ML17052A309
| ML17052A309 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/11/2017 |
| From: | Gurshin C, Mattson M, Melgey J, Young J Normandeau Environmental Consultants |
| To: | Brewer M, Zoli E Entergy Corp, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| William Burton, NRR/DLR, 415-6332 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML17052A309 (18) | |
Text
Memorandum Wednesday, 11 January 2017 TO:
Elise N. Zoli, Goodwin Procter LLP on behalf of Entergy Matthew Brewer, Goodwin Procter LLP on behalf of Entergy FROM:
Christopher W.D. Gurshin, Senior Principal Fisheries Scientist Mark T. Mattson, Ph.D., Vice President Jessica Melgey, M.S., Senior Fisheries Scientist John Young, Ph.D., ASA Analysis & Communications, Inc.
SUBJECT:
Distribution of Atlantic Sturgeon in the Indian Point Region The purpose of this memorandum is to describe the distribution of Atlantic Sturgeon in the Indian Point Region of the Hudson River and determine whether their distribution in consistent with National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) designation of the river wide habitat of Hudson River as Critical Habitat for the endangered New York stock of Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus (Endangered and Threatened Species Act). The NMFS designation of Atlantic Sturgeon Critical Habitat does not take into account the available sitespecific or riverwide information in their determination.
Specifically, we present data collected from the 2000 through 2015 Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program (HRBMP) and the 2003 through 2015 tracking of acoustic tagged Atlantic Sturgeon collected by New York State Department of Environmental Conversation (NYSDEC) and the TappanZee Bridge Replacement Projects contractor, AKRF Inc. These data show that Atlantic Sturgeon are not distributed throughout and do not consistently use the entire river within the Indian Point Region (river miles 39 through 46) as habitat, and are notably absent from within the Safety and Security Zone (SSZ) of the Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC).
Data collected from the Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program (HRBMP) during March through November, 2000 through 2015 were used to make inferences on the habitat value for Atlantic Sturgeon within the Indian Point Region. The HRBMP was suitable for this purpose because the sampling was based on a statistically robust stratifiedrandom design employing multiple gears to target many fish species from early life stages to adulthood from multiple depth strata for purposes of estimating annual population size (i.e., standing crop; Normandeau 2016a, 2016b, ASA Analysis &
11 January 2017 Page 2 Communications, Inc. 2016). Depth strata were defined as shore (010 feet [ft] deep mean low water [MLW]), shoal (020 ft MLW), channel (water more than 10 ft off the river bottom in more than 20 ft river depth) and bottom (within 10 ft of the river bottom in more than 20 ft river depth). The shore stratum was exclusively sampled by the Beach Seine survey. Within the shore (<10 ft), 48,418 fish were caught in the 699 beach seine samples collected in the Indian Point Region from 2000 through 2015, but none of these fish were Atlantic Sturgeon. The Indian Point Region with river depths of 10 ft or greater was sampled by a 1m2 Tucker trawl at randomly selected depths among 10ft depth intervals throughout the water column from the surface to within 10 ft of the bottom, while a 3m beam trawl and epibenthic sled sampled along the river bottom.
These three gear types provided extensive sampling coverage of potential habitat Atlantic Sturgeon at various life stages (Figure 1). However, no larval or juvenile Atlantic Sturgeon were caught in the 5,202 Tucker trawl samples collected in the Indian Point Region from 2000 through 2015. The total length (TL) of Atlantic Sturgeon caught by the bottom gear in the HRMBP in the Indian Point Region was between 232 mm and 914 mm and averaged 539 mm, comprising juveniles and subadults. The length frequency distributions of Atlantic Sturgeon caught by beam trawl and epibenthic sled indicate the majority were juveniles (Figure 2; Table 1). As a result, the analysis of the HRBMP samples of Atlantic Sturgeon in the Indian Point Region was focused on immature (young of the year to subadult) Atlantic Sturgeon sampled near the river bottom by the beam trawl and epibenthic sled at or deeper than the 10 ft depth contour.
The sample depth distribution and the bathymetry of the available potential habitat in the Indian Point Region were used together to infer where in this river region is used most by juvenile Atlantic Sturgeon. Bathymetry for the Indian Point Region was described by a 30m grid digital elevation model (North American Vertical Datum 1988) based on the navigation chart data from National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration updated with 19982003 multibeam surveys by the State University of New York Stony Brook (NYSDEC 2008; Figure 3). The sample depth distribution (as measured at the start of each bottom tow) was not in direct proportion to the bathymetry of the potential habitat in the Indian Point region as indicated by significantly different distributions, even within the 20 to 80 ft interval (Figure 4). The areas between 10 and 20 ft deep (shoal) were sampled in proportion to the bottom gear effort allocated to estimate the juvenile fish population, however some deeper areas
(>120 ft) were not sampled due to known presence of bottom obstructions or ledge. The mean river depth of the bottom gear samples was 34.1 ft (ranged 8.9 ft to 79.1 ft) whereas the river depth below the 10ft depth contour averaged 51.7 ft and reached as deep as 164 ft in some areas of the upper Indian Point region and the Highlands (Figure 4).
