ML14168A475
| ML14168A475 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: |  |
| Issue date: | 06/13/2014 |
| From: | Mattson M Normandeau Associates |
| To: | Bullard J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, US Dept of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service |
| Briana Grange 301-415-1042 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML14168A475 (67) | |
Text
30 International Drive, Suite 6, Pease International Tradeport Portsmouth, NH 03801 Tel (603) 319-5300 Fax (603) 334-6397 www.normandeau.com Bedford, NH (Corporate)
North Haven, CT Falmouth, MA Haverstraw, NY Stowe, PA Stevenson, WA Lewes, DE Gainesville, FL Falmouth, ME Hampton, NH Portsmouth, NH Westmoreland, NH Oswego, NY Drumore, PA Aiken, SC Moncks Corner, SC Vancouver, WA E. Wenatchee, WA An Employee-Owned Company An Equal Opportunity Employer 13 June 2014 Mr. John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator National Marine Fisheries Service 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930-2276 Re: Proposed Monitoring Plan for Indian Point Energy Center Take of Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeons by Impingement at Cooling Water Intakes Revision 2
Dear Mr. Bullard:
Please find enclosed one printed copy and one CD copy of the revised (Revision 2) Monitoring Plan that was prepared on behalf of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC) by Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau) and ASA Analysis and Communications, Inc.
(ASA) to address Reasonable and Prudent Measure (RPM) #1 as specified in Terms and Conditions (T&C) #1 of the Final Biological Opinion for Continued Operation of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 dated 30 January 2013, and your subsequent comments in letters to Ms. Dara Gray of IPEC dated 23 October 2013, 4 March 2014, and 1 May 2014.
A copy of this letter and the Revision 2 Monitoring Plan were also sent by email to the members of your staff and others identified in the attached distribution list. We look forward to discussing the proposed Revision 2 monitoring plan and answering any remaining questions that you or your staff may have in a meeting at your office on 1 July 2014. Please contact Ms. Dara Gray of IPEC at the address shown below if you have further questions.
Sincerely, NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
Mark T. Mattson, Ph.D.
Vice President
2 Email or CD Distribution List 13 June 2014 (those with mailing addresses will also receive printed copy):
Proposed Monitoring Plan for Indian Point Energy Center Take of Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeons by Impingement at Cooling Water Intakes Revision 2 13 June 2014.
Ms. Mary A. Colligan Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources National Marine Fisheries Service Protected Resources Division, NMFS/NERO 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 10930-2276 Ms. Julie Crocker Julie.Crocker@NOAA.gov National Marine Fisheries Service Protected Resources Division, NMFS/NERO 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930-2276 Donald Dow (NMFS)
Donald.dow@noaa.gov Ms. Julie Williams Julie.williams@noaa.gov Mr. Chuck Nieder wcnieder@gw.dec.state.ny.us Steam Electric Unit Leader New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4756 Briana Grange (NRC)
Briana.Grange@nrc.gov Mr. Dennis Logan (NRC)
Dennis.Logan@NRC.gov Michelle Moser (NRC)
Michelle.Moser@nrc.gov Mr. Fred Dacimo (IPEC) fdacimo@entergy.com Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, Suite 1 Buchanan, NY 10511
3 Email or CD Distribution List 13 June 2014 (continued)
Ms. Dara Gray (IPEC) dgray@entergy.com Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, Suite 1 Buchanan, NY 10511 Dr. Larry Barnthouse (LWB Environmental)
Barnthouse@lwb-env.com Dr. Douglas Heimbuch (AKRF)
DHeimbuch@AKRF.com Dr. John Young (ASA) jyoung@asaac.com Mr. Mark Klein (Hudson Engineers) mklein@sthe.com Dr. Mark Mattson (Normandeau) mmattson@normandeau.com Normandeau Associates, Inc.
30 International Drive, Suite #6 Portsmouth, NH 03801
~
NORMANDEAU environmental consultants Proposed Monitoring Plan for Indian Point Energy Center Take of Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon by Impingement at Cooling Water Intakes Revision 2 Presented to:
Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, Suite 1 Buchanan, NY 10511 Submitted:
13 June 2014 Submitted by:
Normandeau Associates, Inc.
25 Nashua Road Bedford, NH 03110 and ASA Analysis and Communication, Inc.
921 Pike Street, P.O. Box 303 Lemont, PA 16851 www. normandeau.com
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Table of Contents Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION
.**************************************************.****.*********************** 1 1.1 REGULATORY CONTEXT................*.................................................... 1
1.2 DESCRIPTION
OF IPEC AND OPERATIONS RELEVANT TO THE PROPOSED MONITORING PLAN.. 1 1.2.1 Cooling Water Intake Structures............................................. 1 1.2.2 Cooling Water Flow Management............................................ 3 1.2.3 Optimized Ristroph-Type Traveling Water Screens........................ 3 2.0 PROGRAM COMPONENTS ***********.************.******************************************* 5 2.1 TRASH RACK STUDIES.................*.................................................... 5 2.1.1 Access to IP2 and IP3 Trash Racks........................................... 5 2.1.2 Trash Rack Studies at IP2 and IP3............................................ 6 2.1.3 Trash Rack Studies at IP1..................................................... 7 2.1.4 Trash Rack Studies Implementation Schedule, Modifications, and Permits.......................................................................... 7 2.2 FOREBAY STUDIES.......................................................................... 7 2.2.1 Access to the Forebays at IP2 and IP3....................................... 7 2.2.2 Forebay Studies at IP2 and IP3............................................... 8 2.2.3 Forebay Monitoring Implementation Schedule, Modifications, and Permits..................................................................... 8 2.3 APPROVED MONITORING PROGRAM AT THE RISTROPH TRAVELING SCREENS.................. 9 2.3.1 Traveling Screen Sluice Sampling............................................ 9 2.3.2 Traveling Screen Monitoring Implementation Schedule, Modifications, and Permitting............................................... 10 2.4 FISH HANDLING PROCEDURES..........*................................................... 11 2.4.1 Live Sturgeon.................................................................. 11 2.4.2 Dead Sturgeon................................................................. 12 2.4. 3 Genetic Samples...........*.*................................................. 13 2.5 ANCILLARY DATA.......................................................................... 13 2.5.1 Temperature...............*................................................... 13 2.5.2 Water Velocity................................................................. 13 2.5.3 Plant Operating Data.....*................................................... 15 2.5.4 Ancillary Data Collection Implementation Schedule, Monitoring, and Permits................*................................................... 15 2.6 REPORTING................................................................................ 16 2.6.1 Take Notification.............................................................. 16 2.6.2 Annual Report.................................................................. 16 2.6.3 Genetic Samples............................................................... 16 2.6.4 Dead Sturgeon or Sturgeon Parts............................................ 16
- 2. 7 TRAINING OF FIELD BIOLOGISTS........................................................... 17 2.8 QA/QC PROCEDURES..................................................................... 17 3.0 LITERATURE CITED *******************************..***************************************** 18 IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/13/ 14 ii Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 ATTACHMENTS : : : :
Unit 1 Trash Racks Schedule for Monitoring Plan Implementation Traveling Screen Sluice Sampling and Data Analysis Plan CFD Analysis of Forebay and Approach Velocities IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 iii Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR /PEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-2.
Figure 1-3.
Figure 1-4.
Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-2.
Figure 2-3.
Figure 2-4.
Figure 2-5.
Figure 2-6.
Figure 2-7.
Figure 2-8.
Figure 2-9.
Figure 2-10.
Figure 2-11.
Figure 2-12.
Figure 2-13.
Figure 2-14.
List of Figures Page Indian Point Unit 2 (IP2) cooling water intake structure-plan view......... 21 Indian Point Unit 2 (IP2) cooling water intake structure-sectional view...................................................................................... 22 Indian Point Unit 3 (IP3) cooling water intake structure-plan view......... 23 Indian Point Unit 3 (IP3) cooling water intake structure - sectional view...................................................................................... 24 Deck-level access to trash racks at the outer (western) side of the IP2 cooling water intake structure....................................................... 25 Example of a sluice sampling net and frame (without delta mesh liner)..................................................................................... 26 IP2 Ristroph screen fish sluice (right) and debris sluice (left) return system shown under yellow deck grating looking north from the north end of the IP2 intake bulkhead...................................................... 27 IP3 Ristroph screen fish sluice (top) and debris sluice (bottom) return system shown looking north from the south end of the IP3 intake bulkhead................................................................................ 28 IP1 sluice system located under deck plates outside the screen house where sluice sampling would occur when the plates are removed............ 29 Example of two 150-gallon sturgeon holding tanks............................... 29 Incident report form for incidental take of Atlantic Sturgeon or Shortnose sturgeon by impingement at the IPEC cooling water intakes...... 30 Summary form for environmental data associated with incidental take of Atlantic Sturgeon or Shortnose sturgeon........................................ 32 Instructions for collecting, certifying, identifying, and shipping sturgeon tissue samples............................................................... 33 Certification of species, sample identification, and chain of custody form...................................................................................... 34 Summary form for sturgeon genetic tissue samples.............................. 35 Guidelines and form for air shipment of "excepted quantities" of ethanol solutions....................................................................... 36 Sturgeon salvage form................................................................ 38 10% AOQL continuous sampling plan CSP-1 for quality control inspections.............................................................................. 40 IPEC_Sturgeon __ Monitoring _ _plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 iv Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 1.0 Introduction
- 1. 1 Regulatory Context On 30 January, 2013, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a final Biological Opinion (Opinion) and Incidental Take Statement (ITS) authorizing takes of Atlantic and Shortnose sturgeon during the continued operation of the Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC) pursuant to existing operating licenses and proposed renewed operating licenses to be issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In the Opinion, NMFS addressed Shortnose Sturgeon and the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment (DPS),
the New York Bight DPS, and the Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic Sturgeon.
Among other things, the Opinion requires that "Entergy must develop a proposed, draft monitoring plan designed to document all Atlantic and Shortnose sturgeon impinged at IP1, IP2 and IP3 (trash racks and intake screens) while these facilities are operating under their existing operating licenses and the proposed renewed operating licenses." The Opinion also contains Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) and Terms and Conditions (T&C) that are to be "developed in coordination with the action agency and applicant, if any, to ensure that the measures are reasonable" (USFWS & NMFS, 1998). This monitoring plan constitutes Entergy's draft monitoring plan, revised to reflect ongoing consultation with NMFS, under the Opinion.
1.2 Description of IPEC and Operations Relevant to the Proposed Monitoring Plan Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) currently operates two NRC-licensed pressurized water reactors and associated generating units at Unit 2 and Unit 3 (IP2 and IP3; collectively, IPEC). These units condense the steam exiting the turbines by transferring heat to water withdrawn from the Hudson River, which is then discharged back to the river.
Maximum cooling water flow is 840,000 gallons per minute (gpm) at each unit (Enercon 2010).
Both IP2 and IP3 also use once-through systems to manage auxiliary heating loads, referred to as service water systems. These service water systems at IP2 and IP3 are significantly smaller than the cooling water systems, with maximum (design) service water flow of 30,000 gpm at IP2 and 36,000 gpm at IP3 (Enercon 2010), although service water flows are typically 15,000 gpm or less for each unit. The cooling water system for Unit 1 IP1 was originally designed to provide 280,000 gpm before the generating unit was retired in November 1974. The cooling water pumps at the IP1 intake were removed in the 1990s, but the IP1 service water system is still operational and provides up to 19,000 gpm of screen wash water and supplemental service water for IP2 when needed.
- 1. 2. 1 Cooling Water Intake Structures Cooling water for IP2 and IP3 is obtained through their respective cooling water intake structures (CWISs), located approximately 700 feet apart along the eastern shoreline of the Hudson River at approximately Hudson River mile 41.8 (41.8 miles upstream from the IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 southern end of Battery Park in lower Manhattan, New York City). The CWISs are located within IPEC's federally mandated Safety and Security Zone (S&SZ).
The IP2 intake structure is located north of the IP1 intake and contains seven bays or channels which are separated by 3-foot thick concrete walls (Figure 1-1). Each intake bay at IP2 is equipped with a debris wall at the outer (western) side that extends to a depth of -1 foot at mean sea level (MSL). A vertical bar rack, or trash rack, with 3-inch open spaces between bars, is also located at the outer (western or upstream) side of the IP2 intake bay to prevent large pieces of debris from entering the structure. The trash racks extend the full height of each IP2 intake bay opening (-27 feet to -1 foot MSL) (Figure 1-2). One optimized traveling screen is located at the inner (eastern or downstream) side of each IP2 intake bay.
The chamber between the outer trash rack and the inner traveling screen is referred to as the forebay. Therefore, the submerged dimensions of each forebay at IP2 from the outer trash rack opening to the centerline of the traveling screen are 28 feet high by 13.3 feet wide by 11 feet long. Design velocities through the trash racks for the six cooling water intake bays range from 0.5 to 0.8 fps depending on pumping rate and tide height (Enercon 2010).
