ML11249A012: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 13: Line 13:
| document type = Letter, Environmental Monitoring Report
| document type = Letter, Environmental Monitoring Report
| page count = 76
| page count = 76
| project = TAC:MD5411, TAC:MD5412
| stage = Other
}}
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:""I OF o,, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/ \ National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICENORTHEAST REGIONKf 55 Great Republic Drive'4"301 oGloucester, MA 01930-2276AUG 2 6 2011David J. Wrona, Branch ChiefProjects Branch 2Division of License RenewalOffice of Nuclear Reactor ProgramUS Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001RE: Draft Biological Opinion for License Renewal of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating UnitNos. 2 and 3Dear Mr. Wrona:Please find enclosed a copy of the draft Biological Opinion on the effects of the operation of theIndian Point Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 (Indian Point) pursuant to a renewedoperating license that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to issue toEntergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). I understand that Entergy requested a copy of adraft Opinion from you. In light of the schedule for consultation, please provide your commentsand a copy of Entergy's comments to me by September 6, 2011.While I am providing you a copy of the draft Opinion now in light of the consultation schedule, Iwould also welcome your comments on whether initiation of consultation on this matter wasappropriate at this particular time. When initiating consultation with NOAA's National MarineFisheries Service (NMFS), the Commission staff defined the proposed action as the operation ofIndian Point for the new 20-year license term under the same conditions that appear in theexisting license and the existing State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit.However, as most recently discussed in a letter to me from the New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the proposed action seems very uncertain givenNYSDEC has denied Entergy's request for Clean Water Act Section 401 Water QualityCertification based on its initial and amended application. I understand that the denial and thedraft SPDES permit are under adjudication. The potential modification of the proposed actiondue to the anticipated modification of the SPDES permit, including application of differenttechnologies to the cooling water system, as well as monitoring requirements tailored to them,renders the utility of issuing a final Opinion at this time highly questionable. This Opinion onlyanalyzes the operation of Indian Point from approximately 2013 to 2035 under the sameconditions that appear in the existing license and SPDES permit, and the analysis andconclusions cannot be interpreted to apply to a different time period or different set of operatingconditions. It would not be appropriate to use the Opinion as an indication of a "worst-casescenario," given the Opinion's analysis and deteriminations may need to be modified as the I Idefinition of the proposed action and its effects, the environmental baseline, and the status ofspecies protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) all may change.Given that you have initiated Section 7 consultation, it appears you have already determined thatthe Commission has discretionary involvement or control Over the& action that inures to thebenefit of ESA-listed species under NMFS jurisdiction. However, the Biological Assessrihentand the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement seem to suggest that theCommission cannot condition the operating license for the benefit of aquatic life in a way thataffects the cooling water system. Those documents point to Congress's delegation to the UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of authority to administer the Clean Water Act'sprocedural and substantive provisions, and EPA's subsequent delegation of SPDES authority tothe State of New York, as the basis for the Commission "deferring" to the NYSDEC regardingthe protection of aquatic life. While I take no position on whether that is appropriate forimplementation of the Clean Water Act, I note that the Endangered Species Act is a separatestatute from the Clean Water Act and has different goals, standards, requirements andprohibitions applicable to all Federal agencies. In light of this, I welcome your commentsexplaining the Commission's legal authority to approve and enforce conditions in the renewedoperating license to minimize, monitor, and report incidental take resulting from the operation ofthe facility in order to fulfill its Endangered Species Act obligations. In addition, I requestconfirmation from the Commission of the legal basis by which it retains discretionaryinvolvement or control over the action in order to reinitiate consultation if an Opinion is finalizedand any of the criteria for reinitiation are met at a later date (see 50 C.F.R. Sec. 402.16).To aid your consideration of these questions, the draft Opinion contains an Incidental TakeStatement with preliminary Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions tominimize, monitor, and report on the amount or extent of incidental take due to the operation ofthe facility under the proposed license renewal and existing SPDES permit. Given theoverlapping Federal and state jurisdiction over endangered species in the Hudson River, NMFSis interested in working closely with our sister agencies at the state level and with other Federalpartners to ensure the outcomes of the various processes are compatible and arrived at in anefficient manner. For this reason, too, I ask you to consider the appropriateness of havinginitiated consultation at this time. The Section 7 regulations at 50 C.F.R. Sec. 402.14(l)(2) statethat "if during any stage of consultation a Federal agency determines its proposed action is notlikely to occur, the consultation may be terminated by written notice to the Service." At anappropriate time, such as when the terms of the proposed extended operation of Indian Point aremore certain, consultation may be initiated anew.I appreciate your interest in the conservation of endangered species and look forward to yourresponse as well as continuing to work with you on this matter.Sincerely,egPaia A.iKirato.lf:.5egional Administrator CC: Crocker, F/NER3Williams, GCNEFile Code: Sec 7 NRC -Indian Point Relicensing .: , , , .,.. :' "'..1'.3. '- .,,; ,. * *.3.~. -3. ......................................i...... ,: i.;-.::
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 7 CONSULTATIONDRAFTBIOLOGICAL OPINIONAgency: Nuclear Regulatory CommissionActivity: Relicensing -Indian Point Nuclear Generating StationF/NER/2009/00619Conducted by: NOAA's National Marine Fisheries ServiceNortheast Regional OfficeDate Issued: DRAFTApproved by: DRAFTINTRODUCTIONThis constitutes NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) biological opinion(Opinion) issued in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, asamended, on the effects of the continued operation of the Indian Point Nuclear GeneratingStation (Indian Point) pursuant to a renewed operating license proposed to be issued by theNuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 asamended (68 Stat. 919) and Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1242).This Opinion is based on information provided in a Biological Assessment dated December2010, the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 2 and 3 dated December 2010,permits issued by the State of New York, information submitted to NMFS by Entergy and othersources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation will be kept on fileat the NMFS Northeast Regional Office, Gloucester, Massachusetts.BACKGROUND AND CONSULTATION HISTORYIndian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3) are located on approximately239 acres (97 hectares (ha)) of land in the Village of Buchanan in upper Westchester County,New York (project location is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2). The facility is on the eastern bankof the Hudson River at river mile (RM) 43 (river kilometer (RKM) 69) about 2.5 miles (mi) (4.0kilometers (km)) southwest of Peekskill, the closest city, and about 24 mi (39 km) north of NewYork City. Both IP2 and IP3 use Westinghouse pressurized-water reactors and nuclear steamsupply systems (NSSSs). Primary and secondary plant cooling is provided by a once-throughcooling water intake system that supplies cooling water from the Hudson River. Indian PointNuclear Generating Station Unit No. 1 (IP 1, now permanently shut down) shares the site withIP2 and IP3. IPI is located between IP2 and IP3. In 1963, IP1 began operations. IP1 was shutNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011 down on October 31, 19.74, and is inia safe'sti6rge c6ndiltion(SAFSTOR) awaiiing; finaldecommissioning. Construction-began on IP2 in 1966 and on.IP3 in 1969. ' -.-IIndian Point Unit 2 wvas initially licensed by the Atomic Energy. Commission (AEC), the.predecessor to the NRC,' on September 28, 1973. The AEC 'issubd a 40-year license for Unit ,2that' will expire on Septembnbr '29, '20613. Unit 2 was originally'licensed to the' Consolidated.,Edison Company, whic'h &#xfd;oid, thai- facility to Entergy in September 2001. Idian-Point Unit 3 wasinitially licensed on De6e&6ibeir 12, 1976,"for a 40-year period that will expire in December,2015.,While the Consolidated Edison Company of New. York originally owned and, operated Unit :3, it.,was later conveyed to the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY -the predecessor* ~. :";i ' IV ." ".) " ' I. .!* " ,d i * *to the New York Power' Authoriy [NWPA]). PASNY//NYPA' operated Unit,3 until November,2000 when it was soia to Einterg.. , ,Endanger'd Species 4tct Canstltation ., .:, .',The En.dangered Spie. A. wsenacte in' 1973.H-'-6Iwevcr; there-Was no requiremeht in the..1973' Act for the Sectetory to iawritten'statemefit setting forth hisbidlogical opinion.on-,the effect's of the action ad Whther the ac'ion will j eopa rdize the continued existence of' listedspecies and/0r destroy'or adverselyi modify critical habitat.: It was not until Congress amendedthe Act in1 978 that the Secretarywas required to produce a-Biologi6calOpiiion. The 1973 Act,including as 'aended in 1978, prohibifted the "take" df eidangefed species.: In: 1982, Congress,.amended the Act to trovide for an "Incidental Take Statement"in aBiological Opinion that..- .specifies the letv elI of incidentaf" identifies .mea'sues to minimize, the level ,of incidental'"take," and exempts any incidental "take" that occurs iri'compliance wifth fthose measures. Todate, NMFIS has'nd Iexemerpted any incidental take at.IP2'and-1P3 froln the Section 9 prohibitionsagainst take ." ' -'r, -.-As explained below, beginning in 1977, EPA held a series of hearings (Adjudicatory HearingDocket No. C/II-W]P-77-01) regarding the once through &#xfd;ootling systems at Indian Point,Roseton, Danskammer and Bowline Point, all power facilities located along the Hudson-River.During the course of these hearings, Dr. Mike Dadsweil testified on the effects of the Indian -.Point facility on shortnose sturgeon. In a filing dated. May 14, 1979, NOAA submitted this.testimony to the US EPA as constituting NMFS "Biological Opinion on the impacts, of-the..;utilities' onc6 through cooling system on'the shortnose sturgeon." The filing notes that~thisopinion is required by section 7of the ESA'of 1973 'as amended.; .- ...In this testimony, Dr. Dadswell -provides.information on the life history of shortnose'&#xfd; sturgeon -andsummarizes.what was known at the tirie about the pioip:ulation in the Hudson'Rivel<- Dr"'.:,Dadswell indicates that at the time it was estimated that there were approximately 6;000 -adultand sub-adult shortnose sturgeon in; thie Hudson River population (Dadswell 1979) and that thepopulation had been stable at this number between the 1930s and 1970s.: Dr. Dadswelldetermined that there is; no known entrainment of sh6rtnose sturgeoh at these facilities and little,if any, could be anticipated. Ba'sed on avaiable iforatidiregardig impingement at IP2 and.-IP3, Dadswell estimated a worst case scenario of 35 shortnose'sturgeon impingements per'year5including 21 mortalities (assuming a .60% impingement morality). Dadswell estimated that thisresultedin a loss of 0.3.-0.4% of the shortn6se sturgeqn population in the Hudson each year; and........ .." " : " " " .. .p'' ' " .*I ..i .:-,'*! ; , ' , ''. " : ..NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2O'll' that this additional source ofmortality will not "appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survivaland recovery of the shortnose.sturgeon.",- In conclusion Dadswell stated that the once throughcooling systems being considered in the case were "not likely to jeopardize the continuedexistence~of thie. Rhortnose sturgeon, because, even assuming 100% mortality of impinged fish, itscontribution to the natural iannual mortality is negligible.'" Dr. Dadswell did also note that asthere is .no positive benefit to impingement, any reductions in the level pf impingement would, aidin the conservation of the species.;,No additional ESA consultation has o6curred, between NRCand NMFS on the operation' of.IP2 and IP3 and the effects on shortnon ,turgeon' incidental takeassociated: with IP2 or iP3 hasrneoer been exempted ,.~~~~~~~f .; I -./ r , ." '" ... ... ..In advance of the current relicensing proceedings, NRC, begn coordination with NMVFS in 2007.In a letter dated August 16, 2007 NRC requested information fr6iNMFS on Feder'ally listed .endangered or threatened species, as well as on proposed or candidate'species,-and on anydesignated critical habitats that may occur in the vicinity of IP2 and, IP3. In, its response, datedOctober 4, 2007&#xfd;.NMFS expressed' cor9ce', thatthe cont"ued 0operation ofIl2 andiP3 could'have- an impact on the shortnose strgeon, (Acipenser bre.virostrm). I. aletter dated December22, 2008, .NRC requestediformal eonsultation with NMFS to consider dfeds of the proposedrelicensing on shortriose- sturgeon.. With this letter NRC transmitted aBioilogical Assessment(BA). Ii'a letter.dated February,24, 2009 NMFS requested additional informati1i on effe.cts of.the proposed relicensing; on shortnoseist..rgeon.. In a letter-dated December 10, 61'0, NRCprovided the 'infornhation that wasayailable and transmitted a revised BA'. In th 6rfiginal BA,NRC staff relied on data; originally supplied by the applicant, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.(Entergy)- NRC sought' and Entergy~later. submitted revised impingement data, which was.incorp6rated intouthe final BA. Mathematical errors in the, original data submited to the NRCresulted in overestimates of the impingement of shortnose sturgeon that the NRC staff presefitedin the previous BA." I , r , : .S.! , , * ...; *,*, ......On June. 16; NMFS received! information regarding Entergy's triaxial thermal plume studyand staff.obtained a: copy~of the studyaiX.d supporting documentation from NYDEC's webpage onthat date: Additional information,regardIng the intakes was provided by Entergy via conferencecall on. June 20, June 22-, :and June 29,.201. 1:.. Supplemental information responding to specificquestions 'raised by. NMFS, regarding the thermal, plume was submitted by Entergy via e-mail onJuly 8;.July 25, and:August:5, 2011.. NRC provided NMFS with a supplement to the December2010 BA considering the new thermal plume information, on July 27, 2011 .:,DESCRI TION OF-THE PROPOSEP ACTION .,The proposeed Federal action is tle operation of Indiari Point Units 2 diid 3 puirsuant to NRC'sproposo renewed po.w,eireactor 9perating licenses to Eniterg or 1P2 and 1P3. The current 40-year licenses expire in.2013 .(IP2): and 2015 (IP3).' With out the facilitieS wold 'close at.... -..,p ...-_ _ .'. ?[ ' " ., ; , , ; .,.. .,. ,, , -I , I ,the end of the current operatiag period. The proposed action would authorize the extended.operation of W2, from SepteMber 2013 through Setember 2033 an'd 1IP3 froi December 2015:thxough December 203:5.,h! tl'ls Oplnioni, NMFS considers th'e potentil impacts of the.contjnued operation,of the facility duing, the extended operationpend. .. p e-Details on the p1er~tion 9fpthe jfacilities over the extended operating period, as proposed byEntergy in the license application and a&sect; described by NRC in the FEIS and BA, are describedNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augu~st.,2,3ll, below. Both units withdraw.water from and discharge ,water to, the Hudson River. ,As describedby NRC in the.Final SEIS .(NRC 201.0), in.1972, Congress, assigned authority to' administer theClean Water Act'to the US;Environmental Protection.Agency (EPA). T..The .CWAfurtlher,allowed EPA to delegate portions. of its CWA authority to states.:, Ofi:.October. 28,:1975, -EPAauthorized the State of New York to issue: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination :System(NPDES) permits.. -Newr York's NPDES, or State Pollutant Discharge. Elimination System:'(SPDES), program is.,administered by the NY Department of EnVirorunental Conservation.-(NYDEC).- NYDECjssuesr, and- enforces- SPDES permits for P2,and .P3...,,:Section 3-16(b) :of, the. Cpg"aW-iater, Act0f 1977 (CWA,)requiresthat. the location, design;.::,,construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best :technology available(BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts (33 USC 1326). EPA regulatesimpingement andentrainnient !underSecwtion.31.6(b) o~f theCWA.-through, the NPDES permit:process. AdministrationofSection. 3l16(b) has, also: been,.delegatedto NYDEC,.and that.provision: is implemented, throughthe.SPDES:, program: :.:,- , '. '.Neither IP2 or !P3 can operate.without cooling water, and NRC is responsible:,for.authorizing theoperation of nuclear facilities, as well as approving any.extension.of an, initial operating license.through the license renewal process. Intake, and discharge of v/ater: through the cooling water.system would not occur but for the operation ofthe faciJity:pursuant to a rene~wed.Jicense;.therefore, the effects of the cooling water system on shortnose sturgeon are a direct effect of the.proposed action. NRC staff state that the authority to regulate cooling water intakes anddischarges under the'-Clean Water Act lies with EPA,,or in this case,,NYDEC; -as the state has -been delegated,NPDES authority by EPA.. Pursuant to NRC'.s, regulations,: operating licenses, are,:conditioned. upon .compliance with allt applicable law,.including but.not limited, to Clean WaterAct Section 401. Certifications and NPDES/SPDES effects of proposed Federal: action.-- the continued operation of IP2.-and1P3 ,as proposed-to be approved byNRC, which necessarily involves the removal. and dischargeof'water from the Hudson River--.are shaped not only by the terms of the renewed operating l:icense but also by. the NY-DEC,401 :Water Quality Certification and any conditions it may contain that would be incorporated into itsSPDES permits. This Opinion will consider the effects .of'theoperation of TP2:and IP3 pursuant:to the extended Operating-License to be issued by the&#xfd;NRG and the SPDES permits issued byNY-DEC, that are already in effect. NRC requested :consultationon the'operationofthe facilities'.;under the existing NRC license-terms and. the..existingSPDES permits, eyen.though anew, .SPDES permit: might be issuedin the future.; A complete. history ofNY.DEC.permits is.includedin NRC's FSEIS at Section, 2.2.53 (Regulatory Framework~and Monitoring Programs) and issummarized below.. "' ' " ' ' .' ' .' : .'.. ..~~ ~ ~~.... ............ .A ;/ " :; ". ..." .NPDES/SPDES Permits .. -. .., ', "Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA) requires that the location, design,construction,,and capacity of.cooling water intakeistructures reflect the best technology available(BTA) for. minimizing adverse ,environnmental'inipacts, (3 3 USC !326). In July 2004, the U.S.:.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the. Phase. IIFRule implementing Section316(b) of the CWA-for Existing Facilities (69 FR 41576), .which appliedto large.power...producers that withdraw large amounts of surface water for: cooling (5_0 MGD or'more) (1 89,000 ?NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augus!t 2l0.11..31 m3/day or inore). The rule became effective'on September 7; 2004 and included numericperformance standards for reductions in impingement mortality and entiainment that'woulddemonstrate that the cooling, Water intake system constitutes BTA for minimizing, impingementand entrainmont.impacts:..Existing facilities subject to the rule were required to demonstratecompliance with the rul'e's performance standards during the renewal process for their NationalPollutant:'Discharge:Elimination- System (NPDES) permitfthrough 'development of a.Comprehensive Demonstration Study'(CDS). As a result of a V'ederal zcoui'tdecision,: EPAofficially suspended the Phase' .I -rule On July'9; 2007 (72 FR 3,7107,);pevrding further rulemaking.EPA instructed permitting authorities to utilize best professional judgment in establishing permitrequirements'on a case by-&#xfd;cas basis for.codling. water intake! str*titega .Pase P Ha facilities untilithas'resolved the issues raised by the courts ruling. ' -!,.I.)(. i,. ,' (".,':The licenses issued by the, 2' and,3 3.initiallyallowed :fOr the operation of those'facilities with once-through cooling.sys&#xfd;ews.:i However,cihedlicenses'r.e~quired the future.installation of closed-cycle cooling systems;atoth facilities,-by, certain dates;beczause of thepotential for long term environmental impact from the once-through cooling systems on aquaticlife: in the:Hudson River,'particularly;striped.bass. A closed cycle cooling system is expected'to,withdraw approximatelyj90-95%,less:Water:than a'once through cooling system. The license for'Unit 2 was amended by the7NRCin 1975; and the license for Unit 3 was amended by the'NRC in1976, to.include ,requirements. for thecinstki, ationiahd operation ,f wet closed-cycle 6oolingg"'systems At the fa ilities,,. , ,- i.' , -,. , -.* ..'NRC('eventually concluded that-the operating licenses for the facilities should be amended, toauthorize construction of natural.draft- cooling towers at eachti Unit. -Prior to'the' iespective'"deadlines for installation: of close&cyclc cooling at the IndiaA-.;Point facilities, hovevei-, the'NRC's authority to ijequirie the retrofit due to Water quality impacts under federal nuclear licenseswas superseded by comprehensive' amendimients to -the federal Water Pollution Prevention' andControl: Act (the Clean Water-Act' [CWA]f and creation of the National Pollutant-DischargeElimination System:(NPDES) prograrm'. ."-. '. ".In :1 97'5&#xfd;the U.S ,,Enironmental.Protection.Agency (EPA) issued separate NPDES 'permits: forUnits-2 and 3, pursuant .to provisions ofthe:CWA, chiefly &sect; 316 (33 U.S.C. &sect; 1326), thatrequired'both facilities todiscontinue discharging heated effluent from the main-condensers.-TheNPDES permits provided' that "heat may be discharged in blowdown from a re-circulated coolingwater system? :The intent of these conditions was t'o require the facilities to install' closed-cycle'&#xfd;cooling systebms in order. to'reduce the;tliermal and other 7adverse enIvironmental impaets from the'operation of Indian Point's CWISs upon aquatic organisms in the Hudson River. :In 41977, thedfacilities' owners, Consolidated Edison Company of New York and PASNY/NYPA, requestedadministrative hearings with the USEPA to overturn these conditions. ' ,' "' 'In October 1.975; NYDEC'redeived approgal, from- the' USEPA to administer arid conduct a Statepermit the' of the! federal NPDES,'program under CWA &sect; 1402.Since then, the Departmnent; has adii'iinistered that program undet'the.Slate Pollut't DischargeElimination System'"(SP'DES) pirmit'prog1am. As a r'esult; NYDEC has the authority, under the fCWA arid.! state; law, 1t'. issue&SPDES perhiiits the withdrawal of cooling watetr for operations,NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augus6 at the Indian Point facilitiesand-for the resultingcdischarwe of waste heat and other'pollutants intothe Hudson River; ,The terms of the SPDES permit, however, become part of the:Federal-'actiongiven that the operating license shall be subject to the conditions imposed under the:Clean WaterF,.. 2 , ,'.As previously noted; in 1977- the, then-owners of the Indian Point nuclear, facilities sought an.adjudicatory proceeding.,to:.overturn the USEPA-issued NPDES permit-determinations that.limited the scope of the facilities' cooling water intake operations.-.The USEPA's adjudicatoryprocess lasted for several years before culminating in a multi-party settlement known as theHudson River Settlemnent!iArement,' (HRSA). ' .h.RSA.was-Init al'y a ten-ear agreement.whereby-the owners Of cetaihh once'through co0led electric, generating plants -on the Hudson.,,,River;,including IndiaXT.Point,-would collect-biological data and complete analytical assessmentsto determine the scope:lf adverse)e'%ircninerital.,impact, zaused by those facilities. According tothe NYDEC,,the intent of the HRSA&#xfd;&#xfd;N"a.s'that-ba~ed'.upona-the data andlanalyses provided by thefacilities,' the Departrn'nti could determine, and:paries: cooild, agree upon, the best technology,.,..available (BTA) to minimize adverse environmentalimpact on aquatic organisms in, the HudsonRiver from these facilities in accordance with 6 NYCRR &sect; 704.5*-..,The Settlement obligated the:..utilities to undertake a series of operational steps to reduce fish kills, including partial outagesduring the key spawning months. In addition, the utilities, agree'J to fu-nd and operate a:stripedbass hatchery, conduct biological monitoring;, and, set.up $4 2 in-lion endowment: for, a new?foundation-for independent: resrarchon mitigati ng fish: inpacts by~power, plants. -,The agreement.became effective upon Public Service Commissionapproval on May 8, 198 h,.. The terms of the1980 HRSA-were extended. through a'series of four-separate stipulations of settlement andjudicial consent.orders that were entered in Albany,,Cgunty: Supemne Court [Index. No. ,01, l91ST325 1]. The last of~these stipulationsof settlement and judicial consent orders, executed, by theparties in 1997, expired on February L, 1998. ..-. ..-", : ." : ' .' '' ":. :: 2 .. ' : ."F ,.F. , , .. .: .i .In 1982, NYDEC issued a SPDES permit for Indian,P.oint:Units. 2 and, 3, and other HudsonRiver.electric generating facilities, as well as a &sect; 401 WQC~forthe facilities. :The 1982 SPDES permitfor Units 2 and 3 contained special conditions for reducing some of the environmental impact :.from the facilities' cooling water intakes but, based! upon provisions of the HRSA; the permit did.:not require the installation of any technology for minimizing the number of organisms entrainedby the facilities each year. Similarly, based upon provisions of the HRSA, the 1982 .&sect; 401,WQC.did not make an independent determination that the facilities complied with certainfapplicable,.State water. quality standards at that time, including-6,NYCRR Part 704 -Criteria GoverningThermaltDischarges. _ : --. ...In accordance' with.the provisions of the HRSA, the Department renewed the SPDES permit forthe Indian Point -facilities in 1987-for another 5-year period. -As with the 1982 SPDES. permit, the1987 SPDES permit for Units 2 and 3 contained certain measures- from -the HRSA that were1 The signatory parties to the HRSA. were USEPA, the pepartment, the New York State Attorney General, theHudson River Fishermen s Asso-iain, Scenic Hudson, the Nat--ral Resources Defense Council, Central HudsonGas & Electric Co., Cornsohidated Edison Co., Orange & Rockland 'Utilifies, Ngiag'ra MohawkPower Corp., and' ..PASNY. Entergywas not-a 1arty to theHRSA becaiise it did noz'o'wn'tlh Indian Point faei!iiti&#xfd; at'any time duringthe period covered by, theHRSA. .' J' , .- ..:.'. .i-r .'.F .NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augu.,-.20-l-,... ----,'. .. , ..
intended.to ;mitigate,. but not minimize, theiadverse environmental impact, caused by .the.operatiorofthe facilities' cooling, water. intakes. The 1987 SPDES. permit expired on. October 1,1992. Priorvtohthe expiration-date, however,, the owners of the 'facilities at that time,Consolidated Edison and NYPA, both submitted timely SPDES permit renewal applications tothe Department and, by operation of the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA), the 1987SPDES permit for Units-, 2 and-.3 is-still in effect today..,,Entergy, purchased Units; 2, and 3 in 2001and 2000, respectively, and.the 1,987!SAPA-extended SPDES permit-for.the facilities wassubsequently transferred to Entergy: ,- .In November 2003, the Dekartment issuedladraft SPDES permiti for .-V,,its2 land 3-that required'Entergy,- among other things, to retrofit.the Indian Pointtfacilities, withclosed-cycle cooling or anequivalent: technology, in order to minimize the adverse.eivirdnmental,'impact caused by the.-,..CWISs in-accordance with 6,NYCRR,&sect;,704.5 and: CW'A-&sect;- 346(b)-,:,T The; draft permit. contains.conditions which address three aspectS!of ope'ationis at.Indian'Pcinf: conventigonal wastewate dolltatt;ischarges; thermhal'dischargei and: cooling waterintake. Limits on the,;::.conventional industrial discharges: are no.lproposedto be.'ohanged signifircantlyfrom the previouspermitThe contain new. conditions, addressing the thermal :-,';discharge.and additional jiew conditions to implement the measures NYDEC has determined to'-be the.best technology available. (BTA)' for &#xfd;hinimizing impacts to aquatic. resourcesfrom.the.cooling water intake,-including'the installation:of.a closed cycle cooling system at IP2 and tP3...With respect 'to thermal discharges, the draft' SPDES permit would require Entergy to! conduct atri-axil .(three-diinensional) thetmalstudy to document whether the therrtal, discharges fromUnits 2 and 3-:comply. with istate water.quality. criteria. The draft permit-states that iftIP2 afid IP3do not meet state standards, Entergy may, apply for a modification. of those criteria lin an effort todemons'rate to NYDEC that 'such criteri. *are unnecessarily restrictive and that the modification would not inhibit the existence and propagation of asbAlanced indigenouspopulation of shellfish, fish and wildlife in the River, which is an applicable Clean Water Actwater quality-related Standard.:;Thd diaft permit also states that Entergy may propose, within ayear of the" permit's becoming effecti've~i an alternative technology or technologies that canminimize, adverse environmental impacts.tso a, level equivalent to that achieved by a closed-cyclecooling 'system at the.Stations.: In orderjto implement closed-cycle cooling, the draft permitwould require Entergy to submit apre-deisign engineering report within one year of the permit'seffetfie date. Withinonb year after the; submissionrof the report, Entergy must submit completedesign pl'ans that address all 1construction issues for cbnversion to closed-cycle cooling. Inadditiori;:the'draft permit requires Entergy toobtain approvals for the system's construction from.other government agencies, including modification of the Stations' operating licenses from the -NRC. While steps are being taken to implement BTA, Entergy would be required to schedulegeheration) outages of no fewer that 42 Unit-days during the peak- entrainment:season wmong other mieasures.. In 2004, Entergy requested an' adjuidicatory heariihg with NYDEC'on the draft &#xfd;SPDES' permit';That SPDES permit adjudicatory process is presently-ongoing,-andits outcome is uncertain at this time. There is significant uncertaintity associated with theconditiAons ofany ne'SPDES pjermit. In the'2003di'aft, NY-DEC 'dete'rnmined that cooling towerswere~the BTA- to, miminm ade..re :enyiro ena, effect ,a 20 ' filing .with NYDEC " 'Entergy proposed to.oise, a 5yst1em of cycjindrical wedgewire. screens, which Entergy,states would,.reduce impingement and entrainment mortality to an extent comparable to. the reductions in, .-NMFS Draft Biological. Opinion -August';20;Ql-1-'! ..-. ..5 C, -i impingement and entrainment.loss expected, to result from operation with cooling ;towers:. As no*determination has been maderegarding a revised draft SPDES permit or a final permit, it~isunknown what new technology, if any, will be required,to-m'odify the operation of th6 facility'scooling water intakes. The '1987 SPDES permit iis still in effect. and will remain .in effect until anew permit is issued and becomes 'effective. No schedule is3 available for. the issuance of arevised draft or new final SPDES permit and the content of any SPDES permit'will -be decided asa result of the adjudication-process. Therefore,: in this consultation, aNMFS :has considered. effectsof the operation of the;Lndian, Poinit facility over the 20-year'extended operating'period with; the1987 SPDES permit in effect. This scenario is also the one considered by NRC in the 'BA ....provided to NMFS in which NRC considered effects of the operation of the facility during theextended.operatiilgpeiiod,,oishortlno's sturgeon.' If a new SPDES permit is issued, NRC andNMFS would have to-determ-ine'if reini-iiatiun of this :consultation; is necessary to consider anyeffects.of the operation 'of facility~c- shortnose sthrgeon that were not considered in thisOpinion. '401:Water:Quality Ceitficate .On April 6, 2009, NYDEC received a Joint Application for a federal Clean Water Act-(CWA) &sect;401 Water Quality Certificate (WQC) on behalf of Entergy Indian Point Unit 2, LLC, EntergyIndian Point Unit 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear N.ortheast(Coll ..fiveiy.Etergy)..The JointApplication for &sect; 401 WQC was submitted to NYDEC a:s part of Entergy's federal license.renewal. Pursuant to the CWA; a~state must issue:-a 'certification verifyinglthat an activity which'*results in a discharge into navigable waters, such as operatiomn of the hndian PMifitfacilities, meetsstate water quality' standards before a federal license'orl,.rm'it: for such activity, cai.,be issued.'Entergy has requested: NYDEC. to issue a &sect; 40 1 WQC. to run conxurrently with; any renewednuclearlicenses for. the hidian Point facilities., '. .'- , .. .In a decision dated April 2, 2010, NYDEC determined:that the facilities, whether operated asthey are currently or; operated with the addition of a cylindrical wedge-wire screen system :,(NYDEC notes that this proposal was made by Entergy in a February. 12, 2010; submissi6n), "do,not and will not comply with existing New York State water quality-standards." .Accordingly,pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 521 (Uniform Procedures), NYDEC denied Entergy's request for a&sect;401 WQC .(NYDEC 2010). The reasons for~denial, as, stated by NYDEC were :related to ,"impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms,, the discharge of heated effluent, and failure.to implement what NYDEC had determined to be the Best Technology Available (closed cyclecooling towers), to minimize adverse environmental irnipacts! Entergy has appealed thel "denial.The matter is currently under:'adjudication; in'the st~te administrative- system, and the,.results are uncertain. If New York State.ultimately issues a WQC, it may contain conditions thatalter the operation of the facility and its, &ooling water system. If.this.occurs, NMFS and NRC .would need to review the modifications to 'operations to determine if consultation would need tobe reinitiated.Description: of Cooling Water System: .. ,', !"&#xa2; , ... : : :.: ... ,IP2 and IP3 have once-through condensercooling systems 'thai withdraw water from anddischarge water to the Hudson River. The maximum design flow rate for each cooling system isNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 20141,..'
approximately 1;870 cubic feet per second (cfs);,840,000 gallons per minute (gpm), or 53.0 cubicmeters per secoud (m3,s). Two shoreline, intake structures, one foreach .unit; are located alongthe Hudson River on ithemnorthwestern edge of-the site and provide cooling.water to the site. Eachstructure Wonsists oC seyveh bays-) six for, circulating water and one for service water. The IP2intake structure :has ;seven independent bays,'while the IP3 intake structure has seven bays thatare served by a commonplenum.. In. each structure, six of the. seven bays.contain coolingwaterpumps, 'and the seventh :hay contains service/auxiliary water, pumpsx, Befrre.it is:pumped to thecondensers, riverwater,.pases~thr-ough traveling screens in-the intake structure bays to removedebris and fish. .,,.The six IP2circulatinhg water intake'pumps are dual-speed,punps.i.When6ope'ated at high speed(254 revolutions per minute (rpm)), each pump provides i34 2, cfsJ (140,06 Igpm; 8.83. m3/s).and adynamic head of 21.. ft (6.4 m): ,At lowspod,(187, rpm),,eachpimnP provides, 38 cfs (84,000 gpm;5.30 m3/s) and a dynamic head of 15 ft (4.6 m). The six IP3 circulating water intake pumps, arevariable-speed pumps. When operated at high speed (360 rpm), each pump provides 312 cfs(140,000 gpm; 8.83 m3/s); at low speed, it provides a dynamic head of 29'.4,(8.8in) and, 143; Cfs',(64,000,gpm; ,4.05 m 3/s). .i, .-,, ' .I!-. ,' '' " -'In accordance with the-October t997, Consent Order (issued pursuant to the Hudson River,Settlement.Agreemelit), the'applicant adjuSts.the'speed- of'the intake pumps to mitigate 4mpacts,to the Hudson River.. Each !oolant-pump bay is about 15; ft (4.6 im) wide, at the entrance, and thebottom is, located,27.ft 08.2,m) below, mearmsealevel. Before enteringlihe intake, structure bays,waterflows under, a, floating:debris skimmermwall, or ice curtain,'into the:screen, wells. -.This :initial 'screen ,keeps floating, debris and ice from entering ,thebay., ;At the, entranceto. each bay,water also passes through a subsurface bar screen (consisting of metal bars with: 3 inch-clearspacing) to prevent additional large debris from becoming entrained in the cooling system. Atfull speed,; the approach~velocity'in front Of the, screensis 1 foot per gecond-(fps); at reducedspeed, the'approach velocity.is 0.6 fps!(Entergy 2007a).,-As this area* is behind a bulkhead it isoutside ifheinfluence of river, currents. Next, -smaller debris and fish are- screened out usingmodifiedRistroph traveling screens. ., , .The modified-, Ristroph traveling screens. eonsist of a-series of panels that rotate continuously. Thetraveling screens employed by'IP2 are modified vertical Ristroph-ttype traveling screens:installed in 41990- arid 1991l at,,P3 and IP,2,, respectively., The screens were designed in concertwith the Hudson. River Fishermen's Assoqiationh with screen basket lip troughs to retain water-and minriniize vortex stress (CHGEC 1999).. iAs each screen .panel.rotates out of theintake bay,impinged fish are' retained 4n water-filled'baskets at the. bottom of edch panel and are carried: overthe he~dshaf,;'where they, are- washed out onto a mesla'using ilw-pressure spraysfoim the rear.side of the machine. The 0(2.5-by-0.5-inch& (in.) (0.635-,by-1 .27 centimeters (cm)) mesh ,is smoothto minimize fish abrasion by the mesh. Two high-pressure sprays remove debris from rthe 'frontside of the machine after fish removal. From the mesh, fish return to the river via a 12-in. (30-cm) diameter pipe. For IP2, the pipe extends 200 ft (61.0 m)'into'the river north of the, IP2 intakestructure and discharges at a depth of 35 ft (11 Im). The sluice system is a 12-in.-diameter (30.5-cm-diameter) pipe that dischargesfish-into.the riverat a-depth of 35 ft (10.7 m), 200 ft (61 m)NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -AuguStk201l1,X.-,i
,. .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .-. 7._ .. ;. .-. , ...., .: .. .. ".. .... ., " .". -_ -- b , &#xfd; I.; " .. i'. *fro shre(CHEC199).The IPA, fish return systerr dischre toterver..by. te northwest;corner of the discharge cana1.; ,'Studies indicated that, assuming the screens continued "to operate'as they had during laboratoryand field testing, the screens were "the screening device most likely to impose the leastmortalities in the rescue of entrapped fish by mechanical means'.' (Fletcher- 1990),. Thle samestudy concluded that refineineilts, to- the screens would be unlikely-to greatly reduce fish-kills. Nomonitoring i's currenitly dongding-at IF2 or, IP3 for impingement or entrainment. or to, ensurelthatthe screens are operating per design standards. Additionally, there is no monitoring: ongoing toquantify any actual incidental take of shortnose sturgeon or their prey. The proposed actionunder consultation, as currently defined by NRC, does not provide for 'any moiinitoring of direct. orindirect effects to shortno'se~strge.on. " a' ...;&deg;. ., , ... " * ;'.. " i, i";! : 20..,": ....'J :" .- b~i,.. ......".*..... ..." .. 1 ,"After moving through the' condensdro, cooling ;Viater i& 'discharged to the discharge canal via'a.total of six- 964in, (240;cm)-diamreer :pipes. The,'ciiigcwater enters below. the surface of.the 40-ft (12-m) wideicanalz The canal discharges to the Hudsori River' thrtough! arn.juf'fall structurelocated south of IP3 at about 4.5 feetper second meters. per second (mrps)) at full.flow.As the discharged water enters :the river, it passes through '12 dischaxrge ports (4-ft by 1-2-ft each(1-m by 3.7-m)) across a length of 252 ft (76.8 m) about 12ft (3.7 .in) below the surface of theriver.- The increased discharge -velocity, about .10 fps,(3.0 mps), is designed :to enhance mixing to%minimizethermal impact..~ .. ...... , 'v , .,The discharged water is at an elevated temperature,'andstherefore, some wateris,lost because of -evaporation.- ,Based on conservative.: estimates, NRC estimates thatthis induced evaporationresulting from the elevated discharge, temperature would be less than 60 cfs (27,000 gpm or :1.7m3/s). This loss is about 0.5 percent of the annua"I averagl downstream flow of the Hudson *River, which is more than 9000 cfs (4 million gpm or 255 m3/s). -The.average cooling watertransient time ranges from 5.6 minutes for the IP3 cooling wat:er system to 9.7iminutes for the.IP2 system. Auxiliary water systems for service water are also provided from the Hudson Rivervia the dedicated bays in the IP2 and IP3 intake structures. The primary role. of service water is ..to cool components (e.g., pumps) that generate heat' during operation. Secondary functions of theservice water include the following: ..r " '.* protect equipment from potential contamination from river water by;'providing cooling to'intermediate freshwater systems;,:' , ..'. ., "provide water for washing the modified Ristroph traveling screens; and,* provideseal water for the main-circulating, water pumps.The action area is defined in 50 CFR 402.02 as "all areas to be affected d irectly or. indirectly by.the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action." IP2 and IP3 arelocated' on a. 239-acre.(97-heetare) site on the eastern bank of'thelHudsonRiver in the village of.Buchanan, Westchester County, New York, about 24 miles (mi) (39 kilometers [km) north ofNew York City, New York (Figures la.,Fnd 2)..The~direct .and indirect-ef_,iects: of the Indian PointNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 201-1,.'
facility are the intake of water from the Hudson River and the discharge. of heated.effluent backinto the Hudson River. Therefore, the action area for this consultation includes the intake areasof IP2 and IP3 and the region where the thermal plume extends into the Hudson River from IP2and IP3 as described in the., Effects of the Action section below.:' ., " ; l .0 ;. b ' ' '. .:, '" " ,.,' :' ; :: ,. " .I .LISTEDMSPECIES IN THEACTION AREA.: ..The only.. endangered or threatened species under NMFS'.jurisdjctio.n.in. g&#xfd;e-Action Area is theendangered shortnose.sturgeon.(Acipenser brevirostrum).. ,No !criticalt has ..been designatedfor shortnose sturgeon.m ..ial:, -.., ...... ....)Shortnose sturgeon-life ,history .,,.,. , .Shortnose sturgeon are benthic fish that mainly occupy the deepehannel sectifons of large rivers.They feed on a variety of benthic and epibenthic invertebrates including mollusks, crustaceans(amphipods, .chironomids,,sopods);-and worns, (Vladykov.. ad jGreeley 1963;,! !.,1Dadswel.1. 1979 in NMFS 1t998)j! Shortnos turgeM! have-similar lengthbsat, maturity (45-55 cmfork length) throughoutitheiri xange;,but, because-.turgeon inisouthernv.,ris grow-faster than-those in northern riyers, southern sturgeon mature at younger. ages (Dadswell et al., 1984).Shortnos~esturgeon are-long-lived-(30-40.years) and, particularly in the northern-extent of their Irange, mature atlate: ages.:,r, the north, malesr'each maturity at 5 to 10 years, while femalesmature between 7 -and 1 3 fyears. -* Based &#xfd;onini-ited data, females spawn every three to -five years,while males spawn approximately every two years. The spawning period.,is estimated to last..from a few days to several weeks. Spawning begins from late winter/early spring (southernrivers):to mid. to'late spring (northern rivers)],when the freshwater, temperatures increase: to 8-90C. Several published.reports have presented the problems,facing, long-lived species. that delaysexualhmaturity (Crouse et. al. 1987;. Crowder et al., 1994;. CroQse; 1,999). In general, these reportsconcluded that animals fthat delay: sexual maturityand reproduction must have high annualsurvivaltas juveniles through adults, to, ens.direthat enough juveniles survive to reproductivematurity. and~then reproduce enough. times:to, maintain stable population: sizes.,Total instantaneous mortality rates (Z) are available for the! Saint John River (0.12 -0.15; ages14-55; Dadswell 1979), Upper Connecticut River'(0.12; Taubert 1980b), and Pee Dee-WinyahRiver (0.08-0.12; Dadswell et al. 1984). Total instantaneous natural mortality (M) for shortnosesturgeon in the :lower; Connecticut Riverwas estimated,to, be 0.13i (T. Savoy, ConnecticutDepartment of Environmental Protection, personal communication). There is no recruitmentinformation availablefor, shortnose sturgeoabecause there are no commercial, fisheries- for thespecies. Estimates of annual egg produetionfor -this species are difficult to calculate because.females do not spawn every year (Dadswell et al. 1984). Further, females may abort spawningattempts, possibly due to interrupted migrations or unsuitable environmental conditions (NMFS1998). Thus, annual egg production is likely to vary greatly in this species. Fecundity estimateshave been made and range from 27,000 to 208,000 eggs/female and a mean of 11,568 eggs/kgbody weight (Dads-ell et al.3984). .....At hatching, shortnose 'sturgeon:are blackish-colored,' -11.mm. long and resemble tadpoles:'' " "".' ... ..2For.purposesof this donstiltafibn,; Nothern riveestare 'considered to:in6lude trbuiaries.of theChesapeake Baynorthward to the St. John River in Canada. Southern rivers are those south of the Chesapeake Bay.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August?.20:l-,........: 3 : .. .
(Buckley and Kynard 198'1). In 9-12 days, the yolkssac is absorbed and the sturgeon: developsinto larvae which are about,15mm total length (TL; Buckley and Kynard' 1981.).iSurgeon larvaeare believed to begin downstream' migrations at about. 20mm: TL. Dispersal rates differ; at leastregionally, laboratory studies on Connecticut River larvae indicated dispersal peaked 7 12 daysafter hatching in comparison to Savannah River larve that had' longer dispersal rates with'multiple,' prolonged .peaksi ,and a low: level of downstream movement.that continued throughoutthe entire larval and earlyjuvenile iperiod (Parker 2007). Synder (1988), and.Parker (2007)considered individuals to be juvenile when they reached 57mm .TL. .Laboratory studiesdemonstrated that larvae from the Connecticut River made this transfbrmation on day 40 whileSavannah River: fish adehis~tran.onday..41. and 42 (Pa'rke'r,20-37). -The juvenile phase can'be'subdivided i,., to young of the year (YOY) and immature/sub-adults.YOY and sub-adult habifatuse diff1eir and is'.believed t6'be a ftnction of differences in salinitytolerances. Little is known about YOY.'behavior iand habitat use* though it istbelieved that theyare typically found:iii. hannel areas.with'ini freshwvaxt.*:ih'abitats'upstream of the saitwedge forabout one year.:(Dadsell et al. , 984,,Kynard-i 9:97)i One .sftdy.:on'the stomach contents of YOYrevealed that the prey.items found corresponded'to organisms,'that'would'be found in .the channel:.environment (amphipods) (Carlson and Simpson 1987)., Sub-adults are typically described asage one or older and occupy similar spatio-temporal patterns and habitat-use as adults (Kynard1997). Though there is evidence from the Delaware River that: sub.-adults mnay overwinter ini .different areas than adults.and:no'not' form dense aggregations like adults,(ERC ic., 2007).. Sub-'adults feed indiscriminately, typical. prey items 'found; in s toma&l conteiits include aquatic insects,isopods,' and'amphipods along. with ,large amounts of muil;, stones.,i mad plant material (Dadsw.elL.:1979, Carlsowand Simpson; 1987, Bain 1997)'.:"..' .:. ' ' -In populations that have free accesslto-the. total length of a riier,(e.g.; n6 dams within the species'range in a river: Saint.John, Kennebec,'Altamaha, Savnnah, Delaware and Merrimack Rivers),spawning areas are located at the farthest upstream reach, of the river (NMFS 1998). In the.:.northern extent of their range, shortnose sturgeon exhibit three distinct movement patterns. Thesemigratory movements are associated with spawning, feeding, and overwintering activities. Inspring, as water temperatures reach between 7-9.70C, pre-spawning shortnose sturgeon movefrom overwintering grounds to spawning areas.. Spawning occurs :fromrmid/late Marcht-o -mid/late May depending upon location and water temperature. Sturgeon spawn in upper,freshwater areas and feed and overwvinter in both fresh -and.saline habitats. Shortnose sturgeon-spawning migrations are characterized by rapid.;; directed and' often.extensive upstream movement(N M FS .199.8). q ..: i: ".. .v :, ./ , ,: ..,': .r ,,,.. , .Shortnose sturgeon are believed to spawn at discrete sites within their natal river (Kieffer andKynard 1996):'- In the Merrimafck River, males returned'to only one reach during afour yeartelemetry study (Kiefferand Kynard 1,996):1,SqUires (.1982) found that during the three years ofthe study in the Androscoggin:River, adults returned to a 1-km reach below the Brunswick Damand Kieffer and' Kynard (1996): found that. adults spawned within a 2-km-reach in the ConnecticutRiver for three consecutive years. Spawning occurs over-channel habitats containing gravel,rubble, or rock-cobble, substrates ,(Dadswell et al. 1984; NMFS 1998).- Additional environmental'conditions associated with spawnihg decreasing'riVer digeharge'foll'wing the-NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -AugiuSt'201,'
peak spring freshet; 'water temperatures ranging from 8 -15&deg;,;*and bottom water. velocities of 0.4to 0.8 m/se.c;(Dadswell e0al.,!984;, Hall et al. 1991, Kieffer and Kynard-.1996,-NMFS 1998). Fornorthern' shorttuose sturgeon,. the temperature range for spawning is 6:5-18.00C, (Kieffer andKynard in press).;-Eggsare separate when spawned but.become adhesive within approximately20 minutes offertilization,(Dadswell et al. 1984). Between 8' -and 121'C, -eggs. generally hatchafter 'approximately,1.3,days..,,The larvae are photonegative, remaining:.on therbottom for severaldays. Buckley and Kynard, (1981),found week.old :larvaelto be photonegaptive and form,aggregationslwith otherilai-vae.iniconcealment.,./ ,.T.; i , ),. .,, , ,Adult shortnose sturgeon typikally-leave therspawning grouads-sooniAfi aWning.1Non- -spawning movements include rapid, directed post-spawning movements to downstream feedingareas in. spring and localized, 'vanderingmovements in; stmW ahd'.winIren (DadsWell tt. al. 1984;Buckley and Kynard 1985;, O'Herron et. alr1199,3).,-. Kieff=. anfidKynard.,Q993)reported that post-spawning migrationswere correlated with-ihoreasing'spring.Water,'ehaperature andiriver:-T .discharge.,',.Young-of-the-year :shortnose!sIneon -are bel-ieved4to'move~doWnsti'eam ...-hatching (Dovel-' 98 but remain..within: freshWater :,habitats. -.Older juveniles or 'sub-adults tendto move, doWnstream in 'fall, and .winteras, water temperatures decline and -the salt:,wedge recedes.and move upstream'in;spring aridfeeddhostlyhi freshwater reaches during summer.:Juvenile shortnose sturgeon'generally movehupstreahi in spring and summer and'move back "downstream imafall and winter; ho.*ever;, these ,movements usually; ccur in the region above the:saltwater/freshwater interface (Dad.swell;'etaL: 1984; Hall. etal,. 1991). *Non-spawningmovements inoludewandering- movements .ift summer and winter. (Dadswell et al,. ,1,984; Buckleyand Kynard 1985; O'Herron et al. 1993). Kieffer and Kynard (1993) reported thatpost-spawningmigrations were correlated with increasing spring water temperature and river discharge. Adultsturgeon o~curring in freshwater. or freshwater/tidal reaches. of'rivers iin summer ahd:winter oftenoccupy.only a few short reaches:of theitotal length (Buckley and Kynard 1985)L: &#xfd; Summerconcentration areas in southern rivers aretool, deep, thermal refugia,. where adult and juvenileshortnose sturgeon congregate (Floumdey.et al. 1992; Rogers et al. 1994; Rogers and Weber 1995;W eber 1996)..;.) I i , / , , , -" "While shortnose'stargeon- do not undertake the significant -marine'migrations seen in Atlanticsturgeon, telemetry data indicates'that shortnose sturgeon:do make localized coastal migrations.This is particularly true within certain areasrsuch as the Gulf of Maine (GOM) and, among riversin 'the;Southeastt; Interbasin: movements'have been, documented among rivers within the GOM*and between the GOM and the Merrimack, between the Connecticut and Hudson rivers, the-;;,'.Delaware River and Chesapeake Bay, and among the rivers in the Southeast.The temperature preference for shortnose sturgeon is not, known (Dadswell, et al.
* 1984):but:-:- &deg;shortnose.sturgeon, have been. found in waters with temperatures as low, as; 2 to' 3YC- (Dadswell etVal. 41984)..andasihigh as.340C&deg;(Heidt and Gilbert 1978)... However, temperatures above 28&deg;Garethought to adversely affect. sh6rtnose: sttirgeonw- In the Altamaha River,'temperatures of 28-30&deg;C'.during summer months create 'urisutable conditions, and shortnose.sturgeon are found in deep ;cool-water refuges., ;Dis&sect;01ved'0xygeii (DO) also seems' to play, arole in temperature tolerance;,with:increased stress'1evzels at-higher: temperatmues with, l0wDOI versus the-ability.to withstand.,..NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augustf:2011&#xfd; higher temperatures with elevated DO (Niklitchek 2001)." ., ," .. -; ', .. i.Shortnose sturgeon' are known to occur at a wide range of~depths.' A'minimum depth of 0.6m isnecessary for the unimpeded' swimming by adults.. Shortnosesturgeon are known.to occur-atdepths of up to 30m but are generally found in' waters less than, 20n'.(Dadswell 'et al. 1984;;Dadswell 1979). ,,Shortnose sturgeon have also demonstrated tolerance to a-wide range of,,salinities. Shortnose sturgeon have been documented in freshwater (Taubert 1980; Taubert andDadswell 1980)'and ;in waters with salinity of 30 parts-per-thousand.(ppt) (Holland.and.Yeverton1973; Saunders andSmith' 1978).: Mcleave et al; (1977)'reportedadu!ts'moving' freely through awide range of'salin'ities&#xfd;,:,' with differenzes of up, to.'1:ppt wi"'hin;a two hour period.The tolerance of shortn6s'e:stufgeon to;irncreasing salinity.is thought to increase with age'(Kynard1996). Shortnoseesturgeon typica.l'yocc-cur in the deepest parts of rivers or estuaries *here-suitable oxygen 'and salinity values, ar.epreserit (Gilbert 19 89);'how ever,; shortnose sturgeonforage on vegetated mudflats, and.over'shellfish' beds in shallower waters when suitable forage isStatus and Trends, of Shortnose Sturgeon Rangewide", -.-Shortnose sturgeon were listed as endangered on March 11 1,967 (32.FR 4001),'and the species.remained on the endangered species list with the enactmnent'ofth'e ESA' in .1973'. Although theoriginal listing notice did not cite reasons for listing the&#xfd; species,':a' 19.73 Resource Publication,'issued by the US Department of the Interior, stated that shortnose sturgeon were "in peril.. .gonein most of the rivers of its'former range [but] probably. of oas yet 'extinct" (USD01 1973).;Pollution and overfishing, including bycatch in the shad fishery, were liste&as principal reasons:for the species!, decline:.. I, the.late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, shortnose sturgeon..commonly were taken in a &#xfd;ornrmercial fishery for the closely related atid, commercially V'aluable'Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus). More than a'century of extensive fishing~for sturgeoncontributed to the decline of shortnose sturgeon along the east coast. Heavy: industrial. : :',- , Idevelopment during the twentieth century in rivers inhabited by sturgeon. impaired water qualityand impeded these species' recovery; possibly resulting' in isubstantially reduced abundance ofshortnose sturgeon populations within portions of the Species' ranges (e.g., southernmost riversof the species range: Santilla, St. Marys and St. Johns Rivers)., A shortnose. sturgeon recoveryplan was published in December 1998 to promote the conser-ation and recovery of the species.-(see NMFS 1998).' Shortnose sturgeon :are listed as "vualnerable" on the IUCN Red. List..Although shortnose sturgeon are listed as.endangered range-wide, inthe final recovery planNMFS recognized 19 separate populations occurring'throughout the range.of the species.,: Thesepopulations are in New Brunswick Canada (1); Maine (2); Massachusetts'(1); Connecti cut (t!); -:New York (1); New Jersey/Delaware (1); Maryland and Virginia (1); North Carolina (1); SouthCarolina. (4); Georgia (4); and: Florida (2). NMFS'has not formally recognized distinct ;,' :,segments,(DPS)3 of shortnose sturgeon under the ESA.. 'Although genetic information.populationsemns.D roe3.The'definition of species~under the ESA includes any subspecies of fish,'wildlife, or..plants,.and any.'distinct.populationsegment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds w.he. mature.. To be a.DPS, .a populationsegment must meet two criteria under NMFS policy. First, it mustbe discrete, or separated, from other populations of its speciesor subspecies. Second, it must be significant, or essential, to the long-term conservation status of its species or subspecies. Thisformal legal procedure to designate DPSs for shortrione sturgeofi hs nc.-bert. id'rtakea. .' 'f:'*-' "'NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August:20.1,1 .:
