to include new sampling gear 31 designed to reduce or eliminate the effects of intake and discharge water velocity on apparent 32 postcollection survival. The primary change involved the use of centrifugal pumps to transport 33 water into a flume and larval collection table, where water quality conditions could be optimized 34 and samples concentrated for survival and latent mortality analyses. In spite of these 35 refinements, entrainment survival estimates derived from the pump/larval table collection 36 system were again compromised by poor ichthyoplankton survival in control samples collected 37 in front of intakes representing initial larval conditions before passage through the IP2 and IP3 38 cooling systems.
39 Subsequent revisions to sampling gear were employed in 1979, 1980, and 1989, and are 40 discussed below. Because the survival estimates conducted before 1979 were significantly 41 compromised by sampling gear design and choice, the NRC staff focused on the later studies to 42 evaluate entrainment mortality at IP2 and IP3. Sampling was also conducted in 1985 to 43 determine the effects of entrainment mortality resulting from an upgrade to the pumping system NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-14 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00506
Appendix H 1 associated with IP2. The results of this study are not directly comparable to the 1979 and 1980 2 studies, because a different sampling design was employed.
3 Details of the 1979 entrainment survival and related studies are presented in EA (1981 a).
4 Entrainment survival studies were conducted during two separate sampling periods, the late 5 winter season from March 12 to 22, 1979, to evaluate the larvae of Atlantic tomcod (M. tomcod),
6 and in the spring-summer season from April 30 to August 14, 1979, to evaluate early life-stages 7 of striped bass (M. saxatilis). white perch (M. americana). herring ( Clupeidae). and anchovies 8 (Engraulidae). During the winter season, sampling with a pump/larval table collection system 9 was conducted at the intakes associated with IP2 and IP3, in the IP3 effluent before it enters the 10 discharge canal, and in portions of the discharge canal containing effluent water from both units.
11 The shutdown of IP3 from March 20 to 22, 1979 provided an opportunity to evaluate Atlantic 12 tomcod larval survival under one- and two-unit operation. During the spring-summer season, a 13 raft-mounted flume collection was used for the first time at IP2 and IP3. This system was 14 designed to reduce sampling stress on target organisms by taking advantage of head pressure 15 created by a difference between water levels on either side of the flume apparatus. The 16 shutdown of IP2 after June 16, 1979, provided an opportunity to assess the survival of other 17 species during both one- and two-unit operation.
18 For the Atlantic tomcod study during the winter of 1979, sampling was initiated upon notification 19 of the first occurrence of tomcod larvae and conducted on four consecutive nights per week 20 over the two-week sampling period from March 12 to 22, for a total of eight sampling days.
21 Sampling occurred between 1700 and 0200 hr to coincide with the diel period of peak larval 22 abundance. At the beginning of the study, both IP2 and IP3 units were operating, but an 23 unscheduled shutdown of IP3 occurred on March 20 and continued through the remainder of 24 the study. Although the unit did not generate power, two circulating water pumps continued to 25 operate. Thus, for the tomcod study, a total of 11 circulating pumps were operating from 26 March 12 to 19 (6 at IP2, 5 at IP3L and a total of eight pumps were operating from March 20 to 27 22 (6 at IP2, 2 at IP3). The pump/larval table collection system used for the tomcod study 28 consisted of a modular two-screen collection flume that allowed collection of larval samples with 29 minimal sampling stress associated with turbulent flow or temperature changes. Sample water 30 was delivered to the table by two centrifugal pumps equipped with flowmeters. Collected 31 entrainment samples were transferred to an onsite laboratory for sorting, where icthyoplankton 32 were sorted and classified as live (fish, eggs). stunned (fish only). or dead (fish and eggs).
33 Dead eggs and larvae were preserved; live or stunned fish or eggs were transferred to holding 34 facilities to determine latent effects on survival at 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72, and 96 hr. Specific 35 sampling procedures are discussed in the EA (1981 a).
36 The spring-summer sampling to evaluate entrainment survival of striped bass, white perch, 37 herrings, and anchovies was conducted from April 30 to August 14, 1979, coincident with the 38 primary spawning and nursery seasons of these species. Samples were collected on 39 two consecutive nights each week for a total of 32 sampling days from 1800 to 0200 hr that 40 coincided with maximum abundance. As described above, a pumpless, rear-draw plankton 41 sampling flume mounted on rafts was employed during this study to minimize stress associated 42 with the use of centrifugal pumps. The volume of water samples collected from all samplers 43 was measured with integrated flowmeters, and vertical 505-micron (!lm) mesh screens were 44 employed to divert entrained organisms into collection boxes, where they were concentrated 45 and processed to determine latent survival as described for the tomcod study.
December 201 0 H-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 00507
Appendix H 1 EA (1982) presents details of the 1980 entrainment survival and related studies. In 1980, 2 entrainment survival sampling at IP2 and IP3 was conducted from April 30 to July 10. Sampling 3 was focused on entrainable life stages of striped bass (M. saxatilis). white perch (M.
4 americana). herrings (Ciupeidae). and anchovies (Engraulidae). Juvenile Atlantic tomcod (M.
5 tomcod) were also collected. To correct possible sources of gear-related effects on study 6 results, the rear-draw and pumpless plankton flumes used in 1979 were modified with flow 7 diffusion panels and slotted standpipes installed behind the angled diversion screens. These 8 refinements were intended to more evenly distribute the water across the surface of the screens 9 and eliminate localized areas of high-velocity flow that may have caused impingement. This, 10 along with other improvements to the sampling system, was expected to decrease the gear-11 related mortality observed in control samples from the intakes at IP2 and IP3.
12 Entrainment survival sampling for striped bass, white perch, herring and anchovies was 13 conducted from April 30 to July 10, 1980, coinciding with the primary spawning and nursery 14 seasons of these taxa. Samples were collected on 4 consecutive nights each week for a total of 15 44 sampling days between the hours of 1600 and 0200. Sampling was conducted at discharge 16 canal station DP and at the IP3 intake using the modified rear-draw plankton sampling flumes.
17 Live and dead icthyoplankton collected during the study were sorted at the onsite laboratory 18 immediately after sample collection and classified as live (fish and eggs). stunned (fish only). or 19 dead (fish and eggs). Dead eggs and larvae were preserved; live or stunned fish or eggs were 20 transferred to holding facilities to determine latent effects with checks at 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72, and 21 96 hr.
22 During the summer and early fall of 1984, dual-speed cooling water pumps were installed at 23 IP2. In 1985, variable-speed pumps were installed at IP3. The specific objectives of the 1988 24 entrainment studies were to (1) estimate the initial and extended survival of ichthyoplankton 25 entrained at IP2 and IP3 and compare the results to those from previous years, (2) determine 26 whether live and dead ichthyoplankton are randomly dispersed in the IP2 and IP3 discharge 27 canal at sampling station D2, and (3) assess whether the thermal and mechanical components 28 of entrainment stress are independent. The study description that follows was obtained from 29 the EA (1989).
30 The 1988 study EA (1989) was designed to sample 180m 3 per day with each flume system.
31 One flume was deployed at intake Station IP3; two flumes were deployed at discharge station 32 D2. The original design required that flumes be operated 3 days per week from May 23 to 33 June 30, 1989, resulting in 18 total sampling days. Specific daily volume requirements and 34 numbers of sampling days were developed to ensure sufficient numbers of organics were 35 collected. Because of a number of logistical challenges, the actual number of sampling days 36 was 13, from June 8 to 30. The flume design and collection procedures employed in 1988 were 37 consistent with previous studies described above. Average daily sample volumes collected at 38 the intake were 143.3 m3 , and the daily combined volume sampled by both flumes in the 39 discharge canal was 271.2 m3 . The sampling program was conducted during afternoon and 40 evening hours (1300-2300). Live and dead icthyoplankton collected during the study were 41 sorted at the onsite laboratory immediately after sample collection and classified as described 42 above. Other studies conducted in 1988 included sampling stress evaluations to provide a 43 better understanding of mortality caused by sampling stress at intake versus discharge 44 sampling locations, direct release studies to augment entrainment studies based on wild fish NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-16 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00508
Appendix H 1 captures, and net studies in the discharge canal to provide additional information on 2 icthyoplankton distribution.
3 The results of entrainment survival from the 1977-80, 1985, and 1988 studies are presented in 4 EA (1989) for initial intake survival (EA 1989, Figure 4-8). initial discharge survival (EA 1989, 5 Figure 4-9). and overall entrainment survival (EA 1989, Figure 4-1 0). Summary information for 6 the 1979, 1980, and 1988 study years are summarized in Table H-5 below:
7 Table H-5 Entrainment Survival Estimates for Study Years 1979, 1980, and 1988 Estimated Initial Intake Initial Discharge Entrainment Species Proportion Proportion Proportion Survival Survival Survival Bay Anchovy PYSL -0.09-0.32 -0.01-0.05 -0.12-0.52 Striped Bass YSL -0.52-0.95 -0.61 -0.62-0.72 Striped Bass PYSL -0.50-0.95 -0.70-0.78 -0.68-0.80 White Perch PYSL -0.15-0.95 -0.19-0.85 -0.30-0.92 A/osa spp. PYSL -0.25-0.90 -0.30-0.60 -0.30-0.65 Adapted from Figures 4-8-4-10 in EA {1989).
8 H.1.2.2. Summary of Entrainment Abundance Monitoring Studies 9 During 1981, EA employed an Automated Abundance Sampler (AUTOSAM) to collect 10 icthyoplankton samples from IP2 and IP3. Mid-depth water samples were collected 11 twice a week during May-August from discharge station D2. Each sampling effort 12 consisted of collecting 90-minute (min) composite samples within eight 3-hr sampling 13 intervals extending over a 24-hr period. lchthyoplankton samples were sorted, 14 identified to species and life stage, and counted (EA 1981 b). In 1983, entrainment 15 abundance samples were again collected at discharge canal station D2 from May 3 to 16 August 13, 1983, using the AUTOSAM collector. From May 3 to 18, each sample 17 consisted of a 90- min composite sample within eight 3-hr sampling periods. From May 18 19 to August 13, the 90-min composites reflect a shorter collection time to reduce 19 clogging caused by the presence of detritus. lchthyoplankton samples were sorted, 20 identified to species and life stage, and counted (EA 1984). In 1984, icthyoplankton 21 samples were collected from discharge canal station D2 from May 3 to August 11, 1984.
22 Sampling equipment collection procedures, and sample processing were consistent 23 with past sampling efforts described above (EA 1985).
24 In 1985, ichthyoplankton samples were taken continuously (24 hr per day) from May 1 to 25 August 11. Each sample consisted of one 3-hr period, resulting in eight samples per day. Total 26 sample volumes were 150m 3 . Replicate sampling to determine variance estimates was 27 conducted on Wednesdays and Thursdays of each week. Samples were collected by pumping 28 water through a 1a-centimeter (em) (4-in.) diameter pipe submerged to a depth of 3 m at 29 discharge canal Station D2 and passing the collected water into a plankton net with a codend 30 cup. The collected sample was transferred to a sample jar, preserved, and transferred to a December 201 0 H-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 00509
Appendix H 1 laboratory for sorting, identification to species and life stage, and enumeration (Normandeu 2 1987a). Pump samples to quantify ichthyoplankton entrained at IP2 and IP3 were collected 3 from May 1 to August 10, 1986, at discharge canal station 02. Sampling duration was 3 hr 4 without replication from May 1 to May 14, and 2 hr from May 15 to August 10 to increase the 5 number of collected samples. Replicate sampling to provide variance estimates were collected 6 five days per week from May 16 through August 10. Sampling equipment and processing were 7 consistent with the 1985 sampling study (Normandeu 1987b). In 1987, pump samples to 8 determine ichthyoplankton entrainment abundance were collected 24 hr per day from May 6 to 9 August 10 from discharge canal station 02. Sample duration was 2 hr, which allowed a large 10 number of samples to be collected. Replicate sampling to provide variance estimates was 11 collected five days per week from May 6 to August 7 (Normandeu 1988).
12 H.1.2.3. Historic Assessment of Entrainment Impacts 13 As discussed in Sections 4.1.2.1 and 4.1.2.2 of the SEIS, numerous studies have been 14 conducted to estimate the quantity of RIS that are entrained by the Indian Point cooling systems 15 and evaluate the survival of these species after entrainment occurs. Studies have also been 16 conducted to evaluate the trends of fish populations in the Hudson River. The applicant and 17 NYSDEC have used the results of these studies to evaluate the potential for adverse effects 18 associated with the operation of the Indian Point cooling systems. The results of these 19 assessments are described below. As described in Section 4.1.1.2 of the SEIS, 20 nongovernmental groups and members of the public have also evaluated publicly available 21 information and data associated with the Hudson River and have expressed the opinion that 22 many species of fish in the river are in decline and that entrainment of eggs, larval, and juvenile 23 fish at Indian Point is contributing to the decline, destabilization, and ultimate loss of these 24 important aquatic resources.
25 Applicant Assessment 26 In the environmental report for IP2 and IP3 (Entergy 2007). the applicant presents estimates of 27 CMR for American shad, Atlantic tomcod, bay anchovy, river herring, striped bass, and white 28 perch and discusses the results of the assessment conducted by Barnthouse et al. (2002). The 29 conclusions of the ER are as follows:
30 More than 30 years of extensive fisheries studies of the Hudson River in the 31 vicinity of IP2 and IP3 support current operations. The results of the studies 32 performed from 1974 to 1997, the period of time covered in the DEIS, are 33 referenced and summarized in the DEIS, and have not shown any negative 34 trend in overall aquatic river species populations attributable to plant operations.
35 Ongoing studies continue to support these conclusions [ASA]. In addition, 36 current mitigation measures implemented through the HRSA and retained in the 37 four Consent Orders, the current agreements with NYSDEC, and the outcome of 38 the draft SPDES Permit proceeding, will ensure that entrainment impacts remain 39 SMALL during the license renewal term. Therefore, withdrawal of water from 40 the Hudson River for the purposes of once-through cooling at the site does not 41 have any demonstrable negative effect on representative Hudson River fish 42 populations, nor does it warrant further mitigation measures.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-18 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00510
Appendix H 1 Additional impact assessment information was also provided to the NRC staff in Barnthouse 2 et al. (2008) that used environmental risk-assessment techniques to evaluate the potential for 3 adverse impacts to Hudson River RIS from a variety of natural and anthropogenic stressors, 4 including the operation of the IP2 and IP3 cooling water intake system (CWISL fish pressure, 5 the presence of zebra mussels, predation by striped bass, and water temperature. Summary 6 results available in Barnthouse et al. (2008) are presented in Table H-6. Using this information, 7 the authors concluded the following:
8 Considered together, the evidence evaluated in this report shows that the 9 operation of IP2 and IP3 has not caused effects on early life stages of fish that 10 reasonably would be considered "adverse" by fisheries scientists and/or 11 managers. The operation of IP2 and IP3 has not destabilized or noticeably 12 altered any important attribute of the resource.
13 Table H-6 Summary of Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3 Species Suspected Cause of Apparent Hudson River Decline CWIS and zebra mussel hypothesis rejected.
American Shad Most likely cause: fishing, with striped bass predation a potential contributing factor (Barnthouse et al. 2008, Table 5).
CWIS hypothesis rejected.
Atlantic Tom cod Temperature is a significant influence, but cannot explain post-1990 decline. Most likely cause of decline: striped bass predation (Barnthouse et al. 2008, Table 6).
CWIS hypothesis rejected.
Bay Anchovy Striped bass predation most likely cause of change (Barnthouse et al. 2008, Table 8).
CWIS and zebra mussel hypothesis rejected.
River Herring Most likely cause: striped bass predation (Barnthouse et al.
2008, Table 7).
CWIS and zebra mussel hypothesis rejected. Most likely Striped Bass cause: fishing (Barnthouse et al. 2008, Table 3).
CWIS hypothesis rejected.
Zebra mussel and striped bass predation may have White Perch contributed to declines occurring in later years, but other unknown causes were responsible for declines occurring between 1975 and 1985 (Barnthouse et al. 2008, Table 4).
Source: Entergy 2008, adapted from Barnthouse et al. 2008.
14 NYSDEC Assessment 15 In 2003, NYSDEC developed a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the draft 16 SPDES permit (NYSDEC 2003a) in response to the DEIS submitted by the operators of IP2 and December 201 0 H-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 00511
Appendix H 1 IP3, Roseton, and Bowline Point (CHGEC 1999). In the FEIS, NYSDEC noted that "while the 2 DEIS was acceptable as an initial evaluation and assessment it was not sufficient to stand as 3 the final document and additional information as to alternatives and evaluation of impacts must 4 be considered." The Public Comment Summary portion of the NYSDEC FEIS presents a 5 summary of comments received on the 1999 DE IS (CHGEC 1999); a subsequent section, 6 Responses to Comments, provides the NYSDEC reply. In response to comments associated 7 with the "cropping of fish populations by power plants," NYSDEC provided a detailed response.
8 The following excerpt from pages 53 and 54 of the document presented by NYSDEC at the time 9 of the FEIS publication:
10 Rather than "selective cropping," the impacts associated with power plants are 11 more comparable to habitat degradation; the entire natural community is 12 impacted. These "once-through cooling" power plants do not selectively harvest 13 individual species. Rather, impingement and entrainment and warming of the 14 water impact the entire community of organisms that inhabit the water column.
15 For example, these impacts diminish a portion of the forage base for each 16 species that consumes plankton (drifting organisms in the water column) or 17 nekton (mobile organisms swimming through the water column) so there is less 18 food available for the survivors. In an intact ecosystem, these organisms serve 19 as compact packets of nutrients and energy, with each trophic (food chain) level 20 serving to capture a diffuse resource and make it more concentrated.
21 lchthyoplankton (fish eggs, larvae and very small fish which drift in the water 22 column) and small fish feed on a base of zooplankton (drifting animal life) and 23 phytoplankton (drifting plant life). The loss of these small organisms in the 24 natural community may be a factor that leads to harmful algal blooms. The 25 small fish themselves serve as forage for the young of larger species, which 26 serve as forage for larger individuals, and so on up the food chain, more 27 correctly understood as a "trophic pyramid." Once-through cooling mortality 28 "short-circuits" the trophic pyramid and compromises the health of the natural 29 community. For example, while an individual bay anchovy might ordinarily serve 30 as food for a juvenile striped bass or even for a common tern, entrainment and 31 passage through a power plant's cooling system would render it useful only as 32 food to lower trophic level organisms. It could no longer provide its other 33 ecosystem functions of consuming phytoplankton, digesting and concentrating it 34 into its tissues, and ranging over a wide area, distributing other nutrients as 35 manure. This is just a single example from a very complex natural system, 36 where the same basic impact is multiplied millions of times over more than one 37 hundred fish species.
38 NYSDEC also expressed concern about entrainment in the 2003 "Fact Sheet" pertaining to 39 SPDES license renewal at IP2 and IP3 (NYSDEC 2003b, Attachment B, 1. Biological Effects):
40 1. Biological Effects 41 Each year Indian Point Units 2 and 3 (collectively "Indian Point") cause the 42 mortality of more than a billion fish from entrainment of various life stages of 43 fishes through the plant and impingement of fishes on intake screens.
44 Entrainment occurs when small fish larvae and eggs (with other aquatic 45 organisms) are carried into and through the plant with cooling water, causing NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-20 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00512
Appendix H 1 mortality from physical contact with structures and thermal stresses.
2 Impingement occurs when larger fish are caught against racks and screens at 3 the cooling water intakes, where these organisms may be trapped by the force 4 of the water, suffocate, or otherwise be injured. Losses at Indian Point are 5 distributed primarily among seven species of fish, including bay anchovy, striped 6 bass, white perch, blueback herring, Atlantic tomcod, alewife, and American 7 shad. Of these, Atlantic tomcod, American shad, and white perch numbers are 8 known to be declining in the Hudson River (ASA Analysis and Communications 9 2002). Thus, current losses of various life stages of fishes are substantial.
10 Finally, in the petition to intervene submitted to the NRC on November 30, 2007, regarding the 11 relicensing of IP2 and IP3 (NYSDEC 2007). the NYSDEC commented on impingement and 12 entrainment impacts:
13 Impingement and Entrainment Contention 14 The operation of Indian Point consumes and returns approximately 2.5 billion 15 gallons of Hudson River water each day. The river is an important estuarine 16 ecosystem, and this operation has significant adverse impacts to the fish that 17 call the Hudson home. Large fish are "impinged" on screens at the water intake 18 where they are severely stressed and then suffocated. Smaller fish are 19 "entrained" in the water intake, pulled through the operating plant and killed. This 20 relentless process has continued relatively unabated for almost 40 years, and 21 the applicant now seeks 20 more years. This must not continue because the 22 environmental costs are too high. The NRC must fully consider the alternative of 23 closed cycle cooling to mitigate these significant adverse impacts in this license 24 renewal proceeding.
25 H.1.2.4. NRC Staff Assessment of Entrainment Impacts 26 Entergy (2007b) provided data to the NRC staff. Entrainment data included weekly average 27 densities of entrained taxa for a given life stage for IP2 and IP3 for analysis. Entrainment data 28 were collected from May to August in 1981 and 1983 through 1985, from January to August in 29 1986, and from May to August in 1987. NRC staff estimated the number entrained per week by 30 life stage and taxon as the product of the mean weekly density entrained and the sum of the 31 weekly volume of circulated water (m 3) at IP2 and IP3. The NRC staff used the sum of the 32 weekly numbers entrained of all life stages for a given taxon and season (January-March, 33 April-June, July-September, and October-December) to estimate the seasonal number 34 entrained per taxon.
35 The NRC staff found that the entrainment monitoring data provided by the applicant comprised 36 66 identified taxa. There were no blue crab, shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon, or gizzard shad 37 identified in the 1981-1987 entrainment data. Because of the difficulty in identification of early 38 life stages, RIS included those taxa identified only to family or genus (Aiosa spp., anchovy 39 family, and Marone spp.). NRC compared the percent RIS fish entrained and total identified fish 40 entrained to the total number entrained (Figure H-5). Except for two weeks in 1984 and 1985 41 (one week in May and June) for which amphipods ( Gammarus sp.) were recorded, the 42 percentage RIS fish entrained was greater than 70 percent of entrained taxa. The number of 43 amphipods collected in two weeks in 1984 was more than 2.5 times greater than the number of December 201 0 H-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 00513
Appendix H 1 identified fish collected over 15 weeks within the same year. Linear regression (n = 6; p < 0.01) 2 indicated that the number of identified fish entrained decreased at a rate of 187 billion fish per 3 year, a result consistent with the decrease observed in the number of fish impinged.
4 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-22 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00514
Appendix H 100% 35 90%
30 "iii 80%
....
-
~
0
....:I 70% 25 -
........
0
.-1 0 60% 3
"'C QJ 20 "'C c: QJ 50% c:
.......
'iii
.......c:
'iii c: 15 w
QJ 40% w b.O "iii
....c:
ltl ....
QJ 30% 10 ~
...u QJ c.. 20%
5 10%
0% 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
---+-- % RIS Fish -G-% Total Identified Fish ---------Total Number Entrained 1
2 3 Figure H-5 Percentage of entrainment composed of RIS fish and total identified fish 4 relative to the estimated total entrainment at IP2 and IP3 combined (data from Entergy 5 2007b) 6 NRC staff evaluated the seasonal pattern in the percentage entrainment of each RIS relative to 7 the total RIS fish entrained (Table H-7). Entrainment of American shad, Alosa spp. (i.e., not 8 identified to species). white perch, and striped bass occurred mainly in the second quarter 9 (April-June). Entrainment of weakfish and hogchoker occurred mainly in the third quarter 10 (July-September). The greatest percentage of rainbow smelt and Atlantic tom cod occurred in 11 the first quarter (January-March) of 1986. The taxa (lowest level identified) representing 10 12 percent or greater of total RIS entrained for at least one sampling period were Alosa spp.,
13 anchovy family, Atlantic tomcod, bay anchovy, Marone spp., rainbow smelt striped bass, and 14 white perch (Table H-7). Entrainment losses may affect populations directly by reducing the 15 number of individuals available for recruitment and indirectly through the removal of potential 16 food for predators. The environmental significance of entrainment is explored further in Section 17 H.1.3.
18 H.1.3. Combined Effects of Impingement and Entrainment 19 The combined effects of impingement and entrainment were evaluated by the applicant in the 20 DEIS (CHGEC 1999) by estimating CMR which is intended to represent the fractional reduction 21 in abundance of the vulnerable age groups (primarily those fish hatched during the current year) 22 from a single source.
December 201 0 H-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 00515
)>
"'0 z "'0 c (])
- J
- o 0..
rn 1 Table H-7 Percentage Entrainment of RIS by Year and Season (data from Entergy 2007b) :;;:*
C)
' I
--'
.f::>. Year/ 1981 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 w
-...J Season 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 (f) c Alewife <0.05 <0.05 0.1 <0.05
"'0
"'0 Alosa Species 5.7 <0.05 52.9 <0.05 55.1 <0.05 0.7 0.4 <0.05 <0.05 ro American Shad 0.1 <0.05 0.2 <0.05 5.5 <0.05 <0.05 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 3
(])
- J
,....,. Anchovy Family 3.5 7.7 <0.05 43.3 1.2 8.5 w Atlantic Cx:l Menhaden 0.1 0.2 Atlantic Tomcod 0.4 0.1 <0.05 1.7 0.1 7.9 <0.05 30.6 1.3 1.1 <0.05 Bay Anchovy 51.7 91.5 0.1 53.1 16.9 85.3 66.1 98.9 8.1 98.5 48.5 99.1 Blueback Herring <0.05 <0.05 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Bluefish <0.05 <0.05
<0.0 Hogchoker 5 0.3 <0.05 0.6 <0.05 0.2 <0.05 0.3 <0.05 0.3 <0.05 0.1 Marone Species 10.9 0.2 1.4 0.1 3.7 <0.05 4.2 <0.05 2.9 <0.05 Rainbow Smelt <0.05 0.3 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 66.7 2.7 0.2 0.8 0.1 I
Spottail Shiner <0.05 <0.05 N'
.f::>. Striped Bass 24.8 <0.05 13.4 0.9 10.0 3.1 14.0 <0.05 43.8 0.2 38.0 0.3 Weakfish 0.3 1.1 2.2 0.1 0.7 0.4 <0.05 <0.05 White Catfish <0.05 0.1 <0.05 White Perch 13.8 0.1 22.4 0.6 7.8 0.5 7.3 0.1 2.1 39.5 0.4 8.6 0.3 2 (a) Season 1 is January-March; 3 Season 2 is April-June; 4 Season 3 is July-September.
5 {b) - indicates no identified observation.
0 6 Units = percent.
(])
("")
(])
0 3
)> cr G> ...,
(])
0 0 N 0 0
...... --'
(.,) 0 (j)
......
m I
0 0
(J1
......
(j)
Appendix H 1 Here the NRC staff analysis relied primarily on the extensive fishery data sets collected under 2 the direction and oversight of the NYSDEC.
3 The purpose of this analysis is to determine the potential for adverse impacts to the aquatic 4 resources of the Hudson River Estuary associated with the operation of IP2 and IP3 once-5 through cooling systems during the relicensing period. The National Environmental Policy Act 6 as amended (NEPAL requires an ecologically relevant analysis of potential impacts that is more 7 holistic than a general fisheries biology approach. Fisheries biology tends to focus on single 8 species issues, such as sustaining a harvest rate, no matter what the effect may be on other 9 species within the system. In contrast the NRC staff analysis considers potential impacts 10 across trophic levels and life history strategies by assessing the population responses over time 11 for important predator and prey species in the lower Hudson River.
12 The operation of the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems can directly affect the aquatic communities of 13 the Hudson River through impingement entrainment or thermal releases. Loss of YOY, 14 yearling and older fish, blue crabs ( Callinectes sapidus). and other aquatic species can occur 15 from impingement against intake screens. Eggs, YSL, post-yolk-sac larvae (PYSLL and 16 juvenile fish and invertebrates small enough to pass through the intake screens (9. 5-mm or 17 0.375-in. square mesh) may become entrained within the intake units of the once-through 18 cooling system and experience adverse effects associated with mechanical, chemical, and 19 thermal stressors. Releases of heated noncontact cooling water through subsurface diffuser 20 ports into the Hudson River can result in heat- or cold-shock effects. Cooling system operation 21 can also result in indirect effects to aquatic resources. Impingement may injure, stun, or 22 debilitate an organism, reducing its ability to avoid predation, capture prey, or grow and 23 reproduce in a normal manner. Entrainment of larval or small juvenile forms not resulting in 24 death may reduce viability or survival success. Entrainment can also create an indirect adverse 25 impact to estuarine food webs by removing potential prey items from predators, or altering and 26 redistributing the aquatic organic carbon represented by entrained organisms. In addition, the 27 release of heated water can result in sublethal effects, including changes in reproduction or 28 development increased susceptibility to other environmental stressors, or behavioral changes 29 associated with avoiding thermal plumes.
30 Evaluating the potential for adverse impacts of the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems to the aquatic 31 resources of the Hudson River Estuary presents a significant challenge for a variety of reasons.
32 First the potential stressor of interest (the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems) occupies a fixed 33 position on the Hudson River, while RIS associated with the Hudson River generally have large 34 spatial and temporal distributions that can change for each life stage. Thus, evaluation of 35 causal relationships between potential stressors and receptors is difficult and requires a 36 systems-level understanding that may not be possible with existing environmental information.
37 Second, the Hudson River estuary represents a dynamic, open-ended system containing a 38 complex food web that is hydrologically connected from freshwater locations near the Troy Dam 39 to the Atlantic Ocean. Detectable trends at population levels that suggest adverse effects may 40 be attributable to a variety of anthropogenic and natural stressors, including the activities at IP2 41 and IP3. Finally, because the Hudson River estuary represents a complex system with 42 hundreds of aquatic species, it is necessary to focus primarily on a subset of RIS. While this 43 simplifies the assessment of impact it also introduces additional uncertainties that must be 44 acknowledged and addressed.
December 201 0 H-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00517
Appendix H 1 The GElS defines impingement entrainment and heat shock from cooling system operation as 2 Category 2 issues requiring site-specific review. Levels of impact associated with these issues 3 are defined as potentially SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE, consistent with the criteria that the 4 NRC established in Footnote 3 to Table B-1, Appendix B, 10 CFR Part 51, as follows:
5
- SMALL-Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 6 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
7
- MODERATE-Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 8 destabilize, any important attributes of the resource.
9
- LARGE-Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 10 any important attributes of the resource.
11 To evaluate whether the operation of the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems adversely affects RIS, the 12 NRC staff employed a modified weight-of-evidence (WOE) approach as represented in Figure 13 H-6. The approach used impingement and entrainment monitoring data obtained from the IP2 14 and IP3 facilities, data from the lower Hudson River collected during the Long River Survey 15 (LRSL Fall Juvenile/Fall Shoals Survey (F JS/FSSL and Beach Seine Survey (BSSL as 16 described in Table 2-3 in the main text of this SEIS, and coastal fishery trend data, when 17 available, as ancillary information. Lines of evidence (LOE) associated with the population 18 trends and strength of connection were developed. The WOE is a technique used to integrate 19 multiple LOE, or types of variables, to make a single decision concerning the magnitude of 20 impact and its association with a potential stressor (IP2 and IP3 cooling systems). The WOE 21 approach employed was based on Menzie et al. (1996) and consisted of the following steps 22 depicted in Figure H-7:
23 (1) Identify the environmental component or value to be protected.
24 (2) Develop LOE and quantifiable measurements to assess the potential for adverse 25 environmental effects and evaluate whether the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems are 26 contributing to the effect.
27 (3) Quantify the use and utility of each measurement for supporting the impact assessment.
28 (4) Develop quantifiable "decision rules" for interpreting the results of each measurement.
29 (5) Use the WOE to integrate the results, assign a level of potential impact and determine if 30 adverse effects in RIS populations, if present are related to the operation of the IP2 and 31 IP3 cooling systems.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-26 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00518
Appendix H River Data for Each Species In-Plant Data for Each Species
-River Segment Measurements 2) Entrainment of RIS
-River-wide Measurements Line of Evidence: Line of Evidence:
Population Trend Strength of Connection of for Each Species Indian Point to Each Species IP Cooling System Operation 1
2 Figure H-6 General weight-of-evidence approach employed to assess the level of impact 3 to population trends attributable to IP cooling system operation 4 These steps are discussed below in more detail. Supporting information for the statistical 5 analyses used in this determination is presented in Appendix I. A WOE approach was not used 6 to evaluate thermal effects, because recent monitoring or modeling data were not available.
Step 1: ldentl:fy Value to Be Protected:
Aquatic Resources -as Represented by 1 B- RlS.
tep 3: Assess. Use and Utility of measureme-nt type Define 1 Al:t:ributes Weight of Evidence Score Step 5.: Assign Impact Category for Both Line of Evidence Int-egrate Jmpact Categories Impact of Indian Poi:nr For Each Population of for Both Lines of Evidence CooHng System on RepresentatiVe-Important Species Eacn Rl S Species 7
8 Figure H-7 Steps used to conduct the weight-of-evidence assessment December 201 0 H-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 00519
Appendix H 1 Step 1: Identify the Environmental Component or Value to be Protected 2 For this assessment the environmental component to be protected is the Hudson River aquatic 3 resources as represented by the 18 RIS identified in Table 2-4 in the main text of this SEIS.
4 These species represent a variety of feeding strategies and food web classifications and are 5 considered ecologically, commercially, or recreationally important. The WOE approach focuses 6 primarily on the potential impacts to YOY and yearling fish and their food sources. Although 7 eggs, larvae, and PYSL are important components to the food web, the natural mortality to 8 these life stages is high, as noted by Barnthouse et al. (2008) and Secor and Houde (1995). In 9 contrast fish surviving to YOY and older are more likely to add to the adult breeding population 10 and are at greater risk from the cooling system operation. Any factor that increases (or 11 decreases) the survival of those fish during juvenile and yearling stages can affect the 12 sustainability of the population.
13 The conceptual model considers that the dynamics of the system are subject to large changes 14 based on a wide variety of controlling factors. Phytoplankton and zooplankton communities 15 form the basis of the food web and are used by a variety of fish and invertebrates during their 16 development from larvae to adults. Plankton abundances generally increase during the spring 17 and summer, coinciding with the emergence of larval and juvenile forms of fish and 18 invertebrates after spawning. For some species, such as striped bass, PYSL andjuvenile forms 19 initially eat small, planktonic prey, then switch to larger prey as they grow. For other species, 20 such as herring and alosids, adults remain planktivores. Predator-prey relationships within the 21 estuary are complex and are influenced by a variety of physical, chemical, spatial, and temporal 22 factors. Within this system, predation may be inter- or intraspecific, and operate at a variety of 23 levels simultaneously. There are also a variety of controlling factors that may exert influence on 24 the estuarine food web and inhabitants of the estuary. Physical and chemical fluctuations can 25 serve as cues for reproduction and promote or inhibit growth, the nature and extent of predation 26 can result in shifts in food web dynamics, and the influence of invasive or exotic species and 27 anthropogenic activities can affect year-classes or result in long-term changes to populations.