11 January 2017 Page 3 A frequency analysis of Atlantic Sturgeon depth preference, following methods used by Stein et al. (2004) for Atlantic Sturgeon in the marine environment, was used here to determine whether there was a depth preference of juvenile Atlantic Sturgeon in the Indian Point Region. In this frequency analysis of depth preference, the proportion of the 2000 through 2015 HRBMP bottom gear samples (i.e., frequency of occurrence) with and without Atlantic Sturgeon was enumerated by 10ft depth intervals (Figure 5). To avoid issues of zerobin frequencies, a KolmogorovSmirnov twosample test was used to determine if the sample depth distribution of tows with and without Atlantic Sturgeon belong to the same underlying distribution, instead of using a Gtest of independence on the binned data as used by Stein et al. (2004). The depth distribution of the Atlantic Sturgeon samples were statistically different from the depth distribution of samples without Atlantic Sturgeon, which is consistent with the hypothesis that Atlantic Sturgeon are distributed at disproportionately deeper depths. The mean sample depth of Atlantic Sturgeon caught in the 2000 through 2015 HRBMP bottom gear was 46.6 ft with a range of 15.1 ft to 74.2 ft in the Indian Point region (Figure 6).
However, because the sample depth distribution being different from the available potential habitat, sample depth distribution of the Atlantic Sturgeon catch alone would be biased by an unequal effort along the depth gradient. To standardize the presence of Atlantic Sturgeon for sampling effort, the number of samples with Atlantic Sturgeon was divided by the number of samples taken in each of the 10ft depth intervals (i.e.,
contours) to provide a frequency of occurrence that is analogous to a catchperunit effort metric (Figure 6).
The likelihood of catching an Atlantic Sturgeon at deeper depths of the river channel is higher than in shallow habitat. Assuming the frequency of Atlantic Sturgeon occurrence in 10ft depth intervals is representative of the probability of catching an Atlantic Sturgeon in a 10ft depth contour, Figure 6 shows relatively higher frequency of Atlantic Sturgeon occurrence in water deeper than 40 ft. This positive trend with depth was also observed with more data from the 70 to 90 ft range based on the Interregional Bottom Trawl Survey (TI 1981). The Interregional Bottom Trawl Survey provided data on the relative abundance, distribution and population characteristics of juvenile and older fishes inhabiting the shoal and bottom strata of the river. During alternate weeks from April through November, 19751980, 38 fixed stations in the Tappan Zee through Poughkeepsie regions (RM 24 through RM 76) were sampled with an ottertype bottom trawl that had a fine mesh codend cover at fixed stations to avoid many obstructions and irregular bottom contours. Both the probability of occurrence and catch per tow for yearling and older Atlantic Sturgeon increased with increasing depth, with the highest values for both metrics (22% probability and 0.6 Atlantic Sturgeon per tow) in the 8090 ft interval (sample depths 7695 ft).
11 January 2017 Page 4 Aside from depth preference, the distribution of Atlantic Sturgeon has been linked to habitat type, with preference to bottom types with suitable prey availability (Stein et al.
2004; Hatin et al. 2007). The distribution of Atlantic sturgeon near, but outside, the IPEC SSZ could be due to a number of factors determining the actual parts of the local environment inhabited by sturgeon. As a bottomoriented fish, Atlantic Sturgeon may use bottom type as one of these factors. In its sturgeon tagging programs, NYSDEC selectively sets gill nets in soft/deep areas as the preferred sampling habitat (NYSDEC 2009), determined as areas where Atlantic Sturgeon are most likely to be found (Sweka et al. 2006). This NYSDEC habitat study compared occurrence and catch per unit effort in hard/deep, hard/shallow, soft/deep, and soft/shallow habitats of Newburgh and Haverstraw Bays. Deep areas of Newburgh Bay were > 30 ft, and in Haverstraw Bay >
20 ft. The classification of bottom types was based on sidescan sonar surveys. High backscatter areas corresponded to hard substrates typically composed of compacted sand, rock, gravel, and remnant oyster beds, while low backscatter areas were soft substrates of silt and mud. Sweka et al (2006) stated:
Soft/deep areas of Haverstraw Bay yielded the most consistent catches of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon. Haley (1999) also showed a strong preference by juvenile Atlantic sturgeon for deep water and they also preferred areas of mixed silt substrates, which would correspond to our soft classification. These areas may be associated with higher abundance of preferred food of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon (Haley 1999). Although soft/deep areas were those most frequently used, some of the largest catches in a single net set came from areas with hard bottoms and shallow depths (< 20 ft.) (See Appendix -Catch Maps). Catches outside soft/deep areas were much more variable than those in soft/deep areas and it is possible that when relatively large catches were encountered in nonsoft/deep areas that the fish were migrating through such areas as opposed to using them as preferred habitat.