within and among shortnose sturgeon occurring in. different river systemsris.largely unknown, lifehistory studies indicate that shortnose sturgeon populations from different river systems aresubstantially reproductively isolated (Kynard.:1 997) and, therefore, should be-considered discrete.The 1.999 Recovery Plan-indicates that while genetic information may-reveal, that interbreedingdoes no.t oco'ur, between rivers that, drain into a common estuary, at this)time, such river systemsare considered a~singleipopulation:compromised of breeding subpopul-ations (NMFS 1998).,Studies,-conducted since the iissuance of the Recovery. Plan havei provided. evidence'that suggeststhat, years- of isolationkbetween rpopulations ,of shortnose sturgeon ihave led to-morphological andgenetic variationt :Walsh et-pl(2Q01) examined~morphological&#xfd;and geaetiG,,variation of-.shortnose sturgeon. in three rivers (Kennebec, The, study -found thatthe HudsorrRiver shortnose sturgeon population differedmarkedly.f9mm the! other(two rivers'formost morphologicalf features. (total-length, fork!length-;,head=nd snout length; mouth. width.,'..interorbital width -and, dorsal. scute :lateral,.scuvte count., .right'ventr-a scute count).:Significant differences were found between fish from Androscoggin and Kennebec rivers for..interorbital width and lateral scute counts which suggests that even though the Androscoggin andKennebec rivers drain into a common estuary, these. rivers support largely discrete populations ofshortnose sturgeon' The 8tudy a1~bliffbuild significant genetic differences among all three .- " -populations indicating substantial reproductive 'isolation among them and that the observed:morphological differences may be~paily,,or.vholly genetic.: -.. : '- '.. 'U -Grunwald et al. (2002) exam-ined mitochondrial DNA:(mtDNA) from shortnose sturgeon-in ,eleven-riverpopulations: ,Thei analysisidemonstrated that allshortnose 'sturgeon populations .examined showed moderate to high levels ofigenetic diversity as measured-by haplotypicdiversity indices -.The:limi-ted sharing of haplotypes 'and thei-high numbernof private haplotypesare indicativei of high homing'fidelity and :low gene flow. The-researchers determined thatglaciation in ithe Pleistocene Era waslikeLy the-most significant factor in shaping the ,phylogeographic pattern o fmtDNA, diversity.andpopulation structure of shortnose sturgeon..The Northern- glaciated region- extended south to the Hudson River while the southern- non- .glaciated region begins with theqDelaware River:-. There is a high prevalence of haplotypesrestricted-to either:of these two regions:,and relatively few are shared; this represents a historicalsubdivision-that' is' tied to-an- important geological. phenomenon that reflects historical isolation.Analyses of haplotype frequencies at the level of individual rivers showed, significant, differencesamong all systems in which reproduction is known to occur. This implies that although higherlevel genetic-tock, elationships exist (i.,e.;,-southern Vs..northern and other regional .j -..subdivisions);. shortnose sturgeon appbar.'to'be discrete stocks, and low gene flow exists betweenthe majority of populations:.- .....- ., .-, , ,! , , .,i,. ,Waldman et-al. (2002) also.-conducted mtDNA'analysis on shortnose sturgeon from ;1.1 river .' "systems ahd identified-29;haplotypes.-.,Of these haplotypes, 11 were-unique.to northern,-glaciatedsystems and 13 were unique to the southern non-glaciated systems. Only 5 were shared. betweenthem. This analysis-suggests-that shortnose sturgeon show high structuring and. discreteness andthat low gene flow `rates- indicated strnrig homing fidelity".' -" ' ' " "Wirgin et al. (2005), also conducted,mtDNA analysis on.shortnose-sturgeon from 12 rivers (St.--.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August;'20.l;-,,,.---------------------1' John, Kennebec, Androscoggin '"Upper Connecticut,, Lovef Connecticut, Hudson; Delaware,-Chesapeake Bay,, Cooper,! Peedee, Savannah, Ogeechee and Altamaha). This'ahal&#xfd;gis'suggestedthat most population segments are independent and that genetic variation among groups washigh.The best available inforrh'ationdemonstfates differences in life history and habitat preferencesbetween northern and-sbuthern river systems'and given the species" anadromous breeding habits,the rare occurrence: of migration between river systems, and the documented genetic differencesbetween'river populati'ol; it is-unlikely that populations in adjacent river systems.interbreed withany regularity... 'This k.41,e account..:f-oI, the failure of shortnose sturgeon:o repopulate river,systems -from whichit'hey"hId beien excirpdted,. despite the geographic closeness of persistingpopulations. This, charzaiteirstic '-"ofhofnose stutgeon, also complicates recovery and persistenceof this species in the ftare, bpuse; is extihpated'in the fuiure, it is unlikelythat this'river willcbe-recol'lnized. .-Cohsequently, Ihis Opinion: will treat the nineteen separatepopulations ofsshortnose stutgec'n as' sib'popu!ationis (0he:f'fwhich' o ccars in theaction area) forthe purposes of this analysis.,. , ..,'.Historically, shortnose sturgeon are believed to have inhabited nearly all.major rivers andestuaries along nearly the entire east coast of North. America. The range-extended from the StJohn River in.New Brunswick, Canada to-the IndianRiver, in' Florida. only 19.populations 'remain ranging: from the St. Johns River, Flo rida (possibly e&#xfd;xtirpated from ,this.,system), to the Saint John Riverin.New Brunswick, Cairada: Shortnrse sturgeon' are large, longlived fish species.' The preserit range of shortncseostuigebn is disjunctc with northern ppulations.separated frorm southern populations:by a distance ofabout 400 kmi.., Population'sizes' Vary * -.across the species!- range.: From available estimates, the smallest populations' occur in the CapeFear (-8 adults; Moser and Ross 1:995) in the south and.Merrimack and Penobscot rivers in thenorth (- several hundred to several thousand adults,'depending on population estimates used; M.Kieffer, United States Geological Survey, personal commiunication; Dionne '2010), while thelargest'populations are found in the Saint John (-4 8,'000; 'Dadsweil 1979) and Hudson' Rivers.(-6 1,000; Bain et al. 1998). As indicated in Kynard 1996, adult abundance is less than the * .minimum estimated viable population abundance of 1000 adults for 5 of 11 surveyed northernpopulations and all natural southern populations: Kynard 1996 indicates that allt aspects of thespecies' life history indicate that shortnose sturge6n shouid be abundant in most rivers. As such,the expected abundance of adults in northern and north-central populations shoal'dbethousands,to tens of thousands of adults. Expected,;abundance in socthern-rivers is uncertain,. utlaxgerivers should likely have thousands of adults: The only, iver systems likely supporting.'populations ofthesesizes'are the St: JohnHudson and possibly the Delaware and .th'e'Knuebec;making the 'continued success ofshortniose sturgeonr, in these rivers critical.to the species as a .whole, While no :reliable estimate of the: size of either thetotal species-or the shortnose sturgeonpopulation in; the N6rtheastemr United States exists,, it is clearly below the size that could.besupported if the threats to shortnose sturgeon were removed.Threats to shortnose sturgeonwreovery ." '.; ,' '> : :. ... , ..The Shortnose Sturgeon' Recovery Plan, (NMFS: 1998) identifies-habitat degradation or loss(resulting, for example, from' dams, bridge' constrctoni;ndchannelidredgih,, .nid' pollutant'NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 20,1I': ""- -'::
discharges), and mortality (resulting, for,example., -from impingementon cooling Water intakescreens, dredgijng,and incidental.capture in other, fisheries) as principal threats to the species'su rv iv a l.. ; .: , , , , .:. i. .'. ,,... ' '.:, * .,, .: .... , : , ,Several natural and anthropogenic factors continue to threaten the recovery of shortnosesturgeon cpntinue to be takenrinpidentaIlyinl f!heiies along the east coastand are probably targeted by~poachers throughout their range (Da4dsw.el! 19.79; -Doyel et al. 1992;Collins eFt ak 1996)..., Bridge .ozastructiolaind demolition projects ,may intp.fere with normalmigratory moyenments-.and. disturb sturgeon concpntrF.pnp aneas. UnIessappropriate precautions are xade, internal damage ar)/oX peath may jt.*from. blasting projectswith powerful explosivps. Hydroelectric da;ns5nay affeeothortno sA stgrgeonjby restricting.;habitat, altering river, flows or terper atures and/or migrationand causing mortalities to -fish that becoim.e entraine.infturbijnes., Maiftnance; dredging-9fFederal navigation :chanmels .od4 other 1areas ;. adversely effect orj jeopardi~ze shortnose sturgeonpopulations, J-Iydraulicdredges ,cam leth-a!!y)tak'e: sturgeor ,by entraining. sPvrgeon iJn dredge, .."dragarms and impeller pumps. Mechanical dredges have also been documentedf to, lethally take!.,shortnose sturgeon. In addition to direct effects, dredging operations may also impact shortnosesturgeon by, destroying~bethiccfeoding areas,, disrupting spawning migrations, and, fillirong'.:r,:spawning habitat,,with, resuspended fine:sediments. ,Shortnose.sturgeon are susceptible to .impingement, on coolin'g. Waterintake, screens power plants., Electricpower and~nuclear powergenerati'g plants,.can, affect sturgeon by impinging larger fish on, cooling, water intake~screensand eritraining -larval fish. ,The:opdratisxn of pqwerplants can have unforeseen and extremely,detrimental impacts. 'to riverine: habitat which, can affect, shortnose sturgeon. For:example, the St.Stephen:Power,'lant nearLake, Moultri.e, S outh Carolina was shutdown for several, days -in June1991 when large mats of.aquatic plants entered the plant..s intake canal and clogged the coolingwater intake.gates.IDecornposingqplant material inithe tailraceeeanalcoupled with the turbineshut down (allowing no-flw-of water) triggered a low dissolvedoxygen water conditiondownstreaInm and a subsequent fish killhw The South Carolina Wildlife.and.Marine Resources,Department reported that twenty shortnose' sturgeon, were killed during this low dissolved oxygenevent. , .r r ' i.,Contaminants, including toxic metals, polychl~orinatedaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),: .i 'pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) .can have substantial deleterious effects onaquatic life including production of acute. lesions, ,growth retardation, and reproductive.impainrne3t'(Cootper.1.l989;, Sinderman 1994). Ultimately5 toxins.introduced tothe water columnbecome associated withthe, benthos and ean be-particularly harmful tobenthic organisms,- ....(VaranasiA.992) like. sturgeon. '.Heavy me~als, and organochlorine compounds.are'known to,,.!,;accumulate !in fat tissues'of sturgeon, but their long term, effects.are not yet known (Ruelle andHenry. 1992; Ruelle and Kennlyne 1993). Available datae suggests. that.early life stages' of fish., aremore susceptible to environmental and pollutant stress,.than.older life- stages (Rosenthal and i-A lderdice 1976). .' .:. ..,::: ..:-,. .,,,. :, Although there is scant information available on the levels:of contaminants in-shortnose sturgeontissues, some research!,i9 ottherrelated species indicates thtr 'concern about the. effects of, :I-contaminants. onitho healthrof. sturgeorpoputatio~ns'is warranted. !Detectibje levels, of,.chlordane,,NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -
DDE (1,1-dichloro-2', 2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene), DDT (dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane),and dieldrin, and elevated levels of PCBs, cadmium, mercury, and selenium were foUnd in pallidsturgeon tissue from the Missouri River (Ruelle and Henry 1994). These compounds were foundin high enough levels to suggest they may be causing reproductive failure and/or. increased .,physiological stress (Ruelle and Henry 1994):. In addition to -compiling dataon 'contaminant .levels, Ruelle'arld:Henry also: determined that heavy metals: aMd organfochlorine compounds (i.e..PCBs) accumulate in'fat tissues> Although the l6ng term effects, of theiacc~imulation of ,, -contaminants in fat tissues is nfotyet kilown, some speculate .that lipophilic toxins-could betransferred to eggs and potentially inhibit egg viability. In other fish species, reproductiveimpairment, reduced egg'-viability, and-lreduced' survival: of larval ;fish are. associated "with"elevated levels, bf environniiental contam inants inhcluding chlorinated hydiocarbons. A strongconrelation that:has been'm'ade betveen&#xa3;fssh:weight; fish fork lengte, and DDE concentration inpallid sturgeon livers inidicaitbs.hat: DDEincreases prop')rtionally-with fish:size (NMFS 1998).Contaminant analysisrwas: condu'cted' ontwo shriln63e 'starn, onf-frcil the Delaware River.in the;fall of 2002.i- Musclejliver, and% gonad tissuewer., analyzed zicontarninants (ERC;2002)'.".Sixteen metals, two semivolatile compounds; three torganochlorine pesticides; one PCB, Aroclor,as well as polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), mad polychlorinatcd dibenzofurans :".(PCDFs) were detected in one or more of the tissue samples.. -Lev'els of alurainum, cadmium-,:PCDDs, PCDFs, PCBs, DDE (an organochlorine, pesticide),were' detected4Ln the'.adverse affect",range. It is of particular concern that of the above che-nicals, PCDDs;'D.DE,.PCBs and, cad.rmiui,.were detected as these. have been identified as&#xfd; endocrine 'disrup ting chemidals'.. Contaminilant, , :::analysis conducted in 2003 on tissues firom a shortnese sturgeon from the Kennebec'Ri'er i,revealed the preseince of fourteen. metals, one semivolatile compound, one PCB Aroclor;;,1,'. '..Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofijrans (PCDFs) in one.or more of the tissue samples. Of these chemicals, cadmium and zinc were detected atconcentrations above an adverse'effect concentration reported for. fish. in the literature (ERC2003). While no directed studies of chemical contaminatibn in.'shortnose sturgeon have beenundertaken, it is evident that the heavy industrialization of the rivers where'shortnose sturgeonare found is likely adversely affecting this species.' .'i t- .-.., ., .During summer months, especially in southern areas-, shortnose sturgeon must.cope with thephysiological stress of water temperatures, that.may exceed 280C. Flourney et al. (1992) suspectedthat, during these periods, shortnose sturgeon congregate ,in river regions'which, support..conditions that relieve physiological stress (i.e., in coolleep thermal'refuges)., In southern riverswhere sturgeon movements have been tracked, sturgeon'refrain from moving during warm waterconditions and are often captured at release locations during these periods (Flourney etal.-1992; .Rogers and Weber:1994; Weber 1996)., ;1The loss'and/or manipulation of'these discrete -efuge,habitats may limit or be limiting population survival, especially in southern river systems.Pulp mill,, silvicultut'al.,: agriculturali and sewer discharges, as'well as a combination of non-pointsource discharges, which contain elevated temperatures or high biological, demand, can reducedissolved oxygen levels. ' Shortnose sturgeon are known to be adversely affected by dissolved,.oxygen levels below 5 mg/L. Shortnose sturgeon may be less tolerant of low dissolved oxygenlevels in, high: ambient watet' temperatures and show signs ofstress in'-wvater.temperatures higherNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 201-. ,: '!
than 28'C. (F!urmey- et al. 1992)., -At these temperatures, concomitant low levels of dissolvedoxygen maybetlWhal. ,. ..,:' , " '- ' , .Global climate change may affect. shortnose sturgeon-in thefuture. Rising.sea level may result inthe salt wedge-moving upstreal, in- affected rivers, possibly.affectipg the s~urv-ival of driftinglarvae and. YOY shortnose, sturgeon-that are sensitive to elevated salinity.,, Similarly, for riversystems with dams, YOY nmay experience a habitat .squeeze~betweeo, a shifting (upriver) saltwedge and a dam causing loss'of available habitat for this.tiife;stage.' ,..* -.The increased rainfall..predicted'b~y,.some modelsin, souue:.areas marinr A r .. ,s, e runoff and scourspawning'areasand'flooding events could cause )temporary, water quality issues., Risingtemperatures predicted fbr the! U, S. could exacerbakefexistiag..wat.er quality. problems with.DO and temperature. While. p"riarily.in rivers I. thei southvast-U,.S. and the:,Chesapeake Bay, it may start to occur more commonly in the northern rivers. One might expectrange extensions to shift northward:(iei:in'to.:tiSt.,LawrenceRiv.er,.,, Canada),1while truncating ,the southern distribution., Increased: droughtsr(and water withdrtwal, fobr:hutanruse) predicted by:some models 'in some areas mayicause loss ofhabitat including loss of access to* spawning:habitat.,,Drought .conditions itI the;'spring may also expose eggs and larvae in rearing habitats... If,a river becomes. too shallow, ori flows become :intermittent, all shortnose sturgeon life, stages,including, adults, maybecome's~isceptible'to-strandings. Low flow and drought conditions are' .also expected to xauie additional Water quality issues. Any of the conditions. associated with,...climate change' ar'e likelylto disrupt rivert ecology vausing shifts,in community structture and; thetype andabutidance of prey. rAdditionally; cues 'for spawning migration and spawning.couldoccur earlier, in-the season 'causing a misrtatchin prey that are currently available,to developingshortnose~sturgeon .inrearing habitat.: -'....Implidationis..of climate change toshortnose-sturgeon throughout their range have beenspeculated;.pyet'no ;scientific dataare available on, past trends related to climate effects on thisspecies an&current scientific methodsi are not 'able to; reliably predict the future magnitude ofclimate change and associated impacts or the adaptive capacity of this species. While there is areasonable degree of certainty that certain climate change related effects will be experiencedglobally (e.g., rising temperatures and changes:'i' -precipitation patterns), due: to a lack ofscientific datatlie specific: effects to shortnose sturgeon .that may result from climate change arenot predictableior quantifiable at this time.; Information on current effects of global climatechange on, shortnose sturgeorn is not, available and while it is speculated that future climatechange may:affect this, speciesit'is not possible to quantify the extent to which effects mayoccur.', Firther analygis onthe likely effects of climate change ;on shortnose sturgeon in the actionarea is kieluded in the Environmental Baseline: and' Cumulative Effects sections belowij,, .Status of Shortnose Sturgeon in the Hudson RiverThe action area islimited;to.-the reach of the Hudson River affected byiproject operations asdescribed inrthe tfAction section. above, :,As such, thissection will discuss..tbe-availableinformation related to.the ptesencee of shortnoseturgeon in the Hudson Ri.er.; .). ..Shortnose sturgeopw.ere- firstobbserved'imr the Hudson River. by.early settlers who captured them.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August':&#xfd;201,J.),),,
as a source of food' and documented -their abuindance.(Bain et al.'1998). Shortnose'sturgeon inthe Hudson River were'documented as abundant in the late 1880's (Ryder 1888 in 1Hoff 1988)..Prior to 1937, a few'fishermen were still commercially harvesting shortnose sturgeon in the'Hudson River; however, fishingpressure declined as the population- decreased.- During the, late1800s and early .1 900s, the Hudson River'served as a dumping groiand for'pollutants, that lead tomajor oxygen depleti6ns aidi'resulte-din fish kills. and population: reductions:. During this sametime there was'.a high: demand 'forshortriose sturgeon eggs (caviar); "ading to overharvesting.'Water pollution,-overfis5hlig; 'and the 'commercial Atlantic,sturgeon fi shoreLare all factors .that"may have contributed 'to'die :dccline of shortnosesturgeon. in the Hudson River; (Hoff.1 988).In the 1930s,'the'N'e'w Ydrk State'Biclogicai'Survey launched the.*first scientific. analysis -thatdocumented the distributit,,agie, .nd.'size of mature-shortnose,sturgeon in the. HudsonRiver (seeBain et al. 1998).4 Ift the l970s;'scieltZ'0 fz., .amplihng r'esauinedpi-ecipitated.by the lack of biologicaldata and concerns about'the.imijaci,'of electric 'gmer~at.on. facilities on fishery resources (see Bainet al. 1998). The. cuirhnt populationr'of &#xfd;hortiose' sturgeonrahas been docuniented.'by studies -conducted. throughout the'entire* range of shortnose sturgeon.in.the Hudson Rii,'er, (see: Dovel1979, Hoff et al:1988, Geoghegan et al. 1992, Bain et al'1.998; Bainlet:al:., 2000, Dovel et al.:.19 9 2 ).:;. ' " : ' ' :' " " ' ' !. .." ... " ...' ' : ..Several population estimates were conducted throughout the- 1970s and. '1980s (Dovel11979;Dovel 198.1 ;>Dovel et aL 992). Moss recenily, Bain.et al:.(1998) conducteda mark recapture,study from 1994 through 1997 focusing en the shortnose' sturgeon active spawning stocck.,&deg;Utilizing targeted and dispersed sampling methods, 6,430 adult shortnose sturgeon were capturedand 5,959 were marked; severa! different. abundance estimates were generaced'from this samplingdata using different population models. Abundance estimates generated. ranged friom a, low of 25,255 to a high of 80,026;'though 61,057. is the; abundance-estirrmate from this dataset and.modelingexercise that is typically -used. This :estimate includes spawning: adults estimated to comprise;93% of the entire population or 56,708, non-spawning adults' accounting for 3% of the populationand juveniles 4% (Bain et al. 2000). Bain et al. (2000) compared the spawning populationestimate with estimates-by: Dovel et al. (1992) concluding an increase of approximately 400%,.-between 1979 and 1997. Although fish.popu.ations dominated by adults are not common,-for,most species; there is no evidence that this is atypical for shortnosesturgeon (Bain et al., '1998).Woodland and Secor (2007) examined the Bain' et aL._(1 998; 2000, 2007) estimates to try andidentify the cause of the major change iniabundance. 'Woodland and:Secor (2007) concluded thatthe dramatic increase in abundance was likely due tW. improved water quality in -the Hudson Riverwhich allowed for high recruitment during -years when environmental conditions. were. right,,particularly between 1986-1991-:. These studies provide the best information:available.,3n thecurrent status of the Hudson River population and suggests that the population is relativelyhealthy, large, and particular irn'habitat use and migratory behavior (Bain et al, 1998).Shortnose sturgeon have been documented in the Hudson River from upper Staten Island (RM -3) to the Troy Dam (RM 155; for reference, Indian Point is locatedat RM 38 (rKkm 61))' (Bain etal. 2000, ASA 1980-2002).' Prior to the construction of the Troy Dam. in 1825, shortnose .4 _ _" _ _ _.-:' See Figure' ,m .Hudson iver wih." ' '' .t.hes ae ;a. h .,,e4 See Figure 1 for a map of the Hudson River with these areas highlighted.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 20,11...
sturgeon aretthought. to have used the entire freshwater. portion of the. Hudson River (NYHS1809)., Spawning fish congregated at, the base of Cohoes Falls where the:Mohawk River emptiedinto the Hudson.,-Jn recent-years (since 1,999), shortnose sturgeon hav.ebeen documented belowthe Tappan.Zee Bridge from Ju.ne.through December (ASA. 1.99-2Q02; Dynegy 2003).. Whileshortnose sturgeon presence below the. Tappan Zee Bridge had, preyiopsly been thought to be rare(Bain et al: 2000),. increasing numbers of shortnose sturgeon. have bee ndocumep4ed in this areaover the last: several .years (ASA J999-2002; Dynegy.2003):suggest "g;that~the!rage of shortnosesturgeon is extending dowa sfte0r.. Shortnose stvrgeor.wer0,doquMne e as-farsouth as theManhattanftStaten,Island area.in June,, November and Decemb r 2QQ3..(IPynqgy 2003).. *From -late fal- to. early spring,-,adult! shortnose sturgeonco0noentratejQn a-few ov~erwintering areas.Reproductive activity the foWowing spring. determines ovrex iinterig behvior., The;largestoverwintering. area is'just south ofKingsto ,'N.Y, oearE.sopStMeeAd.ws (r'cm '139-452),(Dovelet al. 1.9.92). The.fish overwiatering ,Iduilts.,. Recent...;capture ddtal suggests that -these Areas. .exparding (Hudson River: k-999.T20Q2, Dynegy.2003).>, Captures--of shortnose-sturgeon Au~ring the ifalI, and, wjnte4 from Saugertiesi to, Hyde Park.,,(greater Kingston ;reach),4indicate that additional tsmaller overwintering areas m.ay be, present.&#xfd;(Geoghegan et al. 1992). Both Geoghegan et al. (1992) and Dovel et al. (1992) also confirmedan overwintering site in the Croton-Haverstraw Bay area (rkm 54-61). The Indian Point facilityis located -at ithe northe-nmextent of.this overwistering area near rkm 61 ... Fish overwintering.in.,:areas below EsopusMeadows: are-mainly thought to be prezspawning adults.,: Typically,.;movements, during averwintering periods, are localized and fairly~sedentary..,. .>:- .') , :In; the Hudson River, .males usually spawn at approximately: 3 L5 years of age whilelfemalesspawn at approximately 6-1.0 years of :age, (Dadswell et al. 1984;, Bain et al. 199,$,). Males mayspawn, annually once mature and, femalestypically spawn every 3 years (Dovel et al. 1992).Mature males feed.only sporadicallyi prior:.to the spawning-migration, while females do not feedat all in the months prior toespawningj c. .,;I.In approximately late March through. mid-Aprily, when water temperatures are sustained.at 8&deg;-9'C fair everal days ,: reproductively active adults begin.their migration upstream to the spawning.groundsth&at extend from below the-federdal Damat Troy to about Coeymans, NY (rkm 245-212;located more than 150km upstream from the Indian Point facility) (Dovel et al. 1992). Spawningtypicallyoburs:at water!te-hperatures betveen 1.0-8lC,(generally late April-May) after whichadults-disperse qfiiickly down river intoD their summer ,range.. Dovel et al. (1992) reported that,spawning fishi tagged at-.Troy.-were-recapt ued inHaverstraw Bay in early June. 'The broadsumm&,tage, occbpied'by, adiilt shortnose sturgeon extends from approximately rkm 38 to rkm177. :-The'lndian Point facilityis:lOcated&#xfd; within the broad summer range.-'. ' , I: " : :" " ,C. ' , ..I ' .., , .t : 'v ' .,:i .i ; ' , ." ..There is scant data on actual collection of early life stages of'shortnose' sturgeon in the Hudson.:River. During a mark recapture study conducted from 1976-1978, Dovel et al. (1979) captured-/ "1 , ' " t * : I " , , ,5 Basfdon info -matitin 6from the SdS ga( e igiiAlbahy ga o.'.'01 59139), in 2002 water temnperatures reached8&deg;C on April 10'and 6 on April'.,20; 20O3S'-80Ctn April;.14! and 15TC on.May. 1:9; 2004 -April 17 and15'C on May 11. In 2011, the most recent year on record, water temperatures reached 8C on April 11 and reached.15C on May 19. .,:2: ., , , ,1"NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August,,2.0[,: ,,
larvae near Hudson,* NY (rkm 188) and young of the year were captured further south near.Germantown. Between -1996 and 2004, approximately 10 small shortnose sturgeon: were"-.collected each year as part'of theFalls Shoals Survey (FSS) (ASA 2007). Based upon basic lifehistory information for shortnose sturgeon it is known that eggs adhere to solid objects on' theriver bottom (Buckley and Kynard 1981; Taubert:t 980) and that eggs and larvae are eipected tobe present within the vicinity of the spawriing grounds (rkm 245-212) for. approximatelyfourweeks post spawning (i.e., at latest through mid-June). Shortnose sturgeon larvae in: the'HudsonRiver generally range in size from 15 to 18 mm TL at hatching (Pekovitch 1979). Larvaegradually disperse downstream after hatching, entering the tidal'iiver (IHoff et al., 1988). Larvaeor fry are free swiwrung'.,,dtypicaiy' concentrate:in deep charmel habitat (Taubdri andDadswell -1980,'Bath'et.alt 198K1, Iieffer idKynard 1993). Gi,,eii that fry are free swimming andforaging, they 'typic~allydisper.se dv5,'i~stream of spawninfg/rearing areas. -Larvaeare' foundthroughout. the Hudson'RiVr! 'estuary ati--.ar n-ost coninionly found, in deep Waters with strongcurrents; typically ifi the: channel: (-6ff etal: 1. 988;' DdVkl 1 992). The transition from thelarval to juvenile"stage g~nera I y occurs" lin the, firs- t'L.,ei of lfe -when the, fi sh, grows toapproximately 2 cm TL and is marked by fully developed external characteristics (Pekoviftch1979)........................:...... ...Similar to non-spawning' adults, most juveniles occupy the brcad:region of Haverstraw Bay' (RM34-40; Indian Point is located near the -northern edge of the bay) (Dov1 et ai. I 992; Geogheganet al. 1992) by late fall and early winter. Migrations from the summer foraging areas to theoverwintering grounds are triggered when water temperatures fall.to 8&deg;C (NOAAFishe'nres'-.1998), typically idn late N0Venmber6.' Juveniles are distributed thre'Ughout the'mid-river regionduring the Surrnmer and'move back into 'the Ha&#xfd;,erstraaw Ba~y region 'during the late fall (Bain et al.1998; Geoghegan etal. 1992;Haley'1998). ""' : .'Shortnose sturgeon are bottom feeders and juvei,.iles may' 'Use 'the protuberant snout to t"vacuum"the river bottom. Curran & Ries (1937) described juvenile shortnose sturgeon from the HudsonRiver as having stomach contents of 85-95% mud intermingled with plant and animal material.Other studies found stomach contents of adults were solely food items, implying that' feeding ismore precisely oriented. The ventral protrusable mouthl'and' barbells are adaptations for a diet ofsmall live benthic animals. Juveniles feed on smaller-and somewhat different organisms than *adults. Common. prey items are aquatic' insects (chironornids); isopods; and amphipods; -Unlike.,adults, mollusks do'not appear to be an important part of the diet of juveniles (Bain-, 1997). As'adults, their diet shifts strongly to mollusks (Curran & Ries -1937).-:.. ...;''Telemetry data has been instrumental in in'forming the extent of shortnose sturgeon: coastal 'migrations. Recent telemetry data' from the Gulf of Maine indicate, shortnose sturgeonein thisregion undertake significant coastal migrations between larger river. systems and utilize smallercoastal river systems during these interbasin movements (Fernandes 2008; UMaine unpublisheddata). -Some outmigration has been documented in the Hudson River, albeit at low levels inIn 2002, watei' teperittres at the USGS gage at'Hastmigson-1udson (N6. 01376304; the farthest downstream'gage on the river) fell to 8&deg;C on November 23.3' In 2003, watei temp~iatilres'aiflhis gage fell f'i8'g&deg;C on November&deg;29;In 2010, water tenmperatutes' at the USGS:gageat: West Point; NMY Nqo.0 w.3-70191,iretl th'frthest, dovmstream'gage on the river) fell to 8C on November 23.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011"' " ". :.
comparison tq, co.astal; movement documented in the Gulf of Maine and Southeast. rivers. Twoindividuals taggepdin;1995 in the overwintering area near Kingston, NY- .ere later recaptured inthe. Connectic.ut River. One 9f these fish was at large for over two, years and the.other 8 yearsprior to recapture..: As such, it,.is reasonable to expect some leyel. of movement out of the Hudsoninto adjacent .riverr systems;,however, based on available informatigox.it .s not possible to predictwhat percertage-of adult shortnose sturgeon originating:from the N-Iudsor.Riveer may participatein coastalmnigrations.: .,.ENVIRONMENTALBASWLINE_ , .._,, *.;, ., :,:,.,,-',:. '.,> '2Environmental: ase-ines forbio ogical opinionssinclqd. -tht .and ent, impacts of all state,federal; or. priyate-, actigns and, other human aqtiyities. i. area, .theqanticip.ated impacts ofall proposed federal prqj ects in, thp: actioqaarea -tat have, lredy, jind.ergone, fprMal or.earlySection .7consultation, and the impact of statpe or jctippsh j,.r'.&#xa2;0fltepporaneous withthe consultationjii-pr9cess (0 CFR.,402,02) this Opinion,:,,,-,...:.includesthe effects-of sevgral,,acAivities .tl&#xfd;4 ay.-affect thesuriva and of the listedspeciesi. 'theaction ar.a.f. i. J! ) ' : ., ",: : .-Federal Actions that have Undergone Formal or Early Section 7 ConsultationThe only Federal actions, that, occur. witbhip the action, area are the operations of the. Indian Point .facility ,and res~earch actiyitie&sect;,4,itiorized pursuant to Section 10 of~the ESA.. 'Impacts ofthe Historieal Operation-iof the Indian. Point Facility.? .IP I and IP-2have',been operatiorpal, since thp viid-1970s. .During this time; shortnose sturgeon inthe Hudson River.have been exposed, to effects of this facility; Eggs :apd early laryva e would bethe only life stages of shortnose sturgeon small enough .tobe vlnerable to entrainment at the -Indian Point intakes (openings in the wedge wire screens are 6mm x 12.5 mm (0.25 inches by 0.5inches); eggs are, smalltenough to pass ithrugh:these openings.but, as explained below, do notoccur!injthe.a,ction area.. j. .. .,,::.;: ,.: 'In the Hudson Rivet, shortnose sturgeon eggs;are only found at the spawning grounds, which aremore than,1:50km upstream from the, Indian Point intakes (Bain 1998; NMFS. 1998)., As noshortnose sturgeon eggs. occur, in, the action ariea,.&#xfd; o entrainment.of shortnose sturgeon eggswould: be anticipated. ShQrtnose, sturgeon larvae. are fourad in deep channels, typically above the-salt wedge (Buckley and-Kyiiard 1985).1 In the Hudson River the *location of the salt wedge canvary from as far north as Poughkeepsie.'toas fardownstream as Hastings on Hudson 4USGSHudson River Salt Front study webpage) and therefore, could be upstream or downstream ofIndian Point._;Depending-on the location ofthe:saltwedge; in sgonie years salinity may be lowenough in :the action area for shortnose sturgeon larvae.to be present., Jn. laboratory experiments,larvae were nocturnal, and preferred deep water, grey color, anda silt substrate:(Richm nd andKynard 1995)...Larvae collected in. riyers were found in:.the deepest water, usually.withinthe,channel (Taubert and Dadswell, 1-980; Bath et al., 19*81; Kieffer and Kynard 1993).,:Larvae in. the;*Hudson River are expected to occur in the deep channel (Hoff et al. 1988; Dovel et al. 1992),which is at least 2,000 feet.from the intakes, Any larvae in the action area are expected to be at.least 20mm in length,as that ...he s4e that sho~tiose sturgeon larvae egin downstream.migrations (Buckley and.Kynard J995); while body width measurementsare notavailable, it. isNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August...2011 possible that sorme larvae would be small enough to the screen mesh;.f: However, aslarvae are typically found in -the deep channel, which is more than 2,000 feeti fromthe location ofthe intakes, it is unlikely'that larvae would be entrained in the intakes. ." '* " ' ".. ".,.i. ."' '", -* " ". .":.. ." .L '. ,:. "Studies to evaluate the effects of entrainment at IP2 &#xfd;and IP3 occurred from the early .1 970s'through 1987; with intense'dai!y'sampling during the spring of 1981,-1987'. As reported by NRCin the FEIS and BA,.entrairnment monitoring reports list no shortnose. sturgeon'eggs or: larvae atIP2 or IP3.. Given Whatis.'kndwr. about these life stages (i.e., no eggs present in the action area;larvae only expected tob efounddin ihe deep channel:'area away'from the intakes) and the,-:intensity 'f'the pastrmol nhni n.gi:it, is'reasofnable to assume that this past monitoring provides- anaccurate assessment of past entrainment of shortnose sturgeon early life stages. Based on this, itis unlikelythat any entraimrnentJrf Thoftnose sturgeon eggs and larvae occurred historically.The impingement of shor'tnose~stutgeorn-at I22 and '.23 has been documented. Impingement.''monitoring, -described fuily~belo'w 'ii the: "Effects. cf, :ALti~ha3 '"ection4 occurred, from 1974-1990, durinlg this time pefiod 21 shortnose'sturgec'ivwere observed inipinged at.IP2.. ,Length isavailable-for 6,fish and.ranged from 320-710mm. : Condition (dead'or alive) is.also only availablefor 6 fish;,withl 5 of the 6 fish reported dead., Howeveri no -infor-mation' on the :condition of thesefish is available, thus it is riot possible to speculate asto Whether thege .sh were fresh dead or-died previously and drifted into the intakes. -For: Uriit 3,"11, imppinged';shortros'e sturgeonwere:recorded: Condition is available for 3 fish,: with two of-the threedead. ,Length is-also onlyavailable for three fish, with lengths of 325, 479 and 600 mm. Water temperatures atthe time ofrecovery ranged from 0.5 -28&deg;C. Collectively at IP2 and IP3, impingements occurred in allmonths except July and December. .'While models of the current thermal plume are available; it is not clear whether this, model.accurately represents past conditions associated with the' thernal.plume. As,'no information on.past thermal conditions are available and no, monitorinn :was done historically to determrine if thethermal plume was effecting shortnose sturgeon or their prey; it is not possible to estimate' pasteffects associated with the discharge of heated effluent,froin the Indian Point facility. No 'information is available on any past impacts to shortnose sturgeon prey due to impingement orentrainment or exposure to the thermal.plume.-.This is because no monitoring of shortnosesturgeon prey in the action area has occurred.Hudson River Power Plants:, r ' .' ...,The mid-Hudson River provided the cooling water ,for foir. other power plants in. addition toIndian Point (RM 38):; Roseton GeneratingStation.(RM 66),.Danskarmner Point GeneratingStation (RM 67)4 Bowline PointGenerating Station:(RM 33), and Lovett Generating Station (RM38); all four stations are fossil-fueied.steam. electric stations, located on the western shore- of iheriver, and all use once-through cooling. Roseton consists of two units and is located at RM 66(RKM 106), 23 mi (37 km) north of lP2 and IP3. Just 0.5 mi (0.9 km) north of Roseton isDanskammer, Withl -four units: Bowline lies about five mi (eight kin) south of !P2 and IP3 and.consists of two units (Enterg& 2007a; CHGEC 1999).: Lovett, almost directly across the riverfrom IP2 and IP3, is no longer operating.In 1998, Central Hudson Gas andElectric Corporatibn&#xfd;(CHGEC), th.- operator of the RosetonNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2-0i:-,.
and Danskammer ,P.oin.t power.,plants initiated an application .fora permit undersection-I0(a)(1)(B) ofthe: ESA.7 As part of this -process -CHGEC submitted a, Conservatipn plan andapplication for a 1 0(a)(1)(B).incidental take permit that proposed tQ iminimize the potential forentrainment and impingement of shortnose sturgeon at the Roseton and Danskammer Pointpower plants. ,These measures-ensurethat the operation.of these plants,,will. not appreciablyreduce the likelihood of thelsurvival and recovery of shortnosQ stprgeon.in.the~wild. In additionto the:minimization measures;,a, proposed monitoringprogram was. implemrented to assess theperiodictake ofishortnose, s&sect;trgeon, the status of the species,,jdthe project!area, and the progresson the fulfillment ofmitigatioiu requirements.- In Decembter, QO y.D, yfggRoqseton L.LC. andDynegyDanskammer-Point .L.,L. 0were issued incidental1tajt pe..rrr jnp~,69 (ITPi 1269)...The ITP exempts theincidental-.take:of,2shortnose sturg~cnatRpseJona,n .4 atDanskammo.rPoint annually. This incidental take level is based upon impingement data collected from 1972-1998. ,NMFS determined-that; this. leveliof take .was not likeytoeappreciably-reduce the numbers,distribution;,-or reproduction ofltihe-Mudson;RieT. population of shortnose, sturgeon .n a way that-appreciablylreduces the, ability .f~shorkaose, sturgeon to surviv, and rec therwild, Since:,,the ITRPwasf issued,,,eihqnumber of shoram0se sturgeon, impinged. has been very low.. ,Dynegy has.indicated that this may be, due~in:pa-t :to.reduced operations, at the facilities which results insignificantly less water, witdraMrwal. and &#xfd;fferefore, tss opportunity for impingement. .Wh.ile -historicalrmonitoringreportst iidicate ;that.a smallnumber of sturgeon larvae were entrained:at.,:',Danskanimer4 'no. Storgeoft larvae, have been observed, in entrainment samples collected since the:ITP was issued.,-i i,., , ". , , ' , .-" ,r .1 1 IM ' ".. .I.. .. .., r : .i: ," , "; .'Scientific Studies -,, ,The Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon have been the focus of a prolonged historyof scientific-research.; Inthe 1i930s, the New,.York State Biologica-l Survey, launched the firstscientific sampling study and documented the distribution, age, and size of mature shortnosesturgeon (Bain et,al..:1998). In the earlyl 970sfresearch resumed in response, to a lack ofbiological. data and concerns about the~impac. of electric generation facilities on fishery resources(Hoff 1988)...In an effort to monitor relative abundance, population status, and distribution,..,.intensive sampling of shortnose sturgeon inthis region has-.continued throughout the past forty -years. Sampling studies targeting other&#xfd; species also incidentally capture shortnose sturgeon.There are currently three shortnose sturgeon scientific research permits issued pursuant to .Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the. ESA, in the Hudson River.,: NYDECs' scientific research permit.(#1547) authorizes DEC, to conductiriver surveys in th&#xa2; Hudson River, specificallyfocusing onHaverstraWBay.and Newburgh areas to evaluate the seasonaal movements of adults. and-juveniles.NYDEC.islauthorized to capture up to 500 adults/juveniles annually in order-to. weigh, measure,,tag, and collect tissue samples for genetic analyses. :Permit..#: 1547Texpires Octob.er.;31; 2011.Scientific-research permit 1,575 authorizes Earth Tech,f Inc.. to conduct.astudy of fisheries.resources in and. around the Tappan Zee Bridge'in support of the. NY.Depiartment. of .7 CHGEC has since been acquired by Dynegy Danskammer L.L.C. and Dynegy Roseton L.L.C.(Dynegy), thus the currint incidental takgpe)mitrjs h ped by Dynegy..NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 21 lJv. .2r , , ..:: , .-' , I , &#xfd;&#xfd;. -&#xfd; I f ' , V ..'
Transportation, NY Thruway Authorit$, and the Metro-North Railroad efforts to improve themobility in the 1-287 corridor including the-potential replacementiof the Tappan ZeelBridge:Data collection is focused on fish assemblages and relative species abundance in the'vicinity ofthe bridge. Earth Tech, Inc. is authorized to capture, handle, and measure up'to 250';-,"..,adult/juvenile shortnose'stiirgeonannually. Permit # 1575 expires Noverfiber 30, 20111The third scientificresearch- originally issued as #1254): is issued to Dynegy to",'evaluate the life; history, p ptPilation trends', ,and;spacio-temporal' and size distribution of: shortnosesturgeon collected duringI'!eu-rtnual Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program. .Dynegy isauthorized 82 adults,juvenil s annually, to measure,: tag, photograph; andcollect tissue samples 'f b gernetic'analyses .,Dynegy is also authorized to lethally take up to 40larvae annually.. Permit #- 1,-80 'vill: vxpi _e on March 3 i,-i 2012- These permits are issued for aperiod of five years nmd1mrayb&r.enf .,ipending a fornal review .by NMFS' Office of ProtectedResources, Permits Division. ' ' '. .'., .... ...... ......Impacts of Contaminants and Water Quality , ,-:',, ..i..'" ....Historically, shortnose sturgeon. were rare in the lower Hudson River,'likely, as 'a result of poorwater quality precluding migration further downstream.: H vwever' in the past several years, thewater quality has improved-and sturgeon have been found as far dowsL'eam, as Manhattan/Staten Island area. It is likely that contaminants remain "n the,'water and in the. actionarea, albeit to reduced. levels. , Sewage,. industrial pollutants and ,waterfrontdevelopment has..-likely decreased the water quality in -the action area: Contaminants introd-_uced into the.watercolumn or through the. food chain, eventually-become associated with the benthos where bottomdwelling species like shortnose sturgeon are particularly vulnerable. Several characteristics of.:,'shortnose sturgeon life history including long life span, extended residence in estuarine habitats,and being a benthic orrmivore, predispose this, species .to..long term repeated exposure to!environmental contaminants and bioaccumulat-ion of toxicants (Dadswell 1979).Principal toxic chemicals in the Hudson River include pesticides and herbicides, heavy metals,and other organic contaminants such as PAHs and PCBs.: Concentrations of many heavy. metalsalso appear to be in decline and remaining areas of concern are -largelylimited to those nearurban or industrialized areas. With the exception of areas near New York City, there currentlydoes not appear to be a major concern with respect 'to heavy metals ii the Hudson River;- however.metals could have previously affected shortnose sturgeon.,,'' .* .'. .PAHs, which, are products of incomplete combustidn&--most comrnonly enter the Hudson 'River asa result of urban runoff. As a result,' areas of greatest'concern are limited'to'urbanized, areas,:-principally near New York 'City%. The majority of individual PAl-Is of concern have. declined'.'during the past decade in the lower Hudson River and New York Harbor. : --PCBs are the principal toxic 'chemicals of concern in the' Hudson River. Primary 'inputs of PCBsin freshwater areas of'the Hudson River are from the upper Hudson River near Fort Edward andHudson Falls, New York. In the lower Hudson. River, -PCB concentratioris,observed are a resultof both transport' from upstream as well as direct inputs, fromadjacent uibanr areas-., PCBs tend'to.be bound to sediments and also bioaccumulate and biomagn-ify once they "enterithelfood 'chain..NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August'. 2011,.w.'" ... ..' .2 ,
This tendency to bioaccumulate and biomagnify results in theconcentration of PCBs in the tissueconcentrationsijl aquatic-dependentorganfisms. These tissue levelrs can bej many. orders of..magnitude higher-than those observed in sediments and can approach or. even exceed levels thatpose concern over risks to the environment and to humans who might consume these organisms.PCBs can have'serious-;deleterious effects on aquatic life. and areassociated with the productionof acute lesions, growth retardation, and reproductive impairment (Ruelle and Keenlyne 1993).PCB's may-also contribute to a decreased. immunity to fin'rotl(DoveIt et.al.:1992).', Large areas ofthe upper Hudson River to be, contaminated byPoGBs-audithisi is-thought to account forthe high: percentage of shortnose -sturgeon in the Hudson RiveE.,exhibidiag Efin -rot.-.. Under astatewjde toxics monitoring pr.ogram,4 the, NYS DEC analyzed~tissues from four ,shortnose.sturgeon to determine P.CB concentrations. -.In.gonadal tissuos&#xfd;,owhere lipidtpercentages are .highest,: the. average PCB conrceitratiofi was. 29.:55.partspor.mititionppbm;' Sloan 1981): and in all:tissuesranged~from,22.1 .to 997.0,ppm, Dovel nore:than J75% of the, !,tshortnose sturgeon captured in his study had severe incidence-of fin rot:*;In the Connecticut River, coal tar leachate was suspected of impairing',sturgeon, reproductive.: -,success.- Kocan (1.993) coiiducted. ailaboratory: study to investigate, the survival of sturgeon-eggsand larvae exposeddo.PAHs,: a by-prodtict.of coal distillation&#xfd;, Only approximately,5% of, .:.-sturgeon embryos and larvae suiiviived- after, 18 days of exposure to, Connecticut River coal-tar.(i.e., :PAH) demonstratingthat contaminated sediment is toxic to shortnose sturgeon :embryos andlarvae under laboratory exposure.conditions (NMFS :.1998). Manufactured, Gas Product (MGP)waste, which'is chemically similar= to'the, coal tar deposits found in the Connecticut.River;,: isknown tO occur at severalsites within the Hudson River and -this waste.may have had 'similar.effects -on any shortnose~sturgeom'present inithe action area over the years.: -'. ,"Point source discharge (i.e., municipaliwastewater, paper milleffluent, industrial or power plantcooling water or waste Water) and compounds!associated with discharges -(i.e., metals, dioxins,dissolved solids, phenols, and hydrocarbons) contribute to poor water quality and may alsoimpact the health of sturgeon populationsi-I The compounds associated with discharges can alterthe pH of-receiving waters; which may. lead! t& mortality, changes in fish behavior, deformations,and reduced egg production-:and survival;.. -.Heavy-usage of the-Hudson River and development-'along the waterfront could have affectedshortnose sturgeon throughout the action area., Coastal development and/or construction sitesoften result in excessive water turbidity, which could influence sturgeon spawning and/orforaging. ability. 1 Industries along the Hudson-River havelikely impacted the water quality, asservice industries,, such as transportation, communication;,-public utilities, wholesale and retailtrades; fminice,: insurance- and real estate, repair and others&#xfd; have increased since. 985 in all ninecounties in the lower Hudson River.&#xfd; , , , ' ,.' ' .-,The Hudson River 'is .used as: a- source of,potable water, for waste disposa1t transportation- and.-.cooling-by-industry and municipalities.-'Rohman et al. (1987) identified 1.83 separate industrialand.municipat discharges to- theH~udson anid-Mohawk Rivers..,, The greatest number of users werein- the chemical industry;.faollowed:by. the oilhindustry, paper and textile manufactures;- sand,'gravel., and rock processors;.power p0ants,-and cement companies., Approximately 20 publicly',NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August;,2011, :;,"
owned treatment'works discharge' sewage and wasteWater Into. the Mo'stof themunicipal wastes receive primary and secondary treatment. A'relatively small 'affioint'of sewageis attributed to discharges from recreational boats.. .-. ,' .'As explained above, -the shortnose sturgeon population in the: Hudson' River is the largestshortnose sturgeon population in the'U.S. 'Studies conducted in the, late '1 990s -indicate that thepopulation may have-increased 400%compared to previous studies..; The: available infornationindicates that despite facing threats' such as power plant entrainments, Water'quality and in-waterconstruction, the poldlatiori;expeirienced- considerable growth between the late, 1970s and late1990s and is stable at high levels (Woodlandand Secor2007)-.: "Global cliMate change i-.. L: .U.. ,,.The global last 41"50 years, and the linear, trend overthe last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years (IPCC 2007a) and precipitation hasincreased nationally by 5%-10%, mostly due to an increase in heavy downpours (NAST 2000).There is a high confidence:'based 6n sJubstanti.al anew: bbserved-changes in marinesystems are associated, with rising water temperatures; as'.well as ,relatedlchanges in ice cover,salinity., oxygen, levels, and circulation. Ocean acidification resulting fr'om massive 'amounts ofcarbon dioxide and otherlpollutants released intothe ai.r:can have- major adverse.impacts, on- thecalcium'balance in&#xfd; the oceans. Changes, to the marine ecosystem due, to clirmatechange'includeshifts in rangesand changes in algal, plankton, and fish abundance (JPCC 2007b); -these: trendsare most apparent over the past few decades.,,Tfo6nmaticn on- fut-reimpacts -of climate change inthe action area is' discussed below..-,:; ' .-' -* " ' ' .' .: 'i .' ' -2' .; , : -.. ... " .. : ."r ' : ": .: , , : ...,!" ' -; .--"- " ,'C " 'Climate model projections exhibit a wide range of plausible scenarios for both temperatizre and -precipitation over the next century. Both of the: pincipal:climate models used-by the NationalAssessment SynthesisTeam (NAST) project warming: in.ti)esoutheast by the 2090s,_;but atdifferent rates (NAST.2000): the Canadian model scenario showsthe southeast U.S. , -, .,experiencing a high degree of warming, which translates into lower soil moisture as higher- .temperatures increase evaporation; -the Hadley~model scenario projects less warming and a,. ,significant increase in precipitation (about 20%). :The scenarios examined, which assume~nomajor interventions to reduce continued growth of world greenhouse -gases (GHG), indicate- that-.temperatures in the. U.S. will rise by about 3'-50C (5&deg;-9&deg;F) on average inthe, next 100years.which is more than the projected global increase (NASTT2000). A warming of about 0.2CC perdecade is projected for the next two decades over a range of emission scenarios (IPCC 2007).This temperature increase will very likely be -associated, with more extreme precipitation andfaster evaporation of water; leading to greaterf frequency of both very wet 7and very dry -: ,- .-conditions. Climate wanning has. resulted in increased precipitation, river. discharge, and' glacial..and sea-ice melting (Greene et alh,2008). ' : ,, : --'. * -'. .. --'The past 3 decades have witnessed major changes in ocean circulation patterns inthe Arctic, andthese were accompanied by climate associated-changes as well (Greene et al. 2008).. Shifts inatmospheric conditions have altered Arctic Ocean circulation patterns' and theexport offreshwater to the North Atlantic (Greene et al.'2008, IPCC 2006). 1vVMith respect:specifically to ,.:the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)% changes peratrTirc- are thought to be, theNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augus"t' 20,I.? "
result of changes. inthe earth'.s.atmosphere caused by anthropogenic~forces (IpCC:2006). TheNAO impact :climate variability throughout the northern hemisphere (JPCC..2006).-, Data fromthe 1960s through the present show that the NAO index has increasedfrom minimum, values inthe 1960s to strongly positive index values in the 1990s and somewhat declined since (IPCC2006). This warming extends opv.er;1000m deep and, is deeper -than, anywhere in the world oceansand is particularlyevident:under the Gulf-Stream/ North Atlantic, Current, system (IPCC 2006).On a global scale, large. discharges of freshwater intof the:,NorthAtjantjq subarctic seas can leadto intense stratification of the uppernwater icolumnn and a~disruptioN, OYfN0rth Atlantic Deepwater(NADW) formation (Greene.ietal,,2008, IPCC -2006). Tlhereis. thit the.NADW hasalready freshened significantly,(JIPCC_ 2006). This;, in turn.canlcad,,tQ, alowipg down of.theglobal ocean thermohaline (large-scale circulation in the ocean that transforms low-density upperocean waters to higher density intermediate and deep waters and returns those.waters backto theupperocean), -which can have climatic ramifications,for system (Greene et al.2008).While predictionsrare~available regarding:potential.effects of climate change globally, it is moredifficult to assess the!patential effects. of climate, changeover the next few decades on coastal andmarine resources on:smaller geographic, scales, suchlas. the Hudson :River, especially as climatevariability~is a:dominant.factor in,shaping icoastal and marine systems. ,:;The effects of futurechange-will vary greatly.in, diversme coastabregions for the. United. States. Additional information,on potential effects of (climate, change. specific toAthe, action area is discussed below.... Warming isvery~likely to continue inthe"U. S. ,dver the next,25.ito 50 years.regardless of reduotion-in GHGs,due to emissions that have already occurred (NAST 2000); therefore;,it&#xfd;is also expected to -,continue during the course of the renewed licenses (20 years), if issued. It is very likely that themagnitude and frequency of ecosystem changes will continue.to increase in the next'25 to 50years, ,and it is ipossible that they will, accelerate.-, Climate change can'cause or exacerbate directstress oni ecosystems*through high temperatures; a reductionein -water availability; and alteredfrequency of extreme events and severe[ storms.., -Water temperatures in streams and rivers arelikely to:increase as the climate)warms~and ai'e very likely to have, both direct and indirect effectson aquatic ecosystems. Changes in'temperatuie.will' be most .evident during low flow periodswhen theyiare of greatest: concern (NAST 2000). Jmn'somemarine and freshwater systems, shiftsin: geographic rangesland changes, in alga,' plankton,,, and fish abundance are associated with highconfidenceiwith rising water temperature's; a&sect;--well as related changes in ice cover, salinity,.oxygen levels ;and circulation (IPCC 2007.)&#xfd;. &#xfd;, ` ., .' '. , '.A warmer andidrierclimateis expected toIresult in reductions in stream flows and increases inwater temperatures,. 'Expected consequences could be-a- decrease, in the. amount of dissolved'oxygeh, ih,' surface waters and an, increase in the concentration of nutrients-and toxic chemicalsdue to reduced flushing rate (Murdoch et al. 2000). Becausekmany:rivers are already under a great deal of stress due to excessive water withdrawal or land development, and this stress maybe exacerbatedby changes in climate, anticipating and planning adaptive strategies may be -,critical (Hulme:2005).., A warmer-wetter~climate!could ameliorate poor Water quality conditionsin places where human-caused concentrations: ofnutrients and pol.ltants other than heat currentlydegrade' water quality, (Murdoth.et al. 2000). Increases in water temperature andchanges inseasonal patterns .f runoffwill,very lkely Aisturb fish habitat. and affect 0creational: uses ofNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August."2011,.'
lakes, streams, and:wetlands',. Surface Water resourcesin the: southeast, are iritenisively managedwith dams and channels and almosti all are affected by human activities; in some systems waterquality is either below recommended levels or nearly so. .A global analysis of the potential ,Jeffects of climate change on river basins indicates that due to changes in discharge and waterstress, the area-of large-river basins in need of reactive or proactive.management interventions inresponse to climate change.will be much higher for basins impacted by. dams than for, basins-withfree-flowing rivers (Palmer. et al. 2008).. Human-induced disturbances also influence coastal andmarine systems, ofternf -ducing the-ability of the systems to adapt so that-systemn's that mightordinarily be, capable of tes~potiding to:vaiiability~and change are less able todo so.. Becausestresses-on wdater quafityti-e associated wifhmrnany activities;.the impacts of the existing stressesare likely torbe exacerbated,by ciirnate change; Within 50 years, river basinsthat are impacted bydams. orby'extensive developmenti- ay experience greater -changes in discharge-and water stressthan unimpacted, .free-flbWing'riave (Paimer e&a! 2008),, ....... " ..." ; "r.-'.. ........ ....... ..;':q t... ....'",.::: "".. ....While debated; researcthers anticipate:. ,1).the frequetrcy-Lnd intensity of droughts- and floods will-change across the'nation,-,2) a warnning of aboutV0.2&deg;C.per 'd&cade; and 3)irisein sea level .(NAST 2000). A warmer and drier climate will reduce stream flows and incr-ease water', , .temperature resulting in a decrease of DO and an increase in the concentration of nutrients andtoxic chemicals due to reduced flushing. Sea' level:,is expected to-'continue.rising: during the 20thcentury global sea level has increased'15 to 20 cm.: -..... .......' 'Effects: on.shortnose, sturgeon thrbughout their range. :- ..."..... .....Shortnose sturgeon' have .persisted for millions of years and throughout this time, have,experienced wide variations in global climate conditions arid have successfully adapted t0,thesechanges. As such, climate change at normal 'ates (thousands of years) is not thought'to -havehistorically a problem shortnose sturgeon.' Shortnose sturgeon could be affected by changes inriver ecology resulting from increases.. in precipitation and changes in water temperature whichmay affect recruitment and distribution in these; rivers.,, However, as noted in. the "'Status -of theSpecies" section above, information on current effectsof global climate change on shortnosesturgeon is not available and while it is speculated that future climate change may affect thisspecies, it is not possible to quantify the extent to which effects may occur. Howe,%er, effects' ofclimate change in the action: area during the: temporaijscopeof this section 7 analysis (the: licenserenewal periods for IP2/IP3: September 2013 &#xfd;o September 2033 and December 2015 to.'.December 2035) on shortnose sturgeon in theaction. area are discussed. below. .. ..-.. .....Information on how climate change will impact the action area is extiemely limited.r, Available.information on climate change related effects for the Hudson River largely focuses on effects thatrising water levels may.,have on th6,hurnan envirom-ent. The New York State SeaLevel Rise.,"Task Force (Spector in Bhutta'20.1 0) predicts a state-wide sea level rise of 7-52 inches by the endof this century, with- the conservative, range being about 2 feet.! This compares to an average sealevel rise of about.1b foot in the Hudson Valley in the.past ,100 years. Sea level rise is expected to.result in the northward. movement of the salt wedge. The location of the salt wedge in theHudson River is highly variable depending on season, river.flow, and precipitation so it isunclear what effect this northward shift:could have. lPotentiair negative effects include restricting.,the, habitat available forjuvenile shortnose sturgeon A hich:arei:: __tokcran&#xfd; 4o.salinity..and areNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August"2011:".,
present eexolusiv.ely upstream of the .sal-t ,wedge., .While there is an indicatiojn that an increase insea level rise twould result in a, shift in the location of the salt wedge, at this time there are nopredictions& on -the timing o0;extent of any shift that may oc.cur'.. ., ... ,- .Air temperatures in-the Hudson, Valley have risen approximately 0.5.C. since 1970..In the 2000s,the mean. Hudson river, water temperature, as measured at the Poughkeepsie -Water TreatmentFacility,- was approximately 2'C)higher than averages recorded in thea 1960s (Pisces 2008).However, while it is possible to examine past water temperature data and observe a warmingtrend; there.are notcurrently any predictions onwpotential futurejinores.es in watertemperature inthe action area specifically or-the Hudson Rirver generally: ..he. Eisqs r.eport (&#xfd;008) also statesthat temperatureswithin the Hudson River may be bepor'ingimorm extrem e. I or example, in2005, watertemperature'on certain da~tes was.olose tQ the makimum, evetrecorded and. also. onother dates reached the lowest temperatures-reecordeovoer a)53-,yeartperiod..,.Other.conditionsthat may be related to. climate change that have been reported in the Hudson Valley are warmerwinter :temperatures; earlier melt-out and.;mo9xosYere flooding.: Anwaverage :increase in.. -:..precipitation .of about 5%/-is expeoted;; howeVer,:information ion-the effects of an, increase in,.,:,precipitation on conditi-ojsdin-the'action area is not, available.. , ,.As .there is, significant tunoentainty:in the rate and timing of change as well .as the effect of any.changes that may be experienced in the action area due-to climate change, it is di'fficult to predict,the impact of these changes on shortnose sturgeon. The most likely effect to shortnose sturgeonwould be if sea level rise was great enough to consistentlyshift the salt wedge far enough northwhich would, restrict.the range of juvenile shortnose sturgeon and may affect the.,development ofthese life:stages. JIn the actiomarea, it is possible, that changing seasonal temperature regimescould resiilt in changes in the timing of spawning; which would result in a change in the seasonaldistribution of sturgeon'in the action.area.:.A northward shiftin the salt'wedge could also drivespawning shortnose sturgeon further upstream, which may result in a restriction in the spawningrange and an iticrease in: the numberoftpawning'shortnose sturgeon in the action area, as thisarea is the furthest accessible upstream, spawning area.As described above4 overnthe long term, global. climate change may affect shortnose sturgeon byaffecting the location of the salt wedge, distribution of prey, :water temperature and water quality;however, there is sighificant uncertaintity; due to a. lack of scientific data, on the degree to whichthese effects may be experienced and therdegree to-which shortnose.sturgeon will be able tosuccessfully adapt to any such changes. Any activities occurring within and outside the actionarea: thittcdntributel toglobal climate. change;are:also &#xfd;expected to affect shortnose sturgeon in theaction: arda,, (Scientific data on changes in shortnose sturgeon distribution and behavior in theactionrreamis not available., Therefore,tit is not possible :to say-with any degree of certaintywhether and how their distribution 'or behavior in the action. area. haye been or.are currentlyaffected by climate change related impacts. Implications of potential changes- in. the action arearelated;to, climate change. are not clear in terms of population: lev'el impacts, data specific'to these;species in the action area are lacking., Therefore;.any recent impacts from climate change in the -action area are not:q.uantifiqble&#xfd;.or;describabl.e to a degree that could be meaningfully.analyzed.in.this consultationw'However,vgiven., the likelyi, rate of climate change, it is, unlikely that there will..:be significant'effects~to shortnisei sturgeoniin the.:action area, suchas changes in distribution orNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011-.
