NRC-2009-0390, Comment (7) of Elizabeth Koniers Brown on Behalf of Delaware Riverkeeper and the Delaware Riverkeepter Network Opposing Draft Supplemental GEIS for PSEG Relicensing

Comment (7) of Elizabeth Koniers Brown on Behalf of Delaware Riverkeeper and the Delaware Riverkeepter Network Opposing Draft Supplemental GEIS for PSEG Relicensing

ML110070274
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	01/06/2011
From:	Ellen Brown Delaware Riverkeeper Network
To:	Cindy Bladey Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch
References
75FR66398 00007, NRC-2009-0390, NRC-2009-0391, FOIA/PA-2011-0113
Download: ML110070274 (262)

Text

RULE1 LS D EL A WA R-E RIVERKEEPER VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Cindy Bladey, Chief Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB) 9-?~ c~/e~

Division of Administrative Services Office of Administration Mail Stop: TWB BOIM U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 SalemEIS@bnrc.gov or HopeCreekEISŽi)nrc.gov /2' Re: Dockets NRC-2009-0390 and NRC-2009-0391; Public Comment on Draft Supplemental GEIS for PSEG Relicensing

Dear Ms. Bladey:

On behalf of the Delaware Riverkeeper and Delaware Riverkeeper Network (collectively DRN), I appreciate the opportunity to provide the following comments. As you may know, DRN is committed to restoring the watershed's natural balance where it has been lost and ensuring its preservation where it still exists. DRN understands that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (NRC) has prepared a Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 45, Regarding Hope Creek Generating Station (Hope Creek) and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (Salem), Draft Report for Comment (hereinafter Draft SEIS or DSEIS). The notice of availability of and opportunity to comment on the DSEIS was published in the Federal Register on October 28, 2010 (75 FR 66398). Pursuant to NEPA, on November 5, 2009, DRN submitted scoping comments to inform the NRC environmental review in the license renewal proceeding.

~, / ,~

~(77j

DRN's review of the DSEIS reveals glaring deficiencies which undermine the NRC's conclusion that the environmental impacts of Salem and Hope Creek's operations are not severe enough to preclude renewing its operating license. DRN absolutely disagrees with this determination, and submits that if the NRC Staff had performed the proper assessments, they would have reached the opposite conclusion, in particular with regard to impacts on aquatic resources. DRN urges the NRC Staff to fully consider and address our comments prior to issuing the Final SEIS for License Renewal of Salem. DRN would like to reaffirm its long-standing position to convert Salem to closed cycle cooling as mandated by Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. The Act states that generating plants such as Salem "shall be required that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact."

Background

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact. (AEI) AEI is interpreted by EPA to mean the impingement mortality of fish and shellfish and entrainment of their eggs and larvae. EPA implemented three rulemaking phases for section 316(b): the Phase I rule, promulgated in 2001, covered new facilities, the Phase II rule, promulgated in 2004, covered large existing electric generating plants, and the Phase III rule, issued in 2006, covered certain existing facilities and offshore oil and gas facilities.

Litigation followed promulgation of the Phase II rule. Following a decision in Riverkeeper, Inc., v. EPA, (2d Cir. 2007), EPA suspended the Cooling Water Intake Structure Regulations for existing large power plants. And of course, the Second Circuit decision was 2

challenged to the Supreme Court in 2009. The Second Circuit decision held, in part, that use of restoration measures as a means of compliance is not authorized under §316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a decision not disturbed by the subsequent Supreme Court decision.

EPA is now looking to combine and re-promulgate rules for all existing Cooling Water Intake Structure facilities (Phases II and III). In the meantime, EPA, noting that "With so many provisions of the Phase II rule affected by the [2 nd Cir.] decision, the rule should be considered suspended," it developed the following policy: "all permits for Phase II facilities should include conditions under section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act developed on a Best Professional Judgment basis." See 40 C.F .R. § 401. (EPA implementation memo).

As noted, the Phase II rule was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2009, the high court held that the Agency may consider cost-benefit analysis in choosing among regulatory options, but did not hold that the Agency must consider it. According to certain industry predictions, EPA has signaled concerns with using a cost-benefit analysis. (NERC, 2010 Special Reliability Scenario Assessment. Resource Adequacy Impacts of Potential US Environmental Regulations, October 20,10, at 57)

EPA's new rulemaking is expected to set significant new national technology-based performance standards to minimize AEI. Current industry predictions expect EPA to favor performance commensurate with cooling towers. (NERC at 57) This regulatory process (combined for phases II and III) is anticipated quite soon - a revised draft rule is expected by February 2011 and a final rule by July 2012. DRN also notes with interest a recent news report that NJDEP and NYDEC "have begun forcing scores of their largest water users to either retrofit their plants with modern cooling systems which won't kill billions of fish annually or cease operating." Oyster Creek decision shows focus is on cooling systems, New Jersey Newsroom, 3

December 13, 2010 at http://iww.neiwierseynewsroom.com/scieiice-updates/ovstcr-creek-decision-shows-focus- is-on-cool ing-systems.

The NRC DSEIS does not call for compliance with the Clean Water Act as it relates to best technology available, and even fails to acknowledge the significant environmental impact occurring in the absence of this technology. Every year the Salem Nuclear Generating Station kills over 3 billion Delaware River fish including:

, Over 59 million Blueback Herring

/ Over 77 million Weakfish

/ Over 134 million Atlantic Croaker

/ Over 412 million White Perch

/ Over 448 million Striped Bass V Over 2 billion Bay Anchovy The Salem facility is already clearly having a significant environmental impact on the Estuary, and another twenty years of this destruction will lead to further significant impacts.

Adequacy of Public Involvement DRN objects to having been given less than 60 days to comment on this complex document, in particular in the midst of the holiday season. It is unreasonable that public review of the DSEIS should be forced into a compressed time window and it is unclear why NRC has taken this approach.

Age of GEIS NRC Staff uses a 1996 License Renewal Generic Environmental Impact Statement, NUREG-1437 ("GEIS"). However, the GEIS is inadequate because it is more than 10 years old.

The National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") requires that federal agencies take a "hard look" at the environmental impacts of a proposed action. This includes assessing "significant new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns that bear on the proposed action or its impacts." To facilitate this process, NEPA requires a GEIS to be updated 4

every 10 years. 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. Moreover, evidence exists of material changes affecting the baseline environment since the GEIS was written, including heightened risks of terrorism, the failure of a permanent nuclear waste disposal solution, changes in population density, and progress in the viability of renewable energy technologies.

Accordingly, the GEIS is no longer adequate to dispose of such issues, and they must be specifically assessed in the environmental review process for Salem and Hope Creek.

The Collective Effects of Impingement and Entrainment are not Small The DSEIS concludes that "impacts to fish and shellfish from the collective effects of entrainment, impingement and heat shock at Salem during the renewal term would be SMALL."

DSEIS 4-46. This is completely unsupportable position. As a starting point, NMFS has gone on record that:

Evidence suggests that northeast coast estuaries have lost much of their rich former fishery productivity because of habitat degradation or loss, but lack of absolute species abundance data for early historical periods prior to significant human disturbances makes this conclusion somewhat inferential. Yet the linkage is supported by strong evidence, particularly that stock sizes for most estuarine dependent fishery resources under the jurisdiction of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, New England or Mid-Atlantic Management Councils, or the states of New York and New Jersey fishery management agencies, are not currently over fished, but fall below historic levels (NEFMC 1998; ASMFC 2005). This observation suggests that the Hudson River's ability to support and produce living aquatic organisms has been compromised over the years by lost habitat quality and quantity as humans have dredged, filled, and withdrawn river water for a myriad of uses, resulting in conflicts of use with fishery resources.

Oct. 12, 2010 Letter from NMFS (Colosi) to NRC at 3-4. The DSEIS relies heavily on industry-provided data to evaluate effects of impingement and entrainment. However, the DSEIS concedes that its analysis is flawed, "due to the differences in methods used during the more than 30 years since Salem Unit 1 began commercial operation in 1978, it is difficult to compare impingement estimates across studies." DSEIS at 4-28. Additionally, study results reported in the GEIS are decades old, with the most recent information collected in 1990. This was 5

identified as a concern by NMFS in a 2010 letter to NRC regarding another facility in the Northeast, noting, "This concerns us on two counts: 1) the data may not accurately depict contemporary habitat usage of the [mid-Hudson region] by fishes, invertebrates, and other aquatic life, and 2) the project proponents have not evaluated the effectiveness of adaptive measures that have been implemented since the original [agreement] was put into place."

NMFS letter at 6.

The Draft SEIS fails to consider EPA's 2004 report entitled "Regional Analysis Document for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule." The report detailed EPA's section 316(b) Phase II benefits analysis and study results. This critical information is missing from the NRC analysis and provides evidence and data challenging the DSEIS's finding that "the Staff concludes that impacts to fish and shellfish from the collective effects of entrainment, impingement and heat shock at Salem during the renewal term would be SMALL."

DSEIS 4-46.

EPA itself has acknowledged significant impacts from once-through cooling. EPA has determined that operation of industrial scale cooling water intakes results in a wide spectrum of undesirable and unacceptable adverse effects on aquatic resources including entrainment and impingement; disrupting the food chain; and losses to aquatic populations that may result in reductions in biological diversity or other undesirable effects on ecosystem structure or function.

See, 66 Federal Register 65,256, 65,292 (December 18, 2001), 69 Federal Register 41,576, 41,586 (July 9, 2004); NMFS letter at 4.

Expert federal agency NMFS has also explicitly identified significant impacts from intake structures that are ignored in the DSEIS for Salem. According to NMFS' assessment of the DSEIS for another Northeastern facility:

6

The intake impacts for once-through cooling systems largely surround physical habitat loss associated with construction of the intakes themselves as well as the inability of aquatic species from being successfully able to use habitat within the volumes of water withdrawn from the source supply. These impacts may include changing particular ecological features such as local hydrological patterns as suggested in the foregoing section, but the preponderance of the impacts usually are associated with organism impingement and entrainment. Impingement impacts tend to accrue to larger species and life stages that cannot pass through the impingement screens nor avoid the intake current, but become trapped on cooling water screens and sometimes cannot escape before suffering exhaustion, injury or even mortality.

Unlike impingement impacts, which tend to exhibit some selective characteristics in that they largely accrue to larger taxa or more mature life stages, entrainment of organisms into the cooling water source stream are relatively indiscriminate and may adversely affect any organism that fits through the screens and cannot counter the suction force of the intake. While the review material indicate that the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems have been retrofitted with dual-speed and variable-flow pumps in order that intake flows can be regulated to some degree to provide some level of mitigation or protection, we note that the dGEIS also indicates that using planned seasonal outages or maximum pump speeds does not eliminate the losses of fishes and other organisms to entrainment.

Regarding these collective intake impact matters, NMFS disagrees with the NRCs approach to presenting and analyzing the impingement and entrainment data. We particularly dispute the NRCs decision to attempt correlating overall population level trends with operation of the Indian Point nuclear generating facilities.

First of all, analyzing the data over the entire range of a species instead of a more meaningful population segment does not follow the spirit of the National Environmental Policy Act nor the implementing regulations for EFH in the MSA because it ignores real and obvious impacts that could adversely affect a local stock.

It is rare for the preponderance of a particular species be extirpated unless it already is endangered or threatened, but it certainly is quite plausible that a more local segment of an otherwise healthy population could be effectively decimated in an acute event or after years of suffering chronic or cumulative impacts. Thus, when considering the impacts of cooling water withdrawal on more local stock contributions emanating from the Hudson River and potentially recruiting to a greatly dispersed coastal fishery, the effects of cooling withdrawal even from a limited portion of the total available habitat'(as it is construed in the dGEIS) could be quite profound. Finally, we are critical of this type of data transformation because it also has great potential for creating undesirable artifacts because it assumes all fishery habitats, regardless of their geographic location, size, and ecological condition, are equally valuable to the living resources that they support. The scientific literature is replete with studies that organisms do not use habitats uniformly over their ranges, and this observation is borne out in our own status and trends data that

.7

have been used to select closed areas or to make similar resource management decisions for certain federally managed fishery resources.

NMFS letter at 6-7.

Specific to this site, NJDEP reviewed PSEG data as part of its state permit application in 2006. NJDEP's expert (ESSA) found that PSEG's assertions were not credible and were not backed by the data and studies PSEG had presented. According to the ESSA report, PSEG "underestimated biomass lost from the ecosystem by perhaps greater than 2-fold." (ESSA report

p. xi) And "... the actual total biomass of fish lost to the ecosystem ... is at least 2.2 times greater than that listed" by PSEG. (ESSA Report p. 75)

ESSA Technologies' 154 page review of PSEG's permit application documented ongoing problems with PSEG's assertions and findings including bias, misleading conclusions, data gaps, inaccuracies, and misrepresentations of their findings and damage. Some examples of ESSA's findings:

/ With regards to fisheries data and population trends, ESSA said "The conclusions of the analyses generally overextend the data or results." (p. ix)

, PSEG "underestimates biomass lost from the ecosystem by perhaps greater than 2-fold."

(p. xi) "... the actual total biomass of fish lost to the ecosystem ... is at least 2.2 times greater than that listed in the Application." (p. 75)

V' "Incons istency in the use of terminology, poorly defined terms, and a tendency to draw conclusions that are not supported by the information presented detract from the rigor of this section and raises skepticism about the results. In particular, there is a tendency to draw subjective and unsupported conclusions about the importance of Salem's impact on RIS finfish species." (p. 77)

Referring to PSEG's discussion and presentation of entrainment mortality rates ESSA found PSEG's "discussion in this section of the Application to be misleading." (p. 13) The NRC's DSEIS fails to take this analysis into account.

In concluding Section 4.5.6 of the DSEIS, NRC names several potential mitigation options, but neither arrives at the specific conclusions that the units should be retrofitted with 8

closed-cycle cooling systems, nor selects particular alternatives that they would recommend in lieu of closed-cycle cooling.

Moreover, NRC unfairly minimizes its role, and stresses NJDEP's responsibility to issue permits and impose mitigation requirements. This is completely separate from an analysis of environmental impacts for purposes of NEPA and should not prevent NRC from undertaking a full and fair analysis of the impacts.

Atlantic Sturgeon impacts On October 6, 2010, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a proposed rule to list five distinct population segments (DPS) of the Atlantic sturgeon as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In recognition of the many threats to riverine habitat, including dredging, filling, and degraded water quality, facing Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson and Delaware Rivers, NMFS proposed to list a DPS consisting of these populations, the New York Bight (NYB) DPS, as endangered. See, 75 Fed. Reg. 61,872 at 61,881(Oct. 6, 2010). We also note with alarm that the Delaware River population of Atlantic sturgeon is more precariously poised than the Hudson River population, according to research on the record. According to the DelawareRiver State of the Basin Report, 2008, which is based on science collected in the region, the status of the Atlantic Sturgeon is considered "poor and getting worse" with numbers "estimated to be less than 1,000 and probably less than 100 across the Estuary." Furthermore, there is scientific evidence that the Delaware River is home to a genetically unique population of Atlantic Sturgeon, and that this small but distinct population is currently reproducing. That the Delaware River population is not only genetically unique but also may have a population of fewer than 100 fish makes protection of this portion of the NYB DPS a critical priority.

9

This change in status means that a critical piece of information is missing from the DSEIS, and must be evaluated prior to NRC's. issuance of a final SEIS. A lack of sufficient data relating to impingement, entrainment and thermal impacts of Salem on Atlantic sturgeon in the vicinity of Salem leads to an at best incomplete and at worst erroneous determination regarding the environmental impact of relicensing on this critical species. Given the impending designation of the Atlantic sturgeon NYB as endangered, NRC Staff s thinly supported assessment and indefinite conclusions are insufficient for purposes of meeting the obligations of NEPA. Thus, the DSEIS should consider and incorporate all relevant information contained in the Proposed Listing prior to reaching any final conclusions related to the impacts of license renewal of Salem on endangered aquatic resources.

Mitigation at Salem In an effort to mitigate its significant impact on the Estuary, in 1996, NJDEP issued a NPDES permit with special conditions including a wetland restoration and enhancement program, fish ladder project and biological monitoring program. PSEG is required to engage in the wetland initiative until 2012. in New Jersey and 2013 for Delaware wetlands. The purpose of the restoration program was to enhance the production of fish in the Estuary in an effort to offset losses of fish associated with entrainment and impingement at the cooling water intake structure.

In other words, to mitigate the harms caused by once-through cooling.

However, P SEG's wetlands restoration experiment fails to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. The experiment has resulted in over 22,000 pounds of herbicide to be dumped over valuable wetland resources. PSEG has failed to demonstrate that this experiment provides any environmental benefit - The fact remains that there has been no demonstrated increase in abundance values in representative important fish species. And importantly, PSEG has not 10

shown that the wetlands will sustain themselves once the herbicide treatment has ended. This mitigation project is a clear failure, and in no way offsets the cost of the millions of fish lost each year as a result of the PSEG's failure to install a closed cooling system.

DRN commissioned a 2003 study that reviewed and evaluated the effectiveness of the wetland restoration project in increasing fish production - based on the success of the established plant community, plant densities, invasion by phragmitiesand other invasive species, utilization of marshes by fish, and the potential for the marshes to increase fish populations in the Estuary.

(CEA study at 2).

With regard to wetland restoration efforts, the DRN study concluded that although some phragmitiesreductions were achieved, the sustainability of that reduction was dependent on annual herbicide treatment, and the true success of the program could not be determined until herbicide treatment and marsh manipulation efforts such as burning were discontinued. (CEA study at 24 -25.)

With regard to fish response, the study did not support the assertion thatphragmities eradication was resulting in increased utilization of the sites and increased fish production.

(CEA study at 39.)

For 20 years, PSEG has claimed that the exorbitant costs of conversion make an untenable option. The NJDEP has accordingly allowed PSEG to rely on mitigation practices in order to counter the negative effects of the continued operation of their cooling system on the fish. Since 1993, the DRN has addressed several concerns with the mitigation practices proposed by the PSEG including real data showing that the restoration plans are not working. Whereas, the 2009 Supreme Court decision in Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. held that the cost-benefit analysis was an appropriate in determining the best available technology for cooling methods, it 11

has not overturned a previous 2007 decision, in which determined that after-thefact restoration measures are not appropriate for addressing the environmental impacts highlighted by §316 (b).

This means that, going forward, the failed Restoration measures at Salem should not "count" as valid means of minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact for purposes of 316(b), and should not be considered a positive environmental impact for purposes of NEPA.

DRN urges NRC to review the many flawed analyses and conclusions in the DSEIS prior to issuing a final SEIS. Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Koniers Brown Director of Strategic Initiatives Appendices:

A - October 12, 2010 letter from NMFS to NRC.

B - Carpenter Environmental Associates, Inc., Evaluation of Special Conditions Containedin Salem Nuclear GeneratingStation NJPDESPermit to Restore Wetlands, Install Fish Ladders, andIncrease BiologicalAbundance Within the DelawareEstuary, December 3, 2003.

12

.AIola oOP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

. *+°,* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

• NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE NORTHEAST REGION

'.# 55 Great Republic Drive

'1res of Gloucester, MA 01930-2276 Mr. Brian E. Holian, Director Division of License Renewal OCT 1 2 2010 Office of Nuclear Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Mr. David J. Wrona, Chief Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Re: Indian Point Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3 License Renewal; Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-268;. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation

Dear Messrs. Holian and Wrona:

The National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] has reviewed the essential fish habitat [EFH] assessment and supplemental information provided within the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's [NRC]

'Generic Environmental Impacts Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 38, Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3' [dGEIS], and its attendant appendices.

These documents evaluate the proposed renewal of the operating licenses for Indian Point Energy Center's Units 2 [IP2] and 3 [IP3] for a period of twenty years. The documents include a brief description and analysis of adverse effects to a variety of diadromous and estuary-dependent fishes, crustaceans and other invertebrates, as well as EFH that is designated in the immediate project vicinity. We will elaborate on the affected resources and our concerns regarding continued operations at IP2 and IP3 under present conditions in subsequent sections of this letter. However, upon our review of the available information, NMFS does not reach all of the same conclusions as the NRC with respect to adverse effects that relicensing IP2 and IP3 would have on fishery resources and their habitats. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments at this time in accordance with Mr. Wrona's letter of 21 September 2010.

The current licenses for the two Indian Point nuclear generation facilities are due to expire in 2013>and 2015, respectively. Because IP2 and IP3 withdraw and discharge water into the Hudson River, a navigable surface water body, their operations are subject to Clean Water Act oversight. In New York, this oversight is administered by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which issues Clean Water Act §401 Water Quality Certificate [WQC] decisions under its State Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System [SPDES] program. The New York State Department of State also has a bearing on these proceedings in that it is responsible for any decisions relating to the consistency of the proposed action with the state's Coastal Management Program. Entergy Corporation [Entergy], the current owner-operator of the Indian Point Energy Center [Indian Point] generating units, has made application for the necessary state and federal authorizations and has requested that they are issued to run concurrently. Since these state actions may effect EFH, the NMFS is invoking its option to share our comments and recommendations to the involved state agencies on their activities. as provided by the EFH implementing regulations. We do so here by including them in the service list for this correspondence.

The dGEIS and EFH assessment prepared by the NRC evaluate the proposed action of the license renewal for IP2 and IP3 and form the base documentation for consultation between NRC and the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]. The authorities under which we engage in consultation include the ,

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

Project

Background:

The Indian Point Energy Center [Indian Point] is a three-unit power station located on the east shore of the Hudson River in the Village of Buchannan, Town of Cortlandt, Westchester County, New York. Only two of the generating units are operating. IndianPoint Unit 1 was permanently shut down in 1974 because the emergency core cooling system did not meet regulatory requirements and therefore posed an unacceptable public risk; IP2 and IP3 continue to operate and are the subjects of upcoming license renewals requested by Entergy. Indian Point has a long presence in-the Hudson and is one of the facilities included in the 'Hudson River Settlement Agreement' [HRSA] agreed among the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency and five New York electric utility companies in a controversy regarding coastal habitat and water uses, fish kills and ecological damage in the Mid-Hudson region.

Under the HRSA, the power plant owners and operators made several concessions to stakeholders representing various environmental interests in exchange for them agreeing to withhold imminent pursuit of forced installation of closed-cycle cooling at Indian Point and several other once-through cooled power plants in the mid-Hudson region. In particular, Consolidated Edison abandoned its plans for developing a major pumped storage [hydroelectric] facility at Storm King Mountain, and the various plant operators agreed to collect data and analyze impacts their facilities were having on living aquatic resources for a period of ten years. Subsequent modifications to the HRSA extended the study period by another decade and have allowed these plants to continue withdrawing about a trillion gallons of river water or more per year. Total river water consumption. is dependent upon how many days each plant is operating annually and at what output level. Scheduled outages at Indian Point and more sporadic operation of the fossil fueled plants are all determining factors in terms of the actual water consumption levels at any given time.

The biological and ecological effects of these withdrawals are somewhat seasonal in that they reflect the biomass and species assemblage present at the time that the water withdrawals are taking place. The extended study period included implementing a variety of measures that partially mitigated for impingement and entrainment impacts, but these individually and cumulatively did not achieve the level of impact reduction that would result from installing closed cycle cooling at Indian Point.

The Indian Point generating units alone consume about 2.5 billion gallons of water per day for their pressurized-water reactors. To meet this need, Indian Point relies upon the Hudson River as a cooling water source and heat sink. Water is withdrawn directly from the-river through batteries of seven intake ESA issues have been coordinated in consultation with our counterparts in the Northeast Regional Office's Protected Resources Division and we do not address them here.

2

bays into each generating unit and distributed to once-through condensers and auxiliary cooling systems.

Cooling water is drawn into the plants by variable- or dual-speed pumps. As it first enters, the withdrawn water is skimmed of floating debris and subsequently passed over modified, vertical Ristroph traveling screens designed to protect aquatic life by retaining water and minimizing vortex stress. These modified screens attempt to reduce, but do not eliminate, impingement mortality. A high pressure spray-wash system removes debris from the front of the traveling screen mechanism and a low pressure spray-wash system flushes impinged fishes off the screen and into a sluice system that returns them to-the Hudson River.

Under the HRSA, the former owners of Indian Point conducted impingement monitoring between 1975 and 1990 using a variety of techniques; however, neither the previous nor the current owner-operators have performed validation studies to evaluate the actual performance of the modified traveling screens.

The EFH assessment Table 6 contains impingement data for IP2 and IP3 collected between 1981 and 1990. Revised data populating this table were provided to the NRC in December, 2009. Upon NMFS' request, these data were provided for our use on October 01, 2010 and were used in our review.

Entrained organisms are not removed from the cooling water stream and instead are carried into and through the plants' cooling systems, as they are first collected by the circulating pumps, and subsequently passed through the plant intakes into the condenser tubes used to cool the turbine exhaust steam. Within the condensers, the organisms are subjected to mechanical damage and shear stress, thermal shock, and exposure to chlorine, industrial chemicals and biocide residues. Both the entrained organisms and heated effluent streams then exit the generating plant and are returned to the Hudson River through a shared discharge channel. According to the dGEIS, the prior Indian Point owner-operators periodically conducted entrainment loss studies for IP2 and IP3 since the early 1970s. The most recent data of this nature reported in the dGEIS are from 1990.

Environmental Setting:

The Hudson River Estuary supports an unusually large and diverse assemblage of fish and shellfish, and has long been recognized as a valuable national and regional resource. That is in part because the Hudson makes large contributions not only to local aquatic resource communities, but also to coastal and offshore fisheries that are supported by prey and other nutrients emanating from the estuary. Some of these fishery resources are managed by on an inter-state basis by the AtlanticStates Marine Fisheries

. Commission [ASMFC] and others are managed federally pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery.

Conservation and Management Act [MSFCMA] or the Endangered Species Act [ESA]. All of these aquatic organisms as well as non-managed species such as forage species and other lower trophic level organisms receive consideration under the federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [FWCA] as NOAA trust resources.

Morethan 200 fish species have been recorded from within the entire Hudson Watershed, and approximately two thirds of these occur in the estuary itself for all or part of their life cycles. More specifically, the Buchanan reach of the Hudson River is a tidally-dominated habitat that serves as a migratory corridor, spawning habitat, and nursery area for an unusually diverse species assemblage of resident or diadromous fishes, crustaceans, shellfish, and many lower trophic level prey items (Smith and Lake 1990). Ambient salinity conditions vary seasonally, and generally tend to lie in the mesohaline or oligohaline ranges. The immediate project reach is within the EFH designations for the Hudson-Raritan estuary and is.significant with respect to the resources under the stewardship of the agencies mentioned above. As is true of other estuarine habitats, local temperature and salinity regimes, water depth, bottom type, sediment load and current velocities all influence the distribution and function of aquatic communities.

Evidence suggests that northeast coast estuaries have lost muchof their rich former fishery productivity because of habitat degradation or loss, but lack of absolute species abundance data for early' historical periods prior to'significant human disturbances makes this conclusion somewhat inferential. Yet the linkage is supported by strong evidence, particularly that stock sizes for most estuarine dependent fishery resources under the jurisdiction of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, New England or Mid-3

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

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

Given the immense natural productive potential of the Hudson River Estuary, and taking into consideration the staggering numbers of organisms that are lost directly, indirectly and cumulatively through continued operation of electric generating stations that continue to use once-through cooling technology in the Mid-Hudson reach, 3 the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] suggests that the current Indian Point relicensing process is an appropriate and opportune time to apply the Clean Water Act § 316(a) and 316 (b) provisions regarding large power generation facilities. We note that the Indian Point generating units comfortably fit under the criteria for being required to ensure that the location, design, construction, and capacity for cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available

[BAT] to protect aquatic.organisms from being killed or injured by impingement cr entrainment. We provide further rationale for this conclusion in the following sections of this !etter.

General Comments on NRCs Exposition of Environmental Impacts of Operation in the dGEIS:

Nuclear power plant system operation may create a number of habitat disturbances that range from minor

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

"Altered current patterns have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term".

2 We note that the U.S. EPA generally has determined that operation of industrial scale cooling water intakes results in a wide spectrum of undesirable and unacceptable adverse effects on aquatic resources including entrainment and impingement; disrupting the food chain; and losses to aquatic populations that may result.in reductions in biological diversity or other undesirable effects on ecosystem structure or function. See 66 Federal Register 65,256, 65,292 (December 18, 2001), 69 Federal Register 41,576, 41,586 (July 9, 2004). In addition, 3 Described in NYSDEC's April 2, 2010 denial of Entergy's water quality certificate and also in the NRC's Supplement 38 to the generic Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed re-licenseing of IP2 and IP3 4

Given the large volumes of water consumed at Indian Point each day and the relatively narrow configuration of the Hudson River at the project reach, it seems plausible that under full operation, the plant could induce noticeable changes in the current regime or perhaps induce changes in the local erosion and accretion rates that have unintended adverse effects such as losses of submerged aquatic vegetation, chronic disturbances that discourage settlement of tiny prey items, and similar effects.

Although NRC regulations do not compel the project proponents to provide plume modeling or field studies, our EFH regulations compel us to assume the worst case scenario that the effluent is creating a barrier to migrating fishes and other .unacceptable environmental conditions that would adversely affect the amount and quality of available EFH. We understand that the plant operators have been using various measures to partially mitigate for these effects, but the lack of a detailed study that 1) evaluates the impacts of once-through cooling at Indian Point and the three other generating units and 2) clearly demonstrates that the measures they have been implementing are functionally equivalent to the installation of closed-cycle cooling leaves their position on the Clean Water Act § 316(a) and 316 (b) provisions as unsupported assertions. After several extensions of the HRSA, the situation remains fundamentally unchanged with regard to fish stocks and the plants are potential triggers for lost EFH in the form of direct habitat loss compounded by lost productivity in designated EFH.

There is similar concern in the statements for many of the other bullets in this section of the dGEIS, notably as regards the potential release of chemical or thermal pollution [and attendant adverse impacts to fishery resoUrce movements, etc.]; entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton; induction of low dissolved oxygen; and other line items that would reduce the quality and quantity of designated EFH as described in the implementing regulations for the MSFCMA. As such; it is difficult for us to dismiss these topics so easily as problems that could be thoroughly assessed in our overall FWCA and .EFH coordination. Along these same lines, existing entrainment study results from IP2 and IP3 collected from 1981-1987 do not seem to include hard data or discussion of the entrainment implications for fish. eggs and larvae, copepods and other invertebrate prey items that are described clearly as prey in the EFH vignettes included for red hake, winter flounder, windowpane, bluefish and Atlantic butterfish. While Section H.1.2 of the dGEIS and its corresponding subsections do provide a short discussion of entrainment, and even casually observe that a wide variety of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and early life stages of fish and shellfish are vulnerable to becoming drawn into the generating plants via the cooling water stream, the review documents do not provide a thorough analysis of impacts to EFH with respect to

- their operations. Losses of this nature would have at least indirect and cumulative adverse effects on EFH not just in the mid-Hudson region, but extending into the marine portions of the coastai zone.

Coincidentally, the discussion noted in the foregoing paragraph touches upon the controversial nature of how different stakeholders view entrainment survival, which has' a bearing on how a disagreement like the Hudson River power plant example can take deep root, intensify and perpetuate. For entrainment, the NRC documents note a-wide range of perceptions on how different stakeholders view the potential for entrainment survival. As.these documents suggest, the most conservative estimates consider entrainment 100% fatal, while some of the power companies suggest that some species or life stages could fare considerably better based upon 96-hour survival studies. The NRC correctly acknowledges in the dGEIS that the latter studies do not take into account indirect losses that arise to organisms becoming injured, disoriented or less able to forage in the event that they are fortunate enough to survive entrainment initially, and conclude for the purposes of their assessment that such losses are unknown.

Consequently, NMFS does not see justification in the gDEIS to support a conclusionthat impingement.

effects are not significant, or that any mitigation attempted to date has been as effective as the BAT for industrial scale operations, namely, closed-cycle cooling. This calls into question any progress claimed to have been. made in implementing the HRSA in part because it gives the appearance that the various indian Point operators did not follow through completely on their commitments under the HRSA.

Moreover, it appears the operators are content to continue under the status quo without demonstrating that their mitigation to date has been functionally equivalent to best. available.technology as required under CWA §316(b).

5

NRCs Evaluation of Impacts on Aquatic Resources from Operation of the Cooling Water Intake:

The intake impacts for once-through cooling systems largely surround physical habitat loss associated with construction of the intakes themselves as well as the inability of aquatic species from being successfully able to use habitat within the volumes of water withdrawn from the source supply. These impacts may include changing particular ecological features such as local hydrological patterns as suggested in the foregoing section, but the preponderance of the impacts usually are associated with organism impingement and entrainment.

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

Unlike impingement impacts, which tend to exhibit some selectivecharacteristics in that they largely accrue to larger taxa or more mature life stages, entrainment of organisms into the cooling water source

.:-: stream are relative!y indiscriminate and may adversely affect any organism that fits through the screens and cannot counter the suction force of the intake. While the review material indicate that the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems have been retrofitted with dual-speed and variable-flow pumps in order that intake flows can be regulated to some degree to provide some level of mitigation or protection, we note that the dGEIS also indicates that using planned seasonal outages or maximum pump speeds does not eliminate

• the losses of fishes and other organisms to entrainment.

Regarding these collective intake impact matters, NMFS disagrees with the NRCs approach to presenting

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

"* ."1. ::' T.: i!**..

own status and trends data that have been used to select closed areas or to make similar resource management decisions for certain federally managed fishery resources.

In concluding Section 4.1.5 of the dGEIS, upon which the NRC relies to support its overall EFH conclusions, the NRC posits that "impingement and entrainment from the operation of IP2 and IP3 are likely to have an adverse effect on aquatic ecosystems in the lower Hudson River during the period of extended operation", and goes so far as to name several potential mitigation options, but neither arrives at the specific conclusions that the units should be retrofitted with closed-cycle cooling systems, nor.

selects particular alternatives that they would recommend in lieu of closed-cycle cooling.

NRCs Evaluation of Impacts on Aquatic Resources from Operation of the Cooling Water Discharge:

As disclosed in the dGEIS,the discharge of heated waterinto the Hudson River can manifest a variety of lethal and sublethal effects on aquatic life, influence local ecological conditions, and create barriers to fish migrations. Direct effects tend to be thought of as mortalities that occur when an individual is exposed to conditions beyond their upper thermal tolerance limits. Indirect effects can result in changes to reproductive behaviors, changes in growth rate or survival of young, blocking migratory movements, altered predator-prey relationships, and similar community level disruptions. Oversight of these matters is regulated under a SPDES permit, which imposes effluent limitations,monitoring requirements, and other conditions, to ensure that all discharges are in compliance with New York state code and the CWA. The most recent SPDES permit sets a maximum discharge temperature of 110°F, and limits.daily average discharge temperatures not to exceed 93.20F for a set number of days from mid-April through June.

These terms have changed over a series of four consent orders since the original SPDES was let.

The NRC bases its evaluation of thermal effects on the status of the SPDES permits for Indian Point.

According to the applicant's assessment, IP2 and IP3 are in compliance with terms of a SPDES permit issued by the State of New York as well as further mitigation required under the fourth HRSA consent order. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), which maintains regulatory oversight over this arrangement, concludes that under certain circumstances, modeling

-, demonstrates that discharges from the operating units at Indian Point allow greater than the four degree

- (F.) over ambient temperature limit, or a maximum of 83 0F, whichever is less, in certain estuary cross

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

The lack of a thermal study proposed by the NYSDEC or an alternative proposed by the applicant leaves the NRC in the position of having to use existing information to determine the appropriate therma! impact.

This resulted in their finding that cohtinued operations with once-through cooling and various mitigation measures would have a small to moderate effect, depending. on the extent or magnitude of the plume, the sensitivity of aquatic life stages that were present, and related criteria. In addition to thermal discharges, the NRC considered the potential for plant operations resultingin other impacts to aquatic resources, and

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

7

We realize that the ongoing dispute between the plant operator and the State have hampered the NRC's ability to present a full analysis of additional mitigation options available for the existing cooling system, and its potential utility for conserving or protecting EFH functions and values. Nevertheless, we maintain that our analysis of the severity of the project impacts on NOAA trust resources is compelling, and that our conservation recommendations are necessary and appropriate to address the project impacts.

Essential Fish Habitat Comments:

Eight federally managed.species with EFH designations within the mixing zone of the Hudson River estuary were identified in the NRCs EFH assessment. Of these, according to NRCs assessment, "there may be adverse individual or cumulative impacts on EFH in the project area for red hake larvae, winter flounder larvae, windowpane juveniles and adults, bluefish juveniles, and Atlantic butterfish juveniles and adults". However, the NRC went on to say in its preliminary EFH determination that they were of the opinion that none of these impacts would rise to a level of concern because "the proportion of EFH affected by IP2 and IP3 is small compared to EFH for the total managed stock". The NRC also proposed that continued operations of the open-cycle cooling systems for.these units could continue in a renewed license scenario provided that appropriate mitigation measures were implemented to reduce thermal effluent as well as entrainment and impingement effects.

While the review materials include examples of measures that have been (or could be) implemented to reduce mortalities, it neither advocates a particularapproach nor evaluates the effectiveness of those measures for protecting and conserving designated EFH or other fishery resource uses. We also note that because the EFH evaluation relies on comparing the immediate project waterfront against the total EFH designated coastally for selected species and life stages, it does not give adequate consideration to the fact that occupation and use of EFH is not uniform. The EFH designations are made on the basis of habitat that is supporting particular species and generic life stages, but does not currently discriminate more finely as to how that habitat is used within a designation. As an example, early juvenile life stages tend to focus on occupation of inshore nurseries and later [but still juvenile] fishes may be using coastal and offshore EFH that better meet their needs. Thus, we do not consider it appropriate to suggest that EFH for a one or two year old juvenile fish is equally suitable for supporting current young of the year juveniles.

Constraining the analysis of impacts to the immediate Indian Point reach and comparing that information against the habitat available to support the entire population and not the stocks originating from the Hudson River, erroneously creates the setting for not being able to find any impacts to EFH. A more appropriate analysis extends the view of entrainment, impingement and thermal discharge impacts to include the mortalities and reduced productivity of forage species, diadromous species,' and resident fishes; to assess their impacts on coastal fisheries including species for which EFH is designated downstream; and to discuss how the lost productivity out of the mid-Hudson represents a net reduction in forage opportunities for offshore and downstream resources. This latter class of impacts is quite relevant in this situation and is not analyzed by the NRCs review materials. Nonethe!ess, the NRCs EFH assessment concluded thatthere may be adverse individual or cumulative effects of the proposed action on red hake larvae, winter flounder larvae, windowpane juveniles and adults; bluefish juveniles, and Atlantic butterfish juveniles and adults..However, in making this judgment, the NRC did not specify particular impacts of concern in the EFH assessment itself. Extrapolating from the dGEIS, NMFS notes that the primary impacts of concern regarding fishery resources and their habitat generally, and for EFH in particular, that would be associated with -continued operations using an open-ended cooling system would be organism loss and habitat degradation. We could not enumerate these impacts based upon the materials provided forour review, but note that at over 2 billion gallons of water consumed per day, the amount of prey available to fishes in particular would be significantly diminished through entrainment alone.

8

- Fr t, -. 1. , I - -

While we recognize the impediments associated with lack of newer studies and related information, NMFS does not agree with some of the methods that the NRC used or assumptions that it made in performing its fish impact evaluations. According to the review materials provided, Operating IP2 and IP3 as they currently are leads to direct impacts to EFH species and their prey in the mid-Hudson region. We also note that the EFH assessment and associated analyses were configured too narrowly to capture the breadth and implications that continued operations would have on living aquatic resources and their habitats both in the mid-Hudson and-to coastal fisheries. As noted above, we are particularly concerned with the potential for Indian Point operations leading to reduced production or availability of prey, which constitutes an indirect or cumulative adverse effect that diminishes the quality of designated EFH as defined in the MSFCMA. Similarly, it is our opinion that a proper cumulative effects analysis for this situation should have included the adverse effects associated with operations at all of the mid-Hudson power plants that rely on Hudson River water to feed once-through cooling systems. We are not alone in this conviction. According to the NYDECs Final Draft Fact Sheet NY-0004472, dated November, 2003, regarding Indian Point's Surface Water Renewal Permit Action, "Pursuant to Section 316(b) of the CWA, and 6 NYCRR Section 704.5, the Department has determined that the site-specific best technology available (BTA) to minimize adverse environmental impact of the Indian Point Units 1, 2 and 3 cooling water intake structures is closed-cycle cooling." NMFS agrees with New York that a closed-cycle cooling system would significantly limit the amount of intake flow and thereby reduce impacts associated with especially impingement and entrainment. It is our opinion that implementing this measure is in the best interest of fishery resources and also is the most appropriate option for meeting our mutual EFH mandates while allowing continued electric generation at IP2 and IP3 in an otherwise sensitive ecological area.

Essential Fish Habitat Recommendations:

To minimize the impacts on EFH, pursuant to Section 305(b)(4)(A) of the MDFCMA, NMFS recommends that the following conservation recommendations be adopted in conjunction with the proposed federal action:

Implement the-best available practicable technology to mitigate impingement, entrainment, and thermal

- impacts. The BAT for Indian Point would be reconfiguring the facilities by replacing the once-through cooling system with a state-of-the-art, closed-cycle design. A closed cycle cooling system would minimize water intake rates and return little to no heated water back into the Hudson River. The reduced water withdrawals and greatly diminished, perhaps even non-existent, plume associated with a closed-cycle cooling system would avoid and minimize what NMFS considers to be highly significant mortalities of billions of aquatic organisms and their attendant impacts to coastal fisheries.

Please note that Secton 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSFCMA requires that the NRC provide NMFS with a detailed written response to the EFH conservation recommendation, including a description of the measures adopted by the NRC for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the project on EFH. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with NMFS' recommendation(s), Section 305(b)(4)(B) o the MSFCMA also indicates that the NRC must explain its reasons for not following the recommendation(s).

Included in such reasoning would be the scientific justification for any disagreements with NMFS over the anticipated effect of the proposed action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize,'mitigate,.or offset such effects pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920(k).

Please note that a distinct and further EFH consultation must be re-initiated pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920(1), if new information becomes available or the project is revised in such a manner that it affects the basis for the above EFH conservation recommendation.

Endangered Species Act:

The federally listed, endangered SNS and the candidate species for listing Atlantic sturgeon may be present in the project area. The NRC is currently in consultation with NMFS NEROs Protected Resources Division pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA and the NRC will conclude the ESA consultation with our 9

colleagues in this Division of NMFS. The contents of the above EFH and FWCA coordination does not replace or supersede any negotiations that you may have conducted or will conduct with our PR division, and only pertains to our mutual obligations under the FWCA and MSFCMA.

Should you have any question regarding these. comments or need additional information, please contact Diane Rusanowsky at diane.rusanowskyvnoaa..qov; 203-882-6504 Sincerely, Peter D. Colosi, Jr.

Assistant Regional Administrator For Habitat Conservation 10

References:

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

' http://www, nefmc.orci/habitat/index. html Smith, C.L. and T.R. Lake. 1990. Documentation of the Hudson River Fish Fauna. American Museum of Natural History, Number 2981, 17 pp.

I1

B EVLUTIN F PENA CODTION CO,NTAINED IN SALE NUCLEA GNRTGSATION INYPDES PERMITTO RES"TOEETAD, INSTALFIS

,LADDERS, ANT INCREA`SE. BOGIAAUNNCE, WIT-HIN4THE,,DELA,,WAR-E- ESThAR(Y.

DeeIer320 VWashifkngIz6n~~k PoAi l4ý8-97'7' Prepared bvCarpenter oavuionm-'a1Asiasnc 70.4I'illtop Roiad,

~~s y( NP P7446",

CEAJ6b"oO16

Table Of Contents 1.0 introduction.; ....... ......................................

2.0 Ecology offtheeDelaware Estuary. .................... ........... 3 2.1 W.eakfish............ ....................................... 5

'22 Striped Bass.............. ................................. 6.

2.3 W hite Per~ch..,. ......... ........ ............................ . ....... 6 2.4, Spot ............ ........... .... .....

2.5 AtlaniticCroaker-..................... .......... .... ........... 7 2.6 Sha.d... ........

.American... ... .... ...... s; 7 2.7 .Rirver Herrng (Alewfe:and Blueback H~rin) . .. .....

.... . 7....7

.2.8: Ba-y An~chovy ....... 8..........

2.9 Minichog............... ................................ 8 2.10 Atlahtic Silverside .*............ .... .......... ... 9 Q,3,8]p 7of salem;Generatm2 Piau;6n Delaware :EstuiaryFis*hPopulations.. 9

`&0 `Eluati6na of'Sait :M-sh ResoratiS Veetative Ss. ............ 10 4.1: Dik'6dSa~tf:Hay Farm F~txn-,R~ Restoration........ ............ ......

EAx'cavation and Rem-oval of Dikes........... ............ o..14 4.4.3 Phragmitesb Eradication: at Lower Bay Sites..;. .... .. 4 4.4A4 Commer~iai TovnWship, ..... .... ........... ,.... ...... 14 4.1.5 DennisTo iu ce , sifer i..p,... ...........

4.1.6, Maurice River Tws ip'; ... 16....

4.2 Phragmites, Domliacted Restoiation Sites.,........................... 17

.4.211 Phragmites-*6minated T,,dl W*tlands Spyand Burn Plqn......18 4.2,.2 Alloway Cree-SPayan Bu Results ........... 19 4.2.3 Mil Creek Spray and Burn Results .................. ....... 21 4.2.4 Cohnsey :River Watershed :Spray andt ,,Burn Results. ..............

o "21 4.2.5 Silver Run. ................................. ........... 22 4.2.'L Ln g Tract.............. 2 4.2;.7 W.oodl'and ]Beach*'Wetiand-.......- .. :. .. ....... 23, 4,"1.'8 The Rocs... os.o.. . .o....23 4.2.9 Ceda SapWta s. ......... ... ~.24 4,2~ Conlsion*...,..................... ............. ........ 24 5.0: 'Fish Responase at Restored MarsheS;.,.,,. .*.......*:..,,.:.-.*. .... ,......:.+25:

5,.1, Fish...Response at ;Restored, Salt Hay Farm Sites ..2'6

. .1 Large Mah C ksAnuaReportData. .. ... ... .... 26, 5.1.;2 Small Marsh Creeks.Annual ReportData.....................28 5.1.3 SpPilemental, Studies: Codcted -by PSE&G .30

.... 30 5.1.3.15*i*3,3 *FishMsemblage........

