ML11249A012

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
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)

Text

""I OF o,, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/ \ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE NORTHEAST REGION Kf 55 Great Republic Drive'4"301 oGloucester, MA 01930-2276 AUG 2 6 2011 David J. Wrona, Branch Chief Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Program US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 RE: Draft Biological Opinion for License Renewal of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3

Dear Mr. Wrona:

Please find enclosed a copy of the draft Biological Opinion on the effects of the operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 (Indian Point) pursuant to a renewed operating license that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to issue to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy).

I understand that Entergy requested a copy of a draft Opinion from you. In light of the schedule for consultation, please provide your comments and 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, I would also welcome your comments on whether initiation of consultation on this matter was appropriate at this particular time. When initiating consultation with NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Commission staff defined the proposed action as the operation of Indian Point for the new 20-year license term under the same conditions that appear in the existing 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 of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the proposed action seems very uncertain given NYSDEC has denied Entergy's request for Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification based on its initial and amended application.

I understand that the denial and the draft SPDES permit are under adjudication.

The potential modification of the proposed action due to the anticipated modification of the SPDES permit, including application of different technologies 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 only analyzes the operation of Indian Point from approximately 2013 to 2035 under the same conditions that appear in the existing license and SPDES permit, and the analysis and conclusions cannot be interpreted to apply to a different time period or different set of operating conditions.

It would not be appropriate to use the Opinion as an indication of a "worst-case scenario," given the Opinion's analysis and deteriminations may need to be modified as the I I definition of the proposed action and its effects, the environmental baseline, and the status of species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) all may change.Given that you have initiated Section 7 consultation, it appears you have already determined that the Commission has discretionary involvement or control Over the& action that inures to the benefit of ESA-listed species under NMFS jurisdiction.

However, the Biological Assessrihent and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement seem to suggest that the Commission cannot condition the operating license for the benefit of aquatic life in a way that affects the cooling water system. Those documents point to Congress's delegation to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of authority to administer the Clean Water Act's procedural and substantive provisions, and EPA's subsequent delegation of SPDES authority to the State of New York, as the basis for the Commission "deferring" to the NYSDEC regarding the protection of aquatic life. While I take no position on whether that is appropriate for implementation of the Clean Water Act, I note that the Endangered Species Act is a separate statute from the Clean Water Act and has different goals, standards, requirements and prohibitions applicable to all Federal agencies.

In light of this, I welcome your comments explaining the Commission's legal authority to approve and enforce conditions in the renewed operating license to minimize, monitor, and report incidental take resulting from the operation of the facility in order to fulfill its Endangered Species Act obligations.

In addition, I request confirmation from the Commission of the legal basis by which it retains discretionary involvement or control over the action in order to reinitiate consultation if an Opinion is finalized and 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 Take Statement with preliminary Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions to minimize, monitor, and report on the amount or extent of incidental take due to the operation of the facility under the proposed license renewal and existing SPDES permit. Given the overlapping Federal and state jurisdiction over endangered species in the Hudson River, NMFS is interested in working closely with our sister agencies at the state level and with other Federal partners to ensure the outcomes of the various processes are compatible and arrived at in an efficient manner. For this reason, too, I ask you to consider the appropriateness of having initiated consultation at this time. The Section 7 regulations at 50 C.F.R. Sec. 402.14(l)(2) state that "if during any stage of consultation a Federal agency determines its proposed action is not likely to occur, the consultation may be terminated by written notice to the Service." At an appropriate time, such as when the terms of the proposed extended operation of Indian Point are more certain, consultation may be initiated anew.I appreciate your interest in the conservation of endangered species and look forward to your response as well as continuing to work with you on this matter.Sincerely, egPaia A.iKirato.lf:.5egional Administrator CC: Crocker, F/NER3 Williams, GCNE File Code: Sec 7 NRC -Indian Point Relicensing

.

, , , .,.. :' "'..1'.3. '- .,,; ,. * *.3.~. -3. ......................................i...... ,: i.;-.::

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 7 CONSULTATION DRAFT BIOLOGICAL OPINION Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Activity:

Relicensing

-Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station F/NER/2009/00619 Conducted by: NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Regional Office Date Issued: DRAFT Approved by: DRAFT INTRODUCTION This 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, as amended, on the effects of the continued operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station (Indian Point) pursuant to a renewed operating license proposed to be issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended (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 December 2010, 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 other sources of information.

A complete administrative record of this consultation will be kept on file at the NMFS Northeast Regional Office, Gloucester, Massachusetts.

BACKGROUND AND CONSULTATION HISTORY Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3) are located on approximately 239 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 bank of the Hudson River at river mile (RM) 43 (river kilometer (RKM) 69) about 2.5 miles (mi) (4.0 kilometers (km)) southwest of Peekskill, the closest city, and about 24 mi (39 km) north of New York City. Both IP2 and IP3 use Westinghouse pressurized-water reactors and nuclear steam supply systems (NSSSs). Primary and secondary plant cooling is provided by a once-through cooling water intake system that supplies cooling water from the Hudson River. Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Unit No. 1 (IP 1, now permanently shut down) shares the site with IP2 and IP3. IPI is located between IP2 and IP3. In 1963, IP1 began operations.

IP1 was shut NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011 down on October 31, 19.74, and is inia safe'sti6rge c6ndiltion(SAFSTOR) awaiiing; final decommissioning.

Construction-began on IP2 in 1966 and on.IP3 in 1969. ' -.-I Indian 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 ,2 that' 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 was initially 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' listed species and/0r destroy'or adverselyi modify critical habitat.:

It was not until Congress amended the 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.

To date, NMFIS has'nd Iexemerpted any incidental take at.IP2'and-1P3 froln the Section 9 prohibitions against take ." ' -'r, -.-As explained below, beginning in 1977, EPA held a series of hearings (Adjudicatory Hearing Docket 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~this opinion 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 -and summarizes.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 -adult and sub-adult shortnose sturgeon in; thie Hudson River population (Dadswell 1979) and that the population had been stable at this number between the 1930s and 1970s.: Dr. Dadswell determined 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'year5 including 21 mortalities (assuming a .60% impingement morality).

Dadswell estimated that this resultedin 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 survival and recovery of the shortnose.sturgeon.",-

In conclusion Dadswell stated that the once through cooling systems being considered in the case were "not likely to jeopardize the continued existence~of thie. Rhortnose sturgeon, because, even assuming 100% mortality of impinged fish, its contribution to the natural iannual mortality is negligible.'" Dr. Dadswell did also note that as there is .no positive benefit to impingement, any reductions in the level pf impingement would, aid in the conservation of the species.;,No additional ESA consultation has o6curred, between NRC and NMFS on the operation' of.IP2 and IP3 and the effects on shortnon ,turgeon' incidental take associated:

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 any designated critical habitats that may occur in the vicinity of IP2 and, IP3. In, its response, dated October 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 December 22, 2008, .NRC requestediformal eonsultation with NMFS to consider dfeds of the proposed relicensing 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, NRC provided 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 NRC resulted in overestimates of the impingement of shortnose sturgeon that the NRC staff presefited in the previous BA." I , r , : .S.! , , * ...; *,*, ......On June. 16; NMFS received!

information regarding Entergy's triaxial thermal plume study and staff.obtained a: copy~of the studyaiX.d supporting documentation from NYDEC's webpage on that date: Additional information,regardIng the intakes was provided by Entergy via conference call on. June 20, June 22-, :and June 29,.201. 1:.. Supplemental information responding to specific questions

'raised by. NMFS, regarding the thermal, plume was submitted by Entergy via e-mail on July 8;.July 25, and:August:5, 2011.. NRC provided NMFS with a supplement to the December 2010 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's proposo 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 9 fpthe jfacilities over the extended operating period, as proposed by Entergy in the license application and a§ described by NRC in the FEIS and BA, are described NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augu~st.,2,3ll, below. Both units withdraw.water from and discharge ,water to, the Hudson River. ,As described by NRC in the.Final SEIS .(NRC 201.0), in.1972, Congress, assigned authority to' administer the Clean 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, -EPA authorized 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 regulates impingement 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 the operation 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 and discharges 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 Water Act Section 401. Certifications and NPDES/SPDES effects of proposed Federal: action.--

the continued operation of IP2.-and1P3 ,as proposed-to be approved by NRC, 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 its SPDES 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 by NY-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.included in NRC's FSEIS at Section, 2.2.53 (Regulatory Framework~and Monitoring Programs) and is summarized 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 Section 316(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 numeric performance standards for reductions in impingement mortality and entiainment that'would demonstrate that the cooling, Water intake system constitutes BTA for minimizing, impingement and entrainmont.impacts:..Existing facilities subject to the rule were required to demonstrate compliance with the rul'e's performance standards during the renewal process for their National Pollutant:'Discharge:Elimination-System (NPDES) permitfthrough

'development of a.Comprehensive Demonstration Study'(CDS).

As a result of a V'ederal zcoui'tdecision,:

EPA officially 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 permit requirements'on a case by-ýcas basis for.codling.

water intake! str*titega .Pase P Ha facilities until ithas'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 the potential for long term environmental impact from the once-through cooling systems on aquatic life: 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 in 1976, 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, to authorize 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 licenses was superseded by comprehensive' amendimients to -the federal Water Pollution Prevention' and Control: Act (the Clean Water-Act'

[CWA]f and creation of the National Pollutant-Discharge Elimination System:(NPDES) prograrm'.

."-. '. ".In :1 97'5ýthe U.S ,,Enironmental.Protection.Agency (EPA) issued separate NPDES 'permits:

for Units-2 and 3, pursuant .to provisions ofthe:CWA, chiefly § 316 (33 U.S.C. § 1326), that required'both facilities todiscontinue discharging heated effluent from the main-condensers.-The NPDES permits provided' that "heat may be discharged in blowdown from a re-circulated cooling water system? :The intent of these conditions was t'o require the facilities to install' closed-cycle'ý 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, thed facilities' owners, Consolidated Edison Company of New York and PASNY/NYPA, requested administrative hearings with the USEPA to overturn these conditions.

' ,' "' 'In October 1.975; NYDEC'redeived approgal, from- the' USEPA to administer arid conduct a State permit the' of the! federal NPDES,'program under CWA § 1402.Since then, the Departmnent; has adii'iinistered that program undet'the.Slate Pollut't Discharge Elimination System'"(SP'DES) pirmit'prog1am.

As a r'esult; NYDEC has the authority, under the f CWA 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 into the Hudson River; ,The terms of the SPDES permit, however, become part of the:Federal-'action given that the operating license shall be subject to the conditions imposed under the:Clean Water F,.. 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 adjudicatory process lasted for several years before culminating in a multi-party settlement known as the Hudson 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 assessments to determine the scope:lf adverse)e'%ircninerital.,impact, zaused by those facilities.

According to the NYDEC,,the intent of the HRSAýýN"a.s'that-ba~ed'.upona-the data andlanalyses provided by the facilities,'

the Departrn'nti could determine, and:paries:

cooild, agree upon, the best technology,.,..

available (BTA) to minimize adverse environmentalimpact on aquatic organisms in, the Hudson River 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 outages during the key spawning months. In addition, the utilities, agree'J to fu-nd and operate a:striped bass 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 the 1980 HRSA-were extended.

through a'series of four-separate stipulations of settlement and judicial consent.orders that were entered in Albany,,Cgunty:

Supemne Court [Index. No. ,01, l91 ST325 1]. The last of~these stipulationsof settlement and judicial consent orders, executed, by the parties 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 permit for 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 entrained by 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 Governing ThermaltDischarges.

_ : --. ...In accordance' with.the provisions of the HRSA, the Department renewed the SPDES permit for the Indian Point -facilities in 1987-for another 5-year period. -As with the 1982 SPDES. permit, the 1987 SPDES permit for Units 2 and 3 contained certain measures-from -the HRSA that were 1 The signatory parties to the HRSA. were USEPA, the pepartment, the New York State Attorney General, the Hudson River Fishermen s Asso-iain, Scenic Hudson, the Nat--ral Resources Defense Council, Central Hudson Gas & 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 during the 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 to the Department and, by operation of the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA), the 1987 SPDES permit for Units-, 2 and-.3 is-still in effect today..,,Entergy, purchased Units; 2, and 3 in 2001 and 2000, respectively, and.the 1,987!SAPA-extended SPDES permit-for.the facilities was subsequently 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 an equivalent:

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 previous permitThe 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 a tri-axil .(three-diinensional) thetmalstudy to document whether the therrtal, discharges from Units 2 and 3-:comply.

with istate water.quality.

criteria.

The draft permit-states that iftIP2 afid IP3 do not meet state standards, Entergy may, apply for a modification.

of those criteria lin an effort to demons'rate to NYDEC that 'such criteri. *are unnecessarily restrictive and that the modification would not inhibit the existence and propagation of asbAlanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish and wildlife in the River, which is an applicable Clean Water Act water quality-related Standard.:;Thd diaft permit also states that Entergy may propose, within a year of the" permit's becoming effecti've~i an alternative technology or technologies that can minimize, adverse environmental impacts.tso a, level equivalent to that achieved by a closed-cycle cooling 'system at the.Stations.:

In orderjto implement closed-cycle cooling, the draft permit would require Entergy to submit apre-deisign engineering report within one year of the permit's effetfie date. Withinonb year after the; submissionrof the report, Entergy must submit complete design pl'ans that address all 1construction issues for cbnversion to closed-cycle cooling. In additiori;: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 schedule geheration) 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,-and its outcome is uncertain at this time. There is significant uncertaintity associated with the conditiAons ofany ne'SPDES pjermit. In the'2003di'aft, NY-DEC 'dete'rnmined that cooling towers were~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~is unknown what new technology, if any, will be required,to-m'odify the operation of th6 facility's cooling water intakes. The '1987 SPDES permit iis still in effect. and will remain .in effect until a new permit is issued and becomes 'effective.

No schedule is3 available for. the issuance of a revised draft or new final SPDES permit and the content of any SPDES permit'will -be decided as a result of the adjudication-process.

Therefore,:

in this consultation, aNMFS :has considered.

effects of the operation of the;Lndian, Poinit facility over the 20-year'extended operating'period with; the 1987 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 the extended.operatiilgpeiiod,,oishortlno's sturgeon.'

If a new SPDES permit is issued, NRC and NMFS would have to-determ-ine'if reini-iiatiun of this :consultation; is necessary to consider any effects.of the operation

'of facility~c-shortnose sthrgeon that were not considered in this Opinion. '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, Entergy Indian Point Unit 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear N.ortheast(Coll

..fiveiy.Etergy)..The Joint Application 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, meets state 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 renewed nuclearlicenses for. the hidian Point facilities., '. .'- , .. .In a decision dated April 2, 2010, NYDEC determined:that the facilities, whether operated as they 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 cycle cooling 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 that alter 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 to be reinitiated.