Design velocity through the trash rack protecting the service water bay in the center of the intake structure at IP2 ranges from 0.06 fps to 0.17 fps (Enercon 2010).
The IP3 intake structure, located south of the IP1 intake, consists of a concrete structure with nine openings which provide flow into a common plenum (Figure 1-3). The seven openings along the outer (western) side of the IP3 intake structure are each equipped with a debris wall and vertical trash rack similar to those at IP2 (Figure 1-4). Partition walls begin to isolate each of the cooling water pumps near the traveling screens, which are 18 feet inward (east) of the vertical trash racks and common plenum at the IP3 CWIS (Figure 1-4).
Therefore, the submerged (at plant MSL) dimensions of each forebay at IP3 from the outer trash rack opening to the centerline of the traveling screen are 28 feet high by 13.3 feet wide by 18 feet long. Design velocity through the trash racks is 0.5 fps to 0.9 fps depending on cooling water flow rate and water level (Enercon 2010). Actual velocities through the seven trash racks is less than the design value because there are two additional openings, one at the north end and one at the south end of the structure (Figure 1-3). These openings contain additional trash racks. The design of the IP3 intake structure makes it possible for fish that pass through the trash racks associated with any of the seven openings on the western side of the structure to swim within the structure parallel to the traveling screens and exit the structure through the openings at the north and south ends.
The IP1 intake structure is located between the IP2 and IP3 intakes (south of IP2 and north of IP3) behind a pile-supported dock (Enercon 2010). The IP1 CWIS originally had six conventional traveling screens: four screens servicing the cooling water system that were removed after power generation ceased and two auxiliary screens for the service water system that were replaced with 0.06-inch square mesh dual-flow screens located within the service water portion of each of the two intake bays at IPl. Since IP1 ceased power generation in 1974, the cooling water pumps have been removed, and the intake is now used to supply ancillary service water to IP2, when needed, as well as IP2 screen wash water. The IP1 CWIS was originally outfitted with four trash racks, one at each of four intake bays that were arranged in two sets of two bays each (Attachment 1). The trash racks at the IP1 CWIS were not removed but have deteriorated since power generation ceased. A current divers' inspection report from 27 March 2014 verified the absence of trash racks at IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 2
Normandeau Assodates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 IPl. The Dryden Diving Co. Inc. inspection report of the IP1 intake structure revealed the IP1 vertical trash bars were completely deteriorated above the mud line. The trash bar racks supports were found in poor condition and the bars were totally consumed by corrosion from the mud line to the top of the intake structure.
- 1. 2. 2 Cooling Water Flow Management The dual speed cooling water pumps at IP2 and variable speed cooling water pumps at IP3 were installed in the mid-1980s to minimize impingement and entrainment of fish by reducing the amount of water used for cooling (Enercon 2010). Since the amount of water needed for efficient operation varies seasonally with the river temperature, cooling water flow is reduced as much as 45% during winter months when river temperature is at its annual low. Lower flow rates not only reduce the amount of water withdrawn, but also reduce the intake velocity, facilitating escapement of fish that otherwise might be susceptible to impingement.
At IP2, each of the six cooling water bays provides water to an individual cooling water pump, which is located 35 feet behind the traveling screens. At the maximum pumping rate (140,000 gpm per pump), the maximum (calculated at mean low water) average through-screen velocity for the IP2 traveling screens is calculated as 1.6 fps (Enercon 2010). The IP2 cooling water pumps can also be operated at 84,000 gpm, which proportionally reduces the calculated maximum average through-screen velocity to 1 fps. For the service water intake bay at IP2, the calculated maximum through-screen velocity is 0.35 fps when all six service water pumps are operated at a maximum (design) capacity of 30,000 gpm.
The six IP3 cooling water pumps, each enclosed in an intake bay and located 28 feet behind the traveling screens, have a continuously variable capacity between 70,000 gpm and 140,000 gpm. Three of the bays are also equipped with 3,200 gpm screen wash pumps. The seventh bay, located in the center of the structure, provides water to the six service water pumps, which have a maximum combined capacity of 36,000 gpm. As at IP2, the maximum average through-screen velocity for the cooling water bays at IP3 is calculated as 1.6 fps (Enercon 2010), and is 0.4 fps for the service water bay at full flow.
The dual-flow screens in the IP1 intake filter the water drawn by the single 16,000-gpm service water pump and the two 1500-gpm spray wash pumps in each of the two intake bay sets. The screens are washed automatically when water level differences between the front and back of the screens exceed predetermined settings. Materials removed from the traveling screen mesh are sluiced to the Hudson River in the wash water flow. During normal operation only one of the two service water pumps and two of the spray wash pumps is in operation at any given time at IP1(Enercon 2010).
- 1. 2. 3 Optimized Ristroph-Type Traveling Water Screens The IP2 and IP3 intakes are outfitted with optimized Ristroph-type traveling screens and fish handling and return systems. The Ristroph-type screens and fish return systems were operational at IP3 in 1990, and at IP2 in 1991, following a collaborative research, design, and validation effort among the former owners of IP2 and IP3, NYSDEC, and the then scientific advisor to the Hudson River Fisherman's Association (HRFA, now Riverkeeper).
The Ristroph-type screens are located between the trash racks and the cooling water pumps at the cwrs and have the following features to protect the aquatic organisms impinged:
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 3
Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR /PEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Dual-speed continuous rotation - The screens are rotated continuously. Under low debris loading conditions, the screens are rotated at 2.5 fpm and under high debris loading at 10 fpm. Impingement on the screens and mortality of those organisms that are impinged is less likely to occur when low through-screen velocities are maintained by the continuous removal of debris. Continuous rotation also minimizes the time that impinged organisms are retained on the screen panels or in the fish buckets. These features significantly reduce the potential stress on impinged organisms.
Smooth screen mesh - The 0.5 inch x 0.25 inch clear opening slot mesh on the screen panels is smooth, to minimize abrasion to fish transferred into the fish return systems.
Flow deflector lip on fish buckets-The curved lip at the leading edge of the fish buckets is designed to minimize vortex stress on fish inside the buckets. The lip eliminates turbulent flow in the interior of the buckets and provides sufficient water depth to allow fish to maintain a stable, upright position (Fletcher 1985).
Dual-pressure spray wash systems - The screens encounter a series of spray washes in the operating rotation. First, high-pressure sprays are used to remove debris from the screen mesh surface. During this process, deflector plates are used to protect aquatic organisms in the fish buckets. Low-pressure sprays are then used to gently remove aquatic organisms from the fish buckets for release through the fish return system. Finally, another series of high-pressure sprays is used to wash off any remaining debris to prevent "carryover" into the intake bays and assist in maintaining the available open area of each screen panel to reduce the potential for impingement.
The current fish handling and return systems at IPEC also incorporate several design features specifically selected to enhance the survival of impinged fish that are returned to the river:
Separate fish return and debris return systems are provided.
Fish return systems have smooth surfaces and gentle transition sections to minimize the potential for fish abrasion during transport.
Design water depths are maintained to allow the fish to remain in a stable, upright position during transport.
Design trough and sluice water velocities are maintained between 2 fps and 5 fps, which are sufficient to transport the organisms back to the river while minimizing stress during transport.
Return pipe discharge locations were selected following dye and fish release studies to minimize the potential for re-impingement.
Collectively, the optimized Ristroph-type screens and the fish return systems reflected a first-in-kind design when installed, and continue to reflect state-of-the-art design today.
The effectiveness of the modified Ristroph-type screens in reducing impingement losses was demonstrated in studies showing the technology to be fully optimized as BTA for IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 4
Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 impingement (Fletcher 1990), a conclusion supported by the inclusion of the IPEC configuration as BT A for impingement on a nationwide basis (USEP A 2011 ).
Entergy proposes to continue operating IPEC using this system for the duration of its operating licenses, or until a different system is determined to be BTA for the IPEC facility as a result of a final NYSDEC determination and the alternative system can be permitted, constructed, and installed.
2.0 Program Components Consistent with prior consultation with NMFS under the Opinion, we have defined the following terms to differentiate three different types of studies requested and proposed in this monitoring plan, as follows:
Feasibility Study - Reasonable effectiveness testing of a technology (like sonar) for a duration of up to one year. Being relatively temporary in nature, it is expected that there will be relatively few plant modifications needed to implement most expected types of feasibility studies at IPEC relating to the Opinion. The feasibility study will include a phase of preliminary equipment trails.
Pilot Program - A subsequent evaluation of a technology determined to be feasible at IPEC to provide the desired information under seasonally varying conditions, among other factors. The pilot study is expected to extend beyond one year, as necessary to inform the statistical method for long-term monitoring.
Approved Monitoring Program - Subsequent monitoring of sturgeon at IPEC that has been approved and will continue annually to the extent required by NMFS.
Descriptions of the materials, methods and implementation schedules for feasibility or pilot studies at the IPEC trash racks and intake forebays, for monitoring the traveling screens, as well as collecting ancillary data associated with sturgeon occurrences, are set forth in the program components below (with references to the specific section of the Opinion in which the program element is specified).
- 2. 1 Trash Rack Studies Monitoring sturgeon at the trash racks is specified by RPM#1, and T&C#s l.a, l.b, and l.c of the Opinion and will be performed by S. T. Hudson Engineers Inc.
- 2. 1. 1 Access to IP2 and IP3 Trash Racks Inspections of the IP2 and IP3 CWIS have been conducted by IPEC' s engineering staff to determine if there are feasible access points to perform collection at the trash racks at IP2 or IP3 from the bulkheads and decks of the CWISs without significant civil or structural modifications, or the need to significantly modify the security system in these areas. The inspection revealed potential deck-level access through narrow slots providing clearance to the water immediately upstream and downstream of the trash racks at IP2 and IP3. At IP2, there is access to the top of the trash racks with about two feet of clearance upstream IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 5
Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 (outward), and about 5 to 7 inches of clear space downstream (inward) between the concrete bulkhead deck and each vertical trash rack (Figure 2-1). At IP3, welded metal floor plates cover these trash rack slots, but access to the top of the trash racks could be gained from the bulkhead deck level by modifying these plates to provide similar access to the upstream and downstream sides of the trash racks as was observed at IP2. In addition to deck level access as described above, the IP2 and IP3 trash racks are accessible by boat from within the IPEC security zone.
- 2. 1. 2 Trash Rack Studies at IP2 and IP3 The proposed trash rack studies are designed to observe and quantify the presence of sturgeon, particularly moribund or dead sturgeon, which would be impinged on the trash racks as they are carried by the river flow past the plant and become withdrawn in the circulating water flow into the IP2 or IP3 intake structure. Preliminary equipment trials will be performed in June 2014 to evaluate sonar imaging technologies and appropriate methods for use to monitor sturgeon impinged on the trash racks at IP2 and IP3. Access to the fixed trash racks at IP2 and IP3 will be from outside the protected areas, with sampling activities conducted primarily using sonar deployed by boat. We also propose to evaluate mounting of sonar equipment from the adjacent walkways.
Sonar technologies evaluated in the preliminary equipment trials will include multiple techniques and systems such as side scan, scanning, and forward looking sonar systems.
All data will be collected in a digital format. Existing acoustic processing software packages will be evaluated, and where necessary further developed, and refined to manage and post process the data. Raw acoustic data will be processed into the appropriate format that will accurately document real time conditions, remove any background and intermittent noise, and allow for the summary tabulation of the data for addressing actual screen conditions and mitigation (cleaning or engineering review) as needed. Representative screen grabs will also be included as part of the reporting effort and provide visual images of conditions at the screens as well as sturgeon and other potential fish in proximity. A detailed report will describe the results of the preliminary equipment trails, and include tabulated data and images that support our selection of the appropriate technology and methods for further evaluation.
Following the preliminary equipment trials, the Feasibility Study will continue using the selected technology to observe the locations of dead sturgeon, and the swimming patterns of any live sturgeon swimming through and in areas immediately adjacent to the fixed bar trash racks at IP2 and IP3. The Feasibility Study will be performed for up to one year to evaluate system performance over the range of conditions (weather, tides, ice flows, debris loading) experienced at IPEC to determine the conditions in which the system is reliable. Special attention will be given to documenting swimming patterns (e.g., general orientation, tail beats, water column location, and swimming direction) if live sturgeon are observed, fish size, and concentrations of the two sturgeon species using the best available acoustic technologies and software to collect and process such data. Trash rack conditions will be mapped and monitored in addition to any sturgeon present and their activity in an effort to document and characterize issues that could affect the impingement of sturgeon on, and adjacent to the fixed trash rack screens.