, ...-  : ...-ý .... ... .. ........................... . .

5.41.3.12 Large Fish- Use 'of.'Marshe's.;.... ........ .......... 30 5.1.3. Resbidency Studies ............. ..

5.1.3.4 Reproduction ....................................... *..31 5.1.3.5 Food Habs...............

5.134.6 Growth artd Survival....................................32 5.2...., Fish ,.. p . .. ... U..p ~perr Bay

... ...Resoneat . y. Treated r... . ,PhragitesDominatedMarshes,.;.-..32

. ..i n- .. . . . . .. P.. . .- . . .

,L

5.2.1 Large MarshC'reeks Annual Report Data............................33 5.2.2 Small Marsh Creeks Annual' Report Data.......... ..................... 35 5.2.3 Suppemental Studies Conducted by PSE&G..................37 5.2.3.1 Fish Assemblage ......

5.2.3_2 Reproduction............ ........... 37 5.123.3 F66d Habitsg ....... ............. ...... 38 5.2.3.4 Feeding and.Growth. .. ... .. .... .......... 38 5.'3 Conclusions......:. .. .. . ., . .. . . .,... ...................................... . . ; ;.38 6.0 EvaluatiOn of Fish Ladders:........ .........  ;.......39 6.1 Monitoring Programs ' '*.,,...,..,..,,:.,,,,*:..' '* .....

..:,40 6M12earsonLake ......... ........ .................. 41 6.1,3 MooresoLake,......;....... ............... ........ ........ 42 6.1-4 _cGin iPdh .....

6.L5 Courey'sPond43, 6.1.7 Coper'River Lake 4 7.0& A~nalysis of Ba~ywide ý Fis Data.......... 45 7.1 Weakfish .. ,,.v.,,.v,,. .,.,, ,..., .. ,,..............f .... 47

74. Stripedot ....... .........................

ah. si..: ................... 47

.. ' 7

-.A~

'7.3 ' hi...

T.4 Spot; .4 7`5 Atlanti',Croaker .,48 American Shad . ..................... 4 7.8 Bay Anhovy ........-....... ...............

'7.9 : Atdant.icSilv r,  ;.side ....... ,.. ......... ,..... ;5V

.`9.0 Refevence S u6e b.C.o..

. ................  ;. . 55' Sist ofTablies STabke'3-1it:ýý 199 ý:PSE&GL6ss Esfiihates

'Tabie 3-2:: ComPrison 'o Bay wid*ebundane' t6- Impiigenent and :Enrainen LQsses Table 4 :1: hrage be4,-:. Z erfi SP w ands'Oathr, Dbehleei* 'Marsh VegetatioraPerc.g rLand:

K ale5 Dnli onsi Cth~~Untfor areMasCb~k

!11'

Table 5-2. 'Cotem6rcial.ToNwnsliip Catch Pei Un it Effbrt Large Marsh Creeks:

Table5Z-3: 'Moores Beach

Reference:

Marsh Catch Per Unit Effort Large Marsh Creeks Table.5.4: Dennis Township Catch Pek Unit Effort Smali Marsh Creeks, Table 5-5: Conmmercial Townsship Catch, Per Unit Efforit Small Marsh Creeks-Table 5-6; Moores Beach Reference Site Catch Per Unit Effort Small Cre&ks Table 5-7: MadV Horse Cr'eekCatchi Per Unit Effort Large Marsh Creeks, Table 5-8: Mill Creek Catch Per Unit Effort Large Marsh Creeks Table 5-9:. Browns Run Catch Per Urnii Effort Large Marsh Creeks Table 5-10:. Alloway Creek Reference Sites Catch Per Uinit Effort, Largeý Marshb Creeks Table 5-11:i AllowaY Creek Treated Sites Catch Per Unit Effort Large Marsh Creeks Table 5-12: Alloway' Creek Reference Spartina Sites' Catch Per Unit Effort Large

'Marsh Creeks

'Table 5413: Mad Horse Creek Catch Per Unit Effort Small Marsh 'Creek

,Table 5-14: Mill Creek Catch Per: Unit Effort Small Marsh Creeks Table 5-15: Brow ns 'Run Catcth'Per Unit Effort Small Marsh Creeks Table 5-16: A9loway Creek Pliagnmites 'Reference Sit*s Catch Per Unfit' Eff6rt Small Marsh Creeks Table 5-17: Alioway Creek Treated Sites Catch Per Unit Effort Small Marsh Creeks:

'Table 5-18: Alloway Creek Reference Spartina Sites 'Catch 'Per Unit Efforti Smrall Marsh Creeks

'Table 61: Adult Passage Results

-T-able 6-2: Number of Fish Stocked' Table 6 Sugmary of Annual River; Hrrifng- Monitpring Restilts

-Table 7-1 i DNREC Juvenile Trawl Data 199'1 - 2001 Listof Figures

Site, Lodcation Map

ýFigure 2-'1: Delaware Estuary Zones

ýFigufe 4-1: Moores 'Beach - Reference,,

,Figure 4-2: Comnercial Township Results5 Fýigure 4-3: Deninis Township Results Fig-ure 4-4: Maurice~ River Township" Fiaure 4-5': Mad Horse. Creek - Referentced Figure 4-6: Alloway Creek, Watershed Figure 4-7: Mill Creek Fiur7 48 Figure 4-9: 'Cohansey River'Watershed SihlerRun Figure 4-19:

Lang Tract:

Fi~gure 4-11:

Woodland.Beach Figure 4-12:

The Rocks, Fýigure 4-13:

CCed ar Swamýp:

iii

'SAlt:Hay ,Farib Restotation;Sites LargpM'atsh' Creeks Atlndtc: Cibaker.

FIgure 5531: Salt Htiy Farmft Rest6tation Sites :Large6Marsh Cr*eeks Atlahtjc..Silverside

• 'Slt.Hay ar ihaRestoratiofrSites L'arge.7Marsh: CieekseBay.'Anc6oVy.

Salt Hay Farm'Restoratibn' ?SitesLarEMash'Cr:eks Mu-nificho_

Fgu re 57, ,:S HaylFat Rstoriatibfi Sites, LiaOM:arsh Creeks Sip6t Figure 5-9:' 'Salt Hay Fam'Restortition,:Slies .Large 'Marsh Creeks W'e~aŽfish fig ur e 5-14: Salt Hay FrRestoratio Site ri m sall Maý,si*Creks White'S Perch Figu re 51I51: Dernis ytge Township L Marsl CBaeky, ComD ercial Toxn0w hýi'PL*,ge Marsh Creeks Moores- Bea*: Ret 6v reýMiiahii Large M'a sh Crseks Figure58 :Salt H-ay Farmn R-esto'r.ifibfSites. Smal Marsh Creeks Atlantic-i6k~

Salt Hay RestorationSi.tesSta'leeMarsh'Creeks ", Atlantic Si1ve'side' Figre-5 169

'.SaltsHay. Rtest Sits.Snmall MV'Marsh CreeksmBay Anchoyyg.,

SaIP ay Farm~s Restoration, Sites. SmallMar&shg Cek MunutA'ch. g

ýFigurle 15 'Sa mtdFarmestoration

• .iay Sii SmallNMarsh Creeks Spot Fifgu,re 5-12 ,PSa tHay FarfRestor6tion6 Sites SmallMarshi,CreeSA,*eks ea ...

SalHay :FIargmRestoraftion ,Sites SlMash Creeks, Whitýh& rcdu Figuire 5-214 D~nnis Town ,shipSalMrh res Figure 5-215 .Cor'netmec idl Township Sma~ll Marsh C6feks, Figu`re 5-216 'Moores BahRfrneMrhSalM~~~ek

!Figure 5-217 i fragirtes lsRestoration Sites, Largp M4Týh Creeks' Atlantic ,

Phragmites Figureq ý5 ý-18 ,'Salt ay.,.{4ree,g-qeiranfibf~inhes Large-Marsh

gt&)EaigCreek-s Atlantic iec*:£vi...

7

*@)

Phragmites Restoration, SitesSLarge Marsh Creeks Bay Anchovy Pdragn'tes Restoration Sites Lar ge Marsh. Creeks- Murhichog-,

PhraMmites Resalorati-SiteLare Marsh Creeks Spot Fig9ure 52 PhragmitcRestpr.ti.i-!Sip6a,Ld. 'Marsh Creeks Weakfshh,

ýPhragmites CetrtoS'&age'vh~

reeks White Pei~h, Figure 524' B~owMA Runia Large- Marh Cre Aoway :Creek Rfrence, PhrAgmtsStsLreMrhCek CrekReereceSprtna Sies LargelMarshi~ek

,AAlcwa "Fiaure,5 28: ,'AUlwa CGree k Treated'-Phragnutes StsLag ashCek Phagies Retorati.on ,ýSites Sm-all ,Marsh ,C-reeks Atlantic:kro-ake~r-,

Eigure 5-30:

Phiragcnyutes Restoration Si,tes, Smallf Marsh ,Creeks Batlantc iversid Phragmites Re~st,oatibii Sites SafliMa-rshiCreeks Munmffiihog'!

Phragmites Restoration Sites~i Small- Marsh Creeks~ Spot' Phragmites Restoration SitefSimalt Mrsh Creeks Weakfish Figr 35A Phragmites Restorationý Sife~srSmall. Mirsh' Creeks Whit& Perdh -'-

Mad Horse 'Creek Reference ý.Site Smafi Marsh Creeks

M4i11l*Creek. Sm~all Marsh~Crek

,browns Run' Sm as ek CelR,ffdrefni6

',A'ilowayk. rha'gniites, SitesýSal~~s:C~~

A Md TV

Figure 5-46: A!!oway Creek: TreitedSitesSm*ill MWrsh Creeks

'Figure 6- 1: Garrisons Lake Fish Ladder ,Adult,Passage. and Stocking, Figure 6-2: Eggs,, aid Larvae Collection attGarrisdns Lake FiTgure 6-3: Juveniles Co6ll*ction:.at G'artrisohs Lake Figure 64: .,,Silver Lake Fish gadde:r Adiilt.P.ssae and St.cking Figure 6-5: Eggs: and Larvae, Collection atASilver Lke Figur*e 66: JuyniiiiesCColec on at Silver Lake.

Figure,6-7: Moores: L*ake .FishLadde*r Ad.ult ýP*agsWag and Sttcking Figure 6-87 .Egg~s-and-tg.vae Co.llctibn at Moore~sLake, Ju~enijiles: Clectie on: at.:M oores: Lake, Figure SMcGinin~s£nFis'f Ladder-Adult asýage :and*Stocking Figuir'e,60: ýEggs iadaar. aeiColletion.st.McGinns Pond I Figure 6-16: JU'Eg6niies McGinnis Pond %Cletionidt Gvrsey. s Pon*d isheLa duti Pasg&aindStoc-king

,Eggs ,,andLarvae&,Collecdtionf~aCoursey-"s Pond

.Jdv6niles Coll9ec6figt.io Codrsey,

.t sPo:*> . ,nd

.McCo iley. Fish eadei.A uIt 'Passage'and ,t~oeiig:

Figure,6 127:

E ggs and Larvhae :.C.11,6lltionat CMc6oley P.fd Juveniles Colle6.ion at McC'11ey Pond ,

Figur&.6-13: Coo6perRiyv,, iseh* Ladder Adult.Pagsag e a Sp.t0pck'ng Figure '6,.l2.: ,Eggs .and LarvaeClection, at;C.oper River Figue 6-f1i5: Juveijils'O6 C ollection atc C ,Ioe'r .Riv'eif Figre f:~ Sufiset-, Lake Fish Ladder Adiilt..Pia*sage-*,dn Stoqng 6-216:

Fgure6T-,

IFigure !6;2,.

F'igfore 67: ,Egg and .'Lar~va'e (collectionhýat Sinis'e'ý*Lt ke Figure 6-'1: Juve nilesý Coblfecdbn '~ akSunhýtsL ke Figuire 6-22: D*NREC JiV6til&Ti'Wl.ata 19,1-72002 Weakfisi,.

Figure 7753: :bNRkEC uven.le!ra'wi Dýata)1994-2002 :Stri '&Bla~s Is Figur:,2-', -DNRC Juvenile Trawl DCau. 1991-2002White Perch DN.EC Juvenile:T,, aWiData.1991.2Q2 1Sp6t .

DNREC Juvnl&.TaWl i.'991:2002 Data Figure 7-6: .DNREC. uvenile. Tbiw1. Dat: 199.1:*2002 Armerican'shiad.: Atlantwi& Ce ik- r

,Figur&7-7,;

,Figure 78;: DNREC JuvenileTraW- ta, 1991-202 Alfewife' Figue, 7'9' Figure,7-9: ,DNRE* CJuieniile:TfAwi 1.aa 19919':20102 gBluebatDk-Herring Figr 718 DNREC JuvenileýTrawlDat' 199,1-2202 Ba 4kfi'dlovr DNREC, Juel Traw Data 1991-202 `-Ahtai Sivrie

'Llist of Attachm enftst ANTTC1HE tat st cal An ly s s f' B y w -Fis D ta

1.0- Introduction lhe. P'Ublic Ser-vice, Electric :;and, ýGas Cortpany' :(PSE&G), Saleffi, Ndt1edf.

Gn~rating:Statihr,(S'ýleni"or 'Statibt) is; lbcated a:bneg fihe, Delaware, Riv'er Es*tuar at.

.A.tifi IsIand,

.ial" Rir Mile '5 the eYstefr:sh6oe of ,the Delaare' Riwer i

Salem Counyit, 'New. Jersey;..'Th'e Salemh':faciity .c6nsists of AtW9o hu*!ear&p6}ered :uhi*

x~iih'o~e~hf~gs, Slfi 6isprnifted t6-.,with'df'aw"3'.024ý,"billibiT

,gall6nis~grdayibf Watrjrýbn,*,,the Estuah, forc6oli- g thrOjg 12 psataft inati bas:

4 Q5O,00g~ioisp~~:mhiite Aproixiael. (Ipi) 'of Wat~r. im fo'ti Cwidrw Estuar*y by, S.Aelfi, -hith ,equates 1to1appr'ninately L% o-f ,the tidal flw thattpasses,: th6e

'Stati6n ,sw'atef is' ,wthdra~ n, ffis&and' oTher a.4uaict orgamismss are&drawn into he&

,Staion~s`iidta1k.stit ctuis a. ýes jnn.-xor mri an., .0ns (itr~id br,r ai&jrappdagnt'he

,Fs . C!:

& ; ak.3iid),

r fish 'are kiii6&:each. yea' 'id'*. id6 'Salrs

'CdoohnPg 'watr, intake. Cle0an Water:*AcL:(,Q A);SScti n* 3:t6.b) reqtuiies':thar-t~he locaftion;,

des{*, c6s tufi,6n and - 'intake:-ntrud!ur' r flect '-h* 'oBest Techolog ,AaIW6b (IRTA) ,fOr, mihltiing ;qd -envise nt~aqt The

,adfim instered by'the.'New Jersey. Depaitent::of 'Eiivironmeta~l iFrotection (N',DE'P).

'h'99anth2O'NwJseyolpntDisgchartge: Eliniatidn',:S ysthin f D. 6i e: tolog, *t ai1cbre pr 316(b):'ofthe' Clean 'Water Actwas *(!)"redltior?'of the peh!tte0 intke'f!ow ofSa~em,.

,from'its m~-udstn aaiy to,.its'nmaxinlmun,,adtual: operation capacity; (2'. mtak,e

'scteen~ri0di~fiatins,:and' '(3) *a raO d:,deterrdent System'. !in

'adIcoi hse sefiimasns a mweantto 6d*'enhavce6en t'amed grouN the.:?Delawae 'tEstumar, the.:ihistllati'n offiish' ladders;,arid a,"baywid" bi'ol'gcal'

.mornitoriinig progam., Teg stated prp se q&f t,*ewqetln4 rest6rlionprog-amaid'th.

ian e ,shscentrain t mentand ilmpibgemenftiti,,at&

'I:

cooling watet ,intake structure., The presumption is that restoring marshes tidal influencOýeto blocked(6 coAsta matsheis, chnging thedhom'ianr veg~tation 't Phragmies doiriinatedý,mrashes.to Tixed vegetation and're6dctiniA-i, pedimnents to fishImigrati~oi wvitin tlhe .st iar will provide addiiionalor iproved habitat fat fishto. Spawn, forage,

gr rin s~urvive.

Pursuafitt0JtsNJPDES tPSE&G pexit,ft 'urchased d2.;0,,Opacres of,:lt .9do,

satl~s* ,N~pecl 'coniditns~ef the p~rerit ,Of:,t1ts land,, 12;459 acres' :were wetlanids.

andi2;:649 acres werer pl'u d buffer,. 'Th*ewetl ands ihcluded6.47598 acr' sofkdkegs~at

,hay farm~s, 3723 .acres dfP..hr,agmites,-domniiated wetl s iNew rse t, andi4;338,L acrestn df Phragrntes.-dminated wetýldsin Deliare. PSE&G js usig tiN matsh.

res6toration nthods Qn,*s~e ,an::,))'"oemnilg former *ay salt farnsto t*i dal itnundaiti in".o toresiore fatilflo*s'andveget~ative',c6ndiiio iaiAi'b;a'

ýco rfitbinati' f h Y~ d ,pIIei ingan ndowing tb PhragitS

ý4 O-nihaf*{d, ffarsh~s-,sasih,ýbrdiý,;fo HA ~i6* ,ai'tlQoht :ik&t,desir-alle6-Agettfg eiit{-

,sp~ie~S dorina~teand giiesareS 95%,oeradicated.& P$E'G* is,reqire_ to enggge.in th*ese ,wetlands ihitiatiy ent-4 .202 !ftNew rseyand '20.,3 fot .Delaware .wetlahds; affer whichh tie~ieli r c*6entirequid1tedjiohiTsgai e . Rer,H 'diin'g acfcivities-c nencd ini 1:99*6., PFigutae ,i sho h,,lo64-ifixso*,fthe w siands.r§storation*sites and- th&; fish lalder sites.,

rarpetiter, Assbciates, c (CEA) boEginmenl on befialf.. .theDelaware.

I ,erk-eeper &NeýtwokreV,-we i .and', ..e-IAuated' lthe effdc".eness. bf ,thie Wet1ntd

,restoration project inncreasig f fpshinprodtuctn o.. Th..

.ffti..n.s. f the. *,eapds.

irýtoraifib- niethids:-,Was anhiy£d. lba~ed upOn the siicec':6f;: etabishe, pid , r

,commumty, plantOeiisii~s,, !nvason* :,by,,,Phragidte.,an6d other Thndesirable6 'speces, utiliiatioh of th& marshes bgj fitih.* ,,nith potefitilF f6r the rmaishes,.,toiiicreas fish lpbphlatinsin the DeiaiVfre.E~tiiar:.

2"

Fish ladders were. installed io pr6vide Adult riyet herring passage; adult herring

, p'awvnirig in imppuhdt-ent : ad wibuiari~es; and juVenile herring deve1bpmerit, in; 'dhd emigratfion fromf the', j-hpud-nent, GEA ealuated eý,isting data i. an attempt to d*,t~ermire-wh~thier:*secesSfu!'spawni~ggruns of berfing khave been or. ca.j be established' as. a result of ,fihlh lad*d:ifisialatiofi.aid .nwhethef the.increasein P.ipatiOn Pof~rive, herfing'have-b-t ,.,ilI p ovidAdddifi6ttal f6rage for the ppfedat -pbptii'ns.

The ontine vahatins'ik tis.ieptt etebass uon* documentatioii

• pro'ided ,by'PSE&:G f.efforts; r.aidifi*Kt rgjssooraOn informanon- ,obtaTet ffimth&,

scienfific- lite e feg'ardi'gfiat,iiiiarsh- restoiatiah andthe, i&e.,offfsi,1adia fr~m.viiual 0bs&rvtiYinsý of the iniAishes durifi the sufhMiet-, Ss'6fi:- 'NodNiii'-stneie .

tefior othie'r, bli6a{ "s sm ent ativt...

• ,-w-t fod'ted.

E o offt hg,*lware,:Es tiar The Dei awfe, Estuaiy stretdhesi .or 3"4 nDii6s' from he moul"of>Deiaware 'nay'.

resjdeens' ayibnigratoryz.fSh. :R[eiW':spe'c-es liVe-W~itlipn :the 'estu i~f~tall. a'spe~ts.o,

.heir :ife;hstorvy; Anadromous: ocean migrants. such as her rings-an8 ihdlive if.,ocean Wates and' migrgtedto fresSh We Watrs th of the 'Estuary, to breed'. 'neýspecies,. the' ATein'aicanee,,1 is ea~iAo0MiOPs;: fi 11 es in the4fifesh or fte. Esnianad, sbracklSh',waters,

Iriddd iin, 'thie, octp.. Migta- e'ies- are,74'sually dekienient' on. tEgia*, a's '.

• spawnifg. grr&un'd *'ando nurse!-y :Qther iur*it sfcies use- the, 'E'sftiiy drily, as-feeding*, gro~un. Tti iDeaware, Esnary Progr-am has jidentified ,viety of oaf species-,as:

being T pPTiOr*,ý"itfi Esu ar*sihcliding:',/aii*u shai-krk, 1ýkatas ,a-iidrr',.

Shormos~e and',Atlantic. Slg~eoi;',meri'ai Ee',, BluebakJHerring, Alew'ife; Leiirc~ahý shad'i,:AtlantincMenhaden;, coiimmona*, -6aifish;*AWhitePerc"P i Stipbd 'B6's;'BlU-'fih Wa-kfish, .'Spt,I Atlti, 'Croaker; a vc'rious, f ouhdr...s..... Th

• §d

,sp*cies are: c*htei4d *up6oapLto rere atiota and/or c6 eirieriai 'figheies' ýas, wle as.

3

playing anj fitegral role. i thqe ,Delaware Estuary fobd. web (e Delaware,:Estuaty Plan, Delawre Estuadry Program,. Septeimber 1,99.6).

FishM P6puýti6nS in the,.Estl-iy4, thavellb.cen -iinpaqted by. por walter .quahy.*.i ToFor

,many,years.,the, wat~r§of the Estuary were 6xyq,g.ý4de eted.duing the-sux er db tb orgafiicpollptafit loadi igs, gV, 'Siice thte W960"sthere. h been, intp-oyefnets in. v.ate&

a- i qultyy. `Mpoeents, in indust~a' wamwte nent haye-cresulted i dces theb~chmic-9 ,oxyen iid, aid~ de'creased. irnt ýuch as, mft6ero nd phosphorus; .. S*P G -haconilidetd at the improyvemfent Of. yeli-Iissolv-edo*,i,*

the Estbi. liasjarrsujItaed in.inreasd spawmin mgirajoins, 6f-a adtdNou cipe iih aý,Amneraitsthad,'blueback. lherrhig dardl

• ewife. ither resident and *easdni'alspecies as'&h

-suh49ve *$it, :*rch pi'rsed andy sfie. bass *Jsýoh in nfriberi 'sie th e[

irmprb~m&thiht26f diss Olvedoxy/gen ~vels:. Ih-addditibtoiitipAr'v emenn:hi-:nvater.qualiy, 1:-ishes

havproduced ,

_ageren} ,pgg nt haveenýnstwts!t.. restrict copmerciiafl ,!.diggsand fr protet*d ,fishspe is

1. ft m 4a.shqs are the primary source of much.,, the*drganic ratterfadll a iutfiients fontinkg.Tees:bdsis.of thc'dsald tarie&.f0d'webo As- s~alt marsh' ,egetatin"

,decays,. ,stea-d-s.it of d t"i..th is..releas*d into' uiig, Wat'r, :..9otiig the

,econd i. pdp.juctign ohf fiffishk; USmtCeans .nd bi ,fisdhes sshelfish,

,in, tidal ,creeks .and! flooded iiafsh areas iinlu~d. AtlAddhtic ;si ve.sidse.

.inow.jan~d um ichog,. Maffyfl4s"h Stecies jesideifi.lt ransheg forM f .their.

.Jie: cyl.e-, c*ihluid*g m* hog,/ ti-iped ki lifi*h, :hd s-heepshbad' ii*. AA tltic.

siiVersi'.-edesp.n'if,-. salt.*mnrghes..ý :Oherf*h, 4epend,0nait nah biki assdiajtedj Stidal,:cree .lsand.:aljacentimudflatsf6r, nursery, areasi mcluUl winter fiOuidei,, tautog,

,.bass, alewife imehaden, 'bluefish, mullet, sand ,lance; and striped bass. Sattimarshf*

ar*as.pr-de ciiti I, habitrt. :fOthe >. .... -, d s tages .6lar:val of r -s hs6,iiU and, Sifyrtebrsitel s4pecies, aAnjsed :f6t spa bysre s,:v' Marsh(ares

,aJso'mipo~t f~nde gý-an...e.itig grounds 1,6rrmaniy' 6rd is,and :6thef veqitebrate s~ecies.

(Ne*vlYork tate; S~l. M&rsk, Rsh.,k orati~o'n anc Monitong Guidelihes, .N v Yo k. Sta-.k

DepartMpent ofState and New York StateDepdrtment.of Ehvironrnnial,Corservatioi, Dec elnbeý 15. 2000 PSB&G ;hasidettited: repiesenaii :impfrtantspecieso(tlIS),)fo the -Delaware Estufary wAhibha4&ethef6&us*6 4ettraing tsinpngeiintimand enptsamplifig. T*ese" "PSE&*G*i6niffied RS .fifsh-.sb&6&ies-5fe_ -alewif*; Amierican Sha4d Atlanitic,ý. ker.;,bay

'I -ah'ch6VY, bld~back' eriiisosdebs;w~~~hai h.Thtpr Secieswrcs e PSEGnidered"ahetb.be',represena4iaive6 of plarikton,

,eatng:ad:.,sh.,eatnngior'i'sm s f*

lil1it tdh.,dua* adiiect adiefledtiiiitiji

.:ýiddirect edffects bfhe S~lei-fkii'~iiy~ Thss~islo e a comiher 1loi i*ecr eati~onal *gle ,to&:humans, or are....... ota~

im.or*npr inthe.nf? ,-energyo ýithlinkth,

,:system'.:. :Blow is,'a .,bri~f descripti*itpfh e6ife' historyo the 1NS$andof.tO idditkioal 4i~s '6&iiinini~c og and Aýihtisi~lvefside Whi-tii: htseiy hare j:,sgnificatit nsalt ýfmairshes and pro-ide ,animportant food source fdr predatoqspe ies.,

g -.de she DelaarEsuay ..

2. WeiakfsW W6akfisl ir~e 6qeafirnigraht whi* ,gen irll Ian irihabit the fuary frpom Apx~i

'through Nbember. isheS* mfo akfislressued by the ASMEC in 1991.:, Adu'I s4a~win and feed ih,.the lower esiitaf'r,(belwR`r~l~1)

youing o;e~akfis~h.:ise~the, entire. ba~yand-4 or tiver:(betweenf R~er ,Mr~e*O8-an4~ 7,3)'as .a urufrsy4f,--ring .he ýs-unfr.,, Spa',wniig _f"tohccuresb'ntha1tafI ay;4:9ost]y:

?beIdw ki: ~if 12,,but~can*ei'tnoId toly i*4 6mer ,moe, U:priye ;*reas ofqlowersaliny which: s easnursery2ar-as.. Feeýingvand;rwtof 6*sun-nbr.We@kiiigrAte

,idutiu hiet the t'o

war :waters r o hocean to :oVewiter.

5.

2;2 Stripeod Bass Stripedl bass are an aiadromuotg fish w hichmove into -the ettuý*-4t6 spawn in, Jfeshjbto slightly 15rack-iSh, WAtirs-. Data, haý, shownti that a ir~ge*rkistiif th&eIýsTriped

ppAfiibnrof'the pbass Dela-' rE afig ifate ithe:Cesdp -dnitra 6t1; fhe, DelaWadrec Es'Tuar thiroughih& C1C-esa--ake and. D.bawazd- CanalfXý&D, Cana~l)ý.

.Adultsitmo.ye doWnxiver to.estuariqhand coastal '&TThe, qma or*,oalyihfeJ history stages df'stpged' bass hiave:d- eenb teound near. the t&D Caal:, IntheDelaware6 rbimfihstein, thetliiinc pal spawhingareasýwe ei bt.er* *,epftn:(* £ *~itte CGomodorB~aty 'Bti~idg (RM' 82). Aduistripie: bbass- rca'rriiyofotus~anc oppOrturis fde~defs., SUad rir'her.i~~ and~bay; I~hdf

,sumed~i~y; 4dUit, s eripd bass;, ipedbass" ,pq.In edmthe . .arh: s.

White pe-rh are ypiqahjy,, nriom us: o efri:-anadro0u4., Theyromur notly' sPi at~~ ipriyer 'fo s~paw'ning Jnje!s thig~~g owti ini thefýll. Spe n eaiaeee W t :re omiatyT L iri&

aregRM; 92433). Adults noyeintd Wee dmore saline wn*'ihter.

~~ d~owpiiverd:cl ing tlqe q6syOlk sac tag_;ý'hvi'ngtwad bracislnursryar~eaSas h-ey .ieveiip 6ne6 ji iehi6s. !ni'dal cr seyfe tees d whiie moying'inirtAfil d! iidfit l-0w. Aill spectsioal beuýitf'e h-rw hifr.ist o 6fvwhtle p erchit, ohfur, inbth andom#arSh ;habitats. rbay Spot [:spend

.... ..... :thewi "i ter'

. o9ie'

..& "'de:*contmnenti.....

i ....

... sh~ef-,:s...

0uth.....

' 0 Vi .......

iia;g ma,,. ... iere&-th ',{y..

,.isa~wn-rom la'te*:ept~em~bert_,.,_*

__:__'hroaf'1,gh~r~t:_h*..._ Spawning ' appearsto6c' ocur;........30*50 kifis6t6fis&bIffhi6e. La *a*ieinaifihn'ith6 *cean fofisegrei*1,ti'hsths, ;afid'k6-trnpre~d by 'cffent towafd estuari&iti&irisery ardAs. Datarindicates thfa~t thefirst

rerUits ,into the DelAwei.6 would, be about two to four rmohiths ofage. Jueiiles .are dispersed t1*xoughout the est .p, andly .tend: to 'becomeY cgncentrated in.wtidal' pmprshes a araeas of reduckd t$imeri sa*iiity., Wher'etheY.,remain through6t.it :the reufig ,to ,the ýocean ýto ove'rwiniter. Adults-also ,move into th&, estuiaies ahd nearsh6r&

• cOasaiareas:after spagwmniand ,retri -ttoetheeanatpau ri the, late-fall, $Sot, fee(;d, within. tial nashes.

25 Atlanti foakr

'he Delaware* es*ugse sas.aý,nurserya ea<for thismigrant spe! ies. Adu!1s d Ionoextensiyely userthe larvae ancd small u Iestuarybut offsh...rie :oideeper areas :oftheay with warrner:'ate.*. Aivenilesretu the, esare.-

.e

.intb ripnagi:wliete thmey sgp*e&ttie bs* .inntee.,

2.6 pIspinW.eri.an eh:z Tlirian dnrmous sp eci es mi grates.into -the: De law-f- estuaryt spa whihApriJ Ssahhasfaff 6 the'mýain steb- "a's Hiihrccck, NewMo Y :R29},; wi~rththe6:

greditesi*onen-rafij T.of

'spowning.fistibeing

ý jNn-RM236).

abov'e Dniiý.s jFerry, A

After P Mnng", a 'Igia d th ae ma

• ddwniierines rp ons teprature,.an.d curn~ &xigte etuai-.y:+/- Iretur~~~h

-oceani-As waterj epertures.doi l~aP 2 -Ri Heriger,g 1WifandB kuebacl.Herrin

• Alewife:, pee o~rint in lnanadromous th, ocean':Aandm grate*up the ma.s fe .reeiMeri;as:fdtjas Milanvlle, N (.M 298),ffr* Api]tti*ugh ear y ospawn:,, S"awngalso, occurs, irbutaries, where access -is available.'

.Juv ffese&aV&Ah t-e:iitipe.'fid "tpotio the ,Dela'waite Ri&v*  :'a wate ternpte'a is I

jae,tare,albea!' r, i ial thr1oug early drop-inearly fall, remnaining in e ara ar A 'fii*land(RM51) uhq Deqcerfiber and enterthelowter bayby miid Decetnber.

'Biueba6k hetring-is another. anadromous, sp.ecies whici travels upri'er, ithe spii~gg:to-spawn. Thteycend,both the nriainsstem of.he ki*,ef and tributaries, where:

a.ces§§Si 'aVailabl&., Spawhiigbegms inApril'affd May ind' tay thr-*tigh, id-

&'dx

!June:,, pa*hhgspqccurs iihiagt-Jflowing' waters, oyer'hard.suWfrAte§. Adu tmnigrate, dow iut ae~h'teii& reisiph~h&t area"s ou~hu I the ummr ad 'eaer qhstuary ~in' the, fall when t~empgerdt'es, drop.

Soa anhoyyt albundiant in16tuI hties bay-s c, ;andheii6a'h6ie coastal a r e~s. Bay

anchovy: ,occur thughouti DelawarqeBay,l its tbutarisanc th& C&D .anal; anre-

abi&id'aht'fistgsfiinthe D etawafe Bay', AdwaretsmOve int*fi4reas nfroroetW iht

'"deep pi,ti'6tnsofjt s iio shallow f te estuary u'ae*,wflY&i

' er& 'theypspawn, in' sprin.' Spawn gcrfrom M ay g,-hr .Adulis :reiaiD in tlý:esuiry, untii.

!:l~ate summ~er.44 r ariyfaliiwhen theyvibegih,:to',move-back',to'deepme; r waters of

.thebay; a _ a siuii-u-rd 'digjNegsiiti6g an4

move

upr*ier finto 4 , saihnit nureer,/ sReroductionfeedn..g

.ar'ea. eof. a'd 'growth juyejii1,s, occurs bdth ihl bay and rnlrsh habitats. Juvtihie's ,tive..'dowwiriVer: iintddeeper chiannel, aeas tooyerwter, :Ba).afichoVy play an .i4 rtnt part.:in:*i'e g&-afinqe

'foogd:

](w~eb; iser*iing;. 5h p In~i-.m , fod: sbdiice for.juve.kfil -W kfi'e; aildd eii tflo0under.

f:.Oi m h6g:m;i-ive. .fnaairy :in tidal finaf~he.g¢ h, iaacit.

Ad s 6~ll rects..

Muniniciog,S ssp-awni fn, b15ihiq is saltwater nSupawriig:

'&cebrs frdiniuJue.

thro'dgh.,AgustW, wth ,igh`oi"more SpaWns' in:a seasofi, Th* rarean,'apop t.n'fo-age fih. "They iaypa a oant

out, of salt marsh.,ecosystems, (Species Profiles:,Life tHistories ,and Ehvironmental RPquirements (of Coaxstdl'Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Aýtlanic): Mu'mich g and Stiiped'.Kililfish, Army Corps of iEgineers, and U.,S. Fish*, and W*idlife Service Biological[`Report 82(11.40), June 1985).

2.10 Atlantic Silver"side Atlantic silversides are abundantinsaltmarshes, estaries and tidal creeks and are oftei* the most abunddant species found-in.,these.areas. Spawninig o*ciirs from late March through June in 'the intertidal :zones:of :estuaries. Juvenile and adult silversides live in intertidal creeks, nm'rshesi and Shore. zones of bays and tributaries iii spring; summer and fall, moving towards the deeper warmer waters of the ocean to overwinter'.

Atlantic silverside serves as; an important, forage species, serving as a f0.d source for striped bass and bluefish., (Specles Profiles:. Life IHistories and Environmenial Requirem*nts. of Coastal Fishes and invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic): Atlantic Silierside, Army Corps of Engineers ,,and VUS Fishl' and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS82/1i.O,l October 1983).

3.0 Im)pact of Salem Generaiing Plant on Delaw-areEstuary Fish Populations Aquatic orgarnisms drawn into cooling water intake s-iucturesat the Sal em facility c eitýher be impinged ooncomponent the coolng water intake structure or entrained in the cooling waterF system itself., Entrainmentoccurs when ,organisms: are, drawnl through the cooling water intake 'structiire into the'. cooling system.. O;rg:aisms that become entrained are norimally relatively small' in 'size, (i.e. fish latrve and juveniles, invertebrates, plankton,, zooplankion, phytoplakop, shellfish species). 'As entrained organismns :pass thrugh a- plant's: cooling systetrri they :ae subject -to mechanical, thermal, antd ',tqxic stress, The mtotality rate' of entrained organismss is high. Iripiigeinent'curs 'when 0rganismis-are trapped against screening de'iicýs by the,foree~6f tlhe water passing through the co1Ing W"ir take structure. fmpfringemetui 9:

caaIm tesult,.,invstar)va0na' d *xhauistion,. Asphykiationb and descaling., j' either case., -a..

'sUbstantial number of. these organiiIsms nare. killed di .subjectedt6 sighificant, harni, .

result, (65R,49059, Nation6d, P-6lluiantDisdzhrgeElimination :Systmn, coolingi Watre' lnake, *Stetures'for 'New ddiRzoes,, August 101 0). If thv.

_ dildiies PropedP1 ' 0 2000" fý4

~urviveth npingenfent or! entrainrnenit, man~ &f these, sbecies ,die:shortly afe th' t1,ettiate d2 at ovJtire bilio ýfi'h v&re infigd afidj.~ ined at ~the

,a'inX .fWi'liiy in' 199.8: (thiis' Anal. s bas d 'uoif tii5~th g . S_

slieca"nI ifii*,b'roons .. sS ', , af:"S fe peri'? n specj*

Ore* li:k&iy' (ihdeiurte/ptegets, tie fftimb 6f fish 5iid'Ipe~i*§ 'iih.*cfSd,

- Tsbi-e ,3A-h sumaries estmaed ~itanei~n mpingeneieti- boss,, h'ern,

ýaf faci~ty.,

,Table.3:-2 .chp'ares' .a~pprkimat.e::nuthbers' -aod "of 'fisI ,nan~ed ianLmnged'to, Atotal,-albunifdaeas,,

ta detetm'ed' by pSB&G iný iý'pe*ntm appicatoh. As oan'be seen itna the.gratpr thet to'al bay-wide:pop ulationi, the tl-igher h'*e' e',

',ass-es, t6:J*lpi ement;*a ftdenffairm-'n..[ fPS5& 6S .assloWnt 4thapeaKsiqm; eet.

ahid ntri'tihent 1osses ;correilateclo'sDly to peaks' 'inp'd'lation, fJot exaMpljp. qfor sftripdd:

".b ss .fe.-wereI pp alc'fintte stin4"bsspoptdixi in, i91093, 198ý9 ad i ,bdthf, 19`9:nd 1993 ,-there Werd al:so, peaks, ini fth-- -be* of str"iped: :basset,;nradin'ed,-ad;'

pingd.. (T . .. e peak wasn seeni ... causein, ar Saleethatws',;

dundefg6ifig matiAteijaiice 4and Aid  ; i cýadity,) "tinadlitiofl* fot-'.@ei, losses 'of'

,O5, a .corfuiated:

dbvy--to, i*nimpgetheni arid ,en miinffient'n 5r beeWn toWeYeas;'Of 6locallIy,

'higt abifidance inithe&'cic~nity, of the Station:..

4A,0; 'EVAuitiaOn-,of Salt MarshRtstian"Vegetatve Success T he y ,a*:

,wetland' "e§ restor'ation,proj ect included. *4.398i ares't of dhked . 'w,etlandts ,f(f~rier y: an..

'4.,33.8~ 'cie 'of ~'etIh,6-:ifblD ie`wi.e 'Wetlands'restrt6rationv

sffo~rs~a .ngoin*g - ttotal Wit'o 'sites, s tre&,of'vWhich A.,fihe

diked6,i§lt hiy.

1`0

farr's/lower 1bay sit~s' (Cormmnercial; Dennis :.nd, Miurice River Towshlips), the..

remaindei Md. of ýhich ,are. Phr'ciarites:dominated sites',of tlieý uppe' ba* (New 'Jersey:

Allway ,reek Watershed :anad C6hahsey RiVer Watershed atd Delaware: Cedar Swamp,. ~L'ahg Tv,*,Th~e. Rocks, oSilver, Rut anid. W*oand Beac-). Two,' eference mnashes' have ýbeini desigrnated foi,,::drnia~isoh*,.These .*t (l)4h& ,id'a Sptiha-doinifated :rbarsh Moores Beah"in thoweIb-y, Serovir'g, asj eferehce fors'alt: hay farrm iamatioh;. an~4 ,(2)' Nad, HorS'e Cre'ek in the upper bay: .sýtrvi'g 4s: rferenc( for Phrg~ts'.d.br"it&siteis. 'These' r~fere-hce~si chose 4ued' to t'h ei rz:Pat ural

st¢

Hnsand.proxiinity toth"other jt. ;S S'eF'gTie.'6-1:1-'iteLbctirit Map.

Sartna-o mnnated.salt Diked',sal,,hay :farinsqin thebower bay were historically.

'marshes, before irnpoundnIents;weIefonsrntqtd to resaicttidal flow ffor 'h&epro6dUtion 6dfsatlhay gtass., (Sphua and oier deirabi inarshN.etatiri will. be referred, toas

.~h h~y~farmin prii Spa~r~i4)~. .idhihinudation 'of tlhe firarsh,. .thei-by. limiijg

fi'sh '-.a6ess tovi.'e iiah id i'em- in his as, davillabl& abitdt. Restoirti. ,,f thdse'

'-areas.iiVo!vedr f . reati466 f6i'diial h"e!s to al:loýw, ae-.sstby and.id Jfi5 pio.... i-de thydroloy teessar t69 .beiblisdesiable,salt mash"vegetati6h..

The s~iti'hay fairr:p so p a started itn 1.905;.., Rest6r'atibmat the ennis"Townrhip-Site began iii Jantai.y 199'06"and was cotppleled in'&'Sejiteniber, 1996;"

.dtorýa6ion atf ,th ,inm*.*ial T,6g'-shriP :'*irte balaii inSeptei6"ffi 4,996,' "WaS

'o'rnpl~etedt~t Decembe' ;.t997<. 'The Matirie. *r, dikes .:were.'brea'hed'

-TbVn'hip

'natrall-y'ii 1-992. 'PSE&G ,subseqe unfe st6raii6,n eff6rtsb'eganf,ifij199,6i

P*hragmites:dominaied~narshes do, Pirqvoides fish thered

- is 1it4-a"*perception thka the4qality '6fthe ýhabfjtatfis- reduced due to the dpienserko'ot matj anid poo~rer'.,putritional

• ,uaiities of.PtIfagmites:.

lRstdtatlon :efforttSatth,. Ph"akites dofni-atedi d'incude sgiies. 'herbicide

.lapphftl-t.. ani pre~s.criied b'ufin'g to eiiiate gfi} ':ih~s ~siff.R-st6P'tonr PPh,

ýeffo*rts.at the Phrdagiaes-donn'ateld "sites. in 'Nbew,. Jersey Arg still 'mnpr6gress. Ijtial' III

I efforts to ,control Phrdgmnites inV0lved aerial application 6fRodeo and su'factant in late 1.996 an'd' 1997 and controlled :burning in, tieý spring, of 1.£998:.;Annuial, applic ations. of 6h~icide, and/or. mechani6ainteventiori*0iohtied :iannualy :thereafter. As,.of-2002.,

aniual 6nging 'activ es include fllow-,up: odeo_ and 'surfactant applicatio-l on'.

'approxiifiattIV one,,third: of the 'arage 'per y:ear-T, mnoii,g -andp dmodific.ati6nso ,.to. the,

-mar h pbla in and 'cntiniu'ed mronitor'iftg.

,PSE&G' hs: -6stablish-ed . t6, evaiat jrit~i'a' tAh ,e'success, of *wetlands:

ve lfestorafik !(eff~orts.ý, ft eiq ~ gt&ria, ~ac Ico'Mink., to PS8'&Q, 'injcludi!

etabli~sheh't of' 'e'sirable (Sparz h" p atd' 'oth~r ativ*.non-Phragmies spfecies) wat fIii Oi s:Imre,

'vegetati nandperce*!t Open 'watrrequir¢menis(L&, t6tal marsh'e'ai *s.not, to' be tharn 20i%*opebA 'Wit~r ,t:the ,j6rity of:thf restotati6nOsltes):' PS&G:hs undertakefi;

evahidiioons 0of'gqeor .fipdrlogy, ,vegetation, coyerag "; rnaerphyte SprodOiictiiy, 'fauni ~e'spse a

aig~al.~prog , u tvit~y, BeAfofh.,ethe projed-t W#; as tted,,

'PSE&G.: _set .seorn& criteriU,'for dktee'inoeg ,tsh Theproject ,_yer a_ tw*eljea..r

,ignto

-mo ii Ig :,per ,d :i~aJn Iud~ing

.).N.,le~ss Ataian. 95'pc tfentq 'Of* tl' rimar~h' pini '(66 ;ernt-6f*he. ta!'t6tal'rnarshi..at, 1',

M a ic&: R* . To rnh]* W * 'd -ta

."* R ttora i'O .ite ýhd': * . at

.ice 'the dtte i

.t' r t.o. ra. ti m. ns.i t es) w l,l1be ,:c olo nl, z-.ed ,b. y <ds, r b e v g.. t treso ,

Phragmit,.c&age will ,be. 5515"f6-aded enift6less.thah,

'oftli6 h tbtl ',,egeýt'ed '

.areaf the rniarsh*plain; (less, ttan4: pdetet.'a t tsi'ft6taa , i arsh I Oped ,watdr and *giated 'intedal ffidd of the total fma _h'area,'with, ag.po*tential'-j

• ,il*

wflatVs>

'upto30' parc'nt Of the to b'e shan abe'targdted 20%,

talt!mai sh, at Maiktit~eJRivet.