abundance, over thetime period considered in this consultation (i.e.;, 2013 throdgh*2035) and it isunlikely that shortnose sturgeon in the action area will experience new climate, change'relatedeffects not already captured in the "Status of the Species" section above concurrent with theproposed action. -.EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ... .This section of a Opinion, assesses the direct and indirect effects of the proposed. action onthreatened and endangered species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activitiesthat are. interrelated .ordnte.dep.dendent (50.CFR402.02),! Jndirect effects are those that are-causedlater in. time, but are sti-h,:easonably'cetain:to occur.., Interrelated..actions are those that are partof a larger action. and, dpe.nd, upon tha-larger action for their justification. Interdependent actionsare those that have r.o. icndependent .uti. ..ity apart from. the action under consideration (50 CFR402.02). This Opinion, examin.es , "ho b kelr effects of.the.proposed action. on.shortnose sturgeonand.their habitat. in the acti6n: area. within, the context of thea species current status, theenvironmental baseline.and cumulative effects. of the proposed action are the, effectsof the continued operation of IP2 and IP3 ,pursuant to renewed. licenses proposed to be issued bythe NRC pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act.: NRC has requested,consultafi.o.n on the.proposedextended operation of the facilities under the same terms .asin. the existing :licenses :i.nd, existingSPDES permits....... ............ ................,.-......The proposed, action has the potential to affect shortnose sturgeon in several ways: impingementor entrainmenti of individual shortnose sturgeon at the intakes; altering the abundance or;,availability of potential prey items; and, altering the riverine environment througb the dischargeof heated effluent.Effects of Water Withdrawal ...... ,,.... ...Under the terms of the proposed renewal license, IP2 and T.P3 will withdraw water from theHudson River for cooling. Both units would utilize, once through cooling, assuming no. changesare made to the proposed action. Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that the, .location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the besttechnology available for minimizing adverse en-Nironmental impacts. According to the draftSPDES permit for the facility, the NYDEC has determined for .Clean Water Act purposes that thesite-specific best technology available to minimize the 'adverse environmental impacts of the IPcooling water intake structures is closed-cycle cooling, (NYDEC.2003b).
* IP2 and IP3 currentlyoperate pursuant to the terms of the SPDESpermits issued. by NYDEC in 198' but.t,. .administratively extended since then.. NYDEC issued a draft SPDES permit in 2003..,Its finalcontents and timeframe forissuance are uncertain, given it. js still under adjudication atithis. time..While it is also uncertain that the facility will be able to operate under the same terms a.s those- inits~existing license and SPDES permit, NRC sought consultation on its proposal to renew thelicense for the facility under.,the same terms as the existing. license. and SPDES permit,. whichauthorize once through cooling. NMFS will consider the impacts to shortnose sturgeon of the.continued operation of 1P2 and IP3 with the existing once through cooling system and existingSPDES permits.over the duration of the proposed l.icense renewal period for 1P2 and IP3 (i.e.,September 20.13. to.September 2033 and December 20.15 to December 2,035, respec~tively). But,it is important to note that changes to the effects.of the action, inclu.in.g htt .nct, limited toNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -2011...
changes in, the effects of the cooling water system, as well as changes in other. factors, maytrigger reinitiat~on.of consultation,:(s~ee.50 CFR 402.16). ,Entrainment of Shortnose sturgeon ...Entrainment occurs when small aquatic life forms are carried into and through the cooling systemduring water withdrawals. Entrainment primarily affects organisms.with limited swimmingability that can pass through th, screerd mesh;,used on: the intake -systems' OOnqe. entrained,organismspass' throtigh' the circulating pumps and are carried with the waterfiow through theintake cofilttits toward the co&#xa2;fdenser units.'. They are then drawnthrough!one of the-many;condenser tubes used. to cool-the tutrbinelexhatst steam; (where coo1ing.wdter absorbs heat). andthen enter:the discharge retiiMnto the Hitdson"Rier.J t As,&#xa2;ntrainedl6rganisms passthrough: th6; intaked they may be injured from abrasion.or Withinthe cooling system,they encounterphysical impacts iwethe pAunfps&#xfd; andi cbnd.ngei chantges, and shearstress through6utr the system; thermak shock withi,,the kondenserg.andexposiure to chemicals,!including cdhlorine and residual industria1zhenikals&#xfd; discharged'at lthe diffuserports (Mayhew et:al.: 2000 in NRC 20.11),() Death can occur imnitediately'or a later time fromrthe. physiologicaleffects of heat,'or it cafhocour-aftc.iorgalrisms are: discharged if stresses or injuries result in'af-inability to&#xfd; escape ptedatoes, ared aced abilityto-forage&#xfd; or other impairments.:4, ., f,The southern extent of the shortnose sturgeon spawning area in the Hudson River isapproximately RM, 1 li (RKM 190)V' approximately: 75 RMI (121 'RKM)' upstream of the intake ofIP2 and IP3. :The'eggs ofshortnose.sturgeonr&-demersal, sinkirrg and adhering to-the.bottom ofthe river,: and, upon hatching the larvae in. both yolk-sac and post-yolk-sac stages remain on thebottom of the river, primarily upstream of RM 110 (RKM 177) (NMFS 2000). Because eggs donot occur near the intake for IP2 and IP3, there is no probability of entrainment. Shortnosesturgeon larvae are 20mm in length at the time they begin downstream migrations (Buckley andKynard Larvae are found in'freshwater, above.the salt wedge. The location ofthe salt wedge'. in the -Hudson Rive-.Varies both seasonally and annually, depending at leastpartially Oii freshwater input. Ininrifhny:yearsithe salt wedge is located upstream of the IndianPointintakes; in those years, larvae would. not'be expected to occur near the IP intakes as thesalinity'levels would be too high.' HIowever,f at times when the salt wedge is downstream of theintakes, Which is most likely to occur in the:late summery there is the potential: for shortnosesturgeon -arvae'to be' present in the action' area. -Larvae occur in the deepest water and in the..Hudson"River; Ithey arei found in the de'ep'channel.(Taubert and.,Dadswell 1980; Bath et al. 1981;Kieffer and Kynard 1993). Earvae grow rapidlyand aftei" a few:*weeks are, too large to beentraiaed, by the cohlin water i-iitake; thls, Jny potential for entrainment is limited to any periodwhent, indiidiial are :srhall 6nough to pass -through the openings in the qmesh screens that .coincide; With a peridd when the salt'wedge is located of the -intakes.- Given thedistance between the intake and! the deep channel (2000 feet)' where any lArvae would be presentif in the action area, larvae are unlikely to occur-near the intake where they could be, susceptibleto entrainm ent.. -:-. ...* ..:'-Studies to evaluate the effects'of entrainment at IP2,and IP3 conducted since the early 1970s.'employed a variety of methods; top asess adtual; entrainment losses- and to evaluate the survival ofentrained orgalisns- after released'back intothe environment by the once-through: .NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -
cooling system. IP2 and IP3 monitored entrainment from 1972 through 1987. Entrainmentmonitoring became more'intensive'at Indian Point from 1981 -through 1987; and samplingwas-conducted for nearly 24 hours per day, four to seven days per week, during the spawning seasonin the spring. As reported by NRC, entrainment monitoring reports list no shortnose sturgeoneggs or larvae at IP2 or IP3.-'During the development of the HCP. for:steam-electric, generators onthe Hudson River, NMFS reviewed all available entrainment data. In the HCP, NMFS (2000)lists only eight-sturgeon larvae c6llected:at any of themid-Hudsori River power plants (Al eightwere collected at Danskai-mher,(approximately 23 miles'upstream of Indian Point), and four ofthe eight may have beeiin.'L.antie stuitgeon). Entrainment sampling data: supplied'by the- applicant(Entergy 2007b) 'incli'dci'ge inb~rs of'larvae for which the species-could not be determined;however, NRC has ndicated, that a ,tuiigeonxIlivae ai'e.distinctive itis unlikely that sturgeonlarvae would occur inii-ih 'accouiitd"-" category as it is expected that if there were' any sturgeonlarvae in these samples: hey-woildd. have beenjidenitifiable. Entergy currently is -not required toconduct any, monitoring prbgr'amr to'rec 0&d eihtr&#xfd; .nrunent al,1IP2.and :IP3; however; it is reasonableto use past entrainmenit to Predict., future effe*ts," 'This is:because: (1):-there have not beenany operational changes that make entrainment more likely now than it was during thestime whensampling took place; and, (2) the years when intense entrainment sampling took place overlapwith two of the years (1986 and 1987; Woodland and Secor 2007): when shoitnose' sturgeon -recruitment is-thought to, have been the highest and.tlierefore, thi y'e'ars when, the greatest'numbers bfshortnose sturgeon' larvae were available "or'entrainment.- 'The iack-of observedentrairimnent of shortnose sturgeon during sampling at:IP2 and IP3 is also.reasoiable-given theknown informati6n on the ,location of shortnose:sturgeon spawning aid the distribution of eggsand larvae in the'river.' ... .-..Based on the life histo6-yof the -shortnose sturgeon, the location. of spawning grounds within theHudson River, and the patterns of movement for eggs and'.arvae, it is extremely.unlikely~that anyshortnose sturgeon'early life stages would be entrained at !P2 and/or IP3.: This conclusion issupported by the lack of any eggs or larvae positively identified as sturgeon and documentedduring entrainment monitoring at IP2 or IP3. Provided that assumption is true, NMFS does notanticipate any entrainment of shortnose sturgeon eggs, or larvae over the period of the extendedoperating license (i.e., September 2013 through&September 2033 and December 20i 5 throughDecember 2035). It is important to note that this determination is dependent~on the-validity ofthe assumption that none of the unidentified lar,,ae were shortnose sturgeon. Adl other life stagesof shortnose sturgeon ate too big to pass through the screen mesh and could not be entrained atthe facility. "r............................. ........Impingeinent of Shortnose Sturgeon,, .'. .. ". ..Impingement occurs when organisms are trapped against cooling.water. intake screens or.racks bythe force of moving water.. Impingement can kill organisms immediately, or 'contribute to deathresulting from !exhaustion, suffocation, injury, or exposure to air when screens are rotated forcleaning. The potential for injury or death is generally related to the .amount of time an organism.is impinged, its susceptibility to injury, and the physical characteristics of the screenwashing andfish return systeim that the plant operator uses." Below, NMFS' considers'the available data on theimpingement of shortnose sturgeoft'atithe facility and thlen considers the likely rates of mortality:associated with this impingement, ..* .. ... .NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August'.2011" IP2 and IP3 mopitored impingement of most fish species daily until 1.981, reduced .collections toa randomlyselected schedule of 110 days per year until 1991, and then ceased monitoring in1991 with:the. installation of themodified Ristroph traveling scree.ns..-IP2 and IP3 monitored theimpingement of sturgeon species daily from;1974 through 1!990 (Entergy &#xfd;2009).,r. ~1J NjI" ."In 2000, NMFS prepared- anenvironmental assessment&#xfd;(EA) for the proposed issuance of anIncidental Take Permit for,shortn.se sturgeon at the Roseton- and Danskaruner generatingstations onithe Hudson River, .0M!S 2000)., -TheEA included the;qs&#xfd;&#xfd;iMtedtotal number ofshortnose sturgeon impinged. IP2 and IP3,- with adjustments. when samplingwas not eonducted;!including, the years after,.J 990. when. no, impin.r.gemeRt rmonitoring was-, ,,conducted. In the EA NMFS repoxted.that betweeni972r1',99,8,.am-estimated tQtal of 37shortnose. sturgeon were impinged at IP2, andI26 atIp;3 ,With , ayverageqf p,4,and 1.0 fish peryear, respectively. For, the subset tinje period ,of j989 ota! of 8,slortnoe sturgeon were,estimated to have;beenimpinged at J112. and,$,afllP.3,. with anarage-pf..,Q."'&#xfd;fish.per year at each,of the tvomunits. I1/4~'~ 8 ~ *,.,1 tj f' ~ ' , * 'During:Jhe-ESA consultation process, NRC worked with Entergy to reviewthe previouslyreported impingetent--ata, 4dtoimakeia.thematical corrections associated with acco.untingerrors .related to sampling ..requency The ,corrected data for. hortnose sturgeon,-show that, fronm 1975..to.1990,20 -fish werelimpinged at IP2 an~d 11 fish were impinged at IP3;.!this indicates an average: of 1.3 shortnose sturgeon per year atIP2 and, 0.73 ,shortnose sturgeon,per year at IP3. NRC has stated that the installation of the modified Ristroph screens followingthe 1987-1990 monitoring period is expected to have reduced impingement mortality forshortnose sturgeon;,however, because no monitoring Qccured, after .theinstallation: of theRistroph. screens, more. recent data are inot available andit.,is %lot possible to determine to what.extent theimodified Ristroph screens nrray.haye reduced impingement mortality as compared topre-1991'levels. ., .,According to.information provided by Entergy,(Mattson,.personal communication, August2011), approaeh velocities outside of the trashobars at IP2 and; IP.3. are approximately 1.Ofps atfull; flow' and 0,6fpsat reduced flow (Entergy-2007.); yearling and older shortnose sturgeon areable to .avoid intake velocities of this speed (Kynard, personal communication 2004). Shortnosesturgeonthat become impinged at.IP2 and :IP3, are. likely vulnerable, to impingement due to.previous injury or other stressor, given thatindividuals in normal, healthy condition should beable to readily avoid the intakes.The trash bars at the IP2 and IP3 intakes have clear spacing ofthree inches. Shortnose sturgeon adults and some larger juveniles are expected to have bodywidths! greater-than three;inches;.these fish wotiuld be too.wide to, pass-through the bars. Smaller.juveniles,.which are likely to 'ccur in the vicinity of Indian Point (BBain et al. 1998), with bodywidthsless than 3 inches,. would have body widths narrow enough to;pass through the trash bars,and contact the Ristroph screens. ....v , : ... ...'The shortnose sturgeon population in the. Hudspn River exhibited tremendous growth in the 20year period between the late, 1970s: and late P990s4; with exceptionally.strong year classesbetween 1986-1992 thought to have led to resulting increases inthe subadult and adult'.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -!,,.
populations sampled: inhe .late 1990s (Woodland 'and Secor 2007). The period-for which'.impingement sampling occurred partially overlaps with -the period of increased recruitment; .however, during the portion of the sampling period that does overlap with the period -of increasedrecruitment (1986-1990) the increases in.the shortnose sturgeonpopulation would have been: fishless than 4 years old, -which represent-only a small portion, of the overall shortnose sturgeon:--population.
* Thus, to predict "future :impingement rates it is appropriate: to adjust the past ,impingement rates: with: a: correction' factor to account for the increased number of shortnosesturgeon in the;population.: According:to data presented by Bain (2000) and Woodland and Secor(2007), there were, 4 times'as many ,shortndse sturgeon in the Hudson River in the late- 1990s ascompared to the' late i970s.f- Thereis-no figure available for the interini period which would bestoverlap with the period when- iinpingi merit sampling occurred: Woodland and Secor state-thatthe population of shotirosesstLurgon is cun'ently stable at;tlie high- level described also by Bain.Given the four-fold increase&#xfd; in the.popLiation, th-erewould be.4,times as-many shortnose,sturgeon that could be' potentially irhpinged at t' he-fakility -yow as compared to the' past "monitoring period:- this', it isreasonable:t,% _' the'past.iimpingement-ratesbby a factorof 4 to predict impingement'irates based on the best :available population size,, Using. this method,an impingement rate of 5:2 shortnose-sturgeon per ye"r.is'cacuaaed~for1P2 and an impingementrate of 2.9 shortnose sturgeon per year is calculated for IP3. Using this rate, it is estimated that.over the 20 year life of the extended operating license, a total of no more than 104 shortnosesturgeon will. be impinged at IP2 and no more than:58 shortnose sturgeon Wil. be. impinged at!.IP3. NMFS considered reviewing imnpingemernt, data-for other Huds6n Rivernp,cwer p lahts to*.determine if this predicted correlation between increases -in.individuals and increased",impingement of individuals would be observed. Long term shortnose sturgeon impingementmonitoring is only available, for the-Roseton, and Danskammer facilities.:' However,since 200.0"both facilities have'operated at:reduced rates and there has been minimal.'shortn.ose sturgeonimpingement. As these facilities are not currently~operatirng in the. same icapacity they:were in, thepast, it is not possible to make an.accurate comriparison o'past and present impingement whichcould serve to verify NMFS assumptions about an increase. in the number of individual shortnosesturgeon in the Hudson River resulting in 'an increase in- impingement.. However; based. ,on theassumption that, all other factors remain the same -(approtchavelocity, intake volume).theu: .,'likelihood of impingement :should increase with an increase in availableindividudls. ,As notedabove, the Lovett facility has been closed..,jThe Bowline facility has always operated with ,. .extremely low levels of impingement," thought! to beprimarily: due to the location of-the intakes ina nearly enclosed embayment of the River where shortnose sturgeon are thought to. be unlikely tooccur (Bowline Pond) (NMFS 2000). .,:... -' -Before installation of modified Ristroph screen systems in 1991;. impingement mortalityjat IP2:.:and IP3 was assumed to be 100 percent. Beginning in 1985, pilot studies were conductedtoevaluate whether the addition of Ristroph screens would, decrease impingement mortality forrepresentative species:. .The final 'design of the screens, as reported in Fletcher (1990), appearedto reduce i mpingement mortality for.some species based on a -pilot study compared to the originalsystem in place at IP2 and IP3. The Fletcher stuidy reportedmortality following, an 8-hourholding period in an attempt to account for delayed mortality that may result from injuriessuffered 'during impingement. Based on the inf, armatibn reported by Fletcherh( 990),impingement mortality and injury are lowest for stripedibass, weakfish,, ard lbogchoker, andNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August-.20.11i:-,
highest catfish; and American shad, with mortality rates ranging from 9-62%,depending -on.Ispecies.: No: evaluation of survival ofshortnose stprgeon..was made.,.,PSEGprepared estimates of impingement survival following interactions with, Ristroph-screens at theirSalem-Nuclear Generating.Stationlocated on the Delaware River,(PSEG. in Seabey andHenderson 2007); survival of shortnose sturgeon was, estimate.at 60% following impingementon a conventional screen-and 80%: following survival at a Ristroph Screen;-survival for otherspecies ranged from 1-00%.. the Indian Point BA, NRC 'states-, that. the. modified Ristrophscreen and fish return' syst'em atSalem is comparable to that-at :Indian Point,. It is important tonote that:PSEG did notconduet field verifications with, shortnose sturgeoa. todemonstratewhether these-survival estimates ;are observed in the~field, review bYNMFS- of shortnoseQ-sturgeonf impingement in-formation at Salem indicates that a4 ,recorded impingements: (20 totalsince 1978; NRC. 201D) havebeen at the trash racks; nobon'the tRisJroph screensv. This.isconsistentwith -the expectation that- alLshertnosc sturgeoxmime ivinity ofthe Salen intakes, Iwould be too large too fit through the trashls bats, and.potentially ccrntaet-thet Ristroph screens.. .,Thus,' whileAthere is, impingement. data fiMi Sealemn. thereis, nom inforniationi on post-impingementsurvival for-shoitnose sturgeon-impinged on the.R-istroph screens,. Themajority of impinged..shortnose sturgeon at Salem. have beeni dead at the time of removal: from -the trash racks (1,7 out!.of 20; 85% ),i *.. I i: ,W rI I.. ..In his, 1.979. 4estimbnyi Dadswell: discussed a mortality rate of shortnose sturgeon at- traditionalscreens~of approximately 60%, although it;is- unclear what information this number is derived:from as no references were prcvided&#xfd; and novexplanation was given in the testimony.No fUrther monitoring of impingement rates or.impingement mortality estimateg was conductedafter the naew Ristroph screens were-installed at IP2 and. IP-3 in,199 1', and any actualreduction inmortality or injury-to shortnose sturgeon resulting from-impingement after installation of thesesystems'atIi'2 and,!IP3 has not beentestablished.. As explained above, shortnose. sturgeon with abody width of at least three inches would not be able to pass through the trash bars and wouldbecome impinged on the trash bars and, not pass through to the Ristroph screens. Survival forshortnose, sturgeon impinged, on the trash bars would be. dependent on the length of time the fishwas impingedi 'The available data for shortnose sturgeon impingement at trash bars indicates thatmortality-is likely to be high. Of the 321shortno9 stUrgeon-collected during impingementsampling at 1P2, and IP3, condition- (alive or dead) is available for 9 fish; of these, 7 are reportedas dead. iThere 4is no additional information to assess whether these fish were likely killed priorto impingement and drifted into the intake or whether their deaths were a result of.impingement.Similar high levels of mortality (85%) are observed at the intakes at the Salem Nuclear facility ontheDelw.are; Rirver. -.,'As.noted above, healthy shortnose sturgeon :(yearlings and older) -areexpected to. be able to readily avoid an intake with an approach velocity of. 1.0 fps or less:Therefore, any shortnose sturgeon impinged at the trash bars, where, the velocity is, 1.0 fps or lessdepending: on operating condition, are likely to already be suffering from injury,or illness which -has impaired their swimming ability. As such, mortality rates for shortnose sturgeon impinged.,on the trash bars- are more likelyto, be:as high as 100%.-. -,, .-- ,.Based on the a~vailableiinformation,.it,is difficult topredict the.4ikely, mortality rate for shortnosesturgeon following impingenienton theRistroph screens.i, Shortnose: sturgeon passing-throughNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011.
the trash bars and'becomirng impinged on the Ristroph screens are likely to be. small juveniles ,with body widths less than three inches... Based on the 8-hour survival rates reported~by Fletcher,it is likely that some percentage of shortnose sturgeon impinged on the Ristroph screens willsurvive. However, given that shortnose sturgeon that become impinged on the Ristroph screensare likely to be sufferingfrom.injuries, illnesses, or~other stressors that have impaired theirswimming ability and p-rev.ented thern from beirig able to escape from~the relatively low approachvelocity (1.0 ,fps or less,as measured :within the intake bay in front of the, Ristroph screens, whichyearling and older shortnose- sturgeon are expcted to be able to avoid,(KInard, pers comm..2004)), unknowns regarding injuries and, subsequent mortality and without any site-sp~ecific --studies to base an estimate or even species-specific studies at different facilities, NMFS willassume the worst cdS6,,tht.,ah!! inidivi-dual, shotinose sturgeon:impinged. at IP2 and IP3 ,will die.Thus, using the impingement rates,cadculated above, :an average of 5 shortnose sturgeon may dieeach.year:as a result of finpinge:irienta;tb2 and aar, average of 3 shortnose sturgeon may die eachyear as a result of impingement at IP3; fox a totai. of,.V.4.at. IP2 and 58 at'IP3,over thd extended J20-year operating license. However, NMFS believes that *%he 100% mortality estimate is aconservative, yet reasonable, mortality rate for impinged shortnose sturgeon at the trash bar's andRistrophscreens.' ',"': .. : "' "' " " : ,~~~~~. .........". .........v ,.. " """" '.. ' .., "'. .' ..IL' '. "Effects of Impingement and Entrainment on Shortnose sturgeonprey, ..;. ::;.Shortnose sturgeon feed primarily on benthic invertebrates.. As these, p. eyspecies arefound onthe bottom and are generally immobile or have limited mobility and' are not withiii the water. ,..column; they are- less vulnerable, to impingement~or. entrainment .,Impingement and entrainmentstudies have not included macro invertebrates as focus'species. No macroinvertebrates are -,represented in, the Representative Important Species (RIS) specipes focused on by NR.C in theFSEIS. However, given the life history characteristics (sessile, benthic,'not. suspended iniorotherwise occupying the water column) of shortnose sturgeon forage itemswhich make!,impingement and entrainment unlikely, any loss of shortnose sturgeon prey due to impingementor entrainment is likely to be minimal. Therefore, N.MFS -has determined that the effect onshortnose sturgeon due to the potential loss of forage items caused by impingement orentrainment in the IP2 or IP3 intakes is insignificant and discountable.Summary of Effects of Water Withdrawal -1P2 and IP3The extended operation of IP2 and IP3 would be.authorized.by the NRC through the issuance ofrenewed operating licenses. Given the facilities with. a once-through cooling water systemcannot operate without the intake and.discha:ge of water,.and any limitations or requirementsnecessary to assure compliance with applicable Clean Water Act pr0visions.would be conditionsof the proposed renewed licenses, the effets of water withdrawals are effects. of the proposedaction. In the analysis outlined above, NMFS has determined the impingement of shortnosesturgeon is likely to occur at IP2 and IP3 over the extended~operating period. NMFS hasestimated, using the impingement rates calculated above, that each year an average of 5 shortnosesturgeon may die as a result 6f impingement at IP2 and an average of 3, shortnose sturgeon maydie as a result of impingement at IP3; for a total of 1.04 at IP2 and 58 at IP3 over the 20 yearoperating license. NMFS believes that the 100% mortality estimate is a conservative, yetreasonable estimate of the likelymortality rate;for.impinged:shortnose sturgeon at the Ristrophscreens. Due to the size of shortnose sturgeon that occur inthe.aaction.`area,, fo entrminment at IP2NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August"2011.
or IP3 .isranticipated.- Any effects to shortnose sturgeon prey from the,c~ntinued operation of IP2and IP3,i as~deuined, by the proposed action; would be insignificant and discountable..Effects: ofDischarges to the Hudson River .**. ..... .,.The discharge of pollutants from the IP facility is regulated for.Clean Water Act-purposesthrough .theNew York State Pollution Discharge.Elimination System (SPDES) program. TheSDPES permit (NY-0004472),specifies the discharge standards~and monitoring-requirements foreach discharge. Under this&sect;regulatory program, Entergy treats wastewater.effluents, collects anddisposesa of potential. contaminants, and undertakes.pollution preventioniactivities.As explained above, Entergy's'il987' SPDES permit remmrais:in ffect-whi,'l.NYDECadministrativeproceedings continue on a new draftfipermit..,CAs svch,tpursuantto-NRC's request,the effects of the IP.facility continuinig to. operate utner piloiosedrenewed licenses- and under the;terms of the 1987 SPDES .ffeatedJfluent r! j!-:As indicated above, the extended operation of IP2 and IP3 would be regulated by the NRCthrough the issuance of renewed operating licenses. Given the facilities with a once-throughcooling water system cannot operate without-the intake and discharge of water, and any. -.-,limitations, or requirements, necessary to -assurecompliance -withapplicable CleanWater Act.provisionswould bec onditions of the proposedrenewed licenses, the effects of discharges areeffects of the proposedi action: .Thermal, discharges associated with, the operationi of-the oncethrough cooling water system, for IP2 andIP3 'are regulated for Clean; Water Act purposes by theterms. of the SPDES permit., -!Temperature limiitations are established. and- imposed on, a case-by-case basis for each facility subject to NYCRR!Part :704.: Specific ;conditions, associated with theextent and magnitude of thermal plumes are-addressed in '6 iNYCRR Part 704 as follows:(5)- Estuaries or portionsof estuaries.,i.- The water temperature at thb surface of an estuary shall not be raised to more.-than90'FPat any point:., ,ii. At least 50 percent ofithe cross sectionalFarea and/or volume of the flow of theestuary including a minimum of one-third of the surface as measured fromwater edge to water edge at any stage of tide, shall, nrot be raised to more than..4&deg;F over the temperature that existed before the addition of heat of artificial.- origin or a maximum of 83'F., whichever is less.,.--' iii.' From July through. September, if the water temperature at the surface of ant '! estuaryibefore the addition.of heat of artificial origin is more than an 83TFincrease in 'temperature not to exceed- .5&deg;F at any point of the: estuarinev,.: passageway'as delineated above, may be permitted."iv.: At least 50 percent:of the cross sectional area and/or volume of the flow of the:.estuary including a.minimum of one-third of the surface:as measured fromS.water edge towater edge at any stage of tide,; shall not be lowered more thanS " 40F from the temperature-that existed immediately prior to such lowering.Specific' conditions-of permit NTY-0004472 related: to thermal discharges from IP2 and IP3 arespecified by'NYSDEC.(2003-b) include the.following: -:, :,. ? ' , f j! ' .': I .. .. .NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011:Oll..
* The maximum discharge temperature is not to exceed 1 IO&deg;F (43&deg;C)., :... .:- "* The daily average discharge temperature between'April 1.5 and June 30 is not to exceed93.2&deg;F (34'C) for an average of more than 10 days per year during the term of the permit,beginning in 1981 provided that it not exceed 93.2'F (34'C) on more than 15 daysduring that period inrany year.,' .: .The discharge of heated water has: the potential to cause lethal or'sublethal effects on fish andother aquatic organisms: and.create baniers, preventing:or delaying access-to.other areas withinthe river. 'Limited information'is available on the characteristics, of the thermal plumie 'associated..with discharges: from' 1P2 .mad:.JP3L Below, NMFS summnarizes the available information on thethermal-plume, discusses th, thermal tol~raricacesof shortnose sturgeon,' and considers effects ofthe plume on shortriose sturgeon 'dind theiriprey;. .'. ,.. -- '. , "........ ..........; : ... ,,, 2: ".', ..:. .I J .'..Characteristics of Inditn 'Point's'Therr.mal Pu ..... , , * .. ..Thermal studies atIP2 and 1P3 were conducted in th. 19,7:7. -9'Flese studies included thermal 'modeling -of near-field- effects using the Cornell University Mixing Zone. Model (CORMIX),- andmodeling of.far-field effects using the Massachusetts :institute of-Tech&nology.(MIT) dynamic -network, model (also. called'the far-field thermal model). -For.the purposeof rhodeling,.near-field.was defined as' the region' in the immediate vicinity of each station-discharge -where cooling-wateroccupies a clearly distinguishable, three-d-imensional :temperature regime: in. therriver that, is not,yet fully mixed; far-field was defined as the region farthest, from the discharges where th'e plumes,are no longer distinguishable from the river, butthe,influence'of the discharge is'still present .(CHGEC et al. 1999). The MIT model was used to simulate the'hydraulic and therma!iprocesses'present in the Hudson River at'a scale deemed sufficient by the utilities and their contractor and.was designed and configured to account for time-variable hydraulic and meteorologicalconditions and heat sources of artificial, origins. Model output included a prediction of-temperature distribution for the Hudson River from the Troy Darn to the island of Manhattan.Using an assumptionof steady-state flow conditions, the. permit applicants applied CORMIXmodeling to develop a three-dimensional plume configuration of near-field thermal conditionsthat could be. compared to applicable water quality criteria: .', ,,. ., .., ..,The former owners of IP2 -and tP3 conducted thermal plume studies employing both models fortime scenarios that encompassed the period of June-September. These months were chosen,because river temperatures were expected io be at, their maximum levels. Thehformer ownersused environmental data from 1981 to calibrate and verify the far-field MIT model and; to, : -evaluate temperature distributions in the Hudson River under a variety of power plant operatingconditions. They chosethe summer months of .1981: because data for all.thermal. discharges. wereavailable and because statistical.-analysis :of-the 1981 summer conditions indicated that. this. yearrepresented. a relatively low-flow, high-temperature summer that would represent a conservative(worst-case) scenario for examining thermal effects associated with power plant thermaldischarges. Modeling was performed under the following two power plant operating scenarios to.determine if New York 'State thermal 'criteria would be exceeded: .; ...: -i. Individual station effects-full capacity operation of Roseton Units.l and. 2, IP2 and- IP3,or Bowline Point Units ,1 and.2,'with no. othei sources of artificial heat. .* .NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August.2011-..". :....
ii. Extreme operating: conditions-Roseton Units .and-,2-,IP.2 and.IP3,. Bowline PointUnits:band:2, andiall othersources of artificial heat operating at full-capacity. .i j'Modeling was initially conducted using MITand CORMIX Version.2.0 under the conditions ofmaximum ebb and flood currents (CHGEC et al. 1999). These results were. supplemented bylater work using MIT and CORMIX Version 3.2 and were based on the hypothetical conditionsrepresentedby the-1 Othc.percentile-.flood currents, mean low :water, depths in- the .Vicinity of each,station, and concurrent. operation: ofall -three generating- stations at. maximum permitted capacity(CHGEC.et-al. 1999). The.l 0thpercentile of flood currents; waselected because it representsthe lowestvelocities that can be evaluated by-CORMIX,- and becaus.eruodbling suggests that .flood currents produce larger plumes thanebb currents.'The results, obtained-from the CORMIX:model runs were integrated with the riverwide temperature'profiles .developed-by-the MIT-, ..dynamic network model to evaluate far-field thermal impacts (e.g., river water temperature risesabove ambient) for various operating scenarios, the&#xfd;aurface-,width'ofthe pluime,'the depth of theplume, the. percentage .of surface. widthrelative to the -river width, at. t location,' and thepercentage of area bounded by the 4&deg;F (20C) isotherm:t-Itr addition, the decay inexcess -temperature was 6stimatd, from model runs. under near slack wate? conditions'(CHGECet al.-: 1999).': For IP2 and IP3,- two-unit operation at full capacity resulted: in a monthly:average .cross-sectional temperatureincrease of 2.,13 to-,2.860F (1..18 to.1 .590C)for.'ebb tide-events, inJune and August; respectively. -The averagelpercentage4of river surface width bounded by.-the 4'F(2'C) temperature rise -isotherm ranged from- 54 percent (August -ebb .tide) -to 100 percent (July-. .and August'fl0oditide).,: Average cross-sect'onal percentages -bounded by ithe plume ranged -from14 percent-(une-and September) to approx.mately'20 percent (July and August). , When'thetemperature -rise contributions of IP2 and IP3;: Bowline Point;,and.Roseton: were consideredcollectively. (-with all three facilities operating.a maximum-permi-tted 'capacity and discharging themaximum possible heat load), the monthly.cross:-sectional temperature rise in the vicinity of IP2and IP,3 ranged from 3* 240F-(1.80WC).during June ebb tides to 4.639F (2.57'C) during flood tidesin August. ' ,Temperature increases exceeded 4'-F (2'C) on both. tide-stages in July and August.After model-modifications were made to account for the variable river geometry near IP2 andIP3, predictions of surface width bounded by the plumeranged from.36 percent during .zSeptember ebb tides to 100 percent during flood tides in all study months. On near-slack tide, thepercentage of-the surface- width bounded by the 40F' (2C)Q!isotherm was 99 to 100 percent in allstudy months. The average percentage of-the cross-sectional, area bounded by the plume ranged-.from-27 percent (June'ebb tide) to 83 percent (August flood tide) and was. 24 percent in all studymonths during slack; water events..: r -- .Exceedences'generally occurred under- scenarios that the applicants indicated may be consideredquite conhervati-ve; (maximum operation of three electrical: generation facilities simultaneously.for long periods:of time, tidal conditions promoting maximum-thermal impacts, atypical -river., -.flows). The steady-state assumptions of CORMIX arealso important-because, although themodeled- flow iconditions in the-Hudson River would.actually-occur for only a short period of -time when slack water conditions are replaced by tidal flooding, CORMIX assumes thiscondition has been, continuous over:a long period of time.- CHGEC et al. (1999) found that thisassumption can result in 'an overestimate of the cross-river extent iof the plume centerline.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011-.,.
More recently, a triaxial thermal plumne study-was completed. Swanson et al) (2014 conductedthermal sampling and. mbdeling-of the cooling water discharge at Indian Point and.reported thatthe extent and 'shape of the thermal plume' varied greatly, primarily in response to tidal currents.For example, the plume'(illustrated a8 a 4'F temperature increase or LH isotherm;,Figure,6-6 inSwanson et; al. 201-1 by'generally followed the eastern shore of the Hu'dson,-River -and'extendednorthward from Indian(Pbiintduring flood tide and 'southward froni'Indian Point during ebb tide.Depending on tides&#xfd;, theplume can b'e-4ell-defined and reach a portion of the near-shore bottomor be largelyconfined~to the gurfaee' ," ' , ,, ., '1 ., .,' .Temperature measurdme'ntS reported by, Swanson, et al. (2011 by generally show'that'the.warmestwater in th&etherma'l:lure: is9,close totheostrfaceand plume temperatures tend to decrease withdepth.,' Occasiodrially&#xfd;, the thermal; plumb extends deeply rather than across the surface. A .cross-river survey conducted",fron0c6f Iiidi&n1,aPoint cApturedionesuch incident during spring tide onJuly 13, 2010 (Figure:3:2,8'in Swanson et'a.: 201 l'b)otAcrossrmost Of the river, water, .1 ,temperatures were.closb&#xfd;to 82&deg;;E'(280C) ioftehi Withmwrhfier te.mperatures near the surface.and.:-,"cooler temperatures ;near thb bottom-.'The4Indima`.Poi t7thenhrl plume, atthat-point was clearly-defined and extended about 1000 .ft (300 .m) from. shore. ;Surface! Water temperatures reached.about 85&deg;W:F(29&deg;Q). At 23-ft to about 25-ft (7-mito depths, observedplumrfemperaturesj;were 839.to;84'F (280 to 29&deg;C). Maximum river-depth along: the mbasUridtransect-isq, t" "approximately -0ft (15 m).n ...,, r. ..II .1'. 11 W. 1+ r.A temperature' contour plot 'of a -cross-river transect. at Indian Point-prepared in &#xfd;response: to! a.-NYSDEC revieWx illustrates a sithilar, condition on July 11; 20.10 during slack before flood tide(Swanson. et al.20l1 a, Figure. '.+10). Here the thernmal plume is evidenftto labout 2000:ft (600;m)from the eastern shore (the locAtidmn of the Indian Point discharge) and extends towa ,depth- of about35 ft (11 m) along the eastern shore.,,Bottom temperatures above 820F (28&deg;C),, were. confined :toabout the first 250 ft (76 m) from shore. The river herd is .oyer 4500 ft (1400 mr) wide. Iri thatsmall area, bottom water temperatures might alsoerceed,30.PC.(86&deg;F); elsewhere, bottom watertemperatures were about 80'F (270C). These conditions would not last long, however, as theywould change with the tidal cycle. Further,' any sturgeon in this location would be able to retreatto adjacent deeper and cooler water. Under no conditions did interpolated. temperatures in + ,, :,Entergy's modeled results exceed the, 28&deg;C in, the deep reaches, of the river channel'(Swanson.In response to the NYSDEC's review iof the Indian, Point thermal studies -(Swanson et;ah 2011 b),Mendelsohn et al. (2041:) modeled the' maximum area and width. of the thermal plume.(definedby the 4&deg;F (2&deg;C) AT isotherms) in, the HudsonRiver! Mendelsothn,-et al drepbrted that'.fortfour ', .cross-river transects near IP2 and IP3, the maximum cross-river area of~thelplume wouid-notexceed 12.3 percent and the maximum cross-river width of the plume would not exceed 28.6percent of the river (Mendelsohn, et al!s Table 3-1)., ,',Thermal Tolerances -Shortnose'sturgeo zn ' : :.. -, ,.., '...Most organisms can acclimate (i.e. metabolically adjust) to temperatures abovelor below those towhich they are normally subjectedt &'Bull (19,36) demoristrated,,: from azrange of marine species,NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 20.1-&#xfd;.
that fish, could detect and, respond to a temperature front of,0.03, to 0.07,OC.. Fish will thereforeattemptto avoid stressful. temperatures by. actively seeking water at the preferred temperature.The temperature preference for shortnose sturgeon is not. known (Dadswell et al. 1984) butshortnose sturgeon have. been found in waters with temperatures. as. low as 2 to 30C (Dadswell etal. 1984), and as. high as. 340C (Heidt and Gilbert 1978). Foraging is, known tooccur attemperatures greater than 73C (Dadswell 1979):.: In the Altarnaha.-River,. temperatures of 28-30'Cduring summer months. are correlated with'mov-.ments to. deep cool .v;aterrefuges. Ziegewald etal. (2008a) conducted studies to determine critical and lethal thermal ma~ximafor young-of-the-year (YOY) shortnose sturgeon acclimated to temperatures of 19.5 and 24.1 0C. Lethal thermalmaxima were ..34.8&deg;C (*0.1). and:.36.1 &deg;C (2:0.4) for fish accl-:tnated :to l:.9!,5,.and 24,1-9.C,.respectively..:,The istudy also, used thermal maximum data-to estimate uppe.r.limits. ofs.afetemperature, final.thenral preferences, and otimum :for.YOY. shortnose,sturgeon.. Visual. observations suggest.thafish exhibited ;3l' i.a" behav4iors' with. increasing-temperature regardless of acclimation ..tem.erature; A stemp&#xfd;eratures:incireased,..fish activity ,appeared. to-increase; approximately .5-6PIcr to the lethal endpoirt, fiOh;gan franticallyswimming around the.ta .presumnaly looking for an.escape:routevl As. fish:.began..to lose,equilibi-lum, their activity.:level decreased dramatically, and at about Oo.3C before the lethal.-,endpoint,, most. fish wer.e- completely.incapacitatedl Estimated upperdlimits of safe temperature-(ULST) ranged from..28.7 to:3._, &deg;;1 C: and varied with acclimation temperature and measured.endpoint. Upper limits of safe temperature (ULST) were determined by subtracting .asafety,,factor of 5PC from the lethal and critical thermal maxima data. Final thermal preference andthermal growth, optima were nearly`dentical for fish -at each acclimation. temperature, and ranged.from 26.2, to' 28..3&deg;C.: Critical thermial maxI.ina (the point at.which~fish lost equilibrium) rangedfrom 33.7 (+/-0.3)to 36: &deg;C- (10.2) and:vailed .withi`acclimation temperature. ,, Ziegwied et al.(2008b),used :data firom laboratory experiments to examine the: individuai and-interactive effectsof salinity, temperature, and fish weighton the survival of young-of-year shortnose sturgeon.Survival in freshwater declined as temperature increased, buttemperature tolerance increasedwith body size. The authors conclude.that-temr...peratures above 290C substantially reduce the.probability of survival for young...of,,year short2ose sturgeon. However, previous studies indicatethat juvenile sturgeons achieve optimum'. growth at temnperatures. lose to their upper thermalsurvival limits (Mayfield and Cech 2004;: Allen et al. 2006; Ziegeweid et al. 2008a), suggestingthat shortnose.sturgeon may seek out a narrow temperature.window to maximize somatic growthwithout substantially increasing maintenance metabolism. Ziegeweid (2006) examined thermaltolerances of young of the year shortnose sturgeon in the lab. The lowest temperatures at whichmortality O'ccurred ranged. from 30.1,--: 31.5C 'depending on .fish size and 'test conditions. Forshortn6se.stitgeon, 'dissolved oxygen (DO) also seems to. play a role,in temperature tolerance,with, increased stress level- -at higher temperatures with, low DO versus the. ability to withstandhigher. temperatures with. elevated DO (Niklitchek 200 1)., ....., ' .Effect of Thermal Discharge on Shortnose Sturgeon .: ......Lab studies indicate that thermal preferences and thermal growth optima for shortnose sturgeonrange from 26.2 to 28.3C. This is consistent with field observations which correlate movementsof shortnose sturgeon:to. thennal.refuges when river temperatures: are greater than 28C in the'..Altanmaha River. -:Lab studies (see:above;,'Ziegweid et.al. 200,8a, and 2008b),indicate that.thermal,maxima for shortnose sturgeon are 33.7(+/-0.3) -36.1 (+/--0.1), depending on endpoint (loss ofNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011.,..
equilibrium or death) and' acclimation temperature. Upper limits of safe temperature werecalculated tobe 28,.7'-' 31.. 1C. ' At temperatures 5-6C less than the lethal makimtimrnshortnosesturgeon are expected 'to bhgin demonstrating avoidance behavior and attempt to escape fromheated waters; this behavior would be expebted when the upper limits: of safe temprature areexceeded. ,1',:i, -i, ,- '. L. .1 I., '. ' '.:, "NMFS first.-considers the potential foirshortnose sturgeon to be exposed to.temperatures whichwould most likely result vitnmortality (333;79C0(93.66TF) or greater). 'The maximum observed'temperature, of thethertaldisolharge is approximately135CP-- Modeling has demonstrated that thesurface area of the,tiva-fffedted'by-the Indian Point~plume whereW.ateritemperatutesh.wouldexceed 32.22C ( 9QF&#xfd; Would! be-litnittd 4t6 jan area. no. greater than,75.acres. 1"Information, :w,.1provided thermal imodel (Swanson et aL. 2011): indicatethat water temperatures at theiriver-bbttorn will'. t ex'eed3..32,C inwaters more;than.5 metersfrom the surface., Water deptli in' the area are approxitfhely&#xfd;l 8meters. Given this information,it is unlikely that'shortnose'sturgeoh reiiiainin~near.thd)6rttorn of the rivervwould -be exposed towater, temperatures-of,33 70C. -Temperaffiresl at or abovei 33-,7.C: will: occasionally be'experienced at the surface of the river in areas closest to' the diseharge-point.-.H'owever,: givenw'thatfish are known to avoid areas with unsuitable conditions and that shortnose sturgeon are likely toactively avoid heated areas, as 'evidenced by shortnose s.turgeon known, to-niove .to'deep cool .water areas duri-ng the summer months"in southenM rivers;:itisli kely thatishortnose sturgeon willavoid the area,-where temperatures are greater than, tolerable., -As; such,! it is extremely unlikelythat any shortrfdse sturgeon would remain withinthe: areawhere.,surface ,temperatures'earie.:elevated to 33.70 -ahd~be exposed to potentially lethal ternmeratures..- This&#xfd; risk is further-reducedby the limited amount,:of time shortnose sturgeon;spend near the sinface, the:small. area-wheresuch high temperatures will be experienced and the -gradient-of warm temperatures extending.from the outfall; shortnose sturgeon'are. likely to begin avoiding-areas with.temperatures greaterthan 28&deg;C and are unlikely to remain within the heated&,surface waters to swim-towards theoutfall and be exposed to temperatures whieh could resuilt inrmortality. Below; 'NMFS considerswhat effect this avoidance behavior would have on individual shortnose sturgeon. Near thebottom where shofrhose&#xfd;sturgi0o'imogt :often6 occhlr, water tenripeiihtures are not likely to.e'-erreach 33.7'C, creating no risk of eXposurb to:terpetat -s li'kely:t6- be lethai'n'ear the bottom ofthe river.' ' .."- " .. .... .: " ' ....NMFS has also conside~ed.the potential for shortnose sturgeon to-be exposed fo water'temperatures greater than 280C. Sornfe res'earchers suggest based largelyon observations of ' -sturgeon behavior in southern rivers, that water temperatures of28&deg;C'oi greater canbe stressfulfor sturgeon and that shortnose sturgeon' are likely to actively av"oida 'rea"with'these -: --temperatures. This temperatue' (2'8&deg;C) is close to both the fin'al ihermal preference and thermalgrowth optimum temperatuies that Ziegewald et al. (2008) reported for juvwnile shortnosesturgeon acclimated to 24.1 'C (75.4 TF), and thus is consistent with observations that optimumgrowth temperatures are often near the maximum temperatures fish can endure withoutexperiencing physiological stress: ..' , .'.. -.In the summner'months (June-. Septemb') ambient riVer.temperathirs can be high enough that* .: -.. -' OV .;t. -C. I. '", ".. ' .- .',temperature increases as small as 1- #'4o Ca ause wat'ter tmperatures 'withi the plume to ber .' " " '." ..,. '. -'.. / ' ...*., ,'; .! .. ..NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August'201i-7; high enough :to be.-avoided by shortnose sturgeon (greater than 28'C)..: When ambient rivertemperatures are:at or above .28&deg;C; the area where temperatures are raised.by more than 1.5'C areexpected to be limited to. a surface area of up to 75 acres. :Shortnose. sturgeon exposure to thesurface area where water temperature may be elevated above 28'C. due to, the influence of thethermal plume is limited by their normal behavior as benthic-oriented fish, which results inlimited occurrence near the water surface. Any surfacing shortnose sturgeon are likely to avoidnear surfacemwaters with temperatures greaterthan 28C; .-Reactions. tj this elevated temperatureare expected to consist of swvimming away from the plume by traveling deeper in the watercolumn or!swimming around the plume. As the.area that would, be:a.,oi,.dd is! at. or near thesurface, away from bottom waters where short-nose sturgeon spend the, majority of time andcompleteall, essential life functions that are carried out-ii, th.action migrating,overwintering, resting), and given the smalbarea thacmayhae'temper~atureselevated above28&deg;C it is extremely unlikely that these minor chamges in. bl., havict.;will 1,oreclude, shortnosesturgeon'from. completing any: essential. behavicri",such as- resting; foraging or migrating or, thatthe fitness.of any individuals wvill be .affect&::..,.Additiona~ly, there-is'not..eypected.to be anyincrease in energy expenditurfe that has..any d&tectable-effect on the physiology.-of any individualsor any future effect on. growth,. reproduction;l or general health: i. ". * .. -. : -Under:no conditions did in in Entergy's modeled -results exceed 28&deg;C,(827).-in-the deep reacbes.zffthe,:river charmel (Swanson 2011 a) where shortnose sturgeon aremost likelylto. occur;- Swanson also examined other sources of availablebottom water.temperatu.re:data:for-the:in-dian Point area, -Based upon examination of the 1997 through 2010long ,ivei survey, water temperature data fromtthe near-bottom stations near, Indian. Point, 28&deg;Cwas exceeded for just, 50 of 1;877-observations or 2.98% during this ,I4-yearipei od (readingsmeasured weekly firom March through November).. These already low incidences of observednear-bottom water temperatures above 28&deg;Cwould be even lower when viewed in the context ofan entire'year. instead of the.nine months, sampled due 'to -the cold water period not sampled fromDecember through February (i.e., 2424%' for the Indian *Point region). , .Given,. that shortnose sturgeon ar.e known. to. actively seek out, cooler 'waters when temperaturesrise to 28', any shortnose sturgeon encountering bottom waters.with temperatures above 28&deg;Carea are likely to avoid it. Reactions to this elevated temperature are expected to be limited toswimming away from the plume by swimming around it. Given the extremely small percentageof the estuary that mav have temperatures elevated above 28&deg;C and the limited. spatial andtemporal extent .of any plevations of bottom water temPeratures above 28&deg;C, it is extremelyunlikely thatthese minor changes in behavior will preclude shortnose sturgeon from completingany essential behayiors. such, as resting, foraging or migrating orthat the fitness. of anyindividuals will be affected.. Additionally, there is not, expected. to be any increase in energyexpenditure that has any detectable effect on the physiology of any individuals or any futureeffect-on growth, reproduction, or general health. .Water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels are related, with warmer water generally holdingless dissolved oxygen. As such, NMFS has considered the potential for the discharge of heatedeffluent to affect dissolved oxvgen in the.action area. Entergy provided an assessment of .dissolved oxygen conditionl in the.vicinity of the, thermal plume and nearby downstream. areas.Swanson examined dissolved oxygen concentrations observed among 14 recent years (1997NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Aug-sLt 2011-:..,
through 2010) of water quality samples taken 0.3 m (lRft) abovethe river bottcim, eeldy during.the Utilities Fall Shoilsi surveys-in the Indian Point region of the Hudson River -fromr: (Marchthrough November of each year. Only 17 (0.91%) dissolved oxygen concentrations below 5mg/l were observed in the Indian Point region during this 14-year period consisting of 1,877readings, and the lowest dis'solved oxygen Cconcentration of 3.4 mg/l. occurred just once, while theremaining 16 valdes were b&ve*en 4.4' nig/li And 4.9 mg/l. Although I/FS survey water qualitysampling did not occ&r in the Indian, Point region during the winterpetiod frotn Decemberthrough February 0f &#xa2;ach.;e r'due t6 riVer ice conditions, it is -unlikelyrthat dissolved oxygenconcentrations below 5'nm.gl44ould be~observedlthen due to the 'high ,oxygen saturation of the.cold water in thewihnter't IJhieHudsoti River region south of the Indiah Pointregi6n.hhid 501;dissolved, Oxygencontefitrationsl beloW 5. mg4 (m6.330/07,918 total: observations)-in the nearbottom waters&#xfd;, 'sevetr times twtore firdqu'enty than the IndianPoint region. Based.on -this'information the. dischiarge dppears: to have no' discernible effect on .dissolvedoxygen levels in the area. As the thermal plume islet cont.ibutiig, to reductions in, dissblvedoxygen levels, it will not cause changes in dissolved oxygen levels that could affect anyshortnose st irgeon~~'.i. , ~ii: ' .,t., ,..,, , ..Effect 6n Shortolose-Sturgeon, Prey.......A .. ., i , -, .Shortnose sturgeon feed primarily'6n benthic invertebrates; theke praeyspecies.are, found'on thebottom: As explained above, thetP thermal plume.is:'largel&#xfd;y a;surfac&iplume with elevatec ..temperatures near the bottom limited to short duration! and a geographic- awraielimited tor the, areaclose to the discharge point. No analysis specific to effects of the thermal plume on themacroinvertebrate ormmunity h:s been conducted. How-ever,,giv'en what is known.about theplume (i.e., that it'is largely a; surface.'plume and has-limited effretsion water temperaturesiiat ornear the bottom) and theareas where.shortnose sturgeon, forage items are; found (f.e.,&#xfd;n' tfhebottom), it is unlikely that potential shortnose sturgeon forage items would be exposed to theeffects of the thermal plume. If the.thermal plume is' affecting benthic invertebrates; the-mostlikely effect would be to limit their disttibution to areas, wher6 bottom water temperatures aret notaffected by the thermal plume. Considering that, shortnose sturgeon are also likely to be excludedfrom areas where the thermal.plume influences~bottom winter temperatures and given.that thoseareas are small, foraging shortnose sturgeon are not likely to be affected.byrany limits on the-.distribution of benthic invertebrates caused .bylthe thelrnnfplume's limited influience on bottomwaters. Thus, based on this,'anralysis, it appears that the 'prey of shortnose.sturgeon; would be'impacted insignificantly, if at all, by the-thermal discharge from IP. ' '', ., ..' ' ...' / .... ' : , ". .'. ...'!.r *, ../ / .:CUMULATIVE EFFECTS-. "'" "/.... .' i ' i.'Cumulative effects-as defined in'50 CFR 402.02 to ificlude.the effects! of future State, tribal'~4ocalor private actions .that are reasonably Certain t.o ccur Within the, action area considered inthebiological opinion. FutUre Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are notconsidered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuantito Section 7 of theESA: Ongoing Federal actions are considered-in the "Environmental Baseline" section above:....Sources of human-induced mortality, injury, and/or harassment -of shortnose sturgeon in the.action area that are reasonably certain to occut in'the faturezinclude, inci~dental takes in state-"i:.regulated fishing activities, pollution, global clim'ate chanrge;i researchlactivitite&sect; and,, coastalNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011:1 development., Vhile ;the combination of these activities may affect shortnose sturgeon,preventing or slowing a species' recovery, the magnitude of these effects in the action area iscurrently unknown.-State Water. Fisheries.- Future recreational and commercial fishing actiyities in state waters maytake shortnose sturgeon. ..In the past, it was, estimated that up to 100 shortnose sturgeon werecaptured in shad fisheries iin the Hudson River. In 2009,. n,' State closed Athe shad fisheryindefinitely., That state action is 'considered 'to benefit for shortnose.turgeon...Should the shadfishery reopen, shortnose sturgeon-would be exposed to,.the .risk of inter.actions with this. fishery.However,; NMFS, has no indication, that reopening the .fishe.ryandany effects, from it on shortnosesturgeon are reasonably certain .to occur.'. Information onintetactions. with shortnose. sturgeon forother fisheries operating in the action area is net availabkva- 4vl itt is,.not clear to what extent thesefuture activities would affect listed species different'.,y~thanthe. eurrerit. state, -fishery activities.described in the EnvironmentalBaseline'sec-t.om.:,-. ,-, .:: .. ,., v'Pollution and Contaminants -Human activities in the action area causing pollution :arereasonably certain to continue in the future, as are impacts from them on shortnose sturgeon.However, the level of impacts cannot be projected. Sources of contamination in the action areainclude atmospheric-.lading, cf pollutants,. stormwater runoff from coastal.development,.,-...:. ...groundwater dis'charges.;,ind industrial'development. Chemical: contamination may have aneffect on".listed species reproduction, and survi-val.-As discussedabove, whether NYDEC willrevekse its denial of a Section 401-Water:Quality!Certification and issue a-new SPDES permit isinot reasonably certain to occur;; therefore, the.effects-of any reversal andmnewi SPDES permit are also~not reasonably certain,In the .fijture, global climate'change is. expected to continue and may impact shortnose sturgeonand theirlhabitat inthe action area:& .However;,as noted in. the "Status of the Species" and"Environmental Baseline" sections above, giveh the likely rate of change associated with climateimpacts (i.e., the century scale), it-is unlikely that ;climate related impacts will have a significanteffect' on the. stat-bs of~shortnose sturgeon over the temporal scale, of the' proposed action (i.e.,from September,2013 to September 2033.(IP2) and D)ecember 201,5 :through December 2035(IP3))&'6i that in this time period; the abundance,' distribution, or behavior of these species in theaction area will change as a result of climate change related impacts. :The greatest potential forclimate change to impact NMFS assessment would be if ambient water temperatures increasedenough such that the thermal plume caused a larger area of the Hudson River to havetemperatu'res 'that'were, stressful 'or lethal to shortnose sturgeon." In'the 2 000s, the mean Hudsonriver :water temperature,.as measured at the PoughkeepsieWater Treatment Facility,- was ' .approximately 2'C higher than averages recorded in the 1960s (Pisces 2008). However; while itis possible to examine past water temperature data and observe a warming trend, there are notcurrently any predictions on. potential future increases in water temperature in, the action area.-specifically or the Hudson River generally. Assuming that the water temperatures in the riverincreased at the sarne rate over the next.40 years, one could anticipate a 1 C increase over theproposed 20 year'op;erating~peribd. *Civenthis small-increase, it-is not reasonably certain that,over the proposed 20 year;,,op.erating-pen'od'that .any'.water'temperature changes would beNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August.2011-..