28 After reviewing available information, the NRC staff could not determine if the operation of the 29 IP2 and IP3 cooling systems is adversely affecting the RIS through the phytoplankton and 30 zooplankton populations present near the facilities. It is possible, however, that the entrainment 31 of these food web constituents can alter or influence the food web by removing potential prey 32 items from the water column and reintroducing and redistributing them in the river in an altered 33 state. As a result the form and distribution of organic carbon can be fundamentally changed, 34 even though the overall mass-balance remains the same. A similar effect may exist for larval 35 forms that experience entrainment and are thus unavailable in their natural state for predation.
36 Impingement losses may also alter the food web by removing potential predator or prey items 37 from the system or by changing the dynamics of the relationships at critical periods. At the 38 higher levels of the food web, large predators such as bluefish, weakfish, and striped bass may 39 be affected by alterations to the food web in ways that are not always obvious. For instance, 40 work by Baird and Ulanowicz (1989) suggested that even though striped bass and bluefish in 41 the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem were both piscivorous predators, 63 percent of the bluefish 42 intake depended indirectly on benthic organisms, whereas striped bass depended mainly on 43 planktonic organisms.
44 Within this food web context the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems can be viewed as hybrid 45 predators. Although the operation of the cooling water systems exerts a predatory effect at NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-28 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00520
Appendix H 1 multiple levels within the estuarine food web, the fixed position of the plants in the environment 2 their relatively continuous operation, and their lack of sensitivity to traditional environmental 3 stressors that affect predators place them in a unique position within the estuarine system. The 4 cooling system also functions as an environmental sampling device through impingement and 5 entrainment. To fully explore the potential adverse impacts of cooling system operation to the 6 aquatic resources of the Hudson River estuary, it is necessary to examine both the direct 7 impacts associated with losses caused by impingement entrainment and heat and the indirect 8 impacts of these potential stressors that may work through the food web and contribute to 9 detectable long-term changes to RIS populations.
10 Step 2: Develop Lines of Evidence and Quantifiable Measurements 11 The LOE and measurements used by the NRC Staff to assess the impacts of the IP2 and IP3 12 cooling systems on RIS in the Hudson River estuary are presented in Table H-8. The first LOE 13 (LOE-1) was a population-trend analysis using data from the three surveys conducted for the 14 Hudson River utilities. Population trends over time are often used to assess long-term changes 15 in population abundance or species composition and to provide information on sustainability.
16 For Measure 1-1, the NRC staff based river -segment trends on the fish caught within River 17 Segment 4 (IP2 and IP3) or, if this sampling area had a consistently low catch, an adjoining 18 segment (River Segments 2 through 6). whichever had a greater catch (Figure 2-10 in the main 19 text). The river-segment data were the weekly catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) and catch density 20 from the FSS, BSS, and LRS. The annual estimate of the population response was the 75th 21 percentile of the weekly data for a given year, because it was not as sensitive as the mean to 22 the few large observations collected each year. Using a percentile provided a better measure of 23 central tendency given the highly skewed data. The NRC staff chose the 75th percentile rather 24 than the median because on average 52 percent and 65 percent of the weekly FSS and BSS 25 catches were 0 for the chosen RIS.
26 For Measure 1-2, riverwide population trends were based on the annual CPU E and the annual 27 abundance index derived by the applicant. Population trends also formed the basis of the WOE 28 analysis used by the NRC staff to assess the cumulative impacts of IP2 and IP3 activities, as 29 well as other anthropogenic and natural environmental stressors, including the potential effects 30 of zebra mussels in the freshwater portion of the Hudson River. The draft SEIS used 31 commercial harvest data in addition to Hudson River sampling program data to assess 32 population trends of RIS. The NRC staff removed this measure in this final SEIS based on 33 comments on the SEIS and a reassessment by the NRC staff. Coast-wide fish populations are 34 not the young-of-the-year populations measured by the Hudson River sampling programs and 35 so respond different factors and can change on different time scales. These are differences that 36 can introduce unwanted noise into the analysis.
37 Table H-8 Lines of Evidence and Measurements Used To Assess Cooling System Impacts LOE-1: ASSESSMENT OF POPULATION TRENDS OF RIS River-segment RIS population trends from FSS and BSS Measurement 1-1 (and LRS for tomcod)
December 201 0 H-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00521
Appendix H Riverwide RIS population trends from FSS and BSS (and Measurement 1-2 LRS for tomcod) 1 Table H-8 (continued)
LOE-2: ASSESSMENT OF STRENGTH OF CONNECTION Measurement 2-1 Impingement of RIS Measurement 2-2 Entrainment of RIS 2 The second LOE (LOE-2) is a semi-quantitative measure of the strength of the connection 3 between the operation of the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems and the aquatic resources in the 4 Hudson River. NRC staff determined the strength of connection from monitoring data at IP2 5 and IP3 from 1975 to 1990 that provide information on impingement and entrainment rates for 6 RIS. As discussed above, the operation of the cooling system can result in direct mortality of 7 RIS or may debilitate or damage organisms in a manner that causes latent mortality.
8 Impingement and/or entrainment can also remove and reintroduce RIS prey into the aquatic 9 system in a manner that alters food web dynamics and produces indirect effects that may result 10 in decreased recruitment changes in predator -prey relationships, changes in population feeding 11 strategies, or movements of populations closer to or farther away from the cooling system 12 intakes or discharges. NRC staff based the analysis of the strength of connection on an 13 estimate of uncertainty derived from a Monte Carlo simulation that examined the differences in 14 population trends with and without losses of YOY fish by entrainment and impingement.
15 Uncertainty analysis is an important component of risk characterization required in the U.S.
16 Environmental Protection Agency ecological risk assessment guidelines (USEPA 1998) before 17 interpreting the ecological significance of a decision.
18 Step 3: Quantify the Use and Utility of Each Measurement 19 The following attributes of each measurement within each LOE were adapted from Menzie et al.
20 (1996) and were assigned an ordinal score corresponding to a ranking of its use and utility as 21 low (1). medium (2). or high (3):
22 (1) Strength of Association Between the Measured Parameter and the Aquatic 23 Community-the extent to which the measurement parameter is representative of, 24 correlated with, or applicable to the assessment of the target fish community; 25 (2) Stressor -specificity-the extent to which the measurement parameter is associated with 26 the specific stressor (e.g., impingement mortality);
27 (3) Site-specificity-the extent to which data, media, species, environmental conditions, and 28 other factors relate to the site of interest; 29 (4) Sensitivity of the Measurement Parameter for Detecting Changes-the ability to detect a 30 response in the measurement parameter; I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-30 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00522
Appendix H 1 (5) Spatial Representativeness-the degree of compatibility between the study area, 2 location of measurements or samples, locations of stressors, and locations of biological 3 receptors and their points of exposure; 4 (6) Temporal Representativeness-the temporal compatibility between the measurement 5 parameter and the period during which effects of concern would occur; 6 (7) Correlation of Stressor to Response-the degree to which a correlation is observed 7 between levels of response, and the strength of that correlation.
8 The NRC staff then calculated overall use and utility scores for each measurement within each 9 LOE as the average of the individual attribute scores. For a given LOE, the average score for 10 all attributes was used to characterize the overall use and utility of the measurement as low, 11 medium, or high, using the following definitions:
12
- Low use and utility-overall score of <1.5 (questionable for decision-making) 13
- Medium use and utility-overall score of 2::1.5 and :::;2 (adequate for decision-making) 14
- High use and utility-overall score of >2 (very useful for decision-making) 15 The results of these evaluations are presented for each LOE and supporting measurements in 16 Tables 4-2 and 4-3. For LOE-1, RIS population trends, measurements with the highest use and 17 utility are those that provide information on long-term trends in RIS populations at river-segment 18 and riverwide scales (Table H-9). Comprehensive data sets extending over 30 years yield high 19 use and utility for assessing impacts. As measurements of populations become more spatially 20 distributed, the ability to use the measurement to assess impacts associated with IP2 and IP3 21 decreases.
22 The NRC staff used the strength of the connection between the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems 23 and the aquatic environment (i.e., the ability of the IP2 and IP3 cooling system operation to 24 affect RIS populations in the Hudson River estuary) as a semi-quantitative line of evidence.
25 Thus, the staff did not apply the use and utility analysis to this LOE.
26 Table H-9 Use and Utility of Each Measurement Type to Evaluate RIS Population Trends 27 Potentially Associated with IP2 and IP3 Cooling System Operation River-Segment Riverwide RIS Use and Utility Attribute RIS Community Community Trends Trends Strength of Association between Measurement and 3 2 Community Response Stressor-specificity 2 Site-Specificity of Measurement in Relation to the 2
Stressor Sensitivity (Variability) of Measurement 2 2 Spatial Representativeness 3 2 Temporal Representativeness 3 3 Correlation of Stressor to Response 2 Overall Utility Score 2.4 1.7 December 201 0 H-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00523
Appendix H Overall Assessment(a) High Medium (a) Overall Assessment: scores <1.5: low utility (questionable use for decision-making); 1.5:::;
scores :::;2.0: medium utility {adequate for decision-making); scores >2.0: high utility (very useful for decision-making).
1 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-32 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00524
Appendix H 1
2 3 Step 4: Develop Quantifiable Decision Rules for Interpreting the Results of Each Measurement 4 For all population trend assessments in the first LOE, NRC Staff used a two-step process to 5 assign the level of potential for an adverse impact suggested by a given measurement. The first 6 step was to determine the shape of the best-fit model for the abundance data; the second step 7 was to evaluate determine if a statistically significant decline in population occurred. The shape 8 of the trend data was determined using simple linear regression and segmented regression as a 9 function of time with a single join point (see the statistical approach below and Appendix I for 10 specific details). The segmented regression analysis allowed a delayed response and two time 11 periods to evaluate trends. The model with the smallest error mean square was chosen as the 12 better fit and was used to assess the level of potential adverse impact. In the second step, staff 13 used the significance of the estimated slope(s) to determine whether a detectable population 14 decline was present.
15 For the population trend LOE, the number of data sets available for each RIS and measurement 16 scale (river segment and riverwide) varied. Based on two possible outcomes, the NRC staff 17 used the following decision rules to evaluate RIS population trend data:
18
- RIS populations were not declining if population trends had slopes that were not 19 significantly less than zero (i.e., undetected population decline or a detectable population 20 increase). This indicated the RIS populations had not changed appreciably over time, or 21 were increasing. The NRC staff assigned trends satisfying this description a score of 1.
22
- RIS populations were declining if population trends had slopes that were significantly 23 less than zero (i.e., detectable population decline). NRC staff assigned trends satisfying 24 this description a score of 4.
25 The staff chose a value of 4 to represent large because it allowed for scaled intermediate scores 26 to occur when combining the results of multiple datasets for a given measurement scale (river 27 segment and riverwide). Staff considered each data set within a measurement scale to be 28 equal and the population trend scores were then averaged (Table H-1 0). The staff evaluated December 201 0 H-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 00525
Appendix H 1 multiple data sets from the same measurement scale to garner consistency for a determination 2 of either a small or large potential adverse impact. The NRC staff determined that an 3 intermediate potential of an adverse impact was warranted when equal numbers of 1s and 4s 4 occurred for a given measurement scale.
5 Table H-10 Possible outcomes and the resulting average for single or multiple data sets 6 for a measurement scale in the population trend line of evidence Number of Measurement Possible Outcomes Data Sets Scale Averaqe 1 1 1
4 4 1 1 1 2 1 4 2.5 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 3
1 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1.75 4 1 1 4 4 2.5 1 4 4 4 3.25 4 4 4 4 4 7
8 To evaluate the strength of connection between the operation of the IP2 and IP3 cooling 9 systems and the observed RIS population declines, the NRC staff developed decision rules for 10 assessing the influence of impingement and entrainment directly on. All of the RIS appeared in 11 either the impingement or the entrainment samples. Thus, the NRC staff considers that the 12 connection relative to risk to the population abundance from the operation of the cooling 13 systems has been established. However, staff can only determine the proportion of the 14 population decline caused either directly or indirectly by the operation of IP2 and IP3 15 qualitatively. This qualification depends on the ability of a simple exponential model to 16 approximate RIS population trends through time and estimate a biologically relevant measure of 17 uncertainty associated with the cause of decline in RIS populations in the Hudson River. The 18 NRC staff conducted simulation runs with different model parameter values to provide a greater 19 sense of the separation between conclusions on the strength of connection and specific model 20 assumptions. The staff discusses the details of the development of the uncertainty analysis of 21 population abundance with and without losses of YOY fish by entrainment impingement and 22 food web dependencies in the statistical approach below and in Appendix I.
23
- The RIS had a Low strength of connection if the interval between the first and third 24 quartiles of the difference in modeled cumulative abundance for a given YOY RIS with 25 and without mortality from entrainment impingement and loss of prey included zero 26 for at least one of the simulation runs. That is, the variability in the species population 27 trend was too large to enable the detection of losses from entrainment and 28 impingement. Thus, there is high level of uncertainty associated with the link between I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-34 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00526
Appendix H 1 the population trend and the direct and indirect effects of the operation of IP2 and IP3 2 cooling systems.
3
- The RIS had a High strength of connection if the interval between the first and third 4 quartiles of the difference in modeled cumulative abundance for a given YOY RIS with 5 and without mortality from entrainment impingement and loss of prey did not include 6 zero for any of the simulation runs. That is, the effects of entrainment and impingement 7 were greater than the variability in the population trend, and the direct and indirect 8 effects of the operation of IP2 and IP3 cooling systems affected species population 9 trends.
10 Step 5: Integrate the Results and Assess Impact 11 The NRC Staff derived WOE scores for only the population trend LOE. The staff used the 12 strength of connection LOE to evaluate uncertainty in the evidence as to whether the IP2 and 13 IP3 cooling systems were affecting the RIS population trends. The above decision rules 14 enabled the NRC to assign levels of impact to individual measurement scales of RIS 15 populations. Staff used a weighted mean equation to assign a level of impact across 16 measurement scales as follows:
L (overall utility score;) (decision rule result score;)
17 VVOEScore=~;--------==------------------------
L overall utility score; 18 where i = 1 to the number of measurements; the overall utility score; is defined in Table H-9; 19 and the result score; equals the average of 1'sand 4's defined in Table H-11 and on the above 20 decision rules for individual data sets on population trends.
21 22 The NRC Staff defined the WOE population trend impact categories as follows:
23
- Small impact: WOE score < 2.2 24
- Moderate impact: WOE score 2:: 2.2 but:::; 2.8 25
- Large: WOE score > 2.8 26 The staff defined boundary values between impact categories based on the possible outcomes 27 for a given measurement scale (Table H-1 0). WOE scores less than 2.2 occurred when 28 population trend data produced more result scores that were 1s than were 4s. WOE scores 29 greater than 2.8 occurred when population trend data produced more result scores that were 4s 30 than were 1s.
31 The resulting impact categories for the population trend and strength of connection LOE were 32 then integrated by applying the logic developed by EPA for evaluating the ecological effects of 33 environmental stressors (EPA 1998). In accordance with EPA (1998) risk assessment 34 guidelines, a connection between the stressor and the response must be established to assign 35 any level of impact using. For the purpose of this assessment the stressor is the IP2 and IP3 December 201 0 H-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00527
Appendix H 1 cooling systems, while the receptor is the aquatic community, as represented by the RIS 2 populations, and the degree of exposure is qualified by the strength of connection.
3 Statistical Approach for Each Line of Evidence 4 The decision rules developed above to determine the level of adverse impact to the aquatic 5 resources of the Hudson River estuary associated with the operation of the IP2 and IP3 once-6 through cooling systems use (1) population trend data to provide a measure of potential impacts 7 to the aquatic resources, and (2) impingement and entrainment data to provide a measure of 8 the strength of connection between IP2 and IP3 operations and the aquatic environment. The 9 statistical approach used to evaluate each measurement is described below. Results were 10 compared to the decision rules to assign a result score that was then integrated using the 11 weighted mean presented above. WOE was then used to integrate the measures of potential 12 impact with the measures of strength of connection to assign a level of impact attributable to the 13 operation of the IP2 and 3 cooling systems.
14 Statistical Approach to Assessing Long-Term RIS Population Trends: Simple linear regression 15 and segmented regression with a single join point were statistically fit to an annual measure of 16 abundance (y) for each RIS using GraphPad Prism Version 4.0, 2003. The form of the 17 segmented regression model is 18 a+S1xforx<JP }
19 y= {
a+JP(S1 -S 2 )+S 2 x forx~JP 20 where x was the year, a was the intercept 5 1 and 5 2 were early (associated with years < Jp) and 21 recent slopes of the line, and Jp was the estimated point in time when the slope changed 22 (i.e., the join point). The model with the smallest mean squared error (MSE) was chosen as the 23 better fit to the data. If the best-fit model was the simple linear regression and the slope was 24 statistically significant (negative or positive, a= 0.05). a population trend was detected. If the 25 slope was not significantly different from zero, then a population trend was not detected. If the 26 best-fit model was the segmented regression and either slope, S1 or S 2 , was statistically 27 significant (a= 0.05). then a population trend was considered detected. If both slopes S 1 and 28 S 2 were not significantly different from zero (a = 0.05). then the trend was not considered 29 detected. Note that an NRC impact level of small (value= 1) was defined as the lowest level of 30 potential adverse impact.
31 To evaluate whether abundance data were indicative of potential aquatic impacts, NRC staff 32 standardized all data by subtracting the mean of the first five years of data and then dividing by 33 the standard deviation based on all years of data. The first five years (1979-1983) were chosen 34 as the standard because the coefficient of variation (CV) of abundance either leveled out at n =
35 5, or it was preceded by a rapid change in direction (Figure H-8). For density and CPUE data, 36 the staff compared population trends between the BSS and FJS to determine if the shift from 37 the epibenthic sled to the beam trawl in 1985 was influencing the shape of the response. The 38 NRC staff split FJS data into pre- and post -1985 for analysis if a visual and statistical 39 assessment (see Appendix I for details) showed that the FJS data had standardized 40 observations that were consistently less than the standardized BSS data after 1985.
41 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-36 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00528
Appendix H 160%
140%
120%
100%
>
u 80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
n=3 n=4 n=S n=6 n= 7 n=S n=9 n=10 Nurrber of Years of Data
-+---Alewife -D- Bay Anchovy ......-American Shad -<>--Bluefish ----- Hogchoker
-o-- Blueback Herring --i:r- Rainbow Smelt -o-- Spottail Shiner -----Stripped Bass -<>--Atlantic Tom cod
-X- White Catfish --t:r-- White Perch -o-- Weakfish 1
2 Figure H-8 Coefficient of variation of the abundance index for an increasing number of 3 data points (data from Entergy 2007b).
4 The NRC staff considered an assessment of adverse impact supported if at least one of the 5 slopes from the best fit model or models (if pre- and post -1985 data were modeled separately) 6 was significantly less than zero. There were six possible outcomes for the assessment (Table 7 H-11).
8 Table H-11 Comparison of Possible Outcomes When Assessing Population Trends of 9 RIS in the Hudson River Studies Statistical Outcome Potential for Impact Best-fit Model and Result Score Significant Slope(s)
Simple Linear No 1 Regression Yes 4 (All data)
Segmented Neither 1 Regression Either or Both 4 (All data)
Simple Linear Regression (1979-1984) None 1 Segmented At least One 4 Regression (1985-2005) 10 Statistical Approach to Assessing Strength of Connection: To determine the strength of 11 connection between the operation of the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems and the RIS that exist in 12 the Hudson River near the facility, the NRC staff used the information from two types of December 201 0 H-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 00529
Appendix H 1 environmental samplers: (1) impingement and entrainment data obtained from the operators of 2 IP2 and IP3 (a stationary environmental sampler along the shore of the Hudson) and (2) long-3 term aquatic resource studies conducted in the river by power plant operators under the 4 supervision of State agencies (e.g. LRS, FJS, BSS). Rose (2000) suggested that the high 5 interannual variation in YOY fish populations greatly reduces the statistical power of correlation-6 based analyses to isolate the effects of anthropogenic impacts to fish populations. Rose also 7 contended that model-based approaches have been more successful in increasing the 8 detectability of anthropogenic impacts. Newbold and lovanna (2007) supported this approach 9 by suggesting that models that assess density-independent mortality associated with cooling-10 water withdrawals can help put raw data on entrainment and impingement losses into a 11 "broader ecological context." Newbold and lovanna recognized, however, that the model should 12 reflect the differential losses based on life stage (eggs, larvae, andjuveniles).
13 The NRC staff acknowledges that River Segment 4 at Indian Point is not a closed biological 14 system for which loses and gains to a population can be easily studied. Many of the RIS 15 reproduce 100 river miles upriver, and the eggs and larvae then float downstream where some 16 are entrained at IP2 or IP3. The resulting YOY population densities near Indian Point are 17 inherently noisy (highly variable) and even a detected decline can easily be related to several 18 environmental, ecological, and anthropogenic effects that occur upstream and downstream of 19 River Segment 4. Thus, if the loss of YOY RIS is to be linked to mortality from entrainment and 20 impingement at IP2 and IP3, the effect of the cooling system operation on a given population 21 must be greater than the noise or variability in the abundance of the population over time near 22 the Indian Point plant.
23 For this analysis, the NRC staff determined the strength of connection from the uncertainty in 24 estimating the difference in the RIS YOY population abundance with and without losses from 25 impingement and entrainment by IP2 and IP3 cooling systems. The staff conducted a series of 26 Monte Carlo simulations (n = 1000 for each series) to estimate the first and third quartiles of the 27 modeled relative cumulative difference in the population abundance achieved over a specified 28 number of years (t = 1 to 27, for example) with and without removal of eggs, larvae, and 29 juveniles by entrainment and impingement. Staff used a simple exponential model to estimate 30 the annual juvenile population abundance (N1) assuming losses from entrainment and 31 impingement (Figure H-9; see Appendix I for a complete model description);
33 where N 0 is the initial population abundance, r is the linear growth rate estimated from the River 34 Segment 4 population trend, cr1 is the standard deviation of abundance at time t, and £ 1 is a 35 Normal (0, 1) random variate. NRC staff estimated YOY annual abundance without losses from 36 entrainment and impingement by increasing the initial population abundance (No) by the number 37 of eggs, larvae, and juveniles entrained and amending the growth rate (r) by multiplying it by 38 one minus the conditional impingement mortality rate (Figure H-1 0). The conditional 39 impingement mortality rate assumes partial survival associated with the installation of Ristroph 40 screens at IP2 and IP3.
41 The cumulative annual difference in the YOY abundance from the two models provided an 42 estimate of the proportion of YOY lost from entrainment and impingement. The staff used the 43 Monte Carlo simulation to estimate a distribution of the proportion lost based on the variability in 44 population abundance. The null hypothesis was that the interval between the quartiles of the NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-38 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00530
Appendix H 1 modeled differences in the YOY cumulative abundance over time in the fish community near IP2 2 and IP3 with and without the effects of entrainment and impingement would contain zero (i.e.,
3 there was a Low strength of connection between population trend and the effects of entrainment 4 and impingement).
5 NRC staff conducted four simulations (n = 1000) with different input variables for N0 and t. Each 6 simulation produced a sample with the same variability as that observed in the abundance data 7 for the given RIS. Multiple simulations allowed NRC staff to qualify the strength of connection 8 with less dependency on specific model parameters. There were two possible outcomes, each 9 with an associated conclusion of the strength of connection (Table H-12).
2500 ,..................................................................................................................................................... ..
-z Q) 1500 ..,........................................................................ =~*"'
u
!:
500 0 ;............,............. ...........,..............,............. ............,..............,............ .............,.............,
~ ~ ~
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Years(t) 10 11 Figure H-9 Range in Expected YOY Population Abundance Over Time Based on an 12 Exponential Model for Each of the RIS Assuming Losses From Entrainment and 13 Impingement. The curves represent growth rates (ranging from -0.08 to 0.04) for modeled 14 RIS as presented in Appendix I, Table 1-31.
December 201 0 H-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00531
Appendix H 1200
-
1000
...
z 800 Q) u - w i t h Losses from
!:
ru 600 Entrainment and
"'0
!: Impingement
- J 400
..0 -o--- Without Losses from
<(
Entrainment and 200 Impingement 0
0 10 20 30 Years {t) 1 2 Figure H-1 0 Expected YOY Population Abundance Over Time Based on an Exponential 3 Model With and Without Losses From Entrainment and Impingement.
4 5 Table H-12 Possible Outcomes When Assessing Simulation Results of RIS YOY 6 Abundance With and Without the Effects of IP2 and IP3 Cooling System Outcome Strength of Connection Conclusion At least one out of four simulation results Low strength of connection suggesting the RIS contain zero within the interval between population trend is not associated with the effects the first and third quartiles of the sample of the cooling system.
distribution.
None of the simulation results contains High strength of connection suggesting the RIS zero within the interval between the first population trend is highly likely to be associated and third quartiles of the sample with the effects of the cooling system.
distribution.
7 H.1.3.1. Assessment of Population Trends 8 Studies Used To Evaluate Population Trends 9 The Hudson River utilities conducted the LRS from 197 4 to 2005 and targeted fish eggs, YSL, 10 and PYSL from the George Washington Bridge (river mile (RM) 12) to the Federal Dam at Troy 11 (RM 152). a total of 140 miles (CHGEC 1999). Sampling was conducted during the spring, 12 summer, and early fall, using a stratified random design based on 13 regions and three strata 13 within each region (channel, shoal, and bottom). A 1-m 2 Tucker trawl was used to sample the 14 channel strata; an epibenthic sled-mounted 1-m 2 net similar in design to the Tucker trawl was 15 used to sample the bottom strata, and both gear types were used to sample the shoal strata.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-40 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00532
Appendix H 1 Because this survey targeted younger life stages, staff did not use the LRS in this analysis 2 except for YOY Atlantic tomcod data.
3 The utilities' FJS, also known as the FSS, was conducted from 197 4 to 2005 and targeted 4 juveniles, yearlings, and older fish (CHGEC 1999). Samples were collected on alternate weeks 5 from the BSS between Manhattan (RM 0) and the Troy Dam (RM 152) using a stratified random 6 design. Data were used to estimate the abundance of YOY and older fish in offshore habitats.
7 Approximately 200 samples were collected each week from July to December. Between 197 4 8 and 1984, a 1- m2 Tucker trawl with a 3-mm mesh was used to sample the channel and a 1-m 2 9 epibenthic sled with a 3-mm mesh was used to sample the bottom and shoal strata. From 1985 10 to 2005, a 3-m beam trawl with a 38-mm mesh on all but the cod-end replaced the epibenthic 11 sled. Bay anchovy, American shad, and weakfish were sampled with less efficiency using the 12 beam trawl (NYPA 1986). Further, the number and volume of samples in the bottom and shoal 13 strata were generally greater than 2.5 times those in the channel. Thus, all data were evaluated 14 to determine if a shift in the gear type was affecting the observed trend. When the standardized 15 FJS data were consistently less than the standardized BSS data after 1985, staff analyzed the 16 pre- and post -198 5 data separately.
17 The utilities' BSS was conducted from 197 4 to 2005 and targeted YOY and older fish in the 18 shore-zone (extending from the shore to a depth of 10ft) (CHGEC 1999). Samples were 19 collected from April to December but generally every other week from mid-June through early 20 October between the George Washington Bridge (RM 12) and the Troy Dam (RM 152). A 21 100-ft bag beach seine was used to collect 100 samples during each sampling period from 22 beaches selected according to a stratified random design. A completed tow covers an area of 23 approximately 450 m2 .
24 For ancillary information, the NRC Staff obtained coastal population trends for striped bass, 25 American shad, Atlantic sturgeon, river herring, bluefish, Atlantic menhaden, and weakfish from 26 commercial and recreational harvest statistics gathered by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 27 Commission (ASMFC). Currently, the ASMFC Interstate Fisheries Management Program 28 coordinates the conservation and management of 22 Atlantic coastal fish species or species 29 groups. For species that have significant fisheries in both State and Federal waters, the 30 ASMFC works cooperatively with the relevant East Coast Regional Fishery Management 31 Councils to develop fishery management plans. The ASMFC also works with the National 32 Marine Fisheries Service to develop compatible regulations for Federal waters. For each of the 33 managed species, the ASMFC conducts periodic stock assessments. Information on each of 34 the managed species can be found at http://www.asmfc.org/.
35 Data from all three field surveys from the Hudson River Estuary Monitoring Program (LRS, FJS, 36 and BSS) were provided for this analysis. The three data sets included the annual abundance 37 index per taxon and life stage from 197 4 through 2005, the annual total catch and volume 38 sampled per taxon from 197 4 through 2005, and the weekly total volume sampled, catch 39 density, and total catch for each river segment and life stage for the 17 RIS fish from 1979 40 through 2005. The weekly volume, total catch, and catch density were the combined results of 41 each gear type. Analysis of the river -segment and riverwide trends provided a measure of 42 potential injury. The NRC staff used the ASMFC assessment of coastal harvest data as 43 ancillary information to evaluate Hudson River population trends.
44 December 201 0 H-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00533
Appendix H 1 Metrics Used by NRC Staff to Evaluate Population Trends 2 Abundance Index 3 The abundance index for YOY for each species was based on the catch from a selected 4 sampling program and used by the applicant and its contractors to estimate riverwide mean RIS 5 abundances. The selection process considered the expected location of each species in the 6 river, based on life-history characteristics and the observed catch rates from previous sampling.
7 The abundance index was constructed to account for the stratified random sampling design 8 used by each of the surveys. For the LRS and the FSS, sampling within a river segment was 9 further stratified by river depth and sampled with a separate gear type. For blueback herring, 10 alewife, bay anchovy, hogchoker, weakfish, and rainbow smelt the YOY abundance index was 11 based on the catch from a single gear type.
12 The LRS (LA) and the FJS abundance index (FA) were similarly constructed and provided 13 unbiased estimates of the total and mean riverwide population abundance for selected species, 14 respectively (Cochran 1997). For Atlantic tomcod, weeks 19 through 22 of the LRS samples 15 were used to calculate the abundance index. The LA is strictly a sum of the weighted average 16 species densities over sampling weeks (w) instead of an average over weeks as for the FA*
17 For the FJS and each gear type, FA is constructed as a weighted mean of the average species 18 density (drsw) for a given river segment (r = 0 to 12). sampling stratum (s = 1 to 3). and week LLVrsdrswJ 19 (w = 33 to 40). i.e., FA=..!_
n L
w [
'iL: v,s I(O,l) for n equal to the number of weeks r s 20 sampled, Vrs equal to the volume of the given river segment and strata sampled, and the 21 indicator function 1(0, 1) equaling 1 if a given week was sampled and 0 otherwise (CHGEC 22 1999). For the FJS, strata sampled were the channel, bottom, and shoal for a given river 23 segment. Poughkeepsie and West Point river segments had the greatest channel volume, 24 Poughkeepsie and Tappan Zee had the greatest bottom volume, and Tappan Zee had the 25 greatest shoal volume. Because the river segment associated with IP2 and IP3 did not have 26 large bottom or shoal volumes, the abundance index would not be sensitive to changes in 27 population trends within the vicinity of IP2 and IP3.
28 The construction of the BSS abundance index (BA) provided an unbiased estimate of the mean 29 riverwide population abundance for striped bass, white perch, American shad, bluefish, spottail 30 shiner, and white catfish. A single gear type was used for all years; thus, BA was constructed as 31 a weighted average density or catch per haul Cc,w) for a given river segment (r = 0 to 12) and L:w;c,WJ B A = ..!_ L 'L 32 week (w = 33 to 40). i.e.,
n w [ W, I(O, I) for n equal to the number of weeks r
33 sampled, Wr equaled the number of beach segments in the sampling design for a given river 34 segment and the indicator function 1(0,1) equaled 1 if a given week was sampled and 0 35 otherwise (CHGEC 1999).
36 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-42 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00534
Appendix H 1 Catch-Per-Unit-Effort 2 NRC Staff used the CPUE to evaluate riverwide and river-segment population trends and was 3 defined for a given species as the sum of the fish caught within a given year divided by the total 4 volume sampled. The CPUE for a given region is a biased (by the ratio of V 5 !V) estimate of the 5 population abundance, i.e.,
6 E(CPUE) =E ~ LYsJ =L ~fls
[L....Jvs s V s
7 where Ys is the number of fish caught in a given stratum (s = 1 to 3).
8 lls is the mean density of fish in a given stratum, 9 V5 is the volume sampled in the given stratum, and 10 V is the total volume sampled).
11 For the LRS and FJS, a greater fraction of the volume sampled was from the bottom and shoal 12 strata; therefore, the CPU E from each river segment is not sensitive to changes in abundance 13 associated with fish sampled in the channel. For the BSS, there was only one gear type (beach 14 seine); thus, the CPUE from each river segment was equivalent to the density (drsw) from the 15 BSS. The river-segment CPUE from the BSS was not used in the analysis.
16 The staff assumed that the river -segment densities for each of the surveys provided by the 17 applicant were the same average species densities, drsw and c,w, used to derive the 18 abundance indices. Because multiple gear types were used in the LRS and FJS, the NRC staff 19 assumed that the densities for each gear type probably represented a weighted average.
20 Analysis of Population Impacts 21 To assess potential impacts to RIS populations near the IP2 and IP3 facility and within the lower 22 Hudson River, the NRC staff evaluated environmental data from FSS, BSS, and LRS studies, 23 and coastal trends, when available. Detailed information is presented in Appendix I.
24 River Segment 4 25 To assess potential impacts to RIS populations near the IP2 and IP3 facilities, the NRC staff 26 evaluated environmental data from FSS, BSS, and LRS studies for River Segment 4, which is 27 located at river kilometers (RKM) 63-76 (RM 39-46) (Figure 2-10 in the main text). The two 28 measurement metrics evaluated using the environmental data were density (estimated number 29 of RIS per given volume of water provided by the applicant) and CPUE (number of RIS captured 30 by the sampler for a given volume of water, derived by the NRC staff). Using these two metrics, 31 the staff detected population declines (assessment values 2:: 2.2) for alewife, American shad, 32 Atlantic tomcod, blueback herring, bluefish, hogchoker, rainbow smelt spottail shiner, weakfish, 33 and white perch (Table H-13). The NRC staff was unable to detect population declines 34 (assessment values< 2.2) for bay anchovy, striped bass, and white catfish. In addition, the 35 staff could not determine if there was a decline for populations of Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic 36 and shortnose sturgeon, gizzard shad, and blue crab because the river studies did not routinely December 201 0 H-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 00535
Appendix H 1 catch these species. As described above, the NRC staff defined a detected decline for this river 2 segment and a given RIS as a statistically significant negative slope in population abundance.
3 The decision rules for this analysis are found in Section H.1.3; the complete analysis is 4 presented in Appendix I.
5 Table H-13 Assessment of Population Trends for River Segment 4 Density Catch-per-Unit Effort River Species Segment FSS BSS LRS FSS LRS Assessment Alewife 4 4 N/Aa 4 N/A 4.0 American Shad 4 4 N/A 4 N/A 4.0 Atlantic Menhaden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown Atlantic Sturgeon N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown Atlantic Tom cod 4 N/A 4 1 4 3.3 Bay Anchovy 4 1 N/A 1 N/A 2.0 Blueback Herring 4 4 N/A 1 N/A 3.0 Bluefish 1 4 N/A 4 N/A 3.0 Gizzard Shad N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown Hogchoker 4 4 N/A 4 N/A 4.0 Rainbow Smelt 1 N/A N/A 4 N/A 2.5 Shortnose Sturgeon N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown Spottail Shiner N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 4.0 Striped Bass 1 1 N/A 1 N/A 1.0 Weakfish 4 N/A N/A 1 N/A 2.5 White Catfish 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.0 White Perch 1 4 N/A 4 N/A 3.0 Blue Crab N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown (a) N/A: not applicable; YOY not present in samples.