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 6
Normandeau Assodates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 During the Feasibility Study, in addition to boat and fix mounted system evaluation and implementation, a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) will also be stationed on the site to respond and verify sonar detection of potentially impinged sturgeon, and recover any dead sturgeon observed for processing. This ROV will be outfitted with a custom retrieval arm, video system, and positioning sonar to accurately verify observations and be available to retrieve dead sturgeon as required.
A detailed report, including tabulated data and images, will be provided following completion of the Feasibility Study. In addition to quantify the number and condition of each sturgeon taxon collected, this report will describe the site-specific conditions and their relationship to any observed sturgeon impinged on the trash racks at IP2 and IP3, including plant operations, structural issues, and the effects of weather and tides.
The number and condition of sturgeon to be collected from the trash racks, if any, will be reported to NMFS (RPM#S). All sturgeon collected from the trash racks will be processed by Normandeau as described in Section 2.4 below.
- 2. 1. 3 Trash Rack Studies at IP 1 There are no trash racks at IPl to monitor, as discussed in Section 1.2.1 above. The relevance of the missing trash racks to NMFS's conclusion in the Opinion is discussed in Attachment
- 1.
- 2. 1.4 Trash Rack Studies Implementation Schedule, Modifications, and Permits Once the preliminary equipment trails are completed in June 2014, the Feasibility Study will begin by deploying the selected technology and methods, and continue for an anticipated duration of one year. A proposed schedule is presented in Attachment 2.
2.2 Forebay Studies Monitoring for and removal of sturgeons from the intake forebays (i.e., the spaces between the trash racks and the traveling screens) is specified in RPM#l and T&C#s l.d, l.e, and l.f.
The goal of forebay monitoring is to determine the presence or absence of living, moribund and dead sturgeon in the forebays of IP2 and IP3 and to observe any accumulations of sturgeon there. S.T. Hudson Engineers Inc. will place sonar devices in the forebays and perform Feasibility Studies. Forebay monitoring will not be performed at IPl, because the IPl CWIS no longer has trash racks that could trap fish within the forebay area.
2.2.1 Access to the Forebays at IP2 and IP3 The forebays of IP2 and IP3 have additional challenges compared to the trash rack structures that must be considered when developing studies to determine the presence or absence of sturgeon. The forebays at IP2 and IP3 are located inside the protected areas of the plant. No access adjacent to the waterline of each forebay is typically possible without major modifications of "the intake structures. The ability to safely install sonar devices is a significant challenge, and significant consideration and planning must be given to ensuring the safety of personnel_ monitoring systems, and plant equipment.
Special issues to be addressed and reviewed during the Feasibility Studies for forebay monitoring include:
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 7
Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR /PEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 limited access through structural components of the plant, types, size and maintenance of monitoring equipment to be placed through access point into the forebays, location and geometry (field of view) for various sonar systems and methods, bio-fouling of monitoring equipment, and potential impact to plant equipment.
These issues, and others, influence the technology and methods for the Feasibility Studies recommended for forebay studies as described in Section 2.2.2 below.
2.2.2 Forebay Studies at IP2 and IP3 Preliminary equipment trials will be performed to determine the type of sonar and deployment methods to be used in the fore bays. Bracket mounting of sonar devices will be tested and further developed as necessary. Due to limited access, no ROV use is currently anticipated for the forebays. We anticipate deploying and testing a potential combination of sonar technologies and alignment geometries with the goal of ensonifying the entire forebay area, so that fish (specifically sturgeon species) entering or departing the area can be determined and those residing within the area of interest will be continuously observed.
Once the appropriate configuration is determined, additional levels of imaging will be implemented to verify species with appropriate actions to be developed.
Following the preliminary equipment trials, the Feasibility Study will continue using the selected technology to observe the presence or absence of sturgeon, and the swimming patterns of live sturgeon present in the forebays of IP2 and IP3. The Feasibility Study will be performed for up to one year to evaluate system performance over the range of conditions (weather, tides, ice flows, debris loading) experienced at IPEC to determine the conditions in which the system is reliable. Special attention will be given to documenting swimming patterns (e.g., general orientation, tail beats, water column location, and swimming direction), fish size, and concentrations of the two sturgeon species using the best available acoustic technologies and software to collect and process such data A detailed report, including tabulated data and images, will be provided following completion of the one-year Feasibility Study. In addition to quantifying the presence or absence of the sturgeon, the ability to distinguish each sturgeon species and to identify individuals within each species will be evaluated. This report will also describe the site-specific conditions and their relationship to any observed sturgeon in the forebays of IP2 and IP3, including plant operations, structural issues, and the effects of weather and tides.
2.2.3 Forebay Monitoring Implementation Schedule, Modifications, and Permits Implementation of the preliminary equipment trails for the forebay monitoring will be performed in June 2014 in a manner that does not require any major plant modifications.
The Feasibility Study for forebay monitoring at IP2 and IP3 is expected to follow different schedules at IP2 and IP3 due to the anticipated need for plant modifications at IP2 and IP3.
The Feasibility Study will deploy the selected technology and methods, and continue for an anticipated duration of up to one year. A proposed schedule is presented in Attachment 2.
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 8
Normandeau Assodates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 2.3 Approved Monitoring Program at the Ristroph Traveling Screens Monitoring, detection, and handling of sturgeons that encounter the optimized traveling screen and fish return system is specified in RPM#l and T&C#l.e of the Opinion. We propose the following sampling approach that will permit accurate estimation of the levels of sturgeon encounters (Cochran 1977), while allowing other fish to be returned rapidly to the river, thus minimizing mortality attributable to the sturgeon monitoring program.
2.3.1 Traveling Screen Sluice Sampling Stress will be minimized on all fish (including sturgeon) by sampling sturgeon that are collected by the continuously rotated traveling screens during three 24-hour sampling days per week at each operating unit. The statistical theory and equations supporting this sampling design are described in detail in Attachment 3.
To enable IPEC's fish handling and return system to convey live fish promptly back into the Hudson River with minimal stress, sampling will be scheduled for 24 consecutive hours (one sampling day) on three sampling days per week (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday).
Operation of IP2 and IP3 is very consistent from day to day, including both weekdays and weekends, so sampling on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays are representative of the operational conditions and volume of water withdrawal throughout the year. Daily circulating water flow data will be obtained from IPEC for all non-sampling dates as well as for the sampling dates throughout the monitoring period to document any unexpected short-term deviations from typical withdrawal rates.
Sampling will be accomplished by filtering the screen wash contents from all operating traveling screens at IP1, IP2, and IP3 through sampling nets inserted in the combined return sluices at each unit. At each unit, both the fish sluice and the debris sluice will be sampled.
Two blocking nets made of 3/8 inch delta mesh liner and an outer l-inch knotted-twine chafing net will be inserted into each sluice and held in place by U-channel guides (Figure 2-2), one immediately downstream of the other. The use of two blocking nets in the same sluice will insure that no sturgeon are missed during the time that one of the nets is briefly removed for processing the sample. A minimum water depth of 6 inches in the sluice sections with the nets will be maintained by damming the water with a low(::; 6-inch) partition in each sluice just downstream of the two nets if necessary, to insure adequate water depth for fish accumulating in the nets.
The pairs of sluice sampling nets for IP2 will be installed and operated in the combined fish sluice and in the combined debris sluice at the north end of IP2 (Figure 2-3). The sluice sampling nets for IP3 will be installed in the fish sluice and the debris sluice outside the southwest end of the IP3 screen house (Figure 2-4). The sluice sampling nets for IP1 will be installed and operated where the combined fish sluice and combined debris sluice exit at the southwest end of the IP1 screen house (Figure 2-5).
Field crews of three will be present continuously to monitor the collection nets during 24-hours of each sampling day to detect and remove each sturgeon shortly after it is collected (usually within a few minutes, but always in less than one hour). One person will be stationed to observe the IP2 sampling nets and adjacent sluices, a second will observe the IP3 sampling nets and adjacent sluices, and the third crew member will move around to check the IPl nets and the sluices upstream of the sampling nets at all three units. The two IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 9
Normandeau Assodates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 technicians monitoring the sluice nets will remove the nets least once per hour or more frequently if needed to avoid excessive accumulation of debris and fish and to be able to remove any sturgeon quickly. The roving third person will systematically inspect the entire sluice system and water boxes at each intake structure for the potential presence of sturgeon, and assist in the processing of any sturgeon collected. The recovery location (sluice, water box, net) and time of each sturgeon will be recorded.
The sampling nets will be cleared frequently so that fish are not overcrowded and not exposed to sampling stress for an extended period of time, by removing one net while the second net continues to sample 100% of the flow through the sluice. The contents of the raised net will be examined, any previously undetected sturgeon will be gently removed to the holding tank, and the remaining fish, invertebrates, and debris will be washed into the sluice flow downstream of the sampling location before replacing the cleared net back in its sampling position. The time of detection and removal to a holding tank will be recorded for any sturgeon found. The two nets will be cleared alternately so that at least one net will be in position at all times, with both in sampling position for most of the time throughout each 24-hour sampling day.
As soon as a sturgeon is observed, it will be removed from the sluice sampling net and placed in a 150-gallon oval holding tank (Figure 2-6) located on the deck level adjacent to the sampler for subsequent processing (described in Section 2.4). The holding tank at each unit will be covered with a mesh panel to prevent fish escapement and the tank will be supplied with a continuous flow of ambient river water from a raw water tap or submersible pump at a flow rate where the volume is replaced every 15 minutes. Water temperature (to the nearest 0.1 °C), dissolved oxygen concentration (to the nearest mg/1), and salinity (to the nearest 0.1 PSU) will be monitored and recorded in the water of the holding tank(s) during each interval when one or more sturgeon are being held for processing.
To verify that the combination of the paired sluice sampling nets with frequent examination of the sluice systems upstream of the collection locations effectively prevents non-detection of fish, collection efficiency testing will be conducted on the first sampling date of each month. Fish between 100 mm TL and 600 mm TL will be obtained from prior impingement collections (e.g., white perch, striped bass, or white catfish), NY-certified commercial hatchery operations, or certified local bait dealers as needed and used to determine the collection efficiency of the sluice samplers. Twenty-five dead fish will be marked and introduced into each sampled sluice upstream of the sampling nets. On those dates, all fish collected in the sluice sampling nets will be examined for marks and collection efficiency fish will be removed before releasing the rest of the fish. The number of collection efficiency fish recovered in the deployed sluice samplers compared to the number released will determine the collection efficiency of the sluice net samplers in each sampled sluice.
2.3.2 Traveling Screen Monitoring Implementation Schedule, Modifications, and Permitting Once NMFS has approved the final monitoring plan and NYSDEC has approved any modifications to the CWIS within its jurisdiction, reviews required by IPEC and mandated by NRC will be conducted to ensure that continued safe operation of IPEC is not jeopardized by the proposed CWIS sampling activities. Installation of sluice sampling systems at IP1, IP2, or IP3 is not expected to require any major plant modifications. Our IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 10 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR /PEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 proposed traveling screen monitoring in the fish and debris sluices of IP1, IP2 and IP3 were selected to avoid major CWIS modifications at IPEC, and therefore will not require the full process of engineering evaluation, reviews, approvals, design, construction, and testing that could take up to 270 days to complete. This approval process has begun, with the goal of being prepared to initiate traveling screen monitoring by 12 October 2014. A proposed schedule is presented in Attachment 2.
The proposed traveling screen monitoring samplers will be inserted into the existing NYSDEC-approved fish return systems without requiring any significant modifications to those systems. The operation of the fish return systems, however, will need to be slightly altered by temporarily interrupting the transit of fish through the sluices with the sampling nets, so that any sturgeon can be collected. Thus, NYSDEC Staff's prior approval may be required before making these procedural changes to the operation of IPEC's fish return system. Consultations will be held with NYSDEC Staff during the finalization of the monitoring plan to obtain the necessary approval in advance.
In the second year of traveling screen monitoring, Entergy will examine the results from the first year to consider and discuss with NMFS whether a variable frequency sampling plan can be implemented in which that sampling effort is redistributed among seasonal sampling strata (Mattson et al. 1988) to better reflect the observed seasonality of sturgeon encounters with the optimized travelling screen and fish return system. If a variable frequency sampling plan is not approved by NMFS, monitoring will continue at the frequency of three days per week.
2.4 Fish Handling Procedures Any Atlantic or Shortnose sturgeon collected will be processed by Normandeau as required under the federal Endangered Species Act following the stated RPMs and T &Cs of the Opinion. Sturgeon handling procedures are summarized for live fish in Section 2.4.1 and for dead fish in Section 2.4.2. Genetic sample collection is summarized in Section 2.4.3. A full Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) manual will be developed for IPEC sturgeon monitoring once the final study plan is approved. Examples of detailed sturgeon handling procedures are found in SOPs for sampling activities of the Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program (Normandeau 2013a, 2013b, and 2013c).