SA~sev'ri growing.'seasos'b efor nchmak '4wase,set all: sal; hay wetland-restorati'n sitesmpfllowing cop noof. the retoratbn implementation 'aetivtes - . at' thle 'ei' bf7iin, seasons jheý !sie si,', shduildý Thch, an' interim, vgtae oi gbalnc

'Phrgngiie ;vegeiation) ,of 45%:, IfiPjpemftatf*n', .6f r'6-sc0r taifi, actiyqi~js' Vvere, conmpleted :at Commercial,,,Towt#sip in .cembp 19,97., De'nnisi Tpwiiship ';vas

compieted Atigist,:of. 1996 and Maurice, Rver Town'ship was compietd, -early 1998.

Therffore, Den=is Township tmus*t re'ach 45ý. 'covera& of Spar'ina by 2003;

'.:Cd6nfi~r&iail',TOWrnhi'* b, 2004, and'Mau~ife Rive'by'2005t PSE&G'.alo -set.an interim gba0 6 t 645%

ce.age v a by Spar6: q and desirable-

,marsh vegetation, in six- .'rovg seasons for PhrAgrniies-dominated sites up-o, completion o£ftherestorat"n' iMplenentaon.4actvies,, Accinhg ,to ?SSE&. A..way.

Creek' W.atefled,;M'i 11C~r:ee Ch'ahse3Rv'PerT Watetshe, GrQeen.gSwam ,4ang, Trct, d-silieRun, The`Rocik, ,edCrOS m id t A*ea chv teand ret6iin 'Vird

,ompiet6ed"in 1998. But, it must.be*rec'oNiziZ t a!hough'otht ha bjeecntinpe.

spra,'i ra pi t on'-.oaproi at, 'til'oi e:cp i a ya.r aer at ,04oansgy Aioways. which Aands' :hasIconfributed -to '-achievement- 'of

,5%'" co.ergfoftde.rba rsii-vsegetati6n by -2003,.

'[ ~4.1 D*i~k~d Sai t: ay; Farm R~eoat'raion.

'TheTmai hfbcus 'of thisproject:vas to conyet.thes,'salt hayo farmi ,stes.toJ a sal

• .n;sheAlSiFten bY. e t s: It 'is tfiportaht-to. 'ft&sta-bfish.a, hkydroperiod ,that':returs inunidhtin ofpthe'inrsh;ddgihghi tides and d1a, age durrgi low tideS..to faciitate igrowfth, of Spa-iyQspp. andiher ,desif~able, jituiM. dccufg rnisW speciesps(San.na) To res toreflhemafrlfal' dopyieod;, dik&sý wr irea6hed: and chaniels.,an inktse, were ,xcvated _thibofWgho*t the' "arh"s., In this way, the cycleof:

pit6 i es s0.fthe eeds mfa'rsh::afid _xporting, tiads biher xhIfrsh 'b~y'-pýOducts'intothe ;abihddonh atchb ili9doh' aqtiatitý o~gmsm ~ the4 abeý 6, moVe up 4h~~ida1 ~chain1 dUrlm ihtde d ed

=mbveb5actodeeperhýhanne s'I f-*sOstsary, dtiring i.ow tides.'

13'

4.1.2 ýEkcavatiou and Removal of'Dikes The. design, of the dikd.d Salt Hay 'Far restoration ,Was to, restote! the' tidal. flow

.into, thbe mAtshes, -and to bpen mhrsh, hdhei.hls*.ahcld thereby restor& Startinz to these e* This. :was abt6mpn u e ':ex~vati6n of -hitoric,:4#aier ýharrnels, ahd' inlets to ctWe-it the.ide~al h~droeIiod hfo groWth qthe of' Spa ihn and "othef desira6le marsh.ssc&es., 'Tojprotect the-;adjateh' _rpgp-r.ti&9 from floodinhg fth resi6ration prje.ct had to'create .ad&sign`tiat; Wo6uld, and depth of flooding wojil io~i~res~

i~his ws acdrnlseclby'TheA6 brafhf -dik~e. along 0theppland edz s cfoSs- rainis! ifista6fdi toilovh6& ,ffd'*reg dt: iage of 'the 'tip)ndf :aieas. To, fudfljer'

, imrnize.,any,'damage"' o 'adja'c*n*enprdxie , tfrom floding VSE&G jppurciaseddjeiit

'I ~P6rTOCies, tf~nYb

',4Ji, P3ir*gagites '* iidicati6h,,at Lvwr By ies fiaddiij to' ' i' esf

_injP -breachitg,_the_ man-ex'ii'c6vatinigthch~i~ste~ sJtm

• resptrafibn program' I ed aPra'ginites'e&raica{ionPcor11,gn &LeThe ,CoIimrteiaj, Tý.ow-nghiPýýanid .D.eninis,:T6',wnsýhip sites'wer~e'. 6i Wit-h Rodeo"'and; a'*su'ff tint'du'ring

• ifte. a96'suffliter of' 9%,190,67,00 <atid & ýAiI'appicjnwsdn ntegdrd S.rtef ý 6. pints-,of Rodeo cr6 Grouf& r!Ws spriid '4, 1,'15

)ahd,0.9ý'ac*res of Phagil~sin'Dnn~sTowffshi'nl96' fq9 a  ;,908,itse aetvly. ComfinerCi1al T-6-10niPw assprayed o-&ly , in l998'2'7,4ar were t-eaqted-. Ater sprying

.dead re~ds Wei~e re-mov'e'db-y----e--hac' mid srtert"~bri 4.1.4, QomhereIai Townshjp Th omeca Th~nsh'ipRstt'o ie ifa~ along he-

~b~Bi~1v ihiiiberland~ut~,NJ._ý ~ThIe~iie. is

~Ja~a~eB~y indrtNofr corngm isdd of'.*171 ac~esif'~wetland, forested uplands .ndebbpen'fields. :ProrAto I' 14

"iet6rationacfivitieSih i99B6 the site conisted of7% Spar-tina and,..4-24:6%,Phragihites.

Th6erestoration requiredthe 0n!3truct"bt of ten inlets aloiggthe'existihgdike andani

,egffinated 75,500,linaear feet.o-fie wfr*ibuta-ies. Thetlbutari ies werecobstructedat tvo fe-t *btelow mean, sea, level toienrisute' inudation durinig ldwt'("ide. Coiistruc~tin* beg*h0o,

ýthýsitelim~ptefnber, T996-and' Wvia9fenished De6embe~r 1997.

Litia,.ly,.in 1996 the,,Conhcia* To StHa5' Rnsh'ip trn'WeLiand site.,liad

%sp'rt p and ionlY 421.6% ite*a'ghdis-dniinated lind. This :i iii dohfr-stt to thde referencesite, MooresBeachi,, whi*ch had* 6ta"eage, ofid- 1-,5,% Phagmitesqand'88 %

Sparir~a fom 196 to 002:After the initial',apiicafion o oe n197Sal xovcoVeed ss-are&aje,dropping from7%-to0,5%. "The,Phagmiet*es erag-&edec11edfri*n 62.6% t6 ,iha997.

3 e tyer ,Sparnaaoveage'had'inicteas verTl dlightiytb, 6-2 % Aess tfhan.the: ong'inmaamuindt;J butthie- Phragnidtes-dbiriiiatedlandwasyedu\edto

19. ,1%. The Ph'aghrites~doxintkdiaiid: d'reased in 1999-to; 8,;,4"% and:Spadnind ocuid9.%.i2Q000; bcuid. t, Sparin

ýf ?l coeay hcea 12.3 % f -t& mars,hlIand and',the; "hvagnhdes.dec*reýd t6 7 7 24. oih, 2001l*-d'tfe.

r7,,tesdominateonly .o*te1 lfand ,InhragmtesZanPdcoverage

&d, tse~o 5.3% vhaSana inc .reae sn Io3O%

.easofth ~f~t program, results: are be6grng to be seen ath Cprercial Townhptsite,; with, Sredii'dtions.in Phragrit~_ "and: ihý ses iinqSprti apverage. HowAe,§ t1 iiS.1ie s fi6t, t h45%t rm *Spatinacoverage ao by 2004; a-nd oesv:nq cdpme'

• y6di t Ioeach An: Pt -aOnfe"ý' ;gal ": iAn",..... ,

.... _e site...

ldose,6the refenicfe. rrtshd*iat ,bor eB eadih". Seeei-Fiare,*,e: MoVSBef 0er-' nt lnd..cveragg and.cfiur 4#2 C erca T6wns*i perentmia~n~d coverage.:

.115- *DnsTbwxnship The-D~en1~is.T*o~wfhi~lpaj Hay Wetlands RestbtatioP-S~tercov~s 578 acres-6f INJ.Pre-testoration vgtat qnsisted of Satn ~. a~hymx ati t Phr~gniites an mars'h ,'eRg- tatio , Pestora-tioof th ite r efth" ii'ec:hn'u f siR- inlldts:-,-ýhd,4fte&stithd d 17; O h'jinefa: fdet ofledW tfib-atlries. Thlc'chfdrfhie§it

i. -,* ... .. . ... .... , * - z . ....... .. . ..... .

Sconstn~cted approximatel~r two feet beioW 'sea level 'to enlstire sibtidal habitat dwing low tide. kestoration b5g~ah iniJanuaryU1996,and was, ornpleted by 'September 1996..With "the breaching.

- .f the, dikeS-e.,

The,.Dý-his ,Tw-i'shio, ,sli&*ha tnmaitained -. tiu-ch hligher 'pecntge oft pptia' than Comrfiercina~l Tohhip siiice restoration. a6tiVities'-beganp'in: 1995., The Sp.rtiu acoVer ge w.as',65,:6%0i, I1995 ' bidf6rq.:.hhe':firgt applicatiomof herbiideý. Thie Pha'ifites dOhlnatedo y 6%iofthe'land. After one.yearithe 'Spariapopulatin

,h_ .#opep'l 'y%6).biitdoihad ,&Phiagrhi'te '.(e'.r*

1%), By'997, pheSpa

,iitia ihtd-4., of ' ttmar` h: p-d&he-'e n~t~ai, 78:6%, 'wM6ilet RhmP aniikes&l d6intinaed laud d~opped: iom 6..2:<to.6%' iii[997 and 1998'. 1 i,9 99 ,ati'OOQ0;h.

,d'eiý bb,'r , ,4nn6p6 .ýn'semai.d,

'i; h-gh, :rekhing '78.5%7o d: theni- 80:,YFo tf:&th&t6tal' lan&,.oAs~ thee Phzgiigiite*-d6minated'limidwa' ofily 4.6% and Thiseid T3.0f%'.d

• C'ntinuedi l200-2 . iti-l' 'inq, naintairim 86.5 % i.'land'*,co erage and the

'Phra'gi~ites,h-b1dling at'2'.3 . ?This's*;it&ihas ,reched' the .iihteriin,'g6Ad, of45%'g)6oxirag*:.

SIby Sparii. d The' 12 yeŽp goals:b )f-7 6,--verageby, spda:naMd,4oN-e6e b Phaguteswerealo. the, firstns*.ye ars',,.reachg- the lVels :

[ .:seenolnthe.reference ma at 'lyoores Beach: See Figure 4-3lTennis dwnship peent irand' ye rnngen 4.1.6 ;Maiic*e V1er T6 nship Maufi'cRiveri" :Township Salt"JHay, FarmWetlands-'Rest6-ratinn'Site- ncoýmpasses, i',e3s.a'n- td' Mrc~plf,6ic'RiveY Townsh arsnniiniow , ,(.,bnerlahd",,Co.6i :Nl The.

.per te*r :di~ke/. were.' ,br gd ;in'ý. th W-intef: of; "1092-,'l993.' .'hii, r&siiltd6 &in l': ,uhcntr~A.nNb1.'e floodi&.nd Ahdled'to.':mruc!ho'f te!raem th& jeajbing pdnd1.el oe :Ass.,reu a rt-*ult much:*6i c_

they VegettivN. .cov.-'ei ,jedinid'.ted. ]PSE&G' un-d*e*io*ok- to, re-te:t fui inl~ts:* -lid

'4 0000 ineA-tl feet 6ofA*fyh xca'iatrd ehan* 'to * 'create the. desjred ,tid'* exchan gewith

'the ,esi. $.* Natura.1Pt6 ese rre :b&ng re1ie`d *- fiu v iop .hI liee cdassl .6ha'n i.:

,to 6 'dy and vege t over. e, constT -ctionwas beun ih ý1996 ahd: 'comnpleted'.,i nfebrar i :16

Ir the, Madrice6'Ri-er T hwnsip-site, if-itially, desirable vegetation covefed 11.3 % of'th e.land iWhile Phragrniiesdoiflinated 7!.0%. 'The. very low percentages 9of' both pIant grouids weie-due t0-the previoustbreac hitig of the dike and 'ektensive floodin g which f6lto'wed; creIatj.agi . ge'area.ofopen water,. Int 1997 andy 1'"'98, ih'eJ'ragmites declie*&d 'fiYgt t6 4.-% thento 0:05% of tlie total laind': The ,"ýdesi~rir l'bV"spseies-c ied-st~adily- ',to ,'7:*8.% theni 51:4%' ,,of the, land 'coy'er. The .large' iicSreae in Sati f6loWed te f completi'n, of the constructi ,andidiedgiig in in '998. '1e999 the hs'stayed steady at 0.5o%andt'ffihnros 'slightyto,26o in.'2*000. At the sa**e

'ii thfedsra speci~es increised to 5 8.5 (i 99' hn dropped back db-~ t ti3e,*N.(in200Q). 4*ZOi201Spartina incteased to",70 9% and ,dtropp~ed o 69.,% in20.

,hagmteo~verag was.5% in 2001 and I2.3,% Irn'2002 'Thi.it* has reached he-inteirn gciaI 6f,,4_1% ,cvorage tby,"Spardina ,t*dd',oer,

' desirabI. v&getatibn, and,, hfi&'i2+

i-,yexar Igoalcf 6O6 % -c-.ye'ý&Withei first .five,.ears ;Othe'pr,'gra. The:-1'2Ayerg

bf'redkcti6ntd'4

'dove?-ag¢, .PhagritesWas also - aIhiev&de at~this.isite. 'SFir

4-47 Maurice-eT6.wnipP ceht Land'Covedage,.

,4.2, Phaigg-ites:D ainatedRestor'atiOi~Sites; The 'POragfiteserad ication ýpro -ram was 'und'ýrtak~ia to r&trurnwha't .i5perceived' to!be moredesiraib!e vetat'ion to the, Ph'ragnii .dodiintd -iteS. Ph agrtes:.

'Umhated -i','h6&i &b 6vi isesfbdankhbta thefieJis. a,-pqq

&ie~pti 'n that the quality*l0f the liabitat is recdced'diie' toth,'dehnse 0ro6ot iMat and ,:di"ffeirent.nutitibhlalI cp.ial'0Ts, 'f Ph ite&.,t edstoratin, eff6rts at 'the Ph'aginitesldominated stes include herbicide aipphiat'onndprescibedburnig, toýehmiate Phrrg-te"satt.tdbese'sites.

Restoration &ffifts e~i66 n1996~ 6-t6rat6n .vt tl Ph'ag-mite~s-dom'inat~dý restorati 't s'inNew'

-- Jersey ig &nt-bing; Iiiti1 deffits -to &on-tro Phaitgited&

i'nvled "poia Rfdeoian&d;sufa~tqahffii- late.'199'6 aiid 99.7 a* *6ntr6iled'

,burmnaing 'Ith' spri, g.:oifi'998,RO deo@ apphication rneth6ds included'aer aal 'Pspraying!

bad!koatnd t and-pa owas: done .?h smaliier'areas 'OnFgm g 17

activities in PhmrgmiteSdominaqted sites inclUdedannntialfollow-iip0,Rbde6 ,ahd Surfkacant

-appi¢cation, niowing,.mbdifications to te mushplaifi (micrbt~pography), and

-monitofrinig.cf'detritus prOduction. Acehjdvemiet 6f~ihterim milestohesiis.to bP assessed by -PSE&G'upon' qomonetion 6ff 'restdratiOn: PSE&G aisgertsq.thft -estr.fataion ha' beete

&coriplete~datall sites. T6 the contrary, Fannial'spray and invasive acti'ity,"'ve

continued and appear to~bePnecessary for the' successes achieved:

4.2.1 Phrag- a*it;-mina TidaFWetla'nds,.Sprj'y'a'd*Bufn Pifin' Th*e New Jersey Ph-agni~teS dominated wetlans, ( lloway '(reek' and Cohansey.

River"Wdteirshed) ,,were;both .treated annually ,with' Rod&d&tand'astitfactant during the ni -...ans. of.a A996;rhe. firSt feattint tdotitesreceived r nA11he wijt~r of 19917,: AC:k ws~buifrid ddiiofilliif, 6> w-inter, ofj19 'Effo .ts,,ýo11 Wnl 19 spray anid' burthhav Pbee`in-cse the, remaining'.T.Iids of, Phý gp-iis, Th'e aeriallkodeo0: aplib'a~io w~s:as oti1ish~iidaig

- i

'with'spray ' sypteforr 'idespread,. even appiicatiio.. .$ome -ras, 'due u l gt.

'misalignn enntsand ,ac~ce~ss ~omip~lcaion i m..noinimially sprgyedl atldi. ' l ay ,Cre..'

hgd 4l,$'44'aed'1,:2760 acresrreated iiii1996:ajid i'99:7 tespectively *affd rceived :smaller' spottreatttie~nts in' 198,,,' -1999 (aprxraey

ý23 Iq 40 a- ~~&~

,Colansey .Riyer wasssprayseds n 47 'anVd3T73 ars.of anmd ,m 1996 anid'1997,a:d two sppi6tltt.eat fintse applie durifgi 998 'iid' 1999"(aiýptoxiiateiy,40 adi f00 ates.

Both sites'wete treated WithRodeo .,(Monsanto 6opany ,St. Louls, Mi~oUfi)' and'* sirfactnt ,again'*inthe year*,2000. So m6 mowing ` and-ir'topogradhy is.e* Wi ,-Annual .:spyii'. fim,,400-600 acres* pety ,jpowifing;.afiýA

-fnfirtýogora*,iyfi's, c6ntifiiddtlirti1h,2'0W2* and.'beyo4dd,(specifics ,regaring2.003

'spY~yinfg~~d. utre a*pWvr~enotafhided--i~iimateriass prdvid*ed):l, Iheas+/- Whede: Wis aei'apicatinwas sites,,al~o preeiveh~grouhi5 u'nsafdr unfeasile 'gIn a~ppications -41:996p, i'97.1 plca "':ssd.

998 i999, 2Q00,20. 01,Theiwo.

and.

2402:, I 18,

The DeiaWar* Phr.agmitesý-domni-atedx;sites.Were treated 'with RodepO*nd a srtatan.tiin the.grw: gfJeas6no-f 1995i 19965 19, 97, arid '1998. l'arts, f th&se sitds

.er-W&brntedidurihg-the riitetsof 1996, f997,:ind 98,Th'e a.fia1pplicafidxiVWa dbiie'v'ith .'*:he~icopte*. TheSpray fixtuie.,Was discharged at-fiv&: galifs, peracre. q.f.

'1995-:Pliragmites:areas .were s- srayeddwithf a:.miktii ei,containiig,44iitS 4 6fRde6fe

'aq@e a4nd jO surfactapt. In suqcessivelyers any .Prag"iires,,hat. xy*re:rnSsed or

.:gfihff .tedbth&,

fiiist appblicatifio again, ge6dci 4pits, 6fR6de6-pi&. Wl.erea s Ph~agmites..that:x~eresomewhlat damaged ,by ,thle first, apphiaatin ({ones tthat grew ~back.

,stunited~ ddr'rdt flower) receiveca rate :of only half that piitscey.)..

cmch'(2'Finally, wheren more degwrabe crevdjo.additiOnat.ayi Epiantse pqring

thte .spi)ig terewei-g comyplai iis, f - t"eakihg" thtk refi'tgd',fiiidi1s'4ihihg

,up 6ff .e-r:* ptr*,y.us ii-be~origifal 199* application". Th"esif-eak&

• e*,et'hen riVt 'qt*

spr*de wth 2 piiitn, &peraqre of6deoriather thn4, 4; Tig:ligh hies 6o P~rg iks. colse. fled iy twtA assele~d reeds, in 199'7,ý, fr6 -,týhanA 4;ints Obf k6o@,p-r acUe*,es.1uU6h 3iias&U eT-hsinaiie o 19,9 onvjassee:.

y Phgmgait'esiWere sprye;d stiunted plafits ,wEre not. 4AdI difipoailiiifObr-na'tiOn Was'.

'provid*dabot t-e 1699 120 plas for, Cedar Swamnp and The :Rocks, No; aadditiorial':forffation was,,av'ailable regardih~g the* reaafgDiaaes:e . In: t1999

.CQda Swa*p *rteieved, abou6t 10O morebacres of spu-ay and plannedto apily:235 :moe in2000, The Roc -.,received about 3 acres o 66 in 99ffd planed1a131-acre Jsra orthe riex~t. dr, n forthe othe the Diare s res:W~'o pro~ eor 19,99dchbgh: 002, 42.2. Aliloway CreekSpray and.Burn Re-Ults-Wii-6,theigaih 'appiefibfbof R jdeo.,the Al-6aw,,Ctk sitd ttindd' ai, 3 r,7.15%, of :-hich was 'Phragmytes-domii t b.ihd 'voverag&),

whereas~dnly 14 57.-:*as *ddi{thted b}i desirable. vegetation, T.ifri6ntisttdthe" 19

'MadHorse Creek reference wetland used as ýa Comparisfon by,.sPE&G for the upper'bay Phra~mites-'dorinatedmafsh~es'. Mad Horse had On avefige from -96 td,2000G,.82.3%

a'nAd.,coverage' db-riiatedby' Spafia ha'.Only 3.5% rdoniiated 6i byPIhigrnitee..

After,,the first application iote Ajloway ýitejni1996t{a.-*Pparyent at mnany f'g sm~il.et, Ph~dzgzites wefe' shie1el'e'd'by' tihe. tWl.erppiats anid dw~e arnhed by th.

.herbicOe. At'th&'A.iloay site'.thestands remaining afterl'.tfirst ,treatmefnt rhged'jn, denslty/froni0,.8 to y,9 stems/sqyuare 'hSOterand in'hegitJ loto 180'cm. I, 19,7, t

the~laid'd~rnited'by Phramgites,had btndrJded,' fo 4: .'WO3'5ý8%.,of the -total

'ald.Inthesame, tm4e; the.4 rinca ireaseI'Shghtly-fom 14.7-% t 16.8 %.

T,4 .are.f6.merl'.do min.aed bfph agm ife$w was clasSifieds aSMudflhat:ibobae land'

'priof todthe',tgrovWthbof .vegeiatip*i 3gewto3 2%lan of ; d c the: overage&, wd1hile the Yhggitese fpasdre tqo._y .&:?s .: o*I tl99:rstrat5,l,, ad

• the-'

e rof f-i area, th'e~i~rsh~d the callathoe.. pi'% verse 33%, of ihe lauld co~vee and.

drop againj, 1d ginftg p :ak,6to,9 ePhramit d-' h3

,l1n t02~td, '!a I -weIer, the2to 1heoandaco" itydof433h% Phr n umiesangid 4t1meperio, i 1 Browm ar200:1to , 2002ar , a -pt iiat.elfl,000 ýactes'odfEfiaigidftaea tdomih.tdes 'land, aerersul.o eefroma'heorestoration pres ram' to. re:trn-' dwith 1,000; acegdýýiiOafpid., 'Becatise'-6fthe f-enoval of this -ar6a, frbfm- the bA!cu~atii~b of 95'6ov&

rpes

i 4~a4 hAv~ther&-W'as ~anmcrease .inSpt4z 6n~ ae be" ei 2001and

,2002 frm41%Satn 6Q~ q Sprtti ad ý,iedbtion. df.4Phr7ggiitqJs'fro~rn 4:%to'2'1.4%. Howeyer,ý te',totalj,ý pceg~f Spjtinýý,;ictua]l de6fined dupngý this, ie1 p'diiod 'frorii 115-54 sc.&s6 97,5' atres., The ,Plrhr~ni't~~c~ b iiidip to' be solely, the.res~i-o'6f ih~ ernoal io4are f 6.fte-stdrafion.program..

'TtIhdtra goa!ofi 4'%: overage 'by. desidralTb eah-d Art: t*hs, lte ywas,-ýsp'eres mi42002,;2.ybt;.onjybcause,'PSE&G stopped i&estatibn.ori: .1;000` res""' Pragiites 20'

-dominated land and .reroved' them'from thei'r caicbiatiens. See, IFigtire 4-6: A1o0wyay.

Creek W..atershe'!PercentLafid: Coverag&.

q S4.2.3* Miii! Cieek Spray and Burn Results Mill treek,,.a region yNvithinthe 3;033*c*e':Alloway Ct eCk Watershed, is: a,

.1,l7,4=acre Phragmitesdommatedrnarshrsituated ii the. n1ttihwestern region 6ffthe waerghed; along te.Deaware RiVer. s*ra iqg'beganinthe.,Mii. l reek region ifi 996-

97, and tlie~regin, vWas'~bur ned&,ber ihe Vte# 6oM..97987S.

In* 1'.96: M'ii, Creeke was 0bm~irat~d b'y'*.Pha)dghzi*x:t:i.*t (82*;4% i)ywfh' a.:spar*( cbi,;ei-

• of *Spa~!T (5*.,: :F6i1oiin~g' the-bi~iniiie; h&,if te/:6fd99,, Spartiha ii*creased',

to 61:2% w4ith aJ-duciionof gmites'to'i5.4%. 4hr*J -Iri'.999, th:Spatih

. ... droppeto:

he.... .. in....y..: By,2001: th& eSpdrnaz'ee-eed: 2 ofthe-sie..

f8.5%

'The, Ph4iragMites 6oi/erVg inc Ireasedd-o'57,`9I%'in 199%9'!ýnd- 'rmiid- "lati ely leveýl

'thou *ha 200.1 at' 56.,3'%:.

6ata x poded vs Ml'~ekea~ n 2-b.,

0o 'Mil C-re kwas.

inoCaQraedftOiCitot~e: '2 02:Ailo~ay eek rtefshi l:! C0V~ra*ge dark. Hwe'vr,'

.byli99'Mil:*.e'ek*'had h* of"4 oave'ragýe

'by optirab eI:

,yegeta~tin, b.it 'this, cverage .was;nots'ustalned in' 19,,99:anid'by 2Q02, :hragmnites *agai,

dorfiiffat'ed~and.Sp~fi~a dropp~ed t beil.,#Te ihteriim..gbal.; After: 20J02., the Mbaill Cr~eek-t~s-ults, 'were 'f~olded.'into the, 2Q{02 Allow.ay iCrdek :W~aftierse i.*d' o:~ da9ta;g:*

,makirng' eSeeFig*,e-4-7 Mial.Cek:Pýr5ett*o d/Coverage:.

iri ':i996;.t*.,*hma'*.y er',Wa-rs*'"s'ite:,i

-Allv )l.Oarsoii 6d,, nd;b*wic 42.7 t&4iPhamtsdo'i~a 8-er ajid~I; fe h fs ~aig-i4ka.Spi&

miegdst P':t.2:Ph,4, ' , slsquared m'j~ a #ns'tr Yshighmpos 1 6 9 i hswu6~'i Phe! C~ui'o. gro ppmeter Sa&eh0s.wu 1tiera:

ean: 2d8al6ow, 21

back to. fulldensity if.not treatedagain. ýIn 1997, .Sodrtina changed onIly sli ,hfy,,

dropping 'in -factto50..1% of the- total area.. The'tPhragmnieswas only slightly' affected by-the first;sprayi, dropping to,38.5%., In 1,f8after*'twot*reatments, Phragmies reducti on was evident,,with 78:.Y% qf the,1aftd covered byvSpqarinaand':onl 9*O%.of the lahd ýdomiatedd by Phtgmite. In T1.P99"te, Sti& ia.ncoverage was' d6wn. t 46,.7%

aýand, t6e Phragfmes ihhabite:10.1% >oofthe area. 'In200Qthe Phragmitdesremamed

• 6nStant ,while lhe aeiadoi-minated', b1y sj JAPti.

in&..sPed ,6 .3%. In 200i, te SPhragmie&:'drominatei i9ý,9,% of t*he, marsh v'ih aboui 74,%,,Of'the marsh c e&&dby Th',20Q2, Phrag nites deeaied to 8:5% .co.erage wlile Spariinainiqnceased:

iSparina.

Tfrom 3.6h%tb 77 .606'_ ,bhAnsey 'kiyvdfWaerW -ýhr'se e x'ceeded both'thleinte-i-r ,g-Al' of 45 % co-et'geb5.ainia~aiid ,he l2+/-eagba, 76 %1Spdrtina.,doVeage, _6e

,Figuree 44! Q:,OhahSeyý Waershed' tvei Pereen 1:nd tobyeage.

4 2~ ilvr Run, Sil ~eiRuniniialy, n '993 Oreo, ertheiiappicatidn W.~ f:Poe, a 1and',covered'.dby-Sp~ati-na d'ed -S

,a@d!8Sa..%:!oered~by;P~hagin.t¢&.

Ini 1996 the ,.Sp~a rdna

'i 1, ih -ýpq,

,e fge;i.d, ,mcr'ehasd&to .5% atre PhrdiitO:I/!&reased. o 60:9%-. 'hThlrff*xt y)ear the'Sp&Yina increas~fo :55.2.>%,and 'inaly <58.-,ha6%"e t6talareain 1'98'. At,

.iesame:,time, the.,PhraghM te"s decreas!ed 't2qo20%taiid tfiefihnalfy,,5-:%. 1` Noddnitidnat:

,ffiohitoringzdata lS:aalabl e.fbrithis,i:er .te;.

i erim.goal, o coVer4age, pbdi.Sartina'was achieved at'thisite bi998. ,SI&I'Fiifýre4,.i-9SU.iveri.ke ,erc ent, 41aad Cyieage.

4,2.6 Lang Tract' t anag' "ract.intaliy 0,"iQ17 %,Spara '6Vyr

ýge.and&90-6.6%. 9f'tlie d omniiated 5 hgr*iiari' tes., ,fi-1996 th. Sflar i eýg4 tod122%

1i2iaeased?

"aid' I}hragmites decresed to 54}:3 %. In, n1997-and

.1998' 'te iirdgmites reached,0 0 %'kdat declined to, 77.2%,m 199 Noaaddht,,nal monit6rihg dati'.is

available,-or this site. lHowever, both the inteiim goal of 45% coVetage6by Spartina atid t age wasachie.b 9 The 12-yer goaleof reduction_ ;to 4 % coverage by:Phra~gnt~s was~also achieved at this 8ite; See 'iguir 4-=

40:- Lag' Tract Percent landý Co`erageg:

4,2.7 W6odliad Beach Wetlabd'

,0odland Beach Wetlafid conhtained 62:,1% "IaS p ina' llIy and ,33: 1%

PhP-agmiit7s-dominated Iand; 'in i9106 after the, frstýspay the shte had 64.,1% iSpartin4, I',& er nea*e d, 31. ;6 Phragniie, coveragoa sv-i'ir I 6w ii chWange. B'1`997, 77.J% of, A;tb iand.was 7covr&dby Sphiha ,aif f~hti iiyii9 83 5% The Phia~mues+

domihatediand decreased from" 18..6,%t  % r the sametwo.-year lerio'da No:

additionalmciitoring' data is avaialýae f6r this site. H&oe,& iteim ,Oa] of Oboth 451%o

.:co\'er/age bySatman :the. 1'2 year.,goal0f,76 % coyerage, ,Wisia *hie edb. 15 9-98':

See Figure 64 Woodland Beac.Pqr:cet Land ;o0vefaie.

ITheRbcklinitally had6only .O :5,%', pai1rina

.. .... f.an~

and 87.1,, , hragre..

i i996.

the Spartih ov:epae ,had incre6Ased to 19.7.% ,of t*h lanfd'rhiite: Jirdgn4-esadropped to~2~8% "In thp-,ftext:,tw'o' firb~ ýrL~ covera~iie sedt6 82.3% Zn thef

• 8,83;% ,whereas the -Phragmite- dic,:edTo3:t 3.'A%*iad h3en;.2%% of the marshfrn'd:,

e, in .999, The R6Icki had o7ily and 1!.%' ghniizS h79.

d8"pamna~coverage ridAted cver.age. In2000 th e 879.4% :andtle Phragnihe*-dropp'cd frther to 7.9. Th.i9i,%200 Shikitia dq&fn~tedofil 62,4% 'o6 theitnd,a, .decrease from the pfeavious* Phraimesincr~ased't' tearoandI 3,31%;, By

2P2Z, the:,Spariaiheihcreasedjto 70,9% Pdhragr 4tsv es e coueage!t oaerland

,The:interiitn' goal.of 4*54%W coVtage, by,$parnina shaebfettached 'at this/jsite:

,S.~ PiTh~.R~ksPerentL~id~oefage6

&442:

23

'I 4.2.9 Cedar Swamp Wetlands Before the first treatmenit. edat Swahp Wetlands had 17.8,5 Spartina,and,

]7 1.7 % Phr,agmites-dominated land. In 1996-the sparitra1land cererag ew1s 19:2%,

33 1 in 1997, 37 6% ilb 1998, And 64K0;%: in 1999- The' Phragmitescovrage was

!0`7 bydeclined fu4ther in J997>to':O%., andincreasedslightfyt:o.2.% in 1996, 1998, increeasi4g9g ain tO I1.3,%. in 1999, hi, 2000' Cedar Swaiamp.hadz'ahiigh of 692*o%

'SPa(,tina,bdit theAhragteS,COV~age::arso.,i6'creasdo  !, ,yQQ01; 2.2-. th&

Phn Mi te 606era'ge fnreAsedtO T"TiIfe.0 pa17;hltx6.%

imonitoring yar2OQ2: *W a rise of Spariina~to71.7% coverageand decline c ;of' Ph'iagni-itest6 14.9', The intefriingl 6f, 4,5% cb~ea°'e 'by' 'S*(rt iAs'beei ýf-ahek d it' this site See.Fgr:L3 elrSwnp PeretLht veae 4;.2' Conclusion The s-Alv aafshrei*is i ig f's cess *iftets..Of Svegetatiye coverageand'the return:fif tiA1flow o*e es~afa firis ' The&

..'Phramit&es,eradcat`Ion program 'edfedhrgmite.-c0oefage -*,aS bUijtappears ,tobe S.deppefading n.u'al..hherbicid'e appi'clato O'ffthle tee salt hay .f~rt. ites, onlon i'i, Town~hip has not reached the interim *goal; of 45% coverage, -thoia~h ~,few J more ofsn6f ltoi,,rg are- neessarl I:'i *tp reach, a conclusion,ýgAtdijhg Succ:ssat thisite. The De6I:abhsad'ai eTownshis~p

• ~sites hav*e alsa~chie~ed'the..i2i~` eg~a1~sf:*d'esid'dpran ktt ag~afaid .Phrgrd~e~s (cb6'oVdrage.

.Al Oft meitesagmntes dominated rsites'§ have- achiav~ d the.lnteixh;goaVlSP;ii*n qoverage except Mil!l*re6k. HbwevyeTr,'hiisiSgoa1'wasý met. atvAllwayL.Ci.ý4 knl'A.

be aus~ePS

E&, nolo.,0n~get *'congid~'d~i. ,0O acres t*hwgRites:ddnm atedlanhd .sý,

Spat of °the restoration program. The.CQh ed$',n

,,lAng W"oodlanad ki `i&d the.412

.year :goal fd6rSplartina covrage. Th6 ng'iact s.a oaloa*chieve _the I2ear goal Por 24

.Phrgmniteslcoverage.However., the sustaingbility 6f. the Phragnmites :reductin appears1

,to be,.dependent ornia4nual herbicide treatment. The true success: of the. Phragrnites

ýCon6t61,pograifnxcafinocbe determified tmrtilh¢rbiide tareat*nt and' *narsh-manipplation efforts such as buitninig. haVe been discontintued SJO, F~ish Resp'onse`atRest&red.Marshesý T-he: puirpose!of theiqah' r eStoraigniprdg*ram'is.to: enhance fish prducbid6 hin

'tiheD1a-ware Estu*y Biologicali'mouitbrig 6f~theres'marges beganu:il 9*6*,.

Aidiat repormsdocumefited irifgr atibn regarding :t.gefieh S'hbraghsc*ii!ciudinig.

cOmpirisons of, abiin'ance, dand' size Specierichbness. Theqtreated.Phr*,gmieis dd~nhiiit~d, sites wdre ahdlyidd a&atel'v~fr61i~tjhnýgt.hAy fai~ -i~stor'e~d-l'st&-s.TheIi 1aritgreek ortchaMnhlfsaretA yiy~e, sepaiateIy from, the .*mTI'cre6ksaidfnads`h-.plqih

,At ,both,,tfhe sdtaltýiafArmsitLes- and the treated Phragmte-~ tsde~o'ifrheif~

aSembagS etheto tihctbaiast 6fwtflidal.,a The rtudyv sites:,Wereý

'keitýu'if6rTmnd unhhgiiged fi*iihyeg'irto'iye t.o:,ens1re iat'theredxko ud be a bAgis ':fobt a1ofng-4tefrinCqsrdai*,,-e !t'i6oes tiizatiofi of"the resto6r~ sA.: Iensur6-Vaprpe.

ti'ati'on of'th6!.ddta*6ý6Vf,,h6,d6u'rs6.fte* stdy iod', sA' I Oingpdmeter,

.were*degi~gned;n 'the)basis f-,reek Isize, ppeth c'iegtioh of,ýcurrentlsan'Mie .time, number.:of sampiig, to a d ,we.is Th&,saie:rea's e amleach time-'

Iiiaddtin t te aima rporsPSE&G. condut'ted. supplemetal ainalss 'as

,part- of its -1999, .Per-mt Renewal) Appiiction. !td, todetermne 'fish, resvp6hse.to;tf &

i~etr~tibn eff6rts: TFishý8'Jsies, 6omfpsiti i-; life histbry stg e tsiue aimd',r, fdlereý

'compAredl by-,P8E'&G in, restore and refetent,'marshbs,. Rep"ro-duct16m. feedig, ýand growh

'6 ~sk~te ~were 4ssesds. !aiht use, red eonnici 1pattders -were determined' w'i'th marýk-recptur ýfh telhnuqfs, siýptd bass, Atlantic

.... "r! -. 5r.

crwkr, !soeeptdo,, iiw aftd miise hprg.. *.il..d. i.I.Y.es.

,werd ZOndUUc ý pr ;:a.'-

alimi.d ti(M-e frihf (99649099)i they', 'wi1 b'&, dis.ss&d&

e~p~artel~y 'fr6*i the zihfo0*im n.6oxpied frot th: Annual Repots 25,

4 5.1 FishsResponse at Restir"ed"Salt Hay Farm Sites Oince. a desirable, hydro0period was set up tfuirfgh the breaching of .thesalt, h(ay' far. dikes, ,fisti a4. other. aquatic species ,0u!d o ti l iu . the sflt ma-rgh ecosyste*.

ogca oI ring pf tp 'rtstofalio,'nad, ref-rcnce sites byPSE&G began.in 1996, to determine h6wrihe fish potIUatlins ofbthebay ete utin*inthe, newi'b; 't s6t d Isalt Mdirsh sites.

Of the .thfee,-s5it, ha. Ihdlfa.rtoitioýi ,sites two; Deni's Tdwn.hjp and COirimercial Tjns h'IP'hfve,:b mohftgrd for fi~hats- e agss Si`c 1996.. 6 M f-iCe.

Pd.ver ihas ifot,,be~ nernii6defd: M6bei-egBeach :was. chds~n as a: r.,fe'ehn*,*i*6,dfigto, it*:

• ,rox~i'mityxto.b6 th*s ites.,

5.,1.1 Large Cie fMafshi.

il* Re.or'... a Restoratibi&,iff6r's at ih i.S:Thi hii"site-wre :fOrnpl6el. "i&

'ns1Pp St 1996 j an at heCbin~cia Tor-t i~it;i 1997. P'reit~est,. tiwdereisitiýs 6finýhu were

ndt safisledatDennisTowrishi 0Ueet&~aessrdifflulties, alfough it appea- st-at fish.

refpoiid6ý d qiaik*td' to te Tsthfati'bo, -ith largentiihber'iidividii presfitIn 19961

,A bLiaidai ,ýsof fishfes usingiýthge ýgfsh .ýaiiC6mifiercial Townstihipniricreased §s{eadily

! ~ ~froin:

1996: (p~re-ri~stdfation}:t6-1998:! ,

In 1998,. ihe: dmira~j* jc- ashe ret6redi*and We-erence SiteSwere s.iilar, býut iDennis'S Tbwnship :hada he ggreatest-spreies,;ýbundance andMbores' Beach tiie owest.,

Overall fishabndanc t De s§Tonsli was;geate )V aj order of' maif"tudehanf S:6.eteference sSec6nd ite a t Mopres ,each. Atw earlyin the yeart iafter restor6 ioh,, difau i,*iiasii * :,to ti'i4&feiene arshes h and, abufidance was as

'.imr 'orl' treference:mafsh. j),er,.thn

'up In.1999, ,Dennis Towcnship' lad .tthe higzhest' ab~ndance of fishes, ;fol*Idwed bi5' mM6otes]Bc ~fi- iniia -xiishibp.. DIIfferec~fi~udac ee~tiue~

26

'the much, gfeixerabundance, ofAtlatticcroakkr atthe, Denhis Township site. :Bay anchovy anld spot were .ls~o, ifi rfattt-abund~ncb ýt Denish Township.. `CQnthedrcizit To6iMship .had ththieh:est spe'hes rlchhnes,Moores BacA6 the bOwet.$pe&i'es assemblage hby as detr ed- ak d ' was simiiara.armong a!* thfeý siteiwidi greater ýsi aties en between tab een _riatrestore4sites estored sit

,and the reference site.,

Int2.0: fislh as's'enbibageIsý,dieffered ~rmoig all sites, w~ith-,,Atlantic"§cro0akir being'g Shigh -atDennis Towns-ip, 1?bUndant.at ,Comfnercial ToW Ileiikljs ns p Atlantic, tafid Ssilvyrsid6 higdi at6'Ots Beachýb tro*w*arheother two sites. iGea rsi iml*iii*es w*ere, se~efifiassembage asbycr tied yordeofabnance of the..dAoiant,

specis among the', restoredke ommeralý To , sh te and the referen-e, Morfes .Beachi s!tes.

Owiecle.s

.S&5i4Tan1sitween gtwrest'red rihesat37 speies&: collectd wit 'Commcia.wnhpaig22seisn

• Moores Beach 20sp~ecies iSe diffetences:were se' ".as vwell,' ith" aigerfi*Th* coiied,

.at Cnimaimetcial Tbw.nship'ii ,tttie, 6tlier-6 ite.

26001 t. : To~wshiph~týhe ,highst< buhdance"ofi'1W

• ~itC6mmercifal Tow-nh" -!`,dors ahh inges"i'lr abundan'e:leyels: *Fish Sa~ blag&washiiiar' betwee-wastree sites, withA tlanfit 6-.rakker:beihý.eost.

auindarint. PSE&G6dete iihtedhat-great- rr sin ilaties. were see, beoween the rest&red' nDnie,,i~Tw&nshi~psite .afid theean rer en .ra.r b tweent r str es Size Poffish lcole& wasoa-"siiiiia-r beween ,Denis ToWnship and M6ores fBiapch ,

ý,With large :flsh seýn;.at. th-e: Cgor riai Toinship site; nO02,2 fish abudance Awkasder. t th6,restoied :CohherMiafiid.D&nnig:sitpes;

',th-n atIt.e.M/opres B f site. in 20*2, tMores, Beach' had' -the ,high.hes~t abuhdipies ;of fi*rs*,-foii*ed by*,*jii hip:.D - i:" .T shij"h. .... t hTowns spccies dversity,, Q5 p Townrship. fferences wereseenp]betpWe,

ýtie

• ipei..of fisý thiaf .were.d.lriifigfibetwen:, the, reffeene -site. a-nd. ,th&e,.restorid-,

2-7

parse. ýW4th i.tiadt

.Cr-oa k'er the,-m~st abtindan-t*'speciesat ,all thrfee: siites. PSE&Gý deteimindeid 'that.hespiS assemblage was mpnresilarb'etWe6en f6e-ie,stoeqdjites Than.

betweentý the::eithef6f'- týerestod sites*and the' erf6rence : .marsh at, M`66res, Beech., inI adifon dffrece wre senintesz,class of th;fs on n ereernce,,marh

., eId,'.e.stofe* sites;, ,Wlh'nore-s Ucomp*d r sized fish iavMbores Beach, than 5t.

einherofpithen vO reotottdJmarshbs':t

ý5 Oifesth -2'l1', ,ta 5i'77' heAch m '*the- ,trgr t nierfibsrs.em! e t' pie.r ; ,6estoeds .,

ý2Q62. Fi~dr,6 5-8 thirough 5-i0,ým O ýcohpae hjriri bef,; ach 'of,,h tarest§ c`9

'tehgreat~er s*abndf i re2 Itshaefaieui

'd rCtt~fe~it:*n:{e.e*'er' i~e,:tsietrf~e snibgt-friyi' P9s6

]irni1~or to  ;,sta~neete the re'ferenc& ms with.

m n6 difisp thea*,.;re b acsýw

'f e Ovei1 twqe9

,al*gýetesa th&f '.

naexestor bII~

was n Twseetenws are 6s th shcelt'e ohi tTn.tbhe,.

ater abunfidi&e,ban siesan .richseis:TrhantheS reereiate ,site ini vtrars.

is&§f

.1.2 ;manl l arsh*t fateS'mks AnhiaRo al tp'.sate.

