NL-11-056, Regarding Endangered Species Act Consultation

Regarding Endangered Species Act Consultation

ML11126A202
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	04/28/2011
From:	Dacimo F Entergy Corp, Entergy Nuclear Northeast
To:	Kurkul P, Stuyvenberg A Division of License Renewal, US Dept of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service
References
NL-11-056
Download: ML11126A202 (34)

Text

Enterav Nuclear Northeast Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB vEntergy P.O. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Tel (914) 788-2055 Fred Dacimno Vice President License Renewal NL-11-056 April 28, 2011 Mr. Andrew Stuyvenberg NRC Environmental Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Ms. Patricia A. Kurkul Regional Administrator National Marine Fisheries Service - Northeast Region 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930-2276

SUBJECT:

Endangered Species Act Consultation Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3 Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286 License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64

REFERENCE:

1. NMFS Letter dated March 16, 2011, "Extension of Consultation Period - License Renewal of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units No. 2 and 3" (ADAMS no. MLI 10830578) (Added to ADAMS on March 24, 2011)

2. Testimony of Dr. Michael J. Dadswell on Behalf of National Marine Fisheries Service in Hearing #4160 before the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 11 (1979)

3. Environmental Protection Agency, National Pollutant Discharge, Elimination System-Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities and Phase I Facilities, Proposed Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 22206 (Apr. 20, 2011)

4. Swanson, C. et al., Final Report-2010 Field Program and Modeling Analysis of the Cooling Water Discharge from the Indian Point Energy Center, Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center, Buchanan, New York (January 201 1)\

5. NMFS, Proposed Listing Determinations for Three Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon in the Northeast Region, Proposed Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 61872 (Oct. 6, 2010)

Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 NL-1 1-056 Page 2 of 2

6. Entergy Letter dated March 1, 2011, "Endangered Species Act Consultation" (ADAMS no. ML110670270) (Added to ADAMS on March 8, 2011)

Dear Mr. Stuyvenberg and Ms. Kurkul:

As part of the formal consultation and conference conducted pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") relative to the license renewal of Indian Point Units 2 and 3

("1P2" and "IP3;" collectively, "IPEC"), as well as the teleconference held on April 18, this letter provides the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") and the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") with relevant information on shortnose sturgeon. Entergy submits this information pursuant to 50 C.F.R. §402.14(d) to assist NRC and NMFS with collecting the best scientific and commercial data available on the shortnose sturgeon. This submission is timely; NMFS has acknowledged it anticipates receipt of this additional information from Entergy by April 30, 2011 (Ref. 1).

The attached April 2011 report, titled "Shortnose Sturgeon: A Technical Assessment Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act" and prepared by Drs. Lawrence Barnthouse of LWB Environmental Services, Inc., Mark Mattson of Normandeau Associates, Inc., and John Young of ASA Analysis & Communications, Inc. ("Sturgeon Report"), details the technical basis for issuance of the Biological Opinion on terms comparable to the 1979 Biological Opinion provided by NMFS to IPEC (Ref. 2). Briefly, the Report demonstrates that IPEC's continued operation under renewed NRC licenses cannot reasonably be determined to have any negative effects on shortnose sturgeon, and therefore that IPEC's continued operation cannot reasonably be considered to jeopardize the continued existence of the shortnose sturgeon population during the license renewal period. As discussed in greater detail in the Sturgeon Report:

The majority of life stages of shortnose sturgeon are not reasonably considered susceptible to impacts from IPEC's continued operations, because the species prefers Hudson River conditions and locations wholly different from those in the vicinity of IPEC.

As a result: (i) nearly forty (40) years of continuous riverwide monitoring and extensive historic entrainment sampling have established that early life stages, including shortnose sturgeon eggs and larvae, are not susceptible to entrainment at IPEC; and (ii) the same riverwide monitoring has established that adult shortnose sturgeon are not susceptible to impingement at IPEC. Thus, the focus of any inquiry is and should be on juvenile shortnose sturgeon, where - as summarized below - no meaningful impacts occur.

• Historic lethal impingement of juvenile shortnose sturgeon, authorized in the 1979 Biological Opinion, has been effectively reduced through the subsequent construction of state-of-the-art Ristroph Screens and fish-return systems at IPEC (installed from 1985 through the mid-1990's). Indeed, the precise technology installed at IPEC has not only been subject to independent peer-reviewed assessment of full-scale, on-site testing, but also selected by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA") as the current state of the art for impingement control technology in the April 20, 2011 proposed rulemaking (Ref. 3 at 22202, 22204). As a consequence, lethal impingement of juvenile sturgeon is exceedingly rare, and well-documented sturgeon hardiness assures survival rates of approximately ninety percent (90%), based on past IPEC impingement survival work for comparably hardy species, e.g., striped bass.

Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 NL-1 1-056 Page 3 of 2 The modest extent of IPEC's thermal plume, which is largely a surficial phenomena discharged in compliance with applicable New York State thermal discharge criteria, provides ample zones of passage for this bottom-dwelling species (Ref. 4 at 118).

In summation, during the period of IPEC operations since issuance of the 1979 Biological Opinion, the Hudson River shortnose sturgeon population has been calculated to have increased by approximately four hundred percent (400%). Thus, NMFS' 1979 assessment of IPEC's operations has been borne out over time - IPEC has had no measurable impact on the shortnose sturgeon population over the past 30 years. There is, correspondingly, no reasonable basis to expect impacts during the license renewal period.

The Atlantic sturgeon currently is not listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA; as such, a consultation, conference and subsequent biological opinion for Atlantic sturgeon is beyond the scope of Section 7 of the ESA, which is limited to endangered and threatened species by 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). We understand, however, that NMFS is evaluating whether to list distinct population segments of Atlantic sturgeon as endangered under the ESA, and in the future may list a relevant population segment as endangered under the ESA (Ref. 5). As a courtesy, therefore, Entergy is also providing relevant information on the Atlantic sturgeon.

Entergy looks forward to continuing its participation in the consultation process and provides the enclosed information to NMFS for their use in developing a biological opinion for NRC on the shortnose sturgeon. Entergy also reminds NRC of its previous request that NRC make any draft Biological Opinion available to Entergy, in a manner that provides Entergy with a reasonable opportunity for review and comment (Ref. 6).

Should the NRC or NMFS require additional information or have any questions, please contact Dara Gray at (914) 736-8414.

S' ere FRD/ha

Enclosure:

1. Shortnose Sturgeon: A Technical Assessment Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act cc: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Mr. William Dean, Regional Administrator, NRC Region I Mr. John Boska, NRR Senior Project Manager Mr. Paul Eddy, New York State Department of Public Service NRC Resident Inspector's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel

ENCLOSURE 1 TO NL-11-053 SHORTNOSE STURGEON: A TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ENTERGY NUCLEAR OOPERATIONS, INC.

INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNITS 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-247 & 50-286

Shortnose Sturgeon: A Technical Assessment Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act Prepared By:

Lawrence Barnthouse, PhD LWB Environmental Services, Inc.

Mark Mattson, PhD Normandeau Associates, Inc.

John Young, PhD ASA Analysis and Communications, Inc.

Prepared for:

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC April 2011 2

INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared on behalf of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC (collectively, "Entergy") and is submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") and the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") to inform their consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act in relation to Entergy's application to the NRC to renew operating licenses for Entergy's Indian Point Unit 2 and Unit 3 nuclear power plants (collectively, "IPEC"). The purpose of this report is to summarize the significant historical technical information (including based on nearly four decades of continuous biological monitoring of Hudson River aquatic life) and scientific literature to assess whether IPEC's continued operation under renewed twenty-year operating licenses would be likely to jeopardize the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenserbrevirostrum) population in the Hudson River.

In addition, although the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) is not listed as either endangered or threatened and, therefore, not the subject of this consultation, this report provides a parallel review of that species.

The design and operating features of IPEC have been described in detail in the NRC's Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, dated December 2010, as well as in the NRC's Revised Biological Assessment provided to NMFS on December 10, 2010. Those detailed descriptions are not reproduced here; however, as it relates to the purpose of this report, a summary description of IPEC's cooling water system is appropriate. Both Indian Point Unit 2 and 3 have shoreline cooling water intake structures, located along the eastern shore of the Hudson River at approximately river mile ("RM") 43. Water passes through trash racks, which are designed to prevent large debris from entering the intake, and then proceeds into one of eight bays. Each bay includes a specially modified Ristroph screen, low pressure screen wash system, high pressure debris removal wash system, and a circulating water pump, designed and documented to reduce impingement impacts as detailed below.

Fish collected on the modified Ristroph screens are transported in bucket shaped elements that carry fish to a fish return system which conveys fish back to the Hudson River at a significant distance from the intake. Water passing through the screens proceeds through the condenser cooling system, is raised in temperature, and then travels along IPEC's discharge 3

canal and ultimately re-enters the Hudson River through subsurface ports at the end of the canal, in compliance with New York State thermal discharge criteria. As proposed in the license renewal application, this cooling water system would continue operating in the same fashion with the same features throughout the license renewal period.

NMFS previously issued a biological opinion in 1979 with regard to the operation of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 and its potential impacts on the Hudson River shortnose sturgeon population (NMFS 1979). That biological opinion concluded as follows:

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 not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result 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 engage 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 ... "

It is my opinion that the once through cooling system of the power plants involved in this case is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the shortnose sturgeon because, even assuming 100% mortality of impinged fish, its contribution to the natural annual mortality is negligible. In addition, the biology of the shortnose sturgeon effectively isolates the species from most of the effects of power plant intakes.

Because no critical habitat has yet been determined for the shortnose sturgeon, the use of once through cooling systems will not destroy or modify any critical habitat.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that impingement has any positive benefit for the shortnose sturgeon. As previously mentioned, there are 4

mortalities of shortnose from impingement and there may be indirect effects on the shortnose from impingement. Therefore, reducing the level of impingement will aid in the conservation of the shortnose sturgeon.

(NMFS 1979). At the time of that opinion, IPEC's cooling water system did not include the modified Ristroph screens or the fish return systems that are in place today, which reduce the level of impingement mortalities of and indirect effects on impinged individuals. As a result, NMFS assumed 100% mortality of impinged sturgeon for purposes rendering its 1979 opinion, which is no longer appropriate. This report looks to the scientific literature and field observations since the 1979 biological opinion to evaluate whether a different conclusion should be reached today.

The structure of this report is as follows: Section I provides an overview of the life history of the shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon with an eye toward those life history characteristics that might suggest more or less susceptibility to entrainment, impingement or the thermal plume at Indian Point.Section II discusses the current abundance and status of each species.Section III evaluates whether and to what extent shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon are susceptible to entrainment or impingement at Indian Point.Section IV discusses the thermal discharge from IPEC to the Hudson River and evaluates whether that discharge could affect the sturgeon. The conclusion provides our opinion that the continued operation of IPEC through the license renewal period will not jeopardize the continued existence of the Hudson River shortnose sturgeon population and that any mortality associated with the IPEC operations is of negligible effect on the population.

I. Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon Life History in the Hudson River A. Shortnose sturgeon Shortnose sturgeon is an estuarine-resident species, meaning that the fish spend their entire lifetimes within the Hudson River. As detailed below, the vast majority of its life stages, e.g., eggs, larvae, adults, are not susceptible to IPEC.

From late fall to early spring, adult shortnose sturgeon concentrate in a few overwintering areas (Dovel et al. 1992, Geoghegan et al. 1992, Bain 1997). Spawning adults 5

concentrate in deep, channel habitats considerably upstream (approximately 50 river miles) from IPEC near Kingston (RM 94); another group of juveniles and adults that will not be in reproductive condition the following spring concentrate in brackish water downstream between RM 33-38 in Haverstraw Bay (Bain 1997). Spawning adults overwinter near Kingston, moving upriver to the spawning grounds in the spring (Bain 1997). In the spring, these non-reproductive fish migrate upstream and disperse throughout the tidal portion of the river in deep, channel habitats. This species' preference for deep, channel habitats keeps adult sturgeon away from, and often a substantial distance from, IPEC's shoreline intake structures at RM 43. As detailed below, extensive monitoring at and in the vicinity of IPEC confirms that impingement of adult shortnose sturgeon does not occur at IPEC.

Shortnose sturgeon reach sexual maturity at a length of approximately 50 cm and an age of approximately 6 years (Bain 1997). When water temperatures reach approximately 8'C, typically in early to mid-April, reproductively active adults begin a rapid migration from their overwintering areas in the channel near Kingston (RM 94) upstream to spawning grounds from Coxsackie (RM 125) to the Federal Dam in Troy (RM 151). The downriver end of this spawning habitat is approximately 50 miles upriver from IPEC, thus, spawning adults are not exposed to water withdrawal at IPEC located at RM 43. Spawning typically occurs in the upstream spawning grounds until water temperatures reach 15oC (late April through May), after which adults disperse down throughout their broad summer range in deep channel habitats from approximately RM 27 to RM 112 (Bain 1997).