Note: tabled values for density and catch-per-unit effort data are either a 1 (undetected decline) or a 4 {detected decline). The river segment assessment is an average of the scores for the given row.
6 Lower Hudson River 7 The NRC staff evaluated abundance index data provided by the applicant and CPUE data 8 obtained from the FJS, BSS, and LRS studies to assess RIS population trends for the lower 9 Hudson River (RKM 0-245, RM 0-152) (Figure 2-10 in the main text). Analysis of riverwide 10 data showed detectable population declines (assessment values 2:: 2. 2) for American shad, 11 Atlantic tomcod, blueback herring, bluefish, hogchoker, rainbow smelt weakfish, white catfish, 12 and white perch. The analysis failed to detect a decline (assessment values < 2.2) for alewife, 13 bay anchovy, spottail shiner, and striped bass (Table H-14). Staff could not assess population 14 trends for Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, gizzard shad, and blue crab, 15 because too few were caught during the monitoring studies.
16 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-44 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00536
Appendix H 1 Table H-14 Assessment of Population Trends for the Lower Hudson River Abundance CPUE Riverwide Species Index FJS BSS LRS Assessment Alewife 1 1 1 N/Aa 1.0 American Shad 4 4 1 N/A 3.0 Atlantic Menhaden N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown Atlantic Sturgeon N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown Atlantic Tom cod 4 4 4 1 3.3 Bay Anchovy 4 1 1 N/A 2.0 Blueback Herring 4 4 4 N/A 4.0 Bluefish 1 4 4 N/A 3.0 Gizzard Shad N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown Hogchoker 1 4 4 N/A 3.0 Rainbow Smelt 1 N/A 4 N/A 2.5 Shortnose Sturgeon N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown Spottail Shiner 1 4 1 N/A 2.0 Striped Bass 1 1 1 N/A 1.0 Weakfish 4 N/A 1 N/A 2.5 White Catfish 4 N/A 4 N/A 4.0 White Perch 4 4 4 N/A 4.0 Blue Crab N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown (a) N/A: not applicable; YOY not present in samples.
Note: tabled values for the abundance index and CPUE data are either a 1 (undetected decline) or a 4 {detected decline). The riverwide assessment is an average of the scores for the given row.
WOE Summar~ of Po12ulation Trends December 201 0 H-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00537
Appendix H Table H-15 Weight of Evidence Results for the Population Trend Line of Evidence River Segment Riverwide Assessment WOE Impact Measurement Assessment Score<bl Score Conclusion Score Utility Score<al 2.4 1.7 Alewife 4.0 1.0 2.8 Variable American Shad 4.0 3.0 3.6 Detected Decline Atlantic Unknown Unknown Unknown Unresolved<cl Menhaden Atlantic Sturgeon Unknown Unknown Unknown U nresolved<cl Atlantic Tom cod 3.3 3.3 3.3 Detected Decline Undetected Bay Anchovy 2.0 2.0 2.0 Decline Blueback Herring 3.0 4.0 3.4 Detected Decline Bluefish 3.0 3.0 3.0 Detected Decline Gizzard Shad Unknown Unknown Unknown Unresolved<cl Hogchoker 4.0 3.0 3.6 Detected Decline Rainbow Smelt 2.5 2.5 2.5 Variable Shortnose Unknown Unknown Unknown Unresolved<cl Sturgeon Spottail Shiner 4.0 2.0 3.2 Detected Decline Undetected Striped Bass 1.0 1.0 1.0 Decline Weakfish 2.5 2.5 2.5 Variable White Catfish 1.0 4.0 2.2 Variable White Perch 3.0 4.0 3.4 Detected Decline Blue Crab Unknown Unknown Unknown Unresolved<cl (a) Overall Use and Utility Score: Low= < 1.5, Medium ~1.5 but:::; 2.0, High> 2.0.
{b) WOE Score: Undetected Decline <2.2; Variable~ 2.2 but::; 2.8; Detected Decline >2.8.
(c) Unable to make a WOE conclusion because of a lack of data for trend assessment.
1 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-46 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00538
Appendix H 1 H.1.3.2. Analysis of Strength of Connection 2 The NRC staff conducted a strength-of-connection analysis to determine whether the operation 3 of the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems had the potential to influence RIS populations near the 4 facility or within the lower Hudson River. A summary of this analysis is in Section H.1.3; 5 detailed information on the analysis is presented in Appendix I. The strength-of-connection 6 analysis assumed that the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems can affect aquatic resources directly 7 through impingement or entrainment and indirectly by impinging and entraining potential food 8 (prey). By examining the distribution of the simulated differences in the cumulative annual 9 abundance of YOY RIS with and without losses from impingement and entrainment staff could 10 assess the effect of the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems on the river segment population trend 11 (e.g., how strongly are the affects of the cooling system connected to the RIS of interest). The 12 results of this analysis indicated a High strength of connection for nine species (Table H-16).
13 For those species, the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems were removing the species at levels that 14 were proportionally higher than expected from of the observed abundance in the river. This is 15 strong evidence that the operation of the cooling systems can affects these species. For four 16 RIS, the strength of connection was Low (minimal evidence of connection). NRC staff could 17 not model the strength of connection for Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, 18 gizzard shad, and blue crab, but concluded that the connection was Low because of the low 19 rate of entrainment and impingement observed at IP2 and IP3 (Table H-16).
20 21 Atlantic menhaden did not occur in entrainment samples (1981, 1983-1987) and occurred in low 22 numbers (approximately 630 annually) in impingement samples. The number impinged 23 represented 0.05 percent of all fish and blue crab impinged (1975-1990). For this reason, the 24 NRC staff concludes that the strength of connection for Atlantic menhaden is Low.
25 26 Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon did not occur in entrainment samples (1981, 1983-1987) and 27 occurred in low numbers (approximately 15 and 2 annually) in impingement samples. The 28 number impinged represented less than 0.005 percent of all fish and blue crab impinged (1975-29 1990). For this reason, the NRC staff concludes that the strength of connection for Atlantic and 30 shortnose sturgeon is Low.
31 32 Gizzard shad did not occur in entrainment samples (1981, 1983-1987). Gizzard shad appeared 33 regularly in impingement samples and increased from about 2400 annually from 1975 to 1984 to 34 about 7700 annually from 1985 to 1990. Sampling for blue crab in impingement samples began 35 in 1983. The numbers of impinged blue crab increased from approximately 2000 annually from 36 1983 to1987 to 56,600 annually from 1988 to 1990. Despite the increase in impingement 37 gizzard shad and blue crab represented only one percent of all RIS impinged. For this reason, 38 the NRC staff concludes that the strength of connection for gizzard shad and blue crab is Low.
39 40 41 42 December 201 0 H-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00539
Appendix H 1 Table H-16 Weight of Evidence for the Strength-of-Connection Line of Evidence for YOY 2 RIS Based on the Monte Carlo Simulation RIS Strength of Connection RIS Strength of Connection Alewife High Hogchoker High American Shad Low Rainbow Smelt High Atlantic Shortnose Cannot be Modeled(a) Cannot be Modeled(a)
Menhaden Sturgeon Atlantic Cannot be Modeled(a) Spottail Shiner High Sturgeon Atlantic Low Striped Bass High Tomcod Bay Anchovy High Weakfish High Blueback High White Catfish Low Herring Bluefish Low White Perch High Gizzard Shad Cannot be Modeled(a) Blue Crab Cannot be Modeled(a)
(a) Estimates for model parameters were unavailable or information was lacking. Strength of connection assumed to be Low based on review of impingement and entrainment data.
3 H.1.3.3. Impingement and Entrainment Impact Summary 4 The final integration of population-level and strength-of-connection LOE is presented in 5 Table H-17. This table shows the final conclusions for both LOE-population trends and 6 strength of connection. Assignment of an NRC level of impact (small, moderate, or large) 7 requires information on both a measurable response in the RIS population and clear evidence 8 that the RIS is influenced by the operation of the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems. Thus, when the 9 strength of connection is low, it is not possible to assign an impact level greater than small, 10 because of little evidence that a relationship between the cooling system and RIS exists.
11 Conversely, for an RIS with a high strength of connection to the IP2 and IP3 cooling system 12 operation but evidence of no population decline, the final determination must be small.
13 As discussed previously, the NRC staff believes that long-term population trends for RIS in the 14 lower Hudson River provide the best evidence of whether adverse effects are present. Synoptic 15 sampling of the river for almost four decades has produced a long-term data set that provides a 16 useful way to evaluate status of individual species commonly found in the river, and the complex 17 food web that sustains them. In addition to synoptic sampling from the mouth of the Hudson to 18 the Troy Dam, the environmental sampler that is the IP2 and IP3 cooling system provides 19 important information on the species composition near the plant. By using reported 20 entrainment and impingement losses for YOY fish as input to population models and using 21 Monte Carlo simulations, staff can evaluate how population trajectories might change with and 22 without the presence of Indian Point thus providing a way to assess the relationship between 23 the cooling system and the aquatic resources. Taken together, the NRC staff used these two 24 lines of evidence to determine whether the once-through cooling systems associated with IP2 25 and IP3 had the potential to adversely affect important aquatic resources. To conclude the NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-48 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00540
Appendix H 1 occurrence of an adverse effect for a particular RIS that was attributable to Indian Point the 2 staff required that there must be evidence of a detectable, long-term RIS population decline, 3 and evidence that the operation of the Indian Point cooling system influenced the RIS.
4 5 Based on the WOE assessment (Table H-17). the NRC staff concludes that the impact levels s 6 are Small for eleven species: American shad, Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic sturgeon, Atlantic 7 tomcod, bay anchovy, bluefish, gizzard shad, shortnose sturgeon, striped bass, white catfish, 8 and blue crab. Further, the staff concludes that the impacts are Moderate for three species:
9 alewife, rainbow smelt and weakfish. Finally, the staff concludes that the impacts are Large for 10 four species: blueback herring, hogchoker, spottail shiner, and white perch. A brief discussion 11 of the WOE results for species with Large or moderate impact levels is presented below.
12 Environmental data sets used by the NRC staff to support population trend analysis include 13 river-wide abundance and CPUE data, river segment 4 (Indian Point) density, and CPUE 14 information from the FSS, BSS, and LRC studies for each RIS.
15 Table H-17 Impingement and Entrainment Impact Summary for Hudson River YOY RIS Impacts of IP2 and IP3 Population Trend Strength of Connection Species Cooling Systems on line of Evidence line of Evidence YOY RIS Alewife Variable High Moderate American Shad Detected Decline Low Small Atlantic Menhaden Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small Atlantic Sturgeon Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small Atlantic Tom cod Detected Decline Low Small Bay Anchovy Undetected Decline High Small Blueback Herring Detected Decline High Large Bluefish Detected Decline Low Small Gizzard Shad Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small Hog choker Detected Decline High Large Rainbow Smelt Variable High Moderate- Large (c)
Shortnose Sturgeon Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small Spottail Shiner Detected Decline High Large Striped Bass Undetected Decline High Small Weakfish Variable High Moderate White Catfish Variable Low Small White Perch Detected Decline High Large Blue Crab Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small (a) Population LOE could not be established using WOE; therefore, population LOE could range from small to large.
{b) Strength of connection could not be established using Monte Carlo simulation; therefore, strength of connection was based on the rate of entrainment and impingement.
(c) Section 4.1.3.3 provides supplemental information.
December 201 0 H-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00541
Appendix H 1 Blueback Herring 2
3 The NRC staff concludes that a Large impact is present for YOY blueback herring because a 4 detectable population decline occurred in most of the river-wide (3 of 3) and river segment (2 of 5 3) data sets used in the analysis, and there was a high strength of connection with the IP2 and 6 IP3 cooling system. Blueback herring, which along with alewife are known as river herring, 7 share life history and distribution characteristics with alewife. An anadromous species, 8 blueback herring migrate upriver to spawn during the spring and live about seven to eight 9 years. This species feeds primarily on insect larvae and copepods and is prey for bluefish, 10 weakfish, and striped bass (Hass-Castro 2006). Hass-Castro (2006) also reports that river 11 herring populations are well below historic levels of the mid 201h century, possibly because of 12 overfishing, habitat destruction, and states that a population assessment has been listed as a 13 high priority by the ASMFC, given the blueback herring listing as a species of concern by the 14 NMFS.
15 16 Hogchoker 17 18 The NRC staff concludes that a Large impact is present for YOY hogchoker because a 19 detectable population decline occurred in most of the river -wide (2 of 3) and river segment (3 of 20 3) data sets, and strength of connection with the IP2 and IP3 cooling system was high. This 21 species is a right-eyed flatfish that occurs in the Hudson River estuary and surrounding bays 22 and coastal waters. Adults are generalists, and eat annelids, arthropods, and siphons of clams; 23 adults and juveniles are prey of striped bass. Coastal population trend data were not available 24 for this species.
25 26 Spottail Shiner 27 28 The NRC staff concludes that a Large impact is present for YOY spottail shiner because a 29 detectable population decline occurred in the river-wide (1 of 3) and river segment (1 of 1) 30 datasets, and there was a high strength of connection with the IP2 and IP3 cooling system. The 31 habitat for the spottail shiner includes small streams, lakes, and large rivers, including the 32 Hudson. This species feeds primarily on aquatic insect larvae, zooplankton, benthic 33 invertebrates, and fish eggs and larvae, and is the prey of striped bass. Spottail shiners spawn 34 from May to June or July (typically later for the northern populations) over sandy bottoms and 35 stream mouths (Smith 1985; Marcy et al. 2005); water chestnut ( Trapa natans) beds provide 36 important spawning habitat (CHGEC 1999). Individuals older than three years are rare, but 37 there is evidence of individuals living four or five years (Marcy et al. 2005). Coastal population 38 trend data were not available for this species.
39 40 White Perch 41 42 The NRC staff concludes that a Large impact is present for YOY white perch because a 43 detectable population decline occurred in the majority of the river-wide (3 of 3) and river 44 segment (2 of 3) datasets, and there was a high strength of connection with the IP2 and IP3 45 cooling system. White perch are an estuarine species that is a year-round resident in the 46 Hudson River, and is commonly entrained by IP2 and IP3. An opportunistic feeder, this 47 species is prey to large piscivorous fish and terrestrial vertebrates. White perch have never NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-50 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00542
Appendix H 1 been a recreationally or commercially important resource for the Hudson River, and commercial 2 fishing was closed in 1976 because of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination. White 3 perch populations appear to be relatively stable in the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay, 4 and commercial harvest has generally increased since 1980 in that area (Maryland DNR 2005).
5 6 Alewife 7
8 The NRC staff concludes that a Moderate impact is present for YOY alewife because a 9 detectable population decline occurred in river segment 4 (3 out of 3 datasets) and there was a 10 high strength of connection with the IP2 and IP3 cooling system. The NRC staff determined 11 that the population trend results were variable because the declines observed in river segment 12 4 were not confirmed by river -wide population trends. YOY alewife (river herring) are present in 13 the lower and upper reaches of the Hudson River, and feed as juveniles primarily on 14 amphipods, zooplankton, and fish eggs and larvae, and as an adult on small fish. This species 15 is also prey for bluefish, weakfish, and striped bass. ASMFC implemented a combined 16 fisheries management plan for American shad and river herring in 1985. Although the herring 17 fishery is one of the oldest fisheries in the United States, no commercial fishery for river herring 18 currently exists in the Hudson River. River herring population declines have been reported in 19 Connecticut Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, and NMFS has listed river herring as a species 20 of concern throughout its range Hass-Castro (2006).
21 22 Rainbow Smelt 23 24 The NRC staff concludes that a Moderate to Large impact level is present for rainbow smelt 25 because detectable population declines occurred in river-wide (1 of 2) and river segment (1 of 26 2) data sets, and there was a high strength of connection with the IP2 and IP3 cooling system.
27 Although detectable population declines occurred in two of four river data sets, indicating 28 population trend results were variable, the staff concluded that a Moderate-Large impact was 29 present based on the dramatic population declines observed for this species over the past three 30 decades. Rainbow smelt is an anadromous species once commonly found along the Atlantic 31 Coast. Larval and juvenile smelt feed primarily on planktonic crustaceans; adults eat 32 crustaceans, polychaetes, and small fish. Bluefish and striped bass are primary predators of 33 rainbow smelt. Once a prevalent fish in the Hudson River, the rainbow smelt has undergone an 34 abrupt population decline in the Hudson River since 1994, and the species may no longer have 35 a viable population within the Hudson River. The last tributary run of rainbow smelt was 36 recorded in 1988, and the Hudson River Utilities' Long River lchthyoplankton Survey showed 37 that PYSL essentially disappeared from the river after 1995 (Daniels et al. 2005). The NRC 38 staff's regression analysis of rainbow smelt population trends was affected by the lack of 39 rainbow smelt caught by the Hudson River field surveys after 1995. Detectable population 40 declines were present for CPUE data set but not for density or abundance index data, given the 41 disappearance of this species from the river. Thus, the WOE conclusion of moderate impact 42 may, in fact be an underestimate of the true impact; the staff concluded that a Moderate-Large 43 impact assessment was appropriate.
44 45 December 201 0 H-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00543
Appendix H 1 Weakfish 2
3 The NRC staff concludes that a Moderate impact is present for weakfish because detectable 4 population declines occurred in river-wide (1 of 2) and river segment (1 of 2) data sets, and 5 there was a high strength of connection with the IP2 and IP3 cooling system. Because 6 detectable declines occurred in two of four river data sets, staff determined that the population 7 trend results were variable. The weakfish is historically one of the most abundant fish species 8 along the Atlantic coast and is fished recreationally and commercially. Small weakfish prey 9 primarily on crustacean, whereas larger individuals eat small fish. Bluefish, striped bass, and 10 larger weakfish are primary predators of smaller weakfish. Weakfish are thought to be in decline 11 based on decreased commercial landings in recent years. The weakfish stock declined 12 suddenly in 1999 and approached even lower levels by 2003, which ASMFC determined to be 13 because of higher natural mortality rates rather than fishing mortality (ASMFC 2007). A leading 14 hypothesis suggests reduced prey availability and increased predation by striped bass may 15 contribute significantly to rising natural mortality rates in the weakfish population (ASMFC 2007).
16 Integrated Assessment 17 The NRC staff developed a calculation for the overall impact of the IP2 and IP3 cooling system 18 by integrating the numerical results for the WOE assessment (Table H-17). Staff used a scoring 19 criteria (e.g. small potential for adverse impacts = 1, moderate impacts = 2, large impacts = 4) to 20 obtain an average over all RIS that reflects an equally spaced interval on a logarithmic scale for 21 which the magnitude of harm doubles at each step. From Table H-17, NRC staff concludes that 22 there are eleven RIS showing a Small impact (scored as a 1). three RIS showing a Moderate 23 impact (scored as a 2). and four RIS showing a Large impact (scored as a 4). The average of 24 the 18 RIS scores rounded to the nearest whole number is 2.0 which equates to a Moderate 25 impact. Thus, NRC staff concludes that the level of impact from the operation of IP2 and IP3 26 cooling water systems to the aquatic resources of the lower Hudson River during the 27 relicensing period would be Moderate.
28 H.2 Cumulative Impacts on Aquatic Resources 29 In addition to the potential impacts associated with the IP2 and IP3 cooling water intake system 30 described in Section H.1, it is possible that other natural or anthropogenic factors unrelated to 31 the relicensing of Indian Point could influence the aquatic resources of the lower Hudson River.
32 In this section, the NRC staff discusses and evaluates potential stressors that could contribute 33 to the total impacts to the aquatic resources during the license renewal period. Potential 34 stressors include other Hudson River facilities that withdraw water, the presence of zebra 35 mussels in the freshwater portions of the river, fishing pressure associated with commercially 36 and recreationally important species, habitat loss, interactions with other invasive species, and 37 impacts associated with changes to water and sediment quality caused by short-term 38 anthropogenic activities or long-term influences associated with global climate change.
39 Population trends should, in theory, reflect cumulative effects of all impacts on the population.
40 Impacts attributable to the Indian Point cooling systems have already been analyzed. This 41 section of the appendix concentrates on effects associated with the invasion of zebra mussels, I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-52 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00544
Appendix H 1 using a WOE approach, as discussed in Section H.3. A qualitative assessment of effects 2 associated with fishing pressure was also explored.
3 The NRC staff evaluated potential population-level impacts to RIS for the lower Hudson River 4 (RKM 0-245, RM 0-152) (Figure 2-10 in the main text) in Section H.3.1. Riverwide data used in 5 the analysis included the abundance index provided by the applicant and CPUE data obtained 6 from FJS, BSS, and LRS studies. The results of this analysis were presented in Table H-14 and 7 showed a large potential for adverse impacts for 7 of the 18 RIS caused by the CWIS.
8 An analysis conducted on behalf of Entergy (Barnthouse et al. 2008) used environmental risk-9 assessment techniques to evaluate the potential for adverse impacts to Hudson River RIS from 10 a variety of natural and anthropogenic stressors, including the operation of the IP2 and IP3 11 CWIS, fishing pressure, the presence of zebra mussels, predation by striped bass, and water 12 temperature. Barnthouse et al. (2008) concluded that the Indian Point CWIS had no effect on 13 all seven of the RIS included in their study. Instead, the authors concluded that observed 14 population declines in selected RIS were influenced by striped bass predation, mortality 15 imposed by fishing, water temperature, and zebra mussel invasion.
16 Strayer et al. (2004) concluded that the abundance of juvenile American shad and white perch 17 declined following the zebra mussel invasion. Further, the authors found thatjuvenile alewife 18 abundance increased following the zebra mussel invasion. The NRC staff's analysis follows.
19 Zebra Mussels 20 To evaluate the effects of zebra mussels, the NRC staff applied a WOE approach. It is 21 important to note, however, that the Hudson River monitoring surveys used in these analyses 22 were designed to evaluate the population abundance of selected species. They were not 23 designed to evaluate competing and confounded factors affecting population abundance.
24 Coincident measures of zebra mussel abundance through time, water quality, changes to 25 thermal discharges, changes in fishing pressure, and predator-prey interactions would be a 26 minimal requirement to begin to rank stressor effects on each population. These measures are 27 not available, and so the remaining analyses should be viewed as the development of 28 hypotheses of potential impacts associated with zebra mussels.
29 The NRC staff analyzed the impact of zebra mussels on RIS populations that were caught in 30 River Segment 12 (Albany). The NRC staff analyzed the 75 1h percentile of the weekly FJS and 31 BSS density and CPUE data from this river segment and used this information to evaluate the 32 population trend LOE for these species. Data for white perch, blueback herring, alewife, 33 American shad, white catfish, spottail shiner, and striped bass were used in the analysis 34 because all have high densities of YOY within this region. Only weeks 27 to 43 were used in 35 the analysis for the FJS and weeks 22 to 43 for the BSS survey so that most years contained 36 observations from the months July through October and June through October for each survey, 37 respectively. Effects associated with changes in gear type for the FJS (1985) were also 38 considered. Details of the analysis are presented in Appendix I.
39 Simple linear regression and segmented regression with a single join point were fit to the annual 40 measure of abundance for each RIS, as described in Section H.1.3. If the estimated slope from 41 the linear regression or either slope from the segmented regression, whichever was determined 42 to be the better fitting model, was significantly less than zero, then an adverse population impact 43 was considered detected.
December 201 0 H-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00545
Appendix H 1 The strength of connection to a potential impact associated with a zebra mussel invasion was 2 determined by the temporality of the observed change in population trends and the year 3 associated with invasion of the zebra mussels in the Hudson River (1991) based on work by 4 Strayer et al. (2004). For any stressor to be considered a potential cause of an impact the 5 stress must occur before the response (Adams 2003). For the assessment of the observed 6 response, the year associated with a change in population trend was estimated by the join point 7 from the segmented regression or was considered pre-1991, if the linear model was the better 8 fit to the density and CPU E data collected from Region 12 (Albany area). If the join point was 9 before 1991, then the strength of connection was defined as low. If the segmented regression 10 did not converge or was not the better fitting model, the linear regression was used to suggest 11 that there was no change in slope following invasion; thus, the strength of connection was low.
12 If the join point from the segmented regression was after 1991, then the strength of connection 13 was defined as high.
14 Based on the WOE analysis (see Appendix I for details) and the decision rules presented in 15 Section H.1. 3, the NRC staff determined potential moderate-to-large population impacts within 16 River Segment 12 (Albany) were possible for many RIS, including American shad, blueback 17 herring, spottail shiner, white catfish, and white perch (Table H-18). NRC staff concluded a 18 small potential for adverse population impacts was present for alewife and striped bass. The 19 data tables for which the results of the strength of connection between adverse population 20 impacts and the zebra mussel invasion are drawn are presented in Appendix I. None of the RIS 21 evaluated had a statistically significant increase in population abundance in River Segment 12.
22 The strength-of-connection analysis assumes that zebra mussels can affect aquatic resources 23 indirectly by reducing potential food resources (prey) or by altering habitat (e.g. shelter). The 24 results of the strength-of-connection analysis are presented in Table H-19 and show that a Low 25 strength of connection was observed for all fish. For each RIS, two of the data sets out of a 26 possible three suggested a Low strength of connection.
27 Table H-18 Population Trends after the invasion of Zebra Mussels in 1991 for Density 28 and CPUE of YOY Collected from River Segment 12 (Albany)
Hypothesized level Species FSS Density BSS Density FJS CPUE WOE of Impact to Po~ulation Trend Alewife 1 1 1 1.0 Undetected Decline American Shad 4 4 1 3.0 Detected Decline Blueback Herring 4 4 4 4.0 Detected Decline Spottail Shiner 4 1 4 3.0 Detected Decline Striped Bass 1 1 1 1.0 Undetected Decline White Catfish 1 N/A 4 2.5 Variable White Perch 4 4 4 4.0 Detected Decline N/A is not applicable; YOY are not present in samples.
29 30 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-54 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00546
Appendix H 1 Table H-19 Strength of Connection between Population Trends and Zebra Mussel 2 Invasion Hypothesized Strength Species FJS Density BSS Density FJS CPUE WOE of Connection Alewife 1 1 4 2.0 Low American Shad 4 1 1 2.0 Low Blueback Herring 1 4 1 2.0 Low Spottail Shiner 4 1 1 2.0 Low Striped Bass 1 1 4 2.0 Low White Catfish 1 N/A 1 1.0 Low White Perch 1 4 1 2.0 Low N/A is not a~~licable; YOY are not ~resent in sam~les.
3 4 The final integration of population-level and strength-of-connection LOE is presented in 5 Table H-20. This table shows the final NRC staff conclusions for both LOE-population trends 6 and strength of connection. The conclusion of adverse impact requires both a measurable 7 response in the RIS population and clear evidence that the RIS is influenced by the zebra 8 mussel invasion. When the strength of connection is low, it is not possible to arrive at an impact 9 level greater than small, because of little evidence that a relationship between the mussel 10 invasion and population trends exists. Conversely, for an RIS with a High strength of 11 connection to the zebra mussel invasion but evidence of no population decline, the final 12 determination must be small.
13 Based on the final WOE assessment the NRC staff concludes that there is a small potential for 14 adverse impacts from the zebra mussel invasion for all seven of the RIS. Alewife and striped 15 bass showed no evidence of population declines, and white catfish displayed a population 16 decline but had a Low strength of connection. The Staff detected a potential large population 17 impact for American shad, blueback herring, spottail shiner, and white perch, however there 18 was an inconsistent assessment of strength of connection among the three data sets (Figures 19 H-11, H-12, and H-13).
20 Table H-20 Weight of Evidence Associated with Potential Negative Impacts on 21 Population Trends from Zebra Mussel Invasion Hypothesized level of Hypothesized Hypothesized Species Impact to Strength of Impact to Population Population Trends Connection Trends from Zebra Mussel Alewife Undetected Decline Low Small American Shad Detected Decline Low Small Blueback Herring Detected Decline Low Small Spottail Shiner Detected Decline Low Small Striped Bass Undetected Decline Low Small White Catfish Variable Low Small White Perch Detected Decline Low Small December 201 0 H-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 0054 7
Appendix H 1 The NRC staff analysis concluded that a large potential adverse population impact was present 2 for American shad in River Segment 12 (Albany) (Table H-20). For the WOE analysis, NRC 3 staff used the post-1985 FSS River Segment 12 density data, since the catch efficiency of the 4 beam trawl for YOY American shad was less than the epibenthic sled. The Staff also used the 5 1979 to 2005 BSS density data and the FSS CPU E data from River Segment 12. The relative 6 population response and the timing of the effect of the zebra mussel invasion for each data set 7 are presented in Figures H-11, H-12, and H-13. Strayer et al. (2004) used the riverwide 8 abundance index to conclude that the abundance of American shad was affected by zebra 9 mussels. The NRC staff found, however, that only the FSS River Segment 12 density data 10 showed a decline for American shad following the mussel invasion (Figure H-11). The BSS 11 density data suggested a continuous decline from 1979-2005 (Figure H-12). and the FSS 12 CPUE showed a decline before the invasion (Figure H-13). Therefore, the NRC staff and 13 Barnthouse et al. (2008) disagreed with Strayer et al. (2004) that zebra mussels were a 14 potential cause of the American shad decline.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-56 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00548
Appendix H 10 20 30 Years of Survey
- Blueback Herring
~ Zebra Mussel Invasion
'(ii 3 r:::
CIJ c 2 "C
l!l
- .c.... 1
~ 0 r::: *
(I) ci) -1
- 0 "C -2
....
M
~ -3~--~--~~------~------~
~ 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey
- White Perch 1 Source: Normandeau 2008 2 Figure H-9 Standardized population density data for River Segment 12 (RS12) Fall 3 Juvenile Surveys (Normandeau 2008). Shaded plots indicate potential effects from zebra 4 mussel invasion.
5 The NRC staff analysis concluded that a large potential population impact was present for 6 juvenile blueback herring in River Segment 12 (Albany). However, the NRC staff and 7 Barnthouse et al. (2008) disagreed with Strayer et al. (2004) that zebra mussels were a 8 potential cause in the decline of blueback herring. Only the BSS data suggested a possible 9 blueback herring response to the zebra mussel invasion (Figure H-12).
December 201 0 H-57 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00549
Appendix H Zebra Mussel Invasion 2
"E M
-1
(/)
~ -2
-3+------.------------.
0 10 20 Years of Survey
- American Shad T Outlier Zebra Mussel Invasion
-2+----.....,----""T'"-----,
0 10 20 Years of Survey
- Spottail Shiner T Outlier 1 Source: Normandeau 2008 2 Figure H-12 Standardized population density data for River Segment 12 (RS12) Beach 3 Seine Surveys. Shaded plots indicate potential effects from zebra mussel invasion.
4 The NRC staff analysis concluded that a large potential population impact was present for 5 juvenile spottail shiner in River Segment 12 (Albany). Strayer et al. (2004) concluded that 6 there was no change in spottail shiner abundance, and Barnthouse et al. (2008) did not 7 evaluate spottail shiner population trends. The FSS density data was the only data set to I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-58 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00550
Appendix H 1 suggest a possible effect of the zebra mussel invasion (Figure H-11). The BSS and FSS CPUE 2 showed a continuous decline from 197 4 to 2005 (Figure H-12 and Figure H-13).
3 The NRC staff analysis concluded that a large potential population impact was present for 4 juvenile white perch in River Segment 12 (Albany). White perch population trends obtained 5 from the FSS were not affected by gear changes (year 6 of the survey). All three data sets 6 indicated an early decline in fish density and CPU E in River Segment 12 (Figures H-11, H-1 02 7 and H-13). Thus, the NRC Staff concluded that a combination of stressors acting on the 8 riverwide population is associated with a relatively greater adverse impact than the impact from 9 the zebra mussel invasion.
Zebra Mussel Invasion Zebra Mussel Invasion 2
LLJ 1 LLJ
- > :> 0.5 c.. c.. 0.0
(..) 0 (..)
a a -0.5 "C
~ -1 M
...
"C -1.0
(/') (/') -1.5
~
(/')
-2 LL -2.0
--- - , -2.5
-3+---......a-~~o.....-- ......- - - -... -3.0 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
- American Shad
- Blueback Herring Zebra Mussel Invasion Zebra Mussel Invasion 4* ... 2 LLJ 3* LLJ 1
- > :>
c.. 2
(..)
c.. 0
(..)
a 1, a"C -1
. .. --- ...
'E ..... _ *
--..._ __
M
(/')
LL o-~
-1* *
-*------- ****
*
- .......T M
(/') -2
(/')
LL -3
-2+------,.....a.---"T""-----, -4+------,.....a.---"T""-----,
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
- Spottail shiner T Outlier
- White Perch 10 Source: Normandeau 2008 11 Figure H-13 Standardized CPUE trend data for River Segment 12 (RS12) Fall Juvenile 12 Surveys.
December 201 0 H-59 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00551
Appendix H 1 Water Quality and Climate Change 2 Sewage Treatment System Upgrades As discussed in Section 2.2.5, the increasing populations along the river and within the watershed resulted in an increased discharge of sewage into the Hudson River and an overall degradation of water quality. Beginning in 1906 with the creation of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of New York, a series of studies were conducted to formulate plans to improve water quality within the region (Brosnan and O'Shea 1996). In the freshwater portion of the lower Hudson River, the most dramatic improvements in wastewater treatment were made between 197 4 and 1985, resulting in a decrease in the discharge of suspended solids by 56 percent. Improvements in the brackish portion of the river were even greater. In the New York City area, the construction and upgrading of water treatment plants reduced the discharge of untreated wastewater from 450 million gallons per day (mgd) in 1970 to less than 5 mgd in 1988 (CHGEC 1999). The discharge of raw sewage was further reduced between 1989 and 1993 due to the implementation of additional treatment programs (Brosnan and O'Shea 1996).
During the 1990s, three municipal treatment plants located in the lower Hudson River converted to full secondary treatment-North River (1991). North Bergen MUA-Woodcliff (1991). and North Hudson Sewerage Authority West New York (1992). In addition, the North Hudson Sewerage Authority-Hoboken plant located on the western bank of the Hudson River opposite Manhattan Island, went to full secondary treatment in 1994 (CHGEC 1999). Upgrades to the Yonkers Joint Treatment Plant in 1988 and the Rockland County Sewer District #1 in 1989 also resulted in improvements in water quality in the brackish portion of the Hudson River. In the mid-1990s, the Rockland County Sewer District #1 and Orangetown Sewer District plants were also upgraded. (CHGEC 1999) 3 Trends in Dissolved Oxygen 4 A review of long-term trends in dissolved oxygen (DO) and total coliform bacteria concentrations 5 by Brosnan and O'Shea (1996) has shown that improvements to water treatment facilities have 6 improved water quality. The authors noted that between the 1970s and 1990s, DO 7 concentrations in the Hudson River generally increased. The increases coincided with the 8 upgrading of the 170 million mgd North River plant to secondary treatment in the spring of 1991.