==

Description:==

of Cooling Water System: .. ,', !"¢ , ... : : :.: ... , IP2 and IP3 have once-through condensercooling systems 'thai withdraw water from and discharge water to the Hudson River. The maximum design flow rate for each cooling system is NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 20141,..'

approximately 1;870 cubic feet per second (cfs);,840,000 gallons per minute (gpm), or 53.0 cubic meters per secoud (m3,s). Two shoreline, intake structures, one foreach .unit; are located along the Hudson River on ithemnorthwestern edge of-the site and provide cooling.water to the site. Each structure Wonsists oC seyveh bays-) six for, circulating water and one for service water. The IP2 intake structure

has ;seven independent bays,'while the IP3 intake structure has seven bays that are served by a commonplenum..

In. each structure, six of the. seven bays.contain coolingwater pumps, 'and the seventh :hay contains service/auxiliary water, pumpsx, Befrre.it is:pumped to the condensers, riverwater,.pases~thr-ough traveling screens in-the intake structure bays to remove debris 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 a dynamic 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, are variable-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 the bottom 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-clear spacing) to prevent additional large debris from becoming entrained in the cooling system. At full speed,; the approach~velocity'in front Of the, screensis 1 foot per gecond-(fps);

at reduced speed, the'approach velocity.is 0.6 fps!(Entergy 2007a).,-As this area* is behind a bulkhead it is outside ifheinfluence of river, currents.

Next, -smaller debris and fish are- screened out using modifiedRistroph traveling screens. ., , .The modified-, Ristroph traveling screens. eonsist of a-series of panels that rotate continuously.

The traveling 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 concert with 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: over the 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 smooth to minimize fish abrasion by the mesh. Two high-pressure sprays remove debris from rthe 'front side 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 intake structure 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 laboratory and field testing, the screens were "the screening device most likely to impose the least mortalities in the rescue of entrapped fish by mechanical means'.' (Fletcher-1990),. Thle same study concluded that refineineilts, to- the screens would be unlikely-to greatly reduce fish-kills.

No monitoring i's currenitly dongding-at IF2 or, IP3 for impingement or entrainment.

or to, ensurelthat the screens are operating per design standards.

Additionally, there is no monitoring:

ongoing to quantify any actual incidental take of shortnose sturgeon or their prey. The proposed action under consultation, as currently defined by NRC, does not provide for 'any moiinitoring of direct. or indirect 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 structure located 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 the river.- 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 evaporation resulting from the elevated discharge, temperature would be less than 60 cfs (27,000 gpm or :1.7 m3/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 water transient 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 River via 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 the service 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 are located' 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 of New York City, New York (Figures la.,Fnd 2)..The~direct .and indirect-ef_,iects:

of the Indian Point NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 201-1,.'

facility are the intake of water from the Hudson River and the discharge.

of heated.effluent back into the Hudson River. Therefore, the action area for this consultation includes the intake areas of IP2 and IP3 and the region where the thermal plume extends into the Hudson River from IP2 and 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 the endangered shortnose.sturgeon.(Acipenser brevirostrum).. ,No !criticalt has ..been designated for 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;,! !.,1 Dadswel.1.

1979 in NMFS 1 t 9 9 8)j! Shortnos turgeM! have-similar lengthbsat, maturity (45-55 cm fork 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 I range, mature atlate: ages.:,r, the north, malesr'each maturity at 5 to 10 years, while females mature 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 (southern rivers):to mid. to'late spring (northern rivers)],when the freshwater, temperatures increase:

to 8-9 0 C. Several published.reports have presented the problems,facing, long-lived species. that delay sexualhmaturity (Crouse et. al. 1987;. Crowder et al., 1994;. CroQse; 1,999). In general, these reports concluded that animals fthat delay: sexual maturityand reproduction must have high annual survivaltas juveniles through adults, to, ens.direthat enough juveniles survive to reproductive maturity.

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; ages 14-55; Dadswell 1979), Upper Connecticut River'(0.12; Taubert 1980b), and Pee Dee-Winyah River (0.08-0.12; Dadswell et al. 1984). Total instantaneous natural mortality (M) for shortnose sturgeon in the :lower; Connecticut Riverwas estimated,to, be 0.13i (T. Savoy, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, personal communication).

There is no recruitment information availablefor, shortnose sturgeoabecause there are no commercial, fisheries-for the species. 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 spawning attempts, possibly due to interrupted migrations or unsuitable environmental conditions (NMFS 1998). Thus, annual egg production is likely to vary greatly in this species. Fecundity estimates have been made and range from 27,000 to 208,000 eggs/female and a mean of 11,568 eggs/kg body 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 Bay northward 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:

develops into larvae which are about,15mm total length (TL; Buckley and Kynard' 1981.).iSurgeon larvae are believed to begin downstream' migrations at about. 20mm: TL. Dispersal rates differ; at least regionally, laboratory studies on Connecticut River larvae indicated dispersal peaked 7 12 days after 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 throughout the entire larval and earlyjuvenile iperiod (Parker 2007). Synder (1988), and.Parker (2007)considered individuals to be juvenile when they reached 57mm .TL. .Laboratory studies demonstrated that larvae from the Connecticut River made this transfbrmation on day 40 while Savannah 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 salinity tolerances.

Little is known about YOY.'behavior iand habitat use* though it istbelieved that they are typically found:iii.

hannel areas.with'ini freshwvaxt.*:ih'abitats'upstream of the saitwedge for about one year.:(Dadsell et al. , 984,,Kynard-i 9:97)i One .sftdy.:on'the stomach contents of YOY revealed 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 as age one or older and occupy similar spatio-temporal patterns and habitat-use as adults (Kynard 1997). 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.

These migratory movements are associated with spawning, feeding, and overwintering activities.

In spring, as water temperatures reach between 7-9.7 0 C, pre-spawning shortnose sturgeon move from 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 and Kynard 1996):'- In the Merrimafck River, males returned'to only one reach during afour year telemetry study (Kiefferand Kynard 1,996):1,SqUires

(.1982) found that during the three years of the study in the Androscoggin:River, adults returned to a 1-km reach below the Brunswick Dam and Kieffer and' Kynard (1996): found that. adults spawned within a 2-km-reach in the Connecticut River 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 0.4 to 0.8 m/se.c;(Dadswell e0al.,!984;, Hall et al. 1991, Kieffer and Kynard-.1996,-NMFS 1998). For northern' shorttuose sturgeon,.

the temperature range for spawning is 6:5-18.0 0 C, (Kieffer and Kynard in press).;-Eggsare separate when spawned but.become adhesive within approximately 20 minutes offertilization,(Dadswell et al. 1984). Between 8' -and 121'C, -eggs. generally hatch after 'approximately,1.3,days..,,The larvae are photonegative, remaining:.on therbottom for several days. 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 feeding areas 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 tend to 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-spawning movements inoludewandering-movements .ift summer and winter. (Dadswell et al,. ,1,984; Buckley and Kynard 1985; O'Herron et al. 1993). Kieffer and Kynard (1993) reported thatpost-spawning migrations were correlated with increasing spring water temperature and river discharge.

Adult sturgeon o~curring in freshwater.

or freshwater/tidal reaches. of'rivers iin summer ahd:winter often occupy.only a few short reaches:of theitotal length (Buckley and Kynard 1985)L: ý Summer concentration areas in southern rivers aretool, deep, thermal refugia,.

where adult and juvenile shortnose 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 Atlantic sturgeon, 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 rivers in '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 etV al. 41984)..andasihigh as.34 0 C°(Heidt and Gilbert 1978)... However, temperatures above 28°Gare thought 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 is necessary for the unimpeded' swimming by adults.. Shortnosesturgeon are known.to occur-at depths 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 and Dadswell 1980)'and

in waters with salinity of 30 parts-per-thousand.(ppt) (Holland.and.Yeverton 1973; Saunders andSmith' 1978).

Mcleave et al; (1977)'reportedadu!ts'moving' freely through a wide 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'(Kynard 1996). 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 sturgeon forage on vegetated mudflats, and.over'shellfish' beds in shallower waters when suitable forage is Status 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 the original 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.. .gone in 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 sturgeon contributed to the decline of shortnose sturgeon along the east coast. Heavy: industrial.

:',- , I development during the twentieth century in rivers inhabited by sturgeon.

impaired water quality and impeded these species' recovery; possibly resulting' in isubstantially reduced abundance of shortnose sturgeon populations within portions of the Species' ranges (e.g., southernmost rivers of the species range: Santilla, St. Marys and St. Johns Rivers)., A shortnose.

sturgeon recovery plan 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 plan NMFS recognized 19 separate populations occurring'throughout the range.of the species.,:

These populations 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); South Carolina.

(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 roe 3.The'definition of species~under the ESA includes any subspecies of fish,'wildlife, or..plants,.and any.'distinct.population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds w.he. mature.. To be a.DPS, .a population segment must meet two criteria under NMFS policy. First, it mustbe discrete, or separated, from other populations of its species or subspecies.

Second, it must be significant, or essential, to the long-term conservation status of its species or subspecies.

This formal 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, life history studies indicate that shortnose sturgeon populations from different river systems are substantially reproductively isolated (Kynard.:1 997) and, therefore, should be-considered discrete.The 1.999 Recovery Plan-indicates that while genetic information may-reveal, that interbreeding does no.t oco'ur, between rivers that, drain into a common estuary, at this)time, such river systems are considered a~singleipopulation:compromised of breeding subpopul-ations (NMFS 1998)., Studies,-conducted since the iissuance of the Recovery.

Plan havei provided.

evidence'that suggests that, years- of isolationkbetween rpopulations ,of shortnose sturgeon ihave led to-morphological and genetic variationt

Walsh et-pl(2Q01) examined~morphologicalýand geaetiG,,variation of-.shortnose sturgeon.

in three rivers (Kennebec, The, study -found that the HudsorrRiver shortnose sturgeon population differedmarkedly.f9mm the! other(two rivers'for most 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 and Kennebec rivers drain into a common estuary, these. rivers support largely discrete populations of shortnose 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 haplotypic diversity indices -.The:limi-ted sharing of haplotypes

'and thei-high numbernof private haplotypes are indicativei of high homing'fidelity and :low gene flow. The-researchers determined that glaciation 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 haplotypes restricted-to either:of these two regions:,and relatively few are shared; this represents a historical subdivision-that' is' tied to-an- important geological.

phenomenon that reflects historical isolation.

Analyses of haplotype frequencies at the level of individual rivers showed, significant, differences among all systems in which reproduction is known to occur. This implies that although higher level 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 between the 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,-glaciated systems and 13 were unique to the southern non-glaciated systems. Only 5 were shared. between them. This analysis-suggests-that shortnose sturgeon show high structuring and. discreteness and that 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'suggested that most population segments are independent and that genetic variation among groups was high.The best available inforrh'ationdemonstfates differences in life history and habitat preferences between northern and-sbuthern river systems'and given the species" anadromous breeding habits, the rare occurrence:

of migration between river systems, and the documented genetic differences between'river populati'ol; it is-unlikely that populations in adjacent river systems.interbreed with any regularity...

'This k.4 1 ,e account..:f-oI, the failure of shortnose sturgeon:o repopulate river, systems -from whichit'hey"hId beien excirpdted,.

despite the geographic closeness of persisting populations.

This, charzaiteirstic

'-"ofhofnose stutgeon, also complicates recovery and persistence of this species in the ftare, bpuse; is extihpated'in the fuiure, it is unlikely that this'river willcbe-recol'lnized.

.-Cohsequently, Ihis Opinion: will treat the nineteen separate populations ofsshortnose stutgec'n as' sib'popu!ationis (0he:f'fwhich' o ccars in theaction area) for the purposes of this analysis.,. , ..,'.Historically, shortnose sturgeon are believed to have inhabited nearly all.major rivers and estuaries along nearly the entire east coast of North. America. The range-extended from the St John 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, long lived 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 Cape Fear (-8 adults; Moser and Ross 1:995) in the south and.Merrimack and Penobscot rivers in the north (- several hundred to several thousand adults,'depending on population estimates used; M.Kieffer, United States Geological Survey, personal commiunication; Dionne '2010), while the largest'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 northern populations and all natural southern populations:

Kynard 1996 indicates that allt aspects of the species' 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,.

utlaxge rivers 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 sturgeon population in; the N6rtheastemr United States exists,, it is clearly below the size that could.be supported 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 intake screens, 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 shortnose sturgeon cpntinue to be takenrinpidentaIlyinl f!heiies along the east coast and 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 normal migratory moyenments-.and.

disturb sturgeon concpntrF.pnp aneas. UnIess appropriate precautions are xade, internal damage ar)/oX peath may jt.*from.

blasting projects with powerful explosivps.

Hydroelectric da;ns5nay affeeothortno sA stgrgeonjby restricting.;

habitat, altering river, flows or terper atures and/or migration and causing mortalities to -fish that becoim.e entraine.infturbijnes., Maiftnance; dredging-9f Federal navigation

chanmels .od4 other 1 areas ;. adversely effect orj jeopardi~ze shortnose sturgeon populations, 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 shortnose sturgeon 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 power generati'g plants,.can, affect sturgeon by impinging larger fish on, cooling, water intake~screens and 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 June 1991 when large mats of.aquatic plants entered the plant..s intake canal and clogged the cooling water intake.gates.IDecornposingqplant material inithe tailraceeeanalcoupled with the turbine shut down (allowing no-flw-of water) triggered a low dissolvedoxygen water condition downstreaInm and a subsequent fish killhw The South Carolina Wildlife.and.Marine Resources, Department reported that twenty shortnose' sturgeon, were killed during this low dissolved oxygen event. , .r r ' i., Contaminants, including toxic metals, polychl~orinatedaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),: .i 'pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) .can have substantial deleterious effects on aquatic life including production of acute. lesions, ,growth retardation, and reproductive.

impainrne3t'(Cootper.1.l989;, Sinderman 1994). Ultimately5 toxins.introduced tothe water column become 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 and Henry. 1992; Ruelle and Kennlyne 1993). Available datae suggests.

that.early life stages' of fish., are more 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 sturgeon tissues, 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 pallid sturgeon tissue from the Missouri River (Ruelle and Henry 1994). These compounds were found in 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 be transferred to eggs and potentially inhibit egg viability.

In other fish species, reproductive impairment, reduced egg'-viability, and-lreduced' survival:

of larval ;fish are. associated "with" elevated levels, bf environniiental contam inants inhcluding chlorinated hydiocarbons.