significant enough.to~affect,.the conclusions reached by NMFS above. ,..-INTEGRATION AND SYNTHESIS OF EFFECTS ..:.,:;:., ...NMFS has estimated that the proposed continued operation of IP2 and IP3 through, the e tendedlicense period.(Septembe :2013 thro~ugh September 2033 and December 2015 t hrough Dcember2035, respectively) wil. rL-s.14tt i.n the:impingement of up to. 104 .shotnose sturgeon at IP.Znd 58shortnose stur geon ,at .. 3...As e~ajed in the ''Effects. of the A~ctiPn'? section,, a.ll other, effects toshortnose sturgeprq, incliing t.th eir prey ad.from the discharge, of hea-t, .will be insigpifcant ordiscountable. ..-,r-..."In the discpssjon,b,,elo&#xfd;, -Mj S, qo p ilerf, ywletolr the effects of the proposed action reasonably,would he expected, or4 idjretqty, ep rducq appreciab&#xfd;yXhe.,, ikelihood of both.,the.survival ,d..recoery. of the, lisM pc.qs in theyAid bhreducing the re.pr9duqtion, nmbers, ordistribution of shortnose, s&#xfd;tugqon.. fysis is to0.dee.Fjine wheer.the,proposedactipn wquldiopardize, tie cpntinuedre, steli hoof.shntose sturgeon In theNMFS/USFWS Section 1,7Handbo.k,, for thepuoWes; of determining jeopardy suv.defined as, "the species',pelisistence as os a ,e~overyunit,,beyqnd the. 9onditi.s leadingto its endangermexrt, with sufficient resilince -to allow, for.the potenti01, rcvqery, from , .endangerment. S aid in another way!, survia is tle.conditioA in, mwhih speqies, continues to,exist into the future while retairiing the potential forrecvyery .Tis..cqdipion _is characteried.bya species with a sufficient 'population, represented by, ageclasse,,, geietc ...heterogeneity, and number of sexually mature individuals prqd.cing vable..ffspri ng,, .ichexists in .an environmeiit roviding all reqxt.i;empnts fo -completion of thespecies'. en~ire Jife.cycle, including repro l&#xfd;ction,,sustenance, and shelter.'" Recovery is defined as, ",r~provement inthe status of listed species to, the poiqt -at which !1sting is no lpnger appropiate under,the.criteriaset out in Section 4(a)(1) of the Act." Below, for each of the listed species that maybe affectedby the proposed action, NMFS summarizes the status of the species and considers whether theproposed action will result ip reductipns in r numbers or distribution of that peciesand then considers whether any reductions in reproduction, numbers or distribution.resiutingfrom the proposed action would reduce appreciably th~e likelihood of both the survivl ,andrecovery of that species. ,, -,. ... r;..Historically, shortnose sturgeon are believed to have inhabited nearly, all sestuaries along nearly the entire east coast of North America. Today, only 19 populationsremain. The present range of shortnosesturgeon is disjunct, with nori her .populatipns from southern- populations by a distance.pf.abput. 400 krnm Population sizes range from under100 adults in the Cape Fear and Me.nmacqk Rvers~to.te seofthousarts ..fhe St..phn andHudson Riyers,. As indicated. in Kynard 1996,. adult abundance is less tharI. the, minimumestimated viable. population abundance of 1.000 adults for. 5 ofl. 1I surveyed northern populationsand all natural southern populations. The only river systems likelysupporting populations closeto expected abundance are the St John, Hudson and possibly the Delaware and the.Kennebec(Kynard 1996), making the continued success. ofshortnose sturgeon in these rivers critical to thespecies as: a whole. , .., .The Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon is the largestin 1thepUnV.ed States. Historicalestimates of the size of the population are not available as historic records of sturgeon in the riverNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 20,11.7.
did not discriminate between Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon.: Population estimates, made byDovel et al. (1992) based on studies from 1975-1980 indicated a population of 13,844 adults.Bain et al. (1998) studied shortnose sturgeon in the river from 1993-1997 and calculated an adultpopulation size of 56,708 with a95% confidence interval ranging from 50,862 to 64,072 adults.Bain determined that based on sampling effort and methodology his estimate is directly.comparable It6 the population estimate made by Dovel' let-al.' Bain .conclides-that the populationof shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River in the 1990s'was 4 timies'larger than in the late 1970s.Bain states that as'his estimate is' directly comparable to'the e'timat&enade by Dovel, thisincrease is a "confident measure of the change in population size." Bain concludes that theHudson River population is large, healthy and particular in habitat use and migratory behavior.Woodland and Secor (2007)'conducted studies to determne&thcauVsce' of the ihcrease in-'populatioi 'size: Vv oodlarid and' Secor'eap:tur~d 554-'Shlirtio&#xfd;i& s't 'geoii iri the Hiudsbn River -andmade age'estimates of these fish. They then hindcast year":di.s strengtlih and. corrected for gearselectivity an+/-d cumulative-mortaiity. T-1he ri sults Of this "study indi~atcdthat-th'ere was a' period ofhigh recruitmefit (31 000-52;G00 yeartingrs) rj "ihe- peridd,1986.-i992whcich as preceded andsucceeded' by5 'years o low&#xfd;er recruitrnent (6,000'-` 17 500'yearlirigs/year). Woodland and Secorreports: that there wasg a10' o-ld recruitment &#xfd;,ariability (as measured by the number of yearlings "produced) oveir"the' 20-year period from the late 1970s to late 1990s'and that this pattern is -expected" in a spe'cies;"such ias short'dose 'stuirgeon, with periodic life history: characterized bydelayed niaturation, high -fedundity and iteroparotis spawning, as well 'as when there is variabilityin interannu'ai lhydrrilogica. '-conditions'.'::Woodlanid arid Se6or exmnin6d environmental conditionsthroughiout tfiis 20_ -year p&eriod'and deiermined that years in which water temperaturesdr'pquickly inithi falfl'and' fl01w- increases rapidiy, in the fall (particularly October), are followed byhigh levels of recruitiernt ill the spring.' This suggeststhat these environnientalfactors mayindex a'suite of environmental cues that initiate the final stages of goniadal development inspawning adults.The Hudsdi1'River population ofs'lidrtnios: siurgerti has exhibited tremendous growth in the 20-year period between the late, 1970S arid 'Igt '1 990s. Woodland'and Secor conclude that this arobust population with no gapls in age: struktu'e. Lower recruitment that followed the 1986-1992period is coincident with record high abundance suggesting that the population may be reachingcarrying capacity. The population in the Hudson River exhibits substantial recruitment and isconsidered tobe "stable at high levels. ' .,- -In the NMFS/US'FWS Section'7 Iandb6k,' for th6 purposes of determining jeopardy, survival isdefined as,' "the species' persisterice as li'sted or as a, recovery unit, beyond the conditions leadingto its endangerment,' w'vittr sufficient regilience to allow for the potential recovery fromendangerient.:: Said in' another way, surivival isrthe conditionrin which 'a species continues toexist into the future while' retaining the potential for 'recovery. This condition is characterized bya species with a sufficient population, represented by all necessary age classes, geneticheterogeneity, and number of sexually mature individuals producing viable offspring, whichexists'in an environment providing all requirements for completion of thespecies' entire life"cycle, including reproduction, sustenance, and shelter." Recovery is defined as,* "Improvementfinthe status of listed species to the point at which listing is no longer appropriate under the criteriaset out in Section 4(a)() ofthe' Act" ' ..' .. .' "NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August.'20,1,1-..,.
While no reliable estimate,0f the size of either the shortnose sturgeon population -in theNortheastern US or of the species throughout its range exists; it is dearly below the' size thatcould be supported if the threats to shortnose sturgeon were removed. Based on the number ofadults in populatiorn for -which estimates are available, there are at.least 104,662 adult shortnosesturgeon, including 18,000 ih the Saint John' River'in Canada: The lack :of information onxthestatus of populations, :suth 'thatv-inth&#xfd; Chesapeake Bay, add uncertainty to any determinrationon the status of this &#xfd;pecies asa aiwhole. ::Based oflthe best available'itiformation, NMFS believesthat the statuS.of shortliose sturgeon throughouttheir range is at best stable;; with gains in,:populations'such as 'the Hidsbn; :Delaware and Kennebec offsetting the continued-decline ofsouthern river populations, and at worSt'dedlin'ing: 'As:describedd in the Statugsof the'Species, -Environmental Baseline, and Cumulative Effects sections above, shortnose sturgeon in the actionarea are affected by habitat aiteratioi,'byeatch'i'ni'ommercial; and recreational: fisheries-' water.quality and in-water coinsiruedt'oni activitres., Despite thesu,'ong6ing, threats; numbers of shortnosesturgeon in thd actiono area are stuble; and-this trend i&sect; ,expeoted to dontinue over the20 year duration of the proposed action.'I ., ,.v... .'.,: :' ,,. ... ,NMFS has estiniated that the proposed, continued operation of IP,2'knd 'IP3' through the extendedlicense period (September 2013'through September, 2033:atid.December,'l 5 throtigh.December2035, respectively) will result in the impingement of up to 104 shortnose sturgeon, at IP2 and 58.shortnose sturgeon at IP3, all of which may die as a result of their impingement. This numberrepresentS a' very sratll percentage of the'shortfo'se sturgeon potul-atiow in. theHudson Rivei,,-which is believed to~be stable, and an even smaller percentage of the tbta..pdpulationof .shortnose sturgeon rangewid&e., [The';est-available population'estimites indicate that'therle areapproximately 56,708 (95%&#xfd;CIF-50,862 to adult shortnoce sturgeon-in the,Hudscfi Riverand an unknown number of juveniles, (ERC. 2006)c, While the: death of up t6 162 shortnosesturgeon over a 20-year period will reduce'the number bf-shortnose'sturgeon in. the populationcompared to the number that would have been present absent the proposed actioni, it isl not likelythat this reduction in numbers will change'the status of this'population or its'stable~trend as~thisloss represents a very small percentage&#xfd;of the population (0.28%). , "Reproductive potential of the Hudson population'is. not expected to be affected in any other, wayother than through a reduction in numbers of individuals. ATeduction'in the number ofshortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River would have- the effect of reducing-the amount ofpotential reproduction in this system as-the'fish killed mwoifd have no ,potential'for 'futurereproduction. However, it is estimated that on average, approximately 1/3 of adult femalesspawn in a particular year and approximately'1/2 of males spawn in a particular yearo.Givenrthatthe best available estimates indicate that there are more than 56,000'adult shortnose sturgeon in.the Hudson River, it is reasonable to'expect that there are at least 20,000 adults spawning in a !particular year.- It is unlikely;that the loss of 162 shortnose sturgeon over a 20-year period wouldaffect thesuccess of spawning in any year. ,Additionally, this small reduction in potential &#xfd; "spawners is expected to result inma small reduction in the number of eggs laid or larvae producedin future years and similarly; a very smtalli'effect on the' strength-of subsequent-.year classes. Evenconsidering the potential future spawners that wotildbepro'du'eedby the individuals.that would'be killed as a result of the proposed actidn; any effect to anticipated to beNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011).
very small and would not change the stable trend of this population. Additionally, the proposedaction will not affect spawning habitat in any: way and will not create anyibarrier to pre-spawningsturgeon.accessing the oyerwintering sites or the spawning grounds..,..!.The proposed action is not likely to reduce distribution because the action will not impedeshortnose sturgeon from accessing any seasonal, concentration. areas, including, foraging,spawning or overwintering grounds in theHudson River. Further, the,action is not expected to,reduce the-river by ri~ver,distribution of shortnose sturgeon., as. the number, ofshortnose.sturgeon likely tobe killed, as, aresult .f the proposed action is approximately 0.28% ofthe Hudson River population; there is not likely.to be a loss, of any.- ,rpx.qe genetic haplotypes andtherefore,- it is unlikely;toresult in. the loss~of genetic diver.ity. -.While generally speaking,,the. loss of a small numberpof.in,2.ividuals from ra: subpopulation orspecies can have an appreciable. effe&#xa2;,t on.&#xfd;the xm.mbers, :reproduction.a,-adn.distribution of the,-species, thisis likelyto occur only individuals in a population, the.....individuals occur in a very limited geographic range or therspecies, has extremely low levels ofgenetic diversity. This situation is not likely in the case of shortnose sturgeon because: thespecies. iswiciely geographii-aly.distributedj it is not known, to&#xfd; have low ,levels of genetic:diversity.(see.status of.tlie species-sectioon above), and there are thousands of shortnose sturgeonspawning'each year.,,,-:- : ,:, , : ' , .-, ~~~~~. ....... , ,'* :,! , .'. ".... .';.; ' 'Based on the informati on provided above;, the death of up to 162. shortnose sturgeon over:a.20-year period, resultliig from the prcposed continued operation of IP2 and IP3 under renewedlicenses for the.period September.2013 through September 2033 (IP2) andDecember 2015through December! 2035 (ll3) will. not appreciably reduce the lkelihood of survival of thisspecies.(i,.e..;-it will not increase the, risk of extinction, faced. by this species) given that: (1) thepopulation trend of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River is stable; (2) the death of up to 162shortnose sturgeon represents an extr.emJely small percentage of-the number of shortnose sturgeonin the Hudson River and a even smaller percentage of the species as,a whole; (3) the loss of theseshortnose sturgeon is likely to have such a small effect onreproductive output of the HudsonRiver population of shortnose sturgeon or the species as a whole that the loss of these shortnosesturgeon will not change the status or trends~of the Hudson River population or the species as awhole; (4) and, the action.will have only a:minor and temporary, effect on the distribution ofshortnose: sturgeon in the action-area (related to~movements around the thermal plume) and noeffect on the distribution of the species throughout its.roange. , ,,- .. :,':' .I i-V ., ,, i V, ' ).j '. -.. -: ." ' .. ' ' " ' ." 'In certain, irintances, anaction that does;, not appreciablyreduce the likelihood of a species'survival--but might affect it' likelihood of recovery or the 'rate at which recovery is-expected tooccur. As explained'above, NMFS has determined~that the proposed action will not appreciablyreduce the likelihood that shortnose sturgeon will survive. in the wild.: Here, NMFS considers thepotential for the action to reduce the likelihood of recover,. As noted above, recovery is defined.as the improvement in status such that listing is no longer appropriate. Section 4(a)(1) of the,.ESA requires listingeof a species if it. is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significantportion of its range. (i, e.:, ".endangered'?),,-or.1likely to become in danger of extinction throughout.all or a significant p.ortion~of its. range in .the foreseeable-f!iture (i.e., "threatened") because of anyNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August:?20112.
of the following five listing factors: (1) the present or threatenedodestructiomi modification;, orcurtailment of its: habitat or rahge, (2) dverutilization: for commer ial', recreational, scientific, oreducational purposes, (3) disease'"or predation, :(4), the inadequacy of existingiregulatorymechanisms, (5) other- natural or manmade, factors affecting its continued existence..'The proposed action is not expected to modify, curtail or destroy the range of the species since itwill result in a small reduction in the number of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River andsince it will';not, affect the'overall:distrib.ation of shortnose sturgeon other than, to' cause minortemporary adjustments, ii. movements in;n the action area, -The proposed actionmwill not utilizeshortnose sturgeon for'recreational;,sdientifie or commercial purposes or affect the adequacy of.existing regulatoryfm&ehanismsn td piotect this species-;. The proposed. action .is' likely to result inthe mortality of up to,'462.shortgbs &#xfd;Stuijfoin;, however, over thet20-year period, the loss of theseindividuals-and, what wouldhave&been'4eih progeny is;notxpected to affect the persistence ofthe Hudson River:population o'-shoetndsWe.stuirgeon, or; the: species;-as; a whole. The loss: of theseindividuals, will notvchadnxe the: status, or tr~end of the) Hudson Rirver'population,.which: is' stable athigh numbers. :As'it'wifllFiot affect the.status' oif; tnd o6flthispcopillation, -it, will not affect the Jstatus or trend'of the',species as a' 'As the redu6fion: in number~sand future reproduction. isvery small, this loss would not result in an appreciable reduction in the. likelihood of I '.! .improvement in the status of shortnose sturgeon throughout their range. The effects of theproposed action will not hasten the extinction timeline or otherwise increase the danger ofextinction since the action will cause the mortality of only a small percenthg'of-t'he shorritosesturgeonin the Hudson River and an even sffalaer pel6entageofthe led as 'awhble' hnd thesemortalities are not'expected to resdt in'th6 reduction of overall repr6ductfive fitness f& thespecies'as a) whole:. Thfe'effeets of'th'e'proposed acti6n will alsd not reduce tl hlikel.hooi'that thestatus of the species can improveitb hfie 'pdl6t where it is ibcovered and c8Uld'be &deliste&#xfd;&Therefore, the proposed aCtionwill'not ipptediably ryeduce the fhkelihodd that shortniise sturgeoncan be brought to the point at they Ae no 16nger liseed as eidangered or threateied: Basedon the analysis presented herein, in the mortality-of n&' more than162 shortnose sturgeon over the period of the proposed 6eriew*d licenses is fi6thikly toappreciably reduce the survival and recovery bf th' species.'I " ..... ... .. "...;'.. ; U A!t .-.* .-'. ,,., UI )x. .L " : ". ..[. ..CONCLUSION 't .,. "". ..,.After'reviewing' the best available informatiori on the status of endangered and threatened speciesunder NMFS jurisdiction, the environmental` baselinie for the actioh aiea, the effects ofthe t -proposed actiorn, interdependent and interteltibed atiofns and the cumulative effects,lt 'is NMiFS'biological opinion that the proposed action may adversely affect but is not likely to jeopardize thecontinued existence of shortnose stuge'6n'- Nd c-ititil 1iditat is'desigated iA the, actibi -h'rea;therefore, none will be affected by the proposed action. ' "' .' .,INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ' -.Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the. take of endangered species. Take is defined as to harass,harm,' pursue,'hunt, shddt; wound, kill, tr~p, capture or collect, or to attemfiptto engage in anysu~h co'nduct. Harm is fur-ther-defined by' NMFS t6 include anyacdt which actu'ally kills or injuresfish' or' wildlife.' Such'an act may include:significanrt h'bitat moidificatioii or degradation thatactually kills or injtires fish or wildlife by gni ficatflk impairng essfniia behavioral patternsNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Auguh. 201-.;-
including breeding; spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering. , Incidental. take isdefined as..take .that.is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the car.ying out of anwotherwiselawful activity.: Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2),. taking that is incidental toand not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to.be prohibited under the ESAprovided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental TakeStatement ., -. -The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by NRC so thatthey become binding conditions for the:exemption in section:7(o)(2) to apply.., NRC has a,,continuing.duty. to regulate the-activity covered~by this Incidenfa!:..T.ake, Statement.- If NRC (1)fails to assume find implement ,the terms'and conditionsj or: (2): failss to require..,the applicant,: ,Entergy; to, adhere .to the terms: and conditions. of the. Imidental.Take :Statement through -enforceable terms that,. are added to the renewed:licenseo hc% protmctiv'e: coverage, of section..7(o)(2) may lapse. In orderto monitor the, impact of incidmnta!.take,,NRC..olr the applicant mustreport the progress of the-actionmnd. its tot.. .nthe species. to the NMES,.as specified: in the ,Incidental Take Statement. [50 CFR '&sect;402:14(i)(). (See;U. S. Fish' and Wildlife; Service'and-,National Marine :Fish.nries':Se-rvice's Joint Endangered Species:Act: Section .7 ConsultationHandbook(1998). at:4.49.lit.. ..Handbook ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.at.. .i.::.;.:..... .... .,:... ,,. :...21 ' "::, ...Amount or Extent of Take,,. .-:, ,. ., ., .Pursuant to the terms of the proposed extened orerating licenses, w...4&#xfd;db, ertiag lce~esIP2 wuldconine to operIatefrom September.2013 until Septembei 203&#xfd; and IP3 ,will continue to operate. from December2015 untlDe, cember 2035., The operation ofP2 and IP3 during the extended.operating periodwill directly.affect shortniose, sturgeon due to impingement at intakes., These interactionsconstitute 'capture" or: "collect"* in the definition. of ,take arid will cause injury and mortality tothe affected individuals. Based on the distribution of shortnose:sturgeon in the action area andinformation1 available on historic intera.tions between shortnose sturgeon and the IP facility,NMFS has estimated that the propqsedacti0on yil result in the impingement of up to 104shortnose sturgeon at IP2 and 58 shortnose sturgeon at IP3 during the 20-year extended operatingperiod. All of these sturgeon are expected to die, immediately or later, as a result of interactionswith the facility. As explained in the "Effects of the Action" section, effects of the facility onshortnose sturgeon-also include effects on distribution due to the.thermal plume as well as effectsto prey items; however,, NMFS does not anticipate or exempt any take of shortnose sturgeon, dueto effects to prey, items or due to exposure to .the thermal plume. This ITS exempts the followingtake:- ..... , * -..oA total of10,4, shortnose sturgeon (dead or alive) impinged at Unit 2 during the periodSeptember 28, 2013 -September 28, 2033..- .A total of 58 shortnose sturgeon (dead or alive) impinged at Unit 3 during the periodDecember 12, 2015 -December.12, 2035. -, .The Section9 prohibitions against takeapplyto iiye individuals as well as to dead specimens andtheir parts. NMFS recognizes that shortnose sturgeon that have been. ki.led prior to impingementat the IP facility may, become impinged on the intakes at IP2 and IP3 and that some number ofdead shortnose sturgeon taken at the facility may not necessarily have been killed by theoperation of the facility itself. Due to the difficulty in determining the. cause of death ofNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augus.t,2011. -
shortnose sturgeon found dead -at-t1le intakes and the lack of past necropsy frs~ul6s that wouldallow NMFS to'better assess the likely dause of death of impinged shortnose sturge nthe'aforementioned anticipated level of take includes shortnose sturgeon that may have been deadprior to impingement on the IP intakes. In tlih&kohinpanying Opinion, NMFS determined thatthis level of anticipated take is not likely to res'ilt: in jeopardy to shortnose~ turge6h... -I' '"5 t ."UReasonable and Prudent Measure!-' .. -' ..' [b..In order'to effectively'moriito-' the effects of this action:, ivtis necessary- 1o monitor the intakes todocument the amount! of iricidenital itakd and to! examine thd shortndse sturgeon that'are' impingedat the facility; Monitoring-p'rovides inforrmatibonon the characteristics of the shOrtfnose turgeonencountered and ,id-y, ptbiddataa which will help de'velop mo'e'effective rhe'asures 'to avoidfuture interactions with listed species. Any live sturgeon are to be released back into the river,away from the intakes and thermal plume. These RPMs and their implementing terms andconditions apply to both the license to be issued for the continued operation of IP Unit 2 and thelicense to be issued for,'th&.ontinu~ed'opera'rior6f (P Unit 3K ... ,1 UReasonable and Prudent MA asures,- .' r,: .f ,, , ( ... to ., I .... .NMFS believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary or appropriate forNRC-and the ,pplicant&#xa2; Entergy, tomaminimz and moltor -mpacts o&#xfd;id-iitl te'ok 'f'endangered shortnose -. :.'t ... ,I: rP '. .1.'A pr6gram to'm'onitor the in~idenfal-itak6f shbrn'6se s rgen"At' IP2'ail1R3 iMtakesmiust bedeveloped, approved by'NMFSnd imp emnIntfed. ... P. .3. All live shortnose.stuirgeonmt erlas back ito the' Hudsn Riv t appropriatelocation away from int aI;dfheAtal ue a k ofdeath or injury..., .......,, , -4. Any dead shortmioe sstFei fust e tra4sfrsrr'e to'NMFS or'ah appropnatqly.permtttedresearch facility NMFS WilIl dentfif s6 that a necropsy can be undeaken to attempt todetermine the cause"f dettfi ::: '"5. All shortno'se sturgeon impingemnents' associateM With thdJndian PNrft faefility &#xa2;mid anyshortnose surg4rn sightings in'thle&#xfd;ati6 eli fit'be"r re;por(ed to NMFS?:''-"::"Terms and Conditions ' .......In order to be exempt from prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, Entergy must comply with, andNRC must ernsutre trough eniorc&ale"'terms of'the rene wed license that Entergy does complywith, the following terms and of the Incidental Take Stdtement, whidh implem'ent thereasonable arid prudent niehsutres 'described abovd 'and.oiitline requir"edreporting/hmo-nitoringct1 o s~e -y Any takin tha is; in*.i %requirements.' These termis ai nditi d oren'i'i-discreti'ona 'r.' 'iyting hatisin.compliance xwith the terms and con&#xfd;itions specfied ire.this Incidental Take Stat&eient shall not beconsidered aprohibited takig -of'the species coniernied. (ESA Sektion 7(o)(2J:) Due to the... ." .. .....u. ' &#xfd;.' ".7; : lh 't. -L:... ~ ~ " .:. ;: p. .: j. P :~; ' jO! ".., " '.,.Jifi!'(:;. " ....NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August.2l.14.
difficulty in visually distinguishing shortnose sturgeon from other sturgeon, the terms andconditions below- sturgeon or fish that might beshortnose sturgeon.",1. :To :implement RPM #1, Entergy must implement throughout the term of the renewedlicense an. endangered, species monitoring plan. that has-been, approved by NMFS and thatcontains the following components: (a) the intake trash bars must be monitored with amethod and on a schedule that ensures detection and timely rel ease, of any'shortnosesurgeon or fish .that might be shortnose sturgeon.impinged, onhe trash bars; (b) theRi.stroph screens must be monitored, with a method, o.n.d on aschedule, that ensures...detection and timely release of any shortnose sturge~or orifis.that,rtmight be shortnosesturgeon that pass through the trash bars and gtre, imrpjiged.onthescreens... ..... ...
* the...screens.,,:-' ,4\4.4'.,' ' ' ..' ; ' * ' ;:'J .'4 ii '..I .4,iJ/ ; 4.5. *.-; ,. J ,. ;-. .... -2. To implement RPM #2, Entergy rnvst~enurei!hat any live shortnosesturgeon or fish thatmight be shortnose sturgeon are returned to the river away from the intakes and thethermal plume, following complete documentation of the ', ,;, ' :.i '", '"~~."' '. '/. --'.. .....; .Y .: .... ": " '. I ,.' A;.'''[J ..":..,. .3. 6.To implemeht RPM #3., ensure that any dead specimens or body parts.ofshortnose sturgeon or fish thht might be sturgeon are photo'raphed, measured, and,,,preserved (refrigerate or freeze) and discuss disposal procedures with NMFS. NMFS.mayrequest that the specinenbe transferred to NMFSor to an appropriately permittedresearcher so that a necropsy.may be conducted. ,/The form included as Appendix I mustbe completed and submitted to NMFS as noted above.4. To implement RPM #4, if any live or dead shortnose sturgeon or fish that might beshortnose sturgeon are taken at1P2 or !P3, Entergy must notify the NMFS EndangeredSpecies Coo'rdinator at 978-281-9208 immediately. An incident report (Appendix I) mustalso be completed by plant personnel and sent to the NMFS Section 7 Coordinator viaFAX (978-281-9394) within 2.4 hours of the take. Every shortnose sturgeon, or fish thatmight be a~ shortnose sturgeon,must be photographed. Inormation in Appendix II willassist in identification of a shortnose sturgeon or fish that migh~t be a shortnose sturgeon.5. To implement RPM #2, Entergy must notify NMFS when the facility reaches 50% of theincidental take level for shortnose sturgeon. At that time, NMFS will determine ifadditional measures are necessary or appropriate to minimize impingement at the intakestructures or if additional monitoring is necessary.6. To implement RPM #4, Entergy must submit an annual report of incidental takes to "NMFS by January 1 of each year. The report must include, as detailed in this IncidentalTake Statement,,any necropsy reports that were, provided to Entergy, incidental takereports, photographs a recordoof all sightings' f shortnose sturgeon. or fish that might be'* ." .-..' ..' .1" .1. ,." ' ..." " ' ." .:' ," ' .a shortnose sturgeon, in the vicinity of Indian Point, and a record of when inspections ofthe intake trash bars were cornducted for the 24 hours prior to the take.' The annual.reportak' ta l "ai po'e the" ...... &#xfd; ta e. .. ..a report.. .must also identify' any 'ptential measures to reduce shortnose sturgeon impfiigement,injury, and mortality at the intake structures. At the time the report is submitted, NMFSNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August. 2011,;;,
will supply NRC and 'Eiteigy With any information on changes to requirements(i.e., staff changes, phohn or fax numbers, e-mail addresses) for the coming year.7. To' implement RPM #4,'Entergy ftust ensure that fin clips are taken (according totheprocedure outlined. inAppendix. III) of any dead shortnose sturgeon or dead fi'sh that'might be shortnose sturgeon, and. that the fin clips are sent, t NMFS :for~genetic;analysis.The reasonable and prudent, measurfs, with their implementing terms and.conditions, aredesigned to minimize and monitor the impact of incidental take that might ;otherwise result. fromthe proposed, action.*. Specifically, theseRPMs and:Terms and Conditions:Will ensure thatEntergy monitors the intakes in a wayAhat.'allowsforl the detection of any impinged shortnosesturgeon and implements measures to reduce the potential of mortality for any shortnose sturgeonimpinged at Indian Point, to report all interactions to NMFS and to provide information p.n thelikely cause of d'a' of any shortnosdesturgeon impinged at he facility. The discussion belowexplains why each orf tnese'RP1Vs 'ani Tenrms and Coditions' are necessary'or appropriate tominimize or monitor the level of incidental take associtc,.,,witl4, the prppo~ed action. ,The,. ]PMs.and terms and conditionsinvqlve only p, minor chane id& 'rosd action..RPM #1 and Term and Condition #1 .arare necessary and appropratebecause they arespecifically designed .p ensure that all appropriate measures are carried outtomonitor t)eincidental take of shortn6se sturieoh at Indian Point. Ah effecive m o an is esseittal toallow NRC and Eniergy to fulfill the requirement to monitor the actual level of in'ci'denhtal takeassociatedw\itfhthe operation of Indian Point and to allod*iVMFS and NC. todetrminiie if thelevel of incidenital take is, ever exceeded.* Ilnesereqturements. arealso essentia for wa~i relitioed to onerat othTewhether the death wa' reilaed.t the operation of he facility. is conditions sure tiahepotentil for detection' of shortnose sturgeon at the intakes is maximized and that any oh6ftnosesturgeon removed from the water are done so in a manner that minimizes the potential for furtherinjury.RPM#2 and Term and Condition #2 are necessary and appropriate to ensure that any shortnosesturgeon that survive impingement is given the maximum probability of remaining alive and notsuffering additional injury or subsequent mortality through inappropriate handling or release nearthe intakes.RPM #3 and Terms and Conditions #3 are necessary and appropriate to ensure the properhandling and documentation of any shortnose sturgeon removed from the intakes that are dead ordie while in Entergy custody. This is essential for monitoring the level of incidental takeassociated with the proposed action and in determining whether the death was related to theoperation. of the facility.RPM#4 and Term and Condition #4-7 are necessary and appropriate to ensure the properhandling and documentation of any interactions with listed species as well as the promptreporting of these interactions to NMFS.CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONSNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 20l1-,
In addition, to: Section:7(a)(2), which requires agencies to ensure that.all projects will notjeopardize the continued existence of listed species, Section :7(a)(1) of the ESA places aresponsibility on all federal agencies to "utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes ofthis Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species." ConservationRecommendations are discretionary agency. activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of aproposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or todevelop information. As such,"NMFS recommends thatthe NRC consider: the followingConservation Recommendations: ,.:1. The NRC shouldisupport tis'sue analysis :of dead shortriose sturgeon removed from theIndian Point intakes to, determine contaminant4loads.,.... .:: .2. The NkC should support in-water assessments, abunacnee, and dstnlbution surveys forshofAnotIse sftrgeon in the Hudson River and Hiverstraw By Speclca.y.REINITIATION OF COiNSULTATIO"tia c:"continued operato of IP'n 3fan atd iioiialThis concludes formal consultdtion the c nti d ion of 1P2 and iP3 fr' an addiiio"a20 years pursuant to a license proposed for issuance by NRC. As provided in 50 CFR &sect;402.16,reinitiation of formhalconiultati'on is'required w'here discretionary federal agency involvement orcontrol ,over the actdon has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) theamdouiint or extentof taking speeified' inthe inicidental take statement is exceeded; (2) new inf6rmaloni revealseffects of the action may not hav een.prewously considered; (3) the identified action issubsdequently modfied in a manner thaft causes an 6ffect to listed spie o4) a new species islistedor criticdalhabitat designated that may be .affected by the idefitifi"edacti'n. In instanceswhere the amount or extent o incidental take is eoxeeded, Section 7 consultation ifiust bereinitiated immediately..i", 'v '..:-', '~~.. ..... ........"t.:. .... .:.,.. '.... .... ... ...-~~~... .......'.''. ." .... .. ._.:.. ,".. .'.:-NMFS. Draft Biological Opinion -August: 20.,1...I v:
LITERATURE CITEDAllen PJ, Nicholl M, Cole S, Vlazny A, Cech JJ Jr. 2006. Growth of larval to juvenile green sturgeon inelevated temperature regimes. Trans Am Fish Soc 135:89-96 &#xfd; , '. '!! if-': IASA (Analysis and Communi6hdbtn).,2008.. 2006, year class report for.the Haidson River EstiairyoProgram prepared for Dynegy Roseton LLC,. on bdhalf of Dynegy ROseton'.LLC EntergylNuclearIndian Point 2 LLC, EntergyNuddar IndianPoint 3 LLC,.and Mirant fldwine LLC.W ashingtonvill-16-N Y ,; -..' .,. ::' ! ... ., , .. ,, .,,; ,:Bain, M. B. 1997. Atlantic and shortnose the Hudson River:.' Coflmdn. and,.Divergent Life History Attributes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48: 347-358.* ..- t, L'." l~ ,3~ ~ *Bain, M., K. Arend, N. Hdle&#xfd;, S.'I`aybs,YJ. Kn gqt,,S.,NtidkvD. Peterson, lfnd M.; Walsh. 1998aW)Sturgeon of the Hudson River: Final Report on 1993-1996 Research. Prepared for The HudsonRiver Foundation- by the, Departhm*t of Natural Corn'ml., Uhiersity,; Ithaca, New'Y ork. ,; .. : ,i ,;.... ,"..".',--:.,i ; ; '...: .. , ...,.Bain, Mark B., D.L. Peterson, K. K. Arend. 1998b. Population status of shortnose sturgeon in theHudson River: -Final Report. Prepared for Habitat and-Protected Resouikes Division National,: ,-Marine Fisheries Service by New Yorkr CooperatiVe Fish and ,,Department of Natural Resources, ComellUmiversify,.';thaca; NY..,'. :, .Bain, Mark B., N. Haley, D. L. Peterson, K. K. Arend, K. E. Mills, P. J. Sullivan. 2000. Annualmeeting of Amierican fisheries Society.. 'EPRI"AFS Symposium->.;Biology$ Managembnt.-andProtection of Sturgeon. St. Loui0s,"MO. 23-'24August'2000-." ..Bain, Mark B., N. Haley, D. L. Peterson, K. K Arend, K. E. Mills, P. J. Sulivan. 2007.Recovery of a US Endangered Fish., PLoS ONE 2(l):"-.168.:' v:. L'", .:doi:10.1371/joumal.pone0000168 ..- a. i-Bath, D.W., J.M. O'Conner; J.B. Albert and LG.:'Arv\idson., 1981.' Developmentand "identification of larval Atlantic,,sturgebn (Acipens&r oxyrinchus) and shoitnose sturgeon(A. brevirostrum) from the Hudson River estuary, New York. Copeia 1981:711'7117.:Beamesderfer, Raymond C.P. and Ruth'- A.'Farr. 1,997, .Alternatives fol'itheptotectibn and'restoration of sturgeon's'and theiri habitat, Environmental Biology of Fishes48- ,407-417. .Berlin, W.H., R.J. Hesselberg, and M.J. Mac. 1981. Chlorinated hydrocarbons as a factorin the reproduction and' srvival of lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) in LakeMichigan. !Technical Paper. .1 05 of the US!. Fish and Wildlife Service;42 paes.,Buckley, J., and B. Kynard'.; 1981. Spawning and rearingof shottnose'sturgeonr from the; ConnecticutRiver. Progressive Fish Culturist 43:74-76.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augusit20'l1!'.-.
Buckley, J. and B. Kynard. 1985. Habitat use and behavior of pre-spawing and spawningshortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, in the Connecticut River. NorthAmerican Sturgeons: 111-117.Carlson, D.M.,, and K.W., Simpson. 1987. Gut contents ofjuvenile shortnose.sturgeon in theupper Hudson estuary.s.Copeia 1987:796-802 ...CHGE. Central Hudson Gas.and Electric Corp., Consolidated E dison:Company.of New York, New YorkPower Authority, and Southern Energy New York. 1999. Draft environmental impactstatementfor State pollution discharge elimination system permits for Bowline Point1 &2, Indian Point1&2, and Roseton l&2 Steamelectric generating stations.,-! --. ....... ..Collins, M. R., S. G. Rogers, and T. I. J. Smith. 1996. Bycatch of sturgeons along the Southern AtlanticCoast of the USA. North American Journal3fFisheriesa.anagewi-ent. 16: .24-29. .*,.. .-,Dadswell, M.J. 1979. Biology-and population characteiistics,of the,shoortnose sturgeon.,Acipensper.brevirostrum LeSueur 1818 (Osteichthyes: Acipenseridae), in the Saint John River estuary, New;Brunswick, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 57:2186-2210.Dadswell,,M,.J.V B.D.; Taubert,:T.S.. Squiers;.D. Maichette; and J:. Buckley. 1.984. Synopsisof biological data on shortnose, sturgeon,'-Acipenser brevirostrum L.esueur 1818.NOAA Technical Report; NMFS 14,NationaAl1Marine Fisheries Service. October1984 45 pp.Dovel, W.J. 1978 The Biology and management, of shortnose and Atiantic. sturgeons of the HudsonRiver. Performance report for the period April.1I to September 30, 1978. Submitted to N.Y.State Department of Environmental Conservation.Dovel, W.J. 1979. Biology and management of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon of the Hudson River.New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, AFS9-R, Albany.Dovel, W.L. 1981. The Endangered shortnosezsturgeonof the Hudson, Estuary: Its life history andvulnerability to the. activities of man.. The Oceanic, Society.. FERC Contract No. DE-AC 39-79RC-10074. ... -...,Dovel, W.L.;,A.W.. P ekvuitch,:and T:J. ,Brggren. 1992./Biology of the shortnosesturgeon (AIpenser br.evirostruim :Lesueur 1818) in the Hudson River estuary,.New York. Pages 187-216 in C.L. Smith (editor). Estuarine research in the 1980s.State University of New York Press, Albany, New York.Dwyer, F. James, Douglas:K. Hardesty, Christopher G. Ingersoll, James L. Kunz, andDavid, W1 Whites. 2000. Assessing contaminant. sensitivity ofAmerican shad,.Atlantic sturgeon, and shortnose sturgeon. Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey.Columbia- Environmental Research' Ccnter, 4200.New, rHave Road, Columbia,Missouri.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August,.2011..,.
Entergy Nuclear Operations*, fidc* (Enitergy). 2007a. "Indian Point, Units 2 & 3, LicehseRenewal Application"' April 23;- 2007.': .Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007b. "Applicant's Environment Report,Operating License ReneWValStage'."' (Appendixi E tb "Indian Point, Units 2: & 3; License RenewalApplication".) April 23, 2007.Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007c. Letter from Fred Dacimo, Indian PointEnergy Center Site Vice President, to the U.S. NRC regarding Indian Point Nuclear GeneratingUnits Nos. 2 and 3. Docket Nos. 50-247, 50-286. May 3, 2007.ERC, Inc. (Environmental hdnfifg, rf.):. 2002'. Coiitamilnnt 'idasis of tissues fromtwo shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) collected il" the Delaware'Riv'er. Prepared forNational Marine Fisheries Service. 16 pp. + appendices.ERC, Inc. (Environmental Research and Consulting, Inc.). 2007. Preliminary acoustic tracking study ofjuvenile shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon in the Delaw; ARAiver: "'My 2006 throdgh..March 2007. Prepared for NOA'Aisheries.- 9'.j',..'./ .:. ,Eyler, Sheila M., Jorgen E. Skjeveland, Michael F. Manig~ld; anId Stti&#xfd;f A.' WelIh."2000:'Distribution of Sturgeons in Candidate Open Water Dredged Material PlacementSite's-in the P6t6iriac RiVei'(1998-2000).U.S:. Fish and Wildlife Service'Annapdlis,' MD. 2"6 ' .,r NIFernandes, S.J. 2008. Population demography, distribution, and moverient:patterns of Atifntic -and;shortnose sturgeons in the Penobscot River estuary, Maine. University of Maine. Masters thesis.88 pp.,' '' , ... ..Flournoy, P.H., S.G. Rogers, and P.S.'Crawford!. 1992.. Restoratiorn of shortnose sturgeon ifi the `Altamaha River, Georgia. Final Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia.Geoghegan, P., M.T. Mattson and R.G Keppel.:'1992. Distribution' bf shortnose sturg~ofi in the Huidson'River, 1984-1988. IN Estuarmne ResearAh in the "198'0s, C. Lavett Smith, Editor*! iffdson`Rive&#xfd;,eEnvironmental Society, Seventh symposium on Hf.ud&ii River icology.' New"York Press, Albany NY, USA.Giesy, J.P., J. Newsted, and D.L. Garling. 1986. Relationships between-chlorinatedhydrocarbon concentrations and rearing mortality Of chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) eggs from Lake Michigan. Journal of Great Lakes'Research 12(l):82-98... ,, .. : / ., :' a " ..i i. ." " i' ,, ' -.. i b~m U .._'2Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Atlantic and shortnose -turgeongs. Uniited States Department :6f Irteridr'BiologicalReport 82, 28 pages. ' I -"NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augul.st M20.1'.
Grunwald, C., J. Stab ile, J.R. Waldman, R. Gross, and; !:lWirgin.-.2002. Populationgenetics of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) based on mitochondrialDNA control region sequences. Molecular Ecology 11: 000-000.Hansen, P.D. 1985. Chlorinated hydrocarbons and. hatching successin Baltic herring spring.spawners. Marine Environmental Research 15:59-76.r ,V,..Haley, N. 1996,. Juenile slturgeonus~e in the Hudson River Es&#xfd;,ary ,,Master s -thesis. -University ofMassachusetts, Amhearst,,MAI,,.. v.i-.. ,o ..:-, .'. ..Hastings, R, W1983 A study of the. sortnose sturgeon *Ac.enserbrevirostrum)....population in the upper tidal Delaware River: Assessmentf pactsof .maintenance dredging. Final Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Philadelphia, Pennsylvani~a., 129, pp.-.;,,Heidt, A.R., and R.J. Gilbert. J 7 The shortnose sturgeon in the Hltamaha'River drain age,Ui Georgia.Pages 54-60 in R.R. Odum and L. Landers, editors. Proceedings of the,,rare and endangeredwildlife symposium. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division,Technical Bulletin WL 4, Athens, Georgia... ,. ..Holland, B.F., Jr. and G.F. Yelverton. 1973. Distribution and biological studies of anadromous fishesoffshore North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources,Divisionsof Commercial and. Sports Fisheries, Morehead City. Special Scientific Report 24:1-Hulme, P.E..u2005. Adapting.to climate change: is there scope for ecological management in the face ofglobal, threat'? -Journal of Applied Ecology 43,: 6,17-627.IPCC' (Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change) 07. FourtheAssesnmengtF Report.. Valencia, Spain.,-,-Jenkins, W.E., T.I.J. Smith, L.D. Heyward, and D.M. Knott. 1993. Tolerance of shortnosesturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, juveniles to different salinity and dissolvedoxygen concentrations. Proceedings of~the Southeast Association'of Fish and .Wildlife. Agencies, Atlanta, Georgia.Kieffer, M.C. and B. Kynard. 1993. Annual movements of shortnose and Atlanticsturgeons in theRMerriO m ack River, Missachusetts. Transactions of the Amencan,,,Fisheries Society 1221: 1088-1103.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Auguast2.01.1.* ; , .; " .
Kieffer, M., and B. Kynard., 1996.' Spawning of shortnose sturgeon in the MerrimacklRiver.,Transactions of the Americanr'FishriiesSociety 125:179-186. ,Kieffer and Kynard in review ;[book.to be puiblished by AFS]. ,Kieffer, M. C., and B, Kynard. In-review. Pre-spawning anid non-spawning spring migrations, spawning,- and leffects ofhydroelectric dam operation and river regulation on spawning of Connecticut River shortnosesturgeon. .' .Kocan, R.M., M.B. Matta, and S. Salazar. 1993. A laboratory evaluation of Connecticut.,,' ,
* Y. ;' &#xfd;' .1 -%' ,. .River coal tar toxicity to shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) embryosand larvae. Final Report tio Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,Seattle, Washington.Kynard, B. 1996. Twenty-one years of passing shortnose sturgeon in fish lifts on theConnecticilt River: what has b.enr learned?, Draft report b,,tionalBiological Service, Conte.Anadromous Fish Research Center,,Turners Falls, .MA.19pp.(, -'Kynard, B. 1997. Life history, latitudinal patterns, and status of the shortnose sturgeon, Acipenserbrevirostrum. Environnrenta $iology of Fishes 48:319,-34. ...Longwell, A.C., S. Chang, A. Hebert, J. Hughes and D. Perry.. 1592. Pollution anddevelopmental abnormalities of Atlantic fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishis 35:1-Mac, M.J., and C.C. Edsall. 1991. Environmental yontaminaanis and the reproductive.&#xfd;Q&#xfd;'.''n'-pdemiolgia'l~pp~o'ac'h.'Juiial"success of lake trout in the Great Lace: A epidemilogcall .Toxicology and Environmental Health 33:375-394., ..Mayfield RB, Cech JJ Jr. 2004. Temperature effects on green stur gen bioenergetics. Trans Am Fish Soc133:961-970Morgan, R.P., V.J. Rasin ah, d L.A. Noe E 1973.SE~ectsoof guspeded'Sediments'on theDevelopment of Eggs anid Larvae of Sti'pedd Bass and. White Perch. Natural.resources Institute, Chesapeake Bilogkal Laboratory, U ofMaryland, Center forEnvironmental, and Estuarine 20pp.. , i ,Moser, M.L. and S.W. Ross. 1995. Habitat use and movements of shrtnose aiind Atlantic sturg'eons inthe lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Transactions of the. American Fisheries Society124:225-234.NAST (National Assessment Synthesis Team). 2008. Climate Change Impacts on the United States: ThePotential Consequences of Climate Variability ard Change,US Global Change ResearchProgram, Washington DC, 2000,http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/lIntroA.pdf.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 20.1, .1 National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Recovery plan for the shortnose sturgeon(Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery,Team forthe National Marine Fisheries Service, -Silver Spring, Maryland 104 pp..NMFS, 1996b. Status Review of shortnose sturgeon in the Androscoggin and Kennebec Rivers.Northeast, Regional Office, National Marine, Fisheries Service, unpublished report. 26 pp.NOAA. 1979. Testimony of Dr. Dadswell. May 14, 1979. Docket C/II-WP-77-01.NRC 2010. Draft FSEIS- LIndian'PointNRC 2009. Biol ogcal Assessment to NMFS for Indian' Pot"reliceis'' ." 'NRC 2010b. Revised Biological Assessment to NMFS for Indian Point relicensing. December 2010.efin oBo6&dlA~sI me t I P, r 11 S -NRC 2011. Supple'ent tb Blo& e~l)sessment~to NMFS for Indian Point'rehieeisng. NYHS (NewYork Historical Society as cited by Dovel as Mitchell. S 181 1)1. 1809. V6!utu 1 .'.Coliec'tions ofthe New-York Historical Society for the year 1809.NYDEC. 1982. State Pollution Discharge Elimination System Final'Pe.rm'tI for Indian Point NucleiarGeneratingStation. " , ' .r ..NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2003. "Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement Concerning the Applications to Renew New York State Pollutant DischargeElimination System (S*PDES) Permits for the Roseton 1 and 2 Bo wlne 1 and 2 and IP2 and IP3 2and 3 Steam Electric Generating Stations, Orane,Rockland and W estchester Counties" (HudsonRiver Power Plants FEIS). June 25, 2003.. .-'Denia 20f' 40 ' "C Api 2,' 0NYDEC. 2010. Letter fiobm W. Adriance to D. Grey, Entergy. Denial of 401 WQC. April 2, 2:010.Niklitschek, J. E. 200 1. Bioenergetics modeling and assessment of suitable habitat for juvenile Atlanticand shortnose stur'geons (Acipenser oxyrinchUs andA. brevirostrum) in the Chesapeake Bay.Dissertation. University of Maryland at College Park, Coilege .O'Herron, J.C., K.W. Able, and R.W. Hastings. 1993. Movements of shortnose sturgeon(Acipenser brevirostrum) in the Delaware River. Estuaries 16:235-240.Parker E. 2007. Ontogeny and life hhstory of shoitnose sturgeon (Ae4tpenser brevirostrum lesueur 1818):effects of latitudinal variation and water temperature. Ph.D. Dissertation. University ofMassachusetts, Amherst. 62 pp.Pekovitch, A.W. 1979. Distributioniand some life hist6ry'aspects of shorthose sturgeon\ (Acipenserbrevirostrum) in the upper Hudson River Estuary. Hazleton Environmental SciencesCorporation. 67 pp.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augustv2011, .:,
Rogers, S. G., and W. Weber. 1994. Occurrence of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) in theOgeechee-Canoochee river sygten-;'Georgia during the summer of 1093. Final Report of theUnited States-Army to the Nature'Conservancy of Georgia.Rogers, S.G., and W. Weber. 1995a. Movements of shortnose sturgeon in the Altamaha River system,Georgia. Contributions Series #57. Coastal Resources Division, Georgia Department of NaturalResources, Brunswick',Georgia. .....Rogers, S.G., and, W. Weber.. 1995b'. Status andrestoration of Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons in.Georgia. Final Report toltheNational'Mariine Fisheries Service; Southeast Regional Office, St.Petersburg, Florida. I .1 .,:, .JRuelle, R., and K.D. Keenlyne. 1993. Contaminants in Missouri River pallid sturgeon.Bull. Efivir-oii ContamriAloxiccl. 50:'898-906.' ,Ruelle, R. and C-.t Henry'. I994;,Lffe, and c6ntatmidiahtevaluatibn of '/pallid' stufgdoin. -inalReport U.S. Fishai*-J'Wildlife, Service;,,Fish and Wildlife.Enhancement, South Dakota Field.", Office; 42Q.South; G.arfield.dAvenue, Suite 400,,Pierre, South Dakota 57501-5408.-., ., '. , ., .. -'A,, ., i r a, I " .'Sherk, J.A. J.M. O Connor and D.A. Neumann. 1975 .Effects ,of 'suspended, iahtl deposited -sedimentson estuarine environments. In: Estuarine Research Vol..I!.:Geolmg$ aftd Engineering?'L.E.Cronin (editor). New York: Academic Press, Inc.-, ..i / ' ' !, .., ' " .". r ,' i " ' -,- ." , .. ... , " ; " r I / :;, _ , ., .' 5 :,,,, .-' .a:. " -'. ":' " -' , .., " '.; " .i .-. ,, .Skjeveland, Jorgen E., Stuart A. Welpho Michael F, :Mangold, Sheila M .Eyjer, and Seaberry,..Nachbar. 2000. A Report of Investigations and Research on Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeonin Maryland Waters of the Chesap.eoak.e.,.qy (t996-2000,).:.U.S. Fish and Wildlife qeSeice,.Annapolis, MD. 44 pp.M ., --.a: :.. .. .,! ; " -i ;, : ., ,.. .*. .,a ,;5, , :-1;Smith,, Hugh M. and Barton A. Be"ai.: .899.ist, of fishes known to inhabit the waters, of the Districtof Columbia and vicinity., Prepared for the,.Uitcd States, Fish Commission. ,WashingtonGovernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.-;. .' : ' / ; .: ' ' ':. 5 a'' ,* * ., 'Snyder, D.E. 1988. Description and d4ntificatibn of shortnose'and Atlantic strgeonlarvae.American Fisheries Society Symposiumn '5:7-30. ..5 .."Spells, A. 1998. Atlantic sturgeon population evaluation utilizing a fishery dependent rewardprogram in Virginia's major.western shore tributaries to' the Chesapeake Bay. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Charles City, Virginia.Squiers, T., L. Flagg, and M. Smith.- 198,2.,..Amerncan. shad,enbanceme.nt and status.of sturgeonstocks in selected Maine waters. Completion report, Project AFC-20.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August'2011.,
Squiers, T. AndmM. Robillard. 1997... Preliminary report on the-location of overwinteringsites for shortnose sturgeon in the estuarial complex of the Kennebec. Riverduring the winter of 1996/1997. Unpublished report, submitted to the MaineDepartment of Transportation.; .Swanson, C., D. Crowley, Y. Kim, N. Cohn, and D. Mendelsohn. 2011 a.. Part ,2 of Response to theNYSDEC Staff Review of the 2010 Field Program and Modeling Analyis of the Cooling WaterDischarge.from the. Indian Point Energy Center:-Prepared'for Indian Point Energy Center,Buchanan ,'New York: ADAMS Accession No. ML 1l 189A026.,.4vail'able;-URL:.http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/57609.html.Swanson, C., D. Mendelsohn, N. Cohn, D. KIn, L eekerand L,Miller.2011 b. Final Report: 2010 Field Program and Modeling Analysis of the CoolingWater Discharge from-L the ,india. PointEitergy Center..'Prepared for Indian Point,Energy Ceniter;,Bch.alnah, New Ybrk' ADAMS Accession No:.'I4Lt 1,1.189A026..:-Available URL" http.:/W'vw.dec,:nv.ov/perrmits/57609.htm'l., ,,:.,,' .,Taubert, B.D. 1980b. Biology of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) in the-,'Holyoke 'Po.61,' Cornecicut .River, Massachusetts. PhZD. Thesis;-University ofMassachusetts,[Ai'. herst, ! 36 p. ,Taubert, B.D., and M.J. Dadswell. 1980. Description of some larval shortnose sturgeon (Acipenserbrevirostrum) from the Holyoke Pool, Connecticut River, Massachusetts, USA, and the SaintJohn River, New Brunswick, Canada. CanadianJoiirnal of Zol6ogy 58::1125-1128.Uhler,-P'aIrid 0. Lugger. 1876.List of fishes'eof:M-ayand. Rept. Comm. Fish. MD.1876: 67-176.USDOI (United States Department of Interior). 1973. Threatened wildlife of the United States.Sho:ritnose tuigeon. Office of Endangeried Species and-Interinationai Activities, Bureau of SportFisheries ad"Wildlife, Washington,I D.C'." Resource Publication 1 14 (Revised ResourcePublication 34). '. ...Varanasi, U. 1992. Chemical contaminants and their effects on living marine resources.pp. 59- 71. in: R. H..Stroud (ed.) Stemming the Tide of Coastqal Fish HabitatL].ss. Proceedings of the Sy,'mposium on Conservation of Fish Habitat,' Baltimore,Maryland. Marine Recreational Fisheries Number 14. National Coalition forMarine Conservation, Inc., Savannah Georgia., ....., .... ; , , , .I , ...., .. ..:Vinyard, L. and W.J. O'Brien. 1976. Effects of light and turbidity on the reactive distanceof bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33: 2845-2849.Vladykov, V.D. and J.R. Greeley. 1963. Order Acipenseroidea. Pages 24-60 in Fishes of the WesternNorth Atlantic. Memoir Sears-Foundation for Marine Research 1 (Part III)' xxi +' 630'pp..NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August.2011...:.
Von Westemhagen, H., H. Rosenthal, V. Dethlefsen, W. Ernst, U. Harms, and P.D.Hansen. 1981. Bioaccumulating substances and reproductive success in Balticflounder Platichthys flesus. Aquatic Toxicology 1:85-99.Wirgin, I., Grunwald, C., Carlson, E., Stabile, J., Peterson, D.L. and J. Waldman. 2005. Range- widepopulation structure of shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum based on sequence analysis ofmitochondrial DNA control region. Estuaries 28:406-21.Waldman JR, Grunwald C, Stabile J, Wirgin I. 2002. Impacts of life history andbiogeography on genetic stock structure in Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchusoxyrinchus, Gulf sturgeon A. oxyrinchus desotoi, and shortnose sturgeon, A.brevirostrum.J Appl Ichthyol 18:509-518Walsh, M.G., M.B. Bain, T. Squires, J.R. Walman, and Isaac Wirgin. 2001. Morphological and geneticvariation among shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum from adjacent and distant rivers.Estuaries Vol. 24, No. 1, p. 41-48.February 2001.Waters, Thomas F. 1995. Sediment in Streams. American Fisheries Society Monograph7. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Pages 95-96.Weber, W. 1996. Population size and habitat use of shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, in theOgeechee River sytem, Georgia. Masters Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.Welsh, Stuart A., Michael F. Mangold, Jorgen E. Skjeveland, and Albert J. Spells. 2002.Distribution and Movement of Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) inthe Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries Vol. 25 No. 1: 101-104.Wilber, Dara H. and Douglas C. Clarke. 2001. Biological Effects of Suspended Sediments: A review ofsuspended sediment impacts on fish and shellfish with relation to dredging activities in estuaries.North American Journal of Fisheries Woodland, R. J. 2005. Age, growth, and recruitment ofHudson River shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Master's thesis. University ofMaryland, College Park.Woodland, R.J. and D. H. Secor. 2007. Year-class strength and recovery of endangered shortnosesturgeon in the Hudson River, New York. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society 136:72-81.Management 21:855-875.Ziegeweid, J.R., C.A. Jennings, and D.L. Peterson. 2008a. Thermal maxima for juvenile shortnosesturgeon acclimated to different temperatures. Environmental Biology of Fish 3: 299-307.Ziegeweid, J.R., C.A. Jennings, D.L. Peterson and M.C. Black. 2008b. Effects of salinity, temperature,and weight on the survival of young-of-year shortnose sturgeon. Transactions of the AmericanFisheries Society 137:1490-1499.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011 Plant and the Environment............i # ....0 i!I1234Source: Entergy 2007aFigure .Location of 1P2 and IP3, 6-mi (10-km) radius................. .;,. ... ....I.L ; ''i' "'"::i, " I" STUDY AREAKMPALBANY -(AL) (201-245)RIVER MILE ALBANY Troy .,.------ (---- Green Isi ..(125-152)(107-124).MASS,(86-93)CATSKILL (CS) 1 (172-200)SAUGERTIES (SG)KINGSTON (KG)(138-150)HYDE PARK (HP) 1(124-137)POUGHKEEPSIE (PK)CORNyVALL, (CW)WE-ST INDIAN POINT (IP)CROTON-HAVERSTRAHTAPPAN ZEE (TZ)YONKERS (YK)BATTERY (BT)(100-123)I (90-99)_( 77-89)(63-76)(55-62)(39-54)(19-38)(0-18):6) -BWkLNNEDIAN PINT14:BuO:WU:LNE .....: ..LEGEND: [ IZ POWER PLANTKPM = KILOMETER POINTRM = RIVER MILESource: Abood et al. 20062Figure 2. Hudson study area and river segments............ .. .',...11 Appendix IIncident Report Shortnose Sturgeon Take -Indian PointPhotographs should be taken and the following information should be collected from all sturgeon (aliveand dead)found in association with the Indian Point .intakes. Please submit all necropsy results(including sex and stomach contents) to NMFS upon receipt.Observer's full name:Reporter's full name:Species Identification (Key attached):Site of Impingement (Unit 2 or 3, CWS or DWS, Bay #, etc.):Date animal observed:Date animal collected:Time animal observed:Time ammal collected:Environmental conditions at time of observation (i.e., tidal stage, weather):Date and time of last inspection of intakes:Water temperature (CC) at site and time of observation:Number of pumps operating at time of observation:Average percent of power generating capacity achieved per unit at time of observation:Average percent of power generating capacity achieved per unit over the 48 hours previous toobservation:Sturgeon Information:SpeciesFork length (or total length)WeightCondition of specimen/description of animalFish Decomposed: NO SLIGHTLYFish tagged: YES / NO Please record all tag numbers.MODERATELY SEVERELYTag #Photograph attached: YES / NO(please label species, date, geographic site and vessel name on back of photograph)NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011 Appendix I, continued" "Draw wounds, abnormalities, tag locations on diagram and br* _ ... ~~~ ~~. ' ... ., -." b ' ' ...iefly describe below,...,". .LR *VA \'~V..7 ~12.., ...*......."' .{ :i ,: .: !,.A ,-. ...,.~.:.:4i.~~C,Description of fish condition:NMFS Draft Biological OpinionAugust 2011, .
Appendix IIIdentification Key for Sturgeon Found in Northeast U.S. WatersATLANTICMouth width " 'SHORTNOSEI' r",, &#xa2;Distinguishing Characteristics of Atlantic and Shortnose SturgeonCharacteristic Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus Shcrtnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrumMaximum length > 9 feet/ 274 cm I,, 4 feet/122 cmMouth Football shaped and small. Width inside lips < 55% of Wide.and oval in shape. Width inside lips > 62% ofbony interorbital width bony interorbital width*Pre-anal plates Paired plates posterior to the rectum & anterior to the 1-3pr6-anal plates almost always occurring as mediananal fin.
* structures (occurring singly)Plates along the Rhombic, bony plates found along the late'ral base of .. No plates along the base of anal finanal fin the anal fin (see diagram below)Habitat/Range Anadromous; spawn in freshwater but primarily lead a Freshwater amphidromous; found primarily in freshmarine existence water but does make some coastal migrations* From Vecsei and Peterson, 2004,NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Aug~ust 2011 APPENDIX IIIProcedure for obtaining fin clips from sturgeon for genetic analysisObtaining Sample1. Wash hands and use disposable gloves. Ensure that any knife, scalpel or scissors usedfor sampling has been thoroughly cleaned and wiped with alcohol to minimize therisk of contamination.2. For any sturgeon, after the specimen has been measured and photographed, take aone-cm square clip from the pelvic fin.3. Each fin clip should be placed into a vial of 95% non-denatured ethanol and the vialshould be labeled with the species name, date, name of project and the fork length andtotal length of the fish along with a note identifying the fish to the appropriateobserver report. All vials should be sealed with a lid and further secured with tapePlease use permanent marker and cover any markings with tape to minimize thechance of smearing or erasure.Storage of Sample1. If possible, place the vial on ice for the first 24 hours. If ice is not available, pleaserefrigerate the vial. Send as soon as possible as instructed below.Sending of Sample1. Vials should be placed into Ziploc or similar resealable plastic bags. Vials should bethen wrapped in bubble wrap or newspaper (to prevent breakage) and sent to:Julie CarterNOAA/NOS -Marine Forensics219 Fort Johnson RoadCharleston, SC 29412-9110Phone: 843-762-8547a. Prior to sending the sample, contact Russ Bohl at NMFS Northeast RegionalOffice (978-282-8493) to report that a sample is being sent and to discussproper shipping procedures.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 20.11:
, -. .-....1' '.'* -.Hr.., 'I.'C. CL2 i,.. -IJ...,C.. ................, .* .<', It .. ...;,' I / : , :NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2,011,
}}
}}

