ML17188A340

Public Comments on Indian Point License Renewal L15 - Comment of Kathleen Moser on Behalf of NYS Department of Environmental Conservation

ML17188A340
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	07/07/2017
From:	Moser K State of NY, Dept of Environmental Conservation
To:	Office of Administration
Burton W, NRR-DLR
Shared Package
ML17188A200	List: ML17188A201 ML17188A209 ML17188A320 ML17188A324 ML17188A325 ML17188A327 ML17188A328 ML17188A329 ML17188A331 ML17188A332 ML17188A333 ML17188A334 ML17188A338 ML17188A339 ML17188A340 ML17188A341 ML17188A343 ML17188A346 ML17188A347 ML17188A349 ML17188A351 ML17188A354
References
80FR81377 00015, NRC-2008-0672
Download: ML17188A340 (159)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:PUBLIC SUBMISSION Docket: NRC-2008-0672 As of: 3/7 /16 2:30 PM Received: March 04, 2016 Status: Pending_Post Page I of 2 Tracking No. lk0-8ob6-swkv Comments Due: March 04, 2016 Submission Type: Web Environmental Impact Statement; Availability, etc.: Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Buchanan, NY; License Renewal and Public Meeting Comment On: NRC-2008-0672-0029 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3; Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; Request for Comment Document: NRC-2008-0672-DRAFT-0032 Comment on FR Doc# 2015-32777 /~r/cM/o-Submitter Information Name: Anonymous Anonymous Submitter's Representative: Melissa Acerra Organization: NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation Government Agency Type: State Government Agency: NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation f~ //;:_, t?/:3 77 .JJ I.. See attached file(s) Hattala et al 2011 Oak Ridge Lab 1979 Limburg& Waldman2009 Limburg&Moran 1986 Limburg et al 2006 Kahnl~&Hattala 2010 General Comment Attachments i':-:) ---J SUNSI Review Complete Template = ADM - 013 E-RIDS= ADM -03 Add= '-'Jn. Lft)~ J L~.:5 a;~) https ://www. f dms. gov If dms/ getcontent?o bjectld=0900006481ea1 a4d&format=xml&showorig=false 03/07/2016

Barnthouse 2013 Barnthouse & Van Winkle 1988 NMFS Colosi letter 120ct2010 Bladey letter https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectld=0900006481eala4d&format=xml&showorig=false Page 2 of2 03/07/2016

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Office of Natural Resources, Deputy Commisioner 625 Broadway, 14th Floor, Albany, New York 12233-1010 P: (518) 402-8533 IF: (518) 402-9016 www.dec.ny.gov Ms. Cindy Bladey Office of Administration Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 March 4, 2016 RE: Comments on the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, 5 Supplement 38, Volume 5, Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Draft 6 Report for Comment (NUREG-1437).

Dear Ms. Bladey:

On behalf of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC" or "Department"), please accept the following comments regarding the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ("NRC") Generic Environmental Impact Statement/or License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, 5 Supplement 38, Volume 5, Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Draft 6 Report for Comment dated December 2015 (NUREG-1437) ("Draft GEIS"). NYSDEC appreciates the efforts ofNRC staff to augment the record of the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement so that it may consider new information received. The Department also appreciates the opportunity to comment on these proposed changes. I. Introduction As you are likely aware, the Department has previously provided comments on the draft and final NRC documents as they relate to the impacts associated with relicensing Indian Point to operate an additional 20 years. (See, August 20, 2012 E. McTieman letter to C. Bladey; May 26, 2011 Comments on the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; March 18, 2009 Comments to the NRC on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.) These previously submitted and timely comments are relevant to this latest draft GEIS considering the analyses used by NRC staff in developing Section 4.0 of the 2015 Draft GEIS to determine adverse impact to aquatic organisms are identical to those used in previous drafts. In particular, I draw your attention to Section III Analysis of Aquatic Impacts presented in the Department's March 18, 2009 comments. The following comments primarily respond to the re-evaluation of the aquatic impacts presented in Section 4.0 and summarized in Section 9.0 of the 2015 Draft GEIS. l,'0~0RK I Dep_artment of o*ruNITv Environmental Conservation

/ II. The NRC continues to apply the incorrect metric (i.e., impacts to the overall fish populations) to determine if relicensing Indian Point for 20 years will result in an adverse environmental impact to the aquatic natural resources of the Hudson River. NRC staff continue to take a general fisheries approach to assess potential impacts of the Indian Point cooling water intake structure ("CWIS"). In this latest Draft GEIS, the NRC Staff continue to assess the severity of impact based on the overall population, and not on the massive numbers of actual organisms that have been, are currently, and will continue to be impinged and entrained as long as Entergy operates the once-through cooling system at Indian Point. (See also, March 18, 2009 NYSDEC Comments to the NRC on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement at p. 9.) NYSDEC, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the United Stat.es Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit have rejected a population analysis as the measurement of the aquatic impacts caused by once-through cooling. Both NYSDEC and the U.S. EPA define the adverse environmental impact caused by a CWIS as the number of fish and shellfish impinged and entrained. (See, U.S. EPA 2014 at p. 48303; NYSDEC Department Policy CP-52 at p. 2; Riverkeeper, Inc. v U.S. EPA, 475 F.3d 83, 109 (2d Cir. 2007)(Riverkeeper II), 475 F.3d at 124, 125 fn.36.) For the operation of the Indian Point CWIS, this equates to an annual adverse environmental impact of over 1 billion fish of all life stages. The Department does not agree with the NRC that the adverse impact caused by the impingement and entrainment of fish at Indian Point should be assessed at the population level. (See, March 18, 2009 NYSDEC Comments on the NRC's Staffs Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement at-p. 9-11.) Besides the facHhat the Department, the U.S-: EPA, and the U.S. Court of Appeals have all agreed that such an analysis is not appropriate, attempting to determine if the impingement and entrainment of a single power plant has caused impacts on fish populations is an impossible endeavor. Barnthouse and Van Winkle (1988) concluded that determining the long-term impacts to fish populations caused by the operation of a CWIS was unattainable (at p. 188). For more than 40 years, a multitude of studies have attempted and failed to detect population level impacts caused by the impingement and entrainment offish at power plants (Barnthouse 2013). Before the Hudson River monitoring program was started, federal agency scientists cast serious doubts as to whether any population impact resulting from once-through cooling could be detected. (See, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Sept. 28, 1979 letter to the U.S. EPA at p. 2.) Thirty four years later, Barnthouse (2013) could not find any example in the published literature where such an impact had been conclusively demonstrated. However, Barnthouse (2013) did not conclude that failing to demonstrate a direct impact proved that one does not truly exist now nor does it prove that no adverse impact may exist in the future. (See, Barnthouse (2013) at p. 154-155.) The fact that no link has been found likely relates to the issues raised by the Oak Ridge Laboratory scientists in 1979. Given this dismal record in attempting to determine the long-term impacts power plants have on fish populations through the impingement and entrainment of fish, it makes little sense that the NRC would choose this very same approach for assessing the long-term impacts relicensing Indian Point would have on Hudson River fish. It was simply not appropriate for the NRC to ignore the Department's conclusion that Indian Point does cause an adverse environmental impact on Hudson River fish considering the Department has the proper expertise 12-L15-1

and authority to make such a determination of adverse impact. As previously stated, the Department's conclusions are based on the fact that Department staff have been collecting and analyzing Hudson River aquatic organism data and impingement and entrainment data from Hudson River power plants for decades. Given this fact, the Department is entitled to substantial deference in its determination that the continued level of impingement-and entrainment at Indian Point does indeed cause an adverse environmental impact on Hudson River fish. III. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Department of State, and the National Marine Fisheries Service all have determined that the impingement and entrainment caused by Indian Point's once-through cooling system results in significant adverse impacts on fish and other aquatic organisms. The Department is encouraged that NRC staff recognizes the Department's concern with the current status of some Hudson River fish populations. The NRC points to Department documents regarding the status and proposed management of blueback herring. (See, 2015 Draft GEIS at p. 29 line 40 though p. 30 line 28.) The NRC points out that it agrees with NYSDEC's findings that the Hudson River blueback herring population has declined and the trend in blueback herring, alewife, and Ameri~an shad populations may indicate a change in overall stability in the Hudson River system. The Department also concurs with the NRC that water withdrawals are a significant threat to the recovery of anadromous fish species such as blUeback herring and American shad. As the NRC noted, the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") recently determined that, "... any protection measures [from Maine/Canada to Florida] such as improved fish passage or a reduction of water withdrawals may also provide a benefit to river herring." (See NMFS 2013, Federal Registrar Vol. 78 No. 155 at p. 48966; emphasis added.) Department fisheries scientists have identified cooling water withdrawals as a threat to the recovery or Hudson River American shad (see, Kahnle and Hattala 2010 at p. 1) and have determined that the impingement and entrainment caused by cooling water withdrawals on the Hudson River must be reduced or eliminated. (See, Kahnle and Hattala 2010 at p. 5.) The published literature also identifies cooling water withdrawals by Hudson River power plants as a significant threat to the population status of river herring and American shad (Limburg and Waldman 2009, Limburg et al. 2006). In the 2015 Draft GEIS, NRC staff neglected to recognize the update to the Hudson Highlands Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat ("SCFWH") recently finalized by the NYS Department of State ("NYSDOS"). This update added the reach of river from which Indian Point withdrawals cooling water (i.e., River Segment 4) to the. boundary of the Hudson Highlands SCFWH because it is a major spawning area for Hudson River striped bass. In fact, the striped bass population in this area contributes to the commercial and recreational fisheries in New York State. Furthermore, both Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon species frequent this deep water area, and based on recent radio tracking surveys conducted by the Department fisheries scientists, these species are frequently found near the Indian Point security exclusion zone located on the east shore of the Hudson River. In the Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment for the Hudson Highlands SCFWH, NYSDOS states that "[ e ]ntrainment and impingement causes significant mortality to all life stages of fish, including endangered species" (at p. 3; emphasis added). This determination is supported by the results of impingement, 12-L15-1 cont'd 12-L15-2

entrainment and environmental studies conducted on the Hudson River for more than 40 years. The results of these studies have been published in many peer reviewed scientific papers and books (see, for example, Levinton and Waldman 2006, Smith 1992, Smith 1988, and Barnthouse et al. 1988). On November 6, 2015 the NYSDOS objected to Entergy's consistency certification for the Indian Point NRC license renewal application. NYSDOS found that the relicensing of Indian Point would result in the "significant and direct loss to populations of numerous fish species as a result of impingement and entrainment." (See, Indian Point Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination at p. 22.) NYSDOS stated that "...Indian Point's CWIS alone destroys more than 150,000,000 striped bass larvae each year through entrainment. River herring and American shad are entrained in large numbers in the CWIS at Indian Point. Hudson River fish studies, conducted by the utility operators under the Hudson River Settlement Agreement, concluded that the CWISs at Indian Point entrain approximately 13,380,000 American shad and nearly 500,000,000 river herring larvae and small juvenile fish each year. Documentation shows that both sturgeon species have been impinged and killed at Indian Point. Based in part on Indian Point historical data, NMFS estimated that between 1975 and 1990, over 1,100. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon have been impinged and killed on the Indian Point CWISs. In addition to effects on these fish species, impingemenVentrainment affects a broad array of other aquatic organisms, all integral components of the Hudson River ecosystem." (See, Indian Point Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination at p. 22; citations omitted.) NMFS, NYSDEC; NYSDOS have all pointed to the impingement and enttainmentby the Indian Point CWIS as a significant cause of mortality to Hudson River fish. Since all three of these agencies agree that this mortality must be reduced or eliminated to protect Hudson River Essential Fish Habitat, assist in the recovery of American shad and river herring, protect commercially important striped bass, and protect federally endangered sturgeon species, the NRC must not ignore these findings by relicensing Indian Point without significant mitigation. Since the NRC agrees with the NYSDEC and NMFS that the withdrawal of Hudson River water for cooling purposes poses a significant threat to the Hudson River blueback herring population, the NRC should accept NMFS recommendation and require Entergy to convert the existing open loop cooling system to closed-cycle cooling. (See, NMFS P. Colosi, Jr. 2010 Letter to the NRC at p. 9.) This technology has been identified by NYSDEC and NMFS as the best technology available to minimize the adverse environmental impact Indian Point has on Hudson River fish. IV. The Department does not agree with Entergy's claim that new information on impingement and entrainment was actually provided to the NRC. It is the Department's understanding that the purpose of Section 4.0 presented in the 2015 Draft GEIS is to respond to purportedly "new information and analysis" that according to Entergy "indicated that potential impacts to certain aquatic species as a result of projected entrainment and impingement at Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3) during the license renewal period would change... " (See, Draft Supplemental 38 Vol. 5 at p. 25 lines 8-11.) According to the Draft GEIS, Entergy claimed to have provided "new information regarding entrainment, impingement, and field data... " See, Draft GEIS at p. 25 lines 42 to 44. Simply put, there is no new information for the entrainment and impingement of fish at Indian 12-L15-2 cont'd 12-L15-3

Point. As the Department pointed out to the NRC in comments it provided in 2012, the "foundational data base for entrainment and impingement at Indian Point Units 2 and 3 is more. than 25 years old.... " (See, E. Mc Tiernan Aug. 20 2012 letter to C. Bladey at p. 1.) Entergy may have sent the NRC information based on a new analysis either using historical data or perhaps new fish abundance data collected by Entergy's consultants, but Entergy could not have provide new information regarding entrainment and impingement. V. The changes presented in Section 4.0 of the 2015 Draft GEIS are a result of conflicting opinions among the NRC and Entergy's experts but are not based on substantially new information. The proposed changes presented in Section 4.0 of the Draft GEIS appear to be no more than a dispute between the NRC and Entergy's biological experts on the proper assumptions, calculations, and data to be used in an attempt to determine whether or not a 20-year license extension would result in an adverse environmental impact to Hudson River fish populations. This latest attempt made by both Entergy's biologists and the NRC staff has resulted in two additional, contradictory results for the majority of the 18 representative important species ("RIS") considered. This process of continually changing the output of the population models provides ample proof that attempting to estimate the potential impacts 20 years of operating Indian Point will have on Hudson River fish populations is simply a misguided effort. Based on the information provided in the Draft GEIS, it is clear that Entergy's biologists and NRC staff cannot agree on the assumptions, the variables, nor the years of data that should be used. Furthermore, though Entergy and the NRC may have altered their conclusions as to which fish populations may be impacted, this does not change the fact that the continued operation of Indian Point's Unit 2 and Unit 3 CWIS impinges and entrains over 1 billion fish annually. NYSDEC has long recognized this adverse environmental impact as being significant and has concluded that this impact must be minimized or eliminated. This purported "new information" Entergy provided to the NRC was primarily a criticism of the NRC's staff methods for determining the level of impact (i.e., small, medium, or large) that 20 additional years of continued operation of the Indian Point CWIS would have on Hudson River fish populations through entrainment. The AKRF 2014 report submitted to the NRC on behalf of the applicant purported that the NRC's methods were "highly conservative" leading to incorrect conclusions of "large" impacts. (See, AKRF 2014 at p. 9.) AKRF concluded that the entrainment mortality rates estimated by the NRC were "overstated." (See, AKRF at p.9.) In order to provide assurance that the analyses used to generate the new information the permittee was providing to the NRC had been put through a "thorough quality control review", AKRF states on page 6 of their 2014 report that an "independent external review" of the AKRF analyses was conducted. This external review was conducted by Dr. John Young of ASA Analysis and Communication, Inc. It is the Department's understanding that Dr. Young of ASA Analysis and Communication, Inc. is on Entergy's Biological Team and has worked with Dr. Heimbuch of AKRF, Inc. on preparing previous analyses and comments on the NRC's biological analyses (see, Entergy 2009 at p. 2). Though the Department provides no opinion on Dr. Young's ability to review and evaluate such work, his inclusion on Entergy's Biological Team does bring into question the level or degree of independence his review provides. A more transparent 12-L15-3 cont'd 12-L15-4

independent, external review would require enlisting the services of a third party with no direct financial or administrative ties to the NRC nor the applicant. Table 4-2 on page 37 of the Draft GEIS indicates that the NRC has now conducted the same analyses twice and that Entergy's consultants have undertaken the analyses at least once in an attempt to determine the level of impact relicensing will have on 18 RIS species. The three sets ofresults presented in Table 4-2 do not agree for the following 12 species: alewife, Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic sturgeon, blueback herring, gizzard shad, hogchoker, rainbow smelt, shortnose sturgeon, striped bass, weakfish, white perch, and blue crab. There were only six representative important species considered by the NRC where the results of the three attempts at conducting the analyses remained unchanged. This inconsistency of results presented by the NRC gives no comfort to the Department that NRC staff have any idea what the likely impacts extending Indian Point's operating license for 20 years will have on Hudson River fish. VI. The recent submittal of "new information" provided to the NRC is just a continuation of Entergy's unsubstantiated claim that the operation of Indian Point's once-through cooling system has no effect on Hudson River fish populations. On behalf of Entergy, AK.RF states that the "methods used by the NRC to assess the magnitude of potential aquatic impacts due to the operation of IP2 and IP3 are highly conservative in that they include several components that lead to conclusions of "Large" impacts." See, AKRF 2014 at p. 9. The latest submission of "new information" by Entergy's consultant is a continued attempt to minimalize the adverse environmental impact the operation of Indian Point has on the overall health of the Hudson River fish community. Entergy's consultants continue to point the blame on the documented declines of several Hudson River fish population on all possible explanations but one: the indiscriminate mortality of over 1 billion fish annual caused by the operation of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 once-through cooling systems. As evidence, they point to their failure to find a direct link between the operation oflndian Point and the decline in fish populations even though they are fully aware of the near impossible task to discover such a link. Given the established record of not being able to detect population effects caused by impingement and entrainment and the fact that failure to detect an impact does not mean one does not exist, it would behoove the NRC to select the metric used by both the U.S. EPA and the NYSDEC, namely Indian Point's direct impingement and entrainment of over 1 billion fish every year. VII. NYSDEC questions the accuracy of the NRC's estimated historic entrainment at Indian Point but disagrees with Entergy that the results are "highly conservative." To determine if Entergy's recent claim that the NRC results were highly conservative is correct (see, AKRF 2014 at p. 9), Department staff compared the NRC's estimated entrainment contained in Appendix A (see, Draft GEIS Table A-7 at p. A-15) for seven species whose actual entrainment was reported in the Hudson River Entrainment Abundance Reports covering the years from 1983 to 1987. The results of this comparison are provided in the following table: 12-L15-4 cont'd 12-L15-5 12-L15-6

White Perch, 22,956,000 189,087,000 723.7 Bay anchovy 1,536, 144,000 1,583,424,000

3.1 American shad

19,173,000 18,811,270

-1.9 River herring, 679,882,000

• 301,991,600

-55.6 Atlantic tomcod 9,332,000 32,884,000 252.4 Total 2,329,394,000 2,351,406,870 0.9 For four of the species, the NRC's methods do indeed overstate the entrainment that was reported in the 1980s Hudson River Entrainment Abundance Reports (i.e., striped bass, white perch, bay anchovy, and Atlantic tomcod). However, for three species of greatest management concern for NYSDEC, American shad and river herring (includes both alewife and blueback herring), the NRC methods actually underestimated what the utility consultants reported to the Department back in the 1980s. Since the NRC is relying on their estimates of entrainment presented in the Draft GEIS to determine the level of adverse impact relicensing will have on 17 Hudson River fish populations, the fact that their estimates of these seven species differ from what has been considered fact for over 3 0 years adds to the uncertainty of the conclusions made by the NRC on the potential impacts operating the Indian Point existing once-through cooling system for an additional 20 years will have on aquatic organisms. VIII. The NYSDEC has determined that the continued operation of the Indian Point cooling water intake structure causes a significant adverse environmental impact on Hudson River fish. The operation of Indian Point's CWIS indiscriminately kills massive numbers offish, of all life stages annually. Since impingement and entrainment has not been measured at Indian Point since 1990, the historic data must be used to determine the adverse impact Indian Point had. Simply put, there is no "new information" for entrainment data available for the NRC to consider. The following table presents the baseline1 entrainment for seven representative important species using the most recent and complete information on species specific entrainment densities (1983-1987): 1 Baseline entrainment is the number of organisms entrained if Indian Point were operating their cooling water intake system at full design capacity. In the 1980s, Indian Point would take unit outages during the time of the year when the majority of entrainment was known to occur at Indian Point (May through August), taking ;m average of 42 unit outage days annually over the 10 year term of the Hudson River Settlement Agreement. These outages effectively reduced the number of organisms entrained at Indian Point. Currently, Entergy typically operates the cooling water intake system well over 90 percent of design capacity during the period of the year from May through August resulting in nearly baseline entrainment. 12-L15-6 cont'd 12-L15-7

Bay anchovy 632,540,000 947,885,000 659,570,000 294,431,000 460,342,822 2,994,768,822 American shad 450,000 26,239,000 0 332,000 18,000 27,039,000 Striped bass 13,017,000 24,490,000 24,286,000 25,935,000 16,499,000 104,227,000 Atlantic tomcod 10,000 432,000 12,978,000 385,000 453,000 14,258,000 White perch 7,551,000 11,531,000 13,281,000 4,368,000 2,247,000 38,978,000 River herring 308,779,000 407,074,000 1,793,000 116,576,000 2,002,000 836,224,000 TOTAL 962,347,000 ' 1,417,651,000' 711,908,000. 442,027,000 481,561,822 :4;0}5(494;822 It is important to note that only the above seven species were the focus of these reports and that many other species were also entrained in the 1980s. Even so, over the 5 years presented in the table above, more than 4 billion fish eggs, larvae, and juveniles were entrained at Indian Point. In 2003, the Department released the Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") for issuing draft SPDES permits for three Hudson River power plants including Indian Point. Using the known entrainment numbers from the 1980s and adjusting them for current river densities and Indian Point operating levels, the estimated "current" annual entrainment presented in the 2003 FEIS for Indian Point is as follows:

• ~lif%:~:~~~~~~~ifi~Ji~I~~~~li~~~~lt~ll'ml!llllftitli~I~

Bav anchovv Americ;an shad Striped bass Atlantic tomcod White perch River herrinJZ TOTAL 326,666,667 13,380,009 158,000,000 No Data 243,333,333 466,666,667 1, 208, 046, 667 The estimated annual entrainment of 1.2 billion fish is nearly a 50 percent increase over the average annual baseline entrainment that was measured from 1983 to 1987 (803,098,964) for these seven representative important species of fish. Based on this latest estimate, if the NRC were to allow Indian Point to continue operating the existing once-through cooling system for 20 years, the potential adverse environmental impact on Hudson River ecosystem will be the massive mortality of 24 billion Hudson River fish. The Department simply does not find this level of adverse impact acceptable and neither should the NRC. IX. The final conclusions presented by NRC staff in Section 9 on the overall potential impact relicensing will have on Hudson River fish is misleading. Based on the results of the NRC analyses, NRC staff have changed the potential impacts of impingement and entrainment on Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon from "small" to "likely to adversely affect." (See, Table 4-2 at page 37&38.) The NRC has also determined that the relicensing would result in "LARGE" impacts to both blueback herring and rainbow smelt. Yet the summary table provided in Section 9.0 of the Draft GEIS states that there would only be "SMALL to MOD ERA TE" impacts on aquatic ecology (see, Table 9-1 at p. 131 ). This 12-L15-7 cont'd 12-L15-8

summary designation of impacts appears to favor the 10 species the NRC purports only a "SMALL" impact and the one species with a designated "MODERATE" level of impact. The summary ignores that fact that for some of the RIS, NRC staff concluded a "LARGE" or a "likely to adversely affect" impact would result from relicensing. If Table 9-1 is indeed a summary table, the range of impacts presented in this table must reflect the results of all of the species considered. The NRC concludes that the relicensing of Indian Point will result in a "MOD ERA TE" impact to Hudson River fish. This conclusion minimizes the fact that the NRC concurs with NMFS that the continued operation of the once-through cooling system at Indian Point will adversely affect Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon and have a "LARGE" impact on blueback herring and rainbow smelt. The fact is that for some species of fish, including federally listed endangered species, the NRC has concluded that relicensing Indian Point will result in an adverse impact. Therefore, it is incumbent on the NRC to accurately reflect this in their overall conclusions. Furthermore, Entergy should be required to mitigate these adverse impacts if the NRC decides to grant a 20 year extension on their operating license. X. The Department requests the NRC to require closed-cycle cooling if Entergy is granted a 20 year extension of its operating license. It is of the opinion ofNYSDEC that the analytical methods used by NRC staff to determine the level of adverse impact relicensing Indian Point would have on Hudson River fish are based on an incorrect metric (i.e., fish populations), are misleading and inaccurate, and only provides speculative results at best. Furthermore, the NRC's conclusions that the impacts on Hudson River fish would be "MODERATE" inaccurately presents their findings. NYSDEC, NYSDOS, and NMFS have already determined that Indian Point will continue to have an adverse environmental impact on the Hudson River aquatic community as long as the applicant continues to impinge and entrain fish through the operation of the existing once-through cooling system. Therefore, the NYSDEC respectfully requests that ifthe NRC were to decide to extend the operating license for Indian Point that the NRC require the installation and operation of a closed-cycle cooling system. Short of closure, either seasonally2 or permanently, the installation and operation of a closed-cycle cooling system is the only feasible option to assure that the continued operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant would result in a minimal adverse impact on the fish community of the Hudson River. Reipectfully submitted, (/ *l~~rvl~ latlileen M. Moser I 2 The majority of the entrainment caused by Indian Point operations occurs between May and August. Under the Hudson River Settlement Agreement, Indian Point was required to take 42 unit outage days on average for the 10 year term of the HRSA between May 10 and August 10. It has long been recognized that the majority of the entrainable lifestages of fish appear in the area of Indian Points CWIS during this period. Though such an alternative falls short of the reductions that would result with a closed-cycle cooling retrofit, if Indian Point were to reinitiate outages during this time period, measurable reductions in entrainment would result. 12-L15-8 cont'd 12-L15-9

References:

Barnthouse, L. W. 2013. Impacts of entrainment and impingement on fish populations: A review of the scientific evidence. Environmental Science and Policy. Volume 31: 149-156. Barnthouse, L.W., R.J. Klauda, D.S. Vaughan, R.L. Kendall (Editors). 1988. Science, Law, and Hudson River Power Plants: A Case Study in Environmental Impact Assessment. American Fisheries Society Monograph 4. 347 pp. Barnthouse, L.W. and Van Winkle. 1988. Analysis of impingement impacts on Hudson River fish populations. American Fisheries Society Monograph 4: 182-190. Entergy. 2009. March 18, 2009 Letter to NRC Chief from F. Dacimo. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2013. Federal Registrar Vol. 78 No. 155 at p. 48966 August 12, 2013. Hattala, K. and A. Kahnle. 2010. Hudson River American Shad An Ecosystem-based Plan for Recovery. January 2010. 12pp. www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation hudson pdfi'shadrecoveryplan.pdf Levinton, J and J.R. Waldman. 2006. The Hudson River Estuary. Cambridge University Press. 471 pp. Limburg, K. and J. Waldman. 2009. Dramatic declines in North Atlantic diadromous fishes. BioScience Vol. 59 No. 11. P. 955-965 Limburg, K.E., K.A. Hattala, AW. Kahnle, and J.R. Waldman. 2006. Fisheries of the Hudson River. In The Hudson River Estuary. J.S. Levinton and J.R. Waldman (Eds.). Cambridge University Press. p. 189-204. Hudson River Ecological Study Reports for sampling years 1981through1990 (various authors) National Marine Fisheries Service. 2013. Federal Registrar Vol. 78 No. 155 at p. 48966. August 12, 2013. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation. October 12, 2010. NYSDEC. 2011. CP-52 Best Technology Available (BTA) for Cooling Water Intake Structures. July 10, 2011. www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish marine pdf/btapolicyfinal.pdf NYSDOS. 2015. Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination. November 6, 2015. NYSDOS. Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat http://www.dos.ny.gov/opd/programs/consistency/Habitats/HudsonRiver/Hudson Highla nds _ FINAL.pdf Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 1979. Letter from L. Barnthouse to J. Golumbek. September 28, 1979. Smith, C.L. (Editor). 1992. Estuarine Research in the 1980s. State University of New York Press.55 pp.

Smith, C.L. (Editor). 1988. Fisheries Research in the Hudson River. State University of New York Press.407 pp. U.S. EPA. Section 316(b) Phase II Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 158 August 15, 2015. Rules and Regulations

NOTE: This is a REVISED version of the plan, originally posted to the DEC website in August 2011. Changes were made as a result of public comment received by Sept 22, 2011. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Sustainable Fishing Plan for New York River Herring Stocks Kathryn A. Hattala, Andrew W. Kahnle Bureau of Marine Resources, Hudson River Fisheries Unit and Robert D. Adams Hudson River Estuary Program September 2011 Submitted for review to the Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Commission

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Amendment 2 to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Shad and river Herring Interstate Fishery Management Plan requires member states to demonstrate that fisheries for river herring (alewife and blueback herring) within their state waters are sustainable. A sustainable fishery is defined as one that will not diminish potential future reproduction and recruitment of herring stocks. If states cannot demonstrate sustainability to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), they must close their herring fisheries. New York State proposes to maintain a restricted river herring (alewife and blueback herring) fishery in the Hudson River and tributaries and to close river herring fisheries elsewhere in the State. This proposal conforms to Goal 1 of the New York State Hudson River Estuary Action Agenda. Stock Status Blueback herring and alewife are known to occur and spawn in New York State in the Hudson River and tributaries, the Bronx River, and several streams on Long Island. The Hudson River is tidal to the first dam at Troy, NY (rkm 245). Data on stock status are available for the Hudson River and tributaries. Few data are available on river herring in streams in Bronx County, southern Westchester County, or on Long Island. River herring are absent in the New York portion of the Delaware River. Hudson River: Commercial and recreational fisheries exploit the spawning populations of river herring in the Hudson River and tributaries. Fixed and drifted gill, cast and scap/lift nets are used in the main stem Hudson, while scap/lift and cast nets are used in the tributaries. Recreational fishers often use commercial net gears because permit fees remain at 1911 levels. Anglers also

• are allowed take ofriver herring with variety of small nets and hook and line. In the last ten years, about 250 fishers annually purchased commercial gill net permits and approximately 240 purchased commercial scap net permits. However only 84 gill net and 93 scap/lift fishers reported using the gear licensed. Fishers using commercial gears are required to report landings annually. Most river herring taken in the Hudson and tributaries are used as bait in the recreational striped bass fishery. Anglers and subsistence fishers take a few river herring from Long Island streams.

Data on commercial harvest of river herring are available since the early 1900s. Landings peaked in the early 1900s and in the 1930s and then declined through the 1980s. Landings increased again through 2003, but have since declined. Reported commercial harvest has remained below 50,000 river herring per year since the early 1990s. A series of creel surveys and estimates since 2001 indicated substantial and increasing harvest of river herring by recreational anglers from the Hudson River and tributaries. We estimated that approximately 240,000 river herring were harvested by recreational anglers in 2007. The extent of the loss of river herring through bycatch in ocean commercial fisheries remains largely unknown but is expected to be significant. 2

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. Fishery dependent data on river herring status since 2000 are available from commercial reports and from on-board monitoring. Catch per unit effort (CPUE) in fixed (anchored) gill nets fished in the main stem river has increased. Conversely, CPUE in scap nets fished in tributaries initially declined, but then varied without trend. Mean length of river herring observed in the commercial harvest has declined slightly since 2000. We feel that the CPUE in fixed gear below the Bear Mountain Bridge provides the best annual measure of abundance because it intercepts river herring migrating past the gear to upriver spawning locations.. Fishery independent data on size and age composition of river herring spawning in the Hudson River Estuary are available from 1936 and intermittently since the late 1970s. Sample size has been small in most years. The largest fish were collected in the 1930s. Size of both blueback herring and alewife has declined over the last 30 years. Age data were obtained from scales in 1936 and the late 1980s. Since then, ages were estimated from age length keys developed by Maine, Massachusetts, and Maryland. Observed and estimated age at length of Hudson River fish varied substantially among methods and thus age can only be used for trends within method. Annual mean age since the late 1980s has remained stable in blueback herring and female alewife, but declined in male alewife. Because of the uncertainty with estimated ages, we estimated annual mortality with length-based methods. Estimates varied substantially depending on assumed model inputs and therefore actual total mortality on the stocks remains unknown. However, we should emphasize that mortality on stocks must have been high in the last 30 years to have so consistently reduced mean size and presumably mean age. Within method, estimates of total mortality generally increased for both species since 1980. This increase was most pronounced in alewife. Young of year production has been measured annually by beach seine since 1980. CPUE of alewife remained low through the late 1990s and has since increased erratically. CPUE of young of year blueback herring has varied with a very slight downward trend since 1980. Streams on Long Island, Bronx and south shore of Westchester County: Limited data have been collected for some of the river herring populations in these areas. The data are not adequate to characterize stock condition. Delaware River in New York: No records exist to document the presence of river herring in this portion of the river. Proposed Fishery for the Hudson River Given the inconsistent measures of stock status described above, we do not feel that the data warrant a complete closure of the Hudson River fishery at this time. New York State proposes a five year restricted fishery in the main-stem Hudson River, a partial closure of the fishery in tributaries, and annual stock monitoring. We set a sustainability target for juvenile indices. We will monitor, but not set targets for mean length from fishery independent spawning stock sampling and CPUE in the commercial fixed gill net fishery in the lower river below the Bear Mountain Bridge. We will also monitor age structure, frequency ofrepeat spawning, and total mortality from fishery independent sampling if we can resolve problems with age determination 3

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. and mortality estimation. A summary of existing and proposed restrictions is provided. Proposed restrictions to the recreational fishery include: a ten fish per day creel limit for individual anglers with a boat limit of 50, and a I 0 fish creel limit per day for paying customers with a boat limit of 50 for charter vessels, no fishing within 825 ft (250m) of any man made or natural barrier in the main river and tributaries, no use of nets in tributaries, and the continuation of various small nets in the main river. Proposed restrictions to the commercial fishery and use of commercial gears include: a commercial verification requirement; a net ban in the upper 28 km of the main-stem estuary, shad spawning flats, or tributaries; gill net mesh and size restrictions; a ban on fixed gears or night fishing above the Bear Mountain Bridge; seine and scap/lift net size restrictions; extension of existing 36 hour lift period to all commercial net gears; increased net fees to account for inflation since 1911 when fees were set or the preferred option of creation of a new Hudson River Commercial Fish Permit; extension of the current Marine and Coastal District Charter /Party boat license to the tidal Hudson and tributaries*at a cost of $250.00 annually; and monthly mandatory reporting of catch and harvest. We should note that Draft Addendum 3 to Amendment 6 of the ASMFC Interstate Management Plan for striped bass stipulates that states should reduce fishing mortality on spawning stocks by 50%. If this draft is approved by the ASMFC Striped Bass Management Board, we may have to restrict effort in the recreational striped bass fishery. Restrictions may include a reduction in use of bait such as river herring. Any reduction in effort will likely reduce demand for river herring and thus reduce losses in the Hudson stocks. Proposed Moratorium for streams on Long Island, Bronx County, the southern shore of Westchester County, and the Delaware River and its tributaries north of Port Jervis NY. Due to the inability to determine stock condition for these areas, the ASMFC Amendment 2 requires that a moratorium on river herring fishing be implemented. . This SFP does not directly address ocean bycatch but focuses on fisheries in New York State waters. New York is working with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the New England Fishery Management Council and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council to deal with this issue. Both councils are in the process of amending the Atlantic Herring and the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Plans to reduce bycatch of river herring. 4

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. 1 CONTENTS 2 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 6 3 MANAGEMENT UNITS....................................................................................................... 6

3. l Description of the Management Unit Habitat.................................................................. 7

3. l. l Hudson River and tributaries.................................................................................... 7 3.1.2 Long Island and Westchester County....................................................................... 8 3.1.3 Delaware River......................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Habitat Loss and Alteration.............................................................................................. 9 3.3 Habitat Water Quality.................................................................................................... 10 4

STOCK STATUS................................................................................................................. 10 4.1 Fisheries Dependent Data............................................................................................... 11 4.1.1 Commercial Fishery................................................................................................ 11 4.1.2 Recreational Fishery............................................................................................... 15 4.2 Fishery Independent Surveys......................................................................................... 16 4.2.1 Spawning Stock Surveys - Hudson River.............................................................. l 6 4.2.2 Hudson River Spawning Stock - Characteristics.................................................... 17 4.2.3 Spawning Stock Surveys - Long Island................................................................. 19 4.2.4 Volunteer and Other river herring monitoring........................................................ 19 4.2.5 Young-of-the-Year Abundance.............................................................................. 20 4.2.6 Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 21 5 PROPOSED FISHERY CLOSURES................................................................................... 21 5.1 Long Island, Bronx County and Westchester County.................................................... 21 5.2 Delaware River............................................................................................................... 21 6 PROPOSED SUSTAINABLE FISHERY............................................................................ 22 6.1 Hudson River and Tributaries........................................................................................ 22 6.1.1 Proposed Restrictions - Recreational Fishery........................................................ 23 6.1.2 Proposed Restrictions - Commercial Fishery......................................................... 25 7 PROPOSED MEASURES OF SUSTAINABILITY............................................................ 27 7.1 Targets............................................... :............................................................................ 27 7.2 Sustainability Measures.................................................................................................. 28 8 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... 29 5

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. 2 INTRODUCTION

• Amendment 2 to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Shad and River Herring Interstate Fishery Management Plan was adopted in 2009. It requires member states to demonstrate that fisheries for river herring (alewife and blueback herring) within state waters are sustainable. A sustainable fishery is defined as one that will not diminish potential future reproduction and recruitment of herring stocks. If states cannot demonstrate sustainability to ASMFC, they must close their herring fisheries.

The following proposes a plan for a sustainable fishery for river herring in waters of New York State. The goal of this plan is to ensure that river herring resources in New York provide a source of forage for New York's fish and wildlife and provide opportunities for recreational and commercial fishing now and in the future. The fisheries that existed back in colonial days in the Hudson Valley of New York undoubtedly included river herring among the many species harvested. River herring, comprised of both alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) were among the fish mentioned by early explorers and colonists - the French Jesuits, Dutch and English. Archaeological digs along the Hudson in Native American middens indicates that the fishery resources in the river provided an important food source to Native Americans. Written records for river herring harvest in New York begin in the early 1900. Landings peaked in the early 1900s and in the 1930s and then declined through the 1980s. Landings increased again through 2003, but have since declined. Factors in addition to fishing have affected the stocks: habitat destruction (filling of shallow water spawning habitat) and water quality problems associated with pollution that caused oxygen blocks in major portions of the river (Albany and New York City). Water quality has improved over the last 30 years. New York State does not augment wild river herring stocks with hatchery progeny. The New York City Parks Department initiated an experimental restoration program in which alewife were captured in a Long Island Sound tributary in Connecticut and released in the Bronx River above the first barrier. Limited returns to the river suggest that some reproduction has occurred from these stockings. A variety of non-governmental organizations along with state and federal agencies are working on development of fish passage for alewife in Long Island streams 3 MANAGEMENT UNITS The management unit for river herring stocks in New York State comprises three sub-units. All units extend throughout the stock's range on the Atlantic coast. The largest consists of the Hudson River Estuary from the Verrazano Narrows at New York City to the Federal Dam at Troy including numerous tributary streams (Figure 1 ). The second is made up of all Long Island streams that flow into waters surrounding Long Island and streams on the New York mainland (Bronx and Westchester Counties) that 6

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. flow into the East River and/or Long Island Sound (Figure 2). The third subunit consists of the non-tidal Delaware River and tributaries upriver of Port Jervis, NY. Range of the New York river herring along the Atlantic coast is from the Bay of Fundy, Canada and Gulf of Maine south to waters off Virginia (NAI 2008). A listing of most Hudson River tributaries, and streams on Long Island, and the Bronx and southern Westchester Counties are in Appendix Table A. 3.1 Description of the Management Unit Habitat 3.1.1 Hudson River and tributaries Habitat Description The Hudson River Estuary is tidal its entire length of246 km from the Battery (tip of Manhattan Island) in New York City to the Federal Dam at Troy (Figure 1). The estuary is fresh water above Newburgh (km 90). The estuarine portion of the Hudson River is considered a "drowned" river valley in that the valley slopes steeply into the river. Many of the tributaries below the Troy Dam are tidal for a short distance (usually about a kilometer) ending at a natural or man-made barrier, often built on a natural barrier. There are approximately 67 primary and secondary, both named and unnamed, tributaries to the tidal portion of the Hudson River Estuary (Figure 1). Schmidt and Cooper (1996) catalogued 62 of these tributaries for the presence or absence of barriers to migratory fish. They found that only one had no barrier for migratory fish, 31 were blocked (either partially or completely) by natural barriers, and the remaining 30 had artificial barriers, dams or culverts, that reduced or eliminated access for fish. We estimated stream length of all these tributaries to be about 97 km that is accessible to river herring below the first impassable man-made or natural barrier. The Mohawk River is the largest tributary to the Hudson River. It enters the Hudson 2 km north of the Troy Dam. Cohoes Falls, a large scenic waterfall of 20 mis the first natural barrier on the Mohawk just upriver of the confluence with the Hudson. Access into the Mohawk system was created through the Waterford Flight-a series of five locks and dams, built as part of the Erie Canal to circumvent the falls. The canal lock and dam system was built in 1825, to connect the Hudson to central New York and Lakes Ontario and Erie. The Canal parallels and/or is part of the Mohawk River for the river's entire length to Rome, a distance of 183 km. A series of permanent and seasonal pools make up the canal where it intertwines with the Mohawk River. Permanent pools created from hydro-power dams are found in the Waterford section. Temporary pools are created each year in early spring by removable dams (series of gates) that increase water levels to 14 feet (4.3 m) while the canal is in operation (May through November). During the winter months, the river is returned to its natural state of riffles and pools. 7

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. Habitat Use Hudson River alewife, blueback herring and American shad are spring spawners. Alewives are the first of the herring to enter the estuary, arriving as early as mid-March with continued spawning through early May. Blueback herring prefer slightly warmer temperatures and arrive later, usually in April. Adults of both species spawn in Hudson River tributaries and in the shallow waters of the main stem Hudson. Alewife prefer to spawn over gravel, sand and stone in back water and eddies whereas bluebacks tend to spawn in fast moving water over a hard bottom. Herring spawn in the tidal freshwater Hudson from Kingston (km 144) to Troy (km 256) (Figure 1) and its tributaries for approximately six to ten weeks, dependent on water temperature (Smith 1985, Hattala et al. 2011). Once spawning ends, most mature fish quickly return to ocean waters. The nursery area includes the spawning reach and extends south to Newburgh Bay (km 90), encompassing the freshwater portion of the Estuary. Some blueback herring of the Hudson River migrate above the Federal Dam at Troy. A few continue upriver in the non-tidal Hudson as far as Lock 4 on the Champlain Canal (NAI 2007). However, most fish tum west into the Mohawk River. This larger portion migrates as far inland as Rome (439 km inland), via the Erie Canal and the Mohawk River. The canal system opens in New York on or about May 1 51* Since most alewives are already spawning by then, they do not move into the system (J. Hasse, NYSDEC retired, personal communication). Blueback herring began colonizing the Mohawk River in the 1970s. By 1982, they had migrated into Oneida Lake in the Great Lakes drainage. The number of herring using the Mohawk increased through the 1990s, but since 2000 herring have rarely occurred in the upper end of the River. Blueback herring were historically unable to access the Mohawk River until the locks of the Erie Canal provided upstream passage into the system. Now that they are established, however, they have become important forage for local sport fish populations. 3.1.2 Long Island and Westchester County The herring runs in streams on Long Island are comprised almost exclusively of alewife (B. Young, NYSDEC retired, personal communication). Most streams are relatively short runs to saltwater from either head ponds (created by dammed streams) or deeper kettle-hole lakes. Either can be fed by a combination of groundwater, run-off or area springs. Spawning occurs in April through May in the tidal freshwater below most of the barriers. Natural passage for spawning adults into the head ponds or kettle lakes is present in very few streams. There have been limited efforts to understand river herring runs on Long Island since 1995. Several known runs of alewives on Long Island occur in East Hampton, Southampton, Riverhead and Brookhaven. With the advent of a more aggressive restoration effort in Riverhead on the Peconic River other runs have come to light. Since 2006, an annual volunteer alewife spawning 8

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. run survey has been conducted. This volunteer effort basically documents the presence or absence of alewives in Long Island Coastal Streams. In 20 I 0 a volunteer investigation was initiated to quantify the Peconic River alewife run. Size and sex data have been collected for 2010 and 2011. A crude estimate of the runs size was also made in 2010, this effort was improved during 2011 with the placement of a video camera for recording alewife passage through the fish passage. These efforts have been undertaken to understand the Long Island Coastal streams and to improve the runs that exist there. We have no record ofriver herring in any of the streams in southern Westchester County. In the Bronx River (Bronx County) alewives were introduced to this river in 2006 and 2008 and some adult fish returned in 2010. Monitoring of this run is in its early stages. 3.1.3 Delaware River No records exist to document the presence of river herring in the New York portion of the Delaware River. 3.2 Habitat Loss and Alteration Hudson River: Much spawning and nursery habitat in the upper half of the tidal Hudson was lost due to dredge and fill operations to maintain the river's shipping channel to Albany. Most of this loss occurred between the end of the 19th century (NYS Department of State 1990) and the first half of the 20th century. Preliminary estimates are that approximately 57% of the shallow water habitat ( 1,821 hectares or 4,500 acres) north of Hudson (km 190) was lost to filling (Miller and Ladd 2004). Work is in progress to map the entire bottom of the Hudson River. Data from this project will be used to characterize and quantify existing spawning and nursery habitat. While most of the dredge and fill loss affected American shad, it is suspected that herring were also affected as they spawn along the shallow water beaches in the river. Very little, or no, habitat has been lost due to dam construction. The first major dam was constructed in 1826 at Rkm 256 at Troy. Prior to the dam, the first natural barrier occurred at Glens Falls, 32 km above the Troy Dam. The construction of the dam is not known to have reduced spawning or nursery habitat. The introduction of zebra mussels in the Hudson in 1991, and their subsequent explosive growth in the river, quickly caused pervasive changes in the phytoplankton (80% drop) and micro-and macro-zooplankton (76% and 50% drop respectively) communities (Caraco et al. 1997). Water clarity improved dramatically (up by 45%) and shallow water zoobenthos increased by 10%. Given these massive changes, (Strayer et al. 2004) explored potential effects of zebra mussel impact on young-of-year (YOY) fish species. Most telling was a decrease in observed growth rate and abundance of YOY fishes, including both alewife and blueback herring. It is not yet clear how this constraint affects annual survival and subsequent recruitment. Long Island: Most all streams on Long Island have been impacted by human use as the 9

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. population expanded. Many streams were blocked off with dams to create head ponds, initially used to contain water for power or irrigation purposes. The dams remain; only a few with passage facilities. Many streams were also impacted by the construction of highways, with installations of culverts or other water diversions which impact immigrating fish. Recent efforts at restoration look to provide fish passage over or around these barriers, or even removal of small obstructions. Permanent fish passage was recently installed on the Carmans River in the South Shore Estuary near Shirley, NY. This project was the result of advocacy and cooperation by environmental groups and local, state and federal agencies. Additional protections for the River are assured due to legislation enacted in 2011, and community awareness is building. An earlier cooperative effort resulted in the installation of a rock ramp passage in the Peconic River within the Peconic Bays Estuary. Local citizens monitor the spring alewife run in this river. As awareness of these successful efforts spreads, interest in replicating that success on other systems grows. 3.3 Habitat Water Quality The Hudson has a very long history of abuse by pollution. New York City Department of Environmental Protection recognized pollution, primarily sewage, as a growing problem as early as 1909. By the 1930s over a billion gallons a day of untreated sewage were dumped into New York Harbor. (NYCDEP http://home2.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/news/hwgs.shtml) New York City was not the only source of sewage. Most major towns and cities along the Hudson added their share. It was so prevalent that the Hudson was often referred to as an open sewer. Biological demand created by the sewage created oxygen blocks that occurred seasonally (generally mid to late summer) in some sections of the river. One of the best known blocks occurred near Albany in the northern section of the tidal estuary in the 1960s through the 1970s. This block often developed in late spring and remained through the summer months. It essentially cut off the upper 40 km of the Hudson for use as spawning and nursery habitat. A second oxygen block occurred in the lower river in the vicinity of New York City in late summer. This block could potentially have affected emigrating age zero river herring. This summer oxygen-restricted area occurred for decades until 1989 when a major improvement in a sewage treatment plant came on line in upper Manhattan. It took decades, but water quality in general has greatly improved in both areas since the implementation of the Clean Water Act in the 1970s and subsequent reduced sewage loading to the river. 4 STOCK STATUS Following is a description of all available data for the Hudson's river herring stocks, plus a brief discussion of their usefulness as stock indicators. Sampling data are summarized in Tables 1 and

2. Sampling-was in support of Goal I of the Hudson River Estuary Action Agenda and has been partially funded by the Hudson River Estuary Program.