A strong conrelation that:has been'm'ade betveen£fssh:weight; fish fork lengte, and DDE concentration in pallid 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 at concentrations above an adverse'effect concentration reported for. fish. in the literature (ERC 2003). While no directed studies of chemical contaminatibn in.'shortnose sturgeon have been undertaken, it is evident that the heavy industrialization of the rivers where'shortnose sturgeon are found is likely adversely affecting this species.'

.'i t- .-.., ., .During summer months, especially in southern areas-, shortnose sturgeon must.cope with the physiological stress of water temperatures, that.may exceed 28 0 C. Flourney et al. (1992) suspected that, during these periods, shortnose sturgeon congregate ,in river regions'which, support..conditions that relieve physiological stress (i.e., in coolleep thermal'refuges)., In southern rivers where sturgeon movements have been tracked, sturgeon'refrain from moving during warm water conditions 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-point source discharges, which contain elevated temperatures or high biological, demand, can reduce dissolved 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 oxygen levels in, high: ambient watet' temperatures and show signs ofstress in'-wvater.temperatures higher NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 201-. ,: '!

than 28'C. (F!urmey-et al. 1992)., -At these temperatures, concomitant low levels of dissolved oxygen maybetlWhal.

,. ..,:' , " '- ' , .Global climate change may affect. shortnose sturgeon-in thefuture.

Rising.sea level may result in the salt wedge-moving upstreal, in- affected rivers, possibly.affectipg the s~urv-ival of drifting larvae and. YOY shortnose, sturgeon-that are sensitive to elevated salinity.,, Similarly, for river systems with dams, YOY nmay experience a habitat .squeeze~betweeo, a shifting (upriver) salt wedge 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 scour spawning'areasand'flooding events could cause )temporary, water quality issues., Rising temperatures 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 expect range extensions to shift northward:(iei:in'to.:tiSt.,LawrenceRiv.er,.,, Canada), 1 while 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; the type andabutidance of prey. rAdditionally; cues 'for spawning migration and spawning.could occur earlier, in-the season 'causing a misrtatchin prey that are currently available,to developing shortnose~sturgeon .inrearing habitat.:

-'....Implidationis..of climate change toshortnose-sturgeon throughout their range have been speculated;.pyet'no

scientific dataare available on, past trends related to climate effects on this species an&current scientific methodsi are not 'able to; reliably predict the future magnitude of climate change and associated impacts or the adaptive capacity of this species. While there is a reasonable degree of certainty that certain climate change related effects will be experienced globally (e.g., rising temperatures and changes

'i' -precipitation patterns), due: to a lack of scientific datatlie specific:

effects to shortnose sturgeon .that may result from climate change are not predictableior quantifiable at this time.; Information on current effects of global climate change on, shortnose sturgeorn is not, available and while it is speculated that future climate change may:affect this, speciesit'is not possible to quantify the extent to which effects may occur.', Firther analygis onthe likely effects of climate change ;on shortnose sturgeon in the action area is kieluded in the Environmental Baseline:

and' Cumulative Effects sections belowij,, .Status of Shortnose Sturgeon in the Hudson River The action area islimited;to.-the reach of the Hudson River affected byiproject operations as described inrthe tfAction section. above, :,As such, thissection will discuss..tbe-available information 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 in the 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, late 1800s and early .1 900s, the Hudson River'served as a dumping groiand for'pollutants, that lead to major oxygen depleti6ns aidi'resulte-din fish kills. and population:

reductions:.

During this same time 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 -that documented the distributit,,agie, .nd.'size of mature-shortnose,sturgeon in the. HudsonRiver (see Bain et al. 1998).4 Ift the l970s;'scieltZ'0 fz., .amplihng r'esauinedpi-ecipitated.by the lack of biological data and concerns about'the.imijaci,'of electric 'gmer~at.on.

facilities on fishery resources (see Bain et 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: Dovel 1979, 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 captured and 5,959 were marked; severa! different.

abundance estimates were generaced'from this sampling data 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.modeling exercise 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 population and juveniles 4% (Bain et al. 2000). Bain et al. (2000) compared the spawning population estimate 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 and identify the cause of the major change iniabundance.

'Woodland and:Secor (2007) concluded that the dramatic increase in abundance was likely due tW. improved water quality in -the Hudson River which allowed for high recruitment during -years when environmental conditions.

were. right,, particularly between 1986-1991-:.

These studies provide the best information:available.,3n the current status of the Hudson River population and suggests that the population is relatively healthy, 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 et al. 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 .,,e 4 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 (NYHS 1809)., Spawning fish congregated at, the base of Cohoes Falls where the:Mohawk River emptied into the Hudson.,-Jn recent-years (since 1,999), shortnose sturgeon hav.ebeen documented below the Tappan.Zee Bridge from Ju.ne.through December (ASA. 1.99-2Q02; Dynegy 2003).. While shortnose 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 area over the last: several .years (ASA J999-2002; Dynegy.2003):suggest "g;that~the!rage of shortnose sturgeon is extending dowa sfte0r.. Shortnose stvrgeor.wer0,doquMne e as-farsouth as the ManhattanftStaten,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;largest overwintering.

area is'just south ofKingsto

,'N.Y, oearE.sopStMeeAd.ws (r'cm '139-452),(Dovel et 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 confirmed an overwintering site in the Croton-Haverstraw Bay area (rkm 54-61). The Indian Point facility is 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 whilelfemales spawn at approximately 6-1.0 years of :age, (Dadswell et al. 1984;, Bain et al. 199,$,). Males may spawn, 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 feed at 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). Spawning typicallyoburs:at water!te-hperatures betveen 1.0-8lC,(generally late April-May) after which adults-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 broad summ&,tage, occbpied'by, adiilt shortnose sturgeon extends from approximately rkm 38 to rkm 177. :-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 reached 8°C on April 10'and 6 on April'.,20; 20O3S'-80Ctn April;.14!

and 15TC on.May. 1:9; 2004 -April 17 and 15'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 life history information for shortnose sturgeon it is known that eggs adhere to solid objects on' the river bottom (Buckley and Kynard 1981; Taubert:t 980) and that eggs and larvae are eipected to be present within the vicinity of the spawriing grounds (rkm 245-212) for. approximatelyfour weeks post spawning (i.e., at latest through mid-June).

Shortnose sturgeon larvae in: the'Hudson River generally range in size from 15 to 18 mm TL at hatching (Pekovitch 1979). Larvae gradually disperse downstream after hatching, entering the tidal'iiver (IHoff et al., 1988). Larvae or fry are free swiwrung'.,,dtypicaiy' concentrate:in deep charmel habitat (Taubdri and Dadswell -1980,'Bath'et.alt 198K1, Iieffer idKynard 1993). Gi,,eii that fry are free swimming and foraging, they 'typic~allydisper.se dv5,'i~stream of spawninfg/rearing areas. -Larvaeare' found throughout.

the Hudson'RiVr!

'estuary ati--.ar n-ost coninionly found, in deep Waters with strong currents; typically ifi the: channel: (-6ff etal: 1. 988;' DdVkl 1 992). The transition from the larval to juvenile"stage g~nera I y occurs" lin the, firs- t'L.,ei of lfe -when the, fi sh, grows to approximately 2 cm TL and is marked by fully developed external characteristics (Pekoviftch 1979).

.......................

...... ..

.Similar to non-spawning' adults, most juveniles occupy the brcad:region of Haverstraw Bay' (RM 34-40; Indian Point is located near the -northern edge of the bay) (Dov1 et ai. I 992; Geoghegan et al. 1992) by late fall and early winter. Migrations from the summer foraging areas to the overwintering grounds are triggered when water temperatures fall.to 8°C (NOAAFishe'nres'-.

1998), typically idn late N0Venmber 6.' Juveniles are distributed thre'Ughout the'mid-river region during 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 Hudson River 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 is more precisely oriented.

The ventral protrusable mouthl'and' barbells are adaptations for a diet of small 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 this region undertake significant coastal migrations between larger river. systems and utilize smaller coastal river systems during these interbasin movements (Fernandes 2008; UMaine unpublished data). -Some outmigration has been documented in the Hudson River, albeit at low levels in In 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. Two individuals taggepdin;1995 in the overwintering area near Kingston, NY- .ere later recaptured in the. Connectic.ut River. One 9f these fish was at large for over two, years and the.other 8 years prior to recapture..:

As such, it,.is reasonable to expect some leyel. of movement out of the Hudson into adjacent .riverr systems;,however, based on available informatigox.it .s not possible to predict what percertage-of adult shortnose sturgeon originating:from the N-Iudsor.Riveer may participate in coastalmnigrations.:

.,.ENVIRONMENTALBASWLINE_ , .._,, *.;, ., :,:,.,,-',:.

'.,> '2 Environmental:

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 of all proposed federal prqj ects in, thp: actioqaarea -tat have, lredy, jind.ergone, fprMal or.early Section .7consultation, and the impact of statpe or jctippsh j,.r'.¢0fltepporaneous with the consultationjii-pr9cess (0 CFR.,402,02) this Opinion,:,,,-,...:.

includesthe effects-of sevgral,,acAivities .tlý4 ay.-affect thesuriva and of the listed speciesi.

'theaction ar.a.f. i. J! ) ' : ., ",: : .-Federal Actions that have Undergone Formal or Early Section 7 Consultation The 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 in the Hudson River.have been exposed, to effects of this facility; Eggs :apd early laryva e would be the 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 0.5 inches); eggs are, smalltenough to pass ithrugh:these openings.but, as explained below, do not occur!injthe.a,ction area.. j. .. .,,::.;: ,.: 'In the Hudson Rivet, shortnose sturgeon eggs;are only found at the spawning grounds, which are more than,1:50km upstream from the, Indian Point intakes (Bain 1998; NMFS. 1998)., As no shortnose sturgeon eggs. occur, in, the action ariea,.ý o entrainment.of shortnose sturgeon eggs would: 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 can vary from as far north as Poughkeepsie.'toas fardownstream as Hastings on Hudson 4USGS Hudson River Salt Front study webpage) and therefore, could be upstream or downstream of Indian Point._;Depending-on the location ofthe:saltwedge; in sgonie years salinity may be low enough 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 and Kynard 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. is NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August...2011 possible that sorme larvae would be small enough to the screen mesh;.f: However, as larvae are typically found in -the deep channel, which is more than 2,000 feeti fromthe location of the 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 NRC in the FEIS and BA,.entrairnment monitoring reports list no shortnose.

sturgeon'eggs or: larvae at IP2 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-an accurate assessment of past entrainment of shortnose sturgeon early life stages. Based on this, it is 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 is available-for 6,fish and.ranged from 320-710mm.

Condition (dead'or alive) is.also only available for 6 fish;,withl 5 of the 6 fish reported dead., Howeveri no -infor-mation' on the :condition of these fish 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 only available for three fish, with lengths of 325, 479 and 600 mm. Water temperatures atthe time of recovery ranged from 0.5 -28°C. Collectively at IP2 and IP3, impingements occurred in all months 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 the thermal plume was effecting shortnose sturgeon or their prey; it is not possible to estimate' past effects 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 or entrainment or exposure to the thermal.plume.-.This is because no monitoring of shortnose sturgeon 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 to Indian Point (RM 38):; Roseton GeneratingStation.(RM 66),.Danskarmner Point Generating Station (RM 67)4 Bowline PointGenerating Station:(RM 33), and Lovett Generating Station (RM 38); all four stations are fossil-fueied.steam.

electric stations, located on the western shore- of ihe river, 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 is Danskammer, 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 river from IP2 and IP3, is no longer operating.

In 1998, Central Hudson Gas andElectric Corporatibný(CHGEC), th.- operator of the Roseton NMFS 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 and application for a 1 0(a)(1)(B).incidental take permit that proposed tQ iminimize the potential for entrainment and impingement of shortnose sturgeon at the Roseton and Danskammer Point power plants. ,These measures-ensurethat the operation.of these plants,,will.

not appreciably reduce the likelihood of thelsurvival and recovery of shortnosQ stprgeon.in.the~wild.

In addition to the:minimization measures;,a, proposed monitoringprogram was. implemrented to assess the periodictake ofishortnose, s§trgeon, the status of the species,,jdthe project!area, and the progress on the fulfillment ofmitigatioiu requirements.-

In Decembter, QO y.D, yfggRoqseton L.LC. and DynegyDanskammer-Point .L.,L. 0were issued incidental1tajt pe..rrr jnp~,69 (ITPi 1269)...The ITP exempts theincidental-.take:of,2shortnose sturg~cnatRpseJona,n

.4 atDanskammo.r Point 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 in significantly 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 history of scientific-research.;

Inthe 1i930s, the New,.York State Biologica-l Survey, launched the first scientific sampling study and documented the distribution, age, and size of mature shortnose sturgeon (Bain et,al..:1998).

In the earlyl 970sfresearch resumed in response, to a lack of biological.

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 on HaverstraWBay.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. .2 r , , ..:: , .-' , I , ýý. -ý I f ' , V ..'

Transportation, NY Thruway Authorit$, and the Metro-North Railroad efforts to improve the mobility 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 of the bridge. Earth Tech, Inc. is authorized to capture, handle, and measure up'to 250';-,".., adult/juvenile shortnose'stiirgeonannually.

Permit # 1575 expires Noverfiber 30, 20111 The 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: shortnose sturgeon collected duringI'!eu-rtnual Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program. .Dynegy is authorized 82 adults,juvenil s annually, to measure,: tag, photograph; and collect tissue samples 'f b gernetic'analyses

.,Dynegy is also authorized to lethally take up to 40 larvae annually..

Permit #- 1,-80 'vill: vxpi _e on March 3 i,-i 2012- These permits are issued for a period of five years nmd1mrayb&r.enf

.,ipending a fornal review .by NMFS' Office of Protected Resources, Permits Division.

' ' '. .'., .... ...... ......Impacts of Contaminants and Water Quality , ,-:',, ..i..'" ....Historically, shortnose sturgeon.

were rare in the lower Hudson River,'likely, as 'a result of poor water quality precluding migration further downstream.:

H vwever' in the past several years, the water 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. action area, albeit to reduced. levels. , Sewage,. industrial pollutants and ,waterfrontdevelopment has..-likely decreased the water quality in -the action area: Contaminants introd-_uced into the.water column or through the. food chain, eventually-become associated with the benthos where bottom dwelling 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. metals also appear to be in decline and remaining areas of concern are -largelylimited to those near urban or industrialized areas. With the exception of areas near New York City, there currently does 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 as a 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 PCBs in freshwater areas of'the Hudson River are from the upper Hudson River near Fort Edward and Hudson Falls, New York. In the lower Hudson. River, -PCB concentratioris,observed are a result of 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'. 2 011,.w.'" ... ..' .2 ,

This tendency to bioaccumulate and biomagnify results in theconcentration of PCBs in the tissue concentrationsijl aquatic-dependentorganfisms.

