View source for ML14051A534

{{Adams
| number = ML14051A534
| issue date = 02/20/2014
| title = 2014/02/20 Indian Point Lr Hearing - IPEC License Renewal - Final Supplemental Impact Statement - NL-14-030
| author name = 
| author affiliation = - No Known Affiliation
| addressee name = 
| addressee affiliation = NRC/NRR/DLR
| docket = 05000247, 05000286
| license number = 
| contact person = 
| document type = E-Mail
| page count = 56
| project = 
| stage = Supplement
}}

=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:IPRenewal NPEmails From:                       Waters, Roger M. [rwater1@entergy.com]
Sent:                       Thursday, February 20, 2014 8:43 AM To:                         James, Lois Cc:                         Green, Kimberly

==Subject:==
IPEC License Renewal - Final Supplemental Impact Statement - NL-14-030 Attachments:                NL-14-030 final without attachment 2.pdf Ms. James, Attached is a courtesy pdf version of NL-14-030 dated 2/19/14 concerning the FSEIS. Hardcopies will be in the mail shortly to you, the NRC Document Control Desk and the distribution. Please note that, due to size limitations,  is not included in this pdf version. Attachment 2 contains information that is already publically available.
: Regards, Roger Waters IPEC Licensing 914-254-7714 1

Hearing Identifier:     IndianPointUnits2and3NonPublic_EX Email Number:           4488 Mail Envelope Properties      (A121135CD9246F4082BF946E6F9FB03945CFA7DD)

==Subject:==
IPEC License Renewal - Final Supplemental Impact Statement - NL-14-030 Sent Date:              2/20/2014 8:43:24 AM Received Date:          2/20/2014 8:44:55 AM From:                   Waters, Roger M.
Created By:             rwater1@entergy.com Recipients:
"Green, Kimberly" <Kimberly.Green@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "James, Lois" <Lois.James@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:            JDCXMETSP003.etrsouth.corp.entergy.com Files                           Size                    Date & Time MESSAGE                         441                     2/20/2014 8:44:55 AM NL-14-030 final without attachment 2.pdf                      2335231 Options Priority:                       Standard Return Notification:            No Reply Requested:                No Sensitivity:                    Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:

Entergy Nuclear Northeast Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB P.O. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Tel (914) 254-2055 Fred Dacimo Vice President Operations License Renewal NL-14-030 February 19, 2014 Ms. Lois James Environmental Project Manager Division of License Renewal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-11F1 Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk 11545 Rockville Pike, TWFN-2 F1 Rockville, MD 20852-2738

==SUBJECT:==
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3 Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286 License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64

==REFERENCES:==
: 1. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Final Report (December 2010),
Sections 4.1.1.-4.1.3, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 (FSEIS).
: 2. Appendix H (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Evaluation of Environmental Impacts of Cooling System).
: 3. Appendix I (Statistical Analyses Conducted for Chapter 4 Aquatic Resources and Appendix H).

==Dear Ms. James:==

This letter is submitted by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Unit 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Unit 3, LLC (collectively, Entergy), as it relates to license renewal of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 (respectively, IP2 and IP3; collectively, IPEC).
The purpose of this letter is to provide the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff with:

Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 NL-14-030 Page 2 of 7 (1) new information from regulators charged with overseeing fisheries that are relevant to NRC Staffs subsidiary findings for certain fish species in Sections 4.1.1-4.1.3 of the FSEIS and its supporting Appendices H and I (New Information); and (2) Entergys identification and correction of an inadvertent discrepancy in NRC Staffs use of certain Entergy data files to reach these subsidiary findings. The New Information is referenced and described below. Discussion of the discrepancy, and Entergys reconstruction of the NRC Staffs analysis to correct that discrepancy, is also summarized below, but further set out in detail in a report performed by leading fisheries scientist, Dr. Doug Heimbuch of AKRF, Inc. (AKRF; the AKRF Report, attached).
Importantly, this New Information and AKRF Report underscore the correctness of NRC Staffs conclusion in Section 8 of the FSEIS that potential impacts to aquatic species as a result of projected entrainment and impingement at IPEC during the twenty-year license renewal period are no more than MODERATE, and likely SMALL. Nevertheless, consistent with Entergys commitment to ensuring the accuracy of the record relating to the IPEC license-renewal proceeding and 10 C.F.R. &sect; 51.94, Entergy hereby requests that the New Information and AKRF Report be included in the record of this proceeding, and that NRCs subsidiary findings with respect to blueback herring, hogchoker, rainbow smelt and white perch in Section 4.1.3.3.
of the FSEIS be promptly corrected.

===Background===
The relevant FSEIS Sections and Appendices relate to NRC Staffs analysis of the effects of theoretical (or projected) impingement and/or entrainment (I&E) of certain aquatic species in IPECs cooling water intake structure under NRC-renewed licenses, and specifically include the subsidiary findings contained in FSEIS Appendix H Tables H-15 and 17, as well as Tables I-24, 38, 46 and 47, all as discussed in Sections 4.1.1-4.1.3 of the FSEIS (particularly Section 4.1.3.3). While NRC Staff determined that IPECs continued operation during the license renewal period would have only SMALL or MODERATE potential impacts to the vast majority of representative Hudson River aquatic species, in FSEIS Section 4.1.3.3, NRC Staff identified five (5) species, i.e., blueback herring, hogchoker, rainbow smelt, spottail shiner and white perch, the potential impacts to which NRC Staff identified as LARGE. NRC Staffs subsequent supplements to the FSEIS have reduced the LARGE finding for spottail shiner and also further addressed shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon, including based on then-new information from fisheries regulators or Entergys previous correction of inadvertent discrepancies. See, e.g.,
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/ renewal/applications/indian-point.html (discussing June 20, 2013 Supplement to FSEIS) (This supplement includes corrections to impingement and entrainment data presented in the final SEIS, revised conclusions regarding thermal impacts based on newly available thermal plume studies, and an update of the status of the NRC's consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act with the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon.). Thus, at this time, four species retain MODERATE to LARGE findings for potential impacts, i.e., blueback herring, hogchoker, rainbow smelt and white perch. See, e.g., FSEIS, Section 4.1.3.3 (as supplemented on June 20, 2013). Again, NRC Staffs findings with respect to these species are subsidiary findings that NRC Staff used to reach a general conclusion regarding I&E, a conclusion not affected by this submission.

Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 NL-14-030 Page 3 of 7 Pursuant to NRC Staffs definition of LARGE impacts, the effects of I&E would have to be sufficient to destabilize those fish populations to result in LARGE findings. FSEIS, p. 1-3. As documented in the New Information discussed further below, LARGE findings are not appropriate for and cannot be reconciled with the findings in published fisheries reports for blueback herring and rainbow smelt. Furthermore, as documented in the AKRF Report, the New Information prompted Entergy to again review NRC Staffs analysis, which resulted in our identifying another inadvertent discrepancy in NRC Staffs use of Entergys data files. When these discrepancies are corrected (employing NRC Staffs methodology) with updated data to align with the New Information, none of the LARGE findings remain appropriate. Thus, and importantly, with these corrections, NRC Staffs analysis in the FSEIS will conform to the current findings of other expert agencies for the species in question.
New Information As NRC Staff is aware, ongoing fisheries management work is continuously performed by a variety of regulators expert in aquatic issues, including with respect to certain fish species that are the subject of the FSEIS. Certain of this information, specifically scientific analysis of species resident in or that migrate into the Hudson River, warrants highlighting because of the robustness of the datasets and the import of those regulatory analyses for the FSEIS.
Specifically, Entergy has identified the following public documents issued by regulators after issuance of the FSEIS that bear directly on species analyzed by NRC Staff in the FSEIS:
x   The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) considered, but ultimately refused to list as threatened or endangered, blueback herring, including within the Hudson River. See, e.g., 78 Fed. Reg. 48944 (August 12, 2013). NMFS compiled - with the assistance of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) - a massive dataset, including data through 2011, to perform its analysis. Based on this analysis, NMFS was unable to conclude that population trends were currently declining. Further, after performing that analysis, NMFS and ASMFC determined that the sources of mortality for blueback herring were known and could be ranked. Specifically, NMFS and ASMFC ranked all cooling water intake structure impacts, such as I&E, in conjunction with a variety of other industrial impacts that may occur throughout the species range, as a cumulative medium low threat to blueback herring throughout its range. These twin NMFS findings cannot readily be reconciled with a LARGE impact finding from a specific CWIS, and therefore suggest that reconsideration of that finding is warranted.
x   The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) also contemporaneously reviewed the Hudson River blueback herring population.
Employing data through 2010, NYSDEC concluded that the blueback herring population, although variable, was stable, even with existing mortality imposed through in-river fishing harvests. See, e.g., Sustainable Fishing Plan for New York River Herring Stocks (2011). NYSDECs findings, in conjunction with NMFSs official determination (above), underscore the importance of reconsideration of a LARGE finding for blueback herring that is grounded on a reported declining trend that neither NMFS, nor NYSDEC determined to be real, particularly to the extent correlated to projected CWIS impacts.

Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 NL-14-030 Page 4 of 7 x    A consortium of regulators, including from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in conjunction with fisheries regulators from Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine (collectively, NOAA), performed a comprehensive analysis of the migratory range of rainbow smelt. NOAA employed current datasets, and determined that the anecdotal Hudson River population (in the 1870s) has been effectively extirpated, in part because smelts habitat range long ago shifted north, and no longer includes the Hudson River (all, for identified reasons unrelated to I&E). See, e.g., Rainbow Smelt: An Imperiled Fish in a Changing World (2010); A Regional Conservation Plan for Anadromous Smelt (2012) (reporting its comprehensive data analysis from 2006 through 2012, including its analysis of Hudson River data collected by Entergy and its predecessors). NOAAs determination that a population has not existed in the Hudson River for several decades (at least) cannot be reconciled with a finding of future LARGE impacts to that species during the license renewal period, and therefore suggest that reconsideration of that finding is warranted.
This New Information prompted Entergy to retain AKRF to review the subsidiary findings for these two species. During that review, AKRF identified an inadvertent discrepancy in NRC Staffs use of data files Entergy had provided to NRC Staff for its use. That discrepancy, and Entergys correction and updating of the information to be consistent with the New Information identified above, is summarized below and detailed in the AKRF Report.
Summary of the AKRF Report The AKRF Report consists of two complimentary sections. First, the AKRF Report outlines an observed discrepancy in the use of data files employed by NRC Staff to reach its subsidiary findings for fish species identified in the FSEIS, including the effects of that discrepancy on those subsidiary findings. Second, the AKRF Report corrects the discrepancy (employing NRC Staffs methodology) and updates the datasets to be consistent with the New Information identified above, so that direct comparison by NRC Staff of information provided by federal and state agencies is possible. Both elements of the AKRF Report are outlined below.
First, AKRF discusses the inadvertent misapplication by NRC Staff, in its development of fish species trends reflected in the subsidiary findings, of Entergys Hudson River Biological Monitoring program (HRBMP) data files relating to the time and level of effort involved in sampling aquatic organisms. Briefly, Entergys data files reflect the number of organisms caught in various boat-towed nets on an annual basis, provided (for completeness purposes) in a manner that reflects all weeks sampled during the entire study period. The HRBMP collections protocols are designed to address multiple species (some of which are only present, particularly at certain life stages, for a specific timeframes during the year), and have been collected for multiple decades, with certain protocol changes over time as a function of NYSDECs direction in overseeing the HRBMP. Thus, knowing the weeks sampled in each year, and the distribution of tows, for a specific fish species is essential to perform trends analyses of the abundance of a particular species of fish, e.g., blueback herring, rainbow smelt, alewife or bay anchovy.
An example illustrates the dynamic: If 100 net tows collected 5,000 bay anchovy larvae during specific months in one year, the average catch per tow (a measure of bay anchovy larval abundance for the year) would be 50. If, in the next year, 100 net tows collected 5,000 bay

Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 NL-14-030 Page 5 of 7 anchovy larvae during the same months, but the sampling period was then extended for an additional two months for white perch, during which 100 additional tows collected no bay anchovy larvae (because none were expected to be and were there), the average bay anchovy catch per tow would appear to be 25, unless corrected to reflect the correct level of effort during the period when bay anchovy are actually present. Absent understanding the discrepancy, and its cause, the data files could be erroneously interpreted as a decline in bay anchovy larval abundance from the previous year which did not, in fact, occur.
For River-wide abundance estimates, NRC Staff mistakenly did not account for when sampling occurred on a year-over-year basis for specific species. As a result, some of NRC Staffs population estimates appear to show declining population trends, but in fact are only showing mistaken calculations employing incorrect level of effort (or Catch Per Unit Effort) values derived from application of the data files without accounting for species presence.
Second, AKRF corrected this discrepancy, using the methods employed by NRC Staff in the FSEIS (Appendix H, Tables H-15 and 17, Tables I-24, 38, 46 and 47) and bringing the dataset current in a manner that allows NRC Staff the considerable benefit of direct comparison to the New Information (i.e., AKRF analyzed the 27-year period from 1985 through 2011). Having done so, AKRF has concluded that the MODERATE-LARGE and LARGE subsidiary findings in Section 4.1.3.3 (pp. 4-21 through 4-22) of the FSEIS (and the associated Tables enumerated in the prior sentence) must be revised. The correct findings for the species with MODERATE-LARGE or LARGE findings are:
Blueback Herring changed from LARGE to SMALL.
Hogchoker changed from LARGE to MODERATE.
Rainbow Smelt changed from MODERATE-LARGE to SMALL.
White Perch changed from LARGE to SMALL.
Revisions to NRC Staffs current subsidiary findings for species other than blueback herring, hogchoker, rainbow smelt and white perch (where the LARGE subsidiary findings in Section 4.1.3.3. of the FSEIS are clearly in error), are as noted in the AKRF Report.
Importantly, this corrected dataset is consistent with the New Information, which provides added support for NRC Staffs subsidiary findings of mostly SMALL impacts from IPECs license-renewed operations in the FSEIS. Again and importantly, correction of the inadvertent discrepancies does not alter, but rather confirms NRC Staffs ultimate conclusion in the FSEIS that potential impacts to aquatic species as a result of theoretical I&E at IPEC over the twenty-year license-renewal period are no more than MODERATE, and likely SMALL.
Finally, Entergy has employed NRC Staffs methodology in an effort to isolate the importance of the inadvertent discrepancies in a non-controversial manner. To that end, however, Entergy hereby advises NRC Staff that its use of NRC Staffs methodology for this purpose does not act, and should not be interpreted, as a waiver of Entergys prior comments with respect to the methodology and NRC Staffs subsidiary findings.
In summary, Entergy submits this correspondence identifying relevant New Information and the AKRF Report to the NRC Staff, consistent with Entergys commitment to ensuring the accuracy of the record relating to the IPEC license-renewal proceeding and 10 C.F.R. &sect; 51.94.

Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 NL-14-030 Page 7 of 7

==Attachment:==
: 1. AKRF Report - Update of Aquatic Impact Analyses Presented in NRCs FSEIS (December 2010) Regarding Potential Impacts of Operation of Indian Point Units 2 and 3
: 2. 78 Fed. Reg. 48944 (August 12, 2013);
Sustainable Fishing Plan for New York River Herring Stocks (2011);
Rainbow Smelt: An Imperiled Fish in a Changing World (2010);
A Regional Conservation Plan for Anadromous Smelt (2012); and, Correspondence from Mark D. Sanza, Assistant Counsel for NYSDEC to ALJs Villa and OConnell, Administrative Law Judges for NYSDEC, re: Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Units 2 and 3, CWA Section 401 WQC Application Proceeding.
cc:  Mr. William Dean, Regional Administrator, NRC Region I Mr. Sherwin E. Turk, NRC Office of General Counsel, Special Counsel Ms. Kimberly Green, NRC Sr. Project Manager, Division of License Renewal Mr. Douglas Pickett, NRR Senior Project Manager Dr. Dennis Logan, NRC Aquatic Biologist, Division of License Renewal Ms. Bridget Frymire, New York State Department of Public Service NRC Resident Inspectors Office Mr. Francis J. Murray, Jr., President and CEO NYSERDA

ATTACHMENT 1 TO NL-14-030 AKRF REPORT Update of Aquatic Impact Analyses Presented in NRCs FSEIS (December 2010) Regarding Potential Impacts of Operation of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 & 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-247 AND 50-286

Update of Aquatic Impact Analyses Presented in NRCs FSEIS (December 2010)
Regarding Potential Impacts of Operation of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 2/19/14 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 I. Introduction and Overview .................................................................................... 1 A. Background ........................................................................................................ 1 B. Inter-annual Changes in LRS, FSS and BSS Sampling Designs ....................... 2 C. Potential Confounding Effects of Sampling Design Changes ........................... 2 D. Newly Available Data ........................................................................................ 3 E. Analysis Update ................................................................................................. 4 F. Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 4 II. Analysis Update Methods ...................................................................................... 4 A. Trends Analysis Methods .................................................................................. 4 B. SOC Analysis Methods ...................................................................................... 5
: 1. Apparent Typographical Errors in FSEIS ...................................................... 5 C. Independent Quality Control Review ................................................................ 6 III. Results ................................................................................................................ 7 A. Updated Trends Analyses .................................................................................. 7 B. Updated SOC Analyses...................................................................................... 8 C. Updated Impact Conclusions ............................................................................. 8 IV.      Discussion .......................................................................................................... 9 A. NRCs Precautionary Methodology................................................................... 9
: 1. SOC Methods ................................................................................................. 9
: 2. Trends Analysis Methods ............................................................................ 10
: 3. Conservative Results .................................................................................... 10 B. FSS Gear Change ............................................................................................. 10 C. Summary of Changes in Impact Conclusions .................................................. 12
: 1. Hogchoker, Weakfish and White Perch ....................................................... 12
: 2. Striped Bass ................................................................................................. 12
: 3. Blueback Herring ......................................................................................... 13
: 4. Rainbow Smelt ............................................................................................. 14 V. Literature Cited .................................................................................................... 15 VI.      Figures.............................................................................................................. 16 VII. Tables ............................................................................................................... 24 VIII. Appendix A ...................................................................................................... 41 IX.      Appendix B ...................................................................................................... 42 i

I. Introduction and Overview A. Background In December 2010, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Final Report. NUREG-1437 (FSEIS). The FSEIS included a chapter entitled Environmental Impacts of Operation which described an assessment of potential impacts of entrainment and impingement at Indian Point Units 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3) on fish populations in the Hudson River. That impact assessment was based on two sets of analyses: 1) an assessment of trends in young of year (YOY) fish populations, and
: 2) and assessment of what NRC referred to as strength of connection (SOC). Both assessments were conducted using data provided to NRC by Entergy, which operates IP2 and IP3.
NRCs trends assessment had two components: 1) riverwide trends in fish abundance, and 2) trends in fish abundance in the sampling region adjacent to IP2 and IP3 (referred to as River Segment 4). For both components, NRC calculated indices of abundance using Entergy provided data from three Hudson River fish sampling programs: 1) Long River Survey (LRL) which collected data on eggs, larvae and juvenile fish, 2) Fall Shoals Survey (FSS) which collected data on juvenile and older fish, and 3) Beach Seine Survey (BSS) which collected data on juvenile and older fish.
Separate indices of abundance were calculated for each species addressed by the assessment.
NRCs indices of abundance for the riverwide trends assessment were estimates of catch per unit effort (CPUE), i.e., the number of fish collected divided by the number of samples taken. In addition, NRC used a riverwide index of abundance from annual reports prepared by electric utility companies that operate power plants on the Hudson River and fund and manage the LRS, FSS and BSS sampling programs. For the River Segment 4 indices of abundance, NRC calculated estimates of CPUE and estimates of density, i.e. the number of fish collected divided by the volume of water sampled.
NRCs SOC assessment used estimates of density from River Segment 4 from the BSS and FSS to characterize long-term linear trends in abundance and interannual variability in abundance. That information was coupled with NRCs estimates of entrainment and impingement mortality rates. NRCs estimates of entrainment and impingement mortality rates were based on annual estimates of total number of organisms entrained (1981-1987) and impinged (1984-1990) and estimates of the abundance of entrainable organisms within River Segment 4 from the LRS.
1