10

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. 4.1 Fisheries Dependent Data 4.1.1 Commercial Fishery Commercial fisheries for river herring in New York State waters occur in the Hudson River Estuary and in marine waters around Long Island. Current commercial fishing restrictions for New York waters are listed in Appendix Table B. The present commercial fishery in the Hudson River and tributaries exploits the spawning migration of both alewife and blueback herring. The primary use of commercially caught herring is for bait in the recreational striped bass fishery. The herring fishery occurs from March into early June annually, although some fishers report catching herring as late as July. Ocean bycatch River herring occur as bycatch in many commercial fisheries which are in the known migratory range of the. Hudson stock from North Carolina up to the Gulf of Maine. Fishery bycatch is mostly un-documented but has the potential to harvest Hudson stock and many other stocks along the coast. In some years, estimated bycatch of river herring in the Atlantic herring fishery equaled or exceed the total of all coastal in-river landings (Cieri et al. 2008). More recent analyses by the National Marine Fisheries Service's Northeast Fisheries Science Center (2011) indicated that total annual incidental catch of river herring in all fishing fleets sampled by the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program during 1989-2010 ranged from 108 to 1867 mt. It is not known how much of current ocean river herring bycatch consists of Hudson River fish. This SFP does not directly address ocean bycatch but focuses on fisheries in New York State waters. New York is working with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the New England Fishery Management Council (www.nefmc.org) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (www.mafmc.org) to deal with this issue. Both councils are in the process of amending the Atlantic Herring (Amendment 5) and the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish (Amendment 14) Plans to reduce bycatch of river herring. Gear Use in the Hudson River and Tributaries The fixed gill net fishery occurs in the mainstem river from km 40 to km 75 (Piermont to Bear Mountain Bridge, Figure 1). In this stretch, the river is fairly wide (up to 5.5 km) with wide, deepwater (~six to eight m) shoals bordering the channel. Fishers use particular locations within this section away from the main shipping channel. Over the past ten years, an average of 22 active fishers participated in this lower river fixed gill net fishery annually. Nets are 3. 7 to 183 m (12 to 600 ft) long. Above the Bear Mountain Bridge gill net fishers use both drift (~58%) and fixed gill nets (~42%). These gears are used up to km 225 (Castleton) where the river is much narrower (1.6 to 2 km wide). Approximately 60 fishers participate in this mid river gill net fishery. Nets range in size from 7.6 to 183 m (25 to 600 ft). 11

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. The other major gear used in the river herring fishery is scap nets (also known as lift and/or dip nets). The scap/lift net fishery occurs from km 70 to km 130 (Peekskill to New Baltimore), primarily in the major river herring spawning tributaries. Scap/lift nets range in size from 0.2 to" 121.9 m2 (0.5 to 400ft2). On average, about 96 fishers participate annually. Marine permits are required of fishers to use seines or scap nets greater than 36 ft2, dip or scoop nets exceeding I 4 in. in diameter, and all gill nets. Marine permit holders are required to report effort and harvest annually to the Department. Many marine permit holders are recreational anglers taking river herring for personal use as bait or food. It should be noted that over the last ten years, an average of over 260 gill net and 260 scap nets permits were sold annually. According to the required annual reports, however, only 36% of the permitees actively catch fish. In addition to Marine permits, New York has a bait license that allows the take and sale of bait fish (river herring included) using seines and cast nets. As no reporting is required for this license, harvest of river herring using this license is unknoyvn. Commercial Landings and License Reporting, Recorded landings of river herring in New York State began in the early 1900s. Anecdotal reports indicate that herring only played a small part in the historic commercial fishing industry in the Hudson River. Total New York commercial landings for river herring include all herring caught in all gears and for both marine and inland waters. Several different time series of data are reported including several state sources, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and more currently Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP). NMFS data do not specify river or ocean source(s) and landings are often reported as either alewife or blueback herring, but not both in a given year. It is unlikely that only one species was caught. From 1995 to the present, the Department has summarized landings and fishing effort information from mandatory state catch reports required for Hudson River marine permits. Full compliance for this reporting started in 2000. All Hudson River data are sent to NMFS and ACCSP for incorporation into the national databases. Because of the discrepancies among the data series and the lack of information to assign the landings to a specific water body source, only the highest value from all sources is used to avoid double counting. Several peaks occur in the river herring landings for New York (Figure 3). The first peak occurred in the early 1900s followed by a lull (with some gaps) until the period prior to, during, and after World War II when landing peaked a second time. By the 1950s landings were in a serious decline. A few unusual peaks occurred in the NMFS data series. In 1966, 1.9 million kg were landed (omitted on Figure 3), followed by a series of years oflow landings with another peak in 1982. Landings were low, with some data gaps during the rest of the 1980s through 1994. Hudson River landings 12

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. Since 1995, landings have been separated between the Hudson and other water (marine). Harvest in the river was relatively low in 1995, but grew in response to the need for bait for the expanding striped bass recreational fishery. In-river landings peaked in 2003 and have slowly declined since then (Figure 4). The reason for the decline is unknown. The striped bass fishery and the need for bait have not diminished. It is possible that recreational fishers have shifted harvest to non commercial gears which do not have a mandatory reporting requirement. The landings from these "personal use" gears are unknown. Reporting rate from fishers using commercial gear is unknown. The primary outlet for harvest taken by Hudson River marine permits is for the in-river bait industry. Since 2000, most commercially caught river herring have been taken by scap/lift nets (10 year mean of 48% of the catch) (Figure 5). The remaining 52% was split between drift and fixed gill nets. Commercial Discards From 1996 to 20 I 0, river herring were not reported as discards on any mandatory reports targeting herring in the Hudson River or tributaries. Our commercial fisheries monitoring data, however, (See program description below) suggests otherwise. Since 1995, we have observed a 0.12% rate of discard in the anchored gill net fishery. Reasons for discards are unspecified. Discard rates are unknown for ocean fisheries. Hudson River Commercial Catch Rates - Mandatory Reports Relative abundance of river herring is tracked through catch per unit effort (CPUE) statistics of fish taken from the targeted river herring commercial fishery in the Estuary. All commercial fishers annually fill out mandatory reports. Data reported include catch, discards, gear, effort, and fishing location for each trip. Data within week is summarized as total catch divided by total effort (square yards of net x hours fished), separately by gear type (fixed gill nets, drift gill nets, and scap nets). Annual means are summarized in two ways. Above the Bear Mountain Bridge and within the spawning reach, annual CPUE is calculated as total catch/total effort. Below the Bear Mountain Bridge (km 75) and thus below the spawning reach, annual CPUE is calculated as an annual sum of weekly CPUE. Here, nets capture fish moving through to reach upriver spawning locations and run size is determined by number (density) of spawners each week as well as duration (number of weeks) of the run. The sum of weekly CPUE mimics area under the curve calculations where sampling occurs in succeeding time periods. The downside of using reported CPUE to monitor relative abundance is that results can be influenced by inter-annual, location, and inter-gear differences in reporting rate. We use the CPUE of the fixed gear fishery below the Bear Mountain Bridge for estimating relative abundance because effort expended by the fishery below this bridge is much greater (~70% of fixed gill net effort) than in the river above this point (remaining 30%). Moreover, fixed gear below the bridge (rkm 40 to 75) is always fished in relatively the same location each year, is passive in nature, and intercepts fish that pass by. Annual CPUE for the lower river fixed gill net remained relatively flat until 2006 and has since increased (Figure 6). 13

I REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. We do not consider the CPUE of gears fished above the Bear Mountain Bridge and within the spawning reach as reliable an annual abundance indicator as that from fixed gill nets below the bridge. Upriver gears catch fish that are either staging (getting ready to spawn) or moving into areas to spawn and gears are generally not employed until fish are present. The gears include drift gill nets, scap nets and some fixed gill nets (Figure 5). Drift gill net CPUE is also more variable as it can be actively fished - set directly into a school of fish. Drifted gill net CPUE varied widely without trend through the time period. Scap net CPUE declined slightly from 2000 through 2003, and has since remained relatively stable (Figure 6). Fixed gill nets fished within the spawning reach show the same recent increasing trend as lower in the river, but effort expended is much less than below Bear Mountain Bridge. Hudson River Commercial Catch Rates - Monitoring Program Up until the mid-l 990s, the Department's commercial fishery monitoring program was directed at the American shad gill net fishery, a culturally historic and economically important fishery. We expanded monitoring to the river herring fishery in 1996, but were limited by available manpower and the ability to connect with the fishers. Monitoring focused on the lower river fixed gill net fishery since we considered it to be a better measure of annual abundance trends (see section above). Data were obtained by observers onboard fishing vessels. Technicians recorded data on numbers of fish caught, gear type and size, fishing time and location. Scale samples, lengths and weights are taken from a subsample of the fisher's catch. CPUE was calculated by the method used for summarizing mandatory report data (above). Since 1996, 66 trips targeting river herring (lower river: 53; mid and upper river: 13) have been monitored. These trips were sporadic and sample size is low, from one to 11 trips per year. Because of these few samples, the resulting CPUE is considered unreliable for tracking relative abundance. However, active monitoring provided the only data on catch composition of the commercial harvest and we consider these data to be useful. Commercial Catch Monitoring-Size and Age Structure Commercial fixed gill net fishers use 1 % to 2 % inch stretch mesh sizes to target herring. Catch composition include fish caught in all meshes. For trend analysis of size change, we subset the data to include only fish caught in similar size mesh each year; these include gill nets of 2 Yi and 2 % inch mesh. Catch composition varied annually most likely due to the low number of monitored trips each year, and the timing of when the trips occurred. Annual sample size was relatively low, ranging from 40 to 185 fish from 2001 to 2007 (Table 3). Alewives were observed more often than blueback herring. The species difference may be the result of when the samples occurred (early or late in the run). The sex ratio of alewife in the observed catch was nearly equal (- 50:50) in all years; more blueback herring females were caught than males (60:30 ratio). From 2001to2010, 14

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. a slight decline was observed in mean total length (mm) for both alewife and blueback herring (Figure 7). Age data for samples collected during the commercial monitoring program are yet to be analyzed (see discussion in Age section under FI programs below). 4.1.2 Recreational Fishery Hudson River and tributaries: The recreational river herring fishery exists throughout the main-stem Hudson River, and its tributaries including those in the tidal section and above the Troy Dam (Mohawk River). Herring are sought from shore and boat by angling Gigging) and multiple net gears (see Appendix B). Boat fishers utilize all allowable gears while shore fishers predominantly use scap/lift nets, or angling Gigging). Some recreational herring fishers use their catch as food (smoking/pickling). However, the recreational herring fishery is driven primarily by the need for bait in the striped bass fishery. The magnitude of the recreational fishery for river herring is unknown for most years. NY SD EC contracted with Normandeau Associates, Inc. to conduct creel surveys on the Hudson River in 2001 and 2005 (NAI 2003 and 2007). Estimated catch ofriver herring in 2001 was 34,777 fish with a 35.2% retention rate. When the 2001 data were analyzed, NAI found that the total catch and harvest of herring was underestimated due to the angler interview methods. In the 2001 survey, herring caught by fishers targeting striped bass were only considered incidental catch, and not always included in herring total catch and harvest data. Fishers were actually targeting herring and striped bass simultaneously. Corrections were made to the interview process for the 2005 survey and estimated catch increased substantially to 152, 117 herring with an increased retention rate of 75. l % (Table 4). Although some fish were reported as released, we consider these mortalities due to the herring's fragile nature. We also adjusted the 2001 catch using the 2005 survey data. The adjusted catch rose to 93, 157 fish. We also evaluated river herring use by striped bass anglers using data obtained from our Cooperative Angler Program (CAP). The CAP was designed to gather data from recreational striped bass anglers through voluntary trip reports. Volunteer anglers log information for each striped bass fishing trip including fishing time, location, bait use, and fish caught, including length, and weight, and bycatch. In 2006 through 2010, volunteer anglers were asked to provide specific information about herring bait use. The annual proportion of angler days where herring was used for bait ranged from 71 % to 93 % with a mean of77%. The proportion of herring used by anglers that were caught rather than purchased increased through the time period (Table 4). Herring caught per trip varied from 1.6 to 4.8 and with the highest values in the last two years. Herring purchased per trip ranged from 0.63 to 1.5 with the lowest value in 2009. We calculated the total number of herring caught or purchased by striped bass anglers in 2007 as the estimated number of striped bass trips from a statewide creel survey (90, 742)

• average proportion of angler days using herring in the CAP in 2007 (0.77) *number of herring caught or purchased per trip in the CAP (1.8 and 1.7). The result was 125,502 caught and 115,816 bought for a total of 241,318 herring used.

15

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. The number of river herring taken from the Hudson River and tributaries for personal use as food by anglers is unknown. Long Island: Alewives can be caught in many of the small streams on Long Island, though only the Peconic River sees more than occasional effort. No creel data are available but anecdotal information (B. Young, NYSDEC retired, personal communication) suggests that harvest is rising in the more easily accessible streams. Herring taken are used for personal consumption as well as for bait. The town of Southampton, on Long Island's East End, has local ordinances in place to prevent fishing (dipping) during the alewife spawning runs. Bronx and Westchester Counties: We do not know if any fishery occurs in the streams in Bronx and Westchester Counties that empty into the East River and Long Island Sound. 4.2 Fishery Independent Surveys 4.2.1 Spawning Stock Surveys - Hudson River Several surveys have sampled the alewife and blueback herring spawning stocks of the Hudson River and tributaries. The spawning stocks are made up of the fish which have escaped from coastal and in-river commercial and recreational fisheries. The earliest data is from a biological survey of the Hudson in 1936 by the then New York State Conservation Department (Greeley 1937). The sample size was small (25 fish) but indicates the fish were relatively large compared to recent data. More recent data on river herring come from several Department surveys. The longest dataset ( 1975-2000) is from an annual survey of chemical contaminants in fish that targeted multiple species within the Hudson River estuary. Fish were collected by electro-fishing and river herring sample size varied among years. In most years, length data were recorded for a sub sample of herring. The Department also conducted a two-year electro-fishing survey in 1989 and 1990, to examine the population characteristics of blueback herring in the Hudson and the Mohawk River, the Hudson's largest tributary. Data were obtained on length, age, and sex. Limited data on river herring stock characteristics have also been collected during annual monitoring of American shad and striped bass spawning stocks. Sampling occurs in the main-stem Hudson River between km 145 and 232 from late April through early June. Fish are collected by haul seines and electro-fishing. The 10.2 cm stretch mesh in the haul seines was specifically designed to catch shad and striped bass and avoid river herring, but some large (> 280mm) herring were occasionally retained in these gears. Herring were an incidental catch of the electro-fishing. Data were collected on length, age, and sex of river herring caught in both gears. 16

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. In 1987, the Department began to target adult river herring during the spring spawning stock survey. From 1987 to 1990, two small mesh (9.5 mm) beach seines (30.5 and 61 m) were occasionally used with some success. In 1998, we specifically designed a small haul seine (91 m) with an appropriate mesh size (5.1 cm) to target herring. It was designed to capture all sizes of herring present with the least amount of size, and age, bias. We have used this gear since 1999. Sampling occurs during the shad and bass survey within the area described above, using the same field crew. We only use data from the least size-biased gears to describe characteristics of the herring spawning stock: electro-fishing, the beach seine (61m) and the herring haul seine (91m). As sample size varied among years, all data were combined to characterize size and weight composition of the spawning population. Mean total length and weight data are summarized for adults only (>=170mm TL). 4.2.2 Hudson River Spawning Stock - Characteristics Mean Size and Growth Mean size of fish has been calculated for all years that samples were obtained (Figure 8). Sample size is relatively small, however, in most years presented (n<34 fish). Adequate samples (n>34), following the method described by Lynch and Kim (2010) to characterize length (depicted with an X over the graph's data point) were collected in the late 1980s, early 1990s, then occasionally since 2001 for both species. Lengths have declined since the early 1980s. Since 2000, mean size of female alewife has been stable, but declined slightly in males (Figure 8). Mean size of blueback herring has declined for both sexes from 1989 to the present. Age The Department samples from the 1989-1990 were primarily blueback herring. The aging method used was that of Cating (1954), developed for American shad. More recent scale samples from Department surveys remain un-aged and therefore we have limited age or repeat spawn data directly from scales of Hudson River fish. In attempting to age Hudson River herring scales, we relied on techniques used by other state agencies. As an alternative, and for a very general picture of potential age structure, we estimated annual age structure using length at age keys from datasets provided by Maine, Massachusetts, and Maryland for alewife and Massachusetts and Maryland for blueback herring. We found that three state agencies differ enough in their technique to produce variation in the results. Blueback herring: Age estimates using length-age keys differed from ages assigned by the Department for the 1989-1990 samples and from each other for most years (Figure 9). In general, keys from MD and MA were mostly in agreement for male blueback herring in most years, but MA aged females slightly older (Figure 10). Ages from two through eight were present in the spawning stock. Most fish were ages three, four, and five. Mean age remained 17

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. relatively stable among years within method (Figure 11 ). Alewife: Age estimates using length-age keys from the three states differed from each other for alewife (Figure 12). In general, the ME key resulted in the youngest ages, followed by older ages from MA, then MD. Ages from two through eight or nine were present in the spawning stock. Peak age varied with key used and by sex; most fish were ages three or four for males and four or five for females. Mean age was youngest for the ME key, older for MA, and oldest for MD age key (Figure 13). Mean age for males was greater in 2001 and 2003, then dropped and remained relatively stable for 2005 through 2010. Mean age for females was slightly lower in 2008 and 2009 but by 2010 returned to the same level as estimated for 2001 and 2003. Maximum age that the Hudson River herring stock can attain is unknown. Jessop (B. Jessop DFO retired, personal communication) reported a maximum age of 12 for both alewife and blueback herring for the St. John's River in New Brunswick. Given current uncertainty about aging methods and age of Hudson River river herring, we suggest that available estimates should only be used for a general discussion of age structure and for trends within estimate method. We do not feel that age estimates should be used to monitor changes in stock status or to set sustainable fishing targets until aging methods can be verified. This issue is currently being discussed in the ongoing ASMFC River Herring stock assessment where resolution to the differences in ageing methods is being sought.. Mortality Estimates The variation in annual age structure translated into comparable variation in estimates of total mortality when various age-based estimation methods were used. This difficulty in estimating ages precluded the use of age-based mortality estimators. As an alternative, we explored use of the Beverton-Holt length-based method (Gedamke and Hoenig 2006) using growth parameters for length calculated from the 1936 length at age data (see section above). Since the definition of length at full recruitment (Le) given by Nelson et al. (2010) seemed arbitrary, we estimated total mortality using the Nelson et al. (2010) and two additional Le values. Results from the length based method were also influenced by Loo. The Beverton-Holt method also relies on several population assumptions including continuous recruitment to the stock that the population is in equilibrium. Neither of these assumptions are true for Hudson herring stocks. Total mortality estimates for alewife of both sexes varied tremendously within and among years depending on assumed model inputs (Figure 14). Estimates increased until 2006, after which a decline occurred to 20 I 0. An even greater variation occurred for blueback herring (Figure 15) with a series of very high peaks followed by low values. Given this demonstrated sensitivity to model inputs, we suggest that total mortality of Hudson River river herring stocks remains unknown. However, we should emphasize that mortality on stocks must have been high in the last 30 years to have so consistently reduced mean size and presumably mean age. We do not feel that estimates of total mortality should be used to monitor stock change during the proposed experimental fishery unless uncertainty in estimation methodology can be resolved. Current uncertainty precludes use of total mortality to set sustainability targets. 18

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. 4.2.3 Spawning Stock Surveys - Long Island Young (2011) sampled alewife in the Peconic River 32 times throughout the spawning season in 2010. Sampling occurred by dip net just below the second barrier to migration at the lower end of a tributary stream. A rock ramp fish passage facility was completed at the first barrier near the end of February 2010. The author collected data on total length and sex and estimated the number of fish present based on fish that could be seen below the barrier. Peak spawning occurred during the last three weeks of April. The minimum estimate of run size was 25,000 fish and was the total of the minimal visual estimates made during each sample event. Males ranged from 243-300 mm with a mean length of263 mm. Females ranged from 243-313 mm with a mean of273 mm. 4.2.4 Volunteer and Other river herring monitoring The Department's Hudson River Fisheries Unit (HRFU), Hudson River Estuary Program and the Environmental Defense's South Shore Estuary Reserve Diadromous Fish Workgroup (SSER) have begun to incorporate citizen volunteers into the collection of data on temporal variation of and physical characteristics associated with spawning of river herring in tributaries. These data were not provided by the fishery dependent and independent sample programs discussed above. The volunteer programs also bring public awareness to environmentally important issues. Long Island Streams The SSER began a volunteer survey of alewife spawning runs on the south shore of Long Island in 2006. The survey is designed to identify alewife spawning in support of diadromous fish restoration projects. The survey also evaluates current fish passage projects (i.e. Carmans River fish ladder), and sets a baseline of known spawning runs. Data were available for surveys in 2006 - 2008. Monitoring occurred on six to nine targeted streams annually, with volunteer participation ranging from 24 to 68 individuals. Monitoring takes place from March through May. Alewife were seen as early as March 5 (2006) and as late as May 31 (2008). Data indicated that alewife use multiple streams in low numbers. It is not clear whether each stream supports a spawning population since total sightings were very low. The Carmans and Swan Rivers showed the most alewife activity and likely support yearly spawning migrations. The first permanent fish ladder on Long Island was installed in 2008 on the Carmans River. Information gathered during this study will aid in future construction of additional fish passage (Kritzer et al. 2007a, 2007b and I:Iughes and O'Reilly 2008). In addition to the SSER, other interested individuals have also monitored Long Island runs (see Appendix Table A). Anecdotal data provides valuable information on tracking existing in-stream conditions, whether streams hold active or suspected runs, interaction with human land uses and suggestions for improvement (L. Penney, Town of East Hampton, personal communication). A rock ramp was constructed around the first barrier to migrati?n on the Peconic River in early 19

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. 2010 (B. Young, retired, NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation, personal communication). The Peconic River Fish Restoration Commission set up an automated video counting apparatus at the upriver end of this ramp. Data are still being analyzed. The Department has conducted a similar river herring volunteer monitoring program annually since 2008 for tributaries of the Hudson River Estuary (Dufour et al. 2009, NYSDEC 2010, Hattala et al. 2011 ). We designed this project to gather presence-absence and temporal information about river herring spawning runs from the lower, middle and upper tributaries of the Estuary. Between nine and 11 tributaries were monitored annually by 70 to 213 volunteers in 2008, 2009, and 2010. Herring were seen as early as 31 March and as late as l June. River herring were observed in all but one of the tributaries. However, several tributaries with known strong historical runs had very few sightings. Water temperature seemed to be the most important factor determining when herring began to run up a given tributary. Sightings of herring were most common at water temperature above 50 F. Tributaries in the middle part of the estuary warmed the fastest each spring and generally had the earliest runs. 4.2.5 Young-of-the-Year Abundance Since 1980, the Department has obtained an annual measure ofrelative abundance ofyoung-of-the-year (YOY) alewife and blueback herring in the Hudson River Estuary. Although the program was designed to sample YOY American shad, it also provides data on the two river herring species. Blueback herring appear more commonly than alewife. In the first four years of the program, sampling occurred river-wide (rkm 0-252), bi-weekly from August through October, beginning after the peak in YOY abundance occurred. The sampling program was altered in 1984 to concentrate in the freshwater middle and upper portions of the Estuary (km 88-225), the major nursery area for young herring. Timing of samples was changed to begin in late June or early July and continue biweekly through late October each year. Gear is a 30.5 m by 3.1 m beach seine of 6.4 mm stretch mesh. Collections are made during the day at approximately 28 standard sites in preferred YOY herring habitat. Catch per unit effort is expressed as annual geometric and arithmetic means of number of fish per seine haul for annual weeks 26 through 42 (July through October). This period encompasses the major peak of use in the middle and upper estuary. From 1980 to 1998, the Department's geometric mean YOY annual index for alewife was low, with only one year (1991) over one fish per haul. Since 1998, the index has increased erratically (Figure 16). From 1980 through 1994, the Department's geometric mean YOY annual index for blueback herring averaged about 24 fish per haul, with only one year (1981) dropping below 10 fish per haul (Figure 16). After 1994, the mean dropped to around 17 fish per haul, and then began the same high-low pattern observed for alewife. The underlying reason for the wide inter-annual variation in YOY river herring indices is not clear. The same erratic trend that occurred since 1998 has also occurred in American shad 20

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. (Hattala and Kahnle 2007). The increased inter-annual variation in relative abundance indices of all three Alosines may indicate a change in overall stability in the system. 4.2.6 Conclusion Over the last 30 years, the Hudson River stocks of alewife and blueback herring have shown inconsistent signs in stock status trends. Calculated CPUE for commercial gill net gears has increased in recent years, while CPUE in scap nets fished in tributaries initially declined, but has remained relatively stable since 2003. Apparent mortality increased on mature fish and as mortality rose, mean total length and weight declined. Similar trends occur in the both the fishery dependent and independent data. Recruitment has become extremely variable since the mid-l 990s for both species. Some decline is occurring for YOY blueback herring while, counter-intuitively, there has been an increasing trend for YOY alewife. Anecdotal evidence from anglers and commercial fishermen.suggest a decline in abundance in tributaries yet a dramatic increase of herring in the main-stem river in the last few years. The upsurge in river herring used as bait for striped bass has placed herring in a tenuous position. With this continuing demand, declining size, and increasing mortality, careful management is needed despite variable but stable recruitment. 5 PROPOSED FISHERY CLOSURES 5.1 Long Island, Bronx County and Westchester County Limited data that have been collected for Long Island river herring populations are not adequate to characterize stock condition or to choose a measure of sustainability.. Moreover, there are no long-term monitoring programs in place that could be used to monitor future changes in stock condition. In 2010, the Peconic River Fish Restoration Commission installed a rock ramp to provide fish passage at the first dam on the Peconic River system. In the spring of 2011, a fish counting apparatus was installed upriver of this ramp. In addition, the Commission initiated biological fish sampling of species, sex, length and scales. If these operations continue in the future and if these provide information that could be used to set and monitor a sustainability target, we will consider a fishery for this river. Little data have been collected for river herring populations in the Bronx and Westchester Counties. For the above reasons, New York State will close all fisheries for river herring in Long Island streams and in the Bronx and Westchester County streams that empty into the East River and Long Island Sound. 5.2 Delaware River 21

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. We have no data that suggest river herring occur in New York waters of the Delaware River. New York State proposes to close fishing for river herring in New York waters of the Delaware River to prevent future harvest should the Delaware stock rebound and expand upriver. This closure conforms to similar closures planned for the Delaware River and Bay by Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. 6 PROPOSED SUSTAINABLE FISHERY 6.1 Hudson River and Tributaries Given the mixed picture of stock status provided by available data on Hudson River herring, New York State proposes a restricted fishery in the main-stem Hudson River coupled with a partial closure of the fishery in all tributaries. We do not feel that the data warrant a complete closure of all fisheries. We propose that the restricted fishery would continue for five years concurrent with annual stock monitoring. We propose a five-year period because the full effect of our proposed restrictions will not become apparent until all age classes in the population have been exposed to the change. Most of the fish in the Hudson River herring spawning stocks are estimated to be three through seven years old and these ages predominate in the fishery. Sustainability targets would be set juvenile indices. We would monitor, but not yet set targets for mean length from fishery independent spawning stock sampling and CPUE in the commercial fixed gill net fisheries in the lower river below Bear Mountain Bridge. We will also monitor age structure, frequency of repeat spawning, and total mortality (Z) if we can resolve uncertainties about aging methods and mortality estimate methodology. Stock status would be evaluated during and after the five year period and a determination made whether to continue or change restrictions. Moreover, we do not know how much of the apparent high mortality is caused by bycatch in ocean fisheries and thus outside current scope of restrictions proposed in this plan. Recreational harvest of river herring is much greater than reported harvest from commercial gears. Data from a creel survey in 2005 estimated approximately 152,000 herring were taken in the recreational fishery (NAI 2007) while some 31,000 herring were reported from commercial gears (Table 2). For this reason, we feel that restrictions to the recreational fishery will likely have a greater impact on take of herring than commercial restrictions. We should note that Draft Addendum 3 to Amendment 6 of the ASMFC Interstate Management Plan for striped bass stipulates that states should reduce fishing mortality on spawning stocks by 50%. If this draft is approved by the ASMFC Striped Bass Management Board, we may have to restrict effort in the recreational striped bass fishery. Restrictions may include a reduction in use of bait such as river herring. Any reduction in effort will likely reduce demand for river herring and thus reduce losses in the Hudson stocks. A summary of the following fishery restrictions are contained in Tables 5 and 6. These restrictions were based on public comments received from public information meetings held in 22

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. the Hudson valley in 2010 in addition to the need to reduce harvest. Public suggestions for restrictions are listed in Appendix C. 6.1.1 Proposed Restrictions - Recreational Fishery Recreational fishing season Currently none; proposed season is March 15 to June 15. Recreational Creel Limit Currently there are no restrictions on daily take of river herring in the Hudson and its tributaries. To reduce harvest and waste, we propose to implement a restrictive recreational creel limit of ten river herring per day, or a total maximum boat limit of 50 per day for a group of boat anglers, whichever is less. A Charter boat captain (see Commercial Fishery Restrictions) will be responsible for a possession limit of I 0 river herring per paying customer or a total maximum boat limit of 50 herring per day, whichever is less. Charter boat captains are required, at minimum, to hold a US Coast Guard "six pack" license, i,e. a maximum number of six passengers can be on board. However, most vessels fishing the Hudson relatively small (20 to 30 ft) with an average of four fares maximum. Most of the river herring harvest is driven by striped bass fishermen catching herring for bait. Anecdotal reports and comments at public meetings suggest that many anglers take many more herring than they need for a day's fishing. The proposed creel limit will prevent such overharvest and avoid waste. We obtained an idea of potential harvest reduction from the proposed creel survey from data in the Cooperative Angler Program described in Section 2.1.3. Data were available on herring harvest during 502 trips. Since trip level reports often included more than one angler, we divided the reported herring catch by the number of anglers for an estimate of catch per angler trip. These data indicated that 56 percent of the catch per angler trips caught six or more herring suggesting that a five fish limit could reduce harvest by 56 percent. To track harvest, New York will implement the on line creel survey/ diary program coordinated by ACCSP. It is scheduled to go live by Jan. I, 2012. New York will increase public outreach to encourage angler use of this program. We will also continue the Cooperative Angler Program for comparison and for individuals not savvy with on-line tools. Prohibit Harvest by Nets in Tributaries Recreational anglers generally use hook and line (jigging) in the main-stem river and are allowed to use personal use gears (without a license) of scap/lift nets (36 sq ft or less), small dip nets, and cast nets. They are not required to report this catch and the number of herring taken by these gears is unknown. Anecdotal reports and observations suggest tributaries are popular locations for recreational harvest by these net gears, especially in the middle section of the estuary (Figure 1 ). 23

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. Information from the volunteer angler program along with anecdotal data on recreational harvest suggests that abundance of river herring, mostly alewife, has declined in some spawning tributaries. This may be due to the increased vulnerability to harvest as herring often concentrate in these tributaries in large schools to spawn. Tributaries with an impassable barrier close to the mouth confine fish to even smaller areas. For these reasons, we feel it prudent to close recreational harvest by nets from tributaries until measures of stock condition improve. We did not feel that it was feasible or desirable to enforce a closure on angling for river herring in tributaries. In the main-stem Hudson, personal use nets will be allowed to continue but with a reduced size for scap/ lift nets (16 sq ft instead of 36 sq ft); seine, cast, and dip nets sizes will remain the same (Table 5). Closed areas Although personal-use net fishing by recreational anglers will not be allowed in tributaries, angling will continue. However, to further relieve fishing pressure in areas of fish concentration, in addition to the net ban, no fishing will be allowed within the River Herring Conservation Area (RHCA) defined as stream length within 250 m (825 feet) of any type of barrier, natural or man-made. This is similar to a fishing ban within 50 rods of fishways instituted in New York in 1895. Many of the Hudson's tributaries have natural (rapids) or man-made barriers a short distance in from the main river. River herring concentrate in great numbers below these barriers making them very vulnerable to any fishing. This closed area will allow them to spawn in this undisturbed stretch. The RHCA closure will effectively end all fishing in the eight smallest tributaries, or 14% of the tributaries in the estuary. Above the Troy Dam, an area closure is already in effect for the "Waterford Flight", Lock 2 to Guard Gate 2, a series of dams and locks at the entrance to the Mohawk River. Within the Mohawk, a RHCA will be in effect below any of the remaining locks and dams up to Lock 21 in Rome. Escapement period None are proposed. Licensing and reporting In 2011, New York State implemented a recreational marine fishing registration. All anglers fishing for anadromous fish must register prior to fishing for migratory fish of the sea. For the Hudson this includes river herring and striped bass. The recreational and commercial fisheries for American shad were closed in the Hudson River in 2010. 24

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. By Jan 1 2012 New York, in cooperation with ACCSP, will start up an online angler survey. The Department will increase public outreach to strongly encourage fishers to use this new tool to aid in understanding recreational catch and harvest. 6.1.2 Proposed Restrictions - Commercial Fishery License Required: Currently, fishers using commercial, non-personal use size gears to take and /or sell fish must be in possession of a Marine Permit for that gear. Marine permits have an annual reporting requirement, but no requirements for proof that harvest was for commercial purposes. Recreational fishermen commonly purchase marine permits and use commercial gears because of the low cost. We propose to strengthen the commercial aspects of these gears by requiring proof that harvest was sold as a requirement for license renewal. The overlap with gears licensed under the NY bait license will be minimized by requiring a Marine Permit to take river herring. Cast nets will be included under the Marine Permit licensing system. Closed area We propose to continue the current closures as listed in Table 6 and implement a new closure: Prohibit Harvest by Nets in Tributaries: Closing the tributaries to harvest by nets will likely reduce overall harvest, but the actual size of this reduction is not known. We do not know the size of recreational net harvest from tributaries. We can infer current commercial harvest from tributaries by the number of fish taken in scap nets since most river herring taken in tributaries are taken by this gear and most scap nets are fished in tributaries. Mean annual reported harvest by commercial scap nets in the last five years was about 15,000 river herring or 48% of the total reported commercial harvest. The mean number of commercial fishing trips using scap nets during this time period was 611 trips which were about 59% of all reported trips in the estuary and tributaries. Elimination of commercial net harvest from these waters will eliminate commercial fishing in 175 miles, or approximately 65% of linear spawning streams in the Estuary and above the Troy Dam. Gear Restrictions All current gear restrictions will remain in place (Table 6). Other changes include: Gill nets: Currently both anchor and drift gill nets are used in the mid and upper estuary above the Bear Mountain Bridge(> rkm75). Both gears catch herring, but losses can be higher in anchored nets because they are often not tended as frequently as drifted nets. This is especially the case with recreational fishermen who are often not experienced in use of gill nets. We propose to ban use of fixed gill nets in the Hudson River above Bear Mountain Bridge; drift gill 25

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. nets are required to be tended by owners as they are fished. We don't know what reduction in harvest would result, but some will occur and the change will certainly reduce waste of fish. Scap /Lift nets: Currently there are no limits on size of scap nets to be used. Mandatory reports indicate that the largest nets in use are 400 sq ft (20 by 20 ft). The proposed maximum net size is 10 ft by 10 ft. Fyke and Trap nets: Although currently legal for the take of river herring, no commercial harvest is reported from these gears. We propose that their use not be allowed for harvest ofriver herring. Commercial Net Permit and Fees Commercial gears in the main-stem Hudson and tributaries are licensed under a NYSDEC Bureau of Marine Resources Marine Permit. Access to obtain a Marine Permit remains open, with no prior requirements. These commercial gears are often used by recreational fishermen because current permit fees are very low. Most fees were set in 1911 by the then New York Forest, Fish and Game Commission and no fee increases have occurred through the present time. Commercial gears such as gill nets can take high numbers of herring and are not considered to be recreational gear in New York. For the purposes of harvest in ocean waters (Marine and Coastal District), gill nets are considered commercial gear and their use for recreational purposes is not permitted. We propose regulations to increase fees to account for inflation, to emphasize that nets are commercial gears, and to discourage casual use by recreational anglers. Current fee structure can be found in New York Code of Rules and Regulation-Part 35 (see http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4019.html ). We considered two alternatives.

1. Increased gear and fishing vessel fees.

a. In 1911, fees were $5.00 per each trap, seine or gill net, and $1.00 per scap net.

These fees would translate to $115.00 per gill net or seine and $25.00 per scap net in today's (2011) dollars.

b. Gill nets and seines can also be licensed by the linear foot of net rather than as a type of net. We propose that the current$ 0.05 per foot be increased to $1.00 per foot. Data from the mandatory reports indicates that the most recent (2010) licensed gill net lengths ranged from 10 ft ($10 fee) to 600 ft ($600 fee). Seines have no maximum length restriction in place; current use is 50 ft ($50 fee) to 100 ft ($100 fee).

c. Another way to differentiate between recreational and commercial fishermen is to reinstitute the 1911 fishing vessel registration for the Hudson River, which is still active for other waters of NY. The 1911 fee of $15.00 for the smallest motorized vessel translates to $350.00 per vessel in today's dollars.

2. A single commercial gear permit.

26

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. This approach simplifies the above combination of gear fees and is our preferred alternative. We would create a Hudson River Commercial Fish Gear Permit (HRCFGP): for individuals who want to harvest river herring or Atlantic menhaden; fee of $150. This would be instead of individual gear licenses.

a.

Qualifications needed: proof of previous sale to a licensed retail bait shop; if a business (retail bait shop), proof of business incorporation (LLC)

b.

If applicant holds a valid New York food fish or crab permit(s); cost ofHRCFGP to be offset by valid permit fee(s)

c. To include all restrictions as listed in Table 6.

d. Gears to be used include anchored (fixed) and drifted gill nets, scap/lift nets, seines and cast nets (see Table 6 for size limitations)

Gear restrictions outlined above will still apply to any alternative chosen. Closed Fishing Days A 36-hour escapement period per week, from 6 AM prevailing time on Friday to 6 PM prevailing time on Saturday, is in effect for commercial gill nets from March 15 to June 15. We propose to expand this closure to include all commercial nets. Reporting Current mandatory reports of daily catch and effort data are submitted annually. We will continue to require these reports, but decrease the time of report submission to monthly. Charter Boat License In order to distinguish Charter Boat operators from recreational anglers, we propose to use the existing Marine & Coastal District Party & Charter Boat License (CPBL), as it exists for NY's Marine District. CPBL holders will follow all regulation as established for the Marine District with two exceptions: creel and size limit for striped bass will comply with limits set for the Hudson River above the G. Washington Bridge and the creel limit for a charter boat will be 20 river herring per day. Hudson valley charters can take up to three to six individuals per trip. 7 PROPOSED MEASURES OF SUSTAINABILITY 7.1 Targets Juvenile Indices We propose to set a sustainability target for juvenile indices using data from the time period of 27

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. 1983 through 2010 for both species. We will use a more conservative definition of juvenile recruitment failure than described in*section 3.1.1.2 of Amendment 2 to the ASMFC Interstate Fisheries Management Plan for Shad and River herring (ASMFC 2009). Amendment 2's definition is that recruitment failure occurs when three consecutive juvenile index values are lower than 90 % of all the values obtained in the base period. We will use a 75% cut off level. The 75% level for alewife is 0.35 (instead of 0.19) and 11.14 (instead of 2.86) for blueback herring (Figure 16). The fishery will close system-wide ifrecruitment failure, defined as three consecutive years below the recruitment failure limit, occurs in either species and will remain closed until we see three consecutive years of recruitment greater than the target values. 7.2 Sustainability Measures There are several measures of stock condition of Hudson River herring that can be used to monitor relative change among years. However, these measures have limitations (described below) that currently preclude their use as targets. These include mean length in fishery independent samples, catch per unit effort (CPUE) in the reported commercial harvest and age structure. We propose to monitor these measures during the fishery and use them in concert with the sustainability target to evaluate consequences of a continued fishery. Mean Length Mean total length reflects age structure of the populations and thus some combination of recruitment and level of total mortality. Mean total lengths of both river herring species in the Hudson River system has declined over the last 20 years and the means are now the lowest of the time series. Since this has been a persistent change in the face of stable recruitment, we suggest that the reduction in length has been caused by excessive mortality of adults within the river and during their ocean residency (bycatch). The bycatch fishery is a large unknown and not solely controlled by New York State to effect a change. Current annual reproduction now relies on a few returning year classes making the populations vulnerable to impacts of poor environmental conditions during the spawning and nursery seasons. We propose to monitor mean total lengths during the proposed fishery. Catch per Unit Effort in Report Commercial We suggest that CPUE values of the reported harvest reflect general trends in abundance. However, annual values can be influenced by changes in reporting rate and thus we do not feel that CPUE should be used as a target. Rather, we will follow changes within gear types and fisheries for general trends. Age structure and Total mortality We will monitor age structure, frequency of repeat spawning, and total mortality (Z) if we can 28

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. resolve uncertainties about aging methods and estimate methodology discussed in Status Section 4.2.2. 8 REFERENCES ASMFC. (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2009. Amendment 2 to the Interstate fishery management plan for shad and river herring. Washington, D.C. USA. Caraco, N.F., J.J. Cole, P.A. Raymond, D. L Strayer, M.L. Pace, S.E.G. Findlay and D.T. Fischer. 1997, Zebra mussel invasion in a large turbid river: phytoplankton response to increased grazing. Ecology 78:588-602. Cating, J. P. 1954. Determining age of Atlantic shad for their scales. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bulletin54: 187-199. Cieri, M., G. Nelson, and M. Armstrong. 2008. Estimate of river herring bycatch in the directed Atlantic herring fishery. Report prepared for the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Dufour, M. R. Adams, K. Hattala, and L. Abuza. 2009. 2008 volunteer river herring monitoring program. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, New Paltz, NY. Gedamke, T, and J.M. Hoenig. 2006. Estimating mortality from mean length data in nonequilibrium Situations, with Application to the Assessment ofGoosefish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:476-487. Greeley J.R. 1937. Fishes of the area with annotated list IN A biological survey of the lower Hudson watershed. Suppplement to the twenty-sixth annual report, 1936, State of New York Conservation Department. J.B. Lyons Company Albany NY, USA. Hattala, K., M. Dufour, R. Adams, K. McShane, J. Kinderd, and R. Lowenthal. 2011. Volunteer river herring monitoring program 2010 report. NT State Department of Environmental Conservation, New Paltz, NY. Hattala, K. and A. Kahnle. 2007. Status of the Hudson River, New York, American shad stock. IN ASMFC Stock assessment Report No. 07-01 (supplement) of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. American shad stock assessment report for peer review, Volume II. Washington, D.C.,USA. Hughes, A, and C, O'Reilly. Monitoring Alewife Runs in the South Shore Estuary Reserve Report on the 2008 Volunteer Survey. July 2008. <http://www.estuary.cog.ny.us/council-priorities/living-resources/alewife_survey I Alewife%202008.pdf>. [accessed September 2008]. Kahnle, A., D. Stang, K. Hattala, and W. Mason. 1988. Haul seine study of American shad and striped bass spawning stocks in the Hudson River Estuary. Summary report for 1982-1986. New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, New Paltz, NY, USA. 29

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. Kritzer, J, A. Hughes and C, O'Reilly. 2007a. Monitoring Alewife Runs in the South Shore Estuary Reserve Report on the 2006 Volunteer Survey 06. <http://www.estuary.cog.ny.us/council-priorities/living-resources/alewife _survey /2006%20Alewife%20Survey%20Report. pdf>. [accessed September 2008]. Kritzer, J, A. Hughes and C, O'Reilly. 2007b. Monitoring Alewife Runs in the South Shore Estuary Reserve Report on the 2007 Volunteer Survey. <http://www.estuary.cog.ny.us/council-priorities/living-resources/alewife_survey/2007%20Alewife%20Survey%20Final.pdf>. [accessed September 2008]. Lynch, R. and B. Kim. 20 I 0. Sample size, the margin of error and the coefficient of variation. http://interstat.statjournals.net/YEAR/20 I O/articles/100 l 004.pdf Miller, D., and J. Ladd. 2004. Channel morphology in the Hudson River Estuary: past changes and opportunity for restoration. In Currents-newsletter of the Hudson River Environmental Society, Vol. XXXIV, No. I. Available: http://www2.marist.edu/~en04/CUR34-1.pdf. Normandeau Assoociates Inc. 2003. Assessment of Hudson River Recreational Fisheries. Final Report prepared for the New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Albany NY, USA. Normandeau Assoociates Inc. 2007. Assessment of Spring 2005 Hudson River Recreational Fisheries. Final Report prepared for the New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Albany NY, USA. Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2008. Spawning stock characteristics of alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) in the Hudson River Estuary and tributaries, including the Mohawk River. Final Report prepared for the New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Albany NY, USA. Nelson, G. A, P. Brady, J. Sheppard and M.P. Armstrong. 2010. An assessment ofriver herring stocks in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Technical Report. NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2011. Part I - preliminary analyses for Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. Prepared for the 10 May 2011 FMAT meeting, Woods Hole, MA. NYCDEP http://home2.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/news/hwgs.shtml NY SD EC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2010. Volunteer river herring monitoring program 2009. NY State Department of Environmental Conservation, New Paltz, NY. Schmidt, R. and S. Cooper. 1996. A catalog of barriers to upstream movement of migratory fishes in Hudson River tributaries. Final report to the Hudson River Foundation from Hudsonia, Annandale NY, USA.. Smith, C.L. 1985. Inland fishes ofNew York State. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY, USA. Strayer, D.L., K.A. Hattala, and A.W. Kahnle. 2004. Effects of an invasive bivalve (Dreissena 30

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. polymorpha) on fish in the Hudson River estuary. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61 :924-941. Young, B. 2011. Report on Peconic River alewife run - 2010. Peconic River Fish Restoration Commission, Ridge, NY, youngb53@optimum.net. 31

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. Upper Hudson (non-tidal)