These tissue levelrs can bej many. orders of..magnitude higher-than those observed in sediments and can approach or. even exceed levels that pose 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 production of 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 of the upper Hudson River to be, contaminated byPoGBs-audithisi is-thought to account for the high: percentage of shortnose -sturgeon in the Hudson RiveE.,exhibidiag Efin -rot.-.. Under a statewjde 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, !,t shortnose 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-eggs and 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 and larvae 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;,:

is known 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 plant cooling 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 also impact the health of sturgeon populationsi-I The compounds associated with discharges can alter the 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 affected shortnose sturgeon throughout the action area., Coastal development and/or construction sites often result in excessive water turbidity, which could influence sturgeon spawning and/or foraging.

ability. 1 Industries along the Hudson-River havelikely impacted the water quality, as service industries,, such as transportation, communication;,-public utilities, wholesale and retail trades; fminice,:

insurance-and real estate, repair and othersý have increased since. 985 in all nine counties 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 industrial and.municipat discharges to- theH~udson anid-Mohawk Rivers..,, The greatest number of users were in- 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 the municipal wastes receive primary and secondary treatment.

A'relatively small 'affioint'of sewage is attributed to discharges from recreational boats.. .-. ,' .'As explained above, -the shortnose sturgeon population in the: Hudson' River is the largest shortnose sturgeon population in the'U.S. 'Studies conducted in the, late '1 990s -indicate that the population may have-increased 400%compared to previous studies..;

The: available infornation indicates that despite facing threats' such as power plant entrainments, Water'quality and in-water construction, the poldlatiori;expeirienced-considerable growth between the late, 1970s and late 1990s and is stable at high levels (Woodlandand Secor2007)-.:

" Global cliMate change i-.. L: .U.. ,,.The global last 41"50 years, and the linear, trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years (IPCC 2007a) and precipitation has increased 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 marine systems 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 of carbon dioxide and otherlpollutants released intothe ai.r:can have- major adverse.impacts, on- the calcium'balance iný the oceans. Changes, to the marine ecosystem due, to clirmatechange'include shifts in rangesand changes in algal, plankton, and fish abundance (JPCC 2007b); -these: trends are most apparent over the past few decades.,,Tfo6nmaticn on- fut-reimpacts -of climate change in the 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 National Assessment SynthesisTeam (NAST) project warming: in.ti)esoutheast by the 2090s,_;but at different 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~no major interventions to reduce continued growth of world greenhouse -gases (GHG), indicate-that-.temperatures in the. U.S. will rise by about 3'-5 0 C (5°-9°F) on average inthe, next 100years.which is more than the projected global increase (NASTT2000).

A warming of about 0.2CC per decade 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 and faster 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, and these were accompanied by climate associated-changes as well (Greene et al. 2008).. Shifts in atmospheric conditions have altered Arctic Ocean circulation patterns' and theexport of freshwater 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, the NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augus"t' 20,I.? "

result of changes. inthe earth'.s.atmosphere caused by anthropogenic~forces (IpCC:2006).

The NAO impact :climate variability throughout the northern hemisphere (JPCC..2006).-, Data from the 1960s through the present show that the NAO index has increasedfrom minimum, values in the 1960s to strongly positive index values in the 1990s and somewhat declined since (IPCC 2006). This warming extends opv.er;1000m deep and, is deeper -than, anywhere in the world oceans and 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 lead to intense stratification of the uppernwater icolumnn and a~disruptioN, OYfN0rth Atlantic Deepwater (NADW) formation (Greene.ietal,,2008, IPCC -2006). Tlhereis.

thit the.NADW has already freshened significantly,(JIPCC_

2006). This;, in turn.canlcad,,tQ, alowipg down of.the global ocean thermohaline (large-scale circulation in the ocean that transforms low-density upper ocean waters to higher density intermediate and deep waters and returns those.waters backto the upperocean), -which can have climatic ramifications,for system (Greene et al.2008).While predictionsrare~available regarding:potential.effects of climate change globally, it is more difficult to assess the!patential effects. of climate, changeover the next few decades on coastal and marine resources on:smaller geographic, scales, suchlas. the Hudson :River, especially as climate variability~is a:dominant.factor in,shaping icoastal and marine systems. ,:;The effects of future change-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 is very~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 the magnitude and frequency of ecosystem changes will continue.to increase in the next'25 to 50 years, ,and it is ipossible that they will, accelerate.-, Climate change can'cause or exacerbate direct stress oni ecosystems*through high temperatures; a reductionein -water availability; and altered frequency of extreme events and severe[ storms.., -Water temperatures in streams and rivers are likely to:increase as the climate)warms~and ai'e very likely to have, both direct and indirect effects on aquatic ecosystems.

Changes in'temperatuie.will' be most .evident during low flow periods when theyiare of greatest:

concern (NAST 2000). Jmn'somemarine and freshwater systems, shifts in: geographic rangesland changes, in alga,' plankton,,, and fish abundance are associated with high confidenceiwith 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 in water 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 chemicals due 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 may be exacerbatedby changes in climate, anticipating and planning adaptive strategies may be -, critical (Hulme:2005).., A warmer-wetter~climate!could ameliorate poor Water quality conditions in places where human-caused concentrations:

ofnutrients and pol.ltants other than heat currently degrade' water quality, (Murdoth.et al. 2000). Increases in water temperature andchanges in seasonal patterns .f runoffwill

, very lkely Aisturb fish habitat. and affect 0creational:

uses of NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August."2011,.'

lakes, streams, and:wetlands',.

Surface Water resourcesin the: southeast, are iritenisively managed with dams and channels and almosti all are affected by human activities; in some systems water quality is either below recommended levels or nearly so. .A global analysis of the potential ,J effects of climate change on river basins indicates that due to changes in discharge and water stress, the area-of large-river basins in need of reactive or proactive.management interventions in response to climate change.will be much higher for basins impacted by. dams than for, basins-with free-flowing rivers (Palmer. et al. 2008).. Human-induced disturbances also influence coastal and marine systems, ofternf -ducing the-ability of the systems to adapt so that-systemn's that might ordinarily be, capable of tes~potiding to:vaiiability~and change are less able todo so.. Because stresses-on wdater quafityti-e associated wifhmrnany activities;.the impacts of the existing stresses are likely torbe exacerbated,by ciirnate change; Within 50 years, river basinsthat are impacted by dams. orby'extensive developmenti-ay experience greater -changes in discharge-and water stress than 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 and toxic chemicals due to reduced flushing.

Sea' level:,is expected to-'continue.rising:

during the 20th century 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,these changes. As such, climate change at normal 'ates (thousands of years) is not thought'to -have historically a problem shortnose sturgeon.'

Shortnose sturgeon could be affected by changes in river ecology resulting from increases..

in precipitation and changes in water temperature which may affect recruitment and distribution in these; rivers.,, However, as noted in. the "'Status -of the Species" section above, information on current effectsof global climate change on shortnose sturgeon is not available and while it is speculated that future climate change may affect this species, it is not possible to quantify the extent to which effects may occur. Howe,%er, effects' of climate change in the action: area during the: temporaijscopeof this section 7 analysis (the: license renewal 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 that rising 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 end of this century, with- the conservative, range being about 2 feet.! This compares to an average sea level 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 the Hudson River is highly variable depending on season, river.flow, and precipitation so it is unclear 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 are NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August"2011:".,

present eexolusiv.ely upstream of the .sal-t ,wedge., .While there is an indicatiojn that an increase in sea level rise twould result in a, shift in the location of the salt wedge, at this time there are no predictions&

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 Treatment Facility,-

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 warming trend; there.are notcurrently any predictions onwpotential futurejinores.es in watertemperature in the action area specifically or-the Hudson Rirver generally:

..he. Eisqs r.eport (ý008) also states that temperatureswithin the Hudson River may be bepor'ingimorm extrem e. I or example, in 2005, watertemperature'on certain da~tes was.olose tQ the makimum, evetrecorded and. also. on other dates reached the lowest temperatures-reecordeovoer a)53-,yeartperiod..,.Other.conditions that may be related to. climate change that have been reported in the Hudson Valley are warmer winter :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 sturgeon would be if sea level rise was great enough to consistentlyshift the salt wedge far enough north which would, restrict.the range of juvenile shortnose sturgeon and may affect the.,development of these life:stages.

JIn the actiomarea, it is possible, that changing seasonal temperature regimes could resiilt in changes in the timing of spawning; which would result in a change in the seasonal distribution of sturgeon'in the action.area.:.A northward shiftin the salt'wedge could also drive spawning shortnose sturgeon further upstream, which may result in a restriction in the spawning range and an iticrease in: the numberoftpawning'shortnose sturgeon in the action area, as this area is the furthest accessible upstream, spawning area.As described above4 overnthe long term, global. climate change may affect shortnose sturgeon by affecting 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 which these effects may be experienced and therdegree to-which shortnose.sturgeon will be able to successfully adapt to any such changes. Any activities occurring within and outside the action area: thittcdntributel toglobal climate. change;are:also

ýexpected to affect shortnose sturgeon in the action: arda,, (Scientific data on changes in shortnose sturgeon distribution and behavior in the actionrreamis not available., Therefore,tit is not possible :to say-with any degree of certainty whether and how their distribution

'or behavior in the action. area. haye been or.are currently affected by climate change related impacts. Implications of potential changes- in. the action area related;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 or NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011-.

abundance, over thetime period considered in this consultation (i.e.;, 2013 throdgh*2035) and it is unlikely that shortnose sturgeon in the action area will experience new climate, change'related effects not already captured in the "Status of the Species" section above concurrent with the proposed action. -.EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ... .This section of a Opinion, assesses the direct and indirect effects of the proposed.

action on threatened and endangered species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are. interrelated .ordnte.dep.dendent (50.CFR402.02),!

Jndirect effects are those that are-caused later in. time, but are sti-h,:easonably'cetain:to occur.., Interrelated..actions are those that are part of a larger action. and, dpe.nd, upon tha-larger action for their justification.

Interdependent actions are those that have r.o. icndependent .uti. ..ity apart from. the action under consideration (50 CFR 402.02). This Opinion, examin.es , "ho b kelr effects of.the.proposed action. on.shortnose sturgeon and.their habitat. in the acti6n: area. within, the context of thea species current status, the environmental baseline.and cumulative effects.

of the proposed action are the, effects of the continued operation of IP2 and IP3 ,pursuant to renewed. licenses proposed to be issued by the NRC pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act.: NRC has requested,consultafi.o.n on the.proposed extended operation of the facilities under the same terms .asin. the existing :licenses

i.nd, existing SPDES permits....... ............

................

,.-......The proposed, action has the potential to affect shortnose sturgeon in several ways: impingement or entrainmenti of individual shortnose sturgeon at the intakes; altering the abundance or;, availability of potential prey items; and, altering the riverine environment througb the discharge of heated effluent.Effects of Water Withdrawal

...... ,,.... ...Under the terms of the proposed renewal license, IP2 and T.P3 will withdraw water from the Hudson River for cooling. Both units would utilize, once through cooling, assuming no. changes are 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 best technology available for minimizing adverse en-Nironmental impacts. According to the draft SPDES permit for the facility, the NYDEC has determined for .Clean Water Act purposes that the site-specific best technology available to minimize the 'adverse environmental impacts of the IP cooling water intake structures is closed-cycle cooling, (NYDEC.2003b).

• IP2 and IP3 currently operate 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 final contents 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- in its~existing license and SPDES permit, NRC sought consultation on its proposal to renew the license for the facility under.,the same terms as the existing.

license. and SPDES permit,. which authorize 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 existing SPDES 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 to NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -2011...

changes in, the effects of the cooling water system, as well as changes in other. factors, may trigger 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 system during water withdrawals.

Entrainment primarily affects organisms.with limited swimming ability 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 the intake 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). and then enter:the discharge retiiMnto the Hitdson"Rier.J t As,¢ntrainedl6rganisms pass through: th6; intaked they may be injured from abrasion.or Withinthe cooling system, they encounterphysical impacts iwethe pAunfpsý andi cbnd.ngei chantges, and shear stress 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.

physiological effects 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 is approximately RM, 1 li (RKM 190)V' approximately:

75 RMI (121 'RKM)' upstream of the intake of IP2 and IP3. :The'eggs ofshortnose.sturgeonr&-demersal, sinkirrg and adhering to-the.bottom of the river,: and, upon hatching the larvae in. both yolk-sac and post-yolk-sac stages remain on the bottom of the river, primarily upstream of RM 110 (RKM 177) (NMFS 2000). Because eggs do not occur near the intake for IP2 and IP3, there is no probability of entrainment.

Shortnose sturgeon larvae are 20mm in length at the time they begin downstream migrations (Buckley and Kynard Larvae are found in'freshwater, above.the salt wedge. The location of the salt wedge'. in the -Hudson Rive-.Varies both seasonally and annually, depending at least partially Oii freshwater input. Ininrifhny:yearsithe salt wedge is located upstream of the Indian Pointintakes; in those years, larvae would. not'be expected to occur near the IP intakes as the salinity'levels would be too high.' HIowever,f at times when the salt wedge is downstream of the intakes, Which is most likely to occur in the:late summery there is the potential:

for shortnose sturgeon -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 be entraiaed, by the cohlin water i-iitake; thls, Jny potential for entrainment is limited to any period whent, 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 the distance between the intake and! the deep channel (2000 feet)' where any lArvae would be present if in the action area, larvae are unlikely to occur-near the intake where they could be, susceptible to 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 of entrained 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. Entrainment monitoring 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 season in the spring. As reported by NRC, entrainment monitoring reports list no shortnose sturgeon eggs or larvae at IP2 or IP3.-'During the development of the HCP. for:steam-electric, generators on the 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 eight were collected at Danskai-mher,(approximately 23 miles'upstream of Indian Point), and four of the 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 sturgeon larvae would occur inii-ih 'accouiitd"-" category as it is expected that if there were' any sturgeon larvae in these samples: hey-woildd.

have beenjidenitifiable.