Revision as of 10:56, 4 April 2018

Letter from P. Kurkul, Nmfs, to D. Wrona, NRC, Draft Biological Opinion for License Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3
ML11249A012
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 08/26/2011
From: Kurkul P A
US Dept of Commerce, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
To: Wrona D J
License Renewal Projects Branch 2
References
TAC MD5411, TAC MD5412
Download: ML11249A012 (76)
v • d • e


Text

""I OF o,, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/ \ National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICENORTHEAST REGIONKf 55 Great Republic Drive'4"301 oGloucester, MA 01930-2276AUG 2 6 2011David J. Wrona, Branch ChiefProjects Branch 2Division of License RenewalOffice of Nuclear Reactor ProgramUS Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001RE: Draft Biological Opinion for License Renewal of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating UnitNos. 2 and 3Dear Mr. Wrona:Please find enclosed a copy of the draft Biological Opinion on the effects of the operation of theIndian Point Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 (Indian Point) pursuant to a renewedoperating license that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to issue toEntergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). I understand that Entergy requested a copy of adraft Opinion from you. In light of the schedule for consultation, please provide your commentsand a copy of Entergy's comments to me by September 6, 2011.While I am providing you a copy of the draft Opinion now in light of the consultation schedule, Iwould also welcome your comments on whether initiation of consultation on this matter wasappropriate at this particular time. When initiating consultation with NOAA's National MarineFisheries Service (NMFS), the Commission staff defined the proposed action as the operation ofIndian Point for the new 20-year license term under the same conditions that appear in theexisting license and the existing State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit.However, as most recently discussed in a letter to me from the New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the proposed action seems very uncertain givenNYSDEC has denied Entergy's request for Clean Water Act Section 401 Water QualityCertification based on its initial and amended application. I understand that the denial and thedraft SPDES permit are under adjudication. The potential modification of the proposed actiondue to the anticipated modification of the SPDES permit, including application of differenttechnologies to the cooling water system, as well as monitoring requirements tailored to them,renders the utility of issuing a final Opinion at this time highly questionable. This Opinion onlyanalyzes the operation of Indian Point from approximately 2013 to 2035 under the sameconditions that appear in the existing license and SPDES permit, and the analysis andconclusions cannot be interpreted to apply to a different time period or different set of operatingconditions. It would not be appropriate to use the Opinion as an indication of a "worst-casescenario," given the Opinion's analysis and deteriminations may need to be modified as the I Idefinition of the proposed action and its effects, the environmental baseline, and the status ofspecies protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) all may change.Given that you have initiated Section 7 consultation, it appears you have already determined thatthe Commission has discretionary involvement or control Over the& action that inures to thebenefit of ESA-listed species under NMFS jurisdiction. However, the Biological Assessrihentand the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement seem to suggest that theCommission cannot condition the operating license for the benefit of aquatic life in a way thataffects the cooling water system. Those documents point to Congress's delegation to the UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of authority to administer the Clean Water Act'sprocedural and substantive provisions, and EPA's subsequent delegation of SPDES authority tothe State of New York, as the basis for the Commission "deferring" to the NYSDEC regardingthe protection of aquatic life. While I take no position on whether that is appropriate forimplementation of the Clean Water Act, I note that the Endangered Species Act is a separatestatute from the Clean Water Act and has different goals, standards, requirements andprohibitions applicable to all Federal agencies. In light of this, I welcome your commentsexplaining the Commission's legal authority to approve and enforce conditions in the renewedoperating license to minimize, monitor, and report incidental take resulting from the operation ofthe facility in order to fulfill its Endangered Species Act obligations. In addition, I requestconfirmation from the Commission of the legal basis by which it retains discretionaryinvolvement or control over the action in order to reinitiate consultation if an Opinion is finalizedand any of the criteria for reinitiation are met at a later date (see 50 C.F.R. Sec. 402.16).To aid your consideration of these questions, the draft Opinion contains an Incidental TakeStatement with preliminary Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions tominimize, monitor, and report on the amount or extent of incidental take due to the operation ofthe facility under the proposed license renewal and existing SPDES permit. Given theoverlapping Federal and state jurisdiction over endangered species in the Hudson River, NMFSis interested in working closely with our sister agencies at the state level and with other Federalpartners to ensure the outcomes of the various processes are compatible and arrived at in anefficient manner. For this reason, too, I ask you to consider the appropriateness of havinginitiated consultation at this time. The Section 7 regulations at 50 C.F.R. Sec. 402.14(l)(2) statethat "if during any stage of consultation a Federal agency determines its proposed action is notlikely to occur, the consultation may be terminated by written notice to the Service." At anappropriate time, such as when the terms of the proposed extended operation of Indian Point aremore certain, consultation may be initiated anew.I appreciate your interest in the conservation of endangered species and look forward to yourresponse as well as continuing to work with you on this matter.Sincerely,egPaia A.iKirato.lf:.5egional Administrator CC: Crocker, F/NER3Williams, GCNEFile Code: Sec 7 NRC -Indian Point Relicensing .: , , , .,.. :' "'..1'.3. '- .,,; ,. * *.3.~. -3. ......................................i...... ,: i.;-.::

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 7 CONSULTATIONDRAFTBIOLOGICAL OPINIONAgency: Nuclear Regulatory CommissionActivity: Relicensing -Indian Point Nuclear Generating StationF/NER/2009/00619Conducted by: NOAA's National Marine Fisheries ServiceNortheast Regional OfficeDate Issued: DRAFTApproved by: DRAFTINTRODUCTIONThis constitutes NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) biological opinion(Opinion) issued in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, asamended, on the effects of the continued operation of the Indian Point Nuclear GeneratingStation (Indian Point) pursuant to a renewed operating license proposed to be issued by theNuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 asamended (68 Stat. 919) and Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1242).This Opinion is based on information provided in a Biological Assessment dated December2010, the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 2 and 3 dated December 2010,permits issued by the State of New York, information submitted to NMFS by Entergy and othersources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation will be kept on fileat the NMFS Northeast Regional Office, Gloucester, Massachusetts.BACKGROUND AND CONSULTATION HISTORYIndian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3) are located on approximately239 acres (97 hectares (ha)) of land in the Village of Buchanan in upper Westchester County,New York (project location is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2). The facility is on the eastern bankof the Hudson River at river mile (RM) 43 (river kilometer (RKM) 69) about 2.5 miles (mi) (4.0kilometers (km)) southwest of Peekskill, the closest city, and about 24 mi (39 km) north of NewYork City. Both IP2 and IP3 use Westinghouse pressurized-water reactors and nuclear steamsupply systems (NSSSs). Primary and secondary plant cooling is provided by a once-throughcooling water intake system that supplies cooling water from the Hudson River. Indian PointNuclear Generating Station Unit No. 1 (IP 1, now permanently shut down) shares the site withIP2 and IP3. IPI is located between IP2 and IP3. In 1963, IP1 began operations. IP1 was shutNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011 down on October 31, 19.74, and is inia safe'sti6rge c6ndiltion(SAFSTOR) awaiiing; finaldecommissioning. Construction-began on IP2 in 1966 and on.IP3 in 1969. ' -.-IIndian Point Unit 2 wvas initially licensed by the Atomic Energy. Commission (AEC), the.predecessor to the NRC,' on September 28, 1973. The AEC 'issubd a 40-year license for Unit ,2that' will expire on Septembnbr '29, '20613. Unit 2 was originally'licensed to the' Consolidated.,Edison Company, whic'h ýoid, thai- facility to Entergy in September 2001. Idian-Point Unit 3 wasinitially licensed on De6e&6ibeir 12, 1976,"for a 40-year period that will expire in December,2015.,While the Consolidated Edison Company of New. York originally owned and, operated Unit :3, it.,was later conveyed to the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY -the predecessor* ~. :";i ' IV ." ".) " ' I. .!* " ,d i * *to the New York Power' Authoriy [NWPA]). PASNY//NYPA' operated Unit,3 until November,2000 when it was soia to Einterg.. , ,Endanger'd Species 4tct Canstltation ., .:, .',The En.dangered Spie. A. wsenacte in' 1973.H-'-6Iwevcr; there-Was no requiremeht in the..1973' Act for the Sectetory to iawritten'statemefit setting forth hisbidlogical opinion.on-,the effect's of the action ad Whther the ac'ion will j eopa rdize the continued existence of' listedspecies and/0r destroy'or adverselyi modify critical habitat.: It was not until Congress amendedthe Act in1 978 that the Secretarywas required to produce a-Biologi6calOpiiion. The 1973 Act,including as 'aended in 1978, prohibifted the "take" df eidangefed species.: In: 1982, Congress,.amended the Act to trovide for an "Incidental Take Statement"in aBiological Opinion that..- .specifies the letv elI of incidentaf" identifies .mea'sues to minimize, the level ,of incidental'"take," and exempts any incidental "take" that occurs iri'compliance wifth fthose measures. Todate, NMFIS has'nd Iexemerpted any incidental take at.IP2'and-1P3 froln the Section 9 prohibitionsagainst take ." ' -'r, -.-As explained below, beginning in 1977, EPA held a series of hearings (Adjudicatory HearingDocket No. C/II-W]P-77-01) regarding the once through ýootling systems at Indian Point,Roseton, Danskammer and Bowline Point, all power facilities located along the Hudson-River.During the course of these hearings, Dr. Mike Dadsweil testified on the effects of the Indian -.Point facility on shortnose sturgeon. In a filing dated. May 14, 1979, NOAA submitted this.testimony to the US EPA as constituting NMFS "Biological Opinion on the impacts, of-the..;utilities' onc6 through cooling system on'the shortnose sturgeon." The filing notes that~thisopinion is required by section 7of the ESA'of 1973 'as amended.; .- ...In this testimony, Dr. Dadswell -provides.information on the life history of shortnose'ý sturgeon -andsummarizes.what was known at the tirie about the pioip:ulation in the Hudson'Rivel<- Dr"'.:,Dadswell indicates that at the time it was estimated that there were approximately 6;000 -adultand sub-adult shortnose sturgeon in; thie Hudson River population (Dadswell 1979) and that thepopulation had been stable at this number between the 1930s and 1970s.: Dr. Dadswelldetermined that there is; no known entrainment of sh6rtnose sturgeoh at these facilities and little,if any, could be anticipated. Ba'sed on avaiable iforatidiregardig impingement at IP2 and.-IP3, Dadswell estimated a worst case scenario of 35 shortnose'sturgeon impingements per'year5including 21 mortalities (assuming a .60% impingement morality). Dadswell estimated that thisresultedin a loss of 0.3.-0.4% of the shortn6se sturgeqn population in the Hudson each year; and........ .." " : " " " .. .p ' " .*I ..i .:-,'*! ; , ' , . " : ..NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2O'll' that this additional source ofmortality will not "appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survivaland recovery of the shortnose.sturgeon.",- In conclusion Dadswell stated that the once throughcooling systems being considered in the case were "not likely to jeopardize the continuedexistence~of thie. Rhortnose sturgeon, because, even assuming 100% mortality of impinged fish, itscontribution to the natural iannual mortality is negligible.'" Dr. Dadswell did also note that asthere is .no positive benefit to impingement, any reductions in the level pf impingement would, aidin the conservation of the species.;,No additional ESA consultation has o6curred, between NRCand NMFS on the operation' of.IP2 and IP3 and the effects on shortnon ,turgeon' incidental takeassociated: with IP2 or iP3 hasrneoer been exempted ,.~~~~~~~f .; I -./ r , ." '" ... ... ..In advance of the current relicensing proceedings, NRC, begn coordination with NMVFS in 2007.In a letter dated August 16, 2007 NRC requested information fr6iNMFS on Feder'ally listed .endangered or threatened species, as well as on proposed or candidate'species,-and on anydesignated critical habitats that may occur in the vicinity of IP2 and, IP3. In, its response, datedOctober 4, 2007ý.NMFS expressed' cor9ce', thatthe cont"ued 0operation ofIl2 andiP3 could'have- an impact on the shortnose strgeon, (Acipenser bre.virostrm). I. aletter dated December22, 2008, .NRC requestediformal eonsultation with NMFS to consider dfeds of the proposedrelicensing on shortriose- sturgeon.. With this letter NRC transmitted aBioilogical Assessment(BA). Ii'a letter.dated February,24, 2009 NMFS requested additional informati1i on effe.cts of.the proposed relicensing; on shortnoseist..rgeon.. In a letter-dated December 10, 61'0, NRCprovided the 'infornhation that wasayailable and transmitted a revised BA'. In th 6rfiginal BA,NRC staff relied on data; originally supplied by the applicant, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.(Entergy)- NRC sought' and Entergy~later. submitted revised impingement data, which was.incorp6rated intouthe final BA. Mathematical errors in the, original data submited to the NRCresulted in overestimates of the impingement of shortnose sturgeon that the NRC staff presefitedin the previous BA." I , r , : .S.! , , * ...; *,*, ......On June. 16; NMFS received! information regarding Entergy's triaxial thermal plume studyand staff.obtained a: copy~of the studyaiX.d supporting documentation from NYDEC's webpage onthat date: Additional information,regardIng the intakes was provided by Entergy via conferencecall on. June 20, June 22-, :and June 29,.201. 1:.. Supplemental information responding to specificquestions 'raised by. NMFS, regarding the thermal, plume was submitted by Entergy via e-mail onJuly 8;.July 25, and:August:5, 2011.. NRC provided NMFS with a supplement to the December2010 BA considering the new thermal plume information, on July 27, 2011 .:,DESCRI TION OF-THE PROPOSEP ACTION .,The proposeed Federal action is tle operation of Indiari Point Units 2 diid 3 puirsuant to NRC'sproposo renewed po.w,eireactor 9perating licenses to Eniterg or 1P2 and 1P3. The current 40-year licenses expire in.2013 .(IP2): and 2015 (IP3).' With out the facilitieS wold 'close at.... -..,p ...-_ _ .'. ?[ ' " ., ; , , ; .,.. .,. ,, , -I , I ,the end of the current operatiag period. The proposed action would authorize the extended.operation of W2, from SepteMber 2013 through Setember 2033 an'd 1IP3 froi December 2015:thxough December 203:5.,h! tl'ls Oplnioni, NMFS considers th'e potentil impacts of the.contjnued operation,of the facility duing, the extended operationpend. .. p e-Details on the p1er~tion 9fpthe jfacilities over the extended operating period, as proposed byEntergy in the license application and a§ described by NRC in the FEIS and BA, are describedNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augu~st.,2,3ll, below. Both units withdraw.water from and discharge ,water to, the Hudson River. ,As describedby NRC in the.Final SEIS .(NRC 201.0), in.1972, Congress, assigned authority to' administer theClean Water Act'to the US;Environmental Protection.Agency (EPA). T..The .CWAfurtlher,allowed EPA to delegate portions. of its CWA authority to states.:, Ofi:.October. 28,:1975, -EPAauthorized the State of New York to issue: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination :System(NPDES) permits.. -Newr York's NPDES, or State Pollutant Discharge. Elimination System:'(SPDES), program is.,administered by the NY Department of EnVirorunental Conservation.-(NYDEC).- NYDECjssuesr, and- enforces- SPDES permits for P2,and .P3...,,:Section 3-16(b) :of, the. Cpg"aW-iater, Act0f 1977 (CWA,)requiresthat. the location, design;.::,,construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best :technology available(BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts (33 USC 1326). EPA regulatesimpingement andentrainnient !underSecwtion.31.6(b) o~f theCWA.-through, the NPDES permit:process. AdministrationofSection. 3l16(b) has, also: been,.delegatedto NYDEC,.and that.provision: is implemented, throughthe.SPDES:, program: :.:,- , '. '.Neither IP2 or !P3 can operate.without cooling water, and NRC is responsible:,for.authorizing theoperation of nuclear facilities, as well as approving any.extension.of an, initial operating license.through the license renewal process. Intake, and discharge of v/ater: through the cooling water.system would not occur but for the operation ofthe faciJity:pursuant to a rene~wed.Jicense;.therefore, the effects of the cooling water system on shortnose sturgeon are a direct effect of the.proposed action. NRC staff state that the authority to regulate cooling water intakes anddischarges under the'-Clean Water Act lies with EPA,,or in this case,,NYDEC; -as the state has -been delegated,NPDES authority by EPA.. Pursuant to NRC'.s, regulations,: operating licenses, are,:conditioned. upon .compliance with allt applicable law,.including but.not limited, to Clean WaterAct Section 401. Certifications and NPDES/SPDES effects of proposed Federal: action.-- the continued operation of IP2.-and1P3 ,as proposed-to be approved byNRC, which necessarily involves the removal. and dischargeof'water from the Hudson River--.are shaped not only by the terms of the renewed operating l:icense but also by. the NY-DEC,401 :Water Quality Certification and any conditions it may contain that would be incorporated into itsSPDES permits. This Opinion will consider the effects .of'theoperation of TP2:and IP3 pursuant:to the extended Operating-License to be issued by theýNRG and the SPDES permits issued byNY-DEC, that are already in effect. NRC requested :consultationon the'operationofthe facilities'.;under the existing NRC license-terms and. the..existingSPDES permits, eyen.though anew, .SPDES permit: might be issuedin the future.; A complete. history ofNY.DEC.permits is.includedin NRC's FSEIS at Section, 2.2.53 (Regulatory Framework~and Monitoring Programs) and issummarized below.. "' ' " ' ' .' ' .' : .'.. ..~~ ~ ~~.... ............ .A ;/ " :; ". ..." .NPDES/SPDES Permits .. -. .., ', "Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA) requires that the location, design,construction,,and capacity of.cooling water intakeistructures reflect the best technology available(BTA) for. minimizing adverse ,environnmental'inipacts, (3 3 USC !326). In July 2004, the U.S.:.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the. Phase. IIFRule implementing Section316(b) of the CWA-for Existing Facilities (69 FR 41576), .which appliedto large.power...producers that withdraw large amounts of surface water for: cooling (5_0 MGD or'more) (1 89,000 ?NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augus!t 2l0.11..31 m3/day or inore). The rule became effective'on September 7; 2004 and included numericperformance standards for reductions in impingement mortality and entiainment that'woulddemonstrate that the cooling, Water intake system constitutes BTA for minimizing, impingementand entrainmont.impacts:..Existing facilities subject to the rule were required to demonstratecompliance with the rul'e's performance standards during the renewal process for their NationalPollutant:'Discharge:Elimination- System (NPDES) permitfthrough 'development of a.Comprehensive Demonstration Study'(CDS). As a result of a V'ederal zcoui'tdecision,: EPAofficially suspended the Phase' .I -rule On July'9; 2007 (72 FR 3,7107,);pevrding further rulemaking.EPA instructed permitting authorities to utilize best professional judgment in establishing permitrequirements'on a case by-ýcas basis for.codling. water intake! str*titega .Pase P Ha facilities untilithas'resolved the issues raised by the courts ruling. ' -!,.I.)(. i,. ,' (".,':The licenses issued by the, 2' and,3 3.initiallyallowed :fOr the operation of those'facilities with once-through cooling.sysýews.:i However,cihedlicenses'r.e~quired the future.installation of closed-cycle cooling systems;atoth facilities,-by, certain dates;beczause of thepotential for long term environmental impact from the once-through cooling systems on aquaticlife: in the:Hudson River,'particularly;striped.bass. A closed cycle cooling system is expected'to,withdraw approximatelyj90-95%,less:Water:than a'once through cooling system. The license for'Unit 2 was amended by the7NRCin 1975; and the license for Unit 3 was amended by the'NRC in1976, to.include ,requirements. for thecinstki, ationiahd operation ,f wet closed-cycle 6oolingg"'systems At the fa ilities,,. , ,- i.' , -,. , -.* ..'NRC('eventually concluded that-the operating licenses for the facilities should be amended, toauthorize construction of natural.draft- cooling towers at eachti Unit. -Prior to'the' iespective'"deadlines for installation: of close&cyclc cooling at the IndiaA-.;Point facilities, hovevei-, the'NRC's authority to ijequirie the retrofit due to Water quality impacts under federal nuclear licenseswas superseded by comprehensive' amendimients to -the federal Water Pollution Prevention' andControl: Act (the Clean Water-Act' [CWA]f and creation of the National Pollutant-DischargeElimination System:(NPDES) prograrm'. ."-. '. ".In :1 97'5ýthe U.S ,,Enironmental.Protection.Agency (EPA) issued separate NPDES 'permits: forUnits-2 and 3, pursuant .to provisions ofthe:CWA, chiefly § 316 (33 U.S.C. § 1326), thatrequired'both facilities todiscontinue discharging heated effluent from the main-condensers.-TheNPDES permits provided' that "heat may be discharged in blowdown from a re-circulated coolingwater system? :The intent of these conditions was t'o require the facilities to install' closed-cycle'ýcooling systebms in order. to'reduce the;tliermal and other 7adverse enIvironmental impaets from the'operation of Indian Point's CWISs upon aquatic organisms in the Hudson River. :In 41977, thedfacilities' owners, Consolidated Edison Company of New York and PASNY/NYPA, requestedadministrative hearings with the USEPA to overturn these conditions. ' ,' "' 'In October 1.975; NYDEC'redeived approgal, from- the' USEPA to administer arid conduct a Statepermit the' of the! federal NPDES,'program under CWA § 1402.Since then, the Departmnent; has adii'iinistered that program undet'the.Slate Pollut't DischargeElimination System'"(SP'DES) pirmit'prog1am. As a r'esult; NYDEC has the authority, under the fCWA arid.! state; law, 1t'. issue&SPDES perhiiits the withdrawal of cooling watetr for operations,NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augus6 at the Indian Point facilitiesand-for the resultingcdischarwe of waste heat and other'pollutants intothe Hudson River; ,The terms of the SPDES permit, however, become part of the:Federal-'actiongiven that the operating license shall be subject to the conditions imposed under the:Clean WaterF,.. 2 , ,'.As previously noted; in 1977- the, then-owners of the Indian Point nuclear, facilities sought an.adjudicatory proceeding.,to:.overturn the USEPA-issued NPDES permit-determinations that.limited the scope of the facilities' cooling water intake operations.-.The USEPA's adjudicatoryprocess lasted for several years before culminating in a multi-party settlement known as theHudson River Settlemnent!iArement,' (HRSA). ' .h.RSA.was-Init al'y a ten-ear agreement.whereby-the owners Of cetaihh once'through co0led electric, generating plants -on the Hudson.,,,River;,including IndiaXT.Point,-would collect-biological data and complete analytical assessmentsto determine the scope:lf adverse)e'%ircninerital.,impact, zaused by those facilities. According tothe NYDEC,,the intent of the HRSAýýN"a.s'that-ba~ed'.upona-the data andlanalyses provided by thefacilities,' the Departrn'nti could determine, and:paries: cooild, agree upon, the best technology,.,..available (BTA) to minimize adverse environmentalimpact on aquatic organisms in, the HudsonRiver from these facilities in accordance with 6 NYCRR § 704.5*-..,The Settlement obligated the:..utilities to undertake a series of operational steps to reduce fish kills, including partial outagesduring the key spawning months. In addition, the utilities, agree'J to fu-nd and operate a:stripedbass hatchery, conduct biological monitoring;, and, set.up $4 2 in-lion endowment: for, a new?foundation-for independent: resrarchon mitigati ng fish: inpacts by~power, plants. -,The agreement.became effective upon Public Service Commissionapproval on May 8, 198 h,.. The terms of the1980 HRSA-were extended. through a'series of four-separate stipulations of settlement andjudicial consent.orders that were entered in Albany,,Cgunty: Supemne Court [Index. No. ,01, l91ST325 1]. The last of~these stipulationsof settlement and judicial consent orders, executed, by theparties in 1997, expired on February L, 1998. ..-. ..-", : ." : ' .' ":. :: 2 .. ' : ."F ,.F. , , .. .: .i .In 1982, NYDEC issued a SPDES permit for Indian,P.oint:Units. 2 and, 3, and other HudsonRiver.electric generating facilities, as well as a § 401 WQC~forthe facilities. :The 1982 SPDES permitfor Units 2 and 3 contained special conditions for reducing some of the environmental impact :.from the facilities' cooling water intakes but, based! upon provisions of the HRSA; the permit did.:not require the installation of any technology for minimizing the number of organisms entrainedby the facilities each year. Similarly, based upon provisions of the HRSA, the 1982 .§ 401,WQC.did not make an independent determination that the facilities complied with certainfapplicable,.State water. quality standards at that time, including-6,NYCRR Part 704 -Criteria GoverningThermaltDischarges. _ : --. ...In accordance' with.the provisions of the HRSA, the Department renewed the SPDES permit forthe Indian Point -facilities in 1987-for another 5-year period. -As with the 1982 SPDES. permit, the1987 SPDES permit for Units 2 and 3 contained certain measures- from -the HRSA that were1 The signatory parties to the HRSA. were USEPA, the pepartment, the New York State Attorney General, theHudson River Fishermen s Asso-iain, Scenic Hudson, the Nat--ral Resources Defense Council, Central HudsonGas & Electric Co., Cornsohidated Edison Co., Orange & Rockland 'Utilifies, Ngiag'ra MohawkPower Corp., and' ..PASNY. Entergywas not-a 1arty to theHRSA becaiise it did noz'o'wn'tlh Indian Point faei!iitiý at'any time duringthe period covered by, theHRSA. .' J' , .- ..:.'. .i-r .'.F .NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augu.,-.20-l-,... ----,'. .. , ..

intended.to ;mitigate,. but not minimize, theiadverse environmental impact, caused by .the.operatiorofthe facilities' cooling, water. intakes. The 1987 SPDES. permit expired on. October 1,1992. Priorvtohthe expiration-date, however,, the owners of the 'facilities at that time,Consolidated Edison and NYPA, both submitted timely SPDES permit renewal applications tothe Department and, by operation of the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA), the 1987SPDES permit for Units-, 2 and-.3 is-still in effect today..,,Entergy, purchased Units; 2, and 3 in 2001and 2000, respectively, and.the 1,987!SAPA-extended SPDES permit-for.the facilities wassubsequently transferred to Entergy: ,- .In November 2003, the Dekartment issuedladraft SPDES permiti for .-V,,its2 land 3-that required'Entergy,- among other things, to retrofit.the Indian Pointtfacilities, withclosed-cycle cooling or anequivalent: technology, in order to minimize the adverse.eivirdnmental,'impact caused by the.-,..CWISs in-accordance with 6,NYCRR,§,704.5 and: CW'A-§- 346(b)-,:,T The; draft permit. contains.conditions which address three aspectS!of ope'ationis at.Indian'Pcinf: conventigonal wastewate dolltatt;ischarges; thermhal'dischargei and: cooling waterintake. Limits on the,;::.conventional industrial discharges: are no.lproposedto be.'ohanged signifircantlyfrom the previouspermitThe contain new. conditions, addressing the thermal :-,';discharge.and additional jiew conditions to implement the measures NYDEC has determined to'-be the.best technology available. (BTA)' for ýhinimizing impacts to aquatic. resourcesfrom.the.cooling water intake,-including'the installation:of.a closed cycle cooling system at IP2 and tP3...With respect 'to thermal discharges, the draft' SPDES permit would require Entergy to! conduct atri-axil .(three-diinensional) thetmalstudy to document whether the therrtal, discharges fromUnits 2 and 3-:comply. with istate water.quality. criteria. The draft permit-states that iftIP2 afid IP3do not meet state standards, Entergy may, apply for a modification. of those criteria lin an effort todemons'rate to NYDEC that 'such criteri. *are unnecessarily restrictive and that the modification would not inhibit the existence and propagation of asbAlanced indigenouspopulation of shellfish, fish and wildlife in the River, which is an applicable Clean Water Actwater quality-related Standard.:;Thd diaft permit also states that Entergy may propose, within ayear of the" permit's becoming effecti've~i an alternative technology or technologies that canminimize, adverse environmental impacts.tso a, level equivalent to that achieved by a closed-cyclecooling 'system at the.Stations.: In orderjto implement closed-cycle cooling, the draft permitwould require Entergy to submit apre-deisign engineering report within one year of the permit'seffetfie date. Withinonb year after the; submissionrof the report, Entergy must submit completedesign pl'ans that address all 1construction issues for cbnversion to closed-cycle cooling. Inadditiori;:the'draft permit requires Entergy toobtain approvals for the system's construction from.other government agencies, including modification of the Stations' operating licenses from the -NRC. While steps are being taken to implement BTA, Entergy would be required to schedulegeheration) outages of no fewer that 42 Unit-days during the peak- entrainment:season wmong other mieasures.. In 2004, Entergy requested an' adjuidicatory heariihg with NYDEC'on the draft ýSPDES' permit';That SPDES permit adjudicatory process is presently-ongoing,-andits outcome is uncertain at this time. There is significant uncertaintity associated with theconditiAons ofany ne'SPDES pjermit. In the'2003di'aft, NY-DEC 'dete'rnmined that cooling towerswere~the BTA- to, miminm ade..re :enyiro ena, effect ,a 20 ' filing .with NYDEC " 'Entergy proposed to.oise, a 5yst1em of cycjindrical wedgewire. screens, which Entergy,states would,.reduce impingement and entrainment mortality to an extent comparable to. the reductions in, .-NMFS Draft Biological. Opinion -August';20;Ql-1-'! ..-. ..5 C, -i impingement and entrainment.loss expected, to result from operation with cooling ;towers:. As no*determination has been maderegarding a revised draft SPDES permit or a final permit, it~isunknown what new technology, if any, will be required,to-m'odify the operation of th6 facility'scooling water intakes. The '1987 SPDES permit iis still in effect. and will remain .in effect until anew permit is issued and becomes 'effective. No schedule is3 available for. the issuance of arevised draft or new final SPDES permit and the content of any SPDES permit'will -be decided asa result of the adjudication-process. Therefore,: in this consultation, aNMFS :has considered. effectsof the operation of the;Lndian, Poinit facility over the 20-year'extended operating'period with; the1987 SPDES permit in effect. This scenario is also the one considered by NRC in the 'BA ....provided to NMFS in which NRC considered effects of the operation of the facility during theextended.operatiilgpeiiod,,oishortlno's sturgeon.' If a new SPDES permit is issued, NRC andNMFS would have to-determ-ine'if reini-iiatiun of this :consultation; is necessary to consider anyeffects.of the operation 'of facility~c- shortnose sthrgeon that were not considered in thisOpinion. '401:Water:Quality Ceitficate .On April 6, 2009, NYDEC received a Joint Application for a federal Clean Water Act-(CWA) §401 Water Quality Certificate (WQC) on behalf of Entergy Indian Point Unit 2, LLC, EntergyIndian Point Unit 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear N.ortheast(Coll ..fiveiy.Etergy)..The JointApplication for § 401 WQC was submitted to NYDEC a:s part of Entergy's federal license.renewal. Pursuant to the CWA; a~state must issue:-a 'certification verifyinglthat an activity which'*results in a discharge into navigable waters, such as operatiomn of the hndian PMifitfacilities, meetsstate water quality' standards before a federal license'orl,.rm'it: for such activity, cai.,be issued.'Entergy has requested: NYDEC. to issue a § 40 1 WQC. to run conxurrently with; any renewednuclearlicenses for. the hidian Point facilities., '. .'- , .. .In a decision dated April 2, 2010, NYDEC determined:that the facilities, whether operated asthey are currently or; operated with the addition of a cylindrical wedge-wire screen system :,(NYDEC notes that this proposal was made by Entergy in a February. 12, 2010; submissi6n), "do,not and will not comply with existing New York State water quality-standards." .Accordingly,pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 521 (Uniform Procedures), NYDEC denied Entergy's request for a§401 WQC .(NYDEC 2010). The reasons for~denial, as, stated by NYDEC were :related to ,"impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms,, the discharge of heated effluent, and failure.to implement what NYDEC had determined to be the Best Technology Available (closed cyclecooling towers), to minimize adverse environmental irnipacts! Entergy has appealed thel "denial.The matter is currently under:'adjudication; in'the st~te administrative- system, and the,.results are uncertain. If New York State.ultimately issues a WQC, it may contain conditions thatalter the operation of the facility and its, &ooling water system. If.this.occurs, NMFS and NRC .would need to review the modifications to 'operations to determine if consultation would need tobe reinitiated.Description: of Cooling Water System: .. ,', !"¢ , ... : : :.: ... ,IP2 and IP3 have once-through condensercooling systems 'thai withdraw water from anddischarge water to the Hudson River. The maximum design flow rate for each cooling system isNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 20141,..'

approximately 1;870 cubic feet per second (cfs);,840,000 gallons per minute (gpm), or 53.0 cubicmeters per secoud (m3,s). Two shoreline, intake structures, one foreach .unit; are located alongthe Hudson River on ithemnorthwestern edge of-the site and provide cooling.water to the site. Eachstructure Wonsists oC seyveh bays-) six for, circulating water and one for service water. The IP2intake structure :has ;seven independent bays,'while the IP3 intake structure has seven bays thatare served by a commonplenum.. In. each structure, six of the. seven bays.contain coolingwaterpumps, 'and the seventh :hay contains service/auxiliary water, pumpsx, Befrre.it is:pumped to thecondensers, riverwater,.pases~thr-ough traveling screens in-the intake structure bays to removedebris and fish. .,,.The six IP2circulatinhg water intake'pumps are dual-speed,punps.i.When6ope'ated at high speed(254 revolutions per minute (rpm)), each pump provides i34 2, cfsJ (140,06 Igpm; 8.83. m3/s).and adynamic head of 21.. ft (6.4 m): ,At lowspod,(187, rpm),,eachpimnP provides, 38 cfs (84,000 gpm;5.30 m3/s) and a dynamic head of 15 ft (4.6 m). The six IP3 circulating water intake pumps, arevariable-speed pumps. When operated at high speed (360 rpm), each pump provides 312 cfs(140,000 gpm; 8.83 m3/s); at low speed, it provides a dynamic head of 29'.4,(8.8in) and, 143; Cfs',(64,000,gpm; ,4.05 m 3/s). .i, .-,, ' .I!-. ,' " -'In accordance with the-October t997, Consent Order (issued pursuant to the Hudson River,Settlement.Agreemelit), the'applicant adjuSts.the'speed- of'the intake pumps to mitigate 4mpacts,to the Hudson River.. Each !oolant-pump bay is about 15; ft (4.6 im) wide, at the entrance, and thebottom is, located,27.ft 08.2,m) below, mearmsealevel. Before enteringlihe intake, structure bays,waterflows under, a, floating:debris skimmermwall, or ice curtain,'into the:screen, wells. -.This :initial 'screen ,keeps floating, debris and ice from entering ,thebay., ;At the, entranceto. each bay,water also passes through a subsurface bar screen (consisting of metal bars with: 3 inch-clearspacing) to prevent additional large debris from becoming entrained in the cooling system. Atfull speed,; the approach~velocity'in front Of the, screensis 1 foot per gecond-(fps); at reducedspeed, the'approach velocity.is 0.6 fps!(Entergy 2007a).,-As this area* is behind a bulkhead it isoutside ifheinfluence of river, currents. Next, -smaller debris and fish are- screened out usingmodifiedRistroph traveling screens. ., , .The modified-, Ristroph traveling screens. eonsist of a-series of panels that rotate continuously. Thetraveling screens employed by'IP2 are modified vertical Ristroph-ttype traveling screens:installed in 41990- arid 1991l at,,P3 and IP,2,, respectively., The screens were designed in concertwith the Hudson. River Fishermen's Assoqiationh with screen basket lip troughs to retain water-and minriniize vortex stress (CHGEC 1999).. iAs each screen .panel.rotates out of theintake bay,impinged fish are' retained 4n water-filled'baskets at the. bottom of edch panel and are carried: overthe he~dshaf,;'where they, are- washed out onto a mesla'using ilw-pressure spraysfoim the rear.side of the machine. The 0(2.5-by-0.5-inch& (in.) (0.635-,by-1 .27 centimeters (cm)) mesh ,is smoothto minimize fish abrasion by the mesh. Two high-pressure sprays remove debris from rthe 'frontside of the machine after fish removal. From the mesh, fish return to the river via a 12-in. (30-cm) diameter pipe. For IP2, the pipe extends 200 ft (61.0 m)'into'the river north of the, IP2 intakestructure and discharges at a depth of 35 ft (11 Im). The sluice system is a 12-in.-diameter (30.5-cm-diameter) pipe that dischargesfish-into.the riverat a-depth of 35 ft (10.7 m), 200 ft (61 m)NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -AuguStk201l1,X.-,i

,. .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .-. 7._ .. ;. .-. , ...., .: .. .. ".. .... ., " .". -_ -- b , ý I.; " .. i'. *fro shre(CHEC199).The IPA, fish return systerr dischre toterver..by. te northwest;corner of the discharge cana1.; ,'Studies indicated that, assuming the screens continued "to operate'as they had during laboratoryand field testing, the screens were "the screening device most likely to impose the leastmortalities in the rescue of entrapped fish by mechanical means'.' (Fletcher- 1990),. Thle samestudy concluded that refineineilts, to- the screens would be unlikely-to greatly reduce fish-kills. Nomonitoring i's currenitly dongding-at IF2 or, IP3 for impingement or entrainment. or to, ensurelthatthe screens are operating per design standards. Additionally, there is no monitoring: ongoing toquantify any actual incidental take of shortnose sturgeon or their prey. The proposed actionunder consultation, as currently defined by NRC, does not provide for 'any moiinitoring of direct. orindirect effects to shortno'se~strge.on. " a' ...;°. ., , ... " * ;'.. " i, i";! : 20..,": ....'J :" .- b~i,.. ......".*..... ..." .. 1 ,"After moving through the' condensdro, cooling ;Viater i& 'discharged to the discharge canal via'a.total of six- 964in, (240;cm)-diamreer :pipes. The,'ciiigcwater enters below. the surface of.the 40-ft (12-m) wideicanalz The canal discharges to the Hudsori River' thrtough! arn.juf'fall structurelocated south of IP3 at about 4.5 feetper second meters. per second (mrps)) at full.flow.As the discharged water enters :the river, it passes through '12 dischaxrge ports (4-ft by 1-2-ft each(1-m by 3.7-m)) across a length of 252 ft (76.8 m) about 12ft (3.7 .in) below the surface of theriver.- The increased discharge -velocity, about .10 fps,(3.0 mps), is designed :to enhance mixing to%minimizethermal impact..~ .. ...... , 'v , .,The discharged water is at an elevated temperature,'andstherefore, some wateris,lost because of -evaporation.- ,Based on conservative.: estimates, NRC estimates thatthis induced evaporationresulting from the elevated discharge, temperature would be less than 60 cfs (27,000 gpm or :1.7m3/s). This loss is about 0.5 percent of the annua"I averagl downstream flow of the Hudson *River, which is more than 9000 cfs (4 million gpm or 255 m3/s). -The.average cooling watertransient time ranges from 5.6 minutes for the IP3 cooling wat:er system to 9.7iminutes for the.IP2 system. Auxiliary water systems for service water are also provided from the Hudson Rivervia the dedicated bays in the IP2 and IP3 intake structures. The primary role. of service water is ..to cool components (e.g., pumps) that generate heat' during operation. Secondary functions of theservice water include the following: ..r " '.* protect equipment from potential contamination from river water by;'providing cooling to'intermediate freshwater systems;,:' , ..'. ., "provide water for washing the modified Ristroph traveling screens; and,* provideseal water for the main-circulating, water pumps.The action area is defined in 50 CFR 402.02 as "all areas to be affected d irectly or. indirectly by.the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action." IP2 and IP3 arelocated' on a. 239-acre.(97-heetare) site on the eastern bank of'thelHudsonRiver in the village of.Buchanan, Westchester County, New York, about 24 miles (mi) (39 kilometers [km) north ofNew York City, New York (Figures la.,Fnd 2)..The~direct .and indirect-ef_,iects: of the Indian PointNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 201-1,.'

facility are the intake of water from the Hudson River and the discharge. of heated.effluent backinto the Hudson River. Therefore, the action area for this consultation includes the intake areasof IP2 and IP3 and the region where the thermal plume extends into the Hudson River from IP2and IP3 as described in the., Effects of the Action section below.:' ., " ; l .0 ;. b ' ' '. .:, '" " ,.,' :' ; :: ,. " .I .LISTEDMSPECIES IN THEACTION AREA.: ..The only.. endangered or threatened species under NMFS'.jurisdjctio.n.in. gýe-Action Area is theendangered shortnose.sturgeon.(Acipenser brevirostrum).. ,No !criticalt has ..been designatedfor shortnose sturgeon.m ..ial:, -.., ...... ....)Shortnose sturgeon-life ,history .,,.,. , .Shortnose sturgeon are benthic fish that mainly occupy the deepehannel sectifons of large rivers.They feed on a variety of benthic and epibenthic invertebrates including mollusks, crustaceans(amphipods, .chironomids,,sopods);-and worns, (Vladykov.. ad jGreeley 1963;,! !.,1Dadswel.1. 1979 in NMFS 1t998)j! Shortnos turgeM! have-similar lengthbsat, maturity (45-55 cmfork length) throughoutitheiri xange;,but, because-.turgeon inisouthernv.,ris grow-faster than-those in northern riyers, southern sturgeon mature at younger. ages (Dadswell et al., 1984).Shortnos~esturgeon are-long-lived-(30-40.years) and, particularly in the northern-extent of their Irange, mature atlate: ages.:,r, the north, malesr'each maturity at 5 to 10 years, while femalesmature between 7 -and 1 3 fyears. -* Based ýonini-ited data, females spawn every three to -five years,while males spawn approximately every two years. The spawning period.,is estimated to last..from a few days to several weeks. Spawning begins from late winter/early spring (southernrivers):to mid. to'late spring (northern rivers)],when the freshwater, temperatures increase: to 8-90C. Several published.reports have presented the problems,facing, long-lived species. that delaysexualhmaturity (Crouse et. al. 1987;. Crowder et al., 1994;. CroQse; 1,999). In general, these reportsconcluded that animals fthat delay: sexual maturityand reproduction must have high annualsurvivaltas juveniles through adults, to, ens.direthat enough juveniles survive to reproductivematurity. and~then reproduce enough. times:to, maintain stable population: sizes.,Total instantaneous mortality rates (Z) are available for the! Saint John River (0.12 -0.15; ages14-55; Dadswell 1979), Upper Connecticut River'(0.12; Taubert 1980b), and Pee Dee-WinyahRiver (0.08-0.12; Dadswell et al. 1984). Total instantaneous natural mortality (M) for shortnosesturgeon in the :lower; Connecticut Riverwas estimated,to, be 0.13i (T. Savoy, ConnecticutDepartment of Environmental Protection, personal communication). There is no recruitmentinformation availablefor, shortnose sturgeoabecause there are no commercial, fisheries- for thespecies. Estimates of annual egg produetionfor -this species are difficult to calculate because.females do not spawn every year (Dadswell et al. 1984). Further, females may abort spawningattempts, possibly due to interrupted migrations or unsuitable environmental conditions (NMFS1998). Thus, annual egg production is likely to vary greatly in this species. Fecundity estimateshave been made and range from 27,000 to 208,000 eggs/female and a mean of 11,568 eggs/kgbody weight (Dads-ell et al.3984). .....At hatching, shortnose 'sturgeon:are blackish-colored,' -11.mm. long and resemble tadpoles: " "".' ... ..2For.purposesof this donstiltafibn,; Nothern riveestare 'considered to:in6lude trbuiaries.of theChesapeake Baynorthward to the St. John River in Canada. Southern rivers are those south of the Chesapeake Bay.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August?.20:l-,........: 3 : .. .

(Buckley and Kynard 198'1). In 9-12 days, the yolkssac is absorbed and the sturgeon: developsinto larvae which are about,15mm total length (TL; Buckley and Kynard' 1981.).iSurgeon larvaeare believed to begin downstream' migrations at about. 20mm: TL. Dispersal rates differ; at leastregionally, laboratory studies on Connecticut River larvae indicated dispersal peaked 7 12 daysafter hatching in comparison to Savannah River larve that had' longer dispersal rates with'multiple,' prolonged .peaksi ,and a low: level of downstream movement.that continued throughoutthe entire larval and earlyjuvenile iperiod (Parker 2007). Synder (1988), and.Parker (2007)considered individuals to be juvenile when they reached 57mm .TL. .Laboratory studiesdemonstrated that larvae from the Connecticut River made this transfbrmation on day 40 whileSavannah River: fish adehis~tran.onday..41. and 42 (Pa'rke'r,20-37). -The juvenile phase can'be'subdivided i,., to young of the year (YOY) and immature/sub-adults.YOY and sub-adult habifatuse diff1eir and is'.believed t6'be a ftnction of differences in salinitytolerances. Little is known about YOY.'behavior iand habitat use* though it istbelieved that theyare typically found:iii. hannel areas.with'ini freshwvaxt.*:ih'abitats'upstream of the saitwedge forabout one year.:(Dadsell et al. , 984,,Kynard-i 9:97)i One .sftdy.:on'the stomach contents of YOYrevealed that the prey.items found corresponded'to organisms,'that'would'be found in .the channel:.environment (amphipods) (Carlson and Simpson 1987)., Sub-adults are typically described asage one or older and occupy similar spatio-temporal patterns and habitat-use as adults (Kynard1997). Though there is evidence from the Delaware River that: sub.-adults mnay overwinter ini .different areas than adults.and:no'not' form dense aggregations like adults,(ERC ic., 2007).. Sub-'adults feed indiscriminately, typical. prey items 'found; in s toma&l conteiits include aquatic insects,isopods,' and'amphipods along. with ,large amounts of muil;, stones.,i mad plant material (Dadsw.elL.:1979, Carlsowand Simpson; 1987, Bain 1997)'.:"..' .:. ' ' -In populations that have free accesslto-the. total length of a riier,(e.g.; n6 dams within the species'range in a river: Saint.John, Kennebec,'Altamaha, Savnnah, Delaware and Merrimack Rivers),spawning areas are located at the farthest upstream reach, of the river (NMFS 1998). In the.:.northern extent of their range, shortnose sturgeon exhibit three distinct movement patterns. Thesemigratory movements are associated with spawning, feeding, and overwintering activities. Inspring, as water temperatures reach between 7-9.70C, pre-spawning shortnose sturgeon movefrom overwintering grounds to spawning areas.. Spawning occurs :fromrmid/late Marcht-o -mid/late May depending upon location and water temperature. Sturgeon spawn in upper,freshwater areas and feed and overwvinter in both fresh -and.saline habitats. Shortnose sturgeon-spawning migrations are characterized by rapid.;; directed and' often.extensive upstream movement(N M FS .199.8). q ..: i: ".. .v :, ./ , ,: ..,': .r ,,,.. , .Shortnose sturgeon are believed to spawn at discrete sites within their natal river (Kieffer andKynard 1996):'- In the Merrimafck River, males returned'to only one reach during afour yeartelemetry study (Kiefferand Kynard 1,996):1,SqUires (.1982) found that during the three years ofthe study in the Androscoggin:River, adults returned to a 1-km reach below the Brunswick Damand Kieffer and' Kynard (1996): found that. adults spawned within a 2-km-reach in the ConnecticutRiver for three consecutive years. Spawning occurs over-channel habitats containing gravel,rubble, or rock-cobble, substrates ,(Dadswell et al. 1984; NMFS 1998).- Additional environmental'conditions associated with spawnihg decreasing'riVer digeharge'foll'wing the-NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -AugiuSt'201,'

peak spring freshet; 'water temperatures ranging from 8 -15°,;*and bottom water. velocities of 0.4to 0.8 m/se.c;(Dadswell e0al.,!984;, Hall et al. 1991, Kieffer and Kynard-.1996,-NMFS 1998). Fornorthern' shorttuose sturgeon,. the temperature range for spawning is 6:5-18.00C, (Kieffer andKynard in press).;-Eggsare separate when spawned but.become adhesive within approximately20 minutes offertilization,(Dadswell et al. 1984). Between 8' -and 121'C, -eggs. generally hatchafter 'approximately,1.3,days..,,The larvae are photonegative, remaining:.on therbottom for severaldays. Buckley and Kynard, (1981),found week.old :larvaelto be photonegaptive and form,aggregationslwith otherilai-vae.iniconcealment.,./ ,.T.; i , ),. .,, , ,Adult shortnose sturgeon typikally-leave therspawning grouads-sooniAfi aWning.1Non- -spawning movements include rapid, directed post-spawning movements to downstream feedingareas in. spring and localized, 'vanderingmovements in; stmW ahd'.winIren (DadsWell tt. al. 1984;Buckley and Kynard 1985;, O'Herron et. alr1199,3).,-. Kieff=. anfidKynard.,Q993)reported that post-spawning migrationswere correlated with-ihoreasing'spring.Water,'ehaperature andiriver:-T .discharge.,',.Young-of-the-year :shortnose!sIneon -are bel-ieved4to'move~doWnsti'eam ...-hatching (Dovel-' 98 but remain..within: freshWater :,habitats. -.Older juveniles or 'sub-adults tendto move, doWnstream in 'fall, and .winteras, water temperatures decline and -the salt:,wedge recedes.and move upstream'in;spring aridfeeddhostlyhi freshwater reaches during summer.:Juvenile shortnose sturgeon'generally movehupstreahi in spring and summer and'move back "downstream imafall and winter; ho.*ever;, these ,movements usually; ccur in the region above the:saltwater/freshwater interface (Dad.swell;'etaL: 1984; Hall. etal,. 1991). *Non-spawningmovements inoludewandering- movements .ift summer and winter. (Dadswell et al,. ,1,984; Buckleyand Kynard 1985; O'Herron et al. 1993). Kieffer and Kynard (1993) reported thatpost-spawningmigrations were correlated with increasing spring water temperature and river discharge. Adultsturgeon o~curring in freshwater. or freshwater/tidal reaches. of'rivers iin summer ahd:winter oftenoccupy.only a few short reaches:of theitotal length (Buckley and Kynard 1985)L: ý Summerconcentration areas in southern rivers aretool, deep, thermal refugia,. where adult and juvenileshortnose sturgeon congregate (Floumdey.et al. 1992; Rogers et al. 1994; Rogers and Weber 1995;W eber 1996)..;.) I i , / , , , -" "While shortnose'stargeon- do not undertake the significant -marine'migrations seen in Atlanticsturgeon, telemetry data indicates'that shortnose sturgeon:do make localized coastal migrations.This is particularly true within certain areasrsuch as the Gulf of Maine (GOM) and, among riversin 'the;Southeastt; Interbasin: movements'have been, documented among rivers within the GOM*and between the GOM and the Merrimack, between the Connecticut and Hudson rivers, the-;;,'.Delaware River and Chesapeake Bay, and among the rivers in the Southeast.The temperature preference for shortnose sturgeon is not, known (Dadswell, et al.