---

~~~~~~~e:~~:~-~~: _____________.f"f!ef§..r!:f!_~_froJ!f'5!!!~45)

Upper Estulll)I Mid Esiu<<Jy Quassaick Oeek, Newburgh Bay (km 95) Lower Estuary G. Washington Blidge Poesl.Qn. K-UZ Castleton - I-90 Blidge &ckportOeek ___ EiJl Y<m Wm~_ fJ.,jdu.. -.. Pougltlleepsie (km 122) Figure I Hudson River Estuary with major spawning tributaries for river herring. (see Appendix Table A for complete list) 32

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. 33

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. CT Hudson River NY Longlslaud Somicl Atlantic Ocean Figure 2 Long Island, Bronx and Westchester Counties, New York, with some river hen-ing (primarily alewife) spawning streams identified (See Appendix Table A for list) 34

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. 250 200 "CJ r::: :il 0 150 f:; I.::> 100 so 0.,.. en 0 0 en en en.... Commercial landings of River herring in NY N N en en en en en 00 00 en en Figure 3 Commercial landings of river herring from all waters of New York State. ..c v 0.60 0.50 ~ 0.40 ~ 0.30 0.10 0.00 45 40

• Ocean waters 35
• Hudson River 30 "O

25 c 20 0 ..c 15 QC 10 s 0 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 Figure 4 Commercial landings of river herring in the Hudson River and NY Ocean waters. i -r-2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ~ FixedbBMB -+- Drift -- Fixed aBMB -r-Scap Figure 5 Percent commercial catch by gear of river herring in the Hudson River (alb BMB=above and below Bear Mountain Bridge). 35

2.00 u o ~ I.GO 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.10 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. lower River Catch-Per-Unit-Effort ArtaUJ\\detCUrve-cpue 2000 2001 2002 2001 2004 200S 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ~ ¥ ~. ~

l 2.00 I

'§ 1.50 8 "' i ~ z J.00 0.50 1 0.00 Mid & Upper River Catch-per-Unit-Effort : weighted mean -+- Orift GM fi>l~dGN *oBMB --S<op 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Figure 6 Catch per Unit Effort (number offish per hours fished) by area of the river and gear. Lower estuary = below Bear Mountain Bridge [rkm 75); Mid & Upper estuary = above the Bear Mountain Bridge. ....-Alewife-M ...... Alewife-F 300 ....,.. Blueback herring-M 290 -*"" Blueback herring-F E E 280 .s::. 270 t>4 260 t: -t GI ...... 250 iii 240 0,_ 230 c.,, GI 220 210 200 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Figure 7 Mean total length of river herring collected from commercial fishery monitoring trips in the Hudson River Estuary 36

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. 340.0 Alewife + Male 320.0

• Female E

E . 300.0 bt> 280.0 c QI 260.0

c;

~ c 240.0 QI ~ 22.0.0 200.0 1936 1976 1979 198Z 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 340.00 Blueback herrin g 320.00 E 300.00 E ..c ~ 280.00 !l

§ 260.00 c ".,

240.00 2

• lll.

B: + Male )I( *

• JS(

Female +

• • • * ')I(

)I( 220.00 200.00 1936 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 200 9 Figure 8 Mean total length of river herring in the Hudson River Estuary. Symbols with an "X" indicate adequate sample size (N>3'4) to characterize the stock. 37

41 200 150 1100

I z

GI ..0 E

J z 50 0

200 150 100 50 0 REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. Blueback herring male -+-HRmale89 ---Mamale89 ..,._tv1 clmale89 l 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Age Blueback herring male -&- HRmale90 ""*"9 MAmale90 Mdmale90 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Age 9 200 150 GI ~ 100

J z 50 0

150 .... 100 GI ..0 E

) z 50 0

Blueback herring female -+- HRfemale89 Mafemale89 -op-. Mdfemale89 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Age Blueback herring female -&- HRfemale90 ~ Mafemale90 MDfemale90 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Age Figure 7 Hudson (HR) age structure and estimated age structure of Hudson River blueback herring based on length-at-age keys from Massachusetts (MA) and Maryland (MD) blueback herring. 38

~ E z 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 ~ I 0.0 2 3 REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. 60.0 ~o.o 40.0 * ..0 30.0 E

> :z 20.0 10.0 0.0 Blueback herring 2009 4

---M-Md ...,_F*Ma -+--F-Md 6 7 8 9 10 Ace Blueback herring 1992 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A&e Blueback herring 2010 35.0 30.0 25.0 ~ LO.U ..0 E " :s.o - z

o.o.

5.0 0.0 4 5 6 7 8 9 Age 10 Figure I 0 Estimated age structure of Hudson River blueback herring based on length-at-age keys from Massachusetts (MA) and Maryland (MD). Blueback herring mean age 6.00 5.00

• Ma-m GI 4.00 8 Md-m bl)

"' c 3.00

• Ma-f GI 2.00
• MM 1.00
• NY-m 0.00 Ny-f 1989 1990 1991 1992 2009 2010 Figure 11 Mean age of Hudson River blueback herring based on length-at-age keys from Massachusetts (MA) and Maryland (MD).

39

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. 4.80 Alewife -male 4.60

• MA
• MD
• ME 4.40 4.20 cu till 4.00

<II c: <II cu 3.80 ~ 3.60 3.40 3.20 3.00 1990 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5.00 Alewife -female 4.80

• MA
• MD 4.60 4.40 cu 4.20 till

<II c: 4.00 <II cu ~ 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 3.00 1990 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Figure 13. Mean age of Hudson River alewife, ages estimated from age-length keys from Maine (ME), Massachusetts (MA) and Maryland (MD). 41

E

• z

. ~ iii... 5 E iii ~ "ti.. ~ J; 'Oo c:.. "' E

• z
• '=

iii...... 0 E iii... ~ "ti.. ~ J; t'o c:.. 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. ~ L c=250 Lc=240 ...... Lc=230 Male alewife 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1980 ...,_Lc=250 Lc=240 ..... Lc=230 Female alewife A *

• 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Figure 14. Length-based mortality estimates for Hudson River alewife. Le =minimum length offish caught in the sample gear.

42

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. 16.0 Male Blueback herring 14.0 -+- Lc=250 ~ ..... Lc=240 \\;

• ~ 12.0 Lc=230 QI

.~ 10.0 ! 0 E 8.0 0 ~ I- "'O 6.0 QI .a J::. 4.0 ti. c QI 2.0 0.0 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 14.0 Female Blueback herring 12.0 -+- Lc=250 QI -tl-Lc=240 10 E ...,._ Lc=230

• ~ 10.0 QI

.~ 8.0 0 E 0 6.0 I- "'O ~ .a J::. 4.0 '\\.-- ti. c QI ~ 2.0 I 0.0 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 Figure 15 Length-based mortality estimates for Hudson River blueback herring. Le =minimum length of fish caught in the sample gear. 43

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. 7.00 Alewife 6.00 - *- Geometric Mean w Cl 5.00 25th percentile 1983-2010 u 10th percentile 1983-2010 3: c: 4.00 QI ~ u *s QI E 3.00 0 QI \\!) 2.00 1.00 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 70.00 Blueback herring

• • *.&** Geometric Mean w Cl

-- 25th percentile 1983-2010 60.00 10th percentile 1983-2010 50.00 0

• ~ 40.00

ii..

~ ..,.. 30.00 E 0.. 20.00 10.00 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 Figure 16. Annual young-of-the-year indices (with 95% Cl) for alewife and blueback herring collected in the Hudson River Estuary. 44

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. T bl I S a e ummary o f

• 1 bl fi h ava1 a e 1s erv-d d

epen ent nver h erring d . H d ata m u son 1ver an d M. ff anne 1stnct o fN ew y k or. Data Type Time period/ Details Description Usefulness as index Fisherv Deoendent - Commercial Harvest Historic data: Provide catch and effort data Gives historic perspective -1 904-1994: NMFS Not separated by area (river v marine) Provides trend data for state as a whole, but does not -1994-present: Hudson (see below)- River data reporting rate unknown separate river(s) from ocean until 1994. NYSDEC; Marine waters-VTR/dealer repo1t since 2002 -1994-present: transfer of historic NMFS data to ACCSP, data available in confidential and non-confidential form Marine monitoring River herring most likely occur as bycatch No port sampling in NY for 'herring' in variety of fisheries Hudson River Began in 1995 through the present Data from 2000 to present good Emigration area CPUE Mandatory reports Enforcement of reports in 2000 Reporting rate unknown Fixed GN below BMB: Catch and effort statistics Data separated by gear used: o Good indicator of abundance Licenses are open access with low fees, Fixed gill net below Bear Mountain Bridge (BMB); o increasing trend many recreational fishers purchase and use passive gear below spawning area; consistent manner of Spawning area CPUE t;;ommercial gears to obtain bait fishing; weekly sum ofCPUE approximating "area under o Drift GN - variable urve** method o Scap - Flat In spavming area above BMB o Fixed GN-increasing Drift gill (main-stem HR only) - active gear Fixed gill (main-stem HR only) - less effort than below SMB Scap/lift net (main-stem HR and tributaries) Hudson R. Fishery Began in 1999 through the present Number of annual trips are low: co-occurs & conflicts Characterize catch Monitoring Onboard monitoring ~vith Fl sampling Catch and effort statistics Catch samples low Catch subsample NEED improved sample size to be useful Fisherv Deoendent - Recreational Harvest (primarily Creel surveys: 2001: provides point estimate of effort for striped bass, Combination of effort for striped bass and point sought as bait for 200 1, river-wide, all year )ancillary river herring (RH) data estimate of RH harvest; combine with below CAP striped bass; some 2005, spring only 2005 provides point estimate of RH harvest & effort for data to estimate magnitude ofrecreational harvest for harvest for personal 2007, state-wide angler survey; effort for ~tri ped bass 2005 to the present. consumotion) 6triped bass Cooperative Angler Data 2006-present Diary program for striped bass anglers; includes data for Good.RH use per trip-used above with rec. harvest Program RH catch or purchase, use bv trip to estimate total recreational harvest 45

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. T bl 2 S a e ummary o f ., bl fi h . d avai a e 1s erv-m d epen ent nver h ernng d . H d ata m u son 1ver, N ew y k or Data tvne Time period/Agency Description Usefulness as index Fisherv Indenendent-Hudson River Spawning stock 1936: Biological Survey Historic data, low sample size of25 fish, species, Indication of size change to present sex, length & age 1975-1 985: NYSDEC contaminant Sample size low and extremely variable by year Indication of size change to present samnling 1989-1 990 NYSDEC Hudson-Mohawk Focused study, large sample size ( 1, 100 fish): Primarily blueback herring River. snecies, sex, length & age 1999-200 I No1mandeau Assoc. Inc. (NAI) Contract to assess gears for spawning stock survey Primary gear used was size selective gill nets; - Developed own age key; not clear how compares to precludes use for length analyses; need method of other Atlantic coast states adjustment for ages 200 I to present: NY SD EC spawning stock Focused spavvning stock survey; >300 fish Sample design precludes use for catch-per-unit-survey collected most years; species, sex, length & scales effort data (ageing not complete) Overview of all above Problems Ok to use Spotty adequate sample size in most years (>34 Good sample size for data l 989-99. 2001.-03,-05, per species, sex) to provide trend for length and -08 to present weight Ageing technique varies greatly from 1936, 1980s, Used ME, MA & MD age-length keys to estimate NA!; techniques appear different from other Hudson ages; Atlantic coast states Results: a slight non-consistent bias of age - Mortality estimates from age structure (above) ~i fference, possibly attributed to ageing technique unusable as index ~/or growth differences (MD fish grow faster than MA) Suggest use trend in mean age Mortality estimates from age structure (above) unusable as index Beverton-Holt length based too dependent on nouts (lene:th at recruitment and age) Volunteer River herring surveys - 2006 to present; documents presence/absence of Not yet useful as index; provide a mechanism to river herring in Hudson tributaries and in some Long mprove future sampling for adult runs Island streams Young-of-year Indices 1980 to present: annual yoy sampling - July-Oct sampling within nursery area Both species index variable standardized since 1984; - Geometric mean number per haul Alewife increasing - Catchabilitv may be affected by habitat change Blueback sli2ht decreasin2 trend 46

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. f Selected conservative target of 25'h percentile 47

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. Table 3. Commercial river herring fishery monitoring data for the Hudson River Estuary. On-board Observations on Commercial Trips Alewife Blueback herring Unidentified "river hen-ing" of umber Sex rat io Number Sex ratio Number Sex ratio Percent Year trips M F u M F M F u M F M F u M F Total Alewife Blueback 1996 I 43 43 00/o 100% 1997 5 5 25 178 0.17 0.83 208 100% 0% 1998 114 114 100% 0% 1999 4 73 421 17% 0% 2000 6 19 18 0.51 0.49 3 32 480 0.09 0.91 552 7% 93% 2001 7 192 178 85 1 0.52 100% 0.48 1221 0% 2002 8 43 19 41 1225 0.32 0.68 1328 3% 97% 2003 2 171 171 100% 0% 2004 11 124 168 8 ,,. 0.42 ~ 0.58 5 6 0.45 297" 0.39 0.55 500 796 0.61 1904 16% 1% 2005 I 428 28 456 94% 0% 2006 3 I 246 247 00/o 100% 2007 6 14 53 268 335 4% 16% ~ 2008 I 44 0.50 0.50 44 0% 0% 2009 3 187 179 4 ,,. 0.51 r o.49 37 61 0.38 0.62 468 79% 21% 2010 80 42 2 0.66 r 0.34 33 70 6 0.32 0.68 233 53% 47% 48

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. Table 4. Estimated recreational use and take of river herring by Hudson River anglers. Herring Use* % of all CAP Trips N-SB N Total Trips using Estimated using herring as Trips N bought caught/ RH Estimated herring as Herring Year bait using RH I triE triE use/triE SB triEs** bait** Use 2001 53,988 39,500 93,157** 2005 89% 2.36 72,568 64,500 152,117** CooEerative Angler Program Data 2006 93% 263 1.47 2.57 4.04 2007 70% 331 l.66 1.80 3.46 90,742 69,700 241,318*** 2008 71% 445 0.86 1.64 2.50 2009 77% 492 0.63 3.80 4.43 2010 74% 527 0.67 4.80 5.48

• Data from NYSDEC - HRFU Cooperative Angler Program (unpublished data)
  • Creel survey data: NAI 2003, NAI 2007; 2001 estimated use modified using 2005 RH use per trip* 2001 trips using herring as bait
    • Estimate calculated from overall average RH/trip (CAP) and Estimated SB trips from NYSDEC statewide angler survey 49

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. Table 5. Current and proposed recreational fishery regulations for a river herring fishery in the Hudson River. Reeulation Current 2010 Recreational Proposed cbanee-new Season All year March 15 to June 15 Creel/ catch limits None 10 per day per angler or a maximum boat (any size, any number) limit of 50 per day for a group of boat anglers (whichever is lower) Charter boats: (see commercial fishing table) Closed areas None below Troy Dam - the River Herring conservation Area: No - Closure from Guard gate 2 to fishing within 825 ft (250m) of a man-made Lock 2 on the Mohawk River or natural barrier - Closure from Guard gate 2 to Lock 2 on Mohawk River Gear restrictions -Angling All tributaries, including the Mohawk River -Scap/lift net: 36 sq ft or above Troy: Angling only, no nets smaller Main river below Troy Dam: Angling or the Dip net: 14" round or l3"xl3" use of nets to obtain bait for personal use square only as follows: Seine: 36 sq ft or smaller Scapllift net 16 sq ft or less Cast net; 1 Oft diameter Dip net: 14" round or 13"xl3" square Seine 36 sq ft or smaller Cast net l 0 ft diameter Escapement (no fishing days) None None License Marine Registry Marine Registry Reporting None New York an~ler diary on A CCSP website 50

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. Table 6. Current and proposed* commercial fishery regulations for a river herring fishery in the Hudson River. Regulation Current 2010 Commercial Proposed change - new Season Mar 15 - Jun 15 Mar 15 - Jun 15 Creel/ catch limits None Charter boats: 10 fish per day per paying customer or a maximum boat limit of 50 fish per dav,( whichever is lower)* Closed areas No gill nets above 190-Castleton Bridge No gill nets above 190 - Castleton Bridge No nets on Kingston Flats No nets on Kingston Flats No nets in tributaries Gear restrictions IA.llowed gears Allowed gears for river herring Gill net Gill net p 600 ft or less 0 600 ft or less 0 3.5 in stretch mesh or smaller b 3.5 in stretch mesh or smaller 0 No fishing at night in HR p No fishing at night in HR above above Bear Mt Bridge Bear Mt Bridge Seine >36 sq ft p No fixed gill nets above the Bear No seine > 100 ft allowed above 190 Mt Bridge bridge Seine; no seine > 100 ft allowed above Scap/lift net no size 190-Castleton Bridge Fyke or trap net Scap/lift net 10 ft by 10 ft maximum Cast net not exceeding ten ft diameter Cast net not exceeding ten ft diameter Escapement (no 36 hr lift (applies only to gill nets 36 hr lift fishing days) allowed in the main river) Avvlicable to all net f.!ears Marine Permit Marine Permit Marine permit only license to take Fees implemented in 1911 anadromous river herring, the only net Gill net $0.05/foot gears allowed include drift and fixed gill Scap net <10 sq ft $1.00 net, scap/lift net,seine and cast net Scap net> 1 Osq ft $2.00 Fees updated to include any of the Seine $0.05/foot following: Trap nets $3 to $10 la. Gill or seine net - $115; scap net $25 Fyke net $1 to $2 1 b.Gill or seine $1 per foot Bait license le.Fishing vessel $350 Cast net $10

2. Create Hudson River commercial fish permit; includes use of gillnets, scap/lift nets, seines and cast nets with all other restrictions as listed in this table; qualifications needed (see Sec 6.1.2, page

26)

Charter* Boat None for Hudson above the Tappan Require existing Maine &Coastal District License Zee Bridge Party boat/ Charter license for tidal Hudson and its tributaries- $250.00 Reporting Mandatory daily catch& effort; one Mandatory daily catch& effort; reports annual report due monthly 51

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. Appendix A. River herring streams ofNew York including tributaries of the Hudson River Estuary, and the Mohawk River; streams in the Bronx and Westchester Counties and on Long Island. (This list may not be complete). i Hudson River ~- \\ i i l i l [ I l l r ; i 52

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. Appendix Table A continued. I County i Stream !Lon Island ! I iShore !Stream &.or Pond with outlet !Tributary iAlewife Present? 53

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. Appendix Table B. Summary of current (20 I 0) fishery regulations for alewife and blueback herring in New York State. Fishe I Area Commercial Harvest: Inland waters Hudson River Estuary: G. Washington Bridge north to Troy Dam (River kilometer 19-245) - Season: 15 March through 15 June - 36 hour Escapement period (Friday 6 am to Saturday 6pm, prevailing time) - Net size restriction: limit of 600 ft, mesh size restriction: mesh <3.5 inch stretch mesh - Net deployment restrictions (distance between fishing gear> 1500 ft) - Area restrictions (drifted gears allowed in certain portions of the river) Long Island: No restrictions, except for some towns which have restricted fishing within their township Marine Waters: Hudson River - G. Washington Bridge south; and waters including NY Harbor and around Long Island - No limits or season. Delaware River: NY portion, north of Port Jervis - No commercial fishery exists in this portion; no rules prohibit it Baitfish harvest: Take of bait fish (including alewife and blueback herring) are allowed with Bait License in the Inland water of New York State. Allowed gears are seines (all Inland waters) and cast nets in the Hudson River only. Recreational Harvest: - No daily limit - No season - Harvest can be by hook and line, and some net gears: dip nets (14inches round), scoop nets (13 x 13 inches square), cast net (maximum of 10 feet in diameter) and seine and scap I lift nets 36 square feet or less. Anglers must be registered with the New York Recreational Marine Registry. 54

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. Appendix C. Current regulations for river herring fisheries in the Hudson River watershed, and public suggestions for change summarized from meetings held in April, 2010. Published in the NYSDEC website: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/57672.html Regulation ..

• c current 2010 commercial Public suggestions for change Season Mar 15 - Jun 15 Creel/ catch limits None Possession limit of 24 fish for charter boats*

Have a 100 fish daily limit Have some kind of quota Closed areas No gill nets above 190 Bridge Add: Close tributaries to nets No nets on Kingston Flats Gear restrictions Gill net Gill net p 600 ft or less 0 Shorten length to 100 or o 3.5 in stretch mesh or 200 ft smaller 0 Add mesh size restriction o No fishing at night in HR 0 Limit net size above Bear Mt Bridge Allow no nets Seine >36 sq ft No seine >100 ft above 190 bridge Escapement (no fishing 36 hr lift (no gill nets allowed in 36 to 72 hr closure days) the main river) Stay away from the weekend ( does not apply to scap nets in higher demand for bait) tributaries License Marine Permit

• require a charter boat license Varies by gear $1 to $30 Raise the price of a permit Increase fee to $75 to $200 Include cast nets as commercial Marine Permit (currently need a bait license)

Make a lottery for obtaining marine permit Reporting Mandatory daily catch& effort 55

REVISED VERSION: September 2011, based on public comment received. Regulation Current 2010 Recreational Public suggestions for change Season All year Be more restrictive Choose a season to protect alewife Choose closure (season) based on water temperature Creel/ catch limits None 5 to 10 a day (any size, any number) Allow a special limit for Charter boats: 24 /day Need to know difference between creel and possession limit? Make a slot size &/or size limit Closed areas None Close all the tributaries to fishing Close the Mohawk to herring fishing Have rotating tributary closures (changes every 3 years) Close parts of tributaries Gear restrictions Angling No nets, angling only 36 sq ft scap or smaller No nets in tributaries 14" round or 13"x13" dip net - No nets or smaller gear 36 sq ft seine Maximum 10 ft diam. Cast net* Escapement (no fishing days) None Close fishing 3 or 4 days a week Allow herring harvest either on odd or even days of the week Close the run during peak of spawning Time closures (hours during the day or night) Opposed to day closures Make no-fishing days enough to protect spawning Have sliding closures during the week, i.e. "lure" days License Marine License $10 Reporting None Have a call-in number for harvest ( like a HIP#) to get better information Create a website for anglers to input what they catch Other issues (other than a fishery) that are creating problems for river herring - Chlorine discharge problems - Ocean harvest is the problem-not the river fishery - Increased silt (covers eggs) Long Island streams: The lack of data means that no fishery will be allowed under the "sustainable" definition in the ASMFC Amendment 2. Information on habitat and passage issues will be gathered. 56

c OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY OPERATED BY' UNION CARBIDE CORPORATIO:'t NUCLEAR DIVISION POST OFFICE BOXX OAK RIDG£. TENNESSEE 378.JO September 28 1 1979 Joel Golumbek U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II 26 Federal Plaza New York, N.Y. 10007

Dear Joel:

.. ** t_.-

The settlement of the Hudson River Case recently proposed by'the utilities contains provisions for a continuing riverwide sampling program ___ designt:d_ to obtain annual ~~-t.e~_ of the abundance_ of'.'_juveni]~--~.triped (- :::"' bass. _i Presuma':ly~resulls of this programwouTa-be useCI to detect. * ~ctions in striped bass year class strength due to contjnued once-Q !:::' through-cooling system operation. Before any such program is instituted, especially if decisions about future mitigating measures are to be contingent on the results obtained, EPA needs to know the magnitude of the impact it is po_s_s_i_~]~.Jo_d_etec_~ from data of this kfod and the probability that an unaccepta~!~_J~y~lJof impact ~ould be detected \\ w_ithi~_!_r~~-s~na~ly~~ho~~--{fme-*spa!!J ~e have been inve~tigating this --pfobTem us1ng the ex1st1ng daia-for wh1te perch and str1ped bass, and we have obtained some very~i)-esults that you should be aware of. We have studied the ~ower of the statistical test used to detect dif-(~re~~~s between the means of sets of pre-impact and post-impact abundance ift_di££_s. We have assumed that a reduction in mean year class strength, if ft occurs, takes place all at once~ S.Q.. that before t!me to year class strength fluctuates around a mean of X and after to 1t fluctuates around a mean of (1-b)X, where b i~ the fractional cha_nge in mean year-class strength. If.there has in fact been a reduction.in mean year class strength, the probability that it will be detected depends on the magnitude of the reduction, ~ n_u'!!~~r._of_.y~ar~ ~f _pr_e-.and p()s~:jmp~~t dataavai1al>Te;-ana1fn-the year-to-year var1ab1h~ of the data. *Our J \\_analyses ofthree Hudson*1uveraata 5efs-(wllfte-percn1mpfogement rates and beach seine indices for white perch and striped bassJ show that it. is surprisingly difficult to detect even la.rge reductions in mean year class strength. Some highlights of our results are presented in the attached table. We have argued in our direct testimony that impingement rates can be used as measures of white perch abundance. Usi_ng the impingement data collected

c c ,! Joel Golumbek 2 September 28, 1979 ~ during the years 1973-77 as pre-impact data, we estimate that, no matter / how many years of post-1977 data are available, the chance of detecting ) any reduction in mean year class strength smaller than 48% is less *than L 50%. With only 10 years of data beyond 1977, th~ smallest reduction detectable with a probability of 50% or higher is 58%. The probability th~t a fractional reduction in white perch year class strength as high as 5r;c could be detected from 10 additional years of impingement da*ta 1s 1 ess than 40%. Tl's riverwide beach seine indices for white perch are somewhat better with regard to the detectability of impacts (we set aside for the moment our doubts about the validity of these indices as measures of white perch abun-dance). Even so, the smallest reduction detectable with a 50% probability, given 10 years of beach seine data beyond 1973 (we assume that the post-impact period began in 1974, the year Bowline and Indian Point Unit 2 came on line), is 44%. The beach seine data* for striped bass appear to be useless for the purpose of detecting declines fn year class strength due to power plant impacts. The' smallest impact that could be detected with a 502: probability, no matter how many years of post-1973 beach seine data "become available, is more than 70%. With 10 years of additional data, there is no impact short of extinction that could be detected with.a probability as hi~h as 50%-. The chance of detecting a 50% reduction after 10 years is less than 25%. If, as is more likely, year class strength declines. gradually as a result of power plant impacts rather than all at once, redu~tions in abundance would be even harder to detect than our results indicate. To the extent that the high var1abHltyolJserved in the data reflects actual fluctuations in white perch and striped bass year class strength {as opposed to sampling error), it is unlfkely that even very serious reduc-tions in these populations, especially striped bass, could.be detected . using these or any similar abundance indices. We believe that any cl~ims t _made by the utilities that thes_e_l!Q£Ulati~l)-~ __ c_an be reTiablymor1ltored-and that any impacts resulting from once-thrqug[cooTing can be i:leTected bel'Ore serious depletton flas occurreasnoul<f lle vlewe<fWlfff a greataeal" oTSKeptfcn*m:------. ---*-*- "'-**----------~*--..:---*------* LWB:cgg cc: H. Gluckstern C. P. Goodyear Sincerely. ~~- L. W. Barnthouse Research Associate ~I~ .. 511-i-1~'13 .>17./ 7'64 '2- ,,,..... ~

• I ;

r i J:

c*

~*f ..f r ~ c.f PROBABILITIES OF DETECTING REDUCTIONS IN WHITE PERCH AND STRIPED BASS. YEAR CLASS STRENGTH DUE TO POWER PLANT IMPACTS. Minimum Fractional Reduction Detectable Witn 50% Probability / Probability

• _ Of D~tec:ting

.1 *.50% Reduction. Data Set Minimum Fractional Reduction Detectable With 50% Probability Given Many Years of Post-Impad Dataa . Giveo. ilO Ye"ar_s_~_f( '.Post-lmpact-Uata I * \\-.----- - - -* - ~. *" - -- -- - Given JJl Years of.

• Post-Impact Data __,

White Perch...-'--b" Q 0.48 0.58 0.35 < p <.0.40 Impfogement;Rates /~~\\.;-'. * \\ l White Perch ~ ~- c \\....,, Beach Seine Indices,../ * ** 0.33 0.44 0.55 < p < 0.60 ",._.. \\..- ~... P. ,~* iped Bas_s~_>--d ~,.:,,. ch Seine_ Ind1ces _,.,> 0.73 0.98 0.12 < p < 0.25 aThis minimum fractional reduction detectable fs approached asymptotically as the number of years of post-impact data increases to infinity. Smaller reductions have a less than 50% probability of bei.ng detected and larger reductions a greater than 50% probability. blmpingement data sets collected durfng 1973-1977 at Bowline Lovett, Indian Point Unit 2, Roseton, and Danskarrmer were used as pre-impact data. cfrom Table IV-31 of Tl's 1976 Ye!lr Class Report. 1965-.1973 were assumed to be pre-impact years. / dfrom Table 3 of Exhibit UT-49. 19G5-1973 were assumed.to be pre-impact years. c

Articles Dramatic Declines in North Atlantic Diadromous Fishes KARIN E. LIMBURG AND JOHN R. WALDMAN We examined the status of diadromous (migratory between saltwater and freshwater) fishes within the North Atlantic basin, a region of pronounced declines in fisheries for many obligate marine species. Data on these 24 diadromous (22 anadromous, 2 catadromous) species are sparse, except for a few high-value forms. For 35 time series, relative abundances had dropped to less than 98% of historic levels in 13, and to less than 90% in an additional 11. Most reached their lowest levels near the end of the observation period. Many populations persist at sharply reduced levels, but all species had suffered population extirpations, and many species are now classified as threatened or endangered. Habitat loss (especially damming), overfishing, pollution, and, increasingly, climate change, nonnative species, and aquaculture contributed to declines in this group. For those diadromous fishes for which data exist, we show that populations have declined dramatically from original baselines. We also discuss the consequences of these changes in terms of lost ecosystem services. Keywords: diadromous fishes, overfishing, dams and other threats, habitat loss, shifting baselines W e examined the status of North Atlantic diadromous fishes, that is, those species that migrate between marine waters and continental watersheds to complete their life cycles. The North Atlantic basin receives the drainage of major rivers such as the St. Lawrence, the Mississippi, and the Rhine, and hundreds of smaller rivers, all of which host diadromous fishes. Diadromy occurs in two primary forms: anadromy, in which spawning takes place in fresh-water, and catadromy, in which reproduction occurs at sea. Diadromous fishes comprise less than 1 % of world fish fauna, but their value to humans far exceeds this portion. Many diadromous fishes such as salmons, sturgeons, and shads are not only economically important, but they also serve as crucial links for energy flow between fresh and marine envi-ronments (Helfrnan 2007). Recent analyses have shown major declines in many North Atlantic obligate marine fishes (Christensen et al. 2003). For these species, declines generally take the form of population reductions to the level of commercial extinction, but not extirpation (Casey and Myers 1998). Unlike many marine fishes that have few but large, geographically wide-spread populations, most anadromous fishes have numer-ous but smaller river-specific populations (Powles et al. 2000). This renders them more susceptible to population-level extirpations, and, if these extirpations occur serially, species extinction may occur. Diadromy as a life-history strategy has evolved in phylo-genetically diverse fish groups (McDowall 1997). It appears to offer the benefits of lessened predation in early life stages, access to increased food resources in marine environments for individuals, and the potential for demographic and morphological sculpting to the particulars of each popula-tion's migratory circuit (McDowall 2001). These habitat-switching life histories may have evolved in response to geographic differentials in marine and freshwater produc-tivity, with anadromous species dominating the higher lati-tudes where marine productivity far exceeds that of inland waters (Gross et al. 1988). But these more complicated life histories come with costs, including osmoregulatory and energetic demands for movement between two dis-tinctly different environments. Moreover, occurrence both in freshwater and in the sea exposes populations to the un-certainties of environmental conditions in two realms. Recent work has shown that migratory movements of diadromous fishes are far more complex than originally thought (e.g., Secor and Rooker 2000, Limburg et al. 2001). Many display spectacular long-distance migrations not only at sea but also as they traverse thousands of kilometers in-land and ascend hundreds of meters in elevation. Because the spawning aggregations of diadromous fishes often place them within easy reach of humans, these runs have been particularly important sources of protein. "Ecosystem goods and services" is a recently derived par-adigm (Daily 1997, Ruffo and Kareiva 2009) used to demon-strate the value and benefits to humans of the natural world. Ecosystem services are defined as natural ecological functions BioScience 59: 955-965. ISSN 0006-3568, electronic ISSN 1525-3244. © 2009 by American Institute of Biological Sciences. All rights reserved. Request permission to photocopy or reproduce article content at the University of California Press's Rights and Permissions Web site at www.ucpressjournals.com/ reprintinfo.asp. doi: 10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.7 www.biosciencemag.org December 2009 I Vol. 59 No. 11

• Bioscience 955

or properties that support human well-being either directly or indirectly. In this paradigm, diadromous fishes have four special roles, although we will show that their importance in these functions has diminished greatly as a result of their population declines. First, provisioning of protein and other products is a primary ecosystem service of diadromous fishes because of their (historic) vast abundances, the high pre-dictability of these runs, and the ease of their capture as they aggregate near or on their spawning grounds (Bolster 2008). Second, these fishes link continental and marine ecosystems, transporting embodied productivity from one to the other. Semelparous anadromous fishes (those that spawn once and then die) may act as keystone species (Willson and Halupka 1995): They have a major impact in their ecological com-munities because their carcasses are consumed directly by wildlife or stream infauna, or they decompose and release their nutrients to the water or riparian zones. Garman ( 1992) es-timated that the nontidal James River, in Virginia, may have received annual biomass input from anadromous alosines of 1.55 kilograms (kg) per hectare (ha) (representing 3.6 million individuals in the run, with 70% mortality) before dams blocked their movements. Garman ( 1992) determined mean decomposition rates on the order of 10 days. These subsidies of "marine-derived nutrients" often serve as critical addi-tions of energy and nutrients that fuel food webs well beyond the streams in which they died (Gende et al. 2002). A third ecosystem service generated by diadromous species is the support of marine food chains through the addition of fish that emigrate from natal rivers to the sea, again trans-porting energy and nutrients, but in the reverse direction. At northern temperate latitudes, these fluxes are composed mainly of young fishes emigrating seaward. Nineteenth-century reports noted that the voluminous outpourings of young anadromous fishes provided important forage for marine species such as cod, Gadus morhua, tightly coupling inland production to coastal food webs (Stevenson 1899); today, such continental-marine linkages are broken to a large extent in the North Atlantic basin. This coupling also enabled fishers to harvest marine predators closer to shore without having to venture onto the high seas (Stevenson 1899). Finally, diadromous species have played important roles for both indigenous and nonindigenous peoples. Because these fishes could supply great amounts of food after long periods with little to eat, they enjoyed high cultural status. For many coastal Native American communities, Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), and other diadromous fishes had enormous practical and totemic importance (Bolster 2008). In modern American society, coastal communities still celebrate the return of American shad (Alosa sapidissima), hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), river herring (alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus, and blueback herring, Alosa aestivalis) (Waldman 2003), although these runs, and celebrations thereof, have diminished greatly. 956 BioScience

• December 2009 I Vol. 59 No. 11 Metrics of change We synthesized information on the current status of North Atlantic diadromous fishes using these metrics: the number of original populations versus extant populations (table 1 ),

temporal changes in population abundances or harvests (table 2, figure 1), and official conservation status (table 1). We identified 24 diadromous fishes in the North Atlantic. Of these, 12 are restricted to North America, 9 to Europe and Africa, and 3 are common to both shores. Each coast has only one strongly catadromous species, American eel and European eel (Anguilla anguilla). Information about the sur-vival status of populations of diadromous fishes was ob-tained from the broadest and most recent sources available. The conservation status listed also was from the broadest possible listing identified. Time-series data sets were collected mostly from pub-lished literature; two sets (European eel recruitment in Swedish rivers, and Atlantic salmon [Sa/mo salar] catches in the River Dee) were obtained from scientists in their respective fields of expertise (see the acknowledgments). Because few species have long time series of fisheries-independent data, catch statistics were the most commonly found time series. While fishery data are often subject to biases due to factors such as markets, fads, and misreporting (Ocean Studies Board 2000), in general, the species in our survey were in demand through-out most of the periods of observation. We analyzed the time series in two ways. First, because of the variety of response variables (abundances, tons, catches per unit effort, recruitment indices), as well as the differ-ences in absolute magnitudes of the variables, we normalized the time series so that the maximum value equals one and the minimum equals zero. These transformed data were then plotted (figure 1) for visual comparisons of trends. Second, because of the uncertainty about the meaning of individual data points (i.e., a peak in a time series in a particular year probably does not correspond to a peak in abundance or even to peak catch per unit effort expended), the untrans-formed data were smoothed by running averages corre-sponding to a particular species' generation time, thereby lessening the importance of individual points and emphasizing the trends over the time frame of the data. The slopes of the log transformation of these smoothed time series were com-puted and used to calculate the percentage change in relative abundance over the period of observation (table 2). We had an especially rich and long set of American shad landings from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commis-sion (ASMFC 2007) that could be examined for evidence of multiple shifting baselines. These were normalized to the number of river kilometers available for spawning within each river system along the eastern US coast (ASMFC 2007). Numbers of populations For many species, data on historical and present numbers of populations are deficient; the availability of information appears positively associated with their commercial impor-tance. Of the 14 anadromous species for which comparisons www.biosciencemag.org

Articles Table 1. The original reproductive range of North Atlantic diadromous fish species, numbers of original and extant populations, and current highest institutional-level species conservation status. Origin al Number of Number of reproductive original extant Conservation Common name Latin name range populations populations status Western Atlantic Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus Florida to New Brunswick 116 (Beamish 1980) DD LC (IUCN 2008) Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Florida to New Brunswick > 20 (NMFS 1988) About 20 (NMFS VU (IUCN 2008) 1988) Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus Mississippi to Quebec > 35 (Waldman and About 35 (Waldman NT (IUCN 2008) Wirgin 1998) and Wirgin 1998) Alewife Alosa pseuodharengus South Carolina to DD DD SC (NMFS 2009) Newfoundland Blueback herring Alosa aestivafis Florida to Nova Scotia DD DD SC (NMFS 2009) Hickory shad Alosa mediocris Florida to Maine DD DD Status unknown* Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochforis Texas to Florida DD DD Stable (Warren et al. 2000) American shad Alosa sapidissima Florida to Quebec 138 (Limburg et al. 68 (Limburg et al. Lowest in history 2003) 2003) (ASMFC 2007) Alabama shad Alosa alabamae Louisiana to Florida DD 7 (Mettee and EN (IUCN 2008) O'Neil 2003) Atlantic whitefish Coregonus huntsmani Nova Scotia 2 1 VU (IUCN 2008) Arctic char Salvefinus afpinus Newfoundland to the DD DD LC (IUCN 2008) Arctic Ocean Atlantic salmon Sa/mo safar Connecticut to Quebec 600 (of which 398 are 135 of 202 LR/le (IUCN DD; WWF 2001) (WWf 2001) 2008); needs updating Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax Delaware to Labrador DD DD sc* American eel Anguilla rostrata Brazil to Greenland 1 (panmictic) 1 (panmictic) Highly depleted in Great Lakes drainage Striped bass Morone saxatifis Louisiana to Quebec About 50 (Fruge et al. < 50 (Fruge et al. Not overfished" 2006) 2006) Eastern Atlantic Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus Greenland/Norway to the DD DD Declining regionally western Mediterranean River lamprey Lampetra fluviatifis Finland to the western DD DD DD (IUCN 2008) Mediterranean European sea sturgeon Acipenser sturio Baltic Sea to the Black Sea > 18 (Elvira et al. 2000) 1 (Elvira et al. 2000) CR (IUCN 2008) Allis shad Alosa alosa Spain to Germany 29 (Bagliniere et al. 16 (Bagliniere et al. LC (IUCN 2008) 2003) 2003) Twaite shad Alosa fa/fax Morocco to Lithuania About 35 (Aprahamian About 30 (Apraha-LC (IUCN 2008) et al. 2003) mian et al. 2003) European eel Anguilla anguiffa Morocco to Scandinavia 1 (panmictic) 1 (panmictic) CR (IUCN 2008) European whitefish Coregonus favaretus Arctic Ocean to Denmark DD DD VU (IUCN 2008) Houting Coregonus oxyrinchus England to Germany About 4 (Freyhof and 0 (Freyhof and EX (IUCN 2008) Schoter 2005) Schoter 2005) Arctic char Salvelinus a/pinus Arctic Ocean to Sweden DD DD See above Atlantic salmon Sa/mo satar Portugal to Greenland 2015 (of which 206 1809 (of which 1572 See above are DD; WWF 2001) are DD; WWF 2001) Sea trout Sa/mo trutta Russia to Portugal DD DD LC (IUCN 2008) European smelt Osmerus eper/anus France to Russia DD (21 England) DD (14 England) LC (IUCN 2008) (Maitland 2003) (Maitland 2003) CR, critically endangered; DD, data deficient; EN, endangered; EX, extinct; LC, least concern; LR, lower risk; LR/le, lower risk taxa that do not qualify for conservation-dependent or near-threatened status; LR/nt, lower risk taxa close to qualifying as vulnerable; NT, near threatened; SC, species of concern; VU, vulnerable.

a. Agency designations by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Note: Populations are assumed to be reproducing; multiple tributary populations in a single drainage are considered part of one population. could be made, all have reduced numbers of populations (table I). Strongly managed North American fishes such as Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), and striped bass (Morone saxatilis) had lost few populations. Where data allow cross-continental comparisons, Atlantic www.biosciencemag.org salmon in Europe have suffered relatively fewer population extirpations (13%) than in North America (33%). Alosine herrings have lost moderate numbers of populations on both sides of the Atlantic, but as much as nearly half for American shad and allis shad (Alosa alosa). Anadromous whitefishes December 2009 I Vol. 59 No. 11

• BioScience 957

Vl 00 Table 2. Characteristics of time series data for selected diadromous fishes. Unit of Maximum Year of Minimum Year of Species measurement value maximum value minimum Eastern Atlantic Alosa a/osa Abundance 277,637 1886 0 1933 Alosa a/osa Abundance 115,974 1925 120 1988 Alosa a/osa Metric tons 860.7 1967 0 1992 Alosa a/osa Abundance 106,706 1996 2979 2007 Alosa fa/lax Abundance 1,174,137 1938 283 1947 Anguilla anguilla Abundance 48,615 1976 375 2004 Anguilla anguilla Kilograms 8011 1953 30 1998 Anguilla angui/la Kilograms 6215 1960 5 1997 Anguilla angui/la Metric tons 49.37 1979 0.88 2005 Anguilla anguilla Number per 138 1963 0.58 2001 haul Anguilla anguilla Kilograms 946 1974 0.831 2004 Anguilla anguilla Metric tons 1137 1979 10.86 2005 Anguilla anguilla Metric tons 88.89 1981 0.51 2004 Anguilla anguilla Metric tons 11 1975 0.02 2002 Acipenser sturio Metric tons 58 1950 0.11 1966 Acipenser spp. Metric tons 765.3 1927 0.5 1991 Acipenser spp. Metric tons 32,000 1977 2 2002 Lampetra Metric tons 44 1890--1899 0.6 1980--1989 fluviatilis Petromyzon Metric tons 130,252 1897 84 1979 marinus Lamprey Scaled relative 2.2 2004 --0.95 1994 abundance Sa/mo salar Abundance 5707 1928 552 2000 Sa/mo sa/ar Abundance 104,000 1885 0 1957 Sa/mo sa/ar Metric tons 3032 1967 912 1997 Sa/mo salar Metric tons 4604 1973 778 2005 Sa/mo salar Metric tons 160 1971 9 2002 Sa/mo trutta Abundance 25,244 2004 5096 1987 Period of record 1880--1934 1914-1990 1961-1993 1985-2007 1893-1950 1975-2005 1950--2005 1951-2005 1960--2005 1950--2005 1964-2005 1950--2005 1953-2005 1975-2005 1891-1980 1920--1999 1913-2002 1887-1999 1887-1999 1986-2005 1928-2004 1863-1957 1960--2005 1960--2005 1960--2005 1987-2007 Percentage increase or Long-term R2 of decrease or increase or Location Slope slope (fitted) decline Reference Rhine River, --0.1519 0.87 -99.94 D (E) Bagliniere et al. Netherlands 2003 Minho River, --0.0710 0.82 -99.48 D Bagliniere et al. Portugal 2003 Oued Sebou, --0.1326 0.92 -98.13 D (E) Bagliniere et al. Morocco 2003 Garonne River, --0.2195 0.93 -95.37 D Migado (www. France migado.fr) Rhine River, --0.5669 (*) 0.85 -99.80 D de Groot 2002 Netherlands lmse River, --0.1139 0.93 -91.84 D EIFAC/ICES 2006 Norway Swedish eel --0.0554 0.97 -92.60 D EIFAC/ICES 2006 rivers Ems and Vida --0.0673 0.72 -95.48 D EIFAC/ICES 2006 River, Denmark British Isles --0.0588 (*) 0.96 -65.30 D EIFAC/ICES 2006 Den Oever River, --0.0625 0.79 -94.70 D EIFAC/ICES 2006 Netherlands ljzer River, --0.1612 0.93 -99.51 D EIFAC/ICES 2006 Belgium French rivers --0.0902 (*) 0.96 -88.52 D EIFAC/ICES 2006 Iberian Peninsula --0.1085 (*) 0.98 -90.81 D EIFAC/ICES 2006 Tiber River, Italy --0.2121 0.82 -99.06 D EIFAC/ICES 2006 Eider, Gironde, --0.2372 (*) 0.93 -99.31 D Williot et al. 2002 and Guadalquivir Rivers, Europe Danube River --0.0416 0.78 -93.58 D Williot et al. 2002 Ponto-Caspian --0.077 (*) 0.92 -72.99 D Williot et al. 2002, Pikitch et al. 2005 Southern Baltic --0.0343 0.45 -96.29 D Thiel et al. 2005 Sea Southern Baltic --0.0375 0.50 -97.98 D Thiel et al. 2005 Sea Garonne and Adour 0.0758 0.73 +230 I Beaulaton et al. Rivers, France 2008 River Dee, Wales --0.0206 0.69 -77.31 D Aprahamian et al. 2008 Rhine River, --0.0526 0.70 -98.97 D de Groot 2002 Netherlands North Europe --0.0217 0.79 -62.34 D WGNAS 2006 South Europe --0.0397 0.86 -83.25 D WGNAS 2006 Faroes and --0.1736 (*) 0.89 -99.81 D WGNAS 2006 Greenland Iceland 0.0439 0.93 +220 I Gudbergsson 2007

-~---***** ---***---~*--*-*

~.;

:\\~~~

Articles c:: (Coregonus spp.) are in perilous condition: Only a ~ 0.0~ small and now purposely landlocked population of 0 0 c::... 0 (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) ~:.C:..2 Coregonus huntsmani persists in Nova Scotia and a N Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) (!) Q) """O~...C::: (6 0

• g
• ~
• ~
• t

-~ 0

• ~

~:: ~ European species, Coregonus oxyrinchus, has become cu 0 .c .c .c .c .c 0 .c u ¢) N (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) N (/) (/) ..n""' u c u:.!:2 W:.2 U:.2 u::.g G: ~ Cf) i1:.52 c::""' extinct (Freyhof and Schoter 2005). Also, sea sturgeon 2! Q) ~ s~ ~ c ~.:@ ~~ ~*2 ::ui ;a;2 < ;a;2

2 z

.c

"O (Acipenser sturio), once found in as many as 18 cu Cf) 0"' 0"' 0"' 0"' 0"'

0"' a: < ztii ztii ztii ztii ztii ~ ztii . 0 ..n~~ major rivers over much of Europe, now verges on ex- .s~~ -9 ~ ~ tinction, remaining only as a small, struggling pop-E l5 "'... 0.. ulation in France's Gironde River (Williot et al. 2002). .. 0 >- s ~.~ ~~~ e"',; Jo"' "ti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... v v c ! Q)

~*5.

Abundances of populations 0 u "O 0"'"' ......5

• ~~ E Although some anadromous species have suffered tl ce*c E t: v numerous extirpations, the predominant pattern cu

~ ~ c..?~'°5 -..0 0 0 . "'c:: among these fishes has been for continuation of runs, J!lcuCU'ij' LO (!) Ol LO 0 00 (!) 00 """O"""O*- ctntne&> 0 rl,... Ol N 0 . (Vl (!) ~ ~ ~ cu"'gi:= r--: ex) C'i .,; '° (Vl but at drastically reduced levels that may be trending u2!~11: Ol Ol Ol qi "i' qi Ol ~""5 v igg-I I I I I + E~ ~ to inviability, as low as about 100 individuals for "O "'"' c:: !? ~ ~ shortnose sturgeon in two populations (Kynard 1997). 00 (!) 0 (!) Ol N LO 'O 8. N (!) 00 Ol (Vl Ol (!) 00 00 0"... These declines have also been manifested-often N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~~ a: iii jj jj e profoundly so, especially with many long-exploited ~ ~" t... "d ~..c:: fish populations-in reduced biomass, age distribu-c:: "'~ Ol Ol Ol (Vl N (!) LO ~-£3 v (Vl 00 N (!) N (Vl LO (Vl (Vl rl'~] tions, age at maturity, and maximum size and growth

8.

N rl 00 Ol LO 00 (!) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rl esu (Law 2007). 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0

• -*- c::

in c:: C::"d The length and quality of time series data sets vary, o*- c::

• c* ce t:;; g_

but the trend is nearly always the same: Diadro- ~-5~ mous fishes have declined, often to historic lows u u u u u u u u u "a5 'a5 -~ "a3 'a3

• ~
• ~

-~ 'ffi 0 t; '"O (figure l, table 2). Of the 35 species or stocks for c E E E E E E E E e (;:! ~ 0 gr~~ .c .c.c .c .c .c .c .c.c which we were able to obtain time series data sets, u t:'. ~ ~ t:'. t:'. t:'. t:'. t:'. t:'. "d..C::..c:: .9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c:::::..... 32 had declined and only 3 had increased (table 2). z z z z z z z z z 0 ~..c:: ~~*~ ... 0.. Where long-term records exist, losses from base-ID (!) (!) (!) (!) LO (!) 02~ Ol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V<FJ - line levels are often dramatic. American shad offers 0 "O Ol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~-5~ "O ~ rl ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ N N a good example, as data on the Potomac River date 0 0 6 6 6 6 ce ce u i-. ".:: g t ~31:

. ~

00 '1 LO LO LO LO LO CD LO back to 1814, but the baseline for restoration 00 00 Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol ~~.~~ rl '1 rl rl '1 rl rl rl rl en ~v._, c:: Vl V) >- efforts is derived from US Fisheries Commission .§ c ce 1.1 0"... ... E ... 0.. records, which began in 1887 (figure 2a). The high-0 = N (!) (!) 0 N LO Ol

i ~~a

~ E N Ol 0 0 Ol 0 Ol 0 00 )..,, 3""0.!:! est catch (51,136,364 kg) occurred in 1832 (figure 2b; Ol 00 0 0 Ol 0 Ol 0 Ol ~ ~ 0-g ~-5 rl rl N N rl N rl N rl E ~ ~ ~ cu Massman 1961). The Potomac could produce more ""O (tl ce ~ v v v-- than 22 million shad (3 kg in weight and 0.9 meters -t:6b ~ E 8--:*~] [ m] in length, on average, versus approximately 1.8 = cu Ol Ol E.:! 00 LO (!) 0 rl N 0 e~.,.,_ (!) rl r--: LJi 0 (Vl 0 ~ q.i ce C:: kg and 0.5 m today) "in a good year" (Tilp 1978); 0 Ol rl rl .5 > rl N ~~§§

ii:

(;:! i...*- today, only a minor recreational fishery persists "OJ"' .... E ~~~ ~ there. Time series of American shad landings (nor- -:..n :;:...=., 0 = 00 00 Ol N Ol (!) (Vl ~ ~~:'g malized to kilometers of available river or estuary) ~ E 00 '1 LO (!) LO (!) (!),... 00 00 Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol ..... o..o*:: for 10 major producing areas show a long-term ~~ rl '1 rl rl '1 rl rl rl rl !3E~So E ct:(;:!""' s:::. '"0-..... ~ exponential decline with a slope of -0.035 per year ""2 ~ 5..s E 00 (!) N (;:!::I:':: with all the data (R2 = 0.33, p < 10-5), or-0.033 per = cu '<j-00 00 0 cvi C'i (Vl ~ ~g"~ E = Ol 0 0 0 Ol (!) (!) 0 e '° "' "' year if the early Potomac landings are excluded (R2 ~l N "<!"_ rl 00 rl 00,... 0 ~~~ N '° cvi rl N (!)

ii:

N '1 N v c::2'"0 (),I = 0.26, p < 10-5). ~ a"""O ~rt Comparisons of landings between diadromous a..g ~~ ~ c cu (/) (/) (/) (/) .s"'O*E ~c.. fish taxon pairs from both sides of the Atlantic often E (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) ....;~ Vl=~ c c c c c c c c c cu .8 .8.8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8.8

• ~ct: Vi' 0 u::

show similar patterns (figure 1 ). These include ~ 'S ~ u u u u u u u u u ]3 5 ~';'

• c

~<; >. 0.0 ~ moderate to sharp declines in the 1900s (some with ~ §~ ¢) ¢) ¢) w ¢) v ¢) v ¢) e-UN.5-e

t

2

2 :2

2

2

2

2

2 :2

~.,; ~ '3 occasional short-term recoveries), followed by low

• ~

~~~~] c .§ ~

• 5 J9

.!Q w,,, r.r.J3~ harvests or a mandated cessation of fishing, that c "' ~ .\\g 12 ~ g~toe- ~ ~ .!Q ~ ~ 0 continue to the present. Not only do most diadromous (/) i E ~ e

.:::Ci) 2'"0 ~

Q).C: Q)"' (/) Q) (/) ~ ~ >-.~ v species exhibit precipitous declines over time, but cu E "'u "' (/),, QJ E 2 Q) ~ "(3 cu t::.s "' C>.'>ij"' 0 c '"O .i..;. -.::t4 ~,,, ..!:) t; OJ-<: "' "'c "' Q) § e 6~'""'0..-~ the differences between maximum levels and recent

8.

Cl.'- "' VJ~ VJ (/) ~ E 2 ~°" K ~ ~ *-"" £2..9 co..9 £2 0 u ><

E II)

<{ 0 < <-<:: < <{ <{ 0 <J) www.biosciencemag.org December 2009 I Vol. 59 No. 11

• BioScience 959

Articles Northwestern Atlantic Northeastern Atlantic 1.0 1.0 Atlantic sturgeon 0.6

t.

0.6 0.2. 0.2 1.0 \\' 1.0 0.6 American shad 0.6 )( 41 0.2 0.2 'C .5 1.0 t: 1.0 Blueback herring.. 41 E 0.6 -- Alewife 0.6 ~

J u 0.2 0.2

~ 1.0 1.0 0 American eel .c 0.6 u Rainbow smelt 0.6 'la u 0.2 0.2 'C 1.0 1.0 41 iii 0.6 E Striped ba SS 0.6 0 z 0.2 0.2 1800 1825 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 l 1.0 Atlantic salmon ~ Atlantic salmon 0.6 North America 0.6 Northern Europe Southern Europe 0.2 0.2 Faroes and Greenland 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Years Years Figure 1. Normalized time series of indices of abundance of selected north Atlantic diadromous species. European eel includes standard errors of means for nine regions. The lower two panels compare Atlantic salmon. For type of index, maxima, minima, percentage change, and data sources, see table 2. Unless otherwise stated, northwestern Atlantic data are US summary statistics. ones are even greater than what has been observed in many obligate marine species. Thirteen of the 35 time series in table 2 had declined by more than 98%; another 11 had declined by more than 90%. The few exceptions include the coastal migratory stock of striped bass, northern European populations of Atlantic salmon, and Icelandic populations of sea-run brown trout (Salmo trutta). This last example shows a marked increase in records over the smoothed observation period ( 1991-2007), and may be attributable to a true increase in population or an increase in sport fishing, or both (Gudbergsson 2007). Conservation status We believe the conservation status of anadromous fishes integrates knowledge of population persistence, abundance, and threats. Of the 12 exclusively North American species, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List classifies 1 as endangered and 2 as vulnerable; the National Marine Fisheries Service lists 3 others as species of concern; and the ASMFC rates 1 more as having its lowest abundance in history, and is in the process of assessing 2 more species that are also likely at historic lows. Of the 960 BioScience

• December 2009 I Vol. 59 No. 11 9 eastern Atlantic species, 1 has gone extinct, 2 are now crit-ically endangered (including the once abundant European eel),

l is vulnerable, and 2 are listed by the fUCN as data deficient (table 1). At least one (A. alosa) appears to be in serious decline, although noted as "least concern" by the IUCN. Of the pan-Atlantic salmonids (Atlantic salmon and arctic char, Salvelinus alpinus), wild S. salar is at historic lows in North America, and overall, its status is in need of updating (IUCN 2008). Threats North Atlantic diadromous fishes must navigate a gauntlet of threats. The primary triad that affects most taxa is damming of rivers, overfishing, and pollution. However, there are now a host of threats beyond the three that have long been considered primary. Dams and other habitat losses. Industrialization depended on rivers for water power, and many waterways became multiply dissected with dams. Dams often block access to historical spawning reaches, causing population reductions and extir-pations. Few larger rivers remain undammed: It is estimated www.biosciencemag.org

6 40 30 20 10 0 ~ ......._ ___ ~._l.ili..,A...... tt... aQ~'-',_.._.,-.,,....,J ~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~ ro~ro~rororo~~mmmmmmmmmmo

---

N Figure 2. Example of how baselines shift. (a) Baseline for American shad restoration is typically referenced to 1887, when the US Fishery Commission began to collect statis-tics. (b) Earlier data show that levels for the 1887 baseline are considerably lower than they were in the past, Source:

ASMFC (2007). that in the United States alone, there are more than 80,000 dams of 6 feet in height or more, and perhaps as many as 2,000,000 of all sizes (Graf 2003), For example, within the Hudson River watershed there are 797 registered dams (Swaney et al. 2006); that figure does not include small dams ( < 0.6 m tall), which also can hinder migration. In Spain, some dams have blocked fish movements continuously since the 2nd century, and the nations of Europe together have about 7000 large (more than 15 m) dams, most of which are situated on Atlantic drainages. Engineered solutions to fish passage in the form ofladders and lifts have been fitted to some dams, but generally passage is species specific, and the number of fish traveling through them is far fewer than it would be in the absence of dams; these dams also inhibit downstream migration of young. One useful metric of the effect of dams is the number of kilometers of river they occlude to migrants. For American shad, approximately 4000 of an original 11,200 km of spawning habitat have been lost to dams (Limburg et al. 2003 ); these dams have similar effects on other anadromous species. Dams also have numerous other ecological effects on rivers, many of which may affect diadromous fishes directly or indirectly. Among these are the blocking of normal movements and changes in the community composition of resident fishes that interact with diadromous fishes; microevolution of populations isolated by barriers; pronounced alterations of water temperatures upriver and downriver; retention of www.biosciencemag.org Articles nutrients and sediments; and, even where fish passage is successful, the imposition of the need to cross sometimes large, unnatural stillwater habitats (Helfman 2007). Dams that are operated for hydro power also cause direct mortality (death by turbines) and may radically alter water discharges (Helf-man 2007)-and hence, habitat availability (water or no water )-on daily or even hourly timescales. In addition to the large habitat changes wrought by dams, dredging and channelization may cause short-term stresses while these activities occur and, more important, long-term diminution of habitat quality through the changes they create. Culverts impede fish movements by species such as river herring in smaller systems. Gravel and water removals reduce habitat in many waterways. Because many anadromous fishes use rivers as nurseries, reductions in the extent and quality of marshes and other shallow water habitats may lessen productivity and, therefore, recruitment. Overfishing. Harvest has strongly compromised diadromous fish populations. Atlantic sturgeon were taken at an extra-ordinary rate during the international caviar craze of the 1890s (Secor and Waldman 1999); with continued fishing and their low intrinsic rate of increase, many populations have shown little subsequent recovery, despite greater protection. In the Delaware River, the chief US fishery for Atlantic sturgeon, landings in 1901 were only 6% of their 1889 peak of more than 2000 metric tons (Secor and Waldman 1999). Atlantic sturgeon remain so scarce in the Delaware that it is not known whether any reproduction still occurs there. Overfishing is a major factor in the nearly complete demise of the once-widespread European sea sturgeon (Williot et al. 2002). Extirpations led to a range contraction to just the Gironde estuary in France, and even when fishing was halted there in 1982, the population continued to decline. Despite regulatory protection, accidental bycatch threatens sturgeons on both the American and European coasts. Alewives were once so numerous in northeastern US rivers that they were likened to "passenger pigeons of the sea" (Bol-ster 2006); tl1eir numbers have since plummeted, and several states have banned any takings. Runs in several large rivers from Maine to the Chesapeake Bay have decli11ed by 99.9%; for example, at the Holyoke Dam on the Connecticut River, counts went from approximately 630,000 in 1985 to 21 in 2006. Bycatch at sea is one likely contributor, as subadults are taken along with the targeted Atlantic herring ( Clupea harengus) fish-eries. Another alosine that appears to be undergoing a simi-lar collapse because of recruitment overfishing is the allis shad; juvenile recruitment in the Gironde, the center of its range, has been negligible for the past few years. Extensive analysis of decadal trends in eel fisheries suggests that exploitation is a major factor in European eel decline (Dekker 2004), with many fisheries collapsed. Eels are targeted not only as immature (yellow phase, in lakes and running waters) or adolescent (silver phase, migrating toward the Sargasso Sea to spawn) but also as postlarval glass eels entering continental waters. The highly lucrative glass eel fishery is December 2009 I Vol. 59 No. 11

• BioScience 961

-- ---~~-~

Articles ****************~,;,llll~r-.*:.'!;'"'. -**. driven by demand in Southeast Asia, where imported Amer-ican and European glass eels are pond-reared to market size. Glass eel fisheries sometimes harvest all available individuals at a particular locale, but in general the harvest has been 80% to 95% (Dekker 2004), which is still an alarming statistic. Pollution. Water pollution also has reduced runs of diadromous fishes. Some river systems received so much raw or lightly treated human sewage-which induced low oxygen levels-that they became equivalent to "chemical dams" blocking spawning migrations. Examples include the Thames in the United Kingdom and the Delaware River in the United States (Chittenden 1971); however, both rivers have shown dra-matic improvements as a result of new laws and management actions. Over the past few decades, shortnose sturgeon has made an unusually robust recovery in the Hudson River not only because of its placement on the US endangered species list but also because the population's original spawning location near the head of tidewater was reoxygenated through measures to control sewage, which stemmed from the Clean Water Act of 1972 (Waldman 2006). However, late 20th-century exurbanization (sprawl development) has led to more impervious surface cover in many drainage basins, further altering water quantity and quality. Contaminants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy metals may induce difficult-to-quantify sublethal effects in fishes in riverine environments. Highly biomagnified levels of PCBs in boreal regions are causing concerns for Artie char. Lab-oratory experiments with Arctic char have shown that these compounds impair hypo-osmoregulatory ability and reduce growth rate and survival upon transfer to seawater (J0r-gensen et al. 2004). Also, European and American eel repro-duction may be compromised by fat-soluble, teratogenic organic compounds (Palstra et al. 2006), which are trans-located into developing embryos from maternal lipid stores. Acidification from atmospheric deposition of contami-nants has been devastating for some Atlantic salmon stocks. In Norway, 18 populations are extirpated and 8 more are threatened, with others sustained only by liming rivers to raise pH (Sand0y and Langaker 200 l ). Climate change. Climate change is altering species distributions. The boreal rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax, which in the 1880s ran in US rivers as far south as the Delaware, was extirpated from the Hudson in the 1990s (Waldman 2006) and is becoming scarce everywhere south of Maine. Meanwhile, gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), a euryhaline clupeid of no commercial value and uncertain ecological effects, has been colonizing rivers northward, establishing in large numbers in the Hudson in the 1970s and recently reaching as far as Maine (Waldman 2006). Warming also appears to be shifting the phenologies of anadromous fishes towards earlier spawning runs. Monitor-ing in Maine revealed that the median capture date for Atlantic salmon in the Penobscot River advanced by 1.3 days per year 962 BioScience

• December 2009 I Vol. 59 No. 1 I between 1986 and 2001,and by 1.2 days per year between 1983 and 2001 for alewife in the Androscoggin River (Huntington et al. 2003). The consequences of such acceleration are unknown, but the rapidity of the change has the potential to disrupt these.fishes' established ecological relationships at various life history stages.