9 DO, expressed as the average percent saturation, exceeded 80 percent in surface waters and 10 60 percent in bottom waters during summer in the early 1990s. DO minimums also increased 11 from less than 1.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in the early 1970s to more than 3.0 mg/L in the 12 1990s, and the duration of low DO (hypoxia) events was also reduced (Brosnan and O'Shea 13 1996). Similar trends showing improvements in DO were noted by Abood et al. (2006) from an 14 examination of two long-term data sets collected by NYCDEP in the lower reaches of the river.
15 Brosnan and O'Shea (1996) also noted a strong decline in total coliform bacteria concentrations 16 that began in the 1970s and continued into the 1990s, coinciding with sewage treatment plant 17 upgrades.
18 Chemical Contaminants 19 As discussed in Section 2.2.5, the lower Hudson River currently appears on the EPA 303-d list 20 as an impaired waterway, because of the presence of PCBs and the need for fishing restrictions 21 (EPA 2004). Contamination of the sediment water, and biota of the Hudson River estuary 22 resulted from the manufacture of capacitors and other electronic equipment in the towns of Fort NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-60 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00552
Appendix H 1 Edward and Hudson Falls, New York, from the 1940s to the 1970s. Investigations conducted by 2 the EPA and others over the past 25 years have delineated the extent and magnitude of 3 contamination, and numerous cleanup plans have been devised and implemented. Recently, 4 EPA Region 2 released a "Fact Sheet" describing a remedial dredging program designed to 5 remove over 1.5 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment covering 400 acres, extending 6 from the Fort Edwards Dam to the Federal Dam at Troy (EPA 2008). Concentrations of PCBs in 7 river sediments below the Troy Dam are much lower. Work summarized by Steinberg et al.
8 (2004) suggests the sediment-bound concentrations of PCBs and dioxins have generally 9 declined in the lower Hudson River since the 1970s and are now at or below ER-M limits.
10 Chemical contaminants present in the tissues of fish in the Hudson River estuary have been 11 extensively studied for many years and resulted in the posting of consumption advisories by the 12 States of New York and New Jersey. Current information summarized in Steinberg et al. (2004) 13 suggests that many recreationally and important fish and shellfish still contain levels of metals, 14 pesticides, PCBs, and dioxins above the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance values 15 for commercial sales. Tissue concentrations of mercury were of concern only for striped bass; 16 other fish, and shellfish, including flounder, perch, eels, blue crab, and lobster, contained 17 concentrations of mercury in their tissues well below the FDA limit of 2 parts per million (ppm) 18 for commercial sale. Concentrations of chlordane in white perch, American eels, and the 19 hepatopancreas (green gland) of blue crabs were also above FDA guidelines. DDT 20 concentrations in the tissues of most recreationally and commercially valuable fish and shellfish 21 in the estuary were below the 2 ppm FDA limit with the exception of American eel.
22 Unfortunately, the concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (a dioxin compound) and total PCBs in fish 23 and shellfish tissues were often above FDA guidance limits, suggesting fish and shellfish 24 obtained from some locations within the estuary should be eaten in moderation or not at all.
25 The results described above suggest that although a wide variety of contaminants still exist in 26 sediment water, and biota in the lower Hudson River, the overall levels appear to be decreasing 27 because of the imposition of strict discharge controls by Federal and State regulatory agencies 28 and improvements in wastewater treatment. These trends appear to be confirmed, based on 29 the results of a NOAA-sponsored toxicological evaluation of the estuary in 1991, as described in 30 Wolfe et al. (1996). There is continuing concern, however, that legacy PCB waste may still 31 pose a threat to invertebrate, fish, and human populations. A study by Achman et al. (1996) 32 suggested that PCB concentrations in sediment measured at several locations in the lower 33 Hudson River from the mouth to Haverstraw Bay are above equilibrium with overlying water and 34 may be available for transfer within the food web. The implications of this study are that in 35 some locations within the lower river, the sediments could act as a source of PCBs and pose a 36 long-term chronic threat. The authors concluded, however, that fate and transport modeling 37 would be required to fully understand the implications of this potential contaminant source.
38 Based on the above information, it appears that the overall water quality in the lower Hudson 39 River is generally improving, although the presence of legacy contaminants still presents a 40 concern to regulatory agencies. Based on the information reviewed, the NRC staff concludes 41 that the cumulative impact of water quality on RIS should decline if efforts continue to address 42 point- and non-point pollution and legacy waste removal and treatment.
43 December 201 0 H-61 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00553
Appendix H 1 Climate Change 2 The potential cumulative effects of climate change on Hudson River RIS could result in a variety 3 of fundamental changes to watersheds that would affect aquatic resources. The environmental 4 factors of significance identified by Kennedy (1990) that would affect estuarine systems included 5 sea level rise, temperature increase, salinity changes, and wind and water circulation changes.
6 Changes in sea level could result in dramatic effects on nearshore communities, including the 7 reduction or redistribution of submerged aquatic vegetation, changes to marsh communities, 8 and influences to wetland areas adjacent to nearshore systems. Water temperature increases 9 could affect spawning patterns or success, or influence the distribution of key RIS when cold-10 water species move poleward while warm-water species become established in new habitats.
11 Changes to river salinity and the presence of the salt front could influence the spawning and 12 distribution of RIS, and the range of exotic or nuisance species. Fundamental changes in 13 precipitation could profoundly influence water circulation and change the nature of 14 allochothonous and autochothonous inputs to the system. This could result in fundamental 15 changes to primary production and influence the estuarine food web on many levels. Kennedy 16 (1990) also concluded that some fisheries and aquaculture enterprises and communities might 17 benefit from the results of climate change, while others would suffer extensive economic losses 18 that could lead to population shifts.
19 The extent and magnitude of climate change impacts to the aquatic resources of the lower 20 Hudson River are an important component of the cumulative assessment analyses. This 21 assessment is beyond the scope of this review and will need to be explored and evaluated by 22 others. A minimal evaluation of shifts in the distribution of RIS standardized mean density for 23 1979 to 1983 and for 2001 to 2005 was explored in Appendix H. Several RIS (striped bass, 24 alewife, spottail shiner, hogchoker, and white perch) may be shifting their distribution slightly 25 upriver while bay anchovies may be shifting their distribution seaward. This analysis attempts 26 only to explore hypotheses about potential redistribution of fish; definitive statements cannot be 27 made because of data limitations. Thus, the NRC staff has concluded that the cumulative 28 effects of climate change cannot be determined.
29 H.3 References 30 10 CFR Part 51. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, "Environmental Protection Regulations for 31 Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions," Part 51, Chapter 1, Title 10, "Energy."
32 Abood, K.A., T.L. Englert S.G. Metzger, C.V. Beckers, Jr., T.J. Groninger, and S. Mallavaram.
33 2006. "Current and Evolving Physical and Chemical Conditions in the Hudson River Estuary."
34 American Fisheries Society Symposium 51 , pp. 39-61.
35 Achman, D. R., B.J. Brownawell, and L. Zhang. 1996. "Exchange of Polychlorinated Biphenyls 36 Between Sediment and Water in the Hudson River Estuary." Estuaries 19:4, pp. 950-965.
37 Adams, S.M. 2003. "Establishing Causality Between Environmental Stressors and Effects on 38 Aquatic Ecosystems." Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, Vol. 9, No.1, pp. 17-35.
39 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2006. Species profile: Atlantic striped 40 bass, the challenges of managing a restored stock. Accessed at:
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-62 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00554
Appendix H 1 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/stripedBass/speciesprofile.pdf. on December 10, 2 2007.
3 Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act of 1984. 16 USC 5151-5158, et seq.
4 Baird, D., and R. E. Ulanowicz. 1989. "The Seasonal Dynamics of the Chesapeake Bay 5 Ecosystem." Ecological Monographs 59(4). pp. 329-364.
6 Barnthouse, L.W., C.C. Coutant and W. Van Winkle. 2002. "Status and Trends of Hudson 7 River Fish Populations and Communities Since the 1970's: Evaluation of Evidence Concerning 8 Impacts of Cooling Water Withdrawals." January 2002. ADAMS Accession No.
9 ML083360704.
10 Barnthouse, L.W., D.G. Heimbuch, W. Van Winkle, and J. Young. 2008. "Entrainment and 11 Impingement at Indian Point: A Biological Impact Assessment." January 2008. ADAMS 12 Accession No. ML080390059.
13 Brosnan, T.M. and M.L. O'Shea. 1996. "Long-term Improvements in Water Quality Due to 14 Sewage Abatement in the Lower Hudson River." Estuaries 19:4, pp. 890-900.
15 Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation (CHGEC). 1999. Draft Environmental Impact 16 Statement for State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits for Bowline Point Indian 17 Point 2 and 3, and Roseton Steam Electric Generating Stations. Consolidated Edison Company 18 New York, Inc. New York Power Authority and Southern Energy New York. December 1999.
19 ADAMS Accession No. ML083400128.
20 Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA). 33 USC 1326 et seq. (common name of the Federal Water 21 Pollution Control Act of 1977).
22 Cochran, W.G. 1997. Sampling Techniques, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
23 Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Con Edison). 1976. "Indian Point Impingement 24 Study Report for the Period 1 January 197 5-31 December 197 5." Prepared by Texas 25 Instruments, Inc. ADAMS Accession No. ML083360750.
26 Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Con Edison). 1977. "Hudson River Ecological 27 Study in the Area of Indian Point 1976 Annual Report." Prepared by Texas Instruments, Inc.
28 ADAMS Accession No. ML08309161.
29 Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Con Edison). 1979. "Hudson River Ecological 30 Study in the Area of Indian Point 1977 Annual Report." Prepared by Texas Instruments, Inc.
31 ADAMS Accession No. ML083091068.
32 Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Con Edison). 1980. "Hudson River Ecological 33 Study in the Area of Indian Point 1979 Annual Report." Prepared by Texas Instruments, Inc.
34 ADAMS Accession No. ML083360740.
35 Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Con Edison). 1984a. "Hudson River Ecological 36 Study in the Area of Indian Point 1981 Annual Report." ADAMS Accession No. ML083091069.
37 Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Con Edison). 1984b. "Precision and Accuracy of 38 Stratified Sampling to Estimate Fish Impingement at Indian Point Unit No. 2 and Unit No. 3."
39 Prepared by Normandeau Associates, Inc. ADAMS Accession No. ML083360792.
December 201 0 H-63 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 00555
Appendix H 1 Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Con Edison) and New York Power Authority 2 (NYPA). 1986. "Hudson River Ecological Study in the Area of Indian Point 1985 Annual 3 Report." Prepared by Normandeau Associates, Inc. ADAMS Accession No. ML083091074.
4 Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Con Edison) and New York Power Authority 5 (NYPA). 1987. "Hudson River Ecological Study in the Area of Indian Point 1986 Annual 6 Report." Prepared by Normandeau Associates, Inc. ADAMS Accession No. ML083091087.
7 Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Con Edison) and New York Power Authority 8 (NYPA). 1988. "Hudson River Ecological Study in the Area of Indian Point 1987 Annual 9 Report." Prepared by EA Science and Technology. ADAMS Accession No. ML083091084.
10 Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Con Edison) and New York Power Authority 11 (NYPA). 1991. "Hudson River Ecological Study in the Area of Indian Point 1990 Annual 12 Report." Prepared by EA Science and Technology. ADAMS Accession No. ML083091086.
13 Daniels, R.A., K.E. Limburg, R.E. Schmidt D.L. Strayer, and R.C. Chambers. 2005. "Changes 14 in Fish Assemblages in the Tidal Hudson River, New York." American Fisheries Society 15 Symposium 45: pp. 471-503. Accessed at 16 http://www.ecostudies.org/reprints/daniels_et_al_2005.pdf on March 13, 2008 17 Ecological Analyses, Inc. (EA). 1981a. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival 18 and Related Studies. 1979 Annual Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New 19 York, Inc., and Power Authority of the State of New York. Ecological Analysts, Inc.
20 January 1982. ADAMS Accession No. ML073330733.
21 Ecological Analyses, Inc. (EA). 1981 b. 1981 Con Edison Automated Abundance Sampling 22 (A UTOSAM) and Laboratory Processing Standard Operating Procedures. Prepared for 23 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. Ecological Analysts, Inc. May 1981.
24 ADAMS Accession No. ML083100602.
25 Ecological Analyses, Inc. (EA). 1982. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival 26 and Related Studies. 1980 Annual Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New 27 York, Inc., and Power Authority of the State of New York. Ecological Analysts, Inc. April1981.
28 ADAMS Accession No. ML073330737.
29 Ecological Analyses, Inc. (EA). 1984. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Abundance 30 and Outage Evaluation 1983 Annual Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of 31 New York, Inc., and Power Authority of the State of New York. EA Engineering, Science and 32 Technology, Inc. September 1984. ADAMS Accession No. ML083101084.
33 Ecological Analyses, Inc. (EA). 1985. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Abundance 34 and Outage Evaluation 1983 Annual Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of 35 New York, Inc., and Power Authority of the State of New York. EA Engineering, Science and 36 Technology. July 1985. ADAMS Accession No. ML083101091.
37 Ecological Analyses, Inc. (EA). 1989. Indian Point Generating Station 1988 Entrainment 38 Survival Study. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., and Power 39 Authority of the State of New York. EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Northeast 40 Regional Operations, Report No. 10648.03. August 1989. ADAMS Accession no.
41 ML083101103.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-64 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00556
Appendix H 1 Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2003. Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, Units No.
2 1, 2, and 3-Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report [for 2002]. Docket Numbers 3 50-03, 50-247, and 50-286, Buchanan, New York. Agencywide Documents Access and 4 Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML031220085.
5 Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2004. Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants, Units 1, 6 2, and 3-lndian Point's Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2003. Docket 7 Numbers50-003, 50-247, and 50-286, Buchanan, New York. Adams Accession 8 No. ML041340492.
9 Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2005. Indian Point Units 1, 2, and 3-2004 Annual 10 Radiological Environmental Operating Report. Docket Numbers 50-3, 50-247, and 50-286, 11 Buchanan, New York. ADAMS Accession No. ML051220210.
12 Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2006. Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants, Units 1, 2 13 and 3-Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2005. Docket Numbers 50-3, 14 50-24 7, and 50-286, Buchanan, New York. ADAMS Accession No. ML061290085.
15 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007. "Applicant's Environmental Report 16 Operating License Renewal Stage." (Appendix E of "Indian Point Units 2 and 3, License 17 Renewal Application.") April 23, 2007. ADAMS Accession No. ML071210530.
18 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2008. Letter from F. Dacimo, Vice President 19 Entergy Nuclear Operations, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk.
20
Subject:
Reply to Document Request for Additional Information Regarding Site Audit Review of 21 License Renewal Application for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. April 23, 22 2008. ADAMS Accession No. ML081230243.
23 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2009. Letter from F. Dacimo, Vice President 24 Entergy Nuclear Operations, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk.
25
Subject:
Request for Additional Information Related to License Renewal, Indian Point Nuclear 26 Application Environmental Report- Impingement Data, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 27 Nos. 2 & 3 Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64. November 24, 28 2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML093420528.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992.
29 Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPAI630IR-92-001. Risk Assessment forum, 30 Washington, D.C. 41 pp. Accessed at http://rais.ornl.govlhomepageiFRMWRK_ERA.PDF 31 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Total Maximum Daily Loads, Listed Water 32 Information, Cycle: 2004. Hudson River, Lower Hudson River. Accessed at:
33 http://oaspub.epa.govltmdl/enviro.control?p_list_id=NY -1301-0002andp_cycle=2004 on 34 February 23, 2008.
35 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Hudson River PCB Superfund Site, Dredge 36 Area 2 Delineation Fact Sheet, 2008. Accessed at:
37 http://www.epa.govlhudsonlfactsheet_2nd_phaselow.pdf on February 4, 2008.
38 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007. Letter from R. A. Niver, Endangered Species Biologist 39 to Rani Franovich, Branch Chief, Projects Branch 2, Division of License Renewal, Office of 40 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, Washington, DC. Response to letter from NRC requesting 41 information on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and critical habitat in the 42 vicinity of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Unit Nos. 2 and 3. August 29.
December 201 0 H-65 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 00557
Appendix H 1 Fletcher, R.I. 1990. "Flow dynamics and fish recovery experiments: Water intake systems."
2 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 119:393-415.
3 Frank, K.T., B. Petrie, and N.L. Shackell. 2007. "The Ups and Downs of Trophic Control in 4 Continental Shelf Ecosystems." Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22:5, pp. 236-242.
5 Greenwood, M.F.D. 2008. "Trawls and Cooling-water Intakes as Estuarine Fish Sampling 6 Tools: Comparisons of Catch Composition, Trends in Relative Abundance, and Length 7 Selectivity," Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 76:121-130.
8 Haas-Castro, R. 2006. "Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern U.S.: River Herring."
9 Northeast Fisheries Science Center Resource Evaluation and Assessment Division, National 10 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Accessed at:
11 http://www. nefsc. noaa. gov/sos/spsyn/af/herring/archives/38_RiverHerring_2006. pdf on 12 December 17, 2007. ADAMS No. ML083390029.
13 Marcy, B.C., D.E. Fletcher, F.D. Martin, M.H. Paller, and M.J.M. Reichert. 2005. "Spottail 14 Shiner." In: Fishes of the Middle Savannah River Basin. Athens, GA: University of Georgia 15 Press, pp. 153-156.
16 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Service, Chesapeake Finfish Program 17 (MDNR). February 2005. 2004 Stock Assessment of Selected Resident and Migratory 18 Recreational Finfish Species within Maryland's Chesapeake Bay. Accessed at 19 http://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/management/FMP/FMPWhitePerch04.pdf on February 4, 20 2010.
21 Mayhew, D.A., L.D. Jensen, D. F. Hanson, and P.H. Muessig, 2000. "A Comparative Review of 22 Entrainment Survival Studies at Power Plants in Estuarine Environments," Environmental 23 Science and Policy 3, pp. 295-301.
24 Menzie, C., M. H. Henning, J. Cura, K. Finkelstein, J. Gentile, J. Maughan, D. Mitchell, S.
25 Petron, B. Potocki, S. Svirsky, and P. Tyler. 1996. "Report of the Massachusetts Weight-of-26 Evidence Workgroup: A Weight-of-Evidence Approach for Evaluating Ecological Risks."
27 Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 2:277-304.
28 Newbold, Steven C. and Rich lovanna. 2007. Ecological effects of density-independent 29 mortality: application to cooling-water withdrawals. Ecological Applications, 17:390-406.
30 New York Power Authority (NYPA). 1986. "Size selectivity and relative catch efficiency of a 3-31 m beam trawl and a 1-m 2 epibenthic sled for sampling young of the year striped bass and other 32 fishes in the Hudson River estuary." Prepared by Normandeau Associates, Inc. January 1986.
33 (H R Library #7180). ADAMS Accession No. ML083360641.
34 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003a. Final 35 Environmental Impact Statement Concerning the Applications to Renew New York State 36 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permits for the Roseton 1and2 Bowline 1and2 37 and IP2 and IP3 2and3 Steam Electric Generating Stations, Orange, Rockland and Westchester 38 Counties. Hudson River Power Plants FE/5. June 25, 2003. ADAMS Accession No.
39 ML083360752.
40 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003b. Fact Sheet.
41 New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Draft Permit Renewal with 42 Modification IP2 and IP3 Electric Generating Station Buchanan NY November 2003.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-66 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00558
Appendix H 1 Accessed at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/lndianPointFS.pdf on 2 July 12, 2007. ADAMS Accession No. ML083360743.
3 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2007. "State of New 4 York Petition submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 30, 2007, on 5 the Application of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., for the 20-year Relicensing of Indian Point 6 Nuclear Power Plants 1 and 2, Buchanan, New York." Summary of Some of the Key 7 Contentions. Accessed at http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/40237 .html on March 18, 2008.
8 ADAMS Accession No. ML083360757.
9 Normandeu Associates (Normandeu). 1987a. IP2 and IP3 Generating Station Entrainment 10 Abundance Program, 1985 Annual Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New 11 York, Inc., and New York Power Authority. Prepared by Normandeu Associates, Inc.
12 Report R-332-1062. April1987. ADAMS Accession No. ML0803091074.
13 Normandeu Associates (Normandeu). 1987b. IP2 and IP3 Generating Station Entrainment 14 Abundance Program, 1986 Annual Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New 15 York, Inc., and New York Power Authority. Prepared by Normandeu Associates, Inc.
16 Report R-220. June 1987. ADAMS Accession No. ML083091087.
17 Normandeu Associates (Normandeu). 1988. IP2 and IP3 Generating Station Entrainment 18 Abundance Program, 1987 Annual Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New 19 York, Inc., and New York Power Authority. Prepared by Normandeu Associates, Inc.
20 Report R-111 0. May 1988. ADAMS Accession No. ML083360798.
21 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 22 License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants." NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, DC.
23 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 24 License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report" Section 6.3-Transportation, Table 9.1, 25 "Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants."
26 NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, DC.
27 Rose, Kenneth A. 2000. Why are quantitative relationships between environmental quality and 28 fish populations so elusive? Ecological Applications, 10:367-385.
29 Secor, D. H. and E D. Houde. 1995. "Temperature Effects on the Timing of Striped Bass Egg 30 Production, Larval Viability, and Recruitment Potential in the Patuxent River (Chesapeake 31 Bay)." Estuaries 18, pp. 527-533.
32 Shepherd G. 2006a. "Atlantic Striped Bass." Accessed at 33 http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/af/sbass/archives/40_StripedBass_2006.pdf on 34 December 10, 2007.
35 Shepherd G. 2006b. "Bluefish." Accessed at 36 http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/op/bluefish/archives/25_Biuefish_2006.pdf.
37 Smith, C.L. 1985. "Spottail Shiner." The Inland Fishes of New York State, pp. 194-195. New 38 York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
39 Snedecor G.W. and W.G. Cochran. 1980. Statistical Methods. The Iowa State University 40 Press, Ames, Iowa.
December 201 0 H-67 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00559
Appendix H 1 Steinberg, N., D.J. Suszkowski, L. Clark, and J. Way. 2004. Health of the Harbor: The First 2 Comprehensive Look at the State of the NY, NY Harbor Estuary. A Report to the New 3 York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. Hudson River Foundation, New York.
4 Strayer, D.L., K.A. Hattala, and A.W. Kahnle. 2004. "Effects of an Invasive Bivalve (Dreissena 5 polymorpha) on Fish in the Hudson River Estuary." Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 6 Sciences 61, pp. 924-941.
7 Ulanowicz, R.E. 1995. "Trophic Flow Networks as Indicators of Ecosystem Stress." In: G.A.
8 Polis and K.O. Winemiller (eds). Food Webs: Integration of Patterns and Dynamics, Chapman 9 and Hall, NY, pp. 358-368.
10 U.S. EPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection 11 Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, EPA/630/R095/002F. Accessed at:
12 .b.t1P.;i/.~.fP..wJu:~.R2,.QQY./.o.~.~.S~.!.~fmlm.~.Qr.<:J.l~.R!f!Y.,.~.fm?.g.~.l9..o::.1.2.4§Q 13 Wolfe, D.A., E.R. Long, and G.B. Thursby. 1996. "Sediment Toxicity in the Hudson-Raritan 14 Estuary: Distribution and Correlations with Chemical Contamination." Estuaries 19:4, pp. 901-15 912.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 H-68 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 00560
Appendix I Statistical Analyses Conducted for Chapter 4 Aquatic Resources and Appendix H OAGI0001367E 00561
1 Appendix I 2 Statistical Analyses Conducted for Chapter 4 Aquatic Resources and 3 Appendix H 4 Supporting analyses and data tables are presented by section as referenced in the Aquatic 5 Resources sections of Appendix H. Major section headings are maintained to allow mapping 6 between appendices. This appendix includes supporting information for the U.S. Nuclear 7 Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff assessment of impingement impacts (Appendix H, 8 Section 1.3). the assessment of population trends (Appendix H, Section 3.1 L the analysis of 9 strength of connection (Appendix H, Section 3.2). and the cumulative impacts on aquatic 10 resources (Appendix H, Section 4).
11 1.1 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish 12 1.1.1. NRC Staff Assessment of Impingement Impacts 13 NRC staff conducted simple linear regression over years on the number of days of operation 14 and the combined volume of water discharged for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Unit 15 Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3) between 1975 and 1990 (Table 1-1). Days of operation from 1975 to 16 1981 were obtained from impingement data provided by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the 17 applicant) (Entergy 2007b). Days of operation for the remaining years and the combined 18 volume discharged were compiled from the annual reports for the Hudson River Ecological 19 Study in the area of IP2 and IP3 (Con Edison 1980; Con Edison 1984, 1986-1991). The 20 number of days of operation at IP2 and IP3 had a general increase of eight days per year for 21 IP2 and five days per year for IP3 (linear regression, p = 0.004 and p = 0.286 for IP2 and IP3, 22 respectively). The total volume circulated at IP2 and IP3 combined also had a general increase 23 of 26.2 x 106 cubic meters (m 3 ; linear regression, p = 0.164).
24 December 201 0 1-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00562
Appendix I 1 I Table 1-1 Number of Days of Operation at IP2 and IP3 and Combined Discharge Combined Volume Year Days of Operation (millions m3)
IP2 IP3 1975 307 1119 1976 176 239 1329 1977 265 259 2159 1978 234 270 2030 1979 246 227 1935 1980 263 261 1822 1981 276 297 1617 1982 304 135 1273 1983 340 48 1286 1984 238 306 1710 1985 365 266 1977 1986 285 357 1892 1987 346 265 1815 1988 357 352 2322 1989 302 301 1748 1990 365 272 1902 2 Source: Days of Operation: Entergy 2007b; Con Ed1son 1984, 1986-1991 3 Volume Discharged: Con Edison 1980, 1991.
4 1.2 Combined Effects of Impingement and Entrainment 5 1.2.1. Assessment of Population Trends 6 Studies Used To Evaluate Population Trends 7 The Hudson River utilities conducted the Fall Juvenile Shoals Survey (FSS) from 197 4 to 2005 8 and targeted juveniles, yearlings, and older fish. Between 197 4 and 1984, a 1-square meter 9 (m 2 ) Tucker trawl with a 3-millimeter (mm) mesh was used to sample the channel and a 1-m 2 10 epibenthic sled with a 3-mm mesh was used to sample the bottom and shoal strata. From 1985 11 to 2005, a 3-meter (m) beam trawl with a 38-mm mesh on all but the cod-end replaced the 12 epibenthic sled. Size selectivity and relative catch efficiency between gear types was tested 13 during nocturnal samplings between August and September 1984. Bay anchovy, American 14 shad, and weakfish were sampled with less efficiency with the beam trawl (Table 1-2) (NYPA 15 1986). Further, the number and volume of samples in the bottom and shoal strata were 16 generally greater than 2.5 times those in the channel (Table 1-3).
17 The Beach Seine Survey (BSS) was conducted from 197 4 to 2005 and targeted young of the 18 year (YOY) and older fish in the shore-zone (extending from the shore to a depth of 10 feet [ft]).
19 Samples were collected from April to December but generally every other week from mid-June 20 through early October (Table 1-4). For all years, a 100-ft bag beach seine was used to collect 21 100 samples during each sampling period from beaches selected according to a stratified NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-2 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00563
Appendix I 1 random design. Even though the catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) for representative important 2 species (RIS) differed in magnitude between the BSS and FSS (Table 1-5). standardizing the 3 data (observed CPUE minus the mean CPUE and divided by the standard deviation across 4 years) allowed a comparison of the shape of the data over time. Thus, NRC staff conducted a 5 visual and statistical comparison of the standardized BSS and FSS data to determine if a shift in 6 gear types was affecting the observed FSS trend. The standardized FSS data were considered 7 consistently less than the standardized BSS data after 1985 if greater than 90 percent of the 8 standardized FSS observations were less than the BSS and the median absolute difference 9 between the standardized FSS and BSS was greater than 0.5 based on a sign test (a= 0.1). If 10 these two metrics were met a gear effect was assumed, and the pre- and post-1985 data were 11 evaluated separately. If less than 25 percent of the standardized FSS observations were less 12 than the BSS and either (1) the median absolute difference between the standardized FSS and 13 BSS was greater than 0.5 based on a sign test (a= 0.1) or (2) the absolute difference of the 14 percentage of FSS observations less than BSS observations before and after the gear change 15 was greater than 0.3, then the magnitude of FSS data was considered greater than the 16 magnitude of BSS data. If 25 percent to 90 percent of the standardized FSS observations were 17 less than the BSS, then the FSS and BSS data were considered not biologically different.
18 Table 1-2 Catch by Gear or Gear Efficiency (catch per 1000 m 2 )
19 from August to September 1984 Young of the Year Yearling and Older 1-m 2 Epibenthic 3-m Beam Trawl Sled 3-m Beam Trawl 1-m2 Epibenthic (n = 257) (n = 322) (n = 257) Sled (n = 322)
Mean Standard Mean Standard Mean Standard Mean Standard S~ecies Dens it~ Error Dens it~ Error Dens it~ Error Dens it~ Error Bay Anchovy 29.0 3.0 1261 61.9 0.6 0.1 11.2 1.2 American Shad 0.4 0.1 4.4 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bluefish 0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hogchoker 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 5.4 0.4 1.5 0.2 Striped Bass 13.3 0.8 3.4 0.4 0.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 White Catfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.2 1.0 0.1 White Perch 1.3 0.2 0.1 <0.1 22.1 1.6 6.4 1.3 Weakfish 0.7 0.1 1.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 Source: NYPA 1986.
21 December 201 0 1-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00564
Appendix I 1 I Table 1-3 Changes to the Design and Gear Used During the Fall Juvenile Survey Number Samples per Gear of Epibenthic Tucker Beam Sample Collection 3
Year Volume (m ) Samples Sled Trawl Trawl Dates 1974 728083 1690 100/wk Weekly, Auq-Dec 1975 317749 901 100/wk Biweekly, Auq-Dec 1976 365903 881 100/wk Biweekly, Auq-Dec 1977 368134 826 100/wk Biweekly, Aug-Dec 1978 352420 900 100/wk Biweekly, Aug-Dec 1979 1,006,411 2387 150/wk 50/wk Biweekly, July-Dec 1980 771291 2103 150/wk 50/wk Biweekly, July-Dec 1981 479591 1199 150/wk 50/wk Biweekly, Auq-Oct 1982 400969 1000 150/wk 50/wk Biweekly, Auq-Oct 1983 477057 1199 150/wk 50/wk Biweekly, Aug-Oct 1984 601459 1601 150/wk 50/wk Biweekly, July-Oct 1985 1886754 1802 -500 -1,500 Biweekly, July-Nov 1986 2,298,395 2098 549 1,549 Biweekly, July-Dec 1987 2035472 1891 495 1,396 Biweekly, July-Nov 1988 1826692 1680 440 1,240 Biweekly, July-Oct 1989 1590118 1679 439 1,240 Biweekly, July-Oct 1990 1252994 1680 439 1,241 Biweekly, July-Oct 1991 1707319 1678 440 1,238 Biweekly, July-Oct 1992 1865451 1680 440 1,240 Biweekly, July-Oct 1993 2010222 1680 440 1,240 Biweekly, July-Oct 1994 2018494 1681 440 1,241 Biweekly, July-Oct 1995 1782199 1680 440 1,240 Biweekly, July-Oct 1996 1824802 1669 484 1 '185 Biweekly, July-Oct 1997 1995519 2015 826 1,189 Biweekly, July-Nov 1998 2214707 2130 825 1,305 Biweekly, July-Dec 1999 2160009 2085 823 1,262 Biweekly, July-Dec 2000 2174896 2113 816 1,297 Biweekly, July-Nov 2001 2097877 2084 818 1,266 Biweekly, July-Oct 2002 2105272 2128 821 1,307 Biweekly, July-Dec 2003 1891135 2131 825 1,306 Biweekly, July-Dec 2004 2106874 2128 823 1,305 Biweekly, July-Dec 2005 2063654 2128 824 1,304 Biweekly, July-Dec 2 Note: Compiled from the annual Year Class Reports for the Hudson R1ver Estuary Mon1tonng Program; ASA 1999, 3 2001a, 2001b, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2005-2007; Battelle 1983; ConEd undated a, undated b, 1996; EA 1990, 1995, 4 1991; LMS 1989, 1991, 1996; MMES 1983; Versar 1987; Tl1977-1981; NAI1985a, 1985b, 2007.
5 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-4 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00565
Appendix I 1 There were four basic combinations of sampling intensities, duration, and gear types used 2 during the FSS (Table 1-3). Likewise, there were roughly three levels of sampling intensity used 3 during the BSS (Table 1-4). Thus, for data provided on a weekly basis, only weeks 27 to 43 4 were used in the analysis for the FSS and weeks 22 to 43 for the BSS survey, so that most 5 years contained observations from the months of July through October and June through 6 October for each survey, respectively.
7 Table 1-4 Number of Weeks Sampled Each Month During the BSS Year April May June July August September October November December 1974 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 1975 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 1976 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 2 1977 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 1978 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 1979 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 2 1980 5 4 4 5 4 2 2 2 1 1981 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 0 0 1982 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 1983 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 1984 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 1985 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 1986 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 1987 0 0 1 2 2 3 2 1 0 1988 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 1 0 1989 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 1 0 1990 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 0 0 1991 0 0 1 2 2 3 2 0 0 1992 0 0 1 2 2 3 2 0 0 1993 0 0 0 3 2 2 2 1 0 1994 0 0 0 3 2 2 2 1 0 1995 0 0 1 2 2 3 2 0 0 1996 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 0 0 1997 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 0 0 1998 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 0 0 1999 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 0 0 2000 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 0 0 2001 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 0 0 2002 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 0 0 2003 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 0 0 2004 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 0 0 2005 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 0 0 8 Source: NRC Request for Sampling Effort and Abundance Data from Three Hudson River Sampling Programs for 16 9 Selected Fish Species from 1974 through 2005, Normandeau Associates Inc., February 25, 2008.
December 201 0 1-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00566
Appendix I 1 Metrics Used To Evaluate Population Trends 2 Abundance Index 3 The abundance index for YOY for each species was based on the catch from a selected 4 sampling program and was used by the applicant and its contractors to estimate riverwide mean 5 RIS abundances. The selection process considered the expected location of each species in 6 the river, based on life-history characteristics and the observed catch rates from previous 7 sampling. The abundance index was constructed to account for the stratified random sampling 8 design used by each of the surveys. For the Long River Survey (LRS) and the FSS, sampling 9 within a river segment was further stratified by river depth and sampled with separate gear 10 types. For blueback herring, alewife, bay anchovy, hogchoker, weakfish, and rainbow smelt the 11 YOY abundance index was based on the catch from a single gear type (Table 1-5).
12 The construction of the LRS (LA) and the FSS abundance index (FA) were similar and provided 13 an unbiased estimate of the total and mean riverwide population abundance for selected 14 species, respectively (Cochran 1997). For the FSS and each gear type, FA was constructed as 15 a weighted mean of the average species density with weight given by the volume of each 16 stratum for a given river segment. For the FSS, strata sampled were the channel, bottom, and 17 shoal for a given river segment. Poughkeepsie and West Point river segments had the greatest 18 channel volume, Poughkeepsie and Tappan Zee had the greatest bottom volume, and Tappan 19 Zee had the greatest shoal volume (Table 1-6). Because the river segment associated with IP2 20 and IP3 did not have large bottom or shoal volumes, the abundance index was not sensitive to 21 changes in population trends within the vicinity of IP2 and IP3.