Entergy currently is -not required to conduct any, monitoring prbgr'amr to'rec 0&d eihtrý .nrunent al,1IP2.and

IP3; however; it is reasonable to use past entrainmenit to Predict., future effe*ts," 'This is:because:

(1):-there have not been any operational changes that make entrainment more likely now than it was during thestime when sampling took place; and, (2) the years when intense entrainment sampling took place overlap with 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 observed entrairimnent of shortnose sturgeon during sampling at:IP2 and IP3 is also.reasoiable-given the known informati6n on the ,location of shortnose:sturgeon spawning aid the distribution of eggs and larvae in the'river.'

... .-..Based on the life histo6-yof the -shortnose sturgeon, the location.

of spawning grounds within the Hudson River, and the patterns of movement for eggs and'.arvae, it is extremely.unlikely~that any shortnose sturgeon'early life stages would be entrained at !P2 and/or IP3.: This conclusion is supported by the lack of any eggs or larvae positively identified as sturgeon and documented during entrainment monitoring at IP2 or IP3. Provided that assumption is true, NMFS does not anticipate any entrainment of shortnose sturgeon eggs, or larvae over the period of the extended operating license (i.e., September 2013 through&September 2033 and December 20i 5 through December 2035). It is important to note that this determination is dependent~on the-validity of the assumption that none of the unidentified lar,,ae were shortnose sturgeon.

Adl other life stages of shortnose sturgeon ate too big to pass through the screen mesh and could not be entrained at the facility. "r.............................

........Impingeinent of Shortnose Sturgeon,, .'. .. ". ..Impingement occurs when organisms are trapped against cooling.water.

intake screens or.racks by the force of moving water.. Impingement can kill organisms immediately, or 'contribute to death resulting from !exhaustion, suffocation, injury, or exposure to air when screens are rotated for cleaning.

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 and fish return systeim that the plant operator uses." Below, NMFS' considers'the available data on the impingement 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 to a randomlyselected schedule of 110 days per year until 1991, and then ceased monitoring in 1991 with:the.

installation of themodified Ristroph traveling scree.ns..-IP2 and IP3 monitored the impingement 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 an Incidental Take Permit for,shortn.se sturgeon at the Roseton- and Danskaruner generating stations onithe Hudson River, .0M!S 2000)., -TheEA included the;qsýýiMtedtotal number of shortnose sturgeon impinged.

IP2 and IP3,- with adjustments.

when sampling was 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 37 shortnose.

sturgeon were impinged at IP2, andI26 atIp;3 ,With , ayverageqf p,4,and 1.0 fish per year, 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 previously reported impingetent--ata, 4dtoimakeia.thematical corrections associated with acco.unting errors .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 following the 1987-1990 monitoring period is expected to have reduced impingement mortality for shortnose sturgeon;,however, because no monitoring Qccured, after .theinstallation:

of the Ristroph.

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 to pre-1991'levels.

., ., According to.information provided by Entergy,(Mattson,.personal communication, August 2011), approaeh velocities outside of the trashobars at IP2 and; IP.3. are approximately 1.Ofps at full; flow' and 0,6fpsat reduced flow (Entergy-2007.);

yearling and older shortnose sturgeon are able to .avoid intake velocities of this speed (Kynard, personal communication 2004). Shortnose sturgeonthat 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 be able to readily avoid the intakes.The trash bars at the IP2 and IP3 intakes have clear spacing of three inches. Shortnose sturgeon adults and some larger juveniles are expected to have body widths! 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 body widthsless 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 20 year period between the late, 1970s: and late P990s 4; with exceptionally.strong year classes between 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 increased recruitment (1986-1990) the increases in.the shortnose sturgeonpopulation would have been: fish less 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 shortnose sturgeon 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 as compared to the' late i970s.f- Thereis-no figure available for the interini period which would best overlap with the period when- iinpingi merit sampling occurred:

Woodland and Secor state-that the 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 factor of 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 impingement rate 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 shortnose sturgeon 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 impingement monitoring 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 sturgeon impingement.

As these facilities are not currently~operatirng in the. same icapacity they:were in, the past, it is not possible to make an.accurate comriparison o'past and present impingement which could serve to verify NMFS assumptions about an increase.

in the number of individual shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River resulting in 'an increase in- impingement..

However; based. ,on the assumption that, all other factors remain the same -(approtchavelocity, intake volume).theu:

.,'likelihood of impingement

should increase with an increase in availableindividudls. ,As noted above, 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 in a nearly enclosed embayment of the River where shortnose sturgeon are thought to. be unlikely to occur (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 conductedto evaluate whether the addition of Ristroph screens would, decrease impingement mortality for representative species:. .The final 'design of the screens, as reported in Fletcher (1990), appeared to reduce i mpingement mortality for.some species based on a -pilot study compared to the original system in place at IP2 and IP3. The Fletcher stuidy reportedmortality following, an 8-hour holding period in an attempt to account for delayed mortality that may result from injuries suffered 'during impingement.

Based on the inf, armatibn reported by Fletcherh( 990), impingement mortality and injury are lowest for stripedibass, weakfish,, ard lbogchoker, and NMFS 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.,.,PSEG prepared estimates of impingement survival following interactions with, Ristroph-screens at their Salem-Nuclear Generating.Stationlocated on the Delaware River,(PSEG.

in Seabey and Henderson 2007); survival of shortnose sturgeon was, estimate.at 60% following impingement on a conventional screen-and 80%: following survival at a Ristroph Screen;-survival for other species ranged from 1-00%.. the Indian Point BA, NRC 'states-, that. the. modified Ristroph screen and fish return' syst'em atSalem is comparable to that-at :Indian Point,. It is important to note that:PSEG did notconduet field verifications with, shortnose sturgeoa.

todemonstrate whether these-survival estimates

are observed in the~field, review bYNMFS- of shortnoseQ-sturgeonf impingement in-formation at Salem indicates that a4 ,recorded impingements

(20 total since 1978; NRC. 201D) havebeen at the trash racks; nobon'the tRisJroph screensv.

This.is consistentwith -the expectation that- alLshertnosc sturgeoxmime ivinity ofthe Salen intakes, I would 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-impingement survival 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- traditional screens~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 conducted after the naew Ristroph screens were-installed at IP2 and. IP-3 in,199 1', and any actualreduction in mortality or injury-to shortnose sturgeon resulting from-impingement after installation of these systems'atIi'2 and,!IP3 has not beentestablished..

As explained above, shortnose.

sturgeon with a body width of at least three inches would not be able to pass through the trash bars and would become impinged on the trash bars and, not pass through to the Ristroph screens. Survival for shortnose, sturgeon impinged, on the trash bars would be. dependent on the length of time the fish was impingedi

'The available data for shortnose sturgeon impingement at trash bars indicates that mortality-is likely to be high. Of the 32 1 shortno9 stUrgeon-collected during impingement sampling at 1P2, and IP3, condition- (alive or dead) is available for 9 fish; of these, 7 are reported as dead. iThere 4is no additional information to assess whether these fish were likely killed prior to 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 on theDelw.are; Rirver. -.,'As.noted above, healthy shortnose sturgeon :(yearlings and older) -are expected 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 less depending:

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 shortnose sturgeon following impingenienton theRistroph screens.i, Shortnose:

sturgeon passing-through NMFS 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 will survive. However, given that shortnose sturgeon that become impinged on the Ristroph screens are likely to be sufferingfrom.injuries, illnesses, or~other stressors that have impaired their swimming ability and p-rev.ented thern from beirig able to escape from~the relatively low approach velocity (1.0 ,fps or less,as measured :within the intake bay in front of the, Ristroph screens, which yearling 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 will assume 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 die each.year:as a result of finpinge:irienta;tb2 and aar, average of 3 shortnose sturgeon may die each year as a result of impingement at IP3; fox a totai. of,.V.4.at.

IP2 and 58 at'IP3,over thd extended J 20-year operating license. However, NMFS believes that *%he 100% mortality estimate is a conservative, yet reasonable, mortality rate for impinged shortnose sturgeon at the trash bar's and Ristrophscreens.'

',"': .. : "' "' " " : ,~~~~~. .........". .........v ,.. " """" '.. ' .., "'. .' ..IL' '. " Effects of Impingement and Entrainment on Shortnose sturgeonprey, ..;. ::;.Shortnose sturgeon feed primarily on benthic invertebrates..

As these, p. eyspecies arefound on the 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 entrainment studies 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 the FSEIS. However, given the life history characteristics (sessile, benthic,'not.

suspended inior otherwise occupying the water column) of shortnose sturgeon forage itemswhich make!, impingement and entrainment unlikely, any loss of shortnose sturgeon prey due to impingement or entrainment is likely to be minimal. Therefore, N.MFS -has determined that the effect on shortnose sturgeon due to the potential loss of forage items caused by impingement or entrainment in the IP2 or IP3 intakes is insignificant and discountable.

Summary of Effects of Water Withdrawal

-1P2 and IP3 The extended operation of IP2 and IP3 would be.authorized.by the NRC through the issuance of renewed operating licenses.

Given the facilities with. a once-through cooling water system cannot operate without the intake and.discha:ge of water,.and any limitations or requirements necessary to assure compliance with applicable Clean Water Act pr0visions.would be conditions of the proposed renewed licenses, the effets of water withdrawals are effects. of the proposed action. In the analysis outlined above, NMFS has determined the impingement of shortnose sturgeon is likely to occur at IP2 and IP3 over the extended~operating period. NMFS has estimated, using the impingement rates calculated above, that each year an average of 5 shortnose sturgeon may die as a result 6f impingement at IP2 and an average of 3, shortnose sturgeon may die as a result of impingement at IP3; for a total of 1.04 at IP2 and 58 at IP3 over the 20 year operating license. NMFS believes that the 100% mortality estimate is a conservative, yet reasonable estimate of the likelymortality rate;for.impinged:shortnose sturgeon at the Ristroph screens. Due to the size of shortnose sturgeon that occur inthe.aaction.`area,, fo entrminment at IP2 NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August"2011.

or IP3 .isranticipated.-

Any effects to shortnose sturgeon prey from the,c~ntinued operation of IP2 and 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-purposes through .theNew York State Pollution Discharge.Elimination System (SPDES) program. The SDPES permit (NY-0004472),specifies the discharge standards~and monitoring-requirements for each discharge.

Under this§regulatory program, Entergy treats wastewater.effluents, collects and disposesa of potential.

contaminants, and undertakes.pollution preventioniactivities.

As explained above, Entergy's'il987' SPDES permit remmrais:in ffect-whi,'l.NYDEC administrativeproceedings 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 NRC through the issuance of renewed operating licenses.

Given the facilities with a once-through cooling 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 are effects of the proposedi action: .Thermal, discharges associated with, the operationi of-the once through cooling water system, for IP2 andIP3 'are regulated for Clean; Water Act purposes by the terms. 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 the extent 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 the estuary including a minimum of one-third of the surface as measured from water 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 an t '! estuaryibefore the addition.of heat of artificial origin is more than an 83TF increase in 'temperature not to exceed- .5°F at any point of the: estuarine v,.: 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 from S.water edge towater edge at any stage of tide,; shall not be lowered more than S " 4 0 F from the temperature-that existed immediately prior to such lowering.Specific' conditions-of permit NTY-0004472 related: to thermal discharges from IP2 and IP3 are specified 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 exceed 93.2°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 days during that period inrany year.,' .: .The discharge of heated water has: the potential to cause lethal or'sublethal effects on fish and other aquatic organisms:

and.create baniers, preventing:or delaying access-to.other areas within the 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 the thermal-plume, discusses th, thermal tol~raricacesof shortnose sturgeon,'

and considers effects of the 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),-

and modeling 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-water occupies 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 meteorological conditions 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 CORMIX modeling to develop a three-dimensional plume configuration of near-field thermal conditions that could be. compared to applicable water quality criteria:

.', ,,. ., .., .., The former owners of IP2 -and tP3 conducted thermal plume studies employing both models for time scenarios that encompassed the period of June-September.

These months were chosen, because river temperatures were expected io be at, their maximum levels. Thehformer owners used 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 operating conditions.

They chosethe summer months of .1981: because data for all.thermal.

discharges.

were available and because statistical.-analysis

of-the 1981 summer conditions indicated that. this. year represented.

a relatively low-flow, high-temperature summer that would represent a conservative (worst-case) scenario for examining thermal effects associated with power plant thermal discharges.

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 Point Units: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 of maximum ebb and flood currents (CHGEC et al. 1999). These results were. supplemented by later work using MIT and CORMIX Version 3.2 and were based on the hypothetical conditions representedby 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 represents the 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 rises above ambient) for various operating scenarios, theýaurface-,width'ofthe pluime,'the depth of the plume, the. percentage .of surface. widthrelative to the -river width, at. t location,'

and the percentage of area bounded by the 4°F (2 0 C) isotherm:t-Itr addition, the decay in excess -temperature was 6stimatd, from model runs. under near slack wate? conditions'(CHGEC et al.-: 1999).': For IP2 and IP3,- two-unit operation at full capacity resulted:

in a monthly:average

.cross-sectional temperatureincrease of 2.,13 to-,2.86 0 F (1..18 to.1 .59 0 C)for.'ebb tide-events, in June 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 -from 14 percent-(une-and September) to approx.mately'20 percent (July and August). , When'the temperature -rise contributions of IP2 and IP3;: Bowline Point;,and.Roseton:

were considered collectively.

(-with all three facilities operating.a maximum-permi-tted

'capacity and discharging the maximum possible heat load), the monthly.cross:-sectional temperature rise in the vicinity of IP2 and IP,3 ranged from 3* 24 0 F-(1.80WC).during June ebb tides to 4.639F (2.57'C) during flood tides in 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 and IP3, predictions of surface width bounded by the plumeranged from.36 percent during .z September ebb tides to 100 percent during flood tides in all study months. On near-slack tide, the percentage of-the surface- width bounded by the 4 0 F' (2C)Q!isotherm was 99 to 100 percent in all study 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 study months during slack; water events..:

r -- .Exceedences'generally occurred under- scenarios that the applicants indicated may be considered quite 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 the modeled- 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 this condition has been, continuous over:a long period of time.- CHGEC et al. (1999) found that this assumption 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 conducted thermal sampling and. mbdeling-of the cooling water discharge at Indian Point and.reported that the 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 in Swanson et; al. 201-1 by'generally followed the eastern shore of the Hu'dson,-River -and'extended northward 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 bottom or be largelyconfined~to the gurfaee' ," ' , ,, ., '1 ., .,' .Temperature measurdme'ntS reported by, Swanson, et al. (2011 by generally show'that'the.warmest water in th&etherma'l:lure:

is9,close totheostrfaceand plume temperatures tend to decrease with depth.,' 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 on July 13, 2010 (Figure:3:2,8'in Swanson et'a.: 201 l'b)otAcrossrmost Of the river, water, .1 , temperatures were.closbýto 82°;E'(28 0 C) 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. ..I I .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 about 35 ft (11 m) along the eastern shore.,,Bottom temperatures above 820F (28°C),, were. confined :to about the first 250 ft (76 m) from shore. The river herd is .oyer 4500 ft (1400 mr) wide. Iri that small area, bottom water temperatures might alsoerceed,30.PC.(86°F);

elsewhere, bottom water temperatures were about 80'F (27 0 C). These conditions would not last long, however, as they would change with the tidal cycle. Further,'

any sturgeon in this location would be able to retreat to 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.(defined by 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-not exceed 12.3 percent and the maximum cross-river width of the plume would not exceed 28.6 percent 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 to which 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 therefore attemptto avoid stressful.

temperatures by. actively seeking water at the preferred temperature.