In the future, warming may intensify the severity of floods and droughts, lessening the frequency of successful annual re-production for anadromous fishes. In Europe, models predict that, collectively, 22 species will lose 336 suitable catchments and gain only 113 as a result of the most likely climate change scenario (Lassalle and Rochard 2009). The Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) depends on limited nun1bers of cool thermal springs to survive hot summer temperatures in Gulf of Mexico rivers (Carr et al.1996); warming may im-pose even greater stresses on this scarce and federally threat-ened subspecies. Warming will also impose complex and difficult-to-forecast shifts in the relationships between freshwater and saltwater habitats. Both An1erican and European eels have evolved to capitalize on the transport and trophic resources of the Gulf Stream. However, the recent effects of climate change on this current may be contributing to the declines seen in both eel species in freshwaters (Wirth and Bernatchez 2003). In Arctic regions, warming may increase the productivity of inshore marine habitats used by anadromous fishes, but this may be counterbalanced by decreased flows in spawning rivers. Increased productivity of inland waters may also reduce facultative anadromy for plastic species such as Arctic char, with higher proportions of populations opting for fresh-water residency (Reist et al. 2006). Other threats Electric generating plants and other facilities that withdraw water from rivers may kill high numbers of early life stages of diadromous fishes through entrainment and by impinging larger individuals against intake screens; power plants may also alter local temperature regimes though discharges of warm water (Barnthouse et al. 1988). Disease, competition, and genetic introgression with escapees from aquaculturedAtlantic salmon ilireaten wild stocks in norilieastern North An1erica and Scandinavia (Naylor et al. 2005). Progeny of Atlantic sturgeon used in experimental culture have been oppor-tunistically stocked in ilie wild (St. Pierre 1999) while ignor-ing protocols for ilie maintenance of appropriate effective population sizes. Similarly, research-culture escapees of a nonnative sturgeon species now compete in ilie Gironde with the few remaining sea sturgeon (Maury-Brachet and Rochard 2008). Many invasive and nonnative species also disrupt lotic ecology. Introduction of black bass (Micropterus spp.) and other piscivores increased ilie predation regime for juvenile alosines and oilier young diadromous fishes in US rivers. Invasive zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) have al-tered ilie Hudson River's spring production cycle, to the detriment of its alosines (Strayer et al. 2004). www.biosciencemag.org

~ *.'.{.~~~~~~llim.......................... Articles Conclusions Few of the orth Atlantic's diadromous fishes face any of the abovementioned threats in isolation; rather, it is likely that reasons for the losses we have outlined are multifactorial, and possibly synergistic. Many of these declines have been steady and insidious, fitting well into the "shifting baselines" paradigm, whereby new generations of managers accept that recent environmental conditions and levels of species reflect historical conditions and levels, and set restoration goals accordingly (Humphries and Winemiller 2008, Waldman 2008). Loss of historical baselines contributes to marginal-ization of the species, as social customs relating to bygone (collapsed) fisheries also perish, and ecosystems unravel at rates that go unnoticed. Especially troublesome is the outright loss of many pop-ulations and their genetic legacies in the face of changing en-vironments. The high phylogenetic diversity of these 24 species and the differences in life histories, geographic ranges, and commercial values conspire to make generalized solutions impossible. There is a strong need for better information on the population-specific status of many species of low com-mercial interest. Harvests of some species have been reduced and moratoria have even been applied, but usually not until abundances had become dangerously low. Atlantic coast pop-ulations of migratory striped bass are one of the few successful recoveries for an anadromous species, but the severe measures needed to generate this recovery were not taken until the stock fell to crisis levels (Richards and Rago 1999). Even with moratoria, populations may fail to recover (e.g., A. sturio in the Gironde, A. sapidissima in Chesapeake Bay), suggesting changes occurring systemwide are collectively hindering recovery. Fishermen and other stakeholders need to elevate their long-term interests in a species' welfare over their own short-term economic interests, with the understanding that the more the populations are fished, the less the likelihood of re-covery (and the lengthier the period of recovery), and hence the more damage to the future sustainability of the fishery. A laudatory example of an early intervention is the moratorium imposed in late 1997 on Atlantic sturgeon fishing in US waters in response to indications that some populations were rapidly declining because of suddenly increased fishing pressure (Waldman 2006). Almost exactly a century after the international caviar craze left many US stocks sharply re-duced or decimated, the few remaining commercial Atlantic sturgeon fishermen acquiesced to an ambitious protection plan that prohibits their take for ~p to 40 years-two generations for this slowly maturing species. The environmental movement has resulted in a reduction of new sources of pollution in the United States and Europe, but many rivers still have a legacy of contaminants produced from the Industrial Revolution through the mid-l 900s. Although cleanup actions have been helpful for some species in some places, the single broadest and most useful recovery action has been to remove dams wherever possible. This is especially true for large mainstem dams. For example, when www.biosciencemag.org the Edwards Dam on Maine's Kennebec River was removed in 1999, the benefits to the full suite of this river's diadromous fishes were almost in1mediately visible as the fishes reoccu-pied their historical spawning grounds. Where dams cannot be removed, it is far preferable to install fish passage devices, despite their flaws, than to impede the movements of all di-adromous fishes in a river. Research to enable passage of anadromous species that shun conventional fish ladders, such as sturgeons, should also be encouraged. Viewed collectively, North Atlantic diadromous species underwent similar sequences of events that led to their declines (figure 3). Although quantitative data are largely lacking, anecdotal evidence from diaries, journals, and other histor-ical accounts suggests that pristine populations of diadromous fishes were staggering in their plenitude (Waldman 2008), and formed the basis of important fisheries. Gradually, some populations became extirpated, but the pace of extirpations through the mid-20th century was slow enough to forestall great alarm (but note that overfishing of American shad in the 19th century spurred concerted management efforts). The cumulative impacts resulted in declines, but these declines in themselves have had another unintended con-sequence: nan1ely, a loss of standing or "saliency" among issues considered important by society at large. As species became scarce, fisheries declined, and often demand dropped off. Other watershed uses gained prominence. As demand dwindles and constituencies are lost, it becomes increasingly difficult to motivate and secure funding for adequate man-agement and restoration measure. This downward spiral of Great abundance: easy exploitation. heavy dependence for food and other products ' Pre-18'" century Competing uses or waterways: dam building. water and gravel abstraction. drainage for agriculture and building. canals 18'",19'", and 20'" centuries Increased human population growth urbanization; increased impervious surfaces. altered hydrology. and increased habitat loss. /o~~ii~*~; ;~ *ri;h *;~ci * * ** **.. fisheries - loss of memory about their importance declines in interest lack of

• motivation and money to ;
• .. ~~~?~.~ !~'. ~?~!~'.~~~~... :

Climate change Late 20" to 21* centuries Figure 3. Conceptual diagram of the general history and factors leading to declines in North Atlantic diadromous species. Most species were heavily exploited before indus-trialization and physical alteration of waterways; further watershed alterations due to human population expan-sion and climate change increased habitat loss. Gradu-ally, the declines also led to the loss of institutional and societal memory about past abundance and importance (outlined for emphasis). December 2009 I Vol. 59 No. 11

• BioScience 963

Articles *********Bl!!!~m~e~.'"~"i\\~&~&or.f-~**====== events lacks a term, but we suggest that it is a kind of ecosocial anomie, a breakdown both of expectations of what species should be present in healthy populations, and societal loss of interest. The result is not only the loss of populations and species but also the loss of services the species provided when their inland ecosystems were more intact. The stories of individual stocks that perished or are com-mercially extinct are numerous, but it is clear that the di-minishment of diadromous fishes, taken as a group, represents one of the greatest corruptions of the ecological connections between North American and European watersheds and the North Atlantic ecosystem. Although management needs to consider the specifics of each species and population, the causes of decline we have outlined appear to be general and widespread. If there is to be a future fo~ this group, societies must make difficult decisions concerning the trade-offs be-tween maintaining healthy populations within healthy ecosys-tems and taking actions that degrade and imperil those systems. The emerging field of ecosystem service quantifica-tion may provide a means to enhance restoration, since it high-lights those services that depend on ecosystem function as well as provisioning services. If ecosystem service quantification becomes mainstreamed (Cowling et al. 2008), local and re-gional decisionmaking would have an alternative to conven-tional cost-benefit schemes. These alternatives would support ecosystem and habitat restoration. It may take decades to bring back diadromous species, but restoring the watersheds and their connectivity with coastal marine ecosystems is a crit-ical first step in that direction. Acknowledgments We thank Miran Aprahamian and Willem Dekker for providing data sets; Eric Rochard and Geraldine Lassalle for discussions and suggestions; and Miran Aprahamian, Charles Hall, George Jackman, Aude Lochet, Michael Pace, Carl Safina, Dennis Suszkowski, and two anonymous referees for helpful comments on earlier drafts. This project was supported in part by a Fulbright fellowship and the National Science Foundation (DEB-0238121). References cited Aprahamian MW, Bagliniere J-L, Sabatie MR, Alexandrino P, Thiel R, Aprahamian CD. 2003. Biology, status, and conservation of the ana-dromous Atlantic twaite shad Alosa Jal/ax Jal/ax. American Fisheries Society Symposium 35: 103-124. Aprahamian MW, Davidson IC, Cove RJ. 2008. Life history changes in Atlantic salmon from the River Dee, Wales. Hydrobiologia 602: 61-78. [ASMFC] Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2007. Terms of Reference and Advisory Report of the American Shad Stock Assessment Peer Review.ASMFC. Stock Assessment Report no. 07-01. Bagliniere J-L, Sabatie MR, Rochard E, Alexandrino P,Aprahamian MW. 2003. The allis shad Alosa alosa: Biology, ecology, range, and status of popu-lations. American Fisheries Society Symposium 35: 85-102. Barnthouse LW, Klauda RJ, Vaughn OS, Kendall RL, eds. 1988. Science, Law, and Hudson River Power Plants. American Fisheries Society. Monograph 4. Beamish FWH. 1980. Biology of the North American anadromous sea lamprey, Petromy:wn marinus. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 1924-1943. 964 BioScience

• December 2009 I Vol. 59 No. 11 Beaulaton L, Tavery C, Castelnaud G. 2008. Fishing, abundance and life history traits of the anadromous sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) in Europe. Fisheries Research 92: 90-191.

Bolster Wj. 2006. Opportunities in marine environmental history. Environ-mental History II: 567-597. --. 2008. Putting the ocean in Atlantic history: Maritime communities and marine ecology in the Northwest Atlantic: 1500-1800. American Historical Review 113: 19-47. Carr SH, Tatman F, Chapman FA. 1996. Observations on the natural history of the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Vladykov 1955) in the Suwannee River, southeastern United States. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 5: 169-174. Casey JM, Myers RM. 1998. Near extinction of a large, widely distributed fish. Science 281: 690-692. Chittenden ME Jr. 1971. Status of the striped bass, Marone saxatilis, in the Delaware River. Chesapeake Science 12: 131-136. Christensen V, Guenette S, Heymans J), Walters CJ, Watson R, Zeller D, Pauly D. 2003. Hundred-year decline of North Atlantic predatory fishes. Fish and Fisheries 4: 1-24. Cowling RM, Egoh B, Knight AT, O'Farrell PJ, Reyers B, Rouget M, Roux DJ, Welz A, Wilhelm-Rechman A. 2008. An operational model for main-streaming ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 9483-9488. Daily GC, ed. 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press. de Groot SJ. 2002. A review of the past and present status of anadromous fish species in the Netherlands: Is restocking the Rhine feasible? Hydrobiologia 478: 205-218. Dekker W. 2004. Slipping through our hands: Population dynamics of the European eel. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam. [EIFAC/ICES] European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission/International Council for Exploration of the Sea. 2006. Report of the 2006 session of the joint EIFAC/ICES working group on eels. 23-27 January 2006, Rome; European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission, EIFAC Occasional Paper no. 38. FAO/ICES. (28 October 2009; www.ices.dk/ reports! ACFM/2006/WGEEL/WGEEL06.pdf) Elvira B, Amod6var A, Birstein VJ, Gessner J, Holcik J, Lepage M, Rochard E, eds. 2000. Symposium on Conservation of the Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser sturio L., 1758 in Europe. Boletin lnstituto Espanol de Oceanografia 16. Freyhof J, Schoter C. 2005. The houting Coregonus oxyrinchus (L.) (Salmoni-formes: Coregonidae), a globally extinct species from the North Sea basin. Journal offish Biology67: 713-729. Fruge DJ, et al. 2006. The Striped Bass Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. United States: A Regional Management Plan. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. Report no. 137. Garman GC. 1992. Fate and potential significance of postspawning ana-dromous fish carcasses in an Atlantic coastal river. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121: 390-394. Gende SM, Edwards RT, Willson MF, Wipfli MS. 2002. Pacific salmon in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. BioScience 52: 917-928. Graf WL, ed. 2003. Dam Removal Research: Status and Prospects. Heinz Center. Gross MR, Coleman RM, McDowell RM. 1988. Aquatic productivity and the evolution of diadromous fish migration. Science 239: 2392-2393. Gudbergsson G. 2007. Icelandic Salmon, Trout and Charr Catch Statistics 2007. Institute ofFreshwater Fisheries. VMST/08024. Helfman GS. 2007. Fish Conservation: A Guide to Understanding and Restoring Global Aquatic Biodiversity and Fishery Resources. Island Press. Humphries P, Winemiller KO. 2009. Historical impacts on river fauna, shifting baselines, and challenges for restoration. BioScience 59: 673-684. Huntington TG, Hodgkins GA, Dudley RW. 2003. Historical trend in river ice thickness and coherence in hydroclimatological trends in Maine. Climatic Change 61: 217-236. [IUCN] International Union for the Conservation of Nature. 2008. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 2008. (29 October 2009; www.iucnredlist. org/) www.biosciencemag.org

J0rgensen EH, Aas-Hansen 0, Maule AG, Espen Tau Strand JE, Vijayan MM. 2004. PCB impairs smoltification and seawater performance in anadromous Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology C: Toxicology and Pharmacology 138: 203-212. Kahnle AW, Hattala KA, McKown K. 2007. Status of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) of the Hudson !liver Estuary, New York, USA. Pages 347-364 in Munro J, Hatin D, Hightower JE, McKown K, Sulak KL, Kahnle AW, Caron F, eds. Anadromous Sturgeons: Habitats, Threats, and Management. American Fisheries Society. Symposium 56. Kynard B. 1997. Life history, latitudinal patterns, and status of the shortnose sturgeon. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48: 319-334. Lassalle G, Rochard E. 2009. Impact of 21st century climate change on diadromous fish spread over Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. Global Change Biology 15: 1072-1089. Law R. 2007. Fisheries-induced evolution: Present status and future directions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 335: 271-277. Limburg KE, Landergren P, Westin L, Elfman M, Kristiansson P. 2001. Flexible modes of anadromy in Baltic sea trout (Sa/mo trutta): Making the most of marginal spawning streams. Journal of Fish Biology 59: 682---695. Limburg KE, Hattala KA, Kahnle AW. 2003. American shad in its native range. American Fisheries Society Symposium 35: 125-140. Maitland PS. 2003. The Status of Smelt Osmerus eperlanus in England. English Nature. English Nature Research Reports no. 516. Massmann WH. 1961. A Potomac River shad fishery, 1814-1824. Chesapeake Science 2: 76-81. Maury-Brachet R, Rochard E. 2008. The 'Storm of the Century' (December 1999) and the accidental escape of Siberian sturgeons (Acipenser baerii) into the Gironde estuary (southwest France). Environmental Science and Pollution Research 15: 89-94. McDowall RM. 1997. The evolution of diadromy (revisited) and its place in phylogenetic analysis. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 7: 443-462. ---. 2001. Anadromy and homing: Two life-history traits with adaptive synergies in salmonid fishes? Fish and Fisheries 2: 78-85. Mettee MF, O'Neil PE. 2003. Status of Alabama shad and skipjack herring in Gulf of Mexico drainages. American Fisheries Society Symposium 35: 157-170. [NMFSJ National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team (NMFS 2008). ---. 2009. Species of Concern: River Herring (Alewife and Blueback Herring). NMFS. (17 November 2009; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs!species/ riverherring_detailed.pdj) Naylor R, Hindar K, Fleming IA, Goldburg R, Williams S, Volpe J, Whoriskey F, Eagle J, Kelso D, Mangel M. 2005. Fugitive salmon: Assessing the risks of escaped fish from net-pen aquaculture. BioScience 55: 427-437. Ocean Studies Board, National Research Council. 2000. Improving the Collection, Management, and Use of Marine Fisheries Data. National Academy Press. Palstra AP, van Ginneken VJT, Murk AJ, van den Thillart GEEJM. 2006. Are dioxin-like contaminants responsible for the eel (Anguilla anguil/a) drama? Naturwissenshaften 93: 145-148. Pikitch EK, Doukakis P, Lauck L, Chakrabarty P, Erickson DL. 2005. Status, trends, and management of sturgeon and paddlefish fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 6: 233-265. Powles H, Bradford MJ, Bradford RG, Doubleday WG, Innes S, Levings CD. 2000. Assessing and protecting endangered marine species. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 669---676. Reist JD, Wrona FJ, Prowse TD, Dempson JB, Power M, Kock G, Carmichael T), Sawatzky CD, Lehtonen H, Tallman RF. 2006. Climate change impacts on Arctic freshwater ecosystems and fisheries. Ambio 35: 402-410. Richards RA, Rago PJ. 1999. A case history of effective fishery management: Chesapeake Bay striped bass. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19: 356-375. Ruffo S, Kareiva PM. 2009. Using science to assign value to nature. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 3. www.biosciencemag.org Articles Sand0y S, Langaker RM. 2001. Atlantic salmon and acidification in southern Norway: A disaster in the 20th century, but a hope for the future? Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 130: 1343-1348. Secor DH, Rooker JR. 2000. Is otolith strontium a useful scalar oflife cycles in estuarine fishes? Fisheries Research 46: 359-371. Secor DH, Waldman JR. 1999. Historical abundance of Delaware Bay Atlantic sturgeon and potential rate of recovery. American Fisheries Society Symposium 23: 203-216. Stevenson CH. 1899. The shad fisheries of the Atlantic coast of the United States. Report of the Commissioner of the US Commission for Fish and Fisheries, pt. 24. US Government Printing Office. St. Pierre RA. 1999. Restoration of Atlantic sturgeon in the northeastern USA with special emphasis on culture and restocking. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 15: 180-182. Strayer DL, Hattala KA, Kahnle AW. 2004. Effects of an invasive bivalve (Dreissena polymorpha) on fish populations in the Hudson River estuary. Canadian Journal ofFisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61: 924-941. Swaney DP, Limburg KE, Stainbrook K. 2006. Some historical changes in the patterns of population and land use in the Hudson River watershed. American Fisheries Society Symposium 51: 75-112. Thiel R, Winkler HM, Riel P, Neumann R. 2005. Survey of river and sea lampreys in German waters of the Baltic Sea-basis of successful rebuilding programmes. ICES CM 2005/W: 06. International Council for the Exploration of the Seas. Tilp F. 1978. This Was Potomac River. Willich. Waldman JR. 2003. Introduction to the shads. American Fisheries Society Symposium 35: 3-9. ---. 2006. The diadromous fish fauna of the Hudson River: Life histories, conservation concerns, and research avenues. Pages 171-188 in Levinton JS, Waldman JR, eds. The Hudson River Estuary. Cambridge University Press. ---. 2008. The world's diadromous fishes: Resetting shifted baselines. Pages 151-163 in Fearn E, ed. State of the Wild 2008-2009: A Global Portrait of Wildlife, Wildlands, and Oceans. Island Press, for the Wildlife Conservation Society. Waldman JR, Wirgin IL 1998. Status and restoration options for Atlantic sturgeon in North America. Conservation Biology 12: 631---638. Warren LW Ir., et al. 2000. Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern United States. Fisheries 25: 7-29. [WGNAS] Working Group on North Atlantic Salmon. 2006. Report of the working group on North Atlantic salmon (WGNAS). ICES WGNAS Report 2006. ICES Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management. ICES CM. 2006/ ACFM: 23. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Williot P, et al. 2002. Status and management of Eurasian sturgeon: An overview. International Review of Hydrobiology 87: 483-506. Willson MF, Halupka K.C. 1995. Anadromous fish as keystone species in vertebrate communities. Conservation Biology 9: 489-497. Wirth T, Bernatchez L. 2003. Decline of North Atlantic eels: A fatal synergy? Proceedings of the Royal Society B 270: 681-688. [WWF] World Wildlife Fund. 2001. The Status of Wild Atlantic Salmon: A River by River Assessment. (28 October 2009; http://assets.panda.org/ downloads/sa/1110112.pdj) Karin E. Limburg (klimburg@esfedu) is an associate professor at the College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York, Syracuse. John R. Waldman (john.waldman@qc.cuny.edu) is a professor of biology at Queens College, City University of New York, Flushing. December 2009 I Vol. 59 No. 11

• BioScience 965

1e Westway . Prepared

Wcstway

• k District,

workshop,

'imic, Inc., gineers. ation of the d by Martin >irnie, Inc., Westway to

iy 18, 1983.

~arty." New y engineer." by New Jer- -my Corps of

isheries Ser-

s. N~w York Collins, D.Y.

'* J.R. Wood,

cent trends in 591-624.

192:509. ~ estway strat-

c Voice, Nqv.

'oice, Dec. 27, {and methods. Sierra Atlantic 6 Synthesis and Evaluation KARIN E. LIMBURG and MARY ANN MORAN What has been depicted in the preceding chapters is a portrait of the Hudson River under somewhat haphazard management. Three distinct types of threats to the Hudson ecosystem were at issue. representing direct reductions of animal populations (power plant operation), removal of toxic substances (PCB pollution), and habitat destruction (Westway construction). Each situation that we have chosen to study has had the same characteristics: I) scientific investigations have been used to help gather information, to clarify phenomena, or to explain effects; 2) none of the findings have gone unchallenged; so that 3) aspects of all of these impacts have gone to trial; and 4) action, if any, has proceeded by court edict more often than not. For all three Hudson case studies, no ultimate legal resolution of the environmental issues occurred. The passage of the National Environmen-tal Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969 and the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972 provided the legislative basis for litigation over power plant impact on Hudson River fisheries. Today, although 15 years have passed and a temporary truce has been called, the power plant controversies legally remain in limbo. In 1990, when the temporary agreement expires. the _issue of cooling towers in the Hudson estuary may once again become the subject of a major legal contest. Also, the PCB case is legally unresolved, even though PCBs were recognized as a major problem in 1975. __ Parallel to the legal issues, none of the major scientific disputes have ever been definitively laid to rest. In our Hudson River case studies, we found that the inability of science to contribute efficiently to major regula-

156 6: Synthesis and Evaluation S)'nlhesis and f tory decisions was due to two aspects of the impact assessment process. Adequacy First, the limitations of science were not acknowledged by regulatory and we profiled. judicial bodies, so that scientists were asked to provide precise, unequi-pression of c vocal answers to questions that could not be answered in that fashion. power plant 1 Second, scientists often became trapped in advocacy roles, at times inter-courtroom. c preting their analyses with their employers' implicit biases and carrying examination. on exercises in frustration when, as expert witnesses, they contradicted Ncverthele one another in the courtroom. swers; often. In Chapter 1, five questions were raised about various aspects of the particularly i environmental assessment work.done on the Hudson over the past 15 nature leads 1 years. These were addressed to some degree in subsequent chapters deal-able uncertai ing with different case studies, but we restate and answer them more are inherent!) completely here. ior. Variatior

1. Have appropriate aspects of the Hudson ecosystem been emphasized?

which may bt: Have the data collected been proven adequate for the estimation of in between. \\ Hudson River the impacts under consideration? job of first un This double question receives a mixed answer. For each impact, the turbance to ti laws and regulations were interpreted in such a way that the resulting (1984) explain studies were, in fact, appropriately focused. (In each case, fish were the through coolii primary object of attention.) Yet other interpretations of the laws could incompetence have been made and other ecosystem features could have been carried because of ar out more thoroughly. In the final analysis, each of the scientific studies cesses. Given carried out for impact assessment represented compromises between the however, theii goal of answering all relevant questions and the availability of two esscn-a reasonable L tial resources-money and time. contributed sii For example, studies of the actual effects of PCBs in the Hudson eco-ment (Barnt he system, complementing the extensive environmental fate studies, would Anthropoge; have created a stronger basis for making a decision on what to do with the side the realm remaining load of PCBs in the river. However, such studies are costly. impacts is furti and effects may be subtle and require long periods of observation before range of variat they become manifest. For this reason, environmental assessment and . uncertainty co regulation of PCBs have been carried out on the basis of a concentration i!1vestigators ii in consumable biomass allowed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administra-.......... __.. -.. ~ance. As mu* tion (FDA).

• ...*.... ~ooling water u In a second example, taken from the power plant impact assessments,
• .. bances still car the federal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board (ASLAB) gave 2

P

• t
• If the data ~

the utilities five years to prove that once-through cooling at Indian om h been done a Unit-Two was an acceptable alternative to cooling towers. T at seem-* ingly generous time allowance was sufficient only for obtaining estimates i: -~*:~.. In every cast of direct power plant effects on individual year-classes of five fish species

• • <.}~title investiga (L. Barnthouse, pers. comm.). Again, the information that could be gath*.

extensive data ered was used to the fullest extent possible to make the final decision estuary did not agreed upon in the Hudson River Settlement. that population,

,_...... ~-,..,.......

• **, *~-**"'..,._.._.,.,_

,,_.,... ~ *..,.. >";...,.~_, ** _,,_ on IS. nd Ji-in. !r-ng ed he 15 al- >re

• d?

of the* ing the uld ied lies the en-co-1u\\d the tly' fore and ti on ,tra-

nts,

ave oint em-ates cies ath-sion I

\\ ' I I I l 1 I, t i i t Synthesis and Evaluation l.'\\7 Adequacy and quality of data were also major issues in all of the cases we profiled. A parallel issue was that of unethical interpretation or sup-pression of data. A major mechanism of "quality control" in both the power plant and Westway cases was the scrutiny the data received in the courtroom. Certainly the quality of the data was improved by cross-examination. Nevertheless, much of the collected data failed to yield clear-cut an-swers; often, questions had to be narrowed in scope to be tractable, particularly in the power plants case. Asking questions of a biological nature leads to answers, but those answers are associated with consider-able uncertainty. Populations comprising a biological system of interest are inherently variable with respect to organismic physiology and behav-ior. Variation in the physical environment overlays further patterns, which may be reflected in organisms as clear signals, noise, or something in between. When the system of interest is large and complex, as is the Hudson River, variability in each of the individual components makes the job of first understanding and ultimately predicting the outcome of a dis-turbance to the system a difficult one. For instance, Barnthouse et al. (1984) explain that they were unable to predict long-term effects of once-through cooling on the Hudson fisheries not because of lack of effort, incompetence of the scientists, or use of an inappropriate model, but because of an insufficient understanding of underlying biological pro-cesses. Given their limited understanding of the Hudson River system, however, their evaluation of available methods for mitigating impacts was a reasonable undertaking. Their answers to this more tractable question contributed significantly to the arrangement of the Hudson River Settle-ment (Barnthouse et al., 1984). Anthropogenic impacts frequently take the form of disturbances out-side the realm of natural fluctuations of a system. Therefore, prediction of impacts is further hindered by the need to extrapolate beyond the normal range of variations into a realm unfamiliar to the scientist. This aspect of uncertainty contributed to the difficulty experienced by Hudson River investigators in characterizing and predicting effects of human distur-bance. As much as IO to 20 years later, as in the case for impacts of cooling water uptake, the long-term effects from the anthropogenic distur-bances still cannot be quantified with confidence.

2. If the data were not adequate for impact estimation. what could hauc been done differently?

In every case-power plants, PCBs, and the Westway-results of sci-entific investigations yielded answers that led to even more questions. An extensive data base on the growth and distribution of striped bass in the estuary did not solve the question of long-term power plant impacts on that population, in large part because the dynamics of striped bass popula-

J 1JL J3i::itt JC &&l&t ££Li&&&& - ~------- - "".. ""~"... L&&Li ass 158 6: Synthesis and Evaluation tions could not be understood and verified in the amount of time available. In a similar vein, many measurements and models of PCBs in the Hud-son's sediments and water column yielded (and may continue to yield for some time) evidence that may be interpreted by several theories of PCB transport and transformation-each having a different implication for management. It is clear that much more time and effort could have been expended on all assessments, if available. It is also true that those resources are not likely to become much more available than al present under the current assessment structure. There are several alternatives that could be re-sorted to. One would be to narrow the scope of the impacts sought, as was done in the power plants and Westway cases. This alternative may yield a quicker, more precise answer in the short-term; but unless the question is chosen well, there is a danger that more important impacts will be over-looked. Another alternative would be to establish a mechanism by which a solid baseline of data could be collected and updated for the entire estuary; specific impact assessments could then make use of that data base, complementing it with studies adapted to the particular situation.

3. Was the environmental impact assessment (EJA) work subjected lo continual peer review, rather than reviewed solely after the fact for publication purposes? Was the work ever reviewed at all?

As McDowell pointed out in Chapter 3, much of the data collected remained buried in in-house reports and was never analyzed. However. it appears that those data that actually were used in decision-making were fairly well reviewed, often during litigative procedures. In this way, the environmental assessment protocols were a success. In fact. it is because of the extensive reviewing that so many new questions emerged; it is also why studies later in the course of impact assessme,nts contained much greater detail than did earlier investigations. Synthesis a the Corp begin. A the U.S. the West collabora New Yo1 with ves1 tions, 19~ to transfc CWA fro Cong re findings c mately p;: relatively are weigh given prq

5.

What~ he con The Ht Hudson F the asses~ accessibk nately, m1 of the orii samples ii menis tha River. If~ lyzed or, improve t . some of ti

4. Did the EJA work carry any regulatory clout? If adverse impacts were Present predicted, would the regulatory agency of concern be able to alter the programs design of the proposed project to minimize effects?

.monitorin. . impingem. Under certain circumstances, assessment studies did have the ability ro *******~** ***~**" quality m' affect the outcome of a project proposal. If the results of a study stood up ** on earlier under general extensive review, and if adverse effects were predicted.. _in the esh then changes were made in project designs. To date, however, this has.. * ;

• In the rt occurred only when both sides in a dispute have felt that they would b~

'£:.* ::: ta! assess1 better off by entering what inevitably became a compromise agreement. Jt....

... future. So did not occur when the agency charged with the responsibility to decide. _Hudson R on a project also carried out the environmental assessment studies. This document was demonstrated in the Westway case, when the U.S. Army Corps oL .,}ilg estuar Engineers' own studies predicted adverse environmental impacts; and yet. ** held on th

1luation ilable. Hud- !ld for f PCB )n for ied on ire not

urrent be re-as was yield a

~tion is

! over-

• which entire at data 1ation.

cted to 'act for >llected

• ever. it 1g were 1ay. the Jecause tis also d much

~ts were ilter the tbility to

tood up

• edicted, this has vould be

!ment. It o decide ies. This Corps of

and yet i '

l l I ! t [ I I I t t !

• i

l. i r,,

l ;: i f Synthesis and Evaluation 159 the Corps tried to issue the final requisite permit for the construction to begin. A special study by the Committee on Government Operations of the U.S. House of Representatives found the state of decision-making in the Westway issue to be highly biased, in part because of the Corps' collaboration with the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) and New York State's Department of Transportation (DOT)-two groups with vested interests in Westway (Committee on Government Opera-tions, 1984). Their final recommendation to Congress included a proposal to transfer authority to grant dredge-fill permits under section 404 of the CWA from the Corps to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Congress did not choose to empower NEPA with authority to act on findings of adverse impacts. Therefore, environmental assessment is ulti-mately part of a political process. Even when scientific investigatiom arc relatively divorced from the political arena (not always true). their results are weighed together with other factors when decisions are made about a given project's merit.

5. What is to be done now with the collected data, and /zoll' can they best be complemented in future monitoring/ assessment studies '.J The Hudson River Foundation, created as one of the terms of the Hudson River Settlement, has discussed placing all data collected during the assessment work in a computerized data base system that would be accessible to any interested party (J. Cooper, pers. comm.). Unfortu-nately, much of the information was archived in obscure places and many of the original samples were discarded. Storage of large amounts of field samples is problematic, but can be an important aspect of impact asse~s ments that extend over a number of years as they have in the Hudson River. If samples are discarded after a short time. they cannot be reana-lyzed or verified in the future when refinements in analytical techniques improve the quality of information obtained. This has been a problem for some of the PCB studies (J. Sanders, pers. comm.).

Present-day monitoring of the Hudson River is carried out in several programs that are the responsibility of New York State. These include monitoring young-of-the-year (y-o-y) and juvenile fish entrainment and impingement by power plants, a toxic substances program. and water quality monitoring. These programs have been largely designed to build on earlier studies and to maintain a long-term record of the quality of life in the estuary. In the remainder of this chapter, we summarize features of environmen-tal assessment and management that can aid impact evaluations in the future. Some of these features arose spontaneously in the case of the Hudson River and other estuaries. Several concepts are drawn from a document (Limburg et al., 1984) describing the major consensus, regard-ing estuarine impact assessment methods, from a series of workshops held on the subject.

• • • v.

160 6: Synthesis and Evaluation Environmental Assessment of Estuarine Ecosystems: Past, Present, and Future After more than 12 years of practice, the institutionalized procedure of developing EIAs has come under a great deal of scrutiny, both from the legal (Trubeck, 1977; Anderson, 1973) and scientific perspectives (e.g., Friesema, 1982; Kibby and Glass, 1980; Rosenberg et al., 1981). Rosen-berg et al. (1981) surveyed over 50 EIA studies in a variety of categories, and judged their success in the following areas: *'I) definition of scientific objectives, 2) background preparation, 3) identification of main impacts,

4) prediction of effects, 5) formulation of usable recommendations, 6) monitoring and assessment, 7) sufficient lead time, 8) public participation,

9) adequate funding, and 10) evidence that recommendations were used."

Estuarine impact and power plant impact assessments were given average scores in their evaluations; however, in general, the assessments were characterized by poor research design, lack of coordination among stud-ies, questionable ethics, difficulty in accessing literature on similar im-pacts, etc. (Rosenberg et al., 1981). In a less rigorous, but nevertheless insightful, critique, Kibby and Glass (1980) examined the specific reasons why so many of the environmental impact statements (ElAs) had so little worth. The major faults of many EISs, according to Kibby and Glass (1980), could be summarized as: I. Too much collection of irrelevant data;

2. Inclusion of data that were collected but never used in the evaluation process;

3. Presentation of circuitous lines of reasoning that either evaded the issues or even appeared to mislead the reader;

4. Lack of detailed information about certain essential processes; and

5. Lack of time to carry out the assessments.

Interestingly, the collective Hudson River EIAs bore all of these traits. Some of them even persisted well past 1976-thc year that Kibby and Glass presented their findings at a symposium. Thus, many of the prob-lems of the EIS procedure appear to be well entrenched and difficult to remove. -+-- -r--- -~r-*~ ' r t -r T l i

--=-t-,,

~

---

r_._...

-**.--*,-+----.- --~+-'

---

i-~,.

Fnvironrnen (usually a tists who understan by society argued th NEPA. What is. term borrc tain conce complex s be relevari system of ture of the functions c priate to e' nity, CCOS) C:irrent If properly sessments likely to be and popula some exarr well in prec rioration, a gram. 1983 r

---

}--- _

vast area a t isolated an* =t~~~: populatiom ,::[~- able in detc ,-:r**-, forests.) Ot --;;.:-f--~.... gional planr } mer and Ni ~~f; :;)','~,~: Ecosystems Studies for Impact Assessment --- fects of a n ~-"f:..:.:.. James River The virtue of using ecosystems approaches to impact assessment has ---**r**---- _ coofnKt 1 _enpuoente 0 ). been discussed at length in the past decade. Leggett (1981) summarized a workshop debate dealing with population-level vs. community-ecosys- __ t,...... In much o tern-level approaches to power plant impact assessments. There. the pop-

---

~ ---*- ~cosystem t ulatio~-level advocates em~hasizcd the '_'acceptability'~ o~ these assess-...:.:+/---:- "'.ith the exc ments m court, the greate~ yield of numencal d.ata per u~1t time a~d e~fort. _:.:.-:::.'.'.~]f-"'.:::::~given pe1fur and the fact that the pubhc relates more readily to a smgle species issue_ ' ~~*,_: -

of populatio

f 1- '* c )) l,

e n-SS

.al 1y on he its. tnd ob-

to has

!d a sys- >Op-ess-

ort, ssue I

I f I l I '~ Environmental Assessment of Estuarine Ecosystems 161 (usually about fish) than to the ecosystem. On the other side were scien-tists who advocated community-ecosystem approaches as necessary to understand long-term environmental impacts, because they would be felt by society much longer than immediate economic ones. Therefore, it was argued that the latter approaches could better carry out the spirit of NEPA. What is meant by a "systems approach" to environmental study'! A term borrowed from engineering, a systems approach implies that a cer-tain conceptual framework is provided to organize our understanding of complex situations. It includes: I) a delineation of boundaries that should be relevant to the problem at hand (i.e., the problem should define the system of interest); 2) questions that are posed to understand the struc-ture of the ecosystem; and 3) the approach that is used to investigate the functions of various parts of the system. For ecosystems, it may be appro-priate to evaluate impacts at several different scales (population, commu-nity, ecosystem) more or less concurrently. Current Role of Ecosystem Studies in Estuarine Impact Assessments If properly executed and couched in an ecosystem perspective, EIS as-sessments can tell much about what long-term impacts on a system are likely to be. From this, it is possible to estimate effects on communities and populations, sometimes in the shorter term. Limburg et al. (1984) give some examples of assessments wherein that approach succeeded fairly well in predicting impacts or in isolating the cause of environmental dete-rioration, as in the case of the Chesapeake Bay (Chesapeake Bay Pro-gram, 1983; Orth and Moore, 1983). There, deterioration occurred over a vast area and a long (30-year) time span; thus, the effects were hardly isolated and could not have been detected hy the examination of single populations alone. (Ecosystem monitoring has also proven to be invalu-able in detection of the decline of many European and North American forests.) Other estuarine ecosystem assessments that have helped in re-gional planning include work on: I) the Narragansell River and Bay (Kre-mer and Nixon, 1978) (sewage management); 2) the Severn estuary in western England (Longhurst, 1978) (construction of locks for flood con-trol); 3) the Crystal River in Florida (Kemp, 1977; McKcllar. 1977) (ef-fects of a nuclear power plant's effluent on estuarine bays); and 4) the James River estuary in Virginia (O'Connor et al.. 1983) (fate and transport of Kepone). In the Hudson, the ecosystem studies of the fate of PCBs continue to be crucial to decisions concerning remedial action. In much of the research done on the Hudson, reference was made to the ecosystem that provides support for organisms and processes. However, with the exception of the PCB case, the systems approach was mostly given perfunctory attention in EIS work before being dismissed in favor of population studies. In Chapter 2, we have assembled much of the ... -..,~,---~

162 6: Synthesis and Evaluation existing information on the food web and environmental parameters, from which it is obvious that the Hudson is as diverse and alive as most major east coast estuaries; in fact, it may be better off than others, such as the Chesapeake. Much of the information has come from basic research stud-ies, which reached a peak in the mid-1970s with the momentum generated by such interest groups as the Hudson River Environmental Society. Such studies need to be encouraged, expanded, and updated where neces-sary. In particular, more ecosystems work is needed in the upper portion of the river (above the Troy Dam). I Research Needs and Useful Approaches

• tr In Chapter I, we stated that our concept of "ecosystem approach" in-eluded the investigation of population-level, community-level, and eco-system-level properties, where appropriate. In retrospect, most of the scientific investigations carried out for impact assessment on the Hudson could have been incorporated into broader ecosystem studies that would
  • 1 1

.~.. help to address questions of long-term and cumulative impacts. However, there is a noticeable scarcity of published data on how the Hudson ecosys-tem works; most of the assessment studies simply failed (intentionally or unintentionally) to link the facts together into an understandable story.

• i*--
  • t-In this section, we present several methods of evaluating ecosystems Environmental As particularly wh impacts potent or material trar human activit)*

future of at lea~ ing in loss of S* rates, floral an nomic activitie: As examples assessment, co energy fixation the general I eve web, as well as of biological ca community met izing ecosysterr stressed comrnu (P/R) along a gr< (RM -2). The r and relative effe and Coggins, l9l ing at the Rosete -i-- for potential impacts. These range from the simple and aggregated to the .:f primary product specific and detailed. As outlined in Limburg et al. (1984), the actual trainment effect~ assessments may be carried out in a tiered fashion, with certain tests or -f-.. the overall asses observations made first, followed by a choice of more involved investiga- --~-*-* Trophic analy~ tions. Measurements within an ecosystem study should identify effects understand how and/or concentrations and gradients through populations. communities,

• • -.-.*.t.*.*-*.-

with their physic and ecosystem compartments. Human impacts also must be weighed f: hend transfers of against the background of natural phenomena. Figure fl. I is a visual repre-qucnccs of alter;, +* sentation of the kinds of groupings relevant to the study of estuarine i that were carried ~*r---*** problems. It is important to note the hierarchical format and exchanges science. 1979) fcl --.,.,,r-,,,,-~*- wi thin and between different functional groups. A species population j:* biomass in the s should be understood in the context of its interaction at a higher level of Hudson have ne~ organization; for example, how a dominant polychaete species contrib-

• • • • .. -.. [

1 '.. -.. **-.. - (Sheppard, 1976) utes to nutrient cycling in a benthic community. Assessment should also t Many states nc be made of biotic-abiotic relationships. Temperate estuaries are generally *.=r~~~~ that arc con~idcre dominated by the physical forces of tides, upriver freshwater flow. and _" [- _ project will be feli seasonal gradients. To what extent do these abiotic forces produce pat* ---F~- _Important Specie: terns of adaptation in the biota? To what extent are anthropogenic factors - *. i:...". species studies R controlling? Where will an anthropogenic change cause a "bottleneck" in

• ~~t**.

-~-~ considered a first. the system? ..... _ RIS studies shoul Integrative, ecosystem-level measures received little attention in the _....,.....,.....,..,..... te. ms questions, \\.,. Hudson studies. However, such measures can provide a relatively simple.. .

• _. _ ?tic parts of their way to obtain information about the general status of the ecosystem,

* ::.:=~;:~prescntative im1

valuation rs, from

t major has the ch stud-

nerated

ociety.

e neces-portion 1ch" in-ind eco-t of the Hudson l.l WOLtld

owever, t ecosys-mally or

story.

1systems ~d to the e actual tests or westiga- 'f effects

nunities, weighed al repre-

stuarine

changes

• pulation
• level of contrib-mld also

~enerally low, and luce pat-c factors neck in m in the ly simple

osystem, I k '

~ ! ! I f, l f, l l f ¥ f t l I I t 1 ~ Environmental Assessment of Estuarine Ecosystems 163 particularly when the status is compared over space or time and when the impacts potentially pose large-scale problems. If pathways of energy and/ or material transfer were shown to be fundamentally altered, as a result of human activity, such a finding would have major implications for the future of at least a portion of the ecosystem. For instance, impacts result-ing in loss of seagrass beds would affect water flow, sediment exchange rates, floral and fauna! communities, and human recreational and eco-nomic activities. As examples of useful, albeit aggregated, approaches to ecosystem assessment, community metabolic studies provide a gross measure of energy fixation and its partitioning in the system. This, in turn, indicates the general levels of energy potentially available for processing in the food web, as well as whether the system as a whole is a net yielder or producer of biological capital. Sirois (1973) recommended the diagnostic use of community metabolic studies (production and respiration) for character-izing ecosystem response to pollution stress. He was able to identify stressed communities on the basis of the ratio of production to respiration (P/R) along a gradient from the Tappan Zee (RM 26) to New York Harbor (RM -2). The method can also be successfully used to detect absolute and relative effects of thermal loadings from power plants (e.g.. Knight and Coggins, 1982). In a report on near-field effects of once-through cool-ing at the Roseton Power Plant, LMS (1977) found that measurements of primary productivity (measured as 14C uptake) clearly demonstrated en-trainment effects; yet these findings were apparently given little weight in the overall assessment of impacts. Trophic analyses should be coupled with metabolism studies in order to understand how biological components interact with each other and also with their physical environment. This is very important to fully compre-hend transfers of carbon, nutrients, and toxic substances. and also conse-quences of alterations of these flows. The preliminary trophic analyses that were carried out to estimate PCB transfers in the food web (Hydro-science, 1979) fell short of their goal partly because of poor estimates of biomass in the system. Even the biomasses of major fish stocks in the Hudson have never been estimated, except by the crudest of calculations (Sheppard, 1976). Many states now require EIAs to include the study of several species that are considered representative of the ecosystem where the impact of a project will be felt (Limburg et al., 1984). We regard this "Representative Important Species" (R1S) approach as a positive move away from single species studies. RIS is by no means a complete assessment. but it can be considered a first step toward an expanded evaluation of the system state. RIS studies should be carried out in such a fashion that broader ecosys-tems questions, which may involve linkages between organisms and abi-otic parts of their environment, can be formulated and addressed. Even representative important components, such as the benthic or submerged

164 Physico-chemical Properties Level of Organization Species, Populations 6: Synthesis and Evaluation Whole Estuary Division By Region (e.g. solini ty regime) AbO\\'t groun~ Below ground Commun1t**s Division By Habitat Zone I Division By I Habitat) Groups Figure 6.1. Suggested perceptual scales of organization in estuaries and attributes to consider when assessing potential anthropogenic impacts. This is meant as a guide rather than as a strict set of rules; the evaluator should be able to identify those ecosystem components most likely to be affected, and should select for study ecological attributes that will best reflect impact (Limburg et al., 1984). aquatic vegetation subsystems, could and should be directly assessed for impacts. An example might be the impact of high levels of cadmium (as in Foundry Cove in the lower Hudson) on the ability of benthic fauna to cycle nutrients. Another way to characterize ecosystems is by means of energy or materials budgets. Budgets go a step beyond trophic analyses in that they involve abiotic components of the ecosystem as well (such as sediments). Knowledge of where energy (as fixed carbon) and major nutrients (nitro-gen, phosphorus, and silica) enter and leave the system, and how they are moved about within, is crucial to understanding the ecosystem's func-F.nvironmen Table 6.1. shown inf Within the Biological

• Distrihuti community
• Major an1 gered and/1
• Biomass,

<>pccies of i

• Metabolic PN); respir; of toxic ch<
• Behavior Chemical
• A vailabili
• Nutrient through sys
• Mcdiatiori
• Fate and, Physical
• Tidal exct
• Light avai
• Current V*
• Tcmperat1 Erterna/ lo
• Magnitudt
• Major imr chemicals, t
• Anthropo~

sewage, dre <From Limbu tions. Fon inputs corr consumed same sort o as was see1 In Chapt together for nutrient flo Simpson et Other data Bight (May ()Utputs of 1

at ion is ion ly bi\\a\\) oups but es t as a entify ct for ~4). !d for (as in na to gy or t they ents). nitro* !Y arc func* Environmental Assessment of Estuarine Ecosystems 165 Table 6.1. Ecological attributes to consider along with organizational scales as shown in Figure 6. I. Within the estuarine system Biological

• Distribution of species, species richness. or some other measure of diversity or community structure;
• Major and minor species constituents (representative important species, endan-gered and/or rare species, nuisance species);
• Biomass, turnover times and interactions (if any) of dominant species or other species of interest;
• Metabolic processes or indices. e.g.. gross and net primary production (Pu and PN); respiration (R); P/R ratios; bioaccumulation. transformation, or dcpuration of toxic chemicals; nutrient cycling;
• Behavior capable of altering structure or function of ecosystem componcnt(s).