M tAccrinTg to th~e l96 The Abniudles Reporc,

.ý- T abuiidanic~iwas I

'matterat the-f~ference*

"stethanaD rT~'~is l ýq15pqces

-t dilye siity wgetra Pte'Dnhi' S L Bjised up'o,O'fd 4 ai' cOipbed At hedke Con~frda toqhp ie,Tq 'rltk~eye fsh utilized.,theý-sidill "arhcek poffbt'q'rstbratibn:

In 198 ' 'rea-yifrbnfni ffi~wa en t'enfos i~ ýthnttb simiia1 bewe deni -bnhid theireferene sfte, Kin.~'99 bhhanlce ":a,;,D eCles~ririenns~s ,wasreatest't2hj~~§TivlhP

,sit& nd Iosathe ~Cmnri1.onh~ie Df~efe"~t.se~ithel k-11

~~ord ofdnance i~r etw~ehetini ter otewositesasi 6-nsi~i we," with,

.D~en's TWri~ip ShO.digan. abuda-nce o*f youngbf the- year Atbarti rcrak r,, and, b'mlantr:iaroi eooase bnd mey.byAtanfa iIs'&~iemniu arediicog Eisl-,weerre mor.o bshdA*frat tleart ,btnidantatthe6 Dellý hp,,siea~ri i 1be2OOO Mnrial poRC.Fsh..ss'emnbt ags,s To....

.. hi' h.d the ric ss, Cor=nm fia1 T ,Wnshithei i .

w:aSizna at]al three eesifes.

u1i*the.

., Afh k it D t'whshiP had 9....

.dun d , sf_fish;:' de  ; fd ifl Tommeri;i;th0fiip Vh refrefehch en6aP

~Moo ~Ba~h Atla~nic:,4f~hker' was er.bhaitDtnCeeas s oifipazed',,t6'

..the: heis tes.o.. Fus-5A,,,whi,% ougih'om a51'pareantmesi, vefsaihoWte ,abundarget,

spfedi~ Tllwiishij3 'Tie ofihW*salýt{a*a' a *reora ifi-"- btesH&-,th,*ia n

x~p bfed';sife&s' i;han:.f6AthE:rdfr&ric:& site Pollft&~ *ee 6l~e 4 atDn

,'~e Siz~offi~hefwa sinia beiween all threei site W-s*-' le'f"jgh;st abuffdan- e 1_6iw, yfI6db ha ffe4h~es

~e~e ~esiy fllwe y' omerc-iaA 'To'6v-nshi. 'The refei~n&&

si~, db~sBac, 4~ ietr abuidn&6, .oflarger 'fish. than either of thel £tw reee tiha~he S.

TTb16s 54 tbiough-,,,64sh6*oW t~hený hbrf ýfish &ollect inAhe, Imall ceks a

ýeiie&ts. 11tioih 1 ~narti "Fgr f the tidiet, th,specit clietes. Fin te~small~re ofg5j7ý the& resraionsies* n the ambnuth~

2§9

reference sitefrom. 19967200Z ,Figures, 5-18 through 5-20 compare, the nunibers of

,each%.of'he 'target spcies withýiui each individbal site.

• As wYas ýsenr intr, the -lArge .marsh .creeks, Veimis, T0<wnship ,had the., hig*ihst, abundance t.of fi~he9, i~n rfidst yerS- s~fnpled. Aceordiuig to, the anh~ial repoi~s ý'the, overallgreatercatch ra tes, and b restored saiihvay-farm' at, DOer.is' T6,wA41hip "iihdicagte.manmch richer fAuna, pbs ibly.:diiU inh iart. to, i-

greater- am-oulntof floding andi.icreased hydripriod at t oeloVeflexvation Within'that Ssi~e,' .: :Overall, ,*he'nu&I :repo idiiaie that fhfe,sAlt1ay fta*sare&.r spondijgpw,,vello theeestoratidi iffbrtsý andare ,being by :fish i"ia'filar ýumzed mariner to ,the xrfefice marsh;

5.1.3 Supeeiieii(ael' StidiisuCbiidted by TPSE&G Sjpepl#eintlj §~tudier

' &coiidudted'by PSE&G. to .c~mp m re, fishh cipe'i

,composmoin,,hlif hisl:0yr stage;, size and* ofecgrowthin* restored: and! ................marshesgh

... The:g r.hes IAVeils, ianid[ai asissges*met of maitsh funtioio~s such ais reiproduqtidtkn, feedlitg,,and *grdvnh*

fof 91eedte-ýd,jspei.es Habitat use-.- resldenfy-ant mov&h~emit patterns w6ere dhikte

' ;n-d:

with mark-recap die~ehniques- for seleb species'.

5,a*.1.3.1. FTsh, Assemblage

• ~i*p

• ti *-- o uded' th'at,,VdoiJngl of the ,ear fib' assa+/-nbiagcs weeifluar Ith6 iestbred stsadteefecenash icdngsj~ - 4Ij

.segasntpatteIns. of .ocirirence, Aah" e'cies ct6ffp6ýiliion,..'i'th ;higl*hr -ab nda e b- 6f

• offyoung te.yeai* fishyrpeies ,lnhithe-restdirfd masbhes..

5,3,2, *La'LgLFish Us of'M*Mr*hes:

Saimpir:wýse 'oiiddcted ,frcim'lhe i&NoV'h et 18 to~assess, the. Pse ofmthe marhe (Dhns Twn hi n. MoiecBac)4 lag ( y ,iai pre~atqty) i~h 30

iStrip** bas `-d ývhit"& peich were the ncist abtindanf piedatois collect*d, with simaller' O0currefices of weAfishand'bluefish. It was determined that predatory fish:,utilize thie

,marsh inboth,:th restofed and* r~fefence 'marghes;priinafily during ':l&. tide, when prey,'

are conentrated; 'at the ,creek- mouths. Collection of predators: in' -the upper -ccreek

,moiihs vwas. iare: in both th* r',i-btoed and'&referet:inhars*s.s A gfearet "densifty, spedi(S. richness 6f far~e ;fiih'1Wa' seen ýiin D0tefli Towjnhip as :comaled to 'thi refiec~ias' ~":'~ e* ach:. Thi. sthdffi drihonistr9ated thaat 'the-tfst6r&d mhars esý

'are ftcinn*n 'sri ane oti ~eei~ arsh ;as* preda*or. hphiitat;:

5133ResiU.r'c" Stude

-Saudi6s-wte ~oIT,ce in rderiniei 079 fish: 'wr i ~~t~c tmarsIed as' part. o0f.Nl tirfe-residentsý., o'orspecies of fish .wre*s tudieid, ,sinqgtag

.triped 'b'ass' ,Mimmichog, was ined to6,teri be ýa resident 'species*4, itht* ,marSh h2bht' o f nýedin 6`6 ea~ Sbeephead mJfiln~ was,as

,serving fg for young 6shey -asaa de~trmi~d ithimatshd* Younhg' obf, t ydar"A'tlantic cr6 k"' 11ic4K's

,th'mrshs i~the ii as y ,' t rei~yeto,Adeeper 'waters, Qfi a land! as. temperatures*,'op, focen 'th&tag reqapt.e:studies? shiowed..that,youig4 0thee f d the uail i ý,the :restoredl

.eaf- At*'a*ti6&6tioaker 'sbed;,*lIrge piont.,ot e summe1 'i'd.h...

Tid.rl rtordd.

Den'hijis Cle~krhiarsasli' W6'S 1 d'ellhe' referdbteý fik~rsh, 'Within.the, ihar~h'. the stdi-

.showed thaty6ung ,,of ffe year croaker' use 'th:,uiper porti~n ,fthe _',el h tJ esVhigtids, ala eithr leave6 the.creeksand ftove minto adjace-t lairger cieekso. dac umlateJn. ,the; nouth offhe.creelS'd'irinigl1w. tid~s.. Bott lrge ju-feiiil:and adult stfied. basswqere ishfwn,, 'to ih6,j*e: the, ,inaih :channel <d(i'irg ebb -tid& prey

. ,whan are iconcefiffaied' at the.d e"k iho6uth§-

'5.1.3.44 Reaprodikttiobi The; twb*Sýrsei6sof' fish, mi, nmic'h6g, and Atlanitic ýiveý'sid ,. ,thdt typially

• reproduceq ihmarsl' cree ' ithe 'Delawae 'Estuary .,weredeterminedt I tfo'.epr6due in

• boththe~restob'ed mash":at Dennis:ToxVnship andtlie refer:ence:ma'h.

k1

5.1.,3.s5 Food flabits.

Food 'habifts ,&re,eassessed. to, deteminrie Wxhether ih: restgred .. d 'ref~ren~e

marsh provide&q;iidiefit.habi'tat fob fish foragihg - It wasid't-'- -ned 'thatth-ediets of muinihicho', 'bay'.anchovy. s-pot; 'ýveakfishj white perch-indicate, that "simitr f6&dd types

-were: Wonsui=d a the restored mrsh as 'comp ~ed",go the reference- i'i.h. Siml]rly, t d and' t9thwhiteperc

,,s wde eternined, eia simiftbil b' tween Sth&refer** e ms andDenni - At'.sh"p 5.1.3.6 t of, h6ipe agp*

GroWrhad mjets

eievneaI tfil. iariqidq ... ....

A-gh,,i'd recaptuse' stu'di&sp coxhycted in 199$ we dmtiaized'd t d"r"ie that, growt ' g*o ,young-of-ate l ythe ryesAorationaa spot reevy,aned crake f S G resaored' mq -chg and Atlariti~qi'verside i At fth these, &i.s. ... tiv ma....the s' to... ach. th . .ppr. at"....si *e..frepi.. . . "ti bohthe4 aertordd referencebmearsh.

• 996its:~~ sow.d t(di b'h0>sin. i1f bshW-n' therations g And,aywrfe-'tlhz~mg'ar'sh...., Be: rated' :poi

. Ogas, sbWi',

t F.is e'pons atnd *eat*:'sr l, "-twO6, Ueu ayh agmfltfs terln sotsg Bifdr'wtii mntea n(Rff, Drninat!djiars

an :Baii*ýd`-,'upwere h; ies.

Bior'logicalmnonitoinýg rg'ih 6df.i*tast reatieh'ýahd refrncg sitesreby. 'S&G bddii ino, 1996 to.. deefrnihesh,:' dh'

'fish poulations. of theb. bay, e:-of.ti i .,'0wey

,re'gh :tr ,

mPhrakihiih d'tiiihated sites.,

Oi~igihai'yl ý'mW! frdat~di §ites-, Bfo~hý RThin 'an& 'MilL Creek&were ithiM;H6 Mtded r-e Ci'ee&k.ýeihig the rýeferentce, ma'rsh., In: y'~~'

,mhtofig~iiit inic1'u in~ifonitoriii.'7of ,a fiiua1 Satn ifinat'ed'~are,' '

rnatu

~ PhragMltes do in'ated aea and' a' treated,, Phradrnziis area'. Te aditioib of.

,-Al oIbway 'Cfek'alo' c~npyIiigaOn's-lih a,watishedl lhich-Tha be more'Theanuingflh ha opaii ýsns ',beiwe~n: -dis'araft6 16dfaion§.- The, ýqs&, ýAloWaS ~~k o S-'pfh~a iipse~'i,'

p?-rih'c'u'l'rl, .-M'po-r~td'Hft: be6auý& th&i'e~r 'dg diffe6fedhc66s, 32

b*'iween thie 166ations, and, sginit'ies of the' ftea-ted sites (Brons t anpd Mi~ll Cr~ek) ad! he rffie6:site;(M'd' H6rse,'Creek) 7rhakihg 6oln pAihs' bet.,ee6t thfbr-firfeed:e&:

site-arid the'ltf&ate&'sfies :dffifkdit,...,Actdin'gto thfiPýS&G aiihai p.eitspthan-yf of the, differpedYc-: Wi'richn -;

.iii ahd:'abundahce-,am', h "the Uipe bay 'bdsit'sye (o assemblage, differences iestilihg fom a strng Xbng*Site~saiip a ,7 gradient

