ML18082A186
| ML18082A186 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek, 05000355  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1980 |
| From: | Leitzell T COMMERCE, DEPT. OF, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE |
| To: | Regan W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004170250 | |
| Download: ML18082A186 (20) | |
Text
UNITED STATES DEPA,MENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Washington, D.C. 20235 APR 1 5 1980 F/NER62:DWB Mr. William H. Rega~
Act~ng Assistant Director for Environmental Projects Division of Site Safety and Environmental' Analysis Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
- 20555
Dear Mr. Regan:
This is in response to the biological assessmen~ forwarded to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Director on March 14, 1980, in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered. Speeies Act of .1973., as amended.
The biological assessment submitted by y~ur agency, in joint consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, is recognized' as part of an ongoing consultation process initiated by you on.October 29, 1979.
Enclosed .is our biological opinio~ required under Secti<;m 7 in :i;:esponse to your biological assessment of the impacts of the continued operation of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit l; . the future operation of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2; and the completion of construction and subsequent operation of.the Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Units l_and 2 on the endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)- in the Delaware.River and habitat critical to it. Th~s biological opinion is written to supplement and am~nd our December 7, 197.9, initial opinion made on the operation of the Salem NuClear Generating Station; Unit 1. This biological opinion states that the activities identified above are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of sho.rtnose sturgeon in th~ Delaware River, nor are they likely to destroy or adversely affect habitat that may be critical to shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River.
. This opinion is contingent upon the. completi,on of the monitoring program required.by the Environmental Protection Agency and the continued operation and maintenance of the fish scree'9.ing and fish return systems either in use or* proposed to be used on the intake structures. Furthermore, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission mu~t reinitiate consultation if new information becomes available *indicating a real or potential adverse impact to shortnose sturgeon from the construction or operation of these four units, or if.modifications are made to the operation of the units which are likely to affect' this species.
We look forward to continued cooperation in future consultations.
/ Sincerely yours, W~'
.L-Terry ii~
. Leftzell
/) Assis t Administrator for Fisheries Enclosure
cc: Mr. Julio Morales-Sanchez Director, Enforcement Division Environmental Protectiqn Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007
ENDAl~ED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 (As Amended)
Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission as lead agency in jci.int consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency.
Activity: Continued operation of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit l; the future operation of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2; and the completion of construction and subsequent operation of the Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 at Artificial Island on the eastern shore of the Delaware River in New Jersey.
Consultation Conducted By: Environmental Assessment Branch, Northeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
Summary of Consultation:
This is part of an on-going Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultation process initiated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on October 29, 1979.
The initial NRC consultation resulted in a December 7, 1979, NMFS biological opinion which stated that the existing once-through water intake system at the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 (SNGS 1), was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) in the Delaware River. However, the biological opinion also stated that there was insufficient information provided for NMFS to make a biological opinion regarding the combined impact of SNGS 1, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 (SNGS 2), and Hope Creek Nuclear Ge~erating Station, Units 1 and 2 (HCNGS 1 and HCNGS 2). Further consultation was required.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) joined NRC in the extended consultation with NMFS on January 9, 1980. The present biological opinion is in response to the joint NRC/EPA biological assessment transmitted to NMFS on March 14, 1980, and supplements and amends the enclosed initial opinion made on SNGS 1 on December 7, 1979.
We have reviewed the biological assessment provided by NRC and EPA, as well as other information forwarded to us by Public Service Electric and Gas Company at our
e e sampled the deep river bottom areas adjacent to the plant sites at Artificial 3
Island, Salem, New Jersey. In fact, the only shortnose sturgeon taken by Icthyological Associates off Artificial Island was not collected until July 27, 1979.
We believe that extrapolations of shortnose sturgeon life history, or temporal and spatial distribution and abundance estimates, such as those provided in the NRG/EPA biological assessment, must be qualified as largely unsupported by data collected under a qualitative sturgeon sampling program in the Delaware River. We realize that the NRG/EPA biological assessment was based upon the best available information, and that extrapolation of known shortnose sturgeon data in other river systems may be the only realistic approach at present to identifying life history information in the Delaware River. However, we wish to make it clear in this biological opinion that much of the Delaware River shortnose sturgeon life history information presented in the NRG/EPA assessment was extrapolated either from scant data collected on the Delaware River or from more detailed sturgeon research programs carried out in other river systems.