Chemical

• Availability of nutrients for biological production;
• Nutrient dynamics (cycling through various ionic states and compounds.

through system components or parts thereoO;

• Mediation of chemical dynamics by physical processes (see below);
• Fate and effect of introduced, toxic substances.

Physical

• Tidal excursion and range;
• Light availability, water transparency and color, compensation depth
• Current velocities;
• Temperature, salinity. pH, alkalinity, etc.

Ertenwl to the estuary. and/or shared

• Magnitudes and dynamics of fresh and saltwater in-and effluxes:
• Major imports and exports of materials (including species. organic material.

chemicals, etc.):

• Anthropogenic influences (examples are: power plants: shoreline development.

sewage. dredge-and-fill; agricultural erosion and runoffi. (from Limburg et al.. 1984.J tions. For example, in the Hudson. we know that over 50% of the nitrogen inputs come from sewage sources, and that only 2 to 27% of this is consumed in primary biological production (Garside et al., 1976). The same sort of budgeting is important for tracing the fate of toxic chemicals, as was seen in Chapter 4. In Chapter 2, we discussed some of the budgets that have been put together for energy (e.g., McFadden et al., 1978; Gladden et al.. 1984) and nutrient flows in the estuary. Data are available from Hammond (1975). Simpson et al. (1975), and Deck (1981) on nutrient inputs to the estuary: other data describe some of the inputs and transfers to the New York Bight (Mayer, 1982). Yet none completely describe all of the inputs and outputs of the estuary, and little information has been published on the

166 6: Synthesis and Evaluation upper river. Furthermore, the role of biota in trapping, mobilizing, or cycling matter in the Hudson ecosystem is far from well understood. Mathematical models in impact assessment work are widespread and range from the simplest of calculations (e.g., the oxygen sag-curve model to measure BOD impacts) to extremely complex, total ecosystem models (e.g., PEST [Park, et al., 1980)). Entrainment-impingement models, based on paradigms from fisheries science, have been routinely used (and abused, as in the case of the Hudson) to assess power plant impacts on fish populations (for more discussion, see Hall, 1977 and Barnthouse et al., 1984). Other applications have included fate and transport of toxic substances (EXAMS, Burns et al., 1981), hydrodynamic and physical/ chemical models for evaluation of thermal plume, wasteload allocation, water diversion, and dredge-and-fill, and models that incorporate trophic aspects of the impacted system with physical and/or chemical phenomena (e.g., Kremer and Nixon, 1978). Many reviews exist on the usefulness of mathematical models, of which Swartzman et al. (1977), Mitsch (1983), Turgeon (1983), Barnthouse et al. (1984), and Limburg et al. (1984) serve as useful references for estuarine impact assessment models. For all their promise as synthetic tools, models have been plagued by problems of data requirements, uncertain-ties (what is the proper formulation to describe a given impact?), and error due to limitations of the numerical computation procedures used. Thus far, models of fairly well-understood, purely physicochemical pro-cesses have progressed more successfully than biological ones, both on the Hudson and elsewhere, although we have seen (Chapter 4) the diffi-culties that can arise when using physical models to predict effects. The state-of-the-art of biological modelling is such that much of what is developed for impact assessment is also a testing of theory, rather than straightforward application of reliable algorithms. There are many unre-solved questions about the ecology of estuaries, and models must reflect those gaps in scientific understanding. This situation is unlikely to change in the near future; we must learn to live with this fact. For a decision-maker, it may be better to use cautiously the results from a model known to be imperfect, rather than to use nothing at all. In general, ecosystems studies that have had the greatest success in elucidating environmental problems have used a variety of evaluative techniques, including: l) field measurements that quantify flows and stor-ages of energy, nutrients, and biomass, as well as physical controlling parameters; 2) experiments, especially meso-and microcosms, that iso-late or mimic parts of the real system, but are simple enough to study a particular process; and 3) mathematical models that link together dispa-rate information and can be used to test the consequences of various hypotheses put forth by the investigator. These approaches are more powerful when developed in parallel, so that results from one kind of .:*:::r.***.~* "-r-+ -*-+- '""r:::'. --r-

• • • • r**

' l t I L-

• • • *-*f......

~...,..._,,, -~-*-- r

• _ It. -

-~ j-~- *"- Environmental investigatior hypotheses i elling team c mation and useful. Mea model. One cannc system struc anywhere el~ terization of subsequent 1 included as package coul quate inform may not be r One way that of scientific ! operate more to produce th ducing a "dt greater poter: Such teams, 1 least those m from scicntifi, politicized. p, mittee, as an search pertirn greatly stimul. in the river ar Other state environmenta together regul laypeople to v with (Limbtirf Program is a ~ European cou board of sci em state, but is c . apparent succ1 ties that the ur Parties. Also,

Evaluation lizing, or stood. >read and

• ve model m models

. models, used (and npacts on 1thouse et t of toxic physical/ illocation, 1te trophic henomena

, of which ouse et al.

r estuarine etic tools, uncertain- >act?), and .ures used.

mica! pro-

s, both on

4) the diffi-

ffects.

h of what is rather than many unre-nust reflect y to change a decision-odcl known

success in f evaluative ws and stor-1 controlling ns, that iso-h to study a

,ether dispa-s of various es are more one kind of Environmental Assessment of Estuarine Ecosystems 167 investigation can help the researcher to clarify, modify, or suggest new hypotheses in concurrent endeavors. Thus, for instance, a project's mod-elling team can synthesize field-derived and experimentally derived infor-mation and suggest what sorts of further measurements would be most useful. Measurements, in turn, can be used to verify or invalidate a model. One cannot say a priori that any of these methods for examining eco-system structure and function will be the "best" to use in the Hudson or anywhere else. However, it is important to be sure that a general charac-terization of the ecosystem is on record as a baseline for comparison with subsequent alterations. Otherwise, a fairly complete survey should be included as a first level of an ecological assessment package; such a package could be included in any major impact assessment work. If ade-quate information already exists about the area under consideration, it may not be necessary to duplicate the work. Institutional Changes One way that planning and management authorities deal with the problem of scientific biases is to develop infrastructures that allow scientists to operate more independently than when under contract to parties required to produce the EIS. Then research monies arc not contingent upon pro-ducing a "desired" result. An independent scientific team may have greater potential for dealing objectively with available scientific data. Such teams, reporting to an autonomous scientific panel. can remove at least those uncertainties that stem from the political arena rather than from scientific constraints, unless the autonomous board itself becomes politicized. For instance, the Hudson's PCB Settlement Advisory Com-mittee, as an independent review body for directing and reviewing re-search pertinent to remedial action on the problem, can be said to have greatly stimulated the understanding of chemical and sediment movement in the river and estuary. Other states and regions have taken up this institutional pattern for environmental management and have been fairly successful in bringing together regulators, regulated interests, scientists, decision-makers, and laypeople to work out development plans that everyone can at least live with (Limburg et al., 1984). The State of Maryland's Power Plant Siting Program is a good example. Patterned after programs existing in several European countries, the Maryland program maintains an autonomous board of scientific and technological advisors. Funding comes through the state, but is collected from the utility companies. The program is an apparent success partly because of the general agreement among all par-ties that the unbiased scientific review process is in the best interest of all parties. Also, since 1972, coastal states have instituted Coastal Zone

~.. ~*~ ~ - 168 6: Synthesis and Evaluation Management offices in accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act; many of those programs have had great influence on the allocation of estuarine resources (Limburg et al., 1984). As suggested by McDowell in Chapter 3, it might be prudent to restruc-ture environmental management so that the need to place so much weight on scientific research interpretation in a litigative setting is decreased. There are other points in decision-making, particularly in the legal pro-cess, where scientific input is needed and welcomed. An opportunity occurs during the creation of laws, when scientists can provide technical information to assist lawmakers in structuring the intent and scope of environmental legislation. Scientists also assist in the formulation of lan-guage of proposed legislation and can aid lawmakers in debate of the legislation. Once environmental legislation is passed, scientific input is also necessary for writing rules and criteria for regulatory and enforce-ment action (Limburg et al., 1984). Mediation provides another avenue by which science can enter the environmental regulatory process outside of a litigative setting. Settle-ment of the 17-year Hudson River power plant dispute was brought about through mediation after many years of litigation failed. A critical point in the settlement negotiation was reached through a collaborative modelling effort by expert scientists on opposing sides of the cooling tower issue (Talbot, 1983; Barnthouse et al., 1984). The necessity for shutting down plant operation during critical periods in the life history of Hudson River fish was agreed upon by the scientists as the only feasible alternative to cooling towers that would afford some protection to fish-spawning activi-ties (Talbot, 1983). However, an attempt to mediate the Wcstway dispute was not as successful. Meetings between the numerous and varied parties interested in Westway failed to result in any compromise plan. Finally. a suggestion was made by the Hudson River Foundation in early 1984 to use an independent mediator to help resolve the PCB disputes. Another institutional change that has received favorable response is the strategy known as adaptive environmental assessment and manage-ment-the precepts of which are developed in Holling (1978). The force-fulness of this approach lies in the underlying philosophy of developing assessment techniques to deal with uncertainty and risk. Adaptive man-agement necessitates the constant collection of information (including baseline studies) to decrease uncertainty, prior to and over the course of the activity; at the same time. it sets up a framework whereby policy-makers and/or managers can interact with the scientists who carry out the assessments. The approach integrates data collection, mathematical as-sessment and optimization techniques, and intense discussion to evaluate and modify options. This is probably the best posture to adopt for most environmental assessment work, given the absence of clear-cut answers to essential questions (Limburg et al.. 1984). Cumulative J f'um Throughot impact. Y( tant to un what is kr nutrient ar and cntrair in a qualit (filling in o power plan ing plant? The ans1 exist, our r myriad sou However,; happen int cals in the occurred in the January information and retriev< puters. cou No amou the researd funding sou tion has do Foundation Hudson Ri\\* ecosystem ( arding the b1 sary researc ies i11 situ an In summa greatly aideo have tried tc tory agencie Hudson, sor cumulative a nized and IT evaluation o we continue

• ___ long-term me mation on th*

~valuation agement

ation of

, restruc-h weight creased. ~gal pro- )Ort unity technical scope of m of Ian-te of the

input is enforce-enter the

g. Settle-

.ght about tl point in modelling wer issue ting down . son River

rnat\\ve to ing activi-ay dispute ied parties Finally, a

• Iy 1984 to

s.

onseisthe j manage-The force-developing ptive man-(including e course of ~by policy-irry out the

matical as-to evaluate

• pt for most

ut answers l I l I '

I ' l f t I t Cumulative Impact Assessment: The Way of the Future? 169 Cumulative Impact Assessment: The Way of the J?uture? Throughout this book, we have dealt separately with each environmental impact. Yet, if the Hudson is to be managed as an ecosystem, it is impor-tant to understand cumulative as well as immediate effects. Based on what is known about the hydrodynamics, sewage-derived and natural nutrient and carbon loadings, PCB and other chemical transformations, and entrainment-impingement effects of power plants, is it possible even in a qualitative manner to say what the additional impact of Westway (filling in of 200 acres on the lower Hudson) would be? Or of an additional power plant in the mid-Hudson region? Or of decommissioning an operat-ing plant? The answer is, probably not at this point. Although large data bases exist, our review appears to be the only attempt to link together all of the myriad sources of biological, chemical, physical, and social information. However, there is certainly reason to believe that more synthesis might happen in the future, at least with respect to the fate of hazardous chemi-cals in the system. Coordination of research in a cooperative spirit has occurred in the past on the Hudson, and it recently was called for again in the January 1984 workshop on PCBs (Chapter 4). Also, in this age of rapid information transfer, the establishment of a computerized data storage and retrieval system, which could be generally accessed by remote com-puters, could prove extremely valuable. No amount of good will can solve problems without money to pay for the research. Thus, a second, very important factor is the development of funding sources. The latter-day formation of the Hudson River Founda-tion has done much to refocus interest on the Hudson ecosystem. The Foundation's purpose is to support both basic and applied research on the Hudson River, with emphasis on potential human uses of the estuarine ecosystem (HRF, 1984). Perhaps the Hudson River Foundation, in stew-arding the bulk of future research, can successfully orchestrate the neces-sary research efforts, including among other approaches ecosystem stud-ies in situ and synthetic models. In summary, future impact assessments on the Hudson River should be greatly aided first by learning from past experiences such as those we have tried to document here. Second, although several different regula-tory agencies have jurisdiction over the various activities that affect the Hudson, some centralized "book-keeping" mechanism to keep track of cumulative activities is necessary. Third, that information should be orga-nized and made available to researchers, so that constant review and evaluation of the "state-of-the-River" can be accomplished. As long as we continue to utilize the Hudson's resources to the point of scarcity, long-term monitoring programs are needed. These should provide infor-mation on the status of the ecosystem, as well as on economically impor-

170 6: Synthesis and Evaluation tant populations. Only in this way will the successful development of managerial models proceed. Finally, scientific assessments were seen both to suffer and gain from courtroom exposure; and so ways in which time spent in court can be minimized without losing the critical review of data may help scientists and decision-makers alike to get on with the business of assessing and managing the Hudson. More emphasis on scien-tific input to development of legislation and regulation is recommended. Along with a renewed commitment to integrated studies, integrated plan-ning has been instituted in the form of New York's Coastal Management Program. This program has been set up in accordance with the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (U.S.C. sections 1451 et seq.), and it was recently (autumn l 982) approved for New York State. Among other benefits, a 1670-ha sanctuary will be set aside along the Hudson estuary. This will be used for study of the ecosystem and should be extremely useful for baseline work for impact assessments. This extensive review has led us to conclude that some of the scientific evaluation studies were performed as well as they could have been, given the circumstances, while others fell disappointingly short of that mark. The Hudson River has been the proving ground for much of America's environmental impact assessment, and many of the mistakes made have already served as lessons to decision-makers elsewhere. The mechanisms for managing the estuary have been evolving toward a more holistic per-spective; certainly, most environmental investigators dealing with the Hudson today have a broader understanding of potential consequences than they had 15 years ago. References Anderson, F.R. 1973. NEPA in the courts: a legal analysis of the National Envi-ronmental Policy Act. Resources for the Future, Inc. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD. Barnthouse, L.W., J. Boreman, S.W. Christensen, C.P. Goodyear, W. Van Win-kle, and D.S. Vaughan. 1984. Population biology in the courtroom: the lesson of the Hudson River controversy. Bioscience 34(1):14-19. Burns, L.A.. D.M. Cline, and R.R. Lassiter. 1981. Exposure analysis modeling system (EXAMS) user manual and system documentation report. ERL, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA. Chesapeake Bay Program. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: A framework for action. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3. Philadelphia, PA. (2 vols.) Committee on Government Operations. 1984. The Westway project: A study of failure in federal/state relations. 66th Report by Committee on Government Operations, together with dissenting views. 98th Congress. 2d Session. House Report 98-1166. Union Calendar No. 650. U.S. Gov't. Printing Office, Wash* ington, D.C. 57 pp. Deck. B.L. 1981. Nutrient-element distributions in the Hudson estuary. Ph.D. Dissertation. Columbia University. New York, NY. 396 pp. Cumulative Tmpa Friesema, H.P. workshop co1 Policy Resea Garside, C., T.< ~ewage derive Bight. Est. C Gladden, J.B.,. of the Huct~ 01 Trans. Am. F Hall, C.A.S. 19 power plant c lice tC.A.S I NY. Hammond, D. E River. Ph.D. Holling, C.S. (e flASA Internr New York, N HRF. 1984. Ani fc,undation, ]\\ Hydroscience. 1

• estuary Prepa Environmenta Kemp, W.M. 19*

plant. Ph D. c Kibby, H. and )\\ on environmer Environmental ta! Qualitv an.! D.C. Knight. R. L <>nd lism at Crystal tion. Contract Dept. of Envir* 87 pp. Kremer, J.N. andl analysis. Ecolo ~-*- ---~- Leggett, W.C. g ecosystem-leve ated with Impac . on Entrainment .............. -.-.... Limburg, K.E., c -*<-*-- 'impact as<;cssma experiences. Re Ithaca, NY. Longhurst, A.R. I agement 4:287-lMS. 1977. Roset; ing system oper

vl.lluation nent of re seen i1 which

view of vith the in scien-nended.

ed p\\an-agement federal eq.). and mg other estuary. xtremely scientific en, given iat mark. \\merica's 1ade have

chanisms

• listic per-with the

equences ional Envi*

, University

r. Van Win-he lesson of

. is modeling ERL, U.S. action. U.S. vols.)

A study of Government

sion. House

>ftice, Wash-tuary. Ph.D. l \\ I l Cumulative Impact Assessment: The Way of the Future>> l7l Friesema, H.P. 1982. The scientific content of environmental impact.;;tatem..:nts: workshop conclusions. Northwestern University. Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Evanston, IL. (Working paper.) Garside, C., T.C. Malone, 0.A. Roels, and B.A. Shartstein. 1976. A evaluation of sewage derived nutrients and their influence on Hudson estuary and New York Bight. Est. Coastal Mar. Sci. 4:281-289. Gladden, J.B., F.C. Cantelmo, J.M. Croom. and R. Shapot. 1984. An evaluation of the Hudson River ecosystem in relation to the dynamics of fish populations. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. (in press). Hall, C.A.S. 1977. Models and the decision-making process: the Hudson River power plant case, pp. 345-364 In Ecosystem Modeling in Theory and Prac* tice (C.A.S. Hall and J.W. Day. Jr.. eds.). Wiley-lnterscience. New York. NY. Hammond, D.E. 1975. Dissolved gases and kinetic processes in rhe Hudson River. Ph.D. Dissertation. Columbia University, New York, NY. Holling, C.S. (ed.) 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. IIASA International Series on Applied Systems Analysis. John Wiley & Sons. New York. NY. 377 pp. HRF. 1984. Annual program plan and solicitation of proposals. Hud,on River Foundation, New York. 52 pp. Hydroscience. 1979. Analysis of the fate of PC B's in the ecosystem of the Hudson estuary. Prepared by Hydroscience, Inc., Westwood, N.J for N. Y. S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. Kemp, W, M. 1977. Energy analysis and ecological evaluation of a coastal power plant. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 560 pp. Kibby, H. and N. Glass. 1980. Evaluating the evaluations: a review perspective on environmental impact assessment. pp. 40-48 fn Biological Evaluation of Environmental Impacts. Proceedings ofa symposium. Council on Environmen-tal Quality and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-80/26, Washington. D.C. Knight, R. L. and W. Coggins. 1982. Record of estuarine and salt marsh metabo-lism at Crystal River. FL., 1977-1981. Final Report to Florida Power Corpora-tion. Contract QEA-000045. Systems Ecology and Energy Analysis Group, Dept. of Environmental Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville. FL. 87 pp. Kremer, J.N. and S.W. Nixon. 1978. A coastal marine ecosystem: simulation and analysis. Ecological Studies 24. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 215 pp. Leggett, W.C. 1981. Moderator's summary-population-level vs. community/ ecosystem-level approaches to impact assessment, pp. 75-78 In Issues Associ-ated with Impact Assessment (L.D. Jensen, ed.). Proc. 5th National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. EA Communications, Sparks, MD. Limburg, K.E., C.C. Harwell, and S.A. Levin. 1984. Principles for estuarine impact assessment: lessons learned from the Hudson River and other estuarine experiences. Report No. 24. Ecosystems Research Center, Cornell University. Ithaca, NY. Longhurst, A.R. 1978. Ecological models in estuarine management. Ocean Man-agement 4:287-302. LMS. 1977. Roseton Generating Station: Near-field effects of once-through cool-ing system operation on Hudson River biota. Prepared by Lawter. Malusky.

172 6: Synthesis and Evaluation and Skelly, Engineers, and by Ecological Analysts, Inc. for Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp., Poughkeepsie, NY. McFadden, J.T., Texas Instruments, Inc., and Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly, Engineers. 1978. Influence of the proposed Cornwall pumped storage project and steam electric generating plants on the Hudson River estuary, with empha-sis on striped bass and other fish populations. Revised. Prepared for Consoli-dated Edison Co. of NY, Inc. McKellar, H.N., Jr. 1977. Metabolism and model of an estuarine bay ecosystem affected by a coastal power plant. Ecol. Modelling 3:85-118. Mitsch, W.J. 1983. Aquatic ecosystem modeling-its evolution, effectiveness, and. opportunities in policy issues. (Mss.) O'Connor, D.J., J.A. Mueller, and K.J. Farley. 1983. Distribution of Kepone in the James River estuary. J. Environ. Eng. Div., ASCE 109(2):396-413. Orth, R.J. and K.A. Moore. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: an unprecedented decline in submerged aquatic vegetation. Science 222:51-53. Park, R.A., C.I. Conolly, J.R. Albanese, L.S. Clesceri, G.W. Hietzman, H.H. Herbrandson, B.H. Indyke, J.R. Loche, S. Ross, D.D. Sharma, and W.W. Shuster. 1980. Modeling transport and behavior of pesticides and other toxic organic materials in aquatic environments. Report No. 7. Center for Ecological Modeling, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Troy, NY. 165 pp. Rosenberg, D.M., V.H. Resh, S.S. Balling, M.A. Barnaby, J.N. Collins, D.V. Durbin, T.S. Flynn, D.D. Hart, G.A. Lamberti, E.P. McElravy, J.R. Wood, T.E. Blank, D.M. Schultz, D.L. Marrin, and D.G. Price. 1981. Recent trends in I environmental impact assessment. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38: 591-624. . r* Sheppard, J.D. 1976. Valuation of the Hudson Rivei fishery resources: past, present and future. N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of . *t. Fisheries, Albany, NY. 51 pp. (Mss.) T Simpson, H.J., D.E. Hammond, B.L. Deck, and S.C. Williams. 1975. Nutrient i.-.*. budgets in the Hudson River estuary, pp. 616-635 ln Marine Chemistry in the f Coastal Environment (T.M. Church, ed.). ACS Symposium Series No. 18. l Sirois, D.L. 1973. Community metabolism and water quality in the lower Hudson ---{. Environ. Soc., Bronx, NY. Swartzman, G., R. Deriso, and C. Cowan. 1977. Comparison of simulation models used in assessing the effects of power-plant-induced mortality on fish populations, pp. 333-361 In Assessing the Effects of Power-Plant-Induced This chapter. on the Hudso follows as Bii* the most part assessments. companies is lure. Researcl highlights of t River estuary. Hudson River Ecology, 3rd Symp. Paper No. 15. Hudson River 1**-*** Mortality on Fish Populations (W. Van Winkle, ed.). Pergamon Press. New -~t,**- Utility compm York, NY. -='--t==.... crated an exte Talbot, A.R. 1983. Settling things. Six case studies in environmental mediation. Since th* l* 1, The Conservation Foundation and the Ford Foundation. Washington. D.C. - - ta! ass isl d" IOl t..... essment pp. summari

i.

Trubeck. D.M. 1977. Allocating the burden of environmental uncertainty: the~--* --*- ze lue NRC interprets NEPA's substantive mandate. Wisc. Law Rev. 747-776.

• • --j-~-

Consolidatei Turgeon, K.W. (ed.) 1983. Marine ecosystem modelling. Proceedings from a

• j*****

Inc:, and Ccn1 workshop held April 6-8, 1982. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA. National ' main utilities ~ Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service. NOAA-Sn' 83*38, . undertaken in Washington, D.C. 274 pp.

• ... ::.~Ooling towers rectcd toward

~ant1y alter the

14 Fisheries of the Hudson River Estuary Karin E. Limburg, Kathryn A. Hattata, Andrew W. Kahn le, and John R. Waldman ABSTRACT Fisheries have been prosecuted in the Hudson since prehistoric times. Oysters, American shad. and sturgeon were important food fisheries into the twentieth century, although of these. only a dwin-dling commercial shad fishery persists. Striped bass, another formerly important commercial fishery. went into decline and subsequent recovery from manage-menc actions; today. it supports a major recreational fishery. Other important spurt fishing includes large-mouth and smallmuuth bass, and American shad. Tox-icants and power plants have been long-term threats to fisheries. and will continue to pose problems for the indefinite future. Introduction Of all the relationships humankind entertains with the I ludson River, perhaps none is so intimate as that offishing. The harvest offish and shellfish from the Hudson has endured for thousands of years, and connects us both with the river's productivity and with our cultural past. Other chapters in this book describe the fish fauna and its use of various habitats within the sys-tem. Here, we concentrate on the fisheries them-selves, focusing on key species within the commer-cial and sportfishing arenas. We also examine some of the factors that potentially have large effects on fisheries, namely, the impacts of power plants that withdraw water from the river, and the persistence of contaminants, especially PCHs. Historical Importance of Hudson River Fisheries FROM NATIVE TO COMMERCIAL FISHING Before modern agriculture and globalization of products, the fisheries of the Hudson River were an important and diverse local source of protein. Native Americans harvested fish and shellfish long before the arrival of European settlers. Dating or the oyster middens at Croton Point Park show that humans fished there nearly six millennia ago (Anonymous. 2001). Middens at Tivoli Bays in the upper tidal Hudson bear evidence of the consump-tion offish and even bland-tasting freshwater mus-sels ( fonk. 1992). Adriean Van der Donck, one of the docum~nters of the first Dutch settlements, noted "this river is full of fishes" (Hoyle, 1979). Settlers could feast on tinfish, including American shad, sturgeons, and striped bass, as well as on blue crab. scallops, and the plentiful oysters that extended throughout New York Harbor. East and I larlem Rivers, and up the Hudson as far as Stony Point. Oysters from Gowanus Bay were the size of din-ner plates and especially sought after (Waldman. 1999). The Hudson River beds produced well over 450,000 barrels (50,000 m:1) of oysters per annum in the early nineteenth century (Boyle, 1979). Commercial fishers in the eighteenth and nine-teenth centuries harvested a wide variety of fin-fish species from the I ludson, many of which were documented by Mitchill (1815) who made numer-ous observations in the public markets. Among the species most heavily exploited in the nineteenth centurywereAmerican shad and the two sturgeons. Sturgeons were valued for both their roe and flesh. Harvests were so great in the tidal Hudson that sturgeon was popularly known as "Albany beef," because it was shipped upriver to a hungry mar-ket. Shad could be taken in great numbers in the spring spawning runs by stake-nets or drift-nets. then salted for later consumption. In l 895, it was the numberone inland fish harvested in the United States (Cheney, 1896), valued at almost $185,000 ~ equivalent to over $3,900,000 today. Both American shad and sturgeons were over-harvested in the late nineteenth century. Be-cause of its life history characteristics of latl' maturation and nonannual spawning, coastwide

190 K. LIMBURG, K. HATTALA, A. KAHNLE, AND J. WALDMAN Number of shad licenses sold 400 350 300 "C 250 0 Ill... 200 Cl> .c E 150

I z 100 50 0

1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 Figure 14.1. Numbers of shad licenses sold to Hudson River fishermen, 1924-96. Data from 1924-51 are from Talbot ( 1%4) and from 1916-96, Hattala and Kahnle (1991). J.irense records from intervening years were lost. overharvesting of sturgeon was inevirable. given the level of effort. Overharvesting of shad peaked in the 1890s, with catches declining precipi-tously thereafter (Stevenson. 1899). Writing in 1916, Dr. r:. M. Blackford declared, ... there is probably no fish on earth that surpasses the shad in all the qualities that go to make up an ideal food fish... [/nil ii] is the one whose µreservation //as become a na1io11al problem. In the late 1800s. the U.S. Fish and Fisheries Com-mission took the radical step of artificial propaga-tion, which was the state-of-the-art in U.S. fish-eries management at the time. Indeed. in June 1871, Seth Green, then one of the top fish culturists in the country, steam-trained across the country with delicate shad fry held in milk cans. discharging them into the upper Sacramento River (recounted in Boyle, 1979). Shad became established on the Pacific coast, invading the Columbia River within 30 yeats rEblwsmeyer and l linrichsen. 1997) and constituting an important, if exotic, component of the ichthyofauna there today. Concurrent with turn-of-the-century OVl'rhar-vesting problems. a grovving and rapidly industri-alizing New York City created serious stress on New York Harbor, with dumping of soot and garbage and discharges of wastes an ever-increasing nui-sance. The oyster fisheries \\1*ere essentially gone hy the 1920s (Franz. l~l82l. and the fouled ll'ater im-parted an unplL*asant flan>r to most of the fishes (NYSCD. 1964). Nevertheless, fisheries continued to constitute a livelihood. at least in part, for many upriver communities throughout much of the twentieth century (Fig. 14. l). With the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1970 and amended Clean Water Act in 1972. conventional pollution declined and in many aspects, the river recovered (Limburg, Moran. and McDowell. 1986). However, as a result of widespread PCB contami-nation, several of the important commercial fish-eries are closed, and today commercial effort is at an all-time low (see Shapley, 200 l for a journalistic account or Hattala and Kahnle, 1997). ANGLING The Hudson River Estuary figures prominently in the history of American angling. Due in part to the high quality offishing in its waters and to the many books and articles written about it, Zeise] (1990) considered New York City to have become the cap-ital of American angling by 1850. Among the im-portant angling writers were Frank forester and Genin Scott. In his classic work, Fishing in A111er-ica11 Waters, (Scott, 1815) wrote about angling in the! Judson River estuary in the vicinity of New York City. Several sections were devoted to striped hass angling, including trolling for them from skiffs in the "seething and hissing" waters of Hell Gate in the East River, a riptide where currents reached ten knots. Scott also described fishing for striped bass from rowboats near the hedges (fish weirs made

FISHERIES from brush) in the Kill Van Kull and from bridges in the Harlem 8iver. The Harlem Kin'r, although dammed for tidal mill power for the ti rst half of the nineteenth century. was a major rt:"source which offered excellent angling for striped bass, bluefish, weakfish. porgy. and flounder (/.eisel. 1995). These species, and others. were fished all over New York Harbor from shore ;rnd from vessels. Zeise I (I 995) quoted Harper's Weekly of August 4, 1877. which stated that "On almost any day of the year except when the ice makes fishing impossi-ble. hundreds of men and boys may be seen on the river front engaged in angling." Zeise! ( 1990, 199SJ also reported that in the mid-1800s, skiffs could be rented from various liveries and that during sum-mer, hundreds of boats filled with anglers could be seen on the harbor"s best spots. Angling in New York Harbor during Scott's time included species almost never seen today. Scott provided instructions on exactly where and how to catch sheepshead near Jamaica Bay, an area where they were so abundam that farmers would fish them with hand-lines tu supplement their income. Black drum, another twentieth century absentee, also were commonly landed during the previous century in Upper and New York Bays and the East and llarlem Rivers (Zeise\\, 1995). A surprising category of fish that wl're caught in Upper New York Bay and along the docks of lower Manhattan from 1760 tu 1895 was sharks (Zeise!. 1990). Although their species identities remain un-known, large sharks were abundant in these in-shore waters during that period, possibly drawn hy large amou nrs of food refuse being disposed of in New York I I arbor. Accounts exist (ca. 181.'i) of shark fishers catching as many as seven sharks at lengths of up to 14 feet at Manhattan's Catherine Market (Zeise!. 1990). flsh along the shores of Manhattan began to taste contaminated from petroleum by the late 1800s, pushing anglers to more distant waters such as the "fishing hanks" in the Ne1v York Hight (Zeisel. 1995). Hut angling farther upriver in the I Judson River developed more slowly. Accord-ing to Zeiscl (1995). fishing activity centered on wharves and docks al major landings such as the mouth of Rondout Creek in Kingston, and at Newburgh, Poughkeepsie, and I Judson. Both shad and sturgeon roe were commonly used baits 191 in the Hudson's freshwater reaches. Important species caught (mainly with hand-lines) included striped bass. 1\\*hite perch. American eel. and cat-fish. Tributaries of the Hudson 8iver were also fished, particularly in spring for spawning runs of suckers and yellow perch. Many of these tribtitaries also supported trout, but this angling declined as they were fished out, with attention shifting tn the black basses. The endemicity in the Hudson River of one gamefish, Atlantic salmon, has been dehaced since Hobert Juet - a member of Henry Hudson's ex-ploratory expedition up the river - reported "many Salmons and Mullets and Rays very great." This no-tion was fueled by their occasional capture by net in the river throughout the nineteenth century. How-ever, a number of scientists have concluded that the Hudson did not support a salmon population and that such appearances were probably strays from neighboring systems such as the Connecticut River. Nonetheless, Atlantic salmon eggs from Penob-scot River specimens were stocked in the Hudson 8iver in the 1880s (Zeise!. 1995). These stockings were sufficient to result in hundreds of commer-cial catches in the lower river and fewer via an-gling upriver, chiefly at l\\:lechanicville (following collapse of a dam at Troy). I lowever, there is no evi-dence that natural reproduction occurred and this fishery dwindled after stocking was halted. C~iven that Juet's observation was made in September in Lower New York Bay and because of its superficial salmonid resemblances, it is likely that he mistook weakfish for salmon. Fishing dulls became numerous along the Hudson 8iwr beginning in the late 1800s (Zeise!, 1995). They led the fight against the Hudson fish-ing license, which was in effect from the 1930s to 1946. Inasmuch as it wa~ instituted during the De-pression and was costly, many people ignored it as they angled for sustenance. Game wardens were overwhelmed and judges dismissed cases against destitute offenders. which together with the fact that the river was not stocked by the st;itt* with fish, eventually led to its repeal. Angling on the I Judson River estuary continued without fanfare during the early to mid-l 900s. But because of its severe sewage and industrial con-tamination. the estuary appears to have reached a nadir in angling activity over that period.

K. LIMBURG, K. HATTALA, A. KAHNLE, AND). WALDMAN The Current Regulatory Framework I ludson River fisheries are managed hy the New York State Department of Environmental Conser-vation (DEC:). Regulatory capacity lies within the Division of fish. Wildlife and Marine Hesources. for anadromous fish species in the Hudson and in marine waters, state regulations for commer-cial and recreational fishing follow guidelines set by Interstate fishery Management Plans developed through the i\\tlantic States Marine fisheries Com-mission (ASl\\l l'C). The ASMfC is a Federal com-mission created to coordinate cooperative man-agement of shared coastal resources for the fifteen coastal states from Maine to Florida. along with the two Federal resource agencies. the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service (FWSJ and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMfS). As set forth in its mis-sion statement (ASM FC:. 2002), With the recognition 1hat tish do not adhere to polirical boundaries, the states formed an Interstate Compact, which was approved by the U.S. Congress. The states have found thnr their mutual interest in sustaining healthy coastal fishery n'sources is best achievl'd by working together cooperatively, in collaboration with the federal gm't'rnment. Through this approach. the states uphold their collective fisheries managrment responsibilities in a cost effective, timely, <ind respon-sive fashion. ,\\ number of important laws underpin fish-ery management in the Hudson (sec text box, "Milestones in Fisheries Legislation"). The Anadro-mous Fish Conservation Act provides authority and funding for preservation and restoration of an-adromous fisheries, and \\\\'as the impetus for much-necded research on biology. life history.population status, and characteristics of fisheries. The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, known as the Magnuson Act. created a 200-mile Exclu-sive Economic Zone (EEZl along the U.S. coast. en-abling controlled fishing in U.S. territorial waters. fishing in the EEZ is regulated by regional man-agement councils and NMFS. Stall' jurisdiction i1:. defined as zero to three miles, and is coordinated through the ASMfC:. The Sustainable fisheries Act and the l\\1agnuson-Ste\\*ens Act of 1996 eYolved from the Magnuson Act. In particular, Magnuson-Stevens changed emphasis to include protection of aquatic habitats, to focus on optimum sustained Milestones in Fisheries Legislation 1965 Anadromous Fish Conservation Act 1976 Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act) 1979 Emergency Striped Bass Study (sub-set of AFCA) Atlantic Striped Bass Act Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Sustainable Fisheries Act Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act yield that took account of "relevant social, eco-nomic, or ecological factorlsl." and mechanisms to reduce the risk of decision making by vested interests (Ross. 1997). The Emergency Striped Rass Study(l'.SBS) of l 979 and the Atlantic Striped Bass Act (AS BAJ of 1984 re-sponded to dramatic declines in catches of striped bass, particularly in the Chesapeake 13ay. The ESBS increased coastwide research and monitoring for striped bass stocks, and theASI3A, asa follovv-on. re-quired mandatory compliance with the Interstate Fishery Managl'ment Plan for striped bass. finally, the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Coopcrntive Manage-ment Act, modeled on the i\\Sl3A, provides a regula-tory framework for all species managed through the 1\\SFMC. A Fishery Management Plan (f'MPJ must he developed for each species, and fisheries must be monitored by each mcmher state. Profiles of Significant Hudson River Fisheries Stocks In this section, we describe recent trends and sta-tus of the major commercial fishery species in the Hudson. STRIPED BASS Striped bass live approximately 25 to 30 years Sex Male Female Ageat Maturity 3 to 6 y 6 to 8 y Size 16 to 24 in (40 to 60 cm) 27 to 32 in (68 to Bo cm) Migratory range: Canada. New England, and mid-Atlantic coasts

FISHERIES + co <ll O> c 0 'fj u: 0.9 Biii Females Age 8+ 0.3 -.-- Ocean size l1m1t 0.7 0.6 0.5 04 0.3 0.2 II I 0 1 111 .. I-f- 193 40 t-35 <ii 30 <ll .c u s 25 20 ~ <ll N "iii 15 c <ll 10 (.) 0 5 0 I I I I I I l 0 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 Figure 14.2. Changes in ocean si1.e limits. ;md the proportion offemale striped bass aged B+ in the Hudson River i;pawning swck. In the years prior to l~l83, few restrictions governed the take of striped bass in state and coastal ma-rine waters. Size limits were minimal. In New York waters, fish as small as 16 inches fork length (FL. equivalent to 40.6 cm enacted in 19 :~9 by New York State) could be taken, there existed limited seasonal and gear restrictions. and there was no catch limit. The small size limits al.lowed few striped bass to reach maturity. Females begin to reach maturity at* si.x years of age, with over 97 percent spawning by age eight. These fish are in the size range of 24 to 28 inches (61 to 71 cm: sec text box). In the Chesapeake Bay, the striped bass fishery focused on "pan rock" with fish as small as 12 to 14 inches (30.5 to 35.6 cm) making up most of the har-vest. Over the course of roughly 15 years from the 1970s through the early 1980s. rew adult spawners returned to the Bay. With the collapse of the Chesa-peake stock in the mid 1970s, states real ized that it would take u concerted, cooperative effort to re-store the Chesapeake population. To achieve this goal, the Emergency Striped Hass Act (part of the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act) was passed by the lJ.S. Congress in J 979. This new federal law re-quired all coastal states that harvested sniped bass to follow manugemenc regulations conca ined in the newly developed fishery management plan. Man-agement would no longer be by voluntary agree-ment. buc rather by enforced compliance. The en-forcement for non -compliance is complete closure of an entire state's fishery for thut species. The fi rst striped bass fisheries management plan (fM I') was adopted by ASMFC in 198 l. Over the course of the next fifteen years, manage-ment regulations followed an adaptive process. and the FM I' was amended six times. The most severe restrictions occurred in Maryland where a mora-torium on striped bass fishing was implemented in Chesapeake Ray. Marine commercial fisheries were limited by severely reduced quotas to less than 20 percent of historical harvest levels, and sea-son, size limits, and allowable gears were specified and enforced. Recreational tlsheries were limited by size and bag limits, and by seasons. These regu-lations. especially size limits. were adjusted annu - ally from 1984 until J 9~HJ. from 24 to up to 38 inches (61 to 96.S cm), ro protect the females from the 1982 year class (young fish produced) of the Chesapeake Hay until most of them spawned at age eight. The effect of these regulations was startli ng. not on ly for the Chesapeake stock, but for other striped bass stocks along the coast. The coastal protective measures immediately protected immature fish of the I ludson spawning stock of striped bass. Hudson Hiver striped bass may leave the estuary as early as age one to seasonally uti lil',c the nearslwre marine waters. Prior to adoption of the FM!'. recreational and commercial fisheries alike exploited these im-mature bass. Once fish were no longer harvesct*d at 16 inches, the incrc<ising coastal size limits gave refuge to the Hudson's i111 mature and mature popu-lation. The effect was the return or greater numbers of older, larger fish each year (fig. 14.2), which in turn produced ever greater numbers of young. By 1995, coastwide managemen t targets were be-ing met: striped bass were returning to the rivers to

194 K. LIMBURG, K. HATTALA, A. KAHNLE. AND J. WALDMAN 250 200 0 150 0 0,.... )( DI 100

ii::

50 0 _,.._ __.,.__, 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 Figure 14.3. Historic commercial fishery landings of Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson Hi\\'er Estuary, 1880-1995. spawn, production estimates were up. and adult age structure was stabilized. It was then that the Chesapeake stock was declared restored. The state management agencies were not complacent about their success. Even with record numbers of fish, management restrictions were loosened slowly. Commercial harvest quotas were increased, and recreational size limits were lowered to 28 inches. Annual tracking of mortality rate of the stock is still key. Harvest from all sources is compiled annu-ally. Spawning stocks are monitored for age struc-ture and survival. Young-of-year abundance esti-mates provide early warning of changes that may come. ATLANTIC STURGEON Atlantic sturgeon live approximately 60 to 80 years. Males mature by age 8 to 12 and 15 to 20 years for females. Females spawn every three years. Migratory range: entire Atlantic coast, Canada to FL A vestigial fishery persisted in the river through the 1980s, made up of a small group of fishers taking a few fish each year for their caviar and meat. However, interest in this fishery began to change in the late 1980s. Elsewhere on the east coast, other Atlantic sturgeon stocks had already been overfished and harvest restricted or elimi-nated. The most important were those that targeted sturgeon produced in the rivers of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia (Smith, 1985). These fisheries stimulated a market demand for smoked sturgeon products as the supply was eliminated through regulation of harvest. In ocean waters, in-terest rose in the late 1980s targeting the immature sturgeon for the smoked meat market, especially i_n New York and New Jersey (Waldman, Hart, and Wirgin, 1996). This market shift occurred while the restrictions in striped bass management were taking hold along the Atlantic coast. Atlantic sturgeon was among the species that became fishing targets to make up for lost income. In addition, import restrictions from the Middle East (Iran was a source of much of the caviar available in the United States) greatly en-Hecords of sturgeon harvest are available as far ha need the value of any domestic source of caviar. back as the 1880s. a time when harvest levels Some of the I ludson's shad fishers began to ex-dimhed to record highs. The high harvest level es-periment and eventually became very successful scntially clear-cut the once robust population. The at rapturing adult Atlantic sturgeon. Hudson's Atlantic sturgeon stock continued to re-Based on the success of rebuilding the striped main severely depressed through the rest of the bass stocks, the Atlantic Coastal fisheries Coop-twentieth century (fig. 14.:~l. erative Management Act was passed in December

FISHERIES 19~13. Thi~act gave the same stringent enforcement power to all fM Ps developed under ASMFC. States, with New York in the lead, began to look with much scrutiny at the condition of the River*s Atlantic stur-geon stock and the rare at which they were being fished. With their long lifetime. older age at maturity, and irregular spawning schedules, Atlantic stur-geon are easily over-fished. Young individuals were being harvested in coastal waters as they left the Hudson at age three to seven to begin their long marine residence before they mature ten to fifteen years later. Few fish were surviving to return to the river, and even here a fishery targeted the spawning adults. In 1~195, New York tried to implement con-trols in the fishery with season and area closures. followed in 1996 with the imposition of a quota sys-tem, limiting the total take. But by l 997, New York"s stock assessment demonstrated that harvest and fishing rates were severely over the limit that the population could handle. A moratorium was put in place that year, and by 1998 the entire U.S. At-lantic coast was closed to harvest. The interstate management plan set a forty-year time limit for the coast-wide moratorium based on the life history of the animal. That is, within the next forty years, the current spawning population's young should be able to grow and mature to produce one more generation before examining the reopening of any fishery. AMERICAN SHAD American shad in the Hudson River live 13to15 years. Males begin to spawn by age 3 to 5, females by ages to 7. Migratory range of Hudson shad: Atlantic coast Canada to NC At the turn of the twentieth century, the new immi-grant population continued to swell the growing Atlantic coast cities, including New York. It amazed them to find that every spring fish returned to the Hudson by the thousands, an easy food supply to feed the hungry. Unfortunately for shad. it earned recognition as the second highest harvested fish on the east coast following Atlantic coll. Atlantic sturgeon came in third. The seemingly unlimited harvest. however, wore down the stock. and before 195 long shad suffered the same fate in the Hudson as in other Atlantic roast rivers. The story of respite, rebuild, overharvest, and collapse occurred several times for the Hudson ~had stock (I lattala and Kalrnle. 1997). During pe-riods of low~red fishing pressure, the stock rebuilt between collapses. However, the resiliency of this highly fecund species was slowly* being eroded as the century wore on. The first collapse occurred prior to the known record. United States fish Com-mis~ion reports documented that in the 1870s the Hudson stork was "over-fished and in need of re-plenishment." Seth Green. then working for New York State, began a hatchery to stock shad in the spawning areas in the upper reaches of the tidal Hudson and even above the Troy Dam (Cheney. 1896). Fishing was not the only problem for the stock. Spawning areas were lost as the shallow bays behind the river's islands were slowly filled with dredge spoil from creation of a shipping channel to the Port of Albany. Nearly a third of the upper tidal Hudson was filled, almost all of it shad spawning habitat. Water quality in the spawning reach also suffered through much of the twentieth century (Faigenbaum, 1937; Burdick, 1954; Talbot, 1954; Boyle, 1979) until improvements to sewage treat-ment were made. The gaps in the fishery landings records from the early 1900s (Fig. 14.4) are thought to be from lack of fishing activity. This lack of fishing would have allowed the shad stock to rebuild to a size necessary to produce the dramatically large harvest that oc-curred during the years leading up to World War II. fishing this available food source became a valued trade during the war, so much so that fishing rules in the river were suspended. Each spring in the war period. hundreds~of fishermen set their nets, and riverside communities took as many fish as the nets could bear. In less than twelve years, the next stock collapse was underway: the greater the effort, the fewer the fish. In addition, water quality worsened. Sewage poured in and habitat suffered. In che summer, sections of the river, around Albany and the lower estuary, were completely devoid of oxygen. A few shad kept returning, but the overall stock size re-mained much reduced from its former status. This problem was not unique to the Hudson: for exam-ple. the Delaware River was so polluted between

c 2.000 ~ 1,500 -~ 1.000 500 American Shad: Annual NY Landings K. LIMBURG, K. HATTALA, A. KAHNLE, AND). WALDMAN complete closure on December 31, 2004. How effective will this measure be? At this point, it is unclear how quickly the stocks will respond to the reduced harvest. Directed fishing may come to an end, but in some cases. shad picked up in other fisheries may become discarded bycatch. Contin-ued monitoring of this bycatch will be a key el-ement in managing the coastwide restoration. In 0 1-----~--Cll=--~-'-.,._-"'11_----I the Hudson River, it is still unknown whether fur-1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 ther cutbacks will be required, for example, closure American Shad: NY Landings Since 1950 500 "' 400 c 0 I-... 300 Gi 200 100 0+----.-----,.------r--~--~~-+---1 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Figure 14.4. Catches of American shad in New York State. Most of the catches are from the Hudson. Top panel: trends since 1880. Bottom panel: trends since 1950. Note differences in scale. Sources: National Ma-rine Fisheries Statistics. Walburg and Nichols (1967). Trenton and Philadelphia that this entire segment went anoxic in the summer months, preventing any movement of fish, such as migrating shad (Chittenden, 1969). Finally in the mid 1970s, the environmental movement gained momentum. With the passage of the much-strengthened amendments of the Clean Water Act in 1972, the sewage dumping eventually abated. The river slowly started to recover, along with its fisheries. Humanity's influence again was felt, just as in the case of Atlantic sturgeon. During the recovery ef-fort for striped bass. many near-shore ocean fishers shifted their focus to American shad. These "ocean intercept" fisheries directed their fishing pressure onto mixed assemblages of east coast shad stocks, including the Hudson's. Some stocks began to show declines, or no sign of recovery, despite restoration programs. Since 1991, the Hudson's shad stock be-gan its latest decline. showing classic signs of over-fishing. Individuals are smaller at any given age, and fewer older fish arc returning to spawn. A 40% reduction in effort of the directed ocean intercept fishery occurred in 200:1 followed by a of more spawning area, or lengthening the lift (no fishing) period. The Contemporary Sport Fishery With the general upgrading of sewage treatment during the twentieth century and, particularly since passage of a New York State Bond Act in 1965 and the federal Clean Water Act amend-ments of 1972, the Hudson River and New York Harbor have seen recoveries of many fish popula-tions (Waldman, 1999). The increased availability of fish and a growing perception that the Hudson River system has become cleaner has led to a pro-nounced increase in angling activity. However, this increase has not been well quantified due to the rar-ity and limited scope of angling surveys conducted, and to potential knowledge lost through consid-eration of the mainstem tidal Hudson River as an extension of the sea for which fishing licenses are not required. Moreover, despite this angling revival, its enjoyment is hindered by the continuing pres-ence of PCBs and other contaminants in the river's finfish and shellfish and in resultant governmental restrictions and health advisories. Boyle ( 1979) contrasted the intense angling effort for striped bass in the mid 1900s along the ocean coast with the dearth of striped bass anglers in the l ludson River, despite the species' high abundance in the river. Boyle wrote: "... only a relative hand-ful of anglers, perhaps fifty at best, regularly take advantage of the striper fishing that is to be had in the Hudson." He also described the Albany Pool as being "so awesomely foul as to be a source of won-der to sanitary engineers" from raw sewage releases and that this caused the river to be essentially de-void of oxygen in summer for twenty to thirty miles south of the Federal Dam at Troy. But in the last two decades of the twentieth cen-tury, as the Hudson River reached levels of purity