ýý a ienf, in this parita

~~~~,,

of th sai:, range, en f sh la .is -les' .atv.The ,upe :bayi Isttes,:thadn ýat .the"i6Wex"bay:

ftunanie Sites.

5.'2.4 *LigieMiarshQie na l

Repott D1at.

.In 1998,;:abundance'~wasg~reatest,*at ithe.tr'eated MilP';*eel{,site, ......I* .......

Run,'.and:e,td:,feien6fce s i4 MaId Ho'ge- Ciiefk had :sihaiar kal O-iedsnc&

,Fish

a~s~embfiaglensiede:is{.tribiio as smlar*tali tee sstes't No dlaef 2riidsifoea 'V ab un dance w sre: ih:A '. .M6n.oiihg:.

WSen at.

Allow-ay. iieetws atted:i, 4:999; with " nmonitorlng ontucted 4at a-raly f ay* a a

.domiiated i a nahthll

~a;, Phrag do atedtaC earen and atreated- h- area,.

inA a e t ydmia44ra;fges , ,re o'_n rinasite`had-tle lowest abtmdaes,,

' ramie i.followed 'by .the git6 tiieii 6tnt.ý wasd ,at at-heAbundan-; s 6'he0rgis tsid bsit, s :of A.11oay, reel{ the:,refere ince mrshad:

s a,;g~eate~r, bundance. of'fishes',thanione ,of 4hte' Cretek, s ites, ronii'a, I ,ture s , r aundan th' e ,the AheroW -e IFte.,

tFlsh~effisagns

,.snit nce:,mias: serweewteses.

Qveralltheie'MiJll Creel'site, had the'highest-abundance andBrownsRun had the lo6west%.

Abfin~d.ncb. -Differeie§mic n, the size of' fishe'4 &lloectedwasoobsedy ý4Mon'g the.'sife6, le disthgo.nAl6da Tkg sirrmilanets ,afonig 'th'e stts:,

,mthe, shape,:of- tche.

's~ie:dis~tr.but*nQ'T* *h".e: fi:,ss~er}5blag&*:a.tiai'Al ,ilies ¢a5 ibiil* :'t5*:{Wi, {iPgseis hifre.i{

s' 33.

.andihd ,rahkn'Of d6oinant. spelcies, althoughl,, fewef Weakfish were collectedý at .Browns, Run, ,aid Adlnftic, crloaker and. bý,pwn oullhead. 'were 'abundant at. Mill. Creek. Theý

.Alifway' Creek: sites showed; Utilizationi by striped ;bass' W,ithi*ti, Aiidwy-  ; Cre, ky the

'parinIfeeec st and thed 'T eatdd site, ~showd& kr&At'ei :gimilarities iii ifank "abldiidhdaie:thgi-, ihe: Phrdgmiies site:. The- Phragmite6.sit6:,hadc the ..gtatgst ,speies.

richness:,,(27*,andhdfi&Aieated Site.thelow&e* (25)

In 2d00,

• wasower at:thetated' s:i,iieip, All16'wa rOefek*,tafi' ail

'either *the. fSiarihtm site&or the ~ihtreate~d .phfagrniies**ites. iThe MNitll C~k* ,*ite had 'tihe "h~ige~t abund.ne< v.vit-th1the 'refrende site. at"§d- a H&§i Htrs&'Ciek r' gthe" ncond, aRestbred 'Brown:s.Creek iadftihe loWiest abiidance*I Bynchyy, lb'inat'd ait,1j 'upPer, -bay' ,sites;, different -astemnblge& .f: 'isýh :wereee sb4t '*a't each*

sit S .n,;.ic g- .iiiar,, w..ith Mill 2chayfxigi:5 diffitse '.s and IBro*n S.Run and M.d; HMd1se. Creek each havigg -I3 species. Based upon rnk

.. buddinde; 'A'ron ' te oway, Creek. stes ttiere,',as a.greate* gimni l-eeen ,the SpaIli grefi,,eesifte iand, the. tjreatd site, thI .with ihe 1hdgjnites;, sit.. Size

'difderen . i'oh" f-h-i*6lieeted-at ,thie oIwer':bA sites',,;as: e*idefi.; die*..i gs pat0t tfhe; different:asSerb]ag'es~feilnd ateath st, rather tha'n d'sirnlar sihzes 'oT"fIhe' same:

'speces:. :'Diffienesin richness, size eand catch per 'unit eff&, (CPUE) . rig the upp--,b~:y, ISitfres s c ,, tsraemblag e-differerices resulling :frotni aliniWt gradi~ets.

,-y No app nt 4*tielwas seen by PSE&G in fish abundance: in th-'Pipirmbay n 1site "2002.- "Within..*Ahii6W.ek. P-hmg t-s jNe..i .h'd thieh*est. ab*dt*;iice`f ftsl.4

'Fi~Sh abi fidae*at the*.treated :,and.Sp'dfinasites was !Iower.than ;ihrg'atMthe e'Si s site,.

'butsiiI-arite6echfit . Fi-sh ubiinine at:tlie'Phtragmites ..... " .d.sife...A... ....

.... 4 -..... ........ .... .g-reAtth.h.a , at .. .. $idv tieia d ,n*in ated' §ite and the&4reatet sit AI ,A Creek. JMeaiufefgth and -pecie~s 'riclinss .wassilr aal

.:thi-ee'siste*;1iii.Ai~ibfag ¢e-l<

. .Th&reference 'site: 6fi6!44 (ad ,Hei'se k)'hadfw't

!than,Mill.. reek,'butd ore,... Brons Runw Fish asSerniblagesi,.wgresuulaTr am'ng all 34.

§ites;,'with Ibay ahcl6iývw; Nhiie perdh, Atdai'c croa'-ker and 'hp~g thpkdr tfi&' f6uE most, Tables5-7 thdghl shoxi" the-fnidmb~ts otf ish C6lleC'ted at the largýenash.

.crees Pgrs5.- 1,thfoghý 5-2' copr 'heniub~s';-fe~achp thletfe-s't~

~~6l'ffbmi iii' 'te her6OQ2' 'Fig '5re 2'8 t4,0gil5ý33t(ipr- h' nDUrb',er,-S o'f eachý Tifthd-,tar~ speT Wit1hih4"ath ifidi'vidu'ai The bes~t "M~ea~s4ýýý:oýf 'the sýucce~ss of the Phrta mift's~restoratkin program i, 6anhncingz fish t ifi~at'ion of "the marshes appea'~ &b tin~oparison of'fish utiliZation.

'~fthe thrt iffrii'le,, ) Allo.w ay C-rý&;. In t1iree, f the fo~iryears-Anaiyze at ýd'A q 'q~lie, hid5icat-'ift 4 0pýgrThijT jPi .sn9

,anffmay, no-t 'IPese'o . ýUblhrshes.q S.2.,2 Small Ma'rshCrek Anu'a'l Rep ortlDati' In 199,;d' 'h' hihst dbiind an6f ihsAdtegr-et Pce

'rich'w 'e'd'fl,"W~th*

b.r at'a'^CNii& 'Ci'ký 'Bown

-re .k'had ý'th,'e lW6 i Uu'ad'n6 z~-~~ bl' diffefed at,'all. fhriý6 8,ft6§,~ x"pu-tmummic_6g an'

~1*i~d~don~iftatd jat~all Athiti S ID1999, nq ~,V-tren s were seent in 6i'all; abuhdance b"' een J-r'r;St:6ed afi&

rdrrferien~ sm'altEf f Runl d onsrte th ;t h gest 'abundan& e I milt' -liibdndkcq'mong'h,

'Ailoway 'Creek'i's~ Phih siten 6~ii'if7r Vd'f&~c&

'i f 'As, ii~h s n,ýdt fibhýýt§i.4 ' pat.

35

Ifi '2000, Browns RUii demonstrated; the greatest abiundance of fishes ;in the, small .marsfh, -reeks,., Within Aio' ay Cfeek; the, treated ýsite- showed the highest pah4idanc., th6:Sp:irt site, t~he. Jowist. Differences: iii the;.giie Wf- fish was.eeih.

betwee*n the ;sites,, WithBro'wns:Rufi. having IaItg fishes-. W n o~ a' Cteek,, the treated ,sit-hatd larger fish, ýWith the size bif the fishes :being s~iein iaat the. Phragmites

!sfteand,'thSpdiin§iie..

tn,,2ý061 ýBAns Ruiin adthe, greatet ,abuidane. ofvfishi'ithe .Sm'fiarsh.

ýcrek.Abh the All~bwa,,v-Cie~ks~its,-,the-it'ea ed site shwdw,&dthe jih~ bui~6 itlihSjatiii--i'tethe :ioWt .Mfinffiichog domijhtkd at all,.ita bit Mad H&i& :C-egk,

,re,.Atlafitic menhaden dopinate. Mill :Creek aid,'theý .Jlbaw Cre"*sites:had f&wer'species hahhedther" t~vo, sites, with cbnly ;fivefýish-species' ;and-n6blue 4crabs..

Th adi ,Cifek iýfwrerid&,site-,4"fd, Bro~wis R iýn'res oratidfi.:site: &cfl ha 12

Spp2: :rTepy~emgied~i, Br~n:u ~ greaer.unaciofrgfsestna, an Olthfrite 'T-he, §i, differencý wa's:&i bsed slily on 'aSsemblage'. dihff rence,

• ,mummn hlaog w erelarer,"I at Browns Run than it all other sites'.

Ac8orV**ring:tOth: 2002annuat repgrt, both' the Browns;Rin site~and'the Mill

,sth ab2undance; a szen 0nean speces'ýdrihness than'te *re*eieeste

• t eMad kýGr'eki-Iqse; .iek: bit'Wit.hin A y: the :ffeatbd .had* tae:- Jig!sit abunarid e. vI[L nilgr ,izeoffi s to bhthe Spa-tina sit e , e fnitreie n sit&h T:he u~ntreated.Phragmiresshathehig;hth'est specieistihness.

Ti~btes.5:1t3 iitbough.ig1?8 .si6w the: tiantibrs. of fi oh..leldted 'ht! the 'sinali na~sh ofsitete:Letqst'

creek§:.F*: igfires::5-3.4 .through: 5-40 compare the nunmberS, of&adl-h: {ffh:i' tNrgei,'spels,.

colledtedi :ii- i.h&. *iatge~ 'r~ks .andi the refrrelice ,sites *frbmn1i996÷/O*02*,"

2... "iurs

. 4...-'

Msitoh46,cbnsii , o tget t 36

-5.2.3 Supplmental Studies Conducted by PSE&G Suppleiental studies were, cohduit~d 'by PSE&G to c6hdpar&-fisbh species

cornpositi'b, sizt afid growffin. restbi*d and ijference mf+/-heS. Th :aialys6...ihclud~d assessment, of marsh fnctibns; sutch as reproductiobn, feed"ngai :ro*wih fof selzctedi 5.2,;3A.rTi~hAss-em*bl'a'ge,

'Thse ippleehe-ia1 .udies n61uided ,that fish asseibilaIes e(re sinii ,kifi, the

.rest~~ddS'ites d the ief6r~~eg arshes .ihblii~inhg,siz ecompdsitihio.seaso iLatterns Df

&occ-rence;'and st aal 1(pear-aonwas'seen. P'6'o tOj t~ebfnent,th~ a iesiiianbffibo1ifi 06ns~deribf&n~s'oerta3f~o~t rfihe

• rsh,:.dt1Mad' WHrse -Cr e~k4 l~1, C .fistabundance a,'wa o-6ccasionally, greater' than We.reference 'te thoughout the samphng 'seasI' .996.

!X'Ae"' treatme t., fish ab.undanc a t the *reated, xmýashes;. with timenPeribds 1 i0i ga greater abi~fi& ,ini .th

. .... iriar4ies: at* Bro . RiItI *nd Mill Cteek; ahd' :opher periods,

shqwit this~ ifig:-tihe~tra*ied marShes,.

J5.2.3;2 Reproduction 0he ,ý*j~es .6f ffsh,ý mulinfikh6g. an~d Adl hti siivrjl ha p~1 tprodum in:fiarsnThi geeks in ihe Dý&iawaf t e dett~xnihed tu p~ic i bofth 'Br6Wfi 9,skh ahfid, the re`fren-cei: ash'6at Mad HIbrse C"Eek. -No "videfio46f krepo ou64n of .Atl'dcd siversite .was se'- :at ýMills Cre6eki aithotigh edhce: e -Vof miirhmiýTh*g P irePdUt:was se n.4 'duitiofrOfftii.friiihg

,tý-B'rdwnRl'si;un_,an4ad Mll Cree* bth --prior: toa aftefr tevint: Sdfff evidenbe of rep dt1o4ii6b: 6f-Aitdihdic siltvrside. aso. tBrOvi"SRoijhoi_ '.ioio 1e0ii -,ýn ,ftfr'

__ 112e ý _-ý - , ,

ý37.

'5.2.333 Food Habits, Food habits were:,assessed to..detei-niine whether the. restored' and r~ferenýee ijOsh'prb.9vide' equi__1entr.hithat'fo fish foraging..Bay' h'ti6y, opot

ýndi.wlite perch.

wer6 shwfi i6t eak., similar preyat ihe Bo'ns Run, site and: th"Md j:H6trsb Creek reference' site., In1998,sevral d Tfferenc&,were seefi ........ d....... et..spec....

using :thei MillC Creek *ite :as ý6ompard~t6d the Mad Horse Creek ,referehnc';si*te.: Fort'!bay ancho 'thediets:e e-,si'niik between'theitwo: sites;

,vy whilevOeikffSfi"hfd highei'per'

capita qprey.6n~umpti6n atrM~ad Hiise ýCreek 'ithough the types oprey cý'onsumnd,

~Witeperh ~assownohye a moreýdPerse'.a-nd-dA6iff~et!iet~t Mill

~ef~siii1ri.

.C~ka~sý,onfipaxd to th64 Me~ne~ie

'Shtdi&*6f mh'nhog Jindicate attteyutiliie ,Phr gitd,AS :af&o~dsourde

. iwthm*i*!i,-ghit'Shom heSd "atefd~mars

{Muiiinich6g. and aiwv,ýr.idsigredoin and growth iw-eped't-eined reiai ato.haýe.

riatesAn.Athe,*etraatd nd. referende marshes. AdequaM gfrtwfijtO.-pprch, 4Ay-00~~) 'ad w~ ~ial hsot ~~~~ ~hesý dhd the tf~frenc&

mWeA"s

,mar-s'hes. ,Sim*!iatg- t

,ro u.nogfthe .year munhoiihg. 7an.d Afantfid s&lve'side

.ýfIrs;fyo

1 were seen1:bfdt~/i.dafter :*eatin its~b~e*g*n..

43 CnCuCOnci Ti9n.

I jh response ':tothe rtbitoitioii.'of the'dilt, hay ei'p6*ii,

.bs Yfar

-Oiting dfitieka.r .fish asse~b!{ : were, simiilat b'etween the. restbir*O fay m'anr tme-

,refefce.,:e,* *ashes, ihicidin-g`;s~i* coanpdS-ifbn; gshl..fti, O'the 6edtors,,alt -a fatrrns, with a 'hikghm divesity .fseciespand'a higher defis'it of preator & fidh as-cbmpared.io the refereie- rnfShe_:. F 6 tdie, 38

,inddiCated"that -food,habits::of ,.th-e::fish, were similai, betweenthe:,restofed:'salt, inarshes 7and the ref eeie arshes, *at~a mindi*as that at lIeast otw spedies offfigh (nminichog and AtTintic iiVer~i~d e)* wgeut i~li~zg th-te r*est6redt rarsS for. rep-r tction. Gr6wth rates of y6tnng Pyea9 f, ,e. fih.Pe.eý siimllar betweenq the tefieericee sites. dndý the ':restbred

-marsh'e's:

The data doh'6t a 0 s fipo a the restorffibn6f jhb:.Ph t domifat, sites jis tiitr asihg iii fof eoareas,. oMobing, 10.ay e--v-e~tajbtQiting, aomAl1hQ-iy PI~hagiit ehyal. TheOO m(Shio'niri shwI~jitWhnAIwa ree are

,marshcr irtkI h abiianca smla t;a Thie ý.Ip 2662QO2; hap nLtf d, er200ted0 W i aree fm&

rmoartsh *le t Pht- sitre" was".t.ie4-igAie-st,, abundlan e, ofefisht wel'derth ea t,,b--nda,-~e-'6.ftthýefratdandiid.artin sits ad sifillir y~fcibPof ep mrnuiiichg ---- d ýAtd~nG sil r e;sd , Was's*een,

1. gh #epibduction' 6cunrr i the Plitgitea..domn ated is bothpir r to' wi, foilowi jI th~ rari Q'fPkrdgfriites. Gtow~t ,h*paqt~r' wkere s~eite4 smla o S*ilVefr*idebot -h e ent';aWel1,l a*ratl ii also ii.dicatfe ihat.iimmiOhg.-- h able to us'e Phraglies.a*fafoodsii, eiiiraghiies d0omiated,,ftes;> gtheseqesults: o,:,n~dRemonstrate that Pragmit.seradicatio, is I:  :,fesixit{,n~:i~n ,inefeasNduti ~tibi'ii fiifthee sites-nd inc~ei&'fisfioictibh:

6.0 :Evaluition* 6fiS, Ladders,,

pg~'t~,erpgai, 'S

.,6nd't*lhs,-fthe.

cbdd ftio~~f{ns .;of. 199-4

'p*,pt~t* S&

p~Qs ie .requare0;.tobiht,

.,,ehmiaten , pedments ,,to fish mgration.' g Riv hertig le'irfe ad2 'b-n ieba61k

,b6 ~i~g sev gairpg~t -iifrgefhfor bstr~d .ba an&-w.dk kfi~hý i e'liw are

,Bay,;, Diiimy*,ad*;ofhbr btni~es 'thatihave been :consthidted ,dyet*~p.*e - t cenftury hflVWe*

Tr Tkep ri fromagiifiin ~ uphjs tribiti~t hi yvq&';0i-ra.i iaa~s~ ns nig.:g, Ollnel solutibn pr blen.i e u1d fish ddri: th se l~dd&'ract nssiis6f ii 'small*

t ,,

steps, ,enabhn4ithe.,fish toNdm - the h g "th ef,din damialal.

1

Eight sites were selected fSr' fishiadder install"tion' Sunset Lake"(on Cohnse5' RNer),) Cooper kier; Silver Lake; McGinis, Pond, M cColey P6-dCursy~s Pond, G0rriooný Lake ahnd M res Lake; Figifre 1-1.lows (he locati6fisngof the fish! Iadder Si'tes. 'TheM*!cGirnis ?0ond, Silver Land and McCoiley' Pond fish ladders 'hae been in 0opat uinsihie .i996, ,the.Coudrseyv"s Pond.arid SirtsetLake ladder have 1beeniopeiationalI s~ince: 1997,;,Cqope'r River ".,Moe she19 n ar~in1k~ic 99 To,,successfully establish river,.herrfigdusage of thenst eteds,fish' ladd er. it sý of e a ogke areasupstre of thed4hpoundimentt*h fi.Sh*as, the >:rgma.

~tk idf'fi'sh~ 'wul&hae'be*:e~stryed obr reduced~ yat:~~itu~o

'na ý;tq~ o the

. imerit't T_- when.the hay-, iAext, generation 'of fish,-isý,bo**t, t!eyWi1*Uticn,

,eturndtbtliejrnatal; Waters, and thus are more hIely'to:use..l 1eaddets. No.increases mn returngincad6ili.ri&r hefing, re*qutirfig frm fis .,iddeKis uodion are e id' fo&rd

'at'

~stre'e;to. ,f.ir years .afer d*e stockhg efforts w~hen .t~Ib:jiheiiiie: y fitish. which' -wgre.

spawned upmstre m ,ofeda r ea 'PS beganlstoking ,tlii

p~ndg iipsft-:r*, df~th& fi~h laiddeissin .i996 >and,'has dohtifii~d d,Stobckig,*fforts: *ince-.that timeto~'.estalbihsha :arget:abundance, rae:.of5 fish pea cre.

To d~eterm the ofth fish ladder projet, pSE&G 'bn chas cnducting' iannuA*imonoig inc diqntqg qu'antifyit g 'the i&

ahdu iif. h r.iihg, is 6f, tih:fislhiladders',

Thntri~i~;hrih p _~~

suc~ess_ by- Uaipif6r. 'fi heffliji eggs 'and, a ini' Ih6 An'oi-hdhuet nd, f66der, tribiitaribS;,, adfi Ao6i6iueting, "year 'dlsý

,deve!opmnqn b Sa ii"g for jbvyenil!es'-.

P SE&G0. '.i's i qji4rd to *d'eihionstfrate 'the addilt. iiger. hieri'g. pass4a&ge -:up the,

. eiawing.';i n. the, inp6undmefit6, jnd' JtmhjU'_enileherring qdeeopmnei tahdini*g*' ikion firm' the irnP6unridments. Th* u&ofth*e fish laddeis-'by, adultsigagd'by trapping,jhe ,hernig ' the~ exi 1._,e rs..Teauts~ann 40

is tracked. by cdllectirg _fgo eggs and- d larvae. the:boattom of the impoundments with nets'. This. is.,a, difficult way to obtain-data; it does not provide an accurate assessment.

tof the: argout, of spawninig, but, only 'illustrates whether thdre is .ny'spawriing at all.

,Ac.rding toQPSE&G,. noquantititiVe anaiysis can 'be conducted bhaed upon h egg, "i .~~latvae'andi jtiv'enile: colle tii'ih gfforts.

6.2'.-2 Garrison'Lake SThýe Gar.*on*Ladk`.fisýhiadder bec ep al 'rati i*-9**dths 1, 8 site6, has ,b~eii

-stocked.*every .y~ea f'romr 19';o 2002. C h e'sicks*

"nt d fg of' this -lke with, 432.

.spawners'ni2002,,resultedlin tte lake reaching its g-oalof-40 Rtar6etiwever, it,does

,not, appear, tat much success has been achieved' at thi- ;,fish,, fadd~er site;

.$inge

},consnitioi,. ony i6.fish' (39, 70;, and '3 (dead) in. i999 *2000, :2001and 2~002, 4respe."i ): h'aI v be6nA,6`bserved utliziig the' ladder. In addi'tion, wasý the :ony ear.y inh*ihiijuveriiles ,or laivae~were4 collected at'Garrison',Lake*,fi'ft.6y oiie.;lo ae

.a b7'(j'uniile, 1,c!cled. No juveniles, were, o.l ected duriig ,th'e2000 monitoring

,eri&. ':Nd siiipjg waiSiducted q for ji'eniles ,or' avaein 200G1 and-2002%. T'abie'6-1' sun rafizessfi sh.' hsibdkingffrts through 2002. 'Table'64-1 sunmmarizes fish paIssage

,'Th6.uh 2T02,. Fi (Ireq, '61 depidt. 'stockig, :a4,ithe -adult, river pqs~a g l Ga.rision':L~ ish 1addee ouh' i Table 6'3iand ,,Pigis:.2.and'6t3' depct-eggs*,

Tgl2002..

Ilaire 4nd: juveniles Olilected.

61,2' .:Siver .Lak.i

'The..'Silvr, '.Lak& hfish laddedp, was. iistalled -Ii:4"996., Rela-tve'I f.i-Ut'h We dbgetred

* itiizing th" 'fish' adder .in thm-fiist two 'aer.'ontrfitionf(1 yyar, in i],*9'*hd'-'i0.h'A998). ise,'da fish di e~tg"n:curta4i b'egInmg.*n,'998*,lnfeas'te p g of~fish, houg the 'laddert .Stockinqgatthis 1ate-bgan, i 1998& ad on'tinded il0ugh,20b02r;io ,teach',.9~82..% 'ofhe goal of. 1,000 spawing 'fish' in; l*e,,.e. Table' 6-i1

.sIumxnAizeýýfith s0*ickii 0igot~s :thrbugh 2002. Table '6-2 su f fishpage iru-ogh 2002,. Figure64 depicts stockingand tfieadult riverpassagethrogh' 2002..,

41"1

Very, few:larvae and juveniles have been collected 'at this 'sitesince :1996. Table

6-3 and Figures 6-5 and 6-6 depict eggs, iarv*ae and juveniles collected..

t i6.1.3, Moores Lake*

Qopeation of th6 fish"ladderat' Moores Lake *commenced:in 19099. In12001, a concrete diversion fluime was, constructed to guid&spawning fish -from a wooden weir at the exi tth of the spill p6ool Sihce tht time;, adult fish passage through the fish ladderhas, Sbeen successful, exceedingt*he target goal of 135- fish. Fish stocking occurred irn 1999 anid 2000. 'Thiibe. g61i surifarizes fish stockiang efforts through< 2002'. ?Table 6-21 summarizes fish passage through 2002 Figuid 6-7 I tocking arid the adult rivers Ipassage through~ 2Q02 Samplingi for fishlar-vae andl juveniles has s:,hownb fthe spawning'is occurring in

'Moores Lake. Table 6-3 And Figurs :6-8.ard :6-9 depict eggs, larvae and jveniles S6o~lectedthirough 2002.

6.1.4 Mc*G'inn*is Pond T *he [McGinnis:Pod fish ladderý w** i*talled in 1996, This* ite,,`a gtogk~d.

from `1998through 2001. N-o additional stogkig was conductedin 2o02.0

, Initiaily, fish, pasage was hindered by veoities withinf the structure 2nd the entrance, configuration.

.'Modifications to the laIdder were com4letniet in 1999§,, which allowed increased pa~stge of adut, fish tbhough the ladder. Adult `fish .usage of te ladder has .incraed steadily ladde hina inceaed t9d

,since 1999. In 2002, 773 adult herring ,wre'e obser-Ved pjassingthroligh the ladder., With, 513 allowed to passinto the pond, exceeding the target goal of 157 spawners, Table 7l-I su I g2ariz0s fish s6*ocking ,fforts sthriugh 20021, Table 6-2tsummarizes fish papsa4o*

throgh 2002. Pigurfe- 610 scknand

'1pict the adult river passag&_to gh202 42

Sampplingý for, fish 1 -rae nd Jir~eniI'es, 'h's shown thie .spaiwnitg - is, (tcufiqig.

Tadbe:&:3, 'anPd Figres"6-i1 Ad 62)dep-dt eggs; lat.ae ,and~juienites :oiiected, thr6igh

~Adi'tIfMh 'pAs'age.'at ýtfi's 'site,ý hasy b'~ed stfbccessfi)i 'since~d -t§9S.4 l-fe y'qaf' 'afjte-r jinsll'gdi 6n, dsýigt6ýnlee: Iiiei'08 s inrgpi.Sgn iers,*of:filsh*,bSV&been ubbkerv

~,tifzing.fdie fisheladder. *Limitedl 's$toking of 4hi8' sifte! hseen odcd;with, ony 6hie't66king; eyent in '199.8. ' '20,2;, Q. 964 figh.- s'e lito'te. poild: eXCeding. the,

',,rg et !g pb - ad! e:,6 ",!sii a lbf -29l :.sp~a~w neý s. T wz~ sh >St o in ef tS O .g "20 2 .

2002:fs!ýdu4 1 ý002.

-Samling. fdr fislarvae ansdgjuvenles has., shown; tat,.spawningpi. occurng:.

6-3'"and' FigireS6-14,ad'645 depit egs'iara Table i7ihUghk andjuye*nies c9llected

'A" :fish~ps'sage at 'sghas asi- ist 'since 'install'atiofnnh 1996. 'in, 0beem'successf s~kig~dte ahdu ýdpc rv Id'p'acs;getug" 20Q isd "20*02,' *93'fish, iwere' co'nted' :p.as sing- through iaddrifid' "thJ 'ra heipoids, L Oil- thOUg!h 20Q2: iTabile 6-2 'summa~zes "fishi.passage:;thrbfgh *200"2. :Figure:.6-1:6'

,effo*,rts SaRmpig5

fbri>fsl i*area andW'Jiveniies .'h'as. shown 1'g s fni

Table= '6-3: .andl" ">:F.*reS

... 4*:6-7

and&6-1h8,,epipt~eggs,,:

a- '....." ... lardiVae*... aa '"":" i:/ueles:

....colected*

' .t~iough:...

,43

I V61.r 1hiited usage -of the fhish lacdedt.,t Cooper River Lakie has been obserived sic~cmpqptiiorI 'qNO 9~, wiith only 21 5fsh, total between -J§998- and ý200Q2. -Fish lakngc-at. tis site o*m en~d' in, a998

• nd has coninied NOigh2`2(. Eve;wih Nra~dditibon.

e, ifi t stockefilsh, the tegoal of 1,000 was iot: yet 6ache0din 2bo2.

T-abler 64. su'-m-m'tp arizeP .;.fiih : toCki0g1ffort202. T!ble summarizes n fih

~p~ss~g ~-h,,2 Fi6i'6-9.

.O2 cdepitts:,,to-king-AndIth&4 dblt jruh' ýir;~~~g in t.... spw.. ping, is occurr.ing;.,

,Tatie-'6v.. a"-- .*,Fi"i*ire*.,..,

si .o-20 ai-,,

• i**-diti'r.avaeanjuvees**.,olet*.

,6-2P cegd* thiodugh A. $.8ýn~set

ýLakeý

'$Uns*&t Lake` bec-fie ,e',6 oi ii.,1,§§7 nim&6 'niie~eig-chaunge-s io-r

~.1c)itis teisfish kidder, ,weje :iii Th 999.,tWtn i98Yand

• site siiated soi-pl!tedf

-06 "99ced; idnl s1998:ihd. obtimfed through 2002., The target*

• oaltof' , *00 siterng;

, a i 2002 *when*onsideringebntt the fish'utihzig sfie h lade anddthed

.sf&kd ifish.i Tabelge, '6- siariiws- , fish: týSge .eb rts: Taleh 6th2

SUnM1z& 4ish p ~~~throu&h 2ýQO2; .]ýipr&;6A- d&i-t ht~ig'ýýfd the,e adqltý iiVe L~~ Sa4ln fnjfsj larvae aiad' ,juveni&,fras glown thab' Tbe63 n Fig r.e ,23, d

~-24 &s, &:cc 6cufrihg 6., Cndiusion,

F`i :dfth" "Iigh1d~

h ~l PodC e~Jdd innisp doid, e ýS.qare) .rýOrking ýWell wih.1dr&nube6fdilfsh 1iigt uh 44

ladder; with.liinited stodkkdn*. Thie fish.ladders at SUiiret. Lake and Silvet' Lake ýare also

ýsuppoting adclt fish paSsage, with the nurnbers:.6'ffish utiiizing t.e; S&inset Lake ladder,

,incrasfihg.sinc6e engie'i gchesxe co'ifeI.thoug i~asg a o0b'*erved* at Grris~n La.:in 2O0,t fishrl.dd6er'"id bdenrsedt :ih 2001Lid 2Q02 Thefish. Iae to L"Coopers

' e esnot app ear to be sutp6rtijggfis11 pa~agupnbasd th ~, Offshbefved- utilizi'ngtat. ,iteýslince, Consfrucionwas in &,oplete.

.Eyvideneof spa.wnng6 yas. seen'!n allsktes:excep.t:Garsbn .Lake:. ItdQes'ot.

pea .thatthe'stocking: effort,ý'have' been';sucessfulin est _ihsng theremrnof' Offsr~otefs adr sites'.,~he ofthfq<st s Piitf nubes f~g f'fih utilizing tie, Iaddersr'eie-edlimitedgstocking 3 miatng t5at the fish utitiniig tihe.fiýhsl dtfisd,ib* 'flikil' tfislh hi66fieeks, oi ,ffspiiing, of stocked',figh., Te iptes that ha'eiec£ived th lagestnuiiniber§s'o*fstdked iflsh cOntiniuieto 0iii ted.ase'6f the ishidde i's byvtadiuli _.

.0' Analyss of Baywide FishData

,A inbdf'of.fihhiAbian -e Studi£S, h' beeh 'diid-ted Wittii the DeIwiae

.Esa*.y.-lp ding stdisconducted :by the Dela e Dparmieft:ofNatural Resources.

.:*iiV)Nfilih~nte cobnti: (DNREQ), Diisi fiýFiih biid, Wildlife P.SE&G.a,iidItle

,lPNewer-s'ey, ,Depoa -nt.of' Protectioa(iNJDEP).

-n----e-nal PSt ýcohdUcted, an exfeni&ei anYsjs.isf jthiepqppation'offis;'in.i'the

_De.aw,ar&F:-uaryN*,,s*d~upo~n >*-v~erj:yof stuiid.es icl*iidgn .DNREC sur.'.ys :foil.

1980-19% rý'he NJDEPtBeach Seineq Survey ata tg 198ý6-1'998an the",PSEL&

,Ne..arfel .&BoitmTrgw1.S.i.vey data K-994.

1929-19.82and 988 .- screpanc"esisn:

ghrar ;d'iia *{:9 antin ph:.pOi *ih' gog.ah eip erena i.t"ies prtohibfit t S&G Near'fIeld. Bottin Trawl. Suve foth'190s b'oham o oj~rait gaiher~do'later n, 195 Anithdt pibcddura1 c'hAngce400-k. pface nakingý'It di'ffiicut~o, 45'

pimpare-the 199 5 ,99$8',dtato data clecct! previoiUly. similarly, the DNRC Large Traxl :Su rVey hias..goie through many n'iiking.dmpatisdns M-MocedUralchanges

'difficult. The,:0ony sur.'ey;that. was cbfisistenit over aineitdiidedtii ei piod v s the DNREC Ju'yenile TiawlV.

PSýE&G!s dhidlysis include&nia ii1 hOi6ndf fa iid-tldidiaiiatlys

,How6eVe, iiid~ate iff6ritioin *vas,.pi6ide iii theapp icatinlt6 rec*eate the:

ysNen rregadtidg'.1' 'gtowded 6hm regtios ethfish: were

.: c-aW~h~t: aii.:ff ,yg:96*d*u ifak~tgi iip6gglb t 4fi* :stkoig, CI! fd~it

. a~~~&e~rage. .cgtches~per.-jiail. W:itho0utt!he inforffiatin:.thi wne inito[h~eiav~erea),eit~qs; jtnpossible :f.t n*ow, whetr'PSE&G-s., results ý,arek accurate.,

"lwee Elable:,to btain idata fomn D -NRECfor fa-young,., th6: yeai-al "venI-e traw d~a.t!.r add ttonal analysis of abunidance trends w.thi thiEtuary.

-W,&::a, ez&tfie& S* dAtlantic silversid'e. Mumichog-was not.anaiyid dile.t6 its pied~senein;t~e~Juven-ie Trawl data ifcaUghonlyvone indii"dua ' Was" aught O a, pysistoop p i O-i ana into-accouhilithjefadt;tha bthe Silfi facilit Wa*gutdO*nor riintnnce from May-;iie"TO995 ,thughiAri" 19,98.;

Therefo6re ,":~iee::np'ard eddta ;frfr 19295!-:1994jand: dat,*fromni 9.*0.2:(**,*il

'.y, ~eaf.'beinsdfi, Xpfi 'tiL d *,t~ds' t6 'Mat7*h of the f~li1Jnp(*Ea-t'): "T~abl?7,i: ,aid'

'Figures"7-1 tflough'..7,9-Sl0,w ;t*e. DNRC Wdatag fofi -199P-2*0.01X,. ,Th' :s iatis~i'clIl:

{. .~anIYSisis co*iA"iedinttmenm t't 1.

[ ;B'*1gW iai S., narVy~o'f* then'd- ndsfsbenby P.i&Gtllxugh 199,9; `vit7a7

,g.. ...... 7' . 1'- "h '" ýW _A  ? ý s a i tc l

,Siippierh* iial:V a~fii1ysis$ ofk*:lie ,DNRBdaf prei and~posi~resioratio*i~ tb,,d tehanini-if d*tlibe

fn~~*iar~hd8tiiiiSn: p i s~rhAfii.hagg ,g iioticeabl*')e T.figih~~

{-rnpic

on pul~tioifl :Within;,

the DelawýreEsni asPa whole.

46

7.1 Wakflsh-

ýPSE&Gýfifdi ngs: PSIE&G ,co'icludd thatDNRE'C data'sshowt thatji.vetiile,

\veakfýish hadVe ihcreasecf in"ih&E~t' 4.sih'e-l 1"980.

'CeEA, fi9,dif-g7s:IDN ,E. 1 o 2 s increas.

ew197,howexer ,4 the~ata shows.,a deche in weakf sh,,abuhdance kaftdr 14§%,'St iaiýnaly~is al of ,weakfigh data froih ~991--,9 9 Canhd'dat-2Q00,1 shOws :no&s'tatistically sgiifcat dffreii6: Figut 4.shbovstheewak- hý

-ie

.ab-iidhdane data "froih 19 trufr0i 7::2.: Stiziped. Bass; PSEG fndig~ stip ýibss '`ppf L1ii~n2has-increasedd in, tt1 1 elaware Estuary from, 19.86, to (998 based&upon0the NJEPPJeach',

Seine ,Sutveyk,.,, PSE&G&f'uhsth*e i -tdtfat peh ,es C eI~teithhep.eyes'of the.

.striped.bass :opulatmin ,n;Chesapeak'eBB' (stried bass t ... hesaeake Ba to

.ve.r

-thed.eawara- EstMaty thiirh h , :&,i nal),b.,iele

`CEA`.findings:': DNREC jvv.j-e 1*9* tho~wglf20Q1g4 Sh6W 1at,.,fso pebksr i e ,Sti'ip~ed bass poulatioifi i1996a.id°d2000. :Overall'; tstrid'etlbass; Populaton Steadytwoug4iZ99,*,withjisjhar

,remaeist ,a.,shklit, inerease 1i 2Q0; and eli

... ,2.0. Statitinal o f*s- " p9._1994 d,s ass data froml;I998A200 L:shO*Os sitai~i~ticaily* sigmficnt, diffet'*nce instriped~bass'*abtidaiice, 7it enchbb. cWit

, s

,PSE&G;!findiigs, .'*di~*%Pi:G!.fa*s,*iie *!r~hluidai~ifiae h*.,

.incmased inbej btiary. sc ` thbidinfr.o 19.0e perch populationis udecreaei Naiabe.Atha~peak:year fo1lowed by numbersit

, -a e ich te.pe abu,nda2c00w' 1seenetxeen 1991 ai,97, 47w

with ,ade'ine~iiifhe poplation from'1997 0to'2001'.. Siatisdical analysis of white perch

,population, da*a*fr.m 1991-1994 and d0ata 1frm 09,8-2001 shows .no'..siatistically

.:signifi'ant diffe/ehCe in iwhite perct population. Figutre 7-53.depSic's.',the whi'te0:t'ch abudafhi*cdata from f1'991 ituoiagh' ,2001.

7A, Spot, PSE&Gfindin&: Based u*ponpo S"E&G'sanysis, &pta dalV ta. ofn t abounhdanc-e; vithin the DelawI.e Estiaey.showIde~flucmafiofs b it, o icear.trends. Boththe

'NJDEP Beach lSeihe 2suvey anditheDNREGjtui letr aw1 sUrvey'show;,statistically

'dsignifitatdec-lAes in spot 'buidanceftn,1980' to. 1*98. a qgt.Odng.;td.PSE&,G Atiaysls.-

CE'A,withii4.the&

,i5populatit~n fitfidings :-, D*EC Estuary D*.iaare d ata frorfi, :i9 i hit1g'tindicats,

• • Vas>variable`*,Wth:*a ihatrtbe k*bt ;a peak y.~r` fo1o*6wdby ij}

S,.de~*a~e&!iiv:nu~ih ve.r'e"thet"iihe;periiod, valiuat6d, osp6t.Ju -b"s-,pe.ed in 1.994.

'Oxeralr,, sgpot num ers, appear to have dechinedfrom' 1991 to 2001 atistcalanalysis*

.o,6fs:ýpot.,abunlaficedataOfrihf 199.1i994 an1d§ from 'o19-'20OI tow -ata n6 tt ay ficant Cdifference liv spot abundanc. Spot!4a1undance;data f'a in. 199P

• "i ,,~ihir0ufgW'2*o~i~ig,,ho~wii- QUFigure 7)-4;

`'.5,; Atlanticto, C 6Aker

!: :PSF&Gfihiig Dat.anaflyizd b y PSE&GG,-,liOqA. significafit. firefise'.ti

,abundance of Atlanfic 'crdaker in the eleawbare thrdughl1998.

_Fstury

,.EA.*findfi~g**: ':DNRE-db~tat  :,*

ft . l t h :6010i Tihdiefin tes that.thý Atlahitic rpulti witfrii h the Delaware Estuaryis vaiable, Wfth ap yer followed tughout 9,-'200.2 , w1ith,, the pheak yeats.sho Wingapproximateiy- the sae levels -of Atlantic``oaker:. Staftistidl*AnO i6.*f ntid dr~ak~raabun ofys "dgc'ataf*6m, 1991:-

-j,,4 aaidcata fr&m 1998-2001, shw:s -d-statisti-lly, csigni*'fnt diffe'ence 1nAtldantii&.

,hcsroalker.,Piauie.li5 týhOWt- Atfatic .cioaker. -ni n1damt 1o991 througih, 48

ý746 _American, Shaýd PSE'&Gi findings: PSE&, .determined, based uponflhe NJDEP Beach Seihe VSuveý',

that from 1987 to 1997, theAierican shad abundance has increased in the, CEA findinis PDNREC ju1eni1e trawl data from th199tfrough 2001 shows a decline in the Amer ficshad poputi6tion.Sfatiýtica1 analysigs of American shad abundance data from 1991-1994 and data frmdf 1998-2001 sho%'s that this decline 'is statistically significant. American shad abundancedata from 10991 ,throug':200i is

,showii on Figure 7-6.

P7.7 River Herringg(Ale-ife and Bliueback Herring)

PSE&Gfnis The thresreyexmndb PSB&&showed no clear aburidance trendsfor these, speci&sl.

CEA findings: DNREC Juaenile Trawl data, sho'ws a pek in the alewifeý lgpopulati*i ini1995, with a low in 1998.. Sincd 199&, aleWife numbers appear to be

increasing.

Sthtistical anialysis of alewife abundance data from- 1991-1994 and data fromh 1998-2001 !shows that this increase is not statistical ly. Sigfcaitn. Alewife abundance: data from 1>991 ,through 2001 isshown 6f.Figure 7-7.

PSE&G findi*fst Blhieback herring shIowed* declineS din abunhdýne as measured 1by the NJDEP Beach Seine Survey and DNREC Jumvenile Trawlý 'urv7ey* as anaiyzed by PSE&G.

CEA fihding.s: DNREC Juveniile Trawlfdata fromrn 1991 through 2001 shows that the blueback herring population. is variable, with peak years follwedby steep

,decliies. Overall it apears that the blueback herring populationuhas increaseddfin the

.Delaware Estuary during the, 1991 through 2001 ;timeperiod.. StatisticaI analysis of blueback herring abundance data from 1991-1994, andi data, ffom !1998-2001 shows ihat 49ý

this increase is, not statisticallysignificantBlueback l*errng ab~ndance data from 199,il throu, gh 200 1.is,: shbowh0on.Figt.ire7-8.:

7.S BA" Anchovyý

PSThefindi'igs. Ite(NJDEP beachS*ae:-suryeýdatal'showe: aninrease in, Which wa ;statistiallsigeanht.a.ccrdi, todPS-E&CGI anal'ysiLs Ibw&veer; a.

,statisiicaiysigmfican't'decrease.i, bay anchovyyabuindane was shown basedadpon"ata

CEAf,.dinls:

6i nfLdataýpfti*Pi991 thrgiih 2OO0l iiidicates th at baanchov/y peaked .f991 andagaifrifijm 095,,,'ng~aloW. ii.1994. ,O*#i1l it ho ae daehas d'1iied'duei ýthe 191o 2001., tiiii*r eendod.

Statiptipaii-1m'ts, 1 a f.aynanho:ad

'Id- f einfendfaifnf' i 1:91-i.94.

14, ....... ..

1:99852Q001 *$WSh' -,,sthagt* this dei ini'E Ts"n6t O Stlhstfca 1y ýsiýAiicant. Figre, 7-shoWs 'bal' ia~~~n\{h6vy .abundafice:-daiaifroni 1'99 1 ,to3I2001.,

t99' Aa "verhside.

1. .9, ^At Ian iRe S 12e *s' d e

rGaniif:,;PSE&G-mdid not eifhuct anti naiysifsdef 0tS stkrong iabundAne

]:  :~p'resenfce;:'i* 'iiest0otl,.iharshes.,A.co0rding t*o !DN QJ~u~veiil* Trawl: datgfrom

!1.99"i :thrgh '260*1, ih Atlaiitih s'fsidi t latfioanpeake ii-e d993u nda:g.

. i i' )199.g:: Asn~lerpe'akwXs a~lso.S'einin 20003 a'ver11t.......io " de........ fro of At1sinic*Siafialysis iiv~tgiebdaa fo, 1991-1994 'ata from 1998-4atafrom 1-99 to22001fo w Ot

7.10 C-onciusions Baseupo thlimteddat axailble tle~e4oe 6tcaippear -to e~n increase -in

.baywid&'ahundpcef fishs inPEG coi diet , rarhj~e-sboration 4h ýand iffsh ladder 'instaflatfio. \yeakhfish ýa'nd V'White peich',eclibed di:i mbnmbers, after 190T7., A, d&1ie~alo se~ dr po,t ay, ahchv; y tlaitic~1~sd ~9420)..ii Amefibn.shaifd-, 4ith6te clinebe~tngý st'atistically. ýsi f, ftiti6nt,orA rjah ~ladhn

~bfi~iifg`99 17199'.~t to 19720 aa nfease lhAV6eý1)een ýsee-nin: bluebckk

h~frig although'tee-irassaeo Httt Illy sgi ifi~dnt,_ itxiped b s s datals Abiihdance iinmbý6rs Th~th Delaae ) edtl `

~bhaftcein Che Aake AdV; Oberal tNa stje~ 6tapeibass hairidased 8.0 E'~~uaib fti c~ess of Special Condi[tions.

increasing, fish produdjbn hasýs~h6MIý rNetdr:ufets..,

m -t6,ýtihf 6.ajf

pp&amj'ss, owhv.ing tsigps,'of sces~ f eeai~'D~ae~dhi~mb0em p*dalflb to~he fo-fnr. sallthay ain S, The Phragmites eradiicatibn prog , __S~

'To~yfish'p has.;bot reathe'dth-e Inferiffi -goal hf,'451o c ,Ag&', -altb agewfftorne;

~The~eni'sand aurc~T6'wnship sitest have :alsopachievbd'ihf2-e 7 ar ~ ay o desired mnet at- AlowyQ6k01Ji U'ý,PF-Gý,ii6 'i,6iýerconSIdedfd1,000:1"a 6es-f:

P _pminaiýf .a iaepa y p lop a,,by,

• -PdWO-)hn ses ihe, p-ea goa f 'S5 n VIind Ty~a'ge. tiiýý~an Tract

,hý4sý,'

'oa'chi'e'vedthe1-yerga forizPragilies,coverace. 2However, thf.

Sid itifabiliiy-cif the-Phra ihtest~ edkioico aippe'aýs to b~~ei4 nti aim iherbicidd 51

trefrnent ahd'asSocit*d inrterv.iitions.such as the burn. pi6gfam, The- true,:sifceess of the.Phragmites control program cannot-be:dete&rninedriintil heibicide.treanfient has

,been d 6iscntinued.

Fish respofise' to the re*toration 6fthe salitiay farms has beeifi b6ditive. Young.

'f t1ie year, 'fish assernblagesý werpe sifniar etween t re sestored salt ;mrarhes Aiad: the-efei-enes", fiiashs- .ificluditg -ize ,o sition. se 6sn1%

patterns of6dcur*efic* aii:

• speie-C oin '.rdda s uc-as -striped bass- a4 -hfte;;*fisj Wern aos .

Th[ufud, t, :ti!izmg, the *lt hay far, rmatshes, ýStwr! with.,a- higihrie div9it,'f s~if s and a-ihighf detsiyi of pre4dator #.shas com pa~rd to. thref, e - nier*h'eg.-

"Forage,studiheshdiated thatfood habits of thOifish weresimi*1iri b*6&tN e'ni th 0:effe' r6Td:

s~ltyrhaqsli ,,ai fdjt'd r&fefeicd mrngshes - ta indicate thatý at-lea'st twOQ~~ bfPiP (mu ýfibho` aný dtantxicSifV eirsIde were Utitiizing the' restored, marshes r

,re ir~d'uciii QOth':,rates,, of. -ybtg-"of ',theyear' fish were sinilar .between the referiic -itesndtahcihre6stofe-d mars hes.-

st-ls

'ndt-been,, de6noistrateit ,that t.ie restprati6n of the- Pragmites domiiat seyial :siites 'dorriirta  : y-bPh-'--agm`te; Spa~na, ro,uhder trea*'ment,-f6r- cmragmes:

-i-eih~qal. The.-20"0 -i6h~itoii-iig~shdwed-ta:fit,;xithih A~lloway ...... Teek'

'" largemarsi'

..... .... "....,rl@V..

c

---

t~~ý,as,,ce

-altre ie, n 202 h fish, Abuhdance .was,.si-fi-ilaf. 'f-all' dtf" site' ýi002,`, tPherTm'izis--site.:had"t-setfeated{ and SPatlna.sifes had'- 1bkef,,Abiinba*c*s"*

"WWhhil6- -2002- dalta- stihowed' larger. "abundance in. --- treated" kIqwayy ite;, 'it :al

,.d-o* ated, that the -iE*ii:*at.d' .hb-gtii-:ite` had Athe, hiiiest .p'ie§ l-iýEs-.,

R*proidu~cftin; -of ,m..u ,hog-and Athntic :silVerside rwas, seen uP fie.ighrdggmniti-dbfinated" siteý b'th "ribilo, :tO:- fig-the tmetintn Of thi&giiire f ,.d paite wr >, 'a for mun*rngho d. ani d -erd46id:e pOst tr,6 n fe;.asriii

-a.i-f 11. - !Sud;i-s also ndate7dthat smu eser s bli Oniie*., setoiýi:

Phrdgmniiei a~ f6od -Sourc&. in ~Phragmie-s domninatedsitýes. Tee :resqlts:inia& ff.~

,52'

Phragmites eadicfion has, ndt been, proven: to .ihcase utilizatioh of the sie-and increased fishipr6duction.

Fishl adders weie inita1Iedito prOvide'adult iierhefing paSage* adult herrIng s'pawning hin.iundments

-andtfibutafies; and juvenile herring, deelvprie nt in; and eririorný frO thglpp u~i-rdehis;. ýCA 'e6ua~ Xistihg,,daQfi jT'ian, attemipt, to,

,deteirmihe whether ssuccessful sp*whtiig.*unsu *fherrin*g-h.v*ibeen of. can be~e*tablishe:

as a .resultof-f*s*hladddisi*ati*s n nd,*wfeh e* iecres& iipppbltion of riVef Shlemtng h ay W-43, pro vide. :aitidii

i f6iqg..fot he.redtorpopuiations. Fbi.t-of the

.a*working Well withilarg- numb-rstbfhdu fisýhutiPin)theifi-h laddei with limited

--sto ng*hewfish, adder.-StnSinbdsetaandSitie. Lak rais e uprriiigfadult fish Cg. thougt fish -pa-ssewas obseved at Garrisond Lakte 20',6 little ferv u~~age that fihade~hb c~f enfi lndf2001' andI2Q2, The fis'h ladd~tat .C6oppi

,al 6does iot, appea eafish to besiosuph'ng passage 2 upf tt hi wbased ulon umbets f fish t'h'tslteSihC-e'cns; utir .cAITphi e..ic E~dIi ofp ,

n. G firs&n Lake. It doesý 6'appe', th, t h stkig:ffit

,bavebeensuPcessf.ulines *b* !hing theq :remu6fOffgmgig to, fleh.'dder stes.

.nueef o*t*fhefdoiri'si't}s-.wiith.atg'er numbers ffliitiizing~the adlefj rieceiv dlifiited'

,sitd6k-g, in.d'iat`amghat'te, fishutiizi pefistadders-ate.6s, lkelypioneeS; rahr hnthe hPrtrii stck fihpgfp-rig of t6cked Tush 'Tohe Mtes,`that.

hate, recqed thelargestnirnbeqsofo stcked ýfish contuine4to shbw lImIted -se"of the,

,06 tite 'scese:o he -w~etlaid I arm. -and the fiSh *iadcer, :ihfst~flaiq6-iu; qei dali~dd i'm tqalfwiiesa program,.en fhz&su thts l. . bNywde aburdabhc-- qe-s ,of the, repteentative e t,-'sees-.or timpo

, *th~tic siuersde Strpedbgss' data is: difit tQ jintetpret.as 'tleabun*danie, *iirbtr **iithe Delaware are;apparejnly, .:buPiinqe.Iihked *t&

.in Cnhes'paeakeBay. Oe lia itLap'as,,that,-str*ped bass fias ici eŽd, although.his

increasels: not s .dstically;significant., W'eaish aind Whiteperchdcedin numbers I