B. Inter-annual Changes in LRS, FSS and BSS Sampling Designs The data on fish population abundance in the Hudson River that Entergy provided to NRC in 2007 and that NRC used for the FSEIS were collected from the 27 year period 1979 through 2005. Over that period of years, the data were affected by inter-annual changes in sampling designs. Major changes in sampling designs included:
: 1) different sets of weeks of sampling in each year and sampling program, and 2) a change in the sampling gear used by the Fall Shoals Survey to sample the bottom stratum of the Hudson River. That gear change, from an epibenthic sled to a beam trawl, occurred in 1985.
The BSS sampling design saw a dramatic change in 1981 when the number of weeks of sampling was greatly curtailed (Figure 1). The number of weeks of sampling more than doubled by the late 1980s and then remained the same. Starting in 1998, sampling by the FSS beam trawl (which began in 1985) expanded to include the late fall (Figure 2). Like the BSS, weeks of sampling by the FSS epibenthic sled (which was terminated in 1984) were curtailed in 1981 (Figure 3). The weeks of sampling by the FSS tucker trawl have been fairly consistent although fewer weeks were sampled in the early 1980s (Figure 4). Starting in 1991, the LRS increased the weeks of sampling to include much of the fall (Figures 5 and 6).
C. Potential Confounding Effects of Sampling Design Changes Because the presence of early life stages of fish in the Hudson River is seasonal, changes in the weeks of sampling can introduce confounding effects to fish abundance data. For example, consider the hypothetical scenario of a species of fish whose larvae are only present in May of each year. If sampling only occurred during May, then an estimate of CPUE computed as the total number of those larvae collected divided by the total number of samples taken would be a valid index of abundance. Now consider the effect of doubling the sampling effort in the later years of the sampling program by extending the period of sampling to also include June (when the larvae are no longer present). Estimates of CPUE, computed as the total number of those larvae divided by the total number of samples taken, for the later years would not be comparable to the estimates of CPUE from the earlier years of the program. Even if the abundance of larvae did not change, it would appear as if the abundance had declined to half because the estimates of CPUE in the later years would be half the estimates from the earlier years.
Included in the data files provide to NRC by Entergy were data files that contained total counts of each species of fish (over all life stages) collected by each sampling program per year over all weeks of sampling. One data file of this type was provided for each of three sampling programs: LRS, FSS and BSS. An accompanying file for each sampling program was provided that listed the total number of samples collected by each program in each year. Those data files apparently were used by NRC to compute annual riverwide catch per unit of effort (CPUE) indices of abundance.
2

For each sampling program, species and year, NRC apparently divided the total number of fish collected by the number of samples collected to compute an annual CPUE index of abundance. For the reasons discussed above, the historical changes in the weeks of sampling that occurred in the LRS, FSS and BSS appear to have introduced non-trivial confounding effects into NRCs CPUE indices of riverwide abundance.
For the River Segment 4 trends analyses, NRC apparently used a more detailed set of data files provided by Entergy that listed fish density by lifestage and week. For the River Segment 4 trends analyses, NRC subset the data to include a more consistent set of weeks in all years, and only included YOY fish (Table 1). Therefore, the River Segment 4 trends analyses likely were not as confounded by the changes in weeks sampled in each year or by changes in lifestage composition among years.
As previously provided in comments to NRC, the change in FSS sampling gear in 1985 appears to have also introduced non-trivial confounding effects to the FSEIS trends and SOC assessments. The gear change was substantial from the epibenthic sled with a 1 m2 mouth opening and 3 mm mesh collection net to the beam trawl with a 2.7 m2 mouth opening and 1.3 cm mesh collection net. The use of catch data from survey nets to address trends depends on the assumption of constant collection efficiency over all years of the survey. Collection efficiency can be thought of as the ratio of the average number of fish collected in a single sample to the underlying abundance of those fish in the portion of the river subject to sampling. For some species, like bay anchovy, the increase in mesh size of the beam trawl allowed YOY fish, which would have been retained by the smaller mesh of the epibenthic sled, to pass through the beam trawl net.
Accordingly, for bay anchovy the collection efficiency of the beam trawl was lower than the collection efficiency of the epibenthic sled. Similarly, for species like striped bass, the smaller epibenthic sled appeared to be more easily avoided than the larger beam trawl. Under those circumstances the beam trawl would have a higher collection efficiency than the epibenthic sled.
D. Newly Available Data As noted above, the data that Entergy provided and NRC used for the FSEIS were collected from the 27 year period of years 1979 through 2005. Since the time Entergy provided those data, the Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program has been continued, with fish data collected through the LRS, BSS and FSS. Data from those programs have been published in the annual series of reports titled, Year Class Report for the Hudson River Estuary Monitoring Program (YCR). Accordingly, data from the LRS, BSS and FSS now are available for the 27 year period 1985 through 2011.
During this 27 year period of years, there were no gear changes in any of the sampling programs, thus eliminating this confounding effect and bringing the data current. Other regulators also have performed analyses, which allow the dataset, if brought current, to be more readily compared to these regulatory findings.
3

E. Analysis Update This report describes an update to the trends and SOC analyses presented in the FSEIS. This update of the FSEIS analyses used the LRS, BSS and FSS data from 1985 through 2011. For this analysis update, the data were subset in every year to include only a consistent set of weeks for each sampling program (Table 2). Furthermore, the data used for the trends analyses were subset to include only YOY fish. These steps removed the confounding effects on riverwide CPUE indices of abundance due to changes in the weeks sampled in each year and due to the inclusion of all life stages collected. In addition, this analysis update avoids the confounding effects of the FSS gear change that occurred in 1985.
F. Conclusions In comparison to the conclusions reported in the FSEIS, results from the updated analyses changed the impact conclusions for seven (7) of the 18 aquatic species evaluated in the FSEIS:
    -   Alewife changed from Moderate to Small
    -   Blueback Herring changed from Large to Small
    -   Hogchoker changed from Large to Moderate
    -   Rainbow Smelt changed from Moderate-Large to Moderate
    -   Striped Bass changed from Small to Moderate
    -   Weakfish changed from Moderate to Small
    -   White Perch changed from Large to Small These changes in impact conclusions were due to a combination of changes in the results from the trends analyses and from the SOC analyses. The results from both sets of updated analyses were free from confounding effects due to inter-annual changes in the weeks of sampling by the LRS, BSS and FSS. The results from the updated analyses are also free from confounding effects of the FSS gear change that occurred in 1985. Also, results from the updated riverwide trends analyses were not affected by interannual changes in lifestage composition. The impact conclusion change for rainbow smelt is due to newly available information on the range contraction of rainbow smelt on the Atlantic coast.
II. Analysis Update Methods A. Trends Analysis Methods The updated trends analyses were conducted according to the methods described in section I.2.1 of Appendix I of the FSEIS (pages I-2 through I-50). Because the update is based on data from the 27-year period 1985-2011, analysis steps that NRC used to 4

address the FSS gear change that occurred in 1985 did not have to be conducted. Steps described on the following pages of Appendix I were not performed:
: 1. pages I-9 through I-14: River Segment 4 trends in FSS density
: 2. pages I-23 through I-26: River Segment 4 trends in FSS CPUE
: 3. pages I-34 through I-37: Riverwide trends in FSS CPUE.
Not having to address the issue of the FSS gear change in 1985 greatly simplified the trends analyses and materially reduced the uncertainty in the results of the trends analyses.
B. SOC Analysis Methods The updated SOC analyses were conducted according to the methods described in section I.2.2 of Appendix I of the FSEIS (pages I-50 through I-63). In the FSEIS, the coefficient of variation required for the SOC analyses was calculated from the first 12 years of data used in the FSEIS analyses, i.e., 1979-1990 (FSEIS Table I-46). For the updated analyses, the coefficient of variation was calculated from the first 12 years of data used in the updated analyses, i.e., 1985-1996. The species-specific entrainment mortality rates (EMR) and impingement mortality rates (IMR) used in the FSEIS SOC analyses were also used for the updated SOC analyses. For spottail shiner, the EMR estimate used for the update was taken from NRCs June 2012 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Volume 4, draft supplement to final - Draft Report for Comment.
As described below, some minor changes to the methods as documented were made for the analysis update to account for apparent typographical errors in the FSEIS.
: 1. Apparent Typographical Errors in FSEIS Equation (2) on page I-51 of the FSEIS indicates that the entrainment mortality rate (EMR) only affects the initial number of fish (N0), and that the impingement mortality rate (IMR) only affects the slope parameter (r):
N 0*   N 0 1  EMR    and r
* rUCL 1  IMR / max 1, CV )                 (2) where EMR and IMR are conditional mortality rates for entrainment and impingement; rUCL is the upper 95 percent confidence limit of the linear slope; and CV is the coefficient of variation of the annual 75th percentiles from the weekly catch density.
Because the FSEIS SOC analysis was intended to address entrainment and impingement, it appears that the omission of IMR from the definition of N 0* , and the omission of EMR from the definition of r* were typographical errors. Therefore, for the analysis update, 5

equation (2) was revised so that both the entrainment mortality rate and the impingement mortality rate affected the initial number of fish and the slope parameter:
N 0*  N 0 1  EMR  IMR        and     r*  rUCL 1  EMR  IMR / max 1, CV )            (3)
Table I-46 in the FSEIS lists values for the Upper 95% Confidence Limit of the Slope that were used with equation (2). As shown below, the values in the column labeled Upper 95% Confidence Limit of the Slope apparently were mislabeled.
Rather than the upper 95% confidence limits they are the slope estimates plus one standard error.
The Linear Slope (r) and Upper 95% Confidence Limit of the Slope entries in Table I-46 were taken from Table I-9 (for FSS) and Table I-12 (for BSS) of the FSEIS. For each species, the entry in the column labeled Upper 95% Confidence Limit of the Slope in Table I-46 is the corresponding linear regression slope estimate from Table I-9 or I-12 plus the undefined value to the right of the r symbol in the linear regression slope column of the table. It can be shown from the p-value, also listed in Tables I-9 and I-12, that the undefined value to the right of the r symbol is the standard error of the linear slope estimate (Appendix A).
Therefore, the entries listed in Table I-46 are, if fact, the slopes plus one standard error. If those entries had been upper 95% confidence limits, they would have been approximately equal to the slopes plus two standard errors.
Based on the values listed in Table I-46, it appears that the SOC analyses presented in the FSEIS were conducted with rUCL in equation (2) set equal to the estimated slope plus the standard error of the slope. Accordingly, to be consistent with the SOC analyses presented in the FSEIS, the value of rUCL in equation (2) was set to the estimated slope plus the standard error of the slope for this analysis update.
C. Independent Quality Control Review The updated analyses were conducted using data analysis programs written with SAS computer software, and all data inputs were in SAS format data files. The full set of computer programs and input data files used for the updated analyses were submitted to John Young, PhD of ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc. for a thorough quality control review. The purpose of the review was to determine whether the computer code was correctly written to accurately conduct the analyses documented in the FSEIS. Dr. Young has decades of experience working with data files from the Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program. Dr. Youngs independent review of the computer programs and input data files used for the updated analyses confirmed the computer programs accurately reflected the analysis methods documented in the FSEIS and identified no computer programming errors (see Appendix B).
6