22 Table 1-5 Sampling Program Used To Calculate the Abundance Index for YOY and 23 Yearling Fish and the Median Catch-per-Unit-Effort Over Time Riverwide FSS Median Riverwide BSS YOY Catch-per- Median YOY Catch-Species SamplinQ ProQram Unit-Effort per-Unit-Effort Alewife FSS-Channel 4.35E-04 1.05 Bay Anchovy FSS-Channel 2.61 E-02 6.70 American Shad BSS 8.12E-04 9.17 Bluefish BSS 3.18E-05 3.36E-01 Hogchoker FSS-Bottom 1.03E-02 2.30E-01 Blueback Herrinq FSS-Channel 1.12E-02 2.86E+01 Rainbow Smelt FSS-Channel N/Aa < 0.0001 Spottail Shiner FSS-Channel 1.10E-04 7.25 Stripped Bass BSS 2.47E-03 6.47 Atlantic Tom cod LRS 2.69E-03 6.70E-02 White Catfish BSS N/A 2.50E-02 White Perch BSS 5.89E-03 10.4 Weakfish FSS-Channel N/A 5.00E-03 24 a N/A = not applicable; YOY not present in samples.
25 Source: CHGE 1999.
26 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-6 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00567
Appendix I 1 Table 1-6 Volume of Sampling Strata by River Segment River Volume (m 3) Area (m 2)
Region Segment Channel Bottom Shoal Region Shore Zone Battery 0 141 ,809,822 48.455,129 18.747,833 209,012,784 N/A Yonkers 1 143.452,543 59,312,978 26,654.767 229.420,288 3,389,000 Tappan Zee 2 138,000,768 62,125,705 121 ,684,992 321 ,811.465 20.446,000 Croton-Haverstraw 3 61,309,016 32,517,633 53,910,105 147.736.754 12,101,000 Indian Point 4 162,269.4 71 33.418,632 12,648,163 208,336,266 4,147,000 West Point 5 178,830,022 25,977,862 2,64 7,885 207.455.769 1,186,000 Cornwall 6 94,882,267 36,768,629 8, 140,123 139,791 ,019 4,793,000 Pouqhkeepsie 7 228,975,052 63,168,132 5,990,260 298,133.444 3,193,000 Hyde Park 8 131,165,041 32,012,000 2,307,625 165.484,666 558,000 Kingston 9 93,657,021 35.479,990 12,332,868 141.469,879 3,874,000 Saugerties 10 113,143,296 42,845,077 20,307,338 176,295,711 7,900,000 Catskill 11 83,924,081 42,281,206 34,526.456 160.731.7 43 8,854,000 Albany 12 32,025,080 13,517,183 25,606,842 71 '149, 105 6,114,000 2 N/A- not applicable. Data from Entergy 2007b.
3 Analysis of Population Impacts 4 As discussed in Section H.1.3, the analysis was based on YOY fish to assess the population 5 trends. For the river-segment analysis, the median and the 75th percentile of the densities of 6 YOY caught within a given year in the vicinity of IP2 and IP3 (River Segment 4) were used to 7 bound population trends for a visual representation. The median and 75th percentile are less 8 sensitive to extreme values than the mean. Fish population sizes and the chance of catching 9 fish were highly variable, and a few large catches can influence the mean and potentially distort 10 a trend analysis. For example, the mean density for alewives caught during the FSS in the 11 vicinity of IP2 and IP3 tended to be equal to or greater than the 75th percentile of the density for 12 most years because of the relatively fewer large observations (Figure 1-1). Further, seasonal 13 and interannual differences in the salt front position may influence the pattern of trends in total 14 or mean abundance between river segments. Evaluating the 75th percentile of the weekly data 15 removed the influence from any given week associated with potentially extreme environmental 16 characteristics.
17 River-segment data collected from 1979 to 2005 (n = 27 for each RIS) was standardized by 18 subtracting the first 5-year mean and dividing by the standard deviation based on all years.
19 Because of the large variability between years (coefficients of variation [CVs] ranging from 67 to 20 24 7 percent). a 3-year moving average was used to smooth the river -segment data before the 21 trend analysis. Two competing models, simple linear regression and segmented regression 22 with a single join point. were statistically fit to the smoothed and standardized 75th percentile of 23 the annual observed densities for each taxon. The model with the smallest mean square error 24 (MSE) was chosen as the better fitting model and used to determine the level of potential injury.
25 Extreme outliers (values greater than 2 standard deviations from the mean) were removed from 26 the analysis if the segmented regression was unable to converge; results with and without 27 outliers were recorded. All data (1979-2005) from the FSS were compared to the BSS to 28 determine if changes in the gear type affected the observed trend. When the standardized FSS 29 data were consistently less than the standardized BSS data after 1985 (based on the December 201 0 1-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 00568
Appendix I 1 percentage of FSS observations less than the BSS and the median absolute difference between 2 the FSS and BSS standardized observations). the pre- and post-1985 data were evaluated 3 separately.
4 10 *
- **
- * * * *
- Density* -~~-* [\*iean .*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.* hc1e-dian ********************* 75tf': Pe-rcemiie-5 6 Note: The value 0.001 was added to all numbers so that the log scale could be used for plotting.
7 Figure 1-1 Relationship among the mean, the median, and the 75th percentile of the fish 8 density for alewives caught during the FSS in River Segment 4 9 For the riverwide data collected from 1979 to 2005 (n = 27 for each RISL the FSS CPUE, the 10 BSS CPUE, and the abundance index for the YOY were used to assess the population trends.
11 Riverwide data consisted of a single number per year for a given taxon and life stage. CVs 12 ranged from 60 percent to 154 percent for the FSS, 41 percent to 302 percent for the BSS, and 13 49 percent to 319 percent for the abundance index. Simple linear regression and segmented 14 regression with a single join point were fit to the standardized data (using the first 5-year mean 15 and the standard deviation based on all years). Extreme outliers were removed from the 16 analysis if the segmented regression was unable to converge; results with and without outliers 17 were recorded. The model with the smallest MSE was chosen as the best-fit model and used to 18 determine the level of potential injury. All data (1979-2005) from the FSS were compared to the 19 BSS to determine if changes in the gear type affected the observed trend. When the NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-8 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00569
Appendix I 1 standardized FSS data were consistently less than the standardized BSS data after 1985, NRC 2 staff evaluated the pre- and post-1985 data separately. Consistency of a gear effect was 3 defined as (1) greater than 90 percent of the standardized FSS observations less than the 4 associated BSS observations, and (2) the rejection of the one-sample, one-sided, sign test of 5 the null hypothesis, HO: the median of the absolute difference (FSS-BSS standardized density) 6 is less than or equal to 0.5 (a= 0.1).
7 The FSS density and CPUE for a given RIS can be highly correlated when nearly all of the fish 8 are caught from a single habitat (channel, shoal, or bottom) for the majority of sampling events.
9 For these RIS, the weight-of-evidence (WOE) analysis was conducted both with and without the 10 FSS CPU E results. Because of the slight variation in response between the two measures of 11 population trend, different result scores can occur. However, for all RIS, the final determination 12 of the level of impact associated with the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems was the same by either 13 method. Thus, the correlation between measures was ignored.
14 For each data set the results of the linear and segmented regression were presented in a 15 series of three tables and a figure if a conclusion of potential large impact to any RIS population 16 was made. The first table contained the initial values used in the fitting of the segmented 17 regression which was conducted with Prism Version 4 (GraphPad Software, Inc. 2003). The 18 nonlinear fitting Levenberg-Marquardt (or Marquardt) method was used to estimate the 19 intercept the join point and the two slopes in the segmented regression model. The Marquardt 20 method uses the iterative method of steepest descent in the early iterations and then gradually 21 switches to the Gauss-Newton approach until the difference in the error sum of squares is less 22 than 1x1 o- 7 . The statistics displayed in the second table included the mean squared error 23 (MSE) for each model; the estimate of the linear slope and associated 95 percent confidence 24 interval; the p-value associated with the significance test of the null hypothesis that the slope (S) 25 associated with the simple linear model equals zero; the estimated 95 percent confidence 26 interval (CI) of the two slopes from the segmented regression (Slope 1 =51 and Slope 2=52);
27 and the estimated join point. For the segmented regression, slopes were defined as significant 28 if the Cl did not include zero.
29 30 The best-fit model (defined as the model with the smaller MSE) was then characterized in a 31 third table, based on the general trend depicted by the direction of the estimated slopes. If the 32 slope was significantly different from 0, the trend was represented by either the statementS > 0 33 for a positive slope or S < 0 for a negative slope. If the slope was not significant the statement 34 depicting the lack of a trend was S = 0. A level of potential negative impact was then 35 determined, based on the decision rules presented in Section 4.1 of the Supplemental 36 Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). If a large potential for a negative impact was 37 concluded for any RIS, a figure of the data and the best-fit model was presented.
38 IP2 and IP3 River Segment 4 39 As stated above, there were two different gear types used during the FSS to sample the bottom 40 and shoal habitats. From 1979 to 1984, an epibenthic sled was used, and from 1985 to 2005, a 41 beam trawl was used. Because there were not enough annual observations from the 1979 to 42 1984 time period to conduct a segmented regression, a simple linear regression was conducted 43 to assess the slope of the density of fish near IP2 and IP3. These data were standardized to 44 the average of the first 2 years and divided by the standard deviation of all six observations.
45 Only white perch had a significant negative slope (n = 6, p = 0.01; Figure 1-2). Hogchoker and December 201 0 1-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 00570
Appendix I 1 rainbow smelt appeared to have negative trends, but they were not significant (p= 0.33 and 0.15 2 respectively).
3 1.5 1 '
'\
~
'iii 0.5 \
1:
\
Q)
Cl V')
V')
LL 0
"C -0.5
- White Perch
.
Q)
N
...ca "C -1 - Hogchoker "C --!:::.-- RainbowSmelt 1: ',,,
ca -1.5
..... 'A-------
V')
-2 * * *
-2.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Years of Survey 4
5 Figure 1-2 River Segment 4 population trends based on the first 6 years (1979-1984) of 6 FSS standardized density data for selected RIS 7 Data collected between 1985 and 2005 were temporally disconnected from the mid-1970s, 8 when operation began at IP2 and IP3. There was a potential that fish populations responded 9 earlier and stabilized to a lower abundance level. For this analysis, data were standardized with 10 the average of 1985 to 1989 and the standard deviation of all data between 1985 and 2005; the 11 data were not smoothed. This analysis was used only when the observed response from all 12 data was biologically different from the BSS population density trend and had a decline 13 potentially associated with the gear change.
14 15 A visual and statistical comparison (Table 1-7) of the river-segment FSS standardized density 16 with the BSS standardized density based on the proportion of the FSS observations less than 17 the BSS following the gear change and the sign test of H0 : the median absolute difference:::; 0.5 18 suggested that the trends were not biologically different for American shad (proportion FSS <
19 BSS = 0.47; p = 0.99). Atlantic tomcod (proportion FSS < BSS = 0.26; p = 0.08). blueback 20 herring (proportion FSS < BSS = 0.95; p = 0.68). striped bass (proportion FSS < BSS = 0.32; p 21 = 0.50). and weakfish (proportion FSS < BSS = 0.58; p = 0.97; Figure 1-3). Observations from 22 the two surveys overlap and cross over each other. The post -1985 FSS observations for alewife 23 (proportion FSS < BSS = 0.21; p = 0.32). bluefish (proportion FSS < BSS = 0.00; p = 0.01).
24 hogchoker (proportion FSS < BSS = 0.00; p < 0.01 L and white perch (proportion FSS < BSS =
NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-10 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00571
Appendix I 1 0.00; p < 0.01) were greater than the BSS observations and did not show a decline associated 2 with the gear change relative to the BSS (Figure 1-4). Thus, for these eight RIS, all of the FSS 3 data (1979-2005) were used in the regression analysis. The FSS density data for bay anchovy, 4 however, did show a potential gear effect (proportion FSS < BSS = 1.00; p < 0.01; Figure 1-5).
5 and a pre- and post-1985 analysis was conducted.
6 7 - Eva uat1on o fG ear Effect on FSS P opu Iat1on T a bl e 17 . Tren dsm
. R"1ver s eqment 4 Proportion FSS < BSS Absolute Medan Absolute Difference Significance Difference Taxa of Conclusion 1979-1984 1985-2005 in 1979-1984 1985-2005 Sign Test Proportions Alewife 0.60 0.21 0.39 0.41 0.65 0.324 FSS > BSS American Not Bioi.
0.40 0.47 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.990 Shad Different Atlantic Not Bioi.
0.20 0.26 0.06 0.31 0.71 0.084 Tomcod Different Separate Bay Anchovy 0.40 1.00 0.60 0.43 1.32 0.002 Analysis Blueback Not Bioi.
0.60 0.95 0.35 0.06 0.48 0.676 Herring Different Bluefish 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.25 1.36 0.010 FSS > BSS Hogchoker 0.60 0.00 0.60 0.88 0.92 < 0.001 FSS > BSS Not Bioi.
Striped Bass 0.60 0.32 0.28 0.46 0.52 0.500 Different Not Bioi.
Weakfish 0.40 0.58 0.18 0.29 0.20 0.968 Different White Perch 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.20 1.24 < 0.001 FSS > BSS December 201 0 1-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00572
Appendix I FSS gear change ----1~ FSS gear change 2 2
~ ~
'Vi 'Vi c
s::::
CJ) 1 c
s::::
CJ) 1
"'
Do"'
o"' *"'
iN *Do"' iN OYJ"' ~[]~
- "'"' "'"'"' "' "'"'
0 []Do 0
'6...
C\l
"'[]D"' "' "' ~ "' "'
'6...
C\l
[]
Iii"'***otp
'EC\l
....
-1
- "'"' ~.
[]Iii [][];A[] 'EC\l
....
-1 c:P[] ~[]
V1 V1
-2 "'* "' -2 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
[] Atlantic Tomcod R2-0-BSS
[] American Shad-0-BSS Atlantic Tomcod-0-FSS
"' American Shad-0-FSS "'
FSS gear change FSS gear change 2 2
....>. ....>. []
[] []
"'
- ~
c CJ) 1 "' "' [] *~
c CJ) 1 "' "' rP"'"'[]"'Do "'
"' [][]"' "'~
~
.~
'C 'C ~ [] "'"'"' 0
...
Iii
"'"' ~o *Wo CJ) CJ) 0 0 "'[][][] [] []
- ~
N N
'6... '6...
~
[]
'C C\l
-1
"'*"' "'"'"' "'"'"' 'C C\l
-1
[]
s:::: s::::
C\l C\l ri'i ri'i
-2 -2 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
[] Blueback Herring-0-BSS [] Striped Bass-0-BSS Striped Bass-0-FSS
"' Blueback Herring-0-FSS "'
2 FSS gear change
~ 0
'E C\l "'
[]
'E -1
~
-2+-----JL...-"""'T----T"""-----,
0 10 20 30 Years of Survey D Weakfish R1-6-0-BSS
"' Weakfish-0-FSS 1 Note: All data were used in WOE analysis; R2 = River Segment 2, Yonkers; 1 - R6 = River Segments 1 - 6.
2 Figure 1-3 River Segment 4 population trends based on the BSS and FSS standardized 3 density (D) not considered biologically different I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-12 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00573
Appendix I 2 FSS gear change 2 FSS gear change
>. >.
.'!::
(/)
.'!::
1
...... .........
s::: 1 Cll
... ...
(/)
s:::
Cll ......
... ... ...
D c c 0 ... ...
r;/I~D .........
D
- o. .* ... 11..................
'C Cll N 0 ... ... ~ ...
'C Cll N D D D ~
- .c..__ D :.c..__ -1 D D ca DO"' ca D DO
'C s::: -1 ...... 'C s::: Dorfl [jJ D ca
..... ca -2 VI ~ .....
VI D
-2 -3 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey D Alewife- D- BSS D Bluefish- D- BSS
... Alewife- D- FSS ... Bluefish- D- FSS 2 FSS gear change 2 FSS gear change
>. ...... ... >.
.....
.'!::
(/) 1 DO ......... 'Vi s:::
.........
s:::
c Cll ... ......... c Cll
'C 0
.i..i. D
......... 'C 0 ... ......... ... ......
~
D ........................... Cll N
21!1... .........
- .c..__ -1 D
D D
D :.c
..__ -1 ............r::J:fl. .
DO~ DDrf ca lllllllllll
'111111 ca D
'C 'C s::: -2 s::: -2 ca
..... ca
.....
VI VI
-3 -3 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey D Hogchoker-D-BSS D White Perch-D-BSS
... Hogchoker-D-FSS ... White Perch-D-FSS 1 Note: All data were used in WOE analysis.
2 Figure 1-4 River Segment 4 population trends based on the BSS and FSS standardized 3 density (D) for which the FSS density is greater December 201 0 1-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00574
Appendix I FSS gear change ~
2 c
-
~
(/)
t:
cu 1 .. D r:P D
cPo
't:J cu 0
.. .. DO
.. .... ...... .......... ....
N
....<<J -1
't:J
't:J
......
-
t:
<<J
( /)
-2
-3 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey D Bay Anchovy-0-BSS
.. Bay Anchovy-0-FSS 1 Note: All years were analyzed separately for WOE analysis; R2 = River Segment 2, Yonkers.
2 Figure 1-5 River Segment 4 population trends based on the BSS and FSS standardized 3 density (D) for which the FSS may indicate a gear difference 4
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-14 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00575
Appendix I 1 The following tables are the intermediate analyses for the assessment of population trends 2 associated with fish density sampled from River Segment 4. Results of these river-segment 3 trend analyses are compiled in Table H-14 in Section H.1.3 of the SEIS Appendices. The data 4 used in this analysis, in order of appearance, were the standardized 75 1h percentile of the 5 weekly fish density for a given year collected from the FSS (Table 1-8, Table 1-9, Table 1-10, 6 and Figure 1-6). BSS (Table 1-11, Table 1-12, Table 1-13, and Figure 1-7). and LRS for Atlantic 7 tomcod only (Table 1-14, Table 1-15, Table 1-16, and Figure 8).
8 Two FSS alewife density observations, not extreme outliers, were removed from the regression 9 analysis to allow the segmented regression to converge (Tables 1-9 and 1-1 0). These 10 observations corresponded to the peaks in two sporadic increases. Three FSS white catfish 11 density observations, also not extreme outliers, were removed from the regression analysis to 12 allow the segmented regression to converge. The results of both regression models with the 13 observations removed were considered more conservative and were used for the trend 14 analysis.
15 Table 1-8. Initial Values for the Nonlinear Fit of the Segmented Regression Models 16 Used on FSS Population Trends of YOY Fish Density from River Segment 4 17 Taxa Intercept Slope 1 Join Point Slope 2 Alewife (2 values removed) -0.04 -0.20 1990 0.02 American Shad (All data) 0.20 -0.06 1997 -0.10 Atlantic Tom cod (All data) 0.40 -0.01 1990 -0.08 Bay Anchovy (1985-2005) -1.00 0.10 1990 -0.10 Blueback Herring (All data) 0.50 -0.08 1990 -0.02 Bluefish (All data) 0.30 -0.09 1996 -0.01 Hogchoker (All data) 0.03 0.05 1989 -0.10 Rainbow Smelt (1979-1997) 0.00 0.30 1991 -0.30 Striped Bass (All data) -0.08 0.07 1990 0.00 Weakfish (All data) 0.40 -0.08 1990 -0.02 White Catfish (3 values removed) -0.20 0.08 1986 0.10 White Perch (All data) 1.00 -0.07 1982 0.00 18 December 201 0 1-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00576
Appendix I 1 Table 1-9. Competing Models Used To Characterize the Standardized River Segment 4 2 FSS Population Trends of YOY Fish Density Using a 3-Year Moving Average Linear Reqression Seqmented Reqression 95 percent Cl Join 95 percent Cl Species MSE Slope p-value MSE Slope 1 Point Slope 2 Alewife (All data) 0.58 -0.035 +/- 0.016 0.040 Did Not ConverCJe Alewife (2 values -3.93e+008 to removed) 0.47 -0.041 +/- 0.014 0.007 0.50 -0.070 to -0.007 2004 3.93e+008 American Shad (All data) 0.35 -0.079 + 0.010 < 0.001 0.36 -0.106 to -0.031 1997 -0.226 to 0.008 Atlantic Tom cod (All data) 0.49 -0.040 + 0.014 0.007 0.49 -0.510 to 0.691 1983 -0.085 to -0.012 Bay Anchovy 1979-1984 1.10 -0.102 +/- 0.262 0.716 Not Fit Bay Anchovy 1985-2005 0.96 -0.058 +/- 0.035 0.113 0.91 -0.170 to 0.481 1992 -0.287 to -0.004 Blueback Herring (All data) 0.49 -0.055 +/- 0.014 0.001 0.51 -0.154 to 0.002 1992 -0.120 to 0.056 Bluefish (All data) 0.52 -0.019 +/- 0.014 0.194 0.54 -0.081 to 0.039 1996 -0.178 to 0.153 Hogchoker (All data) 0.58 -0.034 +/- 0.016 0.047 0.43 0.038 to 0.268 1988 -0.150 to -0.053 Rainbow Smelt (All data) 0.58 0.012 + 0.029 0.67 0.51 -0.018 to 0.142 1993 -1.05 to 0.260 Striped Bass (All data) 0.46 0.034 +/- 0.013 0.013 0.44 -0.014 to 0.241 1988 -0.045 to 0.053 Weakfish (All data) 0.56 -0.047 + 0.016 0.006 0.52 -0.243 to -0.038 1990 -0.062 to 0.081 White Catfish (All data) 0.57 0.014 +/- 0.016 0.37 Did Not ConverCJe White Catfish (3 values removed) 0.10 0.007 +/- 0.003 0.030 0.10 -0.025 to 0.070 1986 -0.006 to 0.013 White Perch (All data) 0.62 -0.014 + 0.017 0.413 0.63 -2.43 to 1.27 1981 -0.047 to 0.035 3 Cl =confidence Interval.
4 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-16 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00577
Appendix I 1 Table 1-10 River Segment 4 Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative Impact Based 2 on the Standardized FSS Density Using a 3-Year Moving Average Level of Best General Potential Species Fit Trend Negative Impact Alewife LR 5<0 4
{All data)
{2 values LR 5<0 4 removed)
American Shad LR 5<0 4 Atlantic Tomcod LR 5<0 4 Bay Anchovy LR 5=0 1979-1984 4
Bay Anchovy 51 = 0 SR 1985-2005 52< 0 Blueback Herring LR 5<0 4 Bluefish LR 5=0 1 51 > 0 Hogchoker SR 4 52< 0 51 = 0 Rainbow Smelt SR 1 52= 0 51 = 0 Striped Bass SR 1 52= 0 51 < 0 Weakfish SR 4 52= 0 White Catfish LR 5=0 1
{All data)
White Catfish
{3 values LR 5>0 1 removed)
White Perch LR 5=0 1 3 LR = L1near Regression; SR = Segmented Regression.
December 201 0 1-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00578
Appendix I 0 2 0 * *
.~ *~ 0 *~ 1 iii"' 0 1:
Q) 1:
Q) c c c 0 0-1 0 0 "C
"E "E
~ -1 M M
~ -2 ~ -1
(/)
~
-2:+-------~------r------, -3:+-------~------r------, -2 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey Years of Survey
- Alewife o Outlier
- American Shad
- Atlantic Tomcod 3 2 2
' *** ::-
- ~
- - 2 \ I
'iii 1:
~... 1:
1 'iii 1 1:
Q) Q) Q) c c c 0 0 0 0 0 0 "C "C "C
~ -1 ~ ~
(/)
~ -1 ~ -1
~ -2 "- "-
-3+----L--r-------....--------. -2:+-------~------r------, -2 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 Years of Survey Years of Survey Years of Survey
- Bay Anchovy 79-84 "' Bay Anchovy 89-05
- Blueback Herring
- Hogchoker 2
- Weakfish
- ~ '
c 1:
Q) 1 ' ',.,.
0 "C
~
~ -1
"-
0
- .~, ....
',----
_____ _. .-
.......
-2:+-------~------r------,
0 10 20 30 Years of Survey 1 Figure 1-6 River Segment 4 population trends based on the FSS standardized density 2 assigned a large level of potential negative impact 3
NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-18 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00579
Appendix I 1 Table 1-11. Initial Values for the Nonlinear Fit of the Segmented Regression Models Used 2 on BSS Population Trends of YOY Fish Density from River Segment 4 3
Taxa Intercept Slope 1 Join Point Slope 2 Alewife -0.04 -0.20 1990 0.02 American Shad 0.20 -0.04 1992 -0.07 Bay Anchovy 0.04 -0.06 1997 -0.11 Blueback Herring 0.50 0.07 1990 -0.08 Bluefish 0.30 -0.09 1996 -0.01 Hogchoker 0.03 0.05 1989 -0.10 Spottail shiner 1.30 -0.80 1982 0.00 Striped Bass 0.18 -0.04 1984 0.04 White Perch 0.30 -0.12 1991 -0.05 4 Table 1-12 Competing Models Used To Characterize the Standardized River Segment 4 5 BSS Population Trends of YOY Fish Density Using a 3-Year Moving Average Linear Regression Segmented Regression 95 percent Cl Join 95 percent Cl Species MSE Slope p-value MSE Slope 1 Point Slope 2 Alewife 0.57 -0.030 +/- 0.016 0.065 0.39 -0.459 to -0.156 1986 -0.010 to 0.063 American Shad 0.35 -0.069 + 0.010 < 0.001 0.34 -0.724 to 0.270 1983 -0.083 to -0.036 Bay Anchovy 0.44 0.056 +/- 0.012 0.000 0.39 -0.095 to 0.058 1991 0.055 to 0.161 Blueback HerrinCJ 0.53 -0.024 +/- 0.015 0.120 0.42 -0.005 to 0.100 1994 -0.235 to -0.042 Bluefish 0.58 -0.038 +/- 0.016 0.027 0.48 -0.146 to -0.047 1996 -0.021 to 0.287 HoCJchoker 0.52 -0.059 +/- 0.014 < 0.001 0.40 -0.250 to -0.092 1991 -0.034 to 0.076 Spottail Shiner 0.43 -0.017 + 0.012 0.176 0.35 -0.469 to -0.004 1985 -0.014 to 0.043 Striped Bass 0.42 0.040 + 0.012 0.002 0.43 -0.287 to 0.221 1985 0.013 to 0.087 White Perch 0.61 -0.062 +/- 0.017 0.001 0.40 -0.24 7 to -0.122 1992 -0.007 to 0.133 December 201 0 1-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00580
Appendix I 1 Table 1-13 River Segment 4 Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative Impact Based 2 on the Standardized BSS Density Using a 3-Year Moving Average Species Best Fit General Trend Final Decision 51 < 0 Alewife SR 52= 0 4 51 = 0 American Shad SR 52< 0 4 51 = 0 Bay Anchovy SR 52> 0 1 51 = 0 Blueback Herrinq SR 52< 0 4 51 < 0 Bluefish SR 52= 0 4 51 < 0 Hoqchoker SR 52= 0 4 51 < 0 Spottail Shiner SR 52= 0 4 Striped Bass LR 5>0 1 51 < 0 White Perch SR 52= 0 4 3 LR = L1near Regression; SR = Segmented Regression.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-20 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00581
Appendix I 2
Z>
.,_.,..
I I I
'iii
~
!:
I I
- .............. **. _._.
-- .
0 0 0 "C
- I
\~*--*-
',
......
-**- ---- .*.
.!;;
II Ill -1 'I Ill \
c:l -- -
-2 -2+------,----"'T""-----,
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
- American Shad 2
Z>
'iii
_.,
- Z>
'iii 0
~
!: !:
~ ~
0 0
- 0 -1
'E M
-* 'E M
Ill -1 ' Ill -2 Ill c:l
Ill c:l
-2+------,----"'T""----, -3+------,----"'T""----,
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
- Blueback Herring
- Bluefish Z>
'iii
!:
Q) 0 Cl 0
"C I **
- ---
.!;; -1 1_--- ...... -------
Ill Ill c:l
-2
' \ \~
--- -2+--......;'----,----"'T""----,
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
- Hogchoker
- Spottail Shiner Z>
- ~ 0
~
0 -1 "C
.!;;
Ill -2
~
-3+------,----"'T""------,
0 10 20 30 Years of Survey
- White Perch 1 Figure 1-7 River Segment 4 population trends based on the BSS standardized density 2 assigned a large level of potential negative impact December 201 0 1-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 00582
Appendix I 1 Table 1-14. Initial Values for the Nonlinear Fit of the Segmented Regression Models 2 Used on LRS Population Trends of YOY Fish Density from River Segment 4 3
Taxa Intercept Slope 1 Join Point Slope 2 Atlantic Tom cod 0.20 -0.50 1989 0.50 4 Table 1-15 Competing Models Used To Characterize the Standardized River Segment 4 5 LRS Population Trends of YOY Atlantic Tomcod Density Using a 3-Year Moving Average Linear Reqression Seqmented Reqression 95 percent Cl Join 95 percent Cl Species MSE Slope p-value MSE Slope 1 Point Slope 2 Atlantic Tom cod 0.53 -0.07 4 + 0.015 < 0.001 0.49 -0.187 to -0.067 1982 -0.098 to 0.124 6 Table 1-16 River Segment 4 Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative Impact Based 7 on the Standardized LRS Atlantic Tomcod YOY Density Using a 3-Year Moving Average Level of Potential General Negative Species Best Fit Trend Impact 51 < 0 Atlantic Tomcod SR 52= 0 4 8 SR =Segmented Regression.
9 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-22 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00583
Appendix I 1
2
- Atlantic tomcod
,--- ....
-2~--------~--------~--------~
0 10 20 30 Years of Survey 2
3 Figure 1-8. River Segment 4 population trends based on the LRS standardized density 4 assigned a large level of potential negative impact 5 A visual and statistical comparison of the river-segment FSS standardized CPUE with the BSS 6 standardized density (Table 1-17) suggested that the trends for alewife, American shad, 7 Atlantic tomcod, bluefish, striped bass, and weakfish were not biologically different (Figure 1-9).
8 Observations from both surveys overlap and cross over each other. The post-1985 FSS CPU E 9 observations for hogchoker and white perch were greater than the BSS observations and did 10 not show a decline associated with the gear change (Figure 1-1 0). Thus, for these RIS, all of the 11 FSS CPU E data (1979-2005) were used in the regression analysis. The FSS density data for 12 bay anchovy and blueback herring, however, did show a potential gear effect (Figure 1-11 L and 13 a pre- and post-1985 analysis was conducted.
14 15 Table 1-17. Evaluatiqn of Gear Effect on FSS CPUE Population Trends in River Segment 4 Proportion FSS < BSS Absolute Medan Absolute Difference Significance Difference Taxa of Conclusion 1979-1984 1985-2005 in 1979-1984 1985-2005 Sign Test Proportions Alewife 0.50 0.90 0.40 0.69 0.46 0.808 Not Bioi. Different American Shad 0.33 0.86 0.52 0.32 0.82 0.013 Not Bioi. Different Atlantic Tomcod 0.33 0.24 0.10 1.02 0.64 0.332 Not Bioi. Different Bay Anchovy 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.07 2.21 < 0.001 Separate Analysis Blueback Herring 0.67 0.95 0.29 0.61 1.25 < 0.001 Separate Analysis Bluefish 0.67 0.71 0.05 0.81 0.53 0.332 Not Bioi. Different Hogchoker 0.33 0.00 0.33 1.22 1.11 < 0.001 FSS > BSS Striped Bass 0.50 0.52 0.02 1.23 1.28 0.004 Not Bioi. Different Weakfish 0.50 0.62 0.12 0.66 0.36 0.668 Not Bioi. Different White Perch 0.33 0.10 0.24 0.52 0.94 0.013 FSS > BSS 16 December 201 0 1-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 00584
Appendix I LLI LLI
- c. c.
(,) (,)
...0 D
...0 JJ.D
...
>>
'iii D D
...
>>
'iii JJ.
1: 1: D Q) 0 D Q) 0 D c D D JJ. c "C "C o. Iii Q) Q) JJ. D
~*D N D N D
... -1 D
'6 (ll l!.JJ.
Iii JJ.D
... -1
'6 (ll Do 1!!1 JJ.
D D Do "C D ~ "C JJ. D 1: JJ. 1: JJ. JJ.D D .oDo (ll -2 (ll -2 ci) 0 10 20 30 ci) 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey D Alewife-D-BSS D American Shad-D- BSS JJ. Alewife- C- FSS JJ. American Shad-C-FSS LLI FSS gear change LLI
- l 2 :::l FSS gear change
- c. 2
(,) D c.
(,) D
...0 JJ. ...0 oo
...>>
'iii JJ.
D JJ.
JJ.
JJ. ...>>
'iii o* DO D
1: JJ.
JJ. 0 Q) JJ. JJ.
1:
Q)
D c 0 JJ.
D c D!i D "C JJ. JJ.
~ 1M JJ.Ji. JJ.D JJ. JJ.
"C -1 JJ.
oD 1!!1 DO Q)
N 1!!!1 Ji.D JJ.JJ.D 11. DJJ.
Q)
N DJJ. JJ. Ji.D
'6 -1 D JJ.JJ.rfi JJ. JJ. JJ. Iii JJ.DJJ.JJ.
...
(ll Do 0 00 D D Doo D '6
...(ll -2 JJ. Iii JJ.D **
"C "C DO 1: 1:
(ll -2 (ll -3 ci) 0 10 20 30 ci) 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey D Atlantic tomcod R2-D-BSS D Bluefish-D-BSS JJ. Atlantic Tomcod-C-FSS JJ. Bluefish-C-FSS LLI LLI
- c. JJ. (,)
D
(,) D
...0 JJ. D D o* D ...0 JJ.
...>>
'iii ~ liiDJJ.
D D JJ. JJ. ...>>
'iii D JJ.
JJ.
1: D .o D 1: D D D D c
Q) 0 ** D D JJ. .o* c Q) 0 JJ.D "C
Q) JJ.
JJ. D o** D ** D JJ.
Iii "C
Q) JJ.
D JJ.
D *IM JJ. JJ.
D N N
... -1 D
'6 ... -1
'6 JJ.
~ JJ. *iiiJ M ~ o*.~
(ll D (ll "C "C 1: 1:
...
(ll
(/)
-2 0 10 20 30 (ll ci)
-2 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey D Striped Bass-D-BSS D Weakfish R1-6-D-BSS JJ. Striped Bass-C-FSS JJ. Weakfish-C- FSS 1 Note: All data were used in WOE analysis; R2 = River Segment 2 and R1-6 = River Segments 1-6.
2 Figure 1-9. River Segment 4 population trends based on the FSS standardized CPUE (C) 3 and BSS density (D) not considered biologically different I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-24 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00585
Appendix I L&J FSS gear change ----1-~
=>
a.
2
(.)
5 1
- >,
tJ)
!:
Cl>
D .&.
c
'C -1 1111111111111 DO DO
~
'Eca -2
'C
!:
s
(/)
-3~----~--~---------r--------~
0 10 20 30 Years of Survey D Hogchoker-0-BSS
.&. Hogchoker-C-FSS L&J FSS gear change *
=>
- a. 3 ...
(.)