2.4. 1 Live Sturgeon All live sturgeon will be processed as specified in RPM#2 and T &C#3 of the Opinion by the procedures described in this section to check for previously applied tags, measure the length and weight, record any physical abnormalities, photograph, apply a passive-integrated transponder (PIT) tag in each untagged live sturgeon larger than 250 mm TL that was not previously tagged, collect a genetic sample, and release the specimen away from the intake via the existing fish return system.
Previously applied tags could include yellow USFWS Floy tags, Carlin-Ritchie disc tags, or PIT tags. A hand-held PIT tag reader will be used to examine for the presence of internal PIT tags. The tag type and number of any tags found will be recorded and the condition of the tag insertion site will be noted (whether healed or infected).
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014. docx 6/ 13/ 14 11 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR /PEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 The total length (TL) will be measured to the nearest mm and the fish will be weighed to the nearest gram.
Any obvious external physical abnormalities, such as fin rot or injury will be recorded on an "Incidental Report Sturgeon Take - Indian Point" form (Section 2.6.1) and photographed.
Photographs will also be taken of all sturgeon to provide verification of the species identification and condition. Digital photographs of each specimen will include a close-up of the eyes with a mm ruler for scale, a close-up of the mouth with a mm rule for scale, a close-up side view of the base of the anal fin to reveal the presence or absence of anal scutes, and lateral views of the left and right side of the fish.
Before a live sturgeon >250 mm TL is released, it will be tagged with a PIT tag (if one is not already present and, if in the judgment of the field crew, doing so would not disable or kill the fish). The tag will be inserted with a large hypodermic needle into the dorsal musculature just anterior and left of the dorsal fin. The copper antenna will be inserted first into the needle so that it is oriented upward near the dorsa~ surface when inserted into the fish. If necessary, and to ensure tag retention and prevent mortality to small juvenile sturgeon of both species (e.g., 250 mm TL to 350 mm TL), the PIT tag may be inserted at the widest dorsal position just to the left of the 4111 dorsal scute. PIT Tags larger than the standard 11.9 mm by 2.1 mm will not be used to tag sturgeon less than 330 mmTL.
The fish will be scanned with the PIT tag reader and the tag number will be recorded.
Tagging effects on sturgeon may confound results, and must be accounted for in subsequent assessment.
A genetic sample will be collected by the procedures in Section 2.4.3 from all sturgeon collected and sent every six months to the NOAA archives in Charleston, SC.
Live sturgeon will be released in the screen wash flow through existing return sluices, which were designed to transport fish to properly identified, designated release locations.
2.4. 2 Dead Sturgeon All dead sturgeon will be processed as specified in RPM#3 and T&C#4 of the Opinion. Dead sturgeon will be checked for previously applied tags. External criteria will be used to determine, where practicable, if a dead sturgeon was previously dead in the field at the time of collection, based on signs of life (e.g., body movement or opercular movement) or other indications of death (e.g., red or only slightly faded gill filaments, bodily decay, bleached gill filaments, or other signs of morbidity or death prior sample collection (King et al. 2010).
The nature of observed external injuries will be described. Genetic samples will be collected by the procedures in Section 2.4.3 from all dead sturgeons that were not previously tagged.
An "Incidental Report Sturgeon Take - Indian Point" form (Section 2.6.1) and a Sturgeon Salvage Form (Section 2.6.4) will be completed for each dead sturgeon. Dead specimens or body parts of Atlantic or Shortnose sturgeon retrieved from the IPEC intakes will be photographed, measured, labeled with a unique sample number, and retained by freezing until delivered on a NMFS-approved schedule to a qualified individual (recommended by NMFS), to perform necropsies.
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 12 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 2.4. 3 Genetic Samples RPM#4 and T &C#5 of the Opinion requires that a genetic sample will be taken from any live or dead Atlantic or Shortnose sturgeon collected that was not previously tagged. Genetic sampling procedures will follow the description in the Appendix provided with the Opinion. A new pair of surgical gloves and a new scalpel blade will be used for each individual fish to avoid cross-contamination of genetic material. If obvious contamination is observed, that genetic sample will be discarded. A 1 cm2 section will be cut from a pelvic fin and placed in a vial of 95% to 100% ethanol that has not been denatured with methanol or other chemical additives. The vial will be taped to prevent leakage, labeled with the sample number and fish identification number using a permanent marker, and sealed in a small Ziploc bag labeled internally and externally with the sample number. All genetic samples collected from alive or dead Atlantic and Shortnose sturgeon observed while monitoring at IPEC will be accumulated in the field laboratory and shipped once every six months to the NOAA-NOS genetic tissue sample archive in Charleston, SC following the procedures specified in Section 2.6.3 below. Genetic sampling, in connection with tagging, effects on sturgeon may confound subsequent movement and survival, and must be accounted for in subsequent assessment.
- 2. 5 Ancillary Data
- 2. 5.1 Temperature RPM#1 and T &C#l.l of the Opinion specifies temperature measurements at the trash racks and at the traveling screens, at surface, mid-depth, and bottom for each unit when a take of either species of sturgeon is observed.
RPM#1 and T &C#l.l of the Opinion will be addressed by reporting the measured water temperature for each sampling event when a sturgeon of either species is observed on the trash racks or traveling screens at IP1, IP2, or IP3. A sampling event is defined as the time interval during which the sturgeon was collected. Measured water temperatures will be obtained from loggers (e.g., Onset TidbiT v2 Water Temperature Data Logger) installed in the fish and debris sluices of IP1, IP2, and IP3 at the locations of the sluice samplers that will continuously measure water temperature and log the values at 15-minute intervals. The number of valid temperature observations and the mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values will be reported for each sturgeon sampling event.
2.5.2 Water Velocity RPM#1 and T &C l.k of the Opinion request velocity information at the trash racks (approach velocity and through the rack), in the intake forebays, and at the traveling screens (both approach velocity and through-screen velocity) at the relevant IPEC units. We interpret the request for velocity data by NMFS as seeking representative conditions, specifically the high and low approach and through-screen velocities on a per-screen representative basis, consistent with a 2-foot square grid across the face of each trash rack and traveling screen under a range of tidal, weather and pump conditions.
The proposed approach to provide the requested velocity data is expected to involve the following, detailed below for the trash rack, forebay and travelling screen locations:
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring__Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 13 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR /PEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2
- 1. Representative water current and/or velocity measurements at the trash racks, consistent with the Opinion.
- 2. Employing the representative measurements, development of a state-of-the-art computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model of the IP2 and IP3 CWISs parameterized by river flow boundary conditions of ambient river current velocity, flow direction, and tide height measured by acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCP) in the river near the intakes. The CFD model will establish velocities at the trash racks, within the forebays and upstream surface of the traveling water screens, as described in.
Due to the difficulties of access at the forebays in front of the traveling screens at IP2 and IP3 during station operation (as a function of the confined space and flows), in conjunction with the risk to Station equipment of losses of monitoring systems, direct velocity measurements within the forebays and at the traveling screens of IP2 and IP3 may not be feasible.
2.5.2.1 Measurements at the Trash Racks, Forebays, and Traveling Screens Water current magnitude measurements will be obtained by S. T. Hudson Engineers Inc.
using a Hach model electromagnetic probe, such as the OTT MF Pro, as recommended by NMFS (March 2, 2014 correspondence, p. 7). Depending on specific conditions, the probe will be deployed in one of several ways: mounted on a scaled pole or on an appropriately weighted down line, on a ROV platform with a custom built bracket, or by divers if the effort is conducted during the routine screen cleaning. In the case of diver deployment, divers would hold the probe in front and passing it through the fixed bars at IP2 and IP3.
For non-diver fixed deployments, water current magnitude measurements will be collected throughout a given tidal cycle at incremental water column depths recorded hourly at each monitoring station for a 12-hour period to establish base line conditions.
The proposed water current measurements will be taken over the course of several complete tidal cycles, or in conjunction with scheduled screen cleaning by divers, in addition to spot checks during various weather conditions and pump operations so it can be considered to represent many expected scenarios. The baseline measurements will also be carried out in conjunction with the proposed sonar imaging to verify any critical areas of blockage or potential hot spots of high water velocity. Special attention will be made to verify and account for conditions due to partially clogged screens or siltation above the floor of the intakes.
Initial measurements will be conducted during the trash rack feasibility study at IP2 and IP3 (Section 2.1.2 above) at representative trash racks on grid locations determined by the range of readings observed during the infield monitoring. Should readings at any trash rack survey grid either exceed the average observed field conditions for that rack (accounting for tide, weather, and pump operations) by more than 0.5 ft/sec or 30%, or exceed 1.47 ft/sec in a specific area, additional readings will be collected at the relevant survey grids. Note that the use of 1.47 ft/sec was specified as a critical threshold velocity below which the probability of entrainment of juvenile sturgeon could be minimized by maintaining dredge head flow fields at less than 1.47 ft/sec (Boysen and Hoover 2009, cited on page 62 of the Opinion).
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_1 3Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 14 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Once the initial grid readings have been verified as accurate baseline conditions, a single additional survey will be conducted to verify that there are no significant variations relative to the baseline data.
In the forebays and at the traveling water screens of IP2 and IP3, personnel access is limited, making use of divers infeasible. The ability to safely install velocity probes is likewise highly limited, and the risk of loss of mounted equipment to Station structures, operations, and equipment is a serious concern. While the risks to Station structures, operations, and equipment of introducing monitoring devices is also significantly higher and more difficult to protect against, Entergy is willing to explore this option. To do so, and in the interest of safety and operational reliability, we propose collecting water velocity readings accessible by the same velocity probe either mounted on a calibrated pole or on a weighted downline as proposed for use in the trash rack feasibility study (Section 2.1.2 above). Evaluation of these measurements will determine the quality of the data and/or if further evaluation using CFD modeling would address the concerns of NMFS.
In addition to using the referenced water velocity probe deployment, imaging sonar may be used in the accessible areas to verify general conditions and water flow characteristics through a visual method.
Due to the absence of trash racks at IPl, no measurements will be taken at Unit 1.
2.5.2.2 CFD at the Trash Racks, Forebays, and Traveling Screens In the absence of, or in addition to, appropriate velocity data at the forebays and at the traveling screens, we propose to use two existing nearfield Hudson River water current data sets to parameterize a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model of the IP2 and IP3 CWISs.
The CFD model will then be used to describe the mean, standard deviation and range of approach and through-screen velocities at a resolution no greater than 1 square foot across the face of each trash rack and each traveling screen operated at IP2 and IP3 under a bounding range of tidal, river flow, weather and intake pump scenarios. The measurements taken as described in the previous section will also be used to calibrate CFD model predictions (Attachment 4).
- 2. 5. 3 Plant Operating Data RPM#l and T &C l.m of the Opinion requires that the plant operating conditions at each unit are documented for the previous 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> associated with each take, the field staff will contact the control room and obtain and record data provided by the plant operators regarding the number of circulating pumps operating.
- 2. 5.4 Ancillary Data Collection Implementation Schedule, Monitoring, and Permits Ancillary data collection will be implemented when sturgeon impingement monitoring is initiated. No NRC or State of New York approvals are required before implementation of ancillary data collection. No physical plant alterations are necessary to allow ancillary data collection to be implemented other than affixing temperature loggers in the return sluices near the collection nets.
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 15 Normandeau Assodates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 2.6 Reporting This section describes procedures for reporting to NMFS all incidental takes of sturgeon and all sample transfers as required by RPM#5 and T&C#s 6, 7 and 8 of the Opinion.
- 2. 6. 1 Take Notification NMFS will be notified within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of finding any live or dead Atlantic or Shortnose sturgeon in association with the IPEC intakes as required by RPM#5 T &C#6 of the Opinion.
The form for reporting each incidental take of any sturgeon (alive or dead) is shown in Figure 2-7.
- 2. 6. 2 Annual Report An annual report of all incidental takes of Atlantic and Shortnose sturgeon occurring at the IPEC intakes during each calendar year will be submitted to NMFS and NRC by 15 February of the following year as required by RPM#5 T &C#7 of the Opinion. The annual report will include any necropsy reports of specimens, all incidental take reports, photographs, a record of all sightings of Atlantic or Shortnose sturgeon in the vicinity of Indian Point, conditions at the time of the take (IPEC operations as well as environmental conditions including water temperature and water flow), and a record of when inspections of the intake trash racks and Ristroph screens were conducted. The report will include a summary table of environmental sampling data in the format specified by NMFS (Figure 2-8). The annual report will also identify any potential measures to reduce Atlantic or Shortnose sturgeon impingement, injury, and mortality at the intake structures along with any plans to implement those measures.
Following the submittal of each annual report and prior to 15 April of each year, Entergy will participate in a meeting or conference call with NMFS and NRC to discuss the take information of the prior year and any changes to the monitoring program that NMFS, NRC, or Entergy believes are necessary as required by RPM#5 T&C#8 of the Opinion.