  • 1984):but:-:- °shortnose.sturgeon, have been. found in waters with temperatures as low, as; 2 to' 3YC- (Dadswell etVal. 41984)..andasihigh as.340C°(Heidt and Gilbert 1978)... However, temperatures above 28°Garethought to adversely affect. sh6rtnose: sttirgeonw- In the Altamaha River,'temperatures of 28-30°C'.during summer months create 'urisutable conditions, and shortnose.sturgeon are found in deep ;cool-water refuges., ;Dis§01ved'0xygeii (DO) also seems' to play, arole in temperature tolerance;,with:increased stress'1evzels at-higher: temperatmues with, l0wDOI versus the-ability.to withstand.,..NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augustf:2011ý higher temperatures with elevated DO (Niklitchek 2001)." ., ," .. -; ', .. i.Shortnose sturgeon' are known to occur at a wide range of~depths.' A'minimum depth of 0.6m isnecessary for the unimpeded' swimming by adults.. Shortnosesturgeon are known.to occur-atdepths of up to 30m but are generally found in' waters less than, 20n'.(Dadswell 'et al. 1984;;Dadswell 1979). ,,Shortnose sturgeon have also demonstrated tolerance to a-wide range of,,salinities. Shortnose sturgeon have been documented in freshwater (Taubert 1980; Taubert andDadswell 1980)'and ;in waters with salinity of 30 parts-per-thousand.(ppt) (Holland.and.Yeverton1973; Saunders andSmith' 1978).: Mcleave et al; (1977)'reportedadu!ts'moving' freely through awide range of'salin'itiesý,:,' with differenzes of up, to.'1:ppt wi"'hin;a two hour period.The tolerance of shortn6s'e:stufgeon to;irncreasing salinity.is thought to increase with age'(Kynard1996). Shortnoseesturgeon typica.l'yocc-cur in the deepest parts of rivers or estuaries *here-suitable oxygen 'and salinity values, ar.epreserit (Gilbert 19 89);'how ever,; shortnose sturgeonforage on vegetated mudflats, and.over'shellfish' beds in shallower waters when suitable forage isStatus and Trends, of Shortnose Sturgeon Rangewide", -.-Shortnose sturgeon were listed as endangered on March 11 1,967 (32.FR 4001),'and the species.remained on the endangered species list with the enactmnent'ofth'e ESA' in .1973'. Although theoriginal listing notice did not cite reasons for listing theý species,':a' 19.73 Resource Publication,'issued by the US Department of the Interior, stated that shortnose sturgeon were "in peril.. .gonein most of the rivers of its'former range [but] probably. of oas yet 'extinct" (USD01 1973).;Pollution and overfishing, including bycatch in the shad fishery, were liste&as principal reasons:for the species!, decline:.. I, the.late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, shortnose sturgeon..commonly were taken in a ýornrmercial fishery for the closely related atid, commercially V'aluable'Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus). More than a'century of extensive fishing~for sturgeoncontributed to the decline of shortnose sturgeon along the east coast. Heavy: industrial. : :',- , Idevelopment during the twentieth century in rivers inhabited by sturgeon. impaired water qualityand impeded these species' recovery; possibly resulting' in isubstantially reduced abundance ofshortnose sturgeon populations within portions of the Species' ranges (e.g., southernmost riversof the species range: Santilla, St. Marys and St. Johns Rivers)., A shortnose. sturgeon recoveryplan was published in December 1998 to promote the conser-ation and recovery of the species.-(see NMFS 1998).' Shortnose sturgeon :are listed as "vualnerable" on the IUCN Red. List..Although shortnose sturgeon are listed as.endangered range-wide, inthe final recovery planNMFS recognized 19 separate populations occurring'throughout the range.of the species.,: Thesepopulations are in New Brunswick Canada (1); Maine (2); Massachusetts'(1); Connecti cut (t!); -:New York (1); New Jersey/Delaware (1); Maryland and Virginia (1); North Carolina (1); SouthCarolina. (4); Georgia (4); and: Florida (2). NMFS'has not formally recognized distinct ;,' :,segments,(DPS)3 of shortnose sturgeon under the ESA.. 'Although genetic information.populationsemns.D roe3.The'definition of species~under the ESA includes any subspecies of fish,'wildlife, or..plants,.and any.'distinct.populationsegment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds w.he. mature.. To be a.DPS, .a populationsegment must meet two criteria under NMFS policy. First, it mustbe discrete, or separated, from other populations of its speciesor subspecies. Second, it must be significant, or essential, to the long-term conservation status of its species or subspecies. Thisformal legal procedure to designate DPSs for shortrione sturgeofi hs nc.-bert. id'rtakea. .' 'f:'*-' "'NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August:20.1,1 .:

within and among shortnose sturgeon occurring in. different river systemsris.largely unknown, lifehistory studies indicate that shortnose sturgeon populations from different river systems aresubstantially reproductively isolated (Kynard.:1 997) and, therefore, should be-considered discrete.The 1.999 Recovery Plan-indicates that while genetic information may-reveal, that interbreedingdoes no.t oco'ur, between rivers that, drain into a common estuary, at this)time, such river systemsare considered a~singleipopulation:compromised of breeding subpopul-ations (NMFS 1998).,Studies,-conducted since the iissuance of the Recovery. Plan havei provided. evidence'that suggeststhat, years- of isolationkbetween rpopulations ,of shortnose sturgeon ihave led to-morphological andgenetic variationt :Walsh et-pl(2Q01) examined~morphologicalýand geaetiG,,variation of-.shortnose sturgeon. in three rivers (Kennebec, The, study -found thatthe HudsorrRiver shortnose sturgeon population differedmarkedly.f9mm the! other(two rivers'formost morphologicalf features. (total-length, fork!length-;,head=nd snout length; mouth. width.,'..interorbital width -and, dorsal. scute :lateral,.scuvte count., .right'ventr-a scute count).:Significant differences were found between fish from Androscoggin and Kennebec rivers for..interorbital width and lateral scute counts which suggests that even though the Androscoggin andKennebec rivers drain into a common estuary, these. rivers support largely discrete populations ofshortnose sturgeon' The 8tudy a1~bliffbuild significant genetic differences among all three .- " -populations indicating substantial reproductive 'isolation among them and that the observed:morphological differences may be~paily,,or.vholly genetic.: -.. : '- '.. 'U -Grunwald et al. (2002) exam-ined mitochondrial DNA:(mtDNA) from shortnose sturgeon-in ,eleven-riverpopulations: ,Thei analysisidemonstrated that allshortnose 'sturgeon populations .examined showed moderate to high levels ofigenetic diversity as measured-by haplotypicdiversity indices -.The:limi-ted sharing of haplotypes 'and thei-high numbernof private haplotypesare indicativei of high homing'fidelity and :low gene flow. The-researchers determined thatglaciation in ithe Pleistocene Era waslikeLy the-most significant factor in shaping the ,phylogeographic pattern o fmtDNA, diversity.andpopulation structure of shortnose sturgeon..The Northern- glaciated region- extended south to the Hudson River while the southern- non- .glaciated region begins with theqDelaware River:-. There is a high prevalence of haplotypesrestricted-to either:of these two regions:,and relatively few are shared; this represents a historicalsubdivision-that' is' tied to-an- important geological. phenomenon that reflects historical isolation.Analyses of haplotype frequencies at the level of individual rivers showed, significant, differencesamong all systems in which reproduction is known to occur. This implies that although higherlevel genetic-tock, elationships exist (i.,e.;,-southern Vs..northern and other regional .j -..subdivisions);. shortnose sturgeon appbar.'to'be discrete stocks, and low gene flow exists betweenthe majority of populations:.- .....- ., .-, , ,! , , .,i,. ,Waldman et-al. (2002) also.-conducted mtDNA'analysis on shortnose sturgeon from ;1.1 river .' "systems ahd identified-29;haplotypes.-.,Of these haplotypes, 11 were-unique.to northern,-glaciatedsystems and 13 were unique to the southern non-glaciated systems. Only 5 were shared. betweenthem. This analysis-suggests-that shortnose sturgeon show high structuring and. discreteness andthat low gene flow `rates- indicated strnrig homing fidelity".' -" ' ' " "Wirgin et al. (2005), also conducted,mtDNA analysis on.shortnose-sturgeon from 12 rivers (St.--.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August;'20.l;-,,,.---------------------1' John, Kennebec, Androscoggin '"Upper Connecticut,, Lovef Connecticut, Hudson; Delaware,-Chesapeake Bay,, Cooper,! Peedee, Savannah, Ogeechee and Altamaha). This'ahalýgis'suggestedthat most population segments are independent and that genetic variation among groups washigh.The best available inforrh'ationdemonstfates differences in life history and habitat preferencesbetween northern and-sbuthern river systems'and given the species" anadromous breeding habits,the rare occurrence: of migration between river systems, and the documented genetic differencesbetween'river populati'ol; it is-unlikely that populations in adjacent river systems.interbreed withany regularity... 'This k.41,e account..:f-oI, the failure of shortnose sturgeon:o repopulate river,systems -from whichit'hey"hId beien excirpdted,. despite the geographic closeness of persistingpopulations. This, charzaiteirstic '-"ofhofnose stutgeon, also complicates recovery and persistenceof this species in the ftare, bpuse; is extihpated'in the fuiure, it is unlikelythat this'river willcbe-recol'lnized. .-Cohsequently, Ihis Opinion: will treat the nineteen separatepopulations ofsshortnose stutgec'n as' sib'popu!ationis (0he:f'fwhich' o ccars in theaction area) forthe purposes of this analysis.,. , ..,'.Historically, shortnose sturgeon are believed to have inhabited nearly all.major rivers andestuaries along nearly the entire east coast of North. America. The range-extended from the StJohn River in.New Brunswick, Canada to-the IndianRiver, in' Florida. only 19.populations 'remain ranging: from the St. Johns River, Flo rida (possibly eýxtirpated from ,this.,system), to the Saint John Riverin.New Brunswick, Cairada: Shortnrse sturgeon' are large, longlived fish species.' The preserit range of shortncseostuigebn is disjunctc with northern ppulations.separated frorm southern populations:by a distance ofabout 400 kmi.., Population'sizes' Vary * -.across the species!- range.: From available estimates, the smallest populations' occur in the CapeFear (-8 adults; Moser and Ross 1:995) in the south and.Merrimack and Penobscot rivers in thenorth (- several hundred to several thousand adults,'depending on population estimates used; M.Kieffer, United States Geological Survey, personal commiunication; Dionne '2010), while thelargest'populations are found in the Saint John (-4 8,'000; 'Dadsweil 1979) and Hudson' Rivers.(-6 1,000; Bain et al. 1998). As indicated in Kynard 1996, adult abundance is less than the * .minimum estimated viable population abundance of 1000 adults for 5 of 11 surveyed northernpopulations and all natural southern populations: Kynard 1996 indicates that allt aspects of thespecies' life history indicate that shortnose sturge6n shouid be abundant in most rivers. As such,the expected abundance of adults in northern and north-central populations shoal'dbethousands,to tens of thousands of adults. Expected,;abundance in socthern-rivers is uncertain,. utlaxgerivers should likely have thousands of adults: The only, iver systems likely supporting.'populations ofthesesizes'are the St: JohnHudson and possibly the Delaware and .th'e'Knuebec;making the 'continued success ofshortniose sturgeonr, in these rivers critical.to the species as a .whole, While no :reliable estimate of the: size of either thetotal species-or the shortnose sturgeonpopulation in; the N6rtheastemr United States exists,, it is clearly below the size that could.besupported if the threats to shortnose sturgeon were removed.Threats to shortnose sturgeonwreovery ." '.; ,' '> : :. ... , ..The Shortnose Sturgeon' Recovery Plan, (NMFS: 1998) identifies-habitat degradation or loss(resulting, for example, from' dams, bridge' constrctoni;ndchannelidredgih,, .nid' pollutant'NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 20,1I': ""- -'::

discharges), and mortality (resulting, for,example., -from impingementon cooling Water intakescreens, dredgijng,and incidental.capture in other, fisheries) as principal threats to the species'su rv iv a l.. ; .: , , , , .:. i. .'. ,,... ' '.:, * .,, .: .... , : , ,Several natural and anthropogenic factors continue to threaten the recovery of shortnosesturgeon cpntinue to be takenrinpidentaIlyinl f!heiies along the east coastand are probably targeted by~poachers throughout their range (Da4dsw.el! 19.79; -Doyel et al. 1992;Collins eFt ak 1996)..., Bridge .ozastructiolaind demolition projects ,may intp.fere with normalmigratory moyenments-.and. disturb sturgeon concpntrF.pnp aneas. UnIessappropriate precautions are xade, internal damage ar)/oX peath may jt.*from. blasting projectswith powerful explosivps. Hydroelectric da;ns5nay affeeothortno sA stgrgeonjby restricting.;habitat, altering river, flows or terper atures and/or migrationand causing mortalities to -fish that becoim.e entraine.infturbijnes., Maiftnance; dredging-9fFederal navigation :chanmels .od4 other 1areas ;. adversely effect orj jeopardi~ze shortnose sturgeonpopulations, J-Iydraulicdredges ,cam leth-a!!y)tak'e: sturgeor ,by entraining. sPvrgeon iJn dredge, .."dragarms and impeller pumps. Mechanical dredges have also been documentedf to, lethally take!.,shortnose sturgeon. In addition to direct effects, dredging operations may also impact shortnosesturgeon by, destroying~bethiccfeoding areas,, disrupting spawning migrations, and, fillirong'.:r,:spawning habitat,,with, resuspended fine:sediments. ,Shortnose.sturgeon are susceptible to .impingement, on coolin'g. Waterintake, screens power plants., Electricpower and~nuclear powergenerati'g plants,.can, affect sturgeon by impinging larger fish on, cooling, water intake~screensand eritraining -larval fish. ,The:opdratisxn of pqwerplants can have unforeseen and extremely,detrimental impacts. 'to riverine: habitat which, can affect, shortnose sturgeon. For:example, the St.Stephen:Power,'lant nearLake, Moultri.e, S outh Carolina was shutdown for several, days -in June1991 when large mats of.aquatic plants entered the plant..s intake canal and clogged the coolingwater intake.gates.IDecornposingqplant material inithe tailraceeeanalcoupled with the turbineshut down (allowing no-flw-of water) triggered a low dissolvedoxygen water conditiondownstreaInm and a subsequent fish killhw The South Carolina Wildlife.and.Marine Resources,Department reported that twenty shortnose' sturgeon, were killed during this low dissolved oxygenevent. , .r r ' i.,Contaminants, including toxic metals, polychl~orinatedaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),: .i 'pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) .can have substantial deleterious effects onaquatic life including production of acute. lesions, ,growth retardation, and reproductive.impainrne3t'(Cootper.1.l989;, Sinderman 1994). Ultimately5 toxins.introduced tothe water columnbecome associated withthe, benthos and ean be-particularly harmful tobenthic organisms,- ....(VaranasiA.992) like. sturgeon. '.Heavy me~als, and organochlorine compounds.are'known to,,.!,;accumulate !in fat tissues'of sturgeon, but their long term, effects.are not yet known (Ruelle andHenry. 1992; Ruelle and Kennlyne 1993). Available datae suggests. that.early life stages' of fish., aremore susceptible to environmental and pollutant stress,.than.older life- stages (Rosenthal and i-A lderdice 1976). .' .:. ..,::: ..:-,. .,,,. :, Although there is scant information available on the levels:of contaminants in-shortnose sturgeontissues, some research!,i9 ottherrelated species indicates thtr 'concern about the. effects of, :I-contaminants. onitho healthrof. sturgeorpoputatio~ns'is warranted. !Detectibje levels, of,.chlordane,,NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -

DDE (1,1-dichloro-2', 2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene), DDT (dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane),and dieldrin, and elevated levels of PCBs, cadmium, mercury, and selenium were foUnd in pallidsturgeon tissue from the Missouri River (Ruelle and Henry 1994). These compounds were foundin high enough levels to suggest they may be causing reproductive failure and/or. increased .,physiological stress (Ruelle and Henry 1994):. In addition to -compiling dataon 'contaminant .levels, Ruelle'arld:Henry also: determined that heavy metals: aMd organfochlorine compounds (i.e..PCBs) accumulate in'fat tissues> Although the l6ng term effects, of theiacc~imulation of ,, -contaminants in fat tissues is nfotyet kilown, some speculate .that lipophilic toxins-could betransferred to eggs and potentially inhibit egg viability. In other fish species, reproductiveimpairment, reduced egg'-viability, and-lreduced' survival: of larval ;fish are. associated "with"elevated levels, bf environniiental contam inants inhcluding chlorinated hydiocarbons. A strongconrelation that:has been'm'ade betveen£fssh:weight; fish fork lengte, and DDE concentration inpallid sturgeon livers inidicaitbs.hat: DDEincreases prop')rtionally-with fish:size (NMFS 1998).Contaminant analysisrwas: condu'cted' ontwo shriln63e 'starn, onf-frcil the Delaware River.in the;fall of 2002.i- Musclejliver, and% gonad tissuewer., analyzed zicontarninants (ERC;2002)'.".Sixteen metals, two semivolatile compounds; three torganochlorine pesticides; one PCB, Aroclor,as well as polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), mad polychlorinatcd dibenzofurans :".(PCDFs) were detected in one or more of the tissue samples.. -Lev'els of alurainum, cadmium-,:PCDDs, PCDFs, PCBs, DDE (an organochlorine, pesticide),were' detected4Ln the'.adverse affect",range. It is of particular concern that of the above che-nicals, PCDDs;'D.DE,.PCBs and, cad.rmiui,.were detected as these. have been identified asý endocrine 'disrup ting chemidals'.. Contaminilant, , :::analysis conducted in 2003 on tissues firom a shortnese sturgeon from the Kennebec'Ri'er i,revealed the preseince of fourteen. metals, one semivolatile compound, one PCB Aroclor;;,1,'. '..Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofijrans (PCDFs) in one.or more of the tissue samples. Of these chemicals, cadmium and zinc were detected atconcentrations above an adverse'effect concentration reported for. fish. in the literature (ERC2003). While no directed studies of chemical contaminatibn in.'shortnose sturgeon have beenundertaken, it is evident that the heavy industrialization of the rivers where'shortnose sturgeonare found is likely adversely affecting this species.' .'i t- .-.., ., .During summer months, especially in southern areas-, shortnose sturgeon must.cope with thephysiological stress of water temperatures, that.may exceed 280C. Flourney et al. (1992) suspectedthat, during these periods, shortnose sturgeon congregate ,in river regions'which, support..conditions that relieve physiological stress (i.e., in coolleep thermal'refuges)., In southern riverswhere sturgeon movements have been tracked, sturgeon'refrain from moving during warm waterconditions and are often captured at release locations during these periods (Flourney etal.-1992; .Rogers and Weber:1994; Weber 1996)., ;1The loss'and/or manipulation of'these discrete -efuge,habitats may limit or be limiting population survival, especially in southern river systems.Pulp mill,, silvicultut'al.,: agriculturali and sewer discharges, as'well as a combination of non-pointsource discharges, which contain elevated temperatures or high biological, demand, can reducedissolved oxygen levels. ' Shortnose sturgeon are known to be adversely affected by dissolved,.oxygen levels below 5 mg/L. Shortnose sturgeon may be less tolerant of low dissolved oxygenlevels in, high: ambient watet' temperatures and show signs ofstress in'-wvater.temperatures higherNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 201-. ,: '!

than 28'C. (F!urmey- et al. 1992)., -At these temperatures, concomitant low levels of dissolvedoxygen maybetlWhal. ,. ..,:' , " '- ' , .Global climate change may affect. shortnose sturgeon-in thefuture. Rising.sea level may result inthe salt wedge-moving upstreal, in- affected rivers, possibly.affectipg the s~urv-ival of driftinglarvae and. YOY shortnose, sturgeon-that are sensitive to elevated salinity.,, Similarly, for riversystems with dams, YOY nmay experience a habitat .squeeze~betweeo, a shifting (upriver) saltwedge and a dam causing loss'of available habitat for this.tiife;stage.' ,..* -.The increased rainfall..predicted'b~y,.some modelsin, souue:.areas marinr A r .. ,s, e runoff and scourspawning'areasand'flooding events could cause )temporary, water quality issues., Risingtemperatures predicted fbr the! U, S. could exacerbakefexistiag..wat.er quality. problems with.DO and temperature. While. p"riarily.in rivers I. thei southvast-U,.S. and the:,Chesapeake Bay, it may start to occur more commonly in the northern rivers. One might expectrange extensions to shift northward:(iei:in'to.:tiSt.,LawrenceRiv.er,.,, Canada),1while truncating ,the southern distribution., Increased: droughtsr(and water withdrtwal, fobr:hutanruse) predicted by:some models 'in some areas mayicause loss ofhabitat including loss of access to* spawning:habitat.,,Drought .conditions itI the;'spring may also expose eggs and larvae in rearing habitats... If,a river becomes. too shallow, ori flows become :intermittent, all shortnose sturgeon life, stages,including, adults, maybecome's~isceptible'to-strandings. Low flow and drought conditions are' .also expected to xauie additional Water quality issues. Any of the conditions. associated with,...climate change' ar'e likelylto disrupt rivert ecology vausing shifts,in community structture and; thetype andabutidance of prey. rAdditionally; cues 'for spawning migration and spawning.couldoccur earlier, in-the season 'causing a misrtatchin prey that are currently available,to developingshortnose~sturgeon .inrearing habitat.: -'....Implidationis..of climate change toshortnose-sturgeon throughout their range have beenspeculated;.pyet'no ;scientific dataare available on, past trends related to climate effects on thisspecies an&current scientific methodsi are not 'able to; reliably predict the future magnitude ofclimate change and associated impacts or the adaptive capacity of this species. While there is areasonable degree of certainty that certain climate change related effects will be experiencedglobally (e.g., rising temperatures and changes:'i' -precipitation patterns), due: to a lack ofscientific datatlie specific: effects to shortnose sturgeon .that may result from climate change arenot predictableior quantifiable at this time.; Information on current effects of global climatechange on, shortnose sturgeorn is not, available and while it is speculated that future climatechange may:affect this, speciesit'is not possible to quantify the extent to which effects mayoccur.', Firther analygis onthe likely effects of climate change ;on shortnose sturgeon in the actionarea is kieluded in the Environmental Baseline: and' Cumulative Effects sections belowij,, .Status of Shortnose Sturgeon in the Hudson RiverThe action area islimited;to.-the reach of the Hudson River affected byiproject operations asdescribed inrthe tfAction section. above, :,As such, thissection will discuss..tbe-availableinformation related to.the ptesencee of shortnoseturgeon in the Hudson Ri.er.; .). ..Shortnose sturgeopw.ere- firstobbserved'imr the Hudson River. by.early settlers who captured them.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August':ý201,J.),),,

as a source of food' and documented -their abuindance.(Bain et al.'1998). Shortnose'sturgeon inthe Hudson River were'documented as abundant in the late 1880's (Ryder 1888 in 1Hoff 1988)..Prior to 1937, a few'fishermen were still commercially harvesting shortnose sturgeon in the'Hudson River; however, fishingpressure declined as the population- decreased.- During the, late1800s and early .1 900s, the Hudson River'served as a dumping groiand for'pollutants, that lead tomajor oxygen depleti6ns aidi'resulte-din fish kills. and population: reductions:. During this sametime there was'.a high: demand 'forshortriose sturgeon eggs (caviar); "ading to overharvesting.'Water pollution,-overfis5hlig; 'and the 'commercial Atlantic,sturgeon fi shoreLare all factors .that"may have contributed 'to'die :dccline of shortnosesturgeon. in the Hudson River; (Hoff.1 988).In the 1930s,'the'N'e'w Ydrk State'Biclogicai'Survey launched the.*first scientific. analysis -thatdocumented the distributit,,agie, .nd.'size of mature-shortnose,sturgeon in the. HudsonRiver (seeBain et al. 1998).4 Ift the l970s;'scieltZ'0 fz., .amplihng r'esauinedpi-ecipitated.by the lack of biologicaldata and concerns about'the.imijaci,'of electric 'gmer~at.on. facilities on fishery resources (see Bainet al. 1998). The. cuirhnt populationr'of ýhortiose' sturgeonrahas been docuniented.'by studies -conducted. throughout the'entire* range of shortnose sturgeon.in.the Hudson Rii,'er, (see: Dovel1979, Hoff et al:1988, Geoghegan et al. 1992, Bain et al'1.998; Bainlet:al:., 2000, Dovel et al.:.19 9 2 ).:;. ' " : ' ' :' " " ' ' !. .." ... " ...' ' : ..Several population estimates were conducted throughout the- 1970s and. '1980s (Dovel11979;Dovel 198.1 ;>Dovel et aL 992). Moss recenily, Bain.et al:.(1998) conducteda mark recapture,study from 1994 through 1997 focusing en the shortnose' sturgeon active spawning stocck.,°Utilizing targeted and dispersed sampling methods, 6,430 adult shortnose sturgeon were capturedand 5,959 were marked; severa! different. abundance estimates were generaced'from this samplingdata using different population models. Abundance estimates generated. ranged friom a, low of 25,255 to a high of 80,026;'though 61,057. is the; abundance-estirrmate from this dataset and.modelingexercise that is typically -used. This :estimate includes spawning: adults estimated to comprise;93% of the entire population or 56,708, non-spawning adults' accounting for 3% of the populationand juveniles 4% (Bain et al. 2000). Bain et al. (2000) compared the spawning populationestimate with estimates-by: Dovel et al. (1992) concluding an increase of approximately 400%,.-between 1979 and 1997. Although fish.popu.ations dominated by adults are not common,-for,most species; there is no evidence that this is atypical for shortnosesturgeon (Bain et al., '1998).Woodland and Secor (2007) examined the Bain' et aL._(1 998; 2000, 2007) estimates to try andidentify the cause of the major change iniabundance. 'Woodland and:Secor (2007) concluded thatthe dramatic increase in abundance was likely due tW. improved water quality in -the Hudson Riverwhich allowed for high recruitment during -years when environmental conditions. were. right,,particularly between 1986-1991-:. These studies provide the best information:available.,3n thecurrent status of the Hudson River population and suggests that the population is relativelyhealthy, large, and particular irn'habitat use and migratory behavior (Bain et al, 1998).Shortnose sturgeon have been documented in the Hudson River from upper Staten Island (RM -3) to the Troy Dam (RM 155; for reference, Indian Point is locatedat RM 38 (rKkm 61))' (Bain etal. 2000, ASA 1980-2002).' Prior to the construction of the Troy Dam. in 1825, shortnose .4 _ _" _ _ _.-:' See Figure' ,m .Hudson iver wih." ' .t.hes ae ;a. h .,,e4 See Figure 1 for a map of the Hudson River with these areas highlighted.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 20,11...

sturgeon aretthought. to have used the entire freshwater. portion of the. Hudson River (NYHS1809)., Spawning fish congregated at, the base of Cohoes Falls where the:Mohawk River emptiedinto the Hudson.,-Jn recent-years (since 1,999), shortnose sturgeon hav.ebeen documented belowthe Tappan.Zee Bridge from Ju.ne.through December (ASA. 1.99-2Q02; Dynegy 2003).. Whileshortnose sturgeon presence below the. Tappan Zee Bridge had, preyiopsly been thought to be rare(Bain et al: 2000),. increasing numbers of shortnose sturgeon. have bee ndocumep4ed in this areaover the last: several .years (ASA J999-2002; Dynegy.2003):suggest "g;that~the!rage of shortnosesturgeon is extending dowa sfte0r.. Shortnose stvrgeor.wer0,doquMne e as-farsouth as theManhattanftStaten,Island area.in June,, November and Decemb r 2QQ3..(IPynqgy 2003).. *From -late fal- to. early spring,-,adult! shortnose sturgeonco0noentratejQn a-few ov~erwintering areas.Reproductive activity the foWowing spring. determines ovrex iinterig behvior., The;largestoverwintering. area is'just south ofKingsto ,'N.Y, oearE.sopStMeeAd.ws (r'cm '139-452),(Dovelet al. 1.9.92). The.fish overwiatering ,Iduilts.,. Recent...;capture ddtal suggests that -these Areas. .exparding (Hudson River: k-999.T20Q2, Dynegy.2003).>, Captures--of shortnose-sturgeon Au~ring the ifalI, and, wjnte4 from Saugertiesi to, Hyde Park.,,(greater Kingston ;reach),4indicate that additional tsmaller overwintering areas m.ay be, present.ý(Geoghegan et al. 1992). Both Geoghegan et al. (1992) and Dovel et al. (1992) also confirmedan overwintering site in the Croton-Haverstraw Bay area (rkm 54-61). The Indian Point facilityis located -at ithe northe-nmextent of.this overwistering area near rkm 61 ... Fish overwintering.in.,:areas below EsopusMeadows: are-mainly thought to be prezspawning adults.,: Typically,.;movements, during averwintering periods, are localized and fairly~sedentary..,. .>:- .') , :In; the Hudson River, .males usually spawn at approximately: 3 L5 years of age whilelfemalesspawn at approximately 6-1.0 years of :age, (Dadswell et al. 1984;, Bain et al. 199,$,). Males mayspawn, annually once mature and, femalestypically spawn every 3 years (Dovel et al. 1992).Mature males feed.only sporadicallyi prior:.to the spawning-migration, while females do not feedat all in the months prior toespawningj c. .,;I.In approximately late March through. mid-Aprily, when water temperatures are sustained.at 8°-9'C fair everal days ,: reproductively active adults begin.their migration upstream to the spawning.groundsth&at extend from below the-federdal Damat Troy to about Coeymans, NY (rkm 245-212;located more than 150km upstream from the Indian Point facility) (Dovel et al. 1992). Spawningtypicallyoburs:at water!te-hperatures betveen 1.0-8lC,(generally late April-May) after whichadults-disperse qfiiickly down river intoD their summer ,range.. Dovel et al. (1992) reported that,spawning fishi tagged at-.Troy.-were-recapt ued inHaverstraw Bay in early June. 'The broadsumm&,tage, occbpied'by, adiilt shortnose sturgeon extends from approximately rkm 38 to rkm177. :-The'lndian Point facilityis:lOcatedý within the broad summer range.-'. ' , I: " : :" " ,C. ' , ..I ' .., , .t : 'v ' .,:i .i ; ' , ." ..There is scant data on actual collection of early life stages of'shortnose' sturgeon in the Hudson.:River. During a mark recapture study conducted from 1976-1978, Dovel et al. (1979) captured-/ "1 , ' " t * : I " , , ,5 Basfdon info -matitin 6from the SdS ga( e igiiAlbahy ga o.'.'01 59139), in 2002 water temnperatures reached8°C on April 10'and 6 on April'.,20; 20O3S'-80Ctn April;.14! and 15TC on.May. 1:9; 2004 -April 17 and15'C on May 11. In 2011, the most recent year on record, water temperatures reached 8C on April 11 and reached.15C on May 19. .,:2: ., , , ,1"NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August,,2.0[,: ,,

larvae near Hudson,* NY (rkm 188) and young of the year were captured further south near.Germantown. Between -1996 and 2004, approximately 10 small shortnose sturgeon: were"-.collected each year as part'of theFalls Shoals Survey (FSS) (ASA 2007). Based upon basic lifehistory information for shortnose sturgeon it is known that eggs adhere to solid objects on' theriver bottom (Buckley and Kynard 1981; Taubert:t 980) and that eggs and larvae are eipected tobe present within the vicinity of the spawriing grounds (rkm 245-212) for. approximatelyfourweeks post spawning (i.e., at latest through mid-June). Shortnose sturgeon larvae in: the'HudsonRiver generally range in size from 15 to 18 mm TL at hatching (Pekovitch 1979). Larvaegradually disperse downstream after hatching, entering the tidal'iiver (IHoff et al., 1988). Larvaeor fry are free swiwrung'.,,dtypicaiy' concentrate:in deep charmel habitat (Taubdri andDadswell -1980,'Bath'et.alt 198K1, Iieffer idKynard 1993). Gi,,eii that fry are free swimming andforaging, they 'typic~allydisper.se dv5,'i~stream of spawninfg/rearing areas. -Larvaeare' foundthroughout. the Hudson'RiVr! 'estuary ati--.ar n-ost coninionly found, in deep Waters with strongcurrents; typically ifi the: channel: (-6ff etal: 1. 988;' DdVkl 1 992). The transition from thelarval to juvenile"stage g~nera I y occurs" lin the, firs- t'L.,ei of lfe -when the, fi sh, grows toapproximately 2 cm TL and is marked by fully developed external characteristics (Pekoviftch1979)........................:...... ...Similar to non-spawning' adults, most juveniles occupy the brcad:region of Haverstraw Bay' (RM34-40; Indian Point is located near the -northern edge of the bay) (Dov1 et ai. I 992; Geogheganet al. 1992) by late fall and early winter. Migrations from the summer foraging areas to theoverwintering grounds are triggered when water temperatures fall.to 8°C (NOAAFishe'nres'-.1998), typically idn late N0Venmber6.' Juveniles are distributed thre'Ughout the'mid-river regionduring the Surrnmer and'move back into 'the Haý,erstraaw Ba~y region 'during the late fall (Bain et al.1998; Geoghegan etal. 1992;Haley'1998). ""' : .'Shortnose sturgeon are bottom feeders and juvei,.iles may' 'Use 'the protuberant snout to t"vacuum"the river bottom. Curran & Ries (1937) described juvenile shortnose sturgeon from the HudsonRiver as having stomach contents of 85-95% mud intermingled with plant and animal material.Other studies found stomach contents of adults were solely food items, implying that' feeding ismore precisely oriented. The ventral protrusable mouthl'and' barbells are adaptations for a diet ofsmall live benthic animals. Juveniles feed on smaller-and somewhat different organisms than *adults. Common. prey items are aquatic' insects (chironornids); isopods; and amphipods; -Unlike.,adults, mollusks do'not appear to be an important part of the diet of juveniles (Bain-, 1997). As'adults, their diet shifts strongly to mollusks (Curran & Ries -1937).-:.. ...;Telemetry data has been instrumental in in'forming the extent of shortnose sturgeon: coastal 'migrations. Recent telemetry data' from the Gulf of Maine indicate, shortnose sturgeonein thisregion undertake significant coastal migrations between larger river. systems and utilize smallercoastal river systems during these interbasin movements (Fernandes 2008; UMaine unpublisheddata). -Some outmigration has been documented in the Hudson River, albeit at low levels inIn 2002, watei' teperittres at the USGS gage at'Hastmigson-1udson (N6. 01376304; the farthest downstream'gage on the river) fell to 8°C on November 23.3' In 2003, watei temp~iatilres'aiflhis gage fell f'i8'g°C on November°29;In 2010, water tenmperatutes' at the USGS:gageat: West Point; NMY Nqo.0 w.3-70191,iretl th'frthest, dovmstream'gage on the river) fell to 8C on November 23.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011"' " ". :.

comparison tq, co.astal; movement documented in the Gulf of Maine and Southeast. rivers. Twoindividuals taggepdin;1995 in the overwintering area near Kingston, NY- .ere later recaptured inthe. Connectic.ut River. One 9f these fish was at large for over two, years and the.other 8 yearsprior to recapture..: As such, it,.is reasonable to expect some leyel. of movement out of the Hudsoninto adjacent .riverr systems;,however, based on available informatigox.it .s not possible to predictwhat percertage-of adult shortnose sturgeon originating:from the N-Iudsor.Riveer may participatein coastalmnigrations.: .,.ENVIRONMENTALBASWLINE_ , .._,, *.;, ., :,:,.,,-',:. '.,> '2Environmental: ase-ines forbio ogical opinionssinclqd. -tht .and ent, impacts of all state,federal; or. priyate-, actigns and, other human aqtiyities. i. area, .theqanticip.ated impacts ofall proposed federal prqj ects in, thp: actioqaarea -tat have, lredy, jind.ergone, fprMal or.earlySection .7consultation, and the impact of statpe or jctippsh j,.r'.¢0fltepporaneous withthe consultationjii-pr9cess (0 CFR.,402,02) this Opinion,:,,,-,...:.includesthe effects-of sevgral,,acAivities .tlý4 ay.-affect thesuriva and of the listedspeciesi. 'theaction ar.a.f. i. J! ) ' : ., ",: : .-Federal Actions that have Undergone Formal or Early Section 7 ConsultationThe only Federal actions, that, occur. witbhip the action, area are the operations of the. Indian Point .facility ,and res~earch actiyitie§,4,itiorized pursuant to Section 10 of~the ESA.. 'Impacts ofthe Historieal Operation-iof the Indian. Point Facility.? .IP I and IP-2have',been operatiorpal, since thp viid-1970s. .During this time; shortnose sturgeon inthe Hudson River.have been exposed, to effects of this facility; Eggs :apd early laryva e would bethe only life stages of shortnose sturgeon small enough .tobe vlnerable to entrainment at the -Indian Point intakes (openings in the wedge wire screens are 6mm x 12.5 mm (0.25 inches by 0.5inches); eggs are, smalltenough to pass ithrugh:these openings.but, as explained below, do notoccur!injthe.a,ction area.. j. .. .,,::.;: ,.: 'In the Hudson Rivet, shortnose sturgeon eggs;are only found at the spawning grounds, which aremore than,1:50km upstream from the, Indian Point intakes (Bain 1998; NMFS. 1998)., As noshortnose sturgeon eggs. occur, in, the action ariea,.ý o entrainment.of shortnose sturgeon eggswould: be anticipated. ShQrtnose, sturgeon larvae. are fourad in deep channels, typically above the-salt wedge (Buckley and-Kyiiard 1985).1 In the Hudson River the *location of the salt wedge canvary from as far north as Poughkeepsie.'toas fardownstream as Hastings on Hudson 4USGSHudson River Salt Front study webpage) and therefore, could be upstream or downstream ofIndian Point._;Depending-on the location ofthe:saltwedge; in sgonie years salinity may be lowenough in :the action area for shortnose sturgeon larvae.to be present., Jn. laboratory experiments,larvae were nocturnal, and preferred deep water, grey color, anda silt substrate:(Richm nd andKynard 1995)...Larvae collected in. riyers were found in:.the deepest water, usually.withinthe,channel (Taubert and Dadswell, 1-980; Bath et al., 19*81; Kieffer and Kynard 1993).,:Larvae in. the;*Hudson River are expected to occur in the deep channel (Hoff et al. 1988; Dovel et al. 1992),which is at least 2,000 feet.from the intakes, Any larvae in the action area are expected to be at.least 20mm in length,as that ...he s4e that sho~tiose sturgeon larvae egin downstream.migrations (Buckley and.Kynard J995); while body width measurementsare notavailable, it. isNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August...2011 possible that sorme larvae would be small enough to the screen mesh;.f: However, aslarvae are typically found in -the deep channel, which is more than 2,000 feeti fromthe location ofthe intakes, it is unlikely'that larvae would be entrained in the intakes. ." '* " ' ".. ".,.i. ."' '", -* " ". .":.. ." .L '. ,:. "Studies to evaluate the effects of entrainment at IP2 ýand IP3 occurred from the early .1 970s'through 1987; with intense'dai!y'sampling during the spring of 1981,-1987'. As reported by NRCin the FEIS and BA,.entrairnment monitoring reports list no shortnose. sturgeon'eggs or: larvae atIP2 or IP3.. Given Whatis.'kndwr. about these life stages (i.e., no eggs present in the action area;larvae only expected tob efounddin ihe deep channel:'area away'from the intakes) and the,-:intensity 'f'the pastrmol nhni n.gi:it, is'reasofnable to assume that this past monitoring provides- anaccurate assessment of past entrainment of shortnose sturgeon early life stages. Based on this, itis unlikelythat any entraimrnentJrf Thoftnose sturgeon eggs and larvae occurred historically.The impingement of shor'tnose~stutgeorn-at I22 and '.23 has been documented. Impingement.monitoring, -described fuily~belo'w 'ii the: "Effects. cf, :ALti~ha3 '"ection4 occurred, from 1974-1990, durinlg this time pefiod 21 shortnose'sturgec'ivwere observed inipinged at.IP2.. ,Length isavailable-for 6,fish and.ranged from 320-710mm. : Condition (dead'or alive) is.also only availablefor 6 fish;,withl 5 of the 6 fish reported dead., Howeveri no -infor-mation' on the :condition of thesefish is available, thus it is riot possible to speculate asto Whether thege .sh were fresh dead or-died previously and drifted into the intakes. -For: Uriit 3,"11, imppinged';shortros'e sturgeonwere:recorded: Condition is available for 3 fish,: with two of-the threedead. ,Length is-also onlyavailable for three fish, with lengths of 325, 479 and 600 mm. Water temperatures atthe time ofrecovery ranged from 0.5 -28°C. Collectively at IP2 and IP3, impingements occurred in allmonths except July and December. .'While models of the current thermal plume are available; it is not clear whether this, model.accurately represents past conditions associated with the' thernal.plume. As,'no information on.past thermal conditions are available and no, monitorinn :was done historically to determrine if thethermal plume was effecting shortnose sturgeon or their prey; it is not possible to estimate' pasteffects associated with the discharge of heated effluent,froin the Indian Point facility. No 'information is available on any past impacts to shortnose sturgeon prey due to impingement orentrainment or exposure to the thermal.plume.-.This is because no monitoring of shortnosesturgeon prey in the action area has occurred.Hudson River Power Plants:, r ' .' ...,The mid-Hudson River provided the cooling water ,for foir. other power plants in. addition toIndian Point (RM 38):; Roseton GeneratingStation.(RM 66),.Danskarmner Point GeneratingStation (RM 67)4 Bowline PointGenerating Station:(RM 33), and Lovett Generating Station (RM38); all four stations are fossil-fueied.steam. electric stations, located on the western shore- of iheriver, and all use once-through cooling. Roseton consists of two units and is located at RM 66(RKM 106), 23 mi (37 km) north of lP2 and IP3. Just 0.5 mi (0.9 km) north of Roseton isDanskammer, Withl -four units: Bowline lies about five mi (eight kin) south of !P2 and IP3 and.consists of two units (Enterg& 2007a; CHGEC 1999).: Lovett, almost directly across the riverfrom IP2 and IP3, is no longer operating.In 1998, Central Hudson Gas andElectric Corporatibný(CHGEC), th.- operator of the RosetonNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2-0i:-,.

and Danskammer ,P.oin.t power.,plants initiated an application .fora permit undersection-I0(a)(1)(B) ofthe: ESA.7 As part of this -process -CHGEC submitted a, Conservatipn plan andapplication for a 1 0(a)(1)(B).incidental take permit that proposed tQ iminimize the potential forentrainment and impingement of shortnose sturgeon at the Roseton and Danskammer Pointpower plants. ,These measures-ensurethat the operation.of these plants,,will. not appreciablyreduce the likelihood of thelsurvival and recovery of shortnosQ stprgeon.in.the~wild. In additionto the:minimization measures;,a, proposed monitoringprogram was. implemrented to assess theperiodictake ofishortnose, s§trgeon, the status of the species,,jdthe project!area, and the progresson the fulfillment ofmitigatioiu requirements.- In Decembter, QO y.D, yfggRoqseton L.LC. andDynegyDanskammer-Point .L.,L. 0were issued incidental1tajt pe..rrr jnp~,69 (ITPi 1269)...The ITP exempts theincidental-.take:of,2shortnose sturg~cnatRpseJona,n .4 atDanskammo.rPoint annually. This incidental take level is based upon impingement data collected from 1972-1998. ,NMFS determined-that; this. leveliof take .was not likeytoeappreciably-reduce the numbers,distribution;,-or reproduction ofltihe-Mudson;RieT. population of shortnose, sturgeon .n a way that-appreciablylreduces the, ability .f~shorkaose, sturgeon to surviv, and rec therwild, Since:,,the ITRPwasf issued,,,eihqnumber of shoram0se sturgeon, impinged. has been very low.. ,Dynegy has.indicated that this may be, due~in:pa-t :to.reduced operations, at the facilities which results insignificantly less water, witdraMrwal. and ýfferefore, tss opportunity for impingement. .Wh.ile -historicalrmonitoringreportst iidicate ;that.a smallnumber of sturgeon larvae were entrained:at.,:',Danskanimer4 'no. Storgeoft larvae, have been observed, in entrainment samples collected since the:ITP was issued.,-i i,., , ". , , ' , .-" ,r .1 1 IM ' ".. .I.. .. .., r : .i: ," , "; .'Scientific Studies -,, ,The Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon have been the focus of a prolonged historyof scientific-research.; Inthe 1i930s, the New,.York State Biologica-l Survey, launched the firstscientific sampling study and documented the distribution, age, and size of mature shortnosesturgeon (Bain et,al..:1998). In the earlyl 970sfresearch resumed in response, to a lack ofbiological. data and concerns about the~impac. of electric generation facilities on fishery resources(Hoff 1988)...In an effort to monitor relative abundance, population status, and distribution,..,.intensive sampling of shortnose sturgeon inthis region has-.continued throughout the past forty -years. Sampling studies targeting otherý species also incidentally capture shortnose sturgeon.There are currently three shortnose sturgeon scientific research permits issued pursuant to .Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the. ESA, in the Hudson River.,: NYDECs' scientific research permit.(#1547) authorizes DEC, to conductiriver surveys in th¢ Hudson River, specificallyfocusing onHaverstraWBay.and Newburgh areas to evaluate the seasonaal movements of adults. and-juveniles.NYDEC.islauthorized to capture up to 500 adults/juveniles annually in order-to. weigh, measure,,tag, and collect tissue samples for genetic analyses. :Permit..#: 1547Texpires Octob.er.;31; 2011.Scientific-research permit 1,575 authorizes Earth Tech,f Inc.. to conduct.astudy of fisheries.resources in and. around the Tappan Zee Bridge'in support of the. NY.Depiartment. of .7 CHGEC has since been acquired by Dynegy Danskammer L.L.C. and Dynegy Roseton L.L.C.(Dynegy), thus the currint incidental takgpe)mitrjs h ped by Dynegy..NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 21 lJv. .2r , , ..:: , .-' , I , ýý. -ý I f ' , V ..'

Transportation, NY Thruway Authorit$, and the Metro-North Railroad efforts to improve themobility in the 1-287 corridor including the-potential replacementiof the Tappan ZeelBridge:Data collection is focused on fish assemblages and relative species abundance in the'vicinity ofthe bridge. Earth Tech, Inc. is authorized to capture, handle, and measure up'to 250';-,"..,adult/juvenile shortnose'stiirgeonannually. Permit # 1575 expires Noverfiber 30, 20111The third scientificresearch- originally issued as #1254): is issued to Dynegy to",'evaluate the life; history, p ptPilation trends', ,and;spacio-temporal' and size distribution of: shortnosesturgeon collected duringI'!eu-rtnual Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program. .Dynegy isauthorized 82 adults,juvenil s annually, to measure,: tag, photograph; andcollect tissue samples 'f b gernetic'analyses .,Dynegy is also authorized to lethally take up to 40larvae annually.. Permit #- 1,-80 'vill: vxpi _e on March 3 i,-i 2012- These permits are issued for aperiod of five years nmd1mrayb&r.enf .,ipending a fornal review .by NMFS' Office of ProtectedResources, Permits Division. ' ' '. .'., .... ...... ......Impacts of Contaminants and Water Quality , ,-:',, ..i..'" ....Historically, shortnose sturgeon. were rare in the lower Hudson River,'likely, as 'a result of poorwater quality precluding migration further downstream.: H vwever' in the past several years, thewater quality has improved-and sturgeon have been found as far dowsL'eam, as Manhattan/Staten Island area. It is likely that contaminants remain "n the,'water and in the. actionarea, albeit to reduced. levels. , Sewage,. industrial pollutants and ,waterfrontdevelopment has..-likely decreased the water quality in -the action area: Contaminants introd-_uced into the.watercolumn or through the. food chain, eventually-become associated with the benthos where bottomdwelling species like shortnose sturgeon are particularly vulnerable. Several characteristics of.:,'shortnose sturgeon life history including long life span, extended residence in estuarine habitats,and being a benthic orrmivore, predispose this, species .to..long term repeated exposure to!environmental contaminants and bioaccumulat-ion of toxicants (Dadswell 1979).Principal toxic chemicals in the Hudson River include pesticides and herbicides, heavy metals,and other organic contaminants such as PAHs and PCBs.: Concentrations of many heavy. metalsalso appear to be in decline and remaining areas of concern are -largelylimited to those nearurban or industrialized areas. With the exception of areas near New York City, there currentlydoes not appear to be a major concern with respect 'to heavy metals ii the Hudson River;- however.metals could have previously affected shortnose sturgeon.,, .* .'. .PAHs, which, are products of incomplete combustidn&--most comrnonly enter the Hudson 'River asa result of urban runoff. As a result,' areas of greatest'concern are limited'to'urbanized, areas,:-principally near New York 'City%. The majority of individual PAl-Is of concern have. declined'.'during the past decade in the lower Hudson River and New York Harbor. : --PCBs are the principal toxic 'chemicals of concern in the' Hudson River. Primary 'inputs of PCBsin freshwater areas of'the Hudson River are from the upper Hudson River near Fort Edward andHudson Falls, New York. In the lower Hudson. River, -PCB concentratioris,observed are a resultof both transport' from upstream as well as direct inputs, fromadjacent uibanr areas-., PCBs tend'to.be bound to sediments and also bioaccumulate and biomagn-ify once they "enterithelfood 'chain..NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August'. 2011,.w.'" ... ..' .2 ,

This tendency to bioaccumulate and biomagnify results in theconcentration of PCBs in the tissueconcentrationsijl aquatic-dependentorganfisms. These tissue levelrs can bej many. orders of..magnitude higher-than those observed in sediments and can approach or. even exceed levels thatpose concern over risks to the environment and to humans who might consume these organisms.PCBs can have'serious-;deleterious effects on aquatic life. and areassociated with the productionof acute lesions, growth retardation, and reproductive impairment (Ruelle and Keenlyne 1993).PCB's may-also contribute to a decreased. immunity to fin'rotl(DoveIt et.al.:1992).', Large areas ofthe upper Hudson River to be, contaminated byPoGBs-audithisi is-thought to account forthe high: percentage of shortnose -sturgeon in the Hudson RiveE.,exhibidiag Efin -rot.-.. Under astatewjde toxics monitoring pr.ogram,4 the, NYS DEC analyzed~tissues from four ,shortnose.sturgeon to determine P.CB concentrations. -.In.gonadal tissuosý,owhere lipidtpercentages are .highest,: the. average PCB conrceitratiofi was. 29.:55.partspor.mititionppbm;' Sloan 1981): and in all:tissuesranged~from,22.1 .to 997.0,ppm, Dovel nore:than J75% of the, !,tshortnose sturgeon captured in his study had severe incidence-of fin rot:*;In the Connecticut River, coal tar leachate was suspected of impairing',sturgeon, reproductive.: -,success.- Kocan (1.993) coiiducted. ailaboratory: study to investigate, the survival of sturgeon-eggsand larvae exposeddo.PAHs,: a by-prodtict.of coal distillationý, Only approximately,5% of, .:.-sturgeon embryos and larvae suiiviived- after, 18 days of exposure to, Connecticut River coal-tar.(i.e., :PAH) demonstratingthat contaminated sediment is toxic to shortnose sturgeon :embryos andlarvae under laboratory exposure.conditions (NMFS :.1998). Manufactured, Gas Product (MGP)waste, which'is chemically similar= to'the, coal tar deposits found in the Connecticut.River;,: isknown tO occur at severalsites within the Hudson River and -this waste.may have had 'similar.effects -on any shortnose~sturgeom'present inithe action area over the years.: -'. ,"Point source discharge (i.e., municipaliwastewater, paper milleffluent, industrial or power plantcooling water or waste Water) and compounds!associated with discharges -(i.e., metals, dioxins,dissolved solids, phenols, and hydrocarbons) contribute to poor water quality and may alsoimpact the health of sturgeon populationsi-I The compounds associated with discharges can alterthe pH of-receiving waters; which may. lead! t& mortality, changes in fish behavior, deformations,and reduced egg production-:and survival;.. -.Heavy-usage of the-Hudson River and development-'along the waterfront could have affectedshortnose sturgeon throughout the action area., Coastal development and/or construction sitesoften result in excessive water turbidity, which could influence sturgeon spawning and/orforaging. ability. 1 Industries along the Hudson-River havelikely impacted the water quality, asservice industries,, such as transportation, communication;,-public utilities, wholesale and retailtrades; fminice,: insurance- and real estate, repair and othersý have increased since. 985 in all ninecounties in the lower Hudson River.ý , , , ' ,.' ' .-,The Hudson River 'is .used as: a- source of,potable water, for waste disposa1t transportation- and.-.cooling-by-industry and municipalities.-'Rohman et al. (1987) identified 1.83 separate industrialand.municipat discharges to- theH~udson anid-Mohawk Rivers..,, The greatest number of users werein- the chemical industry;.faollowed:by. the oilhindustry, paper and textile manufactures;- sand,'gravel., and rock processors;.power p0ants,-and cement companies., Approximately 20 publicly',NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August;,2011, :;,"

owned treatment'works discharge' sewage and wasteWater Into. the Mo'stof themunicipal wastes receive primary and secondary treatment. A'relatively small 'affioint'of sewageis attributed to discharges from recreational boats.. .-. ,' .'As explained above, -the shortnose sturgeon population in the: Hudson' River is the largestshortnose sturgeon population in the'U.S. 'Studies conducted in the, late '1 990s -indicate that thepopulation may have-increased 400%compared to previous studies..; The: available infornationindicates that despite facing threats' such as power plant entrainments, Water'quality and in-waterconstruction, the poldlatiori;expeirienced- considerable growth between the late, 1970s and late1990s and is stable at high levels (Woodlandand Secor2007)-.: "Global cliMate change i-.. L: .U.. ,,.The global last 41"50 years, and the linear, trend overthe last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years (IPCC 2007a) and precipitation hasincreased nationally by 5%-10%, mostly due to an increase in heavy downpours (NAST 2000).There is a high confidence:'based 6n sJubstanti.al anew: bbserved-changes in marinesystems are associated, with rising water temperatures; as'.well as ,relatedlchanges in ice cover,salinity., oxygen, levels, and circulation. Ocean acidification resulting fr'om massive 'amounts ofcarbon dioxide and otherlpollutants released intothe ai.r:can have- major adverse.impacts, on- thecalcium'balance iný the oceans. Changes, to the marine ecosystem due, to clirmatechange'includeshifts in rangesand changes in algal, plankton, and fish abundance (JPCC 2007b); -these: trendsare most apparent over the past few decades.,,Tfo6nmaticn on- fut-reimpacts -of climate change inthe action area is' discussed below..-,:; ' .-' -* " ' ' .' .: 'i .' ' -2' .; , : -.. ... " .. : ."r ' : ": .: , , : ...,!" ' -; .--"- " ,'C " 'Climate model projections exhibit a wide range of plausible scenarios for both temperatizre and -precipitation over the next century. Both of the: pincipal:climate models used-by the NationalAssessment SynthesisTeam (NAST) project warming: in.ti)esoutheast by the 2090s,_;but atdifferent rates (NAST.2000): the Canadian model scenario showsthe southeast U.S. , -, .,experiencing a high degree of warming, which translates into lower soil moisture as higher- .temperatures increase evaporation; -the Hadley~model scenario projects less warming and a,. ,significant increase in precipitation (about 20%). :The scenarios examined, which assume~nomajor interventions to reduce continued growth of world greenhouse -gases (GHG), indicate- that-.temperatures in the. U.S. will rise by about 3'-50C (5°-9°F) on average inthe, next 100years.which is more than the projected global increase (NASTT2000). A warming of about 0.2CC perdecade is projected for the next two decades over a range of emission scenarios (IPCC 2007).This temperature increase will very likely be -associated, with more extreme precipitation andfaster evaporation of water; leading to greaterf frequency of both very wet 7and very dry -: ,- .-conditions. Climate wanning has. resulted in increased precipitation, river. discharge, and' glacial..and sea-ice melting (Greene et alh,2008). ' : ,, : --'. * -'. .. --'The past 3 decades have witnessed major changes in ocean circulation patterns inthe Arctic, andthese were accompanied by climate associated-changes as well (Greene et al. 2008).. Shifts inatmospheric conditions have altered Arctic Ocean circulation patterns' and theexport offreshwater to the North Atlantic (Greene et al.'2008, IPCC 2006). 1vVMith respect:specifically to ,.:the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)% changes peratrTirc- are thought to be, theNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augus"t' 20,I.? "

result of changes. inthe earth'.s.atmosphere caused by anthropogenic~forces (IpCC:2006). TheNAO impact :climate variability throughout the northern hemisphere (JPCC..2006).-, Data fromthe 1960s through the present show that the NAO index has increasedfrom minimum, values inthe 1960s to strongly positive index values in the 1990s and somewhat declined since (IPCC2006). This warming extends opv.er;1000m deep and, is deeper -than, anywhere in the world oceansand is particularlyevident:under the Gulf-Stream/ North Atlantic, Current, system (IPCC 2006).On a global scale, large. discharges of freshwater intof the:,NorthAtjantjq subarctic seas can leadto intense stratification of the uppernwater icolumnn and a~disruptioN, OYfN0rth Atlantic Deepwater(NADW) formation (Greene.ietal,,2008, IPCC -2006). Tlhereis. thit the.NADW hasalready freshened significantly,(JIPCC_ 2006). This;, in turn.canlcad,,tQ, alowipg down of.theglobal ocean thermohaline (large-scale circulation in the ocean that transforms low-density upperocean waters to higher density intermediate and deep waters and returns those.waters backto theupperocean), -which can have climatic ramifications,for system (Greene et al.2008).While predictionsrare~available regarding:potential.effects of climate change globally, it is moredifficult to assess the!patential effects. of climate, changeover the next few decades on coastal andmarine resources on:smaller geographic, scales, suchlas. the Hudson :River, especially as climatevariability~is a:dominant.factor in,shaping icoastal and marine systems. ,:;The effects of futurechange-will vary greatly.in, diversme coastabregions for the. United. States. Additional information,on potential effects of (climate, change. specific toAthe, action area is discussed below.... Warming isvery~likely to continue inthe"U. S. ,dver the next,25.ito 50 years.regardless of reduotion-in GHGs,due to emissions that have already occurred (NAST 2000); therefore;,itýis also expected to -,continue during the course of the renewed licenses (20 years), if issued. It is very likely that themagnitude and frequency of ecosystem changes will continue.to increase in the next'25 to 50years, ,and it is ipossible that they will, accelerate.-, Climate change can'cause or exacerbate directstress oni ecosystems*through high temperatures; a reductionein -water availability; and alteredfrequency of extreme events and severe[ storms.., -Water temperatures in streams and rivers arelikely to:increase as the climate)warms~and ai'e very likely to have, both direct and indirect effectson aquatic ecosystems. Changes in'temperatuie.will' be most .evident during low flow periodswhen theyiare of greatest: concern (NAST 2000). Jmn'somemarine and freshwater systems, shiftsin: geographic rangesland changes, in alga,' plankton,,, and fish abundance are associated with highconfidenceiwith rising water temperature's; a§--well as related changes in ice cover, salinity,.oxygen levels ;and circulation (IPCC 2007.)ý. ý, ` ., .' '. , '.A warmer andidrierclimateis expected toIresult in reductions in stream flows and increases inwater temperatures,. 'Expected consequences could be-a- decrease, in the. amount of dissolved'oxygeh, ih,' surface waters and an, increase in the concentration of nutrients-and toxic chemicalsdue to reduced flushing rate (Murdoch et al. 2000). Becausekmany:rivers are already under a great deal of stress due to excessive water withdrawal or land development, and this stress maybe exacerbatedby changes in climate, anticipating and planning adaptive strategies may be -,critical (Hulme:2005).., A warmer-wetter~climate!could ameliorate poor Water quality conditionsin places where human-caused concentrations: ofnutrients and pol.ltants other than heat currentlydegrade' water quality, (Murdoth.et al. 2000). Increases in water temperature andchanges inseasonal patterns .f runoffwill,very lkely Aisturb fish habitat. and affect 0creational: uses ofNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August."2011,.'

lakes, streams, and:wetlands',. Surface Water resourcesin the: southeast, are iritenisively managedwith dams and channels and almosti all are affected by human activities; in some systems waterquality is either below recommended levels or nearly so. .A global analysis of the potential ,Jeffects of climate change on river basins indicates that due to changes in discharge and waterstress, the area-of large-river basins in need of reactive or proactive.management interventions inresponse to climate change.will be much higher for basins impacted by. dams than for, basins-withfree-flowing rivers (Palmer. et al. 2008).. Human-induced disturbances also influence coastal andmarine systems, ofternf -ducing the-ability of the systems to adapt so that-systemn's that mightordinarily be, capable of tes~potiding to:vaiiability~and change are less able todo so.. Becausestresses-on wdater quafityti-e associated wifhmrnany activities;.the impacts of the existing stressesare likely torbe exacerbated,by ciirnate change; Within 50 years, river basinsthat are impacted bydams. orby'extensive developmenti- ay experience greater -changes in discharge-and water stressthan unimpacted, .free-flbWing'riave (Paimer e&a! 2008),, ....... " ..." ; "r.-'.. ........ ....... ..;':q t... ....'",.::: "".. ....While debated; researcthers anticipate:. ,1).the frequetrcy-Lnd intensity of droughts- and floods will-change across the'nation,-,2) a warnning of aboutV0.2°C.per 'd&cade; and 3)irisein sea level .(NAST 2000). A warmer and drier climate will reduce stream flows and incr-ease water', , .temperature resulting in a decrease of DO and an increase in the concentration of nutrients andtoxic chemicals due to reduced flushing. Sea' level:,is expected to-'continue.rising: during the 20thcentury global sea level has increased'15 to 20 cm.: -..... .......' 'Effects: on.shortnose, sturgeon thrbughout their range. :- ..."..... .....Shortnose sturgeon' have .persisted for millions of years and throughout this time, have,experienced wide variations in global climate conditions arid have successfully adapted t0,thesechanges. As such, climate change at normal 'ates (thousands of years) is not thought'to -havehistorically a problem shortnose sturgeon.' Shortnose sturgeon could be affected by changes inriver ecology resulting from increases.. in precipitation and changes in water temperature whichmay affect recruitment and distribution in these; rivers.,, However, as noted in. the "'Status -of theSpecies" section above, information on current effectsof global climate change on shortnosesturgeon is not available and while it is speculated that future climate change may affect thisspecies, it is not possible to quantify the extent to which effects may occur. Howe,%er, effects' ofclimate change in the action: area during the: temporaijscopeof this section 7 analysis (the: licenserenewal periods for IP2/IP3: September 2013 ýo September 2033 and December 2015 to.'.December 2035) on shortnose sturgeon in theaction. area are discussed. below. .. ..-.. .....Information on how climate change will impact the action area is extiemely limited.r, Available.information on climate change related effects for the Hudson River largely focuses on effects thatrising water levels may.,have on th6,hurnan envirom-ent. The New York State SeaLevel Rise.,"Task Force (Spector in Bhutta'20.1 0) predicts a state-wide sea level rise of 7-52 inches by the endof this century, with- the conservative, range being about 2 feet.! This compares to an average sealevel rise of about.1b foot in the Hudson Valley in the.past ,100 years. Sea level rise is expected to.result in the northward. movement of the salt wedge. The location of the salt wedge in theHudson River is highly variable depending on season, river.flow, and precipitation so it isunclear what effect this northward shift:could have. lPotentiair negative effects include restricting.,the, habitat available forjuvenile shortnose sturgeon A hich:arei:: __tokcraný 4o.salinity..and areNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August"2011:".,

present eexolusiv.ely upstream of the .sal-t ,wedge., .While there is an indicatiojn that an increase insea level rise twould result in a, shift in the location of the salt wedge, at this time there are nopredictions& on -the timing o0;extent of any shift that may oc.cur'.. ., ... ,- .Air temperatures in-the Hudson, Valley have risen approximately 0.5.C. since 1970..In the 2000s,the mean. Hudson river, water temperature, as measured at the Poughkeepsie -Water TreatmentFacility,- was approximately 2'C)higher than averages recorded in thea 1960s (Pisces 2008).However, while it is possible to examine past water temperature data and observe a warmingtrend; there.are notcurrently any predictions onwpotential futurejinores.es in watertemperature inthe action area specifically or-the Hudson Rirver generally: ..he. Eisqs r.eport (ý008) also statesthat temperatureswithin the Hudson River may be bepor'ingimorm extrem e. I or example, in2005, watertemperature'on certain da~tes was.olose tQ the makimum, evetrecorded and. also. onother dates reached the lowest temperatures-reecordeovoer a)53-,yeartperiod..,.Other.conditionsthat may be related to. climate change that have been reported in the Hudson Valley are warmerwinter :temperatures; earlier melt-out and.;mo9xosYere flooding.: Anwaverage :increase in.. -:..precipitation .of about 5%/-is expeoted;; howeVer,:information ion-the effects of an, increase in,.,:,precipitation on conditi-ojsdin-the'action area is not, available.. , ,.As .there is, significant tunoentainty:in the rate and timing of change as well .as the effect of any.changes that may be experienced in the action area due-to climate change, it is di'fficult to predict,the impact of these changes on shortnose sturgeon. The most likely effect to shortnose sturgeonwould be if sea level rise was great enough to consistentlyshift the salt wedge far enough northwhich would, restrict.the range of juvenile shortnose sturgeon and may affect the.,development ofthese life:stages. JIn the actiomarea, it is possible, that changing seasonal temperature regimescould resiilt in changes in the timing of spawning; which would result in a change in the seasonaldistribution of sturgeon'in the action.area.:.A northward shiftin the salt'wedge could also drivespawning shortnose sturgeon further upstream, which may result in a restriction in the spawningrange and an iticrease in: the numberoftpawning'shortnose sturgeon in the action area, as thisarea is the furthest accessible upstream, spawning area.As described above4 overnthe long term, global. climate change may affect shortnose sturgeon byaffecting the location of the salt wedge, distribution of prey, :water temperature and water quality;however, there is sighificant uncertaintity; due to a. lack of scientific data, on the degree to whichthese effects may be experienced and therdegree to-which shortnose.sturgeon will be able tosuccessfully adapt to any such changes. Any activities occurring within and outside the actionarea: thittcdntributel toglobal climate. change;are:also ýexpected to affect shortnose sturgeon in theaction: arda,, (Scientific data on changes in shortnose sturgeon distribution and behavior in theactionrreamis not available., Therefore,tit is not possible :to say-with any degree of certaintywhether and how their distribution 'or behavior in the action. area. haye been or.are currentlyaffected by climate change related impacts. Implications of potential changes- in. the action arearelated;to, climate change. are not clear in terms of population: lev'el impacts, data specific'to these;species in the action area are lacking., Therefore;.any recent impacts from climate change in the -action area are not:q.uantifiqbleý.or;describabl.e to a degree that could be meaningfully.analyzed.in.this consultationw'However,vgiven., the likelyi, rate of climate change, it is, unlikely that there will..:be significant'effects~to shortnisei sturgeoniin the.:action area, suchas changes in distribution orNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011-.

abundance, over thetime period considered in this consultation (i.e.;, 2013 throdgh*2035) and it isunlikely that shortnose sturgeon in the action area will experience new climate, change'relatedeffects not already captured in the "Status of the Species" section above concurrent with theproposed action. -.EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ... .This section of a Opinion, assesses the direct and indirect effects of the proposed. action onthreatened and endangered species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activitiesthat are. interrelated .ordnte.dep.dendent (50.CFR402.02),! Jndirect effects are those that are-causedlater in. time, but are sti-h,:easonably'cetain:to occur.., Interrelated..actions are those that are partof a larger action. and, dpe.nd, upon tha-larger action for their justification. Interdependent actionsare those that have r.o. icndependent .uti. ..ity apart from. the action under consideration (50 CFR402.02). This Opinion, examin.es , "ho b kelr effects of.the.proposed action. on.shortnose sturgeonand.their habitat. in the acti6n: area. within, the context of thea species current status, theenvironmental baseline.and cumulative effects. of the proposed action are the, effectsof the continued operation of IP2 and IP3 ,pursuant to renewed. licenses proposed to be issued bythe NRC pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act.: NRC has requested,consultafi.o.n on the.proposedextended operation of the facilities under the same terms .asin. the existing :licenses :i.nd, existingSPDES permits....... ............ ................,.-......The proposed, action has the potential to affect shortnose sturgeon in several ways: impingementor entrainmenti of individual shortnose sturgeon at the intakes; altering the abundance or;,availability of potential prey items; and, altering the riverine environment througb the dischargeof heated effluent.Effects of Water Withdrawal ...... ,,.... ...Under the terms of the proposed renewal license, IP2 and T.P3 will withdraw water from theHudson River for cooling. Both units would utilize, once through cooling, assuming no. changesare made to the proposed action. Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that the, .location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the besttechnology available for minimizing adverse en-Nironmental impacts. According to the draftSPDES permit for the facility, the NYDEC has determined for .Clean Water Act purposes that thesite-specific best technology available to minimize the 'adverse environmental impacts of the IPcooling water intake structures is closed-cycle cooling, (NYDEC.2003b).