.... 2 0
->,
tJ)
!:
Cl>
1 D
... D c ...D
'C Cl>
N
-1 ...
'C
.... -2 ca
'C
-
!:
ca -3
( /) 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey D White Perch-0-BSS
.&. White Perch-C-FSS 1 Note: All data were used in WOE analysis.
2 Figure 1-10. River Segment 4 population trends based on the FSS standardized CPUE (C) 3 and BSS density (D) for which the FSS density is greater.
December 201 0 1-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00586
Appendix I L&J
- > 2 FSS gear change
- a.
(..)
...0 1 D
....>'I
'iii 0
!:
tU c
'0 -1 tU N ...
'0
...ro -2
'0
!:
....ro -3
(/) 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey D Bay Anchovy-0-BSS
.&. Bay Anchovy-C-FSS L&J
- > 2 a.
(..)
FSS gear change
...0 D D 1
....
>'I D D
'iii D Do
!:
c tU r:P D
'0 tU J D D D
... cftt:n Do N ...
'0
...ro ... ... ...
'0
!:
... ......... ... ......... ...... ... ..................
....ro -2
(/) 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey D Blueback Herring-0-BSS
.&. Blueback Herring-C-FSS 1 Note: Years were analyzed separately for WOE analysis.
2 Figure 1-11. River Segment 4 population trends based on the FSS standardized CPUE (C) 3 and BSS density (D) for which the FSS may indicate a gear difference I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-26 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00587
Appendix I 1 The following tables were the intermediate analyses for the assessment of population trends 2 associated with fish CPUE sampled from River Segment 4 (Indian Point). Results of these 3 river-segment trend analyses were compiled in Table H-13 in Section H.1.3 of the SEIS. The 4 data used in this analysis (from Entergy 2007). in order of appearance, were the standardized 5 7 51h percentile of the weekly fish CPU E for a given year collected from the FSS (Table 1-18, 6 Table 1-19, Table 1-20, and Figure 1-12) and LRS for Atlantic tomcod only (Table 1-21, Table 1-22 7 and Table 1-23). The Atlantic tomcod population trend observed with the LRS CPUE data was 8 analyzed both before and after the gear change using a 3-year moving average. The data 9 were standardized first and then smoothed.
10 Table l-181nitial Values for the Nonlinear Fit of the Segmented Regression Models 11 Used in FSS Population Trends of YOY Fish CPUE from River Segment 4 12 Taxa Intercept Slope 1 Join Point Slope 2 Alewife -0.04 -0.20 1990 0.02 American Shad 0.20 -0.50 1986 0.00 Atlantic Tom cod 0.40 0.06 1988 0.00 (All data)
Bay Anchovy 0.04 -0.50 1990 0.00 (1985-2005)
Bluefish 0.30 -0.09 1996 -0.01 Hog choker
-0.17 0.08 1987 -0.05 (All data)
Hog choker 0.03 0.05 1989 -0.10 (2 values removed)
Rainbow Smelt 1.00 -0.80 1982 0.00 Striped Bass -0.08 0.07 1990 0.00 Weakfish 0.40 -0.08 1990 -0.02 (All data)
Weakfish 0.40 -0.08 1990 -0.02 (2 values removed)
White Perch 2.00 -1.00 1981 -0.01 (All data)
White Perch 1.00 0.00 1982 0.00 (1 value removed) 13 December 201 0 1-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00588
Appendix I 1 Table 1-19 Competing Models Used To Characterize the Standardized River Segment 4, 2 FSS Population Trends of YOY Fish CPUE Linear Regression Segmented Regression Species 95 percent Cl Join 95 percent Cl MSE Slope p-value MSE Slope 1 Point Slope 2 Alewife 0.92 -0.055 +/- 0.023 0.022 0.79 -0.839 to -0.058 1984 -0.058 to 0.060 American Shad 0.76 -0.085 +/- 0.019 < 0.001 0.57 -0.717 to -0.159 1985 -0.067 to 0.018 Atlantic Tomcod 0.95 -0.046 +/- 0.024 0.063 0.99 -6.78 to 6.63 1980 -0.102 to 0.012 (All data)
Atlantic Tomcod 0.66 -0.028 +/- 0.017 0.106 Did Not Converge (1 value removed)
Bay Anchovy 0.80 -0.373 +/- 0.191 0.123 Not Fit 1979-1984 Bay Anchovy 1.00 0.034 +/- 0.036 0.360 0.96 -0.022 to 0.248 1999 -0.596 to 0.172 1985-2005 Blueback Herring 1.11 -0.059 +/- 0.266 0.835 Not Fit 1979-1984 Blueback Herring 0.38 -0.022 +/- 0.015 0.152 Did Not Converge 1985-2005 Bluefish 0.84 -0.072 +/- 0.021 0.002 0.82 -0.374 to -0.002 1988 -0.106 to 0.061 Hogchoker 1.00 -0.025 +/- 0.025 0.332 0.92 -0.101 to 0.368 1988 -0.184 to 0.000 (All data)
Hogchoker 0.47 -0.021 +/- 0.012 0.087 0.44 -0.049 to 0.211 1987 -0.097 to -0.008 (2 values removed)
Rainbow Smelt 0.89 -0.062 +/- 0.022 0.009 0.45 -4.95 to -2.33 1980 -0.049 to 0.002 Striped Bass 1.01 -0.013 +/- 0.025 0.599 1.00 -0.089 to 0.178 1993 -0.259 to 0.076 White Perch 0.95 -0.047 +/- 0.023 0.055 0.87 -3.97 to 1.12 1981 -0.071 to 0.029 (All data)
White Perch 0.72 -0.039 +/- 0.018 0.038 0.51 -2.02 to -0.538 1981 -0.037 to 0.026 (1 value removed)
Weakfish 0.98 -0.036 +/- 0.024 0.152 0.97 -0.282 to 0.045 1991 -0.098 to 0.159 (All data)
Weakfish 0.52 -0.003 +/- 0.014 0.842 0.50 -0.162 to 0.033 1990 -0.026 to 0.095 (2 values removed) 3 Two extreme outliers (both values greater than 3 standard deviations from the mean) were 4 removed from the FSS hogchoker CPUE regression analysis because of their influence on the 5 regression (Tables 1-19 and 1-20). One extreme outlier (value greater than 3 standard 6 deviations from the mean) was removed from the FSS Atlantic tom cod CPU E regression 7 analysis, and one extreme outlier (value greater than 2 standard deviations from the mean) was 8 removed from the FSS white perch CPU E regression analysis. These extreme outliers had a 9 great influence on the regression results. One value (not an extreme outlier) and one extreme 10 outlier (greater than 3 standard deviations from the mean) were removed from the FSS weakfish 11 CPU E regression analysis because of the influence these data had on the regression results.
12 The results of the regression models with the observations removed were more conservative 13 and were used for the trend analysis.
14 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-28 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00589
Appendix I 1 Table 1-20 River Segment 4 Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative Impact 2 Based on the Standardized FSS CPUE Level of Gener Best Potential Species al Fit Negative Trend Impact 51 < 0 Alewife SR 4 52= 0 51 < 0 American Shad SR 4 52= 0 Atlantic Tomcod LR 5=0 1
{All data)
Atlantic Tomcod LR 5=0 1
{1 value removed)
Bay Anchovy LR 5=0 1979-1984 1
Bay Anchovy 51 = 0 SR 1985-2005 52= 0 Blueback Herring LR 5=0 1979-1984 1
Blueback Herring LR 5=0 1985-2005 51 < 0 Bluefish SR 4 52= 0 51 = 0 Hogchoker {All data) SR 1 52= 0 Hogchoker 51 = 0 SR 4
{2 values removed) 52< 0 51 < 0 Rainbow Smelt SR 4 52= 0 51 = 0 Striped Bass SR 1 52= 0 51 = 0 Weakfish {All data) SR 1 52= 0 Weakfish 51 = 0 SR 1
{2 values removed) 52= 0 51 = 0 White Perch {All data) SR 1 52= 0 White Perch 51 < 0 SR 4
{1 value removed) 52= 0 3 LR = L1near Regression; SR = Segmented Regression.
December 201 0 1-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00590
Appendix I 3 2
- LLJ
- J c..
u 2 LLJ
- J c..
u
- \
\
'
0 0 0
'
...
"C M
0
...
"C M -1
- Vl -1 Vl Vl Vl LL.
-2 LL. -2
-3 -3 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
- American Shad 3 4 LLJ 2
- 3 0 0
LLJ
- J :::J c.. c.. 2 u
0 0
- u 0
M
...
"C
...
"C M
-2 -1
-3 -2 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
- Bluefish
- Hog choker 0 Outlier 3
5.0 0 LLJ 2 LLJ :::J
- J c..
c.. 2.5 u u
0 0
...
"C 0
- ..... , . . . _ * * *
...
........... .
"C M
__.__*
M 0.0 Vl --*---------
Vl Vl Vl LL. -1 *_ ------11 LL.
-2.5
- ---
10 20
30
-2~--------,---------~--------,
0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
- Rainbow Smelt
- White Perch o Outlier 1 Figure 1-12 River Segment 4 population trends based on the FSS standardized CPUE 2 assigned a large level of potential negative impact I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-30 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00591
Appendix I 1 Table 1-21. Initial Values for the Nonlinear Fit of the Segmented Regression Models 2 Used on LRS Population Trends of YOY Fish CPUE from River Segment 4 3
Taxa Intercept Slope 1 Join Point Slope 2 Atlantic Tom cod 0.30 -0.02 1999 0.10 (1985-2005) 4 Table 1-22. Competing Models Used To Characterize the Standardized River Segment 4 5 LRS Population Trends of YOY Atlantic Tomcod CPUE Using a 3-Year Moving Average Linear Regression Segmented Regression Species 95 percent Cl I Join I 95 percent Cl MSE Slope p-value MSE I Slope 1 Point Slope 2 Atlantic Tom cod 0.31 0.494 +/- 0.074 0.003 Not Fit (1979-1984)
Atlantic Tom cod 0.57 -0.069 +/- 0.022 0.006 0.28 1-0.873 to -0.3381 1989 1-0.031 to 0.034 (1985-2005) 6 Table 1-23. River Segment 4 Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative Impact Based 7 on the Standardized LRS Atlantic Tomcod YOY CPUE Using a 3-Year Moving Average Best General Level of Potential Species Fit Trend Negative Impact Atlantic Tom cod LR 5>0 (1979-1984) 4 Atlantic Tom cod 51 < 0 SR (1985-2005) 52= 0 8 LR = L1near Regression; SR =Segmented Regression.
9 The results of the two measurement metrics-density (estimated number of RIS per given 10 volume of water provided by the applicant) and CPU E (number of RIS captured by the sampler 11 for a given volume of water derived by the NRC staff) were combined for the assessment of 12 population impacts potentially associated with the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems. Table 1-25 13 presents the numeric results compiled from Tables 1-8, 1-10, 1-12, 1-14, and 1-16 above and used 14 to derive Table H-14 in Section H.3 in the SEIS Appendices.
December 201 0 1-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00592
Appendix I 4 Gear Change
- UJ
- >
Q.
3
'0(.)
c>>V)
.!::! ~
'C...J 2
....
ca c>>
'0::
I: ... 1 ca .._
..., ca V) ::::s 0 0
'C
....
M
-1 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey
- Atlantic tomcod 79-84 T Atlantic tomcod 85-05 1
2 Figure 1-13. River Segment 4 population trends based on the LRS standardized CPUE 3 assigned a large level of potential negative impact 4
5 Table 1-24. Assessment of Population Impacts for IP2 and IP3 River Segment 4 Density CPUE River-Species Segment FSS BSS LRS FSS LRS Assessment Alewife 4 4 N/A" 4 N/A 4.0 American Shad 4 4 N/A 4 N/A 4.0 Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown Menhaden Atlantic Sturgeon N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown Atlantic Tomcod 4 N/A 4 1 4 3.3 Bay Anchovy 4 1 N/A 1 N/A 2.0 Blueback Herrinq 4 4 N/A 1 N/A 3.0 Bluefish 1 4 N/A 4 N/A 3.0 Gizzard Shad N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown Hoqchoker 4 4 N/A 4 N/A 4.0 Rainbow Smelt 1 N/A N/A 4 N/A 2.5 Shortnose N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown Sturqeon Spottail Shiner N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 4.0 Striped Bass 1 1 N/A 1 N/A 1.0 Weakfish 4 N/A N/A 1 N/A 2.5 White Catfish 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.0 White Perch 1 4 N/A 4 N/A 3.0 Blue Crab N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-32 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00593
Appendix I 1 (a) N/A: not applicable; YOY not present in samples 2
December 201 0 1-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00594
Appendix I 1 Lower Hudson River 2 A visual and statistical comparison of the riverwide FSS standardized CPUE with the BSS 3 standardized CPUE (Table 1-25) suggested that the trends were not biologically different for 4 hogchoker, spottail shiner, and striped bass (Figure 1-14). Observations from both surveys 5 overlap and cross over each other. The post-1985 FSS observations for Atlantic tomcod and 6 white perch were greater than the BSS observations and did not show a decline associated with 7 the gear change (Figure 1-15). For these RIS, all of the FSS data (1979-2005) were used in the 8 regression analysis. The FSS density data for alewife, American shad, bay anchovy, blueback 9 herring, and bluefish, however, did show a potential gear effect (Figure 1-16). and a pre- and 10 post-1985 analysis was conducted.
11 12 T a bl e I-25 Eva uat1on o fG ear Effect on FSS CPUE R"1verw1"d e p opu Iat1on . Tren d s Proportion FSS < BSS Absolute Medan Absolute Difference Significance Difference Taxa of Conclusion 1979-1984 1985-2005 in 1979-1984 1985-2005 Sign Test Proportions Alewife 0.67 1.00 0.33 0.68 1.47 < 0.001 Separate Analysis American Shad 0.33 1.00 0.67 1.17 1.60 < 0.001 Separate Analysis Atlantic Tomcod 0.33 0.00 0.33 1.18 1.36 < 0.001 FSS > BSS Bay Anchovy 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.04 0.78 < 0.001 Separate Analysis Blueback Herring 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.86 0.66 < 0.001 Separate Analysis Bluefish 0.33 1.00 0.67 0.89 1.28 < 0.001 Separate Analysis Hogchoker 0.50 0.29 0.21 0.61 0.78 < 0.001 Not Bioi. Different Spottail Shiner 0.50 0.38 0.12 0.28 0.85 0.013 Not Bioi. Different Striped Bass 0.50 0.43 0.07 0.91 0.79 0.039 Not Bioi. Different White Perch 0.33 0.19 0.14 1.33 0.81 0.039 FSS > BSS 13 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-34 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00595
Appendix I FSS gear change ----1~ FSS gear change 4 4 LLJ 3 LLJ 3
- J :::J D c.. c..
(.) 2 (.) 2 "' D
"'
"' D"'
'C 'C
~ 1 Q)
N 1
'I "'
- c... ::c...
"'
-"D D ooD "'
~ 0 s:::
('C
'C s:::
0 Iii "' "'"'
DoDD-"
('C ci) -1
('C ci) -1 'I ~ D -"l!!!l D-"
"'"' "' "'
-2~----~--~--------~------~ -2~----~--~--------~------~
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey D Hogchoker-BSS D Spottail Shiner-BSS
"' Hogchoker-FSS "' Spottail Shiner-FSS FSS gear change ----1~
5 LLJ 4
- J c..
(.)
3 D D D
'C
~ 2
~ 1
('C
-g 0
('C ci) -1
-2+---.L....---,r-----"""T"------,
0 10 20 30 Years of Survey D Striped Bass- BSS
"' Striped Bass-FSS 1 Note: All data were used in WOE analysis.
2 Figure 1-14. Riverwide population trends based on the FSS and BSS standardized CPUE 3 not considered biologically different December 201 0 1-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00596
Appendix I 5
FSS gear change
- UJ 4 ...
=>
a..
(.) 3
'0 Q) 2 ...
N
- 0
... 1 ... ...... ...
Ill
'0 ... 1M
... ... ...... ...
1: 0 *o.._ ......
....Ill ... ... ...... ... ...
D ...
(/) -1 DD ~* tflo
-2 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey D Atlantic Tomcod-BSS
... Atlantic Tomcod-FSS 2
FSS gear change
- UJ .._o D ......... ...
1
=>
a..
(.) 0
... D
.._o
'0 Q)
N
... ... D . _ ...
- 0
-1 D Do o*Do'l.._ ...... 1M o* ...
...
Ill D D .._.._ .._0.._ 5:1
'0 -2 1:
....
Ill DDoo
(/) -3 D
-4 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey D White Perch-BSS
... White Perch-FSS 1 Note: All data were used in WOE analysis.
2 Figure 1-15. Riverwide population trends based on the FSS and BSS standardized CPUE 3 for which the FSS density is greater I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-36 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00597
Appendix I 3 FSS gear change ----1~ 3 FSS gear change D
~ 2 D ~ 2 D
- c. c. D u u "C "C J.D II D Do D D i!:l 0 i!:l 0 D oD
'6 '6 D D D
~ -1 ~ -1 s::: s:::
ctl ctl ci) -2 ci) -2
-3+--------r----T"""----, -3+--------r----T"""---...,
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey D Alewife-BSS o American Shad-BSS J. Alewife-FSS
2 D 3 D
LLJ
- J ~ 2
- c. Do c. J. D u u
~ D 0 ~ J.
N D D N 0
'6 D Do '6 1M
- -1 "C ~ -1 J. J.
s::: s:::
!:! -2 ctl ci) -2 V1
-3+--------r----T"""---..., -3+--------r----T"""---...,
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey D Bay Anchovy-BSS D Blueback Herring-BSS
- Bay Anchovy-FSS J. Blueback Herring-FSS FSS gear change ----1~
5 LLJ 4 D
~ 3 u
"C 2 i!:l
~ctl 0 "C
Iii -1 ci) -2
-3+--------r----T"""----,
0 10 20 30 Years of Survey D Bluefish-BSS J. Bluefish-FSS 1 Note: Years were analyzed separately for WOE analysis.
2 Figure 1-16. Riverwide population trends based on the FSS and BSS standardized CPUE 3 for which the FSS may indicate a gear difference December 201 0 1-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00598
Appendix I 1 The following tables are the intermediate analyses for the riverwide assessment of population 2 trends associated with annual fish CPU E and the abundance index. Results of these riverwide 3 trend analyses are compiled in Table H-15 in Section H.1.3 of the SEIS Appendices. The data 4 used in this analysis, in order of appearance, were the standardized annual fish CPUE for a 5 given year collected from the FSS (Table 1-26, Table 1-2718, Table 1-28, and Figure 1-17). BSS 6 (Table 1-29, Table 1-30, Table 1-31, and Figure 1-18). LRS for Atlantic tomcod only (Table 1-32, 7 Table 1-33 and Table 1-34). and the annual fish abundance index (Table 1-35, Table 1-36, Table 8 1-37, and Figure 1-19).
9 One extreme outlier (value greater than 4 standard deviation away from the mean) was 10 removed from the Atlantic tomcod FSS CPUE regression analysis (Tables 1-26, 1-27, and 1-28) 11 and one from the bluefish BSS CPUE regression analysis (Tables 1-29, 1-30, and 1-31). One 12 extreme outlier (value greater than 4 standard deviations away from the mean) was removed 13 from the abundance index for the bluefish regression analysis (Table 1-35, Tables 1-36, and 1-14 27). One extreme outlier was also removed from the abundance index for both the rainbow 15 smelt (value greater than 5 standard deviations away from the mean) regression analysis and 16 the white catfish (value greater than 2 standard deviations away from the mean) regression 17 analysis, because of the influence these data had on the regression results. The results of the 18 regression models with the observations removed were more conservative and were used for 19 the trend analysis.
20 Table 1-26. Initial Values for the Nonlinear Fit of the Segmented Regression Models 21 Used in FSS CPUE Riverwide Population Trends of YOY Fish 22 Taxa Intercept Slope 1 Join Point Slope 2 Alewife (1985-2005) -0.50 0.30 1989 -0.03 American Shad (1985-2005) -0.50 0.30 1989 -0.03 Atlantic Tom cod (All data) 0.10 0.00 1991 -0.10 Atlantic Tom cod (1 value removed) 0.10 0.01 1991 -0.01 Bay Anchovy (1985-2005) -0.50 0.30 1989 -0.03 Blueback Herring (1985-2005) -0.50 0.30 1989 -0.03 Bluefish (1985-2005) -0.50 0.30 1989 -0.03 Hogchoker -0.50 0.30 1987 -0.10 Spottail Shiner 0.00 0.00 1984 0.00 Striped Bass -0.10 0.10 1989 -0.06 23 24 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-38 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00599
Appendix I 1 Table 1-27 Competing Models Used To Characterize the Standardized Riverwide FSS 2 Population Trends of YOY Fish CPUE Linear Regression Segmented Regression Species 95 percent Cl Join 95 percent Cl MSE Slope p-value MSE Slope 1 Point Slope 2 Alewife 0.83 -0.357 +/- 0.199 0.148 Not Fit 1979-1984 Alewife -2.44e-006 to 0.99 0.043 +/- 0.036 0.238 1.00 1986 -0.028 to 0.139 1985-2005 2.44e+006 American Shad 0.98 -0.254 +/- 0.235 0.340 Not Fit 1979-1984 American Shad 0.87 -0.085 +/- 0.032 0.015 0.82 -0.293 to 0.805 1989 -0.226 to -0.038 1985-2005 Atlantic Tomcod 0.95 -0.046 +/- 0.023 0.059 0.93 -0.335 to 0.774 1984 -0.146 to -0.009 (All data)
Atlantic Tomcod 0.61 -0.028 +/- 0.015 0.083 0.60 -0.089 to 0.183 1989 -0.124 to -0.002 (1 value removed)
Bay Anchovy 1.08 0.135 +/- 0.259 0.629 Not Fit 1979-1984 Bay Anchovy 1.03 -0.002 +/- 0.037 0.962 0.99 -0.520 to 1.74 1988 -0.152 to 0.053 1985-2005 Blueback Herring 1.12 0.004 +/- 0.267 0.990 Not Fit 1979-1984 Blueback Herring 0.84 -0.092 +/- 0.030 0.007 0.83 -0.272 to 0.382 1991 -0.256 to -0.023 1985-2005 Bluefish 0.92 0.305 +/- 0.219 0.236 Not Fit 1979-1984 Bluefish 0.92 -0.073 +/- 0.033 0.039 0.90 -0.87 4 to 1.44 1988 -0.195 to -0.010 1985-2005 Hogchoker 0.92 -0.055 +/- 0.023 0.022 0.65 0.114 to 0.526 1986 -0.198 to -0.086 Spottail Shiner 0.96 -0.043 +/- 0.024 0.083 0.91 -0.186to0.719 1984 -0.152 to -0.015 Striped Bass 1.02 -0.003 +/- 0.025 0.902 0.93 -0.084 to 0.389 1988 -0.164 to 0.023 White Perch 0.65 -0.097 +/- 0.016 < 0.001 Did Not Converge December 201 0 1-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00600
Appendix I 1 Table 1-28 Riverwide Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative Impact Based on the 2 Standardized FSS CPUE General Species Best Fit Final Decision Trend Alewife 1979-1984 LR S=O 1
Alewife 1985-2005 LR S=O American Shad 1979-1984 LR S=O S1 =0 4 American Shad 1985-2005 SR S2 <0 S1 =0 Atlantic Tomcod {All data) SR 4 S2 <0 S1 =0 Atlantic Tomcod {1 value removed) SR S2 <0 4
Bay Anchovy 1979-1984 LR S=O S1 = 0 1 Bay Anchovy 1985-2005 SR S2 = 0 Blueback Herring 1979-1984 LR S=O S1 = 0 4 Blueback Herring 1985-2005 SR S2 < 0 Bluefish 1979-1984 LR S=O S1 =0 4 Bluefish 1985-2005 SR S2 <0 S1 >0 Hogchoker SR S2 <0 4
S1 =0 Spottail Shiner SR S2 <0 4
S1 =0 Striped Bass SR S2 =0 1
White Perch LR S<O 4 3 LR = L1near Regression; SR =Segmented Regression.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-40 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00601
Appendix I 3 5 LJJ LJJ
- l 2 ::l 4 0
- c. c.
u u (f) (f) 3 (f) (f) u.. 0 u.. 2 "C
"SlN -1 Q)
N
'6 '6
- 0 "C
-2 :0 "C
0
\
1: 1:
-3 \ -1 cii"' cii"'
-4 -2 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
- American Shad 79-84 "' American Shad 85-05
- Atlantic Tomcod o Outlier LJJ
- l c.
u 3
2
,.,_, '/
"'
,,
LJJ
- l c.
u 3
2 (f)
(f)
- ..._..,,"' t", (f)
(f) u.. ' ' u..
"C Q)
"' '
,~-- . . --""~~-!.' r---__, "C i!l 0
..,-..................."'
/
N -1 /
'6
- 0 "C
-2 "'
'6
- 0 "C
-1
/
/
1: 1: -2
-3 I cii"' cii"'
-4 -3 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
- Blueback Herring 79-84 "' Blueback Herring 85-05
- Bluefish 79-84 "' Bluefish 85-05 3 3
LJJ LJJ
- l ::l
- c. 2 c. 2
/IIIII ......
u u
_*,' * *
(f)
(f) u..
(f)
(f) u..
"C 0 "C 0 Q) Q)
N N
'6 -1 '6 -1
- 0 "C
- 0 "C
1: -2 1: -2 cii"' cii"'
-3 -3 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
- Hog choker
- Spottail Shiner 2
LJJ
- l c.
u (f)
(f) u.. 0 "C
Q)
N
-1
'6
- 0 "C
1: -2 cii"'
-3 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey
- White Perch 1
2 Figure 1-17. Riverwide population trend based on the FSS standardized CPUE assigned a 3 large level of potential negative impact 4
December 201 0 1-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 00602
Appendix I 1 Table 1-29. Initial Values for the Nonlinear Fit of the Segmented Regression Models 2 Used in BSS CPUE Riverwide Population Trends of YOY Fish 3
Taxa Intercept Slope 1 Join Point Slope 2 Alewife 0.50 -0.02 1991 0.00 American Shad 14.00 0.02 1990 -0.05 Atlantic Tom cod 0.05 -0.03 1993 0.00 Bay Anchovy 4.00 -2.00 1986 0.10 Blueback Herring 11.00 0.37 1992 -1.30 Bluefish (All data) 0.30 -0.02 1989 0.03 Bluefish (1 value removed) 0.30 -0.02 1989 0.03 Hog choker 1.50 0.23 1990 -0.24 Rainbow Smelt 0.16 -0.03 1984 0.00 Spottail Shiner 9.20 -0.50 1988 0.36 Striped Bass 5.20 0.10 1988 0.32 Weakfish 0.00 0.01 1983 0.00 White Catfish 0.10 -0.01 1984 0.00 White Perch 16.90 -0.60 1990 -0.04 4 Table 1-30 Competing Models Used To Characterize the Standardized Riverwide BSS 5 Population Trends of YOY Fish CPUE Linear Reqression Seqmented Reqression 95 percent Cl Join 95 percent Cl Species MSE Slope p-value MSE Slope 1 Point Slope 2 Alewife 0.996 0.027 +/- 0.025 0.281 0.944 -0.417 to 0.087 1987 -0.001 to 0.177 American Shad 0.991 -0.030 +/- 0.025 0.235 0.981 -0.103 to 0.198 1992 -0.240 to 0.029 Atlantic Tomcod 0.802 -0.078 +/- 0.020 0.001 0.787 -0.232 to -0.038 1993 -0.135 to 0.137 Bay Anchovy 0.971 -0.038 +/- 0.024 0.123 0.927 -0.631 to 0.094 1986 -0.063 to 0.085 Blueback HerrinCJ 0.937 -0.050 +/- 0.023 0.042 0.940 -0.429 to 0.091 1987 -0.101 to 0.075 Bluefish (All data) 1.02 0.001 + 0.025 0.976 1.04 -0.189 to 0.097 1993 -0.101 to 0.218 Bluefish (1 value removed) 0.478 -0.019 +/- 0.012 0.121 0.439 -0.103 to -0.013 1995 -0.038 to 0.165 HoCJchoker 0.969 -0.039 +/- 0.024 0.113 0.913 -0.212 to 0.983 1983 -0.141 to -0.014 Rainbow Smelt 0.875 -0.065 +/- 0.022 0.006 0.327 -1.54 to -0.939 1982 -0.022 to 0.021 Spottail Shiner 0.965 0.041 +/- 0.024 0.101 0.928 -0.448 to 0.145 1987 0.012 to 0.172 Striped Bass 0.908 0.057 + 0.022 0.017 0.941 -0.347 to 0.373 1986 -0.010 to 0.147 Weakfish 1.01 -0.021 + 0.025 0.407 0.996 -0.514 to 1.33 1982 -0.111 to0.018 White Catfish 0.642 -0.098 +/- 0.016 < 0.001 0.668 -2.02 to 1.89 1980 -0.138 to -0.061 White Perch 0.859 -0.068 +/- 0.021 0.004 0.737 -0.208 to -0.070 1997 -0.036 to 0.358 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-42 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00603
Appendix I 1 Table 1-31 Riverwide Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative Impact 2 Based on the BSS CPUE General Species Best Fit Trend Final Decision S1 =0 Alewife SR S2 =0 1 S1 =0 American Shad SR S2 =0 1 S1 < 0 Atlantic Tomcod SR S2 =0 4 S1 =0 Bay Anchovy SR S2 =0 1 Blueback Herring LR S<O 4 Bluefish {All data) LR S=O 1 S1 < 0 Bluefish (1 value removed) SR S2 =0 4 S1 =0 Hogchoker SR S2 < 0 4 S1 < 0 Rainbow Smelt SR S2 =0 4 S1 =0 Spottail Shiner SR S2 >0 1 Striped Bass LR S>O 1 S1 = 0 Weakfish SR S2 = 0 1 White Catfish LR S<O 4 S1 < 0 White Perch SR S2 = 0 4 3 LR = L1near Regression; SR =Segmented Regression.
December 201 0 1-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00604
Appendix I 3
LJJ
~
- a. 2 u
Vl 1 Vl cc 0
j
~Cll -1 "ECll -2 Vl -3 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
- Atlantic Tomcod
- Blueback Herring 4
LJJ itu 3
- Vl Vl cc 2
1
- j 0
'S
~ -1 c -2
~ -3+----r----~------,
0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
- Bluefish o Outlier
- Hogchoker 4 LJJ 2
- LJJ it u
~
3 2 ~
itu
~ 0
... _
cc 1 cc j 0 i -1 N
'S 'S -2
~
~ -1
~ -2 ~ -3 Vl ~ -4+----"""T"------,r-o------,
10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
- Rainbow Smelt
- White Catfish 2
LJJ it 1
- u Vl 0
~
-1 j
~Cll -2 "C
c -3 Cll Vl -4 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey
- White Perch 1 Figure 1-18. Riverwide population trends based on the BSS standardized CPUE assigned 2 a large level of potential negative impact I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-44 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00605
Appendix I 1 Table 1-32. Initial Values for the Nonlinear Fit of the Segmented Regression Model 2 Used on Riverwide LRS Population Trend of YOY Atlantic Tomcod CPUE 3
Taxa Intercept Slope 1 Join Point Slope 2 Atlantic Tom cod 1.00 -0.20 1989 0.30 4
5 Table 1-33 Competing Models Used To Characterize the Standardized Riverwide LRS 6 Population Trend of YOY Atlantic Tomcod CPUE Linear Regression Segmented Regression 95 percent Cl Join 95 percent Cl Species MSE Slope p-value MSE Slope 1 Point Slope 2 Atlantic Tom cod 1.02 -0.006 +/- 0.025 0.826 0.96 -2.38 to 0.439 1980 -0.037 to 0.081 7
8 Table 1-34 Riverwide Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative Impact Based on the 9 Standardized LRS CPUE of Atlantic Tomcod General Species Best Fit Trend Final Decision S1 = 0 Atlantic Tomcod SR S2 = 0 1 10 SR =Segmented Regression.
11 December 201 0 1-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00606
Appendix I 1 Table 1-35. Initial Values for the Nonlinear Fit of the Segmented Regression Models 2 Used in Riverwide YOY Abundance Index Trends 3
Taxa Intercept Slope 1 Join Point Slope 2 Alewife 0.1 -0.1 14 0.01 American Shad -0.3 0.02 11 -0.5 Atlantic Tom cod 0.1 0.01 12 -0.01 Bay Anchovy -0.1 0.1 14 -0.1 Blueback Herring -0.3 0.4 13 -0.1 Bluefish (All data) 0.3 -0.02 10 0.03 Bluefish (1 value removed) 0.3 -0.02 10 0.03 Hogchoker -0.4 0.2 11 -0.1 Rainbow Smelt (1 value removed) 0.3 0.1 11 -0.1 Spottail Shiner -0.1 -0.03 14 0.5 Striped Bass -0.1 0.08 15 0.25 Weakfish -0.1 -0.02 15 -0.04 White Catfish -1.00 0.00 20 0.00 White Perch 0.2 -0.06 12 0.18 4
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-46 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00607
Appendix I 1 Table 1-36 Competing Models Used To Characterize the Standardized Riverwide YOY 2 Abundance Index Trends Linear Regression Segmented Regression Species 95 percent Cl Join 95 percent Cl MSE Slope p-value MSE Slope 1 Point Slope 2 Alewife 1.00 -0.024 +/- 0.025 0.334 1.03 -0.199 to 0.075 1993 -0.150 to 0.195 American Shad 0.92 -0.053 +/- 0.023 0.028 0.93 -0.151 to 0.209 1989 -0.199 to 0.010 Atlantic Tomcod 0.97 -0.039 +/- 0.024 0.112 0.85 -0.051 to 0.323 1989 -0.223 to -0.036 Bay Anchovy 0.95 -0.045 +/- 0.024 0.067 0.89 -0.128 to 0.323 1988 -0.195 to -0.016 Blueback Herring 0.98 -0.036 +/- 0.024 0.152 0.90 -0.077 to 0.380 1988 -0.200 to -0.020 Bluefish 1.00 0.023 +/- 0.025 0.355 1.03 -0.27 4 to 0.195 1989 -0.053 to 0.158 (All data)
Bluefish 0.38 0.003 +/- 0.009 0.775 0.36 -0.07 4 to 0.015 1994 -0.014 to 0.111 (1 value removed)
Hogchoker 0.99 -0.029 +/- 0.025 0.244 0.96 -0.143 to 0.349 1988 -0.179 to 0.015 Rainbow Smelt 1.02 -0.008 +/- 0.025 0.759 Did Not Converge (All data)
Rainbow Smelt 0.27 -0.008 +/- 0.007 0.253 0.26 -0.022 to 0.059 1992 -0.072 to 0.008 (1 value removed)
Spottail Shiner 0.97 0.038 +/- 0.024 0.125 0.96 -0.164 to 0.100 1993 -0.025 to 0.270 Striped Bass 0.95 0.045 +/- 0.024 0.067 0.97 -0.081 to 0.114 1996 -0.126 to 0.369 Weakfish 0.90 -0.059 +/- 0.022 0.013 0.85 -0.312 to 0. 701 1984 -0.154 to -0.029 White Catfish 0.85 -0.069 +/- 0.021 0.003 Did Not Converge (All data)
White Catfish 0.50 -0.062 +/- 0.012 < 0.001 0.49 -0.169 to -0.030 1992 -0.100 to 0.051 (1 value removed)
White Perch 0.96 -0.041 +/- 0.024 0.096 0.80 -0.286 to -0.068 1993 -0.007 to 0.237 December 201 0 1-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00608
Appendix I 1 Table 1-37 Riverwide Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative Impact 2 Based in the Abundance Index General Species Best Fit Trend Final Decision Alewife LR S=O 1 American Shad LR S<O 4 S1 =0 Atlantic Tomcod SR S2 < 0 4
S1 =0 Bay Anchovy SR S2 < 0 4
S1 =0 Blueback Herring SR S2 < 0 4
Bluefish {All data) LR S=O 1 S1 =0 Bluefish {1 value removed) SR S2 =0 1 S1 =0 Hogchoker SR S2 =0 1 Rainbow Smelt {All data) LR S=O 1 S1 =0 Rainbow Smelt {1 value removed) SR S2 =0 1 S1 =0 Spottail Shiner SR S2 =0 1 Striped Bass LR S=O 1 S1 = 0 Weakfish SR S2 < 0 4
White Catfish {All data) LR S<O 4 S1 < 0 White Catfish {1 value removed) SR S2 =0 4 S1 < 0 White Perch SR S2 =0 4 3 LR = L1near Regression; SR =Segmented Regression.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-48 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00609
Appendix I 2 3
- il ~ 1
- N - *
'E § 0
~Ill ~!: -1 Oi i<
<C -2 * *------- **
-3~--------r-------~--------, -2~--------r-------~--------,
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
- American Shad
- Atlantic Tomcod 3 4
- *
-2~--------r-------~----~--, -2~--------r-------~--------,
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
- Bay Anchovy
- Blueback Herring 4 3 0
-2~--------r-------~--------, -3~--------r-------~--------,
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
- Weakfish
- White Catfish o Outlier 2
~r-------~--------~
0 10 20 30 Years of Survey
- White Perch 1 Figure 1-19. Riverwide population trends based on the abundance index assigned a large 2 level of potential negative impact December 201 0 1-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 00610
Appendix I 1 The results of the two measurement metrics-CPUE (number of RIS captured by the sampler 2 for a given volume of water derived by the NRC staff) and the abundance index provided by the 3 applicant-were combined for the assessment of riverwide population impacts. Table 1-38 4 presents the numeric results compiled from Tables 1-28, 1-31, 1-34, and 1-37 above and used to 5 derive Table H-14 in Section H.3 in the SEIS Appendices.