Shortnose sturgeon eggs adhere to solid objects on the river bottom, and newly hatched embryos remain on the bottom near their upriver spawning grounds. Larvae gradually disperse downstream, remaining in deep water, channel areas with strong currents (Bain 1997). As detailed below, extensive monitoring at and in the vicinity of IPEC confirms that entrainment of eggs and larvae does not occur at IPEC.

Age 1 and older shortnose sturgeon typically are distributed in deep water habitats throughout the river in the summer (Bain 1997). During winter, juveniles and non-spawning 6

adults concentrate in Haverstraw Bay, south of IPEC. The potential for impingement of this life stage is discussed below.

B. Atlantic sturgeon Atlantic sturgeon are not an estuarine-resident species, but, instead, are anadromous.

Spawning occurs in freshwater, but adults reside for many years in marine waters outside the Hudson River (Bain 1997, NMFS 2007). Adults return to the Hudson only for spawning (Bain 1997). Female Atlantic sturgeon become sexually mature at age 15 or older.

Spawning females enter the Hudson River in mid-May and migrate along deep channel areas directly to freshwater spawning grounds upriver near Hyde Park (RM 81) and Catskill (RM 113, Bain 1997). Females return to marine waters quickly after spawning. Thus, adult Atlantic sturgeon are even less susceptible to IPEC than shortnose sturgeon.

Eggs of Atlantic sturgeon are adhesive and embryos remain on the bottom in deep channel habitats. According to Van Eenennam et al. (1996), sturgeon eggs, embryos, and larvae are intolerant of saline conditions, so that habitats for these life stages must be well upstream of the salt front. The salt front itself varies in position over the course of the year, depending upon the quantity of fresh water flow coming downstream. From mid-May and into the summer months, the salt front proceeds upstream from IPEC and can extend as far as Poughkeepsie (RM 71) (CHGE 1999). Thus, Atlantic sturgeon eggs and larvae are not susceptible to IPEC.

Through an age of approximately 2 years, juvenile Atlantic sturgeon remain within the Hudson, overwintering in Haverstraw Bay and dispersing throughout deep areas of the river in summer (Bain 1997). Between age 2 and age 6, juveniles begin migrating to marine waters, where they remain until they reach sexual maturity (Bain 1997). Large juveniles are sometimes found near the mouths of the Hudson River and other coastal rivers from Cape Cod to Chesapeake Bay (Dovel and Berggren 1983, Van Eenennaam et al. 1996).

7

Thus, like the shortnose sturgeon, the biology of the Atlantic sturgeon similarly isolates this species from the IPEC intake structures, with adults and early life stages even less likely to be found in the vicinity of the IPEC.

II. Status and Estimates of Current Abundance A. Status

1. Shortnose sturgeon The shortnose sturgeon was included in the original list of endangered species when the Endangered Species Act was enacted in 1973 (NMFS 1998). The Hudson River shortnose sturgeon population is the largest of 19 populations identified in the shortnose sturgeon recovery plan (NMFS 1998). Although no action has yet been taken to delist the Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon, Bain (2007) estimated the abundance of this population during the 1990s to be approximately 60,000 fish, well above the threshold of 10,000 established by NMFS (1996) that would be adequate to support delisting, and Woodland and Secor (2007) noted that the Hudson River shortnose sturgeon is the largest of the 8 Atlantic coastal spawning populations for which abundance estimates are available.

Based on the size of the population, the apparent health of the individual fish, and the quality of sturgeon habitat in the Hudson, Bain et al. (2007) concluded that the Hudson River population had recovered and may merit delisting.

In 1979, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion stating that the operation of once-through cooling systems at Hudson River power plants was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of shortnose sturgeon (NMFS 1979). As discussed below, the estimated population size at the time of the 1979 biological opinion was less than 10,000. Thus, the 1979 Biological Opinion, which allowed lethal taking of shortnose sturgeon, did not impede resurgence of the Hudson River population. Moreover, as discussed below, since issuance of the 1979 Biological Opinion, Entergy has installed state-of-the-art impingement control technology which substantially reduces mortality associated with the rare instance where a sturgeon may be impinged.

8

2. Atlantic sturgeon NMFS has proposed listing of the New York Bight Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Atlantic sturgeon as endangered (NMFS 2010). The New York Bight DPS includes the Hudson River population of Atlantic sturgeon. This action was taken because the Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team (ASSRT) concluded that the New York Bight DPS was in danger of extinction due to one or more of the five factors identified in section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act: (1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

In evaluating threats to Atlantic sturgeon populations within the DPS, NMFS noted that access to historic spawning habitat for Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River is unimpeded, because the most downriver dam (the Federal Dam at Troy, RM 152) on the Hudson is well upriver from this habitat. Further, NMFS observed that most of the habitat utilized by Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River is undisturbed by dredging and, at least since the 1970s, has unimpaired water quality. NMFS concluded that disease and predation are not presently significant threats to Atlantic sturgeon populations, and that these populations had not been overutilized as a result of educational or scientific research activities. Rather, NMFS concluded that overutilization for commercial purposes was likely the primary factor in the historical decline of sturgeon populations in the New York Bight, and that inability to control continued bycatch of Atlantic sturgeon in fisheries directed at other species continues to be a threat to these populations.

A conclusion that overfishing is the primary cause of decline of the Hudson River population is well-supported by previous scientific publications and agency stock assessments. Dovel (1979) recommended that fishing should be permitted only on fish older than 11 years, so that females would have an opportunity to spawn at least once before becoming vulnerable to the fishery. Young et al. (1988) concluded that the minimum length limit for Atlantic sturgeon harvested from the Hudson River should be increased at least to 72 inches. Despite these recommendations, the New York State Department of 9

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) maintained a minimum length limit of 48 inches, with no harvest quota, from 1970 to 1990. Harvests of Atlantic sturgeon in New York waters grew to an average of 40,000 pounds per year from 1984-1987, after which the fishery collapsed (ASMFC 1990). In 1990, the ASMFC adopted a Fishery Management Plan (ASMFC 1990) calling for all member states to take one of the following actions:

- Establish a 7-ft (84 in.) length limit

- Enact a moratorium on all harvesting of Atlantic sturgeon, or

- Propose an alternative regulation "conservation-equivalent" to a 7-ft length limit.

In 1992, NYSDEC declined a moratorium, instead submitting an alternative regulation, which it claimed was the "conservation-equivalent" to a 7-ft (84 inch) limit.

NYSDEC's proposal was to raise the length limit for both the Hudson River and marine fisheries to 60 inches, and to establish a target harvest level of 8.1 metric tons (MT) for the combined fishery. NYSDEC regulated the New York Atlantic sturgeon fishery from 1993-1995 using the regulations proposed in 1992, but abandoned the regulations in 1996 and imposed the moratorium requested by NMFS in 1990. During the period from 1990-1992, it is estimated that approximately 93% of all U.S. landings of Atlantic sturgeon occurred in New York and New Jersey (Smith & Clugston, 1997).