after 1997, although the decline.vwas.. not statisticaly" signi~ficant. A decline was. also seeh for spot, bay anch'ovy, Atlantic silversid.e (1994*20041),, ýarid- Ain"ridan shad, With the. decl ine being statistical y significahn for American-sdhwahe-i Co9rip Apifg 1941..1994 dta to 1!997-20.01 data.. Inftseass :ha,'e'bden, seehiin bIue.ba(k-, heýring, :althogbg.h,,these:

,increaises areiiot :statistically sigifiiantý.: Thus, the data: to, dat6 d'er6fisisft6s thai the,

'gOa16-f ih6reasin -fi-h iM.the Delawar'e Esttiaýr as dffsiflt 0f-the vwetlinds:

p-pili-hi6hS-

• nd2 fish Iadder ýefforts .has, not beefitrealized.

54,

9.0 Refcreicks,ý

,*Pemiit- Renewal Aplicati6o,"i ,DES Permit No. NJ0005622, Plublic Srwvice Electric Sand :G a~s' Company Safexit,m.eneratingfStation,. MarcW4., 1999 Public Sevice Ehte'rfi0*se G , iBi6obgicai M`niitoihg Pi-gram 19?96,Annal Report tei- 7.

Cpa Ai

.] :blicS irvice'Etite*nrp Gi IiB6lilcl Monitorig Program 1997 Ar-nual Repotft

• , prhapwer.

Chapter '7.

q *tPubllc ewmdne5s GopBooml Monitornng, Program 12000 Anitinualepojt(

Pblic Serice Enterpr ise GroipBiolog-al Monitornl-h& pgam 1999,Annual.Repbrt Puiblic&8S E "-ic'pr~i's' Giýp.- I - 1A .ntdfifln -'g' Aniiual kep000 e, 'G 6i p~jgica,..

q rpiC~e Pio1i fin-200 PubicSei~cent4 isGroupB-ibgcL~ntr Program 2001IAnnual IRe` 6i(

'Publi S'r'vic ýEiiteris&j Giiip, Biologic&h M6ii~rin'g Pr6ram, 2002 Annmi Re6poit Final Report:, .~a*1 ;F.ihfish4 AssenSmrS e, April i1998 , -Marh )31,, 999, elji'ar

,P epart,~

C~gfan Iaua n~E~rnmil oto DRC Ieowe Di~igibh. '6f!Ff~h ai~d Wildliffe: -

Annual. Repmt, Coastal Finfish Assessment Survey, Aprll 1, !999 -Mach.,31 ,, 2000,

,Delaware -oDepa efit, bf_ N Yl DiviSion:, of.Fiihand Nt..ral ,Resouries and, ErnYir1n0enta; I Co0ntiol (ODNR )

ý.W.ildlife.

Annual Re'port, Coastal Fifissssment Survey, April 1, 2000 -March 3'1,: 2001, Deaware Departnent of Naitural 1esources ;iand; Environmental -Cnt0roL DNREC)

Division. 6FishandWild,*. ....

Aninual Repot,, Coastal Fiifish AssessmentLSurvey,ý ,Apri , 2001i .Mai 31., 2002:,

Delaiwi'afe.'e" onf Ntur'al, Resources. and ~Ehvironmenik, Cbmtio1: (DNREC 6Fish ahndWildlife ofDiviiq, C.

SUmmr Tables, DNR EC Jv&ni' T~~ ~~ s19-96 Speci roie :-Lfa-;Hisoi'k and Eni~xe~a'~qfens, ;f ýCdastalFihsnd Eihinerebratsa US. Midd isftn Milhtiuihog anthd B Sripe( :il ArO)h uic,19rp85o E~ninefs nd ~s:FisanW'Idlifi&Ser~i6eB ogclR'-,port8(1 4)JiA95

ý55

lSies Profiles... LifA,Histies"aiid Ei*i-onmehtal Requiremients of ,Coastal Fishe, and Inverteb*rates (Mid-AtInxc).: Atlantic Silverside, Army ,Orps of, EBgineers,,and US' Fishi an*dwjildl'ifeSeiie FWSQB1S-821 1.0, ctbr 1988' .

65 FR-49'0'59, Nati onalt Pollutant Discharge .Elmination, Sysieffi,. Cooling, W,'ate*"-ifritake,

&Sirbuceestf6rNeW, FAcilities; ?r~b>se Rdfes, -ý*iiii 2000.

O Ne jState: Salt: Marh R~estora(ýibnd M6mn'to.rg,

-&Yok d[e.I.&y .ebNk Y .State; P~~pa~rtm,&hi of Stt-&dNwYr rt~e~itnn~U ~iofnt~dl CbhPfati&,:

be,6emrb~r 15.;:00 T&eDeIaw~re:IEstua .Plani W Programf aDelafwaei-Esar September 96,.

Atlanriii 861 e d:'ýss Siudies: 2641 A dumiai Adp$td :Cbntgress, tNaiiofiol t {Marline iFsh&ries&,8elma IdQn.,tU N tted a ,e,n'd :WW2-f Ser Vi 6 4:

I;),

56

TABLES I'

Table 3-1:: 1998. PSE&GLoss Esti matesý

____._______ _ Ilmpin'e b* .i " Enfiaihment*V, 'T Total.

.Alewife  : 80-37 144 Q80;142 14,4.1719" Amicari.Sfigd-' .,2,214* 0.. 2,2,14

,Atlantie .r~oak ". 2,370,135 132 129,6511 - !34,99,78A6; "Bpy AN6hc*o 2;,03;681, ,602.

2;004*i26 2,;004,785,728; BlIebacýhering -57,267. . 59Q282,49. 59,339,,76f1 S'pot 2,654 ,20054"

, 22'708 Strioed Bass .i ,;660*' 1 44.8,563'394448,8&;5.74,.54

'weakfis -. 1,572,8V1 .. 763:4,3,,394 . :7,ý7ý9'16205 White ..... 525',55 ". 3412,83398 "16R, 4:41953,5915 ,

-- TOTAL 5ý,252'.2557 -3,A47,'33M9',89 ',3,*152:592;-154-01067A 995 L6ssEstiff~ates

TABE-2:

-COMDPARISON b OAYWIDE ABUNDANCE'TO IMPINGEMENT AND. 'ENTRAINYMENT LOSSES' SNpieeis Irnpigmn %of d' cide Ekn trainrn~ent lyealcfish, 1.9millAion 706 .9",q

ýStriped:Bass (I9'0.; 40 fiiillion 1.9 nii11ioihi - 4.75%

Whit~JTrch'(i'96t)' f9':2 biiibn -464,O06O 2.4

~fe.1 996),

R 8;O000 I{1gbe N~i~1

'pt ( 9 8 -49 '8") .3591"in~ifihof '1:.'5,niiIi6n!5'8 3. 4114:.8 ,

-pj(96aid19*8g) ,246 Q0700Q ,21/0' Ai~rfiCrakiNA-  ;-5-niffibhion' NA.

(§i~ce1,989)

Ba'y' anchvy 01i989 33.2 bllilon 5.ý6 billb " 16.

B nhovy (19-9,8 2.'5 billion 0.7 biiliih I-of IS8

-If I* 9/

12g wanoeaýh' and asno d1id poWeneatiý-, iiI96 Jjtoh'~c1t ~~~~-.,

on"~~pea~uaim"'e ~e1996!

~Tale<i:

Phr~mtesperentlan cverage 1995, 1996 '-ý19972;' -J!998,

" :1999,' -,,2000W, '20011 .2002' MobrO'!ýB~ich-' Referenice' . ND,. 0 3

..j0'2 - ..... '. .0:-2. 0 :2 -:6.21 " 6:2' Corn' e rciai Townl:s hipi:

ND 426, & 26.3' -19..1 . .7 7. .53 Mauri 'e'RiverI ND. i7.0 4. 0A, .~2.6, 72:5' 2.1 Den'nis*Townshlp .... '16.3" 7:1' A:.0 4.ý6 3.0' . "2.3 AD, Mad!Horsb'Creek -'Reference', ':NDI 13 3.' 40" '3 .36 3. 3.9, -319

'ND "71.5 :35.8ý 16.8. '37 4- 41 V 43.3 ,2,1.4',

IN iiCrileek ND. 82:1 .34 7T' 154' 48:2 579 '. :56.3e :ND" 6ohansey'Y Rivý*er Watershed INP: 42;7 :38. 5- 9:0 0:I

0. 9.34 10.5: .&5

'siIer'Ru-n: . .

85.ý5 6. 200 i51 ND NE) ND 'NDR 0 0. '0.2 ND N.D ND ND' Thie RocIks "87.1, -27.8S '133 2, 'I11.1 '7.9 '33.1,

• 22.9 Woodl'and.B'eachý ,3 3 .1 31.

18.6 .*30: ' g',

.. :2".. ;NJ'ý

'I~j3" ND 12.2 .ND.

-17.9 .N, 14.9:

CearSwamo 7.l 7' '10.7 ND Indicat.*.fno~deterrn'iinOd'

.hk4,e 2 paqtina sppI.bnd oth@ dero6rab, mase ve atii,n'~crt'hd&vra

,1995 1996', 97 1998' 19991 2000) '-2001'" 2002 ND. 88.7' 41'.4' - 89.9.' "'88.9" " 187:2 -.840 '84.0' Comrrmercial ND G7. 5.0 t.2', 9.7 2.3' 24.8 30:5 Ma1u'rice Rive'r. .;N .1 .

17:'-38 5.4 58"5. 39.0 709. . 6...,9.4:

D~ennis Towns ifr "6 560. '74.4 -278:6ý -'78.5' :80.:8 '865. :ND Maýd-Horse Cree'k- Rele're-nc~e .ND, '826 83.5, .82'4 81..9 81.0" 811.0' 81.0 ND: 147  ;'16.8 53: '395B 32'3 41.1: 609.

Mill Creek ,ND, ý50 :2 20.16 "25612

, 28.5 ND Cohansey.,Riv~er Watershed IND 4 5. 89 6, 53 JA.40 77,G 0q'.7 :815 '55.2, 58: ND .b' ND' ND Lang Tract .07. f22:2 12'16. :8737 ND

2:' , ,,,ND, ND .ND.

110'S5 '19'7.T '82:'3, .88'ý 3, '79--B 87', .6.44 '70.

WbodlandliBeach' 621 64 1 77:41 83".59 'ND- ND, ND tND, Cedar Swamp '17:8 '19.2. 3 70 6: 6:'.6. 7127

ND inaictet~nbt dete7rmin'edi

Tabe 5-1 -Denn'islownsh0ip.CM Cacloer UitlEff o-t- La'rge Ma'rsh" Cr~eeký

. 1996 1997L -1998'.. 1999 1'2Q00 :2001t ,2002, 'Ave.. Mi', ;M ,

...... %81'4 143 ,667 4 ý8 Allantic croak6r 5.31 15.03' '8.94 11.3 .7 45.68 56!52 '40.35 '5:31 81:94

'Ajantic silv'irsid' 0.23 1.02. 0,.35 4.'8" Q.4 0.94 0.2 .0.50 0.12 1.02 Bay anchovy 1t.61 '2:27 4.21 2.99 31,23 t1.2 4:36 -2.].84 1 2' 4.36 Mummichog 0.4- '2.57 .0J72 0.07 ý0:0.1 0.06. ).05 1005 056 2.57.

Spot. 1] .489 -1389, ;3,.4;T - 1.3.12. 0.56 71 .4.091 -0!56", 143,12 Weakfish 0"086. 2.5 41.21 -.'19 3:24 6:79 2,32 0.15 6.79 White-Perch 0.5- ':24,, 0.1: 0,0. 0.09 0:05;5 0.009 0,16, .0:05. 0!5 Note-, BreadhiiO,'df,dikeSýddmipletedihý the6Sumrmne.f'1996'

- 5-2 Commercial4ownship.Catch PerU nit.EffortLarg 6Mar 'hC-eeksz STable "1.996 -'199 A 1998'. 1.999" 2000 "2001

2002  :,.'Av; e Mii *M* .

Atlantic croar '5.'33- -5.2 '27:29 7.09 ,0:12' 8:8i '12.66 10.78. 0,12' .27-29 Atlanyiilversjid q O'9 0.02 0:03 '0:06 0.1 4.14' 0-19. 0.66 '002' 4,144 Baylbhcho ,,2. .0.14 1.14 1.28"0.71 521 0.74, 1.35 9.14' 51 M1ummiicho; ,e.0 0.41ý 0:03' ,30.04 ,0.03 0.06 '0:4 0Q9 0' .0 .41:

'So.t  : 22' 387

1. .0:16: ,0.68 8: '045 0.71 1,'-13 01.1 38 7 Webkfish 0.34. '0.02t .19 1'21 7'.0::' 2.94- 44 3,*2:31 0:02 7.03 bibte"erch i i04. .94. 0.1

,t.a6.; 008"! '0;f2.7 0. 40:6 0.21 .04

. - 0.94 NMtd,':Brebachin' of dikiý'tdm'pl~t~ddin' 'the. ýFall~of. 1t997':

Reference .Mai~sh Catch Per Un it Eff&t ~

1ý996ý' ,199:T*' "1998" --l-999: 20Z0 2001 20042' Aye':. WMin' ,MaiI Atlan'tc -Croaker, 1.93 6 1023 .. 0:8. .2.42. 0.78 1 48 A~~Ic~ivi'id 027 0.29 -b07 0.85: 1.1 0.804'1 A6 0:07 1A.1 Bayaprcho-'y -0.24* 1;0Z 0;183 2.8 0.91" 0.87 0:42 .1:01 0:24 2.8 Mumrrichogg 0.36: '0.31 '0:0.5 0,01 0:2 Q.1I5 2-35 '0.49 001 2.35 Spot .03ý 1.38 0:42 1122- 1.0.3. .0.39 ,'0139 0.7-3 0:30 '.138 Weakfish ;04 0.:44 .23 0i5 4,54

~0.,402 .1 .1 0.,91. 4:4 1.05; .04, 4-54 White~erh ,028' :91 0.0~ 0:1'8 0:5. ,0:0j

ý1 00 :2 0

Table 54IDeinni-s'To whip.acýerUi forhalMrs res 1996 1997: 19987; -1'9909 001"-

?20.~ .2O02j .v MMa"

.Min ,Max:

Atlanticý..60aker '-29.7t' 242ý.75, -294AA4ý V 9.1 4.7_5, 9064.!f':1239.29 24384 O.19 ,904.71 Atlantic:silverside ý65.:00k 3875'J05, 2136;.63 '251.25-' 133.56 99.57 25:2.1, 940 90' 25-21: 387505 Bay.anchovy.. 0:00.62,55- '31.25 271.94,2~ 34 21:A6 59.0 i0:00 271,94

• ,- ,,,MudmrichOg.

1 17 '20425 5179.g8, 10,19, 9.44 ,3b:2i T-~ ;385.52 9A44 2044:25 0.00: 247', 33.06 '5.88 54'.38 0.0 0,'00 16' 86ý 0.0'0 54.38

.0.00 '10.20. 0A, 11.25 8.75 1.00 1 295'50 5 84- 0,p0 1, 229.50 Whitel Fetish: *83 9*5; 0:00'6 :58*63 i 0:00 .. 000 0.0,. 587..630- 0.0 .0.00 0-'00 Notelf.: Brairi0 of ie n 1996,;.

,'Table*5-5'Commrnerial rTownsliip Catch~ier Unit Effort: SmalI>Marshi Creeks:

.1996 .197. 1998 1999' '2000 20091 -2002 'Ave. Mi Ma.

AtlIntic.d6oaker,- NS N647 4.1,3. 2.44

• 43*3 1ý8'2 6.94 ,2.44' 18.2-1 Atlantic silverside, N 'NS :280:20: 550.38 262.31: '3S06;.:5'0 47.36 ;289.35 47,36 "550:38 Bay anchovy !NS -NS 81.93, .1.50 2 1.50 5 0:29 17.'53 :029, 81.93 jMummichg NS, ,NS 275,4T 60694 .48.,75:443,36 40,29 251.;16 48.75 443.36

$ -tN.$: !NS0 ' 00 .0.11, , T3.1t3 ý6.01{( "" "... . . . .... .

1.50 S 3,60 0:00. 16:13 weakfish NS . 4 00;33 6.00 , 3 'q,1.ý t07 0;!O' &03,1 fl..0',. 1.07

• Iie-0eF.0rch N~s: .V§,- 0.0 g oo: 0 .0.% 0;00 o 0 .0000o :00C .00 Nobte: Bre6aching'ot dikes com-pleted in'the FdIl of 199T.

NSibdictes ot s',pld M'iIoingof sac'ree ks began~ji. 8folWing the~b9t(, of thedik .es.

Ta~~56Mo&e -.Be hzRfer~eqqeý Site. Catch PrUi fdt'rnl res

ý1996, -.,997 1,998- 1:1999!' 2000' 201 202 Ae: :Mf Atlantic croa'ker :t.38 19.15. "2i0- 0.'..19: 01ý9 ý0.07 7.58 4.22 '0:07.- 19.1-5 kAlbntic'*silveerskb 41A.46. 21.i4 . Q2.8*18: 196.36: 199.81 '7-,i'4 230.67 1:50.*5! 423067 4146,

,a0anch3vy, " 0.i2- 076 0.,1'3 0.25, 0.1.3z 00; 1.17 0.37 . 60.0 1.i 7.

-466 2041.4. 694.81 466;81 1,-095.'261796' 32*l'7 5,.66 21.79, 2041.40 Vurnmichog Spbt 0.90 . 37 ýO..8; 4.19b .88 ;PO0 1.M3 '3.09 0.00 8.88 Weakfish -Q27 :206 0.00 0.0& U0.41.

19, :0:00 .0.33 '9(0 2";.06 Whiteer*:h. . 00* 0.000.19 0-00 o ,:00 0,' 0.O 0.001 4 .. 0 0.1,9

'*Ta ble'5-7 'Mad*Hor'se cr-eek~Catci' p er,: Unit EffortLarge" Marsh Greeks.

.1'996- 1997T 1998 "1999'-, 2000: ,Mt 20202 i Ave: M Max, Atl~tt c:cr-o~ak er. 1'.49, f0.3i 3j,28' f.6 2.'18. 0,65- "2.4 1 79 0.31ý, 3.28

'Atlticsi*t*esid 6i 6'b.0 :o 0:20.21 0'11' 0:02 0.1,4 001t 009 z.01, 6.21 Bly-ncho~y,, p0"74' 16 1.826 32 4.74' 31.08 2.5' 24A7; 07 4.74 mr-A0 ~ o .2l 0o 0.01 ý0.01 0.07 0:02 00 0 o.0 Spot~' "0.04 '1.38: 9.16 06' o0 0.37o 0.37 0 .'8 Wit8'P-rch; . Weaflti7:5'7.. T.*'- __0 .076'i*01z 0.7:42 - 193 1. 0. 1'0.08

.0.4.4 06.26 88: 00,65 7.57.

.00

}able,:5-8 Miil,'Creek;Cah Pir Undit2Eff6rt-Large Marsh Cre6kis 1.1996' -. 1997,'- '1998 -1999: '2000e 1200-1: 2002:-I..Ae: .M," :M'a cro..ker1 .tlanti6 .2.-3 2.3 .1.4,4 0.48 '5 'A..77: 6.A .5 Alanti. sIvei'ide 0:103. 6:'63' 0.20:' 0.21 0.02. :37 '0 0.1"2- .0 0.37 By'.anch~ovy 5. 3151 11'.02 5,84' .15`92 11.48 '.2 8. 0 315 159 Murnmm6og '0.1.6 '00ý 4.060i 0.0 3. 0.01 .0o:0; 0.002 .005 '0.01' U0.16 SOb t 0.01 .10.4 10.21 0. 0.45 0.01 008 1.60 0', -10:44 Weakfi'h. 0203: 1.53 G0A.4 0.21 :0.67 0:;82, 0:00 '0:54 0:'03, 1.53 WhitO:PePrch, 7& '108'

,.8 , '3,Y2: ý2.82 5.30 1.2' 10:8

-h-! Rbhn'atch'pPer Un ra-5~Bow fEfrtLreasCeksý,,

. .. 1'996-7 J1997'* *,1999R:

,1998' 2000W---2001' 20022. '"Aie, !Min6 _:Ma*i Atlarilie~:06 croke '021 241A9 08 14 0155 .D267 ' 1.26 0.1 24 AUa,3nlitisIVersi-de 0:01 0:60.1.01 0 013 60601 '.6 00' 01 Baka.nhovy '1:l11 2:33j 2.47' 5:.Q*.. 1' 1 :2595ý 1K:3 "32:33 .0.33 :59 Mu-mnichog. "0' '0:02 - 0:02' 0 01 0Q1 0.01 a 0:01T .00 0:"02 S06i . I.0T6 '0:05

• .i: .009 o 0;58' 0:04 0:08 ý0o31f' 0.04.. 1*'7 Weaflh'  :.0.3 025 016, '.17' 006 014' 0 0 15 0.00, 0.3

. Wh _eeph .... 2,52 ?2.76 2;25 2.27 .1 ,1.42 1.2:-.:0.68 ;87.. 0._8 . 2:7.6

Tayql A1w~reek Pir'arite Re _rn'eSitest ;ahe, 'it' Effort.Lairge~arsti Creeks 1.96 197 1998 16999: -2000, .'2001 ,2002` ,AVi e Miý ýM6x

. k"0 0.1.4.. . 4 .... 0.:.09 1.00'0.. 3 AtlinftC&silverslde:, ý01 0 00 0A1 0L04' 0 0.0'2 0 0.

Oaya n-Chovy7 0 0..9 22 ,6 '3-56 1.29 0 1356 M*immichbg 0A . 0 0 0,01 0 0.00 0. 0.01 Spt .' '.i8~1:5 0.03 00 0.22 0o 1.15 0

0WeakflSh 0 "0 0.44' .055 0.i3 0ý05 0.1T7 0 0.55

, " .,_- .._. ,0:-

.0- 4 34.."" -0 _5 3. '4.19 -.2.6 60.3 . 9. 3

.Ta6ie.,5-11.lA Iloway .Creel< Treated Sit~s. O'tch: Per:.Unit*'fot ~reMrl re~

ýýIowayy~e~r~a K~eýUn(Eif 6rtL~argeý,Mars Ci~reeks 196".97 1998 1999" 20v " 01, 02 Ae-.o Mifii' 'Max Altiantiicroakr '.0 0' 6,, 10, . 0.31.

'.. ,01 333 1:44W d0o0b 6.41 At~antic.~ifversido: 6:z 'o. 00, 'o.o.11 'o'j' 0 o'o '.6o o Bay anchovy 0 '0, `0' 2.-0,1' 3.22 3:21 -2:0. 1.50, V000 3.22 MUn'rrnichOog ~ to . .0 o tO 4'.101' .6.00 fb;.oo 6.0o2 SM 0fi 00 0 0:0.6 "1 0' 021 0.06 0ý00 0.21

'9!akfisli 0 0 0 '.4' 2.62, '021 0:I O 0.491 0,O0 2;62 WhV(il Perchý 0 0. .01 50 2'3 1.6 4,:05, 1t 80 0.0 5.06

Tqbi6ý5-12 AllowapC reekef!reiice!S 6ria ie tch Per. Un t-.Effort Largq'MarstCr6eks"

- 1996-_ 1997" 1998. 1999 _2000 "- 2001'-_ -2002 .Avye: Miii Ma6c Allanritic icroiker. 0. A0 0, 4.7*3; 0.AI1 .O.05- 3:67 1:22 ,0.00 4.73

,tl~ntisllveride: *0 0, 6 0.06 -0 f0 ,0 .001ý 0.00 0.06 Bay,;anchovy' 0. '0 0. '1291 4.15 .08 89 0603

,.00 603 P .0r .0 -g2 U0"1. '0 0.040: ;0.01 '0.00 .004 S~6t 0 0 ~ 0, 0.07< 0:29 0'.02' o.P 00' 'o66 .02 W10sh'".6' .. 0.2 0.2b :162,

6. .0:1.2!MV  :.ýo 0.721 WhitePrh h . "0-- 0C -301.323 '. 2?45 6' -i 031 '.129 00 M 321z:

.Table :5*i 3',Ma Horse Creek.Ca t~h' Pcr1.i'ii t; Eft6rff*Sm aUl Ma&*'*t,'rek s:

1996 -1997T -1998-- 1999 2000,. L2001. 2002 AV.&. Min. Max:

AtIahtic6roaker 0.61' 0.15 0.00, 'OQO0 0 :00 0 o 0021- 0.Q14 0io0 :0:61 Iýajit1iiverside '53.04 17:10 450, 29*94 .25'" 13.14: 0.71 20'38 0'171 '53-04

.ati.an Keor' 12:460 9.75 12.56 9.8'0j 9.13 17.57 25:86 13.88, 0.1 0.86 Muy, nichog 10.0489.50 63.5 . 52-, 14.505 17.07 11.14 50.15 1.14 103504 Spt0- 1.15 000 0.0 0,.50 '0.00 0,009 0.24  : o 1.5 ls'eaI " 22.89 1.80 0:06 0. 6 00.oo 0.000 3.0o

.64 ,0,.00 o8 9o

'wait Perch'18 . V,-0.94 0006, 0.25 0.14 0F 0403

,172 0.06 20V1

-Table*5ý145 MIlF Creek Catch Per *kUi EffortSmbai;Maarsh (eeks.

.996% 1997 ;1998; '1999k .,2000 "2001 2002-: Ave. MMax MiA Atlaritic croak&,erý 0'.!00., 0.35, 0 .06 '0:06 0.00' 0:100 - .86 '0319 0:00 0.86 AtlaitiC'silve.sid2e .39, :71 238 1T559 2.4148 ,700. , 19219 Bay anchovy 1:28ý 3:3 019 456' 25.1 S 2.93'. 0.086: 4485 0.900 2 5'A03 8

16'.7o' 563 2,7756 -149q.,13 313'! 77-.86, 11,*2.1A 256.27

, 6078. 1 82.14

• Sol" ' ,'00 0 0.00' 0.00" 6 0.06' Ao 0 .07 0-G1'2' 00'0 0. 70 Weaklsh .00 01 000 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 01 OO .. 0 1.65, Ih'eesh 25 05' 0Q.,38' 0?00. ;3.71 1, 32k *'6.& 3.7.1 Tabple!5;45'-Bro-w-n's:Ru-i -CatchI Oer Un-itEort-Sri~lMa'sh'&redks-1996 '1997' -11998.', 99 :2000:- -20013 2002 Ave.,. 'Mh -Max.

AtIghtic croaker. 0.0 01, :0600 02,5, 0.O00' 7.3 6 1,.11 60:66 7.30 Atlantic savefsidIe ,4.20 .712.65ý 12.25. '15656.56 A170`8'1. 70:36 -95.00 374ý55 -42 '1155-6.5 6 Bay arichovy,-0: 00 0.40 0. 06 -'f15,69 141!9- ý1.00. 50.00 ii0s 1' '6,.o 50o0d Mumicog 10-7 15.0I15t10.1 349.'75.1063.14 2236.64 702 6f0 2236.6'4 Spotboo

, 00 3.13. -19,63, '0.00

ý0'.5' 10,29 '4:O .0 1

'0.00, 09.03

'Weakfish.. i ,05' 00 ~ 0 0:0 0 06 OO' " 0.7 '00' 66 1WlePrh300 -~ 04 000,b t4:9., 5:-69 -521 '.93 A '4.88 0i0 14.94

'Table,56A-1`6A waylCfae-C Phrag iftes Referen S6it*s atc PerW n~tEffort lmainl Marýh' ;reeks,

. 1996i, 1997> 1998 -1,999; '2000 .':2001 2002k: ,Ave. ", M 6k Atlaintic NSN .roak.r NNS , -0 o....,0 .

. .... O 81 0705. V..00 0.18 Ailanticsilv0'rside NSW NS' S, .3.:36,'- 050 0158' 0 0,09 1:'3 *."0

'BaychNS N0S25 07 0NS3 .0.:18 0!6 '0:07 N

N& NMurimic.og10.57, NS :3. :23892ý '21t-.64 19:32. 10.57T 23192

.Poi NS iNSO NS; .0o 0.0oo .00,Q* 00 .1000 0 .00 ,o.00 sweakrlsh NS NS NS* .0s0 000 0.00 9' 0.00 0 .0 0.00 Wite,,ph NS NS NS 0.1:04. 0.06 ':081 0:12.Z.00 O0!06 1 0,18 NS'indic~tes, not ,sam-led"

-Tabe,5-1*7. AlioWay.Cre Treated sites'CatchPer ýUnit Effort Sm ia rMirhreeksl.

1996'ý. - 1997T .1998& A9995..2000, 2001;, 12002:" ve *Ml.. M*-.

lla'ntic Iroaker 'NS:

'S. .NS 0.00 00 0,0 oo 0 00 :0.00 .0.00 Atlanticosilversid-, N NS NS 18:07' 513' 1:29 0.0.0 6 1T2 0.00 1i8.07 y.,anchoy- 1.:

l;29 6:00 0o14 :0.00 1.86 '600

00 Munirriicho NS jNS "ts: 134.2 32050ý '31.43 n&886 't2482J7 134!20 391-.43 Spo NS NS 9:.00 0.06. :0'7 0 00 0603*

0 U:0o " 0.07T Weis N*S: NS. NS* 0:00 0:00 0,00 bAoo 0.0o. 0oo' o.o'd White.Perch - TS* 'Ns . S 0.07 O.'o 0, 6.. 0 o0o0 '07 Q02

• NS,ihdidates not, sadpnl*d Ta*ible 5-1 8"'Aliway,,Cee~k efere*Spa*dina ýSites Ca'ch iPertUnit Eiff6rt:,SmailI'MarshCreýeksý 1997- 1998 1999- .-2000W7 -2001' -2002

-1996 -Avye.- M Max.

'Atlaniti 6r aker.6 NS NS .NS '00.00 0.00 '0.0' .0ý0.14 '04 .'04000 0.4 Alanic*Olv&ride, NS 'NSý NS 0.57 0.31,' '021 :0.-00 0.27 0 00- .0:57 yncov'k N. NS 'NS' ' 0.14: 0.00o. 0,o.07 0.0 -.. 05' 0 00,1 ,

Mummicýhod- I N S .N& 21:ý00 8.81 2'1.ý1'4' 28".5,7 198 8.81' 28:57 Spot' ' NS 'NS I S 0.0000 0U .0, 6.06 o

ý0.6 06"o.0 G.00 WeaklshNS rJs- NS, 020 00' 00' '.6 '0:00 0f 00 .00 WWhitepdr~hl ' IS8 'NS, NS, 0.43 0.0'0 0.-07' oýo6 . '.13 0 0 A

.... 6-1 Talie dIt Passage Res..

site- 1996* 1997 1998 1999- - 0006 20 . 2002 Total SlIv'er Laek 4 7, 113 163 65 151 13) 642,

[McGii*isPond 1 ý2* 25'. 48 33' 9 774 '982 M ,Colley Pond 115 .177 559 t122 1250 918. 932 5073 Coursey Pond --- 30 459, 1102 784 1399 153:1 5~305 SurInset Lake'.s- 0 10 60 32 195 166 663 Co'oper River .. . ---..

..___ 3 t 4 11 21 Gairrisons L'ake, , . --- --- 39 70 4 3 ' 116 MoobresLake' --- -- 95 7 67,0 682 1525, Tota.. '. 120 j 216 1[1169 j....2630, jI2316 '.34.38

.. J 4438 14.

,,,, 27

___Table 6-2 Nurnbie'rof Fish Stocked 8Site 1996 '199)7 1998 ' 1999 2000~ 2001' -200i2: ll Silver Lake, 0 a 5,47 '687 419' ' 993 865 3511 McGinnis-Pond 0 166 171 200 '241 0 7.78.

Mcol1sy Plod 0 0 7 11 0 0 0 ' 18 Coursey Pond 0 A

' 154 0 0 0 0 ~ 15-4 Suns*'*Lake< 0 0 1033" 8"957 501 ,l'337 1 10 4776 "Coop'erRive. 0 .O .623'. .069. 964o 1071 840 6567

Garri'sons Lake' 0,11 0,1 0 318 48S 473 432 1271

'Moiores Lake 0 0 .0 271 70 0 0 341 Total 0, 0 4530 3422 2202 4115 314 _J41

Table 6.-3 Summary of Annual.RiVer fleprri u Monitoring;.Resul'ts Larvae Suividt ýCoope Riv'e 'Si'~ Vt~In is Consys.MCI e aisns Moe

,Lake,,Sije LakeSince :Land, Sifice I,?6d,TSirince -PondSince iP6iid-"Since Lake..Sincei Laike;. Since

.~ ' e 1- _ - I . - S

. , -- ' - :_ . I 19,97, ,

1'9§8; ' .1 1996 19 1996 199 ' 1"999' 1996 _ _ _ _'6. '6 _ _ __ 8 1.997 .. 5_, 1!4 4 9.8. 3' _4~ -~1 ,1 _ 6 _ __

1999 } " .i52! 3:: ...... "- - 5 .... 3: . . 28 j L 1'

2000 6 . + O 1.4  : 1 F_ 14. 17 .

_'AT.

20011 . . s N N/S v/ss N/S ... s N/S 21002 N/ST N/S. N/s- N/s NS N/S N/S NWS;

- Jjuveniles_ _ _ _

Sdi§&f', 'Co6fber River Silver 'MceGinnis. Cours'ey's- McC'olley .,;ýr.risqoxIs'

,Lak*,,:Since, LaLke,Since rLarnd1,Since Poiind, Since Pond, Sinc' P6nd,.Sinre PLoke'ii a

~Moores. 'I e S ak e, e Lake,; Sinc 199,7 1998ý. 199,6. 1996' 1997 1996 199 999 1906__ 20 ._2 T9971 114 13 133 - _ ___

1998, 1,30;1 . . 15000 :5398 144 1061............

1!999.;: ....... 2!12 . . ... .12!394+ ..... ............... . 9_ 89 +,489' 'i ii I

.6,7> 78 , .

2000' .. '335: ' ... j7548, , -  : 718 39' 1 7,15 ? ... . .1 2001.4327 . 2 25. . '244 72£' . 8'.2 . .. , .

2002 1683.

S*n t. ' b 438;I*'*++ +3 ........

..99.. . j 12 ....4++ .+

S'er Sooper 'M(cGinis "Coursey's McC., ley 'GiqiMnis -Moots,-

Ulke, iShce'e La,*+,SinC d, ' Since Po zi iince Pbond, Since ?PbidSinc- Lak;.'Sici- Lakd;Since

- 1.997 .)' '199O8; ... 19: 6'.. 196.99'.9..19...99

'I8996 ... _. ,+ +4" . ..

199,7 Y , -41 ' .... ... . . _' '. . .. . -

_____': -3.9 .l.6 1,999 0'o 00: 0 *2-.o  :, . 00 0___

_-0. 0 <, '.. ' " q0'.. . ..

2 0o 1.. 7 7 .. ..+ .." . .'.. . . .. I. . - _. _ . . .... _ _ _ ,__ ... .._ __.. ..... _

2002 " __ ___ _ ......

'Yar ,ay.:Aan hovt 4We4kfish ýAtlantic Cro'ake p iser pd Ba'ss me if eý A"ii<lanShad' 'AthinblcSilveride' 'B+l+a4 Herring

+~~~8 ,* +... +.+ * +* U, 3.2; 1+8i 0-,

' §191 2 3 3166.- 31',?66 '97R 3 .1 7 _3 9 .. 0M2_441S ~ .1

0. 65:_ .0g_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A1'9~2 10l' p41 78.12 6.6,,'.2 '.1. . 0034' 0.50:05 ':I3 1,993 " , 37. 4 2+ 3373 9.15 0:.7

.72 : (0);079 0.063 A7 0084?

.194 :7'0-.85-. - -53 '2'0.3 1:2.5-5. 3414 ' ~1,j 0. 1,i5 A6.42, '07 .5 Z4,2:'2 . 4925 _.5J5 q4:,2 20!59 0.26 0.7'. " - AmI

'..l

,f..+

199' : '1f58:

1. 5.23.63. -". 57.2" ... .*.38 80 928 1,0,55 .

'.15 .....

406 + '064 276 .0..

-0.13' 0.02 06.06 '> 0..01.

17 . 0 *0."

0.0253 "T98,- 43'.. .. 3042..

. .. 63,5 40'2 3.7, . 0:5 ' 'k092 0 2'0 I'" '"5 -2 0:0. 0.01..

1)9,9 10523: +,3  !+ . -. 71 : - ' ' 6'9 ' 6'3 '0586 i 0'.09Ii0 ' 003 . + '0.11 0 . . .

2O. 1:94 566. 95V9 52 6 00 ,. .1'06 0:!01:

200'] ~ 2:2'022..'

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' - 239b02 ' 74 b014- 0 01800 f ~i3e'C'lc-M.~>of Allp8 ,+T.is!3 . 3 .. 9.f.0tO-

FIGURES LEGEND SCOOPER, DIKED SALT'HAY. FARM

- P.NRCMITES DOMINATED SITES

• i. LI EFERENCE MARSHLS.

4. FISH.L-ADDER SITE 1

c&

NEW ýJEIRSE I.

I; GI;NIS IC.,4

• 1. DIEAWARE* BEAY R~ef: PSEG Estuary,,Enhoncement rgmSteLctinMa.frm21 Vrui opt EN1RONNENTAL iPSM iteLcto AO ASSCOA1ES.Anc. PSGEtory~nocrnt rg~ ~ IU' CE4& EA ~ENJIS, P.'c.. ,D y DE/NJ S$LJS

RM 80 M

TransitionZone RM'50 Delaware Bay Zone RM 0 REF- Permit Renewal Applicotion, Public Service ond Gas Compony Salem Generating Stotion, Appendix C Figure 4 i CARPENTER i ! ENIlRONMlENTAL FIGURE 2-1 ASSOCIATESý. c. Delaware Estuory Zones *V ,z 11/24/0-C E A CEA.ENGINEERS; P.C. . .. , - 1,AL NT.S.

Figure 4-1 MOores Beach , Reference

• 1o00

_90) 80

,-.,PSE&G 12-yr Goal of 76%

4) 70

0) Desirable (U

I- Vegetation 0) 60 0

0 C 50 (U PSE&G

-J 4-,

I-nriterim Goal C 40. of 45% for 4)

C.) desirable

4) Vegetation 30

• 20 10 PSE&G 12-yr

-: Goal of 4%

1996 1997 1998 19A99 2000 2001- 2002 Phragmites Year

Figure 4-2 Commercial Township Results 1o00 90o 8b: PSE&G 12-yr Goal of 76%

Desirable 70 Vegetation L.

A) 0 0 60 4 50 PSE&G A)

0) Interim Goal C 40/ of 4 5% for A) Desirable 0

L.

A) 4.0, Vegetation 0~

• 20 PSE&G 12-yr Goal of 4%

Phragmites 0,

1996' 1997 '1998 1999 ý2000. 2001 2002 Year

Figure 4-3

__ Dennis Township Results 100 Phragmites 1 Desirable Vegetation 90 80 PSE&G 12-yr Goal of 76% for I-70 Desirable

'2, Vegetalion U 60 V

Cu 50 4- PSE&G 0 Interim Goal C-,

I..

40 of 45% for

'2) .Desirable 0~

,30 Vegetalion 20 PSE&G 12-yr 10 Goal of 4% for Phragmiles 0

1,995 1:996 1997 1998' 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year

Figure 4-4 Mau rice River Township 100N Phragmites Desirable, %

/egetation 80 PSE&G 12-yr

')

0

"- 70 Goal of 66% for 060 03 50 _7,

~)40~

0-. 30 7-20-10 999:0 0.1 1.996, 19197 1,998, 1999 2000, 2001 2002 Year

Figure 4-5 Mad Horse Creek - Reference

100 90

'80

,.PSE&G 12-yr 70 Goal of 76%

Desirable.

Vegetation, 60, 50

-J PSE&G Interim Goal of 45%

-40 for Desirable C._ Vegetation 30 20, 10 PSE&G 12-yr 0 Goal of 4%

1996. 1997 19199 2000 2001 Phragmites 2002 Year

Figure 4-,6 Afloway Creek Watershed 100 90 PSE&G 12-yr Goal; of 76%

80 for Desirable L. Vegetation 70 0

0 60' V

C PSE&G cT5 50

-J Interim Goal of 45% for C 40 Desirable

(-)

Vegetation

a. 30 20 G0 PSE&G 12-yr

.. Goal of 4% for Phragmites 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Note: ,.2002 data not representative year

FigUre 4-7 Mill -Creek L Desirable.Vegetation ~1 Phragmites 100 90

.80 OSE&G- 12-yr Goal of 76%

'a,70 Desirable I- Vegetation a,

60 0

U

~0~

C

'50" PSE&G

-j Interim Goal a) 40. of 45% for C.)

1.. .Desirable 0~ 30, Vegetation

20 10

.SE&G 12-yr

0. Goal of 4%

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Phragmites Year

Figure 4-8 Cohansey River Watershed 100, N1v hra~gmi~te~s- E esýrable Ve itatio 907

__PSE&G 12-yr 0.. ""for Desirable 7-0. Vegetation 0, 60.

0 .~- PSE&G

'-50 ,Interim Goal

.*C of 45% for

0 Desirable yj Vegetation

.- ,PSE&G 12-yr Goal of 4%

Phragmites 1996 1997 1998 1999. 2000 2001 2002 Year

Figureý 4-Siv'!er ARun 10.00 90 PSE&G 12,-yr Goal of 76%

for-Desirable

-Vegetation 0

o 60

PSE&G 50- :Interim Goal

• of 45% for S40 Desirable Vegetation i3G, 20:

PSE&G 12-yi 1:0 Goal of 4%, for

-Phragmite's

.0 Pre-Spray 1996 1999,7 1998 Year

Figure 4-10 100 9.0.

80 PSE&G 12-yr Goal of 76%for Desirable 70, Vegetation 1..

0) 0 60 C-,

-V PSE&G Interim C

-J 50 GobI of 45%

for Desirable C

Vegetation U

L.

40 30.

20L' PSE&G 12ýyr

• 10a Goal of 4%. for Phragn7ites 01 Pre-Spray, 1996 -1997 1998 Year

Figure 4-11 Woodland Beach 100, 90 PSE&G 12-yr 80 Goal ,of 76% for Desirable

>1 0

70 Veaetation 0

60 PSE&G

-J 50 interim of 45% for 4-'

Deirable 0)

40. Vegetation 0

L..

0) 30 0~ 20

.PSE&G 12-yr 1!0, Goal of 4%

"for Phragmites i0 Pre-Spray -pa996 Year 1997 ,199-8

Figure,4-12 The Rocks 100 90 80 PSE&G 12-yr Goal of 76%

70 for Desirable Vegetation 0'

60 0

• 0 PSE&G 50 Interim Goal of

.45% for C

C., desirable

11) -40< Vegetation 0.

30 20 PSE&G 12-yr 10 Goal:of 4%

for 0 Phragmites PreSpray 199,6 1997 1998 1999> 2000, 2001 2002, Year

Figure:4-.13 Cedar Swamp 100 90 PSE&G 12-yr 8Q Goal of 76%

for Desirable 70 Vegetation 0

60 PSE&G Interim 540G Goal of 45% for Desirable, CD Vegetation "C- 40ý 30 20 10 PSE&G 12-yr Goal of 4%

0 Phragmites iPreSpray 1996 1997 1998, 1999 .2000 2001 2002 Year

Figure 5A1 Salt Hay Farm Restoration Sites Large Marsh creeks Atlantic Croaker Denhis Twn shp salt Hay/

- CommerciaITwnshp 'Salt Hay 1'.00 -Moores Be'ach,(Reference) 80 0.

t:

60 4) 9.

40 20 0

1996 1997 1995 1999 2000 2001 2002 Note:- Breaching of dikes completed in the Summer of 1996 at Year Dennis'Township and Fall 1997 at Commercial Townships.

Figure 5-2 Salt Hay Farm Restoration Sites Large Marsh Creeks Atlantic Silverside . .

4.,

4.

Dennis Twnshpl Salt Hay 4 .... eria

fnsh Salt Hay Mo°ores Beach,(Reference)

LU 3,.

I 2

91 0

1,996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Note: Breaching of dikes completedin the Summerof 1996 at Year Dennis Township ahd Fall 1997 at Commercial Township..

Figure 5,3'Salt Hay Farmft Restoration Sites Large Marsh Creeks Bay Anchovy 6

--*Dennis Twnshp Salt Hay

- Commercial.Twnshp Salt Hay 5

..... -Moores Beach (Reference) 0 3.

CL 2-1-

W 1996 -1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year Note: Breaching of dikes completed in the Summer of 1996 at Dennis Township and Fall 1997 at Commercial Township..

Figure 5-4 Salt Hay Farm Restoration Sites Large Marsh Creeks Mummichog 3

2.5 0.. 2

(.)

t 0

LU

-J 1.5

'3 1~

0 0.

I 0

0 0.5 0

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Note: Breaching of dikes completedin the Summer of 1996:at Year Dennis Townshipand fall 1997 at Commercial Township..

Figure,5-5 Salt HayFarm Restoration *ites Large Marsh Creeks Spot 14

- Dennis Twnshp Salt Hay

-7Commercial Twnshp Salt Hay 12

- Moores Beach (Reference).

w10-t!

o 8-4 -

.2, 0

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Note: Breaching of dikes comple=ted in the Summer of 1996 at Year Dennis Township and Fall 1997 at Commercial Township..

Figure 5-6 SaltHay Restoration Sites Large, Marsh Creeks Weakfish

-- Dennis Twnshp Salt Hay 8 Commercial Twrshp.Salt Hay 7 Moores Beach (Reference)

U: i/

4-i0 02 1996, 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002ý Year Note:'Breaching of0dikes completed, in the;Summer of 1996 at Dennis Township and Fall 1997 atCommercial Township..

Figure 5-7 Salt Hay Farm Restoration Sites Large Marsh Creeks White Perch 1 .1ý .,

--- Dennis Twnshp Salt Hay 0.9 -

- Commercial Twnshp Salt Hay i.

08 - -Moores Beach (Reference) 0.7 0,

V 0.61-W 0.5

.; 0.3

.0.2 0.1 0

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000. 200.1. 2002 NoteW.Breaching.of dikes: coipleted in the Summer of 1996 at Year Dennis Township and fall 1997 at Commercial Township..

Figure 5-8 Dennis Township Large Marsh Creeks 80 .

70, 70 U3 Atlantic croaker o 60 Atlantic silverside o: _Bay 0_ anchovy tt 50 .

- A Mummichog

, 40 ___o_____ __ _ ,.Ospot InwWeakfish

,- 30 a White Perch 20 1996 21997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 PAtlantic~croaker 5.31 15.03 81.:94 1.;3 66.7 45.68 56.52

,IGAAtlaontjcsilverside, 0.23; 1.02 ,0,.,35 0 .68 0.14-, 0.49 0.12, 0 Bay-ancho~iy 1.611 2.27 4.21 2.99 3.23 1.2 4.36 IOMummichog 0.42 2.57 0.72 0.07 0.01 0.06 0..05 1 4.89 3.89 3.47 __ 13.1?- 0.56 1.71 oWea kfish 015 0.86 1, 2.05 1.21' 16.9 Pe.ch 0.5 0.244 0.1 0Whi0e 0.07 Year

Figure5-9 Commercial Township Large Marsh Creeks 301 I 25 -

O Atlantic croaker t~ 20 20 MAtlantic silverside

• Bay anchovy l0 Mummichog

• 15

• Spot 1 Weakfish C.,

S 10 GWhite Perch 5

0 n--rn 1996 1*997 1998 nji~krn i.LFr S 1999- 2000 1.

2001 Frý mJ11 2002

~AtIantic~croakeI~' 5.33 27.29 7.09 0.1,2 I1 8.8 21.166 Atlantic silvemide. 0.09 0.02 0.03, 0.06 :0.1 4.14 0.19 OBay anchovy 0,2 0.14 114 1.28Fý 0.71 5.21 0.74 OMummichog f 0 0,41 1 0.03 0.04 0:03 0.06 0.04 WeSpot 0.22 3.87 b,16 0.68 1.8 0.45 0.71 MWeakfi sh 0.34, ý0102 1.19 1.21' I 7.03 2.94 3.44 113White Perchý 0.94 0Q1 0.08 0.16 0.12 0.04 0.06 Year

Figure 5-10,Moores Beach Reference Marsh Large Marsh Creeks 120 7-----.

100 I 1-w 80 =DAtlantic Croaker

'f BAtlantic silverside,

-OBy anchovy

a. 60 CUMummichog 0 Spot 0WeakfiSh 40 . GWhite Perch 20 Fl ------------------

P

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 J-~L~L -

1996 1,997 1998 1.999. 2000 2001 2002 1Atlartic croaker 1 1.93 5.56, 10.23 081 0.78 24.17 J 113.48 kMAtIdntic silver'side 0.27' 0.29 0.07 0.85 ..1. 0.48 0.1,6 OrBayanchovy OMummichog.

P 0.24 1.02; 0.83 28 { :91 . 0.87 0.42 0.36 0.31i 0.05 0.01 0.2 0.15 2.35 ESpot 0.3 1.38 0.42 122 .03039 0.39 OWeakfish, 0.04 0.44 0.23 0.15' 1.31 0.91 4.5 tWWhite Perch 0.28. 0491 b .06- " 0.18 5 0.05 0 0.12*

0 Year

Figure 5-11 Salt Hay Farm Restoration Sites Small Marsh 1Creeks Atlantic Croaker 1000.00 Dennis Twnshp Salt Hay 900.00 Commercial Twnshp Salt Hay

- Moores Beach (Reference) 800:00 700,00-0.

600.00 w

500.00.

D 400.00-300.00 200.00 -

100.00

• * *;;7* ** * " *..... * . .

0.00, r .

• 1996 1,997 11998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year, Note: Breaching of. dikes completed in the Summer of 1996 at.Dennis Township arid Fall 1997 at Commercial'Township.

Monitoring of Commercial Township small creeks began in 11998 following dike breaching

Figure 5-12 Salt Hay Restoration Sites Small Marsh Creeks Atlantic Silverside 4500.00

-4Dennis Twnshp.Salt Hay 4000.00 -

-- Comrnmercial Twnshp Salt Hay 3500.00 -- Moores Beach (Reference) 0 3000.00Q -

0 r= 2500.00

200.00

. 1500.00 o 1Q0o0 00 o500.00-0.00 19§6 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year

,N6te: Breaching Of,dikes, completed-in theSurnmer of 1996 at Dennis Township and -fall 19197 at CoQmmercial'Township.

Monitoring, of.Commercial Township small creeks began- in 1998.following dike breaching

Figure 5-13 Salt Hay Restoration Sites Small Marsh Creeks Bay Anchovy W00.00iT -___

I Dennis Twnshp Salt Hay Cornmercial Twnshp Salt Hay_

250.00

-*Moores Beach (Reference) 200.00, aw W.

,150.00 -

100.00 0'.00 U.i 1996 1997 11998 1999 2000- -2001 2002 Year Notet Breaching ofdikes completed in the Summer of 1996 at Dennis Township and Fall 1997 at Commercial Township.

Monitoring of'Commercial Township small creeks began in. 1998 following dike breaching

Figure 5.14 Salt Hay Farm Restoration.Sitesý Small Marsh Creeks Mummichog 2500:00T- .................... __ _

Dennis Twnshp Salt Hay

- Commercial, TwnshP Salt Hay

-2,00 -.. Moores Beach (Reference), i 1500.00 1000.00; 0.

0-:

0.00 *,

11996 1997' 1998. 1999 2000' 2001' 2002 Year Note: Breaching of dikes completed in the Summer of 1996 at Dennis Township and fail 1997 at Commercial Township.

Monitoring of Commercial Township srhall creeks begJha in 1998 following dike breaching

Figure 5-15 Salt Hay Farm Restoration Sites Small Marsh Creeks Spot 60.00 Dennis Twnshp Salt. Hay 50.00

- Commercial Twnshp Salt Hay A

-- Moores Beach (Reference)-

40.00 2,

3000

• 30.00 I1

• . 20.00 10.00 0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year Note:.,Breaching ofldikes completed in the Summeir-of 1996 at Dennis Township and Fall 1997 at Commercial Township.

Monitoring of Commercial Township small creeks began in 1998&following dike breaching

Figure 5-16 Salt Hay Farm Restoration Sites Small Marsh Creeks Weakfish 35,00.

-.- " Dennis Twnshp Salt-Hay 30.0o -Commmercial Twnshp'SaIt Hay Moores Beach (Reference)

S25.00-I g 20.00 w

? 15.00-10.00 0

&00 000 1996ý 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001' 2002 Year Note: Breaching of dikes completed inthe Summer of 1996 atlDennisTownship and Fall 1997 at Commercial Township.

Monitoring of Comrmercial Township small creeks. began in 1998 following dike breaching

Figure 5-17 Salt Hay Farm. Restoration Sites Small Marsh Creeks White Perch 700.:00 Dennis Twnshp SalttHay

- Conmmercial Twnshp Salt:Hay 600100.

NMoores.Beach (Reference)

':3 500,00-

. 400:00 -

, 300.0o-L 300.00 2200.00o -

100.00 -

0.00 -

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001, ,2002 Year Note: Brea'ching. of dikes completed in the Summer of 1996 at Dennis Township and Fall 1997. at Commercial Township.

'Monitoring of Commercial Towniship, small creeks, began in 1998 following dike~breaching

Figure 5-1i8Dennis Township Small Marsh Creeks, 450000 4000.00 3500.00 . --7 G3Atlantic croaker

". 3000.00 MAtlantic silverside o 2500.00 M_Bay anchovy EOMummichog

• 20'00.00 _Spot 0Weakfish

. 1500.00 kd I3White Perth c 1.000.00 - ____1r~I 500.00?

[1 0.00-210996 F 1 LF 5997 1998

~7~1L-1,99:9 2000 -20,0,1 2002

'IMAtlantic croaker :294,44 0.19 14.75 9)0431 239.29

• t

.t. I IAUAtiantic silverside - '65.00

- 3875.05 2136."63 251.25 1133166 25.21 6Bay. anchovy j 0.00 62.55 31.25. 271.94 23. 1, 3.14 21.36 OMummichog 11.75 2044.25, 579.88 I 10.19 9.44 30.21 12.93

• I1pot 0-0 0 24.70 33.06 -5.881254.3' 0.0 0.00 EIWeakfis'h'. 0.00 0.20 p 9.91 . 1.25' 8.75, 1.00___ 2 9.50_

IdWhite Perch 0.o00 ý0,00 .~ o0.00, L ..587.63

.. J. o.oo 0:00 0.00 Year,

Figure. 5-19 Commercial Township Small Marsh Creeks 600 - .. .. . .

500 M Atlantic croaker

• t

0*

0Atlantic silverside OiBay anchovy w:

O Mummichog 300

• Spot 0:

O VVeakfish 200 IlMhite Perch 100 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 '2002 1 ]

j IAtlantic croaker 0 0' 6A.7 4.13 - 2.44 3.43 18.21 EAtiantic silverside -0 01 280.20 1 550.38 :262,31 306W50 47.36 E~y no vy O.ayahchovy 0 0____

0 81:93 0.31 1.50 52.44 .16.13 0.,07

`1.50 1.5 "0.29 0Mummichog 0 0 275.47 80.94 4825 443.36 407.29 PWeakfis, 0 0 0.33 0.00 013

§. 1.07 0.o0 0 1 Wakfis, OA3 1g00.0 1U White: Peirch 0 0 0o.00 0.00 [ '0,:.00 0.00 0.00 Year

Figure 5&20 Moores Beach Reference Marsh Small Marsh Creeks 2500.00 1-0.

0 2000,00 1500oo00 1I fl-Atlantic croaker

.19 Atlantic'silversid e 0

13 Bay anchovy U' o Mummichog C E Spot I-. 1000.00 2 Weakfish.

a. [ White Perch U

0 0 5.o00:0o 0.00 r~H fm I -m 1;996 1997 I' 1 998 199~ .2000 200:1 2002 MAt0antic croaker 0.38 9.5 T 2.00 0.9019 0.77.58 Et anticsilverpsiýre 41.46 216.74 r 102.81 190 38 199T 1 72.14 230.67

.0B'ay anchovy 0.12 0.76; 0.1-3 0.25 0.133 0.Oro 1.17r OMUmh 466.62 ]2041.-40 694.8i [1 466,81

§ 109:50, 21.79 32.67 M1 Spot 0.00 6.37 ,0.38, 4.19* 8.88 :0.00o 1.83 A.

1D Weakfish, ý0.27' 2.60, 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.33 1B White Perch 0d.1 9 I o0.10:u 0.00 0,0W 0:00 .:00 0:000 Year

Figure 5.-21 Phragmites Restoration Sites Large Marsh Creeks Atlantic Croaker 7

Mad.Horse Creek (Reference)

---

Mill Creek 6 s Browns Run

-*+'-Alloway -. Phragmites

- A---Alloway - Treated

,uJ --0--AlIoway - Spartina } /

o 4

9. 1 4:

02 7 0I 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year

Figure,5-22 Phragmites Restoration Sites Large Marsh C-reeks Atlantic Silverside S0.4 .........- ~ -.. - -... .... " ...

-- Mad Horse Creek (Reference) 0.35- O--Mill Creek Browns Run B--

A-,,-All oway - Phragmites 0.3 - Alioway - Treated.

.IL -. ,-Alloway

. Spartina 0.25

. 0.2 D

0.15 S0.15 05 0.1--

0.05 ,, " ,,' " /

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year

Figure 5-23 PhragMites RestorationSites LargeMarsh Creeks Bay Ancfovy 18

' Mad Horse Creek- (Reference) 16 -i--MI Creek

-:r- Browns Run 14 ,7-AIloway -Phragmites

-**--Alloway - Treated a

.0 12 -*-Alloway - Spartina t

0 1o w*

. 6 "4

2 0

1996 1.997 1998 1-999 2000 2001 2002 Year