- 2. 6. 3 Genetic Samples As specified in the NMFS instructions for collecting, certifying, identifying, and shipping sturgeon tissue samples (Figure 2-9), each shipment of sturgeon genetic tissue samples will be accompanied by (1) a completed Certification of Species, Sample Identification, and Chain of Custody form for each fish (Figure 2-10); (2) a completed Summary Sheet for Genetic Tissue Samples form if the shipment contains multiple samples (Figure 2-11); (3) a completed NMFS Guidelines for Air-Shipment of "Excepted Quantities" of Ethanol Solutions form (Figure 2-12); and (4) a copy of the ESA permit authorizing the collection of the sample(s). Because the origin of impinged fish factors into the take limits specified in the ITS, Entergy requests to receive the results of the genetic analysis as testing is completed on each fish.
2.6.4 Dead Sturgeon or Sturgeon Parts If any dead specimens of Atlantic or Shortnose sturgeon are found in association with the IPEC intake sampling procedures specified in this monitoring plan, after they are processed as described in Section 2.4.2, NMFS may request transfer of the specimens to NMFS or to a NMFS-approved laboratory or researcher for necropsy. In addition to the Take Notification IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 16 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 form (Section 2.6.1), a Sturgeon Salvage form (Figure 2-13) will also be submitted to an individual or laboratory qualified to perform necropsies and recommended by NMFS, to document the disposition of each dead specimen.
- 2. 7 Training of Field Biologists Qualifications of all personnel who will be handling sturgeon will include previous training and experience in the implementation of NMFS Permit to Take Protected Species for Scientific Purposes Permit No. 17095 (and its predecessor, Permit No. 1580) for the Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program (HRBMP). All field personnel participating in the IPEC sturgeon monitoring will be required to read the SOP and will be provided with the appropriate training by previously qualified individuals. Monitoring personnel unfamiliar with a task will be directly supervised by an experienced technician for at least the first two attempts and be subjected to 100% inspection of at least the first five samples analyzed by a second, qualified individual with previous experience identifying sturgeon.
2.8 QAJQC Procedures The basis for all quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) monitoring of program activities will be the SOP, consisting of written documentation of sampling and data collection protocols. The SOP will be developed from the objectives and methods in the final monitoring plan approved by NMFS, and will be prepared before monitoring begins.
The SOP will function to (1) insure that consistent and appropriate procedures are followed, (2) provide Entergy with documentation of the procedures used, and (3) enable a QA auditor observing program activities to determine whether the required procedures are being followed.
QC will be conducted continually by qualified project staff. All field observations and measurements of sturgeon (identification, length, weight, injury, condition, tag numbers, etc.) will be subject to a standard and appropriate QC and QA review based on a Military Inspection Standard (MIL-STD) inspection plan derived from MIL-STD 1235 Single and Multiple Level Continuous Sampling Procedures and Tables for Inspection by Attributes to achieve a 10% AOQL (Figure 2-14). QC re-inspections for these sample processing tasks will be performed according to the continuous sampling plan CSP-1 at the 10% AOQL level, to insure that at least 90% of samples satisfy the project's acceptance criteria. This level of quality meets or exceeds New York, industry-wide, and HRBMP standards for fisheries measurement data.
All final data files and reports will be subject to a standard and appropriate QC inspection to achieve a 1% AOQL so that the final data files will be certified through statistical inspection to document that less than one record (line of data) out of every 100 records will be in error. A QC inspection plan (CSP-1) will be used at the 1 o;,, AOQL level to insure that values of all variables in at least 99% of the data records provided in each data file correctly correspond to values coded on the original data sheets. This level of quality meets or exceeds New York, industry-wide, and HRBMP standards for fisheries data files.
At least one QA Audit of the field activities described in Sections 2.1 through 2.5 above will be performed per year to verify adherence to the technical protocols specified in the SOP and verify the effectiveness of the QC system. QA auditors will be technically qualified to IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 17 Normandeau Assodates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 evaluate the activities being observed but independent from the project team. The audits will cover all activities described in the SOP, including transfer of data from field to completed data deliverables. The audit results will be documented in a written report for review by project management and Entergy.
3.0 Literature Cited ASA (Applied Science Associates, Inc.). 2011. 2010 field program and modeling analysis of the cooling water discharge from the Indian Point Energy Center. Final report. ASA Project 2009-167. Prepared for: Indian Point Energy Center, Buchanan, New York. 31 January 2011.
Bergman, P. 2011. Videography Monitoring of Adult Sturgeon in the Feather River Basin, CA. Report prepared by Cramer Fish Sciences for Anadromous Fish Restoration Program.
http://www.fws.gov/stockton/afrp/documents/Feather Sturgeon Report 02281l.pdf Bergman, P., J. Merz, and B. Rook. 2011. Memo: Green Sturgeon observations at Daguerre Point Dam, Yuba River, CA. FWS Grant Number: 813329G011.
http://www.fws.gov/stockton/afrp/documents/Yuba River Sturgeon Memo.pdf Cochran, W.G. 1977. Sampling techniques. Third Edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 428pp.
Enercon (Enercon Services, Inc.). 2010. Evaluation of alternative intake technologies at Indian Point Units 2 & 3. Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, February 2010.
EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2004. Impingement abundance monitoring technical support document. EPRI Report 1008470. Palo Alto, CA.
Fletcher, R.I. 1985. Risk analysis for fish diversion experiments: pumped intake systems.
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 114:652-694.
Fletcher; R.I. 1990. Flow dynamics and fish recovery experiments: water intake systems.
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 119:393-415.
Garman, G.C. 1992. Fate and potential significance of postspawning anadromous fish carcasses in an Atlantic coastal river. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 121: 390-394.
King, R.G., G. Seegert, J. Vondruska, E.S. Perry, and D. A. Dixon. 2010. Factors Influencing Impingement at 15 Ohio River Power Plants. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30: 1149-1175.
Mattson, M.T., J.B. Waxman, and D.A. Watson. 1988. Reliability of impingement sampling designs: an example from Indian Point Station. Amer. Fish. Soc. Monogr. 4:161-169.
Normandeau (Normandeau Associates, Inc.). 2011. Analysis of Near-Bottom Flow in the Hudson River at Indian Point Energy Center from Data Collected by Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers 4 March through 2 November 2010. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center; Buchanan, NY.
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2 __ 13Jun2014_docx 6/13/14 18 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Normandeau. 2012. Current velocity and turbulence monitoring for the cylindrical wedgewire screen efficacy study at Indian Point Energy Center. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center; Buchanan, NY.
Normandeau. 2013a. 2013 Hudson River ichthyoplankton survey standard operating procedures. Revision 1. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center. May 2013.
Normandeau. 2013b. 2013 Hudson River fall juvenile and beach seine surveys standard operating procedures. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center. June 2013.
Normandeau. 2013a. 2013-2014 Hudson River Striped Bass and Atlantic Tomcod surveys standard operating procedures. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center. October 2013.
Schneider, J.C. 1998. Fate of dead fish in a smallJake. Am. Midland Naturalist 140 (1): 192-196.
Substructure, Inc. 2010. Data report for the April2010 multibeam and sub-bottom profile survey in the Hudson River near Peekskill, New York. Prepared for Normandeau Associates, Inc. Bedford, NH.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. Technical development document for the proposed Section 316(b) Phase II existing facilities rule, March 28, 2011, p. 7-2.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service).
1998. Endangered Species Act consultation handbook procedures for conducting Section 7 consultations and conferences. March 1998 Final.
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/13/14 19 Normandeau Assodates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Figures IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/13/14 20 Normandeau Assodates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 BAR RACKS --3>>
AND DEBRIS BARRIERS Q:
SERVICE
~ WATER ~
INTAKE it
~
0 (I)
Q
- I
- r:
FLOW t
RISTROPH SCREENS CIRCUlATING WATER INTAKE 1 I I I I
i PLAN VIEW Soun:e: Con Ed and NYPA 1990, 1ndian Point Units 2 and 3 Rislroph s.:re.n Fish Relltm System Prototype Evalualion and Siting Stu<t,<.
SERVICE n<-t--+-
WATER PUMP RISTROPH SCREENS CIRCULATING
~-+-- WATER PUMP Figure 1-1.
Indian Point Unit 2 (IP2) cooling water intake structure - plan view.
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_ 13Jun20 14. docx 6/ 13/ 14 21 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2
~o
- o
- Figure 1-2.
Indian Point Unit 2 (IP2) cooling water intake structure - sectional view.
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 22 Normandeau Assodates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Figure 1-3.
~
CIRCUlAllNG WAn:R
-~t--.
INTAKES SERVICE 0 0 WATER 0
e<-++-
PUMPS Ooo CIRCUI.AllNG WAn:R PUMPS Soulce: Con Ed and NYPA 1990,lndian Pcint Urits 2 and 3 Ristroph Screen Fish Retum System ~
EvalJatian and Siting Sludy.
Indian Point Unit 3 (IP3) cooling water intake structure-plan view.
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring__Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 23 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 ILL-
--~---**
I I..'W:L. ~ L- *!.*d' Figure 1-4.
Indian Point Unit 3 (IP3) cooling water intake structure-sectional view.
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2 __ 13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 24 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 IIIINI*~* Top of Trash Racks Figure 2-1.
Deck-level access to trash racks at the outer (western) side of the IP2 cooling water intake structure.
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2 __ 13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 25 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Figure 2-2.
Example of a sluice sampling net and frame (without delta mesh liner).
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan __ Rev2_1 3Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 26 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Figure 2-3.
IP2 Ristroph screen fish sluice (right) and debris sluice (left) return system shown under yellow deck grating looking north from the north end of the IP2 intake bulkhead.
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring__Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 27 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Figure 2-4.
IP3 Ristroph screen fish sluice (top) and debris sluice (bottom) return system shown looking north from the south end of the IP3 intake bulkhead.
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 28 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Figure 2-5.
Figure 2-6.
IP1 sluice system located under deck plates outside the screen house where sluice sampling would occur when the plates are removed.
Example of two 150-gallon sturgeon holding tanks.
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/1 3/14 29 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Incident Report Sturgeon Take-Indian Point Photographs should be taken and the following information should be collected from all sturgeon (alive and dead) found in association with the Indian Point intakes. Please submit all necrop!>y results (including sex and stomach contents) to NMFS upon receipt.
Observer's full name: _________ _ _ _____________ _
Reporter's full name: _____ ___ _ _______ _ _ _ _____ _
Species Identification: ________ _ _ ________ _
Site oflmpingement (Unit 2 or 3, CWS or DWS, Bay#, etc.):. _ _ _ _ _________ _
Date animal observed:
Time animal observed:
Date animal collected:
Time animal collected: - -----------
Environmental conditions at time of observation (i.e., tidal stage, weather):
Date and time of last inspection of intakes: _ ________ _ _____ _ _
Water temperature (°C) at site and time of observation: ___ _ _ _____ _
Number of pumps operating at time of observation: _____ _ ____ _____ _
Average percent of power generating capacity achieved per unit at time of observation: ___ _
Average percent of power generating capacity achieved per unit over the 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> previous to observation: ------------ -------------------
Sturgeon Information:
Species ________________ _
Fork length (or total length) _________ Weight _________ _
Condition of specimen/description of animal Fish Decomposed: NO SLIGHTLY MOD ERA TEL Y SEVERELY Fish tagged: YES I NO Please record all tag numbers. Tag# ______ _
Photograph attached: YES I NO (please label species, date, geographic site and vessel name on back of photograph)
Figure 2-7.
Incident report form for incidental take of Atlantic Sturgeon or Shortnose sturgeon by impingement at the IPEC cooling water intakes.
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_1 3Jun2014.docx 6/13/14 30 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR /PEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Draw wounds, abnormalities, tag locations on diagram and briefly describe below l
R Description of fish condition:
Figure 2-7 (continued).
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 31 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR /PEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Appcndh-4:
Summar.' of Environmental Samplin~ Data for Research Activity'*'
Specks (AS:<
SSN) l"nit]U dD I...oa1tion RiH~r Locution (Lat/Long orrkm)
Nct&-1 (minlhr)
BoUom Depth
{Dt)
Botton*
Temp rq I
Pl~ase coordmate ""1th NSiFS to n:*ceJ\\ l" a hie copy of this app<:ndJx m spreadsheet k"lfRHII Salinit~*
(ppl)
I.ist ind1vidual fish (.ASN or SNS) concunently when rl"conlmg data r~-.r multiple sturg.eon:s m a catch Totnl Length (mm)
Total Weight
- Mortalit~*
(kg)
Comm~n1s Figure 2-8.
Summary form for environmental data associated with incidental take of Atlantic Sturgeon or Shortnose sturgeon.
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 32 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Instructions: Collecting, Certifying, Identifying &Shipping Tissue Samples Collected from Sturgeon.