The 1998 ASMFC Atlantic sturgeon stock assessment (ASMFC 1998b) found that the NYSDEC-proposed 8.1 MT harvest limit was substantially exceeded during all three years. Moreover, the New Jersey landings of Atlantic sturgeon, (presumed to originate in the Hudson) were twice as high as the New York landings. During the 3 years from 1993-1995, New York and New Jersey continued to account for the majority of landings - nearly 80% of all coastwide landings of Atlantic sturgeon. Most of the fish harvested were 10-12 years old, and mostly sexually immature. The 1998 stock assessment concluded that the Hudson River Atlantic sturgeon population had been overfished over the period 1990-1995, and that fishing likely was responsible for the decline in production of young Atlantic sturgeon that began in the late 1980s.

10

In 1998, the ASMFC amended the FMP for Atlantic sturgeon to require a coastwide moratorium (ASMFC 1998a).

B. Current Abundance I. Shortnose sturgeon Mark-recapture population estimates indicate a late 1990s shortnose sturgeon population of about 60,000 fish, with adults comprising more than 90% of the population (Bain et al. 2007). Compared to population estimates in the late 1970s, the Hudson River population has increased by more than 400% (Bain et al. 2007). Woodland and Secor (2007) also confirmed the recovery of the shortnose sturgeon population in the Hudson River during the late 1990s, and suggested that this recovery was driven by strong recruitment of juveniles during the period from 1986 through 1992. Independent data analyzed by Woodland and Secor (2007) from a mark-recapture program and catch per unit effort (density) data from the Entergy-sponsored monitoring program referred to as the Hudson River Fall Juvenile Fish Survey (i.e., "HRFJS") were analyzed for the period 1985 through 2003. Woodland and Secor (2007) confirmed the usefulness of the HRFJS as an index of shortnose sturgeon abundance in the Hudson River ecosystem by finding a significant (p = 0.01) positive correlation (r, = 0.58) with mark-recapture estimates lagged by six years.

The Hudson River supports by far the largest population of shortnose sturgeon throughout its range, and the current population has expanded from the 1970's through the 1990's (Bain et al. 2007). Using the index of abundance developed by Woodland and Secor (2007) from 1985 through 2003 from the HRFJS, this abundance index was calculated for the four year period from 2004 through 2007, and confirmed the shortnose sturgeon population has remained stable at recovered levels since the 1992 through 1996 period of peak abundance (Figure 1).

2. Atlantic sturgeon Data from a variety of sources indicates that the abundance of Hudson River Atlantic sturgeon has greatly declined since the 1980s. Dovel and Berggren (1983) estimated that 14,500-36,000 age-1 Atlantic sturgeon were present in the Hudson in 1977. Peterson et al.

(2000) estimated that 4,600 age-0 Atlantic sturgeon were present in the Hudson in 1994. The 11

only available estimate of spawner abundance is from Kahnle et al. (2007), who estimated that an average of 870 Atlantic sturgeon (270 females and 600 males) spawned each year from 1985-1995. Since Atlantic sturgeon females are believed to spawn every 2-5 years, this implies a total population of adult females of 540-1350 fish. Figure 2 shows annual indices of abundance of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River, calculated using the same data sets and methods used in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows that the abundance of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon declined abruptly in 1989 and has not recovered.

III. Susceptibility of Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon to Entrainment and Impingement at IPEC.

A. Sources of Information Concerning Sturgeon Habitat Use within the Hudson Shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon habitat use within the Hudson has been well-documented in published scientific literature and in riverwide monitoring data collected by Entergy and its predecessors (among others). Scientific papers documenting distribution and habitat use include Dovel and Berggren (1983), Hoff et al. (1988), Geoghegan et al.

(1992), Van Eenennaam et al (1996), Bain et al. (1997), Woodland and Secor (2007), and Sweka et al. (2007).

Annually since 1974, the Hudson River monitoring program, funded by Entergy, its predecessors and others, has been collecting riverwide data on the abundance and spatiotemporal distribution of fish species that utilize the Hudson River. The following long-term data-sets are available for characterizing sturgeon habitat use within the Hudson River:

" Longitudinal River Ichthyoplankton Survey ("LRS"). This program samples eggs, larvae, and early juvenile fish, weekly from April through July. The region between the George Washington Bridge and the Federal Dam at Troy (Figure 1) has been sampled since 1974. In 1988, the LRS was extended to sample the region between the Battery and the George Washington Bridge.

" Fall Shoals Survey ("FSS"). This program samples juvenile and older fish in offshore habitats, on alternate weeks from the Beach Seine Survey (BSS).

12

Approximately 200 samples are collected per week, from Manhattan to the Federal Dam at Troy. Prior to 1988, sampling was limited to the region between the George Washington Bridge and the Federal Dam. In 1988, the FSS was extended to sample the region between the Battery and the George Washington Bridge. The FSS uses two different gears in order to sample as much of the Hudson River as possible: a 1-m2 Tucker trawl and a 3-m beam trawl.

• Beach Seine Survey ("BSS"). This program samples juvenile fish, on alternate weeks from the FSS, from June through October. Sampling is conducted from the George Washington Bridge to the Federal Dam at Troy. The BSS has been conducted annually since 1974.

Table 1 shows the number of samples collected by each survey, for the decades 1979-1989, 1990-1999, and 2000-2009, for the Indian Point Region (RM 39-46), regions south of Indian Point (RM-0-38), and regions north of Indian Point (RM 47-152). Considering all three decades and all three sampling programs, a total of 191,503 fish samples were collected during this period.

As discussed below, all of the above sources support a conclusion that shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon are uncommon in the vicinity of Indian Point, and not reasonably susceptible to IPEC. This is particularly the case for the vast majority of the sturgeon life history.

B. Principal Habitats for Juveniles and Adults Are Upstream and Downstream from IPEC

1. Shortnose sturgeon.

Overwintering: Spawning adults concentrate in deep channel waters near Kingston (RM 94) and non-reproducing juveniles and adults concentrate in brackish downstream waters in Haverstraw Bay (between RM 33 and 38). During winter, shortnose sturgeon are not expected to be in the vicinity of IPEC (RM 43), which is located five miles above the head of Haverstraw Bay in a different habitat type.

13

Spring to Fall: Non-reproducing sturgeon migrate upstream but disperse throughout the tidal portion of the river in deep channel waters, away from IPEC and its shoreline intake structures.