III. Results A. Updated Trends Analyses Following the trends analysis methods documented in the FSEIS, a total of nine sets of trends analyses were conducted: three for River Segment 4 density (FSS, BSS and LRS), two for River Segment 4 CPUE (FSS and LRS), three for riverwide CPUE (FSS, BSS and LRS), and one for the YCR abundance indices. Each set of trends analyses included analyses conducted using linear regression and analyses using segmented regression. For each species, one type of regression was selected using the decision rules documented in the FSEIS. Based on the results of the selected type of regression analysis, each species was assigned a trend score of either 1 (i.e., no decline detected) or 4 (i.e., decline detected).
For River Segment 4 trends, comparisons of results from the two types of regressions are summarized in the following tables:
    -    FSS Density (Table 3)
    -    BSS Density (Table 5)
    -    LRS Density (Table 7)
    -    FSS CPUE (Table 9)
    -    LRS CPUE (Table 11)
The corresponding trend conclusions (i.e., score of 1 or 4) for these five sets of analyses are summarized in the following tables:
    -    FSS Density (Table 4)
    -    BSS Density (Table 6)
    -    LRS Density (Table 8)
    -    FSS CPUE (Table 10)
    -    LRS CPUE (Table 12)
The River Segment 4 trends conclusions, based on the average score from the five sets of analyses are listed in Table 13.
For riverwide trends, comparisons of results from the two types of regressions are summarized in the following tables:
    -    FSS CPUE (Table 14)
    -    BSS CPUE (Table 16)
    -    LRS CPUE (Table 18)
    -    YCR Abundance Index (Table 20) 7

The corresponding trend conclusions (i.e., score of 1 or 4) for these four sets of analyses are summarized in the following tables:
    -  FSS CPUE (Table 15)
    -  BSS CPUE (Table 17)
    -  LRS CPUE (Table 19)
    -  YCR Abundance Index (Table 21)
The riverwide trends conclusions, based on the average score from the four sets of analyses are listed in Table 22.
The overall trends conclusions, which were based on weighted averages of the River Segment 4 scores and riverwide scores, are summarized in Table 23. In comparison to the conclusions reported in the FSEIS, results from the updated analyses changed the trends conclusions for 8 of the 13 species analyzed in the FSEIS:
    -  Alewife changed from Variable to Undetected Decline
    -  Bluefish changed from Detected Decline to Undetected Decline
    -  Hogchoker changed from Detected Decline to Variable
    -  Spottail Shiner changed from Detected Decline to Undetected Decline
    -  Striped Bass changed from Undetected Decline to Variable
    -  Weakfish changed from Variable to Undetected Decline
    -  White Catfish changed from Variable to Undetected Decline
    -  White Perch changed from Detected Decline to Undetected Decline B. Updated SOC Analyses Parameter values used in the updated SOC analyses are listed in Table 24. All parameter values except EMR and IMR (which remain the values that were used in the FSEIS) were computed using the same data files used for the updated trends analyses.
Results from the SOC Monte Carlo analyses, and corresponding SOC conclusions, are summarized in Table 25. In comparison to the conclusions reported in the FSEIS, results from the updated analyses changed the SOC conclusions for 3 of the 13 species analyzed in the FSEIS:
    - Alewife changed from High to Low
    - Blueback Herring changed from High to Low
    - White Perch changed from High to Low C. Updated Impact Conclusions The overall impact conclusions based on the updated analyses (Table 26) were determined by combining the trends conclusions and SOC conclusions as described in Appendix H of the FSEIS. In comparison to the conclusions reported in the FSEIS, 8

results from the updated analyses changed the subsidiary impact conclusions for 7 of the 18 species analyzed in the FSEIS:
    -   Alewife changed from Moderate to Small
    -   Blueback Herring changed from Large to Small
    -   Hogchoker changed from Large to Moderate
    -   Rainbow Smelt changed from Moderate-Large to Moderate
    -   Striped Bass changed from Small to Moderate
    -   Weakfish changed from Moderate to Small
    -   White Perch changed from Large to Small The change for rainbow smelt was due to newly available information on the range contraction of Atlantic coast rainbow smelt (see Discussion section, below).
IV. Discussion A. NRCs Precautionary Methodology The methods applied by NRC to assess the magnitude of potential aquatic impacts due to the operation of IP2 and IP3 are highly conservative in that they include several components that tend to lead to conclusions of Large impacts. As discussed below, both the trends in YOY abundance analyses and the SOC analyses contain such components.
: 1. SOC Methods NRCs SOC analyses are based on the comparison of the magnitude of entrainment (and impingement) mortality rates to the magnitude of interannual variability in YOY abundance. For the purpose of the SOC analyses, NRC defined the magnitude of entrainment mortality as the difference between: 1) projected population abundance with entrainment and 2) projected population abundance without entrainment.
Key among the conservative components of the SOC analyses are:
: 1. Estimates of entrainment mortality rates were based on total annual entrainment in comparison to the number of entrainable organisms found in sampling River Segment 4 only, rather than to the entire Hudson River population. Because most entrainable organisms found in sampling River Segment 4 are transient, moving with tidal currents into and out of sampling River Segment 4, the number of fish in River Segment 4 severely underestimated the total number of fish from which those entrained were drawn. Therefore, entrainment mortality rates were overstated.
9
: 2. Projected abundance in the absence of entrainment was based on the upper confidence limit of the estimated historical trend in abundance; whereas, projected abundance with entrainment was based on the estimated trend itself. Therefore, even in the absence of entrainment, the method would show a purported reduction in abundance due to entrainment.
: 2. Trends Analysis Methods The methods applied by NRC to assess trends in abundance also contained conservative components. For each species, the trends assessment included a linear regression analysis and segmented regression analysis. If the residual error from the segmented regression was lower than the residual error from the linear regression analysis, NRC selected the segmented regression analysis for the trends assessment.
Because the segmented regression included four parameters (compared to two parameters for the linear regression) it was able to fit the data more closely and therefore was often selected over the linear regression.
The segmented regression analysis resulted in two connected line segments being fit to the data, each with an estimated duration, and each with an estimated slope. If either slope was negative (and statistically significant) NRCs method was to conclude a detected decline in abundance, regardless of the duration. For example, a short-term decline followed by a long term increase would be recorded as a detected decline.
: 3. Conservative Results For the reasons discussed above, the results from analyses conducted using NRCs methods can be viewed as being highly conservative. Therefore, even allowing for inherent uncertainties, the results from the updated analyses support the conclusion that the continued operation of IP2 and IP3 will not pose any meaningful risks of adverse impacts to fish populations in the Hudson River.
B. FSS Gear Change As noted above, in addition to using datasets with a consistent set of weeks of sampling in all years, this analysis update also used data from the 27-year period 1985-2011, whereas the FSEIS used data from the 27-year period 1979-2005. Data from the period 1985-2011 do not suffer from the potential confounding effects of the FSS gear change in 1985, which may be substantial. The FSS gear for sampling the bottom stratum changed from the epibenthic sled with a 1 m2 mouth opening and 3 mm mesh collection net to the beam trawl with a 2.7 m2 mouth opening and 1.3 cm mesh collection net (i.e., 13 mm mesh). Those changes in gear specifications materially altered the collection efficiency of samples from the FSS, which necessarily affected estimates of CPUE and density.
10

In 1984, a gear comparison study was conducted that deployed over 250 paired epibenthic sled and beam trawl samples in the Tappan Zee, Croton-Haverstraw, and Indian Point regions of the Hudson River, during four alternate weeks of sampling in August and September (Normandeau Associates, Inc. 1986). Density estimates for striped bass young of the year (YOY) were 4 times higher for the beam trawl than for the epibenthic sled, and the density estimates for YOY striped bass were higher for the beam trawl in all four weeks sampled. Density estimates for bay anchovy YOY were 46 times higher for the epibenthic sled, and the density estimates for YOY bay anchovy were higher for the epibenthic sled in all four weeks sampled. Comparisons for other species were not presented in the report.
The 1984 gear comparison study clearly demonstrated that the beam trawl and epibenthic sled had materially different collection efficiencies, and that the differences were species-specific. For that reason, data collected by the two gear types are not directly comparable and cannot be used together in a valid trends assessment without accounting for the species-specific differences in collection efficiencies.
NRC addressed the FSS gear change by conducting a series of statistical analysis that compared FSS densities to BSS densities before and after 1985, and FSS CPUE to BSS CPUE before and after 1985. Based on those analyses of densities in River Segment 4, NRC concluded that for the 12 species considered, the gear change only caused a biological difference to bay anchovy. For CPUE in River Segment 4, NRC concluded that for the 11 species considered, the gear change only caused a biological difference to bay anchovy and blueback herring. For riverwide CPUE, NRC concluded that for the 10 species considered, the gear change caused a biological difference to alewife, American shad, bay anchovy, blueback herring, and bluefish.
For these 8 out of 33 combinations of species and abundance indices, NRC conducted separate trends analyses for the period of year 1979-1984 and the period of years 1985-2005. For all other combinations of species (including striped bass) and abundance indices, NRC made no adjustments for the gear change. Furthermore, for the trends component of the SOC analyses (based on density estimates in River Segment 4),
no adjustments for the gear change were made for any species.
Although NRC made efforts to address the FSS gear change, the results presented in the FSEIS still contain uncertainties due to the FSS gear change that occurred in 1985. Because the updated analyses were based on a 27 years of data that were not affected by any gear changes, the results from the updated analyses do not contain that layer of uncertainty.
11