We agree with the general life history of shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River as described in the biological assessment. Shortnose sturgeon spawning grounds in the Delaware River are probably located in the vicinity of Scudders Falls, although no eggs have ever been recovered from the river. The specific limits of the spawning grounds are unknown. Delaware River habitat utilized by shortnose sturgeon larval and post larval stages is also unquantified.
The egg-larval-post larval life history scenario developed in the NRG/EPA assessment is quite reasonable, but it must remain hypothetical until proven by specific research. We concur with the NRG/EPA statement that entrainable size shortnose sturgeon are not present in the Artificial Island area.
The Delaware River shortnose sturgeon population estimate stated in the NRG/EPA assessment, which was extrapolated from population density estimates from other river systems, contains too many variables to be of use to NMFS in shortnose sturgeon program management. The general lack of shortnose sturgeon recoveries both in existing fish sampling programs and in commercial fishing incidental take records,
2 request following a January 7, 1980, meeting with EPA. We have also reviewed
- .. information in the scientific literature and discussed the matter with scientists active in shortnose sturgeon research.
The NMFS has concluded that the biological assessment was based on the best scientific and commercial data available. We believe that, with few exceptions, the report represents a realistic assessment of the impact of construction and operation of the the four nuclear plants on shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River?
- although many conclusions presented therein are a result of extrapolations from data collected in other river systems rather than specific sturgeon data collected from the Delaware River. We conclude that the combined impact of the continued operation of SNGS 1, the future operation of SNGS 2, and the completion of construction and subsequent operation of HCNGS 1 and 2, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of shortnose sturgeon or to destroy or adversely modify habitat which may be critical to it.
Life History of the Shortnose Sturgeon in the Delware River The statements made in the initial NMFS biological opinion (enclosed) and the:
March 5, 1980, NRG/EPA biological assessment, regarding the general life history of the shortnose sturgeon, provide an adequate synopsis for the species. However, there have been no surveys specifically designed to determine the distribution and abundance of shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River. The extensive fish surveys listed in the NRG/EPA biological assessment may not have been designed to adequately sample the benthic environment of the sturgeon. This problem was described in !=_
Review of Aquatic Sampling Programs in the Delaware River from 1958-1979 with Special Reference to Capture of Shortnose Sturgeon, prepared by Ichthyological Associates, and provided to NMFS by the Public Service Electric and Gas Company. This report indicated that the tow line (warp) lengths of their 4. 9m bottom trawl were -.-exterid-ed to a 6:1 ratio (warp length to water depth) in July 1979 when their study area was expanded to include the entire Delaware Bay. Tow line lengths on bottom trawl samples taken by Ichthyological Associates before that time may not have adequately
4 e *
. makes the existence of any fish population of the size estimated in the NRC/EPA assessment unlikely.
Impact of Plants Construction and Operation on Shortnose Sturgeon Populations The potential impact of various construction and operational phases of SNGS 1 and 2 and HCNGS 1 and 2 are adequatelY' discussed in the NRC/EPA biological assessment. We concur with the NRC/EPA biological assessment that construction of HCNGS 1 and 2 will have a negligible impact on shortnose sturgeon.
We also agree that shortnose sturgeon eggs and larvae are unlikely to be present at Artificial Island. Furthermore, young-of-the-year of an entrainable size (less than 6 cm in length), are not known to pass downstream of the salt wedge incursion zone which typically remains above Artificial Island during the summer. Therefore, the distance of the plant sites from suspected spawning and nursery grounds, combined with the existence of vertical traveling screens at the SNGS 1 and 2 intakes, and the proposed use of cylindrical wedge-wire or vertical traveling screens at the HCNGS 1 and 2 intakes designed to exclude all fish smaller than 6 cm, would effectively preclude entrainm~nt.
The scenario developed in the NRC/EPA assessment regarding expected shortnose sturgeon distribution and use of the riverine habitat immediately adjacent to the SNGS 1 and 2 and HCNGS 1 and 2 intake structures appears reasonable. Foraging adults and occasional juveniles are the only shortnose sturgeon life stages expected to be found off Artificial Island. The trash bars extending outside all intake structures are expected to exclude individuals larger than 60 cm. The existing Ristroph Vertical Traveling Screen Return System at the SNGS 1 and 2 intake structures are designed to return all fish to the river downcurrent of the intake structure. The HCNGS 1 and 2 units will utilize*. cooling towers for the circulating water system.