Spawning season: Spawning grounds from late April to May are located upstream (RM 125 to RM 151, Coxsackie to the Federal Dam in Troy) from overwintering habitats that are themselves located upstream of Indian Point.

Thus, the principal habit for juveniles and adults are located far from IPEC's intake structures.

2. Atlantic sturgeon.

Overwintering: Only juvenile fish are present in the river, and these concentrate in Haverstraw Bay (RM33-38), downstream from IPEC (RM 43).

Spring to fall: Juveniles disperse throughout the river, but remain in deep water and away from IPEC's shoreline intakes structures.

Spawning season: Spawning adults enter the Hudson River in mid-May and migrate in deep channel eventually reaching Hyde Park (RM 81) and Catskill (RM 113). Adults return to marine waters immediately following spawning. Thus, Atlantic sturgeon migration does not bring them into contact with IPEC.

C. Sturgeon Spawning Occurs Outside Vicinity of Indian Point

1. Shortnose sturgeon.

Spawning grounds are far upstream (RM 125 to RM 151) from IPEC (RM 43).

2. Atlantic sturgeon.

Spawning females enter the Hudson River in mid-May and migrate along deep channel areas directly to freshwater spawning grounds upriver near Hyde Park (RM 81) and Catskill (RM 113, Bain 1997). Although Dovel and Berggren (1983) stated that Atlantic sturgeon spawn near the salt front early in the spawning season, Van Eenenaam (1996) found spawning females only at historically important fishing sites near Hyde Park and Catskill.

14

Van Eenenaam et al. (1996) stated that spawning is unlikely near brackish water because sturgeon eggs and embryos are intolerant of saline waters, and a significant length of river habitat is needed to accommodate downstream dispersal of these life stages. As noted above, IPEC is often located in brackish water below the salt front, therefore, spawning of Atlantic sturgeon is unlikely in the vicinity of IPEC.

D. Sturgeon Eggs and Larvae are Not Found in the Vicinity of Indian Point Sturgeon eggs are demersal and adhere to objects on the river bottom. Therefore, sturgeon eggs are expected to remain in the immediate vicinity of the spawning grounds and away from IPEC.

Newly hatched larvae remain in deep channel habitats located upriver from Indian Point. No information is available concerning salinity tolerances of shortnose sturgeon.

However, eggs and larvae of Atlantic sturgeon are reported to be intolerant of saline conditions (Van Eenennaam et al. 1996), therefore, they would not be expected to survive in the vicinity of Indian Point.

E. Generators' In-River Monitoring confirms that Sturgeon are Uncommon in the Vicinity of Indian Point

1. Long River Ichthyoplankton Survey The LRS measures the seasonal occurrence, abundance, and distribution of eggs and larvae of fish found along the 152-mile portion of the Hudson River estuary between Battery Park and the Troy Dam above Albany. Approximately 3,650 samples are collected each year, and a total of 87,317 samples were collected during the 1979 to 2006 period with 54,516 samples analyzed in the laboratory. Of these samples, 11,051 were collected from the IPEC nearfield region. Only one young of the year Atlantic sturgeon, one larval shortnose sturgeon, and one unidentified larval sturgeon (probably Atlantic sturgeon) were found in all of these samples.

2. Fall Shoals Survey The FSS measures the seasonal occurrence, abundance, and riverwide distribution of juvenile and older fish. From 1979-2009, 1661 beach seine hauls and 5039 epibenthic sled 15

and beam trawl tows were made in the IPEC region. From these samples, a total of 47 shortnose sturgeon and 53 Atlantic sturgeon were collected over this 31-year period, or approximately 1.5 shortnose sturgeon and 1.7 Atlantic sturgeon per year in the deep channel off shore of the IPEC region.

As reported to NMFS for Take Permit 1580, the generators' sampling programs collectively caught 1 shortnose sturgeon and 5 Atlantic sturgeon in the IPEC region (defined as RM 39 to RM 46), compared to 56 shortnose sturgeon and 21 Atlantic sturgeon collected downriver from Indian Point, and 45 shortnose sturgeon and 79 Atlantic sturgeon collected upriver from Indian Point (Table 2).

3. All surveys combined Figure 3 shows the number of shortnose sturgeon caught in the Hudson River by decade (1979-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-2006) in each of 13 geographic regions sampled between the Battery (BT) at New York City and Albany (AL) by all three survey programs.

The top panel includes all ages and life stages; the bottom panel excludes age 1+ fish. The bottom panel of Figure 3 confirms the conclusion of Bain (1997) concerning the distribution of shortnose sturgeon early life stages, in that (1) no eggs have ever been collected (confirming that eggs are demersal and are not found in the water column), and (2) nearly all larvae and early juvenile (age 0) shortnose sturgeon have been collected north of IPEC. The top panel of Figure 3 shows that age 1+ shortnose sturgeon, as stated by Bain (1997), are more widely distributed throughout the river, however, the majority of age 1+ fish, like larvae and juveniles, have been collected north of IPEC.

Figure 4 shows similar data for Atlantic sturgeon. The bottom panel, like the bottom panel of Figure 3, shows that no Atlantic sturgeon eggs have ever been collected in riverwide monitoring. Except for the period 1979-1989, no Atlantic sturgeon larvae or early juveniles have been collected south of the West Point region. The top panel shows, in addition to a steady decline in abundance of age 1+ Atlantic sturgeon, that the great majority of these fish have been collected north of IPEC.

Thus, riverwide monitoring confirms that sturgeon are not significantly present in the vicinity of IPEC.

16

F. Sturgeon are not Entrained and are Only Rarely Impinged at Indian Point

1. Indian Point Entrainment Monitoring Intensive entrainment monitoring was conducted at Indian Point from 1981-1987, collecting 833,311 individuals representing 51 taxa of fish. No sturgeon eggs or larvae were collected in entrainment samples during this period (CHGE 1999).

2. Indian Point Impingement Monitoring Impingement monitoring was conducted at IPEC from 1974-1990. During this period, an average of 2.8 shortnose sturgeon were impinged per year at Unit 2, and 1.2 shortnose sturgeon per year were impinged at Unit 3 (NRC revised Biological Assessment, submitted to NMFS December 2010). During this same period, an average of 53 Atlantic sturgeon per year were impinged at Unit 2, and 26 Atlantic sturgeon per year were impinged at Unit 3. However, most of the Atlantic sturgeon impinged were impinged between 1974 and 1979. From 1980-1990, an average of 6.5 Atlantic sturgeon per year were impinged at Unit 2, and 7 Atlantic sturgeon per year were impinged at Unit 3.