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 3 0 C (Dadswell et al. 1984), and as. high as. 34 0 C (Heidt and Gilbert 1978). Foraging is, known tooccur at temperatures greater than 7 3 C (Dadswell 1979):.: In the Altarnaha.-River,.

temperatures of 28-30'C during summer months. are correlated with'mov-.ments to. deep cool .v;aterrefuges.

Ziegewald et al. (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 0 C. Lethal thermal maxima 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.afe temperature, 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 frantically swimming 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 and thermal 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) ranged from 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 effects of salinity, temperature, and fish weighton the survival of young-of-year shortnose sturgeon.Survival in freshwater declined as temperature increased, buttemperature tolerance increased with body size. The authors conclude.that-temr...peratures above 29 0 C substantially reduce the.probability of survival for young...of,,year short2ose sturgeon.

However, previous studies indicate that juvenile sturgeons achieve optimum'.

growth at temnperatures.

lose to their upper thermal survival limits (Mayfield and Cech 2004;: Allen et al. 2006; Ziegeweid et al. 2008a), suggesting that shortnose.sturgeon may seek out a narrow temperature.window to maximize somatic growth without substantially increasing maintenance metabolism.

Ziegeweid (2006) examined thermal tolerances of young of the year shortnose sturgeon in the lab. The lowest temperatures at which mortality O'ccurred ranged. from 30.1,--: 31.5C 'depending on .fish size and 'test conditions.

For shortn6se.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 withstand higher. 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 sturgeon range from 26.2 to 28.3C. This is consistent with field observations which correlate movements of 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 of NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011.,..

equilibrium or death) and' acclimation temperature.

Upper limits of safe temperature were calculated tobe 28,.7'-' 31.. 1C. ' At temperatures 5-6C less than the lethal makimtimrnshortnose sturgeon are expected 'to bhgin demonstrating avoidance behavior and attempt to escape from heated waters; this behavior would be expebted when the upper limits: of safe temprature are exceeded.

,1',:i, -i, ,- '. L. .1 I., '. ' '.:, " NMFS first.-considers the potential foirshortnose sturgeon to be exposed to.temperatures which would most likely result vitnmortality (333;79C0(93.66TF) or greater).

'The maximum observed'temperature, of thethertaldisolharge is approximately135CP--

Modeling has demonstrated that the surface area of the,tiva-fffedted'by-the Indian Point~plume whereW.ateritemperatutesh.would exceed 32.22C ( 9QFý Would! be-litnittd 4t6 jan area. no. greater than,75.acres.

1"Information, :w,.1 provided thermal imodel (Swanson et aL. 2011): indicate that water temperatures at theiriver-bbttorn will'. t ex'eed3..32,C inwaters more;than.5 meters from 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 to water, temperatures-of,33 7 0 C. -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'that fish are known to avoid areas with unsuitable conditions and that shortnose sturgeon are likely to actively 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 will avoid the area,-where temperatures are greater than, tolerable., -As; such,! it is extremely unlikely that 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-reduced by the limited amount,:of time shortnose sturgeon;spend near the sinface, the:small.

area-where such 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 greater than 28°C and are unlikely to remain within the heated&,surface waters to swim-towards the outfall and be exposed to temperatures whieh could resuilt inrmortality.

Below; 'NMFS considers what effect this avoidance behavior would have on individual shortnose sturgeon.

Near the bottom where shofrhoseýsturgi0o'imogt

often6 occhlr, water tenripeiihtures are not likely to.e'-er reach 33.7'C, creating no risk of eXposurb to:terpetat -s li'kely:t6-be lethai'n'ear the bottom of the river.' ' .."- " .. .... .: " ' ....NMFS has also conside~ed.the potential for shortnose sturgeon to-be exposed fo water'temperatures greater than 28 0 C. Sornfe res'earchers suggest based largelyon observations of ' -sturgeon behavior in southern rivers, that water temperatures of28°C'oi greater canbe stressful for 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 thermal growth optimum temperatuies that Ziegewald et al. (2008) reported for juvwnile shortnose sturgeon acclimated to 24.1 'C (75.4 TF), and thus is consistent with observations that optimum growth temperatures are often near the maximum temperatures fish can endure without experiencing 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 be r .' " " '." ..,. '. -'.. / ' ...*., ,'; .! .. ..NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August'201i-7; high enough :to be.-avoided by shortnose sturgeon (greater than 28'C)..: When ambient river temperatures are:at or above .28°C; the area where temperatures are raised.by more than 1.5'C are expected to be limited to. a surface area of up to 75 acres. :Shortnose.

sturgeon exposure to the surface area where water temperature may be elevated above 28'C. due to, the influence of the thermal plume is limited by their normal behavior as benthic-oriented fish, which results in limited occurrence near the water surface. Any surfacing shortnose sturgeon are likely to avoid near surfacemwaters with temperatures greaterthan 28C; .-Reactions.

tj this elevated temperature are expected to consist of swvimming away from the plume by traveling deeper in the water column or!swimming around the plume. As the.area that would, be:a.,oi,.dd is! at. or near the surface, away from bottom waters where short-nose sturgeon spend the, majority of time and completeall, essential life functions that are carried out-ii, th.action migrating, overwintering, resting), and given the smalbarea thacmayhae'temper~atureselevated above 28°C it is extremely unlikely that these minor chamges in. bl., havict.;will 1,oreclude, shortnose sturgeon'from.

completing any: essential.

behavicri",such as- resting; foraging or migrating or, that the fitness.of any individuals wvill be .affect&::..,.Additiona~ly, there-is'not..eypected.to be any increase in energy expenditurfe that has..any d&tectable-effect on the physiology.-of any individuals or 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 are most 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 2010 long ,ivei survey, water temperature data fromtthe near-bottom stations near, Indian. Point, 28°C was exceeded for just, 50 of 1;877-observations or 2.98% during this ,I4-yearipei od (readings measured weekly firom March through November)..

These already low incidences of observed near-bottom water temperatures above 28°Cwould be even lower when viewed in the context of an entire'year.

instead of the.nine months, sampled due 'to -the cold water period not sampled from December through February (i.e., 2424%' for the Indian *Point region). , .Given,. that shortnose sturgeon ar.e known. to. actively seek out, cooler 'waters when temperatures rise to 28', any shortnose sturgeon encountering bottom waters.with temperatures above 28°C area are likely to avoid it. Reactions to this elevated temperature are expected to be limited to swimming away from the plume by swimming around it. Given the extremely small percentage of the estuary that mav have temperatures elevated above 28°C and the limited. spatial and temporal extent .of any plevations of bottom water temPeratures above 28°C, it is extremely unlikely thatthese minor changes in behavior will preclude shortnose sturgeon from completing any essential behayiors.

such, as resting, foraging or migrating orthat the fitness. of any individuals will be affected..

Additionally, there is not, expected.

to be any increase in energy expenditure that has any detectable effect on the physiology of any individuals or any future effect-on growth, reproduction, or general health. .Water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels are related, with warmer water generally holding less dissolved oxygen. As such, NMFS has considered the potential for the discharge of heated effluent 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 (1997 NMFS 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: (March through November of each year. Only 17 (0.91%) dissolved oxygen concentrations below 5 mg/l were observed in the Indian Point region during this 14-year period consisting of 1,877 readings, and the lowest dis'solved oxygen Cconcentration of 3.4 mg/l. occurred just once, while the remaining 16 valdes were b&ve*en 4.4' nig/li And 4.9 mg/l. Although I/FS survey water quality sampling did not occ&r in the Indian, Point region during the winterpetiod frotn December through February 0f ¢ach.;e r'due t6 riVer ice conditions, it is -unlikelyrthat dissolved oxygen concentrations 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 (m6.33 0/07,918 total: observations)-in the near bottom watersý, 'sevetr times twtore firdqu'enty than the IndianPoint region. Based.on -this'information the. dischiarge dppears: to have no' discernible effect on .dissolved oxygen levels in the area. As the thermal plume islet cont.ibutiig, to reductions in, dissblved oxygen levels, it will not cause changes in dissolved oxygen levels that could affect any shortnose st irgeon~~'.i. , ~ii: ' .,t., ,..,, , ..Effect 6n Shortolose-Sturgeon, Prey.......A

.. ., i , -, .Shortnose sturgeon feed primarily'6n benthic invertebrates; theke praeyspecies.are, found'on the bottom: 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, area close to the discharge point. No analysis specific to effects of the thermal plume on the macroinvertebrate ormmunity h:s been conducted.

How-ever,,giv'en what is known.about the plume (i.e., that it'is largely a; surface.'plume and has-limited effretsion water temperaturesiiat or near the bottom) and theareas where.shortnose sturgeon, forage items are; found (f.e.,ýn' tfhe bottom), it is unlikely that potential shortnose sturgeon forage items would be exposed to the effects of the thermal plume. If the.thermal plume is' affecting benthic invertebrates; the-most likely effect would be to limit their disttibution to areas, wher6 bottom water temperatures aret not affected by the thermal plume. Considering that, shortnose sturgeon are also likely to be excluded from areas where the thermal.plume influences~bottom winter temperatures and given.that those areas 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 bottom waters. 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'~4ocal or private actions .that are reasonably Certain t.o ccur Within the, action area considered inthe biological opinion. FutUre Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuantito Section 7 of the ESA: 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,, coastal NMFS 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 is currently unknown.-State Water. Fisheries.-

Future recreational and commercial fishing actiyities in state waters may take shortnose sturgeon.

..In the past, it was, estimated that up to 100 shortnose sturgeon were captured in shad fisheries iin the Hudson River. In 2009,. n,' State closed Athe shad fishery indefinitely., That state action is 'considered

'to benefit for shortnose.turgeon...Should the shad fishery 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 shortnose sturgeon are reasonably certain .to occur.'. Information onintetactions.

with shortnose.

sturgeon for other fisheries operating in the action area is net availabkva-4vl itt is,.not clear to what extent these future 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

are reasonably 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 area include atmospheric-.lading, cf pollutants,.

stormwater runoff from coastal.development,.,-...:.

...groundwater dis'charges.;,ind industrial'development.

Chemical:

contamination may have an effect 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 sturgeon and 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 climate impacts (i.e., the century scale), it-is unlikely that ;climate related impacts will have a significant effect' 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 the action area will change as a result of climate change related impacts. :The greatest potential for climate change to impact NMFS assessment would be if ambient water temperatures increased enough such that the thermal plume caused a larger area of the Hudson River to have temperatu'res

'that'were, stressful

'or lethal to shortnose sturgeon." In'the 2 000s, the mean Hudson river :water temperature,.as measured at the PoughkeepsieWater Treatment Facility,-

was ' .approximately 2'C higher than averages recorded in the 1960s (Pisces 2008). However; while it is possible to examine past water temperature data and observe a warming trend, there are not currently 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 river increased at the sarne rate over the next.40 years, one could anticipate a 1 C increase over the proposed 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 be NMFS 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 tended license period.(Septembe

2013 thro~ugh September 2033 and December 2015 t hrough Dcember 2035, respectively) wil. rL-s.14tt i.n the:impingement of up to. 104 .shotnose sturgeon at IP.Znd 58 shortnose stur geon ,at .. 3...As e~ajed in the Effects.

of the A~ctiPn'?

section,, a.ll other, effects to shortnose sturgeprq, incliing t.th eir prey ad.from the discharge, of hea-t, .will be insigpifcant or discountable.

..-,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, or distribution of shortnose, sýtugqon.. fysis is to0.dee.Fjine wheer.the, proposedactipn wquldiopardize, tie cpntinuedre, steli hoof.shntose sturgeon In the NMFS/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 leading to 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.by a species with a sufficient

'population, represented by, ageclasse,,, geietc ...heterogeneity, and number of sexually mature individuals prqd.cing vable..ffspri ng,, .ich exists 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 in the status of listed species to, the poiqt -at which !1sting is no lpnger appropiate under,the.criteria set out in Section 4(a)(1) of the Act." Below, for each of the listed species that maybe affected by the proposed action, NMFS summarizes the status of the species and considers whether the proposed action will result ip reductipns in r numbers or distribution of that pecies and then considers whether any reductions in reproduction, numbers or distribution.resiuting from the proposed action would reduce appreciably th~e likelihood of both the survivl ,and recovery of that species. ,, -,. ... r;..Historically, shortnose sturgeon are believed to have inhabited nearly, all s estuaries along nearly the entire east coast of North America. Today, only 19 populations remain. 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 under 100 adults in the Cape Fear and Me.nmacqk Rvers~to.te seofthousarts

..fhe St..phn and Hudson Riyers,. As indicated.

in Kynard 1996,. adult abundance is less tharI. the, minimum estimated viable. population abundance of 1.000 adults for. 5 ofl. 1I surveyed northern populations and all natural southern populations.

The only river systems likelysupporting populations close to 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 the species as: a whole. , .., .The Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon is the largestin 1 thepUnV.ed States. Historical estimates of the size of the population are not available as historic records of sturgeon in the river NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 20,11.7.

did not discriminate between Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon.:

Population estimates, made by Dovel 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 adult population 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 population of 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, this increase is a "confident measure of the change in population size." Bain concludes that the Hudson 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 -and made age'estimates of these fish. They then hindcast year":di.s strengtlih and. corrected for gear selectivity an+/-d cumulative-mortaiity.

T-1he ri sults Of this "study indi~atcdthat-th'ere was a' period of high recruitmefit (31 000-52;G00 yeartingrs) rj "ihe- peridd,1986.-i992whcich as preceded and succeeded' by5 'years o lowýer recruitrnent (6,000'-`

17 500'yearlirigs/year).

Woodland and Secor reports: 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 by delayed niaturation, high -fedundity and iteroparotis spawning, as well 'as when there is variability in interannu'ai lhydrrilogica.