- 1.
Species Certification:
For each shipment a "Certificatiun of Species Identification" (Section A) must be provided. This form documents the collector has identified the fish or fishes sampled in the shipment as either a shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon. If there is any doubt about the identity of a sample, then mark unknown and include comments on the take.
- 2.
Sample Identification:
Assign a unique number identifying each individual fish captured and subsequently sampled. This number must be recorded in Section B and on the collection vial for each sample taken. Record tissue type: preservative used:
date of capture; location of capture (river & description, ]at/long, river km, and nearest city); length of specimen; weight: and sex, if known. Check the box provided if you arc submining multiple samples, and provide a hard-copy and/or email a copy of the sample spreadsheet with infom1ation for each of the data fields listed above.
- 3.
Tissue Sampling Instructions:
- a. Cleanliness of Samples: Cross contamination should be avoided. For each fish, use a clean cutting tool, syringe, etc. for collecting and handling samples.
- b. Preserving &
Packaging Samples:
- 1.
Label vial with fish 's unique ID number.
- 11.
Place a 1-2 cm2 section of pelvic fin clip in vial with preservative (95% absolute ETOH (un-denatured), recommended).
111.
Seal individual vials or containers with leak proof positive measure (e.g., tape).
IV.
Package vials and absorbent within a double sealed container (e.g., zip Jock baggie).
- v.
Label air package properly identifying ETOH warning label (See Appendix 3c).
- c. Shipping Instructions:
When shipping samples, place separately Appendix 3a, 3b and 3c (Sample ID and Chain of Custody Fonns and Shipping Training Fonn) in container and seal the shipping box to maintain the chain of custody. (}!ote: A copy of the ESA pe1mit authorizing the collection of the samplc(s) must also accompany the sample(s)).
Important Notice: You must be certified before shipping tissue samples preserved with 95% ETIJH in "excepted quantities" (A Class 3 Hazardous Materialllue to Flammable Nature). See Appendix 3c: "NMFS Guidelines for Air-Shipment of Excepted lluantities of Ethanol Solutions" to comply with the IJIJT/IATA federal regulations.
- 4.
Chain of Custody Instructions:
The "Chain of Custody" (Section C) should be maintained for each shipment of tissue samples and must accompany the sample(s) at all times. To maintain the chain of custody, when samplc(s) are transferred, the sample(s) and the documentation should be packaged and scaled together to ensure that no tampering has occurred. All subsequent handlers breaking the seal must also sign and document the chain of custody section.
- 5.
Contact Information:
A. NMFS, Office of Protected Resources:
- i. Primary
Contact:
Malcolm Mohead (rnd.hol!!!.mohpdfl.llO>IJlJl.<*\\ ) Phone: 3011713-2289 ii. Primary
Contact:
Colette Cairns (c:~£!.tL\\...<t.in.J'.!Lnoa,t.,go\\ ) Phone: 301/713-2289
- i. Secondary
Contact:
(Northeast) Jessica Pruden (l~-"c"~ill'rti.Ju~g.nuaa..,;~~ ) Phone: 978i281 -9300 ii. Secondary
Contact:
(Southeast) Stephania Bolden ( ~!c*phanltLP\\*I<!~n..!Llli>.!a.g. 1) Phone: 7271824-5312 8. 1\\'0S Archive:
Figure 2-9.
- i. Primary
Contact:
Julie Carter (lu '~-"' tJt.cL!L!!\\:>..l£1~u\\ ) Phone: 8431762-8547 Instructions for collecting, certifying, identifying, and shipping sturgeon tissue samples.
IPEC_St urgeon_Monitoring,_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/14 33 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR /PEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 I Certification, Identification and Chain of Custod~ Form for Submitting Sturgeon Genetic I,
- I' issue Samples.',2 (A) CERTIFICATION OF SPECIES (Collector)
I.
- hereby certify that I have positively identified the Full N'ame fish or fishes sampled in this shipment as:
0 shortnosc sturgeon; 0 Atlantic sturgeon; 0 other 0 unknown based on my knowledge and t*xperience as a.
Position Job T itle Signatun*:
Date Identified: -
Address: - --- -----*- ----- ---
Phone Number:
(B) SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION Species Identification:
0 shortnose sturgeon; 0 Atlantic sturgeon; 0 unknown Unique ID No:
- Tissue Type:
- Preservath*e
- ------ _,
Location: (ruvcr:
- River-km
- ___ ; Lat/Long:
ru,*er Location
Description:
);
Total Length (TL) of Specimen (mm):
Weight of Specimen (g):
- Sex (if known) __
Specific comments on take:
0 Check here if multiple samples are submitted and usc Field Collection Report (Appendix 3b) with the data fields listed in this section.
(C) EVIDENCE OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY I.
Release Signaturr
- \\'MFS Permit ~o.
l\\*Jctbod of T ra nsf(~r Date Receipt Signature NMFS Permit ~o.
Date
- 2.
Release Signature
~-M FS Permit ~o.
1\\*Jethod of Tra nsfer Date Rec('ipt SiJtoatun*
- '\\"MFS Permit :'\\'o.
Date
- 3.
Release Signatun*
1\\MFS Permit 1\\o.
!\\lt*thod of Traosft*r Date Receipt Signature 1\\MFS Permit 7-io.
()ate
- Instructions on next page.
-' If multiple samples are shipped. attach summary sheet in r'\\ppendix 3b.
Figure 2-10.
Certification of species, sample identification, and chain of custody form.
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 61 131 14 34 Normandeau Assodates, Inc.
'ij,
"'TI
( '
~
tiO' c:
c t>l 11>
0,,
N 0
0
~*
5' c.n
\\"'
- E c
00 3
3 QJ iN c;
0' c:
N
~
3 Q.
0 0...,
()
X a-Ill c...,
w -
A uo 11>
0 :J uo
~ I 11>
- J 11>
r:;*
v;*
Ill c
11>
Ill QJ fl 3
"C m Q
- J Cl lb Q c:
)::,..
Cll Cll 0 n c;*
~~
A dix 3b s
Sl for G
. T" s
1.2 Unique ID.
Comments I.
Please coordmate woth NMFS to rec~o ve a file copy of tins arpendox 111 spreadsheet format.
- 2.
II mulllplc samples arc sh1pped. attach th1s form (and disk copy) tu supplement Appendix 3a.
~
Q a:
-1 Q
- 0
- z C'l
~
(j
- 0
~
VI
-1
~
C'l
~
~
~
~
~
-1
- 0
~
~
N
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Ap~e ndix 3c NMFS Guidelines for Air-Shipment of "Excepted Quantities" of Ethanol Solutions These guidelines have been adapted with permission from the Uni>ers~y of New Hampshire-Office of En>ironmen!lll Heakh !i Safety; our appr!!ciation is to Andy Glade for pro>iding reference materials upon which this guide was created.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT: 49 CFR 173.4) and the International Air Transport Association (lATA:
2007 Dangerous Goods Regulations, Sec. 2.7) regulate shipments of ethanol (ET OH) in excepted quantities. As a result, specific procedures m ust be followed as well as certifying proper training of individuals prior to packaging and shipping specimens preserved in ETOH. These guidelines will inform proper shipping and also satisfy certifying requirem ents. Failure to meet such requirements could result in regulatory fines and/or imprisonment.
Therefore, p rior to submitting ETOH preserved samples and appropriate documentation (e.g-, a FedEx Airbill) to a carrier, please read, initial and sign this document, affirming you have understood the requirements as outlined.
Please include this document in the shipping p ackage and retain a copy for your records.
- 1)
Pat:ktgc~ and docu me n t~ submitted ro a carnei musr nut comam any maten als othe-r than those de:-;cnbcd m this document IJ.r:'. con tatm:r_
holding e-thanol pre.sened specun<:ns and related.1bsorhcm and packaging materials). Also, laboratory or sampling equipment, umr1~1ted drJam;mt.r, ur other goodr-; must be pack1ged ::md shipped In separate boxes. (b]ote: ETCH I solunon~ are not permltred to be transported in checked bagg~1ge, carry on bag-,gage, or 3im1ail.)
I updcrstand ( ___ )
- 2)
Please read the manufacrurer"s Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDSJ tor ETUH recognizmg ETOJI (55 100"-'o) IS classed as hazardous tlammable matenal (NFP:\\ Raung = 3). Note also, its \\*apor IS capable of traveling a considerable djr-;rance to an tgnJt:IOn som-re causing "tlashback. Properly packaging and labeling shjpments of ethanol solutions w1ll minimize tht' chance of leakage, and \\VOuld also commumcate the potential hazard to transpnn worker:-. in d1e event of a leak.
I understand ( __
)
a)
Quantity Limits: Small quantmcs (in ner \\ontainer les5 than 30 ml, with a max..mmrn net quantity of 500 ml for the cnrire package) of ETOH can be shipped \\\\1th " Excepted Q uanrnies" labels withmu completion of a Dangerous Goods Declaration.
(e.g., If shipping,;ah; ha,.*ing a maximum Yolume of 10 m l each, ~*ou may put up w 50 vials in one box.)
I understand{ ___ )
b)
Package Components:
- i. Inner (primary) pa<-*aging (e.g., vial, tube, j"r, etc-): Do not completely filltnner packagmg; allow IO"'o hcad*,race for li'iuid expansiOn. Liquids must nut completely fill inner pac-kat:,ring. at a l en lpt* rarun~* of 55"C (1 30°F). Closures of inner packaJ.:,ring (e.g., vials with tops.) mwa be held securely in place \\\\*irh tape or other posirin~ mean.s.
I understand <-*-**-.)
ii. Inten n ediate (secondary) packaging (e.g. Ziplock or other plaMic bag): Place mner cont:atner(s) (t.g.. \\"lals with ET OH) into a high-quality plastic bag. Then add an :1b~orbent material cap:able of absorbing any spillage \\Vithout react.ing With the ethanol. Sea] the first b~g ttghtly and rhen tape the lockmg seals. ~ex t, seal the inner bag \\">.rithin a ~econd bag for added s"fety.
J understand (_ __ J iii. Outer packaging (e.g., cardboard box): Ethanol soluuons may not be shipped in envelopes, TjYek sleaws, or other non-rigid mailers. The dimensions of the outer box m u5t be ar lea ~r 100 mm (--4 inches) on nvo stdes. Any space lx-:t\\veen the mner packjng cont.1.mers placed in the outer packagmg should be eliminated with additional filler.
I understand ( ___ )
c)
Package Labels:
- i. Dangerous Goods in E xcepted Quantities Label (Figure 1.): The label must display a "3" as the ethanol hazard claS>
number using a black marker. You may o btain self-adhesin* labels from N.MFS. or else, orde-r online.
I understand( _
_ )
ii. Name and Address: The outer container must display tl1c name and address of the shipper and consignee. \\'Chen re-using shipping boxes, completely remove or black out all unnecessary labels or marks.
I understand (_. __.)
Figure 2-12.
..,..,~..,...,..
fl -
<9 fl -
fl --
fl 3
Figure 1.
Dangerous Guoth 1n E-..;cepted O uantirics labd Guidelines and form for air shipment of "excepted quantities" of ethanol solutions.
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan._Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 36 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR /PEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Appendix 3c (continued) d)
Pac kage Tests:
- \\ n.:-present:1.ti,*e exam ple of packa~11ng u:-t*d fo r excepted quilntme:-. \\,t ethanol ::-olu u on ~ must p:'l.;o.!- ;1 Jn *p tt"o.:t anrl rtlm pTe5SJ\\"t" load rest \\nth out a n~ !*u eakage or le:1kage of any tnner pack.agmg.and wnhuuc :JIW qgruficant rcduu1un 1t1 p:1ck:1.ge,.ffc-ni n~r l eS~ Per!(mn rhe follnwtng t t:!-t~ una represenrauYe c xJ. mpl~ of your pad... igm_g, and keep a record of the rt~uh"
- 1. Drop Test: Drop a n.*prcsentatiYe package from a hctght of 1.!~ m. *. 5.9 feet) directly ontu a solid unyJCldmg ~urtaC<*:
J.
b c
J.
- e.
Ont drop tlat on the ba~e ;
O ne drop flat £JO top;
( >nc drop r1at on rhe longest s1de:
One drop flat on rhe shortc:*st side; and
( )ne drop on a corner Test Results
_)
--i
( _ ________________________ _
( ______________ _
ii. Comprcssil'e Load Test:.'\\pply a force tu the cop !'urface of a rC"pre!>entati\\'e package fur a durarlun uf 24 h our~. t*q uiYolle m tn the total \\,*,*ight of tdentical packages 1f st:>ekcd to a height of 3 mett rs.