Their intake flow is estimated to be only 8% of the flow at the SNGS 1 and 2 intakes.
The HCNGS 1 and 2 intakes will be guarded by trash bars and either a cylindrical wedge-wire drum screen system or the Ristroph Vertical Traveling Screen System (or perhaps both).
The NRC/EPA assessment estimates that the number of shortnose sturgeon expected
- 5 to be impinged per year at SNGS 1 and 2 and HCNGS 1 and 2, would be 0 to 10 and 0 to 1, respectively. Surveys show that the survivability of fish impinged and recovered from the. SNGS 1 screen return system ranges from 44% for sensitive fish to 98% for hardy species. We concur that shortnose sturgeon can be considered a hardy species and can'_ be expected to survive the traveling screen system with minimum injury. We further concur with the NRC/EPA assessment that expected impingement losses at SNGS 1 and 2 and HCNGS 1 and 2 are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River.
The NRC/EPA biological assessment included the potential impacts of both acute and chronic thermal discharge, biocide release, plume entrainment, gas bubble disease, and coldshock on shortnose sturgeon resulting from all four stations' operations. We concur with their statements that no adverse impact to shortnose sturgeon will result from these discharges.
Conclusion We have reviewed the information provided us in the NRC/EPA biological assess-ment as well as information provided us by Public Service Electric and Gas Company as requested by NMFS at a meeting with EPA on January 7, 1980. We have also reviewed information available in published and unpublished scientific literature and have discussed this matter with scientists currently active in shortnose sturgeon research. We.believe that all information reviewed represents the best available scientific and commercial data. However, it should be restated that a great deal of the information presented was extrapolated from research conducted in other river systems. Therefore, a reassessment of potential impacts may be necessary if future research conducted in the Delaware River significantly modifies the basis for this opinion.
It is the opinion of NMFS that the operation of the once-through circulating water cooling and service water intakes, and combined discharge system presently in use for the unit at SNGS 1 and proposed to be used for the unit at SNGS 2; and the construction and operation of the service water intake and discharge system for
- 6 the closed cycle/cooling tower units at HCNGS 1 and HCNGS 2; are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the shortnose sturgeon, nor are they likely to destroy or adversely affect habitat that may be critical to shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River. This opinion is contingent upon completion of the monitoring program required by EPA, and the continued operation and maintenance of the trash bar, fish screen, and fish return systems either in use or proposed to be used on the' intake structures.
Finally, should more data become available indicating a potential or real adverse impact on shortnose sturgeon from the construction or other activities of these four units, or should the units' operations be modified in a way likely to adversely impact that species, consultation must be reinitiated.
Enclosure
Distribution:
F - without enclosure
- 7 Fx31 - without enclosure F/MM - without enclosure GCF - without enclosure F/NER62- without enclosure F/NER624 - without enclosure F/NEC - without enclosure NRG (James Wilson) - without enclosure EPA (Morales - Sanchez)- without enclosure F/NER73 (Testaverde) - 4 copies - without enclosure
- Section 7 Consultation - Threshold Examinatior:i and Biological Opinion Act 1 ~~_}'_ £!__ Program: Cooling Water Intake of Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, on the Delaware River~
J Consultation Conducted by: Office of Marine Mammals and Endangered Species, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Summary of Consultation:
The staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested informal consultation witp the National Marine Fisheries Service (~~IFS) concerning existing and potential problems regarding impingement of endangered shortnose sturgeon on the intake trash bars and screens of .
the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1.
- Further interagency communications during the week of October 22-26, 1979, led to an informal meeting on October 29, 1979, at the Bethesda, Maryland, of fices of* the NRC. Present at the meeting were representatives of the NMFS, NRC, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the States of Delaware and New Jersey, the Public Service Electric and Gas Company that operates the Salem plant and its consultants, Ichthyological Associates, as well as members of the interested public, including Hr. and Mrs. Alfred C. Coleman, Pennsville, New Jersey, petitioneers to the NRC in the matter of the continued operation of the Salem plant. By letter dated *october 31, 1979, the NRC requested a formal consultation with the NMFS concerning the effects of the
operation of Salem Nucle~enerating Sta~ion, Unit 1, a~he construction and operation of Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2, and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Units l and 2, on the shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River, in accordance with regulations .