'-conditions'.'::Woodlanid arid Se6or exmnin6d environmental conditions throughiout tfiis 20_ -year p&eriod'and deiermined that years in which water temperaturesdr'p quickly inithi falfl'and' fl01w- increases rapidiy, in the fall (particularly October), are followed by high levels of recruitiernt ill the spring.' This suggeststhat these environnientalfactors may index a'suite of environmental cues that initiate the final stages of goniadal development in spawning 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 a robust population with no gapls in age: struktu'e.

Lower recruitment that followed the 1986-1992 period is coincident with record high abundance suggesting that the population may be reaching carrying capacity.

The population in the Hudson River exhibits substantial recruitment and is considered tobe "stable at high levels. ' .,- -In the NMFS/US'FWS Section'7 Iandb6k,'

for th6 purposes of determining jeopardy, survival is defined as,' "the species' persisterice as li'sted or as a, recovery unit, beyond the conditions leading to its endangerment,'

w'vittr sufficient regilience to allow for the potential recovery from endangerient.::

Said in' another way, surivival isrthe conditionrin which 'a species continues to exist into the future while' retaining the potential for 'recovery.

This condition is characterized by a species with a sufficient population, represented by all necessary age classes, genetic heterogeneity, and number of sexually mature individuals producing viable offspring, which exists'in an environment providing all requirements for completion of thespecies' entire life" cycle, including reproduction, sustenance, and shelter." Recovery is defined as,* "Improvementfin the status of listed species to the point at which listing is no longer appropriate under the criteria set 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 the Northeastern US or of the species throughout its range exists; it is dearly below the' size that could be supported if the threats to shortnose sturgeon were removed. Based on the number of adults in populatiorn for -which estimates are available, there are at.least 104,662 adult shortnose sturgeon, including 18,000 ih the Saint John' River'in Canada: The lack :of information onxthe status of populations, :suth 'thatv-inthý Chesapeake Bay, add uncertainty to any determinration on the status of this ýpecies asa aiwhole. ::Based oflthe best available'itiformation, NMFS believes that 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 of southern 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 action area 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 shortnose sturgeon in thd actiono area are stuble; and-this trend i§ ,expeoted to dontinue over the 20 year duration of the proposed action.'I

., ,.v... .'.,: :' ,,. ... , NMFS has estiniated that the proposed, continued operation of IP,2'knd 'IP3' through the extended license period (September 2013'through September, 2033:atid.December,'l 5 throtigh.December 2035, 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 number representS 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 are approximately 56,708 (95%ýCIF-50,862 to adult shortnoce sturgeon-in the,Hudscfi River and an unknown number of juveniles, (ERC. 2006)c, While the: death of up t6 162 shortnose sturgeon over a 20-year period will reduce'the number bf-shortnose'sturgeon in. the population compared to the number that would have been present absent the proposed actioni, it isl not likely that this reduction in numbers will change'the status of this'population or its'stable~trend as~this loss represents a very small percentageýof the population (0.28%). , " Reproductive potential of the Hudson population'is.

not expected to be affected in any other, way other than through a reduction in numbers of individuals.

ATeduction'in the number of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River would have- the effect of reducing-the amount of potential reproduction in this system as-the'fish killed mwoifd have no ,potential'for

'future reproduction.

However, it is estimated that on average, approximately 1/3 of adult females spawn in a particular year and approximately'1/2 of males spawn in a particular yearo.Givenrthat the 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 would affect 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 produced in future years and similarly; a very smtalli'effect on the' strength-of subsequent-.year classes. Even considering 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 be NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011).

very small and would not change the stable trend of this population.

Additionally, the proposed action will not affect spawning habitat in any: way and will not create anyibarrier to pre-spawning sturgeon.accessing the oyerwintering sites or the spawning grounds..,.

.!.The proposed action is not likely to reduce distribution because the action will not impede shortnose 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, of shortnose.sturgeon likely tobe killed, as, aresult .f the proposed action is approximately 0.28% of the Hudson River population; there is not likely.to be a loss, of any.- ,rpx.qe genetic haplotypes and therefore,-

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 or species 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 of genetic diversity.

This situation is not likely in the case of shortnose sturgeon because: the species. 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 sturgeon spawning'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 renewed licenses for the.period September.2013 through September 2033 (IP2) andDecember 2015 through December!

2035 (ll3) will. not appreciably reduce the lkelihood of survival of this species.(i,.e..;-it will not increase the, risk of extinction, faced. by this species) given that: (1) the population trend of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River is stable; (2) the death of up to 162 shortnose sturgeon represents an extr.emJely small percentage of-the number of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River and a even smaller percentage of the species as,a whole; (3) the loss of these shortnose sturgeon is likely to have such a small effect onreproductive output of the Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon or the species as a whole that the loss of these shortnose sturgeon will not change the status or trends~of the Hudson River population or the species as a whole; (4) and, the action.will have only a:minor and temporary, effect on the distribution of shortnose:

sturgeon in the action-area (related to~movements around the thermal plume) and no effect 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 to occur. As explained'above, NMFS has determined~that the proposed action will not appreciably reduce the likelihood that shortnose sturgeon will survive. in the wild.: Here, NMFS considers the potential 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 significant portion 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 any NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August:?20112.

of the following five listing factors: (1) the present or threatenedodestructiomi modification;, or curtailment of its: habitat or rahge, (2) dverutilization:

for commer ial', recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, (3) disease'"or predation, :(4), the inadequacy of existingiregulatory mechanisms, (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 it will result in a small reduction in the number of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River and since it will';not, affect the'overall:distrib.ation of shortnose sturgeon other than, to' cause minor temporary adjustments, ii. movements in;n the action area, -The proposed actionmwill not utilize shortnose 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 in the mortality of up to,'462.shortgbs

ýStuijfoin;, however, over thet20-year period, the loss of these individuals-and, what wouldhave&been'4eih progeny is;notxpected to affect the persistence of the Hudson River:population o'-shoetndsWe.stuirgeon, or; the: species;-as; a whole. The loss: of these individuals, will notvchadnxe the: status, or tr~end of the) Hudson Rirver'population,.which:

is' stable at high numbers. :As'it'wifllFiot affect the.status' oif; tnd o6flthispcopillation, -it, will not affect the J status or trend'of the',species as a'

'As the redu6fion:

in number~sand future reproduction.

is very 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 the proposed action will not hasten the extinction timeline or otherwise increase the danger of extinction since the action will cause the mortality of only a small percenthg'of-t'he shorritose sturgeonin the Hudson River and an even sffalaer pel6entageofthe led as 'awhble' hnd these mortalities are not'expected to resdt in'th6 reduction of overall repr6ductfive fitness f& the species'as a) whole:. Thfe'effeets of'th'e'proposed acti6n will alsd not reduce tl hlikel.hooi'that the status 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 sturgeon can be brought to the point at they Ae no 16nger liseed as eidangered or threateied:

Based on the analysis presented

herein, in the mortality-of n&' more than 162 shortnose sturgeon over the period of the proposed 6eriew*d licenses is fi6thikly to appreciably 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 species under 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 the continued 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 any su~h co'nduct.

Harm is fur-ther-defined by' NMFS t6 include anyacdt which actu'ally kills or injures fish' or' wildlife.'

Such'an act may include:significanrt h'bitat moidificatioii or degradation that actually kills or injtires fish or wildlife by gni ficatflk impairng essfniia behavioral patterns NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Auguh. 201-.;-

including breeding; spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering. , Incidental.

take is defined as..take .that.is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the car.ying out of anwotherwise lawful activity.:

Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2),.

taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to.be prohibited under the ESA provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement

., -. -The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by NRC so that they 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 must report 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 Consultation Handbook(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 operIate from September.2013 until Septembei 203ý and IP3 ,will continue to operate. from December 2015 untlDe, cember 2035., The operation ofP2 and IP3 during the extended.operating period will directly.affect shortniose, sturgeon due to impingement at intakes., These interactions constitute

'capture" or: "collect"*

in the definition.

of ,take arid will cause injury and mortality to the affected individuals.

Based on the distribution of shortnose:sturgeon in the action area and information 1 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 104 shortnose sturgeon at IP2 and 58 shortnose sturgeon at IP3 during the 20-year extended operating period. All of these sturgeon are expected to die, immediately or later, as a result of interactions with the facility.

As explained in the "Effects of the Action" section, effects of the facility on shortnose sturgeon-also include effects on distribution due to the.thermal plume as well as effects to prey items; however,, NMFS does not anticipate or exempt any take of shortnose sturgeon, due to effects to prey, items or due to exposure to .the thermal plume. This ITS exempts the following take:- ..... , * -..o A total of10,4, shortnose sturgeon (dead or alive) impinged at Unit 2 during the period September 28, 2013 -September 28, 2033..- .A total of 58 shortnose sturgeon (dead or alive) impinged at Unit 3 during the period December 12, 2015 -December.12, 2035. -, .The Section9 prohibitions against takeapplyto iiye individuals as well as to dead specimens and their parts. NMFS recognizes that shortnose sturgeon that have been. ki.led prior to impingement at the IP facility may, become impinged on the intakes at IP2 and IP3 and that some number of dead shortnose sturgeon taken at the facility may not necessarily have been killed by the operation of the facility itself. Due to the difficulty in determining the. cause of death of NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augus.t,2011.

-

shortnose sturgeon found dead -at-t1le intakes and the lack of past necropsy frs~ul6s that would allow 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 dead prior to impingement on the IP intakes. In tlih&kohinpanying Opinion, NMFS determined that this level of anticipated take is not likely to res'ilt: in jeopardy to shortnose~

turge6h...

-I' '"5 t ."U Reasonable and Prudent Measure!-'

.. -' ..' [b..In order'to effectively'moriito-'

the effects of this action:, ivtis necessary-1o monitor the intakes to document the amount! of iricidenital itakd and to! examine thd shortndse sturgeon that'are' impinged at the facility; Monitoring-p'rovides inforrmatibonon the characteristics of the shOrtfnose turgeon encountered and ,id-y, ptbiddataa which will help de'velop mo'e'effective rhe'asures

'to avoid future 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 and conditions apply to both the license to be issued for the continued operation of IP Unit 2 and the license to be issued for,'th&.ontinu~ed'opera'rior6f (P Unit 3K ... ,1 U Reasonable and Prudent MA asures,- .' r,: .f ,, , ( ... to ., I .... .NMFS believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary or appropriate for NRC-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 iMtakes miust bedeveloped, approved by'NMFSnd imp emnIntfed.

... P. .3. All live shortnose.stuirgeonmt erlas back ito the' Hudsn Riv t appropriate location away from int aI;dfheAtal ue a k of death or injury..., .......,, , -4. Any dead shortmioe sstFei fust e tra4sfrsrr'e to'NMFS or'ah appropnatqly.permttted research facility NMFS WilIl dentfif s6 that a necropsy can be undeaken to attempt to determine the cause"f dettfi ::: '" 5. All shortno'se sturgeon impingemnents' associateM With thdJndian PNrft faefility

¢mid any shortnose 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, and NRC must ernsutre trough eniorc&ale"'terms of'the rene wed license that Entergy does comply with, the following terms and of the Incidental Take Stdtement, whidh implem'ent the reasonable arid prudent niehsutres

'described abovd 'and.oiitline requir"edreporting/hmo-nitoring ct1 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 be considered 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.2 l.1 4.

difficulty in visually distinguishing shortnose sturgeon from other sturgeon, the terms and conditions below-sturgeon or fish that might beshortnose sturgeon.", 1. :To :implement RPM #1, Entergy must implement throughout the term of the renewed license an. endangered, species monitoring plan. that has-been, approved by NMFS and that contains the following components: (a) the intake trash bars must be monitored with a method and on a schedule that ensures detection and timely rel ease, of any'shortnose surgeon or fish .that might be shortnose sturgeon.impinged, onhe trash bars; (b) the Ri.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 shortnose sturgeon 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 that might be shortnose sturgeon are returned to the river away from the intakes and the thermal 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.of shortnose 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 permitted researcher so that a necropsy.may be conducted.

,/The form included as Appendix I must be completed and submitted to NMFS as noted above.4. To implement RPM #4, if any live or dead shortnose sturgeon or fish that might be shortnose sturgeon are taken at1P2 or !P3, Entergy must notify the NMFS Endangered Species Coo'rdinator at 978-281-9208 immediately.

An incident report (Appendix I) must also be completed by plant personnel and sent to the NMFS Section 7 Coordinator via FAX (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 that might be a~ shortnose sturgeon,must be photographed.

Inormation in Appendix II will assist 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 the incidental take level for shortnose sturgeon.

At that time, NMFS will determine if additional measures are necessary or appropriate to minimize impingement at the intake structures 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 Incidental Take Statement,,any necropsy reports that were, provided to Entergy, incidental take reports, 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 of the 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.report ak' 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, NMFS NMFS 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 tothe procedure 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, are designed to minimize and monitor the impact of incidental take that might ;otherwise result. from the proposed, action.*.

Specifically, theseRPMs and:Terms and Conditions:Will ensure that Entergy monitors the intakes in a wayAhat.'allowsforl the detection of any impinged shortnose sturgeon and implements measures to reduce the potential of mortality for any shortnose sturgeon impinged at Indian Point, to report all interactions to NMFS and to provide information p.n the likely cause of d'a' of any shortnosdesturgeon impinged at he facility.

The discussion below explains why each orf tnese'RP1Vs

'ani Tenrms and Coditions' are necessary'or appropriate to minimize 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. 1 .arare necessary and appropratebecause they are specifically designed .p ensure that all appropriate measures are carried outtomonitor t)e incidental take of shortn6se sturieoh at Indian Point. Ah effecive m o an is esseittal to allow NRC and Eniergy to fulfill the requirement to monitor the actual level of in'ci'denhtal take associatedw\itfhthe operation of Indian Point and to allod*iVMFS and NC. todetrminiie if the level of incidenital take is, ever exceeded.*

Ilnesereqturements.

arealso essentia for wa~i relitioed to onerat othTe whether the death wa' reilaed.t the operation of he facility.

is conditions sure tiahe potentil for detection' of shortnose sturgeon at the intakes is maximized and that any oh6ftnose sturgeon removed from the water are done so in a manner that minimizes the potential for further injury.RPM#2 and Term and Condition

1. 2 are necessary and appropriate to ensure that any shortnose sturgeon that survive impingement is given the maximum probability of remaining alive and not suffering additional injury or subsequent mortality through inappropriate handling or release near the intakes.RPM #3 and Terms and Conditions

1. 3 are necessary and appropriate to ensure the proper handling and documentation of any shortnose sturgeon removed from the intakes that are dead or die while in Entergy custody. This is essential for monitoring the level of incidental take associated with the proposed action and in determining whether the death was related to the operation.

of the facility.RPM#4 and Term and Condition

1. 4-7 are necessary and appropriate to ensure the proper handling and documentation of any interactions with listed species as well as the prompt reporting of these interactions to NMFS.CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 20l1-,

In addition, to: Section:7(a)(2), which requires agencies to ensure that.all projects will not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, Section :7(a)(1) of the ESA places a responsibility on all federal agencies to "utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species." Conservation Recommendations are discretionary agency. activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information.