(
)
e)
Package Documentation:
Proper documcn
- cion is required for all ~hipments of hazardous marc-rials. Incorrect documentation is the most common cause for package refusal. If using docurnentanon for couriers other than FedEx, U'S and D HJ., pk-ase contact NMFS fur asststance.
- i. FedEx: For domestic shipments with Fed Ex Expr<$>, fill out the standard US :\\1rbill. Fill uut the form compktd\\' tnd uding rhe foU0\\\\*1ng mformation:
- a.
In Section 6, Special fhndlmg, check the box 'Yes, Shi per's Declar rion not rec1uued."'
- b.
O n the rop of rhe form aboYc-the Fed Ex tracking number, include the statement, "Dangerous GoO<Is in Excepted Quantities" See example in F igure 2.
I understand (. ___ )
ii. DHL: The " ;.'\\;(l/Hrr and Q~~tm li!_r of C'ooa's" box of rhe atr waybill must include '*Dangerous Goods in Excepted Quantities.,
I understand ( ___ )
~-..,***r*~-~
L_
F tgu r e 2 Example of FedEx A~
7~ /~
Incl u d e this s'ta t c rn e n't ~nd ch e ck 'th i s b o x.
By signing th.is document, I affim1 I understand the h azards associated with ethanol and the shipping requirem ents fo r ethanol solutions, as outlined in th.is guide. I also understand I am required to include a copy of th.is document in the package and that it should be appended to an ESA permit (if listed samples are sh.ij>ped).
P rint N am e:
Signature:
Employer:
Employer Address:
Date:
- ~-
Figure 2-12 (continued).
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_.13Jun2014.docx 6/1 3/14 37 Normandeau Assodates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Appendix 5:
Sturgeon Salvage Form For use in documenting dead sturgeon in the wild under ESA Permit No. 1614 (version 07-20-2009l INVESTIGATORS'S CONTACT INFORMATION I
UNIQUE IDENTIFIER (Assigned by NM.FS) I Name First Last Agency Affiliation Email DATE REPORTED:
Address Month DO Day00 Year2DDD DATE EXAMINED:
Area code/Phone number Month DO Day00 Year2DDD SPECIES: (check one)
LOCATION FOUND: 00ffshore (Atlantic or Gulf beach) O lnshore (bay, river, sound, inlet, etc)
D shortnose sturgeon River/Body of Water City State -
D Atlantic sturgeon Descriptive location (be specific)
D Unidentified Acipenser species Chuck "Unidefllified" if uncertain.
Latitude N (Dec. Degrees)
Longitude W (Dec. Degrees)
See reverse side of this fonn CARCASS CONDITION at time SEX:
MEASUREMENTS:
Circle unit examined: (check one)
D Undetermined Fork length em / in D 1 = Fresh dead D Female D Male Total length em/ in D 2 = Moderately deccmposed How was sex determined?
Length D actual D estimate D 3 = Severely decomposed D Necropsy Mouth 1-.idth (inside lips, see reverse side) --- em/in D 4 = Dried carcass D Eggs/milt present when pressed Interorbital 1-.idth (sec reverse side) em/in D 5 = Skeletal, scutes/ cartilage D Borescope Weight D actual D estimate kg lib TAGS PRESENT? Examined for external tags including fin clips? DYes D No Scanned for PIT tags? 0Yes0 No Tag#
Tag Type Location of tag on carcass CARCASS DISPOSITION: (check one or more)
Carcass Necropsied?
PHOTODOCUMENT AT ION:
D 1 = Left where found DYes 0No Photos/vide taken? DYes D No 02 = Buried 03 = Collected for necropsy/salvage Date Necropsied:
Disposition of PhotosMdeo:
0 4 = Frozen for later examination 05 =Other (describe)
Necropsy Lead:
SAMPLES COLLECTED? 0 Yes 0 No Sample How preserved Disposition (person, affiliation, use)
Comments:
Figure 2-13.
Sturgeon salvage form.
IPEC_Sturgeon __ Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 38 Normandeau Assodates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Distinguishing Characteristics of Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon (version 07-20-2009)
- Characteristic Maximum length Mouth
'Pre-anal plates
- Plates along the
- analfin
- Habitat/Range Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus
> 9 feet/274 em Football shaped and small. Width inside lips < 55% of bony interorbital width I i Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum 4 feet/122 em Wide and oval in shape. Width inside lips > 62% of bony interorbital width i Paired plates posterior to the rectum & anterior to the 1-3 pre-anal plates almost always occurring as median
-~
anal fin.
__ +
structures (occurring singly) i Rhombic, bony plates found along the lateral base of No plates along the base of anal fin the anal fin (see diagram below)
Anadromous; spawn in freshwater but primarily lead a marine existence Freshwater amphidromous; found primarily in fresh water but does make some coastal migrations
- From Vecsei and Peterson, 2004 A1LANTIC
~
lnterorbital~idth
.. * * *~
- *~
_ _.... Mouth width
~-~\\
-~
Booy plates SHORTNOSE
.*.. -~
~"~~~
~
~
Describe any wounds I abnormalities (note tar or oil, gear or debris entanglement, propeller damage, etc.). Please note if no wounds I abnormalities are found.
Data Access Policy* Upon written request, information submitted to National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) on this form will be released to the requestor provided that the requestor credit the collector of the information and NOAA Fisheries. NOAA Fisheries will notifY the collector that these data have been requested and the intent of their use.
Submit completed forms (within 30 days of date of investigation) to: Jessica Pruden. Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Coordinator. NOAA Fisheries Northea*t Region. 55 Great Republic Drive. Gloucester. MA 01930. Phone* 978-282-8482: Fax: 978-281 -9394; E-Mail Jessica.Pruden@noaa.gov Figure 2-13 (continued)
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 39 Normandeau Assodates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 START The QC inspector inspects 100% of the samples sorted or identified by an individual.
1---
When i consecutive samples are found within tolerance, r
The QC inspector is released from 100% inspection and inspects a fraction, f of the samples, where the samples are selected in a random manner.
If one defective sample is found Figure 2-14.
10% AOQL continuous sampling plan CSP-1 for quality control inspections.
IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring__Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 40 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
MONITORING PLAN FOR /PEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Unit 1 Trash Racks IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2 __ 13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 A1 Normandeau Assodates, Inc.
- Indian Point Unit l lntake Structure The cooling water intake structure for Indian Point Unit 1 (Figure 1, Figure 2), which began operations in 1962, has four intake bays situated behind the Unit 1 wharf. Cooling water was supplied by two 140,000 gpm circulating pumps, each withdrawing through two of the bays. There were two sets of the screen wash and river water pumps, with each set capable of up to 19,000 gpm of service water. There was a fixed fine screen (3/8" mesh) at the river side of each intake bay, with a trash rack (3" spacing) situated between the fixed screen and the traveling screen. The side bays containing the river water and screen wash pumps had small auxiliary traveling screens. The intake bays were approximately 11ft in width, with a bottom elevation of -26ft (below MSL). Since the curtain wall for Unit 1 extended 5 ft below MSL, then each bay would have an opening of approximately 235 ft 2 and average velocity through the bay opening (not accounting for the screens) of 0. 75 fps. At the trash racks t he withdrawal area was 291 ft2 for each bay (not accounting for the area of the rack), with an average velocity of 0.61 fps.
Wharf Conventional Traveling Screens Circulating Water Pumps 140,000 gpm each Figure 1 Schematic diagram of Unit 1 cooling water intake as originally built.
1 Hudson River Fine Fixed Screens
[L[y.
H u 0 s 0
N R
I v SLOT FOR 9!PORAAV SLOT FOR f iN> SCREEil OEWA.TERI NG iiVl 1EAO Figure 2 Cross section of Unit 1 cooling water intake as originally built.
e m~ msn1
--- CIRCULATING.
[,',HER ~UMP Subsequent to the retirement of Unit 1, the fixed fine screens, conventional traveling screens, and cooling water pumps were removed (Figure 3). The auxiliary traveling screens have been replaced by two dual flow traveling screens with 0.06-inch mesh, each one serving 19,000 gpm flow capability from the river water and screen wash pumps. Typically only one set of pumps and screen is operated at a time. At 19,000 gpm, the average velocity through the bay openings would be 0.09 fps, and at the former location of the bar racks 0.07 fps.
Diver inspection of the intakes has confirmed that there are no longer any trash racks. Because the velocities into the Unit 1 intake bays are so low (<0.1 fps on the operating side, 0 on the non-operating side) and during most of the time less than the tidal currents at the face of the intake, dead or moribund fish are unlikely to be drawn into the intake structure. Live fish would have free access to enter or leave the intake bays at will in these low intake velocities.
Given the changes to the Unit 1 intake structure that were previously documented, and as updated here, entry of dead sturgeon into the Unit 1 intake is likely to be a very rare event. There is no reason to believe that involvement of either sturgeon species with the Unit 1 intake structure would be higher than was anticipated in the Biological Opinion.
2
Wharf River & Screen Wash Pumps 19,000 gpm Total Dual Flow Traveling Screens Figure 3 Schematic diagram of Unit 1 cooling water intake as currently configured.
3 Hudson River
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Schedule for Monitoring Plan Implementation IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/13/14 A2 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
- Implementation Schedule* for Revision 2 Sturgeon Monitoring Plan at IPEC
- 1) Preliminary Equipment Trials for Trash Bars, Fore bay and Velocity Studies a)
Start - 6/2/14
- 2) NMFS/Entergy meet ing in Gloucester, MA a)
Date 7/1/14
- 3)
Revision 3 Monitoring Plan to NMFS a)
Submit - 7/22/15 b) Approval by 10/13/14 (estimate)
- 4) Revision 3 Monitoring Plan to NYSDEC a)
Submit -10/14/14 b) Approval by 1/5/15 (estimate)
- 5) Trash Bar Feasibility Study a)
Submit SOP to NMFS 8/15/14 b) Start Study - 10/14/14
- 6)
IP3 Forebay Feasibility Study a)
Design and Install plant modifications i)
Completion of modification - 12/16/14 b) Submit SOP to NMFS - 12/16/14 c)
Start Study - 1/16/15
- 7) IP2 Forebay Feasibility Study a)
Design and Install plant modifications i)
Completion of modification - 7/14/15 b) Submit SOP to NMFS - 7/14/15 c)
Start Study - 8/14/15
- 8)
Ristroph Traveling Screen Approved Monitoring Program a)
Design and Install plant modifications i)
Completion of modification - 9/12/14 b) Submit SOP to NMFS - 9/12/14 c)
Start monitoring - 10/12/14
- 9) Velocity measurements/CFD a)
Submit to NMFS - 12/1/14
- Dates provided are efforts to provide best estimates, but those subject to prior regulatory approval or relying on t hird-party equipment providers may themselves be delayed or cause follow-on tasks to be delayed. Where delays are expected or materialize, Entergy promptly will provide NMFS with a revised schedule.
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 Traveling Screen Sluice Sampling and Data Analysis Plan IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/ 13/ 14 A3 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Data Analysis Plan for Traveling Screen Sluice Sampling 3/18/14 Prepared for:
INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER 450 Broadway, Suite 1 Buchanan, NY 10511 Prepared by AKRF, Inc.
7250 Parkway Drive, Suite 210 Hanover, MD 21076
Table of Contents A.
Introduction................................................................................................................... 1
- 1.
Background............................................................................................................... 1
- 2.
Sampling Design....................................................................................................... 1 B.
Notation......................................................................................................................... 2 C.
Unbiased Estimates....................................................................................................... 3 D.
Discussion..................................................................................................................... 3 E.
Literature Cited............................................................................................................. 4
A. Introduction
1. Background
The proposed plan for sampling sturgeon impinged on the travel screens is to record all sturgeon that are impinged during 3, 24-hour periods of each week (Monitoring Plan for IPEC Sturgeon Impingement - Revision I, page II):
"... impingement sampling will be scheduled for 24 consecutive hours (one sampling day) on the three selected sampling days per week."
"... impingement sampling will be accomplished by filtering the screen wash contents from all operating traveling screens at IPI, IP2, and IP3 through sampling nets inserted in the combined return sluices at each unit. At each unit, both the fish sluice and debris sluice will be sampled. The file crew will continuously staff and monitor each collection net during all 24-hours of each sampling day to detect and remove each sturgeon shortly after it is collected (i.e., within one hour)... A second blocking net, located in the same sluice but just downstream from the firs, will insure that one net is always collecting the sluice flow contents while the other net is being cleaned of debris and checked for sturgeon."
"During each scheduled sampling day the field crew will also systematically inspect the entire sluice system and water boxes at each intake structure for the presence of "resident" sturgeon and remove any sturgeon that were not washed through the system into the collection nets."
Accordingly, the traveling screen sluice sampling will provide a census of all sturgeon impinged on the traveling screens during each day of sampling. Separate records will be kept for IPI, IP2 and IP3, and the condition of each sturgeon observed will be recorded.