All of these fish were impinged prior to the construction of the advanced Ristroph screens and fish return system at Units 2 and 3 after 1990. After the installation of the present Ristroph modified traveling screens at Unit 3 in 1991 and at Unit 2 in 1992, testing of the installed full scale sluice system continued through 1993 to determine the best configuration to minimize the recirculation and re-impingement of surviving fish that were released back into the Hudson River (Normandeau 1996). Impingement survival studies discussed below, together with the relative hardiness of sturgeons compared to other fish species (also discussed below), indicate that the survival of impinged Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon should be high.

Indian Point impingement monitoring was discontinued after discussions with NYSDEC, due to the installation of this system, which is still considered to be state-of-the-art for reducing impingement mortality (EPA 2011).

17

In comparison to these impingement numbers, from 1984 through 1987, 40,000 pounds per year of Atlantic sturgeon were legally harvested in New York waters (ASMFC 1998b).

G. Impinged Sturgeon are Likely to Survive

1. Description of Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon Stress Tolerances NMFS's (NMFS 2010) protocol for collecting and handling Atlantic, shortnose, gulf, and green sturgeons notes that sturgeon are hardy, so that sampling methods that are inappropriate for collecting and handling many fish species can be successfully used with sturgeon. In particular, sturgeon are most commonly collected with gill nets and trammel nets lethal to many species.

Stresses related to capture, handling, and holding are also influenced by dissolved oxygen levels, temperature, and salinity. For these reasons, NMFS recommends that gill net sampling not be performed when temperatures exceed 28 0 C and oxygen levels are below 5 mg/L and oxygen saturation at the sampling depth is less than 58%. Within these limits, nets can be in the water from 1-4 hours depending on temperature, without risk of harming sturgeons trapped in the nets.

NMFS recommends that handling after capture should be limited to 15 minutes, and that fish should be kept in water to the maximum extent possible during handling.

2. Characteristics of Ristroph Screen and Fish Return System that Promote Fish Survival Because of their large size, adult shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon are not impinged at Indian Point Units 2 and 3. The Ristroph screens and fish return systems installed at these units in the early 1990s are generally consistent with NMFS's handling recommendations and promote the survival of the few juvenile sturgeons that are impinged.

Ristroph modified traveling screens were evaluated for impingement mitigation at IPEC beginning in 1985, and continuing through 1994, under the oversight, direction and approval of USEPA, NYSDEC and Dr. Ian Fletcher. Dr. Fletcher directed this evaluation independently under contract to the Hudson River Fishermen's Association. As described by 18

Fletcher (1990), Ristroph screens are continuously rotating traveling screens fitted with troughs that remain filled with water while they are rotating, so that impinged fish remain submerged in water until they are spilled out into a return sluice and returned to the source water body. As part of his work at Indian Point, Dr. Fletcher designed a modification to the fish trough that greatly decreased turbulence within the trough and substantially increased the survival of impinged fish.

Evaluation and optimization of the screening system continued under Dr. Fletcher's direction through November 1994, testing the fish survival, the debris handling characteristics, and the interaction between fish survival and debris handling for various modifications to the Ristroph screen mesh panels, spray headers, spray header alignment, and fish transfer bucket system (Con Edison and NYPA 1992; Normandeau 1996). The goal of these studies was to customize the construction, installation, and operation of the Ristroph screens and fish return system for the optimum survival of impinged fish. Beginning in 1989, and continuing into 1991, full scale prototypes of the fish return sluice systems for Units 2 and 3 were built near the quarry adjacent to the IPEC site (Con Edison and NYPA 1992). Each full scale return sluice system was tested to determine the best configuration of pipes and sluice flow to minimize the mortality of impinged fish during transfer from the Ristroph screens to the river. After the installation of the present Ristroph modified traveling screens at IP3 in 1991 and at IP2 in 1992, testing of the installed full scale sluice system continued through 1993 to determine the best configuration to minimize the recirculation and re-impingement of surviving fish that were released back into the Hudson River.

Following the completion of these final field-scale demonstration studies, NYSDEC, and USEPA accepted the Ristroph screens and fish return system as Best Technology Available (i.e., "BTA") for minimizing impingement at Units 2 and 3, and USEPA recently reaffirmed that decision in its proposed rule under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (EPA 2011). Impinged fish are immersed in water with minimal turbulence at all times except during a short period of transfer from the troughs to the fish return sluice.

19

3. Sturgeon Survival Should Be at Least As High as the Highest Survival Rates Estimated in Field Tests at Indian Point Fletcher (1990) documented impingement survival studies performed at Unit 2 in 1986. The tests were performed on full-scale operating screens installed in one of the Unit 2 forebays. Measured survival rates for commonly-impinged species ranged from 65% for American shad to 86% for white perch and 91% for striped bass.

Other facilities have recorded similar impingement survival improvements after retrofitting their intakes with continuously operating modified Ristroph screens.

> Con Edison Arthur Kill Station: impingement survival improvements associated with Fletcher-modified Ristroph screens and fish return at Con Edison Arthur Kill Station show comparable survival rates to the survival rates reported for IPEC. Reported survival rates (percent) of fish eight hours after collection from the modified Ristroph screens were 87.9% for striped bass, 88.1% for white perch, and 96.3% for Atlantic tomcod (Con Edison 1996).

PSEG Nuclear, LLC: in the Delaware Estuary, PSEG Nuclear, LLC

("PSEG") evaluated impingement survival associated with modified Ristroph screens and a fish return system at its Salem Generating Station ("Salem")

comparable to Indian Point. In a series of studies conducted from 1997 through 2005 that evaluated initial and latent impingement survival, PSEG estimated that the modified Ristroph screens and their associated design and construction technologies and operational measures reduced overall impingement mortality by 88% at Salem (Ronafalvy et al. 2000; PSEG 2006),

with average mortality rates lower than 10% for hardier species such as white perch (Morone americana)and striped bass (M. saxatilis).

Given the general hardiness of sturgeons and the general consistency of the Ristroph screen and fish return system with NMFS's protocols for safe sturgeon handling, survival of impinged sturgeon at IPEC should be at least within the range of survival of white perch and striped bass.

IV. Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon Are Not Susceptible to the Thermal Plume Generated By IPEC.

Swanson et al. (2010) conducted a triaxial thermal study of the Hudson River in the vicinity of IPEC. The study consisted of a combination of field work, data analysis, and numerical modeling. The field program, consisting of an extensive fixed thermistor array 20

and mobile studies, was performed to monitor river temperatures and currents at various locations in the river from northern Haverstraw Bay, downstream from IPEC, to the Bear Mountain Bridge, upstream from IPEC, during a six-month period from 24 September through 3 November 2009. The field data were used to develop and calibrate a 3-dimensional hydrothermal model of the Hudson from Hastings On Hudson (RM 20) to the Federal Dam at Troy (RM 152). The calibrated model was then used to quantify the location and spatial extent of the thermal plume from IPEC under reasonable worst-case conditions, with both units operating at maximum capacity during late summer.