. promulgated under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
We have not reviewed the construction and operation phase of Salem Unit 2 and of Hope Creek Unit 1 and Unit 2. Therefore, we cannot* render an opinion on the possible impact of those activities on the shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River. However, af.ter reviewing the*
information available in published accounts, unpublished reports, as well as that presented at the October 29, 1979 meeting, the Nt1FS has concluded that the continuation of the existing water intake activities at Salem Unit 1 is not li_kely, by itself, to jeopardize the continued existence of shortnose sturgeon nor destroy or adversely modify habitat which ma~ be critical to it.
Life History of Shortnose Sturgeon.
The shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum (Lesueur, 1818),
occurs in rivers, estuaries and the sea along the east coast of North
. America from the Indian River, Florida, north to the Saint John River, New Brunswick, Canada. In recent years .reproducing
. popuiations have
\
been studied in the Altamaha River, Georgia, the Hudson River, New York, the upper _Connecticut River, Massachusetts, the Kennebec River, Maine, and the Saint John River, New Brunswick, Canada. The status of other populations elsewhere in its range is poorly understood, including that in the Delaware River for which no quantitative population estimates are available.
All sturgeons h a . n effective hydrodynamic des-well suited for their bottom-dwelling mode of existence. The body cross-sectional outline is semicircular, with the broad flat surface being ventral. The wide, sharp-nosed, concave snout of the juvenile shortnose sturgeon is possibly an adaptation creating a depressor effect, and allows the sturgeon to utilize currents for holding itself against the substrate, thereby maintaining its river bottom position with only a small expenditure of energy. The mouth is ventral and protrusible, and well suited for benthic feeding.
Habitat preference and migratory behavior of shortnose sturgeon are influenced by latitude and the physical nature of each river system.
In northern locations the *majority of* the populations occur within the influence of estuaries. The populations move upstream during spring and summer to spawn and feed, "while a seaward migration takes plac~ in fall.
Southern shortnose sturgeon populations appear to enter rivers only in spring to spawn and then return to coastal waters for the remainder of the year.
Juveniles spend at least their first year iri freshwater. In the Saint John River, Canada, they do not begin migratory behavior until reaching about 45 cm fork length (approximately 8 years)~
Growth varies greatly depending on latitude, with the fastest growth occurring among southern populations. In the Saint John River, Canada, shortnose sturgeon attain 50 cm, 90 cm and 100 cm in fork length after 9, 25, and 35 years of age respectively. In the Hudson River it attains 50 cm and 90 cm after 5 and 15 years of age respectively, whereas in the Altamaha River, Georgia, it attains 50 cm after 2 years and 90 cm by 10 years of age. Maximum known age is 6 7 years for females, but males seldom exceed 30 years of age.
4 9 A Female shortnose sturgeon mature between 50 and 6~m fork length and spawn for the first time between 55 and 75 cm length. Among northern populations 50 percent maturity and age of first spawning correspond with 15 and 18 years of age respectively, but for southern populations the relative ages are 5 and 8 years. Males mature between 45 and 50 cm fork length. Among northern populations males mature about age 10 but among southern populations maturity may occur as early as age
- 2. The minimum duration between spawnings of individual females is abput 3 years but males may spawn yearly or every other year. Fecundity
. of females is between 40,000 and 200,000 eggs and is directly correlated with total weight. The sex ratio among*young adults is 1:1 but this changes to a predominance of females among fish longer than 90 cm fork length*
Shortnose sturgeon spawn during early spring in the freshwater
_ portions of estuaries or in rivers. Spawning is initiated at water temperatures of 10-12°c. Eggs are probably broadcast, and fertilization is external. Upon fertilization the eggs become adhesive and attach to bottom materials. Hatching takes place in 13 days at 10°c. On hatching the larvae are about 7 mm in length, grey in color, and demersal. Early life history after yolk sac absorption is poorly known but limited studies indicate larvae and juveniles are demersal, remain in the deeper parts of river channels, and seldom enter the drift component of the river. Recent studies have shown that mid-stream bottom current speeds of 40-65 cm/sec caused few larvae to enter the drift. The morphology and biology of shortnose sturgeon indicate that the species is well adopted to environmental situations characterized by large flow regimes.
Estimates of adult shortnose sturgeon populations have been made in four relatively well studied river systems, but not in the Delaware River. These estimates have no direct bearing on the abundance of the species in the Delaware River since movement between these rivers and the Delaware is unrecorded. However, they do provide an idea of the population levels of adults that can be expected in similar areas, and are as follows: 18,000 in the Saint John River, New Brunswick; 5,400 in the Kennebec River, Maine; 500 in the land-locked Holyoke Pool, Connecticut River, Massachusetts; 7 ,000-9,000 in the Hudson River, New York.