As such,"NMFS recommends thatthe NRC consider:

the following Conservation Recommendations:

,.: 1. The NRC shouldisupport tis'sue analysis :of dead shortriose sturgeon removed from the Indian Point intakes to, determine contaminant4loads.,....

.:: .2. The NkC should support in-water assessments, abunacnee, and dstnlbution surveys for shofAnotIse sftrgeon in the Hudson River and Hiverstraw By Speclca.y.

REINITIATION OF COiNSULTATIO" tia c:"continued operato of IP'n 3fan atd iioiial This concludes formal consultdtion the c nti d ion of 1P2 and iP3 fr' an addiiio"a 20 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 or control ,over the actdon has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) theamdouiint or extent of taking speeified' inthe inicidental take statement is exceeded; (2) new inf6rmaloni reveals effects of the action may not hav een.prewously considered; (3) the identified action is subsdequently modfied in a manner thaft causes an 6ffect to listed spie o4) a new species is listedor criticdalhabitat designated that may be .affected by the idefitifi"edacti'n.

In instances where the amount or extent o incidental take is eoxeeded, Section 7 consultation ifiust be reinitiated immediately..i", 'v '..:-', '~~.. ..... ........"t.:. .... .:.,.. '.... .... ... ...-~~~... .......'.. ." .... .. ._.:.. ,".. .'.:-NMFS. Draft Biological Opinion -August: 20.,1...I v:

LITERATURE CITED Allen PJ, Nicholl M, Cole S, Vlazny A, Cech JJ Jr. 2006. Growth of larval to juvenile green sturgeon in elevated temperature regimes. Trans Am Fish Soc 135:89-96

ý , '. '!! if-': I ASA (Analysis and Communi6hdbtn).,2008..

2006, year class report for.the Haidson River Estiairyo Program prepared for Dynegy Roseton LLC,. on bdhalf of Dynegy ROseton'.LLC EntergylNuclear Indian 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 Hudson River 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 the Hudson 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. Annual meeting of Amierican fisheries Society..

'EPRI"AFS Symposium->.;Biology$

Managembnt.-and Protection 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 factor in the reproduction and' srvival of lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) in Lake Michigan.

!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; Connecticut River. 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 spawning shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, in the Connecticut River. North American Sturgeons:

111-117.Carlson, D.M.,, and K.W., Simpson. 1987. Gut contents ofjuvenile shortnose.sturgeon in the upper Hudson estuary.s.Copeia 1987:796-802

...CHGE. Central Hudson Gas.and Electric Corp., Consolidated E dison:Company.of New York, New York Power Authority, and Southern Energy New York. 1999. Draft environmental impactstatement for State pollution discharge elimination system permits for Bowline Point1 &2, Indian Point 1&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 Atlantic Coast 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. Synopsis of biological data on shortnose, sturgeon,'-Acipenser brevirostrum L.esueur 1818.NOAA Technical Report; NMFS 14,NationaAl 1 Marine Fisheries Service. October 1984 45 pp.Dovel, W.J. 1978 The Biology and management, of shortnose and Atiantic.

sturgeons of the Hudson River. 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 and vulnerability to the. activities of man.. The Oceanic, Society..

FERC Contract No. DE-AC 39-79 RC-10074.

... -..., Dovel, W.L.;,A.W..

P ekvuitch,:and T:J. ,Brggren.

1992./Biology of the shortnose sturgeon (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, and David, 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, Licehse Renewal 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 Renewal Application".)

April 23, 2007.Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy).

2007c. Letter from Fred Dacimo, Indian Point Energy Center Site Vice President, to the U.S. NRC regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units Nos. 2 and 3. Docket Nos. 50-247, 50-286. May 3, 2007.ERC, Inc. (Environmental hdnfifg, rf.):. 2002'. Coiitamilnnt

'idasis of tissues from two shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) collected il" the Delaware'Riv'er.

Prepared for National Marine Fisheries Service. 16 pp. + appendices.

ERC, Inc. (Environmental Research and Consulting, Inc.). 2007. Preliminary acoustic tracking study of juvenile 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 Placement Site's-in the P6t6iriac RiVei'(1998-2000).U.S:.

Fish and Wildlife Service'Annapdlis,'

MD. 2"6 ' .,r NI Fernandes, 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,e Environmental 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-chlorinated hydrocarbon 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 .._'2 Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Atlantic and shortnose -turgeongs.

Uniited States Department

6f Irteridr'Biological Report 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.

Population genetics of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) based on mitochondrial DNA 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 of Massachusetts, 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 endangered wildlife 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 fishes offshore 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 of global, threat'? -Journal of Applied Ecology 43,: 6,17-627.IPCC' (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 07. FourtheAssesnmengtF Report.. Valencia, Spain.,-,-

Jenkins, W.E., T.I.J. Smith, L.D. Heyward, and D.M. Knott. 1993. Tolerance of shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, juveniles to different salinity and dissolved oxygen 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 Atlantic sturgeons 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 of hydroelectric dam operation and river regulation on spawning of Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon.

.' .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) embryos and larvae. Final Report tio Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Washington.

Kynard, B. 1996. Twenty-one years of passing shortnose sturgeon in fish lifts on the Connecticilt River: what has b.enr learned?, Draft report b,,tionalBiological Service, Conte.Anadromous Fish Research Center,,Turners Falls, .MA.1 9 pp.(, -'Kynard, B. 1997. Life history, latitudinal patterns, and status of the shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum.

Environnrenta

$iology of Fishes 48:319,-34.

...Longwell, A.C., S. Chang, A. Hebert, J. Hughes and D. Perry.. 1592. Pollution and developmental 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 Soc 133:961-970 Morgan, R.P., V.J. Rasin ah, d L.A. Noe E 1973.SE~ectsoof guspeded'Sediments'on the Development of Eggs anid Larvae of Sti'pedd Bass and. White Perch. Natural.resources Institute, Chesapeake Bilogkal Laboratory, U ofMaryland, Center for Environmental, and Estuarine 20pp.. , i , Moser, M.L. and S.W. Ross. 1995. Habitat use and movements of shrtnose aiind Atlantic sturg'eons in the lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina.

Transactions of the. American Fisheries Society 124:225-234.

NAST (National Assessment Synthesis Team). 2008. Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability ard Change,US Global Change Research Program, 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 for the 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'Point NRC 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 (New York Historical Society as cited by Dovel as Mitchell.

S 181 1)1. 1809. V6!utu 1 .'.Coliec'tions of the New-York Historical Society for the year 1809.NYDEC. 1982. State Pollution Discharge Elimination System Final'Pe.rm'tI for Indian Point Nucleiar GeneratingStation. " , ' .r ..NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation).

2003. "Final Environmental Impact Statement Concerning the Applications to Renew New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (S*PDES) Permits for the Roseton 1 and 2 Bo wlne 1 and 2 and IP2 and IP3 2 and 3 Steam Electric Generating Stations, Orane,Rockland and W estchester Counties" (Hudson River Power Plants FEIS). June 25, 2003.. .-'Denia 20f' 40 ' "C Api 2,' 0 NYDEC. 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 Atlantic and 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 of Massachusetts, Amherst. 62 pp.Pekovitch, A.W. 1979. Distributioniand some life hist6ry'aspects of shorthose sturgeon\ (Acipenser brevirostrum) in the upper Hudson River Estuary. Hazleton Environmental Sciences Corporation.

67 pp.NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Augustv2011, .:,

Rogers, S. G., and W. Weber. 1994. Occurrence of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) in the Ogeechee-Canoochee river sygten-;'Georgia during the summer of 1093. Final Report of the United 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 Natural Resources, 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 .,:, .J Ruelle, 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 -sediments on 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 Sturgeon in 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 District of Columbia and vicinity., Prepared for the,.Uitcd States, Fish Commission. ,Washington Government 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 reward program in Virginia's major.western shore tributaries to' the Chesapeake Bay. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Charles City, Virginia.Squiers, T., L. Flagg, and M. Smith.- 198,2.,..Amerncan.

shad,enbanceme.nt and status.of sturgeon stocks 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 overwintering sites for shortnose sturgeon in the estuarial complex of the Kennebec.

River during the winter of 1996/1997.

Unpublished report, submitted to the Maine Department of Transportation.;

.Swanson, C., D. Crowley, Y. Kim, N. Cohn, and D. Mendelsohn.

2011 a.. Part ,2 of Response to the NYSDEC Staff Review of the 2010 Field Program and Modeling Analyis of the Cooling Water Discharge.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 Cooling Water 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 of Massachusetts,[Ai'.

herst, ! 36 p. , Taubert, B.D., and M.J. Dadswell.

1980. Description of some larval shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) from the Holyoke Pool, Connecticut River, Massachusetts, USA, and the Saint John 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 Sport Fisheries ad"Wildlife, Washington,I D.C'." Resource Publication 1 14 (Revised Resource Publication 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 Habitat L].ss. Proceedings of the Sy,'mposium on Conservation of Fish Habitat,'

Baltimore, Maryland.

Marine Recreational Fisheries Number 14. National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc., Savannah Georgia., ....., .... ; , , , .I , ...., .. ..: Vinyard, L. and W.J. O'Brien. 1976. Effects of light and turbidity on the reactive distance of 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 Western North 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 Baltic flounder Platichthys flesus. Aquatic Toxicology 1:85-99.Wirgin, I., Grunwald, C., Carlson, E., Stabile, J., Peterson, D.L. and J. Waldman. 2005. Range- wide population structure of shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum based on sequence analysis of mitochondrial DNA control region. Estuaries 28:406-21.

Waldman JR, Grunwald C, Stabile J, Wirgin I. 2002. Impacts of life history and biogeography on genetic stock structure in Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus, Gulf sturgeon A. oxyrinchus desotoi, and shortnose sturgeon, A.brevirostrum.

J Appl Ichthyol 18:509-518 Walsh, M.G., M.B. Bain, T. Squires, J.R. Walman, and Isaac Wirgin. 2001. Morphological and genetic variation among shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum from adjacent and distant rivers.Estuaries Vol. 24, No. 1, p. 4 1-4 8.February 2001.Waters, Thomas F. 1995. Sediment in Streams. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Pages 95-96.Weber, W. 1996. Population size and habitat use of shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, in the Ogeechee 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) in the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries Vol. 25 No. 1: 101-104.Wilber, Dara H. and Douglas C. Clarke. 2001. Biological Effects of Suspended Sediments:

A review of suspended 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 of Hudson River shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum).

Master's thesis. University of Maryland, College Park.Woodland, R.J. and D. H. Secor. 2007. Year-class strength and recovery of endangered shortnose sturgeon 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 shortnose sturgeon 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 American Fisheries Society 137:1490-1499.

NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 2011 Plant and the Environment

............i # ....0 i!I 1 2 3 4 Source: Entergy 2007a Figure .Location of 1P2 and IP3, 6-mi (10-km) radius................. .

,. ... ....I.L ; i' "'"::i, " I" STUDY AREA KMP ALBANY -(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-HAVERSTRAH TAPPAN 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 PINT1 4:BuO:WU:LNE .....: ..LEGEND: [ IZ POWER PLANT KPM = KILOMETER POINT RM = RIVER MILE Source: Abood et al. 2006 2 Figure 2. Hudson study area and river segments............

.. .',...11 Appendix I Incident Report Shortnose Sturgeon Take -Indian Point Photographs should be taken and the following information should be collected from all sturgeon (alive and dead)found in association with the Indian Point .intakes.

Please submit all 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 to observation:

Sturgeon Information:

Species Fork length (or total length)Weight Condition of specimen/description of animal Fish Decomposed:

NO SLIGHTLY Fish tagged: YES / NO Please record all tag numbers.MODERATELY SEVERELY Tag #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,...,". .L R *V A \'~V..7 ~12.., ...*......."' .{ :i ,: .: !,.A ,-. ...,.~.:.:4i.~~C, Description of fish condition:

NMFS Draft Biological Opinion August 2011, .

Appendix II Identification Key for Sturgeon Found in Northeast U.S. Waters ATLANTIC Mouth width " 'SHORTNOSE I' r", , ¢Distinguishing Characteristics of Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon Characteristic Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus Shcrtnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum Maximum length > 9 feet/ 274 cm I,, 4 feet/122 cm Mouth Football shaped and small. Width inside lips < 55% of Wide.and oval in shape. Width inside lips > 62% of bony 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 median anal fin.

• structures (occurring singly)Plates along the Rhombic, bony plates found along the late'ral base of .. No plates along the base of anal fin anal fin the anal fin (see diagram below)Habitat/Range Anadromous; spawn in freshwater but primarily lead a Freshwater amphidromous; found primarily in fresh marine existence water but does make some coastal migrations

• From Vecsei and Peterson, 2004 ,NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -Aug~ust 2011 APPENDIX III Procedure for obtaining fin clips from sturgeon for genetic analysis Obtaining Sample 1. Wash hands and use disposable gloves. Ensure that any knife, scalpel or scissors used for sampling has been thoroughly cleaned and wiped with alcohol to minimize the risk of contamination.

2. For any sturgeon, after the specimen has been measured and photographed, take a one-cm square clip from the pelvic fin.3. Each fin clip should be placed into a vial of 95% non-denatured ethanol and the vial should be labeled with the species name, date, name of project and the fork length and total length of the fish along with a note identifying the fish to the appropriate observer report. All vials should be sealed with a lid and further secured with tape Please use permanent marker and cover any markings with tape to minimize the chance of smearing or erasure.Storage of Sample 1. 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, please refrigerate the vial. Send as soon as possible as instructed below.Sending of Sample 1. Vials should be placed into Ziploc or similar resealable plastic bags. Vials should be then wrapped in bubble wrap or newspaper (to prevent breakage) and sent to: Julie Carter NOAA/NOS -Marine Forensics 219 Fort Johnson Road Charleston, SC 29412-9110 Phone: 843-762-8547

a. Prior to sending the sample, contact Russ Bohl at NMFS Northeast Regional Office (978-282-8493) to report that a sample is being sent and to discuss proper shipping procedures.

NMFS Draft Biological Opinion -August 20.11:

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