  • IP2 and IP3 currentlyoperate pursuant to the terms of the SPDESpermits issued. by NYDEC in 198' but.t,. .administratively extended since then.. NYDEC issued a draft SPDES permit in 2003..,Its finalcontents and timeframe forissuance are uncertain, given it. js still under adjudication atithis. time..While it is also uncertain that the facility will be able to operate under the same terms a.s those- inits~existing license and SPDES permit, NRC sought consultation on its proposal to renew thelicense for the facility under.,the same terms as the existing. license. and SPDES permit,. whichauthorize once through cooling. NMFS will consider the impacts to shortnose sturgeon of the.continued operation of 1P2 and IP3 with the existing once through cooling system and existingSPDES permits.over the duration of the proposed l.icense renewal period for 1P2 and IP3 (i.e.,September 20.13. to.September 2033 and December 20.15 to December 2,035, respec~tively). But,it is important to note that changes to the effects.of the action, inclu.in.g htt .nct, limited toNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -2011...

changes in, the effects of the cooling water system, as well as changes in other. factors, maytrigger reinitiat~on.of consultation,:(s~ee.50 CFR 402.16). ,Entrainment of Shortnose sturgeon ...Entrainment occurs when small aquatic life forms are carried into and through the cooling systemduring water withdrawals. Entrainment primarily affects organisms.with limited swimmingability that can pass through th, screerd mesh;,used on: the intake -systems' OOnqe. entrained,organismspass' throtigh' the circulating pumps and are carried with the waterfiow through theintake cofilttits toward the co¢fdenser units.'. They are then drawnthrough!one of the-many;condenser tubes used. to cool-the tutrbinelexhatst steam; (where coo1ing.wdter absorbs heat). andthen enter:the discharge retiiMnto the Hitdson"Rier.J t As,¢ntrainedl6rganisms passthrough: th6; intaked they may be injured from abrasion.or Withinthe cooling system,they encounterphysical impacts iwethe pAunfpsý andi cbnd.ngei chantges, and shearstress through6utr the system; thermak shock withi,,the kondenserg.andexposiure to chemicals,!including cdhlorine and residual industria1zhenikalsý discharged'at lthe diffuserports (Mayhew et:al.: 2000 in NRC 20.11),() Death can occur imnitediately'or a later time fromrthe. physiologicaleffects of heat,'or it cafhocour-aftc.iorgalrisms are: discharged if stresses or injuries result in'af-inability toý escape ptedatoes, ared aced abilityto-forageý or other impairments.:4, ., f,The southern extent of the shortnose sturgeon spawning area in the Hudson River isapproximately RM, 1 li (RKM 190)V' approximately: 75 RMI (121 'RKM)' upstream of the intake ofIP2 and IP3. :The'eggs ofshortnose.sturgeonr&-demersal, sinkirrg and adhering to-the.bottom ofthe river,: and, upon hatching the larvae in. both yolk-sac and post-yolk-sac stages remain on thebottom of the river, primarily upstream of RM 110 (RKM 177) (NMFS 2000). Because eggs donot occur near the intake for IP2 and IP3, there is no probability of entrainment. Shortnosesturgeon larvae are 20mm in length at the time they begin downstream migrations (Buckley andKynard Larvae are found in'freshwater, above.the salt wedge. The location ofthe salt wedge'. in the -Hudson Rive-.Varies both seasonally and annually, depending at leastpartially Oii freshwater input. Ininrifhny:yearsithe salt wedge is located upstream of the IndianPointintakes; in those years, larvae would. not'be expected to occur near the IP intakes as thesalinity'levels would be too high.' HIowever,f at times when the salt wedge is downstream of theintakes, Which is most likely to occur in the:late summery there is the potential: for shortnosesturgeon -arvae'to be' present in the action' area. -Larvae occur in the deepest water and in the..Hudson"River; Ithey arei found in the de'ep'channel.(Taubert and.,Dadswell 1980; Bath et al. 1981;Kieffer and Kynard 1993). Earvae grow rapidlyand aftei" a few:*weeks are, too large to beentraiaed, by the cohlin water i-iitake; thls, Jny potential for entrainment is limited to any periodwhent, indiidiial are :srhall 6nough to pass -through the openings in the qmesh screens that .coincide; With a peridd when the salt'wedge is located of the -intakes.- Given thedistance between the intake and! the deep channel (2000 feet)' where any lArvae would be presentif in the action area, larvae are unlikely to occur-near the intake where they could be, susceptibleto entrainm ent.. -:-. ...* ..:'-Studies to evaluate the effects'of entrainment at IP2,and IP3 conducted since the early 1970s.'employed a variety of methods; top asess adtual; entrainment losses- and to evaluate the survival ofentrained orgalisns- after released'back intothe environment by the once-through: .NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -

cooling system. IP2 and IP3 monitored entrainment from 1972 through 1987. Entrainmentmonitoring became more'intensive'at Indian Point from 1981 -through 1987; and samplingwas-conducted for nearly 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> per day, four to seven days per week, during the spawning seasonin the spring. As reported by NRC, entrainment monitoring reports list no shortnose sturgeoneggs or larvae at IP2 or IP3.-'During the development of the HCP. for:steam-electric, generators onthe Hudson River, NMFS reviewed all available entrainment data. In the HCP, NMFS (2000)lists only eight-sturgeon larvae c6llected:at any of themid-Hudsori River power plants (Al eightwere collected at Danskai-mher,(approximately 23 miles'upstream of Indian Point), and four ofthe eight may have beeiin.'L.antie stuitgeon). Entrainment sampling data: supplied'by the- applicant(Entergy 2007b) 'incli'dci'ge inb~rs of'larvae for which the species-could not be determined;however, NRC has ndicated, that a ,tuiigeonxIlivae ai'e.distinctive itis unlikely that sturgeonlarvae would occur inii-ih 'accouiitd"-" category as it is expected that if there were' any sturgeonlarvae in these samples: hey-woildd. have beenjidenitifiable. Entergy currently is -not required toconduct any, monitoring prbgr'amr to'rec 0&d eihtrý .nrunent al,1IP2.and :IP3; however; it is reasonableto use past entrainmenit to Predict., future effe*ts," 'This is:because: (1):-there have not beenany operational changes that make entrainment more likely now than it was during thestime whensampling took place; and, (2) the years when intense entrainment sampling took place overlapwith two of the years (1986 and 1987; Woodland and Secor 2007): when shoitnose' sturgeon -recruitment is-thought to, have been the highest and.tlierefore, thi y'e'ars when, the greatest'numbers bfshortnose sturgeon' larvae were available "or'entrainment.- 'The iack-of observedentrairimnent of shortnose sturgeon during sampling at:IP2 and IP3 is also.reasoiable-given theknown informati6n on the ,location of shortnose:sturgeon spawning aid the distribution of eggsand larvae in the'river.' ... .-..Based on the life histo6-yof the -shortnose sturgeon, the location. of spawning grounds within theHudson River, and the patterns of movement for eggs and'.arvae, it is extremely.unlikely~that anyshortnose sturgeon'early life stages would be entrained at !P2 and/or IP3.: This conclusion issupported by the lack of any eggs or larvae positively identified as sturgeon and documentedduring entrainment monitoring at IP2 or IP3. Provided that assumption is true, NMFS does notanticipate any entrainment of shortnose sturgeon eggs, or larvae over the period of the extendedoperating license (i.e., September 2013 through&September 2033 and December 20i 5 throughDecember 2035). It is important to note that this determination is dependent~on the-validity ofthe assumption that none of the unidentified lar,,ae were shortnose sturgeon. Adl other life stagesof shortnose sturgeon ate too big to pass through the screen mesh and could not be entrained atthe facility. "r............................. ........Impingeinent of Shortnose Sturgeon,, .'. .. ". ..Impingement occurs when organisms are trapped against cooling.water. intake screens or.racks bythe force of moving water.. Impingement can kill organisms immediately, or 'contribute to deathresulting from !exhaustion, suffocation, injury, or exposure to air when screens are rotated forcleaning. The potential for injury or death is generally related to the .amount of time an organism.is impinged, its susceptibility to injury, and the physical characteristics of the screenwashing andfish return systeim that the plant operator uses." Below, NMFS' considers'the available data on theimpingement of shortnose sturgeoft'atithe facility and thlen considers the likely rates of mortality:associated with this impingement, ..* .. ... .NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August'.2011" IP2 and IP3 mopitored impingement of most fish species daily until 1.981, reduced .collections toa randomlyselected schedule of 110 days per year until 1991, and then ceased monitoring in1991 with:the. installation of themodified Ristroph traveling scree.ns..-IP2 and IP3 monitored theimpingement of sturgeon species daily from;1974 through 1!990 (Entergy ý2009).,r. ~1J NjI" ."In 2000, NMFS prepared- anenvironmental assessmentý(EA) for the proposed issuance of anIncidental Take Permit for,shortn.se sturgeon at the Roseton- and Danskaruner generatingstations onithe Hudson River, .0M!S 2000)., -TheEA included the;qsýýiMtedtotal number ofshortnose sturgeon impinged. IP2 and IP3,- with adjustments. when samplingwas not eonducted;!including, the years after,.J 990. when. no, impin.r.gemeRt rmonitoring was-, ,,conducted. In the EA NMFS repoxted.that betweeni972r1',99,8,.am-estimated tQtal of 37shortnose. sturgeon were impinged at IP2, andI26 atIp;3 ,With , ayverageqf p,4,and 1.0 fish peryear, respectively. For, the subset tinje period ,of j989 ota! of 8,slortnoe sturgeon were,estimated to have;beenimpinged at J112. and,$,afllP.3,. with anarage-pf..,Q."'ýfish.per year at each,of the tvomunits. I1/4~'~ 8 ~ *,.,1 tj f' ~ ' , * 'During:Jhe-ESA consultation process, NRC worked with Entergy to reviewthe previouslyreported impingetent--ata, 4dtoimakeia.thematical corrections associated with acco.untingerrors .related to sampling ..requency The ,corrected data for. hortnose sturgeon,-show that, fronm 1975..to.1990,20 -fish werelimpinged at IP2 an~d 11 fish were impinged at IP3;.!this indicates an average: of 1.3 shortnose sturgeon per year atIP2 and, 0.73 ,shortnose sturgeon,per year at IP3. NRC has stated that the installation of the modified Ristroph screens followingthe 1987-1990 monitoring period is expected to have reduced impingement mortality forshortnose sturgeon;,however, because no monitoring Qccured, after .theinstallation: of theRistroph. screens, more. recent data are inot available andit.,is %lot possible to determine to what.extent theimodified Ristroph screens nrray.haye reduced impingement mortality as compared topre-1991'levels. ., .,According to.information provided by Entergy,(Mattson,.personal communication, August2011), approaeh velocities outside of the trashobars at IP2 and; IP.3. are approximately 1.Ofps atfull; flow' and 0,6fpsat reduced flow (Entergy-2007.); yearling and older shortnose sturgeon areable to .avoid intake velocities of this speed (Kynard, personal communication 2004). Shortnosesturgeonthat become impinged at.IP2 and :IP3, are. likely vulnerable, to impingement due to.previous injury or other stressor, given thatindividuals in normal, healthy condition should beable to readily avoid the intakes.The trash bars at the IP2 and IP3 intakes have clear spacing ofthree inches. Shortnose sturgeon adults and some larger juveniles are expected to have bodywidths! greater-than three;inches;.these fish wotiuld be too.wide to, pass-through the bars. Smaller.juveniles,.which are likely to 'ccur in the vicinity of Indian Point (BBain et al. 1998), with bodywidthsless than 3 inches,. would have body widths narrow enough to;pass through the trash bars,and contact the Ristroph screens. ....v , : ... ...'The shortnose sturgeon population in the. Hudspn River exhibited tremendous growth in the 20year period between the late, 1970s: and late P990s4; with exceptionally.strong year classesbetween 1986-1992 thought to have led to resulting increases inthe subadult and adult'.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -!,,.

populations sampled: inhe .late 1990s (Woodland 'and Secor 2007). The period-for which'.impingement sampling occurred partially overlaps with -the period of increased recruitment; .however, during the portion of the sampling period that does overlap with the period -of increasedrecruitment (1986-1990) the increases in.the shortnose sturgeonpopulation would have been: fishless than 4 years old, -which represent-only a small portion, of the overall shortnose sturgeon:--population.

  • Thus, to predict "future :impingement rates it is appropriate: to adjust the past ,impingement rates: with: a: correction' factor to account for the increased number of shortnosesturgeon in the;population.: According:to data presented by Bain (2000) and Woodland and Secor(2007), there were, 4 times'as many ,shortndse sturgeon in the Hudson River in the late- 1990s ascompared to the' late i970s.f- Thereis-no figure available for the interini period which would bestoverlap with the period when- iinpingi merit sampling occurred: Woodland and Secor state-thatthe population of shotirosesstLurgon is cun'ently stable at;tlie high- level described also by Bain.Given the four-fold increaseý in the.popLiation, th-erewould be.4,times as-many shortnose,sturgeon that could be' potentially irhpinged at t' he-fakility -yow as compared to the' past "monitoring period:- this', it isreasonable:t,% _' the'past.iimpingement-ratesbby a factorof 4 to predict impingement'irates based on the best :available population size,, Using. this method,an impingement rate of 5:2 shortnose-sturgeon per ye"r.is'cacuaaed~for1P2 and an impingementrate of 2.9 shortnose sturgeon per year is calculated for IP3. Using this rate, it is estimated that.over the 20 year life of the extended operating license, a total of no more than 104 shortnosesturgeon will. be impinged at IP2 and no more than:58 shortnose sturgeon Wil. be. impinged at!.IP3. NMFS considered reviewing imnpingemernt, data-for other Huds6n Rivernp,cwer p lahts to*.determine if this predicted correlation between increases -in.individuals and increased",impingement of individuals would be observed. Long term shortnose sturgeon impingementmonitoring is only available, for the-Roseton, and Danskammer facilities.:' However,since 200.0"both facilities have'operated at:reduced rates and there has been minimal.'shortn.ose sturgeonimpingement. As these facilities are not currently~operatirng in the. same icapacity they:were in, thepast, it is not possible to make an.accurate comriparison o'past and present impingement whichcould serve to verify NMFS assumptions about an increase. in the number of individual shortnosesturgeon in the Hudson River resulting in 'an increase in- impingement.. However; based. ,on theassumption that, all other factors remain the same -(approtchavelocity, intake volume).theu: .,'likelihood of impingement :should increase with an increase in availableindividudls. ,As notedabove, the Lovett facility has been closed..,jThe Bowline facility has always operated with ,. .extremely low levels of impingement," thought! to beprimarily: due to the location of-the intakes ina nearly enclosed embayment of the River where shortnose sturgeon are thought to. be unlikely tooccur (Bowline Pond) (NMFS 2000). .,:... -' -Before installation of modified Ristroph screen systems in 1991;. impingement mortalityjat IP2:.:and IP3 was assumed to be 100 percent. Beginning in 1985, pilot studies were conductedtoevaluate whether the addition of Ristroph screens would, decrease impingement mortality forrepresentative species:. .The final 'design of the screens, as reported in Fletcher (1990), appearedto reduce i mpingement mortality for.some species based on a -pilot study compared to the originalsystem in place at IP2 and IP3. The Fletcher stuidy reportedmortality following, an 8-hourholding period in an attempt to account for delayed mortality that may result from injuriessuffered 'during impingement. Based on the inf, armatibn reported by Fletcherh( 990),impingement mortality and injury are lowest for stripedibass, weakfish,, ard lbogchoker, andNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August-.20.11i:-,

highest catfish; and American shad, with mortality rates ranging from 9-62%,depending -on.Ispecies.: No: evaluation of survival ofshortnose stprgeon..was made.,.,PSEGprepared estimates of impingement survival following interactions with, Ristroph-screens at theirSalem-Nuclear Generating.Stationlocated on the Delaware River,(PSEG. in Seabey andHenderson 2007); survival of shortnose sturgeon was, estimate.at 60% following impingementon a conventional screen-and 80%: following survival at a Ristroph Screen;-survival for otherspecies ranged from 1-00%.. the Indian Point BA, NRC 'states-, that. the. modified Ristrophscreen and fish return' syst'em atSalem is comparable to that-at :Indian Point,. It is important tonote that:PSEG did notconduet field verifications with, shortnose sturgeoa. todemonstratewhether these-survival estimates ;are observed in the~field, review bYNMFS- of shortnoseQ-sturgeonf impingement in-formation at Salem indicates that a4 ,recorded impingements: (20 totalsince 1978; NRC. 201D) havebeen at the trash racks; nobon'the tRisJroph screensv. This.isconsistentwith -the expectation that- alLshertnosc sturgeoxmime ivinity ofthe Salen intakes, Iwould be too large too fit through the trashls bats, and.potentially ccrntaet-thet Ristroph screens.. .,Thus,' whileAthere is, impingement. data fiMi Sealemn. thereis, nom inforniationi on post-impingementsurvival for-shoitnose sturgeon-impinged on the.R-istroph screens,. Themajority of impinged..shortnose sturgeon at Salem. have beeni dead at the time of removal: from -the trash racks (1,7 out!.of 20; 85% ),i *.. I i: ,W rI I.. ..In his, 1.979. 4estimbnyi Dadswell: discussed a mortality rate of shortnose sturgeon at- traditionalscreens~of approximately 60%, although it;is- unclear what information this number is derived:from as no references were prcvidedý and novexplanation was given in the testimony.No fUrther monitoring of impingement rates or.impingement mortality estimateg was conductedafter the naew Ristroph screens were-installed at IP2 and. IP-3 in,199 1', and any actualreduction inmortality or injury-to shortnose sturgeon resulting from-impingement after installation of thesesystems'atIi'2 and,!IP3 has not beentestablished.. As explained above, shortnose. sturgeon with abody width of at least three inches would not be able to pass through the trash bars and wouldbecome impinged on the trash bars and, not pass through to the Ristroph screens. Survival forshortnose, sturgeon impinged, on the trash bars would be. dependent on the length of time the fishwas impingedi 'The available data for shortnose sturgeon impingement at trash bars indicates thatmortality-is likely to be high. Of the 321shortno9 stUrgeon-collected during impingementsampling at 1P2, and IP3, condition- (alive or dead) is available for 9 fish; of these, 7 are reportedas dead. iThere 4is no additional information to assess whether these fish were likely killed priorto impingement and drifted into the intake or whether their deaths were a result of.impingement.Similar high levels of mortality (85%) are observed at the intakes at the Salem Nuclear facility ontheDelw.are; Rirver. -.,'As.noted above, healthy shortnose sturgeon :(yearlings and older) -areexpected to. be able to readily avoid an intake with an approach velocity of. 1.0 fps or less:Therefore, any shortnose sturgeon impinged at the trash bars, where, the velocity is, 1.0 fps or lessdepending: on operating condition, are likely to already be suffering from injury,or illness which -has impaired their swimming ability. As such, mortality rates for shortnose sturgeon impinged.,on the trash bars- are more likelyto, be:as high as 100%.-. -,, .-- ,.Based on the a~vailableiinformation,.it,is difficult topredict the.4ikely, mortality rate for shortnosesturgeon following impingenienton theRistroph screens.i, Shortnose: sturgeon passing-throughNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011.

the trash bars and'becomirng impinged on the Ristroph screens are likely to be. small juveniles ,with body widths less than three inches... Based on the 8-hour survival rates reported~by Fletcher,it is likely that some percentage of shortnose sturgeon impinged on the Ristroph screens willsurvive. However, given that shortnose sturgeon that become impinged on the Ristroph screensare likely to be sufferingfrom.injuries, illnesses, or~other stressors that have impaired theirswimming ability and p-rev.ented thern from beirig able to escape from~the relatively low approachvelocity (1.0 ,fps or less,as measured :within the intake bay in front of the, Ristroph screens, whichyearling and older shortnose- sturgeon are expcted to be able to avoid,(KInard, pers comm..2004)), unknowns regarding injuries and, subsequent mortality and without any site-sp~ecific --studies to base an estimate or even species-specific studies at different facilities, NMFS willassume the worst cdS6,,tht.,ah!! inidivi-dual, shotinose sturgeon:impinged. at IP2 and IP3 ,will die.Thus, using the impingement rates,cadculated above, :an average of 5 shortnose sturgeon may dieeach.year:as a result of finpinge:irienta;tb2 and aar, average of 3 shortnose sturgeon may die eachyear as a result of impingement at IP3; fox a totai. of,.V.4.at. IP2 and 58 at'IP3,over thd extended J20-year operating license. However, NMFS believes that *%he 100% mortality estimate is aconservative, yet reasonable, mortality rate for impinged shortnose sturgeon at the trash bar's andRistrophscreens.' ',"': .. : "' "' " " : ,~~~~~. .........". .........v ,.. " """" '.. ' .., "'. .' ..IL' '. "Effects of Impingement and Entrainment on Shortnose sturgeonprey, ..;. ::;.Shortnose sturgeon feed primarily on benthic invertebrates.. As these, p. eyspecies arefound onthe bottom and are generally immobile or have limited mobility and' are not withiii the water. ,..column; they are- less vulnerable, to impingement~or. entrainment .,Impingement and entrainmentstudies have not included macro invertebrates as focus'species. No macroinvertebrates are -,represented in, the Representative Important Species (RIS) specipes focused on by NR.C in theFSEIS. However, given the life history characteristics (sessile, benthic,'not. suspended iniorotherwise occupying the water column) of shortnose sturgeon forage itemswhich make!,impingement and entrainment unlikely, any loss of shortnose sturgeon prey due to impingementor entrainment is likely to be minimal. Therefore, N.MFS -has determined that the effect onshortnose sturgeon due to the potential loss of forage items caused by impingement orentrainment in the IP2 or IP3 intakes is insignificant and discountable.Summary of Effects of Water Withdrawal -1P2 and IP3The extended operation of IP2 and IP3 would be.authorized.by the NRC through the issuance ofrenewed operating licenses. Given the facilities with. a once-through cooling water systemcannot operate without the intake and.discha:ge of water,.and any limitations or requirementsnecessary to assure compliance with applicable Clean Water Act pr0visions.would be conditionsof the proposed renewed licenses, the effets of water withdrawals are effects. of the proposedaction. In the analysis outlined above, NMFS has determined the impingement of shortnosesturgeon is likely to occur at IP2 and IP3 over the extended~operating period. NMFS hasestimated, using the impingement rates calculated above, that each year an average of 5 shortnosesturgeon may die as a result 6f impingement at IP2 and an average of 3, shortnose sturgeon maydie as a result of impingement at IP3; for a total of 1.04 at IP2 and 58 at IP3 over the 20 yearoperating license. NMFS believes that the 100% mortality estimate is a conservative, yetreasonable estimate of the likelymortality rate;for.impinged:shortnose sturgeon at the Ristrophscreens. Due to the size of shortnose sturgeon that occur inthe.aaction.`area,, fo entrminment at IP2NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August"2011.

or IP3 .isranticipated.- Any effects to shortnose sturgeon prey from the,c~ntinued operation of IP2and IP3,i as~deuined, by the proposed action; would be insignificant and discountable..Effects: ofDischarges to the Hudson River .**. ..... .,.The discharge of pollutants from the IP facility is regulated for.Clean Water Act-purposesthrough .theNew York State Pollution Discharge.Elimination System (SPDES) program. TheSDPES permit (NY-0004472),specifies the discharge standards~and monitoring-requirements foreach discharge. Under this§regulatory program, Entergy treats wastewater.effluents, collects anddisposesa of potential. contaminants, and undertakes.pollution preventioniactivities.As explained above, Entergy's'il987' SPDES permit remmrais:in ffect-whi,'l.NYDECadministrativeproceedings continue on a new draftfipermit..,CAs svch,tpursuantto-NRC's request,the effects of the IP.facility continuinig to. operate utner piloiosedrenewed licenses- and under the;terms of the 1987 SPDES .ffeatedJfluent r! j!-:As indicated above, the extended operation of IP2 and IP3 would be regulated by the NRCthrough the issuance of renewed operating licenses. Given the facilities with a once-throughcooling water system cannot operate without-the intake and discharge of water, and any. -.-,limitations, or requirements, necessary to -assurecompliance -withapplicable CleanWater Act.provisionswould bec onditions of the proposedrenewed licenses, the effects of discharges areeffects of the proposedi action: .Thermal, discharges associated with, the operationi of-the oncethrough cooling water system, for IP2 andIP3 'are regulated for Clean; Water Act purposes by theterms. of the SPDES permit., -!Temperature limiitations are established. and- imposed on, a case-by-case basis for each facility subject to NYCRR!Part :704.: Specific ;conditions, associated with theextent and magnitude of thermal plumes are-addressed in '6 iNYCRR Part 704 as follows:(5)- Estuaries or portionsof estuaries.,i.- The water temperature at thb surface of an estuary shall not be raised to more.-than90'FPat any point:., ,ii. At least 50 percent ofithe cross sectionalFarea and/or volume of the flow of theestuary including a minimum of one-third of the surface as measured fromwater edge to water edge at any stage of tide, shall, nrot be raised to more than..4°F over the temperature that existed before the addition of heat of artificial.- origin or a maximum of 83'F., whichever is less.,.--' iii.' From July through. September, if the water temperature at the surface of ant '! estuaryibefore the addition.of heat of artificial origin is more than an 83TFincrease in 'temperature not to exceed- .5°F at any point of the: estuarinev,.: passageway'as delineated above, may be permitted."iv.: At least 50 percent:of the cross sectional area and/or volume of the flow of the:.estuary including a.minimum of one-third of the surface:as measured fromS.water edge towater edge at any stage of tide,; shall not be lowered more thanS " 40F from the temperature-that existed immediately prior to such lowering.Specific' conditions-of permit NTY-0004472 related: to thermal discharges from IP2 and IP3 arespecified by'NYSDEC.(2003-b) include the.following: -:, :,. ? ' , f j! ' .': I .. .. .NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011:Oll..

  • The maximum discharge temperature is not to exceed 1 IO°F (43°C)., :... .:- "* The daily average discharge temperature between'April 1.5 and June 30 is not to exceed93.2°F (34'C) for an average of more than 10 days per year during the term of the permit,beginning in 1981 provided that it not exceed 93.2'F (34'C) on more than 15 daysduring that period inrany year.,' .: .The discharge of heated water has: the potential to cause lethal or'sublethal effects on fish andother aquatic organisms: and.create baniers, preventing:or delaying access-to.other areas withinthe river. 'Limited information'is available on the characteristics, of the thermal plumie 'associated..with discharges: from' 1P2 .mad:.JP3L Below, NMFS summnarizes the available information on thethermal-plume, discusses th, thermal tol~raricacesof shortnose sturgeon,' and considers effects ofthe plume on shortriose sturgeon 'dind theiriprey;. .'. ,.. -- '. , "........ ..........; : ... ,,, 2: ".', ..:. .I J .'..Characteristics of Inditn 'Point's'Therr.mal Pu ..... , , * .. ..Thermal studies atIP2 and 1P3 were conducted in th. 19,7:7. -9'Flese studies included thermal 'modeling -of near-field- effects using the Cornell University Mixing Zone. Model (CORMIX),- andmodeling of.far-field effects using the Massachusetts :institute of-Tech&nology.(MIT) dynamic -network, model (also. called'the far-field thermal model). -For.the purposeof rhodeling,.near-field.was defined as' the region' in the immediate vicinity of each station-discharge -where cooling-wateroccupies a clearly distinguishable, three-d-imensional :temperature regime: in. therriver that, is not,yet fully mixed; far-field was defined as the region farthest, from the discharges where th'e plumes,are no longer distinguishable from the river, butthe,influence'of the discharge is'still present .(CHGEC et al. 1999). The MIT model was used to simulate the'hydraulic and therma!iprocesses'present in the Hudson River at'a scale deemed sufficient by the utilities and their contractor and.was designed and configured to account for time-variable hydraulic and meteorologicalconditions and heat sources of artificial, origins. Model output included a prediction of-temperature distribution for the Hudson River from the Troy Darn to the island of Manhattan.Using an assumptionof steady-state flow conditions, the. permit applicants applied CORMIXmodeling to develop a three-dimensional plume configuration of near-field thermal conditionsthat could be. compared to applicable water quality criteria: .', ,,. ., .., ..,The former owners of IP2 -and tP3 conducted thermal plume studies employing both models fortime scenarios that encompassed the period of June-September. These months were chosen,because river temperatures were expected io be at, their maximum levels. Thehformer ownersused environmental data from 1981 to calibrate and verify the far-field MIT model and; to, : -evaluate temperature distributions in the Hudson River under a variety of power plant operatingconditions. They chosethe summer months of .1981: because data for all.thermal. discharges. wereavailable and because statistical.-analysis :of-the 1981 summer conditions indicated that. this. yearrepresented. a relatively low-flow, high-temperature summer that would represent a conservative(worst-case) scenario for examining thermal effects associated with power plant thermaldischarges. Modeling was performed under the following two power plant operating scenarios to.determine if New York 'State thermal 'criteria would be exceeded: .; ...: -i. Individual station effects-full capacity operation of Roseton Units.l and. 2, IP2 and- IP3,or Bowline Point Units ,1 and.2,'with no. othei sources of artificial heat. .* .NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August.2011-..". :....

ii. Extreme operating: conditions-Roseton Units .and-,2-,IP.2 and.IP3,. Bowline PointUnits:band:2, andiall othersources of artificial heat operating at full-capacity. .i j'Modeling was initially conducted using MITand CORMIX Version.2.0 under the conditions ofmaximum ebb and flood currents (CHGEC et al. 1999). These results were. supplemented bylater work using MIT and CORMIX Version 3.2 and were based on the hypothetical conditionsrepresentedby the-1 Othc.percentile-.flood currents, mean low :water, depths in- the .Vicinity of each,station, and concurrent. operation: ofall -three generating- stations at. maximum permitted capacity(CHGEC.et-al. 1999). The.l 0thpercentile of flood currents; waselected because it representsthe lowestvelocities that can be evaluated by-CORMIX,- and becaus.eruodbling suggests that .flood currents produce larger plumes thanebb currents.'The results, obtained-from the CORMIX:model runs were integrated with the riverwide temperature'profiles .developed-by-the MIT-, ..dynamic network model to evaluate far-field thermal impacts (e.g., river water temperature risesabove ambient) for various operating scenarios, theýaurface-,width'ofthe pluime,'the depth of theplume, the. percentage .of surface. widthrelative to the -river width, at. t location,' and thepercentage of area bounded by the 4°F (20C) isotherm:t-Itr addition, the decay inexcess -temperature was 6stimatd, from model runs. under near slack wate? conditions'(CHGECet al.-: 1999).': For IP2 and IP3,- two-unit operation at full capacity resulted: in a monthly:average .cross-sectional temperatureincrease of 2.,13 to-,2.860F (1..18 to.1 .590C)for.'ebb tide-events, inJune and August; respectively. -The averagelpercentage4of river surface width bounded by.-the 4'F(2'C) temperature rise -isotherm ranged from- 54 percent (August -ebb .tide) -to 100 percent (July-. .and August'fl0oditide).,: Average cross-sect'onal percentages -bounded by ithe plume ranged -from14 percent-(une-and September) to approx.mately'20 percent (July and August). , When'thetemperature -rise contributions of IP2 and IP3;: Bowline Point;,and.Roseton: were consideredcollectively. (-with all three facilities operating.a maximum-permi-tted 'capacity and discharging themaximum possible heat load), the monthly.cross:-sectional temperature rise in the vicinity of IP2and IP,3 ranged from 3* 240F-(1.80WC).during June ebb tides to 4.639F (2.57'C) during flood tidesin August. ' ,Temperature increases exceeded 4'-F (2'C) on both. tide-stages in July and August.After model-modifications were made to account for the variable river geometry near IP2 andIP3, predictions of surface width bounded by the plumeranged from.36 percent during .zSeptember ebb tides to 100 percent during flood tides in all study months. On near-slack tide, thepercentage of-the surface- width bounded by the 40F' (2C)Q!isotherm was 99 to 100 percent in allstudy months. The average percentage of-the cross-sectional, area bounded by the plume ranged-.from-27 percent (June'ebb tide) to 83 percent (August flood tide) and was. 24 percent in all studymonths during slack; water events..: r -- .Exceedences'generally occurred under- scenarios that the applicants indicated may be consideredquite conhervati-ve; (maximum operation of three electrical: generation facilities simultaneously.for long periods:of time, tidal conditions promoting maximum-thermal impacts, atypical -river., -.flows). The steady-state assumptions of CORMIX arealso important-because, although themodeled- flow iconditions in the-Hudson River would.actually-occur for only a short period of -time when slack water conditions are replaced by tidal flooding, CORMIX assumes thiscondition has been, continuous over:a long period of time.- CHGEC et al. (1999) found that thisassumption can result in 'an overestimate of the cross-river extent iof the plume centerline.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011-.,.

More recently, a triaxial thermal plumne study-was completed. Swanson et al) (2014 conductedthermal sampling and. mbdeling-of the cooling water discharge at Indian Point and.reported thatthe extent and 'shape of the thermal plume' varied greatly, primarily in response to tidal currents.For example, the plume'(illustrated a8 a 4'F temperature increase or LH isotherm;,Figure,6-6 inSwanson et; al. 201-1 by'generally followed the eastern shore of the Hu'dson,-River -and'extendednorthward from Indian(Pbiintduring flood tide and 'southward froni'Indian Point during ebb tide.Depending on tidesý, theplume can b'e-4ell-defined and reach a portion of the near-shore bottomor be largelyconfined~to the gurfaee' ," ' , ,, ., '1 ., .,' .Temperature measurdme'ntS reported by, Swanson, et al. (2011 by generally show'that'the.warmestwater in th&etherma'l:lure: is9,close totheostrfaceand plume temperatures tend to decrease withdepth.,' Occasiodriallyý, the thermal; plumb extends deeply rather than across the surface. A .cross-river survey conducted",fron0c6f Iiidi&n1,aPoint cApturedionesuch incident during spring tide onJuly 13, 2010 (Figure:3:2,8'in Swanson et'a.: 201 l'b)otAcrossrmost Of the river, water, .1 ,temperatures were.closbýto 82°;E'(280C) ioftehi Withmwrhfier te.mperatures near the surface.and.:-,"cooler temperatures ;near thb bottom-.'The4Indima`.Poi t7thenhrl plume, atthat-point was clearly-defined and extended about 1000 .ft (300 .m) from. shore. ;Surface! Water temperatures reached.about 85°W:F(29°Q). At 23-ft to about 25-ft (7-mito depths, observedplumrfemperaturesj;were 839.to;84'F (280 to 29°C). Maximum river-depth along: the mbasUridtransect-isq, t" "approximately -0ft (15 m).n ...,, r. ..II .1'. 11 W. 1+ r.A temperature' contour plot 'of a -cross-river transect. at Indian Point-prepared in ýresponse: to! a.-NYSDEC revieWx illustrates a sithilar, condition on July 11; 20.10 during slack before flood tide(Swanson. et al.20l1 a, Figure. '.+10). Here the thernmal plume is evidenftto labout 2000:ft (600;m)from the eastern shore (the locAtidmn of the Indian Point discharge) and extends towa ,depth- of about35 ft (11 m) along the eastern shore.,,Bottom temperatures above 820F (28°C),, were. confined :toabout the first 250 ft (76 m) from shore. The river herd is .oyer 4500 ft (1400 mr) wide. Iri thatsmall area, bottom water temperatures might alsoerceed,30.PC.(86°F); elsewhere, bottom watertemperatures were about 80'F (270C). These conditions would not last long, however, as theywould change with the tidal cycle. Further,' any sturgeon in this location would be able to retreatto adjacent deeper and cooler water. Under no conditions did interpolated. temperatures in + ,, :,Entergy's modeled results exceed the, 28°C in, the deep reaches, of the river channel'(Swanson.In response to the NYSDEC's review iof the Indian, Point thermal studies -(Swanson et;ah 2011 b),Mendelsohn et al. (2041:) modeled the' maximum area and width. of the thermal plume.(definedby the 4°F (2°C) AT isotherms) in, the HudsonRiver! Mendelsothn,-et al drepbrted that'.fortfour ', .cross-river transects near IP2 and IP3, the maximum cross-river area of~thelplume wouid-notexceed 12.3 percent and the maximum cross-river width of the plume would not exceed 28.6percent of the river (Mendelsohn, et al!s Table 3-1)., ,',Thermal Tolerances -Shortnose'sturgeo zn ' : :.. -, ,.., '...Most organisms can acclimate (i.e. metabolically adjust) to temperatures abovelor below those towhich they are normally subjectedt &'Bull (19,36) demoristrated,,: from azrange of marine species,NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 20.1-ý.

that fish, could detect and, respond to a temperature front of,0.03, to 0.07,OC.. Fish will thereforeattemptto avoid stressful. temperatures by. actively seeking water at the preferred temperature.The temperature preference for shortnose sturgeon is not. known (Dadswell et al. 1984) butshortnose sturgeon have. been found in waters with temperatures. as. low as 2 to 30C (Dadswell etal. 1984), and as. high as. 340C (Heidt and Gilbert 1978). Foraging is, known tooccur attemperatures greater than 73C (Dadswell 1979):.: In the Altarnaha.-River,. temperatures of 28-30'Cduring summer months. are correlated with'mov-.ments to. deep cool .v;aterrefuges. Ziegewald etal. (2008a) conducted studies to determine critical and lethal thermal ma~ximafor young-of-the-year (YOY) shortnose sturgeon acclimated to temperatures of 19.5 and 24.1 0C. Lethal thermalmaxima were ..34.8°C (*0.1). and:.36.1 °C (2:0.4) for fish accl-:tnated :to l:.9!,5,.and 24,1-9.C,.respectively..:,The istudy also, used thermal maximum data-to estimate uppe.r.limits. ofs.afetemperature, final.thenral preferences, and otimum :for.YOY. shortnose,sturgeon.. Visual. observations suggest.thafish exhibited ;3l' i.a" behav4iors' with. increasing-temperature regardless of acclimation ..tem.erature; A stempýeratures:incireased,..fish activity ,appeared. to-increase; approximately .5-6PIcr to the lethal endpoirt, fiOh;gan franticallyswimming around the.ta .presumnaly looking for an.escape:routevl As. fish:.began..to lose,equilibi-lum, their activity.:level decreased dramatically, and at about Oo.3C before the lethal.-,endpoint,, most. fish wer.e- completely.incapacitatedl Estimated upperdlimits of safe temperature-(ULST) ranged from..28.7 to:3._, °;1 C: and varied with acclimation temperature and measured.endpoint. Upper limits of safe temperature (ULST) were determined by subtracting .asafety,,factor of 5PC from the lethal and critical thermal maxima data. Final thermal preference andthermal growth, optima were nearly`dentical for fish -at each acclimation. temperature, and ranged.from 26.2, to' 28..3°C.: Critical thermial maxI.ina (the point at.which~fish lost equilibrium) rangedfrom 33.7 (+/-0.3)to 36: °C- (10.2) and:vailed .withi`acclimation temperature. ,, Ziegwied et al.(2008b),used :data firom laboratory experiments to examine the: individuai and-interactive effectsof salinity, temperature, and fish weighton the survival of young-of-year shortnose sturgeon.Survival in freshwater declined as temperature increased, buttemperature tolerance increasedwith body size. The authors conclude.that-temr...peratures above 290C substantially reduce the.probability of survival for young...of,,year short2ose sturgeon. However, previous studies indicatethat juvenile sturgeons achieve optimum'. growth at temnperatures. lose to their upper thermalsurvival limits (Mayfield and Cech 2004;: Allen et al. 2006; Ziegeweid et al. 2008a), suggestingthat shortnose.sturgeon may seek out a narrow temperature.window to maximize somatic growthwithout substantially increasing maintenance metabolism. Ziegeweid (2006) examined thermaltolerances of young of the year shortnose sturgeon in the lab. The lowest temperatures at whichmortality O'ccurred ranged. from 30.1,--: 31.5C 'depending on .fish size and 'test conditions. Forshortn6se.stitgeon, 'dissolved oxygen (DO) also seems to. play a role,in temperature tolerance,with, increased stress level- -at higher temperatures with, low DO versus the. ability to withstandhigher. temperatures with. elevated DO (Niklitchek 200 1)., ....., ' .Effect of Thermal Discharge on Shortnose Sturgeon .: ......Lab studies indicate that thermal preferences and thermal growth optima for shortnose sturgeonrange from 26.2 to 28.3C. This is consistent with field observations which correlate movementsof shortnose sturgeon:to. thennal.refuges when river temperatures: are greater than 28C in the'..Altanmaha River. -:Lab studies (see:above;,'Ziegweid et.al. 200,8a, and 2008b),indicate that.thermal,maxima for shortnose sturgeon are 33.7(+/-0.3) -36.1 (+/--0.1), depending on endpoint (loss ofNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011.,..

equilibrium or death) and' acclimation temperature. Upper limits of safe temperature werecalculated tobe 28,.7'-' 31.. 1C. ' At temperatures 5-6C less than the lethal makimtimrnshortnosesturgeon are expected 'to bhgin demonstrating avoidance behavior and attempt to escape fromheated waters; this behavior would be expebted when the upper limits: of safe temprature areexceeded. ,1',:i, -i, ,- '. L. .1 I., '. ' '.:, "NMFS first.-considers the potential foirshortnose sturgeon to be exposed to.temperatures whichwould most likely result vitnmortality (333;79C0(93.66TF) or greater). 'The maximum observed'temperature, of thethertaldisolharge is approximately135CP-- Modeling has demonstrated that thesurface area of the,tiva-fffedted'by-the Indian Point~plume whereW.ateritemperatutesh.wouldexceed 32.22C ( 9QFý Would! be-litnittd 4t6 jan area. no. greater than,75.acres. 1"Information, :w,.1provided thermal imodel (Swanson et aL. 2011): indicatethat water temperatures at theiriver-bbttorn will'. t ex'eed3..32,C inwaters more;than.5 metersfrom the surface., Water deptli in' the area are approxitfhelyýl 8meters. Given this information,it is unlikely that'shortnose'sturgeoh reiiiainin~near.thd)6rttorn of the rivervwould -be exposed towater, temperatures-of,33 70C. -Temperaffiresl at or abovei 33-,7.C: will: occasionally be'experienced at the surface of the river in areas closest to' the diseharge-point.-.H'owever,: givenw'thatfish are known to avoid areas with unsuitable conditions and that shortnose sturgeon are likely toactively avoid heated areas, as 'evidenced by shortnose s.turgeon known, to-niove .to'deep cool .water areas duri-ng the summer months"in southenM rivers;:itisli kely thatishortnose sturgeon willavoid the area,-where temperatures are greater than, tolerable., -As; such,! it is extremely unlikelythat any shortrfdse sturgeon would remain withinthe: areawhere.,surface ,temperatures'earie.:elevated to 33.70 -ahd~be exposed to potentially lethal ternmeratures..- Thisý risk is further-reducedby the limited amount,:of time shortnose sturgeon;spend near the sinface, the:small. area-wheresuch high temperatures will be experienced and the -gradient-of warm temperatures extending.from the outfall; shortnose sturgeon'are. likely to begin avoiding-areas with.temperatures greaterthan 28°C and are unlikely to remain within the heated&,surface waters to swim-towards theoutfall and be exposed to temperatures whieh could resuilt inrmortality. Below; 'NMFS considerswhat effect this avoidance behavior would have on individual shortnose sturgeon. Near thebottom where shofrhoseýsturgi0o'imogt :often6 occhlr, water tenripeiihtures are not likely to.e'-erreach 33.7'C, creating no risk of eXposurb to:terpetat -s li'kely:t6- be lethai'n'ear the bottom ofthe river.' ' .."- " .. .... .: " ' ....NMFS has also conside~ed.the potential for shortnose sturgeon to-be exposed fo water'temperatures greater than 280C. Sornfe res'earchers suggest based largelyon observations of ' -sturgeon behavior in southern rivers, that water temperatures of28°C'oi greater canbe stressfulfor sturgeon and that shortnose sturgeon' are likely to actively av"oida 'rea"with'these -: --temperatures. This temperatue' (2'8°C) is close to both the fin'al ihermal preference and thermalgrowth optimum temperatuies that Ziegewald et al. (2008) reported for juvwnile shortnosesturgeon acclimated to 24.1 'C (75.4 TF), and thus is consistent with observations that optimumgrowth temperatures are often near the maximum temperatures fish can endure withoutexperiencing physiological stress: ..' , .'.. -.In the summner'months (June-. Septemb') ambient riVer.temperathirs can be high enough that* .: -.. -' OV .;t. -C. I. '", ".. ' .- .',temperature increases as small as 1- #'4o Ca ause wat'ter tmperatures 'withi the plume to ber .' " " '." ..,. '. -'.. / ' ...*., ,'; .! .. ..NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August'201i-7; high enough :to be.-avoided by shortnose sturgeon (greater than 28'C)..: When ambient rivertemperatures are:at or above .28°C; the area where temperatures are raised.by more than 1.5'C areexpected to be limited to. a surface area of up to 75 acres. :Shortnose. sturgeon exposure to thesurface area where water temperature may be elevated above 28'C. due to, the influence of thethermal plume is limited by their normal behavior as benthic-oriented fish, which results inlimited occurrence near the water surface. Any surfacing shortnose sturgeon are likely to avoidnear surfacemwaters with temperatures greaterthan 28C; .-Reactions. tj this elevated temperatureare expected to consist of swvimming away from the plume by traveling deeper in the watercolumn or!swimming around the plume. As the.area that would, be:a.,oi,.dd is! at. or near thesurface, away from bottom waters where short-nose sturgeon spend the, majority of time andcompleteall, essential life functions that are carried out-ii, th.action migrating,overwintering, resting), and given the smalbarea thacmayhae'temper~atureselevated above28°C it is extremely unlikely that these minor chamges in. bl., havict.;will 1,oreclude, shortnosesturgeon'from. completing any: essential. behavicri",such as- resting; foraging or migrating or, thatthe fitness.of any individuals wvill be .affect&::..,.Additiona~ly, there-is'not..eypected.to be anyincrease in energy expenditurfe that has..any d&tectable-effect on the physiology.-of any individualsor any future effect on. growth,. reproduction;l or general health: i. ". * .. -. : -Under:no conditions did in in Entergy's modeled -results exceed 28°C,(827).-in-the deep reacbes.zffthe,:river charmel (Swanson 2011 a) where shortnose sturgeon aremost likelylto. occur;- Swanson also examined other sources of availablebottom water.temperatu.re:data:for-the:in-dian Point area, -Based upon examination of the 1997 through 2010long ,ivei survey, water temperature data fromtthe near-bottom stations near, Indian. Point, 28°Cwas exceeded for just, 50 of 1;877-observations or 2.98% during this ,I4-yearipei od (readingsmeasured weekly firom March through November).. These already low incidences of observednear-bottom water temperatures above 28°Cwould be even lower when viewed in the context ofan entire'year. instead of the.nine months, sampled due 'to -the cold water period not sampled fromDecember through February (i.e., 2424%' for the Indian *Point region). , .Given,. that shortnose sturgeon ar.e known. to. actively seek out, cooler 'waters when temperaturesrise to 28', any shortnose sturgeon encountering bottom waters.with temperatures above 28°Carea are likely to avoid it. Reactions to this elevated temperature are expected to be limited toswimming away from the plume by swimming around it. Given the extremely small percentageof the estuary that mav have temperatures elevated above 28°C and the limited. spatial andtemporal extent .of any plevations of bottom water temPeratures above 28°C, it is extremelyunlikely thatthese minor changes in behavior will preclude shortnose sturgeon from completingany essential behayiors. such, as resting, foraging or migrating orthat the fitness. of anyindividuals will be affected.. Additionally, there is not, expected. to be any increase in energyexpenditure that has any detectable effect on the physiology of any individuals or any futureeffect-on growth, reproduction, or general health. .Water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels are related, with warmer water generally holdingless dissolved oxygen. As such, NMFS has considered the potential for the discharge of heatedeffluent to affect dissolved oxvgen in the.action area. Entergy provided an assessment of .dissolved oxygen conditionl in the.vicinity of the, thermal plume and nearby downstream. areas.Swanson examined dissolved oxygen concentrations observed among 14 recent years (1997NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Aug-sLt 2011-:..,

through 2010) of water quality samples taken 0.3 m (lRft) abovethe river bottcim, eeldy during.the Utilities Fall Shoilsi surveys-in the Indian Point region of the Hudson River -fromr: (Marchthrough November of each year. Only 17 (0.91%) dissolved oxygen concentrations below 5mg/l were observed in the Indian Point region during this 14-year period consisting of 1,877readings, and the lowest dis'solved oxygen Cconcentration of 3.4 mg/l. occurred just once, while theremaining 16 valdes were b&ve*en 4.4' nig/li And 4.9 mg/l. Although I/FS survey water qualitysampling did not occ&r in the Indian, Point region during the winterpetiod frotn Decemberthrough February 0f ¢ach.;e r'due t6 riVer ice conditions, it is -unlikelyrthat dissolved oxygenconcentrations below 5'nm.gl44ould be~observedlthen due to the 'high ,oxygen saturation of the.cold water in thewihnter't IJhieHudsoti River region south of the Indiah Pointregi6n.hhid 501;dissolved, Oxygencontefitrationsl beloW 5. mg4 (m6.330/07,918 total: observations)-in the nearbottom watersý, 'sevetr times twtore firdqu'enty than the IndianPoint region. Based.on -this'information the. dischiarge dppears: to have no' discernible effect on .dissolvedoxygen levels in the area. As the thermal plume islet cont.ibutiig, to reductions in, dissblvedoxygen levels, it will not cause changes in dissolved oxygen levels that could affect anyshortnose st irgeon~~'.i. , ~ii: ' .,t., ,..,, , ..Effect 6n Shortolose-Sturgeon, Prey.......A .. ., i , -, .Shortnose sturgeon feed primarily'6n benthic invertebrates; theke praeyspecies.are, found'on thebottom: As explained above, thetP thermal plume.is:'largelýy a;surfac&iplume with elevatec ..temperatures near the bottom limited to short duration! and a geographic- awraielimited tor the, areaclose to the discharge point. No analysis specific to effects of the thermal plume on themacroinvertebrate ormmunity h:s been conducted. How-ever,,giv'en what is known.about theplume (i.e., that it'is largely a; surface.'plume and has-limited effretsion water temperaturesiiat ornear the bottom) and theareas where.shortnose sturgeon, forage items are; found (f.e.,ýn' tfhebottom), it is unlikely that potential shortnose sturgeon forage items would be exposed to theeffects of the thermal plume. If the.thermal plume is' affecting benthic invertebrates; the-mostlikely effect would be to limit their disttibution to areas, wher6 bottom water temperatures aret notaffected by the thermal plume. Considering that, shortnose sturgeon are also likely to be excludedfrom areas where the thermal.plume influences~bottom winter temperatures and given.that thoseareas are small, foraging shortnose sturgeon are not likely to be affected.byrany limits on the-.distribution of benthic invertebrates caused .bylthe thelrnnfplume's limited influience on bottomwaters. Thus, based on this,'anralysis, it appears that the 'prey of shortnose.sturgeon; would be'impacted insignificantly, if at all, by the-thermal discharge from IP. ' , ., ..' ' ...' / .... ' : , ". .'. ...'!.r *, ../ / .:CUMULATIVE EFFECTS-. "'" "/.... .' i ' i.'Cumulative effects-as defined in'50 CFR 402.02 to ificlude.the effects! of future State, tribal'~4ocalor private actions .that are reasonably Certain t.o ccur Within the, action area considered inthebiological opinion. FutUre Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are notconsidered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuantito Section 7 of theESA: Ongoing Federal actions are considered-in the "Environmental Baseline" section above:....Sources of human-induced mortality, injury, and/or harassment -of shortnose sturgeon in the.action area that are reasonably certain to occut in'the faturezinclude, inci~dental takes in state-"i:.regulated fishing activities, pollution, global clim'ate chanrge;i researchlactivitite§ and,, coastalNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011:1 development., Vhile ;the combination of these activities may affect shortnose sturgeon,preventing or slowing a species' recovery, the magnitude of these effects in the action area iscurrently unknown.-State Water. Fisheries.- Future recreational and commercial fishing actiyities in state waters maytake shortnose sturgeon. ..In the past, it was, estimated that up to 100 shortnose sturgeon werecaptured in shad fisheries iin the Hudson River. In 2009,. n,' State closed Athe shad fisheryindefinitely., That state action is 'considered 'to benefit for shortnose.turgeon...Should the shadfishery reopen, shortnose sturgeon-would be exposed to,.the .risk of inter.actions with this. fishery.However,; NMFS, has no indication, that reopening the .fishe.ryandany effects, from it on shortnosesturgeon are reasonably certain .to occur.'. Information onintetactions. with shortnose. sturgeon forother fisheries operating in the action area is net availabkva- 4vl itt is,.not clear to what extent thesefuture activities would affect listed species different'.,y~thanthe. eurrerit. state, -fishery activities.described in the EnvironmentalBaseline'sec-t.om.:,-. ,-, .:: .. ,., v'Pollution and Contaminants -Human activities in the action area causing pollution :arereasonably certain to continue in the future, as are impacts from them on shortnose sturgeon.However, the level of impacts cannot be projected. Sources of contamination in the action areainclude atmospheric-.lading, cf pollutants,. stormwater runoff from coastal.development,.,-...:. ...groundwater dis'charges.;,ind industrial'development. Chemical: contamination may have aneffect on".listed species reproduction, and survi-val.-As discussedabove, whether NYDEC willrevekse its denial of a Section 401-Water:Quality!Certification and issue a-new SPDES permit isinot reasonably certain to occur;; therefore, the.effects-of any reversal andmnewi SPDES permit are also~not reasonably certain,In the .fijture, global climate'change is. expected to continue and may impact shortnose sturgeonand theirlhabitat inthe action area:& .However;,as noted in. the "Status of the Species" and"Environmental Baseline" sections above, giveh the likely rate of change associated with climateimpacts (i.e., the century scale), it-is unlikely that ;climate related impacts will have a significanteffect' on the. stat-bs of~shortnose sturgeon over the temporal scale, of the' proposed action (i.e.,from September,2013 to September 2033.(IP2) and D)ecember 201,5 :through December 2035(IP3))&'6i that in this time period; the abundance,' distribution, or behavior of these species in theaction area will change as a result of climate change related impacts. :The greatest potential forclimate change to impact NMFS assessment would be if ambient water temperatures increasedenough such that the thermal plume caused a larger area of the Hudson River to havetemperatu'res 'that'were, stressful 'or lethal to shortnose sturgeon." In'the 2 000s, the mean Hudsonriver :water temperature,.as measured at the PoughkeepsieWater Treatment Facility,- was ' .approximately 2'C higher than averages recorded in the 1960s (Pisces 2008). However; while itis possible to examine past water temperature data and observe a warming trend, there are notcurrently any predictions on. potential future increases in water temperature in, the action area.-specifically or the Hudson River generally. Assuming that the water temperatures in the riverincreased at the sarne rate over the next.40 years, one could anticipate a 1 C increase over theproposed 20 year'op;erating~peribd. *Civenthis small-increase, it-is not reasonably certain that,over the proposed 20 year;,,op.erating-pen'od'that .any'.water'temperature changes would beNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August.2011-..

significant enough.to~affect,.the conclusions reached by NMFS above. ,..-INTEGRATION AND SYNTHESIS OF EFFECTS ..:.,:;:., ...NMFS has estimated that the proposed continued operation of IP2 and IP3 through, the e tendedlicense period.(Septembe :2013 thro~ugh September 2033 and December 2015 t hrough Dcember2035, respectively) wil. rL-s.14tt i.n the:impingement of up to. 104 .shotnose sturgeon at IP.Znd 58shortnose stur geon ,at .. 3...As e~ajed in the Effects. of the A~ctiPn'? section,, a.ll other, effects toshortnose sturgeprq, incliing t.th eir prey ad.from the discharge, of hea-t, .will be insigpifcant ordiscountable. ..-,r-..."In the discpssjon,b,,eloý, -Mj S, qo p ilerf, ywletolr the effects of the proposed action reasonably,would he expected, or4 idjretqty, ep rducq appreciabýyXhe.,, ikelihood of both.,the.survival ,d..recoery. of the, lisM pc.qs in theyAid bhreducing the re.pr9duqtion, nmbers, ordistribution of shortnose, sýtugqon.. fysis is to0.dee.Fjine wheer.the,proposedactipn wquldiopardize, tie cpntinuedre, steli hoof.shntose sturgeon In theNMFS/USFWS Section 1,7Handbo.k,, for thepuoWes; of determining jeopardy suv.defined as, "the species',pelisistence as os a ,e~overyunit,,beyqnd the. 9onditi.s leadingto its endangermexrt, with sufficient resilince -to allow, for.the potenti01, rcvqery, from , .endangerment. S aid in another way!, survia is tle.conditioA in, mwhih speqies, continues to,exist into the future while retairiing the potential forrecvyery .Tis..cqdipion _is characteried.bya species with a sufficient 'population, represented by, ageclasse,,, geietc ...heterogeneity, and number of sexually mature individuals prqd.cing vable..ffspri ng,, .ichexists in .an environmeiit roviding all reqxt.i;empnts fo -completion of thespecies'. en~ire Jife.cycle, including repro lýction,,sustenance, and shelter.'" Recovery is defined as, ",r~provement inthe status of listed species to, the poiqt -at which !1sting is no lpnger appropiate under,the.criteriaset out in Section 4(a)(1) of the Act." Below, for each of the listed species that maybe affectedby the proposed action, NMFS summarizes the status of the species and considers whether theproposed action will result ip reductipns in r numbers or distribution of that peciesand then considers whether any reductions in reproduction, numbers or distribution.resiutingfrom the proposed action would reduce appreciably th~e likelihood of both the survivl ,andrecovery of that species. ,, -,. ... r;..Historically, shortnose sturgeon are believed to have inhabited nearly, all sestuaries along nearly the entire east coast of North America. Today, only 19 populationsremain. The present range of shortnosesturgeon is disjunct, with nori her .populatipns from southern- populations by a distance.pf.abput. 400 krnm Population sizes range from under100 adults in the Cape Fear and Me.nmacqk Rvers~to.te seofthousarts ..fhe St..phn andHudson Riyers,. As indicated. in Kynard 1996,. adult abundance is less tharI. the, minimumestimated viable. population abundance of 1.000 adults for. 5 ofl. 1I surveyed northern populationsand all natural southern populations. The only river systems likelysupporting populations closeto expected abundance are the St John, Hudson and possibly the Delaware and the.Kennebec(Kynard 1996), making the continued success. ofshortnose sturgeon in these rivers critical to thespecies as: a whole. , .., .The Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon is the largestin 1thepUnV.ed States. Historicalestimates of the size of the population are not available as historic records of sturgeon in the riverNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 20,11.7.

did not discriminate between Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon.: Population estimates, made byDovel et al. (1992) based on studies from 1975-1980 indicated a population of 13,844 adults.Bain et al. (1998) studied shortnose sturgeon in the river from 1993-1997 and calculated an adultpopulation size of 56,708 with a95% confidence interval ranging from 50,862 to 64,072 adults.Bain determined that based on sampling effort and methodology his estimate is directly.comparable It6 the population estimate made by Dovel' let-al.' Bain .conclides-that the populationof shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River in the 1990s'was 4 timies'larger than in the late 1970s.Bain states that as'his estimate is' directly comparable to'the e'timat&enade by Dovel, thisincrease is a "confident measure of the change in population size." Bain concludes that theHudson River population is large, healthy and particular in habitat use and migratory behavior.Woodland and Secor (2007)'conducted studies to determne&thcauVsce' of the ihcrease in-'populatioi 'size: Vv oodlarid and' Secor'eap:tur~d 554-'Shlirtioýi& s't 'geoii iri the Hiudsbn River -andmade age'estimates of these fish. They then hindcast year":di.s strengtlih and. corrected for gearselectivity an+/-d cumulative-mortaiity. T-1he ri sults Of this "study indi~atcdthat-th'ere was a' period ofhigh recruitmefit (31 000-52;G00 yeartingrs) rj "ihe- peridd,1986.-i992whcich as preceded andsucceeded' by5 'years o lowýer recruitrnent (6,000'-` 17 500'yearlirigs/year). Woodland and Secorreports: that there wasg a10' o-ld recruitment ý,ariability (as measured by the number of yearlings "produced) oveir"the' 20-year period from the late 1970s to late 1990s'and that this pattern is -expected" in a spe'cies;"such ias short'dose 'stuirgeon, with periodic life history: characterized bydelayed niaturation, high -fedundity and iteroparotis spawning, as well 'as when there is variabilityin interannu'ai lhydrrilogica. '-conditions'.'::Woodlanid arid Se6or exmnin6d environmental conditionsthroughiout tfiis 20_ -year p&eriod'and deiermined that years in which water temperaturesdr'pquickly inithi falfl'and' fl01w- increases rapidiy, in the fall (particularly October), are followed byhigh levels of recruitiernt ill the spring.' This suggeststhat these environnientalfactors mayindex a'suite of environmental cues that initiate the final stages of goniadal development inspawning adults.The Hudsdi1'River population ofs'lidrtnios: siurgerti has exhibited tremendous growth in the 20-year period between the late, 1970S arid 'Igt '1 990s. Woodland'and Secor conclude that this arobust population with no gapls in age: struktu'e. Lower recruitment that followed the 1986-1992period is coincident with record high abundance suggesting that the population may be reachingcarrying capacity. The population in the Hudson River exhibits substantial recruitment and isconsidered tobe "stable at high levels. ' .,- -In the NMFS/US'FWS Section'7 Iandb6k,' for th6 purposes of determining jeopardy, survival isdefined as,' "the species' persisterice as li'sted or as a, recovery unit, beyond the conditions leadingto its endangerment,' w'vittr sufficient regilience to allow for the potential recovery fromendangerient.:: Said in' another way, surivival isrthe conditionrin which 'a species continues toexist into the future while' retaining the potential for 'recovery. This condition is characterized bya species with a sufficient population, represented by all necessary age classes, geneticheterogeneity, and number of sexually mature individuals producing viable offspring, whichexists'in an environment providing all requirements for completion of thespecies' entire life"cycle, including reproduction, sustenance, and shelter." Recovery is defined as,* "Improvementfinthe status of listed species to the point at which listing is no longer appropriate under the criteriaset out in Section 4(a)() ofthe' Act" ' ..' .. .' "NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August.'20,1,1-..,.