Figure 5-24 Phragmites Restoration Sites Large.Marsh Creeks Murnmichog 0.o18 -. ....... .. ..... .. . ..

Mad Horse 'Creek (Reference)

ý0. 16 Creek C--Mil

- Brownhs Run, 0:14' - AlIoway Plragmites

-- *- AIIoway - Treated a- 0.12,- -- Alloway - Spartiha

• 0.1 -

C

e' 0.08

' 0.06 0;04 0,0Z2j 0

1996 1.997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year

Figure 5-25 PhragImites Restoration SitesLarge Marsh Creeks.

Spot, 12 -

- Mad HoTse Creek (Reference)

-- Mill Creek

-&-- Browns Run 10]

-ý-Alloway - trragrnmies :i

--*,.A loway - Treated 0

8 --- Aloway - Spartina 0

D 6 4A 2

0 1996 1997 1998 1999' 2000 2001 2002 Year

Figure 5-26 Phragmittes Restoration Sites-Large Marsh Creeks Weakfish 8 _ _

Mad Horse Creek (Reference)

Mill Creek

.7 Browns Run Alloway - Rhragrrites Alioway - Treat ed CU Alloway - Spaftina 5

,.)

L3 02 0o 1996 .1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year

Figure 5-27 Phragmites Restoration Sites Large Marsh Creeks White Perch 12 ... ....... ........... ..

---

Mad Horse Creek (Reference)

,---,Mill Creek

10. . -' Browns Run Altoway - Phragmites Ii" \. --Alloway - Treated C 8 -*-A~llway - Spartria 6..

1*

2' 1996, 1997 1998 1999ý 2000 2001 20012 Year

Figure ,528 Mad Horse Creek -Reference MarshLarge Marsh Creeks 8, ,

6

[ IAtlantic croaker

- 5 0I Atlantic silverside O Bay anchovy 0

w 44 E3_Mummichog wSpot 3- - 1 11i [

IflWeakfish S

t 1M White Perch 0 2 t- p

-Atlanti'ccroaken 0-Ii 1996 1 .49 1997 0.3.1 1.998

.k28 FL

[ 1999 1 6.

1-1ý 2000' 2.78 2001

.. 065 .

2002 2.43 ill Atlantic Silverside 0.01 0.1 021 0:0.1 0.02 014 0.01 SBayanChovy 0',74 1.06 1.82 3.22 4.74 3108 2.6 OMummichog 0.ý01 0.02 0 i 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.02 M bSpot. ,0.04, 1.38 0.01 0.16 0.66 0 0:37 3Weakfish- 7.757 0.76 0.72 1.93 1.8 0.04 0031 9 White:Perch 2.08 2.01 1.,42 1.26 0.65 044 0.88 Year

Figure 5.29 Mill Creek Large Marsh Creeks 1

8!

1 14.

]OAtiantic croaker 2 W Atlantic silverside 01 0 _., __ _ "_ rBay anchovy 0 Mummichog D~

.;O8Weakfish

'LEIWhite Perch __

4 0

Year

Figure 5-30 Browns Run Large Marsh Creeks 7

Eg-Atlantic croaker

!SAtlantic silverside EOBay anchovy OMummichog USpot D Weakfish I White Perch Year

FigureS5-31 Alloway Creek Reference Phragmites Sites Large Marsh Creeks Year

Figure 5-32 Alloway Creek Reference Spartina Sites Large Marsh Creeks

,6

' -C-Atf antic croaker 4- rAtlantic silverside 4 O-Bay anchovy

. Mummichog Is Spot 0- 3. 3Weakfish.

.*] White Perch' S 2 --

1996 1997 120998 1999 2.0 200 , 2002 OAtlantic-croaker 0 0 I 0 4.73 0.11 0.05 3.67 iAtlantic silverside 0 - 0 '0.08 0  : 0 OBayanchoVy 0 0 11.97 "4.15 6.03 1.q08 OMUmmicho Ig 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0.01" 0s0ot.

o'

0. 0.07 0.29 0.02; 0.11 9Weakfish 'O 01 :0 0 Q.23 0.71 0.46 0.12 0 ,WhitePerch 0 0 0 .07- 2.45 1.67 3,21 Year

Figure 5-33Alloway Creek Treated Phragmites Sites Large Marsh Creeks 7 .2 6

5 --- IOAtlantic croaker M1Atlantic silverside 4 iBay anchovy

j. 1 OM.ummichog 0 m Spot

- Weakfish U~~~~~~~~I

_____________ WWhite Perch

0. 0.l o0 0.17 0 . 0.21 2.62 0.31 0.1 Year

Figure 5.34 PhragmitesRestoration Sites Small' Marsh Creeks Atlantic Croaker 8

Mad Horse Creek [(Reference)

--m Mill.Creek

-,-- Browns Run /

--i* Alloway - Phragmites A-

-x--AIloway:- Treated

-'.- Altoway - Spartina

• 5 w 4- /

/

/

2-0* I 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year

'Figure 5-3-5 Phragmltes Restoration Sites Small,.Marsh Creeks Atlantic Silverside 1800

-- Mad Horse Creek (Reference)

-s.Mill Creek 1600

-- Browns Run

-A.---AIloway - Phragmiles 1400 W A*-Alloway - Treated

-AIloway. Spart ina 1200, 0~

1000 Ui I.-

800 0.

C.): 600 400 200 0i 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year

Figure 5-36 Phragmltes Restoration Sites Small Marsh Creeks Bay Anchovy C

60-

- -Mad'Hors.Ccreek*(Reference)

Mill *Creek

--a-- Browns Run p

---

Alloway - Phragmites

-i- AIoway - Treated

/1

~4O - --o-Alloway- Spartina //

t Luý

~30'- I.

CL 20.

10 0*

1,996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year

Figure.5ý37 Phragmites Restoration Sites Small Marsh Creeks Mummichog.

2500 _

-.--- Mad Horse Creek (Reference)

--- Mil Creek.

-&-Browhs Run 2000" -~-- Alloway - Phragmites

. --AIloway

,I wTreated

-*--*AIloway -Spartina t 1o500 0

,) 1000 500 500 1996. 1997 11998. 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year

Figure 5-38 Phragmites Restoration Sites Small Mar~h Creeks Spot

'25 __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

--- , Mad Horse Creek (Reference).

-*-Mill Creek Browns Run 20 -Alloway.- Phragmites, Allowey Treated .,

A*Aloway Spartina 15*

tis w

5,/ \

,* 10 /.*/

lb* //

i/

<1 /

1996 1997 1'998 1999: 2000 -2001 2002 Year

Figure 5.39ý Phragmites Restoration Sites Small Marsh Creeks We'a61 6sh 2511_,._I__

i

-- Ma'd Horse Creek (Rbference)

S*-8-lMdilCreek

-- Brdowns Run 20 - -*-*-. Aloway- Phragmites

-4*Ailoway - Treated.

Alloway - Spartina t 15-0 CL UI

-,J

.0' 1996 1997 1998 1999 :2000, 2001 2002 Year

Figure 5-40 ,Piragmites Restoration Sites Small Marsh Creeks White Perch:

16 __

MadHorseCreek (Reference )*

14 -B-~ Mill "creek

• -Altoway - Phragmites 12 -"--Alloway - Treated CL AlWay - Sp.rtina

• -10 0

L.U CL 67 0 441-i 0-2 11996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year

Figure 5-41 Mad Horse Creek Reference Site Small MarshCreeks 120 MAtladtid croaker EIAtlantic silverside.

qBay anchovy 60 El Mummichog M Spot E3Weakfish IL4- 4 MWhite Poerch On 197 19 -1996 2000 2001 2002 r1AOeantic.croaker . 610 ..1 0,00. 0000: 0.0

• 0 13,.-14, 0.71 1OAtiantic Siiers-ide :29.R4-. 'J0 21p ".. 4.25-1'u~mmi*hog, 103:04 89:6- 63.75s 52.06 1:.4.5a1.. 0 111 M.SpoIt: I 0 1JA.15 0.00}' .:0.06 0.-5 0:.0 lbWeakfish . 28  ; 1.80, 006 0.06 "01.) 0:00 0,00,

,*)nite Perch, 1.18 2.01 0.94 0.06 0.25 0.14 0.43 Year

Figure. 5-42 Mill Creek -Small Marsh Creeks 1400;o00

l*Atlantic-croa*er ElAtiantic silverside SB-ay anc-hovy S1Mumrmichog Elspot, El Weakfish White Perch Year

FigUre.5-43 Browns Run SmalliMarsh Creeks 2500.00 D-I 0~

2000oo0.

t 150o.00 0

! SAtlaantic croakez NAtiantic silverside

. Bay anchovy 1 Mummichog IMSpot 1000.00 -- Weakfish Il-White Perch 5600.00 0.00

/1996; 1997 n"

1998 1999 7R,II 2000

ý mwý 20O~ I 2Q02 MUAtantic croaker MUAtla'ntic~silv'erside

,EOmaymchooo 0 000-42 0;00 7,12.65' 0..13 1'2.2 0.00 ii5X56 1556.,656 IO0.40.0 236vy 56 _

0.

170.816 14 _

A j95.00

_o 0:00 7.36 95,00ý 10Muninichog 10.7 153.30 15 1206:81 349.75 j 1063.14 2236.64 Ebot0.00 0.55 T 0;00 . 13 9.63 I 0.00 10'.29 Oekih0.0.5- 0.00 00 0M 0.010' 0.07 0.)07 Pm3.00 3~it9 0.40, 00.0 I 1494 5:6 9 5.21 4.93 Year

Figure 544 *Alioway Creek ReferencePhragmtes SitesSmall Marsh Creeks 30 -r 25 1--- ____ ____

lABtlantic croaker

'a- 20 - -, - - - At"lantic silverside 2.

OBay l anchovy 0

OMummichog 15 1* ..... E-*

spot IoWeakish 0

0*. 10 - White Perch S 5 0 _________________________

1997

- ~

[1 A 4 .-.

1999

~-.

m

., ....-.A~S... U I ........... -

20,00 ,

4~ 4. 4 1996 -, 1998 200-1 2'00-2

= .

• _-

IPAlanti*c croaker 0 -0 0 0300 0.06 A£ o8 -I 0.09:

ý3.36 f 0.50ý O Bay anchovy J 0" 0 0 a 0,07 10.'57 0.13 0.250,181 O 'Mummichog 0 0 21.13 -23w92" 21T.6'4 P spo{ 0 0 0 0'00 0.00o 0.00 0V.Weakfish . 0 0 0' 0.00 0.00 0,00 0 . 0* I 0.08 U. Whiiteý Perch .__ ._ 0.08 0.18 Year

Figure 5-45 Alloway Creek ReferenceSpartina Sites Small Marsh Creeks 30 [ . .. . . .. i 25 bD Atlantic croaker 0*. 20

,M Atlantic silverside

'0 r Say anchovy 0 Mummichog j spot 0 Weakfish 010 1, White Perch C5 5

• 1996 1 997 ,1998 1I999 2010 1 1-.. ,

2001' 2002 IAtlanti6,croakee *0 '0* 10:00 0.00 0.00 0.14 EAtlanticsilver'side 0 0 ,0.57 .31i 0.21 0.00 0a .anc hovy 0 0 0 0.14 O.O '0.07 0.00

.mu.micho 0. 0 0 21.00 8.81 { 21.14 -. 28.57

_Spot 0 0 o 0.0000.00 )o.oo o0.00 -

0Weakfish 0 0. 0 .0.00 O00 ] 0Q00 -i 0.00 3 rWhite Perth ,0 0 0 0.43 -0.00 0.07 0.00 Year

FigUre 5-46 Ailoway Creek Treated Sites Small Marsh Creeks 450 j

400

.350 M 'Atlanticcroaker

-u300 SAtlantic silverside U 250 E Bay anchovy

• Mummichog t:2o II Spot 1OWeakfish 1,111 White Perch 50 0-1996 1997' 1998 1999 20-0'0 2001 2002

( I GAtiahtic-croaker 0 0 0 0'.0 000 '0.00 0.00 IRAtlantic silyerside 0 0 018.07 513 0.00 0 1 i I- - i -

0lBay ýanchovy - 0 0 1.29 6..00 0.. 14 0.00

,MuMichog o0 '0o 1o34.29 328.60 391"-43 138,86 0 We~fSpo 0 0, 0, 0.00 0.06 000.0 { 0.00 MWhite Perch 0, 0__0."_0_7 0.0 0.00____

Year

Figure 6-1 Garrisons Lake Fish,.Ladder Adult Passage and;Stocking 500 -.- Adult Passage Fish sockedPSE&G 4W0 ...

Target 1"* goal of 400 300 Fish r / End of 3 year maturation u02 Opeiationa /__period for offspring of initial

,-00,-- __ _ _ __ / I__ _ _

oand initial' stocked fish stocking 100 ~~ ~ ~~~-

0-1999 2000 2001 2002

-100, Year

Figure6-2.

Eggs and Larvae Collection at Garrisions Lake 1.2 1

018 V

cJ U

C)

~ 0:6 (3

0 z

-A--Eggs 0:.4 Fish. ladider operational 0.2,

,.0 1995: :1996; 1.997 1998. 1999 2000 2001 j2002 2003

• Year=

Figure 6-T JUveniles Collection at Garrisions Lake 80 70 in uverniles

'0 Fish ladder operational 1995*

1996, 1997 19981 999 2000 2001 2002 2003 "Year

Figure 6-4 Silver Lake Fish LadderAdult Passageand Stocking 1200.

- Adult,Pssage PSE&G Target

---&-Fish stocked goal of 1000 fish 800' 600 End of'3 year maturation period for offspring of 0

initial 400 Fish, Ladder Operational Initial Stocking 200 F 0

1,0'6 1997 1998 199" 2000b,  :.20.01 2002

• -200 Year-

Figure 6-5 Eggs and Larvae Collection at Silver Lake 16 10 Cu

-6 8 6

z 6 -.

4 - ,.__ _

,FiPtsh ladder operational 2 . ...... " , ---

1995 1996 1997 1.998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year

Fi,guraie Juveniles collection at Silver: Lake

• 30 25

,20 JuveniIes 0o z

10 Fish ladder-operational 0 4-1996 1997 1998 1999 O0 .. 2001 2002 2003.

-,Year

Figure 6-7 Moores Lake Fish Ladder Adult Passage and Stocking 800

--Adult

Passage 700 -a-^ishStocked 600o-

-5001

.,460 Fish ladder operation aland initiah ýockin-g n

• Soo .

• I ,..*

• ....... "/ " -- * ...... period.

stbtkedfor.offspring:

fish--- of initial Tgegalo

'200t __ __ _

target I . 35goal, of 100 fish Year

Figure 6-8 Eggs and Larvae;Collection at,.Moores La~ke 35

'30 25

• 20

- Larvae 0 -A- -Eggs 5 15 10 5:

0 4-1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year

Figure 6-9 Juveniles ,Collection .at'Moores, Lake

.90 -

80 -

70 60 "0

50

-E-*Juveniles 6 40!

z 30

'20-10-

.0 1995 1996- 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001' 2002 2003 Year

Figure 6-10 McGinnis Pond Fish Ladder Adult Passage and Stocking Adult Passage LjiP*-' Fish Stocked 6800÷ 700 600 /

4,5001 0

4* 00 -1 --- _l_77- -__ -

End .of 3 year maturation periodifor offspring of initial-Fish Ladder stocked fish Operational Initial Stocking ZuIV arget 157 oal of iAish 100 -iI 0

1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2002 Year

Figure,6-11 Eggsand Larvae Collection atMcGitinis Pond 460 ' -

U\

A

~0 z 'p r\

10 -

20-Fishi--adder 6perational 0.

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year

Figure 6-12

,Juveniles Collection at M.GinniS Pond 900 .

850 800 . . . .... ÷- " .

750 .

700

650 .. . - ... -..

,600 550!

.- 0,500,

= 450 6 400 -

z350 .

300 -_-

200 250 ,,, - t, lade oertln 150 0 19 1t995 1996 190* 1998 1999 200D 20*

01 2002 2003 Year

Figure 6-13 Coursey Pond, Fish Ladder Adult Passage andStocking 1o600 -

oHAd ult Passage.

F_.--

Fish Stocked " _ _ i1 1400 -

1200

-Fish Ladder 600 Operational _

I Stocking-' S&

00 PSE&G 40 Target 291 ______-_ goal of 200 -fish 0,

1997 1998, '1999 2000,. ,2001 2002 Year.

Figure 6-14 Eggs land Larvae-C1llection at Coursey'si Pond 16 14 12 i0

~o 0 Larvae 8

- -A-Eggs J 6

z, 6

2 2*

0. -

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999. 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year

Figure 6-15, Juveniles COllection at Coursey's Pond 160 140:

1.20 100 0

,80 --U -- Juveniles

-6 z

60 40 20 M

'Fish ladder oper ional.

0 1995 1996- 1997 "1998: 1999. :2000 2001 2002 2003 Year

Figure 6-16 McColley Fish Ladder-Adult Passage and Stocking 1400 1200-10006 7800

%0

~606 400 PSE&G 245, Target 200 goal 'of fish 1996 1997 1.998 1999 '2000 2001 2002 Year

Figure 6-17 Eggs and Larvae Collection at Mc~olley Pond' 30 25, 20 ....

- Larvae 0 15' - -Eggs z

10 .

5 A

j'Fish ladder operational 0 4 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year

Figure 6-18 Juven iles ,CoII legt6h, atl~t McIeyVPond

+'* ;600

- -Um- Juveniles

~,

U 0-1:995 A199 6O 197T fbq: 1999, ,2000, 200,1 2002 2003' Y¥ear

Figure 6-19 Cooper River Fish Ladder Adult Passage and Stocking 30o00

-- Adult Passage

-w- Fish ,Stockedl 2500 ---

2000

-oo PSE&G Target goal of 1000 I - eq Fish.Ladder fish Operationa and initial stocking End of 3 year maturation.

500 tperokd iofisphng, stocked fish, 0'

1998 1999 2600 2001 2002 Year

Figure 6-20 Eggs and Larvae Collection at Cooper River 70 60G 56 40 U

- Larvae U,

-- A- Eggs Z6 30 20 lo 0*-

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year

,Fi~g'ure. 6-ý21 Juveniles~ Collecton at Cooper River 25000'

?0000 15000 0

-U F[ 0-ý-Juveniles z 10000 5000' Fish'hdderpetfatnibn~

0.'

Q99 -1996t 1998 -2000 260-l' 42002 -2003, 1697

'Year,

Figure 6-22 Sunset Lake Fish Ladder Adult Passage and Stocking 1600

-- Adlt *Passag 1400 j'-FshStocked I _

1200 1.00 "'* -- /"* - ...... TargetP

goal of fish

'800 IL ~End of 3 y64rinaturation 600 Fish Ladder- Initia[ Stockin__ p Operational stocked fish 400.

200 - __......

1997 1998 1999. 2000 2001 2002

-2o00 Year

Figure 6-23 Egg and Larvae Collection at SunsetLake i ( ,,

8r 7

6 Q

-- Larvae 5

0 -A- -Eggs 6

4

,3 27-10-

'1995 1996 1997 1.998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year

Figure. 6-24 Juveniles Collection at Sunset Lake 1800 1600 1400 1200

,_=1000

.=

0U 800 600 Fish ladder 400 operational 200--

011 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001i 2002 2003 Year

Figre'i~ DRE C J uv~hilei rIiwDla 19%) ql-O2 70 60 0ý 0

1i !9 9 :f 9 92.2 1ý9 4,4 990. 4 9 96 cj ,

-2o00, 2o02 Yea r-

,iF r 7-2 JDNRIT C.-uvehile~Ta1 t 99-,209Z2 SlpdBass 6L

-Z2XeaF NMoving 7 4.:.. .. -; Average

+ +. . ... . ..... . _ _ _ _ __. _ _ _

4-r

, _A.

l A!

1990.; 1992 199 - 96 0020

]9

, +.k

O

....* + :+.. . . . ;90,- 2 :: *' i: ... +, *- . ... ,2 0:+

0,0-,i "ear

Figuare 7-3 DNREC Juvenile. Trawl Data 1991-2002 White Perch

• 14

--. While Perch

- 2 Year Moving

-Average 12:

10-0 S8, L_

C) 0~

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Year

Figure 7-4 I)Ni;C Juvenile Trawl Data 1991-2002 Spot,

- Year M6 ing 35 ,- Averpg 30

• ~25-20 4-J 10 15 -__ "_"_

0.-

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Year

75 DNECJve.ife:Tr~awl.Datalj 1941'-290i2

• igre AtlanticCroAker 9-o!

70.-

50 07 1990'1 41992 .1994, 1996 1,998- '2000. 2002 Year

Figure 7-6 DNREC Juvenile Trawl Data 1991-2002 AmericanShad 0.14 . --- Arnerican Shad

-2 Year Moving 0.1-2 - __ . ., *...... .. - -Average' 0.1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

O06:.1. 7 U-0,0 0.028 1 00.

1r990 1.992' 1:994 1996. 199 8 20010 2002 Year

F*igure T77 DNREC. Juvenile Trawl Data 1991-2002 Me'owife 0,2 Alew ife

-2'Year Moving 0.1t Ae.rag e

-0.16:

0:14 -

0'0.1-

• 0.0I, .. .. ,

C-,,

0.04 0 .:02 ,

'0-1 990, 1992 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000 2002 Year

Figure 7.8 DNREC JuveniHe-Trawl Data 1991-2002 Blueback Herring, 0.06

. Blueback Herring

.-- 2 Year Mving

, Average b.05. - _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

0,04'

.0o L) 0-0 C-)

C 01.02 0.;0 11990 1992 1994 -1996, 1998 '2000 2002 Year

Figu~re 7*9,DNREC JuVenile Traw[Data 199,b2O02 P'ay' Ajiclov~y 300W 25o, 0J5 200:

4-.

0.0 1990 1992199 19~6 998.-2000- 2002.

.Year

Fgulre 7-10 'DNRCJvilra Dt AtlanticiSilverside.

,3

-+-Atlantic. Silyversid6

.°-'2 Y¥ear M6zing,

.Average_...._

,2-5 "0'

AL (190

.0.5

..1i990" 1*992' 1994 i',996z 1!998 '2000 2002 Year

I ATTACHMENT 1 Ir

SttisticalAnalysis of :DNREC Juveniile TVrawl Data Collected fromithe Delaware River Estuary ate 10/,13103 CEANO.0,1067, C 6mrparin ti:teennthWe m ean` catchperf6ot of fish bdefre

,restoraions (!,g9l,-1994), and after restorations were completed ,(1998&-'20.1¢)

"st.atjstically*signifiqcan[i hange irnr*tmb'erso'f :Di rectidn of tAeige:'bedf restoratio Bay'anchg'y,, .No-

"weakfiSh','

No

,Atlantic Croaker ,Np'

-White Peich`

Strdl**alas's, :No

'Alewife

, Are~aica*shad; No' 'DecreaSe 0*0"69:. 0.01ll

.Atlantic siivejrside kliebackheir-rinrg, C~pri on -OUe! tatisti'al analy~is~.pmpared e~aper .inUUfn0

~f~hperiod I99t4hrough 19941 t6iiý "m6daiaf6r the ped f 'o9981tfrou-'O1

'The ,Ma nn-WhitneyU; test was usd'tS~ o astitclysignian difference~ 46twvbri~the means

.-fthese twogrpupsf Thd TheFASTAT cbmputer-prb6.gra'mwa~s ýata. ised'to ýcomplete the~st4ti'sticai~te6 "ini PNRkEC,"uye~nileq Traiwl'wDatbal 9Q201 10/3/0 10/1ý3103-

'Statistical Analysis of the Number of Fish, Caught, Prior to (1991-1994) arnd, Afhter the Restorationms were Completed (1,998--2001

ýKUýKA.L-wALuiiS 6kPE-,WA'YANALY SISý OF VARIANCE, FOR 8 CASES.

.DEPENDENT. VARIAB3LE I;S- BANCHOVY GROUPIkG VA.RIA'B'LE.IS GRO10P$

GROUlP CiOUNT RANK MS4 I

.pr~eres ~ 4 16000

.pbstres~ 4 20 .0 0 0 JMANN,"WHITNEY U TEST ,STAýTISTIC 6.Q6,*PoO

-PROBABILITY.IS 0_564 CH-SQUAXE.,A APROX'IM4ATION.

kRUS-AL-"WALI OE'A ANLSIS';OF, VAC.FORý 8 .CASES DEPEINDENT VARIABLE -1 S'I W4EEAKJFISH'1 F .GROUPiING VAR.IABLE IS GRO~UP' GROU&P.$

'4u~

4_ 14.000 22.: 60Q

.e, Tfe's t

--0re,st:

MAN~WHIT*EY UTEST 'StATISTIC

'PROBABIMITY IS' 0.2_48 1,333 WITH' 1,rD C'HI-'SQUARE- PPROXIMATI ON,=

KRUSAL;WALLIS ýONE-WYAAYI OF VARIANCE' FOR- 8~ CASES,

'DPENDENT' VARIA BL-E `IS' ACROAKER GOP.I1'G ýVARIABLE IS, 'GROUP$'

'G~UP 'COYNTý 'RJANK, 'SUN ii prerest .4 125. 000 p~s 6re '44 MANN-WH ITFN Y 'UýTEST~!STAýTISTIC',

I PRBA'ITY IS:

CHISQUARE :AP -ROXIkAT.ION:

'0.. 38 06.,73Q'W'ITH 11 DF

KYRUJSKAL,-WALLI1S, O6INEKý-WAY ANALYSIS. OF" VARIANCE FOR B: CASES.

DEPENDENT VARIABLEt IS: WPERCH-GROUPING> VARIABLE- -ISý GRPbUP$ý

ýGROUP ;COUNT" RANK SUM 4- 16 ,0,00 MANN-HITNE¥ ,Uw u TESTfSTATTST!

18.3-3 WiTr al ;DF

• KRUKAL,Pu WALLI'SISONES WAL 1SE AYY,ýA N10 VARANES ORw *8*SCA

`DEPENDENT VAR'"IALE Is, 9ROT,

Gý-ROUPING VARIABLE ISý GP.oUl~

,GROUP'l .COUN~ ~'RANKWSUM~

4- 24.:0

'posre st "4-I

' MAikNN-WHI-TN.TE Y.*'U-.TEST'4STAT.IST*IC

-PBILi'ITY IS

CHI'÷ SQUAR-EiAPP.ROXIMAT ION, a .3'

~0OWITE, 1 DF

ýKRUSKAL W*L" I'SONE-WAY ANALYSIS' OF CASES DEPENDENT 'VARIABLE IS,, STRIBASS GROUPI-NG' VART1ABLE; -TS" G'R'OUP$

'GROUP,

'iC'OU.NT A 0K, MAN-~WiTNYI U-,EST- SA'6~ 3'..

000 pROBAB L ITY," IS,;, ,;;14

'CHI-flSQUARE ý,APPR OXIMATION. =:ýi '2.083I WITH 14,1 ýD

KRUSýKAL'-WALL.IS ONE-WAY. ANAiLYS;I-S'O&F VARIANCE FOR-8 CASES, DEPE INDENT VARIABLE IS A ILE KIIfEt i 'GROUPINGý VARIABLE I'S'

,GROUP ,COUNTT

ýGROUP$,

RANK SUM prerestr 4ý '21--0,0,0 post-re~st, 4' 115.000 MANN--WHI*TNtEY' -U ýTEStT STATISTIC =

,PROBABIITY` IS. 0 .'8.6 l.750 00,T I F CHI2SQUARE APP iROIATION kRUS KAL-WLLIýS ONE,-,IW Y ANAYSIS'OF VARIANCE FOR 8'0'CASES

,DEPENDENT- VARIABLE IS' ýASHAD-GROUPING: VARIABLE: IS GROl*'Ui$

• 1

,IroUP C(OUNT'" .RAlW`SUMW

'4 2.0,00-4' 10.000C

ýMANNILWHItNEY' UVTEST ST-ATISTIC' !6* 4.o000, I 'PROBAB'IL'ITY-I-S

'C41,-,SQuAREa APPRo~x'iMATION2,~

0!.0i2-1

'5.333 'WITVH: I'l DF-KRUSKCAL-WALLIS ON---,Y'ANAL'YSIS 'OF VMARIAýNCE' FORý, 'CASES DEP)ENDENT 'ARIABLE I'S, 'ASILVE GROUPING6 VARIABLE :IS'. - GROUP$

GRO*Uý 'COUNT -RAMK-SUM.

4' Ao> 60 b 0'. op00

'Ppr~llrle!§t

'a'. 000I SRBBLITY" IS Q5 CR'-.SQUARE APPROXIMATION" KRUSKA.L-,WALLiS. O6NE-"WA'Y -AAYI-O"A'ACFR '8! CASE -S DEPNDET VRIALE.ISBýHERRIN-G GRUING VARIABýLE-,-IS ýGROU-P$,

GROUP, COUNT .R Ulm

• preresE 4 1G-;000 pos-ti st 4: -*206-0

ýMANN-WHITNE-:Y- U- TEST STATISTIC PROBABILITY IS 0.6 CR.I- SQUARE! APPROXIMATIONý,=, 0."3317'WTl

. 1 -. ..t . *1-7t2 00 ew.... iA'nc i Weakfislt /vtlnticCmaker WhiteiPer AeineH'ihwShad, ýAtlantifSilver'side* BluebckHerring.

P 9] 251,66 311 90 3.1 9 -. 0.3-2: 08- ~ 0I2004 f'992J 120.16 34.13 . 78.12 6i6 " 0t82 '019" " 0.034' .. .05 0!05 030-1 9.93 .9-A 1-37

. A4.72 . -1 73' 9:15- 0.72 , 0:09 , - 0.3y " 2'57 . 00084 1994 . 70.85. 53' 20.3 12,55. 34-14 - -' 0.55 0042 O1.! " .0.6 0.054 1995 '24*6;8. 749:25S 51,54, 4.92 026 '0 57 0.1 f0.04 6 158.65, - .7.29 7-3.83 10.595' 400067 16 .2.7 , 013A .Q67- .2.02

-.9.77 14,5.23 63'.13 . 3.0:38 09.-29 7ý 65' .64 0.11 0.02 0.01 003 TO998 P14153i 30:42 "63,45 A7 4- 0 0.95 9- 0.02 0.0042 .0.04, 0 01 999 103.21 33,8! 7I1- 6.76 1 38' 0'58 -0.09 --.0.03 0.1Itt 004 200-17.94' 4-5.66 19..19 53 .56 0.00- 0.1 .0 20OT .... 2839 25.:62 3.9-1..2 02 4.74' - 04 0: -0,18 0.03 Ajlbd.a~ta~s reported ib~neau.at'ch:per fobt. ". . ...

t ResUlts of Survey* Distributed to Fishers of 'the Delaware Estuary I

I * ~ D61AWard Riv-rkeep-eretiwork

-P0tBox 3126 WAusbiThtoiq Cicsn-,,,PA 18977 PreP~~1&d~ia Cafei~inc.

70J~HilltdP R'6ad R sSgNT '0y, 074-46.

CEA Job'i No. 01'067 DPecember 31,.2003 I'.

V

Table of, 4Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

...... 6 ......................... ...................... I 2.0 SURVEY DEVELOPMENT .................. ............. 1

3. SURVEY DISTRIBUTIO N ................................ ............................... 1 4.0 SURVEY*SRES NSE-,- ............................o 2..........

2 4.1 LOCATIONS. ........... ;................. ........................... ......

4.2 TIME FISHI ED ............. ............... ............................ 2 4.3 FISING METHODS AN]PREED. CATCH ........ ........

4.4' ANLYI OF....SPONSES.........3

.4:4.2 Y998-2001..T.............. ............. ~.......;...3

$`5.0 NATIOrNAL MAINE FISHERIES!SERVICE COMM.EVRCI-L 7.0 ON LUSION ................ ... . ...

-8.0 REEtiRENC.ES....................................,,.,..,..

• Tables Tabl*e'1: Eish,'Survy Distrbution:

Table Tie Fished Table M3 -iliMethod Table:4: ,Prefei-d"Cateh and.Ati `Catch* ,e Table 5 Survey Results 1995 19,97 Nurber,.

STable Tahbl:e6 SurveyRgesults 19.95 Th:Survey Rsulls 1,95 -20rs0 01997 Si*J*ge i

Ta!ble-8 Survey-Results 9'*98-,2001 Siize

]Tai 9:eDNREC Juvffile Trail .Data 1991-* 201 Figure Areas

-1 Fished.

Eigee -2W:Deawre BaY'; Riei .nd 'Tbutary Lfidiigs,, 1995.2001. AIewifý TFimguie 3: Delaware Bay, River ,in1d Tributary-Lkndings,;1995-2001, Stfiped.-Bass.-

.Fiute 4, D"lawafe B4i iv&r195-00, find.tributary IBtiefish L-adings, Fi&gure 5., Delaware Bay, Rvjiand: Tribuar Ladings,. 19952001, Ci'.

,iguife 6::.Delaware Byy:Riv er:nd Tribfutary Lafidijg, 1.995-100l1, :Catfish, VFigme 7: Delawaiae ,B,' Rivr.nd'Tributay Lndigg:s,'t.1995-20, Atlantic (r6dkef, Fig'ue8: i.:Delawa'e By, RiVei a-id Tributary Landings, 1995-2001, Drum igur 9 ar, R, . Lafidiiigs, 1995-2001, Ameerican ,Edls (1*

Figure 10: Delaware :Bay, River and Tiibutaýy Landings, 1995-2001, Sininer

'Figuife 1: Delaware Bay, -River and Tributary* Landihgs, i995-2001, ,Sopan'ish Mackerai, FigjireA12; Delaware Bay, Rivet and Tributy. Landiiigs,,1995*200i.., White Perch Figure 13:. Delaware.Bay:, ivei :and. Ttitary.Landirigs,.1995;2001,,. Sea BPess.

"Figue 14:.

Figure 15: Delaware :Bay, Delaware Bay Privet River anP' and;Tribhutary Tiibuit~ry Landings, 1995'2001,,

Landingsl 1995 2001, Shaiks Ameirican Shad' Figure 16: Delaware Bay, River and TribbtaryL-adilngs ,1,9 2Q02i,- Aot

Figrre 1UDelawarelBay River iB and; TrbutaryL'andings, -19952"01 ,Tadthg..

Fig$ure-.,18:8Delaware Bay.;River and. Tributary Landings, 199*2*Q01., Wýaakfish, Fi gUr.e 19:N CJu 66ile Tirawl Data 1f991,2002 Sfipe Bassl Figure 29: DNR.C Ju-Venile Trawl Data 1,91i-2002, WeakfisNh,"

Fiur-21,: DNRECueil TIw aa 9120 Ailantic -'Croak&.

TigFigure-22: DNREC Ju*enile Trawl DatA-&991,2*02 Suamfer, Flo~ufide' Figure'i;*:2"DN Th~venit.e T'rawl Data 1,991-2002;. Bluefish.

,Attachint1Fs Abnace Shrvey for~fh6ý-el'vr stary 4tAchment Stati Istiý41 Analysisý'of Baywide`FiSh ata:

ii.

j:

1,

S1.0 INTROD6UCION, The Public $rvice Electric and. Gas Company, (PSE&G) Salem, Nuclear Generating Station (Salemfiacility.) is located along the Delaware River ?Estuary, at.

Artificial. Island o6f the, .easlterin shore, of the' Delaware RiVer iii, ISalem i'nC

.- t-; New Jersey,. The Salerm, facility conisists of two nticlear-powefrd :units with 'once tM*ig cooIinfg systems. Salem, hasý:a cooling water intake capacity 3.2 billion gallons per1 day. Over three. billiln.'fi[hgae kaiilled every year due to SilemV s,cool r'water Jiftake.

'From m, ayMJune 19950. 49 Aptil --1.998, Salem was undergoihg'- mtiiennahn d did nft per ate at.tlfcapacityn o

.Carpepter>'.'hvirornmentafi:Associat~s, :ic. (CEA) adte Del-awae'Riveikeepier Networki (DN)coducted a survey ocf-local' commierc-ial anid. re'cre ational, fishf'mfrito detennine impiacts :on fishing The i-tent o:f the survey--,uasto .compar&,6 '*cacfrom.

peiiods when the!.Salem -facility 'as8 'o t bf s'ervice to peio'ds.wfien tli 'adility, was' 6perating., This,&'Valuation.is ihte6ided to-. denohsrrat*th&ogermý jempaact; as w.ell a.s Scurhiii impacofi Tk te Salem facility thdeoii.e: e~c-sy sietfie Delaware' y 't A-g, sa t¢-

ryýnau 'oSubpp:g~n{ b-4ts!j Ah:e',.; ;a sbe aliu da bC6oected by the' Nationat.Mar"ine Fisheries 'Service.

2~_me .SisVEY'DEVEL'OPMENT

'DRN *and CiEA" evop.ed *. siurvey for .distribution. to. lo-a.l CnmerciL and, recteation alffishers' Thesiur ey'-,as developed, '.t the, extent, possibl'e tising.-previoiiy-deve'loped and te§std fis'her

-Notestg of the 'survey' wNas s.ireyui conducted.ncludi'ng d'pr*eiuii "urvey prepared"by .DRŽ The surey 'vas pee reviex}ed prior to

'dlistribuhion 'by a epresentativeof Nai aya target recipient (a !oa ,fisherman,) Coimmenits.ireeiyed were,-incorporated into-the survey:

Th~~

survey was~.4ýifitended: to -d'eternine'fishingcobilditions', wti h eaaeEtayi I 'the vicbity :'of he. Salem facility- *iord t6d 1995,. 1995-1997, .and 19977-20026 Sine, recfeaional' fishes'dofpnot*typically keep4detaied records, t. equestionswere qlualtiea*

ratiher.'thanqUanti*taifvein* nature. Th' intention was to detenineif fishes' perceived change in the nin quaity (w~ight and Ien*kgth) durng the time peibd, when d;&rand" the'Sai'mdi faility, wasno t' 6epration (1995 1997) as oppos red toperiods of:'operai6on, To prevent bia*s, no:'in f6& flon' regardiig te intent of -the*su~e with r.spect to),thie

'Salem -i survey..A s*ample o h siirvey',an'b6'fodas'

& efa&ilii Attachment 1..

3.0. SURVEYDIST-RIBUTION Survey,' distribaitionii o c.ndudted, bV' DRN throu2gh, reseiitati'onb 'l'oea 1,

,commercial. ýadretreatoni ffihtiog organizatio'ns. the, mail:, and the.D*.N- websife.'

commerca

.Aher i'tiR! 'd~~ibitio reraU'~

~-o'sirsuyr follvw*-.1 W.d'gft"

-was condiicted' ciuding reditibution of' telehone' 1611' to c.lafify, f~spbis6s and' to

tre~s e~hr aditionl iiforfmatibni.l

'Table 1priovides.'inf oiafoon n'sie"ve*'distiibufi6inefforts..

4.0 SURVEY'RESPONSE A limited nunibei of responses to the sfrve'ey weie reeived,. Oflhe, overT'*0,000 surveys.di~stributed ,, only 43 surveys$were returned, 41 of which came:,ftom r6c#eatibnal fisherg. Due to the linited' numberof'si-rveys rýeceiVed, no :statistical analysis 6f thet respsonses can 'be. cgrcdutedi Th& foiioxing ,sectionsaddres* each, pertinent.,question raised s ion the, sUrvey andd provide a bief narrative regading, t _' ge Qf received'.

The surveyv-sked'. for information, ý6mpring. fishing, ýin the lDelaýW*ii.e, Estuary

,pniot' to, .1995 to .the time peri'od"'199*5.!"99, Therefore, 4a11 surveys; for ',hicli .th resp0nden' ,did' not- fish iin the 'Delaware Estuary ,pfi6r tto 19"95 ierei6i Aclided :in tuhr fi suvy) e ý n uvy~a e'ce'e'uei aldt r6VideQ any, i:'nforniati in' response to ýthe questions posed6§d' ToSuvey -erej!ed.

,responses .W ihfrom anfiysis ,du&toihe-fact thatthetfesponses*were. ecei ed"fion ,hefame'iidiiiaiial, "yOt the response were-different

- ohff ieachfi surey Ote ,ýsiey was rejected:;becaiIse the

respondenit didi not.%hishthe' bD_-aware.',Estuarhyqprpe Oe, A~ditional' s&Vey.Pp Q Ie

• ~ he 'only' response- fomr a commcialrshria -was irejectdeep~s ~

'to an ea !er suryey developed by DRN thati speci ficily mentined' the Sayemv facility k Aotalof 33, suPrV C/s wefe *1nalyzed t rth"er.. "

4.1-t LOCATIONS' Surveys w~re' .#eceivrd& hfishers that' utilize iiie&

-rerea'iiajjFfrom the *ae Estua*rfrom the 1wlawate Bay :nQitb, t6 rVille,;PA. (Yardl a rd y .tliney &ttir.y 3 ijstaboe :can, we. s' Mcrrisvile 'which ~is. two-townis downi ~btt whbie estu aryV

ben.....?), ýOf;the.43`ýsrveys rePceived_~' aledt~rvd ifiiaih~i h dain~

thel OelaAWrer :Estfaiy* that'. are 'igure, VIsfheit.1 show's the :aproxma'inte ' :;aioiis.

'reported:;a~ lishld 42TIME ýFISHED The resp6ndentshad been fishng theDelawa& E**sbtii between 8add .63 ears.*

Mfto Um 50% ofterp0dit 'jhd'ee flin ithe,:Dela ware 'Estuaary f6or 20 yearsor"more.

O'n -e)p6nden, fis*hd th*eDel'af'ate 'Esu.ry 36 days xaV&tge,-th6 -p,-':year.,

irangimgfrom ;a :imimumrof 2 daysfishing-,t0 a maxftrium 6f:20did'a' TlWie 2- summarizes informatio's feggding the. xnUflt q ot'time sent fhhing b tthflesn ;sb'nden.rs..

adpn te survey o vn Ma m sare

.reereatioinal. fishers. within the Delaware :Estuary;, inc1luding chiumnming.;. trolling.,

traWl*g, :as*ting, .bottom fishing, drifting, eels, fy' flihing,, netting,; a' dnlinig thofds..

Iý

The majority of respondents utilized casting and bottomi fighing m'thods, Table 3 Ssumniarites he responses regarding fishing methods.

4.4- ANIF ANAL SSO RESPONSES The f6llowving :sections detail the responses' to :the'siurvey' i&egardii peýied chan"ge-s in numbers and size of fish during 1,9954997 and. afti 1997.

4.4.11199 14997TT-AEFRAIV "

.The. srv-dy'*asked fishers tproideInfotrigtiibon regrdi"n-their experiences

!fishinig 'tl& Delavw'are. Estuaryduring th~ iipr~ 199591 c 'nrd;t reiu

'years* Te questions-pertaned;,to,'perceiye d'increases, afid/or'[ddecteasesfn ether'eative

'nurnftbi~rs bf"fish ,,foijud, in,.he Estua'ry-_ as.'well.-s: &a'yij

,ngesin iek~ei&.ffs" Tables 5anid:6 :ui~iizfar thie rqsponss., rep ivd No'clear tends can be.seednfbased uponihe survey respo.nses' More than50%

• o the ,Tesponqdents:,rered'pinreased numberd, ,andsize (lengt; a iwgiht), of striped

.bas duringthis e period~ af'd39% 'ofitl~'resoents reported,'an increase, in number.

-of Atlantic- Croaker:, A deres inhe number and 'size. (lnt vneight) :of weafis ws rpotied -by over '35%, o~f ithe repnet or: 'floude 33%of respon nts rep*oted, decreasesininmumber and 36% notedA' decrease in engifi and-weight, ,respecti*vely,,durifig"this time.,period. Al~lother perceiveddchanges&in*the-iurfnbe'rs~.of fish,'xinh~r the Delaware w re. reported'W by 25%,.or:;lessof'6t&resndenits.,

'rdported "crs.

as~reptt' eress(g.'iuespppdeftts'tjY6trted4 an incei&eitin~bhiefih,

-and: seven repoted 6 adecrease).

4.4.2 1998-2001 TIMEFRA'ME,

.Te ure~asked fisheirs -td pi~de ifraonigrdi lir-~xpirieiides 13995,_1997,im erne The questiofis pertaitie'd to p&6ie:hra6 ado erae Sin :tte relatiV6efruiitnbehrs: of -fish.*foiihd' il-the ".Estai as, '*l l.a *ng, chhnge&"ih ý 'the i,.fiv reiat, be1sfý , Tables.7 aind'Ssumniarize-the,r poiis'e: feceixd.

Agaitrn, .no' ,:iea f:tr'Irds can be6 'seen bdsed'! upi*ni, tIe _6sur,'ey .irsp6nses%.

,,Apprd 506%[ 6bf-h**&eSp6nd'en't',reprted n 50iteiy i- mbefs- did Size,.(Ieng' ;'Ahd'

'Vwi~i'~t):' of stiiP~e.d2 d:Auring thi? time&ped6d. FPea* ht[)eht bf Uie :*i&~poni'dent rudpbred' 'inciire'ase 'in iiumiers, ,f Atilanti"C'oaker andapapr-dimately3 rOrebted ainreas insz n eia~ith ijifb'er, of' ~f~ a

f. repored *4'&%o respondent anWapproximatefy .. 40%. of p.qflidits, 'iprted -a' decrease'din 't*le:-size (length, and, weight) of, weakfish.'For, fli*under, :39'% of thed prespoedn6ts r gporfedl decreases -in nuaimberand ed dn0da s2i7%. 'sit*;do (ethl" N-ahn iweig 4figtim~re perio6d,. Toiowevely Athsaietne12'rered inii&i6e 'ih,itumnbefs* '18%' 'r'pertd' i&e i 'knth adih.o'f~~~~ ~18,7%

ie~pbrted no 'th~.g&jh Vdimb~fs:, afi 15% rpOtdno chnn 'e.ApproxinY~telv

25% cfFerspondbh'ntierpot'tod.a decrease'in the n6u .bersvand size (leigth andoweightt of

bluefi'sh duingtitime pfiiod, aihoughi3.."% ,reported' .nochange ineiiher'nuibers or,

• .ize .Air .othd..percei'64&qhangesý -in the,. numbers ,'0f fish within, the,,iDelawfie! -were, rportedd by, 25%:-0i 1essý,of tlherspdndeifts (eight individlalý:6r les§);. of9:a-.p6 ina eily eqiial niumbers- ofiiidi.iduals.rei orted.icreaes sag fepbrtedl decrease's.

5.0 NATI AL,ý MAR E FISIIRIES SERVICE':OMER ,L LANDN  ! ,DATA CE2Ae wasepro"idia-nth data ing the commercia.l9ladings9,Uif.'arh within teDelaware Estur 7forth&e pend 99201The daahas no~t'bb on'alized m-to !adjust for effort , (time spen isig thereforey cosmpar-bfisons bttwa-t, ye sl i diffict . , 2gFigures throughe17s howsth*eslandinginformation f for0the0 es fish.

'addressed as part of the survey. -Each species is;discu ,ssed belowý Alewife:increased landingsreaema1998. -an6dngsin ropp are grao'ter.

than in 1995-1997, but represet'~ashkip~d&clire from' e~lan~dngs jia 1998. Fgr 2 shows the alewife landings bet~een .199-_200.L Stie Bass: Landin"gs hav, l nV e ased, , since 1q95, - a.1,t . c.. .

seen in~20~00. Figure 3 shiows stripedbaiss landfings between 41995~-2Q01.

B~luefish: There was ashiarp increase in l-Andns., 96 hc fjj~dgiii 1997. Bluefishi*ldings between 1995 2001 ,are shtown, orn i~gure 4.

Carp: Carp landings declined*between 99,5 and 1997-and; aagmiub'eteeni99.8;and, 2001, with an ificrease. seeri between 199ý7.t998. Figure 55d(lpictsi-car.lid"gs' beatween 1995g2001..p0 SCatfish Landings increased bathweeng s,de9reased tt6ou,:. in98&an ,d again in 2001 Catfish landingms9ar *6n s, Figure 6

-e AtlanicSCrdaker: There* ds-sbeg ernflsnte 'ad- cre ineAtlantcakefylkpdi4, since1,!995.Fi.rgure 7 shoiw At*litici d*o r-'onds r g landings.s1'ii:

&0W increased~~~~~ sho re -qii19.

, e qiuse9 fl-ne; 'Landing Sunrne lr. fi6Oi-f-d umti: - - '

'd. f.'I wep,.q veynib,',Withpu'ii.!.

resio-

.,, Spiiishlfackr.al:Anincr.es~einSpansh-maekr 1a..nd~gs was seenw,i 99 i, widiahaile~r' p m2000 in* Sp~anishl niaaek=ral landingsae-ihin o Fi.gure6 11

,* White~perch::`W~gte perch steadiy declhnedfrin.995'1`99 with an ncrease seen"

-, .* S~eam.ii 2000. *iNgire11I Bass:A,pe inshow*s whiteperc'hilandings.

seabass landngs wjas- seen i 19k97,,'wigh .landihgs§decling*

romi.'-998 .0.01 Sea bass landings, are :showhn ,Figjre 12 oriue

"',, Aerican shad:-.-ad'gsoýf shaqinire'a-se n,,i~l.*g an mencan91ia~d de-*tin*ee bt*en.iA9and ai8fi*i"0],-iit 6 fl3aed*icts-, .2bQO MieriCani, sal;A,

[P1 rý - *hd

• Sharks:: Limtefd da-ta" w8 availabled on shatkIanidin"' howvr thete-has beeia dedcli-e in lan*ing~siice 1995 wtith slight.increas¢s betwe4en"996Lfid 1997-. Shark.,.

landfn'gs ar, Sho~wn-on Figur 1el4-S0oti: ATnumbr::ifiicreage in landings of -sotA !seeh-hr 1998, withasdclieback tO

.ppiiat 197 yel's in 19994 Fiire' deid "ptlriis ~

'n! autog:t Tautog 'adings ste.eplydeclinedi'1ro.7., Ainrees' e in1998',

.aseen with a,'d*-)li *se !ibrde1as-'d mfroff.19*99ý200.- hglaw re, again' :ef,,in,-200 -1 althouh -hottotheI"&'se'1n Jiii 1995. Trjgar--fe' leict's'~iaio g-jiandigs';

Weomkf199:,2001. Weakfish lanin gs are 'fi d1 1sh-qW f 6ffigiire 17.

A nu-rnibe-r:sof, species, showe-dcefidcicrIeased's in laadigss dufing to 1998 s the199t6 'ii "a¢.ldlis :99,$ 4es iý6 w9ker:,a (199a6): sea bassw(1997,

,,shatks (19OlNtddt)so (98 elih(97~)l -Strpe~bd-'-ba~ss lr'j, S~A ,aresioticsrasandi.ngttay 4e, erbe, e increasess dre entire time perio(-001t9ne

' ý4incluwdi:a f.itm:*h hý1E OFO BA"'P~~

wp**e*if?:e ATA, (*°196as])

(96)bueffil:ish c nilei99$b sumer tminde1 *96 1996'g~

iClnt-ol (hN C), Di*Sis ion of Fish. anc*nWdfib 'e 7TrAW*xd 'data'ffoinl* 190

'i 19 Table -9shows the DNREC data.

The survey

tjeeieierespondeDtslii*s':pen

• a aiw t*5ii. bass* diithe 19958: 7tt tuefrm s up~' b n~ m -atio avilbl rom.ZNREC Juvenile T-rawl urey sWh wd a spsXph j'veie ted d ass juvenil abundance Tin 199, Fgr

'Y9,~.

H6,wever,aspke in the 1,juvenile-weakfiAs wvas also seenin19 cotayoth he A tl a nitiscr

) 'T1997 (Figuren21 `c roa ke r a bu nd: e w a s va ri ab e a nh 2q0 ItIb, avutlanpkeas t heain s 9anle.w 2-0

( a ,sdecline.in t cne,,0n to, the baywide yand'ance daam, a decrease'inFsumere . flounder w asseen from d1995 t19as reported by.th- J-Snd Fi 0ns ,2-2).