C. Summary of Changes in Impact Conclusions As noted above, impact conclusions from the updated analyses differed from the impact conclusions from the FSEIS for seven species: alewife, blueback herring, hogchoker, rainbow smelt, striped bass, weakfish and white perch. Each change is discussed below.
: 1. Hogchoker, Weakfish and White Perch For three of these seven species the change was to a lower potential impact level due to revised trends conclusions:
Species                  FSEIS              Updated Analyses Trends Conclusion       Trends Conclusion Hogchoker                 Detected Decline             Variable Weakfish                      Variable           Undetected Decline White Perch               Detected Decline       Undetected Decline These changes in the trends conclusions were largely due to changes in Riverwide Assessment Scores:
Species            Riverwide Assessment         River Segment 4 Assessment Score                           Score FSEIS           Updated         FSEIS           Updated (Table H-15)       Analyses     (Table H-15)       Analyses (Table 23)                      (Table 23)
Hogchoker                3.0             1.0             4.0              4.0 Weakfish                 2.5             1.0             2.5              2.5 White Perch              4.0             1.0             3.0              2.0 This pattern of changes is consistent with the expected confounding effects of the inadvertent inclusion of all weeks of sampling in the FSEIS Riverwide Assessment.
: 2. Striped Bass For Striped Bass, the change in impact conclusion was to a higher level of potential impact (i.e., Small to Variable). This change was due to changes in both the Riverwide and River Segment 4 Assessments:
12

Species             Riverwide Assessment           River Segment 4 Assessment Score                            Score FSEIS            Updated          FSEIS           Updated (Table H-15)         Analyses      (Table H-15)       Analyses (Table 23)                       (Table 23)
Striped Bass              1.0              2.0              1.0             3.0 Because the updated analyses were based on a more recent period of years than the FSEIS analyses, these changes in trend scores reflect the recent decline in striped bass stock abundance that followed a period of abundance increases. Beginning in the mid-1980s the Atlantic coast striped bass stock experienced a surge in abundance in response to reduced fishing pressure due to a coastwide fishing moratorium on striped bass. After the moratorium was lifted in 1990, the stock continued to increase in abundance through the late 1990s after which it began to decline (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2013).
: 3. Alewife and Blueback Herring For alewife and blueback herring, the change in impact conclusion from Large to Small is due to the change in the SOC conclusion from High (from the FSEIS) to Low. The Low SOC conclusion from the updated analyses for alewife and blueback herring is consistent with the historical distribution patterns of entrainable life stages of river herring (i.e., collectively alewife and blueback herring). The vast majority of entrainable lifestages of river herring inhabit portions of the Hudson River that are far upstream of IP2 and IP3 (Figure 7). The documented distribution patterns of entrainable lifestages of river herring in the Hudson River, in comparison to the location of IP2 and IP3, are consistent with the Low SOC conclusion from the updated analyses.
The recent conclusion of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) that recruitment of river herring is variable but stable, despite the upsurge in the use of river herring as bait for striped bass (NYSDEC, 2011) is consistent with a finding of Small potential impacts as well. NYSDEC proposed to maintain the Hudson River and tributaries as a restricted river herring fishery because, under current conditions (including the operation of IP2 and IP3) the fishery was sustainable and would not diminish potential future reproduction and recruitment of herring stocks. NYSDEC also noted that since the mid-1990s there has been an increasing trend in YOY alewife abundance.
* In addition, in the National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) decision not to list blueback herring as threatened or endangered (Fed. Reg. Vol. 78, No. 155. August 12, 2013), NMFS concluded that water withdrawals and outfalls (including pumped storage, 13

irrigation, thermal discharges, industrial pollutants and atmospheric deposition) collectively posed only a medium low threat to blueback herring. The number one threat was listed as dams and other barriers. Behind that, climate change, water quality (chemical), incidental catch, and predation, ranked as medium threats. The NMFSs findings are consistent with the change in impact conclusion for blueback herring of Large to Small for IP2 and IP3.
: 4. Rainbow Smelt For Rainbow Smelt, NRC modified the conclusion of a Moderate impact, that was determined using the impact assessment methodology of the FSEIS, to a conclusion of Moderate to Large:
Although detectable population declines occurred in two of four river data sets, indicating population trend results were variable, the staff concluded that a MODERATE to LARGE, rather than just MODERATE, impact was present based on the dramatic population declines observed for this species over the past three decades. (FSEIS Section 4.1.3.3, page 4-24)
This position regarding rainbow smelt is not supported by recent evidence regarding large-scale changes in the distribution of rainbow smelt. The decline in abundance of rainbow smelt in the Hudson River has been due to a coastwide contraction of the range of rainbow smelt on the Atlantic coast. Several decades ago, rainbow smelt populations were found as far south as Chesapeake Bay. Now their range only includes waters north of Long Island Sound (Enterline and Chase, 2012; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2010).
The decline in rainbow smelt abundance in the Hudson River occurred simultaneously with the decline in abundance in coastal streams in Connecticut, which supports the conclusion that the decline was not due to the operation of IP2 and IP3.
Because rainbow smelt is a cold water species, the cause of its range contraction may be related to global warming.
The Hudson River population of rainbow smelt is at the southern extreme of the reproductive range (Lee et al. 1980), although historically it occurred farther south (Smith 1985). The abrupt decline in rainbow smelt early life stages in the ichthyoplankton may result from global warming. Ashizawa and Cole (1994) documented the trend of slowly increasing water temperature in the Hudson River. The rainbow smelt runs in the coastal streams of western Connecticut have drastically declined or disappeared simultaneously with the decline in the Hudson River population (S. Gephard, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, personal communication). (Daniels, et al, 2005) 14

For these reasons, the impact conclusion for rainbow smelt from the updated analyses was kept at Moderate, based on the results from applying the trends analysis and SOC methodologies of the FSEIS to the updated input data files.
V. Literature Cited Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2013. Striped bass stock assessment for 2013; 57th SAW Assessment Report.
Daniels, R.A., K.E. Limburg, R.E. Schmidt, D.L. Strayer and R.C. Chambers. 2005.
Changes in fish assemblages in the tidal Hudson River, New York. American Fisheries Society Symposium 45:471-503.
Draper, N.R. and H. Smith. 1966. Applied Regression Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. 407 pp.
Enterline C. and B. Chase. 2012. Recent range changes by rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) and current annual migrations. Maine Department of Marine Resources, Orno ME.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010. Rainbow Smelt An Imperiled Fish in a Changing World. Support provided by the Maine Department of Marine Resources, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Normandeau Associates. Inc. 1986. Size selectivity and relative catch efficiency of a 3m beam trawl and a 1 m2 epibenthic sled for sampling young of the year striped bass and other fishes in the Hudson River estuary.
NYSDEC. 2011. Sustainable Fishing Plan for New York River Herring Stocks.
15

VI. Figures 16

Figure 1.
17

Figure 2.
18

Figure 3.
19

Figure 4.
20

Figure 5.
21

Figure 6.
22

Figure 7. Spatial distribution of early lifestages of river herring (Blueback herring and Alewife) in theHudson River based on LRS sampling (copy of Figure 4-46, 2011 Year Class Report for the Hudson River Estuary Monitoring Program).
23

VII. Tables 24

Table 1. Weeks, sampling gears and lifestages included in NRC FSEIS Trends Analyses (27 years: 1979-2005). Annual abundance indices confounded by inter-annual changes in sampling designs.
River Segment 4 Density and CPUE                                   Riverwide CPUE BSS                    FSS                    LRS           BSS                  FSS                  LRS Lifestage         YOY                    YOY                    YOY             All                 All                   All Weeks             22-43                  27-43                 20-40
* All                 All                   All Gears          Beach Seine     Tucker Trawl (1979-2005)      Tucker Trawl   Beach Seine  Tucker Trawl (1979-2005)    Tucker Trawl Epibenthic Sled (1979-1984) Epibenthic Sled               Epibenthic Sled (1979-1984) Epibenthic Sled Beam Trawl (1985-2005)                                   Beam Trawl (1985-2005)
* Inferred from FSEIS Atlantic Tomcod indices of abundance.
Table 2. Weeks, sampling gears and lifestages included in Trends Analyses Update (27 years: 1985-2011). Consistent set of sampling conditions among years.
River Segment 4 Density and CPUE                                    RiverwideCPUE BSS                    FSS                    LRS           BSS                  FSS                  LRS Lifestage         YOY                    YOY                    YOY            YOY                 YOY                  YOY Weeks             28-42                  29-42                  17-27         28-42                29-42                17-27 Gears          Beach Seine           Tucker Trawl            Tucker Trawl   Beach Seine        Tucker Trawl          Tucker Trawl Beam Trawl             Epibenthic Sled                    Beam Trawl           Epibenthic Sled 25