While no reliable estimate,0f the size of either the shortnose sturgeon population -in theNortheastern US or of the species throughout its range exists; it is dearly below the' size thatcould be supported if the threats to shortnose sturgeon were removed. Based on the number ofadults in populatiorn for -which estimates are available, there are at.least 104,662 adult shortnosesturgeon, including 18,000 ih the Saint John' River'in Canada: The lack :of information onxthestatus of populations, :suth 'thatv-inthý Chesapeake Bay, add uncertainty to any determinrationon the status of this ýpecies asa aiwhole. ::Based oflthe best available'itiformation, NMFS believesthat the statuS.of shortliose sturgeon throughouttheir range is at best stable;; with gains in,:populations'such as 'the Hidsbn; :Delaware and Kennebec offsetting the continued-decline ofsouthern river populations, and at worSt'dedlin'ing: 'As:describedd in the Statugsof the'Species, -Environmental Baseline, and Cumulative Effects sections above, shortnose sturgeon in the actionarea are affected by habitat aiteratioi,'byeatch'i'ni'ommercial; and recreational: fisheries-' water.quality and in-water coinsiruedt'oni activitres., Despite thesu,'ong6ing, threats; numbers of shortnosesturgeon in thd actiono area are stuble; and-this trend i§ ,expeoted to dontinue over the20 year duration of the proposed action.'I ., ,.v... .'.,: :' ,,. ... ,NMFS has estiniated that the proposed, continued operation of IP,2'knd 'IP3' through the extendedlicense period (September 2013'through September, 2033:atid.December,'l 5 throtigh.December2035, respectively) will result in the impingement of up to 104 shortnose sturgeon, at IP2 and 58.shortnose sturgeon at IP3, all of which may die as a result of their impingement. This numberrepresentS a' very sratll percentage of the'shortfo'se sturgeon potul-atiow in. theHudson Rivei,,-which is believed to~be stable, and an even smaller percentage of the tbta..pdpulationof .shortnose sturgeon rangewid&e., [The';est-available population'estimites indicate that'therle areapproximately 56,708 (95%ýCIF-50,862 to adult shortnoce sturgeon-in the,Hudscfi Riverand an unknown number of juveniles, (ERC. 2006)c, While the: death of up t6 162 shortnosesturgeon over a 20-year period will reduce'the number bf-shortnose'sturgeon in. the populationcompared to the number that would have been present absent the proposed actioni, it isl not likelythat this reduction in numbers will change'the status of this'population or its'stable~trend as~thisloss represents a very small percentageýof the population (0.28%). , "Reproductive potential of the Hudson population'is. not expected to be affected in any other, wayother than through a reduction in numbers of individuals. ATeduction'in the number ofshortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River would have- the effect of reducing-the amount ofpotential reproduction in this system as-the'fish killed mwoifd have no ,potential'for 'futurereproduction. However, it is estimated that on average, approximately 1/3 of adult femalesspawn in a particular year and approximately'1/2 of males spawn in a particular yearo.Givenrthatthe best available estimates indicate that there are more than 56,000'adult shortnose sturgeon in.the Hudson River, it is reasonable to'expect that there are at least 20,000 adults spawning in a !particular year.- It is unlikely;that the loss of 162 shortnose sturgeon over a 20-year period wouldaffect thesuccess of spawning in any year. ,Additionally, this small reduction in potential ý "spawners is expected to result inma small reduction in the number of eggs laid or larvae producedin future years and similarly; a very smtalli'effect on the' strength-of subsequent-.year classes. Evenconsidering the potential future spawners that wotildbepro'du'eedby the individuals.that would'be killed as a result of the proposed actidn; any effect to anticipated to beNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011).

very small and would not change the stable trend of this population. Additionally, the proposedaction will not affect spawning habitat in any: way and will not create anyibarrier to pre-spawningsturgeon.accessing the oyerwintering sites or the spawning grounds..,..!.The proposed action is not likely to reduce distribution because the action will not impedeshortnose sturgeon from accessing any seasonal, concentration. areas, including, foraging,spawning or overwintering grounds in theHudson River. Further, the,action is not expected to,reduce the-river by ri~ver,distribution of shortnose sturgeon., as. the number, ofshortnose.sturgeon likely tobe killed, as, aresult .f the proposed action is approximately 0.28% ofthe Hudson River population; there is not likely.to be a loss, of any.- ,rpx.qe genetic haplotypes andtherefore,- it is unlikely;toresult in. the loss~of genetic diver.ity. -.While generally speaking,,the. loss of a small numberpof.in,2.ividuals from ra: subpopulation orspecies can have an appreciable. effe¢,t on.ýthe xm.mbers, :reproduction.a,-adn.distribution of the,-species, thisis likelyto occur only individuals in a population, the.....individuals occur in a very limited geographic range or therspecies, has extremely low levels ofgenetic diversity. This situation is not likely in the case of shortnose sturgeon because: thespecies. iswiciely geographii-aly.distributedj it is not known, toý have low ,levels of genetic:diversity.(see.status of.tlie species-sectioon above), and there are thousands of shortnose sturgeonspawning'each year.,,,-:- : ,:, , : ' , .-, ~~~~~. ....... , ,'* :,! , .'. ".... .';.; ' 'Based on the informati on provided above;, the death of up to 162. shortnose sturgeon over:a.20-year period, resultliig from the prcposed continued operation of IP2 and IP3 under renewedlicenses for the.period September.2013 through September 2033 (IP2) andDecember 2015through December! 2035 (ll3) will. not appreciably reduce the lkelihood of survival of thisspecies.(i,.e..;-it will not increase the, risk of extinction, faced. by this species) given that: (1) thepopulation trend of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River is stable; (2) the death of up to 162shortnose sturgeon represents an extr.emJely small percentage of-the number of shortnose sturgeonin the Hudson River and a even smaller percentage of the species as,a whole; (3) the loss of theseshortnose sturgeon is likely to have such a small effect onreproductive output of the HudsonRiver population of shortnose sturgeon or the species as a whole that the loss of these shortnosesturgeon will not change the status or trends~of the Hudson River population or the species as awhole; (4) and, the action.will have only a:minor and temporary, effect on the distribution ofshortnose: sturgeon in the action-area (related to~movements around the thermal plume) and noeffect on the distribution of the species throughout its.roange. , ,,- .. :,':' .I i-V ., ,, i V, ' ).j '. -.. -: ." ' .. ' ' " ' ." 'In certain, irintances, anaction that does;, not appreciablyreduce the likelihood of a species'survival--but might affect it' likelihood of recovery or the 'rate at which recovery is-expected tooccur. As explained'above, NMFS has determined~that the proposed action will not appreciablyreduce the likelihood that shortnose sturgeon will survive. in the wild.: Here, NMFS considers thepotential for the action to reduce the likelihood of recover,. As noted above, recovery is defined.as the improvement in status such that listing is no longer appropriate. Section 4(a)(1) of the,.ESA requires listingeof a species if it. is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significantportion of its range. (i, e.:, ".endangered'?),,-or.1likely to become in danger of extinction throughout.all or a significant p.ortion~of its. range in .the foreseeable-f!iture (i.e., "threatened") because of anyNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August:?20112.

of the following five listing factors: (1) the present or threatenedodestructiomi modification;, orcurtailment of its: habitat or rahge, (2) dverutilization: for commer ial', recreational, scientific, oreducational purposes, (3) disease'"or predation, :(4), the inadequacy of existingiregulatorymechanisms, (5) other- natural or manmade, factors affecting its continued existence..'The proposed action is not expected to modify, curtail or destroy the range of the species since itwill result in a small reduction in the number of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River andsince it will';not, affect the'overall:distrib.ation of shortnose sturgeon other than, to' cause minortemporary adjustments, ii. movements in;n the action area, -The proposed actionmwill not utilizeshortnose sturgeon for'recreational;,sdientifie or commercial purposes or affect the adequacy of.existing regulatoryfm&ehanismsn td piotect this species-;. The proposed. action .is' likely to result inthe mortality of up to,'462.shortgbs ýStuijfoin;, however, over thet20-year period, the loss of theseindividuals-and, what wouldhave&been'4eih progeny is;notxpected to affect the persistence ofthe Hudson River:population o'-shoetndsWe.stuirgeon, or; the: species;-as; a whole. The loss: of theseindividuals, will notvchadnxe the: status, or tr~end of the) Hudson Rirver'population,.which: is' stable athigh numbers. :As'it'wifllFiot affect the.status' oif; tnd o6flthispcopillation, -it, will not affect the Jstatus or trend'of the',species as a' 'As the redu6fion: in number~sand future reproduction. isvery small, this loss would not result in an appreciable reduction in the. likelihood of I '.! .improvement in the status of shortnose sturgeon throughout their range. The effects of theproposed action will not hasten the extinction timeline or otherwise increase the danger ofextinction since the action will cause the mortality of only a small percenthg'of-t'he shorritosesturgeonin the Hudson River and an even sffalaer pel6entageofthe led as 'awhble' hnd thesemortalities are not'expected to resdt in'th6 reduction of overall repr6ductfive fitness f& thespecies'as a) whole:. Thfe'effeets of'th'e'proposed acti6n will alsd not reduce tl hlikel.hooi'that thestatus of the species can improveitb hfie 'pdl6t where it is ibcovered and c8Uld'be &delisteý&Therefore, the proposed aCtionwill'not ipptediably ryeduce the fhkelihodd that shortniise sturgeoncan be brought to the point at they Ae no 16nger liseed as eidangered or threateied: Basedon the analysis presented herein, in the mortality-of n&' more than162 shortnose sturgeon over the period of the proposed 6eriew*d licenses is fi6thikly toappreciably reduce the survival and recovery bf th' species.'I " ..... ... .. "...;'.. ; U A!t .-.* .-'. ,,., UI )x. .L " : ". ..[. ..CONCLUSION 't .,. "". ..,.After'reviewing' the best available informatiori on the status of endangered and threatened speciesunder NMFS jurisdiction, the environmental` baselinie for the actioh aiea, the effects ofthe t -proposed actiorn, interdependent and interteltibed atiofns and the cumulative effects,lt 'is NMiFS'biological opinion that the proposed action may adversely affect but is not likely to jeopardize thecontinued existence of shortnose stuge'6n'- Nd c-ititil 1iditat is'desigated iA the, actibi -h'rea;therefore, none will be affected by the proposed action. ' "' .' .,INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ' -.Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the. take of endangered species. Take is defined as to harass,harm,' pursue,'hunt, shddt; wound, kill, tr~p, capture or collect, or to attemfiptto engage in anysu~h co'nduct. Harm is fur-ther-defined by' NMFS t6 include anyacdt which actu'ally kills or injuresfish' or' wildlife.' Such'an act may include:significanrt h'bitat moidificatioii or degradation thatactually kills or injtires fish or wildlife by gni ficatflk impairng essfniia behavioral patternsNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Auguh. 201-.;-

including breeding; spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering. , Incidental. take isdefined as..take .that.is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the car.ying out of anwotherwiselawful activity.: Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2),. taking that is incidental toand not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to.be prohibited under the ESAprovided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental TakeStatement ., -. -The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by NRC so thatthey become binding conditions for the:exemption in section:7(o)(2) to apply.., NRC has a,,continuing.duty. to regulate the-activity covered~by this Incidenfa!:..T.ake, Statement.- If NRC (1)fails to assume find implement ,the terms'and conditionsj or: (2): failss to require..,the applicant,: ,Entergy; to, adhere .to the terms: and conditions. of the. Imidental.Take :Statement through -enforceable terms that,. are added to the renewed:licenseo hc% protmctiv'e: coverage, of section..7(o)(2) may lapse. In orderto monitor the, impact of incidmnta!.take,,NRC..olr the applicant mustreport the progress of the-actionmnd. its tot.. .nthe species. to the NMES,.as specified: in the ,Incidental Take Statement. [50 CFR '§402:14(i)(). (See;U. S. Fish' and Wildlife; Service'and-,National Marine :Fish.nries':Se-rvice's Joint Endangered Species:Act: Section .7 ConsultationHandbook(1998). at:4.49.lit.. ..Handbook ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.at.. .i.::.;.:..... .... .,:... ,,. :...21 ' "::, ...Amount or Extent of Take,,. .-:, ,. ., ., .Pursuant to the terms of the proposed extened orerating licenses, w...4ýdb, ertiag lce~esIP2 wuldconine to operIatefrom September.2013 until Septembei 203ý and IP3 ,will continue to operate. from December2015 untlDe, cember 2035., The operation ofP2 and IP3 during the extended.operating periodwill directly.affect shortniose, sturgeon due to impingement at intakes., These interactionsconstitute 'capture" or: "collect"* in the definition. of ,take arid will cause injury and mortality tothe affected individuals. Based on the distribution of shortnose:sturgeon in the action area andinformation1 available on historic intera.tions between shortnose sturgeon and the IP facility,NMFS has estimated that the propqsedacti0on yil result in the impingement of up to 104shortnose sturgeon at IP2 and 58 shortnose sturgeon at IP3 during the 20-year extended operatingperiod. All of these sturgeon are expected to die, immediately or later, as a result of interactionswith the facility. As explained in the "Effects of the Action" section, effects of the facility onshortnose sturgeon-also include effects on distribution due to the.thermal plume as well as effectsto prey items; however,, NMFS does not anticipate or exempt any take of shortnose sturgeon, dueto effects to prey, items or due to exposure to .the thermal plume. This ITS exempts the followingtake:- ..... , * -..oA total of10,4, shortnose sturgeon (dead or alive) impinged at Unit 2 during the periodSeptember 28, 2013 -September 28, 2033..- .A total of 58 shortnose sturgeon (dead or alive) impinged at Unit 3 during the periodDecember 12, 2015 -December.12, 2035. -, .The Section9 prohibitions against takeapplyto iiye individuals as well as to dead specimens andtheir parts. NMFS recognizes that shortnose sturgeon that have been. ki.led prior to impingementat the IP facility may, become impinged on the intakes at IP2 and IP3 and that some number ofdead shortnose sturgeon taken at the facility may not necessarily have been killed by theoperation of the facility itself. Due to the difficulty in determining the. cause of death ofNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augus.t,2011. -

shortnose sturgeon found dead -at-t1le intakes and the lack of past necropsy frs~ul6s that wouldallow NMFS to'better assess the likely dause of death of impinged shortnose sturge nthe'aforementioned anticipated level of take includes shortnose sturgeon that may have been deadprior to impingement on the IP intakes. In tlih&kohinpanying Opinion, NMFS determined thatthis level of anticipated take is not likely to res'ilt: in jeopardy to shortnose~ turge6h... -I' '"5 t ."UReasonable and Prudent Measure!-' .. -' ..' [b..In order'to effectively'moriito-' the effects of this action:, ivtis necessary- 1o monitor the intakes todocument the amount! of iricidenital itakd and to! examine thd shortndse sturgeon that'are' impingedat the facility; Monitoring-p'rovides inforrmatibonon the characteristics of the shOrtfnose turgeonencountered and ,id-y, ptbiddataa which will help de'velop mo'e'effective rhe'asures 'to avoidfuture interactions with listed species. Any live sturgeon are to be released back into the river,away from the intakes and thermal plume. These RPMs and their implementing terms andconditions apply to both the license to be issued for the continued operation of IP Unit 2 and thelicense to be issued for,'th&.ontinu~ed'opera'rior6f (P Unit 3K ... ,1 UReasonable and Prudent MA asures,- .' r,: .f ,, , ( ... to ., I .... .NMFS believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary or appropriate forNRC-and the ,pplicant¢ Entergy, tomaminimz and moltor -mpacts oýid-iitl te'ok 'f'endangered shortnose -. :.'t ... ,I: rP '. .1.'A pr6gram to'm'onitor the in~idenfal-itak6f shbrn'6se s rgen"At' IP2'ail1R3 iMtakesmiust bedeveloped, approved by'NMFSnd imp emnIntfed. ... P. .3. All live shortnose.stuirgeonmt erlas back ito the' Hudsn Riv t appropriatelocation away from int aI;dfheAtal ue a k ofdeath or injury..., .......,, , -4. Any dead shortmioe sstFei fust e tra4sfrsrr'e to'NMFS or'ah appropnatqly.permtttedresearch facility NMFS WilIl dentfif s6 that a necropsy can be undeaken to attempt todetermine the cause"f dettfi ::: '"5. All shortno'se sturgeon impingemnents' associateM With thdJndian PNrft faefility ¢mid anyshortnose surg4rn sightings in'thleýati6 eli fit'be"r re;por(ed to NMFS?:-"::"Terms and Conditions ' .......In order to be exempt from prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, Entergy must comply with, andNRC must ernsutre trough eniorc&ale"'terms of'the rene wed license that Entergy does complywith, the following terms and of the Incidental Take Stdtement, whidh implem'ent thereasonable arid prudent niehsutres 'described abovd 'and.oiitline requir"edreporting/hmo-nitoringct1 o s~e -y Any takin tha is; in*.i %requirements.' These termis ai nditi d oren'i'i-discreti'ona 'r.' 'iyting hatisin.compliance xwith the terms and conýitions specfied ire.this Incidental Take Stat&eient shall not beconsidered aprohibited takig -of'the species coniernied. (ESA Sektion 7(o)(2J:) Due to the... ." .. .....u. ' ý.' ".7; : lh 't. -L:... ~ ~ " .:. ;: p. .: j. P :~; ' jO! ".., " '.,.Jifi!'(:;. " ....NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August.2l.14.

difficulty in visually distinguishing shortnose sturgeon from other sturgeon, the terms andconditions below- sturgeon or fish that might beshortnose sturgeon.",1. :To :implement RPM #1, Entergy must implement throughout the term of the renewedlicense an. endangered, species monitoring plan. that has-been, approved by NMFS and thatcontains the following components: (a) the intake trash bars must be monitored with amethod and on a schedule that ensures detection and timely rel ease, of any'shortnosesurgeon or fish .that might be shortnose sturgeon.impinged, onhe trash bars; (b) theRi.stroph screens must be monitored, with a method, o.n.d on aschedule, that ensures...detection and timely release of any shortnose sturge~or orifis.that,rtmight be shortnosesturgeon that pass through the trash bars and gtre, imrpjiged.onthescreens... ..... ...

  • the...screens.,,:-' ,4\4.4'.,' ' ' ..' ; ' * ' ;:'J .'4 ii '..I .4,iJ/ ; 4.5. *.-; ,. J ,. ;-. .... -2. To implement RPM #2, Entergy rnvst~enurei!hat any live shortnosesturgeon or fish thatmight be shortnose sturgeon are returned to the river away from the intakes and thethermal plume, following complete documentation of the ', ,;, ' :.i '", '"~~."' '. '/. --'.. .....; .Y .: .... ": " '. I ,.' A;.[J ..":..,. .3. 6.To implemeht RPM #3., ensure that any dead specimens or body parts.ofshortnose sturgeon or fish thht might be sturgeon are photo'raphed, measured, and,,,preserved (refrigerate or freeze) and discuss disposal procedures with NMFS. NMFS.mayrequest that the specinenbe transferred to NMFSor to an appropriately permittedresearcher so that a necropsy.may be conducted. ,/The form included as Appendix I mustbe completed and submitted to NMFS as noted above.4. To implement RPM #4, if any live or dead shortnose sturgeon or fish that might beshortnose sturgeon are taken at1P2 or !P3, Entergy must notify the NMFS EndangeredSpecies Coo'rdinator at 978-281-9208 immediately. An incident report (Appendix I) mustalso be completed by plant personnel and sent to the NMFS Section 7 Coordinator viaFAX (978-281-9394) within 2.4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of the take. Every shortnose sturgeon, or fish thatmight be a~ shortnose sturgeon,must be photographed. Inormation in Appendix II willassist in identification of a shortnose sturgeon or fish that migh~t be a shortnose sturgeon.5. To implement RPM #2, Entergy must notify NMFS when the facility reaches 50% of theincidental take level for shortnose sturgeon. At that time, NMFS will determine ifadditional measures are necessary or appropriate to minimize impingement at the intakestructures or if additional monitoring is necessary.6. To implement RPM #4, Entergy must submit an annual report of incidental takes to "NMFS by January 1 of each year. The report must include, as detailed in this IncidentalTake Statement,,any necropsy reports that were, provided to Entergy, incidental takereports, photographs a recordoof all sightings' f shortnose sturgeon. or fish that might be'* ." .-..' ..' .1" .1. ,." ' ..." " ' ." .:' ," ' .a shortnose sturgeon, in the vicinity of Indian Point, and a record of when inspections ofthe intake trash bars were cornducted for the 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> prior to the take.' The annual.reportak' ta l "ai po'e the" ...... ý ta e. .. ..a report.. .must also identify' any 'ptential measures to reduce shortnose sturgeon impfiigement,injury, and mortality at the intake structures. At the time the report is submitted, NMFSNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August. 2011,;;,

will supply NRC and 'Eiteigy With any information on changes to requirements(i.e., staff changes, phohn or fax numbers, e-mail addresses) for the coming year.7. To' implement RPM #4,'Entergy ftust ensure that fin clips are taken (according totheprocedure outlined. inAppendix. III) of any dead shortnose sturgeon or dead fi'sh that'might be shortnose sturgeon, and. that the fin clips are sent, t NMFS :for~genetic;analysis.The reasonable and prudent, measurfs, with their implementing terms and.conditions, aredesigned to minimize and monitor the impact of incidental take that might ;otherwise result. fromthe proposed, action.*. Specifically, theseRPMs and:Terms and Conditions:Will ensure thatEntergy monitors the intakes in a wayAhat.'allowsforl the detection of any impinged shortnosesturgeon and implements measures to reduce the potential of mortality for any shortnose sturgeonimpinged at Indian Point, to report all interactions to NMFS and to provide information p.n thelikely cause of d'a' of any shortnosdesturgeon impinged at he facility. The discussion belowexplains why each orf tnese'RP1Vs 'ani Tenrms and Coditions' are necessary'or appropriate tominimize or monitor the level of incidental take associtc,.,,witl4, the prppo~ed action. ,The,. ]PMs.and terms and conditionsinvqlve only p, minor chane id& 'rosd action..RPM #1 and Term and Condition #1 .arare necessary and appropratebecause they arespecifically designed .p ensure that all appropriate measures are carried outtomonitor t)eincidental take of shortn6se sturieoh at Indian Point. Ah effecive m o an is esseittal toallow NRC and Eniergy to fulfill the requirement to monitor the actual level of in'ci'denhtal takeassociatedw\itfhthe operation of Indian Point and to allod*iVMFS and NC. todetrminiie if thelevel of incidenital take is, ever exceeded.* Ilnesereqturements. arealso essentia for wa~i relitioed to onerat othTewhether the death wa' reilaed.t the operation of he facility. is conditions sure tiahepotentil for detection' of shortnose sturgeon at the intakes is maximized and that any oh6ftnosesturgeon removed from the water are done so in a manner that minimizes the potential for furtherinjury.RPM#2 and Term and Condition #2 are necessary and appropriate to ensure that any shortnosesturgeon that survive impingement is given the maximum probability of remaining alive and notsuffering additional injury or subsequent mortality through inappropriate handling or release nearthe intakes.RPM #3 and Terms and Conditions #3 are necessary and appropriate to ensure the properhandling and documentation of any shortnose sturgeon removed from the intakes that are dead ordie while in Entergy custody. This is essential for monitoring the level of incidental takeassociated with the proposed action and in determining whether the death was related to theoperation. of the facility.RPM#4 and Term and Condition #4-7 are necessary and appropriate to ensure the properhandling and documentation of any interactions with listed species as well as the promptreporting of these interactions to NMFS.CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONSNMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 20l1-,

In addition, to: Section:7(a)(2), which requires agencies to ensure that.all projects will notjeopardize the continued existence of listed species, Section :7(a)(1) of the ESA places aresponsibility on all federal agencies to "utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes ofthis Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species." ConservationRecommendations are discretionary agency. activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of aproposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or todevelop information. As such,"NMFS recommends thatthe NRC consider: the followingConservation Recommendations: ,.:1. The NRC shouldisupport tis'sue analysis :of dead shortriose sturgeon removed from theIndian Point intakes to, determine contaminant4loads.,.... .:: .2. The NkC should support in-water assessments, abunacnee, and dstnlbution surveys forshofAnotIse sftrgeon in the Hudson River and Hiverstraw By Speclca.y.REINITIATION OF COiNSULTATIO"tia c:"continued operato of IP'n 3fan atd iioiialThis concludes formal consultdtion the c nti d ion of 1P2 and iP3 fr' an addiiio"a20 years pursuant to a license proposed for issuance by NRC. As provided in 50 CFR §402.16,reinitiation of formhalconiultati'on is'required w'here discretionary federal agency involvement orcontrol ,over the actdon has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) theamdouiint or extentof taking speeified' inthe inicidental take statement is exceeded; (2) new inf6rmaloni revealseffects of the action may not hav een.prewously considered; (3) the identified action issubsdequently modfied in a manner thaft causes an 6ffect to listed spie o4) a new species islistedor criticdalhabitat designated that may be .affected by the idefitifi"edacti'n. In instanceswhere the amount or extent o incidental take is eoxeeded, Section 7 consultation ifiust bereinitiated immediately..i", 'v '..:-', '~~.. ..... ........"t.:. .... .:.,.. '.... .... ... ...-~~~... .......'.. ." .... .. ._.:.. ,".. .'.:-NMFS. Draft Biological Opinion -August: 20.,1...I v:

LITERATURE CITEDAllen PJ, Nicholl M, Cole S, Vlazny A, Cech JJ Jr. 2006. Growth of larval to juvenile green sturgeon inelevated temperature regimes. Trans Am Fish Soc 135:89-96 ý , '. '!! if-': IASA (Analysis and Communi6hdbtn).,2008.. 2006, year class report for.the Haidson River EstiairyoProgram prepared for Dynegy Roseton LLC,. on bdhalf of Dynegy ROseton'.LLC EntergylNuclearIndian Point 2 LLC, EntergyNuddar IndianPoint 3 LLC,.and Mirant fldwine LLC.W ashingtonvill-16-N Y ,; -..' .,. ::' ! ... ., , .. ,, .,,; ,:Bain, M. B. 1997. Atlantic and shortnose the Hudson River:.' Coflmdn. and,.Divergent Life History Attributes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48: 347-358.* ..- t, L'." l~ ,3~ ~ *Bain, M., K. Arend, N. Hdleý, S.'I`aybs,YJ. Kn gqt,,S.,NtidkvD. Peterson, lfnd M.; Walsh. 1998aW)Sturgeon of the Hudson River: Final Report on 1993-1996 Research. Prepared for The HudsonRiver Foundation- by the, Departhm*t of Natural Corn'ml., Uhiersity,; Ithaca, New'Y ork. ,; .. : ,i ,;.... ,"..".',--:.,i ; ; '...: .. , ...,.Bain, Mark B., D.L. Peterson, K. K. Arend. 1998b. Population status of shortnose sturgeon in theHudson River: -Final Report. Prepared for Habitat and-Protected Resouikes Division National,: ,-Marine Fisheries Service by New Yorkr CooperatiVe Fish and ,,Department of Natural Resources, ComellUmiversify,.';thaca; NY..,'. :, .Bain, Mark B., N. Haley, D. L. Peterson, K. K. Arend, K. E. Mills, P. J. Sullivan. 2000. Annualmeeting of Amierican fisheries Society.. 'EPRI"AFS Symposium->.;Biology$ Managembnt.-andProtection of Sturgeon. St. Loui0s,"MO. 23-'24August'2000-." ..Bain, Mark B., N. Haley, D. L. Peterson, K. K Arend, K. E. Mills, P. J. Sulivan. 2007.Recovery of a US Endangered Fish., PLoS ONE 2(l):"-.168.:' v:. L'", .:doi:10.1371/joumal.pone0000168 ..- a. i-Bath, D.W., J.M. O'Conner; J.B. Albert and LG.:'Arv\idson., 1981.' Developmentand "identification of larval Atlantic,,sturgebn (Acipens&r oxyrinchus) and shoitnose sturgeon(A. brevirostrum) from the Hudson River estuary, New York. Copeia 1981:711'7117.:Beamesderfer, Raymond C.P. and Ruth'- A.'Farr. 1,997, .Alternatives fol'itheptotectibn and'restoration of sturgeon's'and theiri habitat, Environmental Biology of Fishes48- ,407-417. .Berlin, W.H., R.J. Hesselberg, and M.J. Mac. 1981. Chlorinated hydrocarbons as a factorin the reproduction and' srvival of lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) in LakeMichigan. !Technical Paper. .1 05 of the US!. Fish and Wildlife Service;42 paes.,Buckley, J., and B. Kynard'.; 1981. Spawning and rearingof shottnose'sturgeonr from the; ConnecticutRiver. Progressive Fish Culturist 43:74-76.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augusit20'l1!'.-.

Buckley, J. and B. Kynard. 1985. Habitat use and behavior of pre-spawing and spawningshortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, in the Connecticut River. NorthAmerican Sturgeons: 111-117.Carlson, D.M.,, and K.W., Simpson. 1987. Gut contents ofjuvenile shortnose.sturgeon in theupper Hudson estuary.s.Copeia 1987:796-802 ...CHGE. Central Hudson Gas.and Electric Corp., Consolidated E dison:Company.of New York, New YorkPower Authority, and Southern Energy New York. 1999. Draft environmental impactstatementfor State pollution discharge elimination system permits for Bowline Point1 &2, Indian Point1&2, and Roseton l&2 Steamelectric generating stations.,-! --. ....... ..Collins, M. R., S. G. Rogers, and T. I. J. Smith. 1996. Bycatch of sturgeons along the Southern AtlanticCoast of the USA. North American Journal3fFisheriesa.anagewi-ent. 16: .24-29. .*,.. .-,Dadswell, M.J. 1979. Biology-and population characteiistics,of the,shoortnose sturgeon.,Acipensper.brevirostrum LeSueur 1818 (Osteichthyes: Acipenseridae), in the Saint John River estuary, New;Brunswick, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 57:2186-2210.Dadswell,,M,.J.V B.D.; Taubert,:T.S.. Squiers;.D. Maichette; and J:. Buckley. 1.984. Synopsisof biological data on shortnose, sturgeon,'-Acipenser brevirostrum L.esueur 1818.NOAA Technical Report; NMFS 14,NationaAl1Marine Fisheries Service. October1984 45 pp.Dovel, W.J. 1978 The Biology and management, of shortnose and Atiantic. sturgeons of the HudsonRiver. Performance report for the period April.1I to September 30, 1978. Submitted to N.Y.State Department of Environmental Conservation.Dovel, W.J. 1979. Biology and management of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon of the Hudson River.New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, AFS9-R, Albany.Dovel, W.L. 1981. The Endangered shortnosezsturgeonof the Hudson, Estuary: Its life history andvulnerability to the. activities of man.. The Oceanic, Society.. FERC Contract No. DE-AC 39-79RC-10074. ... -...,Dovel, W.L.;,A.W.. P ekvuitch,:and T:J. ,Brggren. 1992./Biology of the shortnosesturgeon (AIpenser br.evirostruim :Lesueur 1818) in the Hudson River estuary,.New York. Pages 187-216 in C.L. Smith (editor). Estuarine research in the 1980s.State University of New York Press, Albany, New York.Dwyer, F. James, Douglas:K. Hardesty, Christopher G. Ingersoll, James L. Kunz, andDavid, W1 Whites. 2000. Assessing contaminant. sensitivity ofAmerican shad,.Atlantic sturgeon, and shortnose sturgeon. Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey.Columbia- Environmental Research' Ccnter, 4200.New, rHave Road, Columbia,Missouri.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August,.2011..,.

Entergy Nuclear Operations*, fidc* (Enitergy). 2007a. "Indian Point, Units 2 & 3, LicehseRenewal Application"' April 23;- 2007.': .Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007b. "Applicant's Environment Report,Operating License ReneWValStage'."' (Appendixi E tb "Indian Point, Units 2: & 3; License RenewalApplication".) April 23, 2007.Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007c. Letter from Fred Dacimo, Indian PointEnergy Center Site Vice President, to the U.S. NRC regarding Indian Point Nuclear GeneratingUnits Nos. 2 and 3. Docket Nos. 50-247, 50-286. May 3, 2007.ERC, Inc. (Environmental hdnfifg, rf.):. 2002'. Coiitamilnnt 'idasis of tissues fromtwo shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) collected il" the Delaware'Riv'er. Prepared forNational Marine Fisheries Service. 16 pp. + appendices.ERC, Inc. (Environmental Research and Consulting, Inc.). 2007. Preliminary acoustic tracking study ofjuvenile shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon in the Delaw; ARAiver: "'My 2006 throdgh..March 2007. Prepared for NOA'Aisheries.- 9'.j',..'./ .:. ,Eyler, Sheila M., Jorgen E. Skjeveland, Michael F. Manig~ld; anId Sttiýf A.' WelIh."2000:'Distribution of Sturgeons in Candidate Open Water Dredged Material PlacementSite's-in the P6t6iriac RiVei'(1998-2000).U.S:. Fish and Wildlife Service'Annapdlis,' MD. 2"6 ' .,r NIFernandes, S.J. 2008. Population demography, distribution, and moverient:patterns of Atifntic -and;shortnose sturgeons in the Penobscot River estuary, Maine. University of Maine. Masters thesis.88 pp.,' , ... ..Flournoy, P.H., S.G. Rogers, and P.S.'Crawford!. 1992.. Restoratiorn of shortnose sturgeon ifi the `Altamaha River, Georgia. Final Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia.Geoghegan, P., M.T. Mattson and R.G Keppel.:'1992. Distribution' bf shortnose sturg~ofi in the Huidson'River, 1984-1988. IN Estuarmne ResearAh in the "198'0s, C. Lavett Smith, Editor*! iffdson`Riveý,eEnvironmental Society, Seventh symposium on Hf.ud&ii River icology.' New"York Press, Albany NY, USA.Giesy, J.P., J. Newsted, and D.L. Garling. 1986. Relationships between-chlorinatedhydrocarbon concentrations and rearing mortality Of chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) eggs from Lake Michigan. Journal of Great Lakes'Research 12(l):82-98... ,, .. : / ., :' a " ..i i. ." " i' ,, ' -.. i b~m U .._'2Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Atlantic and shortnose -turgeongs. Uniited States Department :6f Irteridr'BiologicalReport 82, 28 pages. ' I -"NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augul.st M20.1'.

Grunwald, C., J. Stab ile, J.R. Waldman, R. Gross, and; !:lWirgin.-.2002. Populationgenetics of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) based on mitochondrialDNA control region sequences. Molecular Ecology 11: 000-000.Hansen, P.D. 1985. Chlorinated hydrocarbons and. hatching successin Baltic herring spring.spawners. Marine Environmental Research 15:59-76.r ,V,..Haley, N. 1996,. Juenile slturgeonus~e in the Hudson River Esý,ary ,,Master s -thesis. -University ofMassachusetts, Amhearst,,MAI,,.. v.i-.. ,o ..:-, .'. ..Hastings, R, W1983 A study of the. sortnose sturgeon *Ac.enserbrevirostrum)....population in the upper tidal Delaware River: Assessmentf pactsof .maintenance dredging. Final Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Philadelphia, Pennsylvani~a., 129, pp.-.;,,Heidt, A.R., and R.J. Gilbert. J 7 The shortnose sturgeon in the Hltamaha'River drain age,Ui Georgia.Pages 54-60 in R.R. Odum and L. Landers, editors. Proceedings of the,,rare and endangeredwildlife symposium. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division,Technical Bulletin WL 4, Athens, Georgia... ,. ..Holland, B.F., Jr. and G.F. Yelverton. 1973. Distribution and biological studies of anadromous fishesoffshore North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources,Divisionsof Commercial and. Sports Fisheries, Morehead City. Special Scientific Report 24:1-Hulme, P.E..u2005. Adapting.to climate change: is there scope for ecological management in the face ofglobal, threat'? -Journal of Applied Ecology 43,: 6,17-627.IPCC' (Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change) 07. FourtheAssesnmengtF Report.. Valencia, Spain.,-,-Jenkins, W.E., T.I.J. Smith, L.D. Heyward, and D.M. Knott. 1993. Tolerance of shortnosesturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, juveniles to different salinity and dissolvedoxygen concentrations. Proceedings of~the Southeast Association'of Fish and .Wildlife. Agencies, Atlanta, Georgia.Kieffer, M.C. and B. Kynard. 1993. Annual movements of shortnose and Atlanticsturgeons in theRMerriO m ack River, Missachusetts. Transactions of the Amencan,,,Fisheries Society 1221: 1088-1103.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Auguast2.01.1.* ; , .; " .

Kieffer, M., and B. Kynard., 1996.' Spawning of shortnose sturgeon in the MerrimacklRiver.,Transactions of the Americanr'FishriiesSociety 125:179-186. ,Kieffer and Kynard in review ;[book.to be puiblished by AFS]. ,Kieffer, M. C., and B, Kynard. In-review. Pre-spawning anid non-spawning spring migrations, spawning,- and leffects ofhydroelectric dam operation and river regulation on spawning of Connecticut River shortnosesturgeon. .' .Kocan, R.M., M.B. Matta, and S. Salazar. 1993. A laboratory evaluation of Connecticut.,,' ,

  • Y. ;' ý' .1 -%' ,. .River coal tar toxicity to shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) embryosand larvae. Final Report tio Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,Seattle, Washington.Kynard, B. 1996. Twenty-one years of passing shortnose sturgeon in fish lifts on theConnecticilt River: what has b.enr learned?, Draft report b,,tionalBiological Service, Conte.Anadromous Fish Research Center,,Turners Falls, .MA.19pp.(, -'Kynard, B. 1997. Life history, latitudinal patterns, and status of the shortnose sturgeon, Acipenserbrevirostrum. Environnrenta $iology of Fishes 48:319,-34. ...Longwell, A.C., S. Chang, A. Hebert, J. Hughes and D. Perry.. 1592. Pollution anddevelopmental abnormalities of Atlantic fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishis 35:1-Mac, M.J., and C.C. Edsall. 1991. Environmental yontaminaanis and the reproductive.ýQý'.n'-pdemiolgia'l~pp~o'ac'h.'Juiial"success of lake trout in the Great Lace: A epidemilogcall .Toxicology and Environmental Health 33:375-394., ..Mayfield RB, Cech JJ Jr. 2004. Temperature effects on green stur gen bioenergetics. Trans Am Fish Soc133:961-970Morgan, R.P., V.J. Rasin ah, d L.A. Noe E 1973.SE~ectsoof guspeded'Sediments'on theDevelopment of Eggs anid Larvae of Sti'pedd Bass and. White Perch. Natural.resources Institute, Chesapeake Bilogkal Laboratory, U ofMaryland, Center forEnvironmental, and Estuarine 20pp.. , i ,Moser, M.L. and S.W. Ross. 1995. Habitat use and movements of shrtnose aiind Atlantic sturg'eons inthe lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Transactions of the. American Fisheries Society124:225-234.NAST (National Assessment Synthesis Team). 2008. Climate Change Impacts on the United States: ThePotential Consequences of Climate Variability ard Change,US Global Change ResearchProgram, Washington DC, 2000,http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/lIntroA.pdf.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 20.1, .1 National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Recovery plan for the shortnose sturgeon(Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery,Team forthe National Marine Fisheries Service, -Silver Spring, Maryland 104 pp..NMFS, 1996b. Status Review of shortnose sturgeon in the Androscoggin and Kennebec Rivers.Northeast, Regional Office, National Marine, Fisheries Service, unpublished report. 26 pp.NOAA. 1979. Testimony of Dr. Dadswell. May 14, 1979. Docket C/II-WP-77-01.NRC 2010. Draft FSEIS- LIndian'PointNRC 2009. Biol ogcal Assessment to NMFS for Indian' Pot"reliceis ." 'NRC 2010b. Revised Biological Assessment to NMFS for Indian Point relicensing. December 2010.efin oBo6&dlA~sI me t I P, r 11 S -NRC 2011. Supple'ent tb Blo& e~l)sessment~to NMFS for Indian Point'rehieeisng. NYHS (NewYork Historical Society as cited by Dovel as Mitchell. S 181 1)1. 1809. V6!utu 1 .'.Coliec'tions ofthe New-York Historical Society for the year 1809.NYDEC. 1982. State Pollution Discharge Elimination System Final'Pe.rm'tI for Indian Point NucleiarGeneratingStation. " , ' .r ..NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2003. "Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement Concerning the Applications to Renew New York State Pollutant DischargeElimination System (S*PDES) Permits for the Roseton 1 and 2 Bo wlne 1 and 2 and IP2 and IP3 2and 3 Steam Electric Generating Stations, Orane,Rockland and W estchester Counties" (HudsonRiver Power Plants FEIS). June 25, 2003.. .-'Denia 20f' 40 ' "C Api 2,' 0NYDEC. 2010. Letter fiobm W. Adriance to D. Grey, Entergy. Denial of 401 WQC. April 2, 2:010.Niklitschek, J. E. 200 1. Bioenergetics modeling and assessment of suitable habitat for juvenile Atlanticand shortnose stur'geons (Acipenser oxyrinchUs andA. brevirostrum) in the Chesapeake Bay.Dissertation. University of Maryland at College Park, Coilege .O'Herron, J.C., K.W. Able, and R.W. Hastings. 1993. Movements of shortnose sturgeon(Acipenser brevirostrum) in the Delaware River. Estuaries 16:235-240.Parker E. 2007. Ontogeny and life hhstory of shoitnose sturgeon (Ae4tpenser brevirostrum lesueur 1818):effects of latitudinal variation and water temperature. Ph.D. Dissertation. University ofMassachusetts, Amherst. 62 pp.Pekovitch, A.W. 1979. Distributioniand some life hist6ry'aspects of shorthose sturgeon\ (Acipenserbrevirostrum) in the upper Hudson River Estuary. Hazleton Environmental SciencesCorporation. 67 pp.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augustv2011, .:,

Rogers, S. G., and W. Weber. 1994. Occurrence of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) in theOgeechee-Canoochee river sygten-;'Georgia during the summer of 1093. Final Report of theUnited States-Army to the Nature'Conservancy of Georgia.Rogers, S.G., and W. Weber. 1995a. Movements of shortnose sturgeon in the Altamaha River system,Georgia. Contributions Series #57. Coastal Resources Division, Georgia Department of NaturalResources, Brunswick',Georgia. .....Rogers, S.G., and, W. Weber.. 1995b'. Status andrestoration of Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons in.Georgia. Final Report toltheNational'Mariine Fisheries Service; Southeast Regional Office, St.Petersburg, Florida. I .1 .,:, .JRuelle, R., and K.D. Keenlyne. 1993. Contaminants in Missouri River pallid sturgeon.Bull. Efivir-oii ContamriAloxiccl. 50:'898-906.' ,Ruelle, R. and C-.t Henry'. I994;,Lffe, and c6ntatmidiahtevaluatibn of '/pallid' stufgdoin. -inalReport U.S. Fishai*-J'Wildlife, Service;,,Fish and Wildlife.Enhancement, South Dakota Field.", Office; 42Q.South; G.arfield.dAvenue, Suite 400,,Pierre, South Dakota 57501-5408.-., ., '. , ., .. -'A,, ., i r a, I " .'Sherk, J.A. J.M. O Connor and D.A. Neumann. 1975 .Effects ,of 'suspended, iahtl deposited -sedimentson estuarine environments. In: Estuarine Research Vol..I!.:Geolmg$ aftd Engineering?'L.E.Cronin (editor). New York: Academic Press, Inc.-, ..i / ' ' !, .., ' " .". r ,' i " ' -,- ." , .. ... , " ; " r I / :;, _ , ., .' 5 :,,,, .-' .a:. " -'. ":' " -' , .., " '.; " .i .-. ,, .Skjeveland, Jorgen E., Stuart A. Welpho Michael F, :Mangold, Sheila M .Eyjer, and Seaberry,..Nachbar. 2000. A Report of Investigations and Research on Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeonin Maryland Waters of the Chesap.eoak.e.,.qy (t996-2000,).:.U.S. Fish and Wildlife qeSeice,.Annapolis, MD. 44 pp.M ., --.a: :.. .. .,! ; " -i ;, : ., ,.. .*. .,a ,;5, , :-1;Smith,, Hugh M. and Barton A. Be"ai.: .899.ist, of fishes known to inhabit the waters, of the Districtof Columbia and vicinity., Prepared for the,.Uitcd States, Fish Commission. ,WashingtonGovernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.-;. .' : ' / ; .: ' ' ':. 5 a ,* * ., 'Snyder, D.E. 1988. Description and d4ntificatibn of shortnose'and Atlantic strgeonlarvae.American Fisheries Society Symposiumn '5:7-30. ..5 .."Spells, A. 1998. Atlantic sturgeon population evaluation utilizing a fishery dependent rewardprogram in Virginia's major.western shore tributaries to' the Chesapeake Bay. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Charles City, Virginia.Squiers, T., L. Flagg, and M. Smith.- 198,2.,..Amerncan. shad,enbanceme.nt and status.of sturgeonstocks in selected Maine waters. Completion report, Project AFC-20.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August'2011.,

Squiers, T. AndmM. Robillard. 1997... Preliminary report on the-location of overwinteringsites for shortnose sturgeon in the estuarial complex of the Kennebec. Riverduring the winter of 1996/1997. Unpublished report, submitted to the MaineDepartment of Transportation.; .Swanson, C., D. Crowley, Y. Kim, N. Cohn, and D. Mendelsohn. 2011 a.. Part ,2 of Response to theNYSDEC Staff Review of the 2010 Field Program and Modeling Analyis of the Cooling WaterDischarge.from the. Indian Point Energy Center:-Prepared'for Indian Point Energy Center,Buchanan ,'New York: ADAMS Accession No. ML 1l 189A026.,.4vail'able;-URL:.http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/57609.html.Swanson, C., D. Mendelsohn, N. Cohn, D. KIn, L eekerand L,Miller.2011 b. Final Report: 2010 Field Program and Modeling Analysis of the CoolingWater Discharge from-L the ,india. PointEitergy Center..'Prepared for Indian Point,Energy Ceniter;,Bch.alnah, New Ybrk' ADAMS Accession No:.'I4Lt 1,1.189A026..:-Available URL" http.:/W'vw.dec,:nv.ov/perrmits/57609.htm'l., ,,:.,,' .,Taubert, B.D. 1980b. Biology of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) in the-,'Holyoke 'Po.61,' Cornecicut .River, Massachusetts. PhZD. Thesis;-University ofMassachusetts,[Ai'. herst, ! 36 p. ,Taubert, B.D., and M.J. Dadswell. 1980. Description of some larval shortnose sturgeon (Acipenserbrevirostrum) from the Holyoke Pool, Connecticut River, Massachusetts, USA, and the SaintJohn River, New Brunswick, Canada. CanadianJoiirnal of Zol6ogy 58::1125-1128.Uhler,-P'aIrid 0. Lugger. 1876.List of fishes'eof:M-ayand. Rept. Comm. Fish. MD.1876: 67-176.USDOI (United States Department of Interior). 1973. Threatened wildlife of the United States.Sho:ritnose tuigeon. Office of Endangeried Species and-Interinationai Activities, Bureau of SportFisheries ad"Wildlife, Washington,I D.C'." Resource Publication 1 14 (Revised ResourcePublication 34). '. ...Varanasi, U. 1992. Chemical contaminants and their effects on living marine resources.pp. 59- 71. in: R. H..Stroud (ed.) Stemming the Tide of Coastqal Fish HabitatL].ss. Proceedings of the Sy,'mposium on Conservation of Fish Habitat,' Baltimore,Maryland. Marine Recreational Fisheries Number 14. National Coalition forMarine Conservation, Inc., Savannah Georgia., ....., .... ; , , , .I , ...., .. ..:Vinyard, L. and W.J. O'Brien. 1976. Effects of light and turbidity on the reactive distanceof bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33: 2845-2849.Vladykov, V.D. and J.R. Greeley. 1963. Order Acipenseroidea. Pages 24-60 in Fishes of the WesternNorth Atlantic. Memoir Sears-Foundation for Marine Research 1 (Part III)' xxi +' 630'pp..NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August.2011...:.

Von Westemhagen, H., H. Rosenthal, V. Dethlefsen, W. Ernst, U. Harms, and P.D.Hansen. 1981. Bioaccumulating substances and reproductive success in Balticflounder Platichthys flesus. Aquatic Toxicology 1:85-99.Wirgin, I., Grunwald, C., Carlson, E., Stabile, J., Peterson, D.L. and J. Waldman. 2005. Range- widepopulation structure of shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum based on sequence analysis ofmitochondrial DNA control region. Estuaries 28:406-21.Waldman JR, Grunwald C, Stabile J, Wirgin I. 2002. Impacts of life history andbiogeography on genetic stock structure in Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchusoxyrinchus, Gulf sturgeon A. oxyrinchus desotoi, and shortnose sturgeon, A.brevirostrum.J Appl Ichthyol 18:509-518Walsh, M.G., M.B. Bain, T. Squires, J.R. Walman, and Isaac Wirgin. 2001. Morphological and geneticvariation among shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum from adjacent and distant rivers.Estuaries Vol. 24, No. 1, p. 41-48.February 2001.Waters, Thomas F. 1995. Sediment in Streams. American Fisheries Society Monograph7. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Pages 95-96.Weber, W. 1996. Population size and habitat use of shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, in theOgeechee River sytem, Georgia. Masters Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.Welsh, Stuart A., Michael F. Mangold, Jorgen E. Skjeveland, and Albert J. Spells. 2002.Distribution and Movement of Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) inthe Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries Vol. 25 No. 1: 101-104.Wilber, Dara H. and Douglas C. Clarke. 2001. Biological Effects of Suspended Sediments: A review ofsuspended sediment impacts on fish and shellfish with relation to dredging activities in estuaries.North American Journal of Fisheries Woodland, R. J. 2005. Age, growth, and recruitment ofHudson River shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Master's thesis. University ofMaryland, College Park.Woodland, R.J. and D. H. Secor. 2007. Year-class strength and recovery of endangered shortnosesturgeon in the Hudson River, New York. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society 136:72-81.Management 21:855-875.Ziegeweid, J.R., C.A. Jennings, and D.L. Peterson. 2008a. Thermal maxima for juvenile shortnosesturgeon acclimated to different temperatures. Environmental Biology of Fish 3: 299-307.Ziegeweid, J.R., C.A. Jennings, D.L. Peterson and M.C. Black. 2008b. Effects of salinity, temperature,and weight on the survival of young-of-year shortnose sturgeon. Transactions of the AmericanFisheries Society 137:1490-1499.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011 Plant and the Environment............i # ....0 i!I1234Source: Entergy 2007aFigure .Location of 1P2 and IP3, 6-mi (10-km) radius................. .;,. ... ....I.L ; i' "'"::i, " I" STUDY AREAKMPALBANY -(AL) (201-245)RIVER MILE ALBANY Troy .,.------ (---- Green Isi ..(125-152)(107-124).MASS,(86-93)CATSKILL (CS) 1 (172-200)SAUGERTIES (SG)KINGSTON (KG)(138-150)HYDE PARK (HP) 1(124-137)POUGHKEEPSIE (PK)CORNyVALL, (CW)WE-ST INDIAN POINT (IP)CROTON-HAVERSTRAHTAPPAN ZEE (TZ)YONKERS (YK)BATTERY (BT)(100-123)I (90-99)_( 77-89)(63-76)(55-62)(39-54)(19-38)(0-18):6) -BWkLNNEDIAN PINT14:BuO:WU:LNE .....: ..LEGEND: [ IZ POWER PLANTKPM = KILOMETER POINTRM = RIVER MILESource: Abood et al. 20062Figure 2. Hudson study area and river segments............ .. .',...11 Appendix IIncident Report Shortnose Sturgeon Take -Indian PointPhotographs should be taken and the following information should be collected from all sturgeon (aliveand dead)found in association with the Indian Point .intakes. Please submit all necropsy results(including sex and stomach contents) to NMFS upon receipt.Observer's full name:Reporter's full name:Species Identification (Key attached):Site of Impingement (Unit 2 or 3, CWS or DWS, Bay #, etc.):Date animal observed:Date animal collected:Time animal observed:Time ammal collected:Environmental conditions at time of observation (i.e., tidal stage, weather):Date and time of last inspection of intakes:Water temperature (CC) at site and time of observation:Number of pumps operating at time of observation:Average percent of power generating capacity achieved per unit at time of observation:Average percent of power generating capacity achieved per unit over the 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> previous toobservation:Sturgeon Information:SpeciesFork length (or total length)WeightCondition of specimen/description of animalFish Decomposed: NO SLIGHTLYFish tagged: YES / NO Please record all tag numbers.MODERATELY SEVERELYTag #Photograph attached: YES / NO(please label species, date, geographic site and vessel name on back of photograph)NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011 Appendix I, continued" "Draw wounds, abnormalities, tag locations on diagram and br* _ ... ~~~ ~~. ' ... ., -." b ' ' ...iefly describe below,...,". .LR *VA \'~V..7 ~12.., ...*......."' .{ :i ,: .: !,.A ,-. ...,.~.:.:4i.~~C,Description of fish condition:NMFS Draft Biological OpinionAugust 2011, .

Appendix IIIdentification Key for Sturgeon Found in Northeast U.S. WatersATLANTICMouth width " 'SHORTNOSEI' r",, ¢Distinguishing Characteristics of Atlantic and Shortnose SturgeonCharacteristic Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus Shcrtnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrumMaximum length > 9 feet/ 274 cm I,, 4 feet/122 cmMouth Football shaped and small. Width inside lips < 55% of Wide.and oval in shape. Width inside lips > 62% ofbony interorbital width bony interorbital width*Pre-anal plates Paired plates posterior to the rectum & anterior to the 1-3pr6-anal plates almost always occurring as mediananal fin.

  • structures (occurring singly)Plates along the Rhombic, bony plates found along the late'ral base of .. No plates along the base of anal finanal fin the anal fin (see diagram below)Habitat/Range Anadromous; spawn in freshwater but primarily lead a Freshwater amphidromous; found primarily in freshmarine existence water but does make some coastal migrations* From Vecsei and Peterson, 2004,NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Aug~ust 2011 APPENDIX IIIProcedure for obtaining fin clips from sturgeon for genetic analysisObtaining Sample1. Wash hands and use disposable gloves. Ensure that any knife, scalpel or scissors usedfor sampling has been thoroughly cleaned and wiped with alcohol to minimize therisk of contamination.2. For any sturgeon, after the specimen has been measured and photographed, take aone-cm square clip from the pelvic fin.3. Each fin clip should be placed into a vial of 95% non-denatured ethanol and the vialshould be labeled with the species name, date, name of project and the fork length andtotal length of the fish along with a note identifying the fish to the appropriateobserver report. All vials should be sealed with a lid and further secured with tapePlease use permanent marker and cover any markings with tape to minimize thechance of smearing or erasure.Storage of Sample1. If possible, place the vial on ice for the first 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. If ice is not available, pleaserefrigerate the vial. Send as soon as possible as instructed below.Sending of Sample1. Vials should be placed into Ziploc or similar resealable plastic bags. Vials should bethen wrapped in bubble wrap or newspaper (to prevent breakage) and sent to:Julie CarterNOAA/NOS -Marine Forensics219 Fort Johnson RoadCharleston, SC 29412-9110Phone: 843-762-8547a. Prior to sending the sample, contact Russ Bohl at NMFS Northeast RegionalOffice (978-282-8493) to report that a sample is being sent and to discussproper shipping procedures.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 20.11:

, -. .-....1' '.'* -.Hr.., 'I.'C. CL2 i,.. -IJ...,C.. ................, .* .<', It .. ...;,' I / : , :NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2,011,

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML11249A012&oldid=561837"