kTherease i;iii;tibersZ~fl: , 60in str(gt bsduring the 199?d-O t5el6 frme' 'is, suppnrei 1* d. y nfd, atiopr avail able' fro iDNREC. Juvenile Trawi sur eyso ,

Whh sho~wed A " bsi~

'inthejuvenile ~striped. bass. 'pobulationi in :2000, (Figure& 9, 2W0 againý s the perceptSniffthe luppor.ing fis s( 20).The Ah-antic cro

ýAbunidanc&6' as Vniblewt a.s pike1 -An, 1999 :and at-decline ini2000 wi:th numb,es

~increasing again,,in, 2'00 I(Figur -2L), ,For flounder; baywNide abundanc data shows.s slight increase in nifmnbers from ý19,98 And 2001, although t'he nurnibet,;fin ained be low-thevle sleen~irl T994(igre22 lspporting, the coflctn onfration provid~ed'by thiesurvy re~spohd en-ts` wt39%ofhersponetP rprindtassi nm-r 1,2%

1.,of,-resphd6iits.,,reporting an increase inl numbers- -and,18,% eporting, nochange.

B lue fish , deci6rs.f 'in numbers btwteen :1i997 and '1998 alth1igt -99valueswls wfe:

'S'

.sirilar~'io.:992g96.:vaiues. A akeiiiab uidancevwas seen in 2001 (Fi6e1*3). Once'

,gain, thig data sliiports the cohflictihgj.infofiaion reported byi fespbii&lfits, -25% of whichý reported a decrease in.teiinumbers of bluefish during ithis ti e. peiiod, While.

j33 %_reported no"change in either, numbers,0orsize.

We ,co.nduqcteda *statistical analysisof the DNREC data.frpm. 1991i to 1994 to the.

195 99.7 data to dete iine. 6tiimtpaci if any, -of thet shut do.n, of the: fac4liy.

Speies eVailuated, included the represeiitative imi prtant spe-ies -s ,.idiitfiied bý PSE&G are he',focus of its impingement and entrifmnentTsampling *. hreipresentatiYe mpo~ran t (RIS) , fish- S:peci&es ae alewife, Amerlcanr ghad, Ailanti C!roaker bay anrEhovy; !blueback. herring, -spot-, sthpdd 'aassd', ;it-percf.-

wa.fis, Our

,~tatstica aiiaysi nE so.6t a'n'Y.statitticalysgiiat-ag.i id The-starisiibal naysi is cuea Attachmeiit,12.

7.0 CO4CLSION,

,7dhn"sitd

• r.7pinsps*ne6i c&ihaed.isfro the dis tfibutibm 6df,: :iefishein ii1/2siy*

tdi eiito

,vi s4, cficnit"diifo-"*ati6iit6 cbi- tooaý cnc usiont egonci t- a.

on"Pr0g6r pelither 6iEpact of 6t*eSa*y ffce*,to ishi die s Ji i t*s.sDnelaware.,sua F most of8tim

ýslpeci formwich chatngesSwere noted w(stripd bass 19weafish, floundeand AtlaiatiS oakera*l)tha.'e:m changs ordecreases)d "teady ere seen duri*ngthe.periodof` s*9t-andAtlntc coa er1idgs Asteadl s r~ ov the ser.entre imepria(1

1. 10,1 Aalys-istr"h ofbaywid&,tyr sbunedad atao Ashdwed.- sigmoficantdidIferinc ih shabaywid erks abndnc li mi vaueiof t ý,jvenl'shin o qfil -s-(1998),19e i a ain cfish 'da

... .s.. ....... from ..... 1996"o

• .own)., .. 1e9:(fclt

- edataro q,P. . e, .. ... .. n... P..... er: .... . . . . . . e s. .n . .. in I s oea ing atfulcaaiif6 dat from199I,9 (1998),,y shut

,down)~(19R shk

, (1997 ekihý-197L 0 ý~sJnl-g 1 !ý,r ,k ~ ig.tailyi'ý4 6:6id (19 7 ifd"tid- k- , Ce.a d'oe, hIfft m

,Amly data ý~~~,ghWVilsgilgtt-1ifrrc 41 6

8'.0 REVERENCES Permit Renewal Application, NJPDESIPermit No. NJ000562, Ptiblic Service.Elcctri, and' GasCo-ipany SaiemnGeneratiig, Stlation, ;March 4, 1999.

Final Report,, Coastal Finfish Assessmefft Suvey, April'- 1, 1J998&-Mairch 3K i99

Delaware Departmenf of Naturaf Resources andf Etivironrmnta[,.Control (DINRC)

Division of Fish and :Wildlif&

1. AnnualjReport, C6aStai FinfiSiýl .Assessmei-it:Survey, April , -10999 -March 31, .2000, Deawre'Deprtmnt of Natural Resources anid Envfrdnrentzif on trol DN2RRC)

~Division'of Fi~sh .andWildlife Aýnual :Reot 'CýstPfiifi'sh'Ass~essmen $iiSuvey,_B i 1., 20O-ach 3I, 20601 Delaware Department of N1atu-ral Resore and' Ehvirohmental Cnto (DRE(

DiviD~sio,-, ofs:h-dd. Wild" ife

Anial -Report, ,Coastal: FifiSh, Asessment sApril Surey, 1, 2f001 ,March 3"20'2002, Delawate epr t ntf t sources iaud EpVironeinenta, f qn

.Divii- n :f Fishand Wildlife

~ Natinal Maine FiheriesSer~ib,. DeaWr ,Ri er, a~ an'TribuayLadn I,

,7

TA BLESU

TABLE 1: FISH ,SURVEY DISTRIBUTION i2-l I 2700t1 Sen e*mails to five fithing organpiations and one pressýconitact requesti ,gssi'rat!c¢'in,:d~ist!ributionandý/or help :publSiciziig .the,,fi}i sUrvey,, 'Made phone conta *with three addifiqnal 6tganizatzio-.

I 12-11.-210U1 `Sent e--mails o.fiVe. fiehing 'oi-g-ijzatfions and ,one-press contact

.equ.esestihgiSsistance, in d:istiibutiin~anrd/orheippublif"izin'gth--fis"

,sUrVey.. Made ph6ne c6nta& Witliihee ,dditi6na1 or~ani~h6as..

172002 i Urveys'three dvidalsrecommended by Der'y .Benett*it A. rican" LýLittoral: $,o't :, TF', compite' d :survey~s, were,ýýi*rened .

1-2-1022 ~f Malled 50. copiesof thesurvey io the Delaware River Fisherm~a's-A~so-iaitcn mtor Adistrbution afftheirl-anbaty31 meeting.

2Coppy. of survey i6neuudd in DRN ne~wse~ertter "RiveRaPSi s aledmtoa

6;866 be* a.fsuppo5rters.

- D efav r River Sihad :Fisffernar.',

A ssodia"6fi ipbli~hed ,a4'6tic' aout tfi surveyi2

,newslitter. Twyefieýindividal coipies6 eregi~en"to a.club r'rewsehia6ive for' distr~ibutiony.,

2'O6L02 piR6vded 3OOcople§* df uivyeyyt",Coast siatio-n Angli-seA foy

,distribution 4atthpe Alaatic City Boat Shl*'w.

30.5.-:2c0102 ýlCopy of thoie uivwpywasplbiked ofirheDER"N bs~ite.

I "Maile1d 23 pressreslasteiO6udig~&op'is of theI:survey t6 ibndfa'6utlets arcent.* to~theestuary.

3, 026-2 ;stoy-was inc`!Ld&d 'iftlh&3,-2612O2Cedition ,oftheGidet;.Stfate Env]lirnaewsý on lHinel.

3 f26-200. A~r~ticgle abouqt the surveyo appeapedjinr the.Ph-6iladel"piIfrqq i'i4 _ e .16 artfidle ge2euerat&d nuferious .teiuegsts forl h~,qsbrvey .cl iippoximnately '*10,:

eoppýreteId sui veys Vwee. r*eturned.

73=27-2:002:' Ap:ess'!relea~se inckdiang a coIpy fthesurvey .vs nm'il0d .o~the DIeq yA\ rreRi erY .

.adi aans, Leag6e fofr distribution i6o lfh 61,r rembtr 1&roiipsý

'Fr&22 P -releases anrdcopie&sof thedsurvey were mailed to6:adiihnal.press 5Ji`-2002, Survey u yt mentioned in gtic le .ih Garn-State viroNdi 5-0t'-2002.

51 Emile press release to fishing o telling tyeilhtthas ghs was

' ~~~~available. oni DR:+eb~site.. ..

5-09-120"0. `Followup ,jc:hmtS!Witf-. news, pap~ers.

5-1A4-2002, MadeVfol*ow up calls to fishing groups.

5-202Q002" Stop -theSalem Fish-,Slalugl-ter..,Campa gn" piubhishe*daaoticeaboutiY&

su yy--D'itcusse, surme 'ahdsent coPy .with pre.s.reaseto:

.new sp~per, 7,O.1-2D.02* N'otibe aaboutssurvey: patblishedlin ,the' J~ulyissuef:',The, RTvivr.' e '

.lysl 'tir*':ofDte* Delaware Rie 'Ei herimign's, a sociatiOn;,

7-09-2002 Made follow up callsto fishingroupsiý 61a"d'idsudst~reasdns for.16,

rspoonse rate

for the .siirve.ý Mailed P6-ssrei*ease and ýcop' of sb-vey to NJ Fiýieimnian magazine..

,8-15-2002. Piess r.tiease and*sr,vfe ihehi'ded on .NJStripet.Webs§iter 9-_1':2002 'Made -f6!l6w -up,,Eaýu to ,individuials - "'do 0f-,t6Nh "sU.v'ut had-not retutrned a;mpieted'suryeyý

,1 :282 COPy of sive~ "Po.~ aiwbmiof~bith Jeýseý Bas Cbasoitbn 3-0>2003 Surveytfidilgd t 2f61,900DtRN nmembers livihi ear t*e* esh ary..

APppioximateily 2ý5 'responses rec~iivid,.

I

I

'I, I

Table ': .:,Time Fished*

I 28 , . .. ..

• 1 . .-

.,0.. 27 .. ... .. ...

.24.23>1 ..... .. 0 16 8 405 22' 21 2 -5 . . .

. .- ,:: -: . .... - . :230' --- .  :*:3

-i**

23 , 2. ........ ....

126 14- NA

a24.-: : ...... 10 . -_ .- 49 .7-.. . . i,:  : . 1.. 093:* :

.- '-, 2.S .

... .  ;,:  : .i:,:'-- - - 5 1,7 - .

22- 21 5

.1 a 29 25;- mn . ....

.3

....- 633.

4 ...

1

= "

.:2.0 ..109 _

44 3'3 61 5.

32' .f 15~

28 ......

.. A..

UMiiiini 8 - '2 J-Avera ge :J12631 .O7 NA Not Availabal&'

Tabe 3 i~shing"Mietosii Survey1 __.

-- . .....C.. .i.g ttom Sein Fi.ii.....iug

• 911 D-ifting- 'Fly i {g

....sh

'I...... A ..

1 1 . 1.. ... . ... .. ..... .1 11j I I_

17: J,...1. __ ....

19-1.... ._ 12.1:; _. _ _

2 0.. . 1. - -. . '. . . .

. 22 ,:. . " i . i . , 1 /] .: 1 . 'f ]5 : . : _...

__77 .": 1:_

_ 2 51 .3

-217~

238

>291. '11 "29'..".' -,  : - " i;' -I: " ': "i I . " -"> I. -i__-__'_..

32 .

Table 4: Preferred Catch and Actual Catch Species of fish Preferred Catch Actual Catch Alewife 1 1:

American Shad' I0 kmericanteis 3 . 9 Atlantic Croaker 13 18

• BayAnchovy 0 0 Bt1uefi*I§h 20 .,.1_9 Blueback If-lemng _ 5 -5 Drum' 1 8 Killies 2 4, Mullet [ ... 2:

Pinfish: 0 0 Porgies I 4

-Shark . ....

. . .. ,:262 13

- Slversides. '..22 ' i Spot 7 " 10 to...

.Siriped: Bass 29 26 Tautog 8 7 -

-W~~is2* ' 22 23 W/ite:Perch 9. 107

. Flounder ' '  :,: 2P1} ....... .. " .... 19/

0ter-LargeýMouh Bgass .4 3 Otlih&r-Sfiall M6outhBass 3 3 S.....Other-Carp 2 3 O~.er-Sea iBa*ss: P 9 . i .... . . . 12....: i. .

Otheir-Trout 0 0

'Other-Chain Pickeral, 0 A-0 Othiefr-Crab  : . ......... _ _ _ __ _ _ _

Other-Blowfish

' Otleief-Walleye I1 1___....___

1

- Other-Sunfish I 1F1

.Othe-rYeul6w Perch " t

... ther-Bglugill 1 .i .... .___ _"_.. ___ ____ __ .

... Oter-FfI1lfsh .. V ... V17..

O..ther-Grass Carp. . .

-Oier-'CiatPe, Sucker 1.

Othet-MiTnows I.O

.i-SheepsHeac __' ____ __ .. .... i1 J

$he'olvig L alis~fisl WDjl cMmonly found Tvi~A

'ware bls~tuaiy. PLeaA,,Iindiiatc, xpdue

'icrea~se,, dqas, or. no c zaigeuz' numbers duru1giheb.erit between 1951 ýc omparedto' eeisyar.

al0Y aýi,particular~g sjiecie.check "Not F/iAdFo"

' .. .  % `O f . -. - O f' TOWal'  % Of ' %Or

'Fish: Species'. Lotal.:

,-)-:

"Tisb

"*..(

tin'g'hdi

~s-' ..

'T--"Rsp ... ud nt* .. .. NO

s. Nocit , p o:-... :,ndc NM' . ýAt,*dspoiqritpmN *-." j " No Reso-d esoideutsnt I

. .cese l' hicrease t _Decr-ease

_, _ -tNoting.

ecrease ;C d ' Nbting.No' C ange Fished!

F6r ,N t'Eished,

'.ore' -Response ProvidingiNo

'Response A:

.lewife E .1 ' 6 :0'03 , o.~ "0'*00' '-.1. 0.003: ]*23 ';0.70 " 8:. 0!:24

-Ame anS.. .0 0.093

' ........

• 0.09 60- "3p. ... 009: 20 0.6

0. 2.

{. 'An .. gi'cafiEels .. . 2... , 0.. 06) ' *. '0.  : 0.*0"00)7: '` *7:5 ,01*5 " 2.0 *0.61.:' *6  :;018'8*

Ataontk

.. c:(roaker A 1,.

!3; 0.!:39 4..' 001.2' 4()

- 1-2 , i" 9 0.

']27, ...- 3 . : 0.09'

" _......c-h-, V*." ' "0'££ 0.00 Z 0i*8'

. .. 0...

0021*. 1,7 0 . 23, 0.70 ... 94 - ,,o;.27

,* 'I-li.fish$ -26,iI - .'6 05.18 . 07 _ ' '0.2l.Q. , 9'[ .- 0:27 '75* _ 0201': ., 4* . ... 0*102'

.'B .ackDH'r*i.- ..

• 2. 'O7 :' 40.60 *'  : 3"Q ",. 0 0:'1* 3:! 0'{-.7 09b(:'

.. !:i;1.20 ' 0.6 --"-

'*}3 ., . O.204t8

'A" ie -: .

'CItfi~ieh: ,7 "03al '7,.H .0-:0.09 97.Q .:.2' .. 0". '01 . *0'03 0. ... : 37"4 * . 0.9.

021faB, - ;i'15,:Z 1 4

. :'06}.-5. '

• 7 _:I.£'4' 01

.' *-0,2i:

• .Diufrte ": .. 0... .'0 <! 7 Z.01i09 . :5.' V '.20.' 5': .L*'4' :i7 :7'.012 ':,: 18'* ,i q0.:55. . '.6' Khullfai KiShiel{'

At'akfiish Crakr . 7h'7i. 1 " . > 11'.

0... ' 0o:39 o- .9,001 oo...

8 i0' -3 17*

12"7-'0'

• 0

-,461 ý2'

-,o 0{31 ' 7 ' 47{":: 'j. . '.06.

0.1)]2 . 23 6 {*

2!

V i Z.. `0 0iJ ,1 0.K

• i *.7 ...

-4:7

- 4j'1 .

02f

.... _02,18 ,1 White~ ~ ~ "012 ~ ~ ~ O~ ' ~P4ch 00 .1 j:21 5 >,_ 02

'.fo e n ' 0;15 '.17 '. 3 .,91 0,21' 7 0.1 ----

' 3-41 1 10.091

... .W ia fis }h * . .. . 0,, * '.0 "0i 08 - -. : . . * ; 9000.. 3*5: .  : 1:(* 'i 0", V :0- 24: .

• 7 0 731' - *4  : -8 70! i24

'Si , 1,' s '5 id - '703. .....

00." 7 00 : ... L" .. *'0 4 . 9'... .'.2

,Oh~r-j~a0B, Q,0.00, ' 04 0700i0.0 1",00.0'. 0.0 d B* '1 ' 0'5 . ..... ......6! ' ..... . . .,0180 3 >- 4',l .04o2"/  : .7 > 3 '.1. *o009 . .. . .. 1')  : .. .. - '003 Qt a~es r'T gg .s .__:i " 0,5 0.0.. 9.),9"03. . . .4 '0:12'. Z**

3:I,7I ,0 *09 . *" 1.0-'*71 Qi.0..8 ] - 10. ,'0,3*-

0.0" "0

0 r* a'.

it -Car*ig rp.~sl~ '

7

.'L0 ... 17

'0" ' '

0.0Q3,

'{i0:0' ...

.-.i  : .0.... '0.0.0'...

. 0.00(" -/.

'_ '0, ... 0003' .-0., '1:L .00:0 _. :0* 0.00:oo

' ' 17O?; 003 .. 0I' __*:0 ,j0.0  ; -7:i i0.*i00 r1 se, 7 4Ot'r-gS - -' ,:0.", 00;.09 .. 0' 0.00 1- 0-6i0.00 0.0,3 0 0.00

Table 6 For theperiodbetween 1995-1997,didyou notice a change iii the size (ength or weight) of splecfcficsh caught as cdmpared.to pres'ious years? Please indicate whether there was an inhcrease,-decrease, or no change offish weight and/or lengthfor the species.

Total  % O. I Total %Of Totall O %Of %Of Total  % Of Total %Of FishSpeies Lgt Respondets Respondents Respondents. W Respondents

. I.. Respondents Not Respondents Total No Respondents

....... s Noting Length, r Noting Weight ee Notnglexglh

.... DereaseNotigWeight h Noting No Fished Not Fished Responise Providing No Increase increasem Decrease, Decrease Change For For Rcsponse Alewife 0 0.00 0, 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.03 1 .. 003 23 0.70 8 0.24 American Shad 2 0.06 1 0.03 0 .0.00- 1 .0.03 4- 0,12 ,20 0.61 6 0.18 AmericanEels 1 0.03 1 .0.03 2 0.06 1 0,03 4 0:12 20 0.6.1 5 0.15 Atlantic Croake& 5 0.15 6 018 1 0:03 2, 0.06 I4 0.33. 12 i036, 3 0.09 BayAnchiovy, 0 0.00 0 0.00, 0 0.00 1 0.03 0 0.00 22 0.67 10 0.30 l3luerish 0 0.00 0 , 0.00 5 0:15 7 0.21 1:5 0.45 7 0.21 4 0.12 Blueback -erring 0.0 0.00 .... 0 0.00 0 O.0 ,0 0.00 0 000 0 0.00 ý33 1.00 Catfish 4 0.12 5 .0.15 0. J 0.00 1 0.03 ,5 0.15 1'6' I.

0.48 0.55 6

6 0.18 0.18 Dnnn 0 000 0 0.00, 5 0.15 6 . 18 3 0.09 Killies 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00. i 0.03 3 0.09, 22 0.67 7 0.21 Mullet 0 0.00 0 0.00, 0ý 0.00 1 0.03 1 0.03 23 0.70 8 0,24 Pinfish 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.03 0 0.00 24 0.73 8 0.24 Porgies 0 O.00 0 0.00 1 2 0.06 4 0.12 9 0.27 14, 1 0.42 6 0.18 Shark 0 0.00 0 0.00 I 3 . 0.09 6 0.18 6 0.18 15 0.45 6 0.18 Silversides 0 0.00 0 0.00 T 0 0.00 1 0.03 2 0.06 23 0.70 7 0.21 Spoi 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.03 2 0.06 6 0.18 16 0.48 9 0.27 Stiiped Bass 18. 0.55 17 0.52 3 0.09 6 0.18 6 0.18 3 0.09 ( 0.00 Tautog 0 0.00, 0 0.00 4 0.12 5 0.15 3 0.09 17 0.52 8 0.24 Weakfisli 5 0'.15 5, 0.15 12 0.36 13 0.39 5 0. 1-5 6. 0.18 3 0.09 White Perch 2 0.06 2 0.06 4* 0.12 . 3 0.09 4 0,12 14 0:42 8 0.21 Flounder 4 0.12 I 4 0.12 12 :0.36ý 14 0.42 3 0.09 8 0.24 5 0.15 Otler-Spaniih Mackeral 0o 0.00 0 0.00 0 .0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.03 Other-Large Mouth Bass 0 0.00 0 0o00o 0 0:00 0ý 0.00 '1 003 0 0.00 2 0.06 Other-Small Moudi Bass 0 0100 0 0.00, 0D 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.03 0 0.00 1 0.03 Other -TriggeirFisht 0 '0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0. 0:00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.03 Otlmer-Cap 0 0.00, 0, 0.00 0 0.00 0. 00 1 0.03 10 0.00 0 0.00 Other-Tiger Muskie 0 .0.00 0, 0.00 0. 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 .0 0.00 I 0 0.00 Other-Sea Bass 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 o 0.0 0 0.0

~Thdollo'ingi~~lit

~fsh .iiiiduiyfoud~ii~t~z De stif tary.-,, Pea~e iiidieato, fii&bg; ,i'iher iie ed ai iy iiic~se;deceas~own duhge ifrnuinb~r dui nHd periId-betwee6aJ 782001qs cam~pared bto te peiod ýbferq.19954'997i

'Teldtivýto.'tftepdnouiztfi I sjeitfsia) Woic~ii'~if fo d~aparicu specischeck'. Not Fished'Fbr" TtI

. "%Of.

... ondent* -*oa R e'dt: %Of -Total. .- %Of .... , Total

. Of t[gp0 net*Total'No' "

're~ ,.O d ntsi Fs htaS R p dente Totao '.responden![s  ; :- Respondents! Not Respoudets - esponden P6ies g qDeerease° "oNot g N n espon e r o6V ng ;6

-A',e'wife"' -: Increase'* Decrease: C-hange 'or ,For . espose.-

i 1 _ -0".: * :,i, 0.00 1' , u['

0 03* .1*: _:_ 'O.'0 " -2(4 , 0.7,3 '.7'* ] *0:*21-. '

'ArnericanWShad- k3 _ .0.03 ' 6 "0.8 . Q O9- . ,058, 7[39 47' " 12 i':~ ~

f8.0°* :O!g L," 4I;*;_

- : o..2

... Atl1ifntic'Ciroaker 'K -6.>

1 *' " :0[:48- *.. i2 i : 0..006 . ./ 3.  :

• 0:09[* 7 9] .- '0*27. .... *3- ..... 0 09*

Bh*~k-I ii 0.3.. . .0' . 4..04 ... 21 ,u0i64' :6 ]*] "0':

I A-- ci.fih -*  ; I20O

' ~t ' .!

.01 0;o6. .

iK '- i:.. -02 1o6i . '48, : .__3:. - 009'

'.5 "2 1 '0........ '

".Killie : ... ..!: 0, :0.00;. ._i' . ,0 , ,. 0.00

. 3 - 0Q09

'* ' ( 2'*3  : . 7,0-O  :- 7.......

. ,0.21:

Sp'tff 26.0 006 - 4021"0%5 .24. 0.14' i i S . - .0[  : , :0 :0: 0.

o :0.00 00 . -5 . 03 7'7 0 q2,

~W 13ekish , .2 10..489 -0:0. 21 3 0

..... S- 3,.ygi..s2 ,:  : 0..'0 03  :, .*406 _ i . 002 ... . 1 0!..:5bi2 ' .9 _. v0.458' . .. *6[ . ' 0..o 18 7 '7 Si1,i r.d s " .... 0 '0 o_ - 0 .0 ... 2 Q " 7 . . .

Tautga's1  :, -ld

0. -' !'\0.52 0.00 . . . 5' .. ': 0:,r5 0.15' " / 38 I- 0*24 :

009 . .*3; 7 - ':0*9; 30523

-" 0; l, ,o00 8 " 012

...... 'W-iteP '003, 2 0;'6. 7 021 '- 13 039 41,0.00*

- a~*ou'hdei',-

-Oh~Slia'Bas .. 4..01 ....' 0J-00-I ..... 130:9 00 , 1 0-18000 - 7 ' . 0i21 .. o3.. 0,0.....

oo 9 i:.Other-Spaiii~h*Mak*a61rJ- . 0 . _.0[00f ( .0" - ,;: 0'.06. _] 1 - 0f ] .0.00 _

-( 0,

'* 7[: *000 * ' . 1')." " 0:f .. ...

.Oithei:'-*arge M(6utiiBass., 0(: .__0!.'00' - 7: 1.. .. 0:.03 : ,1 . .0O.0Q3  : 0: 0 00*-. 0 . :.- 0.00-

'Otf.ierZSiiajIlMi

.L itufh j'ier-Tritge'Fi B ggS ' - 0 ' .0 '0.0',; 1 - ' ;0.03;i' 1..i v0.03 ' 0 " .....*000 * . . "0 .0_0,_0 4I

0. [00 0 . 0.00 '0 0:0*0 0000 '0 .

-: O tdr-.ar  : 0. - ' 0.00 " 0--  : .1020 0:03 0- -05o 0 ....

,9ierjger-M~uski. 0 ' 0:.0,- F 0', - [00_. -0 00

-0.00 -o - 0. -

Table..8 Forithe poiade ,;d weei I9820,d .te change hi iselenglrwh, c, cf ahscnpar edto the periodbewee,'1995-1997?? Pelease .idicatewhether

• 'dlere was,ahiricrease,"decrease**orjtd *Sha~ige'o~fish'weightaiid/or le,,gth for'r~he'speciei

_T'Spec.es *ies L-66th TotTl t5ehgthv.f 'Respodenltsl$

Ttal 'Ttl;Toa'-

Total: Respqndeistý

ýFisli,,Spe , . . : W¢~[ Rcspod -:,,-.:-f ts ten ...n .""tNo N*: Not:::q-*'"

Respondleits  :"a otl No Rekpotidents

. .- ng. ngli . * , ,N tng Weig t Noll NoiFis d Not Fishied ReI fteuvldi.ng POnse l)?

e.cong Ices h: ianige A e . J I - *. h cr~e a e : . .-. - --

• n cre Ase e reaa T,For ...eFore No 0 000 0 000

0 00 .. -7000

2. 006 23,

• 70*, -0.24

" b ad 7A 1 003 1 003 "2

'i0na " 006-. 20: 0 ' 6 018[ - 19 :0589 , -5, '0.15 .

A n ri Croaker n els. 10 .

-Atlitic 0030 03 -. '1 9 0027 3 ,,

'0 02 ,000 - 1 006 2,0 '. '0:06 0i0 " .. 6 6 001818' 1 290 00.27

.61 .

66 18 00.18

-B'Ac yv _-0:

000 0 i .000 A 0 000: 0 0.00. .. V 0.03.I 22 0.67' [0. 0.30

'B eish +/- . . .0.03 r , 0:03' :8 0.

0- 9' 0:27 . ... . 0.33 -. 7 ' 0.21 , 5' 0.15

.B l k-H e g - ;0 . . .. 0 .0 0 ' . i 0: ) ' 0 .0 0 , ' . 10.0 0 ' ' .0 , T0 0 . .0 L3 . . 0. 0 0

_. 0 0.0f0 0' . ' 3 . . .. '1 0

'.at~s.~ ' .. 012 ý3 . 0.090 1 .. 3~ .A1,04 ON0 .8 0.4. 10.

Z~nsm I 0.0. K .~ ' .003. 7 '4 I031' 1 " 4 020.17 .2' 702

'Killics, . :0. . '0.00' -> 0.'.O..... .... . 0.00 0.. ,.000 ':i-0:: 0 " 0.....

00 ' '...... * ]-!0.09- " 2,1s, 0.164' 9 0... .... 0.27

• Mullet , :0". .0.00: - 0 . ' 0.00 '0O .. " 0,0.00. " 0 0 .00.  ! "2. - :0.06 22. 0.6O~7* '9 .0.27

.p inr ifs ti .. . . 0, !0:0 0 - ,0" O0.

00 -" i . :. o0'lo"0

.0 * ' 000 , "i - I. -. . .0: 03 ' 2 3' ' 0.7 _0 " . 9. 1 0.27i Shark. ....

!!. .. Porgaics ' I. .. -10:03. 2, - -1 ,5003

'~ .0:03 _ ,I5 015

. .0]03! ** ' 6*1 - 0.18 . ,. -:**1

003 " 0... *2.4 ' '...1-13 6 . 039 . '

-0.48 8755003 0.

.0,21.

.. silversidcs: . *0.. 0*00* . ..0:'  ;, "0;00' "0.. ",000 __ i 0;  ; . 0.007 .2 . 0.06 o.'23:'. 0).70" .8 0.2:0 4.

- 'Sp~ar-- , * , '0"o00o o, .... 0 '."

!' ' 000 o~o L., E '0;03 '! "- U1 ' .. .. 0;03i= '6 _0 .11 -,.19. ... 0.58 , ,_ .7 02..

S" .Tatog - ... r000. 0 00034 0! . 4 .0.02 , 3 0:09., 16... 0478. 10.. 0.30.T

. Weaklis - " 4- " 012 ,4 02 13 039 14 '042:. . . 3 0.09, 6 -0'8-. L 0.8' Whitle P,--' . ' ' .0 03 "03 1 '. - 003. .0.030 " 9 027 .3 14 : 0.42 9 . 0.27.

OIiherlS'

.. fou de tnis,10M

. , . ..6>., 0",--. =.. ' o'0100, B , ' 06....

. 00

0kerial

- -0'9* ,* 000 40'27< .' , _'9'_0 OS -- ' '.

. 5:0:27, -015;- :0:.15 0 - 00 ., V

,:.." _ *0-24" .' . 015i

... _'L"-V"0 ,,,... . W-' '- .:Q -% U . .. .. " .. ....05".

"-8 ... 0,2"4..

'Othei-SLar,*l':M*'u'~~lh s'Ba' ,0' ..i j .'. :'00000..... 000 --. "0.603:...... 003'.... "

~t:is1 0

.... A00

'0.00 .B0s, ' 'I _ 0'.o '. 1 0:03':" . ' 1 0.03 '

'0 0  : .*6o22.

0'.60 ' 0;.00

OOfet-Tfii*e'Fjsh

_.- "ShaOig rk'.

. 0. ...

'0 0' ...

. ,900..000 00 -*I L:_*:0 "iC 0

, 00 0

00' 000

,: 0 _O00o00 7 0

'0 . ' , 1000R*..:-

00 000 0

0

.=-.71*; '0.00. . _: '

.0,T-8.

"5

0:

1 " .0 bo0 0-.03 0.

0 :0.3 . ' ,0o'o 0:0.0 , . -:070. . .

-3 ' 0it! 8 0o00 0

-Oslr,0-Si Bass0 00, ,t3,J 0 000 " :aO 1 '003 ' I i0Y 0 0.00 --'0 0700' 0' 0.00

TABLE 9 DNREC Juvenile Trawl Data 1991-2001 Year Striped Bass Weakfish Atlantic Croaker Summer Flounder Bluefish 1991 0.32 . 31 9-722 0.29 ""

1992 A019 . 34.13 78.12 01.8 01061, A993 0.72 37-1 T 14.72 0.63 0.06 01994 1.1 53 2 0.30.1 199505 01.57 4 9.25 . 53.54 0.65,: 0.1O 1-96 .. 276 .57.29 .73-.83 .2 0.971

!997. 0" 63.3 .'30.38 0.23 , 0.19 4998 . .95 0,42 63.45 0.21 0.08

99. 0.58. . 33.8 .7 0.21 0.11 20 .0 5.63. 45.66, 19.5 :0.3 0-.

2001.*

• 425.621 70.22 0.35*2.62.4

• i* PorPg.d in Mean Catch',Per fot.

All dat

FIGURES ij Fl Ii.

[

Ii LU FIGURE 1 CEA No. 01067

• i'lA ENVIRONMENTAL

'CARPENTER,:.

ASSOCIATES. Inc. Areas Fished Date: 11/1W703 Cc CEA ENG.INEERS. P.C. Scale: As Shown (1: 1,250,000)

-- - - --- -~ - -

Figure 2 Delaware ýBay, River and Tributary Landings, 1995-2001 Alewife.

9000 8000 7000, 6000:

[ Alewife.

-0 5000 Cr, 0

IL 9 4000o 3000 10o0 01 2002

Figure 3.

D1elaware- Bay, River and. Tributary Landings, 1995-2001 Str'iDed Bass

,200000n

.180000 1400001---_____ ___

1200004 _ _ _

10000 .. , - -- Striped Bass 60000, 40000 20000 .

1.994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 200,0 2001 2002, Years

'Figure 4 Delaware Bay, Riverand Tributaty Landings, 1995-2001:

160000I 1420000 - __ __ _ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _

100000 en 0440 20000 199419g5 1996 199719& 99 0020120

'Years

Figure 5 Delaware Bay, River and Tributary Landings, 1995-2001 Car 500o0o ---

45000.,

4000D 350.00i 30000 0, 25000'.-'

d, .. .- Carp 0

1000092

• 1000 - ,

"199.4 1

• 995: " 1;996 1997- 1998: " 1999i ,2000' 2001 - 2002 Years

Figure 6 Delaware tBay,:River and Tributary Lan dings,, .1995-2001 16000 14000 7_,____.. .

12000.'___

10000 . ...

(/)

70 o 8000-

'o - Catfish 46000 2000-0-9o, *1999 -

199,4. 1995 1,996, 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Years

Figure 7 Delaware Bay, River and Tributary Landings, 1995-2001 Atlantic Croaker

18000 -- ___-_...._____... - _-__--___,____"___-_-___

12000

-o10000

0 Atlantic o 8000 Croaker 4000 20001 .. ,.... , 190

.11i994, 1995 "1996 1997* 1998: 1999 2000, 200.1 :2002 Years

- - -~ - - - ~- ~- -~ - - -

Figure 8 Delaware Bay, River and TribUtary Landings, 1995-2001 25000-2ý0000 --- _____________

"0 1'-2 ,0r *-+

0 :o6 - D ru m 5000______

0 1,994 1995 19196 1997 1,998 1999 :2000 ,2001 2002 Years;

Figure 9 Delaware Bay, River and Tributary Landings, 1995-2001 American Eels 300000 2500W0 20QOYO00 C'-

150000.

--- American Eels 1O00000a-50000; -

1o94 1994 1,995 1998 1997 1998. 1999 2000, 2001 2002 Years

Figure 0, De-aware Bayl, Ri~ver and :Tributary Landings,1995-2001 Summet* Flouder,

,500,09 -

4000 5000 1.994 1;995 119956 1997 1 .998. 1999 .2000 2001 .2002.

Years,

Figure ii

,Dela'-warIte Bay,.,Ri~ve~r 'a'ndri utry Ladqings 14520 SA 1Makeral K-'ýpanish 160 140 120 80 4-0 Majckeral

40i

'20 "o

'19 .1:996 19'I qRT;~19920b .200 1: .2002.

-~ -

Figure -12, Delaware Bay, River and Tributary Landings, 1995-2001 White Perch 1:40000 120000; 1010000

• 0*

80000.

SWhite Perch 60600 40000 -

20000 It994 1995 1996, 1,99,7 998 :19099 200 2001r 2002

Figure,'13 Delaware Bay, River and Tributafy Landings, 1995-2001 Sea Bass 5000, 4000 -

Oý 300

-. Sea Bass.

20006-1000--.

995 1*996 1997 1'998 1999:- 2000 -20i. .2002 Years

Americn ha

'2'5 0OO~

2'00000 Shadl 150000,

,,1 9-2-02 1995. 1*96 !997 1998[ 9*9 g00 2001T Y6ear4s

Figure .15 Delaware Bay, River and Tributary Landings, 1995-2001 znarKS

.25000 -ir~

20000 1,0 0 0 -.-- ~-Sharks 5000 100 2001- 200 1:994- 1995 1996. 1997 1998 .1999 "2000 .200! -2002 Years

Figure, 16 Delaware Bay, RiVer andTrributary Landings, 1995-2001 1-4000'0 12b0000 10,0000

ý0000-6 40000 1:994 19,95, 1996" 1997' 1 9q8 192002001 2002, Years

Figure: 17 Delaware Bay, River and Tributary Landings, *1995-2001

u. 400 0

a-4*

Tautog

~e300 1994 1i995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 .2001 ,2002 Years

Figure: 18 DelawareBay, River and Tributary Landings, 1995.2001 70000,0

.600000.

500000 400000

'0

ýo

---

Weakfish 300000 200000 100000 1994 1995- 11996. 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Years

- - - -" - - r-~ ~ - - -~ a Figure 19 DNIREC Jutvenile Trawl Data 1991-2002 Striped Bass

-S~triped.Ba-ss.

4-0 0,

3,.

AT "1,i99,0 t992 1994 1996, 1998 2000 2002 Year

Figure 20 DNRIC Juvenile Trawl Data 199-2002-Weakfish 70

, sh*

.... ;*Weaki

• b***'

60 50.

0 LL a'. 40.

20

• -=---- *.F ......... ......

0:

1990 1992 1994 1996. 1998, '2000 2002 Year,

Figure 21 DNREC Juvenile Trawl Data. 1991-2002 Ailantic Croaker

'90

--- Atlantic Croaker 70 __ __

60 __ " *

"0 0

(D 50 40 20 10' 20 1990 1992 1994, 1996 .'1998 2000 2002

'Year

Figure 22 DNREC Juvedile Trawl Data 1991-2002 Sumler .Flounder Summer Flounder 0.9, -

0.8 o: 0570.6' -- -- .. .. . . ______-- _...

04 0.5.1 9 1 199. 9 . . 2000...

.0 ":

1990- 1992 1.994 1996 :1998 2000 2002 Year

Figure, 23 DNREC Juveniil :Trawl Data;1991-2002, BluefiSl Bluefish

ý0.45 - __

0.4 0,

0-

-01 1,990 199,99 996: 1998ý 2000 2002 Year

ATTACHMENT 1 Fish Abundance -Surveyfor the Delaware Estuary The- results of t~his ýsur'eyý will bkekpt tcohjfidential, 6nly shared with individ'uis outside the Delaw:re.

Mverkeepei-r Netsiork iri siiminiarized. fforni,. unless spe6ifilwtqtten peifi-ission is obtained.

Anglers N.A.me:

Address:

Phone &/or Email: +,

I J'haye been fishing the De-1 a - Egthlary (Delaware-River so-s~uth ofRi. Ji95,; DlawareB*ay and all týi~buftarli's) s*j* (g]re.a4pproj*imate,)+ __

-2; Pam a:, (circle onae) C'6Pim-c'M6jAl:fishdtmnn Recre~tiofia'l Kfise-rm-an; I-. How,freqqetjdh0, y- yoi<h E  ? dper.year)y Ay

4. W*heft+. .. in

+.Ti qthe.,+Ettubydo

.'M

+: 4....

- .yjod , flsh7 14,. 4 , ,(ineai

.: ýwlý.

++-W'a

ý_what towi ,".tnI o rr+andmar+)

lak)

Wat-Sp'"ies of fish do yo, gsener aly s'eke 5, wif3E Catfish; L sbotý AmericanwShad, aI Drum, $ti~pedd Bass, El

.AIAi tidafi EeIs LI Kili]es Taiit~dg VWe~kfi1sh, PAh " y'j, "k h

'El White p~erch kBlke sea:i bass ap ss'ies Winm"t er 6.f 8 Mn mnq f fI'bu~n der Bluefish h ,,apes"L ne(fincluding ~Sam -Othe+/-.('Plý§s specif')______

]Blueback!4efing'E :Silvericies,

.6hspedi&jf fish dOolgdeiy cach including incidental catchispeis (Pase chek LI Alev'Jif&, fiD atfs LI Amefic4 Shad j1 +' L S Stiped ag i .Ameriban.Eels, 'Taiftog El LI Alt~h~id C'r6~ker ~W6Akfi §h, lip Bay Anchovy LI TI, LI .Biack:sea bass. LI. VWiiter,&ofufuIemmf flo.4 06r Bli~ ~ft~h&(inIcliiding[" snap~ers~) LI. :Shark:

LI Bltieback Herring LI

7. What ,tarethe

-methods of fishng yi hndrlli-y+us6ýe?

Chum-mig Cas, LI Drifting Eels S Casting* JI :OLrng metho0ds.

OI Bottom Fishing El Dredging oi Seining D Other (Please specify)

8. Would you be wvilling to share any log books or notebooks that document your catch by species, measured or estimated size, and time and location of your catches, with the Delaware Riverkeeper Network?. (circle one) Yes No Don't have any 'logbooks

9. The following is a list. of fish commonly found in the Delaware Estuary. Please indicate, if'possible, whether you experienced- an increase, decrease, or no change in numbers during the period between 1995-1997 as compared to previous, years. (Relative to the amount of time:spent fishing) If you did not fish for. a particular species check "Not Fished For".

FishLSpecies h1crease Decrease No Change Not Fished For Alewife nI E0, 0L LI American Shad. L.0

[n LI, LI American Eels LI Ul Atlantic: Croaker LI LI Bay Andciovy:

Bluefish (including -"sriappers")ý LI LI Blueback herring LI LI Catfish, LI LI 7 Drum LI LI Killies LI LI tl~ I0 LI Mullet LI LI Pinfish LI LI I. LI F1 LI Porg'ies LI LI [i[]

Shark Li. LI LI Silvetsides i LI

] LI D Spot j LI LI LI Striped, Bass, ] LI LI LI Tautog ] LI 0LI LI7 Weakfish ] LI White perch' LI LI Winter or Summer flounder nI LI 0 Other (please specify) other '(peasespIify0 LI

10. For the period between 1995-1997, did you notice a change in the size (length or weight) of specific fish caught as compared to previous years? Please indicate whether there was.an increase, decrease, or no change of fish weight and/or length for the species.

Increase Decrease Fish Species Lengtl Weijobt Length Weight No Not Change Fished Alewife L[ Li IT Li American'Shad -u [] 0 0.

American Eels L i Li 01 Eili Atlantic Croaker O ' L L O H Bay Anchovy w 0 LO H Bluefish, n, 1 0 L []

E)

(including "snappers")

Catfish Li 0ýi Li 01 Li Drum o ET 0 Killies Li Li O 0 O, L f Mullet 0 'l nI D: I] _

Pirnfish F1 L0 O: [0 El O, Porgies 0 0 0 El 7 0 Shark o 1, .0 L, 0 El

[ Silversides Spot,

,0 oi H Li H

oi Li 0i 0

Li H

L Stri 'ed Bass [] 0 00 0 0 Tautog- Li 0. i Li 0 L Weakfish 13 1_1 [] FlLi WXbiteperch H i 0i o L Li Winter or Li 0 nL Li Li Li Summer

flournder Summer Li Li '0 Di Li flounder Other (please. L Li Li '0' Li Li specify) iother (please L R L n.

L specify),

11. If yournoticed changes in fish numbers or size, what seasons did you notice these changes (1995-1997)?

12.. If you noticed changes, fish numbers or size, were these changes seen throughout the area fished?

Yes No, If No, where were these changes noted?

13. The following is a list of fish commonly found in the Delaware Estuary. Please indicate, if possible, whether you' experienced an increase, decrease, or no Thange in numbers, during the period between 1q98-2001 as compared to the peri04 between 1995-11997. (Relative to the amount of time spent fishing),If you did not fish for a particular specieS check "Not Fisljed For".

Fish. Species Increase Decrease ElCane NOt FiShed For Alewife El El] 2 [i-fl American Shad El, []

American Eels El El El Atlantic Croaker in El Bay Anchovy Bluefish (including 'snappers") 07 El El [in*:

0 Blueback herring El El El Catfish El Fl El Drum El El Killies ] El Mullet El C3

• 0 El Pinfish El Q

El Porgies El iCn El El Shark in WO Silversides El El El El Spot El El El1 El-El Striped Bass b[

Tautog. El W:eakfish.

El White perch Winter or Summer flounder El Other (please specify)

Other (please specify)

.-El El

14. For the period of 1998-2001, did you notice a change in the size (length or weight) of specific fish Caught as compared to the period between 1995-1997? Please indicate whether therewas an increase, decrease, or no change of fish weight and/or length for the species.

Increase Decrease Fish Species Length Weight Ljteigoht No Not Chiange Fished Alewife LI L LI F1 LI LI American Shad 1) EI LI UI

'I LI American Eels DI LI LI LI []

Atlantic, Croaker LIE LI EI LI LI I Bay Anchovy I LI LI L DL Bluefish LI L .. LLI, (including-

"snappers")

catfish LI L L L L L Drun LI LO LI LI L: L Killies L L L LI L LI Mullet El FTL LI LI LI Pinfish' .I LI LI LI L LI Porgies LI [] LI LI I OI Shark LI LI LI ,. LI Silversides L LI LI E .L Spot LI D. 2 .IL0 El Striped Bass LI LI LI L . LI Tautog. LI LI L L L L Weakflsh LI LI LI LI L LI White perch LI LI LI L L Winter or LI LI L' LI LI LI

Summer, flounder Summer LI LI L 0LI LI flounder Other (please.= L LI LI LI LI LI specify)

Other (pleage LI EI L LI LI LI specify) 15.. If you noticed changes~in fish- numbers or size, what seasons did you notice these changes (1998-2001)?

16. If you iOticed changes, fish.numbersorsize, were ,these changesseen throghoUtthe 'area, fished?

Yes No If. No, where were these *changesnoted?_

17. Other than.actual. fish catch, during the period 1995 to 1997 did younotice any change int h6 quantityYor size of fish in 'the Delaware Estuary? If yes, ýplease describe.,these changes including, species, location and season.

18. What other changes,,jifany, have younoticedin theEstay since 1995?

t19., Other, cornmenits?

Please return formto:

Delaware Riverkeeper Net workP.O. IBox 326, Washin gton Crossing, PA 18977 Or fax it to us at 215-369-1181-

ATTACHMENT 2 a~ae Anal'ysiý;6of NrRE -Peilw Datatletdfom-eDlwr 01067, Copay Jisqn ptert~~a catOh perbfoot 991194-and duig~epen;d.vhn ts-pW~ ln'wahot'operatig<19 97

qaiange'tincnqumbers

• nf, .Diectioný o,.' 'v a&N",~ ih'eo .Av-,-e-Igsh o f dudino Thrbaieo.-o, ohj

~hepribod the ýlbhL W5ý off.

Bay, ancho~q," 'No, Weakfish

,AtIanli~cra No White Perch N6, spot ,No" "Stripedi Bass Alevvjife, Arnerican shad B0lueblack' herringoi

• Compari ,son: Our- s~tatis~tical, oiy!gs,(mparedt~hei,'average. num-ber of fish ýcaught ýper unitfoq

-forthe period 1 991'through1i 99'4_,_,he .sarneý"daj a"fr th &p~,eriod from 1995 through 1997:.,

The Mann-Whitney'l)'~~w sinfcn thfrr~s~tV6,fe',r ean,--

-of these two grou -,6f data`. '~~ATT'be c W~~qe to co6rnpIetb th-e'stitcatsn DNRECb'ju bf T, ý4D ta ,1990-2001': 1Il30

,:!,0/,*3/013::

Statistical Analysis of Fish Abundance 1991-1994 and 1995-1997 (Facility Not Operating),

KRUSKAL-WALLIS ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR 7 CASES DEPENDENT VARIABLE IS BANCHOVY GROUPING VARIABLE IS GROUPS GROUP COUNT RANK SUM orerest 4 12.000 p1antoff 3 16.000 MANN-WHI'TNEY 'U TEST STATISTIC. .20b.000T PROBA3ILITY TS T 0.,15*7 2.00o0 *4TH 1 OF CR1SQUREAPPROXIMATION ERUSKAL-WAktI;S ONEý7WAY-ANALYISJS OF VARIANCE FOR 7 CASES DEPE'NDENX VARIABLE IS WEAKF~ISH GROUPING VARIABLE' IS dROUP$'

GROUP COUNT RANK STJ731, o rere s.t 4 11.000 pl.ntoff 3 17.000' MANN-;WHITNEY U TEST STATISTIC = 1.000, PROBABILITEY PIS! 0.077 CHI-SQUARE APPROXIMATION= 3.;125 WITH I DF KRUSKAL.-WALLIS QNE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE .FOR 7 CASES DEPENDENT VARIABLE. IS ACROAXER GROUP ING. VARI ABLE *IS. GROUP$,

GROUP CiOUNT RAN&K SUM prerest 4 135.000

-olantoff 15 .oo6 MANN-.WHITiNEY :U, TEST. STATISTIC 3 .000 PROBABi II4TýY 028 CHI-SQUARE AýPPROXIMIATION 1.1125' WITH I. DF

KRUSKAL-WALLIS ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF -VARIANCE FOR 7 CASES, DEPENDENT VARIABLE IS' WPERCH GROUPING VARIABLE IS 'GROUP$

GROUP: COUNT ýRANK SUM preres t 4 14,.000ý plantof f 3' 14".000 MANN-WHIkTNEY, U TEST STATISTIC= 4..000 PROBABILITY "IS, 0,.480 1 DF RCHI-SSQUAIRE APPROXIMATIONAS 5o00 WITH, KRUSKAL-WALLTS ONE-WAY ANALYSIS. OF 'VARIANCE ý,FOR 7, cASES DEEDN ARIAB,.LEý IS SPOT GRýOUJPING VA'RIABLE IS' GROUP$,

GROUP ,COUNT RANK ,SUM prerest 4 21,. 0oo plarntopf f 3 7. 000 ANN-WH.ITNEY U TEST STATISTIC = 11.00 0 PROBABILITV 0.-'077 0IS*

CHI-SQUARE, PPROXIMATION = 3. 125, WITH' 1 DF

.. U...... ONE-WAY A:NALYSIS- OF VARIANCE FOR I7 CASES DEPENDENT VARIABLEIS STRIBASS GROUPING VARTIABLE IS: GROUPS GROUP COUNT RANK SUM p represt 4 14..000' pl:anitoff 3 1'4~. O00o MANN-'VHITNEY' U TEST STATISTIC 4.000 PROBABILITY. IS 0. 480 CHI- SQUARE APPROXIMATION = 0.500 W4ITH 1 DF

KRUSKAL-WALLIS ONE-WAY AINA-LYSIS OF VARIP-1CE ;FOR 7 CASES DEPENDENT VARIABLE IS ALEWIFE GROUPING VARIABLE IS. GROUP$

GROUP COUNT RANK SU3T.

prerest 4 15.000 plantoff 3' 13. 00:0 MANN--WHITNEY U TEST STATISTIC 5 . 000 PROBABILITY IS 0.724 0.1-25 WITH 1- DF

.CHI1SQUARE APPROXIMATION KRUSkAL-WALLIS ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -FOR 7 CASES DEPENDENT VARIABLE IS ASHAD

,GROUPING VARIABLE, IS GROUP$

GROUP COUNT' RANKoSUM 4, 20'. O0 00 ii 6ffI eet

3. 8.0,00 MANN.-WHITNEY ýUýTEST STATISTIC = 1&0 000 PROBABILIY -*'S. 0' .157 CH-I-'SQUARE ,APPROXIMATION,= 2.,000; WITHý 1 DF KRUSKA*L-WALLIS ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: FOR 7 CASES

,DEPENDENT VARIABLE IS. ASILVER GROUPING VARIABLE IS GROUPS GROUP, COUNT RANK SUM prerest 4 17.000 p,lantoff 3 11.000 VMANN-WHITNEY U TEST STATISTIC 7Qi

. 5 0 PROBABILITY IS 0.724 CHI-SQUARE APPROXIMATION 1 DF KRUSKAL-WALLIS* ONE,-:WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR, 7 CASES.

DEPENDENT VARIABLE IS BHERRING

.GROUPING VARIABLE I.S GROUP$

GROUP COUNT RANK EsN prerest, 4 14.,,00060 plantbff 3 14.. 000 MANN-WHITNEY U TEST STATISTIC 4.00.0 PROBABILITY IS 0,E4,8I0 CH-I -SQUARE APPROXIMATION= 0-500' WITH- 1 DF

TABLE 74: DNREC Juvenile Ti-ib- Data 1991-2001 Year' BayAnciiovy Weakfish Atlantic Croaker WVhitc Perch Spot Striped Bass Alewife American Shad 'Atlatnic Silverside BJteback tierring

.1991. :233.66 .1 9,.72 "3.17 8.39. 0.32 - 0.18 . 0.12 0.044 0 1992 120.,16- 34.13 .78.12 6.64 0.82 0.19- 0.034 0.05

ý 0.05 0.013 1993. 94.24ý 37.17 14.72 3.73 9.15 01727 0U079 0,063 2.57 0.0084 1994: 70-.85. 53 20.3 12.55 34.14 1.A 0.155 0.042 0.76 0.054 1,995 246.86 49.25 .53.54 4.92 0.26 -0.57 0. 17 0 0.11 0.01 1,99,6 158.ý65 57.29 73.83 10.55ý 0.16 '2:76 0.1i3 0:06 1.67 0.02 1997'- -145,.23 63.13 30.38 9.28 7.65 0-.64 0,11 0602- 0.01 0.03

'1998 14.,53 30.42 63.45 3.47 0;5 . 0.95 0.02 0'0042 040.041 1,999, 103.2. 33.8 71" 6.6. " 1,38 .0.A58 1 00.09 0.03 0.11 0.04

'2000. 11i794 45:66 - 19115 5.23 5.63 0.06 00.01

,1.9 .0;61 0.01 2001` . 128.39. 2-5.62 70.22 . 3.9 0.2 4374 .*01 0 0.18 0.03 All data iS reportcd inx Mean Cellch per foot,