Table 3. Competing Models Used To Characterize the Standardized River Segment 4 FSS Population Trends of YOY Fish Density Using a 3-Year Moving Average (updated FSEIS Table I-9).
Species                  Linear Regression                              Segmented Regression MSE        Slope  Std Err p-value     MSE            Slope 1          Join          Slope 2 of Slope                                            Point Estimate                      Lower      Upper               Lower     Upper 95% CL 95% CL                  95% CL 95% CL Alewife                0.877      -0.054  0.026    0.048     0.867     -0.827      1.912     1989     -0.135    -0.005 American Shad          0.232      -0.120  0.013    0.000     0.186     -2.198      0.339     1988     -0.139    -0.083 Atlantic Tomcod        0.678      -0.080  0.023    0.002     0.370     -1.075     -0.275     1991     -0.069     0.029 Bay Anchovy            0.601      -0.088  0.022    0.000     0.527     -1.453      2.818     1989     -0.158    -0.063 Blueback Herring       0.878      -0.054  0.026    0.048     0.081     -5.254     -3.578     1988     -0.027     0.010 Bluefish               0.925      -0.046  0.027    0.100     0.591      0.079      1.508     1990     -0.160    -0.044 Hogchoker              0.434      -0.104  0.018    0.000                         Failed to Converge Rainbow Smelt          0.623      -0.086  0.022    0.001     0.535     -0.193      0.534     1992     -0.188    -0.060 Striped Bass           0.776      -0.069  0.024    0.010     0.684     -0.720      4.145     1988     -0.144    -0.036 Weakfish               0.811      -0.064  0.025    0.017     0.459     -0.030      0.157     2001     -0.408    -0.139 White Catfish          0.945      -0.042  0.027    0.136     0.967     -0.257      0.374     1995     -0.181     0.022 White Perch            0.838      -0.060  0.025    0.026     0.656     -0.542     -0.023     1995     -0.062     0.105 Table 4. River Segment 4 Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative Impact Based on the Standardized FSS Density Using a 3-Year Moving Average (updated FSEIS Table I-10).
Species        Best Fit    Slope       Slope 1        Slope 2       Final from          from          from       Decision Linear     Segmented      Segmented Regression   Regression     Regression Alewife                 SR                     S1=0           S2<0           4 American Shad           SR                     S1=0           S2<0           4 Atlantic Tomcod         SR                     S1<0           S2=0           4 Bay Anchovy             SR                     S1=0           S2<0           4 Blueback Herring        SR                     S1<0           S2=0           4 Bluefish                SR                     S1>0           S2<0           4 Hogchoker               LR         S<0                                       4 Rainbow Smelt           SR                     S1=0           S2<0           4 Striped Bass            SR                     S1=0           S2<0           4 Weakfish                SR                     S1=0           S2<0           4 White Catfish           LR         S=0                                       1 White Perch             SR                     S1<0           S2=0           4 26

Table 5. Competing Models Used To Characterize the Standardized River Segment 4 BSS Population Trends of YOY Fish Density Using a 3-Year Moving Average (updated FSEIS Table I-12).
Species                  Linear Regression                              Segmented Regression MSE        Slope  Std Err p-value     MSE            Slope 1          Join          Slope 2 of Slope                                            Point Estimate                      Lower      Upper               Lower     Upper 95% CL 95% CL                  95% CL 95% CL Alewife                0.725       0.075  0.024    0.004     0.698     -0.088      0.120     2002     -0.007     0.376 American Shad          0.235      -0.120  0.013    0.000     0.252     -0.149     -0.061     2005     -0.426     0.074 Bay Anchovy            0.844       0.059  0.025    0.029                         Failed to Converge Blueback Herring       0.726      -0.075  0.024    0.004     0.665     -0.154      0.369     1994     -0.211    -0.043 Bluefish               1.034       0.013  0.028    0.646     0.915     -0.355      0.083     1997     -0.014     0.224 Hogchoker              0.776       0.069  0.024    0.010     0.331     -0.251     -0.023     1998      0.152     0.310 Spottail Shiner        0.989      -0.031  0.028    0.271     0.932     -0.556      2.283     1989     -0.123     0.012 Striped Bass           1.016       0.022  0.028    0.436     0.454      0.107      0.342     1999     -0.284    -0.076 White Perch            1.035      -0.012  0.028    0.663     0.873     -1.114      0.115     1991     -0.042     0.109 Table 6. River Segment 4 Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative Impact Based on the Standardized BSS Density Using a 3-Year Moving Average (updated FSEIS Table I-13).
Species        Best Fit    Slope       Slope 1        Slope 2       Final from          from          from       Decision Linear     Segmented      Segmented Regression   Regression     Regression Alewife                 SR                     S1=0           S2=0           1 American Shad           LR         S<0                                       4 Bay Anchovy             LR         S>0                                       1 Blueback Herring        SR                     S1=0           S2<0           4 Bluefish                SR                     S1=0           S2=0           1 Hogchoker               SR                     S1<0           S2>0           4 Spottail Shiner         SR                     S1=0           S2=0           1 Striped Bass            SR                     S1>0           S2<0           4 White Perch             SR                     S1=0           S2=0           1 27

Table 7. Competing Models Used To Characterize the Standardized River Segment 4 LRS Population Trends of YOY Atlantic Tomcod Density Using a 3-Year Moving Average (updated FSEIS Table I-15).
Species                 Linear Regression                             Segmented Regression MSE        Slope  Std Err p-value     MSE            Slope 1       Join          Slope 2 of Slope                                        Point Estimate                      Lower     Upper             Lower     Upper 95% CL 95% CL               95% CL 95% CL Atlantic Tomcod       1.030      -0.015  0.028    0.590     0.471     -2.721    -0.702   1989     -0.007     0.089 Table 8. River Segment 4 Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative Impact Based on the Standardized LRS Atlantic Tomcod YOY Density Using a 3-Year Moving Average (updated FSEIS Table I-16).
Species        Best Fit    Slope       Slope 1       Slope 2     Final from          from         from     Decision Linear     Segmented     Segmented Regression   Regression    Regression Atlantic Tomcod        SR                     S1<0          S2=0         4 28

Table 9. Competing Models Used To Characterize the Standardized River Segment 4, FSS Population Trends of YOY Fish CPUE (updated FSEIS Table I-19).
Species                  Linear Regression                             Segmented Regression MSE        Slope  Std Err p-value     MSE            Slope 1         Join          Slope 2 of Slope                                           Point Estimate                      Lower     Upper               Lower     Upper 95% CL 95% CL                 95% CL 95% CL Alewife                0.955      -0.036  0.024    0.149               -0.097     0.009     2010 American Shad          0.753      -0.066  0.021    0.005     0.677     -0.106     0.179     1996     -0.234    -0.030 Atlantic Tomcod        0.791      -0.062  0.022    0.010                        Failed to Converge Bay Anchovy            1.039       0.003  0.025    0.905     0.880     -0.030     0.227     1999     -0.265     0.023 Blueback Herring       0.936      -0.040  0.024    0.108     0.596     -2.448    -0.190     1987     -0.045     0.050 Bluefish               0.861      -0.052  0.023    0.031     0.848     -0.099     0.090     2002     -0.371     0.049 Hogchoker              0.832      -0.056  0.023    0.019     0.805     -1.988     3.263     1987     -0.125    -0.022 Rainbow Smelt          0.839      -0.055  0.023    0.022     0.837     -0.265     0.451     1992     -0.163    -0.016 Striped Bass           0.952      -0.037  0.024    0.141     0.895     -0.560     2.207     1987     -0.115     0.001 Weakfish               1.014      -0.020  0.025    0.432     0.968     -0.091     0.130     2000     -0.296     0.092 White Perch            0.948      -0.038  0.024    0.132     0.943     -0.318     0.065     1996     -0.091     0.127 Table10. River Segment 4 Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative Impact Based on the Standardized FSS CPUE (updated FSEIS Table I-20).
Species        Best Fit    Slope       Slope 1       Slope 2       Final from          from         from       Decision Linear     Segmented     Segmented Regression   Regression    Regression Alewife                 LR         S=0                                      1 American Shad           SR                     S1=0          S2<0           4 Atlantic Tomcod         LR         S<0                                      4 Bay Anchovy             SR                     S1=0          S2=0           1 Blueback Herring        SR                     S1<0          S2=0           4 Bluefish                SR                     S1=0          S2=0           1 Hogchoker               SR                     S1=0          S2<0           4 Rainbow Smelt           SR                     S1=0          S2<0           4 Striped Bass            SR                     S1=0          S2=0           1 Weakfish                SR                     S1=0          S2=0           1 White Perch             SR                     S1=0          S2=0           1 29

Table 11. Competing Models Used To Characterize the Standardized River Segment 4 LRS Population Trends of YOY Atlantic Tomcod CPUE Using a 3-Year Moving Average (updated FSEIS Table I-22).
Species                 Linear Regression                             Segmented Regression MSE        Slope  Std Err p-value     MSE            Slope 1       Join          Slope 2 of Slope                                        Point Estimate                      Lower     Upper             Lower     Upper 95% CL 95% CL               95% CL 95% CL Atlantic Tomcod       1.012      -0.021  0.025    0.410     0.842     -1.609     0.089   1988     -0.044     0.076 Table 12. River Segment 4 Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative Impact Based 7 on the Standardized LRS Atlantic Tomcod YOY CPUE Using a 3-Year Moving Average (updated FSEIS Table I-23).
Species        Best Fit    Slope       Slope 1       Slope 2     Final from          from         from     Decision Linear     Segmented     Segmented Regression   Regression    Regression Atlantic Tomcod        SR                     S1=0          S2=0         1 30

Table 13. Assessment of Population Impacts for IP2 and IP3 River Segment 4 (updated FSEIS Table I-24).
Species                 Density               CPUE           River Segment FSS     BSS     LRS      FSS     LRS     Assessment Alewife                  4        1     N/A       1      N/A         2.0 American Shad            4        4     N/A       4      N/A         4.0 Atlantic Menhaden       N/A     N/A     N/A      N/A     N/A      Unknown Atlantic Sturgeon       N/A     N/A     N/A      N/A     N/A      Unknown Atlantic Tomcod          4      N/A       4       4       1          3.3 Bay Anchovy              4        1     N/A       1      N/A         2.0 Blueback Herring         4        4     N/A       4      N/A         4.0 Bluefish                 4        1     N/A       1      N/A         2.0 Gizzard Shad            N/A     N/A     N/A      N/A     N/A      Unknown Hogchoker                4        4     N/A       4      N/A         4.0 Rainbow Smelt            4      N/A     N/A       4      N/A         4.0 Shortnose Sturgeon      N/A     N/A     N/A      N/A     N/A      Unknown Spottail Shiner         N/A       1     N/A      N/A     N/A         1.0 Striped Bass             4        4     N/A       1      N/A         3.0 Weakfish                 4      N/A     N/A       1      N/A         2.5 White Catfish            1      N/A     N/A      N/A     N/A         1.0 White Perch              4        1     N/A       1      N/A         2.0 Blue Crab               N/A     N/A     N/A      N/A     N/A      Unknown 31