The area in the vicinity of IPEC contains a mix of bottom types, with soft (low backscatter) depositional areas near the intakes which are nearly surrounded by harder (high backscatter) areas, especially to the south and west (See Figure B1in ASA 2013).
The bottom types within the SSZ consist of a zone of fine grained deposits in front of the intakes, but coarser grain substrate in the area surrounding the intake (ASA 2013, Figure B2). ASA also characterized these zones as depositionalthin near the intakes and upstream, and erosional south and west of the intake (ASA 2013, Figure B4).
Because the SSZ, although it contains a small area of soft bottom near the intake structure, lies within an area of coarser sediment due to the erosion of finer material, it is not habitat that is critical to Atlantic Sturgeon. It is likely that, as stated by Sweka et
11 January 2017 Page 5 al. (2006) that the IPEC vicinity represents a migration corridor or transition zone that Atlantic Sturgeon pass through on their way to more preferred habitat.
Enercons 2011 analysis of the estuary bottom in and near the SSZ demonstrates that the SSZ does not contain the appropriate bottom type to attract sturgeon. Enercon used information from the LDEO Benthic Mapping Project (Napolitano and Flood 2003) to describe the benthic characteristics of the local area (Figure 7). The IPEC SSZ is roughly located in the green Depositionalthin zone surrounded by a large Erosivescour area on the west side of the river. This scour occurs as a result of the bedrock sill that the river flows over just south of IPEC.
Finally, Enercon examined the sediment thickness in the vicinity of IPEC based on seismic and core analyses (Figure 8). The SSZ is composed of areas that would accumulate little or no sediment, which would provide relatively poor habitat for the establishment of benthic infauna and epifauna upon which sturgeon feed. Thus the SSZ would provide relatively poor feeding habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon, even though the water would be deep enough to allow their use.
Based on the available data examined from 2000 through 2015 Atlantic Sturgeon catch characteristics of the HRBMP and the telemetry of acoustic tagged Atlantic Sturgeon, Atlantic Sturgeon are not uniformly distributed throughout the Indian Point Region of the Hudson River (Figure 9). The distribution of Atlantic Sturgeon (YOY, juvenile and subadult) in HRBMP samples and the locations of tagged Atlantic Sturgeon (juvenile, subadult and adult) tracked by acoustic telemetry with typical detection range of 1,500 2,500 ft appear to be associated primarily with depositional areas and not typically found in bottom areas of erosion and scour, particularly within the SSZ (Figure 10). The deep areas of the river channel where Atlantic Sturgeon were found the most were deposition areas where sediment thickness ranged from 5 cm to 1 m (Figure 11).
The extensive coverage from 2000 through 2015 that the HBRMP provided coupled with the tracking of acoustic tagged Atlantic Sturgeon from juveniles to adult stages clearly demonstrate, either through their absence or scarcity, that shoreline habitat less than 10 ft deep, water column of the channel, and bottom areas of erosion and scour were lowvalued habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon. Instead, the available data clearly show Atlantic Sturgeon prefer, in part, deep bottom habitat associated with sediment deposition in the Indian Point Region. The available data presented herein clearly show that the entire river within Indian Point Region of the Hudson River, particularly IPECs SSZ is not critical habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon and is inconsistent with National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) designation of Atlantic Sturgeon Critical Habitat.
11 January 2017 Page 6 Literature Cited ASA (Applied Science Associates, Inc.). 2013. Analysis of Potential Sedimentation Effects of Proposed Cylindrical Wedgewire Screens for Intake of Cooling Water at Indian Point Energy Center. ASA Project 2011292. Prepared for Goodwin Procter.
29 March 2013.
ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc. 2016. 2014 Year Class Report for the Hudson River estuary monitoring program. Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2 L.L.C., Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 L.L.C., Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. and NRG Bowline L.L.C.
Endangered and Threatened Species Act; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon, 50 CFR § 226 (2016).
Enercon (Enercon Services, Inc.). 2011IPEC CWW Dredging Step 1 - DRAFT White Paper Postulated Contamination Characterization. Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Point 2, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC. November 2011.
Hatin, D., J. Munro, F. Caron, R.D. Simons. 2007. Movements, home range, and habitat use and selection of early Atlantic Sturgeon in the St. Lawrence estuarine transition zone. American Fisheries Society Symposium 56: 129155.
Napolitano M.F., Flood R.D. A Baseline inventory of multibeam acoustic targets from the Hudson River between New York Harbor and Wappingers Falls. Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program. 2003:129.
Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau.) 2016a. 2016 Hudson River Ichthyoplankton Survey Standard Operating Procedures. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center. March 2016.
Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau.) 2016b. 2016 Hudson River Fall Juvenile and Beach Seine Surveys Standard Operating Procedures. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center. August 2016.
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2009. Scientific Research Permit to take Endangered Species 2008 Annual Report. 3 March 2009.
Stein, A. B., K.D. Friedland, and M.R. Sutherland. 2004. Atlantic Sturgeon marine distribution and habitat use along the northeastern coast of the United States, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133: 527537.
Sweka, J.A., J. Mohler, and M.J. Millard. 2006. Relative Abundance Sampling of Juvenile Atlantic Sturgeon in the Hudson River. Final Study Report Prepared For New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. March 2006. 46 pages.
Texas Instruments. 1981. 1979 Year Class Report for the Multiplant Impact Study Hudson River Estuary. Prepared under contract with Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
11 January 2017 Page 7 Figure 1. Sampling coverage of the (A) 1m2 Tucker trawl and (B) 1m2 Tucker trawl, 3m beam trawl and epibenthic sled in the Indian Point region (River Miles 3946) for the Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program during 2000 through 2015.
11 January 2017 Page 8 Figure 2. Lengthfrequency distribution of Atlantic Sturgeon caught by the 3m beam trawl and epibenthic sled in the Indian Point region (River Miles 3946) and all other Hudson River regions combined from the Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program during 2000 through 2015.
11 January 2017 Page 9 Table 1.
Number of Atlantic Sturgeon by life stagea and gear in the Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program.
Task code 18 88 88 98 98 Program Seine Ichthyo Ichthyo Shoals Shoals Gear Seine Sled Tucker Tucker Beam Gear Code 12 64 65 65 18 Gear Mesh 5 mm 0.5 mm 0.5 mm 3.0 mm 13 mm N Samples N Eggs 0
0 0
0 0
N Larvae 0
0 0
0 0
N YOY 0
5 0
0 13 N Juveniles 0
4 0
0 46 N Subadults 0
0 0
0 3
N Adults 0
0 0
0 0
a Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team. 2007. Status Review of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus).
Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office. February 23, 2007. 174 pp.
11 January 2017 Page 10 Figure 3.
Hudson River estuary bathymetry within the Indian Point region (River Miles 3946) based on the 30m grid digital elevation model from multiple bathymetric surveys (NYSDEC 2008).
11 January 2017 Page 11 Figure 4. (A) River depth distributions of samples collected by bottom gear in the Indian Point Region from 2000 through 2015 for the Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program (HRBMP), and (B) the available depth distribution below the 10ft depth contour in the Indian Point region based on 30m grid NOAA and SUNY bathymetric surveys (NYSDEC 2008).
11 January 2017 Page 12 Figure 5. (TOP) Frequency distribution of river depth of samples collected by bottom gear in the Indian Point Region from 2000 through 2015 for the Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program (HRBMP), and (BOTTOM) the depth distribution of tows with and without Atlantic Sturgeon indicate a preference for deeper water.
11 January 2017 Page 13 Figure 6. (TOP) Relative frequency distribution of river depth of the Atlantic Sturgeon catch collected by bottom gear in the Indian Point Region from 2000 through 2015 for the Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program (HRBMP);
(CENTER) Relative frequency distribution of river depth of samples collected by beam trawl and epibenthic sled during the 2000 through 2015 HRBMP; (BOTTOM) Frequency of Atlantic Sturgeon occurrence in samples collected by bottom gear in each 10ft depth interval.
11 January 2017 Page 14 Figure 7. Map of sedimentary environment near Indian Point Energy Center based on acoustic backscatter and sidescan sonar imagery as depicted from Figure 4 of Enercon (2011).
11 January 2017 Page 15 Figure 8. Map of sediment thickness of the Hudson River bottom near Indian Point Energy Center (in red box) based on subbottom profiling surveys and sediment core analysis as depicted from Figure 5 of Enercon (2011).
11 January 2017 Page 16 Figure 9.
Tow start locations of Atlantic Sturgeon caught by bottom gear from the 2000 through 2015 for the Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program (HRBMP) and acoustically tagged Atlantic Sturgeon locations in the Indian Point Region as recorded by NYSDEC.
11 January 2017 Page 17 Figure 10.
Distribution of Atlantic Sturgeon distribution relative to the sedimentary environment (Figure 4 from Enercon 2011), including tow start locations of Atlantic Sturgeon caught by bottom gear in the HRBMP and acoustically tagged Atlantic Sturgeon locations in the Indian Point Region as recorded by NYSDEC.
11 January 2017 Page 18 Figure 11.
Distribution of Atlantic Sturgeon distribution relative to sediment thickness (Figure 5 from Enercon 2011).