- 2. Sampling Design The proposed plan for traveling screen sluice sampling has the key elements of a stratified random sampling design (Cochran, 1977) in which each week of the year is a statistical stratum, and each day of the week is a sampling unit. In stratified random sampling, units within each stratum typically are selected at random for sampling. Due to logistical consideration, sampling in this case is planned to be conducted every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. The statistical methods developed for stratified random sampling are still valid in this case if impingement of sturgeon is random in time with respect to day of the week. That assumption is made for this data analysis plan.
A separate analysis will be conducted for each unit (i.e., IP 1, IP2 and IP3 ). In addition, separate analyses will be conducted for each condition category of sturgeon (e.g., live, injured, dead) as well as for all condition categories combined.
B. Notation The subscript h denotes stratum (i.e., week) and the subscript i denotes sampling unit (i.e.,
day) with in the stratum (Cochran, 1977):
N, =7, is the total number ofunits (days) per stratum (week) n, = 3, is the number of units (days) sampled per stratum (week) y,; = the number of sturgeon impinged on day i in week h W, = ;~, is the stratum weight for stratum h J;, = n,, is the sampling fraction within stratum h N,
Nh LYhi Y,, =.i=!....__, is the true mean number impinged per day within stratum (week) h N,
nh LYhi y, =.i=!....__, is the sample mean number impinged per day within stratum (week) h n,
- V, L:(y,i -Y,,y S 2 -
i=I
, is the true variance in the number impinged among days within stratum N - 1 h
(week) h L
Y = L W,Y,,, is the true mean number impinged per day averaged over the year, where L is the h=l number of strata (weeks) per year L
N = L N,, is the number of days per year.
h=l 2
C. Unbiased Estimates The annual total number impinged, Y, can be expressed as the number of days per year times the average number impinged per day:
L Y =NY= NLW11Y;,
h=l An unbiased estimate of the total, based on stratified random sampling is:
L Y,l = NIW,, yh h=l The variance ofthis unbiased estimate (Cochran, 1977) of the total number impinged is:
An unbiased estimate ofthe variance of the estimated total number (Cochran, 1977) impinged is:
where D. Discussion The data analysis plan for analyzing data from the traveling screen sluice sampling is to use the system of equations documented in the foregoing sections to compute unbiased estimates of the annual total numbers of sturgeon impinged. In addition, for each estimate of the annual total number impinged, an unbiased estimate of the variance will be computed.
As part of this analysis, estimates of variance components for each weekly stratum will be computed. These estimates of variance components can be used to guide the optimization of the sampling design for use in future years. In stratified random sampling with a fixed overall sample size, n, the variance of the estimated total is minimized when the samples are allocated to the strata as follows (Cochran, 1977):
3
N"S" n11 = n L IN"S" II= I This is referred to as the Neyman allocation (Neyman, 1934).
If impingement of sturgeon exhibits a seasonal pattern, then re-allocation of sampling effort can lead to improved precision of estimates and/or reduced sampling effort with no reduction in precision of estimates.
E. Literature Cited Cochran, W.G. 1977. Sampling techniques. Third edition. John Wiley and Sons. New York. 428 pages.
Neyman, J. 1934. On the two different aspects of the representative method: The method of stratififed sampling and the method of purposive selection. Jour. Roy. Stat. Soc., 97, 558-606.
4
MONITORING PLAN FOR IPEC STURGEON IMPINGEMENT REVISION 2 CFD Analysis of Forebay and Approach Velocities IPEC_Sturgeon_Monitoring_Plan_Rev2_13Jun2014.docx 6/13/14 A4 Normandeau Assodates, Inc.
Monitoring Plan for IPEC Sturgeon Impingement Revision 2 Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of Forebay and Approach Velocities Prepared by ALDEN RESEARCH LABORATORY, INC.
30 Shrewsbury Street Holden, MA 01520 The through slot velocity distribution at the face of the trash rack and the traveling water screens can vary when the approach flow is not normal to the screen surface. At IPEC this occurs because of the river currents. The river currents will cause a higher through screen velocity towards the downstream end of the trash rack. The skewed velocity profile can propagate through the forebay resulting in a skewed velocity distribution at the traveling screens. The skew in the velocity distribution is caused by and proportional to the free stream (river current) velocity component parallel to the screen surface.
One of several commercially available computational fluid dynamics models that exist will be applied to the proposed modeling effort (e.g., Fluent, by ANSYS; or FLOW-3D, by Flow Science). The two models are similar in that both solve the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations with options for various turbulence models to simulate the creation, transport and dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy. However, implementation of the governing equations differs; Fluent uses a boundary fitted grid and FLOW-3D uses a structured grid. The solver in Fluent is better suited to steady state simulations while the FLOW-3D solver is very efficient for unsteady (time-dependent) simulations. Both models have the ability to simulate the trash rack and the traveling water screens with a porous media approximation. We propose to use Fluent with a steady state approximation for an efficient modeling effort rather than FLOW-3D and an unsteady simulation.
The proposed CFD model will extend from downstream of the traveling water screens to a distance of two to four intake widths into the Hudson River. Because the skew in the velocity profile is expected to increase with increasing river currents (shear flow), the skew can be bounded without knowing exact river current magnitudes or direction. Shear flow will be applied in the model without a need to model the cause of the shear flow. High resolution river bathymetry in front of the intake (Substructure 2010) will be used to describe the Hudson River bottom contours and substrate near the IP2 and IP3 CWISs.
The magnitude of the shear flow will be bounded using the existing ADCP data sets from two studies performed in the nearfield area of the Hudson River adjacent to IP2 and IP3 during 2010 (Normandeau 2011) and 2011 (Normandeau 2012). Typically river currents are slower near the shore than in the center of the river. A conservative estimate of the shear flow is to use the maximum observed velocities from the 2010 ADCP Stations 2A and 2B.docx 6/ 13/ 14 A4-1 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Monitoring Plan for IPEC Sturgeon Impingement Revision 2 offshore near the IP2 CWIS and Stations 3A and 3B offshore near the IP3 CWIS (Figure 1). A less conservative estimate would use the measured ADCP velocities from in between the IP2 and IP3 CWIS's at the IP1 barge site from the 2011 study (Figure 1). To cover the range of possible maximum velocities, this model will use the maximum from all locations for the initial simulations. Skew in the velocity should also be more pronounced at lower intake pump flows that typically occur during the winter. Therefore, a bounding simulation for each model will be run with the minimum pumping flow.
Two models will be created, one for each of the IP2 and IP3 CWIS. Each model will include the actual trash racks and traveling screens and the relevant intake geometry. Each trash rack or screen surface will be modeled as a porous medium with either the observed or designed headloss characteristics of that trash rack or screen. The headloss characteristics will be obtained either from measurements recorded by IPEC, or directly from the screen manufacturer. If sufficient headloss information is not available from either of these two sources, headloss will be estimated from the screen open area and screen design.
Manufacturer's data is considered more reliable than the estimates. Each model will be run for the maximum upriver and downriver velocity resulting in four simulations to define the extreme case condition. Depending on model results, additional simulations may be used to simulate average river conditions or river conditions with a specific exceedence probability.
The velocity distribution three inches upstream of each trash rack and traveling screen will be post-processed to create plots that show the percentage of screen area on the horizontal axis and the velocity percentile above or below the nominal through screen velocity on the vertical axis. The plots will quantitatively show the skew in the approach velocity for a bounding flow condition.
The trash racks and the traveling screens cause headloss which serves to create a more uniform velocity distribution through the screens. The velocity distribution on the surface of the screen can be used to estimate the variability in the through screen velocity. The distribution is considered an estimate because the model will not include every bar and every gap in the trash rack or the traveling water screens. Resolving each screen member is beyond the limitations of existing computational resources. However, the estimated through slot velocity is expected to be very reliable. Plots quantifying the variability in velocity distribution across each trash rack or traveling screen will be made. In addition to the quantitative plots described above, color contour plots will be created for each trash rack and screen colored by absolute velocity or by or a dimensionless velocity showing the velocity distribution.
IPEC has two data sets of continuously recorded nearfield Hudson River water currents available to be used to develop the CFD model of the IP2 and IP3 intakes described above.
These two data sets encompass the range of tidal and weather conditions, river flows, and pump operations that are representative of the Hudson River near IPEC. The first data set consists of more than 4.5 million data points of current velocity and direction obtained during five-minute periods from 0.5 m or 1.0 m vertical depth layers overlying four acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCPs) deployed in the Hudson River near the IP2 and IP3 CWIS's during 4 March through 2 November 2010 (Figure 1). Water current velocity and direction were continuously monitored in each depth layer at four locations (Stations 2A and 2B offshore from IP2; Stations 3A and 3B offshore from IP3) throughout the overlying water column water to (1) evaluate the percentage of time that river currents of a particular.docx 6/ 13/ 14 A4-2 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Monitoring Plan for IPEC Sturgeon Impingement Revision 2 velocity range equaled or exceeded designated current velocity increments, (2) determine the primary axes of current flow direction at each of the four Stations, and (3) determine frequency distributions of peak tidal current velocity data throughout the entire nine month monitoring period at each of the four Stations.
Two in situ upward-looking ADCPs were also installed on the Hudson River bottom at Stations 1S and 2N in close proximity to the IP1 pier (Figure 1) to continuously record river current velocity and direction throughout the overlying water column from 25 May through 26 September 2011. Water column turbulence data was also collected to provide actual field values of turbulence intensity for CFD modeling of the intake structures. The fixed position ADCPs measured and recorded the physical dynamics of the Hudson River currents in a data set consisting of more than 729,000 data points of current direction and velocity during five-minute intervals from 0.5 m and 1.0 m depth intervals throughout a 50 foot deep water column at the IP1location, which is in between the IP2 and IP3 CWISs. This 2011 ADCP data set also includes approximately 58 million data points represented by bursts of water direction and velocity data obtained to measure turbulence at one-second intervals. Data recorded from this IPl site are available for analysis from daily and tidal timescales down to one-second turbulence timescales, including velocity, direction, temperature, depth, and water surface elevation.
The proposed use for the model is to determine the bounding skew in the through slot velocity distribution based on maximum velocities in the river and minimum pump flow conditions. The model can be validated and used to predict the variation in through slot velocity for specific conditions. For this purpose, new velocity measurements will be made near the IP2 and IP3 CWIS's. The measurements will include the river current velocity in front of the CWIS's about 2 to 4 intake widths out from the intake face. Velocity measurements will also be made as close to the trash rack as possible at four locations for IP2 and IP3 CWISs. The predicted velocity distribution at the trash rack will be compared to the measured velocity. Differences in the measured and predicted velocity distribution are typically the result of an incorrect headloss through the trash racks and traveling screens.
The headloss coefficient can be adjusted to calibrate the model. The calibrated model can be used to predict the velocity distribution on the trash racks and traveling screens for any river flow condition.
Examples illustrating output graphic capabilities of the proposed CFD models are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3..docx 6/1 3/14 A4-3 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Monitoring Plan for IPEC Sturgeon Impingement Revision 2 ADCP Locations 02010 Figure 1.
Acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) monitoring station locations near IP2 and IP3 from continuous monitoring studies performed during 2010 (Stations 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B) and 201 1 (Stations 1S and 2N). The base image is from Google Earth..docx 6/13/14 A4-4 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Monitoring Plan for IPEC Sturgeon Impingement Revision 2 Area of zoom next slide velocity magnitude contours 0.00 1.00 2.00 z
o.o I
-27.0 I
-100.
-60.
-20.
- 20.
- 60.
X FLOW-3D t:1.2000059E+03 y:2.750E+00 ix=2 to 28 kz:2 to 28 m-b linked
~h:
1
~7:48 03/21/2014 hval hydr3d: version 10.1.1.05 win64 2013 Figure 2.
Example of CFD model output showing variation in intake velocity across the face of the traveling screens at the IP2 or IP3 intake at IPEC.
100..docx 6/ 13/ 14 A4-5 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Monitoring Plan for IPEC Sturgeon Impingement Revision 2 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
t I
0.5 ft horizontal by 1ft vertical computational grid shown.
The velocity in each cell is computed, velocity between cells can be interpolated I
J I
j I
J
~
- Average velocity perpendicular to face= 0.89 ft/s
- 30 percent of area has velocity less than average
- 70 percent of area is above average velocity
- Can do statistics on velocity distribution 0
103'){,...------
- c 7~*~ r 0
~ 6i)';*J
~
- ~~:era~eVelc.::it\\1
~ 50%
~ *1U'h
~
]
30':-J 20S:~
- .t:'i l
-I.:J()
-0.50 (50 l:J()
Velcci~(ft/s) 1.50 Figure 3.
Example of CFD model output showing variation in intake velocity across the face of a single traveling screen in a CWIS at IPEC..docx 6/13/14 A4-6 Normandeau Associates, Inc.