Table 14. Competing Models Used To Characterize the Standardized Riverwide FSS Population Trends of YOY Fish CPUE (updated FSEIS Table I-27).
Species                Linear Regression                              Segmented Regression MSE        Slope  Std Err p-value     MSE            Slope 1        Join          Slope 2 of Slope                                         Point Estimate                      Lower      Upper             Lower     Upper 95% CL 95% CL                95% CL 95% CL Alewife              1.006       0.023  0.025    0.370     1.011     -0.038      0.188   2000     -0.266     0.130 American Shad        0.553      -0.086  0.018    0.000     0.556     -0.380      0.596   1989     -0.151    -0.048 Atlantic Tomcod      0.725      -0.069  0.021    0.003     0.768     -0.414      0.146   1993     -0.125     0.026 Bay Anchovy          1.036       0.008  0.025    0.763     0.902     -0.027      0.348   1995     -0.175     0.038 Blueback Herring     0.701      -0.072  0.021    0.002     0.746     -0.394      0.460   1991     -0.154    -0.025 Bluefish             0.822      -0.058  0.022    0.016     0.828     -0.121      0.104   1999     -0.281     0.034 Hogchoker            0.921      -0.043  0.024    0.084     0.912     -0.222      0.014   1999     -0.126     0.204 Spottail Shiner      0.827      -0.057  0.022    0.018     0.880     -0.174      0.019   2002     -0.218     0.209 Striped Bass         0.833      -0.056  0.023    0.020     0.614      0.088      2.381   1987     -0.135    -0.039 White Perch          1.004      -0.023  0.025    0.352     0.988     -0.479      0.155   1993     -0.066     0.106 Table 15. Riverwide Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative Impact Based on the Standardized FSS CPUE (updated FSEIS Table I-28).
Species        Best Fit    Slope       Slope 1        Slope 2     Final from          from          from     Decision Linear     Segmented      Segmented Regression   Regression     Regression Alewife                 LR         S=0                                     1 American Shad           LR         S<0                                     4 Atlantic Tomcod         LR         S<0                                     4 Bay Anchovy             SR                     S1=0           S2=0         1 Blueback Herring        LR         S<0                                     4 Bluefish                LR         S<0                                     4 Hogchoker               SR                     S1=0           S2=0         1 Spottail Shiner         LR         S<0                                     4 Striped Bass            SR                     S1>0           S2<0         4 White Perch             SR                     S1=0           S2=0         1 32

Table 16. Competing Models Used To Characterize the Standardized Riverwide BSS Population Trends of YOY Fish CPUE (updated FSEIS Table I-30).
Species                  Linear Regression                             Segmented Regression MSE        Slope  Std Err p-value     MSE            Slope 1       Join          Slope 2 of Slope                                        Point Estimate                      Lower     Upper             Lower     Upper 95% CL 95% CL               95% CL 95% CL Alewife                0.744       0.067  0.021    0.004     0.726     -0.054     0.107   2002     -0.053     0.402 American Shad          0.551      -0.086  0.018    0.000     0.554     -0.285     0.451   1990     -0.162    -0.051 Atlantic Tomcod        0.543      -0.087  0.018    0.000     0.341     -1.704     0.004   1988     -0.087    -0.016 Bay Anchovy            0.813       0.059  0.022    0.014     0.607     -0.046     0.062   2006     -0.026     0.994 Blueback Herring       1.036      -0.008  0.025    0.760     1.072     -0.515     0.839   1990     -0.101     0.043 Bluefish               1.040       0.003  0.025    0.919     1.073     -0.076     0.180   1999     -0.240     0.119 Hogchoker              1.034       0.010  0.025    0.695     1.068     -0.204     0.113   1998     -0.076     0.208 Rainbow Smelt          0.972      -0.032  0.024    0.199     1.002     -0.269     0.370   1993     -0.139     0.034 Spottail Shiner        0.743       0.067  0.021    0.004     0.805     -0.124     0.230   1996     -0.026     0.176 Striped Bass           1.020       0.018  0.025    0.488     0.932     -0.017     0.127   2005     -0.704     0.251 Weakfish               0.918      -0.043  0.024    0.081                                  1986     -0.055     0.024 White Catfish          1.034      -0.010  0.025    0.699     1.010     -1.315     0.545   1989     -0.047     0.083 White Perch            1.033      -0.010  0.025    0.691     1.015     -0.367     0.092   1994     -0.063     0.144 Table 17. Riverwide Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative Impact Based on the BSS CPUE (updated FSEIS Table I-31).
Species        Best Fit    Slope       Slope 1       Slope 2     Final from          from         from     Decision Linear     Segmented     Segmented Regression   Regression    Regression Alewife                 SR                     S1=0          S2=0         1 American Shad           LR         S<0                                    4 Atlantic Tomcod         SR                     S1=0          S2<0         4 Bay Anchovy             SR                     S1=0          S2=0         1 Blueback Herring        LR         S=0                                    1 Bluefish                LR         S=0                                    1 Hogchoker               LR         S=0                                    1 Rainbow Smelt           LR         S=0                                    1 Spottail Shiner         LR         S>0                                    1 Striped Bass            SR                     S1=0          S2=0         1 Weakfish                LR         S=0                                    1 White Catfish           SR                     S1=0          S2=0         1 White Perch             SR                     S1=0          S2=0         1 33

Table 18. Competing Models Used To Characterize the Standardized Riverwide LRS Population Trend of YOY Atlantic Tomcod CPUE (updated FSEIS Table I-33).
Species               Linear Regression                           Segmented Regression MSE        Slope  Std Err p-value     MSE          Slope 1       Join        Slope 2 of Slope                                      Point Estimate                    Lower     Upper             Lower   Upper 95% CL 95% CL               95% CL 95% CL Atlantic Tomcod     0.938      -0.039  0.024    0.112             -0.089     0.010   2016 Table 19. Riverwide Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative Impact Based on the Standardized LRS CPUE of Atlantic Tomcod (updated FSEIS Table I-34).
Species        Best Fit    Slope      Slope 1      Slope 2     Final from        from         from     Decision Linear    Segmented    Segmented Regression  Regression   Regression Atlantic Tomcod        LR         S=0                                  1 34

Table 20. Competing Models Used To Characterize the Standardized Riverwide YOY Abundance Index Trends (updated FSEIS Table I-36).
Species                  Linear Regression                             Segmented Regression MSE        Slope  Std Err p-value     MSE            Slope 1       Join          Slope 2 of Slope                                        Point Estimate                      Lower     Upper             Lower     Upper 95% CL 95% CL               95% CL 95% CL Alewife                1.017       0.019  0.025    0.458 American Shad          0.596      -0.082  0.019    0.000     0.594     -0.588     0.838   1989     -0.150    -0.050 Atlantic Tomcod        0.576      -0.084  0.019    0.000     0.547     -1.637     2.690   1987     -0.141    -0.056 Bay Anchovy            0.744      -0.067  0.021    0.004     0.786     -0.194     0.005   2000     -0.198     0.152 Blueback Herring       0.792      -0.062  0.022    0.010     0.794     -0.154    -0.021   2006     -0.300     0.581 Bluefish               1.035       0.009  0.025    0.731     0.967     -0.038     0.205   1999     -0.259     0.081 Hogchoker              0.902      -0.046  0.023    0.062     0.942     -0.165     0.017   2003     -0.219     0.299 Rainbow Smelt          0.971      -0.033  0.024    0.193     0.960     -0.216     0.409   1992     -0.148     0.022 Spottail Shiner        0.844       0.055  0.023    0.024     0.879     -0.008     0.168   2003     -0.273     0.227 Striped Bass           1.039       0.005  0.025    0.855     0.925     -0.024     0.131   2005     -0.657     0.095 Weakfish               0.647      -0.077  0.020    0.001     0.576     -0.561     0.032   1992     -0.095     0.027 White Catfish          0.833      -0.056  0.023    0.020     0.863     -0.198     0.011   2001     -0.173     0.193 White Perch            1.039      -0.003  0.025    0.906     1.093     -0.079     0.103   2003     -0.424     0.243 Table 21. Riverwide Assessment of the Level of Potential Negative Impact Based in the Abundance Index (updated FSEIS Table I-37).
Species        Best Fit    Slope       Slope 1       Slope 2     Final from          from         from     Decision Linear     Segmented     Segmented Regression   Regression    Regression Alewife                 LR         S=0                                    1 American Shad           SR                     S1=0          S2<0         4 Atlantic Tomcod         SR                     S1=0          S2<0         4 Bay Anchovy             LR         S<0                                    4 Blueback Herring        LR         S<0                                    4 Bluefish                SR                     S1=0          S2=0         1 Hogchoker               LR         S=0                                    1 Rainbow Smelt           SR                     S1=0          S2=0         1 Spottail Shiner         LR         S>0                                    1 Striped Bass            SR                     S1=0          S2=0         1 Weakfish                SR                     S1=0          S2=0         1 White Catfish           LR         S<0                                    4 White Perch             LR         S=0                                    1 35

Table 22. Assessment of Riverwide Population Impacts (updated FSEIS Table I-38).
Species                  CPUE              Abundance    Riverwide Index      Assessment FSS      BSS      LRS Alewife                   1        1       N/A         1            1.0 American Shad             4        4       N/A         4            4.0 Atlantic Menhaden        N/A      N/A      N/A        N/A       Unknown Atlantic Sturgeon        N/A      N/A      N/A        N/A       Unknown Atlantic Tomcod           4        4         1         4            3.3 Bay Anchovy               1        1       N/A         4            2.0 Blueback Herring          4        1       N/A         4            3.0 Bluefish                  4        1       N/A         1            2.0 Gizzard Shad             N/A      N/A      N/A        N/A       Unknown Hogchoker                 1        1       N/A         1            1.0 Rainbow Smelt            N/A       1       N/A         1            1.0 Shortnose Sturgeon       N/A      N/A      N/A        N/A       Unknown Spottail Shiner           4        1       N/A         1            2.0 Striped Bass              4        1       N/A         1            2.0 Weakfish                 N/A       1       N/A         1            1.0 White Catfish            N/A       1       N/A         4            2.5 White Perch               1        1       N/A         1            1.0 Blue Crab                N/A      N/A      N/A        N/A       Unknown 36