Shortuos~ Sturgeon in the Delaware River.
There are no population estimates available of shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River.* However, the original scientific description of the shortnose Sturgeon in 1818 was based on specimens collected in the Delaware River, and there have been numerous other recordings of shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware over the past 150 years up until and including the present. Evidence indicates that the shortnose sturgeon is-more closely tied to fresh and brackish waters than is the related Atlantic sturgeon, and that it remains closer inshore in estuarine habitats during its seaward migrations than does the Atlantic sturgeon.
This indicates that shortnose sturgeon may have relatively discrete and separate stocks from one river system to another, especially in areas where the estuarine influences of adjacent river systems do not overlap.
This suggests that there is less stock intermingling and river interchange through sea migration with shortnose sturgeon than is the case with Atlantic sturgeon. Therefore, the populations of shortnose
sturgeon in the Delawa.ay ~epresent ~ stock relative.e*parate from those of other river systems, with only minor levels of immigration, if any, into the Delaware. Since there have been periodic reports of shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware since its original description, it is 4-l-.,.:~ ,,..~--.: ........ \..,...,, .... ~ ""'""'""'"rt,..."' ___ .. ; .....
.... LI..&.~ '->.t'-'-'.J..-~ .* ..,_._ ~---- c- -----":"-.--~--~ ~*-*
that river continuously over a long period of historic time.
Description of Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit !!.._
- 1. Site Location.
Salem Unit 1 is located on about 220 acres at the southern end of Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. The island (in actuality, an artificial peninsula) projects from tile eastern shore about one-third of the way across the Delaware River estuary, which has a width of about 2.5 miles at this location.
The plant station is essentially mid~ay between Wilmington and *:Dover;
. Delaware, which are 20 miles north and south of the site; respectively.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is about 30 miles and Salem, New Jersey, is 7.5 miles north of the site.
- 2. Water Usage.
The once-through cooling system draws its water from the Delaware estuary and serves to condense the spent secondary steam in the heat exchangers (condensers) following the turbine-generators. The waste heat from the power generation is removed by heat transfer to the circulating water system and returning it to the Delaware River estuary.
9 .
- Approximately 15.3 x 10 Btu/hr are removed by this system.
The cooling water, which represents less than 1% of the net tidal flow, is withdrawn from the Delaware River estuary through an intake system on the south end of Artificial Island. The intake is designed to
give low intake veloci~ and is equipped with trash ~, fish passages, stop gates and traveling screens. The approach velocity to the screens is less than 1.0 fps.
During the summer of 1976, th'e traveling screens and screen wash water system of Salem Unit 1 were modified to return fish to the I
Delaware River, using a Ristroph fish return system. This system collects fish from the screens in buckets attached to the screens. The screens, which are continuously moving, are washed by a low pressure spray system. Fish are continuously washed off the screens into an upper trough and returned to the river. Debris is removed by a high pressure spray and also returned to the river. Fish and debris are returned either to the nor.th or south of the plant depending on the tidal flow, to avoid reimpingement. The fish return system operates continuously all day long, seven days a week. Sampling of impinged fishes takes place during periodic short diversions of the return system, lasting from one to three minutes each on ten samplings per day, six days a week.
Impact of Plant ~ Shortnose Sturgeon Population.
- 1. Entrainment.
Based on what is known about the spawning habits of.shortnose sturgeon in other river systems, it is unlikely that there is any entrainment of shortnose sturgeon eggs and larvae at Salem Unit 1, for the following reasons: spawning grounds for shortnose sturgeon usually are found relatively far upstream in river systems and the location of Salem Unit 1 appears to be well south of these grounds; sturgeon eggs are demersal and adhesive and seldom enter river drift; the larval and juvenile fish are closely associated with the substrate and seldom enter
.* river drift; the larvae-row very rapidly and would be .ilable for entrainment for only a limited number of weeks; and the young post-larval fish are not believed to move great distances from the spawning area. Finally, no eggs or larvae of either the Atlantic or shortnose sturgeon have been found in the.entrainment samples at Salem Unit 1 or in ichthyoplankton sampling in the nearby river. Therefore, for all these reasons, we conclude that there is no known entrainment of shortnose sturgeon and little, if any, can reasonably be anticipated.