FISHERIES not seen for decades to a century or more and the striped bass population conrinued to increase. an-gling over the length of the tidal river grew in popu-larity, with the area below the Federal Dam becom-ing especially attractive as striped bass and other anadromous fish aggregated there in large num-bers (Lake, 1985; Zeise!, 1995). /\\snapshot of this emergent striped bass fishery in 1997 between the George Washington Bridge and the federal dam was provided by Peterson ( 1998). Using a combination of37 aerial flights and 2,700 angler interviews from April through June, he estimated the striped bass fisherrsupported 6 L9, I 32 angler-hours distributed over 145,842 angler-trips. Of these. the boat fishery was responsible for 71 percent of effort and 84 per-cent of catch. Total catch was estimated at l 12. 757 striped bass, of which only 12.5 percent were har-vested. This low harvest was attributed to concerns over PCB contamination and to restrictive bag lim-its (one fish 18 inches or larger north of George Washington Bridge; one fish 28 inches or larger south of George Washington Bridge). This fishery in the Hudson River and New York I !arbor became so popular that several. mainly springtime char-ter boat operations were launched (Vargo. 1995; Waldman, 1999). and annual tournaments are now held. Accounts of urban angling for striped bass in New York Harbor may be found in Waldman (19!-18, 1999). Another fishery that has grown from one enjoyed by relatively few local residents in the mid 1970s to one that supports charter boats and tourna-ments that garner national puh!icity is for the two black basses of the river: largemouth and small-mouth bass (Nack et al., 1993). These species oc-cur in freshwater and !ow salinity reaches of the river. Recruitment in the Hudson River is low for black basses but growth is rapid (the fastest in New York State; c;reen. Nack. and Forney. 1988). resulting in a fishery that is attractive because it provides a high percentage of large specimens de-spite low densities of adults ( <2 largemouth bass per hectare; Carlson. 1992). !'vloreover. these fish-eries arc primarily catch-and-release, with consid-erable effort spent in tournaments or practicing for tournaments; c;reen and Jackson (1991) esti-mated that as of 1990, there were fifty to sixty black bass tournaments held annually in the river. This tournament activit~* is centered in Catskill (Green ct al.. l ~J~Ll). 197 There is concern over the effects of tourna-ments on the} ludson River black bass population. Green ct al. (1993) estimated that during 1989-91 at least 10 percent of the river's largemouth bass were weighed in during summer. Increased handling. especially during warm conditions, may lead to greater mortality (Cooke et al.. 2002). /\\1-though cause and effect was not demonstrated, the estimated population size of largemouth bass (>280 mm) declined from 22,000 in 1989 to 14.000 in 1991. On the other hand, more recent estimates of populations indicate that largemouth were back up to 22,000 by 2000 (LMS, 200 l ). Smallmouth bass abundance was estimated at 5,000-6,000 (LMS. 2001). Tournament intensity was lower in 1999 and 2000 compared to surveys conducted in the late 1980s, and the catch rate for largemouth bass in 2000 was the highest on record (LMS, 2001). Ironically. a new sport fishery has developed for American shad in the Hudson River as they con-tinue their long-term decline there. Anglers have learned that in addition to below the Federal Dam where shad aggregate. they may also be found by targeting particular types ofhabitat and tidal stages throughout much of the tidal freshwater portion of the river (NYSDEC. 1982). Several angling surveys have occurred that stemmed from health concerns about fish con-sumption but that nonetheless provided ancillary information on the nature of the fishery. Belton, Roundy, and Weinstein (1986) surveyed anglers in the lower l ludson River, Upper New York Hay. and Newark Hay between 1983 and 1985. Young-of-the-year bluefish made up 85 percent of the ob-served finfish catch, with larger bluefish, striped bass, summer flounder. and winter flounder also prominent. Hlue crab was heavily fished and was the most frequent species consumed. Two-thirds of respondents who admitted eating their catches considered them to be totally safe to cat and about one-fifth viewed them as slightly polluted but not harmful. despite a New York State Department of Health advisory aimed at limiting human con-sumption of cadmium. Another factor that contributed to a recent in-LTease in angling activity in the Hudson River is the development of,horeline access. l\\Iany com-munities have opened shorelines, piers, and bulk-heads to fishing with the help of directed funding such as the Hudson River Jmprovemcnt Fund. New

K. LIMBURG, K. HATTALA, A. KAHNLE, AND J. WALDMAN Table 14.1. Current power plants along the tidal Hudson River. Location Total gross Total cooling Initial year of Current (km from rated capacity water flow Name of facility operation Original operator operator Battery) (Mwe) (1,000 m3/d) Fuel type Albany Units 1-4 1952-1952 Niagara Mohawk 229 400 1,921 Fossil Danskammer 1-4 1951-1967 Central Hudson Dynegy 107 480 1,725 Fossil Roseton 1 & 2 1974 Central Hudson Dynegy 106 1,248 3.496 Fossil Indian Point 2 1973 Con Edison Entergy 69 906 4,746 Nuclear Indian Point 3 1976 NY Power Auth. Entergy 69 1,000 4,746 Nuclear Lovett 1-5 1949-1969 Orange & Rockland Mirant 68 496 1,725 Fossil Bowline 1 & 2 1972-1974 Orange & Rockland Mirant 60 1,244 4,189 Fossil 59th Street, NYC 1918 Con Edison Entergy 8 132 917 Fossil Data from Limburg et al. (1986) and updated. York City has constructed piers for angling at sev-Initial concern about potential impacts of power eral sites. plants was that the heated effluent would cause Conflicts with Fisheries As seen throughout the pages of this book, the Hudson River is many things to many people. So far we have reviewed the conflict between the river as food production base and sewage recipient. We now discuss, briefly, two other anthropogenic activities potentially at odds with sustainable fisheries: power generation and toxicants. For more detail on background, sec Limburg ct al. (1986) and Chapter 25. WATER WITHDRAWAL BY ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS Until recently, a consortium of public utility com-panies (Consolidated Edison of New York, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Central Hudson Gas and Electric. New York Power Authority. and Niagara-Mohawkl owned and operated seven generating stations ranging from 59th Street on Manhattan to Albany (Table 14. l ). The plants are under new own-ership as a result of industry deregulation. All of the plants use I Judson River water as coolant, and re-cycle the water back to the river. These plants have a combined rating of 5,905 Mwe. but more relevant here. a combined total cooling water flow exceed-ing 23,465,000 m 3 per day. This flow is on par with freshwater discharges measured at Green Island. where the average annual discharge (1918-1980) is 44 percent higher, but where mean August flows arc 42 percent lower (Limburg et al., 19116). harm to the biota, but it was soon seen that the larger potential threat was direct mortality due to two factors: entrainment, orthe passage of small or-ganisms, particularly fish larvae, through the plants and across the heated turbines; and impingement, or the trapping of fish on intake screens designed to keep large particles out of the cooling water inlets. Gradually, attention focused mostly on the poten-tial impacts of the power plants on a few "repre-sentative and important species," but primarily on striped bass. Between 1974 and 1980, a protracted series of hearings and litigations by a group of plaintiffs consisting of government agencies and environ-mental organizations examined the utilities' envi-ronmental impact statements. During these hear-ings, increasingly complex mathematical models were developed to describe the potential losses of key species, especially striped bass, as a result of entrainment and impingement. At the same time, data were collected in several major programs, all funded by the utilities and continuing today. These are the Long River Survey, designed to assess egg and larval densities; the Fall Shoals Survey, to assess juvenile densities offshore; and the Beach Seine Survey, designed to assess onshore fish commu-nities and abundance. It was determined through statistical analysis of the data sets that the level of variation in the data obscured any clear forecast-ing of the impacts or the plants, and that it might take as long as fifty years of data collection to ob-serve any clear trends (Limburg et al., 1986). With

FISHERIES no foreseeable scientific determination, all the par-ties to the litigation entered into a negotiated settle-ment, lasting from 1980-90, that prescribed outage (period of reduced water use) schedules to reduce larval mortality, modifications of intake screens. and the estahlishment of an institution (The Hud-son River Foundation) to provide secure funding for future Hudson River studies. During the fifteen years since the Hudson River Settlement Agreement expired, the utility compa-nies continued to monitor fish communities and produce annual reports. In addition, they pre-pared a new draft environmental impact statement (DEIS, 1999). In the meantime, the federal gov-ernment deregulated the power industry, and over the past few years all the utilities have been pur-chased by private corporations (Table 14.1). Addi-tionally. approval has been sought for another five new-generation power plants along the Hudson. The new plants will use only a fraction of the water and will he closed-cycle, i.e., will use cooling tow-ers rather than returning thermal effluent to the river. The socioeconomic climate for operating utili-ties along the Hudson appears to have changed; deregulation's intent was to produce more com-petition, and a potential side effect is that the companies operating the existing plants are less concerned with environmental effects than the previous owners. However, the new owners in-herited the environmental issues of operating the old plants, and these are still in need of resolu-tion. Among the issues that will likely be con-tested in future hearings are whether or not fish populations (particularly striped bass) have "com-pensatory mortality," or the ability to rebound at low densities, as when depleted by power plant mortality; whether bay anchovy, an important es-tuarine forage species that suffers up to 50 per-cent year class removal by the plants, truly con-stitutes a Hudson River population or is part of a larger, offshore stock; and whether the power plants affect specil's that experience other envi-ronmental stresses, for instance, Atlantic tomcod that has been stressed due to a long-term warm-ing trend in the river (Daniels et al., in press). which could sc\\'erely affect this cold-adapted species. 199 Table 14.2. FDA guidelines on maximum allowable levels of selected contaminants in fish Substance Level Food type Aldrin, Dieldrin 0.3 ppm all fish Chlordane 0.3 ppm all fish DDT, TDE, DDE 5.0 ppm all fish Heptachlor 0.3 ppm all fish Mirex 0.1 ppm all fish PCBs 2.0 ppm all fish 2,4-D 1.0 ppm all fish Arsenic 76 ppm crustaceans 86 ppm molluscan bivalves Cadmium 3 ppm crustaceans 4 ppm molluscan bivalves Chromium 12 ppm crustaceans 13 ppm molluscan bivalves Lead 1.5 ppm crustaceans 1.7 ppm molluscan bivalves Methyl mercury 1 ppm all fish Nickel 70 ppm crustaceans 80 ppm molluscan bivalves Source: FDA 1999. PCBs AND OTHER TOXICANTS Toxic substance contamination is widespread in the Hudson and is covered in other chapters. It has had a fundamental impact on fisheries here, as well as throughout New York State. rish com-monly angled in the Upper and Lower Hudson con-tain ten-fold greater levels of PCBs than Great Lakes fish, and these levels are two orders of magnitude greater than found in Chesapeake Bay (Haker et ai., 2001). The food and Drug Administration (FDAl pro-hibits the interstate sale of contaminated products. FDA guidelines on selected toxic substances arc given in Table 14.2. Note that for PCBs, the action level of 2 ppm is now considered by many to be too high, and many states are adopting more strin-gent guidelines. This has translated into the clo-sure of commercial fisheries for striped hass since l976, some of which do remain for many years in the Hudson and build up elevated hody burdens of PCBs (Zlokovitz and Secor, 1999). Other species for which smaller commercial fisheries existed include eels, bullhead, and carp. all of which currently

200 K. LIMBURG, K. HATTALA, A. KAHN LE, AND J. WALDMAN contain high levels of PC.Ks and other contami-nants. According to data from Skinner ct al. ( 199(), I ~l!-17), striped bas~ also exceed the action limits on mercury and dioxin, eels do so on PCBs, DDT, dioxin. and chlordane, and white perch has con-centrations above the action limit for chlordane. Although crustaceans bioaccumulatc high levels of metals and organochlorines in their hepatopan-creas, their muscle tissue is very low in contami-nants. and hence fisheries persist with the caveat that hepatopancreas, or "tomalll'y." should be dis-carded. The only other commercial fisheries that persist are for American shad and river herring which as adults only return rn the Hudson to spawn. and therefore have low contaminant burdens. Hivcr herring arc sold as bait to striped bass sport fish-ers. Ironically, the increase of striped bass that cannot be kept and sold uimml*rciall~* has dri\\*en some of the few remaining commercial fishers to give up, because tht' net~ become full wilh striped bass and must he laboriously picked out without profit. Since the awareness of widespread contamina-linn in the 1970s, the New York State Health De-partment and the DEC: both issue annual health advisories against eating rerrain fish from partic-ular waters. including many specific areas within the Hudson drainage. Nevertheless, angler sur-veys indicate that the message does not always get through to the fishers. J\\ survey by Barclay (I !-193) interviewed anglers in 1991 and l!-192 at twenty shorefront locations from Fort Edward to New York Harhor. Survey respondents were predominan1ly male (9~ percent) and 84 percent were between the ages of 15 and 59. Two-thirds of the anglers were Caucasian. 21 percent were African Ameri-can, and 10 percent were Hispanic (olhers were 2 percent). Barclay found thai almost one-fifth ( 18 percent) of the anglers who eat their catch were 1rying to catch blue crabs, whereas another 23 per-cent indicated they were not targeting any particu-lar species. Of those who eat their catches, only 48 percent were aware of health ad\\isories. i;ish con-sumption varied by ethnicity; Y4 percent of I lis-panic, 17 percenl of..\\frican American, and 41 per-cent of Caucasian anglers ale their catches. During 19<J5 in a New Jersey portion of New York I !arbor, Burger ct al. (1999) found there were ethnic differ-ences in consumption rates. ~ourrcsofinformation about fishing, knowledge <1bout the safety of 1he fish, awareness of fishing advisories, and knowl-edge about health risks. Mostrecently, in 199(), NYSDOJ-1 (2000) surveyed shorelinc-hased ang!l'rs on the I ludson River be-tween I !udson falls and Tarrytown, New York; 1he protocol of this survey was similar to that ofBarrlay (1993). Three regions were defined: Arca I. from Hudson Falls to the Federal Dam at Troy; i\\rea 2, from the Federal Dam to Catskill; and Area 3. from Catskill to Tarrytown. Because of high levels of PCB contamination, angling in Area I during IY96 was catch-and-release only. In both the Barclay (I 9~H) and NYSDOH (2000) surveys, more than ~JO per-cent of anglers said they were fishing primarily for recreation or other similar reasons. and only 6-7 percent said they were fishing primarily for food. In 19%, about one-third of angler~ surveyed had kept at least some of the fish they caught from the river. The most numerous catches were of white perch and blue crab, with striped bass, white catfish, and American eel also frequent (NYSOOJ I, 2000). But species most commonly kept (by total weight and in order) were white perch, white catfish. striped hass, and carp. Together with the two black basses, bluefish, and American eel. these eight species accounted for 83 percent by weight of the fish observed to have been harvested in this survey. NYSDOH (2000) concluded that numerous anglers in i\\rea 3 remained unaware ofhealtll advisories for consumption offish from the Hudson Hivcr. This is likely because anglers fishing the lower I luclson are not required to purchase licenses. and the health advisories arc included in the staw's fishery regu-lations booklet given out with the license. A landmark decision by the U.S. Environmen-tal Protection Agency in 2000, upheld by Director Whitman in August 2001(Johnson,2001). enforces a dredging order that will require sediments from a ]()-mile (JI) km) stretch of the upper lludson to be removed. These contaminated sediments have been shown to be the greatest continuing source of PCB contamination for fish in the River and Estuary. As Baker et al. (2001) point out. such a massive project will require careful execution and moni-toring. but the resultant lowering of PCB concen-trations in tish should be rapid following project completion. This will have the immediate effect of

FISHERIES 201 permitting consumption of many currently inedi-waters along the entire mid-Atlantic coast. Recre-ble species. atiunal angling comributes to local economics, but The Future of Fisheries in the Hudson It is difficult enough to forecast catches from one year to the next for a single species. and virtually impossible to predict the future of Hudson River multispecies fisheries over the long term with any sort of accuracy. Nevertheless, we can comment on some trends. Commercial fishing is in long-term decline, in the Hudson and many other east coast estuaries. If the status quo were to remain, the future would not look optimistic. I lowever. the restoration of striped bass through a concerted, interstate man-agement program demonstrates that overexploited species can be brought back. and restoration pro-grams are under way for American shad. river her-ring. and scurgeon in many of the same systems. hshery management programs in the Hudson use a combination of regulatory instruments (closures, seasons. and limits on minimum size. numbers caught, etc.), focusing on regeneration of a natural stock rather than through hatchery supplementa-tion, although these last are ongoing in a number of east coast states. Further, a number of inter-agency programs are working to remove toxicants from the river and reduce the inputs. Beside the EPA's PCB removal project in the upper Hudson, programs such as the Contaminant 1\\ssessment and Remediation Project, part of the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. arc identifying the fate and transport of contaminants in order to re-move them. Although serious problems still exist in the Harbor region. improvements have been noted (Steinberg et al.. 200 l ). Whereas commercial fisheries have diminished in the River, recreational fishing has increased to unprecedented levels. The restoration of striped bass stimulated a wave of angling interest. and sport fishers throng the Hudson during the stripcrs' spawning season. The projected toxicant cleanups will benefit all users of the resources, including users of striped bass. I lowever, the conflict between sport and commercial resource users of striped so do commercial tisheries to a lesser, and some think, unimportant degree. But there are noneco-nomic impacts of cultural value in preserving the heritage of commercial fisheries. as well as in pro-moting stewardship of the resource by all users. Overlain on the patterns of human alteration of fish stocks and their habitats is the prospect of fun-damental climate change, resulting in a warmer Hudson River. Already we may be seeing evidence of this. Rain how smelt and Atlantic tomcod, both northern boreal species at the southern extent of their range in the Hudson. are disappearing. Smelt have not appeared in utilities' or state fisheries' surveys since the mid 1990s, and tomcod have declined dramatically and appear to be cycling between moderately and very low abundances [DEIS, 1999). On the other hand, gizzard shad. a species known from the l'vlississippi and southeast-ern drainages. appears to be increasing dramati-cally in the I Judson, and is also appearing in estu-aries as far north as Maine. Gizzard shad has the potential to become a strong ecological actor in the Hudson fish community, because it can com-pete for zooplankton effectively. rapidly outgrow its "window of vulnerability" to predation, and can then subsist on detritus and thus not be food lim-ited. How these and other changes in the dynamic fish community will affect fisheries is a research question, but clearly they will have an impact. The long-term patterns seen in fisheries statis-tics, and especially the more intensive monitoring studies of the past twenty to thirty years, have taught us much about the dynamics of fludson River fish stocks, what is possible to know (e.g.. spawning stock characteristics such as age and size distributions) and what may never he possible to know precisely (e.g.. absolute stock abundances). In many respects, we now have the tools available for sustainable fisheries management. The critical element needed to carry through is strong public and political commitment of resources for contin-ued adaptive assessment and management. bass may widen. unless both can come to an un-Acknowledgment derstanding on how management allows sharing We thank Michael Flaherty, New York State Depart-of this common resource, as it occurs in marine ment of Environmental Conservation. and John

202 K. LIMBURG, I<. HATTALA, A. l<AHNLE, ANO J. WALDMAN r:arnwright, Dynegy Corporation, for providing in-formation on black bass tournaments and utility licensing issues, respectively. REFERENCES Anonymous. 2001. "Effort Launched to Protect His-tory of Croton Point," Hal( Moon Press Netl'slet-ter. Croton-on-Hudson, \\IY: I lalfMoon Press, May 2001 issue. ASMf'C. 2002.,\\tlantic States Marine Fisheries Com-mission Mission Statement. Available online at www.asmfc.org (accesst:>d May 2002). Baker, J. E.. Bohlen, VI/. E, Bopp. R.. Brownawell, B., Collier, T. K., Farll'y. k. J.. Geyer. VII. R.. and Nairn, R. 2001. PCBs in the Upper Hudson Riuer: '/he Science Behind tii<' Drcdgi11gC011trrll'ersy. Re-port prepared for the Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY. Barclay, R 1993. Hudson River angler survey: a re-. port on the adherenc(' to tish consumption health ad\\isories among Hudson River anglers. lludson Ril*er Sloop Clearwater, Poughkeepsie, NY. Belton, T, Roundy, H., and \\Neinstein, N. 1986. Urban tishermen: managing the risks of toxic exp:isure. l:.'iwiro11111e11t 28(9): 18-20, 30-7. Blackford, C. M. 19 lfi. The shad - a national problem. Transactions of tile American Fisheries Society 45: 5-14. Boyle, R. II. 1979. 111e ll11dso11 Riuer: JI Narum! and l/111wt11ml llis101y 2nd Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Burdick, G. E. 1954. An anal vs is of the factors. including pollution, having possible influence on the ahun-dance of shad in the Hudson River. Ne1u York Fish ant.I (;ame Journal I: 188-205. 13urger, J., Pflugh. K. K.. Lu rig, L.. Von Hagen, I.. A., and Von Hagen. S. 1999. Fishing in urban New Jnsey: ethnicity affects information sources. perception. and rompliance. RisL1nolysis 19:217-29. Carlson, D. M. 1989. Preliminary estimates of survival and abundance of sma!lmouth bass. New York State Department of Environmental Consrrva-tion, Stamford, NY. 1992. Importance of winter refugia to the large-mouth bass fishery in the Hudson River estllary. Jou ma! of Freslumrer Fcology 7: 173-80. Cheney, A. N. 1896. Shad of the Hudson River, i11 First Ann11a/ Report of rile Cr1111111issio11ers of Fisheries Gamca11d Furesls. Albany. NY, pp. 125-34. Chittenden, 1\\1. E.. Jr. 1969. "life history and ecol-ogy of the American shad, Alosa sapidissimt1, in the Delaware River." Ph.D. dissertation, Hutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. Cooke, S. J.. Schreer. J. F., W<ihl. D. JI., and Philipp, D. P. 2002. Physiological impacts of catch-and-relcase angling practices on largemouth bass and smallmouth bass, in D. P. Philipp and M. S. Ridgway, (eds). Black Bass: Ecology. Consen*a-tion, and Manageme11r. American f'isheries So-ciety Symposium 31. American Fisheries Socie(l'. Bethesda, MD, pp. 489-512. Oanicls, R A.. Limburg, K. E.. Schmidt, H. !'.., Strayer. D. L, and Chambers, C. In Press. Changes in fish assemblages in the tidal Hudson River, New York. In J. \\I. Rinne, R. 1\\1. llughes, and B. Calamusso (eds.). Hislorical Change in Large Riuer Fisli .\\ssem/Jlage o(America. 1\\merican Fisheries Soci-ety Monograph. OE!S (Draft Environmental lmpact Statement}. H.199. Draft environmental impact statement for state pollutant discharge elimination system permits for Bowline Point I & 2, Indian Point 2 & 3. Rosetlm 1 & 2 steam electric g('nerating stations. Produced by Central Hudson Gas & Electric C:orp.. Consol-idated Edison of New York. Inc.. New York Power Authority, and Southern Energy New York. Ebbesmeyer, C., and Hinrichsen, R. 1997. Oceanogra-phy of the Pacific shad invasion. the Shad Jo11mal 2(1): 4-8. 1:aigenbaum. II. M. 1937. Ch('mical investigation or the Lower lludson area, in A Biological Survey of the Lower Hudson watershed. State of New York Conservation Department. Biological Survey No XL Albany, NY: J.B. Lyon Co., pp. l-l7-2lfi. FDA 2001. Fish and Fisheries Products Hazards and Controls Guidance: Third Edition. U.S. f'ood & Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Hockville, Maryland. Franz, D. R. 1982. An historical perspective on mol-lusks in Lower New York Harbor, with emphasis on oysters, in G. F Meyer. (ed.}. F.cological S1ress nm! tlte New York Bight: Science and Managemellt, Estuarine RL'search Federation. Columbia, SC, pp. 181-197. Funk. R. E. 1992. The Tivoli Bays as a middle-scale set-ting for cultural-ecological research. 1he Hudson- \\/al/ey Regional Reuie1u 901: 1-13. Green, D. M.. and Jackson, J. 1991. Characterization of angling activity on the Iludson Hiver estuarv, in E. A. Blair and J. R. Waldman (eds.). Final Reports of the Tibor T Polgar Fellolt'ship Program. 1990. Hudson River Foundation, New York. NY, pp. VII-I to Vll-52. Green, 0. 1\\1., Landsberger, S. E., Nack, S. B., Bunnell, 0., and Forney. J. L. 1993. Al11111dunce and Winter

FISHERIES Disrrilwrio11 of H11dso11 Ri1*er Black Bass. Final Report to the Hudson Riwr foundation, New York. NY. Green, D. 1\\1., Nack, S. B.. and Forney. J. L. 1988. Itlellfi/l* cario11 of Black Bass Spt111'11i11g and Nursery llalii-rats in the H11dso11 Ril'er fat11wy. Final Report to rhe Hudson River Foundation. New York, NY. Hattala, K. A.. and Kahnle, A. W. 1997. Swck Stallls and Defi11irion of011er-jls'1i11g Rate for /\\merica11 Shod of tile H11dso11 Hiuer Est11arv. Report IO the At/m11ic States Marine Fisill'l'ies Co111missim1. New York State Department of Em*ironmental Conser- \\'ation. New Paltz, N\\'. Johnson. K. 2001. "Whitman to issue order to dredge Hudson fur PCR's." T/1e Ne11* York Times, August I, 2001. Lake, T. 1985. Iludson River hotspot: Fishing the fed-eral dam at Troy, New York. Upland Fishing: Fresh-11*Mer Fis/zing in Ne111 F.11g/al/(/ and New York 3:80-

81. 189-193.

Limburg. K. E., Moran, :\\!.A.. and McDowell, W II. 1986. Tlze lludson llil*er Ecosystem. New \\'ork: Springer-Verlag. I.MS (Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers, Inc.). 2001. H11dso11 lliuer E'tllm)' black /Jass swdy. March 1999-January 2001 Progress Report to the New York State Department of Environmental ConsC'rvation. I Judson Ri\\'er Estuary Program. Pearl River. :'JY. Lossing. B. J. 1866. '/11e li11dso11.fiw11 the Wilderness to tile Sea. New York: Virtue and Yorston. Mitchill, S. L 1815. The fishes of New-York, de-scribed and arranged. Transactions of tile Liter-my and Pililosop/1icnl SocietyofNe11* York (1814) ]: 355-492. Nack. S. B.. Bunnell. D.. GrC'C'n. D. M.. and Forney, J. L. 1993. Spawning and nursery habitats of large-mouth bass in the tidal Hudson River. *rra11s-acrio1Zs of tile America11 Fisheries Society 122: ~08-216.

'JYSCD (;\\Jew York State Conservation Department).

1964. Tile H11dson: Fish ond Wildlife. A report on fish and wildlife resources in the Iludson Hiver Valley, prepared for thc Hudson River Valley Commission hy the Division of Fish and (;ame of the New York State Conservation Department. Albany, NY. NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmen-tal Conservation). 1982. 1982 g11ide to a11glingfor H11dson Hi/ler slzad. Flyer. NYSIJOH (New York State lkpartment of Health). 2000. l/ealtil Co11s11/tmio11: 1996 S11rvey of H11dso11 Hil'er A11glers. Final HC'pnrt. CERCLIS No. NYD9807fi:!B41. Albany, :'JY. 203 Peterson, D. L. 1998. Assessment of tile Striped Bass Fisile1y of tile Hud.wm Riuer, 1997. final Report to the Hudson River Fishery Unit, New YorkSrnte De-partment of Em~ronmental ConsC'rvarion. Nell' Paltz, NY. Ross, M. R. 1997. Fisheries Co11seruation and i\\la11age-ment. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Scott, G. 1875. Fis/zing in American Waters. New York: Harper and Brothers. Shapley, D. 2001. "Valley fishing industry fading: in-terest nagging among the young." Po11gl1/.:l'l!fJSie /mm((//, May 20. 2001. Skinner, L. C., Jackling, S. J.. Kimber, G., Waldman, /., Shastry. Jr.. J.. and Newell, J\\. J. 19%. CIU!lll* icnl Residues i11 Fis/1. Biualves. Crustaceans and a Ceplw.lopod from the New York-New Jersey Har/Jor: PCB, Orga11ochlorine Pesticides and Mer-wry. New York State Department of Environmen-tal C:onservation. Skinner. L. C., Prince, H.. Waldman, J., Newell, A. J.. and Shastry. Jr.. J. l~J97. Clie111ical Residues i11 Fish. Bi11a/11es, Cruswcea11s and a Ceplwlopod/i"om tile New York-New Jersey //arbor: Dioxins 1111d Fu-rans. New York State Department of Environmen-tal Conservation. Smith, C L. 1985. Tlze J11/a11d Fishes of New York State. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany. NY. Steinberg, N., Way. J.. Suszkowski, 0. ]., and Clark. I.. 2001. Harbor Healt//lll11111an Health:.-\\11.-\\11alysis of F.1wiro11me11ral Indicators for tlze NY/ NJ Harbor Ewwry. New York/New Jersey Ilarbor Es!Uary Program. Published by the Hudson Hivcr Foun-dation, New York, NY. Stevenson, C.H. 1899. The shad fisheries of the Atlantic mast of the Unitl'd States, in U.S. C01>1missio11 of Fish and /.'isileries, Part XXTV. Rrport of the Commissioner for the year ending June :10, 1898. Government Printing Office, Washington. D.C., pp. 101-269. Talbot, G. B. 1954. Factors associated with fluc!Ua-tions in abundanc(' of Hudson River shad. IJ11ited States Fish and Wildlife Ser11ice Fishe1y B11tie1i11 56: 373-413. Vargo. J. H. 199.5. H11dso11 Ri1*1*r Stripers: 'file Guide. Yonkers, NY: Beacon Publishing Corporation. Walburg, C. H., and Nichols., R R. 1967. Biology and Ma11ageme11r of the American Shad and Sta-tus of rhe Fisheries. 1\\tlantic Coast of tile United States, 1960. United States Department of the In-terior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Special Scientific Report - Fisheries No. 550. Waldman, J. 199B. Stripers:.-\\11 1\\ngler's Anrilology. Camden, ME: Ragged Mountain Press.

204 K. LIMBURG, K. HATTALA, A. KAHNLE, AND). WALDMAN 1999. Heartbeats in the Muck: Tlze Histmy. Sea Life, and E11uiro11me11r of New York Harbor. New York: The Lyons Press. Waldman, J. R., Hart, J. T.. and Wirgin, I. I. 1996. Stock composition of the New York Bight Atlantic sturgeon fishery based on analysis of mitochon-drial DNA. 'f'mnsactions ofrlie American Fisheries Society 125: 364-71. Zeise!. W. 1995. Angli11g on a Clzangi11g Eswmy: tile Hudson Riuer, 1609-1995. 1-'inal Report to the Hudson River Foundation, New York. NY. Zeise!, W. N.. Jr. 1990. Shark'!! and other sport fish once abundant in New York Harbor. Seaport (Autumn): 36--9. Zlokovitz, E. R., and Secor, D. H. 1999. Effect of habi-tat use on PCB body burden in Hudson Hivcr striped bass (Morone saxatilis). Canadian Jour-nal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56 (Suppl. 1 ): 86--93.

Hudson River American Shad An Ecosystem-Based Plan for Recovery Revised: January 2010 Hudson River Estuary

HUDSON RIVER AMERICAN SHAD AN ECOSYSTEM-BASED PLAN FOR RECOVERY Prepared by Andrew Kahnle and Kathryn Hattala New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Hudson River Fisheries Unit To meet the goals of the Hudson River Estuary Action Plan Results of a recent Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission analysis of coast-wide shad stocks indicated that Hudson River American shad are in serious trouble (ASMFC 2007a). Commercial landings of shad from the Hudson River Estuary are at their lowest level since 1880. Moreover, the spawning stock is experiencing excessive and unacceptably high mortality, and that mortality has seriously reduced the abundance of adults and the production of young in the estuary. Restoration of this s,ignature species will require a broad-based ecosystem initiative that includes management actions in the estuary and in the Atlantic Ocean and focused ecological studies to understand American shad's role within the estuary. The following su~arizes current causes of decline and outlines a detailed program of response. Causes of Decline American shad of the Hudson River Estuary are anadromous. They spawn in spring in the river, but spend most of their lives in the nearshore Atlantic Ocean from Virginia to Maine. The Hudson estuary extends 245 km from NY City to the Federal Dam at Troy. American shad spawn in freshwater from Kingston (km 145) through Troy. Juveniles use the upper 150 km of the estuary as a nursery area and emigrate from the river in fall. They return to the Hudson 3-7 years later for spawning. American shad are caught by recreational and commercial fishermen while in the Hudson and by various commercial fisheries while in the ocean. It is not known if shad are taken by recreational fishing while in ocean waters, or if they are taken in combination with, or mistaken for, hickory shad. Commercial ocean fisheries that targeted American shad (directed fisheries) were closed in all Atlantic coastal states in 2005. Incidental take of shad in other ocean commercial fisheries (called bycatch) continues and can be legally sold in some states including New York. The principal known cause of the decline in Hudson River American shad was overharvest by directed ocean commercial fisheries and in-river commercial and recreational fisheries (ASMFC 2007a). Directed ocean harvest of American shad has ended, but losses to in-river harvest continue. Losses of young and adult shad to ocean commercial bycatch (unintended catches) may have been a factor in the decline, but the magnitude of such losses is essentially unknown. Young American shad in the river are also lost to various cooling water intakes.

Habitat loss and alteration most likely affected historical abundance of American shad in the Hudson River Estuary. Substantial destruction of potential shad spawning and nursery habitat occurred from the late 1800s through the mid 1900s from dredge and fill in the upper third of estuary during development and maintenance of the navigation channel from New York City to Albany/Troy (Miller and Ladd 2004). This habitat alteration was probably a factor in shad decline in the late 1800s and early 1900s. However, major habitat alteration has not occurred over the last 50 years and it is unlikely that it has been a factor in the most recent stock decline. Such habitat loss however, may influence the rate of stock recovery. Interactions among biota within the estuary may influence shad abundance, but supportive data are lacking. It has been suggested that changes in predator abundance in the river may have affected survival of young shad. Largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, white catfish, and channel catfish occur throughout the freshwater shad nursery area when early shad life stages are present. Bluefish, striped bass, and weakfish are present in the lower estuary in fall as young shad emigrate from the river. Diets of these potential predators in the river have been poorly studied and the effects of these predators on shad survival remain speculative. Competition with other biota may also influence young shad survival. The recent introduction and explosive growth of zebra mussels in the Hudson substantially reduced phytoplankton, along with subsequent_zooplankton production (Caraco 1997). Since young shad feed on zooplankton, it is possible that feeding by mussels reduced food available to young shad. Following the arrival of zebra mussels, the diet of blueback herring shifted from open water zooplankton and benthic drift to biota found in shallow water vegetation beds (personal communication, Dr. D. Strayer, CIES, Millbrook, NY). Presumably, this shift occurred because open water prey became less available. It is not known if a similar diet shift has occurred in American shad. However, Strayer et al. (2004) did find that growth of young of year American shad decreased after zebra mussels established themselves in the river. A decrease in growth has the potential to affect survival of age zero shad during their first winter. Two hypotheses for causes of shad decline were discounted in the recent ASMFC (2007a) analyses. They were striped bass predation on mature shad and poor water quality. Crecco et al (2007) reported that adult striped bass preyed on small mature American shad in the Connecticut River. The authors speculated that the recent increase in striped bass abundance may have affected shad abundance in other Atlantic Coastal rivers. However, extensive analyses of Hudson River striped bass gut contents concluded that this was not an issue in the Hudson (ASMFC 2007a). Moreover, abundance data for adults from several East Coast Rivers suggested no relationship between striped bass abundance and shad abundance. Declines in water quality in shad spawning and nursery areas have been suggested as a cause of shad decline in some east coast estuaries. However, this is not so in the Hudson where water quality has improved over the last 30 years. Recovery Goals The Draft 2010-2014 Hudson River Estuary Action Agenda ofNYSDEC calls for the restoration of the Hudson River shad by 2050. This shad recovery plan defines short and long term objectives associated with this goal and describes activities needed to achieve the goal and objectives. 2

Several measures are available to define objectives and assess the status of the Hudson River American shad stock. These include: Annual index of relative abundance of age zero fish called the juvenile abundance index or JAi. This is obtained by annual NYSDEC sampling by beach seine in the upper two-thirds, freshwater portion of the Estuary. Spawning stock biomass, or SSB. This is a relative annual index of total weight of mature female shad in the river. It is calculated from egg abundance estimated by contractors to Hudson Valley electric generating companies and age structure and weight at age data collected by NYSDEC spawning stock sampling. Rates of total annual mortality (A) of mature females. This is defined as that fraction of females present at the start of the calendar year that die during the year. The rate is estimated from data obtained by NYSDEC spawning stock sampling. We propose that recovery objectives consist of a matrix of these three indices. No single index is adequate because each index responds at a different rate to different influences on the stock. For example, the JAI usually responds first to changing early life survival while SSB responds most quickly to changing adult survival. A healthy sustainable fish stock needs good recruitment (relatively high JAI), adequate spawning stock size, and reasonable (low) adult mortality rates. The use of all three indices addresses all of these needs and is the most robust approach to setting benchmarks.

1. Long term objective:

Restore American shad abundance to levels that occurred in the 1940s. Quantitative targets will include relative abundance of age zero American shad and SSB indices estimated for 1940-1950 from population modeling and calibrated to relative abundance indices obtained by NYSDEC beach seine sampling and recent SSB estimates. Restoration assumes a total mortality rate on the adult stock at or below 52% as specified in the 2007 ASMFC stock assessment. Progress toward the JAI benchmark will be measured by a five year running average which dampens the influence of wide inter-annual fluctuations in the measure. Progress toward SSB and total mortality benchmarks will be measured by three year running averages. These indices warrant a shorter multi-year mean because they do not vary as widely among years and both already encompass many year classes. Inter-annual variation is too high in all of these indices to allow use of a single year's value to measure restoration progress.

2. Short term objective:

Restore American shad abundance to levels observed in the late 1980s. The quantitative targets will be the mean age zero abundance index from NYSDEC beach seine monitoring from 1985 through 1989, the mean SSB for 1985 through 1989, and a total mortality rate (A) on the adult stock at or below 52%. 3

Progress toward these benchmarks will be measured in the same manner as progress toward long term objectives. Specific quantitative targets for long and short term objectives will be defined in a separate report and updated as needed. Recovery Plan Recovery of Hudson River American shad will require continued stock monitoring, actions that we can implement relatively quickly and at relatively low cost, and longer term actions that will take planning and substantial funding. The following summarizes proposed recovery activities. It includes suggestions made at a Hudson River American shad workshop hosted by the Hudson River Foundation (HRF) in New York City on 31July2008. In November of 2008, the HRF published a special request for proposals for research in connection with the recovery of American shad in the Hudson River. Contracts funded in responses to this request are expected to improve our understanding of the ecological role of American shad in the Hudson. Status of recovery plan activities and estimated costs will be updated annually.

1. Maintain American shad monitoring programs We need to continue current annual stock monitoring to track current condition and progress in response to management actions. Two separate, fishery independent shad monitoring efforts must be maintained.

A. NYSDEC programs. Objective: Monitor annual status of juvenile and adult American shad in the Hudson River. Actions:

1) Obtain an annual abundance index for juvenile shad in the estuary by 30.5 m beach seine; and

2) Characterize annual size and age structure and survival rates of spawning American shad.

B. Hudson Valley Generating Companies (HVGC) Objective: Provide annual indices of egg and larval fish abundance.

Background:

Data are used by NYSDEC in conjunction with NYSDEC spawning stock age data to calculate an annual index of adult shad biomass (SSB Index). Action: Continue the Long River Ichthyoplankton Survey.

2. Reduce Mortality-Short Term The most important and meaningful action that we can take right now for shad recovery is to reduce mortality on all life stages as quickly as possible.

A. In River Fisheries 4

Objective: Minimize or eliminate losses to commercial and recreational fisheries that target American shad within the Hudson River to levels that will allow the population to grow. Action: Implement fishing restrictions for American shad fisheries in the Hudson River. B. NY Ocean Fisheries Objective: Eliminate legal sale of shad caught while fishing for other species in NY ocean waters. Action: Implement new regulations for NY marine waters. Issue is complex because many fisheries are involved and data on shad landings are limited. C. Water Intakes Objective: Reduce or eliminate losses of all shad life stages to Hudson River power generating plants. Action: Ensure that permits include provisions to reduce losses of shad to water intakes.

3. Reduce Mortality-Long Term: Characterize and Reduce Bycatch American shad from the Hudson River estuary are taken in commercial fisheries from Maine to Virginia. Unintended loss of shad in fisheries targeting other species is called bycatch.

Knowledge ofbycatch characteristics (quantity, location, and time of year) allows us to evaluate the impact ofbycatch and to reduce it where needed through regulation in New York state waters and through ASMFC action in waters of other states and in federal waters. Since shad from many stocks are taken as ocean bycatch, we will also need to develop a method to identify that part of the by catch from the Hudson River. This will allow New York to focus regulatory protection on those fisheries most affecting Hudson shad. A. Available National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) bottom trawl data Objective: Identify locations and seasonal timing of American shad concentrations in ocean waters

Background:

NMFS conducts bottom trawl surveys of ocean fish abundance and distribution from Maine through North Carolina. Trawling occurs in spring and fall. Although few American shad are taken in this survey, enough are taken to characterize seasonal concentration areas. This information will facilitate the search for shad bycatch in existing and future bycatch monitoring databases. Action: NYSDEC staff will analyze NMFS data with the assistance ofNMFS staff at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center at Woods Hole, MA. Analyses will summarize abundance of American shad catch by bottom trawl by season and location. B. Available NMFS Sea-sampling Data Objective: Characterize American shad bycatch recorded in existing National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) sea sampling data. 5

Background:

Current NMFS data were obtained by onboard sampling of commercial fishing operations to document catches of endangered marine mammals, sea birds, and reptiles. Coverage of fishing operations is patchy because it is concentrated on times and locations where bycatch of endangered biota is expected. These data have not been analyzed for presence of American shad. Action: NYSDEC staff will analyze NMFS data with the assistance ofNMFS staff at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center at Woods Hole, MA. Analysis will, where possible: - Identify and characterize fisheries with shad bycatch and identify, quantify, and characterize bycatch of these fisheries by time and location. Analysis is expected to follow procedures identified in ASMFC (2007b) and Wigley et al. (2007). - Identify times and locations of inadequate fishery monitoring coverage that can be resolved through additional onboard monitoring. C. NY Ocean Sea Sampling Objective: Identify, quantify, and characterize the American shad bycatch in ocean commercial fishing operations based in New York State.

Background:

American shad are rare in the existing NMFS sea sampling database. Thus, existing data may be inadequate to quantify and characterize shad bycatch and additional sea sampling may be needed. Action: If needed, develop and conduct an at sea sample program of commercial vessels fishing in NY ocean waters. Since many fish species managed by NY are taken as bycatch in ocean fisheries and the cost to monitor additional species is insignificant, monitoring will cover all NY managed species. The result will be more useful and the program more defendable. Needed actions include: - Develop sample design needed to achieve a given level of precision; contracted through the Pew Institute of Ocean Studies/SUNY Stonybrook. - Execute a contract for onboard sampling of commercial vessels based on developed sample design; possible funding sources include the Hudson Estuary Program (HREP) and the Ocean and Great Lakes Ecosystem Conservation Council (OGLECC); - If onboard monitoring identifies fisheries or specific times or locations of high shad bycatch, NYSDEC will take the necessary steps to reduce bycatch, including educational and regulatory or legal actions. D. Port Sampling in the NY Bight Objective: Obtain information on shad bycatch in commercial Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries of the Atlantic Ocean in the NY Bight.

Background:

American shad and river herring are taken in the Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries that occur from the Gulf of Maine through Cape May. The fisheries operate in the Gulf of Maine in summer when juvenile river herring predominate the bycatch and from Cape Cod through Cape May in winter when American shad occur as bycatch. These are high volume fisheries where catch is vacuumed out of the nets and into the hold. Thus, onboard observers are ineffective. As an alternative, the state of 6

Maine samples harvest as it is unloaded in fish processing plants. Sampling has focused on ports north of Cape Cod because Maine is most concerned with bycatch of river herring. Action: Expand port sampling of the Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries to ports from Cape Cod, MA through Cape May, NJ in winter when American shad are more common in the bycatch. E. Sea Sampling in Other Coastal States Objective: Obtain information on shad bycatch in commercial fisheries of other coastal states and in Federal waters more than three miles from shore (EEZ).

Background:

Will need support of other states and the federal government for a broad based bycatch monitoring program. Sampling will require funding from the federal* government and private foundations. Action: This will be best accomplished through the ASMFC Inter-State Fisheries Management Plan (ISFMP) program and Shad and river herring ISFMP Draft Amendment 3. This assures compatible sampling, data sharing and consistency with the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP). Possible funding sources include the Wildlife Conservation Society or the Pew Institute for Ocean Studies. F. Ocean Harvest Stock Identification Objective: Identify Hudson River American shad in ocean bycatch.

Background:

Bycatch of American shad in ocean fisheries includes fish from many spawning stocks along the Atlantic coast. Researchers have developed several promising approaches to American shad stock identification including microchemistry of shad otoliths and various DNA based techniques. Action: Support proposed studies with assistance in proposal development, letters of support, and biological samples as needed.

4. Characterize and restore critical spawning and nursery habitat.

Approximately 1,420 hectares of upriver shallow water habitat were lost through dredge and fill operations during construction of the federal navigation channel in the early and mid 1900s (Miller and Ladd 2004). Much of this area was potential shad spawning and nursery habitat. The identification, characterization, and restoration of lost habitat are important long-term components of Hudson River shad restoration. A Spawning Habitat Objective: Identify and characterize current spawning habitat used by adult shad.

Background:

Current knowledge of American shad spawning location in the Hudson River Estuary must be inferred from general location of shad eggs. These data are not adequate to pinpoint specific spawning location and thus do not allow characterization of that habitat. More precise spawning locations can be identified by sonic or radio tracking of spawning shad in conjunction with benthic maps and GPS location . information. NYSDEC Hudson River Fisheries Unit (HRFU) has used this technology 7

on juvenile Atlantic sturgeon so equipment, vessels, and expertise reside within the Department. Action: Implement a study of movement and habitat use of mature American shad in the Hudson River spring spawning migration. B. Nursery Habitat Objective: Identify and characterize shallow water habitat used by eggs, larvae, and juvenile American shad in the Hudson River Estuary.

Background:

Early life stages of American shad are too small to tag and shallow vegetated areas are not sampled by existing sample programs in the Hudson River Estuary. However, larval push nets have been designed to sample early life stages of fish in shallow vegetated and unvegetated river habitat. This gear was very effective at collecting larval fish from vegetated shallows in the Kissimmee River in Florida (personal communication, Daniel Miller, NYSDEC, Staatsburg, NY). Action: Sample existing vegetated shallow water habitat by larval push net mounted on the bow of a work boat. Although NYSDEC can develop sample apparatus, develop a sample design, and collect samples, sample identification would best be done by a contractor. Potential funding sources include HREP, SWG, HRF, or NRD. C. Demonstration Restoration Project Objective: Create a demonstration shad habitat restoration project. Action: Craft experimental projects to increase the amount of spawning and nursery habitat similar to habitats identified in tasks A and B above. Experimental projects would cover a range of possible restoration approaches, include measurable objectives, and specify monitoring to verify results. Promising methodology could then be applied in conjunction with resource agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers. Logistic challenges to this type of restoration have been identified and still need to be addressed. They include restoration dredge spoil disposal and regulatory and permitting issues (habitat trading).

5. Ecosystem Studies During their first year of life, American shad are likely to be prey for a variety of predators and could compete with other species for critical food. Either interaction could be a factor in the recent decline in shad abundance. Studies of these interactions could clarify the role of juvenile American shad within the ecosystem, but most likely would not lead to effective restoration actions.

A. Predation. Objective: Identify diets of estuarine predators of young of the year American shad that are abundant enough to affect the shad population.

Background:

The most logical marine predator to evaluate is striped bass. This species has increased in abundance in the last 20 years and appears to congregate in the lower river in the fall when young shad emigrate. The most logical freshwater predators are 8 ---~- -- ----

largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, white catfish, and channel catfish. These fish are relatively abundant in the middle and upper estuary in spring and summer when young shad are in shallow water nursery areas. It should be noted that diet analyses of potential predators may be hampered at this time by the paucity of young shad in the river. Unless a predator focused on them, young shad would likely be a rare diet item. Moreover, diet studies of in-river predators ignore the potential impact of ocean predators, although diets of striped bass while in the ocean have been found to be focused on menhaden. Action: Conduct a survey of available published and unpublished literature on diets of potential Hudson River Alosine predators. If available data are not conclusive, conduct diet studies of these predators when and where their presence overlaps that of juvenile American shad. Striped bass should be collected from the lower river in late summer and early fall. Freshwater predatory species should be collected in summer from shallow water nursery habitat in the mid and upper estuary. Sample size should be 200 to 300 stomachs for each species annually. Diet studies should continue for three consecutive years for each potential predator. This work would best be done by contract. NYSDEC does not have the necessary expertise to efficiently identify food items. Contractors should work cooperatively with ongoing NYSDEC sampling programs to obtain all or a portion of the fish to be analyzed. Sample collection may require additional sampling by contractors. Potential researchers include Institute of Ecosystem Studies, SUNY Stonybrook, and SUNY Environmental Sciences and Forestry (ESF). The USGS-Columbia River Research Laboratory at Cook, WA is also exploring potential American shad predators and may partner with NYSDEC to conduct this work. Potential funding sources include the HREP and the HRF. B. Competition Objective: Identify potential interactions between age zero American shad and other organisms within the estuary that may be competing for the same food source.

Background:

The recent introduction and explosive growth of zebra mussels in the Hudson has substantially reduced phytoplankton, along with subsequent_zooplankton production. Since young shad feed on zooplankton, it is likely that feeding by mussels has reduced food available to young shad. Preliminary analyses by Strayer et al. (2004) found decreased growth of juvenile shad following the introduction of zebra mussels. Moreover, the diet of blueback herring shifted from open water zooplankton and benthic drift to biota found in shallow water vegetation beds (personal communication, Dr. D. Strayer, CIES, Millbrook, NY). Presumably, this shift occurred because open water prey became less available. It is not known if a similar diet shift has occurred in American shad. Effects of reduced zooplankton abundance on growth and survival of juvenile American shad would logically be exacerbated by any competition with other Alosines that use the same nursery areas. Both alewife and blueback herring utilize shad nursery areas and likely use the same zooplankton food resource. Diet work on Hudson River Alosines is limited and most occurred prior to the introduction of zebra mussels. Action: Conduct a survey of available published and unpublished literature on diets of Hudson River Alosines. If data on post zebra mussel diets are inadequate, conduct diet 9

analyses of early life stages of Alosines. This would involve annual collection for each species of 300 larvae and 300 young for three years. Early life stage samples can be obtained from the nursery habitat study described above in task 4B if studies are concurrent. NYSDEC can supply later stage juveniles from the annual beach seine survey. Coordination of sample collection and identification of gut contents should be done by a contractor. Potential researchers include Institute of Ecosystem Studies, SUNY ESF, and the USGS-Columbia River Research Laboratory. Possible sources of funding include the HREPand the HRF. C. Ecosystem Modeling Objective: Develop a bio-energetic model or models to assess the potential impacts of identified predators and competitors for food resources on Hudson River American shad.

Background:

A description of predation or potential competitive interactions does not indicate that such interactions are significant. For example, the knowledge that striped bass prey on juvenile shad does not in itself prove that such predation has affected shad abundance. Potential impacts of predation can be evaluated by energetics-based population models. These models require substantial information about fish growth, consumption rates, diet, metabolic rates, survival, and abundance. Enough of these data are currently available for Hudson River fishes to warrant some exploratory model runs. Even if results are inconclusive, attempts at modeling will identify data needed to improve modeling and thus guide future research. Action: Develop a proposal to collate the necessary data and to build a bio-energetic model. Potential researchers include CIES, SUNY-ESF, SUNY Stonybrook, and the USGS-Columbia River Research Laboratory. Possible funding sources include HREP and theHRF. D. Climate Change Objective: Evaluate the relationship between early life stage and adult abundance and various indices of ocean and river water temperatures.