Table 23. Weight of Evidence Results for the Population Trend Line of Evidence (updated FSEIS Table H-15).
Species           River         Riverwide       WOE                 Impact Segment        Assessment      Score             Conclusion Assessment        Score Score Alewife                    2.0             1.0          1.6         Undetected Decline American Shad              4.0             4.0          4.0          Detected Decline Atlantic Menhaden      Unknown         Unknown       Unknown             Unresolved Atlantic Sturgeon      Unknown         Unknown       Unknown             Unresolved Atlantic Tomcod            3.3             3.3          3.3          Detected Decline Bay Anchovy                2.0             2.0          2.0         Undetected Decline Blueback Herring           4.0             3.0          3.6          Detected Decline Bluefish                   2.0             2.0          2.0         Undetected Decline Gizzard Shad           Unknown         Unknown       Unknown             Unresolved Hogchoker                  4.0             1.0          2.8               Variable Rainbow Smelt              4.0             1.0          2.8               Variable Shortnose Sturgeon     Unknown         Unknown       Unknown             Unresolved Spottail Shiner            1.0             2.0          1.4         Undetected Decline Striped Bass               3.0             2.0          2.6               Variable Weakfish                   2.5             1.0          1.9         Undetected Decline White Catfish              1.0             2.5          1.6         Undetected Decline White Perch                2.0             1.0          1.6         Undetected Decline Blue Crab              Unknown         Unknown       Unknown             Unresolved 37

Table 24. Parameter Values Used in the Monte Carlo Simulation (updated FSEIS Table I-46).
RIS          Survey      Linear     Slope      Error       CV of     EMR        IMR Used       Slope       plus       Mean      Density (r)    Standard    Square        Data Error of      from       (1985-the Slope Regression      1996)
Estimate Alewife                BSS         0.075      0.099      0.725       1.294     0.095    0.0020 American Shad          BSS        -0.120     -0.106      0.235       0.510     0.042    0.0005 Atlantic Tomcod        FSS        -0.080     -0.058      0.678       0.794     0.036    0.0300 Bay Anchovy            FSS        -0.088     -0.067      0.601       0.511     0.213    0.0040 Blueback Herring       BSS        -0.075     -0.051      0.726       1.034     0.095    0.0040 Bluefish               BSS         0.013      0.041      1.034       0.754     0.003    0.0005 Hogchoker              FSS        -0.104     -0.086      0.434       1.225     0.386    0.0005 Rainbow Smelt          FSS        -0.086     -0.064      0.623       1.211     0.258    0.0005 Spottail Shiner        BSS        -0.031     -0.004      0.989       1.182     0.031    0.0070 Striped Bass           BSS         0.022      0.050      1.016       0.523     0.106    0.0080 Weakfish               FSS        -0.064     -0.039      0.811       0.698     0.544    0.0005 White Catfish          FSS        -0.042     -0.015      0.945       2.566     0.114    0.0005 White Perch            BSS        -0.012      0.016      1.035       1.005     0.076    0.0320 38

Table 25. Quartiles of the Relative Difference in Cumulative Abundance and Conclusions for the Strength-of-Connection From the Monte Carlo Simulation (updated FSEIS Table I-47).
Taxa         Number             N0 = 1000             N0 = 1 x 108      Strength of of     Median Q1         Q3    Median Q1          Q3   Connection Years                                                    Conclusion Alewife                   20       -0.07    -1.19  1.03   -0.07     -1.17   1.01    Low 27       -0.32    -1.63  1.02   -0.32     -1.69   1.04 American Shad             20        0.07    -0.01  0.14    0.07     -0.01   0.14    Low 27        0.06     0.00  0.11    0.06      0.00   0.11 Atlantic Tomcod           20        0.15    -0.03  0.34    0.16     -0.03   0.35    Low 27        0.16     0.01  0.30    0.15      0.01   0.30 Bay Anchovy               20        0.29     0.13  0.44    0.29      0.13   0.44    High 27        0.27     0.15  0.39    0.27      0.15   0.39 Blueback Herring          20        0.21    -0.03  0.46    0.22     -0.02   0.46    Low 27        0.22     0.04  0.41    0.23      0.04   0.42 Bluefish                  20        0.45    -0.09  0.99    0.45     -0.09   0.98    Low 27        0.67     0.11  1.21    0.69      0.15   1.23 Hogchoker                 20        0.58     0.31  0.85    0.57      0.30   0.86    High 27        0.56     0.35  0.78    0.56      0.35   0.78 Rainbow Smelt             20        0.45     0.16  0.74    0.46      0.16   0.76    High 27        0.45     0.23  0.68    0.45      0.23   0.68 Spottail Shiner           20        0.27    -0.14  0.68    0.27     -0.13   0.69    Low 27        0.34    -0.00  0.69    0.34      0.00   0.68 Striped Bass              20        0.84     0.25  1.43    0.83      0.24   1.42    High 27        1.27     0.64  1.93    1.28      0.64   1.92 Weakfish                  20        0.74     0.42  1.07    0.75      0.42   1.07    High 27        0.76     0.49  1.02    0.76      0.50   1.02 White Catfish             20        0.42    -0.26  1.10    0.44     -0.27   1.13    Low 27        0.49    -0.07  1.06    0.47     -0.10   1.06 White Perch               20        0.40    -0.08  0.90    0.40     -0.07   0.88    Low 27        0.51     0.10  0.93    0.51      0.08   0.93 39

Table 26. Impingement and Entrainment Impact Summary for Hudson River YOY RIS (updated FSEIS Table H-17).
Species               Population Trend               Strength of              Impacts of IP2 and Line of Evidence              Connection              IP3 Cooling Systems Line of Evidence                on YOY RIS Alewife                     Undetected Decline                   Low                           Small American Shad               Detected Decline                     Low                           Small Atlantic Menhaden           Unresolved                          Low(b)                         Small Atlantic Sturgeon           Unresolved                          Low(b)                         Small Atlantic Tomcod             Detected Decline                     Low                           Small Bay Anchovy                 Undetected Decline                   High                          Small Blueback Herring            Detected Decline                     Low                           Small Bluefish                    Undetected Decline                   Low                           Small Gizzard Shad                Unresolved                          Low(b)                         Small Hogchoker                   Variable                             High                       Moderate Rainbow Smelt               Variable                             High                       Moderate Shortnose Sturgeon          Unresolved                          Low(b)                         Small Spottail Shiner             Undetected Decline                   Low                           Small Striped Bass                Variable                             High                       Moderate Weakfish                    Undetected Decline                   High                          Small White Catfish               Undetected Decline                   Low                           Small White Perch                 Undetected Decline                   Low                           Small Blue Crab                   Unresolved                          Low(b)                         Small (b)
Strength of connection could not be established using Monte Carlo Simulation; therefore, strength of connection was based on the rate of entrainment and impingement.
40

VIII.      Appendix A The p-value is the probability level for the significance test of the estimated slope r from the linear regression. It is the probability that the absolute value of a random variable from a t-distribution is greater than the ratio:
r se r where se r is the standard error of the estimated slope (Draper and Smith, 1966). For Tables I-9 and I-12 it is a t-distribution with 23 degrees of freedom because the time series of 3-year averages of River Segment 4 density estimates contained 25 index values and the linear regression model had 2 parameters.
For each linear slope estimate listed in Table I-46, the corresponding p-value listed in Table I-9 or Table I-12 was equal (allowing for round-off errors with 3 significant digits listed in Tables I-9 and I-12) to the probability that the absolute value of a random variable with a t-distribution with 23 degrees of freedom was greater than the ratio:
estimated slope
                                                       .
value to the right of the r symbol This demonstrates that the undefined value to the right of the r symbol in the slope column of Tables I-9 and I-12 was, in fact, the standard error of the estimated slope.
41

IX. Appendix B Report on QC Review of Analysis Update Prepared by John Young, PhD ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc.
921 Pike Street, PO Box 303 Lemont, PA 16851-0303 October 18, 2013 ASA reviewed the SAS programs used to analyze clean data files (1985-2011) from the Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program with NRCs trend assessment methods. The first step in the review process was to create SAS datasets from 1974-2011 level files for BSS, FSS, and LRS programs. These datasets contained one observation for each of the target species for each sample from each program. A separate dataset was constructed for each program each year. Once the datasets had been created, the next step was to run the following series of SAS programs used for the analyses:
: 1. NRC Region 4 Indices Corrected v10
: 2. NRC Riverwide Indices Corrected v10
: 3. NLIN and REG NRC trends Corrected v13
: 4. NRC Trends summary Corrected v16
: 5. SOC input updated trends results v1
: 6. SOC update v10 Each line of the resulting SAS log files was evaluated for error, warning and other unexpected messages. The presence of such messages indicates an error is present in the program that may lead to inaccurate results. All six programs ran successfully and were found to be free of errors. The draft results presented in table H-15, H-17, I-24, and I-38 were reproduced.
42

After confirming that the programs were running successfully, the methodology applied within the programs was compared to that used by NRC to ensure that the analysis was accurately reproduced. The following steps were taken during the methodology review:
: 1. Reviewed all input and output datasets of the program
: 2. Evaluated sort order of all datasets
: 3. Evaluated all macros
: 4. Evaluated code logic These steps ultimately tested the accuracy and integrity of the program logic and output which it produces.
The methodology review did not identify deviances from the NRC data analysis methodology. All input and output datasets were accurate, sorting was not found to be an issue, macros ran without error, and code logic mirrored that used by NRC.
In summary, the programs used to apply NRC trend assessment methodology to the clean data files from the Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program were found to be free of errors. The results produced by the programs are considered to be accurate.
43

ATTACHMENT 2 TO NL-14-030 78 Fed. Reg. 48944 (August 12, 2013);
Sustainable Fishing Plan for New York River Herring Stocks (2011);
Rainbow Smelt: An Imperiled Fish in a Changing World (2010);
A Regional Conservation Plan for Anadromous Smelt (2012); and, Correspondence from Mark D. Sanza, Assistant Counsel for NYSDEC to ALJs Villa and OConnell, Administrative Law Judges for NYSDEC, re: Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Units 2 and 3, CWA Section 401 WQC Application Proceeding.
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 & 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-247 AND 50-286}}