6 Table 1-38 Assessment of Riverwide Population Impacts CPUE Abundance Riverwide Species FSS BSS LRS Index Assessment Alewife 1 1 N/A 1 1.0 American Shad 4 1 N/A 4 3.0 Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown Menhaden Atlantic Sturgeon N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown Atlantic Tomcod 4 4 1 4 3.3 Bay Anchovy 1 1 N/A 4 2.0 Blueback Herrinq 4 4 N/A 4 4.0 Bluefish 4 4 N/A 1 3.0 Gizzard Shad N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown Hoqchoker 4 4 N/A 1 3.0 Rainbow Smelt N/A 4 N/A 1 2.5 Shortnose N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown Sturqeon Spottail Shiner 4 1 N/A 1 2.0 Striped Bass 1 1 N/A 1 1.0 Weakfish N/A 1 N/A 4 2.5 White Catfish N/A 4 N/A 4 4.0 White Perch 4 4 N/A 4 4.0 Blue Crab N/A N/A N/A N/A Unknown 7 1.2.2. Analysis of Strength of Connection 8 To determine whether the operation of the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems has the potential to 9 influence RIS populations near the facilities or within the lower Hudson River, the NRC staff 10 conducted a strength-of-connection analysis. Measurements used for this analysis include 11 monitoring data at IP2 and IP3 from 1975 to 1990 that provide information on impingement and 12 entrainment rates for RIS and River Segment 4 (Indian Point) population-density data from the 13 LRS, FSS and BSS.
14 For this analysis, the strength of connection was determined from the uncertainty associated 15 with estimating the difference in the RIS YOY population abundance with and without losses 16 from impingement and entrainment associated with IP2 and IP3 cooling systems. A Monte 17 Carlo simulation (n = 1000) was conducted to estimate the first and third quartiles of the 18 modeled relative cumulative difference in the population abundance achieved over a specified NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-50 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00611
Appendix I 1 number of years with and without removal of eggs, larvae, and juveniles from entrainment and 2 impingement. A simple exponential model was used to estimate the annual juvenile population 3 abundance (N1) as follows:
4 (1) 5 where t = 1 to 20 or 27 years; 6 N0 = the initial juvenile population abundance set to either 1000 or 1x1 08 ;
7 r = the population growth rate estimated from the slope from the linear model of 8 standardized YOY River Segment 4 (Indian Point) FSS or BSS density data (1979-2005);
9 o = the level of variability in the density data which was estimated as the sum of the CV of 10 the annual 75th percentiles from the weekly catch density and the error mean square from the 11 linear regression; and 12 £1 = an independent Normal (0, 1) random variable.
13 Two different values for the starting population parameter N 0 and the extent of the number of 14 years simulated (20 or 27) were used to assess their impact on the simulation results. The 15 number of simulation runs (1 000) should be large enough such that these two parameters will 16 not affect the results.
17 Equation (1) was used to model annual abundance of YOY RIS with the removal of eggs, 18 larvae, and juveniles from entrainment and impingement implicit in the parameters N0 and r.
19 Annual abundance of YOY RIS without losses of eggs, larvae, and juveniles from entrainment 20 and impingement was estimated using the same model form but with N0 and r replaced with 21 (2) 22 where EMR and IMR are conditional mortality rates for entrainment and impingement; rucL is the 23 upper 95 percent confidence limit of the linear slope; and CV is the coefficient of variation of the 24 annual 75th percentiles from the weekly catch density. The growth rate is divided by the CV in 25 the density data to provide an alternative growth rate closer to zero for negative values of rand 26 a slightly larger growth rate for positive values of rwith the amount of increase dependent on 27 the magnitude of the variability. The divisor is set to 1 (allowing a maximum increase in growth 28 rate) when the CV is less than 1. The parameter EMR for each RIS was estimated from 29 entrainment and River Segment 4 field data supplied by the applicant (Entergy 2007b). The 30 parameter IMR for each RIS was estimated from published conditional impingement mortality 31 rates (CIMR; CHGEC 1999). Estimates for EMR assume 100 percent mortality while the IMR 32 assumes partial survival.
33 The parameter EMR was estimated as the ratio of the number entrained to the sum of the 34 standing crop of eggs, larvae, and juveniles in River Segment 4 (Indian Point) estimated from 35 the LRS, FSS, and BSS 1981 and 1983-1987 data. All three surveys were used because 36 entrainment of juveniles was proportionally greater during July and August than during May and 37 June which was when the majority of the sampling for the LRS took place (Table 1-39 and 38 Figure 17a). Estimation of the number entrained and the river segment standing crop were 39 based on the calculations presented in Table 1-40.
December 201 0 1-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00612
Appendix I 1 The number of RIS by life stage (i = eggs, yolk sac larvae, post-yolk sac larvae, juvenile, and 2 undetermined) entrained (E!ik) was calculated weekly (k = 2-35) for each year U = 1981, 1983-3 1987) as 4 E*vt* * \~u;.;: *(H,h':;:. +1::~,~~){QQ n ~4:* *: <=~* 7 >t iQQQ) (3) 5 where d,:~; is the input mean weekly density entrained (pounds/m 3) for a given RIS (Table 1-40) 6 3 along with the associated volume of water withdrawn (1 000 m /min) at IP2 and IP3 (V 1p 2 and 7 VIP3, respectively). Seasonal numbers of RIS entrained were calculated by summing over life 8 stages and weeks. Season 1 (January - March) was only sampled in 1986, thus, the number of 9 fish entrained during that season was added to the totals for all other years.
10 11 The estimate of the River Segment 4 standing crop of each life stage was based on the 12 combined standing crop estimates from the LRS, FSS, and BSS (Tables 1-40). The LRS and 13 FSS weekly standing crop was estimated as the weekly density of fish caught times the Indian 3
14 Point region river volume (208,336,266 m ). The BSS weekly standing crop was estimated as 15 the weekly density of fish caught times the Indian Point region shore zone surface area 16 (4,147,000 m 2) divided by the area of a seine sample (450m 2). The total number of RIS at risk 17 from entrainment or impingement was calculated as the sum of those RIS entrained (or 18 impinged) and the RIS caught in the river. The annual standing crop of eggs, larvae, and 19 juveniles estimated in the vicinity of IP2 and IP3 based on the LRS, FSS, and BSS is presented 20 in Table 1-41. The estimated number of each RIS entrained for the SOC analysis was 21 calculated from the mean density entrained (1981 and 1983-1987) at IP2 and IP3 (Table 1-42).
22 The estimated EMR values can be compared to the riverwide CMRs (CHGEC 1999; Table 1-43).
23 Impingement mortality for YOY RIS is greatest in July through December (Table 1-44). however, 24 impingement data from 1981 through 1990 was not available by life stage. Thus, the parameter 25 IMRwas estimated as the maximum plant specific cumulative CIMR (1984-1990; CHGEC 1999) 26 for an annual cohort from the juvenile life stage through the last age of impingement 27 vulnerability (Table 1-45). The minimum value of IMRwas set at 0.0005. The CIMR values are 28 based on the estimated number impinged and the Ristroph screen 8-hr mortality rate reported 29 by Fletcher (1990).
30 The relative cumulative difference in the population abundance achieved over a specified 31 number of years between models with and without the effects of entrainment and impingement 8
32 was estimated as the sum of the annual differences divided by N0 (1 000 or 10 ) and the number 33 of years evaluated (20 or 27). One realization of the simulation using t = 27, N0 = 1000, and the 34 white perch parameters (Table 1-46) highlights the annual difference achieved in the YOY 35 population abundance with and without entrainment and impingement effects (Figure 1-121).
36 The distribution of the relative cumulative difference in the population abundance achieved from 37 all 1000 simulations using the white perch parameters is presented in Figure 1-22. Negative 38 values occur when a single simulation has greater negative annual differences (i.e., greater 39 abundance with the model incorporating entrainment and impingement mortality, shown in black 40 in Figure 1-21 ). If there was no variation in the model (o = OL then all differences would be 41 o positive. Allowing to be greater than 0 incorporates the variation observed in the YOY 42 population and the error in the linear model used to estimate population growth. If the range of 43 the first and third quartiles of the resulting distribution includes zero, then the effect of 44 entrainment and impingement was not large enough to be detected over the variation observed 45 in the population.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-52 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00613
Appendix I 1 Four simulation series were conducted for each RIS using all possible pairs of the parameters t 2 and N0 (n = 1000 for each). All other model parameter values for a give RIS stayed the same 3 for each simulation series and are presented in Table 1-46. The strength of connection was 4 determined to be low if the range of the first and third quartiles of the distribution of the relative 5 cumulative difference in YOY population abundance included zero for any of the simulation 6 series. The strength of connection was determined to be high if both quartiles were positive for 7 all parameter t and N0 pairs. The latter result occurs when the effect of entrainment and 8 impingement was consistently greater than the variation in the model.
9 The results and strength of connection conclusions of the Monte Carlo simulations (n = 1000) 10 for each pair of N0 (1 000 and 108 ) and number of years modeled (20 and 27) are presented in 11 Table H-17 in Section H.1.3 of Appendix H and in Table 1-4 7. In general, for a given RIS the 12 difference in the median simulation results for 20 verses 27 ~ears modeled (t) decreased with 13 increasing initial abundance (N 0 ). For N0 = 1000 and 1 x 10 , the median difference between 14 the simulation results with a different number of years modeled was 3 percent across all RIS.
15 Fort= 20 and 27 years, the median difference between the results of the simulations with 16 different initial abundance was 2 percent and 1 percent respectively across all RIS. Thus, the 17 number of simulations (n = 1000) was sufficient to conclude a strength of connection.
18 December 201 0 1-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00614
Appendix I 1 Table 1-39. Percentage of Each Life Stage Entrained by Season and the Contribution of 2 Major Taxa Represented in the Samples. Calculations are based on the 75 1h percentile over 3 years (1981 and 1983-1987) of each season's number of fish entrained. There was no 4 entrainment sampling in October- December.
Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Life Stage 75th Percentile over Years Jan-Mar A[!r-Jun Jui-Se[!
6 EGG 3% 20% 78% 210,801 X 10 Rainbow Smelt 99% 2% 0%
Bay Anchovy 0% 92% 100%
White Perch 0% 4% < 1%
Alosa species 1% 2% 0%
6 YOLK-SAC LARVA 8% 89% 3% 23,140 X 10 Atlantic Tomcod 100% 0% 0%
Herring Family 0% 91% < 1%
Bay Anchovy 0% 2% 94%
Striped Bass 0% 5% 1%
Hogchoker 0% 0% 3%
6 POST YOLK-SAC LARVA < 1% 52% 48% 618,393 X 10 Atlantic Tomcod 100% < 1% 0%
Alosa species 0% 37% < 1%
Bay Anchovy 0% 11% 58%
Anchovy Family 0% 2% 39%
White Perch 0% 12% 1%
Striped Bass 0% 17% 1%
Herring Family 0% 20% < 1%
6 JUVENILE 2% 44% 54% 10,989 X 10 White Perch 96% 10% 10%
Atlantic Tomcod 0% 67% 2%
Weakfish 0% 1% 50%
Bay Anchovy 0% 1% 17%
Rainbow Smelt 0% 9% 3%
Striped Bass 0% 6% 5%
Anchovy Family 0% 1% 4%
Alosa species 0% 2% 2%
White Catfish 4% < 1% 0%
Blueback Herring 0% < 1% 3%
UNDETERMINED 6 10% 77% 13% 4,469 X 10 STAGE Atlantic Tomcod 100% < 1% 0%
Marone species 0% 88% 2%
Bay Anchovy 0% 9% 83%
Anchovy Family 0% 0% 10%
Alosa species 0% 0% 4%
NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-54 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00615
Appendix I 1
2 Figure 1-20. Time Line of River Segment 4 Sampling Programs Used to Estimate EMR 3 (1981 and 1983-1987 Surveys). Shaded cells indicate a sampling event occurs within the 4 given week.
5 6
December 201 0 1-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00616
Appendix I 1 Table 1-40. Method for Estimating Taxon-Specific Entrainment Mortality Rate (EMR) 2 Base d on R"1ver Seqment 4 Stan d"mq Crop f or t he Strenqt h 0 f Connect1on A naiVSI s Property of Method Number Entrained River Segment 4 Standing Crop LRS density {by life stage) mean density organisms FSS density of YOY entrained by IP2 and IP3 BSS density of YOY Variables Input Volume of cooling water River Segment 4 volume (m 3)
Data withdrawn by IP2 and IP3 River Segment 4 shorezone 3
{1000 m /min) surface area {m 2 )
Frequency Per week of sampling Per week of sampling Sum of weekly estimates of Seasonal (Year Sum of weekly standing crop number of organisms entrained specific) estimates by IP2 and IP3 Sum of Season 1 , 1986 with Sum of seasonal standing crop Annual each year's totals from Season 2 Summary estimates for River Segment 4 and Season 3 Statistics 75" Percentile Annual Number Entrained EMR 751h Percentile (Annual Number Entrained+ Annual Standinq Crop)
Units of numerator and denominator of # of organisms EMR Years of Data 1981 and 1983-1987 1981 and 1983-1987 Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles Life Stages Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles (YOY)
Alewife, Blueback Herring, and unidentified Alosids treated collectively as River Herring Taxonomic Substitutions Unidentified Anchovy spp allocated to Bay Anchovy Unidentified Marone spp allocated proportionally to Striped Bass and White Perch 3
4 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-56 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00617
Appendix I 1 Table 1-41. Estimated Annual Standing Crop of Eggs, Larvae, and Juvenile RIS Within 2 River Segment 4 (millions of fish) 3 Taxon 1981 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Alewife and 239,387 1,357,568 1,038,155 78,176 353,533 21,619 Blueback Herring American Shad 9,731 2,374 95.443 2,100 3,222 926 Atlantic Menhaden Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Atlantic Sturgeon Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Atlantic Tomcod 200,776 25,139 135,160 401,962 151,134 207,723 Bay Anchovy 2,075,519 1,139,353 1,190,819 1,545,273 497,132 1,885,743 Bluefish 465 1,158 851 200 513 1,348 Gizzard Shad Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 3.83 Hogchoker 1,882 587 1,057 1'116 3,521 6,384 Rainbow Smelt 1,341 841 16,111 992 46,771 21,926 Shortnose Sturgeon Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Spottail Shiner 5.81 0.103 0.0161 215 0.0387 0.0166 Striped Bass 1,336,073 625.737 627.731 79,755 405,668 291,361 Weakfish 1.473 3,547 15,306 3.495 1,245 985 White Catfish Unknown 0.0018 27.3 215 Unknown 31.9 White Perch 794,963 913,526 437,750 91,594 757,411 68,591 December 201 0 1-57 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00618
Appendix I 1 I Table 1-42. Annual Estimated Number of RIS Entrained at IP2 and IP3 (millions of fish)
Taxa 1981 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Alewife and Blueback Herrin~
20,159 119,801 181,006 954 186 44.6 American Shad 350 359 18,175 26.0 242 9.27 Atlantic Menhaden 0 0 0 0 0 0 Atlantic Sturgeon 0 0 0 0 0 0 Atlantic Tomcod 4,231 2,951 8,557 12.737 4,925 3.714 Bay Anchovy 1,241,061 352,177 467,558 344.483 182.493 236,713 Bluefish 0 0 3.88 19.7 0 0 Gizzard Shad 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hogchoker 3,188 2,168 961 745 585 185 Rainbow Smelt 6,089 6,090 7,146 6,126 10,952 6,857 Shortnose Sturgeon 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spottail Shiner 0 9.13 3.93 0 0 0 Striped Bass 85,626 43,256 49.716 20.495 78,666 33,076 Weakfish 3,130 4,154 9,485 2,062 631 102 White Catfish 7.23 7.23 10.8 7.23 10.5 7.23 White Perch 48.743 68.418 29,734 11 '137 71,501 8,297 All fish taxa 1.446,376 795,342 888,363 403,092 463,644 288,208 2
3 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-58 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00619
Appendix I 1 Table 1-43. Estimate of the River Segment 4 Entrainment Mortality Rate (EMR) and the 95 2 Percent Confidence Limits for the Riverwide Entrainment CMR (1974-1997)
Riverwide CMR 75th Percentile for Entrainment 75th Percentile at IP2 and IP3 Annual Number Taxa of Number at Risk EMR Lower 95 Upper 95 Entrained 9 9 (number x 10 ) percent percent (number x 10 )
Confidence Confidence Limit Limit Alewife and Blueback Herring 94.9 1003 0.095 0.00747 0.0324 American Shad 0.357 8.43 0.042 0 0.016696 Atlantic Menhaden 0 NA NA Not Modeled Atlantic Sturgeon 0 NA NA Not Modeled Atlantic Tomcod 7.65 210 0.036 0.152 0.234 Bay Anchovy 439 2064 0.213 0.0925 0.140 Bluefish 0.00291 1.08 0.003 Not Modeled Gizzard Shad 0 NA NA Not Modeled Hogchoker 1.87 4.83 0.386 Not Modeled Rainbow Smelt 7.07 27.4 0.258 Not Modeled Shortnose Sturgeon 0 NA NA Not Modeled Spottail Shiner 0.00295 0.00838 0.352 0.0802 0.104 Striped Bass 71.4 675 0.106 0.181 0.276 Weakfish 3.90 7.17 0.544 Not Modeled White Catfish 0.00965 0.0848 0.114 Not Modeled White Perch 63.5 840 0.076 0.0568 0.108 3
4 December 201 0 1-59 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00620
Appendix I 1 Table 1-44. Percentage of Each Life Stage Impinged by Season and the Contribution of 2 Major Taxa Represented in the Samples. Note, because only two years had life stage 3 information available (1979 and 1980). calculation of the 75 1h percentile was based on the 4 weighted average of the ranked observations, (i.e., y = 0.25*X(1) + 0.75*X(2) where X(i) is the 5 ranked observation in increasing order).
Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4 75'h Percentile Life Stalije Jan-Mar A[!r-Jun Jui-Se[! Oct-Dec over Years 3
Youns-of- Year 0% 9% 43% 48% 3,214 X 10 Atlantic Tomcod 0% 98% 60% 1%
White Perch 0% 0% 16% 72%
American Shad 0% 0% 6% 1%
Blueback Herring 0% 0% 3% 24%
Weakfish 0% 0% 5% < 1%
3 Yearlin9 82% 17% 1% 1% 3,747 X 10 White Perch 95% 94% 60% 93%
Striped Bass 4% 1% 5% 1%
Atlantic Tomcod 1% < 1% 14% 1%
Alewife < 1% < 1% 12% 1%
Blueback Herrin9 < 1% 1% 9% 3%
3 Older 19% 19% 53% 9% 1,320 X 10 White Perch 83% 41% 3% 5%
Bay Anchovy < 1% 15% 85% 40%
Rainbow Smelt 10% 18% 1% 12%
Hogchoker < 1% 20% 6% 16%
Alosa S[!ecies < 1% < 1% < 1% 16%
6 7
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-60 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00621
Appendix I 1 Table 1-45. Cumulative Conditional Impingement Mortality Rate Estimated by Year Class 2 for Indian Point1 Used to Estimate the Taxon-Specific Impingement Mortality Rate (IMR) 3 for the Strength of Connection Analysis. Note, these estimates include a correction for 4 partial survival.
Maximum RIS 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
= IMR Alewife NA 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 NA 0.002 American Shad NA < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 0.0005 Atlantic Tomcod NA NA 0.008 0.030 0.005 0.003 0.004 0.030 Bay Anchovy NA 0.002 0.004 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 0.004 Blueback Herring NA 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.001 NA 0.004 Bluefish NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0005 Hogchoker NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0005 Rainbow Smelt NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0005 Spottail Shiner NA 0.002 0.001 0.007 < 0.0005 0.001 < 0.0005 0.007 Striped Bass 0.008 0.003 0.005 0.005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 0.001 0.008 Weakfish NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0005 White Catfish NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0005 White Perch NA 0.026 0.032 0.012 0.011 0.014 0.007 0.032 1
5 CHGEC {1999) Appendix VI.
6 NA = Not available.
7 Table 1-46. Parameter Values Used in the Monte Carlo Simulation Linear Upper 95% Error Mean CVof Survey RIS Slope Confidence Limit Square from Density Data EMR IMR Used (r) of the Slope ReCJression (19 79-1990)
Alewife BSS -0.030 -0.014 0.570 1.245 0.095 0.0020 American Shad BSS -0.069 -0.059 0.350 0.744 0.042 0.0005 Atlantic Tomcod FSS -0.040 -0.026 0.490 1.035 0.036 0.0300 Bay Anchovy FSS -0.075 -0.061 0.505 0.598 0.213 0.0040 Blueback Herring BSS -0.024 -0.009 0.530 1.488 0.095 0.0040 Bluefish BSS -0.038 -0.022 0.580 0.692 0.003 0.0005 Hogchoker FSS -0.034 -0.018 0.580 1.679 0.386 0.0005 Rainbow Smelt FSS 0.012 0.041 0.576 1.452 0.258 0.0005 Spottail Shiner BSS -0.017 -0.005 0.430 1.293 0.352 0.0070 Striped Bass BSS 0.040 0.052 0.420 0.528 0.106 0.0080 Weakfish FSS -0.047 -0.031 0.560 1.085 0.544 0.0005 White Catfish FSS 0.007 0.010 0.100 3.520 0.114 0.0005 White Perch BSS -0.062 -0.045 0.610 0.848 0.076 0.0320 8
December 201 0 1-61 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00622
Appendix I 4~*:;::.:; .............................................................................................................................. .
3S'JC1 3{i:JD z
~
.....
~SDD c
~ ::D:JD
- l.i
- C:
.,;
-:c 1~.;J'J c:
..0
< '10:J:J s:Jc) 0 Years 1
2 Figure 1-21. One Realization of the Monte Carlo Simulation using Parameter Estimates 3 for White Perch. Gray and black shading represents positive and negative annual differences 4 in abundance between the two models.
Ql Q3 350 ***************************************************~***
Q) 300 I
u c
Q)
!o...
!o...
250
- J u
u 200
~
0
'+-
0 150 -+-Frequency
>
u c 100 Q)
- J rr
~'
so
_/!
Q)
!o...
LL 0
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Relative Difference in Cumulative Abundance 5
6 Figure 1-22. Distribution of the Relative Difference in Cumulative Abundance from the 7 Monte Carlo Simulation (n = 1000) using Parameter Estimates for White Perch. The first 8 and third quartiles (Q1 and Q3) of the distribution are indicated with dashed lines.
9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-62 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00623
Appendix I 1 Table 1-47. Quartiles of the Relative Difference in Cumulative Abundance and 2 Conclusions for the Strength-of-Connection From the Monte Carlo Simulation Number N0 = 1000 N0 = 1 X 108 Strength Taxa of of Connection Years Median 01 03 Median 01 03 Conclusion 20 0.33 0.11 0.59 0.32 0.06 0.55 Alewife High 27 0.36 0.15 0.56 0.33 0.14 0.53 American 20 O.Q7 -0.04 0.18 0.09 -0.02 0.20 Low Shad 27 0.08 -0.01 0.16 0.08 0.00 0.16 Atlantic 20 0.14 -0.04 0.32 0.17 -0.01 0.38 Low Tomcod 27 0.18 0.04 0.32 0.18 0.02 0.33 20 0.21 0.09 0.32 0.20 0.08 0.31 Bay Anchovy High 27 0.18 0.10 0.26 0.18 0.10 0.27 Blueback 20 0.30 0.02 0.60 0.28 0.02 0.60 High Herring 27 0.43 0.16 0.67 0.40 0.14 0.64 20 0.13 -0.04 0.29 0.14 -0.03 0.30 Bluefish Low 27 0.14 0.02 0.29 0.16 0.01 0.30 20 0.71 0.39 1.05 0.74 0.41 1.10 Hogchoker High 27 0.81 0.53 1.10 0.77 0.46 1.06 Rainbow 20 0.77 0.33 1.25 0.81 0.35 1.34 High Smelt 27 0.93 0.52 1.38 1.03 0.63 1.46 Spottail 20 0.59 0.33 0.88 0.58 0.23 0.90 High Shiner 27 0.61 0.36 0.88 0.62 0.35 0.87 20 0.45 0.09 0.76 0.45 0.12 0.78 Striped Bass High 27 0.62 0.27 1.02 0.66 0.31 1.01 20 0.62 0.39 0.87 0.66 0.42 0.90 Weakfish High 27 0.63 0.43 0.84 0.64 0.43 0.83 20 0.19 -0.36 0.76 0.05 -0.46 0.66 White Catfish Low 27 0.09 -0.41 0.58 0.09 -0.43 0.58 20 0.16 0.01 0.32 0.20 0.04 0.35 White Perch High 27 0.18 0.06 0.31 0.20 0.07 0.31 3 1.3 Cumulative Impacts on Aquatic Resources 4 Zebra Mussels 5 For this analysis, the 751h percentile of the weekly FSS and BSS density and CPUE data from 6 Region 12 (Albany) were used to evaluate the population trend LOE for impacts associated with 7 a zebra mussel invasion. Data for white perch, blueback herring, alewife, American shad, white 8 catfish, spottail shiner, and striped bass were used in the analysis because all have high 9 densities of YOY within this region. The data were standardized based on the first 5-year mean 10 and the standard deviation of all annual results (1979- 2005). Only weeks 27 to 43 were used 11 in the analysis for the FSS and weeks 22 to 43 for the BSS survey, so that most years 12 contained observations from the months of July through October and June through October for December 201 0 1-63 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 00624
Appendix I 1 each survey, respectively. Effects associated with changes in gear types for the FSS (1985) 2 were also considered.
3 Simple linear regression and segmented regression with a single join point were fit to the annual 4 measure of abundance for each RIS, as described in Section H.3. The model with the smallest 5 MSE was chosen as the better fit to the data. If the best-fit model was the simple linear 6 regression and the slope was statistically significantly less than 0 (a = 0.05). a negative 7 population trend was considered detected. If the slope was not significantly different from 0, 8 then a population trend was not considered detected. If the best-fit model was the segmented 9 regression and either slope, S1 or S2 , was statistically significantly less than 0 (a = 0.05). then a 10 negative population trend was considered detected. If both slopes S1 and S2 were not 11 significantly different from 0 (a= 0.05). then the trend was not considered detected.
12 Data collected between 1985 and 2005 are not temporally disconnected from the 1991 invasion 13 of zebra mussels. However, because of earlier impacts, there is a potential that fish populations 14 stabilized pre-1985 to a lower abundance level. If changes in gear types have affected the 15 observed population response, only data post-1985 were used. For this analysis, data were 16 standardized with the average of 1985 to 1989 and the standard deviation of all data between 17 1985 and 2005. This analysis was used only when the observed response from all data was 18 biologically different from the BSS population density trend and had a decline associated with 19 the gear change.
20 A visual and statistical comparison of the river-segment FSS standardized density with the BSS 21 standardized density (Table 1-48) suggested that the trends for blueback herring, striped bass, 22 and white perch were not biologically different (Figure 1-23). Observations from both surveys 23 overlap and cross over each other. The post-1985 FSS observations for spottail shiner 24 (proportion FSS < BSS = 0.14; p = 0.013) were generally greater than the BSS observations 25 and did not show a decline associated with the gear change relative to the BSS (Figure 1-23).
26 Thus, for these RIS, all of the FSS data (1979-2005) were used in the regression analysis. The 27 FSS density data for alewife and American shad, however, did show a potential gear effect 28 (Figure 1-24). and a post-1985 analysis was conducted.
29 30 Table 1-48. Evaluation of Gear Effect on FSS River Segment 12 Population Density 31 Trends Proportion FSS < BSS Absolute Medan Absolute Difference Significance Difference Taxa of Conclusion 1979-1984 1985-2005 in 1979-1984 1985-2005 Sign Test Proportions Alewife 0.40 1.00 0.60 1.11 1.19 < 0.001 Separate Analysis American Shad 0.60 0.90 0.30 0.89 0.94 0.095 Separate Analysis Blueback Herring 0.40 0.71 0.31 1.36 0.57 0.192 Not Bioi. Different Spottail Shiner 0.40 0.14 0.26 0.67 0.78 0.013 FSS > BSS Striped Bass 0.40 0.29 0.11 0.56 0.57 0.332 Not Bioi. Different White Perch 0.40 0.95 0.55 0.86 0.44 < 0.001 Not Bioi. Different I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-64 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00625
Appendix I FSS gear change---.,. FSS gear change---.,.
3 3
~ ~
'(ii 2 '(ii 2 r:::: D r:::: -" D
~ 1 D
~ 1 D -" "'
~ 0
"'-"D"'"' -" ~ 0
- .c :.c l6 -1 l6 -1 "C D "C r:::: r::::
.!9
(/)
-2 .!9
(/)
-2 10 20 30
-3+---.......
0
-r------r-----,
10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey D Blueback Herring BSS-0 D Spottail Shiner BSS-0
"' Blueback Herring FSS-0 "' Spottail Shiner FSS-0 FSS gear change---.,. FSS gear change---.,.
3 D 3
>. >.
- '5i 2 *'5i 2 r:::: D r::::
~ 1 OJ ~ 1 -"-" D D
D D
~ 0 ~ 0
- .c :.c D l6 -1 l6 -1 D "C "C r:::: r::::
.!9
(/)
-2 .!9
(/)
-2
-3+---.......__,~---""T'"-----, -3+---....._.....,____""T'"_____,
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey D Striped Bass BSS-0 D White Perch BSS-0
"' Striped Bass FSS-0 "' White Perch FSS-0 1 Figure 1-23. River Segment 12 population trends based on the BSS and FSS 2 standardized density (D) not considered to be affected by the gear change December 201 0 1-65 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00626
Appendix I FSS gear change _ _ _..,. FSS gear change _ _ _..,.
3 D 3
- >,
~ ..... ...
'iii 2 'iii 2 t: t: D D
~ 1 Cll D D c 1 D
'C 'C l!l 0 Cll N 0
- .c :.c "'Do l6 -1 .a.~Do c:FI=aJ DJ1:AD DOD DO... l6 -1
'C 'C ...... ~
t:
!9 -2
... ................................................
... ... ... t:
!9 -2
(/) (/)
-3+--__,jL...-"""'T----r-----, -3 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey D Alewife BSS-0 D American Shad BSS-0
.a. Alewife FSS-0 .a. American Shad FSS-0 1 Figure 1-24. River Segment 12 population trends based on the BSS and FSS standardized 2 density (D) for which the FSS may indicate a gear difference 3 The following tables are the intermediate analyses for the assessment of population trends 4 associated with fish density sampled from River Segment 12 (Albany). Results of these river-5 segment trend analyses are compiled in Table H-19 in Section H.2 of the Appendix H. The data 6 used in this analysis, in order of appearance, were the standardized 75 1h percentile of the 7 weekly fish density for a given year collected from the FSS (Table 1-49, Table 1-50, Table 1-51, 8 and Figure 1-25) and BSS (Table 1-52, Table 1-53, Table 1-54, and Figure 1-26).
9 Two extreme outliers (values greater than 2 standard deviations away from the mean) were 10 removed from the FSS spottail shiner density regression analysis (Tables 1-50 and 1-51 ). Three 11 extreme outliers were also removed from the FSS striped bass density (values greater than 12 2 standard deviations away from the mean) regression analysis and one extreme outlier from 13 the FSS white catfish density (value greater than 2 standard deviations away from the mean) 14 regression analysis because of the influence these data had on the regression results. The 15 results of the regression models with the observations removed were more conservative and 16 were used for the trend analysis.