- 2. Impingement.
- Only two specimens of shortnose sturgeon are known to have been involved in any way with impingement at Salem Unit 1. On January 12, 1978, one specimen, measuring about 54 cm total length and described as being in a state *of moderate decomposition, was collected from the trash bars at the Salem Unit 1 intake. The presumption of prior death was based on several factors: the eyes were clouded; the body was soft; the intestines in the abdominal cavity had begun to lose their integrity; and putrefaction was advanced to the point that there was a noticeable odor. Furthermore, the large mesh size of the trash screen precludes the possibility of anything but a comatose or otherwise totally unresponsive fish from becoming impinged. on it. This evidence of decomposition, which had begun even though water temperature was about o.s 0 c and the trash bars were being cleaned one to three times daily,*
indicated that this particular specimen was already dead when collected at the plant.
- A' second specimen, measuring ab.out 62 cm total length, was recovered from the screen wash water on June 26, 19.78. *Because this specimen was in such poor condition that it would not survive if
9
- e returned to the river, an attempt was made to resuscitate it in a flowing ambient water bath. In the water bath, it was unable to maintain equilibrium and its respiratory movements were irregular. It died after 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br />.
- A presumption of poor physiological condition was based on observations that the abdomen was retracted and the fish was very thin and .did not exhibit the more robust shape typical of the species.
These two specimens. are the only known individuals to have been collected at the Salem Unit 1 intake since operation commenced in mid 1976. No specimens of the usually relatively more ~ommon Atlantic sturgeon have been recorded from the Salem Unit 1 intake.
Studies of shortnose sturgeon indicate that the sustained swim speed for juveniles is in excess of 2 body lengths per second *.
Estimates of cruising speed from radio tagging studies indicate that the
- adults cruise at speeds greater than 33 cm/sec (the burst speed can be expected to be much higher), which is more than the intake velocity at the traveling screens. Thus~ for these reasons alone, impingement of healthy adult fish is considered to be an unlikely and relatively rare event. Additionally, the bottom dwelling habits of all stages and the migratory behavior of adults indicate that individuals only rarely would encounter the intake flow of the plant. Even in the unlikely event that a healthy shortnose sturgeon was impinged, there is a good chance that it would be returned to the river alive by the fish return system.
Conclusion of Biological Opinion.
Section 7 (a) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all Federal agencies " *** insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by such agency~ ** does ~ot jeopardize the continued existence
. 10
~-,*- .J e*
.e . .
- of any endangered species or.threatened species or resu~in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary *** to be critical *** "
Regulations implementing this section (43 F.R. 870) define "jeopardize the continued existence of" to mean " *** to e.ngage in an activity or program which reasonably would be expected to reduce the reproduction, numbers or distribution of a listed species to such an extent *as to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of that species in the wild *** "
We have reviewed the information available in the scientific literature and in other published and unpublished reports, as well as that presented during the informal consultation period and at the meeting of October 29, 1979. It is the opinion of the NMFS that the present water intake program of the once-through system at Salem Unit 1 is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the shortnose sturgeon, nor is it likely to destroy or adversely affect habitat that may be critical to the shortnose sturgeon. The reasons for this conclusion are stated in the above section entitled Impact of Plant on Shortnose Sturgeon Population.
Recommendations.
We strongly recommend that the NRC take steps to sponsor and encourage research on the basic life history of the shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River, especially as it relates to the seasonal distribution of all stages of the species. Studies to determine the preferred habitats of all of these stages, as well as reproductive cycles, migrations and population dynamics of the species should be initiated. The aim of the research should be to establish population
~,.
~,:;....
estimates and life his~y data for shortnose sturgeon 9'tcks in the Delaware River that will permit more precise estimates of the impacts of incidental mortalities in that river system. The lack of information about the status of the shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River may result in future activities in that river being delayed because of an inability to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The NMFS is prepared to assist you or anyone else in planning research activities. Research activities will require a permit and applications must be sent to the NMFS.
Finally, should more data become available indicating a potential or real adverse impact on the shortnose sturgeon from the activities of Salem Unit 1, or should those operations be modified in a way likely to adversely impact that species, we recommend that consultation be reinitiated.
cc:
F, Fx31, F3, FNE62 (Doug Beach), NEFC, F6, GCF, FWS (John Spinks),
NRC (James Wilson), FNE72 (Dick Whitaker), EPA (Morales-Sanchez)