As shown by Swanson et al. (2010), even under reasonable worst-case summer conditions, the thermal plume tends to hug the eastern shore of the river under both ebb and flood stages of the tide (Swanson et al. 2010, Figures 7-9 and 7-10). Data collected during the field component of the triaxial study showed that the thermal plume was restricted to the surface and mid depth layers in the river, never extending to the bottom layers (Swanson et al. 2010).

Since Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon moving past IPEC remain in the deep river channel, they would not be exposed to the thermal plume from IPEC.

V. Conclusion The life histories, habitat use, and migratory behavior of both shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River have been well-documented. Both species spawn in fresh water far upriver from IPEC. Eggs and larvae remain in deep channel areas and are not susceptible to entrainment at IPEC. Spawning adult shortnose sturgeon overwinter near Kingston, more than 40 miles upriver from IPEC. Juvenile and non-spawning adult shortnose sturgeon overwinter in Haverstraw Bay. Spawning adult Atlantic sturgeon enter the river in the spring and move rapidly upriver to the spawning grounds. They return to the ocean immediately after spawning. Juvenile Atlantic sturgeon may remain within the river for several years, occupying the same habitats as shortnose sturgeon. Shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon prefer deep channel habitats during all phases of their life cycles within the Hudson, therefore, even when in the vicinity of IPEC they have low susceptibility to the shoreline 21

intake structures at Units 2 and 3. The above findings are supported by intensive riverwide monitoring, as well as in-plant entrainment and impingement monitoring conducted by IPEC.

These sturgeon life history characteristics already were known in the 1970s, when Dadswell (1979) wrote NMFS' official Biological Opinion regarding potential jeopardy to shortnose sturgeon at IPEC. NMFS's conclusions have been confirmed by the greater than 400% increase in abundance of shortnose sturgeon that is known to have occurred between the 1970s and the mid-1990s (Bain et al. 2007, Woodland and Secor 2007) while IPEC was in operation. The significant historical technical information and scientific literature establish that IPEC's continued operation under renewed twenty-year operating licenses will not jeopardize shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River.

Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River have, in contrast, declined greatly in abundance over this same period. However, the record of stock assessments and management recommendations for this species clearly demonstrates that overfishing and bycatch are the primary causes of this decline (ASMFC 1998b, NMFS 2007). Moreover, the comparability of the Atlantic sturgeon and shortnose sturgeon life histories, habitat use and migratory patterns underscores the conclusion that IPEC's continued operation under renewed twenty-year operating licenses presents no credible risk to Atlantic sturgeon, were it to be listed by NMFS at some time in the future.

22

Table 1. Regional distribution of sampling effort for the Hudson River Monitoring Program, 1979-2009, Region Decade BSelne Ichthy Shoals South of IPEC 1979 - 1989 6,693 5,685 8,202 Miles 0-38 1990 - 1999 3,634 11,533 7,488 2000- 2009 3,597 13,885 7,826 All 13,924 31,103 23,516 IP (Mile 39- 46) 1979- 1989 781 3,875 1,354 1990-1999 440 4,149 1,464 2000-2009 435 4,293 2,221 All 1,656 12,317 5,039 North of IPEC 1979 - 1989 7,076 16,967 9,724 RM 47-152 1990 - 1999 5,921 19,306 9,352 2000-2009 5,920 18,335 11,324 All 18,917 54,608 30,400 Unspecified 1979 - 1989 0 12 6 Region 1990-1999 0 1 2 2000-2009 0 0 2 All 0 13 10 All Regions 1979 - 1989 14,550 26,539 19,286 Miles 0-152 1990 - 1999 9,995 34,989 18,306 2000-2009 9,952 36,513 21,373 All 34,497 98,041 58,965 Grand total = 191,503 23

Table 2. Catch of Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon in the Combined Long River, Fall Shoals, and Striped Bass Programs, November 2006 through April 2010 (data submitted to NMFS for Take Permit 1580, Mar 2007-Mar 2012).

Long River and Bass 2007-2010 Number Caught by Location Shortnose Length Weight (g) Miles 1- Miles Miles 47-Sturgeon (mmtl) 38 39-46 152)

(IP) n 102 102 56 1 45 mean 754 2718 sd 138 1526 max 1080 7200 min 377 240 Long River and Bass 2007-2010 Atlantic Length Weight (g)

Sturgeon (mmtl) n 105 105 21 5 79 mean 430 640 sd 181 1079 max 883 8080 min 121 7 24

Figure 1. Annual abundance estimates for juvenile shortnose sturgeon from Hudson River monitoring program, calculated according to the method of Woodland and Secor (2007).

Shortnose sturgeon 4.5 4..O

§3.0 S2.5 1I.0 0-S 0.0 Co

'.1 '.4 '.4 -4 0~

~-4 0

'.4

'.4

-~ '.4 t.4 '.4 .4 '.4 '.4 -~ '. ~

I I 511U coo

~

I U U 0

U I U

0 25

Atlantic sturgeon 8.0 7D00 o6.0-5;,0 4,0 0.0 . " T " I Figure 2. Annual catch per unit of effort (CPUE) index for Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River estuary based on density data obtained from the utilities Fall Juvenile Fish Survey (Tucker trawl and beam trawl samples combined), 1985 through 2007.

26

Shortnose Sturgeon 1990-1999 1979-1989 2000-2006 120 1oo 9 80*

S60 240 z z z 20

• t n

IM.---E-lIE BT YK "Z CH IWWPCW PK HP KG SG CS AL BTYK TZ CH IP WPCWPK AL 2000-2006 1979-1989 1990-1999 30 0

&20 z

0' BTYKTZCH IPWPCWPKHPKGSGCSAL BTYKTZCH IPWPCWVPKHPKGSGCSAL M..i.IlJ BT YK TZ CH IP WPCW PK HP KG SG CS AL Figure 3 . Number of shortnose sturgeon caught in the Hudson River by decade (1979-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-2006) in each of 13 geographic regions sampled between the Battery (BT) at New York City and Albany (AL) by the Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program (171,357 total samples). Note that the Indian Point region where IP2 and 1P3 are located is labeled "IP", and is represented by 16,948 samples collected and examined for shortnose sturgeon from 1979 through 2006. The top panel includes all ages and life stages; the bottom panel excluded age 1+ fish.