Background:

There is evidence that surface temperatures of the Atlantic Ocean have changed over the last 150 years (Kerr 2005, Sutton and Hodson 2005). Ocean temperatures have been relatively warm since about 1991. Moreover, Hudson River water temperatures have generally increased between 1920 and 1990 (Ashizawa and Cole 1994). Changes in ocean temperature could affect timing of shad ocean migration to spawning rivers as well as movement to summer feeding and overwintering locations. Changes in river temperatures could affect timing of spawning and early life stage growth relative to food supplies. Any of these changes could affect survival of Hudson River American shad and hinder recovery efforts. Action: Develop a proposal for appropriate analyses using existing data. Potential researchers include CIES, SUNY-ESF, SUNY Stonybrook, and the University of Massachusetts. Possible funding sources include HREP and the HRF. 10

References Ashizawa, D. and J. J. Cole. 1994. Long-term temperature trends of the Hudson River:a study ofthehistorical data. Estuaries 17(1B):l66-171. ASMFC. 2007a Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2007. Stock assessment of American shad, Stock Assessment Report Number 07-01. Washington, DC, USA. ASMFC. 2007b. Estimation of Atlantic sturgeon bycatch in coastal Atlantic Commercial Fisheries of New England and the Mid-Atlantic. Report to the ASMFC Atlantic Sturgeon Management Board, Washington, DC, USA. Caraco, N.F., J.J. Cole, P.A. Raymond, D. L Strayer, M.L. Pace, S.E.G. Findlay and D.T. Fischer. 1997. Zebra mussel invasion in a large turbid river: phytoplankton response to increased grazing. Ecology 78:588-602. Crecco, V., T. Savoy, and J. Benway. 2007. Stock assessment of American shad in Connecticut. Pages 347-402. In ASMFCa. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2007. Stock assessment of American shad, Stock Assessment Report Number 07-01. Washington, DC, USA. Kerr, R. A. 2005. Atlantic climate pacemaker for millennia past, decades hence. Science 309: 41-43. Miller, D. andJ. Ladd. 2004. Channel morphology in the Hudson River Estuary: past changes and opportunity for restoration. IN Currents - newsletter of the Hudson River Environmental Society, Vol. XXXIV, No. 1. Strayer, D.L., K.A. Hattala and A.W. Kahnle. 2004. Effects of an invasive bivalve (Dreissena polymorpha) on fish in the Hudson River estuary. Can J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61 :924-941. Sutton, R.T, and D.L.R. Hodson 2005. Atlantic Ocean forcing of North American and European summer climate, Science 309: 115-118. Wigley, S.E., P.J. Rago, K.A. Sosebee, and D. L. Palka. 2007. The analytic component to the standardized, bycatch reporting methology omnibus amendment: sampling design and estimation of precision and accuracy. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 07-09. Woods Hole, MA, USA. 11

Glossary ACCSP-Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program ASMFC-Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission CIES-Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies ESF-Environmental Science and Forestry HREP-Hudson River Estuary Program HRF-Hudson River Foundation HRFU-Hudson River Fisheries Unit NMFS-National Marine Fisheries Service NRD-Natural Resources Damages [Unit-NYSDEC] NYSDEC-New York State Department of Environmental Conservation SUNY-State University of New York SWG-State Wildlife Grants USGS-United States Geological Survey Revised: 4 Jan 2010 A. Kahnle 12

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/237349067 Impacts of entrainment and impingement on fish populations: A review of the scientific evidence ARTICLE n ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY* AUGUST 2013 lmpactFactocJ.02

• DO I 10 1011;,.j envsci.2013.03.001 CITATIONS 3

lAUTHOR: Lawrence Barnthouse LWB Environmental Services, Inc. 93 PUBLICATIONS 917 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE All i n ~textreferences underhned in b l ue a~linked to publications on Research Gate, letting you access and read them immediately. READS 104 Research Gate Availablefrom : LawrenceBamthouse Retrie-.-ed on: 10 December20l5

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY 31 (2013) 1 49-156 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com SciVerse ScienceDirect ELSEVIER journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci Review Impacts of entrainment and impingement on fish populations: A review of the scientific evidence (I) CrossMark Lawrence W. Barnthouse

• LWB Environmental Services, Inc., 1620 New London Rd., Hamilton, Ohio, 45013, USA ARTICLE INFO Article history:

Received 1 November 2012 Received in revised form 28 February 2013 Accepted 1 March 2013 Published on line 20 April 2013 Keywords: Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Cooling water intake structures Fisheries Impingement Entrainment Adverse environmental impact

1.

Introduction ABSTRACT In 1972, the United States Congress enacted §316(b) the Clean Water Act, which mandates minimization of the adverse impacts of entrainment and impingement of fish and other aquatic life at cooling water intake structures. Since the Act was passed, there has been continuous controversy over the magnitude of any such impacts and over the need for mitigating measures to reduce these impacts. The objective of this paper is to examine the published scientific information relevant to this issue The review includes (1) peer-reviewed literature reporting results of studies of impacts of entrainment and impingement at power plan.ts on fish populations, (2) peer-reviewed literature and "blue-ribbon" commission reports on aquatic resource degradation that evaluate causes of observed degradation of aquatic ecosystems, and (3) EPA's own assessments of causes of degradation in coastal environments. The clear conclusion from the review is that any impacts caused by im-pingement and entrainment are small compared to other impacts on fish populations and communities, including overfishing, habitat destruction, pollution, and invasive species. The available scientific evidence does not support a conclusion that reducing entrainment and impingement mortality via regulation of cooling water intakes will result in measurable improvements in recreational or commercial fish populations. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. In 1972, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, 33 U.S. C. §§ 1251 et seq., (popularly known as the Clean Water Act or CWA), which included a provision [§316(b)) authorizing the United States Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) to regulate cooling water intake structures. Specifically, §316(b) requires that "the location, design, construc-tion and capacity of cooling water intake structures shall reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact [emphasis added]." The adverse impacts that were the subject of the amendment result from (1) the drawing of fish and shellfish eggs and larvae into and through the condenser cooling systems of power plants, where mechanical and thermal stresses can cause high levels of mortality, and (2) trapping of fish against the screens that prevent debris from being drawn into the cooling water intake. These processes are referred to, respectively, as "entrainment" and "impinge-ment." In 1976, EPA issued a rule implementing §316(b); however, that rule was suspended on procedural grounds in 1977. For more than 20 years beginning in 1977, no rule was in place and permitting authorities made decisions implement-ing §316(b) on a case-by-case, site-specific basis. As a result of a lawsuit initiated by environmental groups, EPA agreed in 1995 to issue regulations implementing §316(b) in 1999. This deadline was later extended, and the rulemaking was subdivided into three phases. Phase I would cover new cooling

• Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 513 894 4600; fax: +1 513 894 4601.

E-mail address: Barnthouse@lwb-env.com. 1462-9011/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.03.001

150 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY 31 (2013) 149-156 water intake structures, Phase II would cover existing intake structures withdrawing more than SO million gallons of cooling water per day, and Phase lII would cover existing intake structures withdrawing between 2 and SO million gallons per day. EPA issued the final Phase L rule in 2001 [FR 66(243):6S2SS-6S34S]. EPA issued a final Phase II rule in 2004 [FR 69 (131):41S7S-41693]. This rule was suspended in 2007 after* several key provisions were overturned by the U. S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. EPA issued a final Phase III rule in 2006 [FR 71(116):3S006-3S046]. In 2011, EPA proposed a new rule that would be applicable to both Phase II and Phase III facilities [FR 76 (76):22174-22288]. All of these rules continue to be controversial because of the perception that valued aquatic resources are at risk, and because the costs of compliance, especially for existing facilities, can be extremely high. Interestingly, §316(b) does not define the term "adverse environmental impact." Throughout the 1970s, the term was understood by most scientists involved in environmental impact studies to refer to adverse changes in the abundance or productivity of popula-tions of fish or shellfish susceptible to entrainment and impingement. Intensive field and laboratory investigations were conducted to address impacts of entrainment and impingement on fish populations in several major ecosys-tems, most notably the Connecticut River (Merriman and Thorpe, 1976) and the Hudson River (Barnthouse et al., 1988a). Since 2001, EPA and many state agencies to whom authority to implement §316(b) has been delegated have issued rules in which adverse impacts have been implicitly or explicitly defined as entrainment and impingement per se, irrespective of whether any adverse changes in populations can be demonstrated or predicted. EPA asserted in the preamble to its 2004 Phase II rule that "multiple types of undesirable and unacceptable impacts may be associated with Phase II existing facilities, depending on conditions at the individual site." The preamble cited a wide variety of potential adverse impacts on populations and ecosystems that could potentially result from entrainment and impingement. EPA used data obtained from power plant operators and other sources to estimate that annual mortality of fish and shellfish due to entrainment and impingement at large power plants was equivalent to a loss of 3.4 billion one-year-old organisms. However, the literature cited to document the occurrence of potential population and ecosystem-level effects resulting from these losses included only two peer-reviewed scientific paper (Boreman and Goodyear, 1988; Summers, 1989), neither of which involved measurements of actual population or ecosystem changes. Yet, during the 40-year period over which rules have been developed, challenged, and revised, power plants with once-through cooling have been operating continuously throughout the U.S. and Europe, many with extensive monitoring programs. At the same time, scientists and resource manage-ment agencies concerned about degradation of freshwater and marine resources have conducted many studies intended to identify causes of observed population and ecosystem decline. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the scientific validity of arguments concerning adverse impacts of entrain-ment and impingement through a review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature on fish population depletion and on ecosystem services. The review includes (1) peer-reviewed literature reporting results of studies of impacts of entrain-ment and impingement at power plants on fish populations, (2) peer-reviewed literature and "blue-ribbon" commission reports on aquatic resource degradation that evaluate causes of observed degradation of aquatic ecosystems, and (3) EPA's own assessments of causes of degradation in coastal environments. There is extensive literature on impingement and entrainment, most prepared by or for power companies as part of regulatory compliance activities. Similar studies have also been performed by non-governmental environmental organizations (NGOs). This "gray" literature has rarely been independently peer-reviewed, is highly variable in quality, and is inevitably vulnerable to charges of lack of objectivity. For these reasons, this review is limited to literature that has been independently and professionally peer reviewed. The issue is not whether entrainment and impingement could potentially have adverse environmental impacts, but on whether any such impacts have been shown to occur over the 40 years since the enactment of §316(b), either through direct study of power plant impacts or through studies identifying causes of observed population and ecosystem degradation.

2.

Peer-reviewed studies of adverse impacts of entrainment and impingement Even prior to the 1972 passage of the CW A, concerns had been raised by both government agencies and nongovernmental organizations about the potential impacts of entrainment and impingement on fish populations (Barnthouse et al., 1984). Despite these concerns, in the more than 40 years since they were originally raised relatively few studies of adverse impacts of entrainment and impingement on fish populations have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The best-known of these studies were published as American Fisheries Society Monographs. 2.1. Connecticut River and Hudson River monographs The Connecticut River Ecological Study, which documented monitoring and assessment studies performed during con-struction and early operation of the Connecticut Yankee plant on the lower Connecticut River, was originally published in1976 (Merriman and Thorpe, 1976). An update reproducing the original monograph and documenting ecological studies performed in the river after the completion of the original study was published in 2004 Oacobson et al., 2004). The Connecticut River study was designed in the mid-1960s, prior to the emergence of entrainment and impingement as a major regulatory issue, at a time when thermal discharges were expected to be the most important causes of adverse impacts on receiving water bodies. Hence, much of the study focused on impacts of Connecticut Yankee's thermal plume. Entrain-ment monitoring was conducted, however, and the study estimated that 4% of fish eggs and larvae passing by the plant could be entrained. The study authors drew no inferences concerning the impacts of entrainment on adult populations because of lack of information concerning: (1) the natural

ENV I RONMENTAL SCIE N CE & POLICY 31 (2013) 149-156 151 mortality rates of susceptible life stages and (2) the carrying capacity of the river system. The updated study Oacobson et al., 2004) documented results of 37 years of monitoring and research conducted following the completion of the original study, including the entire remaining period of operation of Connecticut Yankee, which ceased commercial operation in 1996. Major changes in the Connecticut River fish community documented in this monograph include decreased abundance of native alosids (alewife, blueback herring, and American shad), increased abundance of alosids native to mid-Atlantic and southern rivers (gizzard shad and hickory shad), and a shift in the relative abundance of different catfish species. None of these changes were attributed to the operation of Connecticut Yankee, and the authors concluded that there is no evidence that plant operations had any long-term impact on the ecology of the lower Connecticut River. Environmental research and assessment studies addres-sing impacts of entrainment and impingement at multiple power plants located on the lower Hudson River, New York were documented in a 1988 monograph (Barnthouse et al., 1988a). In contrast to the Connecticut River study, the emphasis of the Hudson River studies was on quantifying the impacts of entrainment and impingement on populations of juvenile and adult fish. Species addressed included striped bass, white perch, Atlantic tomcod, bay anchovy, alewife, blueback herring, and American shad. Most of the data used in the quantitative assessments, however, was collected over a 3-year period (1974-1976) when the power plants (Indian Point Units 2 and 3, Bowline Point Units 1and2, and Roseton Units 1 and 2) that were the focus of the assessments had just begun operation. Hence, most of the papers in the monograph deal with either estimated impacts on individual year classes or potential Jong-term impacts on adult populations. The estimated reductions in individual year classes (Boreman and Goodyear, 1988; Barnthouse and Van Winkle, 1988) ranged approximately from 10% to 20%. These mortality rates, although by no means negligible, were judged by both agency and utility scientists to be substantially smaller than mortality rates routinely sustained by many harvested species (Barnt-house et al., 1988b). The settlement agreement that ended litigation between EPA, the State of New York, and the Hudson River utility companies required a variety of mitigation measures to reduce entrainment and impingement, but did not require closed-cycle cooling (Barnthouse et al., 1988b). The river-wide monitoring program that provided the data used in these studies has continued through the present, and subsets of the data have been used in several peer-reviewed publica-tions (Barnthouse et al., 2003a; Strayer et al., 2004; Heimbuch, 2008; Barnthouse et al., 2009), however, no publications have used these data to address Jong-term impacts of entrainment and impingement at Hudson River power plants. 2.2. Other studies using population models and site-specific data Jensen (1982) used conventional fishery assessment models to quantify the impact of entrainment and impingement at the Monroe power plant in southeastern Michigan on the yellow perch stock in the western basin of Lake Erie. He concluded that entrainment and impingement at Monroe would cause only a 2-3% impact on the equilibrium biomass of the yellow perch population. In contrast, fishing this population at the level associated with maximum sustainable yield (annual harvesting of 35% of the population) would reduce the equilibrium biomass of the population by 50%. In a related paper, Jensen et al. (1982} used the same types of models to quantify impacts of entrainment and impingement at 15 power plants on alewife, rainbow smelt, and yellow perch populations in Lake Michigan. The authors concluded that impacts of entrainment and impingement on the biomass of all three species were small: 0.28% for yellow perch, 0.76% for rainbow smelt, and 2.86% for alewife. Lorda et al. (2000} used a model of the Niantic River, Connecticut winter flounder population to evaluate combined impacts of entrainment, impingement, and fishing on future trends in the abundance of this population. The model was parameterized using 25 years of data on entrainment and impingement of winter flounder at the Millstone Nuclear Power Station and a similar time series of data on the abundance and age structure of the population of winter flounder that spawns in the Niantic River. Lorda et al. (2000) found that the influence of fishing on the abundance of this population was much larger than the influence of entrainment and impingement. According to these authors, by 1995 fishing had reduced the biomass of the Niantic River winter flounder spawning stock by nearly 90%, from an un-fished level of 120,000 lbs to less than 15,000 lbs. Because of the high level of fishing mortality, reducing entrainment at Millstone by 50% would increase the spawning population by only about 9%. The conclusion of Lorda et al. (2000} concerning fishery impacts is consistent with the findings of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NEFSC, 2011), which has concluded that the Southern New England-Mid Atlantic winter flounder stock, of which the Niantic River population is a component, has been severely depleted by overfishing. Barnthouse et al. (2003b) used a combination of Jong-term monitoring data and population-level assessment models to address impacts of 25 years of operation of the Salem Generating Station in New Jersey on fish populations and communities in the Delaware Estuary. Trends analyses found no evidence that entrainment and impingement at Salem had caused reduction in either the diversity of the Delaware Estuary fish community or the abundance of key fish populations. To the contrary, statistically significant increases in one of the two community metrics evaluated and in the abundances of susceptible fish species such as weakfish, striped bass, and American shad were observed. Model analyses showed that the impacts of entrainment and impingement on weakfish and other harvested fish popula-tions was small compared to the impacts of fishing. Although finding no evidence for impacts caused by Salem's operations, Barnthouse et al. (2003b) found strong evidence that many Delaware Estuary fish populations had increased in abun-dance following improvements in water quality and reduc-tions in harvests that occurred between 1975 and 1998. Henderson et al. (1984) used 11 years of data on impinge-ment of sand smelt at the Fawley Power Station, Hampshire, UK to assess impacts of age-selective impingement on the age distribution of local sand smelt population. These authors

152 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY 31 (2013) 149-156 found that impingement had no measurable effect, and concluded that the operation of Fawley Power Station had no significant effect on the long-term stability of this population. Perry et al. (2003) used population models to evaluate impacts of entrainment and impingement at six Ohio River power plants on local populations of bluegill, freshwater drum, emerald shiner, gizzard shad, sauger, and white bass. The models were parameterized using annual estimates of (1) entrainment and impingement from each power plant and (2) the abundance of the target populations in the navigational pools on which the plants are sited. Given available data concerning year-to-year variability in the abundance of these populations, the model was used to determine whether, if there had been no entrainment and impingement, a measur-able increase in the abundance of each population could have occurred. Results indicated that the abundance of 6 of the 22 local populations examined might have been measurably higher, if there had been no entrainment and impingement. However, the authors noted that these predicted increases were small compared to changes caused by habitat modifica-tion, water quality, floods, droughts, and temperature extremes. Heimbuch et al. (2007a) used population models to assess impacts of entrainment and impingement at the Poletti Power Project on winter flounder and Atlantic menhaden popula-tions in the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary and Long Island Sound. These authors found reductions in abundance due to entrainment and impingement of only 0.09% for winter flounder and 0.01% for Atlantic menhaden as a result of entrainment and impingement at Poletti. Nisbet et al. (1996) modeled the potential impact of entrainment of fish larvae by the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) on fish populations in the Southern California Bight. They concluded that, depending on assumptions made concerning the strength of density-dependence, the standing stock of local queenfish and white croaker populations could be reduced by about 13% and 6%, respectively. No estimates of impacts of fishing on these populations were available, and no data on abundance trends were available for determining whether any reductions in abundance had occurred. Ehler et al. (2003) used predictive models and population trends data to evaluate impacts of entrainment at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant on the central California coast on rockfish and kelpfish populations in the vicinity of the plant. Based on relatively high station-related mortality predicted by the model and a decline in abundance following start-up of the plant, the authors concluded that entrainment could have had an adverse impact on local clinid kelpfish populations. Ehler et al. (2003) had no information concerning other influences on clinid kelpfish, because these fish are not harvested and little is known about their life history. It should be noted, however, that White et al. (2010) recently challenged the assumptions underlying the assess-ment approach used by Ehler et al. (2003) and others to addressed impacts of entrainment at California coastal power plants. White et al. (2010) explicitly simulated the dispersal and settlement processes of larvae spawned by bottom-dwelling fish in the vicinity of cooling water intake structures. These authors found that because of density-dependent post-settlement mortality, entrainment of larvae generally had only minor effects on adult population density. Compared to the spatially explicit model used by these authors, the approach used by Ehler et al. (2003) and others consistently overstated entrainment impacts. White et al. {2010) found that entrainment of larvae could only threaten the persistence of a local population if adult densities were already reduced to low levels by other stressors. 2.3. Studies comparing equivalent adult losses to commercial landings The "equivalent adult" model is an assessment approach that uses estimates of rates of mortality of fish at different ages to express losses of early life stages of fish in terms of the number of fish entrained or impinged that would otherwise have survived to adulthood (EPRI, 2004). Some authors have addressed adverse impacts of entrainment and impingement by comparing estimates of impingement and entrainment losses, expressed as equivalent adults, to commercial fishery landings. As discussed in EPRI (2004), equivalent adult estimates are often highly uncertain, because of the difficulty of accurately estimating mortality rates of early life stages of fish. Moreover, equivalent adult estimates are usually conser-vative, because they do not account for density-dependence of early life stage mortality (Rose et al. 1 2001). In addition, this simple comparative approach involves neither long-term trends analysis of population-specific data nor explicit modeling of population dynamics. For this reason, the equivalent adult approach is best viewed as a screening approach suitable for identifying situations in which an adverse impact might occur. Without other supporting information, it cannot demonstrate whether or not an adverse impact due to entrainment and impingement is occurring or has occurred. Saila et al. (1997) used equivalent adult models to address impacts of entrainment and impingement on pollock, red hake, and winter flounder entrained and impinged at the Seabrook Station, New Hampshire. These authors found that for the years 1990-1995 the maximum number of equivalent adult pollock entrained and impinged at Seabrook in any year was 136 fish, and the maximum number of equivalent adult red hake impinged and entrained in any year was 801 fish. Estimated numbers of equivalent adult winter flounder were higher, up to 4401 fish in 1991. According to the authors, this total, representing Jess than 2 metric tons of biomass, was equivalent to 3 days of average catch by a typical class 2 trawler in the Gulf of Maine. Turnpenny (1988), Turnpenny and Taylor (2000), and Greenwood (2008) used a similar approach to quantify impacts of impingement at power plants in the United Kingdom. All three of these studies found that impingement at power plants was equivalent only a few percent of commercial harvests. 2.4. Studies of cumulative impacts of entrainment and impingement At least in principle, impacts of entrainment and impinge-ment on marine fish populations with coastwide distributions

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY 31 (2013) 149-156 153 should be assessed on a cumulative basis, accounting for all water withdrawals that could affect each species. To address the issue of cumulative impacts, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) established a "Power Plant Committee" to investigate the feasibility of coastwide assessments, using Atlantic menhaden as a test case. As reported by Heimbuch et al. (2007b), the committee found that insufficient entrainment and impingement data were available to perform a scientifically credible assessment, and concluded that it would not be scientifically defensible to extrapolate entrainment and impingement estimates be-tween power plants. The committee developed a model that could be used to link entrainment and impingement mortality to the Atlantic menhaden stock assessment model used by the ASMFC, but could only demonstrate the use of the model with hypothetical entrainment and impingement data. Using admittedly incomplete data, Newbold and Iovanna (2007) modeled the cumulative impacts of entrainment and impingement mortality at all U.S. coastal power plants on 15 harvested marine fish populations. These authors utilized entrainment and impingement loss estimates developed by EPA (2002, 2004) to support the 316(b) Phase II rulemaking, together with harvest data obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and life history information obtained from EPA and other sources. Density-dependent population models developed using this informa-tion were used to estimate the increase in population abundance that could occur if all entrainment and impinge-ment were eliminated. According to the models, eliminating entrainment and impingement of California American shad, California anchovy, Atlantic cod, Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel, pollock, scup, silver hake, summer flounder, and winter flounder would increase the abundance of these species by less than 1%. Eliminating entrainment and impingement of Atlantic American shad and Atlantic menha-den would increase the abundance of these species by 1-3%. Eliminating entrainment and impingement of California striped bass, Atlantic striped bass, and Atlantic croaker would increase the abundance of these species by 20-80%. These results appear questionable because, in contrast to most of the species included in Newbold and Iovanna's (2007) study, populations of Atlantic striped bass and Atlantic croaker have grown substantially since 1980 (Richards and Rago, 1999; ASMFC, 2010) in spite of ongoing entrainment and impinge-ment. Since entrainment and impingement mortality rates in the model used by Newbold and Iovanna (2007) are estimated through model calibration, there is no simple way to determine the source of these very high values. However, it should be noted that the entrainment and impingement loss rates estimated by USEPA (2002, 2004) and used by Newbold and Iovanna (2007) were obtained by extrapolating entrain-ment and impingement estimates from power plants with available data to plants with no available data based on relative intake flows. This procedure was acknowledged by the authors to have introduced potentially large and unknown uncertainties. Newbold and Iovanna (2007) characterized their analysis as a "screening" analysis and did not claim to have accurately estimated the impacts of entrainment and im-pingement on any of the modeled populations.

3.

Causes of adverse impacts documented in peer-reviewed literature and "Blue Ribbon" commission reports The status of fishery resources, especially marine resources, has been a matter of great national concern for many years. In contrast to the paucity of papers documenting adverse impacts of power plants on fish populations and on aquatic ecosystems in general, the peer-reviewed scientific literature documents many cases oflarge, often catastrophic changes in fish populations and communities resulting from eutrophica-tion, invasive species introductions, and overfishing. Over the past 20 years, this literature has been reviewed and synthe-sized by a variety of expert committees. Despite the regulatory attention paid to §316(b) issues during this period, none of these committees identified entrainment and impingement as major environmental threats. Reports prepared by two especially prestigious organizations, the Pew Oceans Com-mission and the National Research Council, are highlighted here. 3.1. Pew Oceans Commission In 2003, the Pew Oceans Commission evaluated scientific information and policy options for dealing with nine major threats to marine resources: nonpoint source pollution, point source pollution, invasive species, aquaculture, coastal devel-opment, overfishing, habitat alteration, bycatch, and climate change. Most of these same threats were also discussed in a report by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (2004). The Pew Oceans Commission report was accompanied by supporting reports documenting adverse effects of over-fishing, pollution, urban sprawl, invasive species, and aqua-culture on marine ecosystems (Dayton et al., 2002; Beach, 2003; Boesch et al., 2003; Carlton, 2003; Goldburg et al., 2003). The Pew Commission report and supporting documents contain many policy recommendations intended to address all of the above impacts, but made no mention of or recommendations with respect to cooling water withdrawals at power plants or other industrial facilities. 3.2. National Research Council reports The U.S. National Research Council (NRC) has published studies relevant to most of the causes of impact discussed in the Pew Commission report. Such reports are typically commissioned by federal agencies to address scientifically complex and politically contentious issues that are believed to be of national importance. For example, a 1995 NRC (NRC, 1995) identified five threats to the biodiversity of marine ecosystems: overfishing, chemical pollution and eutrophica-tion, physical habitat alteration, invasions of exotic species, and global climate change. Three studies addressed adverse impacts of overfishing (NRC, 1998, 1999, 2006). Two studies addressed impacts of invasive species (NRC, 1996, 2008a). Two studies addressed inputs of nutrients and hazardous chemical pollutants to coastal marine waters (NRC, 2009, 1993). One study (NRC, 2008b) addressed impacts of habitat disturbance caused by marine debris. No agency has ever asked the NRC to

154 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY 31 (2013) 149-156 review impacts of entrainment and impingement on aquatic populations or ecosystems.

4.

EPA National Coastal Conditions Reports The conclusions reached in the reviews discussed above are largely supported by the EPA's own review of coastal environmental conditions, contained in a series of National Coastal Conditions reports. The third and most recent of these reports, termed "NCCR III," was published in 2008 (USEPA, 2008). This report which assesses the condition of all U.S. coastal waters, is a collaborative effort involving EPA, NOAA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and other agencies representing states and tribes. It is intended to provide a snapshot of coastal conditions in 2001 and 2002. An update, including data collected through 2006, is currently in review. NCCR III, like the two earlier reports, uses five indices to evaluate the quality of coastal conditions: water quality, sediment quality, benthic community composition, coastal habitat condition, and fish tissue contamination. In addition to the five coastal condition indices, NCCR III summarizes information on overharvesting of fish species in waters bordering the U.S. coastline. Entrainment and impingement are not discussed as potential influences on coastal condi-tions. Chapter 9 of NCCR III provides a detailed evaluation of a particular site, Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, with respect to human uses and specific sources of environmental degrada-tion. This is the only chapter that mentions electric power production. The impact of the thermal discharge from the Brayton Point station on the local winter flounder fishery is discussed, but entrainment and impingement are not men-tioned.

5.

Discussion The diverse literature on the condition of aquatic resources, including studies of both marine and freshwater ecosystems throughout North America, consistently identifies overfishing, habitat destruction, pollution, and invasive species as being the predominant causes of past and present impairment of fish populations and the ecosystems that support them. In those few cases where impacts of entrainment and impingement have been specifically investigated, such impacts have rarely been found. Some model-based studies (Nisbet et al., 1996; Perry et al., 2003) have suggested that potentially significant impacts might occur, bu tin only one study, ofclinid kelpfish entrained at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Ehler et al., 2003), have authors cited empirical data to support a conclusion that a significant impact of entrainment and impingement on a local population may be occurring. Even in this case other authors (White et al., 2010) have found that the method used to reach this conclusion is flawed and overstates impacts. It is difficult to compare entrainment and impingement to most of the stressors identified as significant causes of fish population decline. Entrainment and impingement do not impair the ability of habitat to support fish, due to either physical or chemical alteration. Entrainment and 1000000 Natural mortality only Natural + power plant mortality Natural + fishing mortality 200000 " 0 t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Age Fig. 1 - Comparative effects of natural mortality, power-plant related mortality and fishing mortality on the abundance of a cohort of striped bass, from age 1 through age 15. The abundance of one-year-old striped bass is assumed to be reduced by 10% due to entrainment and impingement occurring during the first year of life. Declines in abundance during subsequent years occur due to natural mortality and fishing mortality (ASMFC, 1998). impingement are, however, comparable to fishing in that both processes act through removal of fish from populations. Although entrainment and impingement generally remove fish at an earlier age than does fishing, impacts of both can be expressed in terms of annual mortality rates, which then can be compared. A simple example serves to illustrate why fishing is such a powerful influence on fish populations, as compared to entrainment and impingement. Boreman and Goodyear (1988) estimated that entrainment mortality of striped bass due to all Hudson River power plants in 1974 and 1975 ranged from 0.068 to 0.13, equivalent to reducing the sizes of the 1974 and 1975 year classes by 6.8% to 13%. No estimates of fishing mortality for striped bass during this period are available, however, the current target fishing mortality rate established by the ASMFC is 0.3 (ASMFC, 2003). Hudson River striped bass are susceptible to entrainment for only a few months, and to impingement primarily during their first year of life. In contrast, striped bass first become susceptible to fishing at an age of 2 years and become fully recruited to the fishery at age 5 (ASMFC, 1998). They continue to be susceptible to fishermen for the remainder of their lifespan of up to 30 years. The consequences of this pattern of mortality are illustrated in Fig. 1 Natural mortality in age 1 and older striped bass is believed to be approximately 15% per year (ASMFC, 1998). Given this mortality rate, out of every 1million1-year-old fish, 122,000 would still be alive after 15 years. If power plants reduced the initial number of one-year-old fish by 10% to 900,000, 110,000 fish would still be alive after 15 years. If, instead of entrainment and impingement, the fish are subject to fishing mortality according to the vulnerability schedule and target fishing rate established by the ASMFC, then only 4800 fish would still be alive after 15 years. It is often said that it is impossible to prove a negative. Although adverse impacts due to entrainment and impinge-ment have not been conclusively documented in published

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POL I CY 31 (20 1 3) 149-156 155 studies, this absence does not prove that adverse impacts are not occurring or could never occur. It can always be argued that the statistical power of tests used in environmental impact studies is simply too low to detect reductions in abundance, even reductions that are large enough to warrant regulatory action. However, the rarity of documentation of such impacts, after 40 years of operation oflarge power plants, some of which have been conducting extensive monitoring programs for several decades, provides substantial evidence that impacts related to entrainment and impingement are generally small compared to impacts identified by the Pew Oceans Commission (2003) and other sources as being major threats to aquatic ecosystem integrity. Most importantly, there is no scientific evidence to support a conclusion that reducing entrainment and impingement via aggressive regulation of cooling water intakes will result in measurable improvements in recreational or commercial fish populations. A more nuanced regulatory approach involving site-specific evaluations of costs and benefits of reducing entrainment and impingement would be more consistent with the available facts. Acknowledgements Research sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute. The author gratefully acknowledges the support of D. Dixon, Project Manager, and technical reviews by K. Anthony, D. Bailey, K. Bulleit, T. Cheek, ]. Christman, S. Dalton, D. Danila, W. Dey, ]. Haas, C. Logan, D. Michaud, J. Petro, R. Reash, E. Wheeler, and J. Young. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.envsci.2013.03.001. REFERENCES Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1998. Status of the Atlantic striped bass. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Washington, D.C. ASMFC. 2003. Amendment 6 to the interstate fisheries management plan for striped bass. Fishery Management Report No. 41 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C. ASMFC. 2010. Atlantic croaker benchmark stock assessment. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C. Barnthouse, L.W., Van Winkle, W., 1988. Analysis of impingement impacts on Hudson River fish populations. American Fisheries Society Monograph 4, 182-190. Barnthouse, L.W., Boreman, J., Christensen, S.W., Goodyear, C.P., Van Winkle, W., Vaughan, D.S., 1984. Population biology in the courtroom: the Hudson River controversy. Bioscience 34, 14-19. Barnthouse, L.W., Klauda, R.J., Vaughan, D.S., Kendall, R.L. (eds.) 1988. Science, Law, and Hudson River Power Plants: a Case Study in Environmental Impact Assessment. American Fisheries Society Monograph 4. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A. Barnthouse, L.W., Boreman, J., Englert, T.S., Kirk, W.L., Hom, E.G., 1988b. Hudson River settlement agreement: technical rationale and cost considerations. American Fisheries Society Monograph 4, 267-273. Barnthouse, L.W., Glaser, D., Young, J., 2003a. Effects of historic PCB exposures on the reproductive success of the Hudson River striped bass population. Environmental Science and Technology 37:, 223-228. Barnthouse, L.W., Heimbuch, D.G., Anthony, V.C., Hilborn, R.W., Myers, R.A., 2003b. Indicators of AEI applied to the Delaware Estuary. In: Dixon, D.A., Veil, J.A., Wisniewski, J. (Eds.), Defining and Assessing Adverse Environmental Impact from Power Plant Impingement and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms. A.A. Balkema Publishers, Lisse, The Netherlands, pp. 165-184. Barnthouse, L.W., Glaser, D., Desantis, L., 2009. Polychlorinated biphenyls and Hudson River whiter perch: implications for population-level risk assessment and risk management. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 5, 435-444. Beach, D. 2003. Coastal sprawl: The effects of urban design on aquatic ecosystems in the United States. Prepared for the Pew Oceans Commission. Boesch, D.F., Burroughs, R.H., Baker, J.E., Mason, R.P., Rowe, C.L., Siefert, R.L., 2003. Marine pollution in the United States. Prepared for the Pew Oceans Commission. Boreman, J., Goodyear, C.P., 1988. Estimates of entrainment mortality for striped bass and other fish species inhabiting the Hudson River estuary. American Fisheries Society Monograph 4, 152-160. Carlton, J.T., 2003. Introduced species in U.S. coastal waters: environmental impacts and management priorities. Prepared for the Pew Oceans Commission. Dayton, P.K., Thrush, S., Coleman, F.C., 2002. Ecological effects of fishing in marine ecosystems of the United States. Prepared for the Pew Oceans Commission. Ehler, C.P., Steinbeck, J.R., Laman, E.A., Hedgepeth, J.B., Skalski, J.R., Mayer, D.L., 2003. A process for evaluating adverse environmental impact by cooling-water system entrainment at a California power plant. In: Dixon, D.A., Veil, J.A., Wisniewski, J. (Eds.), Defining and Assessing Adverse Environmental Impact from Power Plant Impingement and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms. A.A. Balkema Publishers, Lisse, The Netherlands, pp. 79-102. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2004. Extrapolating impingement and entrainment losses to equivalent adults and production foregone. Palo Alto, CA, EPRI Report No. 1008471. Goldburg, R.J., Elliott, M.S., Nayor, R.A., 2003. Marine aquaculture in the United States. Prepared for the Pew Oceans Commission. Greenwood, M.F.D., 2008. Fish mortality by impingement on the cooling-water intake screens of England's largest direct-cooled power plant. Marine Pollution Bulletin 6, 723--739. Heimbuch, D.G., 2008. Potential effects of striped bass predation on juvenile fish in the Hudson River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137, 1591-1605. Heimbuch, D.G., Dunning, D.J., Ross, Q.E., Blumberg, A.F., 2007a. Assessing potential effects of entrainment and impingement on fish stocks of the New York New Jersey Harbor Estuary and Long Island Sound. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136, 492-508. Heimbuch, D.G., Lorda, E., Vaughan, D., Barnthouse, L.W., Uphoff, J., Van Winkle, W., Kahnle, A., Young, B., Young, J., Kline, L., 2007b. Assessing coastwide effects of power plant entrainment and impingement on fish populations: Atlantic menhaden example. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27: 569-577.

156 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY 31 (2013) 149-156 Henderson, P.A., Turnpenny, A.W.H., Bamber, R.N., 1984. Long-term stability of a sand smelt (Atherina presbyter Cuvier) population subject to power station cropping. Journal of Applied Ecology 21, 1-10. Jacobson, P.M., Dixon, D.A., Leggett, W.C., Marcy, Jr., B.C., Massengill, R.R. (Eds.), 2004. The Connecticut River Ecological Study (1965-1973) Revisited: Ecology of the Lower Connecticut River 1973-2003. American Fisheries Society Monograph 9. Jensen, A.L., 1982. Impact of a once-through cooling system on the yellow perch stock in the western basin of Lake Erie. Ecological Modelling 15, 127-144. Jensen, A.L., Spigarelli, S.A., Thommes, M.M., 1982. Use of conventional fishery models to assess entrainment and impingement of three Lake Michigan fish species. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 111, 21-34. Lorda, E., Danila, D.L., Miller, J.D., 2000. Application of a population dynamics model to the probabilistic assessment of cooling water intake effects of Millstone Nuclear Power Station (Waterford CT) on a nearby winter flounder spawning stock. Environmental Science & Policy 3, S471-S482. Merriman, D., Thorpe, L.M. (eds,). 1976. The Connecticut River Ecological Study: impact of a nuclear power plant. American Fisheries Society Monograph 1. Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2011. 52nd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (52nd SAW): Assessment Report. US Department of Commerce, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 11-

17. 968 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications. (Last accessed 02.03.12).

Newbold, S.C., Iovanna, R., 2007. Ecological effects of density-independent mortality: application to cooling-water intake structures. Ecological Applications 17, 390-406. Nisbet, R.M., Murdoch, W.W., Stewart-Oaten, A., 1996. Consequences for adult fish stocks of human-induced mortality on immatures. In: Schmitt, R.J., Osenberg, C.W. (Eds.), Detecting Ecological Impacts: Concepts and Applications in Coastal Habitats. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 257-277. National Research Council (NRC) 1993. Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 496 p. NRC. 1995. Understanding Marine Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 128 p. NRC 1996. Stemming the Tide: Controlling Introductions of Non-indigenous Species in Ships' Ballast Water. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 160 p. NRC 1998. Review of Northeast Fishery Stock Assessments. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 136 p. NRC. 1999. Sustaining Marine Fisheries. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 167 p. NRC 2006. Dynamic Changes in Marine Ecosystems: Fishing Food Webs, and Future Options. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 154 p. NRC 2008. Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species: Special Report 291. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 148 p. NRC 2008. Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 218 p. NRC 2009. Nutrient Control Actions for Improving Water Quality in the Mississippi River Basin and Northern Gulf of Mexico. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 94 p. Perry, E., Seegert, G., Vondruska,]., Loehner, T., Lewis, R., 2003. Modeling possible cooling-water intake system impacts on Ohio River fish populations. In: Dixon, D.A., Veil, J.A., Wisniewski, J. (Eds.), Defining and Assessing Adverse Environmental Impact from Power Plant Impingement and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms. A.A. Balkema Publishers, Lisse, The Netherlands, pp. 56-78. Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America's living oceans: Charting a course for change. Washington DC. Richards, R.A., Rago, P.J., 1999. A case history of effective fishery management: Chesapeake Bay striped bass. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19, 356-375. Rose, K.A., Cowan Jr., J.H., Winemiller, K.O., Myers, R.A., Hilborn, R., 2001. Compensator density-dependence in fish populations: importance, controversy, understanding and prognosis. Fish and Fisheries 2, 293-327. Saila, S.B., Lorda, E., Miller, J.D., Sher, R.A., Howell, W.H., 1997. Equivalent adult estimates for losses of fish eggs, larvae, and juveniles at Seabrook Station with use of fuzzy logic to represent parametric uncertainty. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17, 811-825. Strayer, D.L., Hattala, K.A., Kahnle, A.W., 2004. Effects of an invasive bivalve (Dreissena po!ymorpha) on fish in the Hudson River estuary. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61, 924-941. Summers, J.K., 1989. Simulating the indirect effects of power plant entrainment losses on an estuarine ecosystem. Ecological Modelling 49, 31-47. Turnpenny, A.W.H., 1988. Fish impingement at estuarine power stations and its significance to commercial fishing. Journal of Fish Biology 33, 103-110 Supplement A. Turnpenny, A.W.H., Taylor, C.J.L., 2000. An assessment of the effect of the Sizewell power stations on fish populations. Hydroecologie Applique 12, 87-134. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An ocean blueprint for the 21st Century. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. Case study analysis for the proposed Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule. EPN821-R-02-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. USEPA 2004. Regional analysis document for the final Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule. EPN821-R-02-003. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. USEPA 2008. National Coastal Conditions Report III. EPN842-R-08-002. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. White, J.W., Nickols, K.J., Clarke, L., Largier, A.J., 2010. Larval entrainment in cooling water intakes: spatially explicit models reveal effects on benthic metapopulations and shortcomings of traditional assessments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67, 2014-2031. Lawrence W. Barnthouse is an aquatic ecologist with more than 35 years of experience in environmental research and ecological risk assessment. He spent 19 years as a research staff member and Group Leader at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, where he was involved in dozens of environmental research and assessment projects involving development of new methods for predicting and measuring environmental risks of energy technologies. His consulting activities include 316(b) demonstrations for nuclear and non-nuclear power plants, Superfund ecological risk assess-ments, Natural Resource Damage Assessments, environmental restoration planning, and other projects involving close interac-tions with regulatory and resource management agencies.

i I ~ American Fisheries Society Monograph 4:182-190, 1988 Analysis of Impingement Impacts on Hudson River Fish Populations LAWRENCE W. BARNTHOUSE AND WEBSTER VAN WINKLE Em,ironmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Post Office Box 2008, Oak Ridge. Tennessee 37831-6036, USA Abstract.-lmpacts of impingement, expressed as reductions in year-class abundance, were calculated for six Hudson River fish populations. Estimates were made for the 1974 and 1975 year classes of white perch, striped bass, Atlantic tomcod, and American shad, and the 1974 year classes of alewife and blueback hening. The maximum estimated reductions in year-class abundance were less tban 5% for all year classes except the 1974 and 1975 white perch year classes and the 1974 striped bass year class. Only for white perch were the estimates greater than 10% per year. For striped bass, the 146,000 fish from the 1974 year class that were killed by impingement could have produced 12,000-16,000 5-year-old fish or 270-300 10-year-olds. We also estimated the reductions in mortality that could have been achieved had closed-cycle cooling systems been installed at one or more of thn<e power plants (Bowline Point, Indian Point, and Roseton) and had the screen-wash systems at Bowline Point and Indian Point been modified to improve the survival of impinged fish. Closed-cycle cooling at all three plants would have reduced impingement impacts on white perch, striped bass, and Atlantic tomcod by 75% or more; installation of closed-cycle cooling at Indian Point alone would have reduced impingement impacts on white perch and Atlantic tomcod by 50o/o-80%. Modified traveling screens would have been less effective than closed-cycle cooling, but still would have reduced impingement impacts on white perch by roughly 20%. This paper presents quantitative estimates of the impacts of impingement at Hudson River power plants on populations of white perch, striped bass, Atlantic tomcod, American shad, alewife, and blueback herring. These analyses, performed for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), include estimation of the impacts actually imposed on the 1974 or 1975 year classes (or both) of each population, and calculation of the reductions in impact that could have been achieved had cooling towers or modified traveling screens been installed at one or more power plants. Our measure is the conditional impingement mortality rate (Vaughan 1988, this volume). This measure is equivalent to the fractional reduction in year-class abundance due to impingement, pro-vided that density-dependent mortality is low during the period in which impingement occurs. Conditional impingement mortality rates were cal-culated for the 1974 year classes of all six popu-lations and for the 1975 year classes of all except alewife and blueback herring. Similar analyses could not be performed' for the vulnerable and ecologically important bay anchovy because available data on the distribution, abundance, and mortality of this species were insufficient. The model used for these analyses and the derivation of constituent equations have been described in detail by Barnthouse et al. (1979) and by Barnthouse and Van Winkle (1981). Like the model used by Texas Instruments (TI) (Englert and Boreman 1988, this volume), it is derived from Ricker's type-II fishery model (Ricker 1975). The conditional impingement mortality rate, com* puted for an arbitrary time interval, is m = l - (1 - A)exp(u/A); (I) m conditional impingement mortality rate; u impingement exploitation rate; A fraction of the initial population dying from all causes during the time interval. In applying equation (1) to our impact assess-ment, we (a) decomposed A into components due to impingement mortality and natural mortality and (b) set the time interval for calcutation at I month rather than 1 year. Separatin.g natural mortality (n) from impingement mortality (m) in* volved substituting [l - (I - m)(l - n) = m + n rnn] for A in equation (1) and then solving the equation iteratively. This procedure enabled us to assess the potential effectiveness of mitigating measures that would reduce the numbers of fish impinged or increase the survival of impinged fish but would not affect natural mortality rates. The monthly time interval was employed to allow for seasonal variations in natural and impingement mortality. 182 ~---- J c p \\! 0 (I (I

a.

rr It SI A IS tir pi pr WI Ill; da ca Wj fo1 on

and the lert ved 75). )ffi* (I) ing ti.

s-ue ity I

-al n-n 1e to 1g

h

h IMPINGEMENT IMPACTS 183 Data Source and Uncertainties fmpingement The impingement estimates used in these analy-were obtained from sampling programs con-

~es ted at the Bowline Point, Lovett, Indian Point,

C,~eton, Danskammer, and. Al~any generating stations. During 1973-1977, 1mpmged fish were Uected and enumerated regularly at all six co

. p* all h power plants. At Indian mot, screen was es were monitored and attempts were made to col-lect, identify, and count all impinged.fish. At the other plants, screen washes were momtored for 24 h one or more days per week. At all plants, length-frequency data were obtained, making it possible to calculate approximate age distribu-tions of impinged fish. Barnthouse (1982) identified two important sources of bias that affect estimates of numbers of fish impinged and killed at power plants: low collection efficiency and high (at least for some species at some plants) survival of impinged fish. For reasons that are not completely understood, not all fish that are impinged and killed are col-lected and counted during screen-wash monitor-ing. Experiments with marked fish showed that collection efficiencies at the major plants range from Jess than 20% at Indian Point unit 2 to nearly 80% at Indian Point unit 3 and Bowline Point. For some species at some plants, the bias due to low collection efficiency appears to be partly or com-pletely offset by the survival of fish impinged, washed off the screens, and returned to the river on days when screen washes are. not monitored (Muessig et al. 1988, this volume). Barnthouse (1982) developed a table of adjustment factors to account for the likely biases in impingement esti-mates for each species at each plant. The impinge-ment estimates employed in the assessments pre-sented here were adjusted by these factors. Abundance and Mortality Estimates of the abundance of the 1974 and 1975 year classes of the species of interest, at the time they first became large enough to be im-pinged, were obtained from the TI field sampling programs (Young et al. 1988, this volume). For white perch, mark-recapture population esti-mates were available. For the other species, abun-dance estimates had to be extrapolated from catch-effort data. The uncertainties associated With all of these estimates were large. To account for these uncertainties, upper and lower bounds on the abundance of each year class were esti-mated. For white perch, these were taken to be the upper and lower 95% confidence limits around the mark-recapture population estimates. For the other species, bounds were calculated from max-imum and minimum estimates of sampling gear efficiency, assumed to be 100% (lower population bound) or 20% (upper bound). Estimates of the efficiency of Tl's 30-m beach seine (Tl 1978) and of other similar gear (Kjelson 1977) are substan-tially above 20%. Estimates of mortality rates for impingeable juvenile fish were calculated from Tl's weekly (longitudinal river survey) or biweekly (fall shoals survey) abundance estimates for the years 1974 and 1975. The time series for each year class was fitted, by least squares regression, to the equation (2) P, = population size on day t; P0 = population size on day 0 (the first day of the period of vulnerability to impinge-ment); D = daily instantaneous mortality rate. Gear selectivity and migration in and out of the study area bias estimates of D obtained from equation (2). Time-dependent increases in gear avoidance and emigration of fall juveniles would cause equation (2) to overestimate the true mor-tality rate. Therefore, the values obtained from the regressions were assumed to be upper limits on the rate of natural mortality. There was no straightforward way to calculate lower bounds on D. lt seemed reasonable, however, to assume that mortality among young-of-the-year fish of all spe-cies should be at least as high as the observed mortality of yearling and older white perch. Data presented by Wallace (1971) had indicated that mortality among yearling and older white perch is probably about 50% per year. Table 64 shows that the abundances of the populations examined varied over approximately a factor of 50, the Atlantic tomcod being by far the most abundant and the striped bass and alewife the least abundant. Table 64 also shows a rough correspondence between abundance and numbers impinged; however, both the 1974 and 1975 year classes of white perch were impinged in high numbers relative to their estimated abundance. Mortality rates for most of the species were similar, with the notable exception of Atlantic tomcod (Table 64). The very high natural mortal-ity rate estimated for this species is consistent with the observation that the Atlantic tomcod

...,..... :-,*~*"'"'.'.,...,_?~~:r-*_*....... '*"'.'::""~~, -~:.*~i~i~~$-4if~.::..*;*;;;,,;~*\\~~~li2~"--dii 184 BARNTHOUSE AND VAN WINKLE TABLE 64.-lmpingement, abundance, and natural mortality estimates used in impingement impact assessments (from Barnthouse and Van Winkle 1982). Total Initial Natural mortality rate Year impingement abundance Species class (106 fish)' oo* fish)* Age-0 fish 0 Age-I+ fish' White perch 1974 2.8-2.9 14-55 0.5-0.8 0.5 White perch 1975 2.4 24-63 0.5-0.8 0.5 Striped bass 1974 0.15 4-20 0.5-0.8 0.5 Striped bass 1975 0.08 5-28 0.5-0.8 0.5 Atlantic tomcod 1974 2.5 200-999 0.98 Atlantic tomcod 1975 0.5 87-434 0.98 American shad 1974 0.04 16-78 0.9 0.5 American shad 1975 0.06 16-80 0.9 0.5 Alewife 1974 0.16 4-20 0.5-0.9 0.5 Blueback herring 1975 0.46 29-145 0.5-0.9 0.5 'Total number of fish over all years during whidt members of that year class were impinged.

• Estimated abundance of year class at the beginning of its period of vulnerability to impingement.

'Expressed as annual mortality, except for Atlantic tomcod. For Atlantic tomcod, the estimate presented is for a 9-month pc* riod of vulnerability. 4EKpressed as annual mortality. population in the Hudson is composed almost exclusively of young of the year (McLaren et al. 1988, this volume). Estimates of Impingement Mortality Equation (I) calculates the magnitude of im-pingement mortality required to account for the observed number of impinged fish. given the number of fish initially available for impingement. the prevailing rate of natural mortality, and the age of the fish (in months) at the time they are impinged. Clearly, the impact of impinging a given number of fish is inversely related to the size of the year class from which they are removed. More counterintuitively, the impact of impinging a given number of fish of a given age is directly related to the prevailing rate of natural mortality. This is true because natural mortality and im-pingement "compete" for fish, in the sense that any particular fish can die only once and from only one cause. For any initial population size, a higher impingement mortality rate is required to account for the observed number of impinged fish if natural mortality is high than if it is low. For related reasons, the impact of impinging any par-ticular fish increases with its age because the year class from which it is removed is continuously decreasing in abundance. To set probable upper and lower bounds on the impact of impingement on the species of interest, we estimated ranges of conditional impingement mortality rates for each species from all possible combinations of initial abundance and natural mortality for the 1974 and 1975 year classes (Table 65). We also estimated conditional impingement mortality rates for white perch under alternative assumptions of 2-and 3-year vulnerability <Barnt-house and Van Winkle 1981). The two assump-tions about the age distribution of impinged white perch constitute a third source of uncertainty affecting impact estimates for this species. Con-sequently, Table 65 presents two ranges for white perch: a "maximum range" (the highest and low-est conditional impingement mortality rates com-puted from the eight possible combinations of assumptions) and a "probable range" obtained by excluding the highest and lowest values. Because more and better field data were available for white perch and striped bass than for the other species, impact estimates for these two are more certain than are those for the other four species consid* ered. The least adequate data, and consequently the least certain impact estimates, pertain to ale* wife and blueback herring. Conditional impingement mortality rates calcu* lated by McFadden and Lawler (1977) for the utility companies fell within our ranges for striped bass and Atlantic tomcod, but fell outside our ranges for American shad and white perch. Several unique aspects of the life history of white perch in the Hudson River are responsible for the comparatively high impact of impingement on this species. During the winter. a major frac* tion of the population resides in the lower and middle estuary, in the vicinity of the Bowline Point, Lovett, and Indian Point plants. Although substantial winter impingement of white perch occurs at all three plants, the numbers impinged at Indian Point exceed by far the combined totals for all other Hudson River power plants (BamtbOUSe and Van Winkle !981). This phenomenon appears to be related to the concentration of fish in deeP r I I I ~ '" I ~ ' \\,..