17 One extreme outlier (value greater than 2 standard deviations away from the mean) was 18 removed from the BSS alewife density regression analysis (Tables 1-53 and 1-54). One value 19 was also removed from the BSS American shad density (value greater than 1. 6 standard 20 deviations away from the mean) regression analysis, as well as one extreme outlier from the 21 BSS spottail shiner density (value greater than 3 standard deviations away from the mean) 22 regression analysis and two extreme outliers from the BSS striped bass density (values greater 23 than 2 standard deviations away from the mean) regression analysis because of the influence 24 these data had on the regression results. The results of the regression models with the 25 observations removed were more conservative and were used for the trend analysis.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-66 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00627
Appendix I 1 Table 1-49. Initial Values for the Nonlinear Fit of the Segmented Regression Models 2 Used in FSS Population Trends of YOY Fish Density from River Segment 12 3
Taxa Intercept Slope 1 Join Point Slope 2 Alewife (1985-2005) 0.0 0.0 1994 -0.1 American Shad (1985-2005) 0.0 0.0 1994 -0.1 Blueback Herring (All data) 0.5 -0.08 1990 -0.02 Spottail Shiner (2 values removed) 0.0 0.3 1991 -0.3 Striped Bass (3 values removed) -0.08 0.07 1990 0.0 White Catfish (1 value removed) -0.2 0.08 1986 0.1 White Perch (All data) 0.4 0.0 1982 0.0 4
5 Table 1-50. Competing Models Used To Characterize the Standardized River Segment 12 6 (Albany) Fall Juvenile Survey Population Trends of YOY Fish Density Linear Reqression Seqmented Reqression 95 percent Cl Join 95 percent Cl Species MSE Slope p-value MSE Slope 1 Point Slope 2 Alewife (1985-2005) 1.01 0.031 +/- 0.036 0.409 0.95 -5.66 to 2.00 1986 -0.028 to 0.139 American Shad (1985-2005) 0.95 -0.059 +/- 0.034 0.102 0.90 -0.216 to 0.475 1992 -0.271 to -0.0001 Blueback Herrinq 0.73 -0.088 +/- 0.018 < 0.001 0.44 -0.520 to -0.238 1987 -0.042 to 0.034 Spottail Shiner (All data) 1.02 -0.007 +/- 0.025 0.777 1.05 -0.553 to 0.695 1984 -0.095 to 0.059 Spottail Shiner (2 outliers removed) 0.65 -0.025 +/- 0.017 0.158 0.59 -0.041 to 0.160 1991 -0.188 to -0.010 Striped Bass (All data) 0.975 0.037 +/- 0.024 0.139 0.94 0.004 to 0.155 1999 -0.568 to 0.171 Striped Bass (3 outliers removed) 0.40 0.012 +/- 0.010 0.253 0.42 -1.20 to 1.30 1980 -0.014 to 0.037 White Catfish (All data) 0.982 -0.034 +/- 0.024 0.171 1.00 -0.118 to 0.123 1994 -0.283 to 0.096 White Catfish (1 outlier -1 .15e+006 to removed) 0.88 -0.022 +/- 0.022 0.327 0.92 1.15e+006 1979 -0.070 to 0.026 White Perch 0.84 -0.071 +/- 0.021 0.002 0.58 -0.972 to -0.212 1984 -0.049 to 0.031 7
December 201 0 1-67 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00628
Appendix I 1 Table 1-51. River Segment 12 (Albany) Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative 2 Impact Based on the Standardized FSS Density Level of Potential Best General Negative Species Fit Trend Impact 51 = 0 Alewife SR 52= 0 1 51 = 0 American Shad SR 52< 0 4 51 < 0 Blueback Herrinq SR 52= 0 4 Spottail Shiner
{All data) LR 5=0 1 Spottail Shiner 51 = 0
{2 outliers removed) SR 52< 0 4 Striped Bass 51 > 0
{All data) SR 52= 0 1 Striped Bass (3 outliers removed) LR 5=0 1 White Catfish
{All data) LR 5=0 1 White Catfish
{1 outlier removed) LR 5=0 1 51 < 0 White Perch SR 52= 0 4 3 LR = L1near Regression; SR = Segmented Regression.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-68 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00629
Appendix I 1
10 20 30 Years of Survey
- Blueback Herring
~
'iii 4 c:
Cll c
- 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
- Spottail Shiner T Outlier
- White Perch 2
3 Figure 1-25. River Segment 12 (Albany) population trends based on the FSS standardized 4 density assigned a large level of potential negative impact 5 Table 1-52. Initial Values for the Nonlinear Fit of the Segmented Regression Models 6 Used in BSS Population Trends of YOY Fish Density from River Segment 12 7
Taxa Intercept Slope 1 Join Point Slope 2 Alewife (1 value removed) -0.04 -0.20 1990 0.020 Blueback Herring (All data) 0.50 0.07 1990 -0.080 Spottail Shiner (1 value removed) 1.25 -0.80 1982 0.000 Striped Bass (2 values removed) 0.18 -0.04 1984 0.040 White Perch (All data) 0.30 -0.12 1991 -0.050 December 201 0 1-69 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00630
Appendix I 1 Table 1-53. Competing Models Used To Characterize the Standardized River Segment 12 2 (Albany) Beach Seine Survey Population Trends of YOY Fish Density Linear Regression Segmented Regression 95 percent Cl Join 95 percent Cl Species MSE Slope p-value MSE Slope 1 Point Slope 2 Alewife (All data) 1.01 -0.020 +/- 0.025 0.440 1.03 -0.877 to 0.472 1984 -0.073 to 0.071 Alewife (1 outlier removed) 0.78 -0.018 +/- 0.019 0.373 0.74 -0.310 to 0.027 1989 -0.039 to 0.120 American Shad (All data) 0.91 -0.056 +/- 0.023 0.020 Did Not Converge American Shad (1 value removed) 0.81 -0.055 + 0.020 0.012 Did Not Converqe Blueback HerrinCJ 0.87 -0.066 +/- 0.022 0.005 0.78 -0.221 to -0.060 1996 -0.078 to 0.279 Spottail Shiner (All data) 1.02 0.007 +/- 0.025 0.769 1.05 -1.23 to 0.765 1982 -0.050 to 0.087 Spottail Shiner (1 outlier removed) 0.66 -0.021 + 0.017 0.232 0.68 -1.06 to 0.704 1982 -0.059 to 0.032 Striped Bass (All data) 0.99 0.030 + 0.025 0.226 1.02 -0.787 to 0.544 1984 -0.024 to 0.117 Striped Bass (2 outliers removed) 0.61 0.020 +/- 0.015 0.211 0.59 -0.483 to 0.148 1984 -0.003 to 0.088 White Perch 0.94 -0.048 +/- 0.023 0.048 0.92 -0.229 to -0.003 1994 -0.100 to 0.216 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-70 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00631
Appendix I 1 Table 1-54. River Segment 12 (Albany) Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative 2 Impact Based on the Standardized BSS Density Level of Potential Species Best General Negative Fit Trend Impact Alewife {All data) LR 5=0 1 51 = 0 Alewife {1 value removed)
SR 52= 0 1 American Shad {All data) LR 5<0 4 American Shad {1 value removed) LR 5<0 4 51 < 0 Blueback Herring SR 52= 0 4 Spottail Shiner {All data) LR 5=0 1 Spottail Shiner {1 value removed) LR 5=0 1 Striped Bass {All data) LR 5=0 1 51 = 0 Striped Bass {2 value removed)
SR 52= 0 1 51 < 0 White Perch SR 52= 0 4 3 LR = L1near Regression; SR = Segmented Regression.
December 201 0 1-71 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00632
Appendix I 2 2
- ~1
- *
'iii ai 0 Cl 0 -1 "E
M
(/')
~ -2
-1
.........
--- .,
"C M
....
(/')
(/')
ca
-2
-3
-3+------,------------,
0 10 20 30
-4+------,------------,
0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
- American Shad T Outlier
- Blueback Herring 2
~1
'iii s::::
Q)
Cl 0
', .
*
' ill ...... __ *
- ________ .., .... ........
0 "E
M
-1
(/')
~ -2
-3+------,------------,
0 10 20 30 Years of Survey
- White Perch 1 Note: Design Restricted 2 Figure 1,26. River Segment 12 (Albany) population trends based on the BSS standardized 3 density assigned a large level of potential negative impact 4 A visual and statistical comparison of the river-segment FSS standardized CPUE with the BSS 5 standardized density (Table 1-55) suggested that the trends were not biologically different for 6 blueback herring, spottail shiner, striped bass, and white perch (Figure 1-27). Observations from 7 both surveys overlap and cross over each other. Thus, for these RIS, all of the FSS data 8 (1979-2005) were used in the regression analysis. The FSS CPU E data for alewife and 9 American shad, however, did show a potential gear effect (Figure 1-28). and a post-1985 10 analysis was conducted.
11 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-72 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00633
Appendix I 1 T abl e I-55 Eva uat1on o fG ear Effect on FSS CPUE T ren d s f or R"1ver s e~ment 12 Proportion FSS < BSS Absolute Medan Absolute Difference Significance Difference Taxa of Conclusion 1979-1984 1985-2005 in 1979-1984 1985-2005 Sign Test Proportions Alewife 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.08 1.22 < 0.001 Separate Analysis American Shad 0.67 0.90 0.24 0.74 1.11 0.01 Separate Analysis Blueback Herring 0.33 0.67 0.33 1.44 0.62 0.33 Not Bioi. Different Spottail Shiner 0.33 0.33 0.00 1.09 0.49 0.67 Not Bioi. Different Striped Bass 0.33 0.24 0.10 0.45 0.53 0.33 Not Bioi. Different White Perch 0.50 0.76 0.26 0.83 0.87 0.09 Not Bioi. Different FSS gear change FSS gear change LLJ LLJ
- ) 3 ::::) 3
- c. c.
u... u...
2 2 0 0 D D
~ ~
'iii D 'iii D.A. ~ ... Iii
~ 0 ... ... ...
~ 0 D.._ ......Q:] ... ...Iii... .._ D
...
D .._
... ~ Do ~.._~.._~.._~
~ ~
.._ D.._ D
-1 D ~ D D -1
'6 D D D '6
... -2 Doo.._ D D D.._ ... -2 l'tl "C
r:::
............... lil'il
............0......
0 !!I.A. .A.
l'tl "C
r:::
l'tl -3 l'tl -3 ci) 0 10 20 30 ci) 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey D Blueback Herring BSS-D D Spottail Shiner BSS-D
... Blueback Herring FSS-C ... Spottail shiner FSS-C FSS gear change FSS gear change LLJ LLJ
- ) 3 ::::) 3 D
c.
u...
D
... c.
u...
2 2 0 ... D 0
~ D ... ~ D
'iii 'iii r:::
oD
... Iii~ ... ... ..,D r::: ...... D D D
~ 0
...
......~ ... ...
...~ ~p .6.D.6, 1!!!1 0 .A.D ~ 0 ~ ...
D oDD D
~ -1 D D
~ -1 ... ... ...
D
... ... ...
...
'6
... '6
... D D..,r;JD~ ...0£1~
-2 -2 l'tl "E
l'tl "E ... ... ......
-3 -3
~ 0 10 20 30 ~ 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey D Striped Bass BSS-D D White Perch BSS-D
... Stripped Bass FSS-C ... White Perch FSS-C 2 Note: All data were used in WOE analysis.
December 201 0 1-73 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00634
Appendix I 1 Figure 1-27. River Segment 12 population trends based on the FSS standardized CPUE 2 (C) and BSS density (D) not considered biologically different FSS gear change---_. FSS gear change---_.
~ ~
- J 3 D :::J 3
~ ~
u u
~ 2 ~ 2 0 0 D
~1 D ~
Ill D 'iii 1: "' 1:
~ 0 ~ 0 0
~ -1 "'~po c:FI=tD ~%ow o o ~ ~ -1
~ ~ ~ ~
"C "' "' "C "C
1:
"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"' "'"'"'"'"' "C 1:
~ -3+---~-,----,-----, ~ -3+---~-,----,-----,
v; 0 10 20 30 v; 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey D Alewife BSS-D D American Shad BSS-D
"' Alewife FSS-C "' American Shad FSS-C 3
4 Note: Post-1985 data were analyzed for WOE analysis.
5 Figure 1-28. River Segment 12 population trends based on the FSS standardized CPUE 6 (C) and BSS density (D) for which the FSS may indicate a gear difference 7 The following tables are the intermediate analyses for the assessment of population trends 8 associated with fish CPUE sampled from River Segment 12 (Albany). Results of these river-9 segment trend analyses are compiled in Table H-19 in Section H.2 of Appendix H. The data 10 used in this analysis were the standardized 751h percentile of the weekly fish CPU E for a given 11 year collected from the FSS (Table 1-56, Table 1-57, Table 1-58, and Figure 1-27.).
12 13 One extreme outlier (value greater than 3 standard deviations away from the mean) was 14 removed from the FSS spottail shiner CPUE regression analysis (Tables 1-56 and 1-57). and one 15 extreme outlier was removed from the FSS white catfish CPU E (value greater than 2 standard 16 deviations away from the mean) regression analysis because of the influence these data had on 17 the regression results. The results of the regression models with the observations removed 18 were more conservative and were used for the trend analysis.
19 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-74 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00635
Appendix I 1 Table 1-56. Initial Values for the Nonlinear Fit of the Segmented Regression Models 2 Used on FSS CPUE Trends for YOY Fish from River Segment 12 3
Taxa Intercept Slope 1 Join Point Slope 2 Alewife (1985-2005) 0.00 0.00 1994 -0.10 American Shad (1985-2005) 0.00 0.00 1994 -0.09 Blueback Herring (All data) 0.50 -0.08 1990 -0.02 Spottail Shiner (1 value removed) 1.25 -0.08 1982 0.00 Striped Bass (All data) -0.08 0.07 1990 0.00 White Catfish (1 value removed) 0.40 0.06 1988 0.00 White Perch (All data) 0.30 0.00 1982 0.00 4
5 Table 1-57 Competing Models Used To Characterize the Standardized River Segment 12 6 (Albany) Fall Juvenile Survey Population Trends of YOY Fish CPUE Linear Reqression Seqmented Reqression 95 percent Cl Join 95 percent Cl Species MSE Slope p-value MSE Slope 1 Point Slope 2 Alewife (1985-2005) 1.00 0.033 +/- 0.036 0.371 0.96 -0.185 to 0.083 1999 -0.108 to 0.656 American Shad (1985-2005) 0.94 -0.066 +/- 0.034 0.064 0.96 -0.342 to 0.385 1992 -0.247 to 0.046 Blueback HerrinCJ 0.72 -0.089 +/- 0.018 < 0.001 0.38 -0.484 to -0.282 1987 -0.035 to 0.037 Spottail Shiner (All data) 0.91 -0.057 +/- 0.023 0.018 Did Not ConverCJe Spottail Shiner (1 outlier removed) 0.52 -0.038 +/- 0.013 0.008 0.53 -2.89 to 2.14 1980 -0.066 to -0.002 Striped Bass 0.98 0.034 +/- 0.024 0.168 0.95 -0.010 to 0.162 1997 -0.415 to 0.180 White Catfish (All data) 0.91 -0.056 +/- 0.023 0.020 Did Not ConverC]e White Catfish (1 outlier removed) 0.72 -0.042 +/- 0.018 0.031 0.68 -0.325 to 1.14 1982 -0.111 to -0.018 White Perch 0.67 -0.095 +/- 0.017 < 0.001 0.64 -0.391 to -0.052 1987 -0.116 to 0.003 December 201 0 1-75 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00636
Appendix I Table 1-58. River Segment 12 (Albany) Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative Impact Based on the Standardized FSS CPUE Level of Potential Best General Negative Species Fit Trend Impact 51 = 0 Alewife SR 52= 0 1 American Shad LR 5=0 1 51 < 0 Blueback Herrinq SR 52= 0 4 Spottail Shiner {All data) LR 5<0 4 Spottail Shiner {1 outlier removed) LR 5<0 4 51 = 0 Striped Bass SR 52= 0 1 White Catfish {All data) LR 5<0 4 51 = 0 White Catfish {1 outlier removed) SR 52< 0 4 51 < 0 White Perch SR 52= 0 4 1 LR = L1near Regression; SR = Segmented Regression.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-76 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00637
Appendix I 1.5 4 1.0 LLJ LLJ 3
0.5
=> =>
..
c.. 0.0 c.. 2
(.) (.)
-*-- . .... .......
0 -0.5 0 1
...._
'C M
.... -1.0 'C M
....
--- ..... __
(J) -1.5 (J) 0
--- *-------- -
- *
(J) (J)
-1
-2.5
-3.0 -2 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
- Blueback Herring
- Spottail shiner T Outlier 3 2 LLJ 2 LLJ 1
=>
c.. =>
c..
(.) (.)
0 1
0 0-1
'C 'C
.... 0 M
....
M (J) (J) -2 (J) (J)
-3
-2 -4 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Years of Survey Years of Survey
- White Catfish T Outlier
- White Perch 1
2 Note: Design Restricted.
3 Figure 1-29. River Segment 12 (Albany) population trends based on the FSS standardized 4 CPUE assigned a large level of potential negative impact 5 The WOE analysis for River Segment 12, Albany, for all population trend data post-1991 is 6 presented in Table 1-59. This table is a compilation of Tables 1-51, 1-54, and 1-58 and was used 7 to derive Table H-21 in Section H.2 in the Appendix H of this SEIS.
8 December 201 0 1-77 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00638
Appendix I 1 Table 1-59. River Segment 12 (Albany) Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative 2 Impact Following Zebra Mussel Invasion in 1991 Based on the Standardized FSS and 3 BSS Density and FSS CPUE Level of Potential Species Trend Post-1991 Ne!=Jative Impact Post- 1991 FSS Density Alewife 52= 0 1 American Shad 52< 0 4 Blueback Herring 52= 0 1 Spottail Shiner 52< 0 4 Striped Bass 5=0 1 White Catfish 5=0 1 White Perch 52= 0 1 BSS Density Alewife 52= 0 1 American Shad 5<0 4 Blueback Herring 52= 0 1 Spottail Shiner 5=0 1 Striped Bass 52= 0 1 White Perch 52= 0 1 FSS CPUE Alewife 52= 0 1 American Shad 5=0 1 Blueback Herring 52= 0 1 Spottail Shiner 5<0 4 Striped Bass 52= 0 1 White Catfish 52< 0 4 White Perch 52= 0 1 4 Water Quality and Temperature 5 Both water quality and water temperature can act to shift RIS densities into adjacent river 6 segments based on specific life stage needs. Water quality changes have been occurring over 7 the past decade (Section 2.2.5 of the SEISL and water temperatures have been increasing over 8 the last 100 years (Figure 1-31). An analysis of RIS distributional change within the Hudson 9 River was conducted by comparing the first and last 5-year mean densities from the survey that 10 was most efficient at catching a given RIS. Striped bass (Figure 1-32). alewife (Figure 1-33).
11 spottail shiner (Figure 1-34). hogchoker (Figure 1-35). and white perch (Figure 1-36) all appear to 12 have shifted slightly upriver, while the bay anchovy has shifted slightly downriver (Figure 1-37).
13 All other RIS that could be evaluated (American shad, Atlantic tomcod, blueback herring, 14 bluefish, and weakfish) did not show a change in their distributions. It is not possible from these 15 data to determine what might have influenced these shifts.
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-78 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00639
Appendix I Land and Ocean Temperature Changes 1.0
.8
_.--.,
u 0 .6
'-'
bc;l
.4 s
0
-<= .2
~
- l
......, .0 s
~
(\)
-.2 r<
-.61****c*:::*..:.. ;.................................... .,............,....... ; ................... ; ........ .,.......................................... I 1 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2 Source: Hansen et al. 2006.
3 Figure 1-31. Historical trend in global land and ocean temperature Striped bass 3
2
~
'iii c:
Q)
Cl 1 c:
2
"'
Q) 0
'C Q)
N
~ *1
"'c:
'C l!l (J) *2
- 3 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 River Segment 1---+--- 1st S*yr mean * * *[} *
- Last S*yr Mean I 4
5 Figure 1-32. Relative density of YOY striped bass from the BSS 1979-1983 and 2001-6 2005; data within each river segment of the Hudson River December 201 0 1-79 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00640
Appendix I Alewife 3
- -
'iii
!:
~ 1 +-----------------~~~--~----tr------~~------~
!:
~
"'
QJ 0+-~J----------,~------~~~----~~+-------~--~
al
.!::!
~ -1 r-----~~==~----------------------------------~~
"C
!:
~ -2+-------------------------------------------------~
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 River Segment l---+---1st 5-yr mean * * *D* *
- Last 5-yr Mean I 1
2 Figure 1-33. Relative density of YOY alewife from the BSS 1979-1983 and 2001-2005; 3 data within each river segment of the Hudson River Spottail shiner 3
2~---------------------------------~----------------~
.0.
- -
'iii
!:
~ 1 ~-------------------------------~--~~----------~~
!:
2"'
QJ 0+-----------------~~~~--~~------~------------~
"C QJ
.!::!
~ -1 r-------~==~~~~----------------------------------
"0
!:
~ -2+---------------------------------------------------~
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 River Segment 1--+--1 st 5-yr mean * * *D- *
- Last 5-yr Mean I 4
5 Figure 1-34. Relative density of YOY spottail shiner from the BSS 1979-1983 and 2001-6 2005; data within each river segment of the Hudson River I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-80 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00641
Appendix I Hog choker 3 ........................................................................................................................................................................... .
Z"
'iii
!:
~ 1 +--------------+--~~-+----~-----------------------
!:
o:l C1) 2 0+-----------~----~~~------~~--=-~------------
"C C1)
N
~ -1 ~---~~~------------------------------------~-----
o:l "C
!:
!9
~ -2~----------------------------------------------------
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 River Segment 1---+-- 1st 5-yr mean - * *D* *
- Last 5-yr Mean I 1
2 Figure 1-35. Relative density of YOY hogchoker from the FSS 1979-1983 and 2001-2005; 3 data within each river segment of the Hudson River White perch 3
2
~
'iii
!:
~ 1
!:
lll
- !!: 0 iN
~Cll -1
'C
!:
fl
~ -2
-3 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 River Segment l---+---1st 5-yr mean ---0--- Last 5-yr Mean I 4
5 Figure 1-36. Relative density of YOY white perch from the BSS 1979-1983 and 2001-2005; 6 data within each river segment of the Hudson River December 201 0 1-81 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00642
Appendix I Bay anchovy 3 *............................................................................................................................................................................... '
~
'iii 1:
~ 1 +---~-7L_--~~~-------------------------------------:
r::
ca D
C1)
~ 0+---------------~~--~~=-~~--------------------~
"C C1)
N
~ -1 +-----------------------------------------~~~~--~
"C 1:
!9
~ -2+---------------------------------------------------~
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 River Segment 1----+--1 st 5-yr mean -- -o--- Last 5-yr Mean I 1
2 Figure 1-37. Relative density of YOY bay anchovy from the FSS 1979-1983 and 2001-3 2005; data within each river segment of the Hudson River 4
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-82 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00643
Appendix I 1 1.4 References 2 Applied Science Associates (ASA). 1999. 1996 Year Class Report for the Hudson River 3 Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.;
4 Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; New York 5 Power Authority; and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. December 1999. ADAMS 6 Accession No. ML083420045.
7 Applied Science Associates (ASA). 2001a. 1997 Year Class Report for the Hudson River 8 Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.;
9 Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; New York 10 Power Authority; Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation; and Southern Energy New York.
11 January 2001. ADAMS Accession No. ML083420045.
12 ASA Analysis and Communication (ASA). 2001 b. 1998 Year Class Report for the Hudson 13 River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, 14 Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; Dynegy Roseton LLC; Entergy Indian Point 15 3 LLC; Mirant Bowline LLC; New York Power Authority; and Niagara Mohawk Power 16 Corporation. July 2001.
17 ASA Analysis and Communication (ASA). 2002. 1999 Year Class Report for the Hudson River 18 Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Dynegy Roseton L.L.C.; Entergy Nuclear Indian 19 Point 2 L.L.C.; Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 L.L.C.; and Mirant Bowline L.L.C. August 2002.
20 ADAMS Accession No. ML083420076.
21 ASA Analysis and Communication (ASA). 2003. 2000 Year Class Report for the Hudson River 22 Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Dynegy Roseton L.L.C.; Entergy Nuclear Indian 23 Point 2 L.L.C.; Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 L.L.C.; and Mirant Bowline L.L.C. June 2003.
24 ADAMS Accession No. ML083420089.
25 ASA Analysis and Communication (ASA). 2004a. 2001 Year Class Report for the Hudson 26 River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Dynegy Roseton L.L.C.; Entergy Nuclear 27 Indian Point 2 L.L.C.; Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 L.L.C.; and Mirant Bowline L.L.C.
28 April 2004.
29 ASA Analysis and Communication (ASA). 2004b. 2002 Year Class Report for the Hudson 30 River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Dynegy Roseton L.L.C.; Entergy Nuclear 31 Indian Point 2 L.L.C.; Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 L.L.C.; and Mirant Bowline L.L.C.
32 October 2004.
33 ASA Analysis and Communication (ASA). 2005. 2003 Year Class Report for the Hudson River 34 Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Dynegy Roseton L.L.C.; Entergy Nuclear Indian 35 Point 2 L.L.C.; Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 L.L.C.; and Mirant Bowline L.L.C. February 2005.
36 ASA Analysis and Communication (ASA). 2006. 2004 Year Class Report for the Hudson River 37 Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Dynegy Roseton L.L.C.; Entergy Nuclear Indian 38 Point 2 L.L.C.; Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 L.L.C.; and Mirant Bowline L.L.C. January 2006.
39 ADAMS Accession No. ML083420103.
December 201 0 1-83 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00644
Appendix I 1 ASA Analysis and Communication (ASA). 2007. 2005 Year Class Report for the Hudson River 2 Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Dynegy Roseton L.L.C.; Entergy Nuclear Indian 3 Point 2 L.L.C.; Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 L.L.C.; and Mirant Bowline L.L.C. January 2007.
4 ADAMS Accession No. ML073331067.
5 Battelle. 1983. 1980 and 1981 Year Class Report for the Hudson River Estuary Monitoring 6 Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.; Orange and Rockland 7 Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; New York Power Authority; and 8 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. December 15, 1983. ADAMS Accession No.
9 ML083420045.
10 Cochran, W.G. 1997. Sampling Techniques, John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York.
11 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison). Undated a. 1993 Year Class 12 Report for the Hudson River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison 13 Company of New York, Inc.; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and 14 Electric Corporation; New York Power Authority; and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
15 ADAMS Accession No. ML083420045.
16 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison). Undated b. 1994 Year Class 17 Report for the Hudson River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison 18 Company of New York, Inc.; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and 19 Electric Corporation; New York Power Authority; and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
20 ADAMS Accession No. ML083420045.
21 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison). Undated c. 1995 Year Class 22 Report for the Hudson River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison 23 Company of New York, Inc.; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and 24 Electric Corporation; New York Power Authority; and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
25 ADAMS Accession No. ML083420045.
26 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison). 1980. Hudson River Ecological 27 Study in the Area of Indian Point 1979 Annual Report. ADAMS Accession No. ML083420045.
28 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison). 1983. Hudson River 29 Ecological Study in the Area of Indian Point 1982 Annual Report. ADAMS Accession No.
30 ML083420045.
31 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison). 1984. Hudson River 32 Ecological Study in the Area of Indian Point 1981 Annual Report. ADAMS Accession No.
33 ML083420045.
34 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) and New York Power Authority.
35 1984. Hudson River Ecological Study in the Area of Indian Point 1983 Annual Report. Prepared 36 by Normandeau Associates, Inc. ADAMS Accession No. ML083420045.
37 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) and New York Power Authority.
38 1986. Hudson River Ecological Study in the Area of Indian Point 1985 Annual Report. Prepared 39 by Normandeau Associates, Inc. ADAMS Accession No. ML083420045.
40 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) and New York Power Authority.
41 1987. Hudson River Ecological Study in the Area of Indian Point 1986 Annual Report. Prepared 42 by Normandeau Associates, Inc. ADAMS Accession No. ML083420045.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-84 December 201 0 OAGI0001367E 00645
Appendix I 1 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) and New York Power Authority.
2 1988. Hudson River Ecological Study in the Area of Indian Point 1987 Annual Report. Prepared 3 by EA Science and Technology. ADAMS Accession No. ML083420045.
4 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) and New York Power Authority.
5 1991. Hudson River Ecological Study in the Area of Indian Point 1990 Annual Report. Prepared 6 by EA Science and Technology. ADAMS Accession No. ML083420045.
7 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison). 1996. 1992 Year Class Report 8 for the Hudson River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company 9 of New York, Inc.; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric 10 Corporation; New York Power Authority; and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. April1996.
11 ADAMS Accession No. ML083420045.
12 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA). 1988. 1987 Year Class Report for the Hudson 13 River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, 14 Inc.; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; New 15 York Power Authority; and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. July 1988. ADAMS Accession 16 No. ML083420045.
17 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA). 1990. 1988 Year Class Report for the Hudson 18 River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, 19 Inc.; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; New 20 York Power Authority; and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. August 1990. ADAMS 21 Accession No. ML083420045.
22 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA). 1991. 1989 Year Class Report for the Hudson 23 River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, 24 Inc.; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; New 25 York Power Authority; and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. March 1991. ADAMS 26 Accession No. ML083420045.
27 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA). 1991. 1990 Year Class Report for the Hudson 28 River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, 29 Inc.; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; New 30 York Power Authority; and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. October 1991. ADAMS 31 Accession No. ML083420045.
32 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA). 1995. 1995 Year Class Report for the Hudson 33 River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, 34 Inc.; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; New 35 York Power Authority; and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. ADAMS Accession No.
36 ML083420045.
37 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007. Applicant's Environment Report, Operating 38 License Renewal Stage. (Appendix E oflndian Point Units 2 and 3, License Renewal 39 Application). April 23, 2007. (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System) 40 ADAMS Accession No. ML071210530.
41 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007b. Letter from F.R. Dacimo, Vide President 42 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to Document Control Desk, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 43 Commission.
Subject:
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit December 2010 1-85 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367E 00646
Appendix I 1 Nos. 2 & 3; Docket Nos. 50-24 7 and 50-286; Supplement to License Renewal Application (LRA) 2 -Environmental Report References. ADAMS Nos. ML080080205, ML0800080209, 3 ML080080214,ML0800802161,ML0800080291,ML080080298, ML080080306,and 4 ML080080313.
5 Hansen J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, and M. Medina-Eiizade. 2006. "Global 6 Temperature Change." PNAS 103: 14288-14293. Accessed at 7 http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf on April 21, 2008.
8 Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1989. 1986 and 1987 Year Class Report for the 9 Hudson River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of 10 New York, Inc.; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; and Central Hudson Gas and Electric 11 Corporation. June 1989. ADAMS Accession No. ML083420045.
12 Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1991. 1990 Year Class Report for the Hudson 13 River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, 14 Inc.; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; New 15 York Power Authority; and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. January 1991. ADAMS 16 Accession No. ML083420045.
17 Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1996. 1991 Year Class Report for the Hudson 18 River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, 19 Inc.; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; New 20 York Power Authority; and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. January 1996. ADAMS 21 Accession No. ML083420045.
22 Martin Marietta Environmental Systems (MMES). 1986. 1984 Year Class Report for the 23 Hudson River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of 24 New York, Inc.; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric 25 Corporation; New York Power Authority; and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. May 1986.
26 ADAMS Accession No. ML083420045.
27 New York Power Authority (NYPA). 1986. "Size Selectivity and Relative Catch Efficiency of a 28 3-m Beam Trawl and a 1-m 2 Epibenthic Sled for Sampling Young of the Year Striped Bass and 29 Other Fishes in the Hudson River Estuary." Prepared by Normandeau Associates, Inc. January 30 1986. (HR Library #7180). ADAMS Accession No. ML083360641.
31 Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 1985a. 1982 Year Class Report for the Hudson 32 River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, 33 Inc.; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; New 34 York Power Authority; and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. February 1985. ADAMS 35 Accession No. ML083420045.
36 Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 1985b. 1983 Year Class Report for the Hudson 37 River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, 38 Inc.; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; New 39 York Power Authority; and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. April1985. ADAMS 40 Accession No. ML083420045.
41 Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 1986. 1985 Year Class Report for the Hudson 42 River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, 43 Inc.; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; New NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-86 December 2010 OAGI0001367E 0064 7
Appendix I 1 York Power Authority; and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. September 1986. ADAMS 2 Accession No. ML083420045.
3 Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 1987. 1986 Year Class Report for the Hudson 4 River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, 5 Inc.; Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; New 6 York Power Authority; and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. August 1987. ADAMS 7 Accession No. ML083420045.
8 Texas Instruments Inc. (TI). 1977. 1974 Year Class Report for the Multiplant Impact Study of 9 the Hudson River Estuary. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.;
10 Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; and Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation.
11 May 1977. ADAMS Accession No. ML083420045.
12 Texas Instruments Inc. (TI). 1978. 1975 Year Class Report for the Multiplant Impact Study of 13 the Hudson River Estuary. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.;
14 Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; and Power 15 Authority of the State of New York. June 1978. ADAMS Accession No. ML083420045.
16 Texas Instruments Inc. (TI). 1979. 1976 Year Class Report for the Multiplant Impact Study of 17 the Hudson River Estuary. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.;
18 Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; and Power 19 Authority of the State of New York. May 1979. ADAMS Accession No. ML083420045.
20 Texas Instruments Inc. (TI). 1980. 1977 Year Class Report for the Multiplant Impact Study of 21 the Hudson River Estuary. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.;
22 Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; and Power 23 Authority of the State of New York. July 1980. ADAMS Accession No. ML083420045.
24 Texas Instruments Inc. (TI). 1980. 1978 Year Class Report for the Multiplant Impact Study of 25 the Hudson River Estuary. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.;
26 Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; and Power 27 Authority of the State of New York. September 1980. ADAMS Accession No. ML083420045.
28 Texas Instruments Inc. (TI). 1981. 1979 Year Class Report for the Multiplant Impact Study of 29 the Hudson River Estuary. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.;
30 Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; and Power 31 Authority of the State of New York. March 1981. ADAMS Accession No. ML083420045.
32 Versar, Inc. (Versar). 1987. 1985 Year Class Report for the Hudson River Estuary Monitoring 33 Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.; Orange and Rockland 34 Utilities, Inc.; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; New York Power Authority; and 35 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. October 1987. ADAMS Accession No. ML083420045.
December 201 0 1-87 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367E 00648
NRC FORM 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER (9-2004) (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,
NRCMD 3.7 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-1437, Suplement 38, (See instructions on the reverse)
Vol. 3
- 2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED MONTH YEAR Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 December 2010 Final Report 4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER Public Comments, Continued; Appendices
- 5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT See Appendix B of this Report Technical
- 7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)
- 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION -NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor, provide name and mailing address.)
Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
- 9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION- NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above':* if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address.)
Same as 8 above
- 10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Docket Nos. 05000247 and 05000286, TAC Nos. MD5411 and MD5412
- 11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)
This supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to an application submitted to the NRC by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy), Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC {all applicants will be jointly referred to as Entergy) to renew the operating licenses for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 {IP2 and IP3) for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54, "Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants." This SEIS includes the NRC staff's analysis which considers and weighs the environmental impacts of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. It also includes the NRC staff's recommendation regarding the proposed action.
The NRC staff's recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewals for IP2 and IP3 are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision makers would be unreasonable. This recommendation is based on {1) the analysis and findings in the GElS, {2) the environmental report and other information submitted by Entergy, {3) consultation with other Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, (4) the NRC staff's own independent review, and {5) the NRC staff's consideration of public comments received during the scoping process and in response to the draft SEIS.
- 12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.) 13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Numbers 2 and 3 unlimited
- 14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION IP2 IP3 (This Page)
IPEC unclassified Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (This Report)
FSEIS unclassified National Environmental Policy Act NEPA 15. NUMBER OF PAGES License Renewal GElS 16. PRICE NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER OAGI0001367E 00649
A e nted ec:ycled a per OAGI0001367E 00650
z c
-- ()
~~
(fJ):>
~;;o 0
"Tl z;;oc II G)mz
() -!G>-
Oc--l
- P r _z~g]
OJ c o-lw oO-l
~):>
(j) z m oN 0 --!
m (J) gjo(l)
(j) (f ~
o:s:
0-o(l)
-'(/)
0z OAGI0001367E 00651
N 1.0
<D 0
0 UJI 1'-
<D
("")
.,....
0 0
0
(.9
<(
0 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of December 2010 Vol.3 Nuclear Plants: Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Final