27

Atlantic Sturgeon 1979-1989 1990-1999 2000-2006 300 3001 E0G 250 250 4 150 S150

'7 z 50 50 BT YK 17CH IP WPCW PKHPKG SOCS AL

, -- m BT YK TZCH [P WPCW PKHPKG SOCS AL

-II1- __m BT YK TZ CH IP WPCW PK HP KG SG CS AL 1979-1989 2000-2006 1990-1999 30 30 iT-E0G t

C3 820 10 II,I 10 z

0BT YK TZCH IP WPCW PK HP KG SO CS AL V BTYKnZC WPWPCWPKHKGSG CS AL Figure 4. Number of Atlantic sturgeon caught in the Hudson River by decade (1979-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-2006) in each of 13 geographic regions sampled between the Battery (BT) at New York City and Albany (AL) by the Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program (171,357 total samples). Note that the Indian Point region where 1P2 and 1P3 are located is labeled "IP",

and is represented by 16,948 samples collected and examined for Atlantic sturgeon from 1979 through 2006.

28

REFERENCES Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1998a. Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Sturgeon. Fishery Management Report No. 31:1-60. Washington, D.C.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1998b. Atlantic sturgeon stock assessment: peer review report. March, 1998. Washington, D. C.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1990. Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Sturgeon. Fisheries Management Report 17. Washington, D.C.

Bain, M.B., N. Haley, D.L. Peterson, K.K. Arend, K.E. Mills, and P.J. Sullivan. 2007. Recovery of a US endangered fish. PLoS ONE 2:e168. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000168.

Bain, M.B. 1997. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons of the Hudson: common and divergent life history attributes. Env. Biol. Fish. 48:347-358.

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. et. al. 1999. Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits for Bowline Point, Indian Point 2 & 3, and Roseton Steam Electric Generating Stations.

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc (Con Edison). 1996. Arthur Kill Generating Station diagnostic study and post-impingement viability sub study report.

Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Con Edison) and New York Power Authority (NYPA). 1992. Supplement I. Indian Point Units 2 and 3 Ristroph screen fish return system prototype evaluation and siting study. November 1992.

Dovel, W.L., A.W. Pekovitch, and T.J. Berggren. 1992. Biology of the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum,Lesueur, 1818) in the Hudson River estuary, New York 187-216 in: C.

L. Smith (ed.). Estuarine Research in the 1980s. State Univ. New York Press, Albany, New York.

Dovel, W.L. and T.J. Berggren. 1983. Atlantic sturgeon of the Hudson River estuary, New York, NY. Fish Game J. 30(2): 140-72.

Dovel, W.L. 1979. The biology and management of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon of the Hudson River. Final Report to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. National Pollutant Discharge, Elimination System-Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities and Phase I Facilities, Proposed Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 22206 (Apr. 20, 2011).

29

Fletcher, R.I. 1990. Flow dynamics and fish recovery experiments: Water intake systems.

Transactionsof the American FisheriesSociety 119:393-415.

Geoghegan, P. M.T. Mattson and R.G. Keppel. 1992. Distribution of the shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River estuary, 1984-1988 217-227 in C.L. Smith (ed.). Estuarine Research in the 1980's. State Univ. New York Press, Albany, New York.

Hoff T.B., Klauda R.J., Young J.R. 1988. Contribution to the biology of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River estuary 171-189 in C.L. Smith (ed.). Fisheries research in the Hudson River.:

State Univ. New York Press, Albany, New York.

Kahnle, A.W., K.A. Hattala, and K.A. McKown. 2007. Status of Atlantic sturgeon of the Hudson River estuary, New York, USA. Page 347-363 in J. Munro, D. Hatin, J.E. High-tower, K.A.

McKown, K.J. Sulak, A.W. Kahnle, and F. Caron (eds). Anadromous sturgeons: habitats, threats and management. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 56, Bethesda, Maryland.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010. Proposed Listing Determinations for Three Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon in the Northeast Region, Proposed Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 61872 (Oct. 6, 2010).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010. A Protocol for use of shortnose, Atlantic, Gulf, and green Sturgeons. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-45. Prepared by Jason Kahn and Malcolm Mohead for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007. Status Review of the Atlantic Sturgeon.

Prepared by the Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Final Recovery Plan for the shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenserbrevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Listing Endangered and Threatened Species; Shortnose Sturgeon in the Androscoggin and Kennebec Rivers, ME, Denial of Petition, 61 Fed.

Reg. 53893 (Oct. 16 1996).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1979. Testimony of Dr. Michael J. Dadswell on behalf of National Marine Fisheries Service in Hearing #4160 before the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region II.

Normandeau 1996. Evaluation of durability, debris retention, and cleanability of fine mesh panels on a Ristroph-modified through-flow traveling water intake screen at Indian Point Unit No. 2. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, and New York Power Authority.

February 1996.

30

Peterson, D. L., M. B. Bain, and N. Haley. 2000. Evidence of declining recruitment of Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River. North American Journalof FisheriesManagement 20:231-238.

Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG). 2006 NPDES Permit No. NJ005622 Application for the Salem Generating Station. February 2006.

Ronafalvy, J.P., R.R. Cheesman, and W.M. Matejek. 2000. Circulating water traveling screen modifications to improve impinged fish survival and debris handling at Salem Generating Station. Environ. Sci. Policy 3:377-382.

Smith, T.I.J. and J.P. Clugston. 1997. Status and management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus, in North America. EnvironmentalBiology of Fishes 48:335-346.

Swanson, C., D. Mendelsohn, N. Cohn, D. Crowley, Y. Kim, L. Decker, and L. Miller. 2011.

Final Report-2010 Field Program and modeling analysis of the cooling water discharge from the Indian Point Energy Center. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center, Buchanan, New York.

Sweka, J. A., J. Mohler, M. J. Millard, T. Kehler, A. Kahnle, K. Hattala, G. Kenney, and A.

Higgs. 2007. Juvenile Atlantic sturgeon habitat use in Newburgh and Haverstraw bays of the Hudson River: Implications for population monitoring. North American Journalof Fisheries Management 27:1058-1067.

Van Eenennaam, J.P., S.I. Doroshov, G.P. Moberg, J.G. Watson, D.S. Moore and J. Linares.

1996. Reproductive conditions of the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenseroxyrhynchus) in the Hudson River. Estuaries 19:796-777.

Woodland, R.J. and D.H. Secor. 2007. Year-class strength and recovery of endangered shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River, New York. T. Am. Fish. Soc. 136:72-81.

Young, J.R., T.B. Hoff, W.P. Dey & J.G. Hoff. 1988. Management recommendations for a Hudson River Atlantic sturgeon fishery based on an age-structured population model 353-365 in C.L. Smith (ed.). Fisheries Research in the Hudson River. State Univ. New York Press, Albany, New York.

31