~

~;.

,};;!"* ~

>ments +fish* .5 .5 .5 .5 5 5 5 5 th pe. 1mt-1mp-1hite Linty

on-

"hite .ow-om-

of i by

.use hite

ies,

ain

id-1tly lle-

~U the

• ed

>Ur of >le

nt

.c-1d 1e

h

h il

>r

e

• s p

IMPINGEMENT IMPACTS 185 TABLE 65.-Ranges of estimates of conditional impingement mortality rates for six Hudson River fish species. Oak Ridge estimates Utilities' estimate (McFadden and Lawler 1977) Low Species (year class) estimate White perch (1974) Maximum range 0.095 Probable range 0.119 White perch (1975) Maximum range 0.077 Probable range 0.115 Striped bass (1974) 0.011 Striped bass (1975) 0.004 Alewife (1974) 0.014 Blueback herring (1974) 0.005 American shad (1974) 0.001 American shad (1975) 0.002 Atlantic tomcod (1974) 0.010 Atlantic tomcod (1975) 0.006 areas of the Hudson River channel near the Indian Point intakes, and in the vicinity of the salt front, which fluctuates above and below Indian Point during the winter (TI 1974, 1975). The mobility of these overwintering fish is greatly reduced by near-freezing water temperatures, increasing their vulnerability to impingement. The vulnerability of yearling and older white perch contributes significantly to the impact of impingement. Yearling and older fish account for roughly 10% of the number of white perch im-pinged. In computing conditional mortality rates, a yearling white perch is "worth" 2-5 young of the year (depending on the mortality rate assumed), and a 2-year-old white perch is worth 4-10 young of the year. A major reason for the discrepancy between our conditional mortality rates for the 1974 white perch year class and the corresponding rate (Table 65) calculated by McFadden and Lawler (1977) is that the latter quantified the impact on young of the year only. Although striped bass, like white perch, are most vulnerable to impingement during the win-ter, their distribution is centered well downriver from Indian Point (McFadden 1977). Conse-quently, the impacts of winter impingement on the 1974 and 1975 year classes of striped bass were much lower than the impacts on white perch. Bowline Point, rather than Indian Point, was the primary source of impact. High estimate O.S&8 0.446 0.113 0.245 0.245 0.092 0.042 0.035 0.023 0.043 0.025 0.005 0.012 0.011 0.049 0.015 0.030 The extremely low impingement impacts on alewife, blueback herring, and American shad are related to the brief period that these species are concentrated in the vicinity of major power plants during their emigration from the estuary in autumn. Evaluation of Mitigating Measures In addition to estimating the impacts actually imposed on the 1974 and 1975 year classes of Hudson River fish populations, we estimated the reductions in impact that could have occurred had mitigation been attempted. The purpose of these analyses was to provide guidance to the EPA as to the biological effectiveness of mitigating technol-ogies being proposed in the hearings and in the settlement negotiations. Two types of mitigation were investigated: installation of closed-cycle cooling systems (cooling towers) to reduce the numbers of fish impinged, and installation of modified traveling screens to increase the survival of impinged fish. Closed-Cycle Cooling We considered three closed-cycle cooling con-figurations: (!) cooling towers at the Roseton, Bowline Point, and Indian Point plants; (2) cool-ing towers at Bowline Point and Indian Point; and (3) cooling towers at Indian Point only. To calcu-late the numbers of white perch, striped bass, and

186 BARNTHOUSE. AND VAN WINKLE TABLE 66.-Estimates of conditional impingement mortality rates for the 1974 and 1975 Hudson River year classes of white perch, striped bass, and Atlantic torncod, for three alternative closed-cycle cooling configurations. Indian Point, Bowline Point, and Roseton Low High Species (year class) estimate estimate White perch (1974) Maximum range 0.027 0.150 Probable range 0.031 0.128 White perch (1975) Maximum range 0.013 0.042 Probable range 0.020 0.042 Striped bass (197 4) 0.003 0.023 Striped bass (1975) 0.001 0.013 Atlantic tomcod (1974) 0.004 0.018 Atlantic tomcod (1975) 0.001 0.003 "Once-through cooling assumed elsewhere. Atlantic tomcod that would have been impinged had closed-cycle cooling systems been in opera-tion during the years 1974-1977, we assumed that the number of fish impinged at a particular plant is directly proportional to the volume of water with-drawn by that plant. Thus, the reduction in im-pingement at each generating unit assumed to have a cooling tower was calculated from the estimated reduction in cooling water withdrawal for that unit (see Barnthouse and Yan Winkle 1982 for detailed methods). Under this assumption, the numbers offish impinged at the three plants would be reduced by 89% (Indian Point Unit 3, winter) to 98% (Bowline Point, all seasons). Impacts associated with this reduced impinge-ment (Table 66) are based on the same estimates of abundance and mortality used to generate the values in Table 65. Comparison of these two tables shows that the installation of closed-cycle cooling would have greatly reduced the impacts of impingement on all three species. If cooling tow-ers had been built at all three plants, the maximum conditional impingement mortality rates for white perch would have been reduced by about 75% for the 1974 year class and by about 80% for the 1975 year class. Similar reductions could have been achieved for striped bass and Atlantic tomcod. Nearly equal mitigation could have been achieved by closed-cycle cooling at Bowline Point and Indian Point only, the 1975 white perch year class being the only appreciable exception. Closed-cycie cooling at Indian Point units 2 and 3 alone would have reduced the impact of impingement Closed-eycle cooling assumed al Indian Point and Bowline Point* Indian Point only" Low High Low High estimate estimate estimate estimate 0.030 0.177 0.042 0.237 0.036 0.143 0.049 0.195 0.019 0.061 0.024 O.o78 0.029 0.061 0.036 O.o78 0.003 0.024 0.010 0.081 0.001 0.013 0.003 0.024 0.004 0.019 0.004 0.019 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.004 on white perch and Atlantic tomcod by 50o/o-80%. Modified Traveling Screen.s During the settlement negotiations, the utilities suggested that impingement impacts could be reduced by installing traveling screens equipped with fish buckets and special screen-wash systems (sometimes called "Ristroph" screens) at Bow-line Point and Indian Point. It was claimed that 60% survival of impinged white perch and striped bass could be obtained by use of these screens. We assisted EPA in evaluating this proposal by estimating the reduction in impact on the 1975 year class of white perch that would have oc-curred had these screens been in place during 1975-1977. Two cases were examined. In case l, it was assumed that 60% survival of white perch could be achieved at both Bowline Point and Indian Point. Evidence available at the time sug-gested that 60% survival was overly optimistic. Cannon et al. (1979) had found no evidence that fish-bucket-type traveling screens were more effective at reducing impingement mortality than were the continuously rotating conventional trav-eling screens already employed at Bowline Point and Roseton. Therefore, in case 2, it was assumed that impingement survival with the modified trav-eling screens would be equal to that observed for the existing screens at Bowline Point and Rose-ton. We had previously estimated (Barnthouse 1982) impingement survival at these two plants to be about 40% for white perch for the screen-wash

year .ions. ligh

• mate

.237 195 078 078 081 024 019 004 [)%. ties be ped ~ms )W-hat >ed

s.

by n5 ac-ing ' 1,

• ch

.nd 1g-IC. 1at ire an <V-Iit ed \\/- or e-se to

h IMPINGEMENT IMPACTS 187 BASELINE IMPACT MOOlflEO TRAVEllNG SCREENS. CASE 2 MOOlFIEO TRAVELING SCREENS, CASE 1 CLOSEO-CVCLE COOLlNG AT INOIAN POINT 0

5 10 15 20 RANGE Of ESTIMATED REDUCTION IN YEAR-CLASS ABUNDANCE (%) 25 FIGURE 68.-Evaluation of modified traveling screens as a means of reducing the impact of impingement on the Hudson River white perch population, with the 1975 year class as a reference. It is assumed that that contin-uously rotating traveling screens with fish buckets are installed at all generating units at Bowline Point, Indian Point, and Roseton. In case I, 60% of the white perch impinged on these screens are assumed to return to the river alive. In case 2, only 40% survive. The top bar shows the range of baseline impact estimates for the 1975 year class (from Table 65). The other bars show corresponding ranges for modified traveling screens (cases I and 2) and for closed-cycle cooling at Indian Point units I and 2 (from Table 66). systems and operating modes employed during 1974-1979. Our results suggested that modified traveling screens would be much less effective than closed-cycle cooling (Figure 68). However. a moderate degree of mitigation could be achieved. Regula-tions then in force required that all fish impinged at Indian Point be collected and counted (Mattson et al. 1988, this volume). If these regulations were relaxed then, even if the modified screens were no more effective than continuously rotating conven-tional screens, a: 20% reduction in impact could be achieved by increasing survival at Indian Point from 0% to 40%. Discussion The maximum reductions in year-class abun-dance due to impingement at Hudson River power plants were estimated to be less than 5% for all year classes except the 1974 and 1975 white perch year classes and the 1974 striped bass year class. Thus, our results suggest that, for most of the species examined, impingement is probably not a biologically important source of mortality except, perhaps, when added to other, more serious stresses. Only for white perch are impingement losses high enough to be a major source of mortality. Our conditional impingement mortality rates are equivalent to reductions in year-class abundance on the order of 10-60%. When combined with entrainment losses, estimated at roughly 10% per year (Boreman and Goodyear 1988, this volume), the total impact of once-through cooling water withdrawal on this population appeared to be in excess of 20% per year class for the years exam-ined. Our understanding of the white perch pop-ulation and its interactions with other components of the Hudson River ecosystem is insufficient for predicting the long-term effects of these losses. The estimated reductions in striped bass year-class abundance (up to 10% per year) probably do not, by themselves, constitute a. threat to the population as a whole. However, the Joss of these fish may have socioeconomic importance. About 146,000 striped bass of the 1974 year class and 80,000 of the 1975 year class were killed by impingement at Hudson River power plants (Table 64). We used the theory of conditional mortality rates to estimate the number of these fish that could have survived to enter the sport or commercial fisheries. Barnthouse and Van Winkle (1982) presented initial population sizes, popula-tion sizes at age 2, and conditional impingement mortality rates for the 1974 and 1975 striped bass year classes. These values were used to calculate the numb.er of "equivalent 2-year-olds" impinged from each year class: 42,000--57,000 for the 1974 year class and 23,000-30,000 for the 1975 year class (Appendix). We used the life table for striped bass devel-oped by Dew (1981) to extrapolate these estimates to numbers of 5-and 10-year-old~. The results of this exercise indicate that the impinged members of the 1974 year class could have produced 12,000-16,000 5-year-old striped bass (the median age for commercially caught striped bass in the Hudson) or 270-370 10-year-old sport fish. Im-pingement losses from the 1975 year class were equivalent to 6,400-8,400 5-year-olds or 150-190 10-year-olds. Hoff et al. (1988, this volume) de-veloped estimates of annual survival of 5-to 10-year-old striped bass (0.45 for males and 0.60 for females) that are somewhat higher than Dew's estimate (0.47 for both sexes). Using tbe values from Hoff et al. roughly doubles our estimates of ~f~"'~"., r-.... t. \\! ~ r r'-

!88 BARNTHOUSE AND VAN WINKLE the numbers of equivalent 10-year-olds impinged. Whether or not the biological impact of white perch impingement or the socioeconomic impact of striped bass impingement is important enough to warrant mitigation is, in our opinion, a socio-political question rather than a scientific one. The parties to the settlement negotiations did consider impingement of these species to be important. Mitigation of impingement at Indian Point was explicitly included in all of the settlement propos-als considered. Although our analysis (Table 66) showed the potential effectiveness of closed-cycle cooling at Indian Point, this solution was considered too costly by the utilities. Due to lack of applicable data, we could not evaluate the potential effec-tiveness of the angled intake screens that were ultimately agreed on as a mitigating measure. However, our evaluation of the fish-bucket-type traveling screens may have been a factor in the subsequent abandonment of these devices by the negotiators. There is still considerable doubt as to the fea-sibility of angled screens as a mitigating measure for large power plants such as Indian Point. However, other means of reducing impingement mortality have been developed and implemented at Hudson River power plants since the period covered in this paper. Impingement of all species at Bowline Point has been substantially reduced following the installation of a barrier net (Hutch-ison and Matousek 1988, this volume). Experi-ments at B.owline Point and Danskammer, com-pleted subsequent to our analyses, have shown that the survival of impinged white perch can exceed 60% when traveling screens are operated in the continuous mode (Muessig et al. 1988). Although routine operation in continuous mode is not feasible for existing traveling screen designs, continuous rotation is possible for short periods when impingement is high. The intake structure at Bowline Point was rebuilt in 1979-1980, in part to permit extended operation of the traveling screens in continuous mode. Thus, it appears that rela-tively simple devices and operational changes may have succeeded where expensive technolo-gies proved impractical. In conclusion, we note that, given the expense of collecting the data necessary for performing assessments of the kind described here, it is desirable to identify in advance the circumstances that may lead to large (10% or greater) reductions in year-class abundance. Two such circumstances can be identified from the Hudson River studies: (1) the presence of a major fraction of the popu-lation in close proximity to power plants at a time when the fish are stressed and susceptible to being impinged, and (2) the vulnerability of fish through a major por-tion of their life-cycle. When population-level assessment is neces-sary, information concerning the abundance and life history of the species involved is essential if biological or socioeconomic importance is to be inferred. It is not currently possible to estimate a level of impingement mortality above which pop-ulation collapse or other clearly adverse long-term impacts may occur. It is possible, however, to use the measure of impact employed in this paper (i.e., the conditional impingement mortality rate) to distinguish between losses that may be impor-tant and losses that are clearly trivial. Jt is also possible to estimate the socioeconomic impor-tance of impinging a given number of fish and to evaluate the reduction in impact that might result from implementing mitigating measures designed to reduce impingement or to increase the survival of impinged fish. We believe it is more fruitful to focus assessment studies on these achievable ob-jectives than on the appealing, but unattainable, objective of long-term impact assessment. Acknowledgments We thank J.E. Breck, G. F. Cada, W. P. Dey, R. J. Klauda, D. B. Odenweller, P. Rago, and D. S. Vaughan for their thorough reviews of this manuscript. Research was supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under inter-agency agreement (IAG) DOE 40-740-78 (EPA 79-D-X0533) with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion under IAG DOE 40-550-75 with DOE, and by the Office of Health and Environmental Research, DOE, under contract DE-AC05-840R21400 with the Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Incorpo-rated. Although the research described in this article has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, it has not been subjected to EPA peer review and, there-fore, does not necessarily reflect the views of EPA and no official endorsement should be in-ferred. This is publication 2760 of the Environ* mental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

IMPINGEMENT IMPACTS 189 pu- ,t a ble or- ~s-nd if be

a p-m er e) r-o r-0 It d

ti ) References 1 Barnthouse, L. W. 1982. An analysis of factors that influence impingement estimates at Hudson River power plants. Pages I-l-I-49 in L. W. Barnthouse and seven coauthors. The impact of entrainment and impingement on fish populations in the Hudson River estuary, volume 2. Oak Ridge National Lab-oratory, ORNUNUREG!fM-385/V2, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Barnthouse. L. W., D. L. DeAngelis, and S. W. Christ-ensen. 1979. An empirical model of impingement impact. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNU NUREGrrM-290, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Barnthouse, L. W., and W. Van Winkle. 1981. The impact of impingement on the Hudson River white perch population. Pages 199-205 in L. D. Jensen, editor. Issues associated with impact assessment: proceedings of the fifth national workshop on en-trainment and impingement. EA Publications, Sparks, Maryland. Barnthouse, L. W., and W. Van Winkle. 1982. Impinge-ment impact estimates for seven Hudson River fish species. Pages lll-l-IU-91 in L. W. Barnthouse and seven coauthors. The impact of entrainment and impingement on fish i>opulations in the Hudson River estuary, volume 2. Oak Ridge National Lab-oratory, ORNL/NUREG/TM-385/V2, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Boreman, J., and C. P. Goodyear. 1988. Estimates of entrainment mortality for striped bass and other fish species inhabiting the Hudson River estuary. Amer-ican Fisheries Society Monograph 4: 152-160. Cannon, J. B., G. F. Cada, K. K. Campbell, D. W. Lee, and A. T. Szluha. 1979. Fish protection at steam-electric power plants: alternative screening devices. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNU TM-6472, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Dew, D. B. 1981. Impact perspective based on repro-ductive value. Pages 251-256 in L. D. Jensen, edi-tor. Issues associated with impact assessment: pro-ceedings of the fifth national workshop on entrain-ment and impingement. EA Publications, Sparks, Maryland. Englert, T. L.. and J. G. Boreman. 1988. Historical review of entrainment impact estimates and the factors influencing them. American Fisheries Soci-ety Monograph 4: 143-151. Hoff, T. B., J. B. McLaren, and J.C. Cooper. 1988. Stock characteristics of Hudson River striped bass. American Fisheries Society Monograph 4:59-68. Hutchison, J. B., and J. A. Matousek. 1988. Evalua-tion of a barrier net used to mitigate fish impinge-ment at a Hudson River power plant intake. Amer-ican Fisheries Society Monograph 4:280-285. 1 See Table I for sources of legal documents and unpublished reports pertaining to the Hudson River. Kjelson, M. A. 1977. Estimating the size of juvenile fish populations in southeastern coastal-plain es-tuaries. Pages 71-90 in W. Van Winkle, editor. Proceedings of the conference on assessing pow-er-plant-induced mortality of fish populations. Per-gamon, New York. Mattson, M. T., J. B. Waxman, and D. A. Watson. 1988. Reliability of impingement sampling designs: an example from the Indian Point station. American Fisheries Society Monograph 4:161-169. McFadden, J. T., editor. 1977. Influence oflndian Point unit 2 and other steam-electric generating plants on the Hudson River estuary, with emphasis on striped bass and other fish populations. Report to Consol-idated Edison Company of New York. McFadden, J. T.. andJ. P. Lawler, editors. 1977. lnflu-ence of Indian Point unit 2 and other steam-electric generating plants on the Hudson River estuary. with emphasis on striped bass and other fish popu-lations, supplement I. Report to Consolidated Edi-son Company. McLaren, J. B., J. R. Young, T. B. Hoff, I. R. Savidge, and W. L. Kirk. 1988. Feasibility of supplementary stocking of age-0 striped bass in the Hudson River. American Fisheries Society Monograph 4:286-292. Muessig, P. H., J.B. Hutchison, Jr., L. R. King, R. B. Ligotino, and M. Daley. 1988. Survival of fishes after impingement on traveling screens at Hudson River power plants. American Fisheries Society Monograph 4: 170-181. Ricker, W. E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin 191. Tl (Texas Instruments). 1974. Hudson River ecological survey in the area of Indian Point. Annual Report (1973) to Consolidated Edison Company of New York. TI (fexas Instruments). 1975. *Indian Point impingement study report for the period I January 1974 through 31 December 1974. Report to Consolidated Edison Company of New York. Tl (fexas Instruments). 1978. Catch efficiency of 100-ft (30-m) beach seines for estimating density of young-of-the-year striped bass and white perch in the shore zone of the Hudson River estuary. Report to Consolidated Edison Company of New York. Vaughan, D. S. 1988. Introduction [to entrainment and impingement impacts). American Fisheries Society Monograph 4:121-124. Wallace, D. C. 1971. Age, growth, year class strength, and survival rates of the white perch, Marone americana (Gmelin), in the Delaware River in the vicinity of Artificial Island. Chesapeake Science 12: 205-218. Young. J. R., R. J. Klauda, and W. P. Dey. 1988. Population estimates of juvenile striped bass and white perch in the Hudson River estuary. American Fisheries Society Monograph 4:89-101.

190 BARNTHOUSE AND VAN WINKLE Appendix If impingement mortality and natural mortality are independent, the number of striped bass sur-viving to age 2 can be estimated from N2 = Nt;,52(1 - m); (A I) N2 number of surviving 2-year-olds; N0 number of young of the year (age 0); S2 natural survival rate from age 0 to age 2; m conditional impingement mortality rate. If there had been no impingement, the number of surviving 2-year-olds would have been N~ = NoS2 = Nzl(I - m). (AZ) The number of age-0 fish that would have sur-vived to age 2 had they not been impinged (i.e., the number of "equivalent 2-year-olds" killed by impingement) is NE2 =Ni - N 2 = mN;. (A3) Combination of equations (AZ) and (A3) gives N g 2 = mN2/(1 - m). (A4) The ranges of equivalent 2-year-olds presented in the Discussion were obtained by applying equation (A4) to the values of N2 and m pre-sented in Table 16 of Barnthouse and Van Win-kle (1982). These values were then extrapolated to equivalent 5-and 10-year-olds by means of the age-specific survival rates in Table l of Dew (1981). s

Mr. Brian E. Holian, Director Division of License Renewal

• Office of Nuclear Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Mr. David J. Wrona, Chief Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Natlonal Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE NORTHEAST REGION 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930-2276 OCT 12 2010 Re:

Indian Point Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3 License Renewal; Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-268; Essential Fish Habitat Consultation

Dear Messrs. Holian and Wrona:

The National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] has reviewed the essential fish habitat [EFH] assessment . and supplemental information provided within the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's [NRC] 'Generic Environmental Impacts Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 38, Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3' [dGEIS], and its attendant appendices. These documents evaluate the proposed renewal of the operating licenses for Indian Point Energy Center's Units 2 [IP2] and 3 [IP3] for a period of twenty years. The documents in~lude a brief description and analysis of adverse effects to a variety of diadromous and estuary-dependent fishes, crustaceans and other invertebrates, as well as EFH that is designated in the immediate project vicinity. We will elaborate on the affected resources and our concerns regarding continued operations at IP2 and IP3 under present conditions in subsequent sections of this letter. However, upon our review of the available information, NMFS does not reach all of the same conclusions as the NRC with respect to adverse effects that relicensing IP2 and IP3 would have on fishery resources and their habitats. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments at this time in accordance with Mr. Wrona's letter of 21 September 2010. The current licenses for the two Indian Point nuclear generation facilities are-due to expire in 2013 and 2015, respectively. Because IP2 and IP3 withdraw and discharge water into the Hudson River, a navigable surface water body, their operations are subject to Clean Water Act oversight. In New York, this oversight is administered by the New York State Department of Envjronmental Conservation, which issues Clean Water Act §401 Water Quality Certificate [WQC] decisions under its State Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System [SPDES] program. The New York State Department of State also has a bearing on these proceedings in that it is responsible for any decisions relating to the consistency of the proposed action with the state's Coastal Management Program. Entergy Corporation [Entergy), the current owner-operator of the Indian Point Energy Center [Indian Point] generating units, has made application for the necessary state and federal authorizations and has requested that they ar:e issued to run concurrently. Since these state actions may effect EFH, the NMFS is invoking its option to share our comments and recommendations to the involved state agencies on their activities as provided by the EFH implementing regulations. We do so here by including them in the service list for this correspondence. The dGEIS and EFH assessment prepared by the NRG evaluate the proposed action of the license renewal for IP2 and IP3 and form the base documentation for consultation between NRC and the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]. The authorities under which we engage in consultation include the ""'"~ ,i"! ..-:O'V~ ~ l~~ ~ § i:."'q,: ~'f' "*r4ffNTOf~

NRC's environmental protection regulations in Title 10, Part 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions", of the Code of Federal Regulations ( 1 O CFR Part 51), which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA); the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), the Endangered Species Act (E_SA), and the requirements of our EFH regulation at 50 CFR 600.905 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA), which mandates the preparation of EFH assessments and generally outlines each agency's obligations in this consultation procedure. The comments provided in this letter pertain to the FWCA and MSFCMA coordination issues that are part of your NEPA and relicensing processes. 1 To summarize briefly, these documents acknowledge that operating once-through cooling systems at Indian Point has resulted in adverse environmental impacts, yet both documents nonetheless conclude with NRC's preliminary determination that the adverse effects associated with license renewal would have only minimal impacts on both living aquatic resources themselves and on EFH designated for federally managed species in the immediate Indian Point area. NRC's analysis of impacts relies upon comparing near field impacts that would occur in the immediate project vicinity versus all EFH designated for a particular species. We frame the issue differently, and instead consider both the aqverse effects to the local fishery stocks emanating from the Hudson and the unusually high potential capacity of the mid-Hudson for recruitment of estuary-dependent fishes and production of forage species as important defining issues that lead us to a different conclusion. Project

Background:

The Indian Point Energy Center [Indian Point] is a three-unit power station located on the east shore of the Hudson River in the Village of Buchannan, Town of Cortiandt, Westchester County, New York. Only two of the generating units are operating. lndianPoint Unit 1 was 'permanently shut down in 1974 because the emergency core cooling system did not meet regulatory requirements and therefore posed an unacceptable public risk; IP2 and IP3 continue to operate and are the subjects of upcoming license renewals requested by Entergy. Indian Point has a long presence in the Hudson and is one of the facilities included in the 'Hudson River Settlement Agreement' [HRSA] agreed among the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and five New York electric utility companies in a controversy regarding coastal habitat and water uses, fish kills and ecological damage in the Mid-Hudson region. Under the HRSA, the power plant owners and operators made several concessions to stakeholders representing various environmental interests in exchange for them agreeing to withhold imminent pursuit of forced installation of closed-cycle cooling at Indian Point and several other once-through cooled power plants in the mid-Hudson region. In particular, Consolidated Edison abandoned its plans for developing a major pumped storage [hydroelectric] facility at Storm King Mountain, and the various plant operators agreed to collect data and analyze impacts their facilities were having on living aquatic resources for a period of ten years. Subsequent modifications to the HRSA extended the study period by another decade and have allowed these plants to continue withdrawing about a trillion gallons of river water or more per year. Total river water consumption is dependent upon how many days each plant is operating annually and at what output level. Scheduled outages at Indian Point and ll'.IOre sporadic operation of the fossil fueled plants are all determining factors in terms of the actual water consumption levels at any given time. The biological and ecological effects of these withdrawals are somewhat seasonal in that they reflect the biomass and species assemblage present at the time that the water withdrawals are taking place. The extended study period included implementing a variety of measures that partially mitigated for impingement and entrainment impacts, but these individually and cumulatively did not achieve the level of impact reduction that would result from installing closed cycle cooling at Indian Point. The Indian Point generating units alone consume about 2.5 billion gallons of water per day for their pressurized-water reactors. To meet this need, Indian Point relies upon the Hudson River as a cooling water source and heat sink. Water is withdrawn directly from the*river through batteries of seven intake 1 ESA issues have been coordinated in consultation with our counterparts in the Northeast Regional Office's Protected Resources Division and we do not address them here. 2

'~ 'I . i.r I bays into each generating unit and distributed to once-through condensers and auxiliary cooling systems. Cooling water is drawn into the plants by variable-or dual-speed pumps. As it first enters, the withdrawn water is skimmed of floating debris and subsequently passed over modified, vertical Ristroph traveling screens designed to protect aquatic life by retaining water and minimizing vortex stress. These modified screens attempt to reduce, but do not eliminate, impingement mortality. A high pressure spray-wash system removes debris from the front of the traveling screen mechanism and a low pressure spray-wash system flushes impinged fishes off the screen and into a sluice system that returns them to. the Hudson River. Under the HRSA, the former owners of Indian Point conducted impingement monitoring between 1975 and 1990 using a variety of techniques; however, neither the previous nor the current owner-operators have performed validation studies to evaluate the actual performance of the modified traveling screens. The EFH assessment Table 6 contains impingement data for IP2 and IP3 collected between 1981 and 1990. Revised data populating this table were provided to the NRC in December, 2009. Upon NMFS' request, these data were provided for our use on October 01, 2010 and were used in our review. Entrained organisms are not removed from the cooling water stream and instead are carried into and through the plants' cooling systems, as they are first collected by the circulating pumps, and subsequently passed through the plant intakes into the condenser tubes used to cool the turbine exhaust steam. Within the condensers, the organisms are subjected to mechanical damage and shear stress, ther.mal shock, and exposure to chlorine, industrial chemicals and biocide residues. Both the entrained organisms and heated effluent streams then exit the generating plant and are returned to the Hudson River through a shared discharge channel. According to the dGEIS, the prior Indian Point owner-operators periodically conducted entrainment loss studies for IP2 and IP3 since the early 1970s. The most recent data of this nature reported in the dGEIS are from 1990. Environmental Setting: The Hudson River Estuary supports an unusually large and diverse assemblage of fish and shellfish, and has long been recognized as a valuable national and regional resource. That is in part because the Hudson makes large contributions not only to local aquatic resource communities, but also to coastal and offshore fisheries that are supported by prey and other nutrients emanating from the estuary. Some of these fishery resources are managed by on an inter-state basis by the Atlantic.States Marine Fisheries Commission [ASMFC] and others are managed federally pursuant to the Magnuson*Stevens Fishery. Conservation and Management Act [MSFCMA] or the Endangered Species Act [ESA]. All of these aquatic organisms as well as non-managed species such as forage species and other lower trophic level organisms receive consideration under the federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [FWCA] as NOAA trust resourpes. More than 200 fish species have been recorded from within the entire Hudson watershed, and approximately two thirds of these occur in the estuary itself for all or part of their life cycles. More specifically, the Buchanan reacti of the Hudson River is a tidally-dominated habitat that serves as a migratory corridor, spawning habitat, and nursery area for an unusually diverse species assemblage of resident or diadromous fishes, crustaceans, shellfish, and many lower trophic level prey items (Smith and Lake 1990); Ambient salinity conditions vary seasonally, and generally tend to lie in the mesohaline or oligohaline ranges. T.he immediate project reach is within the EFH designations for the Hudson-Raritan estuary and. is significant with respect to the resources under the stewardship of the agencies mentioned / above. As is true of other estuarine habitats, local temperature and salinity regimes, water depth, bottom type, sediment load and current velocities all influence the distribution and function of aquatic communities. Evidence suggests that northeast coast estuaries have lost much of their rich former fishery productivity because of habitat degradation or loss, but lack of absolute species abundance data for early historical periods prior to'significant human disturbances makes this conclusion. somewhat inferential. Yet the linkage is supported by strong evidence, particularly that stock sizes for most estuarine dependent fishery resources under the jurisdiction of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, New England or Mid-3

Atlantic Management Councils, or the states of New York and New Jersey fishery management agencies, are not currently over fished, but fall below historic levels (NEFMC 1998; ASMFC 2005). This observation suggests that the Hudson River's ability to support and produce living aquatic organisms has been compromised over the years by lost habitat quality and quantity as humans have dredged, filled, and withdrawn river water for a myriad of uses, resulting in conflids of use with fishery resources. 2 As described above in the Project Background section of this letter, water withdrawals for once-through cooling systems that serve the mid-Hudson power plants has been a major conflict of use that has gone unresolved for decades. A total of five units remain in operation in the mid-Hudson: IP2, IP3, Bowline Point, Danskammer, and Roseton Generating Stations. All of these plants use one-through cooling

• systems. In the interim since the most recent relicensing was completed for the Indian Point plants, most fish species have experienced declines, and essential fish habitat [EFH] has been designated in order to better manage adverse anthropogenic effects on fisheries. For the immediate Indian Point area, designated EFH includes acreage that produces organisms that are under direct federal stewardship as well as prey items for species further downriver and offshore. The Hudson River is an important regional source for both harvested stocks and prey, so reductions in its productivity are of great significance to fishery ecology and fishery management.

Given the immense natural productive potential of the Hudson River Estuary, and taking into consideration the staggering numbers of organisms that are lost directly, indirectly and cumulatively through continued operation of electric generating stations that continue to use once-through cooling technology in the Mid-Hudson reach, 3 the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] suggests that the current Indian Point relicensing process is an appropriate and opportune time to apply the Clean Water Act§ 316(a) and 316 (b) provisions regarding large power generation facilities. We note that the Indian Point generating units comfortably fit under the criteria for being required to ensure that the location, design, construction, and capacity for cooling water intake* structures reflect the best technology available [BAT] to protect aquatic.organisms from being killed or injured by impingement er entrainment. We provide further rationale for this conclusion in the following sections of this !etter. General Comments on NRCs Exposition of Environmental Impacts of Operation in the dGEIS:

• Nuclear power plant system operation may create a number of habitat disturbances that range from minor to major risk to aquatic resources. The evaluation of these impacts would have been enhanced by a more expanded discussion rather than being distilled to a series of summaries oh pp. 4-3 to 4-6. These bullets address topics related to a variety of predominantly physical impacts that the NRC dismisses based upon prior experience at other nuclear plants or on the basis of information presented elsewhere in the EIS. We suggest that the NRC reconsider their evaluation before the GEIS and supplement is finalized. Several of these bullets mention subjects which have a potential bearing on EFH and other aquatic resources of concern, and some modifications would demonstrate adequate support for its conclusions. For instance, on page 4-3, the NRC considers altered currents at intake and discharge structures and finds:

"Altered current patterns have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term". 2 We note that the U.S. EPA generally tias determined that operation of industrial scale cooling water intakes results in a wide spectrum of.undesirable and unacceptable adverse effects on aquatic resources* including entrainment and impingement; disrupting the food chain; and losses to aquatic populations that may result in reductions in biological diversity or other undesirable effects on ecosystem structure or function. See 66 Federal Register 65,256, 65,292 (December 18, 2001 ), 69 Federal Register 41,576, 41,586 (July 9, 2004). In addition, 3 Described in NYSDEC's April 2, 2010 denial of Entergy's water quality certificate and also in the NRC's Supplement 38 to the generic Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed re-licenseing of IP2 and IP3 4

Given the large volumes of water consumed at Indian Point each day and the relatively narrow configuration of the Hudson River at the project reach, it seems plausible that under full operation, the plant could induce noticeable changes in the current regime or perhaps induce changes in the local erosion and accretion rates that have unintended adverse effects such as losses of submerged aquatic vegetation, chronic disturbances that discourage settlement of tiny prey items, and similar effects. Although NRC regulations do not compel the project proponents to provide plume modeling or field studies, our EFH regulations compel us to assume the worst case scenario that the effluent is creating a barrier to migrating fishes and other unacceptable environmentalconditions that would adversely affect the amount and quality of available EFH. We understand that the plant operators have been using various measures to partially mitigate for these effects, but the lack of a detailed study that 1) evaluates the impacts of once-through cooling at Indian Point 'and the three other generating units and 2) clearly demonstrates that the measures they have been implementing are functionally equivalent to the installation of closed-cycle cooling leaves their position on the Clean Water Act§ 316(a) and 316 (b) provisions as unsupported assertions. After several extensions of the HRSA, the situation remains fundamentally unchanged with regard to fish stocks anq the plants are potential triggers for lost EFH in the form of direct habitat loss compounded by lost productivity in designated EFH. There is similar concern in the statements for many of the other bullets in this section of the dGEIS, notably as regards the potential release of chemical or thermal pollution [and attendant adverse impacts to fishery resource movements, etc.]; entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton; induction of low dissolved oxygen; and other line items that would reduce the quality and quantity of designated EFH as described in the implementing regulations for the MSFCMA. As such; it is difficult for us to dismiss these topics so easily as problems that,could be thoroughly assessed in our overall FWCA and EFH coordination. Along these same lines, existing entrainment study results from IP2 and IP3 collected from 1981-1987 do not seem to include hard data or discussion of the entrainment implications for fish eggs and larvae, copepods and other invertebrate prey items that are described clearly as prey in the EFH vignettes included for red hake, winter flounder, windowpane, bluefish and Atlantic butterfish. While Section H.1.2 of the dGEIS and Its corresponding subsections do provide a.short discussion of entrainment, and even casually observe that a wide variety of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and early life stages of fish and shellfish are vulnerable to becoming drawn into the generating plants via the cooling .. water stream, the review documents do not provide a thorough analysis of impacts to EFH with respect to <:r. their operations. Losses of this nature would have at least indirect and cumulative adverse effects on EFH -~, not just in the mid-Hudson region, but extending into the marine portions of the coastai zone. Coincidentally, the discussion noted in the foregoing paragraph touches upon the controversial nature of how different stakeholders view entrainment survival, which has a bearing on how a disagreement like the Hudson River power plant example can take deep root, intensify and perpetuate. For entrainment, the NRC documents note a, wide range of perceptions on how different stakeholders view the potential for entrainment survival. As these documents suggest, the most conservative estimates consider entrainment 100% fatal, while some of the power companies suggest that some species or life stages could fare considerably better based upon 96-hour survival studies. The NRC correctly acknowledges in the dGEIS that the latter studies do not take into account indirect losses that arise to organisms becoming injured, disoriented or less able to forage in the event that they are fortunate enough to survive entrainment initially, and conclude for the purposes of their assessment that such losses are unknown. Consequently, NMFS does not see justification in the gDEIS to support a conclusion that impingement effects are not significant, or that any mitigation attempted to date has been as effective as the BAT for industrial scale operations, namely, closed-cycle cooling. This calls into question any progress claimed to have been made in implementing the HRSA in part because it gives the appearance that the various indian Point operators did not follow through completely on their commitments under the HRSA. Moreover, it appears the operators are content to continue under the status quo without demonstrating that their mitigation to date has been functionally equivalent to bestavailable*technology as required under CWA §316(b). 5

t,*' *,.-*. NRCs Evaluation of Impacts on Aquatic Resources from Operation of the Cooling Water Intake: The intake impacts for once-through cooling systems largely surround physical habitat loss associated with construction of the intakes themselves as well as the inability of aquatic species from being successfully able to use habitat within the volumes of water withdrawn from the source supply. These impacts may include changing particular ecological features such as local hydrological patterns as suggested in the foregoing section, but the preponderance of the impacts usually are associated with organism impingement and entrainment. Impingement impacts tend to accrue to larger species and life stages that cannot pass through the impingement screens nor avoid the intake current, but become trapped on cooling water screens and sometimes cannot escape before suffering exhaustion, injury or even mortality. For the subject re-licensing proposal, we note that the most recent study results reported in the dGEIS and EFH

• assessment are decades old, with the most recent information collected in 1990. This fact concerns us on two counts: 1} the data may not accurately depict contemporary habitat usage of the mid-Hudson region by fishes, invertebrates, and other aquatic life, and 2} the project proponents have not evaluated the effectiveness of adaptive measures that have been implemented since the original HRSA was put into place. For instance; installation of the modified Ristroph traveling screens as a means of addressing some of the impacts associated with impingement injury and mortality was predicated on assumptions made in a limited pilot study. The review materials suggest that the actual performance of this gear has not been demonstrated in situ. This is an important consideration because gear does not always perform the same in the field as it does in a laboratory setting and its effectiveness can vary based upon the living aquatic resource assemblages it encounters in different geographic settings. Thus, we are left without empirical data to estimate the effectiveness of installing the modified screens and other mitigation measures against closed-cycle cooling. While the new gear may or may not have improved a less than ideal situation, neither NRC nor Entergy can definitively state how effectively the new screen designs are performing as a means of justifying an additional license renewal that permits continued use of once-through cooling in a potential license renewal.

Unlike impingement impacts, which tend to exhibit some selective characteristics in that they largely

• . accrue to larger taxa or more mature life stages, entrainment of organisms into the cooling water source stream are relative!y indiscriminate and may adversely affect any organism that fits through the screens

..,

• and cannot counter the suction force of the intake. While the review material indicate that the IP2 anci IP3 cooling systems have been retrofitted with dual-speed and variable~flow pumps in order that intake flows can be regulated to some degree to provide some level of mitigation or protection, we note that the dGEIS also indicates that using planned seasonal outages or maximum pump speeds does not eliminate the losses of fishes and other organisms to entrainment.

Regarding these collective intake impact matters, NMFS disagrees with the NRCs approach to presenting and analyzing the impingement and entrainment data. We particularly dispute the NRCs decision to attempt correlating overall population level trends with operation of the Indian Point nuclear generating facilities. First of all, analyzing the data over the entire range of a species instead of a more meaningful population segment does not follow the spirit of the National Environmental Policy Act nor the implementing regulations for EFH in the MSA because it ignores real and obvious impacts that could adversely affect a local stock. It is rare for the preponderance of a particular species be extirpated unless it already is endangered or threatened, but it certainly is quite plausible that a more local segment of an otherwise healthy population could be effectively decimated in an acute event or after years of suffering chronic or cumulative impacts. Thus, when considering the impacts of cooling water withdrawal on more local stock contributions emanating from the Hudson River and potentially recruiting to a greatly dispersed coastal fishery, the effects of cooling withdrawal even from a limited portion of the total available habitat' (as it is construed ir1 the dGEIS} could be quite profound. Finally, we are critical of this type of data transformation because it also has great potential for.creating undesirable artifacts because it assumes all fishery habitats, regardless of their geographic location, size, and ecological condition, are equally valuable to the living resources that they support. The scientific literature is replete with studies that organisms do not use habitats uniformly over their ranges, and this observation is borne out in our 6

own status and trends data that have been used to select closed areas or to make similar resource management decisions for certain federally managed fishery resources. In concluding Section 4.1.5 of the dGEIS, upon which the NRC relies to support its overall EFH conclusions, the NRC posits that "impingement and entrainment from the operation of IP2 and IP3 are likely to have an adverse effect on aquatic ecosystems in the lower Hudson River during the period of extended operation", and goes so far as to name several potential mitigation options. but neither arrives at the specific conclusions that the units should be retrofitted with closed-cycle cooling systems, nor selects particular alternatives that they would recommend in lieu of closed-cycle cooling. NRCs Evaluation of Impacts on Aquatic Resources from Operation of the Cooling Water Discharge: As disclosed in the dGEIS, the discharge of heated water into the Hudson River can manifest a variety of . lethal and sublethal effects on aquatic life, influence local ecological conditions, and create barriers to fish migrations. Direct effects tend to be thought of as mortalities that occur when an individual is exposed to conditions beyond their upper thermal tolerance limits. Indirect effects can result in changes to reproductive behaviors, changes in growth rate or survival 9f young, blocking.migratory movements, altered predator-prey relationships, and similar community level disruptions. Oversight of these matters is regulated under a SPDES permit, which imposes effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions to ensure that all discharges are in compliance with New York state code and the CWA. The most recent SPDES permit sets a maximum discharge temperature of 11 o°F, and limits. daily average discharge temperatures not to exceed 93.2°F for a set number of days from mid-April through June. These terms have changed over a series of four consent orders since the original SPDES was let. The NRC bases its evaluation of thermal effects on the status of the SPDES permits for Indian Point. According to the applicant's assessment, IP2 and IP3 are in co*mpliance with terms of a. SPDES permit issued by the State of New York as well as further mitigation required under the fourth HRSA consent order. The New York State Department of Environmen.tal Conservation (NYSDEC), which maintains regulatory oversight over this arrangement, concludes that under certain circumstances, modeling demonstrates that discharges from the operating units at Indian Point allow greater than the four degree (F.) over ambient temperature limit, or a maximum of 83°F, whichever is less, in certain estuary cross

• sections specified under New York State regulations. These matters have been, and remain, in dispute among the plant operators and the NYSDEC, culminating in the state denying a water quality certificate in April, 2010. An ongoing proceeding with the DEC has not resolved the problem, and the NRC notes in the dGEIS that the matter may not be concluded before the NRC issues its final SEIS.

The lack of a thermal study proposed by the NYSDEC or an alternative proposed by the applicant leaves the NRC in the position of having to use existing information to determine the appropriate therma! impact. This resulted in their finding that continued operations with once-through cooling and various mitigation measures would have a small to moderate effect, depending. on the extent or magnitude of the plume, the sensitivity of aquatic life stages that were present, and related criteria. In addition to thermal discharges,

• the NRC considered the potential for plant operations resulting* in other impacts to aquatic resources, and concluded that impingement and entrainment are likely to have adverse effects. The significance and extent of these impacts remain in dispute among the involved parties. The project proponents hold that existing operations adequately mitigate impingement and entrainment effects because dual-and variable-speed pumps as well as modified Ristroph were installed at IP2 and IP3, but the efficacy of these and related measures has not been verified by studies. The NYSDEC disagrees with their position, and has concluded thc:it closed cycle cooling is the BAT to address the Hudson. River utilities' impacts to aquatic resources. The NRC considered several additional mitigation options* and determined thatwedgewire screening systems are not feasible; and marine life exclusion systems and/or be!iaviorai deterrents potentially would require further study.

7

'. *. ~.: :... We realize that the ongoing dispute between the plant operator and the State have hampered the NRC's ability to present a full analysis of additional mitigation options available for the existing cooling system, and its potential utility for conserving or protecting EFH functions and values. Nevertheless, we maintain that our analysis of the severity of the project impacts on NOAA trust resources is compelling, and that our conservation recommendations are necessary and appropriate to address the project impacts. Essential Fish Habitat Comments: Eight federally managed species with EFH designations within the mixing zone of the Hudson River estuary were identified in the NRCs EFH assessment. Of these, according to NRCs assessment, "there may be adverse individual or cumulative impacts on EFH in the project area for red hake larvae, winter flounder larvae, windowpane juveniles and adults, bluefish juveniles, and Atlantic butterfish juveniles and adults". However, the NRC went on to say in its preliminary EFH determination that they were of the opinion that none of these impacts would rise to a level of concern because "the proportion of EFH affected by IP2 and IP3 is small compared to EFH for the total managed stock". The NRC also proposed that continued operations of the open-cycle cooling systems for these units could continue in a renewed license scenario provided that appropriate mitigation measures were implemented to reduce thermal effluent as well as entrainment and impingement effects. While the review materials include examples of measures that have been (or could be) implemented to reduce mortalities, it neither advocates a particular approach nor evaluates the effediveness of those measures for protecting and conserving designated EFH or other fishery resource uses. We also note that because the EFH evaluation relies on comparing the immediate project waterfront against the total EFH designated coastally for selected species and life stages, it does not give adequate consideration to the. fact that occupation and use of EFH is not uniform. The EFH designations are made on the basis of habitat that is supporting particular species and generic life stages, but does not currently discriminate more finely as to how that habitat is used within a designation. As an example, early juvenile life stages tend to focus on occupation of inshore nurseries and later [but still juvenile] fishes may be using coastal - and offshore EFH that better meet their needs.. Thus, we do not consider it appropriate to suggest that EFH for a one or two year old juvenile fish is equally suitable for supporting current young of the year juveniles. Constraining the analysis of impacts to the immediate Indian Point reach and comparing that information against the habitat available to support the entire population and not the stocks originating from the Hudson River, erroneously creates the setting for not being able to find any impacts to EFH. A more appropriate analysis extends the view of entrainment, impingement and thermal discharge impacts to include the mortalities and reduced productivity of forage species, diadromous species, and resident fishes; to assess their impacts on coastal fisheries including species for which EFH is designated downstream; and to discuss how the lost productivity out of the mid-Hudson represents a net reduction in forage opportunities for offshore and downstream resources. This latter class of impacts is quite relevant in this situation and is not analyzed by the NRCs review materials. Nonetheless, the NRCs EFH

• assessment concluded that there may be adverse individual or cumulative effects of the proposed action or red hake larvae, winter flounder larvae, windowpane juveniles and adults; bluefish juveniles, and Atlantic butterfish juveniles and adults. However, in making' this judgment, the NRC did not specify particular impacts of concern in the EFH assessment itself. Extrapolating from the dGEIS, NMFS notes that the primary impacts of concern regarding fishery resources and their habitat generally, and for EFH in particular, that would be associated with.continued*operations using an open-ended cooling system would be organism loss and habitat degradation. We could not enumerate these impacts based upon the materials provided for.our review, but note that at over 2 billion gallons of water consumed per day, the amount of prey available to fishes in particular would be significantly diminished through entra.inment alone.

8

• r *:.*

- r:r *i*..... While we recognize the impediments associated with lack of newer studies and related information, NMFS does not agree with some of the methods that the NRC used or assumptions that it made in performing its fish impact evaluations. According to the review materials provided, operating IP2 and IP3 as they currently are leads to direct impacts to EFH species and their prey in the mid-Hudson region. We also note that the EFH assessment and associated analyses were configured too narrowly to capture the breadth and implications that continued operations would have on living aquatic resources and their habitats both in the mid-Hudson and to coastal fisheries. As noted above, we are particularly concerned with the potential for Indian Point operations leading to reduced production or availability of prey, which constitutes an indirect or cumulative advefse effect that diminishes the quality of designated EFH as defined in the MSFCMA. Similarly, it is our opinion that a proper cumulative effects analysis for this situation should have included the adverse effects associated with operations at all of the mid-Hudson power plants that rely on Hudson River water to feed once-through cooling systems. We are not alone in this conviction. According to the NYDECs Final Draft Fact Sheet NY-0004472, dated November, 2003, regarding Indian Point's Surface Water Renewal Permit Action, "Pursuant to Section 316(b) of the CWA, and 6 NYCRR Section 704.5, the Department has determined that the site-specific best technology

• available (BTA) to minimize adverse environmental impact of the Indian Point Units 1. 2 and 3 cooling water intake structures is closed-cycle cooling.n NMFS agrees with New York that a closed-cycle cooling system would significantly limit the amount of intake flow and thereby reduce impacts associated with especially impingement and entrainment. It is our opinion that implementing this measure is in the best interest of fishery resources and also is the most appropriate option for meeting our mutual EFH mandates while allowing continued electric generation at IP2 and IP3 in an otherwise sensitive ecological area.

Essential Fish Habitat Recommend.ations: To minimize the.impacts on EFH, pursuant to Section 305(b)(4)(A) of the MDFCMA, NMFS recommends that the following conservation recommendations be adopted in conjunction with the proposed federal action: Implement the best available practicable technology to mitigate impingement. entrainment, and thermal impacts. The BAT for Indian Point would be reconfiguring the facilities by replacing the once-through cooling system with a state-of-the-art. closed-cycle design. A closed cycle cooling system would minimize water intake *rates and return little to no heated water back into the Hudson River. The reduced water withdrawals and greatly diminished, perhaps even non-existent, plume associated yvith a closed-cycle cooling system would avoid and minimize what NMFS considers to be highly significant mortalities of billions of aquatic organisms and their attendant impacts to coastal fisheries. Please note that Seeton 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSFCMA requires that the NRC provide NMFS with a detailed written response to the EFH conservation recommendation, including a description of the measures adopted by the NRC for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the project on EFH. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with NMFS' recommendation(s). Section 305(b)(4)(B) o the MSFCMA also indicates that the NRC must explain its reasons for not following the recommendation(s). Included in such reasoning would be the scientific justification for any disagreements with NMFS over the anticipated effect of the proposed action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize,* mitigate,.or offset such effects pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920(k). Please note that a distinct and further EFH consultation must be re-initiated pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920(1 ), if new information becomes available or the project is revised in such a manner that it affects the basis for the above EFH conservation recommendation. Endangered Species Act: The federally listed, endangered SNS and the candidate species for listing Atlantic sturgeon may be present in the project area. The NRC is currently in consultation with NMFS NEROs Protected Resources Division pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA and the NRC will conclude the ESA consl,lltation with our 9

colleagues in this Division of NMFS. The contents of the above EFH and FWCA coordination does not replace or supersede any negotiations that you may have conducted or will conduct with our PR division, and* only pertains to our mutual obligations under the FWCA and MSFCMA. Should you have any question regarding these comments or need additional information, please contaCt Diane Rusanowsky at diane.rusanowsky@noaa.gov; 203-882-6504 10 Sincerely, Peter D. Colosi, Jr. Assistant Regional Administrator For Habitat Conservation

References:

New England Fishery Management Council. 1998. Essential Fish Habitat Amendment.

• http://www.nefmc.org/habitaVindex. html Smith, C.L. and T.R. Lake. 1990. Documentation of the Hudson River Fish Fauna. American Museum of Natural History, Number 2981, 17 pp.

11}}